Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutIS012_SIGNAL DEV CO. T.S I II�IIII IIII III �VI �IIIII IIIII �IIII III III III ,so, z ArY OF NEWPORT BACH COUNCILMEN y MINUTES �`%Ln -V9 A gG22 t� 9 0 5- ROLL CALL �s' February 12, 1979 fNDEX "reasonableness" as applied to a traffic phasing plan for "excepted" Planned Community Districts. Motion x Councilman Heather made a motion to accept the report and order it filed. Motion Councilman Strauss made a substitute motion to Ayes x x x x x postpone action on this item, and direct that it c- Noes x x be returned to Council for action no later than March 12, which motion carried. Th basing plan of Emkay Development for the rem ai er of Newport Place Planned Community, Motion x which wa conditionally approved by the Planning Ayes x x x x x Commission February 8, is to be brought before Noes x x the Council on arch 12. 5. 'A report dated Janu ,� 8, 1979 was presented from Encroach the Public Works Depart ent regarding the appli- ment Pub cation of Skip Skibicki t encroach 1'9" into R-o-W/ Apolena Avenue with brick s s and landing at Apolena Av 1101 Balboa Avenue. (3143) A letter was presented from the Ba1b a Island f Improvement Association opposing the en oachment. Skip Skibicki, applicant, addressed the Coun 1. Gail Vinje Smith from the Balboa Island Improve- ment Association addressed the Council and opposed the encroachment. Motion x The application for encroachment into Apolena All Ayes Avenue was denied. 6. A report was presented from the Community Develop- Council ment Department regarding the results of the '" Right of Traffic S y,_tud , prepared in connection_with the Review/ proposal of Signal Development Corporation for Signal Dev general office buildings located at 4060 and Corp 4100 Campus Drive and M63`Y1 c`h `8 ieee�,_-zoned"'- (3094) M-1-A. Rollo Wedemeyer of Signal Development Company addressed the Council in response to a question by Mayor Pro Tem Williams, and stated that he antic- ipated'completion of the development in a year. Motion x The staff was directed not-to- issue the building Ayes x x x x Permit,and findings were made that the ICU at Noes x x x the-intersection_6f_Bristpl Street North and Campus Drive_, with the improvement, is greater than .9 and that- no_additional. traffic should be added to the intersection until further Systems' Improvements are made; and that the projects at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Campus Drive, will make worse an unsatisfactory level of service. Volume 33 - Page 29 C1* OF NEWPORT BEAH COUNCILMEN MINUTES ROLL CALL ?'d'� February 12, 1979 INDEX 2. Ordinance No. 1790, being, Elections 0-1790 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH (12F) AMENDING CHAPTER 1.25 OF TITLE 1 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE ENTITLED "MUNICIPAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION AND EXPENDITURE CONTROL," was presented. A report was presented from the City Attorney. Allan Beek addressed the Council in connection with the applicability of the ordinance to the quotation by candidates of statements made by their opponents, and was advised this did not apply. R. H. Spooner, Executive Vice President of the Newport Harbor Area Chamber of Commerce, addressed the Council and stated that he approved of the ordinance and recommended that the ordinance here as closely as possible to State statute. Motion x Or nance No. 1790 was reintroduced as amended Ayes x x x x 'x x and assed to second reading on February 26, 1979. Noes x 3. Ordinanc No. 1787, being, Traffic Phasing AN ORD NANCE OF .THE, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 0-1787 AMENDIN CHAPTER 15.40 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH (3006) MUNICIP CODE TO CLARIFY THE PURPOSE OF THE ORDINANCE IN SECTION 15.40.020 ADDING OR CHANGING W ING IN SECTIONS 15.40.030, j 15.40.050 A 15.40.070 (Traffic Phasing Ordinance), was presented. The following people addressed the Council and opposed the ordinance or opposed the ordinance as presented: William Dohr, J. Leslie Steffenson and Suzanne Rudd. Motion x Mayor Pro Tem Williams ma a motion to adopt Ordinance No. 1787. Motion x Councilman Heather made a \Std, titute motion to Ayes x x postpone action until Februar 26 when the pro- Noes x x x x x cedures for implementing the o dinance would be considered, which motion failed o carry. Ayes x x x x x A vote was taken on Mayor Pro Tem illiams motion, Noes x which motion carried. Abstain x r 4. A report was presented from the Communi Develop- Traffic ment Department regarding the Planning Commission Phasing recommendations concerning definition of he term (3006) r Volume 33 - Page 28 � r City Council Meng February 12 , 1979 Agenda Item No . F-6 WPORT BEACH CITY OF NE _ . February 7, 1979 TO: City Council FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Results of Traffic Systems ' Improvements to the Intersection of Bristol street North and Campus Drive as provided by Signal Development Corpora- tion at the request of the City Council on October 24, 1.978 and supplemental report regard- ing impact of proposed project on the intersection of MacArthur BoulevardpCampus Drive. LOCATION: Lots 18, 19 , 43, and 44, Tract No. 3201 , located at • 4060 and 4100 -Campus Drive and 4063 an'd .4101 Birch Street, southeasterly of Campus, Drive and south- westerly of Do've Street, across from the Orange County Airport. ZONE: M-1-A APPLICANT: Signal Development Corporation , Irvine , OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach Suggested Action If desired, direct the staff either to issue or deny request for , building permit. 'Background At the City Council meeting of January 22 , 1979, the Council had before it a report from the Department of Community Development which set forth the results of the Traffic Systems ' Improvement to the intersection of Bristol Street North and Campus Drive . For the same meeting, the staff had prepared a supplemental report which set forth • corrected information pertaining to the impact the proposed project would have on -the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Campus Drive . However; inasmuch as the Council had not had an opportunity to review the supplemental report, prior to, the meeting, the entire matter was continued to the City Council meeting of February 12, 1979 . Both, reports are now attached for your review. . & TO : City Council - 2 . Summary Bristol Street North and Campus Drive - The report dated Janu- ary 18, 1979 , indicates that in each case the existing ICU with the improvement and with the project.will be less than the ICU that existed prior to the Systems ' Improvement by Signal Development Corporation (see Page 2 of report) . MacArthur Boulevard and Campus Drive - - The supplemental report . dated January 22 , 19.79, indicates that the existing ICU with. the project will increase by less than 1 % (see Page 1 of report) and that the existing ICU would drop by more than 1% with the improve- ment planned by CALTRANS for the spring of 1980 or bonded improve- ments which woul.d be installed by The Irvine Company by the summer of 1980 (see Page 2 of report) . Suggested Findings If i.t is the desire of the City Council that the staff be directed to issue the Building Permit, the Council may find: 1 . That the proposed project, including the Systems ' Improvement, as installed, will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at the intersection of Bristol Street North and Campus - Drive . 2 . That the ICU at the intersection .of MacArthur Boule- vard and Campus Drive with the project and without any Systems ' Improvement will increase by .0076 which is less than 1 %. 3. That Systems ' Improvements planned for the, inter- section of MacArthur Boulevard and Campus Drive will reduce the existing ICU to a satisfactory level of service and that these improvements are planned to coincide with the early occupancy phase of the project. If it is the desire of the City Council that the staff be directed to not issue the Building Permit, the Council may find: 1 . That the ICU at the intersection of Bristol Street North and Campus Drive, with the improvement, is . greater than .9 and that no additional traffic should be added to the intersection until further Systems ' Improvements are made . 2 . That the project, at the intersection of MacArthur TO: City Council - 3 . Boulevard and Campus Drive , will make worse an unsatisfactory level of service. Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V . HOGAN, Director by JA S D. HEW CKER Assistant Director - Planning JDH/kk Attachments for City Council Only: 1 ) Staff Report dated January 18, 1979 2) Supplemental Satff Report dated January 22, 1979 City Council Meeting January 22 , 1979 Agenda Item No. F-5 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH January 18, 1979 TO: City Council FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Results of Traffic Systems ' Improvements to the Intersection of Bristol Street North and Campus Drive as provided by Signal Development Corpora- tion at the re uest of the Git Council on ctober 24, 1978. LOCATION: Lots 18, 19, .43, and 44, Tract, No. 3201 , located at 4060 and 4100 Campus Drive and 4063 and 4101 Birch Street, southeasterly of Campus Drive and south- westerly of Dove Street, across from the Orange County Airport. ZONE: M-1 -A APPLICANT: Signal Development Corporation , Irvine OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach Background At the City Council meeting of October 24, 1978, the City Council , on their own motion , reviewed a decision of the Planning Commission taken on September 21 , 1978, approving a traffic study for two garden- type general office buildings to be constructed at the location noted above. Studies performed for the City by JHK and Associates , in conformance with the City ' s Traffic Phasing Ordinance and Administrative Guide- lines , indicated at- that time that the Existing ICU at Bristol Street North and Campus Drive was 1 . 0014; that the Existing Plus Project Traffic ICU would be 1 .0104; and that the Existing Plus Project Traffic ICU with applicable improvements to the traffic system, an exclusive right turn lane for southbound to westbound, would be . 8064. Based on this information, the Planning Commission had approved the traffic study with a finding that "the proposed project, including traffic mitigation measures , will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory Tevel of traffic service on any ' mayor' , ' primary- modified' or ' primary ' street" andsubject to a condition that "the occupancy of the buildings will not occur until improvements have been implemented. " The City Council subsequently modified the decision TO: City Council - 2. of the Planning Commission to request that the applicant provide the street improvements ; that these improvements be measured by the City staff upon completion ; that when the intersection capacity is deter- mined to be at a satisfactory level , the City Council would approve the building permit for the project; and that this be accomplished within three months or sooner. The applicant has subsequently followed the direction of the City Council and completed the required striping and the staff remeasured the Existing ICU 'and traffic volumes on January llth and 16th, 1979, with the system improvement in place . The results of the staff' s measurements are summarized in the following tables : ICU's Existing Existing + Project Project W/Imp. 5/78 1.0014 1.0104 .8064 Existing W/Imp. Existing W/0 Imp. Existing W/Imp. + Project 1/11/79 1.2435 1.0132 1.0232 1/16/79 1 .1797 .9900 .9925 TRAFFIC VOLUMES Existing Peak 2h Hr. 1% of Existing Peak Project Approach 5/78 1/11/79 1/16179 5/78 1/11/79 1/16/79 Peak Northbound 1504 1688 1718 15 17 17 12 Southbound 3705 4006 3518 37 40 35 39 Eastbound -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Westbound 4790 6879 6626 48 69 66 34 As noted above, there have been significant changes in the traffic patterns since last May. In July the couplet of one-way frontage roads was opened to traffic between Campus Drive and Jamboree Road. The total volume of traffic using this intersection has increased approximately 30% with a 16% increase southbound, a 2% increase northbound and a 50% increase westbound. The size of these increases has overwhelmed the increased capacity which was paid for by the Signal Development Company. ! 3 TO : City Council - 3. The City' s Traffic Engineer indicates that the causes of this increase are not folly known . Additional building occupancy in the area may account for a small portion, but it is felt that the majority is traffic which previously used another route. A complete explanation of the in crease cannot be made until a full series of counts are made in the area during March and April of this year. In reviewing the ICU' s set. forth above, it should be noted that although the Existing ICU' s without the improvement have increased from 1 .0014 in May of last year to 1 . 2435 on January llth and 1 . 1797 on January 16th , the ICU with the improvement plus the project is reduced on January llth from 1 .2435 to 1 .0232 and on January 16th from 1 . 1797 to . 9925. In each case the Existing Plus Project ICU is less than the 'Existing Conditions ICU without the improvement provided by Signal Development. Therefore the City Council could find in each case that ."the proposed project, including traffic mitigation measures, will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on any ' major' , 'primary- modified' or ' primary' street." 'On the other hand, the Council could find that no additional traffic should be added to an intersection operating substantially above capacity until further system improvements are made. It should be further noted in reviewing the traffic volumes for Janu- ary 11 , 1979, that the project passes the 1% check for each approach volume and no further ICU analysis would 'have been required. Suggested Action If desired, direct the staff either to issue or deny request for building permit. Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V . HOGAN, Director by 0. _ HEWICKER ss stant Director - Planning JDH/kk Attachments : Worksheets PROJEO MITXGATION• MEASURL:S INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Bristol Street North/Cam us Dr IV (Existing Traffic Volumes Base on Average inter/Spring 197.9 ?� •Exist. Project Rove- Lanes Capa- Existing Pro ect Existing V/C** city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project a ment Volume ' Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio. • I �0.05* NL 1 1600 81 - 81 .19 I NT 2 3200 587 6 593 ' i NR - - SL - y 1244 ST 2 3200 1241 3 ,41 SR •1 1600, 637• 653 I EL ET ER 7 1600 321 - 321 ' WL 1676 " { WT 4 6400 1660 16 WR 30 33 *10 Yellow Time 1,00 Existin Intersection Ca acit Utilization I.C.U. ,c Existin Plus Project Intersection Ca acit Utilization I.C.U. ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk N N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left ** With Mitigation Measure's Project Mitigation Measure Analysis Brief Description: provide exclusive right turn lane for southbound to westbound on Campus Drive. Q Existing Plus Project Traffic IU with 90mitigation mea- sure (s) will be less than or equal to Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. with mitigation mea- sure (s) will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. INTERSECTION Bristol Street North/Campus Drive FORM '� i1LnJ Cl.11V11 l.Hf n.,111 uI11.LLn. .�.• •""•" Intersection Bristol -street North/Cam us Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes Base on Average Winter/Spring 1978) / -//-79 F1ove- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio HL 1 1000 /08 PIT 2 3200 637 zoo . MR - - SL - - ST 2 3200 /3¢3 42-0L SR I 14vo Z Z / 3 no •5738 . 5239 EL ET - - ER -A 1 1600 �3 q 3 99N* 139944 6400 23 9 / Z ¢ 6, 3 45 . 3775 3 Yellow Time .10 Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. 1 .0l32 Existin Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, _T=Through, R=Right, L=Left Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less �han or equal to 0.90 aExisting Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. wilj be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 0 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION Bristol Street North/Campus Drive __. . . FORM I j PROJECT: (Mph• INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection8Rl07cc. 5T l� GAMP-0 D$tvC� (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage Winter Spring 1971) trove- anes apa- Existing roject Project Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio NL I MOD 102 NT 2 920o &01 7 .137s r1el7 NR SL ST Z 32on 1034 .3 /037 .8ZD1 3z¢i SR 1 tt.00 607 /C Z 3 .9794 ,3g4z} EL '- ! ET — ER - WL 1 tLoa Soy �.. .5p31 , 5031 WT g &400 2305 Z .0359 ,3'e'31 WR Yellow Time • 1 110 Existing-Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. •g4Q0 Existino Plus Pro ect In Ca acit Utilization I.C.U. �992 $ ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk M N-Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R:Right, L-Left Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 L I Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to L ' Existing' Conditions ,I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0:90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 I 1 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation. measures . INTERSECTION T�- - --- --(FORM II vun.trnT C ! • City Council Meeting• January 22 1979 Agenda Item No . F-5 SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH January 22 , 1979 TO: City Council FROM: Department of Community Development i SUBJECT: Impact the Signal Development on acArthurporation Boulevard/Campust Drive . Background In the staff report prepared for the City Council meeting of October 24, 1978, the staff reported to you (Page 3) that the existing ICU at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard/Campus Drive was . 9335 and that the ICU with the addition of the project traffic would remain the same at . 9335 . Subsequent to the preparation of that report, which is dated October 18, 1978, it was brought• to the attention of the staff that an error had been made in calculating the existing ICU for that inter- section . The staff does not recall whether the error was verbally reported to the City Council or not. Therefore the purpose of this supplemental report is to communicate to you that an error did occur and the magnitude of that error. On October 24, 1978 we should have reported to you that the existing ICU at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard/Campus Drive was . 9259 i and that the project traffic when added to the intersection would increase the ICU to . 9335 . This is an increase of .0076 and is created by adding four cars to the south through leg, nine cars to the east left leg and two cars to the west through leg. Based on this information, the Council could make a finding that the "Exist- ing Plus Project Traffic ICU will be greater than Existing ICU that is currently greater than . 90" and required further analysis to deter- mine applicable system improvements . A corrected copy of the ICU analysis sheet is attached and is designated as Attachment I , It can also -be - noted by exmaining the same staff report that the � I existing ICU at this intersection has been reported at various times to be . 95, .94 and .93. The . 95 figure was derived from a report prepared for the City of Newport Beach by Weston Pringle and Asso- ciates dated April 6,• 1978, using data obtained from manual counts performed by the City of Irvine ,on April 4 , 1978, and includes 379,000 sq . ft. of office space proposed for Block 'C in Koll Center I I ' i TO: City Council - 2. Newport. The .94 figure was developed by JHK and Associates and is reflected in their report to the City dated September 5 , 1978 . The .93 figure was also developed by JHK and Associates and is re- flected in their second report to the City dated October 3, 1478. It is this latter figure, when calculated to four decimal places , that produces the .9259 ICU. (Note : The figures developed by JHK are based upon existing traffic and do not reflect proposed develop- ment in Office Site "C" of Koll Center Newport) Planned Improvements The ultimate geometrics for the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard/ Campus Drive will include three lanes in each direction , left-turn lanes (double left-turn lane capability) , plus right-turn lanes . These improvements are illustrated on the sheet designated as Attachment II and were included by the City Council with the approval of Amendment No. 505 on July 11 , 1978 (Office Site "C" - Koll Center Newport) . These improvements were also included in the approval of Resubdivision No. 579 and The Irvine Company has executed the agree- ments and posted the bonds as required by the City Council on July 24, 1978. The same improvements were also required with the approval of Resubdivision No. 603 for Campeau Corporation on September 7, 1978. However, it is the understanding of the staff that the Campeau Cor- poration is no longer pursuing the acquisition of Office Site "C" in Koll Center Newport and that the responsibility for improving the intersection would revert to The Irvine Company, which according to the terms of the bonds would have to be completed no later than July 27, 1980. In addition to bonds and agreements noted above, the City Council should also be aware that CALTRANS has scheduled FAU traffic systems improvements on MacArthur Boulevard from Bonita Canyon Road to I 405 in July, 1979. These improvements will include the installation of a coordinated traffic signal 'system and widening of the southeast corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Campus Drive to its ultimate configuration as shown on Attach. III . If CALTRANS meets the July 1979 bid advertise- ment date, the project should be constructed by spring of 1980 . I,CU With Planned Improvements In the report of Weston Pringle and Associates , dated April 6, 1978, for Amendment No. 505, it was indicated that the Existing ICU would be reduced from .93 to .82 (Attachment IV) with the proposed inter- section 'geometrics and with 346 ,000 sq .ft. of office space in Office Site "C" , the ICU would be reduced from .95 to . 83 (Attachment V) . Suggested Action If desired, the City Council may wish to withhold the issuance of Signal Development Corporation ' s building permits until the planned • • � C7 TO: City Council - 3. improvements at this intersection are in place and have been tested, or you may wish to tie the occupancy of the buildings to the con struction or completion stage of the improvements . Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R . V. HOGAN, Director by A,H,�1� �' W'11W�t�I'' MES D. HEWICKER A sistant Director - Plann-ing JDH/kk Attachments for City Council Only: 1 ) Corrected copy of ICU analysis 2) Existing and Proposed Intersection Geometrics (Weston Pringle and Associates - April 6, 1978) 3) Project as proposed by CALTRANS 4) Existing ICU with proposed geometrics 5) Existing ICU with proposed geometrics plus 346,200 sq.ft. of office space in Office Site "C" - Koll Center Newport 6) Staff report dated October 18, 1978 I VJ LI.'1 1°ll l'1UH11VlV 11GHbUtCGb INTERSWTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALMS ©, Intersection MacArthur. Blvd./Campus Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 197$) Move- Lanes Capa- I Project Existing Exist. Project ment city i Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C** V/C** Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio NL 1 1600 •111 - 111 . 00oR07* O 07* x NT 1 2 3200 1044 1 9 1053 .33 .33 NR - 73 ' - 73 - - SL 1 1600 56 - 56 .04 .04 ST 3 3200 1026 4 1030 SR 1 1600 201 3 204 .13 .13 • EL 1 1600 285 9 294. ET 2 3200 1 421 5 426. .15 .15• ER 53 - 53 - WL 1 1600 100 - 100 ,06 .06 WT 2 3200 825 2 827 . 2578 J26 WR 1 54 1 - 54 - - 000 . 1000 Yellow Time .10 ExistingIntersection Ca acit Utilization (I.C.U.) g2 5q Existinq Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. .93 ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk N N=Northbound, S=Sbuthbound', E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left _... _ II With Mitigation Measures Project Mitigation Measure Analysis Brief Description: Calculated existing and project V/C Ratio with existing westbound non-stop right turn. Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. with mitigation mea'. sure (s) will be less than or equal to 0.90 . QExisting Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. with mitigation mea- sure (s) will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I .C.U. INTERSECTION MacArthur Blvd./Campus Drive 10 Figure 3 EXISTING AND FUTURE INTER5ErTIO4 GEOx�TRICS MacArthur 0, levArd and Campus Dr ve x A ...�� of Campus I I Existing To Be Added it lots been a pleasure• to prepare this traffic analysis for you. If there are any questions, or if ve can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call us. I:ral+'elfill ly sldnnilu'tl, I'ItINCI.I•: AND ASSOCIKCES �I ' Z-7 G Weston S. Pri T1911, 14SPOIK:W9 . Ily?l0 k3zsIN 7'rip117P b Ca/trans J(,AWeP?U6 �¢strioir{q by ,� / Ca/trans _ !!/id¢ning by Ca/franc (r Spring /98o r U t.Ti M A'(E (6 AA,,\\h1 �„e,,,� LNUMtGNMD pring 19130) irmrnei and Associates.Inc. tJov, '�8 MAC Al2'fNUt2 @ CAMPUS wrnswriw CAPACTTy u'ILIZATION MACARTHUR BOULEVARD AND CAMPUS DRIVE Existing Traffic Volumes Movement Volume Capacity Volume/Capacity Existing Proposed Exis:ing Proposed Geometries Geometries Geomecrics Geometries Lanes Vehicles Lanes Vehicles A}1 PM Per hour per hour AM P : A.[ P2! Northbound Through 1220 980 2 3200 3 4800 38 31 25 20 Northbound Right 50 70 1 1600 1 1600 10 LO 10 LO Northbound Left 60 90 1 1600 2 3200 10 to* 10* 10* Southbound Through 1570 1100 2 3200 3 4800 49* 34* 33* 23* Southbound Right 320 170 1 1600 1 1600 ' 20 11 20 11 Southbound Left 180 60 1 1600 2 3200 11 10 10 10 Eastbound Through 570� 430� 0 2 3200 1 1600 10 10 10 10 Eastbound Right 30 70 Eastbound Left 380 260 1• 1600 1 1600 24* 16* 24* 16* Westbound Through 40 720 2 3200 2 3200 It* 23* 11* 23* Westbound Right 340 40 1 1600 1 1600 10 10 10 10 Westbound Left 80 90 1 1600 1 1600 10 10 10 LO Intersection Capacity Utilization 94 Hippp 78 �l0 y6LI4U) TH * = Critical Movement Included in Total to Determine Intersection Capacity UtilizaCn $2 INPERSECTICH CAPACITY UTILIZATION MACARTRUR BOULEVARD AND CAMPUS DRIVE Existing Traffic Volumes Plus Traffic Generated by 346,200 Square Feet of Building . Movement Volume Capacity Volume/Capacity Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Geometries Geometries Geometries Geometries Lanes Vehicles Lanes Vehicles AM PH per hour per hour AM PH AM PM Northbound Through 1240 1110 2 3200 3 4800 39 35 26 23 Northbound Right 70 80 1 1600 1 1600 10 10 10 10 Northbound Left 60 90 1 1600 2 3200 10* Wk 10* 10* Southbound Through 1700 1150 2 3200 3 4800- 53* 36* 35* 24* Southbound Right 320 170 1 1600 1 1600 20 11 20 11 Southbound Left 340 120 1 1600 2 3200 21 10 11 10 Eastbound Through 590� 440� 2 3200 2 3200 19 16 18 13 Eastbound Right 30 70 0 1 1600 10 10 10 10 Eastbound Left 380 260 1 1600 1 1600 24* 16* 24* 16* Westbound Through 350 740 2 3200 2 3200 11* 23* ll* 23* Westbound Right 70 200 1 1600 1 1600 .10 13 10 13 Westbound Left 90 100 1 1600 1 1600 1 10 10 1 10 10 Intersection Capacity Utilization 98 85 80 73 + .1n�' +.10 YELLD( rims * = Critical Movement Included in Total to Determine Intersection Capacity Utiliz atvoa •� N � City Council oeting October 24, 1978 Agenda Item No. D-4 � 5 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH October 18, 1978 TO: City Council FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Public Hearing and City Council Review of Planning Commission' s Action of September 21 , 1978, approving a traffic study for two garden type general office buildings . LOCATION : Lots 18, 19, 43, and 44, Tract No. 3201 , located at 4060 and 4100 Campus Drive and 4063 and 4101 Birch Street, southeasterly of Campus Drive and south- westerly of Dove Street, across from the Orange County Airport. ZONE: M-1 -A APPLICANT: Signal Development Corporation, Irvine OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach Application This application requests the approval of a traffic study prepared in accordance with the City ' s Traffic Phasing Ordinance and requests that the City make its findings , as required by- the Ordinance, in order to allow the issuance of building permits . Section 15 .40.036 (iii )E of the Municipal Code provides for an appeal to the City Council from an action by the Planning Commission on an application or a determination by the City Council to review an application . Suggested Action , Hold hearing; close hearing; if desired, sustain, modify or overrule the decision of the Planning Commission . Planning Commission Recommendation At its meeting of September 21 , 1978, the Planning Commission voted (4 Ayes , 2 Noes , 1 Absent) to make the finding that: "The proposed project, including traffic mitigation measures , will neither cause nor make worse an ,unsatisfactory level of traffic service on any 'major' , ' primary-modified ' or ' primary' street;" • } T0: City Ancil - 2. � • �� and accept the Traffic Report, subject to the condition that: "•The occupancy of the buildings will not occur until improvements have been implemented. " Background An initial traffic study, dated September 5 , 1978, and attached to the Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 15, 1978, was prepared by JHK and Associates and completed in conformance with the administrative guidelines adopted by the City Council . The conclu- sions of the study are summarized on Page 4 of that report, and the standard work sheets used to arrive at •those conclusions are contained in Appendix A of the report. Seven critical intersections were identified by the ' City ' s Traffic Engineer for analysis . Of. the seven, only two were affected by additional traffic from the proposed project. These intersections were identified as Bristol Street (North)/Campus Drive where the ICU was increased by .01 from 1 .00, and MacArthur Boulevard/Campus Drive where the ICU was increased by .01 from .94. The difference of 01 in each case was created by the addition of sixteen cars to the West- Through movement at the intersection of Bristol Street Rorth/Campus , and the addition of two cars to the West-Through movement at the MacArthur Boulevard/Campus intersection . A supplemental report to the Planning Commission, dated September 20 , 1978, further analyzed the affect the project traffic would have on these two intersections . In the case of Bristol Street (North)/ Campus Drive, the critical movement calculation which changes the , ICU is the westbound through-right movement which changes from .2641 to .2670, a difference of .0029 which rounded causes the- ICU to go from .26 to .27. In the case of MacArthur/Campus , the critical move- ment calculation which changes the ICU was also the westbound through right movement which changed from .2747 to .2753, a difference of - .0006 which rounded causes. the ICU to go from .27 to .28. It was further' noted in the supplemental staff report that the existing ICU at MacArthur/Campus would be reduced from .94 to .73 at the P .M. peak hour with the improvements required by the City pursuant to the approval of Amendment No . 505. Because of the marginal effect caused by this project and the fact that road improvements were planned which would mitigate this effect, i .e. , the required improvements .at MacArthur/Campus and proposed restriping at Bristol (North)/Campus, the Commission' felt the accep- tance of the study, with occupancy of the structures tied to instal - lation of the improvements , was a logical , reasonable and prudent course of action to follow. -Subsequent Traffic Report Subsequent to, the Planning Commission action of September 21 , 1978, a second traffic study was performed by JHK and Associates to determine • 70t City4ouncil - 3. * what mitigation measures would be 'required to reduce the impact of the project so that the ICU with the project-wauid be equal to or below the existing ,ICU level . The conclusions of the consultant are found on Page 5 of the report dated October 3, 1978. ! In summary, the report finds that the existing ICU at the intersection I of Bris•tol (North )/Campus can be reduced. from 1 .00 to . 81 ( .8064 j rounded to four figures) by providing an exclusive right-turn lane for southbound to westbound on Campus. Sufficient pavement width exists to provide .this lane . In fact, vehicles are presently using 'the excess pavement for this purpose . This additional width is under the jurisdiction of the County and would require an• encroach- . ment permit from the County to accomplish the work. With respect to the MacArthur/Campus Drive intersection , it was found " that the Campus Drive .westbound non-stop right-turn lane to Mac- Arthur northbound had not been included in the ICU Analysis Forms initially provided by the City. When this intersection was re- analyzed, the existing ICU was reduced from .94 to .93 ( .9335 rounded to four figures) . With the addition of the project traffic the ICU remains the same at .93 ( .9335 rounded to four figures) . Conclusion Based on the study performed subsequent to the Planning Commission meeting of September 21 , 1978, the City Council can concur in the finding of the Planning Commission. Except in this case , the sole mitigation required would be the additional exclusive right-turn lane from southbound Campus to westbound Bristol (North) . in order to assure that the mitigation can be carried out, the staff would recommend that the applicant be required to obtain the required encroachment permit to stripe the intersection prior to the issuance of building permits by the City for the project. Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V . HOGAN, Director By Q. A.A iix-� JA ES D. •HEWI KER JDH kk t Director - Planning ss • stan Attachments for Council Only : 1 ) Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 15 , 1978 with attachments 2) Supplemental Report dated September 20 , 1978 3) Excerpt of Minutes from Planning Commission Meeting of September mber 21 1978 e 4) Traffic Report dated October 3, 1978 5) ICU Calculations with" Figures Rounded to Four Decimal Places AY OF NEWPORT BACH COUNCILMEN MINUTES ROLL CALL 3JLP T J' January 1979 INDEX proposal that the Br ers Drive Association bear the cost of the relo ion, were presented. Dr. W. F. Robinson and Dr. Jack La n addressed the Council in favor of the relocation. Motion x Approval was given to the relocation of the Ayes x x x x transfer station and for the use of the funds Noes x x x received from parking fees in that public beach area. 5. A report was presented from the Community Develop- Council ment Department regarding the results of the Right of Traffic Study prepared in connect on w t the Review/ proposal of Signal.Developm�ent Corporation,, Signal Oil Irvine, for general office buildings located at Company 4060 and 4100 Campus Drive and 4063 Birch Street; (3094) zoned M-1-A. Roland Wedemeyer of Signal Development Corporation addressed the Council objecting to further delay. Motion x The item was postponed to February 12, and staff Ayes x x x x x x is to come back with a correcte report. Noes x 6. The o owing appointments to the Bicycle Trails Bicycle Motion x Citizens Advisory Committee for a one-year term Trails All Aye ending December 31, 1979 were confirmed: CAC (205 (District 1) Councilman Strauss reappoint- ment of Marilyn Hendrickson and postponement of his second appointment to February 12, 1979. (District 7) Mayor Pro Tem Williams' appointment of Jim Dodds. The following appointments to th nvironmental CEQAC Motion x Quality Control Citizens Advis- y Committee for (1058) All Aye a one-year term ending Dece ber 31, 1979 were confirmed: (District 1) Co ncilman Strauss' reappoint- ment of Hal omas. (District 4) Councilman Heather's appoint- men of Jerry King. (District 6) Councilman Hummel's appointment of Fred Sotomayer. The following appointments to the Litter Control Litter Motion x Citizens Advisory Committee for a one-year term Control All Aye ending December 31, 1979 were confirmed: CAC (2046) (District 1) Councilman Strauss' appointments were postponed to February 12, 1979. Volume 33 - Page 17 ���� �A CIA OF NEWPORT BEAL'I COUNCILMEN MINUTES ROLL CALL, \s� pis January 22 1979 INDEX Mayor Pro Tem Williams read the Mayor's statement for the benefit of the audience. The following people addressed the Council in favor of the ordinance,: Sue Ficker, David Shores, Daniel Emory and Dr. Gene Atherton. -Motion Mayor Pro Tem Williams made a motion to reintroduce and pass to second reading on February 12 Ordinance No. 1787, being, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT 0-1787 BEACH AMENDING CHAPTER 15.40 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE TO CLARIFY THE PURPOSE OF THE ORDINANCE IN SECTION 15.40.020 ADDING OR CHANGING WORDING IN SECTIONS 15.40.030, 15.40.050 AND 15.40.070. Councilman Hart asked that the proposed ordinance be amended to change wording in Section 15.40.030 (D) (iii), which amendment was not accepted by the maker of the motion. ouncilman Heather asked that the following statement be included in the record: "Let the re ord show that I am not supporting the motion in he absence of a staff report and the absence of a olicy which will allegedly make everything clear I do not understand the ordinance and cannot vote to support it." Ayes x x x x x A vote w taken on Mayor Pro Tem Williams' Noes x, x motion, w ch motion carried. 3. A report da d December 20, 1978 was presented Council from the Cit Manager pertaining to proposed Policy Council Polic S-1 regarding the administrative (430F) procedures for mplementing the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. A report dated Dec mber 13 was presented from Mayor Pro Tem Will ms. Motion x Mayor Pro Tem William made a motion to continue consideration of the a ministration procedures regarding the Traffic P asing Ordinance to February 12. Motion x Councilman Strauss made a ubstitute motion to Ayes x x x x continue the item to Februa 26, 1979, which Noes x x x motion carried. 4. A report dated December 20, 19 was presented Transfer from the Parke, Beaches and Rec ation Commission Station regarding a request for relocati of the Corona (2046) del Mar Main Beach transfer stati A letter received after the agenda s printed from Dr. W. F. Robinson in favor of t e relocation, and a letter from John Donohue opposin the II 1 Volume 33 - Page 16 I ' y • City Council Meeting January 22 , 1979 Agenda Item No. F-5 SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH January 22 , 1979 TO: City Council FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Impact of Signal Development Corporation ' s project on the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard/Campus Drive . Background In the staff report prepared for the City Council meeting of October 24, 1978, the staff reported to you (Page 3) that the existing ICU at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard/Campus Drive was . 9335 and that the ICU with the addition of the project traffic would remain the same at . 9335 . Subsequent to the preparation of that report, which is dated October 18, 1978, it was brought to the attention of the staff that an error had been made in calculating the existing ICU for that inter- section . The staff does not recall whether the error was verbally reported to the City Council or not. Therefore the purpose of this supplemental report is to communicate to you that an error did occur and the magnitude of that error. On October 24, 1978 we should have reported to you that the existing ICU at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard/Campus Drive was . 9259 and that the project traffic when added to the intersection would increase the ICU to . 9335 . This is an increase of . 0076 and is created by adding four cars to the south through leg , nine cars to the east left leg and two cars to the west through leg. Based on this information , the Council could make a finding that the "Exist- ing Plus Project Traffic ICU will be greater than Existing ICU that is currently greater than . 90" and required further analysis to deter- mine applicable system improvements . A corrected copy of the ICU analysis sheet is attached and is designated as Attachment I . It can also be noted by exmaining the same staff report that the existing ICU at this inte'rsect,ion has been reported at various times to be . 95, . 94 and . 93. The . 95 figure was derived from a report prepared for the City of Newport Beach by Weston Pringle and Asso- ciates dated April 6 ,• 1978, using data obtained from manual counts performed by the City of Irvine on April 4, 1978, and includes 379 , 000 sq . ft. of office space proposed for Block C in Koll Center TO: CitpCouncil - 2. Newport. The . 94 figure was developed by JHK and Associates and is reflected in their report to the City dated September 5 , 1978 . The . 93 figure was also developed by JHK and Associates and is re- flected in their second report to the City dated October 3, 1978. It is this latter figure , when calculated to four decimal places , that produces the . 9259 ICU. (Note : The figures developed by JHK are based upon existing' traffic and do not reflect proposed develop- ment in Office Site "C" of Koll Center Newport) Planned Improvements The ultimate geometrics for the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard/ Campus Drive will include three lanes in each direction , left-turn lanes (double left-turn lane capability) , plus right-turn lanes . These improvements are illustrated on the sheet designated as Attachment II and were included by the City Council with the approval of Amendment No. 505 on July 11 , 1978 (Office Site "C" - Koll Center Newport) . These A mproveroents were also included in the approval of Resubdivision No. 579 and The Irvine Company has executed the agree- ments and posted the bonds as required by 'the City Council on July 24, 1978. The same improvements were also required with the approval of Resubdivision No. 603 for Campeau Corporation on September 7 , 1978. However, it is the understanding of the staff that the Campeau Cor- poration is no longer pursuing the acquisition of Office Site "C" in Koll Center Newport and that the responsibility for improving the intersection would revert to The Irvine Company, which according to the terms of the bonds would have to be completed no later than July 27, 1980. In addition to bonds and agreements noted above , the City Council should also be aware that CALTRANS has scheduled FAU traffic systems improvements on MacArthur Boulevard from Bonita Canyon Road to I 405 in July, 1979. These improvements will include the installation of a -coordinated traffic signallsystem and widening of the southeast corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Campus Drive to its ultimate configuration as shown on Attach . III . If CALTRANS meets the July 1979 bid advertise- ment date, the project should be constructed by spring of 1980 . ICU With Planned Improvements In the report of Weston Pringle and Associates , dated April 6 , 1978, for Amendment No . 505 , it was indicated that the Existing ICU would be reduced from . 93 to .82 (•Attachment IV) with the proposed inter- section geometrics and with 346 ,000 sq .ft. of office space in Office Site " C" , the ICU would be reduced from . 95 to .83 (Attachment V) . Suggested Action If desired, the City Council may wish to withhold the issuance of Signal Development Corporation ' s building permits until the planned TO: City Council - 3. • improvements at this intersection are in place and have been tested, or you may wish to tie the occupancy of the buildings to the con- struction or completion stage of the improvements . Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R . V . HOGAN, Director by Q„� ►✓' 74 (,�[i-tom AMES D. HEWICKER sistant Director - Planning JDH/kk Attachments for City Council Only: 1 ) Corrected copy of ICU analysis 2) Existing and Proposed Intersection Geometrics (Weston Pringle and Associates - April 6, 1978) 3) Project as proposed by CALTRANS 4) Existing ICU with proposed geometrics 5) Existing ICU with proposed geometrics plus 346,200 sq .ft. of office space in Office Site "C" - Koll Center Newport 6) Staff report dated October 18, 1978 PROJECT MITIGATION MEASURES 1 OERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATIItNALYSIS Intersection MacArthur Blvd./Campus Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V%C ** V/C** Volume Volume Peak Hr. Volume Ratio Ratio .OW LJ 111 .07* -07* NL 1 1600 NT 2 3200 1044 9 1053 NR - 73 - 73 = • ` SL• 1 1600 56 - 56 :04 ST 3' . 3200 1026 4 1030 , b?.O(v i^ - 2* SR 1 1600 207 3 204 `13 .13 , EL 1 1600 285 9 294 . l�8 ( 8* • .15' ET 2 3200 421 5 426. _15 ER - 53 53 - - WL 1 1600 100 - 100 WT 2 3200 825 2 • 827 . 25?8 J26 • WR 1 54 54 loo .10 10 Yellow Time gZ�.q Intersection Ca acit Utilization I.C.U. Existin ` Existin Plus Project Intersection Ca pad Utilizatio .93 ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left — - II With Mitigation Measures Project Mitigation Measure Analysis Brief Description: Calculated existing and project V/C Ratio with existing westbound non-stop right turn. 1-1 Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. with mitigation mea- sure (s) will be less than or equal to 0.90 . Existing Plus Project Traffic I_C.U. with mitigation mea- sure (s) will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions T .C.U. INTERSECTION MacArthur Blvd./Campus Drive FORK Figure 3 EXISTING AND FUTURE INTERSECTION GEOMETRICS MacArthur 60 levard and Campus Dr ve w� <f Campus Existing 1 i To Be Added i i i t ' 4 It 11as been a plu:tsura to prepare this traffic analysis for you. If there are _ any questions, or if we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call us. R,-sprctr% l ly suhm•itU'd. WI 1'ON 19CINC1,1: AND ASSix:TA9'ES WSP:14K'Wg 118210 � I .� I I R¢sfripir�y by � Ca/franc (,AMVUS �¢stripiny by � ,� Caltrans _ = l!/!7W1179 by Ca/franc / (PrgjccfQd Comp'/¢fior� Q / Sprint' /980� � r . U L fE:(IM Af ��1111 IlfnliM1 tN111Nf tHWb (`+41gring 1950) 1'y kllnmel and Ass ociates,Inc. ^Joy. ' 7g MAC Al2-rHUf2 e CAM PU5 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION MACARTHUR BOULEVARD AND CAMPUS DRIVE Existing Traffic Volumes Movement Volume Capacity Volume!Capacity Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Geometrics Geometrics Geometrics Geometrics Lanes Vehicles Lanes Vehicles AM PH per hour per hour A?I FX. AM P`1 Northbound Through 1220 980 2 3200 3 4800 38 31 25 20 Northbound Right 50 70 1 1600 1 1600 10 10 10 10 Northbound Left 60 90 1 1600 2 3200 10* 10* 10* 10* Southbound Through 1570 1100 2 3200 3 4800 49* 34* 33* 23* Southbound Right 320 170 1 1600 1 1600 20 11 20 11 Sopthbound Left ISO 60 1 1600 2 3200 11 10 10 10 Eastbound Through 570� 430� 2 3200 2 3200 19 16 18 13 • R Eastbound Right 30 70 0 0 1 1600 10 10 10 10 Eastbound Left 380 260 1• 1600 1 1600 24* 16* 24* 16* Westbound Through 40 720 2 3200 2 3200 ll* 23* 11* 23* Westbound Right 340 40 1 1600 1 1600 10 10 10 10 lestbound Left 80 90 1 1600 1 1600 10 10 10 10 Intersection Capacity Utilization 94 83 78 72 ± to -1-.to YBLWLv Tim * = Critical Movement Included in Total to Determine Intersection Capacity Utiliza on F C INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION MACARTHUR BOULEVARD AND CAMPUS DRIVE • Existing Traffic Volumes Plus Traffic Generated by 346$200 Square Feet of Building Movement Volume Capacity Volume/Capacity Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Geometries Geometries Geometrics Geometrics Lanes Vehicles Lanes Vehicles AM PM per hour per hour AM PM AM PM Northbound Through 1240 1110 2 3200 3 4800 39 35 26 23 Northbound Right 70 80 1 1600 1 1600 10 10 10 10 Northbound Left 60 90 1 1600 2 3200 10* lok 10* 10* Southbound Through 1700 1150 2 3200 3 4800- 53* 36* 35* 24* Southbound Right 320 170 1 1600 1 1600 20 11 20 11 Southbound Left 340 120 1 1600 2 3200 21 10 11 10 Eastbound Through 590 440 2 3200 2 3200 19 16 18 13 Eastbound Right 30� 70� 0 1 1600 10 10 10 10 Eastbound Left 380 260 1 1600 1 1600 24* 16* 24* 16* Westbound Through 350 740 2 3200 2 3200 ll* 23* ll* 23* Westbound Right 70 ' 200 1 1600 1 1600 .10 13 10 13 Westbound Left 90 100 1 1600 1 1600 10 10 1 10 10 Intersection Capacity Utilization 98 85' 80 73 + .10 +.10 yE LOW 7-101F * = Critical Movement Included in Total to Determine Intersection Capacity Utilizaation U J • City Counc Meeting October 24, 1978 Agenda Item No. D-4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH October 18, 1978 TO: City Council FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Public Hearing and City Council Review of Planning Commission ' s Action of September 21 , 1978, approving a traffic study for two garden type general office buildings . LOCATION : Lots 18, 19, 43, and 44 , Tract No. 3201 , located at 4060 and 4100 Campus Drive and 4063 and 4101 Birch Street, southeasterly of Campus Drive and south- westerly of Dove Street, across from the Orange County Airport. ZONE: M-1 -A APPLICANT: Signal Development Corporation , Irvine OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach Application This application requests the approval of a traffic study prepared in accordance with the City' s Traffic Phasing Ordinance and requests -that the City make its findings , as required by - the Ordinance, in order to- allow the issuance of building permits . Section 15 .40 .030 (iii )E of the Municipal Code provides for an appeal to the City Council from an action by the Planning Commission on an application or a determination by the City Council to review an application . Suggested Action , Hold hearing; close hearing; if desired, sustain, modify or overrule the decision of the Planning Commission . Planning Commission Recommendation_ J At its meeting of September 21 , 1978, the Planning Commission voted (4 Ayes , 2 Noes , 1 Absent) to make the finding that: "The proposed project, including traffic mitigation measures , will neither cause nor make worse an -unsatisfactory level of traffic service on any 'major' , ' primary-modified ' or ' primary ' street;" .07140y1x4.Lr TTI TOw: Ci t*ounci 1 - 2. • and accept the Traffic Report, subject to the condition that: ".The occupancy of the buildings will not occur until improvements have been implemented. " Background An initial traffic study, dated September 5 , 1978, and attached to the Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 15 , 1978, was prepared by JHK and Associates and completed in conformance -with the administrative guidelines adopted by the City Council . The conclu- sions of the study are summarized on Page 4 of that report, and the standard work sheets used to arrive at -those conclusions are contained in Appendix A of the report. Seven critical intersections were identified by the . City ' s Traffic Engineer for analysis . Of. the seven, only two were affected by additional traffic from the proposed project. These intersections were identified as Bristol Street (North)/Campus Drive where the ICU was increased by .01 from 1 . 00 , and MacArthur Boulevard/Campus Drive where the ICU was increased 'by .01 from .94. The difference of .07 in each case was created by the addition of sixteen cars to the West- Through movement at the intersection of Bristol Street North/Campus , and the addition of two cars to the West-Through movement at the MacArthur Boulevard/Campus intersection . A supplemental report to the Planning Commission, dated September 20 , 1978, further analyzed the affect the project traffic would have on these two intersections . In the case of Bristol Street (North )/ Campus Drive, the critical movement calculation which changes the ICU is the. westbound through-right movement which changes from . 2641 to .2670, a difference of .0029 which rounded causes the. ICU to go from .26 to . 27. In the case . of MacArthur/Campus , the critical move- ment calculation which changes the ICU was also the westbound through right movement which changed from .2747 to .2753, a difference of .. .0006which rounded causes. the ICU to go from .27 to .28. It was further' noted in the supplemental - staff report that the existing ICU at MacArthur/Campus would be reduced from .94 to . 73 at the P .M. peak hour with the improvements required by the City pursuant to the approval of Amendment No . 505 . Because of the marginal effect caused by this project and the fact that road improvements were planned which would mitigate this effect, i . e. , the required improvements at MacArthur/Campus and proposed restriping at Bristol (North)/Campus , the Commission felt the accep- tance of the study , with occupancy of the structures tied to instal - lation of the improvements , was a logical , reasonable and prudent course of action to follow. -Subsequent Traffic Report Subsequent to the Planning Commission action of September 21 , 1978, a second traffic study was performed by JHK and Associates to determine 1 T0: Cit*ouncil - 3. • what mitigation measures would be required to reduce the impact of the project so that the ICU with the project•wauld be equal to or below the existing ICU level . .The conclusions of the consultant are found on Page 5 of the report dated October 3, 1978. In summary, the report finds that the existing ICU at the intersection of Bristol (North )/Campus can be reduced. from , 1 .00 to . 81 ( .8064 rounded to four figures) by providing an exclusive right-turn lane for southbound to westbound on Campus. Sufficient pavement width exists to provide .this lane . In fact, vehicles are presently using the excess pavement for this purpose . This additional width is under the jurisdiction of , the County and would require an , encroach- ment permit from the County to accomplish the work. With respect to the MacArthur/Campus Drive intersection , it was found that the Campus Drive' :westbound non-stop right-turn lane to Mac- Arthur northbound had not been included in the ICU Analysis Forms , .initially provided by the City. When this intersection was re- analyzed, the existing ICU was reduced from .94 to .93 ( .9335 rounded to four figures ) . With the addition of the project traffic the ICU remains the same at .93 ( .9335 rounded to four figures) . Conclusion Based on the study performed subsequent to the Planning Commission, meeting of September 21 , 1978, the City Council can concur in the finding of the Planning Commission . Except in this case, the sole mitigation required would be the additional exclusive right-turn lane from southbound Campus to westbound Bristol (North) . In order to assure that the mitigation can be carried out, the staff would recommend that the applicant be required to obtain the required encroachment permit to stripe the intersection prior to the issuance of building permits by the City for the project. Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V . HOGAN,DDiretctor By � JA ES D. • HEWI KER ss •stant Director - Planning JDH/kk Attachments for Council Only: 1 ) Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 15 , 1978 with attachments 2) Supplemental Report dated September 20 , 1978 3) Excerpt of Minutes from Planning Commission Meeting of September 21 , 1978 4) Traffic Report dated October 3, 1978 5 ) ICU Calculations with .Figures Rounded to Four Decimal Places w City Council Meeting January 22 , 1979 Agenda Item No. F-5 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH January 18, 1979 TO: City Council FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Results of Traffic Svstems ' Improvements to the Intersection of Bristol Street North and campus Drive as provided by Signal Development Corpora- tion at the request of the City Council on October 24, 1978. LOCATION: Lots 18, 19, 43, and 44, Tract No. 3201 , located at 4060 and 4100 Campus Drive and 4063 and 4101 Birch Street, southeasterly of Campus Drive and south- westerly of Dove Street, across from the Orange County Airport. ZONE: M-1 -A APPLICANT: Signal Development Corporation , Irvine OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach Background At the City Council meeting of October 24, 1978, the City Council , on their own motion , reviewed a decision of the Planning Commission taken on September 21 , 1978, approving a traffic study for two garden- type general office buildings to be constructed at the location noted above . Studies performed for the City by JHK and Associates , in conformance with the City ' s Traffic Phasing Ordinance and Administrative Guide- lines , indicated at that time that the Existing ICU at Bristol Street North and Campus Drive was 1 . 0014; that the Existing Plus Project Traffic ICU would be 1 . 0104; and that the Existing Plus Project Traffic ICU with applicable improvements to the traffic system, an exclusive right turn lane for southbound to westbound, would be . 8064. Based on this information the Planning Commission had approved the > 9 PP traffic study with a finding that "the proposed project, including traffic mitigation measures , will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on any ' mayor' , ' primary- modified' or ' primary ' street" andsubject to a condition that "the occupancy of the buildings will not occur until improvements have d the decision been implemented. The City Council subsequently modifie e TO: City Council - 2. of the Planning Commission to request that the applicant provide the street improvements ; that these improvements be measured by the City staff upon completion ; that when the intersection capacity is deter- mined to be at a satisfactory level , the City Council would approve the building permit for the project; and that this be accomplished within three months or sooner. The applicant has subsequently followed the direction of the City Council and completed the required striping and the staff remeasured the Existing ICU and traffic volumes on January llth and 16th , 1979 , with the system improvement in place . The results of the staff' s measurements are summarized in the following tables : ICU's Existing Existing + Project Project W/Imp. 5/78 1 .0014 1.0104 .8064 Existing W/Imp. Existing W/0 Imp. Existing W/Imp. + Project 1/11/79 1 .2435 1.0132 1.0232 1/16/79 1 .1797 .9900 .9925 TRAFFIC VOLUMES Existing Peak 22 Hr. 1% of Existing Peak 'Project Approach 5/78 1/11/79 1/16/79 5/78 1/11/79 1/16/79 Peak Northbound 1504 1688 1718 15 17 17 12 Southbound 3705 4006 3518 37 40 35 39 Eastbound -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Westbound 4790 6879 6626 48 69 66 34 As noted above, there have been significant changes in the traffic patterns since last May. In July the couplet of one-way frontage roads was opened to traffic between Campus Drive and Jamboree Road. The total volume of traffic using this intersection has increased approximately 30% with a 16% increase southbound, a 2% increase northbound and a 50% increase westbound. The size of these increases has overwhelmed the increased capacity which was paid for by the Signal Development Company. TO: City Council - 3. The City ' s Traffic Engineer indicates that the causes of this increase are not fully known . Additional building occupancy in the area may account for a small portion, but it is felt that the majority is traffic which previously used another route. A complete explanation of the in- crease cannot be made until a full series of counts are made in the area during March and April of this year. In reviewing the ICU' s set forth above , it should be noted that although the Existing ICU ' s without the improvement have increased from 1 . 0014 in May of last year to 1 . 2435 on January llth and 1 . 1797 on January 16th , the ICU with the improvement plus the project is reduced on January llth from 1 .2435 to 1 .0232 and on January 16th from 1 . 1797 to . 9925. In each case the Existing Plus Project ICU is less than the Existing Conditions ICU without the improvement provided by Signal Development. Therefore the City Council could find in each case that "the proposed project, including traffic mitigation measures , will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on any 'major' , ' primary- modified' or ' primary' street. " On the other hand, the Council could find that no additional traffic should be added to an intersection operating substantially above capacity until further system improvements are made. It should be further noted in reviewing the traffic volumes for Janu- ary 11 , 1979 , that the project passes the 1 % check for each approach volume and no further ICU analysis would have been required. Suggested Action If desired, direct the staff either to issue or deny request for building permit. Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V . HOGAN , �D-iyrector by d AD •S D. HEWICKER ss stant Director - Planning JDH/kk Attachments : Worksheets i.. PJ*EC7.' PIITIGA'I'ION• MEASURES INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANAIRIS Intersection Bristol Street North/Cam us Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes Rase on Average Winter Spring 1478) a 5 76, Pro ect Existing Exist. Project Move- Lanes Capa- Existing V/C** ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project Ratio •Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume tio Ratio. .0.QS* I NL 1 1600 81 - 81 NT 2 3200 - 587 6 593 :19 NR - i SL - ^ 1244 '39* i ST 2 3200 1241 3 i SR 1 1600. 637• 1 653 .41 EL - _ I ET ER - .20 A1 1600 321 - 321 ' WT 4 6400 1660 16 1676 1 WR '30 3 33 1 . :10 Yellow Time Existing Intersection Ca2acity Utilization I.C.U. .� Existin Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left ** With Mitigation Measures Project Mitigation Measure Analysis Brief Description: Provide exclusive right turn lane for southbound to westbound on Campus Drive. aExisting Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. with mitigation mea- sure (s) will be less than or equal to 0 .90. Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U, with mitigation mea- sure (s) will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. , INTERSECTION Bristol Street North/Campus Drive FORM t- nocw iuir nrn�a/ / V 11L1Ln. ♦vu `> Intersection Bristol 'Street North ampus Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes Base on Average Winter/Spring 1478) / -//-79 t4ove- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Projdect ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/ Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Rat NL 1 1600 /08NT 2 3200 l37 MR - SL - - S7 2 3200 /340.3 3 ! 3410 . SR 1 Neoo 22- / 3° •573$ 5238 EL - ET ER _ WL 1 1600 11,39 -3 99q* 39 9N EWr 4 6400 2397 / U Z /!o 1 .37451 . 3775 WR 3 Yellow Time .10 Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. 1 .0132 Existin Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. I.02 3� ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) ' N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, Might, L=Left QExisting Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less han or equal to 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. wilj be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION Bristol Street North/Campus Drive FORM I PROJECT: INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION- ANA IS Intersection15ai5roc.. Sr I&J gGAMp0.5 pQIVCY (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1971) Move- Lanes apa- Existing roject xisting Exist. Project ment It Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio NL l P600 102 0�3$. OG38 NT Z 3200 bo1 G� !��' 7 l878 f`f97 NR SL ST 2 3zoo 1034 3 io 37 .52!5 JA 3Z41 SR i 1+onn fool /C ¢ 2 3 .5704 ,3e14 � EL ET ER WL 1 I Lao 805 ti .503 J'* , 5 031 WT 4 eaon 2305 ��^ 2 '�z !� . 0359 WR Yellow Time Jb ' lO Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. .9RoO Existin Plus Project Intersection Ca acit Utilization I.C.U.' ,992 5 ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk N N-Northbound, S=Southbound, 'E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=left Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 (� Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to t Existing' Conditions .I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 • r Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 0 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation. measures . INTERSECTION r T — -- - --IFORM 11 cpn.rrrT• E ~ • January16 197 � 9 TO: ASSISTANT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, DIRECTOR FROM: Traffie ;Engineer , SUBJECT: TRAFFIC COUNT,.AT, CAMPUS, DRIVE AND B,RISTOL STREET NORTH The City Council placed a condition on the Signal Development Company project near the airport that they make an improvement to the intersection of Campus Drive and Bristol Street North, Upon completion of the improvement, the City was to remeasure the traffic at the intersection to verify that the added capacity would allow for the addition of the project traffic, The Signal Development Company complied with the condition by getting a permit from the County and having a southbound right-turn lane striped on Campus .Drive- On Thursday, January 11 , 1979,,_an afternoon count was taken and the ICU calculated. The ICU was determined to be 1 .6131 . This is 0,011'7 greater than the 1 .0014 which was measured last May. It must be, noted that without the improvement by Signal Development Company, the. existing ICU would be 1 .2433. There have been significant changes in the traffic patterns in this area since last May. In _July the couplet of one-way frontage roads was opened to traffic between Campus Drive and Jamboree Road. The total volume of' traffic using this inter- section has increased approximately 30 per cent with a 16 per cent increase southbound, a 2-per cent increase northbound and a 50 per cent increase westbound. The size of these increases has overwhelmed the increased capacity which was paid for by the Signal Development Company. The causes of this increase ,are not fully known. Additional' building occupancy in the area may account for a small portion but it is felt that the majority is traffic which previously used another route. When we take a full series of counts in this area during March and April we should have a fuller explanation. 'mod/y/.Xa0cW ►, Richard M. Edmonston Traffic Engineer INTEOTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANr�IS CC W(v Intersection tSroc- 5r `CAM P0.5 0-e yr (Existing Traffic Volumes Baste on Average Winter/Spring 1979 �- IG-?9 Move- Lanes pa- Existing roJect xisting Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio NL 1 1600 102 o l.3 fo 0G-1 NT 2 320o bo1 �O� 187J'cg' NR SL ^' ST x 3200� 1034 3 1v37 - 3� i- 5128 SR 1 IGoo bo7 I(� CQ23 .97 9 EL ET - • ER ^ WL I Vt94:vv . 805 0 .503'Pt r5d3 i WT g Z3o5 I 232. . 0359 WR 3 Yellow Time, ` (--�--- Existin Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. •�$ I ► ?R Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, • L=Left ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 El Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions .I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90. f—1 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing t_1 I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 I 1 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION ------ - -•--IFORM II f PROJECT: I INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS / •' I&section Bristol -Street Nortem us Drive Wlv (Existing Traffic Volumes Base on Average Winter/Spring 1978) TCU 1 —11-79 Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio NL 1 1600 /08 (•ou7517 NT 2 3200 63 i99O SL - — ST 2 3200 ' !343 t �� — ?4/ (a7&� SR I 140O 8Z?/ •5/38 EL - - - ET - - ER - WL 1 1600 4�3 I 3 99.3• , Sol %Y WT 4 6400 Z 3 97 3 .3746 WR Yellow Time 10 , I-C, Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. 1 .0131 1 , 114 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) . N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Righ't, L=Left Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than OAO Existing Plus 'P-roject Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION Bristol Street North/Campus Drive FORM II PROJECT: I PrY ' OF NEWPORT BPCH COUNCILMEN ' MINUTES ROLL CALL u' October 24, 1978 INDEX Motion x The amended fee structure for installation was Ayes x x x x x x also adopted. Noes x 3. Mayor Ryckoff opened the public hearing regarding W Npt Branch the proposed closing of the West Newport Chiidren'E Library Branch Library, located at 6000 West Coast (1459) \ Highway, Newport Beach. A report was presented from the City Librarian. Jud lark, the City Librarian, addressed the Counci nd presented data regarding the non-use of the Wes Newport Library. Zada Taylor, Vic resident of the Board of Library Trustees, a eased the Council in favor of the closure of the e t Newport Branch Library. Margot Skilling addressed the Co ,�cil explaining some of the reasons that the branch brary had not been used by the children. Motion x 'The-hearing was closed after it was determine All Ayes that no one else desired to be heard. The recommendations of the Board of Library Motion x Trustees were sustained and the West Newport All Ayes Children's Branch Library will be closed effective November 1 1978. 4. Mayor Ryckoff opened the public hearing and City Signal Council review of the Planning Commission's Dev Corp action on September 21, 1978 approving a Traffic Appeal Stu y-fora proposal of Signal'Development (3094) Corporation, ry Me, for tWo garden=type, general office buildings located at 4060 and 4100 Campus Drive and 4063 and 4101 BircT Street, south- easterly of Campus Drive and Bout westerly of Dove Street, across from the Orange County A rport; zoned M-1-A. A report was presented from the Community Develop- ment Department. A letter from L.E.A.F. was presented regarding the application of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Roland Wedemeyer, representing the Signal Develop- ment Corporation, addressed the Council regarding their compliance with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The following people addressed the Council: Ed Siebel, for L.E.A.F, as well as a member of the group that drafted the Traffic Phasing Initiative Ordinance, explaining their use of terms used in the ordinance; and Charles Griffin commenting on the ordinance. Volume 32 - Page 264 CPY OF NEWPORT BACH COUNCILMEN MINUTES y Bi1�tiSJ �C, Regular Council Meeting \ Gi1i!A P�y�p9 2 Place: Council Chambers � 9��nS��'5�2�� Time: 7: 30 P.M. ROLL CA L\ his T Date: October 24, 1978 INDEX Present x x x x x x x A. Roll Call. B. The reading of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting Motion x of October 10, 1978 was waived, and said Minutes All Ayes were approved as written and ordered filed. C. The reading in full of all ordinances and Motion x resolutions under consideration was waived, and All Ayes the City Clerk was directed to read by titles I D. HEARINGS: 1. Mayor Ryckoff opened the public hearing regarding District Ordinance No. 1783, being, Map 20 0-1783 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH (3080) AMENDING A PORTION OF DISTRICTING MAP NO. 20 TO RECLASSIFY FROM THE R-2-B DISTRICT TO THE R-1-B DISTRICT CERTAIN PROPERTY LOCATED AT 465A & B MORNING CANYON ROAD (AMENDMENT NO. 517), lanning Commission Amendment No. 517 regarding operty located between Morning Canyon Road and D Anza Drive in the Corona Highlands. A r ort was presented from the Community Develop- ment epartment. Motion x, The he ing was closed after it was determined All Ayes that no ne desired to be heard. Motion x Ordinance o. 1783 was adopted. All Ayes 2. Mayor Ryckof opened the public hearing regarding CATV the request o Community Cablevision Company for a (6) rate increase the monthly fees for cable antenna televis `\nservice. A report was preed from the City Manager. Ida Williams add d the Council opposing a rate increase. Wayne Hauser, Presid'en of Community Cablevision Company, addressed the until in order to answer the questions pose by Councilman Heather. Motion x The hearing was closed aft it was determined All Ayes that no one else desired to a heard. Motion x A motion to continue the hear g to November 27, Ayea x 1978 failed. Noes x x x x x x Motion x Resolution No. 9450, establishing rate increase R-9450 Ayes x x x x x x in the monthly fees only for Commun ty Cable- Noes x vision Company and rescinding Resolu ion No. 6487, was adopted. Volume 32 - Page 263 OY OF NEWPORT ACH COUNCILMEN MINUTES ROLL CALL 1'0AN y LP October 24, 1978 INDEX Motion x The hearing was closed after it was determined All Ayes that no one else desired to be heard. Motion x Councilman Hummel made a motion to modify the decision or the arming Commission to request that the app Icaut proVOe Ehe srt"eZ'C"Y'tispYCvements; that these improvements be measuredDY bfie City staff upon completion, t a wen e intersection capacity is determine a"to`be aE a satisfactory leve�fhe C`3ty CouriciZ w'i7 approve t'We"linilding permit for the project`; an3'tfiat tfifs lie acco pITs- e`d-w:rthtn th'Yee uiorifh-d, o"t'so6ner. Motion x The hearing was reopened to allow the applicant All Ayes to state whether he was willing to accept the delay of three months. Roland Wedemeyer of Signal Development Corpora- tion addressed the Council concurring with the three month continuance. Motion x The hearing was closed after it was determined All Ayes that no one else desired to be heard. Ayes x x x x x A vote was taken on Councilman Hummel's motion, Noes x x which motion carried. E. There were no ordinances for adoption. F. CONTINUED BUSINESS: 1. (District 5) Mayor Ryckoff's appointment of a Com Dev member to the Community Development Citizens CAC Advisory Committee to fill the unexpired term o (2127) Motion x William H. Morris ending December 31, 1978 w All Ayes continued to November 13. 2. A report was presented from the Publi orks Vacation/ Department regarding the request of chard A. Alley Nichols to vacate and abandon a s ent of an (3069) existing 14-foot wide alley to ed northeasterly of East Coast Highway betwee ris Avenue and the alley westerly of Iris venue in Block 535 Corona del Mar Tract. Dr. Nichols address the Council and stated that he would li the item removed from the Council Agenda ntil further notice. Motion x The item w a removed from the Agenda. Ayes x x x x x x Abstain x 3. A r ort was presented from the Marine Department Harbor garding complaints about noise from tour Regulations boats. 1 (386) Motion x The staff was directed to request the Orange All Ayes County Harbor Patrol to closely monitor the tour boats and issue citations for noise violations, and to meet with all tour boat operators and review the appropriate section of the Municipal y� Code and conditions of approval on Commercial Activity Harbor Permits. Volume 32 - Page 265 Y OF NEWPORT BACH COUNCILMEN MINUTES 'y 'L G��y <<''�o�9ti9G22i ROLL CALL d'T���tn S October 24, 1978 INDEX r 4. A report was presented from the City Attorney OrCo regarding an agreement between the City and Airport County concerning the future growth of Orange (195) County Airport. Motion x Councilman McInnis made a motion to postpone to November 13, 1978. The following people addressed the Council opposing any future growth of the airport: Stuart Williams, who suggested sharing facilities with El Toro or Pendleton; Charles Griffin; William t1. Patrick; and Jane Walch Courtney, who read and presented a letter from John and Margaret O'Neal. All Ayes A vote was taken •on Councilman McInnis' motion, which motion carried. 5. A report was presented from the Community Develop- Park Dedica- ment Department regarding computation of in-lieu tion Fees park fees. (2670) Dr. Gene Atherton addressed the Council suggesting methods for computation of land values. Motion x e staff was directed to obtain proposals from All Ayes th a appraisers for determination of park acreage val to be brought back to Council for cons i eration. 6. The Cou cil agreed to hear a verbal presentation West Coast from the adjacent property owners concerning the Hwy Widening/ deletion street work at the northeast corner of 57th to SA West Coast igbway and Orange Street. River (2552) A flyer, which had been distributed to the residents of West Newpor asking them to appear at the Council meeting in behalf of the Baurs against the installation of orbs, gutters and sidewalks on West Coast Highwa at Orange Street and which was received after the genda had been printed, was presented. The following people a\ve sed the Council opposing the installation of a hand turn lane into West Newport from Westt Highway: George Gillette, attorney forTradewinds Liquor Store, who stated thatvironmental Impact Report had not been maa project; Paul O'Shea, who is in the ot ve research business and often a consultantCAL S on highway tragedies; JackWhittRows d Chase; and Tom Stamper. The following people ased the uncil in favor of curbs, guttersidewalk being installed along West Cighway: zanne Rudd, who had worked on the project of widens g West Coast Highway in connection with the Wes Newport Specific Area Plan; and Margot Skilling. Volume 32 - Page 266 1 1 1 From the Office of City Clerk I � TODAY'S MAIL Date: Attn: CpmDA-0LAW A •-, October � S' RECEIVED To: Newport Beach City Counci p^ ul(% ` community CITY a �! Development Subject: Traffic Phasing Ordi c� t. From: L.E.A.F. 8 �T I71978® 2 _:++ OCT 18 1978 Nr{yppRr OP 4 y' NEWPORT CITY BEACH, The Traffic Phasing Ordinance i L, ec��{yf� �}l, i irst tests-- th�LignalJ Development project by the air iz d the q ential pro3,ect;_in N Center. 0) c., The methodology and data gathering has evolved well up to now - but cer tain very important interpretations are imminent. We would like to com- ment on the data and interpretations as they relate to the two current projects. The DATA that has been collected for the ordinance is valuable and should lead to proper judgments . The existing capacities (I.C.U's) which represent an average of non-summer week day peak periods tell us that most suspected intersections are at or well above .9 on average days. The choice of .9 seems to be a very reasonable point at which to attach significance because our own experience with the intersections tells us that the worse than average days are, indeed unacceptable - (awful) ! If anything, since we are concerned with health, safety, and welfare everyday, the .9 average may be high unless we can aim for com- plete assurance of adequate center lanes, shoulders, etc. for emergency use. The existing data seems to be acceptable based on existing exper- iences - BUT, . the value of any projections of future capacity has to be viewed with considerable alarm because of such facts as: 1) The Caltrans prediction for PCH traffic is greater than that pre- sently being used by the City; 2) Predictions do not allow for the natural tendency of traffic loads to increase on a street which is no longer impacted; 3) State projects are often delayed; 4) Our City is unique in its inability to expand the roadway system beyond certain configurations without serious detriment to valuable residential or ecological areas - or lower roadway quality in terms 1 of width of lanes, center dividers, shoulders etc; 5) We are being extremely reasonable and fair in not using summer week day peak period traffic in the averages. The INTERPRETATIONS made should allow us to be assured that accepta- ble roads, once built, will indeed solve the problems. Mr. Kremer's discussion of traffic, traffic, traffic, traffic, traffic, should be followed up by one entitled promises, promises, promises, promises, promises! Or. Who can really promise us that the bridge will solve the current traffic let alone what' s planned? CONCLUSIONS : 1. Regarding the interpretation of "mitigating measures" . a. City street improvements are not "mitigation" for a specific Date Q -/7- 7� project. The City's street system should be planned by the COPIES SENT TO: City and only used in calculations for the project's traffic i_1 Mayor as a part of the City's system. X manager b. It is honest and just to have the project be able to include 'Attorney in its computations "mitigating measures" if such measures . PWDire-or are within its control. (Ford Aeronutronics seems to be ComDev Director making an attempt to use the term fairly in their plans) . O.Other It is not just for a project to include basic parts of the 11 City traffic system as its own measures. It does not con- [) Councilmert trol these in any way. In as much as they are not controlled by the project, they cannot be presumed to be built and finished at the same time as the project and must be viewed as predictions . (See next item) . 2. Regarding use of predictions. a. Predictions of roadway capacity is uncertain (scary) and the only way to be assured of .successful planning is to place maximum reliance on actual measurable data and minimum reliance on predictions. Reasons are above under paragraph dealing with "viewing projections withe considerable alarm" . b. We should not use projected roadway capacities at least • until: there is a firm committment to acceptable land use and densities; or, by some miracle, the Traffic Computer Model gives us reliable predicting abilities. c. Predictions of traffic volumn from projects already approved is reasonably certain but there are pros and cons to its in- clusion in computations of future available capacities. PRO - (to include approved projects ' traffic) - Permitted projects would not be allowed to "stack up" prior to the time the volumn of traffic is actually there. - This could be vital if many projects had permits but were not yet built or occupied. CONS - (not using approved projects ' traffic) - There are uncertainties in these predictions just as in roadway ca- pacities - the permitted project may not be built - so that, to be consistent, perhaps these predictions should not be used. d. The MOST ASSURANCE we could have of being right and protec- ting the City's interests pertaining to roadway capacities ' would be if we: 1. Did not use projected roadway capacities but did in- clude predicted volumn from approved projects. 2. Allowed the Traffic Phasing Ordinance to work using the above interpretations. 3. Allowed the Fee District concept to progress only when there is a revised General Plan so that zoning will be low enough to assure us of adequate road capacity. If the roads prove to be more capable, more growth can be allowed. s . -3- i WHAT DO OUR STATEMENTS MEAN IN TERMS OF THE 2 CURRENT PROJECTS: A. Signal Development project. 1. 2 intersections are impacted slightly. a. One is to be improved by striping a right turn lane one by addition of a traffic lane. b. To allow a permit you would have to: Accept future road improvements and predictions of capacity; in a sense, give a variance to the imposi- tion of more traffic to the existing system. 2. Since the Ordinance is designed specifically to prevent the continued premature impact and, to assign a level of "signi- ficance" , there are some questions that should be answered before action is taken. a. If a "variance" (so to speak) is allowed in this case, does that jeopardize future decisions where more is at stake. b. Does actual viewing of those intersections support the view that this "leeway" should be permitted. After all, this project could have been of` a size to be under the level of significance. Do we want to encourage others to ask for "just a little more"? B. Pacific Plaza. 1. 10 intersections are impacted severely. a. 2 of them - PCH/Dover and PCH/Bayside are dependent on the widening of the bridge. b. 8 of them are dependent on intersection improvements which presumably are part of the planned City circu- lation system. 2. The Ordinance should: a. No} allow these 10 system improvements to be used as mitigation measures for this project. The system im- provements should be planned by the City so that the system can be analyzed in .its entirety, these improve- ments being consistent with plans for the whole system. The system is only as good as its weakest link - and by the very nature of our City, our circulation system will be weak in certain spots unless we want to destroy the quality of residential or recreational areas. b. Not allow a permit until the system is improved and will accommodate the traffic. If we do •not do this there can be serious difficulties. EXAMPLE: Imagine the PCII/Jamboree intersection now - and include traffic from projects under- construction such as Corporate Plaza. The Pacific Plaza project suggests a second west turn lane on PCH (west to south- bound) and a third westbound through lane on PCH. Traf- fic will then be squeezed back into the two westbound lanes at the Promontory Point signal and if this is all done prior to the bridge widening, can you imagine the result. Don't forget to include the other increased traffic turning right onto PCH £rom Jamboree and also squeezing into the two lanes. An actual viewing of this intersection at various peak hours is urgent. _- *'� City Council Wing October 24 , 1,978 Agenda Item No. D-4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH October 18, 1978 TO: City Council FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Public Hearing and City Council Review of Planning Commission ' s Action of September 21 , 1978, approving a traffic study for two garden type general office buildings . LOCATION : Lots 18, 19 , 43, and 44 , Tract No. 3201 , located at 4060 and 4100 Campus Drive and 4063 and 4101 Birch Street, southeasterly of Campus Drive and south- westerly of Dove Street, across from the Orange County Airport. ZONE: M-1 -A APPLICANT: Signal Development Corporation , Irvine OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach Application This application requests the approval of a traffic study prepared in accordance with the City ' s Traffic Phasing Ordinance and requests that the City make its findings , as required by the Ordinance, in order to allow the issuance of building permits . 'Section 15 .40 .030 (iii )E of the Municipal Code provides for an appeal to the City Council from an action by the Planning Commission on an application or a determination by the City Counci Wo review an application . Suggested Action Hold hearing; close hearing; if desired, sustain, modify or overrule the decision of the Planning Commission . Planning Commission Recommendation At its meeting of September 21 , 1978, the Planning Commission voted (4 Ayes , 2 Noes , 1 Absent) to make the finding that: "The proposed project, including traffic mitigation measures , will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on any ' major' , ' primary-modified' or ' primary ' street; " TO: City Council - 2. and accept the Traffic Report, subject to the condition that: Y "The occupancy of the buildings will not occur until improvements have been impl'emented. " Background An initial traffic study , dated September 5, 1978, and attached to the Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 15 , 1978, was prepared by JHK and Associates and completed in conformance with the administrative guidelines adopted by the City Council . The conclu- sions of the study are summarized on Page 4 of that report, and the standard work sheets used to arrive at those conclusions are contained in Appendix A of the report. Seven critical intersections were identified by the City ' s Traffic Engineer for analysis . Of the seven, only two were affected by additional traffic from the proposed project. These intersections were identified as Bristol Street (North)/Campus Drive where the ICU was increased by .01 from 1 . 00 , and MacArthur Boulevard/Campus Drive where the ICU was increased by .01 from .94. The difference of 01 in each case was created by the addition of sixteen cars to the West- Through movement at the intersection of Bristol Street North/Campus , and the addition of two cars to the West-Through movement at the MacArthur Boulevard/Campus intersection . A supplemental report to the Planning Commission, dated September 20 , 1978, further analyzed the affect the project traffic would have on these two intersections . In the case of Bristol Street (North)/ Campus Drive, the critical movement calculation which changes the ICU is the westbound through-right movement which changes from .2641 to .2670, a difference of .0029 which rounded causes the ICU to go from .26 to . 27. In the case of MacArthur/Campus , the critical move- ment calculation which changes the ICU was also the westbound through right movement which changed from .2747 to . 2753, a difference of .0006 which rounded causes the ICU to go from .27 to .28. It was further noted in the supplemental staff report that the existing ICU at MacArthur/Campus would be- reduced from .94 to . 73 at the P .M. approvalhour ofwith AmendmentpNoVe505ts�r T> he - W%913hN easV� AlorImAuvE ,10YAU,&ej l r1ma, ) i� Because of the marginal effect caused by this project and the fact that road improvements were planned which would mitigate this effect, i .e. , the required improvements at MacArthur/Campus and proposed restriping at Bristol (North)/Campus, the Commission felt the accep- tance of the study, with occupancy of the structures tied to instal - lation of the improvements , was a logical , reasonable and prudent course of action to follow. Subsequent Traffic Report Subsequent to the Planning Commission action of September 21 , 1978, a second traffic study was performed by JHK and Associates to determine TO: City Council - 3 . " " what mitigation measures would be required to reduce the impact of the project so that the ICU with the project would be equal to or below the existing ICU level . The conclusions of the consultant are found on Page 5 of the report dated October 3 , 1978. In summary , the report finds that the existing ICU at the intersection of Bristol (North )/Campus can be reduced from 1 .00 to . 81 ( . 8064 rounded to four figures ) by providing an exclusive right-turn lane for southbound to westbound on Campus . Sufficient pavement width exists to provide this lane . In fact, vehicles are presently using the excess pavement for this purpose . This additional width is under the jurisdiction of the County and would require an encroach- ment permit from the County to accomplish the work. With respect to the MacArthur/Campus Drive intersection , it was found that the Campus Drive westbound non-stop right-turn lane to Mac- Arthur northbound had not been included in the ICU Analysis Forms initially provided by the City . When this intersection rounded analyzed, the existing ICU was reduced from .94 to . 93 (� to four figures ) . With the addition of the project traffic the ICU remains the same at .93 ( .9335 rounded to four figures) . Conclusion Based on the study performed subsequent to the Planning Commission meeting of September 21 , 1978, the City Council can concur in the finding of the Planning Commission . Except in this case , the sole' mitigation required would be the additional exclusive right-turn lane from southbound Campus to westbound Bristol (North) . In order to assure that the mitigation can be carried out, the staff would recommend that the applicant be required to obtain the required encroachment permit to stripe the intersection prior to the issuance of building permits by the City for the project. Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V . HOGAN, Director Bytssstant . HEWI KERJDH/kk Director - Planning Attachments for Council Only : 1 ) Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 15 , 1978 with attachments 2) Supplemental Report dated September 20 , 1978 3) Excerpt of Minutes from Planning Commission Meeting of September 21 , 1978 4) Traffic Report dated October 3, 1978 5 ) ICU Calculations with Figures Rounded to Four Decimal Places Planning Commission Meeting, September 21 , 1978 Agenda Item No . 5 y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH September 15 , 1978 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Traffic Study• Office Building Development. - Campus Drive Request to consider a Traffic Study for two 20,000 square feet+, two-story, garden type, general office buildings on the subject property (Public Hearing) . LOCATION: Lots 18, 19 , 43, and 44, Tract No. 3201 , located at 4060 and 4100 Campus Drive and 4063 and 4101 Birch Street, southeasterly of Campus Drive and southwesterly of Dove Street, across from the Orange County Airport. TONE: M-1-A APPLICANT: Signal Development Corporation, Irvine OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach AMlication This application requests the approval of a traffic study prepared in accordance with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, and requests that the Planning Commission make its findings , as required by the Ordinance, in order to allow the issuance of building permits for two office buildings, each containing approximately 21 ,000 square feet. Analysis The traffic study was prepared by JNK and Associates, and was completed in conformance with the administrative guidelines adopted by the City Council . The conclusions of the study are summarized on Page 4 of the report, and the standard worksheets used to arrive at those conclusions are contained in Appendix A of the report. Briefly, of the seven critical intersections identified by the City's Traffic Engineer for analysis , only two intersections were affected by additional traffic from the proposed project. These intersections are Bristol Street North/Campus Drive and MacArthur Boulevard/Campus Drive. The Intersection Capacity Utilization (I .C.U. ) is increased by .01 at each intersection. The difference is caused by the addition of 16 cars to the West-Through movement at the intersection of Bristol Street North/Campus, and the addition of two cars to the West-Through movement at. the MacArthur Boulevard/Campus intersection. ti lo: Ilanning Commission - 2 Recommendation Because of the marginal impact identified in the I .C .U . analysis , no specific mitigation measures were developed for the project. In reality , the net impact at each intersection is less than .01 , but the process of rounding-off the numbers for presentation purposes causes the I .C .U . to .increase . It is anticipated that planned improvements at each of the intersections will more than accommodate the net impact of the proposed projects . These improvements include increasing the capacity of the MacArthur/Campus intersection (as included in the conditions of approval for Amendment No. 505 , Koll Center) , and restriping the intersection of North Bristol at Campus . Although no firm schedule has been finalized, these improvements should be in place in the near future in conjunction with the construction of previously approved development in the area . Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission accept the traffic report as presented and make the following finding regarding the project: "The proposed project, including traffic mitigation measures , will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on any 'major' , ' primary-modified' or ' primary' street. " DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V . Hogan , Director Beverly yb od Environ ntal Coordinator BW: jmb Attachment: Traffic Report - JHK & Associates W Jhk & associates = James H. Kell, president September 5, 1978 e 0 �S`y GFCF�� . .., !•,n rfy Ms. Beverly Wood �`, N t��:roP Environmental Coordinator �� �1:r,; eH Community Development Department !� City of Newport Beach /�/u, 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, California 92663 Dear Ms. Wood: This letter-type report describes the findings of our traffic analysis of the proposed Signal Development Corporation office development located between Campus Drive, Birch Street, Dove Street and Quail Street in the City of Newport Beach. The subjects discussed in this report are as follows: 0 Site Location 0 'Project Description 0 Critical Intersection Locations 0 Trip Generation 0 Trip Distribution 0 Trip Assignment 0 Critical Intersection Impact Analysis 0 Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis 0 Conclusions Site Location The proposed project is bound by Campus Drive and Birch Street, and between Quail Street and Dove Street in the City of Newport Beach ' (Figure 1) . The site is directly across Campus Drive from the Orange County Airport and is surrounded primarily by office and similar type developments. 1617 East 17th Street, Suite 20 0 Santa Ana, California 92701 • (714) 973-0455 IUUP \ fI OLVO k auwn' w .,•� :•elvo I:::o:::r� •M1 I ♦ ` J •"''�q1i° a :,,„,.:°e "• ta'; ° •�. �.�:..'•..�. r�'•.� �� Joni'♦ v:..' , ,��� .d r.t•.. ... 9• •'~ ,. �a�gr/s. p� l �. •w.(n^au OS 1•� `•p 4 t5 S t:: .Y...N t irnl qu.0 c •.! y •,•�4 I yr ruun �♦ x I I — w` �q1>-{-. '•..P. ,u11u• ■ww'svrnv-- ' � .I t� �r'r 9AN III[AO j i ,SAY OIEGO �i`.�- �r}rj"jr:�I,ry }.y. •ssffe _ y5'^�'(y°SI� I L I h��' ����!C,. ';'� a ,amix �^ .'Y"n^79 a`� + f i I \ I • ..'..xnn° b i .v e 1 .a,ouivaixo '.. .� % I ! •� •ri--JrOAItER:__ �Z9' � ♦ � •r+•n: � I s w u�' �9 . � O � 1♦a ,. I ., 3 4 I ♦,• - y. �'A if �I ♦ py WywNl I `• � •♦ , 4 7 Qh, >C t yr.•.OI ' �pA I I � ���;f ��4 '"�y '•rfr� ���r �+ I5ITE LOCATION ��o."�a ,9 ,T .ti r••, ,a r ;-rg; Y,.;= 6 `°Fc I .,� '"� I �5 ,1 � i��''" r.�� 37 ti 1' IC'J♦« tf 6 wo_WI jt I -!`V +• I5• t�q'' ,J :a I`��. as t•A. ��-;:... i C C" C . ♦ `✓ .;` { .�` �'�2.� .0`wr �','A�+� /, yr1 w.s'�'l"t F � I ..a,•ru. ¢♦tv!!t�r° tti♦T{�'8• PT ♦:,•• � • i � �tfi'., r1�,� a- C'' I�c;�i� / tr;,C"ar .�A♦ .N„�,. / I \, '•. i'•i}�. ��� 1 ' �:Jii..V'I Oro n+ 7:T���S, - n.. of •fib, ! iG„� } It rr • •M �9';♦ , •��'II',Y. ••^nuu+'-NBOY� --I'- '. �'�' � •Y''1f� ♦ YY. ♦♦' 'EI p�^�,rr I i I / wy* I� : / �,� :i=i::. !•':�.. .....y, w,t p a� � I , umumr . nam 4 II// `' .43 �. i IRVINE FF .fjy�•y'..1,-� a 161 °d:�?S.'y� III j y'y' ,7'�=^d � ♦ Figure 1 SITE LOCATION t v ..arc, :�i�;'1" 1 •�.v�.! � jhk......, 2 Project Description T The proposed development under study is for two 21,000 square foot gross floor area office buildings (Figure 2) . One of the proposed office buildings fronts on Campus Drive and the second on Birch Street. Primary access to the site will be via Campus Drive and Birch Street. Both of these streets lead to Bristol Street and North Bristol Street, a major east-west one-way couplet. Access is also available to MacArthur Blvd. and Jamboree Blvd. These are major north-south arterials that provide access south to Pacific Coast High- way and north to the San Diego Freeway, approximately 1h miles. Critical Intersection Identification The proposed office development is located in Critical Intersec- tion Identification Area 1 as identified by the City of Newport Beach. Required in the traffic phasing ordinance, any project to be developed in Area 1, must have as many as twelve intersections analyzed to deter- mine whether the proposed development will have a negative traffic impact on the corresponding intersections. In discussions with the Traffic Engineering Division of Public Works, seven intersections were selected for this analysis. The cri- tical intersections identified are presented in Figure 3. Trip Generation Average Daily Traffic (ADT) , PM Peak 2h Hour, and PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume Trip Generation Rates were supplied by the City of Newport Beach Traffic Engineering Division of Public Works. These generation rates along with the trips generated from this proposed development are presented in Table 1. Trio Distribution Trip distribution to/from the study area was provided by the City. Their source for the distribution was based on a trip distribution study for the Emkay Development located easterly of the proposed r �L u.1-.il_u.l."L Dov6 P•C .�,. n •• � !► mac'► ti r •• i • N r1 N a 1�q a RC 1 r MI •• •' -ryr�peatNo.739a. i 1, Y It.A'N AC. ST 1 I P_C I At- '•tea �.� ;. r • M �I M n sT N acA � t • MI " � i � p� —__ti__. 11y DRI3rOL ��—� STREE N�N k V T DEL MAIL fRECW YQ fuTURE CORONA �M • F .tee'= - QP/ST0.' t STREC. . Figure 2 SITE DESIGN jhk & asscxiltes 1 �D e m s o a::i_rI I ti c ,un P I etvo 0 u.Yl:w'_ , ..n.Y a rani• MI a '° n.� f`, _,` E t`OQp !'`� I , i ;i' �':..g Yr � �� ..di�sn u' rq.ra In•' r 4 y Y• I ' Y j +IY YMlwtll-X � r• .. `U ,r4r I / 'bJ Y� I • I, 'Mn/lM4 N/Y i COST�4 • �' S ui• Y• M•Y � Y/YY III/II rIr.ON I 1 I � r SAN r)EAO SAN DIEGO f /14/ni pp••Y lV F! I•�I/UIIXWO ( /• I — y n F I r7� I•. i f 1, C if m; a I Y •.. Y � 4 O pJ, . Vt �u .�' • V n� 11 I �f, •J � I• I ,. •. oy r I ar oa• I : .• d .. •rIl I,` H� 1�,' �JL'IM'•wr. �O ! + —+��t��".}}�`'W. Y d ( • •�J Yrl a� 0 1J 'r 4Fw:i I I ✓� I SG lM"a'' / �,Q�i. .� J4,4•IbF , � dy JP1'.'u:N lYl:t `Cirv� ;g! / I ?, J �::;' ( ya4' f bJ li?!n `Y•d '. °' �`'p 9 .• I:.S' � I �:�,ts7.� +•,� +,{. • �. \Yy. r, ,y f/r yt 'h. rL IYI I M� ./ r r=Z,wM i Jfl^.�,♦ ♦ •" .1 � . G O.Y' l•• U •l II nerlrY 4 .'i Is, � �`. y'a• � wr'W'ir�nn � ` �. •1 rMr „ Ib � 111111 � f11M r lr �' . b'•r�a°w;ri.'." I.r 11/vy VtilaY ' I ^Mr ' I J t, aor n. i' .1 , •• '�� I .ul/YuuJ Jumw t 'I�a •! �.• � R I Inur u -47'`,h #�Tn�fw. t�,f 3�Si>Y 7 p 4'M1 i I RV I N E �IBL4CH' g`r/ •w � r •� /1 ti J URI e~ � Figure 3 NEWPORT BEACH CRITICAL J p M1 — 'B "-,tv`•"':tw INTERSECTION IDENTIFICATION jhk jhk. . Table 1 Trip Generation* Trip Ends Generated (Based on 42,000 sq.ft. GFA) Average Daily Traffic 13 Trip Ends per 1,000 Square 546 Trip Ends Feet Gross Floor Area PM Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volumes Inbound: 1.2 TE/1,000 sq.ft. GFA 50 Trip Ends Outbound: 3.4 TE/1,000 sq.ft. GFA 143 Trip Ends PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volumes Inbound: .6 TE/1,000 sq.ft. GFA 25 Trip Ends Outbound: 1.7 TE/1, 000 sq.ft. GFA 72 Trip Ends * Trip Generation Rates from City of Newport Beachr Traffic Engineering Division of Public Works jhk.�.�. r a drvolopment. The trip distribution percentage used in this analysis is presented in Figure 4. Trip Assignment The trip assignment in this analysis is based upon the trip generation and trip distribution previously presented. In this assign- ment process, it was assumed to evenly split the traffic to/from the proposed site via Campus Drive and. Birch Street. Traffic to/from these two streets were proportionately assigned to the trip distribu- tion cordon locations. The trip assignment from this analysis is pre- sented in Figure 5. Critical Intersection Impact Analysis Critical intersection impact is determined if the project will generate more than one percent of existing traffic volumes during the PM Peak 2h Hour period on any leg of the critical intersections iden- tified previously in the report. If the traffic generated is more than one percent of the existing traffic volumes, then an Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis is required. The City of Newport Beach has provided the 1% Traffic Volume calculation forms. These were filled in using the trip assignment values previously presented'. The forms are presented in Appendix A. In analyzing the seven critical intersections within proximity of the study site, two were estimated to have project traffic greater than 1% of the existing PM Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volumes, as presented in Figure 6. These intersections are Bristol Street North/Campus Drive and MacArthur Blvd./Campus Drive, and require Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis Intersection capacity utilization (ICU) calculations have been made for existing traffic volumes and existing plus projected traffic t ' S' C� Ptvo 7 x.r..I:�'-•9 �p�ll�+/° . �,•? ''�-::I '•%�I ~� � --- I• — iNUP �W °:—�.�` — __ — R --=''1'•"�' t=�' : ` •� rc— 'yei�il'I' ° ' >• � • r� y"h .E; ,:i a ""°•�° .,I. i4';� + ..� "C���.` �' - 4 .•�' `� yr .Jo • ,°.�y__M:. �a�� � � • ,mod r {' . _•• q n,WS'yl�' p6� I � I •� IY n.W.� flMi.-IY �1 I ,j, ��.•t�I ..• swr.wu a.:� Q� I �I i YJ•r•N 1.,1, p COSTA Y • '``' y "rrw • •: :I I a `r,, ' .• uuuu lw°ru.�+.mo�'u.—•---+--- 1 ' — I �t i` � �I �,—• — -- `--- _SAN DIE O a• Y I • 1 rime •m °•- — •, • S) S Lw s = d° v e $vuiiPPixO ;� I /NO�IN IKC r t, I � 'rYl _ _ n--Jr 811NfRF �a• ♦ �y � I ,,K w r . • w a'n9 • :�, Y.'" 8 a0 I aFGp 25%1ot '0 I g� tI0 T / •0 I �r • •rrnu rn r r.• I ' I �• .�:. ` ..furl a! c c .fy+A 4% I i rtp c•frC( •iM r y' ,� ..; ..' P f yb' ..41.�' T .a I 4` I I �q.''•�,. u� < , �' rr � " otti.!;.._...� 1. b °4 I ..i;:� I IA rys"�•, I 1 'k,t3�.,; A '! p� of �awv +y`', O yr'•`jy , (jt, IIf, I v ' 1PlF �,d +q j0���,LLL /^'' C �a� ` ? G9:. 1''f /• 1 •�t1Y•'r 4, ♦ � a �yr . c" d ' ' {� a f! +�A 'n� 1 r � '1 _irrr...5.��... .J�.t •i{• L�. 2 . •. i�.:r.a' w ,h• .♦M1 I yi I� rum �� .nr I rm '`�f f'•�'��'•".'A r"we..,' n :f7r `:r.�r.i +k7@•! ' i yMr �,. !•t� / 4, •, n•. �,,.•':;:P. � :wrj I I ..morn nuum• rrr/ IRVINt -` eo ! LL x EACH119 Figure 4 TRIP DISTRIBUTION ' ' •`"(� �—"11 f '! ♦ ' ?'.f' `:, j h k h associates � � m , MN •�1 G o J� m' I'A CAMPUS DR. 3 -0► n M b R�cp M do 3 10 BIRCH ST. do m W U P � O m o i DOVE j a- a i , 3 to .4 coin h 32�j N ^� 39 9 9 QUAIL O RT�G N P1�� `"^k—y NORTH BRISTOL ST. g 65 2 n BRISTOL ST. 'i 10 23-- ► 12 11� 11.0' 6 Figure 5 TRIP ASSIGNMENT (PM Peek A Hour Period) jhk & „soc,a«_ I ry n x G �2 CAMPUS DR. q4) BIRCH ST. a E+ A N N � U tWWo U DOVE O QUAILf'A nor+ 8'L vp NORTH BRISTOL ST. 16 BRISTOL ST. PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volumes • Intersections with 1% PM ' Peak 2�-Hour Traffic Volumes (Requires ICU Analysis) Figure 6 INTERSECTIONS WITH It PM O Intersections with less than 1% PEAK 2y HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES PM Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volumes jhk & associates jhk....., 4 volumes for existing geometrics at MacArthur Boulevard/Campus Drive and Bristol Street North/Campus Drive. The calculations are contained in Appendix B. It was determined that for both intersections existing plus projected traffic ICU will be greater than existing ICU that is currently greater than 0.90. Conclusions Seven critical intersections within proximity of the study site were selected by the City for 1% PM Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume Ana- lysis. Two of these intersections were estimated to have project traffic greater than 1% of the existing PM Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volumes. These intersections are Bristol Street North/Campus Drive and Mac Arthur Boulevard/Campus Drive. These latter two intersections were further analyzed for Project PM Peak 1 Hour Volumes using Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) calculation forms provided by the City of Newport Beach. It was determined that the intersections of Mac Arthur Boulevard/Campus Drive and Bristol Street North/Campus Drive, will have existing plus project traffic ICU greater than existing ICU that is currently greater than 0.90. Respectfully submitted, Ray A. Moe Transportation Planner cc: Bill E. Darnell, i • jhk. . APPENDIX A 1% Traffic Volume Analysis 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection M��AgZNUR'BLND/ 1! nRtVE (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1976) Existing 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2� Hour Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Vol Northbound 2888 24 18 L 3124 31 13 1693::::# 17 28 2004 20 4 Project Traffic is estimated to be Tess than 1% of Existing Peak 2's Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be-greater than.-1% of Existing ILI Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. INTERSECTION MacARTHUR BLVD/CAMPUS DRIVE FORM I 1'ROJCCT: ,• i9 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection RRTSTQI STREET NnRTNWS9etPUS�BLVE - IRVINE AVE. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter/Spring-1979 Existing 1% of Existing Project pproach Peak 22 Hour Peak 0-2Hour Peak 22 Hour Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volu Northbound 1504 15 12 Southbound 3705 37 39 Eastbound -- 34 Westbound 4790 46 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume © Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection' Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET NORTH/CAMPUS DRIVE - IRVINE AVE. FORM I PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection_@gISIQLSIB 7'7C DRIYF IRVINE AVE. (Existing Traffic Vo umes based on Average W nter/Spring 1978) Existing 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 2'' Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Direction Traffic Volume Traffic .Volume Traffic Volum Northbound 1606 16 -- Southbound 3164 32 6 Eastbound 3027 30 23 Westbound -- -' aProject Traffic is estimated to be less than i% of Existing Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to .be greater than 1% of Existing ❑ Peak 231 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. INTERSECTION _ IS OL STREET .CAMPUS DRIVE - IRVINE AVE. UR T / FORM I PROJECI : 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE BLVD (CAMPUS DRIVE (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) --------------------------- ing 1% of Existing Project Approach Hour Peak 2'k Hour Peak 235 Hour Direction ' FMTrafficolume Traffic Volume Traffic Yolu Northbound 3452 35 10 5outhbound 3417 34 5 ' 10 Eastbound 2 . estbound 17 Project Traffic is estimated to be less- than 1% of Existing nX Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 21j Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. INTERSECTION JAMBOREE BLVD./CAMPUS DRIVE FORM I PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL STREET NORTH/JAMBOREE ROAD (Existing Traffic Volumes base on Average inter Spring 1978) Existing 1% of Existing Project pproach Peak 2h Hour Peak 2 Hour Peak 2h Hour Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volumc Northbound 5153 52 1 Southbound 2 Eastbound -- -- 3 estbound ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing ❑ Peak 21� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C,.U.) Analysis is required. INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET NORTH/JAMBOREE ROAD FORM I PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRTSTOL STR /1AMBORFF ROAO (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 197$) Existing % of Existing Project Approach Peak 2� Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2k Hour Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volu Northbound 4996 50 1 L 2359 24 2778 28 13 -- Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 2, Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. INTERSECTION BRTSTOL STREET/JAMBOREE ROAD FORM I PROJECE: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis (1) Intersection JAMBOREE ROAD/MacARTHUR BLVD. (Existing Traffic Vo umes based on verage. Winter/Spring 1978) Existing 1X of Existing Project Approach Peak 2►1 Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2's Hour Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volumc Northbound 1681 17 3 LEastbouEnd 2814 28 9 2923 29 3037 30 © Project Traffic is estimated to be less than•1% of Existing Peak 2= Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be 0 grelter ,than 1% of Existing Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity•Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. (1) MacArthur Blvd, is assumed north and south INTERSECTION JAMBOREE ROAD/MacARTHUR BLVD. FORM I PROJECT: jhk APPENDIX B Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis I INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection�3Ris'I•ot, SrRE �r NOr',, A AM p.U•5 (Ixi';ting Traffic Volumes Based on Average inter/SpriA19781) Move- Lanes Capa- Existingl Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio NL 1 SI - Sl 0. 0< 00 NT 6 513 Ln , NR SL — ST '1 1'Z 3 a `1 51 � SR J 1In '� I6 5 S EL -- - - -- ET ER - WL 1 i fodb 37.1 — 3L/ 0, 20 v10 Wr 1 0.2b ' WR 30 3 33 Yellow Time o d O do Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. 0.0 Existin Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. h o ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound; W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 EJExisting Plus Project Traffic I.C.O. 'will be less than .or equal to. Existing Conditions I.C.U. Existing Plus Project. fraff i c I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 141 Existing Plus Project Traffic' I.C:U. wi11 •be greater than existing' l� I.C.U. that is currently greater. than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION FORM II non icrr. 4 IN•SECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION AN•SIS Intersection Nlc ��Ps� :�t.-_ �}�Ji. (:t�•l' i; •.- l ' :. (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 197,-) Move- Lanes Capa- ^Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume - Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio - NY L (goo I 0. 0-11 D? NA ' >zoo 9 lo53 m.� � .33 N K, T _ 7 s�L , cc 02� /D3D o. 32 3 s ii 3 �oj J3 E L E T 2 to 42 ( 5 c/2{0 ON S MC' 1DD O , Ob 06 W T �- 1pp vs 2 Sy O,Z 2 W r 01110 /0 Yellow Time Existing Intersection CaRacity Utilization I.C.U. 049 Existinq Plus Project Intersection Capacitj Utilization I.C.U. p.9S ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk N N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, •W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L-Left 0 Existing Plus •Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 l Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less -than or equal to F_I Existing Conditions 'I.C.U. r Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1l;�71 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing IL�J I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 nFurther analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION (FORM II - I PROJECT: �24. Y•(� R 1 E Planning Commission Meeting September 21 2 1978 Agenda Item No. 5 SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH September 20, 1978 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Traffic Study: Office Building Development - Campus Drive Introduction The subject site consists of two parcels that resulted from Resubdivision 593. On August 3, 1978, the Planning Commission approved the creation of two parcels , where four lots previously existed, for the purpose of office development. Had the ,appli'cant not combined the lots , it would have been possible to build four office buildings , each under 10,000 square feet, and been exempt from the requirements of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Also, the applicant could have elected to submit each project individually, in which case two traffic studies would have been prepared, and the impacts calculated for each project. It is possible tht each ata aeither ofo the tintersections ygiven lthe oeffect oft have f thee d the C.U. combined project. Analysis There were seven intersections identified for study. These are listed below along with existing I .C.U . ' s: 1 . Campus/MacArthur .94* 2. Bristol (North)/Campus 1 .00 3. Bristol (South)/Irvine .72 4 . Jamboree/Campus 1 . 17 5, Bristol (North)/Jamboree .72 6. Bristol (South)./Jamboree . 54 7. Jamboree/MacArthur .85 *With improvements required in Amendment 505 , the "existing" I .C.U . will be , 73 for the PM peak hour. (Wes Pringle, April 6, 1978, Attachment 1 ) As noted in the traffic study, the proposed project-generated .traffic was more than 1'% of the existing approach volumes at two intersections - southbound at Bristol (North)/Campus and eastbound at Campus/MacArthur. According to the adopted administrative procedures, these two intersections were further analyzed to determine if the project-generated traffic i 10 : Planning Commission - 2 affected the operation of the intersections , i . e. , affected the I .C.U . Since the Ordinance defines "level of traffic service" as a two-place decimal numerical value, all calculations are presented as two-place decimals , and a normal procedure of "rounding" the numbers occurs . Using the Bristol Street (North)/Campus Drive calculations as an example (form II ) , the critical movement calculation which changes the I .C .U . is the westbound through-right movement. The westbound through- right movement changes from . 2641 to . 2670, a difference of .0029. However, "rounding" the numbers , the I .C.U . goes from .26 to . 27 . Similarly, at MacArthur/Campus westbound through-right, the I .C.U. �oes from . 2747 to' . 2753, but shows as . 27 to .28 because of "rounding. " A difference of .0006) . Planned Improvements The ultimate geometrics at the Campus/MacArthur intersection will include three lanes in each direction, left-turn lanes (double left-turn lane capability) , plus right-turn lanes . These improvements are illustrated in Attachment II , and were included in the approval of Amendment 505 . Th I .C .U. with these improvements is expected to be . 73 in the P.M. peak hour. Summary This additional information has been supplied to clarify the staff report prepared for the Commission meeting on September 21 , 1978. The analysis indicates a marginal effect caused by this project on the critical intersections . If the Planning Commission wishes to see the exact numerical effect of the mitigation measures on these intersections , the report may be referred back to the staff and the traffic consultant for the third set of calculations -- I .C .U. ' s including mitigation measures . DEPARTMENT Of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V ./Hogan, Director By iLle Ur Beverly,,! o EnvirVmental Coordinator BW: jmb Attachments IERSECTION CAPACITY WILIZATION D'..' MACWrH BOULEVARD AND CAMPUS DRIVE OR Existing Traffic Volumes Plus Traffic Generated by 379,800 Square Feet of Building Capacity Volume/Capacity Movement volume posed Existing Proposed Existing Pro Geometries Geometries Geometrica Geometries Lanes Vehicles tines vehicles r hour AM Y`i a:l PhA` PK per hour Fe 39 35 26 24 2 3200 3 4800 10 Northbound Through 1240 1120 1 1600 1 1600 10 10 10 10* 70 so 1 1600 2 3200 10a 10* to' %orthbound Right 60 90 * 24* Northbound Left 2 3200 3 4800' 53* 36* 26 11 1710 1150 1 1600 20 11 Southbound Through 320 •170 1 1600 1600 2 3200 24 to L2 10 3 Southbound Right360 120 1 19 16 18 13 n Southbound Left 2 3200 2 3200to 440 D 1 1600 Z4* 16* 24* 16* z 10 to Eastbound fight 530) 70) 0 1 1600 Eastbound Right 350 260 1 1600 . * 23* Eastbound Left 2 3200 2 3200 I1* * lU 14 350 740 1 1600 10 Westbound Through 70 220 1 16�00 1 1600 10 10 10 Westbound 90 100 1 1 Westbound Left Intersection Capaeity Utiliaatioa 98 85 St 73 y * Critical Movement Included in Total to Determine Intersection Capacity Utilisation ps { • 'C X t { � ATTACHMENT _ i Figure 3 EXISTING AND FUTURE INTERSECTION GEOMETRICS MacArthur Do levard and campus Dr ve i • I t'T Campus 1 Existing b. I I To Be Added — — a. 1 I I to prepare this traffic analysis for you. If there are It Il.ts Lu.•n a plc:taur• assistance, please do not hesitate any yueatianat or if we can be of further to call us. Dvaprrl roll ly auhmilt.'d. PItINt:l.l: ANU ASSIX:I KI'IiS —7 C wcetun B. Prin91" P.I:. WSP:W':Wl" 11U7111 3� INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS I Intersection Bristol Street North/Cam us Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on verage inter Spring 1978) 1 Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Ex st. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio NL` 1 1600 81 -' b/ a5 .05* .46001 NT 2 3200 587 fi 03d3 .18 . /8,63 NR - - - SL _ - - ST _ 2 3200 1241 3 294 .59* SR 637 1, 53 EL - - - - ET - - - ER - - - - WL 1 1600 321 32-1 -?p0'�'.20 .2006 WT 4 6400 1660 /G 7 G 26* WR 30 33 Z 2G90 "Yellow Time .10 ./000 Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C:U. 1.00 Existin Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) 0/Ot ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N■Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 nExisting Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. r 1 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 UExisting Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 nFurther analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION Bristol Street North/Campus Drive —' FORM II PROJLCI : -1 INTERS&ON CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYb1• Intersection MacArthur Blvd. Cam us Drive 3 (Lxisting Traffic Volumes Basil on verage Winter Spring 1978) Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Ex st. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Pezk Hr Volume Ratio Ratio i 7* .ob93 NL_ 1 1600 ill 31L3 NT _ 2 3200 1044 NR _ 73 73 °350 SL 1 1600 56 '� 56 .04 0350 030 .3z°6.32* .32/8 ST _ 3 3200 1026 4 ,11510 ,13 •/2 SR 1 1600 201 3 .2 + 176/ ,18* • /8 37 EL 1 1600 285 0710f E7 2 3200 421 '.S 42G }d f .15 /r 1G ER - 53 S 3 - /oo °�ZS.06 .0625 32� 825 a,27 WL 1 200 ,a747'.27* 2 53 W7 2 25 2 WR 1 54 5� - .10 ./AGd Yellow Time Existing Intersection Ca acit Utilization I.C.U. Existing Plus Pro ect Intersection Ca acit Utilization I.C.U. ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk N N•Northbound, S=Southbound, EQEastbound, W=Westbound. T=Through, RoRight, L■leElft Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 F l Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to I—� Existing Conditions I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTFRSECTION MacArthur Blvd./Campus Drive FORM II PROJECT : INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection �G^^ �;as�s.le, }L�i= �� �( ir,I'i_�_ •i''"`= - (Existing Traffic Volumess Base on Average winter Spring 197_;) Move- Lanes Capa- `Existing Project Existing Exlst. Project ment city 'Voluak me 'Volume Peakus Pro e t Hr- Iume Ratio' Ratio N L. GOO 1 I - 1 O. 0'7� 10 NX 3700 `l ID 0 .33 NIP St L 5 co d7_(o /030 s 0 101 3 �o . �� ;3 , 1 E 1. E t �. Zan ' 42. I i6 o..t 5' 93 FX WXL I : CcOo IPc — lOD 0 . 0b lob W T �- Zs- z 0.Z W 1 1i r.- — S r Yellow Time M Existin Intersection Ca acit Utilization I.C.U.Existin PlusProject Intersection Ca acit Utilization • ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, •W=Westbound, T=Through i R=Right, L=Left El Existing Plus 'Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less•than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. El Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to d6termine applicable mitigation measures INILRSICI10N _..._.._.._.�—.—.- FORM II c,rrn Is rT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION AN�ALSIS Intersection I., GV eer IIil-k i 47g) Pus(Existing Traffic Volumes Base on verage inter/Spri Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio NL ► i31 — SI 0. 0S� as NT 5 6 s93 `� NR SL ST R '7 .16 653S1 S EL ET _ ER WL 1 1 foob 3?.'1 _ o. 2CO 20 .474 WR 30 3 •33• Yellow Time Existin Intersection Ca acit Utilization I.C.U. 1 ' Existin Plus Pro 'ect Intersection Ca acit Utilization I.C.U. ���� ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk.(*) . N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound; W=Westbound, T=Through, Wight. L=Left 0 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0:90 Existing Plus Project Traffic 'I.C•.U. •will •be less than-or equal to. - Existing Conditions I.C.U. r Existing Plus Project•fraffic I.C.U.•will be greater than 0.90 ' 141 Existing Plus Project Traffic' I.C.U. wil•1 'be greater than existing• VCi I.C.U. •that is currently greater. than 0.90 Further analysis required' to d6termine applicable mitigation measures . INTERSECTION FORM II ' nun,cr r. l:U1NMIS5IUNEH5 MINut 4kity of NeVuport Bitch, 3 s ti ti September 21 , 1978 l CAtI . INDEX Item #4 Request to remodel and' expand an existing non- USE PERMI conforming single family dwelling and antique shop NO. 1 878 in the M-1 District. CONTINUED Location: A portion of Lot 3, Block 239 , Lancaster' s Addition, located at MOBER 1 505 29th Street, on the northerly 1978 side of 29th Street between Villa -- Way and Lafayette Avenue in Cannery Village. Zone: M- Applicant: Rick La nce, Newport Beach Owner: Same as Appl t Motion X Planni,ng Commission continued this item to Ayes X X X X X X meeting of October 19, 1978. Absent I I 1XI Item #5 Traffic Study: Office Building Development - TRAFFIC Campus Drive 3TUDY Request to consider a Traffic Study for two 20,000 BUILDI 6 square feet +, two-story, garden type, general DEOECOMEN office buildings on the subject property (Public ON CAMPUS Hearing) . ORI VE Location: Lots 18, 19, 43, and 44, Tract No. APPROVED 3201 , located at 4060 and 4100 N! b DI Campus Drive and 4063 and 4101 (N{TLLY Birch Street, southeasterly of Campus Drive and southwesterly of Dove Street, across from the Orange County Airport. Zone: M-1 -A Applicant: Signal Development Corporation, Irvine Owner: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach .. J -6- �AISSIONERS • MINUTES a0� City of Newport Beach 31 � •�'s� v� Cep�,yc vc °t ti September 21 , 1978 INDEX tOLL CALL Community Development Director Hogan explained that staff furnished the Planning Commission with some supplemental information relative to this particular development. Contained in this supplemental information are data pertinent to traffic generation , staff' s method of calculating the I .C.U. s for the development, and additional information relating to the daily fluctuation of traffic at one intersection as a sample for the Planning Commission ' s information. Planning Commission advised that four questions were raised at this afternoon ' s Study Session relating to the interpretation of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, to wit: 1 . How many digits should be carried in computing the I .C.U .s? 2. Should intersections that Pass the 1% test have the I .C.U . test applied? 3. Should mitigation .measures which are not related to this project be taken into consideration? 4. Should intersections outside the City limits of Newport Beach be taken into consideration? Planning Commission further advised that the Commissioners reached a consensus pertinent to questions 1 and 2. With respect to how many digits should be carried in computing the I .C .U.s , it was the opinion of the Planning Commission that four digits should be carried . With respect to whether intersections that pass the 1% test should have the I .C.U. test applied, it was the opinion of the Planning Commission that they should not. The intersections would have to fail both tests to be significant. Planning Commission invited comments from the audience relative to the interpretation of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance and Roland Wedermeyer appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of Signal Development Corporation. Mr. Weder- meyer explained that although he cannot address himself to the interpretation of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, he concurs with the staff report and recommendation contained therein. -7- i COMMISSIONERS • MINUT City of Newport• Beach 3� 9 vs Q�F,p � • QZ t September 21 , 1978 ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Wedermeyer further explained tha7�they presently have four lots which could eveloped with four 16,000 sq. ft. buildings and, consequently, not be subjected to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. However, they would prefer to build two 20,000 sq. ft. buildings for aesthetic reasons . John Butler appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the Central Newport Beach Homeowners Association and voiced his opinion that it is the City's responsibility to consider adverse effects which may occur on intersections outside the City limits as a result of activities within Newport Beach. Barry Allen, 1021 White Sails Way, Corona del Mar, appeared before the Planning Commission and voiced concern that if the City permits develop- ment in view of planned improvements which Will allegedly alleviate problems , it cannot be known whether the problems will in fact be alleviated until those improvements are actually constructed. Motion X Motion was made that intersections outside the City limits are covered by the phrase "any intersection" in the Traffic Phasing Ordinance and should be included in the analysis . Commissioner Beek made the following statement for the record: "The tra-ffic analysis says that during the peak period , this project will cause an additional 49 cars to go through the signal at the intersection of MacArthur and the San Diego Freeway off-ramp. This is one of the most congested intersections in this area , but we are denied the information as to just how bad it is , by this parochial policy of pretending that what is just a block outside our city limits isn' t there. "Our citizens , and their customers , are forced to battle their way through that intersection. The alternate routes are equally congested. The purpose of the ordinance is to keep us from -B- I ,MMISSIONERS MINUTES City of Newport Beach 39 z z September 21 , 1978 INDEX ROLL CALL contributing to making problems like this one even worse. The ordinance limits its application to those intersections where the- effect of the project is over one per- cent. This is -a natural and reasonable radius . The City boundary is an unnatural and unreasonable place to draw the line. Traffic problems do not respect city boundaries . " If half the routes to and from a project are to be exempted because they are the other side of that arbitrary line, then we are holding projects in the heart of Newport Beach to a stricter standard than those on the boundary. I urge the Commission not to apply a double standard. " Ayes X Commissioner Beek ' s motion was voted on and Noes X X X X X failed. Absent X Motion X Motion was made that Planning Commission will Ayes X X X X X consider only intersections within the city limits Noes X of Newport Beach with regard to the Traffic Absent X Phasing Ordinance. Motion X Motion was made that mitigation measures from Ayes X X X X X other projects , which have been approved but are Noes X yet to be built, should be considered in the .' Absent application of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Commissioner Beek requested that the record show that he opposed the motion because he does not wish to approve projects until the removal of unsatisfactory conditions has actually occurred, rather than merely been predicted. Public hearing was opened in connection with the Traffic Study in question and there being no one desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. -9- COMMISSIONERS MIft'ji °��� City of Newport, Bitch s p'° cep cti °y September 21 , 1978 INDEX ROIL CALL Motion X Motion was made that Planning Commission make the Ayes X X X , k following finding: Noes X X Absent X 1 . The proposed project, including traffic mitigation measures , will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on any "major" , "primary- modified" or "primary" street. and accept the Traffic Report, subject to the following condition: 1 . That occupancy of the buildings will not occur until improvements have been implemented. Item #6 A proposed amendment to the Planned Community AMENDMENT Districts to revise the allowable development to A8:51T- be consistent with the capacity of the circulation system for the following P-C District areas : CONS 0 1 . Big Canyon Area 10 2. Civic Plaza Corporate Plaza 4. North Ford 5. mkay/Newport Place 6. 1 Center Newport 7. Aer utronic-Ford 8. Westb Site 9. Newport North Site 10. Castaways ite 11 . Newport Cen Block 800 12. Coast Highway d Jamboree Site 13. Fifth Avenue Si 14. Newport Village Si Initiated by: City of Newp t Beach Community Development Director Hogan uggested that the Planning Commission deal this vening with Items 2 through 7, being the commer al development for which planned community di ricts -10- 0 0 FILE COPY hk & associates DO NOT REMOVE James H. Kell, president e- 00 October 3, 1978 g �o F.���b'1oti o � Ms. Beverly Wood Environmental Coordinator Community Development 'Departmerit City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, California 92663 Our File '#§161 Dear Ms. Wood: This letter-type report describes the findings of our traffic analysis of the proposed Signal Development Corporation office development located between Campus Drive, Birch Street, Dove Street and Quail Street in the City of Newport Beach. The subjects discussed in this report are as follows : I Site Location I Project Description I Critical Intersection Locations I Trip Generation I Trip Distribution 1 . Trip Assignment Critical Intersection Impact Analysis I Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis I Mitigation Analysis I Conclusions Site Location The proposed project is bound by Campus Drive and Birch Street, and between Quail Street and Dove Street in the City of Newport Beach (Figure 1) . The site is directly across Campus Drive from the Orange County Airport and is surrounded primarily by office and similar type developments . DO NOT REMOVE 1617 East 17th Street, Suite 20 0 Santa Ana, California 92701 • (714) 973-0455 ALVA n•rkrr .., F ` L=—YrvA li' rl :r {A' w , r.lu � n►xwnr, np p+" (' �„ `•+ I is . ++ I vxi F J}r•��('.d.' auuN .Ldl ¢sr. _.Yr I<o �I''"„7,�`4'. • '�qCg pT` e e4��� • <.y[°t>y•4y [ [t �d ° 00 �? .A nAx Ar '- e d "IaINb Y• . . ' P °'"• � I � 4 I • !p 6 n AY l € xN'mr[xl,rang tRYE t a +.+/ „ p�F•q RY^r SYNA AV F n— fN[xL"Y __I n ]UXFEOkEA 1 a AY� � � >a � I s •"' ., '[/q, ' a � Yr: J: 1 7V ' �Llr° uA• . p.rA uvnni wrn[P4n / 1 1 p� J!W.wYaul----�-'— \— Fr 4r nr.'•— G+ _ -- SAN DIE&O' ' °Y SAN DIEGO I �1�NY}.N, r OLY4PI[• 14pER1f OR- •• y I �^ P �1.�•• ri°S'LJKR'See Al _ r 4 T L AJ{rJ• ` 'W ° h.. N Y '•j•OS f[I PL 4 Lx[NYo p n PI r YPQ S S o w Y° x` (� A I '�• i +Ryv 3J a i rAN.AnivO �f AV c ..- m PAULCRINO °� � ' S ,,6� 'I — Off,—..i=DAHE(2E— — IAhva\ et • }' +�x[st'P--. _ —^ ' --- g rAl a ••• + 't. vYSSY.`NYarx P O � : a Imd ;A l � iPYe� Y 8 IN 0/ �4e °�� a ��C e�Yn. 9,y [+. +Y I •� �Ph�4 � O ,I i � c°, e I ii..'+r4n[i - 4YM1lIAYa . ;Y4 •J olr9raulid3..• I••?:`.;•' 4 .: . ++ T / I n ' c I '+e �` I I :... .•.. ,,�I @i 0F� •'.,;; ."/@ �r'4°•^ f � .. „°+,x.xYx �I . . �paE` I I :';:•:•;' �4/�:'N�'`eh6 °i ."'`0".t +A r/Fmr i °°^ E SITE LOCATION jN :•i'v":+ Nr'."..•:.:L •:'(:FJP p, N C� 1' •, f .ra[ / +Ci- I y, i :'�•", l�,J Jy( •�'_O�Wp/''o �! I$;,a.�•Y+/ .>`[,•YN `J' OA4'0. Qk � I e r,C�•f' I �5. NS �,`,�•�;' : /\0 .T O°,1. 6 W 4VW [ \`� • rV I /6 J'3 I i5 /� ��.'§ ^M Ykll pP J '� Jag 4•�' � •riovi` yp e� i h 'q � .y z' rrC�- I ,,ycJY J+ `v7,. ,., ._ J�t4 :'�Lo,i4 Yd8 4 9 b/,��91J.r• i J.r II�13' / I •v�4i Ft'Y b !f�^'8., s \Q J.FJ Y Jp vrnrT. R�. NW d' •T aC ' \� °jt ;'f+•r �ux r[ I "' u[ rtuau C t �•11 r'�� vM� d' a Sh I , UNIVEPST' A•lr� uii' � 6�' o"4 +4 "� oiwiie[" OPPOf I ' v�� •Y fY +4 Q. aux �' I w T �� L lArr[r rPUN r• w yJ�rya.+// x�°wRAin ate\ ] r • ' 0 I • rA[[ q� 4. °1 -0� .Axwww � eri"'Ce;^^`'r>>>;,.it r°•<. 1 ¢ i i � / 1T,� �k: \ -'°�� g p\p[4 ♦! y [. [+,� •r hh GIr C' nML[lY fji( '/�. 4(:/./ `•.0 r '• I / I Rr �r °N NtY lv;G i` 4,• o O� vwio.r .°�•a..•}.Tor fie. ,.,...y'. ' ��J^A 'O .+,•. /�°°,t+°e 1 f X �r ` q; 4 _,YC+I r;uunrr• urn[u ,.aT \�/.. Afc q --id.'rt�. 'i bo'yripo �'./.• 1 ^ &�. °xyr\hf 'A _ s'.�+ i unu . n IRVINE \^•�h/+4p1 +�y[ •s°� jS6;••:r.A 14�73 epJ aV Q _n� �M t iUr N LM J I Sr x _�{ yy Y Y�' �r"'°�:..1t,,,•• Figure. 1 SITE LOCATION :.hd.�xt• d�o-+r•oN � ,•''�4�ha, t .•``fir Y' •.°' +;'�,`.:nti:= S,r t•}i�, fI' '�.,.e�)* a,�y�I j hk & associates • jhk 2 Project Description The proposed development under study is for two 21,000 square foot gross floor area office buildings (Figure 2) . One of the proposed office buildings fronts on Campus Drive and the second on Birch Street. Primary access to the site will be via Campus Drive and Birch Street. Both of these streets lead to Bristol Street and North Bristol Street, a major east-west one-way couplet. Access is also available to MacArthur Blvd. and Jamboree Blvd. These are major north-south arterials that provide access south to Pacific Coast High- way and north to the San Diego Freeway, approximately 13� miles. Critical Intersection Identification The proposed office development is located in Critical Intersec- tion Identification -Area 1 as identified by the City of Newport Beach. Required in the traffic phasing ordinance, any project to be developed in Area 1, must have as many as twelve intersections analyzed to deter- mine whether the proposed development will have a negative traffic impact on the corresponding intersections. In discussions with the Traffic Engineering Division of Public Works, seven intersections were selected for this analysis. The cri- tical intersections identified are presented in Figure 3 . Trip Generation Average Daily Traffic (ADT) , PM Peak 2k Hour and PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume Trip Generation Rates were supplied by the City of Newport Beach Traffic Engineering Division of Public Works. These generation rates along with the trips generated from this proposed development are presented in Table 1. Trip Distribution Trip distribution to/from the study area was provided by the City. Their source for the distribution was based on a trip distribution study for the- Emkay Development located easterly of the proposed Aft Tb ► ffTiT , I I TITITI F. `' - +�'V �• �,` _� ._- � _ _• ..�-••fie l I]-LillA r -- Do✓E P C , I M 9 Y •, N �`+w t Q�V • J N c`Y A .1 I V N PC MIA •• � � for l T=-r No.1394• i N « 16.9�Ac• 3 • .• ► • sr. P-C +' Y N J Jl r• e N n • �� 2 oa.014 3'T N n * W arrt • MI n E ; R �•-_. I BRISTOL STREE NORlH muM ff?e/RE LORONA DEL MAR fRCCW _ _�j('�� B d4/STCY S STifEE. . Figure 2 SITE DESIGN .00 jhk & associates Ask ♦ fHU`P f1 1 PLVD I '� xAaA, ,mA P ,f`'�r r?..''elvo� ;I IOF �I4 •~ `u :- _?.� �}I It iw-- _ —...rrY wx.rti r ,f2 ^ 1���1p'�ii 4, °,y.. —^'• � ` Is W �_ ...vc�.Ya:d r .°�� a t,:a5 ^^•• {' a p 4� o/ y LOerl1 N�7:•�ix`� nun n rx ,_A.r 3' �" ' AgCq �"'/ Cy0 , Ct1 •$'� Uo r Ar$ y +, w`rtR q. rim l' Yk bt r dl.S nr[xr [`Y tM1at [�yT AV AV A _nen�n xr- I _ `�:�^_ I�S� tN I `t + 4 w AV /g, COS°'�'•R r.jC ruA [xrw etrO SAN DIEAO ' MN_DIEGO A ,� ; . xrcrt 3e� ru.a a _ R x I- Rlyy •y. ° y A lA ti " n Oxlrro a aq W I •�, I `' 2 Y E a I.Rrrrr f m PAULARINO a IxCC 5 •a r o I pF �t .. IAyv� t [ { d°poxc4 '" I lxc [. .- . • RO T •° Ar s °\ � Spry a u in.t . 9,P °"o'e.,+, I .♦ �.Y + /' I M \JO I FGG $ A W.npp o ♦ +x 4 � + ' P ••k S b w �3 °VY" •� , �°'P `'r"'[•`e r �.P� +r'` I I y' 1.'S ,tel[YI+11 O:•:• s .9O •1`V h a" /4� } �+• E 2 alryra4ridi, •y /./t �4.¢ °+ 9 40. �•, / I w ` `�wrxxx<I H$ lT I I a• ' y o - ..;',i..'a���° , ��♦�°•ada.•..�.:�\ � ` pJ� I o!P C x' * Y C I n 'iwot:i::::+ .t'..•.•.::sP Q' 4' /p'N °'• � �mx I 'f .• i.x I d::•'b. W 6. t•. I4 � J. ._ •♦ afr 'f�. J4n::.onr — �O .rar — _— ¢` nu° . 0 't.i. [ a4 p RrWf ,{ h `� • `u I 6• ryl. `' / n.J•+Ri UAI 4`I` ,.iwi: d' I " •rt � •aa, z• [(,{/�'�r' I •r � w..: {.qxl;._ .}b I¢P�F` d JOo �♦ayA, .�iv�' y' C 4 � se ,�y / ? r� SY I ��'-. P J �) g� Al u1R DJ / /•(f{�4 h ~PP�ryB+ hP J Y V GS � +�♦Gad' A' � O lua[ I '� •:.1.°i:ir^. y/9:S' n��A♦ ° 's4 ��+°"•�v, � q°'6e t°+re 4 a ,\ �;jr. '1. ��r/'t,. uy P4p�. �n • wx` _ewyrw --�... aJ'4VS 1.11 .e'�" r f�' •( d'Y ` / .}� I ` nNIVEP5f1Y u[r "slpi��.r [wxLx "— 1 9♦ w — III • .m � / W, ■,•IIArR[ • 4 rleun N pp I � ' `// s •� 91 P, D 'vu°i" -el:''�h ..r t�Y, •r a+"'ar 1 ¢ ; I \ / i.•I �K/ ♦.� .� +Cl .� °y/F oriilM oie:" .I); / h ,•� oehr Mr' uvelnA /[�,`64 j)� .i°•'`�nRxb +yr . -O+4 ,L � $yf+ ./ A er IRVINE P q�' 4 �,a-✓.15R'}r'i[4,1A('I''.�y�`q�-5� �.•x F lJ A(/a 1nt 5 ti� a wy�A ¢' 50 z*`LL`• IyLR tltl.s.��` a @ - Figure 3 NEWPORT BEACH CRITICAL r r -- - '•'• "-"'"'•'bA — .INTERSECTION IDENTIFICATION jhka associates IMF Table 1 Trip Generation* Trip Ends Generated (Based on 42r000 sq.ft. GFA) Average Daily Traffic 13 Trip Ends per 1,000 Square ' 546 Trip Ends Feet Gross Floor Area PM Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volumes Inbound: 1.2 TE/1, 000 sq. ft. GFA 50 Trip Ends Outbound: 3. 4 TE/1,OOO .sq.ft. GFA 143 'Trip Ends PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volumes Inbound: . 6 TE/1,,000 sq.ft. GFA 25 Trip Ends Outbound: 1.7 TE/1, OOO .sq. ft. GFA 72 Trip Ends * Trip Generation Rates from City of Newport Beach,' Traffic Engineering Division of Public Tftorks • Allk -hk a . 3 development. The trip distribution percentage used in this analysis is presented in Figure 4. Trip Assignment The trip assignment in this analysis is based upon the trip generation and trip distribution previously presented. In this assign- ment process, it was assumed to evenly split the traffic to/from the proposed site via Campus Drive and Birch Street. Traffic to/from these two streets were proportionately assigned to the trip distribu- tion cordon locations. The trip assignment from this analysis is pre- sented in Figure 5. Critical Intersection Impact Analysis Critical intersection impact is determined if the project will generate more than one percent of existing traffic volumes during the PM Peak 2'k Hour period on any leg of the critical intersections iden- tified previously in the report. If the traffic generated is more than one percent of the existing traffic volumes, then an Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis is required. The City of Newport Beach has provided the 1% Traffic Volume calculation forms. These were filled in using the trip assignment values previously presented. The forms are presented in Appendix A. In analyzing the seven critical intersections within proximity of the study site , two were estimated to have project traffic greater than 1% of the existing PM Peak 2'k Hour Traffic Volumes, as presented in Figure 6. These intersections are Bristol Street North/Campus Drive and MacArthur Blvd./Campus Drive, and require Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis Intersection capacity utilization (ICU) calculations have been made for existing traffic volumes and existing plus projected traffic C AdIL fNUR I DLVD I 11wu EYi1/T.A' w.o.. `r;.���I. � a • 'n � o t. wolf: pig LOW V. t ,. :Y[�b C' . -•: �+b �p, LII_ 6I µIY nuu r y r`S[ -•r �a •: •7•• - 4L[4H M1 QO,� a �� X8 ,a l7J £ � •�I'?i,rval '[wnatR�E t Ar C~ �yH� I �Q q TY f I • �A•q' [IY••'IONtLOtLA - AN A mnn I `U C do E Ir RW— �UNELOM -_ �, AVCG I f : Y'W ,�, (•,� r[m um t ;.[:'efr N�. rxex .Y.w arum I —� — IR[rrul 1w.::.m�r�---+--- I ' — _yam � nN-- — •-- --- + SAN DIEC �rY SAN DIE60 �• 11"Y, [ OITNVIC, J.R.YFNIE DRY ,, I - Y Sr +i �A P 1 ti yy All I ° o 1:• � Y [[ PL 4 CN[Y AY n �M R aa'� M tf( d p �C�`•'`.,, 1,,'ial Sr �.'. rJ�-- H„�v w.` su Y u.+*/ I -�., I nh c i RAIhARIxO O r AY �� m PAVLARIN7 a I / S i of , 7— •tea .,.—.•a. tY� _ 1•���/j Z!/V'I <• y i i 1 R�•�7R,Y n'��w` `� �>� —°p Imo — _ � ypAx� �• 'elYulti Y,1mNui � .0 � � t♦D A ^ by�o`� — — — -- 1..'..I MR.III IA 0. :: 3 O•P 1Yu 4 f 1 f�/J i E i 'Dirgrwlidx •;-I"`` F�• Q �I + �I 'b � I 7 �.is .•.;t;: �-� 0~ : °. ��• r % „Y.YYY P �!'°fs`"C� 'Ar,�A:•.•:.+:(•Ii. •F• P P4o-e _ f•'^9_ b.� " I I [C I.(:. �M1+.wl .o u�t,J eY t <'cwP'r*; '"� ♦ d"f/y.'&'1� �z s.;ir.G°' '` o�0. Qk I �"£['' I 1s �` t�'�4 .'. � a f ♦`[• e 0 l •M' I OG (�,�/[('`^� I fl �iY1� ' YXII pQt` d y'$ °J.!} 4�� C�� _ib�.'r �d' I b `•r`�y 'S, x� Gs ^ I '$ w�� r.v;.,.. `o • a" IAJ'ls�tl a 'byi' ,(owu y'8 4 ♦I aY�H`., o � Iry '/ i `' [} i••r • ♦(6 o a• ``.[rta_it Ya S y° 4 a , 1 s J41I <P 8• J F n,.,Y4r 4 ¢v< " 1� (xrvr I '�li, ur.T.�w n� ry4 •'� v.J P oil. �i. ♦4� ^ ♦(,re 4 a �ta��LY s`.h aC J•4[fiarf•" v4 aQ�:.. + aM1 ',t•u4 I ' / L"y �1�z% 2 � C _ ri. . /< E;,.Pt Pa ?f , o /BEY Upper I /+ al a F4 aE1t 2• q f ` a`J alrotmN h/eyQorJ— I C s ♦ / ,4`�o — 'W yp ( If1f'14'[�[i:•, ��^ •r. f °'lM1 n. 2 � n � ' I •L.r rlvr �` 4 e 1� m •,V"-ham+ t� R, z P.` r, J:" i wix E" 'rl' ... ..rr r[�7.:�,. o["'v+Y / I \ f .•.•� �f• [� 3'l b 7��Ao �a ''gio y`�liiviiY f.�n ��.• `_aLE(.[; �. pI' I i �Mornv O [l 4. o raE;�iRn .a`. [. 11, 4 ?V:.� ,•J (o- - C ' I ~ R•.(' 4fD dJ •"[ t ti[[[.r. ( 4 I uauune uuum .r°'' ,� �f� .^1;�=<='i�aA[ry'ii�o ,y ;, a .Ka d B•Or•ll ."'Yl 1 '— �r -- I Inl.[ .[ EL--- r :, L t=�� .FE,• a..�Y, .� � ,�— n -I- —+—I RV f N E b 4 !( O ROO < f-t-So 1 LL PDE(A�CHI h D �! t ♦/`V H f_.�e ti••t .aE\ "IE M1 0. 1M[h/.W '. �p �ngx o Figure 4 TRIP DISTRIBUTION C!1 YY.t r � V`.. >ilt..l:Ti:V:[•1'•.-�,':•Vy� .f�.L fST-.•-Y �g 3� ra" Ja"o�:.' �� .�'4y' ,v+��•h�'r•tco• •:�'v'L:(u 3A (L fry � ['•L,tZ S, .Ce'rj.?:� Yr'��r•4.�. associates I xw � .. a x W NMN tl CAMPUS DR. 3 ► r� co cpM ti O �I ti �3 BIRCH ST. 10i y0 A N (1i 6YI H UO W o W i DOVE+ `�1 o 2 jK N ��IT r-I N V1 C5 1-] �39 39 9, 9 QUAIL "9C cq �2 NORTH BRISTOL ST. 43 r.65 � 2 10 cv BRISTOL ST. . 10 23-0- 12 3 `1 410� 11 6 [j4pk igure 5 TRIP ASSIGNMENT (PM Peak 2� Hour Period) a associates c rd AdML 11 �2 CAMPUS DR. BIRCH ST. a H . • A m qP a w H W U � W DOVE 0 17) QUAIL �I M B�vD NORTH BRISTOL ST.3 16 fl BRISTOL ST. �— 8 PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volumes ® Intersections with 1% PM Peak 2'i Hour Traffic Volumes (Requires ICU Analysis) Figure 6 INTERSECTIONS WITH 1% PM O Intersections with less than 1$ PEAK 2'� HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES PM Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volumes jhka associates . . • � jhk a anocimcs 4 volumes for existing geometrics at MacArthur Boulevard/Campus Drive and Bristol Street North/Campus Drive. The calculations are contained in Appendix B. It was determined that for both intersections existing plus projected traffic ICU will be greater than existing ICU that is currently greater than 0. 90 . Mitigation Analysis JHK analyzed the intersections of Bristol Street North/Campus Drive and MacArthur Boulevard/Campus Drive to determine mitigation measures in order to reduce the project ICU to be equal to or be below the existing ICU level. Field investigation determined that the southbound direction of Campus Drive at Bristol Street North has sufficient pavement width to provide a separate painted right turn lane (Figure 7) . It was also noted that vehicles are presently using this excess pavement width for making the right turn movement. The painted right turn lane mitigation measure was tested using the ICU analysis. Because the southbound direction is the heavy move- ment at this intersection, the additional right turn lane lowers the ICU level significantly from 1.00 '.to 0.81 . This analysis included the existing plus project peak hour traffic. JHK examined the geometrics at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard/Campus Drive and found the Campus Drive westbound non-stop right turn lane to MacArthur northbound was not included in the City' s ICU Analysis forms. This right turn is separated from-the two through lanes by an island with sufficient storage length for this movement. In discussions with the City of Newport Beach Traffic Engineering Division of Public Works, it was discussed to re-analyze this inter- section with existing peak hour traffic and with the addition of the' proposed project's traffic. With the addition of the Campus Drive westbound non-stop right, the existing ICU was calculated at 0 . 93 instead of the 0 . 94 previously measured. With the addition of the project traffic, the ICU remains at 0. 93 . ` I - I , f BRISTOL ST. NORTH I f .F— tit w i cc A G U y BRISTOL ST. SOUTH KEY PROPOSED j FFigure PROPOSED MITIGATIONMITIGATION MEASURE AT CAMPUS DR. MEASUREAND BRISTOL ST. sociates • jhk. .,KK,.,.. 5 Conclusions Seven critical intersections within proximity of the study site were selected by the City for 1% PM Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume Ana- lysis . Two of these intersections were estimated to have project traffic greater than 1% of the existing PM Peak 2'k Hour Traffic Volumes . These intersections are Bristol Street North/Campus Drive and Mac Arthur Boulevard/Campus Drive. n These latter two intersections were further analyzed for Project PM Peak 1 Hour Volumes using Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) calculation forms provided by the City of Newport Beach. It was de- termined that the intersections of MacArthur Boulevard/Campus Drive and Bristol Street North/Campus Drive, will have existing plus project traffic ICU greater than existing ICU that is currently greater than 0. 90 . With the mitigating measure of an additional southbound painted right turn lane at the intersection of Campus Drive and Bristol Street North, the ICU is improved to 0. 81 with the project traffic compared to the existing 1. 00 ICU level. Existing plus project traffic ICU will be equal to the existing condition ICU of 0, 93 at the intersection of Campus Dr. and MacArthur Boulevard. This ICU analysis included the previously omitted westbound non-stop right turn lane at this intersection. Respectfully submitted, Ray A. Moe Transportation Planner cc: Bill E. Darnell • jhk. . APPENDIX A 1% Traffic Volume Analysis 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MacARTHUR BLVDAMPUS DRTUE (Existing Traffic `Volumes based on Average Winter/Sp'ring 197a ) Existing 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volum Northbound 2888 29 18 Southbound 3129 ' 31 13 Eastbound 1693 17 28 Westbound - 2004 20 4 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume 0 Project Traffic- is estimated to be.greater than.-1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required: INTERSECTION MacARTHUR BLVD/CAMPUS DRIVE. _ FORM I PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection VE - IRYINE AVE. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter/Spring-f97_) Existing 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 212 Hour Peak 2 2 Hour Peak 2 2 Hour - Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volum Northbound 1504 15 12 Southbound 3705 37 39 Eastbound -- -- 3 Westbound 4790 48 4 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. - INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET NORTH/CAMPUS DRIVE _ "IRVINE AVE. FORM I PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRI L STR FT/CAMPUS DRIVE - IRVINE AVE. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1976 ) Existing 17. of Existing Project Approach Peak 2 2 Hour Peak 2 Z Hour Peak 212 Hour [Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volum Northbound 1606 16 -- Southbound 3164 32 6 Eastbound 3027 30 23 Westbound -- -- Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Fxl Peak 21 Hour,Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing - lPeak 21 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity ,Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET/CAMPUS DRIVE - I.RVINE AVE. FORM I PROJECT: i 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE• BLVD /CAMPUS DRIVE (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Existing 1%. of Existing Project pproach Peak 2 2 Hour Peak 2 2 Hour Peak 2 z Hour Direction ' Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volum 10 Northbound 3452 Southbound 3417 34 5 • l0 Eastbound 2042 ' 2 Westbound XProject Traffic is estimated to be less- than 1% of Existing Peak 2z Hour- Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour. Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I .C.U.) :Analysis is required. INTERSECTION JAMBOREE BLVD./CAMPUS DRIVE FORM I PROJECT: lq Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL STREET NORTH/JAMBOREE ROAD (Existing Traffic,,Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Existing 1% of Existing • Project Approach Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volum Northbound 5153 ' 52 1 Southbound 2811 28 Eastbound Westbound 116 2 3 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than l% of Existing • Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET .NORTH/JAMBOREE -ROAD FORM I PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRTsw STIR F.T_IJAMBORFF ROAD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 197.8) Existing ' 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 2 z Hour Peak 2,11 Hour Peak 2 z Hour Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volum Northbound 4996 50 1 Southbound 2359 24 - Eastbound 2778 . 28 ' 13 Westbound - - 5 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater,than 1% of Existing Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is -required. INTERSECTION BRISTOL" STREET/JAMBOREE ROAD FORM I PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis (1) Intersection JAMBOREE ROAD/MacARTHUR BLVD. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average, Winter/Spring 1979) Existing 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour Peak 2Z Hour Direction - Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volum Northbound 1681 17 3 Southbound 2814 28 9 Eastbound 2923 29 Westbound . 3037 30 © Project Traffic is estimated to' be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater ,than 1% of Existing Peak 2 z Hour Traffic Volume. - Intersection Capacity -Utilization - (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. (1 ) MacArthur Blvd. is assumed north and south INTERSECTION JAMBOREE ROAD/MacARTHUR BLVD. FORM I PROJECT: AMIL APPENDIX B Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis INTEfCTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION A+YSIS Intersection �t21S•F01•L S:rjRE'er /g �197LB) &�M p s Dp_k e (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spri Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio NL IGOD81 — Sl O , OSG o5 NT E5877 6- NR SL — ST 3 SR J Jl 5 • EL - — — — —' ET "- ER WL i I todb 3�: I _ 3z/ o, 7-0 ;z0 WT (� b WeQ 16_ 0( 0,S4,% 17� WR -O 3 --33 - Yellow Time 011 0 . /D " Existing Intersection Ca acit Utilization I.C.U. � p •d Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. : ICU is. sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk. (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 '• (� Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U, will be less than -or' equal to. Existing Conditions I.C.U. Existing Plbs Project• 7raffic I.C.U.' will be -greater than 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic' I.C.U. will be greater than existing- -I.C.U. -that is currently greater. than 0.90 Further analysis required• to determine. applicable mitigation measures . INTERSECTION FORM II oonirr•r. INT*CTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION `0YSIS f � Intersection �1}�r, \-�oru�0,=6t_�i? / �..,r-1.(\P >U.,;\)'= (Existing Traffic Volumes. Based on Average Winter/Spring 197f) Move- Lanes Capa- Existingl Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume ' Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio' Ratio NY L- Goo t ( NX • 32.0o 1053 33 Ne A. 7 sf r, t ca i51d — 56 �, o g-' . oy s� =: co • a*7 U 103 D s . oo 10-t 13 Ef t. t (Doc) 2 05' E T 3 Zo n 42 t__5 — 53 -� w�'L (. Cnac Db , OLD w T Sy Yellow Time O.10 Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. O F ' Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right', L=Left Existing Plus 'Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less .than or equal to Existing Cohditions I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I01 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than .existing I� I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 ElFurther analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION ---- FORM II I PROJECT: n • jhk„ p n APPENDIX C Project Mitigation Analysis Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis z V 1 11121lsr TIU MEASURES IN®rsection SECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION SLYSIS In Bristol Street North/Campus Drive i (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) • Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C** Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio. NL 1 1600 81 - 81 .05* NT 2 3200 587 6 593 ..19 NR - - SL ST 2 3200 1241 3 1244 . 39* SR .1 1600 637• 16 653 . 41 EL - - _ ET ER - - - WL 1 1600 321 - 321 .20 WT 4 6400 1660 16 1676 . 27* WR 30 33 Yellow Time to Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. 1. 00 Existing Plus Project Intersection Ca acit Utilization I.C.U. .81 ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=9eft ** With Mitigation Measures Project Mitigation Measure Analysis Brief Description: Provide exclusive right turn lane for southbound to westbound on Campus Drive. aExisting Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. with mitigation mea- sure (s) will be less than or equal to 0. 90 . Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. with mitigation mea- sure (s) will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. INTERSECTION Bristol Street North/Campus Drive FORM III � j PROJECT MITIGATION MEASU ` •" IN*CTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION A�lSIS Intersection MacArthur Blvd./Campus Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) • Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C ** V/C** Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio NL 1 1600 •111 - ill .07* .07* NT 2 3200 1044 9 1053 .33 . 33 NR - 73 - 73 - SL 1 1600 56 - 56 .04 . 04 ST 3' . 3200 1026 4 1030 .32* . 32* SR 1 1600 201 3 204 .13 .13 EL 1 1600 285 9 294 .18* .18* ET 2 3200 421 5 426 .15 .15 • ER - 53 - 53 - - WI 1 1600 100 - '100 .06 .06 WT 2 3200. 825 2 827 •26* 26* WR 1 - 54 - 54 - - Yellow Time .10 10 • 93. Existing Intersection Ca a city Utilization I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. 93 ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left --- -- II With Mitigation Measures Project Mitigation Measure Analysis Brief Description: Calculated existing and project V/C Ratio with existing westbound non-stop right turn. Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. with mitigation mea- sure (s) will be less than or equal to 0. 90 . Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. with mitigation mea- sure (s) will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I .C.U. INTERSECTION MacArthur Blvd./Campus Drive FORM III PROJECT: • PROJECT MITIGATION MEAS S IN�SECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION LYSIS rl Intersection MacArthur Blvd !Campus Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes Base on Average Winter/Spring 197D Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C** V/C** Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio . 0�4� .o ti NL 1 1600 111 - 111 •07* .07* NT 2 3200 1044 9 1053 .33 .33 i NR 73 - 73 - SL. 1 1600 56 - 56 ST 3 . 3200 1026 4 1030 320�0.32* 2* i SR 1 1600 201 3 204 .13 .13 294 8* ' .• 8* EL 1 1600 285 9 1 • ET' 2 3200 421 5 426 .15 .15' ER - 53 - 53 - . WL 1 1600 100 - 100 .06 o6 , WT 2 3200 825 1 1 2 827 $ g 6* 6 WR 1 54 - 54 00 .10 .010 ' Yellow Time 3 _ . IExistin Intersection Ca acit Utilization I.C.U. •R2 • Existin Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. .93 ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N-Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left -- - II With Mitigation Measures Project Mitigation Measure Analysis Brief Description: Calculated existing and project V/C Ratio with existing westbound i non-stop right turn. 1—f Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. with mitigation mea- sure (s) will be less than or equal to 0 .90 . Existing 'Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. with mitigation mea- sure (s) will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I .C.U. INTERSECTION MacArthur Blvd./Campus Drive �FOPY r PROJECT MITIGATION. MEASURES + » INTEOTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION A YSIS H Intersection Bristol Street North/Cam us Drive » (Existing Traffic Volumesmes Based on Average Winter Spring 1978) Move- Lanes Capa- 579 Existing Exist. Project moot city Plus Project V/C V/C** Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio . 81 .05* NL 1 1600 NT 2 3200 593 ..19 NR - - SL - - - ST 2 3200 1241 3 1244U.41 9* SR .1 1600. 637• "16. 653 EL - ETER - ` .20 WL 1 1600 321 - 321v WT 4 6400 1660 16 1676 WR •30 33 :10 Yellow Time Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. 1. 00 ExistingPlus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left i ** With Mitigation Measures Project Mitigation Measure Analysis Brief Description: Provide exclusive right turn lane for southbound to o7estbound on Campus Drive. { Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. with mitigation mea- x - sure (s) will be less than or equal to 0.90 . Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. with mitigation mea- sure (s) will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I .C.U. INTERSECTION Bristol Street North/Campus Drive EpRM THE NEWPORT ENSIGN - September 28, 1978 ` More Planning, from page 1) '�"'T4 procedures set up by the cominti T _ sion for approval of future studies. MB Planners Okay I By a vote of 5 to 1 with Beek again voting no, the commission- First Traffic Study ers voted not to consider intersec- M1 tions outside the city when deter- The Signal Development Cor- The commissioners also approv- ( mining if a development will not tion became the first com- ad and sent on to the-City Coun- cause more traffic or make worse )pity to receive Newport Planning oil a proposed ordinance to { the traffic problem by more than Clefnmission approval of a traffic change regulations for the re- 1 percent at key intersections. study under the city's new Traf- maining undeveloped acres on Commissioner Paul Balalis,said -to Phasing Ordinance. the city's blufftops. j he doubted the city has the auth- Dy a vote of 4-2, with Commis- Commissioners voted to recom- ority to require that developments stovers Allan Beek and Helen Mc- mend that the Council not ap- not cause more traffic problems Laughlin, the newest member of prove a companion ordinance af- outside the city, while Beek claim- tha panel, voting no, commission- fecting 13 residential lots already , ad that the ordinances authors in- on approved the new two-story developed in the Bluffs area. tended that all intersections affec- oftice building complex at 4060 Both ordinances were designed ted]iy a new development be and 4100 Campus and 4063 and as the city's answer to the contro- considered. 4101 Birch, airport area. versial Atherton initiative on the They also decided that for a This was in spite of the fact November ballot which guaran- new development to fail the test, that, technically at least, the dev- tees public access and open an intersection must be overload- slgpmettt would cause slightly space in the Bluffs. ed already, and must also make traffic. Staff members claim, The commission had voted ear I traffic Worse by more than 1 per- ver, that when planned im- liar to table discussion of the or- I cent, �iments are made to the dinance,but was ordered by the s surrounding the develop- Council to take the matter up During the continuing discus- *gmt the traffic situation will not again. sions on downzoning, the.citya re, be made worse. The report also Perhaps more important than maining undeveloped acres and c1Nms that the development the vote on Signal Development general•plan amendment hear- ings, The Irvine Company spokes- isited tests because of rounding Corporations traffic study were man David Neish unveiled the nuokbers off in the study. (Continued on page 3) company's plan to voluntarily lower the density by more than 20 percent in future residential developments provided the com- pany is'given `reasonable assur- ances that we will be permitted to, j proceed with our developments as proposed." Neish also reiterated a pledge 1 made.by The Irvine Company President Peter Kremer almost three weeks ago to contribute about $12 million to a devQlopefA 1 fund for construction and improve- ment of several major roads in tlfe area. Discussion on downzoning sad the city's general plan were con- " itinuod to the Oct. 5 t meeting � when a decision is expected, The commission also took W161i on-tho following items: I CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER September 26, 1978 TO: CITY CLERK FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: HEARING FOR OCTOBER 24th. Please follow through and properly publicize the hearing concerning the office building developments for 7:30 P.M. , October 24th„ called up by the City Council on September 25th. The Community .Development will provide the re- quired staff reports. ROBERT L. WYNN /Ccommunit'y Development Director o) cA O CO[MO IMV msOt i Dept. 46m- 9 � 12 SQ�o�R�o� pN. \ Chi NEWP GPL1F- / C,Y OF NEWPORT BOCH COUNCILMEN MINUTES yG y 'Li A�S0J'] 1'C' 7 9 0 ROLL CALL �s'� s September 25, 1978 , INDEX Motion x LOTS" TO THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE, is to All Ayes be resubmitted for first reading on October 10, 1978. 7. A letter from Charles B. Baur regarding the WCH Widening installation of curbs, gutters and sidewalk in 57th St to ont of his business and his objections concern- SA River ing a project was presented. (2552) The following,,D,eople addressed the Council opposing the indt-&Ilation of curbs, gutters and sidewalk in conne�ation with the Public Works contract for the widening o Pacific Coast Highway. 57th Street to the Santa Ana-R +er: George C. Gillette, representing Charles Bau who presented a petition bearing 652 names; Niusa Ja s, representing the Newport Shores Community ocia- tion; and Charles Baur. Motion x The letter from Charles Baur was referred to the 'r �r All Ayes staff for reply. K. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: Motion x 1. A public hearing was set for October 24, 19Za_pA Iraffic All Ayes the following: Phasing C3-006) A review by the Cif Council of the decision of the Planning Commission in the application of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance to the request for two 20,000 square foot office_buldings by Signal Development Company on Lots 18, 19s 4,3 and 44. Tract 3201 located_at 4060._and 4,�00 Campus Drive and 4063 and 4101 Birch Street,,. southeasters of Cam us Drive and soutbyeste_ 7y of Dove Street across frqm the Orange Count Airport. 2. A report was presented from the Public Works BI Bu ead Department regarding the Balboa Island Bulkhead Co g Coping Repair, Contract No. 1860. epair (2870) Motion x The staff was authorized to substitute a sub- All Ayes contractor for the gunite work on this cont ct. 3. The City Manager addressed the Counci) i� n regard Balboa Bay to the change in lessees under the alboa Bay Club Lease Club Lease. (183) Resolution No. 9437, sut izing International R-9437 Bay Clubs, Inc. , to sublet certain portions of the Balboa Bay ClujVpremises and establishing the rate of rental payments to the City for subleases of the Balboa Bay Club premises for Motion x commercial,p rposes for terms in excess of one All Ayes year, was` adopted. Scot Hightower, President of the Balboa Bay Club, addressed the Council and submitted the ✓ letter o£ request. Mayor Ryckoff declared the meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m. Volume 32 - Page 250 r C10Y OF NEWPORT BSCH COUNCILMEN MINUTES G?.�q� C�rC+��yy9G y2 . 9 � � ROLL CALL September 25, 1978 INDEX I. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. A letter was presented from the Corona del Mar Parking Chamber of Commerce objecting to the additional - Prohibitions red curbs on Jasmine, Iris and First Avenues and (447F) requesting the possible elimination of some of the red curbs that now exist. Motion x Staff was directed .to write the Corona del Mar 'All Ayes Chamber of Commerce advising them that the Traffic Affairs Committee was preparing avepor--t_ - . for the Council regarding the red curbs and that a staff report would be included. A report was presented .from the Environmental OrCo Quality Citizens Advisory Committee concerning Airport the City's position with regard to the Orange (195) County Airport. uncilman Hummel stated since the news of the ai craft disaster in San Diego proved the need for a new airport in Southern California, he Motion x woul move to have the staff with the assistance All Ayes of Co cilmen Heather and Hummel summarize a posits paper on an airport location, which motion c rried. Motion x 3. The follow g resolutions were adopted: All Ayes Resolution N 9435 requesting the Orange County E Coast Hwy/ Transportatio Commission to include within the Bayside to Orange County deral Aid Urban Program the MacArthur development of E at Coast Highway from Bayside R-9435 Drive to MacArthu Boulevard. (A report from (2071) the Public Works ➢ artment) Resolution No. 9436 a thorizing the Mayor and E Coast Hwy/ City Clerk to execute agreement between the So'ly Side City of Newport Beach a d Williamson and Schmid St Impry for engineering services n connection with East Jamboree to Coast Highway southerly S e Street Improvements Avocado from Jamboree Road to Avoca o Avenue, Contract R-9436 No. 1990. (A report from the ublic Works (3072) Department) 4. The Mayor's letter .to the South California Air Quality Association of Governments regar ng the City's Management Motion x "Response to the Preliminary Draft of the Air Plan All Ayes Quality Management Plan" was approv d. (3071) 5. A report from the City Manager regard g the Election proposed change in election dates sugg ted by (12F) Motion x the Newport Harbor Area Chamber of Comme ce was All Ayes received and ordered filed. 6. A report was presented from the City Attorn . Parking regarding "Valet Parking." Prohibitions (447F) Proposed Ordinance being, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING SECTION 12.40.065 ENTITLED "VALET PARKING ON PUBLIC STREETS AND Volume 32 - Page 249 COMMISSIONERSI MINUT ecity of NevOort [6ach 3 4 y ti September 21 , 1978 l CALL , INDEX Item #4 Request to remodel and expand an existing non- USE PERM conforming single family dwelling and antique shop N0. 1878 in the M-1 District. CONTINUE Location: A portion of Lot 3, Block 239 , To- Lancaster s Addition, located at WTOBER 1 505 29th Street, on the northerly side of 29th Street between Villa Way and Lafayette Avenue in Cannery Village. Zone: M_ Applicant: Rick La •rence , Newport Beach Owner: Same as Appli t Motion X Planning Commission continued this item to e Ayes X X X X X X meeting of October 19 , 1978. Absent X Item #5 Traffic Study: Office Building Development TRAFFIC Campus Drive STUDY - Request to consider a Traffic Study for two 20 ,000 FM=IL square feet +, two-story, IL NG garden type, general DEVELOPME office buildings on the subject property (Public Hearing ) . ON CAMPUS DRIVE Location : Lots 18 , 19 , 43, and 44, Tract No . 3201 , located at 4060 and 4100 APPROVED Campus Drive and 4063 and 4101 OON�DI— Birch Street, southeasterly of I NALLY Campus Drive and southwesterly of Dove Street, across from the Orange County Airport. Zone: M-1 -A Applicant: Signal Development Corporation , Irvine Owner: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach -6- AISS10NERS MINUTES Sty of Newport Betch � 1 oy z September 21 , 1978 OLL CALL INDEX Community Development Director Hogan explained that staff furnished the Planning Commission with some supplemental information relative to this particular development. Contained in this supplemental information are data pertinent to traffic generation, staff' s method of calculating the I .C .U : s for the development, and additional information relating to the daily fluctuation of traffic at one intersection as a sample for the Planning Commission ' s information. Planning Commission advised that four questions were raised at this afternoon ' s Study Session relating to the interpretation of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, to wit: 1 . How many digits should be carried in computing the I .C .U .s? 2. Should intersections that pass the 1% test have the I .C .U . test applied? 3. Should mitigation .measures which are not related to this project be taken into consideration? 4. Should intersections outside -the City limits of Newport Beach be taken into consideration? Planning Commission further advised that the Commissioners reached a consensus pertinent to questions 1 and 2. With respect to how many digits should be carried in computing the I .C .U .s , it was the opinion of the Planning Commission that four digits should be carried. With respect to whether intersections that pass the 1% test should have the I .C . U . test applied, it was the opinion of the Planning Commission that they should not. The intersections would have to fail both tests to be significant. Planning Commission invited comments from the audience relative to the interpretation of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance and Roland Wedermeyer appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of Signal Development Corporation . Mr. Weder- meyer explained that although he cannot address himself to the interpretation of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, he concurs -with the staff report and recommendation contained therein. -7- COMMISSIONERS MINUTE f City of Newport Etach 3� 0 oy Z September 21 , 1978 ~ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Wedermeyer further explained that they presently have four lots which could be developed with four 10 ,000 sq. ft. buildings and , consequently, not be subjected to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. • However , they would prefer to build two 20 ,000 sq . ft. buildings for aesthetic reasons . John Butler appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the Central Newport Beach Homeowners Association and voiced his opinion that it is the City ' s responsibility to consider adverse effects which may occur on intersections outside the City limits as a result of activities within Newport Beach . Barry Allen, 1021 White Sails Way, Corona del Mar, appeared before the Planning Commission and voiced concern that if the City permits develop- ment in view of planned improvements which will allegedly alleviate problems , it cannot be known whether the problems will in fact be alleviated until those improvements are actually constructed. Motion X Motion was made that intersections outside the City limits are covered by the phrase "any intersection" in the Traffic Phasing Ordinance and should be included in the analysis . Commissioner Beek made the following statement for the record : "The traffic analysis says that during the peak period, this project will cause an additional 49 cars to go through the signal at the intersection of MacArthur and the San Diego Freeway off-ramp. This is one of the most congested intersections in this area , but we are denied the information as to just how bad it is , by this parochial policy of pretending that what is just a block outside our city limits isn ' t there. "Our citizens , and their customers , are forced to battle their way through that intersection . The alternate routes are equally congested. The purpose of the ordinance is to keep us from -8- XMISSIONERS MINUTES ity of Newport 'B ach 3q y September 21 , 1978 ROLL CALL INDEX contributing to making problems like this one even worse. The ordinance limits its application to those intersections where . the effect of the project is over one per- cent. This is a natural and reasonable radius . The City boundary is an unnatural and' unreasonable place to draw the ' line. Traffic problems do not respect city boundaries . " If half the routes to and from a project are to be exempted because they are -the other side of that arbitrary line, then we are holding projects in the heart of Newport Beach to a stricter standard than those on the boundary. I urge the Commission not to apply a .double standard. " Ayes X Commissioner Beek ' s motion was voted on and Noes X X X X X failed. Absent X Motion X Motion was made that Planning Commission will Ayes X X X X X consider only intersections within .the city limits Noes X of Newport Beach. with regard to the Traffic Absent X Phasing Ordinance. Motion X Motion was made that mitigation measures from Ayes X X X X X other projects , which have been approved but are Noes X yet to be built, should be considered in the ' Absent application of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance . Commissioner Beek requested that the record show that he opposed the motion because he does not wish to approve projects until the removal of unsatisfactory conditions has actually occurred, rather than merely been predicted . Public hearing was opened in connection with the Traffic Study in question and there being no one desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. -9- COMMISSIONERS MIND ��a kity of Newport Each ¢v T 0 tiC vc °ti ti September 21 , 1978 ROLL CALL INDEX Motion X Motion was made that Planning Commission make the Ayes X X X X following finding : Noes X X Absent X 1 . The proposed project, including traffic mitigation measures , will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on any "major" , "primary- modified" or "primary" street. and accept the Traffic Report, subject to the following condition : 1 . That occupancy of the buildings will not occur until improvements have been implemented. Item #6 A proposed amendment to the Planned Community AMENDMENT Districts to revise the allowable development to NO. 514 be consistent with the capacity of the circulation system for the following P-C District areas : CONT. TO OCT 5 1 . Big Canyon Area 10 1979 2. Civic Plaza Corporate Plaza 4. North Ford 5. mkay/Newport Place 6. K i Center Newport 7 . Aer ��,,utronic-Ford 8. Westb , Site 9. Newport North Site 10. Castaways ite 11 . Newport Cen r Block 800 12. Coast Highway nd Jamboree Site 13. Fifth Avenue Si 14. Newport Village Si - Initiated by: City of Newp t Beach Community Development Director Hogan uggested that the Planning Commission deal this vening with Items 2 through 7 , being the commer 'al development for which planned community di ricts -10- Planning Commission Meeting September 21'2 1978 Agenda Item No. 5 SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH September 20 ;•'1978 TO : Planning Commission FROM: Department' of Community Development SUBJECT: Traffic Study: Office Building Development - Campus Drive Introduction The subject site consists of two parcels that resulted from Resubdivision 593 . On August 3, 1978, the Planning Commission approved the creation of two parcels , where four lots previously existed, for the purpose of office development. Had the applicant not combined the lots , it would have been possible to build four office buildings , each under 10 ,000 square feet, and been exempt from the requirements of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Also, the applicant could have elected to submit each project individually, in which case two traffic studies would have been. prepared , and the impacts calculated for each project. It is possible that each project, individually , would not have affected the I .C .U . at either of the intersections given the effect of the combined project . Analysis There were seven intersections identified for study. These are listed below along with existing I .C .U . ' s : 1 . Campus/MacArthur .94* 2 . Bristol (North )/Campus 1 . 00 3 . Bristol (South)/Irvine . 72 4 . Jamboree/'Campus 1 . 17 5 . Bristol (North)/Jamboree .72 6. Bristol (South)/Jamboree . 54 7 . Jamboree/MacArthur .85 *With improvements required in Amendment 505 , the "existing" I .C .U . will be . 73 for the PM peak hour . (Wes Pringle , April 6 , 1978, Attachment 1 ) As noted in the traffic study, the proposed project-generated , traffic was more than 1 % of the existing approach volumes at two intersections - . southbound at Bristol (North)/Campus and eastbound at Campus/MacArthu•r. According to the adopted administrative procedures , these two intersections were further analyzed to determine if the project-generated traffic TO: Planning Commission - 2 affected the operation of the intersections , i .e. , affected the I .C .U. Since the Ordinance defines "level of traffic service" as a two-place decimal numerical value, all calculations are presented as two-place decimals , and a normal procedure of "rounding" the numbers occurs . Using the Bristol Street (North)/Campus Drive calculations as an example (Form II) , the critical movement calculation which changes the I .C.U . is the westbound through-right movement. The westbound through- right movement changes from .2641 to .2670, a difference of .0029 . However, "rounding" the numbers , the I .C..U . goes from . 26 to . 27. Similarly, at MacArthur/Campus westbound through-right, the I .C.U. �oes from . 2747 to' .2753, but shows as . 27 to . 28 because of "rounding. " A difference of .0006) . Planned Improvements. The ultimate geometrics at the Campus/MacArthur intersection will include three lanes in each direction , 1-eft-turn lanes (double left-turn lane capability) plus right-turn lanes . These improvements are illustrated in Attachment I1 , and were included in the approval of Amendment 505. Th I .C.U . with these improvements is expected to be .73 in the P.M. peak hour. Summary This additional information has been supplied to clarify the staff report prepared for the Commission meeting on September 21 „ 1978. The analysis indicates a marginal effect caused by this project on the critical intersections . If 'the Planning Commission wishes to see the exact numerical effect of the mitigation measures on these intersections , the report may be referred back to the staff and the traffic consultant for the third set of calculations -- I .C.U. ' s including mitigation measures. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V . Hogan, Director By /Beverly/,MOod Enviro Mental Coordinator BW:jmb Attachments L UITERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION MACARTHUR BOULEVARD AND DRIVE Existing Traffic Volumes plus Trafficet Building nerated by ,800 quare Ca acity Volume/Capacity .:Sovement Volume p Pro sed • ' Existing Proposed Existing Po Geometries Geometric$ Geometries Geometries t Lanes Vehicles Lanes Vehicles A?: PH per hour per hour A4 P21 A.t " 39 • 35 26 24 Northbound Through 12400 1180 1 1600 1 1600 LO LO 10 10 Northbound Right 60 90 1 1600 2 3200 10k 10* 10* 10* y Northbound Left 1710 1150 2 3200 3 4600 20 it 30 11* n Southbound Through 1 1600 1 1600 20 11 20 10 •Sorthbound Right 320 170 1 1600 2 3200 24 10 12 x Southbound Left 360 120 16 lB 13 rn 2 3200 2 3200 l9 LO 10 z Eastbound Through 5300� �0� 0 0 1 1600 10 LO * 16* -a Eastbound Right 380 260 1 1600 • 1 1600 24* 16* 24 H Eastbound Left 2 3200 11* 23* 11* 23* 4. 350 740 2 3200 Westbound Through 70 220 1 1600 1 1600 10 14 10 10 4• 14 Westbound Right 90 100 1 1600 1 1600 10 10 10 t Westbound Left i Intersection Capacity IItilization 9B g5 81 73 s * Critical Movement Included in Total to Determine Intersection Capacity Utilization Ji .x :S • ATTACHMENO i • I Figure 3 EXISTING AND FUTURE IMTERSECTION GE01ETRICS HucAtthur Do ievard and Campus Dr ve � II I ^ _ .-y <� campus--- Existing I To Be Added 1 1 M I It has been a Pleasure to prepare this traffic analysis for you. If there are any questions, or if we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call us. bvepret fill ly 9ubinitU'd, tll:il'Iltl 1•i1lNt:l.f ANo ASSOCUrliS 7 Wcatun tie I'rin};Ir, 1'.li, ' • oazlll Jr" INFECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANAOIS j I Intersection Bristol Street North/Campus Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio NL 1 1600 81 D6ero 0500 I NT 2 3200 587 S 18 /853 NR - SL - - - - _ ST 2 3200 1241 3 Zq¢ .59* g Zg SR 637• 41 53 EL - - - - - ET - - - - - ER - - - - - WL 1 1600 321 - 32/ Z"6%20 Zoo6 WT 4 6400 1660 /y 1674 .26* WR 30 3 5.9 (04/ .26721 'Yell ow Time .10 , /000 Mr- Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. 1 .00 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. 0/O¢ ICU is sum critical movements, denoted ,by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 EExisting Plus Project Traffic I.'C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. n Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 E Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing LJ I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION Bristol Street North/Campus Drive - - ---- FORM II x. PROJECT: INTERSECI& CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYJIS• Intersection MacArthur Blvd JCampus Drive LP (Existing Traffic Volu—me—sBased on Average nter/Spring 1978) Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Exist ng Ex st. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio NL 1 1600 ill l// • Ob . 7* •0G93 NT 2 3200 1044 9 /a53 3�3.33 .329/ NR - 73 73 SL 1 1600 56 54 o390•04 .0350 ST 3 3200 1026 1030 .32o(r.32* .32/8 SR 1 1600 201 3 ,2o4- IZ540 .13 ./Z 0'6 EL 1 1600 285 01 2 1 17g/ :18* /8 37 ET . 2 3200 . 421 3 424 /}l/ .15 /47G ER 53 5 3. WL 1 1600 100 /00 •pG 6'.06 Dbzr WT • 2 3200 825 2 a�7 2747.27* 2 53 WR 1 54' 5� Yellow Time .10 ./00 Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. � •94 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I:C.U, 'S0/ ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N•Northbound, S-Southbound, E=Eastbound, WaWestbound, T=Through, RaRight, L=Left Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. Will be less than or equal to 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. 0 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures j INTERSECTION MacArthur Blvd./CampUs Drive FORM 12 ' PROJECT: _._._ r1 r.1 7 INTERSECTION CAPACIrTY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS .7-q ' Intersection.<<�. (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 197_). Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ' ment• city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume ' Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio' Ratio Nf L- ' (goo :l 1 — J I I 0, 011 .01 NA 7)10D 9 /053 NIC' 2 y St ( (coo.-- 15d oQ `` •0 s cc n2(o 1030 0. 3 2 s o lCl 3 �o cam !, 13: E L I. t c�tx� 25 9 9 N n• E 'f 2 20 7 4S I Coo )00 0 . o l w T tiZS" 2 z wYellow Time O , /0 Existing Intersection Capacity Capacily Utilization I.C.U. O F Existin Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization. I.C.U. ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk M N=Northbound, S=Southbouhd, E=Eastbound, •W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L"Left Existing Plus 'Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less -than or equal to, Existing Conditions I.C.U, V Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ® Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is' currently greater than 0.90 0 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION AFORN II T)Rn iTrT- INTACTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANAS a 479) Intersection�t2'�xTREE1r IVO�" l•1MP'US(Existing Traffic Volumes Base on verage—Gunter/Spri Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C VC Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio NL I Sl 91 0. 0� dS NT 1170tt5 6 5 c+ NR - SL ST ' l2 1 3 'y S1 SR G51 .26 6513 EL -- - - ET - ER WL 1 t to db 3?.I 32 0. 2O Zp WT 0 b I6. 0.1Ys' . •� WR -3O 3 33- Ye11oW Time Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U.• D .0 ., Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk.(*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound; W=Westbound. T=Through, R-Right, L=Left ' 0 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. Wili be less than or equal to 0.'90 QExisting Plus Project Traffic I.C:U. •will •be less than .or equal to: Existing Conditions T.C.U. Existing Plbs Project• 1°raffic I.C.U.•will be greater than 0.90 ' K71 Existing Plus Project Traffic•I.C.U. will 'be greater than existing, 1.C.U. -that is currently gr6ter. than 0.90 EJ Further analysis required* to d6termine applicable mitigation measures . INTERSECTION --- --- FORM II non ier"r . ti - MMISSIONERS MINUTES City of Newport Beach a � z September 21 , 1978 ROLL CALL INDEX Item #4 Request to remodel and expand an existin on- USE PERMIT conforming single family dwelling and tique shop NO. 1878 in the M-1 District. CONTINUED Location: A portion of L 3 , Block 239 , TO Lancaster ' s dition , located at WTOBER 19, 505 29th reet, on the northerly side o 29th Street between Villa Way nd Lafayette Avenue in Cannery . lage. Zone : M-1 A 1 ' ant: Rick Lawrence , Newport Beach wner: Same as Applicant L ion X Planning Commission continued this item to the X X X X X X meeting of October 19 , 1978. ent X Item #5 Traffic Study: Office Building Development - TRAFFIC Campus Drive TT U­DY - FFFICE Request to consider a Traffic Study for two 20,000 U=I"(6FNG square feet +, two-story , garden type , general DEVELOPMENT office buildings on the subject property (Public ON CAMPUS Hearing) . DRIVE Location: Lots 18, 19 , 43 , and 44, Tract No . APPROVED 3201 , located at 4060 and 4100 N�— Campus Drive and 4063 and 4101 TT—ON—ALLY Birch Street, southeasterly of Campus Drive and southwesterly of Dove Street, across from the Orange County Airport. Zone: M-1 -A Applicant: Signal Development Corporation , Irvine Owner: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach -6- G "1 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES ` � City of Newport Beach 'o. 9C.c 2 September 21 , 1978 ROLL CALL INDEX sound attenuation materials or constrpction if such do not exist. The CC&R ' s shall also include a disclosure of any common sewer line or other common utilities found to service the condominium and the maintenance responsibilities of said utilities . Furthermore, the City shall not be held responsible for any future problems , with the subject utilities in conjunction with the proposed conversion. 7 . That a licensed electrical , plumbing and echanical contractor shall review existing stems and certify their condition to the B 'lding Official prior to conversion. 8. That 11 existing fire protection equipment, such a but not limited to , wet stand pipes , ire extinguishers , fire sprinkler systems , tc. , shall be inspected prior to conversion 9. That exis,tin geological and soil conditions shall be revie ed. Where evidence of questionable ge logical or soil conditions are found to exi the Building Official shall have the au ority to require new soils ' investigatio s . 10. That all dwelling uni shall be required to ' meet the minimum state tandards for sound separation between dwelling units . 11 . That all dwellings shall b provided with, smoke detectors . 12. That consideration shall be gi en to providing each dwelling unit wi h a separate electrical service. 13. That two accessible garage spaces all be provided for both of the two dwellin units at all times . Commissioner Beek requested that the record s ow that he opposed the motion because he feels th t policies regarding condominium conversions shou be established prior to taking action on conversion applications . -5- w� _ COMMISSIONERS • . MINUTES City of Newport Beach Qt z September 21 , 1978 OLL CALL INDEX Community Development Director Hogan explained that staff furnished the Planning Commission with some supplemental information relative to this particular development. Contained in this supplemental information are data pertinent to traffic generation , staff ' s method of calculating the I .C .U . s for the development, and additional information relating to the daily fluctuation of traffic at one intersection as a sample for the Planning Commission ' s information . Planning Commission advised that four questions were raised at this afternoon ' s Study Session relating to the interpretation of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance , to wit: 1 . How many digits should be carried in computing the I . C .U . s? 2. Should intersections that pass the 1 % test have the I . C.U . test applied? 3. Should mitigation .measures which are not related to this project be taken into consideration? q. Should intersections outside the City limits of- Newport Beach be taken into consideration? Planning Commission further advised that the Commissioners reached a consensus pertinent to questions 1 and 2 . With respect to how many digits should be carried in computing the I .C .U .s , it was the opinion of the Planning Commission that four digits should be carried. With respect to whether intersections that pass the 1 % test should have the I . C . U . test applied , it was the opinion of the Planning Commission that they should not. The intersections would have to fail both tests to be significant. Planning Commission invited comments from the audience relative to the interpretation of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance and Roland Wedermeyer appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of Signal Development Corporation. Mr. Weder- meyer explained that although he cannot address himself to the interpretation of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance , he concurs with the staff report and recommendation contained therein . -7- 4� r COMMISSIONERS MINUTES City of Newport Beach `ems s ���OycF Gci z September 21 , 1978 ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Wedermeyer further explained that they presently have four lots which could be developed with four 10,000 sq . ft. buildings and, consequently, not be subjected to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. However, they would prefer to build two 20 ,000 sq . ft. buildings for aesthetic reasons . John Butler appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the Central Newport Beach Homeowners Association and voiced his opinion that it is the City ' s responsibility to consider adverse effects which may occur on intersections outside the City limits as a result of activities within Newport Beach . Barry Allen, 1021 White Sails Way , Corona del Mar, appeared before the Planning Commission and voiced concern that if the City permits develop- ment in view of planned improvements which will allegedly alleviate problems , it cannot be known whether the problems will in fact be alleviated until those improvements are actually constructed. Motion X Motion was made that intersections outside the City limits are covered by the phrase "any intersection" in the traffic Phasing Ordinance and should be included in the analysis . Commissioner Beek made the following statement for the record: "The traffic analysis says that during the peak period , this project Will cause an additional 49 cars to go through the signal at the intersection of MacArthur and the San Diego freeway off-ramp. This is one of the most congested intersections in this area , but we are denied the information as to just how bad it is , by this parochial policy of pretending ' that what is just a block outside our city limits isn ' t there . "Our citizens , and their customers , are forced to battle their way through •that intersection . The alternate routes are equally congested. The purpose of the ordinance is to keep us from -8- • O COMMISSIONERS 0 MINUTES City of Newport Beach - � s �•° sm cy ti z September 21 , 1978 ROLL CALL INDEX contributing to making problems like this one even worse. The ordinance limits its application to those intersections where the effect of the project is over one per- cent. This is a natural and reasonable radius . The City boundary is an unnatural and unreasonable place to draw the line. Traffic problems do not respect city boundaries . "If half the routes to and from a project are to be exempted because they are -the other side of that arbitrary line, then we are holding projects in the heart of Newport Beach to a stricter standard than those on the boundary. I urge the Commission not to apply a double standard. " I ' Ayes X Commissioner Beek ' s motion was voted on and Noes X X X X X failed. Absent X Motion X Motion was made that Planning Commission will , Ayes X X X X X consider only intersections within the city limits Noes X of Newport Beach with regard to the Traffic i Absent X Phasing Ordinance. iMotion X Motion was made that mitigation measures from Ayes X X X X X other projects , which have been approved but ;are ' Noes X yet to be built., should be considered in the Absent application of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Commissioner Beek requested that the record show that he opposed the motion because he does not wish to approve projects until the removal of unsatisfactory conditions has actually occurred , rather than merely been predicted . Public hearing was opened in connection with the Traffic Study in question and there being no one desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed . -9- ' • R� - COMMISSIONERS MINUTES � 9pm o�\ a City of Newport Beach Q1 �y September 21 , 1978 ROLL CALL INDEX Motion X Motion was made that Planning Commission make the Ayes X X X X following finding,: Noes X X Absent X 1 . The proposed project, including traffic mitigation measures , will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on any "major" , "primary- modified" or "primary" street. and accept the Traffic Report, subject to the following condition: 1 . That occupancy of the buildings will not occur until improvements have been implemented. Item #6 A propos.ed' amendment to the Planned Community AMENDMENT Districts to revise the allowable development to _,_ 5 4 be consistent with the capacity of the circulation system for the following P-C District areas : CON T TO 1 . Big Canyon Area 10 2. Civic Plaza 3. Corporate Plaza North Ford 5. Emkay/Newport Place 6. Koll Center Newport 7 , ronutronic-Ford 8. Wes ay Site 9. Newpo er North Site 10. Castawa Site 11 , Newport C ter Block 800 12. Coast Highwa and Jamboree Site 13. Fifth Avenue ' e 14. Newport Village ' te Initiated by: City of Ne ort Beach ,Community Development Director Hoga suggested that the Planning Commission deal thi evening with Items 2 through 7 , being the comme ial development for which planned community di tricS -10- Y Planning Commission Meeting September 21 , 1978 Agenda Item No . 5 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH September 15 , 1978 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Traffic Study: Office Building Development - Campus Drive Request to consider a Traffic Study for two 20,000 square feet +, two-story , garden type, general office buildings on the subject property (Public Hearing) . LOCATION: Lots 18, 19 , 43, and 44, Tract No . 3201 , located at 4060 and 4100 Campus Drive and 4063 and 4101 Birch Street, southeasterly of Campus Drive and southwesterly of Dove Street, across from the Orange County Airport. ZONE: M-1-A APPLICANT: Signal Development Corporation , Irvine OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach Application This application requests the approval of a traffic study prepared in accordance with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance , and requests that the Planning Commission make its findings , as required by the Ordinance , in order to allow the issuance of building permits for two office buildings , each conta.ining approximately 21 ,000 square feet. Analysis The traffic study was prepared by JHK and Associates , and was completed in conformance with the administrative guidelines adopted by the City Council . The conclusions of the study are summarized on Page 4 of the report , and the standard worksheets used to arrive at those conclusions are contained in Appendix A of the report. Briefly, of the seven critical intersections identified by the City ' s Traffic Engineer for analysis , only two intersections were affected by ' additional traffic from the proposed project. These intersections are Bristol Street North/Campus Drive and MacArthur Boulevard/Campus Drive. The Intersection Capacity Utilization (I .C .U. ) is increased by .01 at each intersection . The difference is caused by the addition of 16 cars to the West-Through movement at the intersection of Bristol Street North/Campus , and the addition of two cars to the West-Through movement at the MacArthur Boulevard/Campus intersection . 0 TO: Planning Commission - 2' Recommendation Because of the marginal impact identified in the I .C.U. analysis , no specific mitigation measures were developed for the project. In reality, the net impact at each intersection is less than .01 , but the process of rounding-off the numbers for presentation purposes causes the I .C.U . to increase. It is anticipated that planned improvements at each of the intersections will more than accommodate the net impact of the proposed projects . These improvements include increasing the capacity of the MacArthur/Campus intersection (as included in the conditions of approval for Amendment No . 506, Koll Center) , and restriping the intersection of North Bristol at Campus . Although no firm schedule has been finalized, these improvements should be in place in the near future in conjunction with the construction of previously approved development in the area. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission accept the traffic report as presented and make the following finding regarding the project: "The proposed project, including traffic mitigation measures , will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on any 'major' , ' primary-modified ' or ' primary' street. '+ DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. Hogan, Director � ,. BY 2�C2 7/7f� Beverly ','god tEnvironarntal Coordinator BW:jmb Attachment: Traffic Report - JHK & Associates III _ _ 3 j hk & associates James H. Kell, president September 5, 1978 aFo � s.y Ica„F��t� • SFP , "nr. �r .jQ Ms. Beverly Wood Environmental Coordinator �a4/.;:,c >> Community Development Department H, City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, California 92663 Dear Ms. Wood: This letter-type report describes the findings of our traffic analysis of the proposed Signal Development Corporation office development located between Campus Drive, Birch Street, Dove Street and Quail Street in the City of Newport Beach. The subjects discussed in this report are as follows : 0 Site* Location ' 0 'Project Description 0 Critical Intersection Locations 0 Trip Generation 0 Trip Distribution 0 Trip Assignment 0 Critical Intersection Impact Analysis 0 Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis 0 Conclusions Site Location The proposed project is bound by Campus Drive and Birch Street, * and between Quail Street and Dove Street in the City of Newport Beach (Figure 1) . The site is directly across Campus Drive from the Orange County Airport and is surrounded primarily by office and similar type developments. 1617 East 17th Street, Suite 20 0 Santa Ana, California 92701 • (714) 973-0455 rNUa S' EI BLVD Irului u+i' 9'e ,••'6f •''^a 't'; f:i'd;l �I '� C • , w1�V3' „n1 f iww•�. t r ••e Y.��• .r :' �I�u"'•;•�. q +� �� toll 00 pp. • ,u a uu• ..d •' h - •+.. 9J p I • `` I .r --l. - =' •p�' LL , °4 Y o •ae .. 'u.rurt. .•I.. COST}4 i ■.� ' ,.s l I '� 1 � • 1 •• ul 4w A I � YV t+V V•rnu SA_N SAN DIEDD ` S m t r,M / � t � •n t lS:::r ' r• ti I 4 . . w :. �.i • a a iT9 •r •\`� O X � O � D+Q . Xelp r� y r.• 4, Q 9 �F I n • `■r I ♦ p•�0 I I •'I I��bt`1 4• ". .,�'p �i : f �j' r•w,`dl �♦• I I � // : ';;; 3 A' a: f♦ I d, SITE LOCATION V�yl�51•� ��%ti t��g�,y;� t� f�¢' !�'••w'R'S:Y�cr I �OF`� '' � ,a' �,•• ' j ' �j f,�°FiYa'+ at 10"rB � � Sb i o',r �': ';r ,, 4j a`k`'r, , � y Ir+� •/ 1 ,�;y7,� ♦ p't e F •.. + . 'Q' a �;b •u• v+ ti+� Xr •rur♦+ 11 `.,y''" ; •i�p +'.b,.+ f "w •�^ F t ttp a ` •\ , l'. „I�SS�'.r1fo� t ♦ •� � F° •r~•piµ •r•:•� f I �.:IIT:ii`�'71..! r i'IC� Nor It '�'p+ f• j o""`""r+� (i ■��+\ it"i`i r. •hJ 1 yr„O °•�w•iv ••J}•••E.� ■ t urc 4 P ' /.' ii:'u✓'• -Ir n� `•sf..7•i.a. ICI I �` �+..y-,�'• !7''t � '�be'.q, Xniii. •`•L 1 �• l+u4e li �• ' / I o•^, r ; • . 4 ..^'•atsvS• . . •I,! •� .31 I I / mmnu. um.tl Xr � Iw•u• Y ?� r1.Vrr c S.• yI � E,�4CF1 I RV I N E .♦•V•R' ••. S �•� V wl ti 4 CC -jlv�'t(�• ! u U d• Ys a Figure 1 SITE LOCATION Yj 1 f�b• .. .or ,1S�Q� f' , ,r S :o .�:,r �hk ti„al,«s jhk..., 5 2 Project Description The proposed development under study is for two 21,000 square foot gross floor area office buildings (Figure 2) . One of the proposed office buildings fronts on Campus Drive and the second on Birch Street. Primary access to the site will be via ,Campus Drive and Birch Street. Both of these streets lead to Bristol Street and North Bristol Street, a major east-west one-way couplet. Access is also available to MacArthur Blvd. and Jamboree Blvd. These are major north-south arterials that provide access south to Pacific Coast High- way and north to the San Diego Freeway, approximately 1h miles. Critical Intersection Identification The proposed office development is located in Critical Intersec- tion Identification Area 1 as identified by the City of Newport Beach. Required in the traffic phasing ordinance, any project to be developed in Area 1, must have as many as twelve intersections analyzed to deter- mine whether the proposed development will have a negative traffic impact on the corresponding intersections. In discussions with the Traffic Engineering Division of Public Works, seven intersections were selected for this analysis. The cri- tical intersections identified are presented in Figure 3. Trip Generation Average Daily Traffic (ADT) , PM Peak 2'k Hour and PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume Trip Generation Rates were supplied by the City of Newport Beach Traffic Engineering Division of Public Works. These _ generation rates along with the trips generated from this proposed development are presented in Table 1. Trio Distribution Trip distribution to/from the study area was provided by the City. Their source for the distribution was based on a trip distribution study for the Emkay Development located easterly of the proposed I ,11 :lx. FURT, �(T'l`�171T11 'Y ,2�' �:�.•h L��I r _ .. i I . s_ •M; it 1\u Li oar P.0 r N 1 I p r MI 44 ( FC " 0 •Tw rtNa7394 N IS 1G.924 A�• ' n » Y' 6 ' P_C ' r » ' r Y M ♦• r p I' P-Ci �I I " 4 I \ N ^ � 3 MI It , f t I DRISTOL STR N� S U Fi?f/RE LORONA D£L ¢�¢ MAR • evsrce — � spree. Figure 2 SITE 'DESIGN jhk & asstxiates I . 7 N._1 tHUN S• E I BlVO !i wunnm � A, P �'" Y ewo - K' � •` I _.�r—dL �{'I--- _ �--_r- .Y +5 [ ' nu"r y Itµ;� i — r• �` ♦ r. d--- I ` — li .iirt..imi •1..• , a.I�EI, •..I� a .va.:d", : .r'."�' �'• r c-•; 'r y, � I U. _ pI li 4 clan ..d, S•Y, 1•L �� •` � ' C4grW f p� I „O ♦f, %�Iy G 1lO�"Ir ♦Y-'fUX. llpU Ioo s mnoru w AV COST Y >m �� I f wl • '4 }4 I , i I ."Innw 4 I ,rlla ., 4 anon mumul / • SAN DIE�O ' SAN DIEGO `I , 0Y.Ne, I ,T I Y ...00� a x�," � run. "�, ` . „Ya° I \ I •� ' ) r1LlM�K QQ�} 1V �_ �PNIL�MO o IxCG . J a I I •Y � e ... t .•. Yfyy a iX p IN . t • In ,(. V Ilu�rx (. ,pp ♦ 6 I S'Ijl• p Nla � 1 ♦/`) E 0 1 F ,}�•W p•�- .'�•4 ♦ ' I � 0 ♦ 11 I .4 �, I O/1i•D• f - '�'' F e •Y I ' dle``�Q O /I . ' 4 1• 0 i 1 L o re ` •1 i •axlll Inililr � I,IO 1• 'e 1 I �{ IIIIININf It "` �tl A°., ° yv 4, �' S I 4 u`I •,`b7 l�0O I I . j,fvf y^ 4�'.?:v:i.::�,:i' P♦,o•� .i a n"" I � . I k ri:: �Iii I�i �,':;:.:.iT � g�'h't{...IIx. — fo ..nl — �— , I —_— I J/I•k+.�l+ Y I,p t •4�Mvla •'A ♦ °.qy, p:" °° p4 , „�, I � cd �--}.,�a, I+i:}}�1 �' Gr �d' ,. Y �< •�' I <{ rZ.g. , ,1 fri5.t awn ,F d, �`� �`�q`i :�ivi•ii� ,p•8 � •> +,-�'�° `•t`qp_ � � I � i / I Yt��Y�+i pp �.� \fir' 1 ♦ yJ 'h, w+1 w1 �.A N11"t.+��ad ,(,,,'�f/ r'�d �p J' •` L • 4 •}r•�t�• "l•'fl nrN•rc I .. ..1..+xa 4y-a• t.A•� ., T °li, '�^ '°4A +h� 9 a \ �y' >".gl 3t�'lly<0 / ,w �•o'��;',•�.� ♦ .ik ♦S�'•.r '.L, •.� ! i 1 r@.iii��:•aY•I � �� I a,+•1IitF UNM y ` F� •' d �. YI _ , .'_-�•::mom... .J .1 ir•:r e Ac • \ :� ....... i• `r i t1[lmlf_— �4 yyr :io Q. I•ulai'u` Boy — I --��� T ) � ,Y.•.�.1�• L c 4 ra PJ♦ � ,,�• iirum _/t'Yry ..Jr`ri.n .• 1 ! all / I \ '..�•_��/`.• ••yy �, O.4 d NRI.Y I i• •:J� 11 •, 7•• , I •RI f•` i ,VS, R: YlinVn �rrJx' r• GP 1 y Iall.11lf I lal. . ;4gntin;;5a ° F �Y•� ; IRVING F CHI .••44 I Y , '"' kSBkV • G re n rn h 6 PEI a ;► fO III II a1 •+' I i �?� Figure 3 NEWPORT BEACH CRITICAL INTERSECTION IDENTIFICATION ��h'<Y ♦' �',a � i�•y}'L Jai*.fir•♦� �Y•1'Y.`:�Ii• �• � I'1). // /��,\ .d� i>�c' :``�+.��_•`,�^�fie jhk Ec BSSOCI:ItCS II • { i jhk. .,,..,� 8 Table 'l Trig Generation* Trip Ends Generated (Based on 421000 sq.ft. GFA) Average Daily Traffic 13 Trip Ends per 1,000 Square 546 Trip Ends Feet Gross Floor Area PM Peak 2'h, Hour Traffic Volumes Inbound: 1.2 TE/1,000 sq.ft. GFA 50 Trip Ends Outbound: 3.4 •TE/11000 sq.ft. GFA 143 Trip Ends PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volumes Inbound: .6 TE/1,000 sq.ft. GFA 25 Trip Ends Outbound: 1.7 TE/1,000 sq.ft. GFA 72 Trip Ends * Trip Generation Rates from City of Newport Beacht Traffic Engineering Division of Public Works 0 • 9 - 3 development. The trip distribution percentage used in this analysis is presented in Figure 4. Trip Assignment The trip assignment in this analysis is based upon the trip generation and trip distribution previously presented. In this assign- ment process,' it was assumed to evenly split the traffic to/from the proposed site via Campus Drive and. Birch Street. Traffic to/from these two streets were proportionately assigned to the trip distribu- tion cordon locations. The trip assignment from this analysis is pre- sented in Figure 5. Critical Intersection Impact Analysis Critical intersection impact is determined if the project will generate more than one percent of existing traffic volumes during the PM Peak 2h Hour period on any leg of the critical intersections iden- tified previously in the report. If the traffic generated is more than one percent of the existing traffic volumes, then an Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis is required. j The City of Newport Beach has provided the •l% Traffic Volume calculation forms. These were filled in using the trip assignment values previously presented, The forms are presented in Appendix A. In analyzing the seven critical intersections within proximity of the study site, two were estimated to have project traffic' greater than 1% of the existing PM Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volumes, as presented in Figure 6. These intersections are Bristol Street North%Campus Drive and MacArthur Blvd./Campus Drive, and require Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis Intersection capacity utilization (ICU) calculations have been made for existing traffic volumes and existing plus projected traffic 'i rHun t' EI • � t'` I; i;i I a p �` 10 9 A BLVD ruud`w 'LLro ""' vo p r.u . u.r ..dl,.f,r. �r�. �D ! I • , I n 11JAMMER AA AV w . •'t ;e r yr� Ir�l u n AV Cos 1 �,� a• I 4} •tw Gy • 1 • ,---- SAN DIEdo SAN DIEGO has �I ` �•►�►5 Y K r ` � 'rY. ', I:,nC 1 • Muei G] a ' / I ` I p 1 6 JJk ' $rtlAmp QpY •r a vWL1�Wr0 I <3.aae i o� �r ♦ Lo � „ 'I w Lit r w ,t• •r ly VT l• a 9 r /S Il, . 3' '"y S9 • I • �+ " O /25 � 1 J� • 1 �fGO: • � I 1 i rsfrti ..•::'itP P•o-• iy6,tS' ,� 4x1 — LL � +'!L y• rgl�yl• � >d �.b �� •PTFy7:r. \�< nn l i o�, i"' I ���,iS4#'"`r• m C 4 i&ra all At"" ti d T!+ /.P' •�.I,, `j:••/• ! ' ' ./�q 13x 1 **..A .:A?�' ��• I1, �a{j o u..... n r srf:i c(;I A� •erorWa. u e cast All L. •Iwl 4arin ,1E✓ m pJ � ♦!� l•` i:iruii 'jr%"NyY nL;.fr�i , ,> 1 ' i \♦ �.� �Q/'\, • f J !w'o df unuly I:• iy �.`:.k a�xMk �' I yel +;L`'• 'tom�Q >lia v r .•+''`•V�aIl ` �„' ,W1,_ Ih� — / I , .gr11111r II #talk t�♦'f• 41_t/,`f. 4 Ei�+SMrt`�JI}�7•�j•'t rj�7!i:'�4 $• i • , u-IIRVINE `'` • \•K'ro,/� `* w 4' ` $ ti'T3 ' •3B1" A l 11 �— •ter /p+Y 1 �\ *NCO Figure 4 TRIP DISTRIBUTION •pn W `>.Ywi, fly"+ 4y'.j~`b •r .� .a 1,! tiff„'' (.y Tay:�.: 1 a L f' W � i W � 0, MN f.l CAMPUS DR. 3 -► i. ?` 3 BIRCH ST. 10 DOVE 0 q � U .a H W 32� N� h H 1 39 9 H 9 9 QUAIL • � Byvo . N r�2 NORTH BRISTOL ST. 3 65 � � 2 N BRISTOL ST. 14 , 10 23---► 12! 11� 3 a tp 11 i 6 i Figure 5 TRIP ASSIGNMENT . (PM Peek 2� Hour Period) Jl y,lk • & associates C Gw CAMPUS DR. c,y BIRCH ST. w H H W G1 DOVE p QUAIL "9�+ wen 1 NORTH BRISTOL ST. ii 1 W BRISTOL ST. PH Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volumes • Intersections with 1% PH Peak 222 Hour Traffic Volumes (Requires ICU Analysis) Figure 6 INTERSECTIONS WITH 1% PH O Intersections with less than It PH Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volumes PEAK 2h HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES jhka associates 0 jhk. ..Wu, 12. a volumes for existing geometrics at MacArthur Boulevard/Campus Drive and Bristol Street North/Campus Drive. The calculations are contained in Appendix B. It was determined that for both intersections existing plus projected traffic ICU will be greater than existing ICU that is currently greater than 0. 90. Conclusions Seven critical intersections within proximity of the study site were selected by the City for 1% PM Peak 2' Hour Traffic Volume Ana- lysis. Two of these intersections were estimated to have project traffic greater than 1% of the existing PM Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volumes. ' These intersebtions' are Bristol Street North/Campus Drive and Mac Arthur Boulevard/Campus Drive. These latter two intersections were further analyzed for Project PM Peak 1 Hour Volumes using Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) calculation forms provided by the City of Newport Beach. It was determined that the intersections of Mac Arthur Boulevard/Campus Drive and Bristol Street North/Campus Drive, will have existing plus project traffic ICU greater than existing ICU that is currently greater than 0.90. Respectfully submitted, Ray A. Moe Transportation Planner cc: Bill E. Darnell k II APPENDIX A 1% Traffic Volume 'Analysis 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MacARTHUR BL1fI4CAMP[U DRINF (Existing Traffic 'Volumes based on Average Winter/spring 197�L) Existing 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 2k Hour Peak 22 Hour Peak 2k Hour Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volum Northbound 2888 29 18 Southbound 3129 31 13 Eastbound 1693 17 28 Westbound 2004 20 4 - EProject Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing ' Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume' Project Traffic- is estimated to be-greater than.-1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. INTERSECTION MacARTHUR BLVD/CAMPUS DRPVE FORM I PROJECT: ICe 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection E - IRVINE AVE. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter/Spring-f97D Existing 1% of Existing, Project Approach Peak 2k Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2h Hour Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volulm Northbound 1504 15 12 Southbound 3705 37 39 Eastbound Westbound 4790 46 34 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing x Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection' Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET NORTH/CAMPUS 'DRIVE - IRVINE AVE. _ FORM I PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersectio AVE. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 197V Existing '1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Northbound •1606 16 -- Southbound 3164 32 .6 Eastbound 3027 30 23 Westbound -- -- Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour.Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET/CAMPUS DRIVE - IRVINE AVE. FORM I PROJECT: s 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE BLVD./CAMPUS_DRIVE (Existing Traffic 'Volumes base on Average winter/Spring 1978) ------------ Existing 1%. of Existing Project pproach Peak 2h Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2)1 Hour Direction ' Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volumt Northbound 3459 10 Southbound 3417 34 5 Eastbound 10 estbound ISZ ' Project Traffic is estimated to 'be less- than 1% of Existing Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 231 Hour Traffic Volume., Intersection Capacity Utilization (I:C.U.) Analysis is required. INTERSECTION JAMBOREE BLVD./CAMPUS DRIVE FORM I PROJECT: 1 1 • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL STREET NORTH/JAMBOREE ROAD (Existing Traffic -Volumes based on Average inter/Spring 1978) Existing 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak- 2 2 Hour Peak 2 2 Hour Peak 22 'Hour Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volum Northbound 5153 52 1 Southbound 2811 28 Eastbound -- Westbound 3 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET NORTH/JAMBOREE ROAD FORM I PROJECT: zo 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection RRrrrni SrRFFTY.t�BDR RnAn (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 197,8) Existing of Existing Project Approach Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2k Hour Direction Traffic Volume .Traffic Volume Traffic Volunx Northbound 4996 50 1 Southbound 2359 2 Eastbound 2778 28 13 Westbound EAProject Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 21-a Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET/JAMBOREE ROAD _ FORM I PROJECT: i� 1% Traffic Volume Analysis (1) Intersection JAMBOREE ROAD/MacARTHUR BLVD. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average. Winter/Spring 1978) Existing 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 23-2 Hour Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic VolUm Northbound 1681 17 3 Southbound 2814 28 9 Eastbound 1 2923 29 Westbound 3037 30 © Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is dstimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 2'z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity-Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1 MacArthur Blvd. is assumed nort h and south INTERSECTION JAMBOREE ROAD/MacARTHUR BLVD. FORM I PROJECT: APPENDIX B Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis INOSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION AiYSIS t� 7_� Intersection�l2�� FbL GTRE EFF !Vo✓ �I / (�/^ ) (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average ,Winter/Spri g 1978) Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C VC Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio NL II Goo81 — 8 / 0 O!ns DS NT 11 ,2nc 5 G 5 o 10r� NR — SL — — — ST 2 M '1 3 SR 653 S EL — — — — ET — — — ER — — — WL t I (aob 32/ o, zo 12,b wr l o �o l6. & 0,2b% ' WR :30 3 33 Yellow Time 011 O Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. Jr 0 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk. (*) . N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left ' aExisting Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 030 F1Existing Plus Project Traffic 'will *be' less than •or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. Existing Plbs Project• 7raffic I.C.U." w* ill be greater than 0.90 141 Existing Plus Project Traffic' I.C.O. will 'be greater than existing- I.C.U. -that is currently greater. than 0.90 Further analysis' required' to d@termine' applicable mitigation measures . INTERSECTION - --- FORM II nonlcrT. INACTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION AN /NSIS Zq Intersection UM, )WO OL-6tJi, (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter Spring W9 ) Move- Lanes Capa- 4Existing Project Ex st ng Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr • Plus Project V/C V/C Volume ' Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio NA 3?-00 9 1053 0 .33 NJ _ 73 — St L, 0 A`l o s cc a7 co ID3D O'. '32 St R, 13. E L E t � 2or, Wy G L t• Lo J00. )DO o . ob lob W T �- Z5" 2 Z Wy I ME Yellow Time 0.10 ' �D Existing Intersection Capacity Utilizatioh I.C.U. o Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, •W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left Existing Plus 'Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less -than or equal to Existing Cohditions I.C.U. _. Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I1;71 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing k `l I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION FORM II PROJECT: _ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of Signal Development for a ❑ variance ❑ Use Permit ❑ Resubdivision 0 XXX ) %jg W XW4X Traffic Study on property located at • 4060/4100 Campus Drive and 4Q63/4101 Birch Street, Newport Beach to { Grm4'A-- consider a Traffic Study for two 20,000 + square foot two story garden type general office buildings on the subject property. Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the 21st day of September lg 78 at the hour of 7 : 30 P .M. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall , at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon . George Cokas, Secretary Planning Commission City of Newport Beach PUBLICATION DATE: Received for Pub . By Note : The expense of this notice is paid from a filing fee collected from the applicant. T 00 r � Koll Income Properties i Aldo Chiappero 1901 Dove Street P. 0. Box 176 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Sea & Desert Properties : Signal Development Corp. P. 0. Box 484 : 17890 Skypark Circle Huntington Beach, CA : Irvine, CA 92714 Robert Forbes The Irvine Company 2052 Newport Blvd. 550 Newport Center Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Vernon Edler 2101 Dove Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 Edward Jarvis 4043 Birch Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 . . . . . . . . . .. . . .I e; Robert Maverick 17890 Skypark Circle Irvine, CA 92714 3 • hk & associates James H. Kell, president September S, 1978 REo � SFp °epS t t0 Ms. Beverly Wood 17 NFWao'�°F�9j9A. Environmental Coordinator c 4rF c,9c� /I Community Development Department City of Newport Beach c� 3300 Newport Blvd. "1 Newport Beach, California 92663 Dear Ms. Wood: This letter-type report describes the findings of our traffic analysis of the proposed Signal Development Corporation office development located between Campus Drive, Birch Street, Dove Street and Quail Street in the City of Newport Beach. The subjects discussed in this report are as follows : 0 Site Location 0 Project Description 0 Critical Intersection Locations 0 Trip Generation 0 Trip Distribution 0 Trip Assignment 0 Critical Intersection Impact Analysis 0 Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis 0 Conclusions Site Location The proposed project is bound by Campus Drive and Birch Street, --and between Quail Street and Dove Street in the City of Newport Beach (Figure 1) . The site is directly across Campus Drive from the Orange County Airport and is surrounded primarily by office and similar type developments. 1617 East 17th Street, Suite 20 0 Santa Ana, California 92701 • (714) 973-0455 1 ' t • fNUN'fr €I DLVD A vxcaxrxon[ �.�R .,xF E: A.,: ' r m a n a iw 1 ri►iwnR i La >m• •nu�r '°ir..� 3 ctf � PJ , fa AMA_ v I�_13 u.u.•A [ • �_•vr 3 0 ;:. n.. f q�4 p W� , *�,< ,�{- Yo {' p aI r. k �, Ql - `•+., A�. P I f R E xro e 2 6 .7n[rdi;°GI} E f 4 Y fY f • k E�hx AY n i flll XfLOt[II /.V II nFvtxG nr D ° �. •oa• w wxnotu • '' N°xx� � � >m '@ I j. ♦ f+e a ftryr . r � :•G••eo u � i urw uw VOV�''fJ/♦y_ .y ��1/p x I� .� r SAN DIEdo SA DIEGO \ � Lv x• R r oLYUVIc nnvFe oe- ° E.w,. A�r:n'�jeE .+ _ xx .• h'U'y` J• +w � `'♦ . ' ` FA K N GN xr°•N a pi a G\ �y, x rf .,•rt�r E x P p x F I n / � • � by f rxlllalYxY d e tv L m YAVIdFINO o , I / ' roar wOF, g &�2 • '� dhincvv _.� - — n S t•G r im ,a •v xr o ow rod 9 r :pe) r N D +� • eh W oe�' q9 q <f'.r � � �I•► O ' n � � • °+ `�� � /f'GD j •pf P �� i ry l y �;P� � •� i � ,1� 0y I 1 •I• b 4 I ZV 4 _ <yyy�(`Np 114P� ; �' r nnU uw a lrywuid :' Ft, ::' q•sr �' ' °° �� SITE LOCATION r /< • ��4�' .....; .., .% Q'Fd. /y t✓j � �gfrew � r � -b� � .b•ff•'f •ty r4{•I '9d{:'bf:G:::{ y�� ri', `. ///'''��� Fn sn•' J �t]ip• P�OJhr q <<f9jW rJ: � t d�.Y•'a3 N.��:v'� r O°0'4 � u � � ?. ,p /_'_l`r,,r' /�� I Y Ab`d•t Z �-�' 'h Nvui[ E� Q e`'rlq ` •G. f u''• 'rl'• ,i /IAi1 V•"YF YMII Pd P'P�{ J SP e••+f f /,F�n,`w,"if` ,q`C8 h rrJror� • f 5'=- �'�� J/ 3• �W"1i�_ �y a $ f � v.'.f+,[ . it h, 4 .• : Sr � �. / 111 `...r.'t y.ro �PP�«8 \Q,. Fd\�rcxs �qf y'4d•�"xf �` yr= �� wu Wt � �3'c Y.f..ln•H����w a et �t° ''r'W !•..� � 1 ri�•'iif-BY:`F� v[a f idt'ICEi x �• �( d r �1d'Lb UNrvFASrtY f••• tSVxt 'i:vE' yf , F4fff,4� f' \�� •� I '•i � ."..._........ � ..� .!}(�'uuGEl P,� 1 r?�a• wwiuG[x U / ',./ i y ► t�tr � U(f. GnxO.lx PPI I •Y y.N1F_ e Swnnu ° ii mxwn •'� <� 4 '° wwi v vG •.r ' .' _ ' yP ■ umi n•rw n hJ J Kwfn.i t r LL 4 :nixr M..reyGpM{IF n .: �y b r . NrauW i°• v '��• ' I °xR1 v` J�Jr�. f b dtd � }_ .. p. ,f �`• J t �y2�/ f gnlunr r ,Gumu ` ` O c�4 �i;."��'a�ti�'I•b 4'; d dE'q.�`rf .Yr{f' $.�' i ''AM, I .1 d t•; a E7 `, .� - + •— ----F'------- --- .f <� �FR�' r. - � I RV I N E s I ` a 4 _ t a M1 B,A 11 rti q $ v '.��,.•,�,��„„•,,-- Figure. 1 SITE LOCATION .. . .t' }:: a. r 'xve'"e J � -n fu ib • MFEaRG Px 1•Af:�`,r,• t vrr�a �F.S• 4,4-;X•Fii s , x fii,. .. �.�:- hk fist+"•' ^_: �� a associates • 5 2 Project Description The proposed development under study is for two 21,000 square foot gross floor area office buildings (Figure 2) . One of the proposed office buildings fronts on Campus Drive and the second on Birch Street. Primary access to the site will be via Campus Drive and Birch Street. Both of these streets lead to Bristol Street and North Bristol Street, a major east-west one-way couplet. Access is also available to MacArthur Blvd. and Jamboree Blvd. These are major north-south arterials that provide access south to Pacific Coast High- way and north to the San Diego Freeway, approximately lh miles. Critical Intersection Identification The proposed office development is located in Critical Intersec- tion Identification Area 1 as identified by the City of Newport Beach. Required in the traffic phasing ordinance, any project to be developed in Area 1, must have as many as twelve intersections analyzed to deter- mine whether the. proposed development will have a negative traffic impact on the corresponding intersections. in discussions with the Traffic Engineering Division of Public Works, seven intersections were selected for this analysis. The cri- tical intersections identified are presented in Figure 3. Trip Generation Average Daily Traffic (ADT) , PM Peak 2k Hour and PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume Trip Generation Rates were supplied by the City of Newport Beach Traffic Engineering Division of Public Works. These _,generation rates along with the trips generated from this proposed development are presented in Table 1. Trio -Distribution Trip distribution to/from the study area was provided by the City. Their source for the distribution was based on a trip distribution study for the Emkay Development located easterly of the proposed •� 'Y '_-�� �n� ^II` J ' , —' — 'meµ •.�i' P•C dd a •� .. +. qP A » I D ♦ 7 o ; , PLO N MIA ++ y w +1 tar t N » Ib.9?AAC;1394 3 1. +. � •sr. 4 I P-C +' n N �� .• �- + P-C N .. • 2 .. 4ua2 sT. MI .. i — - I BRISTOL ST7CG NORlN� v fIIrURE LORONA DEL MAR /RGG 1 r B Lt srz Y STREG� Figure 2 SITE DESIGN jhk & associates BLVD fHUP A ,ARCMtxuR m C `° `]:ro I...`... b417, r °j�N LI�J' 4� •� �WF9 i � vw, .,. pJ tf' '_' � 4 LORt� �� 1'y.Ix ufu • , rp!•` P,.-.r yy o•AV I::LS�i:�.• _ qq ` 4 � FLOWE 9R . rAR xMA$ tla w Q o ♦mvwf itF sR`i • {+CSVXR A D Y A pim,n Ar --I , ` r /.fr r00 .w MrLoxu COST - N m f .xrn,uw •' �:��• r N I � ynrAM �I I MurMp == 1 .. •. r yYd ..�— — trYAinforfL._---.I SAN DIEiO ° °" SAN DIEGO it r2y I ws I 3t u, r osru�c IIV M. pL •s < 1R.Yf9f •R � ! A yJ a � �, vvi,i$ a e 'if,' + uF� I v` I hYr p Y E 6 wmf a I \ I i d ] fA0.Mlm ' �� AV m PAULAFINO m ' WwaA N~� Fai f> 'aL� 'b I C ]NR b5i Ap I I,, ro %d,' O p OIF (+•:'•,rveri r,linrui '� P J•o d !P. . '— -- 4 a.i..' 1't:.t^•��`.f�Q'i1`�`•!i ♦ '.� ..b., .•°'4 4 i f �e C'rrx,wol I I , T •t \ 4 qFS I or',f C � E C I i � ':':ee'ry;� .`. ,•., .�•,.i?. pp�Pfvyf�, Sal ��, r iM '•" ,.;+' # I (7 J• ��, ` �y � Sd• •..-'. .� ^ ?,.:, an ,+`?`` �fit,!' Y �,LO'Li•� 41,•t�oy;a/°•o � ��d+��iq�:5`�?tf I OF,b• Q'h I -- _ � �------�`d �`-f���i ,`� 9 w '`� td 4YW Y �' I ``Sl ` rP I •° Q.•i lr�r '— I n) Ei4"! YRII t; IJ�fi N d0 .]IaL/ a'.••••u Yd f4`R�. , < e! Y 1 `C a..'. ,yr/•3q� P�^8 ° F \�� a �tv� ea reo ���, riv w° ��� / K.Ts..��uoa � .ILA `,�,�! �P d b y L ♦�4 d a. {4i p9fu.r] v R,,r, °•1 • •� Y T �k ♦e qOA °iy°e y ', ," F'n �M1S7f:ls� / m"�;ySy°.'•� " .!t a�.B r°'+`N, ?;� � x` w`.'.itNtan.Y'1• �' 'i: r Iat:iC Fn F tl t +. ..yb • 'i, °.x'w=...._-��II piVi"t Y�'�'°.:i'i, {y rQ•S A. R, \ / ft I , 1 UNNEFST' ., .ii`•i uiS' G P ei r°� . r9r9i rsx Upper q �Rra.w .„w.� 'I .• -- w'(1 4y•L ° YRi�u[fn I j� Ap � /�r�� Y�,,J' w pt �. •i fon rn 1 - •P] rur t J yp`,•1' w ioin ° �oiM1 l•Y,`r��i- it ,r, R ' I \ %� K�e. Parr a, el''ra iulr°ww i'�' '. t_a (,:':v I �;• . .� iarssx v.�:] � `6 dpg wun xp.1•`:};T. :, ....9.3�. J �A,i �� I mnnnr r urronA IRVINE 1"q •,1 L i-le LL q fl -I �� I '` • ri BF�ACH y •,yy s. „ ,;, �• s ; �, _ h Figure 3 NEWPORT BEACH CRITICAL �— �—�— � tom.. ARRO -- ^h.wr?'..,.f..Ae '.INTERSECTION TDENTTFTCATION h :Ir( l7�Nti, CAI A Ac 4 Aap4 q.ir1��, e " /�1 ,•r� fr & assoc:iates f // _ l .•07 .t o`er rsrx jhk. .. W,., a Table '1 Trip Generation* Trip Ends Generated (Based on 42 r 000 .Sq.ft., GPA) Average Daily Traffic 13 Trip Ends per 1,•000. 'Square ' 546 Trip Ends Feet Gross Floor-' Area PM Peak 2'h Hour Traffic Volumes Inbound: 1.2 TE/l.,000 sq.�t. GFA 50 Trip Ends Outbound: 3.4 TE/1,OOO .sq.ft. GFA '143 "Trip Ends - PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic• Volumes Inbound: . 6 TE/1.,000 sq. ft. GFA 25 Trip Ends Outbound: 1.7 TE/1,000 sq.£t. GFA 72 Trip Ends * Trip Generation Rates from City of Newport Beach Traffic Engineering Division' of Public Works jhk. ..., 3 development. The trip distribution percentage used in this analysis is presented in Figure 4. Trip Assignment The trip assignment in this analysis is based upon the trip generation and trip distribution previously presented. In this assign- ment process, it was assumed to evenly split the traffic to/from the proposed site via Campus Drive and Birch Street. Traffic to/from these two streets were proportionately assigned to the trip distribu- tion cordon locations. The trip assignment- from this analysis is pre- sented in Figure 5. Critical Intersection Impact Analysis . Critical intersection impact is determined if the project will generate more than one percent of existing traffic volumes during the PM Peak 2h Hour period on any leg of the critical intersections iden- tified previously in the report. If the traffic generated is more than one percent of the existing traffic volumes, then an Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis is required. The City of Newport Beach has provided the 1% Traffic Volume calculation forms. These were filled in using the trip assignment values previously presented. The forms are presented in Appendix A. In analyzing the seven critical intersections within proximity of the study site, two were estimated to have project traffic greater than 1% of the existing PM Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volumes, as presented in Figure 6. These intersections are Bristol Street North/Campus Drive and MacArthur Blvd./Campus Drive, and require Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis Intersection capacity utilization (ICU) calculations have been made for existing traffic volumes and existing plus projected traffic rHUkH '::` 10 BLVD . . 4uE BLV�l D I �I �J I \•q "`► P.R i 'A °u4Ww a i:Y.:Sny ' — O, I P . p OI--- — uwo�I J�ixroi: E A..��a.Lµ;.. .;�t'�,rl� a C- "�•.•'., l ear, � a�,. , aRRtR_/(�� r.l rrM -0 c[Cnup5. a<S y,..• �•t ' S 'QP r Q6 a °Y C Il'f .IV$irk E j "R"ILS rpltF CR♦L $33 .Y wu, I ,f♦ ♦♦ 'V r f• b Sul NFLORR _ AY A I"nlvwt ^_ r I xrrrxl.r Rw wo SOafLORGI __a AY AV a, I .{• ♦ ' , k . .l COSTI ` ° I • w I Q SAN DIEdo ' '" SAN DIEGO I wl IlM M OLT4VIC I � IR.YFM URA I St � �' {r ' R RP, M1♦ •.,Q � `°" p a hveA xea (•" •�,�r I �"` I r(rr"'d lALIARIRO ❑f Av F� m PAl1lMIN0 m ' rwxtxw'7' SRno• � � » �Ac<a4r"�P I 4e Y w,--'�°Al\=0� I xtp { f I R, I . r •II ,rsLS.B m, � ? p� R, Ar ARu�ir rA O P ;'.'Iowa irno( d p ).o - Tomes .10%1 I a cUgreuridt;; I � • - :•.,'.��." .l� ,T ,aL �••'.•t •rF I oe9 A � Ytr 1o� I _ :wn't{:�ti� •+ •,'C�i••,.i_:e %'P P'F<'' �/w41. eefl' r �nw i �� 4/0 I i A' �i ^" ,'y � I ( s4t�e:'.f:•1•� [� ,.r 146�`O/ ro5 lea ,'••..,,,s;• 4"J ii _ _O .rar % I I /�• uc •♦ % -I.•-- ---j: �.. ------...���j•.:-ter,.: u"I O<+yY °°♦q C>' � i d�ya'@•yr "JS:'- ,-� ti4 a'h I ,�•'3' � /:�ry•��ijys' �+ 4q d(r_ht•♦r• tr f J,�yd' t •rji ,'/ �F< .• I r o I I �:,C;;.✓✓ 9 '� C 4YW 1 `� 'V 6 �'1� }' e♦'1� YNII p� d o v�`' r" CW;;I e jf i e -z/ v :' � I Y 4�•e ♦ae. . P ♦ J\\�'t R �.,fi fi Sea ea ? �', ILi. 1 eft` yI/` O P't 8 Q F a,rvgL Qa4 dyL�° `� •'e :`(m w< I xr..lr.c"r.ao♦ `' t h aa;,: 13% L20 • u p S' a (Or♦♦.y. a- �� do I {- I ....... ♦.� :i• u uxrvusrtr �� fp 4 wrorwnx BpQH /• ' o y mw4.0 I •• z� . J c1 eau ' By I • .� �r,.\ 'yam. ��,L nmu,v turn JI xanrtn �•' , • R Inl r`p yt4, .!•ysi.� 4u',win <eJYf'rll:�yr._ t 2 � ' �. Z (p ^/ 1ja-;:N, unuoL+ 'rl .o `•rxrCJ.i ter. II I � •.�--�R�e � 97 .b ' k`v,�u°:auiA i�l. ':J�• �xrG .� ��''_ ; I r o.qr ,AI, ".t.n eYr •max-}aa• v ', .ur.` J '+ / / I anuun •nlrnnA ^•. 5i d�5q 2l '2\ rn Sl , .y{n ll •• nmt vl F �`\ ,,xY+ I EA` '�s$4 ,.� _\tl•�53,:';xy%i '41 - \If I larur n ----I------- --- f IRVINE •I 4 n lx dr I E YS Ti•k4vbt� OE '��� 3; s ♦ -- ----- "0 -- Figure 4 TRIP DISTRIBUTION \r4 ♦ 041Ai rc CiIi u. 3`*• yl :d�� a ,•. Y w j hk ac associates a � W • d � 1 CAMPUS DR. 3 ► M b cp M ti 3 BIRCH ST. IP do H i an- Ul • ' x� H W Uo M o W iDOVE 2 0 Xl 3 �co� � � h ,4 2 39 39� 9 10 9 QUAIL • � 8 0�2 ,2 NORTH BRISTOL ST. -a-3 65 .� 2 `D f rl BRISTOL ST. 10 -23 ► 12 11 3 11'•�' 6 "'� , Figure 5 TRIP ASSIGNMENT (PM Peak 2h Hour Period) jhk a associates IZ H G �2 CAMPUS DR. BIRCH ST. En A E+ En x U a U W DOVE Poo QUAIL 40 CHI+" 8�v0 J3 NORTH BRISTOL ST. /// 16 H BRISTOL ST. PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volumes • Intersections with 1% PM ' Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volumes (Requires ICU Analysis) Figure 6 INTERSECTIONS WITH 1% PM Intersections with less than 1% PM Peak 2' Hour Traffic Volumes PEAK 2' HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES Fi fjhk a associates .• ! � jhk. ,,�,u, 13 4 volumes for existing geometrics at MacArthur Boulevard/Campus Drive and Bristol Street North/Campus Drive. The calculations are contained in Appendix B. It was determined that for both intersections existing plus projected traffic ICU will be greater than existing ICU that is currently greater than 0. 90. Conclusions Seven critical intersections within proximity of the study site were selected by the City for 1% PM Peak 231 Hour Traffic Volume Ana- lysis. Two of these intersections were estimated to have project traffic greater than 1% of the existing PM Peak 2;1 Hour Traffic Volumes. These intersections are Bristol Street North/Campus Drive and Mac Arthur Boulevard/Campus Drive. These latter two intersections were further analyzed for Project . PM Peak 1 Hour Volumes using Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) calculation forms provided by the City of Newport Beach. It was determined that the intersections of Mac Arthur Boulevard/Campus Drive and Bristol Street North/Campus Drive, will have existing plus project traffic ICU greater than existing ICU that. is currently greater than 0. 90. Respectfully submitted, Ray A. Moe Transportation Planner cc: Bill E. Darnell Ask APPENDIX A l% Traffic Volume Analysis I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MacARTHUR BLVD/CAMPUS DRIVE (Existing Traffic•'Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19k) Existing 1% of Existing Project .. pproach Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour Direction -Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volum Northbound 2888 29 18 Southbound 3129 31 13 Eastbound 1693 17 28 _ Westbound 2004 20 4 F-1 Project Traffic is estimated" to be less than 1% of Existing- ' L— ) Peak 211 Hour Traffi c Vol'ume aProject Traffic- is estimated to be.greater than._l% of Existing _ Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. INTERSECTION MacARTHUR BLVD/CAMPUS DRIVE . FORM I PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection VE - IRVINE AVE. lumes (Existing Traffic Vo based on Average inter/Spring-I97_) Existing 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 2 2 Hour Peak 2 z Hour Peak 2 2 Hour Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volum Northbound 1504 15 12 Southbound 3705 37 39 Eastbound - Westbound 4790 48 34 ElProject Traffic is estimated to be Tess than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection' Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis 'is required. - INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET NORTH/CAMPUS DRIVE _ 'IRVINE AVE: FORM I PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRI$TOL STREET iCA PUM S DRIVE,- .IRVINE AVE. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 197V Existing 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 2 z Hour Peak 2 2 Hour Peak 2 2 Hour Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volum Northbound T606 16 -- South bound 3164 32 6 Eastbound 3027 30 23 Westbound -- -- MProject Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to. be greater than 1% of Existing D. Peak 2z-Hour Traffic Volume:. Intersection Capacity Utilization' (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET/CAMPUS DRIVE - IRVINE• AVE. FORM I PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE' "n /CAMPUS DRIVE (Existing Traffio Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Existing of—Existing .Project Approach Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour Peak 2k Hour Direction , Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volum Northbound 3452 35 10 Southbound 3417 34 5 Eastbound I 2n4p ph 10 Westbound 1617 2 0 Project Traffic is estimated• to be less- than 1% of Existing Peak 231 Hour Traffie• Volume QProject Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 2=l Hour Traffic Volume.. In tersection_ Capdcity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. ' INTERSECTION JAMBOREE BLVD./CAMPUS DRIVE FORM I PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL STREET NORTH/JAMBOREE ROAD (Existing Traffic•,Volumes based on Averag2 inter/Spring 1978) Existing 1% of Existing • Project Approach Peak 2, Hour Peak 2: Hour Peak 2 2 Hour• Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volum Northbound 5153 52 1 Southbound 2811 28 Eastbound -- - Westbound 3 X • Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of. Existing " Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume E] Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1%• of Existing Peak 2? Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. , INTERSECTION BRISTOL*STREET .NORTH/JAMBOREE •ROAD FORM I PROJECT: 20 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRTSTOL STgF_TI1 BAi�1 ORFF ROAD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 197$) Existing ' % of Existing Project Approach . Peak 212 Hour Peak 2 2 Hour Peak 2 2 Hour Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffi.c,Volum Northbound 4996 50 1 Southbound 2359 24 - Eastbound 2778 . 28 ' 13 Westbound - FProject Traffic is estimated to -be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is -required. INTERSECTION BRrSTQ1 STREET/JAMBOREE ROAD _. FORM I PROJECT: • 2� 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE ROAD/MacARTHUR BLVD. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average, Winter/Spring 1979) ,• Existing 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour Peak 22'Hour Direction - Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volum Northbound 1681 .17 3 Southbound 2814 28 9 Eastbound 2923 29 Westbound 3037 3D © Project Traffic is estimated to' be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be greater •than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity-Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.' (1) MacArthur Blyd. is assumed north and south , INTERSECTION JAMBOREE ROAD/MacARTHUR BLVD. FORM I PROJECT: • Alklow APPENDIX B . Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis INTACTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION i SIS /g �197D Z3 Intersection�t21^JKOLA Oyze � ��'4AIMP'u•5(Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spri Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak -Hr Plus Project V/C VC Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume 'Ratio Ratio NL 0 ,•0 C S6 1a5 NT J C) r 1 NR — — — SL ST �,. 3 !24 1 3 ay q o. '51 � SR EL ET — ER WL 1 I (ont> 32/ o, 20 )-JD Wr k4 I (( b . lobo A 7( o,2J, ,2 4 WR . -5p 3 3 . Yellow Time Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. � � •d Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. • ICU is. sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk. (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left ' o Existing Plus Project Traffic IX.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 '• (� Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will •be' less than •or* equal to. y Existing Conditions I.C.U. EJ Existing Plbs Project- Traffic I.C.U.: w* ill be greater than 0,90 f�l Existing Plus Project Traffic' I.C.-U. will 'be greater than existing- I.C.U. -that is currently greater. than 0.90 Further analysis required' to determine applicable mitigation measures . * INTERSECTION __ FORM II INTOCTION 4C,AfPACIrTY UTILIZATION OYSIS zq Intersection 1��A.11, 1•43�1:au__ jL��� L\I�.'rnt?.)':�✓�' �)`= (Existing Traffic Volumes. Based on Average Winter/Spring 197 l Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ' ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr ' Plus Project V/C • V/C Volume ' Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio' Ratio NY V Goo '.l f — 1 i 0. 011 0,7 NX 37Zoc> . 4 9 1o53 0 ' .33 NIL 7 St ( (rna isto — 56 , o `" , Oy s� ;:3 103D 0. 32 -- ,:31 s on 01 0 7-3' J3 E L '1. 1:(1DOC) 2 85 Iq q y E), 1 / ET zo, 42- 1 . 5 _ I/ 0..1• )S. 5: _ wXL f• J600 i00 — /00 b . ob 406 W T y wo :';2 5 2 $Z7 12 Yellow Time 0.10 /d Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. O F Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. �. g 5 ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left Existing Plus *Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less •than or equal to. Existing Cohditions I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ICI Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than ,existing I�1 I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION ----- !FORM II PROJECT: ! • Jhk & associates James H. Kell, president C August 16 , 1978 Eo�mec�e t Mr. Bill E. Darnell of ox Traffic Cityof NewportrBeach 3300 Newport .Blvd. Newport Beach, California 92663 Dear Bill: This letter-type report describes the findings of our traffic analysis of the proposed Signal Development Corporation office development located between Campus Drive, Birch Street, Dove Street and Quail Street in the City of Newport Beach. The subjects discussed in this report are as follows : o Site Location o Project Description o Site Access o Critical Intersection Locations o Trip Generation o Trip Distribution o Trip Assignment o Critical Intersection Impact Analysis , o Conclusions Site Location The proposed project is bound by Campus Drive and Birch Street, and between Quail Street and Dove Street in the City of Newport Beach (Figure 1) . The site is directly across Campus Drive from the Orange County Airport and is surrounded primarily by office and similar type ' developments . 1617 East 17th Street, Suite 20 • Santa Ana, California 92701 0 (714) 973-0455 1 IIIUB ' I BLVD A YACARLNDA[ ,m P .�r : 'r ALVD 3 ~ �0 I �P I `• �F•,. u: ] w e nm si t�-,A_� u�•m Y i .L —� • xY d d xxNt��r�I��riiS �wwL. t LI Yr. ..C,. LDa'• I I%" k :D• n'rR �_.r '. }, p�L 4Eq C 6P + tA} :`� , uun .•d S. 'p P A DD . nN1Ag l i LvA r� xane •s P� ry�j, I °ii +. + 4 N t nntxs EL AT �• k •�'b�L IT fux. iLOLLA _ AV II rnx[Y __I _ . y IW L'AIN(E/L•D�IGJ CCTT w AY Y g F I i �• o COV / I a Y y I • ��+I I I :o ED NA' v 1 I Wtd Afro : '� '�'Y I YYtux hl9 -'"I ♦+ I uur a swrxWm 1 F f I '4 — +-- --- -��— — JN+[J«oua--•---•1 -,-- \— —pr +r Ate— G ' . SAN DIEtO A °" SAN DIESO ws I Sr p ■n s rt • DLYN%CJ I OaE91 D4� I Y I I Srtn hao • LI K N LN[MW q n a% s • I ` •• I r� �V` tll u J ( \ W e� W � u•4 8 wwD.Y yr nL I e k g E .d IAr[,n• ? D � i IAIxGIxO p❑[ AV k ..@ m PAl1LMIN0 a' � � k pw w R a Y 9 'xC RW L P f //�'// I / ♦ I Y 3 I LtItY u[upxll '1'u [Q• i d � � 'Qf.� ]A 1 I +4t' ] a,p a. i --- g e xr F e a I •asr n.D I � sSl � ? xm . OtFC + !�'� y3�} 9 • r+ +� I rtp` 0 + n � I 4 yJ i 0 : r ♦ + 4 � + n 7 9 JR I'♦+ 4���f4 � � •I�] � � o-. 0 ' 1 '� ♦Lw[Li II.�ImNN I . NLY1�1/WN 0 olryrWriEt `� Q�!° ••.yq J=`. y�� 9 Qg 4r.` CJ r ++• m I '� Ape e&A SITE LOCATION I riper /i= •�';:A: '4;�•'•:.::a::.`: `P p "' rp r� .�' � l�.Nxx I I xx.•�+. .DO . Si•� I (�;.. i � I♦a '.{"n^liifja, R• J`s �• — — .roxn, _ ,• II ----- -•�'%:-.�.. �JJ�P'kJ� t 4yyi>, a '� !�• �� :y'!� I °�dC Ln I .o; Wig.'` I C °� F;_ST'.•3 rux I♦&i♦�•'d �'"'��b ht r.��wN 9'q -0 °'Gi'Y``_ �. ('4 IL }' / ; "�VYi�,c r[y 4 A. A~,rr . Y C S a �•I-` 1 /r R'Y'� / 1 °M;, °�'f q. ♦ a+ T �ii. Y� q4f° rW,.d 9 4 g. �vjilYrro / IG�°.:�'[S[ - C ?-yyr a'iM•.,� t\ YFtiliir8'i7Y�.. u .m I.I F :�`ICtl UNNEAStry � , x 'r6� wRi'uun I %J 1,r ''C1 •.� n tLLrA1 F � 4 WIWI.n .r VY I r^• , I I �, A�A rAL[ A rILN9 bt4 !�Jatx++ xw.wLL N :¢'oiYN�•.°>. 1 q °•^• 'r °t• ; I \r .Ift �.� .� [ �• J '•ry11'I, �Mnxr Lx = " L:4 a • �• / I CIA �Lx �� fir urAll sx f^.� °•. tL .r .p• 9 [• ' nr• p t .f 4. rN''a as r�iwoln .+"r`: n.rttf ..p..g; `'f J ry= •C/ I / gLrumr l�uum.G \ 4 r 'u� [AA,xr ! a d r�•� .,N�+ � I uruL uul y"° .^s it� it s'ryr� '4. ` � •"'4 s . I • r��. _ � <.��Lx.. L ._ _: -- -- I I RV I N E I ',.r � 'tg,[^r..°\rf`l.��y5 •F I ``par I I BLEACH WIN °l u CE b v n G •r` � tt F[ Figure. 1 SITE LOCATION 01 w NY `.CGLi. r.(F:1 jhk V� a+ d �Jo-°n. // / [•.•q+i;Y q � •iay,.r. A y t�y�ti T • t -�" s �� 1L; �' � & associates jhk. . 2 Project Description The proposed development under study is for two 21,000 square foot gross floor area office buildings . The application requests approval of a resubdivision, to create two parcels of land for office development Where four lots now exist (Figure 2) . A resubdivision is necessary to eliminate the interior property lines and combine the four existing lots into two building sites . The subject parcels will each contain 58 , 000 square feet of land area. The office development will be constructed over the common property lines between Lots 18 and 19 , Tract No. 3201 and the common property lines between Lots 43 and 44 , Tract No. 3201. Site Access Primary access to the site will be via Campus Drive and Birch Street. loth of these streets lead to Bristol Street and North Bristol Street, =' major east-west one way couplet. Access is also available to MacArthur Blvd. and Jamboree Blvd. These are major north-south arterials that , provide access south to Pacific Coast Highway and north to the San Diego Freeway, approximately lk miles . Critical Intersection Identification The proposed office development is located in Critical Intersection Identification Area 1 as identified by the City of Newport Beach. Required in the traffic phasing ordinance, any project to be developed in Area 1, must have as many as twelve intersections analyzed to determine - whether the proposed development will have a negative traffic impact on the corresponding intersections . In discussions with the City of Newport Beach,Department of Traffic Engineering, seven intersections were selected for this analysis. The critical intersections identified are presented in Figure 3 . • 1 • I t�':K I , I:IJ tih�1 1" ,��.. l I 1 I 1 IJ •' JILUw,. ;,emu. _L - oov6 P C I r •. ape v r MIA PLC •. y I M •tLOT I r 71Z&C-r No.13" 1• « 16.9v1 Ae. 3 41 r r I P—C �! . 1 Jam• w } 11 N !Y a•'v E il -aA1l!- F-G S i r N � sT. � N QUA/G N � 1 .. TiA C 7I • MI � . - � 1 -+ I b7RC£T NORTH BRISTOL k V M FBTURE r eoRONA DEL MAR lRfC e• • s H4/S ra C STRee Figure 2 SITE DESIGN jhk & asSociateS (HIIX I BLVD W ■AtAaxuA � u p •..n.[ Pa'"^ Y. '•� I "4y4 + ' u, r GLVn ':i rn 4f O e•y ,m nYwwrt\ — (ui(w�'�/j/'1�i,3 a :ww�d g nl. 'Y..�'� :..• ✓;�:�:' • i .5Y' � y``' p • u LOG[II I IX C :i• (w•u y 3a,•n ti�uii'ri�� ,0 J ty ao xA Aye na ".dIL S r- �•. G �'�, 4AjH�'1 PEA Irk A AY W nlrl„G.r __I _ �.rl.StGa •v au D f o I. Goo .G wxlsoGu .o AY `• Ar $A a r W • f' '•G uA. n . ..rp aro 05 '• � � �iy r"' �I i I I urrr r[ K •mazer 1• r I � RYRYA µ`9 p mI d SAN DIEd " r SAN DIEGD we I a 4 LxtNG R . OIYM%C♦ Yro M 0.. ,' �II(•/ 3j ® L R vip p G` ll rL M GN Nt0 4 n E Y, a G ya0 fr 1.. � e C �'• ajy'v`OiiS fr i •,F/ i •� i d hY i ,IA Yln ggd 2 AV gga e W• m rwGaixo A.u■Gn ^ fi■j u. d . . .f � » �.c N, •b � I i ^• f' W(x --■=BA1fE — �� --- S N k I O� G2! Iay'Y0 J r 1 8hixes4 - — ,� I •os, q I 5 � l a. ' .n' oA f' dj9 " eM.♦• i Gri" O • n I y d� I Go! Flo •� to � I P +.0 i�' • i vl GLx,Nrx(..c I - _ ■ 1.,.`yas.•, IG '�`A`p4'(''b�.:;.:i:: •s•P Pao-.f�d'• �. ' at' e� inn I Te�yl., i dat sty_ l .•. ratr � _____ A,. ( .d l t+ v:'' • �". T <ye A J�,d' C P ;i'/ �f o, I /o ; d^T I C• � �f•,}.`.d r , 'LPP`,i8 a• \a Sae4d •�`-+�e .i :�, marl I •' r:u3...(wswr'f \• M[YGYI `Y � i•'• ♦ � 44��,,T' �4L, �e qfG� di,.d 9 b .l �51. Iekt`•\4yv. / m fir�a°.�u�S' ••Jyb �i°O� i�r'as, "•� \ �t'.i'Fit "w'.`.'k'I'• `L. r t 3M d ,• +4ib( • ._ oGx; \t. qs--��... adt .� wi. u r4G G.... Upper I / ' _. v ■•t ft? 4 t LG 1.—N o,ILN Y^ �J4 •m.(.b ::v[`uo[iln "�:•`ie c.�\�✓i- er a. 1. ' I \ r V:.� �kr `a � q,xILN � ( sGG•ux J� y�`6 afy ^•• S�-•• it�•f `v P4 �I I mnunr G`aunuu . ♦ u 1 n�A,. d�nd p ge` urw awl O s♦64 •^Lid:<�,,= `:: G�$: d + .r+✓�:' 4is, •! oy L (F c5+€ ' �r��.G\a! .l, �q• s — �. —_fq ---.i..--------•+----. � IRVINE D. .-T/IAVr••,t. N ♦4r y �/l � 4f r � M� rF♦a `oYdkV •1�� M1 a I � %v A � v° .;� '•�umiak. 4 8 L mm,. p w ! 1!a ws R Figure 3 NEWPORT BEACH CRITICAL ,� y •1">^\"'""'^''•w INTERSECTION IDENTIFICATION • � ' Ii,'�•PJi i•.ay jhk & associates i jhk 3 Trip Generation Average Daily Traffic (ADT) and PM Peak 22 Hour Traffic -Volume Trip Generation Rates were supplied by the City of Newport Beach Department of Traffic Engineering. These generation rates along with the trips generated from this proposed development are presented in Table 1. JHK and Associates compared the rates. supplied by the City with the Institute of Transportation Engineers Information Report, 1976 and the Arizona D.O.T. Trip Generation Intensity Factors . This comparison indicated the city rates are very similar with the mentioned document standards . Trip Distribution Trip distribution to/from the study area was provided by the City. Their source for the distribution was based on a trip distribution after study of the MK Development just north of the proposed development. The -trip distribution percentage used in this analysis is presented in i gure 4.. Trip Assignment The trip assignment in this analysis is based upon the trip genera- tion and trip distribution previously presented. In this assignment process , it was assumed to split the. traffic to/from the proposed site to Campus Drive and Birch Street. Traffic to/from these two streets were proportionately assigned to the trip distribution cordon locations . The trip assignment from this analysis is presented in Figure 5 . I I Critical Intersection Impact Analysis Critical intersection impact is determined if the project will generate more than one percent of .existing traffic volumes during the PM peak 2h hour peak period on any leg of the critical intersections identified previously in the report. jhk. . Table I Trip Generation* Trip Ends Generated (Based on 42,000 sq.ft. GFA) •Average• Daily Traffic• 13 Trip Ends per 1,000 Square 546 Trip Ends Feet Gross Floor Area PM Peak 2� Hour Traffic. Volumes Inbound: 1.2 TE/1, 000 sq. ft. GFA 50 Trip Ends Outbound: 3.4 TE/1, 000 'sq.ft., GFA 143 Trip Ends 3 L * Trip Generation Rates from City of Newport Beach, Department of Traffic Engineering. . AWL fHUH -I BLVD A xA[Aarx ,a G ria B e.:ewo li�... Ca I fr / \i 'b� �[P "J� I•+ r ` —�,�G�m{wm,w -- — `� �._�._��."_.1�LL G '?, mu^Ym 9iy�'`.� +a J;J�-• — `', I F . .J. --- ` — leGn a f• ! ' gg ' •• QC �J O `! p" B Im l' e O Il�,[vlxl �j'4ANf' "Y .Y[k I?J•• �. ,Y R r fU`RO�G � xY ■ ,tmxt.N ..-_� tiJ � ♦rV N [ / Ww SAN DIEdO : SAN DIEGO —��Z.v YAN N. R r=EIPAJI o A fl MULx111Mo [ LARIND ,n I / I - nawsnn�" 5si u: Pi N�R•bt• �� I rF Y `� I e[rn of, Pe I C'llw Ylo � '< q I � — � `q,N�4p� �� A 41 I • a:•:"an: .Y,,..,. � $" •.. '•.P .� ^ca I r' �m I s:" i .d �o � <w ✓o ;[� r s,�[,•B'y�:�.cJ"•�/�}� ' ofw a I �{n' I Is �-„•i��;,J F �.>' ` $f b g 1�,� rye, 9YIN G % ,, `� • `q 6 9., lJ I. ,•q uxn V ♦ f. 0.`� •PO�ril �. � I �r Q 2' < I h Y 4 Ji_.F.... od � I�Il'� • J$ 1��.� .�,�,�'Y ''^' 4 l�Y�`F , � .� ILy,✓m l� i 7�.`,Y?', y! s�i' , O 5" ��fi•,� �a ` gyp` �;� �':(� ' I u[TA, i `( d N•' ` r , C�J .• �% N I UNNERs�... IN A • . , ....................._. -- u.n[ P t 4 vuNnn GYa""" I r—' �.� I■ ��! rnwu �(s� yr� n:.y` "w4Gwu"in eve � •` nu A 2 J h Jla: GAYnao u, '�ai �an"t: Y . 4: ' I � .•.,� Kl `. �' C l" pawn" iI: ., .. r'��'. .o�u. ' / I _�.•' Y .� rznuaN <:l :� •' `_4� 'r .'/pa•7 i o,RG.NaN dsd a"mn ,p '�a.227a '••• , .�. N J h'+,i aa� I ' uvuurrG uunnu \ •��' r _ ?�45''�JAYi'n, J � ,_,, Y I 11r,[[�nn1 � A, tc •-s;^t; ..t§..,"�na�.,• "`.. of . � l. i rq �r .� �i ofg r'"•�r35as �g .F a I 1 RV I N E ----' MACH •,J3' S,s4 t. - 1'� .e,, ! iBISO a rs l aL P L n s ♦"` ' E ` „y t� rasa Figure 4 TRIP DISTRIBUTION "NNW a'eau: if[ :'x:-n?rir ir\:r ,l. '''gFify • pry'(2. s[a��.��yat:<I[ 'E9 3 . � •F� vt�y, fF� s +• 7 jhk ak i1SSOC18TCS xW �a rn. coN t-I CAMPUS DR. 3 ► � , , m ti � �3 10� BIRCH ST. y o H a H - Q � a w Uo o W j DOVE j 2 O i N n r co y rl 39�339 9 rA 9 �,.' QUAIL ��FyC N d en �2 M j k-2 NORTH BRISTOL ST. 43 65 / 2 tD �` BRISTOL ST. , , 10 23—► 11 �' it i 3 1o� 6 Figure 5 TRIP ASSIGNMENT jhk & associates 4 If less than a one percent is demonstrated, then the analysis is Concluded. If the traffic generated is more than one percent of the existing traffic volumes , then an Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis is required. For this preliminary analysis JHK was not : charged with the ICU analysis . The City of Newport Beach has provided the 1% Traffic Volume Analysis -- forms. These were filled in using the trip assignment values previously presented. The forms are presented in Appendix A. In analyzing the seven critical intersections within proximity of the study area, ' two were estimated in having project traffic greater - than 1% of the existing PM Peak 2'k Hour Traffic Volumes , as presented in Figure 6 . These intersections are Bristol Street North/Campus Drive and MacArthur Blvd./,Campus Drive. Conclusion Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis will be required or the intersections of Bristol Street North/Campus Drive and MacArthur = �lvd./Campus Drive. The remaining five intersections analyzed had less 3than 1% PM Peak 2h Hour traffic volumes generated from the proposed development. In conducting the traffic assignment, it was found that two intersections, not analyzed have traffic volumes comparable to the intersections requiring ICU analysis . These are Birch Street/ MacArthur Blvd. and Birch Street/Bristol Street North. It is JHK recommendation that these two intersections also be analyzed. Another point is the distribution patterns that will result with the completion of the Corona Del Mar Freeway. Since this facility will soon be opened, JHK recommends that the distribution that may e • CAMPUS DR. BIRCH ST. Ca m D U � W DOVE 17) QUAIL �9C � B L pD NORTH BRISTOL ST. BRISTOL ST. • Intersections with 1% PM Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volumes 1 (Requires ICU Analysis) O ( Figure 6 INTERSECTIONS WITH 1% PM Intersections with less than 1% PM Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volumes PEAK 2�i HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES jhk & associates • • � jhk« . s result be analyzed to determine if the proposed project will have greater less impact on the critical intersections . Respectfully submitted, (lam Ray A. Moe Transportation Planner RAM:ar 3 ' • AWL APPENDIX A 1% Traffic Volume Analysis 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MacARTHUR BLVQ/CAMPUS DRIVE (Existing Traffic•"Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19k) Existing 1% of Existing Project .. Approach Peak 231 Hour Peak 2 2 Hour Peak 2 2 Hour Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volum Northbound 2888 29 Southbound 3129 ' 31 13 Eastbound 1693 17 28 Westbound 2004 20 4 F-1 Project Traffic is estimated to be,less than 1% of Existing, , L—! Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume aProject Traffic• is estimated to be.greater than-_l% of Existing Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. INTERSECTION MacARTHUR BLVD/CAMPUS DRPYE. . FORM I . • PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection VE - IRYINE AVE. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter/Spring-f97_) : Existing 1% of Existing Project pproach Peak 2 z Hour Peak 2 2 Hour Peak 2 2 Hour Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volum Northbound 1504 15 12 Southbound 3705 37 39 Eastbound - -- Westbound 4790 4$ 34 Project Traffic is estimated to be Tess than 1% of Existing Peak 23-2 Hour Traffic Volume 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak' 2%z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection• Capacity Utilization k (I.C.U.) Analysis 'is required. INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET NORTH/CAMPUS -DRIVE _ IRVINE AVE: FORM I PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL STREET/CAMPUS DRIVE - IRVINE AVE. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 197d ) Existing '1% of Existing Project pproach Peak 2 Z Hour Peak 2 Z Hour Peak 2 2 Hour Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic' Volum Northbound 1606 16 -- Southbound 3164 32 .6 Eastbound 3027 30 23 Westbound -- -- Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 23-2 Hour.Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing - Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization k (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET/CAMPUS DRIVE - IRVINE AVE. FORM I PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE• BLn CAMPUS DRIVE (Existing Traffip-'Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Existing 1%.'of Existing Project Approach Peak 22 Hour Peak 2z Hour Peak 2k Hour Direction ' Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volum . Northbound 3452 10 South bound 3417 34 5 Eastbound 2042 26 10 • Westbound 16,37 16..- Project Traffic is estimated- to be Iess• than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume 4 Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing El Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume.. Intersection—Capacity Utilization t (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. INTERSECTION JAMBOREE BLVD./CAMPUS DRIVE FORM I PROJECT: l% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL STREET 'NORTH/JAMBOREE ROAD (Existing Traffic.-Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) gg� Existing 1% of Existing Project E Approach Peak 2 2 Hour Peak 2 2 Hour Peak 2 z Hour Direction Traffic Volume Traffic.Volume Traffic Volume Northbound 5153 " 52 1 Southbound 2811 28 Eastbound -- " — Westbound 3 Q • Project Traffic is estimated.to be less than l% of Existing ' Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1%, of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. INTERSECTION BRISTOL •STREET .NORTH/JAMBOREE •ROAD FORM I PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL STREF 7AMR%E ROAD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 197.8) Existing ' % of Existing Project ; pproach Peak 2-1-2 HourPeak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic•Volum Northbound 4996 50 1 Southbound 2359 24 - Eastbound 2778 1 28 ' 13 . Westbound -- - Project Traffic is estimated to"be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour -Traffic Volume K Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. INTERSECTION " BRISTOU STREET/JAMBOREE ROAD FORM I PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE ROAD/MacARTHUR BLVD. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) „ ' Existing 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 2 z Hour Peak 2 2 Hour Peak 2 . Hour Direction • Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volum Northbound 1681 .17 3 Southbound 2814 28 9 Eastbound 2923 29 Westbound 3037 30 © Project Traffic is estimated to'be less than 1% of Existing Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volume - aProject Traffic is estimated to be greater than M of Existing Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. - Intersection Capacity•Utilization � t (I..C.U.) Analysis is required. _ (1) MacArthur Blvd. is assumed north and south INTERSECTION JAMBOREE ROAD/MacARTHUR BLVD. FORM I PROJECT: e 1 1 ' 1 �I 1 i � 1 I � 1 1 1 � l �1 11 i � ! Q ie � w 1 � � l q F 1 1 1 1� 1 1 1 1 1 � 1 .. . Ili 1 i 1 w i v u� u � 1 � 1 1 �11 1 1 1 i C I , s � IIN . I 1 900 8 00 700 1 1 1 l 1 r ;1! 1 700 N � e � i �i , y� T AT TRAFFIC d TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERINt3 April 6, 1978 Ms. Beverly Wood Community Development Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 Dear Ms. Wood: We are pleased to submit our traffic and parking analysis of the Koll Center Site C Planned Community Amendment. Site C is bounded by MacArthur Boulevard, Campus Drive, Birch Street, and Von Karmen Avenue. The amendment will change the professional and business office usage from 346,200 net square feet of build- ing to 379,800 net square feet of building, for a difference of 33,600 square feet. The traffic analysis will focus on the intersection of Campus and MacArthur', Identified by tilt, City of Newport (leach to be the critical intersection in the vicinity of the project, and the parking analysis will examine whether the pro- posed 1688 parking spaces are adequate. This report contains the following sections: 1. Findings 2. Existing Traffic Conditions - Surrounding Streets - Existing Traffic Volumes - Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization 3. Project Traffic Traffic Generation - 'Traffic Distribution and Assignment 4. Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions - Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes - Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization 5. Parking I 2651 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE SUITE 110 FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92631 (714)871.2931 I t i i Iv 4 I� �Z h • It Ill i Find12 This traffic analysis has resulted in the following findings: r 1. The intersection of MacArthur and Campus can accommodate the addi- tional traffic which will be added by Site C, if ultimate geometries are eqn- strutted. (Discussed 1n Section 4 of this report.) 2. If the 3,79,800 square feet of building•.floor area allowed in the proposed P.C. is constructed, versus the 346,200 aquare feet which is allowed in the existing P.C., the intersection capacity utilization of MacArthur and I't nin Campus will increase a maximum of one percent in the morning or eveg peak hour, whether existing or ultimate intersection geometries are assumed. (Discussed in Section 4 of this report.) I; 2 txi tin Traffic Conditions ' The traffic conditions as they exist today are discussed below. II• Surroundine Streets. The Planned Community Amendment involves the _ V corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Campus parcel of land on the southeast r Drive, and its primary traffic impact will be on the intersection of these two streets. MacArthur Boulevard is a north^south street connecting from Coast Highway to the MacArthur B oul and San Diego Freeways and beyond. It is classified as a to tll llighway on tl�e Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways, and Today it 1s a four lane will eventually be a six lane divided roadway- divided roadway in many places with some sections constructed to ultimate e•�•„ss^section. of the site, it is constructed to ultimate 7n the vicinity where it is not yet fully cross^section except adjacent the subject site, improvod. I � I -3_' y, Campus Drive runs east-west adjacent the site, and extends from Bristol to Culver Drive. It is classified as a Secondary Highway on the Master Plan of Arterial Highways, and is a four-lane roadway with painted median adjacent the site today. Vriatina Traffic Volumes- The existing morning and evening peak hour traffic volumes were obtained from the City of Irvine. The intersections turning movement volumes were manually counted by City of Irvine staff on April 4, 1978. The existing turning movement volumes are shown in Figure 1. Existing Intersection Caoscity Utilization. The intersection capacity utilization (ICU) of MacArthur and Campus is calculated for existing volumes and existing geometries in Appendix A. An explanation of ICU analysis is con- tained in Appendix B. The existing ICU is 94 percent in the morning peak hour, and 83 percent in the evening peak hour. 3 Project Traffic The traffic volumes generated by the existing allowed land use and proposed land use are discussed below. Projecting traffic volumes is a three step process. First, the traffic volumes from a project are determined. Second, those traffic volumes are geographically distributed to major trip destina- tions. Third, the trips are assigned to specific roadways, and the project traffic volumes determined on each roadway and through each intersection. Traffic Generation. The traffic generated by a site is determined by multiplying an appropriate trip generation rate by the quantity of land usage. Trtp generation rates are expressed in terms of trip ends per person, trip ends per employee:, trip ends per acre, trip ends per dwelling or trip ends per 1000 square feet of floor area. If a particular land use generates six inbound trip ends per acre in the morning peak hour, then six vehicles are expected to arrive in the morning peak hour for each acre of development. 1 / rlcuar: 1 PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES MacArthur Boulevard and Campus Drive I Legend: A - Existing Volumes I B - Existing Plus Traffic from 346,200 sq. ft. Mot) C WU C . Existing Plus Traffic from 379,800 sq. ft. o 000 0 . w H O O O 5 � O � Cam us.Drive E—A—M...—1 PM 00 B 380 260 C 380 260 p 350 740 0 570 430 8 590 440 00 C 590 440 ♦ 90 100 -A 0 0 B 30 70 C 30 70 I cc coo 00 � Co0 i o0o coo 000 d m U d m U WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES I -4- Significant research efforts have been made by CalTrans, the Institute of Transportation Engineers, ourselves, and others to establish the correlation between trips and land use. From this body of information, trip generation rates can be estimated with reasonable accuracy for various land.uses. Trip generation rates are predicated on the assumption that energy costs, the availability of roadway capacity, the availability of vehicles to drive, and our life styles remain similar to what we know today. A major change in these variables might affect trip generation rates. The trip generation rates were determined for daily, AM peak hour inbound', AM outbound, PM inbound, and PM outbound. In this study, AM peak hour is 7:30 to 8:30 AM and PM peak hour is 4:30 to 5;30 FM. By multiplying the trip genera- tion rates by the land usage quantities, the daily, AM in, AM out, PM in and PM out volumes are 'calculated as shown in 'table 1. Table 1 TRAFFIC GENERATION Time Trip Ends Trip Ends Generated Per 1000 Existing PC Proposed PC Square Feet (346,200 sq. ft.) (379,800 sq. ft.) Daily (Two-way) 13 4500 4940 AM In 1.7 590 650 Out 0.3 110 110 Total 1.4 700 760 PM In 0.6 210 230 Gul 1.7 .590 650 Total 2.3 800 880 i Traffic Distribution and Assignment, The traffic from Site C has been geogr;p)hicnlly distributed and assigned to the street system as shown in Figure. 2. This traffic assignment is based upon consideration of where the tripe from i the site are likely to go, and what the most likely route will be to reach their destination, The primary factor is location of employees' homes, and secondary factors are locations of commercial and business attractione. 4. Existing Plua Poi Tra c Cond t' na The existing plus lug project traffic volumes and intersection capacity � utilization have been determined. Existing Plue Prole aff*c Volumes, The project traffic volumes through the intersection of Mar-Arthur Boulevard and Campus Drive have been determined for two conditions as follows: i 1. Project traffic which would be generated by the e n N P.C. land use, i.e. 346,200 square feet of floor. 2, Project traffic which would be generated by the pronoaed _ P.C. land uses i.e. 379,800 square feet of floor. To the project traffic volumes, the existing traffic volumes have been added an shown in Table 2. •. Existing Plus Protect Traff{c Intersection Capacity U it zation. Inter- section capacity utilization (ICU) calculations have been made for existing traffic Volumes and existing plus project traffic volumes for existing and ul- thnnte intersection geometries at MacArthur and Campus. The calculations are contained in Appendix A, and the results arc, summarized in Table 3. It can be seen that the intersection capacity utilizations increase about 1 percent if Site C has 379,800 square feet of building as proposed, versus the 346,200 , square feet of building allowed in the existing P.C. Figure 3 shows existing and ultimate gcuwctrics. , I i i 'ewe t FIGURE 2 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT Outbound Traffic Displayed; Inbound is Reverse 55% Cam us Drive 0.277 3% 33% ' 227. 3q%t 55% 100% • u 4 ro 41L 7 ' c 0 457 3'7 15% 57 Birch Street WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES r X, Table 2 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLZMES MacArthur Boulevard and Campus Drive (B) (C) (A) Traffic if Traffic if Proposed (A) + (8) (A) + (C) Existing Volumes Movement Existing PC Constructed PC Constructed AM PM AM PH AM PM AM PH AN PH 20 130 20 140 1240 1110 1240 1120 INorthbound Through 1220 980 20 10 20 10 70 SO• 70 80 Northbound Right 50 70 60 90 60 90 Northbound Left 60 90 100 130 50 140 50 1700 1150 1710 1150 1570 1 Southbound Through 320 170 320 170 Southbound Right 320 170 340 . 120 360 120 60 160 60 180 60 180 Southbound Left 10 20 10 590 440 590 440 ' Eastbound Through 570 430 20 30 70 30 70 Eastbound Right 30 70 380 260 380 260 Eastbound Left 380 260 20 10 20 350 740 350 740 " westbound Through 720 10 Through 30 180 70 200 TO 220 40 40 30 1b0 Westbound Right 20 LO 20 g0 100 90 100 Westbound Left 80 90 10 rF µi Table 3 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION MacArthur Boulevard and Campus Drive Traffic Condition Existing Geometrics Ultimate Geometries AM PM AM pM existing Traffic Volumes 94 83 78 72 l,xisling Traffic Volumes 98 85 80 73 Plus 'traffic Generated by 346,200 Square Feet of Building Existing Traffic Volumes 98 ' 85 81 73 plus Traffic Generated by 379,800 Square Feet of Building 7_ Parking e for 225 net square fee.t Parking requirements in the P.C. are one spac ea9hacea are required. of fluor. At 346,200 net square feet, 1,539' parking are required. The 33,600 At 379,800 net square feet, 1,688 parking spa cessquaro foot of additional floor requires 149 additional parking spaces. s l •i1 / Figure 3 EXISTING AND FUTURE INTERSECTION GEOMETRICS. MacArthur Bo ievard and Campus Dr ve w � I — — — "',► Campus I I Existing _ I I To Be Added — — — It has liven a pleasure to prepare this traffic analysis for you. If there are any questions, or if we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call us. Respectfully submitted, tll.:il'Uf! I'I11Ntt1.P: AND ASSOCINMS 7 Weston o. 1'rillgle, P WSP:WR:Wg #8210 i t 447 Appendix A INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATIONS r, WrERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION MACARTHUR BOULEVARD AND CAMPUS DRIVE Existing Traffic Volumes Movement Volume Capacity Volume/Capacity Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Geometries Geometries Geometries Geometries Lanes Vehicles Lanes Vehicles AM PM per hour per hour AM F.•: AM P`1 Northbound Through 1220 980 2 3200 3 4800 38 31 25 20 Northbound Right 50 70 1 1600 1 1600 10 10 10 10 Northbound Left 60 90 1 1600 2 3200 10* 10* 10* 10* Southbound Through 1570 1100 2 3200 3 4800 49* 34* 33* 23* Southbound Right 320 170 1 1600 1 1600 20 11 20 11 Southbound Left 180 60 1 1600 2 3200 11 10 10 10 Eastbound Through 570� 430� 2 3200 2 3200 19 16 18 13 Eastbound Right 30 70 0 0 1 1600 10 10 10 10 ( Eastbound Left 380 260 1- 1600 1 1600 24* 16* 24* 16* Westbound Through 40 720 2 3200 2 3200 ll* 23* ll* 23* Westbound Right 340 40 1 1600 1 1600 10 10 10 10 Westbound Left 80 90 1 1600 1 1600 10 10 10 10 Intersection Capacity Utilization 94 83 78 72 = Critical Movement Included in Total to Determine Intersection Capacity Utilization INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION MACARTNUR BOULEVARD AND CAMPUS DRIVE Existing Traffic Volumes Plus Traffic Generated by 346,20D Square Feet of Building Movement Volume Capacity Volume/Capacity Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Geometries Geometries Geometries Geometries Lanes Vehicles Lanes Vehicles AM PM per hour per hour AM FM AM PM Northbound Through 1240 1110 2 3200 3 4800 39 35 26 23 Northbound Right 70 80 1 1600 1 1600 10 10 10 10 Northbound Left 60 90 1 1600 2 320D 1Dk 10* 10* 10* Southbound Through 1700 1156 2 3200 3 4800 53* 36* 35* 24* Southbound Right 320 170 1 1600 1 1600 20 11 20 11 Southbound Left 340 120 1 1600 2 3200 21 10 11 10 Eastbound Through 590 440 2 3200 2 3200 19 16 18 13 Eastbound Right . 30) 70) 0 1 1600 10 10 10 10 Eastbound Left 380 260 1 1600 1 1600 24* 16* 24* 16* Westbound Through 350 740 2 3200 2 3200 ll* 23* ll* 23* Westbound Right 70 200 1 1600 1 1600 .10 13 10 13 Westbound Left 90 100 1 1600 1 1600 10 10 10 10 Intersection Capacity Utilization 98 85 80 73 * = Critical Movement Included in Total to Determine Intersection Capacity Utilization j1` eke INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION MACARTHUR BOULEVARD AND CAMPUS DRIVE Existing Traffic Volumes Plus Traffic Generated by 379,800 Square Feet of Building movement Volume Capacity Volume(Capaci:y ' Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Geometrics Geometries Geometries Geometries Lanes Vehicles Lanes Vehicles PM per hour per hour AJS P2t A:� 2 Northbound Through 1240 1120 3200 3 4800 39 35 26 24 Northbound Right i 70 80 1 1600 1 1600 10 10 10 LO Northbound Left 60 90 1 1600 2 3200 10* 10* 10= 10* 1710 1150 2 3200 3 4800. 53* 36* 36* 24* Southbound Through 320 ' 170 1 1600 1 1600 20 11 20 1 0 1 •Southbound Right 3 2 3200 24 LO 12 Southbaund Left 120 1 1600 3200 19 16 18 13 2 3200 2 Eastbound Through 530` 0) 0 0 1 1600 LO LO 10 10* Eastbound Right 380 260 1 1600 1 1600 24* 16* 24* 16 { Eastbound Left 2 3200 ll* 23* ll* 23* { 350 740 2 3200 Westbound Through 70 220 1 1600 1 I600 10 14 10 14 Westbound Right 00 10 10 10 10 Westbound Left 90 100 1 1600 1. 16 Intersection Capacity Utilization 98 . 85 81 73 * = Critical Movement Included in Total to Determine Intersection Capacity Utilization i A�, { I Appendix B EXPLANATION OF THE INTERSECTION CAPACITY WILIZATION METHODOLOGY i F Intersection Capacity Utilization The is nearly ys en lesscataintersections. The reason forathisgisathat theatraffic intersections,flowscontnu- at owly between intetion sectionscapacity,arA only s techniquet of the lamown as time Capacity utiliza- tion intersection capacity, (ICU) has been developed. ICU analysis consists of (a) determining the proportion of signal time needed to serve each conflicting the total time ent, (bto umming the time the timee for the movements, and (c) comparing available. For example, if for north-south traffic the northbound traffic is the 1,000 vehicles per hour, the southbvund traffic eish800 vehicles per hour, and nor th capacity of either approach is 2,000 vehicles p al time. bound traffic is critical and-requires percent,ofOtheOsignal or 5timercent of the is required, then it If for the that the traffic, p p Percent. When left-turn phases exist, can be seen that the ICU is he plus si or 90 p they are incorporated into the analysis: As ICU'e approach tin percent, the quality ' of traffic service approaches Level of Service E, as defined in the �ahwav Caoacity Myyg}, Special Report 87, Highway Research Board, 1965. Level of Service is used to describe quality of traffic flow. Levels of Service A to C operate quite well. Level designed. Level ofe D sServicelEyishtheeVel of Service maximum volume for which an urban street is design es of momentary a facility can accommodate and will result in possible stoppages overloaded is char- duration. Level of Service F occurs when a facility is duration A descr description acterized by stop-and-go traffic with stoppages of long i of the vari811e levels of service appears on the following Page. ' The ICU calculations seems that an intersection is signalized and that the signal is ideally timed. Although calculating ICU for an unpignalized inter- section is not valid, the preeumptitrics are is tcapableal can of accommodating tingethenex-ha calculation shows whether the g et have severe petted volume. possible to have an ICU well below 1.0, y not traffic congestion. This would occur because one or more movements iocei other getting enough time to satisfy its demand with excess time existing moves. h. ard anes Capacity is often defined in terms ofwhethery they tare 11 foot�ort14d foot l lanes.lave approximately the same capacity ne Our data indicates a typical lane, whether a throughlalane er hour foftgreenatime. has a cppacity of approximately, 1600 vehicles P The _ahwav Caoacity Manual found capacity to be about 1500 vehicles per lane per hour of green for through lanes and 1200 vehicles per lane per hour of green -1965 hefor left_turn ty al and recent studon ieseandx observations cshowihigherucapacitiesdin theesouthernta, California area. For this study a capacity of 1600 vehicles per lane has been assumed for through traffic, and 1600 vehicles per lane for turning lanes. LOC-AT- 1 GN cus lz 4S/(7) ��,kJS?O f_ tS7 S'!✓/ tocnr ION I lIC1 C �,� .S/o D 1RECT tbI - WEATHEF� - ---- D ERECT lON AIA WEATHER, _DAY10F WEEK C DATE y - ��- DAY OF WEEK 112,llu DATE !V - 7e'�' TIME] A-H. ACTUAL COUNT I A.O.T. TIME P.M. ACTUAL COUNT A.13.T. TIMF A.M.1 ACTUAL COUNT A.D.T. TIME P.M- ACTUAL COUNT A.O.T. 12-1 1 ql�Tf12-I 12-1 12-1 1-2 2 S 1-2 t_2 1_2 2-3 1 2-3 S 7J 2_3. 2-3 3 .3- 3 3_ 0 5 -5 i Z ' '4-5 ' L/ -6 6- -7 22' 6- S/ -7 L -4 D -9 -9 10 9 K -9 ip 9-10 9-10 - / / 9-10 a3 I 9-10 $� t 10-11 to-11 23 10-11 ' S 10-11 2. 11-12 Zw II-t2 I1-12 L 11-12 O .2EM/a.e,e.5 .QEM[I,Q.Er S• . �AK2K s�o ��,c�-lsroG 41151 _ VO LOCATION \l LOCATION ! DIRECTION WEATHER DIRECTION _ WEATHER --- -_ DAY OF WEEKS _ DATE DAY OF WEEK _,Z -e DATE - { TIME_ A.H. ACTUAL COUNT A.O.T. TIME P.M. ACTUAL COUNT A.O.T. TIME A.M. ACTUAL COUNT A.D.T. TIME P.M. ACTUAL COUNT A.D.T. 12-1 ?j 12-1 ( 12-t 3 2t7 IZ-i 7 i-'L 1-2 Z/ ' 1-z- f-21/0 2-3 S 2-3 7 y 2-3 2-3 lln 0 41 -77 3 S 3_ Z 3 3_ -5 - 7 -5 S7 :._5-6 5- 1 �5-6 5- S 6- -7 a 6- -7 ? 7 aZ 73242 f:, -9 -9 O Z -9 08 Z -9 - 'k 9-10 9-10 272 9-10 710 9-to- 10-11 �. to-if O 10-11 (j 10-11 11-12 1 II-12 11-12 tt-12 GT L 0 a LEMtJ.e.e S .2E/1Id.C�.e S LOCATION Z-Am Cis b-p� S/o �Tluol. `l� `r 15 LOCATION ����_S/O ` DIRECTION S WEATHER DIRECTION OVA WEATHER ` DAY OF WEEK 1�irF'� DATE j DAY OF WEEK DATE ��. TIRE A.M. ACTUAL COUNTI A.O.T. TIME P.M.1 ACTUAL COUNT A.D.T. TIRE A.M.1 ACTUAL COUNTI R.O.T. TIME P.M-1 ACTUAL COUNT A.D.T. 12- i 74I Z. 12-1 1 61 12-1 771 I-2 Ct 1-2 11 1»2 t-2 2-3 2 iS 2-3 62 11 2-3 3 t . 3- sli 3 3-4 A 5 -5 - -5 41 4-5575- -6-b 5- -6 g -7 cy 1 6- 01 - 5-7 ? 2 O 7 -9 7-b O -9 3 -9 07l -9 9-lo 9-I0 7 9-Io g 9-10 �Q 10-11 io-i 1 25 10-11 to-t t151 iI-12 !DOO 11-12 1 1.65 1 11-12 fad 1 11-12 RG Z o� G 7 LOCATION lADA : 2 ly /7-lA > < S�_���I�l/ C�� �S/ /J LOCATION 5�S �� CIO . ��OI. �1 IQN-_- SylS WEATHER WEATHER WEEK -i�✓ �- 13 7 DIRECTION GATE y DAY OF WEEK—:273V, OATE� TIME .H. ACTUAL COUNT p.D•T. TIME P.H. ACTUAL COUNT A.D.T. A.M. ACTUAL COUNT A.D.T. TIME P.M. ACTUAL COUNT A.D.T- TIME 1 12 2I2 12-1 (�� 12-1 99 Li 12-I 1-2t-2 . 1-2 ealT 2-3 S 2-3 2-3 33 . 3- 3�+ .3- 0 o -5 - 559 — — 5- 1 36 2- —5-62 5- 0 22 7 7 <C��o6 �! 7 1 8 -9 -9 t� ?. 10 Io Z 9-t0 0 9-10 9-to 210 11 �, 10-11 10-11 10-1 i j fi3O 11-12 _5710 i1-121 6> a 1 11-12 fob 11-12 1 O cl,3 Ga o 2EMt1.e.L.5 CTOL ST E/o + �/ST1�G cS �,�JyJ�'�/i II, LGCAT ON LOrAT ION Z a l' DIRECTION F_ J3 WEATHER DIRECTION w WEATHER ` DAY OF WEEK DATE 9- /0 " DAY OF WEEK MUAJ DATE TIME A-14.1 ACTUAL COUNTI A:O.T. TIME P.M.1 ACTUAL COUNT A.D.T. TIME A.M.1 ACTUAL COUNTI A.D.T. TIME P.M.1 ACTUAL COUNT A.O.T- 12-1 �S� �dI 7 k2-1 / ya-r . !2-I O - 12-1 f � O t-2 1-2 / 30 1=2 1-2 0 2-3 0 2-3 1 6 1 2-3 0 - 2-3 3 6 .3- 3 b 1 3- - b -5 Z Z - - 1 4-5 10 - 0 _5-6 yz 5-6 Z i Z i5-6 75 5-6 Z q410 6-7 1 930 1 6---7 0 a 2 64 1 0 -7 1690 a 7 7 $b 7 (os0 -9 1 / -9 3 -9 1 6-9 41f� 9-10 9-10 y 9-10 , 9-10 0 10-11 970 10-I1 /2. 10-11 R90 1 10-II +f' 11-12 1U0/ 11-12 1410 11-12 v ti-!2 / 0 ! 7 G JG J 2EMdQK S 2E/a/[SR e.5 2PJ: µme.Lo .� car lot; ��/SToG S7' �/� G/��yJPG/S �.� G!/Go LOCATION �it57�'JG . T '�.f l//t9>�'U�f �� DIRECTION zg!E8 WEATHER DIRECTION _1418 WEATHER DAY OF WEEK �I� DATE y J/ 79 DAY OF WEEK T41-V- S DATE y"JJ' 7S TIME A.M. ACTUAL COUNTI A.O.T. TIME P.M. ACTUAL COUNT A.O.T. TIME A.M. ' ACTUAL COUNTI A.D.T. TIME P.N. ACTUAL COUNT A.O.T. ' 12-1 12-i /4//Z 12-1 O I2-I 18© 1-2 / !-2 1 ZZC { 1-2 _ 1-2 /0 2-3 2-3 I / Z_/� 2-3 ! z-3 O 0 t 3 10 .3- 12_r 3 2.6) . 37 Od -5 16 4-5 1d ._�-6 l( 5- —�-6 S- d -7 6- 1) -7 7 7 _3 $(a 7 a71 -9 3 -9 53 Y 8-9 d -9 3YD .r 9-10 7G 9-10 �15�s 9-10 5C� 9-1D 38v 10-1 l g 16 tall to-1t to-at 11-12 1 1021 11-12 1 76 1 7 ZY7.24 S e2EMAQL�.S QEML1Qe5 _ iyl C LeCaT1 /s ON z' �� G ST / G�'r/1?'�t�aS LOCATION�?� 12_0i, 'S7_ �� , ".-DIRECTION g WEATHER DIRECTION \JJ 8 WEATHER DAY OF WEEK Wed DATE DAY OF WEEK DATE T 114E A.H. ACTUAL COUNT A.O.T. TIME P.M. ACTUAL COUNT A.D.T. TIME A.H. ACTUAL COUNT A.D.T. TIME P.H. ACTUAL COVNT A.O.T• 12-1 91 (1441 12-1 /a o !2-E /:!re 9e g 12-f f 0 ' t-2 1-2 2-3 3 2-3 2. /U 2-3 p 2-3 3 .3- l 3 1 3- . l b -5 3 - ! 2// -5 T 6- ,99`�Z— 5-7 30 5-65-7 D) / 5g/ 7 < , d 7 d -9 Z/ -9 57 7 8-9 -9 O 9-10 5 1 9-10 419 q 9-I0 S 2 9-10 1 / 10-11 957 10-11 10-11 195-6 1 l O-11 11-12 l O 11-12 11-12 b 11-12 QEMd e!G S ,2EAJt1.Q.L S LOCATION_ i/S%G G ST : 'DIRECTION FIS LOCATION' _WEATHER • DAY OF WEEK i Al WEATHER _. DIRECTION !R� - DATE _ DATE y /3- 7FS _ A.D.T- TIHf. A.M. ACTUAL COUNT A.D.T. TIME P-M. ACTUAL COUNT A-D•T- DAY OF WEEK ' TIME P.M. ACTUAL C �rOUNT /U ry / 12-1 y TIME A.H. ACTUAL COUNT A•D.T• G 7 12-1 1_2 S2 i-2 t2-t 1-2 j Q 2-3 ?1 / 1-2 2-3 j co 3 2_3 / / 2-3 1 3_ 11 9 3 b 3- NSb -5 2/ 6-� 9L�_ 5_7 / o k ____�-� 0 5-7 /IO Q 2 7 6- 7 � `9 / / -9 5 -9 9-10 a 1 -9 S to D 9- 0 535" 9_10 9 0 lD-! 1 9 10-11 / to-11 11-12 10-11 !ro tl-IZ 11-1z <l . 7,910 I 53 - LOCATION �l L .Ci�'/.S��az 'iYJ Ui'L1� ZI -- LOCATION D iRECT ION WEATHER._ DIRECTION A��-� WEATHER — DAY OF WE ._ ON T DATE '7'170 / Z EK DAY OF WEEK lIQ� DATE TIMF_ A.H. ACTUAL- COUNTi M. ACTUAL COUNT 1 A-D-T- TIME A.M. ACTUAL COUNT I A.O.T. TIME P.N• ACTUAL COUNT A.D.T. 12- 1 12-1 �� 42-I. So6Fs t2-1 d t-2 i-2 Q :-2 Q 1-2 �d 2-3 2-3 Qrl 2-3 O 2-3 O 3 .3- 6 3 -3- 6 a ` -5 - lZ -5 Z a - O �5-6 3� 5- 1 _,5-b 100 5- 6- 3 -7 6- O -7 3 7 9 50 7 Z -9 03 -9 $'d -9 -9 9-10 7v 9-(0 9-10 9-10 5,0 10-11 60 to-11 10-11 7�f0 10-11 ( 1-12 if-i2 11-12 tQ If-12 1016 Q eEM�7.eX,S eEM<1.Q.eS N/o �STaL LOCAT ION ( -� �+ IT t!C �IL �c� �1 C'T6L e j y1•�5 �/r�s D I RECT ION... LOCATION DAY OF WEEK _Zll S WEATHER DIRECTION AO WEATHER -� _ DATE y' -•ZS� Tl1F. C DATE TIME A.M. ACTUAL COUNT A.D.T. TIME P.M. ACTUAL COUNT A.D.T. DAY OF WEEK 12-( TIME A•H. ACTUAL COUNT A.O.T. TIME P.M• ACTUAL COUNT A.O•T• (_2 12-f ,. ! !2_( 0C1 gl 12-1 g (3Z t-2 1-2 0 2_3 2-3 1-2 U / 2-3 3 �a 3- 3 3 a 3- 50 _6 5- q 5- -9 l 6 t 1O 7 7 ! I Q 9-10 y Z -9 O -90 9-90 9- 00 9- . : ►o-tl c7 G 10-iI z Z6 10-j1 6 10-11 Z� 11-12 a 11-12 11-1 Z. 11-12 1 oc,rtoK MP( �1�!? l QC_sr� t OCATfON dL ST DIRECTION WEATHER D IRECT ION WEATHER DAY OF WEEK —DATE `f'�Z ' 7f�-- DAY OF WEEK DATE-21-72-7Sf TIME A.H. ACTUAL COUNTI A.D.T. TIME P.M.1 ACTUAL' COUNT A.D.T. TIME A.H. ACTUAL COUNT A.D.T. TIME K.J ACTUAL COUNT A.O.T. 12-I Q eoOZ 12-1 1 72,6 1 0 12-1 760 i-2 1-2 1-2 Q 1-2 Q 2-3 3 7 2-3 2-3 l 2-3 U 3 ! .3- d 3 0 . 3- U -5 4w5 4-5 lo - 0 6- l d -7 6-7 1 SYQ -7 1 70 7 2 10 D 7 ICJ - -9 -9 -9 5a 8-9 Zoo -10O 9-10 -10 3 sr 9-10 y O9 10-11 10-11 ?-; 10-11 p r1-12 t1-12 5V Ii-12 1 6-7 0 11-12 70 i. - U = r61? z - eEMd Q e S 2EMti e�S 0 /�i1?�1 � > Wo �k/STOL , `ST ' LOCATION � ' DIRECTION N1� WEATHER' DAY OF WE[ DATE TIME_ A.M.1 ACTUAL COUNTI A.D.T. TIME P.M.1 ACTUAL COUNT A.O.T. , 1-2 Q 1_2 O s:= 2-3 16 2-3 3 16 1 .3- •-5 t 6 U _5-6 10 G .5- O 6- 5 d -7 L O d G 7 3 O 9-10 0 9-I0 190 10-11 O 10-11 120 ii-t2 0 70 Attachment IV ' EXAMPLE: DAILY FLUCTUATION OF PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC FLOW The figures presented below were extracted from a series of traffic counts taken between April 10-13 at the intersection of Campus Drive and Bristol Street. The peak hour of 5:00-6:00 p.m. was arbitrarily selected for illustrative purposes: Campus Drive s/o Bristol Street Southbound April 10-13 5:'00-6:00 p.m. Mon. 1362• +2.4% Tues. 1395 +18.9� difference between hi-low, Wed. 1658 counts: 296 _17.9% Thurs. 1362 Campus Drive s/o Bristol Street Northbound April 10-13 5:00-6:00 P.M. Mon. 565 +3.2% Tues. 583 difference between hi-low +5.8% counts: 75 Wed. 617 +3.7% Thurs. 640 Bristol Street e/o Campus Drive Eastbound April 10-13 5:00-6:00 p.m. Mon. 1212 _1 .3% Tues. 1196 difference between hi-low, +1 .5% counts: 58 Wed. 1214 +3.3% Thurs. 1254 Bristol Street e/o Campus Drive Westbound April 10-13 5:00-6:00 p.m. Mon. 1440 -o- Tues. 1440 -1 .4% Wed. 1420 difference between hi-low -2.1% counts: 50 Thurs. 1390 LOCAT 1 ON 1.'� �'IGI�� I� �S�C3ItO�. ��'J LOCAT ION O CTO L IRECTION - WEATHER DIRECTION AJ+ WEATHER AY OF WEEK -MON DATE - ~ �� DAY OF WEEK �a/tl DATE O ' M:"- 1MC A.H. ACTUAL COUNT -A•rB•rR TIME P.H. ACTUAL COUNT A.O.T. TIME A.H. ACTUAL COUNT +Y+B'rf. TIHC V.N. ACTUAL COUNT A.O.T. 12-1 2. /�O 12-1 12-1 • 12-1 1-2 2 5 1-2 1-2 5z1-2 2-3 2-3 3-7/• 2-3. 2-3 3 .3- 3 3 4.0 -5 .5 1 LA Z ' -5 - y `6 13 5-6 1,36 2 �-6 71 -- 5- 5 6-7 1 5e6 -7 77 b- S. -7 Z 7 O4/ 7 �o -9 O -9 -9 O -9 G 9_10 1 7 IC39 1 9-10 9-10 9-10 1!i'co 10-11 y O 10-11 3 10-11 S 1 -11 1 Z. 11-12 Zt"o 11-12 11-12 , d3 11-12 0 O t : -/ / ID fiL 2 .2EM4Q,e.S .2EM4.e.L S• arlori �45 �,ea .S�D al� / O zi tSl li�n'1fi'�/S �l 1Z t',/Q �.S'7" l LOCA710N RECT ION- WEATHER DIRECTION _LSC WEATHER Y OF WEEK _;L?� _ OATE 4/_ DAY OF WEEK , DATE '41"7/ -7;?� HE A-M-1 ACTUAL COUNT -ALB-.T. TIME P.M. ACTUAL COUNT A.O.T• TIME A.H. ACTUAL COUNT ,A+B+Ya TIRE P.M.1 ACTUAL COUNT A.D.T. r 12-1 12-1 64 7 12-1 4q,3 ZO 12-1 7. 1-2 9 IT- 1-2 2 I ' 1-2 S 1-2 2-3 S 2-3 7 y 2-3 2-3 0 3 S 3- Z 3 3- _5 4-5 -5 . _ S7 7 -6 5- 1 ..�5-6 �, S- 5 b- -7 a 6_ _7 7 a dZ . 7 -9 -9 OZ. -9 4FSZ -9 1315 9-10 9-10 9-10 710 9=to 10-11 O Z, to-l1 p 10-11 ?,go 10-tI '3 S 11-12 t-j ( {-12 11-12 11-12 L p o Em4.ez,,; ' RE"ARZ S CCATION _VO LOCATION -r IRECTION S WEATHER 0IREC• WEATHER AY OF WEEK -1WFJ DATE lJZjZ 179' DAY OF WEEK WED DATE Z 179 IME A-M-1 ACTUAL COUNT -,M.G.i-s TINE P.H. ACTUAL COUNT A.D.Y. TIM... A.H. ACTUAL COUNT .A+9rT: TIME P.H. ACTUAL COUNT A.O.T. 12-1 7L Z 12-1 631 12=1 f O�7) 12-i 2-3 2 fS 2-3 2-3 1 S 2-3 3 • 1 . .3- ?q 3 3- g co R, -5 - 575 6-7 5 £ -7 - 01 b- Z7 i 5 ( -7 7 2 lio 7 7 -9 O 1 6-9 3 1071 6-9 9-10 4SZ 9-10 7 9-t0 87i 9-10 a02, 10-11 2$ 10-11 10-11 11-12 &00 11-12 11-12 >'O17 11-12 2 o7ft G3117 AT IONK.t11Y_aL /J�/ RECTION .S LOCATION WEATHER DIRECTION 'L WEATHER Y OF WEEK r� �3 77 DATE DAY OF WEEK `T //�' DATE ME A.M. ACTUAL COUNT -A-rBvfi-. TIME P.H. ACTUAL COUNT A.D.T. •• 12-1 � Z 2 � � 12_1 �$ �� 71HE A.H. ACTUAL COUNT 7t:8r1"+ TIME P.M.]- ACTUAL COUNT A.O.T. 1.2 2-3 2-3 5 2=3 A-3 3 3 3 . 3- - 0 3 5 0 .�5-6 . 2 890 _•7-7 4 OG 6 �! 3 o 6-9 -9 O Z -9 1 \O 9-10 2 9-10 0 9-10 • 9-10 210 10-11 L7. 10-11 10-11 5�0 to-11 IGO 11-12 O 11-12 11-12 {ob 11-12 O o-A 00 AT ION / OL T a U LOCATION i{'IS L J7_ 4/� el J4mp e yyk ' D IRECT ION WEATHER DIRECTION W Y OF WEEK - !PION OATF y- /O - 'k WEATHER DAY OF WEEK 011TE.L^• -7,L IHE A-K-I ACTUAL COUNT -A-.O+T TIME P.M. ACTUAL COUNT A.O.T. TIME A.M. ACTUAL COUNT -7&7.T TIME P.M. ACTUAL COUNT A.D.F. 12-1 75— {lo t7 12-1 / 4/6 V . 12-1 D - 12-1 l2 D 1-2 1-2 / 30 I-2 ZY 0 1-2 O 2-3 0 2-3 / 6 2-3 20 . 2-3 3 ;S . 3- 3 b A-4 d -5 Z RI - -5 , a o -6 C/Z- 5-6 ZJZ _�-6 76 5- �! a- 6-7 9 a -7 o a b- 2 0 . -7 0 eTo a 7 7 96), 7 50 -9 1 ? / —9 -9zlq4t7 9-10 1 Q 3 9-I0 z16 y 9-10 6 9-10 D to-1I 70 to-it /2- 10-11 10-11 I I-IZ coo/ t i-Iz /Ya ( I-Iz O 11-12 170 l7c"7W : 7 7 U EM4.eZ S eEM4l2�S 2�t ATION_Z' /57-QZ .C'T �/ C�/�PyS �,� o� LOCATION ZT45724, .S'T ZAZY-L t~ sC7 yfs.s' RECT ION '� WEATHER DIRECTION J3f 4n ' WEATHER Y OF WEEK - 2f4ZS,s DATE zl l 7E DAY OF WEEK �'J� r DATE y"//' 78 HE A-M-1 ACTUAL COUNT Age TIME P.M. ACTUAL COUNT A.O.T• - TIME A-M. ACTUAL COUNT TIME P.M.1 ACTUAL COUNT I A.D.T. t2-1 12-I /4�/Z � t2-i o i2-I / SD 1-2 / 1-2 ! ZZ16 i s 1-2 n 1-2 /o 2-3 2-3 111-I4 2-3 ! 2-3 O D 3 Io 3- / 2.s 3 Zip 3- as -5 /V - -5 G - o 6- s" -7 Y73 6- 1) -7 7 7 .3 $G 7 Q71 -9 3 '5 -9 53 -9 o -9 D 9-10 7U 9-Io 41SFS 9-10. Sr9 9-I0 38rJ I0-11 g 10-11 10-II 10 10-II p i1-12 10$ 1 11-12 1 715 V, 11-12 1 /0 1) 11-12 EM4 e.e 5 .I eEM.4 RZ OCATION�?_�-'L�C7L .t` ••'" LaaTION-ORldZ0 �C� / I'AmAlk� 1 D� IRECT ION WEATHER DIRECTION W a WEATHER AY OF WEEK _WEZ) DATE DAY OF WEEK WE DATE y' t 2 -Z& IHE A.M. ACTUAL COUNT TIME P.M. ACTUAL COUNT A.O•T• T1ME A.M. ACTUAL COUNT -A-rHs-Fs TIME P.M. ACTUAL COUNT A.O.T. 12-1 91 GNI 12-1 13 c 12-1 lSd 9f 12-t l 1-2 1_2 1-2 i-2 05- 2-3 3 2-3 /0 2-3 D 2-3 3 3-4 3 1 Ti_ l D -5 - / 2// -5 _ 6-6 /�9�5 5_7 z1�/ �-b — (�— 5-7 619 / S5 < <, 7a 7 5'4 -9 1,13/Z/ _9 /7 9 2ZO -9 D 9-10 5 9-10 10-11 997 to-It - 9-10 r6 9-to /S 10-11 10-11 /j 11-12 1 IO FS 11-12 11-12 D 11-12 AT►ON �'i/S GL ,�, RECT►ON ?�7/i LOCATION Y OF WEEK —/r�JU.�, WEATHER —� t�ip ____WEATHER 0IRECTION lip %Sl DATE y- /.3' rFf DAY OF WEEK -�-`Lt1 _ DATE MfI A.M. ACTUAL COUNT -� --�+ TIME P.M. ACTUAL COVNT A.O.T• TIME P.K. ACTUAL COUNT A.O-T- 11-2 /Sa? Z t2-i 1 TIM 12AiM. ACTUAL COUNT ^A+ 6 D i2-I t-2 1-2 1 Q 8 1-2 3-3 2-3 / 2 3 .,q 9 3 O -6 6- 9% 5_7 -7 30 D 7 9-10 -9 -9 9-10 5 $ -9 S 9-10 `� o 10-11 9 9-10 10-11 D 11- 12 11-12 10 10-11 toc 1O1_12 f'. 11-12 t Z , LOCATION LOCATION D I RECT i ON WEATHER DIRECTION WEATHER DAY OF WEEK DATE. yj/0 7S' DAY OF WEEK lz7aN DATE TIRE A.M. ACTUAL COUNT -A-.� TIME P.H. ACTUAL COUNT A.O.T. TIME. A.M. ACTUAL COUNT -fr:@-rfi"a TIME P.H. ACTUAL COUNT A.D.T. 12- 1 12-1 ��U - 12-1. 30 546IT 12-1 O 1-2 2 t 1-2 1-2 2-3 2-3 7 2-3- 0 2-3 Z O 3 . 3- 6 3 :3- 6 0 - - -5 ?-a O b-b _ 5-7 54 0 0 5 6-7 A 90 -7 7-8 37 S 8�' 50 7 Z -9 03 -9 O -9 O -9 9-10 1 cl 7Q 9-10 9-10 9-10 50 10-11 10-11 3 10-11 /-10 10-11 I1-12 11-12 11-12 `�O 1 11-12 d'T ti /0 d a .eEMd,Q,L'S .2EMA,2.e_S LOCATION' IRECT ION �S�i' LOCATION AY OF WEEK WEATHER '7/ 7 DIRECT ION Ni� WEATHER A.H. ACTUAL C ' OUNT DATE _ ^/� OF C DATE 12-1 �`-8-� ' TIME P.M. ACTUAL COVNT A.O.r. DAY OF WEEK TIME TIHE P.M. ACTUAL COUNT A.D.T• 1-2 12-1 TIME A.H. ACTUAL COUNT Z 1-2 1 :. I 12-1 U G 12-t g 0 2-3 2`3 1-2 . 2-3 ZU 3 3_ 2-3 3- 0 .fib 22 � .i 3-5 0 AID 6- 5_7 '�� 90 5_ O b_ -9 7-9 11 0 7 9-Io 1 0 - p -9 2- 9-10 Q 9 9-l0 w 00 10-11 06 ta11 ZZG 9-10 0 ' 11-12 Q 10-11 t0-11 Z I1-Iz 11-1-2 1I-I2 F/,Jdpvcz o o - - - jrrrzrc. �odaa LOCATfori_LHFlts?�1,C �3R k1c L'P�S7Q� S'1 EC T ION WEATHER OF WEEK �UFv DATE y-10 - 7 DAY OF wk D 1RECT1WEEK WEATHER ; DATE "�Z -?E A.H. Al'7UAl COUNT ..i.r8�-T TIME P.H. ACTUAL COUNT A.D.T: TIME A.H. ACTUAL COUNT -1•r@•rY:• TIME P.H. ACTUAL COUNT A.D.T. 12-1 Q a)OZ 12-1 1-2 1_2 12-1 U Q 12-I (v C) 1-2 O 1-2 2-3 3 2-3 0 2-3 t 2-3 G 3 .3- 0 3 0 . 3- u 6 4-5 -5 10 4-5s G 6- I� 5- I ,�.6 . , n.. 5_ �., -9 6-7 7-9 2 0 0 7 . 9-10 p 9-Io -7 `9 5 -9 c 9-19 3 9-10 9 0 IO-Il 10-11 �. . 10-11 0 1 10-11 r go 11-12 11-12 11-12 ->J 0 -12 70 1 = 16f1z G LOCATION -(='- ��f�c �y{ !ll/O CIS (ZL.�T ell DIRECT ION_1JR WEATHER DAY OF WEEK DATE y-/3 - 7f • TIME A^om.l ACTUAL COUNT TIME P.H. ACTUAL COUNT A.D.T- I 12-1 Q Q'}1 12-i Q C7 1-2 4 I-2. Cl i 2-3 1 0 2-3 3 1 cS 3- C 1 U - -5 l 6 - 5--6 O G •5- O 6- 5140 -7 L O a G 7 -9 5-0 -9 0 9-10 0 19-10 190 ; 10-1l o . 10-11 p 11-12 O 11-12 1 70 Koll Income Properties i Aldo Chiappero 1901 Dove Street P. 0. Box 176 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Costa Mesa, CA 92627 i i Sea & Desert Properties Signal Development Corp. P. 0. Box 484 17890 Skypark Circle Huntington Beach, CA Irvine, CA 92714 Robert Forbes The Irvine Company 2052 Newport Blvd. 550 Newport Center Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Vernon Edler 2101 Dove Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 Edward Jarvis 4043 Birch Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 Robert Maverick 17890 Skypark Circle Irvine, CA 92714 B4OLAND C. WEDEMEYEE PRESIDENT SIGNAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION L7890 SKYPARK CIRCLE IRVINE,CALIFORNIA 92714 TELEPHONE:(714)979-6900 WILLIAM S. WALHUP VICE PRESIDENT I SIGNAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION I I7990 SKYPARK CIRCLE IRVINE,CALIFORNIA 92714 TELEPHONE: (914) 979.6900 I I MICHAEL G. dDELL VICE PRESIDENT i SIGNAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION .7890 SKYPARK CIRCLE IRVINE,CALIFORNIA 92714 TELEPHONE: (714) 979-6900 jhk & associates James H.Kell,president November 9 , 1978 6161 Invoice No. 3259-10278 Ms . Beverly Wood Environmental Coordinator Community Development Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 For professional services rendered on Critical Intersection Impact Analysis and the ICU Analysis including meetings with Department of Community Development for the month of October. AMOUNT DUE THIS INVOICE $'1'60 . 68 o 0 'J 0k 9 a S ti 0000T ` 40 r 0 Bay Bridge Office Plaza • Box 3727 • San Francisco, Ca.94119 • 415/428-2550 Jhk & associates James H.Kell,president November 9 1978 6161 Invoice No. 3259-10278 Ms . Beverly Wood Environmental Coordinator Community Development Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 For professional services rendered on Critical Intersection Impact Analysis and the ICU Analysis including meetings with Department of Community Development for the month of October. AMOUNT DUE THIS INVOICE $1'60.:68 x, O d1 1 .j A"? �QJ� 1i v S,, 9 w' Bay Bridge Office Plaza • Box 3727 • San Francisco,Ca.94119 • 415/428-2550 jhk & associates James H.Kell,president November 9 , 1978 6161 Invoice No. 3259-10278 Ms . Beverly wood Environmental Coordinator Community Development Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 For professional services rendered on Critical Intersection Impact Analysis and the ICU Analysis including meetings with Department of Community Development for the month of October. AMOUNT DUE THIS INVOICE '$T6'0..Z8 �, Jo O 6 i Z� o�ooc Bay Bridge Office Plaza • Box 3727 • San Francisco,Ca.94119 • 415/428-2550 jhk & associates James H.Kell,president September 11, 1978 6161 Invoice No. 3152-918 Ms. Beverly Wood Environmental Coordinator Community Development Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 For professional services rendered on Critical Intersection Impact Analysis and the ICU Analysis including meetings with Department of Community Development. AMOUNT DUE THIS INVOICE . $380. 00 Bay Bridge Office Plaza • Box 3727 • San Francisco,Ca.94119 • 415/428-2550 L Son ZO-0o 0 o Zoo .oc) Signal Development Corporation �' a 17890 Skypark Circle w �O Irvine,California 92714 Telephone;(714)979-6900 '1\ !�C,�:�c,@fit OG� °�P©`PG 1 October 9 , 1978 Q w City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 Attention: Jim Hewicker RE: Lots 18, 19, 43 & 44, Tract 3201 Newport Beach, California Gentlemen: Enclosed is our check for $200 .00 constituting your traffic consultant's fee for the Traffic Mitigation Study for the subject property. Very truly yours, SIGNAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION W. S. Walkup WSW/bds Enclosure one of The Signal Companlea lc /�1.�-� M. ^Z 35 Signal Development Corporation 17990 Skypork Circle Irvine,California 92714 Telephone:(714)979-6900 September 1, 1978 Ms. Beverly Wood Community Development Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 RE: Fee for Additional Traffic Studies Proposed Office Building Development Lots 18, 19 , 43 & 44, Tract 3201 Newport Beach Dear Beverly: Per our conversation today, please find enclosed our check No. 1566 in the amount of $189 .00 as requested. This is for the required additional traffic studies for the above-refer- enced development. Very truly yours, SIG AL DVID CORPORATION Michael G.Vice Pre MGO/bds Enclosure one of The Signal Companies Signal Development Corporation CD 17890 Skypark Mole Irvine,California 92714 \ Telephone;(714)979.690000, �2 c G~ t Q Ooo$3c 4 '70, CID August 4, 1978 J �' iTl 1 l� City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 Attention: Beverly Wood Environmental Coordinator RE: Lots 18, 19 , 43 and 44, Tract 3201 Newport Beach, California Gentlemen: We are proposing to construct two 201000+ square foot two story garden type general office buildings on the subject property. The property is located between Campus Drive and Birch Street south of Dove Street. In order that we might establish our compliance with the traffic-phasing ordinance for this proposed project, we hereby request the City' s required traffic analysis be made at the earliest possible time. Enclosed for your reivew is a copy of the proposed site plan and building rendering. We are also enclosing our check in the amount of $325 to cover the $125 administrative fee and the $200 traffic consultant fee for the traffic analysis. Please call if you require further information for the study. Very truly yours, SIGNAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION R. C. Wedemeynr RCW/bds Enclosures one of The Signal Companies Ic A!a_&-7,9 Xeoc-or -���•-yr`�'-- -�_(f/�L�+.G_�-'�/�� ,�-�(,(-Ll-cTw'r`-e/�--zr- i NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of The Irvine Company for a ❑ variance ❑ Use Permit ❑ Resubdivision X❑ Tkn(uumXDOwX7(X' t Traffic Study on property located at 1401 San Miguel Drive, Newport Beach to p t$% consider a Traffic Study on a request to subdivide 12.97 acres into 21 numbered lots for single family residential development, one lettered lot for private street purposes and one lettered lot for landscaping open space on the subject property. Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be.. held on the 77nd day of February 19 79 at the hour of 7 : 30 P .M. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall , at which time and place any and all persons interested pp may appear and be heard thereon . George Cokas , Secretary Planning Commission City of Newport Beach PUBLICATION DATE : Received for Pub . By Note : The expense of this notice is paid from a filing fee collected from the applicant. tp ' AP No. 442-014-19 A.P. N0. 458-371-16 A.P. No. 458-372-o4 THE IRVIPIE COMPANY HARBOR VIEW-BROADNOOR COMMUNITY: THEODORE VON HENTERT 550 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE C/o MANAG ME11T SERVICE CO. 1219 PORTSIDE WAY NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 206 W. 4TH ST. SANTA ANA, CA. 92702 CORONA DEL MAR, CA. 92625 ..,r r. •r. r\( {{[(rf<{{„................. ... {{(,.I........ ....I.................... . .r(r, fr(((<r ,.Irr <. , .rff C(r,-:•.- 458-371-07 A. P. No, 458-371-17 A.P. No, 458-372-05 TITLE INSURANCE & TRUST CO. % TITLE INSURANCE &. TRUST CO. TITLE INSURANCE & TRUST CO. AND/OR STEPHEN PARKER AND/OR TED R. CARPEITER AND/OR RODNEY NUDENBERG 6 82OVAUDEL11 11Ay 2500 WAITECREST�DR. % 1215 PORTSIDE WAY cA. 92625<f {(<CORONA DEL MAR CA. 2 5 926 % r CORONA DEL NAR, ,CA, ,92625,.,-.... A.P. N0. 458-371-08 % A.P. No. 458-371-18 A.P. No. 458-372-o6 TITLE INSURANCE & TRUST CO. TITLE INSURANCE & TRUST CO. ' TITLE INSURANCE & TRUST CO. AND/OR FLOYD BUELL AIM/OR HENRY N. YANN Y AND/OR MICHAEL FORD 1215 SURFLINE WAY I 25o6 WAVECREST DRIVE 1211 PORTSIDE WAY CORONA DEL MAR, CA. 92625 % COROPT_1 DEL MAR, CA. 92625 % CORONA DEL MAR, CA, 92625 ,r(I:r( , ci cGr..r •r•(((r<<.c(..rn rrc<cvr4rcc.r a r.r.r<.<<((<r(r..r.n..1 u.Irrrcu . rr N .<. . . . . tr r.r. ... t ..hct<o A. P. NO, 458-371-09 A, P. NO, 458-072-01 ; A.P, NO. 458-372-07 ( ( TITLE INSURANCE & TRUST ,CO. DAVID W. FURNAS TITLE INSURANCE & TRUST CO, AND/OR EDWARD FARBER 2501 BLUEWATER DRIVE ; AND/OR W. THORNTON 1221 SURFLINE WAY ; CORONA DEL MAR, CA. 92625 % 1207 PORTSIDE WAY IIr COS4NA.RF,L•<MAR, CA...92625 rG..•' .([..;.,,CORONA DEL MAR, CA. 92625 <e(r(rrc<<<rt.rc.rrrcr<r(({\rr(f..u. f. <{tr.. re(. e.,•ne: • � A.P. N0. 458-072-02 t A.P. N0. 4587301-03 TITLE INSURANCE & TRUST CO. IRVINE COMPANY AND/OR WILLIAM H. ROBBINS 550 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE 2507 BLUE WATER DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA, 9266D . CORONA DEL MAR, CA. 92625 •II<f<C(rCf((C<C<<f CCC(r((`Cf<C(f(fft(t<<{ t.•({.....III........ .LI If<CC[[tff((r w:C[t....F((f.t CCrC4 C4f.CGP A,P, No, 458-371-10 i 458-072-14 A.P. NO, 458-301-07 TITLE INSURANCE & TRUST CO, 1 Jack. E ., &, D o u i e B a z z _ THE IRVINE CO AND/OR JOHN R. EDEN y 2501 Salt A i r Circle % 2301 SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD. 1227 SURFLINE WAY Gorona del . -' CA 92625 ; CORONA DEL MAR CA, 92625 CORONA DEL MAR, CA, 92625 ; • ----- _ = - n,((lrtcr<ce.r<ca4ccrC(r t(<catatf(ft(.u 1 u ........(....................:ra(a.(fr(<[c(((.[r<^(reG<ff 4(4(creteocec c4 A.P. No. 458-371-11 A,P. N0. 458-072-15 j A.P. N0. 458-071-16 TITLE INSURANCE & TRUST CO. % TITLE INSURANCE & TRUST CO. % TITLE INSURANCE & TRUST CO. AND/OR HERALD C. STANDEFER AND/OR ROBERT S. ROSENBERG % AND/OR DAN ROGERS 1233 SURFLINE WAY 2$07 SALT AIR CIRCLE 2500 LIGHTHOUSE LANE CORONA DEL MAR, CA. 92625 CORONA DEL MAR, CA. 92625 % CORONA DEL MAR, CA. 92625 A.P. No. 458-371-12 A,P. NO, 458-072-16 % A.Y. No. 458-071-17 TITLE INSURANCE & TRUST CO. % TITLE INSURANCE & TRUST CO. TITLE INSURANCE & TRUST-CO. AND/OR JOHN D. GAMBILL AND/OR EVE HEIDENATN' AND/OR VIRGINIA WILKES 1239 SURFLINE WAY ; 2515 SALT AIR-CIRCLE 5400 POOKS HILL RD. #702 {\ CORONA DEL MAR, CA. 92625((f4frtaG CORONA DEL MAR, CAS 92625 BETHESDA, MD 20o14 C.. C CC 64GC A.P. NO. 458-371-13 A,P, No. 458-372-01 A.P. No. 458-071-18 TITLE INSURANCE & TRUST CO, T E: H. SKIPJPTER ; TITLE INSURANCE & TRUST CO. AND/OR JOHN BAKER 1233 PORTSIDE WAY % AND/OR JEROME A. REYNOLDS 1245 SURFLINE WAY CORONA DEL MAR, CA. 92625 % •'2507 LIGHTHOUSE LANE CORONA DEL MAR, CA. 92625 CORONA DEL MAR., .CA. 92625 111 { I . r 4. r . l .t• . t. .<1 , • i .r4G. .t r . r . . r.r<C4G• l ; . 14.i ! ... . A.P. N0. 458-371-14 A.P. No. 458-372-02 A.P. No. 458-071-35 •:4 TITLE INSURANCE & TRUST CO. TITLE INSURANCE & TRUST CO. TITLE INSURANCE & TRUST CO. AND OR LEONARD HANNA AND/OR EDITH J. OLSON AND/OR JAMES DOYLE 1251 SURFLINE WAY 1227 PORTSIDE WAY 2507 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE CORONA DEL MAR, CA. 92625 CORONA DEL MAR, CA, 92625 COROPTA DEL MAR CA, 92625 11 . , , rr1(..... .. . . r . ............ , .., ..\(,(, ., .,, rl4ta•..... \. .<C�-_i A.P. NO. 458-371-15 A.P. NO. 458-372-03 A.P. No. 458-071-36 TITLE INSURANCE & TRUST CO. TITLE INSURANCE & TRUST CO. TITLE INSURANCE & TRUST CO. AND/OR JAMES TEETER AND/OR MYRTLE A, ANDERSON AND/OR EWART SMITH 1257 SURFLINE WAY 1223 PORTSIDE WAY 2501 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE CORONA DEL MAR, CA. 92625 CORONA DEL MAR, CA. 92625 CORONA DEL MAR, CA. 92625 458-072-37 BROA D R HILLS CO M00 R L r l�i'1UNITY ASSN. P. 0. BOX 503 CORONA DEL MAR, CAL. 92625. • •w• r•r.rf-.rfrrrr[l a(utr<4.rr.r(... . - - . ' � '