No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutIS037_ROSAN'S DEVELOPMENT Ig03, t ' INITIAL STUDY for the Redevelopment of 2901 W. Pacific Coast Highway, Newport Beach, CA ' March 9, 1984 Prepared for the City of Newport Beach ' Planning Department 3300 W. Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 (714) 640-2197 ' Prepared by Marie E. Gilliam & Associates- 1825 Westcliff Dr. , Suite 177 Newport Beach, CA 92660 r TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Location. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . .. . . . .. . . .. . .. . . . . . 4 ProjectCharacteristics. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1 Comparison of the Proposed Project to Planning Programs and Development Standards. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 5 PermitsRequired. . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . 13 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING CONDITIONS, POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . 17 1 Soils and Geology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . 20 Water Quality. . 20 Land Use and Aesthetics. . 22 ConstructionProcesses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . 31 1 Traffic and Circulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . .. . .. .. .. . . . . .. .. . 34 Air Quality. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Acoustics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . .. . .. . . . 45 1 Public Services and Utilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 47 PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . 49 1 REFERENCES... .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 1 APPENDIX Appendix A - Environmental Checklist 1 Appendix B - Standard Conditions of Approval Appendix C - Mariner's Mile Specific Plan District Appendix D - Local Coastal Program - Recreational/Marine Commercial Land Use'Designation 1 Appendix.E - Committed Projects, January 1984 Appendix F - Preliminary Geotechnical Review Appendix H - Traffic Analysis i 1 1 1 1 LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES ' FIGURE 1 - Regional Location.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. .. . .. . . . . . . . . 2 2 - Vicinity Map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . ... . . . . . 3 3 - Site Plan. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . ... ..... . .. . . . ' 4a - First Floor Plan. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 7 4b - Second Floor Plan. . 8 4c - Third Floor Plan. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . ... . .. ... .. . . . . . 9 5 _ Garage Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ... .. . . . . . 10 6 Building Elevations. . 11 7 - Mariner's Mile Specific Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .. . ... . . . 12 8 - Aerial Photo Index 23 9a - Site Photos. . . . . . . 24 9b - Site Photos. .. . . . . . . . . • . •• . •. . . . . . • •• . . . • . . . . .•• . •• •• . • . 25 10 - Panorama Views. . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . ... .. . . .. . ... ..... .. . . . 26 ' 11 _ Height Relationships/View Corridors. . . . . . . . .. . ... . .. .. . . . . . 29 12 Existing Average Daily Traffic Volumes. . 35 13 - Net Project-related Traffic.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .... . . . . . . . 39 14 - On-site Circulation Concerns. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 ' TABLE A - Project Characteristics. .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . . 5 B - Comparison of the Proposed Project to Development Standards.. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 - C Recent Development Trends, Mariner"s Mile. . . .. .. . . .. . .. . . . . 27 D - Existing 1983 PM Peak Hour Intersection ' - Capacity Utilization Values. . . .. . . . . . ... .. . . .. ... .. .. . . . 36 E Project Trip Generation.. . 37 F - Summary of 1987 PM Peak Hour ICU Analyses. . .. . . . .. .. . . .. . . . 38 1 ' INTRODUCTION This Initial Study has been prepared in accordance with provisions of ' the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State EIR Guidelines and City of Newport Beach procedures for the implementation of CEQA. The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether or not the proposed ' project may have a significant effect on the environment, either on an individual basis or cumulatively, and to identify any feasible miti- gation measures. This Initial Study focuses on areas of potentially significant environ- mental concern as identified by the City of Newport Beach. (A complete Environmental Checklist of all CEQA concerns is contained in Appendix ' A to this report.) Analysis includes a review of the proposed project in relation to applicable development standards and plans and identifi- cation of necessary project approvals. Evaluation of impacts summarizes ' existing conditions, potential impacts, and mitigation measures which may be required above and beyond standard City Conditions of Approval, which are contained in Appendix B for reference. ' If, based- upon information presented in this study, it is determined that the project will not have any significant impacts or that such impacts can be mitigated, a Negative Declaration may be issued. If ' it is determined that the proposed project will have significant environ- mental impacts which cannot be adequately mitigated, the City will require preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. ' The lead agency in preparing this environmental assessment is the City of Newport Beach. The applicant and project consultants are listed below with other key contact persons. Other contributors to this report ' are listed on Page 49. City of Newport Beach Patricia Temple ' Environmental Coordinator City of Newport Beach (714) 640-2197 ' Planning/Environmental Consultant Marie E. Gilliam, AICP 1825 Westcliff Dr., #177 Newport Beach, CA (714) 645-0939 Traffic Consultant Basmaciyan-Darnell, Inc. 4262 Campus Dr. , Suite B-1 (71 Newport) 549-9940 CA ' Project Applicant Senator D. G. Anderson 638 Keeamoku Street Honolulu, Hawaii Applicant's Consultant Joseph H. Lancor - Architects 853 Camino del Mar Del Mar, CA ' (619) 755-0155 1 REGIONAL LOCATION FIGURE 1 ' los angeles county l i— —•• — san Bernardino county LL Rlvarside Fwy ♦ LL i Anaheim O Orange I �• l Garden Grove ` `•• riverside county 0 e e Santa Aria O \`. ` °F San \ NNatlWal eje8o .n •• / Huntington Costa ' Mesa I�Beach ti Irvine O gip rt �E; SITE r I / pacific ocean Laguna v Beach 9yj San Juan ••+— Capistrano San Clemente san diego county I , I ' VICINITY MAP FIGURE 2 J' ' W q wlru T"Mi LiP PL I b� ML9 V ` t rf W l u I00 E Y ;� 4 •� '� 'y) 1 •� PPJ Q UPPER °•Y' SEHA Sf� Y r} $ ARE fr E S �S rrd ,���N < P `p\ �C_ E I 4VOE400� $i ¢ °j�r°Cy P )"� •• \y,. e �Y{a'�fANONE9S N � 004•EKNOR T � 0'I � �LL � } rtM1�y� it � fte� � a ' ewx. w � > j J>JRe bur wxo,r fn Ar :t` �• 'p'S.r' t•p. I i d e PIHCn 0. G a xRMIli0T1♦A n! ' m k { $i $ a < p' /�' qht i ' se )w �i�' ry 04N ST zz§at t YNONE R 4 1 S p �2b y !' •1 NEWPORI )Y,;x [N R j 4 i y o u d BAY ST G a I BAT A pt' d i / ,;�� t•:txovf 3Y 33x _ Z g - - s x �eq`� _ t w• •• •'t�,�a a BAY tI -'zY yy � a COYE$i >a ' I°f !�'Ef{ [Yl9GYfM %. .r RB$S$T Z E ,r YI}� tH• f/,Y feh . � /! (5(nVI ,•°�/ ^.f; • �WMMU Si� � i SVflF ST `BEP ERO $i � ' � a •J N t y f 1 am � ,�,'�1 $ '�• Cf04R 0.¢ CKN 5< J 4 3 x S\I ha. � i •� 1.'`i 4RB�fl •� $T 1 M ( t P � �� �n r �Y p,^L ♦ °� ' P1 —^ 19TN a W - W°°r r s ••tiP z' ) n'�i`. .0 i:5i.'ia u { uan� 8 00. .� +ES+k, b rr°r ' ♦ n �t �' .."om ..., .r.d .$ a CEN ER f' ' "si.�: gar n�th.PA �°�,�+f dl,•,!� `�w.�:`- \;P:;::�:,. ':"/� g .} TOFNE Si Wf OR d) :rill. i ,` ?@ 9 fOy4y 'x }° � ♦`-\� •� q'r, + .' 51 $b le,x �_ ST z n:'� . =4ct, aP f@a }, , ♦ a �.� .`?.P'C�4 4 r , ' ' ,�`R�t SUNSET O� _ axE$9i RVMGRtl R A� h - .y•r @ F °F{.�y;�. - \ hwv 1FIIYI ppL y` \4. '+T� p+ `'Y4} V` ~�•..Y r@+Y ° V . •V• • ' I F£ ¢Q Iay 6 � C� qir P 4 sr '••c !.° �'i :%r �—�� 'Cri4i ' ' xfwx, Mn0$i`: 4ea ` ?K`' a°'�i } 4t' `••Sn.A}' 'i••• t:�9 �'T�o , l l �+;'�'Y pp /x p xs wr a 4Y 'Yfs '� sr �F'•YO{P4,, yY •y5 ` i QeRe9ucilax I "��p .y } klyr R x,� @}ay♦ _;y you aEs wf � xn$x All ' �J •u. { o � \'ku.Y., H-1 y-♦ +} s} w �J' q�` r!x •Ig$ d yq ° w _ " ���.E'!' C ~ 4 iY• g ea d 3} +q Ji R r �C[ C/ rs' <• 3 °Bx �, ' r9n ? „'!- •w C d °03 a 1�,�+ t d '� r+ 4:y 1�4 � t a' // r m.u4 T 4 y �Tih��rrt ..' '" ` ..•'.`.}P Qr P`�;.y4 'er. I `"' ♦ I`r)rQ F* to 'f�l�' q I '•�r•,•}r nun lox S}' Pr,( n .p ,. .T \`P, . IIUi• \> r r �' i nrcx sxoo( � 5 a ' h"p•�CR,0 'r,H I < £ r fr Y`r. '.u� � to✓`�_h_hµ p V P W Y.� \� 'M � 4 JA4ES o 1 - Tan•r 4 I )x!{ �"^: ayat �y .•.win•. 1 `<r ♦ i��s 8r �,dq8 / I `r,l�ro�ir '�•• /{ I Ye4d' I N• I° KrR : 7 rF )� 7a :. 7• t$, ev � n°5,pa,"gat "° 'r •�� i)�y� O S 1 1 r, ,Fas J'a. `P a': a '� f '�f �' rsturo •1Af41 r EdWER II[tif�yrt 1, ...www���,,,���IIl t NEWPORr '1� a mm,wA i �ryr, Y wa su r ( YxwrnnaA� M,A, �taw+mu + RrYrY H F IIy Ml1 •� 1 A d r w AS w x,axwr I t` q .:a•a. J�� II I ? S. R�F�+a :. s j•+� Fid:1c/,,Y,•(�3pji� Y rn.'•oc.. f C I jr r I s NEWP AyT a T I �MA Reff Y } i- t ' PROJECT DESCRIPTION ' Location The proposed project involves two separate land parcels. The first (Site A) is located at 2901 West Pacific Coast Highway and the second (Site B) is located on Riverside Avenue at the southeast corner of Avon Street. Rosan Industries and Seacraft Boat Repair currently occupy the Pacific Coast Highway site, which is located on the south side of the highway with frontage on Newport Bay. Site B is utilized for parking by Rosan employees. ' Both parcels are located within the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan Area. Figures 1 and 2 illustrate project location within a regional and local setting, respectively. Project Characteristics Site A, located on Pacific Coast Highway, is approximately 1.2 acres in size and is currently developed with a one story structure that is 39,700 gross sq.ft. in size. The proposed project would necessitate ' demolition of the existing structure and reconstruction of the harbor bulkhead for Newport Bay. Construction of a 3 story 51,463 gross square foot (42,651 net sq.ft.) structure with one level of subterranean parking is proposed. A total of 151 parking spaces are to be provided on Site A. Site B, which is .42 acres in size, is to be utilized for 58 additional parking spaces. The proposed structure will incorporate a mix of retail , office and restaurant uses. Table A illustrates the mix of uses anticipated by t floor. In addition to these activities, the project will preserve nine existing boat slips and proposes to continue boat hauling and repair services currently provided on-site although they will be relocated to the east side of the property. Figures 3-6 illustrate project plans. Additional comments on the existing uses and specific characteristics of the proposed project are contained in the Land Use and Aesthetics ' chapter as well as Traffic and Circulation chapter of this report. i ' 4 TABLE A PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS Story Use Square Footage (Net) ' 1st Retail 4,107 Office 5,034 Cocktail Lounge 1 158 sub-total ,299 2nd Office 9,768 Restaurant 6 973 sub-total 16 741 3rd Office 12,811 Private Club 2 800 sub-total 53 611 Total 42,651 net sq.ft. 1 ' Source: City of Newport Beach, March, 1984 Comparison of the Proposed Project to Planning Programs and Development Standards The proposed project must be developed within the framework of applicable ' planning programs and ordinances, which are examined below: General Plan. The project site is designated for recreational/marine comme— rc�iaf use on the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Included in this category are marinas, oat/marine supply sales, boat repair and servicing, sport fishing operations, restaurants, specialty shops, hotels, motels and office uses (allowed when they are ancillary to another ' primary use only) . The Public Safety Element indicates that the site is located in a moderate ' risk area rom groundshaking and a potential hazard area from lique- faction. The project is in compliance with all other elements of the General Plan, excepting determination of consistency with the Land Use Element which is addressed in the Land Use and Aesthetics chapter of this report. Potential concerns regarding seismic safety, noise and public service impacts are also addressed in the following chapters covering impact analyses. ' Mariner's Mile Specific Plan. The project site is located within the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan area, which is illustrated on Figure 7. The Specific Plan was developed to implement the policies of the General ' Plan, resolve problems of traffic conflicts, parking and access, to enhance the visual environment, and to preserve existing marine uses. ' 5 bl O C A x r I n 3 0 _ ------------------------------- O 1 w i FLOOR PLAN-1st FIGURE 4A zd z• „ x I I d FJ I 1 FR _ 1 V�XL Al LLLj ! •a ! I i e9ova 1 A • 11 I I �—�F a1�+ aaewn.h- . I-O 31 !,� �• 3 • I 4 ' �i oY'/Prv�ClW1 ~ SOURCE: JOSEPH H. LANCOR ARCHITECTS ' FLOOR PLAN-2nd FIGURE 4B ' 1pe' •� ii�l --+- ,-;--�- � --,- -ter-L I ' .N} \ /g1Ji O�✓:1-t-T-j` I lV'l N N yeHac ni aa�:sF t 'M" — ' e _ 1 . ' SOURCE: JOSEPH• H. LANCOR ARCHITECTS r r FLOOR PLAN-3rd FIGURE 4C r - e 71001, i I I j I i o IJ I i 4 a— vd _y r ' SOURCE: JOSEPH H. LANCOR ARCHITECTS r - . 1 M GARAGE PLAN FIGURE 5 II -c rmaeu� s i i I cpWcu.vi tr.vc r _o,�q�•w Crs�i�7? ry�j-,yhv�i?eae�i A� -fH�LEveL�p 1n:1S� 1 SOURCE: JOSEPH H. LANCOR ARCHITECTS 1 ' BUILDING ELEVATIONS FIGURE 6 i i L------------------------- 1 _ I ' WEST NORTH-Pacific Coast Highway Kali � t - L-______-------------------------------_-__-_- SOUTH-Newport Bay EAST � 1 1 ' SOURCE: JOSEPH H. LANCOR ARCHITECTS MARINERS MILE SPECIFIC PLAN FIGURE 7 •w ? y 4« ' L: W l- WI /� ogti� z +F 9 wwv sr A� N 1 R;rN4 H 1\ SLLNGF. ;4 R�7 RC6YA tM #3 \ RET,U�ERY 6 KE ,+ d & RtTav� s'g 12P Pµ�/s� E RESNIERNGE �tt+tya:EO7 a'owsr HK.fNtuY 2 L 51� �✓fst _ ..` r � RGGR4T10 NA.. Iw. �MORJNr. i yl •'i vow �_ O . irc O Source: City of Newport Beach The Mariner's Mile Specific Plan District (Chapter 20.62 of the Muni- cipal Code) designates land uses, and defines development standards and review procedures for properties located within the district. The project site is designated for Recreational and Marine Commercial Use, which is defined in a manner similar to the Land Use Element of the ' General Plan. Professional offices are permitted "where marine related services are offered to the general public". With approval of a Use Permit,, professional offices "which do not provide direct services to the public, or which are not ancillary to or otherwise a permitted use may be allowed", provided such office uses do not occupy any first floor space, and are "in conjunction with one or more incentive uses" which occupy a substantial portion of the site. ' Table B provides a summary comparison of the proposed project with develop- ment standards of the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan, which are contained ' in Appendix C. Local Coastal Plan (LCP) . In May 1982, the California Coastal Commission certified t e an se lan portion of the Local Coastal Program of the City of Newport Beach. This document establishes Coastal Zone land use policy and designations. The City is in the process of completing the Implementation Plan phase of the LCP which will allow the reversion ' of permitting authority to the City of Newport Beach after state approval . The LCP Land Use Plan designates the project site for Recreational and Marine Commercial use, consistent with the Land Use Element and the ' Mariner's Mile Specific Plan. The LCP states that a minimum of 40% of any site within a Recreational/Marine Commercial district must be an "incentive" use in order for professional and business offices to ' be allowed, with a Use Permit. Incentive uses are specifically marine- related uses. (A complete li'st of Pemitted Uses within the Recreational/ Marine commercial district and those requiring a Use Permit according to the LCP is contained in Appendix D to this report.) In addition to consistency with LCP land use designations, the project must be examined relative to applicable coastal development policies. ' A backbone bikeway is designated on Pacific Coast Highway along the frontage of the project site. Policies relating to dewatering and exca- vation are also applicable to the project and are noted in the Soils/ Geology chapter of this report. Permits Required The proposed project will require the following major approvals from the City of Newport Beach and other agencies: rApprovals by the City of Newport Beach. ' 1. California Environmental Quality Act-(CEQA) . The acceptance of this environmental documentand approval of a Negative Declaration (or preparation and acceptance of an EIR). • 13 ' TABLE B ROSAN REDEVELOPMENT ' COMPARISON OF THE PR EVELOPMENT STANDARDS Requirement Existing Use Proposed Project ' Site Area Min. 10,000 sq.ft. Site A-1.2 acres Same as existing (.23 acres) Site B-.42 acres ' Gross Floor - 39,700 sq.ft. 51,463 sq.ft. Area ' Net Floor - Unknown 42,651 sq.ft. Area Intensity of Maximum permitted = 0.76 to 1.0 1.0 to 1.0 Usel 0.5 x buildable area. 1.0 x buildable ' allowed for marine oriented uses, with Use Permit. ' Building Maximum permitted = Varies up to 35 feet Height 26 feet. approximately ' Up to 35 feet 315 feet. allowable with' Use Permit. ' Setbacks Front - 5 to 10 None 10 feet eet on Pacific Coast Highway. ' Side - None. None on east PL East PL = 20 feet min. 30' minimum on West PL = 10 feet min. west PL Rear - None required 2 feet 10 feet minimum from bulkhead line. Parking Retail Commercial : Total 111 spaces. Total 209 spaces. space per 250 72 spaces on 151 spaces on Site A, ' gross sq.ft. Site B and 39 of which 99 are Restaurant: spaces leased on located in a sub- space per 40 net site adjacent terranean garage. sq.ft, of public area to Site B. 58 spaces on Site B. Offices: 1 space - - - - - - - - - per rzbu net sq.ft. 1 space per 358 Total of 50 compact Boat Slips: total gross sq.ft. spaces on both spaces2 sites (24%) . 18 tandem spaces 2 handicap spaces ' 1 space per 241 gross square feet3 ' 14 ' TABLE B ROSAN REDEVELOPMENT ' COMPARISON OF THE PR P CT TUTEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Requirement Existing Use Proposed Project ' Landscaping Minimum 10% of None 5 foot setback paved parking area area along Pacific t and 50% of front Coast Highway. setback on Pacific 4-10' setbacks Coast Highway. on part of east & west PL's, as well as planter areas in parking and driveway. 1 - Ratio of gross floor area to buildable area (site area minus required ' setbacks) . Average 7.5 foot setback utilized on Pacific, Coast Highway. 2 - Required by Harbor Permit regulations. 3 - Average ratio for total gross floor area. 4 - Percentage of landscape coverage not available. ' Sources: Joseph H. Lancor Architects; City of Newport Beach ' 15 2. Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) . Acceptance of a traffic study prep— are(-pursuant to Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal ' Code and City Policy S-1, and approval of the project based on data contained therein for the ultimate purposes of issuance of building and grading permits. ' 3. Use Permit. Approval of a Use Permit to satisfy the provisions of theMariner's Mile Specific Plan with regard to building height, ' intensity of development, and office uses within a Recreational and Marine Commercial District (pending analysis of incentive uses by the City of Newport Beach) . This latter provision also relates to LCP land use policies contained in Appendix C. In addition, ' a Use Permit is required to allow office space on the first floor and the operation of a restaurant within the recreational/marine commercial area of the Specific Plan. The Use Permit will also ' incorporate detailed Site Plan review as is required by the Mar- iner's Mile Specific Plan. 4. Offsite Paark�ingg�Agreement. An offsite parking agreement is required of r pFF`F g' g to be provided on Site B (Riverside Avenue and Avon Street) . 5. Parking Modification. A Parking Modification will be required to allow use of compact and tandem parking spaces. 6. Harbor Permit. The proposed project will require transfer of the existing Harbor Permit to the new owners of the site in order to allow reconstruction of the bulkhead and any construction on or over Newport Bay. ' Approvals by Other Agencies. cies. 1. Coastal permit. Approval of a Coastal Development Permit by the California Coastal Commission. 2. Army Corps of Engineers. Approval by the Army Corps is required 5 reconstruction or alteration of the bulkhead. 3. National Pollutant Dischar e Elimination System (NPDES) Permit. ' Approval of an NPDES permit y the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board is necessary prior to the discharge of any dewatering wastes back into Newport Bay. Committed Projects The City requires that all projects in excess of 10,000 sq.ft. (gross ' floor area) comply with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) . Once a project has received all necessary approvals, including TPO approval , it is considered a "committed project" for purposes of estimating traffic generation. Projects within Newport Beach which are considered committed are listed in Appendix E to this report. The traffic analysis contained in the Traffic and Circulation section of this report is based upon consideration of the proposed project as well as committed projects listed. ' 16 i DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING CONDITIONS ' EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS N MITIGATI'GN MEASURES 1 ' 17 ' SOILS AND GEOLOGY Introduction ' Information summarized in this section is based upon a preliminary geo- technical review performed by Converse Consultants, Inc. which is con- tained in Appendix F to this report. Other references are listed in Appendix F as well . Existing Conditions The project site is essentially flat at an average elevation of 4-5 feet above sea level . Drill hole logs from soils tests conducted for nearby projects (such as Larson's Shipyard, and others listed in Appendix F) indicate that the area is characterized by soils composed of sands and silts. Although no tests have been conducted on the project site, the geotechnical consultant states that neither collapsible or expansive ' soils are expected beneath the site. The groundwater level on the site is estimated to be approximately 3 feet below grade. I The Public Safety Element of the General Plan indicates that a slight erosion potential exists on the site and that it is located in a potential hazard area from liquefaction and a moderate risk area from groundshaking. ' Potential Impacts ' While no significant topographic relief exists on the site, the existing landform will be altered by excavation necessary to construct the proposed subterranean garage. Approximately 9,000 cu.ft, of soil will be excavated from the site to a depth of 8-9 feet. During subterranean construction, the sides of the excavation will be supported by sheet pilings (either temporary or permanent) and provisions will be made to reduce the water level in the excavation below the lowest point to allow construction ' of the garage slab and to prevent a "quick" condition from developing. The separation and disposal of excavated sand is described in the Water Resources chapter. Additional comment on excavation processes is con- tained in the Construction Processes chapter of the report. The potential for soil subsidence during the dewatering process is unknown at present. The project architect states that worst case subsidence "may be an inch to two inches within a distance of 20 feet" as described in correspondence contained in Appendix G. As noted previously, the applicant's geotechnical engineer does not anticipate the presence of ' collapsible or expansive soils on the site. A comprehensive soils ana- lysis will, however, be required prior to issuance of building permits. At that time the potential for localized subsidence due to extraction of groundwater and/or construction techniques should be explored in detail . Mitigation measures outlined in the following section address the potential for subsidence although none has been clearly identified to date. 18 ' Seismic hazards identified by the Public Safety Element of the General ' Plan will be addressed through compliance with the Uniform Building Code and all other Standard City Policies and Conditions of Approval . Mitigation Measures ' The following Mitigation Measures are suggested in addition to Standard City policies and Conditions of Approval which are contained in Appendix ' B to this report. 1. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide an estimate of the potential for subsidence during subterranean phases of construction, and shall identify potential impacts of any subsidence on surrounding structures and other improvements to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Departments of the-City of Newport Beach. 2. If found necessary by the City of Newport Beach, based upon geotechnical information described above (Mitigation Measure ' #1), the project applicant will be required to monitor the extent of subsidence during excavation and throughout dewatering of the site through placement of appropriate testing devices under the supervision and surveillance of a qualified soils engineer. ' 3. If found necessary by the City of Newport Beach, based upon geotechnical information described above (Mitigation Measures #1), the project applicant will be required to enter into an agreement and post a bond guaranteeing the repair of the public street system, utilities or other public property that might be damaged during the dewatering excavation process as well as other construction phases. ' 4. If found necessary by the City of Newport Beach, based upon geotechnical information described above (Mitigation Measure #1), the applicant will be required to enter into an agreement and provide a policy of insurance guaranteeing the repair of all damage to private property caused by the dewatering exca- vation process as well as other construction phases. ' Level of Significance df Impacts, after Mitigation Measures Potentially significant impacts (soil subsidence) have been addressesd by Mitigation Measures outlined. Should subsidence be identified as a likely occurrence in subsequent in-depth geotechnical analysis, the ' suggested Mitigation Measures will reduce risks to an acceptable level . ' 19 ' WATER QUALITY ' Existing Conditions Part of the project site is currently used for a boat repair operation and consequently can be assumed to generate pollutants such as marine paint, petroleum products, and other similar products. The portion of the site utilized for boat operations slopes downward to the Bay and surface run-off is carried into the Bay. No ground water samples have been extracted from below the project site for testing. It is considered probable based on tests conducted for other nearby projects, however, that hydrogen sulfide (H2S) is present on site. The ground water level is estimated to be approximately 3 ' feet below grade. Periodic drainage problems presently occur along Pacific Coast Highway ' in the area from the project site easterly to the vicinity of Tustin Avenue. Pooling of storm run-off on the south side of Pacific Coast Highway results from inadequate storm drains in Riverside Avenue. Potential Impacts ' Groundwater. Dewatering of the site will be required during subterranean construction due to the shallow groundwater level and the required depth of excavation (8-9 feet) . Dewatering will be necessary on a continuous 24 hour basis for approximately 3 months. Water extracted will be separated from soils, treated to meet the dis- charge requirements of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board and then returned to Newport Bay. Sand will be hauled either to a site designated by the City of Newport Beach if it is suitable for beach replenishment purposes, or to an approved dump site. Should hydrogen sulfide be encountered, the applicant's geotechnical engineer indicates that concentrations in excess of water quality standards will be neutralized with a chlorine treatment. Odor problems associated with potential H2S will also be eliminated with this treatment. Unreacted chlorine will be neutralized with sulfur dioxide prior to returning treated water to Newport Bay in order to protect aquatic life from adverse ' impacts. Surface Water. In addition to potential impacts from dewatering, surface runno Tan 7rainage from the subterranean garage may impact water quality. A system of floor slab drainage should be designed to keep garage floor slabs dry from water seepage and to remove oil and grease from water prior to disposal into public drains at ground level . The entry to ' the garage should also be designed to preclude stormwater from entering the garage structure. 20 ' Marine operations which are proposed to be continued on-site should be designed with a surface drainage system and maintenance program to minimize the introduction of pollutants from boat repair activities into Newport Bay. ' Improvements to existing storm drain on the project site will also be required to reduce periodic problems from storm run-off on Pacific Coast Highway as described above. Mitigation Measures In addition to standard City Policies and Standard Conditions of Approval , the following Mitigation Measures are suggested: 1. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a National Pollutant t Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit shall be obtained from the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2. Treatment of extracted water shall be conducted in a manner and at a location approved by the City of Newport Beach and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. 3. Suspended solids (sand) shall be separated from extracted water in accordance with applicable water quality standards and disposed of at a location approved by the City of Newport Beach. ' 4. Provision shall be made, as necessary, for the treatment of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) to comply with water quality standards and to control odors from the dewatering processes. 5. Drainage facilities and architectural features shall be designed to prevent runoff from entering the garage structure, to keep the garage floor slab dry from seepage and to remove oil and grease from wastewater prior to disposal to public drains. 6. facilities for boat hauling and repair shall be designed in a manner to minimize the introduction of pollutants into Newport Bay to the satisfaction of the City of Newport Beach and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. 7. An easement for storm drain improvements will be required on-site to the satisfaction of the City of Newport Beach Public Works Depart- ment. The City shall be granted access rights to the easement for purposes of maintenance. Level of Significance of Impacts, after Mitigation Measures The potential water quality impacts of the project as proposed are not considered significant, either on an individual or cumulative basis. ' 21 ' LAND USE AND AESTHETICS Introduction Discussion in the first portion of this report outlines the relationship of the proposed project relative to applicable planning programs. This chapter will review specific land use issues such as intensity of use, ' and adequate provision of coastal-dependent "incentive" uses. Aesthetic issues such as visual impacts, height and architectural character will also be explored. ' Existing Conditions On-site Conditions. As described earlier in this report, the project site is developed with a 39,700 sq.ft. structure which is currently occupied by Rosan, Inc. and utilized for light manufacturing. The original structure was built in the 1930's and has been remodeled and expanded ' periodically over the years. (The structure on-site and the existing bulkhead are in a generally poor state of maintenance.) A boat haul and repair service is also operated on the site. Parking for the existing use is provided off-site at the intersection of Riverside Avenue and Avon Street. Detailed characteristics of the existing use are listed in Table B, page 14. Figures 8, 9a and b illustrate the two sites which comprise the project and existing conditions on each site. The existing structure abuts the easterly property line and is fenced along the westerly property line, precluding any view potential on the site. SurroundinsConditions. The project site is located in the area known as Marine s Nfi e, which is characterized by a concentration of marine- related businesses. A variety of commercial, office, and restaurant ' uses are also located in the area. Building heights vary from single story structures to high-rise towers. Achitectural character also varies widely. Figure 10 illustrates panorama views of the area, with the ' existing Rosan building at the center, and shows the variety of develop- ment surrounding the project site. In recent years, a number of office and mixed use projects similar in ' nature to the proposed project have been approved. Table C lists the location, date of approval and characteristics of these developments. Sites on either side of the proposed project have been approved for ' mixed use projects as illustrated in Table C, but neither has been con- structed as yet. t Potential Impacts Land Use. As noted in the introduction to this chapter, the intensity of—aeveTopment is an issue of potential concern. The Mariner's Mile ' Specific Plan regulations specify that the "total gross floor area con- tained in all buildings on a buildable site shall not exceed .5 times the buildable area." Table B, page 14 illustrates that project applicant ' is requesting approval of an intensity of 1 x buildable area. Regulations state that such an intensity may be approved with a Use Permit "for the development of marine-oriented uses." (See Appendix C) ' 22 � s � w � � iii>• il■�l � s � ii� � �■■ � iiii� � � � � SITE PHOTO INDEX pY W FIGURE 8 �•' < ! r Bf *� i_♦ 'h.igt,`"yjW, �-e•: •tt q7� ..' • , ti Y D,...• .r. -� '+v,f' '•t''JY�•b. fs^" w t' e. fj, '.,.1. , ,q,i �; `.. «i`�:•�,'�'' S (4ia ta;^� 1 " 1 4' pa,,.�K' +''"..'•.r yt. _ -Vy F-6'p• yyl w+vf �`+,` ..;••z4,.. _ byiwi♦' r`i •in g..ai.y ,.yeF i n'-�'. � 3.{<,r• ,..tiy' ?eM1":;.' • '+` .�, ♦- 1 f V � � .�w• 41•y., .vCi:! t � 'i � LYi.,�•ISrS �� � %4 '` '�t I ;v � Y +rsd '(fw, .�irY + «., o•r*' ,�'y" '+Ybt'• .auft: +qs ¢fj.. e�ro r't;4, "' 1'r+''� '.( ,0,1- £} (� ,;.'. n: `!� � ,,FE•^ pkt tt.s ,:f+i +�l.w•. a ,G-. "^,a"e+.{�.,rr. `:,.' Y', r'SyID' w' `.s� ':,' Q7ti453a^,• r J°� Y�,' µ nr."ff'- '•• �' ' r�.!�i�za ,?-.• �Y.+,•�,.` C . s .1 '. . '/Y�i'4`< s` ( "� { 1• °'' ..`.r. e' ,,r�:,�•t ♦ 'Z \)�d?.y"`,.r ,�,' NO" '! !"" ^•- � �`' ♦ � y'`' 7~ ('•�` '; y;J �t fi� bY`7 a �! 'y • 4 tt t1.+cEt•,•t-� ti .� �, .1.�..'., 4 / t"1 � u .�/, n �•.�.'++ r 3 � � � . .wf a drt..y! � i. _w4 ��,r�ca'^/::>'r4> - <.. ;�= �.•i �;�' ::' :�:d` �y +�:;"�`` 1'"� ",� a�c �I_ „' Pacific d ',rl>•nv. ,�,,„,,,� jai t�' e % -l. /""^ � 2± ei ,f' �� ♦.,w, a �T� %.:,y� $1•^�:.' ?i'- ia�M1 fast IC '�% +�`p�d�♦ '��'�S�>I �� ��k' �� �ta�A r 1• •�. •r`�ag ��`w ��" "✓ "� ,t`3�� � .� a • �w; r0� � ;`2 4 SITS F Oh_ �� \frj� nit nYs` ` ,!1't}r ;� -�1 1 .e Y.,1,11 1.+��f`( !D `f` ry, I'<,"1• r' ,� /2! ~>�� .s^-'�",�c;, ♦ t�F?,.�'. �0. 401TrE •�,�, ,:.•� i $�4 j�,'y .C' '. r - t. A Al Irr:�nY r it 1 - - ^ - iy .�. "fi4f(4^♦ e`' .9 y •♦'F �♦, .rf ^. ����� l A tx� `.1 , �•- - .-_ ,; , 0 . `i � ,4r. � /- tR���' �� h� �J a y,.+s• • i�^ \ - I •rfi �y/,{�. '; !•--'�'.., �,ptit/ rr, dye , �♦ys � �-t=•^'r -°• ' (�r f �`'Ir � F^♦ 1= f�Y t b .�r ,� .� :�7 ,.}}"A•_ �••w,,, ` y P £ : � r � � ` i�. � , y' �4'.` _ !Y•^ ,}'l i�.l .;- q:�.,¢1�� �yf}J•.''..1 •':r••^-:`� 1 a 1. °f/, i �;� `� �� _ . - +�"' -i _ :f `5 •'�YL• .�46dt�'''�^' a`i♦ �~r; r 4, YS p1^�t,R\i ��:''t f ��`�• ' � v • , _ - r /j.••yt`77 qt;' 4.' ;�,,� `Y�v '>. i� al pd ! �5�l f{.� � �` y / �'A .,e' �. ems` .s. - _ - _•�- - o_� - � � - E ,�lY,l +�3� a• �}4� - \ � ♦� \+ +� �~ ` �•.l�r 1 Y's"t""'..•a ` � '�' �`_'. o - V•Y�1 h r ,i(YY� M n��ry��� C ' '�. �,�v t'�i Via' �s"'og? '� �' `� �4 �;:�:r �• '•` � .. _ ��;�•�, 4` i ¢� �'� a dr 4dtS_�i`:a7!'��.,^�+ 2+ ♦- ___ � ___ _—_ __ _ —__ _ _ _n _ _ _ :4.r yam, �`. SITE PHOTOS FIGURE 9A Ah 2m 77 3m 4m mr i•J _ Irlr I +�l } � Y _ �� 1 1 i SITE PHOTOS FIGURE 9B 1 _ I _ I,ftt• (�{pry' � � ' .= .;� _. w;� 5m 60 If 1 1 I - - _ _ . _ �-- - -- - • $ �.. ,� ram_ _xs=' _„r_ ' PANORAMAS FIGURE Y . View from Lido Isle View C: I s cF — L from Cliff Drive ' TABLE C RECENT DEVEMPMENT TRENDS ' MARINER'S IL - E A l l C AST HIGHWAY Date of ' Address Approval Development Characteristics 2244 5/82 169237 sq.ft. of General Office Use ' 3 stories in height Intensity = .41 x buildable area 2400 6/83 18,270 sq.ft.; Commercial/Residential mix 3 stories (351 ) in height Intensity = .86 x buildable area ' 2431 10/81 7400 sq.ft.; Restaurant 2 stories (261) in height Intensity = .35 x buildable area ' 2436 7180 3986 sq.ft. of General Office 2 stories in height Intensity = .37 x buildable area 2701-03 2/79 7,380 sq.ft.; Retail/Office/Light Manufacturing 2 stories (261 ) in height ' Intensity = .45 x buildable area *2801 1/82 22,400 sq.ft. ; Marine Office/Restaurant 3 stories (351 ) in height Intensity = .81 x buildable area Offsite parking agreement ' 2912 5/81 26,705 sq.ft.; General Commercial/Office 3 stories (35' ) in height Intensity = .84 x buildable area ' *3101 5/82 44,331 sq.ft. ; Marine Office/Retail 3 stories (351) average height to 40' maximum Intensity = .81 x buildable area Source: City of Newport Beach t *Projects adjacent to proposed development. ' 27 Recent development projects- of a nature similar to the proposed project ' which have been approved in the area, as listed in Table C, range from .37 x buildable to .86 x buildable. Developments on either side of the proposed project have been approved at an intensity of .81 x build- able. In comparison, the proposed project is requesting an intensity ' of use (1.0 x buildable) approximately 23% greater than adjacent proper- ties, which can be considered inconsistent with recent development patterns in the Mariner's Mile area. ' The question of the suitability of the proposed intensity of development is interrelated with the character and mix of uses proposed as well . Both the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan and the Land Use Plan of the LCP ' focus upon the provision for marine-oriented uses. The LCP specifically requires that 40% of proposed net square footage be devoted to coastal dependent "incentive" uses. Based on this ratio, the proposed project ' would have to provide approximately 17,060 sq.ft. of marine related uses (42,651 net sq.ft. x 40%) . The project applicant states that the following marine-related uses are proposed on-site: ' 1. Boat haul/repair service - 7,624 sq.ft. 2. Boatyard office (1st floor) - 2,000 sq.ft. 3. Marine businesses (1st floor) - 7,502 sq.ft. ' Total 17,126 sq.ft. While the above information submitted by the applicant suggests that incentive uses are satisfied in the project as proposed, it should be cautioned that plans have not been examined in detail by the City planning staff to verify the above figures or to make a determination of con- sistency with the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan or the LCP. The project applicant indicates, however, that a total of 40% of net floor area ' (including the proposed boatyard) will be reserved for marine-related uses. ' AestheticImpacts. Among potential concerns with regard to aesthetics are ui ing eight, architectural character and impacts on coastal views. The proposed structure will be a maximum of 35 feet in height. Structures to be built on adjacent sites are 35 feet on the east side of the project, and a maximum of 40 feet (35 feet average) on the westerly side of the ' site. Figure 11 illustrates the height relationships with adjacent developments as well as building separation and the difference between the profile of the existing Rosan building in relation to the proposed project. The height of the proposed project can be considered consistent in character with the height of other recently approved developments and will not result in any abrupt changes or undesirable scale relation- ships being created between the project and structures to be built on ' adjacent sites. ' 28 1 1 HEIGHT RELATIONSHIPS%VIEW CORRIDORS FIGURE 1 1 i ! 1 ra' to, sEPT N SE ARATION i ' I Vol i lot 1 NEW V EW CORRIDOR 1 NORTH-Pacific Coast Highway 1 Li 1 1 � 1 - - h 9 n n n 5 u ha SOUTH-Newport Bay i SOURCE: JOSEPH H. LANCOR ARCHITECTS I Figure 11 also provides a somewhat simplified representation of the ' architectural styles of the proposed project and adjacent developments. While a variety of architectural styles exists within the Mariner's Mile area, the Land Use Plan of the LCP speaks to the goal of maintaining the "marine theme and character" of recreational and marine commercial ' uses, for which the project site is designated. Any assessment of architectural design may be considered somewhat sub- jective by nature. The character of the proposed project, however, can easily be considered stylistically divergent from the more traditional design of surrounding development. In addition, there are no particular ' features of the currently proposed design which could be readily inter- preted as projecting a "marine theme or character" despite the fact that marine-related uses will be housed in the building. ' Other visual impacts are also illustrated on Figure 11. The existing Rosan building sits on the east property line and has a minimum setback of approximately 30 feet from the west property line where a boat haul ' operation is currently located. This area is fenced and gated at Pacific Coast Highway, however. As a result, the existing development does not provide any open view corridors to Newport Bay. ' The proposed project will provide a 10 foot setback from the westerly property line, and a clear corridor of 20 feet along the eastern driveway access to the site. Figure 4a provides a plan view of this corridor in addition to the elevation view illustrated in Figure 11. Building separation provided by the siting of adjacent developments, as illus- trated, will also enhance coastal views. ' Mitigation Measures ' In addition to Standard Conditions of Approval contained in Appendix B, the following Mitigation Measure will be required: ' 1. The final development plans shall comply with all requirements of the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan District and the Local Coastal Plan. Level of Significance of Impacts, after Mitigation Measures The intensity of the proposed development is not considered a significant impact, although it does exceed the intensity of other recent develop- ments. Associated environmental impacts have not been found significant, ' due in part to the fact that all impacts are incremental in nature. Potential impacts related to intensity of development, may also be reduced further if a reduction in floor area is found necessary to comply with the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan and the Local Coastal Plan. Aesthetic t impacts of the proposed height and architectural design are not considered significant. ' 30 ' CONSTRUCTION PROCESSES Introduction ' This section has been included in order to provide a complete description of proposed construction processes. Information presented has been provided by the project architect, Joseph H. Lancor, and by Lusardi ' Construction in correspondence contained in Appendix G. Specific impacts of construction related to water quality, noise and soils are outlined in other sections of this report. Existing Conditions ' A number of existing conditions and factors suggest potential concerns regarding construction processes. Among these is the location of the project site on a major traffic artery which experiences heavy summer ' traffic (See Traffic/Circulation) . The proximity of the site to Newport Bay and the design of the project also necessitate special construction techniques. The project site is, however, located in a commercial area which can be considered less sensitive to construction impacts than ' a residential area. The closest residential areas are Newport Heights and Lido Isle. Both are considered distant enough from the project site to eliminate any significant impacts. ' Potential Impacts ' As noted in previous chapters, project implementation will necessitate demolition of existing structures on-site. The project incorporates a one-level subterranean garage which necessitates excavation and dewater- ' ing of the site. Due to the depth of the groundwater and anticipated soils conditions, the use of sheet pilings will be necessary to shore up the sides of the excavation and to act as the foundation for the ' subterranean garage. A concrete slab will be poured in the bottom of the garage structure. Project construction will also necessitate the replacement of the harbor bulkhead which is in a deteriorated condition. ' The project architect indicates that the proposed project is estimated to require a total of 15 months construction time, to commence on or around February 15, 1985. Demolition of the existing structure and ' excavation of the subterranean garage is anticipated to require 6-8 weeks within the total timeframe. Dewatering will occur on a continuous 24 hour basis throughout excavation as well as the process of driving ' sheet piles (estimated to be a 12 week period). Due to the location of the site on Pacific Coast Highway significant though temporary traffic congestion and disruption can be anticipated ' to occur throughout project construction. Pedestrian and bicycle circu- lation will be provided for through provision of a temporary construction barrier with overhead screening along Pacific Coast Highway. Signing ' and lighting is also proposed to facilitate safe pedestrian circulation. ' 31 , 1 'I ' Excavation will involve an estimated 15 to 20 truck trips per day, over a 6-8 week period. Hauling from the site is proposed along Pacific ' Coast Highwy, to Jamboree Road, to Bison Ave., to MacArthur Boulevard to the Bonita Canyon dump site. The return route is proposed along Dover Drive, Westcliff Drive and 17th Street to Newport Boulevard in order to allow trucks to make a right turn from Pacific Coast Highway back onto the site. Haul routes proposed will impact residential areas along Jamboree Boulevard and Westcliff Drive. The return route also involves truck traffic generation on streets located within jurisdiction of the City of Costa Mesa. Demolition of the existing structure is not anticipated to generate unusual problems. Mitigation measures will be required, however, to prevent any debris from falling into Newport Bay or onto adjacent pro- perties and Pacific Coast Highway. ' Potential safety concerns associated with site excavation, including soil collapse and quickening in the bottom of the excavation will be ' addressed through the placement of sheet pilings and a system of well points. Potential impacts associated with dewatering, including odor, noise and potential soil subsidence, are addressed in other chapters of this report. ' The driving of sheet piles can be anticipated to generate significant noise impacts in the immediate vicinity and could potentially cause ' localized soil subsidence from ground vibration as described in other chapters of this report. The project architect indicates that a vibratory hammer will be utilized to drive sheet pilings, which is expected to minimize soil disturbances and noise impacts. ' Pouring of the basement slab will involve approximately 6 trucks per hour or 36 trucks per day over an estimated 7 day period. The project ' architect states that construction will be limited to 9 AM to 3 PM to reduce traffic conflicts on Pacific Coast Highway. t In order to replace the existing bulkhead, the project architect proposes construction of a new bulkhead inside the south property line immediately adjacent to the existing bulkhead. When the new bulkhead is complete, the old structure will be demolished. Reconstruction of the bulkhead will require review by the City of Newport Beach Marine Safety Department and approval by the Army Corps of Engineers. Construction and demolition activities must also comply with regulations of the Santa Ana Regional ' Water Quality Control Board to prevent any debris from entering Newport Bay. Mitigation Measures In order to minimize potential impacts of the construction process the following Mitigation Measures are suggested: 1. A system of barriers and overhead protection will be required during ' construction to prevent debris from falling into Newport Bay or onto adjacent property and streets, and to protect pedestrian and bicycle circulation routes. 32 ' 2. No street closures will be allowed. ' 3. Excavations will be shored by sheet piling placed by a method approved by the Planning and Building Departments of the City of Newport Beach. ' 4. A system of well points will be utilized to dewater the site for construction purposes. Additional well points will be placed in ' the center of the excavation to prevent a "quick" condition from developing during construction. 5. The relocation of public utilities will be coordinated and approved by local utility companies and public agencies, as appropriate. 6. Hours of construction will be limited, at the applicant's suggestion, to 9 AM to 3 PM weekdays, 8 AM to 6 PM Saturdays, and 10 AM to 6 PM Sundays. ' 7. All construction equipment and materials shall be stored on-site in a screened, fenced area. B. The perimeter of the project site shall be fenced to insure public safety. 9. Signing and lighting shall be provided for the benefit of pedestrian t and bicycle circulation with the approval of the City of Newport Beach Planning Department. 10. Truck traffic generated by site excavation, dewatering and concrete ' pouring operations shall be routed in a manner approved by the City of Newport Beach Planning, and Public Works Departments. 11. Construction workers and other personnel shall be directed to utilize parking located on Site B (Riverside Avenue and Avon St. ) during project construction. Level of Significance of Impacts after Mitigation Measures Potential short-term impacts from construction processes have been at least partially mitigated by measures outlined. Any remaining impacts are not considered significant. 33 ' TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION Introduction An analysis of traffic and circulation issues has been conducted by the firm of Basmaciyan-Darnell, Inc. (BDI) , from which the following discussion is extracted. The technical analysis is contained in Appen- dix H to this report. Existing Conditions ' The project sites and the surrounding street system are illustrated in Figure 2 - Vicinity Map. Access to the area is provided primarily ' by Pacific Coast Highway, Newport Boulevard and Riverside Avenue. The 1982 average daily traffic (ADT) volumes for major roadways in the vic- inity of the project site are illustrated on Figure 12. ' Pacific Coast Highway is classified as a major arterial on the Circula- tion Element for the City of Newport Beach. Between Newport Boulevard and Tustin Avenue, Pacific Coast Highway has three westbound and two ' eastbound lanes. Between Newport Boulevard and Riverside Avenue the roadway.includes a two-way left turn lane. A raised median with left turn pockets extends between Riverside and Tustin Avenues. On-street parking is prohibited on the south side of Pacific Coast Highway from Newport Boulevard to Riverside Avenue. Riverside Avenue, which intersects with Pacific Coast Highway easterly of the project site, provides 2 travel lanes in each direction with a bicycle lane. Northerly of Avon Street, the roadway is channelized down to one lane in each direction (plus a bike lane) as it enters the ' single family residential areas north of the project site. For purposes of analysis, the City Traffic Engineer identified sixteen ' critical intersections that could be affected by the proposed project. Previous Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis performed for each of these intersections establish 1983 conditions, which are used as the basis for evaluation of project-related impacts. Table D illustrates existing 1983 PM peak hour ICU values for the sixteen selected intersections. 34 EXISTING AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES FIGURE 12 4 0 � i > c 6 a w m oe Q Q w m c �Q0 QAe 0 v u o � o > Cgff Orly o e m P.4on 0: o Street O- 3 N z Pacific Coast Hi©hW$y 48139 49/45 49/4b 56/48 LEGEND: 63/59 34/28 'XX/YY-DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES XX- VOLUMES REPRESENT AVERAGE SUMMER WEEKDAY VOLUMES (CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC FLOW MAP 1983)(IN THOUSANDS) 61/51 YY-VOLUMES REPRESENT AVERAGE 53/37 WINTER WEEKDAY VOLUMES (CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC FLOW MAP 1982) (IN THOUSANDS) Source: Basmaciyan-Darnell,Inc. ' TABLE D EXISTING 1983 PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION I Y L T N (ICU) ' CRITICAL INTERSECTION PM PEAK HOUR ICU Coast Highway at: Orange Avenue .7950 Prospect Avenue .8929 Balboa Boulevard - Superior Avenue 1.1141 Riverside Avenue .7731 Tustin Avenue .6764 Dover Drive - Bayshore Drive .7092 Bayside Drive .9364 Jamboree Road .8013 Newport Center Drive .6232 Avocado Avenue .5767 MacArthur Boulevard .7490 Goldenrod Avenue .7697 Marguerite Avenue .8678 ' Newport Boulevard at: ' Hospital Road .7729 Via Lido .7053 32nd Street .7174 Source: City of Newport Beach ' Potential 'Impacts ' Traffic Generation. In assessing the potential impact of the proposed project, an estimate of future traffic volumes based upon Committed Projects and trend growth (as forecast by the City of Newport Beach Traffic Circulation Model) was incorporated in the analysis in conjunction ' with expected roadway improvements. In order to determine project-related traffic volumes, standard trip ' generation rates for retail, office and restaurant uses were applied to the proposed mix of uses provided by the project applicant. Based upon trip generation rates presented in Table E, the proposed project would generate 1370 daily vehicle trip ends. During the PM peak hour, 125 trip ends would be generated while a total of 249 trip ends are estimated during the afternoon peak 2 1/2 hours. 36 TABLE E PROJECT TR—IP—GYNERATION Project-Related Trip Generation Rates (per 1000 sq.ft.) 2.5 Hour Land Use Daily PM Peak Hour Peak Period INOUT TIN—OUT Office 13.0 0.6 1.7 1.2 3.4 Office/Retail 30.0 1.4 1.8 2.8 3.6 Restaurant, Private Club 75.0 2.7 1.7 5.4 3.4 Trip Generation Summary Trip Ends ' 1 2.5 Hour PM Peak Hour Peak Period Proposed Project Descriptor Daily IN OUT IW----MT Office 27,613 sq.ft. 359 17 47 33 94 Office/Retail 4,107 818 29 19 58 38 Restaurant, Private Club 10,931 123 6 7 12 14 ' TOTAL 42,651 1300 52 73 103 146 ' Existing Rosan Boat Works Trip Generation* 2.5 'Hour ' PM Peak Hour Peak Period OUT I N OTT ' 19 78 21 79 *Based upon traffic counts performed by BDI, Inc. Source: BDI, Inc., March 1984 Due to the fact that the site is currently developed, however, it is necessary to identify the existing traffic generation from the site in order to isolate the net incremental impact attributable to the pro- posed project. Table E illustrates data collected on traffic generated from the off-site parking lot (Site B) located at Riverside Avenue and Avon Street-currently used by Rosan employees. Trip distribution patterns were developed for the estimated project '. traffic and the existing Rosan traffic based upon regional travel pat- terns, consideration of possible origins and destinations and observed ' traffic patterns at the site. (A more detailed discussion and illus- tration of distribution patterns is contained in Appendix H.) In order to calculate the net increase in traffic which will result from the 37 ' proposed project, the existing Rosan traffic was subtracted from gross project-related traffic generation. Figure 13 illustrates the determined distribution of the net traffic increase. A separate analysis for the trip distribution and impacts for the intersections of Pacific Coast Highway/Riverside Avenue and Tustin Avenue is contained in Appendix H. ' Finally, an analysis to identify intersections which could be impacted by the net project-related increase in traffic was conducted based upon ' procedures and criteria established by the City's Traffic Phasing Ordin- ance (TPO) . This analysis indicated that 2 of the 16 identified critical intersections would be impacted by the proposed project. These inter- sections are Pacific Coast Highway/Riverside Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway/Tustin Avenue. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analyses were performed on these ' intersections in accordance with TPO requirements. Table F illustrates ICU and level of service (LOS) values determined by this review. As Table F shows, the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Riverside Avenue will exceed a 0.90 ICU value beyond which special mitigation measures are required to reduce the ICU value to 0.90 or less. TABLE F ' SUMMARY OF 1987 P i0UR ICU ANALYUSES 1987 Existing ' 1987 Existing + Regional + Regional + Committed 1983 Existing + Committed + Proposed Condition 'Condition Pro*ect,� Intersection ICU Cos— - ICU — ICU SOS ' Coast Highway at: Riverside Avenue 0.7731 C 0.8933 D 0.9007 D Tustin Avenue 0.6764 B 0.8091 D 0.8201 D Source: BDI, Inc., March 1984 To improve operating conditions at this intersection to provide an ICU value less than or equal to 0.9000 will require the addition of travel lanes at the intersection or a reduction in the size of the project. The addition of a second eastbound left turn lane on Coast Highway onto ' northbound Riverside Avenue will significantly improve operating con- ditions at the intersection but will require the removal of parking on the north side of Coast Highway. (A sketch of the suggested inter- section geometrics is contained in Appendix G.) The implementation of these improvements would provide an ICU value of .8547 and Level of Service -D at this intersection. 38 NET PROJECT RELATED TRAFFIC FIGURE 13 ti a m o � d a• y P o 0. = Qt m o e 1 0// r� Q) >th Street m e 317 > Newport Center Drive 1 3/7 J 1 6/12 4114 t o 216 2/4 2/6 t 419 214 O I 8117 �- w £� 0/2 m :r a j33 14/30 .'8119 of is•'4112 N 1/2 m 0 y r\we %6 13137 — g/23tdo Drive m m / /2!4 m �� 0/0 Iiff 16140 Be o m 0/10 o 0/10 0136 Conef Hiphwny O °' •- 0113 16142 16/46 5/1 5/15 ' t317 111 e11 1/9 Vie Lld offsite Parking VA Qe/6 Project Site k Ole 217 Q�C LEGEND XX-PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES BY DIRECTION YY-PM PEAK 2.6 HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES BY DIRECTION Source: Basmaciyan-Darnell,Inc. - 1 ' Reduction of the size of the project is an alternate to the improvement of the Riverside Avenue/Pacific Coast Highway intersection. Evaluation of the project and ICU values suggests that a reduction of 1,160 sq.ft. of office development would be needed to provide an ICU of less than 0.9000. The suggested reduction would result in an ICU value of 0.8995 at the Coast Highway/Riverside Avenue intersection, and a level of Service -D. ' Project-related traffic from the proposed development has been estimated to generate approximately 130 vehicle trips per day through the Newport Heights residential area via Riverside Avenue and Cliff Drive. (Some of these trips will also originate from the area.) This volume of traffic represents less than 2% of the existing average daily traffic on Riverside Avenue/Cliff Drive and is not expected to generate any significant impacts. Access and Internal Circulation. Access to and from the project site is propose via a 26 foot drivFway with a raised median located at the easterly property line. This access will serve the boat repair and ' launch operations to be relocated from the west side of the site as well as traffic from the office, retail and restaurant facilities on-site. Approximately 12 boat launches per year are anticipated, according to the project applicant. Access to and from the project site for normal ' vehicular traffic will be limited to right turns in/out only due to the proximity of the site to the intersection of Riverside Avenue. In order to accommodate movements of large boats and to facilitate normal turning movements as well, removal of the proposed 2 foot raised driveway median on-site is recommended. When large boats are transported along Pacific Coast Highway to or from ' boatyards in the area it is necessary to temporarily block traffic. (Assistance is customarily provided by the Newport Beach Police Department during these maneuvers.) The proximity of the access drive on the project ' site to the median at the Riverside Avenue intersection of Pacific Coast Highway may cause difficulties in moving large vessels in and out of the proposed boat repair yard. Some modification of the median in Pacific Coast Highway may be required to accommodate boat transport. Access to and from the off-site parking lot (Site B) is proposed via the alleyway located on the southerly boundary of the lot. This proposal will eliminate driveways on Avon Street and should result in improved circulation on adjacent streets. Review of project site plans also identified three areas of concern with regard to internal circulation. Figure 14 depicts the location of concerns which are outlined below: - Turning radius for access to/from the proposed valet drop-off area is not considered adequate. ' - The proximity of the valet drop-off access to the basement parking access is a concern. ' - Sight distance leaving the basement level parking at the first floor aisleway intersection may be inadequate. M40 1 1 ON-SITE CIRCULATION FIGURE 14 COAST HIGHWAY 1 REMOVE ISLAND Fi - TURNING RADIUS 1 � I SIGHT 1 DISTANCE 1 1 ,iJ I 1 1 1 1 ! 1 ;�•� val-.t ' Source: Basmaciyan-Darnell,Inc. ' It is suggested that the site access be located further west in order to eliminate potential problems with the turning radius. All concerns ' should, however, be examined by the City Traffic Engineer and modified as determined necessary. Circulation at the off-site parking lot is considered adequate, with the exception that the proposed plan does not allow for required landscape setbacks. Provision of setbacks will eliminate 4 parking spaces. A ' detailed illustration of suggested changes to the off-site parking lot is contained in Appendix H. Parking. With the reduction of 4 spaces at the off-site parking lot, a total of 205 parking spaces will be provided for the proposed project. The project applicant indicates that a valet operation will be utilized for the restaurant after 6 PM and during the lunch hour for the private ' club. No transporting of vehicles to the off-site parking lot is pro- posed. It is suggested that the off-site lot be limited to use by employees/ tenants in order-to provide greater parking turnover for the retail uses and other short term visitors to the project. Mitigation Measures In addition to Standard Conditions of Approval which are listed in Appen- dix B, the following traffic-related mitigation measures are suggested. ' 1. The proposed access driveway median on-site should be eliminated to facilitate traffic movement and boat haul operations. 2. Consideration should be given to locating the access to Site A westerly of the proposed drive in order to eliminate potential problems with on-site turning radius. Any modification should take into consideration the access from Pacific Coast Highway necessary for movement of large boats to be associated with the boat repair facility. 3. The valet drop-off area should be redesigned to improve the turning radius for vehicles leaving the site and for those attempt- ing to reach basement level parking. ' 4. The off-site parking lot should be modified to allow for required landscape setback areas. 5. Valet operations should be restricted to on-site operations only. ' 6. The off-site parking lot should be designated for long-term employee/tenant parking in order to maximize the number of spaces available on Site A for short-term parking. ' 7. In order to mitigate impacts at the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Riverside Avenue, improvements to the inter- section as outlined in Appendix H to this report, or a reduction ' in the size of the project will be necessary. Acceptance and implementation of either of these alternatives will permit com- pliance with TPO regulations. 42 ' Level of Significance of Impacts after Mitigation Measures ' The potential traffic and circulation impacts of the project are not considered significant, either on an individual or cumulative basis. M 43 AIR QUALITY Existing Conditions ' Climatic conditions and wind patterns in the coastal areas of Newport Beach result in relatively clean air and preclude any localized stag- nation of air pollutants emitted within the area. Prevailing winds ' generally carry pollutants in an inland direction. Weak offshore nightly air flows reverse this pattern, though the air flow often does not extend to Newport Beach. The infrequent air quality problems experienced in coastal areas typically result from sources outside the local area. tAir quality data from the nearest South Coast Air Quality Management District monitoring station indicates that Ambient Air Quality Standards ' have historically been exceeded infrequently, with the magnitude of violations much less than experienced in most other areas of the South Coast Air Basin. Potential Impacts ' Traffic generation is the primary source of project-related air pollutants. At an estimated trip length of eight miles per trip end, approximately 5040 vehicle miles travelled will be added to the regional traffic burden. ' This figure represents an estimate of the incremental increase in traffic volumes, accounting for the traffic generation associated with existing employment on-site. The project-related increment is considered insigni- ficant in comparison to existing regional traffic volumes which are ' estimated at 200 million VMT. Stationary source emissions (from increased energy demands, combustion ' of fuels, etc.) and emissions from short-term construction activities are considered minimal . (The anticipated construction period is estimated to be 15-18 months total.) Mitigation Measures ' No mitigation measures beyond those required by existing City policies and Standard Conditions of Approval, as listed in Appendix B, are con- sidered necessary. ' Level of Significance of Impacts after Mitigation Measures ' The potential air quality impacts of the project as proposed are not considered significant. 44 ACOUSTICS ' Existing Conditions The primary source of noise impacts at the project site is Pacific Coast Highway. Based upon a 1982 summer average daily traffic level of 49,000 vehicles, it is estimated that the 65 CNEL noise contour for Pacific Coast Highway is located approximately 150 feet from the roadway center- line (Mestre-Greve Associates). Pacific Coast Highway is 100 feet in right of way, placing the 65 CNEL contour roughly 100 feet into the property. The existing use, as well as the general commercial character ' of uses in the area, is not considered particularly noise sensitive. ' Potential Impacts The proposed project will generate additional traffic, which will add to noise on the surrounding roadway system. Due to the fact that the ' site is currently developed, the noise impact of the proposed project is limited to an incremental increase. The impact on land uses adjacent to roadways which will carry the majority of project-related traffic ' is considered negligible. No traffic-related noise impacts are anti- cipated in residential areas northerly of Pacific Coast Highway. The type of use proposed on the project site is not considered noise sensitive. The noise exposure of the project from traffic along Pacific Coast Highway is considered acceptable, with appropriate indoor noise attenuation measures. ' Construction processes, particularly the excavation/dewatering stage, will generate short-term noise impacts. Based upon research conducted for similar projects (Balboa Fun Zone) it can be anticipated that noise impacts will occur on a continuous 24 hour basis during dewatering and pouring of the basement slab. This phase of construction is expected to last approximately 4 months. Hauling of excavated sand and operation of dewatering machinery may generate noise levels up to 85 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. Truck traffic will be routed as described in the Construction Processes chapter. Residential areas along Jamboree Boulevard ' and Westcliff Drive will be impacted by truck traffic. Driving of sheet piling foundations will also generate noise impacts. ' Information submitted by the applicant's architect suggests that the pile driving process may generate noise up to 90 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. Although this phase of construction will generate the highest level of noise impacts, it is estimated to last for a period of approxi- mately 30 days. Noise impacts may be audible in neighboring residential areas but are not considered significant due to both the distance from the noise source and the relatively short duration. The City of Newport Beach limits hours of construction activity in order to restrict night-time noise impacts. Dewatering and pouring of the basement slab will require a temporary waiver of City Noise Regulations. If significant noise impacts are encountered during these processes, measures such as baffles and noise barriers can be utilized to reduce noise levels. 45 ' Mitigation Measures In addition to Standard Conditions of Approval listed in Appendix B, the following mitigation measures are suggested: 1. A waiver of City noise abatement regulations will be required in order to allow site dewatering and pouring of the basement slab. 2. If determined necessary by the City of Newport Beach Building Department, noise producing equipment will be enclosed by barriers or baffled to reduce noise impacts. Level of Siqnificance of Impacts, after Mitigation Measures ' The potential noise impacts from, and to, the proposed project are con- sidered insignificant. Short-term •construction related impacts will be a nuisance in some areas but are considered insignificant by virtue of their temporary nature. 46 ' PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES Existing Conditions Fire Protection. The Newport Beach Fire Department provides fire suppres- sion and rescue services to the project site from the Lido Station located at 475 32nd Street. Supporting companies are available at Station 6 ' located at 110 East Balboa Boulevard, Balboa and the Santa Barbara Station at 868 Santa Barbara Drive. The Orange County Harbor Patrol can also provide fire suppression services to waterfront properties. ' Police Protection. The Newport Beach Police Department provides full police service to the project area from its headquarters on Santa Barbara Drive in Newport Center. Distance from the facility is approximately ' 4 miles. Response times to'emergency calls in the project area are estimated to be an average of 3 minutes. The Police Department also provides special traffic control services to boat yards in the Mariner's ' Mile area when it is necessary to block traffic to move large boats along Pacific Coast Highway. Transit. The Orange County Transit District -(OCTD) provides transit ' service to the project area with two bus routes. Route 1, which runs from Long Beach to San Clemente, provides service on Pacific Coast Highway at 35 minute intervals on weekdays and 60 minute intervals on weekends. Route 65, running from Santa Ana to Balboa, operates on a 60 minute interval seven days a week. Two bus stops are located in the vicinity of the project site, one on either side of Pacific Coast Highway at the interesection of Riverside Avenue. Wastewater. The City of Newport Beach provides local sewer service to the project site. An eight inch sewer main is located in Pacific Coast Highway in close proximity to the project site. Wastewater is treated by the Orange County Sanitation District at its treatment facility in Huntington Beach. ' Water. The City of Newport Beach Utilities Department provides domestic water service to the site. An 8 inch water main is located in Pacific Coast Highway adjacent to the project site. Potential Impacts ' Fire Protection. The City of Newport Beach Fire Department currently anticipates no difficulty in providing emergency medical or fire suppres- sion services to the project site. The proposed project will not adversely impact present service level capabilities and will not require additional fire protection personnel or equipment. Police Protection. The project will not adversely impact current police protection sevices or require any additional personnel. ' Transit. The Orange County Transit District indicates that existing ups routes have sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed project. No additional stops, or modification of the existing stops, is considered necessary. ' 47 1 ' Wastewater. The Utilities Department of the City of Newport Beach does not foresee any difficulty in serving the proposed project. Water. The Newport Beach Utilities Department foresees no problem in providing water service to the proposed project. Mitiqation Measures ' No mitigation measures beyond those required by existing City policies and Standard Conditions of Approval as listed in Appendix B are considered necessary. Level of Significance of Impacts after Mitigation Measures The potential public service and utility impacts of the proposed project are considered insignificant. 1 48 II PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED tCity of Newport Beach Patricia Temple, Advance Planning ' Chris Gustin, Current Planning Don Webb, City Engineer Rich Edmonston, Traffic Engineer Thomas C. Dailey, Fire Marshal ' Joe Devlin, Utilities Department Charles Beswick, Police Department Ron Whitley, Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department Tony Melum, Marine Safety Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator* Orange County Transit District Mike McKnight, Transit Planner Mestre Greve Associates Fred Greve ' (Noise Consultant) I , I , II ' *No longer employed by City of Newport Beach. i ' 49 1 REFERENCES Basmaciyan-Darnell , Inc. , February 6, 1984. Traffic Study for the Rosan ' Development and supplemental letter of February 9, 1984. Prepared for Marie E. Gilliam. ' Converse Consultants, Inc. , 1984. Preliminary Geotechnical Review - Rosan Electronics Site. Prepared for Joseph E. Lancor Architects, Inc. LSA, Inc., 1982. Final Environmental Impact Report, Balboa Marina Project, Balboa Fun Zone. Prepared for the City of Newport Beach. LSA, Inc. , 1981. Initial Study for Use Permit for Chart House Restaurant. ' Prepared for the City of Newport Beath. Newport Beach, City of. ' General Plan of the City of Newport Beach Land Use Element Public Safety Element Noise Element ' Parks and Recreation Element Local Coastal Program - Land Use Plan, 1982 Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 20.62 - Mariners Mile Specific Plan District Chapter 20.30.035 - Parking Code ' 50 1 - 1 1 ' APPENDIX A ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1 t 1 1 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM (. Bacicgrourd I. Name of Proponentt.i/x 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent &395 (bor3) <144- gzn 3. Date of Checklist Submitted 4. Agency Requiring Checklist S. Name of Proposal, if applicable. 1Zo5 w1 11. Environmental Impacts (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) ' Yes Maybe two 1. Earth. Will the proposal result In: a. Unstable earth conditions or in Changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcoverirg of the soil? _ c. Change in topography or ground surface ' relief features? L _ d. The destruction, covering or modification ' of any unique geologic or physical features? >C e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? , f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a ' river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? >+ II 1 ' 1 i Yes Mee No ' g. Exposure of people or property to geolo- gic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? ><- ' 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: o. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? ° b. The creation of objectionable odors? >G ' c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? >G, ' 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course of di- rection of water movements, in either ' marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage pat- terns, or the rate and amount of surface — runoff? _ c. Afterations to the course or flow of flood ' waters? >G d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? ' e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, in- cluding but not limited to temperature, — dissolved oxygen or turbidity? k• f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? _ g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an — aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of ' water otherwise available for public water supplies? x ' i. Exposure of people or property to water re- lated hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? ?G Yes Maybe No 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or ' number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plantV ' b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? c. introduction of new species of, plants into an area, or in a barrier to the'normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or , numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, ' rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals Into ' on area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? Z d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife ' habitat? G 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: ' a. increases in existing noise levels? _ b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? ' 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a sub- stantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? '. ' 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural G ' resources? 3 ' Yes Maybe No ' b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable — natural resource? L 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: ' a. A risk of an explosion or the release ' of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or — upset conditions? ' b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or on emergency evacuation plan? , If. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? ' 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing hous- ing, or create a demand for additional housing? X ' 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional t vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? X ' c. Substantial impact upon existing transpor- totion systems? .4 d. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and/or goods? _ ' e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air — traff ic? X, f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor ' vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or ' altered governmental services in any of the — following areas: ' a. Fire protection? �< b. Police protection? >� ' c. Schools? Yes Maw No , d. Parks or other recreational facilities? 'mac t e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X f. ' Other governmental services? yG ' 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon exist- ' ing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? _SC 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need ' for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Powei or natural gas? ' b. Communications systems? X c. Water? ' d. Sewer or septic tanks? k e. Storm water drainage? X t f. I Solid waste and disposal? >C 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: o. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? >- ' 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result In the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the ' creation of on aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? tiG 20. Cultural Resources. ' a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or ' historic archaeological site? ' Yes May No b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or Historic building, structure, or object? � . ' c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? � d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ' 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to ' degrade the.quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wild- life population to drop below self sus- taining levels, threaten to eliminate a ' plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or t endangered plant animal or eliminate — important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? X% ' b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short- term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) ' c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively con- siderable? (A project may impact on two ' or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) �G — ' d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ' III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation ' IV. Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: , I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have o significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environ- ment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. - to ignature For ' (Note: This is only a suggested form. Public agencies are free to devise their own format for initial studies.) ' t 1 1 APPENDIX B ' SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE STANDARD CITY POLICIES AND REQUIREMENTS 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE STANDARD CITY POLICIES AND REQUIREMENTS I A. Development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plans, and elevations. B. All mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from , public streets, alleys, or adjoining properties. C. Signage and exterior lighting shall be approved by the Planning Department, and the Public Works Department. D. The following disclosure statement of the City of Newport Beach's policy regarding John Wayne Airport shall be included in all leases ' or subleases for space in the project and shall be included in any Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions which may be recorded against the property. Disclosure Statement The Lessee herein, his heirs, successors, and assigns acknowledge that; a) John Wayne Airport may not be able to provide adequate air service ; for business establishments which rely on such services; b) When an alternate air facility is available, a complete phaseout of jet service may occur at John Wayne Airport; ' c) The City of Newport Beach may continue to oppose additional commercial air service expansi.on at John Wayne Airport; d) Lessee, his heirs, successors, and assigns will not actively oppose any action taken by the City of Newport Beach to phase out or limit jet air service at John Wayne Airport, E. Project sponsors will comply with California energy conservation standards for non-residential buildings (Title 24, Administrative Code) . , F. Prior to issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall deposit with the City Finance Director a sum proportionate to the percentage of future additional traffic related to the project in the subject area to be used for construction of a sound attenuation wall on the westerly side of Jamboree Road between East Bluff Drive and ' Ford Road, and along the southerly side of Pacific Coast Highway adjacent to Irvine Terrace, and in West Newport. G. Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to ' be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. t 1 ' H. A grading plan will include a complete plan for temporary and per- manent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from ' silt, debris, and other weather pollutants. I. The grading permit will include a description of haul routes, access ' points to the site, and watering and sweeping programs designed to minimize impacts of haul operations. 0. An erosion, siltation, and dust control plan shall be submitted ' and be subject to approval by the Building Department and a copy will be forwarded 'to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region.- K. Grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a civil engineer and based on recommendations of a soils engineer and an engineering geologist subsequent to completion of a compre- hensive soil's and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard-size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Department. ' L. The Fire Department shall review design plans to ensure adequate access and emergency exits. ' M. The provision of adequate fire flow shall be reviewed by the Fire Department. ' N. Structures shall be equipped with fire suppression systems as required by code. ' 0. Final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation of water-saving devices for lavatories and other water-using facilities. P. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, a program for the ' sorting of recyclable material from other solid wastes shall be developed and approved by the Planning Department. Q. The final layout and composition of surface and subterranean parking shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer and the Planning Department. ' R. Handicap and compact parking spaces shall be designated by a method approved by the City Traffic Engineer and the Planning Department. The quantity and design of such spaces shall comply with all city codes. S. Parking arrangements during the construction period shall be approved ' by the City Planning Department and the Traffic Engineer prior to the issuance of any grading and/or building permits. ' T. All onsite drainage shall be approved by the City Public Works Depart- ments. U. The project shall contribute a sum equal to its "fair share" of ' future circulation system improvements, as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways. � 1 V. A weekly cleanup program around the docks and public sidewalks shall be conducted on a regular basis. During construction, basins or other devices shall be installed to prevent waste from entering ' Newport Bay. W. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a comprehensive soils and foundation study will be prepared and approved by the Planning t and Building Departments of the City of Newport Beach. X. All buildings will conform to the Uniform Building Code and the ' City's seismic design standards. Y. Should any archaeological resources be uncovered during excavation/ , construction, a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist shall evaluate the site prior to completion of construction activities, and all work on the site shall be done in accordance with City Council Policies K-5 and K-6. Z. A landscape and irrigation plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and approved by the City of Newport Beach Parks, ' Beaches & Recreation Department, the Public Works Department and the Planning Department. AA. The landscape plan shall include a maintenance program which controls ' the use of fertilizers and pesticides and shall place emphasis on the use of drought resistant native vegetation. Irrigation systems shall be designed to avoid surface runoff and overwatering. ' BB. The project is located within the Coastal Zone and will require State Coastal Commission approval, in addition to all necessary City approvals. CC. An Army Corps of Engineers permit (in addition to a Harbor Permit) shall be obtained prior to any alteration of bulkheads. ' DD. Any mechanical equipment and emergency power generators shall be screened from view, and noise associated with said structures shall be sound-attenuated so as not to exceed 55 dBA at the property lines. The latter shall be based upon the recommendations of a qualified acoustical engineer and approved by the Building Department. ' EE. Prior to the occupancy of the building, the applicant shall provide written verification from Orange County Sanitation District No. 5 that adequate sewer capacity is available to serve the project. , 1 ' APPENDIX C MARINER'S MILE SPECIFIC PLAN DISTRICT 1 1 Page 145 ' SPECIFIC PLAN (MARINERS' MILE) Chapter 20. 62 ' S R E C I F I C PLAN DISTRICT SMARINERS MILE ' Chapter 20.62 SPECIFIC PLAN DISTRICT (MARINERS' MILE) Sections : ' 20.62.010 Establishment of Specific Plan. 20.62.020 Intent and Purpose. 20.62.030 General Controls. ' 20.62.040 Recreational and Marine Commercial . - 20.62.050 Retail and Service Commercial . 20. 62.060 Site Plan Review ' 20. 62.070 Definitions 20.62.010 ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIFIC PLAN DISTRICT MARINERS' MILE. The provisions of, this Chapter shall apply to all parcels within the following described real property in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California, to wit: Beginning at the intersection of the centerlines of Coast Highway and North Newport Boulevard; thence northerly along the centerline of Newport Boulevard to centerline of Santa Ana Avenue; thence northeasterly along the centerline' of Santa Ana Avenue to the centerline of Avon Street; thence easterly along the centerline of Avon Street to the southerly prolongation of the westerly line of the parcels created from Lot D Tract , 919 by record of survey recorded in Book 24, Page 6 of record of surveys ; thence northerly, easterly,- northeasterly and southeasterly along said prolongation and the boundaries of said parcels to the northwesterly prolonga- tion of the northeasterly line of Lot 40 Tract 1133; thence , southeasterly along the prolongation and 'the northeasterly line of Lot 40 Tract 1133; thence southwesterly along the southeasterly boundVy of Lots 40 and 41 to the most westerly corner of Lot 48 Tract' 1133; thence southeasterly along the southwesterly line of Lot 48 Tract 1133 and its easterly prolongation to the centerline of Ocean View Avenue; thence southerly along the centerline of Ocean View Avenue to the westerly prolongation of the northeasterly ' line of Lot 20 Tract 1133; thence easterly along said northeasterly line of Lot 20 to the northwesterly line of Parcel A, record of survey recorded in Book 10 Page 27 of record of survey; thence ' northeasterly along said westerly line to the most westerly corner of that certain parcel of land as described in the deed recorded in Book 11293 Page 786 of official records ; thence easterly along the southwesterly line of said parcel to the most southerly Page 146 SPECIFIC PLAN (MARINERS ' MILE) Chapter 20 . 62 ' corner of said parcel ; thence northeasterly to a line parallel with and 190• feet, measured at right angles from the center line of Cliff Drive; thence southeasterly along said parallel line and its easterly prolongation to the northwesterly boundary line of Tract No . 1221 ; thence southwesterly along said boundary and its prolongation to an intersection with the U.S. pierhead line ; thence westerly along said pierhead to U. S. Bulkhead Station 128A; thence westerly to U.-S . Bulkhead Station 128: thence westerly to U. S. Bulkhead Station 227; thence northerly to the point of beginning, as shown on Districting Map No. 4 referred to in Section 20 .06. 030 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code , and by such reference made ■ a part of Title 20 of said Code , is hereby rezoned from the C-2, C-O-Z, C-1 -H , C-2-H , and R-1 Districts to SP 5 - Specific Plan District, and said Districting Map No . 4 is hereby amended to show this zoning change . (Ord. 1718 § 1 (part) , 1977) . 20. 62 . 020 INTENT AND PURPOSE. The intent of this ordinance is to establish a Specific Plan District to guide the orderly development and improvement of that area of the City of Newport Beach which is located east of Newport Boulevard, west of the county owned property used as a Sea Scout Base, north of Lower Newport Bay,' and generally south of the base of the bluffs northerly of Coast Highway. It is the purpose of this ordinance to implement the Newport Beach General Plan objectives , policies ; general land uses and programs as they pertain to the subject area and establish consistency between the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance in the Mariners ' Mile area . (Ord . 1718 § 1 (part) , 1977) . 20.62. 030 GENERAL CONTROLS. The provisions of this section shall apply to all property in the Mariners ' Mile Specific Plan District. J A. The following two general land use designations are- established: (a) Recreational and Marine Commercial , RMC District. ' (b) Retail and Service Commercial , RSC District. The designations , locations , and boundaries of these uses are delineated upon the map entitled "Mariners ' Mile - Specific Plan District, City of Newport Beach ," which plan map and all Information and notations thereon are hereby made a part of this section by reference. B . No building or structure shall be erected , reconstructed or structurally altered in any manner nor shall any building or land, be used for any purpose, other than as permitted by, and in conformance with this Code and all other ordinances , laws, and Page 147 ' SPECIFIC PLAN (,MARINERS' MILE) Chapter 20.62 maps referred to therein. Where other sections of the Municipal ' Code conflict with any provision of this Chapter, the provisions of this Specific Plan shall take precedence. C. PARKING SPACES. Off-street parking spaces shall be provided ' as set forth in Chapter 20. 30 .035 of the Municipal Code. . D. LANDSCAPING. A minimum of ten percent (10%) of the paved parking area and a minimum of fifty percent (50%) of the area of the required setback from Coast Highway, shall be devoted to ' planting areas. Extensive use of trees is encouraged. All required planting areas shall have a minimum width of three q P 9 feet, and shall be provided with a permanently installed irrigation system. ' E. SITE PLAN REVIEW. Site Plan Review as set forth in Section 20.62.060 of this Chapter shall be required. F. FLOOR AREA LIMIT. The total gross floor area contained in all buildings on a buildable site shall not exceed .5 times the buildable area of the site; provided, however, that floor area ' devoted to parking within a building shall not be considered In determiningthe total floor area allowed; and rovided p , further, that the Planning Commission may, by use permit, allow development to exceed the .5 times the buildable area , up to a maximum of 1 .0 times the buildable area , for the development of marine-oriented uses as defined in Section 20.62.070 D. G. TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY. The Planning Commission, by use permit, may provide for the transfer of development intensity from any one or more parcels to any other parcel or parcels, provided that suitable legally binding agreements shall 1 be established so as to assure that the total building floor area permitted on said parcels shall not exceed the floor area which would otherwise be permitted by this chapter, and further provided the building floor area on any one buildable site to which ' development intensity has been transferred shall in no event ' exceed one times the buildable area of the site. H. S,ITE AREA. The Building Site Area required shall be a minimum of 10,000 square feet. Minimum building site frontage required shall be fifty feet. (Ord. 1718 9 1 (part) , 1977) . 20.62.040 RECREATION AND MARINE COMMERCIAL . It is ' the intent of this section to implement the General Plan objectives , policies , general land uses and programs for private use of land for that portion of this Specific Plan District area southerly of Coast Highway. All uses and development in this portion of this Specific Plan District shall conform to the provisions of this section. It is further the intent of this section to encourage a continuation of marine-oriented uses ; ' Page 148 SPECIFIC PLAN (MAR•INERS ' MILE) Chapter 20. 62 to maintain the marine theme or character of the area ; to ' encourage mutually supportive businesses , a continuity of shopping and pedestrian orientation, and to prohibit uses which would interrupt this continuity ; and to encourage public physical and visual access to the bay . A. USES PERMITTED. 1 . Marinas , yacht clubs , yacht brokers, social clubs , commercial recreation , boat sales , marine supply sales , boat repair and servicing, sports fishing establishments , hotels and motels , business and professional offices ' where marine related services are offered to the general public, and other uses which , in the opi.nion of the Planning Commission, are of a similar nature . The ' Planning Commission ' s decision may be appealed to the City Council . 2. Signs iri accordance with Chapter 20 .06 . B . USES REQUIRING USE PERMIT. The following uses will be permitted subject to first securing a use permit in each case . 1 . Manufacturing of marine products , new boat construction , restaurants , marine service stations and gas docks , drive in facilities , and other uses which , in the opinion of the Planning Commission, are of a similar nature . 2. General retail and service commercial •uses , professional and business offices and light manufacturing , provided that offices which do not provide direct services to the public or which are not ancillary to or otherwise permit- ted use and lirght manufacturing uses shall not occupy any first floor space, and further provide that said retail , commercial office and light manufacturing uses 1 shall be in conjunction with one or more incentive use and further provided that the incentive use shall occupy a substantial portion of the site, including required parking for the incentive use . Incentive use is defined in Section 20.62.070 of this Chapter. C. HEIGHT LIMIT. The height limit for all buildings and other structures on a building site shall be 26 feet. However, this height limit may be exceeded, up- to a maximum of 35 feet, with a use permit, providing that the Planning Commission, in granting such use permit, finds that all the following criteria are met: 1 . The development will provide for both public physical and visual access to the bay within the limits that public safety is insured and private property protected. i Page 149 SPECIFIC PLAN (MARINERS ' MILE) Chapter, 20.62 2. The increased building height would result in increased , public visual open space and views than would result from compliance with the basic height limit. Particular ' attention shall be given to the location and orientation ? of the structure on the lot, the percentage of ground coverage, and the treatment of all setback and op en areas. 3. The increased building height would result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building and , a stronger and more appealing visual character of the area within the general theme of a marine environment. 4. The increased building height would not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created between the structure and existing developments or public , spaces. Particular attention shall be given to the total bulk of the structure including both horizontal and vertical dimensions . 5. The increase in height shall in no case result in a floor area exceeding the floor area permitted by Section 20.62.030. , E. SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. 1 . No side yard building setback shall be required, except , as may be required by the Planning Commission in granting a use permit or site plan review approval . 2. No setback shall be required from the bulkhead line , except as may be required by the Planning Commission in granting permit 'or 9 a use p •o r site plan review approval . 3. A minimum of 50 percent- of any lot frontage abutting Coast Highway shall provide a building setback of not less than 10 feet from Coast Highway right of way while the remaining 50 percent of the lot frontage shall provide a setback not less than 5 feet from the right of way line of Coast Highway. Within this required setback area, no structure or other intrusions shall be permitted, except fo-r landscaping , decks , paving, architectural features or sighs . (Ord. 1718 § 1 (part) , , 1977: Ord. 1753 § 25, 19,77) . 20.62.050 RETAIL AND SERVICE COMMERCIAL . It is the intent of 'this section to implement the General Plan objectives , policies, general land uses and programs , relating to private use of land, for that portion of this Specific Plan District .located northerly of Coast Highway. All uses and development in this portion of this Specific Plan District shall conform to the provisions of this section. It is further th e intent of Page 150 SPEvwnCI�FmICrv.PIM ( ' MILE) Chapter' 20.62 Gig this section to encourage the continuation of "marine-oriented" uses and the "marine" theme or character of the area; to encourage mutually supportive businesses, a continuity of shopping and pedestrian orientation, and to ' prohibit uses which would interrupt this continuity; and to Minimize mi ze the number of curb cuts on Coast Highway. A. USES PER41TIED: 1. Retail sales, yacht brokers, boat sales, marine supply sales, boat repair and servicing, offices for personal and professional services which are offered to the general public, cam ercial recreation, hotels and motels, and other uses which, in the opinion of the Planning Commission, are of a similar nature. The decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City council. 2. Signs in accordance with Chapter 20.06. ' B. USES REQUIRING USE PERMIT. The following uses shall be permitted upon the granting of a use permit by the Planning Commission: ' 1. Manufacturing of marine products, boat construction, animal hospitals, auto sales and repair shops, gasoline service stations, cleaning establishments, laundries, launderettes, outdoor markets, ' restaurants, outdoor restaurants, drive-in and take-cot restaurants, drive-in facilities, outdoor sales establislmrnts, pet slops, public garages, theaters, used car sales lots, and ' other uses which, in the opinion of the Planning Commission are of a similar nature. 2. Office uses that do not provide direct services to the public and which are not ancillary to another permitted use. However, this type of office use shall not be permitted to occupy any first floor space in any structure. ' 3. One residence for an owner or owners of a building site, including twv garage spaces, provided that such use will be incidental to ' and will not alter the character of the premises in respect to the permitted uses noted above. (Ord. 1895; February 11, 1982) . C. HEIGHP LD=. The height Limit for all buildings and otter structures on a building site shall be 26 feet. However, this height limit may be exceeded, up to a maximum of 35 feet, with a use permit, providing that the Planning 'Coamission, in granting such use permit, finds that all the following criteria are met: 1. The increased building height would result in more public visual ' open space and views than would result from carpliance with the basic height limit. Particular attention shall be given to the location and orientation of the structure on the lot, the ' percentage of ground coverage, and on the treatment of all setback and open areas. Page 151 , SPECIFIC PLAN (MARINERS ' MILE) ' Chapter 20.62 2. The increased building height would result in a more ■_ desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing 9 ppe Ong visual character of the area, within a general theme of the marine environment. , 3. The increased building height would not result in undesir- able or abrupt scale relationships being created between the structure and existing developments or public spaces . Particular attention shall be given to the total bulk of the structure including both horizontal and vertical , dimensions . 4. The increased height shall in no case result in a floor area exceeding the floor area permitted by Section 20.62.030.1 D . SETBACK REQUIREMENTS: 1 . A 12 foot wide setback along the northerly side of Coast Highway shall be maintained for potential future highway widening to an ultimate width of 112 feet. , 2. A minimum of fifty percent, (50%) of any lot frontage abutting Coast Highway shall provide a building setback of not less than 10 feet from the above 12 foot setback line while the remaining fifty percent (50%) of the lot frontage shall provide a setback not Less than 5 feet from the above 12 foot setback. Within this setback ' area, no structure or other intrusions shall be permitted except for landscaping, decks, paying, architectural features and signs . $. In any case where a tot abuts upon the side or rear yard of a lot in a residential district, a minimum setback of 5 feet shall be provided from said residential district. Within this setback area , no structure or other intrusions shall be permitted except for landscaping , decks , paving , architectural features and signs . (Ord. 1718 1977 : Ord. 1753 § 26 , 1977) . ' 20.62.060 SITE PLAN REVIEW. A. GENERALLY. The City Council finds , determines and declares that the establishment of the Site Plan Review procedures contained in this section are necessary to preserve and promote the health , safety, and general welfare of the community by achieving the following purposes. 1 . To assure that development of properties in Specific ' Area Plan areas will not preclude attainment of the General Plan and Specific Area Plan objectives and policies. ' Page 152 SPECIFIC PLAN (MARINERS ' MILE ) Chapter 20 . 62 ' 2. To protect and preserve the value of properties and to encourage high quality development thereof in Mariners ' Mile where adverse effects could result from inadequate and poorly-planned landscaping and from failure to. preserve where feasible natural landscape -� features , open spaces , and the like, and will result in the impairment of the benefits of occupancy and use of existing properties in such area . ' 3 . To ensure that the public benefits derived from expend- itures of public 'funds for improvement and beautifica- tion of streets and public facilities within Specific Area Plan area shall be protected by the exercise of reasonable controls over the layout and site location . characteristics of private buildings , structures and ' open spaces. 4. To promote the maintenance of superior site location characteristics adjoining Coast Highway, a thorough- fare of city wide importance ; to ensure that the com- munity benefits from the natural terrain, harbor and ocean; and to preserve and stabilize the grounds —' adjoining said thoroughfare, and to preserve and pro- tect the property values in said areas . ' B . APPLICATION. Site Plan Review approval shall be obtained prior to the issuance of a building permit for any new building to be constructed, or existing building to be reconstructed or remodeled to increase the gross floor area by fifty percent ' (50%) or 2,500 square feet whichever is less. C.' PLANS AND DIAGRAMS_ TO BE SUBMITTED. The following plans and diagrams shall' 'Ye* s­'u!6"m­it_te*d_*t_o_'Ah`T Planning Commission for approval : ' 1 . A-pl.o.t,.pl.an, ..drawn to scale , showing the arrangement of buildings , driveways , pedestrian ways , off-street parking and off-street loading areas , landscaped areas , signs , fences and walks . The plot plan shall show the ' location of entrances and exits , and the direction of traffic flow into and out of off-street parking and • loading areas , the location of each parking space and 1 loading space, and areas for turning and maneuvering vehicles . The plot plan shall indicate how utility services and drainage are to be provided . ' 2. A landscape plan , drawn to scale , showing the locations of existing trees proposed to be removed and proposed to be retained; and indicating the amount, type, and ' location of landscaped areas , planting beds and plant materials with adequate provisions for irrigation. Page 153 ' SPECIFIC PLAN (MARINERS ' MILE) ' Chapter 20 . 62 3. Grading plans when necessary to ensure development properly related to the site and to surrounding properties and structures. ' 4. Scale drawings of exterior lighting showing size , location, materials, intensity and relationship to adjacent streets and properties . 5. Architectural drawings , renderings or sketches , drawn to scale, showing all elevations of the proposed ' buildings and structures as they will appear upon completion. 6. Any' other plans , diagrams , drawings or additional ' information necessary to adequately consider the pro- posed development and to determine compliance with the ' purposes of this chapter. D. FEE. The applicant shall pay a fee as established by resolution of the City Council to the City with each application ' for Site Plan Review under this chapter. E. STANDARDS. In addition to the general purposes set forth ' in subsection 1 in:order to carry out the purposes of this chapter as established by said section, the site plan review procedures established by this section shall be applied accord- ' ing to and in compliance with the following standards , when applicable: 1 . To ensure that sites subject to Site Plan Review under ' the provisions of this chapter are graded and developed with due regard for the aesthetic qualities of the natural terrain, harbor, and landscape, and that trees t and shrubs are not indiscriminately destroyed. 2. To ensure that buildings , structures and signs are properly related to their sites and are in keeping ' with the character of the neighborhood and surrounding sites and are not detrimental to the orderly and har- monious development of their surroundings and of the , City. '3. To ensure that open spaces , parking areas , pedestrian walks , illumination and landscaping ( including sufficient irrigation facilities) are adequately related to the site and are arranged to achieve a safe, efficient and ' harmonious development, to accomplish the objectives as set forth in this chapter. 4. To ensure that sites are developed to achieve a harmon- ious relationship with existing and proposed adjoining developments . 1 Page 154 SPECIFIC PLAN (MARINERS ' MILE) Chapter 20 . 62 (CIS' 5. To ensure, when feasible, effective concealment of electrical and similar mechanical equipment and trash and storage areas. 6. The Site Plan Review process shall endeavor to ensure that proposed improvements will not impair the desirability of investment or occupancy nearby; and originality in site planning and landscaping shall not be suppressed. ' 7. To ensure that the site plan and layout of the build- ings, parking areas , pedestrian and vehicular access ways , and other site features gives proper considera- tion to the functional aspects of the site development. 8. To ensure that the propo-sed development is in keeping with the desired character of the Specific Area Plan area as identified by the General Plan and -the Specific Area Plan.. ' 9 . To ensure that the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan policies ; . and to ensure that the proposed development will not preclude the attainment of the Specific Area Plan objectives . F. ACTION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. If all applicable standards established by this section are met, the Planning Commisison shall approve the development. Conditions may be applied when the proposed development does not comply with applicable standards and shall be such as to bring said develop- ment into conformity. If the development is disapproved, the Commission shall specify the standard or standards that are not met. Failure of the Commission to act within thirty (30) days' from the date the drawings are submitted shall be deemed an approval of the plans and diagrams unless the applicant consents to an extension of time . A Site Plan Review decision of the Planning Commission shall be subject to review by the City Council either by appeal , or upon it.5 own motion , or upon the request of the Commission . The action of the Commission on any Site Plan Review shall be final and effective twenty-one (21 ) days , followin the Commission action theron unless , within the twenty-one ?21 ) day appeal period an appeal in writing has been filed by the applicant, the Commission has requested a review of its decision, or unless the City Council , not more than twenty-one (21 ) days after the Commission action , on its own motion, elects to review and act on the action of the Commission, unless the applicant consents to an extension of time . The City Council may affirm, reverse or modify the decision. Such action by the City Council shall be final . Page 155 ' SPECIFIC PLAN (MARINERS ' MILE) ' Chapter 20. 62 G. APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL . Any Site Plan Review decision ' of the Commission may be appealed to the City Council by the applicant at any time within twenty-one (21 ) days after the date of the Commission decision. Ana appeal to pp the City Council shall toe b 'be taken filing a letter of appeal in day Y 9 Pp plicate, with the Department of Community Development. Such letter shall set forth the grounds upon which the appeal is based. ' H. ACTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL. An appeal shall be heard and acted on by the City Council within thirty (30) days after the ' Commission action, Unless the applicant consents to an extension of time. The City Council may affirm, reverse or modify the decision of .the Commission. Such action by the City Council ' shall be final . I. LAPSE OF SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL. Site Plan Review approval shall lapse and shall be void one year following the date upon ' which thb plans and diagrams were approved, as provided in this section, unless prior to the expiration of said one (1 ) year period a building permit is issued and subsequently construction is diligently pursued until completion, or unless an extension of time is granted by either the Commission or City Council , Whichever took the final action . (Ord. 1718 § 1 (part) , 1977) . + 20. 62,070 DEFINITIONS. For the purpose of this chapter, certain terms used herein shall have meanings assigned to them by this subsection. All definitions described in Section 20. 87 of the Municipal Code shall prevail except where there is a conflict with this Specific Plan District shall take precedence. A. COMMERCIAL RECREATION. A commercial use designed primarily ' for activities , in or, out of doors , which are generally associated with leisure time activities , examples include: tennis courts , racquetball , swimming clubs , and other uses of a similar nature . ' B. PERSONAL/PROFESSIONAL SERVICES . An office or store,- providing services directly to the general public, including, but not limited to, architects, attorneys , brokers , barbers , photographers and artists. C. BUILDABLE AREA. The term "buildable area" for the purpose of this chapter shall mean the area of a building site, excluding any basic minimum setback required by this ordinance from Coast Highway and/or any "R" District. Setback areas in addition to ' the aforementioned required by use permit, resubdivision or modification will not reduce the buildable area for purposes of calculating building intensity. ' D. INCENTIVE USES. For the purpose of this chapter the following uses shall be considered "incentive uses" : boat lettering , boat registration, boat rentals , boat yards , marine canvas and upholstery, marine carpentry, and wood work, charters, compass scales , service and adjusting, documentation services, marine 1 Page 156 SPECIFIC PLAN (MARINERS ' PLAN ) Chapter 20.62 ' electrical and generating equipment and repairs, marine electronic sales and service, marine engine sales , service and ' repair, fiber glass repairs and supplies , fishing supplies and equipment, flags , emblems , trophies , fuel docks , marine hard- ware equipment and supplies , holding tank installation and service, sailing/boating instruction, marine insurance , launching and hoists, boat leasing, boat maintenance and repair, mast and rigging supplies and service, nautical charts, nautical instruments , ' nautical decor, marine plumbing and water systems , publications - nautical , fabrication and maintenance of pulpits and rails , marine- surveyors , underwater services , yacht brokers, yacht clearance, and other uses which, in the opinion of the Planning ' Commission are of a similar marine oriented nature . (Ord. 1718 9 1 (part) , 1977) . ' APPENDIX D LOCAL COASTAL WO-GRAM- RECREATIONAL/MARINE COMMERCIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION 1 APPENDIX D LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM - RECREATIONAL/MARINE COMMERCIAL LAND USE DESIGNATOR Recreational and Marine Commercial. It is the intent of this designation to delineate a priority system to guide development approvals on building sites on or near the bay. it is further the intent of this designation to encourage a continuation of marine-oriented uses, maintain . the marine theme and character, encourage mutually supportive businesses, and encourage physical and ' visual access to the bay on waterfront commercial and industrial building sites on or near the bay. Uses permitted are as follows: I. Permitted uses: highest priority uses, not requiring a use , permit. A. Incentive uses: uses that, when they occupy at least , 40% of a site, may be combined with uses under II.C. 1. Boat haul-out facilities ' 2. Commercial fishing facilities 3. Sport fishing establishments and fishing docks 4. Marinas 5. Marine construction 6. Boat rentals and charters 7. Retail marine sales B. Marine service, businesses ' 9. Dry boat storage B. Other permitted uses: 1. Marine-related offices where services are offered to the general public. ' II. Uses which require a Use Permit: A. Incentive uses: uses that, when they occupy at least ' 40% of a site, may be combined with uses under II.C. 1. Manufacturing of marine uses 2. New boat construction 3. Marine service stations and gas docks 4. Yacht clubs B. Other uses: 1. Social clubs 2. Commercial recreation 3. Drive-in facilities 4. Hotels and Motels 5. Restaurafits ' C. Uses which must be in conjunction with an incentive use occupying at least 40% of the site. 1. General retail and service comm_rcial uses 2. Professional and business offices ' 3. Light manufacturing The City shall design standards for density, height and parking incentives to developments utilizing a mixed-use concept that includes provision or maintenance of an incentive use which is coastal-dependent in nature upon review and approval of a Use Permit. These coastal-dependent uses include: boat haul-out facilities, sport fishing establishments, fishing docks, ' marinas, marine construction, boat rentals and charters, marine service stations, and gas docks. Such standards shall be formulated to ensure no adverse impacts of such bonuses on public access, or public views. On non-waterfront lots, the requirement to provide incentive uses in conjunction with certain specified uses shall not apply. Retail specialty ' shops shall be permitted. Residential uses shall be permitted on the second level or above where the ground floor is occupied by a permitted use, subject to review and approval of a Use Permit. 1 t ' APPENDIX E COMMITTED PROJECTS 1 1 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX E COMMITTED-PTU ECTS OCCUPIEDI, QUANITY 5/83 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 1. Hughes Aircraft (industrial) 13,000aq ft 1001 2. Hoag Hospital (community facility) 268 Beds 0• O + !, 3. Par Nest Savings and Loan (office) 17,000sq.ft. lout 0 • - 4. Pacesetter Hosea (of lice) 50,0002q.ft. O• 0 S. Aeronutronic Ford freaidential) 300 units Ot 0 • (81) 25 units occupied (38 units in 86) 6. Back Bay Office (office) 69,720sq.ft. Ot 7. Boyle Engineering (office) 12,000sq.£t. 100► 0 B. Cal Canadian Bank (office) 18,100sq.ft. lout 9. Civic Plaza (office) Library 0 Office 81,8123q.ft. 100% 0 Art Museum 10,000sq.ft. Oi 0 Restaurant B4O00sq.ft. 0• 0 + - Office 152,894sq.ft. 01 0 + - Theater 20,000sq.ft. Ot 0 10. Corporate Plaza (office) office 39,026sq.ft. lout 0 Office 101,150sq.ft. Ot 0 11. Koll Center Newport (office, industrial) Hotel 440Room; 0► 0 Office - 225,198sq.ft. 0• 0 Office - 100,736sq.ft. Ot - 0 + 12. MacArthur Court (office) Office IOO,u00gq.ft. 751 0 Office 258.000sq.ft. 0• O Office- 21,600sq.ft. 100% 14. North Ford (industrial) Industrial/Office 295,000aq.ft. O• 0 15. Orchard Office (office) 70,000aq.ft. 1001 16. Pacific Mutual Plaza Office 245,000sq.ft. 75• 0 Restaurant 5,0003q.ft. 100► 0 17. 3701 Birch Office (office) _ 19,264sg.ft. 100► 28. Newport Place (office) EMKAr (Office) 206,269sq.ft. 100► Hear Brand Ranch (Office) 61,000sq.ft. 100• Air Calif. (Office) 40,951sq.ft. 0► Ketchum (Office) 87,019sq.ft. 0• EMKAY (Office) 66,441sq.ft. at 0 S APPENDIX E COMMITTED PROJECTS OCCUPIED QUANITY 5/83 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 19. Shokrian (office) 24,000sq.ft. Ot 0 20. Bank of Newport (office) 100% 21. Bayside Square (office) 34,300sq.ft. 100% 22. Sea Island (residential) 132units Oi 23. Haywood Apartments (residential) 68units 01 0 24. Harbor Point Homes (residential) 21units Oa 0 25. Roger's Gardens (co=ercial) As submitted 100% 26. Seaview Lutheran Plaza (residential) 300 units 100% 0 27. Rudy Baron (office) . Retail 7,500sq.£t. Of 0 Office - 8,500sq.ft. 0t 0 28. Quail Business Center (office) 17,000sq.ft. 100% 29. 441 Newport Blvd. (office) 11,000sq.ft. 100% e 30. Martha's Vineyard Restaurant 2,920sq.ft. Oa 0 Office 15,831sq.ft. Ot 0 31. Valdez - 3101 W. Coast Hwy.(Office) 41,494sq.ft. OB 0 32. Coast Business Center(Office) 37,000sq.ft. Oa 0 33. Koll Center Newport and No. 1 TPP Office 7,650sq.ft. Ot 0 Office [-7,640sq.ft.] 0 34. Amendment No. 1 Ford Aero TPP ' Industrial 15,000sq.ft. 100% Industrial 123,000sq.ft. 100% Industrial 300,000sq.ft. 100% 0 Industrial 70,000sq.ft. 0► 0 * ' Industrial 25,000sq.ft. Oi Industrial 25,000sq.ft. Ot 0 35. Ross Mollard - 1511 5 1252 Superior (Mad. O) 25,000sq.ft. 0% * 0 36. Banning/Newport Ranch .Office 235,600sq.ft. Oa O + Industrial 164,400sq.ft. 01 0 Residential 406units 01 0 38. Hughes (Industrial)(REV 9/8/83) 110,000sq.ft. 0% 0 39. Park Lido (Medical Office) 65,269sq.ft. 0lk 0 40. Heritage Bank Bank 6,100sq.ft. Oi 0 General Office 17,465sq.ft. 01 0 Medical Office 13,323sq.ft. Oi 0 I APPENDIX E COMMITTED PROJECTS • i OCCUPIED QUANITY 5/82 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 Be 89 90 91 92 93 94 41 Flagship Hospital 68 beds us 0 42. BS Can on 30 33 units 0► 0 ' 43. Fun Zone Office 26 320 sg.ft. Ot 0 • _ ___ Retail 16,165 sq.ft. 0► 0 Restaurant 6 866 sq.ft. 0► 0 • __ 44 Marriott Hotel Z34 Z000M 0► 0 45 St Andrews Church 1 400 capacity 0► 0 46 YMCA (Expansion) 45 000 as ft 0► 0 • - -__ 47 Allred Condos - 50 units 0► - 0 ' 48 Morgan Development 17 units 0► 0 49 Four Seasons 325 roars 0► 0 ' 50 Univ. Ath Club TPP 4 SWAY 516 ag ft O► 0 51 Block 400 Medical 80 000 N ft. 0► 0 52 Sheraton Hotel 119 rows 0► 53. North Ford (Amend No.l TPP) Residential 300 units 0► 0 ' Residential 450 units 0► 0 ' Residential i Park 138 units _ 0► 0 Covmercial 50,000 sq.ft. 0► 0 54. MacArthur/Court "Block C" ( Amend NO 1 TPP) 21 6UO sq ft 1001k 0 office 100.000 sq.ft. 75► 0 ' Office 258 000 sq.ft. 02► 0 Office 295 000 sg ft 0► 0 55 National Education Revised (office) 41 250 aq ft 0► 56 Amend No. 2 Ford Aero TPP (Balcourt) 130 units 07► 0 ' 57 Carver (office) 15,000 sq.ft. 0► 0 PROJECTS FREW Revised 1-25-84 S ' APPENDIX F PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW 1 1 Converse Consultants ' Geotechnlcal lEnpineedng and Applied Sciences January 27, 1984 Joe Lancor Architects, Inc. , 853 Camino Del Mar Del Mar, California 92014 Attention: Mr. Greg Castle ' Subject: Data Review; Initial Study For EIR ' Rosan Electronics Site Newport Beach, California CCI Project No. 84-02109-01 Gentlemen: As you requested, we have reviewed the files of the City of Newport Beach the published literature, and our own files for information pertaining to the Rosan Electronics site at 2901 West Pacific Coast Highway, Newport Beach, California. ' INTRODUCTION This report covers the geotechnical and geologic aspects for the t proposed building at 2901 West Pacific Coast Highway. This project is intended to be a 3-story building with a subterranean parking facility. As part of the new construction, the section of bulkhead fronting Newport Bay along this property will be replaced. The existing building, owned by Rosan Electronics, covers the majority of the lot. A detailed geotechnical investigation will be conducted at a later date. ' This report is intended to review geologic and geotechnical concerns in general to aid in development of an E.I.R. and planning of the project. Data Reviewed , During the process of data review, the City of Newport Beach was con- tacted for information in their files pertaining to the conditions at ' the site. The files containing pertinent information are listed below: Converse Consultants,Inc. ' 1440 South State College Blvd. State 4H Post Office Box 6288 Anaheim Caldnenla 9260, Telephone 71.1 772•:1151 I Joe Lancor Architects, Inc. CCI Project No. 84-2109-01 January 27, 1984 Page two 1. Butler Environmental Planning, "Initial Study for the Proposed Martha's Vineyard Restaurant and Office Complex" dated December 1981, submitted to Planning Department. 2. City of Newport Beach, "Public Safety Element, Newport Beach General Plan" dated March 10, 1975. 3. Le Roy Crandell and Associates, "Report of Foundation Inves- tigation, Proposed Newport Arches Marina Building 'A' , Pacific Coast Highway East of Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California" , Job #A-66155 dated June 10, 1966. ' 4. LSA, Inc. , "Certified Final Focused Environmental Impact Report, Balboa Marina Project, Balboa Fun Zone, City of Newport Beach" dated August 1982. 5. Maurseth & Howe, Foundation Engineering Report, .File #64.3316 dated November 3, 1964. ' 6. R.T. Franklin and Associates, "Report of Foundation Inves- tigation, Proposed Office Building, Larson's Shipyard, Newport Beach, California" , Job No. 2817E-P dated May 6, 1979. Environmental Concerns ' The environmental concerns covered in this report are in three general areas: ground water, soils engineering, and geologic hazards. Many of these concerns will require detailed investigations prior to completion of the project design. Conclusions and recommendations in this report are preliminary. Water resources are in two categories: ground water and surface runoff and flooding. Soils engineering concerns include construction problems, such as excavation stability, foundation design, ' and existing soil conditions such as expansive or collapsible soils and erosion potential . Geologic hazards include seismic liquefaction and subsidence. WATER RESOURCES ' Ground water - Dewatering Dewatering of the site will be necessary during the construction of the subterranean portions of the project below the current shallow ' (elevation approximately 3 feet) ground water level . The total volume of water extracted will depend on the length of time consumed by that portion of the construction. It is estimated that dewatering will be ' necessary on a continuous basis for a period of approximately 3 to 4 months. Water extracted will be treated and returned to Newport Bay. ' Converse Consultants,Inc. Joe Lancor Architects, Inc. CCI Project No: 84-2109-01 January 27, 1984 Page three r Sand and other contaminants must be removed from extractedw water prior to its disposal back into Newport Bay. Sand is proposed to be eliminated through the use of a cyclone separator. Sand Would then be hauled either to an approved County dump site or to some other site approved by the City of Newport Beach. Hydrogen sulfide in concentrations in excess of applicable water quality standards which may be encountered in extracted water may be neutralized with chlorine injected into a holding tank. Odor problems should also be eliminated by the oxidation of H S by chlorination, if required. In order to protect aquatic life, sulfgr dioxide may also need to be added to neutralize unreacted chlorine in a final mixing chamber before disposing of the water back into the bay. Hydrogen sulfide concentra- tions measured in recent water quality tests in the area do not exceed applicable water quality standards, although one sample extracted did indicate the maximum allowable H 2$ level without requiring treatment ' measures. Surface Water In addition to potential dewatering impacts, surface runoff and drainage ' from the subterranean garage may impact water quality. A system of floor slab drainage composed of surface drainage, catch basins, internal piping, sump pumps, and a grease separator may be used to keep garage floor slabs dry from water seepage and to remove oil and grease from water prior to disposal into public drains at ground level: The entry , to the subterranean garage should be designed with drainage conveyances in a manner to preclude storm water from entering the garage Structure. All discharges into the bay must be authorized by the Santa Ana Regional ' Water Quality Control Board through issuance of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Discharge requirements for turbidity (sand) , H S, and oil and grease from parking activities should , be established for Ne proposed project in a later review. Existing City Policies and Requirements ' The following measures will be required by the City of Newport Beach. a. An erosion and siltation control plan, if required, shall be approved by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Santa Ana Region. b. All onsite drainage shall be approved by the City Public Works , Department. converse consultaols.in. t ' Joe Lancor Architects, Inc. CCI Project No. 84-2109-01 January 27, 1984 Page four c. A weekly cleanup program around any docks and public walks shall be conducted on a regular basis. Construction basins or ' other devices shall be installed to prevent waste from getting into Newport Bay. ' Mitigation Measures In addition to normal City requirements, the following mitigation ' measures should minimize potentially adverse impacts. 1. Prior to issuance of building permits, a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit should be obtained establishing discharge requirements for water extracted during dewatering processes. Compliance with discharge requirements will be monitored by staff of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2. Suspended solids (sand) should be separated from extracted ' water to comply with specified standards prior to disposal . Sand disposal shall be at a location and by a method approved by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, City of Newport Beach, and County of Orange, as appropriate. ' 3. Provision should be made, as necessary, for the treatment of hydrogen sulfide (H S) in groundwater by chlorination in order to comply with stanErds specified by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to disposal into Newport Bay and to control odors emanating from dewatering processes. 4. Unreacted chlorine resulting from treatment of H S should be neutralized, as necessary, by methods approved q the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to disposal of water into Newport Bay. 5. Drainage facilities and architectural features should be designed so as to prevent rainwater and storm runoff from entering the subterranean garage structure subject to approval by the Planning and Building Departments of the City of Newport Beach. 6. A system of garage floor slab drainage should be designed to keep subterranean floor slab dry and to remove oil and grease from collected wastewater prior to disposal into public drains and/or Newport Bay. This system shall meet the specifications of the City of Newport Beach and the Regional Water Quality ' Control Board, Santa Ana Region. 1 ' Converse Consultants,Inc. Joe Lancor Architects, Inc. CCI Project No. 84-2109-01 ' January 27, 1984 Page five GEOLOGIC HAZARDS Seismic According to the Public Safety Element of the General Plan of Newport Beach, the project is located in a moderate risk area from ground ' shaking. Liquefaction ' According to the Public Safety Element of the General Plan, the project is located in a potential hazard area from liquefaction. ' Existing City Policies and Requirements All buildings will conform to the Uniform Building Code, and the City's ' seismic design standards. Mitigation Measures No other measures are necessary. GEOTECHNICAL/SOILS Soil Erosion No significant topographic relief exists on the project site. The existing landform will , however, be impacted by excavation necessary to accommodate the proposed subterranean parking garage. A slight erosion potential exists according to the Public Safety Element in the General Plan. t Site Conditions Drill hole logs from nearby projects (Le Roy Crandell and Associates) , Mourseth and Howe, and R. T. Franklin and Associates) show the underly- ing soils to be composed of sands and silts. Those conditions are also expected under this site. At this time, neither collapsible or expan- sive soils are expected beneath the site. Site specific studies should be performed as part of the project design. Existing Ci-ty Policies and Requirements The following measures will be required by the City of Newport Beach. a, Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit , to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. t converse Consultants,Inc. ' ' Joe Lancor Architects, Inc. CCI Project No. 84-2109-01 January 27, 1984 Page six b. A grading plan shall include a complete plan for temp•;rary and ' permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potent'al impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants . C. An erosion and dust control plan shall be submitted a-d be subject to approval by the Building Department. ' d. Prior to issuance of building permits, a specific soi ' s and foundation study should be prepared. e. Should any archaelogical or paleontological resources be ' uncovered during construction, a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist shall evaluate the site prior to completion of construction activities, and all work on the site shall be done in accordance with City Council Policies K-5 and K-6. Mitigation Measures ' In addition to normal City requirements, the following mitigation measures will be required to minimize potentially adverse impacts. ' 1. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant should provide documentation of existing structural conditions in the vicinity of the proposed project and the estimated ' extent and impact of subsidence on surrounding structures and other improvements. ' 2. During excavation and throughout dewatering of the project site, the applicant should monitor the extent of subsidence and its associated impacts through placement of appropriate testing devices under the supervision and surveillance, of a ' qualified soils engineer. ' SUMMARY In summary, the geotechnical and geologic concerns involved in this project area dewatering of the site during construction and related water quality concerns about the extracted ground water; runoff water quality; seismic shaking; liquefaction of underlying soils; soils erosion; and expansive or collapsible soils. Many of the above concerns will be answered during the compliance with existing city policies and requirements. The remaining concerns can be answered by design criteria or further study. II 1 converse consultants.Inc. Joe Lancor Architects, Inc. , CCI Project No. 84-2109-01 January 27, 1984 Page seven ' LIMITATIONS The findings and recommendations of this report were prepared in accor- dance with generally accepted professional principles and practice in the fields of soil mechanics, foundation engineering, and engineering geology. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, either express or implied. Respectfully submitted, CONVERSE CONSULTANTS, INC. ._ 4 11� ` � 1 Mark E. Unruh Dennis L. Hannan Staff Geologist Managing Vice President , C.E.G. 1176, R.G. 3811 C.E.G. 953, R.G. 3266 MEB/DLH:bl t Dist: (1) Addressee (1) Ms. Marie Gilliam ' Converse Consultants,Inc. 1 APPENDIX G CORRESPONDENCE WITH PROJECT ARCHITECT REGARDING CONSTRUCTION PROCESSES t t 1 JOSEPH H LANCOR ARCHITECTS INC , Feb. 28, 1984 Planning Department Current Planning Division 3300 Newport Blvd. . Newport Beach, Ca. The following information pertains to the proposed construction ' processes at 2901 W. Pacific Coast Hwy. Due to the fact that this operation will include a substatial amount of salvage, the work will be carried out in a clean and ' safety-conscious manner. Adequate dust control measures will be defined in the contract specifications. This phase of work will , take 6-8 wks. and will be performed under the Architect's control. Excavation will involve approx. 9, 000 cu.yds. of exported mater- ial. This will involve an estimated 15 to 20 truck trips per day, for 6-8 weeks. This work will be limited to work hours of 9AM to 3PM so as to minimize traffic conflicts. Dewatering will be a required function during a 90 day period of construction and will be engineered to pass no solids in ' discharge in accordance with standards required by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board and the City of Newport Beach. ' During construction of the project, standard construction equipment will be utilized, including cranes, forklifts, manlifts, ' and other small power tools and equipment. Materials shall be delivered to the site in an orderly, coordinated manner so as to minimize impacts on Coast Hwy. traffic, as well as to facilitate the storing of such materials. Such delivery activity shall be confined to the hours between 9 AM and 3PM. All materials and equipment shall be stored on site in a screened, fenced yard which is totally securable. The entire site as well shall be totally �. secure as a means towards insuring public safety. The estimated time of construction for the project is 15 mos, , commencing on or around Feb,l, 1985 . This is a conservative estimate and represents the total time of construction from initial ' demolition to initial occupancy. Demolition of the existing structure and excavation for the subterrean garage is anticipated 850 CAMINO DEL MAR DEL MAR CALIFORNIA 9204 TELEPHONE 619 755-0155 ' JOSEPH H LANCOR ARCHITECTS INC ' to take 6-8 weeks. ' In order to facilitate pedestrian circulation along the existing 12 ' sidewalk during construction, a secure fence and overhead safety covering is to be constructed. All access points are to have highly visable and appropriate signage for the direction of ,both foot traffic along Coast Hwy. as well as vehecular traffic to and from the site. Adequate lighting shall also be provided in the contract specifications for pedestrian safety during the evening hours. All existing utilities at the site will be either securly ' capped or removed if, required during the excavation and construction process. It additionally is proposed that along the westerly property line , basement design be coordinated with City engineers ' to accomodate a new storm drain to solve an existing drainage problem on Pacific Coast Hwy. It is not apparent that any unusual ' conditions exist at the site and as such, potential conflicts with existing utilities and services are unforseen. With regard to hauling, the primary site will be the county dumpsite. This site is approved by E.M.A. waste disposal section to receive this material. There will be a total of 9, 000 cu.yds. of waste material requiring 900 trips. The route will be a right turn onto Coast Hwy. to Jamboree Rd. to Bison to MacArthur to ' Bonita Canyon. The return route will be a modified version, crossing 19th St. and across the arches to enter the site from ' Coast Hwy. as a right turn. The hours need be limited to 9 AM to 3 PM to minimize traffic conflicts. As the construction start is planned for Feb 1, 1985, and this is the initial operation we will not conflict with ' summer traffic. Sheet piling foundation is contemplated. However as this ' project is only 101 deep from the Coast Hwy. this is not of the significance of the Fun Zone or Valdez projects. The dewatering will be necessary for a two to four month period and will be ' handled in accordance with Converse Consultants directions. (see attatched sheets) . The sheet piling will be driven with a ' vibratory head rather than a diesel hammer. 853 CAMINO DEL MAR DEL MAR CALIFORNIA 92014 TELEPHONE 619755-0155 JOSEPH H LANCOR ARCHITECTS INC A diesel hammer generates 105 db whereas a vibratory head , 0 87 d b varies from 80 t This vibrator head allows for far less y disturbance than other methods, due to control. Additionally the shallow depths required by the design of this project will substantially reduce the dewatering quantities greatly. This substantially impacts the amount of subsidence anticipated. A worst case may be an inch to two inches within 20 ft. and in a small area of 5 to 15 ft. The first level concrete structural slab is estimated to , contain approximately 2200 cu.yds. of concrete. This will require 220 truckload deliveries. The site conditions will allow 6 trucks , o per hour. We suggest limiting the hours between 9AM to3PM to reduce traffic conflicts. 6hrs.per day times 6 trucks per hour= 36 trucks per day for a 7 day period to complete the work. The upper level will be pre-cast planks, similar to span-crete units, manufactured off-site and brought in. This will 1 be a tidier ' process and result in less traffic conflicts. 853 CAMINO DEL MAR DEL MAR CALIFORNIA 9204 TELEPHONE 619755.0155 LUSARDI CONSTRUCTION CO. Building Construction 1570 Linda Vista Drive Engineering Construction San Marcos,California 92069 Civil Engineering W91 744.3133 - State License No.207287 January 20, 1984 1 3 1gaR i' Marie E. Gilliam, AICP R��E1vEpF�B Urban Planning 1825 Westcliff Drive, Suite 177 Newport Beach, California 92660 Re: Anderson Project Newport Beach, California Dear Ms. Gilliam: This letter is written to address questions and concerns regarding construction procedures for subject project. The estimated time frame for construction of the project is fifteen (15) months. The demolition and excavation phase is anticipated to take only 6-8 weeks. The demolition process includes salvage work which, by its nature, will require that the work be conducted in a clean, safe manner. The excavation work will involve some dewatering, including a sump pit that allows the water to drain out and the silt, or sand, to stay. This will minimize any affect to the adjacent properties or Pacific Coast Highway. During the demolition and excavation stage of the work, there will be no foreign discharges into the bav� There will only be minor run- off of on-site natural sand. Any existing utilities that are encountered during the excavation process will be either capped or removed from the site. During actual construction of the new buildings, standard construction equipment will be utilized, including cranes, forklifts, manlifts, and other small power tools and equipment. The storage of equipment and materials will be accomplished by a screened, fenced construction yard. Parking for the construction workers will be provided in the empty lot across the street from the site. This lot is capable of handling 72 cars, and we anticipate only 20-30 cars at any one time. To facilitate pedestrian traffic, a construction fence and walkway will be built with the appropriate signing of access points, directing not only foot traffic on Pacific Coast Highway, but also to provide controls on traffic in and out of the site. In addition to the above conditions, our safety engineer and quality control engineer will monitor the job throughout its entirety to assure safety and to minimize impact on the environment. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us. Very truly yours, Bruce G. Keeton Vice President BGK/jm iy i 1 APPENDIX H TRAFFIC STUDY FOR ROSAN S REDEVELOPMENT t ' 1 � 1 TRAFFIC STUDY ' FOR ROSAN'S REDEVELOPMENT Prepared for: t Marie Gilliam 1825 Westcliff Drive, Suite 177 Newport Beach, CA 92660 ' Basmaciyan-Darnell, Inc. ' 4262 Campus Drive, Suite B-1 Newport Beach, CA 92660 (714 ) 549-9940 ' March 7, 1984 TABLE OF CONTENTS Paqe ' INTRODUCTION 1 Project Description 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Roadway Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Existing Intersection Capacity. . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Existing Public Transportation. 6 FUTURE CONDITIONS: 6 Roadway Characteristics 6 Future Traffic Volumes. . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 ' Approved Projects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 PROJECT-RELATED TRAFFIC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Trip Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Trip Distribution and Assignment. . . . . . . . . . . 11 tTRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 1% Analsysis. . : . . . . . . . . . 18 ' Intersection Capacity Analysis. . . : : . . ; : : . . 18 Mi,ttgat�on Measures , . . 21 ' ACCESS AND INTERNAL• CIRCULATION: 23 Access. 23 Internal Circulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 PARKING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . 28 APPENDICES ' APPENDIX A - Existing Conditions ICU Worksheets APPENDIX B - 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Worksheets ' APPENDIX C - Project-Related Trip Distribution and Assignment to/from project site and Off-Site Parking Lot - ICU Worksheets - Coast Highway at Riverside Avenue, Tustin Avenue and Dover/Bayshore Drive intersections ' APPENDIX D - Riverside Avenue Geometrics - Project-related traffic distribution with reduced office development LIST OF TABLES 1 Table No. Description Page 1 Summary of Existing 1983 PM Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) 7 1 2 Summary of Roadway Characteristics 8 3 Committed Projects 10 1 4 Summary of Trip Generation Characteristics 12 1 5 Critical Intersections and Summary of 1% Traffic Volume Analysis 19 6 Summary of 1987 'PM Peak Hour ICU Analyses 22 1 7 Summary of 1987 PM Peak Hour ICU Analyses 22 1 8 Parking Summary _ - 27 1 , -- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LIST OF FIGURES Figure No. Description Page 1 Vicinity Map 2 ' 2 Project Location 3 ' 3 Existing Average Daily Traffic Volumes 5 4 Future Traffic 'Volumes in Vicinity of ' Proposed Project 9 5 Project-Related Trip Distribution Pattern 13 6 Existing Rosan Boat Works Site Trip Distribution Pattern 14 ' 7 Project-Related Traffic for Proposed Development 15 ' S Existing Traffic for Rosan Boat Works 16 9 Net Project Related Traffic 17 ' 10 Critical Intersection Map 20 11 On-Site Circulation Concerns 25 ' 12 Off-Site Parking Lot 26 Traffic Study For ROSAN REDEVELOPMENT INTRODUCTION ' This traffic study has been prepared to evaluate the traffic- ' related impacts of the proposed office/restaurant/retail develop- ment to be located on the site of the existing Rosan Boat Works. In accordance with the requirements of the Traffic Phasing ' Ordinance (TPO) of the City of Newport Beach this report assesses the impacts of the proposed project on the roadways and critical intersections on the arterials adjacent to the project and those serving the project-related traffic. Mitigation measures are identified where appropriate. Included in the evaluation is the effect of existing traffic from the Rosan Boat Works, access ' considerations and internal circulation. Project Description The project site lies on the south side of Coast Highway to the ' west of Riverside Avenue and is currently occupied by Rosan Boat Works. Parking for the site is currently provided in an off-site parking lot located at the corner of Riverside Avenue and Avon , Street. The lot presently provides- 72 spaces plus 6 more squeezed in illegally. Thirty-nine additional spaces are also , leased on an adjoining site. The project applicant proposes that the existing buildings, which comprise 39,700 square feet, be removed and new facilities be constructed. Proposed uses for the site include 27,613 net square feet of office, 4, 107 net square , feet of retail and 10, 931 net square feet consisting of a restaurant (8,131 square feet) and a private club (2,800 square feet) . A boat launch currently exists at Rosan Boat Works at the ' westerly corner of the site. The launch is proposed to be relocated to the easterly edge of the site and is expected to accommodate 12 boat launches per year. A total of 209 parking spaces are proposed. The parking as , proposed will provide 151 spaces on-site and 58 spaces at the off-site parking lot. Access to the site is currently via Coast Highway at the westerly corner of the site. Future assess will be relocated at the easterly corner of the site. It should be , noted that this access will be restricted to right-in or right- out turning movements due to its proximity to Riverside Avenue. To mitigate this impact on the use of the boat launching operations, the applicant proposes to install a removable type median to accommodate ships that will be launched. Figure 1 is a •map depicting the proposed project location from a regional perspective and Figure 2 is w vicinity map showing the project site and the immediately surrounding area. , -1- Ty Pit J�qJ EP qE, J i Oro HI°nl And Armu. ,i•a FOOTHILL FREEWAY ,=40 i p O FootNN geul.r.rd 3c L W p � W 10 2 ce gAN gENAR01N0 FREEWAY P � P`O •p� .t► .r e c ' > SAN BERNAR0INO COUNTY FOYONA FREEWAY P�rLy a ° RIVERSIDE COUNTYY 1 OT L 'R 60 a L� ' Y • � S ' a 2 b°�c J rT°'r41 ° Y: wtTA HI A.•. J*yy { pOP 4hTY O'N fP0 7'h' oo,P4o�r4{ r CO4'Yy O R,NEP"OE 4 � o Y •h C SR-et 9 O P - ` T Po.0 ` •j O` P Oq ° p' e W J�ti�J/ K.bll. to A,. • 0 CO / REEWAY pAROEN F _ OGb14'il W It e gelu Ar• 1a Slr•a S .t C•°y •q � J•/ a •FR, •/ 9t/ W.rn.r h Av.nu• 4 t°�i °'J ' `..�1 u � FREEW AY .60 • v tOg P 2 0 9 e • 0• 0• EI tore 4r •a O°•� jyOc M�� �'yf Project SiteJ�+ a'OLv •1 p' t\t0p• 'IOO CO4 hr i• : Ort'00 CCC, °A•, t° I �yY 4 2 s PACIFIC OCEAN o 'o ' N pl o JIO ORANOE�p�4p FIGURE 1 BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. VICINITY MAP 4262 Campus Drive,Suite B•1 Newport Beach,California 92660 (714)549.9940 -2- c09 c �i yG9 Cam us Drive i { ON C. m .to Birch Street i s ° a' AnzGee � 9 m �e4° + Fft'Y < O c0 Bristol Street ' b i A v h Del Mar Avenue Urtvarstt °c e Drlvo 8°ntta Cant v GAG` : ° Upper 1 '+ Newport COSTA MESA 9C Bay Olson w. 22nd Street Drive I c e ord Roa i NEW ORT m I9th Street AC { O o PROJECT ° m o SanJoa4utnHill* Road SITE O t>th Street m t e O a \� C C 78th Street > J A v < n` to ?s 7 a a CORONA o DEL MAR o e m COAST �pyW s n PACIFIC s ° o c n e Balboa BouiovArd ! Pacific Ocean t Avocado Avenu� FIGURE 2 eASM[IYAN.DARHCLL.INC. PROJECT LOCATION Mf..MI A�1.4IMII1�»{� n 1.I S.1Y1N ' EXISTING CONDITIONS The existing land uses in the area are commercial (various types, ' primarily marine-related commercial enterprises, restaurants, and other retail/commercial) along Coast Highway and single-family residential to the north of Avon Street and Cliff Drive in the Newport Heights area. The U. S. Post Office, at the corner of Riverside Avenue and Avon Street constitutes another major land use. ' Access to the area is provided primarily by Coast Highway, Newport Boulevard, and Riverside Avenue. The 1982 average daily traffic (ADT) volumes for the roadways in the vicinity of the project are presented in Figure 3. These traffic volumes represent average winter weekday volumes. Also presented on Figure 3 are the 1983 average summer weekday traffic volumes on Coast Highway and Newport Boulevard. ' It should be noted that the ' major roadways in the area experience a higher daily volume during the summer months. Roadway Characteristics The following is a description of existing roadway characteristics. Coast Highway (SR-1 ) is classified as a major arterial in the Master Plan Circulation Element for-the City of Newport -Beach. ' Between Newport Boulevard and Tustin Avenue there are three westbound and two eastbound travel lanes along Coast Highway. Between Newport Boulevard and Riverside Avenue the roadway includes a two-way left-turn lane. Between--Riverside and .Tustin Avenues a raised median exists providing left turn pockets along Coast Highway for both directions at Riverside and eastbound at Tustin Avenue. - Curbside parking is prohibited on the southside of Coast Highway between Newport Boulevard and Riverside Avenue. ' Newport Boulevard (SR-55 ) northerly of Coast Highway is a six- lane divided facility with turning lanes at Hospital Road. It is grade separated at Coast Highway. Southerly of Coast Highway to 32nd Street, Newport Boulevard is a 2-lane divided facility with ' turning lanes provided at Via Lido, Finley Avenue and 32nd Street. Riverside Avenue is constructed as a 56-foot curb to curb roadway and is striped to provide two through lanes plus a bike lane in each direction. Northerly of Avon Street the roadway is ' channelized to provide one through lane plus a bike lane in each direction. Tustin Avenue is constructed to provide one through lane in each direction with curbside parking allowed. Avon Street at the present time has a right-of-way of 40 feet varying from 50 feet at Riverside Avenue then narrowing to 40 feet west of Riverside Avenue and provides one travel lane in ' -4- I m ' am � m m .� m AF 0 sa �0 ` a' W Cliff prise 0 L c Street 1 0. 3 m Pacific Coast highway 48/39 . 49/45 f 49/45 no state. N 56/48 LEGEND: 63/59 34/28 XX/YY-DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES XX-VOLUMES REPRESENT AVERAGE SUMMER 1 WEEKDAY VOLUMES (CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC FLOW MAP 1983)(IN THOUSANDS) 61/5 ! YY-VOLUMES REPRESENT AVERAGE 53/37 WINTER WEEKDAY VOLUMES (CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC FLOW MAP 1982) CIN THOUSANDS) \DN FIGURE 3 EXISTING AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES N�3 Ww.Ihn.,h.P 41 MM1/wl4u{,a.wu M.eSNo I/ln aaArila ' each direction. Presently the roadway is improved for a distance of about 400 feet west of Riverside Avenue. The remainder of the roadway is graded but unimproved. Avon Street between Riverside Avenue and Tustin Avenue provides one travel ' lane in each direction and parking on both sides of the roadway. Existing Intersection Capacity The City Traffic Engineer has identified sixteen ( 16) critical intersections that could be affected by the proposed project. Intersection Capacity Utilization ( ICU) analysis for each of the ' sixteen (16 ) intersections has been previously performed to reflect 1983 conditions. The results of these analyses are summarized in Table 1 and copies of the ICU worksheets are ' contained in the Appendix. Existing Public Transportation ' Orange County Transit District (OCTD) currently operates two transit routes in the vicinity of the project. Routes 1 and 65 ' provide direct access to the project site by traveling along Coast Highway. ' FUTURE CONDITIONS Roadway Characteristics — — Not all of the facilities in the vicinity of the project are constructed to their Master Plan classification. Table 2 provides a comparison of each roadway' s exi-sting configuration and respective Master Plan classification geometrics. Future Traffic Volumes ' Future traffic volume forecasts for the roadways surrounding the proposed project were obtained from the City of Newport Traffic ' Circulation Model. These volumes are presented in Figure 4 . These forecasts represent the "Trend Growth" forecasts. •Approved Projects Various projects throughout the City of Newport Beach have been approved, but are not constructed or not yet fully occupied. ' These have been classified as Committed Projects and traffic estimates for these projects were obtained from the City of Newport Beach Traffic Engineer. These volumes are included in the analyses for this study. Table 3 summarizes the committed projects. PROJECT-RELATED TRAFFIC ' To assess the traffic-related impacts of the proposed office/restaurant/retail development on the surrounding -6- TABLE 1 t SUMMARY OF EXISTING 1983 PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) CRITICAL INTERSECTION PM PEAK HOUR ICU Coast Highway at: Orange Avenue .7950 Prospect Avenue .8929 Balboa Boulevard - Superior Avenue 1 .1141 Riverside Avenue .7731 Tustin Avenue .6764 Dover Drive - Bayshore Drive .7092 Bayside Drive . 9364 Jamboree Road .8013 ' Newport Center Drive .6232 Avocado Avenue .5767 MacArthur Boulevard .7490 Goldenrod Avenue .7697 Marguerite Avenue .8678 Newport Boulevard at: ' Hospital Road -' '- .7729 Via Lido .7053 ' 32nd Street .7174 - 1' 1 -7- TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS Location Existing Condition Master Plan Classification ' Coast Highway ' West of Prospect 5-lanes and painted Major Road 6-lane divided median East of Prospect 4-5 lanes and painted Major Road 6-lane divided median East of Balboa/ 4 lanes and painted Major Road 6-lane divided Superior East of .Newport 5-lanes and painted Major Road 6-lane divided ' Blvd. median East of Riverside - 4-5 lanes and painted Major Road 6-lane divided Ave. median ' Dover Dr. to Bayside 7-lanes and painted/ Major Road 6-lane divided Dr. raised median Bayside Dr. to 4-lanes and painted Major Road 6-lane divided Jamboree Rd. median Jamboree Rd. to 4-lanes and. painted/ Major Road 6-lane divided MacArthur Blvd, raised median East of MacArthur 4-lanes and painted/ Primary Road 4-lane divided ' Blvd, raised median Hospital Road ' Superior Avenue to 4-lanes Secondary Road 4-lane undivided Placentia Avenue Placentia Avenue to 4-lanes and painted Secondary Road 4-lane •undivided Newport Boulevard median Newport Boulevard 32nd Street to Coast Highway 4-lanes divided Major Road 6-land divided North of Coast Highway 6-lanes and raised Major Road 6-lane divided median -8- 25 17th Street v � m a 28 E 15 < o m a. M C o ° r o. 15th Street e _ eo, Hospital Road a r a LEGEND e�° a a° XX-DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES 42 °Q 25** a lit THOURANDS t -INCLUDES OLD N" g 88 3° * BOULEVARD TRAFFICORT a m 7E:* -ESTIMATED e CO ,° 10 a° O 40 = All t 88 Sr^ear 1 `a° fOr/Ve d/b° Q (O ee 0 et PROJECT 55 Coast Highway Q^o 87 SITE FIGURE 4 FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. IN VICINITY OF PROPOSED PROJECT 4262 Campus Drive,Suite 9.1 Newport Beach,California 92660 SOURCE: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH (714)549.9940 TRAFFIC MODEL FOR *TREND GROWTH' 1 TABLE 3 ' COMMITTED PROJECTS ' Sheraton Expansion Hoag Hospital See Projects 530 to 533 Amend No. 1 McArthur Court ' Pacesetter Homes National Education (RVSD) Aeronutronic Ford Amendment No. 2 Ford Aero Back Bay Office Amendment No. 1 Ford Aero Civic Plaza Corporate Plaza Koll Center Newport MacArthur Court National Education Office Amendment No. 1 North Ford North Ford Ross Mollard ' Banning/Newport Ranch Pacific Mutual Plaza Plaza Lido Hughes Aircraft #2 Newport Place Heritage Bank ' Shokrian Flagship Hospital Big Canyon 10 Fun Zone Sea Island Marriott Hotel Baywood Apartments St. Andrews Church ' Harbor Point Homes YMCA Allred Condos Morgan Development Rudy Baron Four Seasons Hotel ' Univ ATH Club TPP 4 Emkay Block 400 Medical Martha' s Vineyard Valdez Coast Business Center Koll Center Npt. No. 1 TPP 1 ' •-10- 1 circulation system, tripmaking to/from the proposed site was ' estimated and distributed to the surrounding roadways. The following is a description of the process used to estimate additional traffic which would be anticipated along roadways and at intersections in the vicinity of the proposed project upon its completion and occupancy. Trip Generation ' The trip generation rates used in this analysis are based on data presented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip , Generation Manual and similar data from previous studies in Newport Beach and surrounding communities. Table 4 presents the trip generation characteristics of the proposed project. ' Based on the trip generation rates presented in Table 4 , the proposed development of 42,651 ' square feet of office/ restaurant/retail space would generate 1,300 daily vehicle trip ' ends. During the afternoon peak hour, 125 trip ends would be generated; during the afternoon 2-1/2 hour peak hour 249 vehicle trip ends would be generated. , To address the cumulative effects of the project, BDI conducted peak period and peak hour counts of the existing Rosan Boat Works. The data collected primarily involves the traffic ' generated at the off-site parking lot located at the corner of Riverside Avenue and Avon Street. The results of these counts are presented in Table 4. The existing site currently generates ' 97 trip ends during the afternoon peak hour and 100 trip ends during the afternoon peak 2-1/2 hour. Trip Distribution and Assignment The trip distribution characteristics of the site were developed ' taking into consideration the spatial orientation of possible origins and destinations and regional travel patterns. The resulting trip distribution patterns are depicted in Figure 5. In addition, a trip distribution pattern for the existing Rosan ' Boat Works was formulated based on the observations and counts conducted by BDI on Thursday, January 26, 1984 (see Figure 6) . Utilizing these distribution patterns, the traffic that would be ' generated by the proposed office/restaurant/retail development and the existing Rosan Boat Works was assigned to the surrounding street system. The resulting project-related 2-1/2 hour afternoon peak period and afternoon peak hour traffic volumes are presented in Figures 7 and 8. To address the cumulative impacts of the removal of the Rosan Boat Works and the construction of the project, it is required that the net increase in traffic be formulated. The results of this analysis is presented in Figure 9. A separate analysis was completed for the Coast Highway/Riverside Avenue and Coast Highway/Tustin Avenue intersections because of the changes in traffic movements and restrictions of access to/from the site. This data is presented in Appendix C. ' i -11- ' TABLE 4 SUMMARY OF TRIP GENERATION CHARACTERISTICS Project-Related Trip Generation Rates ' 2. 5 Hour Land Use Daily PM Peak Hour Peak Period IN OUT IN OUT Office 13. 0/KSF 0. 6/KSF 1.7/KSF 1. 2/KSF 3. 4/KSF Office/Retail 30 . 0/KSF 1. 4/KSF 1.8/KSF 2. 8/KSF 3. 6/KSF ' Restaurant, Private Club 75.0/KSF 2 .7/KSF 1.7/KSF 5. 4/KSF 3. 4/KSF Trip Generation Summary 2. 5 Hour PM Peak Hour Peak Period Land Use Descriptor Daily IN OUT IN OUT ' Office 27, 613 SF 359 TE 17 TE 47 TE 33 TE 94 TE Retail 41107 SF 818 TE 29 TE 19 TE 58 TE 38 TE Restaurant, Private Club 10 , 931 SF 123 TE 6 TE 7 TE 12 TE 14 TE TOTAL 42, 651 SF 1300 TE 52 TE 73 TE 1,03 TE 146 TE i KSF = Thousand Square Feet SF = Square Feet - TE = Trip Ends Existing Rosan Boat Works Trip Generation (a) 2 . 5 Hour PM Peak Hour Peak Period IN OUT IN OUT 19 TE 78 TE 21 TE 79 TE (a) Based on counts conducted by BDI from 3:00 - 6 :00 PM on January 26, 1984. '-12- i y 0 7% G� �^ 03 O m m 00 O = 0 m O 'l O m n m 00 N m Ni Ira 9h5 0 6 m m r) 7 th 13% � Street m t m Ic Offsite Parking Nowport Center Drive o v \Cot0 3% m a 20% a N yUs ° i mem 5% 33% 2 i7% a o 35 96 ' m m y min Gilt, Orive Be side Drive m o 2% a 0% yd°!D 4096 2% 10% Coost Highway O 0. 1ge� , 18% 10% via 41da e ea�b 1% Project Site 0 ejo 8% LEGEND XX% — TRIP DISTRIBUTION CHARACTERISTICS \D� FIGURE 5 IIA' lAfI,ANWN11tIt.OW PROJECT-RELATED TRIP DISTRIBUTION PATTERN ptp.n wm m a o m a, v ° m a m a m 0 In � o "r N N� veo` o Y mr 19�� E v f 7fh i Street m c Newport Center Drive offsite Parking \ 0 0 6% L o 20% 1% m m m r z X. > o N m o m a 2% N o am A 8% m Drive a a m r m 36% Cliff Orty� 14% 8a s1d• �--- c m a Age ¢ ` 4% m 7 coast Highway 0 a 20% 20% 16% 8% vta t_tam 6 4917 1% Project Site e4° 1 7% 1 ' LEGEND XX% - TRIP DISTRIBUTION CHARACTERISTICS \D� FIGURE 6 I EXISTING ROSAN BOAT WORKS SITE 11.NM\I Il\tl Il\HNLI,1,INl' TRIP DISTRIBUTION PATTERN ,:111.1.1 M1i1 (BASED ON OBSERVATIONS AND COUNTS BY BDI 1/26/84) o m J m > ° O = m m F a m° 6^ m m s1 "r N CDtlA Sit°°< � r b o 17th 3t 40 i o reet 0 260 65 189 Newport Center Driv i o CO 130 p \ 7113 9/1 5/ t 410 ' n c h o ��! / 2/4 316 i 652 0 `�417 430 18 51 V 0) 28 c 9 Q,a 3/b` 45b 18136 17/34 ,. 10/2 y �12/25 71 o b\J�y Orlvo 24/48 g29stde rive c 'a 1/2/ 2/3 u r o 7/15 Cliff 28151 �712 �' 13126 /6 ° Q Q Ceast Highway O °' — 13/26 %5129 5110( 21/41 52.1 2/4'26 -221 2Jd 9119 — 235 8/19, J 2i iI2.616 1/1 29/b8 280 130 1p1 r VIOL Offsite Parking egg a + 1/1 Project Site 260 eob/ bog ri a 13 117 LEGEND 130 XX-PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES BY DIRECTION YY-PM PEAK 2.5 HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES BY DIRECTION O- TWO-WAY DAILY TRAFFIC FIGURE 7 „„�I���.��".. PROJECT-RELATED TRAFFIC HAW Ng IN A-'-°M'• � ' "' FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT N�I.'• 1Mw1. NOmwY YMGO pm.n•nm � i (• i i i i � i i i i i � t• i i i i_ ti m^ o m a+ a m 0 0 �> � b m G 0 m ' > 75 o = o �? o m G,, m N� N N \ape\ � t 5 0 i �9\� E � m � 1 71h Str 2 m eot e m > Newport Center Drive 4 t o 2 0 \1 8 1 <� I m 1 m o md„ Z O 0 i 1 to i £ 1 m Q• 1 4\2 2 , 6' 3 016 D o 3 0 0 4 '` ,. 8 �y Cliff Drive. / 6 S%de Drive Be c m y y �� 28 1i �-16 m 0 �.38 'r 0 ` g - Const Highway O a —18 —16 10 13 • 4 " 4 y 4'' Vio ido Offsite Parking eaib 1 11 2 Project Site eoo pp g �p�ord I LEGEND XX- PM PEAK HOURS PEAK 2.5 HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES BY DIRECTION \D\ F1GURE 8 ^ INAti MRRU1,IM.. EXISTING TRAFFIC FOR ROSAN BOAT WORKS �ItO.11•M•m• m a o m D, c m RL Q �m Q U 10 O e > N O = l m 0 O m �'n 0 Of5`tee ` t E o m ro iTth Streo ' lbt a m 317 ? Newport Center Drive 1 3/ � 1 o` v 6112 f4114 [ 1 4 .p .0 m� 2/5 ; 2/4 2/5 41 [ m $ q Z 2/4 G f 6t'7 1 .`• m £� [ COnst ocO n / 0/2 lfit AO 130 —6119_ �O.iAB -41 3 m ` 3/37 n3 side Drive 112 214 Cliffr o 3 O%0m 0110 vs ° tli9hwnv 0/10 a 0f13 Of ' 18/3f 1 I6142p� 16145 5/15 •— 5/15 ,._ ' t3f7 1l1 61, il9 vt, 1-1 j f1 Offsite Parking Qe�b Project Site 217 LEGEND XX-PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES BY DIRECTION YY-PM PEAK 2.5 HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES BY DIRECTION a \D\ FIGURE 9 NET PROJECT RELATED TRAFFIC 11 add.,t1 1t1 V\RflU 1,drop. (PROJECT-RELATED TRAFFIC LESS EXISTING ROSAN BOAT WORKS TRAFFIC) Il•Ix+I IA OF 1 xn1 Y�p1.O 1i111.IY NIp 11� I11111111, 1� 11111. illlll� '� I� tTRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE (TPO) ' The City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) requires the review of potential external traffic impacts on critical intersections for any office, industrial or commercial development of 10, 000 square feet or more and any residential development of 10 dwelling units or more. The process requires the identification of critical intersections to be examined, ' analysis of the impacts of the project on the 2-1/2 hour peak period traffic volumes at each critical intersection, and finally the preparation of Intersection Capacity Utilization ( ICU) calculations for each critical intersection that does not satisfy the TPO 1% test. Should the ICU value yield an unsatisfactory Level of Service (LOS "E" or ICU greater than 0. 9000) then additional analysis and identification of specific mitigation measures are required. 1% Analysis The proposed office/restaurant/retail development will initially be occupied in 1986 with full occupancy occuring in 1987 . The ' City Traffic Engineer has identified sixteen (16 ) critical intersections that could be affected by the proposed project at full occupancy: Table 5 lists the sixteen ( 16 ) critical ' intersections. Figure 10 is an illustration of the location of the sixteen (16 ) intersections. The first step in evaluating the intersections is to conduct the ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis. The 1% Traffic Volume Analysis takes into consideration existing traffic, regional growth and committed projects traffic. For those intersections where, on any approach leg, project traffic is estimat�Z to be greater than 1% of the projected peak 2-1/2 hour traffic volume, Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis (ICU) is required. For purposes of ' this analysis, the "net traffic" increases shown in Figure 9 were used. The results of the 1% analysis identified 2 of the 16 critical intersections where ICU analyses would be required. The two critical intersections identified are on Coast Highway at Riverside Avenue and Tustin Avenue. No ICU analysis would be required at the remaining 14 intersections. Table 5 provides a summary of the results of the 1% traffic volume analyses. ' Appendix B contains the worksheets for these analyses. Intersection Capacity Analysis ' The next step in the TPO process is to analyze each critical intersection to determine Intersection Capacity Utilization ( ICU) values. The analyses were performed for the 1987 occupancy and identify whether or not the intersection; with the addition of committed projects, regional growth and proposed project traffic, will exceed an ICU value of 0. 90. For those intersections that exceed the ICU level of 0. 90, additional analyses are required to determine mitigation measures that will lower the ICU to 0. 90 or less. -18- TABLE 5 CRITICAL INTERSECTIONS AND SUMMARY OF 1 % TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS i Intersection Project-Related Traffic ' Exceeds 1% of 2-1/2 Hour Peak Period Coast Highway at: Orange Avenue NO Prospect Avenue NO Balboa Boulevard/Superior Avenue NO Riverside Avenue YES Tustin Avenue YES ' Dover Drive/Bayshore Drive NO Bayside Drive NO Jamboree Road NO , Newport Center Drive NO Avocado .Avenue NO MacArthur Boulevard NO Goldenrod Avenue NO ' Marguerite Avenue NO Newport Boulevard at: , Hospital Road N0 Via Lido NO 32nd Street NO -19- o ��c 05 c�9 c 9�yG9 Cam us Drive m > / m "toBirch Street 0F< m A OGC A Gto ;m � m o Bristol Street " b 9 v { Q° Dol Mar Avenue Un{vefelt { e09e �Oqo, n c' Dftve go ntta Cant°n v GC6`L zu 0 /o Upper 11 99 't 1 Newport t i COSTA MESA O 22nd Street 3 Bay gison N• 1 m D fIV e � LEGEND _ t m ord Roa � ® - CRITICAL INTERSECTION NEW FIT C { 19th Street AC m O o Of San Joaquin Hills Road N 17th et m ^ c v t v A -Street r Q � 0 m �o o m a , r Hospltaittlth Street > o;, 0 0 < a F Raad �t 9 A X R{ CORONA o o' DEL MAR N m a m o .,....--• m , � �. m � Bate ae m m COAST �ylY m a > �- PACIFIC Ay m o Balboa BoulevGrd Pacific Ocean 32nd Street Avocado Avenue FIGURE 10 RASMACIYANAAR"R.L.INS. CRITICAL INTERSECTION MAP IMu.M MF.,$.I.$1 Pul Sat H+o Ml� ICU' s were calculated for the two critical intersections. The ' results of these analyses are summarized in Table 6 for existing conditions, expected conditions in 1987 assuming development of committed projects and regional growth, and finally for 1987 conditions including the proposed project traffic. The ICU worksheets for the analyses are contained in Appendix A. A review of Table 6 shows that one of the two critical intersections will not exceed 0. 90 with the addition of committed ' projects traffic, regional growth and project-related traffic. However, the Coast Highway at Riverside Avenue intersection results in an ICU = to 0. 9,007 with the addition of project related traffic. Therefore, mitigation measures are needed. Mitigation Measures ' To improve operating conditions at the Coast Highway and ' Riverside Avenue intersection to provide an ICU less than or equal to 0.9000 requires the addition of travel lanes at the intersection or reduction in the size of the project. , The addition- of a second eastbound left turn lane on Coast Highway to northbound Riverside Avenue will significantly improve operating conditions at the subject intersections. A summary of the resulting ICU' s at this intersection are summarized on Table 7. The resulting 1987 ICU with project-related traffic is 0. 8547. The installation of the eastbound left turn lane requires the removal of parking on the northside of Coast Highway from approximately Tustin Avenue to approximately 600 feet west • of ' Riverside Avenue. A sketch of the suggested intersection geometrics are presented in Appendix D. An alternative to adding the eastbound left turn lane on Coast ' Highway at Riverside Avenue involves the reduction of the size of the proposed project to satisfy this requirement it was assumed that the office space would be reduced. Evaluation of the ICU' s permits the determination of the amount of office space that have to be removed to reduce the ICU to 0. 9000 or less. Based on the evaluations, a reduction of 1 , 160 square feet of office develop- ment would be needed. This reduction in total project results in the Coast Highway at Riverside Avenue intersection ICU = 0. 8995. t -21- ' TABLE 6 SUMMARY OF 1987 PM PEAK HOUR ICU ANALYSES 1987 Existing 1987 Existing + Regional + Regional + Committed 1983 Existing + Committed + Proposed Condition Condition Project Intersection ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS_ ' Coast Highway at: Riverside Avenue 0. 7731 C 0. 8933 D 0. 9007 E ' Tustin Avenue 0. 6764 B 0. 8091 D 0. 8201 D TABLE 7 t SUMMARY OF 1987 PM PEAK HOUR ICU ANALYSES 1987 Existing 1987 Existing + Regional t + Regional + Committed + Committed + Proposed Condition Project ' Coast Highway at ICU LOS ICU LOS Riverside Avenue ' With addition of second EB left turn lane 0. 8382 D 0. 8547 D ' With reduction of office space 0. 8933 D 0. 8995 D ' NOTE: ICU worksheets are in Appendix C. -22- 1 . ' I Based on this reduced project alternative the development of 26, 453 square feet of office, 41107 square feet of retail use and ' 10, 931 square feet of restaurant/private club will result in a minor reduction in project-related traffic. The actual reduction would be 15 daily vehicles, one (1 ) inbound PM peak hour vehicle ' and two (2) outbound PM peak hour vehicles as Summarized below. Proposed Reduced Project Project Decrease Daily (vehicles) = 11300 1 ,285 15 PM Peak Hour ' Inbound (vehicles ) = 17 16 1 Outbound (vehicles) = 47 45 2 2-1 /2 HR. PM Peak Period ' Inbound = 33 32 1 Outbound = 94 90 4 The resulting assignment of this traffic at the Coast Highway intersections with Riverside and Tustin Avenue is depicted on ' Figure D-2 contained in Appendix D. ACCESS AND INTERNAL CIRCULATION ' Access Access to/from the project site is proposed via a drive approach located at the easterly edge of the project site. This access will also provide access to the new boat launch facility. As previously discussed, movements at this access will be restricted to right turns in/out only. To accommodate the limited number of large boat movements, the center median in Coast Highway will have to 'be modified to provide a removable section or a mountable , design. The site plan depicts a two foot wide median in the center of this proposed 26 foot wide drive access leaving 12 feet on each side. The placement of the median restricts turning ' movements coming off Coast Highway as well as left and rights on the interior aisle. It is recommended that this 2 foot median be deleted from the plan. Access to/from the proposed off-site parking lot is proposed via the alley located on the southerly edge of the lot. This proposal eliminates driveways on Avon Street and should result in ' improved traffic circulation for the adjacent streets. Internal Circulation ' Internal circulation of the project site and the off-site parking lot was reviewed for adequacy and identification of any concerns , and/or problems that should be changed or modified during -23- ' I preparation of final project plans . Review of the project site plan identified three areas- of concern. Figure 11 depicts the location of these concerns. ' - Turning radius for access to/from the proposed valet drop off area is not satisfactory - The proximity of the valet drop off access to the basement parking access t - Sight distance leaving the basement level parking at the first floor aisleway intersection To improve these concerns, it will be necessary to locate the access further to the west. Specifically, the turning radius leaving the drop off and turning into the aisleway to the basement level parking is critical. The exact location should be ' worked out with the City Traffic Engineer. Sight distance leaving the basement level parking will need to be checked from a standpoint of visibility and location of structures, walls, etc. This should be reviewed concurrently with the turning radius improvement. ' Circulation at the off-site parking lot was reviewed and found to be adequate except for setback of the parking spaces from Avon Street and from the alley. Figure 12 shows our suggested changes. The suggested changes eliminate 4 parking spaces and provide additional landscape medians . PARKING ' Parking for the project is proposed on-site as well as at an off- site lot located at the southeast corner of Avon Street and Riverside Avenue. ' A total of 205 spaces are proposed (based on suggested changes) . Of this total, 50 compact spaces are provided. Table 8 provides a summary of the parking by project location. Discussions with applicant' s representative indicate that valets will be used during the noon hour for the private club and after ' 6:00 PM for the restaurant. The valet operation as we understand it will be confined to the site and will not involve transporting vehicles to the off-site lot. Insofar that use of the site will be a mix of retail, office, private club and restaurant use, the off-site parking lot should be used for serving all day parking (i.e. , employees , etc. ) . This will tend to open more turnover parking for the retail and short term visitors to the site. .-24- COAST HIGHWAY P,.EMOYE ISLAND =Y 03 TURNING RADIUS \ SIGHT j \ DISTANCE 4 • t I ,N t N µr. Pto.,.6 FIGURE 11 BASMACIYAN•DARNELL INC. ON-SITE CIRCULATION CONCERNS 4262 Campus Drive,Suite B•1 Newport Beath,California 92660 (714)549,9940 ' —l5— 1 a ' FF - -- --- ----- -------- -- -- -- - IIV r ' sti 3ro t'xrr; i.� ems, ' PARKING SUMMARY LEGEND ' APPLICANT PROPOSAL -- — — — AS PROPOSED BY TOTAL SPACES — 58 APPLICANT COMPACT SPACES.— 12 RECOMMENDED PLAN SUGGESTED LAY OUT ' TOTAL SPACES — 54 COMPACT SPACES — 12 FIGURE 12 ' BASMACIYAN-DARNELL,INC. OFF—SITE PARKING LOT ' 4262 Campus Drive,Suite 8-1 Newport Beach,California 92660 (714)549.9940 -26- TABLE 8 PARKING SUMMARY , ON-SITE PARKING First Floor Plan Total Spaces 52 Compact Spaces 19 Percent Compacts 36.5% Basement Plan Total Spaces 99 ' Compact Spaces 19 Percent Compacts 19.2% ' TOTAL SPACES 151 TOTAL COMPACT SPACES 38 ' PERCENT COMPACT 25. 1% OFF-SITE PARKING Total Spaces 54 ' Compact Spaces 12 Percent Compacts -_22% , GRAND TOTAL TOTAL SPACES 205 ' TOTAL COMPACT SPACES 50 PERCENT COMPACTS 24.4% ' i -27- t In summary, the final parking plan should be designed to provide the following: - Valet operation that is restricted to on-site operations ' only - Off-site parking lot used for long term/employee parking ' - Modification of the off-site parking lot to generally conform to the diagram depicted on Figure 12 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ' o The proposed Rosan' s redevelopment is expected to generate 1 ,300 daily trip ends. During the PM peak hour , 125 trips will be generated and during the PM 2-1/2 hour peak period, ' 249 trips are expected o The existing Rosan Boat Works facility generates 97 trips ' during the PM peak hour and 100 trips during the PM 2-1/2 hour peak period. (Based on counts by BDI on January 26, 1984) ' o The net additional traffic resulting from the existing Rosan Boat Works is as follows: ' During the PM peak hour, 44 trips are expected and during the 2-1/2 hour peak period, 182 trips will be generated. o Access to the project is proposed via one two-lane driveway located at the easterly corner of the site. ' o Analysis of the project for conformance to the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) was completed. Of the sixteen (16 ) critical intersections identified by the City Traffic Engineer for evaluation, two (2) were found to not pass the "one percent" test for the 2. 5 hour peak period traffic. Detailed analysis of the two ( 2) critical intersections showed that Coast Highway at Tustin Avenue intersection would have an ICU less than 0. 90 in 1987 upon full occupancy of the project and the various approved projects. However, the intersection of Coast Highway at Riverside Avenue would have an ICU = 0. 9007. 0 To mitigate the Coast Highway at Riverside Avenue intersection to less than or equal to 0. 9000 requires ' improvements at the intersection or a reduction in the size of the project. -28- 0 The addition of a second eastbound left turn lane as ' depicted on the Fiture D-1 in Appendix D results in a cumulative 1987 ICU (with project) of 0.8547. Similarily the reduction of proposed office space from 27, 613 square ' feet to 26,453 square feet (a net reduction of 1 ,160 square feet) results in a ICU = 0,8995. Acceptance and installa- tion of either of these alternatives will permit compliance, with the TPO regulations and permit approval of the project. ' 0 Based on the analysis of the project access points, the following items should be incorporated into the final pro- ' ject design (see Figure 11) . The two foot wide median in the access drive be ' eliminated The valet drop off area be redesigned to improve the turning radius for vehicles leaving the site and for ' those attempting to reach the basement level parking. The off-site parking lot be modified similar to the ' design depicted in Figure 12. The suggested design change will eliminate 4 spaces and provide planter area adjacent to Avon Street and the alley. ' 0 Parking proposed for the project site appears adequate. However, it is recommended that the use/operation of the on- site and off-site parking lot include the following considerations: Valet operation be restricted to—on-site operations only The off-site parking lot be used for long term and ' employee parking in order that the maximum number of spaces for short term parking is available on-site 1 -29- 1 ' APPENDIX A Existing Conditions ICU Worksheets INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Coast Hwy. / Riverside Av. { Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1983) , EXIST, EXIST, REGIONAL COR4ITIED PROJECTED lbrement EXIST1Ca PROPOSED PX,HR. v/C GRDAH PROJECT v/C Ratio PROJECT PPOJECT Lines Cap. Lines Cap, Vol. Ratio Yoluae Yolome w/o Project volume/,1 V/C Ratio Volvx NL 13 0 NT 1600 1 .0113 (h 0113 - fl ll3 NR 4 6 SL ' 103 10 10 5 ' ST 1600 2 .0656* 0 , MI - - SR 1600 418 .2613 15 ,7,1Z5 I Z71 � EL 1600 337 .2106* to Z?.l O * (0 -Z I 7A ET 3200 1541 .4838 I7j q(o1 �33g, 43 43 .tog7L ER 7 - - WL 1600 52 .0325 D?17Jv - - 037h WT . 4800 1905 .3969* 465 Z& z.(o .5p(o3 ; .- ' WR 1600 75 .0469 5. YELLOWiIME * D�00 I� IL7 .0(000 .1000 i • (DOL) .ID0o* EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATJOH .7731 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. . $q33 EXISTING PLUS COtAKiTTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. O J Fryt cotwvin 15 'fYoskc,aKd 56C0hd Cot kmrl Is projec+-yaaz ,.d JyafPtc. ' Iehs �Xtyl'it•19 t+raaFw�or Ru�r� 3oai works. ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic T.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 '• ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' Description of system improvement: , �Ocx?Y\ &&yeA(ppgRZ DATE PROJECT FORM 1I i INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATJON ANALYSIS Intersection Coast Hwy. / Tustin Ave. ' ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 19 83) EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL LOMITTED PROJECTED EXISTING PROPOSED VIC Ratio PROJECT PROJECT ' "o.eren: PR. RatVICio VoluGROWTH PROJECT who Project Vol mev; VIC Ratio Lanes Cap. Lanes Cep. Vol.i. RatSo Vol um Yolume Volume NL i ' NT 1600 3 .0038 NR 2 _ ' S L 60 ST 1600 5 .0644* 0 SR 38 A a1 � EL 1600 81 .0506* 5 OJ3$ a6 90 .01DO ' ET 3200 1566 .4922 4(0c) *22' al a-1 . 6505* ER 9 — ' WL — WT • 4800 2215 .4614 5('lC) (1=) ICE • 5113 WR 1600 . 90 .0563 3 05$1 A a .0"• ' YELLOWTIME — ,1000* . 1000 i i 100D*l • 1 e a • EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .6764 1 EXISTING PLUS CWdITTED PLUS REGIONAL GRG'all•H W/PROPOSED INPROYEMENTS I.C.U.r �51 EXISTING PLUS 6!6' iTTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT ' Flrst Column Is-Project—Y0.IPGi'h'aV1C-&Ad SCCond COILkMAIS PrD�CC�-YEId� tTafFtc� IPSS eY";;hq -FYa4%L,•for 1?.osan -'boat Wor{ct, ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Description of system improvement: I � 11 �2(�QULIOOMP4/l� DATE: 2J I Ili PROJECT FORM II INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Coast Hwy./Oranae Ave. ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 19 83) EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COMITTED PROJECTED Movement EXISTING PROPOSED VIC Ratio PROJECT PROJECT Lanes Cau. Lanes GP' PK.NR. VIC GROWTH PROJECT • ' Vol. Ratio Volune Vottone w/o Project Volume VIC Ratio ' Vol tone NL 57 ' ! NT 3200 5 .0319* NR J 40 tT 25 1600 2 .0319 24 EL 1600 48 .0300* ET 4800 1155 .2446 ER 19 WL 1600 12 _ WT • 3200 2026 .6331* ' WR 1 1600 33 .0206 YELLO'WTIME .1000* i 1 i � EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .7950 j EXISTING PLUS COMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEHENTS I.C.U. EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GRO'dTN PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. i ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems y ems improvement will be less than orequal to 0.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Description of system improvement: 1 DATE• 11,31 I �4 . PROJECT FOR14 II � ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Coast Hwy./Balboa Blvd.-Superior Ave. ' ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic 'Winter/Spring 1$3 C EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL OMIITTED PROJECTED ' EXISTING PROPOSED V/C Ratio PROJECT PROJECT Movement Lanes Lap. Lanes Cap. PK,NR. Y/CRatio GRC'WrVolume PROJECVolume x/o Project Volume V/C Ratio Vol. Ratio Volume Volume Volume NL 1 357 tNT 1 4800 236 .1350* N—RJ 55 ' SL 147 ST 3200 398 .1703 ' SR 1600 675 .4219* EL 3200 221 .0691 ' ET 3200 707 .2209 ER N.S. •443 •2769 WL 1600 106 .0663 WT , 3200 1463 ,4572* ' WR N.S. 62 .0388 YELLONTIME .1000* 1 1 1 i l i ' EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZAT1ON 1.1141 I 1 EXISTING PLUS CM ITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROVTH k/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. ' EXISTING PLUS CO!lN,ITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROIA7H PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. _ ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' ❑ Projected plus p project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be ' less-than or-equal-to0.90- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' Description of system improvement: DATE• l PROJECT FORM II INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' Intersection Coast Hwy./Prospect Ave. ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1983) ' Movement EXISTING PR EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL CONMITTED PROJECTED Lands Cao. LaneDPOSEOs Gp' PQR. V/C GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ratio PROJECT PPOJECT , Vol. Ratio Volume Volume w/o Project Volume V/C Ratio Volume NL 17 NT . 1600 5 .0075 ' NR 1600 29 .0181 SL 99 ' ST 1600 0 .0638* SR 3 EL 1600 20 .0125* ET 4800 1168 .2440 ' ER 3 WL 1600 35 .0219 ' WT . 3200 2195 .7166* WR 98 -- , YELLOWTIME ,1000* 1 I I 1 I t i EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .8929 EXISTING PLUS CCKmrrEb PLUS REGIONAL GRowfH.WIPROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I EXISTING PLUS C"ITTED PLUS REGIDNAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. • ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less_than or-equal-to0.90_ w _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ' Description of system improvement: ' DATE: PROJECT FORA II ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION' ANALYSIS Intersection_ Coast Hwv. / Bayside Dr. ' ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic ',linter/Spring 19 83) EXIED ST. EXIST. REG104AL C0.WIITED PRCJRatio EXIST.hG PR0P0SE0 Y/L Ratio PRQIECi PROJECT ' ,orenent PK.HR. V/C GRCM MIT Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. w/o Project Volume Y/C Ratio Vol. Ratio Volume Vol une Volume NL 3200 611 .1909* NT 1600 28 .0175 NR 1600 37 .0231 ' SL 1600 12 .0075 ST 1600 10 .0288* ' SR J 36 EL 1600 71 .0444* ' ET 4800 1578 .3288 ER 1600 580 .3625 WL 1600 20 .0125 �- ' WT • 4800 2726 ; .5723* WR P1 YELLOttTIME .1000* I I 1 � � 9364' EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION � . EXISTING PLUS CCd:�iITTED PLUS REGICNALO GROYfiH 1I/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. EXISTING PLUS COWITTED PLUS REGIONAL GRO'a'TN PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be ' less than a n o r equal u a 1 t o 0.9 0_ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ' Description of system improvement: 1 ' CUiI Kll'e�(r)'Gh�P w� DATE • 1 31 PROJECT FORM II INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' Intersection Coast Hwy./Dover Dr.-Bayshore Dr. ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1983) ' Movement EXISTING PRDPDSED EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL [OMITTED ►RWECTED ' Lanes Cap. Lames Cap. PARR. V/C GMdTN PRWECT V/C Ratio , PRWECT PRWECT Vol. Ratio Volume Yalu* W/o Project Volume V/C Ratio Volume NL 1600 22 .0I38 NT 3200 39 .0225* - NR 33 ' SL- 4800 960 .2000* ST 1600 66 .0413 SR 1600 149 .0931 EL 3200 115 .0359* ET 4800 1553 .3298 ' ER 30 WL 1600 .0306 ' WT • 4800 1684 .3508* WR 1600 10.07 .0294 rIHE ' YELLOW _ .1000* ; EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .7092 a EXISTING PLUS COMSITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROYEN.EHTS I.C.U. 1 EXISTING PLUS COtS�tITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJE& .C.U. • a y 1 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 - - - - - - ' Description of system improvement: ' DATE 1,31 I �l PROJECT FORM II INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATICII ANALYSIS Intersection Coast Hwy. / Jamboree Rd. ' ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 19,53) EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COWITTED PV/CRO Ratio PROJECT ? CJECT EXISTING PROPOSED PROJECTED o Movement Poo. V/C VolumeGRNIFH PROJECT w/o Project volume V/C Ratio Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. vol. Ratio Yoi ume Volume Volume NL 1600 28 * ' NT 3200 211 .0919 • NR 83 ' SL 1600 240 .1500 ST 3200 527 .1647 SR 3200 1230 .3844* ' EL 3200 554 .1731 ' ET 3200 1054 .3294 ER 1600 20 .0181 WL 3200 150 .0469 ' WT •4800 1437 .2994* WR 110 YELLOWTIME .1000* EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ,8013 I � I tEXISTRIG PLUS C"ITTED PLUS REGIONAL GRO•.1TH W/PROPOSED INPROVEHENTS I.C.U. EXISTING PLUS 6Kh ITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Description of system improvement: QL�(. m � .�Q �QiI� DATE 1 ' PROJECT FORM II INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Coast Hwy. / Newport Ctr. Dr. ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 19 83) EXISTING PROPOSfO EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL CONITTED PROJECTED fSorement PK:NR, V/C GROWN PROJECT V/C Ratio PROJECT PROJECT Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. V/C Ratio Volume Volume w/o Project Volume V/C Ratio ' Volune NL i NT NR SL 3200 348 .1088* ST SR N.S. 677 EL 3200 305 .0953* ET 3200 1206 .3769 ER WL 'WT • 3200 1021 .3191* WR M.S. 137 ' YELLOWTIME .1000* j EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .6232 i • EXISTING PLUS 6Ob44ITTEO PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS 1.C.U. EXISTING PLUS CONe'7ITTED PLUS REGIONAL GR&Th PLUS PROJECT I.C,U. ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Description of system improvement: i 1 _��7Gll/l �CIIP.� N�Q.IiI� DATE l 31 PROJECT PORI4II INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Coast Hwv. / Avocado Ave. ' ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 19 81 EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COMMITTED PROJECTED Havement EX1SiING PROPOSED Y/L Ratio PROJECT PROJECT PK.HR. V/C GROdTH PROJECT Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. Vol. Ratio Volume Voiume w/o Project Volume V/C Ratio Volume NL 1600 107 ' NT 3 .0688* NR 1600 55 .0344 ' SL 1 ST 1600 2 .0056 SR 6 EL 1600 9 .0056 ' ET 3200 1185 .3850* ER 47 WL 1600 27 .0229* i— ' WT •3200 959 .3006 WR 3 • , YELLOWTIME 1000* l EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 15767 1t i i ' EXISTING PLUS COMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH N/PROPOSED INPROVEHENTS I.C.U. � EXISTING PLUS COb511TT6 PLUS REGIONAL GRO:rTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Description of system improvement: DATE• ' PROJECT • FOPJ1 II INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' Intersection Coast Hwy. / MacArthur B1 . ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1983 ) ' EXIST, EXIST. REGIONAL CO.WITTEG PROJECTED ' EXISTING PROPGSED PK.MR. V/C GROWTH PROJECT Movement Y/C Ratio PROJECT PROJECT Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. Vol Ratio Volume Volume w/o Project Volume v/C Ratio Volume NL 'NT NR SL 3200 923 .2884* ST SR 1600 213 .1331 EL 1600 223 .1394 ET 3200 1154 .3606* ER — WL ------------ WT . •4800 805 .1677 WR1600 372 _ .2325 YELLOWTTIME _ .1000* I i EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .7490 i { EXISTING PLUS MIMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROYEMEHTS I.C.U.1 EXISTING PLUS 6MMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROTECT I.C.U. ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be ' less than or equal to 0.90 Description of system improvement: t\ CL�� I�UGI,IP��C .�L1 DATE• PROJECT , FORM II INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATIOi' ANALYSIS Intersection Coast Hwy. / Goldenrod Ave. ' ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic 'Winter/Spring 19 83) EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COMMITTED PROJECTED ' PROPOSED PK.MR. V/C GROWTH PROJECT Movement EXISTING V/C Ratio PROJECT PROJECT Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. Vol. Ratio Volume Volume w10Vol Project Volume Y/C Ratio Volume NL 62 NT 1600 9 .0563* NR 19 SL 40 ST 1600 11 .0494 ' SR 28 EL 1600 26 .0163 ET 3200 1894 .5978* ER 19 WL 1600 25 .0156* x-• WT 3200 1168 .3697 WR 15 YELLOWTIME 1000* 1 J � EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .7697 EXISTING PLUS COiJMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROYEMENTS I.C.U.1 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than orequalto0.90 - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Description of system improvement: I . -- �OG.GI(/I T lC1I+✓tU luP.l�� DATE' ( I31 194 PROJECT FORM II INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' Intersection Coast Hwy. / Marguerite Ave. ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Dail Traffic 8 9 9 y is Winter/Spring 19 PROJECTED Lines Ca PROPOSED Ca PK.MR. EXIST. REGIONAL PROJECTED Y/C Ratio PROJECT PROJECT Movement tenet Cap. lines Cap. PK.AR. Ratio GRRuiH PROJECT w Vol. Ratio Yo1Jne Yolune /o Project Yoiure Y/C Ratio Vo1wne ' NL 1600 109 .0681 NT 1600 89 .1075* NR " SL 1600 128 .0800* ' ST 1600 109 1 .1119 SR J 70 EL 1600 56 .0350 ET 3200 1719 .5372* ' ER 1600 70 .0438 — WL 1600 69 .0431* 1'IT 3200 871 .2969 WR 79 YELLOWTIME -- * S r .1000 r EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .8678 i EXISTING PLUS CO MITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. r EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS R5kOft, AL GROWTH PLUS PRO,JECT'I.C.U. ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 - - - - - , Description of system improvement: DATE: II31 �0`I' PROJECT FORM II J INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Newport B1 ./Hospital Rd. ' ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1983 ) EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COMfITTED PROJECTED EXISTING PROPOSED V/C Ratio PROJECT PROJECT Movement P Vol. RatV/Cio VolumGROWTe PROJECT Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. ol. Ratio Volume Volume VW/ool Project Volume V/L Ratio Volume NL 1600 192 .1200* t NT 4800 1257 .2775 NR 75 ' SL 1600 41 .0256 ST 4800 •1406 .3210* SR 135 EL 1600 169 1 .1056* ET 1600 153 .0956 ER 1600 386 .2413 I ' WL "• 161 - WT 3200 217 .1263* WR 26 YELLOWTIME 1000* l t t � � ' EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .7729 EXISTING PLUS CaMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U.1 71 EXISTING PLUS C"ITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 i ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be ' less_than or_equal_to0.90_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Description of system improvement: DATE• PROJECT FORM II INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' Intersection_ Newport 81. / Via Lido _ ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 19 83 ' Hovanent EXISTING PROPOSED EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COMITTED PROJECTED -" P NR V/C ORO'dH PRGIECT Vic Ratio PROJECT PPOJECT Lanes Cap, Lanes Cap. Vol. Ratio Voiane Volwe w/o Project 9olure Y/C Ratio Volume i NL -- NT 3200 1236 .3862* , NR N.S. 38 - $L 3200 625 .1953* ' $T 3200 •1367 .4272 SR EL ET , ER WL 1600 38 .0238* WT WR 3200 - 587 .1834 YELLOWTIME .1000* I EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .7053 EXISTING PLUS 60.MITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I EXISTING PLUS REGIONAI*GF&TH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be ' less than or equal to 0.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - � I Description of system improvement: ' DATE• PROJECT FORM II ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Newport B1 . / 32nd St. ' ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 19 83) EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COMMITTED PROJECTED EXISTING PROPOSED VIC Ratio PROJECT P?OJECT hfOrement EXIS VIC GROI.TR PAOJ'cCT Lanes Cap. lanes Cap. Vol. Ratio volume Volume w/o Project Volume VIC Ratio Volume NL 1600 52 .0325* NT 3200 7712 .2459 NR 16 ' SL 1600 66 .0413 ST 3200 1010 .4231* SR 344 EL 2400 239 .0996* ET 800 48 .0600 ER N.S. 28 WL 32 WT 3200 69 .0622* WR 98 YELLOWTIME .1000* 1 � � EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATIONS .7174 EXISTING PLUS COMITTED PLUS REGIONAL G05 W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. EXISTING PLUS CCMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be ' less_than or-equal-to0.90_ - _ r _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ' Description of system improvement: 1 � DATE• PROJECT FORM II , APPENDIX B 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Worksheets 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection Coast Hwy./Orange Ave. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on AYerage Winter/Spring 19 _ ' Peak 2y Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 21S Hour Peak 2; Hour Peak 2u, Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume volume Volume ' Northbound 211 Southbound 132 �ja — ' Eastbound 2802 ��j I (p117 a0 (0 Westbound 4723 3C-) 1 D23 5780 17,0 10 l(o ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume ' Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected [� = Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization U.C.U.) Analysis is required. — I' 1 * The first number in this column is the proposed project- related traffic. The third number is the traffic for the existing Rosan Boat Works and the second number is proposed project minus existing site traffic. ** The second column is used for basis of 1% analysis. ' VI Redv�e�o�olevl i DATE: PROJECT: FfIRM T 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection Coast Hwy./Prospect Ave. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 _ ' Peek 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected I Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 211 Hour Ptak 2k Hou Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ! 'Pre Northbound 113 — 0 13 So"'bound 215 Eastbound 2882 Vestbound 5159 43—T IOa3 ( '?,Z6 !bl to ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ' Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ' El --.Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. _ * The first number in this column is the proposed project- related traffic. The third number is the traffic for ' the existing Rosan Boat Works and the second number is proposed project minus existing site traffic. ** The second column is used for basis of 1t analysis. t I DATE: 3 ' PROJECT: • FORM I 1 . 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Hwy./Balboa B1 .-Su erior Ave. 1 (Existing Traffic Volumes aced onAverage Winter/Spring 19 8 1 Peak 24 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projects Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2;1 Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume 1 t Northbound 1495 i56c� 1(0 — — Southbound 2655 1 Eastbound 3198 a� ��i 4015 1 , l estbound 3516 ;; 1 Project Traffic• is estimated 'to be less than 1% of •Projected Peak 231 Hour Traffic Volume 1 Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projectbd Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. _ * The first number in this column is the proposed project- related traffic. The third number is the traffic for the existing Rosan Boat Works and the second number is proposed project minus existing site traffic. 1 ** The second column is used for basis of 1% analysis. i 1 ' Lan & e�ma f DATE: I1 I it f PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Hwy./Riverside Ave. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pring 9 _ y Peak 24 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected M of Projected ' Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2$ Hour Peak 2$ Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume i Y lame Northbound 38 Lftstbo'und d 1243 4509 � J7 e� S�J�a. �Jd 4834 59 1% Cfa Project Traffic is estimated to be less than M of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume ® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I,C.U.) Analysis is required. _ * The first number in this column is the proposed project- related traffic. The third number is the traffic for the existing Rosan Boat Works and the second number is proposed project minus existing site traffic. ** The second column is used for basis of 1% analysis. C.OV1 I�LI{�,l/� IV��✓l� DATE• ?J I PROJECT: �� tI ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection Coast Hwy. / Tustin Ave. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 _ ' Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1„ of Projected I Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 21s Hour Peak 21i Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume '. Northbound 12 South bound 281 _ V / ' Eastbound 4013 33 j 11jD ;•Io- IC4 Westbound 5878 IooZ ' Project Traffic is estimated 'to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic. Volume tProject Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ® Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. _ * The first number in this column is the proposed project— related traffic. The third number is the traffic for ' the existing Rosan Boat Works and the second number is proposed project minus existing site traffic. ** The second column is used for basis of 1% analysis. ' VI I�Pd�U2l n'1PXlf DATE: �Ih I0(1-41 PROJECT: FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection Coast Hwy./Dover Dr.-Bayshore Dr. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter prang 9 83 ' Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1' of Projected project Direction Peak 21s Hour Growth Peak 211 Hour Peak 21% Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2q Ho Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume i Volume Northbound 236 -- i z37 A , _ Sorthbound 2655 — 1 �O Z�3 a� 15 L} Eastbound 4025 ?j�J �q T �J0DZ 5D ;CjQj L�Gj i West bound 6191 ' 50 -GO3 Project Traffic is estimated to be.less than 1% of Projected Peak 24 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected t ❑. . :.Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization '(I.C.U.) Analysis is required. — * The first number in this column is the proposed project- related traffic. The third number is the traffic for the existing Rosan Boat Works and the second number is proposed project minus existing site traffic. ** The second column is used for basis of 1% analysis. ' Row Q P.U('i ormM+ DATE- PROJECT: FORM I 1 ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Hwy. / Bayside Dr. ' (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 _ ' Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1. of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 21s Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 21s Hour Volume Volume Volume volume Volume Volume ' Northbound 1481 southbound 155 I I G //I— — ' Eastbound 5312 a(0 90ro- (��j 102 ;r2 i 40 •' Westbound 6054 • 5-76 V)b� 90 i,3 -3I 5 . ' ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1%. of Projected Peak 231 Hour Traffic Volume ' ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. ' * The first number in this column is the proposed project- related traffic. The third number is the traffic for ' the existing Rosan Boat Works and the second number is proposed project minus existing site traffic. ' ** The second column is used for basis of 1% analysis. it ' • II i eIOiJVVIP.YI l� DATE: �J I ' PROJECT: FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection Coast Hwy. / Jamboree Rd. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Verage lnter pring 19 Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected t Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 21 Hour Volume Volume Volu'ae Volume Volume Volume Northbound 929 _ 5 C);�3 9 I out bound 4167 Eastbound 3B99 Westbound ( 3759 A-1 r-501 42 'aI (C) ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2� Hour Traffic Yolume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ' ❑ , - Peak 2= Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. • * The first number in this column is the proposed project- ' related traffic. The third number is the traffic for the existing Rosan Boat Works and the second number is proposed project minus existing site traffic. ' ** The second column is used for basis of It analysis. RG�,a�l Re yd2Rmpi DATE: 3�� L)"r 1 PROJECT: �MDM 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Hwy. / Newport Ctr. Dr. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 83 ' Peak 21s Hour Approved I Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1 of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 21s Hour Peak 21; Hour Peak 2� Hour Volume Volume Volume Volune Volume Volume ' Northbound Southbound 2181 ' Eastbound 3585 4301 1 6 ' Westbound 2855, ' ® Project Traffic is estimated 'to be less than I% of Projected Peak 21, Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ❑ . peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. ' * The first number in this column is the proposed project— related traffic. The third number is the traffic for the existing Rosan Boat works and the second number is proposed project minus existing site traffic. ** The second column is used for basis of 1%- analysis. ' K��� K�'()C;1�('ii�PM� 1 DATE• �JI� I VT PROJECT: FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis , Intersection Coast Hwy. / Avocado Ave. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pring g Peak A Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Project% Projected lop of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 211 Hour Ptak 2� ous Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 442 1DC) 561 60 — southbound 27 Eastbound 3049 � Westbound � I� ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1p •of Projected ' Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than❑ ip of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. — i * The first number in this column is the J ro ro osed project— related P related traffic. The third number is the traffic for , the existing Rosan Boat Works and the second number is proposed project minus existing site traffic. ** The second column is used for basis of 1% analysis. ' Roya� 1 ►,y�MJ7i�1�I �� DATE! /I�I I b-r PROJECT: FOR I J ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Hwy. / MacArthur B1. ' (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Ayerage Winter/spring 19 _ Peak Hour Approved ' Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 211 Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 21s Hour Volume Volume Voluce Volume Volume Volume ' Northbound ____ Southbound 2510 �^q __�� ' Eastbound 3326 �I 40530 t Westbound 2957 ® Project Traffic is estimated.to be .less than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume ' Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ❑ ..Peak 2-� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. — 1 DATE: �I1ID t ' PROJECT: FORt1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Hwy. / Goldenrod Ave. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on verage lnter pring g83 ' Ptak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Penk 2y Hour peak 2�y Hour I Peek 2y Hol Volume volume Volume Volume volume v lame Northbound thbo nd i 231 Z— g • .- a Southbound 205 Sa' ao5 2 - Eastbound 4602 �� gj�j� 55�a ; �� 12 H Westbound 2858. r'J�(o '?i3 '� i IQ 9 JL ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ' Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I:C.U.) Analysis is required. * The first number in this column is the proposed project- related traffic. The third number is the traffic for the existing Rosan Boat Works and the second number is proposed project minus existing site traffic. ** The second column is used for basis of 1t analysis, 1 �OVI V2ICX�(vt�Vl i DATE -•• PROJECT: - - FOP,MI-1___ 1 1 . 1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Hwy. / Marguerite Ave. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Tvierage inter pring 19 _ Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 21, Hour ! Peak 2k Hour um Volume Volume Volume Vole Volume Volume SA ! Nbrthbound 616 Southbound 719 ! Eastbound 4023 (09 I PJO 4c)-24 1 Westbound 2556 '��I� 31 110 C) I 1 ® Project Traffic is estimated 'to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2a Hour Traffic Volume 1 Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ❑ • ..peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. — 1 - ! * The first number in this column is the proposed project- related traffic. The third number is the traffic for ! the existing Rosan Boat Works and the second number is proposed project minus existing site traffic. ** The second column is used for basis of 1% analysis. ! i 1 . 1 1 QaN VpA yejowen-t- DATE �7I I PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis 1 Intersection Newport B1./Hospital Rd. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Ayerage Winter pring 19 83 Peek 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1". of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Peek 21 Hour Peek 2y Ho Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 3519 31 t02 170 L thbound 3773 — 17292stbound' 1636stbound 995 Cj 1Q% 1 ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ' ❑ . Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required, _ * The first number in this column is the proposed project— , related traffic. The third number is the traffic for the existing Rosan Boat Works and the second number is proposed project minus existing site traffic. ** The second column is used for basis of 1% analysis. Yl GeV o �1lQ.UI I DATE: 2? rI PROJECT: FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Newport B1 , / Via Lido ' (Existing Traffic Volumes b­cu on Average Winter Spring 19 ' Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected I k Direction Peak 2; Hour Growth 2 1". of Projected Project Volume Peek lu Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2� Hour i Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume � olume Northbound 2711 - J� � 7 a southbound 4686 Eastbound 1''estbound 1433 '® Project Traffic is estimated -to be less than 1% 'of Projected Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume '❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 21-2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. ' * The first number in this column is e related traffic. The third number istheotrafficrforct- the existing Rosan Boat Works and the second number is proposed project minus existing site traffic. ' ** The second column is used for basis of 1% analysis. PROJECT. DATE • 1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis , Intersection ' New Dort B1 . / 32nd St. ' (Existing Traffic Volumes Dasea on AVerage Winter Pang 9 83 Peak 21s Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1", of Projected Protect Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2§ Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 1906 — 144 j of SouthbDund 3296 — ' 31 A Eastbound 758WWestbound 484 G) ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected , Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be❑ greater: 9 than 1� of Projected Peak 2 Hour . ,� r Traffic Volume. Intersection •Ca ac it (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. p y Utilization * The first number in this column is the proposed project- ' related traffic. The third number is the traffic for the existing Rosan Boat Works and the second noimber is proposed project minus existing site traffic. ' ** The second column is used for basis of It analysis. I DATE: 3L1Ia R Red aura 1 PROJECT: r r r r r r • . r , r r . r r - . r APPENDIX C r - Project-Related Trip Distribution and Assignment to/from Project Site and off-site parking lot. - ICU Worksheets r r r r AVON STREET 1 61 1 1 AVON STREET 7 00 W PROJECT I 7 , > 5 PARKING LOT t W < g pW `► L I d N � W r z V 1 4 1 21 4 F- 4 ' Y N 1 `► 4Q19 ~ `2 �--37 4 26 24 2 4 19 0 21 1 —> 2' 4 27—+ 29—b —1 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY 1 t t PROJECT SITE i LEGEND X—PROJECT—RELATED 1 t t PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC 1 FIGURE C- 1 1 I PROJECT-RELATED TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT TO/FROM PROJECT 1 BASMACIYAN•DARNELL, INC. AND OFF-SITE PARKING LOT 4262 Campus Drive,Suite B•1 (FOR PROPOSED PROJECT) ' Newport Beach,California 92660 (714)549.9940 AVON STREET __j ' S 1 AVON STREET 7 . ' w W PROJECT i Z ' < 5 PARKING LOT i 3 I > LU LU `► 1 O Z . N Ir 21 Z . I-_> 1 4 4 cc' 4 20 t 0 ' �2 4 36 —26 24 +>02 -0 19 —21 s 1 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY LEGEND PROJECT SITE i X—PROJECT RELATED PM i PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC i t ' FIGURE C-2 PROJECT—RELATED TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT TO/FROM PROJECT BASMAc1YAN-DAKNELL, INC. SITE AND OFF—SITE PARKING LOT 4262 Campus Drive,Suite B-1 ' Newport Beach,California92660 (WITH 1,160 SQUARE FOOT REDUCTION IN OFFIC SPACE) (714)549.9940 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Coast Hwy. / Riverside Av. W17R Nt1T1(4hT10Q ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1983) , EXISTIhG PROPOSED EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL 04MIED PROJECIED PK.NR. VIC GRO..N PRDJECT VIC Ratio PROJECT PPOJECI Lines Cap. Lanes C+P• Vol. Ratio Velma VoLne Wo Project Volume VIC Ratio Vol 1pe NL 13 t� _ NT 1600 1 .0113 0113 0113 ' NR 4 - SL 103 10 10 5 t ST 1600 2 .0656* 0 . LT1Lo) - - 0750%R SR 1600 418 .2613 I •z,-176j I -7.1 .7l ra EL 1600 3Zo0 337 .2106* ib 103 Z ET 3200 1541 .4838 ER 7 _ WL 1600 52 .0325 f - - 0 7G✓ 3 WT • 4800 1905 .3969* 1 (0 453 •5 ' WR 1600 75 .0469 �j . Mo 19 1(9 . 0(000 YELLOWTIHE .1000* I • 1000 j j ,Ippp 1 t � EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .7731 j I EXISTING PLUS COMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GRN`TH W/PROPOSED 1NPROMIENTS I.C.U. EXISTING PLUS CD!l.MITTED PLUS REGIIYUIL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 'First ColultTh is tMftav%& 5aogd column is Project-vcta;cd ' -Wa4ftC, lus evz4*vt9 +r4R� •fit•• &-.3A U-6rI4 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Description of system improvement: Add 52(AN6 e&-7*0VAC1 1p,4 -hkM tam, M eoayt- Ht�hwat ' Rav\ DATE- PROJECT FORM II ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Coast Hwy. / Riverside Av. Will+ Ia1ncAAT<otJ ' ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1983) EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL Con 11TTEO PROJECTED E%ISTIKG PROPOSED VIC Ratio PROJECT PPOJECT KOY�POt Lines Cap. Lanes Cap. RatVICio Volme PROJECT w/o Project Yotume;a VIC Ratio Vol.Yo1. Ratio 1'oiume Volume Volume NL 13 NT 1600 1 .0113 : olt3 - 0113 NR 4 — — SL 103 l 9 A- ST 1600 2 .0656* 0� j 9 - — , 014 ' SR 1600 418 .2613 (S Z1Zf ID -?b .ZOO EL 1600 337 .2106* l 2?A(� 51-31 z4Se>�` ' ET 3200 1541 .4838 ER 7 WL 1600 52 .0325 .0737fj ' — — 03 ' WT • 4800 1905 .3969* 5QQV� y�3 WR 1600 75 .0469 rj 00 19 l(0 .0600 ' YELLONTIME 1000* •10Co i i .I000 k 1 i EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .7731 EXISTING PLUS COKKITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH N/PROPOSED INPROVEHENTS I.C.U. •0�33 i EXISTING PLUS CO . ITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROVrH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. Cj I^rst coLuW K 1Syvofec4-reiatd $lafFwC5Vd SeWVd C01V.A%M is prge&-Yet; iea Va{ctC. le% euibq ira•IPic. 4V Roman 'goal' 6rV4. ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. with systems improvement will be' less than or equal to 0.90 ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Description of system improvement: �eductlnK of o-PR�eby l,tbo �uave�eet. DATE: PROJECT � t 11 1 ' 11 � I 1 � APPENDIX D Coast Highway at Riverside Geometrics M i 1 COAST HIGHWAY PARKING PARKING J NO PARKING PARKING EXISTING CONDITIONS h41-600-700' REMOVE PARKING — j COAST HIGHWAY 13, - 13' REMOVE PARKING 10, � 10' — lit I m m 10r ` 10' 10' J RECONSTRUCT MEDIAN 11' 111 RECONSTRUCT MEDIAN 13' 19 PARKING OK o w z w w w RECOMMENDED GEOMETRICS > > w < '' E FIGURE D- 1 .AS, MM-D a„r«,,„C. INTERSECTION CONFIGURATION AT COAST HIGHWAY AND RIVERSIDE AVENUE ,1 I iI 1 ' TRAFFIC STUDY FOR 1 ROSAN'S REDEVELOPMENT 1 Prepared For MARIE GILLIAM 1 l 1 � ' PREPARED BY I BASMACIYAN-DARNELL , INC. 1 I 1 �� TRAFFIC STUDY FOR ROSAN' S REDEVELOPMENT Prepared for: Marie Gilliam 1825 Westcliff Drive, Suite 177 ' Newport Beach, CA 92660 " ' Basmaciyan-•Darnell, Inc. 4262 Campus Drive, Suite B-1 Newport Beach, CA 92660 ' ( 714 ) 549-9940 ' March 7, 1984 11\BD, BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. ENGINEERING AND PLANNING ' Transportation, Trafltq Municipal, Transit 4262 Campus Drive, Suite B-1 Newport Beach,California 92660 (714)549.9940 1 I March .7, 1984 Ms . Marie Gilliam 1825 Westcliff Drive Suite 177 Newport Beach, CA 92660 SUBJECT: Traffic Study for Rosan Redevelopment ' Dear Ms. Gilliam: Transmitted herewith are the two copies of the subject traffic ' report. The report addresses Existing Conditions, Project- Related Trafic and the Traffic Phasing Ordinance Requirements of the City of Newport Beach. ' Please call me if you have any questions or need any additional information. ' Sincerely, BASMACIYANN-DARNELL,- INC. E. zam j Bill E. Darnell, P.E. BED/llg Enclosure TABLE OF CONTENTS ' Pa cue INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Project Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 ' EXISTING CONDITIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Roadway Characteristics 4 Existing Intersection Capacity. . . . . . . . . . . . 6 ' Existing Public Transportation. . . . . . . . . . . . 6 FUTURECONDITIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 ' Roadway Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Future Traffic Volumes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Approved Projects. 6 1 PROJECT-RELATED TRAFFIC. 6 Trip Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . 11 Trip Distribution and Assignment. 11 TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 1% Analsysis. . . . . . . 18 Intersection Capacity Analysis. . . . . . . . : : . . 18 M2t� gation Measures , , . . . . . : . . . . 21 ACCESS AND INTERNAL CIRCULATION. . . . . __ • • • . . • 23 Access. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Internal �Circulation. 23 ' PARKING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . 28 APPENDICES APPENDIX A - Existing Conditions ICU Worksheets APPENDIX B - 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Worksheets ' APPENDIX C - Project-Related Trip Distribution and Assignment to/from project site and Off-Site Parking Lot ' - ICU Worksheets - Coast Highway at Riverside Avenue, Tustin Avenue and Dover/Bayshore Drive intersections APPENDIX D - Riverside Avenue Geometrics - Project-related traffic distribution with reduced office development i 1 LIST OF TABLES 1 1 Table No. Description Page 1 Summary of Existing 1983 PM Peak Hour 1 Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) 7 2 Summary of Roadway Characteristics 8 1 3 Committed Projects 10 4 Summary of Trip Generation Characteristics 12 1 5 Critical Intersections and Summary of l% Traffic Volume Analysis 19 i6 Summary of 1987 'PM Peak Hour ICU Analyses 22 7 Summary of 1987 P14 Peak Hour ICU Analyses 22 1 8 Parking Summary _ _ 27 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 i i . LIST OF FIGURES 1 iFigure No. Description Page 1 Vicinity Map 2 i2 Project Location 3 3 Existing Average Daily Traffic Volumes 5 4 Future Traffic 'Volumes in Vicinity of Proposed Project 9 5 Project-Related Trip Distribution Pattern 13 1 6 Existing Rosan Boat Works Site Trip Distribution Pattern 14 1 7 Project-Related Traffic for Proposed Development 15 i 8 Existing Traffic for Rosan Boat Works 16 9 Net Project Related Traffic 17 ' 10 Critical Intersection Map _ 20 11 On-Site Circulation Concerns 25 i12 Off-Site Parking Lot 26 1 i 1 1 Traffic Study ' For ROSAN REDEVELOPMENT ' INTRODUCTION ' This traffic study has been prepared to evaluate the traffic- related- impacts of the proposed office/restaurant/retail develop- ment to be located on the site of the existing Rosan Boat Works. ' In accordance with the requirements of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) of the City of Newport Beach this report assesses the impacts of the proposed project on the roadways and critical ' intersections on the arterials adjacent to the project and those serving the project-related traffic. Mitigation measures are identified where appropriate. Included in the evaluation is the ' effect of existing traffic from the Rosan Boat Works, access considerations and internal circulation. Project Description ' The project site lies on the south side of Coast Highway to the west of Riverside Avenue and is currently occupied by Rosan Boat ' Works. Parking for the site is currently provided in an off-site parking lot located at the corner of Riverside Avenue and Avon Street. The lot presently provides_ 72 spaces plus 6 more ' squeezed in illegally. Thirty-nine additional spaces are also leased on an adjoining site. The project applicant proposes that the existing buildings , which comprise 39, 700 square feet, be removed and new facilities be constructed. Proposed uses for the ' site include 27 , 613 net square feet of office, 4, 107 net square feet of retail and 10, 931 net square feet consisting of a restaurant (8 , 131 square feet) and a private club (2 ,800 square ' feet) . A boat launch currently exists at Rosan Boat Works at the ' westerly corner of the site. The launch is proposed to be relocated to the easterly edge of the site and is expected to accommodate 12 boat launches per year. ' A total of 209 parking spaces are proposed. The parking as proposed will provide 151 spaces on-site and 58 spaces at the off-site parking lot. Access to the site is currently via Coast ' Highway at the westerly corner of the site. Future assess will be relocated at the easterly corner of the site. It should be noted that this access will be restricted to right-in or right- out turning movements due to its proximity to Riverside Avenue. To mitigate this impact on the use of the boat launching operations, the applicant proposes to install a removable type ' median to accommodate ships that will be launched. Figure 1 . is a map depicting the proposed project location from a regional perspective and Figure 2 is w vicinity map showing the ' project site and the immediately surrounding area. -1- e� e Qe4P 9;PN•TO�i 1-210 / y0 O +y a OF' NIOhIAnd Avarua FOOTHILL FREEWAY ,=V a O O Foothill Soularard r ' C D < 10 =C �0 BAN BENAROINO FREEWAY Q O; •i0 a` `e FOMONA FREEWAY !AN BERNANOINO COUNTY � e RIVER810E CCUNTY�1 0ea' n •p _� L. 'N- ' 'r Head = Wei! doe I/ C I 4; 4• III r Iteej„a' + HighwayHighwayy I cal can Dq+hO*1-coo, :-� eevir J e OP 4hTY 0r'YO IDE PP 4 40 Z TY•� •V < DR-01 9 O Pep � y Oj1•loo Road it t: • ¢ w 9'r 0 O ' Natall• m ea Ar• C OQ 0P r O OAR EN FREEWAY 004'i4'it ' ¢ • o Bolu Ar• tat 'JMaa< � on, Warner A>•nu. 4 q 9 a --- L--� DIEOo +'v 9 Y j OR-T� fRE EN'AY • • +Ce Po = o a o • o o ) x ■ r ' Coaar 4• EI Sere ` Qi Project Site v Qo fi'�oq par at 'NO ejOO Hlyn• Pvo °Ov .a >• : 01ta0• 004 A,TY NrvA• rc ar 4� PACIFIC OCEAN of O N of o Jto ,OR�A'ND%O`e0 i.Q / nAN FIGURE 'I ' VICINITY MAP BAS119ACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. ' 4262 Campus Drive,Suite B•1 Newport Beach,California 92660 (714)549.9940 0 �9 C+ O 99 co � 8 Cam us Drive 0 a ON m C* birch Street OF< m A 0GC0 ri In o F` m m `oq , R Y < O c0 g Brlatoi Street d m Dei Mar Avenue Unlverait 009 9Oo° m �� Drive °ntta 0 Cant°c m { c 9 v GC6`` m Upper Newport 1 COSTA MESA 90 22nd Street Bay Bison a W, 1 � Drive m or R°8 NEW RT 19th Street, ACii O o PROJECT ° °4 Is m Sen loaquln Hills Road SITE m 17th Street �m c 0 m ; 0 w \ c f 16th Street D ° m v -C a to CORONA� y a a n m m m o DEL MAR m m o O c O N co m a BaYs e m 4 m Q H/O o m m r m m COAST Hty m a > CD PACIFIC qY c < 1 (D ° 7 a � m Balboa BoulevArd Pacific Ocean Avocado Avenue FIGURE 2 SASMACIYAN.DARNELL.INC. PROJECT LOCATION 1262 G.,.Dn...$m1.61 Na.ron M.M.1..61wM.9260 pUl H9YH0 ' EXISTING CONDITIONS The existing land uses in the area are commercial (various types, primarily marine-related commercial enterprises, restaurants, and ' other retail/commercial) along Coast Highway and single-family residential to the north of Avon Street and Cliff Drive in the Newport Heights area. The U. S. Post Office, at the corner of ' Riverside Avenue and Avon Street constitutes another major land use. Access to the area is provided primarily by Coast Highway, Newport Boulevard, and Riverside Avenue. The 1982 average daily traffic (ADT) volumes for the roadways in the vicinity of the project are presented in Figure 3 . These traffic volumes represent . average winter weekday volumes. Also presented on Figure 3 are the 1983 average summer weekday traffic volumes on Coast Highway and Newport Boulevard. , It should be noted that the ' major roadways in the area experience a higher daily volume during the summer months. Roadway Characteristics The following is a description of existing roadway characteristics. Coast Highway (SR-1 ) is classified as a major arterial in the Master Plan Circulation Element for-the City of Newport Beach. ' Between Newport Boulevard and Tustin Avenue there are three westbound and two eastbound travel lanes along Coast Highway. Between Newport Boulevard and Riverside Avenue the roadway ' includes a two-way left-turn lane. Between-..Riverside and Tustin Avenues a raised median exists providing left turn pockets along Coast Highway for both directions at Riverside and eastbound at Tustin Avenue. Curbside parking is prohibited on the southside ' of Coast Highway between Newport Boulevard and Riverside Avenue. Newport Boulevard (SR-55 ) northerly of Coast Highway is a six- lane divided facility with turning lanes at Hospital Road. It is grade separated at Coast Highway. Southerly of Coast Highway to 32nd Street, Newport Boulevard is a 2-lane divided facility with ' turning lanes provided at Via Lido, Finley Avenue and 32nd Street. Riverside Avenue is constructed as a 56-foot curb to curb ' roadway and is striped to provide two through lanes plus a bike lane in each direction. Northerly of Avon Street the roadway is channelized to provide one through lane plus a bike lane in each ' direction. Tustin Avenue is constructed to provide one through lane in each ' direction with curbside parking allowed. Avon Street at the present time has a right-of-way of 40 ' feet varying from 50 feet at Riverside Avenue then narrowing to 40 feet west of Riverside Avenue and provides one travel lane in ' -4- m r 'Q :? m r a Cliff pr1v� ED P lon 'n 0 I o Street m Z Pacific coast 48/39 -- 49/45 I filghw$Y no scale 49/45 N 56/48 LEGEND: 63/59' 34/28 XXIYY-DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES XX-VOLUMES REPRESENT AVERAGE SUMMER WEEKDAY VOLUMES (CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC FLOW MAP 1983)(IN THOUSANDS) 61/51 YY-VOLUMES REPRESENT AVERAGE 53/37 WINTER WEEKDAY VOLUMES (CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC FLOW MAP 1982) (IN THOUSANDS) FIGURE 3 8ASMACIYA"°°"NLLL.INC. EXISTING AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES N4l lamym Uma Sun<D-1 Neyau&ad.. ..nuunL Y266D UuiY�I Y9lU each direction. Presently the roadway is improved for a ' distance of about 400 feet west of Riverside Avenue. The remainder of the roadway is graded but unimproved. Avon Street between Riverside Avenue and Tustin Avenue provides one travel ' lane in each direction and parking on both sides of the roadway. Existing Intersection Capacity ' The City Traffic Engineer has identified sixteen ( 16) critical intersections that could be affected by the proposed project. Intersection Capacity Utilization ( ICU) analysis for each of the sixteen ( 16 ) intersections has been previously performed to '. reflect 1983 conditions . The results of these analyses are summarized in Table 1 and copies of the ICU worksheets are ' contained in the Appendix.. Existing Public Transportation Orange County Transit District (OCTD) currently operates two transit routes in the vicinity of the project. Routes 1 and 65 provide direct access to the project site by traveling along ' Coast Highway. FUTURE CONDITIONS Roadway Characteristics ' Not all of the facilities in the vicinity of the project are constructed to their Master Plan classification. Table 2 provides a comparison of each roadway' s existing configuration ' and respective Master Plan classification geometrics . Future Traffic Volumes ' Future traffic volume forecasts for the roadways surrounding the proposed project were obtained from the City of Newport Traffic ' Circulation Model. These volumes are presented in Figure 4. These forecasts represent the "Trend Growth" forecasts. Approved Projects Various projects throughout the City of Newport Beach have been approved, but are not constructed or not yet fully occupied•. ' These have been classified as Committed Projects and traffic estimates for these projects were obtained from the City of Newport Beach Traffic Engineer. These volumes are included in ' the analyses for this study. Table 3 summarizes the committed projects. ' PROJECT-RELATED TRAFFIC To assess the traffic-related impacts of the proposed ' office/restaurant/retail development on the surrounding -6- TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF EXISTING 1983 PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ( ICU) CRITICAL INTERSECTION PM PEAK HOUR ICU Coast Highway at: Orange Avenue . 7950 Prospect Avenue . 8929 Balboa Boulevard - Superior Avenue 1 . 1141 Riverside Avenue .7731 ' Tustin Avenue . 6764 Dover Drive - Bayshore Drive . 7092 Bayside Drive . 9364 ' Jamboree Road .8013 Newport Center Drive . 6232 Avocado Avenue . 5767 MacArthur Boulevard . 7490 Goldenrod Avenue . 7697 Marguerite Avenue . 8678 Newport Boulevard at: Hospital Road — — . 7729 Via Lido . 7053 32nd Street . 7174 ' -7- TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS Location Existing Condition Master Plan Classification Coast Highway West of Prospect 5-lanes and painted Major Road 6-lane divided median East of Prospect 4-5 lanes and painted Major Road 6-lane divided median East of Balboa/ 4 lanes and painted Major Road 6-lane divided Superior East of Newport 5-lanes and painted Major Road 6-lane divided ' Blvd. median East of Riverside• 4-5 lanes and painted Major Road 6-lane divided Ave. median Dover Dr. to Bayside 7-lanes and painted/ Major Road 6-lane divided ' Dr. raised median Bayside Dr. to 4-lanes and painted Major Road 6-lane divided Jamboree Rd. median Jamboree Rd. to 4-lanes and painted/ Major Road 6-lane divided MacArthur Blvd. raised median East of MacArthur 4-lanes and painted/ Primary Road 4-lane divided Blvd. raised median ' Hospital Road ' Superior Avenue to 4-lanes Secondary Road 4-lane undivided Placentia Avenue Placentia Avenue to 4-lanes and painted Secondary Road 4-lane undivided ' Newport Boulevard median Newport Boulevard 32nd Street to Coast Highway 4-lanes divided Major Road 6-land divided North of Coast Highway 6-lanes and raised Major Road 6-lane divided ' median ' -8- 1 25 1 17th Street _ 'c fh S o a g f m 26 0 15 a o m ° ' 0 0 U N f0 ' a 16th Street ' o — oc� Hospital Road m LEGEND a 0 XX- DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES I 42 "25ljC iN THOURANDS 5 to' 0 -INCLUDES OLD NEWPORT 88 BOULEVARD TRAFFIC 0 ° �t 71C -ESTIMATED ° ° , �° c Q o a 40 m AV n e ' z 88 Sr�eor 17`ao C��ftDr/pe oe 0 Ok 87 PROJECT 55 Coast Highway �a SITE FIGURE 4 ' FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASMACIYAN•DARNELL, INC. IN VICINITY OF PROPOSED PROJECT 4262 Campus Drive,Suite B•1 Newport Beach,California 92660 SOURCE: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH (714)$49.9940 TRAFFIC MODEL FOR TREND GROWTH' TABLE 3 COMMITTED PROJECTS ' Sheraton Expansion Hoag Hospital See Projects 530 to 533 Amend No. 1 McArthur Court ' Pacesetter Homes National Education (RVSD) Aeronutronic Ford Amendment No. 2 Ford Aero Back Bay Office Amendment No. 1 Ford Aero Civic Plaza Corporate Plaza Koll Center Newport MacArthur Court National Education Office Amendment No. 1 North Ford North Ford Ross Mollard ' Banning/Newport Ranch Pacific Mutual Plaza Plaza Lido Hughes Aircraft #2 Newport Place Heritage Bank ' Shokrian Flagship Hospital Big Canyon 10 Fun Zone Sea Island Marriott Hotel Baywood Apartments St. Andrews Church Harbor Point Homes YMCA Allred Condos Morgan Development Rudy Baron Four Seasons Hotel ' Univ ATH Club TPP 4 Emkay Block 400 Medical Martha' s Vineyard Valdez Coast Business Center Koll Center Npt. No. 1 TPP - 1 ' -10- circulation system, tripmaking to/from the proposed site was estimated and distributed to the surrounding roadways. The following is a description of the process used to estimate additional traffic which would be anticipated along roadways and ' at intersections in the vicinity of the proposed project upon its completion and occupancy. ' Trip Generation The trip generation rates used in this analysis are based on data presented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip ' Generation Manual and similar data from previous studies in Newport Beach and surrounding communities. Table 4 presents the trip generation characteristics of the proposed project. ' Based on 'the trip generation rates presented in Table 4 , the proposed development of 42, 651 square feet of office/ ' restaurant/retail space would generate 1,300 daily vehicle trip ends. During the afternoon peak hour, 125 trip ends would be generated; during the afternoon 2-1/2 hour peak hour 249 vehicle trip ends would be generated. To address the cumulative effects of the project, BDI conducted peak period and peak hour counts of the existing Rosan Boat ' Works. The data collected primarily involves the traffic generated at the off-site parking lot located at the corner of Riverside Avenue and Avon Street. The results of these counts are presented in Table 4 . The existing site currently generates 97 trip ends during the afternoon peak hour and 100 trip ends during the afternoon peak 2-1/2 hour. Trip Distribution and Assignment T The trip distribution characteristics of the site were developed ' taking into consideration the spatial orientation of possible origins and destinations and regional travel patterns. The resulting trip distribution patterns are depicted in Figure 5. ' In addition, a trip distribution pattern for the existing Rosan Boat Works was formulated based on the observations and counts conducted by BDI on Thursday, January 26 , 1984 ( see Figure 6 ) . Utilizing these distribution patterns, the traffic that would be generated by the proposed office/restaurant/retail development and the existing Rosan Boat Works was assigned to the surrounding street system. The resulting project-related 2-1/2 hour ' afternoon peak period and afternoon peak hour traffic volumes are presented in Figures 7 and 8. To address the cumulative impacts of the removal of the Rosan Boat Works and the construction of the project, it is required that the net increase in traffic be formulated. The results of this analysis is presented in Figure 9 . A separate analysis was completed for the Coast Highway/Riverside Avenue and Coast Highway/Tustin Avenue ' intersections because of the changes in traffic movements and restrictions of access to/from the site. This data is presented in Appendix C. ' -11- TABLE 4 SUMMARY OF TRIP GENERATION CHARACTERISTICS Project-Related Trip Generation Rates 2 . 5 Hour Land Use Daily PM Peak Hour Peak Period IN OUT IN OUT Office 13. 0/KSF 0. 6/KSF 1. 7/KSF 1.2/KSF 3. 4/KSF Office/Retail 30. 0/KSF 1 . 4/KSF 1.8/KSF 2. 8/KSF 3. 6/KSF Restaurant, Private Club 75. 0/KSF 2. 7/KSF 1. 7/KSF 5 . 4/KSF 3. 4/KSF Trip Generation Summary ' 2 . 5 Hour PM Peak Hour Peak Period Land Use Descriptor Daily IN OUT IN OUT 1 Office 27 , 613 SF 359 TE 17 TE 47 TE 33 TE 94 TE Retail 41107 SF (818 TE( 29 TE 19 TE 58 TE 38 TE Restaurant, /' ' Private Club 10 , 931 SF 123 TE 6 TE 7 TE 12 TE 14 TE TOTAL 42, 651 SF 1300 TE 52 TE 73 TE 103 TE 146 TE ' KSF = Thousand Square Feet I SF = Square Feet -- TE = Trip Ends Existing Rosan Boat Works Trip Generation (a) ' 2. 5 Hour PM Peak Hour Peak Period ' IN OUT IN OUT 1'welN 1,gq(k5g 19 TE 78 TE 21 TE 79 TE ' (a) Based on counts conducted by BDI from 3 :00 - 6 :00 PM on January 26, 1984. —12- d 6 ° a 7% � D C m m Om 0 b N mm mn y W m 0 = m + O F� a m c 0 m N^ e m 5« k 0 0 r A 1 J.L o a � E O t>ty 'Street 7 13% m a r Newport Center Drive Q Offsite Parking 0 O \ m m 3% co M m 20% c m Y o m 5% 33% `LOq 17% ED G o ym C• OVx', 35% Drive G N 2% O. N_ 0% GIIiI 9a 5}de �.—.. Oast Highway O M. 18% 50 40% 2% 10% 18% 10% via I.Ido eaib 1% Project Site Al 1 °1- 9% LEGEND XX% — TRIP DISTRIBUTION CHARACTERISTICS \y)\ FIGURE 5 "A,&[%'IN AN N,RNU I.INr PROJECT-RELATED TRIP DISTRIBUTION PATTERN ne�l.nn@nr. r L`n40 III It.I1'•�rrll• i• i• � i• i• i• i� i• i• i• � � i� � � � i• � i• ti m 6 S m a c' 3% m o� ° J m b 61 U ,rC Cum °O _ O ^ O to m mr w� m cv`leek m U tTth 3tr eet a 5 e m ' Newport Center Drive Offsite Parking \ 0 0 6% L ° 20% � 1% m o Z ' N ° f 0 2% 8% I j >y36% Cliff Dr\vg 14% 0a side Drive R o ° k$°1° ¢ 4% Coast Highway 0 o 20% 16% 20% 8% Via ltd° eai 1% Project Site . bo ° ya8 1 7% rd LEGEND XX% — TRIP DISTRIBUTION CHARACTERISTICS \�\ FIGURE 6- EXISTING ROSAN BOAT WORKS SITE BANNIA1.1)AN MRNLLL.INr. ' TRIP DISTRIBUTION PATTERN Nfn M'N II.nl� •.nl•nnu'1_u1.0 I,I,,.,',••<.�, (BASED ON OBSERVATIONS AND COUNTS BY BDI 1126/84) m o m 163 w ro m g � a i Q m 3 m m > m m A C O F� m G O ro 91 N' N N Stiie o t h �w 1gt E o 17th streeta 40 7 m - m 260 66 769 Q Newport Center Driv i o` a N 130 0 �7/13 9/1 4/8 6/1 n r mm rp 652 y �4/7 430 to t 18 6/1 O O 1 N 26 ° 9 QIDmC $/6` ` 466 18/36 17/34 . 10/21 12/2 -flit rn a 7/2 m h���y. Cllft Orl�e 1, 24/48 61a9sldea clue m o 213 a ¢ 7/16 28/61 �Y/2 B 21/bi O 2/4 ' 221 Coast? H�9 wnY O °- — 13/26 16/29 5/10 52.7 28 2uli 9/19 236 8/79 n ' �1 �` i28j62 7/1 29/68 O 280 130 1pj2 via LIdO��Offsite Parking 1/1 o a/6O 41 I° Project Site 260 6 73 ee 117 LEGEND 130 XX-PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES BY DIRECTION YY-PM PEAK 2.6 HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES BY DIRECTION ZZ - TWO-WAY DAILY TRAFFIC �D\ {FIGURE 7 IIA%hIAI.I,..N IMNLIA.INC. PROJECT-RELATED TRAFFIC FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ti a om @ a c m G� i �m �• a m �� 0 m0 ,C j m 0 2 m o' 0 In m m$1lee% m t o °r 19INN E o m ro 17ty Street m e m Newport Center Drive C f o v \i 6 1 2 In m I . m o i o m Z 0 O 0 11 N ° £ R 0 T 1 \2 2 , 8 3 i N In 9 �a o 3 _ rn c 4 m I 8m Cliff Drive• 6a side Drive 28 18 m o ° � 38 Coast Highway O a —16 —16 10 0 13 .. 4'. Via Lido Offsite Parking @eib 1 Project Site @o° ee 18 ` 2 ieo`a i i LEGEND XX- PM PEAK HOUR & PEAK 2.8 HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES BY DIRECTION \ID� FIGURE 8 H.,,AN1,1N AN J,NRNLI.t.IN(: EXISTING TRAFFIC FOR ROSAN BOAT WORKS :•.:• .......,.., i• ii1• i i• � i• . i• � ii1• � f1• I� � iiii � � iill>• � r ti v om � a � o 4. o T v 04 0 d 2 0 o Q �^ m o ID, w\ g` 0 ? 0 L.. mr 19�� . o ro m 17th Street 2 (D a a) 317 Newport Center Drive If 3I/ 6/12 4/14 Ii .p •m m� 2/6 ! 2/4 2/6 m d CO m y m 2/4 Q 8117 a19 j rn c 9R 0/2a0 Q L m 133 _,._14/30 ..8119 gj19"411 vl a 1/2 2/4 �0y 0%0 Cliff Otive %6 AO 13/37 — 9a s%de Drive161 +'" " G N 0/10 0 n _0/ 0 0136 ® — 18/38 st Coa Highway i0 ol13 16IA2 " 16/46-� 6/15 ' 6/iS 811� 1317 111 1I9I vi, A_i111 offsite Parking Qsib Project Site 6o4je`e^ 618l217 a LEGEND XX-PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES BY DIRECTION YY-PM PEAK 2.5 HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES BY DIRECTION \�\ FIGURE 9 NET PROJECT RELATED TRAFFIC IL\1AIAI Il AN \8Nk Lk,INC. 1-1,11'1"'\'i111I (PROJECT-RELATED TRAFFIC LESS EXISTING ROSAN BOAT WORKS TRAFFIC) Iir:1. l..�� .1 11, III V_. 11111 l'1'1'IAII II TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE (TPO) The City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) requires the review of potential external traffic impacts on ' critical intersections for any office, industrial or commercial development of 10, 000 square feet or more and any residential development of 10 dwelling units or more. The process requires the identification of critical intersections to be examined, ' analysis of the impacts of the project on the 2-1/2 hour peak period traffic volumes at each critical intersection, and finally the preparation of Intersection Capacity Utilization ( ICU) ' calculations for each critical intersection that does not satisfy the TPO 1% test. Should •the ICU value yield an unsatisfactory Level of ,Service (LOS "E" or ICU greater than 0. 6000) then additional analysis and identification of specific mitigation measures are required. 1% Analysis ' The proposed office/restaurant/retail development will initially be occupied in 1986 with full occupancy occuring in 1987 . The ' City Traffic Engineer has identified sixteen (16 ) critical intersections that could be affected by the proposed project at full occupancy. Table 5 lists the sixteen ( 16 ) critical ' intersections. Figure 10 is an illustration of the location of the sixteen (16 ) intersections. The first step in evaluating the intersections is to conduct the 1% Traffic Volume Analysis. The 1% Traffic Volume Analysis takes into consideration existing traffic, regional growth and committed projects traffic. For those intersections where, on ' any approach leg, project traffic is estimat6a to be greater than 1% of the projected peak 2-1/2 hour traffic volume, Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis ( ICU) is required. For purposes of ' this analysis, the "net traffic" increases shown in Figure 9 were used. The results of the 1% analysis identified 2 of the 16 critical intersections where ICU analyses would be required. "The two critical intersections identified are on Coast Highway at ' Riverside Avenue and Tustin Avenue. No ICU analysis would be required at the remaining 14 intersections. Table 5 provides a summary of the results of the 1% traffic volume analyses. Appendix B contains the worksheets for these analyses. Intersection Capacity Analysis ' The next step in the TPO process is to analyze each critical intersection .to determine Intersection Capacity Utilization ( ICU) values. The analyses were performed for the 1987 occupancy and ' identify whether or not the intersection; with the addition of committed projects, regional growth and proposed project traffic, will exceed an ICU value of 0. 90. For those intersections that ' exceed the ICU level of 0. 90, additional analyses are required to determine mitigation measures that will lower the ICU to 0. 90 or less. '-18- ' TABLE 5 CRITICAL INTERSECTIONS AND SUMMARY OF 1 % TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS Intersection Project-Related Traffic Exceeds 1% of 2-1/2 Hour Peak Period Coast Highway at: Orange Avenue NO ' Prospect .Avenue NO Balboa Boulevard/Superior Avenue NO Riverside Avenue YES Tustin Avenue YES ' Dover Drive/Bayshore Drive NO Bayside Drive NO Jamboree Road NO Newport Center Drive NO Avocado Avenue NO MacArthur Boulevard NO ' Goldenrod Avenue NO Marguerite Avenue NO Newport Boulevard at: Hospital Road NO Via Lido NO ' 32nd Street NO 1 1 -19- ° I90 ca pp� c ; 99�yG9 Cam us Drive i p'Y m i Birch Street > B OFF q pG O 0 m G m o lip Mq9 79 m `op FK'Y a O c0 ' Bristol Street � tr • e a i Qo 9,Qe o� Del Mar Avenue Un Ivor aIt oc O9@ �000 m Drive Bonita Cant v : m Upper Newport 1 COSTA MESA 90 22nd Street Bay Olson cc tv 1 Drive10 LEGEND ord Roa _ 1 a X ® - CRITICAL INTERSECTION NEW FIT o IOth Street. AC m O o O� au San Joaquin Hills Road 17th Street o m B m C 'a 3 v p m O 0 co 9 m v v 4' tath8m < Road > CORONA w ° o' DEL MAR a m m o m o A � � �. m 5 gaYB e N N m m m o COAST QHIy m n PACIFIC qY c i' a ` m o o � n c m Balboa BoulevArd Pacific Ocean 32nd Street Avocado Avenue FIGURE 10 BASMAGYAN.eARNELL.INC. CRITICAL INTERSECTION MAP N.�/wt Ma.l,t�41yN.ffii]0 plal Sag riN ICU' s were calculated for the two critical intersections. The results of these analyses are summarized in Table 6 for existing conditions, expected conditions in 1987 assuming development of ' committed projects and regional growth, and finally for 1987 conditions including the proposed project traffic. The ICU worksheets for the analyses are contained in Appendix A. ' A review of Table 6 shows that one of the two critical intersections will not exceed 0. 90 with the addition of committed projects traffic, regional growth and project-related traffic. However, the Coast Highway at Riverside Avenue intersection results in an ICU = to 0 . 9D07 with the addition of project- related traffic. Therefore, mitigation measures are needed. mitigation Measures ' To improve operating conditions at the Coast Highway and Riverside Avenue intersection to provide an ICU less than or equal to 0. 9000 requires the addition of travel lanes at the ' intersection or reduction in the size of the project. The addition' of a second eastbound left turn lane on Coast ' Highway to northbound Riverside Avenue will significantly improve operating conditions at the Subject intersections . A summary of the resulting ICU' s at this intersection are summarized on Table 7. The resulting 1987 ICU with project-related traffic is 0. 8547. ' The installation of the eastbound left turn lane requires the removal of parking on the northside of Coast Highway from approximately Tustin Avenue to approximately 600 feet west ' of Riverside Avenue. A sketch of the suggested intersection geometrics are presented in Appendix D. An alternative to adding the eastbound left turn lane on Coast Highway at Riverside Avenue involves the reduction of the size of the proposed project to satisfy this requirement it was assumed ' that the office space would be reduced. Evaluation of the ICU' s permits the determination of the amount of office space that have to be removed to reduce the ICU to 0. 9000 or less. Based on the evaluations , a reduction of 1 , 160 square feet of office develop- ment would be needed. This reduction in total project results in the Coast Highway at Riverside Avenue intersection ICU = 0 . 8995. -21- 1 TABLE 6 SUMMARY OF 1987 PM PEAK HOUR ICU ANALYSES 1987 Existing 1987 Existing + Regional + Regional + Committed 1983 Existing + Committed + Proposed ' Condition Condition Project Intersection ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS Coast Highway at: Riverside Avenue 0. 7731 C 0. 8933 D 0 . 9007 E Tustin Avenue 0. 6764 B 0. 8091 D 0 . 8201 D TABLE 7 SUMMARY OF 1987 PM PEAK HOUR ICU ANALYSES 1987 Existing 1987 Existing + Regional ' + Regional + Committed + Committed + Proposed Condition Project ' Coast Highway at ICU LOS ICU LOS Riverside Avenue With addition of _ ' second EB left turn lane 0. 8382 D 0. 8547 D ' With reduction of office space 0 . 8933 D 0. 8995 D ' NOTE: ICU worksheets are in Appendix C. ' -22- ' Based on this reduced project alternative the development of ' 26, 453 square feet of office, 4, 107 square feet of retail use and 10,931 square feet of restaurant/private club will result in a minor reduction in project-related traffic. The actual reduction would be 15 daily vehicles, one ( 1 ) inbound PM peak hour vehicle ' and two ( 2) outbound PM peak hour vehicles as summarized below. Proposed Reduced Project Project Decrease ' Daily (vehicles ) = 1 , 300 1 ,285 15 PM Peak Hour ' Inbound (vehicles ) = 17 16 1 Outbound (vehicles ) = 47 45 2 ' 2-1 %2 HR. PM Peak Period Inbound 33 32 1 Outbound = 94 90 4 ' The resulting assignment of this traffic at the Coast Highway ' intersections with Riverside and Tustin Avenue is depicted on Figure D-1 contained in Appendix D. ACCESS AND INTERNAL CIRCULATION Access ' Access to/from the project site is proposed via a drive approach located at the easterly edge of the project site. This access ' will also provide access to the new boat launch facility. - As previously discussed, movements at this access will be restricted to right turns in/out only. To accommodate the limited number of ' large boat movements, the center median will have to be modified to provide a removable section or a mountable design. The site plan depicts a two foot wide median in the center of this proposed 26 foot wide drive access leaving 12 feet on each side. The placement of the median restricts turning movements coming off Coast Highway as well as left and rights on the interior aisle. It is recommended that this 2 foot median be deleted ' •from the plan. Access to/from the proposed off-site parking lot is proposed via ' the alley located on the southerly edge of the lot. This proposal eliminates driveways on Avon Street and should result in improved traffic circulation for the adjacent streets . ' Internal Circulation Internal circulation of the project site and the off-site parking ' lot was reviewed for adequacy and identification of any concerns and/or problems that should be changed or modified during ' -23- ' preparation of final project plans. Review of the project site plan identified three areas • of concern. Figure 11 depicts the location of these concerns. ' - Turning radius for access to/from the proposed valet drop off area is not satisfactory ' - The proximity of the valet drop off access to the basement parking access ' - Sight distance leaving the basement level parking at the first floor aisleway intersection ' To improve these concerns , it will be necessary to locate the access further to the west. Specifically, the turning radius leaving the drop off and turning into the aisleway to the basement level parking is critical. The exact location should be ' worked out with the City Traffic Engineer. Sight distance leaving the basement level parking will need to be ' checked from a standpoint of visibility and location of structures, walls, etc. This should be reviewed concurrently with the turning radius improvement. ' Circulation at the off-site parking lot was reviewed and found to be adequate except for setback of the parking spaces from Avon Street and from the alley. Figure 12 shows our suggested ' changes. The suggested changes eliminate 4 parking spaces and provide additional landscape medians . PARKING T ' Parking for the project is proposed on-site as well as at an off- site lot located at the southeast corner of Avon Street and Riverside Avenue. ' A total of 205 spaces are proposed (based on suggested changes) . Of this total , 50 compact spaces are provided. Table 8 provides a summary of the parking by project location. Discussions with applicant' s representative indicate that valets will be used during the noon hour for the private club and after ' 6 :00 PM for the restaurant. The valet operation as we understand it will be confined to the site and will not involve transporting vehicles to the off-site lot. ' Insofar that use of the site will be a mix of retail, office, private club and restaurant use, the off-site parking lot should be used for serving all day parking ( i.e. , employees, etc. ) . This will tend to open more turnover parking for the retail and short term visitors to the site. -24- ' COAST HIGHWAY o x xu. REMOVE ISLAND ' I I TURNING RADIUS .I SIGHT i \ DISTANCE i i 1 �rJ i • I µw Pt-a.eE FIGURE 11 ' ON-SITE CIRCULATION BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. CONCERNS ' 4262 Campus Drive,Suite B•1 Newport Beach,California 92660 (714)349.9940 -25- N. 0. 1 —• —5N 7 3(c PARKING SUMMARY_ LEGEND 1 APPLICANT PROPOSAL — — — — AS PROPOSED BY TOTAL SPACES — 68 APPLICANT COMPACT SPACES.— 12 RECOMMENDED PLAN SUGGESTED LAY OUT 1 TOTAL SPACES — 64 COMPACT SPACES — 12 1 FIGURE 12 1 OFF-SITE PARKING LOT BASMACIYAN•DARNELL, INC. 1 4262 Campus Drive,Suite 0.1 Newport Beach,California 92660 (714)S49.9940 —26— t TABLE 8 PARKING SUMMARY ' ON-SITE PARKING ' First Floor Plan Total Spaces 52 Compact Spaces 19 Percent Compacts 36. 5% Basement Plan ' Total Spaces 99 Compact Spaces 19 ' Percent Compacts 19. 2% TOTAL SPACES 151 ' TOTAL COMPACT SPACES 38 PERCENT COMPACT 25. 1% OFF-SITE PARKING ' Total Spaces 54 Compact Spaces 12 Percent Compacts -_22% GRAND TOTAL ' TOTAL SPACES 205 TOTAL COMPACT SPACES 50 PERCENT COMPACTS 24. 4% -27- i In summary, the final parking plan should be designed to provide the following: - Valet operation that is restricted to on-site operations ' only - Off-site parking lot used for long term/employee parking ' - Modification of the off-site parking lot to generally conform to the diagram depicted on Figure 12 ' SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ' o The proposed Rosan' s redevelopment is expected to generate 1 ,300 daily trip ends. During the PM peak hour, 125 trips will be generated and during the PM 2-1/2 hour peak period, ' 249 trips are expected o The existing Rosan Boat Works facility generates 97 trips ' during the PM peak hour and 100 trips during the PM 2-1/2 hour peak period. - (Based on counts by BDI on January 26, 1984) ' o The net additional traffic resulting from the existing Rosan Boat Works is as follows: During the PM peak hour, 44 trips are expected and during the 2-1/2 hour peak period, 182 trips will be generated. o Access to the project is proposed via one two-lane driveway located at the easterly corner of the site. o Analysis of the project for conformance to the City of ' Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) was completed. Of the sixteen ( 16 ) critical intersections identified by the City Traffic Engineer for evaluation, two ( 2 ) were found to ' not pass the "one percent" test for the 2 . 5 hour peak period traffic. Detailed analysis of the two ( 2) critical intersections showed that Coast Highway at Tustin Avenue ' intersection would have an ICU less than 0. 90 in 1987 upon full occupancy . of the project and the various approved projects. However, the intersection of Coast Highway at Riverside Avenue would have an ICU = 0. 9007. ' o To mitigate the Coast Highway at Riverside Avenue intersection to less than or equal to 0 . 9000 requires ' improvements at the intersection or a reduction in the size of the project. 1 -28- o The addition of a second eastbound left turn lane as depicted on the Fiture D-1 in Appendix D results in a cumulative 1987 ICU (with project) of 0. 8547. Similarily the reduction of proposed office space from 27, 613 square ' feet to 26, 453 square feet (a net reduction of 1 ,160 square feet) results in a ICU = 0 . 8995. Acceptance and installa- tion of either of these alternatives will permit compliance, with the TPO regulations and permit approval of the project. o Based on the analysis of the project access points, the following items should be incorporated into the final pro- ject design (see Figure 11) . The two foot wide median in the access drive be ' eliminated The valet drop off area be redesigned to improve the ' turning radius for vehicles leaving the site and for those attempting to reach the basement level parking. - The off-site parking lot be modified similar to the ' design depicted in Figure 12 . The suggested design change will eliminate 4 spaces and provide planter area adjacent to Avon Street and the alley. o Parking proposed for the project site appears adequate. However, it is recommended that the use/operation of the on- site and off-site parking lot include the following considerations : Valet operation be restricted to--on-site operations ' only The off-site parking lot be used for long term and ' employee parking in order that the maximum number of spaces for short term parking is available on-site ' -29- 1 APPENDIX A - Existing Conditions ICU Worksheets 1 1 ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Coast Hwy. '/ Riverside Av. ' ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1983) EXISTING PROPOSED EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COMMITTED PROJECTED ' Hovement PK.HR. V/C GR04'TH PROJECT V/C Ratio PROJECT PROJECT Lines Cap. Lanes Cap. Vol. Ratio Volme Volume w/o Project Vol Me i V/C Ratio Volume NL 13 0 - - ' NT 1600 1 .0113 .0115 NR 4 - - " ' SL ' 103 ID 10 5 ST 1600 2 .0656* 0 . 0-1 - - OlSD* SR 1600 418 .2613 6 .211ZS 11 EL 1600 337 .2106* Ib 27 6 ' ET 3200 1541 .4838 I 1,1(0-1 (033g 43 +5 .m47z ER 7 1 0 - - WL 1600 52 .0325 0 ' WT 4800 1905 .3969* (� qg?j Zd Z6 I ,,30v3 WR 1600 75 .0469 5 05D0 1"1 I b .O(,O ' YELLONTIME 1000* IDOC) *; I .1000'1` I EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .7731 I I i i ' EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GRWH M/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. . 8c)33 i EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GR&TH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. t C)001 ' Fr*tc01t1.1V1V1 15 cotu.mn Is prn�e�t-rel�{ed — lehs extShP� -FrB•IFw-rVr RosaarV -60&} Worv-S. ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑• Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' Description of system improvement: 1 Q.Dcx?A Ze6weA2MO DATE: PROJECT FORM II tINTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Coast Hwy. / Tustin Ave. ' ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1983) EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COH'SITTED PROJECTED EXISTING LanesPROPO Ca V/C Ratio PROJECT PROJECT ' Horeatent P Vol. RV/Catio GROWTH PROJECT Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. ' ol. Ratio Vol une Vol une w/o Project Vol me* Y/C Ratio Yol wne NL 1 � ' NT 1600 3 .0038 NR 2 _ SL 60 I d o1 ST 1600 5 .0644* 0 0(0(03 ' SR 38 a a a EL 1600 81 .0506* 45 0536 A 0L(0 .01D0 ' ET 3200 1566 .4922 4Ce9 (0q-a5*Al 0-k-1 . 6515'& ER 9 — — WL WT 4800 2215 .4614 5&19 51 l3 WR 1600 90 .0563 3 D5'6I a a .0" YELLOWTIME .1000* . I000 � ID00V 1 ' ; ' EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .6764 1 � EXISTING PLUS COKfi ITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS EXISTING PLUS COFINITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT T.C.U. — 0 ' Ftv-et co(umn secohd CoWLmr%Is Pro,LC�-relate tra#lc� Ierss eyc ihq -FYa-�Cic.•Cor, 12osan 3oat vjotics, ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' Description of system improvement: p n ' C� �1 1�2C,eVQ,I00MeE/lfi DATE• 3 I I I(fit PROJECT FORM II INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Coast Hwy./Orange Ave. ' (_Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 19 8 EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COPMITTEO PROJECTED Movement EXISTING PROPOSED PK.HR. V/C GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ratio PROJECT PROJECT ' Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. Vol. Ratio Volume Volume W/o Project Volume V/C Ratio Volume NL 57 (' NT 3200 5 .0319* NR 40 i , SL 25 ST 1600 2 .0319 ' SR 24 EL 1600 48 .0300* 1 , ET 4800 1155 .2446 ER 19 WL 1600 12 ' WT 3200 2026 .6331* WR 1600 33 .0206 ' YELLOWiIME 1000* i t W i EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION • .7950 ' EXISTING PLUS CO MITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GR&W6 PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ❑ 'Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1 ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : - - - - ' Description of system improvement: Iff ' It ��u LIXN�✓UJ�y �l DATE: ( 1,31 I�4 ' PROJECT fORM II INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Coast Hwy./Prospect Ave. ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1983) EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COMMITTED PROJECTED Movement EXISTING PROPOSED PK.HR. V/C GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ratio PROJECT PPOJECT ' Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. Vol. Ratio Volume Volume w/o Project Volume V/C Ratio Volume NL 17 NT 1600 5 .0075 NR 1600 29 .0181 SL 99 ST 1600 0 .0638* SR 3 I EL 1600 20 .0125* ' ET 4800 1 1168 .2440 ER, 3 ' WL 1600 35 .0219 - WT 3200 2195 ,7166* WR 98 ' YELLOWTIME 1000* 1 I 1 1 EXISTING, INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .8929 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH•W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1 ' ❑ 'Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ! ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' Description of system improvement: DATE: PROJECT FORM II i � INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS f Intersection Coast Hwy./Balboa Blvd.-Superior Ave. I � ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1933 ) EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COMMITTED PROJECTED EXISTING PROPOSED V/C Ratio PROJECT PROJECT lkvement PK.NR. RV/Catio VGROWTHolume PROJECT 1 Lanes tap. Lanes Cap. Vol. Ratio Volume Volume w/oVol Protect Volume V/C Ratio Volume NL 357 I , NT 4800 236 .1350* NR 55 SL 147 ST 3200 398 . 1703 I � SR 1600 675 .4219* EL 3200 221 .0691 I , ET 3200 707 .2209 ER N.S. •443 •2769 ( , WL 1 1600 106 .0663 WT . •3200 1463 .4572* WR N.S. 62 .0388 YELLOWTIME . 1000* 1 1 I I 1 � i EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1. 1141 i ' EXISTING PLUS COMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GRo'.fIH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U.1 EXISTING PLUS CDMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GRO'dTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. ( ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 r i ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Description of system improvement: I ' I ' R�GWI ,�Q.�,OC�I�Q b1 DATE• I I 110� PROJECT FORM II INTERSECTION CAPACITY LITILI4TION ANALYSIS Intersection Coast Hwy./Dover Dr.-Bayshore Dr. ' ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1983) EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COMSITTED PROJECTED Horement . V/C GROWTH PROJECT EXISTING PROPOSED PK.HR ' Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. w/ PROJECT PROJECT o Project Vol V/ Ratio Vol. Ratio Volume Volume Yolim NL 1600 22 .0138 ' NT 3200 39 .0225* - NR 33 ' SL- 4800 960 .2000* ST 1600 66 .0413 ' SR 1600 149 .0931 EL 3200 115 .0359* ET 4800 1553 .3298 ER 30 ' WL 1600 49 .0306 WT • 4800 1684 .3508* WR 1600 10.07 .5294 ' YELLOWTIME _ .1000* EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .7092 ' EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROYEMENTS I.C.U. � I EXISTING 'PLUS CO ITTED_PLUS REGIONAL_GROWTH PLUS PROJECT T.C.U. ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' Description of system improvement: KIGVYNUpMY�t4 DATE• III" f ' PROJECT FORM II f ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Coast Hwy. / Bayside Dr. ' ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 19 83) EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COMMITTED PROJECTED Movement EXISTING 'PROPOSED PK.MR. V/C GROATH PROJECT V/C Ratio PROJECT PROJECT ' Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. Vol. Ratio Volume Volume w/o Protect Volume V/C Ratio Volume NL 3200 611 .1909* ' NT 1600 28 .0175 NR 1600 37 .0231 ' SL 1600 12 .0075 ST 1600 10 .0288* i � SR 36 I EL 1600 71 .0444* ' ET 4800 1578 .3288 ER 1600 580 .3625 ' WL 1600 20 .0125 4— WT 4800 2726 : .5723* WR 21 ' YELLOWTIME .1000* 1 i ' EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .9364 i EXISTING PLUS 60MAITTED PLUS REGIONAL-GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be ' less than or equal to 0.90 j - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' Description of system improvement: 11 p fY�GLV1 KY,�e IIQ,�1� P bl�� DATE: 54 ' PROJECT FORM II INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS 1 1 Intersection Coast Hwy. / Jamboree Rd. ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 19m) EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COM9ITTED PROJECTED EXISTING PROPOSED V/C Ratio PROJECT PROJECT Movement Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. PR.l. RatY/Cio GROVolume PROJECT W/o Project Volume V/C Ratio ' Vol. Ratio Volume Volume Volume NL 1600 28 * ' NT 3200 211 .0919 ' NR 83 SL ' 1600 240 .1500 ST 3200 527 ,1647 SR 3200 1230 .3844* 1 EL 3200 554 .1731 ' ET 3200 1054 .3294 ER 1600 20 .0181 WL 3200 150 .0469 r_ ' WT . •4800 1437 .2994* r I I N,S, I110 YELLOWTIME - .1000* 1 i EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 8013 j EXISTING PLUS COP'11ITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH N/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. � EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GRO TTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. f , ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ( ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected p'l'us project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 I ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' Description of system improvement: DATE• l `7,1 I o4 f ' PROJECT R, I FORM I INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Coast Hwy. / Newport Ctr. Dr. Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 19 83) EXISTING PROPOSED EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL PROJECTED PROJECTED Ratio PROJECT PROJECT Movement Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. PK: RatV/Cio Volume PROJECT w/o Protect Volume V/C Ratio Vol.l. Ratio Volume Volume Volume NL ' NT NR ' SL 3200 348 .1088* ST SR N.S. 677 EL 3200 305 .0953* ET 3200 1206 .3769 ER WL �- i ' WT • 3200 1021 .3191* WR N.S. 137 ' YELLOWTIME - 1000* EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .6232 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. i EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' Description of system improvement: C� 2W K I�Pi���Q �iLI DATE• ' � PROJECT FORM II { INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' Intersection Coast Hwy. / Avocado Ave. ' ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily .Traffic Winter/Spring 19 83 EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COMMITTED PROJECTED EXISTING PROPOSED VIC Ratio PROJECT PROJECT Horement P Vol. RatVICio Volume PROJECT Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. ol. Ratto Volume Volume Vw/ool Project Volume Y/L Ratio Volume NL 1600 107 ' NT 3 .0688* NR 1600 55 1 .0344 + ' SL 1 . ST 1600 2 .0056 SR 6 EL 1600 9 .0056 ET 3200 1185 .3850* ER 47 i WL 1600 27 .0229* + ' WT •3200 959 .3006 I ' WR 3 YELLOWTIME 1 1000* EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 5767 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. EXISTING PLUS COhMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. J ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' Description of system improvement: DATE• PROJECT l I�JI 10� II FORM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Coast Hwy. / MacArthur Bl . ' ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1983 ) EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COMMITTED PROJECTED ' EXISTING PROPOSEDV/C V/C Ratio PROJECT PROJECT Movement Poo. Ratio GROWVolume PROJECT Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. Vol. Ratio Volume Volume Vw/ool Project Volume V/L Ratio � Volume NL NT NR ' SL 3200 923 .2884* ST I , SR 1600 213 .1331 EL 1600 223 .1394 1 ' ET 3200 1154 1 .3606* ER — l ' WL — .-• WT . •4800 805 .1677 WR1600 372__ .2325 YELLOWTIME .1000* I EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 7490 i { EXISTING PLUS C"ITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROYEMENTS I.C.U. EXISTING PLUS CO} !*ED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. r� - ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be i , less than or-equal_to0.40_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Description of system improvement: I ' � ' _ +�(37GV✓t ��eUe�O�;lu�n DATE: II?JIIO� PROJECT FORM II INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS 1 ' Intersection Coast Hwy. / Goldenrod Ave. I ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 19 83) EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COMMITTED PROJECTED ' EXISTING PROPOSED V/C Ratio PROJECT PROJECT ' Movement P Vol. RatV/Cio Vol weUTH PROJECT Lanes Cap. , Lanes Cap. ol. Ratio Volume Volume Vw/ool Project Volume Y/C Ratio Volume NL 62 I ' NT 1600 9 .0563* NR 19 SL 40 I ' ST 1600 11 .0494 ( ' SR 28 EL 1600 26 .0163 I ' ET 3200 1894 .5978* ER 19 ( ' WL 1600 25 .0156* - WT 3200 1168 .3697 ( WR 15 1 ' YELLOWTIME 1000* I � • ' EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .7697 EXISTING PLUS COKMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GRO'ATH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' I ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be ( ' less-than or-equal_to0.90 ' Description of system improvement: I ' I ' DATE• ' PROJECT FORM II ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Coast Hwy. / Marguerite Ave. i ' ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 198� E%IS7ING PROPOSED EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COMITTED PROJERatioCTED PROJECT PROJECT Havement Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. Vol. Ratio VolumeROWTH PROJECT w/o Project Volume V/C Ratio ' Vol. Ratio Volume Volume Volume NL 1600 109 .0681 ' NT 1600 89 .1075* NR ' SL 1600 128 .0800* ST 1600 109 .1119 ' SR 70 EL 1600 56 .0350 I ' ET 3200 1719 .5372* ER 1600 70 1 .0438 WL 1600 69 .0431* _ ( ' WT 3200 871 .2969 WR 79 ' YELLOWTIME 1000* I 1 I I EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1 .8678 ' EXISTING PLUS COMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ! 1 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 I ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' Description of system improvement: i I ' PROJECT DATE• k I 7i FORM II INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' Intersection Newport Bl ./Hospital Rd. (_Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1983 ) 'EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COMITTED PROJECTED Hovement PK.NR. e PROJECT EXISTING PROPOSED VIC Ratio . PROJECT PROJECT ' Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. Vol. Ratio Volume o Votume Volume w/o Project Volume V/C Ratio Volume NL 1600 192 .1200* ' NT 4800 1257 .2775 NR 75 ( ' SL 1600 41 .0256 ST 4800 1406 .3210* SR 135 EL 1600 169 .1056* ET 1600 153 .0956 ER 1600 386 .2413 { ' WL 161 WT . 3200 217 .1263* I WR 26 t ' YELLOWTIME .1000* t 1 1 1 EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 7729 j EXISTING PLUS COMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ( ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. with systems improvement will be ( ' less thanorequalto0.90_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ' Description of system improvement: I ' DATE: 11 31 1 T � ' PROJECT FORM II 1 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Newport B1 . / Via Lido ( � ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 19 8� PROJECTED EXISTING PROPOSED EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL PROJECT V/C Ratio PROJECT PROJECT Movement PRatV/Cio GROWVolume PROJECT Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. Vol.oi. Ratio Volume Volume a/o Project Volume Y/C Ratio I — Volume NL j NT 3200 1236 .3862* l , NR N.S. 38 - { ' SL 3200 625 .1953* ST 3200 •1367 .4272 SR _ ' EL !! ET I ' ER WL 1600 38 .0238* WR 3200 - 587 .1834 ' YELLOWTIME .1000* � � I EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .7053 j EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. L' EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. I - ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Description of system improvement: I � Vd0QKP,61f DATE: �3II0`1- I I PROJECT FORM 11 ( , INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Newport B1 . / 32nd St. ` ' ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 19 83) EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COMMITTED PROJECTED EXISTING PROPOSED y/C Ratio PROJECT PROJECT Movement P GROWTH PROJECT ' Lanes Cap. lanes Cap. Vol.i Ratio Volume Volume w/o Project Volume Y/C Ratio Vol we NL 1600 52 .0325* ( ' NT 3200 7712 .2459 NR 16 �. SL 1600 66 .0413 ST 3200 1010 .4231* SR 344 EL 2400 239 .0996* ' ET 800 48 .0600 ER N.S. 28 ' WL 32 WT -3200 69 .0622* A WR 98 YELLOWTIME 1000* I i � L EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .7174 ' EXISTING PLUS CG`MITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROYEMENTS I.C.U. EXISTING PLUS CCHMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. _ ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 i I ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be I ' less thanorequalto0.90_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - ^ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ ' Description of system improvement: f ' DATE: PROJECT FORM II ' APPENDIX B ' - 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Worksheets '. 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Hwy./Orange Ave. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pring 19 _ ' Peak 2� Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 21j Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2� Hour Volume Volume Volume Vol we Volume Volume Northbound 211 Southbound 132 — Eastbound 2802 aQ uestbounQ 4723 740 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume. 'Intersection Capacity Utilization — ' (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. - ' * The first number in this column is the proposed project- related traffic. The third number is the traffic for the existing Rosan -Boat Works and the second number is ' proposed project minus existing site traffic. ** The second column is used for basis of 1% analysis. ' �yic7Y1 �PdP1/e�O�MPIJI DATE: PROJECT: ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Hwy./Prospect Ave. ' (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 _ Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2§ Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2i1 Hour Peak 2� Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Y tome ' Northbound 113 0 Southbound 215 5 Eastbound 2882 ' westbound 5159 10a3 ' ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected :• r•Peak 23- . Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization _ (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. t I ' * The first number in this column is the proposed pro 'ect— related traffic. The third number is the traffic for the existing Rosan Boat Works and the second number is Proposed project minus existing site traffic, i ' ** The second column is used for basis of 1% analysis. � � LUP,I/P�f�Vl12V1�" DATE: PROJECT: -FORM I ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast H ./Balboa B1 .-Su erior Ave. ' (Existing Traffic Volumes ased on verage inter pring 9 _ ' Peak 2+ Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projectf Project Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2� Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ' Northbound 1495 16(0°, 10 Southbound 2655 zl,oZs za a a Eastbound 3198 'c�I 4DI6 ' 4-0 4- Westbound 3516 (2 �(p ' Project Traffic• is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 23� Hour Traffic Volume ' Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projectt-d Peak 23-, Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. _ * The first number in this column is the proposed project- related traffic. The third number is the traffic for the existing Rosan Boat Works and the second number is proposed project minus existing site traffic. ' ** The second column is used for basis of l% analysis. Nan Rede e'[ mat DATE- PROJECT: 1 ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Hwy./Riverside Ave. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter Spring 19 _ ' Peak 211 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1". of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2)1 Hour Peak 2h, Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ' Northbound 38 36 northbound 1243 — ��o► �� 40 A 3 Eastbound 4509 Westbound 4834 40 90 5c) ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1%'of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ' ® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. _ * The first number in this column is the proposed project- related traffic. The third number is the traffic for the existing Rosan Boat Works and the second number is proposed project minus existing site traffic. ** The second column is used for basis of 1% analysis. K0'�3V1 IC�Cl�.l�riwrVl�{/l� DATE: ?J 11 I CTI iPROJECT: ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Hwy. / Tustin Ave. ' (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter Spring 19 _ Peak 2+ Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1;, of Projected I Project Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 21, Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2� Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ,. Northbound 12 South bound 281 agj 1 J I O I O ' Eastbound 4013 ?J3 / r�� , /rJ� XyQ 0,4- ' t estbound 5878 ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic. Volume Project Traffic is estimated to' be greater than 1% of Projected® .. Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1 * The first number in this column is the proposed project- related traffic. The third number is the traffic for the existing Rosan Boat Works and the second number is ' proposed project minus existing site traffic. ** The second column is used for basis of 1% analysis. 1 , ' V1 IP�deU2lc�me�f DATE: PROJECT: FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Hwy./Dover Dr.-Bayshore Dr. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1983 Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1� of Projected Project ` Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 211 Hour Peak 2;1 Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2� Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 236 Southbound 2655 — -1 (0 Z13I Eastbound 4025 5ocz ' Westbound 6191 -Go303 3 ' Project Traffic is estimated to be,less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. — The first number in this column is the proposed project- related traffic. The third number is the traffic for the existing Rosan Boat Works and the second number is proposed project minus existing site traffic. ' ** The second column is used for basis of 1% analysis. ' IC4'� 1� IC�PU�itO{ 1Q.1�� DATE: 5I1IM- PROJECT: FORM I .y ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Hwy. / Bayside Dr. ' (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 _ ' Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2; Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume 1 VVolume Volume ' Volume Northbound 1481 Southbound 155 — — — ' Eastbound 5312 a(O 9C5 40 ' westbound 6054 • 5-76 o '10 '341 31 5 ' ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1%• of Projected Peak 21 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour-Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. _ ' * The first number in this column is the proposed project— related traffic. The third number is the traffic for ' the existing Rosan Boat Works and the second number is proposed project minus existing site traffic. ' ** The second column is used for basis of 1% analysis. ' ''t,.wvl� YJ�I Dl��ll�fi DATE: ?J I PROJECT: FORM I ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection Coast Hwy. / Jamboree Rd. (Existing Traffic Volumes b sed on Average Winter/Spring 19 _ Peak 21, Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected N of Projected I Project Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 211 Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 929 — 5 If) C) Southbound 4167 40C)l —11 I� ' ' Eastbound 3899 C)Z-6 45% 1 ' Westbound 3759 4l ' ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ' ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ° Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. _ * The first number in this column is the proposed project— related traffic. The third number is the traffic for the existing Rosan Boat Works and the second number is proposed project minus existing site traffic. ' ** The second column is used for basis of 1% analysis. i • ' Ro�� Recu�Io��e� F DATE: PROJECT: ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection Coast Hwy. / Newport Ctr. Dr. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 83 ' Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 18 of Projected Project Direction Peak 2+ Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 211 Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2� Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound ____ South bound 2181 i ,ay4 q 4 Eastbound 3585 4 5 4;aDl i Westbound 2855. 3r2 � Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ' ® Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volume ' Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. _ ' * The first number in this column is the proposed project— related traffic. The third number is the traffic for the existing Rosan Boat Works and the second number is proposed project minus existing site traffic. ** The second column is used for basis of 1% analysis. 1 ' _ ►COVI K�C1c Ve�LOPMP.V` 1 DATE: PROJECT: FORM ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Hwy. / Avocado Ave. ' (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter Spring 19 _ i ' Peak 231 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1t of Projected I Project A< Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 21k Hour Peak 21s Hour Peak 21i Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 442 _ (DC) 5r,( L "Ou"d 27 _ 45 1�bound3049 ICJ Z� � No �7 (� 6- bound 3363 ' ® Project Traffic is estimated *to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume ' El Peak Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. } * The first number in this column is the proposed project- related traffic. The third number is the traffic for ' the existing Rosan Boat Works and the second number is proposed project minus existing site traffic. ' ** The second column is used for basis of 1% analysis. 1 206an DATE: ?JI_IIC;,-I' ' PROJECT: • FOR I � ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Hwy. / MacArthur Bl . ' (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Ayerage Winter/Spring 19 _ Peak 2+ Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 21s Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2)g Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume olume ' Northbound ____ Southbound 2510 Coro 3M0 r� ' Eastbound 3326 I �l��ll J /—/ I I 1�/ ;�j �� K/ , ' Westbound 2957 ' ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% 'of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ' Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected [] . .,.Peak 231 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. — (� Ievelo ��t DATE n^ : ' PROJECT: FORM ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Hwy. / Goldenrod Ave. ' (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1983 ' Peak 2� Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 231 Hour Peak 2�, Hour Peak 24 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume V 1 e ' Northbound 231 southbound 205 .01 ao5 Z ' Eastbound 4602 56( I ; 115 12 3 Westbound 2858. ID ® Project Traffic is estimated 'to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 23-2 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2Z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1 * The first number in this column is the proposed project- related traffic. The third number is the traffic for the existing Rosan Boat Works and the second number is proposed project minus existing site traffic. ' ** The second column is used for basis of 1% analysis. 1 ' IC A I�il1�.VeA Neu I DATE: �J (007,11 -- PROJECT: - FORM ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Hwy. / Marguerite Ave. ' (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pring 19 _ ' Peak 2y Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1v of Projected Project Direction Peak 231 Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2;, Hour Peek 21, Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume �. Nbrthbound 616 Out Dun 719 Eastbound 4023 (a9 49Ia4 I lq ; '15 IZ ?j ' t Westbound 2556 • - 1 64� 346 31 ' iQ Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ® Peak 21 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ..peak 2= Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. — ' * The first number in this column is the proposed project— related traffic. The third number is the traffic for ' the existing Rosan Boat Works and the second number is proposed project minus existing site traffic. ** The second column is used for basis of 1% analysis. 20�8 V\ W e'yej op'V eAt" DATE: �h I y'k PROJECT: FORM I t ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Newport Bl ./Hospital Rd. ' (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 13 Peak 2� Hour Approved ' Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 10. of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 231 Hour Peak 2; Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume VolAQ ume ' Northbound 3519 —' �j1(pZj t?2 lb soutnbound 3773 ' Eastbound' 1636 _ 1?9 19 52? 1 ! I9 — —� ' westbound 995 ® Project Traffic is estimated .to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ' Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected [] . ... Peak 2,. Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. _ ' * The first number in this column is the proposed project- related traffic. The third number is the traffic for the existing Rosan Boat Works and the second number is ' proposed project minus existing site traffic. ** The second column is. used for basis of 1% analysis. DATE• 9-? I Lt1 ' PROJECT: FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Newport Sl . / Via Lido 1 (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Ayerage Winter Spring 1g _ Peak 2k Hour Approved ' Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2� HourI Peak 2 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume olume ' Northbound 2711 Southbound 4686 l i Wit/ LLL�j�/ I� /�/ I� C /- Eastbound _--_ t!/✓ --t% — K—J ^ �2 /I, + liestbound 1433 1 ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% -of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization JI.C.U. ) Analysis is required. * The first number in this column is the proposed project- related traffic. The third number is the traffic for the existing Rosan Boat Works and the second number is proposed project minus existing site traffic. ** The second column is used for basis of 1% analysis. . 1 , 1 1 . 1 • �I�i ILE/.c�� RECI�V�D�MPJ/1+ DATE: �I1I PROJECT: FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection ' New ort B1 . / 32nd St. (Existing Traffic Volumes ase onAverage Winter/Spring 19 83 ' Peak 21, Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 21i Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ' Northbound lgb6 a(�%jQ oZ & t soutnbound 3P96 — ' fiTr„ �4 ' Eastbound 758 ���� ' '5 ' Westbound 484 CJ ' Project Traffic is estimated 'to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume . ' Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than, 1% of Projected [] .. Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. * The first number in this column is the proposed project- related traffic. The third number is the traffic for the existing Rosan Boat Works and the second number is ' proposed project minus existing site traffic. ** The second column is used for basis of 1% analysis. I ' � In IL��eaOC}M2VI� DATE: 11 U-1 PROJECT: Falzy, APPENDIX C ' - Project-Related ,Trip Distribution and Assignment to/from Project Site and ' off-site parking lot. - ICU Worksheets t , 1 ' AVON STREET ' 5 1 AVON STREET ' 7 UI i W PROJECT Z ' a 5 3 PARKING LOT i > LU a Z N cc w r Z 1 21 4 4cc t�- 4 ' r O — N N . 4-1/ `► �19 �---21 f-37 4- 26 24� }2 4-19 _ 0. 21 �45 27 29—► 1 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY PROJECT SITE i LEGEND X—PROJECT—RELATED PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC ' FIGURE C- 1 PROJECT—RELATED TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT TO/FROM PROJECT ' BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. AND OFF—SITE PARKING LOT 4262 Campus Drive,Suite B-1 (FOR PROPOSED PROJECT) ' Newport Beach,California 92660 (714)549.9940 1 1 1 ' AVON STREET ' 5 � • AVON STREET i 7 1 W W PROJECT Z ' Q 5 PARKING LOT 3 I > we `► I Z " r21 z co > 1 ( 4 4 4 20 0 NN T � t sJ `► L19 � ~ `2 ' 0 36 4- 26 24 � J12 4 19 —21 s1 y PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY -LEGEND PROJECT SITE i X—PROJECT RELATED PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC I FIGURE C-2 PROJECT—RELATED TRIP DISTRIBUTION ' AND ASSIGNMENT TO/FROM PROJECT BASMACIYAN•DARNELL, INC. SITE AND OFF—SITE PARKING LOT 4262 Campus Drive,Suite B•1 ' Newport Beach,California92660 (WITH 1,160 SQUARE FOOT REDUCTION IN OFFIC SPACE) (714)S49.9940 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Coast Hwy. '/ Riverside AV. WITIJ MIT1U1}rlof`1 ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1983) EXIST, EXIST, REGIONRL COMMITTED PROJECTED Movement EXIST iCG PROPOSED PK.HR. VIC GRO;TH PROJECT VIC Ratio PROJECT PROJECT ' Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. Vol. Ratio Volume Volune w/o Project Vol VIC Ratio Volume NL 13 — ' NT 1600 1 .0113 !� 0113 — 0113 NR 4 _ SL 103 10 10 5 ST 1600 2 .0656* O-Iloj - 0150 SR 1600 418 .2613 .7,1 zr> 11 EL 1600 3ZO0 337 .2106* I/p 103 (0 Z ET 3200 1541 1 .4838 1 4VI 43 43 .(oc'?,-* ER 7 WL 1600 52 .0325 ' WT • 4800 1905 .3969* 16 403 .5 Z/o .5cbo ; WR 1600 75 .0469 15 . 0500 loj 1 b . 0000 ' YELLOWTIME 1000* • 1000 t 1 . IDDD t EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ' EXISTING PLUS 6""ITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. � EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. First column is Twje(t-M)aJed traiPw altid Su n a column Is�vDJect-vGlalf�j -Wa4fw less mehng i-r4Cic, 4k Pew, Pia{ u1orY.s ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Description of system improvement: ' Ad6 6eCOA6 &&s+bou.hd le- 4 -luw_ Wke, ova eC a, it HtgW&.j l2tr-�v� Rede�2l�Pr�leytt DATE: 3 }' ' PROJECT - "FORM II INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Coast Hwy.,/ Riverside Av. WI�� fllTlcaRTloN ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1983) EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COM7ITTED PROJECTED Lanes MG PROPOSEDV/C V/C Ratio PROJECT PROJECT ' Movement Lines Cap. Lines Cap. PK.MR. Ratio Vol ixoM PROJECT w/o Project Yolume�s V/C Ratio Vol. Ratio Volume Vol une Volume NL 13 - - ' NT 1600 1 .0113 CM3 - 0113 NR 4 - - SL - 103 1 ST 1600 2 .0656* 011 of ' SR 1600 418 .2613 IQj Z.jZ5 10 -Z$ .ZSGO EL 1600 337 .2106* ET 3200 1541 .4838 ?j 4(0-7 .(0236 - q- W+-7Z ER 7 WL 1600 52 .0325 o3Z5 - - 03Z5 ' WT • 4800 1905 .3969* (Q 4b3 cjt)D?)* ao Zb WR 1600 75 .0469 05U0 19 I( .0&GO ' YELLOWTIME 1000* •1000 i i .IpCO 1 i EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .7731 ' EXISTING PLUS C"ITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. ,:4233 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL, GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 5 ' T�vst colu.vtn ispvojeci-veAatd tv6;Rr dvLd secovd colu•w L is pXe&-Ye1;-_A2d-4f8;CLC. lei e�:Isi'Ing tra•�Ic, •FDV Rosin F�oai' UJork�. ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. with systems improvement will be" less than or equal to 0.90• ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' Description of system improvement: Re,&C;hov� Of OPFLce by 1,lb0 14 11 av2qoQlt. ' DATE: PROJECT vwr' 1 ZVI� II T APPENDIX D ' - Coast Highway at Riverside Geometrics 1 COAST HIGHWAY PARKING ` PARKING 88' J NO PARKING -" t ARKING EXISTING CONDITIONS b00-700' REMOVE PARKING COAST HIGHWAY � —i 13' �—_ 13' REMOVE PARKING 10' 10' — 1 cy ro o 10' 10' J 10' _A 4 RECONSTRUCT MEDIAN 11• — 1;' RECONSTRUCT MEDIAN 73` 19' PARKING OK o w z w W Z N Z RECOMMENDED GEOMETRICS F a 'FIGURE D- 1 BASMACIYAN.DAR„ELL•INC. INTERSECTION CONFIGURATION AT COAST HIGHWAY AND RIVERSIDE AVENUE