No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutIS040_NEWPORT AQUATIC CENTER woao 1 INITIAL STUDY ' for The Newport Aquatic Center _ North Star Beach, Newport Beach, CA ' July 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 ' (714) 645-0939 ' TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION.. .. . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION.. .. . . . . . .. . . .. ... ... .. ... .. . . . . ...... 2 ' Location. . . . .. . .. .. . ... . .. . . . .. .... .. . ... .. . . . . ... . . . . 2 Project Characteristics.. . .. . ... .. . .. . . . .. .. .. . . .... .. 2 ' Comparison of the Proposed Project to Planning Programs and Development Standards. . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . 14 ' Permits Required+ . . . .. . . . . .. . . .. ... ...... . .. .. . ... .. . . 15 Committed Projects. . .. . .. . . . . .. .. .. .. . .. . . . . . . . .. . .. . . 16 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING CONDITIONS, POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES.. . . . .. . . .. .. . .. . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 ' Biological Resources.. . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . ... . . .. . . . . . .. . 18 WaterQuality. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . ... .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 ' Land Use and Aesthetics. . . . .. .. .. . . .. . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . 22 Traffic and Circulation. . . . . . ... . ... .. .... . . . . . . .. . .. . . 26 ' Acoustics.. . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . .. .. .. . .. ... .. . . . . ... . . . . . .. 33 ' PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED. . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 36 ' REFERENCES. .. . . . . . .. . . ... . . . . .. . .. . . . . . .. . ... . . . . . . . . . .. . 37 APPENDIX Appendix A - Environmental Checklist Appendix B - Standard Conditions of Approval Appendix C - Committed Projects, June 1984 Appendix D - Traffic Analysis Appendix E - Acoustical Assessment ' LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES FIGURE PAGE ' 1 Regional Location 3 2 Vicinity Map 4 ' 3 Site Plan 5 4 First Floor Plan 6 5 Second Floor Plan 7 ' 6 Building Elevations 23 7 Site Photos 25 ' 8 Existing Average Daily Traffic Volumes 27 9 Project Related Average Summer Weekday Traffic 29 10, Project Related Summer Weekday Peak Traffic 30 Conditions TABLE ' A Project Characteristics 8- ' B Activity Program Components 9 r C Conceptual Operational Characteristics - Summer Weekday 10 D Conceptual Operational Characteristics - �► Summer Weekend 11 E Conceptual Operational Characteristics - Winter Weekday 12 ' F Conceptual Operational Characteristics - Winter Weekend 13 G Summary of Project Related Traffic Generation 28 H Existing and Cumulative Traffic Demands 31 I Noise Increase Due to Project Traffic 34 1 INTRODUCTION 1 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 1 individual basis or cumulatively, and to identify any feasible mitigation measures. 1 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 1 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 1 may be required above and beyond standard City Conditions of Approval which are outlined for reference in Appendix B to this report. 1 If, based upon information' presented in this study, it is determined that the project will not have any significant impacts or that such impacts cam be mitigated, a Negative Declaration may be issued. If it is deter- rRjned that the proposed project will have significant environmental impacts 1 which cannot be adequately mitigated, the City will require preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. 1 The lead agency in preparing this environmental assesssment is the City of Newport Beach. The applicant is a non-profit organization known as the Newport Beach Aquatic Center, seeking to develop an aquatic sports center on Newport Bay. Project consultants, the preparers of this report 1 and other contributors are listed on Page 36. 1 . 1 1 1 1 �, 1 I 1 II ' PROJECT DESCRIPTION Location ' The proposed project involves a 9.8 acre site commonly referred to as North Star Beach. The site is located at the terminus of North Star Drive in the Dover Shores area of Newport Beach and is presently vacant. ' Figures 1 and 2 illustrate project location within a regional and local context. ' Project Characteristics The project site is jointly owned by the City of Newport Beach and the County of Orange. Development of the aquatic center, as briefly noted in the Introduction, is proposed by a non-profit corporation which is requesting a ground lease from the City and County. Construction of all facilities would be funded by contributions to the Newport Aquatic Center non-profit corporation. On March 22, 1982, the Newport Beach City Council approved, in concept, the construction of a rowing and aquatic sports center on North Star Beach. In accordance with the City charter, a measure (Measure 0) was placed on the ballot in November 1982 requesting approval of the voters of the proposed ground lease. This measure was approved by a wide margin. At the present time, the applicant is requesting the approval of a Use Permit to allow development of the site and establishment of operational ' guidelines for the proposed facility. Project approval will also include execution of the necessary ground lease. All permits and approvals required are listed in a subsequent section of this report. ' As noted earlier, North Star Beach is approximately 9.8 acres in size. The proposed facility will utilize approximately 5.0 acres of the total site. As Figure 3 illustrates, the compTez is proposed to be located roughly in the middle of the site with a separation of approximately 330 feet from the westerly property line located on North Star Lane. A total of 150 parking spaces are proposed on-site. All parking areas ' will be screened by berms and other landscaping techniques. A dock and bulkhead will also be constructed in Newport Bay. ' The proposed structure is 57,510 sq.ft. in size and two stories in height. Figures 4 and 5 illustrate proposed floor plans. Table A provides a breakdown of floor space within the complex. As Table A suggests, an activity coordinator will reside permanently on-site and a "training hostel" will provide space for 25-50 overnight guests. At the present time, project proponents suggest that a maximum length of stay for guests lodged in the training hostel would be 14 days. Additional comment on ' project operations is contained in the Land Use and Aesthetics chapter. 2 1 ' los angeles county ' i— —•• •— san bernardino county alrasW Fwy I"•.` 1 Anaheim —, I `. Orange �.�• ��• Fw riverside county 1 � z Santa \y Ana °� l 5•n x •\. National Huntington Costa � ' site Irvine 1 Newport Beach 1 . r pacific ocean una Lag Beach I 1 San Juan Capistrano San Clemente san diego county 1 1 . 1 FIGURE 1 1 REGIONAL LOCATION re a 9' ,:` MCC. wn wry NEWPORT AQUATIC CENTER irewm ez l5" crh'ZV 1 . • Sir at LL e f D plop. S Ol ` �1r Mer Fra...y o.� r slo— 90. Bristol • bA • NO i x�C�tdo( 0 1 Mar Ave Un140(sllY c..y� -Vxgad.lbn \Sonlla Project Site . 11010 d \ ' \F2nd i '\ ' asp ' f s Santiago Drive `o 5` m 04 7gth St : S, � 4gh P ' a11 ' 8 Hills lie 'oy0 i i C • t r `p�° ^ � qi 5� i Z O t Sth Ave • 171h SI °c t0�way ZA i 9� 11 Weatgilll Coast Highway O S o = Drive North C` sy`� c :..; ♦e 1% c Slur ID f1 / • o Lane ' G sip\ � Co•• N •�,C'L ejC/v,,C � C B .zm e"d coast tNpnway os . ........................................._. Source:BDI FIGURE 2 VICINITYMAP rrap a go'cr,o cF urbon c+rnw 1825 weycUl NEWPORT AQUATIC CENTER rewpai eochm"9k b� I ' •'II wra � aa.wa ICO�fl1i/N�fMY� ,(W i+w l N WAN• �. .i G�IYIW Lp ��' �jyYdD� Y r r G R R a W P O K T S A Y ' Source: Pulaski & Arita, Architects FIGURE 3 SITE PLAN 8 a gd.I _r. � Sv�esa eantet7� NEWPORT AQUATIC" CENTER toeocn.wvx�,� '9 'tL Momw flmtw ..1. 1 .i .. cr.•u M n_n M � - mwee ' .l �''L• b • � IR.M{ WtlYIIB LECMLL tJ NIM pl MMi TN[T MM ' � y i• � �••� _�- ISMM'I_- —Lawb— f �M1 ANA .' '�r v >< •r � .-fuwrr nwnnw I � 1 + 4•u. ' I aTDm�A.fn'WY. S MI}wM—I u';i.iv lb•�YL•a , i i' O O 1 0l O 4(� . PT -I wrAmrw � I I H•fr • 9vn�o„xotnL � 1 �'�� I I Crtom�AYM`OLT .Bwiu� Aga/• t M" ' Source: Pulaski & Arita, Architects FIGURE 4 - FIRST FLOOR PLAN mane a gma^ ac^r urWn pbrruv NEWPORT AQUATIC CENTER rn Pat"° e ezj-- m•, ' It•e1 4a'•�d ce'.w' ' a M 7 WTY q 94 V�' WNW TM Mrtie WwGuu MW N N ' s -4�t AMvetY rt . T ..V \ I WAT 6TGPA" J MIXCe AM'.'Yi: ;H.z' r �3 n r p:YN. JLI .n. 4 N•. 6 NM.P• V WP eww. Ina I %b 4 Source: Pulaski & Arita, Architects FIGURE 5 SECOND FLOOR PLAN �fweeroolcc NEWPORT AQUATIC CENTER reY ,cm oo� i� m , TABLE A PROJECT C ATI RACTERISTICS Newport Aquatic-7-enter Proposed Use Sauare Feet M Boat Storage 15,000 Indoor Exercise 9,400 Lockers 3,040 ' Weight Training/Medicine 3,040 Training Hostel/Galley 3,500 Coordinator Apartment 1,700 Multi-purpose Assembly 2,600 Boat Receiving/Workshop 30000 Accessory Facilities 16,230 ' TOTAL 57,510 ' Source: Pulaski and Arita, Architects, June 1984 8 ' Programs and activities proposed to be offered at the aquatic center anticipate use of the facilities by "elite" athletes (such as athletes training for Olympic games and other high level amateur competitions), novice athletes (general public use), various civic groups such as girls and boys clubs, and recreation programs offered by the City of ' Newport Beach. The facility is proposed to operate from 6 AM to 10 PM daily. Table B below illustrates various program components anticipated at the complex. ' TABLE B ACTIVITY PR6G—COMPONENTS Newport Aquatic Center User Group Activities Anticipated Advanced Individually Kayak, Outrigger ' Monitored (AIM) Rowing, Recreational Public Instructional Programs Kayak, Outrigger ' Rowing, Recreational Indoor Public Programs Stretching, Volleyball, Other Indoor Multi-purpose Rooms Team Meetings, Boating . .Classes, Municipal ' functions Yduth Day Camps/Sports Camps - ' Boat Clubs - City Programs Source: Sanchez Talarico Associates, June 1984, - As shown, daily use is projected to range from a low of approximately ' 580 persons (winter weekday use) to approximately 850 persons (summer weekday use) . Peak usage (or demand) is anticipated during the late afternoon on summer weekdays. Analysis contained in the Traffic/Circu- lation section of this report is based upon these conceptual operational ' characteristics, and accounts for anticipated overnight guest use as described earlier. Tables C-F outline conceptual operational charac- teristics of the facility at various different times of the week and . 1 the year (typical summer weekday and weekend, winter weekday and weekend) . Figures also indicate the maximum hourly demand from activity programs. I 9 Table C 1 SUMMER WEEKDAY 1 CONCEPTUAL OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS NEWPORT AQUATIC CENTER 1 Time of Day AIM PIP IPP IMR YDC BC CP Ma , 1 y Advanced' Public Indoor' Indoor Youth Boat City Demand Individual Instructional Public Multipurpose Day Clubs Programs Monitored Programs Programs Rooms Camps 1 6am /o - - 40 1 7 30 - 8 /o 1 9 /20 1 10 jg - - � ll� 11 1 12 1 4 /9v 7 1 9 10pm 1 . 1 TOTAL /50 75 /00" /00 60 60, lid Source:Sanchez Talarico Associates TOTAL BDI ILY -8rJ0 1 6/26/84 USERS Table D SUMMER WEEKEND ' CONCEPTUAL OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS NEWPORT AQUATIC CENTER ' Time of Day AIM PIP IPP IMR YDC BC CP Hourly . Advanced Public indoor Indoor Youth Boat City Demand individual Instructional Public , Multipurpose Day Clubs Programs _ Monitored Programs Programs Rooms Camps 6am — 7 /0 /0 0 9 ' 10 .11 ZD ✓ Zr 7.0 �� ' 12 1 20 /0 - IS 79 3 5 6 OF 7 ' 9 ?� 10pm ' TOTAL 60 APO /20 /0 1�0 /V Source:Sanchez Talarico Associates TOTAL BDI DAILY =650 6/26/84 USERS Table E WINTER WEEKDAY CONCEPTUAL OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS NEWPORT AQUATIC CENTER Time Da AIM PIP IPP IMR YDC BC CP Max. y Hourly Advanced Public Indoor Indoor Youth Boat City Demand Individual Instructional Public Multipurpose Day Clubs Programs Monitored Programs Programs Rooms Camps .ham — 3p ' 7 — � 8 /a /0 /o &0 ' 12 3 5 -70 •4, - - � 5 7 3p 70 3p -- /0 9 10pm ' TOTAL eO 1,5V &0 Source:Sanchez Talarico Associates TOTAL BDI DAILY =580 6/26/84 USERS Table F WINTER WEEKEND . CONCEPTUAL OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS NEWPORT AQUATIC CENTER To e Day AIM PIP IPP IMR YDC BC CP Max. Hourly Advanced Public Indoor Indoor Youth Boat City Demand Individual Instructional Public Multipurpose Day Clubs Programs Monitored Programs Programs Rooms Camps Gam — 30 - - - - - - - - -- - - - /p - - - -- � 8 30 /v - - - - 10 - /0 - (�0 12 00 10 -- -- - - Zy - �° - -- - - - - -- - /0 - vo 1 _ 7 90 40 7-0 Ito 9 --- - - - - - /o - - - ----- /A —� ' 10pm ' TOTAL 60 NO /60 9.!�F /00 Source:Sanchez Talarico Associates TOTAL BDI DAILY =750 ' 6/26/84 USERS ' Comparison of the Proposed Project to Planning Programs and Development Standards ' The proposed project must be reviewed in the context of applicable planning programs and ordinances, which are examined below. General Plan The project site is designated for Recreational and Environmental ' O en S ace use on the Land Use Elemento e Generaluded Plan. nc in t �s and use category are major parks, wildlife refuges, golf courses, bluffs, canyons and beaches. These areas are intended to be predominantly used for publicly-owned facilities and open space, or privately-owned facilities of a recreational/open space nature which are open to public use. The proposed project is con- sidered consistent with this designation. The Recreation and 0 en Space Element of the General Plan shows this site as a "public beach". No specific future use of the site is discussed in this Element. The Planning Department is, however, currently preparing the first comprehensive revision and update of the Recreation and Open Space Element since its adoption in 1973. The draft of the revised Recreation and Open Space Element indicates that North Star Beach should be developed for an aquatic sports center. ' Comment on the consistency of the project with the Circulation and -Noise Elements of the General Plan is contained in the following chapters covering impact analyses. The project is consistent with all other elements of the General Plan. Local Coastal Plan (LCP) ' In May 19$2, the California Coastal Commission certified the Land Use Plan 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 Imple- .mentation 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 Environmental Open Space, consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element. Uses considered compatible with this designation are essentially the same as those outlined under the Land Use Element. A portion of North Star Beach is considered an environmentally sensi- tive habitat area. As Figure 3 (page 5) illustrates a small fresh- water stream which exists on-site. This issue is discussed in detail ' in the Biological Resources chapter. Development of the project site will be subject to LCP policies as well as review by the Coastal Commission and the State Department of Fish and Game to assure com- pliance with applicable regulations and policies. ' 14 Coastal views from public areas will not be affected by the project. Galaxy- Park is located on the bluffs north of the project site, and a viewer cannot see the project site from this park short of climbing along the adjacent bluffs. Additional comment on views is contained in the Land Use/Aesthetics chapter. ' Zoning ' The project site is designated as a "U" zone. This zone is essen- tially utilized as a holding zone which allows any use consistent with the General Plan designation on the subject property. Develop- ment standards for the proposed ,project will be established through the Use Permit process, which is required for any use in "U" zone. Permits Required The proposed project will require the following major approvals from the City of Newport Beach and other agencies. Approvals by the City of Newport Beach 1. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) . The acceptance of this environmental document andapproval of a Negative Declara- tion (or preparation and acceptance of an EIR) . 2. Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Acceptance of a traffic study prepared pursuant' hapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Policy S-i, and approval of the project based on data contained therein for the ultimate purposes of issuance of build- ing and grading permits. j 3. Use Permit. Approval of a Use Permit for development in the ' --zone. The Use Permit will include review of a request for 20-25% compact spaces and will establish development standards ' for the proposed project consistent with potential impacts identi- fied herein and applicable City Policies for similar uses. The Use Permit will also incorporate review of the applicant's request for a 28 ft. high structure with roof-mounted solar equipment to a height of 33 feet. 4. Harbor Permit. The proposed project will require a Harbor Permit To-7—now construction of a bulkhead and piers to be located in Newport Bay. 5. Ground Lease. As noted in the Project Description, approval o at-ground lease between the City of Newport Beach, the County of Orange and the non-profit Newport Aquatic Center organization will be required to allow project development. This document ' 15 will specify items such as, but not limited to, the term of the lease, use restrictions, construction commitments, ownership of improvements, maintenance obligations, and will outline a facility management program. The latter will, among other items, describe programs, services and activities available to the general public, the operational 'charac- teristics of the facility (hours of operation, portions of the facility to be made available for public recreation programs, etc.) and the nature of any membership programs to be offered. Approvals by Other Agencies. 1. Coastal Develo Tent Permit. Approval of a Coastal Development ermit y t e o f rnia Coastal Commission. 2. Aram Corps_ of- En ine�ers. Approval by the Army Corps is required or construction of the proposed bulkhead. 3. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit. Approval of an NFULS permit by the 5anta Ana Regional Water Quality ' Control Board is required if any discharges will be made into the Bay. 4. 1601 Permit. Approval of a 1601 Permit by the California Depart- ment of FiFh and Game Department. ' 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 considerd committed are listed in Appendix C to this report. The traffic analysis contained in the Traffic and Circulation chapter of this report is based upon con- sideration of the proposd project as well as committed projects listed. ' 16 I ' DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING CONDITIONS EVALUATION 0 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND ' MITIGATION MEASURES 17 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Existing Conditions A portion of North Star Beach is considered an environmentally sensitive habitat area. Figure 3 (page 5) and Figure 6 (page 23) illustrate a small freshwater stream which is intermittently fed by a drainage pipe at the cliff base. A small riparian habitat has grown up in the area. This wetland habitat area is presently open to public use, though foot traffic is.limited due to the boggy nature of the area. ' Among vegetation supported by this drainage flow is a plant species, commonly referred to as the Salt Marsh Bird's Beak, which is designated as an endangered species. Policies contained in the City of Newport Beach LCP indicate that environ- mentally sensitive habitat areas must be preserved. Additional review of ' this issue will also be conducted by the California Coastal Commission. The project site is also located adjacent to the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. Policies contained in the Upper Newport Bay Manage- ment Plan prepared by the Department of Fish and Game also indicate preservation of the wetland area and endangered species on North Star Beach. Potential Impacts Structures proposed to be built on the project site do not encroach into ' wetland area. Similarly, no programmed activities related to the wetland are an While the aquatic center will clearly increase the number of people using the site, it is not expected that individuals utilizing the ' sports facilities will be particularly attracted to explore adjacent wetland. Other individuals who come to North Star Beach, but do not use the aquatic center, may actually be influenced to use the southerly portions of the site ' more because of the orientation and siting of the aquatic complex. As Figure 3 illustrates, parking areas are oriented to the west and south sides of the site. ' The service road on the northerly side of the complex is intended for use only by vehicles towing boats, various aquatic center personnel and various service vehicles. Measures should be taken, however, to control access by other vehicles. Construction activities such as grading and excavation which could ' potentially disturb the adjacent wetland should be controlled to prevent adverse impacts. Standard City Policies and Conditions of Approval , which are outlined in Appendix B, contain several measures which act to regulate such activities. ' Project proponents indicate that the necessary bulkhead and dock to be located on Newport Bay will not encroach upon the boundary of the Upper ' Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. " ' 18 Mitigation Measures ' The following Mitigation Measure is recommended in addition to City Policies and Standard Conditions of Approval . 1. Access to the service road circling the aquatic complex should be controlled by the means of a gate or other features to prevent use by the general public. ' Level of Significance of Impacts after Mitigation Measures The potential impacts to biological resources from the proposed project are not considered significant. t 19 WATER QUALITY ' Existing Conditions The site is presently vacant and thus does not contribute a significant amount of run=off of pollutants to Newport Bay, other than those which may be carried from an existing drainage pipe servicing residential areas ' above the site along Galaxy Drive. As noted earlier, this intermittent flow supports a small riparian habitat. The site, which is primarily comprised of disposed dredge materials, is essentially flat. Use of the project site is primarily limited to occasional fishermen and day campers. ' Potential Impacts Activities proposed on-site are not expected to cause any significant ' long-term increase in sedimentation or pollution of the Bay. All water sports proposed are "human powered", thus minimizing impacts. A portion of the patrons of, the proposed facility (the elite athletes) are also ' already operating out of other locations on the Back Bay, thus the added use load which might impact the Bay is incrementally reduced. Site development and the construction of impervious surfaces where sandy ' areas presently exist will, however, result in a minor increase in the run-off of pollutants related to landscaping (fertili•zers, etc.) and automobile parking (oil, rubber based compounds, etc.) . No subterranean construction is proposed. General construction activities and the installation of a bulkhead in ' Newport Bay will result in the disturbance of soils on-site which may ..cause minor increases in sedimentation and erosion from the site. Standard conditions of approval utilized by the City of Newport Beach require an erosion and siltation control plan (to be approved by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board) as well as other mitigation measures. These include a landscape and irrigation plan which controls the use of fertilizers and pesticides. On-site drainage improvements must also be approved by the City Public Works Department. Appendix B contains a listing of Standard Conditions of Approval. ' 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 ' Discharge Elimination (NPDES) Permit shall be obtained from the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board if any dis- charges to the Bay are anticipated either during construction ' or subsequent operation of the facility. ' 20 2. Prior to issuance of Building Permits, an Army Corps of Engineers Permit shall be obtained to allow construction of a proposed bulkhead and docking facilities. 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 a cumulative basis. t ' 21 i LAND USE AND AESTHETICS ' Existing Conditons As noted previously, the project site is vacant. No permanent struc- tures are located on the site. Figure 6 provides photographs of existing conditions on-site and in the vicinity. ' The site is bordered along North Star Lane by a single family residential area, with structures predominantly two stories in height. A five foot landscaped block wall is located along the property boundary on North Star Lane. The primary access to the site is at the terminus of North Star Lane, although a second access point does exist at the western corner of the site, near the intersection of North Star Lane and White Cliffs Dr. As Figure 6 illustrates, the site is surrounded by bluffs on the two remaining inland boundaries. The bluff face in these areas "is estimated to vary in height up to approximately 50-75 feet. Polaris Drive and Galaxy Drive run along the cliffs where large single family homes are located. A small public park is located on Galaxy Drive almost due north of the site. The site is sporadically used by local fishermen, day campers, and rowers of- various types. Occasionally special events may utilize the site with ' City permission. ' Potential Impacts Among potential land use related issues regarding the proposed project ' are compatibility of the use with the surrounding neighborhood, and visual impacts. Land Use Compatibility. As described earlier, the adjacent areas are c arac� terizedl w density residential use. A minimal amount of vacant land remains in the neighborhood. No uses similar to the proposed project are existing in the area. The project site is-designated for recreational open space use in the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program (LCP). The preparation of the General Plan and the LCP thoroughly considered the issue of land ' use compatibility in establishng the existing designation. The proposed facility is considered consistent with this designation. ' It should also be noted that the proposed facility will encompass only 5.0 acres of the total 9.8 acres North Star Beach site. While this is an obvious intensification of use, it will leave a major portion of the site vacant. Other recreational uses involving the building of struc- tures which might be considered consistent with land use designations would result in a similar, if not greater, intensification of use. Only preservation of the site in its existing condition would avoid any impacts. ' 22 AidL- 1 _ •-✓.`.'C_.`. •I ��� M. _ _ - ' --• .C+'C.-ti.�y� � �_ _ . .-_ate ' '.`v. .i�++:cL«s.�..- ": - _ _ _ � r:2o,� - ;'.�'y.`e'i._i�.'#4*.�.=ti` --•Z3".,�t,;'._g„�_ t c.•' tip=`',-',•—`,.s,: ..-•�Y rr .��"<,•:r.:'�n•••'�,':a,x_�•_'-f,'.-y��' � �: ..T.ti. i"`az��..t rr' .. ` y �}-� Y�x q;.��_w,�..�. �>::_'�-'��,;�;�A'e•.-.:: _" ;,���'ydsro5r.:e•e�_'_.r�: -`-`..1�-�": -`-si:_ _ �.ne-i �"4 r.L`�. '" c _ .3-`�..=}� �� ���:L- �a'`> � �.-g,Ys Y.'ca_;�Se'•�!L ... _ _ _ - r _ �"�ma+C�.a •u�:•cc_ - .`��" +`.... .an.cY- _ .• ,,.. �� _1� _ ``t, _ �' __• -•,-__ __ >-:d.�;.��;ra.�`' ': -_ - --=cam'. _ "�`_ - _ _ - .i.'t..."'�.4;nY.i„ _ I/I�GUs Or 6WZ5 rt`�Pm ,Sogrli 5FIYo op No`%m -5T� �/1n/,5E7 --a°-._z'�a� j_ - Y-�. � 1, iarV ., a....._l-...wiJ.�J,..t•• `e`,y;�^�y��^_ t�.. - _ _ .1. •.re f 9^.,E,,. tY � Gif"^�:iJ �sr' r�• � ' l \•^• -,4.'r�.-:`cs� ...w-. .:A.. 11 y u�aCir ).Y. Y _ � - �• - t• :•vg r iL: , ' FIGURE s SITE PHOTOS more a rru c�,cc ' NEWPORT AQUATIC CENTER 825�e���P- ,te:': rewport bebc' mCr.:__ ' As noted earlier, the aquatic complex is proposed to include a "hostel" facility where 25-50 overnight guests may be accommodated. Project pro- ponents indicate that the majority of such use would be anticipated during the winter season when activity on-site will be lowest. Guests would also be primarily "elite" athletes and would be under the supervision of the aquatic center management. As a result of these considerations, it is not considered likely that the proposed overnight hostel operation would be disruptive to the surrounding neighborhood. If considered neces- sary, special conditions could be formulated to control overnight use ' on-site, however. Other related compatibility issues such as traffic generation and noise impacts are addressed in following chapters. Visual Impacts. The proposed development will be- highly visible from residential areas along Polaris and Galaxy Drives. Residences along •North Star Lane, immediately adjacent.to the site, will be at least par- tially screened from the proposed structure by an existing 5 foot wall ' with landscaping along the street. The structure will also be sited `i•n the central portion of the property, resulting in a minimum separation of approximately 330 feet between the facility and the property line on North Star Lane. Figure 7 ilustrates building elevations of the proposed structure, which wi•11 be 28 feet in height. As noted earlier, adjacent residences are predominantly 2 stories in height. Consequently, the proposed height of the structure is considered compatible with the existing neighborhood character. ' By virtue of the difference in function, the architectural character of the proposed building can be expected to be a departure from the resi- dential nature of nearby structures. The fact that the architectural character of the structure may differ, however, does not constitute a mad* concern with the aesthetic compatibility of the project. Should such concerns be expressed by adjacent residents, facade treatments can be modified if necessary, to reflect a more acceptable character. Land- scaping features may also be utilized to enhance architectural compati- bility. Standard conditions of approval which are contained in Appendix B, require the development of complete landscape plans as well as other measures which minimize visual impacts. Mitigation Measures No additional Mitigation Measures are considered necessary. ' Level of Significance of Impacts after Mitigation Measures. Potential land-use related impacts are not considered significant and will be further minimized by the implementation of City Policies and Standard Conditions of Approval. ', ' 24 1 entrance - 1 1 concrete block caretaker apartment' solar panel/clerestory m N fg. - . 1 be 'm 1 - N MATH metal roof _ Mlm - 1 Source: Pulaski & Arita, Architects BUILDING ELEVATION FIGURE 7 morea 11? t01cp 1 NEWPORT AQUATIC CENTER r0 3 182$Nea cNr T R Sn•E 177 nEM�JOrt l7EYT_[L O]Pf YJ I ' 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 dis- cussion is extracted. The technical analysis is contained in Appendix D to this report. Existing Conditions Figure 2 - Project Vicinity, illustrates the location of the project site and the surrounding street system. Access to the site will be pro- vided by North Star Lane, Polaris Avenue, Galaxy Drive, Santiago Drive and Westcliff Drive. Dover Drive/Westcliff Drive will provide the primary access to and from the adjacent arterial street system. Other than Dover Drive, each of these area roadways are two-lane local residential streets. ' Figure 8 illustrates existing daily and peak hourly traffic volumes. Within the immediate project area, five critical intersections were identi- fied which could be affected by the proposed project. The existing inter- section capacity (ICU) values of these intersections are contained in Appendix D. As has been noted in preceding discussions, the level of existing use on-site is minimal . People using the site presently park along North Star Lane and take access either at the south end of the street (which is most common) or at the northwesterly corner where White Cliffs Drive is stubbed out at the project site. ' Potential Impacts In'order to assess traffic-related impacts of the proposed project on the surrounding street system, trips to and from the project site were estimated and distributed to surrounding roadways. Due to the unique nature of the project, standard trip. generation rates are not applicable. ' It was, therefore, necessary to estimate traffic based on the proposed operational program of the center which was presented in Tables C-F, pages 10 to 13. Trip generation assumptions are described more fully ' in Appendix D. Table G below summarizes the projected daily, AM, noon and PM traffic to and from the project site. Appendix D also describes summer and winter ' trip generation on an hourly basis throughout a typical day. ' 26 t C 30,732/1966/3477 500/60/50 ` Upper Newport Bey Je Ot\ 788416211089 er Drive W � •O N O i i Project Site o t7 O Mariners Drive a 0 �a ,Oster C \ a 250/26/25 W estolltt 760175176 Drive -- 7th 17,400/830/1350 Wastcliff Drive 1 Street 350013501350 100011001100 22,280/1340/1e80 LEGEND AAA/BBB/CCC — EXISTING DAILY/AM/PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES" Source:BDI FIGURE 8 EXISTING AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES more a•3' NEWPORT AQUATIC CENTER ® ute'or. rc 1825 westcnv TABLE G SUMMARY OF ' PROJECT RELATED TRAAF`FIC GENERATION Newport Aquatic enter ' AM Afternoon PM Daily In Out Tnn-Out In Out ' Winter Weekday Peak 'Hour. 876 90 70 20 33 47 53 Weekend Peak Hour 1070 60 40 27 40 67 58 ' Summer Weekday Peak Hour 1196 60 40 63 56 13 . 63 Weekend Peak Hour 880 60 40 43 60 43 72 ' Source: BDI, June 1984- ' Utilizing data presented in Table G, project related traffic was assigned to the local street system. It was assumed that the majority of traffic would enter Westcliff Drive from Dover Drive and continue on Polaris ' Drive to North Star Lane. This is considered a worst case condition, as_•alternate routes using Polaris Drive to Santiago Drive to Mariners Drive and Irvine Avenue are also possible, though more indirect. ' The most significantly impacted roadways will be North Star Lane and Westcliff Drive, between Dover Drive and Santiago Drive. Table H, which ' folTows, summarizes existing and cumulative traffic demands on streets adjacent to the project site. Figures 9 and 10 illustrate average summer 'Weekday traffic (ADT) and summer weekday peak traffic in the project vicinity. These are considered the worst case conditions. Appendix D ilustrates winter (weekday and weekend) and summer weekend conditions, which have a lesser traffic demand. I ' ' 28 f• f• i• i• f• i, � f• i• f• i• r f• i• i, f• i! i• i• C 239/20/16 Upper Newport Bsy 30.732/196613477 170/16/11 870/86/81 p� 239/20/1 +� NA _478 4211�18.$- ver Drive O� 77 to 216/20/26 o Project Site o • 0 0 c i Mariners Drive . • �0% ster L e 1196/100176 448/126/101 120/_10/8 638/46/34 Wsslcllll �- 1016/85/65 NA 60/i6/12 NA Drive ___ 17661180/140 1 th 17�a�30/ 60 Wastcliff Drive Street 80/6!4 1016/86/85 NA LEGEND 36813O 22 4616/436/416 101a186/.86 22,280/1340/1680 2018lta6/186 XXX/YYY/ZZZ - PROJECT-RELATED DAILY/AM/PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES AAA/BBB/CCC - EXISTING PLUS PROJECT-RELATED DAILY/AM/PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES Souce:BDl FIGURE 9 PROJECT RELATED AVERAGE SUMMER WEEKDAY TRAFFIC u=nck r t�� - NEWPORT AQUATIC CENTER ® I se C G m > O ' m a • 21113 191h Street "- 21/13 Dover Drive ' O Mar►pars gtive a ' m N 0 F 11/o J ' 17th Street Ae— 513 18/1 -� 23/2 � ' T J 1 I ' m a T n N a W loth Street ' m a a � n ' p a r LEGEND XX/YY - PROJECT-RELATED TRAFFIC c 2 112 HOUR PEAK PERIOD/PM PEAK HOUR G ' m T m �D Coast Highway 23/2 23/2-- Source:BDI 1 ' PROJECT RELATED SUMMER WEEKDAY FIGURE 10 PEAK TRAFFIC CONDITIONS R'W arc F 1825 da rnrc NEWPORT AQUATIC CENTER 182neNpa I'CIb(WI Cp4ClJ� tTABLE H EXISTING AND CUM LU ATIVE TRAFFIC DEMANDS ' Newport Aquatic Cenler Existing Plus Project-related Traffic ' Winter Summer Existing Weekday Weekday Location ADT ADT ADT North Star Lane (Polaris Drive to Site) 250 1130 1446 Polaris Drive (North Star Ln. to Santiago Dr.) 1000 1750 2016 ' Westcliff Drive (Santiago Dr. to ' Dover Dr.) 3500 4250 4616 Source: BDI, June 1984 Projected traffic loads can be easily accommodated within available roadway capacity although the project will result in a noticeable increase in ' traffic on local streets. Due to the fact that the level of traffic is relatively low on existing streets, the projected increases may be a concern to residents of the area. Anaysis of identified critical intersections, indicates that.project- related traffic will exceed 1% of the existing 2.5 hour peak period traffic .at four out of the five intersections under summer weekday conditions, and three out of five intersections under winter weekday conditions. Subsequent ICU analysis, however, indicates that project-related traffic is hot expected to result in any of the critical intersections exceeding ' a 0.9000 ICU in 1987 (with approved projects and project-related traffic) . The project is, thus, in compliance with the Traffic Phasing' Ordinance. Appendix D presents the complete Traffic Phasing Ordinance analysis. ' A: preliminary review of access and on-site circulation suggests that there are potential concerns with the proposed service road on the northerly side of the complex and the turn-around area in front of the structure. The design of these improvements should be refined to assure the accommo- dation of service vehicles such as delivery and trash trucks as well as passenger vehicles including buses and vehicles with trailers. The ' service road should also provide a vehicle turnaround. 1 ' 31 ' As noted in preceding sections, the proposed project will provide a total of 150 parking spaces. Twenty to twenty-five percent of these may be ' compact sized. Due to the unique nature of the proposed facility, there are no readily applicable parking standards by which to evaluate the probable demand. The operational program outlined in Table C suggests ' that peak summer weekday use may be as much as 140 persons during afternoon hours. Assuming a vehic"le occupancy rate of 1.5 persons, this would create a demand for 94 spaces. On a preliminary basis, the proposed parking supply appears more than adequate to accommodate projected use at peak demand. Mitigation Measures City Policies and Standard Conditions of Approval, which are listed in Appendix D, are considered adequate to mitigate"potential traffic and ' parking impacts. 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. 1 . lil ' 32 ' ACOUSTICS Introduction. An analysis of acoustic impacts has been conducted by the firm of Mestre Greve Associates, from which the following discussion is extracted. The technical assessment is contained in Appendix E to this report. ' Existing Conditions. The present use of the site generates very little noise. With the excep- tion of aircraft overflights from. John Wayne Airport, the area is void of major vehicle or stationary noise sources. Noise contours for the John Wayne Airport indicate a noise level of approximately 62 CNEL from overflights at the project site. Potential Impacts ' Noise sources of concern relative to the proposed project are motor vehicle noise, parking lot noise and other site-generated noise. ' The City of Newport Beach has not adopted a noise ordinance which applies directly to stationary noise sources or parking lots. The City does, '•however, informally utilize the Orange County Noise Ordinance which is ' designed to- control certain noise sources throughout the community. This ordinance has been used in this analysis to determine- if the Newport Aquatic Center is compatible with the surrounding residential land uses. ' .The applicable portions of the noise ordinance require that outdoor noise levels not exceed 70 dBA in residential areas. (Appendix E describes relevant standards of the Orange County Noise Ordinance.) ' Traffic associated with parking lots is generally not of sufficient volume to exceed CNEL standards, which are based on a time averaged scale. Instantaneous maximum sound levels generated by car door slamming, engine start-up and car passbys can, however, be annoying to nearby residents. Based upon measurements of parking lot noise conducted by Mestre Greve Associates for other projects, maximum noise levels generated by various ' parking lot activities may vary from 55 to 70 dBA at a distance of 50 feet from the source. Parking areas for the proposed Newport Aquatic Center will, however, be located more than 50 feet from residences along North Star Lane. As a result, no homes will be exposed to parking lot ' noise in excess of that permitted. Potential noise impacts from the parking lot will also be partially attenuated by an existing 5 foot con- crete block wall along the westerly property line. Project generated traffic will increase noise levels on streets providing access to the site. (As Figures 3 and 6 illustrate, access to the center will be taken from the westerly corner of the site where an access road ' is stubbed out.) The increase in noise levels due to project traffic is illustrated in Table I, based on summer weekday traffic levels which ' 33 represent the highest projected level of use. The estimated traffic- related noise increase shown in Table I appears significant, but is caused primarily by the fact that existing traffic volumes on the surrounding streets are relatively low. TABLE I NOISE INCREASE DUE TO PROJECT TRAFFIC Newport Aquatic Center Existing Worst-Dayl Increase Roadway Link Traffic Project Traffic In Noise (dBA) North Lane: 250 1196 7.6 Polaris: -North of North Lane 500 170 1.3 -South of North Lane 750 1016 3.7 -East of Santiago 1000 1016 3.0 ' Westcliff: 3500 1016 1.1 lWorst day is a summer weekday. Source: Mestre Greve Associates, June 1984 ' The net noise increases illustrated have been evaluated in reference to the projected location of the 65 CNEL noise contour, which is less than the 70 CNEL level allowed by the Orange County Noise Ordinance. In no case does the added impact of project-related traffic cause the 65 CNEL contour to extend outside of existing road rights of way. Appendix E illustrates the location of the 65 CNEL contour line with and without project traffic. Construction related activities will generate short-term noise impacts from excavation, grading, infrastructure installation and building con- struction. Noise generated by construction equipment can occasionally reach high levels but the impact cannot be considered significant due to the limited duration of the construction period. Standard city policies and conditions of approval also limit hours of construction (see Appendix B) . ' Mitigation Measures The following Mitigation Measures are recommended in addition to City Policies and Standard Conditions of Approval, which are contained in Appendix B. 1. Facility events are recommended to be scheduled between the hours of 7 am to 10 pm for general public use. Only a limited number of advanced training uses should be permitted between 6 am and 7 am with no use permitted after 11 pm or before 6 am. This will ' assist in minimizing noise during the most sensitive time periods when people are trying to sleep. 34 ' 2. During use of the facility, an on-site manager should be present. The manager should have the authority to restrict use of the facility t to individuals with motor vehicles which are in conformance with the motor vehicle code. (This is intended to eliminate noisy vehicles with faulty or modified exhaust systems.) ' 3. Residents should be provided with a point of contact, either with the Newport Aquatic Center management or City police, to handle complaints of noisy vehicles in the parking lot or on local streets. ' 4. The loudness of any exterior public address system shall be contolled so as to be inaudible at nearby residences, and shall be limited to the hours between 8 AM and 7 PM daily. Level of Significance of Impacts after Mitigation Measures The potential noise impacts from the proposed project are considered Insignificant. Short-term construction related noise will be a temporary nuisance. 1 • 35 tORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED 1 Participants in Report Preparation ' Planning/Environmental Consultant Marie E. Gilliam, AICP 1825 Westcliff Drive, Suite 177 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Graphic Artist Denise Ashton Word Processing Jan Fiesel - ' Traffic Consultant Bill Darnell BDI ' 4262 Campus Drive, Suite B-1 Newport Beach, CA 92660 ' Acoustical Consultant Vince Mestre Mestre Greve Associates 200 Newport Center Dr. , Suite 213 Newport Beach, CA 92660 ' Project •Sponsors and Consultants to the Project Sponsors ' Newport Aquatic Center (project sponsor) Bill Whitford City of Newport Beach (project sponsor) Sanchez. Talarico Associates Fred Talarico Dana Privitt ' Pulaski and Arita, Architects Bruce Arita Susan Mutter ' Agencies Contacted City of Newport Beach Planning Department Ms. Patricia Temple, ' Environmental Coordinator Ms. Sandy Ginnis, Advance Planning ' Public Works Department Don Webb, City Engineer Rich Edmonston, Traffic Engineer Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department Ron Whitley, Director ' Marine Department Tony Melum, Tidelands Administrator California Coastal Commission Praveem Gupta ' California Department of Fish & Game Carl Wilcox Santa Ana• Regional Water Quality Joanne Schneider ' Control Board 36 ' REFERENCES Basmaciyan-Darnell , Inc. , June 15, 1984. Traffic Stud for the Newport Aquatic Center. Prepared for Marie E. Gi liam. California State Department of Fish and Game, November 1982. Upper Newport Bay Management Plan. (Draft) ' Mestre Greve Associates, June 11, 1984. Noise Analysis for the Newport Aquatics Complex. Prepared for Marie E. Gilliam. Newport Beach, City of. General Plan of the City of Newport Beach Land Use Element Parks and Recreation Element Local Coastal Program - Land Use Plan, 1982 37 ' APPENDIX A SAMPLE ENVIRONMENT CHECKLIST 1 , 1 1 1 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1 I. Name of Proponent Newport Aquatic Center, Inc. , a non-profit corporation 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent Mr. Fred Talarico, Sanchez/Talarico Associates, (714) 494-1053 (representing the project proponent:) ' 3. Date of Checklist Submitted ' 4. Agency Requiring Checklist 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable Newport Aquatic Center Environmental Impacts ' (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) Yes Maybe No I. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes ' in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? _ ' c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? �G ' d. The destruction, covering or modification — of any unique geologic or physical features? �G e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of ' soils, either on or off the site? >C 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? >< _ 7 i Yes Maybe g. Ergrawre of people or property to geolo- gic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides round failure or similar 9 m ar hazards? 2. Air. Will the proposal result tnr a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? X. b. The creation of ecti obj onabla odors? 7G _ e. Alteration of air movement, ,moisture or I temperature,temperaturep or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? ' 3. •Water. WIII the proposal result in. o. Changes in currents, or the course of di- rection of water movements, in either X marine or fresh waters? b.• Changes in absorption rates, drainage pat- terns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? >e, 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 cluding but not limited to temperatUre, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground water s? Change in the quantity of d w 1 9 an9 noun atcrs q Y 9 r either through direct additions or with- d awa r is, or through interception of on aquifer by cuts or excavations? �- - < h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies?I. Exposure of people or property to water re- ' lated hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? i 1 ' Yes be 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 — plants)? ,ZG b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, ■ rare or endangered species of plants? X r c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal ' replenishment of existing species? Tel 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, bentliic organisms or insects)? G ' b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? ' c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? >e_ ' d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? _ ' 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? � _ tb. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? _ 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? B. 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 ' resources? 11 Yes 'Maybe No b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involva 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? -X b. Possible interference with an emergency , response plan or an emergency evacuation ' plan? II. Population. WIII the proposal alter the location, ' distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? _ 12. Mousing. Will the proposal affect existing hous- ing, or create a demand for additional housing? _ 13. Transpbrtotion/Circulation. Will the proposal , result in: a. Generation of substantial additional — vehicular movement? ' b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? c. Substantial impact upon existing tronspor- totion systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and/or goods. e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? _ 14. Public Services. WIII 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? • I , Yes Maybe No i d. Parks or other recreational facilities? _ CX e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? _ ' f. Other governmental services? 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? _ ' 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: ' a. Power or natural gas? _ b. Communications systems? - ' c. Water? _ d: Sewer or septic tanks? 'l e. Storm water drainage? l f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. Human Flealth. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? J_ 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 an 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? 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or '( historic archaeological site? Yes Mom No ' b. Will the proposal result In adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or �- historic building, structure, or abject? _ c. Does the proposal have the potential 'to coax a physical change which would affects unique ethnic cultural values? d. 1Nill the proposal restrict Existing religious or sacred uses within the potential innpoct ' 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, case a fish or wild- life population to drop below self sus- taining levels, ,threaten to eliminate a ' plait or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to , achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short- I term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relative) brief, definitive y period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) i - c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatWely con- siderWe? (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.) >e- 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 1 IV. Determination ' (To be completed by the Lead Agency) 1 i On the basis of this initial evaluation: I I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect ' on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be. prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect ' on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environ- ment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date MIgnature For (Note: This is only a suggested form. Public agencies are free to devise their own ' format for initial studies.) 1 ' 1 ' APPENDIX B CITY OF-NEW-P-01 7 BEACH STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX B SUMMA Y� 0�-P•CICABLE ' CITY POLICIES AND STANDTRD CONDITIONS OF APPROV ' A. Development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plans, and elevations. i ' 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. D. The project sponsors will comply with California energy conservation ' standards for non-residential buildings (Title 24, Administrative Code). E. Development of the site may be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. F. A grading plan will include a complete plan for temporary and permanent ' drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. G. 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 grading and haul operations. H. 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. ' I. 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 comprehen-. sive soils 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. J. The Fire Department shall review design plans to ensure adequate access and emergency exits. ' K. The provision of adequate fire flow shall be reviewed by the Fire Department. ' L. Structures shall be equipped with fire suppression systems as required by code. M. Final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation of water-saving devices for lavatories and other water-using facilities. ' N. The final layout of surface and other on-site circulation parking shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer and the Planning Department. 0. 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. P. All onsite drainage shall be approved by the City Public Works Departments. Q. A weekly cleanup program around the project site shall be conducted on a regular basis. During construction, basins or other devices. shall be installed to prevent waste from entering Newport Bay. R. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a comprehensive soils and foundation study will be prepared and approved by the Planning ' and BuildingDepartments of the Cit f y o Newport Beach. p S. All bui ldings will conform 9 to the Uniform BuildingCode o d e and the ' City's seismic design standards. T. 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. U. 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. V. 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. W. 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. 1 X. All construction activities will be limited to the hours of 7 AM to 7 PM Monday through Friday, and 8 AM to 5 PM Saturday and Sunday. ' APPENDIX C COMMI Ei�T D P�P-MECTS June, 1984 1 1 1 t . ' COMMITTED PROJECTS - June 1984 ' Name Use Quantity 1. Hoag Hospital Hospital 268 beds ' 2. Pacesetter Homes Office 50,000 sq.ft. 3. Aeronutronic Ford Residential 300 units 4. Back Bay Office Office 69,720 sq.ft. ' 5. Civic Plaza Office 152,894 sq.ft. Restaurant 8,000 sq.ft. Theater 20,000 sq.ft. Art Museum 10,000 sq.ft. Library 14,000 sq.ft. 6. Corporate Plaza Office 101,150 sq.ft. 7. Koll Center-Newport Office 325,934 sq.ft. ' Hotel 440 rooms 8. Campus/MacArthur Office 358,000 sq.ft. 9.' National Education Office (Revised) Office 41,250 sq.ft. 10. Sheraton Hotel Expansion Hotel 119 rooms 11. Pacific Mutual Plaza Office 245,000 sq.ft. 12. Newport Place Office 194,411 sq.ft. • 13. Shokrian Office 24,000 sq.ft. 14. Sea Island Residential 132 units 15. Baywood Apartments Residential 68 units 16. " Harbor Point Homes Residential 21 units ' 17. Rudy Baron Office 8,500 sq.ft. Retail 7,500 sq.ft. 18. Martha's Vineyard Office 15,831 sq.ft. Restaurant 2,920 sq.ft. ' 19. 3101 W. Coast Highway Office 41,494 sq.ft. 20., Coast Business Center Office 37,000 sq.ft. 21. Koll Center Newport Office 7,650 sq.ft. ' and No. 1 TPP 22. Ford Aeronutronic Industrial 120,000 sq.ft. 23. 1511 & 1252 Superior Medical Office 25,000 sq.ft. 24. GPA 81-1, Banning Ranch Residential 406 units Industrial 164,400 sq.ft. Office 235,600 sq.ft. 25. Hughes Industrial 110,000 sq.ft. ' 26. Park Lido Medical Office 65,269 sq.ft. 27. Her Bank Office 36,888 sq.ft. 28. Flagship Convalescent Hospital Hospital 68 beds ' 29. Big Canyon 10 Residential 33 units 30. Balboa Marina Fun Zone Commercial 16,165 sq.ft. Office 26,320 sq.ft. ' Restaurant 6,866 sq.ft. 31. GPA 81-3, Marriott Hotel Expansion Hotel 234 rooms 32. St. Andrews Church Expansion Church 1,400 persons cap. ' 33. YMCA (Expansion) Recreational 45,000 sq.ft. 34. Allred Condos Residential 50 units 35. Seashore Townehomes Residential 17 units 36. Four Seasons Hotel Hotel 325 rooms ' 37. University Athletic Club Office 516 sq.ft. 80,000 sq.ft. 38. Block 400 Medical (GPA 81-2) Medical Office ` Name Use Quantity , 39. North Ford (GPA 82-1) Residential 880 units ' Park 12 acres 40. MacArthur Court/Kott Center Commercial 50,000 sq.ft. Newport "Block C" Office 295,000 sq.ft, 41. 'Belcourt Area 8 (,revised) Residential 130 units 42. Carver Office Office 15,000 sq.ft. 43, Corona del Mar Homes Residential 40 units • 44. Big Canyon Villa Apts. Residential 80 units 45. 1400 Dove Street Office sq.ft. 16 154 .ft. 46, 1100 Quail Street Office 1,091 sq.ft. 47, Superior Avenue Medical Medical Office 43,470 sq.ft. 48'. Auer Office Office 23,550 sq.ft. 49. Villa Point Apartments Residential 154 units 50, Rosan Industries Redevelopment Restaurant 7,828 sq.ft. , Retail 6,303 sq.ft. 30 564 sq.ft. Office , ' Boatyard 7,950 sq.ft. TOTAL COMMITTED PROJECTS Office 2,353,467 sq.ft, Medical Office 213,739 sq.ft. Commercial , Restaurants 124,319 sq.ft. Industrial 394,400 sq.ft. ' Theater 20,000 sq.ft. Art Museum 10,000 sq.ft. Library 14,000 sq.ft. Hospital 336 beds , Residential 2,320 units Hotel 1,118 rooms Church 1,400 persons cap Recreational 45,000 sq.ft. APPROVED BUT NOT COMMITTED PROJECTS The following projects have received approval by the City Council , but have not yet complied with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, Consequently, they are not considered committed projects. A. GPA 81-2 Residential 143 units Office/Industrial 439,000 sq.ft. B, Newport Center Res. Residential 307 units I 1 I PROPOSED PROJECTS In addition to committed and approved (but not committed) projects, several other projects and plans are in the planning process. These projects and plans require additional approvals by the City and/or other governmental agencies and are listed below. Statistics for specific area plans indicate additional allowable development based upon existing zoning. C. 2600 W. Coast Highway Office 22,000 sq.ft. ' D. Art's Landing Redevelopment Restaurant 3,595 sq.ft. E. GPA 83-1(b) ' 1. Marguerite Avenue Parcel Residential 68 units 2. Fifth Avenue. Parcel Residential 84 units 3. Buck Gully Parcel Open Space -- F. GPA 83-1(d) Fifth Avenue/MacArthur Bouelvard Residential 120 units (Senior) ' G. Specific Area Plans (none currently in progress) 1. Central Balboa (6/82) Commercial 621,730 sq.ft. 2. Cannery Village/ Commercial 2,840,076 sq.ft. McFadden Square (2/77) Industrial 722,309 sq.ft. ' 3. West Newport Study area (6/82) Commercial 2,915,140 sq.ft. Industrial 6,009,870 sq.ft. Residential 164 units 4. Mariners Mile (1976) Commercial 302,011 sq.ft. 5. Corona del Mar. (6/82) Commercial 1,283,933 sq.ft. Residential 273 units H. Newport Aquatic Center/North Star Beach Recreational -- 1. Newport Dunes Hotel 250 rooms J. Other GPA's Proposed 1. Newport Center Animal Hospital Office 1,500 sq.ft. 2. Irvine Coastal Area Sphere-of- InfluenceInfluence -- TOTAL PROPOSED PROJECTS Industrial 6,732,179 sq.ft. Office 23,500 sq.ft. Commercial 7,966,485 sq.ft. Residential 272 units ' Hotel 250 rooms t ' APPENDIX D TRAFFIC A ALYSIS t - - 1 ' TRAFFIC STUDY FOR NEWPORT AQUATIC CENTER ' Prepared for: Marie Gilliam 1825 Westcliff Drive ' Suite 177 Newport Beach, CA 92660 I ' Prepared by: BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. , ' 4262 Campus Drive, Suite B-1 Newport Beach, CA 92660 ( 714 ) 549-9940 ' June 15 , 1984 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO. ' INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Project Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 ' PROJECT-RELATED TRAFFIC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 ' Trip Generation . . . . . . . . . 5 Trip Distribution and Assignment. . . . . . 8 ' Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 ACCESS AND INTERNAL CIRCULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . 14 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . . . . . 20 Appendix A - Winter/Summer Particant Demands Appendix B - Winter Weekday 1 % Analysis Worksheets • Appendix C - Summer Weekday 1 % Analysis Worksheets Appendix D - Winter Weekday ICU Worksheets Appendix E - Summer Weekday ICU Worksheets ' ' LIST OF TABLES ' TABLE NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE NO. 1 SUMMARY OF PROJECT-RELATED TRAFFIC tGENERATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2 SUMMARY OF WINTER VEHICULAR DEMAND . . . . . 6 ' 3 SUMMARY OF SUMMER VEHICULAR DEMAND . . . . . 7 1 4 COMMITTED PROJECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5 SUMMARY OF 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS. . . . 16 ' 6 SUMMARY OF ICU ANALYSIS. . . . . . . . . . . 17 i t . LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE NO. ' 1 VICINITY MAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES . . . . . . . . 4 ' 3 TRIP DISTRIBUTION. . . . . . . . . . 9 4 PROJECT-RELATED WINTER WEEKDAY TRAFFIC . . 10 5 PROJECT-RELATED WINTER WEEKEND TRAFFIC . . 11 6 PROJECT-RELATED SUMMER WEEKDAY TRAFFIC . . 12 7 PROJECT-RELATED SUMMER WEEKEND TRAFFIC . . 13 ' 8 PROJECT-RELATED WINTER WEEKDAY 2-1/2 HOUR ' PEAK PERIOD AND PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC . . . 18 9 PROJECT-RELATED SUMMER WEEKDAY 2-1/2 HOUR PEAK PERIOD AND PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC . . . 19 t TRAFFIC STUDY ' FOR NEWPORT AQUATIC CENTER ' INTRODUCTION ' This traffic study has been prepared to evaluate the traffic impacts of the proposed Newport Aquatic Center to be located on North Star Beach. Figure 1 is a vicinity map showing the site ' location and surrounding street system. In accordance with the requirement of the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) an assessment of impacts on the arterials and critical intersections serving the project must be made. The ' project is expected to be completed in late 1985 and fully occupied in late 1986. ' Proiect Description The project site is located on North Star Beach at the end of ' North Star Lane in the Westcliff/Dover Shores area of the City. The project objectives are to build a water oriented training facility for various team and individual canoe, kayak, outrigger youth camp, etc. . The project proponent will lease the site from ' the City of Newport Beach and develop and operate the facilities. The programs to be offered include: ' o Advanced Individually Monitored (AIM) - Kayak - Recreational - Rowing - Outrigger o •Public Instructional Programs - Kayak - Rowing - Outrigger - Recreational ' o Indoor Public Programs - Stretching ' - Volleyball - Other ' o .Indoor Multipurpose Rooms - Team Meetings - Boating Classes - Municipal Functions o Youth Day Camps/Sports Camps j o Boat Clubs o City Programs ' The various programs and daily activities are governed by the City of Newport Beach through a Facilities Management Plan ' prepared by the applicant and approved by the City. -1- r or w a at 2 v aa/Mar Fnaway a.— at 60. 8riatol � ♦ ♦ Cal Mar Ave _—•_ « Y Bank& am Jr A ,bit ��jIM t Project Site \22M at °t& �4 b ` a.& lJ vSantlaao Drive \\ i = to at • E c + u `aP o•3` S` ( u ( aW Aw a tyth at H way y�i a waatclltt l.wat tlglw&Y Odra North 4 aw Star oaY ''f I all > • Lana �i • _ i CO awry a II FIGURE 1 BASMAGYM DARNELL.INC. Awl, ,„,,,�,,,.., VICINITY MAP .. wq.rt a..n.,C.Atwr.atua ttlq dr}YaM iN11111 1 ' The project proposal consists of a 57,510 square foot facility composed of the following: ' Boat Storage (5 Bays) _ 15,000 sq. ft. Indoor Exercise 9,400 _sq. ft. Lockers - 3 , 040 sq. ft. ' Weight Training/Medicine - 31040 sq.ft. Training Hostel/Gallery 3,500 sq.ft. Coordinator Apartment 1.1700 sq.ft. Boat Receiving/Workshop - 3 ,000 sq. ft. Aquatic Center Accessory Facilities - 16,230 sq.ft. TOTAL 57,510 sq.ft. ' A total of 150 parking spaces are proposed. Of this' total 124 spaces are located within the site gated area. Twenty (26 ) spaces outside the gate for overflow and other users of the beach are provided. EXISTING CONDITIONS The existing land uses in the area are residential- and the . adjacent Upper Newport Bay. Access to the site is proposed via a driveway access into the site from the ninety (90) degree bend in - North Star Lane. Presently this access is used by pedestrians and service vehicles. ' Access to the site will be provided by North- Star Lane, Polaris Avenue, Galaxy Drive, Santiago Drive, and Westcliff Drive. Dover Drive/Westcliff Drive will provide the primary access to/from the adjacent arterial street system. Other than Dover Drive each of the roadways in the area are two lane residential streets with parking. Westcliff Drive between Dover Drive and Santiago Drive ' has restricted (No Parking) along the southerly curb. Existing traffic volume data for 'the arterial streets were obtained from the City of Newport Beach. Traffic data for the local streets was not available and was therefore estimated by Basmaciyan-Darnell, Inc.. (BDI ) . Figure 2 presents the Daily and ' peak hourly traffic volumes. Within the immediate area five critical intersections were identified that could be affected by the proposed project. ' Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) has previously been per- formed for each intersection representing 1983 conditions. The results of these analyses •.are: ' Intersection ICU ' Coast Highway at Dover Dr. /Bayshore Drive 0.7092 Dover Drive at 16th Street 0 . 5163 Westcliff Drive at Dover Drive 0. 4807 Irvine Avenue at Westcliff Drive/17th Street 0. 8314 ' Irvine Avenue at Dover Drive/19th Street 0 . 7035 -3- . 30 30,732/iSS513477 600/60/60 _ Upper Newport Bay Js O 788416211689 Drive a 1 e Proioot Site Mariners Drive i • dot♦�8fer is 250/25/28 VI stetttf 750175178 Drive th 17.4001830/1350 wosteliff Drive Street 350013501350 1000/100/100 22.280/134011680 LEGEND AAA/BBB/CCC — EXISTING DAILY/AM/PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMESF *ESTIMATED BY SDI FIGURE 2 NAfr{ACIYAN UANNELL,iNG EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES Ibt w. Gw.)rM ft 1 PROJECT-RELATED TRAFFIC To assess the traffic-related impacts of the proposed project on the surrounding street system, tripmaking to/from the project was estimated and distributed to the surrounding roadways. Due to the type of project, standard generation rates are not applicable. Therefore it was necessary to estimate traffic based ' on the various programs occuring throughout the day. Trip Generation Vehicular trip generation to/from the project site was formulated by reviewing the projected particant loads by time of . day and then converting the participant loads to vehiclar demands. The ' early AM (6:00-9:30 ) time periods were assumed to be individuals arriving in their car and the rest of the days activities are estimated to have an average vehicle occupancy of 1 . 5 ' persons/auto. Table • 1 summarizes the daily, AM, noon and PM traffic to/from the project. . Tables 2 and 3 summarize the hourly and daily traffic estimates. Table 2 presents Winter Weekday and Winter Weekend traffic, and Table 3 presents the expected Summer Weekday and Summer Weekend data. The corresponding particpant demands are presented in Appendix A. ' A review of Tables 2 and 3 show that the project-related daily traffic demands are expected to range from a low of 878 vehicles for winter weekday conditions to a high of 1196 vehicles for ' summer weekday conditions .. TABLE 1 ' SUMMARY OF PROJECT-RELATED TRAFFIC GENERATION ' After AM Noon PM ' Daily In Out In Out In Out Winter ' Week Day Peak Hr. 876 90 70 20 33 47 53 Week End Peak Hr. 1070 60 40 27 40 67 58 ' Summer ' Weekday Peak Hr. 1196 60 40 63 56 13 63 ' Weekday Peak Hr. 880 60 40 43 60 43 72 1 . -5- TABLE 2 ' SUMMARY OF WINTER VEHICULAR DEMAND ' WEEKDAY WEEKEND ' Time of ,Day Arrival (a) Departure (a) Arrival (a) Departure (a) 6 :00 AM 40- - 40 7:30 AM 30 30 - - 8:00 AM 60 40 60 40 9 :00 AM 25 20 - - 9:30 AM - - 30 60 10:00 AM 30 65 37 30 ' 11:00 AM 10 7 17 13 12: 00 NOON 20 33 27 40 ' 1:00 PM 23 20 30 27 2:00 PM - - 7 7 ' 3:00• PM 13 23 17 30 4 :00 PM 53 13 57 17 ' 5 :00 PM 13 13 - - 6 :00 PM 47 53 67 58 7 :00 PM 20 20 53 53 ' 8 :00 PM 47 47 53 53 9 :00 PM 7 20 40 67 10 :00 PM - -3 40 '_ 3 _ TOTAL 438 438 535 535 (a) Vehicles , -6- ' TABLE 3 ' SUMMARY OF SUMMER VEHICULAR DEMAND ' WEEKDAY WEEKEND Time 1 of Day Arrival (a) Departure (al Arrival (a) Departure (a) 6 : 00 AM 40 = 40 = 7 :00 AM ' 7 : 30 AM 30 30 30 30 8 :00 AM 30 10 30 10 9 :00 AM 50 30 36 60 ' 9 :30 AM 10 30 - - 10 :00 AM 13 17 60 30 11:00 AM 33 13 13 13 12:00 NOON 57 77 13 13 ' 1:00 PM 63 56 43 60 2 :00 PM 43 43 33 33 ' 2 :30 PM - - 33 10 3 :00 PM 23 23 13 13 4 :00 PM 73 43 13 13 5 :00 PM 13 63 43 72 6 : 00 PM 70 43 23 45 7 :30 PM 50 70 17 36 8 :00 PM - - - - 9 :00 PM - - = - 10 :00 PM 50 17 ' TOTAL 598 598 440 440 (a) Vehicles 1 -7- Trip Distribution and Assignment The tripmaking characteristics of the project were developed on the assumptions that the majority of traffic would enter Westcliff Drive from Dover Drive and continue on Polaris Drive to ' North Star Lane. It should be noted here that this is a worst case condition and alternate routes using Polaris Drive to Santiago Drive to Mariners Drive and Irvine Avenue are possible. ' The expected project-related tripmaking characteristics are presented on Figure 2. Utilizing the data presented in Tables 2 and 3 and the tripmaking ' characteristics presented on Figure 3 project-related traffic can be assigned to the surrounding street system. The results of these analyses are presented on Figures 4 through 7. ' Impacts The impacts of project-related traffic on the adjacent street system will primarily occur ' on North Star Lane, Rolans Drive and Westcliff Drive: The impacts on critical intersections are assessed in the TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE sections of this report. Impacts on residential streets are very sensitive in terms of the residents perception of traffic concerns. From a capacity standpoint each roadway can adequately accommodate 51000 daily vehicles. This level of traffic however may not be acceptable to ' residents of the area. Review of the traffic volume data presented on Figures 4 through 7, the addition of project-related traffic is not expected to exceed 5,000 daily vehicles. The most ' significantly impacted roadway will be North Star Lane and Westcliff Drive between Dover Drive and Santiago Drive. • The following summarizes the existing and cumulative traffic demands on the adjacent streets. ' Exist. Plus Project-Related Winter Summer Exist. Weekday Weekday Daily Daily Daily Location Traffic Traffic Traffic North Star Plan 250 1130 1446 ' Polaris Drive to Site ' Polaris Drive 1000 1750 2016 North Star Lane to Santiago Drive , Westcliff ,Drive 3500 4250 4616 Santiago Drive to , Dover Drive Each of these traffic loads can be accommodated within their existing available roadway capacity. -8- ! ! ! i ! ! i• i ! i i i i ! i ! ! ! ! I c 20% Upper Newport Bay i • \J 15% V� D• 20% 40% Dover Drive a oo 15% Project Site LO O • ' Mariners Drive ° e dot 1 85% vi estclitt Drive 10% 7th We tcliff Drive 15% 45% Street - 85% 30% 15% LEGEND XX% — PROJECT—RELATED TRIP DISTRIBUTION FIGURE 3 XA]MALIYAN UAIWLLL.INL TRIP DISTRIBUTION uLt uw.w Qv,Sw.LW 111.1>.!n.e c 175/32/20 - Upper,Newport Bay > 30.7321195513477 130/24/15 ���• _ b967i�Tlil V +i O• Dover Drive 175/32/20 350/64140 s ,s NA 7864/62116aw 0 o ' Project Site � o • r O G Saollsolto0 'c s c 113011851126 i • � t Mariners Drive a dos er a Lift 750/136/a6 400/72/45 vieste 150012111160 s8/1e/10 NA Dfive NA 132/24/15 , 7th 17,4001a30/1350 Wastallft Drive Street 750/136/85 7501136/85 -441815 268/48/30 4250/486/435 1�f8373�Tf35 NA LEGEND 22,280/1340/1680 XXX/YYY/ZZZ - PROJECT-RELATED DAILY/AM/PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES AAA/BBB/CCC - EXISTING PLUS PROJECT-RELATED DAILY/AM/PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES NN\ FIGURE 4 PROJECT-RELATED WINTER WEEKDAY TRAFFIC Il\lb•Y�W x•,1rr 41 !M V,MI rxU,lliwNYZ�M i ! i ! f• i• i• ! _ i f• i ! ! i ! ! ! i ! e 215120125 Upper Newport Bay z 30,732/1996/3477 180/16/19 p�• • 880/86/89+,� /40 60 O� Dover Drive to ti q NA �• Project Site C O 107011001125 a i ��.et,r 132011251150 Mariners Drive apl L4 WestolUf 910/85/108 1880/160/181 106/10/13 480/45/60 ` Drive NA 180/16/-19 NA th 17 400183011360 Westcliff Drive Streat 910/86/106 910/86/108 54151 8 320/30/38 4410/436/456 1910/186/208 NA 22, 801134011680 LEGEND XXX/YYY/ZZZ - PROJECT-RELATED DAILY/AM/PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES AAA/BBBICCU - EXISTING PLUS PROJECT-RELATED DAILY/AM/PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES \N\ FIGURE 5 ""'"""'""°""""` INC. PROJECT-RELATED WINTER WEEKEND TRAFFIC _c Upper Newport Bay 239/20J16 30.732/1966/3473 170/15/11 `ye 670/66/61 p� 239/20/1 NA 47 v r Drive 3 4 i i 1 0 t Project Site N 0 O Mariners Drive a e �0,lN 8ter [ e 11961100176 4461126/10t vlestG11" 1016/85/66 120110111, 538/46/34 \ 1766/160/140 NA NA Drive } /16/72 th 17-4 • [cliff Drive , Street 60/6/4 1018/85/85 368/30/22 4618J436/41b 1078/86/66 NA 22.280/134011880 20181186l166 LEGEND XXXJYYY/ZZZ - PROJECT-RELATED DAILY/AMJPM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES AAA/BBB/CCC - EXISTING PLUS PROJECT-RELATED DAILY/AM/PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES FIGURE 6 VASMACIVAN OAMLL,IW PROJECT-RELATED SUMMER WEEKDAY TRAFFIC M.ya't bw,t.wwwY2fM Itl�l»i'AM Mill! jttiji• 111111111 Ml jtttji ! tittit>t 11111111 01111 i_ tjttti>t iiiiii._ m 111111111 i_ i_ 111111111 c Upper Newport Bay > 167/20/223 30,732/196513477 �a 132/15/17 Qt• 632/66/67+t 167/20/23 14014,19 V'♦` NADover Drive CA •y 'e w_ O� • =r Project Site o '+ i o o '•-� Mariners Drive • • e�oc�0`Ater L • 880/100/115 113011251140 398/46/62 748/85/98 NA Westciitf 1498/160/173 88/1 O/12 Drive NA 132/15/18 _ 7th 17.400183011360 estcilff Drive Street 748/85/98 NA— 284/ 340 424814351448 NA 22,280/1340/1880 748185198 1748/186/198 LEGEND XXX/YYY/ZZZ — PROJECT—RELATED DAILY /AM/PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES AAA/BBB/CCC — EXISTING PLUS PROJECT—RELATED DAILY/AM/PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 'Nl�nl� FIGURE 7 B.1fMAl:1Y.1N•UAItNLLL,INC PROJECT-RELATED SUMMER WEEKEND TRAFFIC 4J3 uwY..Uru..lYwu� M.�Yw>0.x1.,unrn.Y1N0 II NI>JY nJe TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE ' The City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) requires that all projects greater than 10, 000 square feet or ten dwelling units be assessed for its impact on the surrounding ' circulation system. The first impact assessment involves the determination if project-related traffic exceeds 1 % of the 215 hour peak period traffic at critical intersections on the Citys arterial street system. The City Traffic Engineer has identified five (5) critical intersections for evaluation. The TPO assessment is required for one year after ,full occupancy of the project. For purposes of this analysis 1987 was used and ' appropriate approved projects traffic was obtained from the City Traffic Engineer. Table 4 summarizes projects included in this analysis. To assess the implication of both winter and summer project- related traffic conditions Figures 8 and 9 were prepared showing , the project-related 2.5 hour peak period traffic and the PM peak hour traffic. Figure 8 presents the winter weekday condition and Figure 9 presents the summer weekday condition. This data was then used to perform the 2. 5 Hour Peak period 1 % analysis . Table 5 summarizes the results of these analyses. Review of Table 5 shows that during the Winter weekday condition , three (3) of the five (5) critical intersections are expected to have project-related traffic exceed 1 % of the 2. 5 hour peak period traffic on any approach. Similarly for four (4) of the five (5) intersections exceed 1 % with project-related summer weekday traffic. The next step in the TPO analysis requires that at the critical intersections where project-related traffic exceeds 1 % of the 2. 5 hour peak period traffic, ICU' s be calculated. The TPO regulations require that each critical intersection not -passing the 1 % test be examined for the projects impact on each critical intersection and to determine if the resulting ICU' s do exceed 0.9000. The results of the ICU analysis are presented in Table 6. Review of Table 6 shows that the addition of project-related traffic is not expected to result in any of the critical inter- sections having ICU' s exceeding 0.9000 in 1987 with approved , projects and project-related traffic. Therefore, the project satisfy' s the Traffic Phasing Ordinance assessment regulations and can be approved. , ACCESS AND INTERAL CIRCULATION The preliminary site plan for the project was reviewed for ' adequacy in terms of access and internal circulation. Review of the site plan was found to be satisfactory except for the service road along the northerly side of the project. The concern -14- ' TABLE 4 COMMITTED PROJECTS ' Sheraton Expansion MacArthur Court See Projects 530 to 533 Amendment No. 1 North Ford Pacesetter Homes Ross Mollard Aeronutronic Ford Pacific Mutual Plaza Back Bay Offices Hughes Aircraft #2 Civic Plaza Heritage Bank Koll Center Newport Flagship Hospital ' National Education Office Fun Zone North Ford Marriott Hotel Banning/Newport Ranch St. Andrews Church Plaza Lido YMCA Newport Place Morgan Development Shokrian Four Seasons Hotel , Big Canyon 10 Block 400 Medical ' Sea Island Valdez Baywood Apartments Koll Center Npt. No. 1 TPP Harbor Point Homes University Athletic Club Allred Condos TPP 4 Emkay Rudy Baron Carver Grandville Office Univ ATH Club Tpp 4 Emkay Corona Del Mar Homes ' Martha' s Vineyard Big Canyon Villa Apts. Coast Business Center 1400 Dove Street Hoag Hospital 1100 Quail Street Amend No. 1 McArthur Court Heltzer Medical Office National Education (RVSD) Koll Center TPP Amendment 4A Amendment No. 2 Ford Aero Amendment No. 1 Ford Aero Corporate Plaza 1 1 �, ' -15- TABLE 5 SUMMARY OF 1 $ TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS M Project-Related Traffic Exceeds 1 % of 2.5 Hour Peak Period Winter Summer Critical intersection Weekday Weekday Dover Drive at: Coast Highway NO YES ' 16th Street YES YES Westcliff Drive YES YES , Irvine Avenue at: 17th Street/Westcliff Drive NO NO ' 19th Street/Dover Drive YES YES -16- TABLE 6 SUMMARY OF ICU ANALYSIS Winter Weekday Summer Weekday Exist. Exist, Plus Plus Approved Approved Exist. Projects Exist. Projects Plus Plus Plus Plus Approved Proposed Approved Proposed Exist. Projects Projects Exist. Projects Projects Intersection ICU ICU ICU ICU ICU ICU Dover Drive at: Coast Highway N.A. N.A. N.A. 0 .7092 0. 8139 0 .8167 16th Street 0.5163 0.5281 0.5341 0.5163 0.5281 0 . 5341 ' Westcliff Dr. 0. 4087 0.4916 0. 5038 0.4807 0. 4916 0 . 5041 • Irvine Avenue 0.7035 0.7382 0.7451 0.7035 0.7382 0 .7463 N.A. = Not Applicable 1 ' -17- > c IC 16/11 tYth Street 16/11 Dover Drive 2319 —+► • L O Iles Drive Drive IL .N. N F 8/6 17th Street aC 4/2 Wbatoli f Drive 11/8 " f 16/7--4 N ' W Y) T ' m f 1N1 t~7 16th Street f w O f' v LEGEND > XX/YY — PROJECT—RELATED TRAFFIC o 2 1/2 HOUR PEAK PERIOD/PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC in eo 00 aV N Coast Highway A) 17/7 1717 B% FIGURE 8 PROJECT-RELATED WINTER WEEKDAY 2 1 /2 HOUR PEAK PERIOD BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. AND PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC 4262 Campus Drive,Suite 0•1 Newport Beach,Callfornla 92660 (714)$49.9940 —18— �l 7 �+ ' C C W > Q � e e C 21/13 1Oth Street 21/13 Dover Drive r i 3113 a. 0 r oat a. 9itve MCI co m N 17th Street l 5/3 WestcliH Drive ' 18/1 -� 2-3/2 I r 1 WV N a ' i t8th Street o a n c` a XXGENDPROJECT-RELATED TRAFFIC c i 2 1/2 HOUR PEAK PERIOD/PM PEAK HOUR C a � o (m� Coast Highway ` 2312 23/2 FIGURE 9 ' i PROJECT—RELATED i BASMACIYAN•DARNELL, INC. SUMMER WEEKDAY 2 112 HOUR PEAK PERIOD 4262 Campus Drive,Site B-1 AND PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC i Newport Beach,California 92660 (714)549.9940 —19— involves the need for a turn around to permit vehicles to turn around at the end of the service road. Another area of concern involves the turn around drop-off area on the site. The design of the turn around should be further refined to be assured that the turn around can accommodate passenger cars as well as , delivery trucks and trash trucks. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS '• o The proposed Newport Aquatic Center is expected to generate 876 daily vehicle trip ends on a winter weekday and 1196 daily vehicle trip ends on a summer weekday. ' o Analysis of the project for conformance to the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) Was completed. Of the five (5) critical intersections identified by the City Traffic Engineer for evaluation, three ( 3) on a winter week- day and four (4) on a summer weekday were found to. not pass ' the "one percent" test for the 2. 5 hour peak period traffic. Detailed analysis of each intersection showed that in 1987, ' with full occupancy of the project, each intersection would have ICU' s less than 0.9000 . o Access and Internal site circulation, were reviewed and found to be adequate except as follows: - The service road on the northerly side of the project does , not provide a turn around for vehicles , service trucks or vehicles with trailers. - The turn around drop-off area does not appear to be adequate for vehicles, trucks, etc. Each of these concerns should be discussed and resolved ' during final plan preparation. o The addition of project-related traffic to the adjacent , street system is not expected to create any capacity problems. However, residents of the area may be concerned about the increase in traffic. ' . -20- ' 1 1 1 . ' APPENDIX A Winter/Summer Participant ' Demands t , I� 1 I TABLE A-1 ' SUMMARY OF WINTER ' PARTICIPANT DEMAND WEEKDAY WEEKEND ' Time of Day Arrivals (a) Departures (a) Arrivals (a) Departures ( 6 :00 AM 40 - 40 - 7:30 AM 30 30 - 8:00 AM 60 40 60 40 9:00 AM 25 20 - 40 , 9: 30 AM - - 45 60 10:00 AM 45 65 55 45 11:00 AM 15 10 25 20 ' 12:00 NOON 30 50 45 40 1: 00 PM 35 30 45 40 ' 2:00 PM - - 10 10 3:00 PM 20 35 25 45 4:00 PM 80 20 85 25 5:00 PM 20 20 - - ' 6 :00 PM 70 80 100 85 7:00 PM 30 30 80 80 8:00 PM 70 70 80 80 9:00 PM 10 30 60 100 10:00 PM 50 60 , TOTAL 580 580 750 750 t (a) Persons , 1 1 ' TABLE A-2 SUMMARY OF SUMMER PARTICIPANT DEMAND ' WEEKDAY WEEKEND Time ' of Dam Arrivals (a) Departures(a) Arrivals (-al Departures(a ' 6 :00 AM 40 = 40 = 7:00 AM 7 : 30 AM 30 30 30 30 ' 8:00 AM 30 10 30 10 9 : 00 AM 75 30 55 60 9: 30 AM 15 30 - - 10:00 AM 20 25 90 45 ' 11;00 AM 50 20 20 20 12 :0O 'NOON 85 115 20 20 ' 1: 00 PM 95 85 65 90 2:00 PM 65 65 50 50 ' 2: 30 PM - - 50 15 3 :0.0 PM 35 35 20 15 4 :00 PM 110 65 20 20 ' 5 :00 PM 20 95 65 110 6 : 00 PM 105 65 35 45 ' 7 : 30 PM 75 105 25 55 8 db 0 PM - - - - ' 9 :00 PM = - - 10:00 PM 75 25 TOTAL 850 850 615 615 ' (a) Persons 1 t 1 APPENDIX $ ' - Winter Weekday 1% Analysis ' Work$heets ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Hwy./Dover Dr.-Bayshore Dr. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pring 194.3 ' Peak 29 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected r; of Projected i Projer� Direction Peak 21s Hour Growth Peek 23s Hour Peak 2% Hour Peak 211 Hour s Peak 2� *u Volume Volume volume 'Volume Volume Volume Northbound 236 a�q sorthbound 2655 — a"14o 021 24 ' Eastbound ao25 55 ; 4 ' westbound 6191 3D 1 Z Project Traffic is estimated to.be less than 1% of Projected ' Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic- is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected (]' , Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization(I.C.U.) Analysis is required. — A + QeioP©Q-T AQU.A-TxC C.GhJT V_ DATE: to- 03-C_4 ' PROJECT: . LOU�T�- UO EEILD" . FORM I PJ- 1 Iwo Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Dover Or. / 16th St. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring Peek 2y Hour Apbroved ' Approach Existing Regional ?Wectt Projected ' 'af Projected I Proje� CSrection Peak 2% Hour Crowt akk'P A Nour Pak 2%.&ur Peak 21y Hour Peak 2$ Yolwa Vol WO VOlwx Votes Volw* Volume Northbound 2460 7 % 1215 southbound 2103 — 41 9�11�iD 1919% Z.T Eastbound 410 — 0 Westbound Project Traffic is estimated to- be less than 1% of Projected ' Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than IwA pf Projected ' . Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U.) Analysis is required. — Q � DATE: �" 3 ■ PROJECT: W 1 NTeR. W SEX 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection Dover Dr. Westcliff Dr. ' (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winterl5pring 19 8.3 _ Peak 21s Hour Approved ' Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 2". of Projetted Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2y Hoyr P90V 2h Hour Peak 24 HoL Volume volume Volume voluez; :Volume Volume Northbound I �VI V �2. 34- Southbound 1070 IJI^(J I���'f1�� Il✓ 3(0 ' Eastbound 1551 — 0-�5 11579 + Westhound _ 1 .. ' 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 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization ' `• (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. _. 1 ' 1 . . DATE• ' ) PROJECT: • ' w tts)-r , I I . - - FORM I i p• 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Irvine Ave. '/ Dover Dr.-Igth St. ' (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 10 .0 Peak 2y Hour Approted Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1"m of Projected Project Direction Peak 2% Hour Growth ►Nk 21s Hour Peak 24 Hour Ieak•24 Hour ! Peak 2' YYhaae Yolwo Yolumi Volume Ykoluft ! Volurt NorthWund 18O6 I 191 T 1 ---r southbaund 3541 — I 3�(� � '', j -Z A Eastbound 504 — IC2 2 3 Westbound 973 �f! �� ✓ 10 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 Proje:ted Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization , _ (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. ' • f� 1 ' I DATE: — 3`�4 • ' PROJECT: W 1 N�-72. LJJEL�1 A-1 f • FORM I SO 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection . Irvine Ave. / Westcliff Dr.-17th St. ' (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring _ Peak 2h lour Approved ' Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1". of Pro� Eted Project Wection Peek h Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2� HWr 1 Peak 2+ No Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ' Northbound 1681 southbound 2793 — Eastbound 2279 — �7—j 1 westbound 1582 — I V (r, ' 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 21% Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection, Capacity Utilization (1:C.U.)• Analysis is required. — 1 1 F, 1 • 1 A)GJ)POn7- 477C e C-AJ��. DATE: i 1 PROJECT: W/N 1 6?Z W C�J" FORM I ' ll - 1 APPENDIX C ' Summer Weekday 1 % Analysis Worksheets 1 . 1% Traffic Volume Analysis. Intersection Coast Hwy../Dover Dr.-Bayshore Dr. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pring 1983 Peak 2h Hour , Approved Reproach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1 of Projected I Project Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak n Hour Peak 2� Hour I Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume i Volume Northbound 236 -- southbound 2655 0111 3 2 Eastbound 4025 �J3 I 3 n50 25 + Westbound 6191 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 211 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: N GWFn4/ 01414-TIC M17FJ2. DATE: PROJECT: S UMIA►tQZ WEWIG ' - FORM I I C— 4 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection Dover Dr. / 16th 5t. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 — Peek 2y Mour Approach Existing Regional QOCU Projected 1% of Projected ' Profe Direction Peak 2y Hour Growtarr ►ea ' 2k Hour Ptak N Hour Peak 214 Hour Peak 2y t Yalu" Volua* Volume Volume Volume Voturn Northbound 2460 — —7 r?JA ;1�5 4"1 Southbound 2103 41 9 d6Pj 5k 3� Eastbound 410 Westbound 18 r Project Traffic is estimated to be less than iX of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume * Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected XN Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. — 1 (5A) r'� T • 6 — 13-Y(- PROJECT: UM-w7 GnL WL-Z4GD4Y FORM I r 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection • Dover Dr. I Westcliff Dr. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pring _ Peek 2h lour Approved r Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected N of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak Zh lour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour I Peak 2h HoL Volume Volume Volume Yolume Volume Volume Northbound Southbound 1070 I,l 1 D59 ' (✓ 4 g rEastbound Z J Westbound r . r 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 2;1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization r ` (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. r . r ' r _ �4QUf�TIC, CGVTEL,_ DATE: �—�3— �-- ' PROJECT: fit( mrr7t'72 W6ZF4---, AA-`f III �_ C.- "ISFORM I Icy lx Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Irvine Ave. / Westcliff Dr.-17th St. (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average nter pang _ Peek th Hour APprnved Approach rtxisting Regional Projects Projected of Projected I Proje gjpection Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak ?� lour • Peak 2y Hour Peak 2hi Volume Vol uft voluaet Volume Yalun! Yolun= Northbound 1681 -- 17�� 1 Soo' and 2793 Eastbound 2279 a+3 i Lc Westbound 1582 - lC� t,v Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ' Peak 2;1 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. � I i .� NC�PBi.�-T �} u roc C&'�Jn-V— DATE: to-r3- Sri PROJECT:' WeK- [7 �_ _ , _U,_ FORM I ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection Irvine Ave. / Dover Dr.-19th St. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 8 ' Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1: of Projected Project Direction Peak 25 Hour , Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak 29 Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2y Hour .w VY' ft Volume Voluae Volume- Volume Volume North`loum1 1806 19 11 19 Southbound 3541 Eastbound . 504 — ✓y(i�f �� 3 i� westbound 973 ! Q L • Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2J1 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected - Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization _ r.41.C_U.) Analysis is required. r 1 1 1 / a"AiAlrLT fKu. -T/C L'E7/T t7'Z-• DATE: ' PROJECT: 5 GCrr7r►-767L- Wc-�'7LD'`� FORM I • � I � I APPENDIX D ' Winter Weekday ICU Worksheets ' II I INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIDITION ANALYSIS Intersection Irvine Ave. / Dover Dr.-19th St. ' ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 19 83) EXISTING EXIST, EXIST. IpML [ T plCC�,pp ' Ca tanwe$ TED Lanes G Ca OMI V/C 4Yfo PROJECT ►AWECT Merawlnf p. U Cap. tR.11R. Y/C a MNECT "to Project Yele Y/C Ratio Vol. Ratio Volume Yolwso in volume NL 16DO 39 .0244* Cj"7 j Ct' NT 3200 697 .2256 NR 25 ' SL 1600. 208 .1300 , L?cCl- ST 3200 132T .4378* �•�' ( .4?dam — l SR i 74 _ �- EL 1600 78 .0488* ' ET 1600 115 .0856 ER 22 ' WL 1600 22 .0138 02)b cx ' WT 1600 148 .0926* - )Z5* Cq` ' WR 1600 212 .1325 YELLOWTIME , •1000* • EC " i i lL ' EXISTI'NG INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .7035 i EXISTING PLUS COMIITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROYEMENTS EXISTING PLUS COMIITTED 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 fhan 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Description of system improvement: - ' L'(xJP�1eT 4uAT/C (rENT�72 DATE: PROJECT IVIA17&-a A)SUZZ)#4V fORM II NTERSE ION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS , Intersection Dover dr. / 16th St. �•L'iti1"c�� ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1g B:) ; ft,"Mt EXISTIMG PROaDSE " " R, EXIST. A[ OM L lROJECTEG WilatEO _ Lanes cap. L& tt C rY7/EM Prolett Y iwtT Y/C Ratio Yet. uti• Yelww YeAwe YeLwe ' NL 1600 138 .0863* +t NT 3200 962- .2981 NR, ' 2 — Zy SL 1600 3;.;° .0019 _ t: ST 3200 Aff 839 .272244 — R (. x SR 32 Ql ' EL 36 — a ET 3200 2 .OS78* Q ER 147 -- ►iL 1 — WT 1600 1 .0031 WR 3 YELLOMME * I i T .1000 t i EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 5163 - i . t i EXISTING PLUS COMITTEO PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.CM.1 n424U Ii , ( EXISTING PLUS COMlIITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.tl. ❑ 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 . t ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 Jr - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Description of system improvement: • , _ AJ�`ZU �"1RT �F61UaTlC C��J7�L DATE: (v-13 -rrf: PROJECT GV 14 7M IJ 0EX y6"Y FORM it I INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Dover Dr. / Westcliff Dr. ' ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Iraffic Winter/Spring 19 83 Ca CXIST• EXIST. REG1dW'? C"ITTED PROJECTED Po.e�Rnt Et7STI PROPOSED Pt.MR. VIC GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ratio PRGJECT PROJECT , ' LaneR Cap. Unes Cap. Yot. Ratio Yalu" Yth" W/t project VDIW4 VIC Ratio Ytlu+e NL 32DO 367 .1147* p* ' NT 1600 544 .340D (p �41 NR ' SL _ �- ST 1 0 362 .2263* SR 1600 ► 93 .0581 - Z ' EL 3200 127 .0397* - Q ,X . 0419* ET . ER N.S. 449 - ( ( WL -- ' WT WR — ' YELLOHTIME i .I000* P P i EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ,4807* j I ' EXISTING PLUS C"ITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH Y/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I-C.U. i EXISTING PLUS COMIITTED PLUS REGIONAL GR01fTH 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• PP - ' . ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvementL will be less than or equal to 0.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' Description of system improvement: ' 1 ' lyE�iJfdk'T �4QU 477C CE'7UTEl1 DATE: (o- 13 -� ¢ PROJECT W/NTErL a) FORM I 1 • 1 APPENDIX E Summer Weekday ICU ' Worksheets 1 i AINTERSE ION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Dover Dr. / 16th St. 5U41 Nil&I ' ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 198 EXISTING ►ROPOSED EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COMMITTED PROJECTED Mo•e+ent PK.MR. V/C GROWN PROJECT Ratio PROJECT *PROJECT Lines Cap. Lanes Cap. Vol. Otte Volume Volaee w/o Project Volume V/C Ratio Voles NL 1600 138 .0863* NT 3200. 952 .2981 NR 2 ' SL 1600 3 .0019 — q CG( ST 3200 839 .2722 — 0'20 ,; ';4A Z A A SR i 32 EL 36 fd' • ET 3200 2 .0578* — ,[J l�rf� 7* ER. 147 WL -:-- 1 J01 - 1 WT 1600 1 .0031 0.. x3 i — ccr3l WR 3 — iYELLOWTIME .1000* EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 5263 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.L.U. G1F1 ❑ 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 P I ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 ;Tr• - - - ;r - - if Description of system improvement: . Sir /JEWFW7 �y(?,A v'"h� DATE• PROJECT cSC(u-1wE�� (,c�e_A_ ' < FORM II INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILI4TION ANALYSIS Intersection Coast Hwy./Dover Dr.-8ayshore Dr. ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1g83) ' EtiSTING PROPOSED EAST. Exist. NEGIM AL CO, IMO PAOJECTEO No.a�nt Leon CAP. Lem" CAP. PN•"A• Vic US" ►F"CT VIC Aotio PROJECT PROJECT Vol. Aotto Vo1w Volre We Project Pol we V/C oatto Volof NL 1600 22 .0138 NT 3200 39 .0225* ozz A( SR 33 -- SL 4800 960 .2000* ST 1600 66 .0413 SR 1600 149 .0931 . Get 1 EL 3200 115 .0359* — ( :* -2 G41(4,- A ET 4800 1553 .3298 ' a ,I1 ER 30 WL 1600 .0306 — CC? T _ v L,(G• WT . 4800 1684 .3508* I •-t ' WR 1600 1007 .6294 YELLOkrmc 1000* ; (C� 1 t ,'V 1 . IC U EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .7092 i EXISTING PLUS COIMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROMTH M/PROPOSED INPRDYENENTS I.C.U.f L) EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL 6RO H 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 e f ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 ; - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Description of system improvement: , 1 � ���:ZJPdf1T , QUA77C C.�7t/, DATE PROJECT su ,y,y ex FORM II , INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Dover Dr. / Westcliff Dr. �uI�tF1�r� ' ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 19 8l EAST. EXIST. REGiOMY? cowtTTED 116,IE1TED EXISTING PROPOSED VIC Ratio PROJECT PROJECT Ibreeent L+nef GP• L+M+ Cap. PY/C Voluw PROJECT w/o Project Volume VIC Ratio Vol.Yot. Ratio Volume Yetu+e Volume NL 32DO 367 .1147* ' NT 1600 544 .3400 — IC) NR SL K- ST 1600 362 .2263* _ ,V)P R , Z-OeOl SR 1600 P 93 .0581 _ .9 e • EL 3200 127 .0397* — J • ,09-7* 2 ' ET ER N.S. 449WL ( � WT i WR 0 - YELLONTIkE .1000* ,'tccc, 1 i .ICvL' EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ',4807* ' EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROMTH iI/PROPOSED, INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GRONTH 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 ' 0 Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 i - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Description of system improvement: ' /qQu19-T/C E7JT DATE: PROJECT 8CLM 4E?& 6vf=-e7--,0/;r FORM I INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Irvine Ave. / Dover Dr.-19th St. ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 19 83) ' EXISTING ►ND►DSED EXIST. EXIST. MEGIMk C"ITTED pK6.1[4TjD MOre•Mlt ►KAR. Y/C GKO 4 MWECT V/C M�'{a ►EDJECT ►kwtcT ' Ones Cap. tam Cap. Val. Mtia VOW* VOW* to Project Yahne Y/C Mtie • Yolunr NL 1600 39 .0244* NT 3200 697 .2256 NR SL 1600 208 .1300 ST 3200 RNLI .4378* — 147 , — • `( SR + 74 EL 1600 + 78 .0488* ET 1600 115 .0856 ER 22 WL 1600 22 ,0138 WT 1600 148 .0925* _ c)Wk WR. 1600 212 4325 YELLOWTIME 11000* i t EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1 .7035 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROYEMENTS I.C.U. EXISTING PLUS'COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH Pt.US "WECT•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 fhan 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvements will be ' I, less than or equal to 0.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - r - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - Description. of system improvement: • ' �•G�Zc)PdeT �1�UegTIC �7�2 DATE (o l3 9<< ' PROJECT �ctn?me� (,I,*��-y�Oq„y FORM 11 ' APPENDIX E NO S N LY IS 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' NOISE ANALYSIS FOR NEWPORT AQUATICS COMPLEX ' prepared for the CITY OF NEHPORT BEACH prepared by ' •NESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES JUNE 11, 1994 1.0 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this analysis is to determine if the neighborhood adjacent to North Star Beach will be. adversely impacted by the proposed ' Newport Aquatics complex. The noise sources 'of concern are motor vehicle traffic, parking lotnoise and on site generated noise. This analysis , -presents an estimate :of noise levels relative to relevant noise standards followed by recommended mitigation measures. First, however, existing noise levels are described. ' 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS Present use of the North Star beach is by fishermen and assorted people ' who access- the beach for various uses including outrigger canoe teams. Very little motor vehicle traffic is now associated with the current use of the beach. With the exception of aircraft overflights from John Wayne Airport, ' the area is void of major vehicle or stationary noise sources. The noise levels from John Wayne Airport, however are not insignificant *and are reported to be approximately 62 CNEL as reported in the John Wayne Airport ' Quarterly Report for the Fourth Quarter. 1983. The John Wayne Airport noise contours are shown in Figure 1. CNEL or Community Noise Equivalent Level , is a 24 hour "average" noise level which includes a penalty for nighttime noises (10 pm to 7 am) and an evening penalty (7 pm to 10 pm). This noise ' metric is best suited for assessing the impacts of aircraft, highways and other transportation type noise sources. For describing the impact of the Newport Aquatics Complex, CNEL and a more basic noise metric are used as ' described below. ' 3.0 NOISE DEFINITIONS AND STANDARDS Community noise levels are measured in terms of the "A-weighted decibel ," abbreviated dBA. A-weighting is a frequency correction that ' correlates overall sound pressure levels with the frequency response of the human ear. Figure 2 provides examples of various noises and their typical A-weighted noise level. ' The City of Newport Beach, has not adopted a noise ordinance which applies directly to stationary noise sources and parking lots. The City 1 1 IN Q�I'� bet i is"" • i t • oe Phi°•o. rr �, n"� .�, INS M 11 MIY"l '• 11 Y•1 NM q11 WY1 ,..,Y 4•�.,..•. N., Figure 1 JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT ' i ' • GNEL NOISE CONTOURS i-l tN ' �-•� ORANGE COUNTY "`• --- ' Sound Leve)s and Loudness of Illustrative Noises In indoor and Outdoor Environments- (A-Scale Weighted Sound Levels) dB(A) OVER-ALL LEVEL COMMUNITY , HOME OR INDUSTRY LOUDNESS ISe.nd P...xor.1....I Outdoor (Human Judgment of Aopma.0.0002 Mmtobar) l ) t(Indoor) Different Sound L.r.is) 130 Military Jet Aircraft Tat.-Ott - With Alw-Butn.r From - UNCOMFORTABLY Aircraft Carrier @ 50 FL(130) Oxygen Torbh(tit) 120 dB(A)32 Times As Laud 720 LOUD Turbo-Fan Ai¢raff @ Taka-0rl Pav,.r @ 200 FL tile) r Rivaling M.chln. (110) Rock-H-Roll Band(IDe•174) 110 dB(A)16 times As Laud 770 .let Flyov.r Q 1000 Ft.(103) t Boeing 707.I)GL @ 5050 FL ' Before Landing9 1106) VERY Belt J-2A Helicopter (d 100 FL(too) 100 dB(A)8 Times As Laud 100 LOUD Pov,.r Mow.r(96) N....Pap.r Pmax (971 ) - Boeing 737.DC-9 @ SOW FL •- Before Lending(97) ) Motorcycle @ 25 FL (90) 90 dB(A) 4 Times As Loud Car W.ah @ 20 R.(e9) Food Hiind.r(eel Prop. Piano Fiyov.r @ 1000 Ft-�(W) Milling Machine CBS) t Oiuef Tmck.40 MPH @ 50 FL E841 01...I Train.45 MPH @ 100 FL(M) Garbage"Dlxpp..I(e0) 80 dB(A)2 Times As Loud EO MODERATELY Pan g par Cat.6.5h Urban bMPH @ient u25 nd FL I77) g �7 ) ) - Urin Room 6 ) Fr.eway @ 50 FL from Pay.m.nt LOUD TV-Audip..v.cuum Cf..n�r . Edge. 10 A.M.(76�) PO) 70 ) dB(A) 70 Electric RTyp..r a 10 t (65-70) Electric TYD•�•'rlter @@ 10 FL(lM) Air Conditioning Unit @ 100 FL ISO) 134hv.lhOmry i... n (10 FL(60) 60 dB(A) Yz As Loud 60 1 OUIEr Large Transform..@ too FL(501 50 dB(A) Ya As Laud SD _, Bird Call (p) - L.w.r Limit. �- Urban Ambient Sound (40) 40 dB(A) 7A As Laud 40 JUST AUDIBLE (db(A) Scale Interrupted) ----T THRESHOLD 0 OF HEARING MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES Figure 2' - Typical Noise Levels CONSULTING ENGINEERS i does utilize, informally, the Orange County Noise Ordinance which is designed to control certain noise sources throughout the community. It should be noted that State and Federal laws preempt local municipalities ' from controlling motor vehicle noise while such vehicles are on public roads. However, the Motor Vehicle Code, which is enforced by local police departments, include special provisions for noise emissions from motor ' vehicles. For the purposes of this analysis, the Orange County Noise -Ordinance will be used to determine if the Newport Aquatics Complex is compatible with the surrounding residential land uses. The Noise Ordinance is designed to protect residential areas from noise' intrusion from a' variety of noise sources. The following section is copied from the noise ordinance and is reproduced here to indicate the noise levels ' permitted in the noise ordinance: Sec. 4-6-5. Exterior Noise Standards (a) The following noise standards, Unless otherwise specifically indicated, shall apply to all residential property within a designated noise zone: NOISE STANDARDS Noise Zone Noise Level Time Period 1 55 dB(A) 7,00 am 10:00 pm 50 db(A) 10:00 pm- 7:00 am In the event that the alleged offensive noise consists entirely of impact noise, simple tone noise, speech, music, or any combination thereof, each of the above noise levels shall be 'reduced by five (5) db(A). (b) It shall be unlawful for any person at any location within the unincorporated area of the County to create any noise, or to allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied, or otherwise controlled by such person, when the foregoing causes the noise level , when measured on any other residential property, either incorporated or unicorporated, to exceed: �1) The noise standard fora cumulative period of more than thirty 30) minutes in any hour; or ' (2) The noise standard plus five (5) db(A) for a cumulative period of more than fifteen (15) minutes in any hour; or ' (3) The noise standard plus ten (10) dB(A) for a cumulative period of more than five (5) minutes in any hour; or ' (4) The noise standard plus fifteen (15) dB(A) for a cumulative period of more than one (1) minute in any hour; or (5) The noise standard plus twenty (20) dB(A) for any period of time. 2 The Newport Aquatics Complex will not have any machinery type noise sources which operate continuously and might accumulate 30 minutes of noise ' in an hour. The noise ordinance provision which may apply is the requirement that noise levels not exceed 70 dBA at any time. The primary concern here is with the instantaneous maximum noise levels generated by car door slamming, engine start-up, and car pass-bys. In addition, the public address system and mechanical ventilation system is discussed in the mitigation section of this report. However, the major concern is motor ' vehicle noise. Noises associated with cars entering, exiting, and using the parking lot at the facility are described in the following section. 4.0 NOISE MEASUREMENTS As part of previous parking lot noise •studies done by Mestre Greve ' Associates , noise measurements were made of parking lot noise. The measurements were made to determine the noise levels generated by the various activities associated with a parking lot. ' Traffic associated with parking lots is -generally not of sufficient volume to exceed commu6i'ty noise standards that are based on a time averaged ' scafe such as the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNE•L) used for residential land use planning studies near roadways (impacts on CNEL levels are discussed later in this report). However, the instantaneous maximum sound levels generated by car door slamming, engine start-up, and car pass- bys can be annoying to nearby residents. Estimates of the maximum noise levels associated with some parking lot activities are presented below, and are based on measurements conducted by Mestre Greve Associates. The noise ' levels presented are for a distance of 50 feet from the source, and are the maximum noise level generated. A range is given to reflect the variability of noise generated by various automobile types and driving styles. ' TABLE 1 MAXIMUM NOISE LEVELS GENERATED BY PARKING LOTS ' (dBA at 50 Feet) ---------------------------------------------------- ' EVENT -----------------------------MAX_ NOISE LEVEL - Door Slam 60 to 70 Engine Start-up 60 to 70 Car pass-by 55 to 70 ' ---------------------------------------------------- The applicable portions of the noise ordinance require that at no time is a noise level over 70 dBA permitted to impact a residential area with outdoor activity areas. The noise associated with the Newport Aquatics Complex will ' not have sufficient duration to fall into the 5, 10 , 15, or 30 minute categories of the noise ordinance. 3 F i At the proposed Newport Aquatics complex no residential yard lies ' within 50 feet of any portion the parking lot and therefore, no home will be exposed to parking lot noise in excess of that permitted by the Orange County Noise Ordinance. Noise from vehicles operating on local streets is discussed in the following section. 5.0 TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACTS ' The project generated traffic will increase noise levels on streets accessing the site. These streets are residential streets with relatively low traffic volumes. The increase in noise will be proportional to the increase in traffic. Table 2 lists the traffic levels on local streets with and without the project and shows the change in noise level due to this , traffic increase. The traffic noise increase shown in Table 2 appears substantial., but because the area has relatively low traffic the net noise with the project is still quite low. For example, the distance to the 65 CNEL noise contour as computed for each of the roadways is shown in Table 3 pu a y with and without the J roject. In no case does the 65 CNEL noise contour P extend outside the road right of way. As a matter of interest, it would take a traffic volume of 12,0OO to 15,000 ADT to generate a 65 CNEL contour ' that penetrate private yard areas adjacent to these local streets. To summarize Tables 2 and 3 it is best understood that the noise increase due to the project seems large, but even with the project the neighborhood noise , levels are still very low and well below the noise levels permitted by the City of Newport Beach. This projects' noise level is very lbw compared to the noise associated with John Wayne, Airport, which is clearly the dominate noise source in the area, Table 2 NOISE INCREASE DUE TO PROJECT TRAFFIC • --- P ------------------ -- - Y b--Y---- - -w - - ' Exsiting Worst-Day Increase 'Roadway Link Traffic Project Traffic In Noise (dBA)--- ------------------------------ ' North Lane: 250 1196 7.6 Polaris: —North of North Lane 500 170 1.3 -South of North Lane 750 1016 3.7 -East of Santiago 1000 1n16 3.0 Westcliff: _ 3500 --1016 1.1-_-- ------------------------- --------- --------------- -- Worst day is a summer weekday. 4 Tabl e 3 DISTANCE TO 65 CNEL CONTOURS WITH AND WITHOUT PROJECT Distance to 65 CNEL Contour from Centerline Roadway Link Exisiing With Project ' ------------------------------------------------------ ------------- North Lane: 2 7 Polaris: -North of.North Lane 3 4 -South of North Lane 5 8 -East of Santiago 6 9 Westcliff: 13 15 ----------y-----------------------------------------------=-----=------ Distance in feet from centerline of road for summer weekday. These distances are very small and represent insignificant noise levels. 6.0 MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS ' The following recommendations are made to mitigate any noise impacts generated by the Newport Aquatics Complex, particularly with the parking ' lot. The measures are designed to result in acceptable noise levels in the adjacent- residential areas. 1. Facility events should be scheduled between the hours of 7 am to 11- pm ' for general public use. Only a limited number'of advanced training uses should be permitted between 6 am and 7 am with no use permitted after 11 pm or before 6 am. This will keep noises at a minimum during the most ' sensitive time periods when people are trying to sleep. 2. During use of the facility an on site manager should be present. *is ' manager should have the authority to restrict use of the facility to individuals with motor vehicles not in conformance with the motor vehicle code. ' This is intended to eliminate noisy vehicles with faulty or modified ' exhaust systems. 3. Provide residents with a point of contact, either Newport Aquatics management or City police, to handle complaints of noisy vehicles in the ' parking lot or on local streets. 4. Control the loudness of the public address system so as to be inaudible ' at nearby residences. 1 5 1 1 ' 1 Traffic Study For NEWPORT AQUATIC CENTER 1 1 . i 1 1 Prepared For 1 MARIE GILLIAM 1 1 1 1 1 Prepared By 1 BASM'ACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. BD BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. ' * ENGINEERING AND PLANNING • Transportation, Traffic, Municipal, Transit 4262 Campus Drive, Suite B•1 Newport Beach,California 92660 (714) 549.9940 ' June 15 , 1984 Ms. Marie Gilliam 1825 Westcliff Drive ' Suite 177 Newport Beach, CA 92660 ' SUBJECT: Traffic Study for Sunset Aquatic Center Dear Ms. Gilliam: Transmitted herewith are the two copies of the subject traffic report. The report addresses Existing Conditions , Project- Related Traffic 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, BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. ' Bill E. Darnell, P.E. BED/ss enclosure 1 1 1 1 TRAFFIC STUDY FOR ' NEWPORT AQUATIC CENTER Prepared for: Marie Gilliam 1825 Westcliff Drive . Suite 177 Newport Beach, CA 92660 ' Prepared by: BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. , ' 4262 Campus Drive, Suite B-1 Newport Beach, CA 92660 ( 714) 549-9940 1 I CD June 15 , 1984 F 4�D� �C,t �0 {� Cl PT BEpCN, � N � TABLE OF CONTENTS ' PAGE NO. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 ' Project Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 PROJECT-RELATED TRAFFIC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Trip Generation . . . . . . . . . 5 ' Trip Distribution and Assignment. . . . . . . . . 8 Impacts 8 ' TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 ' ACCESS AND INTERNAL CIRCULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . 14 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . . . . . 20 ' Appendix A - Winter/Summer Particant Demands Appendix B - Winter Weekday 1 % Analysis Worksheets Appendix C - Summer Weekday 1 % Analysis Worksheets ' Appendix D - Winter Weekday ICU Worksheets Appendix E - Summer Weekday ICU Worksheets 1 I, ' LIST OF TABLES 1 TABLE NO. •DESCRIPTION PAGE NO. 1 SUMMARY OF PROJECT-RELATED TRAFFIC 1- GENERATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1 2 SUMMARY OF WINTER VEHICULAR DEMAND . . . . . 6 3 SUMMARY OF SUMMER VEHICULAR DEMAND 7 1 4 COMMITTED PROJECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5 SUMMARY OF 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS. . . . 16 1 6 SUMMARY OF ICU ANALYSIS. . . . . . . . . . . 17 r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' LIST OF FIGURES ' FIGURE NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE NO. ' 1 VICINITY MAP . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES . . . . . . . . . 4 ' 3 TRIP DISTRIBUTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 ' 4 PROJECT-RELATED WINTER WEEKDAY TRAFFIC . 10 5 PROJECT-RELATED WINTER WEEKEND TRAFFIC 11 6 PROJECT-RELATED SUMMER WEEKDAY TRAFFIC . . 12 7 PROJECT-RELATED SUMMER WEEKEND TRAFFIC . . 13 ' 8 PROJECT-RELATED WINTER WEEKDAY 2-1/2 HOUR PEAK PERIOD AND PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC . . . 18 9 PROJECT-RELATED SUMMER WEEKDAY 2-1/2 HOUR PEAK PERIOD AND PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC • 19 �I , ' TRAFFIC STUDY FOR NEWPORT AQUATIC CENTER ' INTRODUCTION ' This traffic study has been prepared to evaluate the traffic impacts of the proposed Newport Aquatic Center to be located on North Star Beach. Figure 1 is a vicinity map showing the site ' location and surrounding street system. In accordance with the requirement of the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) an assessment of impacts on the arterials and ' critical intersections serving the project must be made. The project is expected to be completed in late 1985 and fully occupied in late 1986. ' Project Description The project site is located on North Star Beach at the end of ' North Star Lane in the Westcliff/Dover Shores area of the City. The project objectives are to build a water oriented training facility for various team and individual canoe, kayak, outrigger youth camp, etc. . The project proponent will lease the site from the City of Newport Beach and develop and operate the facilities. The programs to be offered include: . ' o Advanced Individually Monitored (AIM) - Kayak - Recreational - Rowing - Outrigger ' o Public Instructional Programs - Kayak - Rowing - Outrigger - Recreational o Indoor Public Programs - Stretching ' - Volleyball - Other ' o Indoor Multipurpose Rooms - Team Meetings - Boating Classes ' - Municipal Functions o Youth Day Camps/Sports Camps ' o Boat Clubs o City Programs ' The various programs and daily activities are governed by the City of Newport Beach through a Facilities Management Plan prepared by the applicant and approved by the City. -1- � ■� i• � �■ i. � � � i• i• �■ift i• � !fi �■e � s � > a Or 3 • • Such St IL p t L COrOna °e ¢ Da r Mar Freeway o.� er eto So. Bristol Del Mar Ave __ UdversllY ` °Y COO Boni Cy _�al P°d0no X + ��r.I 9 Project Site �`a9a`I ti n • W 9[sO •°i d \22nd St Fp1 Aqa O It A San 1 a Santiago Drive c d 18Ih S[ i �Os9u/a 0 `� is n' i Hills A n e E < t = � G , 6th Ave >•Z i 17th St 0 N�gpway a 9 760 9� weelclllt Coast Highway � Drive Horah 0Ystde °o y N £o Staf S I A > ° Lane ♦ _ G °ado C°0 tn9 v Zm O`vd Coast 1{IghwaY ea FIGURE 1 BrJ 1261 I ANAABNE..0-1 . VICINITY MAP 12Et &-b en,.,6nne ad Ne.port a.413499940 `)2660 Dial iJ9 99Je ' The project proposal consists of a 57, 510 square foot facility composed of the following: Boat Storage ( 5 Bays ) _ 15, 000 sq. ft. Indoor Exercise 9, 400 sq.ft. Lockers - 3 , 040 sq. ft. ' Weight Training/Medicine - 31040 sq.ft. Training Hostel/Gallery 3,500 sq. ft. Coordinator Apartment 1., 700 sq.ft. Boat Receiving/Workshop _ 3 ,000 sq.ft. Aquatic Center Accessory Facilities 16 , 230 sq.ft. TOTAL 57,510 sq.ft. ' A total of 150 parking spaces are proposed. Of this total 124 spaces are located within the site gated area. Twenty (26 ) spaces outside the gate for overflow and other users of the beach are provided. EXISTING CONDITIONS The existing land uses in the area are residential and the adjacent Upper Newport Bay. Access to the site is proposed via a ' driveway access into the site from the ninety ( 90 ) degree bend in North Star Lane. Prespntly this access is used by pedestrians and service vehicles. ' Access to the site will be provided by North Star Lane, Polaris Avenue, Galaxy Drive, Santiago Drive, and Westcliff Drive. Dover ' Drive/Westcliff Drive will provide the primary access to/from the adjacent arterial street system. Other than Dover Drive each of the roadways in the area are two lane residential streets with parking. Westcliff Drive between Dover Drive and Santiago Drive ' has restricted (No Parking) along the southerly curb. Existing traffic volume data for the arterial streets were ' obtained from the City of Newport Beach. Traffic data for the local streets was not available and was therefore estimated by Basmaciyan-Darnell, Inc. (BDI) . Figure 2 presents the Daily and t peak hourly traffic volumes . Within the immediate area five critical intersections were identified that could be affected by the proposed project. Intersection Capacity Utilization ( ICU) has previously been per- formed for each intersection representing 1983 conditions. The results of these analyses •.are: ' Intersection ICU Coast Highway at Dover Dr. /Bayshore Drive 0 . 7092 Dover Drive at 16th Street 0 . 5163 Westcliff Drive at Dover Drive 0 . 4807 Irvine Avenue at Westcliff Drive/17th Street 0 . 8314 ' Irvine Avenue at Dover Drive/19th Street 0. 7035 ' -3- m 30,732/7966/3477 600/50/50 Upper Newport Bay d• Ot. D• 788416211689 er Drive et n 'o Project Site • s o '+ o G S 8� Mariners Drive • • mot*r f Le 250/25/25 W estclitt 7 5 0175/7 5 DriV e 7th 17.4001830/1350 Weetcliff Drive Street 3500/350/350 100011001100 22,280/134011680 LEGEND AAA/BBB/CCC — EXISTING DAILYlAM/PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES* 'rESfIMATED BY BDI FIGURE 2 BASMnCIYAN VARM1A„INC. EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES n..pun&..n,lenwm.v]NO IJ NI a�9 iY.0 ' PROJECT-RELATED TRAFFIC To assess the traffic-related impacts of the proposed project on the surrounding street system, tripmaking to/from the project was estimated and distributed to the surrounding roadways. Due to the type of project, standard generation rates are not applicable. Therefore it was necessary to estimate traffic based ' on the various programs occuring throughout the day. Trip Generation Vehicular trip generation to/from the project site was formulated by reviewing the projected particant loads by time of day and ' then converting the participant loads to vehiclar demands. The early AM ( 6:00-9 :30 ) time periods were assumed to be individuals arriving in their car and the rest of the days activities are estimated to have an average vehicle occupancy of 1 . 5 ' persons/auto. Table 1 summarizes the daily, AM, noon and PM traffic to/from the project. Tables 2 and 3 summarize the hourly and daily traffic estimates. Table 2 presents Winter Weekday and ' Winter Weekend traffic, and Table 3 presents the expected Summer Weekday and Summer Weekend data. The corresponding particpant demands are presented in Appendix A. t A review of Tables 2 and 3 show that the project-related daily traffic demands are expected to range from a low of 878 vehicles ' for winter weekday conditions to a high of 1196 vehicles for summer weekday conditions . TABLE 1 ' SUMMARY OF PROJECT-RELATED TRAFFIC GENERATION ' After AM Noon PM ' Daily In Out In Out In Out Winter ' Week Day Peak Hr. 876 90 70 20 33 47 53 ' Week End Peak Hr. 1070 60 40 27 40 67 58 ' Summer Weekday Peak Hr. 1196 60 40 63 56 13 63 ' Weekday Peak Hr. 880 60 40 43 60 43 72 -5- 1 TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF WINTER ' VEHICULAR DEMAND WEEKDAY WEEKEND '1 Time of Day Arrival (a) Departure (a) Arrival (a) Departure (a) 1 6 :00 AM 40 - 40 = 7 : 30 AM 30 30 1 8 : 00 AM 60 40 60 40 9 :00 AM 25 20 1 9 :30 AM - - 30 60 10 :00 AM 30 65 37 30 11:00 AM 10 7 17 13 1 12 :00 NOON 20 33 27 40 1:00 PM 23 20 30 27 1 2 :00 PM - - 7 7 3 :00 PM 13 23 17 30 1 4 :00 PM 53 13 57 17 5 :00 PM 13 13 1 6 :00 PM 47 53 67 58 7 :00 PM 20 20 53 53 1 8 :00 PM 47 47 53 53 9 :00 PM 7 20 40 67 10 :00 PM 33 40 1 TOTAL 438 438 535 535 1 (a) Vehicles 1 1 1 1 1 -6- tTABLE 3 SUMMARY OF SUMMER VEHICULAR DEMAND WEEKDAY WEEKEND ' Time of Day Arrival (a) Departure (a). Arrival (a) Departure (a) 6 : 00 AM 40 = 40 = 7 :00 AM ' 7 : 30 AM 30 30 30 30 8 :00 AM 30 10 30 10 ' 9 : 00 AM 50 30 36 60 9 :30 AM 10 30 10 :00 AM 13 17 60 30 ' 11:00 AM 33 13 13 13 12 :,00 NOON 57 77 13 13 ' 1: 00 PM 63 56 43 60 2 :00 PM 43 43 33 33 ' 2 : 30 PM - - 33 10 3 :00 PM 23 23 13 13 ' 4 :00 PM 73 43 13 13 5 : 00 PM 13 63 43 72 6 : 00 PM 70 43 23 45 ' 7 : 30 PM 50 70 17 36 8 :00 PM - - - - ' 9 :00 PM - - - - 10 :00 PM 50 17 ' TOTAL 598 598 440 440 1 ' (a) Vehicles ' -7- Trip Distribution and Assignment The tripmaking characteristics of the project were developed on ' the assumptions that the majority of traffic would enter Westcliff Drive from Dover Drive and continue on Polaris Drive to North Star Lane. It should be noted here that this is a worst case condition and alternate routes using Polaris Drive to ' Santiago Drive to Mariners Drive and Irvine Avenue are possible. The expected project-related tripmaking characteristics are presented on Figure 2. ' Utilizing the data presented in Tables 2 and 3 and the tripmaking characteristics presented on Figure 3 project-related traffic can be assigned to the surrounding street system. The results of ' these analyses are presented on Figures 4 through 7. Impacts The impacts of project-related traffic on the adjacent street system will primarily occur on North Star Lane, Rolans Drive and ' Westcliff Drive. The impacts on critical intersections are . assessed in the TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE sections of this report. Impacts on residential streets are very sensitive in terms of the residents perception of traffic concerns. From a capacity ' standpoint each roadway can adequately accommodate 5, 000 daily vehicles. This level of traffic however may not be acceptable to residents of the area. Review of the traffic volume data presented on Figures 4 through 7, the addition of project-related ' traffic is not expected to exceed 5 ,000 daily vehicles. The most significantly impacted roadway will be North Star Lane and Westcliff Drive between Dover Drive and Santiago Drive. The ' following summarizes the existing and cumulative traffic demands on the adjacent streets . Exist. Plus Proiect-Related ' Winter Summer Exist. Weekday Weekday Daily Daily Daily ' Location Traffic Traffic Traffic North Star Plan 250 1130 1446 ' Polaris Drive to Site Polaris Drive 1000 1750 2016 ' North Star Lane to Santiago Drive Westcliff Drive 3500 4250 4616 ' Santiago Drive to Dover Drive ' Each of these traffic loads can be accommodated within their existing available roadway capacity. -8- f• i• f• � i• f• � f• i• f• i• i• i• i• � i• i• f• � 1 m c m c 20% Upper Newport Bay i Qt� 15% +� �0 p• 20% 40% Dover Drive N 7 •O w O� 15% Project Site Lo o • t \0 0 -� Mariners Drive m s �ot bsferC d 85% w estcliff � Drive 10% th we tcliff Drive 15% 45% Street 85% 30% 5% LEGEND XX% — PROJECT—RELATED TRIP DISTRIBUTION \�\ FIGURE 3 UASMACIYAN UARMLL.INC TRIP DISTRIBUTION I1424�mpN OIII�,{�iN 9 1 Naupplt B•xP,Lx•1✓IW•l]{60 l�Nl a{999a0 m c 175/32/20 - Upper Newport Bey 30,732/1955/3477 130/24/15 ,e 630174M C O� cover Drive La 175/32/20 360/64/40 °° o NA 7884/821/889 0 Project Site i o • 88o/160/10o 113011861125 i s • ot�rsfEr't [44J815 ariners Drive t� 8 750/136/86 400/72/45 WestG►Nt 160012111180 88116/10 NA Drive NA 132/24/15 17th7,400/830/1350 a iclff Drive Street 760/136/86 750/136/85 268/48/30 4250/4861435 1750/— 2387T55 22.2801134011680 LEGEND XXX/YYY/ZZZ - PROJECT-RELATED DAILY/AM/PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES AAA/BBB/CCC - EXISTING PLUS PROJECT-RELATED DAILY/AM/PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES NN\ FIGURE 4 BASMACIYAN UABNlI.L.INC. PROJECT-RELATED WINTER WEEKDAY TRAFFIC 1I42 umyw Bil\ .SwY Y 1 i Nupu.10. C i,Y7100 11141 N9"40 m G + c 215/20/25 Upper Newport Bay 30,732/1996/3477 Je 180/15/19 880/e6/69*t 430/40/30 O� 7gg 21 ver Drive tP q NA Project Site i o + o 0 1070/100/125 s $ter 1320/1251160 Mariners Drive poi Ls westcllft 9 1 0/8511 06 166011601181 106/10/13 480/46/56 ,/ Drive h 16016301- NA th 17 400l830/13b0 a clltt Drive Street 910/85/106 910/86/106 54/8/6 320/30/38 441014351456 1810/186/2Q8 NA LEGEND 22, 801134011680 XXXIYYY/ZZZ - PROJECT-RELATED DAILY/AMIPM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES AAIB/� BB/CCC - EXISTING PLUS PROJECT-RELATED DAILYIAM/PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES FIGURE 5 13A'"'""YA"°""""`'INC. PROJECT-RELATED WINTER WEEKEND TRAFFIC not..nw .4uv.swuYl Ne.pu.t w..n.uuiunu Yt{w a c Upper Newport Bay > 239/20/15 30,732/1956/3477 170/15/11 670/65/61 239/20/1 NA 478 40 31 1,1 [)ever Drive 09 0 215/20/26 0 c Project Site n2 O O - I " s Mariners Drive • e aOlt IN' at C e 1196/100176 446/1261101 estclitt 1016/85/65 120/10/8 638/4b/34 W 1788/180/140 NA NA' / Drive FNA 2 f , 7tb 6060 a tcllff Drive C Street 1 0 1 618 516 5 358130/22 46161435/415 1016/85/65 22,280/1340/1680 201611851165 ZZZ - PROJECT-RELATED DAILY/AM/PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES AAA/BBB/CCC - EXISTING PLUS PROJECT-RELATED DAILY/AM/PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES \B,�\ - FIGURE 6 AASAIACIYAN UARNELL•INC. PROJECT-RELATED SUMMER WEEKDAY TRAFFIC Y2i p14LNYY3a° i, i• i• f, � i• i• w � i, i• � i• i• i• � f, i• � m e c Upper Newport Bay > 167/20/223 t 30.732/195613477 �e 132/15/17 832/85/87+,1 167/20/23 �• — 782l40/4 Oo NA 8 /e 9 paver Drive co 0 o I mo a �° Project Site r o a w o Mariners Drive o • �at�r`Star e 88011001115 1130/1251146 396/45/52 748/85/98 NA W estclltf 1 49 8/1 6011 7 3 417thl7.400183011350 Drive 13211 1118 eatcliff Drive 748/85/98 /b/6 264/30/37 4248/436/448 NA 22,280/1340/1880 748/8b/98 174811851198 LEGEND XXX/YYY/ZZZ — PROJECT—RELATED DAILY /AM/PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES AAA/BBB/CCG — EXISTING PLUS PROJECT—RELATED DAILY/AM/PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES \"INNI,.- FIGURE 7 BA'"A`IYa".°AH"t"''"`. PROJECT—RELATED SUMMER WEEKEND TRAFFIC 141 umpn Dn. ,Sun,Yn M[�yN Y[aJ.W Iwrv,Y3460 �11 �J19 Y9JU ' TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE The City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) requires that all projects greater than 10, 000 square feet or ten dwelling units be assessed for its impact on the surrounding circulation system. The first impact assessment involves the ' determination if project-related traffic exceeds 1 % of the 2.5 hour peak period traffic at critical intersections on the City' s arterial street system. The City Traffic Engineer has identified ' five ( 5 ) critical intersections for evaluation. The TPO assessment is required for one year after ,full occupancy of the project. For purposes of this analysis 1987 was used and appropriate approved projects traffic was obtained from the City ' Traffic Engineer. Table 4 summarizes projects included in this analysis. ' To assess the implication of both winter and summer project- related traffic conditions Figures 8 and 9 were prepared showing the project-related 2. 5 hour peak period traffic and the PM peak ' hour traffic. Figure 8 presents the winter weekday condition and Figure 9 presents the summer weekday condition. This data was then used to perform the 2. 5 Hour Peak period 1 % analysis . Table 5 summarizes the results of these analyses. ' Review of Table 5 shows that during the Winter weekday condition three (3 ) of the five ( 5 ) critical intersections are expected. to ' have project-related traffic exceed 1 % of the 2. 5 hour peak period traffic on any approach. Similarly for four (4) of the five ( 5 ) intersections exceed 1 % with project-related summer ' weekday traffic. The next step in the TPO analysis requires that at the critical intersections where project-related traffic exceeds 1 % of the 2 . 5 ' hour peak period traffic, ICU' s be calculated. The TPO regulations require that each critical intersection not ' passing the 1 % test be examined for the projects impact on each critical intersection and to determine if the resulting ICU' s do exceed 0 . 9000. The results of the ICU analysis are presented in ' Table 6 . Review of Table 6 shows that the addition of project-related traffic is not expected to result in any of the critical inter- sections having ICU' s exceeding 0 . 9000 in 1987 with approved projects and project-related traffic. Therefore, the project satisfy' s the Traffic Phasing Ordinance assessment regulations ' and can be approved. ' ACCESS AND INTERAL CIRCULATION The preliminary site plan for the project was reviewed for ' adequacy in terms of access and internal circulation. Review of the site plan was found to be satisfactory except for the service road along the northerly side of the project. The concern -14- 1 TABLE 4 COMMITTED PROJECTS ' Sheraton Expansion MacArthur Court See Projects 530 to 533 Amendment No. 1 North Ford Pacesetter Homes Ross Mollard ' Aeronutronic Ford Pacific Mutual Plaza Back Bay Offices Hughes Aircraft #2 Civic Plaza Heritage Bank ' Koll Center Newport Flagship Hospital National Education Office Fun Zone North Ford Marriott Hotel Banning/Newport Ranch St. Andrews Church ' Plaza Lido YMCA Newport Place Morgan Development Shokrian Four Seasons Hotel ' Big Canyon 10 Block 400 Medical Sea Island Valdez Baywood Apartments Koll Center Npt. No. 1 TPP ' Harbor Point Homes University Athletic Club Allred Condos TPP 4 Emkay Rudy Baron Carver Grandville Office Univ ATH Club Tpp 4 Emkay Corona Del Mar Homes ' Martha' s Vineyard Big Canyon Villa Apts. Coast Business Center 1400 Dove Street Hoag Hospital 1100 Quail Street Amend No. 1 McArthur Court Heltzer Medical Office National Education (RVSD) Koll Center TPP Amendment 4A Amendment No. 2 Ford Aero ' Amendment No. 1 Ford Aero Corporate Plaza ' -15- TABLE 5 SUMMARY OF 1 % TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS ' Project-Related Traffic Exceeds 1 % of 2. 5 Hour Peak Period ' Winter Summer Critical Intersection Weekday Weekday ' Dover Drive at: Coast Highway NO YES 16th Street YES YES ' Westcliff Drive YES YES Irvine Avenue at: ' 17th Street/Westcliff Drive NO NO 19th Street/Dover Drive YES YES 1 ' -16- ' TABLE 6 SUMMARY OF ICU ANALYSIS Winter Weekday Summer Weekday Exist. Exist. ' Plus Plus Approved Approved Exist. Projects Exist. Projects ' Plus Plus Plus Plus Approved Proposed Approved Proposed Exist. Projects Projects Exist. Projects Projects Intersection ICU ICU ICU ICU ICU ICU Dover Drive at: ' Coast Highway N.A. N.A. N.A. 0.7092 0. 8139 0. 8167 16th Street 0 . 5163 0. 5281 0 . 5341 0. 5163 0 . 5281 0 . 5341 ' Westcliff Dr. 0. 4087 0 . 4916 0. 5038 0. 4807 0 . 4916 0 . 5041 ' Irvine Avenue 0 . 7035 0. 7382 0. 7451 0 . 7035 0. 7382 0.7463 ' N.A. = Not Applicable .1 1 -17- C o o em o M 1 N h (� = 18/11 bath Street -e- 18/11 Dover Drive . m 23/9 -� O m ' Orlve oarlrters Cl. m n w a N F 8/6 17th Street or 4/2 Westcliff Drive ' 11/5 r 18/7 N a ' m a e v N pl ' 18th Street o .r LEGEND' c w XX/YY - PROJECT-RELATED TRAFFIC C 2 1/2 HOUR PEAK PERIOD/PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC � to C4C4 N N Coast Highway +1 17/7 ' 17/7 J ! ' FIGURE 8 PROJECT-RELATED ' BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. WINTER WEEKDAY 2 1 /2 HOUR PEAK PERIOD AND PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC 4262 Campus Drive,Suite B-1 ' Newport Beach,California 92660 (714)549.9940 —18— s� = O � e � ' 21/13 19th Street 21/13 Dover Drive ' 31/3 G e rtrers Dr1ve Me a i m � � . 1 0)� '^ 11/8 17th Street r 6/3 Westcliff Drive 16/1 2312 1/ i 1 C0 � n a a i 18th Street 1 � m a 1 = ` n c` a LEGEND XX PROJECT-RELATED TRAFFIC c 2 1/2 HOUR PEAK PERIOD/PM PEAK HOUR a .- toQD I mm Coast Highway 23/2 2312 —4 FIGURE 9 PROJECT-RELATED BASMACIYAN•DARNELL, INC. SUMMER WEEKDAY 2 1/2 HOUR PEAK PERIOD 4262 Campus Drive,Suite B•1 AND PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Newport Beach,California 92660 (714)549.9940 -19- involves the need for a turn around to permit vehicles to turn around at the end of the service road. Another area of concern involves the turn around drop-off area on the site. The design ' of the turn around should be further refined to be assured that the turn around can accommodate passenger cars as well as delivery trucks and trash trucks. ' SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ' o The proposed Newport Aquatic Center is expected to generate 876 daily vehicle trip ends on a winter weekday and 1196 daily vehicle trip ends on a summer weekday. o Analysis of the project for conformance to the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) was completed. ' Of the five ( 5 ) critical intersections identified by the City Traffic Engineer for evaluation, three ( 3) on a winter week- day and four ( 4 ) on a summer weekday were found to not pass the "one percent" test for the 2 . 5 hour peak period traffic. ' Detailed analysis of each intersection showed that in 1987, - with full occupancy of the project, each intersection would have ICU' s less than 0 . 9000 . ' o Access and Internal site circulation 'were reviewed and found to be adequate except as follows : ' - The service road on the northerly side of the project does not provide a turn around for vehicles , service trucks or vehicles with trailers. - The turn around drop-off area does not appear to be adequate for vehicles, trucks, etc. ' Each of these concerns should be discussed and resolved during final plan preparation. ' o The addition of project-related traffic to the adjacent street system is not expected to create any capacity problems. However, residents of the area may be concerned ' about the increase in traffic. t -20- it t I APPENDIX A Winter/Summer Participant ' Demands 1 1 ' TABLE A-1 ' SUMMARY OF WINTER PARTICIPANT DEMAND ' WEEKDAY WEEKEND Time of ' Day Arrivals (a) Departures (a) Arrivals (a) Departures (a)I 6 :00 AM 40 - 40 - ' 7 : 30 AM 30 30 8:00 AM 60 40 60 40 ' 9 : 00 AM 25 20 - 40 9 : 30 AM 45 60 10: 00 AM 45 65 55 45 11: 00 AM 15 10 25 20 ' 12 : 00 NOON 30 50 45 40 1: 00 PM 35 30 45 40 2 : 0 0 PM - - .10 10 ' 3: 00 PM 20 35 25 45 4 :00 PM 80 20 85 25 ' 5 :00 PM 20 20 - - 6 :00 PM 70 80 100 85 ' 7 :00 PM 30 30 80 80 8 : 00 PM 70 70 80 80 ' 9 :00 PM 10 30 60 100 10 : 00 PM 50 60 TOTAL 580 580 750 750 ' (a) Persons ' TABLE A-2 SUMMARY OF SUMMER PARTICIPANT DEMAND ' WEEKDAY WEEKEND Time ' of Day Arrivals (a) Departures (A) Arrivals (-a) Departures(.a 6 :00 AM 40 = 40 = 7 :00 AM ' 7 : 30 AM 30 30 30 30 8 :00 AM 30 10 30 10 9 : 00 AM 75 30 55 60 ' 9 : 30 AM 15 30 - - 10 :00 AM 20 25 90 45 ' 11: 00 AM 50 20 20 20 12 : 00 NOON 85 115 20 20 ' 1: 00 PM 95 85 65 90 2 :00 PM 65 65 50 50 2 : 30 PM - - 50 15 3 :00 PM 35 35 20 15 ' 4 :00 PM 110 65 2'0 20 5 :00 PM 20 95 65 110 6 :00 PM 105 65 35 45 ' 7 : 30 PM 75 105 25 55 8 :00 PM - - - ' 9 : 00 PM - - _ 10 :00 PM 75 25 ' TOTAL 850 850 615 615 (a) Persons 1 ' APPENDIX B ' - Winter Weekday 1 % Analysis Worksheets 1 z It Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Hwy./Dover Dr.-Bayshore Dr. ' (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1963 Peak 2� Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1 of Projected i Projers;- Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak Zk Hour Peak 2y Hour �;� Peak 2grNbu Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ' Northbound 236 Southbound 2655 — c1i !� 01-7 29 Eastbound 4025 233 Q �3 I 5 l Westbound 6191 l ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2;1 Hour Traffic Volume ' Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected — [] Peak 2;1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. ,.t 1 �EW P©R-T U AT"1C �I.UT�R. DATE: to- l3—C ' PROJECT: \t�T�t�- ll� C � • FORM I xJ I% Traffic Volume Analysis • Intersection Dover Dr. / 16th St. ' (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 _ ' Peak 2y Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional ?tQJects Projected la.of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growtrj: Peak' 2k Hour Peak 2�46ur Peak 2� Hour Peak 2� Ho Volume Volurnzy, Volume VolLw Volume Volume ' Northbound 2460 — � a ?>4 Southbound 2103 — 1 9(4�D � 29- ' Eastbound 410 i + Westbound 18 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 2; Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. — DATE: PROJECT: lA) 1 et TeJ2- -- FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection Dover Dr. / Westcliff Dr. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 _ Peek 2k Hour Approved ' Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 11'14f:Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2k Hoyr Pik 2h Hour Peak 2y Ho Volume Volume Volume Volume+. :Volume Volume Northbound I .. b 2284 —'TlJ Southbound 1070 �rrGg� ( /r�j�tp ' I Eastbound 1551 — 2'5 1 JT79 ! 10 1(4 �� � Westbound ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ' Peak 2;1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization '• (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. ' r r � I F r DATE: PROJECT: • ' LO ttJTi"7L ( c�EEK-`�i°r`� ,,3 FORM I 1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ZIP Intersection Irvine Ave. / Dover Dr.-19th St. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pring 9 83 1 Peak 2� Hour Approved Approach Fxist'ing Regional Projects Projected 1". of-Projected Project ' Direction Peak 25 Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 211 Hour Peak;2y Hour Peak 2� Ho� Vehme Volume Volume Volume ume Volume North'Eu•and 1806 ' Southbound 3541 Eastbound 504 ' ! Westbound 973 l0 ! 3� Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected 1771 Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volume _ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ' Peak 2;1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization _.:(I.C.U.) Analysis is required. -, 1 - lU t9(LT" l lF=}:n C 0_6-1l) FL—,- DATE: (o -l 3- 4' . ' PROJECT: LJN l b"�L LL.)E&_Z 1D µ( FORM I 1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Irvine Ave. / Westcliff Dr.-17th St. 1 {Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pring 98 Peak 21* Hour Approved 1 Approach Vtxisting Regional Projects Projected 1%, of Projeeted 1 Project) Wection creak 2k Hour Growth Peak 211 Hour Peak 211 Hour Peak 2�- Hyur Peak 2h H Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume 1 Northbound 1681 — 5 southbound 2793 ' Eastbound 2279 '. Westbound 1582 4J5 1(0-:�o I Z 1 -- ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2)1 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 A) eWPO72r T!G CE7U-113-9, DATE: 6 -�3-�� 1 PROJECT: ' Lt)/A.) FORM I ��5 1 1 1 1 1 ' APPENDIX C Summer Weekday 1 % Analysis Worksheets 1 ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Hwy./Dover Dr.-Sayshore Dr. ' (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter pring 19 83 Peak 21is Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1". of Projected Project Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 2$ Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 21% Hou Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ' Northbound 236 Southbound 2655 IS Eastbound 4025 150 Westbound 6191 Q T)3 1 l - Z 3 ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 231 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 19 of Projected _ Peak 21� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. I +f 1 ' G:'WFV471 40iWR- /r- 05U7E72, DATE: ' PROJECT: WMMQZ (t 6FA&-LV4+l FORM I a• ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Dover Dr. / 16th St. ' (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 _ Peak 2y Hour Approved ' Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2� Hour Growtri Peak' 2+s Hour Peak 23y Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 24 Hot Volume Vol UM—!!,. Volume Volume Volume Volume ' Northbound 2460 — -7 Southbound 2103 — 41 `7•� 3T IEastbound 410 ' Wes tbound 18 ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 11 of Projected Peak 21% Hour Traffic Volume ' Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. — A j AJ `-W P02-7- u1 77 C, C'00 -(z!'Z DATE: 17 - 13 -k5Z ' PROJECT: 4S(.Cpniv7 WL--&7GDe+7 C- -Z FORM I 1' Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection Dover Dr. / Westcliff Dr. ' (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 _ Peak 21� Hour Approved ' Approach Existing' Re;ional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 21i Hour Peak 2)1 Hour Peak 2+ Hour Peak 2h Hot Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound2284 OZ 'l 5 ' ( Southbound 1070 I l 1059 cx1I ' I Eastbound 1551 — �/� 1 Westbound Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2;1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization 1- (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. J0 ' ItI�Zt7f�8YzT �gQU,�T1C Ci5A) DATE: !0-/3- ' PROJECT: m41747n FORM I J - 1 C � 1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Irvine Ave. / Westcliff Dr.-17th St. ' (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 _ Peak 2k Hour Approved ' Approach tvtxisting Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Wection Freak 2� Hour Growth Peak 2), Hour Peak 2§ Hour Peak 2� Hour i Peak 2y He Volume Volume Volume volume Volume Volume ' Northbound 1681 sou`hbound 2793 - Eastbound 2279 , _ Aja3a5 01\31 UP Westbound 1582 — �LJ ��( �/ (p ' 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. F + NCW P&n-7 i9-T/ C CF7U77--'4- DATE: 3 ' PROJECT: C� FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Irvine Ave. / Dover Dr.-19th St. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 83 • ' Peak 2N Hour Apprpved Approach Ex,iSting Regional Projects Projected 1". of Projected Project Direction I Peak„25 Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2$ Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2y Hou Yalvme Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Hortdund 1806 1911191r Southbound 3541 — , -� ����� `✓� 3 Eastbound 504 — rr��✓(i`t ! C� 3 i Westbound 973 7� l C) 4 2- J ' 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 211 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization ' :..{I.C_U.) Analysis is required. 1 f}QU,4-7/ C a&7►/Tb7L- DATE: PROJECT: $ GC�rlis-l�'7L GcJ�-�'dL/7ig-y ' FORM I APPENDIX D ' - Winter Weekday ICU Worksheets INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Irvine Ave. / Dover Dr.-19th St. bUiti ' ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring i9 83 EXIST. EXIST. ZONAL CCw,ITTED PROJECg�,pp ' Ma.ewait EXISTING PROPOSED Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. G0 PR.HR• Vic 1Ra PROJECT V/C RATIO PROJECT PROJECT Vol. Ratio Vol me Vol uwe r/o Project Yalu a V/C Ratio Vo1we NL 1600 39 .0244* — ,OZ�I� Q7 NT 3200 697 .2256 NR 25 — X� ' SL 1600 208 .1300 jam:: , I?i ec• �- .;l��'�G ST 3200 1327 .4378* ' SR ► 74 EL 1600 + 7$ .D488* c4?V _ a ET 1600 115 .0856 Cal ER 22 — ' WL 1600 22 .0138 WT 1600 148 .0925* - tZ`✓^ I C�7` ' ' WR 1600 1 12 .1325 YELLOWTIME .1000* . U%C i i l Lcc a EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .7035 EXISTING PLUS COEMITTED PLUS REGIONAL Gwrrm N/PROPOSED INPROYEMENTS I.C.U. �'�3a. , i EXISTING' PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROMTN PLUS PROJECT L C.U. ❑ Projected plus project traffic T.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: - , ' / leWPd27" J n�1 4M#77C C .ll..ENT672 DATE: PROJECT wIN76a /JEiFeD.4y ORM TI INTERSE ION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Dover Dr. / 16th St. tV1N p�12, ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 19 83j EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COMMITTED PAMMED EXISTING PROPOSE " i;t Ratio PROJECT 'PPOIECT ' Ib.e.Ment Lanes Cap. Lanes Ca Yo PK. uaXR. Y/C GRDYTX PROTECT i. Ratio YoTe Volume w/o Project Vol une Y/C Ratio Yot�ne NL 1600 138 .0863* * " ' NT 3200 952 .2981 — a NR 2 — ' SL 1600 3r` .0019 ST 3200 _ 839 .2722-Y, — 90 ( " SR -32 ' ' EL + 36 ' a ET 3200 2 .0578* _ ,Qf ,O5 I at ER 147 WL ''_ 1 j ' WT 1600 1 .0031 — ,QJ , ' WR 3 — 1 YELLONTIME 1000* i a ' EXI57ING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTJLIlATION .5163 — • I000*t EXISTING PLUS CMiITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH Y/PROPOSED INPROYEMENTS I.C.U. , i . IO EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GRONTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. I 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 l ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' ' - — - — - — — — — - — — — - — — — — — — r - — — '- — — — — — — — — — — - ' Description of system improvement: . A) EWP&AT .4-0U47-1C (2OJ7Z5e DATE: 10 3 -$¢ ' PROJECT UJ!A) r�5TL LJS:eA::. !3F}-y FORM II INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' Dover Dr. / Gestcliff Dr. • Intersection \�INIZ'k� ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 19 83 ESIST. EXIST. REGIMk+l C➢rMITTED PROJECTED ' Mo.i+ent Ea7ltIHG PROPOSED Pa,.HR. Y/C GROWTH PROJECT Y/C Ratio PROJECT PROJECT Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. Vol, 406 Volume Volume w/o Project Volume V/C Ratio Yalu" NL 3200 367 .1147* ( p ' NT 1600 544 .3400 — (0 NR SL �• L ti. .1 ST Ina 362 .2263* x. ' SR 16001 . f 93 .0581 - f� EL 3200 127 .0397* - Qi ' ET (� ER N.S. 449 WL WT ' WR _ _ — 1 YELLOWTIME .1000* ' EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATi0M EXISTING PLUS 6OFt4ITTSD PLUS REGIOMAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROYENENTS I.C.U, i EXISTING PLUS COMITTED PLUS REGIOttk GROWTH PLUS PROJE& .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 AA ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be ' less-than or-equal to0.90_ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' Description of system improvement: ' ' lUE i POie-r 4QLJ ,*T1C CEV ICiiZ DATE: (D-13 -&-�L PROJECT 014)-reA. . u) FORM I 1 1 i 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX E 1 - Summer Weekday ICU Worksheets 1 1 1 1 ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Irvine Ave. / Dover Dr.-19th St. ' ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 19 83) ' EXISTING PROPOSED EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL C"ITTED PROJECIEO Mo.erent PK.MR. Vic GROWTd PROJECT V/C Ra o PROJECT PROJECT Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. Vol. Ratio Volume Volume w/o Project Volume V/C Ratio Volume NL 1600 39 .0244* ' NT 3200 697 .2256 tj , Z _ Z4F� 4 NR 25 — ' SL 1600 208 .1300r'•l�l�- ST 3200 13Z--1 .4378* ' SR + 74 EL 1600 + 78 .0488* ' a ET 1600 115 .0856 ER 22 ' WL 1600 22 .0138 -m-2 WT 1600 148 .0925* cuf ' WR 1600 212 .1325 YELLOMTIME .1000* 16E�O a i • ' EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1 .7035 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED TCUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. ;7' '- 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 t a ' Q Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement` will be ' less-than or-equal-to0.90- - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' Description of system improvement: • (!U7-&:72. DATE: (4o -l3 &(( PROJECT 5""IMe-M- W, : �-740/g.7 FORM' II ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Dover Dr. / Westcliff Dr. �UfriJUG_i� ' ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1983 EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL? COM ITTED PROJECTED ' Mo.eaent EXISTING PROPOSED PK.MR. V/C GROWN PROJECT V/C Ratio PROJECT PROJECT Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. Vol. Ratio VOILM Volume w/o Project Volme V/C Ratio Volume NL 3200 367 .1147* ' NT 1600 544 .3400 NR SL Joe ST 1600 362 .2263* SR 1600 r 93 .0581 — 9 Cot EL 3200 { 127 .0397* ' ET �y ER N.S. 449 ' WL —WT — ' WR _ fiJ YELLOWTIME .1000* i 'Icco i i .1cac) l e ' EXISTING IMTERSELTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .4807* 1 I i EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. Aq 1J' Ii ,EX STING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. I 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 e r ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less_than or_equal to0.90_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ' Description of system improvement: ' ' __ N�—ZJ�drLT /-tepu�lTJC C`au� DATE: (3 $ PROJECT c5um7Z l��Z—ZD/�y FORM I ' "INTERSE ION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Dover Dr. / 16th St. ��llblNlr I ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 19 83) EXISTING PROPOSED r'fC EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COWITTEO PROIEC•TEO PROJELT ' Movement PK.HR. V/C GROifTH PROJECT Ratio PROJECT Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. Vol. Ratio Volw* Volume w/o Protect Volune V/L Ratio Yotune NL 1600 138 .0863* — C u) * t NT 3200 952 .2981 — NR 2 — j — ' SL 1600 3 .0019 — ,C(' 9 == .Cc ST 3200 839 .2722-50 — aQ -*EAA R ,'Z ZA'* ' SR 32 - .Pf �- EL 36 fJ ET 3200 2 .0578* — ,(� � '� I7` ' ER 147 _ WL : - 1 WT 1600 1 .0031 0 co I — Ccf7l ' WR 1 1 3 YELLOWTIME l000* 'I DUD i ,lcoc) ' EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ,5163 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. EXISTING PLUS COhlIITTEO PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. GJ1 ' ❑ 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< r ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with- systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 ; Description of system improvement: . 1 a-" 1 XJewcwT i7cpu*rl C&SAC DATE: (p —13 -k PROJECT FORM II