The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTPO018 • • TRAFFIC STUDY FOR • PROPOSED DAHLIA COMMERCIAL BUILDING • • • • • TRAFFIC STUDY FOR PROPOSED DAHLIA COMMERCIAL BUILDING AT COAST HIGHWAY AND DAHLIA STREET . FOR THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE IN NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA AUGUST, 1984 • Prepared by: Austin — Foust Associates, Inc. 1450 North Tustin Avenue Suite 108 Santa Ana, California 92701 (714) 667-0496 • • AMrAM OE® AUSTIN-FOUST ASSOCIATES, INC. TRAFFIC ENGINEERING AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING • August 81 1984 1450 NORTH TUSTIN AVENUE, SUITE 108 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd TELEPHONE. (714) 667-0496 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Attention: Patricia Temple Community Development Dept. • Subject: Dahlia Commercial Project - Traffic Phasing Ordinance The study results show a unique situation whereby the project 'passes' the phasing ordinance tests. The project adds more than one percent traffic to the already critical intersection of Coast Hwy and Goldenrod (existing & committed traffic ICU = • 0.9146) . Had the project contributed even one vehicle to the critical movements it"would have increased the ICU thereby re- quiring mitigation. Mitigation of this condition would be ex- tremely difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. However, the project traffic distribution does not assign any traffic to the critical movements. The Coast Hwy widening project plans a raised median on Coast Hwy across Dahlia Street which will prevent future left turns out of Dahlia. As a result no traffic was assigned to this movement. Had even one car been assigned to turn left out of Dahlia the project would fail the ICU test at Coast Hwy and Goldenrod. • I have described this situation in detail in order to empha- size the sensitivity of the assignment and the importance of the raised median on Coast Hwy. If only one one vehicle were to turn left out of Dahlia the project would fail the ICU test and require mitigation of a virtually impossible situation. But, I believe the assignment is justified and the project does not • make worse an existing condition. If you have questions regarding this extremely unique situa- tion, please call. • Sincerely, J E. F t, PE alifornia Reg. No. C-20258/T-854 I • TABLE OF CONTENTS DESCRIPTION PAGE Project Description................................. 0........ 1 • Trip Generation...............................0.....0........ 1 Traffic Distribution and Assignment................. .oleo... . 6 Critical Intersection Analyzed........... .................... 6 Intersection Capacity Utilization — One Percent.. ......... ... 7 Conclusion..oe..00....e..........e..........e.......e..ee...e 7 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE NO. TITLE PAGE • 1 Vicinity. Map..................................... 2 2 Trip Distribution..... ............ ...... ..... .... 3 LIST OF TABLES TABLE NO. TITLE PAGE • 1 Approved Project Volumes.............. ......... .. 4 APPENDIX One Percent Volune Analysis (8) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis (1) • • �Il , • PROTECT DESCRIPTION Mr. Ernest George is proposing to construct a 29,850 square • foot two story commercial building with retail on the ground level and offices on the second floor. Construction is planned to begin and end in 1985. The building would be located on Coast Highway at the inter- section of Dahlia Street. A PM peak hour count of traffic • movements into and out of the site was conducted to determine existing trip generation and distribution. A Location Map is shown in Figure 1. A detailed description of the proposed expansion is presented in Figure 2. • TRIP GENERATION The source utilized for determination of trip rates was the City of Newport Beach standards for small commercial and office • projects. For purposes of estimating future traffic growth, an annual growth rate of 2.3% per year was utilized. All critical inter- sections utilized 1984 traffic counts with the base year for analysis taken as 1986. This required projecting two years' • growth at all intersections. Regional traffic factors were pro- vided by the Forecast Analysis Center of the Orange County Admin- strative Office were utilized. The trip generation attributable to committed but as yet uncompleted projects was added to 1984 traffic for purposes of the one percent test and calculation of ICUs. A listing of these projects is presented in Table 2. • • • a 1 W <d , JT'' "i Via•" /uRRER �=�� •„' I 1 I N wroar eAr _ 1 ru,m u'xr J Q(RESERVE' I A a °°1 nr ie I e� ' t � , 'yam (( <f/ r � �� w q T•� � � S '` r "'mn Poxn a • �' t„n?�a "=y NE POR '"°c 'ro ° i Bonito •� "" BEACH / °- = '^fit _ Reseru dn '4� �w `" , >� 0 •✓ w bP.s° �`� n» euruwr�ocmw � t O • � __� � F w•"�' .T 'jil dal I rarer ,wr un°qy w . T' 4 I _ . df w,v��f4 ° f� �d � � Tarr W,onWfoy,f,}{�t •'N TZ - awu �.{ r • �. 4 P . v 6u o,• p C :ca« Tau y\ 4 F a',p N � I�"uu B `aw a ` aii Rua Aa a3 E� a d /'nr'�a,a,ya• a �g1 b'q. ��\� a iirzf� tt, Eutaw ISIAND . , • SITE a /' a`f '\ a y wun oln nen <. yo t et r 214 f v.a 14 aI' a 8 e1 a . - rr• oa •' - N- Ca11or1 oiM � -� � DAHLIA COMMERCIAL BUILDING PROJECT NEW VICINITY MAP FIGURE 1 AUSTIN•FOUST ASSOCIATES, INC. 2 , TRIP GENERATION RATES USE UNITS ADT PK :HR IN OUT ADT PK HR IN PK HR OUT • RETAIL 14.445 30 1.4 1.8 433 20 26 OFFICE 15.405 13.0 0.6 1.7 200 9 26 LESS EXISTING - - - - - 9 18 • 20 34 NET TRIPS 30% • 30% SAN JO UIN HILLS ,y • S'4� 10% 10% LU • S � 20$ I 12.5% 0 • �111�S� BOAST q% s% a HARBOR VIEW. 10 • s U �---'1040 a E 15% 40 � SEA LAN S$ 20$ —1 15% 70% < OR 15 15% 9 5%1 � ~Iso No left turns permitted (Sp$ o by future construction , 1S$y of raised median. • FIGURE 2 AN r_ TRIP GENERATION AND ASSIGNMENT mom AUSTIN•ROUST ASSOCIAM, INC. • 3 TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE ON APPROVED PROJECT VOLUMES ALL PROJECTS ON FILE: APPROVED VOLUME IS WEIGHTED BY: • HUGHES AIRCRAFT #1 100% OCCUPANCY HOAG HOSPITAL 000% OCCUPANCY FAR WEST SAVINGS AND LOAN 100%' OCCUPANCY PACESETTER HOMES 000% OCCUPANCY AERONUTRONIC FORD 020% OCCUPANCY BACK BAY OFFICE 040% OCCUPANCY • BOYLE ENGINEERING 100% OCCUPANCY CAL CANADIAN BANK 100% OCCUPANCY CIVIC PLAZA 035% OCCUPANCY CORPORATE PLAZA 030% OCCUPANCY KOLL CENTER NEWPORT 000% OCCUPANCY MACARTHUR COURT 032% OCCUPANCY • NATIONAL EDUCATION OFFICE 000% OCCUPANCY NORTH FORD 000% OCCUPANCY ORCHARD OFFICE 100% OCCUPANCY PACIFIC MUTUAL PLAZA 100% OCCUPANCY 3701 BIRCH OFFICE 100% OCCUPANCY NEWPORT PLACE 058% OCCUPANCY • SHOKRIAN 060% OCCUPANCY BANK OF NEWPORT 100% OCCUPANCY BAYSIDE SQUARE 100% OCCUPANCY SEA ISLAND 005% OCCUPANCY BAYSIDE SQUARE 000% OCCUPANCY BAYWOOD APARTMENTS 000% OCCUPANCY • HARBOR POINT HOMES 000% OCCUPANCY ROGER'S GARDENS 100% OCCUPANCY SEAVIEW LUTHERAN PLAZA 100% OCCUPANCY RUDY BARON 000% OCCUPANCY QUAIL BUSINESS CENTER 100% OCCUPANCY 441 NEWPORT BLVD. 100% OCCUPANCY �• MARTHA'S VINEYARD 000% OCCUPANCY VALDEZ 000% OCCUPANCY COAST BUSINESS CENTER 000% OCCUPANCY KOLL CENTER NPT NO. 1 TPP 000% OCCUPANCY SEE PROJECTS 340 TO 343 000% OCCUPANCY ROSS MOLLARD 000% OCCUPANCY • BANNING / NEWPORT RANCH 000% OCCUPANCY PARK LIDO 000% OCCUPANCY HUGHES AIRCRAFT #2 100% OCCUPANCY HERITAGE BANK 000% OCCUPANCY FLAGSHIP HOSPITAL 000% OCCUPANCY BIG CANYON 10 000% OCCUPANCY • FUN ZONE 000% OCCUPANCY MARRIOTT HOTEL 000% OCCUPANCY ST. ANDREWS CHURCH 000% OCCUPANCY YMCA 000% OCCUPANCY ALLRED CONS 000% OCCUPANCY • v � 4 • TABLE 1 (CONTINUED) TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE CN APPROVED PROJECT VOLUMES 052 SHERATON EXPANSION 000% OCCUPANCY • 053 SEE PROTECTS 530 TO 533 . 000% OCCUPANCY 054 AMEND NO 1 MAC ARTHUR COURT 000% OCCUPANCY OCCUPANCY 055 NATIONAL EDUCATION (RVSD) 056 AMENDMENT NO 2 FORD AERO 000% OCCUPANCY 057 CARVER GRANVILLE OFFICE 000%% OCCUPANCY 058 CORONA DEL MAR HOMES 000% OCCUPANCY CY 059 BIG CANYON VILLA APTS. 000% OCCUPANCY 060 1400 DOVE STREET 061 1100 QUAIL STREET 000% OCCUPANCY 062 HELTZER MEDICAL OFFICE 000% OCCUPANCY 063 KOLL CENTER TPP AMEND. 4A 000% OCCUPANCY 340 AMENDMENT NO. 1 FORD AERO 100% OCCUPANCY 341 AMENDMENT NO. 1 FORD AERO 000% OCCUPANCY 342 AMENDMENT NO. 1 FORD AERO 000% OCCUPANCY 343 AMENDMENT NO. 1 NORTH FORD 000% OCCUPANCY 530 AMEaNUWT NO. 1 NORTH FORD 000% OCCUPANCY 531 AMENDMENT NO. 1 NORTH FORD 000% OCCUPANCY 532 AMENDMENT NO. 1 NORTH FORD , 000% OCCUPANCY 533 AMENDMENT NO. 1 NORTH FORD 000% OCCUPANCY • • • • • • 5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT • The directional distribution of traffic generated by the pro- posed facility was assumed to resemble that which presently exists, except that left turns into/out of Dahlia Street which are currently permitted would be prohibited by construction of a raised median. (Note: this becomes a key element of this study) . A count of traffic entering and exiting the parking lot was • conducted to provide an indication of the directional orientation of travel patterns. The results showed a 40% northerly, 30% westerly, 15% southerly and 15% easterly orientation. This same directional distribution was assumed for the future trip genera- tion of the expanded facility. During the count period only two • vehicles turned left on to Coast Highway from the project site. The results of a trip generation distribution and assignment for the critical 2 1/2 hour peak period (which includes only the net increase in traffic - ie proposed project traffic less exist- ting trips generated by land use on the site) are shown in Figure 2. The new project will produce a net increase of 68 exiting and • 40 entering vehicles during the peak 2 1/2 hour period. Of this volume, 15% utilizes Fifth Street to the northeast of the City, and does not impact any critical intersection. The details of the distribution and assignment of this traffic is depicted in Figure 2. Future plans call for a raised median in Coast Highway which will prevent left turns to Coast Highway. Consequently, • no project traffic was assigned to this movement. And, as indi- cated, the high volume flow on Coast Highway makes left turns onto Coast Highway virtually impossible anyhow. CRITICAL INTERSECTIONS • The City Traffic Engineer identified 7 critical intersect- ions for analysis. These seven are: 1. Coast Hwy at Goldenrod •, 2. Coast Hwy at Mac Arthur 3. Coast Hwy at Marguerite 4. Coast Hwy at Avocado • 5. Coast Hwy at Jamboree 6. Coast Hwy at Dover 7. Mac Arthur at San Joaquin Hills Rd • I • 6 '1 '1 • INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION - ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS The analysis revealed two intersections exceeded the one percent test. These locations are: • 1. Coast Hwy at Goldenrod 2. Coast Hwy at Mac Arthur • INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION - ANALYSIS One of the locations failing the one percent test will have 1986 ICU of less than 0.90 even with project traffic. However, the intersection of Coast Hwy and Goldenrod already has an ICU with committed projects exceeding 0.90. This ICU will not be • further increased by the project. Even though the existing ICU exceeds 0.90 the intersection of Coast Hwy and Goldenrod passes the ICU test since it does not make this condition worse. However, it should be pointed out that had even one car been assigned to turn left out of Dahlia onto eastbound Coast Hwy, the • resulting ICU at Coast Hwy and Goldenrod would have increased thereby causing the project to fail the ICU test. Had this been the case, then mitigation of the condition would have been extremely difficult to achieve. • CONCLUSION No intersections will require mitigation as a result of the construction of a 29,850 SF commercial retail/office building on the corner of Coast Hwy and Dahlia Street. Although the traffic generated by the project itself will have no impact on the criti- cal movements in the intersection, nevertheless, existing plus committed traffic will cause the ICU to be above 0.90 (actual ICU = 0.9146) . Had the project contributed any traffic whatsoever to the critical movements the ICU would have increased and the project failed the test. • • 7 • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: Coast Hwy at Goldenrod Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 84 Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour Growth Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour • Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 231 0 21 252 3 0 Southbound 166 0 0 166 2 10 • Eastbound 4148 48 801 4997 50 20 Westbound 2755 32 494 3281 33 6 • Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. + Project Traffic Is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis Is required. • • • PROJECT: Dahlia Commercial Building FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 86 DATE: a/s/sv • INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' Intersection: Coast Hwy at Goldenrod Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 84 PROJECTED EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COMMITTED V/C Ratio PROJ PROJECT Movement EXISTING PROPOSED PK.W2. V/C GROWTH PROJECT w/o Project Vol. V/C Ratio • Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. Vol. Ratio Volume Volume Volume NL 0 64 0.0000 . - 7 0.0000 0 0.0000 . NT 1600 1600 18 0.06 13 + 0 0 0.0656 + 0 0.0656 + NR 0 16 0.0000 - 0 0.0000 . 0 0.0000 . SL 0 41 0.0000 + - 0 0.0000 + 5 0.0000 + ST 1600 1600 5 0.0450 . 0 0 0.0450 . 0 0.0482 . SR 0 26 0.0000 . - 0 0.0000 . 0 0.0000 . EL 1600 1600 23 0.0144 . - 0 0.0144 . 10 0.0206 , ET 3200 3200 1877 0.5991 + 22 389 0.7321 + 0 0.7321 + ER 0 40 0.0000 - 15 0.0000 . ,0 0.0000 . WL 1600 1600 24 0.0150 + - 3 0.0169 + 0 0.0169 + WT 3200 3200 1025 0.3225 . 12 253 0.4052 . 3 0.4062 . WR 0 7 0.0000 . - 0 0.0000 . 0 0.0000 . YELLOWTIME 0.1000 + 0.1000 + 0.1000 + EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION,.... 0.7753 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/ PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. ...... 0.9146 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.0. ...................................... 0.9146 Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 + Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems Improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 >1 Description of system improvement: • PROJECT: Dahlia Commercial Building FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 86 DATE: 8/3/84 .t J 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: Coast Hwy at Mac Arthur Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 84 Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour Growth Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 0 0 0 0 0 Southbound 2277 8 454 2739 27 8 Eastbound 3143 26 626 3795 38 12 Westbound 3224 37 509 3770 38 48 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. + Project Traffic Is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis Is required. PROJECT: Dahlia Commercial Building FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 86 DATE: 06/29/84 AFA Form NBITEST .r INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS . Intersection: Coast Hwy at Mac Arthur Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 84 PROJECTED EXIST. EXIST, REGIONAL COMMITTED V/C Ratio PROJ PROJECT Movement EXISTING PROPOSED PK.HR. V/C GROWTH PROJECT w/o Project Vol. V/C Ratio Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap, Vol. Ratio Volume Volume Volume NL 0 0.0000 - 0.0000 0 0.0000 NT 0 0.0000 + 0 0.0000 + 0 0.0000 + NR 0 0.0000 + - 0.0000 + 0 0.0000 + SL 3200 3200 791 0.2472 + - 183 0.3044 + 4 0.3056 + ST 0 0.0000 . 0 0.0000 . 0 0.0000 . SR 50000 50000 237 0.0047 . - 46 0.0057 . 0 0.0057 , EL 1600 1600 202 0.1263 , - 93 0.1844 . 0 0.1844 . ET 3200 3200 1176 0.3675 + 10 223 0.4402 + 6 0.4421 + ER 0 0.0000 - 0.0000 . 0 0.0000 . WL 0 0.0000 + - 0.0000 + 0 0.0000 + WT 4800 4800 873 0.1819 . 10 145 0.2142 . 10 0.2163 . WR 50000 50000 446 0.0089 . - 117 0.0113 . 14 0.0115 . YELLOWTIME 0.1000 + 0.1000 + 0.1000 + EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION..... 0.7147 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/ PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. ...... 0.8446 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.0. ...................................... 0.8477 + Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 Description of system Improvement: PROJECT: Dahlia Commercial Building FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 66 DATE: 06/29/84 AFA Form NPTPOICU 6/29/84 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: Coast Hwy at Marguerite Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 84 Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour Growth Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 724 0 3 727 7 A' Southbound 704 0 8 712 7 0 Eastbound 4463 51 768 5282 53 10 Westbound 3000 35 495 3530 35 $ + Project Traffic Is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected . Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Project Traffic Is estimated to be greater than i% of Projected Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis Is required. PROJECT: Dahlia Commercial Building FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 86 DATE: 06/29/84 AFA Form NBiTEST 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: Coast Hwy at Avocado Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Dally Traffic Winter/Spring 84 Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour Growth Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 442 0 125 567 6 0 Southbound 35 0 48 83 1 0 Eastbound 3523 29 550 4102 41 12 Westbound 2562_ 21 358 2941 29 20 + Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected • Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization .C.U.) Analysis Is required. PROJECT: Dahlia Commercial Building FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 86 DATE: 06/29/84 AFA Form NBITEST 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: Coast Hwy at Jamboree Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 84 Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour Growth Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 942 0 2 944 9 0 Southbound 4680 4 429 5113 51 2 Eastbound 4417 14 902 5333 53 20 Westbound 4932 41 506 5479 55 10 + Project Traffic Is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected • Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Dahlia Commercial Building FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 86 DATE: 06/29/84 AFA Form NBiTEST F �1 • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: Coast Hwy at Dover / Bayshore Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Dally Traffic Winter/Spring 84 Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour Growth Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 213 0 1 214 2 0 Southbound 2699 0 72 2771 28 5 Eastbound 3946 22 919 4887 49 5 Westbound 6901 22 908 7831 78 17 + Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected . Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Project Traffic Is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume, intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Dahlia Commercial Building FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 86 DATE: 06/29/84 AFA Form NB iTEST v t 1% Traffic Volume Analysis • Intersection: Mac Arthur at San Joaquin Hills Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 84 Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour Growth Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 1932 7 458 2397 24 20 Southbound 3862 9 606 4477 45 12 Eastbound 1887 0 328 2215 22 0 Westbound 861 0 57 918 9 0 + Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected • Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. + Project Traffic Is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. I • PROJECT: Dahlia Commercial Building FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 86 DATE: 06/29/84 AFA Form NBITEST • H1 APPENDIX H Date Filed Environmental Information Form (To be completed by. applicant) GENERAL IINFORMATION 2g E CPSdd r f derma r or project sponsor: 2. Address of project: W L C��A - � -� Assessor's Block and Lot Number (Q't 1 'jt L •2ti �L''�j�. LOT I P�l94- -nmsc.-r 'S23 ?pRc�� Ro3�^pin2 .3, Name, address, and tele hone num er of rson o be contacted concerning this project:C�JES1' R &1 4. Indicate number of the permit application for the project to which this form pertains: \ s an escr a any o er related permits and other. public approvals required for this project, including those required by city, regional, statg and federal agencies: \ 6. Existing zoning district: C * 11 7, Proposed use of site (Project for .which• Ithis. form is filed) : PROJECT DESCRIPTION 8. Site size. (CRE-OJL/ ' ?n eoiar'-rNuy (raDi A I20 Cj AVE 9. Square footage. q -1 lU. Number of floors of construction. 11 . Amount of off-street parking provided. o � � 12 . Attach plans. ✓ 13. 'Proposed scheduling. •AS `C^J h5 fb5*P&G . 111 . Associated projects , MOMC- 15. Anticipated incremental development. �J�C 7EM R H2 If residential, include the number -of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and type of household size expected. 17. If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading facilities. _ gr3r= "P',WL 14 ,4+S,+ 0 �c 1*,� -W. If industrial-, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities. ,IS. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project. 20. If the project involves a variance, conditional use or rezoning application, state this and indicate clearly why the application is required. Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary) . YES NO 21. change in existing features of any bays, tidelands, beaches, lakes or hills, or substantial alteration of ground contours. 22. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads. 23. Change in pattern; scale or character of general area of -project. 24. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. 25. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. 26. Change in ocean, bay, lake, stream or ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns. 27. Substantial change in existing noise or vibs•ation levels in the vicinity. 28. Site on filled land or on slope of 10 percent or more. 29. Use of disposal of potentially hazardous materials, �^`" such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives. H3 YES NO 30. Substantial change .in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc. ) . _ 31. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc. ) . 32. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING . 33• Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures, on the site, and the use of the' structures. Attach photographs- of the site. Snapshots or polaroid photos will be accepted. 34. Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, ets. ), intensity of land use (one-family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.) , and scale of development (height, frontage, set-back, rear yard, etc. ) Attach photographs of the vicinity. Snapshots or polaroid photos will be accepted. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished a ove an in the attached exhibits presei,t the data and infor- mation required for this initial evaluation to the best or my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Gate (Signature) For • 0 APPENDIX I ENVIRONMENTAL CHECELIST FORM Environmental Checklist Form (To Be Completed By Lead Agency) I. Background 1. Name of Proponent oiST Cam,{- ' Ej6 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent 2 W G1DYLmN/s lJFI�MAI' .�.<o :� �l•�"�'y 3. Date of Checklist Submission 4. Agency Requiring Checklist 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable II. Environmental Impacts - (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) YES MAYBE NO 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, com- paction or overcovering of the soil? . c. Change in topography or ground ' surface relief features? to N d. The destruction, covering or modi- fication of any unique geologic or y physical features? -P-x e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? X 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? 73 y f YES MAYBE NO g. Exposure of people or property to geological hazards such as earth- quakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deteri- oration•of ambient air quality? ' x b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? A 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates., drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? C. Altgrations to the course of flow of flood waters? 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, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? VX g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct addi- tions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? l h. Substantial 'reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? � i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? V� 74 5 • PPE-2A:22 • YES MAYBE Nn 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)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any IV 1 � agricultural crop? 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms. X or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? x C. Introduction of new species of ani— mals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement X of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or X wildlife habitat? 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? ftj b. Exposure of people to severe noise ' levels? 7. Liyht and Clare. Will the proposal produce X new light or glare? B. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? 75 • • YFS MAYRF_ P!0 '9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? b. Substantial depletion of any non— renewable natural resource? kov 10. Risk of Lipset. Does the proposal involve 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? 4%OV 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? �( b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? yy( c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? — d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or --T� air traffic? �( OM f. Increase in traffic hazardous to — motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? �( 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the folicwi.ng areas : /�j 76 PPE-2A:24 • • YES MAYBE NO a. Fire protection? se b. Police protection? 1 c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? -A- f. other governmental services? _ 15. Energy Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or 'X energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing 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? - e. Storm water drainage? - f. Solid waste and disposal? _ < 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically -offensive site open to public view? 8 77 YES MAYBE NO 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Archeological/Historical. Will the proposal result in an alteration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object or building? 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the, project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish ' or wildlife population to drop below self—sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major 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—term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief definitive period of time while long— term impacts will •endure well into the X future.) c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumu— latively considerable? (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.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 1I1. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation IV. Determination (To be completed by' the Lead Agency) 78 : • • On the basis of this initial evaluation: Q I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared . 0 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 environment, and, an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date Signature For III (Note: This is only a suggested form. Public agencies are free to devise their own format for initial studies.) /D 79 .1 SEW PpR� 19 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.U. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663-3884 C'94FOFN%P PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 640-2197 May 18, 1984 Mr. Ernest George 2865 E. Coast Highway # 207 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Subject: Traffic Study for 2600 E. Coast Highway Dear Mr. George: As requested, the City has solicited a proposal for consultant services for the required traffic study for the proposed development at 2600 E. Coast Highway. The proposal from Austin-Foust Associates has been accepted by the City. Please remit the sum indicated below: Consultant Fees: $1,000.00 City Fees: $ 100.00 Total: $1,100.00 Please make this check payable to the City of Newport Beach and deliver it to me at the Planning Department at the address above. Very truly yours, 4ANNING DEPARTMENT 17TES D. HEWICKER, Director By �iu�Te., Patricia Temple Environmental Coordinator PT:dvh O da Attachment . A W 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach AM rAM MEW AUSTIN•FOUST ASSOCIATES, INC. TRAFFIC ENGINEERING AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING 1450 NORTH TUSTIN AVENUE, SUITE 108 SANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA 92701 TELEPHONE: (714) 667-0 •� 9 RECEIVED May 2, 1984 SO Da apaR mMent \0 City of Newport Beach MAY `- 1984 w- 11 3300 Newport Blvd — CITY OF Newport Beach, CA 92663 d r4EWPORT CALIF. CH, CALIF. 7? Attention: Patricia Temple 4' N Community Planning Department Dear Pat, SUBJECT: PROPOSAL — PHASING ORDINANCE TRAFFIC STUDY This letter is a confirmation of our phone conversation regarding the scope of work and cost proposal to conduct the first two portions of a Phasing Ordinance traffic study for Mr. Ernest Georges' office/commercial project on East Coast Highway. The two tasks involved in the scope of work and the associated costs are as follows: TASK DESCRIPTION STANDARD FEE 1. One Percent Prepare project trip generation $ 650.00 Test and assignment and preform one percent analysis 2. I.C.U. Prepare ICU's for effected Analysis intersections if project fails to pass one percent analysis 350.00 Subtotal — . $1000.00 3. Develop Conduct study of, to identify Mitigation and evaluate potential mitigation • Measure measure if ICU exceed 0.9000 * Fee to be negotiated at appropriate time is this analysis is required. Austin-Foust will designate Mr. Joe Foust as Project Engineer for this project. We are prepared to start upon receipt of notice to proceed. If you have any questions please call. Sincerely, Joe E. oust PE AM WAN • • mom AUSTIN•FOUST ASSOCIATES, INC. TRAFFIC ENGINEERING AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING 1450 NORTH TUSTIN AVENUE, SUITE 108 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701 TELEPHONE: (714) 667- RECEIVE'D `O planning May 2, 1984 Department 1984 City of Newport Beach MAY 4 3300 Newport Blvd CITY OFF Newport Beach, CA 92663 N PCALIF.. 1 Attention: Patricia Temple Community Planning Department ro Dear Pat, SUBJJECr: PROPOSAL — PHASING ORDINANCE TRAFFIC STUDY This letter is a confirmation of our phone conversation regarding the scope of work and cost proposal to conduct the first two portions of a Phasing Ordinance traffic study for Mr. Ernest Georges' office/commercial project on East Coast Highway. The two tasks involved in the scope of work and the associated costs are as follows: TASK r ESCRIMON SYANDARD FEE 1. One Percent Prepare project trip generation $ 650.00 Test and assignment and preform one percent analysis 2. I.C.U. Prepare ICU's for effected Analysis intersections if project fails to pass one percent analysis 350.00 Subtotal $1000.00 3. Develop Conduct study of, to identify Mitigation and evaluate potential mitigation Measure measure if ICU exceed 0.9000 * Fee to be negotiated at appropriate time is this analysis is required. Austin—Foust will designate Mr. Joe Foust as Project Engineer for this project. We are prepared to start upon receipt of notice to proceed. If you have any questions please call. Sincerely, Joe E. ous PE AM ENFAM '6 PM s9 M4 mom se r �� ,_- zoo AUSTIN-FOUST ASSOCIATES, INC. S MAY 1450 NORTH TUSTIN AVENUE, SUITE 108 /98A SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92663 • Attention: Patricia Temple Community Planning Department