Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTPO020_CIVIC PLAZA PC- TPP APRIL 1980_VOL III *NEW FILE* CIVIC PLAZA PC - TPP APRIL 1980 VOL III r v QQ`j�OT RE��VE E VOLUME III CIVIC PLAZA - PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT TRAFFIC PHASING PLAN APRIL, 1980 f� v W + db Ar P A Uleofaac Pnutgee and Aoo� TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING February 12, 1979 Mr. Ron Hendrickson Commercial/Industrial Division The Irvine Company 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92663 " Dear Mr. Hendrickson: This letter summarizes our analysis of the traffic requirements of the devel- opment of Civic Plaza with respect to circulation improvement phasing. The study was conducted to evaluate the circulation needs in response to the ' Newport Beach City Council Resolution Number 9472 requiring an improvement phasing plan for this project. The study was based upon current planning for Civic Plaza and previous traffic ' studies related to this project. Previous studies include the following: 1. Newport Center Traffic Study, Phase II, Crommelin - Pringle and ' Associates, Inc. 1976. 2. Civic Plaza EIR Traffic Analysis, Crommelin - Pringle and Assoc- iates, Inc. 1975. 3. Traffic Phasing Ordinance Traffic Analysis, Weston Pringle and Associates, 1978. ' In addition current traffic volume data compiled by the City for the Traffic Phasing Ordinance was utilized. IPROJECT DESCRIPTION ' Civic Plaza is located within the Newport Center area at the southwest corner of San Joaquin Hills Road and Santa Cruz Drive. Vehicular access will be provided to San Joaquin Hills Road, Santa Cruz Drive, San Clemente Drive and 2651 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE • SUITE 110 • FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92631 • (714) 871-2931 r -2- ' Santa Barbara Drive. The San Joaquin Hills Road access is limited to right turns only. ' Proposed development includes office and restaurant uses in addition to the existing art museum and library that is under construction. A total of 234,706 square feet of office use is planned along with an 8,000 square foot ' restaurant. The library will include 14,000 square feet. A theater is also proposed at some future date. Since this would have a negligible traffic im- pact during critical hours, it is not included in the analysis. ' TRIP GENERATION For this analysis, estimates were made of PM peak hour volumes and the 2.5 ' hour peak period. Generation rates and estimated volumes for each use and time period are listed in Tables 1 and 2. The art museum was not included as it is existing and included in existing'traffic volume data. These gener- ation rates are those utilized in previous studies of this site. ' TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT The geographic distribution of traffic generated by this development has been ' developed in the referenced previous studies. Figure 1 illustrates the traffic distribution that has been utilized for this study. This distribution is for ' outbound traffic from the site. Inbound traffic would be the same percentage in the opposite direction. By applying the distribution percentages to the ' trip generation data in Tables 1 and 2, estimates can be made of traffic volumes from the project at various locations. The distribution in Figure 1 is for outbound traffic which must be reversed for inbound traffic. ' CRITICAL INTERSECTION IDENTIFICATION ' The next step in the analysis was to identify those intersections that could be impacted by the project. As a starting point, the 16 intersections ident- ified for analysis under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance for this area were exam- ined. For this examination, the "l % Traffic Volume Analysis" form from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance was utilized. Apendix A contains the data for the ' individual intersections and the results are summarized in Table 3. 1 -3- ' Table 1 ' 2.5 HOUR TRIP GENERATION Civic Plaza LAND USE RATE VOLUME IN OUT IN OUT ' Office (234,706 SF) 1.2 3.4 280 „800, Restaurant ( 8,000 SF) 11.3 7.7 90 60 ' Library (14,000 SF) 1.0 1.0 10 10 Totals 290 810 ' Table 2 ' PM PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION Civic Plaza ' LAND USE RATE VOLUME IN OUT IN OUT ' Office (234,706 SF) 0.6 1.7 140 400 Restaurant (8,000 SF) 5.0 3.0 40 20 Library (14,000 SF) 1.0 1.0 10 10 ' Totals 150 .410 t 1 ' FIGURE 'I TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION !O % ' BRrsra 9�, 20% e Ie pd d1 �O w z tod6 257- QD, � 35y. FpR'o N V t 5./ 25 •/. • 20 O o SAkTA 6gRggR 3sy SgN�0Ac3UrMHrLt_sQo 5% w a 25% 5y. .< toSy.2S at ' QPL�F�G u COAST HIGHWAY 7 ' WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES �t Those intersections which would have increases of five percent or greater on ' any approach were identified as critical and for additional analyses. The five percent level was based upon a report to the Newport Beach City Council from the Department of Community Development dated January 8, 1979. of the ' 16 intersections 11 were found to be critical by this test. ' ANALYSIS The 11 intersections identified in the previous section were further examined ' to determine potential impacts. Utilizing "Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis" forms from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance procedure, ICU values were ' determined. The individual analyses sheets are contained in Appendix B and summarized in Table 3. For this analysis, the existing plus total project PM peak hour volumes were utilized. This resulted in three intersections ' with ICU values of 0.90 or greater - Coast Highway and Bayside Drive, Bristol North and Campus Drive and MacArthur Boulevard and Ford Road. All other inter- sections are well below the 0.90 level. ' The Coast Highway/Jamboree Road ICU analysis requires additional explanation. Review of the analysis sheet in Appendix B would seem to indicate that the ' southbound right turn was a critical movement. Since a right turn arrow is displayed for this movement during the eastbound left turn movement, the left turn ratio can be deducted to reduce the right turn ratio to 0.1953. While ' the combined southbound right and northbound left ratios are greater than indicated northbound through and southbound left, these (NL & SR) are not conflicting movements so that the southbound right would control. Since the reduced southbound right value is 0.1953 and the combined northbound through ' and southbound left value is 0.2074, the analysis is correct. Since City Council Resolution Number 9422 allows 30 percent of development ' without improvement phasing, the three critical intersections were analyzed with existing plus 30 percent of the remaining development. These data are ' included in Appendix C and summarized in Table 3. The three intersections exceed the 0.90 level under these conditions. e 3 IALYSES SUMMARY Plaza ICU ICU Exist Exist + Exist + + 30`/: Total Project roiect Project With Improvements .0238 1.0083 0.8350 (With Southbound Right Turn Lane) .9260 0.9035 0.7553 (With Bridge Widening) .8305 .5599 .6720 .8424 .5778 .7995 .8736 .0443 1.0218 0.8415 (With City Project) .7534 ` -b- ' CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENT NEEDS ' From the analysis section, it was indicated that some circulation system im- provements would be required with any development in excess of 30 percent. ' Projects are currently programmed at two of the intersections - Coast/Bayside MacArthur/Ford. ' The reconstruction of Coast Highway between Dover and Bayside with the bridge construction, will provide three through lanes in each direction at Bayside ' Drive. This improvement will reduce the existing plus prcject. ICU to 0.7553 as indicated in Appendix D. A City project for improvement of the MacArthur/Ford intersection is scheduled ' to go to bid in June or July, 1979, The improvements planned include double left turn lanes on the north, south and west approaches and two through plus ' right turn lanes on MacArthur Boulevard. These improvements will result in a ICU of 0.8415 with existing plus project traffic. ' A southbound right turn lane can be provided on Campus Drive at Bristol North within the existing pavement width. The addition of this lane would reduce the ICU value to 0.8350 (See Appendix D.) ' Illustrations of the recommended improvements are provided in Figures 2,3 and 4. SUMMARY ' Our analysis of the circulation needs related to the full development of Civic Plaza has indicated that three intersections would require modification. These ' three intersections are Coast Highway and Bayside Drive, Bristol North and Campus Drive and MacArthur Boulevard and Ford Road. A City project, scheduled ' to go to bid in June or July, 1979, would provide the required improvements at MacArthur Boulevard and Ford ]toad. The Coast Ili.ghway bridge, project Weald Pro- vide the required lanes on Coast Highway at Bayside Drive. Restriping of Campus Drive at Bristol North within the existing street width can provide the addit- ional lane required at this location. The analysis has also indicated that im- provement of these three intersections. We trust that this analysis will be of assistance to you and the City of ' Newport Beach. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact us. ' Respectfully submitted, WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES Weston S. Pringle, P.E. WSP:cd Ili ' #5452 1 1 1 I 1 W o: 1 0 . ADD RIGHT 1 TURN LANE 1 I NOT TO SCALE 1 BRISTOL } I STREET NORTH 1 r 1 f o. 1 UI I 1 1 RECOMMENDED LANE CONFIGURATION AT INTERSECTION OF 1 BRISTOL STREET NORTH / CAMPUS DRIVE 1 1 WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE 'I 1 ' ADD THROUGH LANE WITH BRIDGE ' WIDENING ' I ADD THROUGH LANE COAST I HIGHWAY \ O� ' O ' \ (<1 ' NOT TO SCALE ' RECOMMENDED LANE CONFIGURATION AT INTERSECTION OF ' COAST HIGHWAY / BAYSIDE DRIVE WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE 2 1 ' 1 o � � ADD LEFT TURN i LANE °D ' I 'NOT TO SCALE i FORD ROAD _ ( ADD RIGHT ' ADD LEFT TURN LANE TURN LANE a ' a i NOTE; ALL IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDED iIN CITY PROJECT i RECOMMENDED LANE CONFIGURATION AT INTERSECTION OF i MAC ARTHUR BOULEVARD/FORD ROAD 1 i WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE 3 ' APPENDIX A 1 2.5 HOUR INTERSECTION ANALYSES 1 1 1 1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection BRTST01 STREET NORTH/ J$_IR - I,%YINE AVE. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Tnter/Spring 197_) Existing 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 2h Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 23-2 Hour ' Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volunx Northbound 1504 15 b ' JSouthbound 3705 37 Eastbound -- ' stbound 4790 48 282 5.970 ' aProject Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume ' ® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I .C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 ' INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET NORTH/CAMPUS DRIVE - IRVINE AVE. _ -- FORM I ' PROJECT: CIV/4C lrL42'14 ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection BRISTOL STRRFT/CAMPUC DRIVE - IRVINE AVE. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978 ) 1 Existing 1% of Existing Project pproach Peak 2k Hour Peak 22 Hour Peak 23k Hour ' Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volu orthbound 1606 16 ' outhbound 3164 32 O astbound 3027 30 /O / 3.3 stbound -- -- ' Q Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 2;j Hour Traffic Volume ' ® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 2XI Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. ' INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET/CAMPUS DRIVE - IRVINE AVE. FORM I PROJECT: G! VIL PL- AGr4 L ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection Coast Highwav/Dover Drive —) (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average winter/spring 1978 ' Existing 1% of Existing ProjePeal _,ct DPrection Troach rafficeak 2Volume Traffic Hour Peak �Volume Traffic VoluHou Hour Peak 2k r Northbound 242 2 O touthbound 2100 21 O Eastbound 3489 . 35 stbound 5279 53 20 3 3. 9 ' 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 2;� Hour Traffic Volume ' rQ( Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing lCi Peak 2Z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 INTERSECTION Coast Highway/Dover Drive FORM I ' PROJECT: CIV/C PL.A-7A U ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection r�a�+ iahway1ggyciBP Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) ' Existing 1% of Existing Pro9Ho Approach Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour Peak ' Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffi Northbound ' outhbound 8 Eastbound 4847 8 73 /.5 °Ja ' estbound 3860 39 203 5.3 9 ' 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ' ® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. a ' INTERSECTION Coast Highway/Bayside Drive FORM I I ' PROJECT: CIVIC PLAzA 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection =e .Warl (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) ' Existing 1� of Existing Project FLEastbound Peak 2: Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak•211 Hour ' Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volu O �p.Q� ' 203 / 7 '73 426 ' Q Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume ' � Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 21-2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I .C.U.) Analysis is required. ' INTERSECTION Coast Highway/Jamboree Road FORM I ' PROJECT: C/ViC pLAZ� { 1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection Coast Highwav/Newport Center Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) ' Existing 1% of Existing Project pproach Peak 22 Hour Peak 2 Hour Peak 2, Hour Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volu orthbound 1,47 ou ou ' 2848 28 4/ thbnd Eastbound 3142 31 O 0.(a �D estbound 2566 26 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 2&2 Hour Traffic Volume ' � Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1 INTERSECTION Coast Highway/Newport Center Drive FORM I ' PROJECT: C/V14C PGA0 A 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection (Existing Traffic Volumes based on yerage Winter pring 1978) ' Existing 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 2J Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2h Hour ' Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volu Northbound -- ' outhbound 2258 41 /8%a Eastbound 3204 32 141 3 ' Westbound 3432 1430 1 0.9 ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume ' � Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 2P2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 ' 1 ' INTERSECTION Coast Highway/MacArthur Boulevard FORM I ' PROJECT: CIVIC PG,q ZA 1 ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection (Existing Traffic Volumes based on ve age Winter/Spring 1978) ' Existing 1% of Existing Project pproach Peak 2� Hour Peak 23, Hour Peak 23k Hour Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volu orthbound ' outhbound 430 82 2.l0 �o Eastbound 31 ' Istbound 30 ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume ' Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 21-2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. t 1 tINTERSECTION Coast Highway/Marguerite Avenue FORM I ' PROJECT: CIVic PLA zZA U ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection Jamboree Road/Santa Barbara Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Verage Winter/Spring 1978 ) Existing 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 231 Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2k Hour Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic VoluffK orthbound 58 5-1100 outhboun 2653 27 4/ ' Eastbound -- Westbound 13 162 ' a Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ' ® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 ' INTERSECTION Jamboree Road/Santa Barbara Drive FORM I ' PROJECT: CIVIC ,04AOA ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection Jamboree Road/San Joaquin Hills Road (Existing Traffic Vo umes based on Average Winter/spring 1978) sting 1% of Existing Project A pproachk Hour Peak 211 Hour Peak 22 Hour ' Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volu 25 bo 2 5 ' F Uthbound 4134 41 /02 O stbound 3854 stbound 1 2533 25 ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume ' Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 214 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I .C.U. ) Analysis is required. ' INTERSECTION Jamboree Road/San Joaquin Hills Road 7— FORM I ' PROJECT: CIVIC PLA'EA i i . i1% Traffic Volume Analysis i Intersection Jamboree Road Eas'tbluff Drive-Ford Rd. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter 1978) iExisting 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 2 ,Hour Peak 2 Hour Peak 2 Hour iDirection Traffic Volume Traffic Volume 'Traffic Volu Northbound 4574 46 284 iouthbound 2937 29 Eastbound 981 10 iIlWestbound 1 753 8 i Q Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 2-11 Hour Traffic Volume i ® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1 1 1 1 i 1 i INTERSECTION Jamboree Road/Eastbluff Drive-Ford Road FORM I ' PROJECT: C lV/C PL-,A2A ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection E'[/,1AMRnRFF ROAD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 197$) Existing 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 2; Hour Peak 231 Hour Peak 2 Hour ' Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volunw Northbound 4996 50 284 ��'% outhbound 2359 24 30 3 7 70 Eastbound 2778 28 72 2,(0 ' estbound -- Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume ' ® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 21� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. ' INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET/JAMBOREE ROAD FORM I ' PROJECT: CIVIC PLAzA U 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection BRISTOL STREET NORTH/JAMBOREE ROAD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 197B) Existing 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 2;� Hour Peak 2; Hour Peak 2k Hour Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volu Northbound 5153 52 -.284 55� outhboun 2811 28 3 O �• ' Eastbound -- Westbound ' Q Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume ' N71 Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. ' INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET NORTH/JAMBOREE ROAD FORM I ' PROJECT: CIVIC PG4—' A• 1 . 1 1 1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis (1 ) Intersection JAMBOREE ROAD/MacARTHUR BLVD. 1 (Existing Traffic Vo umes based on verage Winter/Spr ng 1978) 1 Existing 1% of Existing Project Approach :Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour irection affic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volu 8Z 4.9 orthbound 1681 17 1 outhbound 2814 28 30 1, 1070 , / °7 Eastbound 2923 29 g2 2.8 1 1070 estbound 3037 30 3 D /, O 1 D Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume 1 ® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 (1) MacArthur Blvd. is assumed north and south 1 1 1 1 1 1 INTERSECTION JAMBOREE ROAD/MacARTHUR BLVD. FORM I 1 PROJECT: CIVIC PL 4z ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection MacArthur Boulevard F rd d (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) ' Existing 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 2; Hour Peak 2;g Hour Peak 2 Hour Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volu ' Northbound 3657 37 ' outhbound 4032 40 73 4874 Eastbound 1584 16 O ' stbound 1007 1 10 O ' Q Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume ' Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. t ' INTERSECTION MacArthur Boulevard/Ford Road FORM I ' PROJECT: CIVIC A7L42�4 t 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection MacArthur Boulevard/San Joaquin Hills Road (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Existing 1% of Existing Project ' pproach Peak 2h Hour Peak 2; our Peak 2;k Hour irection Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volu / O orthbound 1484 15 ' 3065 31 73 2,41 outhbound 2 84 9 O Eastbound 3140 31 ' und 15 estbo 1451 ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volume ' Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization ' (I .C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 1 1 ` ' INTERSECTION MacArthur Boulevard/San Joaquin Hills Road FORM I ' PROJECT: CIVIC P(AA ' APPENDIK B INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSES 1 1 1 I 1 ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' Intersection Bristol Street North/Campus Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter ring 1978) Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio ' NL 1 1600 81 0 81 .05* 0. 0500 ' NT 2 3200 587 0 5-87 .18 0,1834 NR SL - I — ' ST 2 3200 1241 O /878 .59* o.5869 SR 637 0 ET ' ER - — - WL 1 1600 321 .20 O,Zoo(a WT 4 6400 1660 142 /S32 .26* Q,2863 ' WR 30 Yellow Time 10 p,/000 �t Existing Intersection Ca acit Utilization T.C.U. 1 .00 ' Existing Pius Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. °232 ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) ' N-Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to L—' Existing Conditions I .C.U. ' F] Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be greater than O.QO Existing Plus Projoct Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than exi•,tiny I.C.U. that 'is currently greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures ' INTERSECTION Bristol Street North/Campus Drive —IFORM II ' PROJECT: ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' Intersection Coast Hi a Ba side Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter Spring 1978) ' Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V-/C V/C Volume Volume Peak hHr Volume Ratio Ratio ' NL 2 3200 780 'O / 8O •24* D'2y'3$' �E NT 1 1600 23 •0 oj0 .02 ,Q/8.8 NR 7 0 SL 1 1600 13 0 /3 .01 0.008/ ST 1 1600 _ 8 d (y a 04* G 0388 SR 54 0 ' EL 1 1600 50 O 03* 0.0,31.z2 ET 2 3200 1509 !�/'% .47 0.1183� ER 1 1600 500 O ,5_00 .31 9.3/,75 WL 1 1600 9 0 9 .01 0. 00-IT-6 WT 2 3200 1531 ( 0 J /6 J 9 .48* O,riaa �F WR 5 c) I — Yellow Time 10 0, /Do0 ' Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. .89 ' Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization TLC.U. e•9aG o ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) ' N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to L ' Existing Conditions I.C.U. ' n Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be greater than O.qo Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than oxi•.ting ll I .C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 ' I J Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures ' INTERSECTION_ Coast Highway[B ide Drive w _------.---.--]FORM II ' PROJECT: ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' Intersection Coast Highway/Jamboree Road (Existing Traffic Volumes Base on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Existing Exist. PrVjCct Project Move- Lanes Capa- Existing ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio ' NL 1600 40 o y NT 2 3200 333 NR - 103 l y 07* O.Or1It ' SL 1 1600 114 0 ST 2 3200 545 0 33 0•�9�'� ' SR 1 1600 530 / 0 ,3 �� 19 0• a003 EL 2 3200 603 ' ET 2 3299 1138 ER 56 ,15* 0./SOD WL 1 1600 240' OD 28 WT 2 3200 905 S 8 . WR N.S. - 88 0 .10 ' ' Yellow. Time •83 01000 4 Existin Intersection Ca acit Utilization I.C.U. 0 8�0 ' Existin Plus Project Intersection Ca acit Utilization I.C.U. ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 0 Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to ' —I Existing Conditions I .C.U. ' ❑ Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Eisting x C.U. that is Project be greater than existing El I ' ❑ Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures - ----_ — Jamboree Road __,__-_.-__- .- -- � --� INTERSECTION Coast Highway/Jambo —;FORM II_ ' PROJECT: _- -- - � ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' Intersection Jamboree Road/Santa Barbara Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter Spring 1978) ' Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio NL _ ' NT 2 3200 720 S 7a 8 .22 0..Aa7S NR 1 1600 57 30 8 2 .04 0.06VY ' SL 1 1600 106 0 / O (o .07 0.0&&Q ST_ 2 3200 1062 a/ / O go ".3 * 40.e33 89 SR -- - — — _ ' EL ET ' ER _ = WL 270 a ' W D./a/S 10 WR O * ' Yellow Time .10 0• / 000 Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. .53— Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I .C.U. 0. 0-a'99 ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) ' N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 n Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. iLxistinq Plu., Project Traffic I .C.II. will bra greater th<rn ('.`IO Existing Plu, Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than exisLing ( -� I .C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 ' n Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures 'INTERSECTION Jamboree Road/Santa Barbara Drive - ------ - -- ...... _—IFORM 11 'PROJECT: 1 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' Intersection Jamboree Road/San Joaquin Hills Road (Existing Traffic Volumes Base on Average Winter Spring 1978) ' Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio t o l /yr o7 0.0 7i9 NL 1 1600 115 ' NT 2 3200 8 22 0 $ 9a .28* 0.a'JSS NR 1 1600 123 8 / .08 0. 0g/9 ' SL 2 3200 495 S0 �y8 .15* 0. /VJ ++, ST 2 3200• 1039 0 10,39 a2 0.3? y7 SR 1 1600 233 0 �33 .15 0. lzl�5-6O ' EL 1 1600 52 0 J3 .03 0.00. ET 2 3200 40 0 S �o .03* 0, oa�9 ER 46 0 ' WL 1 1600 131 a l J�a .08* Q.0950 ,)X ' WT 2 3200 80 O $0 .02 0. 0.110 WR N.S. 921 ' Yellow Time 10 Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. .64 ' 0.G'7ao Existin Plus Project Intersection Ca acit Utilization I.C.U. ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) ' N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eas-tbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left _ ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 n Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I .C.U. C Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I .C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 ' El Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures ' INTERSECTION Jamboree Road/San Joaquin Hills Road - -- - — - - -- --40RM 11 ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' Intersection Jamboree Road/Eastbluff Drive-Ford Road (Existing Traffic Volumes Basea0n Average Winter/Spring 1978) ' Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C ' Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio NL 2 3200 465 O /,/ (p �' .15* C./y5J f NT 2 3200 .42 0.< &0V 'A NR 1 1600 185 O / 96— .12 D• // 6-6 ' SL 1 1600 67 O 6 .17 .04 O.04//9 ST 2 3200 1150 c2 03 .36*' 0..o'739 9 ' SR 1 1600 42 0 .03 0.0060a EL 1 1600 16 O / CO .01 O.O/10o ET_3�1 3200 114 O �(o a 11* D. //03/ ' ER 248 O WL 1 1600 173 © 7 J IT* ' WT 2 3200 99 0 9 .03 D. 03O9 WR 1 1600 32 0 a .02 O.Od 00 ' Yellow Time .10 O. /000 Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. .83 ' Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. O 8 y�Y ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) ' N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left ' M Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 E Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to ' Existing Conditions I.C.U. ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 ' El Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures ' INTERSECTION Jamboree Road/Eastbluff Drive Ford Road - -------- -- - - - — FORM II ' PROJECT : INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Bristol Street/Jamboree Road ' (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) ' Move- anes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr . Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C' Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio ' NL 2 3200 1005 /Oa / / 0 '7 .31* 0:3YS9 � NT 3 4800 1065 .410 .23 0..25783 ' NR - 31 0 SL - - ' ST 3 4800 1092 140 0 $ .23. 0. 13 0 6 SR EL 1 1600 79 0 ') 9 .05 0.0v9y ' ET 2 3200 406 / & a a •13* O./o/9 ` ER 2 3200 689 317 oZ Co •22 ' WL - - - WT WR Yellow Time 10 D. lovo 54 Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. 0. 5�77& ' ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) Nallorthbound', S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, ' L=Left Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 tExisting Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. ' C Existing Plu, Project Traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.I1. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 ' l l Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures ' INTERSECTION Bristol Street/Jamboree Road -- ------- . .. — - - .—!FORM II PROJECT : INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS 61) ' Intersection Jamboree Road/MacArthur Blvd. (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1978 ) ' Move- Lanes Capa- ExistinTO Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C VolumePeak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio ' NL 1 1600 26 �/ .02 0.0.29S1 ' NT 2 3200 520 '70a .21* 0. a/9y � NR 161 ' SL 1 1600 135 / �/� .08* 0.089f ST 2 3200 744 Sa .23 6.,?.35 0 SR N.S. 399 o3 9 9 - ' EL 1 1600 448 O �/ 8 .28 10.;28 00 ET 3 4800 885 8 9c�7 .18* 0. /860 ER N.S. 3 WL 1 1600 446 O yy& .28* O, n88 ' WT 3 4800 881 a / 90,2 .18 0. /8 1�9 WR N:S. 10 ' Yellow Time 10 G:/GYRO ExistingIntersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. 85 ' Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) ' N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, Wight, L=Left Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 n Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to ' 1—I Existing Conditions I.C.U. MgC A•'2-rhue i. +J-5uyK �°d horFh �tnd you h. ' n Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than oxisLinq l J I .C.U. that is currently greater than O.qO ' I Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures-7- 'NTFRSECTIOPi —•-- - _ -- --'--� - I ---- _ __Jamboree RoalMacArthur Blvd. -_..__. __ . _ -,FORM lI 'ROJEC I : INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' Intersection MacArthur BoulevardLFord Road (Existing Traffic Volumes—Based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) ' Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio ' NL 1 1600 30 O 30 .0-20.0/(9 ' NT 1 2 3200 1346 1 / 0 J / q 8 .44* NR 49 0 ' SL 1 1600 370 O 0 70 .23* ST 2 3200 1413 13 8 / 'y dt/ .44 0. ' SR 1 1600 132 0 /'a .08 0.08a EL 1 1600 279 0 9 79 .17* ET 1 1600 228 0 a Ii 8 .14 �•/Yo7s ' ER 1 1600 88 O 88 .06 0✓`✓`�� WL 1 1600 19 0 / 9 .01 0.0//9 ' WT 1 1600 113 0 / / .07* 1).0706 ` WR 1 1600 194 0 9 y .12 0. /O/a ' Yellow Time .10 0. /DL-v Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. 1 .01 ' Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. 0 yy� ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) ' N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left ' Existing Plus 'Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 n Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to ' L_I Existing Conditions I.C.U. ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.H. will be greater than 0.90 ' f—I Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.II. will be greater than oxisting LJ I.C.U: that is currently greater than 0.90 nFurther analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION MacArthur Boulevard/Ford Road ------ — -- -•---- ------ - - •-FORM II ' PROJECT: ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' Intersection MacArthur Boulevard/San Joaauin Hills Road (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) ' Rove- Lanes Capa- Existing ProjectMExistingExist. Projectment city Peak Hr Peak Hr V/C V/C Volume Volume Ratio Ratio NL 1 1600 63 8 .04 0.NT 2 3200 361 0 .15* NR 129 0 ' SL 2 3200 412 O Q .13* 0./a ST 2 3200 746 O ~/ �/ �0 :23 0.a 00/ SR N.S.. - 250 a ' EL 2 3200 772 10.4 8 .24* ET 3 4800 648 a / `/ '70 .15 0.7 GOy ' ER 80 c52/ — — WL 1 1600 70 0 r/ O .04 0 OV38 ' WT 3 4800 285 8 </ 7/ .10* 010981 WR 178 0 ' Yellow Time .10 . /000 Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. .72 ' Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) ' N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left ' Existing P1us. Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to ' Existing Conditions I.C.U. ' Existinq Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will he greater than 0.q0 ' f�l Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing LJ I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 ' Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures ' INTERSECTION MacArthur Boulevard/San Joaquin Hills Road FORM II ' PROJECT : ' APPENDIX C ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSES .. ' Exist + 30 Percent of Project 1 1 1 ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Bristol Street North/Campus Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) 3o% ' Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project _7,c% Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio ' NL 1 1600 __ 81 O 8/ .05* 0.0506 NT 2 3200 587 O 587 .18 6,/834 NR - - - - SL - - ' ST 2 3200 1241 O /878 .59* 0.680 SR 637 O EL --- ET = - - - ------ - --- - -- ' ER - - - - WL 1 1600 321 •20 O,2oolp WT 4 6400 1660 43 /733 •26* 0, 2708 WR 30 ' Yellow Time .10 01/006 Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization ( I.C.U. ) r 1 .00 ' Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization ( I.C.U. ) _ Q083 ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) ' N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' L lExisting Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I .C.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.II. will be greater than 0.(+fl ' Existinq Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be yreater than vx1.,1iny �-� I .C.U. that is currently greater than O.qo ❑l Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures - 7 - ' INTERSECTION Bristol Street North/Campus Drive -- ---- — - ---,FORM II ' PROJECT: i • INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' Intersection — Coast Hi-91� Bayside Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1978.) ' Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project 3oy, Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio ' NL 2 3200 780 0 780 .24* b.•2438- ,k NT 1 1600 23 0 30 .02 o,0188 NR J 7 O ' SL 1 1600 13 0 13 .01 0.00s/ ST 1 1600 8 O 62 04* 0.0388 SR 54 6 —. EL 1 1600 50 O SO •03* 0.03/2 ET 2 3200 1509 // /520 .47 0.4750 ' ER 1 1600 500 0 $"00 •31 d,3/25 WL 1 1600 9 cf .01 p,ooSYo ' WT 2 3200 1531 3/ /5l07 48*1 o.4897 .4 WR 5 O ' Yellow Time 10 p,/000 '*_. Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. 89 ' Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacfty Utilization I.C.U. O ?o3 ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left ' M Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 (� Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will' be less than or equal to ' L Existing Conditions I .C.U. ' 1 Existinq Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be greater than O.c)O ' Existinq Plu, Project Traffic I .C.U. will be greater than (%Ai5t.inq -- J I .C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 ' ( Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures ' INTERSECTION Coast HighwjBayside Drive _ —IFORM II 'PROJECT: ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' Intersection MacArthur Boulevard/Ford Road (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project 3a7, Existing Exist. Project merit city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio NL 1 1600 30 0 30 .02 O.O/BB NT 2 3200 1346 3/ 1426 .44* 0.445-6 NR 49 SL 1 1600 370 O 370 .23* 0,Z3/2 ' ST 2 3200 1413 14Z4 .44 0.4450 SR 1 1600 132 0 /:32 .08 010OZ5 EL 1 1600 279 0 27 9 .17* 0./744- ET 1 1600 228 0 1 ZB .14 0,142.5. t ER 1 1600 88 0 BB .06 0.06Y6 WL 1 1600 19 0 / 9 .01 0.0//9 ' WT 1 1600 113 0 //3 •07* 0.070(0 WR 1 1600 194 0 / 9?4 .12 0./Z/2 ' Yellow Time .10 0,/000 Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I .C.U.) 1 .01 ' --- Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. / 0 2!E ICU is sum critical movements , denoted by asterisk (*) ' N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound,. T=Through, :R=Right, L=Left QExisting Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 D Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to ' Existing Conditions I .C.U. C Existinq Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be greater than O.q0 ' f �I Existinq Plu,, Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than oxi'Amy l_1 I .C.U. that is currently greater than 0.()o I , Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures i— tINTERSECTION MacArthur Boulevard/Ford Road III ' --:FORM I I PFOJEf. I : APPENDIX D ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSES ' With Improvements 1 III 1 . PROJECT MITIGATION MEASURE INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Bristol Street North/Campus Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 197 ) L anes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ' ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C ** Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio ' NL 1 1600 81 081 .05* a 0570ep ;k NT 2 3200 587 0 587 .18 O,/834 N R - -- — ST 2 3200 1241 0 .59* �,3878 ' SR 1 1600 637 O 637 - EL - _ ET ER WL 1 1600 321 0 301 .20 0,2006 ' WT 1660 14Z /83-2 �26* a,Z9103 � 4 6400 WR 30 O —• - ' .10* C./coo Yellow Time Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. 1.00 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. 0 a'S0 ' ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Ea'stbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left ' ** With Mitigation Measures ' Project Mitigation Measure Analysis Brief Description: Existing Plug, Project Tr.+ffic I .C.U. with mitigation moasur(+.) will i be less than or oqual to 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. with mitigation measure(s) will ' be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I .C.U. 1 INTERSECTION Bristol Street North/Campus Drive FORM III ' PROJECT : ' PROJECT MITIGATION MEASURE ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Coast llig}ttaav/Bayside Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 197__) Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C ** Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio NL 2 3200 780 O 760 .24* 0,2498 � _p1T 1 1600 23 O 30 .02 0.D/88 NR 7 0 SL 1 1600 13 0 13 .01 �aO81 ST 1 1600 8 0 (02 .04* 0.0368 A ' SR 54 0 EL 1 1600 50 0 50 .03* 0,03/2 it ' ET 3 4800 1509 9'8, 1547 .47 0 5223 ER 1 1600 500 O 500 .31 0.3/ZS WL 1 1600 9 0 9 .01 0.005-6 WT 3 4800 1531 /03 I639 .48* 0. 3415 A WR 5 O ' Yellow Time .10 Existing Intersection Ca acit Utilization I .C.U. .89 ' Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. 0.7553 ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left ' ** With Mitigation Measures ' Project Mitigation Measure Analysis Brief Description: ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. with mitigation measure(,,) will L- I be less than or equal to 0.90 ' 0 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. with mitigation measure(s) will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I .C.II. INTERSECTION Coast Highway/Bayside Drive FORM III ' PROJECT: ' t PROJECT MITIGATION MEASURE ' INTERSECTION• CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Mac Arthur Boulevard/Ford Road (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 197 ) ' Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ' Iment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C ** Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio NL 2 3200 30 O 30 .02 0.00M ' NT 2 3200 1346 03 /4I8 .44% 0.4,68) NR 1 1600 49 O ' SL 2 3200 370 0 370 .23* 0.!/Slo ST 2 3200 1413 ✓�i3 /¢5-1 .44 0.46734 ' SR 1 1600 132 O 132 ' .08 0.6825 EL 2 3200 279 0 279 .17* 0. 01572 ET 1 1600 228 O Z28 .14 O,1425 ER 1 1600 88 0 as .06 0.0556 WL 1 1600 19 O /9 .01 010//9 ' WT 1 1600 113 0 //3 •07* 0.0704, WR 1 1600 194 OT /9¢ •12 0./213 ' .10 6:1000 �k Yellow Time Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I .C.U. 1.01 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. 0.84l5 ' LCU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left ' ** With Mitigation Measures ' Project Mitigation Measure Analysis Brief Description: ' f I Ixistinq Plur; I'rojvct Iralfic I .C.U. wild+ witi(lation moa ,uro( ,) will I ' i be less, than ur oqual Lo 0.90 0 Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.O. with mitigation measure(•,) will ' L—� be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I .C.U. 'INTERSECTION Mac Arthur Boulevard/Ford Road FORM III 'PROJECT : i W +11(*'t' 1 :'saw We oW P�cc�gQe aid Aoo� TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 1' 1 January 17, 1979 1 Mr. Ron Hendrickson Commercial/Industrial Division 1 The Irvine Company 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92663 1 Dear Mr. Hendrickson: This letter summarizes our analysis of the traffic requirements of the devel- opment of Civic Plaza with respect to circulation improvement phasing. The study was conducted to evaluate the circulation needs in response to the 1 Newport Beach City Council Resolution Number 9472 requiring an improvement phasing plan for this project. 1 i The study was based upon current planning for Civic Plaza and previous traffic studies related to this project. Previous studies include the following: 1 1. Newport Center Traffic Study, Phase II, Crommelin - Pringle and 1 Associates, Inc. 1976. 2. Civic Plaza EIR Traffic Analysis, ,Crommelin - Pringle and Assoc- iates, Inc. 1975. 3. Traffic Phasing Ordinance Traffic Analysis, Weston Pringle and 1 Associates, 1978. In addition current tralfi.c volume data compiled by the City for the Traffic 1 Phasing Ordinance. was utilized. 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Civic Plaza is located within the Newport Center area at the southwest corner III ' 1 of San Joaquin Hills Road and Santa Cruz Drive. •Vehicular access will be provided to San Joaquin Hills Road, Santa Cruz Drive, San Clemente Drive and 1 1 2111 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE • SUITE 110 FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92631 • (714) 871-2931 -2- r ' ' Y Santa Barbara Drive. The San joaquin Hills Road access is limited to right turns only. 1 ICI Proposed development includes office and restaurant uses in addition to the ' existing art museum and library that is under construction. A total of 251,000 square feet of office use is planned along with an 8,000 square foot ' restaurant. The library will include 30,000 square feet. I q'lf ' TRIP GENERATION For this analysis, estimates were made of PM peak hour volumes and the 2.5 ' hour peak period. Generation rates and estimated volumes for each use and time period are listed in Tables 1 and 2. The art museum was not included as it is existing and included in existing traffic volume data. These genera- tion rates are those utilized in previous studies of this site. TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT The geographic distribution of traffic generated,by this development has been ' developed in the referenced previous studies. figure 1 illustrates the traffic distribution that has been utilized for this study. By applying the distribu- tion percentages to the trip generation data in Tables 1 and 2, estimates can be made of traffic volumes from the project at various locations. The- distri- bution in Figure 1 is for outbound traffic which must be reversed for inbound traffic. CRITICAL INTERSECTION IDENTIFICATION ' The next step in the analysis was- to identify those intersections• that could be impacted by the project. As a starting point, the 16 intersections iden-tified for analysis under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance for this area were examined. For this examination, the "1 %'Traffic Volume Analysis" form from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance was utilized. Appendix A contains the data for ' the individual intersections and the results are summarized in Table 3. ' Those intersections which would have increases of five percent or greater on III • M any approach were identified as critical and for additional analyses. The v _3.. l 1 Table 1 ' 2.5 HOUR TRIP GENERATION Civic Plaza ' LAND USE RATE VOLUME IN OUT IN OUT Office (251,000 SF) 1.8 2.8' 450 700 Restaurant ( 8,000 SF) 11.3 7:7 90 60 ' Library (30,000 SF) 1.0 1.0 30 30 Totals 570 790 ' Table 2 PM PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION ' Civic Plaza LAND USE RATE VOLUME ' IN OUT IN OUT Office (251,000 SF) 0.6 1.7 150 430 ' Restaurant (8,000 SF) 5.0 3.0 40 20 Library ( 30,000 SF) 1.0 1;0 30 30 ' Totals 220 480 v 1 FIGURE I 1 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION 1 � . 1 - �� 40 1 Q ,1 20 V N• BQlsroc. 1 BRrsro� O 1 0 7� 25% � d c a d6 1 3 / FGRo Rv 1 �K - �Q U 1 g./ 2 5 % ° 20 p SHUT e�RBAR 3s% Sgk/JoAQUTAIH/LCSRo 1 sv. w a 25% 5% CA 57. II � ro 25 o 1 QPG�F�G COAST HIGHWAY( H /0% i 7 1 �J WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES 1 -4- L 3 five percent level was based upon a report to the Newport Beach City Council ' �✓ from the Department of Community Development dated January 8, 1979. Of the III 16 intersections, 10 were found to be critical by this test. ' ANALYSIS ' The 10 intersections identified in the previous section were further examined to determine potential impacts.' Utilizing "Intersection Capacity Utilization ' Analysis" forms from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance procedure, ICU values were determined. The individual analysis sheets are contained in Appendix 8 and summarized in Table 3. For this analysis, the existing plus total project ' PM peak hour volumes were utilized. This resulted in three intersections with ICU values of 0.90 or greater - Coast Higheay and Byaside Drive, Jamboree Road ' and Mac Arhtur Boulevard and Mac Arthur Boulevard and Ford Road. All other intersections are well below the 0.90 level. ' Since City Council Resolution Number 9422 allows 30 percent of development ' without improvement phasing, the three critical intersections were analyzed with existing plus 30 percent of the office. These data are included in ' Appendix C and summarized in Table 3. Both Coast Highway and Bayside Drive and Mac Arthur Bouldvard and Ford Road exceed the 0.90 level under these con- ditions. CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENT NEEDS ' From the analysis section, it was indicated that some circulation system im- provements would be required with any development in excess of 30 percent. ' Projects are currently programmed at two of the intersections - Coast/Bayside and Mac Arthur/Ford. ' The reconstruction of Coast Highway between Dover and Bayside with the bridge construction, will provide three through lanes in each direction at Bayside Drive. This improvement will reduce the existing plus project• ICU to 0.7454 as indicated in Appendix D. III . Table 3 INTERSECTION* ANALYSES SUPiMARY Civic Plaza ICU ICU ICU Exist Exist + Exist + .2.5 HOLM PERCENTAGES Exist + 30% Total Project INTERSECTION* SB SB EB WB Project Project With Improvements Bristol N. & Campus 0 0 3.3 Bristol & Campus 0 0 3.8 _ Coast & Dover 0 0 4.1 3.7 Coast & Bayside 0 0 2.9 5.1 6.89 .0.9110__ 0.9038 0.7454 (With Bridge Widening) Coast & Jamboree 0 6.7 3.3 0 0.83 0.8305 Coast & Newport Center - 1.4 0 1.1 Coast & Mac Arthur _ 1.7 1.2 1.7 Coast & Marguerite 0 0 2.5 2.4 Jamboree & Santa Barbara 7.5 1.5 - 12.1 0.53 0.5563 Jamboree '& SJHR 1.1 4.8 0 12.5 0.64 0.6814 Jamboree & Ford 6.0 6.8 0 0 0.83 0.8499 Bristol & Jamboree 5.5 3.6 4.1 - 0.54 0.5710 Bristol N. & Jamboree 5.4 3.0 - 0 0.72 0.7929 Jamboree & Mac Arthur 11.7 0 4.0 7.5 0.85 0.9129 0.8745 0.8269 (With 'Separate NR) *sac Arthur & Ford 5.4 3:5 0 0 1.01 1.0496 1.0221 0.8315 (With City Project) Mac Arthur & SJHR 1.9 4.6 8.8 2.0 0.72 0.7595 r ly� »` ftf ��� , , : j�, ,�✓ , � � „ " r , y�w , M �• aaa aaaaaaaaa��a� aaaaaa CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECEIPT I ! DF/ POgp NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92663 No 13272 t I RECE{\y�,1-�p'A 4E A S FOR: i l ACCOUNT NO fACJiOUNT NO O C� DEPARTME *..•.---a:-aaaaaa-------- aa +aa RECEIPT t a . aaa .rCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH i I F p NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92663 No. 13271 1 OAT RECEIVED FROM FOR: ACCOUNT NO ACCOUNT NO. OEPARTME I THE -IRVINE COMRW 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92663 (714) 644-3011 TO: Chris Gustin DATE: October 1 , 1980 Planning Department City of Newport Beach SUBJECT: Civic Plaza - Condition of Approval 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Gentlemen: We are forwarding to you via: MAIL ENCLOSURE X SEPARATE COVER BLUEPRINTER 4 OTHER THE FOLLOWING: Letter of agreement to James Hewicker, Director of Planning. Check #P516484 - deposit for the construction of a wall on the westerly side -, of Jamboree Road between Eastbluff and Ford Road - $44,530.00 Check 0516485 - contribution to Circulation and Transit Fund - $90,000.00 Approved as noted 'To be corrected as noted To be re-submitted For your approval As requested by you For your files & information Yours very truly, cc: BY�� Thomas T. Brull Project Manager „ THE IRVINE COMPAWY 550 Newport Center Drive,P.O. Box I Newport Beach,California 92663 (714) 644-3011 r September 26, 1980 Mr. James Hewicker Director of Planning City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 RE: CIVIC PLAZA - CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Dear Mr. Hewicker: By this letter, The Irvine Company acknowledges receipt of the Civic Plaza conditions of approval as adopted by the City of Newport Beach City Council on February 11 , 1980 (copy attached). These conditions are hereby understood and agreed to as follows: Condition Number 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, & 8 The Irvine Company understands and agrees. 1 & 2 The Irvine Company understands that prior to occupancy of any development beyond the existing development and the 95,812 sq.ft. of new development, as set forth in condi- tion number 1 , the required circulation - improvements listed in the Traffic 'Report, within The Irvine Company's reasonable ability to implement, will be constructed. If it' is not possible to obtain-all juris- dictional approvals for these required cir- culation improvements prior to occupancy, The Irvine Company will meet these require- ments through bonding or some other means acceptable to the City and The Irvine Company. S September 26, 1980 Mr. James Hewicker Page 2 We acknowledge the Phasing Schedule as set forth by the City Council " and modified as follows: Existing Development Art Museum 20,000 sq.ft. * Library 14,000 sq.ft. 1981 Occupancy Restaurant 8,000 sq.ft. *Offices 81 ,812 sq.ft. Offices 152,894 sq.ft. Occupancy after 1981 *Art Museum 10,000 sq.ft. *Theater 20,000 sq.ft. *Indicates change in anticipated occupancy. Sincerely, THE IRV C PAN Rich d M. Cannon Vice President Commercial/Industrial Division X- st4rieler Civic Plaza - Conditions of Approval 9_ (1 through 8 City Council 2-11-80) 1 . That prior to the occupancy of any buildings on the site beyond the existing development and 95,812 sq.ft. of new construction, the circulation system improvements contained in the Traffic Report, dated November 20, 1979, Table 5, Pages 7 through 9, and Planning Commission Minutes of December 20, 1979, shall have been constructed, (unless subsequent project approval require modification thereto. The circulation systems' improvements shall be subject to the approval " of the City Traffic Engineer). That prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicants shall indicate to the Director of Planning Department, in writing, ' that they understand and agree to Condition no. 1 above. The following disclosure statement of the City of Newport Beach's policy regarding the Orange County Airport should be included in all leases or sub-leases for space .in the. project and shall be included in any Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions which may be recorded against the property. Disclosure Statement The Lessee herein, his heirs, successors and assigns acknowledge that: a) The Orange County Airport may not be able to provide adequate air service for business establishments which rely'on such service; b) When an alternate air facility is available, a complete phase-out of jet service may.- bccun:at the Orange County Airport; c) The City of Newport Beach may continue to oppose-additional commercial air service expansions at the Orange County Airport; d) . Lessee, his heirs; successors and assigns will not actively oppose _ any action taken by the City of Newport Beach to phase-out or limit. jet service at the Orange County Airport. 4. The on-site parking will be provided in accordance with the. Newport Beach Municipal Code. 5. Final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation of water- 'saving devices for project lavatories and other water-using facilities. 6. The final design of the project shall provide for the sorting of recyclable material from other solid waste. The applicant shall contribute an amount equal to what would be the City's* share of the cost of the free right-turn lane on Jamboree Road behind the- Texaco Station ($90,000.00) to a Circulation and Transit Fund to be used at the discretion_ of the City for circulation and transit purposes in the Newport Center area. 8. That prior to the issuance of any building permit authorized by the approval of this Traffic Phasing Plan, the a RRIi ant sf�Aa sit wifjLih v F;na�e�pirector 4 0 e use or a construction the wester" y"si e o Jam oree Road between Eastbluff Drive. and Ford Road. Resubdivision 501 (11-20-75} 1���"y 1 . That a parcel map be filed. 2. That all public improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That sidewalk be constructed and street trees be planted in the northerly parkway of San Clemente Drive. 4. That access. to the perimeter public streets be taken as shown on the site plan contained in the Civic Plaza Planned Community District Regulations being considered under Amendment No. 455; and that vehicular access rights be dedicated to the City of Newport Beach as follows: a. All vehicular access rights to San Joaquin Hills Road, except for one location at approximately the midpoint of the frontage; b. All vehicular access rights to Santa Cruz Drive; c. All-vehicular access rights to Santa Barbara Drive, except at the existing private' drive adjacent to the Fire Station. 'The actual dedication of the vehicular access rights may be deferred until a - parcel map is filed for the further subdivision of Parcel 3. 5. That all public utility easements to be dedicated to the City of Newport Beach have a minimum width of ten feet, with greater widths provided where required by the Public Works Department. .6. That the water capital improvement acreage fees be paid. 7. That storage capacity. in San Joaquin Reservoir equal to one maxiinum. day's demand be -dedicated to the City of Newport Beach. _ - $. That standard subdivision agreements with accompanying security be provided to guarantee completion of public improvements if it is desired to have building permits issued or the parcel map recorded prior to the completion of. the required public improvements. - 9. . Onsite fire hydrant locations- shal-1 be approved by the Newport Beach Public Works and Fire Departments. 10. Fire Department equipment access shall be approved by the Fire Department. 11 . Building addressing shall conform to the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code - Section 13.12.020. 12. That cross easements be established where necessary to ensure adequate circulation within the parking areas. 13. That the grading plan shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. and shall be approved by the Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. tr1 •.•.r4` .• .• - PHASING SCHEDULE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT Art Museum 20.000 sq.ft. 1980 OCCUPANCY Library 14,000 sq.ft. Offices 81 ,812 sq.ft. 1981 OCCUPANCY Art Museum, 103,000 sq.ft. Restaurant 83000 sq.ft. Offices 152,894 sq.ft. Theatre 20,000 sq.ft. r A City project for improvement of the Mac Arthur/Ford intersection is scheduled ' to go to bid in June or July, 1979. The improvements planned include double left turn lanes on the north, south and west approaches and two through plus ' right turn lanes on Mac Arthur Boulevard. These improvements will result in a ICU of 0.8315 with existing plus project traffic. ' Thr provision of an additional lane for northbound traffic on Mac Arthur Boule- vard at Jamboree Road would reduce the ICU with the total project •to 0.8269. ' (See Appendix D and Table 3.) Field measurements indicate that 48 feet are available between the raised median and the curb on this approach. This ' width would allow for a 12 foot left turn lane; two 11 foot through lanes; and a 14 foot right turn lane with restriping. Many vehicles are utilizing ' this unmarked right turn lane at present. SUMMARY ' Our analysis of the circulation needs related to the full development of Civic Plaza has indicated that three intersections would require modification. These ' three intersections are Coast Highway and Bayside Drive, Jamboree Road and Mac Arthur Boulevard and Mac Arthur Boulevard and Ford Road. A City project, ' scheduled to go to bid in June or July, 1979, would provide the required improve- ments at Mac Arthur Boulevard and Ford Road. The Coast Highway bridge project ' would provide the required lanes on Coast Highway at Bayside Drive. Restrip- ing of Mac Arthur Boulevard at Jamboree Road within the existing street width ' can provide the additional lane required at this location. The analysis has also indicated that the Coast Highway and Bayside Drive and ' Mac Arthur Boulevard and Ford Road improvements would be required at the 30 percent development level. While the Mac Arthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road ' intersection wduld not require improvement until the 30 percent level is ex- ceeded, it is recommended that this minor improvement be completed as soon ' a; possible. .. ., is is 4r x �• I I I : We trust that this analysis will be of assistance to you and the City of ' 1 -7 ' Newport Beach. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact us. ' Respectfully submitted, WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES Aw -�el-V& ' Weston S. Pringle, P.E. ' 165452 III ' APPENDIX A ' 2.5 HOUR INTERSECTION ANALYSES 1 1 1 1 1 . 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection RRTST01 STREET N(IRTH/CAMPIIC nRTVE - IPVINE AVE. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1 97_) ---------------------- Existing 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 2: Hour Peak 2; Hour Peak 2; Hour Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volu Northbound 1504 15 Southbound 3705 37 Eastbound -- - ,Westbound 4790 48 /58 3.3% Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ' © Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak Z;i Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I .C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 . 1 1 1 1 ill INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET NORTH/CAMPUS. DRIVE - IRVINE AVE. FORM I PROJECT: GIVIG PEA-A 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection BRISTOL STREET1WUS DRIVE - IRVINE AVE. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1979--------------------------- ' Existing• 1% of Existing Project ' Approach Peak 2 z Hour Peak 2 2 Hour Peak 2; Hour Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Northbound 1606 16 D Southbound 3164 32 Eastbound 3027 30 1/4• 3.8 estbound -- '- ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ' © Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. I11� INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET/CAMPUS DRIVE - IRVINE AVE. FORM I ' PROJECT: e,- IV(C. PLA-Z"A ' t i 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Highwav/OOver Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Existing 1% of Existing Project pproach Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour ' [Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic V01um Northbound 242 2 D ' Southbound 2100 21 O Eastbound 3489 35 /42 ' estbound 5279 53 198 3.7 170 ' 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ' © Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 21z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. 'INTERSECTION Coast Highway/Dover Drive FORM I FROJECT: CIVIC PLAF-A 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection rnac+ Hjg�v���P Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) ' Existing 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 2� Hour Peak 2, Hour Peak 2; Hour Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Northbound 11919 O ' outhbound 8 Eastbound 4847 48 142 2.9% ' estbound 3860 39 198 i 5. 1 % ' 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 21z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 NTERSECTION Coast Highway/Bayside Drive FORM I IROJECT: CIVIC PLAZA 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection r�a�r Higj7wav/ lamborPp Rnad (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) ' Existing 1% of Existing Project ' pproach Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour Directi ic Volume Tr Traffic Volume Traffic Volum Northbound O ' Southbound 198 6'?qO Eastbound 4264 41 142 3. 3°l0 estbound 111 FIR ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing El Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ' © Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization ' (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. t 111� UERSFCTION Coast Highway/Jamboree Road FORM I 'ROJECT: CIVIC. PLAZA 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast HiQhwav/Newport Center Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Existing 1% of Existing Project ' Approach ' Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic -Volu Northbound -- Southbound 2848 28 39 Eastbound 3142 31 Westbound 2566 26 ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 2)-, Hour Traffic Volume 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 .• ill: INTERSECTION Coast Highway/Newport Center Drive FORM I ' PROJECT: C I VI G PLAZA 1 ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis 1 Intersection 11 (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter pring 1978) 1 Existing 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour 1 Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic VolumE Northbound -- ' outhbound 2258 23 39 1.1070 Eastbound 3204 3 .59 1.2 1010 ,Westbound 3432 34 57 1•7010 1 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume 1 a Project Traffic is .estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 1 1 1 1 1 fl � 1 1 INTERSECTION Coast Highway/MacArthur Boulevard FORM I 1 PROJECT: CIVIC- PLAEA 1 A A • A r 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average winter/Spring 1978) tExisting 1% of Existing Project ' Approach Peak 22 Hour Peak 2 2 Hour Peak 2 2 Hour Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volum Northbound 613 A O ' outhbound 430 4 0 Eastbound 79 2A5°T0 ' Westbound 2401 24 57 Z•4°l0 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization ' (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. III ' INTERSECTION Coast Highway/Marguerite Avenue FORM I ' PROJECT: CIVIC. PC.A-Z-%-A '• L • L 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection Jamboree Road/Santa Barbara Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978 ) ' Existing • 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 22 Hour Peak 2: Hour Peak 2 i Hour ' Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic VolumE Northbound 1895 19 142 7.5% ' Southboun 2653 27 39 A 5,70 Eastbound -- ' Westbound 1 1299 13 /S$ IZ•1170 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume ' ® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 . III 'INTERSECTION Jamboree Road/Santa Barbara Drive FORM I 1ROJECT: GIVIG PLAZA ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Jamboree Road/San Joaquin Hills Road (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19/8) Existing . 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour ' Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volum Northbound 2581 26 28 l�%O ' Southbound 4134 41 Zoo 4 e`lo Eastbound 385 4 O ' estbound 2533 25 3J6 J2•S°�o 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ' © Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 ill 'INTERSECTION Jamboree Road/San Joaquin Hills Road FORM I ,PROJECT: CIVIC PLAZA 1 ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Jamboree Road/Eastbluff Drive-Ford Rd. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) ' Existing 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 2'2 Hour Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volu Northbound 4574 46 276 6'a07o ' Southbound 2937 29 7_00 6.807o Eastbound 981 10 O ' Westbound 753 8 O ' 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I .C.U. ) Analysis is required. III 1 ' INTERSECTION Jamboree Road/Eastbluff Drive-Ford Road FORM I ' PROJECT: CIVIC PLA27q 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection BRI a STREET/JAMBOREE ROAn (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 197.8) ' Existing . 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour Peak 23� Hour ' Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic V.olum Northbound 4996 50 Z76 ' Southbound 2359 24 Bb 3.(0°l0 Eastbound 2778 28 /1¢ 4•.1% ' Westbound - -" ' D Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ' ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET/JAMBOREE ROAD FORM I 'PROJECT: CIVIC PL-A-tA 1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL STREET NORTH/JAMBOREE ROAD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978 ) Existing . 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 212 Hour Peak 2 i Hour Peak 2 2 Hour ' Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Vo1,um Northbound 5153 52 Z76 ' Southbound 2811 2 Eastbound -- Westbound ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ' © Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I .C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 III 'INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET NORTH/JAMBOREE ROAD FORM I 'PROJECT: CIVIC- PLAZA ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis (1 ) Intersection JAMBOREE ROAD/MacARTHUR BLVD. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) ' Existing 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour ' Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volu Northbound 1681 17 198 Southbound 2814 28 U Eastbound 2923 29 118 4.0`Ia ' estbound 3037 30 22.8 y S ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ' ® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I .C.U. ) Analysis is required. ' (1 ) MacArthur Blvd. is assumed north and south 1 Ifl ' INTERSECTION JAMBOREE ROAD/MacARTHUR BLVD. FORM I ' PROJECT: CIVIC PLA�a 1 ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection MacArthur Boulevard/Ford Road (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Existing . 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour ' Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic VolumE Northbound 3657 37 /98 ' outhbound 4032 40 /42- 3.5�o Eastbound 1584 16 0 ' estbound 1 1007 10 0 ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ' © Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 2i1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 'INTERSECTION MacArthur Boulevard/Ford Road FORM I 'PROJECT; CIVIC PLA-eA ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection MacArthur Boulevard/San Joaquin Hills Road (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) ' Existing . 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 21, Hour Peak 2; Hour Peak 22 Hour ' Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volum Northbound 1484 15 ZS ' Southbound 3065 . 31 142 4 6°10 Eastbound 3140 31 1 276 8.6% ' estbound 1451 15 Z$ 2.O170 ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ' ® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing i Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. ' INTERSECTION MacArthur Boulevard/San Joaquin Hills Road FORM I ' PROJECT: CIVIC PL A?A 1 � i � 1 iAPPENDIX B 1 iINTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSES 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 1 1 i III + 1 ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' Intersection Coast Highway/Jamboree Road (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter%Spring 1978) ' Move- Lanes Capa- -Existing Project - Existing Exist. -Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio ' NL _ 1 1600 40 O 40 .03 0.0250 ' NT 2 3200 333 O _-436- _ .14* 0.1362= NR — 103 - SL 1 1600 114 _O _ ll¢ _ .07* O.oTIZ 'k ' ST -- 2 3200 -545 - _O — _ S¢5 _— _17 - 0�170� SR 1 1600 530 120 (050 •33 0. Ob2 ' =N.S. - .103 SS 658 .19 b.2o56 8 0 11g4 .37* 0.37 31 6 O — - 0 0 240 .15* 0.1500 5 O q05 .28 o.28as ' 8 O — .10 0.)000 ' Yellow Time i .83 Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I .C.U. ' Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. 0.8305 ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) ' N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 (—1 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to ' L 1 Existing Conditions I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.II. will be qreater than 0.90 ' I i Existinq Plug Project 'Traffic I .C.II. will I)e greater than oxi•.Linq I .C.U. that is currently greater than 0.1)0 nFurther analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures ' INTEkSECTION Coast Hiqhway/Jamboree Road ..-;FORM II ' PRO,IEc t . ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' Intersection Jamboree Road/Santa Barbara Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes AasecTon Average Winter Spring 1978) ' - - -- ---- --. --_.. .—..__..__ ..- _... .. .__... Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Exrstrn� f:xist. Project ment city Peak fir Peak fir Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio ' NL NT 2 3200 720 it 731 .22 2.z28 NR 1 1600 57 44• 1Ol .04 0.0631 SL 1 1600 106 0 l06 _--- _07 0.0662 ' ST_ 2 3200 1062 O 1062 __. .33* 0.3319 SR EL ET ' ER WL 270 96 WT 3 0 0 59-7 4800 .10* 0.1244 �k ' WR 231 Q — ' Yellow Time .10 0.1000 r Existinq Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. 53 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I .C.U. 0. 5563 ' ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left tExisting Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 n Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to ' t,l Existing Conditions I .C.U. ' 1 Existing Plu•, Project Traffic I .C.U. will ho gred tr.r than O.Q 0 ' I Existinq Plu•, Project Traffic I .C.H. will br groater than rxi%lin'i ` -� I .C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures III t 'INTERSECTION Jamboree Road/Santa Barbara Drive 'PROJECT : ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' Intersection Jamboree Road/San Joaquin Hills Road— (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter Spring 1978) ' Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio ' . NL 1 1600 115 O US .07 o.o719 ' NT 2 3200 892 O 892 .28* _ 0.2788 NR 1 1600 123 II 134 .08 O.o838 SL 2 3200 495 77 572- .15* 0.1788 ' ST 2 3200 1039 O 1039 .32 0.3Z47 SR 1 1600 233 O Z33 .15 o.1456 EL 1 1600 52 O SZ .03 0.03Z5 ET 2 3200 40 O 86 3 .03* o.0z69 ' ER 46 O — -' WL 1 1600T 131 1 24 7SG .08* O.O 69 + WT 2 3200 1 80 1 O SO •02 0.0250 ' WR N.S. 1 921 J /GS /089 - — Yellow Time .10 0.1000 # ' Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization (I .C.U. ) .64 ' Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. 0.61314 7ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) ' N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' Existing Plus Project Traffic L.C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions ' I .C.U.. Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.II. will be greater than 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.11. will be greater than existing l—i I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures ' INTERSECTION Jamboree Road/San Joaquin Hills Road --'FORM I I PROJECT: 1 , INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' Intersection roast Hiohway/Bayside Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) ' Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. • Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio NL 2 3200 780 O 780 .24* o.z4.38- NT 1 1600 1 23 0 30 02 S-L, 1 1600 13 O Y3 •01 0•0v61 5T 1 1600 8, 0 62 04* 0.o386 'k �1/ ' SR 54'. O 03 `EL 1 1600 50 O 50 * O•v312 'lE' N1 ET 2 3200 1509 120 /62g 47 0 5091 ' ER 1 1600 500 O 500 .31 o• 3125 WL 1 1600 9 O 9 •01 0.0056 WT 2 3200 1531 55 lS91 48* 0.4972t WR 5 10 0.1000 ' Yellow Time ---- Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization ( I .C.U. 89 �.�2n/ ' Existing-Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization ( I.C.U. ) a•9110 ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) ' N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 (� Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to L ' Existing Conditions I.C.U. r ' 7 Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' ( Existinq Plus. Project Traffic I .C.U. will be greater than existing `-� I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures , INTERSECTION Coast Highway Ba side Drive __— -- -- —YL —L_.---- ' ------•-- — FORM I I PROJECT : INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Jam ffDboree Road/Eastblu J:. e-ford Road (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist.- Project ment city I Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio ' NL 2 3200 465 0 465 .15* 0.1453 ' NT 2 3200 1339 / /507 .42 0.4709 NR 1 1600 185 0 / 5 •12 0.I156 SL _ 1 1600 67 -_ O 67 `_ -.04 0;0419 ST ._.._ 2 3200 1150— 77_-_ _,•_ 1227_____•. _-36` ._0:3654 ... 'K SR 1 1600 42 _ 0 4Z _•_03_ 0.0262 ' EL 1 1600 16 0 /6- .01 0.0100 ET 1 3200 114 0 114 11* 0. 1181 � ' ER 248 O 248 - WL 1 1600 173 0 173 .11* 0. 1081 ' WT 2 3200 99 0 99 .03 0.0-509 WR 1 1600 32 O 32- .02 0.02.00 Yellow Time .10 0./000 ' Existinq Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. .83 ' Ex istinc Plus Pro•ect Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. ' 0 8449 ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) ' N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to ' Existing Conditions I .C.U. -� Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' J o Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.H. will be greater than existing Lo I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 illy ' n Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures ' INTERSECTION Jamboree Road/Eastbluff Drive Ford Road -;FORM II ' PRO;EC1 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' Intersection Bristol Street/Jamboree Road (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on 'llverage-Wiriter/Spring 1978) ' Rove- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project meet city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C Ratio Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio tio ' NL 2 3200 1005 9& 1101 .31* 0.3441 ' NT 3 4800 1065 7Z 11 C08 -23 0•Z4-33 NR 31 .O SL_ - - - — — - - ST _ 3 4800 1092 33 IMS .23 z344 SR - - - — EL 1 1600 79 D 79 •05 o.0494 ET 2 3200 406 0 406 13* 0. 1Z69 ' ER 2 3200 689 44- 733 -22 O.2291 WL WT - -WR Yellow Time •10 O./o0U .54 -Existinq Intersection Capacity Utilization I .C.U. Existing Plus. Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. o•57/o ICU is sum critical movements , denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will -be less than or equal to 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to ' Existing Conditions I.C.U. - � Existing Plus Project Traffic I .L.II. will bo greater than 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.H. will be greater than existing L-1 I .C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 nFurther analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION Bristol Street/Jamboree Road _ _-- __—IFORM II PROJCCT ; INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' Intersection Bristol Street North/Jamboree Blvd. (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) ' Move- Lanes capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio ' 2 3200 1005 1IO 1 .31* o.3441 NL 96 NT 3 4800 1144 7Z M1& .24 0.2533 NR ' ' - SL - ST 3 4800 1047 33 1080 •22* O.2250 SR 1 1600 2M O 216 .14 0.1362 ' EL - - — — - — ET ' ER - - - WE 15 p ! 5 WT 3 4800 571 0 571 09* COIM38 WR 8 O 8 Yellow Time .10 0./000 ' Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. •72 ' Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I .C.U. 0.7929 ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) ' N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 EExisting Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Existinq Plu. Project Traffic I .C.II. will be greater than existing l I .C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 ill nFurther analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures 'INTERSECTION Bristol- Street North/Jamboree Road , 7ill FROJECT: ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' Intersection Jamboree Road/MacArthur Blvd. (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1978 ) ' Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio ' NL 1 1600 26 O —7-6 -..--- — .02� 0.0/62 I NT 2 3200 _ 520 O 801 21* 0.25D3 NR 161 120 SL 1 1600 135 O 135 •08* 0.0844 4 ' ST 2 3200 744 O -744 .23 O.2325 SR N.S. 399 0 �2 9 - _ EL 1 1600 448 0 44Z •28 o.2800 ET 3 4800 885 72 957 •18* o.1 994 ' ER N.S. 3 O — - WL 1 1600 446 0 446 .28* o.2788 -Or ' WT 3 4800 881 914 •18 0.1904 WR N.S. 10 O Yellow Time. 10 0.1000 Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization (I .C.U. ) .85 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization ( I.C.U.) 0.9129 ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) ' N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be •less than or equal to 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.11. will be greater than 0.90. C�( Existinq Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be greater than existing I .C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 nFurther analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures III ° INTERSECTION __ • _•_ —Jamboree RoalMacArthur Blvd. _ -__—_•__•___. _- -IFORM I I IHOJECT . ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' Intersection MacArthur Boulevard/Ford Road (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1918) ' Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio NL 1 1600 30 O 30 .02 0. 0188 ' NT 2 3200 1346 120 /51G .44* 0.4734 - NR 49 O SL 1 1600 370 0 370 .23* 0.2312 k ' ST_ 2 3200 1413 55 1468 .44 0.4-4988 SR 1 1600 132 O 132 .08 0.082 ' EL 1 1600 279 O 279 .17* 0.17 -9 ET 1 1600 228 O ZZ .14 10.14Z9 ' ER 1 1600 88 O 88 .06 0.0 55a WL 1 1600 19 O 19 •01 0.0119 WT 1 1600 113 0 113 .07* 0.0706 4e ' WR 1 1600 194 o-1 19 .12 O.)21Z Yellow Time .10 0.1OOO Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. 1 .01 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I .C.U. /•O -96 ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) ' N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 nExisting Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.H. will be .greater than 0.90 ' ( -I Existinq Plu, Project Traffic I .C.O. will be greater than ('AP,tinq i-1 I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 I Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures III ' ' INTERSECTION —__ MacArthur Boulevard/Ford Road _- ---!FORM II ' PROJECT: ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' Intersection MacArthur, Boulevard San Joaquin Hills Road Base (Existing Traffic Volumes d on Average Winter Spring 1978) Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio ' NL 1 1600 63 It -7 .04 O.o462 ' NT 2 3200 361 O 490 1 .15* 0.1531 NR 129 b SL 2 3200 412 O 4 /2 .13* 0.12160 # ST _ 2 3200 746 p 74.6 .23 0.2331 SR N.S. 250 55 3O15 - — ' EL 2 3200 772 120 892 •24* 0.2788 ET 3 4800 648 2 4 -7 7(D .15 0.1617 ' ER 80 24 — — WL 1 1600 70 O -70 .04 O.o436 WT 3 4800 285 11 47 10* 0.098$ WR 178 O — ' Yellow Time .10 0.1000 ExistingIntersection Capacity Utilization I .C.U. 72 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. 0.7595 ICU is sum critical movements , denoted by asterisk (*) ' N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to ' Existing Conditions I.C.U. ----- Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing lJ I .C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures ! II ' 'INTERSECTION --v MacArthur Boulevard/San Joaquin Hills Road — —! -- — — --IFORM II FR.OJECT : APPENDIX C 1 ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSES Exist + 30 Percent of Project 1 111 ! ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' Intersection roast.. Wi liigl�wav/B�side Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average nter ring 1978) 30 % Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project 3p9.Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr P1utiProject V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio ' NL` 2 3200 780 D 780 .24* 0.2438 'K t NT 1 1600 23 0 30 .02 0. o18B NR 7 O SL 1 1600 13 _ o_ _ I3 •01 0.0081 ' ST-- 1 1600 �8 — O — 62 •04* 0.0388 'M SR 54 O EL 1 1600 50 O 50 •03* 0.0312 ET 2 3200 1509 8 I SZO .47 0.4750 ' ER 1 1600 500 O 500 •31 0. 31Z5 WL 1 1600 9 O 9 •01 0.0056 WT 2 3200 1531 32 /1668 48* 0.4900 .10 O.1O0O ' Yellow Time t Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. '89 ' Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I .C.U. Of}O 3 S ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) ' N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I—1 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to L—� Existing Conditions I .C.U. ' 1 Exiatinq Plus Project. Traffic I .C.U. will he greater than O,n0 ExisLinq Plu•• Project Iraffic I .C.II. will he greater than exr•, Lino ' . l I .C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures ! II ' INTERSECTION I • __ _ Coast Highw�jB�s,)de Drive �_—__•,--_,._.—___.�. __.___..._.__. . _._.-FORM II ' PROJECT: ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' Intersection Jamboree Rotid/MacArthur• Blvd. (Existing Traffic volumes Elased •on Flverage WinterjSpring 1978) — -'FF — %4-- Lanes Capa- Existing Project 30% Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus y Project V/C V/C Volume Volume . Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio ' .02 0.o/62 NL 1 1600 26 O 26 NT 2 3200 520 0 ?13 .21* O.Z228 'k NR 161 32 ' SL 1 1600 135 O 135 •08* 0.0844 'k ST_ 2 3200 744 O 7Q4_-_. 23 0.232 28 D•2800 5 ' SR N.S. 399 0 399 - EL 1 1600 448 0 448 ET 3 4800 885 ZO 905 .18* 0. 1885 ' ER N.S. 3 - WL 1 1600 446 O 4.46 •28*_ 0.2788 ' WT 3 4800 881 7 8 8 8 .18 WR N.S. 10 O --F- -' .10 O• /000 Yellow Time ExistingIntersection Ca aci ty Utilization I.C.U. .85 ' Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization ( I.C.U. 10.8745 ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) ' W=Westbound T=Through, R=Right, N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, L=Left -- ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be 'less than or equal to 0.90 (—1 Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to ' L—I Existing Conditions I .C.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.O. will be greater than 0.110 f'l Existing Plus Pro•jL�ct Traffic I .C.II. will br grvawr than exisLiml l J I .C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 III rl further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION __ —Jamboree RoadjMacArthur_61_y_d___•__-.__ _ ,- _. ... .... _ .. _..... ---IFORM I I 'P.OJECT : • INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' Intersection MacArthur Boulevard/Ford Road (Existing Traffic Volumes 8asen on Average Winter/Spring 1978) 30 % ' Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project 3 %Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr P1usiProject V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio NL 1 1600_ 30 O 30 — .02 O.OI 88 ' NT 2 3200 1346 32 /4z7 .44* o- 4459 'k NR 49 O SL� 1 1600 370 O 3?0 .23* 0.2312 +)t ST :_ 2 3200 1413 !I 1424 .44 g.445O SR : 1 1600 132 O 132 .08 0.0 25 EL 1 1600 279 O 219 .17* 0. 1744 ET 1 1600 228 O 228 .14 0. 1426 ER 1 1600 88 O as .06 0.055 WL .1 1600 19 O 19 •01 0. 0119 IT 1 1600 113 O /13 .07* 0.0706 WR' 1 1600 194 O 194 .12 0. 1212 Yellow Time 10 0.l000 Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization ( I.C.U. ) 1 .01 ' Existin Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. / 0221 ICU is sum critical movements , denoted by asterisk (*) ' N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 n Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to ' t I Existing Conditions I .C.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.II. will be greater than 0.90 ( Exi.t.inq Plu,; Project Traffic I.C.H. will be greater than deist m4l —1 I .C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 ' n Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures ' INTERSECTION MacArthur Boulevard/Ford Road � .. .. .. __ ._-_ . —!FORM I I ' PROJECI : . s APPENDIX D ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSES ' With Improvements 1 III : ', `- y INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Coast H' a Baysi•de Drive ' (Existing Traffic Volumes Base 0n verage. Winter/Spring 1978) W l'TH I MPP—OVEMEKIT5 ' Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio ' NL 2 3200 780 O 780 .24* 0.2438 -0 ' NT 1 1600 23 O 30 .02 o.of 88 NR 7 O. SL 1 1600 13 O 13 .01 0.0081 ' ST l 1600 8 O 62. .04* o.0388 k SR 54 O — ' EL 1 1600 50 O SD •03* 0.0312 # ET 3 4800 1509 12.0 /629 •47 0.3394- ' ER 1 1600 500 O S5w .31 0. 3125 . WL 1 1600 9 O 9 .01 0.00 S6 WT 3 4800 1531 SS /59/ .48* o.33/6 + ' WR 5 O — .10 O,10o0 �k ' Yellow Time Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I .C.U. .89 ' Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I .C.U. o•?¢S¢ ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) ' N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be less than or- equal to 0.90 ' n Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. --_--_ ' � �Existiny Pius Project Traffic I .C.U. will he greater than 0.90 ' Existinq Pluv. Project Traffic I .C.U. will be greater than rxiA inq I .C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures ,INTERSECTION -., ... - Coast Hi_ghw�/Bayside—Drive _. ___.__..... _ ..__ _—._ FORM 11 'PROJECT: ' •, INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' Intersection Jamboree Road/MacArthur Blvd. (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter%Spring 1978 ) WITH IMPR.OVEMP_MT ' Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. • Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume _Volume Peak Hr Volume__ Ratio Ratio ' NL— 1 1600 26 O 26 .02 0.of62 'k ' NT 2 3200 520 O 520 .21* 0.1(025 NR I /600 161 120- 28I 0.)_7 6 SL 1 1600 135 O 135 •08* 0.0844• ' ST - 2 3200 744 O 7 .23 0.232$ SR N.S. 399 O 3 9 - "- _ ' EL 1 1600 448 O 448 •28 0.2800_ ET 3 4800 885 72 957 .18* 0. 199¢ ' ER N.S. 3 O 3 -28* - WL 1 1600 446 O 4416 0.Z788 ' WT 3 4800 881 33 914 - .18 0.1904 WR N.S. 10 O Yellow Time 10 6.Io0o �t Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization ( I .C.U. ) .85 ' Existing Plus Project Intersection Ca acit Utilization ( I .C.U. 0•8Z.69 ICU is sum critical movements , denoted by asterisk (*) ' N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=left ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 n Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to ' I Existing Conditions I.C.U. ' Existing Plus Project TrdffiC I .C.H. will be greater than 0.90 -I Existinq Plu•, Project Traffic I .C.u. will br greater than o< i,.Linq ---I I .C.U. that i, currently greater than 0.90 ' Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures ITERSECTION Jamboree _Road/MacArlthur_Blvd. _______ •• . •__- •_ ..... ....... . _ -_IFORM II 'OJECI : INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' Intersection MacArthur-_HoulevvarlFord Road (Existing Traffic Volumes DaselT_on Average Winter/Spring 1978) W ITH I MP2OVEME1.iT5 _ ' Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio ' NL Z 32o0 30 O 30 .02 0.0094 NT 2 3200 1346 12-0 /4/06 .44* o.4581 . ' NR 1 /600 49 O 49 - 6.0306 SL Z 3200 370 O 970 .23* 0.1156 ' ST _ 2 3200 1413 55 /468 .44 0.4588 SR 1 1600 132 O 132. .08 0.0825 ' EL 2. 3200 279 O 79 .17* 0.0872 'k ET 1 1600, 228 O 2Z8 .14 0. 14-ZS_ ER 1 1600 88 O 86 .06 0.0550_ WL 1 1600 -- 19 — O — -- 19 --- .01 0. 0119 WT 1 1600 113 O 113 .07* 0.0706 WR 1 1600 194 O /94 .12 0.124Z Yellow Time .10 0.1000 r)r ' Existinq Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. 1 .01 ' Existin Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I .C.U. 0 8 315 ICU is sum critical movements , denoted by asterisk (*) ' N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 (— Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to t—� Existing Conditions I.C.U. ----- ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 t Existinq Plus Project Traffic I .C.H. will be greater than existing I .C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 nFurther analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures ill : ' INTERSECTION MacArthur Boulevard/Ford Road FORM 11 ' PROJECT : i THE IRVINE MMMW 550 Newport Center Drive,P.O. Box I ' Newport Beach, California 92663 (714) 644-3011 1 October 18, 1979 Planning Commission ' City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 ' RE: Civic Plaza Phasing Plan ' Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission: The Irvine Company respectfully requests that your consideration of our proposed Phasing Plan for Civic Plaza be continued to the Plann- ing Commission meeting of December 6, 1979. ' As you are aware, the City Council is scheduled to hold public hearings on General Plan Amendment 79-1 beginning ,October 23, 1979, which may affect Civic Plaza. This continuance would allow information generated ' by the City Council's review of Newport Center in the General Plan Amendment to be used in the Planning Commission's consideration of the Civic Plaza Phasing Plan. ' Your consent to this request would be appreciated. Sin/c�erely, 11 1 n `- - - (/ A,/ ' David Dmohowski Manager Government Relations 1 1 ' THE IRVINE C MPAW 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92663 (714) 644-3011 ' CIS 10, 1979 RECEIVED 2 Community ment Planning Commission DevDep City of Newport Beach JUL 1 0, 1979:> 3 ' 3300 Newport Boulevard 6 CrrY U.- Newport Beach, California NEWPORT BEAUM, ¢ 92663 CALIR ' s SUBJECT: Civic Plaza Traffic Phasing Plan V 0) ' Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission: In order to proceed with full development of the Civic Plaza site in accordance with the City's P.C. district regulations, we are submitting attached Traffic Phasing Plan ' for your approval. City Council Resolution No. 9472 sets forth guidelines for the "test of reasonableness" to be used in evaluating such projects. It is our belief that the attached Traffic Phasing Plan has been prepared in compliance with all ' applicable City regulations and, in fact,meets the criteria established for the test of reasonableness. ' The Traffic Phasing Plan was prepared assuming that development currently in process under the 30% exception rule would be fully occupied in 1980. The additional 70% of future allowed development, according to our Traffic Phasing Plan, is scheduled to be developed and occupied in 1981. The attached 'traffic study and responses ' identify the traffic impacts associated with the proposed development. Our proposed site development phasing plan is summarized as follows: ' 1980 - Occupancy of existing plus development in process under the 30% rule. (This includes 34,000 sq. ft. for the art museum and library, plus ' approximately 81,000 sq. ft. additional) . 1981 - Occupancy of remainder of allowed development, subject to the 70% phasing requirement. (This includes approximately 190,000 square ' feet consisting of office/restaurant/theater uses, and an addition to the art museum.) ' Within the traffic limiting parameters, it is highly desirable from our point of view to complete the Civic Plaza development at the earliest feasible date. This would minimize aesthetic impacts due to grading and construction, and would allow the most effective implementation of erosion control measures. Responses to the City's guidelines for Traffic Phasing approval are attached. ' P ' July 9, 1979 page 2 ' We hope that this letter, along with the attached Traffic Plan will answer your questions and concerns related to traffic impacts due to the develop- ment of the Civic Plaza P.C. Should you have any additional questions or ' comments, please feel free to contact me or our Traffic Consultant. Yours very truly, ' Ronald W. Hendrickson Director, Design/Construction Commerical/Industrial Division ' RWH:lk encls. 1 1 1 t i ' THE IRVINE ( MPAWY 550 Newport Center Drive,P.O. Box I Newport Beach, California 92663 (714) 644-3011 N M i �CEt�SO D February 21 , 1979 Rcom�°mat vemeljapn Dept Mr. Richard Hogan �� c R BgpoH' 6 1 City of Newport Beach tt�`MpOcr+vF 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, Ca 92660 ' Dear Mr. Hogan: ' CIVIC PLAZA - NEWPORT CENTER REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PHASING PLAN (REVISED) Transmitted herewith, in accord with City Council Resolution ' No. 9472, is a phasing plan for Civic Plaza, an excepted P.C. under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Accompanying the Phasing Plan is response to six questions posed by the Planning Commission and a Weston Pringle Traffic Analysis, dated February 12, 1979. We request that this phasing plan be submitted to the Plann- ing Commission at their meeting of March 8, 1979. Yours very truly, 6 ed Ronald W. Hendrickson ' Project Manager Commercial/Industrial Division RWH:dw ' encl . RWH:dw ' 2-20-79 CIVIC PLAZA, NEWPORT CENTER ' PHASING PLAN ' Included herein is the phasing plan for Civic Plaza, an excepted P.C. ' under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. In addition, the following information is included: Data Requested from Developer by Planning Commission ' (approved 12-21-78) six items. Weston Pringle and Associates Traffic Analysis dated February 12, 1979 ' BACKGROUND 1 . The Civic Plaza Planned Community Text approved by the City Council ' in December 1975 included the following uses: 1 Office 320,000 s.f. Restaurant 8,000 S.f. ' Art Museum 30,000 s.f. Library 30,000 s.f. Theater 20,000 s.f. 2. On December 11 , 1978, the City Council sustained the decision of Planning Commission excepting the Civic Plaza PC from the require- ments of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. ' 3. On February 8, 1979, The Planning Commission revised the Civic Plaza ' PC to be consistent with General Plan Amendment 78-2 by deleting 85,294 s.f. of office park and 16,000 s.f. of Civic Cultural . In ' addition, a traffic phasing plan is required for any development in excess of 30% of the additional allowable development. A revised ' continued . . . ' site plan reflecting the reduction in development was part of the approval . 1 1 PHASING PLAN ' Phase — Sq. Feet Start Complete I 30% of 234,706 s.f. — . 70,412 s.f. Fall 1980 Spring 1981 35% of 234,706 s.f. = 82,147 s.f. 152,559 s.f. ' II Restaurant 8,000 s.f, Spring 1981 ' 35% of 234,706 s.f. = 82,147 s.f. Spring 1981 Fall 1981 1 1 DATA REQUESTED FROM DEVELOPER BY ' PLANNING COMMISSION ( APPROVED 12-21-78) ' 1 . "Each project subject to the phasing requirements of Council ' Resolution No. 9472 shall be examined as to the extent of existing development and the amount of development remaining to ' be completed. " ' Existing development in the Civic Plaza P.C. consists of the 20,000 s.f. Newport Harbor Art Museum and the (nearly complete) ' 16,000 s.f. Newport Center Library. Development to be completed consists of 234,706 s.f. of office development, a 20,000 s.f. theater, an 8,000 s.f. restaurant, ' and a 10,000 s.f. addition to the Art Museum. 1 2. "Information shall be submitted indicating the amount of traffic ' being generated by existing development and that projected for remaining development". ' Trip generation rates and estimated volumes for each use and time period are listed in Tables 1 and 2. The existing Art ' Museum was not included since it is already a part of the existing traffic volume data." continued . . . . TABLE 1 2.5 HOUR TRIP GENERATION ' CIVIC PLAZA ' RATE Land!IUse IN OUT IN RATE': OUT ' Office 234,706 s.f. ) 1 .2 3.4 280 800 Restaurant (8,000 s.f. ) 11 .3 7.7 90 60 ' Library (14,000 s.f. ) 1 .0 1 .0 10 10 290 810 TABLE 2 ' PM PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION Land Use RATE VOLUME IN OUT IN OUT ' Office (234,706 s.f. ) 0.6 1 .7 140 400 Restaurant (8,000 s.f. ) 5.0 3.0 40 20 ' Library (14,000 s.f. ) 1 .0 1 .0 10 10 ' Totals 150 140 ' 3 "An examination shall be made of the circulation system in the vicinity of the project to determine what improvements remain ' to be completed, with particular consideration being given to those improvements which will directly aid in moving traffic generated by the project. The area to be examined shall extend ' to those intersections where traffic generated from the project increased the traffic at the intersection during the peak two and ' continued . . . ' one-half hour preriod by 5% or more . " The 16 intersections identified for analysis under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance were examined. Eleven intersections were identified as having increases of 5% or greater on any approach during the peak two and one-half hour period. They are summarized ' in attached Table 3. ' The eleven intersections were further analyzed utilizing the existing plus total project PM peak hour volumes. This resulted in three ' intersections with ICU values of 0.90 or greater. These inter- sections and anticipated improvements are as follows: ' Coast .Hwy and Bayside Drive The reconstruction of Coast Hwy between Dove Dr. and Bayside Dr. with the new bridge will provide three lanes in each direction at ' Bayside Dr. This improvement will reduce the existing plus project ICU to 0.7553 based on the current Caltrans schedule the bridge ' project should be complete by January 1982. These improvements will reduce the existing plus Project ICU to 0.7553. MacArthur Blvd and Ford Rd The improvements for this intersection, which are scheduled for bidding Ili ' in June or July 1979, include double left turn lanes on the north, south and west approaches and two through plus right turn lanes on MacArthur ' Blvd. These improvements will reduce the existing plus project ICU to 0.8415, ' continued . . . . Table 3 INTERSECTION ANALYSES SUMMARY Civic Plaza ICU ICU ICU Exist Exist + Exist + • 2,5 HOUR PERCENTAGES Exist + 30i= Total Project INTERSECTION vB SB EB WB Project Project Faith Improvements Bristol N. & Campus 0 0 5.9 1.00 1.0238 1.0083 0.8350 (With Southbound Right Turn Lane Bristol & Campus 0 0 3.3 - Coast & Dover 0 0 2.1 3.9 Coast & Bayside 0 0 1.5 5.3 .89 0.9260 0.9035 0.7553 (With Bridge Widening) Coast & Jamboree 0 6.9 1.7 0 .83 0.8305 Coast & Newport Center - .1.4 0 0.6 Coast & MacArthur - 1.8• 1.3 0.9 Coast & Marguerite 0 0' 2.6 .1.3 Jamboree & Santa Barbara 3.1 1.6 - 12.5 .53 0.5599 Jamboree & SJHR 0.6 2.5 0 12.8 .64 0.6720 Jamboree & Ford 6.2 3.5 0 0 .83 0.8424 Bristol & Jamboree 5.7 1.3 2'.6 - .54 0.5778 Bristol N. & Jamboree 5.5 1.1 - 6.7 .72 0.7995 Jamboree & MacArthur 4.9 1.1 2.8 1.0 .85 0.8736 • MacArthur & Ford 5.5 1.8 0 0 1.01 1.0443 1.0218:M 0.8415 (With City Project) MacArthur & SJHR 1.0 2.4 9.0 1.0 .72 0.7534 Carus Dr. and Bristol St. North ' A southbound right turn lane can be added within the existing pavement width (has been accomplished). The addition of this lane would account for a reduction in ICU value to 0.8350. This improvement may divert ' additional traffic from other locations to the intersection, but should represent an overall increase in the level of service in the airport area. ' 4. "Existing traffic at those intersections shall be shown prior to making any projections. " ' This information is shown in Table No. 3, and reflects the most currently ' available traffic volumes for all critical intersections, citywide. 5. "The developer may include in his proposed traffic phasing plan completion ' of or contribution to completion of needed improvements consistent with the level of traffic generation and a reasonable proportion of the cost ' of these improvements." ' The Irvine Company is at present, under agreement with the City to participate in the intersection improvement identified at the Ford/MacArthur intersection. ' "The proposed Developers' Traffic Improvement Funding program if imple- mented by the City Council can provide additional traffic improvements. ' 6. "The developer is also to take into consideration in the preparation of his plan characteristics in the design of his development which either ' reduce traffic generation or guide traffic onto less impacted arterials ' or through intersections in the least conjested direction. " The site plan design for Civic Plaza permits ingress/egress on all arterials surrounding the project. An on-site peripheral circulation ' system will permit selection of the least traffic impacted arterial when leaving the project a peak traffic periods. The streets within Newport Center have been constructed by the Irvine Company to their ' full widths and therefore function well even at peak periods. i� ' THE IRVINE =PAW 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92663 (714) 644-3011 January 25, 1979 O Eo R�GmR,00`e i s �eve0e �g-�g� 2 Mr. Fred Talorico ' City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, Ca 92660 fig` Dear Fred: CIVIC PLAZA - NEWPORT CENTER - REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PHASING ' PLAN In accord with City Council Resolution No. 9472, we submit the ' following phasing plan for Civic Plaza along with the enclosed Weston Pringle Traffic Analysis dated January 17, 1979. ' The traffic analysis identifies three intersections which would have ICU values of .90 or greater when utilizing PM peak hour volumes. Following are the impacted intersections and when corrective measures to reduce the ICU below .90 are ' anticipated. Mac Arthur/Jamboree - an additional northbound lane on MacArthur ' is required and could be accomplished by restriping. Could be accomplished by end of '79. Ford/MacArthur - a city project for improvement to this inter- ' section is scheduled for bidding in June or July 1979. These improvements would reduce the ICU to below .90. ' Bayside/PCH - The new back bay bridge which is schedule to have bids accepted in March 1980 will reduce the ICU at this inter- section to below .90. ' Phasing Plan Based on an office development of 251 ,300 s.f. (reduced from ' 320,000 s.f. allowed by P.C. and also theater is deleted) . Proposed development plan (see attached) has 7 low rise office buildings. ' continued . . . . w ' CIVIC PLAZA Page 2 1-25-79 ' Phase I - Buildings 1 ,2 3 & 4 - Occupancy scheduled for Mid 1980 30% allowance 75,390 s.f. ' 45% additional 113,000 s.f. ' Phase II . - Buildings 5,6 & 7 scheduled for mid 1981__ 25% 62,910 s.f. $ Total 251 ,300 s.f''—" ' We would be pleased to discuss any questions you may have. Yours very truly, (S ' ' R W. Hendrickson Project Manager Commercial/Industrial Division RWH:dw encls. 1 I,� �ASi�l� �FrlajsD pa• s •RJ , t 4, SITE PLAN Nzr 1ANUARY, 1979 7W IFMNE MMPANY w 'y . CIVIC PLAZA TRAFFIC PHASING PLAN ' Item I ' Each project subject to the phasing requirement of Council Resolution No. 9472 shall be examined as to the extent of existing development and'the amount of development remaining to be completed. The Civic Plaza Planned Community provides for five separate land uses on the site. Upon completion of the entire project, the PC provides for the following identified land use developments: Art museum 30,000 sf Library 14,000 sf ' Restaurant 8,000 sf Offices 234,706 sf Theater 20,000 sf' ' The only presently developed land use on the site is the Newport Beach Art Museum with 20,000 square feet. Additional land uses for the site which for traffic analysis purposes are under construction or in the process of development are the City of Newport Beach Library and 81,812 square feet of offices under the 30% rule. Those portions of the planned community which would remain to be developed upon approval of the Traffic Phasing Plan are the restaurant, 152,894 square feet of offices, the 650 seat theater, and 10,000 additional square feet for the museum. Item 2 Information shall be submitted indicating the amount of traffic being generated ' by existing development, that projected for remaining development, and traffic that will exist after completion of the project. ' Based on the appropriate traffic generation rates as identified in the Newport Center Phase II Traffic Study, the total traffic- to be generated by the site is as follows. 1 . July 1979 1 1 I ' p.m. Doak Hour ADT Se Out Occupied Art museum - 20,000 sf 840 20 20 ' owb!r. Development - 1980 Occupancy Library - 14,000 sf 588 10 10 ' offices - 81,812 sf 1,064 49 140 Sub-total 1,652 59 150 Future Development - 1981 Occupancy Art museum - 10,000 sf 420 10 10 ' Restaurant 400 40 20 Offices - 152,894 sf 1,988 91 260 Theater 975 n/a n/a ' Sub-total 3,783 141 290 Total PC 6,275 220 460 t The amount of traffic to be' generated by the completion of all remaining develop- mant• in the peak hour is shown on Table 2 of the attached report. The existing Portion of the art museum was not included in that analysis as it was an existing land use and included in existing traffic volume data. Item 3 ' An examination shall be made of the circulation system in the vicinity of the project to determine what improvements remain to be completed, with particular consideration being given to those improvements which will directly aid in moving traffic generated by the project. The area to' be examined shall extend to those intersections where traffic generated from the- project increases the traffic for any log of the intersection during the peak 2� hour period by 2, or- more: ' Table 3 of the attached report summarizes the analysis for critical intersection identification, with the backup calculation sheets included in Appendix A. Identifying critical intersections was based on the intersections to be examined ' by the procedures of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance for the area in which Civic Plaza is identified, and further examination is included for any intersection for which the project would increase traffic by 2% or more during the 2� hour period. The site is hounded by San Joaquin Hills Road, Santa Cruz Drive, San Clemente Drive, and Santa Barbara Drive. All roadway improvements adjacent to the site have been previously improved and completed by the owner. -2- L••xisting traffic at those intersections shall be shown prior to making any i � projections. 1 Existing traffic volumes for all identified critical intersections are shown in Appendix B, Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis. I Lem 5 iThe developer may include in his proposed Traffic Phasing Plan completion of or contribution to completion of needed improvements consistent with the level of 1 traffic generation and a reasonable proportion of the cost of these improvements. As previously identified, the landowner has already made the identified ultimate General Plan improvements on the roadways adjacent to the site. Due to this 1 previous contribution by the landowner to completion of the roadway system, no deficiencies on the existing circulation have been identified adjacent to the site. 1 Table 5 identifies a summary of circulation system improvements included in future period ICU calculations. All of these improvements are required as a part of approved projects or are planned as'government projects. of the 1 projects identified, the landowner has committed over $152,000 in the improve- ment of the Ford/MacArthur intersection'. Item 6 The developer is also to take into consideration in the preparation of his plan characteristics in the design of his development which either reduce traffic 1 generation or guide traffic onto less impacted arterials or through intersec- tions in the least congested direction. The proposed land use plan reflects a reduction in traffic generated over the ' original approved PC for the site. The proposed land use plan reflects a 26.6% reduction in office use of that initially approved with the existing PC being amended in April 1979. 1 The current PC also includes a mix of land uses which have beneficial traffic generation impacts in the peak hours, such as 'the proposed theater, library and museum. Although of a higher generation rate, a restaurant at this site will 1 potentially serve to divert some trips from the surrounding area in the peak hours. -3- ' i 1 . 1 h, Ai li. t:i o (conl.iuucd) Full ncca;:; to the ;Lto i:e to be taken from San Clemente and Santa Rosa, with a restricted right turn only jaccess from San Joaquin Hills Road. San Clemente and Santa Rosa were identified ir, the Newport Center Traffic Study as roadways with a less degree of utilization than other roadways in the vicinity of the site. The internal circulation system of the site is oriented towards encour- aging vehicles to utilize these roadways for ingress/egress from the Civic Plaza site and Newport Center area. The orientation of traffic to Santa Rosa and San Joaquin Hills Road intersection and Santa Barbara/Jamboree intersection are intended to encourage traffic to divert to non-critical movements at the San Joaquin Hills Road and Jamboree intersection. ' Item 7 ' Upon receipt of the plan and information, the Commission will determine whether there is a reasonable correlation between projected traffic at the time of project completion and capacity of affected intersections in considering the project for approval. ' The attached traffic study had identified two intersections that will have ICU's that exceed .90 in 1982 after full project completion; these are the intersec- tions 'of Bristol Street North and Campus Drive, .and the intersection of Jamboree ' Road and MacArthur Boulevard, with projected ICU's of .9279 and .9496, respectively. For the Bristol Street North and Campus intersection, with or without approval of the project, the intersection has a projected ICU value of .9279. This is due to the project generated traffic being added to a non-critical movement through the intersection. Thus, approval or denial of the project will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of service at this intersection. For the Jamboree and MacArthur intersection, the project increases the ICU analysis value by .0227 in 1982. The traffic consultant has indicated in his report that drivers utilizing this intersection would not perceive this increase, and in his opinion, the intersection would operate satisfactorily. He has also identified that the construction of the Corona del Mar Freeway would also result in improved conditions at this intersection.' ' Item 8 Mitigation proposed needs to indicate degree of permanence in order to meet the ' test. The land use reductions made .in the April 1979 PC amendment reflect a perman- ent reduction in land usu intensity and traffic generation for this site. ' '1'h,• roadway hg)rovem,:nt.;: identified as necessary for the approval of other projects am considered as permanent fixed facility improvements although additional modifications such as re-stripping, construction to ultimate (where appropriate) and signal operations modifications, may also occur in the future. -9 i it • POSITION PAPER WITH REGARD ' TO QUESTION OF VESTING OF CIVIC PLAZA UNDER THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE THE IRVINE COMPANY 1 ' TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I . INTRODUCTION 1 ' II. DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY OF CIVIC PLAZA 3 III. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND APPLICATION OF THE VESTING PROVISION OF THE TRAFFIC ' PHASING ORDINANCE 12 A. History of Traffic Phasing Ordinance 14 B. Other Development Projects and Vesting Under the Ordinance 18 1 1. Koll Center Newport 19 2. Emkay-Newport Place 21 3 . Ford Aeroneutronics 22 ' 4. Summary 26 IV. CIVIC PLAZA IS A VESTED PROJECT UNDER THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE 27 A. Civic Plaza Is One Project 28 ' B. Grading and Building Permits Have Been Issued for Civic Plaza 30 C. Construction Involving Substantial Liabilities Has Been Diligently Commenced in Civic Plaza 33 ' D. The Findings of The City Council Regarding The Vesting of Civic Plaza Are Inapposite and Do Not Support ' Its Decision 35 V. FAILURE OF THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL ' TO VEST CIVIC PLAZA IS A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS 39 VI. THE CITY IS EQUITABLY ESTOPPED FROM ' SUBJECTING CIVIC PLAZA TO THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE 43 I VII. THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE IS INVALID AS APPLIED TO CIVIC PLAZA BECAUSE IT ' ' WOULD IN EFFECT REQUIRE SUBMISSION OF A SECOND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT IN CONTRAVENTION OF STATE LAW 48 VIII. CONCLUSION 54 • •t • 1 ii I. INTRODUCTION ' This memorandum addresses the question of whether The Irvine Company. has a legal and equitable right to complete construction of Civic Plaza despite City Council Policy S-1 and the subsequent Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The question ' is one of fairness, and we believe that in fairness the development of Civic Plaza cannot be halted at this late 1 date. As discussed below, Civic Plaza is a vested project under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. It is, as a matter of ' law, one, interdependent project which has received all final discretionary approvals , for which grading and building permits have been issued, and on which substantial liabilities ' have been incurred in good faith reliance upon such permits . The Civic Plaza should therefore be excepted from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. ' Civic Plaza is the only Planned Community District where construction occurred prior to adoption of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance that has not been found to be vested. ' Such a result cannot be supported given the history and ' otherwise consistent application of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Rather, the failure of the City to find Civic ' Plaza vested under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance constitutes 1 a denial of The Irvine Company' s Constitutional right to substantive due process and equal protection of the laws . It is ironic that the City has attempted to halt full development of the commercial office uses in Civic Plaza, while at the same time it has accepted and encouraged ' the public and quasi-public uses either completed or under construction. As discussed below, under applicable law the ' City of Newport Beach in encouraging and accepting the public and quasi-public uses is legally precluded from denying to The Irvine Company the right to complete the ' entire project. Finally, The Traffic Phasing Ordinance, in essence, is an attempt to resubject Civic Plaza to yet another envi- ronmental impact study. However, the California Environ- mental Quality Act flatly prohibits such an attempt. The Irvine Company respectfully submits that, for ' all of these reasons 'as more fully developed below, Civic Plaza must be permitted to proceed. • 2 1 II. DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY OF CIVIC PLAZA 41 Civic Plaza is a 26. 12 acre Planned Community District in Newport Center bounded by San Joaquin Hills Road, Santa Cruz Drive, San Clemente Drive, Santa Barbara Drive, the Newport Beach Fire and Police Facility buildings ,* an automobile dealership, and a service station. While the present, approved design for Civic Plaza had its genesis in • • , 1975, the developmental history for that property dates back to the beginning phases of Newport Center. 41 Ground was first broken on the Civic Plaza site in 1967, when that site was rough graded as a part of the ' grading of the whole of Newport Center. At the same time substantial and costly infrastructure investment, including sewage, water, gas, power and telephone lines , was made by The Irvine Company for the Civic Plaza site. The Civic Plaza property was originally zoned CO-H-UL. This was prior to the adoption of Planned Community ' District zoning for commercial projects in Newport Beach; however, this zoning permitted general retail, service com- 01 mercial, and multi-family residential uses, thus permitting development potentials now recognized in Planned Community ' Districts. • ' * The Irvine Company conveyed the land for the Fire Station and Police Facility to the City of Newport Beach in 1970 and 1973, respectively. 3 i 1 Early in 1975, The Irvine Company was approached by a group of citizens interested in establishing an art ' museum in the City who were seeking a donation of land for that purpose. A repertory theatre group , which was considering a relocation of its facilities in Newport Beach, also approached The Irvine Company for the same purpose. At about the same • time, The Irvine Company was presented with a third similar ' request by the City of Newport Beach then considering a location for a new library building within Newport Center. The logical site for these buildings was what is now known as Civic Plaza. Public uses were already being ' made of land adjacent to the Civic Plaza site, with the Newport Beach Police facility having been built in 1973 and the adjacent fire station in 1970. Moreover, the location of this property was suitable for public and quasi-public uses, as well as commercial development. To help persuade The Irvine Company to consider dedicating part of this land ' for civic uses, an architect involved in both the Museum and Theatre groups submitted a schematic development plan ' envisioning a viable combination of both commercial and the above civic uses in one integrated development project. For its part, The Irvine Company, desiring to • ' involve Newport Center in Newport Beach civic and cultural activities, listened to these requests and was intrigued by ' 4 the submitted development plan. The concept presented an appealing design for future commercial projects by incorpo- rating a campus-like scheme. The Irvine Company therefore presented and designed Civic Plaza as a Planned Community in a manner that would insure that all of its planned uses , tnamely office buildings, an art museum, a library, a theater • and a restaurant, were fully compatible, integrated and interdependent. The costs of this endeavor were not insubstantial. A local architectural firm, Ladd, Kelsey and Woodard, was commissioned by The Irvine Company to provide a detailed land planning schematic consistent with such a planned community setting at a cost of approximately $15 , 000. The ' plans for Civic Plaza, embodied in the Planned Community District Regulations discussed below, reflect a campus-like setting of low-rise buildings, as well as shared parking among the various structures , including the Library and the ' Art Museum, and an inner vehicular access system to enable movement to each building within Civic Plaza without the necessity of exiting onto any surface streets . While developing these plans for Civic Plaza, as a •' necessary first step in processing the Planned Community ("PC") application by the City of Newport Beach, The Irvine Company constructed San Clemente Drive and also invested in ' 5 additional infrastructure for Civic Plaza at its own expense. San Clemente Drive, an undivided, four lane, public arterial, ' was completed in 1975 at a cost of approximately $230, 000. It is readily apparent that San Clemente 'Drive was con- structed with the future needs of Civic Plaza foremost in ' mind. Among other things , San Clemente Drive now serves as • a frontage road to both the Art Museum and the Library as well as providing necessary access to the rest of Civic Plaza as planned. In addition to architectural fees and the cost of ' San Clemente Drive, The Irvine Company also incurred approx- imately $21, 000 in engineering fees and preparation costs for an Environmental Impact Report in readying Civic Plaza for developmental approval. On November 20, 1975 , after an in-depth public hearing, the Newport Beach Planning Commis- sion unanimously approved The Irvine Company' s application for a resubdivision of Civic Plaza and its PC zoning appli- cation. A hearing was held on December 22, 1975 , at which time the Newport Beach City Council enacted P .C. Ordinance 1649 and approved Resubdivision Map #501. The integrity of• the whole concept of Civic Plaza was made explicit, and the !' City' s approval of Civic Plaza was in recognition of the ' project' s interdependence in public and commercial uses. ' 6 P.C. Ordinance 1649 established the Civic Plaza Planned Community District ("Civic Plaza PC") which was ' expressly stated to be "a part of the Newport Center Devel- opment in conformance with the Newport Beach General Plan . . . adopted in December 1973. " The Civic Plaza PC includes a site plan showing the number, location,* and footprints of all buildings within Civic Plaza, precise height limitations on all buildings ,** allocation of the net acreage between building sites, parking areas and landscaping, and a divi- sion of square footages among the various uses approved for ' Civic Plaza.*** After adoption of the Civic Plaza PC in December, 1975 , the City formally issued its "Approval In Concept" for * The PC provides that "all buildings shall be located in substantial conformance with the site plan. " ** The PC Provides that "all buildings and appurte- nant structures shall be limited to a maximum height of ' sixty-five (65) feet. " *** The Civic Plaza PC specification of uses are: "Office Park 320, 000 Sq. Ft. Art Museum 30, 000 Sq. Ft. Library 30, 000 Sq. Ft. ' Theatre 20, 000 Sq. Ft. Restaurant 8, 000 Sq. Ft. " 7 the project as a whole on January 16, 1976.* Ten days later, The Irvine Company filed an application for develop- ment of Civic Plaza with the California Coastal Commission in the South Coast Region.** After a public hearing on March 29, 1976, the Coastal Commission approved permits for ' the Art Museum, approved the resubdivision, and "approved in concept" the entire Civic Plaza development, including toffice buildings , a restaurant and theatre, expressly recog- nizing that The Irvine Company was committed to development of the public use buildings only in conjunction with the ' entire development project. After gaining these approvals from both the City of Newport Beach and the Coastal Commission, The Irvine Com- pany proceeded diligently and in good faith to bring Civic * The City's final approval of 320,000 sq. ft. of commer- cial office development in Civic Plaza was conditioned only upon a final review of a traffic study for all of ' Newport Center. The City determined that no building permits should be issued on the commercial sites until that review was complete, although the City' s approval w of the commercial development in concept would not ' permit any material departure from the approved site plan. On February 28 , 1977 , the City completed .that traffic review, established a reduced density figure for Newport Center as a whole, and in so doing accepted and approved the full 320, 000 square feet of commercial office usage in Civic Plaza. ** At that time, but not now, the Civic Plaza site was designated as lying within the coastal zone. L � 8 a Plaza to completion. First, it agreed to convey to the City of Newport Beach the land in Civic Plaza (consisting of ' approximately 1. 97 acres) designated for the Library. On June 29, 1976, The Irvine Company sold the land to the City for $279, 500, which was a discount of $90, 000 or about 24'/0 ' of the fair market value. This donation to the City of • almost one-fourth of the then fair market value of the ' Library site was made with the integration of the Library facility with the rest of Civic Plaza foremost in mind. The documents of conveyance reflect the interde- pendence of the City Library to the rest of Civic Plaza, and the City' s acceptance and approval of the whole project. "Reciprocal cross easements" were established between The ' Irvine Company and the City "for pedestrian and vehicular access and parking purposes" as designed for Civic Plaza. 41 In addition, the City agreed to enter a Common Area Mainte- nance Agreement to share in the cost of common area land- scaping and parking in Civic Plaza. Because of its interest in coordinating the use of the Library site with the rest of Civic Plaza, The Irvine Company also obtained a covenant ' from the City in the Grant Deed that if the Library site was • proposed to be sold or leased within 25 years then The li ' Irvine Company would have a right of first refusal. The 41 1 9 41 Irvine Company also reserved the right to approve any and all exterior design improvements on the Library site. On October 14, 1976, grading and building permits were issued for the Newport Harbor Art Museum. Work there- after commenced in reliance upon these permits. Both sites ' were graded, with The Irvine Company itself incurring the • costs of grading the Library site, amounting to $11, 000. ' The Irvine Company made a gift of the two acre Library site to the Newport Harbor Art Museum on February 21, 1977, the gift amounting to $350, 000. That building has been completed ' to the extent possible without the commercial development. Six days later a grading permit was issued for the Library. The Library building today is nearly complete. As with the Library, the interdependence of the Art Museum to the rest of Civic Plaza is amply demonstrated by the conveyancing documents ; similar "reciprocal cross easements" were arranged between The Irvine Company and Newport Harbor Art Museum "for pedestrian and vehicular access for parking purposes" and an agreement to share in common area landscaping and parking costs was also contem- plated; in addition, for a period of 25 years , The Irvine Company reserved in the Grant Deed the right to approve all ' exterior design improvements on the site of the Museum. Finally, the Art Museum was planned to have a sculpture garden running ' 10 m through the commercial site, and the design of that building and of the rest of Civic Plaza was conceived with that goal tin mind. In summary, from its inception Civic Plaza has been conceived as a planned, integrated and interdependent development project. In concept, in design, and in the processing of plans and approvals , the project has always ! been considered by everyone concerned--The Irvine Company, ' the City and the Coastal Commission--as a unified and inter- dependent whole. The liabilities incurred by The Irvine Company and other entities , including the City, on Civic ' Plaza have been substantial. It is a project in which development has proceeded diligently and in good faith. As evident from the history of Civic Plaza, the ' concept of interdependence inherent in Civic Plaza was cer- tainly shared by the City of Newport Beach, at least until enactment of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance on June 12, 1978 by the City Council. Shortly thereafter, and pursuant to the procedures outlined in the ordinance, The Irvine Company applied for a finding by the City that Civic Plaza was a vested project for purposes of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. ' On July 11, 1978, despite favorable recommendations from the City Attorney and the Department of Community Development, ' and contrary to its findings with respect to other applica- II � 11 tions of developers for project vesting, the City Council, by a vote of 5 to 2, found that "insufficient" facts had been presented to conclude that Civic Plaza was a vested project. Development has been arrested in mid-stream. This "finding" reflects an abrupt reversal of position by the City that Civic Plaza is no longer to be • considered an integral project. Not only was this finding ' surprising in view of the content and precedents of the ordinance itself, but, for reasons discussed more fully below, now that the Art Museum is constructed and in opera- tion, and the Library is well on its way to completion, the City Council cannot maintain that these structures should be viewed in isolation, separate and apart from the rest of Civic Plaza. III. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND APPLICATION OF THE VESTING PROVISION OF THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE On June 12, 1978, the Newport Beach City Council ' adopted Ordinance No. 1765, better known as the Traffic Phasing Ordinance and now codified as Chapter 15.40 of the •' Newport Beach Municipal Code. The declared purpose of the ' Ordinance is "to coordinate development of certain projects with transportation facilities in Newport Beach. " In other ' 12 words, it seeks to halt development pending construction and up-grading of streets , something that may or may not occur. ' The Traffic Phasing Ordinance does , however, contain a "grandfather clause" which identifies certain development projects as "vested. " This clause is now sec- tion 15. 40. 030(D) (i) of the Municipal Code, which provides : "The Planning Commission shall except any ' project from the requirements of this Chapter: (i) If it shall find that the City has issued a building or grading permit for the project prior to the effective date of this Chapter and that the person to whom such permit was issued has in good ' faith and in reliance upon such permit diligently commenced construction and performed and incurred substantial lia- bilities for work and materials neces- sary therefor. No change causing a substantial increase in traffic volumes may be made in such project, except in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter; " When this provision is examined, it is clear that the Traffic Phasing Ordinance sets forth a three-part general test for determining whether a particular development project is w, vested: (i) is it a "project"? (ii) has a building or grading permit been issued for the project? and (iii) has ' construction involving substantial liabilities been dili- gently commenced? ' 13 1 Even if these questions are considered in a vacuum, a certain amount of interpretation is required 1 before this vesting provision can be meaningfully applied. Fortunately, the Traffic Phasing Ordinance does not exist in a vacuum. There is significant legislative 1 history behind the ordinance. Moreover, since a number of projects have been found to be vested under the Traffic 1 Phasing Ordinance, they serve as useful precedents for its application. As shown below, these two sources , the history of the ordinance and the precedents for its application, 1 establish a consistent, clearly defined test for vesting--a test that establishes that Civic Plaza is vested. A. History of Traffic Phasing Ordinance In early 1978, an initiative petition was under 1 consideration in the City of Newport Beach for a proposed ordinance to phase development in the City to the ability of traffic systems to handle any significant increased traffic 1 from that development. At the same time the initiative was being pursued, its proponents supported a slate of candidates 1 for the City Council. That slate was elected and began to 1 carry out the objectives of the proponent group. As one of the first measures in that effort, newly 1 elected Mayor Paul Rykoff requested the Newport Beach City Attorney to draft a policy statement that would accomplish 1 14 the purposes behind the initiative petition. On May 8, 1978, the City Attorney forwarded a draft of that policy to ' the City Council. This policy statement became City Council Policy S-1 ("S-1") , the "Traffic Phasing of Development Policy, " adopted on May 9, 1978 . ' S-1 essentially provided that no building or • grading permits would be issued for any commercial, indus- trial or residential projects of a certain minimum size unless the measured traffic impact of the project were less than a specified general standard or unless "the benefits of ' the project to the City of Newport Beach" were found by a super majority vote to "outweigh the project' s anticipated negative impact. " Because of the lack of detail in S-1, ' that policy concluded with the statement: "If ambiguity exists in the administration of this Policy, the Planning Commission and/or City Council is to be consulted to provide the proper interpretation. " Following adoption of S-1 the City proceeded with drafting an ordinance to put that policy into effect. The Department of Community Development was the lead department working on implementing S-1 and on coming up with a workable ' draft for a traffic phasing ordinance. In conjunction with • ' that effort, on May 17, 1978, that department forwarded to the City Council a staff report outlining various ambiguities ' 15 existing in S-1 which required some clarification before adoption of any implementing ordinance. ' First, the Department of Community Development pointed out that the term "project" as used in S-1 was not defined. That department advised the City Council that it ' was interpreting the term "project" under the definitions • contained in the ,California Environmental Quality Act ' (CEQA) . In so doing, the Department of Community Develop- ment stated the following: "In using this definition, the staff has interpreted 'project' in the broadest meaning, ' i. e. an entire planned community district would be a project and each individual building would be a part of that project. Therefore , the policy would apply to the entire development as a whole. Simi- larly, the development of one lot in a subdivision containing ten lots or more would be part of the ' larger 'project' - the development of the entire tract. " The City Council was requested to concur in this definition and interpretation. The Department of Community Development also pointed out that S-1 did not contain any provision for excepting projects already at the development stage, pro- jects that would be vested. The department advised the City •' Council that it would look to the initiative as well as CEQA ' for guidance in making a determination of whether a project was vested under• S-1. ' 16 I "Using the definition from CEQA and the Adminis- trative Guidelines as noted above [for defining project] this would mean that if a grading or building permit had been issued in a Planned Community District, for instance, then the entire project, and all parts thereof, would be excepted from the policy. The same would be true of residential developments where grading or con- struction has begun. Individual building permits for that tract would also be excepted under the ' provision. " The Department of Community Development concluded its staff ' report by requesting the City Council' s concurrence in its interpretation of City Council Policy S-1. That request for concurrence took the form of a proposal for language to be ' inserted in the text of the policy, as well as in the Traffic Phasing Ordinance under study, which would exempt projects under way, provided: "That the City has issued a building or ' grading permit for the project prior to May, 8, 1978, and that the person to whom this permit was issued has in good faith and in reliance upon such permit diligently commenced construction and per- formed and incurred substantial liabilities for work and for material. No change causing a sub- stantial increase in traffic volumes may be made in such project except in accordance with the pro- visions of this policy. " • ' Refinements and modifications of a draft Traffic ' Phasing Ordinance continued into June, 1978. The Department of Community Development and the City Attorney' s office ' worked with the sponsors of the initiative measure as well as representatives of the developers and with the City 17 1 Council in arriving at the final wording for the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. On June 12, 1978 , the final draft of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance was adopted as Ordinance No. 1765 . The recommendations of the Department of Community Develop- ment concerning the definition of the term "project" and the ' basis for a finding of vesting discussed above were incorporated • in the enacted ordinance. ' It is clear from the legislative history reviewed above that a Planned Community District ("PC") is but one "project" for purposes of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. ' Issuance of a grading or building permit with respect to any part of that project, and performance of work in reliance upon the issuance of that permit, would vest the entire PC. ' This interpretation was unequivocally presented to the City Council by the Department of Community Development and was endorsed by the City Council when it adopted the language suggested by the Department. ' B. Other Development Projects and Vesting Under the •' Ordinance. Even if this legislative history were the only basis upon which to apply the Traffic Phasing Ordinance to •' Civic Plaza, the proper interpretation and application of ' the vesting exception contained in the Traffic Phasing Ordinance would be clear. However, at least ten projects ' 18 have been found to be vested under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, and the facts upon which three of the PC' s (Koll Center Newport, Emkay-Newport Place, and Ford Aeroneutronics) were found to be vested are particularly instructive. 1. Koll Center Newport. ' The PC Development Standards for Koll Center * Newport were adopted more than six years ago in May, 1972. ' The Development Standards for Koll Center Newport are gen- eral and do not consist of any specific site plan for the project. Instead, the standards merely constitute a parcel- ' ization of the whole project into "sites" of defined permis- sible uses and densities . A maximum permissible height for all buildings is set forth and allowable building pad sizes are scaled to the various permissible heights up to that ' maximum. Significantly, building locations are not indi- cated in the Koll Center Newport PC. The text of the Koll Center Newport PC has ' been amended at least nine times since its adoption by the City in 1972. The amendments have reflected some major ' revisions in the development possibilities and plans for the ' project. For example, in 1974, the text was twice amended, in order to create new office site boundaries, to provide ' for three additional restaurant sites, to create a "floating location" for a retail and service center site, to enlarge ' 19 one service station site and eliminate another, and to add to the permissible uses of the office retail and service center sites . Similarly, in 1976, the text of the Koll Center Newport PC was amended to permit individual commer- cial lot sizes of less than 30, 000 square feet. The PC ' Development Standards have been amended twice more during • this year. ' As reflected by these numerous PC amendments , development in Koll Center Newport has proceeded in phases . Building permits have been requested and issued on an "indi- vidualized" basis. Today, approximately 45 percent of the Koll project remains undeveloped despite the passage of more than six years from the adoption of the PC.* Of the undevel- oped land, the Koll Company, the developer of the Planned Community, owns two "sites" and The Irvine Company a third "site. " Although Koll Center Newport is a PC, there is no intrinsic interdependence in the project. The established ' buildings are not as functionally, aesthetically, or even financially linked to the successful completion of the entire project as is the case with Civic Plaza. •' �� The percent of development figures for Koll Center Newport ' and for other projects are taken from figures prepared by the Department of Community Development, and are based upon allowable floor area of development. ' 20 01 In short, in finding Koll Center Newport to ' be a vested project, the City Council quite clearly followed the recommendations and interpretations of the Department of Community Development concerning the definition of a "pro- ject. " The determinative factor for the City Council and for the Department of Community Development was that Koll ' Center Newport is a PC. As such, the entire property was considered to be one project. It was not relevant that development in Koll Center Newport has proceeded on each building site independently and in phases. It was not relevant that the property in Koll Center Newport is owned by various individuals. It was not relevant that the Koll Center Newport PC Development Standards have been changed ' repeatedly by amendment in the past. The critical, determinative facts were that Koll Center Newport is a PC and that substantial development has been undertaken in that project pursuant to a grading or building permit. 2. Emkay-Newport Place. ' In its development history with respect to ' the vesting issue, the Emkay-Newport Place project is quite * similar to Koll Center Newport. The PC Development Stan- dards for Emkay-Newport Place were adopted even earlier than for Koll Center Newport. They too have undergone numerous J ' 21 1 amendments reflecting substantial changes from the project as originally conceived and approved by the City. Develop- ment at Emkay-Newport Place has proceeded sporadically and in phases, and various building permits have been issued on a piecemeal basis. Despite the passage of eight years , ' approximately 30% of Emkay-Newport Place still remains unde- veloped. There are three different owners of the three ' undeveloped sites remaining at Emkay-Newport Center, of which Emkay owns one. As with Koll Center Newport, there is less intrinsic interdependence between or among the various ' phases of that project, completed or otherwise, as in the case of Civic Plaza. Nonetheless , the whole of Emkay-Newport Center, like Koll Center Newport, was found to be vested as ' one project by the City Council. 3. Ford Aeroneutronics . In the cases of Koll Center Newport and Emkay-Newport Center, there were adopted PC Development Standards, although no site plan, and no discretionary approvals remained to be obtained for completion of those projects.* Without more, it might be assumed that such *, * This is true only if no resubdivision is to take place. However, as the Planning Commission is aware, resubdi- vision is proposed in the Emkay-Newport Place PC. ' 22 standards are essential to a finding of vesting under the ' Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The vesting of the Ford Aero- neutronics property, however, establishes that even the absence of PC Development Standards and a need for further discretionary approvals will not prevent a project from ' being vested if it can be characterized as a PC and develop- ment has occurred on the PC property. ' Development on the Ford Aeroneutronics prop- erty began in 1958 following the approval of a use permit allowing general industrial development on a portion of that ' property. In 1959, a second use permit allowing construc- tion of a four-story administration building with a utility superstructure was approved by the Newport Beach Planning ' Commission, with construction subsequently proceeding under that use permit. Significantly, the two use permits, and in particular the 1959 use permit, set forth on the sketch plan that sites other than those begun or completed by 1959 would ' be reserved for "future development. " On January 14, 1974, the City Council rezoned the Ford Aeroneutronics property from "Unclassified" to "P-C" without any additional submissions of detailed plans by the developer. In effect, the 15 year old use permits on ' that property were made to serve as a substitute for a required PC text. ' 23 The staff report from the Department of Community Development to the City Council on this action, 1 dated January 14, 1974, states the following: "It was the feeling of the Commission that this rezoning is necessary to bring City Zoning into compliance with the General Plan as required ' by State law. It should be mentioned that the proposed rezoning will have no effect on the • existing Philco-Ford Plant on the site. However, a 'Development Plan' will have to be prepared ' prior to any major modifications or improvements on the subject property. " In short, with the rezoning of the Ford Aeroneutronics prop- erty, the City staff determined that while a use permit ' could be considered the interim PC text for the project, any future development on the property would be subject to the discretionary approval required of a specific development ' plan. This conclusion was reaffirmed on February 9, 1976, when the City Council amended the Newport Beach General Plan to provide that the undeveloped portions of the Ford ' Aeroneutronics site may be developed for residential use. That amendment added the following language to the Land Use element of the Newport Beach General Plan: "In view of the potential adverse traffic impacts which may result from development in the • areas designated, the [Ford Aeroneutronics] P-C ' District development application will be required to incorporate a development phasing approach, and other use, intensity, design, and operational measures as required to assure that traffic ' 24 generated by the development will not cause an adverse impact. Any proposal for development shall include an environmental impact report which t shall cover, in addition to other requirements , a marketing analysis , a cost-revenue analysis , an analysis of the relationship of jobs in the area to the living location of the employees and the effect of air traffic. " The Staff Report from the Department of Community Develo- pment to the Planning Commission on December 4, 1975 on this proposed General Plan amendment is even more revealing concerning the extent of discretionary approval required for any further development of the Ford Aeroneutronics property. "Since the property is currently zoned P-C, a P-C ordinance and an overall Development Plan ' must be submitted and approved by the Planning Commission and City Council prior to issuance of any building permits. In addition, it is likely that a full E.I.R. will be required. This de- tailed information could provide the basis for decisions on development intensity, phasing of development and the street system improvements required in conjunction with the development. " As this staff report makes clear, the use permit "PC" on the property was simply not sufficient to permit further develop- ment. Instead, a development plan was envisioned, with such basic questions as the development intensity and the projected traffic demands needing to be determined. On November 22, 1976, the City Council amended the Residential Growth Element of the General Plan to provide ' that residential development could take place on the Ford Aeroneutronics property "with specific density limits and development standards to be determined at such time as the ' 25 beyond a use permit sketch master plan. Of the approxi- mately one million square feet of permanent structures cur- rently in place or under construction, less than thirteen percent has been constructed since the rezoning of the property as a PC. Of the approximately 2. 2 million square ' feet of structures permitted on the development as a result of a finding of vesting, only six percent has been developed ' since the rezoning. Development has proceeded by a succession of independent use permits instead of by a set of clearly articulated PC standards. Nonetheless, the entire Ford ' Aeroneutronics development was found to be a vested "pro- ject" by the City simply because it comprised an area zoned PC and because some development had already taken place on ' that property. 4. Summary. Examination of these and other developments reveals that the test under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, ' of whether a particular development is vested is relatively clear and simple: (1) Is the development equatable to a planned community? If so, the entire development scheme is one project for purposes of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, • and (2) Has any construction taken place on the property ' pursuant to a grading or building permit? If so, then the entire project is vested. ' 26 The specificity of the development plan is irrelevant. The fact that construction in the project has ' proceeded in phases or sporadically, is irrelevant. The fact that the development phases in the PC are not inter- dependent in any sense except perhaps financially is irrele- vant. The fact that all discretionary approvals have not been obtained, as in the case of Ford Aeroneutronics, is ' irrelevant. And, finally, the fact that any future devel- opment is contingent on study of potential traffic problems, as in the case of Ford Aeroneutronics , will not prevent ' developments from being excepted from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Within this framework and based on these estab- lished precedents, Civic Plaza is clearly a vested project. ' IV. CIVIC PLAZA IS A VESTED PROJECT UNDER THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE In view of the facts concerning Civic Plaza set ' forth above, tested by the consistent interpretation and application of the vesting exception of the Traffic Phasing ' Ordinance, the vote of the City Council on- July 11, 1978 ' that insufficient data had been presented "to establish vesting for Civic Plaza" simply cannot be upheld. Civic ' Plaza is "excepted" under the grandfather clause of the 27 a Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Accordingly, the Traffic Phasing • Ordinance may not legally be applied to Civic Plaza. ' A. Civic Plaza Is One Project The starting point in considering whether Civic •' Plaza is within the scope of the grandfather clause of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance is to determine if it is one "project". As noted above, the term "project" is defined in ' the ordinance by express reference to CEQA and the adminis- trative guidelines established thereunder. The CEQA statute defines the term "project" in broad terms : If 'Project' means the following: "(a) Activities directly undertaken by any public agency. ' " (c) Activities involving the issuance to a person of a lease, permit, license, certifi- cate, or other entitlement for use by one or more public agencies. " Public Resources Code §21065 This definition has been clarified by administrative guide- lines promulgated under CEQA: •' "(a) Project means the whole of an action which has a potential for resulting in a physical change in the environment, directly or ulti- mately. . . . 28 The term 'project' refers to the activity which is being approved and which may be ' subject to several discretionary approvals by governmental agencies . The term 'project' does not mean each separate governmental approval. " 14 California Administrative Code §15037. The history of Civic Plaza establishes that it is e one project fully encompassed by these statutory and admin- istrative definitions. The Environmental Impact Report required by CEQA on Civic Plaza was approved for the project as a whole. Since the Traffic Phasing Ordinance incorpo- rates CEQA definitions of the "project," and since Civic Plaza was but one project for CEQA purposes , then it must be one project for purposes of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. For the City' s part, it zoned the entire Civic Plaza project ' as a single Planned Community District; there was not sepa- rate zoning for each proposed building, for the very purpose of the PC designation is to allow a highly integrated but ' multi-faceted development to be planned as a whole. The final map and site plan for Civic Plaza were approved for ' that project as a whole. Throughout the processing of Civic ' Plaza by the City of Newport Beach, it has been treated as one integrated project. Moreover, the City has consistently ' found that any PC is but one project, and the City Council by P.C. Ordinance #1649, itself designated the entire devel- opment of Civic Plaza as a PC. 29 s� B. Grading and Building Permits Have Been Issued for Civic Plaza. ' Once it is determined that a particular development scheme is a project, the second question is whether a building or grading permit was issued prior to the effective ' date of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Civic Plaza meets this criteria. A rough grading permit was issued by the City of Newport Beach in 1965 for Civic Plaza, along with all other property in the Newport Center. More importantly, grading and building permits were issued for an integral and important part of the project, namely, the Newport Harbor Art Museum, on October 14, 1976. Six days later a grading permit was issued on a second building in the project, the ' Library, with a building permit subsequently issued on May 11, 1978. The work authorized by these permits promptly followed their issuance. While grading and building permits for other ' portions of Civic Plaza have not yet been applied for or issued, because of the interdependence of the Newport Harbor Art Museum and Library to the rest of Civic Plaza these buildings cannot be considered as isolated units . Rather, they are an integral part of Civic Plaza as a review of the ' history of Civic Plaza makes amply clear. Due to this ' 30 J pervasive interdependence, the permits issued for these ' buildings vest the entire Civic Plaza project. An example of the interdependent project doctrine 41 is found in Sierra Club v. California Coastal Zone Conserva- tion Commission, 58 Cal.App . 3d 149, ram. denied (1976) . In that case, the developer was contructing a "commercial hotel and golf and recreational structures. " Id. at 157 . The Developer had installed the infrastructure for the golf course, including several tees , had laid foundations for the pro shop and part of the hotel complex, and had paved the ' main road into the project, prior to the effective date of Coastal Zone Conservation Act. The Coastal Zone Conserva- tion Commission excepted not only those phases of the pro- ject on which construction had begun from the required per- mit, but also excepted the whole of the project on the ground that the development was an interdependent project. Because the concept of vesting pertains to the project as a ' whole, the developer was permitted by the Commission, and by *' the District Court of Appeal reviewing the Commission' s decision, to complete the hotel complex, including guest ' houses , a tennis shop, tennis courts and swimming pool, all of which was part of the planned community but not yet under ' construction. Id. I � 31 Civic Plaza is an interdependent project under all accepted criteria. Civic Plaza was conceived and approved as one "development" comprising an integrated and interde- �, -pendent mix of cultural, recreational and commercial uses in a low rise campus-like setting. The Newport Harbor Art ' Museum was planned to have a sculpture garden running through ' the center of the commercial site, and the design of that building was conceived with that goal in mind. The parking configuration and physical placement of the Art Museum and Library were determined with the whole project in mind, as ' the City was aware when the project was approved. Finally, the project is financially interdependent in a variety of respects, from the fact that the costs so far expended have ' been made with Civic Plaza as a goal to the fact that opera- tional success of the existing buildings depends in large *' part upon completion of the project. This same high degree of interdependence among the various buildings and uses of Civic Plaza is less apparent !' in Koll Center Newport, Emkay-Newport Center and Ford Aero- neutronics . The buildings either existing or under construc- ttion on these sites could aesthetically and functionally exist without any future development of the PC' s. Other than architectural compatibility, there is no plan for those projects which uniquely integrates the existing and future ' 32 uses . Moreover, in each of these PC' s, not only has develop- ment occurred in phases , but the undeveloped portions in each of these projects have remained undeveloped for lengthy periods of time of not less than six years after adoption of the PC. tIn summary, Civic Plaza is but one project, and, with the issuance of grading and building permits for the Art Museum and Library buildings , meets the first two criteria for vesting. C. Construction Involving Substantial Liabilities ' Has Been Diligently Commenced In Civic Plaza. The third criteria for a finding of.vesting is that construction involving substantial liabilties shall ' have taken place. Again, Civic Plaza meets this test. Final grading was completed for both the Art Museum and Library by the beginning of 1977 . The Art Museum building is completed, and the Library is now under construction. ' And the work completed was diligently begun upon issuance. of and in reliance upon the permits . The liabilities incurred so far on Civic Plaza are ' substantial. Since adoption of the PC for Civic Plaza, the Irvine Company has itself incurred liabilities of approxi- mately $473, 000. Since the issuance of the first grading and building permits, The Irvine Company has incurred lia- 33 i 1 �t bilities of approximately pp y $383, 000, consisting of a gift of the Art Museum site at a fair market valuation of $350, 000, ' grading on the Library site at a cost of $11, 000, and the installation of utilities for the entire project at a cost of $22, 000. Since the ultimate question is whether a project ' is vested rather than who is involved in the project, the liabilities incurred by the Newport Harbor Art Museum and the City on the Library also must be included, amounting to an additional $1, 700, 000.* In all, since adoption of the Civic Plaza PC, more than ,$2, 173,000 has been invested on Civic Plaza.** Such investment is substantial as a matter of law. Cf. People v. Department of Housing and Community Development, 45 Cal.App. 3d 185, 197 (1975) , [expenditure of ' only $40, 000 by developer in reliance on permit found to represent "an undebatable quantum of prejudice. "] * The liabilities incurred by the Newport Harbor Art Museum and the City of Newport Beach on Civic Plaza are to be considered in the vesting equation for at least two reasons . First, as noted in the main text of this t memo, the question is whether a project is vested. As such, all amounts spent on construction in that project in reliance upon a permit are to be considered, as ' opposed to segregating amounts among various partici- pants in the project. Second, the three present prop- erty owners in Civic Plaza are in effect joint ventur- ers in the completion of the Civic Plaza project as the ' design of the project and reciprocal agreements establish. ** That figure does not include liabilities incurred in terms of anticipatory installation of infrastructure and design costs , which would bring the total to approx- imately 000, 000. 34 �1 The Department of Community Development recognized the fact that Civic Plaza was vested in its staff report to the City Council for the June 12, 1978, public hearing: " [Of] the four projects under discussion this evening, only Civic Plaza has been issued building and grading permits for partial development of the ' site. . . .The commencement of construction of a portion of the project may qualify the entire project for exception status under the administra- tive interpretation of the Policy as a vested project". This same conclusion was reached by the Newport Beach City Attorney in his memo on vested rights dated June 12, 1978 : "Assuming the definition of 'project' as being the whole of an action is used, then it would appear from the facts that a strong argument could be made that rights in the Civic Plaza project have vested. This is because substantial development 44 has occurred in part of the Civic Plaza planned community. " ' D. The Findings of The City Council Are Inapposite and Do Not Support Its Decision. Despite the indisputable conclusion that Civic Plaza is a vested project and thus legally excepted from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, the Newport Beach City Council ' found that it could not be determined that Civic Plaza was vested as a result of the following findings: "(a) That the Civic Plaza Planned Community con- tains 26. 12 acres . ' " (b) That approximately 89% of the land within the planned community boundaries has not been developed. 35 •, " (c) That the only development in existence on the Civic Plaza site relates to public and quasi- public facilities which is distinguishable ' from other planned communities in Newport Beach. " (d) That all improvements on the site other than the Art Museum and Library were installed prior to the approval of the Civic Plaza Planned Community text. "(e) That the streets were planned for the use of • the over-all development as opposed to the ' Civic Plaza site. " These findings are either irrelevant to the question of whether Civic Plaza is vested, or, notwithstanding the City Council' s contrary conclusion, support a determination that ' Civic Plaza is vested. First, the City Council looked to the size and percent of development on Civic Plaza. Civic Plaza,• how- ever, smaller in total acreage than Koll Center Newport, Emkay-Newport Place, or Ford Aeroneutronics, is more easily viewed as being one project. Moreover, the percentage of ' development is certainly not a relevant consideration under the plain language of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, nor has it apparently been a consideration in the case of any other PC, as witnessed, for example, by the Ford Aeroneutronics ' development project. • ' The question is not whether the project is substan- tially completed, but whether the liabilities incurred on ' 36 .1 �I 1 the project have been substantial. As noted above, the 1 liabilities incurred to date on Civic Plaza in reliance upon grading and building permits are substantial as a matter of law. Second, the City Council observed that the improve- ments in Civic Plaza either under construction or completed 49 are public or quasi-public. But the Traffic Phasing Ordi- 1 nance does not differentiate between public and private uses . It prohibits the issuance of building and grading permits for all construction if 'the traffic impact is sig- nificant. It excepts projects , not uses, when they are vested. If anything, the fact that the buildings in place S1 or under construction are the public and quasi-public parts 1 of Civic Plaza argues for vesting, since the land for those buildings was donated or conveyed at a substantial discount 7 by The Irvine Company in reliance upon the City 's approvals of Civic Plaza. (See discussion infra at 43-48 regarding 1 equitable estoppel) !1 Third, the City Council noted that the street improvements and certain other infrastructure improvements 1 pre-dated approval of the PC. This finding, of course, ignores the substantial liabilities incurred since the time 1 of that approval. Moreover, as in the case of Ford Aero- ' � neutronics, the timing of improvements , i. e. , whether they 1 37 i occur before or after PC zoning designation, is not a relevant factor. In fact, the contrary has been true. ' Despite the fact that 94% of the permanent improvements in the Ford Aeroneutronics project pre-dated the PC zoning of that property, the full amount of that construction was weighed in finding that project vested.* Finally, the 40 finding ignores the reality of the situation. For example, ' the street improvements for San Clemente Drive, a four lane road, were constructed in 1975 as a first step to develop- ment of Civic Plaza, as the City is well aware.** Those improvements are as much a part of Civic Plaza as other improvements, being necessary to completion of the project. In conclusion, The Irvine Company respectfully submits that on the facts Civic Plaza is a vested project. The facts allow for no other result. * As discussed supra at 22-24, the Ford Aeroneutronics ' project proceeded for many years without PC zoning: from 1958 to January, 1974, development proceeded at Ford Aeroneutronics on the basis of conditional use permits only. ** The main purpose and use of San Clemente Drive, as noted supra at 5-6, is to provide direct access to the ' Newport Harbor Art Museum and Library in Civic Plaza, as well as to Civic Plaza as a whole project. • ' 38 I � it 1 V. FAILURE OF THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL TO VEST CIVIC PLAZA IS A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL ' PROTECTION OF THE LAWS it has previously been demonstrated that Civic Plaza has been treated quite differently by Newport Beach ' than other PC' s in the City, specifically Koll Newport Center, Emkay-Newport Place, and Ford Aeroneutronics . The ' latter three PC' s have been found to be excepted from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, even though the relevant facts for those PC' s are less apparent on the issue of vesting as ' are the facts with respect to Civic Plaza. This unequal, arbitrary application of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance to defeat Civic Plaza, the only PC where development has occurred but which has not been excepted, is a denial of equal protection that is forbidden by both the federal and 7 state Constitutions. A developer of private property, no less than any ' other individual or entity, is entitled to due process pro- tections against arbitrary, capricious and discriminatory action by a municipality. See, e.g. , Friedman v. City of ' Los Angeles , 52 Cal.App . 3d 317 (1975) [City liable to devel- oper in damages for deprivation of due process rights] . Even without an exhaustive citation of authority, it is fundamental that a city cannot apply different vesting stan- 39 J dards with respect to similarly situated developments with- out infringing upon constitutionally protected rights and bearing liability for its actions. The case of G & D Holland Construction Co. v. City of Marysville, 12 Ca1.App.3d 989 (1970) , is on point in ' demonstrating a city' s constitutionally imposed obligations 46 to act in a fair, consistent and nondiscriminatory manner ' toward all developers. That case concerned a square block of real estate on which the petitioner intended to construct apartments. The property was zoned "R-4" (general apartment district) on January 5 , 1970, when the petitioner presented the City with building plans and an application for a build- ing permit. The building plans conformed to the R-4 zone. ' However, at the next meeting of the planning commission, a group of citizens appeared and objected to the proposal. The next day the city engineer issued a public statement declaring that storm drainage had overloaded the City' s ' sewerage system. The following day, the city council held a special hearing and received a petition from numerous citi- zens objecting to the proposed project because of concern for neighborhood property values . The council directed the City' s building official to temporarily withhold the build- ing permit. It subsequently down-zoned the property to R-3 40 i i in the interests of "the public health, safety and welfare. " ' (Id. at 993, fn. 1. ) The petitioner in the Holland case sued for a writ mandating issuance of the building permit. The trial court entered summary judgment for the City, and the petitioner ' appealed. In reversing the trial court, the Court of Appeal found: "The principal limiting judicial inquiry into the legislative body' s police power objectives, does not bar scrutiny of a quite different issue, that of discrimination against a particular parcel of property. 'A city cannot unfairly discriminate against a particular parcel of land, and the courts may properly inquire as to whether the scheme of classification has been applied fairly and impartially in each instance. "' Id. at 994. On retrial, the trial court found the petitioner' s project had been discriminated against, and mandated issuance of the building permit. The Traffic Phasing Ordinance, on its face, is not directed at a specific project. However, the application of that ordinance to projects under development prior to its adoption has not been fair and equal. Rather, the City Council has subjected Civic Plaza to a standard not autho- rized by the language of the ordinance and discriminatory * when compared to other vested PCs . ' The City Council noted that Civic Plaza was dif- ferent from other PCs because of its inclusion of public 1 41 �I uses, and cited that as a basis for declining to find that ' project vested. The ordinance, however, does not differen- tiate between uses. Moreover, the fact that only Civic Plaza' s public sites have been permitted to' be developed argues for vesting, not against it. The City Council also ' noted that certain improvements in Civic Plaza were con- structed prior to adoption of the PC. However, not only ' does that ignore the fact that those improvements were necessary only to Civic Plaza, but anticipatory development has been credited in the vesting equation for other PCs , as for Ford Aeroneutronics. Civic Plaza has an approved site plan; the three other PCs compared above do not. Civic Plaza has already been closely scrutinized for its traffic ' impact and approved; the others have not to any comparable degree. Civic Plaza has proceeded to completion at a rea- sonable pace; construction in the three other compared PC' s has been more leisurely. Yet, Civic Plaza was denied vested ' status . Such unequal application.is impermissible under the law. The simple fact is that, given a fair and uniform application of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance to Civic Plaza, A' the refusal by the Newport Beach City Council to find Civic Plaza vested, despite the contrary advice of its City Attorney and Department of Community Development, is consti- tutionally impermissible. 42 J VI. THE CITY IS EQUITABLY ESTOPPED* FROM SUBJECTING CIVIC PLAZA TO THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE The City Council, as previously noted, declined to find that Civic Plaza was a vested project in part because the two buildings substantially completed are public or ' quasi-public. This finding, rather than supporting the • decision of the City Council not to vest Civic Plaza, ' instead provides yet another basis for concluding that Civic Plaza cannot be subjected to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance or any other attempt to block that project: namely, equitable estoppel. Equitable estoppel is a doctrine applied by the courts to prevent the perpetration of injustice on innocent ' parties by both private and governmental action. This doctrine, as applied to municipal governments , was closely 7 examined and clarified by the California Supreme Court in City of Long Beach v. Mansell, 3 Cal. 3d 462 (1970) : ' "As we pointed out in the recent case of Driscoll v. Cit of Los Angeles (1967) 67 Cal.2d •' 7, at P. Jub Lbi Cal. ptr. bbl, 431 P. 2d 245] , ' Generally speaking, four elements must be present in order to apply the doctrine of equitable ' * "Estop" is a legal term of art from Old French which means to stop, bar, or impede. " Its Old French form meant a bung or cork, and its current form has been used by lawyers to signify the legal doctrine analysed in the text since the sixteenth century. 43 1 .estoppel: (1) the party to be estopped must be apprised of the facts ; (2) he must intend that his ' conduct shall be acted upon, or must so act that the party asserting the estoppel had a right to believe it was so intended; (3) the other party must be ignorant of the true state of facts; and (4) he must rely upon the conduct to his injury. Keeping in mind the admitted generality of this formulation and the flexibility which is necessary ' to its proper concrete application within the broad equitable framework we have expressed, it may be said that the elements here stated are basic to the general doctrine of equitable estop- pel as it exists in this and other jurisdictions . (See generall 3 Pomeroy, Equity Jurisprudence (5th ed. 1941f § 805 , pp. 190-198; 28 Am. Jur. 2d, Estoppel and Waiver § 35 , pp. 640-642; 31 C.J. S. , 40 Estoppel § 67, 00. 402-415. )" (Id. at 489) "After a thorough review of the many Califor- nia decisions in this area, as well as a consider- ation of various out-of-state decisions , we have concluded that the proper rule governing equitable estoppel against the government is the following: The government may be bound by an equitable estop- pel in the same manner as a private party when the elements requisite to such an estoppel against a private party are present and, in the considered view of a court of equity, the injustice which would result from a failure to uphold an estoppel is of sufficient dimension to justify any effect ' upon public interest or policy which would result from the raising of an estoppel. " (Id. at 496- 497) A case with notable parallels to Civic Plaza ' is Berkeley Lawn Bowling Club v. City of Berkeley, 42 Cal. App.3d 280 (1974) . The plaintiff in that case had agreed to pay for the construction of a lawn bowling clubhouse by the City over a period of years, and to manage two lawn bowling 44 i greens. The clubhouse and bowling greens were on public ' land, and the City paid for maintenance of the greens . Nine years after construction of the clubhouse, the City announced its intention to convert one of the bowling greens into a needed "minipark" and to designate the second green as a ' public facility. The trial court enjoined the City' s action, and the appellate court affirmed, partly on estoppel grounds . ' "Here, the basis of the trial court' s ruling was the Club' s induced ignorance of the City' s inten- tion to retain the power to destroy the lawn bowling greens when it saw fit. This ignorance was induced by the City' s action in executing the ' clubhouse agreement without informing the Club of its intention as to the greens while maintaining its previous role with regard to the greens. " (Id. at 289) The case of Civic Plaza is substantially similar, ' and all of the identified elements for an estoppel exist. Was the City fully apprised of the facts concerning Civic Plaza, including its traffic impacts? Yes . The City stud- ied both the environmental impact report and a subsequent voluntary traffic study before finally approving Civic Plaza. It approved a specific site plan for the project, and even participated in shaping the concept of Civic Plaza ' through its solicitation and acquisition of the library site. ' Did The Irvine Company have a right to rely upon the City' s actions? Yes. The City not only approved the PC II 45 J Development Standards and site plan for Civic Plaza, but ' also purchased the planned Library site, issued building and grading permits, and approved the commercial density of the project after exhaustive scrutiny of the project' s traffic impact. That approval was made with full knowledge of the condition of the City' s traffic systems. '! Was The Irvine Company informed prior to expending ' funds and incurring liabilities that Civic Plaza would be halted pending yet another traffic study? No . The Civic Plaza PC was approved in concept subject to completion of a ' traffic study on all of Newport Center. That study was completed, reviewed by the City, and the proposed density for Civic Plaza finally approved in 1977. This was done in ' the framework of a General Plan that identifies many poten- tially affected intersections as purposefully deficient. With that final approval, The Irvine Company had no basis to believe that yet further obstacles in terms of traffic ' studies would remain. Finally, did The Irvine Company rely upon the City' s conduct? Again, yes , as the prior sections have ' established. The Irvine Company has donated land to quasi- public uses, has sold land to the City at substantial dis- count, and has incurred substantial liabilities in grading, J 46 J designing, planning, and installing infrastructure for Civic Plaza. This is adequate grounds for estoppel. ' This situation is in essence parallel to the Berkeley Lawn Bowling Club case. The Irvine Company was induced to donate or discount land in Civic Plaza for public uses, as was the Berkeley Lawn Bowling Club. Newport Beach • acquired the library site, executed several reciprocal ' agreements, and went ahead with the construction of the Library, while all the time not informing The Irvine Company that construction of the commercial sites in Civic Plaza ' would not be permitted. The equitable result, as in the Berkeley Lawn Bowling Club case, is that Newport Beach ashould be estopped from applying the Traffic Phasing Ordi- nance to Civic Plaza. Since estoppel is grounded in the concept of fair- 41 the history of Civic Plaza presents a particularly compelling case for application of the doctrine. Develop- ment in Civic Plaza has thus far encompassed only the public uses. The land for the Museum and Library uses was either donated or conveyed at a discount, with the anticipation ' that the interdependence of the commerical sites to these • public uses would justify that investment. The City was ' fully aware of that anticipation. However, now that the principal public uses are either completed or near comple- ' 47 tion, the City has decided to, in essence, reap the benefits of The Irvine Company' s generosity while denying to The Irvine Company what was a primary factor of that decision. The City has taken this action not on the basis of any new facts or changed conditions . Instead, the City was fully ' aware of the relevant facts , and had even planned traffic deficiencies, as it approved Civic Plaza and encouraged its ' public uses. That is the type of unfairness that resulted in a finding of estoppel in the Berkeley Lawn Bowling Club case, ' and is sufficient to estop Newport Beach from denying The Irvine' Company the right to complete Civic Plaza. 41 VII. THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE IS INVALID AS APPLIED TO CIVIC PLAZA BECAUSE IT WOULD .IN EFFECT REQUIRE SUBMISSION OF A SECOND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT IN CONTRAVENTION OF STATE LAW ' The Civic Plaza Planned Community was approved by the Newport Beach Planning Commission on November 20, 1975 , ' and by the City Council on December 22, 1975. . In approving the Civic Plaza Planned Community, the City of Newport Beach was, of course, required to comply with CEQA. The City com- missioned a Los Angeles firm, Environmental Feasibility Studies, to prepare the required environmental impact report (or "EIR") . ' 48 EIR' s must include a "detailed statement" of both ' the long-range and short-range environmental effects of a proposed proj,ect, whether avoidable or not, alternatives to the proposed project, mitigation measures, and the "growth- inducing impact of the proposed project. " Public Resources ' Code § 21100. If the environmental impact report identifies any significant environmental effects from the project, then the project cannot be approved unless specific findings are made that those effects can be mitigated by some change in the proposal, or that the social or economic benefits of the ' proposed project outweigh the environmental consequences of proceeding with development. Public Resources Code §21081. The EIR prepared for Civic Plaza by Environmental Feasibility Studies was exhaustive in its analysis of traffic impact. Its traffic circulation analysis was prepared by Crommelin-Pringle & Associates . The full 15 page analysis made by Crommelin-Pringle & Associates was appended to the report. That analysis contained a comprehensive measure of the Intersection Capacity Utilization ("ICU") for nine key intersections affected by the proposed project, expressed in terms of Level of Service for each intersection. The analysis resulted in the following conclusions : ' "From the ICU analysis it can be seen that all intersections operate freely and far below full utilization except Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills Road, which will be utilized at about the 0. 98 level. ' 49 "This, however, is not critical for two reasons . One, it [sic] will operate satisfacto- rily at the 0. 98 utilization level. Secondly, with the opening of New MacArthur Boulevard and the construction of the Corona del Mar Freeway, substantial traffic volumes will divert from Jamboree Road to New and Old MacArthur Boulevard. "This traffic diversion will significant ' [sic] reduce the utilization of the intersection of Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills Road. • �Y nY oY "Although the construction of New MacArthur Boulevard, the Corona del Mar Freeway to as far south as it is now under construction, plus con- struction of a connection between Old MacArthur Boulevard and the terminus of the Corona del Mar Freeway are not necessary for the street system to accommodate the project traffic, the construction of these projects would improve the traffic circu- lation. " The EIR for Civic Plaza was approved by the City, but not without special consideration being given to the traffic impact of the project. In the staff report to the Planning Commission on Civic Plaza, dated November 14, 1975 , ' the following conclusions and recommendations were made.: "The traffic consultant has concluded that this project will not have a significant impact at this time because: "A. The traffic volumes from the pro- ject, when added to the existing traffic volumes, will not exceed the capacity of the streets. "B. Access to the site is adequate. "C. No signalization or geometric modi- fications are needed for the adjacent intersections . T 9c is 50, III� � i "The Irvine Company is preparing a comprehen- sive study of peak hour flows and intersection ' capacities for the ultimate build-out of Newport Center, and the staff feels that this study should be reviewed prior to the final approval of the entire 320, 000 sq. ft. of offices proposed for this project. Therefore, the staff recommends that language be added to the P-C text to ensure adequate review of all available traffic data ' prior to final approval and issuance of building permits for the office portion of this project. " The Planning Commission followed this suggestion, and on February 28, 1977, the Newport Beach City Council, after reviewing a "more detailed traffic analysis" on Newport Center, approved 320, 000 sq. ft. of office development for Civic Plaza with Resolution No. 9009. In summary, Civic Plaza has already been subjected to a comprehensive analysis for its traffic generating potential over and even beyond the normal requirements of CEQA. That analysis anticipated and duplicated the analysis now required by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance: i.e. , that the project will not adversely affect traffic service systems ' using a Level of Service measure, or, alternatively, that the project' s benefits outweigh any projected negative ' traffic impacts. The end result of the above environmental analysis was approval of Civic Plaza. Once a municipality has subjected a project to ' environmental analysis, it is prevented by CEQA from resub- jecting the same project to a second environmental impact 51 �I report. The controlling statute is Public Resources Code ' §21166, which provides : "When an environmental impact report has been prepared for a project pursuant to this division, no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report shall be •required by the lead agency or by any responsible agency, unless one or more of the following events occurs : (a) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the environmental impact report. (b) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revi- sions in the environmental impact report. ' (c) New information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the environ- mental impact report was certified as complete, becomes available. " Therefore, the Traffic Phasing Ordinances cannot be applied ' to Civic Plaza if in fact it imposes a "supplemental envi- ronmental impact report" requirement on Civic Plaza and there has been no substantial change in the project, no ' substantial change in the surrounding circumstances of the project, and no discovery of previously unavailable infor- mation. Does the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, if applied to Civic Plaza, call for a "supplemental environmental impact report?" The answer is clearly yes for several reasons. First, the ordinance draws upon CEQA for the determination 52 of what is a "project. " See discussion supra at 30-31 and ' Municipal Code §15. 40. 040. Second, the traffic analysis to determine which projects are subject to the ordinance is the identical traffic analysis imposed by the City in the EIR already ' prepared for Civic Plaza. The analysis under the ordinance, as with state mandated EIR' s, calls for consideration of ' mitigation measures, and permits approval of projects having a substantial traffic impact only upon a finding of over- riding benefits. See Municipal Code §15 . 040. 030(ii) and (iii) . In substance, if not in form, if the Traffic Phasing Ordinance is applied to Civic Plaza 'it will require ' that that project be subjected to a "supplemental environ- mental impact report" on traffic impact, a requirement which is legally permissible only in limited circumstances. Third, none of the three conditions specified by ' CEQA for permitting imposition of a supplemental environ- mental impact report exists for Civic Plaza. No changes adversely affecting traffic have been proposed for the project. Since final approval of the commercial density of the project in 1977 -- approval which was previously with- held pending a further traffic review -- there have been no substantial adverse changes in the surrounding circumstances 53 I of Civic Plaza. If anything, the street systems have been improved. No new and previously unavailable information ' concerning Civic Plaza and its potential traffic impact has been discovered. In summary, Public Resources Code §21166 prohibits a city from subjecting a project to more than one environ- mental analysis except in special circumstances . Those cir- cumstances do not exist for Civic Plaza. Civic Plaza was approved only after careful scrutiny for environmental impacts, particularly traffic impacts, under CEQA. That review was not concluded until 1977, when 320, 000 square feet of commercial development was finally approved for Civic Plaza. Since that time, no changes in Civic Plaza or its surrounding circumstances have occurred, and no new information has been developed. To utilize the Traffic Phasing Ordinance as an attempt to resubject Civic Plaza to a second environmental impact study of traffic effects, is ' in contravention of state law and thus invalid. • ' VIII. CONCLUSION The City Council has declined to find Civic Plaza an excepted project under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, ' justifying its actions on the ground that insufficient facts had been presented on that issue. A review of the facts 01 54 i� presented above, however, demonstrates beyond any doubt that Civic Plaza is a vested project,when tested under the grand- father clause of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The Irvine Company' s right to complete that project cannot be legally withdrawn given the interdependence of the project, the ' City' s prior approvals of the project, and The Irvine Com- pany' s detrimental reliance upon those approvals . For the City not to recognize this fact is an unconstitutional denial of substantive due process and equal protection of the laws. ' The City has encouraged and accepted the public and quasi-public aspects of Civic Plaza. In fact, the City itself accepted a donation of part of the value of the ' library site in the form of a substantial price discount. Civic Plaza was presented to and approved by the City as a whole. The City cannot now retain what it likes to the exclusion of the rest. It is equitably estopped from denying to The Irvine Company the right to complete the project. * Finally, the City, by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance ' is attempting to resubject Civic Plaza to yet another envi- ronmental impact study. That attempt is prohibited by the California Environmental Quality Act. 01 55 I The Irvine Company respectfully submits that sufficient facts are presented for a finding that Civic Plaza is excepted from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, and thus should be permitted to proceed. A I� I•' 56