Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTPO022_PACESETTER HOMES I IIIIIIII IIII III III INI�I IIIII IIIIII IIII III IIII TP0022 yam. COMMISSIONERS Jkary 22, 1981 MINUTES y N Gty of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Req-uest to consider a traffic study for a propose Item #7 50,000 sq . ft. ± office building. LOCATION: Lots 13 thru 16 , Tract No . 3201 , TRAFFIC located at 4000 and 4020 Campus STUDY Drive, on the southeasterly side of Campus Drive between Quail Street APPROVED and Dove Street, adjacent to the CONDI- John Wayne Airport. TIONALLY ZONE: M-1 -A APPLICANT: Pacesetter Homes , Newport Beach �) OWNER: Same as applicant The public hearing opened in connection with this item and Mr. Steve Strauss , representing Pacesetter Homes , Inc. , appeared before the Com- mission . Mr. Strauss stated that they have worked with the staff in complying with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance and that they enthusi - astically support the car pool /van pool program. Commissioner Balalis asked how the ride sharing program will be enforced , when only 35 percent of the building will be occupied by Pacesetter Homes . Mr. Strauss stated that the ride sharing program is only required for the portion of the building that Pacesetter Homes will be occupying. He stated that the remainder of the square footag meets the requirements of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Mr. Strauss stated that this request will be replacing existing uses which are already gener- ating traffic . He stated that the car pool /van pool program will be eliminating at least nine trips through the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Campus Drive which will then meet the requirements of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance In response to a question posed by Commissioner Allen, Planning Director Hewicker and Mr. Wes Pringle , Traffic Engineer, discussed the one percent requirement of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. -42- COMMISSIONERS onuary 22, 1981 MINUTES City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Motion X Motion was made to approve the Traffic Study as .proposed in Exhibit A of the staff report. Commissioner Beek asked Commissioner McLaughlin if she would accept an amendment to her motion , to delete Condition of Approval No. 2 . Commis- sioner McLaughlin stated that she would not ac- cept this amendment to her motion. Ayes X X Commissioner McLaughlin ' s motion for approval of Noes X X the Traffic Study was now voted on .as follows , Absent * which MOTION CARRIED . FINDINGS : 1 . That the proposed trip generation measures are acceptable and will be permanently implemented through the conditions of this approval and those that may be applied during the resubdivision of the project site. 2. That a Traffic Study on the proposed project ,has been prepared in accordance with Chapter 15 .40 of the Municipal Code and City Policy S-1 , and ; 3. That based on that Traffic Study, the pro- posed project will neither cause nor make • worse an unstaisfactory level of traffic service on any "major" , "primary-modified" , or "primary" street. CONDITIONS : 1 . That a maximum of 43 ,000 sq . ft. of devel - opment occur. 2. That the applicant demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning Department that a ride sharing program that is designed to achieve at least the traffic reduction estimated in the January 8, 1981 , Traffic Report, has been accomplished prior to the occupancy of any development permitted by this approval beyond 36 ,700 sq . ft. * * * -43- 7 F Planning Commission Meng January 22 , 1981 Agenda Item No . 7 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH January 16 , 1981 TO : Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT : Traffic Study (Public Hearing) Request to consider a traffic study for a proposed .56,000 sq . ft. + office building. LOCATION: Lots 13 thru 16 , Tract No . 3201 , located at 4000 and 4020 Campus Drive, on the southeasterly side of Campus Drive between Quail Street and Dove Street , adjacent to the John Wayne Airport . ZONE : M-I-A APPLICANT: Pacesetter Homes , Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant The applicants have requested the PTanning Commission ' s approval of a Traffic Study for the purposes of issuance of building and grading permits in conjunction with the construction of a 50 ,000 sq . ft. office building to be located at 4000 and 4020 Campus Drive across from John Wayne Airport . The Traffic Study for the proposed office building has been prepared in ac- cordance with Chapter 15 . 40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code ( "Traffic Phasing Ordinance" ) and City Policy S-1 ( "Administrative Procedures for Implementing the Traffic Ordinance" ) . A copy of the Traffic Study prepared by Weston Pringle and Associates is attached for Planning Commission review . Traffic Study The City Traffic Engineer has determined that the following intersections will be affected by the proposed project based upon it' s size and location : Bristol Street North & Campus Drive Bristol Street North & Birch Street Bristol Street North & Jamboree Road Bristol Street & Campus Drive Bristol Street & Birch Street Bristol Street & Jamboree Road Coast Highway & Jamboree Road Coast Highway & MacArthur Blvd . Jamboree Road & San Joaquin Hills Road Jamboree Road & Ford Road Jamboree Road & MacArthur Blvd . T0: 0 Planning Commission - 20 i Y Jamboree Road & Campus Drive MacArthur Blvd . & San Joaquin Hills Road MacArthur Blvd . & Ford Road MacArthur Blvd . & Campus Drive The traffic analysis indicated that all of the above intersections , except MacArthur, Blvd . and Campus Drive will have traffic volume increases of less than 1% as a result of the proposed project development . In accordance with City Policy S-1 an I .C .U. analysis was made. The I ..C . U. analysis of the MacArthur Blvd. and Campus Drive intersection is as indicated below: MacArthur Blvd. /Campus Dr. I . C .U . Analysis Existing 0.9482 Existing + Committed + Regional + Committed Improvements 0 .9621 Existing + Committed + Regional + Committed Imputs & Project 0 .9720 Based upon the above information an additional Traffic Study (Weston Pringle and Associates - January 8, 1981 ) was accomplished to evaluate additional proposals to mitigate the impacts of this project. This ad- ditional Traffic Study determined that if the proposed project were re- duced and a ride sharing program including both van and car pooling were instituted -that the project will not have a traffic impact as defined by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Analysis City Policy S-1 provides that an analysis be done to determine if one year after completion of the project, or portions of the project for which the traffic analysis is being preformed, the project will generate one percent or more of the projected traffic volume for each leg of each impacted in- tersection during the 2. 5 hour peak period. The policy also provides that when one year after completion of the project , the project may generate one percent or more of projected traffic volume on one or more legs of an im- pacted intersection , then an I .C .U . analysis will be preformed in accordance with S-1 . These analysis have been preformed in the attached traffic study. Two (2) trip generation mitigation measures as defined by City Policy S-1 were required to achieve acceptable traffic impacts as defined by the "Traffic Phasing Ordinance" . Mitigation Measures 1 . The reduction of the proposed building from 50 ,000 sq .ft. to a maximum of 43 ,000' sq .ft. 2. The implementation of a ride sharing program including both car and van pooling. City Policy S-1 provides that "Traffic Generation" estimates for a pro- ject shall be established as indicated below: • TO : Planning Commission - 310 D. Trip Generation Trip generation estimates for the project shall be based on standard trip generation values established by the City Traffic Engineer with the approval of the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal or review . These trip generation figures may be modified only when the applicant proposes specific, per- manent measures that will reduce traffic generated by the project provided that: 1 . The applicant describes in writing, in advance of the traffic analysis , the proposed measure , the estimated reduction in trip generation that will result, and the basis for the esti - mate must be approved by the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal or review before the trip generation figures may be reduced . 2. The applicant provides the Planning Commission with a written assurance that the proposed trip generation reduction measure will be permanently implemented , and agrees to make said per- manent implementation a condition for project approval " . The Traffic Study (January 8 , 1981 ) has evaluated and recommended a ride sharing program, based upon an evaluation of the employees of Pacesetter Homes , Inc . , Pacesetter Homes , Inc. , is the owner of the project site and will occupy approximately 35% of the total floor space . Any approval of th'e Traffic Study by the Planning Commission must include approval of the trip generation reduction measures . The project site is presently developed with a 20, 000 sq . ft. industrial building and a 13,500 sq . ft. building presently being used as a stationary store . The original project consisted of a 50,000 sq . ft. office building which has been subsequently reduced to 43 ,000 sq . ft. based upon the Traffic Study findings (Weston Pringle and Associates - January 8, 1981 ) . If the ride sharing program trip generation measure were not acceptable to the City a total of 36 ,700 sq . ft. of development on site could occur under the 1 % provision of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Staff is concerned with the potential problems of enforcemtn with the ride sharing trip generation measure . Therefore, we would suggest that the. Planning Commission evaluation of this Traffic Study carefully consider this item. The applicant has indicated that the ride sharing trip gener- ation measure is an acceptable condition and that should they relocate in the future they would require it to be continued as a condition of any leaes or purchase arrangement. (Letter attached) . Recommended Action If desired, approve the Traffic Study with the FIndings and Subject to the Conditions indicated in Exhibit "A" ; or Continue the Traffic Study to the meeting of February 5 , 1981 , for revision and make the finding indicated below: Finding I . That the ride sharing trip generation measure does not provide TO : Planning Commission a permanent, impl-emental and enforceable method of reducing traffic from the proposed project. Respectfully submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By � 1/4, red TaIarico Environmental Coordinator FT: nma Attachements : Exhibit "A" 1 . Traffic Study - December 23, 1980 2 . Traffic Study - January 8, 1981 3. Letter Pacesetter Homes , Inc . i . EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AS RECOMMENDED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 22 , 1981 FINDINGS 1 . That the proposed trip generation measures are acceptable and will be permanently implemented through the conditions of this approval and those that may be applied during the resubdivision of the project site . 2. That a Traffic Study on the proposed project has been prepared in accordance with Chapter 15 . 40 of the Municipal Code and City Policy S-1 , and; 3. That based on that Traffic Study, the proposed project will neither cause nor make .worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on any "major" , "primary-modified" , or "primary" street . CONDITIONS 1 . That a maximum of 43,000 sq . ft. of development occur . 2. That the applicant demonstrate to the satisfactions of the Planning Department that a side sharing program that is designed to achieve at least the traffic reduction estimated in the January 8, 19819 Traffic Report, has been accomplished prior to the occupancy of any development permitted by this approval beyond 36 ,700 sq . ft . P,A wealm P"k ad Anedde TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING December 23, 1980 1 Mr. Steve Strauss Pacesetter Homes 4540 Campus Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Mr. Strauss: This letter summarizes our analysis of the traffic requirements of the construction of an office facility on Campus Drive in the City of Newport Beach. The study was conducted to evaluate the circulation needs in response to the Newport Beach City Council Resolution Number 9472 requiring an improvement plan for this project. The study is based upon the planned replacement of existing buildings by your office facility. Current (1980) traffic volume data, regional growth data and committed projects were provided by the City of Newport Beach. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project consists of the development of 50,000 square feet of office uses on three lots on Campus Drive. This facility will replace a 20,000 square foot industrial building and a 13,500 square foot industrial building currently utilized as a stationery store. The new building will serve as offices for your company. TRIP GENERATION Trip generation rates for various land uses have been established in previous studies in the City of Newport Beach. Since this project involves office,, industrial and retail uses, the rates for all three are listed in Table 1. The retail rate is an adjusted rate to reflect the stationery store usage. These rates are a 25 percent increase over industrial to reflect the retail nature of the operation but are less than the normal retail rate. Utilizing these rates, 2651 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE • SUITE 110 • FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92631 • (714) 871.2931 -2- Table 1 TRIP GENERATION RATES LAND USE TIME PERIOD RAPES IN OUT Office 3:30 to 6:30 PM 1.20 3.40 4:30 to 5:30 PM 0.60 1.70 Industrial 3:30 to 6:00 PM 0.48 1.94 4:30 to 5:30 PM 0.24 0.97 Retail (2) 3:30 to 6:60 PM 0.60 2.42 4:30 to 5:30 PM 0.30 1.21 (1) Trip ends per 1,000 square feet (2) Industrial rate increased 25 percent to reflect partial retail usage (Stationery) , Table 2 TRIP GENERATION LAND USE 2.5 HOUR PEAK PM PEAK HOUR IN OUT IN OUT Office (50,000 sq.ft.) 60 170 30 85 Industrial (20,000 sq.ft.) -10 -40 -5 -20 Retial (13,500 sq.ft.) -10 -30 -5 -15 Net Increase 40 100 20 50 0 < _3_ . estimates were made of the 2.5 hour peak traffic and PM peak hour traffic that would be generated by the site. Since the existing buildings will be replaced, the trip generation from the existing buildings has been deducted from the proposed to represent a net increase from the project. Table 2 summarizes the estimated trip generation. TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT The geographical distribution of traffic generated by this development was established in a previous study of Newport Place. (1) Figure 1 illustrates the trip distribution that has been utilized for this study. The distribution is for outbound traffic. Inbound traffic would be the same percentages in the opposite direction. By applying these percentages to the trip generation data, in Table 2, estimates can be made of traffic volumes from the project at various locations. CRITICAL INTERSECTION IDENTIFICATION The next step in the analysis was to identify those intersections that could be impacted by the project. Asa starting point, the 15 intersections identified for analysis under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance for this area were examined. For this examination, the "1% Traffic Volume Analysis" forms from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance were utilized. Appendix A contains the data for the individual intersections and the results are summarized in Table 3. The basis for comparison included existing traffic, regional growth traffic and approved project traffic. The criteria established by the City Council indicates that airy intersection, where the project traffic during the 2.5 hour peak exceeds one percent of the existing plus regional growth plus committed project traffic, must be analyzed in detail. Review of Table 3 indicates that only one intersection, Mac Arthur Boulevard and Campus Drive, is defined as critical by this criteria. The year 1983 was utilized for this comparison based upon full occupancy of the project in 1982. For this comparison, the following projects were included (1) "Newport Place Traffic Study" Robert Crommeli,n and Associates, Inc. , January, 1978. ' l FIGURE I 30% 12% OR. Jy 40% SITE Q czi TJ o� -"F-- BRISTOL ST m 120 5` BRISTOL ST NORTH � JN��E� 3% eOAIITA CORD 3% AAOQ p a mJ � r tiG a uW 9Rp' FOR A� o �O 3 /° 12% s ADUGV h � �<<S M O� 3% a COAST HWV PACIFIC 12% DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES t b -4 Table 3 CRITICAL INTERSECTION IDENTIFICATION Pacesetter Homes LOCATION 2.5 HOUR PERCENTAGE NB SB EB SB Bristol Street North & Campus Drive 0.15 0.98 - 0.04 Bristol Street North & Birch Street - 0.15 - 0.05 Bristol Street North & Jamboree Road 0.07 - - - Bristol Street & Campus Drive 0.25 0.16 0.18 - Bristol Street & Birch Street - 0.04 0408 - Bristol Street & Jamboree Road 0.06 - 0.08 - Coast Highway & Jamboree Road - 0.11 0.10 - Coast Highway & Mac Arthur Blvd. - 0.34 - 0.14 Jamboree Road & San Joaquin Hills Road 0.13 0.09 - - Jamboree Road & Ford Road 0.08 0.11 - - Jamboree Road & Mac Arthur Blvd. 0.24 0.27 - - Jamboree Road & Campus Drive - 0.15 0.40 - Mac Arthur Blvd. & San Joaquin Hulls Road 0.21 0.37 - - Mac Arthur Blvd. & Ford Road 0.13 0.24 - - Mac Arthur Blvd. & Campus Drive 0.11 0.28 1.83 0.18 I -5- ll as "approved". Aeronutronic Ford Pacific Mutual Plaza Backbay Office 3701 Birch Office Boyle Engineering Newport Place Cal Canadien Bank Skokrian Civic Plaza Bank of Newport Corporate Plaza Bayside Square Koll Center Newport Sea Island Campus/Mac Arthur Baywood Apartments National Education Office Harbor Point Homes North Ford Rogers Gardens Orchard Office Seaview Lutheran Plaza ANALYSIS ' As required by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, an Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis was completed for the Mac Arthur/Campus intersection. The ICU calculation in contained in Appendix B and indicates an ICU value of 0.9720 with the project in 1983. This is an increase of 0.0099 as a result of the project. An increase of this magnitude is not significant and would not be noticed by drivers utilizing the intersection. It is also anticipated that there will be some reduction in usage of this intersection when the Corona del Mar Freeway is extended which is anticipated to be completed in 1984. The analysis has included consideration of committed project and regional growth traffic as required by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Planned intersection improve- ments resulting from previously approved projects are also included in the analysis. SUMMARY This study has examined the traffic factors related to the proposed redevelopment of three lots on Campus Drive as required by the Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The analysis indicated that only one of 15 intersections examined would be classified as critical by the criteria of the Ordinance. This intersection, Mac Arthur Boulevard and Campus Drive, was analyzed in more detail and found to have a projected ICU value of 0.9720 with the project. This is an increase of 0.0099 due to the project which is not a significant increase. z -6- i We,trust that this analysis will be of assistance to 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 #0590 APPENDIX A 2.5 HOUR INTERSECTION ANALYSIS 1% Traffic Volume AnalLgeWinter/Spring Intersection T-kacL c S(Existing Traffic Vo umes based on Ave 19p) �Approach Existing Peak 2% Hour Approved Projected if of ►rojtettd Project + , ireation Peak 24 Hour Regional Projects Pak ct Haur Peak Zy Hour Pak 24 Hour- 1 Volume Grath Pak 2% Haur 'Volume Volume Voter volume VoUft �Northbound z` aa 6 $ 59 2 3 3 o / 33 soaehbound 355 Z 7 2. ITL O 413 E+stoaund t .atGaand_! 9 1/235 3 12 S o•o¢%, Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2J1 Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2s Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis fs required. -- QATE fS 1% Traffic Volume Analysi Intersection E5rL#-% (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Vcc�sr Winter%Spring 19E d t ,Approach ' Existing Peak 21s Hour Approved Projected IS of Projected Protect Direction Peak 21s Hour Regional Projects Pak 21*Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 24 Hour, I Volume Growth Peak Z'e Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ' 9o¢ 280 o , Northbound 1 ukpund i Z 7 Z 9 -670 ;33 3 4- astbound � i :tbound ' �Z2.�J / 2/ 2 2 3 9¢33 ¢ S ; 0,050/0 ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2k flour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. r i r DATE : 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection�g,�,4TO44,� JRrn6oae=im (Existing Traffic Vo umes based on Aveftge Winter/Spring 198d) IL-d:-79 ;Approach Existing Peak 21s Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project i traction ; Peak 21s Hour Neglonal Projects Peak 1y Hour Peak 21s Hour Peak 2h Hour Value$ Growth Peak 2%Hoer Yalu" Volume Values Yotuee Volume 'Northbound 6 / 31 1269 71'-08 4- 5 0,07% 1 ISouthbound , 3 00 3 3� 2 5 O 1 astbound " 1 acboxnd--- /bao 20 O Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1X of Projected ® Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2J1 Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.} Analysis is required. 6 • _ DATE I`7 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection�sroc- Son Average Winter/Kpt g 19 (Existing Traffic Volumes based, on Average Hinter/Spring lg?o) Zrc4cn Existing Peak A Hour Approved Protected 1 if of Protected Project Direction Peak 24 Hour Regional Projects Peak Zy Four I Peak 24 Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Growth Peak 2% Hour Volume Volume Volume " Volume Volume ' a IHoneound 177¢ 2 S 3 ('0 213 Z 5 i rc 0.23`jo 1soutneoww Z$o$ 9 D 3/ S D./617d estbound ' ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less. than 1% of Projected Peak 21� Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. __ D TE • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection�`a/,5,Wl, -I[BirteN sZ (Existing Traffic Vo umes based on eraye hinter/Suring I9$t�1 Approach i Existing Peak 2S Hour Approved Projected —1% of Protected Proteet Direction Peak 2S Hour ( Regional Projects Peak 2S Hour Peak 2g Hour Peak 2y Hour- Volume .Growth Peak 2S Hour Volume Volume Voluaw Volume Volume I tt�� 'Northbound Z CF 3 66 ?,69 3 0 1 lsouthbound ' logs 162 1260 13 S ; o.o¢%d aatbound 6604 69 946 6 sr 9 es S a• • Westbound -- — — — Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2)g Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. I _� ___ DATE: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection g5af�� _sil '�Averaye Amr5o4^Ecx ►zp (Existing Traffic Volumes based Winter/Spring l($b) i — rit- -741 ;Approach Existing Peak 29 Hour Approved Projected , 1% of Projected Project Direction ; Peak 2y Hour Regional Protects Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour' volume Growth Pak 2y Hour volme I volume Volume Y lune Y uar 'Northbound 56 14 O ' 30 7R5 0.060 �Southbound 400 2` -6 6 G S o Eastbound 4 f G, L 6 / .S/ 7 (p o S 1 o.08q, -- nd-- ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1ATE' :2o- 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Int"r Cti011 .)AW%tlboAt-fA C-OOS7' }(refit, (fti1.ting IrdPfi—L Vr,lumw, baud oil Av -rage- Wintor/sprinq I`i,10) !Approach wsting Peak 21, Hour AppraYed~ Protected IS of Projected Protect Direction ; Peak 2h Hour Reofonal Projects Peak 2S Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2S Hour, Volume Growth Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Vol we j - Volume Volume 1 0 Northbound _ 1 _47 � �� Q ' �Scuthbound 3 JraJZ._^- _ S _ yS _ 3/ 5 •¢ C O.l!'�o astbound ; ��-¢9 23558 23 Kestbound ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2-�- Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be grvdter than 1% of Projected Peak 21k Flour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. OAT E 21 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection,A .. �4Gft 1 Ap (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19J?:3 Approach Existing Peak 24 Hour Approved Projected 1s of Protected Project Direction ; Peak 2y Hour Regional Projects Peak 2k Hour Peat 2y Nour Peak 24 Hour, •�� Volune Growth Peak Zy Hour Volume Volumes Vol we • Volume Volume fNorthbound ! 2b61 O Z 72 7 ' ° '3`�� �Southbban� i 4'Yo6 /0 3 39 .5 3 ,,r i 0.09% astbound 31:L 36 Z- 4 o stbound aZ.616 O 6 3 O ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. _.._— DATE; �2 T 'f1C�nMLH-C 00.2 W '(" db ft P A WeaW P►ciug�e cmd J nuivieo TRAFFIC 8 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING •S � � I .January 8, 1981 ,J 1 Mr. Steve Strauss Pacesetter Homes, Inc. .• 4540 Campus Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Mr. Strauss: Based upon our discussions of the traffic impacts of your proposed office development on Campus Drive, we have completed some additional analyses. Our report dated December 23, 1980, summarized the potential traffic impacts as required by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance of the City of Newport Beach. That report indicated that the Mac Arthur Boulevard/Campus Drive intersection would have an ICU value greater than 0.90 and the ICU value would increase 0.0099 as a result of the project. In order to mitigate this impact, additional proposals have been considered and are discussed in this report. The implementation of a ride sharing program was considered for your employees. Currently there arc 43 empluyeeit wlUeh drive their own VvIlleli-x to Work ,uid no ride sharing. The potential for ride sharing was examined by review of home zip codes of the employees. First, employees who would not be potential users of a program due to their ,job requirements were eliminated from the list. Review of the "remaining employee zip codes provided the potential combinations listed in Table 1. A total of 31 employees were identified as being potential ride sharing participants. It is recommended that the ride sharing program include both van and car pooling. Based upon the data in Table 1, three vane could be utilized — two for zip codes 92714 and 92715 and one for zip codes 92626 and 92627. The remaining employees could utilize car pools with one vehicle serving each zip code or group of zip codes. As indicated in Table 1, this could be a total of eight vehicles which would replace the 31 currently utilized. On an overall 2651 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE • SUITE 110 • FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92631 9 (714) 871.2931 Table 1, POTENTIAL RIDE SHARE COMBINATIONS ZIP CODE (S) EMPLOYEES VANS/CARS 92714 & 92715 11 2 92626 & 92627 6 1 92647 & 92649 4 1 F 92653, 92677, & 92630 3 1 92705 2 1 92704 2 1 92667, 92807, 92686 3 1 TOTALS 31 8 Table 2 TRIP GENERATION GENERATOR 2.5 HOUR PEAK PM PEAK HOUR In Out In Out Office (28,000 Sq. Ft.) 35 95 15 50 Pacesetter (15,000 Sq. Ft.) (1) 10 25 5 15 Existing Uses (2) -20 -70 -10 -35 TOTALS 25 50 10 30 (1) Volumes reduced by one half to reflect ride share program. (2) From December 23, 1980, report. zu -3- basis, Lhe currrnL LOLItI of 43 vehIcIv:i it I l lard [IV 1'.tre,erlLer ump4oyees could be reduced Lu 20. Our previous report considered a 50,000 square foot office facility. It is understood that you are considering a reduction to 43,000 square fort for this fa.i'_:ty. :f this 43,000 square feet, 15,000 would by uILILzed by 11aceocllct Homo::, inc. anJ the remaining 28,000 would be leased to other users. Trip generation rates and existing use trip generation are presented in our previous report. Utilizing these factors, the 2.5 hour peak and PM peak hour volumes for the reduced project have been calculated and are summarized in Table 2. The trip generation for the Pacesetter Homes, Inc. use has been reduced by one half to reflect implementation of a ride share program. As indicated above, there is a potential to reduce trip generation by 53 percent (43 employee trips to 20) ; however, the 50 percent factor was utilized to cover possible non- participants, visitors and similar cases. As was discussed In our previous report, the Mac Arthur/Campus intersection was projected to have an increase of 1.83 percent on the northbound approach as a result of this project. With the trip generation indicated in Table 2, the northbound project traffic at this intersection would be reduced from 42 .to 21 during the 2.5 hour peak period. This is equivalent to it 0.92 percent increase which would except the project from the Traffic Phasing Ordinancc. As w,is indicated in our previous report, all other intersections would be increased by less than one percent. In summary, this analysis has indicated that the reduction of the building to 43.000 square feet and the implementation of a ride share program could result in the project not having a traffic impact as defined by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. We trust that this additional analysis will be of assistance to .ou If you Y have any questions or require additional information, please contact us. Respectfully submitted, WSP:cd WESTO�/✓ D Sso IATES //0590 cc: Fred Talarico Weston S. Prin le g , P.E. 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection J— ' D a 4 U PO (Existing Traffic Vo, erpd� D Average Winter/Spring 19 BO Approach Existing Peak 21s Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Oirection Peak 2h Hour Regional Projects Peak Z1a Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Vol Volume Gro"th VVolVolumeVolumeHour Volume Vol Volume 'Northbound 4ro3� (o 6060 / S a.co% ISouthbound 35¢fc 5 i6g 4 5 S o.rr�o 'Eastbound 1/09 1117 ! D stbound /62- 5 Z ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: �pn,lcfT• _ 2� 1% Traffic Volume Analy�ss''�s Intersection Al'&Ak,r4.1; ,140.L_ BL.vo er (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Av gee Wi nter/Spring 1980 IAPproach Existing Peak 2h Hour Approve' Projected 1% of Protected Protect lrectton Peak 2h Hour Regfonat Projects Peak 24 Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 24 Hour, I VoluM Growth Peak 24 Hour Volume Volume Volume Vol uft Volume (Northbound South bound ! z s c 2 2 2 5 Z 30 L c t: 4 3 . 2 4 4 4- 1 O _ 3 r7 .3 5lo Z 601 ® _ Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2� flour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.0 U.) Analysis. required. Y is DATE• 2 7 I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection QQSgd"t At /..g'e' ter/S �Q (Existing Traffic Vo umes based on v rage Winter/Spring 199—C1 Approach Existing Peak 2y Hour Approved Projected 1% of.Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Regional Projects Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 24 Hour- Volume; Growth Peak Z4 Hour Volume Volume WOW* *'^ Volume Volume I o �1 ,107 'Northbound ' ( LS I �" 0 7 L� 6— o/7e ISouthbound z 3707 3 ; 0 27 /o (Eastbound ; L 3 4.O 3 `L1502sl astbound z� 0 566 33 Z 3 -0 ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2)1 Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. Y DATE• za I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis lntersectiong" �aa esc.�eg�pJ3_D1G (Existing Traffic Vo umes based on iiLr ge Winter/Spring 19sO !approach Ex1511" Peak 2%Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction ; Peak 2h Hour Regional Projects Peak 2% Nmr, Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour' Yolw Growth Peak A Hour 4olu" Yoluew volume ^ 4olLM -igloo Northbound Z94¢ 52 `f l o kwthbound Z773 5 6 3 3 9 4- aetoound zr o 1 s 4-3 0 atbound I SOZ Z, 1/92R J90 ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE; 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACAi2rNuiZ AJ .t) (Existing Traffic Volumes based on verage Winter/Spring 19fO) Approach Existing Peak 2h Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2Js Hour Regional Projects Peak 21s Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 21s Hour Voluse Growth Peak 24 Hour Volume, MUM Voluee Volume Volume r� 'HorthbCund /p 453 2. 3 � O.ZI CPO Southbound ; 3389 /2 look . 4-4-09 4- /O O.3-7% Wastbound Z 0 2G96 Z estbound o 7.56 ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2.11 Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. ----- ----- ---- DATE• 1% Traffic Volume Analysis InTraffic volumes asedz a��gD (Existing Traffic Vo umes base on A erage Winter/S�ng 19LD) �APPraeh Extsttng Peek A Hour Approved Protected 1% of Protected Protect OtreetIon i Peak 2k Nour Aegtonrl Protects Peak 2h,Hour Peek A Hour Peek 24 Hour, aRrowth Peak A Hoouur Yolw Voles volesvolume , Northbound 3 00 i5 0.13% �Southbound ! 30 Z. � '�'16 © Z. /O j o•24-% aetbowd // t%0 Z 6 / 2- D 1 etbounC-- 3 / 9¢t0 9 0 ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Protect Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE, JI t , 1% Traffic Volume Ana ysis Intersection �& -. Q.�1ac G�rn dS__-P _. (Existing Traffic VoTumes based on rage winter/Spring 198o) :Approach Eatating Peak 24 Hour Approved Projected I% of Projected Project Direction Peak 24 Haur Regional Projac"S Peak 24 Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 24 Hour- Volume •,� Growth Peak 24 Hour Yotue Volume Volume VolVolume cI Northbound Z 71qZ 71 Southbound Z 73$ 3510 35 i attbound Zo43 o G7 8 Z 29/ Z %tbound z469 AO 2 o Z [_1 Project Traffic is'estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATEo +I,I `.11VIt I.MfHV11 i U11E.1LAI1111V NI*1J tarr8Lw1A D Intersection Ac__ f we AL e,4m as t7 ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Dai y Traffic Winter/Spring lg$ L%ISTIIIV PROPOSE' EKI"T EXIST. RE610•lal r".,rTry QMIECTEO Yo.2 NI PKAR. Vic Vic Ratan MA.' I�J:C• Ones Cap. ones Cep. Vol Ratio Volme Vol W/o Project Volume Vic Ratio Volume NL !6.o o r� izrx� //p .0%68 Z NT 3a00 d /485 .339/ Z Y U NR 1111000 Sp ,03l3 SL lt,00 z 5260 88 . o55 / ST 32-oo 79-3 . 2478 SR /600 Zfo / )&a l ✓71i� EL . lboo 3 ! 5 ! 69 �/y zZ 3 '� SY-4,41 ET 43zoo 4& to ./834 // 9 O• zo3/ S o. ER 17. 1 13 p WL 1600 / O e0(o 0 0 WT 3Zoo 3 , �` Z a. 6s'o WR Ifoo° ooro �lo 12'M a 0•/2SL YELLOWTINE . 1 1000 i �� 1 4 EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION Z 1 ' EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENT5 I.C.U. 0.9 L LYISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. to,9 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems Pimprovement will be less than or equal to 0.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Description of system improvement: DATE: PKiECT FORM II ♦ . • M YheM2642WHOMES, INC. 4540 CAMPUS DRIVE ■ NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA • PHONE 546.8801 January 13, 1981 Fred Talarico Environmental Coordinator and Project Planner Community Development Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Ca. , 92663 Re: Pacesetter Homes' Campus Drive Buildings Dear Mr. Talarico: As we have discussed, Pacesetter Homes, Inc. enthusiastically supports the traffic reduction program set forth in the' traffic report by Wes Pringle dated January 8, 1981. In summary, there are two mitigating measures suggested by our traffic consultant: 1) Reducing the size of the net floor area of the office building from 50,000 sq. ft. to 43,000 sq. ft. , and 2) Implementing a car pool/van pool program for the 15,000 sq. ft. to be utilized by Pacesetter Homes, Inc. p- Please be advised that we would be pleased to have the car pool/van pool program set forth as a condition of approval of the traffic study and building permits. Furthermore, we would agree that should our firm move from the facility, we would require the 'new occupant to continue the car pool/van pool program as a condition of any lease or purchase arrangement. Very truly yours, PAC TTER HOMES, TNC. $'.` RECEIVED 0 In �. lug Z PLANNING.. Pres dent bEPARTMENT JAN 14 19813o- ip CITY OF SRS:em NEWPCALIFEACH, Jf i CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Public Works Department REPORT OF'FINDINGS Project Name: Pacesetter Office Project Project Location: Campus Drive The analysis of this project was performed in accordance with Ordinance 1781 and City Council Policy S-1 with the following findings: FINDINGS Phase I: Project traffic is estimated to be greater than one, percent (1%) of the estimated future peak 22 hour traffic volume for some intersections. Phase I,I: Projected I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 at one intersection. Phase III: Project traffic with ridesharing mitigation is estimated to be less than one percent (1%) of the future peak 22 hour volume for all intersections analyzed. This result is dependent upon almost 100% partici- pation by the potential ridesharing employees. Such a high degree of participation on a long-term U) basis is questionable. c� R PannFD 7 d�nrr, � �/�L�A�I �• ��NMMA `JA meet � Richard M. Edmonston N16 198J� J 8 Traffic Engineer N��PO�pQ' c January 14, 1981 Yp RME;njg NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of -- Pa-ce s-e-tt e r-_H-o nre s—frrr- -the--a-p p-r o-va 1--o-f a -- - - - - - — for a(n) ❑ Variance Use Permit' " ' ❑ Resubdivision H Tentative Map Tract ❑, Amendment Q Other' •Traffi c Study on property located at anon a 4090 Campus Drive to permit the issuance of Building and Gradin-g_permits foe an office building of 50 ,000 sq . ft. + prepared in accordance with Chapter 15 . 40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code ("Traffic* P'h'ati.n�i O'rdJhance" ) ' and ' City Policy S-1 ( "Adminstrative Guidelines' for 'Implementing the Traffic Phasing Ordinance" ) . ❑ This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it'is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Qualities Act. , ❑ NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that a Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application noted above. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Negative Declaration and supporting documents. The City encourages members of the general public to rev4-ew and comment on this documentation. Copies of the Negative Declaration and supporting documents are available for public review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 West Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92663, (714) 640-2216. ❑ NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared in connection with the application noted above. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Environmental Impact Report and supporting documents. The City encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this documentation. Copies of the Environmental Impact Report and supporting documents are available for public review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 West Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92663 (714) 640-2197 Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the 22 day of January 19 81 at the hour of 7 :30 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall , at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. George COkaS, Secretary PUBLICATION DATE: Planning Commission Received for Publication City of Newport Beach By NOTE: The expense of this notice is paid from a filing fee collected from the applicant. I SMECO DEC 12 1589 SAFECO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY (714) 547-7251 825 NORTH BROADWAY P.O. BOX 208 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 To: City of Newport Beach Description of Subject Property: Lots 13 to 16 of Tract No. 3201 A list of owners of lands within 300 ' of the perimeter of subject property is attached hereto. Safeco Title Insurance Company has furnished you the fore- going information for your sole use and benefit, subject strictly to the understanding that this information has been obtained from the current County Assessor ' s Tax Roll. On this basis , the Company verifies that the information is correct, and assumes no liability in excess of the fee charged for this report. Dated: December 12, 1980 Engineering partment Edward P. Jarvis Edwa Birch St. Robert Forbes, et al ! Newport Bch.Ca. 92660 ? c/o George S. druehling 3380 W. Harvard 427-131-12 Santa .A,najCa, 92704 - -- 427-131-06 George Souleles Count of 33 Cool Brook Y Orange Irvine, Ca. 92715 No mailing address for . this owner. 427-131-13 427-042-35,36,38,40,63 Aldo Chiappero c/o L. Baumgardner L. Boyd Higgins Seeley/ P.O. Box 176 Costa Mesa, c c/o SeeleyWilshirCo. Blvd. Ca. 92627 Los Angeles, Ca. 90017 427-131-14, _ 15 427-131-01 Birch Development Co. Signal Developement Co 1100 W. Ocean Front r Balboa, Ca. 92661 17890 Sky Park Blvd. Irvine,Ca427-131-16 427-131-07,8{ 10,11 A.E.Corder, Jr. The Irvine Company �,Cfi 1 Cnitti� 1071 Camelback Street �r✓ (�CG/Y� �"uv " Newport Beach, CA. 92660 j r , 1 427-13 04 i"=, ioo' 0 CAMPUS (ACACIA ST) DRIVE q n a 60• 239 I 3 IJr" Z- c3�11 Z Hoc O �{oZd � .. .. ioo• i 298• GO I I � TRACT i 1 I Qj I � I I I L0 iss_ O //I/2 00' o /7 /8 /-9 ioo' 20I __ .roo•_ 2/12_2_ (�J -- - -- I- ---- m ------- 5/150 h 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 h 421 4/140 h — 340AC 1 i 4./9 AC I � I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I 1 I N 16 I5 14 13 12 11 10 N I i J I I I j I I I j o i r i NO. i 320/ o 239 1 /00' •' "'` /oo' I Z9B' I �' r BIRCH STREET— 14 MARCH 1972 NOTE - ASSESSOR'S BLOCK & ASSESSOR'S MAP ^ TR. NO. 320/ M. M. /30-25-30/NC. PARCEL NUMBERS BOOK 427 PAGE 13 C 1J SHOWN IN CIRCLES COUNTY OF ORANGE t 427 141 - 29 " 141 - 34 '- za YC. OLD NEWPORT AVENUE , �°NEWPORT FREEWAY - f) Bti cca yr zee71 _ r:a 6 fRwY 50 FRwY G G. �,as. IS dL259' /f/1.40 T\ FAR3 �� PAR2 7 c 1 N 26 f z• 23 O Tz, 741AC. - 24 •a.., zo eO- 1s"w7AG ., ya 03 N 99tiA 3-ras' ra $R ik' yst�nc ' 75' O N=G yH° B PAR l 9 e �O1 FRWY. O4 d K gaPM�'"`J CRV� �o _ n 9�AC �o '. -f5.40AC. �� �.`' PAR 0 ( so' o y. 17 15.79 AC 044 LOT /42 .= PM.83-26 34k b• It ;5.12AC 14 PoR.PAR 3 i M 3-26 ,eaes v FRWY s.es °es'PAR.4 `J u 135 n2Ac• L79-17• t g9 ���'; x 65 s Bd JlJ.L9' f P,M. 3- 26 y ° (9 0 ; 09 30 is y 19 20 s ' i I 08 N S n PAR. 1 h7.641C ,5'OS"QC. ` //.3lYAC Z9 4,g- 8.307 AC f- FRWY. P.M.100-48 ' s Lc"a3' 29 ¢ r ? /.1oAc4e ' `v"e. R. S. 88- /5 s qe�'` o °x n1 SANTA RED f//L`' _° _ Q POR.LOT 134 _ _ _ ^ PGR.LOT/33 AV JU° ^ ° mb 4 2,g2,v3— O POR. BLK 7 Ulf A TLO sY R. S. 64 /O '�� q d0054 - 1• - � �� - 042 � r q I R 0R I 1.18 AC. 6� 3] 1 o BLK. 6 I I C (qI in' � �/ B, Qc J t °'�� '• 0 ` LOT 140 63 POR LO 135 POR LOr /32 POR. LOT /43 308.327 AC. f SUB. +. 60 SrArE HWY. Q <� 1.184 AC.fC1 62 42 0 n J I 4.921 AC(C/ 36" 33./3AC. a � V MllYu 41POR / o I * � � , H ff ^ 4 1 Sti 7 29 a48 ©3 © 3i ` �/'� @ „ — E -WAY 9 C. `„ "c I, �1.67Arr �2.62AC� �A 4.96A� i 3-16 �glV�• mN FR R { A 37 �� • nu.b,• ..�,• a �.• �s, «• 445--0$ U A� 445-1 1 15 1�3 _ 12 POR8 k59 pRTNOR s ^ S 1 r" ' A A 1, NOTE—ASSESSORS Si St: 1 1 .. - - - '- - - -