Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTPO043_MACARTHUR ASSOC. I IIIIRII IIII III III IIIIIII IIIII IIIIII IIII III IIII *NEW FILE* TP0043 i LAW OFFICES MEMEL, JACOBS. PIERNO, GERSH & ELLSWORTH A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS 4000 MACARTHUR BOVLEVARO xYigYxn. 1801 CLNTURV PARK Cw3T ieo•� ...TDi.n19nulu L<LnM SUITE 3SO Tw<rylr• D••ne L OOSn9 M1xGlxC L xcO.Nl[L rirTry FLOOR D•rm D,u.SwP.1N•t JOxx Rw.ON[. LOS ANGELES. GLVORNDL 90067 n+D.[•LlwoeNlw rxPNA.I......Nft NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 12131 556.2000 - ..I.M11.1.1.11A•t Al.I'A.vwn Z¢.uO I D.rp•1 I...........It TELEPHONE (]HI 732.0500 Ie00 M STRCLT,N.w +1.1 N..Of CM.ICLD•} IRA"A CC....L SUITE 1000-N J.".J�["MSI.n. T SCOR.L[1LLL1[. WASHINGTON. OC. 20036 JLr1.[r w.L[n•Ix• A".OLO W...<ONIC. - 12021 e22•3939 1 oni:a f o"N"" Cu w[snOi c.....wft •� p lx i"eoo1P...It e:�O J.e..r0. Aril 5 1905 SSS GPITOL MALL L:<;iir'S'IT• fiinFiNh" p . SUIT[ TBS I.C.[+• [II...D..[D.L f...CIS a.....I S.10, SACRAMCNTO. CALIFORNIA 93eU fo 10.J.OOLDITPHYLLIS L.a<ww"off 19101 aae-e 9+1 n J.I...TIC"• "L..I P c..v C.ft — JD.wOI 610vOLMFOMC CAIVIn"[.O�.�S ISOOwI 650 GLIFORNIA STREET ....•0 A. M.A.1} 33NO FLOOR .I ...t..Orr ANTHONi CIASULL, .1...d.111.• ..U. Y..U... SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 9M06 • D0...0 A.y00\O..x• .L011[L\A Ax..A H131 a]]•3000 DO CI.S . . C...1 Nx[lx A.1.L" _ fl[.xt.<.1...... MRCILL. .0.5]IN ,ram O[NIS[O YLL. CUZA9[1M O..[I u/ 1601 CLM STREET ' x C..<.I.IYONOI• LINO.J.C[.....O (� SUITL 1055 .i...I L4xO10x...IA. .....A .ISn •V IA.r JI I...It, ...L l llw.. 1O; DALLAS. TEXAS 75201 CA... . A.11 C.IC C e ONSON •\ ISlal YSMO BSS 1:Y�IVE R, \[w OUNA L v w UI[" \-'T'•, ASSOCIATED OFFICES: n[�w¢n cuuDlo,o our Planning P a ZI [A.[w ....N CA.C1 ..O \ IN.AVCNUC OCS CHAMPS•ELYSCCS C "'.. Cu O C.- • \[.1[.A S[ID<Lft I. ,....A.. �60atimG414 ^I. 7600e PARI3. FRANCC ....I .Ac[. 1 A .." TCLEPHONC 90 56] 66 C...IA.L V.O". A II...MCI. rnOwpl[ .D..< .....A n<D[,.DIT APR J 1985 TELEX' 6609=6 FRANLAw DRVDL�1 DODDS iiw<"e..DuxD ;Ow, ...A.. .lACI L SCA.1 HANOLUNO CENTRE IC:x 10,.,,...III SUITE 1306.2 PATTERSON STREET 40L" J..[.,A.M11I[. "I US N"1. /yy •� GUSCwwY DAY.MONO•.ONO rtyO.AS L SCCxLT .. YT♦: l RYT BEAM[, M.I Ar.[rO.r ALDOAA J.P..Ux _ LJllrll YlLEPNo1[c •5469]3T .wyc.+L•weJrA. IA.IavPASS . •y LAF ,V. 'TCLLR:•OOTTA ICC'NM °w:..vx::.AA"s...P�..«.[ �1 - DYw)LLC NUMBER I City Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 330.0 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 926BB-8915 1Z.8: 7+1ar+.�rti'mr'A�crrc�-�^a+,er'�3.eV.L'Z'O}1IREIIt."pT'on,�al ' -at Macaxtin„- and Birch Dear Dommissioner Members: We --represexrt "Grace Restaurantts Company, the owners and ' operators of Coca's Restaurant and Baxter Street :Restaurant at MacArthur and Birch sn the 'City of Newport Meach_ Our rest- aurants are adjacent to the proposed z17Le at which MacArthur Associates seeks to obtain a -Use 3]ermit 3rom this =Commission to construct a six story office tower and parking structure (Item No. 3 on tonight' s Agenda)- This letter is written to express our concerns with regard to the issue of parking at our rest- aurants to be made available during the construction phase of this proposed development. As set forth on Pages 5 and 6 of the Planning Department Staff Report pertaining to this project, the applicant has proposed interim off-site parking of 65 off-site spaces to be located some 1,400 feet from our restaurants. The City Traffic l M - y • LAW OFFICES MEMEL, JACO BS, PIERNO, GERSH & ELLSWORTH , A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS City Planning Commission April 5, 1985 Page 2 Engineer has expressed some concern regarding the continued availability of these off-site spaces and has requested addi- tional information concerning the circumstances of this park- ing; however, the applicant has not provided this information. The Staff has nevertheless recommended approval of this project subject to no existing on-site parking being removed until the City Traffic Engineer has approved an interim parking plan for the site. Our concern is that the Staff recommendation does not go far enough to protect our rights with regard to the availabil- ity of parking during the entire construction of this proposed project. As this Commission is well ..aware, parking gat the ]vocation of our twp restaurants ,is a3xea4dy at a premium, and the availability of sate., zonv =Ient, easy-access parking Is }tart of the lifeblood �of 'these businesses- =her-e shoulyd be little ;question to tbi.s Commission that an =adequate interim parking plan ,during the constructi.ong of this proposed develop- ment would seriously damage all of the adjacent businesses to this proposed development, and most especially rour two rest- aurants.. For instance, if the applicant's off site parking. spaces are in an unpaved area, or are unsecure or poorly lit, or are difficult to access from the streets, or are not dixecta.y arress_ib1-e to ­ml restaurants when these .n:ff—mite -Xar3tim3 spaces -woa1-1,d 33e 'tata737 imadegnz-P _:fox- the qa t+nsas - f our xestaurant businesses_ Safe and access1b:1-e -parking 1-s necessary accommodation our restaurants xequire, and if this d.s -not maintained for us, our -customers most .likely will bring their business to -our sompetatars itho have 6av:ari_,ah3e to them use =onveniences.. Similarly, we ire -concerned that the .xemai -d:ng -nn-site parking spaces, .which the applicant claims will be available during the construction ol -this proposed project, vial in .fact be availab7.e .during the menti=e period of nonstructi'on_ More specifically, -we -question whether the applicant ,has really adequately provided fox its own work and storage space needs at the construction site during the construction phase, and believe that the developer's space needs may likely infringe upon many of the on-site parking spaces which the applicant claims will be available to us . Should this prove to be the case, we would have inadequate parking available to meet the needs of our ongoing businesses . Once again, neither we nor this Commission have adequate information to assess these con- cerns, since the applicant has not provided this information. v x y • LAW OFFICES MEMEL, .JACOBS. PIERNO, GERSH & ELLSWORTH A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS City Planning Commission April 5, 1985 Page 3 Under Section 20 .80.060 of the Municipal Code of the City of Newport Beach, this Commission is only to issue a Use Permit upon a finding that a proposed development will not be "detri- mental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and gen- eral welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such a proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to prop- erty and improvements in the neighborhood or the general wel- fare of the City. " It is our position that the issue of interim parking during the construction of this proposed devel- opment is crucial to the continued ongoing operation of our businesses, and therefore unless and until this Commission is presented with sufficient information to adjudge the adequacy of the applicant's proposed interim parking, this Lammission simply :cannot determime whether this °project would aat be detrimental or injurious 'to the adjacent businesses, -including ours, or detrimental to the safety, .comfort and general welfare .of persons Working in or patronizi•ag :these businesses- indeed, the issue of parking is a3ways a =ruriaa pane :in the approval -of developments such as that proposed iy' the applicant; and until such -time as this Commission is presented for its review with this applicant's interim parking plan, this Commission is truly hamstrung to judge or give guidance with regard -to this issue- r.; .. Approval Af the _A.pjl=zan 1s ;proposed .development -mot -th= ::t1'me, -1cI.'th4nt the .pppyxtnnJ-ty .3:' = 'th7:5 =.Comm•:-cri•oll D=eP.TP.W grid assess an interim parking -plan., and the further de-legatzan. .uf -this task to the Traffic .Engineer at this time, .may .also be. procedurally ±mproper. The Commission has determined that this -matter deserves public -hearing and snm umt, 3iowever, to a'11ow fh-i hearing to -:go forward :wathout -the .-imte3- garksn-g which potentially has significant adverse consequences for all adjacent businesses to the proposed :development, icleamly .limits the relevant :input the public can have upon this -matter-, and .may constitute a -denial of -due 2n addition, approval of this proposal at this time vl—.thout the .full interim- parking plan, and delegation of future ,approval of such a plan to the Traffic Engineer at some indefinite .later date, as a practical matter may prohibit the right of the public to appeal the approval of this project to the City Council under Section 20 .80 .070 of the Municipal Code, since such an appeal must be made not later than 21 days following the Commission' s action. In light of all of the foregoing, we request that this Commission.• at this time continue the hearing of the MacArthur Associates proposed development until such time as the appli- LAW OFFICES MEMEL, JACOBS, PIERNo, GERSH & ELLSWORTH A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS City Planning Commission April 5, 1985 Page 4 cant has provided to the City all of the information requested by the City Traffic Engineer and Planning Department with regard to interim parking, so that a comprehensive and complete interim parking plan can be presented to this Commission together with the entire proposal of the applicant. By such action, the Commission will have the opportunity to review this entire proposal (and all of its affects upon the surrounding community) as a whole, single package, and in addition will insure that all affected parties will have an opportunity to comment on all issues surrounding this development which will affect their rights. The concerns expressed in this letter with regard to interim parking during the construction phase of the project come as no surprise to the .applicant, since -the .Planning Department and Traffic .Engineer iiave long sjequested this infommation, and swe have alzD .raised +-+,1s -issue with the -mpp3- cant :under :the -terms cf our private lease before this .date, but to no avail_ Indeed, 'there is no need far this Commission to approve this F -oj:ect tonight, and the -abpve cer— tainly constitutes sufficient cause to'justify a continuance It ,should also be noted that we have engaged a traffic consultant to review the traffic study compiled by Herman Kimmel and Associates on behalf -of the applicant. A •.copy of =r consultaatj5 rP1-im�na-ry =B y.D.T r .P ... port ,7S ,SiaCl,D$e.d :for ' M- V1-ew.. ode thank -you -for your attention to this Setter., and will be more than happy to �elabarate on any -of the .t4regoing at tonight'a meeting- 'Sincerely, 'MICHAEL P miI o=r MPS/dar �.Tn Dell and Associates, Inc. 17801 cw1wriuhl la.I.i hvuie.Cuhk+muw 92714 71N474 14R) N� April 4, 1985 Mr. Kenneth A. Ryder Memel , Jacobs , Pierno , Gersh & Ellsworth 4000 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 350 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Mr. Ryder: Pursuant to your request , I have reviewed the Traffic Phasing Analysis and the City of Newport Beach Planning Department "Staff Report for the MacArthur Associates Project.. Based upon my review of the aforementioned reports., the proposed project does -not appear -to fu33y 'comply with the provisions and requirements of the Newport Beach Traffic iPhaslmg Drd'im- ante and additional traffic ;circulation adocumentation to :comply -with .CEQA guidell:nes may be :warranted. These statements as•e 'based -upon the following' observations of the available documentation. Relative to the Newport 5each-Traffic Phasing Ordinance, the interpretation by the -consultant on the level of required intersection mitigation appears to be _in variance with the .:PlaunYng..fommi=c�.;utat- mf'=- cff M'.in7di- T,gs- 1.h£ ronsnik.t'ant is .;�'IIt-e2'p2E'tatl'.a21Sy iand 7 :q=te_j 4?hzn at]1.'t±gaf-fmg :an "j=eraenti'on., the City of Newport Bead requires that the proposed improvement bxlmg the total 1-C.U.. , including project traffic, below -what 'the 1.L...U. for .existing plus ".committed project volume would be ' withoust the ,improvement.." -Planning Unmmi s s on :Fd ndi-ngs Number-3 and Mumber 4, bowever, -stste., ':that -the -Tr-affi-c "Studies -suggest several circulation system improvements ,which will improve the level of traffic service to an acceptable level at .all cri-tic-al ±ntersections" and "that -the proposed project., including circulation system .improvements will neither ,cau&e mor make worse an unsatisfactory 'level of traffic service on any "major", "primary-modified" or "primary" street." The Traffic Phasing Ordinance and City Council Policy S-1 , specifically identify 0.90 ICU as the maximum acceptable ICU value . In addition, Form II used for ICU calculations, specifically requires a response relative to the .90 ICU. ICUs exceeding .90 are defined as unacceptable. For the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard at Campus Drive, the proposed mitigation alternatives will not "improve the level of traffic service to an acceptable level" and will not "neither cause nor make worse an .unsatisfactory lavel .of traffic .service." Based on the Traffic Phasing ;Analysis, the ProJe'ct -will both y .. i •r {1�r7�,'�1 Van Dell and Associates,Inc. Mr. Kenneth A. Ryder April 4, 1985 Page two cause and make worse an unsatisfactory level of service and will not reduce service to an acceptable level (0. 90 ICU) . This is true for either of the alternative intersection geometrics proposed. The installation of dual eastbound left turn lanes on Campus Drive will result in a .9016 ICU with the project, and the alternative of providing dual left turn lanes on MacArthur Boulevard will result in an ICU of .9362 with the project . The installation of dual eastbound left turn lanes on Campus Drive is identified a's a proposed mitigation of a previous project, and without the project would result in a .8942 ICU (see attached Table 1) Thus the proposed project does not appear to fully Comply -with :the Traffic Pliasimg Dxadlnance and the Platrin3mg �ommisBion statement .bT-T21=d1nZs_ My -understand3ng of .necessary CEQA requirements 3s that the axlstdng traffic conditions,-projedt ,traffic impacts; in addition to other cumulative traffic, and traffic impact mitigation measur-es, should be identified_ While the Newport Beach Traffic Phasing. Ordinance complies with these requirements for off-site arterials, little documentation on existing 'and future on-site traffic conditions is provided. Removal of an existing unused .drive access.; the .distribution of traffic through- - an, adjacent _ :ait-e :to' irampus ..Drive, -and -rommnn area-parlci ng ft- ±d:n -the _R3.•te and ,adjacent Rites -1mga,r+s •4hinh.-miay ,-.or-may not have been addressed- As the -proposed project may potentially impact existing tenants and adjacent site users„ It seems seasonable to request that these .issues bg addressed and that :additional T•rafS: r =!xz 11mtion dDLtm z t'ati3m -:to -camp;3r h MQA -gu3de31-nes-may be v. arram-ed- 3t .also seems rsasonabl-e --to request the resolution of other project Issues, -such as the interim parking plan; prior to the actions of -tine Planning 'Commission- -11 you ,have any ,additional questions or needs relative to the traffic impacts of •the pro'act, •please do not hesitate to call. sincerely, VAN DELL AND AS OCIATES , INC. Ronald J. o P.E. RJJ: lk 51.6..01 i INTERSECTION CAPACIILUTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection MacArthur 81 , A Campus Dr. ( Existing Traffic Vol"s Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 19_V) [MIST. EIIST. REGIONAL COMMITTED PROJECTED No.ewnt EXISTING. PROPOSED EXIST. Y/C C.MaN P volROJECT Y/C Ratfo PROJECT PROJECT Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. Val. Rufo f Volume Vol we Project Volta* Y/C Ra tfo Yolu.a NL 1600 186 .1163 — — .1163* — .1163* ,NT 6400 729 .1139 — 357 .1697 11 .1714 NR 1 1600 58 .0363 _ — 1.0363 .0363 SL 1600 121 .0756 64 1.1156 — .1156 ST 4800 1001 .2085 11 1 257 .2'623* 10 .2644* SR 1600 437 .2731 — 6 .2769 — .2769 EL 1600 3200 263 .1644 - 17 •OS-75& 17 .0928* ET 3200 489 .1834 4 73 .2075 11 . 2109 ER 98 - - - WL 1600 1.08,.,, ..,0675 - - — .A57,�s — .D1G.5 WT 320U 864 ..2700 -- - 1UZ .3281* ...32-81* WR N.,S. 105 -- u3 YEL'iDW73?JE 40t2l IxIST1NG INTERSECTION C"ACITY 'UT'ILIIATION i .10 0O* I i EX13TIM PLUS 'COMITHD PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH iAl ?Vf 6ED 111i&R -C.U. ,'$9y2, i1 n n n-* fXIST.'NG PLUS CCMIITTEO PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. W/PROPOSED IMPROVE— .9016 MENTS j] ?rojected p'1us project tra•ffix I..C.U. will b2 Less -than �or equal to 0.90 Projected-plus :project traffix 1.x.U. will be greater than 1.9D fl -projected plus project -trafif z I.C.xI. with systems improvement will be less than oraequal to 0.90 Description of system improvement: Put in dual left turn lane on eastbound Campus Drive. Will require obtaining additional right-of-way. This improvement will bring the resulting project I .C.U. below that of the existing + regional growth committed project I .C.U. DATE: December 4, 19 PROJECT MACARTHUR ASSOCIATES FORM It 1 1 1 TRAFFIC PHASING ANALYSIS 1 1 MACARTHUR ASSOCIATES 1 PROJECT 1 1 1 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH . 1 1 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING rman® CONSULTANT5 immeI and Associates,Inc. i DECEMBER. 1884 1 1 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING erman CONSULTANTS Kimmel and Associates , Inc. ' 3300 IRVINE AVENUE,SUITE 1. Cff EffilgA 92660 ' December 4 , 1984 ' City of Newport Beach Community Service Department 3300 Newport Boulevard ' Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 Attention Ms . Patty Temple ' Traffic Phasing Analysis MacArthur/Birch Project City of Newport Beach ' Ms . Temple: The planned MacArthur Associates Project has been analyzed in ' accordance to the City's "Traffic Phasing Ordinance" . Critical intersections to be analyzed have been identified by the City's ' Traffic Engineer, Mr. Rich Edmonston. ' Project Description The project is located in the northwest corner of MacArthur Boule- vard and Birch Street (see Site Plan) . Presently, at the site ' location, are separate bank, office, and restaurant buildings . ' The project proposal is to remove the bank and office buildings and construct a single bank-professional office building with a 4.5 to 5 .5 story parking structure. The proposal also includes an ' addition to the bakery located in the existing Coco's Restaurant. ' The present bank building has a gross floor area of about 7,700 square feet (1) . The present office building has a gross floor TfTi 1 Albert C. Martin & Associates ' Page 2 Dec. 4 , 1984 City of Newport Beach ' area of about 61800 square feet (l) . The new building will contain ' 7,700 square feet of bank use and 39,260 square feet of office use. Thus, the bank floor area will remain the same. Therefore, the ' net increase in floor space is 32,460 square feet of office use. The extension of the bakery, in the existing Coco's Restaurant, ' will be an increase of 240 square feet of gross floor area. It is anticipated that the project will be occupied by mid-1985. 1 Traffic Generation and Distribution Traffic generation rates for office and restaurant uses , as estab- lished by the City's Traffic Engineer, are as follows: 1 Office: Average Daily Traffic Generation Rate = 13 T.E.*/1000 S .F. Average Daily Traffic Volume = 13 x 32.46 = 422 T.E. 2.5 Hour Generation Rate = 4 .6 T.E./1000 S.F. ' 2.5 Hour Volume = 4 .6 x 32.46 = 149 T.E. Inbound 2.5 Hour Generation Rate = 1.2 T.E./1000 S.F. ' Inbound 2.5 Hour Volume = 1.2 x 32 .46 = 39 T.E. ' Outbound 2.5 Hour Generation Rate = 3 .4 T.E./1000 S.F. Outbound 2.5 Hour Volume = 3 .4 x 32 .46 = 110 T.E. Restaurant: ' Average Daily Traffic Generation Rate = 75 T.E./1000 S .F. Average Daily Traffic Volume = 75 x .24 = 18 T.E. ' 2.5 Hour Generation Rate = 8 . 8 T.E./1000 S.F. 2.5 Hour Volume = 8.8 x .24 = 2 T.E. ' TT__.E. (.Trip End) - A trip end is the arrival or departure of a vehicle at the project site. 1 ' Page 3 Dec. 41 1984 City of Newport Beach Inbound 2.5 Hour Generation Rate = 5 .4 T.E./1000 S .F. ' Inbound 2 .5 Hour Volume = 5 .4 x .24 = 1 T.E. ' Outbound 2.5 Hour Generation Rate = 3.4 T.E./1000 S.F. Outbound 2. 5 Hour Volume = 3 .4 x .24 = 1 T.E. ' Peak Hour Generation Rate Equals 50% of 2 .5 Hour Rates ' Total Average Daily Traffic Volume = 440 T-E. Total 2 .5 Hour Volume = 151 T.E. ' Total Inbound 2.5 Hour Volume = 40 T.E. Total Outbound 2.5 Hour Volume = 111 T.E. 1 Exhibit 1 shows the percentage of total project traffic volumes ' that will use each major street serving the project. Exhibit 2 shows the percentage of total inbound and outbound project traffic volumes that will distribute from major streets in the vicinity of ' the site, as well as the access points to the site via driveways to MacArthur Boulevard, Birch Street, and Campus Drive. ' Intersection Analysis 1% Test The critical intersections , identified by the City, requiring a ' 1% analysis include: ' Bristol @ Campus/Irvine @ Birch @ Jamboree Bristol North @ Campus ' @ Birch @ Jamboree 1 ' Page 4 Dec. 4 , 1984 City of Newport Beach Jamboree @ Eastbluff North ' @ Campus @ MacArthur ' MacArthur @ Bison ' @ •Campus @ Birch ' Existing and projected 2.5 hour traffic volumes, for each inter- section, are shown on enclosed forms. Regional traffic increases, ' for a one year period, were calculated from factors shown on Table 1. Traffic from other approved development was provided ' by the City Traffic Department. This traffic generation is based on development and occupancy shown on Table 2. The analysis indicates that all but three intersections will have ' project traffic volumes below 1% of the total of other traffic shown on the attached forms . The three intersections are Bristol at Birch, Bristol North at Birch, and MacArthur at Campus . 1 ' I.C.U. Test Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) was calculated for ' the three intersections mentioned in the previous section. Peak hour volumes from other approved development was provided by the City Traffic Department (see enclosed I.C.U, form) . ' For the intersection of Bristol at Birch, the resulting I.C.U. will be less than a vehicle capacity ratio of 0 .90 before and after traffic increase from the proposed project. However, the ' resulting I.C.U. for the intersections of Bristol North at Birch and MacArthur at Campus will be greater than a vehicle capacity ' ratio of 0 .90 before and after traffic increase from the proposed project. 1 ' Page 5 Dec. 4, 1984 City of Newport Beach Mitigation III ' The mitigation for the intersection of Bristol North at Birch can be expected with the extension of the Corona Del Mar Freeway t (Route 73) . Once Route 73 is completed, it is expected that there will be a substantial shift in the volume of traffic using Bristol North to the freeway. This will result in a very improved I .C.U. at Bristol North at Birch, and since the projected traffic t using .the aforementioned intersection is quite low, no capacity problems are expected. ' When mitigating an intersection, the City of Newport Beach requires that the proposed improvement bring the total I.C.U. , including ' project traffic, below what the I .C.U. for existing plus committed project volume would be without the improvement. At the intersection ' of MacArthur at Campus, a mitigation to accomplish this task has been previously identified, due to projected traffic from other projects . The mitigation involves the installation of dual left turn lanes on eastbound Campus Drive. Using this mitigation, and ' including the projected volume due to this project, will bring the resulting I.C.U. to an acceptable level, as defined above. How- ever, due to the potential difficulties in obtaining the additional ' right-of-way needed to accomplish the aforementioned improvement, a proposed alternate mitigation has been included to satisfy the ' phasing ordinance. This mitigation would be to install dual left turn lanes on MacArthur Boulevard. This will require removal of ' one of the four northbound through lanes along MacArthur. Removing one of the northbound through lanes will not pose any problems, because the remaining three lanes provide more than enough capacity to handle the projected through traffic. 1 Conclusions ' Project traffic at all intersections, except Bristol at Birch, Bristol North at Birch, and MacArthur at Campus , will be less ' than 1% of the total volume. An I.C.U. calculation for the 1 ' Page 6 Dec. 4, 1984 City of Newport Beach above three intersections indicated that mitigation was needed at Bristol North at Birch, and MacArthur at Campus . The miti- gation for Bristol North at Birch can be explained by the Corona Del Mar Freeway extension. For the intersection of MacArthur at Campus, utilizing the previously identified improvement of dual left turn lanes on eastbound Campus will bring the resulting I.C.U. to an acceptable level. But, because of potential diffi- culties in implementing this improvement, a proposed alternate mitigation has also been identified. This alternate mitigation, the installation of dual left turn lanes on MacArthur, will also bring the resulting I .C.U. to an acceptable level, before and after traffic increase from the proposed office project, according to City of Newport Beach criterion. ' If you have any questions or need additional data, please contact our office. Respectfully submitted, HERMAN KIMMEL & ASSOC. , INC. 1 �/ ' Herman Kimmel, P.E. 1 1 1 14 /�tf♦ '\\ �,�/ aw ' . ;sue �\,��Tf• • !. 0.0• C A R T H U R B O U L E V A R D C O N C F P T U A L _ M A - S f E R P L M A C A R T H U R A S S O C 1 A T E S . . . . . , . . , . . �:.: �.:�.�_ SITE PLAN ' TABLE 1 REGIONAL TRAFFIC EXISTING CONDITION Coast Highway ' East City Limit 25% MacArthur Blvd 18%. ' Jamboree Road 7% Dover Drive 12% ' West City Limit ' MacArthur Boulevard Coast Highway 8% San Joaquin Hills Road 5% Jamboree Road 2% ' North City Limit Jamboree Road Coast Highway 2% ' MacArthur Blvd 5% North City Limit ' Irvine Avenue/ Campus Drive ' Santiago 20% Bristol Street (N b S) 35% MacArthur ' Bristol Street b Bristol Street North ' Jamboree Road 18% Irvine Avenue/ Campus Drive ' Annual Growth Rate for Regional Traffic* ' Present to 1983 2.40. 1984 to 1988 2.3% * From Orange County Administrative Office ' Forecast Analysis Center ' TABLE 2 ' Traffic phasing ordinance report on approved project volumes: ' Proj. Approved Volume is No. All Projects on File Weighted by 001 Hughes Aircraft I1 100% occupancy 002 Hoag Hospital 000% occupancy ' 003 Far West Savings a Loan 100% occupancy 004 Pacesetter Homes 000% occupancy 005 Aeronutronic Ford 020% occupancy 006 Back Bay Office 040% occupancy 007 Boyle Engineering 100% occupancy ' 008 Cal Canadian Bank 100% occupancy 009 Civic Plaza 035% occupancy O10 Corporate Plaza 030% occupancy Oil Koll Center Newport 000% occupancy 012 MacArthur Court 032% occupancy 013 National Education Office 000% occupancy 014 North Ford 000% occupancy 015 Orchard Office 100% occupancy 016 Pacific Mutual Plaza 100% occupancy ' 017 3701 Birch Office 100% occupancy O18 Newport Place 058% occupancy 019 Shokrian 060% occupancy 020 Bank of Newport 100% occupancy 021 Bayside Square 100% occupancy ' 022 Sea Island 005% occupancy 023 Baywood Apartments 000% occupancy 024 Harbor Point Homes 000% occupancy 025 Roger's Gardens 100% occupancy 026 Seaview Lutheran Plaza 100% occupancy ' 027 Ruby Baron 000% occupancy 028 Quail Business Center 100% occupancy 029 441 Newport Boulevard 100% occupancy 030 Martha's Vineyard 000% occupancy ' 031 Valdez 000% occupancy 032 Coast Business Center 000% occupancy 033 Roll Center Npt No. 1 TPP 000% occupancy 034, See Projects 340 to 343 000% occupancy 035 Ross Mollard 000% occupancy ' 036 Banning/Newport Ranch 000% occupancy 038 Park Lido 000% occupancy 039 Hughes Aircraft A2 100% occupancy 040 Heritage Bank 000% occupancy 041 Flagship Hospital 000% occupancy ' 042 Big Canyon 10 000% occupancy 043 Fun Zone 000% occupancy 044 Marriott Hotel 000% occupancy 045 St. Andrews Church 000% occupancy 046 YMCA 000% occupancy ' 047 Allred Condos 000% occupancy 048 Morgan Development 000% occupancy 049 Four Seasons Hotel 000% occupancy 050 Univ Ath Club TPP 4 Emkay 100% occupancy ' 051 Block 400 Medical 000% occupancy 052 Sheraton Expansion 000% occupancy 053 See Projects 530 to 533 000% occupancy 054 Amend No. 1 MacArthur Court 000% occupancy 055 National Education (RVSD) 000% occupancy III ' 056 Amendment No. 2 Ford Aero 000% occupancy 057 Carver Granville Office 000% occupancy 058 Corona Del Mar Homes 000% occupancy 059 Big Canyon Villa Apts. 000% occupancy 060 1400 Dove Street 000% occupancy ' 061 1100 Quail Street 000% occupancy 062 Heltzer Medical Office 000% occupancy 063 Koll Center TPP Amend. 4A 000% occupancy 064 Villa Point 000% occupancy 065 Rosan's Development 000% occupancy ' 340 Amendment No. 1 Ford Aero 100% occupancy 341 Amendment No. 1 Ford Aero 000% occupancy 342 Amendment No. 1 Ford Aero 000% occupancy 343 Amendment No. 1 Ford Aero 000% occupancy ' 530 Amendment No. 1 North Ford 000% occupancy 531 Amendment No. 1 North Ford 000% occupancy 532 Amendment No. 1 North Ford 000% occupancy 533 Amendment No. 1 North Ford 000% occupancy 1 I 1 25° OQ P 15,° I 1 a i 1 Q�" o SITE 1 ti c sr 1 QR' 1 �6 0 1 � TRAFFIC Q DISTRIBUTION 1 MAC ARTHUR A.0550CIATE3 OR PROJECT a 1 JFF i f 1 1 a130N AVE. 1 15% EXHIBIT 1 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING O rman CONSULTANTS 1 ImmeI and Aasociates,InC. 1 1 1 W Q OJ 1 15 10 1 IO 10 �� GPI► �i 1 15 / 15 q i10 zo c � 1 30 a a � 30 a 1 u 1 1 pp IN P.M.��i6) 1 00 OUT PM.(0/*) 1 F�efman TRAFFIC CONSULTTANTSI"a EXHIBIT 2 ® kimmeI and Assxiates,W c. 1 ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection Bristol St. @ Irvine Av. - Campus Dr. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 84 ' Peak 211 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 10. of Projected Project Direction Peak 211 Hour Growth Peak 24 Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2h Hou Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 2596 12 167' 2775 28 - Soutnbouna 3044 •25 221 3290 33 — Eastbound 8259 34 1575 9868 99 12 — i ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2.1-2 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ' El Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1 DATE: December 4 19E ' PROJECT: MACARTHUR ASSOCIATES 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Bristol St. @ Birch St. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 _ ' Peak 211 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 21s Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2t Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ' . Northbound 427 — , 1 428 4 — Southbound 1019 — 1 1020 10 33 Eastbound 6660 98 1346 8034 80 8 Westbound ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 235 Hour Traffic Volume ' Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of 'Projected ® Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. ' DATE: December 4- , 1984 PROJECT: MACARTSUR ASSOCIATES ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Bristol St. @ Birch St. ' ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1984 E%15T. E%[ST. REGIONAL LolM1TTED PROJECTED EXISTING PROPOSED V/C Ratio PROJECT PROJECT ' Movement PK.HR. V/C GROWTH PROJECT Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. Vol. Ratio Volume Volume w/o Project Volume V/C Ratio Volume NL -- ' NT 1600 170 .1238 _ _ * . 1250 NR 28 ' SL 1600 165 .1031 - 3 .1050* 33 .1256* ST 3200 324 '.1013 1 .1016 .1016 ' SR -- _ EL 285 281 8 ' ET 6400 2450 .4409 10 393 .5478* - .5491* ER 87 W WT -- WR -- ' YELLOWTIME .1000 EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .7678 1 .1 0 0 0* 1 i ' EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. . .10 0 0* EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 89 9 7 © Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Description of system improvement: DATE: 'December 4 , 198• ' PROJECT MACARTHUR ASSOCIATES FORM II 1% Traffic VoluW Analysis 1 Intersection Bristol St. @ Jamboree Rd. 1 (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 Peak 2k Hour Approved 1 Approach Existing Regional Protects Protected 1. of Protected Protect Direction Ptak 211 Hour Growth Peek 2k Hour Peak 2�S Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 211 HoL Volume Volume Volume Volume volume i Volume Northbound 5597 3 732 6332 63 6 Southbound 1 368 2288 23 — 1 Eastbound 5563 23 791 6377 , 64 34 Westbound a Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume 1 Q Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 231 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I .C.U.) Analysis is required. 1 1 i 1 1 1 . 1 1 ' --DATE: December 4, 1989 1 PROJECT: MACARTHUR ASSOCIATES 1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection St. N @ Campus Dr. 1 (Existing Traffic Volumes se on Average winter,15pring 19 _ Peak 2m1 Hour Approved 1 Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 10 of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2% Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2yw Ho volume Volume Volume Volume Volume volume ' Northbound 2581 12 188 2781 28 4 Southbound 4237 34 420 4691 47 — 1 Eastbound — i Westbound 10779 45 1730 .12554 126 33 ! ❑ 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 21l Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1 1 1 1 1 • DATE: December 4 , 198, ! PROJECT: MACARTHUR ASSOCIATES ' 1% Traffic Vol ume• Analysis Intersection Bristol St. (N) @ Birch St. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 Peak 24 Hour Approved -- Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1". of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak Zy Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2$ Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ' Northbound 1107 = 559 1666 17 i 8 SouthbouM 1071 3175 32 66 Eastbound —_ ! _ — Westbound 7971 33 679 8683 87 ? - 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 Q' Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization(I.C.U.) Analysis is required. I , December DATE.. 4 , 198' ' PROJECT: MACARTHUR ASSOCIATES �nnu . 1 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Bristol St. (N) @ Birch St. 1 ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily 'traffic Winter/Spring 1984) EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COMMITTED PROJECTED 1 Movement EXISTING PROPOSED PK.HR. V/C 1 GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ratio PROJECT PROJECT Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. m Vol.Yl Ratio Volume Yoluna w/o Project Vole V/C Ratio Volume NL 1600 136 .0850 — 9 .0906* - .0906* 1 NT 3200 317 .0991 — 85 .1256 8 .1281 NR -- 1 S` ST 1600 341 .2131 _ 53 .2463 33 g69 1 SR 3200 837 .2616 * _ 158 .3109* 33 EL i ET -- ER 1 WL 131 •• — 59 = WT 3160 .5195 * 13 812 .6577* .6577* WR 6400 34 — — 1 YELLOWTINE .1000 EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILiZATlON .9661 1 .1 0 0 0* 7 i 1 EXISTING PUIs c"ITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. .1 0 0 0* EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 11.1696 1 1 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1 ® Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Description of system improvement: 1 Can be explained by the extension of the Corona Del Mar Freeway 1 i DATE: December 4,198 1 PROJECT MACARTHUR ASSOCIATES FO%M IT ' 1% Traffic Volumd Analysis Intersection Bristol St. (N) @ Jamboree Rd. ' (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 4 Peak 24 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected N of Projected Project Direction Peak 2% Hour Growth Peak 23* Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 6523 4 732 7259 73 6 Southbound 3492 2 370 3864 39 — Eastbound _ _ — ( — Westbound 2035 .8 179 P 2222 : 22 — ' a Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ' [] Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. ' DATE: December 4 , 1984 PROJECT: MACARTHUR ASSOCIATES — 1% Traffic Volume`Analysis Intersection Jamboree Rd. @ Eastbluff Dr. (N) ' (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 1 Peak 2� Hour Approved ' Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak 216 Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 24 How Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ? Volume ' Northbound 5126 2 694 5822 58 ! 6 Southbound 4800 2 865 5667 57 17 ' Eastbound I _ 54 567 6 — Westbound ' ® 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 23S Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1 DATE: December 4 , 198� PROJECT: MACARTHUR ASSOCIATES 1% Traffic Volume`Analysis Intersection Jamboree 81. @ Campus Dr. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring Peak 21% Hour Approved ' Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected iS of Projected Project Direction Peak 21, Hour Growth Peak 2% Hour Peak 2's Hour Pak 215 Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 3438 4 792 4234 42 6 southbound 2711 3 552 3266 33 6 ' Eastbound 2020 { - 375 2395 I 24 11 Westbound 1847 87 1934 19 ? - ' ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1 ' DATE: December 4 , 1984 ' PROJECT: MACARTHUR ASSOCIATES 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Jamboree Road @ MacArthur.Boulevard ' (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 84 Peak 2% Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 18 of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 24 Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2y How Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 1710 1 406 2117 21 6 southbound 3674 4 651 4329 43 — ' Eastbound 2167 — 271 2438 24 6 Westbound 3685 — 210 3895 39 — ' * MacArthur is north-south. ' © Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume ' o Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2.11 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.,C.U.) Analysis is required. 1 ' CALCULATED DATE• ' ecember 4 1984 PROJECT: MACARTHUR ASSOCIATES 1% Traffic Volume`Analysis Intersection MacArthur Bl. @ Bison Av. ' (Existing Traffic Volumes base on verage inter/ pring Peak 2� Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional ProjeeLs Projected 1 of Projected Projeet Direction Peak 2h Growth Volume Hour Volume Pe°Yelumeour PeaYo,uymHeour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2�y Hour Volume Volume ' Northbound 4291 5 703 4999 50 6 Southbound 6 770 5733 57 17 Eastbound 1130 _ 98 1228 f 12 - Westbound - 1 ' ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 23S Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2-� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. : December 4 1984 ' PROJECT: MACARTAUR ASSOCIATES 1% Traffic VoluffW Analysis Intersection MacArthur B1. @ Campus Dr. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 _ Peak 2k Hour Approved — Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 10. of Projected Project Direction Peak 211 Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2's Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2� Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ' Northbound I 2406 1 712 3119 31 11 Southbound 2 653 4279 43 10 tj Eastbound 1 61_ I 16 181 2158 , 22 28 Westbound _ 739 3379 34 — ' 2640 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 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: December ..4 , 1984 ' PROJECT: MACARTHUR ASSOCIATES _- ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection MacArthur 81 . @ Campus Dr. ' ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily 'traffic Winter/Spring 19 84) EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COiMITTED PROJECTED EXISTPRECT Movement L+neslCap. La PRMSCap. PK.HR. V/C MOUTH PROJECT w/o Project VoluueeT V/CJRatio ' Vol. Ratio Volume Volume Volume NL 1600 186 .1163 - - .1163* - .1163* ' NT 6400 729 .1139 - 357 .1697 11 .1714 NR 1600 58 1 .0363 _ - 1.0363 - 1 .0363 ' SL 1600 121 .0756 - 64 .1156 - .1156 ST 4800 1001 .2085 1 257 .2623* 10 .2644* ' SR 1600 437 .2731 - 6 .2769 - .2769 EL 1600 3200 263 .1644 17 .1750* 17 .0928* ET 3200 489 1 .1834 4 9 73 .2075 11 .2109 ER 98 WL 1600 108 .. .0675 - - .0675 - .0675 WT 3200 864 .2700 186 .3281* .3281* WR N. 105 -- - 183 - ' YELLOWTIME .1000 EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .8592 1 .1 0 0 0* i ' EXISTING PLUS COMIITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH I.C.U. i * EXISTING PLUS *1TTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. W/PROPOSED IMPROVE- .9016 NMNTS ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' ® Projected plus project traffic F.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Description of system improvement: ' Put in dual left turn lane on eastbound Campus Drive. Will require obtaining additional right-of-way. This improvement ' will bring the resulting project I.C.U. below that of the existing + regional growth committed project I.C.U. DATE: December 4, 198 ' PROJECT MACARTHUR ASSOCIATES FORM II Intersection MacArthur Bl . @ CampusDr. ' ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 19 84) EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL C"ITTED PROJECTED ' Movement EXISTING PROPOSED PK.HR. V/C GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ratio PROJECT PROJECT Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. Vol. Ratio ' Volme Volune w/o Project VOILM V/C Ratio Volume NL 1600 3200 186 .1163 - - .1163* - .0581* ' NT 6400 4800 7E9 .1139 - 357 .1697 11 .2295 NR 1600 58 .0363 - - .0363 - .0363 ' SL 1600 3200 121 .0756 - 64 .1156 - .0578 ST 4800 1001 .2085 1 257 .2623* 10 .2644* SR 1600 437 .2731 - 6 .2769 - .2769 EL 1600 263 1 .1644 17 .1750* 17 .1856* ' ET 3200 489 .1834 4 73 .2075 11 .2109 ER 98 ' WL 1600 108,, .0675 - - .0675 - .0675 WT 3200 864 .2700 186 .3281* 3281* WR N.S. , 105 -- - 183 - ' YELLOWi1NE .1000 - i + + EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .8592 i .1000*1 i ' EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH I.C.U. ffl .10 0 0 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. W/PROPOSED IMPROVE- .9362 MENTS ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' ® Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Description of system improvement: ' Put in dual left turn lanes on MacArthur Boulevard. Will require ramoval of one northbound through lane. ' Estimated cost $20,000 . This improvement will bring the resulting project I.C.U. below that of the existing + regional growth + committed ' project I.C.U. DATE:. December 4 , 1984 ' PROJECT MACARTHUR ASSOCIATES. FORM II 1% Traffic Volume'Analysis Intersection MacArthur Boulevard @ Birch Street (Existing Traffic Volumes based onAverag—e-WTn—t-e—r7Spring-T9-84j— Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2's Hour Growth Peak 2$ Hour Peak 2$ Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 2401 1 347 2749 27 12 Southbound 2679 1 514 3194 32 6 Eastbound 1489 _ 616 2105 ' 21 17 Vestbound 1305 - 1398 2703 27 6 ® 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 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. I I I ' I I I I CALCULATED DATE: December 4 1984 PROJECT: MACARTHUR ASSOCIATES