Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTPO049_NEWPORT JAGUAR TP0049 � iPoo �9 TRAFFIC STUDY for NEWPORT JAGUAR and RUBY'S JAGUAR DINER Prepared for the City of Newport Beach Prepared by DKS Associates � 1 DKS Associates •?t l 4bi •r�drh Jrurr rJ10 6.70•il July 12. 1988 Ms. Patricia Temple Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach. CA 92658-8915 RE: Traffic Study, for Newport Jaguar and Ruby's Jaguar Diner P88092x0 Dear Ms. Temple: We are pleased to resubmit this traffic study for the proposed Jaguar auto- mobile dealership and Ruby's Jaguar Diner to be located along West Coast Highway, adjacent to the existing Newport Imports. The report has been revised to reflect comments received from the City's Traffic Engineer, Mr. Rich Edmonston. We appreciate the opportunity to provide traffic engineering services to the City of Newport Beach. If you have questions. comments. or require additional information. please feel free to call . Sincerely. DKS Associates Catherine Higley Senior Transportation Planner aca 8632.p8092pt2.ltr t 1 ' TRAFFIC STUDY FOR NEWPORT JAGUAR AND RUBY'S JAGUAR DINER Prepared for CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Prepared by DKS ASSOCIATES 411 West Fifth Street Los Angeles. CA 90013 May 9. 1988 Revised July 12. 1988 P88092xO TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 PROJECTDESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 EXISTING PEAK HOUR CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 ESTIMATED PROJECT TRAFFIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 TRIPGENERATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 TRIPDISTRIBUTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 APPROVEDPROJECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 REGIONALGROWTH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 MITIGATIONMEASURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 SITE ACCESS. INTERNAL CIRCULATION •AND PARKING . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 SITE ACCESS AND INTERNAL CIRCULATION . . . . . . . . . 20 SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 21 ' APPENDIX A - INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS APPENDIX B - REVISED TRAFFIC IMPACT REPORT PROPOSED AUTO SALES PROJECT. GREER & COMPANY. JANUARY 13, 1987 APPENDIX C - ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS. WORKSHEETS f i INTRODUCTION The purpose of this study is to assess the traffic-related impacts of proposed development of a Jaguar dealership and Ruby's Diner on the north side of West Coast Highway, west of Riverside Avenue in Newport Beach. The study will address the existing traffic conditions in the area surrounding the proposed project, including the eleven critical intersec- tions identified by the City Traffic Engineer. It will provide an estimate of trip generation and distribution for the proposed development. as well as identify the potential traffic impacts of the project in the context of conditions including other committed development in the area. The study is intended to satisfy the requirements of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance of the City of Newport Beach and includes the necessary analyses of peak period and peak hour traffic flow conditions at critical intersections. On-site circulation and parking provisions wi_11 also be evaluated, as well as the adequacy of site access. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project site is located along the north side of West Coast Highway. west of Riverside Avenue in the area known as Mariners' Mile. At the present time the site is vacant. with previous uses having been recently d and removed in preparation for development of the auto dealer- ship. a P P project. Previous uses location of the proposed shows the loca P P shi Figure 1 h P on the site had included Newport Liquor & Deli. a donut shop, and a trailer park. Proposed development would consist of approximately 35.130 square feet of offices, new car display. parts/retail and service areas that comprise the auto dealership and 3.300 square feet of restaurant space. The restaurant. Ruby' s Jaguar Diner, would provide approximately 80 seats and operate between 7 AM and 9 PM, generally the same hours as the dealership. It is to be located on the second level within the auto dealership. Limited access to the project (right-turn-in/out) is to be provided along Coast Highway. with full access along Avon Street. - i - y DKS Associates �� p�• ss .hw � PROJECT PROJ SITE ywr szao sr �.� moo, J ;... •..,, v�w�er. LOWER NtN/V!T a� Figure 1 LOCATION MAP S EXISTING CONDITIONS Existing land uses surrounding the project site include marine-related uses. retail uses, restaurants and commercial office space. ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS Arterials immediately surrounding and serving the project site include West Coast Highway. Avon Street and Riverside Avenue. To a lesser degree, project traffic would be expected to use Newport Boulevard, Tustin Avenue and Dover Drive. The following provides a brief description of the three arterials surrounding and serving the project. Coast Highway (State Route 1) parallels the coastline throughout the City of Newport Beach. It connects Newport Beach with the coastal cities of Huntington Beach. Seal Beach and Long Beach to the north and Laguna Beach. South Laguna and Dana Point to the south. It serves as an alternative travel route to the I-405 Freeway between the south County and the Irvine/- Newport Beach/John Wayne Airport areas during congested peak hours. 'Within Newport Beach. it is one of two routes, (the other being the Bristol Couplet) around Newport Bay. Because of this, it serves a significant amount of "around the Bay" travel between the eastern and western sections of the City. In the vicinity of the proposed project. Coast Highway consists of three westbound travel lanes and two eastbound travel lanes. Based on traffic count data collected in 1986. Coast Highway in the vicinity of the proposed Project carries approximately 54.000 vehicles per day. During peak summer months, the volume of traffic increases to approximately 64,000 vehicles per day. Riverside Avenue. immediately north of Coast Highway. has two lanes in each direction. North of Avon Street. Riverside Avenue becomes a two-lane roadway. serving the residential areas of Newport Heights. Avon Street is presently a local roadway extending west of Riverside Avenue and east of Riverside to Tustin Avenue. At the present time. it serves as secondary access to development along Riverside Avenue. Most importantly. li very it provides access to the Post Office customers and service/d e v Y vehicles. EXISTING PEAK HOUR CONDITIONS Analysis of peak hourly traffic operating conditions at critical intersections - otential congestioniins the darea isurrounding the cation of ipr posedc fl aproject.nd Eleven s of peritical - 3 - intersections in the vicinity of the proposed project have been identified for analysis by the City's Traffic Engineer. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analyses have been performed for the morning peak hour and the evening peak hour at each of these intersec- tions. The data used in these analyses represent conditions as of Winter/- Spring 1987. Table 1 summarizes the results of these analyses. Review of Table 1 shows that all of the intersections within the vicinity of the proposed project are operating acceptably. with ICU values of 0.90 or better during both peak hours, except the intersection of Coast Highway at Superior Avenue/Balboa Boulevard. During the morning peak hour, this intersection presently operates with a ICU ratio of 0.98. Copies of the ICU worksheets are included in Appendix A of this report. ESTIMATED PROJECT TRAFFIC TRIP GENERATION To assess the impacts of the proposed development on the surrounding cir= culation system, trip-making to/from the proposed project has been esti- mated. Table 2 shows the trip generation rates based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Manual . and approved by the City of Newport Beach •for estimating project trip-making. These rates have been applied to the quantities of land use proposed for the project and the resulting estimate of trip-making attributable to the proposed project is presented in Table 2. Because the restaurant is to be located on the site of the auto dealership. it is expected that there will be some interchange of clientele between the two uses. For example. employees and customers of the dealership would choose to eat at Ruby's rather than driving to a more distant loca- tion. Also. some of Ruby's customers may walk from adjacent or nearby development. These customers are estimated to comprise approximately 20 percent of Ruby's clientele. Therefore, estimated trip-making to/from the restaurant has been reduced by 20 percent. The project is estimated to generate approximately 2.197 average daily trips. Approximately 186 trips are estimated to occur during the morning peak hour and 214 during the evening peak hour. In an earlier traffic study prepared for this site (Greer & Co.. January 13. 1987) trip-making for the previous uses on the site was estimated and subtracted from the estimated trip-making for the proposed project. This provided an estimate of the incremental increase in traffic which would occur with the proposed development. Table 3 shows the estimated trip generation for the previous, uses on the site contained in the earlier traffic study. The study is included as Appendix B of this report. - 4 - 1 � TABLE 1 SUMMARY Of EXISTING (1987) INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSES Existing Conditions ICU Critical Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Coast Highway at: Orange Street 0.57 0.85 Prospect Street 0.60 0.89 Balboa Boulevard/ Superior Avenue 0.98* 0.86 Riverside Avenue 0.76 0.76 Tustin Avenue 0.78 0.63 Dover Drive/ Bayshore Drive 0.65 0.76 Bayside Drive 0.79 0.90 Newport Boulevard at: Via Lido 0.73 0.73 Hospital Road 0.55 0.76 *Indicates that existing operating conditions are less than satisfactory. defined as a ICU greater than 0.90. 8 TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF TRIP GENERATION CHARACTERISTICS Trip Generation Rates AM Pk 2=1/2 llr AM Peak Hour PM Pk 2-1/2 Hr PM Peak Hour Land Use Units Daily In Out In Out In Out In Out Auto Sales 1.000 SF 47.5 3.26 4.5 1.63 2.25 3.96 5.20 1.98 2.60 Hi-Turnover 1.000 SF 200.0 21.20 17..0 10.60 8.50 21.20 18.60 10.60 9.36 Restaurant Estimated Trip Generation AM Pk 2=1/2 Hr. - AM Peak Hour PM Pk 2-1/2 Hr PM Peak Hour Land Use Units Daily In Out - In Out In Out In Out Auto Sales 35.130 SF 1.669 115 158 57 79 139 183 70 91 Hi-Turnover 3.300 SF 660 70 56 35 28 79 61 35 31 Restaurant Less 20% (a) 132 14 11 7 6 14 12 7 6 Subtotal Restaurant 528 56 45 28 22 56 49 28 25 Total 2.197 171 203 , . 85 101 195 232 98 116 (a) It is assumed that some of the people visiting the dealership will also choose .to eat at the on-site restaurant facility and vice-versa. Based on discussions with the 'City Traffic Engineer. this overlap in trip-making would comprise approximately 20 percent of total estimated trip-making. TABLE 3 ESTIMATED TRIPMAKING CHARACTERISTICS OF PRIOR LAND USES Trip Generation AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Use Units Daily In Out Total In Out Total Liquor Store Rate Trips/ 271.4 10.3 10.3 20.6 11.43 11.43 22.86 1.000 SF Trips 3.500 SF 950.0 36.0 36.0 72 40 40 80 Trailer Park Rate Trips/Unit 4.8 0.12 0.34 0.46 0.36 0.23 0.59 trips 25 120.0 3 9 12 9 6 15 Donut Shop Rate Trips/ 164.4 23.75 23.75 51.95 0 0 0 1.000 SF Trips 384 SF 63 9 9 18 0 0 0 Total* 1.135 50 55 105 50 45 95 *Rounded to nearest 5 o Once again, the estimated trip generation for uses previously occupying the site (Table 3) has been subtracted from the total estimated trip generation for the proposed project. Table 4 shows the resulting increment of addi- tional traffic estimated to be generated by the proposed project. The proposed project is expected to result in approximately 1.062 additional average daily trips compared to prior uses on the site. Approximately. 81 additional trips would occur during, the morning peak hour and 119 additional trips during the evening peak hour. TRIP DISTRIBUTION The trip distribution characteristics for the proposed project were esti- mated based on distribution assumptions contained in the previous study for the site and surrounding sites, and on conversations with the City's Traffic Engineer. The most significant feature of the project affecting trip distribution is the inability to provide full access to/from Coast Highway. Project access to/from Coast Highway will be limited to right turn-in/right turn-out only. Full access to/from the site is provided via Riverside Avenue to Avon Street. Figure 2 shows the trip distribution to/from the project site. In general. approximately 50 percent of the project traffic is estimated to be oriented to/from the west along Coast Highway and approximately 38 percent is oriented to/from the east, east of Tustin Avenue. This is consistent with the assumptions used in the previous study for this project site. The trips estimated to be generated by the proposed project have been distributed to the surrounding roadway system based on the trip distribution patterns hour traffic ivolumesealong 2. �road roadways in the vicinity f project-relatedgure 3 shows the resulting the proposed project. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Under the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance. project traffic impacts are estimated and evaluated for -morning and evening peak conditions at critical signalized intersections within the City. as identified by the City's Traffic Engineer. If estimated project traffic for the morning peak 2 inter- section geater/2 hour eth n 1riod r percent the eofnthe existing g Peak 2 2conditi hour i ontraffic volume. plus ects approvedonal but not yet plus estimated edanraffic for Inter ectionoj which Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis is performed. If the additional increment of traffic attri- butable to the proposed project results in or makes worse an ICU value - 8 - �r TABLE 4 ESTIMATED DIFFERENCE IN TRIP GENERATION PRIOR LAND USE VS. PROPOSED PROJECT Trip Generation AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Daily In Out Total In Out Total Proposed Development 2.190 85 101 186 98 116 214 Prior Land Use 1.135 50 55 105 50 45 95 Net Increase in Trips 1.062 35 46 81 48 71 119 /Z I• � DKS Associates as 9�Jo POF j. SC//EM�T/G: NOT 7v SCALE NOSI/ L RIO. f P� 1% x 1% 10%�. �• O(t Arvv res% 45%... <rs;....;: y ry X 80% b i 3g 30% ago F10uro 2 TRIP DISTRIBUTION TO/FROM THE PROJECT''SITE 43 DKS Associates 55 �Jo P°fJ• t Noo`r"o�c is p� Nabob �• .• s yS �: Pik J N yk'Y b � C S � , 1 GEC ` (2Z2) • .4VER44W QA/GY 7*401 C •rC •. ArklIrY -amscowl' •'• �� •'• ^��•'• �rxv . .IM Hri.�K M07./R yoL[Mt0' yY -PM it IK M9K�t►MUM/ Fleur• 3 ESTIMATED 'PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC TO/FROM THE PROJECT �� greater than 0.90. further analysis is required to develop specific miti- gation measures. As discussed previously. the City's Traffic Engineer has identified eleven critical intersections within the City which might be impacted by the proposed se s he been estimatedpand cevaluat dt. cforp1990acts aconditions.t each of as defined tbyntheavCity's Traffic Engineer. This would represent traffic flow condition approximately one year after completion of ,the proposed project. APPROVED PROJECTS To develop estimates of traffic for 1990. the City provides estimates' of , traffic to/from projects which have been approved for future construction but are not yet completed. occupied and generating traffic. This addi- tional traffic is to be added to existing traffic volumes and regional growth to obtain an estimate of cumulative traffic for a desired timeframe. Table 5 is a list of projects which have been approved by the City of Newport Beach for construction but which are not yet completed. occupied and generating traffic. REGIONAL GROWTH The City has developed estimates of the annual rate of growth along region- ally significant arterials within the City. This is because traffic volume along these roadways would be expected to increase not only as a result of additional approved development within the City but also due to additional growth and development in the surrounding region. Within the study area of the proposed project. the following annual growth rates were applied to the existing volume at critical intersections: Coast Highway: Jamboree Road to Newport Boulevard 1% Newport Boulevard to West City Limits 2.5% Newport Boulevard: Coast Highway to North City Limits 1% ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS The estimated morning peak 2-1/2 hour traffic volume and evening peak 2-1/2 hour traffic volume to/from the proposed project have been compared to the , base volume (existing traffic plus regional growth plus approved - 12 - i S" TABLE 5 THE CITY OF NEWP,ORT BEACH TPO APPROVED PROJECTS ('a) Hughes Aircraft #1 Amendment No. 1 MacArthur Court* ' YMCA Amendment No. 2, Ford Aero- •Far West Savings & Loan Carver Granville Office Aeronutronic Ford Corona del Mar Homes Back Bay Office Big Canyon Villa Apartments Boyle Engineering ' 1400 Dove Street Cal Canadian Bank 1100 Quail, Street Civic Plaza Koll Center TPP Amendment 4A , Corporate, Plaza Rosin's ,Development Koll Center Newport ' Block 500 Newport Center MacArthur Court Newport Aquatic Center National Education Office 2600 E. Coast Highway North Ford Jasmine Park Orchard Office Newporter Inn Expansion Pacific Mutual. Plaza Fashion Island Renaissance 3701 Birch Office Crown House Newport Place Corona del Mar Senior Project Bank of Newport Point Del Mar Bayside Square Pacific Club Sea Island Riverside Retail Building Baywood Apartments Newport Seacrest Apartments Harbor Point Homes 20th Street Bed/Breakfast Inn Roger's Gardens $800 Campus Drive Mini Storage Seaview Lutheran Plaza Edwards Newport Center Rudy Baron Seaside Apartments (Mesa II) Quail Business Center Victoria Station Office 441 Newport Boulevard 3760 Campus Drive Mini Storage Martha's Vineyard Newport Imports Valdez • Newport Place Tower Coast Business Center , Fidelity 'Nati'onal Title Koll Center Newport No. 1 TPP Mariners! Mile Marine Center Ross Mollard 15th, Street Apartments Hughes, Aircraft #2 Seaside Apartments III Heritage Bank Newport Bay Retiretnent 'Inn Flagship Hospital Amendment No. 1 Ford ,Aero • Big Canyon 10 Amendment No. 1 North Ford Fun Zone Newport Dunes, Mariott Hotel , Bayview St. Andrews Church City of Irvine Oevelopment Allred Condos University Athletic Club TPP 4 Morgan Development Block 400'• Medical Four Seasons Hotel Sheraton Expansion /G projects' traffic) for 1990 conditions at each of the critical intersec- tions. The estimated peak 2-1/2 hour project volume was greater than 1 percent of the base volume at the following four intersections: Coast Highway at Balboa Avenue/Superior Avenue (AM). Coast Highway at Riverside Avenue (AM. PM) Coast Highway at Tustin Avenue (PM) Coast Highway at Dover Drive/Bayshore Drive (PM) ICU analyses have been performed for 1990 conditions at these intersections. Table 6 summarizes the results of the one percent analysis. The 1 Percent Analysis worksheets are included in Appendix C of this report. INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Table 7 is a summary of the ICU values estimated at the intersections along Coast Highway which fail to satisfy the 1 percent criteria. THE ICU ana- lyses are performed for three conditions: existing conditions. 1990 base conditions (existing traffic plus regional growth plus estimated approved projects' traffic). and 1990 conditions plus the proposed project. Review of Table 7 shows that the intersection of Coast Highway at Balboa Avenue/Superior Avenue is estimated to operate with an ICU value of 1.14 during the morning peak hour in 1990 without the additional traffic attrib- utable to the proposed project. With estimated traffic to/from the proposed project. the morning peak hour ICU value will remain at 1.14. The intersection of Coast Highway at Riverside Avenue is estimated to operate with an ICU value greater than 0.90 during the morning peak hour and at 0.90 during the evening peak hour in 1990 without the additional traffic attributable to the proposed project. With estimated traffic to/from the proposed project. the morning peak hour ICU value is estimated to increase from 0.95 to 0.96. During the evening peak hour. the ICU value is estimated to increase from 0.90 to 0.94. The proposed project is esti- mated to, increase the ICU values at this intersection by 0.01 during the morning peak hour and 0.04 during the evening peak hour. thereby, somewhat worsening peak hour operating conditions. At the intersection of Coast Highway at, Tustin Avenue. the 1990 evening peak hour ICU value is estimated to be 0.76. With the addition of traffic to/from the proposed project. the ICU value at this intersection is esti- mated to increase to 0.77. well within acceptable peak hour operating 1'evels for the intersection. The addition of project traffic at the intersection of Coast Highway at Dover Drive/Bayshore Drive. is estimated to increase the evening peak hour - 14 - L TABLE 6 SUMMARY OF 1 PERCENT ANALYSIS Does Project Traffic Constitute Less Than 1% of Peak 2.5 Hour Volume? Critical Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Coast Highway at: Orange Street Yes Yes Prospect Street Yes Yes Balboa Boulevard/ Superior Avenue Yes Yes Riverside Avenue No No Tustin Avenue Yes No Dover Drive/ Bayshore Drive Yes No Bayside Drive Yes Yes Newport Boulevard at: Via Lido Yes Yes Hospital Road Yes Yes r TABLE 7 SUMMARY OF 1990 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSES 1990 1990 Background Existing Background Plus Project Intersection AM PM AM PM AM PM Coast Highway at: Balboa Boulevard/ 0.98 N/A (a) 1.14 N/A 1.14 N/A Superior Avenue Riverside Avenue 0.76 0.76 0.95 0.90 0.96 0.94 Tustin Avenue N/A 0.63 N/A 0.76 N/A 0.77 Bayshore Drive/ N/A 0.76 N/A 0.88 N/A 0.89 Dover Drive (a) N/A - Project traffic was not equal to or greater than one percent of peak period traffic. therefore ICU analysis in not necessary. i9 ICU ratio at this intersection from 0.88 to 0.89. This is within acceptable levels of operation. In summary. estimated traffic to/from the proposed project is not expected to change the estimated morning peak hour ICU ratio at the intersection of Coast Highway and Balboa Avenue/Superior Avenue. At the intersections of Coast Highway at Tustin Avenue and at Dover Drive/Bayshore Drive. project traffic is expected to increase the evening peak hour ICU ratios at each of these intersections by 0.01. However. both intersections are expected to operate within acceptable levels (ICU value less than 0.90) with traffic to/from the proposed project. At the intersection of Coast Highway at Riverside Avenue. traffic to/from the proposed project is expected to increase the ICU ratios by 0.01 during the morning peak hour and 0.04 during the evening peak hour. This intersec- tion is forecast to operate with ICU values at or in excess of 0.90 in 1990 without the proposed project. With the proposed project, mitigation is necessary to prevent further deterioration of peak hour operating condi- tions at this intersection. MITIGATION MEASURES Improvements would be necessary at Coast Highway and Riverside Avenue to alleviate the impacts of the proposed project. and to attain desirable operating conditions (ICU values less than 0.90) during each of the peak hours, assuming projected 1990 traffic demand. The addition of a third eastbound through lane at this intersection will improve operating conditions during the morning peak hour at this inter- section and reduce the morning peak hour ICU value (including estimated project traffic) to 6.74. This is based on using 70 percent of the capacity of the added lane. as prescribed in the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. However, this improvement will not alleviate the evening peak hour deficiency. The addition of a second eastbound left turn lane would reduce the evening peak hour ICU value to 0.85. figure 4 depicts the two improvements to Coast Highway at Riverside Avenue. Table 8 summarizes the ICU analysis for the intersection of Coast Highway at Riverside Avenue with and without mitigation. These improvements would require procurement of additional right-of-way. The ability to obtain additional right-of-way is severely constrained by existing development along Coast Highway. Therefore. these improvements may not be feasible within the timeframe of this project. Opportunities to implement a limited improvement project. adding the second eastbound left-turn lane. have been examined. While the additional left- 17 - Pd DKS Associates I I v NOT 70 3cA[E 1 V 1 I I I \ 1 C40044ST i H/Gf1lY.QY R .— -did- --- -----_:{_: LEGEND —*► � EXIST/NG --t:► ■its!/�-iG.IT/O.V Figure 4 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS TO COAST HIGHWAY AT RIVERSIDE AVENUE a� TABLE 8 SUMMARY Of 1990 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSES 1990 1990 Background Existing Background Plus Project Intersection AM PM AM PM AM PM With Existing Intersection Configuration: Coast Highway at: Riverside Avenue 0.76 0.76 0.95 0.90 0.96 0.94 With Mitigation (a): Coast Highway at: Riverside Avenue N/A N/A 0.73 0.81 0.74 0.85 a� turn lane is necessary to accommodate traffic demand and may be physically possible to implement. it -would not significantly improve the level of operation at this intersection. It would also be necessary to provide the additional eastbound through lane. SITE ACCESS. INTERNAL CIRCULATION AND PARKING SITE ACCESS AND INTERNAL CIRCULATION Limited project access is to be provided along Coast Highway ,(right-turn- in/out) and full access will be provided along• Avon Street. In general , vehicular circulation through the project is not encouraged. Porters will be employed to take entering vehicles to the appropriate area (customer parking. service parking. service stalls) -and to 'return them to their owners at the appropriate, time: in the proximity of an exit drive. Within the site. interim stacking area for approximately 30 vehicles is provided. Since vehicle service is performed by pre-scheduled appointmen"t"s With a service area capacity of '29 stall-s. it is estimated that the 30 vehicle "stack up" space provided would be adequate to accommodate the . typical morning service demand without vehicles queuing onto adjacent arterials. The ramp providing parking structure ingress/egress is approxi- mately 17 feet wide. This would be adequate to accommodate the dealership- related vehicles, parked by porters. However. with the addition of restaurant facilities on-site. it 'i's estimated that parking turnover will be greater and the number of vehicles entering and leaving the site will increase. With the addition of restaurant uses. parking structure access should be improved to more readily accommodate, two-way traffic. vehicles entering and vehicles exiting the structure simultaneously. There will be a limited number of self-parking (approximately 12 spaces) provided at the front of the site for customers who intend to stop only for a short time. Overall . the access provisions for the project appear adequate to accom- modate the estimated levels of trip-making. The dominant demand' will, be outbound during the, evening peak hour. at which time approximately 116 vehi- cles are estimated to exit the site. The use of porters will actually have the effect of "metering" the discharge from the site. Parking The City's Zoning Code does not provide a parking. rate expressly for, auto dealerships. The requirement for retail uses is 1 parking space per 250 square feet of gross floor area. The parking requirement for restaurants is 1 space per 40 square fleet of net public area. Assuming that approxi- mately 60 percent of the restaurant is public space (approximately 1..980 - 20 - �3 square feet). 50 parking spaces would be required. An additional 141 spaces would be necessary for the auto dealership-related uses, for a total parking requirement of 191 spaces. As proposed, the project would include 193 parking spaces. The majority of the parking would be provided in a parking structure. Approximately 12 parking stalls would be located near the front of the site for the conven- ience of people stopping for only a short time. The total amount of parking proposed for the project appears to be consistent with the City's parking standards. SUMMARY 6 The proposed project is to consist of approximately 35,130 square feet auto dealership-related uses and 3.300 square feet of restaurant space. Parking is to be provided (92 stalls) by a two level parking structure. and in an amount consistent with the requirements of the City's Zoning Code. limited access (right-turn-in/out) to/from the project i.s to be provided along Coast Highway with full access provided along Avon Street. o The project is estimated to generate approximately 2.197 average daily trips. Approximately 186 trips are estimated to occur during the morning peak hour and 214 trips are estimated to occur during the evening .peak hour. o At the time of the initial traffic analysis for the site, there was existing development on the site and generating traffic. Therefore. analysis of the proposed project addresses only the increment of addi- tional traffic compared to existing uses on the site estimated to occur with proposed development. The proposed project is expected to result In approximately 1.062 additional average daily trips. Approximately 81 additional morning peak hour trips and 119 additional evening peak hour trips are estimated to occur with the proposed project. o The 1 Percent Analysis was performed for the eleven critical inter- sections in the vicinity of the project. as identified by the City's Traffic Engineer. Project traffic is estimated to exceed 1 percent of the base traffic volume (existing traffic plus regional growth plus approved projects traffic) at four intersections along Coast Highway:, at Balboa Avenue/Superior Avenue (AM) at Riverside Avenue (AM. PM) at Tustin Avenue (PM) at Dover 'Drive/Bayshore Drive (PM) - 21 - a� o Based on the results of ICU analyses. only the intersection of Coast Highway at Riverside Avenue fails to meet TPO requirements. The inter- section operates at 0.95 during the morning peak hour and 0.90 during the evening peak hour in 1990 without the project. The project increases the morning and evening ICU values by 0.01 and 0.04 respectively. o The mitigation measures necessary to improve operations at the inter- section of Coast Highway and Riverside Avenue do not appear to be feas- Ible within the timeframe of the proposed project. This is because additional right-of-way along Coast Highway would be necessary to permit widening of the roadway to provide an additional eastbound left turn lane and an additional eastbound through lane. Existing development along Coast Highway makes right-of-way procurement difficult and costly. 8632.p8076rub.rpt - 22 - VS. APPENDIX A INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS . Y CH2630AN INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY & RIVERSIDE AVENUE 2630 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1987 AM ---------------------------------------------- ------------------------- _----_---_-- ---- I EXISTING PROPOSEDI EXISTING EXISTING REGIONAII COMMITTEDI PROJECTED I PROJEC71 PROJECTI [ Movementl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR i V/C ( GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I I Capacityl Capacity] Volume i Ratio 1 Volume I Volume I w/o Proojectl i Ratio volume I I I I I I 1 I I ---------------------------------6----------'--------I-------------------------------------I i NL I I 9 1 1' 1 1 I --------} ------------------) -----------------------------------------------I i NT 1600 1 1 0 .00 I i 2 I .02 1 1 I ------------------} -----------------------------------------------I I NR 1 1 2 I 1 7 1 1 1 I ----- -- ------- -------- ----- ------- ---------'--------I .06---- ---' I, .0---- -- SL I [ I 89 ( 12 1 [ ---------------------------------o------------------ --------------- - -------------------I I ST I I I - 7 1 1 1 .21 I 1600 ------------------} 0.20 1 ----------------------------------------------' SR [ 1 323 1 1 12 1 I 1 __ ---EL--1---1600 1 --------'----400 1 0.2s�--------1---12---1---=.26---1 18----1`-27 I -----------------------------------------------------I------------- --i I ET 1 1 2201 1 44 469 [ .86* ( I .86* I , 1 --------} 3200 ----—------------} 0.69 "----^`---=- -----=--------------- --------li I ER 1 1 7 33 --- - 1 I [ ---------- 1 I I ---------- ---------------- -------------- -- ---------- ( i I 1600 1 1 18 1 -- 0.01 " I 27 I .03* i I .03* -- I 1 ( ----- ----------------------------- ------------------------------ -- ------ --.35 -- - -- --I WT i 4800 1 1 ' 1362 1 0.28 1 27 1 285 1 _-_---_--- 12 1 i -------------------------------------------------- --- -------1' i WR [ 16001 1 571 0.041 1 1 1 .04 1 2 1 .04 i -------------------------------------------------------I ( EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.76 1 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C-U- 1 .95 1 I 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [ EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. ---------_ I I ------------------------------------------------------------ ------- [ J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 [ J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 [ J Projected + project traffic I.C.II. with project impr ovements will less than I.C.U. without project be 1 P ___ Description of system improvement: 1 NEWPORT JAGUAR PROJECT FORM,II CH2630AN J1 CHIS55AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY & BALBOA BOULEVARD/SUPERIOR AVENUE 1855 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1987AN --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I IEXISTING PROPOSEDIEXISTINGI EXISTIN4 REGIONAL COMMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECII I Movementl Lanes I Lanes i PK MR I V/C I' GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio 1 Volume I V/C I I Capacityl Capacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Projectl I Ratio I I I • I I I I 1 I volume I I I I -----------------------------=-------------------------------------------------------------I I NL ) I 1 291 } 1 1 3 1 ------_--- 1 _____ 1 _ I NT 4800 1 —_______I___-434 } 0.19 M____-___1____2___I .19* 1 __-_-^1__19* 1 I --------- ------------------- -------------------------------- --I I NR } 1 1 175 } 1 1 0 d 1 1 1 ---SL--I---1600'--------'----252 I---0.16 --M------ I----�----I----.16* --�---1-- _`16*I I --^ST--I---3200 1 1 136 1-----^-- ---- ---0.014 1 1 2-_------ ---- ---I 04 -1 ____-_1_.04 -�— I I --------------- -------------------—----------------- i SR 1 32001 1 3281 0.10 1 1 4 1 .10 • I 1 .10 I ' ---ST I 1 I 0.31 I 1--'------- -------- ------- --- - -------- ----- ---1 ---- -- ---'-------I- -- 1 11 --ET--'---3200 I _-------I ---1940-1 ---0.61 " 9 8 ----I --417 ---I ----.7 7* --I-9----1 -.7 7* I -_-SR--I--'1600 1 --------------- ---0.13 1 --------1 ----0 ---I ----.13'---I ----- I .13 t •I•---� - 1 ------- 1 --------I -----34-I ---0.o2-M--------I----o ---�----.0 2*--'-i----�--0 2*I --- -----------'--------I-----------------629 I-3 2----'----8 ---I----� - ---I 12 21 -------- 4800 ---------------- } 0.16 --------------------------------- 2---I-- - -- wR I1 1 1 152 I 1 1 1 ----- 1 1 1 IEXISTING I-C.U-----------------------'---_ _0.98 I ------------------------ =-------------j I --------------------------------------------—------------------------------ [EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 1 .14 I 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------- I EXISTING + COMMITTED• + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I 1 .14- 1 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1 J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 j 1 � Pro ected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 I J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Description of system improvement: NEWPORT JAGUAR PROJECT FORM CHIS55AN CH2635PH INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY & TUSTIN AVENUE 2635 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC ' WINTER/SPRING 1987 PM ------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------- I EXISTING PROPOSEDI EXISTING EXISTING REGIONAL( COMMITTED( PROJECTED I PROJECTI PROJECTI I Movementl Lanes I Lanes I PE HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C 1' I Capacityl Capacityl Volume i Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project) I Ratio I I I I I I I I I volume I i I -------------------------- --------5 I 1 ----1 0—--1 ----------------1 ----- -- 1�1'---} 1600 1 ------- 1 ------3 } 0.01 1 1 6 1 .01 1 1 .01 1 I -------} -----------------} -----------------------------------------------I I NR 1 1 2 1 1 O 1 1 1 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------=--------------------I I SL 1 1 78 1 1 4 1 I 1 1 I -------} ------------------} -----------------------------------------------I 1 ST 16001 1 2 0.08 • 1 8 1 .08* 1 1 .08* I 1 -------) ------------------} -----------------------------------------------i I SR 1 1 40 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i I -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------! 1 EL 1 1600 1 1 781 0.05 * 1 5 1 .05 1 1 1 1 ' -- - --------- ---------------- -- 1 3 4 1 4------- -- --- - -- ---' 6 8*' I 27 - 11684 i :6 9 1 -------} 3200 ------------------} 0.53 -----------------------------------------------I I ER I 1 1 1 1 0 I I I I �• " I --------------- WL I I I 0 1 1 1 0 1 I 1 I --------------------—--------------------------------------------------------------------! I WT 1 48001 1 2423 1 0.5o * 48 1 499 1 .62 1 18 1 .62 I -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I 1 WR 1 16001 1 1071 I 1 8 1 1 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------i ( EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.63 1 ! --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ( EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 .76 1 1 ___--------------------------------------------------------------------___________ - -- I( EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. ' ---------------------------------------------------------------=---------------------------- lg? Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1 .J Projected + project traffic I.C.Q. will be greater than 0.90 1 .J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 • I .J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.Q. without project ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Description of system improvement: NEWPORT JAGUAR PROJECT FORM II CH2635PH .2 CH263OPM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY & RIVERSIDE AVENUE 2630 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1987 PM ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- I I EXISTING( PROPOSEDI EXISTING) EXISTING REGIONALI COMMITTEDI PROJECTED 1.PROJECT PROJECT I Movement) Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH'1 PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I Capacityl Capacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Projectl 1 Ratio I 1 I I I I I I I Volume I I i i ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -I ------------------- I NL I I 12 I I 0 1 I I I I --------} -------=----------} --------------------------------_------- -----I NT 1600 1 ( 2 0.02 1, I• I ,0.2 1 I -------} ------------------) ----------------------- ------------ - ------=-I I -1 — ---------- - . 0 ^ :�--- -- ----1 ------- - ------- -- - St 71 22 0'6* I • :28' 1 .;08*II. i ----=---) 1600 ------------------•3 . 0.05 "«------------------ ---_-------- . ------------I ST i I $ I, i .01 I 1 1 1 ( ----------------------------r---r-------------- --------------=L----- -----) J SR 1 16001 .1 438 .1 . 0427 '1 1 9 1 .28 1 4 .2'8 1 I --------------------------- --------- -------------------------------------------------{• I EL 1 .1600. 1 1 112 1' 0.20*1 1' 24 1 .21* 1 24 1 , ..23* 1 '. I --~~--------------=------- ----=-----=-------------------------------------=---------------1 1 ET 1 f 1815 1 36 1 452 , 1 .12 1• I .72 1 I --^-----} 3200 ------ -----} 0.57 ---- ---------------------------. ------ -----I 16 �•� --- --'------- ---- ,,----4 --------- --------'---0 �---- ' _ _- ----- I 1, 0 - .03 ) I --------------------- ------------------------------I 1 WT I 4800 1 1 2467 1 0.511 5,0 .1 510 1 .6 3* 1 • 19 1 :6 3* 1, I ---------------------- ----------------------------- i 1 WR 1 1600, 1 i 69 1. 0.04 1 1 1- 1 .•04, 'I 2 1 .0'4 -------- ----------------^-----^-- -- -----'----------------------- 1 I.C.U.L C- ' ----- ----------- 0.76 i ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED: W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS' I.C.U. -1 0 .90 I I 1,------------------------------------------ ------=----------------------------------------- 1EXISTING + COMMITTED '+ REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I • 1 0 ,94 I -----------=------------------- ------ IJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be,less than or equal to 0.90 1 J Projected + project traffic I.C.II. will be greater than 0.90 1 J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 IJ Projected + ,project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project ----------------------^ ------------------------------------------------ --------- Description of system. improvement: NEWPORT JAGUAR PROJECT FORM II CH2630PM CH3060PH INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY & DOVER DRIVE/BAYSHORE DRIVE 3060 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1987 PM ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- I I EXISTING PROPOSEDI EXISTING EXISTING REGIONAL( COMMITTED( PROJECTED i PROJECTI PROJECTI Movement) Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I volume I V/C I I I Capacityl Capacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Projectl ( Ratio I I I 1 I I I I I volume I i I I ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -----o------ -- --i 1 NL 1 16001 1 241 0.021 1 0 I ( 1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------i 1 NT 1 1 44 1 11 0 1 .02* 1 1 .02* I I --------} 3200 ------------------} 0.02 «----------------------------------------------I 1 MR 1 1 26 I 1 6 1 1 1 1 I ---------------------------------------------------------------I-----------'-------I------ i SL 1 48001 1 1011 1 0.21 30 .22* .22* I ----------—-------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I ST 1 1600 1 ------- 1 84 1 0.05 1 ------- 1 0 1 .05 1 . 1 .05 I I ------------------ ------------------ -------------------------------------I I SR 1 1600 1 l 130 1 0:08 1 1 8 1 .09 1 2 1 .09 I -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------i I EL 1 3200 1 1 113 1 0.04 * 1 13 1 .04* 1 4 1 .04* I I ----------------------------------------------------------=--------------------------------I I ET 1 1 1448 1 29 1 452 1 .41 1 21 1 .41 '1 1 --------} 4800 ------------------}' O.Si -----------------------------------------------i i -- 1 27 I I 2 I ---------- I I wL I 1600 i l 30 I 0.02 1 1 o I .02 I I .02 I --- -- --- -------- --- - --- - --- -- --- ---- --'i 9----'- --1 � I 4800 I I 2336 I 0.49 » 46 I 513 1 .6 0* .G 1* ( -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I WR I N.S'. 1 1 1049 1 1 1 43 - 1 ---------- I I I I -----------------------------------I--------I---------------- ---------------I 1 EXISTING I.C.U. ---------------- 0.76-- ( EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 .88 ( I 1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - -- ( EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I IXJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I J Projected + project traffic I.C.U�. .w/systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 I J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- f Description of system improvement: NEWPORT JAGUAR PROJECT FORM I APPENDIX B REVISED TRAFFIC IMPACT REPORT PROPOSED AUTO SALES PROJECT GREER 5 COMPANY JANUARY 13, 1987 3� REVISED TRAFFIC IMPACT REPORT PROPOSED AUTO SALES PROJECT 3000 West Coast Highway, Mariners Mile f" L U Prepared for the I. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ul " rY t, JANUARY 13, 1987 00 ENGINEERS & PLANNERS a3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 TRIP GENERATION 3 Trip Generation — Project 3 Trip Generation Credits 4 — Net Trip Generation 6 TRIP DISTRIBUTION Peak 2.5 Hour Volumes 8. INTERSECTION ANALYSES 10 ON—SITE CIRCULATION 13 (1 CONCLUSIONS 14 t APPENDIX 4 3q l PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed auto sales site is located on the north side of Coast Highway between Newport Boulevard and Riverside Avenue. The site currently has a vacated building that had been occupied by Newport Liquor & Deli, a donut shop, and a trailer park. The proposed development will include a mixture of office, new car display, parts/retail and service areas. The site is within the "Mariner's Mile" study area of Newport Beach and is shown in the attached regional location map, Figure 1. This general study area extends along Coast Highway between Newport Boulevard on the west to approximately 1,500 feet east of Tustin Avenue on the east. Access to the proposed auto dealership is from West Coast Highway and Avon. lCoast Highway is a regional east—west arterial through the City of Newport Beach. The north—south regional access to the study area is from Newport Boulevard (SR-55), which connects to several freeways to the north i providing access to Orange County and beyond. Southerly of Coast Highway, Newport Boulevard enters the Balboa area where the highway becomes Balboa Boulevard and terminates within the peninsula area. 1 �� •.'rh p, MWLL " J yaa,t r II x xM1, n- ��A•1�{1' f�wssoxa t{ i�r LL L•I a��k wp•' ��• •� .�I. i�.�i a6ft�• I 7{ CAW 1ib ', L':(Yilrar ra+ 7 aE C y t; 9•L L �Y�SIx�'t•I�,• � L4. e ess ;� x s PYEE+r97+'�} n I1 �3w'b:' .J�'••`•+ 'Y Jrn a Env[ixon n ((t T,•;y, .,,nn,,. I i• . gr: :Yi �'lia }; �.f a•i ma 1 I Yrv.� ' r t/,.,. r~ir r A rtw i t x L � °W~p�1rMw«w 34p �. a,J/�r: a� "•I «i �rl•t � 3 d� R A iAN_:�a. �A jn R! .81 r fy 4 6 p '/' .+4.•L i�ry,"1,1 7�.IP-1�rL�dx ST �J i XaxllIDx. I �y Y � m.n � t �cy x ii �i> m.__. NEW[L R . � ✓< . Y.. y r ti r�� Ff{ .�{Y,�', i �n:i .�aror u E ` A :'Ab d ear sr O E k ur r t`o� •r�+df`_'T '.�i m� M fib•[,�n�i •�( A� p�!J •: i s r[ � [n" < �• h.l I iL S A 11 y{III T I]nEIS IT : 4 +y j r•� LHafArrx _ _..,gaai '�• w t'i`lIL � �. }' � r iL {}�95P!' �O a '•c \\ s ��.� /��•• tan aM. �r `vl ri 'by+!r ,ly J ,�1 iF�. l .uM � .. - t � " R 8 r f►/� 9 t�d'a r • � !•.,,,•.•y,f•, _/ .....�. 'r &I u q1 [ at win oR . 'ielr: r ♦y r S �A. • !- t i mr%er fdS QdierY 7 dlrarr—?-85T�I(a ] xiii• l4 JP?4 Or` + ` �� U'r� t f i..n""v:nii£r •f MMatT WI a t I Li af7tgpoR yam' hS• 'e1V y y!' I.Y+IYM fr � nnnax� t[axRifyp \4� rr rF A • •)r r / u�'�i�n � iT^ 8 � t � � i•rl ayi ` I rf J.4 �+ D a n'vie«r'e�.n � MwYyLU � tuiw sti 'fti ^ �t'}',ty/��" 'S1r +Y_yrr M�fy ! ,p yi ae Aya N Ina ^ I E• pi4q Yq s �P ry y. ` �+ !{y rTj• '+�•A 1.• ryL" S y rr ` T nl ��"r.•a3.ri ar E iTY Sr f y ' � .r}C1 RP n� j�(Y]'j e Y y�c T d I it yrA ,pi � �i •aYRrrr 1P 4rR. �tr r,°4a ,� "^' • r'b'• , Hwy Lj+.,\y ��Lr I� «r �:r••Ywig fix'+` 4 ' 'Y'+ A.t/ r'0� i'd..,." A d� 4�• xf �'. �fi;P,511'yr°`. � �' P rV" af,Jw. t • Mr a 4 S'S•T'�';- � •/Y• ' rr M T? j xigpn+l �k^ ^4 F".r ! µ �. F�/ •w3i C• k"� hM{!. I ✓•� raM"y°�fi�, � r �1�wt�r�' ���� r c.. r "•dc+owrR, t. • *y�4 ♦ R r r l'.�"�, %+"!\ ��. •�;li + ,"sje•'rySMn .r;"y',•� "• 'ry,. . !�F'',p; y". •� . to \0 \f �� r r"r«' r � 'V� �•. ' e,lP•���a\' .� ��'1 r.,rl f ;l' ,R*l e�,\�' g1.wa 1 ��,�i 'Yr"nrr +',,`^'q`• �P k r ruM `/�++Y Epyggn —r•«___1{ P • m • u��.."'�ril � M1TY'" rtrYn"h.l hrL.a l;f-�R\R�"+ GY pI Y.w '��dr' \ rr ry��r �• a `rwaumr+xx��r y` ``P } r L •� vMxl{tN wd FIGURE REGIONAL LOCATION MAP r� a NEWPORT BEACH AUTO SALES PROJECT 1 ualpitxle RLxNMlots t TRIP GENERATION 1' TRIP GENERATION — PROJECT Daily a.m. and p.m. peak hour trip generation rates used for this project analysis are identified in Table 1. These trip generation rates for the proposed development were obtained from thgN Institute of Transportation In Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. The proposed development ® would generate 1,825 daily trips. A.M. and p.m. peak hour trips would be 150 and 175, respectively. TABLE 1 TRIP GENERATION RATES — AUTO SALES Newport Beach Auto Sales Project Trio Generation i A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peek Hour Use Units De11y _n gut ote n ut ota Retail Auto Sales per 1,000 sq.ft. 47.5 1.63 2.26 3.88 1.98 2.60 458 Trips 38.427 sq.ft. 1,825 65 85 150 75 1D0 175 Source: Trip Generation, An Informational Report, Institute of Transpor— tation Engineers, Third Edition, 1982; Greer & Co., Engineers and Planners. 3 37 TRIP GENERATION CREDITS Prior to the proposed auto sales development, the existing land uses for the parcel included the 3,500 square foot Newport Liquor & Deli store, a 384 square foot donut shop and a 25—unit trailer park. All of the above businesses have currently vacated the site. However, the base traffic data included traffic generated from those prior land uses. Trip generation rates for the trailer park and donut shop were obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE). Trip Generation Manual for use towards trip credit for the proposed new land use. Acquiring trip generation rates for the Newport Liquor & Deli store was more involved. The ITE Trip Generation Manual for convenience stores open between 15 to 16 hours daily estimates a daily trip generation rate of 322.6 trips per 1,000 square feet. A.M. and p.m. peak hour rates are not available for the above use in the Trip Generation Manual. However, based on a similar ratio for peak hour volumes to daily volumes as for a 24—hour convenience store where a.m. and p.m, trip generation data are available, an a.m. and p.m. peak hour trip rate of 28.27 and 24.09 trips, respectively, are expected. This translates into a daily generation of 1,130 trips of which 99 and 84 occur during the a.m, and p.m. peak hour, respectively, for a 3,500 square foot store. E The primary customer parking for the Newport Liquor & Deli store was i on—street. The unavailability of off—street parking can significantly reduce the attractiveness of a traffic generator and lead to a corres— ponding decrease in the trip generation. In order to determine the significance of on—street parking in relation to trip generation, an empirical study was conducted at a comparable liquor establishment during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. A liquor store was selected in Corona del Mar with similar adjacent strip commercial land use and primary on—street * parking for customers. Greer & Co. conducted an a.m. and p.m, peak hour data collection at Korker Liquors at 2229 East Coast Highway, Corona del Mar, in the City of Newport I Beach, on Thursday, August 7, 1986. Although minimal off—street parking was available for customers, only the on—street parking component of the trip generation was included in the count. Korker Liquors is approximately 2,700 square feet. During the a.m. peak hour between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m., the trip generation at the liquor store was 102 trips (includes trips in and out) with a peak of 58 trips between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. Between 4:00' p.m, and 6:00 p.m., the trip generation was 112 trips, peaking at 62 trips between 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. 4 38 A summary of the trip generation for Korker Liquor and the estimated trip generation for the vacated Newport Beach Liquor & Deli are shown in Table 2. The results estimate that the vacated Newport Beach Liquor & Dell generated approximately 950 trips daily, of which 72 trips were generated during the a.m. peak hour and 80 trips were generated during the p.m. peak hour. These empirical results are approximately 15 percent less than the ITE Trip Generation rates and may be a result of the limited off—street parking supply. TABLE 2 TRIP GENERATION RATES — LIQUOR STORE Newport Beach Auto Sales Project i Trip Generation L, A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Use Units Daily In Out tal Tn--- u—t 'Total [+ Liquor Store (� Korker t! Liquor 2,700 sq.ft. 735 29 29 58 31 31 62 I Newport Liquor 3,500 sq.ft. 950 36 36 72 40 40 80 Source: Greer & Co., Engineers and Planners. r I, 5 3y Table 3 shows the individual and cumulative trip credits towards the proposed new land use. In summary, during the morning peak hour 105 trips are generated while 95 trips are generated during the p.m. peak hour, The trip distribution is approximately 52 to 48 in favor of egress during the a.m. peak hour with a similar reversal during the p.m. peak hour. TABLE 3 TRIP GENERATION RATES — CURRENT LAND USE Newport Beach Auto Sales Project Trio Generation A. Peek Hour P.M Peak Hour Use Units Oa11v —In L6_t To[af �lntotal Liquor Store Rate 1.0000isq.ft. 271.4 10.3 10.3 20.6 11.43 11.43 22.86 Trips 3.500 sq.ft. 950 36 36 72 40 40 80 Trailer Park Rate Trips/Unit 4.8 0.12 0.34 0.46 0.36 0.23 0.69 rr Trips 25 120 3 9 12 9 6 15 Donut Shop IRate 1,ODOisq/ft. 164.4 23.75 23.75 51.95 0 0 0 Trips 384 sq. ft. 63 9 9 18 0 0 0 ToUI* 1,135 50 55 105 50 45 96 r *rounded to nearest 5 I ' Source: Greer & Co., Engineers and Planners. i NET TRIP GENERATION Table ' 4 compares the trip credits versus the trip generation of the proposed project. The results show an approximate 60 percent increase in the trip generation of the prior land use with respect to the proposed land use. The proposed project would generate 690 daily trips in excess of the existing land use of which 45 and 80 are during the a.m. and p.m. peak hour, respectively. 6 �o TABLE 4 TRIP GENERATION — NET Newport Beach Auto Sales Project Trip Generation A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Land Use Daily In Out 'Total In Out To al Proposed Development 1,825 65 85 150 75 100 175 Prior Land Use 1,135 50 55 105 50 45 95 Net Increase in Trips* 690 15 30 45 25 55 80 I *rounded to nearest 5 Source: Greer & Co. , Engineers, and Planners. l.• 7 yi [ TRIP DISTRIBUTION The net trip generation was factored to obtain a peak 2.5 hour volume for the a.m. and p.m. peak hour periods. The proposed development is bounded by Avon and Coast Highway to the north and south, respectively. A customer entrance is located on each street with the primary customer entrance off of Coast Highway. Vehicles on—site would have the option of (Q exiting on Avon or on Coast Highway. Discussions with City staff 1111 indicated the desirability of prohibiting left turns out of the driveway on Coast Highway. As such, the majority of westbound traffic originating ron—site are expected to exit on Coast Highway. The remainder, primarily !, northbound and eastbound traffic, would exit on Avon. The net trips were distributed on the street system in accordance with the 1 above criteria. The general trip distribution is shown in Figure 2. PEAK 2.5 HOUR VOLUMES The peak 2.5 hour volumes which were distributed as outlined above were based on an established City methodology. The City of Newport Beach estimates a peak 2.5 hour factor to account for the extension of the usual one—hour peak period. This factor is estimated to be approximately twice the general peak hour volumes. B �fZ O h Ay Q ON PROJECT SITE`** ,�• �" w, co �/ h a°q, AS osp e ao� y H,p1 yAl y �V A SON Q A$p o Q JA m° =f c 3 ao''sr V 'FIGURE a TYPICAL TRIP DISTRIBUTION y NEWPORT BEACH AUTO SALES PROJECT tnax�u���K�Nxcllf f�3 INTERSECTION .ANAL YSES (i The City of Newport Beach identified eight intersections for analysis to determine the impact of the proposed development. These intersections are: Pacific Coast Highway Orange Pacific Coast Highway/Prospect WW Pacific Coast Highway/Balboa—Superior Pacific Coast Highway/Riverside Pacific Coast Highway/Tustin Pacific Coast Highway/Dover—Bayshore Newport Boulevard/Via Lido I Newport Boulevard/Hospital Road The 1986 peak 2.5 hour volumes as discussed in the previous section were provided for each intersection by the City staff. Since the project is expected to be completed in 1987, the ambient growth rate for regional arterials was applied to the existing 1986 volumes to reflect 1987 traffic conditions. A growth rate of 2.5 percent was added to all volumes along Coast Highway west of Newport Boulevard. A factor of one percent was added to all volumes along Newport Boulevard and to volumes on Coast , Highway east of Newport. 10 y rr. If the former volume were larger, no further analyses were required. If project peak 2. 5 hour volumes were higher than one percent of the projected peak 2.5 hour volumes at any approach of each intersection, the intersection was analyzed using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method. The comparative analyses and intersection capacity analyses are included in the Appendix. The ICU methodology for determining intersection levels of service sums the critical peak hour volume to capacity (V/C) ratio for the intersection. Acceptable operation is based on a volume/capacity result equal to or less than 0.90. The comparison of one percent of the peak 2.5 hour volume with the project peak 2. 5 hour volumes resulted in one intersection requiring further analyses. The intersection is Coast Highway and Riverside. Based on existing 1986 volumes, the volume/capacity ratio at Coast I Highway/Riverside is 1.05 and 1.00 in the a.m, and p.m. , respectively. With projected traffic volumes (1986 volumes plus ambient growth plus approved traffic volumes), the volume/capacity ratio deteriorated to 1.23 I and 1.20 for a.m. and p.m. peak hour periods, respectively. The proposed auto sales project has no effect on the volume/capacity ratio which remains at 1.23 and 1.20 for the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, respectively, r for post—project traffic volumes. further analysis of the intersection is not required since the proposed project has no incremental impact on the ICU values. t1 12 S15 ON-SITE CIRCULATION The site layout appears adequate for the proposed uses. However, some 1 improvements and parking restrictions are anticipated along Avon to provide safe, efficient traffic access to and from the rear driveways. 4t 13 �� f � CONCLUSIONS The proposed auto sales facility would generate 1,825 daily trips, with 150 and 175 during the a.m. and p.m. peak hour periods, respectively. l After subtracting the credits for current uses, the net trip generation is 690 daily trips of which 45 and 80 trips are during the a.m. and p.m. , respectively. Eight intersections were checked to determine the marginal impact of project traffic on the street system. Only one intersection required (' further analysis. The intersection capacity utilization at this intersec— tion, Coast Highway/Riverside, remained unchanged by project traffic during both a.m. and p.m. peak hour analyses. Therefore, the proposed auto sales project has no marginal impact on the ICU's of the study intersections. 14 �7 P � I I , APPENDIX A.M./P.M: 1% TRAFFIC ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS EXISTING GEOMETRICS 'r R t,yh 7 V 1 ' A.M./P.M. 1% TRAFFIC ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS ' 1 �y 1% Traffic Volume Analysis „ Intersection COAST HWY/DOVER DR-BAYSHORE DR (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Minter/Spring 86 .AAM Peak 24 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of,Projected Project Direction Peak 2% Hour Growth Peek 2y Hour Peek 2k Hour Peak Vol ume ur i Peeyojy Hour Volume volume Volume Volume fne I ' ` Northbound 335 L? Southbound 2571 12b I 'L '':`1 M j 'Eastbound Z2 27 L{� �'�4 a � � ?:� q -- I 1 rWestbound J`L t_ Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of .Projected ® Peak 2)1 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2;1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization k, (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. !I . C . OATS: PROJECT: FORM I Vu 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HWY/DOVER DR - BAYSHORE DR (Existing Traffic Volumes se on Average Winter/Spring 19 _ M Peek 211 Hour Approved Approach I Existing Regional Projects Projected 1. of Projected Project Direction Peak 21s Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak,2$ Hour Peak 2y Hour ! Peek 2h Not } Volume Volume YOlusx Volume Volume Volume Northbound i 268 ° 2(,co, o northbound 3176 U 94 3,z10 33 3 k ( Eastbound } 04 11,43 5 28$ 53 40 [k Westbound •57 IZoq 7 022 p Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume Q 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. C •• DATE: PROJECT: _ S� 3S FORK I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HWY/TUSTIN AV (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on Average winter pring 86 Mi Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peek 2� Hour Peak 24 Hour" Peak 2h Hour .Peak 2h Hour i Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 11 i� O O Southbound 116 IEastbound 5487 r r � ¢?; (� p 61 i 24 Westbound Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected (� u 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� l DATE: s�. PROJECT: FORM t 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HWY/TUSTIN AV (Existing Traffic Volumes basedon Average nter pring 86 PM Peak 24 Hour Approved ;Approach Exi;2� Ho g Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project tion Peak ur Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2y Hour Vo Volume Volume VolumeVolume Volume ound Southbound U U 34 o3 I Eastbound 4029 4 0 I '.� I 5210 52. ( Westbound 5856 ='� II•,l t , b{ Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. i DATE: PROJECT: FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HWY/RIVERSIDE AV (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage inter pr ng _ Peak 2y Hour Approved of Approach Existing Regional Protects Protected lPeak 2$ Hour ed Peak 2h Hour Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peek 2k Hour Peak lour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume � � O Northbound 100 D ��� 3`� Southbound 0 27 Eastbound �a 7l5DV iJ J I 6322 L Hestbound 2996 _��� 1 ?�- 3 R J 410 12 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected �. ❑ Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume I 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. t�l t, DATE: sy PROJECT: FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HWY/RIVERSIDE AV (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pring 86 PM Peak 2), Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Protected In of Protected Protect Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 211 Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 44 0 0 -1 1:1 0 South Dun 1296 0 1 13 I3 50 1 Eastbound 2.S 6040 Y Westbound 5586 _�' 50 �i l%'' ba Zp Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected (i ❑ 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. L , f ' DATE: SS' PROJECT: FOR14 I J.D 2 - - 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HWY BALBOA BL-SUPERIOR AV (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average WfnteRSpring 19 _ Peak 2's Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Protect Direction Peek 2k Hour Growth Perak 2k Nour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2k Hour � Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume volume Volume Volume Northbound 1986 0 © '1 ;!, 20 southbound 0 I,- Eastbound 4157 1 D`I' 901 --- Westbound l,t � � 1104 �P, U59. 8 C. Project Traffic is estimated to be Tess than 1% of Projected IrYJ Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume { Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected l Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 11 l DATE: •-'b PROJECT: rnom T 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HWY & BALBOA BUSUPERIOR AV PM (Existing Traffic Volumes basedon VerageWinter/Spring _ Peak 24 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 21s Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak A Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 4 7 I g 2 u i 1755 Southbound 04297 I,. Eastbound 4368 L'l `� 5 �2 � •�'' t `I f westbound 6322 � F'y 7 ' %ts 7t ' 33 I. Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected © Peak 2;1 Hour Traffic Volume I Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization 'II (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. .Ill �1 DATE: PROJECT: FORM I j 1% Traffic .Volume Analysis ,Intersection COAST HWY/PROSPECT ST i (Existing Traffic Volumes basea on Rverage wi—nte—r—ISPring, ME Peak 24 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected lx of Projected Protect Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 24 Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2y Hour ! Peak 24 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume o Northbound 144 n Il ' Southbound 400 1v 0 Eastbound 452 IIJ I.Lpzj 6F)57 �� g g Westbound M) ZBS7 29 i1 1, r ri�att Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected C'u Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume Q 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. R , DATE: PROJECT: CS FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HWY/PROSPECT ST (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter Spring 19 ao PM Peak 2y Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peek 2y Hour Growth Peak 24 Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2h Hour } Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume v li7 d A Northbound 117 Southbound 260 Eastbound 7��, a� 12'Z• ��' ' �4 _ _ � 3311 �_• _ Westbound 71IT 30^. 1�► 3� Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 231 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume: Intersection Capacity Utilization (� (I.C.U.) Analysis is required.. t� 1. i DATE: PROJECT: FORM I �' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HWY/ORANGE ST (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average rater pring 86 AM Peak 24 Hour Approved Projects Projected i% of Projected Project Approach Existing Regional Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peek 2k Hour PeeYolume Hour Peak 1 PeeVolu our Volume Volume Volume volume J 1 O Northbound 258 0 b $ Southbound 210 0 (7 210 I Eastbound 138 11 6 b 87/ 5537 Westbound 59 q•o3 L�83b 2$ 16 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 231 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization {�I (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. ill DATE: �a C1 PROJECT: FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HWY/ORANGE ST (Existing Traffic Volumes based on verage inter pring 1986 P14 Peek 24 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2h Hour , Peak 2y Hour volume Volume Volume volume Volume Volume F Northbound 0 13 Southbound 132 0 0 1 32Z 1 1i ` Eastbound q3 729 q• S2b 45 13 — Westbound 0 5651 I I I I63 b,955 76 3 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume Q Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2k, Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. I , DATE: PROJECT: 61 ! f FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection NEWPORT BL/VIA LIDO (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1 _ Peak 2§ Hour Approved Projected 1X of Protected Project Approach Existing Regional Projects Direction Peek 2k Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Peako24 Hour I Peakolu our Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound J 32 b 3 2(�1 3 2 3166 Southbound 2'IJ Q �6�j 2u 3 Eastbound 0 0 V 0 Westbound 1077 o to77 II o Peak Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Pea 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: Gy PROJECT: FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection NEWPORT BL/VIA LIDO (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average n er pr ng — PM Peak 2y Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume volume Volume Volume Volume i Volume — i Northbound 2921 2� 2 �11+ '12), ' •3 2 /3 Southbound AM /4.1 2p V 4 Q 5 j 50 6 IEastbound D Westbound 1312 O p rf, Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected �; LJ Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. �r DATE: PROJECT: FORM I is Volume i% Traffic Analysis Intersection NEWPORT BL/HOSPITAL (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage RD n er pr ng 86 AM 5YEeak 2)S HoTPeak RegionalProjected 1% of Projected peek 2kcHour Growth Peak 2k Hour Pe°Volumeour i volume Volumevolume —IL �� 4 rf r 35 $outhboun 2 IM 2� 1959 Eastbound 1092 u $ I q 0 12 0 Westbound 833 O b v , 1 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected . 1_ 0 Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume S n Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected C 4J Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. I � i � PROJECT: DATE: FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection NEWPORT BL HOSPITAL RD (Existing Traffic Volumes basedon Average nter, pr ng 86 PM Peak 24 Hour Approved Protected i% of Protected Project Approach Existing Regional Projects Direction Peak 211 Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 21* Hour Peak 2y Hour I Peak 24 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume I E Northbound 3459 35 31 811 3°0 po •Southbound 37 3 7 I Fj I31 gol3 U Eastbound 1599 p 532 9- 131 21 irestboune 910 O b7 •� Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 231 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected 0 Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE': (S PROJECT: FORM I INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS EXISTING GEOMETRICS �L LL li t The peak 2. 5 hour volumes of all approved projects, which were also provided by the City of Newport Beach, were added to the 1987 peak 2.5 hour volumes. The resulting volumes represent the projected peak 2.5 hour volumes prior to the addition of project traffic. One percent of the projected peak 2.5 hour volumes at each approach of each intersection was compared with the peak 2.5 hour distributed volumes from the proposed project. A summary of this comparison is shown in Table 5. TABLE 5 SUMMARY OF 1% ANALYSIS Newport Beach Auto Sales Project A.M. Project Peak 2.5 Hour Volumes � Less Than 1>; of 1987, Intersection NB SB EB 2B Peak 2.6 Hour Volumes Pacific Coast Highway/Orange 0 0 8 16 Yes Pacific Coast Highway/Prospect 0 0 8 17 Yes �' Pacific Coast Highway/Balboa—Superior 0 1 8 18 Yes' i Pacific Coast Highway/Riverside 0 27 15 12 No Pacific Coast Highway/Tustin 0 1 24 11 Yes 1 Pacific Coast Highway/Dover—Bayshore 0 2 22 9 Yes Newport Boulevard/Via Lido 2 3 0 0 Yes f� Newport Boulevard/Hospital Road 9 5 0 0 Yes t P,N. Protect Peak n 2.5 Hour Volumes Less Then 12 of 1987 Intersection. NB SB EB NB Peak 2.6 Hour Volumes Pacific Coast Highway/Orange 0 1 13 30 Yes Pacific Coast Highway/Prospect 0 1 14 31 Yes Pacific Coast Highway/Balboa—Superior 1 • 1 14 33 Yes Pacific Coast Highway/Riverside 0 50 25 20 No Pacific Coast Highway/Tustin 0 1 44 19 Yes Pacific Coast Highway/Dover—Bayshore 1 3 40 15 Yes Newport Boulevard/Via Lido 3 6 0 0 Yes Newport Boulevard/Hospital Road 17 8 1 1 Yes Source: Greer & Co. , Engineers and Planners. 11 �7 I TSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANA' IS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY 6 RIVERSIDE AVENUE 2630 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1986 AM VUYNL.L':IYV.LYYL'4 LY�VYJYLVtlL'JVUYYVJU L':YVVV V'1Yj.JVVUYYV:LVtlJJ.VY:VYJr.Y.JY}LLL J..V:w..LM+w.r1... EXISTING PROPOSED EXISTING EXISTING REGIONAL COMMITTED PROJECTED PROJECT PROJECT' Movement Lanes Lanes PK HR V/C GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ratio Volume V/C Capacity Capacity Volume Ratio Volume Volume w/o Project Ratio LYL..rL:.J.:.......YV:.i... ..L::L.:.J:Lr.L'. I�:.YrLV..L:Y.....Yb 11.6..L Y.J} NT 1600 1 1 3 0.01 1 0 1 2 I 0'fl 2 1 6 1 O Oz .L:L+LLLw.YLYLVL.YY.� .LJV:f.j ..L.V....YVJ.wVY.L} 77 I I .L.N.R.LLYJ..r:...i 11 r'.rLLLLi.�J...LJ?,..L:VFLYLI.tlYOwYL4Y'rY.VYrtL4�•.JV:YL aL:LY.V L•+L4:+wh w7 SL 1 1600 1 1 105 1 0.07 1 0 1 p 10 0 1 y:.L..JYLLL:.LL.J......Y..LVV.LYi...Y:rVYY:VYL:L V'JYV.:L:YLJLL L'.pVYYYV. LVL:IYY OL'.pI:L.JLL ST I 1 O 7 ' U•2O 4 YYY9.YY.V} Q ZQ , 141 UVUUJYYY} 1600 YUJ:::u".Y"`.p JY3i} 0.19 i.Y dvu.:�FrvvVLYrYL� I, I SR 1 1 297 1 11 5 I I. ,JLr.::..L.YL...:YLLrYLL.......'VL.VL'.YwJ.LYLL'YVY.(N.1WWYWYV:J.V.YLLJIt.7VVVLr.:JL'V EL 1 1600 1 1 309 1 0.19 1 ?� 7i I D. 2 c) I i s Vr:LJL..JYLV 1600 .:.+L:.4..L::YJ.J:Yww.LLiYJYYYJV.L'K.w1iYY�Y+4Yr::.}+Y}iL.LIV.VO'.:JL'.L.L L':L ET I 1 2721 1 29 I 42.7 I� ( ---- 100 L 0.85 *JJY:YLYYL:rJVViiF}.Y 1.• .b O YVL.r :L.L...: 320D YJrr�1Lr..LY.4;YLV.w} I ( ER 1 1 3 I D I 33 I � JwL::.JNC.YLrVL:wYY.Y+}.LJJY.wV•Li:YYVYVYVV:YL'VY } T R Y• LiL• V JY Yw.YVLVY+UYLL'L.L'�.O.:�M Wi WL 1 1600 1 1 15 1 0.01 * O I 27 10-03 I ..hLL'V Y.YVwVJL L':L':r}lYL L'r� ...Y'J.L'LL.:JV}.VL'LYJL'L'V:j.{:LL.iJNVVV.YY.VL'L'J+LLYLV:YVVi L'..rUL."V. Wr 1 4800 1 1 1224 1 0.26 1 14 I �4e i o 3s 1 q i o'.s5 .Y:.LCYL'LAY.V.YYVJ�.LYL.L.L,.YYrL'L'L':YYYYL L'Y:YN.{VVr:}VV�YVYVV4�!{i Yt{YYY.iVVV:VCLYVYJL.iYiaYYM WR i 1600 1 1 76 1 0.05 i 1 1 0 1 0 '0 5 13 VLYV.i{:JL L'VVL Y:L'V:wY:VL'YJ V VVJy:�:f wTt{�7t{LY.LYL'L YV YV}ruYV:tY:�}lV Vj:FL'f tl.UV�JVLVL'Y{iVY L•U�:L.J.LJ7C Y: (� EXISTING I.C.U. 1 1.05 1 .VL':..:Y:VNYLt:rr.LYYLYY..VLLJJrVY:VL'L{�VV�tkJ L'YYV{j{3rW1iJ YJ,yV Vurw.VLV VVLL�MY:YL EXIST + .REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. LLrYL'JViY YYYV...VrYL•VVL'L VYVJYwJYL'•lrVVVJVVVGk.V11w�71{VYV4wYVV.'V}'}:I YYVVY@YYV.LYYVJL JLU L•JUJ:rJ: EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GRAM + PROJECT I.C.U. • YY:Y:YYVYVCV4rb.JVLJYLL..wLJYYr:YYLVYYVYY�tY}YLVVJI{7.VL'L:L'L Jt JYVYYVOYYYVtLLL'VYYLYWL:::V.VL:VC (_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1$1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 traffic I.C.U. w/s stems improvement will be ted + pro ject tra Y Projected p j IJ j . less than or equal to 0.90 0 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be leas than I.C.U. without project L'...JJLLrrY...:VV.L'..:.....L........J'rLLV..YYYLLL•rL:JYY.YiLY.Yi..VYrraL'.VYL..J.L.... Description of system improvement: FORM II PROJECT CH2630AM _ ��........w w.e•w++...-w_+..rNw.w ..t'w:'Fr3✓'hi•S"Ztii+�'.i �l�f'.�."'At.+4!�i..�� a ♦ ... CH2630PH INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY 3 RIVERSIDE AVENUE 2630 *MST 7'R.1IPIr VoU,Ntl''," U:)SED ON AVERAGE DAILY TlAP?IC 0%,rr.R/SnRING 1986 1 EXISTING PROPOSED EXISTING EXISTING REGIONAL WMMITTED PROJECTED JPROJECT PROJE( Movement Lanes Lanes PK HR V/C GROWTH PROJECT V/C RatioVolume V/C CapacityCapacity Volume Ratio Volume Volume w/o Projec Ratic Volume NL I I 6 NT } 1600 1 I 1 } 0.01 I Q I�o 11 0. 01 I o Iww NFL I I 9 10 l o I ' I a SL 1 1600 I I 109 I 0.07 ( 0 1 9 I 0. 07 (- Sr I i 2 t o I' o I D'2 u X l o l 0�26 r SR } 1600 I I 428 } 0.27 i 0 t) rfi EL I 1600 I 1 308 i 0.19 i v 1 13 ( O Z 01Z2 Ll ET 1 I 2256 I '5`5 1562 } 3200- 1 --6} o ( 0 1 I I IWL I 1600 ( I 28 I 0.02 * 1 t o I 0,02 " 1 0 W'T I 48M I I 2506 I 0.52 D I D'6-5 WR ( 1600 I I 36 i 0.02 1 I 10'� 1 5 10'03 EXISTING I.C.U. I . 1.00 EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I�•Z 0 C1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1Y.1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will b'e greater than 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORM C112630PM 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Inter5eCt10n COAST HIGHWAY ORANGE STREET (Existing Traffic Volumes base on verage Inter pring 87 AM Peak 2k Hour Approved Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Approach Existing Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2�S Hour PenVolumeeour Peak Volume Volume Volume Volume �— - Northbound 283 Q I• Southbound 183 183 2 n j Eastbound 4697 238 860 5795 f 58 .., ' •• _• 19 Westbound 2432 123 J 392 2947 _ 29_ 25 l 'Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected © Peak 2z 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. II NEWPORT JAGUAR DATE: 5/6/08 _� 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/ORANGE STREET (Existing Traffic Volumes baseclon Average inter pring 9 87)PM r --- Peak 2+ Hour Approved Approach Existing I , Regional Projects Projected 15 of Protected Project �I Direction Peak 2h Hour ; Growth I Peak 2k Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2h.Hour Peak 2k Hour volume Volume Volume Volume volume Volume I Northbound 452 452 5 0 �~ 0 Southbound 205 205 2 Eastbound 3970 _ 201 650 4821 j 48 .,, 26 Westbound 6185 313 86,0 I 7358 I 74_ 38' ice: .._ _. ....._. Project Traffic is estimated to be 'less than 1% of Projected Peak 2'h 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. _,NEWPORT JAGUAR DATE: 5/6/88 PROJECT: 06 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/PROSPECT AVENUE (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage inter pang 9 87 AM Peek 2�, Hour Approved Ap.roach Existing Regional I Projects Protected 1:, of Protected Protect {I Direction Peako 24 2umeHour I volume Peako2u�our Peak Hour Peek me . ur ' Peak �u our { Northbound 179 179 2 S�outhbound 403 I 403 4 ,{ Eastbound 84 245 865 5959 ' 60 ••• `x= _ 19". Westbound i 2370 120 1 392 I 2882 i 29_ 26 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected 0 Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. r 6 DATE: 5 EWPORT JAGUAR 88 N a � � r 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/PROSPECT STREET (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on vvai age Inter pring 87) PM �— Peak 2y HourFPeak roved Project li t;proach Existing Regionaljects Projected 1Peak 2y Hour ed Peak 2y Hou erection Peak 2y Hour Growth 2y Hour Peak 24 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volumelume Volume — -- i hcrthbound 302 302 3 0 �LScuthbound 304 04 li i �7 ii eastbound 381 __ ,_193 r _ 46G 4 7 ...•'' :estbound I a' Project Traffic is -estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ® Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 21-2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. NEWPORT JAGUAR DATE: 5/6/88 /�f — _ -PR0IECL• 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/BALBOA BOULEVARD—SUPERIOR AVENUE (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pr ng 8 AM Peak 2k Hour Approved FAach Existing Regional Projects Projected In of Projected Project tion Peak 2�y Hour I Growth Peak 24 Hour Peak 2§ Hour Peak 24 Hour � Peak 2k flout Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume i Volume ound ] g77 10 1887 19 � 0 ound 1376 12 1388 14 2 Eastbound 6397 324 1 851 7572 76 19 24 Westbound 1899 96 ( 379 2374 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 23-2 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected l •,: Q Peak Na Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. *;gr+nnom Tnrt7AR DATE• 5/6/88 PROJECT: Fna�n i N } 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/BALBOA BOULEVARD—SUPERIOR AVENUE (Existing Traffic Volumes based, on Average Winter/Spring I M Peak 24 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1 of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2)s Hour Peak 2h Hour I Peayo24 Hour i Pealume ko2•�Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 1861 i 44 1905 19 0 Southbound 3758 i 60 1 3818 38 3 Eastbound 4794 243 648 5685 I 57 25 41, westbound 4784 242 794 I 5620 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 231 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. J NEWPORT JAGUAR GATE- 5/6/88 `Iv PROJECT: MOM 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/RIVERSIDE AVENUE (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage Inter pring 9 87 AM � Peak 2k HourEPeak2)* �I F�proach Existing RegionalProjected 7;eoaf 7Projected ProjectDirection Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 2y Hour PeaYolumeour �I Volume VolumeVolumeNorthbound 28 62 1� Sorthbound 8 — �+ Eastbound --Westbound —'6�_ 1 628 4046 40 28 3351 Project Traffic is estimated to be' less than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume t Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected G Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. NEWPORT JAGUAR DATE: 5/6/88 7 _rIgntc_rr• 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY RIVERSIDE AVENUE PM (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pring _ TPeak 2�i Hour Approved Ap;roech ExistingRegional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project pirection Peak 2y HouGrowth Peak 24 Hour Peek 24 Hour Peek 2�y Hour Peak Volume Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume I Hcrthbound fit 61 6 0 i IL Southbound 1247 1309 13 I 64 +i, Eastbound 5217 — 1 05 9 63 Westbound ••• 'f� — 48 " , �— i� SS t6 _ b284_�_ 3R — — 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 231 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. •NEWPORT JAGUAR DATE: 5/6/88 :,gin icr•r. 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/TU•STIN. AVENUE (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on Average inter. pring 9 AM (f� Peak 2k Hour Approved A:proach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1� of Projected Project Girection i Peak 2y Hour I Growth Peak 21, Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 24 Hour Volume I Volume f Volume Volume Volume Volume , :i Northbound 7 I 14 21 2 t 0 r Sc,thbound 138 IL Eastbound 5134 i 103 950 6187 I 62 ' } ,_• 37- �I 'estbound i 3105 62 615 I 3782 i 38- 27 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected (� ® Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required, •NEWPORT JAGUAR DATE: 5/6/88 N � 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/TUSTIN AVENUE (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage inter pring 19 87 PM Peek 2>S Hour Approved F,proach Existing Regional 1 Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction . Peak 2> Hour I Growth I Peak 2ss Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 21 Hour Volume Volume Volume volume Volume Volume Irn� �c- hbound 21 I 11 32 3 I LSc:thbound 3052 6 , II Eastbound 4150 _ _ 83 948 I 5181 52 . >r. _ 57 — westbound i 5839 117 1 1024 j 6980 70_ 36 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume r" Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ® Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. I _•NEWPORT JAGUAR _ DATE: 5/6/88 K` )Dr)i_r.rT- Y IL 1. ,i 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/DOVER DRIVE—BAYSHORE DRIVE (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 87) AM Peak 211 Hour Approved Approach Existing i Regional Projects Projected M of Projected Project Direction 'Peak 24 Hour Growth Peak 2$ Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2� Hour Volume t Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northtidund 312 1 312 3 1 Southbound 2250 131 1 2381 1 24 4 Eastbound 4717 9.5 i 940 5752 58 33 ( Westbound 4862 _98 - 673 5633 56 21 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 2k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. ill,, • 1 S NEWPORT JAGUAR DATE: 5/6/88 PROJECT: Y 1• 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/ROVER DRIVE—BAYSHORE DRIVE (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average nter pring 87 PM Peak 24 Hour Approved Ap;)r( Existing Regional Projects Projected ! 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2,S Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 21* Hour Peak 21s Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume , Volume Volume Volume i Volume i Rort.hbound 295 245 I 2 0 Soathbound 2990 85 3075 31 2 Eastbound 3683 74 948 1 4705 47 51 x und tb weso I 96 ^ ` 29 i 8270 166 1123 9559 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 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. lY . 11^ , ii • f Ntwnnt:m TA�u DATE• 5/6/88 8�- PROJECT: i. 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/BAYSIDE DRIVE (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on Average inter pring 9 8 AM Peak 21s Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1; of Projected Project Direction Peak 21s Hour Growth Peak 24 Hour Peak 2k Hour Peek 2k Hour � Peak 24 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 1459 8 1467 15 0 Southbdund 193 153 346 3 0 Eastbound 6501 1 131 1038 7670 77 28 Westbound 3443 69 4 4126 41 21 Project Traffic is estimated to be. less than 1%• of. Projected M Peak 2k 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. i NEWPORT JAGUAR DATE: 5/6/88 g3 PROJECT: � A 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/BAYSIDE DRIVE (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 87) PM Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach ;Peak ting Regional Projects Projected 1� of Projected Project Direction y Hour Growth Peak 22 Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 24 Hour � Peak 2k Hour ume I Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound5 2 1737 17 0 Southbound 194 249 443 4 0 Eastbound 6056 121 986 7163 72 43 _ ` f"z_• .29 Westbound 6775 136� 1036 7947 i 79 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. I - NEWPORT JAGUAR DATE: 5/6/88 Rt>* PROJECT: IL 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection NEWPORT BOULEVARD/VIA LIDO (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage Inter pring _ Peak 24 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1� of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour " Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 24 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume _ 35 ! 4 Northbound 95 3495 3400 45 3111 31 5 Southbound 3066 .Eastbound __ —� •, ' •,,, 1 Westbound 1031 1 _ y 1031 10 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 211 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis -is required. li _NEWPORT JAGUAR DATE: 5/6/88 S PROJECT: ML 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection NEWPORT BOULEVARD/VIA LIDO (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 87 )PM FLO Peak 24 Hour Approvedach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1� of Projected Project tion Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2is Hour Peako2u�urPea�o� eour` Volume Volume Volume Volume 5 ound 3647 178 3825 38' southbound 5509 _- 175 5684 1 57 7 Eastbound I i Westbound 1568 1568 16 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. NEWPORT JAGUAR DATE: 5/6/88 PROJECT: -- �t 1% Traffic Volume Analysis intersection NEWPORT BOULEVARD/HOSPITAL ROAD (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on Average Winter pr ng 19 8 AM Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Protects Protected 1� of Protected Project Direction Peek 2� Haur I Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Peek 2k Hour FPeak I Hou Volume i Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 4045 — 81 109 4235 42 14 ' Southbound 2495 50 193 2738 27 9 Eastbound 1235 _ - 27 1262 13 .1. 1 Westbound 895 5 900 9 1 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected 0 Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume f 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. NEWPORT JAGUAR DATE: 5/6/88 ST�I PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ,intersection NEWPORT BOULEVARD/HOSPITAL ROAD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 87)PM Peak 24 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour I Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 21, Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 4430 _ 89 263 4782 48 21 Southbound 3896 78 197 4171 42 12 Eastbound 2016 _ _ 60 2076 ! 21 - 1 1 1 Westbound 1045 I 10 1055 11 1 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 24 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE- 5/6/88 PROJECT: