Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTPO056_ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL TP00% 0ITY OF NEWPORT EACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING LLL PLACE: Council Chambers GTIME: 7:30 P.M. ROLL C DATE: June 12, 1989 INDEX Ma or Strauss presented Certificates of App eciation and. Cash Prize Awards to winners of t 9th ANNUAL CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LITTE POSTER CONTEST for Elementary School Childr . Certifies es of Appreciation were also presented o Matthew Prince and Lasse Holmes for their h roic and selfless efforts in the rescue of Ma uel Herrera from the loth Street beach surf on Saturday, May 27, 1989. Present x x x x x x x A. ROLL CALL. Motion x B. Reading of M utes of Meeting of May 22, All Ayes 1989, was wai d, approved as written, and ordered fi d. Motion x C. Reading in full o all ordinances and All Ayes resolutions under onsideration was waived, and City C1 rk was directed to read by titles only. D. HEARINGS: 1. Mayor Strauss opened the ublic hearing Ord 89-14 regarding proposed ORDIN CE No. 89-14, Zoning being, Satellite Dish Ant AN ORDINANCE OF THE CIT COUNCIL OF (94) THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEAC ADDING CHAPTER 20.75 REGULATING SATELLITE DISH ANTENNAS TO THE NEWPDXBFAH MUNICIPAL CODE [PLANNING CPCA 628 AMENDMENT NO. 628], was presented with report from Attorney. Hearing no one wishing to addreCouncil, the public hearing wasMotion x Motion was made to reintroduce All Ayes No. 89-14, and pass to second reading on June 26, 1989. 2. Mayor Strauss opened the public hearing GPA 89-1(F regarding: " (45) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89-1(F) — Request to amend 'the Land Use Elemedt of the Newport Beach_ General Plan to increase the General, Plan_Intensity Limit for Koll Center Newport Industrial Sites 1 and 2.by._39,000 square feet in order to allow the construction of a 65,000 square foot offfce-building, and the acceptance of an Environmental Document. Property located at 4311 Jamboree Road, on the westerly side of Jamboree Road Volume 43 - Page 227 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES \AL A NAo CGS �qyOy��ROLL �� 3�9 GNO June 12, 1989 INDEX between MacArthur Boulevard and Birch Street; zoned P-d; AND AMENDMENT NO. 677_-._Re uest to mend. the PCA 677 Koll' Center Newport Planned Co amuni.ty District Regulations so as to combine Industrial Sites 1 anif 2�fnto"�;ig�it' Industrial Site 1, increase the eve dlopment entitlement in Light Industrial Site 1-by' 39,000 square feet and increase the allowed building height to 55 feet, so as to allow-"the construction of a 65,000 square foot office building; AND TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 56 - Request to Tfe Stdy approve a'traffic study to allow the 56 construction of a 65,000 square foot office building on Koll Center Newport Industrial Site 1; AND RESUBDIVISION NO. 892 - Request to Resub 892 resubdivide two existing lots into a single parcel of land. Report from the Planning Department. Council Member Sansone stated due to a possible conflict of interest on this item, he will excuse himself from the meeting. Council Member Watt indicated she did not have any objections to the proposed increase of 39,000 sq. ft. being added to the Rockwell Corporation; however, she was opposed to the proposed total square footage for Koll Center Newport, and the increase in average daily trips as a whole. Inasmuch as the General Plan was just updated last October, she felt the Council should not allow increases above what was approved in that General Plan update. Patrick Allen, Architect for the applicant, addressed the Council and stated that the question of the overall square footage of Koll Center Newport and its relationship to the Rockwell site is one of property ownership, and it would be very difficult for Rockwell to approach other property owners to seek additional footage. Volume 43 - Page 228 ~ CITY OF NEWPORT EDACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES G�2 �O`G� 9 9� G� 9� ROLL CALL�� Z� �� June 12, 1989 INDEX In response to comments made by Council GPA 89-1(F) Member Watt regarding the total square footage for Koll Center Newport, the Planning Director referenced Page 6 of the staff report, wherein it was noted that 985,365 sq. ft. was the estimated total square footage of growth for statistical area L4, and only sites 1 thru 9 were located in Koll Center Newport. It was further explained that of these 9 sites, only Retail and Service Site 1 had any appreciable development rights remaining and that a General Plan Amendment had been initiated on this site to convert the Plaza de Cafe's use to office space on a trip for trip basis. Council Member Turner stated he felt the proposed use would be compatible with the area, and therefore, moved to: A(toQt_ Resolution No. 89-41, Res 89-41 approving General Plan Amendment .89710) and accepting the Environmental Documentj and adgR Resolution_No._89-42, approving Res 89-42 Planning^ Commission Amendment No. 677, a mending�Koll�_ nter ewDort PanamoCmmunit ryDDistricNt , _ Regulations; and sustain the action of the Planning Commission ' regarding Traffic Study No. 56 and Resubdivision No. 892; In response to an earlier concern expressed by Council Member Watt j regarding the Bristol Corridor, Council Member Cox advised that the Orange County Transit District has just completed a $50,000 study on the Corridor and have plans to spend $250,000 on an environmental impact report. Mayor Strauss stated he will not support the motion, inasmuch as the Council just updated the General Plan last fall, and feels they should "live by that plan before adding to it," in light of the City''s traffic situation. Ayes x x x x Th_e motion was voted on and �cµarriedy Noes x x Absent x Council Member Sansone resumed his chair at this time. _ _Mayor Strauss opened the public Hearing PD/` p r us ant to Newport Beach Municipal Code Towing \ (70) Volum 4e� 3 - Page 229 ?ITY OF NEWPORT B&CH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES J� '0 4P 9 ��y� Croy ROLL CALL �?1 �� June 12, 1989 INDEX Section 5.13.140 to consider adoption, of resolutions approving rate increases for: HARBOR TOWING Harbor 964 W. 17th Street Towing Costa Mesa, CA 92627 AND G & W TOWING, INC. G & W 955 W. 18th Street Towing Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Raper from Business License Supervisor. The Cit Manager summarized the request , noting that the rate increase being re uested represents an average Increase f eight percent (SY) above existing tes. Both companies have requested he addition of a category to accommodate the towing of motorcycles built with fiberglass of and flaring, etc , that 'cannot be towed with conventional quipment. The Police Department ba reviewed the requested rate increases and has indicated their approval. He a so pointed out a typograhical er or for the towing of a motorcycle which was corrected to read $68, rather that 63. Representatives of G & W Towing and, Harbor Towing were n attendance and indicated they were available for questions. c Hearing no one wishin to address the Council, the public he ring was closed. Motidn x Motion was made to adop Resolution No. Res 89-43 All Ayes 89-43 approving rate Inc'r�ease for HARBOR TOWING; and adopt Resolution No. 89-44 Res' 89-44 approving rate increase fbbr G & W TOWING, INC. 4. Mayor Strauss opened the pu lie hearing Budget/ regarding PRELIMINARY BUDGE AND FY'89-90 PROPOSED EXPENDITURES FROM T E FEDERAL (40) REVENUE SHARING FUNDS ($14,08 FOR CITY HALL IMPROVEMENTS) FOR FISCAL EAR 1989-90, pursuant to Section 1 02 of the Newport Beach City Charter. Checklist of Budget Items. Reports from Parks, Beaches and Recreation Director concerning Res rve Funds for Culture and Arts; and Fun ing Request - Orange Coast College Sail ng Base. Volume 43 - Page 230 ex CsCE Ct RESOLUTION NO. 89-42 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITYOF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING AN AMENDMENTTO THE KOLL CENTER NEWPORT PLANNED COM- MUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS (PLANNING COM- MISSION AMENDMENT NO. 677) WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the Newport Beach General Plan the Land Use Element has been prepared; and WHEREAS, the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides specific procedures for the implementation of Planned Community zoning for properties within the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, an amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned Commun- ity is necessary in order to maintain consistency between the Newport Beach General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach prepared a Negative Declaration for the project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendment and has recommended approval of said amendment to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the environmental document in making its decision on the proposed amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach does hereby approve an amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community designated as Planning Commission Amendment No. 677 as shown on Exhibit 1 attached. ADOPTED this 12th day of June , 1989. MAYOR ATTEST: T CITY CLERK d'm u n PLT/WP50 � z WP50\CC\A677.RS 1 �L�FO RNV* Exhibit 1 PLANNED -COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Koll Center Newport Newport Beach, California PROPOSED AMENDMENT' NO. 21 PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS For Koll Center Newport Ordinance No. 1449 adopted by the City of Newport Beach on August 14, 1972 (Amendment No. 313) Original draft May 5, 1972 Amendment No. (1) August 14 , 1972 Amendment No. (2) August 14, 1972 Amendment No. (3) August 2, 1973 Amendment No. (4) February 7, 1974 Amendment No. (5) June 10, 1974 Amendment No. (6) May 15, 1975 Amendment No. (7) September 8, 1975 Amendment No. (8) June 28, 1976 Amendment No. (9) January 10, 1977 Amendment No. (10) July 11, 1978 Amendment No. (11) August 28, 1978 Amendment No. (12) %. October 19, 1978 Amendment No. (13) November 10, 1960 Amendment No. (14) March 23, 1981 Amendment No. (15) October 24, 1984 Amendment No. ('16) May 14, 1984 Amendment No. (17) December 9, 1985 Amendment No. -(18) July 14, 19$6 Amendment No. (19) March 23, 1987 Amendment No. (20) July 27, 1987 Amendment No. (21) Note: See Footnotes, Page 48 for description of amendments . PART I . INDUSTRIAL Section I , Statistical Analysis A. Building Sites Acreages shown are net buildable land area including landscape setbacks , within property lines . (4) Site 1 : 25.043 acres . . . . . . . . . . 25.043 acres (8) (21) B. Allowable Building Area Site 1: 442,775 square feet . . . 10.16 acres (8) (21) C. Parking Criteria The following statistics are for information only. Development may include but shall not be limited to the following: To allow a basis for calculation parking was assumed to be three (3) spaces per one thousand (1000) square feet of building and at one hundred twenty (120) cars per acre. I Site 1: 1 ,328 cars . . . . . . . . . . . . .11.07 acres (8) (21) D. Landscaped Open Space (21) - Site 1 : Area. . . . . . . . . . . .25.04 acres Building. . .10.16 acres 14.88 acres Parking area. . . . .11.07 acres Net Open Space. . . 3.81 acres D. Building Areas Maximum building areas shall be as noted in the Statistical Analysis, fart 1, Section I . C. Buildinq Height Building heights of structure shalt be limited to a height of fifty-five (55) feet. Exception: existing non-conforming structures. (21) 1 b. Eliminated Service Station Site No. I and added the land area to Professional and Business Office Site "B" . c. Revised the parking requirement for office buildings within Professional and Business Office sites . (12) Planned Community Text revision (Amendment No. 514, adopted October 19, 1978) incorporating the following changes: a . Established existing and additional allowable development as of October 1 , 1978. b. Established the requirement and criteria for phasing plan approval of development beyond thirty (30) percent of the additional allowable development. (13) Planned Community Text revision incorporating the transfer to allowable building area from Professional and Business Office Site "0" to Professional and Business Office Site "B". (Amendment No. 550, adopted November 10, 1980. ) (14) Planned Community-Text revision for Retail and Service Site No. 1 which allocates existing and permitted development. (Amendment No. 558, adopted March 23, 1981. ) (15) Planned Community Text revision increasing the allowable building area in Site C (MacArthur Court) . (Amendment No. 593, adopted October 24, 1.983.) (16) Planned Community Text revision incorporating the transfer of allowable office, restaurant and retail building. area from Professional and Business Office Site "A" to Professional and Business Office Site "B". (Amendment no. 606, adopted May 14, 1984. ) (17) Planned Community Text revision to allow up to two restaurants with a total floor area not to exceed 3,250 square feet within "Office Site V . (Amendment No. 626,, adopted Decmber 9, 1985.) (18) Planned Community-Text revision deleting restaurant site 1 and substitut- ing a private club with a total floor area not to exceed 30,000 square feet within Office Site "A" . (Amendment No. 635, adopted July 14, 1986. ) '(19) Planned Community Text revision to allow auto detailing as a permitted use. (Amendment No. 647, adopted March 23, 1987 . ) (20) Planned Community Text revision adding support commercial uses to the per- mitted uses under Professional and Business Office permitted uses. (Amendment No. -649, adopted July 27 , 1987 . ) (21) Planned Community Text revision combining Light Industrial Site 1 and 2 into Light Industrial Site 1 and increasing the allowable building area for the combined -site. (Amendment No. adopted ) -50- ' I AREA SUMMARY PER RECORDED TRACT HAD NO.310.7 i` LIGHT INDUSTRIAL 25.043 AC - OFFICES 122.574 AC • RETAIL E SERVICE 5.026 AC COURTHOUSE 7.800 AC HrTA:E c NET USABLE AREA 160.443 AC t4q KKT NOTE ' Att AREAS ARE E:aUSrrt or DEDICATED RIGHTS Or WAY `- b MICE A " 4iC• RCTAt A j(Ry{E _ ' .D]•K bCT • .00R . M ` P.P . - EARS 1•A)TKKT O , 8 m • DEEKC• E NORTH + AD KT t3 LAND USE .�y ?:r:: _ 7ep ^;: rt.'1'.>Y:.S;SlTE 7£+`'..•So; :Yg;4: :;;a.^>�_i>: ;a: j;: Ve OLL CENTER NEWPORT NEW PORT!EACH.CALIrOANG _ !DgKKT Y. I r vs K KT 1 1 Jambmee OIW IANGDON-tVILSpN_MUAt?ER • - �— AMENDMENT (21) t0' 5 iI. City Council Meeting June 12. 1989 Agenda Item No. D-2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: City Council FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT- A General Plan Amendment 89-1(F) Request to amend the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan to increase the General Plan Intensity Limit for Kol Center Newport Industrial Sites 1 & 2 by 39,000 square feet in order to allow the construction of a 65,000 square feet office building, and the acceptance of an environmental document. AND B. Amendment No. 677 Request to amend the Koll Center Newport Planned Community District Regulations so as to combine Industrial Sites i & 2 into Light Industrial Site 1, increase the development entitlement in Light Industrial Site 1 by 39,000 square feet and increase the allowed building height to 55 feet, so as to allow the construction of a 65,000 square foot office building. AND C. Traffic Study No. 56 Request to approve a traffic study to allow the construction of a 65,000 square foot office building on Koll Center Newport Industrial Site 1. AND D. Resubdivision No. 892 Request to resubdivide two existing lots into a single parcel of land. LOCATION: Lots 1 and 2 of Tract 7953, located at 4311 Jamboree Road, on the westerly side of Jamboree Road between MacArthur Boulevard and Birch Street. ZONE: PC TO: City Council - Page 2 APPLICANT: C. E. Matson for Rockwell International, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant Applications The applications requested will, if approved, enable the construction of a 65,000 square foot office building on the Rockwell International site in the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. Included in the request is an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan to increase the intensity limit for the site by 39,000 square feet; amendments to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community District Regulations to combine Industrial Sites 1 and 2, increase the allowable development to reflect the new General Plan entitlement and increase the allowed building height from 35 feet to 55 feet; approve a traffic study for the project; and resubdivide the existing two parcels into a single site. General Plan Amendment procedures are contained in City Council Policy Q-1, Amendment procedures are in Chapter 20.84, Planned Community procedures are in Chapter 20.51, Traffic Study procedures are in Chapter 15.40 and Resubdivision procedures are in Chapter 19.12 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Suggested Action Hold hearing; close hearing; if desired, 1. Adopt Resolution No. , approving General Plan Amendment 89-1(F) and accepting the environmental document; and 2. Adopt Resolution No. , approving Planning Commission Amendment No. 677, amending the Koll Center Newport Planned Community Distric Regulations; and 3. Sustain the action of the Planning Commission regarding Traffic Study No. 56 and Resubdivision No. 892. OR 4. Deny General Plan Amendment 89-1(F). OR 5. Continue the public hearing to a future City Council meeting. Planning Commission Recommendation At its meeting of May 4, 1989, the Planning Commission voted (6 Ayes, 1 Absent) to recommend approval of a General Plan Amendment, an amendment to the Koll Center a • TO: City Council - Page 3 Newport Planned Community District Regulations, a Traffic Study and Resubdivision for the proposed project. The Planning Commission Resolutions, an excerpt of the Planning Commission minutes and a copy of the staff report prepared for the Planning Commission have been attached for the information of the City Council. Respectfully submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By Patricia L. Temple Principal Planner Attachments: (For City Council only) 1. Planning Commission Resolutions 2. Excerpt of Planning Commission minutes of May 4, 1989 3. Planning Commission staff report of May 4, 1989 PLT/WP50 WP50\CC\GPA89-1F.SR2 RESOLUTION NO. 1188 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN TO INCREASE THE AL- LOWED DEVELOPMENT ON INDUSTRIAL SITES 1 & 2 IN KOLL CENTER NEWPORT [GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89.1 (F)j WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the Newport Beach General Plan the Land Use Element has been prepared; and WHEREAS, said element of the General Plan sets forth objectives, supporting policies and limitations for development in the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, said element of the General Plan designates the general distribution and general location and extent of the uses of land and building intensities in a number of ways, including residential land use categories and population projections, commercial floor area limitations, the floor area ratio ordinances; and WHEREAS, the Land Use and Circulation Elements are correlated as required by California planning law; and WHEREAS, the provisions and policies of the Land Use and Circulation Elements are further implemented by the traffic analysis procedures of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance and the implementation programs of that Ordinance and the Fair Share Traffic Contribution Fee Ordinance; and WHEREAS,pursuant to Section 707 of the Charter of the City of Newport Beach, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing to consider a certain amendment to the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan; and WHEREAS, the proposed project is compatible with the existing land uses in Koll Center Newport; and WHEREAS, the circulation system will not be significantly impacted by the proposed project; and WHEREAS, the increased development in Koll Center Newport Industrial Sites 1 &2 will enable the Rockwell International Corporation to continue occupancy of the site and result'in a positive benefit to the City; and 39 WHEREAS, intersections in the vicinity of the project will function at a similar or improved level of service when compared to the existing plan; and WHEREAS, the project meets the criteria of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach prepared a Negative Declaration with supporting Initial Study for the project in compliance with the California Environ- mental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained• in the environmental document in making its decision on the proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach that an amendment to the General Plan with related provisions and requirements as described in Exhibit 1 is recommended for approval to the City Council. ADOPTED this tb day of M�av . 1989, by the following vote, to wit: AYES Debaz Di Sano. Edwards, Pers6n. Pomeroy. Winburn NOES ABSENT Merrill BY Gary W. omeroy CHAIR BY • //UGLi7� Gary 3715ysano SECRETARY PLT/WP50 WP50\PC\GPA89-IF.RS1 TO: Plann* Commission - 12 • Exhibit 1 Airport Area (Statistical Area LA) 1. Koll Center Newport Koll Center Newport is bounded by Campus Drive,Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard.The area is identified as the Koll Center Newport Planned Community.Areas described are the same as those defined in the Planned Community Text.All development limits exclude parking. 1-1. KCNOffice SiteA.This site is designated for Administrative,Professional and Finan- cial Commercial land use and is allowed 403,346 sq.ft.plus 471 hotel rooms. 1-2. KCNOffice Site B.This site is designated for Administrative,Professional and Finan- cial Commercial land use and is allowed 1,060,898 sq.ft. Support retail commercial uses are allowed within this allocation. 1-3. KCNOffice Site C.This site is designated for Administrative,Professional and Finan- cial Commercial land use and is allocated 734,641 sgft.Support retail commercial uses are allowed within this allocation. 1-4. KCNOffice SiteD.This site is designated for Administrative,Professional and Finan- cial Commercial land use and is allocated 250,149 sgft. Support retail commercial uses are allowed within this allocation. 1-5. KCNOffice SiteE.This site is designated for Administrative,Professional and Finan- cial Commercial land use and is allocated32,500.sq.ft.Support retail commercial uses are allowed within this allocation. 1-6. KCNOffice SiteR This site is designated for Retail and Service Commercial land use and is allocated 34,500 sq.ft.This site may also accommodate separate office uses. 1-7. KCNOf ice Site G.This site is designated for Administrative,Professional and Finan- cial Commercial landuse and is allocated 81,372 sq.ft.Support retail commercialuses are allowed within this allocation. 1-8. KCNIndustrial Site I"This site is designated for General Industry and is allocated ,V44775 .493,w.*sq.ft. 1-9. KCNRetail and Service Site 1.This site is designated for Retail and Service Commer- cial and is allocated 102,110 sq.ft. 1-10. Court House.This site is designated for Governmental,Educational and Institution- al Facilities and is allocated 90,000 sq.ft. 2. Newport Place. Newport Place is bounded by Birch Street,MacArthur Boulevard, Jamboree Road and Bristol.Street North.The area is identified as the Newport Place Planned Community.The areas described are not the same as those defined on the Planned Community Text.map,but are a compilation of the area.on a block-by-block -74- S Y •�; Plannit g Cotmnission - 13 ESTIMATED GROWTH FOR STATISTICAL AREA IA Residential(in dies) Commercial(in sq.ft) E,dsting Gen.Plan Projected Fadsting Gen.Plan Projected 11IM Projection Growth 1/1/87 Projection Growth 1-1.KCN OS A -0- -0- -0- 874,346 874,346 -0- 1-1 KCN OS B 40- 4)- -0- 1,060,898 1,060,898 -0- 1-3.KCN OS C -0- -0- -0- 734,641 734,641 -0- 14.KCN OS D -0- -0- -0- 250,176 250,176 -0- 1-5.KCN OS E -0- -0- -0- 30,810 32,500 1,690 1-6.KCN OS F -0- -0- -0- 31,816 34,3W 2,484 1-7.KCN OS G -0- -0- -0- 81,372 ,y 77 - �5 1-8.KCN IND 1&2 -6- -0- -0- 377,520 1-9.KCN RS 1 40- -0- -0- 57,086 102,110 50,024 1-10.Court House -0- 40- -0- 69,256 90,000 20,744 2-1.NP BLK A -0- -0- -0- 349,000 468,000 119,000 2-2.NP ELK B -0- -0- -0- 10,150 11,950 118W 2.3.NP ELK C -0- -0- -0- 211,487 457,880 246,393 2-4.NP ELK D -0- -0- -0- 274,300. 288,264 13,964 2-5.NP ELK E -0- -0- 40- 834,762 834,762 -0- 2-6.NP ELK F -0- -0- 10- 192,675 201,180 8,505 2-7.NP ELK G&H 40- 4)- -0- 255,001 295,952 40,951 2-8.NP ELK I -0- -0- -0- 160,578 160,578 0 2.9.NP BLKJ 40- 4 4 190,500 228,530 38,030 3.Campus Drive 4 4 4 895,202 1,261,727 376,525 qii q41 983;34.5 TOTAL P 0 -P- 6,926,576 943 944365 Population 4 4 4 HARBOR VIEW HILLS AREA (STATISTICAL DIVISION M) This area includes all land northerly of Fifth Avenue and easterly of MacArthur Boulevard. Harbor View Hills Area (Statistical Area M1) 1. Point del Mar. This site is located on the northeasterly corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Fifth Avenue. The site is designated for Single Family Detached development and is allocated 43 dwelling units. No subdivision which will result in the addition of dwelling units is allowed. -76- RESOLUTION NO. 1189 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF AN AMEND- MENT TO THE KOLL CENTER NEWPORT PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS (PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENT NO. 677) WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the Newport Beach General Plan the Land Use Element has been prepared; and WHEREAS, the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides specific procedures for the implementation of Planned Community zoning for properties within the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, an amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned Com- munity is necessary in order to maintain consistency between the Newport Beach General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach prepared a Negative_Declaration for the project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)and the State CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the environmental document in making its decision on the proposed amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVE13 that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby recommend to the City Council an amend- ment to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community designated as Planning Commis- sion Amendment No. 677 as shown on Exhibit 1 attached. ADOPTED this 4th day of Mav . 1989, by the following vote, to wit: AYES Debay, Di Sano. Edwards. Pers6n. Pomeroy. Winburn NOES ABSENT Merrill rA BY Gary W. o eroyy, BY v1 <✓ Mary ano, SECRETARY -M � TO: Ining Commission - is a Exhibit 1 PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Koll Center Newport Newport Beach, California PROPOSED AMENDMENT'NO. 21 0 1'0: Piing Commission - 16 • PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS For Koll Center Newport Ordinance No. 1449 adopted by the City of Newport Beach on August 14, 1972 (Amendment No. 313) Original draft May 5, 1972 Amendment No. (1) August 14, 1972 Amendment No. (2) August 14, 1972 Amendment No. (3) August 2, 1973 Amendment No. (4) February 7, 1974 Amendment No. (5) June 10, 1974 Amendment No. (6) May 15, 1975 Amendment No. (7) September 8, 1975 Amendment No. (8) June 28, 1976 Amendment No. (9) January 10, 1977 Amendment No. (10) Judy 11, 1978 Amendment No. (11) August 28, 1978 Amendment No. (12) October 19, 1978 Amendment No. (13) November 10, 1980 Amendment No. (14) March 23, 1981 Amendment No. (15) October 24, 1984 Amendment No. (16) May 14, 1984 Amendment No. (17) December 9, 1985 Amendment No. (18) July 14, 1986 Amendment No. (19) March 23, 1987 Amendment No. (20) July 27, 1987 Amendment No. (21) Note: See Footnotes, Page 48 for description of amendments. TO: Ploing Conmtission - 17 • PART I . INDUSTRIAL Section I . Statistical Analysis A. Building Sites Acreages shown are net buildable land area including landscape setbacks, within property lines. (4) Site 1: 25.043 acres . . . . . . . . . . 25.043 acres (8)(21) B. Allowable Building Area Site 1: 442,775 square feet . . . 10.16 acres (8)(21) C. Parking Criteria The following statistics are for information obly. Development may include but shall not be limited to the following: To allow a basis for calculation parking was assumed to be three (3) spaces per one thousand (1000) square feet of building and at one hundred twenty (120) cars per acre. Site 1: 1,328 cars . . ... . . . . . . . . .11.07 acres (8)(21) D. Landscaped Open Space (21) Site 1: Area. . . . . . . . . . . . .25.04 acres Building. . . . . . . . .10.16 acres 14.88 acres Parking area. . . . .11.07 acres Net Open Space. . . 3.81 acres 31 TO: Ha �ing Commission - lA . B. Building Areas Maximum building areas shall be as noted in the Statistical Analysis,, Part 1, Section I . C. Building Height Building heights of structure shall be limited to a height of fifty-five (55) feet. Exception: existing non-conforming structures. (21) ' -11.1- TO: P1,ing Commission - 19 • b. Eliminated Service Station Site No. 1 and added the land area to Professional and Business Office Site "B" . c. Revised the parking requirement for office buildings within Professional and Business 'Office sites. (12) Planned Community Text revision (Amendment No. 514, adopted October 19, 1978) incorporating the following changes: a. Established existing and additional allowable development as of October 1, 1978. b. Established the requirement and criteria for phasing plan approval of development beyond thirty (30) percent of the additional allowable development. (13) Planned Community Text revision incorporating the transfer to allowable building area from Professional and Business Office Site 'V1 to Professional and Business Office Site "B". (Amendment No. 550, adopted November 10, 1980.) (14) Planned Community Text revision for Retail and Service Site No. 1 which allocates existing and permitted development. (Amendment No. 558, adopted March 23, 1981. ) (15) Planned Community Text revision increasing the allowable building area in Site C (MacArthur Court) . (Amendment No. 593, adopted October 24, 1983. ) (16) Planned Community Text revision incorporating the transfer of allowable office, restaurant and retail building area from Professional and Business Office Site "A" to Professional and Business Office Site "B" . (Amendment no. 606, adopted May 14, 1984.) (17) Planned Community Text revision to allow up to two restaurants with a total floor area not to exceed 3,250 square feet within "Office Site V. (Amendment No. 626, adopted Decmber 9, 1985.) (18) Planned Community Text revision deleting restaurant site 1 and substitut- ing a private club with a total floor area not to exceed 30,000 square feet within Office Site "A". (Amendment No. 635, adopted July 14, 1986. ) (19) Planned Community Text revision to allow auto detailing as a permitted use. (Amendment No. 647, adopted March 23, 1987. ) (20) Planned Community Text revision adding support commercial uses to the per- mitted uses under Professional and Business Office permitted uses. (Amendment No. 649, adopted July 27, 1987.) (21) Planned Community Text revision combining Light Industrial Site 1 and 2 into Light Industrial Site 1 and increasing the allowable building area for the combined site. (Amendment No. adopted ) -50- y AREA SUMMARY PER RECORDED TRACT MAP NO.310.7 C, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL 25.043 AI OFFICES 122.574 A RETAIL 3 SERVICE 5.026 A( _ COURTHOUSE 7.800 A( ri c"=D NET USABLE AREA 160.443 A( uAw AO,tA:7 NOTE: ALL AREAS ARE EXCLUSIVE OF DEDICATED RIGHTS OF WAY 'C r RETAIL IESERVICE c- SMSAC NR - 0 N JOOFFICEA N f� ~ O d` c J°c o N OFFICE D � L IIA73AMMT W(E U N m 7' OFFICE a NORTH , ' 4SFO3 AC IET LAND USE • LAST REVISION A.AII 7. 1It3 ,•r}:5.:.::�.•y: ar yeti:.. Y t•.fv Tel! .^: 'i:•;,^•.•.'.:r.:aa:a<;act x:,,:a,.r.:i:"':'�,j:': %:a,.,r:: Ave +:� r:k'f6.5,::.o.:>iy •;?'.f�';r;.:ia;`.t4:;a'.:i•'i:: : ' A .<y;?Sx:':;ti;+ •A} >:tL::£':.'y;;�; :';;•3:9t:r.;.,: •°£'•.ara, � .:nkri, SITE•1�'w:;:x�iz,:xy:;.:�.•w:rasa..,x:..,.,;y F'tG $;ra,t,�/• WGHT INDU&TR)A 4 '%• xt•js :S' :r.'r••. :.tt ::.^..,rrf: � y rt. '+)• Y i•.Sn%4".,yF. �.:;x OFFICE E • . .K: .5� �2b 043 AC NET tf.'f•,c' 7:;k.;': ,:r�: ,/taf ;g E3n AR RET ir.G.... ......yY' Qr',... \.' ''.•y;y .,• i64 qtt C••;�'r;<:`>C COURTHOUSE TAomwr KOLL CENTER NEWPORT :a� Myzj%:Avg%(21)r:,.`d,'`,:2?n'•.ya,;:1. ::ystF' / j¢:•',�.>.;(+•an'; .j.. '`SY, •X•tMR. �'`�3•M' ?k:�:;.r, 35 ';ttr,.•+ ••/+% NEWPORT BEACH.CALIFORNIA :-C' r` Ku'';��^vii'+,'�393t•�.'�•t�+:h.•rft,'f;�,�fyl�th.i - cGtj�:r;;s',•,nf?rya��r'>,�t• ;�3:'kt,'�'•.'dy•{;...� '� x�''�`�`st once o OFFICE r r••.:R.;,ty.;,.,,,. ::tit t,,S,:; "t,..oyt� i>e;,..;+'rr.. UnA4 HET tia3 AG tE[ LANGDON•WILSON•MUMPER ^ Jamboree Blvd A R . I I I I I AMENDMENT (21) 'COMMISSIONERS MINUTES 'ym pN9 gNg10 May 4, 1989 G9y�Gy f�pNyO CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Motion * Motio as made to adopt Resolution No. 1190, recommending that the ty Council approve in concept the revised draft Housing Ele t Amendment and accept the previously certified Enviro ntal Document as adequate. Chairman Pomeroy commen the City's success to provide affordable housing units ba on the goals that were set several years ago and reported he review of the Housing Element, and he said that the Planni Commission will work hard in achieving affordable housing g s in accordance with the drafted Housing Element. Ayes * * * * * * Motion was voted on to adopt Resolution No. MOTION Absent * CARRIED. A General Plan Amendment 89-1(F)(Public Hearing) Item No.7 Request to increase the General Plan Intensity Limit for GPA89-1F Koll Center Newport Industrial. Sites 1 and 2 by 39,000 (R1188) sq.ft. in order to allow the construction of a 65,000 A677 sq.ft. office building; and the acceptance of an (R1189) environmental document. TS56 AND R892 B. Amendment No 677 (Public Hearing) Approved_ Request to amend the Koll Center Newport Planned Community District Regulations so as to combine Industrial Sites 1 and 2 int o Light Industrial Site 1 and increase the Industrial Site 1 b o ment entitlement in Light In y development g P 39,000 square feet so as to allow the construction of a. 65,000 square foot office building. AND C. Traffic Study No 56 (Public Hearing) Request to approve a traffic study so as to allow the construction of a 65,000 square foot office building. AND D. Resubdivision No 892 (Public Hearing) Request to resubdivide two existing lots into a single parcel of land. -24- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES 1 ym 0'� May 4, 1989 G�Z9,�N�y9.�syo� CITY OF NEWPORT BE ROLL CALL INDEX LOCATION: Lots 1 and 2, Tract No. 7953, located at 4311 Jamboree Road, on the northwesterly side of Jamboree Road between MacArthur Boulevard and Birch Street, in the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. ZONE: P-C APPLICANT: Rockwell International, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant ARCHITECT/ ENGINEER Langdon and Wilson, Newport Beach INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Pat Allen, Langdon and Wilson Architects, appeared before the Planning Commission on-behalf of the applicants. Mr. Allen concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to approve the Environmental Ayes * * * * * * Document, General Plan Amendment 89-1(F) (Resolution No. Absent * 1188) , Amendment No. 677 (Resolution No. 1189) , Traffic Study No. 56, and Resubdivision No. 892, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". Commissioner Persdn stated that the project is.appropriate for the site. Commissioner Debay supported the motion based on the findings as stated in Exhibit "A". She stated that the findings do not disclose any problems from a planning standpoint, and the project will not significantly increase the traffic levels in the area. The foregoing motion was voted on, MOTION CARRIED. A. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT Findings: 1. That an Initial Study has been prepared for the project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , the State CEQA Guidelines and City policy. -25- l� li i COMMISSIONERS MINUTES 104 May 4, 1989 \.AK a10 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 2. That based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, the project incorporates sufficient mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant environmental effect to a level of insignificance. A Negative Declaration has, therefore, been prepared. 3. That the information contained in the environmental document has been considered in the decision on this project. Mitigation Measure: 1. Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the proposed project, the additional of a westbound left turn lane on Bristol street North at Birch Street shall have been constructed, unless subsequent project approval requires modification thereto. The intersection improvement shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. B GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89-1 (F) Adopt Resolution No. 1188, recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 89-1 (F) to the City Council. C. AMENDMENT N0. 677 Adopt Resolution No. 1189, recommending approval of Amendment No. 677 to the City Council. D. TRAFFIC STUDY NO, 56 Findings: 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Council Policy S-1. 2. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project traffic will add to an unsatisfactory level of service at the intersection of Bristol Street North and Birch Street which will have an Intersection Capacity Utilization of greater than 0.90. -26- s COMMISSIONERS MINUTES . ym6i^��v��9 v�7 yO�Jc May 4, 1989 <<�om o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX. 3. That the traffic study suggests an improvement which will improve the level of traffic service to meet the criteria of the Traffic Phasing Or- dinance. 4: That the proposed project, including the circulation system improvement, will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level , of traffic service on any arterial roadway. Conditions: 1. Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the proposed project, the additional of a westbound left turn lane on Bristol Street North at Birch Street shall have been constructed, unless subsequent project approval requires modification thereto. The , intersection improvement shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 2. The portions of the parking lot affected by the project shall be subject to further review and approval by the City Traffic Engineer. E. RESUBDIVISION NO. 892 Finding: 1. That the design of the subdivision will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of. the property within the proposed subdivision. 1 Conditions: 1. That a parcel map be recorded prior to issuance, of building permits unless otherwise approved by the Public Works and Planning Departments. That the Parcel Map be prepared using the State Plane Coordinate System as a basis of bearing. Z. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. -27- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES AO '=ce� qup�B May 4, 1989 KIP CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 3. That the on-site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review and approval by the City Traffic Engineer. 4. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to the issuance of any building permits. endment No 628 Public Hearin Item No.8 Req at to amend Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal A628 Code o as to establish regulations controlling the instal tion of satellite dish antennas in the City; and Approved the acce tance of an environmental document. INITIATED The City of Newport Beach The public has ng was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Day Ham ton, Hamilton Satellites, 2808 West Fifth Street, Santa Ana, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Hamilton agre with the draft Ordinance with two exceptions. Im refe ence to Section 20.75.030, F (1) Roof Mounted Antennas (Siz "The diameter of any roof mounted satellite dish antenna all not exceed six (6) feet.", Mr. Hamilton explained that ix feet would not be an adequate size in this area for sate lite reception, He stated that only a roof mount is used o commercial buildings inasmuch as residential buildings wi not hold the weight of an antenna, but an eave mount wou be suitable. Mr. Hamilton explained that antennas are of n mounted on poles to a height that receive a clear view f the satellites. In response to a question posed by airman Pomeroy, Mr. Hamilton explained that there are tw different types of satellites: a C-Band and a new European -U satellite that has three times the frequency and po r of a C-Band satellite. He stated that 80 percent of th satellites are C-Band which require a 10 foot antenna r acceptable reception. Mr. Hamilton further explained at a 6 foot antenna would be suitable for the European K- satellite; however, he said that there is currently almost o choice of programming for said satellite but that there will be an improvement in 5 to 10 years. In response to a question posed by Chairman Pomeroy, J es Hewicker, Planning Director, replied that if staff d known that there is poor or no reception on a 6 foot C-Ban -28- Planning Commission Meeting May 4. 1989 Agenda Item No. 7 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO. Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: " General Plan Amendment 89 1(F) (Public Hearing) Request to amend the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan to increase the General Plan Intensity Limit for Koll Center Newport Industrial Sites 1 & 2 by 39,000 square feet in order to allow,the construction of a 65,000 square feet office building, and the acceptance of an environmental document. AND B. Amendment No 677 (Public Hearing) Request to amend the Koll Center Newport Planned Community District Regulations so as to combine Industrial Sites 1 & 2 into Light Industrial Site 1, increase the development entitlement in Light Industrial Site 1 by 39,000 square feet and increase the allowed building height to 55 feet, so as to allow the construction of a 65,000 square foot office building. AND C. Traffic Study No 56 (Public Hearing) Request to approve a traffic study to allow the construction of a 65,000 square foot office building on Koll Center Newport Industrial Site 1. AND D. Resubdivision No 892 (Public Hearing) Request to resubdivide two existing lots into a single parcel of land. LOCATION: Lots 1 and 2 of Tract 7953, located at 4311 Jamboree Road, on the westerly side of Jamboree Road between MacArthur Boulevard and Birch Street. �9 • TO: Planning Commission - 2. ZONE: PC APPLICANT: C. E. Matson for Rockwell International, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant Applications The applications requested will, if approved, enable the construction of a 65,000 square foot office building on the Rockwell International site in the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. Included in the request is an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan to increase the intensity limit for the site by 39,000 square .feet; amendments to the Koll Center Newport,Planned Community District Regulations to combine Industrial Sites 1 and 2, increase the allowable development to reflect the new General Plan entitlement and increase the allowed building height from 35 feet to 55 feet; approve a traffic study for the project; and resubdivide the existing two parcels into a single site. General Plan Amendment procedures are contained in City Council Policy Q-1, Amendment procedures are in Chapter 20.84, Planned Community procedures are in Chapter 20.51, Traffic Study procedures are in Chapter 15.40 and Resubdivision procedures are in Chapter 19.12 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Environmental Significance In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and City Policy, an Initial Study has been prepared for the project. Based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, it has been determined that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A Negative Declaration has, therefore, been prepared for the consideration of the Planning Commission. Conformance with the General Plan The Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan designates the property for General Industry. This category has been designed to recognize the changing character of industrial areas in the city, and allows research and development, manufacturing, warehousing, wholesale sales, professional service offices, service retail and restaurants. The proposed project is consistent with the land use designation. The plan also contains a specific floor area limit for industrial uses on the site of 403,775 square feet. A General Plan Amendment is required to increase the intensity limit for the site by 39,000 square feet in order to approve the project. Subject Property and Surrounding Land Use The Rockwell International Site is currently developed with a manufacturing, research and development and office facility. It is surrounded on the south, west and north by office �0 , TO: Planning Commission - 3. and commercial land uses in Koll Center Newport. To the east, across Jamboree Road are additional office uses and support facilities associated with the University of California, Irvine. Statistical Summary Existing development 390,220 sq.ft. Modular buildings to be removed 12,700 sq.ft. Existing development to remain 377,520 sq.ft. Proposed new building area 65,000 sq.ft. Total development 442,520 sq.ft. Existing General Plan and PC limit 403,775 sq.ft. Proposed increase 39,000 sq.ft. Proposed General Plan and PC limit 442,775 sq.ft. Proposed Floor Area Ratio 0.41 FAR Parking Existing parking 1,292 spaces Existing parking removed 12 spaces New parking spaces 95 spaces Proposed parkfngl 1,375 spaces Required parking - Office2 1,165 spaces Required parking - Manufacturing 163 spaces Required parking - Warehouse 36 spaces Total required parking 1,364 spaces Analysis A series of approvals is necessary to allow construction of the proposed project. Each approval is discussed separately. General Plan Amendment 89-1 (F). An amendment to the General Plan is necessary to increase the entitlement for industrial development in Industrial Sites 1 and 2 of Koll Center Newport and consolidate the sites into Industrial Site 1. The increased development will be for office uses. The use is consistent with the existing land use designation of General Industry, as well as with the established land use. Rockwell International is an established research, development and manufacturing firm in the City 1 Includes 217 existing compact spaces, 12 handicap spaces,8 van pool spaces and 7 RV spaces. 2 office packing standard uses the Knit Center Newport pool parking formula of one space for each 250 sq.ft.for the first 125,000 sq.ft.and one space for each 300 sgft. for the remaining square footage. ai TO: Planning Commission - 4. • of Newport Beach. As a single user site, it has traffic advantages to the city, in that it encourages ridesharing and carpooling, and the mix of manufacturing, warehouse and office is less intense than a typical multi-tenant office use which otherwise would be likely to occupy the site. As such, the proposed project will moderately intensify the use of the site, but, to the extent that approval will allow the existing user to remain on the site, it could still be considered an advantage to the City's traffic and circulation system. The primary consideration relative to the intensification of planned land uses in the city is the adequacy of the traffic and circulation system to sustain the increased traffic which will result from implementation of the project. The following chart describes the project impact related to the traffic projected on the surrounding arterial roadway system. 2010 BUILD-OUT VOLUMES PROJECT 2010 % OF BUILD-OUT FUTURE PROJECT 2010 LOCATION ADT CAPACITY ADT ADT Jamboree Road, 46,000 58,000 15 0.03% n/o Eastbluff Drive Jamboree Road, 43,000 51,000 20 0.05% n/o Bristol Street d Jamboree Road, 47,000 51,000 25 0.05% n/o MacArthur Blvd. Jamboree Road, 61,000 51,000 25 0.04010 n/o Campus Drive Bristol Corridor, 254,000 210,000 25 0.01% w/o Jamboree Road Bristol Corridor, 231,000 200,000 45 0.02% w/o Campus Drive Campus Drive, 49;000 51,000 15 0.03% n/o Bristol Street MacArthur Blvd., 46,000 51,000 10 0.02% n/o Campus Drive 02� TO.. Planning Commission - 5. As illustrated by the chart on the preceding page, the project adds relatively little traffic to the circulation system. The project will, however, add traffic to the Bristol Corridor area which is anticipated to be over capacity. The actual increase in the Bristol Corridor area is 45 average daily trips. Amendment No. 677. It is proposed to amend the Koll Center Newport Planned Community District Regulations to consolidate Industrial Sites 1 and 2 into Industrial Site 1, increase the allowed development by 39,000 sq.ft. to a total of 442,775 sq.ft. and to increase the height limit to 55 feet. These approvals would allow the construction of a multi-level office building on the Rockwell International site. The issues associated with the increase in allowable development is covered by the discussion on the requested General Plan Amendment. The same increase must be made to the Planned Community District Regulations in order to maintain consistency between the two documents. The increase in the permitted height limit from 35 feet to 55 feet will accommodate the proposed three story building. The surrounding area is developed with mid and high rise office buildings, and the proposed height limit is considered compatible with the area. Staff has no objections to the requested height limit. Traffle Study No. 56. A traffic study has been prepared for the proposed project in conformance with the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance and Council Policy S-1. The proposed project is expected to be completed in 1990. Analyses were, therefore, completed for 1991. The City Traffic Engineer identified eleven (11) intersections which could be affected by the project at full occupancy. The first step in evaluating intersections is to conduct a 1% traffic volume analysis, taking into consideration existing traffic, regional growth, and committed projects' traffic. For any intersection where, on any approach leg, project traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of the projected peak 2V2 hour volume in either the morning or afternoon, Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) is required. The 1010 volume analysis identified four (4) intersections where traffic exceeded the one percent criteria, three (3) in the morning peak hour and three (3) in the afternoon peak hour. The following chart summarizes the results of the Intersection Capacity Utilization analysis for the project, including the ICU ratios with the suggested improvement described later in the report. �3 TO: Planning Commission - 6. ICU SUMMARY - 1991 Existing 91 Existing 91 +Committed Existing 91 +Committed +Growth PEAK +Committed +Growth +Project Intersection HOUR +Growth +Project +Improvement Bristol Street North/ AM 0.74 0.74 -- Birch Street PM 1.13 1.14 1.03 Jamboree Road/ PM 0.82 0.83 -- MacArthur Boulevard Jamboree Road/ AM 0.69 0.70 Birch Street MacArthur Boulevard/ AM 0.55 0.56 -- Birch Street PM 0.67 0.68 In order to meet the criteria of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance, a project must be found to neither cause nor make worse an intersection capacity utilization of 0.90 for the year of analysis which includes all committed traffic and regional growth. As shown by the above chart, the project worsens an ICU over 0.90 at the intersection of Bristol Street North and Birch Street. Mitigation of the traffic impact at this intersection is required. Addition of a westbound left turn lane at this intersection will reduce the ICU to 1.03. With this improvement, the project will meet the criteria of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Resubdivision No. 892. The Rockwell International site is currently divided into two parcels. As shown on the attached parcel map, the applicant intends to create a single building site. Parcel No. 1 will 25.043 acres in size. Staff has no objections to the proposed resubdivision. Conclusion and Specific Findings The expansion of the existing land use does not pose any problems from a planning standpoint. The development will not significantly increase project traffic levels in the area, and the maintenance of the single occupant on the site may have some circulation system benefits to the City. The project also meets the criteria of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. a`� TO: Pla• Commission - 7. • Should the Planning Commission wish to recommend approval these applications to the City Council, the actions, findings and conditions included in the attached Exhibit "A" are suggested. Findings are not needed to deny a General Plan Amendment, this action can be taken by motion of the Planning Commission. If the General Plan Amendment is denied, all other applications should also be denied with the finding that the application is not necessary for a project which is denied. PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By' Patncia L. Temp e Principal Planner Attachments: 1. Exhibit "A" 2. Draft Resolution - General Plan Amendment 3. Draft Resolution - Koll Center Newport P-C Amendment 4. Vicinity Map 5. Project Data Sheet 6. Negative Declaration 7. Traffic Study No. 56 Attached separately: 8. Draft P-C Text Amendment 9. Plans and Elevations 10. Tentative Parcel Map PLT/WP50 WP50\PC\GPA89-1F.SR1 TO: Pla•g Commission - 8. Attachment No. 1 0X111BI T "A" ACTIONS, FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89-1 (F) AMENDMENT NO. 677 TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 56 RESUBDIVISION NO. 892 ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUIvII N I Findings: 1. That an Initial Study has been prepared for the project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and City policy. 2. That based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, the project incorporates sufficient mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant environmental effect to a level of insignificance. A Negative Declaration has, therefore, been prepared. 3. That the information contained in the environmental document has been considered in the decision on this project. Mitigation Measure: 1. Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the proposed project, the additional of a westbound left turn lane on Bristol Street North at Birch Street shall have been constructed, unless subsequent project approval requires modification thereto. The intersection improvement shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89-1 (F) Adopt Resolution No. d recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 89-1 (F) to the City Council. AMENDMENT NO, 677 Adopt Resolution No. , recommending approval of Amendment No. 677 to the City Council. D T AFFIC STUDY NO 56 I Findings: 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Council Policy S-1. • • TO: Planning Commission - 9. 2. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project traffic will add to an unsatisfactory level of service at the intersection of Bristol Street North and Birch Street which will have an Intersection Capacity Utilization of greater than 0.90. 3. That the traffic study suggests an improvement which will improve the level of traffic service to meet the criteria of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. 4. That the proposed project, including the circulation system improvement,will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on any arterial roadway. Conditions: 1. Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the proposed project, the additional of a westbound left turn lane on Bristol Street North at Birch Street shall have been constructed, unless subsequent project approval requires modification thereto. The intersection improvement shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 2. The portions of the parking lot affected by the project shall be subject to further review and approval by the City Traffic Engineer. RESUBDIVISION NO, 892 Finding: 1. That the design of the subdivision will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. Conditions: 1. That a parcel map be recorded prior to issuance of building permits unless otherwise approved by the Public Works and Planning Departments. That the Parcel Map be prepared using the State Plane Coordinate System as a basis of bearing. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That the on-site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review and approval by the City Traffic Engineer. 4. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to the issuance of any building permits. TO: •Planning Commission - 10. • Attachment No. 2 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN TO INCREASE THE AL- LOWED DEVELOPMENT ON INDUSTRIAL SITES 1 & 2 IN KOLL CENTER NEWPORT [GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89-1 (F)l WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the Newport Beach General Plan the Land Use Element has been prepared; and WHEREAS, said element of the General Plan sets forth objectives, supporting policies and limitations for development in the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, said element of the General Plan designates the general distribution and general location and extent of the uses of land and building intensities in a number of ways,including residential land use categories and population projections, commercial floor area limitations, the floor area ratio ordinances; and WHEREAS, the Land Use and Circulation Elements are correlated as required by California planning law; and WHEREAS, the provisions and policies of the Land Use and Circulation Elements are further implemented by the traffic analysis procedures of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance and the implementation programs of that Ordinance and the Fair Share Traffic Contribution Fee Ordinance; and WHEREAS,pursuant to Section 707 of the Charter of the City of Newport Beach, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing to consider a certain amendment to the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan; and WHEREAS,the proposed project is compatible with the existing land uses in Koll Center Newport; and WHEREAS, the circulation system will not be significantly impacted by the proposed project; and WHEREAS, the increased development in Koll Center Newport Industrial Sites 1 &2 will enable the Rockwell International Corporation to continue occupancy of the site and result in a positive benefit to the City; and a� TO: Dimming Commission - 11. • WHEREAS, intersections in the vicinity of the project will function at a similar or improved level of service when compared to the existing plan; and WHEREAS, the project meets the criteria of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance;.and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach prepared a Negative Declaration with supporting Initial Study for the project in compliance with the California Environ- mental Quality Act(CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the environmental document in making its decision on the proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach that an amendment to the General Plan with related provisions and requirements as described in Exhibit 1 is recommended for approval to the City Council. ADOPTED this_day of 1989,by the following vote, to wit: AYES NOES ABSENT BY Gary omeroy CHAIRMAN BY Gary t ano SECRETARY PLT/WP WP\PC\GPA89-IF.RSI O� TO: Plann.* Commission - 12 . Exhibit 1 Airport Area(Statistical Area IA) i. Koll Center Newport. Koll Center Newport is bounded by Campus Drive,Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard.The area is identified as the Koll Center Newport Planned Community.Areas described are the same as those defined in the Planned Community Text.All development limits exclude parking. 1-1. KCNOffice SiteA.This site is designated for Administrative,Professional and Finan- cial Commercial land use and is allowed 403,346 sq ft.plus 47.1 hotel rooms. 1-2. KCNOffice Site B.This site is designated for Administrative,Professional and Finan- cial Commercial land use and is allowed 1,060,898 sqft. Support retail commercial uses are allowed within this allocation. 1-3. KCNOffice Site C.This site is designated for Administrative,Professional and Finan- cial Commercial land use and is allocated 734,641 sq.ft. Support retail commercial uses are allowed within this allocation. 1-4. KCNOffice Site D.This site is designated for Administrative,Professional and Finan- cial Commercial land use and is alldcated 250,149 sq.ft. Support retail commercial uses are allowed within this allocation. 1-5. KCNO&e SiteE.This site is designated for Administrative,Professional and'Finan- cial Commerciallanduse and is allocated32,500 sq.ft.Support retail commercial uses are allowed within this allocation. 1-6. KCNOffice Site F.This site is designated for Retail and Service Commercial land use and is allocated 34,500 sgft.This site may also accommodate separate office uses. 1-7. KCNOffice Site G.This site isdesignated for Administrative,Professional and Finan- cial Commercial landuse and is allocated 81,372 sq.ft.Support retail commercial uses are allowed within this allocation. 1-8. KCNIndustrial Site 1"This site is designated for General Industry and is allocated lyy,4115 4WOM sgft. 1-9. KCNRetail and Service Site 1.This site is designated for Retail and Service Commer- cial and is allocated 102,110 sq.ft. 1-10. Court House.This site is designated for Governmental,Educational and Institution- al Facilities and is allocated 90;000 sq.ft. 2. Newport Place. Newport Place is bounded by Birch Street, MacArthur Boulevard, Jamboree:Road and Bristol Street North.The area is identified as the Newport Place Planned Community.The areas described are not the same as those defined on the Planned Community Text map,but are a compilation of the area on a block-by-block -74- �0 TO; P1.0 Commission - 13 ESTIMATED GROWTH FOR STATISTICAL AREA IA Residential(in du's) Commercial(in sq.Ct.) Existing Gen.Plan Projected Existing Gen.Plan Projected 1/1/87 Projection Growth 1/197 Projection Growth 1-1.KCN OS A -0- -0- -0- 874,346 ' 874,346 -0- 1-2.KCN OS B -0- -0- 4)- 1,060,898 1,060,898 -0- 1-3.KCN OS C -0- -0- -0- 734,641 .734,641 -0- 14.KCN OS D -0- -0- 40- 250,176 250,176 -0- 1-5.KCN OS E -0- -0- -0- 30,810 32,500 11690 1.6.KCN OS F -0- -0- -0- 31,816 34,3W 2,484 1-7.KCN OS G' 4 4 4)- 81,372 4 1-8.KCN IND 1&2 4 4 4)- 377,5M 1-9.KCN RS 1 -0- 4 4 5%086 102,110 50,024 1-10.Court House 4 4 -0- 69,2.% 90,000 20,744 2-L NP BLKA 4 4 4 349,000 468,000 119,000 2-2.NP BI.K B -0- 4 4 10,1M 11,950 1,800 23.NP BLK C 4 4 4 211,487 457,880 246,393 2-4.NP BLKD 4 4 4 274,3W. 288,264 13,964 2-5.NP BLK E -0- 4 4 834,762 834,762 4)- 2.6 NP BLK F 4 4 4 192,675 201,180 8,505 2-7.NP BLK G&H -0- 4 4 255,001 295,952 40,951 2.8.NP BLKI 4 4 4 160,578 160,578 -0- ' 2-9.NP BLKJ 4 -0- 40- 190,500 228,530 38,030 3.Campus Drive 4 -0- 4 885,202 1,261,727 376,525 7&q / qS 5 TOTAL -0- -0- -& 6,926,576 Population 4 4 0 HARBOR VIEW HILLS AREA (STATISTICAL DIVISION M) This area includes all land northerly of Fifth Avenue and easterly of MacArthur Boulevard. Harbor VIew Hills Area (Statistical Area Ml) 1. Point del Mar. This site is located on the:Northeasterly corner.of MacArthur Boulevard and Fifth Avenue. The site is designated for Single Family Detached development and is allocated 43 dwelling units. No subdivision which will result in the addition of dwelling units is allowed. -76- TO: Planning Commission - 14. • ' Attachment No. 3 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF 'THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF AN AMEND- MENT TO THE KOLL CENTER NEWPORT PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS (PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENT NO. 677) WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the Newport Beach General Plan the Land Use Element has been prepared; and WHEREAS, the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides specific procedures for the implementation of Planned Community zoning for properties within the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, an amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned Com- munity is necessary in order to maintain consistency between the Newport Beach General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach prepared a Negative Declaration for the project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)and the State CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the environmental document in making its decision on the proposed amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby recommend to the City Council an amend- ment to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community designated as Planning Commis- sion Amendment No. 677 as shown on Exhibit 1 attached. ADOPTED this_day of 1989,by the following vote, to wit: AYES NOES ABSENT BY Gary W. Pomeroy, CHAIRMAN BY Gary J. Di Sano, SECRETARY qp: Pilming Commission - 15 Exhibit 1 PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Koll Center Newport Newport Beach,'Cali.fornia PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO. 211 33 TO: Planning Commission - 16 • PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS For Koll Center Newport Ordinance No. 1449 adopted by the City of Newport Beach on August 14, 1972 (Amendment No. 313) Original draft May 5, 1972 Amendment No. (1) August 14, 1972 Amendment No. (2) August 14, 1972 Amendment No. (3) August 2, 1973 Amendment No. (4) February 7, 1974 Amendment No. (5) June 10, 1974 Amendment No. (6) May 15, 1975 Amendment No. (7) September 8, 1975 Amendment No. (8) June 28, 1976 Amendment No. (9) January 10, 1977 Amendment No. (10) July 11, 1978 Amendment No. (11) August 28, 1978 Amendment No. (12) October 19, 1978 Amendment No. (13) November 10, 1980 Amendment No. (14) March 23, 1981 Amendment No. (15) October 24, 1984 Amendment No. (16) May 14, 1984 Amendment Na. (17) December 9, 1985 Amendment No. (18) July 14, 1986 Amendment No. (19) March 23, 1987 Amendment No. (20) July 27, 1987 Amendment No. (21) Note: See Footnotes, Page 48 for description of amendments. TO• ` Pl•ing Conunission - 17 • PART I. INDUSTRIAL Section 1 . Statistical Analysis A. Building Sites Acreages shown are net buildable land area including landscape setbacks, within property lines. (4) Site 1: 25.043 acres . . . . . . . . . . 25.043 acres (8) (21) B. Allowable Building Area Site 1: 442,775 square feet . . . 10.16 acres (8) (21) C. Parkin2 Criteria The following statistics are for information obly. Development may include but shall not be limited to the following: To allow a basis for calculation parking was assumed to be three (3) spaces per one thousand (1000) square feet of building and at one hundred twenty (120) cars per acre. Site 1: 1,328 cars . . . . . . . . . . . . .11.07 acres (8) (21) D. Landscaped Open Space (21) Site 1: Area. . . . . . . . . . . . .25.04 acres Buildin2. . . . . . . . .10.16 acres 14.88 acres Parking area. . . . .11.07 acres Net Open Space. . . 3.81 acres -9- 3s TO: Planning Commission - 18 B. Building Areas Maximum building areas shall be as noted in the Statistical Analysis, Part 1, Section I . C. Building Height Building heights of structure shall be limited to a height of fifty-five (55) feet. Exception: existing non-conforming structures. (21) -11.1- TO: Planning Commission - 19 b. Eliminated Service Station Site No. 1 and added the land area to Professional and Business Office Site "B" . c. Revised the parking requirement for office buildings within Professional and Business Office sites. (12) Planned Community Text revision (Amendment No. 514, adopted October 19, 1978) incorporating the following changes: a. Established existing and additional allowable development as of October 1, 1978. b. Established the requirement and criteria for phasing plan approval of development beyond thirty (30) percent of the additional allowable development. (13) Planned Community Text revision incorporating the transfer to allowable building area from Professional and Business Office Site IT" to Professional and Business Office Site "B" . (Amendment No. 550, adopted November 10, 1980. ) (14) Planned Community Text revision for Retail and Service Site No. I which ,allocates existing and permitted development. '(Amendment No. 558, adopted March 23, 1981. ) (15) Planned Community Text revision increasing the allowable building area in Site C (MacArthur Court) . (Amendment No. 593, adopted October 24, 1983. ) (16) Planned Community Text revision incorporating the transfer of allowable office, restaurant and retail building area from Professional and Business Office Site "A" to Professional and Business Office Site "B" . (Amendment no. 606, adopted May 14, 1984. ) (17) Planned Community Text revision to allow up to two restaurants with a total floor area not to exceed 3,250 square feet within "Office Site V . (Amendment No. 626, adopted Decmber 9, 1985. ) (18) Planned Community Text revision deleting restaurant site 1 and substitut- ing a private club with a total floor area not to exceed 30,000 square feet within Office Site "A". (Amendment No. 635, adopted July 14, 1986. ) (19) Planned Community Text revision to allow auto detailing as a permitted use. (Amendment No. 647, adopted March 23, 1987. ) (20) Planned Community Text revision adding support commercial uses to the per- mitted uses under Professional and-Business Office permitted uses. (Amendment No. 649, adopted July 27, 1987. ) (21) Planned Community Text revision combining Light Industrial Site 1 and 2 into Light Industrial Site 1 and increasing the allowable building area for the combined site. (Amendment No. adopted ) -50- C �J AREA SUMMARY PER RECORDED TRACT MAP NO.310.7 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL 25.043 AC OFFICES 122.574 AC RETAIL&SERVICE 5.026 AC COURTHOUSE 7.800 AC } OFFICE e NET USABLE AREA 160.443 AC � 1uaAo,MET _ NOTE: ALL AREAS ARE ERCLVSIVE OF DEDICATED RIGHTS OF WAY 10 • ,I Ply REAL a SERVICE Q ears AM ET 0 OFFICE A W 30"AMMET y Ln I CD roro OFfltE 0 S IANE Y 19A73 At NET � m NORTH 0103 AD NET LAND USE LAST AEVISIDN AFAII T.1.11 .;:c•.';�f ..... Ah rJt::r.a;.aJ v'',,:c:A`'�:'•Y.'y.;�:.3'; Telle :b-iJi'v:+?.: n..r}Ji?:.tr.. J'1.. �1:?:i:r:h..•:.,:;.-'ty .....a1+... .... :'.:::::.i-,:w.�:..r,'.:SITE 1>J`a#F�-.: > r.�=�''�6.ICa1'IT INDU&TRIAti�"J��b �%'•� <xxi8> :y ';%;:+• 25.043 AC NET o?:.. :a,�..o;;�`Y:XJ' ::•;v rirl At NET- ;,';:.:>:.:::•.`.......:.....• rc v:' :J y >J,9 Y;3,':^.:•. : COINrX0 1b2.tg• IAO At,NET KOLL CENTER NEWPORT �`:;S;a .:;f:�::�A::.:.: :t il%`•'�:yy'C::.:..s�:�;^:.:8:;�<�b`Sfy r•��;�; ::oi NEWPORT BEACH,CALWORNIA J tic,:;r@v:Jjj.:-:t.,:9i.;vfs4'u.'h*yt;'."b:;•t;„SJ e�+.:':�;FF 'c/:::n': ;`' :'C':^:":i..:: jyr•`:.�iL-::.c^.'i:b`:u£?•i'v:: OFFICE O ORICE f " 17MMET LE[ LANGDON•WILSON•MUMPER c Jamboree Blvd . I I c r s —, AMENDMENT (21) i eAttachment No. 4 VICINITY MAP �- GPA 89 - 1 ( F) Amendment No . 677 Traffic Study No . 56 Resubdivision No . 892 �' i rE1 PETAL A SERVICE E O3E AF NET , OFFICE A 3013E At NET c N OFFIR 0 t 1E4I3 AC.NET t pa LAKE m U OFFICE B �w AO NET TetfeF ;'r�;ti,.>••;t:!x+1�,':•:t"�.}.. 5:' :': '.::}>;.s::'h.. APB .?:;+• .''}t:'t<•.,:4 •..g �::C::w: :.:• .y., :is .. •:.: s;.}.F>..>F};2.%:t SITE 1;•rn}.::}:Ll..r}:?•:: ''�N:fti:::tY..�..�ti.:;iti:::• "M E U:+. ;;'{i :c:4't:i:'R':';rr•;'N�.;%}'. `: sail AC NET a � 1.1GHT INDU&TRIA4:••g;;A..;�,•::.;:;:.;:t.:::.,;, •>F..}. t ' 5,.... •.::::�C:::: COP11rNpIEE E•: : ,t•i..t,. 28.043AC NET .}••.t :. :th?:?:;'::.::;; ti.:. ss <.r: s;•`;4} 1211•. % 7i6T..: }iv:u7:'i..4.n:`: ti.,:.,`•'.n. h.•' /f.'.}�'•ik'i+:}. •f%,.:ri:•:..K�:>.r:v:�:}:j�,>.:v:::;R:}i2•}i'E:i�: :'k>::::i:t•:?}F.�.:• NORTH 4.:,w' Cf:c:� :<$: nio>,.}:;::;:'t '::..••"';:::.:•:tir•:'<•+:.fi.: "f:.•x[• rn.. .H:Y: >'+ .:,::fi:::•S�:'••'E:itF.::�:;}:i•r::}$: OfFICE i >: ,'.4k'f.'•::i�'v.?}ni p:P.u:`.r'.'::sy.:..it t`.::i::i: ,•in>:: OFFN:E 0 Y:.r¢..{�i •:is •`+u;':F.:t;".>•:txi .•,S}.;,: a.3v AC.NEi Ix°°AC.IEj Jamboree Blvd r KOLL CENTER NEWPORT NEWPORT EEACN,CALIFORNIA 39 afi' . *chment No. S LANGDON • WILSON • MUMPER A R C H I T E C T S LWM Job No. 8914-000 March 30, 1989 ROCKWELL ZONING AMENDMENT DATA TABLE 1 Existing Maximum Allowable Building Area 403,775 s.f. Proposed Increase 39.000 s.f. Proposed Maximum Allowable Building Area 442:775 s.f. Existing Building Area 377,5,'0 (1) Proposed New Building Area 65,000 442,520 (1) In addition to the existing improvements there currently exists 12.i11(' s.f. of temporary structure that will be removed upon transfer of its occupant. into either the existing or proposed permanent structures . TABLE 2 Existing Mix of Uses: 501-M 501 503-1 503-2 TOTAL Office 6,675 88,815 75,630 46,765 217,835 s .f. Manufacture 0 0 3,375 34,440 37,815 s.f. Warehouse 0 37,860 43,080 40.880 121,820 s. f. TOTALS 6,675 126,675 122,085 122,085 377,520 s .f. Proposed (Conceptual ) Mix of Uses: 501-M 501 503-1 503-2 New TOTAL Office 6,675 88,815 81,576 82,213 65,000 324,279 ' . f. Manu. 0 0 15,525 38,565 541090 s .`. Warehouse 0 37,860 24,984 1,307 64,1.51• °• TOTALS 6,341 126,675 122,085 122,035 651000 442,520 :. . f . (ROCK:M-2) 4100 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD,SUITE 200.P.O.BOX 2440.NEWPORT BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92658.0971 714 800.9193 �p . LANGDON • WILSON • MUMPER •A R C H I T E C T a LWM Job No. 8914-000 March 30, 1989 ROCKWELL ZONING AMENDMENT DATA TABLE 3 LOT # EXISTING PARKING (2) STANDARD COMPACT VAN POOL HANDICAP REC.VEHICLES TOTALS 1 23 y 23 2 80 80 3 330 4 4 Motorcycle 338 27 ' -0" 4 12 200 212 5 92 17 109 6 517 4 2 Motorcycle 530 63'-0" R.V. 7 TOTALS 1054 217 6 6 7 1292 PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPOSED 65,000 SQ. FT. OFFICE BUILDING: Office: 324,279 sq. ft. = 1st 125,000 @ 1/250 = 500 spaces remaining 199,279 @ 1/300 = 1165 required spaces LANGDON • WILSON • MUMPER A N C H I T E C T 8 LWM Job No. 8914-000 March 30, 1989 PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPOSED 65,000 SQ. FT. OFFICE BUILDING (continued) Manufacturing: 54090 sq. ft. = 54090 @ 3/1000 = 163 spaces Warehouse: 64151 = 1st 20,000 @ 1/1000 = 20 spaces 2nd 20,000 @ 1/2000 = 10 spaces remaining at 24,151 @ 1/4000 = 6 spaces 36 spaces required Total adjusted parking required: Office = 1165 spaces Manufacturing = 163 spaces Warehouse = 36 spaces 1364 spaces required for 65,000 sq. ft. office addition PROPOSED NEW PARKING ADDITIONS: Parking required 1364 (12 to be handicap) Existing parking 1292 (2) 72 spaces needed New parking: (See Site Plan) Lot #1 = 44 new standard spaces Lot #7 = 18 new standard spaces 6 new handicap spaces Lot #8 = 18 new standard spaces 6 new handicap spaces Lot #3 = 2 new standard spaces (from restriping) Lot #6 = 1 new standard space (from restriping) Total new parking = 95 0ld spaces removed = -12 83 total added spaces (2) Existing parking based on physical on site survey conducted by Langdon Wilson Architects and Planners on 3-7-89. LANGDON •WILSON • MUMPER A R G H I T E G T S LWM Job No. 8914-000 March 30, 1989 SUMMARY OF TOTAL SPACES (NEW & OLD): Standard 1131 Compact 217 (16% of total ) Handicap 12 (Amount required under Title 24) Van Pool 8 Recreational Vehicles 7 1375 TOTAL REQUIRED - 1364 11 Surplus ti T� If SEW Pol 16� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH U Z P.O.BOX 1768,NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92658-8915 NEGATIVE DECLARATION FROM- Planning Department T0: Office of Planning and Research City of Newport Beach Q1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 P.O. Box 1768 Sacramento, CA 95814 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 ❑ County Clerk of the County X of Orange P.O. Box 838 Santa Ana, CAQ927702 ` NAME OF PROJECT:�PA o�'I gme►�dmr) lo`I� t�e�ubdi�i�io q2(o o PROJECT LOCATIONRCk,mil lh}eYl'tclum1, 43 II lu) Jamboree Load N �v,era l I n arc( len � hl nh�,Ip 1J PROJECT DESC 1PTI�ON:QY�Io � Q (An� rU1( .0A �� Q �O�l" fl 6 �uf D provisions of City Council Policy K-3 pertaining to FINDING: Pursuant to the guidelines to implement the California Environmental sed project procedures and gu' Committee has Act, the Environmental Afair ject willenotuhave a significant effect and determined that the proposed on the environment. `y•,'1 MITIGATION MEASURES: 60M 1 l��ak 5wl INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY: CjiA4 I �o P° r4 ►.)acl- INITIAL STUDY AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT: 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: Environmental coordinator DATE: 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach ,�'f ENVIRONMENTAL CIIEQ=ST FORM I. Background 1. Name of Proponent &C.ICW6LL 413/l DJ21LF )eo 2. A dress and Ph e Number of Pro o ent 3. Date Checklist Submitted Ap-&�V C z'iuD/)PT 4. Agency Requiring Checklist �TLI OF PA S = ! ) 5. Name of Proposal, if applicableNT 77 R,rsueDjvISIO,V II. Environmental Impacts 9z (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) Yes Maybe No 1. Earth, Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in X geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or X overcovering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface x relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification Y of any unique geologic or physical features? _ L e, Any increase in wind or water erosion of 1 , soils, either on or off the site? — ]K f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? — 1S g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? - 1 - ��I Yes Maybe No 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration v of ambient air quality? L b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, — either locally or regionally? ' 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? — b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? C. Alterations to the course or flow of K r:n flood waters? — d. Change in the amount of surface water X in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, \/ dissolved oxygen or turbidity? — G f. Alteration of the direction or rate of X flow of ground water? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an �1 aquifer by cuts or excavations? — !� h. substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public X water supplies? "— i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal V waves? L� 2 - (• Yes Maybe No q_ Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or num- ber of any species of plants (including trees, X shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? — b. Reduction of the'numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a, 'in the diversityc num- bers o (birds, land bets of any species of animals animals including reptiles, fish and shell- X fish, benthic organisms or insects)? 4:'• b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique. �( rare or endangered species of animals? — c, Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migra- tion or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife x habitat? '— 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? _ 7, Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new X _ light or glare? —' 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a sub- stantial alteration of the present or planned v land use of an area? -- L 3 - �4 Yes Maybe No 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural x resources? 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or X upset conditions? _ b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? he 11. Population. Will density, or a proposal owth ratetof the human distribution, ty. Y� Z( population of an area? -- 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? -- 13. Transportation/Girculation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional X vehicular movement? — b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or _ demand for new parking? c. Substantial impact upon existing trans- x portation systems? — d. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?— X f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, u bicyclists, or pedestrians? — 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered gov- ernmental services in any of the following areas: - 4 - ,�9 A Yes Maybe No X a. Fire protection? x b. Police protection? —vv 1�. C. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f, other governmental services? — X 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: x a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? •b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources or energy, or require the development X of new sources of energy? 16. n w sy tems,ill or substantialproposal alterationsato need thefor following utilities: x a. • Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? L C. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? — e. Storm water drainage? — f, solid waste and disposal? — 17 man Health. Will the proposal result in? a. Creation of any healthOward or potential x health heazard (excluding mental health)? _ b. Exposure of people to potential health X hazards? 5 - T-9 Yes Maybe No 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? L 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or x historic archaeological site? — b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or x historic building, structure, or object? c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses with the potential impact area? 21. Mandatory Findings of significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of 'a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of V California history or prehistory? _ 1S - 6 - �1;4 <• (9 Yes Maybe No b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a rela- d of time tively-term impacts endureowell into there long-term imp _ future.) C. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively on two or con- siderable? (A project may impact more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where X the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects v which will cause substantial adverse effects J` on human beings, either directly or indirectly?___- III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation (Narrative description of environmental impacts.) ~ IV. Determination on the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT Dhave eaa siig if�BE effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE PREPARED. I find that although the proposed project could have a signif- icant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL'IIMAGT REPORT is required. !I l 4�9 *Datp Signature C\PLT\EIRLIST.FRM For Q —3:r PROJECT DESCRIPTION Rockwell International proposes to increase office and support facilities on their existing site by 65,000 sq.ft. This increase in development will enable the company to remain at this location. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Lb. The proposal, if approved, will result in the removal of existing modular buildings and the construction of a 65,000 sq. ft. building which will be used for office and support uses. The construction process with result in the disruption and covering of soil. The site is, however, currently fully developed and this effect is considered insignificant. 2. During construction of the proposed project, the use of heavy equipment may result in the creation of localized odors. This effect is short term in nature, and is considered an insignificant adverse effect. 3. The construction of the new office building will produce a new source of light and glare. The entire area is, however, commercial in nature and no adverse effects are anticipated. 13.a. The additional development will increase the daily traffic generated by the site. A traffic study was prepared by the firm of Weston Pringle & Associates to assess the potential effects of this increased traffic, and is hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth. Eleven intersections in the vicinity of the project site were analyzed, and the results of the study indicated that four intersections were impacted by the project by more than 1010 in the morning afternoon peak 21a hours. Intersection Capacity Utilization analysis of these four intersections revealed that one intersection, Bristol Street North at Birch Street, was adversely impacted by the proposed project in the PM peak hour. However, the addition of a westbound left turn lane on Bristol Street North at Birch street would mitigate the adverse impacts of the project. _ 13.b. The increased development will generated the need for additional parking facilities on site. All required parking can be provided on site and no adverse effects are anticipated. MITIGATION MEASURE 1. Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the proposed project, the additional of a westbound left turn lane on Bristol Street North at Birch Street shall have been constructed, unless subsequent project approval requires modification thereto. The intersection improvement shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. f. • ( • MITIGATION MONITORING Completion of the mitigation requirement shall be verified by the Planning and Public Works Departments prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. • oachment No. 6 I' ` ' Weston Pringle & Associates ` J A TRAPrIC&TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING March 3, 1989 . 0 Ms. Pat Temple S �r'c°`""'��o .9 Environmental Coordinator City of Newport Beach b MAR P.O. Box 1768 J! cO$try Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 £ oqr I SOH'/\jam'!// Dear Ms. Temple: This letter summarizes our analysis of traffic factors related to the proposed Rockwell Expansion Project in the City of Newport Beach. The study has been conducted to satisfy the requirements of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. This study is based upon information provided by the Rockwell Corporation, City Staff and previous studies. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Simi-conductor Products Division of Rockwell International is located on the westerly side of Jamboree Road, southerly of Birch Street. An expansion ' of the facilities is proposed which would increase the total building area by 39,000 square feet. In addition, a 25,000-300000 square foot expansion to the manufacturing area may be required. This expansion would add a maximum of 257 employees to the site. The employees are spread over five shifts with most employees beginning at 7:30 AM. Vehicular access is provided at two locations on Jamboree Road and one location on Birch Street. Figure 1 illustrates the project location. .EXISTING CONDITIONS I1 The streets in the area of the project are fully developed. Jamboree Road is a six lane street with medians which extends from north of I-405 to Coast Highway. There are two lanes of travel in each direction on Birch Street with left turn channelization. Parking is prohibited on both streets. The intersection of Jamboree Road and Birch Street is signalized as are other principal intersections in the area. 2(i51 East Chapman Avenue • Suite 110 0 Putterton.California 92631 • (71.1) 871-2931 ' �I — DR. I Jy r. V � J O� BRISTOL ST m BRISTOL. ST NORTH JN�JE ir n 20 c sn y F W FORD 6� GO a gpN JOAQ�ih a o . 0: ig W h'<<g Ra ` a to m a a _ w a B OpAST H�yY to 0 o PACIFIC �� I a SITE LOCATION MAP I WESTON PRINGLM ASSOCIATES FIGURE I w,- Existing daily traffic volumes and 1988 ICU values at major intersections are illustrated on Figure 2. These data were provided by the City of Newport Beach. TRIP GENERATION Since the project is an expansion of an existing project, it was possible to obtain data specifically related to trip generation characteristics of this facility. Driveway traffic volumes were provided by Rockwell which were summaries of traffic counts conducted by Newport Traffic Studies the week of September 26, 1988. These volumes are summarized in Table 1 along with trip generation rates based upon the number of existing employees. Rates were determined for each of the analysis period required in the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The estimated 2.5 and peak hour trip generation for the proposed expansion are listed in Table 2. These estimates are based upon a 257 increase in employment. An estimated 200 trips would be generated during the AM 2.5 hour peak and 180 during the PM 2.5 hour peak. During the AM peak hour, an estimated 85 trips would be generated and 70 during the PM peak hour. TRIP ASSIGNMENT In order to assign project traffic to the street system, it is necessary to develop a trip distribution pattern. Data was provided by Rockwell indicating the home zip codes of existing employees. These data were plotted on a area map and a distribution pattern developed for the site. This distribution is illustrated on Figure 3. The estimated trips to be generated by the project were assigned to the street system in conformance with this distribution. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS The traffic analysis has been completed to conform to the criteria of the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance. A total of 11 intersections were identified by the City Traffic Engineer for inclusion in the analysis. The first required analysis is the "One Percent" test. An intersection is defined as critical by the Ordinance when the project traffic exceeds one percent of existing plus committed project plus regional growth traffic on any approach 37 .57/0.66 36 0.68/0.69 0.47/0.56 DR. 14 h 0.58/0.92 aJ 7. 0,49/0.49 r 1.02/0.90 u ,`'SITE O4Z- 8R'STOL ST m m 0.54/0.62 \ 15 5 NORTH 0.84/0. BRISTOL ST 0.96/0.71� 29 LEGEND 0.95/0.59 0.87/0.68 66 N DAILY VOLUMES THOUSANDS. Q78/0.55 Q 54 0.77/0.66 = AM/PM ICU 4� Dc, 0.89/0.73 50 w J A N S014 yG a 39 9RD• u� Q69/0.59 0.91/0.77 FORD 6� 0.68/0.76 �p 0.78/0.55 50 `51 N 04Q�i a a 5P 3 N 17 0.65/0.82 it a 0.57/0.73 8 H/CGS RD. '�, n ' '4J Q O W � ~ CENTER Q71/0.87 Q W G a 2 N O !_ a ` 2 40 g4 $ 37� 47 43 28 w a 74 2a. c 60 COAST HWY 52 �� 0 0 _ 0. W d PACIFIC �09 in can ti rn �qh o o d a $ 43 pQ ° �p Po 0o y o �3p ~ �0 : co cD (D ? gp' rn F 0 d O O °° O d 0 p 0 cn d O 4 ad m 0� Go d d EXISTING DAILY VOLUMES AND ICU VALUES GU 2 wEsroN rwNcLE a,ASSOCIATES �� a • -3- Table 1 EXISTING DRIVEWAY VOLUMES & TRIP GENERATION RATES Rockwell International TIME PERIOD VEHICLES(') RATE(2) In Uut in u 6:30 - 9:00 AM 937 313 0.58 0.19 7:30 - 8:30 AM 350 176 0.22 0.11 3:30 - 6:00 PM 204 954 0.12 0.59 4:30 - 5:30 PM 50 394 0.03 0.24 (1) Average volumes for week of September 24, 1988, Newport Traffic Studies. (2) Trip ends per employee - based upon 1,623 employees. Table 2 TRIP GENERATION Rockwell International TIME PERIOD TRIP ENDS(') In Out AM 2.5 Hour Peak 150 50 AM Peak Hour 55 30 PM 2.5 Hour Peak 30 ISO PM Peak Hour 10 60 (1) Based upon 257 employee increase. 5� '�7 • -i DIEGO FRWY a s� 4 N 3� 5 5 25 15 z DR. � 15 15 r Q V O BRISTO�ST °p SITE BRISTOL NORTH S7: 10ti° 1025 5 LEGEND 10 10� 10 - DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGE p n n 5 a G��D. F W FORD 6� GO CS5 JOAQ��N 'a a ce lu y�<<S RD. Li iroo to O N W m W Q a z $ a ¢o w a COAST HWY, p� 0 cr W PACIFIC a PROJECT DISTRIBUTION s9 WESTON MNGLE &ASSOCIATES -,err • • -4- to an intersection during the AM or PM 2.5 hour peak period. A list of committed projects was provided by the City for inclusion in this study and these projects are listed in Table 3. Since the project is scheduled for completion in 1990, the analyses were completed for 1991 as required by the Ordinance. Appendix A contains the "One Percent" analysis sheets for the 11 intersections analyzed and the results are summarized in Table 4. Review of Table 4 indicates that all intersections passed the 'One Percent" test except Bristol Street North/Birch Street, Jamboree Road/Mac Arthur Boulevard, Jamboree Road/Birch Street, and Mac Arthur Boulevard/Birch Street. In conformance with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, ICU analyses were completed for the four intersections for those periods that were found to be critical. These analyses are contained in Appendix B and included existing, existing plus regional growth plus committed project and existing plus regional growth plus committed project plus project traffic conditions. The results of these analyses are summarized in Table 5. Review of Table 5 indicates that all intersections are projected to have ICU values of less than 0.90 for the critical periods except Bristol Street North/Birch Street during the PM peak hour. Additional analysis was completed for this intersection and is described in the following paragraph. Bristol Street North/Birch Street. This intersection is projected to have an ICU value of 1.13 in 1991 without the project and without st reet improvements. With the project, the ICU would increase to 1.14. A previously approved project has been required to add a westbound left turn lane at this intersection. With this improvement, the ICU value with and without the project is reduced to 1.03. The project would not have an impact upon the intersection on this basis. The ICU calculations are contained in Appendix C and illustrated on Figure 4. SUMMARY This study has reviewed traffic factors related to the Rockwell International expansion as required by the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Estimates were made of trips to be generated by the project and the impact of e0 J I— B U) 1 � 1 m I . 1 BIRCH ST. i I 1ti I ADD LEFT z TURN LANE Scale 1'2' 40' �) ILL I I B G / WESTON pWNGLE & ASSOCIATES FIGURE 4 • • -5 Table 3 COMMITTED PROJECTS Hoag Cancer Center Mariners r Church Expansion Aeronutronic Ford Big Canyon Villa Apts. Civic Plaza 1400 Dove Street Corporate Plaza 1100 Quail Street Mac Arthur Court McLachlan-Newport Place Newport Place Koll Center TPP Amend. 4A Sea Island Villa Point Harbor Point, Homes Rosan's Development Martha's Vineyard Fashion Island #2 Valdez Newport Aquatics Center Coast Business Center 2600 E. Coast Hwy. Koll Center NPT No. 1 Taco Bell Ross Mollard Newport Retirement Inn -1501 Superior Medical Newport -Classic Inn 15th Street Apts Newport Lido'Med Center Newporter Resort Expansion Big Canyon 10 Fashion Island Renaissance YMCA 20th St. Bed/Breakfast Inn Amendment No. 1 Ford Aero Amendment No. 1 North Ford Sharaton Expansion Newport Dunes Amendment No. 1 Mac Arthur Bayview National Education City of Irvine Development North Ford Shokrian Riverside Rdtail Building Edwards Newport Center 3800 Campus Dr. Seaside Apts. III 3760 Campus Dr. Newport Imports Fidelity National Title Newport Place Tower Mariners Mile Marine Ctr. U7 • -6- Table 4 CRITICAL INTERSECTION IDENTIFICATION Rockwell International LOCATION 2.5 HOUR PERCENTAGES NB SB EB WS AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Bristol St & Campus Dr. - Irvine Ave. 0.3/0.1 0.4/0.5 0.2/0.1 - - Bristol St. & Birch St. 0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0 0.7/0.2 - - Bristol St. & Jamboree Rd. 0.2/0.1 0.3/0.5 0.3/0.0 - - Bristol St. N. & Campus - Irvine Ave. 0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0 - - 0.6/0.8 Bristol St. N. & Birch St. 1.5/0.7 2.5/1.2 - - 0.0/0.5 Bristol St. N. & Jamboree Rd. 0.3/0.1 0.2/0.9 - - - - Jamboree Rd. & Mac Arthur Boulevard 0.3/0.1 0.0/0.0 0.8/0.2 0.3/1.1 Jamboree Rd. & Birch Street 0.2/0.9 0.8/0.3 1.5/0.5 0.0/0.0 Jamboree Rd. & Campus Drive 0.4/0.8 0.7/0.2 0.0/0.0 0.8/0.3 Mac Arthur Blvd. & Birch 0.0/0.0 0.2/0.1 2.3/0.6 3.2/2.4 Mac Arthur Blvd & Campus Dr. 0.1/0.2 0.2/0.1 0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0 G.� • • -'- Table 5 ICU SUMMARY Rockwell International INTERSECTION PERIOD Existing Existing Existing Existinc (1988) +Regional +Regional +Regional +Committed +Committed +Committer (1991) +Project +Project 1991 W/Improv. Bristol St. N. & Birch St. AM Peak 0.58 0.74 0.74 - PM Peak 0.92 1.13 1.14 1.03 Jamboree Rd. & Mac Arthur PM Peak 0.62 0.82 0.83 - Jamboree Rd. & Birch Street AM Peak 0.49 0.69 0.70 - Mac Arthur Blvd. & Birch St. AM Peak 0.47 0.55 0.56 - PM Peak 0.56 0.67 0.68 - i these trips evaluated in terms of the Ordinance. While one intersection was found to be impacted by the project, other planned development is anticipated to mitigate this impact. Principal findings of the study are the following: 1. The project will generate 85 AM peak hour and 70 PM peak hour trip ' ends over existing trip generation on the site. 2. Of the 11 intersections evaluated, four did not pass the "One Percent" test required by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. 3. Of the four critical intersections, one was found to have ICU values greater than 0.90 with the project during PM peak hour. 4. With improvements related to other projects all intersection impacts would be mitigated. MITIGATION MEASURES The following measure is recommended to mitigate potential traffic impacts of the project. Add a westbound left turn lane on Bristol Street North at Birch Street. (Required by previously approved project.) • • -9- We trust that this study will be of assistance to you and the City of Newport Beach. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact us. Respectfully submitted, WESTON PRINGLE & ASSOCIATES Weston S. Pringle, P.E. Registered Professional Engineer State of California Numbers C16828 & TR565 WSP:hld #890010 APPENDIX A ONE PERCENT ANALYSES !v, 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL ST CAMPUS DR—IRVINF. AV (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage inter pring AM 1968 Peak 211 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1� of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2�, Nour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume I Volume I � Northbound 4277y �� Southbound 941 S-- y 8611 74 0 --� lwestbound _—_ -- Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume a 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. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I (D� 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection I3RIS,I, 8,T CAMPUS DR—IRVINE AV (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage inter pring 19L—PM Peak 2§ Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1P Peak Projected Project I Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak lumeour PeakO21sHour Pedlume yolumeour Peak lame or Volume Volume i Northbound 2412 i `I Z70 Z _. n Southbound 25 137 O 72 / Eastbound 5245 Westbound � �._.— Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected LAJ Peak 22 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. w . DATE: PROJECT: FOR�M/J I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL ST/BIRCH ST (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter pr ng1988TAM Peak 2, Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 16: of ProjectedT Project Direction Peak 2, Hour Growth Peak 2, Hour Peak 2, Hour Peak 2, Hour Peav,2umeour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume � — I Northbound 707 3 D 73-7 V_�-- Southbound 534 u S Eastbound �r J `,7�,j 1 Sy 3�1�ZLI 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 2k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I �D • 0 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL ST/BIRCii ST (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on Average Inter pring 19 a PM (ExistingPeak 21, Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1" of Projected Project Direction Pe°Volume Hour Volume PeaVolumeHour Peak 21s Volumeour Peak VolumeHour PeaYolum Hour I � Northbound 454 Southbound 1652 Eastbound 3723 Z71 /S9' I yb 110 _ i Westbound Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 2)1 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2? Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization , (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I 1% Traffic Voluble Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/BRISTOL ST (Existing Traffic Volumes baste on AVera ee-T4inter Spring 198 D)Am Peak 2, Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2, Hour Growth Peak 2, Hour Peak 2, Hour Peak 2, Hour Peak 2, Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume I I Northbound 6039 ZX,7 91-4 709& 7 (D,Z southbound 7714 3 7 /5770 �6 S Eastbound 5656 7'z S3 lij/ 6 3I Westbound J Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2? Hour Traffic Volume Q 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. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I 1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/BRISTOL ST (Existing Traffic Volumes Fsed on Average Win-ter/Spring 19EFP14 Peak 2y Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1� of Projected Project I Approach Peak 2c, Hour Growth Peak 2, Hour Peak 2, Hour Peak 2, Hour Peako�y Hour DirectionVolume Volume Volume Volume Volume i me Northbound 5464 Southbound 2056 6.7 %:�` 29D 7 9 j/S77 "y Eastbound 5375 / 6621 i .. c JWestbound _— Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 2a Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2-2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL ST N/CAMPUS DR (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Tverage Winter/Spring 19 _LO AM Peak 21, Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1" of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 21i Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume i VoIume I Northbound 6006 O southbound 1332 Eastbound Ci - I d D Westboun —7 l 3038 --•--- _..-� ✓70Z , 3 / 123 �b.L Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Q 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. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I q � 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL ST N/CAMPUS DR—IRVINE AV (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage Inter pring 19 —PM Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1P%Peak Projected Project Direction Peak 22 Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 24 Hour PeaVolumeour P`a Vol umeour Volume Volume Volume Volume i I Northbound 3 3236 �31 3`� 0 Southbound Eastbound O p 9 -75- Westbound 7814 / 775 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 21,2 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 21� Hour Traffic Volume: Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL ST N/BIRCH ST (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Rverage 5ter Spring 1988 AM Peak 2� Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected I" of Projected Project Oirectlon Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 21a Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 21j Hour Peak 212 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume I _ Northbound 2520 lrSS 75 JZ 3fi �/• Southbound 703 { Eastbound Westbound 247$ 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. t i DATE: PROJECT: FORM I 9 • • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL ST N/BIRC11 ST (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage lnterj pr—in g 1988 PM Peak 2's Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1; of Projected Project Direction Peak 21s Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 21, Hour Peek lu Hour Peak Volume Hour Volume Volume volume Volume Volume Volume I Northbound 1214 Southbound 3237 S y7 Eastbound Westbound /3/3 �i��17� __ _ �-- 5099 �— 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 231 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. i DATE: PROJECT: FORM I 10 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/BRISTOL ST N 1988 AM (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on Average inter pring _ aHourprovedApproach Existing ojects Projected l: of Projected ProjectDirection Peak 2k Hour 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Pe°Yolumeour PeaVolumeourVolume olume VolumeINorthbound10144sorthbound 1521Sa O o Eastbound 1 i Westbound b 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 Ni Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I �go u • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/BRISTOL ST N (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage Inter pring 988 PM Peak 2� Hour . Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1n of Projected Project Direction Peak 21S Hour Growth Peak 2 Hour Peak amour PeaYoluineHour PeaVolumeHour Volume Volume Volume / I Northbound 6772 ,�✓S �� 7 /� b '�// S ` ` Southbound Eastbound O j U U Westbound 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 231 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I /fJ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/MACARTHUR BL (Existing Traffic Volumes base on verage Winter/Spring 1988 AM' Peak 21, Hour Approved Approjf Regional Projects Projected 1°: of Projected Project Direc Growth Peak 211 Hour Peak 2� Hour Peayolumeour I PeaYolumeour Volume Volume Volume 1 I Northb 7 1- Sid 3�tB 31 l Southbound 6 S Z Eastbound 3827 Westbound 1800 S5 of, 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. DATE: - PROJECT: FORM I f•,1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/MACARTHUR HL M (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pring 19 — Peak 2y Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects ProjeqZ- 1 1 of Projected Project Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak 21, Peak 2y Hour Peak 2+ Hour Volume Volume Volume VoluVolume Volume I !Northbound 1385 /Jl�;! S%S /ZIOZD 1 Southbound 3057Eastbound 1856SG �ol.� 2�7 Westbound V 7 3700 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. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I �� 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/DIRCIi ST (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter prin9 1988 AM Peak 2k Hour Approved Regional Projects Projected 10, of Projected Project Approach Existing Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour PeaVolume k 211 our PeaVolwneour ' Peak Volume Volume Volume 38 Northbound 3013 iSouthbound 3815 �16 �� 59Bo 60 4E 8 Eastbound 494 Westbound 23 _ L ! —-- — Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1 GATE: PROJECT: FORM I uJ 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/BIRCIi ST 1 PM (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage Inter pring 9 _ Peak 2�, Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected is of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 211 Hour Peakolumeour Peevol4meour Volume Volume Volume Volume I Northbound 2531 77 ��/ 11,03 Z Southbound 2877 Eastbound 1518 Westbound 44 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 2x 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. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/CAMPUS DR (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average lnter pring 19—�—TAM Peak 2� Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 2s; Hour Peak 2+s Hour Peak 2� Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume I Northbound 2564 78 7� 37 2✓� L IV 'A Southbound 3782 Eastbound 656 3 31 Westbound 2470 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 23k Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 23-2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I 65 44 4- 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/CAMPUS DR (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage Inter Pring 1988 PM Peak 2y Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1; a Projected Project Peak Direction Peak 25 Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 2� Hour k 2�; Hour Peak 2�, Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 3675 �J-I .56�b 56 •ds /o•s Southbound 3293 �p 72� I O,Z Eastbound 2231 7� v-- Westbound �� /717 I / S /0,3 1603 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. u DATE: PROJECT: FORM I bb 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHUR BL/BIRCH ST (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1988 AM Peak 2� Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1" of Projected Project Direction Peak 2s, Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 2$5 Hour Peak 2); Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume i Volume I Northbound 1651 .S U V Z3 2 Southbound 2245 Eastbound 1307 westbound 675 z I � — — 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 23-2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. E DATE: PROJECT: FORM I a 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHUR BL/BIRCH ST (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on vera '"ter SPring 988TPM Peak 2is Hour :Peak ved Approach Existing Regional cts Projected 1% of Projected Pro 212 ject Direction Peak 2+, Hour Growth Hour Peak 2is Hour Peak2l HourPeaVolumfeour Volume Volume me VoluumeNorthbound .SZ Z8 3v Zv 1901 , outhbound 2051 6.� S/�� Z�Z 26 12 fJ•l \ Eastbound 1564 176Z- Westbound 82B Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 21 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 21-2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. I i DATE: PROJECT: FORM I --7(o — 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHUR BL/CAMPUS DR (Existing Traffic Volumesbased on Average Inter pring 988 AM Peak 2� Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected TPeak rojected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak 2c, Hour h Hour Peak 2e, Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume I Northbound 1801 S-S d�L 2/ 76 ZZ outhbound 3334 1 :1 79 1 Eastbound 2614 `la Z- Westbound 1026 1; 1 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected 0 Peak 23-2 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. a DATE: PROJECT: FORM I { 77 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHUR BL/CAMPUS DR (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage in pring 19 GPM Peak 2� Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected III of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2u Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume i Valume Northbound 2477 •71 ,3 Pj 35f lD-z) Southbound 3265 y9 SYy y01 �_ a1 Eastbound 1970 Westbound 2281 Spy 2 d2 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2. Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1 DATE: PROJECT: FORM I �A 7$ 1 APPENDIX B INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEETS 0 9,?2 BR4175AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET NORTH 8 BIRCH STREET 4175 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING -1988 AN ..........-----------------.--------.----------------- ........ IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI Iwoyementl Lones I Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVolume I V/C I I ICapacitylCepacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I VOIUme lw/o Projectl I Ratio l I I I I I I I I Volume I I NL 1 1600 I 1 9S 1 0.06 1 ys I I . Ob I I ,°lP-1 1...............•.._.__..._.....-•----•--•----'•--- 1 IT l 3200 I 1 1171 1 0.37 \\ i1.L.J��-........ l........................•--------------..._.. MR I I I I I I I •---•.-"---_".------"------_-••--------------•-•- .-----I I SL I I I I I I. I I I I _.-----••----••-------------".----_•----.-•-------_---------- ----'--•--------I I ST 1 1600 1 1 90 1 0.06 1 c10 1 43 ..� J�4i.. .. :jJ�_I I--------------------------------•----------------... l SR 1 3200 I 1 254 I 0.08 1254 1 bi I .\0 _-�-- L5_�._:1lZ_I -----------------------------------------•---------------- --•------- _ EL I I I I I I I I I I ----------------------------------------------------- --------------------....._----.._..._1 j ET I I I I I I I I I I ---------------------•----•------•--------------------••-.._..---•---•--1 ER i I I I I I I I I I i............................................•....... ._........_.._.............I WL 1600 I 1 145 1 0.09 I I z I I - ,p"I ' I •----------------"------------------------.".__� - "-----'•---- --- WT 893 i ! 7 Y.!.Za* .. ...4800 •-- ---- -) 0.21 .....................II 9�. WR 1 1 120 1 1 1 1 1 i - -----.l IEXISTIHG __________________________i- -.-0.58 I I -"------- ------- I IEXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 .14 1 ►-•------"--------•-••-•----------------••-------•----------------------•-----------------•-I (EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U.............................I ,- I ...---...•........................................ 1_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 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems iaproweent will be Less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will ba loss than I.C.U. without project ...........................................•.....__..._............__.._...__.........--- Deseription of system improvement: PROJECT FORM 11 9/ j0 � • BR417SPH INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET NORTH B BIRCH STREET 4175 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1988 PM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALIC014MITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVoluse I V/C I I Icapacitylcapacityl volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume lw/o Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I I................•-----•------------..._..-----------.._•--------------- -----I I NL 1 1600 I 1 146 1 0.09 • I I I I I I......................................•------_------•---.-._..._.._n I NT 1 3200 I 1 299 1 0.09 1 1 �1q3 I...................................................................... .. I Nit I I I I I I I 1 1 1 I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I SL i I I I I I ---------------•----I I I I_._-- - - ..... I ST I 16001 1 4361 0.271 1 k__ I--------------------------•-------------------- I SR 1 3200 I I 1260 1 0.39 • I .I__..: d� 1$_I..!� .1 I------------------------------------------------ ------- - I EL I I I I I I I i 1 I-----•-------------------------•------•-------------------••--•-------__.._--------------- I ET I I I I I I I I I I --------------------------------------------- ..._---------•------I I ER I I I I I I I I I I I---------------------•""...---'.-..--.--..._....----..-...--..-..-..--"'----..-..-------I I WL 1600 1 1 253 0.16 1 1 1 ,�ko I I A I---------•------I•------•--------------------•------I---------'-----------I-------i i 2016 p I--------) 4800 ------------------) 0.44 "--- -' ... wit 1 1 75 I 1 1 1 1 1 1..............................•.._.-----------------------•---•--------------•-------------I EXISTING 1 1 ---- I ------------------------------ I (EXIST + RED GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I '.I?J- 1 I 1-----•---------------•-------------------------------------------------------•-_.-..-----. I (EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. ----•....•-__-_•-._-..._._.I lll�l 1_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 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be Less than or equat to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORM II BR417SPH �� Ioz- INTERSECT CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS• INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD & BIRCH STREET 4308 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING ^--- 1988 AM --------------- -- EXISTINGI PROPOSEq EXISTINGI EXISTINCI REGIONALI COMMITTEDI PROJECTED I PROJECTI PROJECII Movementl 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 Capacity] Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Projectl I Ratio I I I I 1 ------- I -------�------- I -------- I _ volume I I I NL 1 1600 I 1 311 1 0.19 M--311 1 --I- IH_ - I ---_ I kCA I!@ ------^ ^-----'------ ----- ---------- ] NT 1 1 1215 I \215 1 331 I r I 1 1 } 4800 ------------------} 0.25 ----------- ------==------- s------��-- --NB-- I I 1 I 1 I I ---------- I I --------`-^------------------------ ---------------I SL 1 16001 1 91 0.011 1 1 ,OI I I .Ol ] -------I ST 1 4800 1 1 11371 0.24 " 37 I qQb 1 .43 _252__ _ 4__ ---------------- -----^ SR I N.S. 1 1 6921 I ld1Z 1 61 I M�c , I 1 N.S i -------------------------- ----------------------15 q ----- -----------------------------�--I 1 EL 1 1 154 I I I 0�0 V- I 5 Oka----- 1 --------} 3200 ------------------} 0.06 "----`-`------------------------------- I ET 1 1 g I S I S i `------- 1 1 I -------- -'-------------------- --------------- ER I N.S. 1 1 371 1 31 1 I ----- ----------1 1 WL 1 1 6 I g I I I I I } ------------------} -----------------------------------------;----- 1 WT 1600 1 1 1 0.01 " 1 1 1 .01 * I I of IM I --------} ------------------} -----------------------------------------------I 1 WR I I 9 q I 1 1 i 1 ------------------------- -------------------------------------------- 1EXISTING 1 0•49 I 1 ----------------------- I ----------------------------------------------------- 1EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED w/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 b9 I I 1 -------------------------------------------------------------- --- -----�1-- 1EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I 1_1 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 IJ 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 lass than I.C.U. without project -------------------- Description of system improvements PROJECT FORM II a JA4275PH • • INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD & MACARTHUR BOULEVARD 4275 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING ma PM ------------------------------------------------------------ I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOHHITTEOI PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI IHovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I WC I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVolurte I V/C I I ICapacitylCapacityl Volune I Ratio I VoLume I volume lw/o Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I 11I.._x__r....___ I-_-••--•-------------•-.------_---•----.---------------------------•-- I N I 1600 I I 199 I0.12 • I 1 . 1A ),L I I �& 1 i4 .- ._____---- -------- I 320 i So I 2.L I l I II .1.515 I ........ 4800 '........I-••---- 0.08 1 .R -- I I _-- --•------•---------•--- -----•--•---•-I-_--------•-- SL 1 1600 1 1 220 1 0.14 1 I \q I $ 1 ' _ ST 4800 I I 1 840 1 0.18 ' 2S I Sob I 2A iFl i . L4 I x I -----•----•-•---------------------•-------------- --..-----1--------I- L--- SR I H.S. 1 1 571 1 1 -- 1 I i- . ._......_.__ ----------------•----------------- _ -------------- 1 3200 207 I0.06 1 bbI .\7 .4EL --------•- -•- :1... tIII x s26 I o.11 I Ic __. 1aZo .._ _:I ET 4800 1 m : 57 _ _ I ER I N.S. 1 I 3 1 I ' I � I NS. I 1 14J. i -------••-.-•---------••-------------•--- I I WL 1 3200 1 1 402 1 0.13 1 1 S7 I I \3 Q I I _ Z_..II I WT I4800 I 1 J228 1 0.26 R 3L1.......:..................... i I WR I H.S. I 1 81 1 1 1 So I aS I ID I N-S 1 --------------------•--.-I------------------------ I I EXISTING _.---•---------•------^--�' I 0.62 (EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I �Z I....... (EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. ..........I ,� I ........................•----...................._....---............_..._ -... I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U, will be toss than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systenu iaprovemant will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be Less than I.C.U. without project •-•.........................:.-..-----•--....-.-.-_.-...--•------------•---•--•--•----- - Description of system improvement: PROJECTFORM fi y� ' } INTERSECT CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS. INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & BIRCH STREET 4296 1988 AM EXIST TIAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING ----- _ ---------------------- 1 EXISTING PROPOSEDI EXISTING] EXISTING REGIONAII COMMITTEDI PROJECTED 1 PROJECTI PROJEC11 IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVolume I V/C I I 1 Capacity) Capagityl Volume 1 Ratio I Volume 1 Volume 1 a/o Project) I Ratio 1 I I I I I I I Volume I I I I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NL 1 1600 1 1 64 1 0.03 1 I I °3 1 i ,03 I ----------------------------------------------------------- I� I NT 1 4800 1 1 660 I 0.14-------------------- " 20 I --��--- ---^��- I---- I -'h`-- ---------------- ---- - I' NR I N.S. 1 1 63 I I I --- HS=-^- ------ iy _--I ------------------------------------------------- ---SL 1 1600 1 I 16e I o.12 I -------- L 1 --�Q-�. I?-- ---------------------- ------------ ST 1 4800 1 1 643 I 0.13 I t q I -- 3,3_- --=2.7- 1 ------ _1-"---I ------------------------------------ SR 1 1600 1 1 222 1 0.14 1 ------- 1 i I ---=Lq---- ------ I -��--- I EL I 1 153 1 1 ��2__I-----'---- - 1 -'----I ------------ 1I ET 4600 I ( 368 0.13 " I �,-} I v` I '�------�- ---I I ER I 1 100 I 1 I ------------ ----------------------- -------- -----^ — - I WL 1 1600 i ( 371 0.02 1 1 23 I OQ - --I- ------------------------------- I WT 1 3200 I I z6o i o.06 " I 3 ou �` — --- I -- I ------------`--------------------------------------------- i WR I N.S. 1 1 491 I I I r�s I ----- I NS_--I ---------------------------- ----^-- I 1 EXISTING 1 0.47 1 ---------------------------'-----------------'----'----^---------- IEXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 .55 1 ---------------I ( EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. ------------ 1 _5 k--_ --------------------------------`-------------------------------- - I _I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I _J Projected if project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 IJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be lags than or equal to 0.90 I ] Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be lase than I.C.U. without project ______________ __ -------------------------- ----' Description of system. improvement: FORM II PROJECT I b� 9�� MA4295PN INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD 8 BIRCH STREET 4295 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC MINTER/SPRING 1988 PM ...............•....--...---.......----.----..•--.---•............__....__..._..._..._...____ I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI IMovemantl Lanes I Lanes I PX MR I V/C 1 GROWTH 1 PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVolume I V/C i I ICapacitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio 1 volune l Volume lw/o Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I 1 1 I Volume I I I 1-----••------•-----•----------------------------------------------------------------- I l NL i 1600 1 I 181 1 0.11 ' ....._.'_ 1 :1\, ------- ------- I NT 1 48001 i 6981 0.151 21 1 41 1 14 1 1 .24 -•----I----------------------- ...................... ....I I NR 1 M.S. 1 1 311 1 1 2 1 5 1 I J. I ---`i '............. I 1 SL I 1600 i I 6B 1 0.04 1 1 1 .0 4 1 5 1 •a - I-----------------------•-----------------------------------•------------ I ST 1 4500 1 1 663 I _ 0.14 • 2o__I..�1R �..._:�°! I-------------- ------------------•----•----- I SR I 160D 1 1 176 1 0.11 1 I I-• EL -----------i-••----•i_•----------------------------- I_...__..) .) !--------!---5Q ................ 1 I ET 4800 I 1 305 0.14 • I h.. I _\1_ it, I " 1 r' 1 I........) ---•-•-------•----) ............. I ER 1 I 56 1 I L....I_._......__I. 1 I ------•----------------- ......... I I WL 1 1600 1 1 - 96 1 0.06 1 1 (z I of u 1 1 10 1 I.-------•---------•-----•----------------------••-----•---------•---••---------------•: -I I WT 1 3200 1 1 543 1 0.17 * 1 1 2u1E 1 zD 1 .2-1 i�F I---------------•-------•------•-------------............. .A ••-- I WR I U.S. 1 1 203 1 1 1 1 A S -------- ------••----------•----••_L —.---- I---- •------ IEXISTING 1-----------------------------.-----------••-----------... ^..^'---•-- [EXIST + REG GROWTH + COHNITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I .b01 1_____________•• ------------------------------------------------------------------••------. .� (EXISTING + COMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. -•.---.•.-'-.•I �I ..................•.......•......•----...._.--.•-----......_._...._-_. ._... 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. WILL be less than or equal to 0.90 f 1=1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 4 1_) Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems inprovement wilt be Less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements wilt be less than I.C.U. without project ................•...---.........................--........._._.._.._...._._....._........ Description of system iaprovement: PROJECT FORM 11 (� W 10 4�4 APPENDIX C INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSES WITH IMPROVEMENTS y � ti sR417SPN INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET NORTH & BIRCH STREET 4175 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 19BB PM _________________________________•____________________________ I IEXISTLNGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI IMovewntl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVolune I V/C I I ICapacitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio I Voluae I Volume Iw/o Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I I I I VoLuilo I I I I----•- ---------------•---••------••-••--••---------•- I NL I 1600 I I 146 I 0.09 " I 1 D r�9.. . ....... I------------------------------------------------..... ......... j'�` ---------------------------------------------------------------- I NR I I I I I ---••-•-•---•----•----•-•---•------ - ••--•-------- •---•• -----•------•------ I I -- I ST I 1600 I I 436 I 0.27 I I yjg I 0,3 D. I I O3 jJ l I--•----------------•------•-------•--------•••----------•-••--------------•----------- •••i I SR I 3200 I 1 1260 1 0.39 " 123S 1 p -17)'!/B__!o yJ 1 I--------•----------•--......•---•----•••---------•------------•----••--- I EL I I I I I I I I i 1 I ET I I I I I I I I I I •-------I-----•-•'--------I-------•I-----•--'--------I----•-------------------------------- ER I i i_______________________________ ___________________________________________________________1 WL 1600 I I 253 0.16 1 1 I II Oa:,Yi6 I -•-•---•-----•--•--.-- -------------------------•-•------------. -------I-.-�. y ✓ 2016 l .O..:.��.6Z.. !WT - ) 4s0----- !_ ) 0.44 Wit I 7s I I.----- -92 I -- ---•••------------------------- ------•----------------------------------••---' 1........................ --------------------- ----•---•-...__... I IEXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 3-_I---- ----------I 1__________________________________________________________ ____ (EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. ......__...-•............................•-----••--•------____-••---•-----•-••••-----•-•-••-• { I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. wilt be less then or equal to 0.90 I_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be Lose than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements Will be leas than I.C.U. without project -•-------------------------------------••__--•-----_'_--__ Description of/system improvement: Wo �s/�tl`bovgct ,,.1��"..�� .��pv:�e� �y PROJECT FORM 11 BR4175PH Ioz- � 0 Weston Pringle & Associates TRAFFIC&TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING March 3, 1989 ^ ^ h Ms. Pat Temple S RCCE Environmental Coordinator IVC0 g City of Newport Beach is MgAA` t P.O. Box 1768 Roe Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 N C/OF r C,Kt FgC.9 !� Dear Ms. Temple: ti , N This letter summarizes our analysis of traffic factors related to the proposed Rockwell Expansion Project in the City of Newport Beach. The study has been conducted to satisfy the requirements of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. This study is based upon information provided by the Rockwell Corporation, City Staff and previous studies. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Simi-conductor Products Division of Rockwell International is located on the westerly side of Jamboree Road, southerly of Birch Street. An expansion of the facilities is proposed which would increase the total building area by 39,000 square feet. In addition, a 25,000-30,000 square foot expansion to the manufacturing area may be required. This expansion would add a maximum of 257 employees to the site. The employees are spread over five shifts with most employees beginning at 7:30 AM. Vehicular access is provided at two locations on Jamboree Road and one location on Birch Street. Figure 1 illustrates the project location. EXISTING CONDITIONS The streets in the area of the project are fully developed. Jamboree Road is a six lane street with medians which extends from north of I-405 to Coast Highway. There are two lanes of travel in each direction on Birch Street with left turn channelization. Parking is prohibited on both streets. The intersection of Jamboree Road and Birch Street is signalized as are other principal intersections in the area. 2651 East Chapman Avenue • Suite 110 • Fullerton, California 92631 0 (714) 871.2931 DR. Jy 4 T, U � J � Off' BRISroL Sr � CD SITE ISrOL S NORTH BRT. f woo"' � Q 20 u . N N tiG to W �JkD. FORD eC �O a JOAQU�h W g o W 4s RD. a LJ zm � , w a v a a o t � w g� COAST Hwy a a �c& W PACIFIC Q a 9 4 SITE LOCATION MAP WESTON PRINGLE'&ASSOCIATES FICAURE Existing daily traffic volumes and 1988 ICU values at major intersections are illustrated on Figure 2. These data were provided by the City of Newport Beach. TRIP GENERATION Since the project is an expansion of an existing project, it was possible to obtain data specifically related to trip generation characteristics of this facility. Driveway traffic volumes were provided by Rockwell which were summaries of traffic counts conducted by Newport Traffic Studies the week of September 26, 1988. These volumes are summarized in Table 1 along with trip generation rates based upon the number of existing employees. Rates were determined for each of the analysis period required in the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The estimated 2.5 and peak hour trip generation for the proposed expansion are listed in Table 2. These estimates are based upon a 257 increase in employment. An estimated 200 trips would be generated during the AM 2.5 hour peak and 180 during the PM 2.5 hour peak. During the AM peak hour, an estimated 85 trips would be generated and 70 during the PM peak hour. TRIP ASSIGNMENT In order to assign project traffic to the street system, it is necessary to develop a trip distribution pattern. Data was provided by Rockwell indicating the home zip codes of existing employees. These data were plotted on a area map and a distribution pattern developed for the site. This distribution is illustrated on Figure 3. The estimated trips to be generated by the project were assigned to the street system in conformance with this distribution. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS The traffic analysis has been completed to conform to the criteria of the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance. A total of 11 intersections were identified by the City Traffic Engineer for inclusion in the analysis. The first required analysis is the "One Percent" test. An intersection is defined as critical by the Ordinance when the project traffic exceeds one percent of existing plus committed project plus regional growth traffic on any approach 37 .57/0.66 36 0.47/0.56 0R. 14 0.68/0.69 0.58/0.92 z r T 0.49/0.49 ci 1.02/0.90 I ` SITE 44 BRIST01-ST. m 15 m 0.54/0.62 �\ BRISTOL NORTH 0.84/0. 0.96/0.71 S 29 LEGEND 0.95/0.59 0.87/0.68 t 56 = DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES 1 ` g�NTC� IN THOUSANDS. 0.78/0.550�. 54 v """" ++ 0.77/0.66 = AM/PM ICU 0.89/0.73 20 �� 50 A �' ►- 61 yc a 39 ��t0. W 0,69/0.59 FOR 6 0.91/0.77 0.68/0.76 << O 0.78/0.55 50 51 0 GU A a 5PN3 17 0.65/0.82 g o 0.57/0.73 w B y'<cs Ra yf > > W ZC) NEW Q Z m > N `� CENTER 071/0.87 Q W Q a 54 2 40 64 S 74 377 47 43 28 �-0 w a O a: 60 COAST HWY �2 Z) oa. m ro �OD W d PACIFIC a, M 52 O a a. CDN o p �v o o go 43 S d a M > ODo °F d o o m d d ° as Q o M to W o d EXISTING DAILY VOLUMES AND ICU VALUES WESTON PRINGLE &ASSOCIATES FIGURE ' 2 { -3 Table 1 EXISTING DRIVEWAY VOLUMES & TRIP GENERATION RATES Rockwell International TIME PERIOD VEHICLES(') _ RATE(2) In Uut In dut 6:30 - 9:00 AM 937 313 0.58 0.19 7:30 - 8:30 AM 350 176 0.22 0.11 3:30 - 6:00 PM 204 954 0.12 0.59 4:30 - 5:30 PM 50 394 0.03 0.24 (1) Average volumes for week of September 24, 1988, Newport Traffic Studies. (2) Trip ends per employee - based upon 1,623 employees. Table 2 TRIP GENERATION Rockwell International TIME PERIOD TRIP ENDS(') In Out AM 2.5 Hour Peak 150 50 AM Peak Hour 55 30 PM 2.5 Hour Peak 30 150 PM Peak Hour 10 60 (1) Based upon 257 employee increase. s DIEGO w 4 5 � � 5 25 �15 z DR. � .��I5 0� 15 r � off. 40 eRlsI- LS'T. m SITE 5�BRISTOL S-r NORTH �5 10 10 5 1 LEGEND 10 10 10 - DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION �O� ' 3 �+... � •�'�' PERCENTAGE � D a 9 c F W FORD B< �O Jp `T SPN AQ��N W y�(4 S RD. ILI `9cnN 3 � o �. a Wm I 2 O S QO i r �� COAST Hwy ki`� o �09 W PACIFIC �� a PROJECT DISTRIBUTION WESTON PRINGLE &ASSOCIATES FIc�tIRE 3 to an intersection during the AM or PM 2.5 hour peak period. A list of committed projects was provided by the City for inclusion in this study and these projects are listed in Table 3. Since the project is scheduled for completion in 1990, the analyses were completed for 1991 as required by the Ordinance. Appendix A contains the "One Percent" analysis sheets for the 11 intersections analyzed and the results are summarized in Table 4. Review of Table 4 indicates that all intersections passed the "One Percent" test except Bristol Street North/Birch Street, Jamboree Road/Mac Arthur Boulevard, Jamboree Road/Birch Street, and Mac Arthur Boulevard/Birch Street. In conformance with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, ICU analyses were completed for the four intersections for those periods that were found to be critical . These analyses are contained in Appendix B and included existing, existing plus regional growth plus committed project and existing plus regional growth plus committed project plus project traffic conditions. The results of these analyses are summarized in Table 5. Review of Table 5 indicates that all intersections are projected to have ICU values of less than 0.90 for the critical periods except Bristol Street North/Birch Street during the PM peak hour. Additional analysis was completed for this intersection and is described in the following paragraph. Bristol Street North/Birch Street. This intersection is projected to have an ICU value of 1.13 in 1991 without the project and without street improvements. With the project, the ICU would increase to 1.14. A previously approved project has been required to add a westbound left turn lane at this intersection. With this improvement, the ICU value with and without the project is reduced to 1.03. The project would not have an impact upon the intersection on this basis. The ICU calculations are contained in Appendix C and illustrated on Figure 4. SUMMARY This study has reviewed traffic factors related to the Rockwell International expansion as required by the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Estimates were made of trips to be generated by the project and the impact of L O F- 8 N Ir � m I BIRCH ST. 14% I` x ' 1— x ADD LEFT O TURN LANE z N ^I N Scale I'3'940' — —� — — L . I B WESTON MNGLE &ASSOCIATES FIti'URF, 4 Table 3 COMMITTED PROJECTS Hoag Cancer Center Mariners Church Expansion Aeronutronic Ford Big Canyon Villa Apts. Civic Plaza 1400 Dove Street Corporate Plaza 1100 Quail Street Mac Arthur Court McLachlan-Newport Place Newport Place Koll Center TPP Amend. 4A Sea Island Villa Point Harbor Point, Homes Rosan's Development Martha's Vineyard Fashion Island #2 Valdez Newport Aquatics Center Coast Business Center 2600 E. Coast Hwy. Koll Center NPT No. 1 Taco Bell Ross Mollard Newport Retirement Inn •1501 Superior Medical Newport Classic Inn 15th Street Apts Newport Lido Med Center Newporter Resort Expansion Big Canyon 10 Fashion Island Renaissance YMCA 20th St. Bed/Breakfast Inn Amendment No. 1 Ford Aero Amendment No. 1 North Ford Sharaton Expansion Newport Dunes Amendment No. 1 Mac Arthur Bayview National Education City of Irvine Development North Ford Shokrian Riverside Retail Building Edwards Newport Center 3800 Campus Dr. Seaside Apts. III 3760 Campus Dr. Newport Imports Fidelity National Title Newport Place Tower Mariners Mile Marine Ctr. -6 Table 4 CRITICAL INTERSECTION IDENTIFICATION Rockwell International LOCATION 2.5 HOUR PERCENTAGES NB SB EB WB AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Bristol St & Campus Dr. - Irvine Ave. 0.3/0.1 0.4/0.5 0.2/0.1 - - Bristol St. & Birch St. 0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0 0.710.2 - - Bristol St. & Jamboree Rd. 0.2/0.1 0.3/0.5 0.3/0.0 - - Bristol St. N. & Campus - Irvine Ave. 0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0 - - 0.6/0.8 Bristol St. N. & Birch St. 1.5/0.7 2.5/1.2 - - 0.0/0.5 Bristol St. N. & Jamboree Rd. 0.3/0.1 0.2/0.9 - - - - Jamboree Rd. & Mac Arthur Boulevard 0.3/0.1 0.0/0.0 0.8/0.2 0.3/1.1 Jamboree Rd. & Birch Street 0.2/0.9 0.8/0.3 1.5/0.5 0.0/0.0 Jamboree Rd. & Campus Drive 0.4/0.8 0.7/0.2 0.0/0.0 0.8/0.3 Mac Arthur Blvd. & Birch 0.0/0.0 0.2/0.1 2.3/0.6 3.2/2.4 Mac Arthur Blvd & Campus Dr. 0.1/0.2 0.2/0.1 0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0 • Table 5 ICU SUMMARY Rockwell International INTERSECTION PERIOD Existing Existing Existing Existing (1988) +Regional +Regional +Regional +Committed +Committed +Committed (1991) +Project +Project 1991 W/Imarov. Bristol St. N. & Birch St. AM Peak 0.58 0.74 0.74 - PM Peak 0.92 1.13 1.14 1.03 Jamboree Rd. & Mac Arthur PM Peak 0.62 0.82 0.83 - Jamboree Rd. & Birch Street AM Peak 0.49 0.69 0.70 - Mac Arthur Blvd. & Birch St. AM Peak 0.47 0.55 0.56 - PM Peak 0.56 0.67 0.68 - -8 these trips evaluated in terms of the Ordinance. While one intersection was found to be impacted by the project, other planned development is anticipated to mitigate this impact. Principal findings of the study are the following: 1. The project will generate 85 AM peak hour and 70 PM peak hour trip ends over existing trip generation on the site. 2. Of the 11 intersections evaluated, four did not pass the "One Percent" test required by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. 3. Of the four critical intersections, one was found to have ICU values greater than 0.90 with the project during PM peak hour. 4. With improvements related to other projects all intersection impacts would be mitigated. MITIGATION MEASURES The following measure is recommended to mitigate potential traffic impacts of the project. Add a westbound left turn lane on Bristol Street North at• Birch Street. (Required by previously approved project.) We trust that this study will be of assistance to you and the City of Newport Beach. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact us. Respectfully submitted, WESTON PRINGLE & ASSOCIATES Weston S. Pringle, P.E. Registered Professional Engineer State of California Numbers C16828 & TR565 WSP:hld #890010 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL ST CAMPUS DR—IRVINE AV (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage inter pring 19g8 AM Peak 2� Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 16" of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 211 Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 21s Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume I Northbound 4277 S// 417PB N6 +5 l�•�� Southbound 941 Eastbound8611 WestbouAd 74 0 © 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 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I Y 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL ST/CAMPUS DR—IRVINE AV (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average winter/Spring 19g�L) M Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1:; of Projected Project Direction Peak 2> Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2> Hour Peak 1u Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume I Northbound 2412 4a,7 270 'L Southbound 2572 S -7 7 3 p/ IS /ai Eastbound 5245 __ S/S (,r7� �7 I (o Imo__.�D• i Westbound Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected LAJ 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. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I a • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL ST/BIRCH ST (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19EL8 AM Peak 21s Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 21s Hour Growth Peak 2, Hour Peak 215 Hour Peak 2, Hour Peak 2, Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 707 3p 737 0 Southbound 534 d s 4 Eastbound4565 Westbound Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume O 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. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I 3 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL ST/BIRCR ST (Existing Traffic Volumes based onAverage inter pring 19 8 PM Peak 2� Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected In of Projected Project Direction Peak 23, Hour Growth Peak 21s Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2, Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 454 South bound 1652 1 /19� 2725 Eastbound 3723 L/1 �lJ`9 i yb I 1p Westbound O 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. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/BRISTOL ST (Existing Traffic Volumes based on verage Inter pring 198 AM Peak 2+1 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 2u Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2� Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume I � Northbound 6039 702 7i 7 r! .Z Southbound .2 3 1/57D �6 ; Eastbound 5656 �� s3 (�/ ! 6 i 3 t7 31 JWestbound Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume O 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. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I 5 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/BRISTOL ST (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 942_) pM Peak 2)1 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2�, Hour Growth Peak 211 Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 211 Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 5464 �66 AD/'� 5outhbound 2056 [ram? 711a 090 Eastbound 5375 /r wd �6 2l I (9 _ 2— A), Westbound Q I ! U Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 231 Hour Traffic Volume O Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I b 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL ST N/CAMPUS DR (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 -90 AM Peak 2> Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 211 Hour Growth Peak 2> Hour Peak 2> Hour Peak 211 Hour Peak 2> Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume i Volume I Northbound 6006 D southbound 1332 Eastbound 2 Westbound 3038 ` 37vZ J / 123 .16, 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. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I 7 I • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL ST N/CAMPUS DR—IRVINN AV (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pring f— _PM Peak 2� Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 111 of Projected Project Direction Peak 211 Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 2K Hour Peak 21i Hour I Peak 2u Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume I Northbound 3236 ��a 3�3� South to 4 12y y % !� 0 Eastbound Westbound 7814 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 El Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I 8 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL ST N/BIRCH ST (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter Spring 1988 FAM Peak 211 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 21j Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 2520 6SS 7`7 ?JZ� 138 l .J Southbound 703 ?G89113 { Eastbound i Westbound 247$ Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2�2 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. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I 9 " • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL ST N/BIRCH ST (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1988 ) PM Peak 231 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Y Projected 1% of ProjectedFNmak ct Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2u Hour Peak 2; Hour Peak 2� Hour , Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volumeme / I I Northbound 1214 .3,;2 /s37 /`� _ Southbound 3237 1-117 4-1�-- /bz, Eastbound Westbound 5099 1313 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 23,2 Hour Traffic Volume Q 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. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I Id 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/BRISTOL ST N (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter pring 198e . AM Peak 21s Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume I Northbound 10144 3 07 Southbound 1521 10.2 Eastbound 1 i Westbound p D p 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 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I I 1 ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/BRISTOL ST N (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 988 ) PM Peak 2Js Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 25 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 6772 � oS Southbound 3518 /U Eastbound p j U Westbound U Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I � 12 • • • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/MACARTHUR BL (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter pring 1988 AM Peak 211 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1 of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2s, Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2; Hour Peak 2� Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume D I Northbound 2440 1- S'7d South hound /63 I Eastbound 3827 i Westbound 1800 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 23� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I 61 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/MACARTHUR BL (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter pring 19 _ M Peak 2y Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 10 of Projected Project Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 211 Hour Peak 2u Hour Peak 2� Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 4 1385 /J/A S%S' /Zl'�/Z•7� Z/D � �0. southbound 3057 / g� 47 Eastbound 1856 Westbound 3700 y6S 477 a Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 212 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. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/BIRCH ST (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1988 FAM. Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1' of Projected Project Direction Peak 211 Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2; Hour Peak 2�, flour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume I Northbound 3013' Southbound 3815 Eastbound 494 i Westbound 23 — Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected El Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected El Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I �3 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/BIRCH ST (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter pring 19 _ PM Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 2+1 Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2� Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 2531 ��7 %a 1123Z yZ i sS Southbound 2877 2 3 12 l Eastbound 1518 /751 �6 i lD awl I Westbound 44 0 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 2; Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I 6y 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/CAMPUS DR (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 _ Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 10, of Projected Project Direction Peak 2J1 Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2�- Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2� Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 2564 78 7s'3 `3 South bound 3782 / S ��v J pC��j s v Y Eastbound 656 3 3 Westbound 2470 �08 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2.1-2 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I 65 • • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/CAMPUS DR (Existing Traffic Volumes based on verage Winter/Spring 1988 PM Peak 211 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2-s Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 211 Hour Peak 2� Hour Volume Volume Volume `Voluumme Volume Volume Uorthbound 3675 southbound 3293 DD GS"6 'Vol Eastbound 2231 S / Z�j!� j f'j O _ Westbound 1603 �� 17 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 211Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I 66 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHUR BL/BIRCH ST (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1988 AM Peak 2� Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1:, of Projected Project Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 21, Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume 1651 Northbound S U �W G Z-3 2 South bound 2245 qf,7 3Z/ Z jPSto,?- Eastbound 1307 a 9D /�J 9 i 14 G i Westbound 675 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. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I -75 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHUR BL/BIRCH ST (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 10 m Peak 211 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 211 Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 2i1 Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2� Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume �t Volume Volume Northbound 1901 SF 77-7 Z956 Zg� 1 O Southbound 2051 6a .S'/// .267 26 i 7— b•I Eastbound 1564 191 / 7 Z I / i 1 O,6) Westbound a 2 a 3 3 7 2/6 zZ S3 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 El Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I 76 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHUR BL/CAMPUS DR (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1988 ) AM Peak 2� Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1h of Projected Project Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 212 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume I Northbound 1801 Southbound 3334 p / // 7% b lr�•Z- Eastbound 2614 � 97 Z I 9 Westbound 1026 Ile 1 ! Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I 77 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHUR BL/CAMPUS DR (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pring 198�M Peak 21s Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1'. of Projected Project Direction Peak 211 Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume volume Volume Volume Northbound 2477 71 �r� B 3`J' !3 Southbound 3265 Eastbound 1970 7� ?06Z— I Zl I (7 Westbound 2281 S �cJ 2�� 1 I zB ! C� 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. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I 7 APPENDIX B INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEETS OR4175M • • A INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET NORTH & BIRCH STREET 4175 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1988 AN ......•...................................................................................... I IEXISTiNGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I WC Ratio (Volume I V/C I I ICapacitylCapocityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume 1w/o Project) I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I 1 -----------------------------------------------------------------•-----------------.... .I NL 1 1600 1 1 95 1 0.06 1 qS I I ob I I ,I](p I I --•--...-•--•-------------------------------------•-------------------- I 1 NT 1 3200 1 1 1171 1 0.37 * Al 1c I . I 4-7 1% I---------------------------------------------------- -..3?a.. ......--.. ............ I NR I I I I I I I I I I I --.._..._.-•........................................................................... .I I SL I I I I I I. I I I I I -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -I I ST 1 16001 1 901 0.061 CW--I--A3 I ----•-------------------------------------------- - ---- -- I 1 SR 1 3200 1 1 254 1 Of 1264 1 (o1 1 "0 I I -----------------•-----------•---•-•------•-----------------•----•---- I I EL I I I I I I I I I I 1. .........................................................................................I I ET I I I I I I I I I I 1..........................................................................•------......----I I ER I I I I I I I I I I 1. ....................................................................................... .1 1 WL 16001 1 145 1 0.091 aK.1...._....�_ .orl I I I I--------------------------------------------- --------...•-•.......:9.`!I 1 WT 1 1 893 1 I �0 1 .27 � I I I.....---) 4800 ------------------) 0.21 "•.. . ....�..J............................... I 120 WR 1 I ---' 11?�?_...........I I I . ................. . I 1 -_ (EXISTING 1 0.58 1 I .... ... ..... ... .. .. .... ..... .. ... .... ...... 1EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 ,14 1 I I..........................•---•---....-------------..._•--•-----------•-------.--.....-...I 1EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I M I .---•'...................................•.--..-----................_..............__._...... 1_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 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be loss than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic J.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project ......................................................................................... Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORM 11 10� OR417SPH • z W INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET NORTH & BIRCH STREET 4175 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1988 PM ........................................'---._........._._._....._........_.......__._..._.._ I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI 1Movementl Lanes ,I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio (Volume I WC I ICapacitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume lw/o Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I I_ _______________________________________________________________________________________-_I I NL 1 1600 I 1 146 1 0.09 • I I I I 1• I_ __________________________________________________________________k--i�_.....____.c I HT 1 3200 1 I 299 1 0.09 1 1 \(a3 I lq 14 I ,fir, I I ------------•------------------------------------------------------- ---- ---- - I I MR I I I I I I I I I I I-----------•---------------------------------------•---------------------------------------I I SL I I I I I I I I I I I ------------------------------------------•-•---------------------•---•-------------•- _I I ST 1 1600 I [ 436 I 0.27 1 1 I 1 1a• I I --------------------•---•------•-•-----••----.......... 9.- ----= � .... I I SR I 3200 1 I 1260 1 0.39 I------------------------------------------------ Z ......... I EL I I I I I I I I I I I --•-------------•---------•---------•-•------•----------------------'•-•-------------- -I I ET I I I I I I I I I I I --------------------•---•---------------------------------•--•-•-------------------•-- -I I ER I I I I I I I I I I 1. ....................................................................................... .1 WL 1600 1 1 253 0.16 1 1 1 b I I j� q I I ---•--- •----•--•------------------- -----__----•-- I II WT 1 2016 1 1 ; .I I ......Iy, �SJ.I --------) 4800 ------------------) 0.44 ---. __ ---- WR I 1 I 75 I I I I I I I --•----•----•------------------------•-------••--------•-------------•---------------- -I (EXISTING 1 0.92 1 1 I ---------------------------------------•-------------------------•-------- I [EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I k„! 1 I 1-------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------•-•--------= I (EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. // I .......... ............................................ ..............................L!!_.. 1_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 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be Loss than or a"I to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project -^-------- --------------------•-------------____--------------•-- ------------- Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORM It DR417SPH toy INTERSECA CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS• INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD & BIRCH STREET 4308 J EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1988 AM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I I EXISTING PROPOSED( EXISTING EXISTING REGIONAL( COMMITTED( PROJECTED 1 PROJECTI PROJECTI I Movementl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I Capacityl Capacity) Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I I I volume I I I I -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I NL 1 1600 1 1 311 1 0.19 " 3U I I �� V. I I .1q I I -------------------------------------------- 3 I- --I--331----'----3z----'- 5---'-- �--I NT 1216 1215 I --------} 4800 -----------------} 0.26 -----------------------------------------------I i NR I I 1 I I I I I I I ---------------------------------------------------^---------------------------------------I SL 1 1600 1. 1 9 1 0.01 1 I I .01 I 1 D I I ----------------------------------------------------------------- -----------I I ST 1 4800 1 1 11371 0.24-------------------------------------- SR I N.S. 1 1 692 1 I -----------------------------------------------------------------------^------------------- EL 1 1 154 154I I olcY. 1 1 0(0 I y- ET 1 1 - 1 S 1 ---------------------------- ERI I i --- --I'_N.S.--I--^-----I-----37 j----^---'--31---I-------- IN-S , -i ------------------------------------_ ----------- --------^----- ----------^-- _' I WL I 1 b 1 5 1 I I I I I --------) -------------------} -----------------------------------------------I 1 WT 1600 1 1 1 0.01 * 1 I 1 COI 'A OI M i --------} ------------------} --------------�--------- �---------=-----I I wR 1 1 9 1 q 1 1 1 1 I I -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I ( EXISTING 1 0.49 1 1 ----------------------- ------------------------ I IEXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------I .gyp---I ( EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 1 J Projected + project traffic I.C.Q. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1 1 Projected + project traffic I.C.Q. will be greater than 0.90 I J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be lesR than or equal to 0.90 1J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORM II 15 / JA4275PM . t �. INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS t INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD 8 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD 4275 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1988 PM ............................................................................................. I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio (Volume I V/C I I ICapacitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume Iw/o Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I I I I -----e-------'•"----- -- I HL 1 1600 1 1 199 1 0.12 * 1 20 1 . IA )f 1 1 ,�& i W -----•----.------i'---------•-------•--•----i-----•-----------------•--- i i------- NT 320 60 1 2 (, 1 . 15 ,1� I I........) 4800 ------------------) 0.03 -----------------------------------------------I I MR 1 1 83 1 I � I I 1 1 I•---------------------•--------------------------• S -...-.-_----------------------.I SL 1 16001 1 2201 0.141 1 �q 1 ,I$ 1 1 .i5 1 I----------•--------------------------------------------------------- --•------------------• - I ST 1 4800 1 1 840 1 0.18 * 25 1 3010 I 2A *I I . Z4 I x I---------------------------•------------------•---•---•-----------------•----------------•-I SR I N.S. 1 1 571 1 1 I 143 I H, S. 1 1 lyJ• 1 ------•---------•---•-------I EL 1 3200 1 1 207 1 0.06 * I lbb I , •'b I I_: i----------------------------------------•---.._-..--.-••-------------------....._... ...-I 1 ET 1 4800 i 1 526 1 0.11 1 (fo ( Z140 I •1�....I_. ...I.\7..I -------------------------------------------- ----------------•---.-... ER I N.S. 1 1 31 I 1 �C- I N_S, I I K3 I I•--------------•--''-------•--•-----••--..-------..---------.-----.---.--.---.---•-•---•-•-I 1 WL I 320D 1 1 402 1 0.13 1 1 57 1 .\A 1....................................................................................... . .l 1 WT 1 4800 1 1 1228 1 0.26 * 1 32Z...1....:3Z 1--.---••----•--•------••-•------•-••------•---------•---'• ........._. I WR I N.S. I I Bi I I I So I NS 1 1D I N.5• 1 1'••----------------•-----•-'•--•---•---------- ••------'•-----•--••-------....1 (EXISTING I D.62 I I I----------------------•..---....._--_--.--.----•--•---------.----.---------- I IEXiST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I -__VZ-_-1........._ "-- -..... V •1EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I ............................................................................................. 1_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 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems iaproveam:nt will be Less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less then I.C.U. without project ......................................................................................... Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORM 11 '0V0 INTERSE& CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIO r INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & BIRCH STREET 4298 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1988 AM ------------------------------------------------^-`----------------------------------------_. I I EXISTING PROPOSEDI EXISTING EXISTING REGIONALI COMMITTEDI PROJECTED 1 PROJECTI PROJEC11 I Movementl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C• Ratio I Volume I VIC I I I Capacityl Capacity) Volume I Ratio I Volume 1 Volume I w/o Projectl ( Ratio I I I I I I I I I volume I _ i I --I I NL 1 1600 1 1 64 1 0.03 1 1 I__:�_-.I ------I 03 I --------------------------------------`-----'------'----`----"'__ __----- I NT 1 4800 1 ------- 1 660 1 0.14 " ZO 1 1 --_ ---=�L I ------------------ ------------------^---------- I NR I N.S. 1 1 63 I --------------------------------------------------------` ----------------^--I I SL 1 1600 1 1 185 1 0.12 " I --------------------------------------------- ------- I ST 1 4800 1 1 643 1 0.13 1 19 I 3�3 I -_-22_ 1 __ I -12 � I -------------------------------------------------`--'----------- I SR 1 1600 1 1 222 1 0.14---------------^-^---^ +L9____ -____- I ----------------------_-_----_-__----__--_-_-_ I EL I --------} I 163 -------�--- _} I-------I--2�-------- I------'-------I 1 ET 4800 1 1 368 0.13 I --------) ------------------} ---------`---------------^-------____ I ER I 1 100 I I I __-------_ I I I I ------------------------------------------------------------- --------------I 1 WL 1 16001 1 371 0.021 1 2.3 1 o4 I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- � - --I 1 WT 1 3200 1 1 260 1 0.08 " I ---- 3l--- I -^- S cic I_-2 �__I-=la-14 I ------------------------------------------------------ 1 WR 1 N.S. 1 1 49NSA-- i ---^------------------------------ ----------------'----`----__--------`----------- IEXISTING ' I 0.47 I 1 ---------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- I ( EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I ,jy I I ( ---------------------------------------------------`--------------------`--------- -------I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT T.C.U. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------�= 1J Projected + project traffic I.C.Q. will be less than or equal to 0.90 13 Projected 4 project traffic I.C.Q. will be greater than 0.90 I _J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/aystems improvement will pe lass than or equal to 0.90 ID Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project -------------------------------`--------------------------------------------------------- Description of system. improvement: PROJECT FORM II 'MA4295PM r I INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD 8 BIRCH STREET 4295 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1988 PM ............................................................................................. I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXiSTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVolume I V/C I I ICapacitylcapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume Iw/o Project] I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I I------------------- .------••---------------------•1 I NL 1 1600 1 1 181 1 0.11 I HT 1 4800l 1 6981 0.151 21 1 ..............................241 I•-•-•................... I I NR I N.S. I 1 31 1 1 1 2 1 `1S I I-•----------------------------------------•---•----------• •_....:7..L I l SL 1 16001 1 681 0.041 1 1 .04 I--------------------------------------------------------------•-------• .............. I ST 1 4800 1 1 663 I. 0.14 * 20 I 2�4..�..._.nq t I � :-��l..j ]--------------------•--------••-- ....-. 1 1 SR 1 1600 1 1 176 I 0.11 1 1 AlA........�4 I...........l:T...� 1 EL 1 1 ... 1 1 -.54.--.•........--.•--•---�.......I 1 ET 4600 1 1 305 0.14 * ... •-:�� --�-•-=.•.-•I ER1 1 56 1 I ..........................................I I WL 1 1600 1 1 - 96 1 0.06 I I bs I _�u I 1 ,10 1 . I----------------------------------------------- . - I WT I 320D 1 1 543 1 0.17 * 1 \04._�....:2u .1._zR..1 -2l' I'r. i-------------------------------------------------- . I WR I N.S. 1 1 203 I 1 1 1 NJ . 1..�5 I w:.. .------..---•-'........................ IEXiSTING ----------------•---......i• 0.56 1 ( 1--------------------------------.--.-------------•.._......_._.............. IEXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. • I•--•--•--•----••----•-•••----•-•-•....................................................'....1 (EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I sI ....................................................................... --•• .. 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project ............................................................•....................._..__._ Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORM 11 J7b I J APPENDIX C INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSES WITH IMPROVEMENTS f BR4175PNZ INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET NORTH & BIRCH STREET 4175 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1988 PM ...'••-.........•...•--...'•.•.................••..•.....--......._..•---......._........____ I IEX1STINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALIC014MITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I VIC Ratio (Volume I V/C I I IcapecitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume Iw/o Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I ---------------------------------.---------------•---------------.._..p--------------•--..p I NL I 1600 1 I 146 I 0.09 * I I��l / 2 T I y _I LIT3200 299 0.09 1................................................II111I./l 12 .!_J�/. ..! `r..!ga1 li.1 ................................................_.._.. 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I . i ST 1 1600 1 436 1 0.27 I 1 i/p I o.3 D• I I D3 p l 1..........................................................'--.......4..... J......1 1 SH 1 3200 1 1 1260 1 0.39 * 1235' I O. y7111 /B I o.?/,I 1•'-•.............................................'•-"-••-........... •----•......... - I EL I I I I I I I I I I I•••-'•........••-•---••....................••-.......---..............._......-•-•• 1 I ET I I I I I I I I I I ......--•------------------------------- ' ........_.... 1 I ER I I I I I I I I I I 1-•-----.---•------------------------------------------------•--.------./-----•-.-.--------•-I 1 WL 1600 1 1 253 0.16 1 1 1 0,/6 I 1A A6 I I............................••"••--'•-••---•...............•.......•••.. ..........._.,.....1 1 •uT - ) 4800 7.y� !._.2016 ) 0.44 I .......dSI....O.�.�. .1�.-!aa2 IWR I I 1 --------!' 1 -- I ----•-!-------i 1EXISTING 1 0.92 1 I 1••--------------------------------•-----.._---------.--....__------....._--- 1 1EX1ST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I__..••-•-••---...............'•'-•----------•-•-••••••••'•._..-•--------.---..--.----------I 1EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. . 11_a3 I ................'---..._...._._.__...___.............._...... 1_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 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systemm improvement will be Less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements Will be less than I.C.U. without project --•--'-••.......----•------------------^--•-------•-•-----•-•-........_..........•--"•' Description of/syystem Improvement, / W.1 A1eJ1jov41 1e11'y`/ui-2 /'/e — pvirBP �yPrev/oaJy PROJECT FORM 11 BR4175PN fey aWeston Pringle & Associates TRAFFIC&TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING December 22, 1988 Ms. Pat Temple Environmental Coordinator City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8951 Dear Ms. Temple: We are pleased to submit this proposal to provide professional traffic engineering services for a traffic phasing study of the proposed Rockwell International Corporation facility expansion project in Newport Beach. The proposal is based upon information provided by you, Rich Edmonston, and our understanding of the needs of the study. In general , the work would consist of preparing a traffic analysis as required to satisfy the requirements of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) as well as other traffic related concerns. The analysis would include consideration of existing, committed project, regional growth and project traffic as required by the TPO. Crfteri,a and method- ologies contained in the TPO would be utilized to identify potential traffic impacts along with previous studies and development plans. Mitigation measures would be recommended as may be required. A report would be prepared summarizing our findings and recommendations. We would envision the following specific tasks to be required for this study. TASK 1 - DATA COLLECTION We would assemble all available data pertinent to the study. This would include development plans, existing traffic volumes, committed projects and traffic, regional growth factors, planned 2651 East Chapman Avenue s Suite 110 • Fullerton, California 9263I 9 (7I4) 87I-293I S.B.Goldstein l I Division Director Vendor Relations Semiconductor Products Division ,�, Rockwell International Corporation 4311 Jamboree Road Rockwell P.O.Box C International Newport Beach,California 9255E-8902 V14)&334344 1WX:910-591.1698 • • -2- circulation improvements, previous studies, and similar data. We would discuss the project with you and the City Traffic Engineer to ensure our understanding of the project and the scope of the study. It is understood that the City would provide AM and PM traffic volume data for existing conditions and for committed projects. A. fiel.d review would be made.to. familiarize ourselves with existing conditions. In order to quantify trip generation characteristics of this facility, traffic counts would be conducted on two (2) weekdays during the AM and PM 2.5 hour peak periods. A printout of current employee home zip codes would also be requested. TASK 2 - TRIP GENERATION AND ASSIGNMENT Estimates would be made of trips to be generated by the. project during the AM and PM peak hours and 2.5 hours peak..periods,: These estimates would be based upon trip generation rates developed from field data collection acceptable to the City Traffic Engineer. -A geogrpahic trip distribution pattern would be developed for the site. This distribution pattern would be based upon previous studies in the area and employee residence zip code data. The distribution would be reviewed with the City Traffic Engineer. Estimated project traffic would be assigned to the street system in conformance with the distribution pattern. TASK 3 - ANALYSIS The City Traffic Engi_neer.has identified 15 signalized intersections to be included in the study. The "One Percent" test would be conducted at each of these intersections to identify potential traffic impacts as required by the TPO. Any intersections that failed the "One Percent" test would be further evaluated with ICU analyses. (Both the "One Percent" and the ICU analyses would include existing, committed project and regional growth traffic as prescribed in the TPO.) Any intersections with ICU values _ greater than 0.90 would be analyzed to identify mitigation measures. • -3- Mitigation measures would be recommended as may be required. Sketches of recommended mitigation measures would be included where applicable. TASK 4 - REPORT AND MEETINGS A report would be prepared summarizing our findings and recommendations. The report would contain the required supportive data and conform to the requirements of the TPO. We would meet with you, and other City Staff and others as may be required during the course of the study. Attendance at two (2) public hearings is included as a part of this proposal . We would be prepared to begin work on this study upon receipt of authorization. It is anticipated that approximately five (5) weeks would be required to complete the study. This schedule assumes no delays in obtaining City supplied data. Our fee for the work outlined in this proposal shall be based upon personnel charges plus direct expenses as indicated in our Standard Rate Scheudule, a copy of which is attached and made a part hereto. In no.case would the total fee exceed $4,500.00 without prior approval from you or your repre- sentative. Since it is not possible at this time to estimate the time required for additional meetings and/or presentations concerning this project not mentioned in this proposal , our staff would be available with the fee based upon our Rate Schedule in addition to the previously stated maximum. The additional work shall be conducted when requested by you or your representative. iL -4- We appreciate having the opportunity of submitting this proposal and look forward to serving the City. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact us. Respectfully submitted, WESTON PRINGLE & ASSOCIATES A0 i Weston S. Pringle, P.E. WSP:hld 1 a- Weston Pringle & Associates TRAFFIC&TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING STANDARD RATE SCHEDULE Effective October 1, 1988 Professional Staff Hourly Rates Firm Principal $90.00 Senior Engineer $70.00 Associate Engineer $50.00 Assistant Engineer $35.00 Support Staff Engineering Draftsman $35.00 Secretary $15.00 Clerical , Field Enumerator $25.00 General 1. Travel , reproduction, telephone, supplies, and other non-wage direct costs are billed at cost plus ten (10) percent. 2. Hourly rates apply to travel in addition to work time. 3. Statements will be submitted monthly for work in progress or upon completion of work. Statements are payable within 30 days of receipt. Any invoices unpaid after 45 days shall have a service charge added at a rate of 1.5 percent per month (or maximum permitted by law) on the unpaid balance. 4. Compensation for services performed will not be contingent upon the necessity of client to receive payment from other parties. Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this contract, or the breach thereof, shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association and judgement upon the award rendered by the arbitration may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof. 5. These rates are based upon procedures and methods outlined in the American Society of Civil Engineers' Manual on Engineering Practice Number 45. 2651 East Chapman Avenue • Suite !IO • Fullerton, California 92631 • (710 871-2931