HomeMy WebLinkAboutTPO078_HARBOR PACIFIC PLAZA I II�IIII IIII III IIIII hlllll IIIII �IIII IIII III Iln
TP0078
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
F f �.
3300 Newport Boulevard-P.O.Box 1768
Newport Beach,CA 92659-1768 J U N 12 1992
GO ""PIYItIE,County Cfedt
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION --------�OEPUrr
To: Office of Planning and Research From: City of Newport Beach
El1400 Tenth Street,Room 121 Planning Department
Sacramento,CA 95814 3300 Newport Boulevard-P.O.Box 1768
Newport Beach,CA 92659-1768
County Clerk,County of Orange (Orange County)
Public Services Division
XX P O Box838 Date received for filing at OPR:
Santa Ana,CA 92702
Subject: Ruling of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the
Public Resources Code.
NameofProject: Harbor Pacific Plaza, General Plan Amendment 90-3(A),
Amendment No. 745, Resubdi•vision No. 980, and TPO No. 78
State GemfnghouseNumber. Lead.Agency Contact Person: Telephone No.:
N / A Aziz M. Aslami (Associate Planner) 714 / 644-3225
Project Location: 4545 MacArthur Boulevard, Newport Beach, Calif.
General Plan Amendment, Planned •Community ,Amendment, Resubdivision,
Project Description: and Traffic Phasing Ordinance Study to resubdivide a single parcel
of Tand and change the 'land use designatio from Hotel and Motel use
3'
This is to advise that the My of Newport Beach has approved the above described project on June 8, 1992
and has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: (am)
L The project❑will V1 will not have a significant effect on the environment
2. ❑ An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.
A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.
3. lvfitigation measures® were❑ were not made a condition of the approval of the project.
4. A Statement of Overriding Considerations❑was Q was not adopted for this project.
5. Fmdingsa were❑ were not made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.
The final EIR or Negative Declaration and record of project approval is available for review at the Planning Depart-
ment of the City of Newport Beach,3300 Newport Boulevard,Newport Beach,CA 92659-1768;714/644-3225
i
'June 11 1992 Principal Planner
Sign gtur John H. 6 glas (AICP) Date Tu1e
l Rnis d 11-91
7�.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME ;. „ . .•,f
CERTIFICATE OF FEE EXEMPTION DEPUTY'
De Minimis Impact Finding
A Name and Address of Project Proponent: nRInc.
db Iowa
Hotels Inc.
Cedar
B. Project Description: General Plan. Amendment, Planned Community Amendment,
Resubdivision, and Traffic: Phasing Ordinance Study to resubdivide a single
parcel of land and change the land use designation from Hotel and Motel
use to General' Commercial with a, maximum 31,352 sqaure feet of retail
development.
C. Project Location: 4545 MacArthur Boulevard, Newport Beach, Calif.
D. Findings:
The City of Newport Beach has conducted an Initial Study to evaluate the projects
potential for adverse environmental impact, and considering the record as a whole
there.is no evidence before this agency that the proposed project will have the
potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which
wildlife depends. On the basis of the evidence in the record, this agency finds that
the presumption of adverse effect contained in Section 7535(d) of Title 14 of the
California Code of Regulations (CCR) has been rebutted. Therefore,the proposed
project qualifies for a De Minimis Impact Fee Exemption pursuant to Section
7535(c) of Title 14, CCR.
E Certification:
I hereby certify that the lead agency has'made the above findings of fact and that
based upon the initial study and hearing record the project will not individually or
cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources,as defined in Section 71L2
of the Fish and Game Code.
June 11. 1992
Date To_ DouglasJAJCP
EiWonmental Cbotdinator
City of Newport Beach
F.\WP51\PLANNT G IOHN-D\FORMS\DFG-MMK
*CITY OF NEWORT BEACH
CODICIL MEMBERS MINUTES
June 8, 1992 INDEX
ROLL CFlLI
ere being no objections from the
il, the City Manager was directed
to in tigate further to determine
whether o of a refund is warranted.
Hearing no one a wishing to address
Cothe Council, the p is hearing was
closed.
Motion x Notion was made to adopt Ord No.
92-27.
All Ayes
3. Mayor Sansone opened the public hearing
regarding:
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-3(A) - Request GPA 90-3(A)
to amend the Land Use Element of the (45)
General Plan so as to eliminate the
additional 119 hotel rooms approved for
the SHERATON HOTEL SITE; change the
development entitlement from hotel rooms
to Retail and Service Commercial uses;
and establish an allocation of 41,750
square feet of commercial development
for the proposed General Commercial Site
5 in the Newport Place Planned
Community; and the acceptance of an
Environmental Document;
AND
PLANNING COMMISSION ANENDNENT No. 745 - PCA 745
Request to amend the Newport Place (94)
Planned Community District Regulations
so as to redesignate the existing
Sheraton Hotel Site from Hotel Site IA
and 1B to Hotel Site 1 and General
Commercial Site 5;
AND
TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 78 - Request to Vtfc Stdy
approve a traffic study so as to allow 78
the construction of 41,750 square feet
of retail commercial development in the
proposed General Commercial Site 5;
AND
RESIIBDIVISION NO. 980 - Request to Resub 980
resubdivide the existing Sheraton Hotel
Site into two parcels of land.
Report from the Planning Department.
The Planning Director reported that the
proposed project, as originally
submitted by the applicant, would allow
a maximum of 41,750 square feet of
commercial development. In reviewing
this proposal, staff identified two
major concerns, potential traffic
impacts and development feasibility. As
a result of these concerns, which are
enumerated in the staff report, staff
drafted an alternative to the proposed
project, which consists of a reduced
density development of a maximum 31,362
square feet. Staff believes this
alternative would allow development of
the site at an intensity that is
commensurate with other similarly
situated parcels in the area, and would
Volume 46 Page 194
CITY OF N WORT BEACH
COyKIL M09M OUTES ,
June 8, 1992 INTX
ROLL rut
maintain the integrity of the City's GPA 90-3
long-range transportation planning. (A)
This alternative would also eliminate
the projectrs potential to cause traffic
volume to exceed City standards at the
intersection of Jamboree and MacArthur.
In response to question raised by
Council Member Hart, the Planning
Director commented that there are no
specific plans for construction of the
proposed' project as it only involves the
one 2.4 acre parcel. If the amendment
is approved, than plans would be
prepared in accordance with development
standards outlined in the PC text, and
neither the Planning Commission nor City
Council would review those plans so long
as the plans conform to the PC
standards.
With regard to a reduction in parking,
John Douglas of the Planning Department,
advised that there are currently 610
parking spaces on the hotel property,
and pursuant to the Zoning Code, the
hotel is required to maintain 349
parking spaces, and it's those excess
parking spaces which will be converted
into commercial entitlement. In
actuality, the hotel will be retaining
352 parking spaces. The parking
requirements for the commercial site
(2.4 acre parcel under consideration),
would be determined at the time the
plans come in for development. The
subject roposal would also establish a
50 foot height limit for the commercial
site.
Jerry Bame, representing the applicant,
addressed the Council and stated that
their proposal is the culmination of
approximately 1-1/2 years of work with
the Planning staff, and they view the
application as a downzoning of the
property. He stated that although they
are disappointed with the recommended
lower intensity of 31,362 sq. ft. , as
suggested by the Planning staff, they
feel they can live with it as well as
the recommended conditions of approval.
Hearing no others wishing to address the
Council, the public hearing was closed.
Motion x Motion was made to: Approve the project
All Ayes as recommended by the Planning
Commission, and adopt Resolution No. 92-
57 approving Cenral Plan Amendment NO.
90-3(A) to provide for a maximum of
31,362 sq. ft. of Retail and Service
Commercial other than hotel and motel on
a portion of the Sheraton site; adopt
Resolution No. 92-58 approving Planning
Commission Amendment No. 745 to the
Newport Place Planned Community District
- Regulations-to provide for a maximum of
31,362 sq. ft. of general commercial
development on a portion of Sheraton
Hotel site; and sustain the action of
the Planning Commission in approving
Traffic Study No. 78 and Resubdivision
No. 980.
Volume 46 - Page 195
City Council Meeting June 8. 1992
Agenda'Item No. D-3
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
TO: Mayor and Members of City Council
FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT: A. General Plan Amendment No. 90-3(A)
Request to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan so as
to eliminate the additional 119 hotel rooms approved for the Sheraton
Hotel site; change the development entitlement from hotel rooms to
Retail and Service Commercial uses; and establish an allocation of
41,750 square feet of commercial development for the proposed
General Commercial Site 5 in the Newport Place Planned Community;
and the acceptance of an environmental document.
AND
B. Amendment No. 745
Request to amend the Newport Place Planned Community District
Regulations so as to redesignate the existing Sheraton Hotel site from
Hotel Site 1A and 1B to Hotel Site 1 and General Commerciai'Site 5;
reduce the hotel room entitlement on Hotel Site 1 by 119 rooms and
establish a development entitlement of 41,750 square feet of general
commercial development within the proposed General Com#ercial
Site 5; and the addition of development provisions which establish a
height limit of 50 feet within General Commercial Site 5 and the
requirement for reciprocal ingress, egress and parking between Hotel
Site 1 and General Commercial Site 5.
AND
C. Traffic Study No. 78
Request to approve a Traffic Study so as to obtain an entitlement of
41,750 square feet of retail commercial development in the proposed
General Commercial Site 5 located in the Newport Place Planned
Community.
AND
TO: Ci Council - 2. • ` `
D. Resubdivision No. 980
Request to resubdivide the existing Sheraton Hotel site into two
parcels of land; One parcel to be used for the existing-hotel purposes
and the other parcel for future commercial development.
Pro sno ed Applications
General Plan Amendment No. 90-3(A) would eliminate the additional 119 hotel rooms
allocated for the Sheraton Hotel site and limit the Sheraton Hotel to the existing 349 hotel
rooms; change the entitlement for a portion of the Sheraton site to General Commercial
land uses other than hotel and motel; and provide entitlement for a maximum of 41,750
square feet of commercial development on a 2.4 acre parcel of land on the northwest corner
of MacArthur Boulevard and Corinthian Way.
Amendment No. 745 would reclassify the proposed Site 5 from Hotel use to General
Commercial land uses with a maximum of 41,750 square feet of commercial development,
and modify the Newport Planned Community District Regulations to adopt development
standards for General Commercial uses on Site 5.
Traffic Study No.78 would satisfy the requirement of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance for the
construction of a retail commercial center with a maximum of 41,750 square feet in the
Newport Place Planned Community.
Resubdivision No. 980 would resubdivide the Sheraton Hotel site, currently a single parcel
of land, into two parcels: one parcel of'63 acres to be used for the existing hotel puTposes,
and the other parcel, 2.4 acres in size, for future commercial development.
Suggested Action
Hold hearing; close hearing; if desired:
1. Approve the project as recommended by the Planning Commission, and
a. Adopt Resolution No, approving General Plan Amendment No. 90-3(A)
to provide for .a maximum of 31,362 square feet of Retail and Service
Commercial other than hotel and motel on aportion of the Sheraton site; and
b. Adopt Resolution No. approving Amendment No. 745 to the Newport
Place Planned Community District Regulations to provide for a maximum of
31,362 square feet of general commercial development on a portion of
Sheraton Hotel site.
C. Sustain the action of the Planning Commission in approving Traffic Study No.
78 and Resubdivision.No. 980.
t � • •
TO: City Council - 3.
OR
2. Approve the proposed project as submitted by the applicant, and
a. Adopt Resolution No._, approving General Plan Amendment No.90-3(A)
to provide for a maximum of 41,750 square feet of Retail and Service
Commercial other than hotel and motel on a portion of the Sheraton site; and
b. Adopt Resolution No. approving Amendment No. 745 to the Newport
Place Planned Community District Regulations to provide for a maximum of
41,750 square feet of general commercial development on a portion of
Sheraton Hotel site.
C. Sustain the action of the Planning Commission in approving Traffic Study No.
78 and Resubdivision No. 980.
Discussion
The proposed project, as originally submitted by the applicant, would allow a maximum of
41,750 square feet of commercial development. In reviewing this proposal, staff identified
two major concerns: potential traffic impacts and development feasibility. '
The traffic study prepared for the proposed project indicates that the project would generate
traffic at a level that could have an adverse impact on the circulation system in .the long
term. This potential impact could be mitigated in either of the following ways: 1) ;•educe
the traffic generation of the project by reducing its size or restricting the uses permitted
within the project; or 2) constructing improvements to the intersection of Jamboree Road
and MacArthur Boulevard.
The other major concern identified by staff relates to the feasibility of the proposed
development. The proposed 41,750 square feet of commercial development on a 2.4 acre
site represents a 0.40 floor area ratio. In Newport Place Planned Community, other
commercial developments on parcels of similar size have floor area ratios that range from
0.13 to 0.28. Since no specific development plans were submitted by the applicant, no
precise assessment of the project's feasibility can be made at this time. However,based on
general parameters it appears that in order for this site to accommodate the full 41,750
square feet of entitlement that is requested by the applicant, a development of three or four
stories with subterranean or structure parking would be necessary. Staff is not aware of any
such development configuration within the City, therefore the feasibility of such a
development appears questionable.
One of the key concerns of staff with respect to the project's feasibility is the adverse effect
such an approval would have on the City's long-range traffic forecasting in the event that
the project were developed at a lower intensity than the 0.40 FAR requested. Since the
traffic model assumes that-all approved projects will ultimately be developed to their full
entitlement level, excess entitlement would result in erroneous traffic forecasts, i.e.,
TO: Citykuncil -4. •
predictions of greater traffic impacts than would actually occur. These errors could result
in unnecessary road improvements being funded by the City or required as conditions of
approval on other developments in the vicinity.
As a result of these concerns, staff drafted an alternative to the proposed project, which
consists of a reduced density development of a maximum 31,362 square feet. Staff believes
this alternative would allow development of the site at an intensity that is commensurate
with other similarly situated parcels in the area, and would maintain the integrity of the
City's long-range transportation planning. This alternative would also eliminate the project's
potential to cause traffic volume to exceed City standards at the intersection of Jamboree
and MacArthur.
At its meeting of May 7, 1992, the Planning Commission recommended staffs alternative
for City Council approval. Copies of the Planning Commission Resolutions,staff report and
minutes are attached for your review.
Respectfully submitted,
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director
By: OVY3 Al g� ,
Aziz M. Asiami
Associate Planner
Attachments:
La Draft Resolution No. approving General Plan Amendment No. 90-3(A)
(applicant's proposal)
Lb Draft Resolution No. approving Amendment No. 745 to the Newport Place
Planned Community District Regulations (applicant's proposal)
2.a Draft Resolution No. approving General Plan Amendment No. 90-3(A)
(staff alternative)
2.b Draft Resolution No. approving Amendment No. 745 to the Newport Place
Planned Community District Regulations (staff alternative)
3. Planning Commission Resolution No._,recommending approval.of GPA 90-3(A)
(staff alternative)
• 1 •
TO: City Council - 5.
4. Planning Commission Resolution No., recommending approval of Amendment
No. 745 (staff alternative)
5. Planning Commission Staff Report of May 7, 1992, with Traffic Study No. 78,
Negative Declaration, and Initial Study.
6. Excerpts of the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of May 7, 1992.
F.\...\AA\GPA\GPA90.3A\S-MPORT.CC2
} Attachment la
RESOLUTION NO._
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING AN AMENDMENT
TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE NEWPORT
BEACH GENERAL PLAN TO ELIMINATE THE
ADDITIONAL 119 HOTEL ROOMS APPROVED FOR
SHE HOTEL SITE; CHANGE THE LAND USE
FROM HOTEL ROOM TO RETAIL AND SERVICE
COMMERCIAL;AND ALLOCATEAMAXIMUM OF 41,750
SQUARE FEET FOR GENERAL COMMERCIAL SITE 5
LOCATED AT 4545 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD
[GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-3 (A)]
WHEREAS,the Land Use Element of the General Plan sets forth objectives,
supporting policies and limitations for development in the City of Newport Beach; and
WHEREAS, the Land Use Element 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 has recommended
approval of General Plan Amendment No. 90-3(A); and
WHEREAS, the proposed general commercial use is compatible with the
existing land uses in the Newport Place Planned Community District; and
WHEREAS, the circulation system would not be adversely affected by the
project as recommended by the Planning Commission; and
1
6
Attachment la
RESOLUTION NO._
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING AN AMENDMENT
TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE NEWPORT
BEACH GENERAL PLAN TO ELIMINATE THE
ADDITIONAL 119 HOTEL ROOMS APPROVED FOR
SHERATON HOTEL SITE; CHANGE THE LAND USE
FROM HOTEL ROOM TO RETAIL AND SERVICE
COMMERCIAL;AND ALLOCATE A MAXIMUM OF 41,750
SQUARE FEET FOR GENERAL COMMERCIAL SITE 5
LOCATED AT 4545 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD
[GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90.3(A)]
WHEREAS,the Land Use Element of the General Plan sets forth objectives,
supporting policies and limitations for development in the City of Newport Beach;and
WHEREAS, the Land Use Element 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 Fait'Share Traffic
Contribution Fee Ordinance;and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 707 of the Charter of the City of Newport
Bach,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 has recommended
approval of General Plan Amendment No.90.3(A);and
WHEREAS, the proposed general commercial use is compatible with the
existing land uses in the Newport Place Planned Community District;and
WHEREAS, the circulation system would not be adversely affected by the
project as recommended,by the Planning Commission;and
1
6
a • •
WHEREAS,the City of Newport Beach prepared a Negative Declaration with
supporting Initial Study for the project in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines;and
WHEREAS,on June 8, 1992,the City Council of the City of Newport Beach
held a public hearing regarding the amendment; and
WHEREAS, the public was duly noticed of the public hearing.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon the information
contained in the Initial Study, comments received, and all related documents, there is no
substantial evidence that the project,as conditioned or as modified by mitigation measures
identified in the Initial Study,could have a significant effect on the environment,therefore
a Negative Declaration has been prepared. The Negative Declaration adequately addresses
the potential environmental impacts of the project, and satisfies all the requirements of
CEQA, and is therefore approved. The Negative Declaration reflects the independent
judgement of the City Council and was reviewed and considered prior to approval of the
project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, an Initial Study has been conducted,
and considering the record as a whole there is no evidence before this agency that the
proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the
habitat upon which wildlife depends. On the basis of the evidence in the record,this agency
finds that the presumption of adverse effect contained in Section 753.5(d)of Title 14 of the
California Code of Regulations(CCR)has been rebutted. Therefore,the proposed project
qualifies for a De Minimis Impact Fee Exemption pursuant to Section 753.5(c)of Title 14,
CCR.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Newport
Beach that an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan is hereby approved
as described in Exhibit A so as to provide for Retail and Service Commercial uses on a
portion of Sheraton Hotel Site located at 4545 MacArthur Boulevard.
2
7
L
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Attachment
Exhibit A: Revisions to the Citys Land Use Element of the General Plan(applicant's
proposal)
AA\OPA\OP/,W3A\LU•RMLCCI
3
• • EXHIBIT. A ;
basis,with more precise site allocations made in the Planned Community Text.All
development limits exclude parking
2-1. NP Block A.Block A is bounded Corinthian Way,MacArthur Boulevard and Birch
street.qke site is designated for Retail and Service
Darrel 7 with 2A a=L
Commercial land use,with a468 room hotel permitted. than hotel with
e rnTn . 'ai and naec other
1
cites of 41,�0 em,are fer - However.�f anbsem,ent
ID�n,nm�a_,_ng floor
-moment n anc for narcel2 m ,gate floor area ratto n azcxst of
�ai ffie cta i c ct,ali he tern 1Ted to demomtrate the adefn+!+�of the
�,1,-aaa_tro tr •
rirn,lation Otem to ac mm ate the j}ronose,_d_develonment-
2-2. NP Block B.Block B is bounded by Birch Street, Corinthian Way,Scott Drive and
Dove Street.The site is designated-for Retail and Service Commercial land use and
119950 sq fL is allowed.
2-3. NP Block C, Block C is bounded by Scott Drive, Corinthian Way, MacArthur
Boulevard Newport Place Drive and Dove Street.The site is designated for Retail
and Service Commercial and Administrative,Professional and Financial Commer-
cial land use and is allocated 457,880 sq fL
24. NP Block D.Block D is bounded by Birch Street,Dove Street,Westerly Place and
Quail Street.The site is designated for Administrative,Professional and Financial
Commercial land use and is allocated 288,264 sq fL
2-5. NP Block E. Block E is bounded by Westerly Place, Dove Street and Quail Street.
The site is designated for Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial
land use and is allocated 834,762 sq fL
2-6. NP Block F. Block F is bounded by Newport Place Drive, MacArthur Boulevard,
Bowsprit Drive and Dove Street.The site is designated for Administrative,Profes-
sional and Financial Commercial land use and is allocated 201,180 sq fL
2-7. NP Blocks G do H.Block G&H are bounded by Birch Street, Quail Street, Spruce
Street and Bristol Street North.The site is designated for Administrative, Profes-
sional and Financial Commercial land use and is allocated 295,952 sq.ft.
2-8. NPB1ockL Blockl is bounded by Spruce Street Quail Street,Dove Street and Bristol
Street North.The site is designated for Retail and Service Commercial land use and
is allocated 99,538 sq L plus 7.63 acres for auto center use.
2-9. NP Block J. Block J is bounded by Dove Street, Bowsprit Drive, MacArthur
Boulevard, Jamboree Road and Bristol Street North. The site is designated for
i
Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial and Retail and Service
Commercial land use.The site is allocated204,530 sq L plus 3.0 acres for auto center
use. p.
-75-
I .
ESMUUD GROWTHFORSTATISTICAL AREA LA
ReudeotiatReud enPlandu's��� CO°OO�GODYI nrcW(in�Pco�jeew
1/1/87 Projection Growth 1/1/87 Projection Growth
1-L KCN OS A -0- -0- 4 874,346 874,W -0-
1-2.KCN OS 0- 4 4 1,060,E 1104896 0
1.3.KCN OS C 1 4 40- 4 734,641' 734,641 -0-
1.4.KCN OS D 4 4 4 250,176 250,176 4
1-5.KCN OS -0-' 4 4 30,810 3%SW 1,690
1.6.KCN OS F 4 4 •0- 34816 34,300 %484
1-7.KCN OS G 4 4 -0- 81,372 81,372 4
1.8.KCN IND 1 4 4)- 4 377,520 442,715 65,255
1.9.KCN RS 1 -0- 4 40- 52,086 102,110 50,024
1-10.Court House 4 4 4 69X% 90,000 20,744
2•L NP BLKA 40- 4 4 349,000 468;608 i000
390,750 41,750
2.2.NPBLKB 4 4 4)- 10,150 11,950 1,800
2.3.NP BLKC' -0- 4 4 211,487 457,880 246,393
2-4.NP BLKD 4 4 4 274,300 2N,264 13,964
2.5.NPBLKE 4 4 4 834,762 834,762 40-
2r6.NPBLKF 4 4 40- M675 201,180 8,505
2-7.NP BLK G&H 4 -0- 4 255,001 295p52 40,951
2-8.NP BLKI -0- 4 4 160,578 160,578 4
24 NP BLU 4 4 4 190,500 228,530 38,030
3..CampusDrive 4 4 4 N5,202 1,261,727 37025
TOTAL, 4 -0 4 4,924576 59,W,90 983y90
798%01 908,115
Population 0- -0 -0-
HARBOR VIEW HILLS AREA (STATISTICAL DIVISION M)
This area includes all land northerly of Fifth Avenue and easterly of MacArthurBoulevard.
{
Harbor View Hills Area(Statistical Area MI)
1. Point del Mar. This site is located on the northeasterly comer 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-
1b
Citywide Growth ProjecN,ons
11,
The programs and policies for the Land Use Elementwill result in additional development
with associated population increases within the City,as well as in the unincorporated areas
within the City's planning area.This growth is summarized below.
E9MAATED GROWTH FORTHENEWFORTBEACH PLANNING AREA
Itcddentid(indies)
C
Easting Gen.Ylan Prged°d F.Astwg Geae ykn�Projected
Ijl/87 Pr*c ion Growth 1/ W Projection Growth
DIV64ION A 2,597 5,610 3,013 2,114930 4,211,410 2,092,4M
DIVISIONS 4,317 5,397 11080 1,247MI IX,236 457XS
DIVISION C 901 1,168 267
DIVISIOND 2,891 3,49D 599 323M 420,355 ,9062
DIVISIONE 2,228 %797 569 118XB 147,386 28,558
DIVISIONF 4,454 6,223 1,769 700,332 983,047 =715
DIMIONG 1,M 2+M 93 �� 96�
DIVISION H 2,M 2+�
DIMION J 4,552 4,6]2 18 1+� 172,839 1 1,740,168 55
DIVISION K 3,647 3,965
DIVISION L 2,162 3,032 870 14,116,044 36M,084-~6
151"6106 1,E80,790
DIVISIONM 4,JW 4,3W 130 608,721 777,035 14314 '
DIV64IONN 40- 2,600 2,6M -0- 2,975,E 2,97SAM
Itmi ES. -0- 200 200 40- 4 -0-
CITY 35,071 46,656 11,585 23,833,337 -M419;90�
35,336,11411,94777
SPHERE-OF-
INFLUENCE 442 5,376 4,934 3SM16 4,267,83� 3,914015
PLANNINGAREA
TOTAL 35,513 9032 16,519 24,18$153 �15,4M '�'
I
-86- Io t+ :,
• AT77CCNMENT lb
RESOLUTION NO._
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL,OF THE CITY
OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING AMENDMENT NO.
745 TO NEWPORT PLACE PLANNED COMMUNITY
DISTRICT REGULATIONS SO AS TO REDESIGNATE
THE EXISTING SHERATON HOTEL SITE lA AND 1B TO
HOTEL SITE 1 AND GENERAL COMMERCIAL SITE 5;
REDUCE THE HOTEL ROOM ENTITLEMENT ON
HOTEL SITE 1 BY 119 ROOMS AND ESTABLISH A
DEVELOPMENT ENTITLEMENT OF 41,750 SQUARE
FEET OF GROSS BUILDING AREA FOR COMMERCIAL;
DEVELOPMENT WITHIN SITE 5; AND ESTABLISH A
HEIGHT LIMIT OF 50 FEET FOR GENERAL
COMMERCIAL SITE 5 WITH A DETERMINATION THAT
THE CONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE LAND USE
ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN AND THE ZONING
REQUIREMENTS ARE MAINTAINED.
WHEREAS,the Land Use Element of the General Plan sets forth objectives,
supporting policies and limitations for development in the City of Newport Beach; and
WHEREAS,in the adopted Land Use Element,the City established the ability
to convert development allocations;and
i
WHEREAS,commercial development may be approved so long as the traffic
system is not adversely affected;and
WHEREAS, a traffic analysis was prepared to assess the impact of the
proposed project development;and
WHEREAS,the traffic analysis indicated that the reduced intensity alternative
would not adversely affect the City of Newport Beach traffic system;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 Negative Declaration and has recommended the approval of
the reduced intensity alternative to the proposed project;and
WHEREAS,on June 8, 1992,the City Council of the City of Newport Beach
held a public hearing regarding the amendment; and
WHEREAS, the public was duly noticed of the public hearing.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon the information
contained in the Initial Study,.comments received, and all related documents,there is no
1 j'
substantial evidence that the project,as conditioned or as modified by mitigation measures
Identified in the Initial Study,could have a significant effect on the environment,therefore
a Negative Declaration has been prepared. The Negative Declaration adequately addresses
the potential environmental Impacts of the project, and satisfies all the requirements of
CEQA, and is therefore approved. The Negative Declaration reflects the independent
judgement of the City Council and was reviewed and considered prior to approval of the
project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT,an Initial Study has been conducted,
and considering the record as a whole there is no evidence before this agency that the
proposed project will.have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the
habitat upon which wildlife depends. On the basis of the evidence in the record,this agency
finds that the presumption of adverse effect contained in Section 7535(d)of Title 14 of the
California Code of Regulations(CCR)has been rebutted. Therefore,the proposed project
qualifies for a.De Midmis Impact Fee Exemption pursuant to Section 753.5(c)of Title 14,
CCR.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Newport
Beach that Amendment No.745 to Newport Place Planned Community District Regulations
is determined to be consistent with the intent of the General Plan and Is hereby approved
as described in Exhibit A.
ADOPTED this_day of .1992.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Attachment
Exhibit A. Revisions to Newport Place Planned Community District
Regulations (applicant's proposal)
AA\0PA\OPAWM\Z0N-P Se.CC1
2 r�
. •' Exhibit A
PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
NEWpORT PLACE
may Development Company, Inc.
Newport Beach, California
13
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
PART II COMMB31�1$tIAL/t4 (EL MOTEL
A.S a • no Site 4B t....•
. .......................... .
B. Hotel Room Limit (18)(25)
(1)
Site 4A i 4B t....................................483 W rooms
The following statistics are for information only. Development
may include but shall not be limited to the following.
C• Bj, 1d' A*ea(45�t i Leta Cad 40Q sa.ft/unitl(18)(?.5)
Slte B 449 acres...................4.43 a acres
D. Parkin¢(Criteria•lspacetUUU(o-3".ft-.Iy ej(18)(25)
Site 4A-&4B 1450 U.parldng spade............. � W acres
E. TA^.wig - Om Space (18)
The following is intended to show some of the variations
possible.
Site 4A and 4B
One Story Development -----d•92 acres
Two Story Development 2.98 acres
Three Story Development 3.67 acres
Four Story Development ---4.02 acres
Five Story Development --41.22 acres
Six Story Development ►36 acres
Seven Story Development--4.46 acres
Eigbt Story Development 4.53;acres
Nine Story Development----:.59 acres
Ten Story Development— *.64 acre t
Eleven Story Development--4.67 acres
Twelve Story Development-4.71 acres
Thirteen Story Development---4.73 acres
The above analysis does not include support facilities utilized in many hotel
operations. These facilities would also require parking not reflected-in_the
parking requirement criteria.
1
Use permits approved as of November 14, 1983 allow 468 hotel
rooms with related restaurant, conference area, and other
support facilities. Hotel suites included as part of the hotel
room count may be converted to standard hotel rooms
consistent with the specified hotel room limit, so long as the
approved site plan is maintained. Location and size of
restaurant, conference area, and other support facilities may
also be revised if the plans meet the intent,of the approved site
plan and other conditions of approval.(1)(18)
llaa /�
ti
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
PART II AUTOCENTER&GENERALCOMMBRCIAL(8)(9)PERmrrrEDUSES
Part II, Section II, Group ILA & F
A. Auto [enter Building Sites
Site lb...... 3.0 acres
Site 2a..... 2.9 acres
5.9 acres
B. Genera Commercial Building Sites (8) (25)
Site 1....... 3.0 acres
Site 2....... 1.0 acres (9)
Site 3....... 3.9 acres (9)
Site 4....... 2.0 acres (9)
9�-ae�es-(''M
( )
C, �uildin¢ A*ea (25)
Site I....... 35,000 sq L ... 0.80 acres
*Site 7....... 11,700 sgft. ... 0.27 acres (9)
'Site 3....... 48,3W sgfL ... 1.11 acres (9)
s. es (9)
Site 4....... 20,870 sgft.(19) OS7 acres
(25)
(1)
•Restaurants are permitted uses in sites 2 eatd 3 If
restaurants are developed in Sites 2& 13 M, each'square
foot of gross floor area devoted to restaurants shall reduce the
amount of permitted commercial floor area by 2 square feet.
The maximum amountof gross floor area devoted-to restaurant
uses shall not exceed 8,000 square feet inoSite13 M(9x25)
12
� (b
"'If the development of General Commercial Site 4 is limited
solely Profession shall not exceed 0,000 sq.ft. (19)d Business Office use, then .the
allowable Building
The following Statistics are for information only. Development may include,
but shall not be limited to the following. (8)
D. Parking (Criteria 4 spaces/1,000 sq.ft. @ 363 sq.ft./space)(9)(25)
Site i 140 cars ..... 1.17 acres
Site 2 ..... 47 cars ..... 0.39 acres
Site 3 ..... 193 cars ..... 1.61 acres
Site 4 ..... 100 cars ..... 0.83 acres
484-ears
Site 5 .... WA;Q& �
12a
E. (9)(25)
Site 1 .................. 1.03 acres
Site 2 .................. 0.34 acres
Site 3 ................. 1.18 acres
Site 4 .................. 0.60 sacs
3.45-sores
F. B uiiding HELt (8) (9) (25)
Building height of structures on Auto Center Site is and 2b shall be
limited to a height of thirty-five (35fL)-
Building height of structures on General Commercial Site 1, 2, 3, and
4 shall be limited to a height of thirty-five feet
PART II COMMERCIAL/SERVICE STATION "
A. Building Site
Site 1 .......... 1.2 acres ......... 1.2 acres
,. Reference Page 41 Part I, Item D.
13
/8
5. Camera shop
6. Delicatessen store
7. Florist
8. Shoe store or repair shop
9. Tailor
10. Tobacco store
11. Office equipment retail and repair
12. Pharmacies
13. Tourist information and travel agencies
and ticket reservation services, but not
include any airline terminal services or
facilities for the transport of passengers,
baggage or freight.(2)
14. Other uses similar to the above list. (2)
F. General_ Commercial (8) (9) (23) (25)
1. New car dealership, subject to a use permit, including ancillary
uses listed under Part II, Section II, Group II,A.
2. Service Stations subject to a use permit.
3. Restaurants,including outdoor,drive-in or take-out restaurants,
shall'be subject to a use permit. Restaurant uses are ermitted
within General Commercial Sites 1, 2, anil 3 MW and not
permitted within General Commercial Site 4.
4. Hobby, Arts and Crafts, including:
a. Sporting goods store
b. Camera Store
C. Art Gallery
d. Craft store
e. Pet store
f. Bicycle store
g. Other uses of similar nature
5. Book and Office Support Stores, including:
a. Book store
b. Office supplies
C. Other uses of similar nature
6. Retail stores and professional service establishments including:
a. Pharmacies
b. Specialty food
C. Fabric Shops
d. Jewelry shops
e. Furrier
f. Formal Wear
g. Barber and Hair styling
32
0 V
h. Clothing Store
L Liquor store
j. Tourist information and travel agencies and ticket
reservation services, but not to include any airline
terminal services or 'facilities for the transport of
passengers, baggage or freight.
k. Other uses of similar nature
7. Home and Office furnishings, including:
a. Home furniture store
b. Office furniture store
C. Interior decorators
d. Home appliances
e. Antique stores
L Other uses of similar nature
8. Athletic Clubs, including:
a. Spa
b. Health Club
C. Recreation facility
d. Other uses of similar nature
9. Home improvement:stores, including:
a. Hardware store
b. Paint store
C. Wallcovering store
d. Other uses of similar nature
10. Retail Nursery subject to a use permit
'11. Professional and Business Offices - see Part R Section A
Group'I for permitted use.
*Office uses are permitted within General Commercial Sites 3
sad 4 M and not permitted within General Commercial
Sites 1 and 2. (9) (25)
33
y0
w1f(/ fI K
♦ �. 1yy1��K
ICL� II..iR.1 t•K IYOt �M' K�
• �, , brlKfr Kr K
•rill..dO+i JJ K
✓,t.•a-q R6,r. 9.8.17
/ T IfK •.•.. . 'r � .?yam ~
ttt
dt
.••J�a^y Jreora+la t I T --
NEL%WT PLACE o
LAND USE hETipn:EnrtuPmgtcom
NEWPORI H]ON. "LIFORNIA
EMKAY DEVELOPMENT AND REALTY COMPANY ,
• ATTACHMENT 2a t
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING AN AMENDMENT
TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE NEWPORT
BEACH GENERAL PLAN TO ELIMINATE THE
ADDITIONAL 119 HOTEL ROOMS APPROVED FOR
SHERATON HOTEL firm-, CHANGE THE LAND USE
FROM HOTEL ROOM TO RETAIL AND SERVICE
COMMERCIAL;AND ALLOCATE A MAX£MUM OF 31,362
SQUARE FEET FOR GENERAL COMMERCIAL SITE 5
LOCATED AT 4545 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD
[GENERAL PLAN.AMENDMENT 90.3(A)]
WHEREAS,the Land Use Element of the General Plan sets forth objectives,
supporting polities and limitations for development in the City of Newport Beach;and
WHEREAS, the Land Use Element 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 Commissionbas held a public hearing to consider a certain amendment
to the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan and has recommended
approval of General Plan Amendment No.90.3(A);and
WHEREAS, the proposed general commercial use is compatible with the
existing land uses in the Newport Place Planned Community District;and
WHEREAS, the circulation system would'not be adversely affected by the
project as recommended by the Planning Commission;and
1
zy
III
WHEREAS,the City of Newport Beach prepared a Negative Declaration with
supporting Initial Study for the project in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act(CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines;and
WHEREAS,on June 8, 1992,the City Council of the City of Newport Beach
held a public hearing regarding the amendment; and
WHEREAS,the public was duly noticed of the public hearing.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that based upon the information
contained in the Initial Study, comments received, and all related documents, there is no
substantial evidence that the project,as conditioned or as modified by mitigation measures
identified in the Initial Study,could have a significant effect on the environment,therefore
a Negative Declaration has been prepared. The Negative Declaration adequately addresses
the potential environmental impacts of the project, and satisfies all the requirements of
CEQA, and is therefore approved. The Negative Declaration reflects the independent
judgement of the City Council and was reviewed and considered prior to approval of the
project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT,an Initial Study has been conducted,
and considering the record as a whole there is no evidence before this agency that the
proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the
habitat upon which wildlife depends. On the basis of the evidence in the record,this agency
finds that the presumption of adverse effect contained in Section 753.5(d)of Title 14 of the
California Code of Regulations(CCR)has been rebutted. Therefore,the proposed project
qualifies for a De Minimis Impact Fee Exemption pursuant to Section 753.5(c)of Title 14,
CCR.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Newport
Beach that an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan is hereby approved
as described in Exhibit A so as to provide for Retail and Service Commercial uses on a
portion of Sheraton Hotel Site located at 4545 MacArthur Boulevard.
2
G✓
ADOPTED this_day of 1992.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Attachment
Exhibit A: Revisions to the Citys Land Use Element of the GeneralTlan(staff alternative)
AA\GPA\OPA903A\LLLRPSOLCC2
3
1.`I
• • EXHIBIT A
basis,with more precise site allocations made in the Planned Community Text.All
development limits exclude parking.
2.1. NP BlockA.Block A is bounded Corinthian Way,MacArthur Boulevard and Birch
Street The site p,'.:;"d ' °^"rp;n;ng 6-3 scree, is de ignated for Retail and Service
Q 468•room hotel rmitted. Parcel 7 with 2.4 acres.
Commercial land use,with C`nmmercisd land uses other than hotel.with-a y
.t.^•t.t• Arv�r'ar �of 31362 sattare feet._. ,
2-2. NP Block B.Block B is bounded by Birch Street,Corinthian Way, Scott Drive and
Dove Street.The site is designated for Retail and Service Commercial land use and ti
110950 sgft.is allowed.
2-3. NP Block C. Block C is bounded by Scott Drive, Corinthian Way, MacArthur
Boulevard Newport Place Drive and Dove Street.The site is designated for Retail
and Service Commercial and Administrative,Professional and Financial Commer-
cial land use and is allocated 457,880 sq.ft.
2-4. NP Block D. Block D is bounded by Birch Street,Dove Street,Westerly Place and
Quail Street.The site is designated for Administrative,Professional and Financial
Commercial land use and is allocated 288,264 sq ft.
2-5. NP Block E. Block Es bounded by Westerly Place, Dove Street and Quail Street,
The site is designated for Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial
land use and is allocated 834,762 sgft.
2-6. NP Block F. Block F is bounded by Newport Place Drive, MacArthur Boulevard,
Bowsprit Drive and Dove Street.The site is designated for Administrative,PrOfes-
sional and Financial Commercial land use and is allocated 201,180 sgft.
2-7. NP Blocks G&H.Block G&H are bounded by Birch Street, Quail Street,Spruce
Street and Bristol Street North. The site is designated for Administrative, Profes-
sional and Financial Commercial land use and is allocated 295,952 sgft.
2-8. NPB1ockL BlockI is bounded by Spruce Street,Quail Stree4 Dove Street and Bristol
Street North.The site is designated for Retail and Service Commercial land use and
is allocated 99,538 sqft.plus 7.63 acres for auto center use.
2-9. NP Block L Block J is bounded by Dove Street, Bowsprit Drive, MacArthur
Boulevard, Jamboree Road and Bristol Street North. The site is designated for
Administrative, and Financial Commercial and
Commerciallandusse.The Professional is allocated 204,5 0 sq ft.plus 3..0 acreRetail
for auto center
use.
3. Campus Drive.This area is bounded by Campus Drive,MacArthur Boulevard,Birch
Street and Bristol Street North.The area is designated for Administrative,Profes-
-75-
• L f
B$TIMAIED GROWTH FORSTATIStYC&AR 41A
ReeW= "ul(in du+a) CommeaW(in ut•&)
WO
i 1/7M Gam`
1-L KCN OS A 4)- 0 0 874,316 874,346 -0-
12.KCN OS B 0• -0- 0= 1,0MMS t06%89S `0-
1-3.KCN OS C 40- -0- -0- 734,641 734,641 40-
1.4.KCN OS D 4 40- 4 250*176 250,176 -0-
1-5:KCN OS E 4 41- -0' 3%810 32,U >#W
1.6.KCN OSF -0- -0- 4 34816 34,300 2,484
1-7.KCN OS O -0- 41 4 81,371 Sir= 4
1-8.KCNDW L -0- 4)- -0- 377,5M 442JIS AM
1-9.KCN RS 1 4)- 4 4)- 52,086 iw no Sg024
110.CourtHow 4 4- 40- 69A% 90,E A744
2.1.NP BLKA 4 40- 4- 349,000 46010 '""M
380,962 31,962
2.2.NP BLKB 40- 4)- 4 10,150 11,95D 118DD
2.3.NP BLKC -0- 4 -0- M487 457,880 246,393
24.NPBIKD 4)- 4 -0- 274,400 288X4 13,964
2.5.NP BIKE 4 - 4 834,762 834,762 4
2 6.NP BLKF 4 4)- 4 192,675 201,180 8,505
2.7.NP BL.KO&H 4 4- 4)- 255,001 2950952 4OX1
28.NPBLKL 4)- 40- 4 1600578 160,578 4
2-9.NP BLKJ 4 -0- 4)- 190,500 248,530 A030
3.Campus Drive 4 40- -0- MA02 1,261,717 TWZ
TOTAL -0 -0 -0 6,,926,576 91,9Iff,90 MOM
7,824,303 097,727
I
Population 0- 40- -0
HARBOR VIEWHILLS AREA (STATISTICAL_ DIVISION M)
This areaincludes Aland northerlyof FifthAvenueand easterlyof MacArthurBoulevard.
Harbor View Hills Area(Statistical Area MI)
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-
Z6
Citywide Growth Protections
The programs and policies for the Land Use Elementwill result in additional development
with associated population increases within the City,as well as in the unincorporated areas
within the City's planning area This growth is summarized below.
EST MATED GROWTH FOR THE NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING AREA
Residential(m du's) �t�mercislmGen.Planr1n sq f )
Eosft Gen.Plan Pmjectal
I/IV projection Growth 1/1/87 Projection Gm* ;
DIVISION A 2,597 5,610 3,013 2,118,930 4,211,410 2,092,480
DIMION B 4,317 5,397 I,M 1,247;381 1,705,236 457,855
DMSION C 901 1,168 267 40' -0" -0-
DMSION D 2,891 %490 599 323,393 420,395 96,962
DIVISION E 2,228 7,797 . 569 1181828 147,NZ 28,558
DIVISIONP 4,454 6,M 1,769 700,332 983,047 282,715 ;
DIVISION G 1,008 1,025 17 150,2% 262M 961,971 G
DIVISIONH 2,115 2,208' 93 1,982,M ,2,944,22
DMSION J 4,552 4.612 60 1,613,946 3,172,839 1,558,893
DMSIONK 3,647 3X5 318 853,M4 1,740,168 M,964
DMSION L 2,162 3,032 870 14,116,044 6,094-. 46
DIVISION M 4,199 4,329 130 608,721 777XS 168,314
DIVISIONN. -0- 2,600 2,600 -0- 2,9'75,000 2,975,000
MISCYM. 40- 200 200 -0- -0- -0-
MY 35,071 46,656 11,%5 23,8 V37 35;413364+10 9,Gff
35,325,72611,442.M
SPHERE-OF-
INFLUENCE 442 5,376 4,934 35IA16 4,267,8313,916,015
PLANNINGAREA
TOTAL 34513 52,032 16,519 2414153 -*Wff5:
I
r
-86-
_•r
a•
0 ATTACHMENT 2b
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING AMENDMENT NO.
745 TO NEWPORT PLACE PLANNED COMMUNITY
DISTRICT REGULATIONS SO AS TO REDESIGNATE
THE EXISTING SHERATON HOTEL SITE 1A AND 113 TO
HOTEL SITE 1 AND GENERAL COMMERCIAL SITE 5;
REDUCE THE HOTEL ROOM ENTITLEMENT ON
HOTEL SITE 1 BY 119 ROOMS AND ESTABLISH A
DEVELOPMENT ENTITLEMENT OF 31,362 SQUARE
FEET OF GROSS BUILDING AREA FOR COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT WITHIN SITE 5; AND ESTABLISH A
HEIGHT LIMIT OF 50 FEET FOR GENERAL
COMMERCIAL SITE 5 WITH A DETERMINATION THAT
THE CONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE LAND USE
ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN AND THE ZONING
REQUIREMENTS ARE MAINTAINED.
WHEREAS,the Land Use Element of the General Plan sets forth objectives,
supporting policies and limitations for development in the City of Newport Beach;and
WHEREAS,in the adopted Land Use Element,the City established the ability
to convert development allocations;and
WHEREAS,commercial development may be approved so long as the traffic
system is not adversely affected;and
WHEREAS, a traffic analysis was prepared to assess the impact of the
proposed project development;and
WHEREAS,the traffic analysis indicated that the reduced intensity alternative
would not adversely affect the City of Newport Beach traffic system;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 Negative Declaration and hasaecommended-the approval of
the reduced intensity alternative to the proposed project;and
WHEREAS,on June 8,1992,the City Council of the City of Newport Beach
held a public hearing regarding the amendment;and
WHEREAS,the public was duly noticed of the public hearing.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon the information
contained in the Initial Study,comments received,and all related documents, there is no
1 28
•
substantial evidence that the project,as conditioned or as modified by mitigation measures
identified in the Initial Study,could have a significant effect on the environment,therefore
a Negative Declaration has been prepared. The Negative Declaration adequately addresses
i
the potential environmental impacts of the project, and satisfies all the requirements of
CEQA, and is therefore approved. The Negative Declaration reflects the independent
judgement of the City Council and was reviewed and considered prior to approval of the
project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT,an Initial Study has been conducted,
and considering the record as a whole there is no evidence before this agency that the
proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the
habitat upon which wildlife depends. On the basis of the evidence in the record,this agency
finds that the presumption of adverse effect contained in Section 7535(d)of Title 14 of the
California Code of Regulations(CCR)has been rebutted. Therefore,the proposed project
qualifies for a De Minimis Impact Fee Exemption pursuant to Section 7535(c)of Title 14,
CCR.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of,the City of Newport
Beach that Amendment No.745 to Newport Place Planned Community District Regulations
is determined to be consistent with the intent of the General Plan and.is hereby approved
as described in Exhibit A.
ADOPTED this_day of , 1992.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Attachment
Exhibit A: Revisions to Newport Place Planned Community District
Regulations (staff alternative)
AA\GPA\GPA%JA\Z0N-W0.CCZ
y9
2
r r
Exhibit A
PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
NEWPORT PLACE
Emkay Development Company, Inc.
Newport Beach, California
• 3b
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
PART Il COMMERQAL/HOTEL& MOTEL
A. Rnildite (25)
e• ,prat--_�, eg
Site 4B .. ..
B. HWd Room limit x 18 25
( ) (1)
Site4-i-1B ................ .................48a rooms
The following statistics are for information only. Development
may include but shall not be limited to the following.
(18)(25)
Site 433 a acres...................4.43 IV acres
D. (L _ .61=a., cetlinit(&363ca ft./soacel_(18)(25)
i
Site 4Ar&-4$ 438 0 pares space...........A45 99 acres
E. andc( nLet - linen S4ace (18)
The following is intended to show some of the variations
possible.
Site V ^92 acres
One Story Development---v
Two Story Development 2.98 acres
Three Story Development 3.67 acres
Four Story Develop me acres
Five Story Development-------4.22 acres
Six Story Development--4•36 yes
Seven Story Development %. acres
Eight Story Development--Y•53 acres
Nine Story Development-------4.59 acres
Ten Story Development .64 yes
Eleven Story Development-4.67 acres
Twelve Story Development-4.71 acres
Thirteen Story Development-4.73 acres
11
The above analysis does not include support facilities utilized in many hotel
operations. These facilities would also require parking not reflected in the
parking requirement criteria.
1
Use permits approved,as of November 14, 1983 allow 468 hotel
rooms with related restaurant, conference area, and other
support facilities. Hotel suites included as part of the hotel'
room count may be converted to standard hotel rooms
consistent with the specified hotel room limit, so long as the
approved site plan is maintained. Location and size of
restaurant, conference area, and other support f sties may
also be revised if the plans meet the intent of the approved site
plan and other conditions of'appravaL(ix18)
11a 'lr
�v
3z
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
PART, AUTOCENTER&GENERALCOMMLRCIAL(8)(9)pERbffrrEDUSES
Part II, Section A Group ILA&F
A. An+n [`enter Rnitdin¢ Sites
Site lb...... 3.0 acres
Site 2a... . 2.9 acres
5.9 acres
B. General commercial $Ldin¢ Sites (8) (25)
Site 1....... 3.0 acres.
Site 2....... 1.0 acres (9)
Site 3....... 3.9 acres (9)
Site 4....... 2.O—aec
wwWOMMOM (25)
C Rnildin¢ A� (25)
Site 1....... 359000 sgft. ... 0.80 acres
*Site 2....... 11,700 sgft. ... 0.27 acres (9)
*Site 3....... 48,300 sgft. ... 1.11 acres (9)
"•Site 4....... 20,870 sq&(19) 0.57 acres (9)
(25)
(25)
(1)
*Restaurants are permitted uses in sites 2 and 3 If
restaurants are developed in Sites 2& 13 a
each square
foot of gross floor area devoted to restaurants reduce the
amount of permitted commercial floor area by 2 square feet.
The maximum amount of gross floor area devoted to restaurant
uses shall not exceed 8,000 square feet in Site3 MW(9x25)
12
33
'•lf the development of General Commercial Site 4 is limited
solely to Professional and Business Office use, then the
allowable Building Area shall not exceed 30,000 sgft. (19)
The following Statistics are for information only. Development may include,
but shall not be limited to the following. (8)
D. Parking (Criteria 4 spaces/1,000 SOL Q 363 sq ft./apaeeX9)(25)
Site 1 ..... 140 cars ..... 1.17 acres
Site 2 ..... 47 cars ..... 0.39 acres
Site 3 ..... 193 cars ..... 1.61 acres
Site 4 ..... 100 cars ...,. 0.83 acres
480 s -A
Site 5 ...
12a
i andaMing- Open Snare (9x25)
Site 1 .................. 1.03 acres
Site 2 .................. 0.34 acres
Site 3 .................. 1.18 acres
Site 4 .................. 4.(lQ S= M-5 weres-
F. Building Height (8) (9) (25)
Building height of structures on Auto Center Site is and 2b shall be
limited to a height of thirty-five (35ft.).
Building height of structures on General Commercial Site 1, 2,3, and
4 shall be limited to a height of thirty-five feet (35ft.)
PART II COMME?RCIAL/SERVICE STATION •
A. BLil W Site
Site 1 .......... 1.2 acres ......... 1.2 acres
•• Reference Page 4, Part I, Item D.
13
3
S. Camera shop
6. Delicatessen store
7. Florist
8. Shoe store or repair shop
9. Tailor
10. Tobacco store
11. Office equipment retail and repair
12. Pharmacies
13. Tourist information and• travel agencies
and ticket reservation services, but not
include any airline terminal services or
facilities for the transport of passengers,
baggage or freigbt.(2) ' ,
14. Other uses similar to the above list. (2)
F. (8) (9) (23) (25)
1. New car dealership, subject to a use permit, including ancillary
uses listed under Part II, Section II, Group HA
2; Service Stations subject to a use permit.
3. Restaurants,including outdoor,drive-in or take-out restaurants,
shall be subject to a use permit. Restaurant uses are permitted
within General Commercial Sites 1, 2, and 3 -and not
permitted within General Commercial Site 4.
4. Hobby, Arts and Crafts, including:
a. Sporting goods store
b. Camera Store
C. Art Gallery
d. Craft store
e. Pet store
E Bicycle store
g. Other uses of similar nature
5. Book and Office Support Stores, including:
a. Book store
b. Office supplies
C. Other uses of similar nature
6. Retail stores and professional service establishments including:
a. Pharmacies
b. Specialty food
C. Fabric Shops
d. Jewelry sbops
e. Furrier
E Formal Wear
g, Barber and Hair styling
32
3e
h. Clothing Store
i. Liquor store
j. Tourist information and •travel agencies and ticket
reservation services, but not to include any airline
terminal services or facilities for the transport of
passengers, baggage or freight.
L Other uses of similar nature
7. Home and Office furnishing% mciudmg:
a. Home furniture store
b. Office furniture store
C. interior decorators
d. Home appliances
e. Antique stores
is Other uses of similar nature
g, Athletic Clubs, including:
a. Spa
b. Health Club
C. Recreation facility
d. Other uses of similar nature
9. Home improvement stores, including:
a. Hardware store
b. Paint store
C. Wallcovering store
d. Other uses of similar nature
10. Retail Nursery subject to a use permit
•11. Professional and Business Offices - see Part Ii, Section 11,
Group I for permitted use.
*Office uses are permitted within General Commercial Sites 3
and 4 10 and not permitted within General Commercial
Sites 1 and 2. (9) (25)
33
3� �
-/ •PIMA
_
"W._n.
• •JlPlb[ rt Deli
oll
01.
fw
•� e • =�
Are .
Z• � �j_I � a '• t
a �WCM 1f�
s f,�
• Y
• lHaIn T PLACE f
LAND USX •
iiGe=ftWar :
enreer e[�er. uureeeu <
EMUY DEVELOPMENT AND REALTY COMPANY � •eur
ATTACHMENT 3
RESOLUTION NO. 1295
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 FOR THE SHERATON HOTEL
SITE IN NEWPORT PLACE PLANNED COMMUNITY
DISTRICT[GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-3,(A)]
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,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
i
to the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan;and
WHEREAS,the proposed project is compatible with the existing land uses in
Newport Place Planned Community; and
WHEREAS,the impact on the circulation system would be minimized through
certain mitigation measures; and
WHEREAS,the proposed general commercial land use is compatible with the
surrounding community; and
WHEREAS,the City of Newport Beach prepared a Negative Declaration with
gq
supporting Initial Study 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 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 as described in Exhibits
3A,3B and 3C are recommended for approval to the City Council.
ADOPTED this 71h day of May, 1992,by the following vote,to wit:
AYES Debay, Di Sane, Edwards,
Glover, Merrill, Pomeroy
NOES Gross
ABSENT
BY �,—W,2 z�
Gary DiSKnb
CHAIRMAN
BY �Qy1l1K*��
Norma Glover
SECRETARY
AA\OPA\GPA90.4A\ePA•RESe.113
Attachments:
Exhibit 3A: Revised Land Use Element text
Exhibit 3B&C: Revised Land Use.Element tables
ya
ATTACHMENT 4
RESOLUTION NO. 1296
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL AN AMENDMENT
TO THE NEWPORT PLACE PLANNED COMMUNITY
DISTRICT REGULATIONS [PLANNING COMMISSION
AMENDMENT NO.745]
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 Codesprovides specific procedures
for the implementation of Planned Community zoning for properties within the City of
Newport Beach;and
WHEREAS, an amendment to the Newport Place Planned Community 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 with
supporting Initial Study 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 to the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED the Planning Commission of the
City of Newport Beach does hereby recommend to the City Council an amendment to the
Newport Place Planned Community District Regulations designated as Planning Commission
Amendment No.745 as shown on Exhibit"31)"attached.
0
ADOPTED this_M day of-May, 1992,by the following vote, to wit:
AYES Debay, Di Sano, Edwards,
Glover, Merrill, Pomeroy
NOES Gross
ABSENT
BY
Gary DVMo
CHAIRMAN
BY
Norma Glover
SECRETARY
,w\orA\arn904n\w14-aes0113
Attachment
Exhibit"3D": Newport Place Planned Community District Standards.
,
yy
• Planning Commission Meefing Ma 7. 1992
Agenda Item No. 3
ATTACHMENT 5
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT: A General Plan A ttd{riPnt No 90-3(Al (Public Heudw
Request to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan so as
to eliminate the additional 119 hotel rooms approved for the Sheraton
Hotel site; change the development entitlement from Hotel Rooms to
Retail and Service Commercial uses; and establish an allocation of
41,750 square feet of commercial development for the proposed
General Commercial Site 5 in the Newport Place Planned Community.
INMATED BY: The City of Newport Beach
AND
B ArnendmPnt No 745 (Public Hearin¢1
Request to amend the Newport Place Planned Community District
Regulations so as to redesignate the existing Sheraton Hotel site from
Hotel Site 1A and 1B to Hotel Site 1 and General Commercial Site 5;
reduce the hotel room entitlement on Hotel Site 1 by 119 rooms and
establish a development entitlement of 41,750 square feet of general
commercial development within the newly established General
Commercial Site 5; and the addition of development provisions which
establish a height limit of 50 feet within General Commercial Site 5
and the requirement for reciprocal ingress,egress and parking between
Hotel Site 1 and General Commercial Site 5.
AND
Traffic Studv N (R'blic Heald=1A
Request to approve a Traffic Study so as to allow the construction of
41,750 square feet of retail commercial development in the proposed
General Commercial Site 5, located in the Newport Place Planned
Community.
TO: Planning Ccoission - 2.
AND
D. Resubdivision No 980 pt tie Hearinal
Request to resubdivide the existing Sheraton Hotel site into two
parcels of land; one parcel to be used for the existing hotel purposes
and the other parcel for future commercial development.
LOCATION: Parcel i of Parcel Map No. 77-42-43 (Resubdivision No.483), located
at 4545 MacArthur Boulevard, on the southwesterly comer of
MacArthur Boulevard andBirch Street,in the Newport Place Planned
Community.
ZONE: P-C
APPLICANT: Larken, Inc., Cedar Rapids, Iowa
OWNER: Same as applicant
ENGINEER: Barrios and Anderson, Anaheim
Agnlications
The proposed applications,K approved,would provide an entitlement for a maximum 41,750
square feet of commercial development on a 2.4-acre parcel of land on the northwest comer
of MacArthur Boulevard and Corinthian Way. The requests include an amendment to the
Land Use Element of the General Plan to redesignate the approved 119 room addition to
the existing Sheraton Hotel for Retail and Service Commercial use other than hotel; to
resubdivide a single parcel of land into two parcels, one to contain the existing Sheraton
Hotel operation and the other to be used for future commercial development herein
referred to as "Site 5"; to amend the Newport Place Planned Community District
Regulations as to reclassify Site 5 from Hotel Use to General Commercial land uses and
adopt development standards for General Commercial on Site 5; and, finally, to approve a
Traffic Study in compliance with the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance.
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 fn Chapter 15.40 and Resubdivision procedures are in Chapter
19.12 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
Environmental Signiftcance
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA
Guidelines and City Policy K 3, an Initial Study has'been prepared for the project. Based
upon the information contained in the Initial Study, it has been determined that if the
proposed mitigation measures are incorporated, the project would not have a significant
effect on the environment. As required by CEQA, certain findings must be adopted prior
to a projects approval. A Negative Declaration has, therefore, been prepared for the �'/
project and a copy of it is attached for the Planning Commission's review. `T
TO; Planning Commission - 3.
In Apt, 1987, the City Council approved the amended Use Permit No. 1547, allowing an
additional 119 hotel rooms to be added to the existing 349 room Sheraton hotel facility-
The approved addition, planned as a 10-story building, has not been constructed. At the
request of the applicant, the Planning Commission,on October 4, 1990, voted unanimously
to recommend the initiation of General Plan Amendment No. 90-3(A) to amend the Land
Use Element to eliminate the additional 119 hotel rooms approved for the Sheraton Hotel
Site and change the entitlement to general commercial allowing approximately 41,750 sq.ft
of retail development. The City Council at its meeting of October 22, 1990, sustained the
recommendation of the Planning Commission to initiate General Plan Amendment No.90-
3(A).
At the time the project was submitted, the owner of the subject property had anticipated to
have a 2.7 acre excess tract of land. However, after a parking study was prepared to
evaluate space
r the
as determined that onle minimum y a 2.ed 4 acre tract °ount of �d be created from the excess lanraton Hotel d ration,
The property owner's representative has indicated that the owner has no immediate
intention of developing this property, but is requesting a change in entitlement in order to
enhance its marketability. No specific development plans have been submitted.
Mnformance with the General Plan
The site is located in Statistical Area 14. The Land Use Element of the Newport Beach
General Plan designates the site for Retail and Service Commercial limited to Hotel Use,
with a total entitlement of 468 hotel rooms. Currently, the site is developed with a 349
hotel room facility and has approval for an additional 119 hotel rooms. The Zoning
Regulations for the Newport Place Planned Community District also restrict the site for
hotel uses. Although the site's land use category is not proposed to be altered, a General
Plan Amendment would be required to convert the approv11tel room
oo men density
dition to
general commercial other than hotel uses with an appropriatep
allocation that is in compliance with the General Plan Traffic Analysis. The project is
outside the Coastal Zone Boundary and approval of a Coastal Development Permit is not
required.
Subject Pronerty and Surrounding Lind Use
The subject property is currently a single parcel of land that is surrounded by Birch Street,
MacArthur Boulevard, and Corinthian Way within Newport Place Planned Community
District. To the west of the property, across Birch Street is a number of office and retail
uses. To the north and east of the site is Koll Center office development. To the south,
across Corinthian Way is a retail commercial center.
TO: Planning Commission - 4.
AnWols
As noted above, no specific development plans have been submitted by the applicant,
therefore staffs analysis is based on general parameters and a comparison of projects
of a similar nature. With this in mind, staff has identified two major concerns: traffic
impacts and development feasibility.
Traffic impacts: A traffic study was completed for the proposed project to examine both
short-term impacts as required by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance and long-term impacts
associated with the proposed General Plan Amendment. This study concluded that the
proposed project would have no significant short-term traffic impacts,but could exacerbate
a deficient condition at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road over
the long term. The study also indicated that if the proposed project were reduced in size
to a floor area ratio of 0.30 (31,362 sq.ft.) or less, this problem would be eliminated. The
detailed findings of the traffic study are discussed in the TPO Study section of this report.
Development feasibility: The second issue identified by staff relates to development
feasibility. The following table compares the intensity of the proposed project to other
parcels with similar development in the vicinity. These comparison sites are shown in
Exhibit 1 on the following page.
Prgposed Pi of Parcel B P.arcel C Parcel D
Project
Land area 104,544 sf 80,020 sf 84,680 sf 130,680 sf 60,940 sf
Building area 41,750 sf 22,669 sf 23,742 sf 29,350 sf 8,200 sf
FAR 0.40 0.28 0.28 0.22 0.13
As this table indicates, the proposed entitlement would result in a potential development
of significantly higher intensity than other small commercial developments in the area.
Since no specific development plans have been submitted,staff cannot confirm the physical
feasibility of a development under the proposed parameters. Based on a comparison of
other projects, it is likely that the project would require a 4-story development with
r structure parking in order to achieve the full 41,750-square-foot entitlement
subterranean o stru p kmg
that is requested.
As a result of these concerns, staff identified an alternative to the proposed project for
consideration by the Planning Commission. This alternative would eliminate the concerns
discussed above. The following detailed discussion of each requested action addresses both
the proposal and staffs alternative.
c/6
F
TO: Planning Wission - 4a
EXHIBIT I
PROPOSED PROJECT
PARCEL A
PARCEL C M
PARCEL B
N
O PARCEL D
1 1 I►
4-7
: y
TO: Planning Commission - 5.
General Plan Amendment 90.3 (A).
Aolicanfs Promsal: An amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element is proposed
to reduce site's allocation from 468 hotel rooms to 349 rooms and establish development
density entitlement for the proposed excess land to allow a maximum 41,750 square feet of
commercial uses. The.amendment would revise and add a new density allocation of 41,750
sgft. of commercial development to page no. 75 of the Land Use Element of the General
Plan. If this proposal is approved,the following revisions to the existing language would be
appropriate.
"2-1. NP Block A. Block A is bounded by Corinthian Way, MacArthur
Boulevard and Birch Street. Ike-site
designated for Retail and Service Commerr and use,wi, a room
hotel permitted. tuc
10 gca s
foot. aw�rerrar,if s i
tintrr"ates. bti,�ss ,
t =
Revisions to the charts on pages 76 and 86 of,the Land Use Element would also be required
to reflect the statistical changes made by the proposed amendment in the Land Use
Element. These revisions are attached to Exhibit A.
Staff Alternative: Staffs reduced intensity alternative would establish maximum
development allocation of 31,362 square feet for this site,which would result in a floor area
ratio of 0.30. Development at this entitlement level would be more proportional to other
small commercial projects in the area (Le., single story with surface parking), and would
eliminate any concerns regarding circulation system capacity in both the short term as well
as the long term. If this alternative were approved, the following language would be
appropriate.
"2-1. NP Block A. Block A is bounded by Corinthian Way, MacArthur
Boulevard and Birch Street. The site �- w is
designated for Retail and Service Commerct 4 use, a room
hotel permitted.
Y
ek ion,
awxPx
Revisions to the charts on pages 76 and 86 of the Land Use Element would also be required
to reflect the statistical changes made by the proposed amendment in Land Use Element.
These revisions are attached to Exhibit B.
7
TO: Planning Commission - 6.
Amendment No. 745.
The proposed development application would also require an amendment to the Newport
Place Planned Community District Regulations in order to preserve consistency between the
City's Zoning Code and General Plan. The amendment would rename Site 1A to Site 5;
rezone Site 1A from "Hotel" to "General Commercial"; eliminate the Jig-room hotel
expansion of the existing Sheraton Hotel allowed under existing zoning; establish
development entitlement for Site 5 to allow a maximum of 41,750 sgft.of building area;and
establish the project height limit to be fifty (50) feet.
Annlicant's Proposal: The issues associated with the requested entitlement of 41,750 sgft.
is covered in the General Plan Amendment discussion above. The requested height limit
of 50 feet would accommodate a three to four story building The surrounding area is
developed with low and high rise retail and office buildings. The site is currently zoned for
high rise development (375 ft maximum) and the proposed height limit is considered
compatible with the area.
If the applicant's proposal is approved, the revisions to Newport Place Planned Community
Standards are provided in Exhibit A.
Staff Alternative: If the staffs reduced density alternative is approved, the revisions to
Newport Planned Community District Standards would be revised to designate Site 5 for
31,362 sgft. of commercial development. If the Planning Commission desires to approve
this alternative, the PC text revisions contained in Exhibit B would be appropriate.
TraMe Study No. 78. A traffic study has been prepared for the proposed project in
conformance with the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance and City Council Policy S-1 to
evaluate the consistency and conformity of the project with the City's Circulation Element.
Since no specific development plans have been submitted, a variety of development
scenarios were evaluated in the Traffic Study. As a worst case analysis, a 41,750 square foot
development with 20%fast food restaurant, 10% standard restaurant, 10 - 15% office, and
55 - 60 % retail was evaluated. This study indicates that this worst case development
scenario (i.e., 41,750 sgft.) would generate up to 6,252 new vehicle trips per day, including
up to 530 trips in the morning two-and-one-half hour peak and 773 trips in the evening two-
and-one-half hour peak. The analysis determined that the project would result in a
significant (i.e., 1% or greater) traffic increase upon several arterial intersections in the
vicinity of the site, as follows:
MacArthur Blvd. at Campus Drive (AM and PM)
MacArthur Blvd. at Birch Street (AM and PM)
MacArthur Blvd. at Jamboree Rd. (AM and PM)
Jamboree Rd. at Bristol St. (N) (AM and PM)
Jamboree Rd. at Bristol St. (S) (AM and PM)
Bristol St. (N) at Campus Drive (AM and PM)
Bristol St. (S) at Campus Dr./Irvine Ave. (AM and PM)
• • J r
TO: Planning Commission- 7.
An analysis was also performed for the General Plan Amendment component of the
proposed project. This analysis determined that upon buildout of the General Plan, the
elimination of a previously approved 119 room hotel
proposed project, together with the P Y P
expansion,would cause a significant,increase at all of the intersections listed above,with the
exception of Jamboree Road at Bristol(N)in the PM and.Bristol Street(North and South)
at Campus/Irvine intersections.
Intersection Capacity Utilization studies were conducted for each of the intersections in the
time frames indicated above. The proposed project would not raise the ICU for any
location from below 0.90 to above 0.90. The project would not cause measurable increases
in ICU at any locations where near-term future conditions are expected to be deficient
according to past City studies.
The General Plan Amendment associated with the project would result in a measurable
increase in the future at one location, MacArthur Boulevard at Jamboree Road, where
deficient conditions are already forecasted, in the PM Period. The impact at this
intersection could be mitigated by selecting a land use alternative which would not result
in an 0.01 ICU increase forecasted at this location. Several of the reduced intensity
alternatives evaluated in the traffic study would meet this requirement. Unless such an
alternative generating less than 109 outbound peak hour trips were selected, improvement
of the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road would be required. This
improvement would entail removal and replacement of the median nose to and restriping
of the south leg of MacArthur Boulevard at Jamboree Road to provide an additional left
turn lane.
Site Access and Circulation. Access to the Site is provided from Birch Street and Corinthian
Way.. The primary access to Sheraton Hotel is from Birch Street while the two existing
drive-ways on the northerly side of Corinthian way serve as secondary access points. If the
resubdivision request is approved, the proposed General Commercial Site will retain the
existing access drive-ways on Corinthian Way. To ensure adequate circulation between the
two affected parcels, a reciprocal easement between the existing Sheraton Hotel Site and
the future General Commercial Site 5 should be required. Also, a condition of approval is
recommended to preclude direct access to MacArthur Boulevard.
Parking. Currently,there-are 610 parking spaces available for the Sheraton Hotel operation.
Based on the existing hotel facility, the 349 room hotel is required to maintain 349 parking
spaces. A parking study was conducted for the proposed project and indicates that 258
parking spaces are in excess of the existing hotel needs. The 352 parking spaces proposed
to remain-as part of the Sheraton Site (Parcel 1), would adequately meet the existing hotel
parking requirement. Since the proposed project is lacking specific development plans at
this time, specific parking demand for the proposed General Commercial Site 5 would be
examined and determined in greater detail through the City's Municipal Code Section
2038.030(d)and Newport P1aceTlanned Community District Regulations when construction
bmitted.
plans are su
�jD
TO: Planning Commission - 8.
If the Planning Commission desires to recommend approval of the applicant's proposal,the
appropriate findings and conditions are contained in Exhibit A. Findings and conditions for
approval of the staffs alternative are contained in Exhibit B.
Resubdivision No.980. The Sheraton Hotel site is currently a single parcel. As shown on
the attached proposed parcel map, the applicant proposes to divide the lot into two parcels.
Parcel No. 1 would have 6.3 acres of land and.Parcel No. 2 would be 2.4 acres in size.
Conclusions and Sneeitic Findings
The division of the existing single lot into two parcels of land and conversion of the
previously approved hotel expansion to a general commercial center do not pose any
problem from a planning standpoint, with the exception of the traffic and development
feasibility concerns discussed above. Based on review of the traffic report provided for the
proposed project,the requested amount of entitlement(41,750 sq.ft.)would generate traffic
at a level that could have an adverse impact on the circulation system in the long term. The
Traffic Study also indicated, however, that this impact could be mitigated with a specified
improvement to the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road.
If the development intensity of the proposed project is reduced as described in the staff
alternative, these concerns would be alleviated.
Should the Planning Commission desire to approve this proposal and recommend it to the
City Council, findings and conditions included in the attached Exhibit W are suggested.
If the Planning Commission believes that the project alternative presented by staff is
appropriate,the findings and conditions in Exhibit B are suggested. Findings for denial are
contained in Exhibit C if the Commission believes neither of the development alternatives
are appropriate.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
JAMES D. RMCKER, Director
By Moe r�
Aziz M. Aslami
Associate Planner
JdOA\S1WRAT1DN\aPA9MA)
�M
J
TO: Planning Commission - 9.
Attachments:
1. Exhibit "A" (Applicant's Proposal)
a. Draft Resolution (General Plan Amendment)
b. Draft Resolution (Newport Place P-C Amendment)
2. Exhibit "W (Staff Alternative)
a. Draft Resolution (General Plan Amendment)
b. Draft Resolution (Newport Place P-C Amendment)
3. Exhibit C (Findings for Denial)
4. Negative Declaration
5. Traffic Study No. 78
6. Tentative Parcel Map
� v
• • ATTACM4ENT 1
FXIIIBIT "A" '
ACTIONS, FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL FOR
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-3 (A)
AMENDMENT NO. 745
RESUBDIVISION NO. 980 AND
TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 78
ENVIWN.'.�NTAT 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 Council Policy K 3.
2. That based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, comments
received, and all related documents, there is no substantial evidence that the
project,as conditioned or as modified by mitigation measures identified in the
Initial Study, could have a significant effect on the environment, therefore a
Negative Declaration has been prepared. The Negative Declaration
adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of the project, and
satisfies all the requirements of CEQA, and is therefore approved. The
Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgement of the Planning
Commission and was reviewed and considered prior to approval of the
project.
3. An Initial Study has been conducted, and considering the record as a whole
there is no evidence before this agency that the proposed project will have the
potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which
wildlife depends. On the basis of the evidence in the record,this agency finds
that the presumption of adverse effect contained in Section 7535(d) of Title
14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) has been rebutted.
Therefore, the proposed project qualifies for a De Minimis Impact Fee
Exemption pursuant to Section 753.5(c) of Title 14, CCR.
Mitigation Measures:
1. Prior to the issuance of any building permit the applicant shall demonstrate
to the Planning Department that the lighting system shall be designed,
directed and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and
to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent properties. The plans
shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Electrical Engineer,with a letter
from the engineer stating that. in his opinion,this requirement has been met.
1
0
I
2a. The proposed project shall be modified such that estimated peak hour trip
generation does not exceed 109 tips.
2b. That the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road be
improved such that no measurable increase in the ICU value will 00=as a
result of the project.
4 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMM 90-3(A) Adopt Resolution No. ,
�i recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 90.3(A) to the City Council.
AMENDWM NO.745. Adopt Resolution No. ,recommending to the City
Council approval of Amendment No. 745, an amendment to the Newport Planned
Community District Regulations to rezone Hotel Site IA to General Commercial
land uses other than hotel use with the following condition:
CONDITION : '�
1. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the applicant or his successor
shall comply with the provisions of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (NBMC
Chapter 15.40).
DI RFSLiBDMSION N0. 980
FINDINGS:
1. That the design of the subdivision will not conflict with any easements and
setbacks acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property
within the proposed subdivision.
2. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section
19.08.020 of the Municipal Code and Section 66415 of the Subdivision Map
AcL
CONDPTIONS: ',
1. That a parcel map be recorded prior to issuance of Building Permits for
Parcel 2 unless otherwise approved by the Public Works and Planning
Departments. That the Parcel Map shall be prepared on the California
coordinate system(NAD83) and that the final map shall be submitted to the
County in a digital format acceptable to the County. Monuments (one inch
iron pipe with tag) shall be set Or Each Lot Corner unless otherwise
2
5q .
approved by the Subdivision Engineer' Monuments shall be protected in
place if installed prior to completion of construction project
2. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the
Public Works Department.
3, That a standard subdivision agreement and accompanying surety be provided
in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the Public improvements if
it is desired to record a parcel map or obtain a building permit Prior to
completion of the public improvements.
4. That each building be served with an individual water service and sewer
lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise
approved by the Public Works Department.
5. That the on-site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation
systems be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. The pedestrian
circulation system shall include walkways that connect the internal system to
the sidewalk along the public streets.
6. That all vehicular access rights to MacArthur Boulevard be released and
relinquished to the City of Newport Beach.
7. That the displaced concrete sidewalk be replaced at the intersection of Birch
Street and MacArthur Boulevard and that access ramps be constructed at the
intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Corinthian Way, and at each street
�
entrance to parcels 1 and 2 where none exists;that access ramps and
be constructed in the median island at the intersection of MacArthur
Boulevard and Corinthian Way and on the southwesterly curb return;that the
existing temporary asphalt patch around the telephone manhole in the drive
apron be replaced with concrete on Corinthian Way; and that the drive
approach opposite Martingale be reconstructed to conform to Standard
Drawing No. 166-L Pending a review of the internal circulation system this
drive may need to be moved westerly to line up with Martingale- That all
work be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works
Department.
8. That a hydrology and hydraulic study be prepared by the applicant and
approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of
water, sewer and storm drain facilities for the on-site improvements prior to
issuance of any building permits. Any modifications or extensions to the
existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown to be required by the
study shall be the responsibility of the developer.
3
0
9. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building
permits.
10. That the Public Works Department plan check and inspection fee be paid.
11. That any Edison transformer serving the site be located outside the sight
distance planes as described in City Standard 110•L
12. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of
construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control
equipment and flagmen. Traffic control andtransportation of equipment and
materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements.
There shall be no construction storage or delivery of materials within the
MacArthur Boulevard right-of-way.
13. That bus turnouts be constructed along both the Birch Street and MacArthur
Boulevard frontages with locations to be approved by the Orange County
Transportation Authority and that appropriate easements be dedicated to the
City where needed. If bus shelters are provided, they shall be constructed
outside the public rigbt-of-way and be maintained by the hotel unless
otherwise approved by the Traffic Engineer. That pedestrian access be
provided from the bus stops to the site.
14. That the landscape plans be subject to the review and approval of the Parks,
Beaches and Recreation Department and the Public Works and Planning
Departments with sight distance provided in accordance with City Standard
No. 110•L
15. That the existing fire service located on Corinthian Way (near Scott) be
adjusted to be flush with the sidewalk.
16. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the applicant or his successor
shall comply with the provisions of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (NBMC
Chapter 15AO).
F. TRAFFIC STUDY NO, 78
FINDINGS:
1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the
proposed project on the morning and afternoon peak hour traffic and
circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of Newport Beach
Municipal Code and City Council Policy S-1.
4
l�6
2. That the proposed project will have a 1% traffic increase
d period act at many of
the study area intersections , either during peak pe during
both
peak periods.
�TII4H,S:
1. That subsequent development plans shall be compatible with the land uses
evaluated in Traffic Study No. 78. Any subsequent development proposed
deemed by the GSty,Traffic Engineer to be outside scope of'raffle Study No.
78 shall be subject to a new traffic study.
2. If subsequent site development plans for parcel 2(Site 5)indicate a floor area
ratio in excess of 0.30 (31,362 sgft.), additional traffic studies shall be
required to demonstrate the adequacy of the circulation system to
accommodate the proposed development If such studies indicate that
improvements are required to mitigate the traffic impacts of the project,such
improvements may be made a condition of project approval.
5
57
(� ATTACHMENT 1-a
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE MY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL AN AMENDMENT
TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE NEWPORT
BEACH GENERAL PLAN FOR THE SHERATON HOTEL
SITE IN NEWPORT PLACE PLANNED COMMUNITY
DISTRICT [GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90.3 (A)]
p'WHEREAS, as art of thedevelopment develo and implementation of the Newport
�P
Beach General Plan the Land Use Element has been prepared; and
General Plan sets forth obj
WHEREAS,said'element of the 7ectives,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
and population ections,the
residential land use categories pop Pry
including reside g
a number of ways, g
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 Pfau; and.
•
WHEREAS, the proposed project is compatible with the existing land uses in
Newport Play Planned Community; and
WHEREAS,the impact on the circulation system would be minimized through
certain mitigation measures; and
WHEREAS,the proposed general commercial land use is compatible with the
surrounding community; and
WHEREAS,the City of Newport Beach prepared a Negative Declaration with
supporting Initial Study 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 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 as described is Exhibits
2A, 2B and 2C are recommended for approval to the City Council.
ADOPTED this zty day of Xa,g, 1992, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES
NOES
ABSENT
BY
Gary Di Sano
CHAIRMAN
BY
Norma Glover
SECRETARY
AA\GPA90-3A.ATT
Attachments
Exbibit 2A: Revised Land Use Element text
Exhibit 2B & 20 Revised Land Use Element tables
bD
• • EXHIBIT 2A
basis,with more precise site allocations made in the Planned Community Text.All
development limits exclude parking.
2-1. NP Black A.Block A is bounded Corinthian Way,MacArthur Boulevard and Birch
Street.9110 llitC PUO t Cpn ainins acres- s designated for Retail and Service
' -6-�--�'i
Commercial land use,with a �46ROom hotel permitted Parrrt'1 With 2.4 8cres-
fnr--- . i and , -G` Commercial Innd uses other than hotel wlth a
' " -8 A re9 of 41?50 AMiare feet However. if snbament
_'=cement p anc for parcel 2 indicate floor area ratio n xcess of 0 30[31,352
cfi,diec shall TM ired to demonstrate the adaloo of the
circulation lx=to accommodate the Fronnsed develg=ent-
2-2. NP Block B.Block B is bounded by Birch Street, Corinthian Way, Scott Drive and
Dove Street.The site is designated for Retail and Service Commercial land use•and
11,950 sq L is allowed.
2-3. NP Block C. Block C is bounded by Scott Drive, Corinthian Way, MacArthur
Boulevard Newport Place Drive and Dove Street.The site is designated for Retail
and Service Commercial and Administrative, Professional and Financial Commer-
cial land use and is allocated 457,880 sq fL
2.4. NP Block D.Block D is bounded by Birch Street,Dove Street,Westerly Place and
Quail Street.The site is designated for Administrative, Professional and Financial
Commercial land use and is allocated 288,264 sq fL
2.5. NP Block E.Block E is bounded by Westerly Place,Dove Street and Quail Street. .
The site is designated for Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial
land use and is allocated 834,762 sgft.
2-6. NP Block F. Block F is bounded by Newport Place Drive, MacArthur Boulevard,
Bowsprit Drive and Dove Street.The site is designated for Administrative,Profes-
sional and Financial Commercial land use and is allocated 201,180 sq fL
2-7. NP Blocks G&H.Block G&H are bounded by Birch Street,Quail Street, Spruce
Street and Bristol Street North. The site is designated for Administrative, Profes-
clonal and Financial Commercial land use and is allocated 295,952 sq fL
2-8. NPBfockL BlockI isbounded by Spruce Street,Quail Street,Dove Street and Bristol
Street North.The site is designated for Retail and Service Commercial land use and
is allocated 99,538 sq fL plus 7.63 acres for auto center use.
2.9. NP Block J. Block J is bounded by Dove Street, Bowsprit Drive, MacArthur'
Boulevard, Jamboree Road and Bristol Street North. The site is designated for
Administrative, Professional and Financial• Commercial and Retail and Service
Commercial land use.The site is allocated204,530 sgft.plus 3.0 acres for auto center
use.
-75- 1101 A
• EXHIBIT 2B
ESTIMATED GROWTH FOR STAT11MCAL AREAI4
Residential(in du's) Commercial(in sq ft.)
Existing Gen.Plan d o pa dl�on Growth
c
I/I/87 Pr*ction
1-1.KCN OS A -0- 4 -0- 874,W 874,346 4
1-2.KCN OS B 0- -0- 4 1,060,898 1,060,898 40-
1-3.KCN OS C 4 4 4 734,641 M641 4
1-4.KCN OS D 4 4 4 250,176 250,176 40-
1-5.KCN OS E 4 -0- -0- 30,810 32,500 1,690 '
1.6.KCN OS F 4 40- 4 34816 34,1W 7,484
1-7.KCN OS G 4 4 4 81,372
81,372 4)-
1-8.KCN IND 1 4 4)- 4 . 377,520 442,775 65AS
1-9.KCN RS 1 4 4 4 A086 102110 50,024
1-10.Court House 4 40- 4 699% , 0
744
2-1.NP BLKA 4 4 4 349,000 46"N WON
390,750 41,750
2.2.NP BLK B 4 4 4 10x% . 11,950 1,800
2.3.NP BLKC 4 40- -0- 211AV 457,W 246,393
2-4.NPBLKD 4 4 -0- 274,300 288,264 13,964
M.NP BIKE 4 4 4 834,762 834,762 4
2.6.NP BLKF 4 4 A- M675 201,180 8,505
2-7.NP BLK G&H 4 4 " 4 255,001 2995,E -40,9551
2-8.NP BLKI -0- 4 4 160,578
2-9.NP BLK J 4 -0- 4 190,500 W30 38,E
3.Campus Drive 4 4 4 W5,202 1,261,717 376,5Z
TOTAL -& -& -& 6,,926,576 7 90e,115
Population 0- 0 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 MI)
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.
i
-76- ''�6
• EXHIBIT 2C `
CitywWe Gro A Projeefim
Theprograms andpolicies for theLaud Use Elementwill result in additionaldevelopment
with associated population increaseswithin the City,as well as in the unincorporated areas
within the CiVs planning area.This growth is summarized below.
E91YMA7ED GROWTH FORTH6NEWPORTBEACB MANNING Am"
RcsidentialCindnE�eting Gen.Pfan �`Projaxed FsiNimg Gc&Phnn hojeded
171/87 pt*Wm Growth MV Projedim Growth
DIVLSIONA 2,597 5,610 3,013 2,118,M 1 4X1,410 %092,400
DIVISION B 4,317 5,397 4M 1,247MI 1,705,136 45705
DMSION C 901 1,168 267 -0- 40' 40-
DMSIOND 2,891 3^ 599 323,393 420,355 96,M
DIVISION E 2,M 2,797 569 118,828 147,W 28,536
DMSIONF 4,454 6,223 1,769 700,332 983A47 282,715
DIVISION G 11008 10025 17 150 % %%583 112,325
DMSIONH 21115 2,M 93 1,962,M 2,94'1,1 961X
DIMONJ 4,552 4,612 60 1,613,946 3,172,8391,558,893
DMSIONK 3,647 3,965 318 853,204 1,740ilM 886,964 '
DIVISION L 2,162 3,032 8M 14,116,044 -36 4;604�,958;919
15,996,Ri4 1,810,718
DMSIONM 4,199 4,M DO 60%721 777,035 IW14 '
DIMON N -0- 2,6M 2fiOD 40' 2,975,E 2v97W
M SCYM. -0- 200 200 -0- 40- -0-
CITY 35,071 46,656 11,585 23,833,337 t4ftS6H138B�i
35,336,11411,i02,777
SPHERFrOF-
DWLUENCE 442 5,376 4,934 351,816 41267,831 %916,015
PLANNINGAREA
TOTAL 35,513 52,OM 16,519 2414153 -39,6d1;05M0M01B
39,603,!MS i5A11,'192
I
.86- by .�
F
• ATTACIKkT 1-b
RZSOLDTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE THE Y OF NEWPORTPANN BEACH CIT RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL AN AMENDMENT
TO THE NEWPORT PLACE PLANNED COMA
DISTRICT.REGULATIONS RLANNIN
AMENDMENT NO. 745
WHEREAS, as part of the development and impkmenudm of the Newport
Beach General Plan the Land Use Element has been prepared; and
WHEREAS,theNewportBeachMumcipslCodesp uddesWciftP wodum
for the implementation of Planned Community zoning for properties within the City vt
Newport Beach; and
WHEREAS, an amendment to the Newport Place Planned Community is
necessary in order to maintain consistency between the Newport Beach General Plan and
the Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS,the City ofNewport Beachprepared a Negative Dedaradm With
supporting Initial Study for the project in compliance with the California EnWMIMeaml
Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and ooaddered' the
information contained in the environmental document in malting its decision on the
proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the PWmiug Commnaion of,
the City of Newport Beach does hereby recommend to the City Ca moil an amendment to
the Newport Place Planned Community District Regulations designated as Plan�ag
Commission Amendment No..745 as shown on Exhibit W attached.
ADOPTED this day of AGY., 1992, by the following vote to wit:
AYES -
NOES
ABSENT
BY
Gary Di Sano
CMAMMAN
BY
Norma Glover
SECRETARY
Attu+ .hm .n
Exhibit W : Newport Plaoe Planned Community District Standards.
• . . Exhibit 2D '
PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
NEWPORT PLACE
Emkay Development Company, Inc.
Newport Beach, California
.�65
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
PART H COMMERCIAL/HOTEL tit MOTEL
A. !Building Site (25)
SW I ..24 . . es
Site 4B .....
. ......................... .
B. Hotel Room Limit (18x25)
(1)
site4A-i IB t....................................483 rooms
The following statistics are'for information only. Development
may include but shall not be limited to the following.
C. B u'1dinQ Area ads unit.0 400 A n 4WW(18)(25)
Site 4A and 4B 4.-9 ll acres...................4...g K acres
D. p r dngMdt ria• apace/snit(& 363gg.ft 4VAW(18)(25)
Site 4A & 4B 1450 0 parking spade...........3�5 W'acres
E. T-and= , 'ng - Q= Space (18)
The following is intended to show some of the variations
possible.
Site 4A and 1B
One Story Development ---0.92 acres
Two Story Development-2 98 acres
Three Story Development 3.67 acres
Four Story Development---4.02 acres
Five Story Development --:22 acres
opment
Six Story Devel :36 acres
Seven Story Development----4.46 acres
Eight Story Development--4.53 acres
Nine Story Development------4.59 acres
Ten Story Development— 4.64 acres
Eleven Story Development-4.67 acres
Twelve Story Development---4.71 acres
Thirteen Story Development--4.73 acres
11
The above analysis does not include support facilities utilized in many hotel
operations. These facilities would also require parking not reflects in the
parking requirement criteria.
(1) Use permits approved as of November 14, 1983 allow 468 hotel
rooms with related restaurant, conference area, and other
support facilities. Hotel suites included as part of the hotel
room count may be converted to standard hotel rooms
consistent with the specified hotel room limit, so long as the
approved site plan is maintained. Location and size of
restaurant, conference area, and other support facilities may
also be-revised if the plans meet the intent of the approved site
plan and other conditions of approval.(1)(18)
11a
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
PARTII AUTOCENTER&GENERALcomML+RaAL(8)(9)PERMXrIEDUSES
Part II, Section A Group ILA& F
I
A. Auto Center Building Sites
Site lb...... 3.0 acres
Site 2a..... 2„9.acres
5.9 acres
B. Genet Commmercinj Building Sites (8) (25)
Site 1....... 3.0 acres
Site 2....... 1.0 acres (9)
Site 3....... 3.9 acres (9)
Site 4....... 2.0 acres (9)
th9—ueres-(9)
C, Rnild' rea (25)
Site I....... 35,000 sq ft. ... 0.80 acres
*Site 2....... 11,700 sgft. ... 0.27 acres (9)
*Site 3....... 48,300 sgft. ... 1.11 acres (9)
**Site 4....... 200870 sgft(19) 0.57 acres ((9)
(25)
*Restaurants are permitted uses in sites 2 see} 3 If
restaurants are developed in Sites 2 8e1 3.= each square
foot of gross floor area devoted to restaurantsss all reduce the
amount of permitted commercial floor area by 2 square feet.
The maximum amount of gross floor area devoted to restaurant
uses"not exceed 4000 squaw feet inoSiteJ 3 M.(9x25)
12,
'*If the development of General Commercial Site 4 is limited
solely to Professional and Business Office use, then the
allowable Building Area shall not exceed 30,000 sq.fL (19)
The following Statistics are for information only. Development may include,
but shall not be limited to the following. (8)
D. Parking (Criteria 4 spaces/1,000 sq fL @ 363 sq.fL/sOace)(9)(25)
Site 1 ..... 140 cars ..... 1.17 acres
Site 2 ..... 47 cars ..... 0.39 acres
Site 3 ..... 193 cars ..... 1.61 acres
Site 4 ..... 100 cars ..... 0.83 acres
480 ears 4MGiwres
Site 5 ...
12a
E. Iandl ni�ng Qoen Space (9)(25)
Site 1 .................. 1.03 acres
Site 2 .................. WU acres
Site 3 .................. 1.18 acres
Site 4 .................. 0.60 acres
3.45 aces
N
F. Rniidi Q Hc'aht (8) (9) (25)
Building height of structures on Auto Center Site la and 2b aball be
limited to a height of thirty-five (35ft.).
Building height of structures on General Commercial Site 1,2,3, and
4 shall be limited to a height of thirty-five feet
PART Il COMMERCIAL/SERVICE STATION '•
A. Bnild1 nQ Site
Site I .......... 1.2.acres ......... 1.2 acres
•• Reference Page 4, Part I, Item D.
13
8
5. Camera shop
6. Delicatessen store
7. Florist
8. Shoe store or repair shop
9. Tailor
10. Tobacco store
11. Office equipment retail and repair
12. Pharmacies
13. Tourist information and travel agencies
and ticket reservation services, but not
include any airline terminal services or
facilities for the transport of passengers,
baggage or freight.(2)
14. Other uses similar to the above list. (2)
F. General C'.o— i�t mgrdal (8) (9) (23) (25)
1. New car dealership, subject to a use permit, including ancillary
uses listed under Part II, Section A Group HA
2. Service Stations subject to a use permit.
3. Restaurants,including outdoor,drive-in or take-out restaurants,
shall be subject to a use permit. Restaurant uses are ermitted
within General Commercial Sites 1, 2, and 3 and not
permitted within General Commercial Site 4.
4. Hobby, Arts and Crafts, including:
a. Sporting goods store
b, Camera Store
C. Art Gallery
d. Craft store
e. Pet store
f. Bicycle store
g. Other uses of similar nature
5. Book and Office Support Stores, including:
a. Book store
b. Office supplies
C. Other uses of similar nature
6. Retail stores and professional service establishments including:
a. Pharmacies
b. Specialty food
C. Fabric Shops
d. Jewelry shops
e. Furrier
f. Formal Wear
g. Barber and Hair styling
32
'1'7 1
b. Clothing Store
I. I3quor store
j. Tourist information and travel agencies and ticket
reservation services, but not to include any airline
terminal services or facilities for the transport of
passengers, baggage or freight.
k. Other uses of similar nature
'7. Home and Office furnishings, including:
a. Home furniture store
b. Office furniture store
C. Interior decorators
d. Home appliances
e. Antique stores
£ Other uses of similar nature
8. Athletic Clubs, including:
a. Spa
b. Health Club
C. Recreation facility
d. Other uses of similar nature
9. Home improvement'stores, including:
a. Hardware store
b. Paint store
C. Walicovering store
d. Other uses of similar nature
10. Retail Nursery subject to a use permit
*11. Professional and Business Offices - see Part II, Section 11,
Group I for permitted use.
*Office uses are permitted within General Commercial Sites 3
and 4 =1 and not permitted within General Commercial
Sites 1 and 2. (9) (25)
33
�y
4
41.4KfEM
• • }/K{ yN�K
*yyam. LMAIwII��w Yam{ 1�5 141 . .
IV rAf
• A►ALMHwY Y K
!�+• YLMOAfYII�.�. I K
/ _ IA�A'KIAIIIw. Il K
f. •�f ME�L/J.•2.92/R6,r. 9.8.77
i
IN
Y'
/ Z
,
'�'A'•'� iI f L mr
L •
=rrs=r �i ( wc�i wrl T .. •� a MtIL.
• Y
NEWPORT PLACE o
LORD USE �IIR�f
c
MCMfOMI IZACH. CA%If0AMIA w —bm wuw mo <
WEMKAY DEVELOPMENT AND REALTY COMPANY - tt�aMimsn
. . Al1MV8Y1YlLL./4 . .
S
• F.XIDBIT "B"
ACTIONS, INGS AND CONDITIONS FOR GEENEERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90.�)OVAL FOR
G
AMENDMENT NO. 745
RESUBDIVISION NO. 980 AND
TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 78
Findings:
1. That an Initial Study has been prepared for the project in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA),the State CEQA Guidellnea,
and City Council Policy K 3.
2. That based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, comments
received, and all related documents, there is no substantial evidence that the
project,as conditioned or as modified by mitigation measures identified in the
Initial Study, could have a significant effect on the environment, therefore a
Negative Declaration has been prepared. The Negative Declaration
adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of the project,and
satisfies all the requirements of CEQA, and is therefore approved. The
Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgement of the Planning
Commission 'and was reviewed and considered prior to approval of the
Project
3. An Initial Study has been conducted, and considering the record as a whole
there is no evidence before this agency that the proposed project will have the
potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which
wildlife depends.•On the basis of the evidence in the record,this agency finds
that the presumption of adverse effect contained in Section 7535(d) of Title
14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) has been rebutted.
Therefore the proposed project qualifies
s for a De Minimis Impact Fee
Exemption pursuant to Section 753.5(c) of Title 14, CCR.
Mitigation Measures:
1. Prior to the issuance of any building permit th shall applicant shall demonstrate
designed,directed
to the planning Department that the lighting system
and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to
minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent properties. The plans shall
be prepared and signed by a licensed Electrical Engineer,with a,letter from
the engineer stating that in his opinion, this requirement has been met.
� 7-I �
i1 .
g
2a. The proposed project shall be modified such that estimated peak hour trip
generation does not exceed 109 trips.
2b. That the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road be
improved such that no measurable increase in the ICU value will occur as a'
result of the project.
ru*ruu er pLAN AMENDit�?NT 90-3(Al Adopt Resolution No.
recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 90.3(A) to the City Council.
eu rFvtyiBMF.td'i'NQj4& Adopt Resolution No. ,recommending to the City
Council approval of Amendment No. 745, an amendment to the Newport Planned
Community District Regulations to rezone Hotel Site 1A to General Commercial
land uses other than hotel use with the following condition:
COMM
1. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the applicant or his successor
shall comply with the provisions of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (NBMC Chapter
15.40).
� RF4LiBDIVISION N0. 980
FINDINGS: '
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 property within
the proposed subdivision.
2. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section
19.08.020 of the Municipal Code and Section 66415 of the Subdivision Map
Act.
CONDITIONS:
1. That a parcel map be recorded prior to issuance of Building Permits for
Parcel 2 unless otherwise approved by the Public Works and Planning
Departments. That the Parcel Map shall be prepared on the California
coordinate system (NAD83) and that the final map shall be submitted to the
County in a digital format acceptable to the County. Monuments (one inch
iron pipe with tag) shall be set On Each Lot Corner unless otherwise
2
-7h
Moved by the Subdivision Engineer. Monuments shall .be protected in
place if installed prior to completion of construction project.
2. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the
Public Works•Department. {
3. That a standard subdivision agreement and.accompanying surety be provided
in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the Public improvements if
it is desired to record a parcel map or obtain a building permit prior to
completion of the public improvements.
4. That each building be served with an individual water service and sewer
lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise
approved by the Public Works Department.
5. That the on-site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation
systems be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. The pedestrian
circulation system shall include walkways that connect the internal system to
the sidewalk along the public streets.
6. That all vehicular access rights to MacArthur Boulevard be released and
relinquished to the City of Newport Beach
7. That the displaced concrete sidewalk be replaced at the intersection of Birch
Street and MacArthur Boulevard and that access ramps be constructed at the
intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Corinthian Way,and at each street
entrance to Parcels 1 and 2 where none exists;that access ramps and sidewalk
be constructed in the median island at the intersection of MacArthur
Boulevard and Corinthian Way and on the southwesterly curb return;that the
existing temporary asphalt patch around the telephone manhole in the drive
apron be replaced with, concrete on Corinthian Way; and that the drive
approach opposite Martingale be reconstructed to conform to Standard
Drawing No. 166-L Pending a review•of the internal circulation system this
drive may need to be moved westerly to line up with Martingale. That all
work be completed under an encroachment,permit issued bythe Public Works
Department.
8. That a hydrology and hydraulic study be prepared by the applicant and
approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of
water, sewer and storm drain facilities for the on=site improvements prior to
issuance of any building permits. Any modifications or extensions to the
existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown to be required by the
study shall be the responsibility of the developer.
9. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building
permits.
3
7� J25-
10. That the Public Works Department plan check and inspection fee be paid.
11. That any Edison transformer serving the site be located outside the sight
distance planes as described in City Standard 110-L
12. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of
construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control
equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and
materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements.
There shall be no construction storage or delivery of materials within the
MacArthur Boulevard right-of-way.
13. That bus turnouts be constructed along both the Birch Street and MacArthur
Boulevard frontages with locations to be approved by the Orange County
Transportation Authority and that appropriate easements be dedicated to the
City where needed. If bus shelters are provided, they shall be constructed
outside the public rigbt-of-way and be maintained by the hotel unless
i otherwise approved by the Traffic Engineer. That pedestrian access be
provided from the bus stops to the site.
14. That the landscape plans be subject to the review and approval of the Parks,
Beaches and Recreation Department and the Public Works and Planning
Departments with sight distance provided in accordance with City Standard
No. 110-L
15. That the existing fire service located on Corinthian Way (near Scott) be
adjusted to be flush with the sidewalk.
16. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the applicant or his successor
shall comply with the provisions of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (NBMC
Chapter 15.40).
TRAFFIC STLMY NO. 78
F7Nl?INGS: �
1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the
proposed project on the morning and afternoon peak hour traffic and
circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of Newport Beach
Municipal Code and City Council Policy S-1.
2. That the proposed project will have a 1% traffic increase impact at many of
the study area intersections , either during peak PM period or during both
peak periods.
4
(;QNDTfIQNS:
1. That subsequent development plans shall be compatible with the land uses
evaluated in Traffic Study No. 78. Any subsequent development proposed
deemed by the City,Traffic Engineer to be outside scope of Traffic Study No.
78 shall be subject to a new traffic study.
5 '
. • ATTACHMENT 2-a
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF TILE'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 FOR THE SHERATON HOTEL
SITE IN NEWPORT PLACE PLANNED COMMUNITY
DISTRICT [GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-3 (A)]
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,the
floor area ratio ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the Land Use and Circulation Elements are correlated as,
required by California planning law; and
i
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
i
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
9 �
WHEREAS,the proposed1project is compatible with the ealattng land user in
Newport Place Planned Communitrf and
WHEREAS,the impact on the circulation aystemwouldbe minimized through
certain mitigation measures; and
WHEREAS,the proposed general commercial land use is compatible with the '
surrounding community; and
WHEREAS,the City of Newport Beach prepared a Negative Dedarationwith
supporting Initial Study 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 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 as described in Exhibits
3A, 3B and 3C are-recommended for approval to the City CounciL
00
ADOPTED this Zth day of MM I"Z by the following vote, to wl
AYES
NOES
ABSENT !
BY i
Gary Di Sano
CHAIRMAN
BY
Norma Glover
SECRETARY
,
Att;kchmentSe i
Exbibit 3A: Revised Land Use Element text
Exbibit 3B & C: Revised Land Use Element tables
i '
EXHIBIT 3A
basis,with more precise site allocations made in-the Planned.Community Text.All
development limits exclude parking.
2.1. NP BlockA.Block A is bounded Corinthian Way,MacArthur Boulevard and Birch
Street. ,e Parcel L containing 6 A acres is designated for Retail and Service
Commercial land use,with a M246koom hotel permitted. Parcel 2 w th 2.4 acres.
is desionged for Retail and Service Cn m rcL And uses other than tYitet.with a,
marinu`t:. =• tit ing floor AXGLgLJLW Sm=fimt�
2.2. NP Block B.Block B is bounded by Birch Street, Corinthian Way,Scott Ddve'and
Dove Street.The site is designated.for Retail and Service'Commerdal land,•uw and
11,950 sgft.is allowed,
2.3. NP Block C. Block C is bounded by Scott Drive, Corinthian Way, MacArthur
Boulevard Newport Place Drive and Dove Street.The site is designated for Retail
and Service Commercial and Administrative,Professional and Financial Commer-
eial land use and is allocated 457,880 sgft.
2.4. NP Block D.Block D is bounded by Birch Street,Dove Streett Westerly Place and
Quail Street.The site is designated for Administrative,Professional and Financial
Commercial land use and is allocated 288,264 sgft.
2.5. NP Block E.Block E is bounded by Westerly Place,Dove Street and Quail Street.
The site is designated for Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial
land use-and is allocated 834,762 sq ft.
2.6. NP Block F. Block F is bounded by Newport Place Drive, MacArthur Boulevard,
Bowsprit Drive and Dove Street.The site is designated for Administrative,Profes-
sional and Financial Commercial land use and is allocated 201,180 sq&
2-7. NP Brocks G&H.Block G&H are bounded by Birch Street, Quail Street,Spruce
Street and Bristol Street North.The site is designated for Administrative, Profes-
sional and Financial Commercial land use and is allocated 295,952 sgft.
M. NPBIockLBlockIisboundedby Spruce street,Quail Street,Dove Street andBristol
Street North.The site is designated forRetail and Service Commercial land Use and
is allocated 99,538 sgft.plus 7.63 acres for auto center use.
2-9. NP Block J. Block J is bounded by 'Dove Street, Bowsprit Drive, MacArthur
Boulevard, Jamboree Road and,Bristol Street North. The site is designated for
Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial and Retail. and Service
Commudalland use.The site is allocated 204,530 sgft.plus 3.0 acres forauto center
Use.
3. Campus Drive.This area is bounded by Campus Drive,MacArthur Boulevard,Birch
Street and Bristol Street North.The area is designated for Administrative,RWes-
-75- Sy
. • EXHIBIT 3B
;Rcg&ntWD GROWTH FOR 9rAU,gnCALARU1A
,aP�rojected ErisoB Gw.Plan Commerew Cm�Pr°�d°d
rojection Growth 1/1/87 Prgedwn GmMth
874,W 874,W -0.
-0- -0- �'� 1'�-0- 40- 734,641 734,641 -a
1-4.KCN OS D -0- -0- -0- 25%176 250,176 -0-
1-5.KCN OS E -0- 4)- 4)-. 30,810 32,500 1,690
1.6.KCN OSF -0- 40- 40- 3LB16 34,300 2,484
1-7.KCN OS G 0 -0- -0- 81,372• 81,37Z 40-
1.8.KCN IND 1 -0- 0 4 377,520 442,775 65,255
1-9.KCN RS 1 -0- 4 40- 52AS6 102,110 50,024
-0. 69x% 90,000 20,744
1-lO.CourtHonse 0 468,W8 f19,B8B
2-1.NP BLK A -0- 40- 0 �'�
3so,W 31.962
2.2.NP BLKB 4 4 4)- 10,150 11,950 1,MW
2 3.NP BIS C •0- 4 41- 211,487 457,0 246,393
2-4.NPBLKD 4 4)- 40- 274,300 2&8%4 13,964
2.5.NPBLKE 4 4 4 834,762 834,762 0
2-6.NP BLKF 4 4 4 DZ675 201,180 8,505
2-7.NP BLKG&H 4 4 4)- 255,001 295,952 40,951
2.8,NP BLK i 40- 4 -0- 160,578 16DXB 4
2-9.NP BLKJ 40- 4 4 190,500 228,530 A030
3.Campus Drive 4)- 4 4 885,202 1,261,727 376,525
TOTAL 0 4 -0- 6,926i576 P,�1' 9"Iff'-
7,824,303 !9'1,7Z7
i I
Population 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 MI)
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- g3 4�
EXMI IT X .
Citywl8e Grawth Prgf"Olks
The programs and policies for the Land Use Moment will result in additional development
with associated population increases within the City,as well as in the unincorporated veal
within the City's pluning area.This growth is mummmized,below.
SSTIIMZ M GROWTH IFORTEM NEWPORT UACH M AMaNG AM
Ruideotid Cm d*) C =crc W(in•qA)
� Genyla
Projection = � ft*cdm O
DIVISION.A 2,597 5,610 3,013 2,118,930 4,2 M10 2,09MM
DIVISIONS 4,317 59397 I'm 1,247,361 1,705,236 4S795
DIVISION C 901 1,168 267 -0-
DIVISIOND 2)01 3,490 599 323M 42%M 96X
DIVISION B %= 2,797 . 569 1I&M 147M6 28,M
DIVISIONF 4,454 6,M 1,769 70%= 9MV 282,715
DIVISION G 1,008 1,025 17 350,258 262,583 112,325
DIVISIONH ' 2,115 2AS 93 1,98 OW 2,`H4,221 961,921
DMSIONJ 4,552 4,612 60 1,613,W 3,171,839I,538,893
DIVISIONK %647 3,965 318 89,204 1,74%M 886,964
DIMIONL 2,162 3,032 870 14,116;014 -166N,6B *P5 40 ,
DIVISION M 4,199 4,M IN 608,721 777AM 16%314
DIVISION N 40• 2,600 2,600 40- 2,975,000, 2,97 AW
MISCRES. 0 200 200 4 4 4
CITY 35,071 46,6% 11,585 23,833,337 -35;413,364$3¢OB
36,325,72i 11Al2�! .
SPHERE•OF-
RMA)ENCE 442 5,376 4$34 351;M 4,267A313,9W15
PUS MNGAREA
TOTAL 45 13 5ZM 14519 2418SI53 i968},MM4 tt1V-
i 39,193,'9S71S,10i,M4
-86- Sy -+
&TACNMENT 2-b
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COM lSSION OF t
THE C]TY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCEL AN AMENDMENT
DISTRICT REGULATIONS [PLANNING COMMISSION
AMENDMENT NO. 7451
WHEREAS,.as part of the development and implementation of-the Newport
Beach General Plan the Land Use Element has been prepared; and
WHEREAS,the NewportBeachMunicipalCodesprovidesspecificprocedures
for the implementation of Planned Community zoning for properties within the City of
Newport Beach; and
WHEREAS, an amendment to the Newport Place Planned Community is
necessary in order to maintain consistency between the Newport,Beach General Plan and
the Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS,the City of Newport Beach,prepared a Negative Declaration with;
supporting Initial Study for the project in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the"
information contained in the environmental document in malting its decision on the
proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of
the City of Newport Beach does hereby recommend to the City Council an amendment to,
the Newport Place Planned Community District Regulations designated as Planning
0 • ' i i
Commission Amendment No. 745 as shown on Exhibit "3D" sttsched.
ADOPTED this Ith day of„ by t D , by the fOUMIUg vote, to wit:
AYES
NOES
ABSENT
i BY
Gary Di Sand
CHAIRMAN
BY
Norma Glover
SECRETARY
AttaclimcM
Exhibit "3D": Newport Place Planned Community DlsMct, t mdards:
• Exhibit 30
PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
NEMRT PLACE
Emkay Development Company,, Inc.
Newport Beach, California
�� Ate
0 t
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
PART II COMMERCIAL/HOTEL& MOTEL
A. Rnii ino 4ite (25)
Site B :....BSt.$�
08 owes-
B. Hotel Room Unlit (18)(25)
Site 4A 1-1$ ...................................483' .rooms
The following statistics are forinformation only. Development
may include but shall not be limited to the following.
C. $y+ildin r (43A units 0 400 sa.fL/unitl(18)(25)
Site 4A and 4B I 4.3 acres...................44a 0 acres
D. pU)dn&(CdM -IgR nnit�„`0363sa ft-4pgW(18x25)
Site 4 A 4- 458 W parking space............345 0 acres
E. L d g len Snare (18)
The following is intended to show some of the variations.
posdbie.
Site
One Story Developm =63
Two Story Development 2.98 acres
Three Story Development 3.67 acres
Four Story Develo acres
Five Story Development---4.22 acre
Six Story Development--4.36 acre
Seven Story Development-- --4.46 acres
Eight Story Development --:S3 acre
Nine Story Development--4.59 acres
Ten Story Development--*.64 We
Eleven Story Development-4.67 acres
Twelve Story Development-4.71 acres
Thirteen Story Development---4.73 acres
11
B�
The above analysis does not include support facilities utilized in many hotel
operations. These facilities would'also require parking not reflected in the
parking requirement criteria.
1
( Use permits approved as of November 14, 1983 allow 468 hotel
rooms with related' restaurant, conference area, and other
support facilities. Hotel suites included as part of the hotel
room count may be converted ,to standard hotel rooms
consistent with the specified hotel room limit, so long as the
approved site plan is maintained. Location and size of
restaurant, conference area, and other support facilities may
also be revised if the plans meet the intent of the approved site
plan and other conditions of approval.(ix18)
I
U
• a i
}
STATIMCAL ANALYSIS
PARTII AuroCENTER GENERALOOImERQAL(8)(9)PERmmEDUSES
put IL Section A Group BA&F
A. Auto C;e=,Buildlnw.SSites
Site lb...... 3.0 acres
Site 2a.... . 28:tat
5.9 acres
B. General comfnercinj Building Sites.(8) (25)
Site 1....... 3.0 acres
Site 2....... 1.0 acres (9)
Site 3....... 3.9 acres (9)
Site 4....... 2.0 acres (9)
9:9—aeres-(9)
C: Builsiing Area (25)
Site 1.......'35,000 sgft. ... 0.80 acres
*Site 2....... 119700 Kit. ... 0.27 acres (9)
'Site 3....... 48,300 sgft. ... 1.11 acres (9)
"Site 4....... 20,870 sq fL(19) 0.57 acres(9)
� (25)
((W),
(1)
'Restaurants are permitted uses in sites 2 end 3 If
restaurants are developed in Sites 2&13 Mew square
foot of gross floor area devoted to restaurants reduce the
amount of permitted commercial floor area by 2 square feet.
The maximum amount of gross floor area devoted to restaurant
uses sbalinot exceed4000squarefeetinMSitej3.M.(9X25)
12
qn
••If the development of General Commercial Site 4 is limited
solely to Professional and Business Office use, then the
allowable Building Area shall not exceed 30,000 sgft. (19)
The following statistics are for information only. Development may include,
but shall not be limited to the following. (8) ,
D. Parking (Criteria 4 spaces/1,000 sq ft. @ 363 sq ft./space)(9)(25)
Site 1 ..... 140 cars ..... 1.17 acres
Site 2 ..... 47 cars ..... 039 acres
Site 3 ..... 193 cars .... 1.61 acres
Site 4 ..... 100 cars ...,. 0.83 acres
480 ears 4.40-aeses
Site 5 .... p,
EM
i
r
I
12a
9j 0
.1
E. One_ . n STn®c_e (9X25)
Site 1 .................. 1.03 acres
Site 2 ................... 0.34 acres
Site 3 .................. 1.18 acres
Site 4 .................. 0.6acres
3�5-seees '
F. Blinding He gbt (8) (9) (25)
Building height of structures on Auto Center Site la and 2b shall be
Hmited to a height of thirty-five (35ft.).
Building height of structures on General CommercW Site 1, 2;3, and
4 shall be limited to a height of thirty-five feet (35ft.)
PART H COMAMRCIAL/SERVICE STATION "
A. Buit inns Site
Site I .......... 1.2 acres ......... 1.2 acred
" Reference Page 4, Part I, Item D.
13
r
�Z
r
5. Camera shop
6. Delicatessen store
7. Florist
8. Shoe- store or repair shop
9. Tailor
Io. Tobacco store
11. Office equipment retail and repair
12. Pharmacies
13. Tourist information and travel agencies
and ticket reservation services, but not
include any airline terminal services or
facilities for the transport of passengers,
baggage or freight.(2)
14. Other uses similar to the above list. (2)
F. General Commercial (8) (9) (23) (25)
1. New car dealership, subject to a use permit, including ancillary
uses listed under Part II, Section II, Group II,A.
2. Service Stations subject to a use permit.
3. Restaurants,including outdoor,drive-in or take-out restaurants,
shall be subject to a use permit. Restaurant uses are permitted
within General Commercial Sites 1, 2, and 3 and not
permitted within General Commercial Site 4.
4. Hobby, Arts and Crafts, including:
a. Sporting goods store
b. Camera Store
C. Art Gallery
d. Craft store
e. Pet store
f. Bicycle store
g. Other uses of similar nature
5. Book and Office Support Stores, including:
a. Book store
b. Office supplies
C. Other uses of similar nature
6. Retail stores and professional service establishments including:
a. Pharmacies
b. Specialty food
C. Fabric Shops
d. Jewelry shops
e. Furrier
£ Formal Wear
g. Barber and Hair styling
32
q3 �.�
h. QOW% Store
I. Uquor store
j. Tourist information and travel agencies and ticket
reservation services, but not to include say airline
terminal services or facilities for the transport of
passengers, baggage or freight.
k. Other uses of similar nature
7. Home and Office furnishings, including:
a. Home furniture store
b. office furniture store
C. Interior decorators
d. Home appliances
e. Antique stores
E Other uses of similar nature
8. Athletic Clubs, including:
a. Spa
b. Health Club
c. Recreation facility
d. Other uses of similar nature,
9. Home improvement stores, including:
a. Hardware store
b. Paint store
C. Wallcovering store
d. Other uses of similar nature
10. Retail Nursery subject to a use permit
•11. Professional .and Business Offices - see Part II, Section II,
Group I for permitted use.
*Office uses are permitted within General'Commercial Sites 3
and 4 and not, permitted within General Commercial
Sites 1 sZ (9) (25)
336-0
r�
`f
atr� r"'Ri.r� u s
r�t� •r lI
el
MWW AWN
-+K hrc.+/2'A•92/T6,r. Q•S 19 •
/ ! rwirw•
i114L. vim_• w:+I—Ml � 1r'.'
•r�lll• l 1t _
�N
III
�.�
IM
IF
mm
/•
LARD USX
Otr►OO/ NKr. CALIFORNIA K
"'� EMKAY DEVELOPMENT AND REALTY COMPANY ��wttrat
. A7TACHNENT 3
" •EXHIBIT"C"
FINDINGS FOR DENIAL
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 9W (A)
AMENDMENT NO. 745
RFSUBDIVISION No. 980 AND
TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 78
ENVUkCppffBTAL DOCUMENT
Finding:
1. That an environmental document is not needed for a project which is denied.
L GENERAL PI AN pAMF.ND 90.3 (A)
1. That the site is more appropriate for hotel use considering the site already'has
a approval for hotel expansion.
2. That the project is lacking developmental plans for specific land use proposal
AM E DMFNT NO, 745
1. That the zone change to General Commercial is not consistent with the
Newport Beach General Plan.
]� RESLJBDDaSION NO, 980
1. That the proposed resudivision would minimize parking requirement for.the
Sheraton Hotel Site.
2. That the proposed general commercial development would create a General
plan capacity constraint.
TRAMC ST1JDY NO, 78
1. That the proposed project will significantly affect the areas circulation and
therefore, is inconsistent with the Newport Beach General Plan Traffic
Phasing Ordinance.
• 0 ATTACHMENI 4
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH F ILE D
NARY L 1 7 7 .
3300 Newport l APR 1 1992
oulevard-P.O.Box 1768 - 0 County
�I
Newport Reach,CA Y2(S9-176tI _....G -- 'DEW
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
To: From: City of Newport Beach
Of cc of Planning and Research Planning Department
❑ 1400 Tenth Street,Room 121 330o Newport Boulevard-P.O.Box 1768
Sacramento,CA 95814 Newport Beach,CA 92659-1708
(Orange County)
County Clerk,County of Orange
Public Services Division
Xx P.O.Box 838 Date received for(ding at OPR/Coumty Clark
Santa Ana,CA 92M
Pub&repiew period April 16 - May 7, 1992
Name of Project: Harbor Pacific Plaza, General Plan Amendment 90-3(A)/
Amendment No. 745/Resubdivision No. 980/TPO No. 78
Project Location: 4545 MacArthur Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA
General Plan Amendment, Planned Community Amendment, Resubdivision,
Project Description and Traffic Phasing Ordinance Study to resubdivide a single parcel
of land and change the land use designation from Hotel and Motel
use to General Commercial with a maximum 41,750 square feet of
retail development.
Finding: Pursuant to the provisions of CityCOuncil Policy K-3 pertaining to procedures audguidelinesto implement
the California Environmental Quality Act,the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and
determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the edWdnmeuL include
A copy of the Initial Study containing the analysis supporting this finding is attached. The Initial Study may
mitigation measures that would eliminate or reduce potential environmental impacts. This document will be considered
by the decision-makers) prior to final action on the proposed project. If a public hearing will be held to consider this
project,a notice of the time and location is attached.
Additional plans,studies and/or exhibits relating to the proposed project may be available for public review. If you
would like to examine these materials,you are invited to contact the undersigned
If youwish to appeal the appropriatenessor adequacyof this document,yourcommentsslwitidbesubmiltedin µTiling
prior to the close of the public review period. Your comments should specifically identify what environmental impacts ydu
believe would result from the project,why they are significant,and what changes or mitigation measures you believe should
be adopted to eliminate oraeduce these impacts. Theie is no fee for this appeal. If a publichearing will be held,you are
also invited to attend and testify as to the appropriateness of this document
If you have any questions or would like further information,please contact the undersigned.
4 Ci%LLti �ti Date April 16 1992
John H. Douglas,AICP
En ronmcntalQxrdinat
Revixd 4192
BAY1 unrimL ANALYSIS GIST
CITY of MXWPOQT BZMM
1. Application No:
2. Project names wept. pKinc, P( zh Ca1)A 0- 0)_A745 RftW TP0W
3. Project location: 4S45 Mete,—I1Atle NG } �
4. Applicant: LAMEM , ZAlG QiVQ. KGC2�Ar
=I. (See attached explanations)
XU IfiM
1, ISj:th. Would the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes V
in geologic substructures?
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction
or overcovering of the soil? -- --
C. change in topography or ground surface
relief features? -- "—
d. The destruction, covering or modification of any
unique geologic or physical features? —
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion v
of soils, either on or off the site? — 11
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 bad of the ocean
or any bay, inlet or lake? --
q. Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,
mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? --
2. AU. Would the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration
of ambient air quality2 -- — d
b. The creation of objectionable odors?
C. Alteration of air movement, moisturo> or
temperature, or any change in climate,
either locally or regionally2 --- a— .1
do 'J r
0 0
Environmental Analysis Checklist - Page 2
Y9! Maybe 92
3. Wate Would 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 flood waters?
-
d. Change in the amount of surface water
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?
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of
i
flow of ground water?
9. Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or withdrawals,
or through interception of an aquifer by opts
or excavations?
h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water
otherwise available for public water supplies? _ ---
i. Exposure of people or property to water- v
related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves?
4. plant Life. Would the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of
any species of plants (including trees, 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? -- "-
qj
savironmental Analysis Checklist - Page 3
�! Kaybe
S. AnIMAl Life. Would the proposal result in: .
a. Change in the diversity of species, or
numbers of any species of animals (birder
land animals including reptiles, fish and
shell-fish, benthic organisms, or insects)?
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 migrdtion or movement of animals? --
d. Deterioration of existing fish or wildlife
. habitat?
g, Voiae. Would the proposal
result in an 'increase in
existing noise levels, or exposure of People to severe "
noise levels? �XT
y. Licht and Glare. Would the proposal produce new
light or glare?
g. Land U . Would the proposal result in a substantial
alteration of the present or planned land use of an —
area, or conflict with existing land use regulations
or policies?
g, Natural Resources. Would the proposal result in an
increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? _
10. Risk of Accident. Would the proposal involves
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?
b. Possible interference with an emergency.
response or evacuation plan?
11. Poo<_ latn_. Would the proposal alter the
location, distribution, density, or growth
rate of the human population of the area? _.-
12. goueiea. Would the proposal affect existing housing
or create a demand for additional housing? log
}
Environmental Analysis Checklist - Page 4
X9A Maybe 112
13. Transoortat+on/Circulation/Parkins. Would the
proposal result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement? —
b. Effects on existing parking facilities,
or demand for new parking? —
C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation
systems?
d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation
or movement of people and/or goods? TY'
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? ._ •
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians? -- -►AT
14. Public Services. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for, new or altered
governmental services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection? --
b. Police protection?
C. Schools? — — ►-
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? �yy
i
f. Other governmental services?
15. Ene Would the proposal result in the use of
substantial amounts of fuel or energy, a substantial
increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or
require the development of new sources of energy?
16. utilites. Would the proposal result in a need for now
systems, or substantial alterations to the following
utilities:
a. Electricity or natural gas?
b. Communications systems? _
C. Water or wastewater?
d. Storm water drainage? yA,
G. Solid waste and disposal?
1�6 jDl
• ~ J
Environmental Analysis Checklist - page 5
Y!i Maybe fie
17, gg;,an Health. Would the proposal result in the
creation of any health hazard or exposure of people
to a potential health hazard (excluding 'mental health)? _
1g. Aesthetics. Would the proposal result in the
obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the
public, or result in the creation of an aesthetically _
offensive site open to public view? —•
lg, ggcrsation- Would the proposal result in an
impact upon the quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities?
20. cultural Resources. Would the proposal:
a. Result in the alteration or destruction of a v
prehistoric or historic archaeological site?
Is. Result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects
on a prehistoric or historic building, structure, v
or object? -- --
C. Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? --
d. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within
the potential impact area? ---
III, xMATM ?INDIMS Or SIGNITICAIK'S;-
1. 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 California history or pre-history? --
2. 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 relatively brief,
definitive period of time while long-
term impacts endure well into the future.) _
Environmental Analysis Checklist - Page 6
YU Maybe J(4
3. Does the project have impacts which are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (A project may have an impact
on two or more separate resources where the
impact on each resource is relatively
small, but where the effect of the total
of those impacts on the environment is
significant; or, a project may have incremental
impacts that are individually minor, but are
considerable when viewed in connection with the
effects of other past, present, or probable
future projects.) --
i
4. Does the project have environmental
effects which would cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
IV. DETERMINATION
on the basis of this initial evaluation:
( ] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED-
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in, this Case because the
mitigation measures described on the attached pages have been incorporated into
the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
[ J I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,,and
an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
Prepared by: A-m-L M. Jgtoty&; (Augistc RangedDate:
Signature:
Attachment: Environmental Analysis Checklist Explanations
I
i
i fA...\FORMS\CHECKLS1.1S �
Revised 12/91 b
I
A
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST EXPI:.ANATIONS
Harbor Pacific Plaza
General Plan Amendment No. 90-3(A)
Pr.Qiect Description
The proposed site is located'on the northwest corner of Mac Arthur Blvd.
and Corinthian Way known as Site IA & Site iB in the Newport Place
Planned Community District(see Exhibit A). The site is surrounded by light
Retail Commercial and Professional and Financial Offices. The proposed
project would involve construction of a retail commercial center that would
allow 41,750 square feet of development at a floor area ratio(FAR) of 0.35.
FAR.The subject parcel is approximately 2A acre in'size and cnrremly-used
as part of parking facility for the operation of Sheraton Hotel.
Analysis
The following discussion provides explanations for the conclusions-contained
in the*Environmental Analysis Checklist regarding the proposed projects
environmental impacts.
1. Earth
The site will be altered to accommodate the proposed on-site
improvement. The construction activities associated with the
foundation of the project will result in minor soil disruption or
overcovering and may require excavation and compaction or
soil displacement. Compliance with the City Excavation and
grading node(NBMC Sec.15.04.140)would reduce the impacts
to insignificant level.
2. Air
During the course of construction some-dust and objectionable
odor from diesel exhaust and asphalt paving may be created.
However, dust will be.minimized as a result of site watering
required by The City and Air Quality Management District
regulations. Odor effects shall be eliminated upon the
completion of the project. Therefore,the effect is insignificant.
3. Water
The proposed site is developed with asphalt pavement and
future on site improvement would not increase water runoff'.
Provisions for drainage requirements are contained in the City
Excavation and Grading Code. The project is located outside
flood hazard area. Therefore, no significant impacts would be
anticipated.
4. Plant Life
The proposed site is located in a developed area of the City
and the project will not affect any natural vegetation-
S. Animal Life
The project is located in an urbanized area of the community
and no significant impact to wildlife would be anticipated.
6. Noise
Existing noise levels are anticipated to be increased during the
construction period primarily due to construction related
activities. Construction time is expected to be short due to the
small scope of the anticipated project and hours of operation'
are regulated by the provisions contained in the City Noise
Ordinance(NBMC Chapter 10.28). The proposed site is
surrounded by general retail, office, and financial commercial
uses. Other noise sensitive land uses are not located adjacent
to or in the vicinity of the proposed project. Noise effects are
not significant and shall be alleviated upon the completion of
the project.
7. light and Glare
If exterior lighting is required, the proposed project could
produce light and glare that could adversely affect adjacent
properties. The following mitigation would ensure that any
exterior lighting is designed such that direct rays are confuted I
to the site to the extent feasible.
Mitigation Measure #1
Prior to the issuance of any building permit the
applicant shall demonstrate to the Planning
Department that the lighting system shall be
designed, directed, and maintained in such a
manner as to conceal the light source and to
minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent
properties. The plans shall be prepared and
signed by a licensed Electrical Engineer, with a
0 F
letter from the engineer stating that, in -his
opinion, this requirement has been met.
8. Land Use
The site is designated for Retail and Service Commercial by the
CiWs General Plan Land Use Element with 468 hotel room
allocation. Currently,the site is developed with 349 hotel room
and has an approval for additional 119 rooms. The Zoning is
planned Community designating the site for hotel and motel
uses. A General Plan Amendment is proposed to resubdivide
the parcel into two parcels, convert the 119 hotel room
allocation to general commercial use and establish development
intensity limit for the site. The proposed use is compatible to
the land uses of the surrounding area and no adverse impact is
anticipated. This project is located outside the Coastal Zone
Boundary and Coastal Permit is not required.
9. Natural Resources
The use of natural resources•will not be significantly affected by
this project.
10. Risk of Upset
There is no risk of any foreseeable hazard due to upset.
11. Population
The proposed project would not cause any growth or reduction
in the area's population.
12. Housing
Minor employment increase is anticipated therefore, no
additional housing demand would result from this project.
13. Transportation/Circulation/parking
Transportation: A traffic study has been conducted to evaluate the proposed
project in conformance with the CiWs Traffic Phasing Ordinance
requirements. This study indicates that the proposed development would
generate up to 6,252 new vehicle trips per day,including up to 530 trips in the
morning two-and-one-half hour peak and 773 trips in the evening two-and-
one-half hour peak. The analysis determined that the project,would result in
• •
a significant(i.e., 1%)traffic increase upon several arterial intersections in the
vicinity of the site, as follows:
MacArthur Blvd. at Campus Drive (AM and PM)
MacArthur Blvd. at Birch Street (AM and PM)
MacArthur Blvd. at Jamboree Rd. (AM and PM)
Jamboree Rd. at Bristol St. (N) (AM and PM)
Jamboree Rd. at Bristol St. (S) (AM and PM)
Bristol St. (N) at Campus Drive (AM and PM)
Bristol St. (S) at Campus Dr./Irvine Ave. (AM and PM)
An analysis was also performed for the General Plan Amendment component
of the proposed project. This analysis determined that the proposed project,
together with the elimination of a previously approved 119 room hotel
expansion,would cause a significant increase at all of the intersections listed
above, with the exception of Jamboree Road at Bristol (N) in the PM and
Bristol Street (North and South) at Campus/Irvine intersections.
Intersection Capacity Utilization studies were conducted for each of the
intersections and time frames indicated above. The proposed project would '
not raise the ICU for any location from below 0.90 to above 0.90. The project
would not cause measurable increases in ICU at any locations where near-
term future conditions are expected to be deficient according to past City
studies.
The General Plan Amendme�t associated with the project would result in a
measurable increase at one location in the future where deficient conditions
are already forecast, MacArthur Boulevard at Jamboree Road in the PM
Peak. The impact at this intersection could be mitigated by selecting a land
use alternative which would not result in the 0.01 ICU increase forecasted at
this location. Several reduced intensity alternatives evaluated in the traffic
study would meet this requirement. If such an.alternative generating less than
109 outbound peak hour trips were selected,mitigation would not be required.
With the proposed project, adequate mitigation would be provided by adding.
a second northbound left-turn lane on MacArthur Boulevard onto southbound
Jamboree Road.
Therefore, on the basis of the traffic study either of the following mitigation
measures would reduce potential impacts to a level less than significant:
Mideation Measure #2a
The proposed project shall be modified such that estimated peak hour
trip generation does not exceed 109 trips.
Mitigation Memre #E b
A condition of approval shall be adopted requiring that the
intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road be improved
such that no measurable increase in the ICU value will occur as a
result of the,project. ;
nrculation. There are two existing drive-ways on the northerly
side of Corinthian way that accommodate for access to the
proposed General Commercial Site. The Newport Planned
Community District Regulations would require a reciprocal
easement between the existing Sheraton Hotel Site and General
Commercial Site for mutual benefit of circulation and parking.
No significant impact is anticipated.
Parking. The existing on-site parking facilities will be
affected as a result of the proposed development and use.
Although the number of existing parking spaces for Sheraton
Hotel Site will be reduced,however the remainder 352 parking
spaces will be sufficient for the hotel operation. The proposed
retail commercial center would allow 41,750 square feet of
development on the site. Parking requirement for retail
commercial is one space per 200 square feet of net floor area
Since development of the proposed project will be subject to a
Site plan Review process, the amount of required parking
spaces would be determined at the time of development plan
review.
14. Public Services
There are sufficient public or governmental services that serve
the area and the project would not create additional demand
for these services.
15. Energy
No significant increase in the use of energy is anticipated.
16. Utilities and Service Systems
The site has already been served by the utility System and no
significant alteration or expansion of existing utility system is
anticipated.
17. Human Health
The proposed project would not utilize hazardous materials on
the site therefore, no adverse affect on human health is
anticipated.
18. Aesthetics
The project is located in a commercial district and by
compliance with the provisions contained in the City's Zoning
Code regarding the project's design, signs, landscaping and
other aesthetic features of the site the effects shall be reduced
to insignificant level.
19. Recreation
The quality and quantity of recreational activities will not be
impacted by the project.
20. Cultural Resources
The parcel is developed and no archaeological or
paleontological resources are expected to exist on this site.
There is no impact on the cultural resources or historic
structures.
Mandatory Findings of Ma +lficance
1. On the basis of the foregoing analysis, including the mitigation
measures listed, the proposed project does not have the
potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment.
2. There are no long-term environmental goals that would be
compromised by the project.
3. No cumulative impacts are anticipated in connection with this
or other projects.
4. There are no known substantial adverse affects on human
beings that would be caused by the proposed project.
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Harbor Pacific Plaza
General Plan Amendment No. 90-3(A) .
I. OVERVIEW
This mitigation monitoring program was prepared in compliance with Public Resources
Code Section 21086.6 (AB 3180 of 1988). It describes the requirements and procedures to
be followed by the applicant and the City to ensure that all mitigation measures adopted as
part of this project will be carried out. Attachment 1 summarizes the adoptedmatigation
measures, implementing actions, and verification procedures for this project
IL MITIGATION MONITORING PROCEDURES
Mitigation measures can be implemented in three ways: (1) through project design,which
is verified by plan check and inspection; (2) through compliance with various codes,
ordinances, policies, standards, and conditions of approval which are satisfied prior to or
during construction and verified by plan check and/or inspection; and (3) through
monitoring and reporting after construction is completed. Compliance monitoring
procedures for these three types of mitigation measures are summarized below.
A. Mitigation measures implemented through project design.
Upon project approval, a copy of the approved project design will be placed in the
official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discretionary or
ministerial permits,the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in
conformance with the approved project design. Field inspections will verify' that
construction conforms to approved plans.
B. Mitigation measures implemented through compliance with codes, ordinances,
policies, standards, or conditions of approval:
Upon project approval, a copy of the approved project description and conditions of
approval will be placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for
all subsequent discretionary or ministerial permits, the file will be checked to verify
that the requested permit is in compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances,
policies, standards and conditions of approval. Field inspections will verify that
construction conforms to all applicable standards and conditions.
C. Mitigation measures implemented through post-construction monitoring.
If any mitigation measures require verification and reporting after construction is
completed, the City will maintain a log of these mitigation monitoring and reporting
requirements,"and will review completed monitoring reports. Upon submittal, the
City will approve the report, request additional information, or pursue enforcement
remedies in the event of noncompliance. Final monitoring reports will be placed in
the official file.
F\_\.Z.\Cir\MM_coven. ,'a
ATTACHMENT 1
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SUMMARY
Harbor panic Plan(General Plan Amendment No.903A)
MlUption Measure Implementing Action M e t h o d o f Timing of Verification Responsible Person
Vetifiatioa
Conditiona[Approval Plan check Prior to a of a PlangDepartmentpiaa
1. prior to the issuance of a building
permit, the applicant shall
demonstrate to the Planning
Department that the lighting system
shall be designed,and maintained in
such a manner as to 000ceal the light
Baum and to mitimbm light sps7lagc
and glare to the adjacent properties.
The on shall be prepartd and
signal by a iiceoaed EhChial
. Engineer, with a letter from the
engineer stating tha4 in his opinion,
this requirement has been met.
2.(a) The proposed project shall be Condition of Approval pile review P to the approval of Traffic Department
modified such thin estimated peak
hour trip generation does not eaceed
109 trips.
2(b) A modition of approval shall be Condition of Approval Plan Cbec Prior to the approval of a Planning Deputmen plan
adopted requiring that the Site Plan Review or prim Chaser.adopted
to commencement of
in"ectiono(MarAurBoulevard
and hmboree Rod be improved °OuChon'
such that so measurable Increase fa
the ICU value will ocense as a result
of the project.
P.\\ulz a\GPA903(A)\MN TABIS
1
. VICINITY
MAP
G.P.A. - 90-5(A)
SUBJECT PROPERTY
'I
O
O
n
9
s
c
G
v
EXHIBIT A
"3TIGE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public
hearing on the application of Lerkennc.I for General m
Plan aendment No 90-3(A Mawthur
Ln 78 Resu`a' ' No 980 and Amendment No. 746 on property located at 4
Md.
nC auuia�..ava IAC1LUe5 a!e.^.l�Pct t0 amend ti1e L?nd
!t�,•Fiement of the Geno*�l Plan to eliminate
1 1 for h r on Hot 1 Site nd r d cl¢nate a portto*+ ^f_the ate for
Geii a t /� �r �1 rn rPcnhaiyide a cinele lot into two na*epls of land for CO"'^'�*^'i development.
and tn amend th N Place Planned C�n�mLmty D>stn� Re¢ulattons to real T�fea�f r t�i
tj�e r 1 toGenel n m rcl 1 and flow 41750 �
dP�elopment The projg��also Includes a rern;g,�;to avnrove a tra�+c study to Alinw the nronosesl
development.
NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that a Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City
of Newport Beach in connection with the application noted above. The Negative Declaration states
that the subject development will not result in a significant effect on the environment. It is thf
present intention of the City to accept the Negative Declaration and supporting documents. This is
not to be construed as either approval or denial by the City of the subject application. The City
encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this documentation. Copies
of the Negative Declaration and City
ofNewp�mBeach, 33 0 nts are Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach,
le for public review and inspection
at the Planning Department, City •
California, 92659-1768 (714) 644-3225.
Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the Ah day o3� ort
the hour of 10 P•m in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall,
Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may
appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising
only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in
written correspondence delivered to the City at,or prior to, the public heating For information call
(714) 644-3200.
Norma Glover, Secretary, Planning Commission, City of Newport Beach.
NOTE: The expense of this notice is paid from a filing fee collected from the applicant.
0
r=--
Rock E. Miller & Assoclates- ;
Traffic & Transportation Enpineers
April 14, 1992
Mr. Aziz M. Aslami
Associate Planner
City of Newport Beach
330o Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, Ca 92659-1768
subject: Traffic Phasing Ordinance and General Plan Amendment
Traffic Study for a Commercial Development at MacArthur
Blvd and Corinthian Way
Dear Mr. Aslami:
In accordance with your authorization, Rock E. Miller and
Associates has completed the subject study for a proposed
commercial development located. on the property of the existing
Sheraton Hotel in the City of Newport Beach. The report was
prepared according to the guidelines of the Traffic Engineering
staff at the City.
Please contact me as soon as possible if you have any questions
about the report, or if you need additional information. 'It has
been a pleasure to prepare this report for the City of Newport
Beach.
sincerely,
Rock E. Miller, P.E.
Principal
Sheraton.stu\91059
17852 East Seventeenth Street, &Ne 107, Tusth,CA 92680
FAX(714)573.9534 TEL(714)573-0317 14
. • May 7, 1992
MINUTES
COMMISSIONERS
0 ATTACHMENT 6
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Tan
ROLL CALL
ks
ide Drive. permit
work shall be Completed
under
en chment issued by
ks
Dep nt.
9. That disrupti0 used by construction work along
and by movem of construction vehiclesminimizedby proper a of traffic control equipflagmen .Traffic contro d transportation of and materials shall be con in accordance
and local requirements.
10. That the trees,shrubs and landscaping the public right-of-
way be pruned to meet the City sight dis ce standard.
11. That the trash enclosure be relocated outside public
right-of-way to a location acceptable to the ding
Department and the City Traffic Engineer.
a That this resubdivision shall expire if the map has not been
recorded within 3 years of the date of approval, unless an
extension is granted by the Planning Commission
ltem No.3
n IP1 nAm n m n
GPA 90-3A
Request to amend the Land Usd Element of the General Plan so (R1295)
as to eliminate the additional 119 hotel rooms approved for the A745
Sheraton Hotel site; change the development entitlement from (R a896)
Hotel Rooms to Retail and Service Commercial uses;and establish TS7IR9ao —
an allocation of 41,750 square feet of commercial development for
the proposed General Commercial Site 5 in the Newport Place Approved
Planned Community; and the acceptance of an environmental
document.
INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach
AND
-10-
i May 7, 1992 MtNNTE8F
COMMISSIONERS
9s c� .
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL INDEX
$ Amendment No 745 (A,blic Hearin¢1
Request to amend the Newport Place Planned Community District
Regulations so as to redesignate the existing Sheraton Hotel site
from Hotel Site 1A and 1B to Hotel Site 1 and General
Commercial Site 5; reduce the hotel room entitlement on Hotel
Site 1 by 119 rooms and establish a development entitlement of
41,750 square feet of general commercial development within the
newly established General Commercial Site 5; and the addition of
development provisions which establish a height limit of 50 feet
within General Commercial Site 5 and the requirement for
reciprocal ingress, egress and parking between Hotel Site 1 and
General Commercial Site 5.
AND
Request to approve a Traffic Study so as to allow the construction
of 41,750 square feet of retail commercial development in the
proposed General Commercial Site 5,located is the Newport Place
Planned Community.
AND
D. Resubdivision No. 980-mmtHa"21
Request to resubdivide the existing Sheraton Hotel site into two
parcels of land; one parcel to be used for the existing hotel
purposes and the other parcel for future commercial development.
LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 77.42.43
(Resubdivision No. 483), located at 4545
MacArthur Boulevard, on the southwesterly
corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Birch
Street, in the Newport Place Planned
Community.
ZONE: P-C
-il-
• May 7, 1992 MINUTES
COMMISSIONERS
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
INDEX
ROLL CALL
APPLICANT: Larken, Inc.,,Cedar Rapids, Iowa
OWNER: Same as applicant
ENGINEER: Barrios and Anderson, Anaheim
James Hewicker, Planning Director, addressed the addendum to
the staff report that was distributed to'the Planning Commission
prior to the subject public hearing. The addendum included a
revision,to Traffic Study No. 7g, Finding No. 2, Exhibits "A" and
"B". John Douglas, Principal Planner, explained that the finding
was inadvertently omitted and is required by the Council Policy on
Traffic Phasing Ordinance implementation.
The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and
Mr. Jerry Bame, 10055 Slater Avenue,Fountain Valley, appeared
before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. In
response to a question posed by Chairman Di Sano, Mr. Bame
concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibits"A"and"B".
Mr. Bame stated that the applicant considers the subject request a
"downzoning" of the parcel from a high-rise project to a low-rise
project. He stated that staff has addressed concerns regarding
traffic, and the applicant has attempted to comply with said
concerns. He explained that staffs recommendation, Exhibit "W,
recommends that the project be developed at a substantially lower
entitlement than what the applicant originally requested Exhibit
"A" addresses staffs concerns inasmuch as the conditions require
the development to remain under a specific number of trips.H the
project does not adhere to said requirements, then the applicant
would be required to comply with some oppressive traffic
mitigation measures.
The applicant indicated that he would reluctantly agree to Exhibit
"B", but considers it to be an ultra-conservative approach. He
indicated that staffs concerns are that the applicant does not have
a specific proposal as to a site plan; however, the applicant would
ultimately submit a request for a plan to the City to address the
proposed development on the property.
-12-
May 7, 1992 MINUTES
COMMISSIONERS
Qs ten,
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
INDEX
ROLL CALL
In response to a question posed by Commissioner Gross regarding
the Traffic Study,Mr.Bame responded that Mitigation Measure Zb
in Exhibit "A" states that if the project generates more than 109
trips, a mitigation measure would require improvements at the
intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and,Jamboree Road in the
City of Irvine. Mr.Bame further responded that he does not have
concerns with respect to the Traffic Study-
In response to questions posed by Commissioner Debay: Mr.
Douglas explained that one of staWs,main coaoMrns is'tbe projWS
feasibility considering the square footage of development,parldng,
setbacks, and landscaping requirements. He further noted h oit
appears doubtful that the proposed project would physically fit
the site without going to extraordinary means, i.e. subterranean
parking, structure parking, or multi-story structures. If the
development would be physically feasible, staff also has concerns
as to whether it would be financially feasible, .and whether the
development would be compatible with the adjacent properties.
Mr. Bame stated that the applicant does not have objections with
the parking requirements or mitigation requirements, and the
development would •be within the constraints of the CiVs
requirements.
Commissioner Pomeroy addressed the inferior condition of some
of the older buildings adjacent to the subject property, and he -
indicated that landscape improvements could make the area more
attractive.
Mr. Hewicker explained that MacArthur Boulevard primarily
consists of low-rise or mid-rise buildings of three or 'four story
buildings, and the subject hotel. MacArthur Boulevard is a
landscaped street that consists of two parcels that have not been
developed,and small retail centers.The existing buildings primarily
consist of a Floor Area Ratio of 030 and the requested 0.40 FAR
would consist of a scale of development that does not presently
exist. Mr.Bame stated that it is conceivable that the applicant may
not develop a project that would consist of a 0.40 FAR
-13-
y ' " • May 7, 1992 MINUTES
COq�MMISSIONER$
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Tiple
NDEX
ROLL CALL.
Commissioner Gross stated that he would like to see ients"
made at the MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Roation
wherein Mr. Bame and Commissioner Gross d theapplicant's desire not to exceed the mrmber of tripouldrequire said improvements.
Mr. Douglas indicated that staff also has a concern g theCiWs traffic forecasting model if the ConlmiSSiOn appthrbit"A" but the developer did not actually build the fumentallowed by the 0.40 FAR.The General Plan Traffic Mumes
all of the development that could feasibly be built based on
entitlements will be built. If the project is constructed at a lower
intensity, then there would be an incorrect assumption built in the
traffic model and it would be projecting greater traffic impacts in
the future than will actually occur. The result would be that other
developers may be burdened with improving intersections and
roadways that may not actually need to be improved
Discussion ensued between Mr- Barre and Chairman Dr Sano
regarding the time frame of the future development on the site and
the effect the project would have on the traffic model and future
development in the City if the Commission approved Fshrbit "A".
In response to a question posed by Chairman Di sano,Mr.Douglas
explained that if the developer did not construct a project as
requested and reduces the size of the development,then a General
Plan Amendment would be required in order for the City's traffic
model to accurately reflect the projeces traffic impact.
Mr. Hewicker explained that the subject request would not be
considered a downzoning based on the traffic impacts. The
proposed developmentwould generate more traffic,and specifically
more traffic during peak hours, than a hotel.
In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay
concerning if the Commission approved Exhibit "W in the staff
report, and it is subsequently determined that the applicant
requested to develop a larger project than the project the
Commission approved, Mr. Douglas replied that the applicant
could request a General Plan Amendment to increase the project
-14-
May 7, 1992 MINUTES)
COMMISSIONERS
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
INDEX
ROLL CALL.
size. Mr. Bame, Chairman Di Sano, Mr. Douglas, and W.,
Hewicker addressed the feasibility of the applicant returning to the
Commission to initiate a General Plan Amendment. Mr.Hewicker
explained that when the General Plan Amendment was approved
in 1988, the commercial and industrial sites throughout the City
were generally downzoned.He addressed the concept of approving
a project with a-higher Floor Area Ratio than what is anticipated,
and the relationship between the entitiement and the circulation
system.
In response to questions .posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, W.
Douglas explained the process, the time frame, and staffs analysis
of the applicant's final proposal before bringing the subject request50
to the Commission. Mr.Bame explained that the requested f coming
squarefeet for the proposed project was for the purpose
up with a scenario that would satisfy the City Traffic Engineer and
the traffic analysis. Mr. Douglas pointed out that one of the
mitigation measures in the Negative Declaration states that the
proposed project should be modified so that the peak hour trip
generation does not exceed"109 trips,and staff subsequently drafted
the recommended conditions of approval,as well as the alternative
in Exhibit "r in order to comply,with the mitigation measure.
Staff concluded that it would be beneficial to propose a square
footage or Floor Area Ratio limit on the project rather than trip
limit inasmuch as it would be easier for interested parties to
understand and for City staff to implement.
In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay,Patricia
Temple, Advance Planning Manager, explained the commercial
floor area limits that were established when the revised General
Plan was adopted in 1988. She further explained that staffs
alternative to the subject proposal was to address the limitations of
the circulation system as defined by the General Plan Traffic Study.
In response to questions posed by Commissioner Debay and Mr.
Hewicker,Mr.Bame explained that the applicant would market the
property in accordance with the conditions that are imposed by the
Commission.
-15-
jbo
." ' •" i May 7, 1992 MINUTES
COMMISSIONERS
0
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
INDEX
ROLL CALL
Mr. Ken Balch, 10055 Slater Avenue, Fountain Valley, agent for
the property owner, appeared before the Planning Commission
Mr.Balch stated that the subject property has been marketed as a
potential commercial and retail site. The market value of the
subject property is $1,000,000.00 less than it was id months ago;
therefore, there is an urgency to marketand develop the property.
The applicant would comply with the Commission's Mmr'aL
In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay, Mr.
Balch explained that the intent is that retail would be established
on the first floor and office space on the upper floors.
There being no others desiring to appear and be heard,the public
hearing was closed at this time.
Commissioner Gross indicated that he could support Exhibit"A"on
the basis that the proposed project could be considered
"downzoning" compared to a 375 foot bigh hotel that could be
developed on the site, and improvements need to be made at the
intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road
Commissioner Edwards stated that he could support Exhibit B"on
the basis that the subject project could have an adverse affect on
future developers and existing property owners. A developer has
the option to be able to come back to the City to initiate a General
Plan Amendment for a larger project.
Commissioner Glover stated that she could support Exhibit 'B".
She recognized the vacancy rate that exists at the Sheraton Hotel;
however, she indicated that the Commission needs to consider all
of the property owners in the City and it is her desire to balance
development with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance in accordance with
the General Plan
Commissioner Pomeroy stated that he could support Exhibit"A"SO
as to improve the MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road
intersection
-16-
Mq 7, 1992 MINUTES#
COMMISSIONERS
CITY OF NEWPORT 'BEACH
INDEX
ROLL CALL
Commissioner Debay stated that she could support Exhibit "B".
The subjectsequest could set a precedent, and it is feasible that if
Exhibit"A"would be approved that the traffic analysis could affect
all future developers.
Chairman Di Sano stated he would support Exhibit"W on the basis
that when the City adopted the General Plan, the area was
basically downzoned, and it would be an inappropriate signal to
approve Exlubit W.
notion • Motion was made to approve General Plan Amendment No. 90-
3(A) (Resolution No. 1295),Amendment No.745.(Resolution No.
1296).TraTmstudy No.78 including modified Finding No.2,and
Resubdivision No. 980 subject.to the findings and conditions in
Exhibit"B".
Commissioner Gross stated that the subject request would.mt set
a precedent inasmuch as the construction of a four-story building
is downzoning compared to a 375 foot high hot4 and it is not
currently economically feasible to develop the site into a hotel.
Ayes * * * * Motion was voted on to approve Bdubit• 'P. MOTION
No ' CARRIED.
ENVIRONMENTAL D-OCUMEM
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 Council PolicyK-3.
2. That based upon the information contained in the
initial Study, comments received, and all related
documents, there is no substantial evidence that the
project, as conditioned or as modified by mitigation
measures identified in the initial Study,could have a
significant effect on the environment, therefore a
-17-
�b�
May 7, 1992 MINUTES
COMMISSIONERS
d
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
INDEX
ROLL CALL
Negative Declaration has been prepared. The
Negative Declaration adequately addresses the
potential environmental impacts of the project, and
satisfies all the requirements of CEQA, and is
therefore approved. The Negative Declaration
reflects the independent judgement of the Planning
Commission and was reviewed and considered prior
to approval of the project:
3, An Initial Study has been conducted,and considering
the record as a whole there is no evidence before
this agency that the proposed project will have the
potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources
or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. O finds
n thebasis of the evidence in the record, this agency
that the presumption of adverse effect contained in
Section 7535(d)of Title 14 of the California Code of
.Regulations (CCR) has been rebutted. •Therefore,
the proposed project qualifies for a De Minimis
Impact Fee Exemption pursuant to Section 7535(c)
of Title 14, CCR.
Mitigation Measures:
1. Prior to the issuance of any building permit the
applicant shall demonstrate to the e shall be
Planning
Department that the lighting system
designed, directed and maintained in such a manner
as to conceal the light source and to minimize light
spillage and glare to the adjacent properties. The
plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed
Electrical Engineer, with a letter from the engineer '
stating that.-in his opinion,this requirement has been
met.
2a. The proposed project shall be modified such that
estimated peak hour trip generation does not exceed
109 trips.
-18-
May 7,,1992 MINdTES"
COMMISSIONERS
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
INDEX
ROLL CALL
2b. That the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and'
jamboree Road be improved such that no
measurable increase in the ICU value will occur as
a result of the project.
JL Al, PLAN AMFN Mb U 90-3(A) Adopt
Resolution No. 1295, recommending approval of General
Plan Amendment 90.3(A) to the City Council.
Ab4END ,rr?N r NO. 745. Adopt Resolution No. 1296,
recommending to the City Council approval of Amen ntt
No. 745, an amendment to the Newport
ed
Community District Regulations to rezone Hotel Site 1A to
General Commercial land uses other than hotel use with the
following condition
('trnNDTITON:
1. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the
applicant or his successor Shall comply with the provisions
of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (NBMC Chapter 15.40).
j� R$,$iJBDMtiON'N0. 980
FINDING
1. That the design of the subdivision will not conflict
with any easements acquired by the public at lthe
for access through or use of property within
proposed subdivision.
2. That public improvements may be required of a
developer per Section 19.08.020 of the 'Municipal
Code and Section 66415 of the Subdivision Map Act.
CONDITIONS:
1. That a parcel map be recorded prior to issuance of
Building Permits' for Parcel 2 unless otherwise.
-19-
J
• • May 7, 1992 MINUTES
COMMISSIONERS
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
INDEX
ROLL. CALL
approved by the Public Works and Planning
Departments. That the Parcel Map shall be
prepared on the California coordinate system
(NAD83) and that the final map shall be submitted
to the County in a digital format acceptable to the
County. Monuments (one inch iron pipe with tag)
shall be set-QrLEnh1&LrXl=unless otherwise
approved by the Subdivision Engineer. Monuments
shall be protected in place if installed prior
completion of construction project
2. That all improvements be constructed as required by
Ordinance and the Public Works Department.
3, That a standard subdivision agreement and
accompanying surety be provided in order to
guarantee satisfactory completion of the Public
improvements if it is desired to record a parcel map
or obtain a building permit prior to completion of
the public improvements.
4. That each building be served with an individual
water service and sewer lateral connection to the
public water and sewer systems unless otherwise i
approved by the Public Works Department.
5. That the on-site parking, vehicular circulation and
pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further
review by the Traffic Engineer. The pedestrian
circulation system shall include walkways that
connect the internal system to the sidewalk along the
public streets.
6. That all vehicular access rights to MacArthur
Boulevard be released and relinquished to the City
of Newport Beach.
7. That the displaced concrete sidewalk be replaced at
the intersection of Birch Street and MacArthur
-20-
. , . 0 May 7, 1992 MINITTEIV
COMMISSIONERS
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
INDEX
ROLL CALL
Boulevard and that access ramps be consaueted at
the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and
Corinthian Way, and at each street entrance to
Parcels 1 and 2 where none exists;that access,ramps
and sidewalk be constructed in the median island at
the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and
Corinthian Way and on the southwesterly curb
return; that the existing"..temporary asphalt patch
around the telephone manhole in the drive apron be
replaced with concrete on-Corinthian Way;and that
the drive approach opposite Martingale be
reconstructed to conform to Standard Drawing No.
166-L Pending a review of the internal circulation
system this drive may need to be moved westerly to
..line up with Martingale. That all work be completed
under an encroachment permit issued by the Public
Works Department.
8. That a hydrology and hydraulic study be prepared by
the applicant and approved by the Public Works
Department, along with a master plan of water,
sewer and storm drain facilities for 'the on-site
improvements prior to issuance of any budding
Permits. Any modifications or extensions to the
existing storm drain,water and sewer systems shown
to be required by the study shall be the responsibllitY
of the developer.
9. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to
issuance of any building permits.
10. That the Public Works Department plan check and
inspection fee be paid
11. That any Edison transformer serving the site be
located outside the sight distance planes as described
In City Standard 110-L
-21-
+.. - ..� May 7, 1992
COMMISSIONERS MINUTES
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
INDEX
ROLL CALL
12. Disruption caused by construction work along
roadways and by movement of construction vehicles
shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control
equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and
transportation of equipment and materials shall be
conducted in accordance with state and local
requirements. There shall be no construction storage
or. delivery of materials within the MacArthur
Boulevard right-of-way.
13. That bus turnouts be constructed along both the
Birch Street and MacArthur Boulevard frontages
with locations to be approved by the Orange County
Transportation Authority and that appropriate i
easements be dedicated to the City where needed
If bus shelters are provided,they shall be constructed
outside the public right-of-way and be maintained by
the hotel unless otherwise approved by the Traffic
Engineer. That pedestrian access be provided from
the bus stops to the site.
14. That the landscape plans be subject to the review
and approval of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation
Department and the Public Works and Planning
Departments with sight distance provided in
accordance with City Standard No. 110-L
15. That the existing fire service located on Corinthian
Way (near Scott) be adjusted to be flush with the
sidewalk.
16. Prior to the issuance of any building Permit.the
applicant or his successor shall comply with the
provisions of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance(NBMC
Chapter 1S.40).
-22-
ib�
May 7, 1992
COMMISSIONERS MINUTES
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
INDEX
ROLL CALL
TRAFFIC STUDY NQ.M
FINDINGS:
1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which
analyzes the impact of the Proposed project on the
morning and afternoon peak hour traffic and
circulation system in accordance with(3q ter 15,40
of Newport Beach Municipal Code and(Sty Council
Policy S-1.
2. A traffic analysis has been performed a da
The traffic analysis was based on the prof
System and projected traffic volumes one year after
completion of the project or portion of the project
for which the traffic analysis was performed. The
traffic analysis has shown that, at that time, the
additional traffic generated by the project,or portion
of the project,including any approvedtrip generation
reduction measures, will neither cause nor make
worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on any
"major", "primarymodified", or"primary"streets.
CONDMONS:
1. That subsequent development plans shall be
compatible with the land uses evaluated in Traffic
Study No. 78. Ally subsequent development
,proposed deemed by the City,Traffie Engineer to be
outside scope of Traffic Study NO.78 shall be subject
to a new traffic study.
-23-
CITY OF NWORT BEACH
COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES
May 26, 1992 INDEX
ROLL CALL
(b) Award Contract No. 2905 to Boral 91-92 Slry
Resources, Inc. for $148,375 for Seal Prg
1991-92 STREET_ RESURFACING AND C-2905
SLURRY SEAL PROGRAM. [Report from (38)
the Public Works Department)
(c) NEWPORT BEACH CONFERENCE NB Cnf/Vst:
VISITORS BUREAU Service F Bureau Sry
Agreement (extension of Contra t Fee'Agm
No. 2638). [Report from the C ty C-2638
Manager] (38)
4. REQUEST TO
[Report E/FILL PERS NNEEy
VACANCIES: (66)
Manager]
(a) One Maintenance Yorker Field w
Maintenance Division.
(b) One Community Service Officer,
Police Department.
(c) One Police Offi r, Patrol
Division.
5. STAFF AND COMMISSION REP RTS -
For Council informati and approval:
(a) Memo from, Pa s, Beaches and B&R
Recreatiop D ector concerning (62)
GIFT OF ART from noted French
impressionis Pierre d' Albigni,
to be 'trans erred to the City's
permanent a t collection.
(b) Memorand from Personnel Director ersonnel/
with re
endation of the Civil ire Elig
Service card, modifying the CIVIL ists
SERVICE RULES REGARDING FIRE (66)
DEPAR ELIGIBLE LISTS, making
it po ible for the Civil Service
Board to extend the life of these
elig' bIs lists from one year to
two ears.
For C it information and filing:
(c) eport to the City Manager Planning
/ egarding ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE (68)
PLANNING COMMISSION ON MAY 7,
1992.
" 6. C HEARING SCHEDULING - June 8,
19 2:
a) PRELIMINARY BUDGET for Fiscal Year Prelim Bd
1992-93, pursuant to Section 1102 1992-93
of the Newport Beach Charter. (40)
i
(b) CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE Rev/Finn
AND NECESSITY (Application by VIP VIP Taxi
Express Taxi). [Report from the (27)
Revenue Manager/Finance
(c) GENERAL, PLAN AMENDMENT 90-3(A) - GPA 90-3(
'Request-to amen the Land Use
Element of the General Plan so as
to eliminate the additional 119
hotel rooms approved for the
SH ERA TON HOTEL SITE; change the
Volume 46 - Page 186
STY OF NEWPORT BEACH
COUNCIL MUM MINUTES `
;OLL rALL
Xey 26, 1992 INDEX
development entitlement from hotel
S rooms to Retail and Service
Commercial uses; and establish an
allocation of 41,750 square feet
of commercial development for the
proposed General Commercial Site
5 in the Newport Place Planned
Community; and the acceptance of
an Environmental Document; and PCA 745
PLANNING COBHISSION AISBNDNBNT 745
- Request to amend the Newport
Place Planned Community District
Regulations so as to redesignate
the existing Sheraton Hotel site
from Hotel Site lA and 1B to Hotel
Site 1 and General Commercial Site Tfc Stdy 78
5; and TRAFFIC STUDY no. 78 -
Request to approve a traffic study
as to allow the construction of
41,750' square feet of retail
commercial development in the
proposed. General Commercial Site Reaub 980
5; and RESUBDMSION No. 980 -
Reqquest to resubdivide the
\ existing Sheraton Hotel site into
two parcels of land. [Report from
the Planning Department]
7. NONSTANDARD INMVEMMS IN THE CITY Utilities/ I
SEVER EASEID3HP AT 1831 LINOS ROAD - 1831 Kings
Approve subject agreement for Rd NStd
maintenance and replacement Imprvms
responsibility; substitute easement, (89)
record with the Orange County Recorder,
1 nd approve vacation of a portion of the
C ty'a sewer easement after recordation
of the substitute easement. [Report
\ fro the Utilities Department]
8. BONS ARD imovEmms IN THE CITY Utilities/
SEWER MamT AT 1901 LINGS ROAD - 1901 Kings
Approve subject agreement for Rd NStd
mainten ce and replacement Im rvms
iesponsibi ty; substitute easement over (89)
• portion o the property; record with
the Orange Cc ty Recorder; and approve
vacation of a portion of the City's
sewer easement ter recordation of the
substitute easem t, [Report from the
Utilities Departma t]
9. GRADING & DENOLTTION ORL/NEWPORT BEACH Utilities
UTILITIES YARD SZP SIGN, PHASE I, Yard Ekpns
CONTRACT NO. 2679(A) - ccept the work; PH I
and authorize the City ark to file a C-2879(A)
Notice of Completion an release the (38)
bonds 35 % days after th Notice of
ti. Completion has been r orded in
accordance with the Califo is Civil
Code. [Report from the tilities
Department]
10. 1990-91 SEWER MAIN REPIACMUM 1990-91
(C-2831) - Accept the work; auth ize Swr Mn Rpl
the city . Clerk, to file a Notice of Prg
Completion and release the bonds 35 da s C-2831
after_the Notice of Completion has bee (38)
recorded -in acdordance'witlti appiinable- — -
portions of the Civil Code. [Report from
the Public Works Department]
volume 46 - Page 187
• City CouncilWeting May 26, 1992
Agenda Item No. F-
CITY OF NE"ORT BEACH
TO: City Council
�
FROM: Planning Departmen6*
SUBJECT: A. General Plan Amendment No. 90-3(Al
i
Request to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan so as
to eliminate the additional 119 hotel rooms approved for the Sheraton
Hotel site; change the development entitlement from hotel rooms to
Retail and Service Commercial uses; and establish an allocation of
41,750 square feet of commercial development for the proposed
General Commercial Site 5 in the Newport Place Planned Community;
and the acceptance of an environmental document.
INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach
AND
B. Amendment No. 745
Request to amend the Newport Place Planned Community District
Regulations so as to redesignate the existing Sheraton Hotel site from
Hotel Site 1A and 1B to Hotel Site 1 and General Commercial Site 5;
reduce the hotel room entitlement on Hotel Site 1 by 119 rooms and
establish a development entitlement of 41,750'square feet of general
commercial development within the proposed General Commercial
Site 5; and the addition of development provisions which establish a
height limit of 50 feet within General Commercial Site 5 and the
requirement for reciprocal ingress, egress and parking between Hotel
Site 1 and General Commercial Site 5.
AND
C. Traffic Study No. 78
Request to approve a Traffic Study so as to allow the construction of
41,750 square feet of retail commercial development in the proposed
General Commercial Site 5 located in the Newport Place Planned
Community.
AND
TO: City *ncil - 2.
D. Resubdivision No. 980
Request to resubdivide the existing Sheraton Hotel site into two
parcels of land; one parcel to be used for,the existing hotel purposes
and the other parcel for future commercial development:
APPLICANT. Larken, Inc., Cedar Rapids, Iowa �
Applications
The proposed applications,if approved,would provide an entitlement for a maximum 41,750
square feet of commercial development on a 2.4-acre parcel of land on the northwest corner
of MacArthur Boulevard and Corinthian Way. The requests include an amendment to the
Land Use Element of the General Plan to redesignate the approved 119 room addition to
the existing Sheraton Hotel for Retail and Service Commercial use other than hotel; to
resubdivide a single parcel of land into two parcels, one to contain the existing Sheraton
Hotel operation and the other to be used for future commercial development herein
referred to as "Site 5"; to amend the Newport Place Planned Community District'
Regulations as to reclassify Site 5 from Hotel Use to General Commercial land uses and'
adopt development standards for General Commercial on Site 5; and,finally, to approve a
Traffic Study incompliance with the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance.
SuSu ¢est�n
It desired, set the above items for public hearing on June 8, 1992.
BackgMund
At its meeting of May 7, 1992, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and adopted
resolutions recommending City Council approval of the staffs reduced intensity alternative
to the applicant's proposal. Copies of the Planning Commission staff report,resolutions and
minutes will be forwarded prior to the time of the City Council Hearing.
I
Respectfully submitted,
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
JAMES D: HEWICKER, Director
By:
Aziz M. Aslami
Associate Planner F.\...\GPA\GPA903A\S-RnPORT.CC1
T'1..�,`„ ,S'• ' al V Y .per .' y, '' t Yam ,.S4•F,i',
,K„�.:a , 'w;`�=,t� 1.X s, ✓ 'i.- �`Mr. •ni,Y� P,, 7^4-```f'.x 7, •' '!':l' ';. �nS'
("; ° ..i ^Y,• ,. • '�.�5;, ��, 5, • V. :. , 'r'13- ^'`f+1��.;i „ '.' Hr.,wy�ri'i
,ry a,yF,r.,{:,.� r. . d1�71r:,Fy1,..� '" �•it;id.^y.�i y�'d ;,a2 s,,P, �'l.j''J164,C+•'j ',
��
` x raffic-: Plias�rig,. Ordtircanc.e,' and',;,- y':...r "''t
„t�fk '.�;:'4• '`,�-'� "iF . d. „ .,� x a.r; =F,- a v'= i '°r;''.0.,+'M``1'."S
G,en,e'ral '' Plan Trafftic `._S•t ryryd r_',l',r
�''�•:,�• :}S' - a ,. - •.a� * .. �' •Y,' '. 1� :_�rf5(d-� S.r;,', tr",+>:�4 �" i
for The
tRA '
I N•�+ :. IO�./l'�pf7/(''��' l/'ll���yy/T ME
-'''f4
- �O-/'7
IT
CENTER ., � r� g..
r �r .S•
In The rrv#,aYM1, ^ ,��r�,,tj+.��;';y,:b^'r ,y'bielytrrnny'ry•1J.iu, ,' r
(�1yy '?k,�•,'�y �.'A ,, '''� ,�� r„n "i. ,'F,rn.l.,� ijp,, Ail..,e'u 1W,�� �'r'+14,'`M+':'" �• ^
C Lr^ " ' .. 1'�, u W�,R ,�{•, Nd�it r�NC.k 1'pL��y�`C
'i�l[r'i'?✓'1YY�:. '.` .., . ., • ' .• , n\ a,, r.. .., y.A' 4'"•ar�"n. P'aIMCL�og r
try ' o;fs Newpoq ,eac,
'=+i b'
iPf _ - r,'pr;` - A'•f', r ;L .iv-" .ga'�,K �`1��'.\" tom
+'t.,{•�r`r. •l .,;r �4�„j�., y'.1F.d ya 'F•'f� +Y+
�l:��"- 'S�l ` ' _ � > r.'-,.•�ita'r`l L`.�r��t't��*'''����Eg.,$Rr
x4 Presented To The:
Ila
47 :tl- •'hs' i GD� .
f, h•rd'vSry _ ✓_ q '; 7 'L"y �•
f/ h�;,,-i '°• e ,lj,Y't„{f.,L�t•'q r,,, ,�ry '/r
v4.k y 'Ix ;, ,�!•, r ",I' t1b. ,1 +"N �'N ,.Y �q' •�','.q"rt}`�` '
L'pg�f'.- i,„� J � '� J¢.;�' :,fir �. \•p�'1•�Fj�.�
-'44v
�F:
'y'"a','. 'r';'.e't.' � Y V ',;n~:° r •4,• ',1 tsP7.'+w,
-'$�,.,d ',' .: .ri.A, ,�.. - " � . , •�i .I ,% .. .0 a• 5„ s
iY'1S�' �\°S+ '��''�' ,;'S" a I' :+�., :[E. •aAyr '4 *�^<%4 ,.Mf�%,'-,w.g{,r,F�fp`� 1
, •, ,� r y r "�;jJyr }.h:'�
- r .'"' �:'Ir1'"�"w.n,F`i'`''i� i1t� �• i
'�">r�R'� � - - � .i}• ,i'y,[ e� l• .� - %`Y'9\.4, at',�i':'�,rti::n,,�Fr�'yyy1111.��;3��Jg
( n;, Prepared 8 y., 'W1,°%'�t� 'v,X.r •Sd ,ll, ld• y
r " IrncaE'
L:j xriN`1i +4` ',6. :k' L'P,. . .'r•'r,:;..x x„ " 'n^ Aj. n'H'' 'w .l�',;'.�i..iW`v'fAw wwt
err, y n* q 'Y"%�. ,k, - ' , . 4 r .4.•
1 Rock E. Miller & Associates
Traffic & Transportation Engineers
April 14, 1992
Mr. Aziz M. Aslami
• Associate Planner
' City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, Ca 92659-1768
Subject: Traffic Phasing Ordinance and General Plan Amendment
Traffic Study for a Commercial Development at MacArthur
Blvd and Corinthian Way
' Dear Mr. Aslami:
In accordance with your authorization, Rock E. Miller and
Associates has completed the subject study for a proposed
commercial development located on the property of the existing
' Sheraton Hotel in the City of Newport Beach. The report was
prepared according to the guidelines of the Traffic Engineering
staff at the City.
Please contact me as soon as possible if you have any questions
about the report, or if you need additional information. It has
been a pleasure to prepare this report for the City of Newport
' Beach.
• Sincerely,
Rock E. Miller, P.E.
Principal
' Sheraton.stu\91059
17852 East Seventeenth Street, Suite 107, Tustin, CA 92680
1 FAX(714)573-9534 TEL. (714)573-0317
1
' Traffic Phasing Ordinance and
General Plan Amendment Study for
' a Commercial Development
at MacArthur Blvd and Corinthian Way
in the City of Newport Beach
Prepared for
' City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92390
(714) 644-3344
Prepared by
Rock E. Miller and Associates
17852 East 17th Street, #107
Tustin, CA 92680
(714) 573-0317
1
' TABLE OF CONTENTS
' PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1
TRIP GENERATION 5
TRIP DISTRIBUTION 8
' TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 13
INTERSECTION ANALYSIS 25
' MITIGATION 31
SITE ANALYSIS 34
SUMMARY 34
1
i
i --
' LIST OF FIGURES
' Figure Title Paae
1 VICINITY MAP 3
2 SITE PLAN 4
3 PROJECT INBOUND TRIP DISTRIBUTION 9
' 4 PROJECT OUTBOUND TRIP DISTRIBUTION 10
5 PROJECT PEAK 2 1/2 HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 11
6 PROJECT PEAK ONE HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 12
7 119-ROOM HOTEL EXPANSION PEAK HOUR
TRAFFIC VOLUMES 19
' 8 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PEAK HOUR
TRAFFIC INCREASES 20
9 119-ROOM HOTEL EXPANSION & PROPOSED
PROJECT DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES 25
10 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT WITHOUT/WITH
' PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES & V/C RATIO 26
1
a
1 LIST OF TABLES
' Number Descrintion Page
1 LAND USE ALTERNATIVES MIXTURES 2
2 TRIP GENERATION RATES 6
' 3 PROJECT-RELATED TRIP SUMMARY 7
4 ONE PERCENT TEST SUMMARY - TRAFFIC
' PHASING ORDINANCE 15
5 TRAFFIC GENERATION SUMMARY - FOR
119 ROOM HOTEL EXPANSION 18
6 ONE PERCENT TEST SUMMARY - GENERAL
PLAN AMENDMENT 21
' 7 TRAFFIC LEVELS OF SERVICE 24
8 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION -
TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE 28
9 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION -
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 29
10 EFFECT OF MITIGATION - YEAR 2010 ICU'S 32
I�
1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The City of Newport Beach has received an application to amend the
' City's General Plan to allow for construction of a commercial
project on a 2 .45 acre parcel located northwest of the intersection
of MacArthur Boulevard and Corinthian Way. The parcel would be
formed from surplus lands adjoining the existing Sheraton Hotel
near the John Wayne Airport. The site would be developed with a
mixture of office, retail and restaurant uses and would occupy as
much as 41, 750 square feet of leasable space.
' The project would be located on the northwest corner of the
intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Corinthian Way. MacArthur
Boulevard will form the east boundary for the proposed project.
' Corinthian Way will border the site on the south. The remainder of
the Sheraton parcel will bound the parcel on the north and west.
The project is expected to have full access, including left turns
onto Corinthian Way. Direct access to MacArthur Boulevard would be
prohibited.
' The land for the proposed site is currently used as excess parking
for the hotel. The exact combination and mixture of proposed land
uses is not certain at this time. Ranges of potential uses have
been suggested by the property owner, including offices, retail
shops, "in-line" restaurants, and free standing fast food
restaurants. Seven potential land use alternatives were provided
by the property owner and are indicated in Table 1.
' The existing City General Plan, Land Use Element, designates the
proposed parcel for hotel uses, and a 119 room expansion of the
Sheraton Hotel was previously approved for the site. An amendment
to the City's General Plan will be required to eliminate the
proposed expansion and allow for the proposed project.
' The location of the proposed project and the local and regional
circulation system are shown in Figure 1. A site plan showing the
configuration for the proposed parcel is shown on Figure 2. There
' is no specific site plan available for the proposed project.
1 -
iTable 1
tLAND USE ALTERNATIVE MIXTURES
Retail/ In Line
Scenario Commercial Office Restaurant Fast Food
#1 70% 10% 5% 15%
' #2 65% 10% 10% 15%
#3 60% 10% 10% 20%
#4 55% 15% 10% 20%
' #5 50% 50% 0% 0%
#6 60% 30% 5% 5%
#7 85% 0% 10% 5%
1
2
i� -
1 b
John Wayne
' Airport
Orange County a
P,
o�
' PROJECT Oo�p4S Jo�
SITE
ch
�o�QJS Oo e oth;an Woy
`sf
oa
�o
of
Jm e��sf0/
S
' 73
North
No Scale
1
FIGURE
c� IEA�i Vlcin.i tyy M p 1
Rock E. Miller & Associates
1
i
GX
�'+','� �i pray. ,✓• �•'. .n.*-.u.
., / ✓+' • +� �\ W. •�✓� I' fit,'/f+i3i
t I �
PROPOSED SrrE
41
FIGURE
i��FP /E Site Plan 2
Rock E. Miller & Associates
V�'
TRIP GENERATION
1 Project related traffic consists of vehicle trips on the study area
street system which will begin or end at the project site, as a
_ result of the development of the proposed project. All or part of
' these trips will result in traffic increases on the streets where
they occur. Project related traffic is a function of the extent
and type of land use proposed for the site. This information is
used to establish trip generation for the site.
Trip generation characteristics for typically occurring land uses
are normally based on rates published in Trip Generation, a report
published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) . This
manual indicates the probable traffic generation rates for various
land uses based upon studies of existing developments in comparable
' settings. The City of Newport Beach has published a list of
generation rates for use in traffic studies within the City. These
rates are slightly different than the ITE rates, and are based in
part upon studies of existing developments in Newport Beach. The
City list includes rates for offices, specialty retail, and for
restaurants with characteristics similar to the in-line restaurant.
The City guidelines do not include an appropriate trip generation
' rate for fast food restaurants, so the rates in the Trip Generation
report (5th Edition) for fast food without drive-through window
were utilized.
The Trip Generation report indicates a relatively high rate for
fast food restaurants, as compared with other land uses. The
manual also indicates that a high percentage of trips associated
' with this use are "pass-by" trips. These pass-by trips are already
occurring on the area street system and are attracted into the
restaurant. The City of Newport Beach recognizes that pass-by
trips constitute as much as 30% of traffic associated with fast
food uses. Pass-by trips must be analyzed in detail at site access
points, however they do not result in traffic increases at
locations remote from the site. This study accounts for pass-by
' trips by utilizing a generation rate for fast food which is 30%
lower than the rate indicated in the Trip Generation report.
Table 2 summarizes the traffic generation rates utilized for ' the
project, including rates for fast food with and without pass-by
traffic. Table 3 presents the various project alternatives and the
forecasted weekday traffic, plus the peak hour and the peak two-
and-one-half-hour traffic levels to be generated by the project.
This table excludes pass-by traffic, and thus indicates only new
traffic related to the project.
' Each project alternative has different traffic generation charac-
teristics, and a wide range of traffic volumes are represented
among the project alternatives. The alterative with the highest
I� potential traffic generation must be analyzed, if the requirements
of the City's traffic phasing ordinance are to met for any of the
5 .
I�
potential alternative land use compositions for the project. The
analysis thus represents a "worst-case" scenario, and traffic
impacts for the site could be reduced, if an alternative having
lower traffic generation was selected.
' Table 3 indicates that Alternative 4 will have the highest peak 2
1/2 hour generation in the morning, while Alternative 3 will have
the highest generation in the evening. It should be noted that the
other alternatives generate up to 80% less traffic than the
alternatives with the highest traffic generation.
' Table 2
TRIP GENERATION RATES
' Daily and Peak 2 1/2 Hour
Daily AM Peak PM Peak
Land Use Traffic IN OUT IN OUT
' Office 13 3.8 0. 6 1.2 3.4
General Retail 45 1.20 1. 00 3 .80 4 .00
Fast-Food Restaurant 786.2 44. 0 32.0 44.8 39.8
Without Pass-by 550.4 30.8 22.4 31.4 27.9
Quality Restaurant 96.5 1. 6 0.2 10.8 4.6
' TRIP GENERATION RATES
Peak Hour
AM Peak PM Peak
Land Use IN OUT IN OUT
Office 1.9 0.3 0. 6 1.7
General Retail 0.6 0.5 1.9 2.0
' Fast-Food Restaurant 22.0 16.0 22.4 19.9
Without Pass-by 15.4 11.2 15.7 13.9
Quality Restaurant 0.8 0.1 5.4 2.3
Note: All generation rates are trips per 1000 sf of building
area. Fast food restaurant is for no drive-through
' window, and the deduction of 30% for pass-by traffic is
indicated.
6
II� _
' Table 3
PROJECT-RELATED TRIP SUMMARY
one Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour
Hour Generation Peak Hour Generation
Floor Daily AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak
' Land Use Area Traffic IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT
Alternative 1 - 70% R, 1O% 0, 5% IR, 15% FF
Retail 29.225 1315 18 15 56 58 35 29 111 117
Gen Office 4.175 127 8 1 3 7 16 3 5 14
Restaurant 2.088 201 2 0 11 5 3 0 23 10
Fast Food 6.263 3447 96 70 98 87 193 140 196 174
TOTAL 41.750 5,090 124 86 168 158 247 172 335 315
' Alternative 2 - 65% R, 10% 0, 10% IR, 15% FF
• Retail 27.138 1221 16 14 52 54 33 27 103 109
Gen office 4.175 127 8 1 3 7 16 3 5 14
' Restaurant 4.175 403 3 0 23 10 7 1 45 19
Fast Food 6.263 3447 96 70 98 87 193 140 196 174
TOTAL 41.750 5,197 124 85 175 158 248 171 350 316
Alternative 3 - 60% R, 10% 0, 10% IR, 20% FF
Retail 25.050 1127 15 13 48 50 30 25 95 100
Gen Office 4.175 127 8 1 3 7 16 3 5 14
Restaurant 4.175 403 3 0 23 10 7 1 45 19
' Fast Food 8.350 4595 129 94 131 116 257 187 262 233
TOTAL 41.750 6,252 155 108 204 183 310 215 407 366
Alternative 4 - 55% R, 15% 0, 10% IR, 20% FF
Retail 22.963 1033 14 11 44 46 28 23 87 92
Gen Office 6.263 172 12 2 4 11 24 4 8 21
Restaurant 4.175 403 3 0 23 10 7 1 45 19
Fast Food 8.350 4595 129 94 131 116 257 187 262 233 ,
' TOTAL 41.750 6,203 158 107 201 182 315 215 402 365
Alternative 5 - 50% R, 50% 0
Retail 20.875 939 13 10 40 42 25 21 79 84
Gen Office 20.875 424 40 6 13 35 79 13 25 71
Restaurant 0.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fast Food 0.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 41.750 1,363 52 17 52 77 104 33 104 154
' Alternative 6 - 60% R, 30% 0, 5% IR, 5% FF
Retail 25.050 1127 • 15 13 48 50 30 25 95 100
' Gen Office 12.525 289 24 4 8 21 48 8 15 43
Restaurant 2.088 201 2 0 11 5 3 0 23 10
Fast Food 2.088 1149 32 23 33 29 64 47 65 58
TOTAL 41.750 2,766 73 40 99 105 145 80 198 211
Alternative 7 - 85% R, 10% IR, 5% FF
Retail 35.488' 1597 21 18 67 71 43 35 135 142
Gen Office 4.175 127 8 1 3 7 16 3 5 14
Restaurant 0.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fast Food 2.088 1149 32 23 33 29 64 47 65 58
TOTAL 41.750 2,873 61 42 103 107 123 85 205 214
Note: R = Retail, 0 = Office, IR = In Line (Quality) Restaurant, FF = Fast Food ;
t
7
TRIP DISTRIBUTION
Trip distribution is the process of identifying the probable
destinations, directions, or traffic routes which will be utilized
' by project traffic. The potential interaction between the proposed
land use and surrounding residential areas, employment oppor-
tunities, services, and regional access routes are considered to
identify the routes where the project traffic will distribute.
The anticipated trip distribution characteristics for project
inbound traffic is presented on Figure 3. The distribution of
' traffic on approaches to the site is in direct proportion to
existing traffic volumes on MacArthur Boulevard and on Birch
Street. This traffic is distributed to logical and direct approach
routes at intersections remote from the site. The outbound traffic
' distribution is slightly different than the inbound distribution
due to turn restrictions, access restrictions and other factors.
Left turns are currently prohibited from Corinthian Way onto Mac-
Arthur Boulevard. The outbound distribution is shown on Figure 4.
The volume of project related traffic on streets in the study area
' is determined by considering the traffic generation for the
appropriate alternative and the distribution pattern. Figure 5
indicates forecasts of additional vehicular traffic on roadways in
the study area for the peak weekday morning and evening 2 1/2 hour
study periods. The morning volumes are indicated for Alternative
4, while the evening volumes are for Alternative 3 . Both of these
alternatives include 20% Fast Food and 10% In-line restaurant.
Alternative 3 contains 60% retail and 10% office. Alternative 4
contains 5% less retail and 5% more office than Alternative 3.
Figure 6 indicates project related traffic for the morning and
evening peak one-hour period. Again, these volumes are for
Alternative 3 and Alternative 4, respectively.
•
8
I� _
1
a
1
' John Wayne i
Airport a
Orange County
a Pam
j sX oc
PROJECT �o�s Job
SITE
' 13% ~sT
\a o0 100x j �Sx S'fr tt
wo Qef h
QJ Q �BX1 1 .i
oc� � ore
Dq' � OCO
er/Sto/
°� mk a3� Sf N�
• S Alb er�s�o/ 73 J u
st ,yM
North
No Scale
Leaend
t
1r 009 = Trip Distribution 15% t
' Proposed Project FIGURE
Inbound 3
Rock E. Wier & Aesoclotes /(
v Trip Distribution
1
m
John Wayne
' Airport
Orange County
�e
P.
o�
0
PROJECT
SITE CQ�A4s ,Qc�c
b �e
p)�
Off: 'B-t 100x Sf�e eke^
of
fie o�oo
¢,
Sao/S
�tac�o B�1 NJ
P Sf o/
S� 73
' North
No Scale
legend h
i
r 00% - Trip Distribution
II ,
Proposed Project FIGURE
Outbound 4
Rock E Miller do Associates
' Trip Distribution
1
I
John Wayne u
' Airport �
Orange County
ae
rs/zo
g o SQ�oG Ja°�
' PROJECT
• SITE
Corinthian 40153 ~�s
>379/136 Sthee� ry ^•.�^0��9/�
56
�(^Q 79/135
ryy�roti zs�..'/^ y ova
1172
\ nn
of _
ear er70 J^?
• i�'� �S 73 a
CZ
North
Legend No Scale
' r 00%0 = AM/PM Traffic Volumes 4�/5,
for 2 1/2 Hours f
Note: AM traffic volumes are based 69/90
on Alt. 4 and PM traffic is based
on Alt. 3.
' Projeot FIGURE
HI2 FAA Peak 2 112 Hour 5-
Rack E. Miller & Associates
Traffic Volumes
a
1
w
John Wayne
' Airport
Orange County
j 8/ra
M o Comp Jo0
PROJECT OS o
SITE \�
Corinthian zti26 9
Way,,, 19f13� . irch 6 a\'h �rlL k
\\ /.9 a ��
°;"?"' sa
40%1 �JSu
Cb ro g
15
i St
1 of S� 73
ro North
Leciend w No Scale
r0a100 = AM/PM Traffic Volumes
for One Hour 24/31 t
Note; AM traffic volumes are based 34/45
on Alt. 4 and PM traffic is based
on Alt. 3.
Project FIGURE
Peak One Hour 6
Rock E M11er & Associates •
P'raffic Volumes
' TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
The locations of potential traffic impact for the proposed project
are identified by determining the percentage of traffic increase
attributed to the project on roadways and intersections in the
' vicinity. If the proposed project will cause a 1% increase in the
peak two-and-one-half hour traffic volume on any approach to an
intersection where traffic conditions are considered significant,
then that intersection must be studied in depth to identify any
traffic impact or any need for mitigation.
Traffic Phasing ordinance
For the traffic phasing ordinance, the one percent test above is
based upon predictions of near-term future traffic levels at the
appropriate intersections. These forecasts include considerations
' for existing traffic volumes, annual regional traffic growth,
traffic diverted onto committed new highway facilities, and traffic
expected from committed development projects which have not been
fully constructed or occupied.
Existing traffic volumes at all 'significant intersections are
' maintained and published annually by the City. The City also
maintains a list indicating all projects which have been approved
in the City, but not fully constructed, and traffic volumes
associated with all of these projects. A list of traffic growth
factors for all significant arterial streets in the City is also
published. These were furnished to Rock E. Miller and Associates
for this study.
The one-percent test was applied to the following intersections, in
consultation with the City regarding the potential area of impact
for the project. The intersections studied are:
MacArthur Boulevard at Campus Drive
MacArthur Boulevard at Birch Street
' MacArthur Boulevard at Jamboree Road
Jamboree Road at Campus Drive
Jamboree Road at Bristol Street North
' Jamboree Road at Bristol Street South
Bristol Street North at Campus Drive
Bristol Street South at Campus Drive/Irvine Avenue
Traffic conditions for. these intersections were forecast for three
years into the future, one year after the anticipated opening of
the project.
' The committed future traffic volumes for each intersection were
compared with the forecasted level of traffic associated with the
project from Figure 5. The proposed project would not have a
significant traffic impact at locations where the ratio of project
traffic to forecasted future traffic is less than one-percent. If
' 13
' this ratio is above one-percent, there is a potential for traffic
impact and further analysis will be necessary.
' Table 4 summarizes the one-percent forecasts for each of the
intersections. The proposed project will have a 1% impact at many
' of the study area locations, either during the PM peak period or
during both peak periods. Completed forms for full evaluation of
the one percent test at all locations appear in the report
appendix.
The 1% test was met at several location and time periods by a small
amount. If a lower traffic generation alternative was selected,
' the number of locations with significant impact would be reduced.
y
1
' 14
tTable 4
1 ONE PERCENT TEST SUMMARY
Traffic Phasing Ordinance
' 1% of Peak
2 1/2 Hour Project Signi-
Intersection/ (Period) Volume Volume ficant
MacArthur/Campus (AM)
Northbound 22 62 Yes
' Southbound 39 91 Yes
Eastbound 32 0 No
Westbound 11 15 Yes
' MacArthur/Campus (PM)
Northbound 34 106 Yes
Southbound 44 118 Yes
Eastbound 22 0 No
Westbound 30 20 No
' MacArthur/Birch (AM)
Northbound 19 0 No
Southbound 31 106 Yes
Eastbound 16 101 Yes
Westbound 8 40 Yes
MacArthur/Birch (PM)
' Northbound 25 0 No
Southbound 27 138 Yes
Eastbound 16 172 Yes
Westbound 20 53 Yes
MacArthur/Jamboree (AM)
Northbound 36 69 Yes
Southbound 30 79 Yes
Eastbound 21 47 Yes
Westbound 34 0 No
' MacArthur/Jamboree (PM)
Northbound 22 90 Yes
Southbound 38 136 Yes
Eastbound 27 61 Yes
Westbound 43 0 No
' Jamboree/Campus (AM)
Northbound 34 17 No
Southbound 57 15 No
Eastbound 11 0 No
Westbound 27 9 No
' 15
Table 4 (Cont)
iONE PERCENT TEST SUMMARY
Traffic Phasing Ordinance
' 1% of Peak
2 1/2 Hour Project Signi-
Intersection/ (Period) Volume Volume ficant
Jamboree/Campus (PM)
Northbound 55 29 No
Southbound 42 20 No
' Eastbound 23 0 No
Westbound 14 12 No
Jamboree/Bristol N (AM)
Northbound 104 47 No
Southbound 25 32 Yes
Eastbound 0 0 No
' Westbound 0 0 No
Jamboree/Bristol N (PM)
Northbound 83 61 No
Southbound 50 55 Yes
Eastbound 0 0 No
Westbound 0 0 No
' Jamboree/Bristol S (AM)
Northbound 65 47 No
Southbound 17 32 Yes
Eastbound 76 0 No
Westbound 0 0 No
' Jamboree/Bristol S (PM)
Northbound 65 61 No
�. Southbound 29 55 Yes
Eastbound 72 0 No
Westbound 0 0 No
Bristol N/Campus (AM)
Northbound 48 25 No
Southbound 12 17 Yes
Eastbound 0 0 No
' Westbound 29 17 No
' 16
' Table 4 (Cont)
i ONE PERCENT TEST SUMMARY
Traffic Phasing Ordinance
1% of Peak
2 1/2 Hour Project Signi-
intersection/ (Period) Volume Volume ficant
Bristol N/Campus (PM)
Northbound 32 33 Yes
Southbound 41 29 No
Eastbound 0 0 No
Westbound 76 29 No
' Bristol/Campus-Iry (AM)
Northbound 48 25 No
Southbound 16 17 Yes
Eastbound 77 25 No
Westbound 1 0 No
' Bristol/Campus-Iry (PM)
Northbound 31 33 Yes
Southbound 36 29 No
Eastbound 76 33 No
Westbound 1 0 No
Notes: Project impact may be significant if project volume is
greater than 1% of peak hour volume.
1
' 17
' General Plan Amendment
i For the General Plan Amendment, the one percent test above is based
upon predictions of future traffic levels at the appropriate
intersections for the horizon planning year. The City of Newport
Beach is currently using the year 2010 for these forecasts. Year
2010 forecasts are obtained from Traffic Model studies of land use
and circulation facilities throughout the City prepared for the
City by Austin-Foust Associates of Santa Ana, California. These
studies presume development of all land uses and local and regional
circulation facilities indicated on the City General Plan.
Future peak hour traffic volumes at all significant intersections
in the City were obtained from the Newport Beach Circulation
Improvement and Open Space Agreement Traffic Study for the
condition 112010 (with Project) ". These studies include a 119 room
' expansion for the Sheraton Hotel on the study site. Traffic
associated with this expansion must be properly treated in this
study. Table 5 indicates the traffic volumes associated with this
hotel expansion.
Table 5
TRAFFIC GENERATION SUMMARY
' For 119 Room Hotel Expansion
Daily AM Peak PM Peak
Land Use Traffic IN OUT IN OUT
Trip Generation/ Room 10.5 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.4
Trips for 119 Rooms 1250 71 36 48 48
Figure 7 shows the distribution of peak hour traffic for this hotel
expansion. These hourly volumes must be deducted from the traffic
levels for the peak hours associated with the proposed project
previously indicated on Figure 6. Figure 8 indicates the hourly
traffic increases compared with the existing General Plan for
construction of the proposed project and elimination of the hotel
expansion.
The one-percent test was applied to the same list of intersections
' for the 2010 analysis. The 2010 hourly traffic volumes for each
intersection were compared with the forecasted level of traffic
associated with the project general plan amendment.
Table 5 summarizes the one-percent forecasts for each of the
intersections for the general plan amendment. The proposed general
' plan amendment will have a 1% impact at many of the locations
either during the PM peak period or during both peak periods.
Completed forms for full evaluation of the one percent test for the
general plan amendment also appear in the report appendix. ;
' 18
II�
' b
m
1 w
John Wayne 3C
Airport
Orange County
N °c
PROJECT �s
SITE /6\"
' Corinthian 1016 / '2
Way. o��' eir h M\" 0
Q 13 I8
0/0
O�Q / 13/18
ti
6\c' S-Ir i °a
If
6\�
t
e\" ''rQj
73
North
Legend No Scale
r 00/00 = AM/PM Traffic Volumes +t1r
16/10
119—Room Hotel Expansion FIGURE
Peak Hour
7
Rock E. Miller k Associates
Traffic Volumes
1•
b
1 �
John Wayne
' Airport
Orange County
1 s/e hoc
1 \ ICECQ�p �Qo
PROJECT M �s try
SITE
' Corinthian i1/20
,h
way"" y�211�39,,.. Joh ^^ry a�
"\
JOB %ry��ry �2 27/� `rtr19e y y�y�"•.
O� J 27 49.1 m O", u
ti
a 1 �
J
Q �0/s� 73
North
Legend ry No Scale
fi00/00 = AM/PM Traffic Volumes t +
' 18/24
19/35
General Plan Amendment FIGURE
HAP IE Peak Hour 8
Rock E. Miller k Associates
Traffic Increases
1.
' Table 6
i ONE PERCENT TEST SUMMARY
General Plan Amendment
1% of Peak
Hour Project Signi-
Intersection/ (Period) Volume Volume ficant
MacArthur/Campus (AM)
Northbound 19 21 Yes
' Southbound 16 21 Yes
Eastbound 23 0 No
Westbound 7 4 No
' MacArthur/Campus (PM)
Northbound 19 43 Yes
Southbound 24 39 Yes
Eastbound 14 0 No
Westbound 20 8 No
' MacArthur/Birch (AM)
Northbound 17 0 No
Southbound 15 21 Yes
Eastbound 9 33 Yes
Westbound 4 11 Yes
MacArthur/Birch (PM)
Northbound 11 0 No
Southbound 18 43 Yes
Eastbound 7 53 Yes
Westbound 11 20 Yes
MacArthur/Jamboree (AM)
Northbound 14 19 Yes
' Southbound 7 27 Yes
Eastbound 29 18 No
Westbound 12 0 No
MacArthur/Jamboree (PM)
Northbound 13 35 Yes
Southbound 26 49 Yes
Eastbound 15 24 Yes
Westbound 21 0 No
' Jamboree/Campus (AM)
Northbound 16 6 No
Southbound 22 5 No
Eastbound 4 0 No
Westbound 14 3 No
21
Table 6 (Cont)
' ONE PERCENT TEST SUMMARY
General Plan Amendment
' 1% of Peak
2 1/2 Hour Project Signi-
Intersection/ (Period) Volume Volume ficant
Jamboree/Campus (PM)
' Northbound 24 11 No
Southbound 21 8 No
Eastbound 15 0 No
Westbound it 5 No
Jamboree/Bristol N (AM)
Northbound 40 18 No
Southbound 9 11 Yes
Eastbound 0 0 No
Westbound 17 0 No
' Jamboree/Bristol N (PM)
Northbound 35 24 No
Southbound 26 20 No
Eastbound 0 0 No
Westbound 13 0 No
1 Jamboree/Bristol S (AM)
Northbound 24 18 No
Southbound 8 11 Yes
Eastbound 26 0 No
Westbound 0 0 No
Jamboree/Bristol S (PM)
' Northbound• 11 24 Yes
Southbound 17 20 Yes
Eastbound 27 0 No
Westbound 0 0 No
Bristol N/Campus (AM)
Northbound 29 7 No
Southbound 13 6 No
Eastbound 0 0 No
Westbound 23 6 No
22
i -
Table 6 (Cont)
1 ONE PERCENT TEST SUMMARY
General Plan Amendment
' 1% of Peak
2 1/2 Hour Project Signi-
Intersectionf (Period) Volume Volume ficant
Bristol N/Campus (PM)
' Northbound 17 12 No
Southbound 26 it No
♦ Eastbound 0 0 No
' Westbound 45 11 No
Bristol/Campus-Iry (AM)
Northbound 16 7 No
Southbound 10 6 No
Eastbound 47 7 No
Westbound 0 0 No
' Bristol/Campus-Iry (PM)
Northbound 17 12 No
Southbound 23 11 No
Eastbound 39 12 No
Westbound 0 0 No
' Notes: Project impact may be significant if project volume is
greater than 1% of peak hour volume.
' 23
General Plan Amendment -- Daily Traffic Analysis
In addition to the peak hour traffic analysis, the General Plan
Amendment must analyze the impact of the project approval upon
' forecasts of future daily traffic increases on streets in the study
area. If project related volumes will result in traffic increases
beyond the daily capacity of streets, additional mitigation may be
required.
rDaily traffic increases are determined by utilizing current general
plan traffic forecasts obtained from the Newport Beach circulation
Improvement and Open Space Study Agreement Traffic Study, the same
source utilized for the peak hour analyses. Traffic associated
with the 119-room Sheraton expansion must be deducted from these
volumes, while traffic for the proposed project must be included in
' these forecasts.
Figure 9 indicates the daily traffic forecast associated with the
' Sheraton expansion, and the additional daily traffic related to the
proposed project. Figure 10 shows the daily traffic forecasts in
the previously completed study and the revised forecasts associated
' with the proposed project for locations where an increase of 500 or
more daily vehicles is indicated.
Figure 10 also indicates the ratio of volume to capacity for the
' roadways shown. If this ratio exceeds 0.90, then it may be
necessary to investigate mitigation. None of the locations will
result in conditions where daily traffic volume is forecast to
' exceed capacity. Figure 10 presumes daily capacities as follows:
Six-lane Divided Highway 56,300
' Four-lane Divided Highway 37,500
Four-lane Undivided Highway 25, 000
These capacities are based upon studies completed by the City in
' the past.
Ii t
III
' 24
i,
INTERSECTION ANALYSES
1 Evaluations of traffic conditions at intersections in Newport Beach
are made using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method
' of traffic analysis. The ICU analysis measures the ratio between
traffic volume and intersection traffic capacity for a given
intersection geometry. This essentially indicates of how close the
intersection will be to its traffic-carrying capacity.
The ICU allows for the determination of the operating Level of
Service (LOS) at the intersection. Level of Service is a report
' card scale evaluating traffic performance, approximated as follows:
Table 7
TRAFFIC LEVELS OF SERVICE
1 Level of ICU Level of Service
Service Range Description
A 0.00-0. 60 Excellent, Light Traffic
B 0.60-0.70 Good, Light to Moderate Traffic
' C 0.70-0.80 Moderate Traffic with Insignificant Delay
D 0.80-0.90 Heavy Traffic with Significant •Delay
E 0.90-1.00 Severe Congestion and Delay
F 1. 0 and Up Failed, Indicated Levels Cannot Be Handled
y
•
' 25
y
' a
m`
1 a
c
' John Wayne a
Airport M
Orange County
w P
425
o�
' 2126
PROJECT
•
SITE
' Corinthian 2938 2938 �
Way,,,,
` 294/
94
�\w 200/ ` 2469 1469 `Sfr
' 1000 151
Q 463/ /62Sf
�o� ^QOp oYe 5� 2313 463
oo� 2313 Oda
0Q'
O�
,O
463/
S 2313
0/
• P Sfo/s� (S 73 \Cb 275/1375
North
No Seale
Legend
• 000/000 = Hotel Expansion/ 188/938
Proposed Project
Traffic Volumes
' 119—Room Hotel Expansion FIGURE
iffp lEl" & Proposed Project Daily 9
Rock E. Miller h Associates
i Traffic Volumes
m
John Wayne
' Airport
Orange County
P
o°
OZ�
C
' 44/45.7
PROJECT *0.85
SITE
' 24/26.4
Corinthian *0.70 *0
Way, is 'OB
�, i>R9 /roh e
` \ *0.64 35/35.2 ,
24/24.8
y4 *0.66 �j3s `sfr
' �o�QJ Oo e eef
0b ` Sf 35/30.9 *0.66 Oo
a
*0.74 40/41.9
e~�sfo/
St
e�/Sfo 1b
' /Sf 73 off^ *0.64 1
0.64
' North
No Scale
Legend 50/50.8
' ♦ 00.0/00.0 = General Plan Amendment *0.90
Without/With Pro•ect
Traffic Volumes �1,000's)
*0.00 = V/C Ratio
General Plan Amendment FIGURE
Without/With Project 1
Rock E. Mlller & Associates
Traffic Volumes & VIC Ratio
Level of Service D is the customary maximum allowable "standard"
i Level of Service during peak hours at intersections. The City of
Newport Beach has adopted this standard. Mitigation measures are
considered or required for traffic at poorer levels. Mitigation is
' required from a development, when its traffic will cause an
increase in an ICU from below 0.90 to above 0.90 by an amount of
0.01 or more.
A detailed Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis must be
performed for all of the locations and time periods where traffic
increases of 1% or more are forecasted on any intersection
' approach.
! Traffic Phasing Ordinance
' Intersection traffic volumes were forecasted for ICU studies in the
same manner as for the one percent analysis. Existing traffic
volumes are adjusted for annual growth, and traffic volumes
associated with approved developments and the proposed project are
combined into the forecasts. Work sheets are furnished by the City
for this purpose. Table 8 indicates the existing ICU as well as
' the projected future ICU with and without the proposed project.
' 28
i
iTable 8
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION
Traffic Phasing Ordinance
Future Future
without with
Intersection (Time) Existing Project Project
MacArthur/Campus (AM) 0. 61 0.73 0.74
MacArthur/Campus (PM) 0.65 0.76 0.76
' MacArthur/Birch (AM) 0.46 0.48 0.50
MacArthur/Birch (PM) 0.54 0.62 0. 65
MacArthur/Jamboree (AM) 0.47 0.73 0.74
MacArthur/Jamboree (PM) 0.59 0.80 0.82
' Jamboree/Bristol N (AM) 0.83 0.97 0.97
Jamboree/Bristol N (PM) 0.73 0.91 0.91
Jamboree/Bristol S (AM) 0.78 1.02 1.02
Jamboree/Bristol S (PM) 0.76 0.90 0.90
Bristol N/Campus (AM) 0.80 0.67 0.68
Bristol N/Campus (PM) 1.02 1.04 1. 04
Bristol/Campus-Iry (AM) 0.83 0.88 0.88
Bristol/Campus-Iry (PM) 0.92 0.72 0.72
The project will not increase any ICU from below 0.90 to above
' 0.90. Increases of up to 0. 03 will occur at locations substan-
tially below 0.90. There will be no measurable increase at several
locations which are already forecast to be above 0.90.
' 29
General Plan Amendment
iIntersection Capacity Utilization studies are also required for the
General Plan Amendment associated with the proposed project.
' Forecasts of future traffic volumes at each of the intersections
were obtained from the City Study, Newport Beach Circulation
Improvement and Open Space Agreement Traffic Study, "Year 2010
(with Project) " . ICU studies were prepared for these forecasts,
with the inclusion of the additional traffic associated with the
general plan amendment. These analyses are summarized in Table 9.
The ICU work sheets appear in the report appendix.
' Table 9
' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION
General Plan Amendment
Future Future
' without with
Intersection (Time) Project Project
MacArthur/Campus (AM) 0.78 0.79
MacArthur/Campus (PM) 1.01 1.01
MacArthur/Birch (AM) 0.87 0.89
MacArthur/Birch (PM) 0.84 0.86
MacArthur/Jamboree (AM) 0.85 0.86
MacArthur/Jamboree (PM) 1. 18 1.19
Jamboree/Bristol N (AM) 1.04 1.04
' Jamboree/Bristol S (AM) 0.72 0.73
Jamboree/Bristol S (PM) 0.90 0.90
•
' The project would not raise the ICU from below 0.90 to above 0.90
at any of the locations studied. Several locations are forecast to
be above 0.90 in the future without the project. The project will
not result in further measurable increases for these locations
except at the intersection of MacArthur and Jamboree in the PM.
Mitigation must be considered at this location.
', ' 30
' MITIGATION
i Mitigation measures will not be required to remedy project related
traffic at any of the locations studied under the guidelines of the
City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Mitigation measures will be
' required to remedy the project related traffic impact identified in
the General Plan Amendment analysis at MacArthur Boulevard and
Jamboree Road. This is because future conditions are forecast to
be unacceptable, and the project will result in a measurable
increase of 0. 01 in Intersection Capacity Utilization at these
locations.
' Two mitigation measure approaches can be considered. The traffic
impact can be reduced to an acceptable level by limiting the uses
. or the amount of development generating traffic on the site.
Alternately, additional street improvements can be implemented to
allow the intersection to provide for the additional traffic at an
acceptable level of service.
Land Use Controls
The ICU impact of a project is normally in close proportion to the
' total peak hour traffic associated with the site. For example, a
50% reduction in site peak hour traffic will normally reduce the
impact of the site traffic on an ICU by 50%, for example from a
0.04 increase to a 0. 02 increase.
The proposed project analyzed (Land Use Alternative 3 and 4)
results in an increase in the ICU for the General Plan Amendment at
' MacArthur/Jamboree by 0.006. Rounding off causes the ICU to
increase from 1.18 to 1.19. If the site traffic generation is
reduced from the levels forecast for Alternatives 3 or 4, the
increase would become negligible.
Land Use Alternatives 3 and 4 are nearly equal to each other in
traffic generation. Land Use Alternatives 1 and 2 are approx-
imately 18% less than Alternatives 3 and 4. These alternatives
would also require mitigation as proposed, however, if the floor
area proposed for development is reduced, the traffic generation
t also be reduced.
Due to the parking requirements associated with fast food
restaurants, it is quite likely that the total area would be
significantly less than 41,700 sf, if one or more fast food
restaurants are proposed. A 4000 sf Fast Food restaurant typically
requires one acre for buildings, parking, and landscape. Two
restaurants at 8000 sf would thus leave only 0.45 acres for other
uses. A typical retail commercial development on 0.45 acres would
have only 5000 sf. The site would potentially yield only 13,000
sf, if two fast food restaurants are proposed and the building
intensity is normal for the site. A precise plan of development
' 31
' generating 50% less traffic than either Alternate 3 or 4 is
considered to be likely, even if fast food uses are included.
' A sensitivity analysis performed for the ICU has indicated that
development of the site with a PM peak hour traffic generation of
less than 109 outbound trips would not require any mitigation.
Alternatives 3 and 4 generate approximately 180 trips, but a
precise plan of development will likely generate less traffic than
these alternatives. The proposed project may not require any
mitigation, if it generates less than 109 outbound trips. A
letter from Rock E. Miller and Associates to the City of Newport
Beach appears in the report appendix and indicates several
' potential land use scenarios which would generate less than 109
outbound trips.
Land Use Alternatives 5 generates over 50% less than Alternatives
' 3 and 4. Alternatives 6 and 7 generate nearly 50% less traffic
than Alternatives 3 or 4. Variations upon these alternatives would
not trigger any traffic impacts or mitigation needs.
Fast food uses normally require a Conditional Use Permit, while
office and retail uses do not. The need for mitigation could
' potentially be evaluated after the General Plan Amendment is
approved, if fast food restaurant uses are subsequently proposed.
Circulation Improvements
Circulation improvements could also alleviate the general plan
deficiency forecasted. Rock E. Miller and Associates examined the
' proposed striping and turning lane assignments utilized for the
future forecast, as indicated in the City Traffic Model. The
future intersection geometrics are essentially the same as the
existing intersection geometrics, indicating that no improvements
were previously anticipated at the location.
The future ICU deficiency in the PM period is largely a result of
the presence of a single left-turn lane for northbound MacArthur
Boulevard onto westbound Jamboree Road. This provision is
appropriate at present, because traffic volumes for this movement
' are relatively low, however the movement will increase signifi-
cantly in the future, when local circulation patterns are modified
by the construction of the San Joaquin Hills Corridor and its
interchange to the southeast of the study area. Provision of dual
left-turn lanes on MacArthur would result in a substantial
improvement over the conditions forecast, as indicated in Table 10.
1 •
I�
' ' 32
' Table 10
i EFFECT OF MITIGATION
Year 2010 ICU's
' Year 2010 Project, No Project with
Location No Project Mitigation Mitigation
MacArthur/Jamboree
AM 0.85 0.86 0.86
PM 1. 18 1. 19 1.00
' Note: Mitigation is to modify the northbound approach on
MacArthur to add a second left lane.
' Provision for dual left-turn lanes at the location would be
considered consistent with the City's General Plan designation for
MacArthur Boulevard, but the physical feasibility of this
improvement must be evaluated.
The existing width of the south leg of MacArthur Boulevard at
Jamboree Road is 90 feet, about 200 feet south of the intersection.
It widens gradually along the west curb reaching a width of more
than 100 feet at the intersection. These measurements include a
r� four-foot raised median nose. This approach is striped for six
through traffic lanes and one left-turn lane. It can be restriped
to provide two left-turn lanes (requiring 24 feet, including
' median) plus six through lanes in the remaining 66 feet.
This improvement would require removal and replacement of the
median nose and minor modification to the traffic signal detectors.
The resultant through lanes would be 12 feet wide next to the curb,
11 feet wide next to the median, and ten feet wide in the middle of
the roadway at the location where the roadway becomes only 90 feet
wide south of the intersection. This type of construction is not
complex and would cost approximately $20, 000, if undertaken today.
Additional width could be provided for travel lanes by widening
' slightly along the west curb south of the intersection, however the
City may determine that a northbound right turn lane should also be
constructed in the future to bring the ICU to a value under 0.90.
This lane would require widening along the east curb.
The deficiency at MacArthur and .Jamboree is evident only in the
' most recent versions of future traffic forecasts prepared by the
City. The location was not identified as deficient in earlier
forecasts. These forecasts are subject to continuing refinement,
so the deficiency may be eliminated in future forecasts through
further refinements or other general plan amendments.
33
1 -
SITE ANALYSIS
iThere is no site plan available for the proposed development. A
complete review of the site plan would be conducted by the City,
' upon approval of the General Plan Amendment and completion of
additional site use studies.
SUMMARY
A retail/commercial with office development is- being proposed on
the northwest corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Corinthian Way in
the City of Newport Beach. The proposed development will generate
up to 6,252 new vehicle trips per day, including up to 530 trips in
• the morning two-and-one-half hour peak and 773 trips in the evening
two-and-one-half hour peak. These trips will result in traffic
' increases on streets in the project vicinity.
An analysis of this proposed development was performed consistent
with the procedures and guidelines of the Newport Beach Traffic
Phasing Ordinance. The analysis determined that the , proposed
project will result in a significant (1t) traffic increase upon
' several arterial intersections in the vicinity of the site, as
follows:
MacArthur Blvd at Campus Drive (AM and PM)
MacArthur Blvd at Birch Street (AM and PM)
MacArthur Blvd at Jamboree Rd (AM and PM)
Jamboree Rd at Bristol St (N) (AM and PM)
' Jamboree Rd at Bristol St (S) (AM and PM)
Bristol St (N) at Campus Drive (AM and PM)
Bristol St (S) at Campus Dr/Irvine Ave (AM and PM)
An analysis was also performed for the General Plan Amendment
component of the proposed project. This analysis determined that
the proposed project, together with the elimination of a previously
' approved 119 room hotel expansion, will cause a significant (it)
increase at all of the intersections listed above, with the
exception of Jamboree Road at Bristol (N) in the PM and Bristol
' Street (North and South) at Campus/Irvine intersections.
Intersection Capacity Utilization studies were conducted for each
of the intersections and time frames indicated above. The proposed
project or its associated General Plan Amendment was not found to
raise the ICU for any location from below 0.90 to above 0.90. The
project will not cause measurable increases in ICU at any locations
' where near-term future conditions are expected to be deficient
according to past City studies.
The General Plan Amendment associated with the project may result
in a measurable increase at one location in the future where
deficient conditions are already forecast, MacArthur Boulevard at
' 34
' Jamboree Road in the PM Peak. This location may thus require
mitigation.
iThe impact at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree
Road can be mitigated by selecting a land use alternative which
' will not result in the 0.01 ICU increase forecasted at the
location. One of the alternatives studied would meet this
requirement, while refinements to the site plan and composition of
uses may also result in reduced traffic generation.
The exact needs for mitigation can be determined when a precise
mixture of land uses and developed building area is proposed. If
' the proposed project is forecast to generate less than 109 outbound
peak hour trips, mitigation would not be required.
• The intersection conditions can also be improved in the future, by
' providing a second northbound left-turn lane on Macarthur Boule-
vard. This lane would fit within the available pavement area
utilizing minimum acceptable standards for lane width, however the
median must be reconstructed at an alternate location.
•
35
I
•
Appendix:
- Peak 2 1/2 Hour 1$ Work sheets
' - Near-term ICU Work sheets
- 2010 One Percent Work sheets
- 2010 ICU Work sheets
- Alternative Scenarios Letter
� I
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection MACARTHUR BL/CAMPUS DR
' (Existing Traffic Volumes based on . verage winter/Spring 19 90) AM
Penk 2k Haur APP►o��
;Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1 of Projected Projecttian Peak 2k Hour GroMEh Peak Zh Hour Peak Z� Haur Peak2yHour Penk 2y Hour
Votume Volume VolumeVolumeVolumeound 1790 166 277 2233 22" 62
• Southbound 2892 268 787 3947 39 i 91
' Eastbound 0 92 3244 j 32 0
3152
Westbound 0 39 1126 11 15
1087
' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
❑ Peak 2;1 Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated .to be greater than 1% of Projected
® Peak 2;1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity UtiTization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
•
DATE: �z
PROJECT: f4erCfOn Revised 3/25/92
FORM I
L
I
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection MACARTHUR SL/CAMPUS DR
' (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 90) PM
Peak 2h Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected Mof Projected. Project
Direction Peak 211 Hour Growth Peak 211 Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2k•Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume i Volume
' I
Northbound 2312 290 786 3388 •34 106
• Southbound 3544 445 418 4407 44 i f
Eastbound 2189 0 34 22 ' 0
Westbound 2753 0 198 2951 30 20
'
❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume
® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity-Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
•
DATE:
1 PROJECT: H Q Revised 3/25/92
FORM I
n<y
1
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection MACARTHUR BL/BIRCH ST
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average nter pr ng 19 90) AM
Peek 2+s Hour Approved
;Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected la.of Protected Protecttion Peak 21* Hour Growth Peak 211 Hour Peak 2y Hour PeaVolumeour iPenVolumeour
Volume Volume Volume Volumeound 1400 176 322 1898 19 0
• Southbound 2118 266 702 3086 31 106
' Eastbound 1505 0 101 1606 16 i 101 '
i
Westbound 776 0 43 819 8 40 '
' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
❑ Peak 23, 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: - �3 Ae
PROJECT: his�e / Revised 3/25/92
S`�c�u 1�n FORM I
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection MACARTHUR BL BIRCH ST
' (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Inter pring 19 9o) PM ,
Peak 2h Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1 of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak lu Hour Penk 2� Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Votume Volume
I
' Northbound 1559 196 774 2529 25 0
Southbound 2018 253 388 2659 27 138
' Eastbound 1462 0 113 1575 16 172
i
Westbound 1867 0 125 1992 20 53
'
❑ 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 2k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
M
' DATE•
i PROJECT: el Revised: 3/25/92
FORM I
iSo '
1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection JAMBOREE RD/MACARTHUR BL
' (Existing Traffic Volumes basedon Average inter pring 90 AM
Peak io Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected lA Peak
21, ured Peak
2hProject
Direction Peak 2h Hour Voro h Peevoi our Peaume k Hour Peavolumeour PenVolueour
Volume
I
lume
Northbound 2795 251 495 3641 36 69
Southbound 1834 230 922 2986 30 79
' Eastbound 919 37 1137 2093 21 I 47
Westbound 2575 105 765 3445 34 I 0
' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
❑ Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 231 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity- Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
' DATE-
PROJECT: d�e�aa� fig/ Revised: 3/25/92
FORM I
1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection JAMBOREE RD MACARTHUR BL
' (Existing Traffic Volumes ba—sed on verage Winter/Spring 1990 nM
Peak 211 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1�•of Projected' Project
Direction Peak 211 Hour Growth Peak 2+s Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak
2k Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
I
Northbound 1496 188 514 2198 ••22 90
Southbound 338 731 3762 38
' 2693
Eastbound 7 71 913 2736 27 61
i
Nerthound 3138 1 127 993 4258 43 0
'
❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.
3
DATE:
PROJECT: Revised: 3/25/92
FORM I
u�
1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection JAMBOREE BL CAMPUS OR
' (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter Pr1ng g 90 AM
Pe nk 2k Haur Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected lA Peak
Projected Project
Peak 23* Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 24 Hour
Direction Pen Volume Hour VolimN` Volume Volume Volume Volume
' II
34 17
Northbound 2529 103 782 3414 . ;
Southbound 3813 155 1781 5749 57 1
' Eastbound 763 I 0 314 1077 j 11 i 0
0 341 2651 27 9 'I
Hestbound 23I0
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 UtilizaEtion
Q (I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
DATE-
PROJECT: Revised: 3/25/92
FORM I
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
1 Intersection JAMBOREE BLVD CAMPUS DR
(Existing Traffic Volumes ase an verage inter pring 19 9o) PM
-------------------
Approved
Approach EEll
Projects Projected 1WO of Projected Project
Otrcetion PenZli Peak Zy Hour Peak 2k Hour Peek 2y Haur Peek 2h Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume
1821 5457 55 29
Northbound
Southbound 131 814 4166 '_42 i 20
Eastbound 0 191 2300 i Z3 i 0
Westbound 1261 0 102 1363 14 12
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
Q Peak 2;1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
1
A
' —DATE:
PROJECT s�1er� � /�v�e/ Revised: 3/25/92
+� FORM I
40
' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection BRISTOL ST N/JAnoREE RD
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average nter/Spring 19
Peak 24 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Protect
Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2y Hour
volume Volume I volume volume Volume Volume
Northbound 9162 278 961 10,401 104
47
Southbound 1514 46 904 2464
25 i 32
Eastbound 0
0 0 0' Westbound 0
.0— 0 0 0 0
±=0
d Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume
i JL, Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
■ Peak 21g Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I-C.U. ) Analysis is required.
1
' PROJECT: AT 3
Sheraton Commercial Center
FORM I
0
1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection ERISTOL ST N JAMBOREE RD
' (Existing Traffic Volumes base on Verage In er pring 19 1 pM
Peak 2y Hour I Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected lY of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2� Hour I Growth I Peak 24 Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour i Peak 24 Hour
Volume Volume I Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 7039 213 1 �I
Southbound 3892 118 i 1018 5028 50 55 '
' Eastbound —0— 0 I 0 '
Westbound
—0— 0 I 0 0 0 ,
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
' Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume
( Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
1
' DATE: 3/25/92
PROJECT: Sheraton Commercial Center
FORM I
' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection BRISTOL ST/JAMBOREE RD
(Existing Traffic Volumes 8ased an 1 verage iInter pang 19 90) AM
Peak 2k Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1°Peak
Projected Pt
Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 23% Hour Peak 2�, Hour FpIef:r0kcHour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound B5 47
5389 163 911 6463
Southbound 864 26 829 1719 17 32
Eastbound 6337 1 0 1287 7624 76 I 0
J Westbound 0 0 0 0
p ' 0
' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume
❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
w
DATE' 1/2, /9_2
iPROJECT: Sheraton Commercial Center
4 FORM I
i1% Traffic Volume Analysis
' Intersection BRISTOL ST/JAMBOREE RD
(Existing Traffic Volumes Fa--- on verage inter pring 9 90 PM
Peak 24 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 231 Hour Peak 2111 Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 21s Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
' I
Northbound 5427 164 911 6502 65 61
' Southbound 2117 64 768 2949 29' 55
Eastbound 5977 0 1199 f
76 72 i 0
Westbound 0 0 0 0 0 0
' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2h, Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
xQ Peak 2)-2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
11�
DATE: 1/25/92
II� PROJECT: Sheraton Commercial center
11 FORM I
1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection BRISTOL ST N CAMPUS DR
' (Existing Traffic Volumes based on verage toter pring 9 90 AM
Peak 2% Hour Approved
;Approach Existing Regionnl Projects Projected 1 of Protected Project
tion ' Peak 211 Hour Growth Peak Z's Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2k Hour
Volume VolumeVolume Volume Volume i Volume
ound 4602 ( 354 I 154 5110 51 25
Southbound 86 55 1262 13 17
' Eastbound 0 1 0 0 0 i 0 i 0
i
Westbound 2284 0 624 2908 29 17
' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Q Peak 231 Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Q Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C-.U.) Analysis is required.
ti
' DATE:
PROJECT: fy(p/e / Revised /25/92
J�e�a n FORM I
1
Traffic Volume Analysis
' Intersection BRISTOL ST N CAMPUS DR
(Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage Inter Spring 9_0 PM.
Peak 211 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 10o`of Projected. Project I
Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2s1 Hour Peak 2y Vollu Hour Peak Zh Hour Peak u Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume i me
%Westbound
3 3
• 3106 239 74 3419 34 i
296 255 4407 44 29 I
' 0 I 0 i 0 0 0 0
i
6206 0 141 7624 76 29
tProject Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
0 Peak 231 Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated tb be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2h Hour- Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
•
s
DATE: IZZ�Z
1 PROJECT: Sheer {4fsi! !n'�e� Revised: 3/25/92
FORM I
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection BRISTOL ST/CAMPUS OR—IRVINE AV
' (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 90 AM
Peak 2k Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected • Project
Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2$ Hour
Volume Volume I Volume Volume Volume Volume
' I
• Northbound 3980 306 I 449 4735 47 25
' Southbound 1208 93 218 1519 15 17
Eastbound 6848 0
805 7653 1 77 i 25
westbound 0 0 8 8 1 0
' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Q 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.
t
1 DATE• 5;,z
PROJECT: S�e!''� 8�a "T�� Revised: 3/25/92
FORM I
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
'
(Exi Intersection BRISTOL ST/CAMPUS DR—IRVINE AV
sting Traffic Volumes basedon Average Winter pring 19 90 PM
Peak 2k Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1%'of Projected- Project
Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2$ Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour i Peak 2h Hour
Volumei Volume Volume Volume Volume i Volume
' northbound 2587 I 199 265 3651 31 33
Southbound 2889 I 222 445 3556 36 29
i
Eastbound I 7011 0 566 7577 j 76 I 33
Westbound 0 0 80 80 1 0
III
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 231 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
•
II1
DATE•
PROJECT: S/eran Revised: 3/25/92-
FORM I
3
MA430OA14
' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & CAMPUS DRIVE 4300
EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1990 AM
- _______________________________
I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICCMMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI
lMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio lVolune I V/C I
I ICapacitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volune I volume Iw/o Projectl I Ratio I
I I I I I I I I e volum
------- - -------------------I
NL 1 1600 1 1 142 1 0.09 1 13 1 0 1 .10 * I 1 .10* 1
1____________________________________________________________
NT 1 6400 1 1 $91 1 0.09 * 55 1 139 1 .12 1 31 1 .13- 1
----------------------------_--------------------------------------------------------------I-
MR 1 1600 1 1 69 1 0.04 1 6 1 0 1 .04 1 1 04 1
I________________________________________________________________
I SL 1 1600 1 1 248 1 0.16 * 23 1 49 1 .20 1 1 .20 I
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
I ST 1 48001 1 7861 0.161 73 1 346 1 .25* 1 46 1 .26*1
1-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
I SR . 1 1600 I I 250 I 0.16 1 23 I 0 I .18
i-------------------------------•-----------------
I EL 1 3200 1 1 447 1 0.14 1 0 1 �0 I .24t' I I .S4* I
I------------------------------------_______________________________________________________I
1 ET 1 1 967 1 0 1 46 1 .34* 1 1 .34* I
----------------• 0.32 -----------------------------------------------
I ER 1 I 66 1 0 1 0 1 1 1
I-----------------------------------..-------------------------------------------------"---
WL 1 1600 1 1 57 1, 0.04 * 0 1 0 1 .04* 1 8" 1 .041
I--------------------------•-------------------------------------------....------...... ----1
1 WT 1 3200 1 1 329 1 0.10 1 0 1 9 1 .11 1 1 .11 1
I•-----------•-------------------------------------------------------------=-'--.....--'----1
WR I N.S. 1 1 98 1 1 0 1 11 1 N.S. I I N.S. 1
I--------••---------------------------------------------------------------------------------1
1EXISTING I ---- I ______________________________ 1 .
(EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0.73 1 I
1-----------------------------•----------------------------------------••-__----------------I
(EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 1 0.741
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
' IL4 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 squat to 0.90
Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will
be ton than I.C.U. without project
............•.............................•---- ....• --
' Description of system improvement-.
PROJECT I SJ\B/'4..{.cn CsMw�.e.q.rr`4-I (gyrrpF', FORM lI
S3
MA430OPH
' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & CAMPUS DRIVE 4300
EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING
--------------1990-PH
----------------------------------------------------------------------- -
I 1EXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALIMMITTEOI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI
' lHovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio (Volume I V/C 1. ,
I ICapacitylCapacityl 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
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
I NL 1 1600 1 1 176 1 0.11 * 16 1 0 1 .12 1 1 .12 I
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
NT 1 64001 1 7061 0.11 1 65 I 358 1 .18* 1 53 1 .18*
i------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1
' I NR 1 16001 1 551 0.031 5 1 0 1 .04 1 I -04;1
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----I
• I SL 1 16001 1 2331 0.151 22 1 18 1 .17* 1 . 1 .17*1
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
ST 1 4800 1 1 709 1 0.15 * 66 1 193 1 .20 1 59 1 .21 1
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
I SR 1 16001 1 583 1 0.361 54 1 0 1 .40 1 1 .40 I
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I EL 1 3200 1 1 358 1 0.11 * 0 1 0 1 .11* 1 I 11*1
___ET-----------i--------i-----------------i----0--j---i----------------------------___-1
616 _ _22 I I .22
I ER 1 1 61 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1
___________________________________________________________________________ --I
WI. 1 1600 1 1 92 1 0.06 1 0 • 1 0 1 .06 1 10 1 .06
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------i
I WT 1 3200 1 1 905 1 0.28 * 0 1 48 1 .30* I I 30*
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
' 1 WR I N.S. I 1 219 1 1 0 1 51 1 N.S. I I N.S.1
I----------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------
IEXISTING ------------1-- ---- ,1 1
1------- ------ .--. --- - -- - - ------.. I
(EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0.76 1 I
1-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(EXISTING + CCMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 10.76 1
IL�k Protected + project traffic I.C.U. will be Less than or equal to 0.90
• I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90
I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/system improvement wiLL ,be
less than or equal to 0.90
Projected + project traffic L.C.U. with project improvements will
be Less than I.C.U. without project
-------------------------------
Description of system improvement:
' PROJECT .rn t?i/'d�fJ� CommUcr�/ l /fie/' FORM 11
A
MA4295AN
' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & BIRCH STREET 4295
EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1990 AM
---------.........................................:------------------------------------------
I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTIHGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICCMMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI
'IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVOlume I V/C I
lCapacitylCapacftyl VOLUme I Ratio I Volume I VOLUme ]w/o Projectl I Ratio I
I I I I I I I I Volume I I I
I------•- ---------------- -------------------------- --------------------- -----'._...------ --I
NL i 1600 I I 24 I 0.02 • 2 1 0 1 .02* 1 1 .02* 1
I---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ..............I
HT 1 4800 1 1 525 1 0.11 1 49 1 150 1 .15 11 _15 1
'i--•---------------•----------------------•---•----------------------------- ___-___ --i
I HR I N.S. 1 I 761 1 7 1 13 1 N.S. I IN.S.
1------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- -- - - 1
SL 1 16001 1 1601 0.101' 15 1 0 1 .11 1
- 1 .11 1
I------•--------------------------------------- ---------------•----------------------------
I ST 1 1 567 1 5r3 1 332 1 .19* 1 46_1_ 20*1
1--------) 6400 ------------------) 0.12 *------------------------------------ '
216
BR --I--------1 I 20 I 19 I i I
--- ------ I
229 1 0 1 4 1 1 31 1 1
I--------) .................. -----------------------------------------------I
ET 4800 I I -- ----) 0.16 *----0-------4A---'.-_.1$*---I--19-1�19*�
ER 1 1 60 10 1 0 1 . I I I
...........................................................................................I
I WL 1 1600 1 1 33 1 0.02 1 0 1 7 1 .03 1 21 1 ,Q4.1
I------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----_ ----
Wr 1 3200 1 1 257 I 0.08 * 0 1 15 1 .09* I 109* i
---------- - ---------------------=--- -I
' I uR I N.S. I I 66 I I____________ Q........b1.------N.S......
--.__._�II.S�_I
IE1iISTING -•___________ i--'0.46 �••__ I
1----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS•I.C.U. 10.48 1 i
I---------------•-------------------------------------------------------------------- 1(EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 1 0 .50 I
--•_ ---' -- ---------' -----------' -
. Ix�{ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be Less than or equal to 0.90
' I=( Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greeter than 0.90
I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be
less than or equal to 0.90
Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will
be teas than I.C.U. without project
Description of system improvement:
' PROJECT FORM II
MA4295PM
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS III
INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & BIRCH STREET 4295
EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING
-.--•--____.--1990 PM-
_- _____.
I IE%ISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICCMMITTEDI PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI
' IMovwwt:l Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I WC I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio 1V01ume I V/C I
] ICapacitylCapecityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume 1w/o Projectl I Ratio I
I I I I I I I I Volume I I I
1 NL 1 1600 I 1 737 1 0.09 * 13 I 0 1 .09* I 1 .09*I
I] - ` '1" -
--1NT 4800 1 493 1 0.10 146 1 379I - � I I" .1 I--- I ----- - -----• - - ---I - -- -- - - -• - -- -
NR ] N.S. 1 1 31 I i 3 13 I N.S. I-N.S.
- -- - -- — ---- --- ] _-1600---------•----- 59-1_ ---- ] 5 1 0 I .0- 1 1 .04 1
' --- -------- - - 4 I
] ST I 1 61l 1 57 1 188 1 .17* L 59 1.18* I
--- 6400 --------) 0.12 *-•----------------------- ---'--i
SR - 1 1 186 I 17 1 6 1 1 I I
---•------------ ----- ------------------------------I
I EL I I 0" �7_- --- __________I
275 153 1.
1.1..-ET 4800 ------------- ---- 0.13 *---�-------41----- -14-r-----3----I=�-6*-I
........
ER -) 1 1 32 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1
1__________________________________________ ___-____ ___________I
i uL 1 1600 i I 82 1 o.Ds i p I 24 i .07 126 1.08 I
--------------------•--------------___------------------------
"_ _--
-----------I
wT 13200 1 1 653 1 0.20 * 0 1 38 1 .22* I I *I
i - -- _] WR i N.S. 1 i --- ] l - l - 1 N.S. I I N.S.
]E%ISTtNG _ _______________________i_' 0.54 I•____....___...___.___........_ 1
I______________________________________ ______-________-___ I
1EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0.62 1
________________________________________________ I
I
]EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 1 0.6 5
--------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------
Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90
' 1=( Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90
I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/system improvement will be
_ less ehan'or equal to 0.90
I_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will
be less than I.C.U. without project
------------------------------------------------------------
Description of system improvement: ,
I�
�'' ' PROJECT J!�� �prt �p�ry.�'r/� CGI'f'J�G'/' FORM II
JA427SA14
' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE RO(E-W) & MACARTHUR BL(N.S) 4275
EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1990 AM
--__--__-.--•
I I EXISTING PROPOSED EXISTING EXISTING REGIONAL COMMITTED I--PROJECTED ]PROJECT IPROJECTI
' IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio lyolume I V/C 1
I ICapacitylcapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume Iwo Projectl I Ratio I
I i I I I I I 1 Volume I I I
I--------•---------------------------------------------------------------- -f
I NL 1 16001 1 1281 0.081 12 1 5 1 .09 1 1 .09 1
I-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------_.
I NY 1 1 777 1 72 1 205 1 .28* 1 25 1 .28*1
' ------------------ 0.21 *------------------------- ------I
I_..___._) 4800 >
I NR 1 ( 218 1 20 1 39 1 1 1 1
- - ---- - ---
1 _.. - -------------------- --- - - -- -- - --- ---- --- i
1 sL 1 1600 I I 62 i 0.04 * 6 1 110 1 .11* I I 11
sT I ---- i i --- I --0- I 19 1 2-- .10. I 24 I .11
1 SR I H.S. 1 1 140 1 1 13 1 91 1 N.S... 1 16 IN.S. I
-------------------------------------•--------------------------------------I
j EL 1 3200 1 1 291 1 0.09 * 9 1 143 1 .14* 1 29 1 .15*1
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
' I ET 1 48001 1 7671 0.161 23 1 407 1 .25 1 __1.25---1
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ---
ER I N.S. 1 1 166 1 1 5 1 20 1 N.S. I IN.S. I
I--------------------------------------------------------------------•---- --
WL 1 32001 1 961 0.031 3 1 59 1 .05 1 1.05 1
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I WT 1 4800 1 1 623 1 0.13 * 19 1 315 1 .20* 1 1.20* 1
1------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------I
I WR I H.s. I 1 191 1 1 6 1 12 1 N.S. I IN.S. I
--------------I
1-------- I.O.----------------------I I
EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I
I 10.73
1EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. -•--.._--.--10.141
.•-------------•--------------------_-•---- •-------•-----_------ _-_.
Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90
' I=I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90
Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement WILL be
_ less than:or equal to 0.90
I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will
be less than I.C.U. without project
--•__----••---------•------------------------------------------------------•---___-•'-_-•
Oescripttan of system improvement: -
PROJECT �- t</'CCJ�h `0/!7�!/CI'Gr2I tom• � FORM It
I� '
JA4275PM
' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD & MACARTHUR BOULEVARD 4275
1 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1990 PM
-
i IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI
IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVoluoe I V/C I
' I ICapacitylCapaeityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume Iw/o Projeetl I Ratio I
i I I I I I I I Volume I I I
------------------------------------------------------------- --------------I
I NL 1600 I
- 1 233 I 0.15 * 22 i 20 I .17* ( I .17* I
'_--------- -----------------------------------------------------------I
I Nr - _ -1- "
1 314 1 29 1 181 1 .15 1 45 1 .16 1
I
1 J 4800 I 1 110 1 3 0.09
NR 10 1 60 1 1 1 1
-----------------------------------------------------------_--------------------------------i
I SL 1 16001 1 1591 0.101 15 1 15 1 .12 1 1 .12 I
i------------------------------------------------------ 1----------------------------------
--
I ST 1 4800 1 1 810 1 0.17 * 75 1 242 1 .23* 140 1 .24*1
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i' SR I H.S. 1 1 460 I 1 43 1 109 1 N.S. 127 1 N.S. I
i-------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- ----I
I EL 1 3200 I 1 185 1 0.06 * 6 1 157 I 31* I I 12*1
i-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I ET 1 48001 1 4931 0.101 15 1 293 1 .17 1 1 .17 I
' I----------------------------------------------------------------- --i
I ER I N.S. I 1 27 1 ► 1 I 8 I N.S. I I N.S. I
I--------------------------------------------- --------------------------------I
I WL I 3200 1 1 349 1 0.11 1 11 1 64 1 .13 1 1 .13 I
-----------------------------I
I WT 1 4800 1 1 995 1 0.21 * 30 1 387 1 .29* 1 1 .29.* I
I------------------------------------------ -----------------------------------------
-------I
I__ WR I H.S. I -1 79 1 1 2 1 48 1 N.S. I I N.S. I
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
1EXISTING 1 0.59 I I
I---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I
[EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I 0.80 1 I
1-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1
(EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 1 .82 .I
---------------------------------------------------------------------------'-----'"-----....
' KProjected + 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
Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be
Less than or equal to 0.90
i� 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements WILL
be Less than I.C.U. without project
' Description of system improvement:
PROJECTS/ �OA'J�7'JC/'Ci'2� FORM II ,
1 -
117
4
2BR4190
KD
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION; BRISTOL STREET NORTH 6 JAMBOREE ROAD 4190
EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC w1NTER/SPRING •-.-_1991 AN
-. -
I........IEXSSTINQIPROPOSEDIEXIBTINQIEXISTINOIREGIONALICOMMITTEp1 PROJECTED
•IPROJECTIPROJECTI
IMovementl Lana I Lenox I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I WC Ratio IVotuns I WC I
I ICapecity,Capacityl Volume I Ratio I Volum I Vclum Iw/o Projeetl 1 Ratio I
I I I I I I I I votume .I.......I..... I
N� 1 .1600 1 -..-1-••1150 1 0.72 + . 35-.1 -62 1 .78* 1 --•1.78* '
NT I N.S. 1 1 3698 1 N.5.1 112
i ^ . .._...-. --. -- .•1 419 1 N.S-. -- .•-.1 24 I N.s 1
- _
' l� NR................................................................................... .I
I SL i I I I I I I I
1 I
:...........1 ....... . _....I..... ,
sT 436 i131387 .19* 1161 :19A
• .) 6400 -........I.... •• .-. .. .. ••(- ... . ... . .I
1 SR 1 1234 I 9 1 65 1 1 .....I.......
...E....1.....................................................................
I I I . I '
........................................................................
.� I - Ir...1........I I I 1 1 I
7 ` ..........................................................................
I
' I. WLI........!.................!........!..................!...................I
. ... ...., .I
I WT I I I I I I I .I.......I..... .I
........ .............................. i.......................
I ..ffi I
' JEXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. •1.0,97• •1 1
(EXISTING :•COMMITTED +.REGIONAL'GROWTH + PROJECT•1.C.U:-. --•.--•.----- ..-.•..•I-0.9 71
I.I Projected + W100t traffic I.C.U. Witt be lass than or equal to 0.90
ED Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greeter than 0.90
1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be
team than or equal to 0.90
-^� I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with prajeet Improvements W1ll
be leas then I.C.U. Without project --
..... ................................................................................ .
' Description of systam improvement;
PROJECT Sheraton Commercial Center FORM 1I
2IR419CAN
26R4190PM
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
1 INTERSECTION' BRISTOL STREET NORTH i JAMBOREE ROAD 4190
EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1991 PM
............................................................................................
I IEK ISTI NoiFROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI
IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK Hit I WC I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVolume I We I
l lespacitylCapecityl Volume i Ratio l Volum l Votwo lw/o Projectl I Ratio I
.....[ volane 'I ' I I
lN` - 1 1600 1 1 708 1 0.44 "..... - ... - •21..1 109 1 .52* 1.. . _...-1.52* 1
lNT..I H.B. .i........i...2139 1• N.S.1•- 66--1 438 1--N.S. ••1.31 1 N.S.I
l. ............... ..........._...... ..........................._........ .
' I..........................................................................................
I SL _ I I I I I I I I I I
l -ST- .........-l1120 -1 ..34..1..369 1....39*-..1.27 ..1. .391
1 .) 6400 ..................) 0.29 -I
SR 1 1 756 1 23 1 140 1 1 1 I
1. - ................-- ...............--•- -I
1.--•---. ...---....................- .........--•.............•-....---.. ...... .
ET . 1 1 1 I
.ER.............................................. .i. .----............................ .l
l .................------...•--•-.�.................................................... 1
I WT 1 1 ' 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I
........................... .. ..(EXISTING 1 0.73 1 l
' 1............................................................................ I
(EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOBED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0.91
I I
' (EXISTING + COMMITTED'+-REGIONAL-GROWTH-+.PROJECT•I-CA- -•-•-• •-.•-•..•..•` ...10.9 1 1
-
Projected + project traffic I.C.U. wilt be less than or equal to 0.90
121 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90
' 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems inprovement will be
less then or "I to 0.90
i
be Less t an I.C.U.ot•traffio-1.6.0. with project-improvemanb will---•-•----••-
/1 be teas than I.0 without projtnt
..
Description of system Improvement'
PROJBCT Sheraton Commercial Center FORM 11
2DR419OPM
I
' BR4170AM
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
iINTERSECTION: BRISTOL STREET & JAMBOREE ROAD 4170
EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1990 AM
.. _ -•------------------•-___---••-----••---_•--•-•--------------------•-•------•--
IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI,
IMovement. ...._.l-•Lan._es I Lanes i PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVolume I V/C I
I ICapacity'Capacity, Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume 'w/o Project, I Ratio 1
I I I I I I I I Volume I I i
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
I NL I I I I I I I � I I
I________________________ __________________________ _________--
I NT I I 1 2556 1 1 77 1 455 1 0.39* 1 24 1.39* I
I------- -•---- *---------------------------------------------=
8000 ----------- ) 0.32 i
1 NR I I I I I 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
' i-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
St. I I I I i I ________-______-____-_______-_ I
I
I ST 1 48001 1 3361 0.071 10 1415 10.16 1 16 1 .161
1------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I
I SR I I I I I I I I I I
I------------------------- --•----••-------••-------•-•-----_-------------------------------I
I EL I 1 1241 I 0 1346 10.63* I I 63*1
' 1--------) 3200 ------------------) 0.46 ----------------------------------------------I
I ET 1 1 225 I 0 1 213 1 1 1 1
I-------------••-----------•-•----------------------------------------•---------•--= -------I
ER 1 32001 1 13831 0.431 0 . 1237 10.51 1 1 .51 1
I•-•---------------•---------------------•--------•--•-•-•-------------------•--------------
I -L I I I I I I I I I
' I -T I I I I I I I I I---------- I
I WR I I I I I I I I I I
___________________________________________________________________________________________
1 i
-------- ( ---- I
1EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U.
' 1'---------------•----------•---------•----------______-•----•------------------------------I
1EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 11 .021
-------------------•-•-------•--------------••----------'----------------------_----
1_I Project + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90
Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90
Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be
Less then 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:
1
PROJECT Sheraton Commercial Center FORM II
10
'BR417OPM
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
iINTERSECTION: BRISTOL STREET & J;XBOREE ROAD 4170
EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1990 PM ,
IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI
(Novementl Lanes I Lanes I PK NR I V/C GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVolume I V/C I
Capacity ICapaeity I Volume-'-Ratio
-•I Volume-I Volume
•_I Volume I-------I Ratio-I
--------i- -• -i - -__-_. . . I I
NL
_____________________________________________________I
jMr I________1 2279 1 69 1 523 10.36* 1 31 1 .36*1
I.._ *-------------- ------------------------------
MR--D 8000 i--------1 2 ) 0.29 1 0 1 11 1 1 1 1
' i------------------------------•--•----•-------------___---------------------------•••------1
SL I I 1 1. 1 1 1 1 1 1
-- ----1
I ST 1 4800 1 1 1133 1 0.24 1 34 1 384 1 0.32 '1 27 1 .33
---------•-------••-'-I
SR I I I I I I I I I I
-•---------•----------------------•----•-I
j EL ' 1 � ._---•. --•--0 1 180 1 0.54*1 1 .54*1
I- -ET --) 3200 i___-___--________1 0.40 _________________ ____-_I
511 i 26 I
__________-. - - ______-___I I I
_
I ER 1 3200 I 1 1488 1 0.47 * 0 1 158 1 0.51 1 1 .51 1
_________________________________________________________________I
I___WL..i.:__.__.i_ ______I I I I I I . I I
I___________________________________________________________________________________________I
i WT I I I I I I I I I
_-_. I
i WR
I--- i----- 1 ----
1EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 10.9 0 1 ---•-
___
1EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U- ---------------------------10,901
........................................................
Project + 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
=I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be
Less than or equal to 0.90
1 be less Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will
• +------- -out project
Deseron of s stemr ---"---'-----"---....-----'----------'----------•-----------'---
-scrip - y improvement:
' PROJECT Sheraton Commercial Center FORM 11
OR417OPM
r,-
OR4172AM
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
iINTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET NORTH & CAMPUS DRIVE/IRVINE AVENUE 4172
EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1990 am
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI
IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVolume I V/C I
I ICapacityl Capaeityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume Iw/o Projectl I Ratio
I I I *** I I I I I volume I I I
i^---------------------------------------------------------------- ----- ]
i NL 1 160011600 1 5541 0.351 43 1 5 1 .19 1 0 1 .19 I
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
' I NT I 3200 11600 1 2050 1 0.64 " 158 1 71 1 .47* 1 13 1 .481
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I NR I I I I I I I I I I
I___________________________________________________________________________________________I
' I eL I I I I I I I I I
__-._.---_-_
] ST 1 400012400 1 2931 0.071 23 1 6 1 .05 1 9 1 .05 1
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
I SR 1 24001 800 1 2941 0.121 23 1 22 1 .11 1 0 1 .11 1
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
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
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I WL 1 1600 1 1 194 I 0.12 1 0 1 101 , 1 .18 1 0 1 .18 1
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I WT I I .20 1
' I--------1 6400 ------------ --6-) 0.16 �..._o_-I. 211---I------ *---1-- 9 ------2--I
WR 1 1 49 I 0 1 0 1 1 1 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------)
I I
.ISTING I ---
. - -
1EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0.67 1 I
1-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
' ]EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 1 0.681
____________________________________________________________________________________________-
1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90
]_] Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90
IXI'Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be
less than or equal to 0.90
]_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will -
' be less than I.C.U. without project
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description of system improvement:
*** These additional Vs are the current existing lanes
as of 3/30/92.
PROJECT Sheraton Commercial Center FORM II
' OR4172PM
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
1 INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET NORTH & CAMPUS DRIVEIIRVINE AVENUE 4172
EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1990 PM
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
' ( IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICO MITTE01 PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI
1Movementl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio lyolume I WC, I
I ICapecitylCapecityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I volume 1w/o Projectl I Ratio I
I I I *** I I I I I Volume I I I
HL 1 1600 11600' 1 460 1 0.29 * 35 1 4 1 .16* 1 1.16* 1
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
' I HT 1 3200 11600 1 745 1 0.23 1 58 1 34 1 .17 � 1 16 1.17 1
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
I NR I I I I I I I I I I
___________________________________________________________________________________________I
' ( SL I i I I i I I I i 1
i............................................................ i
I ST 1 3200 13200 1 763 1 0.24 1 59 1 21 1 .13 1 15 1.13 - 1
1'------------------------------------------------------------------------------............1
1 SR 1 3200 — 1 958 1 0.30 * 74 1106 1 .36* 1 1.36* 1
--------I--------I--------'--------I----- --'-...----i---------'---------------------------I
EL 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
i------------------------------------------------------------------------'--------••
WL 1 1600 1 1 366 1 D.23 1 0. 1 207 1 .36 1 1.36
i-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I Wr I I 2M 1 0 1 534 I .52* 1 15 1 ,52*'1
I--------) 6400 --"'-------------T 0.43 *--'-....-----.._ ..__.............I
iWst 1 1 93 1 0 I 0 i 1 1 1
I-----I-- •------ ---- I __.__---- 1
1EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 1 .0 4 I I
1_ _________________________________________________________________________________________I
' 1EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. ---.' 1,..0 4;
......................................
_ *" ASSUMES NO THROUGH TRAFFIC IN OPTIONAL LANE
1j-projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90
I, Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90
1S .Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be
leas than or equal. to 0.90
1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements WILL
' be Less than I.C.U. without project
Description of system improvement:
These additional # 's are the current existing lanes
as .of 3/30/92.
' PROJECT C'C/�f//'1!/'Gr7L� �� /' FORM II
I`
'OR415SAM
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
iINTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET & CAMPUS DRIVE/IRVINE AVENUE 4155
EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1990 AM
...........-------------------------.----------------------------_---------------------------
' I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTING,EXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI
IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio 1Volume I V/C I
ICapacity,Capacity, Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume Iw/- Project, I Ratio I
I I i *** I I I I I volume---I
I NL I I I I I I I I I I
i-----------"'-----------------------------------------------------------------------------I
' I NT 1 4800 1 32001 1265 1 0.26 * 99 1 25 1 .27* 113 1 .27* t
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
1 NR 1 1600 1-16001 497 I o.3i 1 38 1 200 1 -- -.1 0 1 -- I
I----------------------------'...---------------------------------------- --------- - t
' 1 SL 1 1600 1 1 600 1 121 1. 0.08 * 9 1 0 1 . 04* 1 0 1 .04* t
I -----•-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
ST 1 4800 1 1 397 1 0.08 1 31 1 109 1 . 11 1 9 1 .11 I
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1
� I SR I I I i I I I i I I
I -------------------- --------- ----------- ----- - - - - -'--...... _... ..--'--f
EL 1 3200 1 1 1181 1 0.371 0 1 141 1 .41 1 0 1.41 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
' I ET 1 3200 *• 1 1557 1 0.49 * 0 1 258 1 .57* 1 13 1.57* 1
1-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
1 ER 1 1600 1 16001 5081 0.321 0 1 6 1 .16, 1 0 1 .16 1
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
WL I I I I I I I I I I
i- ---------------------------- _ ------------------------------------------------------ -I
I WT I I I I I I I I I I
I WR I I I I I I I I I I
.......--'.................................................''----------.-.-.---------------I
1 (
-------- I ---- ---- I
1EXIST + REG GROWTH + CCMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0.88 1 I
I.......................................................................--------------------I
1EXISTING + COMMITTED +REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 10.881
---------------------------
• *• Assumes no thru traffic in optional lane
1_1 Project + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90
t1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90
�I'_9 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be
less then 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:
*** These additional Vs are the current existing lanes as
of 3/30/92.
PROJECT Sheraton Commercial Center FORM II '
2
' RA4155PM
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET & CAMPUS DRIVE/IRVINE AVENUE 4155
EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1990 PM•
----------•--------------....................................................................
' 1 I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING IREGIONAL I COMMIMEO I PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI
IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio lVolume I V/C' I
Icapacitylcapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volum 1w/o Projectl I Ratio I
I I I *** I I I I I VO(LM I I 1.
I --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -I
I NL I- I I I I I I I I I
I --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -I
I MY 1 4a00I 32001 731 1 G-151 56 1 14 1 0. 16 1 16 10.161
' --_---•----------------------------------• ---- --•---_------------
I MR 1 '1600 1 -16001 328 1 0.21 1 25 1 119 1 -- I I -- I
I------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------------°---•i
I SL 1 1600. 1 16001 1,061 G-071 7 1 0 1 0.04 I 10.041
1---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I ST 1 4800 1 1 1127 I 0.23 * 86 1 222 I .30* 1 15 1 .30_*
I- ------------------------------------•----------------------...------------------------- -I
I SR I I I i I I i I I I
1------------------------------"------------------------------------------------------------
I EL 1 24001 1 S?S 0.241 0 1 56 1 .26 1 1 26 I
' i--------------------------------------------------------~---------------------------------I
I ET I 4000 1 1 1457 i 0.36 1 0 1 225 I .42* I 16 I .42*
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I::
I ER 1 1600 1 1 1105 1, 0.69 * 0. 1 0 I .35 I 1 .35
i----------------------------------------------------•-------'._.-...:.----------------_....I
I WL I I I I I' i I ' I I I
I- ------------------------- - ------------•-------------------------------._.- ----------
WT i I I I I I I ' I I I
I WR I I I I I I I I I I
I- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -I
1EXISTING 1 0.92 1 I
--------------------------------------------------------------
EXIST + REG GROWTH + COHNITTEO W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0.7 2 I
I- ------------------------------------------------------------••__....•..-...__.•...•.-_- -I
1EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 1 0.' 2 I
..................................._-------------•-----------------------...._-_.-.. ...-_.
Project + project traffic I.C.U. will be Less than or equal to 0.90
' Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90
1� Projected + project traffic L.C.U. w/system improvement will.be
Less than or equal to 0.90
1_f'Projected + proja= traffic I.C.U. with project improvematts will
' be Leas than I.C.U. without project-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Description of systm improvement:
*** These additional # Is are the current existing lanes
as of 3/30/92.
' PROJECT FORM I I
4
' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis
1 Intersection MacArthur Boulevard & Campus Drive
(Future Traffic Volumes based on General Plan Traffic Model 2010
with Project - 1991 version)
' AM Peak Hour
Approach Future 1% of Future Project
Direction Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour
Volume Volume Volume
' Northbound 1920 19 21
Southbound 1590 16 21
' Eastbound 2340 23 0
Westbound 690 7 4
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of
_ Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volume.
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of
Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection
X Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.
' PM Peak Hour
Approach Future 1% of Future Project
Direction Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour
Volume volume Volume
' Northbound 1860 19 43
Southbound 2380 1 24 1 39 11
Eastbound 1350 14 0
Westbound 1950 20 8
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of
Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volume.
' Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of
Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection
X Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.
' PROJECT: Sheraton Commercial Center DATE: 3/25/92
I�
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
1 Intersection MacArthur Boulevard & Birch Street
(Future Traffic Volumes based on General Plan Traffic Model 2010
with Project - 1991 version)
' AM Peak Hour
Approach Future 1% of Future Project
Direction Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour
Volume Volume Volume
' Northbound 1660 17 0
Southbound 1510 15 21
' Eastbound 870 9 33
Westbound 370 4 11
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of
' Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volume.
Project Traffic is estimated to be, greater than 1% of
Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection
Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.
' PM Peak Hour
Approach Future 1% of Future Project
Direction Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour
Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 1120 11 0
Southbound 1760 18 43
' Eastbound 680 7 53
Westbound 1080 11 20
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of
Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volume.
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of
Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection
X Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.
PROJECT: Sheraton Commercial Center DATE: 3/25/92
i
II
' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis
1 Intersection Jamboree Rd (E-W) & MacArthur Blvd (N-S)
(Future Traffic Volumes based on General Plan Traffic Model 2010
with Project - 1991 version)
' AM Peak Hour
Approach Future 1% of Future Project
Direction Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour
Volume Volume Volume
' Northbound 1400 14 19
Southbound 690 1 7 1 27
Eastbound 2870 29 18
Westbound 1200 12 0
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of
' Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volume.
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of
Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection
X Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.
' PM Peak Hour
Approach Future 1% of Future Project
Direction Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour
Volume Volume Volume
' Northbound 1340 13 35
Southbound 2610 1 26 1 49
Eastbound 1510 15 24
' Westbound 2050 21 0
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of
Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volume.
' Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of
Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection
X Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.
PROJECT: Sheraton Commercial Center DATE: 3/25/92
i .
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
i Intersection Jamboree Road & Campus Drive
(Future Traffic Volumes based on General Plan Traffic Model 2010
with Project - 1991 version)
' AM Peak Hour
Approach Future 1% of Future Project
Direction Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour
Volume Volume Volume
' Northbound 1640 16 6
Southbound 2210 1 22 1 5
' Eastbound 410 4 0
Westbound 1410 14 3
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of
' X Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volume.
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of
— Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection
Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.
' PM Peak Hour
Approach Future 1% of Future Project
Direction Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour
Volume Volume Volume
' Northbound 2370 24 11
Southbound 2140 1 21 1 8
Eastbound 1540 15 0
' Westbound 1090 11 5
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of
X Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volume.
' Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of ,
Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection
Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.
' PROJECT: Sheraton Commercial Center DATE: 3/25/92
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection Jamboree Road & Bristol Street (N)
(Future Traffic Volumes based on General Plan Traffic Model 2010
with Project - 1991 version)
AM Peak Hour
Approach Future it of Future Project
Direction Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour
volume Volume Volume
' Northbound 3990 40 18
• Sou bound 900 9 11
' Eastbound 0 0 0
Westbound 1320 17 0
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of
' Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volume.
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than it of
Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection
X Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.
' PM Peak Hour
Approach Future it of Future Project
Direction Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour
Volume Volume Volume
' Northbound 3460 35 24
Southbound 2610 1 26 20
• Eastbound 0 0 0
Westbound 1320 13 0
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than St of
X Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volume.
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than It of
Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection
_ Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.
PROJECT: Sheraton Commercial• Center DATE: 3/25/92
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
1 Intersection Jamboree Road & Bristol Street (S)
(Future Traffic Volumes based on General Plan Traffic Model 2010
with Project - 1991 version)
AM Peak Hour
Approach Future 1% of Future Project
Direction Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour
Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 2440 24 18
Southbound 750 8 11
' Eastbound 2600 26 0
Westbound 0 0 0
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of
' Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volume.
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of
Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection
X Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.
' PM Peak Hour
Approach Future 1% of Future Project
Direction Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour
Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 1060 11 24
Sou bound 1710 17 20
Eastbound 2770 28 0
' Westbound 0 0 0
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of
Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volume.
' Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of
Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection
X Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.
PROJECT: Sheraton Commercial Center DATE: 3/25/92
' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis
i Intersection Bristol Street North & Campus Dr/Irvine Ave
(Future Traffic Volumes based on General Plan Traffic Model 2010
with Project - 1991 version)
AM Peak Hour
Approach Future 1% of Future Project
Direction Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour
Volume Volume Volume
' Northbound 2890 29 7
Southbound 1320 13 1 6
' Eastbound 0 0 0
Westbound 2300 23 6
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of
X Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volume.
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of
— Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection
Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.
' PM Peak Hour
Approach Future 1% of Future Project
Direction Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour
Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 1680 17 12
Southbound 2580 26 11
Eastbound 0 0 0
' Westbound 4490 45 11
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of
X Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volume.
' Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of
Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection '
_ Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. i
PROJECT: Sheraton Commercial Center DATE: 3/25/92 ;
' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis
i Intersection Bristol Street & Campus Dr/Irvine Ave
(Future Traffic Volumes based on General Plan Traffic Model 2010
with Project - 1991 version)
' AM Peak Hour
Approach Future 1% of Future Project
Direction Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour
Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 1630 16 7
Southbound 1010 10 6
Eastbound 4710 47 7
Westbound 0 0 0
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of
X Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volume.
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of
— Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection
Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.
' PM Peak Hour
Approach Future 1% of Future Project
Direction Peak .Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour
Volume Volume Volume
' Northbound 1660 17 12
Southbound 1 2260 1 23 1 11
Eastbound 3890 39 12
Westbound 0 0 0
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of
X Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volume.
' Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of
Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection
_ Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.
' PROJECT: Sheraton Commercial Center DATE: 3/25/92
I
' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
' INTERSECTION MACARTHUR BLVD & CAMPUS DRIVE
FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON GENERAL PLAN TRAFFIC MODEL 2010 WITH
WITH PROJECT - 1991 VERSION. 2010 AM
...........................................................................................
' I I GENERAL I GENERAL JIMPRVtMNTI GENERAL I GENERAL I IGEN + PROJIMPRVfMNTI
Movement I PLAN I PLAN I Lane I PLAN ( PLAN I PROJECT JV/C RatiolV/C Ratio[
Lanes I Lanes ]Capacity I Pk Hr I V/C I Volume 1w/Project1w/Project
lCapacity I ( Volume I Ratio I I Volume I Volume
i•-------------------••-"'--•-----"'-----_._._'--•-•--------•-------------------___-.--.I
NL 1 1 1 1600 ( 0 1 350 1 0.22 * 0 1 0.22 1 0.22
....................................................•--------..._.._-.._..-__------.__'..)
NT 1 4 1 6400 1 - 0 1 1500 1 0.23 1 21 1 0.24 * 0.24
---..."'----------------------------------------------------------•.-_-----.._-_._.-----
NR f 1 1 1600 1 01 70 1 0.04 f 0 1 0.04 f 0.04 f
----.-------•---------------------------------------------------•----------••------------I
' SL I 1 1 1600 1 0 1 230 1 0.14 1 0 1 0.14 ( 0.14
....------•.....................'•---------------.--..-..----__---_.---------------------�
ST 1 4 1 6400 1 0 1 940 1 0.15 * 21 1 0.15 1 0.15
I--------------------------------'.._-------------------_.---------_.._---------------••--
SR I 1 1 1600 1 01 420 1 0.26 1 0 1 0.26 1 0.26
.._---.'••--•-----------.-.-."'--••------------------.--.--.-_--_-___.-----_-----•------)
EL 1 2 1 3200 1 0 1 960 1 0.30 * 0 1 0.30 * 0.30
........................•------------------._.-----..---------------------•-----------_--�
' ( ET 1 3 1 4800 1 0 1 1090 1 0.29 1 0 1 0.29 1 0.29
--.----••----------------------------------------------------------------------'_.----•--
ER 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 290 1 0.00 1 0 1 0.00 1 0.00
---•---------------------------------------------------------------------'•_-••--•---••--)
WL 1 1 1 1600 1 0 1 40 1 0.03 1 4 1 0.03 1 0.03
I--------------------------•'•••.-.-----------------------------------•------.._----------
WT 1 3 1 4800 1 0 1 570 1 0.12 * 0 1 0.12 * 0.12
I"'•••------------•--------------------------•"-----------------------------------------�
WR f 1 1 1600 1 0 1 80 1 0.05 1 0 1 0.05 f 0.05 f
----------------•--•-•----__------_---._.------------------------------------------------I
if - Free Right Turn Movement
._.-••----••-••.................•------•--••--•-------------•••-••---------•-•------•••-•I
(GENERAL PLAN I.C.U--------------------------------- ----
' (GENERAL PLAN + PROJECT I.C.U. - 10.79 1 1--_--_-_ -__-
]GENERAL PLAN + PROJECT I.C.U. + IMPROVEMENTS (If Necessary) 1 0.79
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
' •General Plan + Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than
or equal to 0.90
General Plan + Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90
General Plan + Project Traffic I.C.U. w/system improvements
will be less than or equal to 0.90
_ General Plan + Project Traffic I.C.U. w/project improvements
will be less than I.C.0 without project
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description of system improvement:'
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROJECT: SHERATON COMMERCIAL CENTER DATE: 3/25/92
' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION MACARTHUR BLVD & CAMPUS DRIVE
FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON GENERAL PLAN TRAFFIC MODEL 2010 WITH
WITH PROJECT - 1991 VERSION. 2010 PM
...................................................................'-'--._.............._..
I I GENERAL I GENERAL IIMPRV$MNTI GENERAL I GENERAL I IGEN + PROIIMPRVIMNTI
IMovement I PLAN I PLAN I Lane I PLAN I PLAN I PROJECT IV/C RatiolV/C Ratiol
I I Lanes I Lanes ICapacity I Pk Hr I V/C I Volume Iw/Projectlw/Project)
I I ICapacity I I Volume I Ratio I I volume I volume I
I-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
I NL 1 1 I 1600 I 0 I 460 I 0.29 * 0 I 0.29 * 0.29
---- --- --------- ------ -- ----------' _ -----------'___.--
' I NT 1 4 I 6400 I 0 I 1320 I 0.21 I 39 I 0.21 I 0.21 I
i------------------------------------------------___-----------------------------"'------I
NR f 1 I 1600 I 0 I 80 1 0.05 f O I 0.05 f 0.05 f
..---"--'------------------------------------------'--........_.-----------.............I
' I SL I 1 I 1600 I 0 I 440 I 0.28 I 0 I 0.28 I 0.28 I
----------------------------------"'---------------------_._.._._.__...-----------------I
ST I 4 I 6400 I 0 I 1280 I 0.20 * 43 I 0.21 * 0.21
I------......----------...."-------------------------------------------------------------I
SR I 1 I 1600 I 0 I 660 I 0.41 I 0 I 0.41 I 0.41 I
-------------------------------------------------------------------''--------------------i
EL I 2 I 3200 I 0 I 260 1 0.08 * 0 I 0.08 * 0.08
I----"-----------------------------------------------------''----------------------------I
ET I 3 I 4800 I 0 I 800 I 0.23 I 0 I 0.23 I 0.23 I
I-------------------------"'----------------------------".------------------------------I
ER I 0 I 0 I 0 I 290 I 0.00 I 0 I 0.00 I 0.00 I
""-------------------------------"-------------------____-----------------------------
WL I 1 l 1600 1 0 I 180 I 0.11 I 8 I 0.12 I 0.12 I
I----------------"-------------"'-------------------------------------------''----------I
I WT I 3 I 4800 I 0 I 1510 I 0.31 * 0 I 0.31 * 0.31
I-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
I WR f 1 I 1600 I 01 260 1 0.16 I 0 I 0.16 f 0.16 f
I-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
If = Free Right Turn Movement; Right Turn Adj.-SBRI 0.13 * I 0.12 * 0.12
I....'---------------------------------------------•.._-----"'--------------------'"----I
IGENERAL PLAN I.C.U. ----------------1- 1.01 I I
----------- ----------------
' IGENERAL PLAN + PROJECT I.C.U. I 1.01 I
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I
[GENERAL PLAN + PROJECT I.C.U. + IMPROVEMENTS (If Necessary) I 1.01 I
_ General Plan + Project Traffic I.C.U. will be Less than
or equal to 0.90
ICI General Plan + Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90
_ General Plan + Project Traffic I.C.U. W/system improvements
I_I will be Less than or equal to 0.90
_ General Plan + Project Traffic I.C.U. w/project improvements
-I will be Less than I.C.0 without project
-...'------_-"'-------------------------------------------------------------'__.-.-.
Description of system improvement:
.............................'---_......................._-'---'---......_..._... ....__.._
' PROJECT: SHERATON COMMERCIAL CENTER DATE: 3/25/92
I�
' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION MACARTHUR BLVD & BIRCH STREET
1 FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON GENERAL PLAN TRAFFIC MODEL 2010 WITH
WITH PROJECT - 1991 VERSION. 2010 AM
___________________________________________________________________________________________
' ( I GENERAL ( GENERAL IIMPRVIMNTI GENERAL I GENERAL I IGEN + PROJIMPRVIMNTI
Movement I PLAN I PLAN I Lane I PLAN I PLAN I PROJECT IV/C RatioIV/C Ratiol
Lanes I Lanes ]Capacity I Pk Mr I V/C I Volume Iw/Project1w/Project
(capacity I I Volume I Ratio I I Volume I Volume,
I-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
NL 1 1 1 1600 1 0 1 90 1 0.06 1 0 1 0.06 1 0.06 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
NT 1 3 1 4800 1 0 1 1500 1 0.31 * 0 1 0.31 * 0.31
' -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------�
NR f 1 1 1600 1 0 1 70 1 0.04 f 0 1 0.04 f 0.04 f
----------------'-__-______---------------------------_.............---------------------I
SL 1 1 1 1600 1 0 1 430 1 0.27 * 0 1 0.27 * 0.27 "
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------�
ST 1 41 6400 1 0 1 660 1 0.17 1 21 1 0.17 1 0.17
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------�
SR 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 420 1 0.00 1 0 1 0.00 1 0.00
-•---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------)
EL I 1 1 1600 1 -1600 1 340 1 0.21 * 21 1 0.23 * 0.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------�
' ET 1 2 1 3200 1 1600 1 500 1 0.17 1 12 1 0.17 1 0.19
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------�
ER 1 0 1 D 1 0 1 30 1 0.00 1 0 1 0.00 ( 0.00
I-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------�
WL I 1 1 1600 1 0 1 10 1 0.01 1 11 1 0.01 1 0.01
I-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
WT 1 2 1 3200 1 0 1 250 1 0.08 * 0 1 0.08 * 0.08
I-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
WR f 1 1 1600 1 0 1 110 1 0.07 1 0 1 0.07 f 0.07 f
I----------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------I
If = Free Right Turn Movement
I-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
IGENERAL PLAN I-C.U-
1-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GENERAL PLAN + PROJECT' I.C.U. 1 0.89 1 1 I----------------------------------------------------------- --------- ---------- I
(GENERAL PLAN + PROJECT I.C.U. + IMPROVEMENTS (if Necessary) ( 0.85 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
' _ General Plan + Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less then
or equal to 0.90
General Plan + Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90
_ General Plan + Project Traffic I.C.U. w/system improvements
will be less than or equal to 0.90
General Plan + Project Traffic I.C.U. w/project improvements
will be less than I.C.0 without project
Description of system improvement: Restriped eastbound Birch Street to the some
geometrics as the Year 2000 with out improvements. It now has no Left-turn lane, but
has gone back to three through lanes.
...........................................................................................
' PROJECT: SHERATON COMMERCIAL CENTER DATE: 3/25192
' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
i INTERSECTION MACARTHUR BLVD IF BIRCH STREET
FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON GENERAL PLAN TRAFFIC MODEL 2010 WITH
WITH PROJECT • 1991 VERSION. 2010 PM
___________________________________________________________________________________________
' I I GENERAL I GENERAL IIMPRVIMNTI GENERAL I GENERAL I IGEN + PROIIMPR IMNTI
IMovement I PLAN I PLAN I Lane I PLAN I PLAN I PROJECT IV/C Ratio1V/C Ratiol
I I Lanes I Lanes (Capacity I Pk Hr I V/C I Volume Iw/Projectlw/Projectl
I I lcapacity I I Volume I Ratio I I Volume I Volume I
I-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
I NL 1 1 l 1600 I 0 I 70 1 0.04 1 0 I 0.04 1 0.04 l
I-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
NT 1 3 1 4800 1 0 1 1030 1 0.21 * 0 1 0.21 * 0.21
---- --- - - ------------------
NR f 1 I 1600 1 0 I 20 1 0.01 f 0 I 0.01 f 0.01 f
I-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
' I SL 1 1 I 1600 1 0 I 210 1 0.13 * 0 I 0.13 * 0.13
I-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
I ST 1 4 l 6400 1 0 l 1110 I 0.24 I 43 I 0.25 1 0.25 I
I-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
SR I O I 0 I 0 I 440 1 0.00 1 0 I 0.00 1 0.00 I
I----•--------------•---------------------------------------------------------------------I
EL I 1 I 1600 1 -1600 1 450 1 0.28 * 39 1 0.31 * 0.00 I
I•----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
ET 1 2 I 3200 1 1600 1 220 1 0.07 1 24 1 0.08 1 0.15
I-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
ER I 0 I 0 I 0 I 10 1 0.00 1 O I 0.00 1 0.00 I
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
WL I 1 I 1600 1 0 l 30 1 0.02 1 20 1 0.03 1 0.03
I-•---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
WT 1 2 I 3200 1 0 l 670 1 0.21 * 0 l 0.21 * 0.21
1-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
WR f t I 1600 1 0 1 380 1 0.24 1 0 I 0.24 f 0.24 f
I-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
If = Free Right Turn Movement I
-------------------------' ------- _ -----------------------------
,IGENERAL PLAN I.C.U. 1 0.84 1 I
1------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I
IGENERAL PLAN + PROJECT I.C.U. I0.86 I 1
I----------------------------------------------------------- ---_-___- ---- -- I
IGENERAL PLAN + PROJECT I.C.U. + IMPROVEMENTS (If Necessary) f 0.71 I
•
' General Plan + Project Traffic I.C.U. will be Less than
01 or equal to 0.90
1_1 General Plan + Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90
_ General Plan + Project Traffic I.C.U. w/system improvements
1_1 will be less than or equal to 0.90
_ General Plan + Project Traffic I.C.U. w/project improvements
I-I Will be Less than I.C.0 without project
.....................................................................................
Description of system improvement: Restriped eastbound Birch Street to the same
geometrics as the Year 2000 with out improvements. It now has no left-turn lane, but
has gone back to three through Lanes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
' PROJECT: SHERATON COMMERCIAL CENTER DATE: 3/25/92
' - INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
i INTERSECTION JAMBOREE RD (E-W) & MACARTHUR BLVD (N-S)
FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON GENERAL PLAN TRAFFIC MODEL 2010 WITH
WITHPROJECT1991 VERSION 2010 AM----------------------------------------------------
--- - --- -
' I I GENERAL I GENERAL IIMPRVIMNTI GENERAL I GENERAL I IGEN + PROIIMPRVIMNTI
IMovement I PLAN I PLAN I Lane I PLAN I PLAN i PROJECT IV/C RatiolV/C Ratiol
I I Lanes I Lanes ICapacity I Pk Hr I V/C I Volume Iw/Projectlw/Project)
I I um
ICapacity I *** I Vole I Ratio I I Volume I Volume I
I------ __ _• -----------------•--•-'•'---------------•---------"••----------------------I
I NL I 1 1 1600 I 1600 I 100 I 0.06 I 0 I 0.06 I 0.03 I
I--•---------•"'--•-----------•-•------------------•--------••-•-------------------•---•-I
NT 1 3 I 4800 I 0 I 1170 1 0.27 * 19 I 0.28 * 0.28
' I••-••-'••-•---------------------------------------------••----------------------•--•-----I
NR I 0 I 0 I 0 I 130 I 0.00 I 0 I 0.00 I 0.00 I
-------------------------------""---------------------------------------•--------------i
' I SL I 1 I 1600 I 0 I 60 I 0.04 * 0 I 0.04 * 0.04
I---------"'------------"'-•-_•--••--------------------'•--•-''-•-----------------------I
ST I 3 I 4800 I 0 I 470 I 0.10 I .16 I 0.10 1 0.10 I
I---------------------------------------•-------------------------------------••--'•------I
SR f 1 I 1600 I 01 160 I 0.10 f 11 I 0.11 f 0.11 f
- --------------Z--------- i------------------ I-------- 1------------------------------I ►
1 3200
0.42
I•----'•"•••••-•------------------------------""'---""•-------•-•---'•---•-•---------I
' I ET I 3 I 4800 1 0 I 1440 I 0.30 I 0 I 0.30 I 0.30 I
I-'•---------------------------"•------•-------------------------------------•-----------
I
I ER f 1 I 1600 I 0 I 90 I 0.06 f 0 I 0.06 f 0.06 f
i_-______---------'______________------------""--""------------•----------------___-__I
WL 1 2 I 3200 I 0 I 80 I 0.03 I 0 I 0.03 I 0.03 I
I•---------------•---------------------•---•----------------------------------------------I
WT 1 3 I 4800 I 0 I 590 I 0.12 * 0 I 0.12 * 0.12
I---'•---------------------------------------------------•--------------------------------I
I WR f 1 I 1600 I 0 I 530 I 0.33 f 0 I 0.33 f 0.33 f
I-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
If = Free Right Turn Movement I
--------------------- - -------- _ _-------""-•-••-••--------_____.
(GENERAL PLAN I.C.U. I I I
----------------------------- _ ----
]GENERAL PLAN + PROJECT I.C.U. -------_-i_-_-0.86_I I
' IGENERAL.PLAN + PROJECT I.C.U. + IMPROVEMENTS (If•Necessary) I 0.86 I
. _•_____•---------------------------•--------___________--------------------"•--•-•••-'•"•
_ General Plan + Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than
I1I or equal to 0.90
I_I General Plan + Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90
_ General Plan + Project Traffic I.C.U. w/system improvements
I_I will be less than or equal to 0.90
_ General Plan + Project Traffic I.C.U. w/project improvements
I_I will be Less than I.C.0 without project
____-----------------------------------------------•_-•------------------------------
Description of system improvement: *** The addition of one northbound left-turn Lane.
PROJECT: SHERATON COMMERCIAL CENTER DATE: 3/30/92
' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
i INTERSECTION JAMBOREE RD (E-W) 8 MACARTHUR BLVD (N-S)
FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON GENERAL PLAN TRAFFIC MODEL 2010 WITH
__ WITH PROJECT - 1991 VERSION. 2010 PM
................................................... - .-
' I I GENERAL I GENERAL IIMPRV'MNTI GENERAL I GENERAL I (GEN + PROJIMPRVIMNTI
Movement I PLAN ( PLAN I Lane I PLAN I PLAN I PROJECT IV/C RatialV/C Ratio)
Lanes I Lanes ICapacity I Pk Hr I V/C I Volume Iw/Project1w/Project)
Capacity I *** I Volume I Ratio I I Volume I Volume
.___. -- -----' -- -------' -----' .
NL I 1 1 1600 1 1600 1 600 1 0.38 * 0 1 0.38 * 0.19
I----•--------------------------•---------------------------------------------------------
NT 1 3 ( 4800 1 0 1 570 [ 0.15 1 35 ( 0.16 1 0.16
' -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------�
NR 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 160 1 0.00 1 0 1 0.00 1 0.00
• I-------------------------------------------------________________________________________I
' SL I 1 1 1600 ( 0 1 410 1 0.26 1 0 1 0.26 1 0.26
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------�
ST 1 3 1 4800 1 0 1 1450 1 0.30 * 29 1 0.31 * 0.31
------------------------------------------------------------------------'"--------------�
SR 1 1 1 1600 1 0 1 750 1 0.47 f 20 1 0.48 f 0.48 f
I-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
EL 1 2 1 3200 1 0 1 530 1 0.17 1 24 1 0.17 1 0.17
___-^______________________________________________________-----------------------------�
' ET 1 3 1 4800 1 0 1 970 1 0.20 * 0 1 0.20 * 0.20
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------�
ER 1 1 1 1600 1 0 1 10 1 0.01 f 0 1 0.01 f 0.01 f
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------•-------I
WL 1 2 1 3200 1 0 1 960 1 0.30 * 0 1 0.30 * 0.30
I_"'•------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WT 1 3 1• 4800 1 0 1 1030 1 0.21 ( 0 1 0.21 1 0.21
_-__-__--------------------------------------------------------------------"'-----------�
WR 1 1 1 1600 1 0 1 60 1 0.04 f 0 1 0.04 f 0.04 f
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
If = Free Right Turn Movement
------------------------------- ---------------------------'
IGENERAL
1------- PLAN I.C.U. ------------------------------- ----
GENERAL PLAN + PROJECT I.C.U. 1 1.19 1 1
----------------------------------------------------------- .-___-_-. ---------- i
GENERAL PLAN + PROJECT I.C.U. + IMPROVEMENTS (If Necessary) I 1.00
• ----' ------ --- ----"-----"'*-----------------------------------------------------------
' _ General Plan + Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than
or equal to 0.90
General Plan + Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90
General Pion + Project Traffic I.C.U. w/system improvements
will be less than or equal to 0.90
General Plan + Project Traffic I.C.U. w/project improvements
will be less then I.C.0 without project
----------------•"-.._..._...._
Description of system improvement: *** The addition of one northbound left-turn lane.
-•.--•...................................................."'---""'------"----------"--
' PROJECT: SHERATON COMMERCIAL CENTER DATE: 3/30/92
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
i INTERSECTION JAMBIREE ROAD & BRISTOL STREET (N)
FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON GENERAL PLAN TRAFFIC MODEL 2010 WITH
WITH PROJECT - 1991 VERSION. 2010 AM
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
' I I GENERAL I GENERAL IIMPRVIMNTI GENERAL I GENERAL I IGEN + PROIIMPRVIMNTI
(Movement I PLAN I PLAN I Lane I PLAN I PLAN I PROJECT IV/C RatiolV/C Ratiol
I I Lanes I Lanes (Capacity i Pk Hr I V/C I Volume lw/Projectlw/Project)
t)� I I (Capacity I I Volume I Ratio I I Volume I Volume I
i-------------------------------------....................................................I
I NL I. 2 1 3200 1 0 1 1840 1 0.58 * 0 1 0.58 * 0.58
I-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
' I NT 1 3 1 4800 1 0 1 2150 1 0.45 1 18 1 0.45 1 0.45
1-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
NR 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0.00 1 0 1 0.00 1 0.00 1
I--------------------------------------------------------"''-----------------"'---------I
' I SL 1 01 01 01 01 0.001 01 0.001 0.001
I-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
1 ST 1 4 1 6400 1 0 1 620 1 0.14 * 11 1 0.14 * 0.14
I-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
1 SR 1 01 01 01 2801 0.001 01 0.001 0.001
I-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
1 EL 1 01 01 01 01 0.001 01 0.001 0.001
' 1-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
1 ET 1 01 01 01 01 0.001 01 0.001 0.001
I-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
1 ER 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0.00 1 0 1 0.00 1 0.00 1
1--------------------------"'----------------------------------------------___-----------I
WL 1 01 01 01 01 0.001 01 0.001 0.001
1-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1
1 WT 1 2 1 3200 1 0 1 1020 1 0.32 * 0 1 0.32 * 0.32
------ - --------' --------- ----------------- ---------------------
1 WR 1 1 1 1600 1 0 1 700 1 0.44 1 0 1 0.44 1 0.44 1
-.-.--.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------1
I-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
(GENERAL PLAN I.C.U. --------------------1 1.04 1
I
' IGENERAL PLAN + PROJECT I.C.U. 1 1.04 I I
1----------------------------------------------------------- -.-._-.-- ---------- I
IGENERAL PLAN + PROJECT L.C.U. + IMPROVEMENTS (If Necessary) 1 1.04 1
_ 'General Plan + Project Traffic L.C.U. will be Less than
(_1 or equal to 0.90
1 General Plan +.Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90
_ General Plan + Project Traffic I.C.U. w/system improvements
I_I will be less than or equal to 0.90
General Plan + Project Traffic I.C.U. w/project improvements
1_1 will be Less than I.C.0 without project
............................................'--"--'---'-------._....................
Description of system improvement:
.........................................'-"-'---------------'--.__..__.....--"---._____.
PROJECT: SHERATON COMMERCIAL CENTER DATE: 3/25/92
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
i INTERSECTION JAMBOREE ROAD & BRISTOL STREET (S)
FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON GENERAL PLAN TRAFFIC MODEL 2010 WITH
WITH PROJECT - 1991 VERSION. 2010 AM
..---....._.._.............................................................................
' I I GENERAL I GENERAL IIMPRVIMNTI GENERAL I GENERAL I IGEN + PROIIMPRVIMNTI
(Movement I PLAN I PLAN I Lane I PLAN I PLAN I PROJECT IV/C RatiolV/C Ratio[
I I Lanes I Lanes ICapacity I Pk Hr I V/C I Volume 1w/Project1w/Project)
I I ICapacity I I Volume I Ratio I I Volume I Volume I
i-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
I NL I G I D I 0 1 0 1 0.00 I D I 0.00 1 0.00 1
I-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
' I NT 1 4 1 6400 1 0 1 2430 1 0.38 * 18 1 0.38 * 0.38
1-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
I NR 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 10 1 0.00 1 0 1 0.00 1 0.00 i
i-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------i
' 1 sL 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0.00 1 0 1 , 0.00 1 0.00 1
I-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------i
1 ST 1 3 1 4800 1 0 1 750 1 0.16 1 11 1 0.16 1 0.16 1
I-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
1 SR 1 01 01 01 01 0.001 01 0.001 0.001
I-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
EL 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 690 1 0.00 1 0 1 " 0.00 1 0.00 1
I-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
I ET 1 2 1 3200 1 0 1 410 1 0.34 * 0 1 0.34 * 0.34
I-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1
I ER 1 2 1 3200 1 0 1 1500 1 0.47 1 0 1 0.47 1 0.47 i
I-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------i
1 WL 1 01 01 01 01 0.001 01 0.001 0.001
I-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1
1 WT 1 01 01 01 01 0.001 01 0.001 0.001
1-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
[ WR 1 01 01 01 01 0.001 01 0.001 0.001
i-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
IRight Turn Adjustment (If Necessary) I
I------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------I
1 GENERAL PLANI.C.U. I
----------------------------------� -----
1 I I I
L PLAN + PROJECT I.C.U. ------------------------- - ----------
[GENERAL PLAN + PROJECT I.C.U. + IMPROVEMENTS 1 0.73 1
----=--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
' _ General Plan + Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than
1�1 or equal to 0.90
1_1 General Plan + Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90
_ General Plan + Project Traffic I.C.U. w/system improvements
will be less than or equal to 0.90
General Plan + Project Traffic I.C.U. w/project improvements ,
1_1 will be less than I.C.0 without project "
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3
Description of system improvement:
..........................................................................._...._ -_...
' PROJECT: SHERATON COMMERCIAL CENTER DATE: 3/25/92
' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
NTERSECTION JAMBOREE ROAD 8 BRISTOL STREET (S) _
UTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON GENERAL PLAN TRAFFIC MODEL 2010 WITH
WITH PROJECT - 1991 VERSION. 2010 PM
........................................................................................... _
I GENERAL I GENERAL IIMPRVIMNTI GENERAL I GENERAL I IGEN + PROIIMPRVIMNTI
ovement I PLAN I PLAN I Lane I PLAN I PLAN I PROJECT JV/C RatiolV/C Ratiol
T 1 Lanes I Lanes ICapacity I Pk Hr I V/C I Volume Iw/Projectlw/Projectl
I ]capacity I .I Volume I Ratio I I Volume I Volume I
I
NL 1 0 1 0 ( 0 1 O I 0.00
. . . .__.... . . ._... ----'-- - ----"- - ---- � o------- -i o.00---- �----o.o0 1
I-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
NT 1 4 1 6400 1 O 1 1050 1 0.17 1 24 1 0.17 1 0.17
1
-- - --i------- i-- ---- -i--- --- i-- ---� - ---- �•------ -i---- �•--- INR ou o010.00 o o.00 0.00
I
�1------•------------------•---••-••-......---.....--------------......------•----------=--1 11
sL 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0.00 1 0 1 0.00 1 0.00 1
•--------------------------------------------------------------------•---•-•-•--•-I '
ST 1 3 1 4800 1 0 1 1710 1 0.36 * 20 1 0.36 * 0.36 * -•
1------------••---------------•--•-•--•-----------•--------------••-----------------------I {
sR 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0.00 1 0 1 0.00 1 0.00 1
_
..EL_..I---'-'-O i----__.O.L ^ 0
. --- i 0.00-----,530 1 _.. � 0 D.00 1
------- .1 - . ....0.00 (
ET 1 2 1 3200 1 0 1 1210 1 0.54 * 0 1 0.54 * 0.54
..............•.....-.------....-._...-^---......------_._........------------.....-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I ER 1 2 1 3200 1 0 I 1030 i 0.32 1 0 1 0.32 1 0.32 1
_. - - 1 I
WL I o 1 0 1 0 1 0 I 0.00 1 0 I 0.00 1 0.00
----•-••--------------------------------------•-•---------------------------------------I
WT 1 D 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0.00 1 0 1 0.00 1 0.00 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I
WR 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0.00 1 0 1 0.00 1 0.00 1
_____________________________________________________
IENERAL
ight Turn Adjustment (If Necessary)
1
PLAN
I I.C.U. 0.90 1
---------•••-•----------•---- -------------------1------------------ •--------
CERAL
ERAL PLAN + PROJECT I.C.U. 10.90
• _--_•------------------- __....._
PLAN + I III1
PROJECT I.C.U. + IMPROVEMENTS 1 0.90 I
Or---------------•--------------------------------------------------------------------------
� General Plan + Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than
1 or equal to 0.90
f
1 General Plan + Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90
General Plan + Project Traffic I.C.U. w/system improvements
_) will be less than or equal to 0.90
General Plan + Project Traffic I.C.U. w/project improvements 1
will be less than I.C.0 without project
----___----••-----------------------------------------
i� Description of system improvement:
i
-------•-----
�OJECT• SHERATON COMMERCIAL CENTER DATE: 3/25/92 - r
1
/P /Envt
i Rock E, Miller & Associates ,
Traffic & Transportation Engineers
April 13, 1992
' Mr. Richard Edmonston
City of Newport Beach
Traffic Engineering
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768
Subject: Sheraton Commercial Center -- General Plan Amendment
Dear Rich:
•
' The study prepared by Rock E. Miller and Associates for the subject
general plan amendment indicates that any project with a PM Peak
hour outbound traffic generation of less than 109 trips would not
cause impacts at the intersection of Jamboree and MacArthur. You
requested information regarding potential mixtures of land use
which would generate traffic within this limit.
' Alternatives 5, 6, and 7 described within the report each represent
development of 41,750 square feet (sf) and each would generate less
than 109 outbound trips. These alternatives range from 21, 000 sf
to 35,000 sf of retail, with up to 1100 sf of fast food restaurant,
and the balance in office. Alternative 7 (85% retail, 10% In-Line
Restaurant, and 5% Fast Food) generates 107 trips and thus
' represents the practical limit of restaurant development if 41,750
feet are to be developed. Additional fast food uses could be
developed, however the total developed building area would require
reduction to stay within 109 trips.
A typical modern fast food restaurant with interior seating area
occupies 4000 square feet. A restaurant this size would generate
' 55. 6 outbound pm peak hour trips. Deducting these trips from the
109 trip limit would allow 53 .4 trips for other uses. Table 1
• illustrates potential additional uses which .could be permitted,
t preserving the 109 trip maximum. The table also indicates a
typical site area required for this amount of development. If this
figure approaches the site area, the parcel would be considered to
be built out to a reasonable level.
Table 2 summarizes the amount of office, retail or mixture which
could be proposed for varying and increasing amounts of fast food
' development. only additional permitted floor area is shown.
' 17852 East Seventeenth Street, Suite 107, Tustin, CA 92680
FAX(714)573-9534 TEL. (774)573-0317
c//Q /Ent
i Rock E. Miller & Associates
Traffic & Transportation Engineers
Page 2
Table 1
POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES
site
Use Gen Rt Area Trips area
Fast Food 13.9 4.0 55.6 0.92
Office 1.7 31.4 53 .4 1.80
TOTAL 35.4 109.0 2.7
' Fast Food 13 . 9 440 55. 6 0.92
Retail 2 26.7 53 .4 1.53
TOTAL 30.7 109. 0 2-5
' Notes: Gen Rt indicates pm peak hour outbound trip generation
rate per 1000 sf. Area indicates building area allocated
to indicated use. Trips are outbound pm peak hour trips.
Site area is typical area in acreage for a development
with the floor area shown, presuming normal 1-2 story
development and open parking.
' Table 2
POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES
Area Fast Food (ksf) 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 6.2
' Fast Food Tripe 27.8 41.7 55.6 69.5 83.4 86.2
Trips Available 81.2 67.3 53.4 39.5 25.6 22.8
Max Additional Buildable Area (ksf)
' 100% Office 47.8 39.6 31.4 23.2 15.1 13.4
80/20 45.6 37.8 30.0 22.2 14.4 12.8
60/40 43.4 36.0 28.6 21.1 13.7 12.2
40/60 41.3 34.2 27.1 20.1 13.0 11.6
20/80 39.1 32.4 25.7 19.0 12.3 11.0
100% Retail 36.9 30.6 24.3 18.0 11.6 10.4
' Notes: Ksf=1000 Sq. ft. Area Fast Food indicates alternative
floor areas for Fast Food, from 2000 sf to 6200 sf. The
outbound peak hour generation and trips available below
109 are also indicated. The lower portion of the table
indicates buildable floor area for 100% office, 100%
retail or mixtures of these uses.
' 17852 East Seventeenth Street, Suite 107, Tustin, CA 92680
iFAX(774)573-9534 TEL (714)573-0317
1 Rock E. Miller & Associates
Traffic & Transportation Engineers
Page 3
It has been a pleasure to provide the additional information you
requested regarding the subject study. Please contact me if- you
have any additional questions or if you have additional concerns.
I am also available to discuss the study with the project
proponent, as necessary.
' sincerely,
Rock Miller, P.E.
Firm Principal
1
' 77852 East Seventeenth Street, Suite 107, Tustin, CA 92680
iFAX(774)573-9534 TEL (774)573-0317
1
O ' ROURKE ENGINEERING
' TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
FOR
'1165 S.Milliken Ave HARBOR PACIFIC PLAZA
Suite[ IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
Ontario
California 91761
714 467 0221
FAX:714 467 0178
Prepared for:
' City of Newport Beach
Traffic Engineering Department
' Prepared by:
' O'ROURKE ENGINEERING
September 4, 1991
' TU 08911.0
t
1
' Carlsbad•Ontario•Santa Ana
' N
O ' ROURHE ENGINEERING
' September 4, 1991
Ms. Pat Temple
Engineering Department
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Beach Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
,1166 S.Milliken Ave.
suite Dear Ms. Temple:
Ontario The traffic impact report for the mixed-use Harbor Pacific
California91761 Plaza is complete. The results of the analysis are
7144670221 summarized herein.
FAX:714 467 0178
' If you have any questions or comments, please do not
hesitate to call.
' Very truly yours,
7O1RO NGINEERING
�g
san E. O�Rourke, P.E.
- uL•y
' Carlsbad•Ontario•Santa Ana
TABLE OF CONTENTS
' Introduction 1
Existing Conditions 4
' Trip Generation 8
Trip Distribution 9
' Trip Assignment 9
Background Traffic 12
Method of Projection 12
Committed Projects 12
Areawide Growth 15
' Total Traffic 15
Traffic Analysis 18
' Conclusion 21
APPENDICES
' Appendix A: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis
' Appendix B: Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)
TABLES
' Table 1: Trip Generation 8
Table 2: Committed Projects 12
Table 3: Intersection Level of Service-AM Peak Hour 18
Table 4: Intersection Level of Service-PM Peak Hour 18
FIGURES
1 Figure 1: Project Location 2
' Figure 2: Project Site 3
Figure 3 : Existing Lane Geometry 5
Figure 4.: Existing Traffic Volume-AM Peak Hour 6
Figure 5: Existing Traffic Volume-PM Peak Hour 7
' Figure 6: Project Traffic Assignment-AM Peak Hour 10
' Figure 7: Project Traffic Assignment-PM Peak Houx 11
Figure 8: Total Traffic Volumes-AM Peak Hour 16
' Figure 9: Total Traffic Volumes-PM Peak Hour 17
Figure 10: Roadway Needs - Year 1993 20
1
I
L
INTRODUCTION
O'Rourke Engineering has been retained to provide the
' traffic impact analysis for the proposed retail/fast food
development located on the Sheraton Hotel site at the
intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Birch Street in the
' City of Newport Beach. The project location is shown in
Figure 1, and consists of 19,000 square feet of retail use
and 2,120 square feet for a fast food restaurant. The
project site plan is shown in Figure 2. It is expected to
' be complete by year 1993.
1
1
AV"
r
♦.AtRPORTER
p,»•wyp/ V.
+THE INN yQ� D TERMINAL / AEGISLRy eel, 'Y
OF
KR SITE PROJECT 1co
C IIw J Cr SI ♦ (V
EA :S.rnisr(nu.✓I(A 0- ERATON•
OA R ny rrson+tvuuuN+/
� QJy ;d � qy P nro
PHO u+a(O(a.xr>,:fpu Ulfn �. E I
E
.vR(D�
sF roti�' Fs L
0 <
P� `� /STD S9�S O ♦Q �� 4 '7 3 I o
DOLPHIN >v
7 9t C `'�' `�¢-O4. `VS> •.�. C' 1 M v�. li � .r X I � _w� ?:
(h� Jj sf.::�•` 1J bi• ?SLy ti,: � O IJE PO
P �P
4
4Gy,/QaO M
r ESV oA77: OR
—
NEW
1 UPPER PLO
Q' / O ...'.:+•P ,A NfWPOAI OL m
o- iJ E 9 ACH. Y wit•_• 0
Al Bow-
� �.;� C�' .. 'i • "` :. titi PtA(A
Ps
l �`� C UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
GULF
IRVINE CAMPUS
COURSE G•PO QP y `c'J'i/. ,C( W
J
WILDLIFE
cr0 iH PRESERVE
NTS
014 O'ROURKE ENGINEERING LOCATIONuMAP
HARBOR PACIFIC PLAZA
r
M
\ .Q
/ No-r A \
Q? / PART \ \
E ting
Ho \�
tei
Food
I O
�Ly
2 _47568 _
(az MACARTHUR BLVD 516.66' 9' Easement
FIGURE 2
O'ROURKE ENGINEERING SITE PLAN
HARBOR PACIFIC PLAZA
' EXISTING CONDITIONS
Based on recommendations by City staff, existing
' conditions, including lane geometrics and traffic counts,
were assessed at the following intersections:
' - MacArthur Boulevard/Jamboree Road
MacArthur Boulevard/Birch Street
MacArthur Boulevard/Campus Drive
- Jamboree Road/Birch Street
' _ Jamboree Road/Campus Drive
Campus Drive-Irvine Avenue/Bristol Street
- Campus Drive/Bristol North Street
' The existing lane geometry is illustrated in Figure 3 .
Existing (Winter/Spring 1991) AM and PM peak hour traffic
counts, provided by the City, are shown in Figures 4 and 5,
' respectively. This information serves as a base to project
future traffic and necessary mitigation.
1 . .
1 '
1
III 1
' 4
LEGEND
F FREE FLOW
O EXISTING SIGNAL
tie
F l T
��-
a �
iSr 1c 1 W T C9�i
N .•�\\ Fly � s°9
/ G
� T
F
JAMBOREE RD
N =; t
NTS j Fes{
U m
WROURKE ENGINEERING FIGURE 3
EXISTING LANE GEOMETRY
HARBOR PACIFIC PLAZA
Orov
NNN
l'J 7 tl 2
l 40
P�
0
6$A I to-u50i �P
+ 9 p3
�OyR
p< N co oNo, �`. 7 7 .�ry
18
12 8
T 2ss e
1r o0
^och 9 6 �r
e97s 6^^0 309-/ r r �/IN
�0 ^^OAR
Tic �j j 17 N
a 7s J c
� 8 p 9�AGS
4� 89 � l pip
w p�7p 0J �(r
7 Y ry^��OO C OP
706"o x
44?l� Q J
f /f a m ei
cowro r` 244
yam
!, I �,t /--642
T
JAMBOREE RD
lY 203—r
97 —� OD OD N
MOm
cc JO C4,
NTS 2 G
In
r >
J
o co FIGURE 4
AM PEAK HOUR
C .14 WROURKE ENGINEERING EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUME
HARBOR PACIFIC PLAZA
NN�O
Volt 70
T y 4 150
PO
wP
'l t 0P
P
69Ak Nov
97Sr ^((yh$
°<`rT now }`211 lry
,-326 75088�-r
lJT �204 °A;s.
00
s9is gNryba 183 r°! _}� COCOLo 6 otoco
68
io''. Nan 7�9 s Cs�AG
ti -e \ie
A�
I` �ryN ^66y 00 ^0
y oP cc
7-;vs
729qwp�SS� ¢ >
r ^ryryo�
9 y TT
Na
N 143
Co Lo
T t-599
t �� 66
JAMBOREE RD
r� 285-�
285
34-
1CC vtN
:3 N to
7
NTS T
Cl
F- >
5 J
C�1(� o m FIGURE 5
JI� O'ROURKE ENGINEERING f PM PEAK HOUR
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUME
HARBOR PACIFIC PLAZA
' TRIP GENERATION
The trip generation potential for the proposed development
' was determined by trip generation rates provided by the
City of Newport Beach. Table 1 summarizes trip generation
for the AM peak hour, PM peak hour and an average daily.
' TABLE 1: TRIP GENERATION
LAND USE AREA(SF) RATE(Per 1000 SW TRIPS
' AM PM Daily AM PM Daily
In/Out In/Out in/out In/Out
' RETAIL 19,000 0.6/0.5 1.9/2.0 45.0 11/10 36/38 855
FAST FOOD 2,120 7.8/7.8 8.8/7.5 205.0 10/10 19/16 435
21/20 55/54 1,290
*Source: City of Newport Beach.
1 I
1
1
I ' 8
TRIP DISTRIBUTION
From a review of existing and future development in the
1 City of Newport Beach, and considering the arterial network
with its travel time characteristics, the trip distribution
was determined. By major geographical direction, the
' external trip distribution is�
North 35%
South - 25%
' East _ 25%
West 15%
' TRIP ASSIGNMENT
The above percentages were applied to the generated trips
' to develop a basic travel demand pattern. The AM and PM
peak hour project traffic assignments are shown in Figures
6 and 7, respectively.
1
1
1
1
1
1
9
ONO \—D
Il" ~-0
T
P
0
�
H 0"
eH'ST YJ�O
0
D of
T }
o I`
� �' q
9�sT0`sT r/^ �X00 C SAG
O SO
Go 0
x
p t r p O
T
ocoo
� I � (0
T JAMBOREE RD
•0_;e 1
r� 0—r ) I r
0--\ ono
2 f PROJECT SITE
NTS ty Cl
[L j
a m FIGURE 6
C O'ROURKE ENGINEERING AM PEAK HOUR
PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUME, 1993
HARBOR PACIFIC PLAZA
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
oT'o X—0
T { /-T Qo
-0,( I
0 oar
O 'er
ti
O l J
<ST nolo �0
7 1 `r t0
T J�
* ijo
co
T O`sr r/lb OC��ALSO
-�o 9
{ °�40
T �x
8
°l�
e�q�y
omo l` 0
l) I
0 T•-
T JAMBOREE RD
0--.-e
0—* I I
r� U-•� 000
¢7 PROJECT SITE
s13
NTS C
0 FIGURE 7
O'ROURKE ENGINEERING PM PEAK HOUR
019PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUME, 1993
HARBOR PACIFIC PLAZA
' BACKGROUND TRAFFIC
Method of Projection
' To assess future traffic conditions, the existing traffic
is combined with areawide growth, plus traffic from the
' committed projects, plus the project. The study year is
1993; the year the project will be complete and available
for full occupancy.
' Committed Projects
The traffic from committed projects surrounding the study
area was included in the analysis. Table 2 lists these
' committed projects and their percentage of occupancy as of
August 15, 1991. The external traffic components of these
projects were assigned to the roadway network. The
' external trip distribution and trip assignment were
provided by the City.
' TABLE 2: COMMITTED PROJECTS*
PROJECT OCCUPANCY
' Hughes Aircraft #1 100%
Sunsetted 0
Far West Savings & Loan 100
' Superseded 0
Aeronutronic Ford 100
Back Bay Office 100
' Boyle Engineering 100
Cal Canadian Bank 100
Civic Plaza 89
Corporate Plaza 30
' Koll Center Newport 100
MacArthur Court 100
Superseded 0
' Superseded 0
Orchard Office 100
Pacific Mutual Plaza 100
' 3701 Birch Office 100
Newport Place 86
Sunsetted 0
Bank of Newport 100
' Bayside Square 100
Sea Island 100
Baywood Apartments 100
' Harbor Point Homes 100
Roger's Gardens 100
12
' Cont'd
Seaview Lutheran Plaza 100%
Rudy Baron 100
' Quail Business Center 100
441 Newport Blvd 100
Marthats Vineyard 100
Valdez 0
' Coast Business Center 100
Koll Center Newport No. 1 TPP 0
Ross Mollard 100
' Sunsetted 0
Hughes Aircraft #2 100
Superseded 100
' Flagship Hospital 100
Big Canyon 10 29
Fun Zone 100
Marriott Hotel 100
' St. Andrews Church 100
YMCA 0
Allred Condos 100
' Morgan Development 100
Four Seasons Hotel 100
Univ Ath Club TPP 4 Emkay 100
' Block 400 Medical 100
Amendment #1, MacArthur Court 52
Amendment #2, Ford Aero (Proj 56) 100
Carver Granville Office 100
' Corona Del Mar Homes 100
Big Canyon Villa Apartments 0
1400 Dove Street 0
1100 Quail Street 0
Superseded 0
Koll Center TPP Amendment 4A 0
Sunsetted 0
' Rosan's Development 90
Block 500 Npt Center Project 100
Newport Aquatics Center 45
' 2600 E Coast Highway 100
Jasmine Park 100
Sunsetted 0
' Newporter Inn Expansion 100
Sunsetted 0
Sunsetted 0
Fashion is Renaissance 100
' Sunsetted 0
CDM Senior Project 100
Point Del Mar 100
' Pacific Club 100
Sunsetted 0
1
1 �
13
' Cont'd
Newport Seacrest Apartments 100%
3800 Campus Drive (M-storage) 0
' Hoag Cancer Center 0
Edwards Newport Center 0
Seaside Apartments (Mesa II) 100
' Victoria Station (office) 100
3760 Campus Drive (M-storage) 0
Newport Imports 100
Superseded 0
' Mariners' Mile Marine Center 100
15th Street Apartments 100
Seaside Apartments III 100
Newport Bay Retirement Inn 0
Newport Classic Inn 0
Mariners Church Expansion 0
McLachlan-Newport Place 0
' 1501 Superior Medical 0
Fashion Island #2 0
Newporter Resort Expand. 0
' Sunsetted 0
Newport Lido Medical Center 0
Villa Point 0
Shokrian 0
15th Street Apartments 0
Rockwell Expansion 0
Andrew Restaurant 0
' Balboa / Washington 0
Newport Imports Rest. 0
28th Street Marina Project 0
' Ambrosia Restaurant 0
Calty/Toyota Expansion 0
Our Lady Queen of Angels 0
Zonta Club Residential 0
' 28th Street Island 0
Villa Point II 0
Taco Bell (fast food) 0
Fashion Island Transfer 0
Pacific Bell Site 0
Amendment #1 Ford Aero (Prof 340) 100
' Amendment #1 North Ford (Proj 530) 100
Amendment #1 North Ford (Proj 531) 100
Amendment #1 North Ford (Proj 532) 100
Newport Dunes 0
' Bayview 0
City of Irvine Development 0'
' *Source: City of Newport Beach
1
14
' Areawide Growth
' To account for areawide growth on the roadway, a 3. 0%,
2.5%, and 1. 0% regional traffic annual growth rates have
been assigned to MacArthur Boulevard, Campus Drive, and
Jamboree Road, respectively. These rates were recommended
' by the City. The areawide growth was then added to the
existing traffic, and 50% of committed projects to get
background traffic volumes at project buildout. The 50%
' reduction of committed project volumes is to account for
their existing occupancy.
' Total Traffic
Total traffic volumes were developed for 1993 as follows:
' Total Traffic = Existing + 2 years growth + 50% of
committed projects + project traffic
' Using the 1% Traffic Volume Analysis sheets, provided by
the City, project traffic was compared to total traffic
during the peak 2-1/2 hour AM and PM time spans at each
study area intersection. Test worksheets are provided in
' Appendix A.
It was determined that three intersections -
' MacArthur/Campus, MacArthur/Birch and Jamboree/Campus -
were impacted by the project greater than 1%, and hence,
ICU calculations were performed. ICU worksheets are
provided in Appendix B.
Total traffic volumes, for the three intersections, at
project buildout are shown in Figures 8 and 9 for the AM
' and PM peak hours, respectively.
t
1
I
' ' is
cow
NON ?�115 Qp
- —268
t r 1 f-4s p0
CAMPUS DR
532— P
1042—� �� t �~ '
tiG 45 �{ 'Dio m a
9 $�
^ry$
l S51
z y T t
o �
¢ > T ♦ ?8S3
S Q m Ora 'Y
e9�S ^yrvyo
T0< cq�,o
ST GS
rn Gq
0
yG pp ¢
m
c~c >
Q .J
U m 6
i9cy
sT
o tO
7
n,
r.-24
BIRCH ST
323—� ll I r{
cc 17 �1 ova
7 NOD
NTS Iz— j
G J
co FIGURE 8
O'ROURKE ENGINEERING AM PEAK HOUR
TOTAL TRAFFIC VOLUME, 1993
HARBOR PACIFIC PLAZA
(0mN
1-1080
1165 00
R �11 CAMPUS,DR )Q�
383 —* 1 I
752 —� 1 I I
46 132 �� ww vi 0lb
bi
-q-/ �
ST sr �T l
S ,
Ir
F Y \�
F=- p T ♦ �)9
1
e9i Ob1�0
STO<
ST OS
� O,p
i
5 00
IX
p
Q J
U ro 6
to V
� igcy
sT
,Low �`143
N co N
� 7 � -607
/-71
1� �/ BIRCH ST
309 I I
A I 09—*-
!�i 34 tot,0
ft i N W N
7 N 1,
NTS !_ j
a co
a 0° FIGURE 9
O'ROURKE ENGINEERING PM PEAK HOUR
TOTAL TRAFFIC VOLUME, 1993
HARBOR PACIFIC PLAZA
' TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
The critical intersections were analyzed using Intersection
' Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology. A lane capacity of
1600 vehicles per hour for both thru and turn lanes and
zero clearance value were recommended by the City for the
ICU calculation.
' Level of service (LOS) was determined for existing traffic
volumes, total traffic volumes without project, and total
' traffic volumes with project in year 1993 , during the AM
and PM peak hours. A summary of LOS is described in Tables
3 and 4.
' TABLE 3: INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE - AM PEAK HOUR
t Intersection Existina Total Traffic Total Traffic
w/o Project with Project
' MacArthur/ B (0.62) B (0.69) B (0.69)
Campus
MacArthur/ B (0.70) C (0.75) C (0.75)
' Birch
Jamboree/ C (0.72) C (0.73) C (0.73)
' Campus B (0.70)*
*Level of Service with improvement.
TABLE 4: INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE - PM PEAK HOUR
Intersection Existing Total Traffic Total Traffic
w/o Project with Project
' MacArthur/ C (0.75) D (0.83) D (0.83)
Campus
' MacArthur/ A (0.58) B (0.63) B (0. 63)
Birch
' Jamboree/ B (0.63 ) E (0.91) E (0.92)
Campus D (0 .86)*
' *Level of Service with improvement.
1 is
1
' The project traffic will only slightly impact the roadway
network. However, improvements should be made to
' accommodate the combination of existing traffic, plus
background traffic and project traffic. These improvements
include the addition of an eastbound thru-lane and
restriping of the eastbound shared left-thru lane to an
' exclusive left-turn lane at Jamboree Road/campus Drive.
With this improvement, all intersections will operate at
Level of Service D or better. Figure 10 illustrates the
' roadway needs at year 1993.
1 _
1
1
1
1
' 19
1
LEGEND TTTI`
F FREE FLOW
O EXISTING SIGNAL
• �r �P
�- EXISTING LANE i►
PROPOSED LANE
9� ¢
s RESTRIPE
T )
O
t •
�Sp �ti-•F T�
-Ile
07
`sT `1ly,
T
T �
cys
� r
F
'n �—
~ JAMBOREE RD
cc —a
NTS
QJ
to
C!)� O'ROURKE ENGINEERING FIGURE 10
ROADWAY NEEDS
HARBOR PACIFIC PLAZA
i
' CONCLUSION
' Harbor Pacific Plaza will have an impact on the roadway
network in 1993 of 1290 average daily trips, 41 AM peak
hour trips and 109 PM peak hour trips. Overall, this
impact is minimal.
However, with the additional background traffic from
committed projects and areawide growth, improvements should
' be made at the intersection of Jamboree Road/Campus Drive
to attain LOS D or better. No mitigation, due to this
future traffic addition, is necessary for the intersections
' of MacArthur Blvd/Campus Drive and MacArthur Blvd/Birch
Street.
1
I
21
1
' APPENDIX A
' 15." TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS
1
I t
1
' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis
' Intersection JAMBOREE RD/BIRCH- ST
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter pring 19 _ AM
' �� Peak 211 Hour Approved
1; Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2s Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2, Hour Peak 2k Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
1 0
Northbound 2810 5& 3 `1
Southbound 4045 2 I 435 4S 6 i
Eastbound 760
i Westbound 319 0 3 l � 3 I v
t
' Lit Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Lv 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.
1
1
1
DATE: 09
' PROJECT: C,r6Or- PQ,Cz C �ct
V FORM I
1
' IA1301AM
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD & BIRCH STREET 4308
EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1991 AM
_. _ ___I--
____________________________________________________________________________
I IEXISTIN G]PROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED [PROJECTIPROJECTI
MovementI Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVolume I V/C I
I ICapacitylCapaeityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume ]w/o Projectl I Ratio I
' I I I I I I I I volume I I I
I___________________________________________________________________________________________I
I NL 1 1600 1 1 219 1 0.14 * 1 2 1 I 1 I
----- ----- - -- 4 -----
---------------- ------------------ - ------------------------------
1 NT 1 1 1129 1 I Z 1 _______._.1 1 1
--------) 4800 ------------------) 0.24 ____________________' ---•----••----I
I NR 1 1 7 1 1 O I 1 1 1
' i________i________i________i______$i___ ________________________________________________I
SL 1600 0.01 1 10 1 1 I I
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
I ST 1 4800 1 1 1233 1 0.26 * 1 ZQa- 1 1 1 1
1-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
I SR I N.S. 1 1 10301 1 1 22 1 1 1 1
' ___________________________________________________________________________________________I
1 EL 1 1 153 I I 341 I 1 1
I________) 3200 -----------------) 0.05 *---_________--_-___-_______.__ _______________I
I ET 1 1 3 I 1 0 1 1 1 1
----
ER I N.S. 1 1 271 1 14 I I 1 I
i___________________________________________________________________________________________I
' I WL I I a I I -- I -------------------- I
I WT 1600 1 1 a 0.02 * 1 U I I 1 1
I------•-) -----------------• -----------------------------------------------
' I WR I 1 10 I I O I 1 1 1
1-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
]EXISTING 1 0.47 1 1
1____________________________________________________________________________ ]
1EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I I
I___________________________________________________________________________________________i
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
'I_I 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 FORMAT I
JA4308AM
1
1
1
' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis
' Intersection JAMBOREE RD/BIRCH ST
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on verage inter pring 19 9 PM
' Peak 211 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2)1 Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 24, Hour Peak 2y Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
' Northbound 2585 rj 2 37 6 3 U 1 3 3a
southbound 3431 D 12 45 45 2
Eastbound 1420 35 1 q 58 t 5
I
' Westbound 54 0 5 n 1 !
' 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.
1
DATE: Qq 105191
' PROJECT: L4= bov Pact( c, G lay
FORM I
JA4308AM
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
' INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD & BIRCH STREET 4308
EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1991 PM
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
' I IEXISTING[PROPOSED I EXISTING IEXI STING IREGIONAL[COMMITTED I PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI
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 lw/o Project[ I Ratio I
I I I I I I I I votuae I I I
1-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
I NL 1 1600 1 1 48 1 0.03 * I Z I I i I
---- - ---------------------• ------_ --- --------_ -'
I NT 1 1 1048 1 1 188I I I I
I---•----) 4800 ------------------) 0.22 --------------------_ --------•--_--I
' i NR I ] 0 I 1 0 1 I I I
SL 1 16001 1 61 0.001 1 D I I I I
]-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
' 1 ST 1 4800 1 1 1560 1 0.33 * 1 4931 1 1 1
_--------•---- - --------
SR I N.S. 1 1 2171 1 1 14 1 1 1 1
i-------------•-----------•--------•------------------••--------- .--------------I
' 1 EL ] ] I
--z i I ro ----------I I I
i ET I 1 1 I 1 2 1 1 1 1
I••-•---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
] ER I N.S. 1 1 1391 1 1 12 1 1 1 1
l--•••-•--•-----------------------------------------••---.___.-•-----------------------•----I
I WL 1 1 8 1 1 6 I I I I
I'.......) ------------------)
WT 1600 1 1 1 0.01 * I Q I I I I
--------) ------------------) -----------------------------------------------I
WR I I 6 I I 0 1 --------- I I I
1EXISTING 1 0.55 1 1
' 1---------------------------------------------------•-------•---------------- ]
]EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I I
I•-----------------------------------------•---------•------••--------------•--•---•--------]
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
Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement witL 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 FORMAT I
JA4308PM
1, 1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection JAMBOREE RD/MACARTHUR BL
1 (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter Spring 1991 AM
1 Peak 2�g Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1; of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2> Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
1 Northbound 3873 Z35 25-1 4365 (0
Southbound 1717 1 0 4 36G Z 18� 22 i G
1 Eastbound 832 17 456 1305 ; 3
1 Westbound 2184 �j96 ?, 24 Z
1 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 21-2 Hour Traffic Volume
1 ❑ 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.
i
1
i
i
1
' 1
1
1 _
DATE: '09 /05 1%
1 PROJECT: 14 c4 bftf QQ cJ C � I �+ ;3-
1 J FORM I
1
JA4275AM
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
' INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE RD(E-W) 8 MACARTHUR BL(N-S) 4275
EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1991 AM
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
t I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI
[Movementl 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-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
I NL 1 1600 1 1 538 1 0.34 1 1 10 1 I 1 1
------ -- -- --- ---- - --• -- ------ -------•---
' I HT 1 1 1208 1 1 C)0 I I I I
I--------) 4800 ------------------) 0.29 •____--------___--- ---------•----I
I NR I 1 195 I 1 30 1 I 1 1
-•--'- ----' --------_
i SL 1 1600 1 1 96 1 0.06 * I g I I I I
I-----------------------------------------------------------------------------•-------------I
ST 1 48001 1 4891 0.101 1 121 1 I 1 1
i___________________________________________________________________________________________I
i SR I H.s. 1 1 1871 1 1 54 1 1 1 1
I--------------------------------------•-----_________________-----•----•-----------•-______I
i EL 1 3200 1 1 45 1 0.01 * 1 -78 1 1 1 1
I---------------------------•-------------•---•---------------------------------------------I
ET ] 4800 1 1 203 1 0.04 1 1 146 1 1 1 1
' I---••---____----•-------••---------------------•--------____-------•-----------------------I
ER I N.S. 1 1 971 I 1 4 1 1 1 1
i___________________________________________________________________________________________I
' I WL 1 3200 1 1 64 1 0.02 1 1 3 Z I I I I
___________________________________________________________________________________________I
1 WT 1 4800 1 1 712 1 0.15 * 1 194 1 1 1 1
i---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------i
' I WR I N.S. 1 1 2441 1 1 2-4 1 1 1 1
I-------•------------------------------------•----------------------------------------------I
(EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.51 1 1
' 1-•------------------------•---______---•------------•---•------------------- I
(EXIST t REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I I
I___________________________________________________________________________________________I
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 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 II
JA4275AM
1 i
' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection 'JAMBOREE RD/MACARTHUR BL
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 91) PM
Peak 2� Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2 Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
' Northbound 1974 12U 2-
3-rG-
southbound 3046 18fo �CoI 3693 3-1
Eastbound 2618 rJ2 = Fg 3 Z 3a 32 i C
Westbound 1791
1
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
IIJJ 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.
1
1
I ,
DATE: oq /05
fi
PROJECT: NC>Jrb9f ems.,^J.;�'--
FORM I
' JA4275PM
1 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
' INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD & MACARTHUR BOULEVARD 4275
EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1991 PM
-----------------____________________________________________________________________________
' I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPRUJECTI
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 1w/o Projectl I Ratio I
I I I I I I I I Volume 1 1. 1
' I---------------------------------------------------------•-------•-------------------------I
I NL 1 1600 1 1 208 1 0.13 * 1 Z I 1 1 1
___________________________________________________________________________________________I
' I NT 1 1 556 1 1 Z02 1 1 1 1
I--------) 4800 ------------------) 0.12 -----------------------------------------------I
I NR 1 1 35 1 1 2-0 1 1 1 1
I------------------------------------------------------------•--------•-------"'•---------•I
St. 1 1600 1 1 329 I 0.21 1 1 55 1 1 1 1
I----------------------------•--------------------------------------------------------------I
ST 1 4800 1 1 1062 1 0.22 * 1 1 31 1 1 1 1
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
SR I N.S. 1 1 721 1 1 46 1 1 1 1
___________________________________________________________________________________________I
' I EL 1 3200 1 . 1 183 1 0.06 * I 1 2 I I I I
ET 1 4800 1 1 685 1 0.14 1 1 20 4- 1 1 1 1
' I----•-----------------------------•------------___--------__-------------------------------I
I ER I N.S. 1 1 4101 1 1 10 1 1 1 1
___________________________________________________________________________________________I
WL 1 3200 1 1 204 1 0.06 1 1 3 0 1 1 1 1
--------' ---------------- -----
WT 1 4800 1 1 326 1 0.07 * 1 : 5 P 1 1 1 1
I------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
' I WR I N.S. 1 1 211 1 1 1 I I I I
___________________________________________________________________________________________1 .
(EXISTING 1 0.48 1 1
' 1-----'•-"'----------"'----""-•-----••-----------------------••---------- I
(EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I i
I___________________________________________________________________________________________I
(EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I
1 -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------•----------•---------
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 equal to 0.90
I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will
' be less than I.C.U. without project
Description of system improvement:
' PROJECT FORMAT I
JA4275PM
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
' Intersection BRISTOL ST/CAMPUS DR—IRVINE AV
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on verage inter pring 19 9 AM
' Peak 2� Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected l% of Projected Project
Direction Peak 211 Growth Peaour Pea Vol
our Peak
umeHour PeaVolumeour
Volume Volume Volume Volume
' I �
Northbound 4833 ?!1) 32. 5210 SZ
Southbound 1203 �22 y 8b 15
Eastbound 6614 L8� (0897 I (09
Westbound _0_ —0—
' Project Traffic is estimated to be Tess 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.
1
1
DATE: (DG
PROJECT: 40_, b(P-f Qae,' - c P 1`C" CL FORM I
' BA4155AM
' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET & CAMPUS DRIVE/IRVINE AVENUE 4155
EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC HINTER/SPRING 1991 AM
•-------•••••-----•----•----•"'-----------•-------•-"•--.•_-----•-•- --•••-
I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI
[Movementl 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 Votuae I Volume Iw/o Project i Ratio I
i I I I I I I I Volume I i i
I----------••--------------------------------__-----------------------------.____._---------I
' I NL I I i I I I p 1 I 1 1
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
NT I 6400 I I 1840 I 0.29 • I 7 I I I I
___________________________________________________________________________________________I
' I NR I 1600 I I 454 I 0.28 I 1 GO I I I
I-----------------------•-----------------------__---------•-------------------------------
SL I 1600 I I 88 I 0.06 * I D I I I I
I--------------------------------------------------------------•--•------ __-----I
I ST I I I I I I III I ._......._I. --I I
-------I -----------
' I SR I I I I I I o I -------------------- I
EL I 2400 I I 1280 I 0.53 I I 28 I I I I
' I ET I 4000 I I 1600 I 0.40 * I I 12. I I I I
(--------------------•-----..._...------•----------------------__.---------------------•----I
ER I 3200 I I 542 I 0.17 I I Z I -__.._____I I 1
--- .-
I WL I I I I I I O I I I I
___________________________________________________________________________________________I
WT I I I I I I ZO I 1 I I
I------•--------------------••----•-•-----------------____--------------------._.-----___---I
I WR I I I I i 10 I 1 I I
______________I
[EXISTING ----� ---- I ______________________________ I
(EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I I
' --------------•---------.__-------•I
(EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
' I_I Project + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90
' I=I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. Witt be greater than 0.90
ID Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement Witt 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 improvement:
PROJECT FORM 11
BR4155AM
I
' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection BRISTOL ST/CAMPUS DR—IRVINE AV
' (Existing Traffic Volumes based on XverageWinter pring 19'91 PM
t Peak 21s Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project
Direction Peak 211 Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 215 Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2� Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
' I
Northbound 3280 1(prp Z Z 4 3C07 C)
sorthbound 3264 I65 1 D9 3535 35 0
Eastbound 6657 i �} dZ 105G1 1 i 1 ip
i
Westbound —0—
1
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
I((J Peak 22 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.
t
1
1
DATE: r1 0 5 /Cy I
PROJECT: H0X 100V �LG Ce—,�D
V FORM I
BA4155PM
' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET 8 CAMPUS DRIVE/IRVINE AVENUE 4155
EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1991 PM
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI
1Movementl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR 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 Projectl I Ratio I
I I I I I I I I Volume I I
I------•---------------"------"----"------""--------------"--------------"""-------""-------
' 1 NL I I I I I I tD I I I I
1---"-------•--------"--""-------------------"------"-----------------------"-"-------"-----1
NT 1 6400 I 1 1221 1 0.19 1 1 _��__I__________.I______.I_ 1
I-------"---"----"------"""---------------------------- ------I
NR 1 1600 1 1 306 1 0.19 1 1 l Q c) I I I
1-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SL 1 1600 1 1 223 1 0.14 1 1 b I I I
1------------------"--------
1 sT I I I I I I 54 I-----------I-------I I 1__.___._) 4800 ---------- 1348 ) 0.28 -------------_______ ..____1
' I BR I I I I I I b II I
. -"-----" I
EL 1 2400 1 1 455 1 0.19 1 1 -TD I I I I
1-----------"------------"-------------------------------------"-------------------- -------I
' 1 ET 1 4000 1 1 1285 1 0.32 1 1 129 1 1 1 1
1---------------•---------------------------------------------------------------------------I
1 ER 1 3200 1 1 1297 1 0.41 * 1 3 1 1 1 1
j -------------------------------------------•-----------------------"---I W� I I I I I 1 6 1 1 1 1
•----------------------------------------------------------------------I'
' 1 Wr I I I I I I Z I I I I
- - 2 - - I
I WR I I I I I I Q I I I I
----- -------1
1 EXISTING 1 0.69 I
--------------------------- - - I
1EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I i
' I---------------"-------"------------------------------------.---------"--------"------"----i
1EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I
-------------------------------------------------------------------------"-"------------"----
' 1_1 Project + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90
' 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. witt be greater than 0.90
I-I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement wilt be
Less than or equal to 0.90
' 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will
be less than I.C.U. without project
1 --•-----------"•-•------------------"--------"------------
Description of system improvement:
PROJECT FORM 11
' BR4155PM
t
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
' Intersection BRISTOL STREET NORTH/CAMPUS DRIVE
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter Spring 19 91 AM
' Peak 2� Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected I Project
Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2,, Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2� Hour j Peak 2� Hour
' Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 20�4• 3-713 (oj
5806
' S 6 i �8
uthbound 1357 �
Sc✓Q �G
-709
rWaestb
stbound _�_ _ p _ 0ound 2766 C) 34�5 35
' m( Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
LJ 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.
a
DATE: O
PROJECT: OojbE�C RClCt �LG cV�G
FORM r
'• BR4172AM
' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET NORTH & CAMPUS DRIVE/IRVINE AVENUE 4172
' EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC HINTER/SPRING 1991 AM
------------------------------------------------------------ -----'
I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI
' 1Movementl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio Ivolume I V/C I
I ICapacitylcapacityl Volume I Ratio I VoL me I Volume Iw/o Projectl I Ratio
I I I I I I I I Volume I I I
i-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
' I NL 1 3200 1 1 2198 1 0.69 1 11 1 1 2 1 1 1 1
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
I NT I 1 1 36081 1631 1-7 1 1 1 1
--------- 4800 ------------------ 0.75 *------------------------------------------'...I
NR I i I I I I p I I I I
' 1 SL I I I I i i 0---------------- I I
ST 1 2400 1 1 776 1 0.32 1 3 9 1 10 I I I I
I--------------------------------------------------...___--------- ----------------I
' SR 1 5600 1 1 577 1 0.10 1 2 9 1 5 3 1 1 1 1
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
i EL I I I I I 1 0 1 1 1 1
I---------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------I
1 ET I I I I I 1 0 1 1 1 1.
i-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
i ER I I I I I I I ----------� 1 I
1 WL 1 16001 1 4671 0.291 1 1 041 1 1 1
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
WT 1 1 2110 1 1 261 1 1 1 1
I--------) 6400 ------------------) 0.36 *----------------------------------------------I
I WR I 1 189 I 1 0 1 1 1 1
-------------I
1.11
I EXISTING 1 ---- 1-- --------
EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I I
-------------- --------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
I_I 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
' BR4172AM
' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis
' Intersection BRISTOL STREET NORTH/CAMPUS DRIVE
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter spring 19 91 )PM
Peak 2h Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 10. of Projected Project
Direction Peak 211 Hour Growth Peak 2)g Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 21, Hour Peak 2� Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
' Northbound 3759 �q�• �� 402-G 4a I 22
Southbound 4552 Z 30 7-8 1 D
' Eastbound _0_ _0_ _
' Westbound 6817 0 312. —1 1 2,9 , 1
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
u Peak 23-, 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.
1
DATE: 09 05 /91
PROJECT: Ho b(Or Fro e1 �vC 9Ia '.�
Lt
FORM I
' BR4172PM
' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET NORTH & CAMPUS DRIVE/IRVINE AVENUE 4172
EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1991 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 1CapacitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume [w/o Projectl I Ratio I
I I i I I i I I ----I------•I-------I
1-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------•'---761----'0.24-�'---'---------'------Volume-------------------� ,�
' I I 1--------I--------I-----1------------- 3 -------------------------------I
-------'--------'--------I--------I------------------------------- -
765
' I--------- asoo ) I II
I NR I I I I I I Q I I I I
'
----L---i-•-----•I-----------------I---••---i--------i-------------•-----------------------I l _-------••- I I
_________________________________________________________ _____ I
1 ST l 2400 1 1 1244 1 0.52 1 I 3 1 I 1 1
1-------------•-------------------- ----- ---------------I
' 1 SR 1 5600 ** 1 920 1 0.16 * 1 11 __.!_____..___.I 1
---------- ---- . 1
EL I I I I I i Q l I I I
' 1-------------------------------'•---------------••---------------------------•----- -------I
I ET I I I I I 1 p 1 1 1 I
----------------------•------------------------•--- ------I
I ER1 --------------
WL 1 1600 1 1 470 1 0.29 1 1 5 C) I I I I
----------------------------
-------------------------I
I WT 1 1 2606 1 11 p 6 I I I
1
-
1 I
--- --) 6400 i-------'I--------) 0.4 *---------•---------------------
uR 116 I 1 p l 1 1 I
I' __________________________i 0.83___ i_____._.____.__________. _____.. -----
]EXISTING I
I-----------------------•---------------------------------------------------- I
(EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I I
•------•----------------------•------------------•---------------------I
(EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
** ASSUMES NO THROUGH TRAFFIC IN OPTIONAL LANE
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
I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be
Less than or equal to 0.90
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
' BR4172PM
1
' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection MACARTHUR BL/CAMPUS DR
(Existing Traffic Volumes base on Average inter pring 19 91 AM
' Peak 2h Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1 of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2)1 Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2� Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 1978
I ZD 393 Z4°� 1 Z5 a
Southbound 3 0 (0 2-
2689
Eastbound 2910 �}'I 1 1 3 C)1 L I
' Westbound 983 9�j
' 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.
1
r
r 1 DATE: 09 oS / 0) I
' PROJECT:
FORM I
'MA430CAM
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & CAMPUS DRIVE 4300
EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1991 AM
' I-
IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI
IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio lVotume I V/C I
I lCapacitylCapacityl Votume I Ratio I Volume I Volume Iw/o Projectl I Ratio I
' I I I I I I I I Volume I I I
- --------------------------------•._-___..-
I NL 1 1600 1 1 53 i 0.03 1 3 1 p I Q.Ga i � I 1}
_- -___ _ . . . _."---•-----------•------.---
I HT 1 6400 1 1 M 1 0-12 * 41 11 -19 1 (),)0 -I 10,1r, I
--------------------------------------------------------------I
' i NR 1 1600 1 1 58 1 0.04 1 g• 1 U 1 0.01, 1 � 1 O,oL� I
1_________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------I
I SL I 1600 1 1 234 1 0.15 * 14 I g I 0.1�0 10.16
I--•---------------------------------••---------_-------_._---------------------•-----------I
' I ST 1 4800 1 1 776 1 0.16 1 4-1 1 96 I o, Jq 1 `7 1 0•lc 1
------------------------------------------------ -------------I
I SR 1 16001 2101 0.13
I----------------------------------------------------------•--------------------
------------I
I EL 1 3200 I I 506 1 0.16 I 7(0 1 0 I
I----------------------------------------------------------------------------- I
I ET 1 I 984 I 5D 18 1 0,3� 1 10.3
' I---ER --) 3200 ------------------) 0.32 *----------------•-------'--L--•-------------'1
i �
-------------------------------- -- "------I
--. 43----------I Z I 0 1 i I
' 1 WL 1 1600 1 1 40 1 0.03 * Z I (D I p.p j-`I I Q.0 3j1
I--"-"---___-•-------------------------------------•---------"-------•--.__"----"-----------I
WT 1 3200 I i 232 1 0.07 1 12 I -7 } I ,� I 1 0.08 1
' I-----"-••--------------------------------------•----- ------------------ --------------I
I WR I N.S. 1 1 86 1 1 4 I %o I N.S I ID 10 I
-------------------------------------------"---"'--""-•-------""------"I
[EXISTING 1 0.62 1
1----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 Q.69 1 I
-----""----""--•--------------------------------'•"-""-.-.-""---- "--•- -I
--
1EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I O.rb l
' 1�Projected + project traffic I.C.U. wilt be Less than or equal to 0.90
I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. wiLL be greater than 0.90
' I_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be
Less than or equal to 0.90
Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements witt
be less than I.C.U. without project
' Description of system improvement: 1
Nn +Mn nrn, r 0)r f- -CPy I VYIWA0A
PROJECT 1 FORM I1
MA4300AM
1
1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection MACARTHUR BL/CAMPUS DR
' (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter Spring 19 91 PM
' Peak 23� Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2., Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 21, Hour Peak 2� Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
' Northbound 2918 1—Ie)• �48 3244 32
' Southbound 3270 19
393 3 8 2 3q 5'
Eastbound 2512 1 Z� =4GZ6SJ 2-1 i 1
' Westbound 2771 _140 20 Z9 L
' 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.
1 '
1
1
1
DATE: /C �
' PROJECT: I ICi:,Y� C
FORM I
' MA4300PM
INTERSECTION L%PA•CtTY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
' INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & CAMPUS DRIVE 4300
EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1991 PM
IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTING[EXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI
IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR 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 lw/o Project] I Ratio I
I I I I I I I I volume I I I
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
I NL I 1600 1 1 175 I 0-11 * I � 1 0 1 0.12 1 10.121
1 -------- --- - ---------------- -- -------•-------
I NT 1 64001 I 10721 0.171 ( I -70 1 0. 19 I 10.191
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
' I NR 1 1600 I I 140 1 0.09 1 e I O I (D.09 I 1 0.IQ I
SL 1 1600 1 I 246 1 0.15 1 15 I Z4 I C).10 I IO.I01
1 i-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
I ST 1 4800 1 1 702 1 0.15 * 43 11 -73 1 p.19 1 "' I0.20I
------- ------------- ---------------------------------------
i SR I 16001 1 6221 0.391 36 1 C) I 0,?-i 1 10.kl
----------------------------------------------- --------' ------ -• --•--•---------
I EL I 3200 1 1 365 I 0.11 * 1 O 1 I C,ItI 1 10,12'1I
-----------•--•--•--- ----- - ----------------'
' ] ET I I 694 1 35 I Z3 I 0.28 I ` I p.2$]
--------) 3200 ------------------) 0.26 -•-----••--••---------•--------•-------•-------1
126
ER ] ] --- --—------------___-_---- I I
----------
' I WL .1 1600 1 1 150 1 0.09 1 0 1 0 1 0. 10 I _, 1 0.10 I
---------------- ------------- --------------
] WT 1 3200 1 1 1024 1 0.32 ,-
- ----=341
WR I N.S. I 1 170 1 1 9 1 6 I W. 5 I I tN.s I
___________________________________________________________________________________________1
' (EXISTING I 0.69 1 I,
I____________________________________________________________________________
IEXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0.63 1 I
I___________________________________________________________________________________________i
' 1EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 1 0.2 31
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
' IVProjected +.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 equal to 0.90
t 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. With project improvements Will
be less than I.C.U. Without project
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
' Description of system improvement: I
mar,°ii�P�MAyd lS rl CC'VY YY � ,1cio'I
PROJECT FORM 11
MA430OPM
' 1
t1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection MACARTHUR BL/BIRCH ST
' (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on Average inter pring 19 21)AM
Peak 2 Hour Approved
' Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Pro 2)1 ject
Direction Peak 2 Hour Growth Peak 2�. Hour Peak 21, Hour PeaVolumeour , Peavolumeour
Volume Volume Volume Volume
A I
' Northbound 3906 238 8� 453 � 5
southbound 3
c�G2 �; :1. a 3
3261 � /�J
' Eastbound 830
i
Westbound 57 —
' 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.
1
1
1
1
GATE-
' PROJECT: ��CL� q�i( Pi4 Cl �IC P�Qr �
V FORM I
MA4295AM
' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD $ BIRCH STREET 4295
EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC HINTER/SPRING 1991 AM
--------------____________________________________________________________________________
t I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI
IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVolume I V/C I
I [CapacitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume 1w/o Project] I Ratio I
t I I I I I I I I Volume I I I
______________
I NL 1 1600 1 I 471 1 0.29 * �. 1 1 O I U •31'1 I �• i p-3I ]
I---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- - ------I
I NT 1 4800 1 1 1557 1 0.32 1 C'J'5 1 19() 1 0. 1 �.i. 1 Q.'Jb I
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
I NR I N.S. 1 1 17 1 1 1 1 & I N- S. I ' ' I I`1.S I
' I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
I SL 1 16001 1 101 0.011 1 1 0 1 0.01 I ') 10,011
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
' I ST I I 988 I C-6 1 ca ' 1 0.30"1 - I 0 gi
I________) 6400 ------------------) 0.27 -------'______ ____i___- _i_______
SR 727
I--------------------------- --------------------------------------------=-----------I
' I EL 24001 1 309 0.13�1 p 1 I 0 .13� 1 ., 1 0.11. 1
i ) ------------------) -----------------------------------------------I
I ET � I 1 16 Q l� I ?b I 0.02 1 1 0.021
' 1--------) �) 7-400------------------
U
) ------------------------------ ---------------I
I ER 1 i t7 I J I t ] .______.._� I 1
I_________________________________________________________________ ______________-I
I WL 1 1600 1 1 12 1 0.01 1 :) 1 17 1 p•b L 1 1 0.02 I
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
I WT i 3200 i ] 18 1 0.01 * J I Ig I p.pl l I Q.plfl
i---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ------I
' I WR I N.S. 1 1 7 1 1 0 I C) I N•S. I I I N.S I
____________________________________________I
(EXISTING __________________________i__O i_ 1
1--------------------"'--_____"'-------------------------------------------
(EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I Q.—IS I _____I
1_____________________________________________________________________________________
(EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 1 V-15 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I\rojected + 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 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 inprovement: I
PROJECT I FORM 11
MA4295AM
1
' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection MACARTHUR BL/BIRCH ST
' (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pang 19 pM
' Peak 2h Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 21S Hour Peak 2)1 Hour Peak 2, Hour Peak 2k Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
i
' Northbound 1973 1 20 h ZZ5 y Z Z i 2
Southbound 1917 1 (01 351 Z4SS -2-4 s�
' Eastbound 1277 -- Jr D •1 3 21 13
i
i
Westbound 1660 — Z Z bn0 `� L
1
' 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.
1
1
' II DATE: Oa CIS l CY
' PROJECT: FORM I
i
3MA4295PM
' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
' INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD 8 BIRCH STREET 4295
EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1991 PM
•-------" --------------- --------------------------•_---------__-----------___--
' I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI
IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR 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 1N/o Projectl I Ratio I
I I I I I I I I Volume I I I
I-------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------I
NL I 1600 I 1 241 I 0.15 * I C.� I r-j 1 0.1641 0
' I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1
I NT 1 4800 1 1 671 1 0.14 1 q I 11E, 1 0-110 1 It) I p-111
I--------I--------------------------I-------------------------------------------------------I
I NR I N.S. 1 1 21 1 1 1 1 6 1 N.s, I ' I N.S. I
--------------- __-.-_ _ '
I SL 1 1600 1 1 53 1 0.03 1 3 I (7 1 0,04_ 1 %) 10.0 L4 I
I------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I
I ST 1 I 639 I J�} I i (o� I 0• lb� I i � I0•I� I
I--------) 6400 ------------------) 0.13 *--------__-----------------------------
I SR 1 1 178 1 11 I 10 1 1 I I I
I------------------------------ -----------------------"'---------------------------------I
' I EL 2 4-0 p 1 1 27s p.1��` I p l 1 0 1 Z! 1 i 1 O.i2 I
I........) ------------------) -----------------------------------------------1
I ET Qm 2 1._______1_ 285 D3� 0 1 Z� I O.IL. 1 0 1 O.JL- I
1 I--------) -------) "'3 -----------------------------------------------I
I ER i 1 34 I p I 0 1 1 D I I'
I--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---I
' I WL 1 1600 1 1 66 1 0.04 1 0 1 A. 1 O.0¢ 1 1 1 D.0 L} l
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
I WT 1 3200 1 1 599 1 0.19 * U 1 8 1 6. 194 1 p 10.19 I
I------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------I
' I WR I N.S. 1 1 143 1 I Q I O I W.S. 1 0 1 N•S. I
I-----------------------------------------E-----------------------------------------------I
1EXISTING I R ;, 1 I
I---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I
1EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0.(03 1 I
1-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
1EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I O.b4
-------------•--•-•----------------------------------------------------__-----------...------
lyprojected + 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 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: II
mnr/3 IPyhQ.✓11 1 r p C n mff) P-n, 6Pd
PROJECT FORM II
3MA4295PM
1
1
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on verage Wlnter Spring 19 _
Peak 2k Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected I of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 211 Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2y Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 2529 S � 391 Z91 1
southbound 3760 76 891
Eastbound 608 3 1 5-1 (�
Westbound &9 1 - O. , r,G)O
136.1
1 .
0 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
0' Peak 21, Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. .
1
1 ..
1
1
1
1 .
1
DATE: Itsf g
PROJECT: 1H C�Ao ( P .J-�C, O a� , -
FOR14 I
JA43O5AM
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD $ CAMPUS DRIVE 4305
EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1991 AM
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
t I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI
1Movementl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR 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 1w/o Projectl I Ratio I
' I I I I I I I I Volume I I I
I------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
I NL 1 1600 1 1 600 1 99 1 0.06 * 2. 1 4 1 0,D7 I 1 0.0-1
-----
I IT I I 1106 1 Zz 1 39B 1 0.'16 1 0 .10,261
I ) 6400 ___b40 ---_-----) 0.19 ---"'-------------------------------------"'-I
1 NR I 1 84 1 Z 1 CAS I I I I
i----------""'------------------------""-"'--""'-____-------------------________.__--I
I SL 1 32001 32D01 2811 0.091 G 1 0 1 0,09 I 10.091
--- --- - --- -- --------- ----- - - ------------------- -----------------------
' I ST I AE WI 1454 1 Z9 1 ZO 6 1 0.39 I Q I OZ9, I
--------) 4800 ------------------) 0.34 *-------------------------------------------
SR 1 1 180 I Lj 1 4 1 1 3 1 I
---- ------------------------------ ------- ------ ----------- ----------------
' I EL 24001 32D01 110 0,051 (6 1 7-4 1 0,0b 1 3 10.06I
1--------) = ------------------) ate*------------ ----------------�7--------- I
I ET 24001 32001 1n O.ori l 9 1 ZO 1 0.09 1 1 O CY�'1
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
I' ER I N.S. I Q.S 1 81 1 Cj 1 3 1 N•5 1 " 11J.5 I
_.-_-_ -_ --__ _
I WL 1 1600 1 1(c)001 256 1 0.16 * 1 J I V I (�, IS 1 10.16 1
-"'--- -------' - --' ----" -------..--------
I WT 1 3200 1 32DDI 260 1 0.08 1 13 I J U 1 0. 09 I ' ' I o.09 I
--------------------------
' I WR 1 1600 1 1 bCp 1 146 1 0.09 1 -• I C) 1 0,� I "" 1 0. 1 1
'----------I
(EXISTING __________________________i___�i_ 1
t 1------------------------------------------------------------------------"'- 1
1EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0.13 1 I
1___________________________________________________________________________________________I
1EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 1 0.131
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I/Project + 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 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: 1f I P r I I
Rdr� Ff>r hAc n,�l �� fe5nf( Eft fnfll_lF1t 47i
PROJECT 1 FORMAT �J
I
JA43O8AM
' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection JAMBOREE BL/CAMPUS DR
' (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter Spring 19 9 PM
' Peak 2h Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1' of Projected Project
Direction Peak 211 Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
' Northbound 3627 -73 910 4(o)0 4G I 0
Southbound 4193 IL 4 07 4(o&4 41 i
' Eastbound 1814 z 9 ro Z p d Z 2d
i
Westbound 1578 elo 09
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: 40J( bor PCLc4LL He iC�
' FORM I
JA4305PM
1 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
1 INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD & CAMPUS DRIVE 4305
EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1991-PM
--•••--•___•••_•_____________________________________•--___________-•••____________•- -
1 I I EXISTING[PROPOSED I EXISTING[EXISTING IREGIONAL ICOMMITTED I PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI
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
1 I I I I I I I I Volume I I I
I___----•_____________________•-•----------------•---••___-----•-•----•••••--------•--___-•-I
I NL 1 1600 1 16001 52 1 0.03 * -- - I 44 I 0•U6 I ^ I O JJ61
I••-----------•-•---•-•-•-•••-•-•---•-•------• _`_.--_-.-•-------•-••-------------•-•--I
1 I NT 1 ( ( 1 1206 1 i �� I I �__I_._�_� _I___�_ !.O26AI
I--------) 6400 ------4------------) 0.25 i = -- 4 I
I NR 1 1 380 I 1 12 1 1 I I
_-----_ .---•-_ -__•_ —__-. _ _ _
1 I sL 1 3200132001 2581 0.081 1 0 1 (),DS I Q 10�)S1
- -------------- - -------- -----•-- ----------- ------------------------
I ST 1 I A260D1 1574 1 32 1435 1 O,5dKl r 10-51 1
1 I--------J 4800 ------------------) 0.40 *---------------------------------- -----------I
I SR I 1 1 3621 17 1 12 1 1 - 1 1
---- -- ------- --• ---------------- ----- - --------
1 I EL I Z4.001 32001 328 1 0. 141 1-7 1 .ia2 1 0. 1-74 1 j- 10.1�' I
--------) � ------------------) �.----------------------------------- •--• • •1
I ET 121 .od 320U 508 1 0,21*I 2 (e I 'S 1 1 0.23 1 '; 1 0-231
-- - --------- ---- ---
I ER I N.S. I N.S•1 104 1 1 1 8 1 N•S- I 1 I N.5 I
I------------------------------------------------ ••-•------•-----------_•••__ ----------
I WL 1 1600 1 1(3001 125 1 0.08 1 1 Co(O 1 0.12# 1 -) 10.12 I
I----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------I
I WT 1 3200 1 37601 299 1 0.09 * I' 1 20 1 G• 10 I ) 1 0.10 1
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
I WR 1 1600 1 t 600I 208 1 o.13 I Jo I 0 1 0.1 t I -� 1 0.141
1-------------------------------------- iZ------------------------------------------------I
(EXISTING I Tzsil I I
1_____________•-•--••---••----------________--------••-•••--________..__-••••
1 1EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I C).q I I I
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 1 0-9 ZI
1 -----------------------------------------•••••---------------..•----__.--------------..-._..-
1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90
1 I_ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90
lvprojected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement witl be 1 \
1 less than or equal to 0.90 �-EE 7..C�u ( c.m-r+,
1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will
1 be less than I.C.U. without project
Descryption of system improvement: ,
Adrl E13T Inn,o nn fo4rjpp Gb -Thru-Le, 'n Erg! Cm
1 PROJECT J FORMAT I
JA4305PM
1
APPENDIX B
' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU)
1
1
08-30-91
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
PROJECT: HARBOR PACIFIC PLAZA
INTERVAL: AM PEAK HOUR
INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BLVD/CAMPUS DRIVE
.....................................................................................................................................
EXISTING EX.+OTHER EX.+OTHER
MOVEMENT EXIST PROP EXISTING PROPOSED EXISTING OTHER PROJECT EXISTING + OTHER +PROJECT +PROJECT
LANES LANES CAPACITY CAPACITY VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME V/C V/C V/C V/C-U IMP
NL 1 0 1600 0 53 3 0 0.03 0.04 0.04
NT 4 0 6400 0 775 226 7 0.12 * 0.16 * 0.16 *
NR 1 0 1600 0 58 4 3 0.04 0.04 0.04
SL 1 0 1600 0 234 23 0 0.15 * 0.16 * 0.16 *
ST 3 0 4800 0 776 143 7 0.16 0.19 0.19
SR 1 0 1600 0 210 13 0 0.13 0.14 0.14
EL 2 0 3200 0 506 26 0 0.16 0.17 0.17
ET 2 0 3200 0 984 58 0 0.32 * 0.34 * 0.34 *
WL 1 0 1600 0 40 2 3 0.03 * 0.03 * 0.03 *
WT 2 0 3200 0 232 36 0 0.07 0.08 0.08
UR N.S 0 N.S. 0 86 30 0 N.S. N.S. N.S.
-----------------------------------------------
--------- SUMS NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL = 0.27 0.32 0.32 0.00
ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME MACAM I ---------------------------------------------------
--------- EAST/NEST CRITICAL SUMS = 0.35 0.37 0.37 0.00
N = NORTHBOUND, S = SOUTHBOUND ---------------------------------------------------
E = EASTBOUND, W = WESTBOUND CLEARANCE = 0.OD I 0.00 I 0.00 I 0.05
L = LEFT, T = THROUGH, R = RIGHT
N.S. = NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE = 0.62 I 0.69 0.69 I 0.05
LOS = LEVEL OF SERVICE ---------------------------------------------------
* DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS LOS = ______ 8_ I_ B I B I A
i i i i i
08-30-91
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
PROJECT* HARBOR PACIFIC PLAZA
INTERVAL: PM PEAK HOUR
INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BLVD/CAMPUS DRIVE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXISTING EX.+OTHER EX.+OTHER
MOVEMENT EXIST PROP EXISTING PROPOSED EXISTING OTHER PROJECT EXISTING + OTHER +PROJECT +PROJECT
LANES LANES CAPACITY CAPACITY VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME V/C V/C V/C V/C-W IMP
NL 1 0 ====1600 ==0 175 11 0 ===_0.11= ==�0.12 =_ ====0.12
NT 4 0 6400 0 1072 135 19 0.17 * 0.19 * 0.19 *
NR 1 0 1600 0 140 8 7 0.09 0.09 0.10
SL 1 0 1600 0 246 39 0 0.15 * 0.18 * 0.18 *
ST 3 0 4800 0 702 216 19 0.15 0.19 0.20
SR 1 0 1600 0 622 38 0 0.39 0.41 0.41
EL 2 0 3200 0 365 18 0 0.11 * 0.12 * 0.12 *
ET 2 0 3200 0 694 58 0 0.26 0.28 0.28
ER 0 0 0 0 126 6 0
UL 1 0 1600 0 ISO 8 7 0.09 0.10 0.10
UT 2 0 3200 0 1024 56 0 0.32 * 0.34 * 0.34 *
WR N.S 0 N.S. 0 170 15 0 N.S. N.S. N.S.
------------------------------------------------ -----_
--------- NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS = 0.32 0.37 0.37 0.00
ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAMEI MACAM ------------I------------ ------------I----_-_-_---
..... EAST/NEST CRITICAL SUMS = 0.43 0.46 0.46 0.00
N = NORTHBOUND, S = SOUTHBOUND _..--__-_..-I.._.........._.._........I.._.........
E = EASTBOUND, W = WESTBOUND CLEARANCE = 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05
L = LEFT, T = THROUGH, R = RIGHT
N.S. = NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE = 0.75 0.83 0.83 I 0.05
LOS = LEVEL OF SERVICE ---------------------------------------------------
* DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS LOS = C I D I D I____ A
08-30-91
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
PROJECT: HARBOR PACIFIC PLAZA
INTERVAL: AM PEAK HOUR
INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BLVD/BIRCH STREET
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
EXISTING EX.+OTHER EX.+OTHER
MOVEMENT EXIST PROP EXISTING PROPOSED EXISTING OTHER PROJECT EXISTING + OTHER +PROJECT +PROJECT
LANES LANES CAPACITY CAPACITY VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME V/C V/C V/C V/C-W IMP
========= ______ ______ _________ _________ ========= ----"'-- ========= ----'--" -- ========= -- --------- -- --------- --
NL 1 0 1600 0 471 29 0 0.29 * 0.31 * 0.31 *
NT 3 0 4800 0 1557 285 4 0.32 0.38 0.38
MR N.S. 0 N.S. 0 17 7 0 N.S. N.S. N.S.
SL 1 0 1600 O 10 1 0 0.01 0.01 0.01
ST 4 0 6400 0 988 154 4 0.27 * 0.30 * 0.30 *
SR 0 0 0 0 727 47 6
EL 1.5 0 2400 0 309 8 6 0.13 * 0.13 * 0.13 *
ET 1.5 0 2400 0 16 20 0 0.01 0.02 0.02
ER 0 0 0 0 17 0 0
WL 1 0 1600 0 12 12 0 0.01 0.02 0.02
WT 2 0 3200 0 18 19 0 0.01 * 0.01 * 0.01 *
UR N.S 0 N.S. 0 7 0 0 N.S. N.S. N.S.
_________________________________________________________________________
--------- NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS = 0.56 0.61 0.61 0.00
ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME[ MACSI I ------------ ------------!--_--___-___!-_--____-__-
--------- EAST/NEST CRITICAL SUMS = 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.00
N = NORTHBOUND, S = SOUTHBOUND ___-_ ---------------------------------------------
E = EASTBOUND, W = WESTBOUND CLEARANCE = 0.00 I 0.00 I 0.00 I 0.05
L = LEFT, T = THROUGH, R = RIGHT =__________________-_---------______________
N.S. = NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE = 0.70 I 0.75 I 0.75 I 0.05
LOS = LEVEL OF SERVICE ___________________________________________________
* DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS LOS = B I C I C I A
08-30-91
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
PROJECT: HARBOR PACIFIC PLAZA
INTERVAL: PM PEAK HOUR
INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BLVD/BIRCH STREET
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXISTING EX.+OTHER EX.+OTHER
MOVEMENT EXIST PROP EXISTING PROPOSED EXISTING OTHER PROJECT EXISTING + OTHER +PROJECT +PROJECT
LANES LANES CAPACITY CAPACITY VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME V/C V/C V/C V/C-W IMP
HL 1 0 1600 0 241 15 0 0.15 * 0.16 * 0.16 *
NT 3 0 4800 0 671 116 10 0.14 0.16 0.17
NR N.S. 0 N.S. 0 21 7 1 N.S. N.S. N.S.
SL 1 0 1600 0 53 3 0 0.03 0.04 0.04
ST 4 0 6400 0 639 205 10 0.13 * 0.16 * 0.17 *
SR 0 0 0 0 178 21 17
EL 1.5 0 2400 0 275 2 17 0.11 * 0.12 * 0.12 *
ET 1.5 0 2400 0 285 24 0 0.13 0.14 0.14
ER 0 0 0 0 34 0 0
UL 1 0 1600 0 66 4 1 0.04 0.04 0.04
WP 2 0 3200 0 599 8 0 0.19 * 0.19 * 0.19
UR H.S 0 N.S. 0 143 0 0 N.S. N.S. N.S.
____________________________________---_------_---------------___----------_-'
--------- NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS = 0.28 0.32 0.33 0.00
ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME MACBI I ------------I-------------------------I__-_------__
--------- EAST/NEST CRITICAL SUMS = 0.30 0.31 0.31 0.00
N = NORTHBOUND, S = SOUTHBOUND ---------------------------------------------------
E = EASTBOUND, W = WESTBOUND CLEARANCE = 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 I 0.05
L = LEFT, T = THROUGH, R = RIGHT -------------------------------------------_____
N.S. = NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE = 0.58 1 0.63 1 0.64 1 0.05
LOS = LEVEL OF SERVICE ---------------------------------------------------
* DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS LOS = A B I 8 1 A
08-30-91
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
PROJECT: HARBOR PACIFIC PLAZA
INTERVAL: AM PEAK HOUR
INTERSECTION*- JAMBOREE BLVD/CAMPUS DRIVE
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
EXISTING EX.+OTHER EX.+OTHER
MOVEMENT EXIST PROP EXISTING PROPOSED EXISTING OTHER PROJECT EXISTING + OTHER +PROJECT +PROJECT
LANES LANES CAPACITY CAPACITY VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME V/C V/C V/C V/C-W IMP
NL 1 1 1600 1600 99 6 0 0.06 * 0.07 * 0.07 * 0.07
NT 4 4 6400 6400 1106 420 0 0.19 0.26 0.26 0.26
MR 0 0 0 0 84 70 0
SL 2 2 3200 3200 281 6 0 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09
ST 3 3 4800 4800 1454 230 0 0.34 * 0.39 * 0.39 * 0.39 *
SR 0 0 0 0 180 8 3
EL 1.5 2 2400 3200 110 30 3 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.04
ET 1.5 2 2400 3200 177 29 0 0.07 * 0.09 * 0.09 * 0.06 *
ER N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. 8 6 0 N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S.
WL 1 1 1600 1600 256 29 0 0.16 * 0.18 * 0.18 * 0.18 *
WT 2 2 3200 3200 260 23 0 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.09
WR 1 1 1600 1600 146 7 0 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.10
----------------------------------------------
--------- NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS = _ 0.40 0.46 0.46 0.46
ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME JAMCA I ----------__i___-_--_____i__-_---_____I--__________
--------- EAST/WEST CRITICAL SUMS = 0.23 0.27 0.27 0.24
N = NORTHBOUND, S = SOUTHBOUND ___________________________________________________
E = EASTBOUND, W = WESTBOUND CLEARANCE = 0.00 I 0.00 I 0.00 I 0.00
L = LEFT, T = THROUGH, R = RIGHT
N.S. = NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE = 0.63 I 0.73 I 0.73 I 0.70
LOS = LEVEL OF SERVICE ___________________________________________________
* DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS LOS = 6 C I C I B
08-30-91
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
PROJECT HARBOR PACIFIC PLAZA
INTERVAL: PM PEAK HOUR
INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE BLVD/CAMPUS DRIVE
.....................................................................................................................................
EXISTING EX.+OTHER EX.+OTHER
MOVEMENT EXIST PROP EXISTING PROPOSED EXISTING OTHER PROJECT EXISTING + OTHER +PROJECT +PROJECT
LANES LANES CAPACITY CAPACITY VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME V/C V/C V/C V/C-W IMP
NL 1 1 1600 1600 52 45 0 0.03 * 0.06 * 0.06 * 0.06
NT 4 4 6400 6400 1206 166 1 0.25 0.28 0.28 0.28
NR 0 0 0 0 380 20 0
SL 2 2 3200 3200 258 5 0 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08
ST 3 3 4800 4800 1574 467 1 0.40 * 0.50 * 0.51 * 0.51 *
SR 0 0 0 0 362 19 7
EL 1.5 2 2400 3200 328 79 7 0.14 0.17 0.17 0.13
ET 1.5 2 2400 3200 508 34 0 0.21 * 0.23 * 0.23 * 0.17 *
ER N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. 104 13 0 N.S. H.S. N.S. N.S.
WL 1 1 1600 1600 125 72 0 0.08 * 0.12 * 0.12 * 0.12 *
WT 2 2 3200 3200 299 35 0 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.10
WR 1 1 1600 1600 208 10 0 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.14
---
--------- NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS = 0.43 0.56 0.57 0.57
ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME JAMCA I ...._..--...---------------------------------------
.....^-- EAST/WEST CRITICAL SUMS = 0.29 1 0.35 I 0.35 I 0.29
-___
N = NORTHBOUND, S = SOUTHBOUND ..........................................
'E = EASTBDND, W = WESTBOUND CLEARANCE = _ 0.00 0.00 0.00 I 0.00
L = LEFT, T = THROUGH, R = RIGHT =_
N.S. = NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE = 0.72 I 0.91 0.92 I 0.86
LOS = LEVEL OF SERVICE - ---------------------------------------------------
* DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS LOS = C E E D
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH -
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PLAN REVIEW REQUEST
Date: April 13. 1992
X ADVANCE PLANNING DIVISION
X PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT __ PLANS ATTACHED (PLEASE RETURN)
- - FIC-ENG NEER�
_FIRE DEPARTMENT _PLANS ON FILE IN PLANNING DEPT.
_BUILDING DEPARTMENT
_PARKS & RECREATION RECE DEPARR
PLANNING DEP
_POLICE DEPARTMENT TMENT'
MARINE SAFETY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
_GRADING AM APR 20 1992 PM
APPLICATION OF: Larken, Inc. 718191101u112111213141516
A
FOR: Traffic Study No. 78
DESCRIPTION: Request to approve a Traffic Study so as to allow the
construction of 41,750 square feet retail commercial
development within the proposed General Commercial Site 5,
located within the Newport Place Planned Community.
LOCATION: 4545 MacArthur Boulevard
REPORT REQUESTED BY: April 21, 1992
COMMISSION REVIEW: May 7, 1992
COMMENTSO TNu�i 'cc�, View 11�c/cec�e eQ ce r e� T
AD -FL M J"IP t2j 4�n 'L L161 edam c� lz�x—bwe¢l E@
�e �Qp uc QoI1e e� w Au& a w•aM.VAA as �o 19mAU-C.0 109 oz-
Si nature: Date: Al ao 9Z
CANNING DE19rdRT it,V,
C l� �En � � !� +^1'rY OF NE�J'9i'OR'f sEAC!•
Rock E. Miller & Associates TRANSM=
APR 2 1992 FP
Traffic & Transportation Engineers 7181911011111211121314,",�
Dater Zi I 9z
Project
.�1� /� Project Number
Attn: r��' '4K, �`AmL
We are forwarding by: essen Express
i— Your Messenger
Other
of copies Description A
/ L<'
This material is forwarded for:
Processing $9ur uev� ew
Your Files Per. Your Request
Checking Approval
At the request of-:
Comments:
By: '
17852 East Seventeenth Street, Suite 107, Tustin, CA 92680
FAX(714)573-9534 TEL. (774)573-0317
JEROME M.BAME
A7T'OIZNEY AT LAW
10055 Slater Avenue.UM M
Founudn(Valle Cati3a'nia 927M
FAX( 17 4)M 616
February 28, 1992
Via FAX (714)644-32EiD
Aziz Aslami, Project Manager
Planning Department
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92659
Re: Harbor Pacific Plaza (Sheraton Hotel Site) Project
Dear Aziz:
I would like to call you on Monday, March 2nd, to discuss the following:
1 . The current status of the Traffic Study;
2. The current status of the Parcel Map: and,
3. The over-all current status of this Project.
Please, therefore, anticipate my call some time on Monday, March 2nd.
Most cordially,
•t.
E
JMB:mgw
T/T'Cl Md_1-1H-Al1H`3WHE'W'f WHTE:TT 26, 82 G3J
DEC 16 191 02(27PM J.M.HAME,ATTY-AT-LP.W P•1/2
JLROME M. BAME
ATTORNEY AT LAW
I0055 SLATER AVENUE. SUITE 250
FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CAUFORNIA *"58
TELEPHONE (7,dI 960-4329
FAX (714-) 9S5-78I0 ,
Decembef 16, 1991
Vla FAX (714)644-3250
Aztz Aslaml, Project Manager
Planning Department
CITYOFNENI'Off BEACH
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92659
Re: Harbor Pacific Plaza (Sheraton Hotel Site) Project
Dear Aziz:
Please bear in mind my having mentioned to you, when we met on December 12, that I would
like to be involved in the General Plan Analysis Traffic Study process, if at all possible_
Therefore, if permitted, I would like to be able to participate in meetings and discussions in the
course of this process.
I am sending you a copy of a letter that I sent to Janet Divan on this same date that makes the
same request of her Department.
Thank you.
Most cordially,
JEROME M.BAME
JMB:mgw
Enclosure �/
DEC 16 '91 02:27PM J.M � qTTY-AT-LRW P.2i2
JEROME M. BAME
ATTORNEY AT LAW
10055 Slater Avcnuc Saito 25O
Fountain(V7Ai114o_y,__Cal3 92708
FAX('d14)965-7816
December 16, 1991
Via FAX ( 141644.3339
Janet L. Divan
Associate Civil Engineer
Traffic Engineering Department
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92669
Re: Harbor Pacific Plaza (Sheraton Hotel Site) Project
Dear Janet:
For your information, on December 12, 1 met with Aziz Aslami, who is the Project Manager in
the H.B. Planning Department for this particular project, and gave him our client's check in the
sum of $6,360.00 to commence the General Plan Analysis Parking Study with Rods E. Miller
forthwith.
1 would appreciate your keeping in mind that I would like to be included in, and totally involved
with, this Traffic Study process, if permitted.
Therefore, it and when possible, please Inform me of future meetings and discussions pertaining
to this Traffic Study, so that I may keep our client fully apprised.
Thank you.
Most cordially,
JEROME M.SAME
JMB:mgw /
c: Aziz Aslami, Project Manager (via FAX) V/
L
i
— aEW PART -
°� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
U \ T P.O.BOX 1768,NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92659-1768
aK
cgtrFonN�P
PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225
December 12, 1991
Rock E. Miller & Associates
17852 E. 17th St. Suite 107
Tustin, CA 92680
Subject: Traffic Phasing Ordinance and General Plan Traffic Analysis for the proposed
Commercial Development (Harbor Pacific Plaza, GPA 90-3(A).
Dear Mr. Miller:
This letter is to confirm our telephone conversation regarding your proposal for traffic study
of Harbor Pacific Plaza located at the northwest comer of Mac Arthur Boulevard and
Corinthian Way in Newport Beach. At your convenience please contact Mr. Edmonston,
the City's Traffic Engineer, at (714) 644-3344 for traffic data on the intersections that will
be impacted as a result of the proposed development.
Should you have any other question regarding the proposed project, please contact me at
(714) 644-3225.
Very truly yours,
PLANNING DIRECTOR
JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director
By `" �,'k AL
Aziz M. Aslami
Associate planner
,
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
JEROME M. BAME
ATTORNEY AT LAW
IOOSS SLATER AVENUE, SUITE 250
FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708
TELEPHONE (714) 960-4329
FAX (714) 96S-7616
December 12, 1991
HAND CARRIED
Aziz Aslami, Project Manager
Planning Department
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92659
Re: Fees for General Plan Analysis Traffic Study
Harbor Pacific Plaza (Sheraton Hotel Site)
Dear Aziz:
Enclosed with this letter you will find our client Larken, Inc.'s Check No.
492396 dated December 5, 1991 , made payable to the order of the City of
Newport Beach, in the sum of $8,360.00.
This check constitutes the indicated fees necessary to commence the
General Plan Analysis Traffic Study for this project.
Please proceed forthwith to consummate the contract for the procurement
of this Study, so that this Study may commence forthwith.
Thank you.
Most cordially,
JEROME .BAME
JMB:mgw
Enclosure
JEROME M. BAME
ATTORNEY AT LAW
10055 Slater Avenue,Suite 250
Fountain(Valllle))y,Cal32o9rnia 92708
FAX(714)965-7816
December 4, 1991
Via FAX (714)644-3250
Aziz Aslami, Project Manager
Planning Department
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92659
Re: Sheraton Hotel Project
Dear Aziz:
I want to thank you for having solicited a second proposal from Rock E.
Miller to perform the General Plan Analysis Traffic Study work.
I liked Mr. Miller's proposal in that the amount of his anticipated time of
performance, as well as the monetary bid amount, was substantially
reduced from that of the former proposal solicited and received.
For your information, I have forwarded REM's proposal to my client,
together with my request that the funds required be immediately sent to
me.
Immediately following my receipt of those funds, I will deliver them to
your office.
Most cordially,
.le
JERpME M. E
JMB:mgw-
S/'G'd Md-I-llj-h11F1`3Wl�H'W't WI�EV:Oti ti6r h0 �3Q
aEW PART
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Uz P.O.BOX 1768,NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92659-1768
aK
C'9</ppRN�P
PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225
November 25, 1991
Mr. Jerome M. Bame
10055 Slater Avenue, Suite 250
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
Subject: Traffic Phasing Ordinance Study/General Plan Traffic Analysis
for Harbor Pacific Plaza (Sheraton Hotel Si1eJx GPA 90 - 3(A)
Dear Mr. Bame:
Enclosed please find a copy of a proposal submitted by Rock E. Miller & Associate
regarding Traffic Engineering Services required for traffic phasing analysis for the proposed
development at the northwest comer of Mac Arthur Blvd. and Corinthian Way in Newport
Beach. The proposal contains an outline of the required work, schedule of time, and
estimated fee required for preparation of the task.
The requested Traffic Consultant fee has been reviewed by the City and are considered
appropriate and warranted. The fees are as follows:
Consultant Fees $ 7,600
City Fees (10%) $ 760
Total Request: $ 8,360
Please submit a check in the amount of $ 8,360 payable to the City of Newport Beach.
Your prompt response in this matter is appreciated.
Very truly yours,
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
JAMES D. HEW� ICCKER, Director
By yy
�� }S i� I %a;X.
Aziz M. Aslami
Associate Planner
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport ort Beach
PLANNING DER-Ah'T64ENi
CITY OF NE!P}?OU BEACH
/�, � NOV 2Y 1991
AM
Rock E. Miller & Associates 8191I011 PM
Traffic & Transportation Engineers 1 1L911121314151F
r1
November 25, 1991
Mr. Aziz M. Asiami
Associate Planner
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768
Subject: Traffic Phasing Ordinance and General Plan Traffic Study
for a Commercial Project in Newport Beach
Dear Mr. Aslami:
Rock E. Miller and Associates appreciates the opportunity to submit
this proposal for a proposed commercial development located on
MacArthur Boulevard and Campus Drive. We have prepared this
proposal based upon consultation with you regarding the scope of
the project and several discussions with Rich Edmonston in Traffic
Engineering regarding the needs and requirements for this traffic
study.
Background
The City of Newport Beach requires traffic studies to be done
consistent with the requirements of the City's traffic phasing
ordinance. The ordinance requires that the volume of traffic
associated with the development be estimated for approximately 30
critical intersections in the city, to determine where committed
traffic levels might be exceeded by 1%. At all such intersections,
specific traffic impacts are fully studied to determine whether
unacceptable conditions might result from approval and construction
of the project. The subject proposal will also require a General
Plan Amendment to address future general plan traffic conditions
with or without the project, subject to the same criteria as the
traffic phasing study.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Task 1 - Data Collection
It is anticipated that AM and PM peak hour traffic counts will be
available from the City for all intersections subject to the 1%
analysis study. No additional traffic counts will be required.
Future peak hour volumes at all critical intersections within the
City would be available from the City, and it is anticipated that
17852 East Seventeenth Street, Suite 107, Tustin, CA 92680
FAX(714)573-9534 TEL. (714)573-0317
Rock E Miller & Associates
Traffic & Transportation Engineers
three locations will be subject to detailed analysis beyond the 1%
test.
Task 2 - Meetings and Coordination
At the onset of the project, Rock E. Miller and Associates will
meet in Newport Beach with the City Traffic Engineer or his
designated staff to fully review the necessary scope of the
project. One additional meeting will be held with City staff to
discuss preliminary findings, mitigation measures, and future
traffic forecasts. Additional meetings or attendance at any Public
Hearings can be arranged as extra-work, if necessary.
Task 3 - Report Preparation
The traffic study will be prepared for the subject development
proposal. The study will include the following major sections:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
APPROVED OR CONCURRENT PROJECT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
GENERAL PLAN TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
PROJECT TRAFFIC GENERATION
ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS (Two Future Scenarios)
CRITICAL INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
MITIGATION MEASURES, if required
In the course of preparation of the traffic study, the study area
will be reviewed in the field by the firm Principal to observe
existing circulation conditions, trends, and operational traffic
problems which are not apparent in traffic counts. Pass-by trips
will be considered in the analysis, consistent with the guidelines
published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, if appro-
priate. Feasibility for restriping or construction of right-turn
lanes on the project frontage would be within the scope envisioned
for mitigation at all locations.
Task 4 - Mitigation at Campus/MacArthur
Recent City studies have indicated that the intersection of Campus
and MacArthur may require mitigation beyond the scope indicated
above. This intersection is already near to its maximum probable
configuration for traffic and turning lanes, so mitigation at this
location could require extensive study to verify localized traffic
modeling results, identify effective alternate route improvements,
and conduct sufficient geometric studies to insure that
17852 East Seventeenth Street, Suite 107, Tustin, CA 92680
FAX(714)573-9534 TEL. (714)573-0317
i Y •
� �
Rock E. Miller & Associates
Traffic & Transportation Engineers
improvements are feasible. If mitigation is necessary at this
location, the following items must be added to the scope of work.
Task 4A Traffic Modeling Verification
Rock E. Miller and Associates will obtain from the City's traffic
modeling consultant sufficient information to verify the accuracy
of traffic forecasts for the deficient intersection, including
verification of traffic generation for zones in the vicinity,
verification or manual refinement of modeling of the highway
network in the vicinity, particularly the Douglas, Martin,
MacArthur Court collector system which allows some traffic to
bypass Campus and MacArthur.
Task 4B Identification of Mitigation Measures
The nature of deficiencies at Campus and Macarthur will help to
identify alternate improvements in the area which will reduce
traffic demand at this location. This may require "Select Link" or
"Select Zone" traffic assignments utilizing the City's traffic
model. These forecasts must be provided by the City' s Traffic
modeling consultant. Rock E. Miller and Associates will obtain
appropriate traffic forecasts from this source.
Task 4C Mitigation Feasibility
After one or more potential mitigation measures are identified,
Rock E. Miller and Associates will collect necessary information to
determine the feasibility of implementing specific mitigation
measures and approximate costs. Accurate scale drawings showing
preliminary engineering of recommended mitigation measures will be
prepared and included in the report.
Task 5 - Submittal and Review of Report
The completed traffic study would be submitted to the City for your
review and use. The City or other responsible parties may request
revisions to the Traffic Study. Any reasonable revisions would be
incorporated in the traffic study so that it can be ultimately
found to be fully adequate to address the subject project. Reason-
able revisions would include any corrections to the report within
the general scope of work.
17852 East Seventeenth Street, Suite 707, Tustin, CA 92680
FAX(774)573-9534 TEL. (774)573-0317
Rock E, Miller & Associates
Traffic & Transportation Engineers
Task 6 - Other Services
Rock E. Miller and Associates will answer any questions from the
City or other responsible parties regarding traffic aspects of the
project throughout the study process, as needed.
SCHEDULE
A schedule of three weeks is proposed for submittal of the first
draft of the subject study, based upon receipt of specific traffic
phasing and general plan traffic information from the City.
Revisions would normally be addressed in seven to ten days
following receipt. This schedule allows for normal and timely
completion of the study.
PROPOSED FEE
Our fee by Task for the proposed scope of work is indicated as
follows:
Task 1 Traffic Counts $0
Task 2 Meetings $600
Task 3 Report Preparation $3900
Task 4 Mitigation
Subconsultant Fee $700
Direct Costs $1600
Task 5 Report Revisions $500
Task 6 Additional Services $200
Printing and other Expenses 100
TOTAL 7600
This fee would be invoiced on a not-to-exceed basis based on the
attached billing schedule. The fee does not include meetings
except as noted in Task 2.
PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND QUALIFICATIONS
I will be responsible for all professional level work on this
project. I am acquainted with the engineering staff of the City of
17852 East Seventeenth Street, Suite 707, Tustin, CA 92660
FAX(714)573-9534 TEL, (714)57M317
0
Rock E. Miller & Associates
Traffic & Transportation Engineers
Newport Beach, and I am well qualified to perform the Scope of Work
proposed. Rock E. Miller and Associates has prepared Newport Beach
Traffic Phasing Ordinance studies for the City previously, so we
are familiar with the study process and possess start-up materials.
I will be assisted at Rock E. Miller and Associates by Mr. Brent
Hartley on this project. He will be responsible for preliminary
traffic analysis and will be knowledgeable of the status of the
report at all times.
EXCLUSIONS
The proposed fee for the scope of work does not include any night
time public hearing attendance by Rock E. Miller and Associates
personnel, however night meetings can be arranged on an extra work
basis if necessary. Also, if the project description or size
should change after the project is initiated, it may be necessary
to renegotiate the proposed budget.
CONCLUSION
Rock E. Miller and Associates looks forward to working with the
City of Newport Beach on the subject project. If we are selected
to perform these services, I will be your project manager and
contact person. If this proposal is acceptable, you may expedite
our authorization by signing a copy of this proposal on the
indicated line and returning it to our office. The proposal is
valid for 90 days.
Sincerely, We concur with the terms and
conditions of this proposal
and authorize Rock E. Miller
and Associates to commence
Rock Miller, P.E. work.
Signature
Print or Type Name & Title
Date
77852 East Seventeenth Street, Suite 107, Tustin, CA 92680
FAX(714)573-9534 TEL, (714)573-0317
Rock E, Miller & Associates
Traffic & Transportation Engineers
BILLING RATE SUMMARY
Effective January 1, 1991
Classification Rate
Firm Principal $100/hour
Senior Engineer $70/hour
Associate Engineer $55/hour
Assistant Engineer $40/hour
Senior Technician/Designer $40/hour
Technician $32/hour
Aide\Messenger $25/hour
Senior Planner $60/hour
Transportation Planner $40/hour
Assistant Planner $35/hour
Administrative Assistant $30/hour
Clerk Typist $30/hour
General Provisions
Mileage, Telephone, equipment, and FAX are included in above hourly
costs. Direct expenses including printing, blueprinting,
commercial CAD plotting, subconsultant expense, issuance of
specially endorsed insurance certificate, and direct costs, are
billed at cost plus 5% unless stated otherwise in the proposal.
Public meetings and public hearings are normally excluded from any
fixed fee or not-to-exceed proposal, but will be billed as extra
work at the rates above. There is a four-hour minimum for night-
time public hearings and for expert witness testimony in court or
depositions.
77852 East Seventeenth Street, Suite 107, Tustin, CA 92680
FAX(714)573-9534 TEL, (714)573-0317
Nov. u15 191 11:24 0000 Rg& E MILLER & ASSOC TEL 714=573-9 534 P. 1
RECENtu L)
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
AM 'NOV 15 1991 PM
Rock E. Miller & Associates 718191101ll1]2111213141516
Traffic & Transportation Engineers
FAIL TRANSMITTAL
TOZ Date.
44 SS CJ d
proms Rook E. Miller And Associates
1.7852. E.. VUL St. #107
Tustin, CA 02680
Ph 714-573-0317
rax: 714-573-9334
Number of Pages (including cover Sheet)
subject: IPIVAMS41 AW-A 7fz^i.. LC- Lronia Lreit�
Message: n
Fax sent to: 41
17862 East seventeenth Street. Suite 707, Tustin. CA 0680
FAX(774)573-9534 TEL (714)573-M 17
.Nov. '15 '91 11:24 0000 RJ&E MILLER & ASSOC TEL 714-56534 P. 2
Rock E. Miller & t8so'clates '
TmRto & Transportation Engineers
November 15, 1991
Mr. A2iZ M• Aslami
Associate Planner
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768
Subject: Traffic Phasing Ordinance and General Plan Traffic Study
for a Commercial Project in Newport Beach
Dear Mr. Aslami: ,
s appreciates the opportunity to submit
Rock E. Miller and Associate
this proposal for a proposed commercial development located on
MacArthur Boulevard and Campus Drive. we have prepared this
proposal based upon consultation with you regarding the scope of
the project and discussion with Rich Edmonston in Traffic
Engineering regarding the needs and requirements for this traffic
study.
c o
ewport Beach requires traffic studies to be done
The City of N
the requirements of the City, traffic phasing
consistent with requires that the volume of traffic
ordinance. The ordinance
associated with the development be estimated for approximately 30
critical intersections in the city, to determine where committed
traffic levels might be exceeded by 1%- At all such intersections,
specific traffic impacts are fully studied to determine whether
unacceptable conditions might result from approval and construction
of the project. The subject proposal Will also require a General.
Plan Amendment as well as addressing future general plan conditions
with or without the prof t
CO 0 SE C
7z to of ti
it is anticipated that AM and pM peak hour traffic counts will be
available from theNo additional for ltrafficections ect to the it
counts will be required.
analysis study-
Future peak hour volumes at all critical intersections within the
City would be available from the City, and it is anticipated that
17852 East Seventeenth Street, Suite 107, Tustin, CA 92680
FAX(774)573-9534 TEL. (714)573-0377
� Nov. '15 191 11:25 0000 RQ& E MILLER & ASSOC TEL 714-5i9534 P. 3
Rock E, Miller & Associates
Tm is & Tronsportatlon Engineers '
three locations will be subject to detailed analysis beyond the It
test.
Task2 Meetings and Coo diva ion
At the onset of the project, Rock E. Miller and Associates will
meet in Newport Beach with the City Traffic Engineer or his
designated staff to fully review the necessary scope Of the
project. Additional meetings or attendance at any Public Hearings
can be arranged as extra-work, if necessary.
Ta 3 - Re o t Prenamatisom
The traffic study or the subject development
proposal. The studyi h
Will include ll be prepared f e the following major sections:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
APPROVED OR CONCURRENT PROJECT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
GENERAL PLAN TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
PROJECT TRAFFIC GENERATION
ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS (Two Future Scenarios)
CRITICAL INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
MITIGATION MEASURES, if required
in the course of preparation -of the traffic study, the study area
will be reviewed in the field by the firm Principal to observe
existing circulation conditions, trends, and operational traffic
problems which are not apparent in traffic counts. Pass-by trips
will be considered in the analysis, consistent with the guidelines
published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, if appro-
priate. Feasibility for restriping or construction of right-turn
lanes on the project frontage would be within the scope envisioned
for mitigation. if mitigation requiring highway widening off.-site
is wolii mitigated proposalbility would require
extra work beyond the scope f t
Task 4 Su 'ttal and. Review of Re t
The completed traffic study would be submitted to the City for your
review and use. The city or other responsible parties may request
revisions to the Traffic Study. Any reasonable revisions would be
incorporated in the traffic study so that it can be ultimately
found to be fully adequate to address the subject project. Reason-
able revisions would include any corrections to the report within
the general scope of work.
17852 fast Seventeenth Street, Suite 707, Tustin,CA 9268O
FAX(714)578-9534 Tit, (714)573-0377
Extended Page 4, 1
Rock E, Miller & Associates
Tramc & rronsportatfon Enpfrwers
Traf f ic. Phasing Ordinance studies £or the City previously',, so• we
are familiar with the study process and possess start-up materials.
I will be assisted at hock E. Miller and Associates by Mr. -Brent
Hartley on this project. He will be responsible for preliminary
traffic analysis and will be knowledgeable of the status of the
report at all times.
EXCLUSI=
The proposed fee for the scope of work does not include any night
time public hearing attendance by Rock E. Miller and Associates
personnel, however night meetings can be arranged on an extra work
basis if necessary. Also, if the project description or size
should change after the project is initiated, it may be necessary
to renegotiate the proposed budget.
CLos
Rock E. Miller and Associates looks forward to working with the
City of Newport Beach on the subject project. Tf we are selected
to perform these services, I will be your project manager and
contact person. If this proposal is acceptable, you may expedite
our authorization by signing a copy of this proposal on the
indicated line and returning it to our of£ice. The proposal is
valid for 90 days.
Sincerely, We concur with the terms and
conditions of this proposal
and authorize Rock E. Miller
and Associates to commence
Rock Miller, P.E. work.
Signature
Print or Type Name & Title
Date
17852 East Seventeenth Street, Suite 107. 7ustln,CA 92660
,Nov: '15 '91 11:26` 0000 RE MILLER & ASSOC TEL 714-573-9534 P. 4
Rock E, Miller & Assoclatw
Trofflc & Tromportatton Engineers C'
Tasg s - other Services
Rock E. Miller and Associates will answer any questions from the
City 'or other responsible parties regarding traffic aspects of the
project throughout the study process, as needed.
SCHEDULE
A schedule of three weeks is proposed for submittal of the first
draft of the subject study, based upon receipt of specific traffic
phasing and general plan traffic information from, the City.
Revisions would normally be addressed. in seven to ten days
following receipt. This schedule allows for normal. 'and. timely
completion of the study.
PROPOSED FEE
Our fee by Task for the proposed scope of work is indicated as.
follows:
Task i Traffic Counts $0
as Meetings $300
Task 3 Report Preparation $3900
Task 4 Report Revisions $300
Printing and Expenses 00
TOTAL $4642
This fee would be invoiced on a not-to-exceed basis based on the
attached billing schedule. The fee does not include meetings
except- as noted in Task 2.
PROJ>iCT MANAGEM NT AND UA IFICATII NS
I will be responsible for all professional level work on this
project. I an acquainted with the engineering staff of the City of
Newport Beach, and I am well qualified to perform the Scope of Work
proposed. Rock E. Miller and Associates has prepared Newport Beach
77852 East Seventeenth Street, SUffe 707, Win,CA 926W
FAX(714)573.9&U TEL (714)573.0377
Nay..= 15 '91 11:27 0000 RQ�K E MILLER & ASSOC TEL 714-573-9534 P. 5
Pock E. Miller & Associates
Traffic & Transportotlon Engineers
BILLING RATE SUMMARY
Effective January 10 1991
Classifica 'on ,
Firm Principal $100/h6ur
Senior Engineer $70/hour
Associate Engineer $55/hour
Assistant Engineer $40/hour
Senior Technician/Designer $40/hour
Technician $32,/hour
Aide\Messenger $25/hour
Senior Planner $60/hour•
Transportation Planner $40/hour
Assistant Planner $35/hour
Administrative Assistant $30/hour
Clerk Typist $30/hour
General Provisions
Mileage, Telephone, equipment, and FAX are included in above hourly
costs. Direct expenses including printing, blueprintingr
commercial CAD plotting, subconsultant expense, issuance of
specially endorsed insurance certificate, and direct costs, are
billed at cost plus Sk unless stated otherwise in the proposal.
Public meetings and public hearings are normally excluded from any
fixed fee or not-to-exceed proposal, but will be billed as extra
work at the rates above. There is a four-hour minimum for night-
time public hearings and for expert witness testimony in court or
depositions.
17852 East Seventeenth Street, Suite 107, Tustin, CA 92680
FAX(774)673.9534 TEL. (774)573.03 77
+ • RECEIVcu u
PLANNING DEPARANT
_ CITY OF NEkgPORT REACH
^ ` p NOV 18 1991
Rock E. Miller & Associates AM PM
Traffic & Transportation Engineers 718191101HI12111213141516
November 15, 1991
Mr. Aziz M. Aslami
Associate Planner
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768
Subject: Traffic Phasing Ordinance and General Plan Traffic Study
for a Commercial Project in Newport Beach
Dear Mr. Aslami:
Rock E. Miller and Associates appreciates the opportunity to submit
this proposal for a proposed commercial development located on
MacArthur Boulevard and Campus Drive. We have prepared this
proposal based upon consultation with you regarding the scope of
the project and discussion with Rich Edmonston in Traffic
Engineering regarding the needs and requirements for this traffic
study.
Background
The City of Newport Beach requires traffic studies to be done
consistent with the requirements of the City's traffic phasing
ordinance. The ordinance requires that the volume of traffic
associated with the development be estimated for approximately 30
critical intersections in the city, to determine where committed
traffic levels might be exceeded by 1%. At all such intersections,
specific traffic impacts are fully studied to determine whether
unacceptable conditions might result from approval and construction
of the project. The subject proposal will also require a General
Plan Amendment as well as addressing future general plan conditions
with or without the project.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Task 1 - Data Collection
It is anticipated that AM and PM peak hour traffic counts will be
available from the City for all intersections subject to the 1%
analysis study. No additional traffic counts will be required.
Future peak hour volumes at all critical intersections within the
City would be available from the City, and it is anticipated that
17852 East Seventeenth Street, Suite 107, Tustin, CA 92680
FAX(714)573-9534 TEL. (714)573- 317
llQ lE�� � �
Rock E. Miller & Associates
TrofBc & Transportation Engineers
three locations will be subject to detailed analysis beyond the it
test.
Task 2 - Meetings and Coordination
At the onset of the project, Rock E. Miller and Associates will
meet in Newport Beach with the City Traffic Engineer or his
designated staff to fully review the necessary scope of the
project. Additional meetings or attendance at any Public Hearings
can be arranged as extra-work, if necessary.
Task 3 - Report Preparation
The traffic study will be prepared for the subject development
proposal. The study will include the following major sections:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
APPROVED OR CONCURRENT PROJECT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
GENERAL PLAN TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
PROJECT TRAFFIC GENERATION
ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS (Two Future Scenarios)
CRITICAL INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
MITIGATION MEASURES, if required
In the course of preparation of the traffic study, the study area
will be reviewed in the field by the firm Principal to observe
existing circulation conditions, trends, and operational traffic
problems which are not apparent in traffic counts. Pass-by trips
will be considered in the analysis, consistent with the guidelines
published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, if appro-
priate. Feasibility for restriping or construction of right-turn
lanes on the project frontage would be within the scope envisioned
for mitigation. If mitigation requiring highway widening off-site
is required, evaluation of mitigated feasibility would require
extra work beyond the scope of this proposal.
Task 4 - Submittal and Review of Report
The completed traffic study would be submitted to the City for your
review and use. The City or other responsible parties may request
revisions to the Traffic Study. Any reasonable revisions would be
incorporated in the traffic study so that it can be ultimately
found to be fully adequate to address the subject project. Reason-
able revisions would include any corrections to the report within
the general scope of work.
77852 East Seventeenth Street, Suite 107, Tustin, CA 92680
FAX(714)573-9534 TEL. (714)57M317
llQ IEiM� �
Rock E. Miller & Associates
Traffic & Transportation Engineers
Task 5 - Other Services
Rock E. Miller and Associates will answer any questions from the
City or other responsible parties regarding traffic aspects of the
project throughout the study process, as needed.
SCHEDULE
A schedule of three weeks is proposed for submittal of the first
draft of the subject study, based upon receipt of specific traffic
phasing and general plan traffic information from -the City.
Revisions would normally be addressed in seven to ten days
following receipt. This schedule allows for normal and timely
completion of the study.
PROPOSED FEE
our fee by Task for the proposed scope of work is indicated as
follows:
Task 1 Traffic Counts $0
Task 2 Meetings $300
Task 3 Report Preparation $3900
Task 4 Report Revisions $300
Printing and Expenses _ 100
TOTAL 4600
This fee would be invoiced on a not-to-exceed basis based on the
attached billing schedule. The fee does not include meetings
except as noted in Task 2 .
PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND QUALIFICATIONS
I will be responsible for all professional level work on this
project. I am acquainted with the engineering staff of the City of
Newport Beach, and I am well qualified to perform the Scope of Work
proposed. Rock E. Miller and Associates has prepared Newport Beach
17852 East Seventeenth Street, Suite 707, Tustin, CA 92680
FAX(774)573-9534 TEL, (714)573.0377
/r FAA � �
Rock E Miller & Associates
Traffic & Transportation Engineers
Traffic Phasing Ordinance studies for the City previously, so we
are familiar with the study process and possess start-up materials.
I will be assisted at Rock E. Miller and Associates by Mr. Brent
Hartley on this project. He will be responsible for preliminary
traffic analysis and will be knowledgeable of the status of the
report at all times.
EXCLUSIONS
The proposed fee for the scope of work does not include any night
time public hearing attendance by Rock E. Miller and Associates
personnel, however night meetings can be arranged on an extra work
basis if necessary. Also, if the project description or size
should change after the project is initiated, it may be necessary
to renegotiate the proposed budget.
CONCLUSION
Rock E. Miller and Associates looks forward to working with the
City of Newport Beach on the subject project. If we are selected
to perform these services, I will be your project manager and
contact person. If this proposal is acceptable, you may expedite
our authorization by signing a copy of this proposal on the
indicated line and returning it to our office. The proposal is
valid for 90 days.
Sincerely, We concur with the terms and
conditions of this proposal
and authorize Rock E. Miller
and Associates to commence
Rock Miller, P.E. work.
Signature
Print or Type Name & Title
Date
77852 East Seventeenth Street, Suite 707, Tustin, CA 92680
FAX(714)573-9534 TEL. (774)57M317
� �
Rock E. Miller & Associates
Troffic & Transportation Engineers
BILLING RATE SUMMARY
Effective January 1, 1991
Classification Rate
Firm Principal $100/hour
Senior Engineer $70/hour
Associate Engineer $55/hour
Assistant Engineer $40/hour
Senior Technician/Designer $40/hour
Technician $32/hour
Aide\Messenger $25/hour
Senior Planner $60/hour
Transportation Planner $40/hour
Assistant Planner $35/hour
Administrative Assistant $30/hour
Clerk Typist $30/hour
General Provisions
Mileage, Telephone, equipment, and FAX are included in above hourly
costs. Direct expenses including printing, blueprinting,
commercial CAD plotting, subconsultant expense, issuance of
specially endorsed insurance certificate, and direct costs, are
billed at cost plus 5t unless stated otherwise in the proposal.
Public meetings and public hearings are normally excluded from any
fixed fee or not-to-exceed proposal, but will be billed as extra
work at the rates above. There is a four-hour minimum for night-
time public hearings and for expert witness testimony in court or
depositions.
17852 Eost Seventeenth Street, Suite 107, Tustin, CA 92680
FAX(714)573-9534 TEL. (714)573-0317
"-
PORE
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
G z P.O.BOX 1768,NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92659-1768
en<
Cq//FO VL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225
November 13, 1991
Rock E. Miller
Rock E. Miller & Associates
17852 E. 17th Street, Suite 107
Tustin, CA 92680
Subject: General Plan Traffic Analysis for General Plan
Amendment 90-3 (A)
Dear Mr. Miller:
The City of Newport Beach Planning Department has been working with Jerome M. Bame,
a representative of Larken Inc., to resubdivide the Sheraton Hotel Site (4545 MacArthur
Blvd. Newport Beach)into two parcels. Sheraton Hotel and its required parking facility will
remain on one parcel. The excess land, presently used as part of the existing hotel parking,
would create a second parcel.
Sheraton Hotel Site has an approved General Plan allocation for an additional (119) hotel
rooms. However,Larken Inc.is proposing to substitute the additional hotel room allotment
to general retail and commercial uses. A proposal to construct a commercial retail
development of approximately 41,750 square feet on the proposed excess land is going to
be filed with the City in the near future. The amount of commercial development requested
will require a GENERAL PLAN TRAFFIC ANALYSIS to determine the impact of the
subject proposal on the City s Traffic Circulation System.
The City invites you to submit a proposal to prepare a General Plan Traffic Analysis for this
project. If you are interested in this project, at your earliest convenience, please submit a
proposal to the City'including project tasks, budget, and timing. Copies of development
plans or new resubdivision map can be obtained'from J.C. Marvick&Associates, 3199 A-3
Airport Loop Drive, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 (714) 549-7554.
Mr.Jerome M.Bame,who represents the property owner, can be reached at(714)960-4329.
For traffic data or technical questions please contact, Rich Edmonston, the City's Traffic
Engineer. Should you have any other question regarding this project, please contact me.
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
Rock E. Miller
November 13, 1991
Page two
Very truly yours,
PLANNING DIRECTOR
JAMES D. HEWICKER, DIRECTOR
By_O�W� Ok—�
Aziz M. Aslami
Associate Planner
cc: J. Bame's Office
F.\WP51\...\Aziz A\Traffic\903LM
.r
®AFAUSTIN-FOAST ASSOCIATES, IM,
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING AND TIIANSPORTATION PLANNING
2020 NORTH TUSTIN AVENUE • SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701 TELEPHONE (714) 667-0496
FAX (714) 667-7952
November 7, 1991
RECEINt u b,
Mr. James D. Hewicker PLANNING DEPARTi1TENT
Planning Director MY OF NEWPORT BEAT,�!
City of Newport Beach
P.O. Box 1768 NOV 12 1991
Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768 718191101111]21112131415 6
PROPOSAL: TRAFFIC AUNA.LYSIS FOR CPA 90-3(A)
Dear Mr. Hewicker:
Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. (AFA) is pleased to propose a scope of services to carry out a
traffic analysis for proposed GPA 90-3(A). The GPA proposes to substitute additional hotel room
allotment on the Sheraton Hotel site with general retail and commercial uses. The purpose of the
traffic analysis will be to identify potential impacts-on the surrounding highway circulation system as
a result of this change in land use. The scope of services will involve a long-range (2010) evaluation
of the differential impacts of the proposed GPA versus the current GPA for this site.
The work tasks to be accomplished in this regard are as follows:
1. Trip Generation Analysis - This part of the work will identify the trip generation of the
proposed GPA and compare that with the trip generation of the current GPA. Both ADT and AM
and PM peak hour volumes will be estimated.
2. Traffic Analysis - This second work task will involve utilizing the Newport Beach Traffic
Analysis Model (NBTAM) to show the impact of the GPA trip generation on the surrounding street
system. Both ADT and peak hour volumes will be extracted from the model, and compared with
those in the current GPA base version of the model.
3. Impact Evaluation-Most of the intersections that will be impacted by the proposed GPA
are in the airport/IBC area. As has been shown from previous traffic studies, potential deficiencies
occur at many of the major intersections. It is also an area where traffic planning work carried out
by the City of Irvine and by the City of Newport Beach overlap. Assumptions with respect to trip
generation rates differ for each jurisdiction and hence the results for long-range capacity utilization
at major intersections tendto differ. For this reason,it is proposed that the impact evaluation largely
focus on the incremental impacts at the-major intersections in this area. These will be shown in the
form of incremental ICU values based on existing General Plan lane configurations at those
intersections. Work sessions will be held with staff to understand the implications of these
incremental impacts, and mitigation strategies will be jointly established at these work sessions.
Mr. James D. Hewicker
November 7, 1991
Page 2
4. Traffic Report- This final task will involve preparing a traffic report outlining the results
of this traffic analysis, and presenting the conclusions with respect to mitigation measures.
COST ESTIMATE
It is proposed that this work be carried out on a time and materials basis according to the
attached fee schedule. An estimated maximum cost of $10,000 includes the work scope outlined
above, attendance at up to two work sessions with City Staff to analyze the results and formulate
mitigation•mcasures plus'one form,& presentation te-Chy Flamung-Commissiaa;. We"estimate a two-
month time period to be adequate for this work.
Thank you for the opportunity to assist the City of Newport Beach in this important planning
endeavor.
Very truly yours,
ffW�l
Terence W. Austin
Pp�,
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
UZ P.O.BOX 1768,NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92659-1768
do
C'9Gf FORN�P
PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225
October 31, 1991
Mr. Jerome M. Bame
10055 Slater Avenue, Suite 250
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
RE: HARBOR PACIFIC PLAZA (SHERATON HOTEL SITE)
Dear Mr. Bame,
Per your request,this letter identifies the Planning Department processing requirements and
preliminary schedule for consideration of your project by the Planning Commission and City
Council.
Your project, as currently proposed, consists of the following actions:
* A General Plan Amendment to change the Land Use Element entitlement for
the property from 119 additional hotel rooms to 41,750 square feet of retail
commercial use
* An amendment to the Newport Place Planned Community(PC)to change the
entitlement as noted above
* A resubdivision (parcel map) to subdivide the parcel in question
* An initial study to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the project
in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act
The General Plan Amendment was initiated by the City Council on October 22, 1990 [GPA
90-3(A)]. Your application for amendment to the PC was filed on October 30, 1991. The
resubdivision application will be accepted for filing after the initial study is completed.
The primary concern that has been raised regarding the project is the potential for increased
traffic generation, therefore a traffic study will be required before the initial study can be
completed. Staff has solicited a proposal for the traffic study and you will be notified when
the proposal is received.
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
Mr. Jerome M. Bame
Page 2
The scheduling of your project will depend on when the traffic study can be completed. A
typical timeframe for this type of study is 6-8 weeks. If the traffic study concludes that no
significant impacts would result from the project, the earliest the Planning Commission
hearing could be scheduled would be approximately six weeks after completion of the traffic
study. The first City Council hearing could then be scheduled approximately three weeks
later, with the second hearing two or three weeks after the first.
I hope this answers most of your questions regarding the procedures and scheduling for your
project. If you require additional information,please contact Aziz Aslami,Project Manager,
or me at 644-3225.
Very truly yours,
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
JAMES D. MCI{ER, Diactor
By;
JJ hnH. Douglas CP
ncipal Planne
cc: P. Temple, Advance Planning Manager
A. Aslami, Project Manager
R\...\BAMB.LTR
PORT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
U \ P.O.BOX 1768,NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659-1768
�q<i Fo aN�r
PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225
October 25, 1991
Terry Austin
Austin-Foust Associates, Inc.
1450 N. Tustin Avenue, Suite 108
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Subject: General Plan Traffic Analysis for General Plan
Amendment 90-3 (A)
Dear Terry Austin:
The City of Newport Beach Planning Department has been working with Jerome M. Bame,
a representative of Larken Inc., to resubdivide the Sheraton Hotel Site (4545 MacArthur
Blvd. Newport Beach) into two parcels. Sheraton Hotel and its required parking facility will
remain on one parcel. The excess land, presently used as part of the existing hotel parking,
would create a second parcel.
Sheraton Hotel Site has an approved General Plan allocation for an additional (119) hotel
rooms. However, Larken Inc. is proposing to substitute the additional hotel room allotment
to general retail and commercial uses. A proposal to construct a commercial retail
development of approximately 41,750 square feet on the proposed excess land is going to
be filed with the City in the near future. The amount of commercial development requested
will require a GENERAL PLAN TRAFFIC ANALYSIS to determine the impact of the
subject proposal on the City's Traffic Circulation System.
The City invites you to submit a proposal to prepare a General Plan Traffic Analysis for this
project. If you are interested in this project, at your earliest convenience, please submit a
proposal to the City including project tasks, budget, and timing. Copies of development
plans or new resubdivision map can be obtained from J.C. Marvick & Associates, 3199 A-3
Airport Loop Drive, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 (714) 549-7554.
Mr. Jerome M. Bame,who represents the property owner, can be reached at (714) 960-4329.
For traffic data or technical questions please contact, Rich Edmonston, the City's Traffic
Engineer. Should you have any other question regarding this project, please contact me.
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
Terry Austin
October 25, 1991
Page two
Very truly yours,
PLANNING DIRECTOR
JAMES D. HEWICKER, DIRECTOR
By . QV41(Gfil,
Aziz M. Aslami
Associate Planner
cc: J. Barnes Office
O ' BOURKE ENGINEERING
TRANSMITTAL
TO: Ms Pat Temple DATE: 991
Engineering Department
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Beach Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
1155$.Milliken Ave.
Suite I
Ontario FROM: Susan O'Rourke
California 91761
714 467 0221 ..
FAX:714 467 0176
VIA: Delivery
RtCEIVCu o i
PLANNING DEPARWENT
CONTENTS:. s ^IZY O NEB 'ORT BEACH
' pet—aFr� h T .. . . 4 A _ - 1 ysis
for Harbor Pacific Plaza SEP 9 1991
AMF69
'a A9,10111112111213141516
r1
COMMENTS:
Carlsbad•Ontario•Santa Ana
�SEW Pp��
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
3 z P.O.BOX 1768,NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92659-1768
do
cq</FOTL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225
August 22, 1991
Ms. Susan E. O'Rourke, P.E.
O'Rourke Engineering
1155 S. Milliken Ave.
Suite I
Ontario, CA 91761
Subject: Traffic study for Sheraton site
Dear Ms. O'Rourke,
You are hereby authorized to proceed with the traffic study for the
proposed retail/fast food development located on the Sheraton site
at the intersection of Birch Street and MacArthur Boulevard in
accordance with the terms outlined in your proposal dated August 8,
1991. A copy of the executed agreement is enclosed. If you have
any questions do not hesitate to call.
Very truly yours,
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
JAMES D. HEWICRER, Director
By
Jo n H. Douglas, ICP
Pr'n ipal Planne
Attachment
F: \. . . \GPA90-3A\TPO-STDY.LTR
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
O ' ROURKE ENGINEERING
August 8, 1991
Ms. Pat Temple
Engineering Department
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Beach Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Dear Ms. Temple:
O'Rourke Engineering is pleased to present this proposal to
provide traffic engineering services to the City of Newport
1155 S.Milliken Awe Beach. Our Scope of Services, Fee, and Schedule are
Suite outlined below:
Ontario SCOPE OF SERVICES
Celifemia-91761
7144670221 Task 1: O'Rourke Engineering will prepare a traffic
FAX:714 467 0178 impact analysis for the proposed retail/fast food
development located on the Sheraton site on MacArthur
Boulevard. The tasks of the analysis are:
a) Trip generation will be developed for the site
using ITE and City provided rates.
b) Distribution/Assignment for the site will be
developed through the 7 key intersections and
driveways and provided to the traffic engineering
department for review and approval. The 7 key
intersections are: Jamboree/MacArthur,
Jamboree/Birch, Jamboree/Campus, MacArthur/Birch,
MacArthur/Campus, Campus/Bristol South,
Campus/Bristol North.
c) Regional growth and other committed developments
will be provided by the City and will be input
into tabular worksheets by O'Rourke Engineering.
d) The 1% test of traffic impacts will be conducted at
the 7 key intersections using worksheets and data
provided by the City.
e) For intersections with a project impact of greater
than 15., an ICU calculation will be undertaken.
f) Mitigation measures will be proposed where
necessary. A schematic of improvements will be
prepared.
Carlsbad•Ontario•Santa Ana
Task 2: O'Rourke Engineering will analyze onsite
circulation and parking.
Task 3: O'Rourke Engineering will analyze and make
recommendations regarding site access points.
FEE
Tasks la-ld and Tasks 2 and 3 will be completed for a
not-to-exceed fee of $4,030.00. Tasks le-if will be
completed for an additional $955.00. Billing is due and
payable within 25 days.
SCHEDULE
We will complete the Scope of Services within 10 business
days from notice to proceed and receipt of a signed
contract.
CLOSURE
If you concur in the foregoing and wish us to proceed with
the aforementioned services, please execute a copy of the
enclosed agreement.
Very truly yours,
O'ROURKE ENGINEERING
Susan E. O'Rourke, P.E.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
NAi+�E• J 0 Gt�� �/o�v5
TITLE:
ATTEST: !/
DATE:
i
JEROME M. BAME
ATTORNEY AT LAW
1005S SLATER AVENUE, SUITE 250
FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708
TELEPHONE (714) 960-4329
FAX 1714) 965-7816
August 21, 1991
HAND CARRIED
John H. Douglas
Patricia Temple
Planning Department
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92659
Re: Sheraton Hotel Project
Newport Beach, California
General Plan Amendment No. 90-3(A)
Dear John and Patty:
Enclosed you will find our client's (LARKEN INC.) Check No. 475255 in the
sum of $5,483.00, which represents the total fees requested by the City to
commence and complete the traffic phasing analysis for the above-
referenced project.
Please process this check appropriately, so that the required analysis can
commence forthwith.
Thank you.
Most cordially,
JEROME M.BAME
JMB:mgw RECEIVED By
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Enclosure rITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
AM AUG 2 11991 FM
71819110111112111213141516
SEW PORT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Ur P.O.BOX 1768,NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92659-1768
d<
CgUFOR�`P PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225
August 9, 1991
Jerome M. Bame
Attorney at Law
1055 Slater Ave., Suite 250
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
Subject: Traffic Engineering Analysis, Sheraton Site
MacArthur Boulevard
Dear Mr. Bame:
The City of Newport Beach has received a proposal from O'Rourke Engineering for traffic
engineering services required for the preparation of a traffic phasing analysis for the
proposed project on the Sheraton site on MacArthur Boulevard. The proposal contains an
outline of the scope of work required, approximate schedule of same, and estimated budget
required for the preparation.
The fee requested has been reviewed by the City, and the amount requested for the tasks
required are considered appropriate and warranted. It is, therefore, requested that your
company submit a check to cover the following fees:
Consultant Fees $ 4,985
City Fees (10%) 4988
Total Request: $ 5,483
Please make the check payable to the City of Newport Beach. Your prompt attention in
this matter is appreciated.
Very truly yours,
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director
By 1� �
Patricia Temple
Advance Planning Manager
F\JM�PLI�SHERATON.TPO
Attachments
` 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
t
O ' ROURKE ENGINEERING
August 8, 1991
Ms. Pat Temple
Engineering Department
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Beach Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Dear Ms. Temple:
O'Rourke Engineering is pleased to present this proposal to
provide traffic engineering services to the City of Newport
1156 S.Milliken Ave Beach. Our Scope of Services, Fee, and Schedule are
Suite outlined below:
Ontario SCOPE OF SERVICES
California 91761
7144670221 Task 1: O'Rourke Engineering will prepare a traffic
FAX:714 467 0178 impact analysis for the proposed retail/fast food
development located on the Sheraton site on MacArthur
Boulevard. The tasks of the analysis are:
a) Trip generation will be developed for the site
using ITE and City provided rates.
b) Distribution/Assignment for the site will be
developed through the 7 key intersections and
driveways and provided to the traffic engineering
department for review and approval. The 7 key
intersections are: Jamboree/MacArthur,
Jamboree/Birch, Jamboree/Campus, MacArthur/Birch,
MacArthur/Campus, Campus/Bristol South,
Campus/Bristol North.
c) Regional growth and other committed developments
will be provided by the City and will be input
into tabular worksheets by O'Rourke Engineering.
d) The 1% test of traffic impacts will be conducted at
the 7 key intersections using worksheets and data
provided by the City.
e) For intersections with a project impact of greater
than 1%, an ICU calculation will be undertaken.
f) Mitigation measures will be proposed where
necessary. A schematic of improvements will be
prepared.
Carlsbad•Onteno•Santa Ana
•f � f
Task 2: O'Rourke Engineering will analyze onsite
circulation and parking.
Task 3: O'Rourke Engineering will analyze and make
recommendations regarding site access points.
FEE
Tasks la-ld and Tasks 2 and 3 will be completed for a
not-to-exceed fee of $4,030.00. Tasks le-If will be
completed for an additional $955.00. Billing is due and
payable within 25 days.
SCHEDULE
We will complete the Scope of Services within 10 business
days from notice to proceed and receipt of a signed
contract.
CLOSURE
If you concur in the foregoing and wish us to proceed with
the aforementioned services, please execute a copy of the
enclosed agreement.
Very truly yours,
OIROURKE ENGINEERING
��GI�✓NGC%--,
Susan E. O'Rourke, P.E.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH `
NAME
TITLE•
ATTEST:
DATE:
I
JEROME M. BAME
ATTORNEY AT LAW
IOOSS SLATER AVENUE, SUITE 2SO
FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92706
TELEPHONE 1714) 960-4329
FAX (714) 96S-7616
July 24, 1991
Hand Carried
Ms. Patty Temple
Planning Department
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
3300 Newport Boulevard
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92659
Re: Sheraton Hotel Project
Newport Beach, California
General Plan Amendment No. 90-3(A)
Dear Patty:
Not having heard from you since our faxing you a letter on July 23, 1991
(copy attached), I stopped by your office to discuss the two items
mentioned in that letter.
I had prepared this letter in advance of my doing so, in the event I was
unable to see you when I came to your office.
Please be so kind as to give me a call tomorrow morning (Thursday, July
25) to discuss the items mentioned in that letter.
Most cordially,
EROME M.BAM
RECEIVED BY
JMB;mgw PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PITY OF NEwPORT BEACH
Attachment JUL 2 A 1991
AM PM
71819110,U112111213141516
a
..JEROME M. BAME
1 ATTORNEY AT LAW O IOOSS SLATER AVENUE, SUITE 250
FOUNTAIN VALLEY, 14) IFORNIA96 -432 92708
TELEPHONE UI41 960.4329
FAX (714) 9GS-7916
July 23, 1991
Via FAX (714)644-3250
Ms. Patty Temple
Planning Department
CITYOFNEWPORTBF-ACH
3300 Newport Boulevard
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92659
Re: Sheraton Hotel Project
Newport Beach, California
General Plan Amendment No. 90-3(A)
Dear Patty:
I would appreciate your calling my office to give me (or my Secretary) a status report of the
Traffic Study. My client is most anxious to get this Study underway.
Also, 1 would appreciate meeting with you again for you to give me detailed instructions on the
preparation of revised maps and pages to the Planned Community Text. At our last meeting on
July 3, you indicated that you would be willing to show me what needs to be done in this regard.
I am currently available to meet with you on:
Wednesday, July 31 at 11:00 a.m.
Wednesday, July 31 at 3:00 p.m.
Friday, August 2 at 11:00 a.m.
Monday, August 5 at 1:30 p.m.
Your call to my office indicating the status of the Traffic Study and selecting one of the above-
indicated dates/times for our meeting would be most appreciated.
Most cordially,
�Ir~� BAM
JMB:mgw
JEROME M. GAME
ATTORNEY AT LAW
MOSS SLATER AVENUE, SUITE 250
FOUNTAIN VALLGY. CALIFORNIA WWOO
TCLCPHONC 17141 M00-4322
FAX (714) 865-7016
July 9, 1991
Via FAX (714)644.3250
Patricia L. Temple
Planning Department
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
3300 Newport Blvd.
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768
tle: Sheraton Hotel Project
Dear Patty:
I just wanted to express my appreciation for your permitting me to meet
with you this past week, and being so helpful in providing me direction on
the Sheraton Hotel (General Plan Amendment(Parcelization) project.
I also wanted to reiterate that my client is quite anxious to have this
project proceed with all due haste and, in that regard, that the Traffic
Study be commenced as soon as possible.
With regard to that Traffic Study, if you will call me to indicate the casts
necessary to commence that project, I will see that the necessary funds
are sent to you immediately thereafter.
Again, thank you for your help.
Most cordially,
JEROME M.BAME
JMB:mgw
T/T'd M01-1H-hlld'3WHH'W'f WH60:TT T6, 60 7nr
•02-219- .�
APPLICAN CONSULTANTS:
`--�/o
NAME: ' ---_-_�
PHONE:
PROJECT NAME: DESCRIPTION:
DATE DEPOSIT FEES PAYMENT REMAINING BALANCE
45 vgg, 0 V*
P112?1 (70, ) i 60,0 6l1.1�71
A ......r+«... ORT BEACH RECEIPT........w+...�.....�..�.rrr.�.+w.�..�..�........�..�..r,q.
-----.-..-......�rrr CITY OF N$WP �1 dF,WPpRA •
E i � NEWPORT BEA CALIFORNIA 92663 No. 75380
<aroAN�� a? 19 I"/
{1� OAT Q�
f RECEIVED FROM_, � � $JI PP
!t FOR:
ACCOUNT NO AMOU '
r
+ DEPARTMENT
aEw�Rr
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CASH RECEIPT
a r NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92663
�ciaoRNr
I I '
1 .
RIVED HY: CM f_<USTOMER,4ARKEN INC.
ENVIRONMENTAL FEES CITY FEE $760. 00
MISCELLANEOUS RECEIPTS" TRAFFIO �8TUDY\' `78A 1, $7,600. 00
r'
TOTAL DUE $8,360. 00
CASH PAID CHECK: PAID CHECK NO TENDERED CHANGE
$.00 $8, 360.00 492396 $8, 360. 00 $. 00
i
DATE - 1.2/12/91 TIME - 14:41: 30
II
CITY a: �E.waoRr
DEMAND FOR NEWPORT 0
• PAYMENT BEACH �c,��oQN%
Demand of: Larken, Inc. Date: August 10, 1992
c/o Jerome M. Bame, Attny.
Address: 1055 Slater Ave. , Suite 250
Fountain Valley. CA 9 708
In the amount of $1,1130.15
Item of Expenditure Budget # Amount
Refund of Balance of Traffic Study Funds 010 2300 $L113,15
•
Total $1,113.15
Appr v d For Payment:
Department Heaa
•
Audited and Approved:
Finance Director
V
DEMAND FOR CITY CF O��EWPO?6
NEWPORT
• PAYMENT BEACH u �Goa�•P z
Demand of Rock E. Miller & Associates Date: August 10, 1992
Address: 17852 E. 17th Street, #107'
Tustin, CA 92680
In the amount of: $137.14
Item of Expenditure Budget # Amount
Sheraton Site ff'c Study Analysis
For professional Services rendered:
April 18 - May 31, 1992; Inv. No. 327
Traffic Study No. 78 & 78A
•
Total $137.14
Approved For Payment:
Department Head
•
Audited and Approved:
Finance Director
PLANNING DEPARTMEN
C/� � , � � eITy OF NEyJPOR7 BEACH
Rock E. Miller & Associates AM AUG 10 1992 F19
Traffic & Transportation Engineers 718191101lli121112131415lf3 REVISED
At I N V O I C E
Client: City of Newport Beach
Planning Department
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Attn: Aziz Aslami ti
Date: 8/6/92
Project: Sheraton Commercial Center File No. 91059
P.O. f: Invoice 327
Billing for work: April 18, 1992 thru May 31, 1992
Previous Current Total Hourly Labor
TITLE Hours Hours Hours Rate Subtotal
Firm Principal 25.75 0 25.75 $100 $2,575
Designer 0 0 0 $50 $0
Technician 100 1.75 101.75 $32 $3,256
Secretary -, 7.5 0 7.5 $30 $225
• Aide 12 1 13 $25 $325
-----------
TOTAL HOURS 145.25 2.75 148 $6,381
EXPENSES Previous Current Total
Traffic Counts $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Printing/Plotting $65.71 $40.14 $105.85
Freight $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Other $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
TOTAL EXPENSE $105.85
TOTAL COST TO DATE $6,486.85
LESS PREVIOUS BILLINGS $6,349.71
COST, THIS INVOICE $137.14
TOTAL AUTHORIZED $7,600.00
PLEASE PAY �$137.14
Please `remit payment to
Rock E. Miller and Associates
17852 E. ' 17th Street 1107 �n
Tustin, CA 92680 By 77852 East Seventeenth Street, Suite 107, (afln g .'• i7r Cc
FAX(714)573-9534 TE , 7 1977 .
CITY CF PEWPOR @_ _- _
• DEMAND FOR - -_ o�
NEWPORT >-
--
PAYMENT ` = BEACH UCgC�OPZ
s
Demand of: Rock E. Miller & Associates Date: May 19, 1992
Address: 17852 E. Seventeenth St. , Suite 107
Tustin, CA 92680
In the amount of: $6,349.71
Item of Expenditure Budget # Amount
SHERATON HOTEL SITE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS O10 2300 $6,349.71
For professional services rendered
Inv. No. 294, Start-up thru March: $4,184.92 -
Inv. No. 309, March 16 thru April 17, $2,164.79
Total
o $6,349.71
Approved For Payment: p6cli i +� •t
• Department Head
Audited and Approved.
Finance Director
-_
l�lE� _="- -_ _ --__ _ - - -- ----
E.-Miller & Associates -- - --Rock I �ptanning Director' "
Traffic & Transportation Engineers
`bcQUt'�TANO.: I N V O T C E
Client: City of Newport Beach
Planning Department
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Attn: Aziz Aslami
Date: 4/20/92
Project: Sheraton Commercial,,Center --- - - File No. 91059
P.O. #: Invoice 309
Billing for work: March 16; '1992 thru April 17, 1992
Previous' Current Total Hourly — Labor
TITLE Hours- ,'••,Hours Hours Rate Subtotal
Firm Principal 22.25, , ,, • ,3.5 25.75 $100 $2,575
Designer 0 0 0 $50 $0
Technician 54 45.5 99.5 $32 $3,184
Secretary 6.5 1 7. 5 $30 .$225
• Aide 0 '12 . 12 $25 $300.
------
TOTAL HOURS •82.75 ' = 62 . 144.75 $6,284
EXPENSES Previous Current Total
Traffic Counts $0. 00 $0. 00 $0. 00
Printing/Plotting $36.92 $28.79 $65. 71
Freight $0.00 $0.00 $0. 00
Other $0. 00 $0.00 $0. 00
TOTAL EXPENSE $65.71
TOTAL COST TO DATE $6,349 71
LESS PREVIOUS BILLINGS $4,184.92 _
THIS INVOICE $2, 164.79
TOTAL AUTHORIZED $7, 600. 00
-----------------
PLEASE PAY $2,164.79
--------------
p REC Please remit payment to
./���� A Pq�r4f f
Rock E. Miller and Associates
A APR ORrBEa0tUstin, CA852 E. 7th 92680street #107
7 2 ti 1.os2
2/c?/grsrP* 17852 East Seventeenth Street, Suite 107, Tustin, CA 92680
FAX(774)573-9534 TEL, (714)573-0377
FOP, P
"� i`--_ _ ••�-�:--r•,'-'-''uf�! m _ __ - - y\ ` ^.«_`(/ rim �n•Ily ti«�.�
Rock -E. Miller & Associates _
Traffic & Transportation Engineers , Planning Direcior - y
Client: City of Newport 'Beach-
Planning ,Department
3300 Newport ,Bdulevard
Newport Bead''," CA; 92663
Attn: Aziz Aslami: '"'
Date: 3/13/91,
Project: Sheraton Commercial ^Center - File No. 91059 "
P.O. #: Invoice 294
Billing for work: Start-Up•'thru March 13, 1992
Previoug,, ,Current Total Hourly Labor
TITLE Hour's?;, ,r;i,;iHours Hours Rate Subtotal
Firm Principal •,y,,;0;.; ,r,i,22.25 22.25 $100 $2,225
Designer °b. 0 0 $50 $0'
Technician fi0 54 54• $32 $1,728
Secretary 0 6.5 6. 5 $30 $195
Aide 0 • , 0. 0 $25 $0
TOTAL HOURS 0� - •82.75 82.75 $4,148
EXPENSES Previous , Current Total
Traffic Counts $0-0 . $0. 00 $0. 00
Printing/Plotting $0:'00 $36.92 $36.92
Freight $0.•00 , $0. 00 $0.00'
Other $0. 00 $0. 00 $0.00
TOTAL EXPENSE $36.92
TOTAL COST TO DATE $4,184.92
LESS PREVIOUS BILLINGS moo - _
THIS INVOICE = $4, 184.92
TOTAL AUTHORIZED $0.00
PLEASE PAY $4,184.92_
Please remit payment to
Rock E. Miller and Ai4sociates "��' '•
17852 E. 17th Street #107 eLANNiNG DEPARTMEIVY,
• Tustin, CA 92680 ^iTY OF NEWPORT BEACH
17852 East Seventeenth Street, Suite 107, Tustin, CA 92680 AM MAR 1 ry 199� PEI
FAX(714)573-9534 TEL. (714)573-0317 71819+10tL1�?t�12i3i�s5 �.
0 0 W14
taEW PO —
°� e� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
UP.O.BOX 1768,NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92659-1768
e.�
C'9G7FOR�`P
PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225
November 25, 1991
Mr. Jerome M. Bame
10055 Slater Avenue, Suite 250
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
Subject: Traffic Phasing Ordinance Stu General Plan Traffic Analysis
for Harbor Pacific Plaza (Sheraton Hotel Site), GPA 90 - 3(A)
Dear Mr. Bame:
Enclosed please find a copy of a proposal submitted by Rock E. Miller & Associates
regarding Traffic Engineering Services required for traffic phasing analysis for the proposed
development at the northwest corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Corinthian Way in
Newport Beach. The proposal contains an outline of the required work, schedule of time,
• and estimated fee required for preparation of the task.
The requested Traffic Consultant fees have been reviewed by the City and are considered
appropriate and warranted. The fees are as follows:
Consultant Fees $ 7,600
City Fees (10%) 760
Total Request: $ 8,360
Please submit a check in the amount of$8,360 payable to the City of Newport Beach. Your
prompt response in this matter is appreciated.
Very truly yours,
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
JAMES,D. HEWICKER, Director
n
By l/y
Aziz M. Aslami
• Associate Planner
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
OIL
dEMAND FOR CITY a:: o��EW�R o
NEWPORT
• PAYMENT BEACH a4oa�.�z
Demand of O'Rourke Engineering Date: October 14, 1991
Address: 1155 S. Milliken Avenue; Suite I
Ontario, CA 91761
In the amount of: $4,985.00
Item of Expenditure Budget # Amount
SHERATON SITE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
Invoice Dated 9-15-91 - $3,572.00
Invoice Dated 10-3- 1 $1,413.00
•
Total $4,985.00
Approved For Payment
Department Hea
(i
Audited and Approved:
Finance Director
• . RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
^ITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
r
OCT 9 1991
*ROURKE ENGINEERING - Traffic Engineering and Transportation Planning rr 819t10]1 1 2 3 FM
tltttt4t516
I
INVOICE
INVOICE DATE: October 3, 1991
CLIENT: City of Newport Beach
ADDRESS: 3300 Newport Beach Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
JOB NAME: Sheraton/Newport Beach 05
JOB NUMBER: TUO8911 .0 '
,
BILLING PERIOD: September 1991
WORK DESCRIPTION: Traffic Study
,
LUMP SUM �� )
CONTRACT AMOUNT: $4,985.00
•PERCENT COMPLETE: 100% A{ Opr
AMOUNT PREVIOUSLY 0
BILLED: $3,572.00
TOTAL DUE: $1 ,413.00 '
PLEASE PAY THIS AMOUNT - THANK YOUI
r
Please remit payment to O'ROURKE ENGINEERING at the address below: !
I
O'ROURKE ENGINEERING ,'•.
1155 S. Milliken Avenue, Suite I "•''•
Ontario, CA 91761
Any questions, please call : (714) 467-0221 j
All accounts past 30 days will be assessed a 1 .5% per month
i�
interest penalty charge ?z
t�F'�'F�OV L 4 �flPAYMENT1I
3�
By "---- -
Ian ng Director
oUt •3�
i,
Plann,nj
�O'ROURKE ENGINEERING - Traffic Engineering and TranF4CC1@tUt 4JPJ4.�i'i ,rng
INVOICE
INVOICE DATE: 9/15/91
TERMS: Net 25
CLIENT : City of Newport Beach
ADDRESS : 3300 Newport Beach Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
ACCOUNT NO.
JOB NAME : Sheraton/Newport Beach AMOUNT
NUMBER : TUO8911 .0 DATE
APPROVED --
BILLING PERIOD : August 1991
WORK DESCRIPTION : Preparation of Traffic Study
to be submitted 9/91 .
BILLING
CLASSIFICATION HOURS RATE TOTAL
------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Manager 4.00 $95.00 $380.00
Project Engineer 10.50 75.00 $787.50
Project Analyst 30.50 65.00 $1,982.50
.Project Coordinator 0.00 50.00 $0.00
Drafter 6.00 57.50 $345.00
Word Processor 0.00 40.00 $0.00
Clerical 0.00 35.00 $0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL BILLED $3,495.00
TOTAL
EXPENSES QUANTITY RATE BILLED
------------------------------------------------------------------
MILEAGE 100 $0.30 $30.00
COPIES 4 0.25 $1 .00
COMPUTER ANALYSIS 0 20.00 $0.00
COMPUTER W.P. 3.5 8.00 $28.00
FAX 3 1 .00 $3.00
PHONE CALLS 15 1 .00 $15.00
OTHER (FED EX) 0 0.00 $0.00
OTHER $0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL EXPENSES $77.00
TOTAL BILLED $3,572.00
PLEASE PAY THIS AMOU - THANK YOU1
pear
Please remit payment to O'ROURKE ENGINEERING at the address below: r C'r i:F'.'+'. Vr:T 'JEP.'"
• O'ROURKE ENGINEERING SEP 3 ;', 1991
1155 S. Milliken Avenue, Ste. I Ali F:
Ontario, CA 91761 `�1819dI01??ll?,�,2;31n,5 '_'
All accounts past 30 days will be assessed a 1.5% per month
interest penalty charge
r �
PO
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
U T P.O.BOX 1768,NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92659-1768
(`,9/1Fo%X PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225
August 9, 1991
Jerome M. Bame
Attorney at Law
1055 Slater Ave., Suite 250
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
Subject: Traffic Engineering Analysis, Sheraton Site
MacArthur Boulevard
Dear Mr. Bame:
The City of Newport Beach has received a proposal from O'Rourke Engineering for traffic
engineering services required for the preparation of a traffic phasing analysis for the
proposed project on the Sheraton site on MacArthur Boulevard. The proposal contains an
outline of the scope of work required, approximate schedule of same, and estimated budget
• required for the preparation.
The fee requested has been reviewed by the City, and the amount requested for the tasks
required are considered appropriate and warranted. It is, therefore, requested that your
company submit a check to cover the following fees:
Consultant Fees $ 4,985
City Fees (10%) 498
Total Request: $ 5,483
Please make the check payable to the City of Newport Beach. Your prompt attention in
this matter is appreciated.
Very truly yours,
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director
By iJAI LIZ
Patricia Temple aiaz
-`�" —
Advance Planning Manager
Attachments 1AJM\r[T\s[1eanT0N.1e0
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach