Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTS095 U�la r iRvm►e &A PRO�s connP A Dmswn at The Imne CanDenY Keith - Eyrich 550 Newport Center Drive p,O.Box I Nce President Newport Beach Operations California 92658-8904 Telephone (714)720.2306 "ITY OF ,NEWPORT BEACH ,COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES �o S ROLL CHLL November 14, 1994 INDEX _ Motion was made by Mayor Turner to Noise Ord otion x restrict the use of mechanical leaf blowers between the hours of 5 p.m. and 8 a.m. Mayor Pro Tem Watt suggested the ho a of operation be changed on Sundays om 12 Noon to 5 p.m. lotion x Substitute motion was made by oumcil Member Sansone to prohibit asoline powered leaf blowers in re idential areas, or within 200 fe t of a residential area, but the they be allowed in commercial areas etween the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. In response to a ques on raised by Mayor Pro Tem Watt reg rding the noise level from electri al or battery operated leaf blowers Mr. Mestre stated that he measured electrical leaf blower last week w ich measured 65 dBa at 50 feet. The attery operated leaf blower measures out 55 dBa. Following dis scion, Council Member Sansone witted ew the part of his motion relative to ommercial areas. Motion x Mayor Pro Tea Watt moved a second substitu motion to prohibit gasoline \yes x x x x x powered leaf blowers in residential Toes x areas, or within 200 feet of a resid tial area, but that electrical or batt powered leaf blowers be allowed be an the hours of 8 a.m. to 5 P.M. in re idential areas, which motion carried. view of the foregoing action, it was indicated that there are no restrictions in commercial areas for gasoline powered leaf blowers. lotion x Motion was made by Council Member Hart Ayes to reintroduce Ordinance No. 94-48 as �11 A Y amended, and pass to second reading on November 28, 1994. 29. Mayor Turner opened the public hearing concerning: A. General Plan Amendment 94-2CB- - GPA 94-2(B Request to consider an amendment (45) to the General Plan Land Use Element so as to increase the development limit in Fashion Island by 266,000 square feet; and the acceptance of an Environmental Document; and B. General Plan Consistency Finding - Request for a finding of General Plan Consistency allowing a transfer of 30,000 square feet of Retail and Service Commercial entitlement from Bayview Landing to Fashion Island as provided in the General Plan,Land Use Element; and Volume 48 - Page 422 l' \) CITY OF NMORT BEAA R COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES ROLL CALL November 14, 1994 INDEX C. • Planning Commission_Amendment No. PCA 811 811 - Request to amend the Planne Community District Regulations for Fashion Island to increase the development limit by 309,550 square feet to allow construction of the 266,000 square feet addressed in GPA 94-2(B), 30,000 square feet transferred from Bayview Landing, and 13,550 square feet previously transferred from the Pao Bell site; and D. Traffic Study No. 95 - Request to Trfc Stdy approve a traffic study to allow 95 an additional 266,000 square feet in the Fashion Island Planned Community, not previously vested pursuant to the provisions of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The CityXOierk advised that after the agenda vas.-, printed, a 'Supplemental Report was 'prepared by the Planning Department as well as a Memorandum from the Economic Development Committee. Patricia . Temple;,-talcs: Plan�}ti� x.� Manager,;stated that .$ a ,P gject iut lijC LL consideration would•allov'«tli4-+ezpansion of Fashion Island within Ne rt Center. and outlined the applications"above (A through D). She stated that the proposed project came about as a result of 'a . direction of the City Council to explore..;i the possibility of a Fashion Islan1C ` expansion with The Irvine Company. As a result, staff and representatives of The Irvine Company have worked at great length to develop a project description to meet their needs and fall- within all of the General Plan criteria and ordinances of the City, and the all now before the Council meets alll those requirements. A fiscal impact analysis was also prepared for the project, ands the intent of the study was to assess the potential impacts the expansion of Fashion Island may have on existing commercial developments in the City. The study findings are summarized as follows: 1) The total sales tax generated by the expansion is projected at $75 million per year, and would translate to $750,000 annually in City revenue. 2) The new sales activity at Newport Beach would be derived primarily from, other existing retail centers in the County, most,.• notably South CoastWaza, Crystal Court, Brea Mall and Main Place Santa Ana. 3) Other components of sales derivation are other out-of-area sales in Orange County including Newport Beach. Volume 48 - Page 423 CTY OF NEWPORT BEACH • MINUTES COUNCIL MEMBERS S, November 14, 1994 INDEX ' L CALL act i the GPA 94-2(B; eight 4) The competitive imp n i in Newport co Beach al districts identified was estimated at 1-1/2t and that adverse impact would be partially offset by new additional sales generated by new shoppers in Newport Beach. Ms. Temple referenced the Supplemental Staff ns an additional po responsert to co to A comment received this afternoon from the City of Costa Mesa. Additionally, a typo- graphical error was noticed in the proposed resolution approving Amendment 811 on handwritten page 170, wherein the entitlement number in the second line should read 1,633,850 gross square; feet. In responsa. to question raised by Mayor Pro Tem Watt regarding the proposed parking plan, Ms. Temple stated that this is the most technically complicated issue related to the expansion, and she pelt that the staff has come up wih a rogram ttiet Mould allow for the optimal xi use of existing parking !resources in Newport Center as a whole, but still i providing the City with a fail safe mechanism should the use of some of ; these more creative parking strategies not prove effective. she also noted that these mechanisms would be eused for or very limited and discreet periods time, most specifically pask seasonal use times such as the Christmas Holidays, and tend to be only a few days per year. The use of seasonal parking programs is done in South Coast Plaza, as well as other centers in the County, and for the limited amount of time and with sufficient enforcement, they have proven to be effective- Joe Foust, Consultant for the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, addressed the Council in response to a q traffic by Mayor Pro Tem Watt regarding counts and how they are measured, and stated that counts for Cit staff conducts traffic heycity s Traffic Phasing Ordinance every year and about one-half of the intersections are counted every other year. If there is an economic change in nthe community, it is reflected in those In response to question raised by Council Member Hart regarding the construction date for co blncinigepuc Works work on MacArthur Boulevard, Director stated that construction on the, two intersections on MacArthur Boulevard at San Joaquin and at San Miguel will completedt prior Spring the� completi c and ompletion be of: Fashion Island. Volume 48 - Page 424 } CITY OF NMORT BEAS COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES ROLL CRLL S November 14. 1994 INDEX Tom Redwitz, Vice President, The Irvine GPA 94-2() Company, addressed the Council and complimented the staff for their diligence on this project; commended the City for taking a pro-active position to maintain its high quality of life; and stated the municipal revenue is a vital component of that, and in this era of declining revenues, they believe that Fashion Island should do more and can do more to contribute to the economic health of the City. Currently, Fashion Island generates approximately $2.5 million annually to the City in sales tax revenue, and as noted in the staff report, the expansion could generate an additional $750,000 in sales tax revenues. That amount is equivalent to 10 police officers per year or the cost to maintain the 21,000 public trees throughout the City. Approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment will allow Fashion Island and the City to effectively compete in attracting high quality retailers to the City. They have. reviewed the staff report and concur in the recommendations and findings. 3 L • Sid Soffer, 900 rArbor iSt Oita: Mesa, addressed tua •bouncil` regarding the proposed parking plan and .parking requirements for the expans;ioa at Fashion Island, and stated in order for the City to compete with South Coast Plaza, they need more square footage. He also discussed traffic on Bristol, Street near South Coast Plaza. Rush Hill, Chairman of the Economic Development Committee, addressed the Council and offered their support for the proposed project at Fashion Island. He stated he would like to share their enthusiasm with the City in keeping it as a top priority, and thanked the staff for moving this development forward. The Economic Development Committee looks at this 'project as a very strategic move on the part of the City in the sense that it allows the City to stop the loss of revenue to competing regional centers, while it allows the City the opportunity to greatly enhance its revenues. They believe the proposed expansion is a public/private win-win situation, and they urge the Council's continued support for this important project. Will B. Ring, Costa Mesa resident, addressed the Council and spoke in support of the proposed project stating he felt it was a positive move for the City. Richard Luehrs, . President, Newport Harbor Area Chamber of Commerce, l addressed the Council and urged approval of the proposed expansion as 'presented. He stated the estimated revenue this project will generate was referenced earlier; parking and mitigation Volume 48 - Page 425 I l WITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES November 14, 1994 INDO( ROLL CALL r measures have already been addressed, GPA 94-2(B and the addition of a major retail tenant could have a "significant effect on the entire retail component at Fashion Island, and for these reasons, the Chamber supports the project. Hearing no others wishing to address the Council, the public hearing was closed. Motion was made by mayor Turner to take Motion x the following actions: (a) Adopt GPA Res 94-100 100 adopting and certifying the Environmental Document; and (b) ResolutionAdopt 101, making a Fi ding 9 Res 94-101 of General Plan. Consistency for the transfer of 30,000 sq. ft. of retail commercial development from Bayview Landing to Fashion Island, and (c) Adpt� Resolution No. 94- Res 94-102 A 102, adopting amendments to the Planned Cotm=ity District Regulations and Development Plan for Fashion Island (Planning Commission Amendment 811); and (d) • Sustain the action of the Planning Commission on Traffic Study No. 95. Mayor Pro Tam Watt stated. she will support the motion, however, she typically does not "embrace" the idea of allowing more square footage which increases traffic,,congestion, etc. , but she is in favor of increasing the City's profitability at this point in time, and this is a project she can get excited about, particularly if Bloomingdales decides to locate at Fashion Island. She also felt that the City must increase its profitability and survival of the older commercial and retail areas of the City. Council Member Hedges noted that this project idea came about initially as a result of the City Council's strategic workshop held approximately one year ago; he also emphasized the need to give attention to the older areas of the City as their problems are much different than that of Fashion Island as well-as- their potential; further, economic development is another issue that also came about as a result of the workshop, and he felt this was •a tremendous opportunity for retailers to locate in one of the most premiere resort areas in the world. Volume 48 - Page 426 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH• . COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES November 14, 1994 INDEX ROLL CRLL The City Attorney recommended the 30PA 94-2(B' following findings be approved in connection with Mayor Turner's nation: (1) That the Initial Study for the project identified potentially significant impacts related to earth conditions, air quality, water runoff, noise, light and glare, land use, transportation and parking, utilities and service systems, aesthetics and cultural resources; (2) That the project evaluated in the Initial Study was revised through the incorporation of mitigation measures prior to the release of the Noise ordinance for public review; (3) That the revisions to the project and incorporated mitigation measures either avoid potentially significant efforts or mitigate those effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur; (4) The City Council has reviewed the entire record, including comments received from the Cityy of Costa Mesa on November 14, 1994, and concludes there is no substantial evidence in the record that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment; (5) That the Negative Declaration and related environmental documentation reflects the independent judgment of staff and was reviewed and considered by the Planning Commission prior to their adoption of resolutions recommending approval of the project; (6) That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the provisions of CEQA and the CEQA guidelines; and (7) The project has no significant impact on the natural resources subject to the regulatory control of the Department of Fish and Game. All Ayes The motion was voted on and carried. Volume 48 - Page 427 ITY OF NMORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES Fs October 24, 1994 ROLL CALL INDEX 35. Report from Planning Department GPA 94-2(B) concerning request to schedule for (45) vublic hearing on November 14. 1994: General Plan Amendment 94-2(B) - Request to consider an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element so as to increase the development limit in Fashion Island by 266,000 square feet; and the acceptance of an environmental document; and General Plan Consistency Finding - Request for a finding of General Plan Consistency allowing a transfer of 30,000 square feet of Retail and Service Commercial entitlement from Bayview Landing to Fashion Island as provided in the General Plan Land Use Element; and Amendment No. 811 - Request to amend the PCA 811 Planned Community District Regulations for Fashion Island to increase the development limit by 309,550 square feet to allow construction of the 266,000 square feet addressed in GPA 94-2(B), 30,000 square feet transferred from Bayview Landing, and 13,550 square feet previously transferred from the Pee Bell site; and Traffic Study No. 95 - Request to Tfc Stdy 95 approve a traffic study to allow an additional, 266,000 square feet in the Fashion Island Planned Community not previously vested pursuant to the provisions of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Motion x Notion was made by Mayor Turner to All AyeE approve the above recommendation and schedule public hearing on November 14, 1994. Meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m., to November 1, 1994 at 1:00 p.m. to discuss pending litigation in the City Council Chambers (a closed session agenda will be posted 72 hours prior). ,r * nryrakyr * * * kyterk The agenda for this meeting was posted on October 19, 1994 at 4:05 p.m., on the City Ball Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Volume 48 - Page 403 QI TY OF NMORT BEACH COLNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES s ROLL CRLL June 27, 1994 INDEX \funded, City Manager advised that the City l was originally slated for a variety improvements, but were not approved the City Council during budget study. arding this particular street ject, he stated that the bids were B above the Engineers estimate, and that reason the staff has o nded the transfer of maintenance ds order to complete this street ject. Motion x lowing scussion, motion was made by ncil Me r Hart to award the subject tract, bu to not fiord it out of the y Hall ma enance account. Public Works irector reported that order to award his contract it must funded, and if is decided by the ncil to change th source of funding significantly mo y the scope of k, he would sugges deferring this to July 11. Motion x In view of the foregoi comments, Ayes x x x x substitute motion was made by Council Noes x x Member Cox to approve the commended action. Council Member Sansone indicated a was opposed to the motion inasmuch he felt that .Item Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 10 in the staff report, which a recommended streets/City facilities be resurfaced, are very low budge priorities when compared to the number of alleys, curbs, gutters and sidewalks that need upgraded. 27. B. Fashion Island: Request to _ A 94-2 consider an amendment to the (45) General Plan Land Use Element to increase the development allocation for Fashion Island by 266,000 sq. ft. to a total 1,615,800 sq. ft. Council Member Watt stated this item came about as a result of looking for new methods in which the City could enhance its economic base through retail sales, and the obvious way to do that is to expand Fashion Island. However, she indicated she had a few concerns regarding this idea, and stated that: 1) another high priority goal of the Council this year was to put more effort into the City's specific small business districts and to find a customer base to support those districts, and if this passes, she would like to request that some type of economic analysis be developed which would indicate if the customer base that would be expanded at Fashion Island would negatively affect some of the small business areas; and 2) if the City is going to expand on square footage of retail/commercial base, then where will that be, and is it a logical plan to continue to expand Fashion Island. Volume 48 - Page 203 CITY OF NMORT BEAC� COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES `9 - June 27, 1994 ROLL CALL INDEX 3. Resolution relative to the FILING OF Election/ ARGUMENTS AND REBUTTALS FOR THE MEASURE Measure to be Submitted to the Voters at the (39) GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION AND SPECIAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 8, 1994. Motion x Mayor Turner stated that inasmuch as the City is placing a measure on the ovember 1994 ballot increasing the mbership of the Library Board from 5 t 7, he felt it would be an appropriate t e to update the duties and res nsibilities of the Board as set for in the City Charter, and they ore, moved to direct staff to anal a Section 708 of the Charter and bring ck a recommendation on July 11. He in icated he felt the current languag needed to be changed to "make this div sion of the City more or less comply w th the way in which other divisions f the City operate." All Ayes In view of he foregoing, action on the proposed re olutions was deferred to July 11. Council Membe Sansone spoke against increasing the embership of the Library Board as he fel that it would only add to dissention n the Board. He suggested that i terested individuals who are not appoi ad to the Board get involved with the F iends of the Library or the Library Foun tion. 24. Report from Public Works Department 1993-94 St: recommending Award of ONTRACT NO. 3000 Misc Slurry to Boral Resources, In . , for total bid Seal/Rsrfcg price of $299,494.80; and approving C-3000 Budget Amendment 059 to ansfer $72,000 from the City Hall Main nance Program (38) for 1993-94 STREETS AND SCELLANEOUS SLURRY SEAL AND RESURFACIN PROGRAM; and 42. Budget Amendment 059 for $72.000 - BA 059 Transfer from the City Hall intenance (40) Program (Contract No. 3000). Council Member Hart indicated she was not opposed to the recommended ward of contract; however, she was agains using City Hall maintenance funds to p for the work inasmuch as the majority the Council voted earlier this year to any the replacement of windows in City R 11. She stated it was her understanding t t when the window project was denied, t was because the City did not have t funding; and therefore, she will b voting against the recommended action. Mayor Turner also spoke in support of City Hall maintenance citing the need for air conditioning to be placed in the 1995-96 budget. Volume 48 - Page 202 I ,JTY OF NEUORT BEACH • COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES ��� S+ i June 27, 1994 ROLL CFFLL kHof INDEX Motion x Mayor Turner indicated he felt that all All Ayes of the concerns expressed by Council Member Watt will be addressed in the initiation process of this General Plan amendment, and therefore, wzmad th1 Yoe ended action. 27. C. Cloobeck Property between Newport Boulevard and Balboa Boulevard at 28th Street: Request to amend the General Plan Land Use Element to allow for the creation of a specialty retail and parking overlay district, which would allow the City to consider approval of commercial projects which exceed the floor area and/or building bulk limits specified in the Element. Council Member Hart stated she would like more information on this development proposal prior to giving approval to initiate this General Plan amendment, and suggested this item be deferred until the next General Plan amendment initiation period. During discussion it was noted that Council Members Debay and Hedges, as well as the City Manager, had reviewed preliminary schematic plans for the subject property, during which time Council Member Hart was recovering from surgery, and by initiating this amendment, it would give the City Council an opportunity to review the proposal in more thorough detail. Motion x In view of the foregoing, mo *� ..as. All Ayes made = ei X,= er ]�pp,14 to pProva ,yb r�ncommanded action I�IPUBLIC BEARINGS 4 Mayor Turner opened the continued public 1994-95 FY hearing regarding the 1994-95 FISCAL Budget PROPOSED BUDGET, CHECKLIST ITEMS, (40) ADOPTION OF BUDGET RESOLUTION. Repo t from Finance Director. The CI Manager summarized the key issues a erated in his initial report and his s lemental report concerning State Budge Revenues, Marinapark, Tax Revenue Anti ation Notes, Checklist Items, Capital rovement Program, and the proposed r ction of six sworn police officer po tions (five police officers and one s geant). He also reviewed all the item contained on the Checklist. Helen M. Kieron, 3201 F rth Avenue, addressed the Council regarding budgetary concerns relativ to the amount of funds spent to pursu El Toro Marine Base as a regional airpo ; the amount of money spent on lawsuits; buss of the City•s Tuition Reimburse nt program; "spiking" by City employees r retirement purposes; employee salaries, cash payments to day laborers, etc. Volume 48 - Page 204 r CITY OF NEWPORT BEA* � i COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES �o ROLL CRLL S June 27, 1994 INIIEX The City Manager responded to some of the above remarks, but suggested Ms. &ieron meet with him so that they can discuss her concerns in more detail. Wayne Zippi, 420 E. Bay Avenue, addressed the Council regarding his views on the City's budget, and the comparison of Newport Beach to other range County cities regarding pulation, citizens per employee, e loyees' salaries, and the number of ma agement personnel. The yor informed Mr. Zippi that he had rece ved his letter and that a response was the mail. The Ci Manager advised that he had met with , Marianne Zippi regarding the Zippis' concerns, and pointed out the differen as in the services that Newport each provides compared to adjoining ities. He also stated that the budget information the Zippis have requested hould be available in approximate) 30 days. Peter Tarr, 23 Lido Sands, addressed the Council a commended them for the time and effor that has been put forth during the budg ary process, He stated he was aware of he difficult economic decisions the C cil had to make to continue to provi the current level of service, and felt t at, on-balance, they have done a good jo which represents a lot of hard work. At this time the Ci Council straw- voted the Checklist i ms as follows: Marine Department Motion x Approved (2) Lifeguard J ps All Ayes - $33,200. Council Member Debaq su gested the purchase of these vehicles a deferred until 1-1-95, unless there s a cost- savings in purchasing al of the vehicles at one time. Police Department Motion x Approved (4) 4x4 Station Wagons All Ayes - $90,000. Motion x Deferred to 1995-96 Budget, Par ing Ayes x x x x x Control Vehicle - $10,500. Noes x Motion x Approved purchase of (1) Animal Contro All Ayes Vehicle now - $ 21,500; and (1) in 1995- 96 Budget. Motion x Approved Prisoner Transport Van All Ayes - $25,000. Volume 48 - Page 205 City Council Meeting November 14, 1994 Agenda Item No. 9 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: A General Plan Amendment 94-28 Request to consider an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element so as to increase the development limit in Fashion Island by 266,000 square feet; and the acceptance of an environmental document. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach and B. General Plan Consistency Finding Request for a finding of General Plan Consistency allowing a transfer of 30,000 square feet of Retail and Service Commercial entitlement from Bayview Landing to Fashion Island as provided in the General Plan Land Use Element. and C. Amendment No. 811 Request to amend the Planned Community District Regulations for Fashion Island to increase the development limit by 309,550 square feet to allow construction of the 266,000 square feet addressed in GPA 94-2(B), 30,000 square feet transferred from Bayview Landing, and 13,550 square feet previously transferred from the Pac Bell site. and D. Traffic Study No. 95 Request to approve a traffic study to allow an additional 266,000 square feet in the Fashion Island Planned Community not previously vested pursuant to the provisions of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. TO: Mayonand Members of the City Council-2. LOCATION. Tract No. 6015, located within the ring created by Newport Center Drive in Newport Center(Fashion Island). ZONE: P-C APPLICANT: The Irvine Company,Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant Applications If approved, the requested applications will authorize the construction of a substantial addition to the Fashion Island Regional Retail Center. A General Plan and Zoning Amendment is required to increase allowed square footage. The transfer of 30,000 sq.ft. from Bayview Landing requires a finding of consistency with the General Plan. Approval of a Traffic Study is needed to address 266,000 sq.ft, not previously transferred or vested pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. General Plan Amendment procedures are contained in Council Policy K-1. Amendment procedures are contained in Chapters 20.51 and 20.84 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Traffic Study procedures are set forth in Chapter 15.40 of the Municipal Code and in Council Policy L-18. Suggested Action Hold hearing; close hearing; if desired, A. Adopt Resolution No. , adopting General Plan Amendment 94-2(B), and certifying the environmental document, and B. Adopt Resolution No. , making a Finding of General Plan Consistency for the transfer of 30,000 sq,ft. of retail commercial development from Bayview Landing to Fashion Island, and C. Adopt Resolution No, adopting amendments to the Planned Community District Regulations and Development Plan for Fashion, Island (Planning Commission Amendment 811), and D. Sustain the action of the Planning Commission.on Traffic.Study No.95. Planning Commission Action At its meeting of October 20, 1994, the Planning Commission voted (6 Ayes, 1 Absent) to recommend approval of the actions described above, A copy of the Planning Commission staff v TO: May*nd Members of the City Council - 3. report and an excerpt of the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting are attached for the information of the City Council. Discussion Fiscal Impact. As part of the package of information submitted to the Planning Commission for its consideration was a report assessing the potential impact to existing commercial districts in the City of Newport Beach. This analysis was requested by the City Council. Additionally, the City Council has requested information on the possible cost and revenue implications of major development requests. City staff has, therefore, used the new fiscal impact model to estimate the additional costs which would be experienced as a result of the proposed project. The cost of increased public services is estimated at $75,000 per year. These costs are, however, outweighed by the estimated increase of$750,000 in yearly revenue which can be anticipated as a result of the project. Response to Comments on Environmental Document. Comments received to date on the Negative Declaration are attached, with the responses prepared by staff. Any comments received prior to the close of the review period will be responded to prior to the action of the City Council. Respectfully submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director �N L 2fi.By 4r 22� Patricia L. Temple Advance Planning Manager Attachments: 1. Planning Commission staff report dated October 20, 1994 2. Excerpt of draft Planning Commission minutes of October.20, 1994 3. Draft Resolution- General Plan Amendment 94-2(B) 4. Draft Resolution-Finding of General Plan Consistency 5. Draft Resolution - Amendment to Fashion Island Planned Community District Regulations and Development Plan 6. Response to Comments on Negative Declaration 7. Mitigation Monitoring Program PLT:..1WIN W ORMCOGM94-2B2.DOC Attachment 1 Planning Commission Meeting October 20, 1994 Agenda Item No. 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: A General Plan Amendment 94-2(B) Request to consider an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element so as to increase the development limit in Fashion Island by 266,000 square feet; and the acceptance of an environmental document. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach and B. General Plan Consistency Finding Request for a finding of General Plan Consistency allowing a transfer of 30,000 square feet of Retail and Service Commercial entitlement from Bayview Landing to Fashion Island as provided in the General Plan Land Use Element. and C. Amendment No. 811 Request to amend the Planned Community District Regulations for Fashion Island to increase the development limit by 309,550 square,feet to allow construction of the 266,000 square feet addressed in GPA 94-2(B), 30,000 square feet transferred from Bayview Landing, and 13,550 square feet previously transferred from the Pac Bell site. and D. Traffic Study No. 95 Request to approve a traffic study to allow an additional 266,000 square feet in the Fashion Island Planned Community not previously vested pursuant to the provisions of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. "1 TO: Planning Commission-2. LOCATION: Tract No. 6015, located within the ring created by Newport Center Drive in Newport Center(Fashion Island). ZONE: P-C APPLICANT: The Irvine Company,Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant Annlications If approved, the requested applications will authorize the construction of a substantial addition to the Fashion Island Regional Retail Center. A General Plan and Zoning Amendment is required,to increase allowed square footage. The transfer of 30,000 sq.ft. from Bayview Landing requires a finding of consistency with the General Plan. Approval of a Traffic Study is needed to address 266,000 sq.ft. not previously transferred or vested pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. General Plan Amendment procedures are contained in Council Policy K-1. Amendment procedures are contained in Chapters 20.51 and 20.84 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Traffic Study procedures are set forth in Chapter 15.40 of the Municipal Code and in Council Policy L-18. Environmental Siunificance As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and Council Policy K-3, an Initial Study has been prepared for the proposed project (Attached). Based on the information in the initial Study,the following findings,have been made: 1. On the basis of the 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. The project would contribute incrementally to cumulative impacts in the areas of"traffic, noise and air quality,but would have no direct significant impacts. 4. There are no known substantial adverse affects on human beings that would be caused by the proposed project. A Negative Declaration has, therefore, 'been prepared for the consideration of the Planning Commission. 5 TO: Planning Commission- 3. Conformance with the General Plan The General Plan Land Use Element designates the site for Retail and Service Commercial use. The existing and proposed use of a regional shopping center is consistent with this land use designation. The Land Use Element also establishes the limit of development for the Fashion Island site. This limit must be increased in conjunction with this approval. Subiect Property and Surrounding Land Uses The subject property is located within the circle formed by Newport Center Drive, and is currently developed with the Fashion Island Regional Retail Center. It is located within Newport Center, a mixed use commercial, office, hotel, residential and recreational complex. Newport Center is bounded by East Coast Highway, MacArthur Boulevard, San Joaquin Hills Road, and Jamboree Road. Background Fashion Island was originally developed in 1967. Subsequent to the original construction, the center has undergone a number of changes and expansions, the most recent of which was characterized as the"Fashion Island Renaissance." This program included the conversion of the former J.C. Penney building to Atrium Court, a significant expansion of mall shops and the addition of theaters, and a revision to the architectural style and pedestrian circulation which brought the center to today's configuration. Recent notable additions to Fashion Island include the conversion of existing buildings to accommodate a Circuit City electronics store, a Wherehouse audio/visual store and the Hard Rock Cafe. During the 1993-94 fiscal year, the City Council conducted several planning sessions to identify goals and objectives for the City. One item identified was the potential expansion of the Fashion Island regional retail center as a means of enhancing City sales tax revenue. In mid February, 1994, City staff met with representatives of The Irvine Company to discuss their possible interest in increased development in Fashion Island. After agreeing that the concept of increased development in Fashion Island was worthy of study, The Irvine Company funded a study conducted by the City to determine the level of development which could be allowed in compliance with the long term levels of traffic service envisioned by the General Plan Circulation Element and the provisions of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The City then, in June, 1994, initiated a General Plan Amendment to increase the level of entitlement in Fashion Island by 266,000 sq.ft. This entitlement could be added to previously transferred and vested entitlement in Fashion Island(from the Pao Tel and Bayview Landing sites) to allow a total project of 309,550 sq.ft. In initiating the General Plan Amendment,the City Council requested that a fiscal impact study be conducted for the Fashion Island expansion project. This study was to examine whether there • � a L v. . , TO: Planning Commission-4. would be any adverse effects to existing commercial districts which could result from the expansion of Fashion Island. This study has been prepared, and is discussed in and attached to this report. Analysis General Plan Amendment 94-2B1. The General Plan Land Use Element sets forth the development policies for the City of Newport Beach. Through the development policies, the City seeks to "locate shopping centers...in close proximity to each resident." The location of a major regional shopping facility such as Fashion Island is a benefit to each resident of the community by minimizing their need to travel for their shopping needs. The primary purpose of the General Plan is to provide for the orderly development of the community within the constraints presented by the physical infrastructure and the desires of the community. A fundamental goal contained within the plan is correlation of the Land Use and Circulation Elements. That is, the ability of the circulation system to adequately serve the development levels anticipated in the Land Use Plan. In analyzing the proposed, project, a traffic study was conducted to assess the capacity of the circulation system to accommodate the proposed development. In order to determine this, the City used its existing traffic model to predict future link volumes and intersection impacts. Figure IV-1 in the attached traffic study illustrates future roadway volumes with and without the project. Table IV-1 shows projected intersection capacity utilization ratios for all intersections where project traffic exceeded 1% of the before project volume. As a result of the project, there are no intersections which are increased to an unacceptable level of service as defined in the Circulation Element(LOS "13"). Finding of General Plan Consistency. As part of the approval of the Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement(CIOSA), the General Plan was amended to incorporate the concept of a transfer of 30,000 sq. ft. of retail commercial development to Fashion Island from Bayview Landing if senior citizen housing facilities were developed. The Traffic Phasing Ordinance approval for the CIOSA Agreement included this concept. Therefore, this transfer has already been vested pursuant to the provisions of the TPO. In order to conclude the transaction, a Finding of General Plan Consistency is required. A draft resolution has been prepared for the consideration of the Planning Commission. Since the transfer is contingent on the construction of senior citizen housing on Bayview Landing, The finding is based upon the recordationof an agreement, the form and content of which is to be approved by the City Attorney, acknowledging the only available entitlement on the Bayview Landing site is senior citizen housing, if The Irvine Company implements the Fashion.Island project prior to development of Bayview Landing. No finding is necessary for the transfer of entitlement for the Pao Tel site(13,550 sq.ft.), because this finding was made at the time of a-previously approved office development. TO: Planning Commission- 5. • Amendment No. 811. As part of the approval, it is necessary to amend the existing Planned Community District Regulations for Fashion Island. This needed not only to adjust the permitted development,but to address the required parking for the shopping center. Very early in the process to define the opportunities for increased development in Fashion Island, The Irvine Company indicated that the project would not be feasible if the construction of new parking structures were required. In order to study the possibilities, a comprehensive study of parking demands in Fashion Island was conducted, as well as an assessment of available parking throughout Newport Center. The purpose of these studies was to determine if there was available parking in close proximity to Fashion Island at the same time as the highest peak demand for parking. In order to assess the parking demand at Fashion Island, the City's consulting traffic engineer utilized daily driveway counts taken by the Fashion Island management over a number of years. When compiled by the Traffic Engineer, it became apparent that there are two distinct types of peak demand which occur at a center such as Fashion Island. Due to the nature of the retail business, use of a shopping center varies throughout each day and week, as well as throughout the year. The peak use of parking throughout each week of the year is Saturday afternoon. This is referred to in the P-C Text as the "normal" peak. There are also certain times of the year, particularly during the fall and winter holiday season, where the peak demand is even greater. This is referred to in the P-C Text as the "seasonal" peak. It was the position of staff that the "normal" peak should be accommodated through on-site parking, within the circle formed by Newport Center Drive. Seasonal peak, however, could be studied for alternative parking arrangements. In order to determine normal peak parking requirements, parking lot counts were performed in April 1994. The historic data indicated that April counts would represent 75% of the seasonal parking demand. The actual counts indicated that a maximum of 3,661 parking spaces were occupied at any one time. This equates to 2.73 spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. of floor area, including all retail, restaurant and theater uses. After the rate is expanded for seasonal peak periods, a parking factor of 3.64 spaces'per 1,000 sq.ft. should be provided. On this basis staff has recommended in the P-C Text a normal peak parking requirement of 3 spaces per 1,000 sq.ft., and 4 spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. for seasonal peak. If 4 parking spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. were provided in the Fashion parking lot, 6,599 spaces would be required. This equates to a net increase of 900 additional parking spaces. As set forth in the P-C Text, it is proposed that this additional could be provided, or offset in the following ways: re-striping the existing parking lot, construction of additional parking structures, implement an off-site parking program for employees using other Newport Center parking lots and structures in association with a shuttle program, provide additional on-street parking, where appropriate, and documentation of actual trip and parking demand reduction experienced as part of ride-sharing or other travel demand reduction strategies implemented as part of air quality or other agency regulations. The final parking program would be subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer and the Police Department. 8 TO: Planning Commission-6. One of the possible parking strategies, the employee shuttle system,was studied by the consulting traffic engineer, to determine its feasibility. First it was documented that there is a large pool of available parking during the seasonal peak periods. This study determined that there is a high number of surplus parking spaces weekdays:(over 2,000 spaces) in Block 600 (See Figure VI-1• in the traffic study). There are even more spaces available on weekends, which are more likely to generate peak parking demand at Fashion Island. It was also necessary to verify that there are sufficient employees in Fashion Island to free the additional spaces needed. Based upon a survey of tenants and employers, there are currently 2,500 employees at the mall, of which approximately 90% drive vehicles. This combination of available parking in association with the available employee pool validates the potential of a shuttle program. The traffic study recommends the basic parameters of an off-site shuttle program. These would include five minute headways, as well as,a performance,standard which must be met to ensure that the Fashion Island parking lot does not develop an over-capacity condition. The evaluation criteria would be that the outer area of the parking lot adjacent to Newport Center Drive would be monitored to ensure a maximum 90% occupancy factor. If parking in this area should exceed 90%, additional parking would have to be provided. The Newport Beach Police Department has expressed some concerns relative to the viability of some components of the parking program proposed. Specifically, the concepts of additional on- street parking and the employee shuttle program are questioned. The memo from the Police Chief is attached. Staff has, therefore, added language requiring the parking program to be reviewed and approved by the Police Department, as well as the City Traffic Engineer, so that their expertise can be incorporated into the program. The use of employee shuttle programs is not a new concept for regional shopping malls. In Orange County, South Coast Plaza implements such a program during the'holiday peak period. In Newport Center, the location of off-site, parking is relatively more convenient than in the Bristol Street area of Costa Mesa/Santa Ana. It is the conclusion of staff that the proposed parking program presents viable opportunities for alternate parking arrangements, but also includes sufficient standards and safeguards to allow the City to ultimately require more parking if the programs are not successful. Traffic Study No. 95, A traffic study has been prepared for the proposed project in conformance with the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance and 'Council Policy L-18. The proposed project is expected to be constructed in 1995-96. Analyses were; therefore, completed for 1997 (one year after occupancy). The City Traffic Engineer identified thirty-three (33) intersections which could be-affected by the project at full•occupancy. The first step in evaluating intersections is to conduct a 1% traffic volume analysis, taking into consideration existing traffic, regional growth, and committed projects' traffic. For any intersection where, on any approach leg, project traffic is estimated to be greater than 1%•of the projected peak 2'/2 hour volume in either the morning or afternoon; Intersection Capacity Utilization(ICU)is required. i ' k e TO* Planning Commission- 7. • The 1% volume analysis identified fifteen (15) intersections where traffic exceeded the one percent criteria, in the morning or afternoon peak hour. The following chart summarizes the results of the Intersection Capacity Utilization analysis for the project. ICU ANALYSIS EXISTING+ EXISTING+ BACKGROUND+ BACKGROUND PROJECT INTERSECTION AM PM AM PM Tustin& Coast Hwy N/A .76 N/A .76 Birch&Bristol S. N/A .65 N/A .66 Jamboree&University N/A .89 N/A .77 Jamboree&Bison N/A .74 N/A .74 MacArthur&Bison N/A .62 N/A 63 Jamboree&Ford N/A .88 N/A .89 MacArthur&Ford N/A .81 N/A .81 Jamboree& SJH Rd .79 .71 .79 .71 Jamboree& Coast Hwy N/A .78 N/A .78 Santa Rosa& SJH Rd .26 .40 .26 .42 MacArthur& SJH Rd .92 .91 .92 .92 MacArthur& San Miguel .74 .90 .74 .91 Newport Center&Coast Hwy N/A .49 N/A .50 Marguerite& SJH Rd .30 .34 .30 .35 In order to meet the criteria of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance, a project must be found to neither cause nor make worse an intersection capacity utilization of 0.90 for the period of analysis which includes all committed traffic and regional growth. As shown by the above chart, the intersections at MacArthur Boulevard/San Joaquin Hills Road and MacArthur Boulevard/San Miguel Road are adversely impacted pursuant to the criteria established in the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The City of Newport Beach has roadway improvements scheduled for MacArthur Boulevard at its intersections with San Miguel Drive and San Joaquin Hills Road that add a through lanein each direction. Upon completion of the mitigation, the PM peak hour ICU will be improved to .72 and .81, respectively. Upon completion of this improvement, the project meets the criteria of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Fiscal Impact Analysis As part of the information requested by the City Council, a fiscal impact analysis has been prepared. A copy of the study is attached for the information of the Planning Commission. The purpose of the study was to assess the potential fiscal impacts to other commercial areas within the City of Newport Beach if the Fashion Island expansion project is implemented. �b TO: Planning Commission- 8. Eight commercial districts in the City were identified for study: Corona del Mar, Marine Avenue (Balboa Island), Mariners' Mile, Old Newport Boulevard, Newport Shores, Cannery Village, McFadden Square, and Central Balboa. The findings of the study are summarized, as follows: 1. Sales generated by the expansion is projected to be $75 million. This would translate to $750,000 in new City revenue. 2. This new sales activity in the City of Newport Beach would be derived primarily from other existing regional retail centers in the County, most notably South Coast Plaza/Crystal Court, Brea Mall, and MainPlace/Santa Ana, 3. Other components of sales derivation are other out-of-area sales other than Orange County retail, including those in Newport Beach. 4. The competitive impact on the eight Newport Beach commercial districts studied was estimated at 1.5%. 5. Negative impacts would be partially offset by new additional sales generated by new shoppers in Newport Beach. In short, adverse impact to existing small strip commercial areas in Newport Beach would be small to nil. This is primarily due to the fact that the small commercial districts exist for specific reasons, and are not, in large measure, direct competitors to Fashion Island. Rather, these smaller districts play different and definable roles in the overall economy of the City, when compared to. each other, as well as Fashion Island. Conclusion and Specific Recommendations No specific findings for approval are contained in the General Plan or Newport Beach Municipal Code for the approval of a General Plan Amendment or the amendment of a Planned Community Text. A transfer of development rights may occur upon a finding of no net change to circulation system level of service as stated in the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. A project may be approved pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance only if a.project can-be found to neither cause nor make worse an ICU of.90 (D). The proposed project meets the standards for approval as stated in the General Plan and Newport Beach Municipal Code. Should the Planning Commission desire to recommend approval of the proposed project to the City Council, staff has drafted a set of Resolutions; Findings and Conditions of Approval are attached as Exhibit'A". it TO: Plann.Commission-9. • Should the Planning Commission desire to deny the proposed project, draft Findings for Denial are attached as Exhibit`B". PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. IIEWICKER,Director By% r -�� � Patricia L. Temple Advance Planning Manager Attachments: 1. Exhibit"A" 2. Draft Resolution- General Plan Amendment 94-2(B) 3. Draft Resolution-Finding of General Plan Consistency 4. Draft Resolution-Amendment No. 811 for the Fashion Island Planned Community 5. Exhibit"B" 6. Traffic Study 7. Memo from Police Department 8. Negative Declaration 9. Fiscal Impact Study PLT:..F:\W P51TLANHINQ%PATTY.T%PC1aPAV 42B1.DOC I � TO: Tanning Commission- 10. ATTACHMENT 1 EXHIBIT"A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 94-2(B) GENERAL PLAN,CONSISTENCY FINDING AMENDMENT NO. 811 TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 95 A. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT Finding: 1. 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. The Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission and was reviewed and considered prior to recommending approval of the project. Mitigation Measures: 1. Prior to issuance of any grading or building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate to the Planning Department and Building Department that construction operations shall utilize methods to reduce pollutant emissions to the greatest extent feasible. Such methods may include,but may not be limited to,the following: a) Use of low-emission construction equipment b) Rideshare program and incentives for construction employees c) Suspend grading operations during first and second stage smog alerts d) Maintain construction equipment with properly tuned engines e) Use of low=sulfur fuel for stationary construction equipment fl Use of on-site power instead of portable generators g) Coordinate construction operations to minimize traffic interference 13 TO: 4anning Commission- 11. • 2. Prior to issuance of any building permit the applicant shall demonstrate to the Planning Department and Building Department that all feasible methods of reducing vehicular travel and air emissions have been incorporated into the design and operation of the project. Examples of such methods may include,but may not be limited to,the following: a) Provision of safe bicycle circulation routes, secure bicycle storage and shower facilities for employees b) Incorporation of energy-efficient design that complies with or exceeds Title 24 requirements c) Provide priority parking and charging ports for electric vehicles d) Provision of rideshare and transit incentives for employees 3. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit the applicant shall demonstrate to the Planning and Building departments that all appropriate structural and non-structural best management practices will be incorporated into the project as required by the National Pollutant Discharge, Elimination System(NPDES)Drainage Area Management Plan. 4. Prior to the issuance of any building permit the applicant shall demonstrate to the Building 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 residential uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Architect or Electrical, Engineer, with a letter from the Architect or Engineer stating that, in his or her opinion, this requirement has been satisfied. 5. Prior to issuance of a building permit for any expansion, a General Plan amendment and Planned Community amendment shall be approved to increase the development entitlement in Fashion Island to be consistent with the building permit application. 6. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit the applicant shall obtain confirmation from the City Traffic Engineer that the planned improvements to MacArthur Boulevard assumed in the TPO study will be installed prior to project occupancy. 7. a. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit for the expansion, a parking plan acceptable to the City Traffic Engineer and the Police Department shall be submitted by the applicant. The plan shall address the number and size of required spaces, parking lot re-striping, signage (both vehicular and pedestrian), traffic control, and parking area security (e.g., lighting) so as to minimize illegal parking, congestion and idling during seasonal peak periods. b. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the expansion, the parking control plan shall be implemented and approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 14 TO: klanning Commission- 12. • ti S. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit the City Engineer shall verify that adequate capacity exists in the storm-drain system to serve the development. 9. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall demonstrate to the Planning Department that the project will comply with Council Policies K 5 and K-6 regarding archaeological'and paleontological resource investigation, surveillance and recovery. B. General Plan Amendment 94-2(BT Adopt Resolution No, recommending adoption of General Plan Amendment 94-2(B) by the City Council. C. General Plan Consistency Findine Adopt Resolution No. recommending approval of a General Plan Consistency Finding by the City Council. D. Amendment No. 811 Adopt Resolution No. recommending approval of Amendment No. 811 by the City Council. E. Traffic Study No. 95 Findin s: 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed projection on the morning and afternoon peak hour traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and Council Policy L-18. 2. That the traffic study indicates that there will be an adverse impact on two intersections on MacArthur Boulevard, at San Joaquin Hills Road and San'Miguel, which will make worse an unsatisfactory level of service. 3. That a planned and programmed improvement to MacArthur Boulevard' adding a third through lane in each direction at both intersections will improve the level of service to an acceptabielevel. 4. That The Irvine Company has participated in the funding for the improvements through financial and other means. PLT:..IWIN WOROIPCM-FNI)MOC j fACHMENT 2 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 94- 2(B) TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN FOR FASHION ISLAND WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the Newport Beach General Plan the Land Use Element has been prepared; and WHEREAS, said element of the General Plan sets forth objectives, supporting policies and limitations for development in the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, said element of the General Plan designates the general distribution and general location and extent of the uses of land and building intensities in a number of ways, including residential land use categories and population projections, commercial floor area limitations, the floor area ratio ordinances;and WHEREAS, the Land Use and Circulation Elements are correlated as required by California planning law;and WHEREAS, the provisions and policies of the Land Use and Circulation Elements are further implemented by the traffic analysis procedures of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance and the implementation programs of that Ordinance and the Fair Share Traffic Contribution Fee Ordinance; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 707 of the Charter of the City ofNewport 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 r WHEREAS, the proposed project is compatible with the existing land uses in the area; and WHEREAS, the circulation system will not be significantly impacted by the proposed project;and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act an Initial Study has been conducted to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. The Initial Study concluded that the project could not have a significant effect on the environment, therefore a Negative Declaration has been prepared. NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, comments received, and all related documents, the Planning Commission Ends that 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 Planning Commission finds that the Negative Declaration adequately addresses the,potential environmental impacts of the project, satisfies all the-requirements of CEQA, and reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission. The Negative Declaration was reviewed and considered prior to recommending approval of the project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all of the mitigation measures identified in the Negative Declaration are recommended as conditions of approval for the project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the monitoring requirements of Public Resources Code Sec. 21081.6 (AB 3180 of 1988) will be met through the design of the project, required compliance with City building,grading, and other codes and ordinances,.and required compliance with the adopted mitigation measures. 2 � �� BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach that an amendment to the General Plan is recommended for approval to the City Council, as follows: Page 67: 18. Fashion Island. This site is located within the circle formed by Newport Center Drive. The site is designated for Retail and Service Commercial land use and is allocated 1,603,850 sq.ft. for regional retail and 1,700 theater seats. An additional 30,000 sq.ft. of regional retail may be added upon commitment of the Bayview Landing site for senior citizen housing. ADOPTED this_day of . 1994,by the following vote,to wit: AYES NOES ABSENT BY NORMAJ. GLOVER CHAIRMAN BY TOD W.RIDGEWAY SECRETARY PLT: TOOPARES94-2B 3 �j �8 ' Attachment 3 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING APPROVAL A TRANSFER OF ALLOWED DEVELOPMENT FROM BAYVIEW LANDING TO FASHION ISLAND IN NEWPORT CENTER 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, in the General Plan Land Use Element the ability to transfer development rights between sites is established; and WHEREAS, said transfers may be approved so long as the traffic system is not adversely affected and that traffic generation, as it affects the major intersections during critical peak periods, does not exceed the capacities provided in the approved street developmentplan; and WHEREAS, a traffic analysis-was prepared to assess the impact of the proposed transfer of development in the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement(CIOSA);and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing and regarding the requested transfer of development rights. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach that a transfer of 30,000 sq.ft. of retail commercial entitlement to Fashion Island in Newport Center is recommended for approval by the City Council. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, if property owner exercises this entitlement prior to the development of senior citizen housing on the Bayview Landing site, an agreement shall be recorded, the form and content of which is acceptable to the Newport Beach City Attorney, stating that the only allowable development for Bayview Land is for senior citizen housing. ADOPTED this day of October, 1994, by the following vote, to wit: AYES NOES ABSENT BY NORMAJ. GLOVER CHAIRMAN BY TOD W.RIDGEWAY .SECRETARY PLT: \PC\GPA\gpc6fi2.do ,0 Y! ATTACHMENT 4 v RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING APPROVAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL AN AMENDMENT THE PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE FASHION ISLAND PLANNED COMMUNITY(PLANNING COMMISSION AMEND- MENT NO. 811) WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the Newport Beach General Plan the Land Use Element has been prepared;and WHEREAS, the Newport Beach.Municipal Code provides specific procedures for the implementation of Planned Community zoning for properties within the City of Newport Beach;and WHEREAS, implementation of the project will allow for a significant expansion to the Fashion Island retail shopping center in a manner which meets all the City's development regulations, including the Traffic Phasing Ordinance,providing a significant benefit to the City of Newport Beach in the form of increased revenues;and WHEREAS, the proposed Planned Community District Regulations are consistent with the Newport Beach General Plan;and WHEREAS,the proposed project meets the criteria of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance; and WHEREAS,pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act an Initial Study has been conducted to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. The Initial Study concluded that the project could not have a significant effect on the environment, therefore.a Negative Declaration has been prepared. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, comments received, and all related documents, the Planning Commission finds that 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 Planning Commission finds that the Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of the project, satisfies all the requirements of CEQA, and reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission. The Negative Declaration was reviewed and considered prior to recommending approval of the project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby recommend approval by the City Council an amendment to the Fashion Island Planned Community District Regulations and Development Plan as attached hereon as Exhibit 1. ADOPTED this day of October, 1994,by the following vote,to wit: AYES NOES ABSENT BY NORMA,J. GLOVER CHAIRMAN BY TOD W.RIDGEWAY SECRETARY Attachment: Exhibit 1 PLT:..\W IN W OgD\pC6gMD1RES•A811.DOC 2 FASHION ISLAND PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DISTRICT REGULATIONS City of Newport Beach ADOPTED: November 23. 1987 Ordinance No. 87-45 Amendment No. 1 February 12, 1990 Amendment No. 699;Resolution No. 90-7 Amendment No. 2 March 11, 1991 Amendment No. 701;Resolution No. 91-22 Amendment No. 3 Amendment No. 811; Resolution No. 94- �Z� TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction 3 Statistical Analysis 4 General Notes 5 Definitions 6 Fashion Island Development Plan 7 Fashien4sland-Bike-�'bit n Fashion Island District Regulations 8 Fashion Island Sign Program 13 2 S ; v INTRODUCTION The Fashion Island Planned Community District in the City of Newport Beach has been developed in accordance with the Newport Beach General Plan. Fashion Island is part of the Newport Center development of The Irvine Company. The purpose of this Planned Community District is to provide a method whereby property may be classified and developed for a regional shopping center. The specifications of this district are intended to provide land use and development standards supportive of the proposed use while insuring compliance with the intent of all applicable regulatory codes. 3 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Total Acres 75 Acres Retail/Restaurant 1,324300 1,633,850 Sq.Ft.l Theater Seats 1,700 Seats 1 30,000 sq.ft. of this permitted development can only be utilized upon commitment of Bayview Landing for senior citizen housing purposes consistent with the provisions of the Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement, and a Finding of General Plan Consistency approved by the Newport Beach City Council. 4 nU �ti� GENERAL NOTES 1. Water service to the Planned Community District will be provided by the City of Newport Beach. 2. Development of the subject property will be undertaken in accordance with the flood protection policies of the City of Newport Beach. 3. Grading and erosion control measures will be carried out within the Planned Community as required by the Newport Beach building Department and the Planning Director. 4. All development of the site is subject to the provisions of City Council Policies K-5 and K-6 regarding archaeological and paleontological resources. 5. Sewage disposal service facilities for the Planned Community District will be provided by Orange County Sanitation District No. 5. 6. All landscaping along street rights-of-way shall be installed in accordance with a landscape plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect, which has been reviewed by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department and approved by the Public Works Department. 7. Except as otherwise stated in this text, the requirements of the Newport Beach Zoning Ordinance shall apply. The contents of this text notwithstanding, all construction within the boundaries of this Planned Community District shall comply with all provisions of the Uniform Building Code, the various mechanical codes related thereto and all local amendments. 8. All mechanical appurtenances on building rooftops, utility vaults and emergency power generators shall be screened from view from Newport Center Drive in a manner compatible with the building materials, and noise associated with said generators shall be attenuated to acceptable levels in receptor areas. The latter shall be based upon the recommendations of a licensed engineer practicing in acoustics, and be approved by the Planning Department. 9. All trash containers and/or enclosures shall be screened from view in a manner compatible with the building materials. 5 - IL DEFINITIONS Drive-In and Take Out Restaurant. The terms "drive-in," "walk-up" and "take-out" restaurants shall mean a place of business which sells food products or beverages and which: 1. Delivers such food products or beverages to customers outside of the building in which they are prepared by means of a service window, counter or similar method or device, or 2. Delivers such food products or beverages to customers within a building which is designed in such a manner that a majority of the customers will either remove such food products or beverages from the building for consumption either on the premises or in the immediate vicinity. Gross Floor Area. Gross floor area is the area included within the walls of a building, exclusive of vent shafts and courts. The floor area shall also include the area not provided within surrounding exterior walls, either under a roof or open to,the sly, which is defined by planters, awnings, shade structures, fences or rails and are for the exclusive and permanent use for,display or seating by a use permitted pursuant to this text. Exterior covered walkways or covered mall areas between retail buildings shall not be included in gross floor area. Permanent kiosks for retail sales, covered-or uncovered, shall be calculated as gross floor area. Major Buildings. Major buildings are those occupied,by major department store tenants, movie theaters and the Atrium Court building. Mall Buildings. Mall buildings are those structures in the Fashion Island Mall area not defined'as major buildings. Outdoor Restaurant. The term outdoor restaurant shall mean a place of business which sells or serves food products or beverages for consumption on the premises where such place or business is located„and which provides for, or-permits consumption of, such food products or•beverages out-of-doors other than on an incidental basis. Peripheral Buildings. Peripheral buildings are those buildings adjacent to Newport Center Drive not contained in the Fashion Island Mall. Restaurant. The term restaurant shall mean a place of business which sells or serves food products or beverages for consumption on the premises within a building consisting of a permanent structure that is fully enclosed with a roof and walls, and where incidental dHng-to the extent of not more than 25% may be permitted out-of-doors on a patio, deck or terrace that is integrated into the building design. 6 FASHION ISLAND DEVELOPMENT PLAN IZ W Q Q cPg2� F G i:.:;?.ij}}'.;+•;.:.i:::%.:?;}:.::.•i}:•iti ii}.':Oi?::}•i%::?•.•::i`:•:::};:•i:fi�•Y:i:Y. c :':•:•:iii::•:.::5}?•::kii: ::::•:•:•:•}4::::iii$>;?•i;•;^;y!;:::?:j;:;'.;>•:8:�. OS� 1 P v E s 5 1 -9 P ti 0 T q 2l q A O A 9 L� F : :..::::.:::::::::.:::.•::::::.::::::::::.::.:::::::::.,. SAN M G' D U F� A/ L SN P F q P T A B AR6 2 .. D RIVE E I F �i- 0 0 F q ti 2 T F q 9 0 O q z m O LEGEND c�2 RETAIL AND SERVICE COMMERCIAL 9 FASHION ISLAND 7 PG,� 3D FASHION ISLAND PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS LOCATION Fashion Island is located within the circle defined by Newport Center Drive as shown on the Planned Community Development Plan. INTENT It is intended that Fashion Island be developed as a regional retail commercial center. These regulations will permit a broad range of commercial uses appropriate to a regional retail commercial center. These uses include retail uses, restaurants and uses which are service in nature. In recognition of the unique nature of a regional retail commercial use, certain uses which ordinarily required approval of a use permit are permitted uses in this area, PERMITTED USES 1. Retail stores, including clothing stores, bakeries, bookstores, food shops, pet shops, shoe shops, candy shops, card shops, florists, record'stores, audio and video stores, camera shops, luggage stores, furniture stores, art galleries, jewelry stores, athletic stores, china and gift shops, specialty stores, arcades with amusement devices (as defined in Chapter 5.34 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code), department stores and other uses of a similar nature. 2. Personal service establishments, including barber shops, beauty parlors, tailorr shops, opticians, dry cleaning establishments, postal service facilities, enclosed bicycle storage lockers and other uses which are of a similar nature. 3. Restaurants located throughout the Planned Community; and outdoor and take-out restaurants contained within the Fashion Island'Mall area. 4. Outdoor sales establishments, carts and kiosks,, and outdoor special events and structures, subject to the approval of the Planning Director, 5. Theaters. 6. Auto sales, service and detailing, so long as said use is contained within a building or parking structures. 7. Parking of automobiles on roofs, subject to the review and approval of the City Traflic Engineer. 8 rg �l 8. Accessory uses normally incidental to commercial developments, including video game devices in theaters and restaurants, where such uses do not alter the character of the area in respect to their use for purposes permitted in the district. Accessory buildings shall be allowed only when constructed concurrent with or subsequent to the buildings housing primary uses. 9. Temporary structures and uses. Regulations are as specified in Section 20.30.015 of General Controls- Commercial Districts of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 10. Office uses, only when such offices are ancillary to and in the same building as a permitted use, including Fashion Island management and leasing facilities. USES WHICH REQUIRE A USE PERMIT The following uses shall be permitted subject to the securing of a use permit in each case: 1. Gymnasiums, health clubs and other uses which are of a similar nature. 2. Free standing drive-in, outdoor and take-out restaurants located outside the Fashion Island' Mall area. 3. Drive-in facilities. DEVELOPMENTSTANDARDS Floor Area and Development Limits. The total gross floor area permitted in all structures, except theaters and enclosed bicycle lockers, shall not exceed 1,310,750 gross square feet; provided, however, that the floor area devoted to parking within a building shall not be considered in determining the total floor area allowed. Of this floor area limitation a maximum of 15% may be for restaurant uses, including drive-in and take-out restaurants, both freestanding restaurants and those within the Fashion Island mall area. Commercial land uses not within a structures, such as balloon vendors, ice cream carts, popcorn carts and similar uses which are "portable" in nature, shall not be a reduction of entitlement established by this section. Outdoor areas and kiosks which are defined by planters, awnings, shade structures, fences or rails and are for the exclusive and permanent use for display or seating by a retail or restaurant use shall be calculated as floor area. Incidental outdoor seating, covered or uncovered, which is not for the exclusive use of any retail or restaurant establishment shall not be calculated as floor area as entitled by this section. Bicycle storage lockers contained within'structures shall not be calculated as floor area as entitled by this section. Theater use shall be limited to no more than 1,700 theater seats. 9 • . * a. a Building Height. Buildings within Fashion Island shall be subject to the following limits as defined in Section 20.87.205 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code: Major Buildings: 125 feet Mall Buildings: 75 feet Parking Structures: 55 feet Peripheral Buildings: 40 feet Setback Requirements. A setback of 10 feet from Newport Center Drive is required. No setbacks are required from any internal parcel lines, except as may be required by the Building Code. Requirements for Off-Street Parking. It is the interest of the Ci!y of Newport Beach to assure adequate parking to serve the retail shopping center of Fashion Island at all times. It is also in the best interest of the City and the property owner to make optimal utilization of parking resources in Newport Center for the purposes of providing adequate parking for all uses in Newport Center. including Fashion Island. In assessing the need for parkin to o adequately erve Fashion.Island it is clear that there are two circumstances which must be addressed normal peak operation and seasonal peak operation. It is the intent of the City of Newport Beach to establish required parking ratios to provide full parking adequate to serve normal operational peak periods on-site within the circle formed by Newport Center Drive. The Ci1y acknowledges that a significant investment in both land and financial resources would be required to provide full parking on site to.sul2port seasonal.operational peak periods The City does not consider it in the best interest of the City or the property owner to invest in these resources when a known pool of available parking exists in close proximity to Fashion Island within Newport Center. It is the position of the City that if workable alternatives exist to the rovisiomof parking to serve seasonal operational peak periods,.these alternatives should be used P P in lieu of providing this additional arking which is used only a few days each year. In developing these parking ratios the following_parameters have been utilized: 1 Normal operational peak period is a non-seasonal Saturday as established by historic driveway counts and,survey data. 2 Adequate narking is considered to be peak parking demand plus 15%, Normal Parking Requirement: Parking shall be provided at a rate of 3 parking spaces for each 1,000 sq ft including the square feet utilized by theater uses, within the ring established by Newport Center Drive. 10 pG- Peak Seasonal and Special Event Parking Requirement: Parking shall be provided at a rate of 4 parking spaces for each 1.000 sq_ft includingthe he square feet utilized by theater uses. Parking shall be provided pursuant to this ratio either on-site or through a combination of on-site and off- site parking. and. possibly trip reduction strategies. An off-site narking program shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer and the Police Department. and may include the use of a wide variety of programs which include but are not limited to use of off-site parking in association with a shuttle system use of on-street parking or the implementation of trip reduction strategies for either employees or patrons which are demonstrated to reduce parking demand. Gff-str P---Idng for Fashion island shall be-,pfe-Aded en site, viithin the area defined b retei', , staurant-aaee fer eaeh 25 gross sq$ar^ � t—zy-area whit }irnitatiox�hall�e inelua d ^:."._ tnnine-t"ark4ng-regxifement: Par-long-shall-be-provided-for-theateFus..r, i-a-eatie of ne-par-king-spaee&r-eaeh4hree{3j-,eats. Other parking requirements: Any area which is calculated as part of the total floor area limitation shall be included in the gross floor area to determine the parking requirement. Parking for gymnasiums and health clubs shall be provided in addition to that required for other commercial uses (retail, restaurant and theater) and shall be based upon a demonstrated formula established at the time of review and approval of a use permit by the Planning Commission. Compact parking shall be permitted up to a maximum of 25%, and shall be located in a manner acceptable to the City Traffic Engineer. Existing parking maybe converted to the City's universal parking stall configuration subject to review and approval of the revised parkin lot of la oy ut by the City Traffic Engineer. Valet parking shall be permitted. Operational characteristics of any valet parking service and the location of parking areas used exclusively for valet parked cars will be subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer. Areas of parking lot used for valet parking shall be remote from the mall area to the greatest extent feasible. The design and layout of all parking areas shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer and the Public Works Department. Parking lot lighting shall be developed in accordance with City standards and shall be designed in a manner which minimizes impacts on adjacent land uses. Nghttime lighting shall be limited to that necessary for security and shielded from any adjacent residential area. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed electrical engineer, with a letter from the engineer stating that 11 ii G P this requirement.has been met. The lighting plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Department. Restaurants. All restaurants, including drive-in and take-out restaurants shall be subject to the following requirements: 1. Kitchen exhaust fans are required and shall be designed to control odors and smoke, unless otherwise approved by the Newport Beach Building Department, 2. A washout area or areas,Ware required and shall be provided in such a way as to insure direct drainage into the sewer system and not into the bay or the storm, drains, unless otherwise approved by the Newport Beach Building Department. 3. Grease interceptors shall be installed on all fixtures in any restaurant facility where grease may be introduced into the drainage systems in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Plumbing Code, unless otherwise approved by the Newport Beach Building Department and Public Works Department. Grease interceptors shall be located in such a way as to be easily accessible for routine cleaning and inspection. Dry Cleaning Facilities. All dry cleaning facilities shall be subject to the following requirements: 1. Any boilers shall be isolated in accordance with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. 2. The use of chemicals shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. 3. There shall be no outside storage of materials, supplies or other paraphernalia. 4. The proposed dry cleaning equipment shall be installed and operated in conformance with the requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Automobile Detailing. Automobile detailing, including the washing of automobiles, may occur only if contained within a building or parking structure. Washing of automobiles may occur only if drainage facilities are connected to the sewer system and do not drain into the bay or the storm drainage system. Landscaping. A minimum of 5% of the paved surface parking areas shall be devoted to planting areas. A landscaping program shall be developed for parking structures and shall be subject to the review of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department and the approval of the Planning and Public Works Departments. 12 35 PG' ' a l r . • • i FASHION ISLAND SIGN PROGRAM DEFINITIONS The following terms used in this section shall have the meanings indicated below: Audible Signs. The term "Audible Sign" means any sign which uses equipment to communicate a message with sound or music. Building Elevation. The term "Building Elevation" means the exterior wall surface formed by one(1) side of the building. Department Store. The term 'Department Store" means a store selling.a wide variety of goods or services arranged in several departments. Eye Level. The term "Eye Level' means at the height of five(5) feet measured from grade. Freestanding Commercial. The term "Freestanding Commercial' means any building with ,a commercial use which is separated from other commercial uses by parking and/or streets. Internal Pedestrian Street. The term "Internal Pedestrian Street" means any walkway, path, plaza, arcade or corridor, either covered or open to the sky, which is primarily for use by people on foot and is not adjacent to the frontage road or common parking areas. Major Tenant. The term "Major Tenant" means a store or restaurant having a minimum of ten thousand (10,000) square feet of floor space, which is located within or between other commercial buildings. Monument Sign. The term "Monument Sign" means any sign which is supported by its own structure and is not part of or attached to any building. Sign. The term "Sign" means any media, including their structure and component parts which are used or intended to be used out-of-doors to communicate information to the public. Sign Area. The term "Sign Area" means the area enclosed by a rectangle drawn around the working, numbers or images composing the sign. Sign Face. The term "Sign Face" means the physical plane and/or surface upon which the working or images are applied. Sign Letter. The term "Sign Letter" means the individual symbols of the alphabet used in forming the words of a message. 13 PC , I � • • . L a f Tenant Sign. The term "Tenant Sign" means any permanent sign of an establishment which is attached to the storefront elevation covered walkway or awning for the purpose of located on or atta Y $ P rP communicating the name of the tenant. Temporary Signs. The term "Temporary Sign" means any sign, banner, pennant, valance or advertising display constructed' of cloth, canvas, plywood, light fabric, cardboard, wallboard or other light materials, with or without frames, intended to be displayed for a limited period of time. Theater Sign. The term "Theater Sign" means any permanent sign used to communicate to the public the name of a theater and the show(s) or movie(s)that are offered. Vehicle Entry. The tern "Vehicle Entry" means intersection points along the Newport Center Drive ring road which provide access for automobiles into Fashion Island. Wind Sign. The term "Wind Sign" means a series of similar banners or objects of plastic or other light material more than two (2) inches in diameter which are fastened together at intervals by wirer a cord string or an other means designed to move and at tract attention upon being > rope, g Y Y g P g subjected to pressure by wind or breeze. PERMITTED SIGNS Shopping Center Identification Signs In addition to other signs permitted by this section, monument signs identifying the shopping center are permitted at each vehicle entry drive location. Two (2) signs are allowed at each entry drive location, one on either side of the driveway. The location of the signs shall be approved by Y the City Traffic Engineer to ensure adequate sign distance. The sign area of each sign face shall not exceed one hundred 100 square feet and shall not exceed a height of ten (10), feet. Sign ( ) q illumination is permitted. Major Tenant Signs In addition to other signs permitted by this section, signs identifying the department stores, major buildings and major tenants are permitted on the exterior walls or parapets of the building which. they occupy. Within this category, one (1) sign per building elevation is allowed, with a maximum of four(4) signs.for each department store, for each major tenant and/or for each-major r n to exceed ten 10 feet in height. Sin illumination is tenant. Individual sign letters are of , ( ) g B permitted. In addition, all stores are permitted to place at each entry a sign identifying the store name and services store address hours of business and emergency telephone numbers. This sign shall�be g Y P located at or below eye level'to be visible to pedestrians, and shallnot exceed six,(6) square feet. 14 nu4 Freestanding Commercial In addition to other signs permitted by this section, signs identifying commercial structures are permitted on the exterior walls or parapets of the building which they occupy. Within this category, one (1) sign per building elevation is allowed, with a maximum of four (4) signs for each building or structure. Individual sign letters are not to exceed three (3) feet in height. Sign illumination is permitted. In addition, one (1) monument sign is permitted for each freestanding commercial building. The total sign-area, per sign face, shall not exceed fifty (50) square feet and shall not exceed a height of five(5)feet. Sign illumination is permitted. Tenant Signs In addition to other signs permitted in this section, tenant signs which occur on exterior elevations of the shopping center and face Newport Center Drive ring road are permitted. The total sign area for each tenant sign shall not exceed one(1) square foot for each lineal foot of storefront, but in no case shall the sign area exceed one hundred (100) square feet. Sign illumination is permitted. Tenant signs on building elevations which occur on internal pedestrian streets of the shopping center are permitted. The design and size of these signs are regulated by the property owner's shopping center sign program. In addition„all stores are permitted to place at each entry a sign identifying the store name and services, store address, hours of business and emergency telephone numbers. This sign shall be located at or below eye level to be visible to pedestrians, and shall not exceed six(6)feet in area. Theater Signs In addition to other signs permitted by this section, one sign identifying the theater establishment and the current shows or plays at that theater complex is permitted. The theater sign can face Newport Center Drive ring road and be on either the exterior walls or parapets of the building which they occupy, or a free standing monument sign or on the adjacent parking structure. Sign illumination is permitted. Individual letters for the theater's name are not to exceed five (5) feet in height. Each theater show title is permitted a sign area of up to three(3) feet by fifteen(15)feet. Vehicular Signs. In addition to other signs permitted in this section, signs used to give direction to vehicular or pedestrian traffic are permitted. Said signs shall not contain advertising messages and shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 15 J P V�� 0 . K. . Store Address Signs. In addition to other signs permitted in this section, signs identifying the store address number (s) are permitted at each entry to the store. This sign shall not exceed six(6) square feet in area. Temporary Signs. In addition to other signs permitted in this section, temporary signs, intended to be displayed for sixty(60) days or less, are permitted for purposes related to special events, seasonal activities and store openings. Temporary signs, identifying new construction or remodeling, may be displayed for the duration of the construction period beyond the sixty(60) day limit. Nonconforming Signs. Signs lawfully in existence on the adoption date of this Planned Community text which do not comply with the provisions herein shall be regarded as legal nonconforming signs, and shall be governed by the provisions of Chapter 20.83 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Entry Marker Signs. In addition to other signs permitted in this section, signs used to provide information on activities and events, as well as advertise stores and shops within the shopping center, shall be permitted. Said signs shall'be limited to a maximum'height of 15 feet, a maximum footprint of 36 square feet as measured by area enclosed by two sets of parallel lines around the structure. The structure shall also be permitted an overhang with a maximum projection of 2 feet beyond the face of the structure and may be either internally or externally illuminated. The signs shall be limited to a maximum number of seven(7)within the Planned Community District and the final location of the structures shall be approved by the Planning Director. If located within the sight plane of any drive or roadway, the signs shall be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. SIGN STANDARDS Maintenance. Signs, together with all of their supports, braces, guys and anchors, shall be properly maintained with respect to appearance, structural and electrical features. Restricted Sign Types. Signs visible from Newport Center Drive ring road are subject to the following restrictions: No rotating, flashing,blinking, or signing with animation shall be permitted on a permanent basis. No signs shall be permitted which imitate or resemble official traffic signs or signals. No wind signs or audible signs are permitted. 16 pc"t Exceptions to the restriction noted in this section require the review and approval of Modifications Committee of the City of Newport Beach. 17 CC" f EXHIBIT i0B" FINDINGS FOR DENIAL ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 94-2(B) GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDING AMENDMENT NO. 811 TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 95 A. Environmental Document Finding: 1. That an environmental document is not needed for a project which is denied. B. General Plan Amendment 84-2(B) Findings: 1. That the increased development in Fashion Island is not desirable from a community standpoint, given the potential for adverse economic effects in nearby commercial districts. 2. That the capacity of the circulation system should be reserved for other types of potential new development in the City of Newport Beach. 3. That sufficient development has already occurred in the Fashion Island area. C. General Plan Consistency Finding Finding: 1. That the transfer of retail development to Fashion Island is inadvisable for the reasons stated above. D. Amendment No. 811 Finding 1. That sufficient entitlement for the proposal is not contained in the General Plan Land Use Element. 2. That the proposal has the potential to create parking problems in Fashion Island specifically, and Newport Center in general. 0 0 . i. . C E. Traffic Study No. 95 Finding 1. That a Traffic Study is not needed for a project which is-denied. PLT:..IWIN WORDIFM-DEN.DOC Draft FASHION ISLAND EXPANSION Traffic Analysis Prepared for. City of Newport Beach Prepared by. Austin-Foust Associates 2020 N. Tustin Avenue Santa Ana, California 92701 (714) 667-0496 August 16, 1994 • Ts-U-3 CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY L INTRODUCTION Project Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . I-1 Analysis Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 1 Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5 II. PROJECT SETTING i Surrounding Highway Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-1 Existing and Background Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-2 III. PROJECT TRIP GENERATION IV. BUILDOUT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS V. SHORT-RANGE IMPACTS VI. PARKING ANALYSIS Employee Shuttle System . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . VI-3 APPENDICES: A: Buildout (2010) ICU Worksheets B: Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) Worksheets I I' i -s-�qq LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES Page FIGURES I-1 Project Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2 I-2 Intersection Study Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-4 III-1 PM Peak Hour Project Distribution Percentages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-5 IV-1 Year 2010 ADT Volumes - With Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-2 VI-1 Available Newport Center Parking Spaces (Typical Weekday) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-4 TABLES H-1 E,dsting (1992-1993) ICUs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-3 III-1 Trip Generation Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-4 IV-1 Buildout (2010) ICU Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-3 V-1 TPO 1% Analysis Intersections Requiring ICU Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-2 V-2 TPO ICU Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-3 I 1 1 u h EXECUTIVE SUAMARY The proposed project would expand the existing Fashion Island Shopping Center by, an additional 266,000 square feet of new entitlement and is subject to the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance(TPO). In addition,43,550 square feet has previously approved but undeveloped entitlement resulting in a.total center buildout of 309,550 square feet that has been analyzed relative to the parking needs of the overall expanded center. An analysis of the project for General Plan buildout (year 2010) conditions reveals that the proposed 266,000 square foot expansion would have no significant impact.on the circulation system. The ICU at five intersections would increase by one percent and the remaining 64 intersectionswould not be affected by the project. Each of the five intersections remain at an acceptable ICU resulting in the project having no significant impact at buildout. A TPO analysis reveals that the 266,000 square foot expansion would fail the one percent test at 15 intersections during the PM peak hour and at five intersections during the AM peak hour, therefore requiting additional analysis. Of the 15 intersections during the PM peak hour, only two (MacArthur Boulevard at San Miguel Drive and at San Joaquin Hills Road) exceed level of service (LOS)"D". Additionally,improvements for MacArthur Boulevard (which are planned to be in place before the project is completed)will mitigate each intersection to LOS "D"or better. Therefore, no mitigation is necessary to implement the proposed project an it has no significant impact in the short- range time frame. None of the five intersections during the AM peak hour exceed LOS "D". Buildout of the proposed project as well as unbuilt, but entitled, development would result in the need for approximately 900 additional parking spaces during the peak holiday season and during one or two special events throughout the year. This peak period.parking shortage could be eliminated by implementing one or more of the following actions: - Restripe the existing parking lot to more (but smaller)spaces - Construct a multi-level parking structure(s) on part of the existing surface lots - Implement an off-site.parking program where employees park in other Newport Center parking lots and are shuttled to Fashion Island 1 I - Implement an off-site parking program where employees park in other Newport Center parking lots and are shuttled to Fashion Island - Provide additional parking off-site either within appropriate walking distance or with efficient shuttle service - Evaluate feasibility of utilization of on-street parking on Newport Center Drive (subject to review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer) I - Evaluate the impact of regionally mandated TDM and parking management programs on future parking demand A survey of Fashion Island tenants and employees shows that a sufficient number of employees would be available to allow a reasonable percentage to park off-site, thus making enough parking spaces available for customers during the peak shopping periods. A survey of available parking in Newport Center verifies that sufficient capacity would be available for the necessary number of Fashion Island employees to park there. I II i 1 l I i 2 qi • • � Y • r I: INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of a traffic impact and parking analysis of the proposed expansion of the Fashion Island Shopping Center in the City of Newport Beach. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project consists of expanding the existing Fashion Island Shopping Center by approximately 20 percent Figure I-1 shows the location of Fashion Island. The composition of the expansion would be retail uses compatible with the existing center and may be located at various locations within the mall. At.this time, neither the specific types of uses nor their specific locations have been determined. However, for this analysis it is sufficient to know that the expansion would be similar to the existing uses. The amount of the proposed additional entitlement is 266,000 square feet,which is the basis of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) analysis. The parking analysis also addresses 30,000 square feet that is entitled if the developer builds an affordable senior housing project at Lower Bayview Landing per the terms of the Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement and also 13,550 square feet consists of unbuilt, but previously approved entitlement in Fashion Island. This brings the total added square footage analyzed in the parking study to 309,550 square feet. ANALYSIS SCOPE The traffic analysis•examines the impacts of adding project-generated traffic to the General Plan buildout (year 2010) and short-range (year 1997) conditions. The b'uildout analysis examines any intersection where the project generated traffic equals one percent or more of the without project volumes for any one approach. The short-range analysis is done in a similar manner in FashionJsland Fxpansion I.1 Ausan•Foust Auodatm inc. (JL Tr+tac Analysts 017004pt `( 7S-� H'+I c.,� �tILX°Ot SR-55 ALIGNMENT IS 'R�s DIAGRAMATIC ONLY a p, 'v \\ PROJECT SITE ,tT y BA � &'Y �U r IT , 3 i f 3 777a�� MIM1MAT $ f 4 NEWPORT RAY PACIFIC OCEAN 0 Figure I-1 r,�¢ PROJECT LOCATION i Yll � accordance with the City of Newport Beach's TPO Guidelines. The TPO requires any intersection within the City,to be studied if the addition of regional growth,committed projects and the proposed project increases the volume of any approach by one percent or more. The 33 intersections where the one percent test was applied are shown in Figure I-2. Consistent with the format used for project approvals, the traffic analysis material presented here is set out as follows: Chapter II - Project Setting Chapter III- Project Trip Generation Chapter IV- Buildout Traffic Analysis Chapter V- Short-Range (TPO) Analysis Chapter VI - Parking Analysis Detailed analysis results are also contained at the end of'the report as technical appendices and referenced in the text where appropriate. DEFINITIONS Certain terms and abbreviations used throughout this report are defined below to clarify their intended meaning: ADT Average Daily Traffic, ICU Intersection Capacity Utilization. A factor used to measure the volume/capacity ratio for an intersection and to determine its level of service. LOS Level of Service. A scale used to evaluate circulation -system performance based on volume/capacity ratios of arterial segments or intersection ICU values. The levels range from "A" to "F," with LOS "A" representing free flow traffic and LOS "F" representing severe traffic congestion. PEAK HOUR This generally refers to the hour during the AM peak period.(typically 7-9 AM) or the PM peak period (typically 3-6 PM) in which the greatest number of vehicle trips are generated by a given land use or are travelling on a given roadway. Fashion tstand Expansion I.3 Austin-Foust AssoctatM Ina Traffic Analytic 01704Sxpt 7-S -$ c & 11 13 Y 9 �o, N SR-55 ALIGNMENT IS I r �1 -F DIADRAMATIC ONLY .I �� s�ffi I 15 16 29 erasm I 17 18 32 34 m I �y on uix 35 37 '9r I RAY 39 0� 4� 38 I c PROJECT SITE i 40 44 45 A 52 j 4tp I 41 46 Aid 41 4g 11M cP*s� S 42 y 53 54 AY 4riA, A1d 28 m 51 lew yrsO 27 7 8 e N6�YRT • 57 PACIFIC 2 OCEAN 0 $Q? Figure I-2 "^it INTERSECTION STUDY LOCATIONS $ CA y % vti VPD Vehicles Per Day. This has the same meaning as ADT but is generally used in a trip generation context rather than in reference to the highway volume of an arterial segment. V/C Volume-to-Capacity Ratio. This is typically described as a percentage of capacity utilized by existing or projected traffic on a segment of arterial or an intersection turn movement. REFERENCES 1. "Trip Generation," 5th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1991. 2. "1992-1993 Intersection Count Data," City of Newport Beach California, 1993. Fashion Bland Fxpmasiou I-S Austin-Foust Auodates.Ina TnmeAmflsis 017043xpt Sv �'s j� II PROTECT SETTING This chapter describes the project site in relation to the transportation setting. The existing circulation system is discussed, and existing and background traffic volumes and levels of service are summarized. SURROUNDING MGMVAY NETWORK Regional access to the project site is currently provided via the Corona Del Mar Freeway (SR-73) and the San Diego Freeway (I-405) which are located approximately three and five miles, respectively, to the north. The SR-73 Freeway currently terminates at MacArthur Boulevard which then continues past the project site. Regional access is also provided by Pacific Coast Highway which I runs along the coast approximately one-half mile from the project Additional regional circulation will be provided in the future by the planned San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor(SJHTC). The SJHTC is a controlled access toll road that will extend,the SR-73 Freeway in the City of Newport Beach southerly from MacArthur Boulevard to the Santa Ana I (1-5) Freeway in south Orange County. The SJHTC(SR-73)will be located approximately two miles northeast of the project with interchanges at MacArthur Boulevard and Ford Road. The SJHTC is scheduled to be completed by March of 1997 while the completion of this project is also currently anticipated to occur in 1997. IWith the exception of the SJHTC, the roadway system within the study area is largely builtout Jamboree Road is a six-lane major arterial just west of the project site which provides access from the north and the south. MacArthur Boulevard (just east of the project) also provides north/south access. MacArthur Boulevard is currently six lanes to the north of Bison Avenue, five lanes between Bison Avenue and Ford Road and four lanes to the south. Plans are currently being Fashion Island Fxpansion 1I4 Austin-Foust Associatm Ioc. Traffic Analysis 017043tpt �^ prepared to widen MacArthur Boulevard to eight lanes north of Ford Road and to six lanes from Ford Road through San Joaquin Hills Road. San Joaquin Hills Road is a six lane major arterial from Jamboree Road to Marguerite Avenue where it continues to Newport Coast Drive as a four lane primary,arterial. Pacific Coast Highway(PCH) provides both regional and local access to the project 1 from the neighboring beach communities. A detailed analysis of this circulation system is presented in the following chapters. The General Plan buildout analysis (year 2010) looks at intersections and roadway links throughout the City of Newport Beach. The short-range(TPO) analysis studies the following list of 33 intersections identified for testing by City StafE 1 2. Balboa/Superior&PCH 37. MacArthur&Blson 7. Riverside&PCH 38. Jamboree&'Ford 8. Tustin&PCH 39. MacArthur&Ford 9. MacArthur&Campus 40. Jamboree A S.)H Road 11. VooKarman&Campus 41.Jamboree&Santa Barbara 13. Jamboree&Campus 42 Jamboree&PCH 15. Campus&Bristol N. 44. Santa Rosa A SJH Road 16. Birch&Bristol N. 4S. MacArthur&SIH Road I 17. Campus&Bristol S_ 46. MacArthur A Sao Miguel IS. Birch&Bristol S. 47. Newport Center&PCH 27. DovedBayshore&PCH 4& Avocado A PCH 28. 'Bayside&PCH 49. MacArthur&PCH 29. MacArthur&Jamborod 51. Goldenrod&PCH 30. Jamboree&Bristol N. 5Z. Marguerite.&SSH Road 32. Jamboree&Bristol S. 53. Marguerite&PCH 34. Jamboree&University $4. Poppy&PCH 1 3S. Jamboree&Bison I EXISTING AND BACKGROUND CONDITIONS IExisting traffic volumes were obtained from the City of Newport Beach's 1992-1993 TPO Database(Reference 2). The existing,conditions data consists of counts performed in 1992 and 1993 to be used for all traffic studies prepared for the City. In addition, an increment of background traffic volumes for these intersections were provided by the'City and represent those projects that have already received approval from the City as well as regional growth. Table II-1 summarizes the existing ICUs for each of the study locations(existing plus background ICUs are presented in Chapter I V). 1 Fashion Island Expansion 1I.2 Austin-Foust Assocista,loa Tnlac Analysis 017043.rpt 7 I i 75 1� Table IFS EXISTING(1992-1993)ICUs EXISTING (1992-1993) INTERSECTION AM PM 2. Balboa/Superior&PCH .62 .75 7. Riverside&PCH .70 .79 & Tustin&PCH .69 59 9. MacArthur&Campus .55 .78 11. VonY-vman&Campus .40 58 13. Jamboree&Campus .66 .61 15. Campus&Bristol N. .51 .80 16. Birch&Bristol N. 55 .76 17. Campus&Bristol S. .98 .54 I& Birch&Bristol S. 54 .60 27. Dover/Bayshom&PCH .63 .71 28. Bayside&PCH .64 S9 29. MacArthur&Jamboree .60 .70 30. Jamboree&Bristol N. .74 .85 32. Jamboree&Bristol S. .74 .70 34, Jamboree&University .64 .69 ' 35. Jamboree&Bison 57 55 37. MacArthur&Bison 52 52 38. Jamboree&Ford 57 .65 39. MacArthur&Ford .65 .66 40. Jamboree&SJH Road 58 A9 41. Jamboree&Santa Barbara .46 58 42. Jamboree&PCH .63 .60 44. Santa Rog&&SJH Road .23 34 45. MacArthur&SJH Road .73 .67 46. MacArthur&San Miguel 54 .63 47. Newport Center&PCH .39 Al 48. Avocado&PCH .46 .51 49. MacArthur&PCH SO 57 51. Goldenrod&PCH .68 .73 52. Marguerite&SIH Road .29 33 53. Marguerite&PCH .75 .78 54. Poppy&PCH 53 59 Level o1 service ranger .00- .60 A .61- .709 .71. .80 C .81- .90 D .91.1.00 E Above 1.00 F r Fashion Island Expansion I1-3 Austin-Foust Associates,Inc. Tm[fic Analysis 0170434pt y�f T-s • t °' e n III PROJECT TRIP GENERATION chapter describes the trip generation of the proposed ro•ect The actual trip generation '� P Pg P P P 1 P data is given as well as a discussion of the derivation of the trip rates. As discussed in Chapter I, the proposed project consists of expanding the existing Fashion Island•Shopping Center. Thd expansion would not exceed 266,000 square feet and-would consist of retail uses dispersed throughout the mall that would be compatible with the existing center. The additional 43,550 square feet discussed earlier,as being analyzed in the parking analysis is included as part of the existing and background conditions. Therefore, the traffic.impact portion of this analysis will only be examining the proposed 266,000 square feet. Trip rates for the proposed addition are based on the ITE equation for shopping centers as applied to trip generation currently occurring at the center. Case studies reported by 1TE have shown that the trips generated by a shopping center do not increase linearly with an increase in size of the center. In other words, a percentage of the "trips" to a new store would have been at the center already. The following table shows that based on the ITE equation for shopping centers over 570 TSF, the trip generation for a 1,200 TSF center is 36,831 vehicles per day. The trip generation for a 1,700 I Fashion Island Expansion IfI.1 Austin-Foust Associates,Inc. TratHc Analysts 0170431" T'51 TSF center is 47,926 vehicles per day. This indicates that the additional 500 TSF generated 11,095 trips or 22.19 trips per TSF. This rate (22.19 trips per TSF) is 72.3 percent of the 1,200 TSF rate. ITB TRIP GENERATION EQUATION FOR SHOPPING CENTERS GREATER THAN 570 TSF Ln(I)-0.756 Lu(X) +5.154 Whets T-ADT trip generation X- Pmject size(rSF) TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY SIZE ADT RATE 1.700 TSF 47,926 28.19 I 1,200 TSF 36,831 30.69 Dl fetenm 11,095 NIA 1 The Fashion Island Shopping Center collects driveway counts 24 hours a day,365 days a year. These counts, together with the size of the existing Fashion Island Shopping Center,indicate that an average daily trip generation of 27.05 vehicles per TSF is being generated by the existing center. Applying the previously discussed factor of 723 percent to this measured rate results in a daily trip generation rate is 1956 vehicles per TSF. This is the rate utilized to analyze the proposed expansion as it represents the findings of ITE studies applied to the trip generation characteristics measured at Fashion Island. The ratio of the PM peak hour trip rate to this daily trip rate is taken to be the same as the relationship between the two rates in the Newport Beach Traffic Analysis Model (NBTAM). The table below shows this relationship. t NBTAM PROIECr ADT Rate 2100 19.56 PM Peak Hour Rate 1.60 1.42 Ratio 13.&1 13&1 1 Fashion Island Expansion 111.2 Austia•Foust Associate,Inc. Traffic Analysis 017043xpt As Table III-1 indicates, the 266,000 square foot addition being proposed is estimated to generate 5,203 daily trips, of which 378 trips will be generated during the critical PM peak hour. Distribution of project generated traffic was taken from the-distribution for Fashion Island generated by the NBTAM Figure III-1 shows the project's PM peak hour distribution within the study area for short-range (pre-SRUC) conditions. The numbers shown in Figure III-1 represent the percent of the projects total(inbound plus outbound)trip generation by direction. Approximately 20 percent of the project trips are expected to begin or end within Newport Center itself Therefore, 80 percent of the total trip generation is distributed onto the highway network. I� 1 Fubioo Island Fxpaastoo 111.3 Austia-Foust Auociatn,Im TnIOc Analysts 017013.tpt Table 111.1 TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY —AM PEAK HOUR— —PM PEAK HOUR— LAND USE UNUS IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL ADT Fashion Island Expansion 266 TSF 37 19 56 16S 213 378 5,203 i I ADT AND PEAK HOUR TRIP RATE SUMMARY AM PEAK HOUR— —PM PEAK HOUR— LAND USE UNITS IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL ADT Fashion Island Expansion TSF .14 .07 .21 .62 .80 1.42 19-% ! l l l 1 l . ! Fashion Island Expansion 111.4 Austin-Foust Associates,loc. Traffic Analy%W 017043.spt a� a o a.a p �r N N fn• F� SR-55 ALIGNMENT IS CIAGRAMA71C ONLY \a 1 3 ' 2 �' S ♦ M1 t t •♦♦ a 2 �. HACK a ♦ G, ♦ HAY y ♦ < >� PROJECT SITE 1 .. � 12 2 12 6 7 3 At, r. cR t ♦� r t iJ 3 nm 3 J 7 wair t ♦ M i � 9 ♦o .ya 1 eT NERPORr �I d s BAY b •��, © "'°� PACIFIC z z g OCEAN E 2 LEGEND - - - Figure III-1 ' Sg -x PERCENT OF TOTAL PM PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION (BY DIRECTION) PM PEAR HOUR PROJECT DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES `A ' IV BUILDOUT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS This chapter presents the results of a buildout (year 2010) analysis of the proposed 266,000 square foot expansion of the Fashion Island Shopping Center. The Newport Beach Traffic Analysis Model (NBTAM)was used to determine what impacts, if any, the proposed project would have on the City's buildout circulation system. Figure IV-1 shows the year 2010 ADT volumes with the project trips included. Table IV-1 shows the ICUs at the 15 intersections where the project traffic was one percent or more of the without project approach volumes. Of the 15 affected intersections, only five experienced an increase in their ICU due to the project. At each location with an ICU increase, the increase was one percent and remained at an acceptable level (LOS "D" or better). In conclusion,the proposed 266,000 square feet project has no significant impact on the City's buildout circulation system. i i I Fashion Island Expansion N-1 Ausun•Foust Assoclates,Inc. TraMe Analysis 017043.tpt Ts- t i e � 25 J, �._ • m �n �fy� ^ J> �,nT you g GNIGNY 01—R5AM O r46 47 • 48 3447 17 16 - u rd'J 1]6 SaRc S 14 Iwi1 u- 2] +i4 � l 'p u HACK ' o HAY ° Zr 5 e f� 21 fol 17 14 yrr t 1] 9�f � �' � ♦ �'QIl Gam' '� 42 32 15 8s 54 '48 w )1 17M _ Y t 81 (a� Al 11d114Y 36 1 78 9 - 14 i1 �A tt J✓ 1° 'y N °9 1° �J 20 eo 4 N6YPORr '0 77 HAY 57 . °"°°� PACIFIC OCEAN p 2 ] O I o LEGEND Figure IV-1 Qg X = ADT. WITH PROJECT O00: - YEAR 2010 ADT VOLUMES Y; +Y INCREASE DUE TO PROJECT (000s) WITH PROJECT RR 4 M N 1 \ w Table IV-1 BUIIDOUT(2010)ICU COMPARISON WIITIOUT WITH• PROJECT PROJECT INTERSECTION AM PM AM PM •10. MacArthur&Birch 87 .85 .87 .86 12. MacArthur&Vonrarman 58 .62 58 .62 24. Irvine&WmtcHW17th .62 .87 .62 .87 33. Jamboree&Bayview .87 .86 .87 .86 40. Jamboree&SJH Rd .81 .82 .81 .82 j 41. Jamboree&Santa Barbara .64 .78 .64 .78 •43. Santa Cruz&SIH Rd .40 A .40 A3 44. Santa Rosa&SJH Rd 31 .45 31 AS 46. MacArthur&San Miguel .77 .75 .77 .75 47. Newport Center&PCH 55 .42 55 AZ 50. San Miguel&SJH Rd 53 55 53 55 •52. Marguerite&SJH Rd 56 .46 56 .47 •64. Culver Dr&Bonita Cyn .64 .67 .64 .68 68. Ford&SIHTC EB Ramps 39 .74 39 .74 •74. Sand Cyn&SJHTC Ell Ramps .61 .68 .62 .69 I •Indicates location with ICU increase i Level of service ranges .00- .60 A I .61- .708 .71- .80 C 81- .90 D .91-1.00 E Above 1.00 F I I I 1 I 1 Fashion Island Expansion IV-3 Austin-Foust Associates,Inc. Traffic Analysis 0170434pt rs-�t V SHORT-RANGE IMPACTS The project's short-range (pre-SJHTC) impacts upon its opening were analyzed using the City's TPO methodology. The TPO methodology involves first determining if the project generated traffic is greater than one percent of the existing plus background volume for any one approach. If the project traffic is less than this, no further study is required at that location. If an intersection fails the one percent test, the TPO states that mitigation is required if the project results in an ICU change of.01 or more and the resulting ICU is 0.91 (LOS "E") or greater. As can be seen in Table V-1, 15 of the 33 intersections listed in Chapter H fail the one percent test for the proposed 266,000 TSF project. Table V-2 shows that two intersections,MacArthur Boulevard at San Miguel Drive and at San Joaquin Hills Road, exceed LOS "D" due to the addition of the traffic to the existing plus back Project r g p ground traffic. I,I The City of Newport Beach has roadway improvements scheduled for MacArthur Boulevard at its intersections with San Miguel Drive and San Joaquin Hill Road that add a third thru-lane in each direction. The table below shows that these improvements will mitigate the two intersections to level of service (LOS) "D"or better. i I —PM PEAK HOUR ICU— INTERSECTION W/O MTTIOATION W/MMOATiON MacArthur&San Mitud M .72 MacArthur&San]oaqulo Hills Rd .92 81 Fashion Island Expansion V•1 Austia•Foust Associates,Ina Traffic Analysis 017043.rpt r .1 Tabk V-1 TPO 1%ANALYSIS INTERSECTIONS REQUIRING ICU ANALYSIS 1%OFPROJECIED PROJECT CRITICAL PEAK PEAK2.12 PEAK2.12 LOCATION APPROACH PERIOD HOUR VOLUME HOUR VOLUME 8. Tustin&PCH WB PM 66 68 18. Birch&Bristol S. NB PM 6 15 28. Bayside&PCH WB PM 78 83 34. Jamboree&University WB PM 13 23 35. Jamboree&Bison NB PM 65 76 37. MacArthur&Bison NB PM 53 53 j 38. Jamboree&Ford WB PM 6 8 I 39. MacArthur&Ford NB PM 53 83 40. Jamboree&SJH Rd WS AM 9 9 WB PM 17 91 42. Jamboree&PCH WB PM 52 98 44. Santa Rosa&STH Rd NB AM 3 6 Na PM 13 76 WB PM 13 45 ! 45. MacArthur&SJH Rd ES AM 6 6 t EB PM 23 76 46. MacArthur&San Miguel EB AM 6 7 WB AM 8 8 WB PM 8 45 47. Newport Center&PCH SB PM 20 11S 52. Marguerite&SJH Rd WB AM 4 4 WB PM 4 23 EB PM 12 23 1 r i Fashion Island Expansion V 2 Austin-Foust Associates,Inc TraMe Analysis 017043.tpt Ts- � x Table V-2 TPO ICU ANALYSIS EXISTING+ .EXISTING+ BACKGROUND+ BACKGROUND PROJECT IN7ERSFCnON AM PM AM _ _PM & Tustin&PCH N/A .76 N/A .76 18. Birch&Bristol S. N/A .65 N/A .66 2& Bayswc&PCH N/A .76 N/A .77 34. Jamboree&University N/A .89 N/A .90 35. Jamboree&Biwa N/A .74 N/A .74 37. MacArthur&BIsoa N/A .62 N/A .63 3& Jamboree&Ford N/A .88 N/A .89 39. MacArthur&Ford N/A .81 N/A .81 40. Jamboree&SJH Rd .79 .71 .79 .71 47. Jamboree&PCH N/A .78 N/A .78 44. Santa Rosa&SJH Rd 26 .40 .26 .42 45. MacArthur&SIH Rd .92 .91 .92 .92 46. MacArthur'&San Miguel .74 .90 .74 .91 47. NewpoM Center&PCH N/A .49 N/A SO 52. Marguerite&SJH Rd .30 34 .30 .35 •ProJeet causes or worseaa LOS"D" V I 1 Fashion Island Expansion V-3 Austin-Foust Awdatea,Ix TmMc Analysis 017043.spt I G,tO Ts- DTI PARKING ANALYSIS The basis of this parking analysis consists of the proposed 266,000 square foot project as well as 43,550 square feet of previously entitled square footage previously discussed in Chapter L This results in 309,550 square feet of development that is subject to this analysis. The existing parking demand at Fashion Island was surveyed in order to develop an accurate prediction of the demand with the project in place. Parking lot counts were performed in,April 1994 for both a weekday and the weekend and encompassed the parking for all uses - retail, theater and restaurants. Historical count data for Fashion Island shows that the amount of traffic entering the mall on a typical Saturday in April is 75 percent of that experienced during the design period. The design period was taken to be the average of the Saturdays between Thanksgiving and Christmas which represents the highest shopping demand of the year. These counts indicate that a maximum of 3,661 of the existing 5,699 parking spaces were ever occupied at any time. This represents an actual April peak parking demand of 2.73 spaces per thousand square feet of floor area After the April parking rate is expanded to represent typical December design shopping day,a design peak parking factor of 3.64 spaces per thousand square feet of floor area (including existing retail, restaurant and theater use) is determined as appropriate for Fashion Island. This analysis bears out the continued viability of the City's existing retail parking code for Fashion Island of 4.0 spaces per TSF, except that it does reveal that the 4.0 spaces also includes the typical theater patronage. This parking rate also corresponds with ITE's recommendation of 3.97 occupied spaces per TSF for peak Saturday parking demand for retail uses as published in the report Parking Generation, 2nd Edition. Fashion Island EVaaabn VI.1 Austin-Foust AssodatM Inc. Tra1Gc Analysis 017043xix 6� rs-� Applying the City code parking requirement (and including the theaters on a square footage basis) produces a peak design period parking demand of 6,599 spaces(1649.19 TSF x 4.0),compared with an,existing supply of 5,699. This.produces a need for a net increase of 900 additional parking spaces to accommodate the expansion of Fashion Island. To mitigate this anticipated parking shortage, one or more of the following measures would need to be taken: - An increase in spaces could be realized by restriping the current 10 feet wide spaces to nine or nine and one-half feet. The exact number of spaces gained by restriping would depend on the extent of planter and median reconstruction that is undertaken. - The construction of a multi-level parking structure(s) in place of a portion of the existing surface lots could potentially provide the necessary number of spaces: - Provide additional parking off-site within convenient walking distance to the shopping center. - Implement an off-site parking program where employees park in other Newport Center parking lots and are shuttled to Fashion Island. This alternative is discussed in detail in the section below. - Utilize on-street parking along Newport Center Drive if such were deemed I` appropriate subject.to review/approval of the City Traffic Engineer. - Recognition that ride-sharing and other travel demand management strategies being required by regional air-quality and land use regulatory agencies are designed to reduce the current patterns of both tripmakingg andparking demand in the future. This may be particularly applicable for the,parking needed-by the estimated 3,000 or so future employees of Fashion Island. EMPLOYEE SHUTTLE SYSTEM An efficient technique to provide additional parking for customers that has been successfully used during the peak retail periods in other centers is employee off-site parking with a shuttle. Given the large pool of available parking surrounding Fashion Island,particularly on weekends and holidays Iwhen the peak demand occurs, this concept appears to be a feasible potential solution to the projected parking shortfall. Therefore, an analysis was done to determine 1) if this approach could III Fashion Island FVansba VI.2 Austin-Foust Auodata,Inc. TYaIGc Analysis 017043.rpt ?S' • . • 0 offset all or part of the 900 space parking shortfall and 2) if sufficient spaces were available to provide the off-site parking for employees. A shuttle system would be necessary only during the peak demand season. This consists of weekends from Thanksgiving until the weekend after New Year's Day,as well as everyday during the week before Christmas. One or two days during the year when special events are held at the center, i the shuttle would also have to be used. To verify that a sufficient number of employees would be available to free the necessary 900 ' parking spaces,a survey was developed for both the Fashion Island tenants and their employees. The results of this survey indicated that during the peak shopping hours there are currently 2,500 employees at the mall,of which approximately 90 percent drove their own vehicles. This number will increase to over 3,000 employees upon completion of the project. This results in an available pool of 2,700 vehicles that could be parked off-site. A survey of the parking in Newport Center revealed that there would be enough surplus parking to accommodate the Fashion Island employees. Figure VI-1 shows the number of available spaces on a weekday at three different locations. On the weekends (when an employee off-site parking program is most likely) there would be an even greater amount of parking spaces available in Newport Center. The number of shuttle busses required would depend on the pick-up and drop-off locations that are chosen. Sufficient busses would be required in order to keep shuttle headways to approximately five minutes, to ensure employees did not have an incentive to violate the system by parking in the main Fashion Island parking lot. Assurance that this satellite parking scheme is meeting the parking demand could be monitored through on-site observation of the Fashion Island parking lot to ensure that an over-capacity condition did not develop. The evaluation criteria would be that the outer area of the parking lot adjacent to Newport Center Drive would be monitored to ensure a maximum 90 percent occupancy factor. If parking in this monitored area should exceed 90 percent, then additional parking would have to be provided. I � Fashion Island Expansion VI-3 Austin-Foust Associates,Ina Traffic Ana mis 017043.rpt 6� Ts - ► IMN RA OR ........... MN NnN NINN, OCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH• POLICE DEPARTMENT % =x, .,t• r.r. s l ir:i. , ` iuhpr n—•, C October 7, 1994 �r!� U yEcfft:; : i': c PM '�1`I�l�fd15�6 TO: John Douglas, Planning Department € FROM: Bob McDonell, Chief of Police SUBJECT: Fashion Island Expansion- Parking Issues RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the proposed mitigation for transportation/parking issues in the negative declaration (Item #13, pages 9 and 10). Provide the additional 900 parking spaces required at peak periods through a combination of means which do not include on- street parking on Newport Center Drive or re-striping the existing lot with a significant number of additional compact spaces. BACKGROUND: The Police Department was provided with a copy of a memorandum dated September 19, 1994 from the Planning Department regarding a negative declaration for the Fashion Island expansion. In the context of the negative declaration, the expansion identified the need for an additional 900 parking spaces during peak periods involving center activity. The mitigation recommendation suggested spaces could be provided through several different methods, including the provision of on- street parking on Newport Center Drive. The Police Department recommends against that particular mitigation for a variety of reasons including the following: 1. Because of the landscaped areas between the street and sidewalk, motorists exiting their vehicles will have a tendency to walk in the street to existing sidewalk access points, increasing their exposure to vehicular traffic. 2. More collisions are likely to occur as vehicles stop to park or try to accelerate into the traffic flow from parking spaces. 3. The increase in parked vehicles will further restrict visibility for pedestrians and drivers in the area. 4. Existing traffic will be forced into two lanes from the existing three lanes, resulting in greater congestion, which will be occurring at the very peak periods when the proposed on-street parking would be greatest. In addition to the traffic/pedestrian flow issues mentioned, enforcement of on-street parking would be an additional burden for the Department to bear, without the corresponding resources to provide it. If the parking was "non-metered" and subject � j Fashion Island Expation/Parking Issues Page 2 to time zone enforcement, it would require new right side driver vehicles which could allow the operator to both mark the tires and drive without requiring a second Parking Control Officer (one to drive and one to mark tires out the right window). The Department currently has no such equipment. Time zone enforcement is the least efficient means of insuring parking turnover from a human resource perspective. if the proposal is to provide unlimited parking, then the latter would not be an issue. Conversely, the most effective means of parking enforcement from a resource standpoint, would be the installation of parking meters, which would not be well received by both shoppers and, business owners alike, not to mention the negative visual,impact of the meters themselves. In addition to all the obvious logical traffic flow reasons why we're concerned about on-street parking on Newport Center Drive, the overall aesthetic affect of a significant number of parked vehicles on the street would be detrimental as well: Another mitigation suggested in the negative declaration dealt with re-striping the existing lot with additional compact spaces. From our experience, although it is difficult to quantify in actual numbers, smaller compact spaces contribute to additional private property and hit and run accidents. In recent years, there seems to have been somewhat of a shift to manufacture larger, rather than smaller vehicles, now that the automotive manufacturers are mastering the fuel economy/weight relationship. As a result, the need for additional compact spaces appears to'be going down rather than up. At present, we're not aware of the ratio of compact spaces in the overall parking facilities of Fashion Island, so ift difficult to state .with, certainty that it could not accommodate a larger ratio. However, if in fact 900 additional parking spaces are required, we would not want to see a predominant number of compact spaces accommodated through the re-striping program. A third mitigation recommended which deals with off-site parking and a shuttle program for employees, also appears to be somewhat unrealistic based upon our experience and the City's ability to enforce such measures. Personally, I have witnessed attempts to manage employee parking off-site and it Would be next to impossible to prevent an employee from parking a vehicle in the general purpose ,Fashion Island lot-unless all entrances and exits were monitored, in essence, such a plan would rely on voluntary compliance, which we're confident would result in less than satisfactory results. Again it's an admirable theory, but its practicality is questionable to accomplish a sizable number of the 900 additional parking spaces required. We fully recognize we are not planners, traffic engineers, or traffic circulation consultants, however we offer our comments as common sense/practical observat' n based on our experience. Bob McDonell CHIEF OF POLICE JbZL CITY OF NE"ORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard-P.O.Box 1768 Newport Beach,CA 92659-1768 - (714)644-3225 NEGATIVE DECLARATION To: From: City of Newport Beach Office of Planning and Research Planning Department 1400 Tenth Street,Room 121 3300 Newport Boulevard-P.O.Box 1768 XX Sacramento,CA 95814 Newport Beach,CA 92659-1768 (Orange County) County Clerk,County of Orange XX Public Services Division P.O.Box 838 Date received for filing at OPR: Santa Ana,CA 92702 Publicreviewperiod October 14 - November 14, 1994 NameofProject: Fashion Island Expansion (GPA 94-2(B),A811,TS 95) Project Location: Newport Center, Newport Beach, CA Project Description: The proposal consists of a General Plan amendment, Planned Community Pro! anendment and Traffic Study to increase the entitlement for Fashion Island by 266,000 sq.ft. , which would result in a maxinum of 309,550 sq.ft. of additional retail development, including unbuilt entitlemen . FInding- Pursuant to the provisions of City Council Policy K-3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study containing the analysis supporting this finding is attached. The Initial Study may include mitigation measures that would eliminate or reduce potential environmental impacts. This document will be considered by the decision-maker(s)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. If you wish to appeal'the appropriateness or adequacy of this document,your comments should be submitted in writing prior to the close of the public review period. Your comments should specifically idenlifywhat environmental impacts you believe would result from the project,why they are significant,and what mitigation measures you believe should be adopted to eliminate or reduce these impacts. There is no fee for this appeal. If a public hearing 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. n Date October 12, 1994 John H Douglas,AICy Enviro Coor f me 4al or Revised 11N1 �� ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH I. BACKGROUND , 1. Application No: GPA 94-2(D) Anendnent 811 Traffic Study 95 2. Project name: Fashion Island Expansion 3. Project location: Newport Center 4. Applicant: The Irvine Company II. BNVIRONHENTAL, IMPACTS (See attached explanations) S=significant P.S.=Potentially H.S.=Hot S P•S• N.s. Significant Significant 1. Earth. Would the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes v in geologic substructures? /—� b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction X or overcovering of the soil? — C. Change in topography or ground surface X relief features? — d. The destruction, covering or modification of any X unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion x of soile, either on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean `� or any bay, inlet or lake? !—� g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, �r mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? /� 2. Air. Would the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration X of ambient air quality? — — b. The creation of objectionable odors? _ — X C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, X either locally or regionally? -- — Environmental Analysis Checklist - Page 2 • gP.S. x.s. 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? _ _ x b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? x _ C. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? x d. Change in the amount of surface water X in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, \, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of X flow of ground water? _ g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts X or excavations? _ _ h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? X i. Exposure of people or property to water- related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? X 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)? X b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,rare or endangered species of plants? _X 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 v crop? A)I �fj 1'�J Environmental Analysis Checklist - Page 3 - n N.S.• 5. Animal Life. Would the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and x 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 migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Noise. Would the proposal result in an increase in existing noise levels, or exposure of people to severe noise levels? _ x _ 7. Light and Glare. Would the proposal produce new X light or glare? _ S. Land Use. 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? _ x 9. 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 involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident? b. Possible interference with an emergency x response or evacuation plan? 11. Population. Would the proposal alter the location,, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of the area? 12. Housing. Would the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? ._ _ _ Environmental Analysis Checklist - Page 4 $ P.S. N.S. 13. Transportation/Circulation/Parking. Would the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? X b. Effects on existing parking facilities, x or demand for new parking? _ C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation x systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation X or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? x f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians? _ x _ 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? _ X b. Police protection? X C. Schools? X d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? x f. Other governmental services? _ _ X 15. Energo. 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 X require the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilites. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Electricity or natural gas? X b. Communications systems? _ _ X C. Water or wastewater? d. Storm water drainage? e. Solid waste and disposal? x R17Y �i' Environmental Analysis Checklist - Page 5 , �£ P•S• N.S. 17. Human Health. Would the proposal result in the ' creation of any health hazard or exposure of people X to a potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? _ — _ 16. 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? — _ 19. Recreation. Would the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? — — _X 20. Cultural Resources. Would the proposals a. Result in the alteration or destruction of a X prehistoric or historic archaeological site? p g — b. Result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects on a prehistoric or historic building, structure,. x or object? — —C. Have the potential to cause a physical change x which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? _ d. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? k III. MANDATORY FINDINGS of siGHIFICANCS. 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.) _ ._ N� � Environmental Analysis Chec at — Page 6 • $ P.S. Ls. 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 k future projects.) _ 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: ( J 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: John H. Dou las, AICP Date: t Signature: Attachment: Environmental Analysis Checklist Explanations f:\...\FORHS\CHECKLST.IS Revised 12/93 ^,D- -71 ii 1V VICINITY MAP GPA 94 .2 (B) FASH ION ISLAND EXPANS ION _,",•1_(•. '{.�•x}s.::_,. .ia.... lv .. xv' 1'•. ,-`• _ �tr^yi-"7,tom{+" �G r'� O 0 .Lxyv :is'.,:•'.:-: i.i-a 'v3 �. E- L'Fu� sS`•a3 =Ji y_S _,,,4,�. •,, r, _ ry'•i;'cE.:;z�i.�'jkrr :. _,.�_t-,z'��2C;TY_a'i'�'k�-L• �'��. 1 �i _ -TI r-x�m•"-j',��'. `t•.�'',.f,-:;r x'v.,- 3 s _ L •., :�6;�JI iY*i.!?TWCe!-�'�'- , •,.� - i •..r e•.i.__': ] w G e4 fS t1,�.3`- - L rt::�t _.KA'R� r .Pci i-- T•F y>. d � i w•;,i,er.it _ P,F-lT+t i IF•�WCSAer� �vSi�... .. .-i.. _ :•ti•_2•:."" Ly'.'.i J.1-��•'�ia5 v"i.� •v �J.,^ �7(,t"+''=? • •'., f .. '•.•�' •b eif .=fir' !•n _Y`Yx.0 •t_• .n`, :L`•T: _ _ ..,•, f (J�f^�'l_'J+ 'L7 fJ._•{�..•-�-t•.::r�,� •�,ry'.. '�='i"z r ,• , •,•0..,w' .G-:_z': ' _ fi :x �� ('� y` x +k��r'-2Tr i x� f , �� N7 °Y�i "r• •. �•. 0 ..'p. ',,., '`.<.r < -x .-t.)3' tiff�H,i-.. if,'". i'i 0 {?i._i:.i:•ti,i.•,: u-'y:Ti=.' " '.4..�:. ♦ .�Y�. .. Jid. ..+' ."v i•r.La)._ ..y'.: .. J• a :.Ji_::. � *h •. 's:Z" • '-�] 1' - T=•�"'"+`r#•='+• r:'�'xla'te: .�`,Yj "ii?i':. ` ,• ;yc'• '_Tr i *;f'.:1:,y"-'- ' •" S ,.; Y_"_- � ,"t�]rcti F 'tt. �i• i_f r;V t]'��4 .r..:... �-t3�i - .S'�a+at'f IyrC'_ .,�' 1'4r w�, i�y+ >._:•• i •� _ ;,:rj; '!+:.F ; J-r. .;,;.9a'�,d �% S.'ti.-�: 4 1•.Aa,�. " =5v::,: •.n,:�-.:. r a `i• Y `Mwn .�.i..4,. ..nJli' "A, 1 4�TYb�Y'r'il ii•'L 'a' •J, • - .-.:,;•.2: alh�, :4:iv .uJ,ly a 4.,,�•_�,1 ,. _4. i,r-j_i 4•v, ] T y - :•V^ j]:-�'� ;5� �' '�`Fs'• :tai:f.r'•'� �_Pi�'i��S •'L.'H,•, i'• �Y; 't•�f�a•. - . . .- •:.1••• s_ r',w?i:r " 1•;, •• 4 a; i+• }�, ix.4 �s�'L3+X:• =i • i' a'. ' _y:-4'-' ✓may FAS 'a 'r►' 1 y is LAND -+ � L . •fc3�.1 ..r.••. • M J io. Fg 'fia A H .L••r ''•F n S NCH• .. < x .. �:iyyii� �' «.:._.L.' .•a• ♦ s' r _ •.� •r. .Y• r]'e°:�:3C Ltt l:A' •i'i1Y:::' — •r •.+ .� j'd-'fT^+'"y-• t �••• 3h air �Px°d_" o _21w,. ••' � 'r:::• ••i4'J.'i�.rii+7 :T�• . r`Y is If ,• �J { �a. .•U {4� '� ••"'Y'-,- •:<C:•,.�SI""':fCf1 • •' QO •T' Y4•h•1'. 4 +- • f Jt •-t,��.:s ' i •r.••;4':hi t:tt :3•i .}_• • ,'� �i`` ii.:. •,,,+_ t}- rG , "�p i:yax�. r. !„ _ +J_t"�"1 ' L � : • •=�al; . +_ i' xT •• 7,tr, .Y S- __ i 'i.F 3v':{"'s .iJ ,__ .,, a f h 1 ` L'rp '� uv ,.'. Y -rr i,STr� 1•:L4� ��� l�'1,{Ij, •L/��•�,�"'+r:4. ?+'r•, •-S • ��• �` - . �F_:n':r�.'4'`}.Jr9�,�- j4 .-•'4♦. �� yie�i�9",,,• '4 ��/ \ w ` ` •�J '•�•'y• Np, 9n •.: _ � O O,A� O 5P OQ G G G 0 I.A S 1 P V E s 5 Wa 1 9 R ti 0 T �l q O R A R L F SA N G U F D f i v S R F A P N T R A A B6 r.. DR IVE I V E 2 �O O •::Y1 ti q T 2 cc q G� m' -o O LEGEND . MM RETAIL AND SERVICE COMMERCIAL 2�F 'A FASHION ISLAND • • • T • ,T REVISED ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Fashion Island Expansion General Plan Amendment 94-2(B) Amendment No. 811 Traffic Study No. 95 Project Description The proposed project consists of a General Plan amendment to increase the maximum square footage of Retail and Service Commercial uses within Fashion Island by 309,550 square feet from 1,310,750 to 1,629,300 square feet; an amendment to the Fashion Island Planned Community Regulations to increase the development entitlement to 1,620,300 square feet and. adopt revised parking regulations; and approval of a Traffic Phasing Ordinance Study. The proposed additional development represents the total of 266;000 square feet of new entitlement, 30,000 square feet of entitlement transferred from the Bayview Landing site as permitted by the Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement, and 13,550 square feet of entitlement transferred from the PacTel site. This proposal would establish General Plan and zoning development entitlement, and no specific development plan.is proposed at this time. Prior to issuance of building permits for additional development, detailed plans would be required and reviewed for conformance with applicable planned community and zoning code requirements. Anal! The following discussion provides explanations for the conclusions contained in the Environmental Analysis Checklist regarding the proposed project's environmental impacts. 1. Earth Potential Impacts Fashion Island is currently developed as a regional shopping mall. Portions of existing structures and parking lots would be demolished to accommodate the proposed addition, therefore some demolition, excavation and grading would be required. No significant landforms would be altered by the.project. There are no known active faults in the immediate vicinity of this project although numerous faults underlie the Southern California region,therefore the project would be subject to groundshaking during earthquakes. If unstable soil conditions exist where new structures are proposed, remedial earthwork may be required prior to construction. Environmental Analysts Chcourst Explanations 1 Fashion Island Expansion '�/ Soil erosion could occur during grading and construction if appropriate erosion control methods are not followed. Mitigation The City Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC Sec. 15.04.140) contains requirements for geotechnical evaluation and erosion control methods to ensure that any future grading is done in such a manner as to minimize the potential for erosion or unstable conditions. Compliance with Building Code structural requirements would ensure that buildings are designed to withstand expected levels of groundsbaking during earthquakes. No additional mitigation is required. Level of Significance Compliance with the requirements of the Excavation and Grading Code and Building Code would reduce potential impacts below the level of significance. 2. Air Potential Impacts The size of the proposed project exceeds the threshold of potential significance established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), therefore the City retained Mestre, Greve and Associates to prepare a detailed air quality assessment. The results of that study are summarized below. The full report is available for review in the Planning Department and is incorporated herein by reference. Construction Impacts: During the course of construction pollutants from machinery, delivery trucks, and workers' vehicles would be released. In addition, dust would be generated by earthmoving and construction operations. The emissions calculations assumed that a scraper, tractor and water truck would all be running at the same time continuously for 8 hours every day. As summarized in the following table, the air quality assessment determined that construction emissions would be below the SCAQMD thresholds of potential significance. Environmental Analysis Checklist Faplanstim 2 Fashion Island Expandon Table 1 Construction EmIssIons Projected Emissions ' Threshold (Pounds/day) (Pounds/day) Carbon 40 550 monoxide (CO) Reactive organic 6 75 gasses (ROG), Nitrogen oxides 76 100 (NOx) Particulates 140 150 (PM10) Sulfur oxides 7 150 (Sox) Operational Impacts The long-range air emissions estimates for the project are summarized in the following table. Table 2 Operational Emissions Projected Emissions Threshold (Pounds/day) (Pounds/day) Carbon monoxide 617 550 (CO) Reactive organic 29 55 gasses (ROG) Nitrogen oxides 74 55 (NOx) Particulates (PM10) 11 150 Sulfur oxides (SOx) 6 150 As indicated in this table, estimated total project emissions before mitigation would exceed the SCAQMD recommended threshold of significance for carbon monoxide Envisonmental Aaelysts Checklist Ezplanstiooa 3 Fashion Island Fxpandon R and nitrogen oxides, therefore additional measures to reduce emissions would be appropriate. A"hot spot"analysis was also prepared for two key intersections where traffic studies indicate project-related carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations would be likely to be greatest (Jamboree/San Joaquin and MacArthur/San Miguel). This analysis determined that projected CO levels for the year 2010 with the project would not exceed either the 1-hour standard of 20 ppm or the 8-hour standard of 9 ppm, and would represent an improvement current conditions due to an expected reduction in ambient CO concentrations. There are no other known operational characteristics of the project that would . involve such things as odors or toxic materials that could adversely affect air quality. Miti atp, ion Construction impacts: All grading activities are required to comply with the dust suppression provisions of the City's Grading and Excavation Code (NBMC Sec. 15.04.140) and AQMD Rule 403. Examples of practices required under these regulations include the following: • Site watering and washing of equipment before leaving the site • Application of chemical soil stabilizers to construction areas The report prepared by the City's air quality consultant recommended 22 mitigation measures to address the potential construction impacts of the project. Those mitigation measures will apply to the project. In addition, the following mitigation measure would substantially reduce air quality impacts during construction. 1. Prior to issuance of any grading or building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate to the Planning Department and Building Department that construction operations shall utilize methods to reduce pollutant emissions to the greatest extent feasible. Such methods may include, but may not be limited to, the following.- a) Use of low-emission construction equipment b) Ride share program and' incentives for construction employees c) Suspend grading operations during fist and second stage smog alerts d) Maintain construction equipment with properly tuned engines Environmental Analysis Checklist Explanations 4 Fashion Island Expansion N*D' e) Use of low-sulfur fuel forstationary construction equipment fl Use of on-site power instead of portable generators g) Coordinate construction operations to minimize traffic interference Operational impacts Potential operational air quality impacts due to additional traffic would be partially mitigated through reductions in vehicular travel required by AQMD Regulation 15 and the City's Transportation Demand Management Ordinance (NBMC Chapter 20.08). The report prepared by the City's air quality consultant recommended 14 mitigation measures to address the potential long-term impacts of the project. Those measures will apply to the project. The following additional mitigation measure is recommended to further reduce long-term impacts to air quality. 2. Prior to issuance of any building permit the applicant shall demonstrate to the Planning Department and Building Department that all feasible methods of reducing vehicular travel and air emissions have been incorporated into the design and operation of the project. Examples of such methods may include, but may not be limited to, the following: a) Provision of safe bicycle circulation routes, secure bicycle storage and shower facilities for employees b) Incorporation of energy-efficient design that complies with or exceeds Title 24 requirements c) Provide priority parking and charging ports for electric vehicles d) Provision of rideshare and transit incentives for employees AOMP Conformance: Given the financial uncertainties of both the residential and commercial markets the City is taking selective actions, whenever and wherever possible, to adjust its land use patterns, consistent with the intent of the AQMP, to contribute to regional goals and maintain fiscal stability. The project is within an established regional commercial center with a transit center and active City supported transportation management association. It is surrounded by major transportation routes that offer transit service and bike trails. This project,consistent with the intent of the AQMP,intensifies an existing commercial node within walking distance of existing residential development, a transit facility, and transit service. When considered along with other actions taken by the City to redesignate non- residential land ,uses to residential land uses the emerging land use pattern is consistent with regional goals. Environmental Analysts Checklist ExPianatio" 5 Fashion island Expansioo �� Level of Significance It is not possible to precisely quantify the reduction in emissions achieved my most mitigation measures, therefore a qualitative judgement by the Lead Agency is required to determine whether the project would exceed the threshold of significance. The City finds that compliance with standard requirements and the recommended mitigation measures would reduce the direct impacts of this project below the level of significance. This finding is based on the following facts: 1. The thresholds of significance suggested by the AQMD are derived from point source (e.g., smokestacks) emissions criteria. It is inappropriate to use point source emissions standards to evaluate the significance of mobile source emissions, wbich are dispersed over a broad area and bear little resemblance to emissions from industrial sources. 2. Emissions during the construction period would not exceed the threshold of significance suggested by the AQMD. 3. The proposed project is an expansion of an existing regional commercial center with a high level of transit service and an existing transportation management association. As further growth occurs in the region, expansion of existing centers such as Fashion Island would . enhance trip reduction efforts as compared to development of new centers without existing transit and trip reduction infrastructure. In addition, the expansion of an existing center would foster the consolidation of shopping trips rather than adding additional trips to the road network,which is consistent with the directives of the AQMP. 4. The recommended mitigation measures would enhance current trip reduction programs through the provision of additional incentives for transit use,encouragement of alternative modes of transportation such as bicycling, and provision of incentives for reduced emissions vehicles such as electric cars, all of which would substantially reduce the long- term emissions resulting from the project. On the basis of these facts, the City finds that there is no substantial evidence that the proposed project, as mitigated, may result in a significant long-range air quality impact. On a cumulative basis, further development in the Southern California region is expected to result in an increase in air pollutant emissions. The EIR prepared for the City's 1988 Comprehensive General Plan Amendment concludes that implementation of the General Plan,together with growth in other areas,would have a significant adverse cumulative impact on air quality. In approving that General Plan Amendment the City Council adopted findings and a statement of overriding Environmental Analysis Checklist P.zplenations Fashion lsland Expansion !2 considerations regarding cumulative air quality impacts as required by CEQA. Those findings state that there are specific economic, social and other benefits that clearly outweigh the significant environmental impacts of future development as described in the General Plan. The proposed Fashion Island expansion would contribute incrementally to the increase in air emissions but would itself have no direct significant impact nor add significantly to the cumulative condition. Copies of the 1988 General Plan EIR and City Council findings (Resolution No. 88-100) are available for review in the Planning Department,City Hall,3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach. 3. Water Potential Impacts Construction impacts: Potential sources of water contaminants include soil erosion, spillage or leakage of fuel and oil from construction equipment, and construction debris which could be washed into the ocean or Newport Bay via the storm drain system. Operational impacts: After completion of the project,pollutants from parking areas, streets and driveways (such as coolant, oil and grease drippings), and fertilizers and pesticides from landscaped areas could be washed into surface waters. The project would ,not directly affect any natural drainage patterns or bodies of water. Mitigation Construction impacts: All grading activities are required to comply with the erosion control provisions of the City's Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC Sec, 15.04.140). In,addition, the following mitigation measure is recommended. 3. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit the applicant shall demonstrate to the Planning and Building departments that all appropriate structural and non-structural best management practices will be incorporated into the project as required by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Drainage Area Management Plan. Operational impacts: Potential operational impacts will be mitigated through cdmpliance with the Excavation and Grading Code and the NPDES requirements contained in Mitigation Measure #3. Level of Significance The requirements of the Excavation and Grading Code and the recommended Environmental Analysis Checklist nsplaaations 7 Fashion Uland Exi anion �Q, ul).' mitigation measure would minimize pollutant runoff and would reduce potential impacts below the level of significance. 4. Plant Life Potential impacts The proposed site is located in a developed area of the City and the project would not affect any natural vegetation. Mitigation No mitigation is required. Level of significance No significant impacts would be anticipated. S. Animal Life Potential Impacts The project is located in an urbanized area of the community and no significant impact to wildlife would be anticipated. Mitigation No mitigation is required. Level of Significance No significant impacts would be anticipated. 6. Noise Potential Impacts The project would generate an increase in ambient noise levels both during construction and after project completion. In order to evaluate the magnitude of the increase in noise levels the City retained Mestre, Greve & Associates to prepare a detailed noise analysis. The results of that analysis are summarized below, The project is not located within an aircraft overflight noise impact area, and is not considered a noise-sensitive use. Construction Impacts: Existing ambient noise levels would be increased during Environmental Analysis Checklist Explanations 8 Fashion Island Expansion �} 1 N 1'1 construction period. Any construction activity would be required to comply with the noise limitations in the City's Noise Ordinance (NBMC Chapter 10.28) and would be restricted to the hours of 7:00 a.m: to 6:30 p.m. weekdays and 8:00 am. to 6:00 p.m.Saturdays.No construction that produces loud noise is permitted on Sundays or holidays. Operational Impacts: Operational noise impacts would result primarily from traffic generated by the project. The project would add about 6064 average daily trips to the street network at full operation. Since traffic noise levels are proportional to volume, some increase in ambient noise levels would be expected to occur adjacent to roadways serving Fashion Island. Table 2 of the noise study contains estimates of the traffic-related noise increases that would be expected along each affected roadway segment after construction of the proposed expansion. All of these increases are estimated to be 0.5 dB or less. Table 3 of the noise study compares projected noise levels at General Plan buildout with and without the project. Noise increases attributable to the project are estimated to be no greater than 0.3 dB on any affected roadway segment. Mitigation The hours of construction operations established by the Noise Ordinance would substantially reduce .potential impacts to noise-sensitive uses in the area during construction. No other mitigation measures are proposed. Level of Significance Existing restrictions on construction hours, combined with the temporary nature of construction noise, would reduce construction noise impacts below the level of significance. In community noise assessment,,changes in noise levels greater than 3 dB are often identified as significant,while changes less than 1 dB are not discernable to residents. In the range between 1 dB and 3 dB, residents who are very sensitive to noise may perceive a slight change. Since the traffic-generated noise increase associated with this project is projected to be less than 1 dB in all areas, no significant direct project impacts would be expected. On a cumulative basis, increased traffic resulting from planned development in the Southern California region is expected to result in a substantial increase in noise levels adjacent to major roadways,some of which will exceed General Plan standards for noise-sensitive land uses. The tIR prepared for the City's 1988 Comprehensive General Plan Amendment concludes that implementation of the General Plan, together with growth in other areas, would have a significant adverse cumulative impact on noise levels along many roadways in the city. In approving that General Environmental Analysis Checklist RVIanatiooc 9 Fashion island EXPnsion (�0 Plan Amendment the City Council adopted findings and a statement of overriding considerations regarding cumulative noise impacts as required by CEQA. Those findings state that there are specific economic, social and other benefits that clearly outweigh the significant environmental impacts of future development as described in the General Plan. The proposed Fashion Island expansion would contribute incrementally to the increase in noise levels, but would have no direct significant impact. Copies of the 198&General Plan EIR and City Council findings (Resolution No. 88-100) are available for review in the Planning Department, City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach. 7. Light and Glare Potential Impacts The proposed project could produce light and glare that could adversely affect nearby residential properties if not properly designed. The primary external light would consist of decorative lighting features around buildings, directional signs and security lighting as required. Mitigation The following mitigation measure is recommended. 4. Prior to the issuance of any building permit the applicant shall demonstrate to the Building 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 residential uses The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Architect or Electrical Engineer, with a letter from the Architect or Engineer stating that, in his or her opinion, this requirement has been satisfied Level of Significance The recommended mitigation measure would ensure that any exterior lighting is designed such that potential impacts from nuisance glare would not be significant. 8. Land Use Potential Impacts The site is located within Newport Center and is currently designated for Retail and Service Commercial use in the City's General Plan Land Use Element. A General Plan amendment and Planned Community amendment are proposed to increase the development entitlement for Fashion Island by 266,000 square feet. Since this project would allow uses similar to the existing regional mall, no significant land use Environmental Analysis ChecWist Explanations 10 Fashion Island Expansion i conflicts would be anticipated. The proposed General Plan and Planned Community amendments would eliminate any conflicts with these documents. This project is located outside the Coastal Zone and approval of a Coastal Development Permit is not required. Mitigation Since the proposed use is inconsistent with the existing General Plan and Planned Community regulations, the following mitigation measure is required. S. Prior to issuance of a building permit for any expansion, a General Plan amendment and Planned Community amendment shall be approved to increase the development entitlement in Fashion Island to be consistent with the building permit application. Level of Significance Compliance with the required mitigation measure would eliminate any significant impacts. 9. Natural Resources Potential impacts The use of water, electricity, motor vehicle and construction equipment fuels and natural gas would increase incrementally as a result of this project. Mitigation No mitigation is recommended. Level of significance No significant impacts would be anticipated: 10. Risk of Accident Potential impacts No known toxic or hazardous materials would be used or stored on the site,therefore the proposed expansion would not be expected to present the potential for a public health and safety hazard. Environmental Analysis Ch"Wicl Esplawlions 11 Fashion Island Espndw t/ Nti" Mitigation No mitigation is required. level of significance No significant impacts would be anticipated. 11. Population Potential impacts The proposed project would be expected to result in an increase of approximately 600-700 employees in Fashion Island based on a rate of 1 employee per 450-500 square feet of floor area. Some portion of these employees would be expected to reside in Newport Beach. Mitigation No mitigation is proposed. Level of significance No significant impacts would be anticipated. 12. Housing Potential impacts The increase in employment associated with the project would be expected to result in a corresponding increase in housing demand, especially in the low-wage retail and service categories. MitNation It is expected that few of the new jobs created by the Fashion Island expansion would be held by heads of household, but rather would be filled by second wage-earners, students and retired people. As a result,very little additional housing demand would be expected to occur. However, the City has a variety of programs in its Housing Element to increase the supply of housing, particularly for low income persons and families. These programs provide for a 20%production of affordable housing units at low income levels, assisted housing and density bonuses. The City has never' granted less than a 509o' density bonus,has used the.majority of it's entitlement funds to assist the development of low income housing and has taken many actions to convert land designated for non-residential uses to residential uses. Recently the City initiated another General Plan amendment to redesignate approximately'100 acres Environmental Analysis Checklist Explanation$ 12 Fashion Island Expansion �''� of land from employment-generating use to residential use. Level of significance The increase in housing demand associated with the project is not considered to be significant. 13. Transportation/Parldng The following discussion is based on a traffic study prepared by Austin-Foust Associates under the direction of the City Traffic Engineer. A copy of the complete report is available for review at the Planning Department and is incorporated herein by reference. Potential Impacts Circulation system impacts: The traffic study evaluated both short-range and long- range impacts of the project. The short-range analysis followed the procedures required by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (NBMC Chapter 15.40). The TPO analysis determined that additional traffic generated by the proposed expansion would exceed 1%of the peak period volume of 5 intersections during the am.period and 15 intersections during the ph.period,therefore a detailed Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis was prepared for each of these intersections. The ICU analysis determined that none of the 5 intersections studied for the,am. period would exceed Level of Service (LOS) "D". Of the 15 intersections evaluated during the p.m. period, two would exceed LOS "D" based on the current roadway configuration (MacArthur/San Miguel and MacArthur/San Joaquin Hills Road). Planned improvements to MacArthur Boulevard would mitigate both of these intersections of LOS "D" or better. These improvements are expected to be in.place before construction of the proposed Fashion Island expansion. The long-range analysis determined that traffic volumes at 5 intersections would be increased by more than 1%, but all of these would remain at acceptable service levels (i.e., LOS IV or better). Parking impacts: 'The circulation study determined that the proposed, expansion would result in the need for approximately 900 additional.parking spaces during,the peak holiday season and during occasional special events. The proposed revision to the Planned Community,parking regulations would provide on-site parking at the rate df 3 spaces per 1000 square feet of floor area, with a total of 4 spaces per 1060 square feet including peak period off-site parking. Mitigation Circulation system: The following measures would mitigate potential circulation Environmental Analysis Checklist EVILU6006 13 Fashion island Expansion. Q system impacts: 6. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit the applicant shall obtain confirmation from the City Traffic Engineer that the planned improvements to MacArthur Boulevard assumed in the TPO study will be installed prior to project occupancy. Parkin • The required additional parking spaces may be provided through one or more of the following methods. • Parking lot re-striping including additional compact spaces • Construction of parking structure(s) on existing surface lots • Implementation of an off-site parking and shuttle program for employees • Provision of on-street parking on Newport Center Drive • Reduced demand through TDM and parking management programs The following mitigation measure would ensure that potential parking impacts are mitigated. 7. a. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit for the expansion, a parking plan acceptable to the City Traffic Engineer and the Police Department shall be submitted by the applicant. The plan shall address the number and size of required spaces, parking lot re-striping signage (both vehicular and pedestrian), traffic contro4 and parking area security (e-g., lighting) so as to minimize illegal parking congestion and idling during seasonal peak periods. b. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the expansion, the parking control plan shall be implemented and approved by the City Traffic Engineer. Level of Significance The recommended mitigation measures would reduce direct project impacts below the level of significance. On a cumulative basis, increased traffic resulting from planned development in the Southern California region is expected to result in a continuation of traffic congestion that exceeds General Plan standards at many locations, although planned roadway improvements will substantially reduce the number of intersections experiencing problems. The EIR prepared for the City's 1988 Comprehensive General Plan Amendment concludes that implementation of the General Plan, together with growth in other areas, would have a significant adverse cumulative impact on congestion levels at several locations in the city. In approving that General Plan Amendment the City Council adopted findings and a statement of overriding Environmental Analysis Checklist Explanations 14 Fashion Island Expansion considerations regarding cumulative traffic impacts as required by CEQA. 'Those findings state that there are specific economic, social and other benefits that clearly outweigh the significant environmental impacts of future development as described' in the General Plan. The proposed Fashion Island expansion would contribute incrementally to the increase in traffic levels, but would have no direct significant impacts. Copies of the 1988 General Plan EIR and City Council findings (Resolution No. 88-100) are available for review in the Planning Department, City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach. 14. Public Services Potential impacts With the exception of the drainage deficiency discussed in Section 16, there are sufficient public or governmental services that serve the area and the project would not create a significant additional demand for these services. Mitipation No mitigation is proposed. Uvel of significance No significant impacts would be anticipated. 15. Energy Potential impacts No significant increase in the use of energy is anticipated. Mithiation No mitigation is proposed. Level of significance No significant impacts would be anticipated. 16. Utilities and Service Systems Potential Impacts The existing storm drainage system is inadequate to convey runoff from existing development in the area. The proposed expansion would contribute to an incremental increase in surface runoff that would exacerbate this existing deficiency. FAMronmenul Analysis ChcMist Explanation 15 Pashion Wand ncpaa W tj ��° If restaurants are included in the project grease could be introduced into the sanitary sewer system, which could create maintenance problems. No other significant alteration or expansion of existing utility systems would be anticipated as a result of the proposed development. Mitigation Preliminary engineering studies indicate that an additional storm drain of approximately 100-inch diameter needs to be constructed parallel to the existing El Paseo storm drain to accommodate projected stormwater flows. The existing outfall structure into Newport Bay is adequate to handle this additional drain. The following mitigation measure would address this deficiency. 8. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit the City Engineer shall verify that adequate capacity exists in the storm drain system to serve the development. The potential problem associated with grease from restaurants is addressed by the Food Establishment Grease Disposal Code(NBMC Chapter 14.30),which establishes requirements to minimize the introduction of grease into the sewer system. Level of Significance Existing Code requirements and the recommended mitigation measure would mitigate potential impacts below the level of significance. 17. Human Health Potential Impacts The proposed project is not anticipated to utilize hazardous materials on the site, therefore no adverse effects on human health would be anticipated. Mitigation No mitigation is proposed. Level of Significance No significant impacts would be anticipated. Environmental Analysis Checklist Fxplanations 16 Fashion Island EVanslon 18. Aesthetics Potential Impacts The proposed project would result in a visual change to Fashion Island as a result of the expansion into existing parking lot areas. No significant adverse view impacts would be anticipated due to existing commercial and high-rise development in the vicinity. MitigAtion Compliance with the provisions of the City's Zoning Code regarding the project's design, signs, landscaping and other aesthetic features of the site would ensure that no significant aesthetic effects would result from the project. Level of Significance No significant impacts would be anticipated. 19. Recreation Potential Impacts The quality and quantity of recreational activities would not be impacted by the project. Mitigation No mitigation is proposed. Level of Significance No significant impacts would be anticipated. 20. Cultural Resources Potential Impacts The project site is located in an area where archaeological and paleontological resources have been discovered in the past and may be expected to exist on this site. As a result, the following mitigation measure requiring compliance with Council Policies K 5 and K 6 regarding archaeological and paleontological surveys and recovery of resources is recommended. Envltonmentat Analysis Checklist Explanations 17 Fashion Island Expansion �/� • Mitigation The following mitigation measure would ensure compliance with existing policies regarding the protection of archaeological and paleontological resources. 9. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall demonstrate to the Planning Department that the project will comply with Council Policies K-S and K-6 regarding, archaeological and paleontological resource investigation, surveillance and recovery. Level of Significance The recommended mitigation measure would ensure that no significant impacts would occur. Mandatory Findings of Significance 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. The project would contribute incrementally to cumulative impacts in the areas of traffic, noise and air quality, but would have no direct significant impacts. 4. There are no known substantial adverse affects on human beings that would be caused by the proposed project. f.\...\IOHN-D\FASH-ISL\NF.G-DF.G2 - j Environmental Analysis Checklist I:cptanations 18 Fashion Island Expansion c1 SEW PORT • • . * - z e CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 92658 8915 C741FOft Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of The Irvine Company for General Plan Amendment 94-2(B), Amendment No.811,Traffic Study No. 95, and the acceptance of an environmental documention on property located at Fashion Island, Newport Center. Request to increase the development limit to allow for the construction of a maximum of 309,550 square feet of retail space (GPA 94-2(B) and Amendment No. 811), approve the development pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, and establish parking requirements for the development. This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that a Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in conjunction 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 the present intention of the City to accept the Negative Declaration and supporting documents. 'his 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 supporting documents are available for public review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92663 (714) 644-3225. - Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the 12St11 day of Qctober• 1994, at the hour of 2LU p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport 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 hearing. For information call (714) 644-3200. Tod W. Ridgeway, Secretary, Planning Commission, City of Newport Beach. NOTE: The expense of this notice is paid from a filing fee collected from the applicant. , 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach 'D� �1_Economics_Research Associates �� Af7ihated v.•rth Drivers Jonas Los Angeles San Francisco San Diego Chicago Washington,D.C. London ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED FASHION ISLAND EXPANSION IN NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OCTOBER 1994 ERA PROJECT NO.11242 10990 Wilshire Boulevard,Suite 1600,Los Angeles,California 90024 (310)477.9585 Telex:857661 (ECON RES LA) Fax:(310)478.1950 E .I�i i TABLE OF CONTENTS Section page I INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 1 11 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H- 1 Market Area Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Demographic Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Current Retail Environment . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . II- 2 Sales Impact Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II- 2 III TRADE AREA DEFINITION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III- 1 Trade Area Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III- 1 Demographic Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I1I- 2 IV COMPETITIVE ENVIRONMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV- 1 Orange County Regional Shopping Centers . . . . . . . . . IV- 1 Newport Beach Retail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV- 6 V POTENTIAL COMPETITIVE IMPACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V- 1 Orange County Retail Sales Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V- 1 Regional Sales Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V- 4 Sales Impact Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,. V-11 r ii GIaZ LIST OF TABLES Number Page II- 1 SALES IMPACT ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H- 4 III- 1 DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS, 1990 Census . . . . III- 3 III- 2 HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED POPULATION BY REGIONAL AREA, 1970-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III- 4 IV- 1 CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV- 2 IV- 2 DISTRIBUTION OF RETAIL SQUARE FOOTAGE . . . . . . IV- 7 IV- 3 RETAIL SALES CHARACTERISTICS BY AREA . . . . . . . IV- 8 IV- 4 EATING/DRINKING SALES CHARACTERISTICS . . . . . . IV- 9 V- 1 ANNUAL TAXABLE SALES BY CATEGORY ORANGE COUNTY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V- 2 V- 2 1992 TAXABLE RETAIL SALES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V- 3 V- 3 TAXABLE RETAIL STORE SALES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V- 5 V- 4 HISTORICAL TAXABLE RETAIL SALES . . . . . . . . . . . . V- 6 V- 5 HISTORICAL TAXABLE RETAIL SALES . . . . . . . . . . . . V- 7 V- 6 REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER SALES PER SQUARE FOOT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V- 9 V- 7 REGIONAL CENTER MARKET SHARE . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-10 V- 8 SALES IMPACT ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-13 ii Section I INTRODUCTION Economics Research Associates (ERA) was retained by the City of Newport Beach in August 1994 to assess the potential economic impact of the proposed expansion of Fashion Island, a regional shopping center currently encompassing about 1.3 million square feet of space. Specifically, ERA is to assess the potential competitive impact which may occur between the expansion and several existing commercial villages identified within the City. The areas identified are: Corona del Mar, Balboa Island (Marine Avenue), Mariner's Mile, Old Newport Boulevard, Cannery Village, McFadden Square, Central Balboa, and West Newport. The city is currently processing a proposal to expand Fashion Island by 310,000 square feet. At this time, the development plan includes an upscale retail anchor encompassing 240,000 square feet with smaller retail shops comprising the remaining space. The city has also requested a review of the potential economic impact if the expansion proposal did not include the upscale anchor. In conducting this analysis, ERA utilized base data available from the city supplemented by field research to evaluate the existing retail inventory of the eight commercial villages and to assess their degree of competitiveness with the.regional center. Utilizing demographic and historical retail sales data, the purchasing power of the local trade area was evaluated. The potential impact on sales at the eight retail concentrations was then assessed taking into account the location of the existing centers, their, distance'from Fashion Island and the comparability, quality, and market orientation of current retail tenants. This report is presented in five sections. Following this Introduction, Section II presents a summary of our principal findings and conclusions. Section III defines the primary trade area for Fashion Island and presents demographic characteristics of the area. Section IV describes the eight retail areas identified by the city for analysis, evaluates the current retail environment in the city, and considers present retail trends throughout Orange County, and Southern California. Section V assesses the proposed Fashion Island expansion and evaluates the potential economic impact which may occur. I-1 Section II SUMMARY OF FINDINGS The following is a surnmary of principal findings regarding the proposed expansion of Fashion Island and the potential economic impact on other commercial districts identified within the City of Newport Beach. MARKET AREA DEFINITION Fashion Island, with about 1.3 million square feet of space, is presently the third largest regional shopping center in Orange County. According to The Irvine Company, residents from the Newport Beach-Irvine area account for an estimated 35 percent of the Fashion Island customer base with 45 percent from other Orange County. The balance (20 percent) represents out-of-area customers, including other Southern California as well as visitors. Based on this information and taking into account the location and strength of competing shopping centers, the primary trade area for Fashion Island is defined as a five-mile radius. We estimate that about 50 percent of sales are generated by residents from this primary trade area. DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS Orange County is one of the most affluent customer markets in the United States. Data for the 5-mile trade area of Fashion Island reflect income characteristics slightly above the county overall with a median household income of $46,900 compared to $45,900. The median household income for the City of Newport Beach which represents approximately one-third of the primary trade area, is $60,400. H-1 IDS C� m � 6 CURRENT RETAIL ENVIRONMENT The retail market today is very competitive and in a state of flux given recent merger/acquisition activity, the introduction and success of large value retailers, along with a decline in retail sales growth. Between 1984 and 1989, sales at Fashion Island increased in real terms 3.8 percent annually. Sales of comparison goods countywide increased 5.3 percent annually with,all retail increasing 3.3 percent during the same time period. From 1990 to 1992, sales at Fashion Island declined 5.3 percent per year while for the county as a whole, comparison goods declined 3.4 percent and total retail experienced an annual decline of 5.5 percent per year. There is just under 4 million square feet of retail space inventory in the City of Newport Beach. The eight commercial districts which are the subject of this study range in size from West Newport with 30,100 square feet to Corona del Mar with 356,000 square feet of retail space. Combined, the eight areas encompass about 1.3 million square feet, or about 32 percent of the city's total inventory. Total retail sales generated in these eight areas was $190 million in 1993 which represents about 18-percent of total sales generated citywide. Mariner's Mile and Corona del Mar account for about 60 percent of the $190 million, or about 15 percent of total city sales. Fashion Island retail sales represent about 23 percent of total city sales, with all other city retail accounting for the remaining 59 percent. SALES IMPACT ANALYSIS The existing regional centers provide varying degrees of competition'to Fashion Island and will be the main source from which the proposed expansion will generate its sales via a reallocation or transfer of sales within the general marketplace. This transfer effect typically occurs when a mall opens or expands and sales dollars are transferred to the new mall from its competition. Quantification of the sales transferred can vary and is based on many factors including merchandise mix,project scale and design,target audience,established shopping patterns, road access and travel time. 11-2 IOU I Table II-1 summarizes the estimated sales impact from the proposed Fashion Island expansion. Sales generated by the expansion are projected to be $75 million. We estimate that about two-thirds (nearly$50 million) of the projected sales performance will derive from existing regional retail centers. The next largest component comprising the projected expansion sales performance is estimated to be from out-of-area sales. We believe that with a strong anchor, this market share will increase from its current 20 percent to 24 percent as strong anchors typically draw from a much larger market area. Remaining sales of about$10 million will derive from other Orange County retail including other Orange County regional centers and noncenters as well as Newport Beach retail including the eight commercial districts and other city retail. Impact on the eight commercial villages combined is estimated to be about $3 million. Based on a sales level of$190 million in 1993, this estimated competitive impact equals a 1.5 percent reduction in current sales levels. Partially offsetting the negative impacts will be the positive competitive effects that may be reached by attracting new volumes of shoppers to Newport Beach. It is estimated that 10 to 20 percent in additional sales could be expected outside the expansion. It is reasonable to expect that other Fashion Island tenants will enjoy the bulk of these new sales dollars, say in the vicinity of 75 percent with the remaining 25 percent ($2.5 million) spread over remaining Newport Beach, On a fair share basis, this implies that $1.25 million will go to the eight commercial districts thereby reducing the estimated competitive impact by nearly one-half. Additionally, population growth in south Orange County, and in particular the Newport Coast region, although not sufficient to fully support the expansion and result in net,retail sales growth, will further alleviate the economic impact estimated above. In summary, we estimate that well over 90 percent of sales at the proposed expansion would represent net new sales drawn to Newport Beach, and that the competitive impact on local stores will be slight. Rather, the proposed expansion will compete largely with other regional centers in Orange County. It is important to recognize that retail store types are 11-3 �01 Table II-1 SALES IMPACT ANALYSIS Miles to Sales %Loss Loss in %of EL 0005I to ETnan, ,Sala Impact Orange County Regionals Fashion,Island -- $ 234,000 0.001/0 $ - South Coast Plaza/ Crystal Court 5 732,300 4.00% 29,292 39.0% Brea Mall 19 304,000 2.00% 6,080 8.1% MainPlace/SantaAna 10 255,000 2.00% 5,100 6.8% Westminster Mall 11 181,200 1.00% 1,812 2.4% Huntington Center 10 157,000 1.00% 1,570 2.1% Laguna Hills Mall 10 156,000 1.00% 1,560 2.1% Mission Viejo Mall 13 140,400 1.00% 1,404 ,LMQ Subtotal $ 2,159,900 2.17% S 46,818 62.3% Out-of-Area(1) $ 18,000 23.9% Newport Beach Local Corona del Mar 1.0 $ 55,048 2.00% $ 1,101 1.5% Mariners Mile 2,0 65,951 2:00% 1,319 1.8% Old Newport Boulevard 3.0 5,711 1.00% 57 0.1% West Newport 4.5 3,547 1.00% 35 0.0% Balboa Island 1.0 10,774 1,00% 108 0.1% Central Balboa 1.5 15,379 1.00% 154 0.2% Me Fadden Square 3.0 19,025 1.00% 190 0.3% Cannery Village 3.0 15,923 1.00o/a 159 DXA Subtotal Newport Beach Local $ 191,359 1.63% $ 3,124 4.2% Other Orange County Retail(2) $ 14,467,935 . 0,05% S 7,234 9_6% Total $ 75,176 100.0% (1) Includes regional centers outside of Orange County and visitor market. (2) Includes other regionals,power,community,neighborhood and non-center retail in Newport Beach and Orange County. Source: Economics Research Associates. �D$ E-S • 0 changing and that Newport Beach will experience that change with or without the introduction of direct competition within its boundaries. If expansion does not occur at Fashion Island, it is likely that this new development will take place elsewhere thereby creating a negative impact on all retail uses within the city. Given the current retail environment, the proposed expansion of Fashion Island would help to ensure the overall center's viability and strengthen its ability to compete effectively within the Orange County marketplace. II-5 �Q� Section III TRADE AREA DEFINITION In order to properly assess current and.near-term regional economic trends, a region of influence, or trade area, is defined for Fashion Island. A description of the trade area and brief overview of resident demographic characteristics are presented in this section. TRADE AREA DEFINITION Fashion Island encompassing 1.3 million square feet of space, is one of 11 conventional regional shopping centers in Orange County. Fashion Island is unique in that it is the only regional not located adjacent to a freeway, and is the only open-air mall in the county. The majority of regionals are located in the northern portion of the county, primarily along the I-5 corridor. Currently, there are only two regionals —Laguna Hills and Mission Viejo — located in south Orange County. Typically a regional shopping center contains one or more full-line department stores and requires a population base of at least 150,000 residents. Based on information provided by The Irvine Company, residents from the Newport Beach-Irvine area account for an estimated 35 percent of the Fashion Island customer base. An estimated 20 percent of the customer base is from 'but of the area," which includes residents from adjoining counties, other parts of the State, as well as the visitor population. The balance of the customer base (45 percent) is from remaining Orange County. From this and considering the location of South Coast Plaza, its closest competitor, the primary trade area for Fashion Island has been defined as a five-mile radius which extends roughly from the Santa Ana River on the north to Laguna Beach on the south and to the San Diego Freeway on the east. We estimate that about 50 percent of Fashion Island sales are generated by residents from this primary market area. III-1 DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS Selected household and income characteristics for Newport Beach and residents within a five-mule radius are presented in Table III-1. Also shown for comparison are data for Orange and Los Angeles Counties. Data for the trade area reflect income characteristics slightly higher than the county overall with a median household income of$46,900 for the five-mile radius compared to $45,900 for the county. The median household income for the City of Newport Beach, which represents approximately one-third of the primary trade area, is $60,400 which is 30 percent higher than the median for Orange County and 70 percent higher than the median for Los Angeles County ($35,000). Population Trends Accelerated commercial and industrial development in the 1970s and 1980s transformed Orange County into a mature urban center, with the population of Orange County expanding dramatically during that time period. As shown in Table 111-2, the county's population grew from 1.4 million in 1970 to over 1.9 million in 1980, representing an annual rate of growth of 3 percent. From 1980 to 1990, another 500,000 persons were added, a growth rate of 2.3 percent annually. The Orange County Forecast Analysis Center forecasts continued population growth through the remainder of the decade albeit at a slightly slower rate. By 2000, the county population is forecast to reach 2.9 million which represents a growth rate of 1.8 percent annually. Future population growth is projected to occur primarily in the south coast and south central portions of the county. Four regional areas —Trabuco, South Coast, El Toro, and Santa Ana Canyon — comprise this area. The population of this area was estimated at 637,000 in 1990 and is forecast to reach 864,000 by 2000. This represents an annual rate of growth of about 3 percent. III-2 1 C� rll • z . Table H1.1 DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS 1990 Census Newport Five-Mile Orange Los Angeles Beach Radius County County Population 66,643 180,355 2,410,556 8,863,164 Number of Households 30,866 74,572 827,066 2,994,343 Household Income Distribution Less than $25,000 17% 23% 23% 35% $25,000-$34,999 10% 13% 13% 15% $35,000-$49,999 14% 17% 19% 18% $50,000-$74,999 19% 19% 23% 17% $75,000+ 40% 280o 22c 15% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% Median Household Income- $60,400 $46,900 $45,900 $35,000 Average Household Income $97,500 $71,100 $75,300 $47,250 Source: City of Newport Beach, Urban Decision Systems, and Economics Research Associates. E-�i� Table HI-2 HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED POPULATION BY REGIONAL AREA 1970-2000 Actual Forecast Regional Area (1) 1970 1980 1990 2000 Trabucw 23,000 95,000 165,249 228,600 South Coast 66,000 134,000 216,671 286,700 Central Coast 134,000 170,000 198,300 244,400 E1 Toro 14,000 52,000 97,167 129,600 Santa Ana •300,000 375,000 487,460 541,200 Fullerton 145,000 168,000 189,792 207,200 Santa Ana Canyon 52,000 116,000 158,357 218,700 Anaheim 312,000 337,000 398,352 459,000 West Coast 232,000 319,000 339,599 374,000 Buena Park 143,000 155,000 159,721 178,500 Total County 1,421,000 1,921,000 2,410,668 2,867,900 Rate of Growth(2) Regional Area (1) 1970-80 1980-90 1990-00 Trabuco 15.2% 5.7% 3.3% South Coast 7.3% 4.9% 2.8% Central Coast 2.4% 1.6% 2.1% El Toro 14.0% 6.5% 2.9% Santa Ana 2.3% 2.7% 1.1% Fullerton 1.5% 1.2% 0.9% Santa Ana Canyon 8.4% 3.2% 3.3% Anaheim 0.8% 1.7% 1.4% West Coast 3.2% 0.6% 1.0% Buena Park 0.8% 0.3% 1.1% Total County 3.1% 2.3% 1.8% (1) As defined by the Southern California Association of Governments. (2) Percent rate of change, compounded. Source: U.S. Dept. of Commerce; Orange County Forecast Analysis Center; and Economics Research Associates. C-I�3 • • a ' +f rf Newport Beach, which is located within the Central Coast Regional Area, was largely developed during the 1960s and 1970s. With the exception of a limited number of in-fill parcels that may be developed-over the coming decade, the Newport Coast area just south of the city represents the final major developing area within the Newport Beach sphere of influence. This unincorporated area of the county encompasses about 10,000 acres of which 7,500 have been designated as permanent open space. The Newport Coast area is entitled for about 2,500 residential units and 2,150 hotel rooms. To date, about 900 residential units/custom lots have been released with about 80 percent sold. An additional 2,500 units are planned for the inland Newport Ridge section resulting in a total population at buildout of about 10,000 persons for the entire area. III-5 Cl'q Section IV COMPETITIVE ENVIRONMENT Orange County is one of the most affluent customer markets in the United States. The ability to attract these potential customers is based on the quality and quantity of retail offerings at shopping centers/districts and their locations. This report section describes the competitive regional centers and the local Newport Beach retail environments as well as general retail trends occurring in Orange County. ORANGE COUNTY REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTERS The retail market today is very competitive and in a state of flux given recent merger/acquisition activity. Further, the introduction and success of large value retailers coupled with a decline in retail sales growth has led to the demise of smaller shop tenants as well as weak department stores. As a result, new planned regional retail centers are very few in number due in part to a lack of commitment by anchors. In response to industry downsizing and the strength of discount retailers, older regional centers are being expanded, renovated, or in a few cases, are redirecting their orientation in an attempt to maintain or improve market share. Table IV-1 identifies the major regional shopping centers in Orange County and indicates their anchors, size and distance to Fashion Island. These centers provide varying degrees of competition to Fashion Island and will be the main source from which the proposed expansion will generate its sales via a reallocation or transfer of sales within the general marketplace. For purposes of analysis, we disregard the fact that consumers total per capita spending may increase as a result of improved retail opportunities. This transfer effect typically occurs when a mall opens or expands and sales dollars are transferred to the new • mall from its competition. In other words, an existing mall will lose a portion of its sales that a new mall gains. The new mall draws both consumers wanting to shop in certain stores IV-1 �-�It • • h T h Table IV-1 CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTERS Distance to Year Area 1992 Sales Sales Per Fashion Js. Center/Location Opened (SoFt) Mal SqR (miles) ,Anchors Fashion Island 1967 1,300.00 $ 234.0 $ 180 -- Robirisons-May,Neiman Marcus, Newport Beach Broadway,I.Magnin South Coast Plaza 1967 2,224.80 $ 640.7 $ 288 5 Bullocks,Nordstrom, Costa Mesa I.Magnin,.Saks Fifth Avenue, Sears Crystal Court 1986 685.00 $ 91.6 $ 134 5 Robinsons-May,Broadway Costa Mesa Brea Mall 1977 1,245.00 $ 304.0 $ 244 19 Nordstrom,Broadway, Brea Robinsons-May(2),Sears MainPlace 1958 929.78 $ 255.0 $ 274 10 Bullocks,Nordstrom, Santa Ana Robinsons-May(2) Westminster Mall 1974 1,095.00 $ 181.2 $ 165 11 Robinsons-May(2), Westminster Sears Huntington Center 1967 940.00 $ 157.0 $ 167 10 Broadway,Montgomery Ward, Huntington Beach JC Penney Laguna Hills Mall 1973 880.00 $ 156.0 $ 177 10 Broadway,JC,Penney, Laguna Hills Sears Mission Viejo Mall 1979 999.39 $ 140.4 $ 140 13 Bullocks,Montgomery Ward, Mission Viejo Robinsons-May(2) Buena Park Mall 1961 1,300.00 $ 124.0 $ 95 15 Sears,Robinsons-May, Buena Park JC Penney Mall of Orange 1971 828:89 $ 111.4 $ 134 14 Broadway,JC Penney, Orange Sears Source: National Research Bureau,Shopping Center Directory. �L • 1 � 4 � • not previously located in the area, and those attracted by the novelty and curiosity associated with new development. Fashion Island and local regional centers of particular significance are described briefly in the following paragraphs. Fashion Island Fashion Island opened with about 850,000 square feet of space in 1967 and was anchored by Robinsons, Broadway, and J.C. Penney. Ten years later, the center was expanded to include Neiman-Marcus, Buffums, and Bullocks Wilshire, and about 150,000 square feet of shop space. In the mid-1980s J.C. Penney closed and was converted to Atrium Court, a 3-story enclosed shopping area with a food court on the bottom level and primarily interior and home furnishing tenants on the upper levels. This conversion actually resulted in a net reduction of gross leasable area of about 60,000 square feet. The last expansion was in 1989 at which time a theater and food court encompassing about 100,000 square feet was constructed. Subsequent to Macy's acquisition of Bullocks,Bullocks Wilshire was converted to I. Magnin. Buffums closed in 1991 and was converted to.house a variety of retail tenants on the upper level with Circuit City located on the lower level. Presently, Fashion Island• encompasses about 1.3 mullion square feet of space with the four anchors accounting for nearly one-half the space (600,000 square feet). Of the remaining space, eating and drinking establishments encompass about 200,000 square feet. Other retail (i.e. apparel, specialty) shops comprises the balance (400,000 square feet) with Circuit City (30,000 square feet) and Barnes & Noble (20,000 square feet) representing the largest tenants. South Coast Plaza/Crystal Court Clearly, South Coast Plaza represents the primary competitor to Fashion Island due to its tenant mix as well as being the closest regional (five miles). Combined, South Coast Plaza and Crystal Court encompass just under 3 million square feet of leasable area with eight anchor department stores accounting for one-half of the space. South Coast Plaza opened in 1967 and is anchored by Bullocks, Bullocks Mens Store, Nordstrom, Saks Fifth IV-3 E�i7 • 6 a T Avenue, Robinsons-May, and Sears. South Coast Plaza has entitlements for up to an i additional 500,000 square feet of space and is reportedly under consideration as a potential site for Bloomingdales. Crystal Court is a freestanding mall located across Bear Street from South Coast Plaza that opened in 1986. ,It is anchored by Robinsons-May and Broadway and encompasses 685,000 square feet. The City of Costa Mesa recently approved a 400,000-square-foot retail and entertainment center located at the southwest corner of Bear Street and South Coast Plaza Drive. The proposal calls for construction of a multi-screen theater (2,500 seats), 45,000 square feet of restaurant space, and 310,000 square feet of retail space comprised primarily of discount retailers. A tenant mix that has preliminarily been mentioned includes Marshalls, Nordstrom Rack, Book Star, Linens & Things, and Best Buy Electronics. If final development plans are approved in a timely manner, construction of the center could begin at the end of this year with opening by late 1995. Main Place/Santa Ana This center is the result of combining two centers — Main Place and Santa Ana Fashion Square — with Bullocks as the only anchor initially. Sales at this center dramatically improved after Robinsons and Nordstrom were added in 1987. The center was expanded further in 1991 with the addition of May Company p y and a theater complex. Subsequent to the Robinsons-Ma Company merger, both stores remain Y P Y g � n open at Main Place with one store housing women's and children's apparel and domestics and the other containing men's apparel, furniture, and electronics. Main Place has about 930,000 square feet of retail space. Brea Mall Although located about 20 miles from Fashion Island, Brea Mall provides some competition given its size and anchors. Brea Mall opened in 1977 with Broadway, May Company, and Sears as anchors. A Nordstrom and Robinsons were added in 1990 expanding IV-4 • the center to its current size of 1.25 million square feet, which is roughly comparable to Fashion Island. In 1993, J.C. Penneys moved into the former Robinsons space with Robinsons-May occupying the May Company store. Laguna Hills Mall Laguna Hills Mall is somewhat competitive with Fashion Island given its location about ten miles to the south,just off I-5. The mall, with just under 900,000 square feet of space and Sears, J.C. Penney, and Broadway anchors, recently completed a renovation program. Mission Vieio Mall Mission Viejo is the only other regional (in addition to Laguna Hills) located in south county. It encompasses nearly 1 million square feet of space and is anchored by Bullocks, Montgomery Wards, and two Robinsons-May (goods have been divided among the stores as was done at MainPlace). Opened in 1979, it is anticipated that the mall will undergo some sort of renovation in the near term however nothing has formally been announced. Other Orange County The most recent regional retail construction in Orange County has been Tustin Marketplace (760,000 square feet) and Anaheim Hills Festival (600,000 square feet), both of which are discount-oriented. Similarly, future projects are dominated by large discount centers. Foothill Towne Center, a proposed 1.3 million square foot open-air center in the Foothill Ranch planned community has signed Wal-Mart, HomeBase, Mervyn's and Target as anchors. Anaheim Plaza, the county's first regional shopping center, is being converted to an open-air discount mall with Ross and recent groundbreaking for a Wal-Mart. J.C. Penneys closed its store recently at The City which reportedly will also be transformed into a discount center. IV-5 NEWPORT BEACH RETAIL Based on data provided by the City of Newport Beach Planning Department, there is just over 4 million square feet of retail space inventory in the City as presented in Table IV-2. A breakdown of square footage and total retail sales generated in 1993 by area is shown in Table IV-3. The largest concentration of space is Fashion Island which accounts for 32 percent of total retail space in the city. Combined, the eight commercial villages also encompass about 1.3 million square feet or 32 percent of total retail space in the city. Community and neighborhood centers account for 14 percent (565,000 square feet) of the total inventory. Smaller centers and other strip/non-center retail space comprise 872,000 square feet or. 22 percent of the city's total inventory. Combined sales for the eight districts was $190 million in 1993 which represents about 18 percent of total retail sales generated citywide. Of the total sales generated by the local areas, Mariner's Mile and Corona del Mar account for about 60 percent of combined sales, or about 15 percent of total city retail sales. Fashion Island retail sales represent 23 percent of total city sales, with all other city retail accounting for the remaining 59 percent. Data regarding square footage and retail sales generated in 1993 by eating and drinking establishments (i.e. restaurants, fast food, etc.) are shown in Table IV-4. Eating and drinking establishments in Fashion Island represent about one-fourth of the city's total inventory, and generated $27 million in sales in 1993 which represents 15 percent of total city. The eight areas•combined represent 44 percent,of the•city's restaurant space inventory and accounted for 46 percent of total sales. Mariner's Mile with about one-half the eating/drinking space inventory (I11,000 square feet) of Fashion Island generated nearly$31 million in sales in 1993 which represented about 17 percent of sales generated citywide. Corona del Mar The Corona del Mar commercial district is defined as the area of East Coast Highway between MacArthur Boulevard and .Poppy Avenue. This district represents the largest non-center shopping district in the city with about 350,000 square feet of space. IV-6 E-��o 0 Table IV-2 DISTRIBUTION OF RETAIL SQUARE FOOTAGE Square Feet Percent Area (000) of City Fashion Island 1,300.0 32% Corona del Mar 355.6 9% Mariner's Mile 287.8 7% Cannery Village 178.6 4% Central Balboa 147.0 4% McFadden Square 121.9 3% Old Newport Boulevard 76.6 2% Balboa Island 71.2 2% West Newport 30.1 1% Two Community Centers 254.9 6% Five Neighborhood Centers 310.8 8%6 Other 870.9 22% Total City 4,005.4 100% Source: Newport Beach Planning Department and Economics Research Associates. 6-ly Table IV-3 RETAIL SALES CHARACTERISTICS BY AREA (1993 Dollars) Total Area 1993 Sales Sales 501 %of City Amount %of City Pe�oFt Fashion Island 1,300,000 32% $ 238,129,400 23% $ 183 Corona del Mar 355,607 9% $ 55,048,400 5% $ 155 Mariners Mile 287,759 7% 65,951,300 6% 229 Old Newport Boulevard 76,552 2% 5,711,100 1% 75 West Newport 30,098 1% 3,546,500 0% 118 Balboa Island 71,228 2% 10,774,000 1% 151 Central Balboa 146,955 4% 15,379,300 1% 105 Mc Fadden Square 121,873 3% 19,025,200 2% 156 Cannery Village 178,581 4% 15,923300 2 --a Subtotal 1,268,653 32% $ 191,359,100 18% $ 151 Balance of City 1,436,600 M% 612,622,500 M 426 Total City 4,005,253 100% $1,042,111i000 100% $ 260 Source: City of Newport Beach Planning and Revenue Departments;and Economics Research Associates. E j2z Table IV-4 EATING/DRINKING SALES CHARACTERISTICS (1993 Dollars) Total Area 1993 Sales Sales S-gFA %of Cl Amount % of City Per Sq Fashion Island 200,000 23% $ 26,995,500 15% $ 135 Corona del Mar 46,901 5% 17,924,800 10% $ 382 Mariners Mile 110,919 12% 30,721,900 17% 277 Old Newport Boulevard 13,360 2% n.a. ma. n.a. West Newport 9,676 1% 1,774,500 1% 183 Balboa Island 20,332 2% 4,285,400 2% 211 Central Balboa 73,309 '8% 7,344,700 4% 100 Mc Fadden Square 75,803 9% 12,626,400 7% 167 Cannery Village 41,364 5ls 7,862,900 4% _190 Subtotal 391,664 44% $ 82,540,600 46% $ 211 Remaining City 295,809 9M° 71,816,500 40% —M Total City 887,473 100% $ 181,352,600 100% $ 204 Note: Information-for Old Newport Boulevard not available due to confidentiality. Source: City of Newport Beach Planning and Revenue Departments;and Economics Research Associates. E�y3 Many of the retail tenants are local-serving and cater to the adjoining residential neighbor- hoods. According to City retail sales tax data, 15 percent of total retail permits are personal services (hair and nail salons, formal wear rental, etc.) and 27 percent are other/specialty (florist,jewelry, art/gifts, second hand stores). Eating and drinking establishments account for 17.percent of total retail outlets and generate about one-third of total retail sales for this area which represents about 10 percent of the eating/drinking sales volume generated citywide. Also characterizing Corona del Mar is the predominance of home furnishing stores including antique dealers,floor coverings,and kitchen and interior design studios. Area retail sales in this category account for about '20 percent of total city home ,furnishing sales. Discussions with several area brokers indicate that the Corona del Mar retail district .is to some extent an incubator for Fashion Island. The rent is much more affordable in Corona del Mar and allows a retail business to establish itself. Once established, a retail tenant may view Fashion Island as an opportunity to either move up to or else as a second location to expand to. Balboa Island The retail district on Balboa Island is along Marine Avenue between Bay Front and Park Avenue. The district is specifically oriented to the tourist trade with primarily specialty retail tenants. The area contains an estimated 70,000 square feet of retail area with about 30 percent (20,000 square feet) of eating/drinking and fast food restaurants. The eating/drinking outlets account for 16 percent of total retail outlets on the island yet generate 40 percent of the area's sales volume. Due to the geographically constrained nature of the island, average shop size is small, typically in the 500- to 1,000-square-foot range. Balboa Island is a destination in and of itself with the retail tenants oriented primarily to the pedestrian traffic with specialty (art,jewelry, souvenirs, etc.) and apparel categories each representing about 30 percent of the outlets on the island. Most of the clothing, boutiques are tourist-oriented, generally offering seasonal merchandise. IV-10 cjO Mariner's Mile Mariner's Mile is a stretch of Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) that is anchored by The Arches restaurant on the west end and extends east to Dover Street. The Specific Plan for this area states that the city desires to encourage "marine service businesses, visitor-serving facilities, and local service retail as well as encouraging a pedestrian orientation of the area." Restaurants and nautical-related uses characterize the area. From City records, retail uses comprise about 290,000 square feet of space with restaurants accounting for about 40 percent of the space. Restaurant pernuts account for about one-third of total permits in this area and generate nearly one-half of total retail sales volume in this area. This is a busy portion of PCH with four traffic lanes plus a middle left turn lane. The degree of automobile traffic and commercial layout preclude a true pedestrian orientation and thus the area as a whole is not considered destination shopping area. However,there are several well-established and renown restaurants located within Mariner's Mile which are destinations in and of themselves. Further, the waterfront location has long attracted marine-related uses including yacht sales, boat supply stores, and charter services. These marine-related uses represent 15 percent of total retail outlets and are estimated to account for about one-third of the area's total sales. Central Balboa Central Balboa is an historic area of the Peninsula bounded by Ocean Front, Adams Avenue, A Street, and Bay Avenue. Several historic landmarks are here including the Balboa Pavilion and Balboa Inn. The area is characterized as the center of marine recreation with the Balboa Pier on one side of the peninsula and the terminus for both Balboa and Catalina Island ferries on the other side. City documents indicate about 147,000 square feet of retail space of which one-half is eating/drinking and fast food establishments that generate about 50 percent of this area's total retail sales volume. Due to its limited access, Central Balboa may also be considered a destination in and of itself. Retail tenants are both local-serving to the adjoining residential neighborhoods as well as catering to seasonal visitors,thus Central Balboa is not directly competitive with Fashion Island. IV-I1 McFadden Square Located at the base of Newport Pier is McFadden Square, a retail enclave of about 122,000 square feet of which 60 percent (76,000 square feet) is eating/drinking and fast food restaurants. This district is oriented to the transient-beach traffic with beachwear, surf shops, and fast food outlets comprising the majority of retail tenants. Also located here are two upscale bed and breakfast inns, Doryman's Inn and Portofino Beach Hotel. Eating/drinking sales account for two-thirds of this area's total retail,sales volume. According to its Specific Plan,McFadden Square is designated as a retail and service commercial area that will provide for "a broad range of coastal-related and visitor-serving commercial uses." Due to the orientation of this district to primarily visitor-serving uses, McFadden Square is not viewed as directly competitive with Fashion Island. Cannery Village This is a unique commercial district located on the upper Balboa Peninsula(bounded by Newport Boulevard, Lafayette Avenue, and 291h and Ust Streets) and anchored by the historic Cannery Restaurant. Approximately 180,000 square feet of commercial space is located here of which about 20 percent (40,000 square feet) is attributed to eating/drinking and fast food establishments. Eating/drinking retail sales account for 50 percent of total sales generated in this area. The area is predominated though by an eclectic mix of interior design (antiques, furniture, art galleries) stores and ship buildingtrepair and other marine-related facilities. For the most part, these tenants are not reliant on, vehicle or pedestrian traffic. Rather, many of these tenants are "destinations" in and of themselves and attract patrons who come for a specific purpose. Further, the City's Specific Plan states that the'Cannery Village area'is intended to serve as "an active pedestrian-oriented specialty retail area with a wide range of visitor-serving,neighborhood commercial and marine-related uses." By virtue of this market orientation, Cannery Village competes with Fashion,Island on a very limited scale. IV-12 �1z6 : Old Newport Avenue Old Newport extends from Pacific Coast Highway north to 15th Street and Costa Mesa city limits. This is a fairly small retail concentration with about 77,000 square feet of space with restaurants accounting for less than 20 percent (13,000 square feet). This area generates the least amount of sales revenue of the eight commercial villages, accounting for less than 1 percent of total city sales volume. For the most part, the retail tenants are neighborhood service-oriented and include dry cleaners, hair salons, travel agency, etc. Interspersed are a mixture of land uses including automobile detailing and repair shops and a boat storage yard as well as several small commercial office buildings. This area faces negligible competition from Fashion Island, rather its primary competition is from 17th and 19th Streets nearby in Costa Mesa. West Newport This is a very small strip retail concentration located on the north side of West Coast Highway between Prospect and Orange, near the border of Huntington Beach. From city Planning Department data, this commercial district encompasses approximately 30,000 square feet of which about one-third is comprised of eating/drinking and fast food establishments. The eating/drinking category accounts for one-half of total sales volume generated in this area. Tenants here are primarily local-serving and include a small market, liquor store, restaurants, and surf shops. This area too accounts for a very small portion (less than 1 percent) of total city retail sales volume. The West Newport commercial district does not compete directly with Fashion Island due to its scale, distance from the regional, and tenant orientation. IV-13 ��Z7 mod • � • T 1 N Section V POTENTIAL COMPETITIVE IMPACT This section of the report assesses the relative markets of Fashion Island and the eight commercial districts in the city within the context of Orange County retail trends. An estimate of impact from the proposed expansion of Fashion,Island is then derived. ORANGE COUNTY RETAIL SALES TRENDS Table V-1 provides taxable retail sales data for Orange County from 1982 to 1992 for comparison shopping goods as well as for all retail stores and retail stores excluding automotive and building materials categories. Comparison shopping goods constitute those retail sales categories (apparel group, department store goods, and specialty merchandise group) which typically account for as much as 80 to 85,percent of sales at regionally-oriented shopping centers. A conversion to constant 1992 dollars is shown in the bottom half of the table to facilitate comparison in measuring historic growth. As shown, there was a real increase (i.e. inflation-adjusted) in spending for comparison goods between 1984 and 1989 of 5.3 percent per year versus 3.3 percent per year for total retail. Since 1990 however, real spending has declined an average of 3.4 percent annually for comparison goods and 5.5 percent per year for all retail goods. Table V-2 provides 1992 (most recent available) per capita retail expenditure information for Newport Beach and Orange County as well, as Los Angeles County and California for comparison. As shown at the bottom of the table, the per capita expenditure level for goods typically acquired at regional centers is $4,159 in Newport Beach which is 65 percent higher than $2;514 for Orange County. This higher than average figure reflects the significant level of regionally-oriented retail activity occurring within the city. It also indicates that the city, as a whole, is attracting a significant amount of retail business from customers residing outside the city's boundaries, a fact which is not surprising considering V-1 Eiji Table V-1 ANNUAL TAXABLE SALES BY CATEGORY Orange County (In Thousands of Current Dollars) 1281 ]283 IM IM 12L7 I= im 199_Q 1221 122Z Apparel S 570,764 S 529,078 S 587,650 S 632,505 S 673,946 S 755,193 $ 940,258 S 1,082,141 S 1,142,821 S 1,152,107 S 1,142,096 General Merchandise 1,271,435 1,456,419 1,648,083 1,867,525 1,979,277 2,258,424 2,353,907 2,488,975 2,525,652 2,480,034 2,603,430 Specialty 1.09002 1334.887 1,601,591 1,724.844 1.736,572 2.084,109 2,292,534 2,567,938 2,661,798 2,676,773 2,626,702 Subtotal S 2,932,881 S 3,320,384 S 3,837,324 S 4,224,874 S 4,389,795 S 5,097,726 S 5,586,699 S 6,139,054 S 6,330,271 S 6,308,914 S 6,372,228 Retail Total $ 9,334,029 $10,506,576 S 11,978,869 $13,007,407 S 13,720,814 S 15,036,523 S 16,105,905 S 17,447,549 S 17,486,433 S 16,721,070 S 16,819,194 Retail Total Less: Automotive Building Material S 6,005,449 $ 6,667,148 S 7,471,474 S 8,072,273 $ 8,478,939 $ 9,474,924 S 10,198,429 S 11,079,898 S 11,425,623 S 11,461,075 S 11,600,877 In Constant 1992 Dollars Comparison Goods S 4,415,900 $ 4,908,539 $ 5,426,332 S 5,709,816 S 5,747,140 S 6,399,459 $ 6,703,124 S 7,009,910 S 6,824,023 $ 6,536,463 S 6,372,228 Total Retail S 14,053,805 S 15,531,921 $16,939,231 S 17,579,199 S 17,963,353 S 18,876,184 S 19,324,448 S 19,922,572 $18,850,349 $17,324,164 S 16,819,194 Retail Total Less: Automotive Building Material S 9,042,120 S 9,856,077 S 10,565,357 $10,909,483 S 11,100,666 $11,894,399 S 12,236,444 S 12,651,637 $12,316,805 S 11,874,452 $11,600,877 • Compound Annual Growth 1984-1989 19904992 1982-1992 Comparison Goods 53% -3.4°/a 3.7% Total Retail 33% -5.5% 1.8% Retail Less Auto,Bldg Mat. 3.7% -2.9% 2.5% Source: California State Board ofEqualization and Economics Research Associates. M Table V-2 1992 TAXABLE RETAIL SALES Newport Orange Los Angeles Beach County County California Annual Sales(S000s) Apparel $ 82,484 $ 1,142,096 $ 3,441,472 $ 10,383,844 Depa[tmenCStores 85,546 2,603,430 6,812,391 27,107,738 Specialty 116,464 2:626.702 6,990,219 23.850312 Subtotal S 284,494 $ 6,372,228 $ 17,244,082 $ 61,341,894 Total Retail $ 664,372 $ 16,819,194 $ 48,450,439 $ 179,275,105 Retail Less: Auto,Bldg Mat. $ 546,717 $ 11,600,877 $ 32,867,643 $ 118,571,605 Per Capita Expenditures Population 68,400 2,534,800 9,123,000 31,270,300 Apparel $ 1,206 $ 451 $ 377 $ 332 Department'Stores 1,251 1,027 747 867 Specialty 1,703 1,036 766 763 Subtotal $ 4,159 $ 2,514 $ 11890 $ 1,962 Total Retail $ 9,713 $ 6,635 $ 5,311 $ 5,733 Retail Less: Auto,Bldg,Mat. $ 7,993 $ 4,577 $ 3,603 $ 3,792 Source: California State Board of Equalization;and Economics Research Associates. E-�3a current retail opportunities coupled with the city's visitor draw. Per capita expenditure levels for comparison goods in both Los Angeles County and California is about $1,900. To illustrate the city's relative strength within the county, per capita spending for Newport Beach and selected neighboring cities is presented in Table V-3. With respect to comparison goods,per capita spending of$4,160 in Newport Beach is about 40 percent below that for Laguna Hills ($6,693) and less than half average per capita expenditures in Costa Mesa ($9,315). Particularly, per capita spending on general merchandise goods in Newport Beach is about one-third the level spent in Costa Mesa and Laguna Hills. This level of spending in Costa Mesa is attributable to South Coast Plaza. REGIONAL SALES PERFORMANCE We reviewed the historical performance of Orange County regional shopping centers and their relative strength in the marketplace to assist in making projections of the impact on sales from the proposed expansion of Fashion Island. Historical taxable sales data (in current dollars) for regional shopping centers in Orange County are shown in Table V-4 for a ten-year period. It should be noted that the data were obtained from different sources and may not reflect consistent reporting practices. We believe however that the data are sufficient to illustrate performance of the regionals over the last decade. Table V-5 converts these data to constant 1992 dollars. Sales trends for the regional malls are then compared to growth in retail sales in Orange County presented earlier. For the most part, sales at the regional centers has dropped significantly during the recession years of 1990 through 1992, following the growth period of 1984 through 1989. The following text table illustrates the relative strength of Fashion Island and South Coast Plaza as compared with growth in comparison goods and all retail for total Orange County: V-4 Ed Table V-3 TAXABLE RETAIL STORE SALES (Thousands of 1992 Dollars) Newport Costa Santa Huntington bake Laguna Laguna Laguna Mission Orange Dcas_h Mesa Irvin e Ana Beach Forest Beach HL1s Nirucl Yisi4 County Apparel S 84484 S 294,455 S 13,041 S 144,337 S 56,403 S 15,871 S 14,877 S 31,139 S 18,327 S 66,444 S 1,142,096 General Merchandise 85,546 383,934 102,240 204,435 158,450 17,723 n.a. 97,072 47,411 71,593 2,603,430 Drug Stores 14;577 13,401 18,045 38,655 29,824 12,513 T,124 1,648 10,782 17,085 412,178 Food Stores 54,144 78,205 71,893 149,968 104,448 39,657 18,040 23,719 34,196 42,515 11447,061 Packaged Liquor 6,203 11,811 7A54 17,017 14,105 2,866 2,917 2,201 n.a. 2,561 155,915 • Eating&Drinking 172,599 140,076 152,093 180,866 137,492 55,334 51,659 28,768 36,614 51,491 2,270,637 Home Furnishings&Appliances 14,700 66,159 31,278 93,478 95,014 22,478 5,708 35,785 12,311 25,566 942,858 Building Materials 6,766 50,816 43,040 136,320 82,781 22,300 7,580 IX5 46,033 14,653 1,232,540 Ii Auto Dealers&Supplies 74,526 237,095 253,166 185,234 199,827 13,927 n.a. 22,188 23,800 44,773 2,625,789 Service Stations 36,313 62,531 50,226 134,400 94,564 40,545 W60 20,936 16,411 36,815 1,359,988 Other Retail 116,464 251,252 243,903 285254 162533 78785 38,093 39,099 30,822 7L930 2.626.702 Retail Stores Total S 664,322 $1,591,735 S 980,979 S 1,569,964 S 1,135,441 S 321,999 S 156,358 S 303,799 S 276,707 S 445,326 S 16,819,194 COMPARATIVE RETAIL SALES PER CAPITA Newport Costa Santa Huntington Lake Laguna Laguna Laguna Mission Orange Beach Mesa Irvine Ana Beach Forest Beach Hills Niguel Vicjo County 68400 99,800 116,100 306,600 185,900 58.000 24,100 25,000 51,400 79,700 2534,800 Apparel S 1,206 S 3,950 S 112 S 471 S 303 S 274 S 617 S 1,246 S 357 S 834 S 451 General Merchandise 1,251 3,847 881 667 852 306 - 3,883 922 998 1,027 Drug Stores 213 134 155 126 160 216 213 66 210 214 163 Food Stores 792 784 619 489 562 684 749 949 665 533 571 Packaged Liquor 91 138 18 56 76 49 121 88 - 32 62 Eating&Drinking 2,523 1,404 1010 590 740 954 2,144 1,151 712 646 896 Home Furnishings&Appliances 215 663 269 305 511 388 237 1,431 240 321 372 Building Materials 99 509 371 445 445 384 315 50 896 I84 486 Auto Dealers&Supplies I,090 2,376 2,181 604 1,075 240 - 888 463 562 1,036 Service Stations 531 627 433 438 509 699 513 837 319 462 537 Other Retail 1.703 2518 -2,101 _ 930 874 1,358 _1581 1,564 600 901 1,036 Retail Stores Total S 9,712 S 15,949 S 8,449 S 5,121 S 6,108 S 5,552 S 6,488 S A152 S 5,383 S 5,588 S 6,635 Source: CalifomiaDepartmentofl7mance;StateBoardofEqualization;andEconomicsResearchAssociates. a I w a' r i Table V-4 HISTORICAL TAXABLE RETAIL SALES (Thousands of Current Dollars) im im M4 im im "M Im im I924 im im Fashion Island $ 113,954 $ 120,904 $ 141,707 $ 164,934 $ 173,440 S 172,808 $ 173,000 $ 211,000 $ 242,000 $ 240,000 $ 234,000 South Coast Plaza/ Crystal Court 296,982 343,757 377,855 412,491 488,933 595,442 624,000 672,000 692,000 727,800 732,300 Brea Mall 119,835 140,482 156,869 170,810 177,680 188,236 188,000 224,000 248,000 295,000 304,000 MainPlace/SantaAna 29,802 31,045 32,139 35,078 34,540 81,778 181,000 203,000 215,000 230,000 255,000 Westminster Mall 162,376 174,967 188,513 191,776 187,502 185,850 182,000 171,000 186,000 185,900 191,200 Huntington Center 80,942 86,669 95,754 99,731 101,216 136,296 150,000 156,000 158,000 149,500 157,000 Laguna Hills Mall 82,666 91,455 104,749 118,371 129,531 132,753 136,000 145,000 150,000 150,000 156,000 Mission Viejo Mall 75,284 85,573 97,373 106,785 112,378 122,297 134,000 144,000 148,000 133,700 140,400 Buena Park Mall 102,722 111,996 119,935 123,872 121,734 130,941 133,000 131,000 131,000 125,200 124,000 Mall of Orange 87,196 98,105 108,836 108,813 115,667 120,847 120,000 126,000 123,000 123,700 111,400 Source: The Irvine Company;Los Angeles Times;Orange County Business Journal;and Economics Research Associates. W W Table V-5 HISTORICAL TAXABLE RETAIL SALES (Thousands of Constant 1992 Dollars) ShoppineCenter 1992 19M IM 120 129 1281 12M 7989 122Q 1221 1992 Fashion island S 171,575 $ 178,733 S 200,387 $ 222,904 S 227,068 S 216,935 S 207,572 S 240,931 S 260,876 S 248,656 S 234,600 South Coast Plaza/ Crystal Court 447,152 508,178 534,322 557,472 640,113 747,491 74%698 767,327 745,975 754,050 737,300 . Brea Mall 180,430 207,675 221,827 230,846 232,619 236,303 225,569 255,776 267,344 305,640 304,000 MainPlaWSantaAna 44,871 45,894 45,448 47,407 45,220 102,660 217,170 231,797 231,770 238,296 255,000 Westminster Mall 244.482 258,655 266,575 259,181 245,478 233,308 218,370 195,257 200,508 192,605 181,200 Huntington Center 121,871 128,123 135,405 134,784 132,512 171,100 179,975 178,129 I70,324 154,892 157,000 Laguna Hills Mall 124,466 135,199 148,125 159,976 169,583 166,652 163,178 165,569 161,700 155,410 I56,000 Mmion Viejo MaU 113;352 126,503 137,694 144,317 147,126 153,526 160,778 164,427 159,544 138,522 140,400 Buena Park Mall 154,664 165,564 169,599 167,410 159,375 164,378 159,578 149,583 141,218 129,716 124,000 Mall of Orange _ 131.287 145.029 153,904 147,058 151,432 151.706 143,980 143,874 132,594 128,162 111,400 Total S 1,734,149 S 1,899,552 S 2,013,286 $2,071,355 S 2,150,527 S 2,344,060 S 2,424,869 $2,492,670 $2,471,851 S 2,445,949 S 2,395,300 I Source: The Irvine Company,LosAngeles Timcs,Orange County Business Journal;and Economics Research Associates. .t I. Annual Growth Rate 1984-1989 1990-1992 Fashion Island 3.8% (5.3%) South Coast Plaza 7.5% (0.9%) Orange County Comparison Goods 5.3% (3.4%) Total Retail 3.3% (5.5%) For the 1984-1989 period, sales at Fashion Island increased in real terms 3.8 percent annually while South Coast Plaza sales increased 7.5 percent per year in real terms. Overall, sales of comparison goods countywide increased 5.3 percent annually with all retail increasing 3.3 percent during the same time period. From 1990 to 1992, sales at Fashion Island declined 5.3 percent per year. According to Irvine Company representatives, this is due in part to a change in smaller shop tenants that occurred during a lease renewal period in 1991. Sales at South Coast Plaza declined less than 1 percent per year between 1990 and 1992 while for the county as a whole, comparison goods sales declined 3.4 percent per year and total retail experienced a decline of 5.5 percent per year. To account for size variation, sales performance was also reviewed on a sales-per- square-foot basis as presented in Table V-6. South Coast Plaza has consistently outperformed the other malls for the time period shown. In 1992, the center achieved a sales ratio of$252 per-square-foot. Brea Mall is second highest with sales of$243 per-square-foot followed by Main Place/Santa Ana with $215 per-square-foot. Fashion Island with sales of $180 per- square-foot in 1992 is about 10 percent below its peak level of$201 per-square-foot in 1990. Market Share The sales performance data as well as center size was used in estimating relative market share. Table V-7 shows market share based on a percentage distribution of sales and size. South Coast Plaza/Crystal Court accounts for 23 percent of total leasable area for the regionals listed. However, due to the center's size, location, and tenanting, it is achieving a larger share (31 percent) of the market based on sales performance. Brea Mall and V-8 ��36 Table V-6 REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER.SALES PER SQUARE FOOT (In Constant 1992 Dollars) 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1221 1992 Fashion Island $ 197 S 200 $ 191 S 183 $ 185 $ 201 $ 191 $ 180 South Coast Plaza/ • Crystal Court 279 238 257 257 264 256 259 252 Brea Mall 242 244 248 236 268 243 245 243 MainPlacc/SantaAna 85 81 99 183 195 195 201 215 Westminster Mall 204 193 184 172 154 182 176 165 Huntington Center 155 152 176 186 184 176 165 167 Laguna Hills Mall 198 210 206 202 205 200 192 193 Mission Viejo Mall 144 147 154 161 165 160 139 140 Buena ParkMall 140 133 I37 133 115 109 100 95 Mall of Orange 117 182 183 150 175 161 155 134 Source: The Irvine Company;National Research Bureau,Shopping Center Directory;Los Angeles Times; - Orange County Business Journal;and Economics Research Associates. i �R s Table V-7 REGIONAL CENTER MARKET SHARE Total Sales(1993) Center Size Sales SgFt ($000s) Percent (Q" Percen Shopping .enter Fashion Island $ 234,000 10% 1,300.0 10% South Coast Plaza/ Crystal Court 732,300 31% 2,909.8 23% Brea Mall 304,000 13% 1,245.0 10% MainPlace/Santa Ana 255,000 11% 929.8 7% Westminster Mall 181,200 8% 1,095.0 9% Huntington Center 157,000 7% 940.0 8% Laguna Hills Mall 156,000 7% 880.0 7% Mission Viejo Mall 140,400 6% 999.4 8% Buena Park Mall 124,000 5% 1,300.0 10% Mall of Orange 111,400 50A 828.9 M Total $ 2,395,300 100% 12,427.9 100% Source: Economics Research Associates. E-�a7 MainPlace also have market shares based on sales performance in excess of their share based on center size. Fashion Island with 10 percent of total leasable area also has a market share of 10 percent from a sales performance standpoint. The remaining malls listed have a lower market share based on sales when compared with their share based on size. SALES IMPACT ANALYSIS Tenant mix is a key factor in determining, the potential economic impact of the proposed expansion on, the existing commercial, districts. Each district 'is unique in its orientation. West Newport, Corona del Mar, and Central Balboa provide neighbor- hood/convenience retail for their adjoining residential areas as ivell as some visitor-serving commercial uses. Balboa Island and McFadden Square provide primarily visitor-serving uses in the form of eating and drinking and specialty retail establishments. Mariners Mile and Cannery Village are retail destinations in and of•themselves with several noted restaurants as well as marine-related retail uses which target a specific market. Old Newport Boulevard is actually more of a commercial office area with a nominal amount retail that is primarily local-serving. The methodology of the impact analysis assumes that there is primarily a reallocation or transfer of sales from the existing centers in the region as well as from noncenter retailing space. The transfer effect occurs when an area's population growth will not be sufficient alone to support the added square footage and as a result the expansion will attract consumers to shop in stores not previously located in the area. Quantification of the sales transferred can vary and is based on many factors including merchandise mix, project scale and design, target audience; established shopping patterns, road access and travel time. As derived below, we estimate that there will be a net increase in annual sales overall at Fashion Island through largely a transfer of sales. It should be noted that in addition to a transfer from other centers and noncenter retail space, a transfer among existing Fashion Island tenants also would be expected. It should be noted that although there is a net 'increase total'sales overall, there will be both negative and positive impacts on existing V-11 �fi3g center tenants. We believe, however, that the positive impact will largely balance the negative. Thus, for purposes of this analysis, we have assumed that the net impact to existing tenants is zero, recognizing however that indeed some transfer of sales within the center itself is likely to occur. Based on discussions with representatives of The Irvine Company,we have assumed that the expansion will include an upscale fashion anchor which will occupy 240,000 square feet with smaller shop space comprising 70,000 square feet. It is estimated that the anchor will generate sales of about $225 per square foot with the ancillary retail space generating sales an average of$300 per square foot. Sales performance of the proposed expansion is projected to be $75 million as summarized below: Size Sales/ Sales Components s .ft. SQ.Ft• (000) Anchor 240,000 $225 $54,000 Shops 70,000 300 21,000 Total 310,000 $75,000 Table V-8 presents an analysis of the potential impact on existing regionals and other retail concentrations including the eight commercial districts which are the subject of this study. The first column in Table V-8 identify the market areas from which the proposed expansion will derive its sales. The second column presents total retail sales generated by these markets. The third column estimates the percent of lost sales from these market areas due to the proposed expansion. These percentages are estimates prepared by ERA and based on a number of factors, including the following: • proximity to Fashion Island • historical sales performance of the existing regional centers • degree of overlap between the trade area of Fashion Island and the competi- tive commercial districts • degree of comparability between the anchor/shops of the proposed expansion and competitive regionals or commercial districts • trade area demographics V-12 E�ay • • , T 1 � Table V-8 SALES IMPACT ANALYSIS Miles to Sales %Loss Loss in %of U (S0005) to Expan. Salsa Impact Orange County Regionals Fashion Island -- S 234,000 0.00% S - South Coast Plaza/ Crystal Court 5 732,300 4.00% 29,292 39.0% Brea'Mall d9 304,000 2.00% 6,080 8.1% MainPlace/Santa Ana 10 255,000 2.00% 5,100 U% WestminsterMall 11 181,200 1.00% 1,812 2.4% Huntington Center 10 157,000 1.00% 1,570 2.1% Laguna Hills Mall 10 156,000 1.00% 1,560 2.1% Mission Viejo Mall 13 140,400 1.00% 1.404 ],9� Subtotal S 2,159,900 2.17% S 46,818 62.3% Out-of-Area(1) S 18,000 23.9% Newport Beach Local Corona del Mar 1.0 $ 55,048 2.00% $ 1,101 1.5% Mariners Mile 2.0 65,951 2.00% 1,319 1.8% Old Newport Boulevard 3.0 51711 1.00% 57 0.1% West Newport 4.5 3,547 1.00% 35 0.0% Balboa Island 1.0 10,774 1.00% 108 0.1% Central Balboa 1.5 15,379 1.00% 154 0.2o/u Mc Fadden Square 3.0 19,025 1.00% 190 0.3% Cannery Village 3.0 15.923 1.00% 159 9 AD Subtotal Newport Beach Local $ 191,359 1.63% 'S 3,124 4.2% Other Orange County Retail(2) $ 14,467,935 0.05% 7,234 9_60A Total S 75,176 100.0% (1) Includes regional centers outside of Orange County and visitor market. (2) Includes other regionals,power,community,neighborhood and non-center retail in Newport Beach and Orange County. Source: Economics Research Associates. �.�yo Studies of planned retail developments which contemplated capturing new markets have shown that the transfer of sales from an existing center to a new center may range from 6 percent to 15 percent. Accordingly, this capture rate would be less for expansion of an existing mall. The proposed expansion at Fashion Island is expected to be very competitive with South Coast Plaza due to its planned upscale nature as well as the driving distance between the two centers. As shown in Table V-8, we estimate that the proposed Fashion Island expansion will reduce sales at South Coast Plaza by 4 percent which translates into about $30 million or 40 percent of the proposed expansion's projected sales performance. Brea Mall and MainPlace are the next most competitive malls with Fashion Island, again due primarily to their tenant mix, however because they are located further away the capture rate is estimated to be lower, say about 2 percent. Westminster, Huntington, Laguna Hills, and Mission Viejo although the tenant nix is not as upscale and thus not as competitive with Fashion Island, due to their proximity we estimate that the expansion will still be able to capture about 1 percent of their sales. Thus, from the regional centers listed, we estimate that about 60 percent ($45 million) of the proposed expansion's projected sales performance will derive from existing regional centers. Please note that although the experience of existing regionals has been taken into consideration, the estimated penetration rates, sales factors, and resulting impacts presented in this analysis should be considered approximations rather than precise amounts. The second largest component comprising the projected expansion sales performance is from out-of-area sales. This includes non-Orange County regional centers (e.g. Del Amo Mall, Los Cerritos Center, Lakewood, etc.) and the visitor/seasonal resident market. According to Irvine Company representatives, presently 20 percent of sales at Fashion Island is accounted for by this out-of-area customer base. We believe that with a strong anchor, this market share will conservatively increase by 20 percent as strong anchors typically draw from a much larger market area. Thus we estimate that the out-of-area market share represents about 24 percent or $18 million of the proposed expansion's sales. V-14 ' ESN/ Remaining sales of $10 million will derive from other Orange County retail including other Orange County regionals and noncenters as well as Newport Beach retail including the eight commercial districts and other city retail. Based on combined market share, the eight commercial villages are estimated to account for about one-third of this or about $3 million. Based on a sales level of$190 million in 1993, this estimated competitive impact equals a 1.5 percent reduction in current sales levels. Partially offsetting the negative impacts will be the positive competitive effects that may be achieved by attracting new volumes of shoppers to Newport Beach. It is estimated , that 10 to 20 percent in additional sales would be,expected outside the expansion. Assuming 15 percent results in about$10 million in added retail sales dollars. It is reasonable to expect that other Fashion Island tenants will enjoy the bulk of these new sales dollars, say in the vicinity of 75 percent. Assume further that the remaining 25 percent ($2.5 million) will be spread over remaining Newport Beach. On a fair share basis, one-half of this amount ($1.25 million) will go to the eight commercial districts thereby reducing the estimated competitive impact by about 40 percent. Additionally, population growth in south Orange County, and in particular the Newport Coast region, although not sufficient to fully support the expansion and result in net retail sales growth, will further alleviate the economic impact estimated above. In summary, we estimate that well over 90 percent of sales at the proposed expansion would represent net new sales drawn to Newport Beach, and that the competitive impact on local stores will be slight. Rather, the proposed expansion will compete largely with other regional centers in Orange County. It is important to recognize that retail store types are changing and that Newport Beach will experience that change with or without the introduction of,direct competition within its boundaries. If expansion does not occur at Fashion Island, it is likely that this new development will take place elsewhere thereby creating a negative impact on all retail uses within the city. Given the current retail environment, the ,proposed expansion of Fashion Island would help to ensure the overall l V-15 center's viability and strengthen its ability to compete effectively within the Orange County marketplace. Alternative Development Scenario As part of this analysis, ERA was asked to assess the potential economic impact under alternative development assumptions. While it may be possible to develop the ancillary shop space initially, it is not likely given the configuration of the existing mall and the fact that smaller shops require an anchor. It is possible however that two smaller anchors could be substituted for the single large anchor occupying 240,000 square feet of space. Given the current state of the retail environment, it is difficult to speculate who these anchors would be, which is key to determining the level of potential impact. Assuming anchors with not quite as broad a draw as an upscale anchor, the relative impacts would remain generally similar to those derived in Table V-8. There would be, however, a slight reduction in the sales transferred from the other regionals and out-of-area market, while the impact on local sales could increase slightly. However, it is important to recognize that any anchor which The Irvine Company solicits for Fashion Island must relate well to its existing retail environment and be acceptable to the present tenant base. V-16 C4g3 COMMISSIONERS �ttacnlnent 2 MINUTES DRAFT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH I ROLL CALL INDEX tss A General Plan Amendment 94-2(B) (Public Hearingl Item No..4 Request to consider an amendment to the General Plan Land Use GPA 94-2B Element so as to increase the development limit in Fashion Island GP consist by 266,000 square feet; and the acceptance of an environmental Finding document. A811 INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach TS 95 AND Appioved B. General Plan Consistency Finding (Discussion) Request for a finding of General Plan Consistency allowing a transfer of 30,000 square feet of Retail and Service Commercial entitlement from Bayview Landing to Fashion Island as provided in the General Plan Land Use Element. AND C. Amendment No. 811 (Public Hearing) Request to amend the Planned Community District Regulations for Fashion Island so as to increase the development limit by 309,550 square feet to allow construction of the 266,000 square feet addressed in GPA 94-2(B), 30,000 square feet transferred from Bayview Landing, and 13,550 square feet previously transferred from the Pac Bell site. AND • D. Traffic Study No. 95 (Public Hearing) Request to approve a traffic study so as to allow an additional 266,000 square feet in the Fashion Island Planned Community not -il- COMMISSIONERS . MINUTES ooF�F f��o�drsf0 �9�0� 'Po 9tio CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH bon lonA ROLL CALL INDEX previously vested pursuant to the provisions of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. LOCATION: 'Tract No. 6015, located within the ring created by Newport Center Drive in Newport Center (Fashion Island). ZONE: P-C APPLICANT: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant Commissioner Ridgeway asked if similar projects had been approved without a specific site plan. Patty Temple, Advance Planning Manager, replied that the last renovation project of Fashion Island requiring entitlement actions of a similar nature were approved without a site plan. In response to questions posed 'by Commissioner Ridgeway with respect to the original approvals for Fashion Island,, James Hewicker, Planning Director, replied that when Fashion Island was built in 1967 that the requested permits were the subdivision maps that divided the property into various parcels for development. He indicated that no site plan review procedure was followed for the shopping center with the exception of use permits to approve theaters, etc. The development is in accordance with the zoning standards that were in existence when the development was, requested without the benefit of a site plan. Ms. Temple stated that the Initial Study that is attached to the staff report supports the Negative Declaration. Subsequent to the circulation of the original document, additional information and corrections to the information contained in the document were received by staff and, therefore, a revised Initial Study was prepared.The revised document is attached to the staff report and is currently in circulation. The second review period will close prior to the City Council public hearing.The method of addressing the environmental document is consistent with the California -12- �L�b COMMISSIONERS . MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Environmental Quality Act and the City's procedure for implementing CEQA. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Ms. Temple stated that the Planning Commission determines if the environmental document is adequate to serve as the document for the project. Commissioner Edwards requested a clarification of the transfer of entitlement. Ms. Temple explained that the Land Use Element of the General Plan contains specific density and intensity limits for all commercial and residential properties in the City. Included in the Land Use Element is a provision that allows for the transfer of entitlement between properties if they are owned by one owner or if by different owners. The findings that need to be made in regard to the transfers are a circulation system capacity finding that, as a result of the transfer, there would be no changes to the level of service, and the circulation system would be adequate as a result of the transfer. The square footage that is to be entitled to Fashion Island is derived from a request to increase the entitlement in Fashion Island; an approved 13,550 square foot transfer from the Pac Tel site at the corner of Bison Street and Camelback Street; and at the Bayview Landing site 30,000 square feet of retail and service commercial entitlement was authorized for transfer as a result of the Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement. The traffic analysis required was completed to ensure that the transfer does not adversely affect the circulation system; however, the finding was not previously made to formally transfer the square footage from the Bayview Landing site to Fashion Island and that action is included in the subject application. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Ridgeway with respect to the public storage that was approved by the Planning Commission at Bison Street and Camelback Street, Ms. Temple explained that the storage project that was approved was a substitute for a 20,000 square foot medical office project originally approved for the site in association with the transfer. After the transfer there was still remaining an entitlement on the Pac-Tel site of 20,000 square feet of medical office, and that development -13- COMMISSIONERS • • MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH \� N, 011994 .ROLL CALL INDEX was eliminated as a result of the General Plan action for the mini- storage project. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr.Tom Redwitz,Vice President of Development Entitlement for The Irvine Company, appeared before the Planning Commission. He commented that the expansion of Fashion Island would generate more sales tax revenue, and it would improve the quality and level of service in the City.Fashion Island currently generates approximately$2.5 million annually through sales tax revenue, and the expansion could generate an additional $750,000 to the City. In summary, he stated that the expansion of Fashion Island would be a win-win-win scenario, the City would receive a much needed additional sales tax revenue, the community would enjoy a higher quality of shopping experience, and Fashion Island would position positively in the Orange County marketplace. He concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit W'. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Edwards, Mr. Redwitz replied that he was not aware of any costs to the City if Fashion Island would be expanded. He stated that the proposed expansion of 266,000 square feet would be equivalent to Robinson's 230,000 square feet. Mr. Richard Leuhrs, President of the Newport Harbor Chamber of Commerce, appeared before the Planning Commission. He addressed the Resolution that the Chamber of Commerce passed on October 19, 1994, expressing their support of the proposed development. He said that it would be an important element to the City's improvement, particularly in the area of revenue enhancement. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Mr. Redwitz reappeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Redwitz replied that the expansion has no time schedule. The Irvine Company has begun discussions with the existing major tenants in Fashion Island regarding the feasibility of another major anchor tenant coming to Fashion Island. Commissioner Ridgeway -14- �q0 COMMISSIONERS • • MIXUTI;S o� .' ls�o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX emphasized that he had concerns that establishments similar to Wal-Mart or K-Mart could come to Fashion Island, and they are entities that should not be located in Fashion Island. Discussion ensued between the Planning Commission and staff concerning Commissioner Ridgeway's comment that he had previously considered adding a condition to Exhibit "A" expressing his concerns regarding the type of tenant that could be located in Fashion Island. Commissioner Ridgeway commented that Fashion Island parking requirements would meet the discounters parking requirements. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion Motion was made to approve General Plan Amendment 94-2(B) Res. 1372 [Resolution No. 1372], General Plan Consistency Finding [Resolution No. 1373],Amendment No.811 [Resolution No. 1374], Res. 1373 and Traffic Study No. 95 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". In reference to Commissioner Ridgeway's previous Res. 1374 comments, Commissioner DiSano stated that it is not proper to manacle the current property owner based on the appropriateness with which they have dealt with.their property, and the expansion would be a benefit to the City. Commissioner Ridgeway supported the motion. He said that the expansion of Fashion Island would be beneficial to the City. Commissioner Pomeroy supported the motion. He addressed The Irvine Company's quality of development, and he indicated that it was inconceivable that they would not continue to develop in that same manner. Apes * * *Absent * * * * Motion was voted on, MOTION CARRIED. -15- lq9 COMMISSIONERS • • MINUTES .pf�.o0 cC cfn�O d oF�F Fo r� .s'fo CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1994 ROLL CALL INDEX A. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT Finding: 1. 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. The Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission and was reviewed and considered prior to recommending approval of the project. Mitigation Measures: 1. Prior to issuance of any grading or building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate to the Planning Department and Building Department that construction operations shall utilize methods to reduce pollutant emissions to the greatest extent feasible. Such methods may include, but may not be limited to, the following: a) Use of low-emission construction equipment b) Rideshare program and incentives for construction employees c) Suspend grading operations during first and second stage smog alerts d) Maintain construction equipment with properly tuned engines -16- COMMISSIONERS • • MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX e) Use of low-sulfur fuel for stationary construction equipment f) Use of on-site power instead of portable generators g) Coordinate construction operations to minimize traffic interference 2. Prior to issuance of any building:permit the applicant shall demonstrate to the Planning Department and Building Department that all feasible methods of reducing vehicular travel and air emissions have been incorporated into the design and operation of the project. Examples of such methods may include, but may not be limited to, the following: a) Provision of safe bicycle circulation routes, secure bicycle storage and shower facilities for employees b) Incorporation of energy-efficient design that complies with or exceeds Title 24 requirements c), Provide priority parking and charging ports for electric vehicles d) Provision of rideshare and transit incentives for employees 3. Prior to 'issuance of a grading or building permit the applicant shall demonstrate to the Planning and Building departments that all appropriate structural and non- structural best management practices will be incorporated into the project as required by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Drainage Area Management Plan. -17- COMMISSIONERS • • MINUTES �`v9�o� oPa9 sy�o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 4. Prior to the issuance of any building permit the applicant shall demonstrate to the Building 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 residential uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Architect or Electrical Engineer, with a letter from the Architect or Engineer stating that, in his or her opinion, this requirement has been satisfied. 5. Prior to issuance of a building permit for any expansion, a General Plan amendment and Planned Community amendment shall be approved to increase the development entitlement in Fashion Island to be consistent with the building permit application. 6. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit the applicant shall obtain confirmation from the City Traffic Engineer that the planned improvements to MacArthur Boulevard assumed in the TPO study will be installed prior to project occupancy. 7. a. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit for the expansion, a parking plan acceptable to the City Traffic Engineer and the Police Department shall be submitted by the applicant. The plan shall address the number and size of required spaces, parking lot re-striping, signage (both vehicular and pedestrian), traffic control, and parking area security (e.g., lighting) so as to minimize illegal parking, congestion and idling during seasonal peak periods. b. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the expansion, the parking control plan shall be implemented and approved by the City Traffic Engineer. -18- II COMMISSIONERS • MINUTES A 4'r�cip� n,fAOO 9�'s� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH cteb >, ?OLL CALL INDEX 8. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit the City Engineer shall verify that adequate capacity exists in the storm drain system to serve the development. 9. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall demonstrate to the Planning Department that the project will comply with Council Policies K-5 and K-6 regarding archaeological and paleontological resource investigation, surveillance and recovery. B. General Plan Amendment 94-2(Bl Adopt Resolution No. 1372, recommending adoption of General Plan Amendment 94-2(B) by the City Council. _C General Plan Consistency Finding Adopt Resolution No. 1373,recommending approval of a General Plan Consistency Finding by the City Council. D Amendment No, 811 Adopt Resolution No. 1374, recommending approval of Amendment No. 811 by the City Council. E. Traffic Study No. 95 Findines• 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed projection on the morning and afternoon peak hour traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and Council Policy L18. 2. That the traffic study indicates that there will be an adverse impact on two intersections on MacArthur Boulevard, at -19- .COMMISSIONERS MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX San Joaquin Hills Road and San Miguel, which will make worse an unsatisfactory level of service. 3. That a planned and programmed improvement to MacArthur Boulevard adding a third through lane in each direction at both intersections will improve the level of service to an acceptable level. 4. That The Irvine Company has participated in the funding for the improvements through financial and other means. x x x mendment No. 812 Public Hearin Item No.5 Requ t to amend Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code A812 so as to fine the terms "bar" and "theater/nightclub." Approved INITIATED The City of Newport Beach Commissioner Rid ay referred to the proposed Ordinance, stating that ahe term ' 'shall mean a place of business with the principle purpose to sell ors a alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises and may incl live entertainment and/or dancing as accessory uses to the prim sale and service of alcoholic beverages, provided further that s live entertainment and/or dancing shall occupy less than twenty ercent (209o') of the 'het public area" and he asked if there are a establishments in the City that currently occupy more than 20 per t of the "net public area". Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorne replied that the City Attorney's Office conducted a survey o the existing restaurants in the City that have entertainment, and a majority of the restaurants have less than 20 percent. She sai hat the only restaurants that exceed the 20 percent limit are Bacch and Lucy's BBG; however, they would not be affected by the propo d Ordinance and would be considered legal nonconformin establishments. -20- • Attachment 3 ; RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF TIM CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMEND- MENT 94-2(B) TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN FOR FASHION ISLAND WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the Newport Beach General Plan the Land Use Element has been prepared;and WHEREAS, HEREAS said,element of the General Plan sets rforth objectives, supporting policies and limitations for development in the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, said element of the General Plan designates the general distribution and general location and extent of the uses of land and building intensities in a number of ways, including residential land use categories and population projections, commercial floor area limitations, the floor area ratio ordinances;and WI-MREAS, the Land Use and Circulation Elements are correlated as required by California planning law;and P 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 recommended approval of the amendment by the City Council;and e 1 WHEREAS, the proposed project is compatible with the existing land uses in the area; and WHEREAS, the circulation system will not be significantly impacted by the proposed project; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act an Initial Study has been conducted to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. The Initial Study concluded that the project could not have a significant effect on the environment, therefore a Negative Declaration has been prepared. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based upon the information contained in the Intial Study, comments received, and all related documents, the City Council finds that 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 City Council finds that the Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of the project, satisfies all the requirements of CEQA, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. The Negative Declaration was reviewed and considered prior to recommending approval of the project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all of the mitigation measures identified in the Negative Declaration are recommended as conditions of approval for the project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the monitoring requirements of Public Resources Code Sec. 21081.6 (AB 3180 of 1988) will be met through the design of the project, required compliance with City building, grading, and other codes and ordinances, and required compliance with the adopted mitigation measures as set forth in the Mtigation Monitoring program. . 2 56 l � T 4 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach that an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element is approved, as follows: Page 67: 18. Fashion Island. This site is located within the circle formed by Newport Center Drive. The site is designated for Retail and Service Commercial land use and is allocated 1,603,850 sq.ft. for regional retail and 1,700 theater seats. An additional 30,000,sq.ft. of regional retail may be added upon commitment of the Bayview Landing site for senior citizen housing. ADOPTED this_day of 1994,by the following vote,to wit: MAYOR ATTEST: City Clerk PLT: \CC\GPA\RES94-2B 3 � 57 Attachment 4• . RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING A TRANSFER OF ALLOWED DEVELOPMENT FROM BAYVIEW LANDING TO FASHION ISLAND IN NEWPORT CENTER 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, in the General Plan Land Use Element the ability to transfer development rights between sites is established; and WHEREAS, said transfers may be approved so long as the traffic system is not adversely affected and that traffic generation, as it affects the major intersections during critical peak periods, does not exceed the capacities provided in the approved street development plan; and WHEREAS, a traffic analysis was prepared to assess the impact of the proposed transfer of development in the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement (CIOSA); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing regarding the requested transfer of development rights, and recommended approval to the City Council. I �5✓ • • N 4 N NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach that a transfer of 30,000 sq.ft, of retail commercial entitlement to Fashion Island in Newport Center is approved. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, if property owner exercises this entitlement prior to the development of senior citizen housing on the Bayview Landing site, an agreement shall be recorded, the form and content of which is acceptable to the Newport Beach City Attorney, stating that the only allowable development for Bayview Land is for senior citizen housing. ADOPTED this day of November, 1994. MAYOR ATTEST: City Clerk PLT:WP511PA7rY•T1CC\gpcf ri2,dw , 2 � ,q • • Attachment 5 RESOLUTION NO._ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE FASHION ISLAND PLANNED COMMUNITY(PLANNING COMMISSION AMEND- MENT NO. 811) WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the Newport Beach General Plan the Land Use Element has been prepared; and WHEREAS, the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides specific procedures for the implementation of Planned Community zoning for properties within the City of Newport Beach;and WHEREAS, implementation of the project will allow for a significant expansion to the Fashion Island retail shopping center in a manner which meets all the City's development regulations, including the Traffic Phasing Ordinance,providing a significant benefit to the City ofNewport Beach in the form of increased revenues; and WHEREAS, the proposed Planned Community District Regulations are consistent with the Newport Beach General Plan; and WHEREAS, the proposed project meets the criteria of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act an Initial Study has been conducted to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. The Initial Study concluded that the project could not have a significant effect on the environment, therefore a Negative Declaration has been prepared. NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, comments received, and all related documents, the City Council finds that there is I �4+ 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 City Council finds,that•the Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of the project, satisfies all the requirements of CEQA, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. The Negative Declaration was reviewed and considered prior to recommending approval of the project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach does hereby approve amendment to the Fashion Island Planned Community District Regulations and Development Plan as attached hereon as Exhibit 1. ADOPTED this day of November, 1994. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Attachment: Exhibit 1 PLT:.AWINW0RD\PCWMD\PM-A81 LDOC 2 1 /_ i. FASHION ISLAND PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DISTRICT REGULATIONS City of Newport Beach ADOPTED: November 23, 1987 Ordinance No. 87-45 Amendment No. 1 February 12, 1990 Amendment No. 699; Resolution No. 90-7 Amendment No. 2 March 11, 1991 Amendment No. 701; Resolution No. 91-22 Amendment No. 3 Amendment No. 811; Resolution No. 94- TABLE OF CONTENTS Paee Introduction 3 Statistical Analysis 4 General Notes 5 Definitions 6 Fashion Island Development Plan 7 Fasliion-Island-Bike-Ixd3ibii Fashion Island District Regulations 8 Fashion Island Sign Program 13' 2 • • INTRODUCTION The Fashion Island Planned Community District in the City of Newport Beach has been developed in accordance with the Newport Beach General Plan. Fashion Island is part of the Newport Center development of The Irvine Company. The purpose of this Planned Community District is to provide a method whereby property may be classified and developed for a regional shopping center. The specifications of this district are intended to provide land use and development standards supportive of the proposed use while insuring compliance with the intent of all applicable regulatory codes. 3 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Total Acres 75 Acres Retail/Restaurant 1,324,308 1,633,850 Sq.Ft.l Theater'Seats 1,700.Seats 30,000 sq.ft. of this permitted development can only be utilized upon commitment of Bayview Landing for senior citizen housing purposes consistent with the provisions of the Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement, and a Finding of General Plan Consistency approved by the Newport Beach City Council. 4 f f L • • GENERAL NOTES 1. Water service to the Planned Community District will be provided by the City of Newport Beach. 2. Development of the subject property will be undertaken in accordance with the flood protection policies of the City of Newport Beach. 3. Grading and erosion control measures will be carried out within the Planned Community as required by the Newport Beach building Department and the Planning Director. 4. All development of the site is subject to the provisions of City Council Policies K-5 and K-6 regarding archaeological and paleontological resources. 5. Sewage disposal service facilities for the Planned Community District will be provided by Orange County Sanitation District No. 5. 6. All landscaping along street rights-of-way shall be installed in accordance with a landscape plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect, which has been reviewed by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department and approved by the Public Works Department. 7. Except as otherwise stated in this text, the requirements of the Newport Beach Zoning Ordinance shall apply. The contents of this text notwithstanding, all construction within the boundaries of this Planned Community District shall comply with all provisions of the Uniform Building Code, the various mechanical codes related thereto and all local amendments. 8. All mechanical appurtenances on building rooftops, utility vaults and emergency power generators shall be screened from view from Newport Center Drive iri a manner compatible with the building materials, and noise associated with said generators shall be attenuated to acceptable levels in receptor areas. The latter shall be based upon the recommendations of a licensed engineer practicing in acoustics, and be approved by the Planning Department. 9. All trash containers and/or enclosures shall be screened from view in a manner.compatible with the building materials. 5 DEFINITIONS Drive-In and Take Out Restaurant. The terms "drive-in," "walk-up" and "take-out" restaurants shall mean a place of business which sells food products or beverages and,which: 1. Delivers such food products or beverages to customers outside of the building in which they are prepared by means of a service window, counter or similar method or device,.or 2. Delivers such food products or beverages to customers within a building which is designed in such a manner that a majority of the customers will either remove such food products or beverages from the building for consumption either on the premises or in the immediate vicinity. Gross Floor Area. Gross floor area is the area included within the walls of a building, exclusive of vent shafts and courts. The floor area shall also include the area not provided within surrounding exterior walls, either under a roof or open to the sly, which is defined by planters, awnings, shade structures, fences or rails and are for the exclusive and permanent use for display or seating by a use permitted pursuant to this text. Exterior covered walkways or covered mall areas between retail buildings shall not be included in gross floor area. Permanent kiosks for retail sales, covered or uncovered; shall be calculated as gross floor area. Major Buildings. Major buildings are those occupied Eby major department store tenants, movie theaters and the Atrium Court building. Mall Buildings. Mall buildings are those structures in the Fashion Island Mall area not defined as major buildings. Outdoor Restaurant. The term outdoor restaurant shall mean a place of business which sells or serves food products or beverages for consumption on the premises where such place or business is located, and which provides for, or permits consumption of, such food products or beverages out-of-doors other than on an incidental basis. Peripheral Buildings. Peripheral buildings are those buildings adjacent to Newport Center Drive not contained in the Fashion Island Mall. Restaurant. The term restaurant shall mean a place of business which sells or serves food products or beverages for consumption on the premises within a building consisting of a permanent stricture that is fully enclosed with a roof and walls, and where incidental dining to'the extent of not more than 25% may be permitted out-of-doors on a patio, deck or terrace that is integrated into the building design. 6 FASHION ISLAND DEVELOPMENT PLAN W O Q 692q Q O L 9 F G G0 LA S N` P V E S 5 1 9 P ti 0 T -9 2/ q O A A 9 i L F � p :.:........::::. ...............::::: AN M / G U F D l A L S R F N A R T P 6 8 A :•tk'ii::::i�ii'?;'ti�•:::i:�:�:}i�i:•iii:::??;S�:lid D 2 RIVE E I .o 0 0 F q N 2 T q F Gi O q z m v O LEGEND En RETAIL AND SERVICE COMMERCIAL �9 oq�G6` FASHION ISLAND 7 FASHION ISLAND PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS LOCATION Fashion Island is located within the circle defined by Newport Center Drive .as shown on the, Planned Community Development Plan. INTENT It is intended that Fashion Island be developed as a regional 'retail commercial center. These regulations will permit a broad range of commercial uses appropriate to a regional retail commercial center. These uses include retail uses, restaurants and uses which are service in nature. In recognition of the unique nature of a regional retail commercial use, certain uses which ordinarily required approval of a use permit are permitted uses in this area, PERMITTED USES 1. Retail stores, including clothing stores, bakeries, bookstores, food shops, pet shops, shoe shops, candy shops, card shops, florists, record stores, audio and video-stores, camera shops, luggage stores, furniture stores, art galleries, jewelry stores, athletic stores, china and gift shops, specialty stores, arcades with amusement devices (as defined is Chapter 5:34 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code), department stores and other uses of a similar nature. 2. Personal service establishments, including barber shops, beauty parlors, tailor shops, opticians, dry cleaning establishments, postal service facilities, enclosed bicycle storage lockers and other uses which are of a similar nature. 3. Restaurants located throughout the Planned Community; .and outdoor and take-out restaurants contained within the Fashion Island Mall area. 4. Outdoor sales establishments, carts and kiosks, and outdoor special events and structures, subject to the approval of the Planning Director. 5. Theaters. 6. Auto sales, service and detailing, so long as said use is contained within a building or parking structures. 7. Parking of automobiles on roofs, subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 8 i�7 8. Accessory uses normally incidental to commercial developments, including video game devices in theaters and restaurants, where such uses do not alter the character of the area in respect to their use for purposes permitted in the district. Accessory buildings shall be allowed only when constructed concurrent with or subsequent to the buildings housing primary uses. 9. Temporary structures and uses. Regulations are as specified in Section 20.30.015 of General Controls- Commercial Districts of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 10. Office uses, only when such offices are ancillary to and in the same building as a permitted use, including Fashion Island management and leasing facilities. USES WHICH REOUIRE A USE PERi14TI The following uses shall be permitted subject to the securing of a use permit in each case: 1. Gymnasiums, health clubs and other uses which are of a similar nature. 2. Free standing drive-in, outdoor and take-out restaurants located outside the Fashion Island Mall area. 3. Drive-in facilities. DEVELOPMENTSTANDARDS Floor Area and Development Limits. The total gross floor area permitted in all structures, except theaters and enclosed bicycle lockers, shall not exceed 1,310,750 gross square feet; provided, however, that the floor area devoted to parking within a building shall not be considered in determining the total floor area allowed. Of this floor area limitation a maximum of 15% may be for restaurant uses, including drive-in and take-out restaurants, both freestanding restaurants and those within the Fashion Island mall area. Commercial land uses not within a structures, such as balloon vendors, ice cream carts, popcorn carts and similar uses which are "portable" in nature, shall not be a reduction of entitlement established by this section. Outdoor areas and kiosks which are defined by planters, awnings, shade structures, fences or rails and are for the exclusive and permanent use for display or seating by a retail or restaurant use shall be calculated as floor area. Incidental outdoor seating, covered or uncovered, which is not for the exclusive use of any retail or restaurant establishment shall not be calculated as floor area as entitled by this section. Bicycle storage lockers contained within'structures shall not be calculated as floor area as entitled by this section. Theater use shall be limited to no more than 1,700 theater seats. 9 i to : - Cw Building Height. Buildings within Fashion Island shall' be subject to the following limits as defined in Section 20:87.205 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code: Major Buildings: 125 feet Mall Buildings: 75 feet Parking Structures: 55 feet Peripheral Buildings: 40 feet Setback Requirements. A setback of 10 feet from Newport Center Drive is required. No setbacks are required from any internal parcel lines, except as may be required by the Building Code. Requirements for Off-Street Parking. It is the interest of the City of Newport Beach to assure adequate parking to serve the retail,shopping center of Fashion Island at all times. It is also in the owner to make optimal utilization of parking resources best interest of the City and th�ropertv p p g in Newport Center for theVurposes of providing adequate parking for all uses in Newport Center. including,Fashion Island. In assessing the need for parkin to,o adequately serve Fashion Island. it is clear that there are,two circumstances which must be addressed normal peak operation and seasonal peak operation. It is the intent of the City of Newport Beach to establish required parking ratios to provide full narking adequate to serve normal operational periods on-site within the circle formed by Newport Center Drive. The City acknowledges that a significant investment in both land and financial resources would be 'required to provide full parking on site to support seasonal operational peak periods The Citv does not consider it in the best interest of the CiIy or the property owner to invest in these resources when a known pool of available parking exists in close proximity to Fashion Island within Newport Center. It is the position of the City that if workable alternatives exist to the provision of parking to serve seasonal operational peak periods these alternatives should be used in lieu of providing this additional parking which is used only a few days each year. In developing these parking ratios. the following parameters have been utilized: Saturda as established b 1 Normal operational�eak�eriod is a non-seasonaly. v historic driveway counts and survey data . 2 Adequate parkin is considered to be peak parking demand plus 15%. Normal Parkin Re uirement: Parkin shall be provided at a rate of 3 arkin spaces for each Parking g P P g`P 1,000 sq ft includingthe he square feet utilized by theater uses, within the ring established by Newport Center Drive. 10 1 t 1 1 • • Peak Seasonal and Special Event Parking RNuirement: Parking shall be provided at a rate of 4 parking spaces for each 1,000 sq_R including the square feet utilized by theater uses Parking shall be provided pursuant to this ratio either on-site. or through a combination of on-site and off- site parking and, possibly, trip reduction strategies An off-site parking program shall be subiect to the review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer and the Police Department. and may include the use of a wide variety of programs which include but are not limited to use of off-site parking in association with a shuttle system. use of on-street parking or the implementation of trip reduction strategies for either employees or patrons which are demonstrated to reduce parking demand, Ofg-st get--pa.£-ing C•-�vr-Fashioi,_iSland sna4l be lifeNrided en site, within-t4e-erea-&-fined-by NewpeA-C-enter-D;:fe�arlcinb-=ice .- gee- lots-ep4n-pa.-king-afuetum&.---Farming-fox retail x auxant-and-pemen.0 seMee a all-be-provided-at ��spaee fox each 250 gross-square-feet--My-area-whieh4s-e ated-as-part-of-the4etA-AeeFer-ea4ixr4ttttien-shall-be hic-luded-in-tlietress4lsex area-to-d.,wn hie4he-par4cing-requixeme-nt Parkfngshall-be-provided-for-theater uses-m-a-mtie-ef-one-parking-space-for-eaeh-tltree{33-seata Other parking requirements: Any area which is calculated as part of the total floor area limitation shall be included in the gross floor area to determine the parking requirement Parking for gymnasiums and health clubs shall be provided in addition to that required for other commercial uses (retail, restaurant and theater) and shall be based upon a demonstrated formula established at the time of review and approval of a use permit by the Planning Commission. Compact parking shall be permitted up to a maximum of 25%, and shall be located in a manner acceptable to the City Traffic Engineer. Existing parking may be converted to the City's universal parking stall configuration subject to review and approval of the revised parking lot layout by the City Traffic Engineer. Valet parking shall be permitted. Operational characteristics of any valet parking service and the location of parking areas used exclusively for valet parked cars will be subject to the review and approval ofthe City Traffic Engineer. Areas of parking lot used for valet parking shall be remote from the mall area to the greatest extent feasible. The design and layout of all parking areas shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer and the Public Works Department. Parking lot lighting shall be developed in accordance with City standards and shall be designed in a manner which minimizes impacts on adjacent land uses. Nighttime lighting shall be limited to that necessary for security and shielded from any adjacent residential area. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed electrical engineer, with a letter from the engineer stating that I this requirement has been met. The lighting plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the 8 8 eq P J PP Planning Department. Restaurants. All restaurants, including drive-in and take-out restaurants shall be subject to the following requirements: 1. Kitchen exhaust fans are required and shall be designed to control odors and smoke, unless otherwise approved by the Newport Beach Building Department. 2. A washout area or areas is/are required and shall be provided in such a way as to insure direct drainage into the sewer system and not into the bay or the storm drains, unless otherwise approved by the Newport Beach Building Department. 3. Grease interceptors shaitbe installed on all fixtures in any restaurant facility where grease may be introduced into the drainage systems in accordance with the provisions of the Unifornt Plumbing Code unless otherwise approved by the Newport Beach Building Department and Public Works Department. Grease interceptors shall be located in such a way as to be easily accessible for routine cleaning and inspection. Dry Cleaning Facilities. All dry cleaning facilities shall be subject to the following requirements: 1. Any boilers shall be isolated in accordance with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. 2. The use of chemicals shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. 3. There shall be no outside storage of materials, supplies or other paraphernalia. 4. The proposed dry cleaning equipment shall be installed and operated in conformance with the requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Automobile Detailing. Automobile detailing, including the washing of automobiles, may occur only if contained within a building or parking structure. Washing of automobiles may occur only if drainage facilities are connected to the sewer system and do not drain into the bay or the storm drainage system. Landscaping. A minimum.of 5% of the paved surface parking areas shall be devoted to planting areas. A landscaping'program shall be developed for parking structures and shall be subject to the review of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department and the approval of the Planning and Public Works Departments. 12 � 73 FASHION ISLAND SIGN PROGRAM DEFINITIONS The following terms used in this section shall have the meanings indicated below: Audible Signs. The term "Audible Sign" means any sign which uses equipment to communicate a message with sound or music. Building Elevation. The term "Building Elevation" means the exterior wall surface formed by one(1) side of the building. Department Store. The term "Department Store" means a store selling,a wide variety of goods or services arranged in several departments. Eye Level. The term "Bye Level' means at the height of five (5) feet measured from grade. Freestanding Commercial. The term "Freestanding Commercial" means any building with a commercial use which is separated from other commercial uses by parking and/or streets. Internal Pedestrian Street. The term "Internal Pedestrian Street" means any walkway, path, plaza, arcade or corridor, either covered or open to the sky, which is primarily for use by people on foot and is not adjacent to the frontage road or common parking areas. Major Tenant. The term "Major Tenant" means a store or restaurant having a minimum of ten thousand (10,000) square feet of floor space, which is located within or between other commercial buildings. Monument Sign. The term "Monument Sign" means any sign which is supported by its own structure and is not part of or attached to any building. Sign. The term "Sign" means any media, including their structure and component parts which are used or intended to be used out-of-doors to communicate information to the public. Sign Area. The term "Sign Area" means the area enclosed by a rectangle drawn around the working, numbers or images composing the sign. Sign Face. The term "Sign Face" means the physical plane and/or surface upon which the working or images are applied. Sign Letter. The term "Sign Letter" means the individual symbols of the alphabet used in forming the words of a message. 13 1�q Tenant Sign. The term "Tenant Sign" means any permanent sign of an establishment which is located on or attached to the storefront elevation, covered walkway or awning for the purpose of communicating the name of the tenant. Temporary. Signs. The term "Temporary Sign" means any sign, banner, pennant, valance or advertising display constructed of cloth, canvas, plywood, light fabric, cardboard, wallboard or otherlight materials, with or without frames, intended to be displayed for a limited period of time. Theater Sign. The term "Theater Sign" means any permanent sign used to communicate to the public the name of a theater and the show(s)or movie(s) that are offered. Vehicle Entry. The term "Vehicle Entry" means intersection points along the Newport Center Drive ring road which provide access for automobiles into Fashion Island. Wind Sign. The teen Wind Sign" means a series of similar banners or objects of plastic or other g g i light material more than two 2 inches in diameter which are fastened together at intervals by S , wire, rope, cord, string or by any other means, designed to move and attract attention upon being subjected to pressure by wind or breeze. I PERMITTED SIGNS Shopping Center Identification Signs In addition to other signs permitted by this section, monument signs identifying the shopping center are permitted at each vehicle entry drive location. Two (2) signs are allowed at each entry h driveway. The location of the signs shall be a roved'b drive location, one on either side of the y g PP Y the City Traffic Engineer to ensure adequate sign distance, The sign area of each sign face shall not exceed one hundred (100) square feet and shall not exceed a height of ten (10) feet. Sign illumination is permitted. Major Tenant Signs In addition to other signs permitted by this section, signs identifying the department stores, major buildings and major tenants are permitted on the exterior walls or parapets of the building which they occupy. Within this category, one (1) sign per building elevation is allowed, with a maximum of four(4) signs for each department store, for each major tenant and/or for each major tenant. Individual sign letters are not to exceed ten (10) feet in height. Sign illumination is permitted. In addition, all stores are permitted to place at each entry a sign identifying the store name and services, store address, hours of business and emergency telephone numbers. This sign shall be located at or below eye level to be visible to pedestrians, and shall not exceed six(6) square feet. 14 Freestanding Commercial In addition to other signs permitted by this section, signs identifying commercial structures are permitted on the exterior walls or parapets of the building which they occupy. Within this category, one (1) sign per building elevation is allowed, with a maximum of four (4) signs for each building or structure. Individual sign letters are not to exceed three (3) feet in height. Sign illumination is permitted. In addition, one (1) monument sign is permitted for each freestanding commercial building. The total sign area, per sign face, shall not exceed fifty (50) square feet and shall not exceed a height of five (5) feet. Sign illumination is permitted. Tenant Signs In addition to other signs permitted in this section, tenant signs wluch occur on exterior elevations of the shopping center and face Newport Center Drive ring road are permitted. The total sign area for each tenant sign shall not exceed one(1) square foot for each lineal foot of storefront, but in no case shall the sign area exceed one hundred (100) square feet. Sign illumination is permitted. Tenant signs on building elevations which occur on internal pedestrian streets of the shopping center are permitted. The design and size of these signs are regulated by the property owner's shopping center sign program. In addition, all stores are permitted to place at each entry a sign identifying the store name and services, store address, hours of business and emergency telephone numbers. This sign shall be located at or below eye level to be visible to pedestrians, and shall not exceed six (6)feet in area. Theater Signs In addition to other signs permitted by this section, one sign identifying the theater establishment and the current shows or plays at that theater complex is permitted. The theater sign can face Newport Center Drive ring road and be on either the exterior walls or parapets of the building which they occupy, or a free standing monument sign or on the adjacent parking structure. Sign illumination is permitted. Individual letters for the theater's name are not to exceed five (5) feet in height. Each theater show title is permitted a sign area of up to three(3) feet by fifteen(15) feet. Vehicular Signs. In addition to other signs permitted in this section, signs used to give direction to vehicular or pedestrian traffic are permitted. Said signs shall not contain advertising messages and shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 15 T 4 i Store Address Signs. In addition to other signs permitted in this section, signs identifying the store address number (s) are permitted at each entry to the store. This sign shall not exceed six(6) square.feet in area. Temporary Signs. In addition to other signs permitted in this section, temporary signs, intended to be displayed for sixty(60) days or less, are permitted for purposes related to special,events, seasonal activities and store openings. Temporary signs, identifying new construction or remodeling, may be displayed for the duration of the construction period beyond the sixty(60).daytimit. Nonconforming Signs. Signs lawfully in existence on the adoption date of this Planned Community text which do not comply with the provisions herein shall be regarded as legal nonconforming signs, and shall' be governed by the provisions of Chapter 20.83 of the Newport Beach Municipal'Code. Entry g Marker Signs. In addition to other signs permitted in this section, signs used to provide information on activities and events, as well as advertise stores and shops within the shopping center, shall be permitted. Said signs shall be limited to a maximum height of 15 feet, a maximum footprint of 36 square feet as measured by area enclosed by two sets of parallel lines around the structure. The structure shall also be permitted an overhang with a maximum projection of 2 feet beyond the face of the structure and may be either internally or externally illuminated. The signs shall be limited to a maximum number of seven(7)within-the Planned Community District and the final location of the structures shall be approved by the Planning Director. If located within the sight plane of any drive or roadway, the signs shall be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. SIGN STANDARDS Maintenance., Signs, together with all of their supports, braces, guys and anchors; shall be properly maintained with respect to appearance, structural and electrical features. Restricted Sign Types. Signs visible from Newport Center Drive ring road are subject to the following restrictions: No rotating, flashing,blinking, or signing with animation shall be permitted on a permanent basis. No signs shall be permitted which imitate or resemble official traffic signs or signals. No wind signs or audible signs are permitted. 16 �I� Exceptions to the restriction noted in this section require the review and approval of Modifications Committee of the City of Newport Beach. 17 • • Attachment 6 ' RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FASHION ISLAND EXPANSION NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH November 8, 1994 Introduction The following contains all comments received to date during the public review period on the Negative Declaration prepared for the Fashion Island Expansion project, and'the,City of Newport Beach's responses thereto. Pursuant to §15132(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, the City has provided responses to "significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process." For each commentator, the individual comment is summarized, followed by the City's response. Each comment letter is attached. List of Commentators 1. Kari A.Rigoni, Senior Planner(for Robert W. White, Manager) County of Orange Environmental Management Agency 2. Sheri Vander Dussen, Manager of Planning and Development Services City of Irvine 3. Yvonne Houssels, Association President Harbor View Hills South Homeowners Association f�'1 LETTER FROM COUNTY OF ORANGE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY by Kari A. Rigoni, Senior Planner (for Robert W. White, Manager) dated October 28, 1994 Comment Response WATER QUALITY 1. It is noted on Page 11 of the checklist The revised initial study prepared for the explanations that the existing storm drain project clarified that additional storm drain system is inadequate, and the proposal facilities would be constructed parallel to the would only worsen things. The mitigation existing El Paseo storm drain, and that the offer on the following page is very general existing outfall is adequate to handle this and could even authorize construction of additional drain. a new storm drain through different properties with a bay discharge point different than the current system. It would seem that implementation of this measure itself would have significant impacts, if a new storm drain needs to be constructed. 2. Consideration could be given in any such See above Response. The City incorporates new construction to inlet designs all relevant construction .and maintenance compatible with Mitigation 3 on Pages 4 BMPs into all projects. and 5 calling for BMP installation. There are now commercially available a number of drop-in "stormwater quality" inlets themselves viewed as Best Management Practices (BMPs). It would seem a logical opportunity to pursue such state of the art designs. 3. The City should be aware that it is Comment noted. Appendix G from the DAMP that lists the BMPs, and that the BMPs should be listed within a Water Quality Management Plan which needs to be prepared by the applicant. I�� LETTER FROM CITY OF IRVINE SHERI VANDER DUSSEN,Manager dated October 31, 1994 Comment Response CIRCULATION 1. The City of Irvine would like to Request noted and sent to the City of request a copy of the traffic study Irvine. referenced in the Negative Declaration. � �1 LETTER FROM HARBOR VIEW HILLS SOUTH HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION by Yvonne Houssels, Association President dated October 31, 1994 Comment Response CIRCULATION Requests information regarding a toll being The traffic study prepared for the Fashion placed on.Newport Coast Drive and the Island Expansion project studied impacts accompanying increased traffic on San to the arterial roadway system in the City's Joaquin Hills Road, in relation to the planning area. No significant increase in Fashion Island Expansion project. The traffic volumes (less than 1,000 ADT, or expansion of Fashion will have a direct under 4%) is anticipated on San Joaquin impact on the traffic on San Joaquin Hills Hills Road as a result of the project. Road, and the loss of Newport Coast Drive as a free road will also increase this impact, It is important to note that the "bypass" so these two issues should be studied provided by Newport Coast Drive, which together. is of concern in the toll issue, does not provide any significant service to Newport Center or Fashion Island. This bypass movement primarily serves the John Wayne Airport area, the Irvine Business Complex and other points north. This is due to the fact that the route of Newport Coast Drive to Newport Center via San Joaquin Hills Road is a substantially longer route (both time and distance) than using Coast Highway. Therefore, the conversion of a portion of Newport Coast Drive to the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor toll facility will not affect traffic volumes which could otherwise be expected on San Joaquin Hills Road as a result of the Fashion Island Expansion project. The construction of the Transportation Corridor from the I-5 in San Juan Capistrano to MacArthur Boulevard will provide an additional route from south Orange County which can be used to access Newport Center and Fashion Island. The presence of the toll should actually serve to inhibit its use for shopping trips in non-peak hours, due to available options of 1-405 and Coast Highway. � gZ MICHAEL M.RUANE 4NTY O F DIRECTOR.EMA THOMAS B.MATHEWS DIRECTOR OF PLANNING 56 RANGE LOCATION: ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY 300 N.FLOWER ST. PLANNING THIRD FLOOR SANTA ANA,CA MAILING ADDRESS: P.O.BOX 4048 OCT 2 81994 SANTA ANA,CA 92702.404P TELEPHONE: (714)834.4643 FAX C 834.2771 DPCi834.4772 John Douglas NCL94-90 City of Newport Beach Planning Department 33000 Newport Boulevard P. 0. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768 Subject: Negative, Declaration for the Fashion Island Expansion Dear Mr. Douglas: The above referenced item is a Negative Declaration (ND) for the City of Newport Beach. The proposed project would increase the maximum square footage of Retail and Service Commercial uses within Fashion Island by 305,550 square feet, increase the development entitlement to 1,620,300 square feet, adopt revised parking regulations, .and gain approval of a Traffic Phasing Ordinance Study. The project site is at Newport Center.. The County of Orange has reviewed the ND resulting in the following comments regarding water quality: 1. It is noted on Page 11 of the checklist explanations that the existing storm drain system is inadequate, and the proposal would only worsen things. The mitigation then offered on the following page is very general and could even authorize construction of a new stormdrain through different properties with a bay discharge point different than the current system. It would seem that implementation of this measure itself could have significant impacts, if a new drain needs to be constructed. 2. Consideration could be given in any such new construction to inlet designs compatible with Mitigation 3 on Pages 4 and 5 calling for BMP installation. There are now commercially available a number of drop-in "stormwater quality" inlets themselves viewed' as Best Management Practices (BMPs) . It would seem a logical opportunity to pursue such state of the art designs. OGT , 1991 PM AM gtgt9t10tllt12t1►2t3t4t5t6 Y I ) F 1 • • Mr. John Douglas Page 2 3. The City should be aware that it is Appendix G from the DAMP that lists the BMPs, and that the BMPs should be listed within a Water Quality Management Plan which needs to be prepared by the applicant. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the ND. If you have questions, please call Kari Rigoni at (714) 934-2109. Very truly yours, -7 �G l �4n Kari A. Rigoni, Sr. anner For: Robert W. White, Manager EMA/Environmental Planning Division CH:sf 4102708283127 f�-1 fpF rR�'�. r_r ,- ��• ''e.. :;�•.:-,, Via;-� �' )7 t. .} = ~. v S�c _ o'• "a``:'... . ^? 'n is Q?713 17•.:, "74%. Ve Ali 1001 October 31, 1994 7i8i9i10i11iLili2i3i4i5P Mr. John H. Douglas, AICP Environmental Coordinator City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92659 SUBJECT: NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR FASHION ISLAND EXPANSION (GPA 94-2 (B) , A811, TS 95) Dear Mr. D glas: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Negative Declaration for the proposed Fashion Island Expansion. We have conducted a review of the information forwarded to us and would like to request a complete copy of the traffic study referenced under the Transportation/Parking analysis section of the Negative Declaration. Please send a copy of the traffic study to the attention of Diane Bathgate, Associate Planner, of my staff. If you have any questions, she may be contacted at 724-6407. In addition, if there are any changes in the project scope please advise us. Thank you for continuing to keep the City of Irvine informed of projects with potential impacts. Sincerely, �ANDER 'DUSSEN Manager of Planning and Development Services 0: Leslie Aranda, Principal Planner Diane Bathgate, Associate Planner Pete Kolibaba, Engineering Technician Harbor View Hills South Homeowners Association 17550 Gillette Avenue,Suite 201,Irvine California 92713 October 31, 1994 Patty Temple Advance Planning Manager Planning Department Aft } 3300 Newport Blvd. �I�t'�I1u11111�11 i21g1415pF P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 RE: HARBOR VIEW HILLS SOUTH HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION Response to Negative Declaration for Fashion Island Expansion Dear Patty: As per our phone conversation of October 29, I explained that our Board's next meeting is on November 16, 1994. The City of Newport Beach Negative Declaration for the Fashion Island expansion was received by our property manager on October 17, 1994 and given to me on October 21, 1994. As the deadline for stating any possible concerns our Board may wish to pursue is November 14 and you want an immediate response, I am stating the following concern which has been mentioned at previous Board meetings, so that we may pursue this issue in the future if the Board so desires. Upon my personal review of the information mailed to our Association, it does not appear that the specific question of a toll being placed on Newport Coast Drive and the accompanying increased traffic on San Joaquin Hills Road, in relation to the Fashion Island Expansion, has been adequately studied. The expansion of Fashion Island will have a direct impact on the traffic of San Joaquin Hills Road, and the loss of Newport Coast Drive as a free road will also increase this impact, so these two issues should be studied together. Thank you for your consideration of the community's input of the expansion of Fashion Island. Cordially, i� dw Yvonne Houssels, Association President YH/tw Professional Management Associates,P.O.Box 19530,Irvine,CA 92713(714)752-2225,Fax(714)757-6396 Ub Attachment 7^ .� r MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTINfJPROGRAM Fashion Island Expansion [GPA 94-2(B), A 811, TS 95] 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. The attached table summarizes the adopted mitigation measures, implementing actions, and verification procedures for this project. II. 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 plans 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 plans and project description. 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 i the event of noncompliance. Final monitoring reports will be laced in d es n e v P g P P the official file. R\...\IOHN•D\FASH•ISL\MM•COV ER j�1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING SUMMARY Fashion Island Expansion [GPA 94-2(B),A 811,TS 95] w Mitigation Measure Implementing Method of Timing of Responsible v Action Verification Verification Person Air Quali 1. Prior to issuance of a grading or building Condition of Approval Plan check;field inspection Prior to issuance of grading Building Dept.,Planning permit,the applicant shall demonstrate to or building permits:during Dept. the Planning Department and Building construction Department that construction operations • shall utilize methods to reduce pollutant emissions to the greatest extent feasible. Such methods may include,but may not be limited to,the following: a) Use of low-emission constuction equipment b) Rideshare program and incentives for construction employees c) Suspend grading operations during first and second stage smog alerts d) Maintain construction equipment with properly tuned engines e) Use of low�sulfur fuel for stationary construction equipment f) Use of on-site power instead of portable generators g) Coordinate construction operations to minimize traffic interference CSC 1 MMGATIONMONITORING AND REPORTING SUMMARY Fashion Island Expansion [GPA 94-2(B),A-811,IS 95] Mitigation Measure Implementing Method of Timing of Responsible Action Verification Verification Person 2. Prior to issuance of any building permit Condition of Approval Plan check,field-inspection Prior to issuance of building Building Dept.,Planning the applicant shall demonstrate to the permits;during construction Dept. Planning Department and Building Department that all feasible methods of reducing vehicular travel and air emissions have beerrincorporated into the design and operation of the-project Examples of such methods may include,but may not be limited to,the following: a) Provision of safe bicycle circulation routes,secure bicycle storage and shower facilities for employees b) Incorporation of energytfficient design that complies with or exceeds Title 24 requirements e) Provide priority parking and charging ports for electric vehicles d) Provision of ride-sham and transit incentives for employees Water Coatity • 3. Prior to issuance of a grading or building Condition of Approval Plan check;field inspection Prior to issuance of grading Planning DepL and permit the applicant shall demonstrate to .permit;inspection during Building Dept the Planning and.Building departments construction that all appropriate structural-and non- structural best managementpractices will be incorporated into the project as required by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES) Drainage-Ama-Management Plan 2 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING SUMMARY Fashion Island Expansion [GPA 94-2(B),A 811,TS 95] Mitigation Measure Implementing Method of Timing of Responsible Action Verification Verification Person Lieht and Glare 4. Prior to the issuance of any building Condition of Approval Plan check Prior to the issuance of a Building Dept. permit,the applicant shall demonstrate to building permit the Building Department that the lighting system shalt 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 residential uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Architect or Electrical Engineer,with a letter from the Architect or Engineer stating that,in his or her opinion,this requirement has been satisfied. Land Use S. Prior to issuance of a building permit for Condition of Approval Plan check Prior to the issuance of a Building Dept. any expansion,a General Plan amendment building permit and Planned Community amendment shall be approved to increase the development entitlement in Fashion Island to be consistent with the building permit application. Trammortatton/Parkine 6. Prior to issuance of a grading or building Condition of Approval Plan check Prior to the issuance of a Building Dept. permit the applicant shall obtain grading or building permit confirmation from the City Traffic Engineer that the planned improvements to MacArthur Boulevard assumed in the TPO study will be installed prior to project occuipancy- n d 3 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING SUMMARY Fashion IslandBxpansion [GPA 94-2(B),A 811,TS 95) gation Measure Implementing Method of Timing of Responsible Action Verification Verification Person 7. a. Prior to issuance of a grading or Condition of Approval Plan check;field inspection Prior to the issuance of a Building Dept;Traffic building permit for the expansion,a grading or building permit; Engineer,Police Dept. parking plan acceptable to the City Traffic prior to issuance of Engineer and the Police Department shall certificate of occupancy be submitted by the applicant. The plan shall address the number and size of required spaces,parking-lot re-striping, i signage(both vehicular and pedestrian), traffic control,and parking area security (c.g.,lighting)so as to minimize illegal parking,congestion and idling during seasonal peak periods. b. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the expansion,the parking control plan shall be implemented and approved by the City Traffic Engineer. Utilities and Service Systems & Prior to issuance of a grading or building Condition of Approval Plan check Prior to the issuance of a Building Dept.;City permit the City Engineer shall verifythat grading or building permit Engineer adequate capacity exists in the storm drain system to sera the development. Cultural Resources 9. Prior to issuance of a grading permit,the Condition of Approval Plan check Prior to issuance of grading Planning Dept.,Building applicant shalt demonstrate to the permit Dept. Planning Department that the project wil comply with Council Policies K 5 and Kfi regarding archaeological and paleontological resource investigation, sumillance and recovery. f.•\...\JOHN-D\FASH-ISL\MM TABLE. r, 1 e/ Su 4 i CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT November 14, 1994 TO: Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Fashion Island Expansion (Supplemental Report) GPA 94-2(B). A 811, TS 95 The attached letter from the City of Costa Mesa was received after distribution of the staff report for this item. The letter contains comments regarding the Negative Declaration prepared for the proposed expansion project. The comments along with staffs responses are provided below. Comment: The City of Costa Mesa did not submit comments on the first Negative Declaration (ND). Costa Mesa is concerned that the Planning Commission may have assumed that Costa Mesa had no comments on this project. Response: For this project CEQA requires that the public be given 30 days to review and comment on the ND prior to final action by the decisionmaking body. Since the City Council is the final decisionmaker for the proposed project, it was not necessary that the public comment period expire prior to Planning Commission action. The Planning Commission was aware that the public comment period for the ND had not expired at the time it made recommendations to the City Council. Comment: Will commenting agencies receive responses to their comments,prior to the City Council hearing? Response: Those comments that were received by November 7th were included in the regular staff report to the City Council. Responses to the comments submitted by the City of Costa Mesa will be submitted to the City Council prior to the public hearing on November 14, 1994, as required by CEQA. There is no requirement that commenting agencies receive responses to Negative Declaration comments. Comment: The trip generation rates used in the traffic study are inaccurate. Response: The traffic study utilizes trip generation rates based on the incremental traffic increase that would be expected to result from the proposed expansion. Accepted traffic engineering methodology based on prior Institute of Traffic Engineering surveys confirms • ' . � . that the incremental trip rate for shopping centers is less than the average trip rate. The trip rates used in the Fashion Island study are based on TTE methodology, the City's most recent traffic model assumptions, and recent traffic counts at the site. When the County and City traffic models are updated these assumptions will be reexamined. Comments The traffic study does not identify the impacts of the full 309,550-square-foot expansion. The transfer of entitlement to Fashion Island could concentrate traffic and result in additional impacts. Response: The study does evaluate the full impacts associated with the 309,550-square-foot expansion. It is the professional judgement of the City Traffic Engineer that the transfer of existing entitlement to Fashion Island would not result in additional impacts that are not addressed in the traffic analysis. Comment: Costa Mesa is concerned that the increase of 600-700 employees could impact the affordable housing supply in Costa Mesa if it cannot be.satisfied in Newport Beach. Response: As noted in the Negative Declaration, it is anticipated that the majority of employees would not be primary heads of household, but rather would be students and other part-time workers. Recent surveys indicate that approximately 83%of Fashion Island employees are part-time workers (i.e., 30 hours per week or less) with a typical pay rate of $6.00 - 7.00 per'hour. It is therefore assumed that only full-time management employees would contribute to additional housing demand. Based on these data it is estimated that the increased housing demand would be less that 100' units if all of the management employees were heads of household. This level of increase is not considered significant. Comment: What is the status of the General Plan Amendment referenced at the bottom of Page 12? Response: The reference is to the Ford/Loral General Plan Amendment, which has been initiated by the City Council and is currently being processed by staff. PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWIR, Director � By: !/�� P ZJ hn H. Do , AICP lri 1pal Pl er/Environmental Coordinator Attachment Letter from the City of Costa Mesa t:\-\JOHN-D\FnSH-ISL\RFSPONS&ND CITY OF COSTA MESA CALIFORNIA 92626.1200 P.O.BOX 12W DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT November 8, 1994 i i0y VIA Mr. John H. Douglas City of Newport Beach Planning Department Post Office Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768 Re: DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION FASHION ISLAND EXPANSION__ Dear Mr. Douglas: The City of Costa Mesa has received the revised Negative Declaration issued October 14, 1994 for the proposed Fashion Island Expansion. The proposal consists, in part, of a General Plan amendment to increase the maximum square footage of retail and service commercial uses in Fashion Island by 309,550 square feet. The increase is a combination of 266,000 square feet of new entitlement and 43 ,550 square feet of entitlement transferred from two sites outside of Fashion Island. Prior to providing comments on the revised Negative Declaration, the following are procedural concerns regarding the processing of the document. The City of Costa Mesa was prepared to comment on the original Negative Declaration issued September 19, 1994 but refrained after hearing about the revised document and the new public review period which ends November 14th. The City of Costa Mesa received the revised Negative Declaration and Newport Beach Planning Commission Staff Report package after the Planning Commission hearing of October 20, 1994 . The Resolutions and the Findings and Conditions for Approval all state that comments on the Initial Study were received and considered by the City of Newport Beach's Planning Commission prior to its action on the project. This could have been misleading to the Planning Commissioners because they might have thought the City of Costa Mesa was not interested in' commenting on the environmental document. Similarly, since the Newport Beach City Council will be holding a hearing on the project November 14, the last day of the review period, will commenting agencies receive responses in time to make further comments, if necessary, by the night of the hearing? Also, it would be appreciated if copies of your City Council staff report could be provided prior to the hearing. 77 FAIR DRIVE Building Division(714)754.5273 • Code Enforcement(714)754.5623 • Planning Division(714)754.5245 • The City of Costa Mesa offers the following comments on the revised Negative Declaration related to transportation and housing. TRANSPORTATION The traffic study, in our opinion, underestimates the trip generation and traffic impacts of the proposed expansion for the following reasons: 1. The trip rates in the Newport Beach Traffic Analysis Model (NBTAM) for Fashion Island have been factored down to develop the trip generation for the proposed expansion. However, an average daily trip (ADT) generation of 27.05 vehicles per thousand square feet (TSF) is identified on Page III-2 as the actual rate generated by the existing center. No information has been provided on the P.M. peak hour rate derived from existing count data. Given that the observed ADT rate is 23 percent higher than the NBTAM rate of 22 ADT/TSF, it appears that the NBTAM rates for Fashion Island are outdated and the trip rates used for the proposed expansion (19.56 ADT/TSF) are inaccurate. 2. The traffic study identifies the impacts of only the new entitlement of 266, 000 square feet but not the maximum of 309, 550 square feet of additional retail development proposed for Fashion Island. Although the additional 43,550 square feet is entitlement from other locations, the resulting traffic would be concentrated at Fashion Island, thereby creating some additional impact that should be analyzed. Based on the above, the traffic study needs to be revised to identify actual impacts of the proposed expansion on Pacific Coast Highway, as well as other areas. HOUSING Because the proposed project requires a General Plan amendment to increase non-residential development, the City of Costa Mesa is concerned about the corresponding increase in housing demand created by attracting 600-700 employees. This .demand could impact the affordable housing supply in Costa Mesa if it cannot be satisfied in Newport Beach. Although the discussion on pages 12 and 13 of the Negative Declaration recognizes that the project will result in an increase in housing demand, no quantification of the impact is provided. Similarly, there is no data to back up the assumption that "few of the new jobs created by the Fashion Island expansion would be held by heads of household. . . " therefore, reducing housing demand. If sufficient affordable housing were provided in the area, more of the new jobs might be held by heads of households as opposed to second wage earners. The Negative Declaration should quantify the estimated housing demand and wage levels of new employees and then discuss the housing supply that is affordable according to those wage levels. Will the programs in the City's Housing Element mitigate the demand created by this General Plan amendment? Lastly, what is the status of the City-initiated General Plan amendment discussed at the bottom of page 12 and, if approved, will it serve to mitigate the Fashion Island project? Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the revised Negative Declaration. In addition to responses to the comments noted above, Costa Mesa requests copies of any responses to comments made by SCAG or SCAQMD. If you have any questions, please call me at 754- 5136 or Peter Naghavi, Transportation Services Manager at 754-5182. Sincerely, p�a4,a�-Pe,9 � KRISTEN CASPERS PETROS Associate Planner KCP/jt (NEGDECAWC17 cc: Allan Roeder, City Manager Donald Lamm, Deputy City Manager-Development Services Bill Morris, Public Services Director Peter Naghavi, Transportation Services Manager Thomas Kathe, City Attorney City Council Meeting October 24, 1994 Agenda Item No. 35 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: A General Plan Amendment 94-2(B) Request to consider an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element so as to increase the development limit in Fashion Island by 266,000 square feet; and the acceptance of an environmental document. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach and B. General Plan Consistency Finding Request for a finding of General Plan Consistency allowing a transfer of 30,000 square feet of Retail and Service Commercial entitlement from Bayview Landing to Fashion Island as provided in the General Plan Land Use Element. and C. Amendment No. 811 Request to amend the Planned Community District Regulations for Fashion Island to increase the development limit by 309,550 square feet to allow construction of the 266,000 square feet addressed in GPA 94-2(B), 30,000 square feet transferred from Bayview Landing, and 13,550 square feet previously transferred from the Pac Bell site. and D. Traffic Study No. 95 Request to approve a traffic study to allow an additional 266,000 square feet in the Fashion Island Planned Community not previously vested pursuant to the provisions of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. T0: Mayor and Members of the City Council- LOCATION: Tract No. 6015, located within the ring created by Newport Center Drive in Newport Center(Fashion Island). ZONE: P-C APPLICANT: The Irvine Company,Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant Applications If approved, the requested applications will authorize the construction of a substantial addition to the Fashion Island Regional Retail Center. A General Plan and Zoning Amendment is required to increase allowed square footage. The transfer of 30,000 sq.ft. from Bayview Landing requires a finding of consistency with the General Plan. Approval of a Traffic Study is needed to address 266,000 sq.ft. not previously transferred or vested pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. General Plan Amendment procedures are contained in Council Policy K-1. Amendment procedures are contained in Chapters 20.51 and 20.84 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Traffic Study procedures are set forth in Chapter 15.40 of the Municipal Code and in Council Policy L-18. Suggested Action If desired, schedule the items described above for public hearing on November 14, 1994. Plannins Commission Action The Planning Commission-is scheduled to hear this item at its meeting on October 20, 1994. The Planning Director will report the action of the Planning Commission at the City Council meeting. PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMS D. HEWICKER,Director By &a.ez Q/u _16e Patricia L. Temple Advance Planning Manager PLT:..F.%WP5 1PLANNING\PATTY-7\COGPAV4-2Bl.DOC 1 - _ o � - CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT October 13, 1994 TO: Interested Parties FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Revised Negative Declaration for Fashion Island Expansion Recently you received a copy of a Negative Declaration prepared by the City for the proposed expansion of Fashion Island. Enclosed is a revised Negative Declaration which contains minor revision to the analysis of air quality and noise impacts. No change to the project description is proposed. If you have any questions please contact John Douglas at 644-3230. F\.,.\JOHN-D\FASH-ISL\ND2,DISr.MEM - i y CITY OF NE"ORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard-P.O.Box 1768 Newport Beach,CA 92659-1768 - (714)69-3225 NEGATIVE DECLARATION To: From: City of Newport Beach Office of Planning and Research Planning Department 1400 Tenth Street,Room 121 3300 Newport Boulevard-P.O.Box 1768 XX Sacramento,CA 95814 Newport Beach,CA 92659-1768 (Orange County) County Clerk,County of Orange XX Public Services Division P.O.Box 838 Date received for filing at OPR: Santa Ana,CA 92702 Public review period October 14 - November 14, 1994 NameofProject: Fashion Island Expansion (GPA 94-2(B),A811,TS 95) Project Location: Newport Center, Newport Beach, CA The proposal consists of a General Plan amendment, Planned Community Project Description: amendment and Traffic Study to increase the entitlement for Fashion Island by 266,000 sq.ft. , which would result in a maximum of 309,550 sq.ft. of additional retail development, including unbuilt entitler�n . Finding: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council Policy K-3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study containing the analysis supporting this finding is attached. The Initial Study may include mitigation measures that would eliminate or reduce potential environmental impacts. This document will be considered by the decision-maker(s)prior to fmal 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. If you wish to appeal the appropriateness or adequacy of this document,your comments should be submitted in writing prior to the close of the public review period. Your comments should specifically identify what environmental impacts you believe would result from the project,why they are significant,and what mitigation measures you believe should be adopted to eliminate or reduce these impacts. There is no fee for this appeal. If a public hearing 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. Date October 12, 1994 John H Do glas,AIC�' Enviro m- al Coord' for Revised 11191 ONVIRONHENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLISO t CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH t I. BACKGROUND 1. Application No: GPA 94-2(6) , Amendment 811, Traffic Study 95 2. Project name: Fashion Island Expansion 3. Project location: Newport Center 4. Applicants The Irvine Company II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (See attached explanations) S=Significant P.S.=Potentially N.S.=Not S P.S. N.S. Significant Significant 1. Earth. Would the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes `l in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction X or overcovering of the soil? _ C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? _ _ X d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? _ X e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? x _ f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? _ g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? _ X 2. Air. Would the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration v of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? _ x C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, x either locally or regionally? Y r Environmental Analysis Chec List - Page 2 • $ P.S. N.S. 3. Water. Would the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements, in either X 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? _ x d. Change in the amount of surface water x in any water body? _ e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, \, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? _ f. Alteration of the direction or rate of X flow of ground water? _ g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts X or excavations? _ _ h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? X i. Exposure of people or property to water- related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? X 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)? X b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,rare or endangered species of plants? _X C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal Xreplenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? 3 Environmental Analysis Chellist - Page 3 S P.S. N.S. r 5. Animal Life. Would the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shell-fish, benthic organisms, or insects)? _ X 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 migration or movement of animals? _ X d. Deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat? _ x 6. Noise. Would the proposal result in an increase in existing noise levels, or exposure of people to severe noise levels? X 7. Light and Glare. Would the proposal produce new light or glare? _ x 8. Land Use. 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? _ X 9. 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 involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident? X b. Possible interference with an emergency response or evacuation plan? 11. Population. Would the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of the area? _ X 12. Housing. Would the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? q Environmental Analysis Checklist - Page 4 • 4 PIS,_ N. 13. Transportation/Circulation/Parking. Would the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? X _ b. Effects on existing parking facilities, x or demand for new parking? C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation X systems? _ d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? X _ e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? _ x f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians? X 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? X b. Police protection? _ X c. Schools? _ X d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? _ X f. Other governmental services? _ _ X 15. Energ . 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 X require the development of new sources of energy? _ _ _ 16. Utilites. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Electricity or natural gas? _ x b. Communications systems? _ x C. Water or wastewater? _ d. Storm water drainage? _ e. Solid waste and disposal? _ _ X Environmental Analysis Chetist - Page S $ P.S. N.S. 17. Human Health. Would the proposal result in the ' creation of any health hazard or exposure, of people X to a potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? — 18. 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? — — — 19. Recreation. Would the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? — —X 20, Cultural Resources. Would the proposals a. Result in the alteration or destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? P 9 — b. Result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects on a prehistoric or historic building, structure,, X or object? — — — C. Have the potential to cause a physical change X which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? — d. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within X the potential impact area? _ X. III. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. 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 pro-history? X- 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 ChecKliet - Page 6 • $ P.S. N.S. a 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 X future projects.) 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 HE 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 HE PREPARED. [ ) I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Prepared by: . John H. DoVqlas, AICP Date: Signature: Attachment: Environmental Analysis checklist Explanations f:\...\FORMS\CHECKLSi.1S Revised 12193 t Y VICINITY MAP GPA 94 - 2 (B) FASHION ISLAND EXPANSION • ' n+' NI_.'^, ''i:.. , 1 d, i-7��41ir4�1„_'I:i lv+j 1':-_.�',-:L�S,Y_t� +�_ •• •e.'+': �,:'i,^tl 1' �t:�h' i' �. ,P.i�T�.'•�i'�': a. �-i.ixi,. :c r_,. f•r • J �i. •C'w ' .. t• •.rr' , ,a,c�S; 'r4�,'hh.,�•: •.t Spw4• � ,, "ti._ .x�r; .�: • ' t r 4 ++ N 10 • V1 ! i , W In• FASHION G .. N • s F ISLAND `'• ;_ ' 7,1 - `'e,. :?fix;:-•��� ti N .,• zys'r _ �I tre, n f 2 , •_v4---- '- t r:2.'4 � ?•.. _ `��- ... 7 : ' S• 't, ! q {i r'.4,' _ :� •.1. `T •' ik-; i�lT•, 'Es�,�n'!L'�/{��/��•fs 331 /'�r�'k,�4;•. ii:.- _ : 42� G G 0 LA S 1 s 5 P V E -9 2 T -9 2! q O R q 9 L F S A N M G F D R i R L S F A N P TA A 6 8 R D R I V E 2 �O O 'P O F �9 ti 2 F �9 m' 0 LEGEND EM RETAIL AND SERVICE COMMERCIAL 0�2 F FASHION ISLAND REVISED ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Fashion Island Expansion General Plan Amendment 94-2(B) Amendment No. 811 Traffic Study No. 95 Project Description The proposed project consists of a General Plan amendment to increase the maximum square footage of Retail and Service Commercial uses within Fashion Island by 309,550 square feet from 1,310,750 to 1,620,300 square feet; an amendment to the Fashion Island Planned Community Regulations to increase the development entitlement to 1,620,300 square feet and adopt revised parking regulations; and approval of a Traffic Phasing Ordinance Study. The proposed additional development represents the total of 266,000 square feet of new entitlement, 30,000 square feet of entitlement transferred from the Bayview Landing site as permitted by the Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement, and 13,550 square feet of entitlement transferred from the PacTel site. This proposal would establish General Plan and zoning development entitlement, and no specific development plan is proposed at this time. Prior to issuance of building permits for additional development, detailed plans would be required and reviewed for conformance with applicable planned community and zoning code requirements. Analysis The following discussion provides explanations for the conclusions contained in the Environmental Analysis Checklist regarding the proposed project's environmental impacts. 1. Earth Potential Impacts Fashion Island is currently developed as a regional shopping mall. Portions of existing structures and parking lots would be demolished to accommodate the proposed addition, therefore some demolition, excavation and grading would be required. No significant landforms would be altered by the project. There are no known active faults in the immediate vicinity of this project although numerous faults underlie the Southern California region,therefore the project would be subject to groundshaking during earthquakes. If unstable soil conditions exist where new structures are proposed, remedial earthwork may be required prior to construction. Environmental Analysis Checklist Explanations 1 Fashion Island Expansion I� 0 . Soil erosion could occur during grading and construction if appropriate erosion control methods are not followed. Mitigation The City Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC Sec. 15.04.140) contains requirements for geotechnical evaluation and erosion control methods to ensure that any future grading is done in such a manner as to minimize the potential for erosion or unstable conditions. Compliance with Building Code structural requirements would ensure that buildings are designed to withstand expected levels of groundshaking during earthquakes. No additional mitigation is required. Level of Significance Compliance with the requirements of the Excavation and Grading Code and Building Code would reduce potential impacts below the level of significance. 2. Air Potential Impacts The size of the proposed project exceeds the threshold of potential significance established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), therefore the City retained Mestre, Greve and Associates to prepare a detailed air quality assessment. The results of that study are summarized below. The full report is available for review in the Planning Department and is incorporated herein by reference. Construction Impacts: During the course of construction pollutants from machinery, delivery trucks, and workers' vehicles would be released. In addition, dust would be generated by earthmoving and construction operations. The emissions calculations assumed that a scraper, tractor and water truck would all be running at the same time continuously for 8 hours every day. As summarized in the following table, the air quality assessment determined that construction emissions would be below the SCAQMD thresholds of potential significance. Environmental Analysis checklist Explanatloas 2 Fashion Island Expansion I1 Table 1 Construction Emissions Projected Emissions Threshold (Pounds/day) (Pounds/day) Carbon 40 550 monoxide (CO) Reactive organic 6 75 gasses (ROG) Nitrogen oxides 76 100 (NOx) Particulates 140 150 (PM10) Sulfur oxides 7 150 (SOX) Operational Impacts: The long-range air emissions estimates for the project are summarized in the following table. Table 2 Operational Emissions Projected Emissions Threshold (Pounds/day) (Pounds/day) Carbon monoxide 617 550 (CO) Reactive organic 29 55 gasses (ROG) Nitrogen oxides 74 55 (NOx) Particulates (PM10) 11 1 150 Sulfur oxides (SOx) 6 150 As indicated in this table, estimated total project emissions before mitigation would exceed the SCAQMD recommended threshold of significance for carbon monoxide Environmental Analysis Checklist Explanations 3 Fashion Island Expanslon Y and nitrogen oxides, therefore additional measures to reduce emissions would be appropriate. A"hot spot"analysis was also prepared for two key intersections where traffic studies indicate project-related carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations would be likely to be greatest (Jamboree/San Joaquin and MacArthur/San Miguel). This analysis determined'that projected CO levels for the year 2010 with the project would not exceed either the 1-hour standard of 20 ppm or the 8-hour standard of 9 ppm, and would represent an improvement current conditions due to an expected reduction in ambient CO concentrations. There are no other known operational characteristics of the project that would involve such things as odors or toxic materials that could adversely affect air quality. Mitigation Construction impacts: All grading activities are required to comply with the dust suppression provisions of the City's Grading and 'Excavation Code (NBMC Sec. 15.04.140) and AQMD Rule 403. Examples of practices required under these regulations include the following: • Site watering and washing of equipment before leaving the site • Application of chemical soil stabilizers to construction areas The report prepared by the City's air quality consultant recommended 22 mitigation measures to address the potential construction impacts of the project. Those mitigation measures will apply to the project. In addition, the following mitigation measure would substantially reduce air quality impacts during construction. 1. Prior to issuance of any grading or building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate to the Harming Department and Building Department that construction operations shall utilize methods to reduce pollutant emissions to the greatest extent feasible. Such methods may include, but may not be limited to, the following: a) Use of!ow-emission construction equipment b) Rideshare program and incentives for construction employees c) Suspend grading operations during,first and second stage smog alerts d) Maintain construction equipment with properly tuned engines Environmental Analysis Checklist Explanations 4 Fashion Island Expansion l� e) Use of low-sulfur fuel forstationary construction equipment f) Use of on-site power instead of portable generators g) Coordinate construction operations to minimize traffic interference Operational impacts: Potential operational air quality impacts due to additional traffic would be partially mitigated through reductions in vehicular travel required by AQMD Regulation 15 and the City's Transportation Demand Management Ordinance (NBMC Chapter 20.08). The report prepared by the City's air quality consultant recommended 14 mitigation measures to address the potential long-term impacts of the project. Those measures will apply to the project. The following additional mitigation measure is recommended to further reduce long-term impacts to air quality. 2. Prior to issuance of any building permit the applicant shall demonstrate to the Planning Department and Building Department that all feasible methods of reducing vehicular travel and air emissions have been incorporated into the design and operation of the project. Examples of such methods may include, but may not be limited to, the following.• a) Provision of safe bicycle circulation routes, secure bicycle storage and shower facilities for employees b) Incorporation of energy-efficient design that complies with or exceeds Title 24 requirements c) Provide priority parking and charging ports for electric vehicles d) Provision of rideshare and transit incentives for employees AOMP Conformance. Given the financial uncertainties of both the residential and commercial markets the City is taking selective actions, whenever and wherever possible, to adjust its land use patterns, consistent with the intent of the AQMP, to contribute to regional goals and maintain fiscal stability. The project is within an established regional commercial center with a transit center and active City supported transportation management association. It is surrounded by major transportation routes that offer transit service and bike trails. This project, consistent with the intent of the AQMP, intensifies an existing commercial node within walking distance of existing residential development, a transit facility and transit service. When considered along with other actions taken by the City to redesignate non- residential land uses to residential land uses the emerging land use pattern is consistent with regional goals. Environmental Analysis Checklist Explanations 5 Fashion Island Expansion • • i Level of Significance It is not possible to precisely quantify the reduction in emissions achieved my most mitigation measures, therefore a qualitative judgement by the Lead Agency is required to determine whether the project would exceed the threshold of significance. The City finds that compliance with standard requirements and the recommended mitigation measures would reduce the direct impacts of this project below the level of significance. This finding is based on the following facts: 1. The thresholds of significance suggested by the AQMD are derived from point source (e.g., smokestacks) emissions criteria. It is inappropriate to use point source emissions standards to evaluate the significance of mobile source emissions, which are dispersed over a broad area and bear little resemblance to emissions from industrial sources. 2. Emissions during the construction period would not exceed the threshold of significance suggested by the AQMD. 3. The proposed project is an expansion of an existing regional commercial center with a high level of transit service and an existing transportation management association. As further growth occurs in the region, expansion of existing centers such as Fashion Island would enhance trip reduction efforts as compared to development of new centers without existing transit and' trip reduction'infrastructure. In addition, the expansion of an existing center would foster the consolidation of shopping trips rather than adding additional trips to the road network,which is consistent with the directives of the AQMP. 4. The recommended mitigation measures would enhance current trip reduction programs through the provision of additional incentives for transit use, encouragement of alternative modes of transportation such as bicycling, and provision of incentives for reduced emissions vehicles such as electric cars, all of which would substantially reduce the long- term emissions resulting from the project. On the basis of these facts, the City finds that there is no substantial evidence that the proposed project, as mitigated, may result in a significant long-range air quality impact. On a cumulative basis, further development in the Southern California region is expected to result in an increase in air pollutant emissions. The EIR prepared for the City's 1988 Comprehensive General Plan Amendment concludes that implementation of the General Plan,together with growth in other areas,would have a significant adverse cumulative impact on air quality. In approving that General Plan Amendment the City Council adopted findings and a statement of overriding Environmental Analysis checklist Explanations Fashion Island'Expansion 0 • 1 considerations regarding cumulative air quality impacts as required by CEQA. Those findings state that there are specific economic, social and other benefits that clearly outweigh the significant environmental impacts of future development as described in the General Plan. The proposed Fashion Island expansion would contribute incrementally to the increase in air emissions but would itself have no direct significant impact nor add significantly to the cumulative condition. Copies of the 1988 General Plan EIR and City Council findings (Resolution No. 88-100) are available for review in the Planning Department, City Hall,3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach. 3. Water Potential Impacts Construction impacts: Potential sources of water contaminants include soil erosion, spillage or leakage of fuel and oil from construction equipment, and construction debris which could be washed into the ocean or Newport Bay via the storm drain system. Operational impacts: After completion of the project,pollutants from parking areas, streets and driveways (such as coolant, oil and grease drippings), and fertilizers and pesticides from landscaped areas could be washed into surface waters. The project would not directly affect any natural drainage patterns or bodies of water. Mitigation Construction impacts: All grading activities are required to comply with the erosion control provisions of the City's Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC Sec. 15.04.140). In addition, the following mitigation measure is recommended. 3. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit the applicant shall demonstrate to the Planning and Building departments that all appropriate structural and non-structural best management practices will be incorporated into the project as required by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Drainage Area Management Plan. Operational impacts: Potential operational impacts will be mitigated through compliance with the Excavation and Grading Code and the NPDES requirements contained in Mitigation Measure #3. Level of Significance The requirements of the Excavation and Grading Code and the recommended Environmental Analysis Checklist Explanations 7 Fashion Island Expansion �b mitigation measure would minimize pollutant runoff and would reduce potential y impacts below the level of significance. 4. Plant Life Potential impacts The proposed site is located in a developed area of the City and the project would not affect any natural vegetation. Mitigation No mitigation is required. Level of si wificance No significant impacts would be anticipated. S. Animal Life Potential Impacts The project is located in an urbanized area of the community and no significant impact to wildlife would be anticipated. Miti a i n No mitigation is required. Level of Significance No significant impacts would be anticipated. 6. Noise Potential Impacts The project would generate an increase in ambient noise levels both during construction and after project completion. In order to evaluate the magnitude of the increase in noise levels the City retained Mestre, Greve & Associates to prepare a detailed noise analysis. The results of that analysis are summarized below. The project is not located within an aircraft overflight noise impact area, and is not considered a noise-sensitive use. Construction Impacts: Existing ambient noise levels would be increased during Environmental Analysis Checklist Explanations 8 Fashion Island Expansion I'I construction period. Any construction activity would be required to comply with the noise limitations in the City's Noise Ordinance (NBMC Chapter 10.28) and would be restricted to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. weekdays and 8:00 am. to 6:00 p.m. Saturdays. No construction that produces loud noise is permitted on Sundays or holidays. Operational Impacts• Operational noise impacts would result primarily from traffic generated by the project. The project would add about 6064 average daily.trips to the street network at full operation. Since traffic noise levels are proportional to volume, some increase in ambient noise levels would be expected to occur adjacent to roadways serving Fashion Island. Table 2 of the noise study contains estimates of the traffic-related noise increases that would be expected along each affected roadway segment after construction of the proposed expansion. All of these increases are estimated to be 0.5 dB or less. Table 3 of the noise study compares projected noise levels at General Plan buildout with and without the project. Noise increases attributable to the project are estimated to be no greater than 0.3 dB on any affected roadway segment. Mitigation The hours of construction operations established by the Noise Ordinance would substantially reduce potential impacts to noise-sensitive uses in the area during construction. No other mitigation measures are proposed. Level of Significance Existing restrictions on construction hours, combined with the temporary nature of construction noise, would reduce construction noise impacts below the level of significance. In community noise assessment, changes in noise levels greater than 3 dB are often identified as significant,while changes less than 1 dB are not discernable to residents. In the range between 1 dB and 3 dB, residents who are very sensitive to noise may perceive a slight change. Since the traffic-generated noise increase associated with this project is projected to be less than 1 dB in all areas, no significant direct project impacts would be expected. On a cumulative basis, increased traffic resulting from planned development in the Southern California region is expected to result in a substantial increase in noise levels adjacent to major roadways, some of which will exceed General Plan standards for noise-sensitive land uses. The EIR prepared for the City's 1988 Comprehensive General Plan Amendment concludes that implementation of the General Plan, together with growth in other areas, would have a significant adverse cumulative impact on noise levels along many roadways in the city. In approving.that General Environmental Analysis Checklist Explanations 9 Fashion Island Expansion 0 Plan Amendment the City Council adopted findings and a statement of overriding + considerations regarding cumulative noise impacts as required by CEQA. Those findings state that there are specific economic, social and other benefits that clearly outweigh the significant environmental impacts of future development as described in the General Plan. The proposed Fashion Island expansion would contribute incrementally to the increase in noise levels, but would have no direct significant impact. Copies of the 1988 General Plan EIR and City Council findings (Resolution No. 88-100) are available for review in the Planning Department, City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach. 7. Light and Glare Potential Impacts The proposed project could produce light and glare that could adversely affect nearby residential properties if not properly designed. The primary external light would consist of decorative lighting features.around buildings, directional signs and security lighting as required. Mitigation The following mitigation measure is recommended. 4. Prior to the issuance of any building permit the applicant shall demonstrate to the Building 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 residential uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Architect or Electrical Engineer, with a letter from the Architect or Engineer stating that, in his or her opinion, this requirement has been satis7ed Level of Significance The recommended mitigation measure would ensure that any exterior lighting is designed such that potential impacts from nuisance glare would not be significant. 8. Land'Use Potential Impacts The site is located within Newport Center and is currently designated for Retail and Service Commercial use in the City's General Plan Land Use Element. A General Plan amendment and Planned Community amendment are proposed to increase the development entitlement for Fashion Island by 266,000 square feet. Since this project would allow uses similar to the existing regional mall, no significant land use Environmental Analysis Checklist Explanations 10 Fashion Island Expansion �y conflicts would be anticipated. The proposed General Plan and Planned Community amendments would eliminate any conflicts with these documents. This project is located outside the Coastal Zone and approval of a Coastal Development Permit is not required. Mitigation Since the proposed use is inconsistent with the existing General Plan and Planned Community regulations, the following mitigation measure is required. 5. Prior to issuance of a building permit for any expansion, a General Plan amendment and Planned Community amendment shall be approved to increase the development entitlement in Fashion Island to be consistent with the building permit application. Level of Siinificance Compliance with the required mitigation measure would eliminate any significant impacts. 9. Natural Resources Potential impacts The use of water, electricity, motor vehicle and construction equipment fuels and natural gas would increase incrementally as a result of this project. Mitigation No mitigation is recommended. Level of significance No significant impacts would be anticipated. 10. Risk of Accident Potential impacts No known toxic or hazardous materials would be used or stored on the site,therefore the proposed expansion would not be expected to present the potential for a public health and safety hazard. Environmental Analysis checklist Explanations 11 Fashion Island Expansion �D I Mitigation� No mitigation is required. Level of significance No significant impacts would be anticipated. 11. Population Potential impacts The proposed project would be expected to result in an increase of approximately 600-700 employees in Fashion Island based on a rate of 1 employee per 450-500 square feet of floor area. Some portion of these employees would be expected to reside in Newport Beach. Mitigation No mitigation is proposed. Level of significance No significant impacts would be anticipated. 12. Housing Potential impacts The increase in employment associated with the project would be expected to result in a corresponding increase in housing demand, especially in the low-wage retail and service categories. Mitigation It is expected that few of the new jobs created by the Fashion Island expansion would be held by heads of household, but rather would be filled by second wage-earners, students and retired Asa result,very little additional housing demand would people. � tY be ex in its Housing expected to occur. However, the City has a variety of programsg P Element to increase the supply of housing, particularly for low income persons and provide for a 20%production of affordable housing-units units families. These programsp p g at low income levels, assisted housing and density bonuses. The City has never granted less than a,509o' density bonus,has used the majority of its entitlement funds to assist the development of low income housing and has taken many actions to convert land designated for-non-residential uses to residential uses. Recently the City initiated another General Plan amendment to redesignate approximately 100 acres Environmental Analysis Checklist Explanations 12 'Fashion Island Expansion yJ of land from employment-generating use to residential use. Level of significance The increase in housing demand associated with the project is not considered to be significant. 13. Transportation/Parking The following discussion is based on a traffic study prepared by Austin-Foust Associates under the direction of the City Traffic Engineer. A copy of the complete report is available for review at the Planning Department and is incorporated herein by reference. Potential Impacts Circulation5ystem impacts: The traffic study evaluated both short-range and long- range impacts of the project. The short-range analysis followed the procedures required by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (NBMC Chapter 15.40). The TPO analysis determined that additional traffic generated by the proposed expansion would exceed 1%of the peak period volume of 5 intersections during the a.m.period and 15 intersections during the p.m.period,therefore a detailed Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis was prepared for each of these intersections. The ICU analysis determined that none of the 5 intersections studied for the a.m. period would exceed Level of Service (LOS) "D". Of the 15 intersections evaluated during the p.m. period, two would exceed LOS "D" based on the current roadway configuration (MacArthur/San Miguel and MacArthur/San Joaquin Hills Road). Planned improvements to MacArthur Boulevard would mitigate both of these intersections of LOS "D" or better. These improvements are expected to be in place before construction of the proposed Fashion Island expansion. The long-range analysis determined that traffic volumes at 5 intersections would be increased by more than 1%, but all of these would remain at acceptable service levels (i.e., LOS "D" or better). Parking impacts: The circulation study determined that the proposed expansion would result in the need for approximately 900 additional parking spaces during the peak holiday season and during occasional special events. The proposed revision to the Planned Community parking regulations would provide on-site parking at the rate of 3 spaces per 1000 square feet of floor area, with a total of 4 spaces per 1000 square feet including peak period off-site parking. Mitigation Circulation system: The following measures would mitigate potential circulation Environmental Analysis Checklist Explanations 13 Fashion Island Expansion vy system impacts: 6. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit the applicant shall obtain confirmation from the City Traffic Engineer that the planned improvements to MacArthur Boulevard assumed in the TPO study will be installed prior to project occupancy. Parking: The required additional parking spaces may be provided through one or more of the following methods. • Parking lot re-striping including additional compact spaces • Construction of parking structure(s) on-existing surface lots • Implementation of an off-site parking and shuttle program for employees • Provision of on-street parking on Newport Center Drive • Reduced demand through TDM and parking management programs The following mitigation measure would ensure that potential parking impacts are mitigated. 7. a. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit for the expansion, a parking plan acceptable to the City Traffic Engineer and the Police Department shall be submitted by the applicant. The plan shall address the number and size of required spaces, parking lot re-striping signage (both vehicular and pedestrian), traffic control, and parking area security (e.g., lighting) so as to minimize illegal parking,, congestion and idling during seasonal peak periods. b. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the expansion, the parking control plan shall be implemented and approved by the City Traffic Engineer. Level of Significance The recommended mitigation measures would reduce•direct project impacts below the level of significance. On a cumulative basis, increased traffic resulting from planned development in the Southern California region is expected to result in a continuation of traffic congestion that exceeds General Plan standards at many locations, although planned roadway improvements will substantially reduce the number of intersections experiencing problems. The EIR prepared for the City's 1988 Comprehensive General Plan Amendment concludes that implementation of the General Plan, together with growth in other areas, would have a significant adverse cumulative impact on congestion levels at several locations in the city. In approving that General Plan Amendment the City Council adopted findings and a statement of overriding Environmental Analysis Checklist Explanations 14 Fashion Island Expansion considerations regarding cumulative traffic impacts as required by CEQA. Those findings state that there are specific economic, social and other benefits that clearly outweigh the significant environmental impacts of future development as described in the General Plan. The proposed Fashion Island expansion would contribute incrementally to the increase in traffic levels, but would have no direct significant impacts. Copies of the 1988 General Plan EIR and City Council findings (Resolution No. 88-100) are available for review in the Planning Department, City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach. 1 14. Publiel Services Potential impacts With the exception of the drainage deficiency discussed in Section 16, there are sufficient public or governmental services that serve the area and the project would not create a significant additional demand for these services. Mitigation No mitigation is proposed. Level of significance No significant impacts would be anticipated. 15. Energy Potential impacts No significant increase in the use of energy is anticipated. Mitigation No mitigation is proposed. Level of significance No significant impacts would be anticipated. 16. Utilities and Service Systems Potential Impacts The existing storm drainage system is inadequate to convey runoff from existing development in the area. The proposed expansion would contribute to an incremental increase in surface runoff that would exacerbate this existing deficiency. Environmental Analysis Checklist Explanations 15 Fashion island Expansion ti� If restaurants are included in the project grease could be introduced into the sanitary sewer system, which could create maintenance problems. No other significant alteration or expansion of existing utility systems would be anticipated as a result of the proposed development. Mitigation Preliminary, engineering studies indicate that an additional storm drain of approximately 100-inch diameter needs to be constructed parallel to the existing El Paseo storm drain to accommodate projected stormwater flows. The existing outfall P J g structure into Newport Bay is adequate to handle this additional drain. The following mitigation measure would address this deficiency. & Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit the City Engineer shall verify that adequate capacity exists in the storm drain system to serve the development. The potential problem associated with grease from restaurants is addressed by the Food Establishment Grease Disposal Code(NBMC Chapter 14.30),which establishes requirements to minimize the introduction of grease into the sewer system. Level of Significance Existing Code requirements and the recommended mitigation measure would mitigate potential impacts below the level of significance. 17. Human Health Potential Impacts The proposed project is not anticipated to utilize hazardous materials on the site, therefore no adverse effects on human health would be anticipated. Mitigation No mitigation is proposed. Level of Significance No significant impacts would be anticipated. Environmental Analysis Chwklist,Explanations 16 Fashion Island'Expansion �.h 18. Aesthetics Potential Impacts The proposed project would result in a visual.cbange to Fashion Island as a result of the expansion into existing parking lot areas. No significant adverse view impacts would be anticipated due to existing commercial and high-rise development in the vicinity. Mitigation Compliance with the provisions of the City's Zoning Code regarding the projects design, signs, landscaping and other aesthetic features of the site would ensure that no significant aesthetic effects would result from the project. Level of Significance No significant impacts would be anticipated. 19. Recreation Potential Impacts The quality and quantity of recreational activities would not be impacted by the project. Mitigation No mitigation is proposed. Level of Significance No significant impacts would be anticipated. 20. Cultural Resources Potential Impacts The project site is located in an area where archaeological and paleontological resources have been discovered in the past and may be expected to exist on this site. As a result, the following mitigation measure requiring compliance with Council Policies K-5 and K-6 regarding archaeological and paleontological surveys and recovery of resources is recommended. Environmental Analysis Checklist Explanations , 17 Fashion Island Expansion Y- 0 MitigationA The following mitigation measure would ensure compliance with existing policies regarding the protection of archaeological and paleontological resources. 9. Prior to 'issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall demonstrate to the Planning Department that the project will comply with Council Policies K--S and K-6 regarding archaeological and paleontological resource investigation, surveillance and recovery. Level of Significance The recommended mitigation measure would ensure that no significant impacts would occur. Mandatory Findings of Significance 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. The project would contribute incrementally to cumulative impacts in the areas of traffic noise and air quality, but would have no direct significant impacts. q tY+ g P f 4. Where are no known substantial adverse affects on human beings that would be caused by the proposed project. C\...\7oHN-D\FASH-ISL\NEG-l)EC.2 Environmental Analysis Checklist Explanations 18 Fashion Island Expansion ti� SEW PORT CITY OF NEWPORT B ACH U r P 1V�771 �6V 1'UBGI� fiA7 fk&A92658-8915 cwFO VL Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of The Irvine Company for General Plan Amendment 94-2(B), Amendment No. 811, Traffic Study No. 95, and the acceptance of an environmental documention on property located at Fashion Island, Newport Center. Request to increase the development limit to allow for the construction of a maximum of 309,550 square feet of retail space (GPA 94-2(B) and Amendment No. 811), approve the development pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, and establish parking requirements for the development. This project has been reviewed, and it has been deternuned that it is categorically exempt under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that a Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in conjunction 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 the 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 supporting documents are available for public review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92663 (714) 644-3225. Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the 20th day of October. 1994, at the hour of 2zU p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport 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 hearing. For information call (714) 644-3200. 'Tod W. Ridgeway, Secretary, Planning Commission, City of Newport Beach. NOTE: The expense of this notice is paid from a filing fee collected from the applicant. 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach •CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH* POLICE DEPARTMENT ;aI'dit'ING'?Et�A75VlEias TV OF P,r, lPOPT BEAo- , October 7, 1994 All C- � 0 1994 ��ua�o���e�o4i5 6 TO: John Douglas, Planning Department FROM: Bob McDonell, Chief of Police SUBJECT: Fashion Island Expansion- Parking Issues RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the proposed mitigation for transportation/parking issues in the negative declaration (Item #13, pages 9 and 10). Provide the additional 900 parking spaces required at peak periods through a combination of means which do not include on- street parking on Newport Center Drive or re-striping the existing lot with a significant number of additional compact spaces. BACKGROUND: The Police Department was provided with a copy of a memorandum dated September 19, 1994 from the Planning Department regarding a negative declaration for the Fashion Island expansion. In the context of the negative declaration, the expansion identified the need for an additional 900 parking spaces during peak periods involving center activity. The mitigation recommendation suggested spaces could be provided through several different methods, including the provision of on- street parking on Newport Center Drive. The Police Department recommends against that particular mitigation for a variety of reasons including the following: 1. Because of the landscaped areas between the street and sidewalk, motorists exiting their vehicles will have a tendency to walk in the street to existing sidewalk access points, increasing their exposure to vehicular traffic. 2. More collisions are likely to occur as vehicles stop to park or try to accelerate into the traffic flow from parking spaces. 3. The increase in parked vehicles will further restrict visibility for pedestrians and drivers in the area. 4. Existing traffic will be forced into two lanes from the existing three lanes, resulting in greater congestion, which will be occurring at the very peak periods when the proposed on-street parking would be greatest. In addition to the traffic/pedestrian flow issues mentioned, enforcement of on-street parking would be an additional burden for the Department to bear, without the corresponding resources to provide it. If the parking was "non-metered" and subject Fashion Island Exposion/Parking Issues Page 2 to time zone enforcement, it would require new right side driver vehicles which could allow the operator to both mark the tires and drive without requiring a second Parking Control Officer (one to drive and one to mark tires out the right window). The Department currently has no such equipment. Time zone enforcement is the least efficient means of insuring parking turnover from a human resource perspective. If the proposal is to provide unlimited parking, then the latter would not be an issue. Conversely, the most effective means of parking enforcement from a resource standpoint, would be the installation of parking meters, which would not be well received by both shoppers and business owners alike, not to mention the negative visual impact of the meters themselves. In addition to all the obvious logical traffic flow reasons why we're concerned about on-street parking on Newport Center Drive, the overall aesthetic affect of a significant number of parked vehicles on the street would be detrimental as well. Another mitigation suggested in the negative declaration dealt with re-striping the existing lot with additional compact spaces. From our experience, although it is difficult to quantify in actual numbers, smaller compact spaces contribute to additional private property and hit and run accidents. In recent years, there seems to have been somewhat of a shift to manufacture larger, rather than smaller vehicles, now that the automotive manufacturers are mastering the fuel economy/weight relationship. As a result, the need for additional compact spaces appears to be going down rather than up. At present, we're not aware of the ratio of compact spaces in the overall parking facilities of Fashion Island, so it's difficult to state with certainty that it could not accommodate a larger ratio. However, if in fact 900 additional parking spaces are required, we would not want to see a predominant number of compact spaces accommodated through the re-striping program. A third mitigation recommended which deals with off-site parking and a shuttle program for employees, also appears to be somewhat unrealistic based upon our experience and the City's ability to enforce such measures. Personally, I have witnessed attempts to manage employee parking off-site and it would be next to impossible to prevent an employee from parking a vehicle in the general purpose Fashion Island lot unless all entrances and exits were monitored. In essence, such a plan would rely on voluntary compliance, which we're confident would result in less than satisfactory results. Again it's an admirable theory, but its practicality is questionable to accomplish a sizable number of the 900 additional parking spaces required. We fully recognize we are not planners, traffic engineers, or traffic circulation consultants, however we offer our comments as common sense/practical observati n based on our experience. Bob McDonell CHIEF OF POLICE �sy 0 THE IRVINE COMPANY EZECE9'dEp BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT '-'v of 1mvpo - ar--AVY OCT 0 31994 AM OCT September 30, 1994 7181911UIR112111213141516 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P. O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Attn: John H. Douglas Environmental Coordinator Subject: Supplemental Traffic Analysis Budget Request for Fashion Island Expansion Dear John: Per your letter dated September 19, 1994, enclosed in our check in the amount of $4,950.00 covering the consultant fee for Austin-Foust to perform additional traffic analysis related to the proposed Fashion Island expansion. Sincerely, Tom Redwitz Vice President Development Entitlement cc: Jim Hewicker Patty Temple 550 Newport Center Drive, Suite 350, P.O. Box 6370, Newport Beach, California 92658-6370 Phone:(714) 720-2332 FAX: (714)720-2425 N P �fcW POR } ° CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH U P.O. BOX 1768,NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92658.8915 e.< C1</FORN�P PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225 September 19, 1994 Mr. Tom Redwitz The Irvine Company PO Box I Newport Beach, CA 92658 RE: Supplemental Traffic Analysis Budget Request for Fashion Island Expansion Dear Tom, The City has received an invoice and the attached request from Austin-Foust for a budget increase of $4,500 to cover the additional traffic analysis related to the proposed Fashion Island expansion. Please submit a check payable to the City of Newport Beach in the amount of $4,950.00, which includes the consultant fee plus 10% City review fee. Please call me at 644-3230 if you have any questions. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEM474,ER, Director By: Jo . Do as, AICP Envl onmental Coordinator cc: Patty Temple F.\...\JOHN-D\PASH-ISL\MDWrI XTR 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach 4L ®,rigAASTIN--FOUST ASSOCIATES, INC, rRAPPIG ENGINEERING ANO rRANSPGRrArIGN PLANNING 2020 NORTH TUSTIN AVENUE • SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701 TELEPHONE (714) 667-0496 FAX (714) 667-7952 September 12, 1994 City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92663-3884 ATTENTION: Ms. Patty Temple SUBJECT: FASHION ISLAND EXPANSION TRAFFIGPAMUNG STUDY Dear Patty: This letter is a follow-up to my previous discussion with you that we will be exceeding our budget allocation for this project. We are about completed with the project, but we have encountered additional labor costs as a result of the need to revise the traffic study to include the AM peak period and address the concern that tolls on the San Joaquin Bills Transportation Corridor may still be in effect in the Post 2010 condition. We estimate combination of these two issues, along with our investigation of a revision of the City parking code to include a unique rate for Fashion Island requires approximately 60 personnel hours at an estimated cost of approximately $4,500. We would, therefore, respectfully request your consideration of our request. If you have any questions, please call. Sincerely, Joe I? Foust, P.E. f C EMP I TYPICAL EMP OTAL PER I AFTERNOON PER STORE SQ.FT. EMP. SQ.FT. I EMP. (EST) SQ. FT SEASONAL ARMOIRE 2606 9 3. 45 4 EST 1.53 Y AUNTIE ANNE'S 600 13 21.67 Y BARE ESCENTUALS 755 5 6 .62 Y BETWEEN THE SHEETS 1942 7 3.60 5 2.57 BOB BURNS 8994 45 5.00 CASWELL-MASSEY 832 5 6.01 2 EST 2.40 Y CHERI 2456 14 5.70 COTTURA 1039 4 3 .85 3 2.89 Y DANCEGEAR 939 5 5.32 2 2.13 FORGOTTEN WOMAN 3390 7 2.06 6 EST 1 .77 FORTY LOVE 1100 3 2.73 2 EST 1.82 Y GOLDEN ARTS 1277 5 3 .92 HAAGEN-DAZ 637 25 39.25 Y JOAN VASS 1450 5 3 .45 4 2.76 JOHNNY ROCKETS 1000 6 6 .00 LA MOCHA 564 5 8.87 3 EST 5.32 LEATHERMODE 1471 5 3 .40 4 2.72 LINDA BENTLEY 5369 7 1.30 LONGS PHARMACY 10345 22 2.13 14 EST 1.35 MARGAUX GRACE 949 1 1.05 1 1.05 MODERN ROMANCE 1115 4 3 .59 Y MONDI 1654 6 3.63 2 EST 1.21 Y MUSEUM COMPANY 3300 10 3 .03 Y NAUTICA 3368 8 2.38 6 EST 1.78 Y NINE & CO 2000 5 2.50 4 2 .00 OUT OF SANTA FE 1233 7 5.68 5 EST 4.06 PEPES PORTSIDE 557 3 5. 39 1 EST 1.80 POSH 5100 9 1.76 7 EST 1.37 Y ROYAL REGIMENT 437 3 6.86 2/3 SERENA D'ITALIA 1049 3 2 .86 3 2.86 STAGE 2300 5 2.17 TRADITIONAL JEWELERY 3745 16 4 . 27 7 EST 1.87 TUTTO MARE 8000 85 10.63 ULTIMATE INVITATION 1207 8 6.63 Y VILLAGE HATTER 756 4 5.29 3 3 .97 YELLOW BRICK ROAD 928 5 5.39 2 2.16 Z GALLERIE 8035 15 1.87 Y TOTAL SURVEYED: 92499 394 4 .26 90 1.91 MULTIPLIER: 14.19 14.19 27.9 TOTAL MALL: 1312694 5591 4. 26 2513 1.91 FASHION ISLAND 1992& 93 DAILY ENTERING VOLUMES — HOLIDAY SEASON 40 35 30 SaT • $ar SAT SIT 25 sqr SAT Uy SA SAT Sal SA7 SAT SAT SAT o x 20 E 15 ) v JAN9,94 ' r YEARS NOV16,93 10 NOV2 92 5 THANKSGIVING THANKSGIVING C CHRISTMAS HRISTMAS 0 1992 1993 —.— 1992 HOLIDAY SEASON _,_ 1993 HOLLIDAY SEASON • r. ►�ar/ G ► r. 1 �'�►iii � • �!�►iii► � / 1 ♦1► ► r. 1 ♦ / ► ► r. 1 ♦ .► ► .11 ♦.♦ ► / / 1 . � ► r 1 ♦ ��► ►' '1� . r11 • ! ► / / 1 ♦♦ 1 ♦.► ► 1..1 ♦ ♦.► ►•r.O.1 ► r11 ♦♦♦ ► H.1111� ► r. l ♦ .. ► ► r. / 11/ ► 1•r11V ► ► /../ 1 �♦ ���1►�1�1►1 � ► 1• .� ►'/..111.► ► 1. / ♦ ♦. ► I r. 1 ♦. ► ► / 111.► ► 1. 1 / 1.► ► r. / 1 .1� ► r. � ► ►.r. 1 ♦ ♦.► ► r. / 1 .► ► ► r11 �.� ► / 11 �/► ► r 1 ♦ �� ► ► r. / �.� ► 1 r1�1 1 �.� ► / 11 �/ .1 / 11� ► 1..1 ♦ ��► ►•r.•1 ♦ .� ► ►•r1 1 ♦.� ► / .1 ♦ �.� ► r..1 ♦ �.► /•r.•/ ��� ► 1•r1 �.p► / ./ ♦ �♦ /. !1►��►1►♦��► ►•r1,1 •./ ► /..111/► ► r. / ♦ ♦. ► ► r. 1 ♦./ ► ► ♦►� ♦ ► 11 ♦1/ ► HI / ♦/ ► r. / �.. ► ► r. 1► ►•r. ♦ ♦♦► ► r. 1 1 .♦ ► ► r1 1 . ► / / 1 .► ► r 1 ♦ ► ► r. 1 ♦. ► 1 r/ 1 � ► / 1 1 ♦ ► r11 ♦♦�1►��! ► 1•.1 / �.► ► r..111.► ► r../ ♦ �� ► ►•r�•1 ��� ► i•r/ / �.► ► /../ ♦ �.� r../ 1��► /•.. � ►/��►1►��� ► 1•r/ 1 �.� ► /../ 1 �. ► / r.•/ ♦ �1.► /•r.•1 �.�► 1..1 1 �.� ► 1..11 ♦.► ► r. / 1 .1► ► r� 1 ♦ ♦/► ir. / ♦ .♦ ► ► .1 / ♦ 1/ ► / 111/► ► r 1 ♦ .. ► ► r. / ♦1/ ► 1 r/ 1ti.� ►'/ / 1 �♦ ► � ► /•r.•1 �// ► 1•r1.1 ♦.► ► /. 111/ ► ► r. / ♦ 1/► i .� 1 ♦. ► ► 1..1 11./ ► /..1 ♦ ♦.► ► r. 1 �1�► ► r. 1 1 / ♦11 ► r. 1 ♦ ♦1► ► r. 1 �♦♦ ► /•.IIti♦► ► /..11 �.► ►•r.•l ♦ ..► ► r. / ♦1/ ► Ir/ 1 �.� ► / 1 ♦ �♦ ►� ♦ ► ►•r.•1 �♦� ► ►•r/ 1 �.► ► 1..11 ♦.► ► /. / ♦ .. ► ► r. 1 ♦1 ► ► / r11 �♦► ► / / 1 �/► ► r. / ��� ► ► r. � .1 / ♦.► ► /..1 ♦ ♦1/ ►•r../ ♦ .. ► ►•.11 ♦.� ► H./ 1 �.� ► r../ 1 �♦ ► ►•r.•/ �t•� ► /•r11 �.� ► /../ 1► �♦ ►./•r.•1 ♦/� ► 1•.11 ♦.► ► /••111/► ► r../ ♦ 1/ ► i r. 1 ♦ 1/► 1 / 1 ♦./ ► /. 11 ♦.► ► r. / 11/► ► r� 1 � ► ►•r.. 1 ♦ ♦1► roll. r. 1 �.1 ► ►•.111.1/►♦��!1►�1�1►��!1►♦��►1►�1�/►♦��►1��►1►f;��/►���►1►�� ►� 111.► ► r. 1 ♦ ♦/► ► r. / �.� ► / .1 / �.� ► /../ 1 �.� ► r..l ♦ .. ► ► r. 1 ♦1♦ ► 1 .11 �.� ► / 11 �/ ►► ►•r.•1 �♦� ► /•./.1 �.� ► r..111/► ► r../ ♦ 1►► ► .� 1 ♦1 / ► 1 / 1 �.� ► r. 11 �/► ► r. / ���► ► r. �1 / ♦.► ► r. 1 ♦ ♦.► ► r. 1 ♦ .♦ ► / .. 1 ♦.► ► 1 1 ♦ .► ► r 1 ♦ ► ► r. / ♦. ► 1 r/ 1 ♦. ► / 1 ♦ 1♦ ► .1 / ♦.► ► r..1 ♦ ��► ►•r.•/ ♦.� ► ►•./ 1 ♦.� ► /•.1 1 �.► ► r../ ♦ ��► ►•r.•/ I�i ► 1•r1 11.� ► /../ ♦ �♦ ►. 11 ♦.► ► r. 1 ♦ ♦.► ► r+ / ♦ .► ► ► r/ 1 �.� ► /../ 1 �1� ► r../ ♦ ..► ► r. 1 ♦1/ ► 1 r11 ♦.NN, / 1 ♦♦ ► 1 / ♦// ► r. 1 ♦ 11► ► r. 1 ♦.. ► ► r11 ♦► ► /../.♦ �. /►�r�!1►1►��►1► /►��� ► ► r/ 1 t!.� ► / 11 �.� ► ►1►��►1►��� ► 1•./ 1 �.� ► /..11 �.► ir../ ♦ ♦.► ► .� 1 ♦ .1 ► 1 . 1 ti.� ► / 11 �.► ► r. / ♦ ��► 1 r. 1 � � .� � .� ..��♦��►�/��./����►�►i L�11�♦��►iii.♦���Ii►i�.1�♦��►�►'r.'/ ���► /•r/•11�1/►♦���1►��►1►� • �� Qyn �„ � �(�i(sP dal. 2000 Base - 2000 w/Fashion Island Expansion (710) (PM only) 1 ) fv\ l � 2. Superior & PCH • 79 76 .7 . 78 4 . Newport SB Ramp & Newport .46 . 68 6 .69 ��/�� 5. Newport & Via Lido .58 .72 8 .73 "��, I 6. Newport & 32nd .69 80 . 6 80u�9Grvc�� 7. Riverside & PCH . 95 b 1.00 S. Tustin & PCH 58 •63 8 .65 9. MacArthur & Campus .66 1.12 .6 1.12 10. MacArthur & Birch 65 .53 5 .53 11. Von Karman & Campus .80 •81 80 .81 12. MacArthur & Von Karman .51 .57 .57 13. Jamboree & Campus .92 .74 . 9 .75 14. Jamboree & Birch .54 .58 . 4 .58 15. Campus & Bristol N .79 1.05 . 9 1.05 16. Birch&Bristol N .73 1. .7 �� ,- _• ,_ 17. Campus & Bristol S r T •93 •9 18. Birch & Bristol S .62 .90 . 2 9- 27. Dover/Bayshore & PCH -__ •97 •90 . 9 9 - 28. Bayside & PCH . 96 4 6 .86 29. MacArthur & Jamboree .80 1.04 .8 1.04 30. Jamboree & Bristol N .87 82 32. Jamboree & Bristol S .72 . 90 2 •91 33 . Jamboree & Bayview .41 .89 41 .89 34. Jamboree & University .72 .97 99 `Bv Lys ? 35 Jamboree_&_B*rson 97 .92 .9 .9 -37. MacArthur & Bison 95 .95 5�.9-5 38. Jamboree & Ford .75 .84 5 .88 39. MacArthur & Ford .79 .95 .95 40. Jamboree & SJH Rd .72 .68 .72 .68 41. Jamboree & Santa Barbara .67 .74 .6 .75 42 . Jamboree & PCH .84 .84 4 86 - 43. Santa Cruz & SJH Rd .39 .44 .48 AD 7- 44. Santa Rosa & SJH Rd . 31 .44 . 31 .46 45. MacArthur & SJH Rd .55 .88 .5 . 89 46. MacArthur & San Miguel .73 . 73 .7 •75 47. Newport Center & PCH .50 .40 0 40 hG � a 0 $OT 48. Avocado & PCH .54 .64 •64 49. MacArthur & PCH .53 .63 .53 . 64 50. San Miguel & SJH Rd .61 .70 .72 51. Goldenrod & PCH .83 .74 83 .75 52. Marguerite & SJH Rd .59 .49 9 .50 53 . Marguerite & PCH .85 •77 •8 •77 54. Poppy & PCH .65 .66 .6 .67 55. 15th & PCH •69 .89 • 9 •89 56. Bluff & PCH .81 .80 .8 .81 57. Newport WB Ramp & PCH .76 .80 .7 .81 58. Newport Coast & PCH .50 .70 0 .70 59. Spyglass Hill & SJH Rd .58 .51 8 .52 60. San Miguel & Spyglass Hill .27 .24 .24 66. Bison & SJHTC EB Ramps .62 .40 2 .40 67. Bison & SJHTC WB Ramps .47 .32 .47 . 32 FASHION ISLAND Incremental Parking Requirements 8 7 6705 6 5683 5 w � r a, 3 2 1 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Thousand Square Feet 1/200 (5.0/TSF), 1/240 (4.17)TSF), 1/285 (3.51/TSF), 1/333 (3.0/rSF) FASHION ISLAND 1992& 93 DAILY ENTERING VOLUMES — HOLIDAY SEASON 40 35 30 SAT • SAr SAT SAT 25 s tr SAT � ti SAT U co SAT SA7 SAT SAT �^T SAT x °0 20 E+ 15 JAN9,94 W YEARS NOV16,93 10 NOV2 92 5 THANKSGIVING THANKSGIVING CHRISTMAS CHRISTMAS 0 1992 1993 _� 1992 HOLIDAY SEASON 1993 HOLLIDAY SEASON • . , r, ►♦�.1 r1 . i.i i ► r. 1 • 11•Ii.i► i � ►-►.� ►I►��!1 '►♦►�..�I►i��/►���►1 �►1►��! ► r.r1i . ► I..1 ♦ ♦. ► ► '.� r/ 1 • • ► 1 11 ♦♦ / I .♦► ► 1 ♦.► ► ► .IIi♦ • 1 1� •.� ► 1 ♦ i1► / r1 I ♦•► ►►(��1 r. ♦ ♦•► ► r, 1 �.► ► r11 ♦.►I►♦��►I/i��1►i rig►♦��►I►it►l►i��/►1►i1-4�1►♦ •1►i��►♦►i� / ♦ .• ► ► r, 1 ♦.. ►►1 r11 ♦.• ► r / Ii.� ► r..1 li♦ ► ► III ♦ii ► 1.11Ii�� ► 1../ Ii.��►1►♦�� ► 1•r1•Ii.� ► 1../ 1� ► r..1 ♦ ��► /•I,•1 ♦.• ► L.I I i.� ► r..11 ..► ► r, 1 ♦.•� / r1 1 ♦ ♦.► ► r, / ♦.• ► 1 r11 i.• ► r r1 l ♦.► ► /.•II .. ► ► I, 1 ♦.. ► Ir/ Ii.� ► r IIi.•► ►•r,•1 ♦ .. ► /•r1I ♦.• ► /../ I ♦. ► ► r,./ ♦ .•► / r, 11.► ► ► II ♦.► ► H II ♦.► ► I, 1 ♦ ii► ► r1 i / I ♦.• ► 1. / ♦ .•► ► r, / �.• ► ► r11 ♦.• ► r / Ii•� ► r 1 ♦ i�► ► �► ► r1 li.� ► r• / Ii♦ ►. ►1���/►♦��►♦Ii�►1►���/►♦rid►1►���1►♦��1►♦��!I/i��1►��1 ► ►..II i.� ► I../ Ii.� ► r,•/ ♦ .•► / r1 • ► ► r,•1 �.• ► 1•r1I ♦.• ► /..I I .•► ► H. 1 ♦ ♦• ► / I1I ♦ .•► 1 .1I ♦.• ► r / Ii♦ ► II ♦•► / 111 ♦.• ► ► IIi.► ► I. IIi.► ► I, I ♦i1► ► 11 i II ♦.► ► /. / ♦ .•► ► r, Ii.. ► hI/ 1 ♦.• ► r.r/�Ii.� ►�r..1li� ► /•r1•I i��► hr1 Ii.� ► / .II i♦ ►. ►1►i�•1i��� ► 1•r11 ♦.� ► r..11 .. ► ► I, 1 � ♦.► / r, 1 ♦ •► ► 1 / 1 ♦.► ► 1 11 ♦.► ► r, / i.• ► / r1 1 ♦ .•► ► I. I ♦ .• ► ► IIIi.� ► r IIi.� ► I / ♦ i� ► ► 11 / i.� ► 1.111 ♦1� ► 1•.1 ♦ i♦ ►. !1►i��1►��� ► /•r1•Ii.� ► r..11i.� ► r.•/ ♦ i� ► /•r1•I ii� ► ►..I.r.r.rI1II1►►►►►�IIIIII►�►//►♦♦♦♦♦.••••I�rIrr.....,,,,,•l►►•►�►i111I1►►►►►►♦♦ii♦♦�r...rr..•.. ►►►►II 11/1i♦••rr.r.1111►►iIII►►►►♦♦♦••.Irr..,.,••••►1I►►►►►IIiI'1r1/..�♦.••���IIII►►►►IIIII►►1►i♦.♦♦•.1..11..111►•►►►11I1/►►►♦1♦i'Hrr.r...,..'•�.♦.•/II/►►►►IIIIrrr1..♦♦.••......//I'►►�►IIIII►I1♦iii H.rr.r..,,1 i�►�I111►►►►♦♦♦♦'rLr.....••.►►I1/►►►♦II►i1i..•.••r•.r.I11►►IIII►►►♦i♦♦..1.I1.1I1��►•/I1►►►/i♦♦''rMr1...'....•/I/►►►I1III1.♦♦...•1►►►►►IIIII r►►►►ii♦♦o• w 1./ . •o �.L.II..,,!��••.• 1Il//►►►►►♦♦iii.�1r11�.i.i�1�.��/1II►►►►�!1IIIII 1//►►ii♦ii� . ♦ •I� ..1 i.or.•IIi.► ♦r.•►I �0► 11i.1 •/1I ♦..1► i. ►�►Ii. ►i•�• ►►►/►►i .. ►i� ►� .► ►•11•It! .• ► /•.II i.i ► r..1li♦► ► r../ I .♦► ► I, 1 ♦.• ► 1 r1Ii.► ► H lli.► i1, / ♦ .•► ► r1 I'I ♦.► ► r. 1 ♦ ♦ •► ► I. 1 �.♦ ► ► rl / ♦.• ► r rl ii.� ► r. 1 ♦ i.� ► I, 1 ♦ .�► ► II hr' 1I i. ►. ►I►i��1►����I��►1►��/►�ri�►I���1►♦�1►I��.►I/i��I►��� ► I •I I i.� ► I..IIi.► ►•1../ ♦ .• ► 111 • ► ►•r,•1 ♦ .• ► 1•r/•I ♦.� ► I..I I ♦.► ► r.• II ..► / 11 / I ..► I NI ♦ .► ► r II i. ► / I .♦ ► ► r, 1 ♦.• ► / IIi. / / IIi. ► ► r. / Ii� ► ► r, i II ♦.► ► r• / I ♦.► ► r, 1 ♦ .• ► / r11 ♦.• ► rrlIi.► ► r..11i� ► ►'r,•I �i�►I��►I►i��/► 1�►I►i� .�►i �!I►i�t•1►��� ► h.1I i.� ► r..11i.► ► r,.1I ..► ► r, 1 ♦.• ► 1..11 ♦.► ► r.• I II ♦•► ► I. / ♦.• ► ► r11i.♦ ► r.H'Ii.� ►'r.•1 I ..► ► r11 ♦.• ► ► NIi.� ► 1+ IIi.► ► �! ►'11.1 �.� ► 1•r1I i.i ► r..IIi.► ► r,./ I ♦. ► / ., 1 ♦.• ► / r1li.� ► 1 IIi.► ► I. / I .� ► ► r, 1i II ♦.► ► r. 1I ♦.► ► I. / ♦ .• ► ► r1 / ♦.• ► r lli.� ► r. / ♦ i. ► ► I, Iii� ► I r11i. ► r IIi. ► �!I►i��i►♦�� ► h.1•I i.i ► r../ i ►► ► r,.1Ii1► ►•r,•1i.� ► 1..1 1i.� i r..11i.► ► r,•/ 1i�► ►'11.1i 11 .♦► /•I. 1 ♦.• ► Ell r11 ♦.► ► r..1I ♦.► ► r.•1 I ..► ► r11 i .. ► 1 r11 ♦.► ► 1 II ♦.► ► ' �) ►•r,•1 �.. ► 1•r1 I ♦.� ► 1..1Ii. ► r,./ I ..► 1 r, 1 ♦.• ► / 11 i.� ► r IIi.► ► I. / i4� ► ► II Ii .I.��!i►i��.I.��►�►i�Yl.���►�►��.1����►i2'gal.���iii��.♦��►�►i�.1.♦��►ii�:1.���i►i���I.��►.►i ►�.�.4 s C�R9 5 paces 5�l0o remain a�l-ex-a�drkt� FASHION ISLAND �"� '"� q d +�, 1992/93 ENTERING VOLUMES — WEEKDAY VS.SATURDAY fl 35 30 25 • 0 20 ca x o H 1s 10 5 0 N I D ( J IF IM IA I M IJ I J I A I S I O I NI D K AVE WEEKDAY , SATURDAY 1 A , .. AM Wei 0 1 ► H 1 r. 1 ► , r.•11ii ► •► ► �• i ►i•i. �i ii / 1 ♦♦ ► r/ 111i ► 1•r/ 1 � ► ► r.•11Mi► ►' •i • r(•1 • ► 1•./ ► ►•r�•1111 ► 1••. 1 �1i ► 1••/ 1 ♦► ►�r.•111♦ ► / / ♦11 ► 1 / 1 ♦• r�1 / 1•♦► ► / � ♦♦►1►��1 ♦♦► ► r• 11 ♦♦► i r. / �♦♦ ► r/ 11♦► ► 1•./ t �•i ► r 11 �i► ► r�� 1 �i ► ► i/ 1 � ► ► ► / t �♦ 11 ♦♦► ► r•./ 1 ♦♦► ► r. 1 ♦ ♦♦ ► r r11 �♦i ► 1 ( t �1i1►��� ► / / 1 �1i ► H IIL'1► / I ��i► ► r� ♦► ►.r�•1 �♦♦ ► 1••��1 �1i ► 1../ 11♦► ► r�. 11 �i ► ► r�•111�►1��►1/♦�.►/►���►1►�� ► ►.r�•111i ► 1•r/•1 �1i/►♦��►1►��►1/��� ► 1•./ 1 ♦♦► ► r..11 ♦�► ►•W•/ �0i ► 1•r/•111i ► 1••/ 1 �♦ r 1 111► ► r• ( 1 ♦ ♦► ► rr / � ♦♦ ► Ir/ 111�►1��►t l��i/►��� ► /•.( 1 ♦♦► ► 1 11 ♦1► /•r�.1 �♦►► ►•r� ♦► /•r�•/ 11i ► hr( 1 �1► ► 1.•/ 1 �♦i ►'r.. / 111 ► ► r" 1 �1i ► 1 r/ 1 ♦♦► ► 1 11 ♦♦ ►. 111 ♦► / r. / 11♦ ► ► r/ 1 ♦♦► ► 1. / 1 ♦♦► ► H•11 �� ► ►'rq•I Ili ► 1•r/► ►•r�.111i ► /•r/ 1 �♦► ► 1.•/ t �♦� ► r../ 1 ♦♦► 1 r� 1 ♦♦► ► 1•r(T1 ♦1► ► 1.•11 ♦111►��//���►1 i�� ►�/ 1 ♦ 1► ► r. 11 ♦♦► ► r. 1 ♦♦► ► ►.r/ 1 ♦♦► ► r•./ 1 �♦i ► r.•111♦► ► w19 0,n► 1'r11 /♦► ► 1••It ♦♦ ►. i ► ►.r�•1 �♦i ► 1•r/ 1 ♦i ► r../ t ♦♦► ► r� / 11♦► ► r� 11 ♦1► ► r. / 1♦►► ► r� ( 1 ♦1► ► r. 11 /♦► ► r. 1 ♦►► ► r/ 1t!1i ► Ir( 1 �♦i1►1WF►101N►�W19 P� i ► 1 r/ 1t•11 ► 1 ( 1 �1 ►► ►•r�•11 ♦� ► 1•r/ t �♦i ► 1..( 1 �♦► / r..11 �♦i 1r�•1 �♦i ► ►•./ 1 �1► ► 1..11 �1i ►•r�•/ ���► ► r� ( t ♦♦♦ ► r. 11 ♦♦► / r� 1 ♦♦► ► ► r/ 1 ♦♦► ► 1 /'1 ♦♦► ►'r ( 11♦► ► H1 �♦► ► 1•r/ 111► ► 1•.1.1 �♦ ►. ► ►.r4•I <i1i11•r( 1 �♦i ► 1../ t �♦i / r�•11 �i� ►•r�•11W 990 /N �1► ► 1..11 ♦♦► ► r. / � ♦►� ► r� 1 ♦ ►1►t1�1►1�v►1/��/1t►���►���/1►��i1►���/►1��►t►��� ► r 11 ♦♦N / �1► ► 1 r/ 1 �1i ► r ( 1 �♦ ► r( t ♦1► ► r..11 ♦1► / r� 111► ► 1•r� 11♦► ► r.r/ t ♦♦►1►♦��►1��►1►��i1►���►11��it►t!�i1►���►t/�� i♦♦► ►.r4•1 ♦♦ ► 1 / 1 �♦► ► 1. ( t ♦♦► ► r� 111♦► ► r41 �♦► ► 1•r/ 1 �1i / 1.•/ 111i ► r�•/ I�ii ► r�11 ♦1► ► r. 11 �ii ► r. 1i ► ► r/ 1 ♦1i ► Ir/ t �♦i ► r••111♦► ► 4 ;r,N► 1 r/ 1 ♦♦► ► / / 1 �♦ ►.► ►•r�•111i ► /•./•1 ♦► ► r..I ti♦► ► r�. 11♦► ► ► ( 1 �1i / 1 It �1i ► r. I ��i► ► r�rIt ♦1► ► r. 11 ♦11 ► r. 1 ♦♦► ► ► r/ 1 ♦♦�►1��►t►ti�► ► r•.11 �i► ►•r�•1 ��� ► 1•r( 11♦i ► 1•.( 1 �♦ ►� ti1►��i ► 1•r11 �1► ► 1..( 1 �♦► / r�.11 ► 1•r�•1 ♦1► ► 1 r/ 1 ♦1► ► .911 ♦1► ► r. ��1►�k ►1►♦.�i ► 1•.( 1 �1i ► 1.•( 111► / r� / 111 ► I r� 111�►11��VA► l �W ►1 I �i1►t �� ► 1•./.1 �♦ ►. 11 ♦♦► / r� 1 �♦� ► ► r/ 1 �1i ► 1•r/ 1 �1i ► r••11 ♦♦ ► ► r� / �♦►► 1 r/ 1 ♦1►/►1��)j►�� ►� �► ►•r�•111i ► 1•r/ t �1i ► 1..( 1 �♦► ► r„/ t11♦ 1 r� 1 ♦♦► ► 1•r/ 1 �1i ► r..11 �1► ► r.•I Ili► ►•r� ( t11► ► r. / 1 ♦♦► ► r� / � ♦► ► ► r/ 11♦► ► r•./ t �1i ► r.•/ 1 ♦♦ ► ► r� 111► ► Ir/ t ♦♦► ► 1 / t1♦ ►�♦► ►•r�•1 ♦1i ► 1•r( 1 �1i ► M•( t �♦► ► r�•/ 11♦ ► / r� 1 ♦♦► ► 1 / 1 �1i / H / t �♦► ► r. / ♦�i ► ► r� ♦/ t1♦► ► r• 11 ♦ ♦► ► r� 1111 ► ►•r/ 111► ► 1•r( 1 �♦► ► r.•11 �� ► /•r�•/ 11� ► 1•r(•i �♦i ► r••(. ►1►��i1►(��►11��►1/♦�/►1��►1►1�►1►��i/►1��/►1►��i1►�r�� ► 1•./ 1 ♦♦► ► 1..( 111► ► r�•/ 11♦ ►11�� ►. 1►1i��i//1�� ► 1•r/•1 �1i ► 1..11 �♦► ► r�./ 11�► /•r�•1 ♦ ♦►(►11��►1►ti��►1�� ► Ir/ 1 ♦♦► ► r ( t ♦♦ ►♦ 11 ♦ ♦► ► r. Its♦► ► r. / 1�i�► ► r� � � �)1►�1i1►1�♦ ► 1../ 1 �1�►♦��►1►��►//���/►1��►1►���1►�r�i1►11���1►���/1�►(►1��►1►��� ► 1..( 1 �1► ► 11 ♦♦► 1 r� 1 ♦11 ♦♦► ► r� / �1► ► ► r/ 11♦► ► Ir/ t ♦♦► ► r 11 ♦♦ ► ► r� / �1i► ►•r� 111► ► r••/ t �♦i ►. ►1►��i1►1�� ► 1•.( t �1i ► L./ t �♦► ► r�./ 11� ► 1•r�•if�i ► h./ l till ► r..l t ♦♦► ► r. / 1♦♦► ► r� 1 ♦11 ♦♦► /•r. 111► ► 1 r/ 111► ► 1 ( 11♦► ► r 111♦ ► ► r� / 11♦► I r( 1 �♦i ► 1 ( 1 �1► ► i�1���►�►i��.��►�/[�i/����►�►i��1���►i►i�iit��i�►i �1��►i►�� T��1►11��1►��i1►����t►��►1►� ►�1�♦fit AM 0 .. . . Piave • • 1 :❖.•i ♦..♦ ♦..� ♦../ ♦.♦vumli r..♦ �...• r... ►..♦ ►..♦ ►..♦ ♦.1♦ ♦..♦ ♦..1 ♦..� ♦.♦ r..♦ ♦.♦ r..♦ 411 0- ❖.�! ��.•.�i ►.�.�.�1 ►.�.�.�/ �.�.�.� ►..❖� .❖.•i �❖.•i ►.❖.•1 ►.❖./ ►.❖.•i ►..❖� .�.�.�i ��.�.�i 1 �����•� ������� /�����•� ►�.�.�.� ►•OOi OOOi �•OOi i•OOi MAP ►-W-R ►OODi 0�.�.� �•���•� i�����i �•����� ���•��� �•�•��� /"WOR /�•����� ��.�Oi i•OOi �•OOi i•ODi W-1"M ►i i�i� ►i����� i������ i�����i ���•�•i ���•��� ���•��� ►-MIC1 ►•00�/ ►•DOi DO1 �•i i i �•OOi 'OODi ►i i i i ►0.�.� ������� i�����i, ���•�•� ►������� ►������� ►�.�ii i•OOi �•OOi �•OOi ►DODi ►iiii 0.0.�. �����•� i.♦♦ ♦..♦ �•�•��� ���•��� ►���•��� 1�.�0�1 ►•OOi �•OOi DOOi i•OOi 'OOOi ►iii� 0•DO, ���•��� i•����i, �����•� i•OOi �•iii ►OOOi ►iiii ►00�� ►��•��� i... ♦..� ♦..1 ♦../ ♦..� ...� ♦.♦ r..♦ �i•�•�! r•�•�•i! ►•iii1 ►•iii' ►•iii �❖ii .•iii iiii '�•iii ►iiii ►iii•� !�•�•�� �i•�•ii �ii•0���•��� ���•��� /�•����� /�•����� ��.�ii �•OOi i•OOi �•DOi 'OODi ►OOi� 0�.�.� ������� i•����� ���•���. iiii �•iii ►iiii ►iiii �iii� !�•�•�� •�•�•�! �i•�•0 1•iii1 ►•iii ►•iii iiii iiii �•iii �����•� ������� ►�����•� ►�.�.�.� �•OOi DODi DOOi iiii �•O�•i 0.0�� ►0���� �•�•�•� .������ �•�����. �i❖�! r•�•�•i� ►•iii1 ►•iii/ ►•iii iiii iiii �•iii /iiii ►iiii ►ii•�� ►i•�•�� i••• ••••������� �•����� ►���•��� ►������� DOOi ►•OOi DOOi iiii �•OOi ►00�� ►��.�.� O•.�.t .����•i, �•����� i !i!i!i •iii ►iiii ►iiii ►iiii !iii� ��!�.�i %����� �������� ������� i!i!i!i! i!i!i! i!i!i!i !i!i!i . 11 ►�i�� :1 ►OOOi •-••• ►i�i�i�i lf*rf IN wr wr 1 ►���•�•� ►1-•�•�N 1W•M•iN r•�•�•�� ������� ��•���� ��•�•�� ��•���� ������� �i�i�i�i ►i�i�i�i ►i�i�i�i ►i�i�i�i ►•��•��� �Vivj Zal Cal VA 0 SON INSIaMM kk\XNN\l Iogggig§r N. MONSOON, pop MONIS I I Fashion Island Parking Alternatives Summary August 1 , 1994 Current City Requirement Existing S.F. Existing Parking New S.F. New Parking • 4Spaces/TSF 1,312,700 5,700 309,550 1,238 1 Space/3 Theater Seats Possible Alternative Requirement • 5 Spaces/TSF — first 500,000 500,000 2,500 -- -- • 4.17 Spaces/TSF — second 500,000 500,000 2,085 -- -- • 3.51 Spaces/TSF — third 500,000 312,700 1,078 187,300 657 • 3.0 Spaces/TSF — over 1,500,000 -- -- 122,250 367 Total 1,312,700 5,683 309,550 1,023 H:\USERSIPEFERSU.OTUSOP-AS.WKI • • LU Atweiat s,Inr GENERAL COMMENTS ON DRAFT FASHION ISLAND TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 1. Revise Project Description to focus on the amount"added" (therefore, less emphasis on the inclusion of existing"unbuilt"entitlement); keep specifics of "where" the added square footage goes in more general terms. 2. Generally, rewrite the conclusions to focus less on the "negative"' stating of the results: 1) TPO test, improvements needed, 2) addition- al parking necessary/relationship to implementing employee parking. 3. Rewrite description of the analysis to be traffic/parking analysis of preps project (rather than indicating it is a"preliminary analysis). This applies both up front and in the "project impacts" section. 4. Generally, a more thorough description is needed of the methodolo- gies for: 1) developing the background conditions; 2) determining the trip generation, and 3) determining the trip distribution. 5. The conclusions of the parking analysis need to be rewritten to indicate: a. The amount of additional spaces needed to serve the added square footage (without concern as to the parking removed due to new construction), then give an example of the amount of additional spaces that may be lost to new construction. b. Establish a"menu" of how parking may be provided, which in- cludes the off-site parking for employees during peak periods. C. Reorient discussion of employee off-site parking to explain the viability of this potential solution. o7/11/94(1:•.T1C401,,GFNCOMM) 0 WAZIST/N-FOUST AS90C/ATES, /NC. TRAFFIC ENGINEERING AND 7RANSPO TA 7ION PLANNING 2020 NORTH TUSTIN AVENUE • SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701 TELEPHONE (714) 667-0496 FAX (714) 667-7952 MEMORANDUM TO: Pat Temple, City of Newport Beach FROM: Joe Foust, P.E. DATE: April 26, 1994 SUBJECT: FASHION ISLAND EXPANSION - PRELIMINARY FINDINGS We have continued our preliminary examination of the effects of expanding Fashion Island. Based on conditions anticipated in the year 1999(i.e.using the traditional TPO analysis and assuming no SJHTC),we have identified the magnitudes of expansion which cause various intersections within the City of Newport Beach to require mitigation. These locations and the corresponding level of expansion are: FASHION ISLAND EXPANSION CRITICAL LOCATION 120 TSF 45. MacArthur @ San Joaquin Hills 246 TSF 46. MacArthur @ San Miguel 267 TSF 7. Riverside @ PCH 306 TSF 29. MacArthur @ Jamboree 447 TSF 51. Goldenrod @ PCH Examination of this table reveals that a 120 TSF expansion of Fashion Island requires mitigation at the intersection of MacArthur and San Joaquin Hills. Were mitigation to be provided here (for example, a third SBT creates sufficient capacity), the next intersection to require mitigation is MacArthur at San Miguel. This occurs when the expansion reaches 246 TSF. Table 1 lists the level of expansion which impacts each intersection for which there was data available. Project distribution percentages are shown in Figure 1. cc: Rich Edmonston, City of Newport Beach Don Webb, City of Newport Beach Mike Erickson, LSA Tom Redwitz, The Irvine Company Table 1 1999 TPO ANALYSIS INTERSECTIONS RANKED BY ORDER OF IMPACT ALLOWABLE ALLOWABLE EXPANSION TRIPS BEFORE BEFORE CRITIAL DISTRIBUTION OF FAILING 1% FAILING 1% SF AT LOCATION APPROACH FI TRIPS CRITERIA CRITERIA 91 ICU 52. Marguerite&SJH Rd WB 3% 1 23 TSF 42394 TSF 46. MacArthur&San Miguel WB 6% 3 35 TSF 246 TSF' 44. Santa Rosa&SJH Rd NB 10% 6 42 TSF 5746 TSF 47. Newport Center&PCH SB 15% 10 42 TSF 23390 TSF 40. Jamboree&SJH Rd WB 12% 8 47 TSF 4789 TSF 18. Birch&Bristol S. NB 2% 2 70 TSF 11479 TSF 45. MacArthur&SJH Rd EB 10% 11 77 TSF 120 TSF' 42. Jamboree&PCH WB 13% 25 135 TSF 12817 TSF 34. Jamboree&University WB 3% 6 141 TSF 570 TSF 38. Jamboree&Ford WB 1% 2 141 TSF 634 TSF 39. MacArthur&Ford NB 11% 26 166 TSF 4168 TSF 35. Jamboree&Bison NB 10% 32 225 TSF 5694 TSF 28. Bayside&PCH WB 11% 38 243 TSF 5901 TSF 8. Tustin&PCH WB 9% 32 250 TSF 6832 TSF 37. MacArthur&Bison NB 7% 26 262 TSF 14940 TSF 7. Riverside&PCH WB 9% 34 266 TSF 121 TSF1 27. DoverBayshore&PCH WB 11% 42 269 TSF 1387 TSF 29. MacArthur&Jamboree NB 3% 13 305 TSF 130 TSF2 2. Superior&PCH WB 6% 29 340 TSF 533 TSF 32. Jamboree&Bristol S. NB 6% 30 352 TSF 521 TSF; 48. Avocado&PCH WB 3% 16 376 TSF 13568 TSF ,. 51. Goldenrod&PCH WB 3% 19 446 TSF 221 TSF 49. MacArthur&PCH WB 3% 21 493 TSF 12782 TSF 54. Poppy&PCH WB 2% 15 528 TSF — 53. Marguerite&PCH WB 2% 16 563 TSF — 13. Jamboree&Campus SB 2% 20 704 TSF — 9. MacArthur&Campus SB 2% 23 810 TSF — 41. Jamboree&Santa Barbara WB 1% 13 915 TSF — 16. Birch&Bristol N. WB 2% 27 950 TSF — 30. Jamboree&Bristol N. NB 3% 42 996 TSF — (Continued) Table 1(cont) 1999 TPO ANALYSIS INTERSECTIONS RANKED BY ORDER OF IMPACT ALLOWABLE ALLOWABLE EXPANSION TRIPS BEFORE BEFORE CRITIAL DISTRIBUTION OF FAILING 1% FAILING 1% SF AT LOCATION APPROACH FI TRIPS CRITERIA CRITERIA .91 ICU 17. Campus&Bristol S. EB 2% 29 1021 TSF — • 15. Campus&Bristol N. NB 1% 17 1197 TSF — 60. San Miguel&Sypglass Hill N/A 0% N/A N/A — 4. Newport SB Ramp&Newport N/A 0% N/A N/A — 11. VonKarman&Campus N/A 017o N/A N/A — t Without project ICU=.94. At 121 TSF the ICU increases to.95 2 Without project ICU=.93. At 130 TSF the ICU increases to.94 3 Without project ICU=.91. At 521 TSF the ICU increases to.92 Without project ICU=.91. At 120 TSF the ICU increases to.92 Adding a third SBT allows 2373 TSF before ICU =.92 5 Adding a third SBT allows 4190 TSF before ICU= .91 NO EXISTING COUNTS WERE AVAILABLE FOR THE FOLLOWING: 43. Santa Cruz&SIH Rd 50. San Miguel&SJH Rd NO COMMITTED PROJECT DATA WAS AVAILABLE FOR THE FOLLOWING: . S. Newport&Via Lido 6. Newport&32nd 10. MacArthur&Birch 12. MacArthur&VonKarman 14. Jamboree&Birch 33. Jamboree&Bayview 55. 15th&PCH 56. Bluff&PCH 57. Newport WB Ramp&PCH 58. Newport Coast&PCH 59. Spyglass Hill&SIH Rd I$n N+ � gIPM N N � J?♦�S5 RO S SR-55 ALIGNMENT IS '"I" �) N N / t O[AGRAMATIC ONLY 1 a 7 7� ^ro px z I ) J ) $ _ 2 6RISf 1 d ♦ SAUe__ .♦! 2 4 5 4 � _W(iA ♦ry J vµ I si my ♦ I t ♦ J �m 2 J J ou xu+ 3 I Z1m 9 1 e I BACK b o 1 ♦ HAY 'A x I 12 10 'h 1 ei SEt "Jig t 1 5 �t 13 3 1 nix 2 2 XIpIWAY 1 ♦ t JJ 2 ♦ ♦� lamiRT ~a 1 a 9 BAY 2 ~� ems,. PACIFIC z OCEAN 2 Figure 1 FASHION ISLAND EXPANSION YEAR 1999 PM PEAK HOUR PROJECT DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES • �r� �� AUST/N-FOUST ASSOC/AYES, TRAFFIC ENGINEERING ANP TRANSPCRTA7ICN PLANNING 2020 NORTH TUSTIN AVENUE • SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701 TELEPHONE (714) 667-0496 FAX (714) 667-7952 MEMORANDUM TO: Pat Temple, City of Newport Beach FROM: Joe Foust, P.E. DATE: April 13, 1994 SUBJECT: FASHION ISLAND EXPANSION - PRELIMINARY FINDINGS We have completed a preliminary examination of the effects of expanding Fashion Island.. Based on conditions anticipated in the year 2000 (i.e., using the Newport Beach Traffic Analysis Model) we have identified the magnitude of traffic which would cause a TPO analysis to fail at a number of locations. These locations and the increased traffic that could be sustained without mitigation listed in order of priority are: DISTRIBUTION OF CRITICAL ALLOWABLE ALLOWABLE LOCATION FI TRIPS MOVEMENT TRB'S$ FI EXPANSION 1. Campus @ Bristol-South 2% EBT 1 35 TSF 2. Coast Hwy @ DoverBayshore 10% WBT 10 70 TSF 3. Jamboree @ University 6% NBT 11 129 TSF 4. Jamboree @ Bison 9% NBT 21 164 TSF 5. MacArthur @ Ford 7% NBT 27 272 TSF ' without causing TPO to fail Examination of this table reveals the extent of development possible in Fashion Island without mitigation, in order of priority. For example, adding two additional trips to eastbound Bristol-South at Campus Drive causes the TPO at that location to exceed 0.90. The model does assign two percent of project trips to this link,so an increase of more than 35 TSF results in two additional trips on the critical link. If we were to "adjust" the model distribution for these trips (there are a number of convenient alternative routes), we will encounter a very difficult situation at Coast Highway and Pat Temple, City of Newport Beach April 13, 1994 Page 2 Dover/Bayshore at a 70 TSF expansion. Here,we would need to provide an additional westbound thru-lane. Attached are copies of the appropriate ICU calculations for these five locations. cc: Rich Edmonston, City of Newport Beach Don Webb, City of Newport Beach Mike Erickson, LSA Tom Redwitz, The Irvine Company 17. Campus & Bristol S 2000 Base AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 5 8000 1160 .17* 890 .12 NBR 0 0 180 70 SBL 1 1600 120 .08* 140 .09 SBT 3 4800 770 .16 2220 .46* SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 1.5 1500 (.68)* 650 .41 EBT 2.5 6400 2860 .68 2470 .51* EBR 2 3200 310 .10 760 .24 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .93 .97 2000 w/Fashion Island Expansion (100 Trips) AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 5 8000 1160 .17* 890 .12 NBR 0 0 180 69 SBL 1 1600 120 .08* 140 .09 SBT 3 4800 770 .16 2220 .46* SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 1.5 1500 (.68)* 650 .41 - '+ EBT 2.5 6400 2860 .68 2472 .52* EBR 2 3200 310 .10 760 .24 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .93 .98 27. Dover/Bayshore & PCH 2000 Base AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 20 .05 30 .05 NBT 2 3200 140 .06* 130 .06* NBR 0 0 60 60 SBL 3 4800 1450 .30* 1260 . 26* SBT 1 1600 70 .05 150 .09 SBR 1 1600 80 .05 160 .10 EBL 2 3200 100 .05 100 .05* EBT 3 4800 2640 .56* 2300 .48 EBR 0 0 30 20 WBL 1 1600 50 .05* 30 . 05 WBT 3 4800 2060 .43 2560 .53* WBR 1 1600 750 .47f 1510 .94f TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .97 .90 2000 w/Fashion Island Expansion (100 Trips) AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 20 .05 30 .05 NBT 2 3200 140 . 06* 130 .06* NBR 0 0 60 60 SBL 3 4800 1450 .30* 1260 . 26* SBT 1 1600 70 .05 150 .09 SBR 1 1600 80 .05 160 .10 i EBL 2 3200 100 .05 100 .05* EBT 3 4800 2640 .56* 2304 .48 EBR 0 0 30 20 WBL 1 1600 50 .05* 30 .05 WBT 3 4800 2060 .43 2570 .54* WBR 1 1600 750 .47f 1511 .94f TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .97 .91 34. Jamboree & University 2000 Base AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 10 .05 20 .05 NBT 4 6400 2150 .34* 2580 .40* NBR 1 1600 60 .05 430 . 27 SBL 2 3200 250 .08* 670 .21* SBT 4 6400 1480 .23 1730 . 27 SBR 1 1600 250 .16 380 .24 EBL 1.5 2400 510 .21* 280 .12 EBT 0 .5 800 60 .08 150 .19* EBR 1 1600 10 .05f 10 .05f WBL 2 3200 270 .08 530 .17* WBT 1 1600 150 .09* 220 .14 WBR 1 1600 1240 .78f 480 . 30f TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .72 .97 2000 w/Fashion Island Expansion (100 Trips) l r��rT AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR 1 . LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 10 .05 20 .05 NBT 4 6400 2150 . 34* 2593 .41* NBR 1 1600 60 .05 433 . 27 SBL 2 3200 250 .08* 670 .21* SBT 4 6400 1480 .23 1737 .27 SBR 1 1600 250 .16 380 . 24 EBL 1 .5 2400 510 . 21* 280 .12 EBT 0.5 800 60 .08 150 .19* EBR 1 1600 10 .05f 10 . 05f WBL 2 3200 270 .08 533 .17* WBT 1 1600 150 .09* 220 .14 WBR 1 1600 1240 .78f 480 .30f TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .72 .98 • 35. Jamboree & Bison 2000 Base AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 20 .05 40 .05 NBT 3 4800 2460 .54* 2650 . 61* NBR 0 0 150 280 SBL 2 3200 130 .05* 120 .05* SBT 3 4800 1810 . 38 2400 .50 SBR 1 1600 30 .05 60 . 05 EBL 0 0 60 30 EBT 1 1600 50 .09* 40 .05* EBR 0 0 30 10 WBL 1 1600 470 . 29* 330 . 21* WBT 1 1600 50 .05 70 .05 WBR 2 3200 110 .05 380 .12 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .97 .92 2000 w/Fashion Island Expansion (100 Trips) AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 20 .05 40 .05 NBT 3 4800 2460 .54* 2666 .61* NBR 0 0 150 280 SBL 2 3200 130 .05* 120 .05* SBT 3 4800 1810 .38 2410 .50 SBR 1 1600 30 .05 60 .05 EBL 0 0 60 30 EBT 1 1600 50 . 09* 40 . 05* EBR 0 0 30 10 WBL 1 1600 470 . 29* 330 .21* WBT 1 1600 50 .05 70 .05 WBR 2 3200 110 .05 380 .12 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .97 .92 39. MacArthur & Ford 2000 Base AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 40 .05 50 .05 NBT 3 4800 2660 .55* 2060 .43* NBR 1 1600 330 . 21 500 .31 SBL 2 3200 210 .07* 880 . 28* SBT 3 4800 1720 .36 2550 .53 SBR 1 1600 20 . 05f 10 .05f EBL 2 3200 0 . 00 10 .05 EBT 2 3200 120 .05* 520 .16* EBR 1 1600 30 .05 60 .05 WBL 2 3200 370 .12* 240 . 08* WBT 2 3200 450 .14 250 .08 WBR 1 1600 1120 .70f 390 .24f TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .79 .95 2000 w/Fashion Island Expansion (100 Trips) AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 40 .05 50 .05 NBT 3 4800 2660 .55* 2060 .43* NBR 1 1600 330 .21 504 . 32 SBL 2 3200 210 .07* 880 .28* SBT 3 4800 1720 .36 2552 .53 SBR 1 1600 20 .05f 10 .05f EBL 2 3200 0 .00 10 .05 EBT 2 3200 120 .05* 520 .16* EBR 1 1600 30 .05 60 .05 WBL 2 3200 370 .12* 241 .08* WBT 2 3200 450 .14 251 .08 WBR 1 1600 1120 .70f 390 . 24f TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .79 .95 O�aEW PpR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH U OK P.O.BOX 1768,NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 o"Opoft PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225 April 5, 1994 Tom Redwitz, Vice President, Land Development The Irvine Company P.O. Box I Newport Beach, CA 92658-8904 Subject: Fashion Island Traffic StudX Dear Tom: The City of Newport Beach has received a proposal from Austin Foust Associates, to provide professional traffic engineering services for the expansion of Fashion Island. The proposal contains an outline of the scope of work required, estimated time schedule for completion, and estimated budget required for the preparation of the studies. The fee requested has been reviewed by the City, and the amount requested for the tasks required is considered appropriate and warranted. To proceed with the study, it is requested that you remit the following fees: Consultant Fees $ 15,000 City Fees (10%) 1,500 Total Request: $ 16,500 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 ®rdlf i IZu Patricia L. Temp e Advance Planning Manager Attachment F\JM\E1R-D0CS\FShis1.1P0 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach dEW�Rr e CITY OF NAPORT BEACH CASH RECEIPT G M ¢ NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92663 C�[IFORN' 38164 RECEIVED BY: CM CUSTOMER,': IRVINE COMPANY MISCELLANEOUS RECEIPTS 0102200 MISC TRAFFIC STD 010-2300 $15, 000. 00 ENVIRONMENTAL FEES 010-5010 $1 ,500. 00 S TOTAL DUE $16, 500.00 CASH PAID CHECK PAID CHECK NO TENDERED CHANGE $. 00 $16, 500. 00 500371 sm $16,500. 00 $. 00 DATE — 04/05/94 TIME — 13:37: 26 RECEIVED BY P NING DEPARTMENT • IVF NEWPORT BEACa MAR 21 19 ®r® 94Al/STIMFOAST ASSOCIATES, //V IgtlUtutut1121 415i6 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING AND 7RA1vEPDR7A7I0N PLANNING A 2020 NORTH TUSTIN AVENUE • SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701 • TELEPHONE (714) 667-0496 FAX (714) 667-7952 March 17, 1994 City of Newport Beach 3300-Newport Beach Newport Beach, Ca 9266-J0884 ATTENTION: Ms. Patty Temple SUBJECT: PROPOSAL - FASHION ISLAND EXPANSION TRAFFIC Dear Patty: Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. (AFA) is pleased to respond to your RFP to conduct a traffic study for the addition of regional commercial development in Fashion Island. We have discussed the scope of work with Mr. Rich Edmonston, along with reviewing your March 3, 1994 Draft Traffic Study Outline memorandum presented to the Fashion Island Task Force. After reviewing that document, we believe the scope of work is clearly defined and our proposal simply needs to outline particular approach to accomplishing the seven tasks. As you are aware,AFA assisted the City in development of the City's traffic model. We will utilize that model in the pursuit of this study. The following discussion describes our detailed approach to the eight tasks: TASK I. Validate Fashion Island Trips Rates-AFA will utilize existing driveway counts to calculate actual trip rates experienced at Fashion Island. These rates will reflect hourly fluctuations as a function of time of year. In addition, a literature search of trip rates for expanded shopping centers will be undertaken. AFA has trip rate data which suggests that the incremental trip rates for expansion to existing centers is significantly lower than the base rate. ITE data for larger centers tends to corroborate this. However, a detailed search of actual data will be undertaken to assist in forecasting trip rates for any incremental expansion of Fashion Island. TASK II. Prepare Capacity Analysis of Expanded Fashion Island - The City traffic model will be utilized to conduct a trip generation distribution and assignment and capacity analysis of various scenarios of potential expansion of Fashion Island. TASK III. Perform TPO Analysis - A TPO analysis will be conducted'For each of the expansion scenarios noted in Task II. The TPO will disclose locations where mitigation will be needed to M L City of Newport Beach March 17, 1994 Page 2 accommodate the various densities of development. The location where traffic mitigation is required will be identified as to priority, along with suitable improvements. That is, the impact of each additional 1,000 square feet of development in Fashion Island will be traced throughout the City so that the critical locations where mitigation will be needed can be identified and evaluated. TASK IV. Parking Analysis - A parking analysis of Fashion Island will be prepared. The current parking inventory will be summarized. A search of available parking data will be conducted to determine what is existing. Depending upon the results of this search, supplemental data may be collected in the form of a count of vehicles parked compared with current driveway counts. This data, along with historical seasonal parking data will be analyzed to uetermine peait seasonal parking demand of the expanded center. This analysis will include the prospect for joint use of parking available including both Fashion Island and Newport Center. Results from the literature search conducted in Task I will also be utilized where appropriate. TASKS V AND VI. Assess Internal Circulation and Pedestrian Access - The current internal circulation system will be reviewed and evaluated for adequacy under existing and future conditions. Typical peak period traffic volumes at several representative locations will be collected for the capacity analysis. General circulation needs for convenience of patrons and customers will be assessed along with requirements for emergency access and safety. The suitability of installed traffic control devices such as stop signs, turn restrictions,speed limits, etc. shall be evaluated. In addition, the availability and suitability of pedestrian circulation, both internally and between Fashion Island and Newport Center, will be examined. Special attention will be directed at the pedestrian access between existing parking facilities in Newport Center and employee work stations in Fashion Island. TASK VII. CMP Impact - The effect of increased density in Fashion Island on the CMP will be examined. This investigation will examine the change in external trips to and from Fashion Island and their impact on levels of service (LOS) as measured by the CMP methodology. This analysis will be an extension of the TPO analysis utilizing CMP methodology and LOS criteria. Any improvements which may be required to mitigate CMP impacts that are beyond those also required to mitigate TPO impacts will be identified and evaluated. TASK VIII. Prepare Report-A draft report documenting the study process including its findings and recommendations will be prepared for City review. Upon receipt of these comments, a final draft suitable for circulation will be completed. One of the important aspects of this study will be close coordination between AFA and City Staff with some key involvement with Fashion Island Management and The Irvine Company. We propose to conduct a kick-off meeting with City Staff, Fashion Island Management and The Irvine Company personnel to discuss data availability, potential development scenarios, etc. This meeting is essential to ensure that all involved key personnel understand the urgency associated with this effort and solicit their cooperation. City of Newport Beach March 17, 1994 Page 3 FEE Since this project involves a data collection program which cannot be specifically defined until after initial data research is conducted,we recommend a time and materials fee with a maximum estimated not to exceed cost of$15,000. This maximum cost is based on the personnel allocation shown in the following table. COST ESTIMATE Classification Rate Hours Cost Principal Traffic Engineer, PE $110 24 $2,640 Transportation Engineer, PE $70 80 5,600 Transportation Planner $55 40 2,200 Drafter $45 24 1,080 Technical/Clerical $40 16 640 Sub-total $12,160 Traffic/Parking Data Collection by TDS, Inc. Estimate 80 hrs @ $30/hr $ 2,400 TOTAL 14 560 Work will begin immediately upon notice to proceed. We anticipate discussion of preliminary results in about three weeks. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincere' oe E. F st, P.E. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT March 3, 1994 TO: Fashion Island Task Force FROM: Patty Temple SUBJECT: Draft Traffic Study Outline The City of Newport Beach is soliciting consultant services for a comprehensive traffic study for the Fashion Island area of Newport Beach. Following is an outline of the tasks which are anticipated to provide the needed information: 1. Using driveway counts provided by The Irvine Company, validate the daily, am and pm trip rates used by the City for traffic modeling and intersection analysis. 2. Conduct an evaluation of the capacity of the circulation system to accommodate additional regional commercial development in Fashion Island using the City's traffic model. This task may be sub-contracted to an engineering consultant specializing in traffic modeling. 3. Prepare a traffic study pursuant to the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. This task will include determining development capacity constraints based on various intersection improvement scenarios. 4. Develop necessary parking ratios to adequately serve parking demand in the center. This task will include reviewing parking strategies for normal and peak use times which may make use of other parking resources in Newport Center. The purpose of this study is to assure that there are adequate parking resources to serve Fashion Island while minimizing the need to construct parking structures. 5. Assess the internal circulation of Fashion Island, and make recommendations as appropriate. 6. Assess pedestrian circulation in Fashion Island, and between Fashion Island and the balance of Newport Center, and make recommendations as appropriate. 7. Assess the impact of the expansion on the CMP network. 1 • i � APPLICANT: CONSULTANTS: NAME: a' PHONE: PROJECT NAME: DESCRIPTIOI A '(C)()N-'/Af 6- DATE DEPOSIT FEES PAYMENT REMAINING BALANCE - d"o A' Ali aa� , od d 20 12. goo•, agWPpRT CITY OF NEWORT BEACH CASH RECEIPT NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92663 46772 RECEIVED BY2CM CUSToMERzIRVINE CO ENVIRONMENTAL FEES FASHION ISLAND 010-5010 $450. 00 TRAFFIC STUDIES TRAFFIC STUDY 4#95 010-2300 $4y500. 00 TOTAL DUE $4, 950. 00 CASH PAID CHECK PAID-CHECK NO IT TENDERED CHANGE $. 00 $4v �50. 00, 5042�3 $4p950. 00 $. 00 DATE 4'0- 34 - -, FORM 1503498 01 0399809 CITY•F NEWPORT BEACH 509231 09231 VOUCHERNO. INVOICENO. PURCHASE ORDER NO. . INVOI@EDATE AMOUNT DISCOUNT NETAMOUNT 961970 091994 9119/94 4r950.00 .00 4,450.00 EIR/TRAFFIC ANALYSIS • I I TOTAL 4r950.,00 .00 4r950.00 ���WPoRr CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH p tP Building Department ' \ ) 3300 Newport Blvd. e.� P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768 (714) 644-3288/3289 PLAN CHECK N0. FEE RECEIPTS Received From Job Address Building Plan Check - Valuation $ 010-5002 $ • Grading Plan Check - Cu. Yds. 010-5004 $ Overtime Plan Check - B G..........................010-5002/5004 $ Special Inspection......................................010-5008 $ Reinspection B E H P.............. ...................010-5008 $ Temporary Electric......................................010-4612 $ Temporary Gas...........................................010-4616 $ Grease Interceptor......................................010-4620 $ Planning Department Fees........ ................. .......010-5000 $ Sale of Maps & Publications.............................010-5812 $ Determination of Unreasonable Hardship..................010-5018 $ Microfilm Copies/Photocopies............................010-5019 $ Hazardous Material Disclosure...........................010-5021 $ Other T/O� ZA 0Ioa3lJS $ �vllll,. �� PAID D7o dolly LSD, db RECEIVED BY: 1994 TOTAL FEES $ 5 D o� NOTICE: Plan Check expires ISOYdaOys a-fYOrQ pq!Alit 6. To& FEE RECEIWO. - 7 SEW PART @� CITY OF NEVTORT BEACH CASH RECEIPT NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92663 C'9GIFDQN`' Y 42009 RECEIVED BY: CM CUSTOMEF': IRVINE CO ENVIR014MENTAL FEES FASHION ISLAND 010-5010 $499. 32 MISCELLANEOUS RECEIPTS 0102300 TRAFFIC STUDY 95 010-2300 $4,953,20 TOTAL DUE l� w" , $5, 492.5'2 CASH PAID CHECK TENDERED CHANGE 1 DATE — taFa/2 /,`1 T T (E ; .i7S;.43. 45 ��wroRr CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH e Building Department ' \ Z 3300 Newport Blvd. a. P.O. Box 1768 • Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768 (714) 644-3288/3289 PLAN CHECK NO. FEE RECEIPTS Received From Job Address Building Plan Check - Valuation $ 010-5002 $ Grading Plan Check - Cu. Yds. 010-5004 $ Overtime Plan Check - B G..........................010-5002/5004 $ Special Inspection......................................010-5008 $ Reinspection B E H P............ .....................010-5008 $ Temporary Electric... ........ ........ ...................010-4612 $ Temporary Gas... ........................................010-4616 $ Grease Interceptor......................................010-4620 $ Planning Department Fees................................010-5000 $ • Sale of Maps & Publications.............................010-5812 $ Determination of Unreasonable Hardship..................010-5018 $ Microfilm Copies/Photocopies............................010-5019 $ Hazardous Material Disclosure........... ...............010-5021 $ x Other 7+9d— X a��- 59io �l99,3y RECEIVED BY: P A 9 TOTAL FEES $ � �• JUN 281994 �7 NOTICE: Plan Check expires 180 days after application. o� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FEE RECEIPT No. (f\feercpc9.93) FORM 150.3490 5 0 4 18 8 _ 01 0399809 CITY of ra=WPORT BEACH 504188 .Lv VOUCHERNO. ' INVOICE NO. PURCHASE ORDER NO. INVOICE DATE AMOUNT DISCOUNT NETAMOUNT 625299 549252 6114/94 5r492.52 .00 5.r492.5.2 EIR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS TOTAL 5 '492.52 .00 5.492.52 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Q agW PORT '� Q Building Department i3300 Newport Blvd. a P.O. Box 1768 . Cq<<FORN�P Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768 (714) 644-3288/3289 PLAN CHECK NO. FEE RECEIPTS Received From Jo Ad ress Building Plan Check - Valuation b 010-5002 $ Grading Plan Check Cu. Yds. 010-5004 $ Overtime Plan Check - B G..........................010-5002/5004 $ Special Inspection......................................010-5008 $ Reinspection B E H P....... ..........................010-5008 $ Temporary Electric......................................010-4612 $ Temporary Gas...........................................010-4616 $ Grease Interceptor......................................010-4620 $ Planning Department Fees................. ...............010-5000 $ . Sale of Maps & Publications.............................010-5812 $ Determination of Unreasonable Hardship..................010-5018 E Microfilm Copies/Photocopies.............................010-5019 $ Hazardous Material Disclosure...........................010-5021 $ X Other � -w x r �c O/S 012-27&7)$ 15) do; OD RECEIVED BY: A I D TOTAL FEES $ 16)560, l» NOTICE: Plan Check expires 180 days APR OPlipfflon. ��/�� FEE RECEIPT N0. (f\feercpt9-93) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ICI FORM 150.3495 01 0391809 CITY OF lJEWPOR3 BEACH 500371500371 VOUCHER NO. INVOICE NO. PURCHASE ORDER NO. INVOICE DATE AMOUNT DISCOUNT NETAMOUNT 32457E 16500 3/25/94 16.500.00 .00 16.500.00 FASHION ISLAND TRAFFIC STUDY �I I ' I TOTAL 160500.00 .00 16.500.00 101645 VOUCHER NO. INVOICE NO. PURCHASE ORDER NO. INVOICE DATE AMOUNT DISCOUNT NET AMOUN-� 253563 012695 1/26/95 1, 527. 46 . 00 1, 52706 BDGT AUGMENT REQUEST F. I. EXPAN TOTAL -- _- - ----------- -- 1, 527.•46 00 1, 52 6 CITY OF NEWART BEACH 0 z P.O.BOX 1768,NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92658.8915 a Building Department - (714) 644-3288/3289 FEE RECEIPT DATE (� - PLAN (�CHECK NO. Received From Job Address 41 Building Plan Check - Valuation $ 010-5002 $ Zoning Plan Check .....................................010-5003 $ Grading Plan Check - Cu. Yds. 010-5004 $ Fire Plan Check ....................................... 010-5055 S Overtime Plan Check - B G..........................010-5002/5004 $ Additional Building Plan Check ...... ............. ......010-5002 $ Special Inspection......................................010-5008 $ Preliminary Code Compliance Review .....................010-5002 $ Reinspection B E H P.. ...............................010-5008 $ Reinspection Fire ......................................010-5050 $ Temporary Electric......................................010-4612 $ Temporary Gas...... ............................�:..... 010-4616 $ Temporary Certificate of Occupancy ............ 1 V010-5008 $ Underground Utilities Waiver ................. ........002225 $ Grease Interceptor............................��Q '...010-4�62p0CA e Planning Department Fees.......................... @fit(-�000 $ Sale of Maps & Publications. ........ ...... .tjjj 0S�... .010-5812 $ Determination of Unreasonable Hardship..................010-5018 $ Microfilm Copies/Photocopies............................010-5019 $ Hazardous Material Disclosure. ............... ...........010-5021 $ Fire Dept. Hazardous Material Review....................010-5058 $ Other D/d,23OP $ 13 8e, 6,D 5C ��-e- aia �� 1,30, 06 RECEIVED BY: TOTAL FEES $ h NOTICE: Plan Check expires 180 days after application. FEE R CEIPT NO. (f\fecrcpt6.94) TO: ❑ MAYOR ❑CITY COUNCIL -''- CITY MANAGER 0 FIRE DEPUTY CITY MGR. M GENERAL SERVICES ATTORNEY LIBRARY BUILDING ❑ MARINE CITY CLERK [] PARKS&REC. ❑ FINANCE-ADMIN. Q PERSONNEL ACCOUNTING PLANNING DATA PROCESSING POLICE 0 DUPLICATING PUBLIC WORKS PAYROLL E3 TRAFFIC PURCHASING Q UTILITIES ❑ REVENUE E3 TELECOMM. FOR >ffACI'ION&DISPOSITION ❑ FILE 0 INFORMATION REVIEW&COMMENT RETURN S .RRmnRxs: `G2�G'►i/��x. '� c'7' ��LGLC.Gt�GJ (�f.G� • r� 4/D -230D r•- FR ®�®AUST/N-FOUST ASSOC/AYES, /NC. TRAFFIC ENGINEER/NO ANO TRA NSPOR TA T/ON PLANNING 2020 NORTH TUSTIN AVENUE • SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701 • TELEPHONE (714) 667-0496 FAX (714) 667-7952 October 4, 1994 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 tO11OQQ Att : Pat Temple INVOICE Invoice No: 7786 Subject: Fashl n Island Traffic Study p.O.#. 13612 AFA Project No: Ol ZO43 Period.• aptember�, i99.4 CLASSIFICATION HOURS RATE AMOUNT • Principal(JEI) 9.00 $110.00 $990.00 Transportation Engineer 3.00 $60.00 $180.00 Sr. Technical 2.00 $40.00 $80.00 SUBTOTAL 14,00 $1,250.00 TOTAL AMOUNT $1,250.00 STATEMENT SUMMARYAS OFSEPTEMBER$0, 1994 Contract Amount $24,493.20 Previously Invoiced ,$23,831.88 This Invoice '; Total Invoiced to Date $25 081. Amount Paid $17,271.00 Amount Outstanding $7,810.88 ACCOUNT NO. (�'/d 3 �� "� • DATE APPROVED u u ®r®AUST/N.FOUST ASSOCIATES, /NC, TRAFFIC ENOINEERINO AND rRANSPOR rA rION PCANNINO 2020 NORTH TUSTIN AVENUE • SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701 • TELEPHONE (714) 667-0496 FAX (714) 667-7952 • yr December2, 1994 PLANNING JYC:-h.... T City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. DE0 1 '1: 1991 Newport Beach, CA 92663 AM R. 70l9 IOAl2)1)213141r31r Attn: Pat Temple INVOICE r Invoice No: 7896 Subject: Fashion Island Traffic Study Agreement No: 13612 AFA Project No: 017.043 Period., October 1 November 30, 1994 CLASSIFICATION HOURS RATE AMOUNT Principal(✓EF9 4.00 $110.00 $440.00 • Transportation Engineer 6.00 $60.00 $360.00 SUBTOTAL 10.00 $800.00 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE " +•$80DfUD STATEMENT SUMMARYAS OFNOVEMBER 30. 1994 Contract Amount $24,493.20 Previously Invoiced This Invoice Total invoiced to Date $25,8$1. 8 Amount Paid $23,831,88 Amount Outstanding $2,050.00 4 Alt, 'W 7 9} Pi nnk,g Cry,_.t PO • • PURCHASE CITY OF REQUISITION , NEWPORT BEACH m �cisoaN�r 6.0.No.: 13841 Date: February 24, 1995 (if Reserved) Dept: PLANNING Suggested Vendor: Ship-To: AUSTIN-FOUST ASSOCIATES, INC. City of Newport Beach t 2020 North Tustin Avenue r7A ntnpr. Santa Ana, CA 92701 Attention: Phone No: Quantity Description of Articles or Services Required Unit Price Amount Budget i CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 Provide additional traffic study analysis , $1388.60 010 2300 for Fashion Island EX ansion (TS#95) _ Comments: Sub Total $1388.60 deposited into acct._ 010 2300 2-24-95 Tax Total Date,Required: F.O.B. Terins Code Amount ("Mpg VED(Department H or person autkorized to execute requisitions) ,kURCIASING MANAG= FINANCE DIRECTOR(Approval required for purchases exceeding$2,000) �t��W p�RT • r • �e CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH U ? P.O. BOX 1768,NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658.8915 C'94!FO RN�P PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225 January 26, 1995 Tom Redwitz Senior Director Development Entitlement The Irvine Company 550 Newport Center Dr., #350 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8904 Subject: Budget Augment Request Fashion Island E"ansion Traffic Study Dear Tom: The City Newport of Ne ort Beach has received a final invoice from the consulting firm of Austin- Foust Associates, Inc., for work performed beyond the original contract price for the Fashion Island Expansion Traffic and Parking Study. This invoice covers the consultant's presentations at both the Planning Commission and City Council public hearings. The • budget augment request has been reviewed by the City and the amount requested is considered appropriate and warranted. Therefore, please deposit the requested fees into your City account: Budget Augment Fee $1,388.60 City Fee (109o') 138.86 Total: $1,527.46 Please make your check payable to the City of Newport Beach. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By , Patricia L. Temple Advance Planning Manager Attachment JM\EIR-D0GS1Fash-1abud 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach �Dl� l Z Jrd 6� �� a� �� asp /�� � � , f0(q¢ / 23 - yf' • 1- , 13 , GCS% - 1��/ 32 � � 0 • AUSTIN-FOUST ASSOCIATES, INC, ®�® TRAFFIC ENGINEERING AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING 2020 NORTH TUSTIN AVENUE • SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701 • TELEPHONE (714) 667-0496 FAX (714) 667-7952 January 23, 1995 City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92663-3884 ATTENTION: Ms. Patty Temple SUBJECT: FASHION ISLAND EXPANSION TRAFFIC STUDY CLOSE-OUT INVOICES Dear Patty: In September 1994 we estimated our costs to revise the above traffic study to include an AM peak • hour analysis and address the issue of the impact of the tolls of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor on Fashion Island at $4,500. In addition, The Irvine Company requested us to make presentations at both the Planning Commission and City Council meetings. We exceeded our estimated cost of $4,500 to complete the study by $1,388.60. The work is now complete and we respectfully request an additional budget augmentation of$1,388.60. This will close out the invoicing on this project. If you have any questions, please call. Sincerely, Joe E. Foust i .E. �r,•u�1'• �.{ �r'Ir �y yRl tiv y Nl J •yy..:vn�j4 r' �r .]55 :'FY�i�'Fv.Vi�', p } { ( `, ry`PLANNING DEPARTNIENT .'ru,''•�.�; YID ` ..q.d T• `ys � � �A 3 y 3 }/'n•'..u«V •i� ��UI�iP4Y..dd VtlI ny "! OF l rifflpop GEAR F • JAN 2 6 1995 PM 41annii)lrector Ali 12 3 4 5 6, �0% DID oz3oa �1s,9,lu,ii,r�, ► l i t t .r � ®A®AI/STIN--FOUST ASSOCIATES, INC. TRAFFIG ENGINEERING AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING 2020 NORTH TUSTIN AVENUE • SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701 TELEPHONE (714) 667-0496 FAX (714) 667-7952 September 12, 1994 c i.0 0 °a'`ARiTMERI1T 5EA 15 1994 City of Newport Beach '� PM P.O. Box 1768 718191I�1ll112111`�l3141516 Newport Ba=h, CA 92663-M,04 > ATTENTION: Ms. Patty Temple SUBJECT: FASHION ISLAND EXPANSION TRAFFIC/PARKING STUDY Dear Patty: This letter is a follow-up to my previous discussion with you that we will be exceeding our budget • allocation for this project. We are about completed with the project, but we have encountered additional labor costs as a result of the need to revise the traffic study to include the AM peak period and address the concern that tolls on the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor may still be in effect in the Post 2010 condition. We estimate combination of these two issues, along with our investigation of a revision of the City parking code to include a unique rate for Fashion Island requires approximately 60 personnel hours at an estimated cost of approximately $4,500. We would, therefore, respectfully request your consideration of our request. If you have any questions, please call. Sincerely, FoeE. oust, P.E. 1 . KAFANING DEPARTMENT "I OF TdV!;POPT (3f=ors AUSTIN-FOAST ASSOCIATES, INC. AM SEP 19 1994 PM ®�� • TRAFFIC ENGINEERING AND rRANSPORrArIoN PLANNING 7181911019112111213141516 2020 NORTH TUSTIN AVENUE • SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701 TELEPHONE g 14) 667-0496 FAX (714) 667-7952 September2, 1994 _ x 9q City of Newport Beach _ 3300 Newport Blvd. ��file- (U(3 Newport Beach, CA 92663 lanni, g i�ro�r,t Attn: Pat Temple INVOICE Invoice No: 7717 Subject. Fashion Island Traffic Study p.o.A 13612 AFA Project No: 017.043 Period., July 1 -August 31, 1994 • CLASSIFICATION HOURS RATE AMOUNT Principal(JEF9 6.00 $110.00 $660.00 Transportation Engineer 93.00 $60.00 $5,680.00 Sr. Technical 7.50 $40.00 $300.00 SUBTOTAL 106.50 $6,540.00 DIRECT COSTS Report Production-232 copies @$•09 $20.88 SUBTOTAL $20.88 TOTAL AMOUNT $6,560.88 STATEMENT SUMMARY AS OFAUGUST 31. 1994 Contract Amount $19,993.20 Previously Invoiced $17,271.00 This Invoice $6,560.88 Total Invoiced to Date $23,831.88 Amount Paid $17,271.00 Amount Outstanding $6,560.88 _��AUST/N-FOUST ASSOC/AYES, /NC, TRAFFIC ENGINEERING AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING 2020 NORTH TUSTIN AVENUE • SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701 TELEPHONE (714) 667-0496 FAX (714) 667-7952 September 12, 1994 City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92663-3884 ATTENTION: Ms. Patty Temple SUBJECT: FASHION ISLAND EXPANSION TRAFFTGPAREING STUDY Dear Patty: This letter is a follow-up to my previous discussion with you that we will be exceeding our budget . allocation for this project. We are about completed with the project, but we have encountered additional labor costs as a result of the need to revise the traffic study to include the AM peak period and address the concern that toils on the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor may still be in effect in the Post 2010 condition. We estimate combination of these two issues, along with our investigation of a revision of the City parking code to include a unique rate for Fashion Island requires approximately 60 personnel hours at an estimated cost of approximately $4,500. We would, therefore, respectfully request your consideration of our request. If you have any questions, please call. Sincerely, #oe - Foust, P.E. �a /3,612, /�; 6vv. ba �g • PURC&SE ORDER PAGE i or P0 CITY OF NPORT BEACH • PURCHASE ORDER NUMBER lag l 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD t G a P.O. BOX 1768 d 11 x NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92658-8915 C,C/FOR�P PHONE: (714) 644-3118 PURCH.ORDER DATE DATE REQUIRED REQUISITION N0. VENDOR N0. DESCRIPTION tf 41 fi5fi. TE 2D ,R —P O t3R4i VENDOR SHIP AUSTIN-FOUST ASSOCIATES, INC. To CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2020 NORTH TUSTIN AVENUE PLANNING DEPARTMENT SANTA ANA. CA 92701 3300 NEWPORT BLVD. NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. 92663 CONFIRM. I BLANKET I FINAL PAYMENTTERMS FREIGHT T 30 DAY NIA " QUANTITY UNIT OF MEASURE COMMODITY CODE UNIT PRICE EXTENSION CHANGE ORDER No. 1 PROVIDE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC STUDY ANALYSIS FOR FASHION ISLAND EXPANSIMN (TI01'VIC STV1.)"t' No. 05) . TOTAL !4 .500.00 THIS REPRESENTS CHANGC ORDER NO. I To P,.O. No, 13841 . u• 1 .Oit 00r-Sb� 4. 5ifT).00 4. 500.011 TRAFFIC STUDI AS DE`+CAIBI:D ABOVE." . t� t I StTBTOTAL 4a500.00 i.' , FICEI(IHT 0 .00 I TAX 0 .00 YURCHASI: ORDER TOTAL 4,500.00 ORGANIZATION ACCOUNT PROJECT PROJECTACCOUNT AMOUNT 010 2300 4500.00 TOTAL PURCHASE ORDER Ai 4 ,500.00 ACC 'E.Acroplen[oofihl.orderby so ler/vendor will bebyecknowledgemenl or by delivery,in whole or in portohhaltomscalled for hereunder. By sou Apthis orderAha aelleArondor eoxnowlotlGea that he he,read agree,to all te...".ondiners inducers those hnest on the revere BY Ad of this ConlrecLPurchme Order The only terms and conditions thaw boappllabiatolhainleryret.lienefthis Conimctarethosebsuedbytho CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City of Newport 8oach, IMPORTANT GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS ON THE REVERSE SIDE ARE INCORPORATED HEREIN. The Articles covered by this Purchase Order or Contract must cents=to applicable Cal-OSHA Standards,and/or other appropriate laws,regulahons,miss,and code of Federal Government and the State of California Show as a separate Item any retail sales tax,use lax or Federal tax applicable to this purchase.This order subject to California Sales tax.All OUT•OFSTATE VENDORS:the CITY will pay any salesluso tax on all puncheon shipped from out-of-state.All purchases and transportation charges are exempt from Federal excise In NOTE:All purchases are F.O.B.destination unless otherwise authorized Charges for shipments me to be freight prepaid and added to the involco(Shown as a separate Item)whore so authorized.Do not include Federal transportation In A Newport Beach business license may be required to conduct business in the City. I ORIGINATOR'S/DEPARTMENTAL COPY � Y� 9 j ����� � ���, �� e������- i I �w^moo, , �' 9�i���'r'� � I I I I I I I I� I PURCHASE CITY OFRT REQUISITION NEWP BEACH � GuFoaN`r P.O.No.: 13 441 Date: October 3. 1994 (if Reserved) Dept: PLANNING suggested Vendor: ship To: AUSTIN-FOUST ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING 2020 North Tustin Avenue Santa Ana CA 92701 Attention: Phone No: Quantity Description of Articles or Services Required Unit Price Amount' Budget#F CHANGE ORDER oe et S Y ALYSTS FOR FA:*ON ISLAND EXPANSION, TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 95 Comments: Sub Total $4500.00 deposited into 010 2300 10/3/94 Tax Total Date Required: F.O.B. Terms Code Amount ROVED(Mpartment Ifead or person authorized to execute requisitions) PURCHASING MANAGER Fi"$q DIRECTOR(Approval required for,purchases exceeding'$2,000) sy THE IRVINE COMPANY RU;i--!ISD CV PLAHMNG DEPARTMENT `TV OF V':1l!1POPT BEACP AN PM 0 31994 PM September 30, 1994 '7B8s9110tll1L111213AN6 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P. O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Attn: John H. Douglas Environmental Coordinator Subject: Supplemental Traffic Analysis Budget Request for Fashion Island Expansion Dear John: Per your letter dated September 19, 1994, enclosed in our check in the amount of $4,950.00 covering the consultant fee for Austin-Foust to perform additional traffic analysis related to the proposed Fashion Island expansion. Sincerely, Tom Redwitz Vice President Development Entitlement cc: Jim Hewicker Patty Temple 550 Newport Center Drive,Suite 350, P.O. Box 6370, Newport Beach, California 92658-6370 Phone: (714)720-2332 FAX: (714)720-2425 PORT • • @� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • u T P.O. BOX 1768,NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92668.8915 C'�<fFORN`* PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225 September 19, 1994 Mr. Tom Redwitz The Irvine Company PO Box I Newport Beach, CA 92658 RE: Supplemental Traffic Analysis Budget Request for Fashion Island Expansion Dear Tom, The City has received an invoice and the attached request from Austin-Foust for a budget increase of $4,500 to cover the additional traffic analysis related to the proposed Fashion Island expansion. Please submit a check payable to the City of Newport Beach in the amount of $4,950.00, which includes the consultant fee plus 10% City review fee. • Please call me at 644-3230 if you have any questions. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWI • R, Director By: Jo . Do as, AICP Envi onmental Coordinator cc: Patty Temple C\...\JOHN-D\FASH-ISL\RED W n22.LTR i 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach WA AIISTIN-FOIST ASSOCIATES, INC, TRAFFIC ENGINEERING ANO TRANSPORTATION PLANNING 2020 NORTH TUSTIN AVENUE • SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701 TELEPHONE (714) 667-0496 FAX (714) 667-7962 September 12, 1994 City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92663-3884 ATTENTION: Ms. Patty Temple SUBJECT: FASHION ISLAND EXPANSION TRAFFIGPARMNG STUDY Dear Patty: This letter is a follow-up to my previous discussion with you that we will be exceeding our budget allocation for this project. We are about completed with the project, but we have encountered additional labor costs as a result of the need to revise the traffic study to include the AM peak period and address the concern that tolls on the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor may still be in effect in the Post 2010 condition. We estimate combination of these two issues, along with our investigation of a revision of the City parking code to include a unique rate for Fashion Island requires approximately 60 personnel hours at an estimated cost of approximately $4,500. We would, therefore, respectfully request your consideration of our request. If you have any questions, please call Sincerely, )J! I. P.E. iWAWAIISTIN--FOUST ASSOCIATES, INC. • TRAFFIC ENGINEERING AND TRANSPoflrATIoN PLANNING 2020 NORTH TUSTIN AVENUE SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701 TELEPHONE (714) 667-0496 FAX (714) 667-7952 d June 2, 1994 '6r IT T N }�:4' M1 ` �'" City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. - Newport Beach, CA 92663 lasri , D 3°yam, f•say�„ �I Attn: Pat Temple INVOICE Invoice No: 7551 Subject: Fashion Island Traffic Study p.O.#: 13612 AFA Project No: 017.043 Period.' May 1 -31, 1994 • CLASSIFICATION HOURS RATE AMOUNT Principal(JEF) 8.00 $110.00 $880.00 Transportation Engineer 20.00 $60.00 $1,200.00 Design Drafter 2.00 $40.00 $80.00 Sr. Technical 2.50 $40.00 $100.00 SUBTOTAL 32.50 $2,260.00 DIRECT COSTS Travel and Communication $11.00 SUBTOTAL $11.00 TOTAL AMOUNT $2,271.00 STATEMENT SUMMARYAS OFMAY31. 1994 Contract Amount $15,000.00 Previously Invoiced $15,000,00 This Invoice $2,271.00 Total Invoiced to Date $17,271.00 Amount Paid $i5,o00.00 Amount Outstanding $2,271.00 • PUR�`S� ORDER i PAGE o�a�WPoR a CITY OF N PORT BEACH PURCHASE ORDER NUMBER 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD n ..url .'wan'gerYl- u P.O. BOX 1768 ' , NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92659.8915 +coati PHONE: (714) 644-3118 ^—"— PORCH.ORDER DATE DATE REQUIRED REQUISITION NO. VENDOR NO. DESCRIPTION 06/24 94 5563 M T ^; VENDOR SHIP AIISTIN—FOUST ASSOCIATES, INC. TO CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2020 NORTH TUSTIN AVENUE PLA1411ING DEPART11ENT SANTA ANA. CA 92701 3300 NEWPORT BLVD. NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. 92CC.3 CONFIRM. I BLANKET I FINAL PAYMENTTEFMS FREIGHT N N NET 30 DAYS F.O.R. DFS+TINAT1014 QUANTITY UNIT OF MEASURE COMMODITY CODE UNIT PRICE EXTENSION PROVIDE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC STUDY ANALYSIS FOR FASHION ISLAND EXPANSION TS1J$ PER YOUR LETTER DATED 5/18/:r4. NOT TO EXCEED 94.993.20 THIS 0.0. SVPrRC' DC8 P.'Oo 11 rr 13� 21,, r i ( I 1 .00 { X)4 f 4149:1 #2000 4 ,903. 20 ITE3! NO.001 TRAJ-PIC 5T00, sag DE5,CR113112 .a43OIX TOTAL PTIRCHASE ORDER l•9 1 S tt ORGANIZATION ACCOUNT PROJECT PROJECTACCOUNT I AMOUNT 010 2300 4,P0.1. ?0 TOTAL PURCHASE ORDER 4 .4n3. 20 ACC.GCAacepWurvof 4lh am,r by e4bn4andor will on bvn6 na Iedpamont at by dellvery in whole or is pan offho n>ms coed for hereunder, der By n�cnpllnd llilr order,the rallvrJmmdor arknoModaot that ho hos rond and nprem to ail terms mtl eanddipn9lntlodina @osa printed an ins mversn !�- .IUnallhi C�mfnr.'Pn6,-0,dn1 haoirl,Nrme and mnddle,.last will bn applleablu to tn.irlarprotamn of lMS Contend are moss Island by the '.� s f .{.d� '� v, •� oil,of Nuwpan aedch BY IMPORTANT CITY OF NEWPOAT 14EACH GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS ON THE REVERSE SIDE ARE INCORPORATED HEREIN. The AdiClen covaod by this Purchaeo Order or Contract must conform to applicable Cal-OSHA Standards,and/or other appropriate laws,regulations,rules,and code of Fcdoral Government and the Sbw of Coldomia Show as a copu.do dean any romd sales M.uco tax or Federal tax applicable to this purchase.This order subject to Cahfoona sales tax All OUT-OF•STATE VENDORS:tho CITY will pay any salosluso tax on all purehnsos shipped from aut•ot•otole.All purchases and tranapannUon charges are exempt from Federal Miss fax NOTE:All purchases are FOB destination unloss othbrwi^.o authorized Charge for shipmon.are to be froilid prepaid and cddod to the im'olco(shown as a ceparato item)whom so authorized Do not Include Fodoral tmnsponmlon tax.A Nowporl Beach business Ilepnse may bo required to conduct busine^o In lho City. ORIGINATOR'S/DEPARTMENTAL COPY PURCHASE ' ' 'f i CITY OF �awWPOar WPORT REQUISITION NEBEACH• G41FoaN�� u, P.O.No.: Date: June 23, 1994 (If Reserved) Dept: PLANNING • Suggested Vendor: Ship To: 6USTIN-FOUST ASSOC. INC. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2020 North Tustin Avenue Santa Ana, CA 92701 Attention: Phone No: Quantity Description of Articles or,Services Required, Uuit Price Amount Budget I 4993.20 for the Fashion Island Ex ansion TS #95 _ Comments: Sub Total $4993.20 deposited into 010-2300 6-23-94,. Tax . Total Date Required: F.O.B. Terms Code Amount A�PRO D(Department Hcftd or person audi rized to execute requisitions) PURCHASING MANAGER FINANCE DIRECTOR(Approval required,for purchases exceeding$2,000) 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH U z P.O.BOX 1768,NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658.8915 c4411povt PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225 June 13, 1994 Tom Redwitz Senior Director Development Entitlement The Irvine Company 550 Newport Center Dr., #350 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8904 Subject: Budget Augment Request Fashion Island EUansion Traffic Studv Dear Tom: The City of Newport Beach has received a budget augment request from the consulting firm of Austin-Foust Associates, Inc., to cover increased costs incurred in the preparation of the Fashion Island Expansion Traffic and Parking Study. The budget augment request has been reviewed by the City and the amount requested is considered appropriate and warranted. . Therefore, please deposit the requested fees into your City account: Budget Augment Fee $4,993.20 City Fee (10%) 499.32 Total: $5,492.52 Please make your check payable to the City of Newport Beach. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER,�Director By U )O'- . Patricia L. Temple f111— Advance Planning Manager Attachment JM\EIR-DOCS\Fash•Isl.bud 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach rw ,,l/a STIN--FOUST ASSOCIATES, /NC, rRAFFIG ENGINEERING AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNI-NG - 2020 NORTH TUSTIN AVENUE • SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA.92701 TELEPHONE (714) 667-0496 . . ' "'FAX-•(714)•667-7952 May 18, 1994 RECEIYEp 13Y City of Newport Beach PLANNING DEPARTMENT^1TY OF NFWPORr BEACh' 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663-3884 MAY 2 4, 1994 AM FM ATTENTION: Ms. Patty Temple '���191101ll1121112131�1516 i]EITZ—rl': a�a^�i�:v:: :S.T "iP L ;;LTua^�T. i nilvA�aLi TFiTa^.�:'P�i�:JiuT Dear Patty: Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. has encountered a situation whereby we are forced to request an augmentation to our $15,000 budget for the Fashion Island Expansion Traffic and Parking Study. There are basically two reasons for this cost overrun. These are: 1. Substantially increased effort in conducting the actual parking lot utilization for Fashion Island and Newport Center on both weekdays and weekends alike. We . budgeted $2,400 for this effort and spent $4,593.20 with TDS, Inc., a traffic data collection company. The additional data collected included actual field observations of pedestrian and vehicular traffic between Fashion Island and Newport Center to substantiate the 20 percent internal trip rates. 2. Conduct a manual TPO analysis. Our original scope of services included conducting a TPO analysis using the City's model. We completed this analysis and the study team concurred that a manual TPO needed to be conducted. We did not know this until the results of the model based TPO were available. Consequently, AFA required substantially more labor to conduct a manual TPO than a based one. (Incidentally, City Staff also encountered additional effort to perform the manual TPO analysis.) This effort amounted to 40 person-hours at a cost of$70 pet hour, or $2,800. Therefore,AFA respectfully requests a budget augmentation of$4,993.20 to cover the additional cost of field data collection (i.e. $2,193.20), and conduct of a separate manual TPO analysis ($2,800). Thank you for your kind consideration of this matter. I indicated AFA will honor its commitment to completion of this study, but we do believe these increased costs are legitimate in that they could not have been reasonably foreseen and accurately estimated beforehand. *Since -� 0 A!/STIN-FOAST ASSOCIATES, INC. O�® • TRAFFIC ENGINEERING AND rRANSPORrA rION PLANNING 2020 NORTH TUSTIN AVENUE • SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701 TELEPHONE (714) 667-0496 FAX (714) 667-7952 May 4, 1994 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. y Newport Beach, CA 92663 Attn: Pat Temple Plann'r1g Uireccur INVOICE Invoice No: 7460 Subject: Fashion Island Traffic Study p.o.A• 13612 AFA Project No: 017.043 Period. April 1 —30, 1994 • CLASSIFICATION HOURS RATE AMOUNT Principal(JEF) 32.00 $110.00 $3,520.00 Transportation Engineer 99.00 $60,00 $5,940.00 Transportation Engineer 7.00 $55,W $385.00 Design Drafter 5.00 $40.00 $200.00 Sr. Technical 3.50 $40.00 $140.00 SUBTOTAL 146.50 $10,185.00 DIRECT COSTS Traffic Data Services, Inc. $4,593.20 Travel and Communication $24.00 SUBTOTAL $4,617.20 TOTAL AMOUNT $14,802.20 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE PER CONTRACT $12,850.00 STATEMENT SUMMARYAS OFAPRIL 30, 1994 ContractAmount $15,000.00 Previously Invoiced $2,150.00 This Invoice $12,850.00 . Total Invoiced to Date $15,000.00 Amount Paid $0.00 Amount Outstanding $15,000.00 ~ Y r jf MA FFIC DArA SLUR VICEA INC. 2020 NORTH TUSTIN AVENUE • SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701 • TELEPHONE (714) 541-2228 • FAX (714) 667-7952 INVOICE CLIENT: AUSTIN-FOUST ASSOC., INC. INVOICE NO: 1239 2020 N. TUSTIN AVENUE PROJECT NO: 04402 SANTA ANA, CA 92701 PROJECT: N. BEACH: NEWPORT CTR/FASHION PO/CLIENT NO: I'10 LI'L; ISLAND COUNTS DATE: MAY 11, 1994 REQUESTER: JOE FOUST ATTENTION: ACCOUNTING DESCRIPTION OF WORK ------------------- MANUAL COUNTS: TASK 1 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS & PEDESTRIAN COUNTS - 4 2 PEAK PERIODS (2 HOURS) • MIDDAY/PM @ $150.00 $ 600.00 - PROCESSING OF PEDESTRIAN COUNTS $ 30.00 TASK 2 DESTINATION SURVEY (CENTER DR & SANTA ROSA): - 1 2 PEAK PERIODS (4 HOURS) MIDDAY/PM @ $150.00 $ 150.00 TASK 3 FASHION ISLAND PARKING SURVEY (WEEKDAY): - 45 HOURS (5 PEOPLE) @ $30/HOUR $ 1,350.00 - SUPERVISOR, 2 HOURS @ $40/HOUR $ 80.00 FASHION 'ISLAND PARKING SURVEY (SATURDAY) - 45 HOURS (5 PEOPLE) @ $40/HOUR $ 1,800.00 - MAP $ 15.00 - DATA COMPILATION & PROCESSING $ 30.00 - PROCESSING $ 90.00 TASK 4 & 5 GARAGE 1 & GARAGE 2 PARKING SURVEY: - 9 HOURS @ $30/HOUR $ 270.00 - 60 MILES @ $.22/MILE $ 13.20 - PRELIMINARY COORDINATION $ 45.00 PROJECT MANAGEMENT 4 HOURS $ 120.00 TOTAL AMOUNT $ 4,593.20 !.:LU 0 OrarAI/STIN--FOUST ASSOCIATES, INC, rRAFFIC ENGINEERING AND rHANSPORrArION PLANNING 2020 NORTH TUSTIN AVENUE • SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701 • TELEPHONE (714) 667-0496 FAX (714) 667-7952 April6, 1994 RECEIVED BY Cityof Newport Beach PLANNING DEPARTMENT P ^ITY OF NFWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 AM APR 1 1yy 1 PIAAttn: Pat Temple 7181911Q1ll112111213ANG INVOICE Invoice No: 7498 Subject: Fashion Island Traffic Study P.O.#., 13612 AFA Project No: 017.043 Period.• March I -31, 1994 . CLASSIFICATION HOURS RATE AMOUNT Principal(JEF) 16.00 $110.00 $1,760.00 Transportation Engineer 6.50 $60.00 $390.00 SUBTOTAL 22.50 $2,150.00 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $2,150.00 STATEMENTSUMMARYASOFMARCH31, 1994 Contract Amount $15,000,00 Previously Invoiced $0,00' This Invoice $2,150.00 Total invoiced to Date $2,150.00, Amount Paid $0.00 Amount Outstanding $2,150.00 C, plann g D recWr ��WPoRr CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O.BOX 1768,NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 Cq</Fo F 1A PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644.3225 April 5, 1994 Tom Redwitz, Vice President, Land Development The Irvine Company P.O. Box I Newport Beach, CA 92658-8904 Subject: Fashion Island Traffic Studv Dear Tom: The City of Newport Beach has received a proposal from Austin Foust Associates, to provide professional traffic engineering services for the expansion of Fashion Island. The proposal contains an outline of the scope of work required, estimated time schedule for completion, and estimated budget required for the preparation of the studies. • The fee requested has been reviewed by the City, and the amount requested for the tasks required is considered appropriate and warranted. To proceed with the study, it is requested that you remit the following fees: Consultant Fees $ 15,000 City Fees (10%) 1.500 Total Request: $ 16,500 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 ac Patricia L�� Advance Planning Manager Attachment F\MElx Docs\FahiS1.1ro 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach I�- L--4'v1I4U UCY'AK1MENT a l • P&F NEWPORT BEACH MAR 21 1994 AlzerlA FOUST ASSOCIATES, /A6A1Ululuj11213Al5i6 ®�® • TRAFFIC ENGINEERING AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING 2020 NORTH TUSTIN AVENUE • SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701 TELEPHONE 71 0496 FAX 4) 667- March 17, 1994 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Beach Newport Beach, Ca 9266-3884 ATTENTION: Ms. Patty Temple SUBJECT: PROPOSAL - FASHION ISLAND EXPANSION TRAFFIC Dear Patty: Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. (AFA) is pleased to respond to your RFP to conduct a traffic study for the addition of regional commercial development in Fashion Island. We have discussed the scope • of work with Mr. Rich Edmonston, along with reviewing your March 3, 1994 Draft Traffic Study Outline memorandum presented to the Fashion Island Task Force. After reviewing that document, we believe the scope of work is clearly defined and our proposal simply needs to outline particular approach to accomplishing the seven tasks. As you are aware,AFA assisted the City in development of the City's traffic model. We will utilize that model in the pursuit of this study. The following discussion describes our detailed approach to the eight tasks: TASK I. Validate Fashion Island Trips Rates-AFA will utilize existing driveway counts to calculate actual trip rates experienced at Fashion Island. These rates will reflect hourly fluctuations as a function of time of year. In addition, a literature search of trip rates for expanded shopping centers will be undertaken. AFA has trip rate data which suggests that the incremental trip rates for ' expansion to existing centers is significantly lower than the base rate. ITE data for larger centers tends to corroborate this. However, a detailed search of actual data will be undertaken to assist in forecasting trip rates for any incremental expansion of Fashion Island. TASK II. Prepare Capacity Analysis of Expanded Fashion Island - The City traffic model will be utilized to conduct a trip generation distribution and assignment and capacity analysis of various scenarios of potential expansion of Fashion Island. TASK III. Perform TPO Analysis - A TPO analysis will be conducted for each of the expansion scenarios noted in Task If. The TPO will disclose locations where mitigation will be needed to City of Newport Beach March 17, 1994 Page 2 accommodate the various densities of development. The location where traffic mitigation is required will be identified as to priority, along with suitable improvements. That is, the impact of each additional 1,000 square feet of development in Fashion Island will be traced throughout the City so that the critical locations where mitigation will be needed can be identified and evaluated. TASK IV. Parking Analysis - A parking analysis of Fashion Island will be prepared. The current parking inventory will be summarized. A search of available parking data will be conducted to determine what is existing. Depending upon the results of this search, supplemental data may be collected in the form of a count of vehicles parked compared with current driveway counts. This data, along with historical seasonal parking data will be analyzed to determine peak seasonal parking demand of the expanded center. This analysis'will include the prospect for joint use of parking available including both Fashion Island and Newport Center. Results from the literature search conducted in Task I will also be utilized where appropriate. TASKS V AND VI. Assess Internal Circulation and Pedestrian Access - The current internal circulation system will be reviewed and evaluated for adequacy under existing and future conditions. Typical peak period traffic volumes at several representative locations will be collected for the capacity analysis. General circulation needs for convenience of patrons and customers will be assessed along with requirements for emergency access and safety. The suitability of installed traffic control devices such as stop signs, turn restrictions, speed limits, etc.shall be evaluated. In addition, . the availability and suitability of pedestrian circulation, both internally and between Fashion Island and Newport Center, will be examined. Special attention will be directed at the pedestrian access between existing parking facilities in Newport Center and employee work stations in Fashion Island. TASK VII. CMP Impact - The effect of increased density in Fashion Island on the CMP will be examined. This investigation will examine the change in external trips to and from Fashion Island and their impact on levels of service (LOS) as measured by the CMP methodology. This analysis will be an extension of the TPO analysis utilizing CMP methodology and LOS criteria. Any improvements which may be required to mitigate CMP impacts that are beyond those also required to mitigate TPO impacts will be identified and evaluated. TASK VIII. Prepare Report-A draft report documenting the study process including its findings and recommendations will be prepared for City review. Upon receipt of these comments, a final draft suitable for circulation will be completed. One of the important aspects of this study will be close coordination between AFA and City Staff with some key involvement with Fashion Island Management and The Irvine Company. We propose to conduct a kick-off meeting with City Staff, Fashion Island Management and The Irvine Company personnel to discuss data availability, potential development scenarios, etc. This meeting is essential to ensure that all involved key personnel understand the urgency associated with this effort and solicit their cooperation. • City of Newport Beach March 17, 1994 Page 3 FEE Since this project involves a data collection program which cannot be specifically defined until after initial data research is conducted,we recommend a time and materials fee with a maximum estimated not to exceed cost of$15,000.following table. This maximum cost is based on the personnel allocation shown in the FTOTAL OST ESTIMATE ication Rate Hours _ Cost al Traffic Engineer, PE S110 24 ortation Engineer, PE S70 $2,640 ortation Planner 80 5+ r $5S 40 2,200 cal/Clerical $45 24 1,080 • $40 16 640 al $12,160 Parking Data Collection by TDS, Inc. te 80 hrs (7a $30/hr 2 400 14 560 Work will begin immediately upon notice to proceed. We anticipate discussion of preliminary results in about three weeks. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerel oe E. F st, P.E. • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • PLANNING DEPARTMENT March 3, 1994 TO: Fashion Island Task Force FROM: Patty Temple SUBJECT: Draft Traffic Study Outline The City of Newport Beach is soliciting consultant services for a comprehensive traffic study for the Fashion Island area of Newport Beach. Following is an outline of the tasks which are anticipated to provide the needed information: 1. Using driveway counts provided by The Irvine Company, validate the daily, am and pm trip rates used by the City for traffic modeling and intersection analysis. 2. Conduct an evaluation of the capacity of the circulation system to accommodate additional regional commercial development in Fashion Island using the City's traffic model. This . task may be sub-contracted to an engineering consultant specializing in traffic modeling. 3. Prepare a traffic study pursuant to the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. This task will include determining development capacity constraints based on various intersection improvement scenarios. 4. Develop necessary parking ratios to adequately serve parking demand in the center. This task will include reviewing parking strategies for normal and peak use times which may make use of other parking resources in Newport Center. The purpose of this study is to assure that there are adequate parking resources to serve Fashion Island while minimizing the need to construct parking structures. 5. Assess the internal circulation of Fashion Island, and make recommendations as appropriate. 6. Assess pedestrian circulation in Fashion Island, and between Fashion Island and the balance of Newport Center, and make recommendations as appropriate. 7. Assess the impact of the expansion on the CMP network. • PURC&SE ORDER . PAGE 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PURCHAS1 612RNUMBER 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD eyrla, u r P.O. BOX 1768 „ NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92659-8915 4FOR��P PHONE: (714) 644-3118 •�'�— =� ��� �• •� ��• PURCH.ORDER DATE I DATE REQUIRED I REQUISITION NO. VENDOR NO. DESCRIPTION 04/08/04 b5a33 ATTI3: JrJN 1,. FOUSx VENDOR AUSTIN—FOUST ASSOC. INC, SHIP CITY OF NEiVPORT BEACH 2020 NORTH TUSTIN AVENUE TO PLANNING DEPARTMENT SANTA ANA, CA 92701 3300 NOMORT BLVD. NEWPORT DEACHI, CALIF. 02663 CONFIRM. BLANKET FINAL PAYMENTTERMS FREIGHT P7 T; NET 30 DAYS QUANTITY UNIT OF MEASURE COMMODITY CODE UNIT PRICE I EXTENSION PROVIDE TPkFFIC STUDY ANALYSIS FOR FASHION ISLAND EXPANSION TS096, PI3( YOUP PROPOSAL DATI'),? 3/17/ry4. ,.GT 61 T3,XCEED S 1 a e 410U,f10 CONTACT: CATTY T,E".1P1,E 'DEPART' DEPAR 'IENT 1 ,arf Ntr✓a�e;(d 151}i10.000f1 1fa,iMt+u.11U ITT11 110.001 TRAFI IC .11;1A iRk11 1't!? x.kTl#?i: it�GIi+11I11?IC1 1 le f r - J TOTAL PURCHASE OLDER 1 b�00U.ntJ ORGANIZATION ACCOUNT PROJECT PROJECT ACCOUNT AMOUNT 011.11 2300 15 15,0011. 00 TOTAL PURCHASE ORDER 15.t0 0.00 ACC I+awptnnemflhrorderbysodorrvundor.,If be by ac,...todgemanl or bydeff.ry In hot.ofln part of items called for hemunder //flA�} ✓""�/ -./ Ryn ml.vdr, It•eeii,orend+r roinowlrtlgns that no has nerd and agrees to an terms andeandnions Including these printed on the mof,r.n }- ! - �i✓(((/ //% Ode of tM1h Con\om4iurcM1n.0 Order To,only farms and conditions that will bn 1p,it reli 1e the Interpoumdun of this Coniractaudee a issued by the sty.1 huwp^q U,Acb BY M P O R T A U T CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS ON THE REVERSE SIDE ARE INCORPORATED HEREIN. The Arsolos aovcrrd by tmp Purchase Order or Contract must conform to applicable Cal-OSHA Standard;,mitForpthor oppropdato IBM,regulation,•rates,and code of Federal Govummcnt end the Slate of Catilomia Show us a cparalo dom tiny retail salts lax,use tax or Federal tax applicable to this pureness,This order subject to California solos tax.All OUT-OF-STATE VENDORS:the CITY will pay any ealo'luao tax on all purchases shipped from outhal•stptp.All puechn'-oa and transportation charges are o..ompl Imm Federal sedan tax.NOTE.All purchases are F.O.B.dosta stion unless of rmid.no oulnoozod Chmiges for..hlpmonts are to be freight prepaid and ntldod to the Invoice(shown as a separate Item)whore so authorized Do not Include Federal truncporla(on tine A Newport Beach business license may b s required to conduct buslnrns In the City. ORIGINATOR'S/DEPARTMENTAL COPY PURCHASE frj F/ CITY OF REQUISITION NEWPORT BEACH P.O.No.: Date: April 5, 1994 (If Reserved) Dept: PLANNING Suggested Vendor: Ship To: AUSTIN FOUST ASSOCIATES PLANNING DEPT. 2020 North Tustin Ave. Santa Ana, CA 92701 u Attention: Phone No: Quantity Description of Articles or Services Required Unit i&e Amount Budget I Traffic Stud for- Fashion Island Expansion $15,0 0 $15,000 0'10 2300 TS#95 r Comments: Sub Total $15,000 deposited into account 010 2300 4/5/94 Tax Total Date Required: F.O.B. Terms Code Amount RO (DepartnitAt Heafor person autliorwidto atec»te tequisitions) PbRCIfASING MANAGER FINANCE DIRECTOR(Approval required for purchases exceeding$2,000)" I i 1 ' FASHION ISLAND EXPANSION TRAFFIC ANALYSIS SEP EMBER 1994 1 1 ' Draft ' FASHION ISLAND EXPANSION Traffic Analysis 1 Prepared for. City of Newport Beach ' Prepared by. Austin-Foust Associates ' 2020 N. Tustin Avenue Santa Ana, California 92701 (714) 667-0496 August 16, 1994 1 CONTENTS 1 Page EXECUTIVE SUNIMARY I. INTRODUCTION ProjectDescription . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1 AnalysisScope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1 Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3 References . • I-5 I H. PROJECT SETTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Surrounding Highway Network . 11-1 Existing and Background Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-2 111. PROJECT TRIP GENERATION IV. BUILDOUT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS V. SHORT-RANGE IMPACTS VI. PARKING ANALYSIS Employee Shuttle System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-3 APPENDICES: A. Buildout (2010) ICU Worksheets B: Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) Worksheets 1 1 1 1 i ' LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES 1 Page ' FIGURES I-1 Project Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2 I-2 Intersection Study Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4 ' III-1 PM Peak Hour Project Distribution Percentages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-5 IV-1 Year 2010 ADT Volumes - With Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-2 VI-1 Available Newport Center Parking Spaces (Typical Weekday) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-4 TABLES ' 11-1 Existing (1992-1993) ICUs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-3 III-1 Trip Generation Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M-4 ' IV-1 Buildout (2010) ICU Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-3 V-1 TPO 1% Analysis Intersections Requiring ICU Analysis . . • • . . . • • • . • . . . . V-2 . • . . . V-2 TPO ICU Analysis . V-3 t Il 3 ' EXECUTIVE SUMMARY tThe proposed project would expand the existing Fashion Island Shopping Center by an ' additional 266,000 square feet of new entitlement and is subject to the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance(TPO). In addition,43,550 square feet has previously approved but undeveloped entitlement resulting in a total center buildout of 309,550 square feet that has been analyzed relative ' to the parking needs of the overall expanded center. ' An analysis of the project for General Plan buildout (year 2010) conditions reveals that the proposed 266,000 square foot expansion would have no significant impact on the circulation system ' The ICU at five intersections would increase by one percent and the remaining 64 intersections would not be affected by the project. Each of the five intersections remain at an acceptable ICU resulting in the project having no significant impact at buildout. ' A TPO analysis reveals that the 266,000 square foot expansion would fail the one percent test at 15 intersections during the PM peak hour and at five intersections during the AM peak hour, ' therefore requiring additional analysis. Of the 15 intersections during the PM peak hour, only two (MacArthur Boulevard at San Miguel Drive and at San Joaquin Bills Road) exceed level of service ' (LOS) "D". Additionally,improvements for MacArthur Boulevard(which are planned to be in place before the project is completed)will mitigate each intersection to LOS"D"or better. Therefore, no mitigation is necessary to implement the proposed project an it has no significant impact in the short- range time frame. None of the five intersections during the AM peak hour exceed LOS "D". Buildout of the proposed project as well as unbuilt, but entitled, development would result in the need for approximately 900 additional parking spaces during the peak holiday season and during one or two special events throughout the year. This peak period parking shortage could be ' eliminated by implementing one or more of the following actions: - Restripe the existing parking lot to more (but smaller) spaces - Construct a multilevel parking structure(s) on part of the existing surface lots - Implement an off-site parking program where employees park in other Newport ' Center parking lots and are shuttled to Fashion Island ' 1 ' - Implement an off-site parking program where employees park in other Newport Center parking lots and are shuttled to Fashion Island - Provide additional parking off-site either within appropriate walking distance or with efficient shuttle service - Evaluate feasibility of utilization of on-street parking on Newport Center Drive (subject to review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer) ' - Evaluate the impact of regionally mandated TDM and parking management programs on future parking demand A survey of Fashion Island tenants and employees shows that a sufficient number of ' employees would be available to allow a reasonable percentage to park off-site, thus making enough parking spaces available for customers during the peak shopping periods. A survey of available parking in Newport Center verifies that sufficient capacity would be available for the necessary ' number of Fashion Island employees to park there. ' 2 h I I_ ' INTRODUCTION ' This report resents the results of a traffic impact and arkin analysis of the proposed P P P P g Ys P Posed expansion of the Fashion Island Shopping Center in the City of Newport Beach. ' PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project consists of expanding the existing Fashion Island Shopping Center by approximately 20 percent. Figure I-1 shows the location of Fashion Island. The composition of the ' expansion would be retail uses compatible with the existing center and may be located at various locations within the mall. At this time, neither the specific types of uses nor their specific locations have been determined. However, for this analysis it is sufficient to know that the expansion would be similar to the existing uses. The amount of the proposed additional entitlement is 266,000 square ' feet, which is the basis of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) analysis. The parking analysis also addresses 30,000 square feet that is entitled if the developer builds an affordable senior housing project at Lower Bayview Landing per the terms of the Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement and also 13,550 square feet consists of unbuilt, but previously approved entitlement in Fashion Island. This brings the total added square footage analyzed in the parking study to 309,550 ' square feet ' ANALYSIS SCOPE ' The traffic analysis examines the impacts of adding project-generated traffic to the General Plan buildout (year 2010) and short-range (year 1997) conditions. The buildout analysis examines ' any intersection where the project generated traffic equals one percent or more of the without project volumes for any one approach. The short-range analysis is done in a similar manner in Fashion Island Expansion I-1 Austin-Foust Associates,loc. Traffic Analysis 017043.rpt a � 6 C�,_ rpF�F.noon �� SR-55 ALIGNMENT IS I s DIAGRAMATIC ONLY .I �� � I c _ ea sra cw,, ti� PROJECT SITE BY m� T17 in" y5� y 'n HIMWAr @o Beni P NEWPORT PACIFIC OCEAN OM o Figure I-1 PROJECT LOCATION •a P J ' accordance with the City of Newport Beach's TPO Guidelines. The TPO requires any intersection within the City to be studied if the addition of regional growth,committed projects and the proposed ' project increases the volume of any approach by one percent or more. The 33 intersections where the one percent test was applied are shown in Figure I-2. Consistent with the format used for project approvals, the traffic analysis material presented ' here is set out as follows: ' Chapter II - Project Setting Chapter III - Project Trip Generation Chapter IV- Buildout Traffic Analysis Chapter V - Short-Range (TPO) Analysis Chapter VI- Parking Analysis ' Detailed analysis results are also contained at the end of the report as technical appendices and referenced in the text where appropriate. DEFINITIONS Certain terms and abbreviations used throughout this report are defined below to clarify their intended meaning: ' ADT Average Daily Traffic. ' ICU Intersection Capacity Utilization. A factor used to measure the volume/capacity ratio for an intersection and to determine its level of service. ' LOS Level of Service. , A scale used to evaluate circulation system performance based on volume/capacity ratios of arterial segments or intersection ICU values. The levels range from "A" to "F," with LOS ' "A" representing free flow traffic and LOS "F" representing severe traffic congestion. PEAK HOUR This generally refers to the hour during the AM peak period (typically ' 7-9 AM) or the PM peak period (typically 3-6 PM) in which the greatest number of vehicle trips are generated by a given land use or are ' travelling on a given roadway. Fashion Island Expansion 1-3 Austin-Foust Associate,Inc. Traffic Analysis 017043xpt Ila � t W 11 13 £ �Y �, 9 � �nF.Nax �y s 6 a N SR-55 ALIGNMENT IS I M 1- DIAGRAMATIC ONLY .� ,emu ,7Si- I 15 16 29 amsra I 17 18 32 34 I mum 35 37 'Fy_ HACK BAY 39 dal`' a 3B �S m � PROJECT SITE y 40 44 45 52 y k� 41 @ 46 49 1 vm 42 48 FI www 53 54 Ar 28 51 ietx esO 27 6 P NEIIPORT �� 57 7 HAY PACIFIC OCEAN 0 Figure I-2 INTERSECTION STUDY LOCATIONS $ R 2 � ' VPD Vehicles Per Day. This has the same meaning as ADT but is generally used in a trip generation context rather than in reference to the highway ' volume of an arterial segment. V/C Volume-to-Capacity Ratio. This is typically described as a percentage ' of capacity utilized by existing or projected traffic on a segment of arterial or an intersection turn movement. REFERENCES ' 1. "Trip Generation," 5th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1991. 2. "1992-1993 Intersection Count Data," City of Newport Beach California, 1993. 1 Fashion Island Expansion I-5 Austin-Foust Associates,Inc. Traffic Analysis 017043.tpt la II PROTECT SETTING This chapter describes the project site in relation to the transportation setting. The existing ' circulation system is discussed, and existing and background traffic volumes and levels of service are summarized SURROUNDING HIGHWAY NETWORK Regional access to the project site is currently provided via the Corona Del Mar Freeway ' (SR-73) and the San Diego Freeway (I-405) which are located approximately three and five miles, respectively, to the north. The SR-73 Freeway currently terminates at MacArthur Boulevard which ' then continues past the project site. Regional access is also provided by Pacific Coast Highway which runs along the coast approximately one-half mile from the project. Additional regional circulation will be provided in the future by the planned San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC). The SJHTC is a controlled access toll road that will extend the SR-73 Freeway in the City of Newport Beach southerly from MacArthur Boulevard to the Santa Ana ' (I-5)Freeway in south Orange County. The SJHTC(SR-73)will be located approximately two miles northeast of the project with interchanges at MacArthur Boulevard and Ford Road The SJHTC is scheduled to be completed by March of 1997 while the completion of this project is also currently anticipated to occur in 1997. With the exception of the SJHTC, the roadway system within the study ,area is largely ' builtout. Jamboree Road is a six-lane major arterial just west of the project site which provides access from the north and the south. MacArthur Boulevard (just east of the project) also provides north/south access. MacArthur Boulevard is currently six lanes to the north of Bison Avenue, five lanes between Bison Avenue and Ford Road and four lanes to the south. Plans are currently being ' Fashion Island Expansion II-1 Austin-Foust Associatm Inc. Traffic Analysis 017043 sPt ' it ' prepared to widen MacArthur Boulevard to eight lanes north of Ford Road and to six lanes from ' Ford Road through San Joaquin Hills Road. San Joaquin Hills Road is a six lane major arterial from Jamboree Road to Marguerite Avenue where it continues to Newport Coast Drive as a four lane primary arterial. Pacific Coast Highway(PCH)provides both regional and local access to the project from the neighboring beach communities. ' A detailed analysis of this circulation system is presented in the following chapters. The General Plan buildout analysis (year 2010) looks at intersections and roadway links throughout the ' City of Newport Beach. The short-range(TPO)analysis studies the following list of 33 intersections identified for testing by City Staff 2. Balboa/Superior&PCH 37. MacArthur&Bison 7. Riverside&PCH 38. Jamboree&Ford 8. Tustin&PCH 39. MacArthur&Ford 9. MacArthur&Campus 40. Jamboree&SJH Road ' 11. VonKarman&Campus 41. Jamboree&Santa Barbara 13. Jamboree&Campus 42 Jamboree&PCH 15. Campus&Bristol N. 44. Santa Rcsa&SJH Road 16. Birch&Bristol N. 45. MacArthur&93H Road ' 17. Campus&Bristol S. 46. MacArthur&San Miguel 18. Birch&Bristol S. 47. Newport Center&PCH V. DoverMayshore&PCH 48. Avocado&PCH 28. Bayside&PCH 49. MacArthur&PCH ' 29. MacArthur&Jamboree 51. Goldenrod&PCH 30. Jamboree&Bristol N. 57. Marguerite&SJH Road 32. Jamboree&Bristol S. 53. Marguerite&PCH 34. Jamboree&University 54. Poppy&PCH 35. Jamboree&Bison ' EXISTING AND ]BACKGROUND CONDITIONS ' Existing traffic volumes were obtained from the City of Newport Beach's 1992-1993 TPO ' Database(Reference 2). The existing conditions data consists of counts performed in 1992 and 1993 to be used for all traffic studies prepared for the City. In addition, an increment of background traffic volumes for these intersections were provided by the City and represent those projects that ' have already received approval from the City as well as regional growth. Table II-1 summarizes the existing ICUs for each of the study locations(existing plus background ICUs are presented in Chapter V). ' Fashion bland Expansion II-2 Austin-Foust Associates,lam Traffic Analysis 017043.rpt ' �y I Table Iid ' EXISTING(1992-1993)ICUs ' EXISTING (1992 4993) INTERSECTION AM PM ' 2. Balboa/Superior&PCH .62 .75 7. Riverside&PCH .70 .79 8. Tustin&PCH .69 .59 9. MacArthur&Campus .55 .78 ' 11. VonKarman&Campus .40 .59 13. Jamboree&Campus .66 .61 15. Campus&Bristol N. .51 .80 16. Birch&Bristol N. 35 .76 ' 17. Campus&Bristol S. .98 .54 18. Birch&Bristol S. .54 .60 W. DovaBayshoro&PCH .63 .71 28. Beyside&PCH .64 39 ' 29. MacArthur&Jamboree .60 .70 30. Jamboree&Bristol N. .74 .85 32. Jamboree&Bristol S. .74 .70 34. Jamboree&University .64 .69 ' 35. Jamboree&Bison .57 .55 37. MacArthur&Bison .52 .52 38. Jamboree&Ford 37 .65 39. MacArthur&Ford .65 .66 ' 40. Jamboree&SIH Road .59 .49 41. Jamboree&Santa Barbara .46 38 42 Jamboree&PCH .63 .60 44. Santa Rota&SJH Road .23 34 45. MacArthur&SJH Road .73 .67 46. MacArthur&San Miguel 34 .63 47. Newport Center&PCH 39 .41 48. Avocado&PCH .46 .51 49. MacArthur&PCH SO .57 51. Goldenrod&PCH .68 .73 52 Marguerite&SJH Road .29 33 53. Marguerite&PCH .75 .78 54. Poppy&PCH .53 .59 ' Level of service ranges: .00- .60 A .61- .70 B .71- .80 C .81- .%D ' .91-1.00 E Above 1.00 F Fashion Island E.pansion II-3 Austin-Foust Associates,Inc. Traffic Analysis 017043.rpt III. ' PROJECT TRIP GENERATION ' This chapter describes the trip generation of the proposed project. The actual trip generation ' data is given as well as a discussion of the derivation of the trip rates. ' As discussed in Chapter I, the proposed project consists of expanding the existing Fashion Island Shopping Center. The expansion would not exceed 266,000 square feet and would consist of ' retail uses dispersed throughout the mall that would be compatible with the existing center. ' The additional 43,550 square feet discussed earlier as being analyzed in the parking analysis is included as part of the existing and background conditions. Therefore, the traffic impact portion ' of this analysis will only be examining the proposed 266,000 square feet Trip rates for the proposed addition are based on the ITE equation for shopping centers as ' applied to trip generation currently occurring at the center. Case studies reported by TTE have shown that the trips generated by a shopping center do not increase linearly with an increase in size ' of the center. In other words, a percentage of the "trips" to a new store would have been at the center already. The following table shows that based on the TTE equation for shopping centers over 570 TSF, ' the trip generation for a 1,200 TSF center is 36,831 vehicles per day. The trip generation for a 1,700 ' Fashion Island Expansion III-1 Austin-Foust Associates,Ina Traffic Analysis 017043xpt I TSF center is 47,926 vehicles per day. This indicates that the additional 5O0 TSF generated 11,095 trips or 22.19 trips per TSF. This rate (22.19 trips per TSF) is 72.3 percent of the 1,200 TSF rate. ' ITE TRIP GENERATION EQUATION FOR SHOPPING CENTERS GREATER THAN 570 TSF La(I) -0.756 La(X)+5.154 Whem T-ADT trip gettetation X-Project size(TSF) TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY SIZE ADT RATE 1,700 TSF 47,926 28.19 1,200 TSF 36,831 30.69 Difference 11,095 N/A ' The Fashion Island Shopping Center collects driveway counts 24 hours a day,365 days a year. These counts,together with the size of the existing Fashion Island Shopping Center,indicate that an ' average daily trip generation of 27.05 vehicles per TSF is being generated by the existing center. Applying the previously discussed factor of 72.3 percent to this measured rate results in a daily trip ' generation rate is 19.56 vehicles per TSF. This is the rate utilized to analyze the proposed expansion as it represents the findings of rM studies applied to the trip generation characteristics measured at ' Fashion Island. ' The ratio of the PM peak hour trip rate to this daily trip rate is taken to be the same as the relationship between the two rates in the Newport Beach Traffic Analysis Model (NBTAM). The ' table below shows this relationship. ' NBTAM PROJECT ADT Rate 22.00 19.56 ' PM Peals Hour Rate 1.60 1.42 Ratio 13.8:1 13.&1 ' Fashion Island Expansion I1I.2 Austin-Foust Associate&,tam 5 Traffic Analysis 017043.tpt As Table III-1 indicates, the 266,000 square foot addition being proposed is estimated to ' generate 5,203 daily trips, of which 378 trips will be generated during the critical PM peak hour. Distribution of project generated traffic was taken from the distribution for Fashion Island ' generated by the NBTAM. Figure III-1 shows the project's PM peak hour distribution within the study area for short-range (pre-SJATC) conditions. The numbers shown.in Figure III-1 represent ' the percent of the projects total(inbound plus outbound)trip generation by direction. Approximately 20 percent of the project trips are expected to begin or end within Newport Center itself Therefore, ' 80 percent of the total trip generation is distributed onto the highway network. 1 Fashion Island Expansion 111.3 Austin-Foust Associates,Inc. Traffic Analysis 017043.tpt / Table 111.1 ' TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY ' —AM PEAK HOUR— —PM PEAK HOUR— LAND USE UNITS IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL ADT Fashiou Island Expansion 266 TSF 37 19 56 165 213 378 5,203 ' ADT AND PEAK HOUR TRIP RATE SUMMARY ' —AM PEAK HOUR— —PM PEAK HOUR— LAND USE UNIIS IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL ADT ' Fashion Island Expansion TSF .14 .07 11 .62 .W 1.42 19-M ' Fashion Island Expansion 1114 Austin-Foust Associates,Inc. Traffic Analysis 017043.tpt H '�7 � ouc a rr NN V '��111 N SR-55 ALIGNMENT IS `"IOi J N N "{y, I 1 -}' OIAGRAMATIC ONLY a ?�> — cN 2 e IJ 2 mass J ♦' C.y„_ 4 �1� 4 4 L �ry 2 y JJ J 1 I OFl MAV {J k �- BACK ♦ HAY � ♦ S 41R' J 1 z ' �+o PROJECT SITE a in I � 2F 12 I 1 9 by SNt ,y �1 o IT� ' JJ' 3 ,y J 1 J cP'" 1 t>m 3 1 ,1 + ♦ ,4 2 2 M AY 1 J 2 �uR ♦^,@ tBM BA� 2 J � ♦p b ♦ Y NMORT H BAY a 6 �� 0� PACIFIC A2 OCEAN p 2 LEGEND Figure III-1 X PERCENT OF TOTAL PM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR 3 S. —TRIP GENERATION (BY DIRECTION) PROJECT DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES IV BUILDOUT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS This chapter presents the results of a buildout (year 2010) analysis of the proposed 266,000 ' square foot expansion of the Fashion Island Shopping Center. ' The Newport Beach Traffic Analysis Model (NBTAM)was used to determine what impacts, if any, the proposed project would have on the City's buildout circulation system. Figure IV-1 shows the year 2010 ADT volumes with the project trips included. ' Table IV-1 shows the ICUs at the 15 intersections where the project traffic was one percent or more of the without project approach volumes. Of the 15 affected intersections, only five experienced an increase in their ICU due to the project At each location with an ICU increase,the ' increase was one percent and remained at an acceptable level (LOS "D" or better). In conclusion,the proposed 266,000 square feet project has no significant impact on the City's buildout circulation system. Fashion island Expansion 1V-1 Austin-Foust Associates,Inc. Traffic Analysis 017043.tpt ' iq 0 0 u `sis u i1 r m fn �14 � 3> NF11£PIX]( 25 SR-55 ALIGNMENT IS '� m a ro a l0 19 aw DIAGRAMMATIC ONLY ( 746 2> c cry+ 47 55 — < °i 47r 135 39 17 15 28 u 'ay 136 23 14 6 S HACK +m' �x J R5 1A +t' W 2 Sn P g 6 tE 3 a $ +1 .1 17 �+ 16 6 B 14 74 Sul a m > � C 42 1TH 15 g 54 4B g N y1 •'i 'u =1 r? 1e ?6 y9 M1� m Bil j6 (x7� � 3 xwnwAr 36 10 14 11 lam J r gAf 6 S 20 ao 77 Y IfP� NHORT A9 ,i BAY PACIFIC 52 OCEAN 0 E LEGEND Figure IV-1 $,¢ X ADT WITH PROJECT (OOOs) YEAR 2010 ADT VOLUMES (000s) n (+Y) (INCREASE DUE TO PROJECT) WITH PROJECT �I Table IV-1 ' BUILDOUT(2010)ICU COMPARISON WITHOUT WITH PROJECT PROJECT INTERSECTION AM PM AM PM •10. MacArthur&Birch 87 .95 .87 .86 ' 12. MacArthur&VonKarman 58 .62 .58 .62 24. ItWne&Westcliff/17th .62 87 .62 87 33. Jamboree&Bayview 87 86 87 .86 40. Jamboree&SJH Rd 81 .82 .81 .82 ' 41. Jamboree&Santa Barbara .64 .78 .64 .78 •43. Santa Cruz&SJH Rd .40 .42 .40 A3 44. Santa Rosa&SJH Rd 31 .45 31 .45 ' 46. MacArthur&San Miguel .77 .75 .77 .75 47. Newport Center&PCH 55 A2 55 .42 50. San Miguel&Ski Rd 53 55 53 55 •52. Marguente&S3H Rd 56 .46 56 .47 •64. Culver Dr&Bonita Cyn .64 .67 .64 .68 68. Ford&SIHTC EB Ramps 39 .74 39 .74 •74. Sand Cym&SJHTC Ell Ramps .61 .68 .62 .68 •Indicates location with ICU increase ' Level of service ranges: .00- .60 A .61- .70 B .71- 80 C ' 81- . 0 D .91-1.00 E Above 1.00 F 1 1 Fashion Island Expansion IV-3 Austin-Foust Associates,Ine- Traffic Analysis 017043.rpt 1 �1 V ' SHORT-RANGE IMPACTS ' The project's short-range (pre-SJHTC) impacts upon its opening were analyzed using the ' City's TPO methodology. The TPO methodology involves first determining if the project generated traffic is greater than one percent of the existing plus background volume for any one approach. If ' the project traffic is less than this, no further study is required at that location ' If an intersection fails the one percent test, the TPO states that mitigation is required if the project results in an ICU change of.01 or more and the resulting ICU is 0.91 (LOS "F) or greater. ' As can be seen in Table V-1, 15 of the 33 intersections listed in Chapter II fail the one percent test for the proposed 266,000 TSF project. Table V-2 shows that two intersections,MacArthur Boulevard at San Miguel Drive and at San Joaquin Hills Road, exceed LOS "D" due to the addition of the ' project traffic to the existing plus background traffic. The City of Newport Beach has roadway improvements scheduled for MacArthur Boulevard at its intersections with San Miguel Drive and San Joaquin Hill Road that add a third thru-lane in each direction. The table below shows that these improvements will mitigate the two intersections to level of service (LOS) "D" or better. ' —PM PEAR HOUR ICU INTERSECTION W/O W/O MITIGATION W/MITIGATfON MacArthur&San Miguel .91 .72 MacArthur&San Joaquin Hills Rd .92 .81 Fashion Island Expansion V-1 Austin-Foust Associates,Inc. Traffic Analysis 017043.rpt ' zy Table V-1 ' TPO 1%ANALYSIS INTERSECTIONS REQUIRING ICU ANALYSIS ' 1%OF PROJECTED PROJECT CRITICAL PEAK PEAR 2I2 PEAK 2-12 LOCATION APPROACH PERIOD HOUR VOLUME HOUR VOLUME S. Tustin&PCH WB PM 66 68 18. Birch&Bristol S. NB PM 6 15 ' 28. Bayside&PCH WB PM 78 83 34. Jamboree&University WB PM 13 23 35. Jamboree&Bison NB PM 65 76 37. MacArthur&Bison NB PM 53 53 ' 38. Jamboree&Ford WB PM 6 8 39. MacArthur&Ford NB PM 53 83 40. Jamboree&SJH Rd WB AM 9 9 WB PM 17 91 42. Jamboree&PCH WB PM 52 96 ' 44. Santa Rosa&SJH Rd NB AM 3 6 NB PM 13 76 WB PM 13 45 ' 45. MacArthur&SJH Rd EB AM 6 6 EB PM 23 76 46. MacArthur&San Miguel EB AM 6 7 WB AM 8 8 WB PM 8 45 ' 47. Newport Center&PCH SB PM 20 115 52. Marguerite&SJH Rd WB AM 4 4 WB PM 4 23 EB PM 12 23 ' Fashion Island Expansion V-2 Austin-Foust Associates,lot- Traffic Analysis 017043.rpt ' y3 Table V-2 TPO ICU ANALYSIS EXISTING+ EXISTING+ BACKGROUND+ BACKGROUND PROJECT INTERSECTION AM PM AM PM ' & Tustin&PCH N/A .76 N/A .76 18. Birch&Bristol S. N/A .65 N/A .66 2& Bayside&PCH N/A .76 N/A .77 ' 34. Jamboree&University N/A .89 N/A .90 35. Jamboree&Bison N/A .74 N/A .74 37. MacArthur&Bison N/A .62 N/A .63 3S Jamboree&Ford N/A .88 N/A .89 39. MacArthur&Ford N/A .81 N/A .81 40. Jamboree&SJH Rd .79 .71 .79 .71 42. Jamboree&PCH N/A .78 N/A .78 44. Santa Rosa&SJH Rd .26 .40 .26 A2 ' 45. MacArthur&SJH Rd .92 .91 .92 .92 46, MacArthur&San Miguel .74 .90 .74 .91• 47. Newport Center&PCH N/A A9 N/A SO 52 Marguerite&SJH Rd .30 34 30 35 •Project muses or woaena LOS'D" Fashion Island Expansion V-3 Austin-Foust Associates,Ina Traffic Analysis 017043xpt i 1 VI 1 PARKING ANALYSIS 1 1 The basis of this parking analysis consists of the proposed 266,000 square foot project as well 1 as 43,550 square feet of previously entitled square footage previously discussed in Chapter L This results in 309,550 square feet of development that is subject to this analysis. 1 The existing parking demand at Fashion Island was surveyed in order to develop an accurate prediction of the demand with the project in place. Parking lot counts were performed in April 1994 1 for both a weekday and the weekend and encompassed the parking for all uses - retail, theater and restaurants. Historical count data for Fashion Island shows that the amount of traffic entering the 1 mall on a typical Saturday in April is 75 percent of that experienced during the design period. The design period was taken to be the average of the Saturdays between Thanksgiving and Christmas 1 which represents the highest shopping demand of the year. 1 These counts indicate that a maximum of 3,661 of the existing 5,699 parking spaces were ever occupied at any time. This represents an actual April peak parking demand of 2.73 spaces per 1 thousand square feet of floor area. After the April parking rate is expanded to represent typical December design shopping day, a design peak parking factor of 3.64 spaces per thousand square feet 1 of floor area (including existing retail, restaurant and theater use) is determined as appropriate for Fashion Island. This analysis bears out the continued viability of the City's existing retail parking 1 code for Fashion Island of 4.0 spaces per TSF, except that it does reveal that the 4.0 spaces also includes the typical theater patronage. This parking rate also corresponds with rMs 1 recommendation of 3.97 occupied spaces per TSF for peak Saturday parking demand for retail uses as published in the report Parking Generation. 2nd Edition. 1 1 Fashion Island Expansion VI-1 Austin-Foust Associates,Inc. Traffic Analysis 017043.tpt 1 �h i Applying the City code parking requirement (and including the theaters on a square footage basis)produces a peak design period parking demand of 6,599 spaces (1649.19 TSF x 4.0), compared with an existing supply of 5,699. This produces a need for a net increase of 900 additional parking spaces to accommodate the expansion of Fashion Island. To mitigate this anticipated parking shortage, one or more of the following measures would ' need to be taken: - An increase in spaces could be realized by restriping the current 10 feet wide spaces to nine or nine and one-half feet. The exact number of spaces gained by restriping would depend on the extent of planter and median reconstruction that is undertaken. - The construction of a multi-level parking structure(s) in place of a portion of the existing surface lots could potentially provide the necessary number of spaces. - Provide additional parking off-site within convenient walking distance to the shopping center. - Implement an off-site parking program where employees park in other Newport ' Center parking lots and are shuttled to Fashion Island. This alternative is discussed in detail in the section below. - Utilize on-street parking along Newport Center Drive if such were deemed ' appropriate subject to review/approval of the City Traffic Engineer. - Recognition that ride-sharing and other travel demand management strategies being ' required by regional air-quality and land use regulatory agencies are designed to reduce the current patterns of both tripmaking and parking demand in the future. This may be particularly applicable for the parking needed by the estimated 3,000 ' or so future employees of Fashion Island. ' EMPLOYEE SHUTTLE SYSTEM ' An efficient technique to provide additional parking for customers that has been successfully used during the peak retail periods in other centers is employee off-site parking with a shuttle. Given the large pool of available parking surrounding Fashion Island,particularly on weekends and holidays when the peak demand occurs, this concept appears to be a feasible potential solution to the projected parking shortfall. Therefore, an analysis was done to determine 1) if this approach could ' Fashion Island Expansion VI-2 Austin-Foust Associates,Inc. Traffic Analysis 017043.rpt ' offset all or part of the 900 space parking shortfall and 2) if sufficient spaces were available to provide the off-site parking for employees. A shuttle system would be'necessary only during the peak demand season. This consists of ' weekends from Thanksgiving until the weekend after New Year's Day,as well as everyday during the week before Christmas. One or two days during the year when special events are held at the center, ' the shuttle would also have to be used ' To verify that a sufficient number of employees would be available to free the necessary 900 parking spaces,a survey was developed for both the Fashion Island tenants and'their employees. The ' results of this survey indicated that during the peak shopping hours there are currently 2,500 employees at the mall,of which approximately 90 percent drove their own vehicles. This number will ' increase to over 3,000 employees upon completion of the project. This results in an available pool of 2,700 vehicles that could be parked off-site. ' A survey of the parking in Newport Center revealed that there would be enough surplus ' parking to accommodate the Fashion Island employees. Figure VI-1 shows the number of available spaces on a weekday at three different locations. On the weekends (when an employee off-site parking program is most likely) there would be an even greater amount of parking spaces available ' in Newport Center. ' The number of shuttle busses required would depend on the pick-up and drop-off locations that are chosen. Sufficient busses would be required in order to keep shuttle headways to ' approximately five minutes, to ensure employees did not have an incentive to violate the system by parking in the main Fashion Island parking lot. Assurance that this satellite parking scheme is ' meeting the parking demand could be monitored through on-site observation of the Fashion Island parking lot to ensure that an over-capacity condition did not develop. The evaluation criteria would ' be that the outer area of the parking lot adjacent to Newport Center Drive would be monitored to ensure a maximum 90 percent occupancy factor. If parking in this monitored area should exceed 90 percent, then additional parking would have to be provided ' Fashion Island Expansion VI-3 Austin-Foust Associates,Inc. Traffic Analysis 017043.rpt 1 �� sN 10,1001 sm\m\\M\\\\\M\N\l NOM mmm\ MENNEXEM 0*+;**;* o*+** **+4 BENZ Figure VI-1 AVAILABLE NEWPORT CENTER PARKING SPACES (TYPICAL WEEKDAY) APPENDIX A BUILDOUT (2010) ICU WORKSHEETS 1 I 1 ' Fashion Island Expansion A-1 Austin-Foust Associates,inc. Traffic Analysis 017043.rpt ' 10. MacArthur & Birch 2010 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C ' NBL 1 1600 90 .06 70 .05 NBT 3 4800 1520 .32* 1040 .22* NBR 1 1600 80 .05f 20 .05f SBL 1 1600 420 .26* 230 .14* SBT 4 6400 660 .17 1110 .24 SBR 0 0 410 420 EBL 1 1600 340 .21* 450 .28* ' EBT 2 3200 500 .17 220 .07 EBR 0 0 30 10 WBL 1 1600 10 .05 30 .05 ' WBT 2 3200 250 .08* 680 .21* WBR 1 1600 110 .07f 380 .24f ' TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .87 .85 2010 w/Fashion Island Expansion AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 90 .06 70 .05 NBT 3 4800 1520 .32* 1040 .22* ' NBR 1 1600 80 .05f 20 .05f SBL 1 1600 420 .26* 230 .14* SBT 4 6400 660 .17 1110 .24 ' SBR 0 0 410 420 EBL 1 1600 340 .21* 460 .29* ' EBT 2 3200 500 .17 220 .07 EBR 0 0 30 10 WBL 1 1600 10 .05 30 .05 WBT 2 3200 250 .08* 680 .21* WBR 1 1600 110 .07f 380 .24f ' TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .87 .86 ' 3� ' 12. MacArthur & Von Karman 2010 ' AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C ' NBL 1 1600 80 .05 70 .05* NBT 3 4800 1760 .37* 1060 .22 NBR 1 1600 510 .32f 190 .12f SBL 1 1600 60 .05* 30 .05 SBT 3 4800 640 .13 1060 .22* ' SBR 1 1600 120 .08f 60 .05f EBL 1 1600 30 .05* 70 .05 ' EBT 1 1600 100 .06 190 .12* EBR 1 1600 30 .05f 220 .14f WBL 1 1600 70 .05 370 .23* ' WBT 1 1600 170 .11* 240 .15 WBR 1 1600 20 .05f 70 .05f ' TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .58 .62 2010 w/Fashion Island Expansion ' AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 80 .05 70 .05* NBT 3 4800 1770 .37* 1060 .22 NBR 1 1600 510 .32f 190 .12f SBL 1 1600 60 .05* 30 .05 SBT 3 4800 640 .13 1060 .22* SBR 1 1600 120 .08f 60 .05f EBL 1 1600 30 .05* 70 .05 EBT 1 1600 100 .06 190 .12* EBR 1 1600 30 .05f 220 .14f WBL 1 1600 70 .05 370 .23* ' WBT 1 1600 170 .11* 250 .16 WBR 1 1600 20 .05f 70 .05f ' TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .58 .62 ' 3l 1 24. Irvine & Westcliff/17th 2010 1 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C 1 NBL 1 1600 350 .22* 260 .16* NBT 2 3200 370 .13 300 .11 NBR 0 0 60 60 1 SBL 1 1600 140 .09 160 .10 SBT 2 3200 ISO . 11* 350 .29* 1 SBR 0 0 190 580 EBL 2 3200 410 .13 370 .12 1 EBT 2 3200 720 .24* 1000 .34* EBR 0 0 60 100 WBL 1 1600 70 .05* 120 .08* 1 WBT 2 3200 410 .14 860 .28 WBR 0 0 40 20 1 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .62 .87 1 2010 w/fashion Island Expansion 1 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C 1 NBL 1 1600 350 .22* 260 .16* NBT 2 3200 370 .13 300 .11 NBR 0 0 60 60 1 SBL 1 1600 140 .09 160 .10 SBT 2 3200 150 .11* 350 .29* 1 SBR 0 0 190 580 EBL 2 3200 410 .13 370 .12 1 EBT 2 3200 720 .24* 1000 .34* EBR 0 0 60 100 WBL 1 1600 70 .05* 120 .08* ' WBT 2 3200 410 .14 870 .28 WBR 0 0 40 20 1 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .62 .87 1 1 �v ' 33. Jamboree & Bayview 2010 ' AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C ' NBL 1 1600 100 .06 40 .05* NBT 4 6400 2150 .35* 980 .15 NBR 0 0 60 10 SBL 1 1600 440 .28* 310 .19 SBT 4 6400 1090 .17 3280 .51* ' SBR 1 1600 50 .05 20 .05 EBL 1 1600 50 .05* 200 .13 EBT 1 1600 70 .05 230 .14* EBR 1 1600 40 .05 130 .08 WBL 2 3200 550 .17 510 .16* WBT 1 1600 70 . 19* 30 .07 WBR 0 0 240 80 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .87 .86 2010 w/Fashion Island Expansion ' AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 100 .06 40 .05* NBT 4 6400 2150 .35* 990 .16 NBR 0 0 60 10 SBL 1 1600 440 .28* 310 .19 SBT 4 6400 1090 .17 3290 .51* SBR 1 1600 50 .05 20 .05 EBL 1 1600 50 .05* 200 . 13 ' EBT 1 1600 70 .05 230 .14* EBR 1 1600 40 .05 130 .08 WBL 2 3200 560 .18 520 .16* ' WBT 1 1600 70 .19* 30 .07 WBR 0 0 240 80 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .87 .86 33 40. Jamboree & SJH Rd 2010 ' AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C ' NBL 1 1600 10 .05 110 .07* NBT 3 4800 2090 .44* 2220 .46 ' NBR 1 1600 80 .05 250 .16 SBL 2 3200 690 .22* 190 .06 SBT 3 4800 1700 .35 2740 .57* ' SBR 1 1600 50 .05 140 .09 EBL 1.5 2400 250 .10* 90 .05 EBT 1.5 2400 30 .05 20 .05* EBR 1 1600 60 .05f 70 .05f WBL 1.5 2400 110 .05 310 .13* ' WBT 1.5 2400 10 .05* 80 .05 WBR 1 1600 460 .29f 830 .52f ' TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .81 .82 2010 w/Fashion Island Expansion ' AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C ' NBL 1 1600 10 .05 110 .07* NBT 3 4800 2090 .44* 2220 .46 NBR 1 1600 80 .05 250 .16 SBL 2 3200 690 .22* 200 .06 SBT 3 4800 1710 .36 2740 .57* ' SBR 1 1600 50 .05 140 .09 EBL 1.5 2400 250 .10* 90 .05 ' EBT 1.5 2400 30 .05 20 .05* EBR 1 1600 60 .05f 70 .05f WBL 1.5 2400 110 .05 310 .13* ' WBT 1.5 2400 10 .05* 80 .05 WBR 1 1600 460 .29f 850 .53f TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .81 .82 41. Jamboree & Santa Barbara 2010 ' AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C ' NBL 1 1600 0 .00 0 .00* NBT 3 4800 1740 .36* 1740 .36 NBR 1 1600 570 .36 190 .12 ' SBL 2 3200 540 .17* 270 .08 SBT 3 4800 1380 .34 2150 .52* ' SBR 0 0 240 370 EBL 2 3200 190 .06* 230 .07 ' EBT 1 1600 10 .05 20 .05* EBR 1 1600 0 .00 0 .00 WBL 1.5 2400 110 .05 510 .21* ' WBT 0.5 800 10 .05* 30 .05 WBR 1 1600 160 .10 440 .28 ' TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .64 .78 2010 w/Fashion Island Expansion ' AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C ' NBL 1 1600 0 .00 0 .00* NBT 3 4800 1740 .36* 1740 .36 NBR 1 1600 570 .36 190 .12 ' SBL 2 3200 540 .17* 270 .08 SBT 3 4800 1380 .34 2150 .52* ' SBR 0 0 240 370 EBL 2 3200 190 .06* 240 .08 ' EBT 1 1600 10 .05 20 .05* EBR 1 1600 0 .00 0 .00 WBL 1 .5 2400 110 .05 510 .21* ' WBT 0.5 800 10 .05* 30 .05 WBR 1 1600 160 .10 440 .28 ' TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .64 .78 ' 43. Santa Cruz & SJH Rd 2010 ' AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 80 .05* 450 .14* NBT 1 1600 10 .05 10 .08 ' NBR 0 0 20 110 SBL 1 1600 10 .05 20 .05 SBT 1 1600 20 .05* 10 .05* ' SBR 1 1600 130 .08 50 .05 EBL 1 1600 80 .05 120 .08* ' EBT 3 4800 480 .14* 260 .69 EBR 0 0 180 170 WBL 1 1600 260 .16* 10 .05 WBT 3 4800 420 .09 730 .15* WBR 0 0 10 10 ' TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .40 .42 2010 w/Fashion Island Expansion AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C ' NBL 2 3200 80 .05* 470 .15* NBT 1 1600 10 .05 10 .08 NBR 0 0 20 110 SBL 1 1600 10 .05 20 .05 SBT 1 1600 20 .05* 10 .05* ' SBR 1 1600 130 .08 50 .05 EBL 1 1600 80 .05 120 .08* ' EBT 3 4800 480 .14* 260 .09 EBR 0 0 180 180 WBL 1 1600 260 .16* 10 .05 ' WBT 3 4800 420 .09 730 .15* WBR 0 0 10 10 III ' TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .40 .43 1 44. Santa Rosa & SJH Rd 2010 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C 1 NBL 1 1600 50 .05* 250 . 16* NBT 1 1600 10 .05 10 .05 1 NBR 1 1600 100 .06 470 .29 SBL 1 1600 70 .05 70 .05 SBT 1 1600 10 .05* 10 .05* 1 SBR 1 1600 70 .05 60 .05 EBL 1 1600 50 .05 60 .05 1 EBT 3 4800 180 .07* 310 .09* EBR 0 0 140 100 WBL 2 3200 450 .14* 230 .07* 1 WBT 3 4800 520 .12 240 .07 WBR 0 0 70 90 1 Right Turn Adjustment NBR .08* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .31 .45 1 1 2010 w/Fashion Island Expansion AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR 1 LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 50 .05* 250 .16* 1 NBT 1 1600 10 .05 20 .05 NBR 1 1600 100 .06 470 .29 SBL 1 1600 70 .05 70 .05 1 SBT 1 1600 10 .05* 10 .05* SBR 1 1600 70 .05 60 .05 1 EBL 1 1600 50 .05 60 .05 EBT 3 4800 180 .07* 310 .09* EBR 0 0 140 100 1 WBL 2 3200 450 . 14* 230 .07* WBT 3 4800 520 .12 240 .07 WBR 0 0 70 90 1 Right Turn Adjustment NBR .08* 1 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .31 .45 1 �� 1 ' 46. MacArthur & San Miguel 2010 ' AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C ' NBL 2 3200 50 .05 30 .05* NBT 3 4800 1610 .39* 500 .18 ' NBR 0 0 250 370 SBL 1 1600 10 .05* 10 .05 SBT 3 4800 330 .19 1430 .36* ' SBR 0 0 590 290 EBL 2 3200 150 .05* 670 .21 ' EBT 2 3200 10 .05 530 .23* EBR 0 0 10 190 WBL 2 3200 120 .05 350 .11* ' WBT 2 3200 840 .28* 100 .06 WBR 0 0 50 80 ' TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .77 .75 2010 w/Fashion Island Expansion AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C ' NBL 2 3200 50 .05 30 .05* NBT 3 4800 1610 .39* 510 .18 ' NBR 0 0 250 370 SBL 1 1600 10 .05* 10 .05 SBT 3 4800 330 .19 1430 .36* SBR 0 0 590 290 EBL 2 3200 150 .05* 670 .21 ' EBT 2 3200 10 .05 540 .23* EBR 0 0 10 200 WBL 2 3200 120 .05 350 .11* ' WBT 2 3200 840 .28* 110 .06 WBR 0 0 50 80 ' TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .77 .75 3 47. Newport Center & PCH 2010 ' AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0 0 ' NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL 2 3200 10 .05* 50 .05* SBT 0 0 0 0 ' SBR 1 1600 490 .31f 360 .23f EBL 2 3200 590 .18* 110 .05 EBT 3 4800 1460 .30 1760 .37* EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 0 ' WBT 3 4800 1540 .32* 1390 .29 WBR 1 1600 100 .06f 60 .05f TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .55 .42 2010 w/Fashion Island Expansion ' AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C ' NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0 0 ' NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL 2 3200 10 .05* 60 .05* SBT 0 0 0 0 SBR 1 1600 490 .31f 370 .23f EBL 2 3200 590 .18* 110 .05 EBT 3 4800 1460 .30 1760 .37* EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 0 ' WBT 3 4800 1540 .32* 1390 .29 WBR 1 1600 100 .06f 70 .05f ' TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .55 .42 ' 7J 1 ' 50. San Miguel & SJH Rd 2010 ' AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C ' NBL 1 1600 10 .05* 20 .05 NBT 2 3200 170 .09 280 .26* NBR 0 0 110 550 SBL 1 1600 150 .09 90 .06* SBT 2 3200 230 .15* 130 .08 ' SBR 0 0 250 130 EBL 2 3200 140 .05 390 .12 ' EBT 3 4800 190 .05* 480 .10* EBR 0 0 30 10 WBL 2 3200 910 .28* 420 .13* ' WBT 3 4800 1080 .25 330 .10 WBR 0 0 110 160 ' TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .53 .55 2010 w/Fashion Island Expansion ' AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C ' NBL 1 1600 10 .05* 20 .05 NBT 2 3200 170 .09 280 .26* NBR 0 0 110 560 SBL 1 1600 150 .09 90 .06* SBT 2 3200 230 .15* 140 .08 ' SBR 0 0 250 130 EBL 2 3200 140 .05 390 .12 ' EBT 3 4800 190 .05* 480 .10* EBR 0 0 30 10 WBL 2 3200 910 .28* 430 .13* ' WBT 3 4800 1080 .25 330 .10 WBR 0 0 110 160 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .53 .55 ' qD ' 52. Marguerite & SJH Rd 2010 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C ' NBL 1.5 2400 390 .16* 270 .11* NBT 0.5 800 40 .05 30 .05 ' NBR 1 1600 20 .05 30 .05 SBL 1 1600 20 .05 60 .05 SBT 1 1600 40 .08* 40 .06* ' SBR 0 0 90 60 EBL 1 1600 100 .06* 80 .05 ' EBT 2 3200 210 .07 780 .24* EBR 1 1600 200 .13 220 .14 ' WBL 1 1600 30 .05 20 .05* WBT 3 4800 1220 .26* 360 .08 WBR 0 0 50 30 ' TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .56 .46 2010 w/Fashion Island Expansion AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C ' NBL 1.5 2400 390 .16* 270 .11* NBT 0.5 800 40 .05 30 .05 NBR 1 1600 20 .05 30 .05 SBL 1 1600 20 .05 60 .05 SBT 1 1600 40 .08* 40 .06* SBR 0 0 90 60 EBL 1 1600 100 .06* 80 .05 EBT 2 3200 210 .07 790 .25* EBR 1 1600 200 .13 220 .14 ' WBL 1 1600 30 .05 20 .05* WBT 3 4800 1220 .26* 370 .08 WBR 0 0 50 30 ' TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .56 .47 64. Culver Or & Bonita Cyn 2010 ' AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 120 .08 20 .05* NBT 3 4800 1030 .22* 840 .18 NBR 0 0 20 20 ' SBL 2 3200 30 .05* 280 .09 SBT 3 4800 520 .11 1180 .25* SBR 1 1600 170 .11 60 .05 EBL 1 1600 50 .05* 80 .05 EBT 2 3200 200 .06 1030 .32* ' EBR 1 1600 10 .05 160 .10 WBL 1 1600 10 .05 30 .05* ' WBT 2 3200 1020 .32* 410 .13 WBR 1 1600 310 .19 100 .06 ' TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .64 .67 2010 w/Fashion Island Expansion ' AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C ' NBL 1 1600 120 .08 20 .05* NBT 3 4800 1030 .22* 840 .18 NBR 0 0 20 20 ' SBL 2 3200 30 .05* 280 .09 SBT 3 4800 520 .11 1180 .25* SBR 1 1600 170 .11 60 .05 EBL 1 1600 50 .05* 80 .05 EBT 2 3200 200 .06 1040 .33* ' EBR 1 1600 10 .05 160 .10 WBL 1 1600 10 .05 30 .05* WBT 2 3200 1020 .32* 420 .13 WBR 1 1600 310 .19 100 .06 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .64 .68 68. Ford & SJHTC EB Ramps ' 2010 ' AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C ' NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 2 3200 720 .28* 920 .44* NBR 0 0 170 500 ' SBL 2 3200 40 .05* 150 .05* SBT 2 3200 910 .28 800 .25 ' SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 1 1600 90 .06* 400 .25* ' WBT 0 0 0 0 WBR 1 1600 150 .09 460 .29 ' Right Turn Adjustment WBR .00* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .39 .74 ' 2010 w/Fashion Island Expansion AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 2 3200 720 .28* 920 .44* ' NBR 0 0 170 500 SBL 2 3200 40 .05* 150 .05* SBT 2 3200 910 .28 810 .25 SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 1 1600 90 .06* 400 .25* WBT 0 0 0 0 WBR 1 1600 150 .09 460 .29 Right Turn Adjustment WBR .00* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .39 .74 1 ' y3 74. Sand Cyn & SJHTC EB Ramps 2010 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C ' NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 1 1600 490 .31 510 .32 NBR 1 1600 280 .18 450 .28 ' SBL 1 1600 30 .05 20 .05 SBT 1 1600 900 .56* 610 .38* ' SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 1 1600 20 .05* 480 .30* EBT 0 0 0 0 ' EBR 1 1600 10 .05 250 .16 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 ' TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .61 .68 2010 w/Fashion Island Expansion ' AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 1 1600 490 .31 510 .32 NBR 1 1600 280 .18 450 .28 ' SBL 1 1600 30 .05 20 .05 SBT 1 1600 910 .57* 610 .38* ' SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 1 1600 20 .05* 480 .30* EBT 0 0 0 0 ' EBR 1 1600 10 .05 250 .16 WBL 0 0 0 0 ' WBT 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .62 .68 ' APPENDIX B TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE (TPO) WORKSHEETS I 1 1 Fashion island Expansion B-1 Austin-Foust Associates,Inc. Traffic Analysis 017043.tpt ' CH185SAM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY S BALBOA BOULEVARD/SUPERIOR AVENUE 1855 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1993 AM ' I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALIC"ITTEDI 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 1CapacitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume lw/o Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I I I 1 Volume I I I NL 1 1600 1 1 205 1 0.13 1 --- --- i-----------' --- ------i------------------I------------------.i..."-_ ' I--...---) 3200 ---------I--------) 0.16 i--------I--..._.------------------------------ NR 123 ----------------------------------- -------- -_..._.._------.__..---__R ---------------- 1 SL 1 2400 1 1 212 1 0.09 I I I I I I----------------------------------------------------------------- -------------= 1 ST 1 24DO 1 1 142 1 0.06 1 1 1 1 1 I I----------------------------------------------------------------------------------'------__1 ' 1 SR 1 3200 1 1 186 1 0.06 1 1 1 1 1 I I-----------------------------------------------'....____.-------..-----------.-------------i EL 1 3200 1 1 796 1 0.25 • I I I I I I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I ' I ET 1 48001 1 16341 0.341 1 1 1 1 I I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I 1 ER 1 1600 1 1 204 1 0.13 1 1 1 1 1 I ' i-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I WL I 160D 1 1 50 1 0.03 1 I I 1 1 I -----------------I--------i------------------------------------i-----------i-------i---_--- WT ---u---) 6400 i--------i------- ) 0.12 i--------'-----------------------------i------- I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I (EXISTING 1 0.62 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 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 It CH185SAM 1 ' �6 ' CH1855PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY & BALBOA BOULEVARD/SUPERIOR AVENUE 1855 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1993 PH --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ' I I EXISTINGI PROPOSEDI EXISTING I EXISTINGI REGIONALI COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT IPROJECTI IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVOLume I V/C I I lCapacityl0apacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume lW/o Projectl I Ratio I ' I I I I I I I I Volume I I I I----------------------------------------------------------------- ---...I I NL 1 1600 1 1 323 1 0.20 * I I I I I I-------' ---..._i....----i-----------------i-----------------_i....._-----i--------------- HT 318 ---..--.) 3200 i----'---I--- .) 0.13 i----....I------'--I--...----"I-----'-I------- NR 102 I -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I ' I SL 1 24001 1 1901 0.08I 1 1 1 1 I ........................................................................................... ST 1 2400 1 1 380 1 0.16 * I I I I I ' I------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I SR 1 3200 1 1 568 1 0.18 I 1 1 1 1 1 I------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EL 1 3200 1 1 326 1 0.10 • I I I I 1 I------------- -------------------- ---.-1 ET 1 4800 1 1 892 1 0.19 1 1 1 1 1----------------------------- i ER 1 1600 1 1 292 1 0.18 1 1 1 1 1 I -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 l WL 1 16001 1 2041 0.131 1 1 1 1 I -----------------I--------i-------- -------i--------i--------------------i-------i------- WT _-1740 -- --------) 6400 I--------I- ----) 0.29 I---------------------...------------------...- WR 130 -------- -------------------------- ..._..-i._....-._.__..._._.-- -----___. 1 1 I 0.75 1--------------------------------------------------------------------- IEXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I ----------I I 1EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. ------------------------------ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. WILL be Less then or equal to 0.90 ' I=) 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 then or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. With project improvements WILL be Less than I.C.U. Without project ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Description of system improvement: ' PROJECT FORM 11 CH1855PM III ' CH2630AM ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY 6 RIVERSIDE AVENUE 2630 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1993 AM ------••.............................................................................•....... ' I I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING IEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI 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 IW/o Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I --------------------------i-------' ------- -------- --------- ----------- ------- ------- NL 0 I i i I ' I--------) -----------------') -----------------------------------------------I I NY 1600 I I 0 0.00 I I I I I I........) ------------------> -------------------i--------------------------'I NR 0 I----'--------------------------------------•-----------------------------------------------I ' I BL I I I 93 I I I I I I I I ST I I 61 I I I I I I --•-•-------- ------ ------------•----------------I SR 1600 I I 301 0.19 I I I I I I ' I-'•----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I EL I 1600 I I 311 I 0.19 ( I I I I I ' I---------------------"'--i-----------------ii--------i•--------i---_----•------------------------ I I ET 1994 --------) 3200 I__._____i--- _} 0.63 ........L.....__.i.___.....__L...___i__.._.. ER 19 - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ' I WL I 1600 I I 12 ( 0.01 * I I I I I I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I WT 1 4800 I I 1337 I 0.28 I I I I I I ----------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------I ' I WR I ---- ( I -- ( ---- ( I I .__------_I I I _ IEXISTING I ---- ( --------------------------- "' I ' 1EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I I I-----•---------------------------------------------------------- .-.---_... .-------------- I ]EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I --__-_----•.---_---_••---------------------------------------------------------------•------- ' I_I Projected + project traffic 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. u/systems improvement Will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. With project improvements Will be less than I.C.U. Without project -------------•----------------------_------_----_---_•-_-_---•--------------------------- ' Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORM 11 ' CH2630AM 1-16 ' CH2131PH INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY 8 RIVERSIDE AVENUE 2630 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1993 PM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ' 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 lCapacitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume Iw/o Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume _ -----------1-------I NL I 1 0 I--------J ------------------3 ---------------------------"-------------------I ' I NT 16001 1 0 0.001 1 1 1 1 1 ........) i--------i--------s. ---------i---------i-----------i-------i-------I NR 0 ----------------------------------- -------i--------i---------i-•---------i---'----------- ' SL ---113. ---------------------------------------------- ST 1 1 7 -----------------' -----------------------------------------------------' ' I SR 1 1600 1 1 422 1 0.26 1 1 1 1 1 1 --------------------------- ------------------------------------------ I EL 1 1600 1 1 319 1 0.20 * I I I I I ____._.'_'-._'___." ET' I - 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 --------) 3200 I--------I------- -) 0.53 i---..._.i._-'-----I--------'--I-------L....__ ER 31 l ------------- •--------------------------------' -----------------' ' 1 WL 1 16001 1 421 0.031 1 1 1 1 1 -----------------------------------------------------------------I 1 WT 1 4800 1 1 2438 1 0.51 * I I I I I I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I ' I WR 1 16001 1 611 0.041 1 1 1 1 1 1-."----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I 1 1-------- I ---- ------------------------------ (EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I I 1--------------------------------------------------------------------- -----I 1EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I i ------------------------------------------------------....................................... I_1 Projected + project traffic 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 1I CH263OPM Q i ' CH2635AN INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY i TUSTIN AVENUE 2635 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1992 AM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI IMoveaentl 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 lw/o Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I I I I volume I I I -----------------I--------I-----------------I--------I---------I---------------------------I NL ) 0 3 ' I--------- ------------------- ....-------------------------------------------I I HT ) 1600 1 1 0 ) 0.00 1 1 1 1 1 1 I--------- ------ ---------- -----I MR ) 0 ) I----------------- ------- -----I SL ) 1 1 47 ) -------------- ' I ST ) 1600 1 1 0 ) 0.04 * I I I I I I--------- ------ .-__.._._-_._..._I SR ) 13 3 I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I ' I EL 1 I 16001 1 371 0.021 1 1 1 1 ----------------- - ET II 2076 --------) 3200 -------..L------ 0.65 -------------------------------I ER ------- - 1 WL I I I I I I I I I I I 1...........................................................................................I ' 1 - WT 1 4800 1 1 1328 1 0.28 1 1 1 1 1 I -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I i WR 1 16001 1 401 0.031 1 1 1 1 1 I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I ' ]EXISTING I 0.691 ----------------------- ]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 Projected + project traffic will be less then or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systemm improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements WILL be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: ' PROJECT FORM It CH2635AN f�D ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' Intersection: Coast Hwy & Tustin Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 92 PM ' PROJECTED EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COMMITTED V/C Ratio PROJ PROJECT Movement EXISTING PROPOSED PK.HR. V/C GROWTH PROJECT w/o Project Vol. V/C Ratio Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. Vol . Ratio Volume Volume Volume NL 0 0 1 0.00 * - 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * NT 1600 1600 1 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 ' NR 0 0 1 0.00 - 0 0.00 0 0.00 SL 0 0 85 0.00 - 4 0.00 0 0.00 ' ST 1600 1600 1 0.08 * 0 0 0.08 * 0 0.08 * SR 0 0 36 0.00 - 0 0.00 0 0.00 ' EL 1600 1600 62 0.04 - 2 0.04 0 0.04 ' ET 3200 3200 1621 0.51 * 227 323 0.68 * 8 0.68 * ER 0 0 6 0.00 - 0 0.00 0 0.00 ' WL 0 0 3 0.00 * - 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * WT 4800 4800 2185 0.46 306 401 0.60 34 0.61 ' WR 1600 1600 73 0.05 - 4 0.05 0 0.05 ' EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION... 0 59 ' EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/ PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. .. 0.76 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.0. .................................. 0.76 ' Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Description of system improvement: ' PROJECT: 266 TSF Expansion FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 5l ' MA4300AM ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: MACARTNUR BOULEVARD & CAMPUS DRIVE 4300 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING -------.•--.-1992 AM- - -------- -------------------------------------------------------••--•--- IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALIC"ITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio (Volume I V/C I I ICapacitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume lw/o Projectl I Ratio I ' I I I I I I I I Volume I I I I----------------------------------------------------------------•--------------------------I I NL 1 16001 1 411 0.031 1 1 1 1 1 1 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -I NT 1 6400 1 1 599 1 0.09 * I I I I I I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I MR 1 16001 1 491 0.031 1 1 1 1 1 I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I SL 1 1600 1 1 290 1 0.18 * I I I I I I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I sT I "GOI 1 8761 0.141 1 1 1 1 1 -------------------------------------- ---------------------- ' I SR 1 16001 1 1831 0.111 1 1 1 1 1 I -------------------------•------------------------------------------------------------- -I EL 1 3200 1 1 334 1 0.10 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I ET 1 1 745 1 1 1 1 1 1 I--------) 3200 ------------------) 0.25 *.-..-------------------....-------------------I I ER 1 1 S4 - I I I I I I --- ------- -----------•---------------------------------------..... I WL 1 1600 1 1 51 1 0.03 * I I I I I I -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -i I WT 1 48001 1 2861 0.061 1 1 1 1 I -------------------------- ---------------------------------------- 1 WR I N.S. 1 1 83 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I -----------------------------------------------------------------------------•-------- -I (EXISTING 1 0.55 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 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 1I MA4300AM , JlY MA4300PM ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & CAMPUS DRIVE 4300 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC HINTER/SPRING 1992 PM 1 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI 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 Project[ I Ratio I ' I I I I I I I I Volume I I I I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I NL 1 1600 1 1 95 1 0.06 * I I I I I I --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -I ' I NT 1 6400 1 1 814 1 0.13 I 1 1 1 1 1 I _----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I MR 1 16001 1 601 0.041 1 1 1 1 1 I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I ' I SL 1 1600 [ 1 192 1 0.12 1 1 1 1 1 1 I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I ST 1 6400 1 1 841 1 0.13 1 1 1 1 1 1 SR 1 1600 1 1 710 1 0.44 * I I I I I I --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -I EL 1 3200 1 1 254 1 0.08 * I I I I I -.--.- ------------------------------- 1 ET i I --- I I I ----------1. I I I ER 1 1 77- 1 1 1 1 1 1 I--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - I I WL 1 16001 1 1011 0.06I 1 I 1 I I I --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -I I WT 1 4800 1 1 983 1 0.20 * I I I I I ------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------ WR I N.S. 1 1 1651 1 1 1 1 1 1 I --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -I (EXISTING 1 0.78 1 1 1---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I (EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSEO IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I 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 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be — less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Description of system improvement: ' PROJECT FORM 11 MA4300PM ' S � ' CA4302AN INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: CAMPUS AND VON KAMM 4302 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1992 AM ._-•......................................................................................... 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 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------------------------------------------------------------------ _--------I i NL 1 16001 1 221 0.011 1 1 1 1 1 ' I--------------------------------------------I----------------------------------------------I NY 1 3200 1 1 394 1 0.12 * I I I I I -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I NR I N.S. 1 1 391 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------i l SL 1 1600 1 1 31 1 0.02 * I I I I I -----------------i--------i-----------------i--------i---------i-----------i-------i------- ' i- -T---) 3200 -----------------) 0.11 i--------'---------I 1 --------------------------- 77 SR --------- EL 1 1600 1 1 198 1 0.12 * I I I I I ' -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I ET 1 3200 1 1 371 1 0.12 1 1 1 1 1 1 I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I ' i_. _ER I N.S. I l 69 I i I 1 I I I .................... .............. ... ..... ... . ---- ---- . - -.....__.1 WL 1 16001 1 621 0.041 1 1 1 1 1 -----------------i--------i_.-.-_-----------i--------------..._-----------i-------i------- I----...-) 3200 i-._...__I_.......)- 0.14 I--------'...---_..i...---...--i-------I---....I WR 79- I--------------------------------- ------------------------------I 1EXISTING 1 0.40 1 1 1----------------------------------.--------------------------------------------------------I (EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I I I I------------------------------------ ----- _---.-____ _--------------1 ' 1EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT T.C.U. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I_I Projected + project traffic 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_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: ' PROJECT FORM 11 CA4302AN 7l_I ' CA4302PH ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: CAMPUS AND VON KARMAN 4302 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1992 PM ----------------•----------•---------....-•-•-•---....--------------------------------------- I IEXISTINGIPROPOSED(EXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVOlume I V/C I I 1Capacityl Capacityl 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 1-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I NL 1 1600 1 1 69 1 0.04 * I I I I I I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I ' I NT 1 3200 1 1 349 1 0.11 1 1 1 1 1 1 I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I MR I N.S. 1 1 1321 1 1 1 1 1 1 1-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I ' I SL 1 16001 1 1371 0.091 1 1 1 1 1 -----------------I--------i-------- -------------------.....--i-----------i-------j-------I ST 499 ----....) 3200' ------------------)_ 0.24 i--------I--------------------------•--i------- SR----------------------------- 1 EL I 16DO 1 1 135 1 0.08 * I I I I I ' I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I ET 1 3200 1 1 592 1 0.19 1 1 1 1 1 1 I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I i ER I N.S. 1 1 41 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ( WL 1 1600 1 1 62 1 0.04 1 1 1 1 1 1 ..........-------I--------I----.-..-.-.--...i-•--•-•-i---------i--------------.--'-i------- ' f-- -----) 3200 ------------- 651-) 0.22 i._._....I--.....--I-----------'---------------I WR 47 1------•-----•----------------------------------------------------------------------------- IEXISTING -------------------------. ---- 1 1 1EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I I I I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I ' 1EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I _•--------------------------------------------............................................ 1_1 Projected + project traffic will be Less than or equaL to 0.90 ' (_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. W/systems improvement Will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project ................•-•----_.__................__-----.........._--.-.......----------...---- Description of system improvement: ' PROJECT FORM 11 CA4302PH 1 6 1 1 JA4305AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD 3 CAMPUS DRIVE 4305 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1993 AM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVolUme I V/C I I ICapecitylcapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume lw/o Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------► I NL 1 1600 I 1 92 1 0.06 * I I I I I I-----------------I--------i-------- ------- -----.-- --------- ------------------- -------I NT 919 i i i i I--------) 6400 ---._....-. --). 0.15 -----------------------------------------------I MRHR 47 I----------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------I SL 1 3200 1 1 269 1 0.08 1 1 1 1 1 1 -------------------------- -----------------------------------------------I ST 1348 •• I--------) 4800 ------------------)- 0.32 I--------I-------------------------•-----------I SR 1 1 --- EL I 1 99 I--------) 4800 ------------------) 0.05 *----------------------------------------------I I ET I I 2--- i I I I I I ------.- ---•--•--•--- ----------- ----------------------------- I ER I N.S. 1 1 261 1 1 1 1 1 1 •-----------------' ------------------- ----------------------- WL 1 1600 1 1 360 1 0.23 * I I I I I ------------------------------------------------- ---------------- I WT 1 3200 1 1 481 1 0.15 1 1 1 1 1 1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- WR 1 1600 1 1 136 1 0•09 1 1 11. 1 1 I---------------------------------------------------------------- ----...... -------------- (EXISTING 1 0.66 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 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: PROJECT FORM 11 JA4305AM 1 5b 1 1 JA4305PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS 1 INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD S CAMPUS DRIVE 4305 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1993 PH --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI IMovementl Lane$ I Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVolume I V/C I ICapacitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume 1w/o Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Voluma I I I 1 I...........................................................................................I HL 1 16001 1 551 0.03 1 1 1 I 1 1 -------------------------- ----------------- ------------------ ----------- ---------------I NY i i i i------ 1321 1 NR 1 1 338 1 1 1 I 1 1 1-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I 1 I SL 1 3200 1 1 296 1 0.09 * I I I I I -----..-..-•----- --..'--I-----------------L.....-.I ---...-...------------- --------.-....I -- ST 1180 ' I--------) 4800 ------------------)_ 0.29 I--------I-------------------------•-----------I SR 1 1 --_218_ EL 1 1 321 --------) 4800 -- 0.18' i------------------i-----------i---------------I ET ---520. l ER I N.S. 1 1 741 1 1 1 1 1 1 i-------------------------------------'........----------.......----------------------------I 1 1 WL 1 1600 1 1 128 1 O.0B I I I I I I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 WT 1 3200 1 1 262 1 0.08 * I I I I I 1................................•-_-•-•-•-•----------------------- -..._. 1 I WR 1 16001 1 2001 0.131 1 1 1 1 1 I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 (EXISTING _-_.-1.--0 61 1 1 1----------------------------- ---------------------------------- I 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_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. Will be greater than 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. u/systems improvement will be Less than or equal to 0.90 1 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORMAT It 1 JA4305PH 1 1 �� • BR4172AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET NORTH 6 CAMPUS DRIVE/IRVINE AVENUE 4172 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC HINTER/SPRING 1992 AM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ' I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIERISTINGIREGIONALICCMMITTEDI PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI Movement Lanes I Lanes PK MR I V/C GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio Volume V/C CapacitylCapacity VoLume I Ratio + Volume I Volume Iw/o Project' I Ratio I I I I I I I Volume I I I I----------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------•-'---' NL 1 3200 1 1 865 1 0.27 1 1 1 1 I I ---------------------------------------------------------- _... .__ NT I 1 1 1734 1 1 1 1 1 I ' 48M )--------•--------- 0.36 "'-----------•--- I MR I I I I I I I I I I I ---------•-----------------------------------------------------------------------------.-I I SL I I I I I I I I I I -------------- ------- ---------•----------------------------------- I GT 1 64001 1 3141 0.051 1 1 1 1 1 I- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -I SR 1 3200 1 1 207 1 0.06 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' 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-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------� 1 ER I I I I I I I I I I 1------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I I WL 1 1600 1 1 204 1 0.13 1 1 1 1 1 I ---------- ---- ------------------------------------------------------ Wr 1 1 898 I--------) 6400 ------------------) 0.15 r_...----------------------------------------- ' I WR• 1 1 71- I 1 1 1 1 I I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I 1EXISTING 1 0.51 1 1 I -------------------------------------------------------------------------- I ' 1EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS L.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 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement wilt 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 OR4172AM 5 $ • BR4172PH INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET NORTH i CAMPUS DRIVE/IRVINE AVENUE 4172 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1992 PM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI Movementl Lanes Lanes PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVotume I V/C I Icapacity'Capacityl 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 NL I 3200 I I 746 I 0.23 ' I I I I I ------------------------ ----- _.--- --------------.------ ' NT I 1 1 704 1 0.15 1 1 1 1 1 . . 4800 ).------..•............................................................... NR I I I I I I I I I I ------------------------------ ------------------------------------------ ' I SL i I I i I I I I I i ST I 6400 I I 1075 I 0.17 ' I I I I ...........................'_..._..............................-----------------_..._....__ ' I SR I 3200 I I 659 I 0.21 I I I I I I I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------f I EL i I I I I I I I I I I---ET---._-_.-.-i..-....-'-----------------i..--.-..i..-......i-----------i--------------- I ER ........................................................................................... ' I WL I 16M I I 476 I 0.30 I 1 1 I I I 'I___�_......._- I I 2421 I I I I I _......-) 6400 ------------------) 0.40 '-----------......-----------------------------� ' I WR I I 120 I I I I I I (EXISTING I 0.50 I I I---------------------------------------------------------------------------- IEXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I I I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I (EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I_I 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 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be Less then or equal to 0.90 ' I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project ......................................................................................... ' Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORM 11 ' BR4172PH 5�1 BR4175AM ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET NORTH 8 BIRCH STREET 4175 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1992 AM IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIOIALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C IOW GRTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio lyolume I V/C I I ICapscitylCapacityl 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 I 1600 I I 100 I 0.06 I I I I I 1 --------- ------------' ------------- -----_.._...--..-.----- ' I NT 1 3200 I I 1109 I 0.35 • I I I I I I . --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -I I NR I I I I I I I I I I _.. I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I St. I I I I I I I I I I I .--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -I I ST I 1600 I I 85 I 0.D5 i I I I I I ' I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I SR I 3200I I 241 I 0.08I I I I I I 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 I WL 1600 I I 193 I 0.12 1 I I I I I L -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -I I Wr I I 829 I I I' ..1 1 I i----R--) 4800 ----------------- ) 0.20 i------------------------- I ------------- I- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -I (EXISTING I 0.55 I i I---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I (EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I i ----------------------------------------------------------------------- IEXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I ---------•-------------•--------•---------------------................-------------._...---.. ' I_I 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 greeter than 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be Less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will ' be Less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: ' PROJECT FORM I1 BR417SAM ' BR4175PM ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET NORTH 6 BIRCH STREET 4175 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1992 PM IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALIC"ITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI I Movemenil Lenes 1 Lanea I PK HR I V/C 1 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 NL 1 16001 1 1301 0.081 I I I I I I...........................................................................................I ' I NT 1 3200 1 1 312 1 0.10 1 1 1 1 1 I 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 I I ST 1 16001 1 3961 0.251 1 1 1 1------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I ' I SR 1 3200 1 1 1209 1 0.38 * I I I I I ___________________________________________________________________________________________I IEL I I I I I I I I I------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I I ER I I I I I I I I I I ---------------------------------..............----------------------------.--------------- I • WL. 1600 1 1 297 0.19 ( 1 1 I 1 _ - I ' WT I I 1� I I I I I I ........)- 4B00 •----"'-'---_----) 0.38 *-"'-""------ ^•'-I ' I I I I I I I I I (EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 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 ' I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement wilt be Less than or equal to 0.90 ' 1_1 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 ' BR417SPH ' �I i I' BR4155AN INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET 3 CAMPUS DRIVE/IRVINE AVENUE 4155 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1993 AM ---------------------------------------------------------------------------••---------------- I jEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI IMovmmentl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVotune I V/C I IcepaeityICapecityI Volume-I Ratio I Volume-i Volume --lu/V `ure I- -I Ratio- ' I NL I I I I I I I I I I 1-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I ' I NT 1 6400 I 1 1380 1 0.22 I I 1 1 1 1 1-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I NR 1 1600 1 1 663 1 0.41 * I I I I I -------------------------•-----•--•-----------------.-.------------ .. I SL 1 1600 1 1 86 1 0.05 * I I I I I I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I Si I 480D 1 1 361 1 0.08 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I SR I I I I I I I I I d ------------- --------------------------------------------------- I EL 1 3200 1 1 1168 1 0.37 1 1 1 1 1 I ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 BT 1 3200 1 1 1661 1 0.52 * I I I I I 1-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I 1 ER 1 3200 1 1 462 1 0.14 1 1 1 1 1 I ' I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------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 - ...1 1 WR I I I I I I I I I I ------------- ' 1EXISTING 1 0.98 1 1 I---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I 1EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I I I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 ' 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. 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 inprovements will be less than I.C.U. without project -----•---------------------------------------•-•-_•----.•--_--_••_-___--_-------•_----_.. Description of system improvement: ' PROJECT FORM 11 BR415SAN BR415SPH , ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET & CAMPUS DRIVE/IRVINE AVENUE 4155 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1"3 PH I - IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI 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 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-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I NT 1 6400 1 1 896 1 0.14 1 1 1 1 1 1 I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I - I MR 1 1600 1 1 388 1 0.24 1 1 1 1 1 1 I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I SL 1 16001 1 ISO 0.111 1 1 1 1 1 i-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I ST 1 4800 1 1 1313 1 0.27 * I I I I I ' 1----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------I I SR I I I I I I I I I I ___________________________________________________________________________________________I I EL 1 2400 1 1 533 1 0.22 1 1 1 1 1 1 I------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 ET 1 4000 1 1 1091 1 0.27 • I I I _1 I __________________________________________________________________________________ ________1 1 ER 1 3200 1 1 644.1 0.20 1 1 1 1 II 1 ------------------------------------------------------------- ----- WL II I I I I I I I I I I I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I ' 1 WT I I I I I I I I I I I - ... --- - - - - -- - - - ----- -- ------ ---- --------- ---- -- ----- --i I WR I I I I I I I I I I I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I ' EXISTING ---------0-54 1 ---------------------- I IEXi ST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I I i------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ' (EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1_1 Project + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' ID Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will ' be less than I.C.U. without project ------------________________________________________ Description of system improvement: ' PROJECT FORM 11 BR4155PM I -- ' BR4160AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' INTERSECTION: BRISTOL STREET 8 BIRCH STREET 4160 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1993 AM -------------------------------------------•-•-•--------------------------------------------- I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI 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 1CapacitylCapacityl 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 NL I I I I I I I I I I 1-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I NT 1 1 156 --------) 1600 ------------------) 0.14 ------------------------------I---------------I NR 1 I 73 ' I 1 1 I 1 1 I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I SL 1 1600 1 1 102 1 0.06 + I I I I I ' I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I 1 ST 1 3200 1 1 143 1 0.04 1 1 1 1 1 1 I --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -I I SR I I I i I I I I I I I-------------------------- ---------- ----------------IEL 1014 I. .... .)' ---------------------' -) ----------------------------------..--------- -I 1 ET 6400 1 1 1050 0.34 • I I I I I ' 1........)--------------------------) ----------------------------------------------I I ER 1 1 98 1 1 1 1 1 1 ---------------------.---------------------------------------------------------------------I ' I WL I I I I I I I I I I I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I Wr I I 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 0.54 1 1 ' 1---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. will be greater than 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project -----------•............................................................................. Description of system improvement: ' PROJECT FORM 11 OR4160M INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' Intersection: Bristol So & Birch Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 93 PM ' PROJECTED EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COMMITTED V/C Ratio PROJ PROJECT Movement EXISTING PROPOSED PK.HR. V/C GROWTH PROJECT w/o Project Vol. V/C Ratio ' Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. Vol. Ratio Volume Volume Volume ' IL 0 0 0 0.00 - 0 0.00 0 0.00 NT 1600 1600 193 0.18 * 0 0 0.18 * 0 0.19 * NR 0 0 97 0.00 - 0 0.00 8 0.00 SL 1600 1600 236 0.15 * - 27 0.16 * 0 0.16 * ' ST 3200 3200 478 0.15 0 0 0.15 0 0.15 SR 0 0 0 0.00 - 0 0.00 0 0.00 EL 0 0 302 0.00 - 21 0.00 0 0.00 ' ET 6400 6400 1212 0.27 * 0 234 0.31 * 8 0.31 ER 0 0 184 0.00 - 0 0.00 0 0.00 ' WL 0 0 0 0.00 * - 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 WT 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 ' WR 0 0 0 0.00 - 0 0.00 0 0.00 EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION... 0.60 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/ PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. .. 0.65 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.0. .................................. 0.66 Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will 6e less than or equal to 0.90 1 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Description of system improvement: PROJECT- 266 TSF Expansion FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: ' CH3060AM ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY & DOVER DRIVE/BAYSHORE DRIVE 3060 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1993 AM -----------------------------------------------------..-.....------------•------------------- 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 Iw/o Projectl I Ratio I ' I ' I I I I I I I Votume I I I i...........................................................................................1 I NL 1 1600 1 1 26 1 0.02 1 1 I 1 1 1 ' -----------------L -- ----------'----' ------- -------- --------. --------... -----.L------ NY I I I L 75 I---.....) 3200 ------------------) 0.04 *---------------- -----....-----I I MR 1 1 37 I 1 1 1 1 1 ----' ---' ---- ---------------------------------------------------- 1 SL 1 4800 1 1 926 1 0.19 * I I I I I 1........................................................................................... 1 ST 1 16001 1 441 0.031 1 1 1 1 I -------------------••--------------------------------------------- 1 SR 1 1600 1 1 81 1 o.os I I I I I I i...........................................................................................I 1 EL 1 3200 1' - .1...-108-1 0.03 1 1 1 1 1 1------------------ 1---- ------------------ ----------------------------- ----- ET 1863 i - I --------) 4800 i--------I--------)- 0.39 I--......'...-------......--------------------'I ER ------- WL 1 1600 1 1 18 1 0.01 * I I 1 I I I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I ' 1 WT 1 4800 1 1 1289 1 0.27 1 1 1 1 1 1 i------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ WR I N.S. 1 1 5961 1 1 1 1 1 1 I-----------------------------------------------------------_-------------------------------I IEXISTING 1 0.63 1 1 1---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I (EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I I I-----"'--------------------------------------------"'._----------------------------------i ' IEXISTING + 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 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project -------------------------------------------------------------"--•_•-_-.---_-.-_.---'---. Description of system improvement: ' PROJECT FORM II CH3060AN ' bb ' CH3060PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY 6 DOVER DRIVE/SAYSHORE DRIVE 3060 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1993 PH --_•--------------------••-----------------------------------•-----------...------.....------ I IEXISTiNGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALIC"ITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI lMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio lVolume I V/C I I 1CapacitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume Iw/o Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I i I I -----e i I I I NL 1 16001 1 261 0.021 1 1 1 1 1 -----------------I--------I----------------.L..__.._I-......--I--------------------------- MY ' '--------) 3200 I-------------43 ). 0.02 I--------I---------------------I-------I------- NR 30 --------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------I ' 1 SL 1 4800 1 1 1045 1 0.22 * I I I 1 1 I--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------f I ST 1 16001 1 681 0.041 1 1 1 1 I I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I 1 SR 1 16001 1 1141 0.071 1 1 1 1 I 1-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 1 EL 1 3200 1 1 126 1 0.04 * I I I I 1 --_ ---------------------------- --------- ...-...- -_------- --------------------------- ET i i i ' i--------) 4800 i--------i--------) 0.35 i--------'---------i-------------------'------- ER 25 ' I----------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------I 1 WL 1 1600 1 1 24 1 0.02 1 1 1 1 1 I I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I 1 WT 1 4800 1 1 2059 1 0.43 * I I 1 1 1 1-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I ' [ WR I N.S. 1 1 7911 1 1 1 1 1 1 I------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1EXISTING 0.71 I ' I---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I 1EXIST + 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 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 ---•---------------------------------------•--------------------------------------------- j, ' Description of system improvement: ' PROJECT FORM 1I CH3060PM CH5440AN INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY i aAYSIDE DRIVE 5440 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1992 AM ...."'_'---..-..--------------------"'-""-"._._..._..-_."'-_---------_.---------------- I IEXISTINCIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICCMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI 1Movementl Lanes Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio (Volume I V/C I I 1Capacity'Cepacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume lw/o Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I I I I volume I I I NL 1 1 391 I ---' -) .................. --------------------------------------------- -I NY 4800 I 1 9 0.09 * I I I I . _ " I --) -- '------------- ----------------------------------------------- I NR 1 1 26 1 1 1 1 1 I I. ..........................................................."'---"------..-----------' .1 I SL 1 16001 1 241 0.021 1 1 1 1 I -----------------i--------i----------------- -------. .._..---- ----------. .------ ------- ST 4 i i i i i --------) 1600 ------------------) 0.04 *-_.-_______-.___---..-.._...--------------..__I ' 1 SR I I 63 I I I ._....-...I. i I EL 1 16001 1 301 0.021 1 1 1 1 1 I_ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _I ET 1 4800 1 1 2373 1 0.49 * I I I I ' I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- i ER 1 1600 1 1 370 1 0.23 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' 1----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- I WL 1 1600 1 1 33 1 0.02 * I I I I ---- ------- ---- ---------------------- ----- ------ I WT 1 1 1655 1 1 1 1 1 I i--------) 6400 ------------------) 0.26 -----..-............._.._.--------------...._.- ' I WR 1 1 28 1 1 1 1 1 I I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 (EXISTING 1 0.64 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 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 Il CH5440AN i � 6� INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection: Coast Hwy & Bayside Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 92 PM PROJECTED EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COMMITTED V/C Ratio PROJ PROJECT Movement EXISTING PROPOSED PK.HR. V/C GROWTH PROJECT w/o Project Vol. V/C Ratio ' Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. Vol. Ratio Volume Volume volume ' IL 0 0 461 0.01 - 1 0.00 0 0.00 NT 4800 4800 6 0.11 * 0 0 0.11 * 0 0.11 * ' NR 0 0 53 0.00 - 0 0.00 0 0.00 SL 1600 1600 14 0.01 * - 89 0.06 * 0 0.06 * ' ST 1600 1600 5 0.03 0 0 0.06 0 0.06 SR 0 0 50 0.00 - 36 0.00 0 0.00 EL 1600 1600 70 0.04 * - 32 0.06 * 0 0.06 * ' ET 4800 4800 2052 0.43 287 203 0.53 8 0.53 ER 1600 1600 543 0.34 - 3 0.34 0 0.34 ' WL 1600 1600 55 0.03 - 0 0.03 0 0.03 WT 6400 6400 2702 0.43 * 378 294 0.53 * 42 0.54 * ' WR 0 0 24 0.00 - 0 0.00 0 0.00 EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION... 0.59 ' EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/ PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. .. 0.76 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.0. .................................. 0.77 ' Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Description of system improvement: PROJECT: 266 TSF Expansion FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: b9 ' JA4275AN INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE RD(E-W) & MACARTHUR BL(N-S) 4275 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1993 AM ..................----------------------------------------------"'--....------........------ ' I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI 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 lCapacityleapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume lw/o Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I 1-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I NL 1 16001 1 1791 0.111 1 1 1 1 1 I- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -► NT 1047 ' j --------) 4800 ------------------) 0.27 ------------------------------I-------I------- i MR 1 1 227 I 1 1 I 1 1 ---------------------------------------------- ' 1 SL l 1600 1 1 60 1 0.04 * 1 1 1 1 1 I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I 1 ST I 48001 1 3361 0.071 1 1 1 1 1 I -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -i i SR I N.S. 1 1 1691 1 1 1 1 1 1 t-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------i 1 EL 1 3200 1 1 498 1 0.16 * I I I I I I -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -I i ET 1 4800 1 1 919 1 0.19 1 1 1 1 1 1 I------------------------------------------------------------------------------.............I 1 ER I H.S. 1 1 921 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' 1 WL 1 3200 1 1 174 1 0.05 1 1 1 1 1 1 ...........................................................................................I l WT 1 4800 1 1 614 1 0.13 ! I I I I I --- ' I -R 1 H.S. 1 I --- l i I ---o----------......I. I I (EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.60 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 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 JA4275PM ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD(E-W) 8 MACARTHUR SOULEVARD(H-S) 4275 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING -------------1993 PH- ---------------------- ----------------------'-------.___.........--".' I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI ' 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 [w/o Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I --------- ---------------•------.-----'---------------------------------------------- ' I NL 1 1600 1 1 286 1 0.18 * 1 1 1 1 1 ._.•.............i---•---_i.-.....---_----.-i.-.-.-..i.-----.-.i-----------i----..-------. UT 391 --------) 4800' ..................) 0.11 -----------------------------------------------I I MR I 1 159 1 1 1 1 1 1 I -------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- -I I SL 1 16001 1 1721 0.111 1 1 1 1 1 I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I ' I ST 1 4800 1 1 874 1 0.18 ' I I I I I I ------------------- .-.--.-...-.--._-_--..---....-_-_--.-----.-----._.-.--..------..-. .I I SR I N.S. 1 1 4701 1 1 1 1 1 I ------------------------------------4-----------------------------------------------------' EL 1 3200 1 1 229 1 0.07 • I I I I I I--------------------------------------------------------------.----------------------------I 1 ET 1 4800 1 1 "0 1 0.13 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -.------•------------------------- ------------..-------------. i ER I N.S. 1 1 161 1 1 1 1 1 . I I- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -I 1 WL 1 3200 1 1 505 1 0.16 1 1 1 1 1 I ' I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I 1 WT 1 4800 1 1 1299 1 0.27 * I I I I I -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -I 1 WR I N.S. 1 1 671 1 1 1 1 1 I ' I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I 1EXISTING ------------------ ---- I (EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I I ' 1--------------------------------------------------.__---------------------..---------------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_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 ' IA417SPH ' BR4190AN ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: BRISTOL STREET NORTH Q JAMBOREE ROAD 4190 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1992 AN --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio [Volume I V/C I I [CapecitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume Iw/o Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I I I 1 Volume• I I I ___________________________________________________________________________________________I I NL 1 1600 1 1 999 1 0.62 * I I I I I I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I _. I NT I H.S. 1 1 29421 1 1 1 1 1 1 1-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I RR I N.S. I 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I SL I I I I I I I I I I :.. I_ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _I I ST 1 1 440 1 1 1 1 1 1 --------) 6400 ------------------) 0.12 i-___-_--i-________i_---___---_i----___i__--_-- SR 355 1-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I ' I EL- I I I I I I I I I I ______________________________________________________________ .._______I 1 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 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__________________________________________________________________ I I NR I I I I I I I I I I I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I [EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I I ' I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 1EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 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_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 ' OR4191AN ' OR4190PM ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: BRISTOL STREET NORTH $ JAMBOREE ROAD 4190 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1992 PM .-'...-•--------------------------------------------------------•-------------------------— I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI (Movement) 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 Project) I Ratio I I I I i I I I Volume I I I I- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -I I NL 1 1600 1 I 854 1 0.53 * I I I I I ------------• ---------------------------------------------"------ I NT I N.S. I 1 2018I 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -1 I MR I I I I I 1 I 1 1 I I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I SL I I I I i I I I I I I- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _-I I ST I 1 1220 I I I I 1 1 ' I..------) 6400 ------------------) 0.32 ----------------------------------------------I SR I 1 847 I 1 I 1 1 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 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 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -1 I WR•- I I I I I I I I I I ----------------------------------------------------------- ------------'- (EXISTING 1 0.85 1 I 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 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be lest 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 tt ' BR4190OPM ' BR4170AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: BRISTOL STREET & JAMBOREE ROAD 4170 ' EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING ...._---__1993 All .."""_"""".............."-._..........._......................._.._ IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI 1Movementl 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 1w/o Projectl I Ratio I i I I I I I 1 i volume I I I I........................................................................................... I NL i I I I I I I I I I NT I I 1 23361 1 I 1 1 1 I-------- 8000 ..................) 0.29 .........._..............._.._................I I NR I I I D I I L. I I I I I SL I I I I I I I I I I I........................................................................................... I ST 1 4800 1 1 440 1 0.09 1 I I I I I ............................ ............"'.-......------....._._.... I SR I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I � EL I I I I •' 1154 I........) 3200 ..................) 0.45 R............._.._...._...________.___......__.I I ET I I 283 I 1 1 1 I - I ' 1 ER 1 32001 1 9351 0.291 I I I I------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I I WL i I I I I I I I I I ___________________________________________________________________________________________I ' IWT I I I I I I I I I I L....................................................... I 1 WR I I I I I I I I I I I...........................................................................................i ' 1EXISTING 1 0.74 1 1 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 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: ' PROJECT FORM 11 BR4170AN 1 ' 7� BR417OPM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: BRISTOL STREET & JAMBOREE ROAD 4170 ' EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1993 PM -------------•-.----------------------------------------------------------------------------- I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI IMovementI Lanes I Lanes I PK OR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio (Volume I V/C I ' I ICapacitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume Iw/o Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I ML I I I I I I I I I I --------------------------i-------- ------- -------- --------- ----------- --------------- xr 2077 i i i i 1--------) 8000 ------------------) 0.26 *---------------- --------------I I NR 1 1 6 I 1 1 I 1 1 ' [-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I SL I I I I I I I I I I I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I ST 1 4800 1 1 ton 1 0.22 1 I 1 1 1 1 ' I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I i SR I I I I I I I I I I -----------------i--------i----------------- -------- ._.------ ------------------- ------- EL 869 i i I i I--------) 3200 I----------------.)- 0.44 I----------------------------------------------I ET 541 I---------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------I ER 1 3200 1 1 1404 1 0.44 * I I I I 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-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I WR I I I I I I I ..___-----I I I ' 1EXISTING 1 0.70 1 I [---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 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.D. with project improvements wilt ' be less than I.C.U. without project ...----.----.------_-------_._----._-__..._•_•__.____......_...._..._•_--......_.---• Description of system improvement: ' PROJECT FORM 11 OR417OPH ' JA4765AN INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' INTERSECTION- JAMBOREE ROAD t EASTBLUFF DRIVE NORTH/UNIVERSITY DRIVE 4765 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1993 AM -----•---------•----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ' I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALIC"ITTEOI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVOlume I V/C I I ICapacitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume Iw/o Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I i---- ------- - -------------------------- --- - --- -------------------- ------------I I NL 1 1600 1 1 6 1 0.00 1 1 1 1 1 1 ----------------------- ------------------------------------------ ' I NY 1 4800 1 1 1812 1 0.38 • I I I I I I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I RR 1 16001 1 2691 0.171 1 1 1 1 1 ------------------------------------• -------------------------------' I SL 1 1600 1 1 77 1 0.05 • I I I I I I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I sT 1 48001 1 11111 0.231 1 1 1 1 1 I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------i ' I SR 1 16001 1 2061 0.131 1 1 1 1 I -----------------i__------i-----------------i--------I---------i----_------'--------------- EL 402 ........) 3200 ------------------) 0.14' i--------I-------------------------------------I ET ----59- I ER I M.S. 1 _ 1 31 1 1 1 1 1 I _--------' ----------------------- ------------------------- ' WL 1 1 278 --------) 4800 ------------------) 0.07 i--------i---------------------i-------' - -------� WT 49----- ' 1 WR I N.S. 1 1 2651 1 1 1 1 1 I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1EXISTING 1 0.64 1 1 1---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1EXIST + REG GROWTH + CCMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I I I------------------------------------------------------------- ------I (EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. wilt 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 11 JA4765AN INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' Intersection: Jamboree & University/Eastbluff Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 93 PM ' PROJECTED EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COMMITTED V/C Ratio PROJ PROJECT Movement EXISTING PROPOSED PK.HR. V/C GROWTH PROJECT w/o Project Vol. V/C Ratio ' Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. Vol. Ratio Volume Volume Volume NL 1600 1600 13 0.01 - 19 0.02 0 0.02 NT 4800 4800 1524 0.32 * 91 520 0.44 * 23 0.45 * ' NR 1600 1600 338 0.21 - 40 0.24 11 0.24 SL 1600 1600 301 0.19 * - 105 0.25 * 0 0.25 * ' ST 4800 4800 1921 0.40 115 377 0.50 15 0.51 SR 1611 1111 411 0.26 - 29 0.21 0 0.21 EL 0 0 178 0.00 - 20 0.00 0 0.00 ' ET 3200 3200 74 0.08 * 0 0 0.09 * 0 0.09 * ER 9999 9999 0 0.00 - 4 0.00 0 0.00 WL 4800 4800 386 0.10 * - 27 0.11 * 11 0.11 * ' WT 0 0 97 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 WR 9999 9999 158 0.02 0 0.02 0 0.02 EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION... 0.69 ' EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/ PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. .. 0.89 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.0. .................................. 0.90 Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Description of system improvement: ' PROJECT: 266 TSF Expansion FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: ' JA4870AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD & BISON STREET 4870 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1992 AM --------------------------------------------...........-..................................... ' I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTII IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVolume I V/C I I ICapacitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume Iw/o Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I 1 I I --tune I I I I NL 1 16001 1 231 0.011 1 1 1 1 1 I --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -I i NT I 1 1911 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' I--------) 4800 ------------------) 0.42 ----------------------------------------------I I MR I 1 98 I 1 1 1 1 1 I ...................................................."'---------"'-------....--------- -I I SL 1 3200 1 1 70 1 0.02 - I I I I I ' I"'.....................'--"""'-""'..-_..---_..----"'-...."--------.----------------I I ST 1 4800 1 1 1407 1 0.29 1 1 1 1 1 1 I. ....................................................................................... .I ' 1 SR 1 16001 1 221 0.011 1 1 1 1 1 -----------------i--------------------------'--------i---------i-----------i-------i------- EL 71 -------.) 1600 ------------------) 0.08 ------------------------------------- ' I ET ----'I I I - 1 -- ......-----.I I I --ER---— M.S.---!-_._ !._._ 22 ,-_.-_._-'_.___-__!....__.__I--......-.-I._.....I._.--..I .___ ... WL 1 1600 1 1 78 1 0.05 R I I I 1 I ' 1-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I 1 Wr 1 16001 1 531 0.031 1 1 1 1 1 I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I ' 1 WR 1 3200 1 1 72 1 0.02 1 1 1 .._._.....1. 1 1 I----------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- (EXISTING 1 0.57 1 1 I---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ' (EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED WPROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I I I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 (EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I ---------------- :--------------------------------------- -----------------------'-.."-------- 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems 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 JA4870M1 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' Intersection: Jamboree & Bison Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 92 PM ' PROJECTED EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COMMITTED V/C Ratio PROJ PROJECT Movement EXISTING PROPOSED PK.HR. V/C GROWTH PROJECT w/o Project Vol. V/C Ratio ' Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. Vol. Ratio Volume Volume Volume ' NL 1600 1600 19 0.01 * - 17 0.02 0 0.02 NT 4800 4800 1707 0.38 239 586 0.56 * 38 0.56 * ' NR 0 0 114 0.00 - 27 0.00 0 0.00 SL 3200 3200 133 0.04 - 8 0.04 * 0 0.04 * ' ST 4800 4800 2018 0.42 * 141 563 0.57 26 0.57 ' SR 1600 1600 80 0.05 - 0 0.05 0 0.05 EL 0 0 24 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 ' ET 1600 1600 45 0.04 * 0 0 0.04 * 0 0.04 * ER 9999 9999 8 0.00 - 13 0.00 0 0.00 ' WL 1600 1600 125 0.08 * - 38 0.10 * 0 0.10 ' WT 1600 1600 67 0.04 0 0 0.04 0 0.04 WR 3200 3200 77 0.02 41 0.04 0 0.04 EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION... 0.55 ' EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/ PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. .. 0.74 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.0. .................................. 0.74 ' Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Description of system improvement: ' PROJECT: 266 TSF Expansion FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: ' MA4995AN ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD d BISON 4995 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING IMAM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVoiume I V/C I I ICapacitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume lw/o Projeetl I Ratio I ' I I I I I I I I Votume I I I I...........................................................................................I I NL 1 16001 1 1921 0.121 1 1 1 1 1 ----------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- --- - ' I NT 1 4800 1 1 2233 I 0.47 * I I I I 1 I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I MR I I I I I I I I I I ------------- --------- -..--....---------------.--.-------.----- ' I SL I I I I I I I I I i I- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --I I ST 1 6400 1 1 1903 1 0.30 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' ----------------------------------------------- ------------------ I SR I N.S. 1 1 2801 1 1 1 1 1 I 1- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -I I EL 1 3200 1 1 160 1 0.05 * I I I I - 1 I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 I ET I I I I I I I I I I I --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -I I ER I N.S. I 1 1981 1 1 1 1 1 1 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 I WR I I I I I I I I I I I- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --1 (EXISTING 1 0.52 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- i_I 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 I_J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement wit( 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 MA4995AM ' �D 1 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' Intersection: MacArthur & Bison Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 93 PM ' PROJECTED EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COMMITTED V/C Ratio PROJ PROJECT Movement EXISTING PROPOSED PK.HR. V/C GROWTH PROJECT w/o Project Vol. V/C Ratio ' Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. Vol. Ratio Volume Volume Volume ' NL 1600 1600 198 0.12 * - 13 0.13 * 0 0.13 NT 4800 4800 1834 0.38 330 263 0.51 26 0.51 ' NR 0 0 0 0.00 - 0 0.00 0 0.00 SL 0 0 0 0.00 - 0 0.00 0 0.00 tST 6400 6400 2016 0.32 * 363 212 0.40 * 23 0.41 ' SR 9999 9999 212 0.03 - 15 0.03 0 0.03 EL 3200 3200 252 0.08 * - 51 0.09 * 0 0.09 ' ET 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 ER 9999 9999 215 0.02 - 37 0.03 0 0.03 ' WL 0 0 0 0.00 - 0 0.00 0 0.00 WT 0 0 0 0.00 * 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 WR 0 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION... 0.52 ' EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/ PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. .. 0.62 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.0. .................................. 0.63 Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Description of system improvement: ' PROJECT: 266 TSF Expansion FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: �1 ' JA49BOAM ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD & EASTBLUFF DRIVE/FORD ROAD 4980 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1993 AM IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI --------"--------------- ------- ------'-" ----------------'----- ---------- ---- - IMovementl Lanes I Lonea I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT ( V/C Ratio (Volume I V/C I I ICapacitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume lW/o Projectl I Ratio I I �_------'I'---- I I I I I Volume I I I I NL 1 3200 1 1 282 1 0.09 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' -----------------i_---_-__i.-.---.__-_---.-- _-_-_._. .-.--____ .---___---_ __.-_-_--.--.- HT i i i iI"""-') 4800 I"'-"^I'------ --) 0.34 i"'-"'-'"'_.....I"""""-'"-""I'-"...I NR 38 1--------------" " """ "" '-..-- '----.- ...--- ---------------------------------._'-------- I I SL 1 1600 1 1 25 1 0.02 * I I I I I i-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I 1 ST 1 48001 1 12791 0.271 1 1 1 1 I ' I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I SR 1 16001 1 201 0.011 1 1 1 1 I ...........................................................................................1 I EL 1 1600 1 1 122 1 0.08 1 1 1 1 1 I I------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------'I ET 1 1600 1 1 176 1 0.11 1 1 1 1 1 I -------------------- __-.---___.----__---__----_-_.1 ER 1 1600 1 1 215 1 0.13 * I I I I 1 ----- "'-----"'i.----"'i-----55'-------------"'-i---------------------i---------- I--------) 4800 --------"'-------) 0.08 *--------------- --------------- WT 1 1 333 I 1 1 1 1 I ' ---------- -----------------------------------------------'-------------------------I WR 1 1600 1 1 31 1 0.02 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' I-----------------------------------i._-.-.-_i___-_._----------..--__-_-_-- ......I 1EXISTING ---- 0.57 (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 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 greeter than 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. W/systems improvement Will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. With project improvements Will be less than I.C.U. Without project -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Description of system improvement: ' PROJECT FORM 11 _ JA4980AN 9y INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' Intersection: Jamboree & Ford Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 93 PM ' PROJECTED EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COMMITTED V/C Ratio PROJ PROJECT Movement EXISTING PROPOSED PK.HR. V/C GROWTH PROJECT w/o Project Vol. V/C Ratio ' Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. Vol. Ratio Volume Volume Volume IL 1111 3200 288 0.09 * - 57 0.11 * 4 0.11 NT 4800 4800 1673 0.36 201 694 0.56 38 0.57 ' MR 0 0 66 0.00 - 39 0.00 4 0.00 SL 1600 1600 111 0.07 - 30 0.09 0 0.09 ' ST 4800 4800 2168 0.45 * 260 705 0.65 * 26 0.66 SR 1110 1111 40 0.03 - 3 0.03 0 0.03 EL 1600 1600 32 0.02 2 0.02 0 0.02 ' ET 1600 1600 98 0.06 0 0 0.05 0 0.06 ER 1600 1600 274 0.17 * - 29 0.19 * 4 0.19 WL 4800 4800 77 0.03 * - 43 0.04 * 4 0.04 WT 0 0 78 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 tWR 1600 1600 14 0.01 - 30 0.03 0 0.03 EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION... 0.65 ' EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/ PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. .. 0.88 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.0. .................................. 0.89 ' Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Description of system improvement: ' PROJECT: 266 TSF Expansion FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: ^ ' MA4985AM ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD 8 FORD ROAD 4985 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1993 AM I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI 1Movenientl Lanes I Lamas I PK NR I V/C I GROWTH ( PROJECT I Y/C Ratio 1Volure I V/C 1 I ICepacitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio I VOLUne I votume Iw/o Projectl I Ratio I ' I I I I I I I I volume I I I I------------------------------------------------------------ ------I I NL 1 3200 1 1 113 1 0.04 1 1 1 1 1 1 I-------------------------------------------..-.-----.-.-----.-....___----_-----------------I NT 1 4800 1 1 1664 1 0.35 • I I I I I 1------------------------------------------------------------ ----_-----I i MR I H.S. I 1 191 1 1 1 1 1 1 ]-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 ' I SL 1 3200 1 1 276 1 0.09 t I I I I I I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I ST 1 4600 1 1 1703 1 0.35 1 1 1 1 1 1 1]Ii ------- ----- --------------- - - -_.-.-__--.... _- SR I M.S. ] ] 46 l I I I I I I -------------------------------------------------------------- _-_ .. ---_ ....._-- EL 1 3200 1 1 32 1 0.01 • I I I I I ' I-------------------------------------------..----------------..-.--------------------------I ] ET 1 3200 1 1 145 1 0.05 1 1 1 1 1 1 I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I ER 1 16001 1 541 0.031 1 1 1 1 1 ----------------------------------'I --_-...I..---••-i-----••-•i•----------i-------i------- WL 1600 ---------------12 0.07 I----------------- ----- ------------_...'---------------------------I WT' j----- i I 1 I I I I I ---3 480o --- ) 0.20 I WR 1 1 661 I 1 1 1 1 1 I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I ]EXISTING 1 0.65 I 1-------------------------------------------------------- ------ I (EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I--------------------------------------------------------------------------------..---------I ' ]EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. --------------------------------------------------------------------------.._._-----I-------I ' 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. wilt 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/systems improvement will be Less than 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: ' PROJECT FORM 1I MA4985AN INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection: MacArthur & Ford Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 93 PM ' PROJECTED EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COMMITTED V/C Ratio PROJ PROJECT Movement EXISTING PROPOSED PK.HR. V/C GROWTH PROJECT w/o Project Vol. V/C Ratio ' Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. Vol. Ratio Volume Volume Volume ' NL 3200 3200 56 0.02 - 0 0.02 0 0.02 NT 4800 4800 1682 0.35 * 303 313 0.48 * 26 0.48 ' NR 9999 9999 23 0.00 - 0 0.00 15 0.00 SL 3200 3200 664 0.21 ' - 53 0.22 * 0 0.22 ' ST 4800 4800 1895 0.39 341 324 0.53 23 0.54 SR 9999 9999 55 0.01 - 0 0.01 0 0.01 EL 3200 3200 31 0.01 * 0 0.01 * 0 0.01 ET 3200 3200 161 0.05 0 10 0.05 0 0.05 ER 1600 1600 85 0.05 - 0 0.05 0 0.05 ' WL 1600 1600 36 0.02 - 0 0.02 4 0.02 WT 4800 4800 117 0.09 * 0 10 0.10 * 4 0.10 WR 0 0 326 0.00 - 7 0.00 0 0.00 EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION... 0.66 ' EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/ PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. .. 0.81 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.0. .................................. 0.81 ' Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Description of system improvement: PROJECT: 266 TSF Expansion FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: J INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection: Jamboree & San Joaquin Hills Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 92 AM ' PROJECTED EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COMMITTED V/C Ratio PROJ PROJECT Movement EXISTING PROPOSED PK.HR. V/C GROWTH PROJECT w/o Project Vol. V/C Ratio ' Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. Vol. Ratio Volume Volume Volume IL 1600 1600 33 1*01 - 0 1,01 0 1*11 NT 4800 4800 1527 0.32 * 229 589 0.49 " 0 0.49 NR 1600 1600 91 0.06 - 36 0.08 0 0.08 SL 3200 3200 565 0.18 * - 144 0.22 * 8 0.22 1 ST 4800 4800 1141 0.24 114 570 0.38 0 0.38 SR 1600 1600 22 0.01 - 0 0.01 0 0.01 EL 0 0 269 0.00 - 1 0.00 0 0.00 ' ET 4800 4800 41 0.06 * 0 0 0.06 * 1 0.06 " ER 9999 9999 53 0.01 - 0 0.01 0 0.01 ' WL 4800 4800 74 0.02 * - 19 0.02 * 0 0.02 " WT 0 0 11 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 ' WR 9999 9999 266 0.03 - 69 0.03 5 0.03 ' EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION... 0.58 ' EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/ PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. .. 0.79 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.0. .................................. 0.79 Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Description of system improvement: PROJECT: 266 TSF Expansion FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' Intersection: Jamboree & San Joaquin Hills Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 92 PM ' PROJECTED EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COMMITTED V/C Ratio PROJ PROJECT Movement EXISTING PROPOSED PK.HR. V/C GROWTH PROJECT w/o Project Vol. V/C Ratio ' Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. Vol. Ratio Volume Volume Volume ' IL 1111 1111 89 0.01 ' - 10 0.06 * 0 0.06 * NT 4800 4800 1198 0.25 252 576 0.42 0 0.42 ' NR 1600 1600 94 0.06 - 25 0.07 0 0.07 SL 3200 3200 453 0.14 - 67 0.16 38 0.17 ' ST 4800 4800 1737 0.36 * 243 687 0.56 * 0 0.56 * SR 1600 1600 151 0.09 - 3 0.10 0 0.10 EL 0 0 84 0.00 - 12 0.00 0 0.00 ' ET 4800 4800 28 0.02 * 0 6 0.03 * 0 0.03 * ER 9999 9999 63 0.01 - 0 0.01 45 0.01 ' WL 4800 4800 157 0.05 * - 54 0.06 * 0 0.06 * WT 0 0 60 0.00 0 0 0.00 8 0.00 ' WR 9999 9999 300 0.03 - 134 0.04 0 0.04 ' EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION... 0.49 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/ PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. .. 0.71 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.0. .................................. 0.71 ' Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Description of system improvement: 1 ' PROJECT: 266 TSF Expansion FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: �� ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAM80REE ROAD 8 SANTA BARBARA DRIVE 5310 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1993 AM --------- -----•-._--------_-_.._-_--_--------------•-_-__------•_---------------------------- I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVolune 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 I I I I I I I I I I -----------------••-•-•--------------------------.------------------ I NY 1 4800 1 1 1516 1 0.32 * I I I I I I_ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _I I NR 1 1600 1 1 269 1 0.17 1 1 1 1 1 1 ----------------------------------------------------------- 1 SL 1 3200 1 1 370 1 0.12 * I I I I I 1_ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _I ST 1 48001 1 8391 0•171 1 1 1 1 1 1 I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I 1 SR I I I I I I I I I I I --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -I I EL 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 WL 1 2400 1 1 45 1 0.02 * I I I I I I_ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _I I WT I I I I I I I I I I ' I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I WR I 240D 1 1 131 1 0.05 1 1 1 1 1 1 I. .......................................................................................-.I 1EXISTING 1 0.46 1 1 ' 1---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 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 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems inprovement will be ' less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Description of system improvement: ' PROJECT FORM II JA5310AN ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD 8 SANTA BARBARA DRIVE 5310 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1993 IN -----------------------------------------------------------.-.'------------------------------ IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVOlume I V/C I ' I ICapaeitylCapacityl 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 NL I I I I I I I I I I I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I NT 1 4800 1 1 932 1 0.19 1 I 1 1 1 1 I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I l NR 1 16001 1 1531 0.101 1 1 I 1 1 ' 1--------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- --- --- - I SL 1 3200 1 1 333 1 0.10 1 1 1 1 1 1 I----------------------------------------------------------'--------------------------------I ST 1 4800 1 1 1852 1 0.39 * I I I I I ' I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I SR I I I I I I I I I I 1---------------------------------------------------------------------------------•---------I EL 1 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 2400 1 1 456 1 0.19 * I I I I I I------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I I ur I I I I I I I I I I I____________________________________________________________ I WR 1 2400 1 1 452 1 0.19 1 1 1 1 1 I ' I-----------------------------------I--------------._...------------------------------------i(EXISTING 0.58 1---------------------------------------------------------------------------- IEXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I .-----__-_I- I ' I---------------------------------------------------------------- ------i------ (EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. ------------------------•_••----------------------••_---------------------------------------- 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. wilt be less than or equal to 0.90 I_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systemms 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 JA531OPH ' g� ' CH5055AM ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY & JAMBOREE ROAD 5055 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1993 AM .---•.._....-•---------._'.-'--'..-•.--•--------•--•--'-------------------------------------- IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTIHGIREGIONALICCMMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI ]Movemeritl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVolume I V/C ICapecitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume Iw/o Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I I I 1 Volume I I I I•--••-----------------------•----------------------------------------------------•---------I NI, 1 16001 1 221 0.011 I I 1 I I -------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ' I NT I I --- I I I ----------I- I I I WR 1 1 92 I 1 1 1 1 1 •------------------------------------------------------------------------' I SL 1 1600 1 1 89 1 0.06 • I I I I I. I --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -I I BY 1 32001 1 2221 0.071 1 1 1 1 1 --------------------------------------- SR I N.S. 1 1 5521 1 1 1 1 1 1 I_ ____•----------------------------------------------------------------------•-------------I EL 1 4800 1 1 1047 1 0.22 * I I I I I 1-----•-••--------------__-I-------- ---------------- --------- ----------- ------• ------• ET i i i i I 1442 - --------) 6400 ------------------) 0.23 -----------------------------------------------I I ER I I 2 I I I I I I 1___________________________________________________________________________________________1 ] WL 1 32001 1 561 0.021 1 1 1 1 1 I ---------------------------------------•-----------------------------•-----•----------- -I ] WT 1 6400 1 1 987 1 0.15 r I I I I I ' I--------•-----------------------------------------------------------•----------------------I I WR I N.S. 1 1 921 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 --------------------------------------------------------------------------•--•-------- -I (EXISTING 1 0.63 1 1 ' 1-"'---•-•---------------------------------------•-------------------------- I ]EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I I i -----•----•---------""-----'••--------"".-___-••------••--•----------------------- -I ' IEXISTING + 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_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be ' — less than 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: ' PROJECT FORM 11 CH5055AN ' �b INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection• Coast Hwy & Jamboree Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 93 PM ' PROJECTED EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COMMITTED V/C Ratio PROJ PROJECT Movement EXISTING PROPOSED PK.HR. V/C GROWTH PROJECT w/o Project Vol. V/C Ratio ' Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. Vol. Ratio Volume Volume Volume ' NL 1500 1600 33 0.02 - 10 0.03 * 0 0.03 * NT 3200 3200 309 0.12 * 56 18 0.14 * 0 0.14 * ' NR 0 0 67 0.00 - 5 0.00 4 0.00 SL 1500 1600 150 0.09 * - 26 0.11 * 0 0.11 * ' ST 3200 3200 577 0.18 104 34 0.22 * 4 0.22 * ' SR 9999 9999 1241 0.12 - 389 0.16 0 0.16 EL 4800 4800 727 0.15 * - 315 0 22 * 4 0.22 * ' ET 6400 6400 1243 0.20 149 167 0.25 4 0.25 ER 0 0 14 0.00 - 5 0.00 0 0.00 ' WL 3200 3200 149 0.05 - 14 0.05 4 0.05 WT 6400 6400 1551 0.24 * 186 234 0.31 * 4 0.31 * WR 9999 9999 57 0.01 - 61 0.01 4 0.01 EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION... 0.60 ' EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/ PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. .. 0.78 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.0. .................................. 0.78 Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Description of system improvement: ' PROJECT: 266 TSF Expansion FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: qI INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' Intersection: San Joaquin Hills & Santa Rosa/Big Canyon Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 93 AM PROJECTED EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COMMITTED V/C Ratio PROJ PROJECT Movement EXISTING PROPOSED PK.HR. V/C GROWTH PROJECT w/o Project Vol. V/C Ratio ' Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. Vol. Ratio Volume Volume Volume NL 1110 1111 35 0.02 - 15 0.03 O 0.03 NT 1600 1600 8 0.01 * 0 0 0.01 * 0 0.01 ' NR 1600 1600 62 0.04 - 36 0.06 3 0.06 SL 1600 1600 64 0.04 * - 0 0.04 * 0 0.04 ' ST 1600 1600 12 0.01 0 0 0.01 0 0.01 SR 1600 1600 51 0.04 - 0 0.04 0 0.04 EL 1600 1600 51 0.03 0 0.03 0 0.03 ' ET 4800 4800 185 0.06 * 0 102 0.09 * 0 0.09 ER 0 0 108 0.00 - 37 0.00 0 0.00 ' WL 3200 3200 371 0.12 * - 3 0.12 * 6 0.12 ' WT 4800 4800 294 0.08 0 20 0.08 0 0.08 WR 0 0 86 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION... 0.23 ' EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/ PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. .. 0.26 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.0. .................................. 0.26 ' Projected plus pro0ect traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Description of system improvement: I ' PROJECT: 266 TSF Expansion FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 1 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' Intersection: San Joaquin Hills & Santa Rosa/Big Canyon Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 93 PM ' PROJECTED III EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COMMITTED V/C Ratio PROJ PROJECT Movement EXISTING PROPOSED PK.HR. V/C GROWTH PROJECT w/o Project Vol. V/C Ratio ' Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. Vol. Ratio Volume Volume Volume ' NL 1600 1600 164 0.10 - 15 0.11 0 0.11 NT 1600 1600 21 0.01 0 0 0.01 0 0.01 ' NR 1600 1600 340 0.21 * - 36 0.24 * 38 0.26 * SL 1600 1600 66 0.04 * - 0 0.04 * 0 0.04 * ST 1600 1600 13 0.01 0 0 0.01 0 0.01 ' SR 1100 1600 47 0.03 - 0 0.03 0 0.03 EL 1600 1600 41 0.03 - 0 0.03 0 0.03 ' ET 4800 4800 385 0.09 * 0 102 0.12 * 0 0.12 * ER 0 0 60 0.00 - 37 0.00 0 0.00 ' WL 3200 3200 222 0.07 * - 3 0.07 * 23 0.08 * WT 4800 4800 114 0.05 0 20 0.06 0 0.06 WR 0 0 89 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION. 0.34 ' EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/ PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. .. 0.40 ' EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.0. .................................. 0.42 ' Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Description of system improvement: ' PROJECT: 266 TSF Expansion FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: ' �3 1 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' Intersection: MacArthur & San Joaquin Hills Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 93 AM ' PROJECTED EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COMMITTED V/C Ratio PROJ PROJECT Movement EXISTING PROPOSED PK.HR. V/C GROWTH PROJECT w/o Project Vol. V/C Ratio Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. Vol. Ratio Volume Volume Volume NL 1600 1600 75 "" * - 0 NT 480D 4800 1232 0.26 296 205 0.36 0 0.36 ' NR 1600 1500 9 0.01 - 0 0.01 0 0.01 SL 3200 3200 211 0.07 - 30 0.08 0 0.08 ' ST 3200 3200 958 0.30 * 115 307 0.43 * 0 0.43 ' SR 9999 9999 111 0.06 - 30 0.06 6 0.06 EL 3200 3200 81 0.03 * 199 0.09 * 3 0.09 ' ET 4800 4800 115 0.03 0 28 0.04 0 0.04 ER 0 0 40 0.00 - 8 0.00 0 0.00 ' WL 1600 1600 13 0.01 - 0 0.01 0 0.01 ' WT 3200 3200 220 0.07 0 28 0.08 0 0.08 WR 1600 1600 552 0.35 * 7 0.35 * 0 0.35 EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION... 0.73 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/ PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. .. 0.92 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.0. .................................. 0.92 Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Description of system improvement: PROJECT: 266 TSF Expansion FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection: MacArthur & San Joaquin Hills Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 93 PM ' PROJECTED EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COMMITTED V/C Ratio PROJ PROJECT Movement EXISTING PROPOSED PK.HR. V/C GROWTH PROJECT w/o Project Vol. V/C Ratio ' Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. Vol. Ratio Volume Volume Volume ' NL 1600 1600 41 0.03 * - 1 0.03 * 0 0.03 * NT • 4800 4800 1045 0.22 376 205 0.34 4 0.34 ' NR 1600 1600 11 0.01 - 0 0.01 0 0.01 SL 3200 3200 439 0.14 - 30 0.15 0 0.15 ' ST 3200 3200 1291 0.40 * 232 307 0.57 * 4 0.57 * ' SR 9999 9999 348 0.03 - 30 0.04 23 0.04 EL 3200 3200 504 0.16 * - 199 0.22 * 38 0.23 * ' ET 4800 4800 297 0.07 0 28 0.08 0 0.08 ER 0 0 58 0.00 - 8 0.00 0 0.00 ' WL 1600 1600 13 0.01 - 0 0.01 0 0.01 ' WT 4800 4800 141 0.08 * 0 28 0.09 * 0 0.01 * WR 0 0 262 0.00 - 7 0.00 0 0.00 EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION... 0.67 ' EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/ PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. .. 0.91 ' EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.0. .................................. 0.92 Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Description of system improvement: ' PROJECT: 266 TSF Expansion FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: /_ INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection: MacArthur & San Joaquin Hills Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 93 PM ' PROJECTED EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COMMITTED V/C Ratio PROJ PROJECT Movement EXISTING PROPOSED PK.HR. V/C GROWTH PROJECT w/o Project Vol. V/C Ratio Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. Vol. Ratio Volume Volume Volume NL 1600 1600 41 0.03 * - 1 0.03 * 0 0.03 NT 4800 4800 1045 0.22 376 205 0.34 4 0.34 * ' NR 1600 1600 11 0.01 - 0 0.01 0 0.01 SL 3200 3200 439 0.14 - 30 0.15 0 0.15 * ' ST 3200 4800 1291 0.40 * 232 307 0.57 * 4 0.38 ' SR 9999 9999 348 0.03 - 30 0.04 23 0.04 EL 3200 3200 504 0.16 * - 199 0.22 * 38 0.23 * ' ET 4800 4800 297 0.07 0 28 0.08 0 0.08 ER 0 0 58 0.00 - 8 0.00 0 0.00 ' WL 1600 1600 13 0.01 - 0 0.01 0 0.01 WT 4800 1800 141 0.08 * 0 28 0.01 * 0 0.09 * WR 0 0 262 0.00 - 7 0.00 0 0.00 EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION... 0.67 ' EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/ PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. .. 0.91 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.0. .................................. 0.81 Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Description of system improvement: 4th SBT Added ' PROJECT: 266 TSF Expansion FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 6 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' Intersection: MacArthur & San Miguel Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 92 AM ' PROJECTED EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COMMITTED V/C Ratio PROJ PROJECT Movement EXISTING PROPOSED PK.HR. V/C GROWTH PROJECT w/o Project Vol. V/C Ratio ' Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. Vol. Ratio Volume Volume Volume ' IL 1111 1600 132 0.08 * - 14 0.01 * 2 0.09 NT 3200 3200 1028 0.36 308 75 0.48 0 0.48 NR 0 0 110 0.00 - 4 0.00 0 0.00 SL 1600 1600 6 0.00 - 0 0.00 0 0.00 ST 3200 3200 560 0.35 * 168 104 0.48 * 0 0.48 SR 0 0 174 0.00 - 117 0.00 1 0.00 EL 3200 3200 159 0.05 * 135 0.09 * 0 0.09 tET 3200 3200 65 0.03 0 65 0.05 2 0.05 ER 0 0 22 0.00 - 19 0.00 1 0.00 ' WL 1600 1600 97 0.06 - 2 0.06 0 0.06 WT 3200 3200 184 0.06 * 0 49 0.08 * 4 0.08 WR 0 0 8 0.00 - 0 0.00 0 0.00 EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION... 0.54 ' EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/ PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. .. 0.74 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.0. .................................. 0.74 ' Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Description of system improvement: ' PROJECT: 266 TSF Expansion FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' Intersection: MacArthur & San Miguel Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 92 PM ' PROJECTED EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COMMITTED V/C Ratio PROJ PROJECT Movement EXISTING PROPOSED PK.HR. V/C GROWTH PROJECT w/o Project Vol. V/C Ratio Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. Vol. Ratio Volume Volume Volume NL 1600 1600 50 0.03 * - 14 0.04 * 4 0.04 * NT 3200 3200 624 0.24 262 75 0.34 0 0.34 ' NR 0 0 132 0.00 - 4 0.00 0 0.00 SL 1600 1600 7 0.00 - 0 0.00 0 0.00 ' ST 3200 3200 1006 0.39 * 423 104 0.59 * 0 0.59 * SR 0 0 245 0.00 - 117 0.00 4 0.00 EL 3200 3200 549 0.17 * - 135 0.21 * 4 0.21 * ' ET 3200 3200 291 0.13 0 65 0.16 19 0.17 ER 0 0 134 0.00 - 19 0.00 19 0.00 ' WL 1600 1600 106 0.07 - 2 0.07 0 0.07 WT 3200 3200 120 0.04 * 0 49 0.06 * 23 0.07 * ' WR 0 0 18 0.00 - 0 0.00 0 0.00 ' EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION... 0.63 ' EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/ PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. .. 0.90 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.0. .................................. 0.91 ' Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Description of system improvement: ' PROJECT: 266 TSF Expansion FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: qb 1 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' Intersection: MacArthur & San Miguel Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 92 PM ' PROJECTED EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COMMITTED V/C Ratio PROJ PROJECT Movement EXISTING PROPOSED PK.HR. V/C GROWTH PROJECT w/o Project Vol. V/C Ratio ' Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. Vol. Ratio Volume Volume Volume ' IL 1111 1111 50 1,13 * - 14 0.04 * 4 0.04 * NT 3200 3200 624 0.24 262 75 0.34 0 0.34 ' NR 0 0 132 0.00 - 4 0.00 0 0.00 SL 1600 1600 7 0.00 - 0 0.00 0 0.00 ' ST 3200 4800 1006 0.39 * 423 104 0.59 * 0 0.40 * ' SR 0 0 141 0.00 - 117 0.00 4 0.00 EL 3200 3200 549 0.17 * 135 0.21 * 4 0.21 * ET 3200 3200 291 0.13 0 65 0.16 19 0.17 ER 0 0 134 0.00 - 19 0.00 19 0.00 ' WL 1600 1600 106 0.07 - 2 0.07 0 0.07 WT 3200 3200 120 0.04 * 0 49 0.06 * 23 0.07 WR 0 0 18 0.00 - 0 0.00 0 0.00 EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION... 0.63 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/ PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. .. 0.90 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.0. .................................. 0.72 Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0,90 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Description of system improvement: 4th SBT Added 1 ' PROJECT: 266 TSF Expansion FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: ai ' 1 CH5330AN INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY 8 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE 5330 ' EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1992 AM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI IMovanentl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVolume I V/C I I leapacitylcapaeityl 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 NL I I I I I I I I I I ----------------------------------•-------------------------------------- I MT I I I I I I I I I I I -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -I I MR I I I I I I I I I I I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I SL 1 3200 1 1 48 1 0.02 * I I I I I I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I ' I ST I I I I I I I i I I I___________________________________________________________________________________________I I SR I M.s. 1 1 1031 1 1 1 1 1 1 I -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -I ' I EL 1 3200 1 1 443 1 0.14 * I I I I I I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I ET 1 4800 1 1 1041 1 0.22 1 1 1 1 1 1 -------- ' I ER I I I I I I I I I I I -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -I I WL I I I I I I I I I i _•------------------------------------------------------------------ ' I MY 1 4800 1 1 1103 1 0•23 * I I I I I I --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -I i WR i M.S 1 1 205 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ------------------------------ ______________ ___-------------------------------------------- 1EXISTING 1 0.39 1 1 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 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 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems inprovement will be Less than or equal to 0.90 ' 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project inprovements will be Less than I.C.U. without project ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ' Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORM 11 ' CH5330AM I O'� 1 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection: Coast Hwy & Newport Center Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 93 PM ' PROJECTED EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COMMITTED V/C Ratio PROJ PROJECT Movement EXISTING PROPOSED PK.HR. V/C GROWTH PROJECT w/o Project Vol. V/C Ratio ' Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. Vol. Ratio Volume Volume Volume ' NL 0 0 0 0.00 - 0 0.00 0 0.00 NT 0 0 0 0.00 * 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * ' NR 0 0 0 0.00 * - 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * SL 3200 3200 230 0.07 * - 30 0.08 * 4 0.08 * ' ST 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 ' SR 9999 9999 583 0.06 - 94 0.07 49 0.07 EL 3200 3200 245 0.08 * - 49 0.09 * 11 0.30 * ' ET 4800 4800 1235 0.26 148 13I 0.32 0 0.32 ER 0 0 0 0.00 - 0 0.00 0 0.00 ' WL 0 0 0 0.00 - 0 0.00 0 0.00 ' WT 4100 4100 1213 0.26 * 110 116 0.32 * 0 0.32 WR 9999 9999 104 0.01 12 0.01 11 0.01 1 EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION... 0.41 ' EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/ PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. .. 0.49 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.0. .................................. 0.50 ' Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Description of system improvement: ' PROJECT: 266 TSF Expansion FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: ' 1 a� ' CH60a5AM ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY & AVOCADO AVENUE 60a5 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1992 AM 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 ICapecitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume Iw/o Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I I I I volume I I I I NL I 1 99 1 1 1 1 1 . I ' --------) 1600 ------------------ ). 0.11 *..............................._..............I I NY 1 1 74 I 1 1 1 1 1 1- ----------------------------- -...............----.......------------------....... .I I . NR 1 1600 1 1 92 1 0.06 1 I 1 1 1 . 1 • • I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I SL I I 1 231 I I 1 1 1 1--------) 3200 ------------------) 0.02 *------............-----------------...........I I ST I 1 1 31 i I 1 1 1 1 1 1 -----------------------------------------' -._"'---------------------- I SR I N.S. 1 1 341 1 1 I I I 1 I --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -I EL 1 1600 1 1 86 1 O.OS * I I I I I ---- --------- ------------------------------------------------------ ET I I 846 1--------) 4800 ..................) 0.19 .................------------------------------1 ' I ER i I -- I I I I I I WL 1 16M 1 1 90 1 0.06 1 1 1 1 1 I I . WT 1 1 1132 1 1 1 1 1 I ' ]--------) 4800 ------------------) 0.28 *..................---------------------------- I WR 1 1 197 I 1 1 1 1 I I- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -f 1EXISTING 1 0.46 1 ] ' 1---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I IEXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I 1 I 1 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -I ' ]EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' 1_I 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 It CH608SAN 1 CH6085PM ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY & AVOCADO AVENUE 6085 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1992 PM IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALIC"ITTEDI 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 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 I --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -I I NL 1 1 112 1 1 1 1 1 1 1--------) 1600 ------------------) 0.10 *-...-.............----------------------------I ' I NT 1 1 53 I 1 1 1 1 1 I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I NR 1 1600 1 1 92 1 0.06 I I I I I I ' I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I -- I I I --- I I i----------.I. I I I ST I I 1 109 I 1 1 1 1 1 I---'---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I SR I N.S. 1 1 1421 1 1 1 1 1 1 - -----------------------------"-----------"....--------------------------------------- -I I EL 1 16001 1 381 0.021 1 1 1 1 1 ' I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I ET 1 1 1336 1 1 11 1 1 1--------3 4800 ------------------) 0.29 *--------------------.____..... ---------......I 1 ER 1 1 61 I I I I I I I WL 1 1600 1 1 70 1 0.04 * I I I I I I --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -I I WT 1 1 1006 1 1 1 1 1 1 I--......) 4800 ------------------) 0.22 ------------....-------------------------------I I WR 1 1 43 I 1 I 1 1 1 i - --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -I 1EXISTING 1 0.51 1 I I---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greeter than 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/system:a 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 1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Description of system improvement: ' PROJECT FORM II CH6085PM � p3 ' CH5335AN ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY 6 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD 5335 ' EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1993 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICCHMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVoluae I V/C I ' I ICapacitylCapecityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Voluae Iw/o Projectl 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 I I I I I---------------------------------------'_..------------------------------------------------I I HT I I I I I I I I I I I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I NR I I I I I I I I I I ---' ------------------------------- ------------------------------- I SL 1 3200 1 1 298 1 0.09 * I I I I I ----------------------------------------------------- ' I S1 I I I I I I I I I I --------- ------------------------------------------------- I SR I N.S. 1 1 2311 1 1 1 1 1 I ------------------------------------------------------------------- ' I EL 1 3200 1 436 1 0.14 * I I I I I ---------------------------- ------------------------------- I ET I 4aOO1 1 6751 0.141 1 1 1 1 I --------------' ------------------------------------------------------ I ER I I I I I I I I I I ' I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I WL I I I I I I I I I I ' I Wr 1 4800 1 1 1297 1 0.27 * I I I I I ------------------------------------------------------------------- I WR I H.S. 1 1 8521 1 1 1 1 1 I 1-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I ' 1EXISTING 1 0.50 1 1 I---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I 1EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 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 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 wilt 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 It CH5335A14 � 1 CH5335PM ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY S MACARTHUR BOULEVARD 5335 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1993 PM IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI IMovem ntl 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 Iw/o Projectl 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 I I I I -------- ----------------------------- ---------------------------' I NT I I I I I I I I I I I. ........................................................ ._I I MR I I I I I I I I I I ------------- -----------------------------_...__.. ------------- I SL I 3200 I I 827 I 0.26 • I I I I I I_ ________________________________________________________ _I I ST I I I I I I I I I I I...........................................................................................I I SR I N.s.I I 222I I I I I I I I- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -I I EL 1 3200 I I 307 I 0.10 • I I I I I I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I ET I 4800 I I 1490 1 0.31 I I I I I I I. ....................................................................................... .,I I ER I I I I i I I I I I ' I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I WL I I I I I I I I I I I •--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -I WT I 4800 I I 989 I 0.21 a I I I I I I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I WR I N.S. I I 437I I I I I I I I- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -I (EXISTING I 0.57 I I 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I_I Project + project traffic I.C.U. is 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/systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will ' be less than I.C.U. without project ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Description of system improvement: ' PROJECT FORM II CH5335PM CH6355AN ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY 6 GOLDENROD AVENUE 6355 ' EXIST TRAFFIC VOLU14ES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1993 AN ----------------------------------------------------------------••----------•---------------- IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTIHGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMNITTEDI 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 ICapecitylCapacityl Votume 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------------------------------------ ----------- ------- ------- NL 159 I i i ' I --- --] ------------------> ...............................................I I NT 1600 1 1 22_ 0.08 * I I I I I ........)' i--------I--------) i_.-....-'-...---.-i....----.-.i......-i------_ NR ----20- i--------------------------— ------------------ ------------------------------------- SL 42 I I--------] ..................) ............................................... ST 16001 1 14 0.071 1 1 1 1 I --------) ---------i--------) i-----...'---------i-----------i-------i------- SR 39 -----------------------------------------------------------------------I ' I EL 1 1600 1 1 24 1 0.02 * I I I I I -----------------I--------I-----------------'--------'---------I-----------I--------------- ET 890" --------) 3200' i--......;........) 0.29 i--------i------------------------------------- ER38 .I------------------------------_ --------------------------------.------------------------ I WL . 1 1600 1 1 25 1 0.02 1 1 1 1 1 I ' ----------------------------------- -------------------------- ----------- ------- -------�Wi 1822 -- i - i _ --------3 3200 ------------------) 0.58 i...-..-.i.....----I......-----I......-I- ------.I WR 41 1----------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------I ' 1EXISTING 1 0.68 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 --------------•------------_--_-----------------------------------' ------- ' I=I 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 then 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 - CH6355AN � pb 1 1 CH635SPH 1 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY & GOLDENROD AVENUE 6355 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1993 PM IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTIHGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI IMOvement Lanes I Lanes I PK OR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVolune I V/C I 1 I ICapacitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume lw/o Project I Ratio I I I I I I I I volume I I I -----------------i-____--_i__-----_-___-____I i i ' '-.-_._-- ---___-__ _.___-_-___ --___-_ --.-._- NL 07 1 I........) ------------------) ...............................................I I NT 1600 I I 14 0.07 * I I I I I I --- -) ................ .} _-------------------------------------------- -I I NR I 1 t7 I I I I I 11 1 --------------- ---------- ------- ------------------------------- I SL I I 41 I I I I I I _.17 I..... _.) ................ . _......------------------------.............__.I I ST 1600 I I 7 0.06 I I I I I I ----- ......................1_-...._I....... SR 42 I .:.: I --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -I EL I 1600I I 251 0.021 I I I I 1 1 ---- ET 2006 I--------) 3200 ------------------) 0.64 *------...-------------------------------------I i ER I I 27 - I I I I I i 1 ----------------------I Wi. I 1600 I I 25•I 0.02 * I I I I I -------------• ---- _---_--- .------------------------------------- 1 I I I I I I I I I --------} 3200 i-_--__-_i___----_ 0.40 -----------------------------------------------I 26 - I --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -I (EXISTING I 0.73 I 1 1---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I (EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I I I --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -I 1 (EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I ------_•-------------------------•--•-_-•---------------....--------------------------------- I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. wilt be leww than or equal to 0.90 1 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/system improvement will be Less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will 1 be less than I.C*U. without project• Description of system improvement: 1 PROJECT FORM 11 CH6355PH 1 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection: San Joaquin Hills & Marguerite Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 93 AM ' PROJECTED EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COMMITTED V/C Ratio PROJ PROJECT Movement EXISTING PROPOSED PK.HR. V/C GROWTH PROJECT w/o Project Vol. V/C Ratio Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. Vol. Ratio Volume Volume Volume ' NL 2400 2400 443 0.18 * - 0 0.18 * 0 0.18 NT 800 800 82 0.10 0 0 0.10 0 0.10 ' NR 1600 1600 44 0.03 - 0 0.03 0 0.03 SL 1600 1600 26 0.02 - 0 0.02 0 0.02 ' ST 1600 1600 56 0.06 * 0 0 0.07 * 0 0.07 ' SR 0 0 40 0.00 - 14 0.00 0 0.00 EL 1600 1600 27 0.02 * - 11 0.02 ` 0 0.02 ' ET 3200 3200 59 0.02 0 28 0.03 * 1 0.03 ER 1600 1600 132 0.08 - 0 0.08 0 0.08 ' WL 1600 1600 36 0.02 - 0 0.02 * 0 0.02 ' WT 4100 4800 104 0.03 * 0 22 0.03 * 2 0.03 WR 0 0 34 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION... 0.29 ' EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/ PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. .. 0.30 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.0. .................................. 0.30 ' Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Description of system improvement: PROJECT: 266 TSF Expansion FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: t lO INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' Intersection: San Joaquin Hills & Marguerite Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 93 PM ' PROJECTED EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COMMITTED V/C Ratio PROJ PROJECT Movement EXISTING PROPOSED PK.HR. V/C GROWTH PROJECT w/o Project Vol. V/C Ratio ' Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. Vol. Ratio Volume Volume Volume IL 1111 1111 111 0.07 * - 0 0.07 * 0 0.11 NT 800 3200 58 0.07 0 0 0.07 0 0.03 ' NR 1600 0 33 0.02 - 0 0.02 0 0.00 SL 1600 1600 31 0.02 - 0 0.02 0 0.02 ST 1600 4800 110 0.08 * 0 0 0.09 * 0 0.03 ' SR 0 0 21 0.00 - 14 0.00 0 0.00 EL 1600 3200 31 0.02 11 0.03 0 0.01 ET 3200 3200 166 0.05 0 28 0.06 11 0.18 ER 1600 0 355 0.22 * - 0 0.22 * 0 0.00 ' WL 1600 1600 50 0.03 * - 0 0.03 * 0 0.03 WT 4800 3200 96 0.02 0 22 0.03 11 0.04 WR 0 0 7 0.00 - 0 0.00 0 0.00 EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION... 0.33 ' EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/ PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. .. 0.34 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.0. .................................. 0.35 ' Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Description of system improvement: ' PROJECT: 266 TSF Expansion FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: (� CH6615PM ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION_ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY 3 MARGUERITE AVENUE 6615 ' EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC MINTER/SPRING 190 PM -• --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED '1PROJECTIPROJECTI IMovementI Lanes - I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I WC Ratio (Volume-1 V/C I I ICapacitylCapaeityl Volume-1 Ratio I Volume•[ 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 I I 125•I 0.05 1 I I I I I ' I--------------------------I--------:--------I--------i---------------------i--------------- HT 112 R' --------) 1600 i--------I--------) 0.12 i------------------I NR I------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 I sL I 1600 I i 113 I 0.07 • I I I I I • �- ----------------- --------i-----------------i------------------------------i-------I------- - � < sr 7s --------) 1600 ------------------) 0.09 ---------i-----------------------------I-------� SR 63_ I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I EL 1 16001 1 73-1 0.05I I I I I I ' I--------------------------------------------*---------------------------------------------I I ET- 1 3200 1 1 1692 I 0.53 I I I I I -ER---------1600I I--------I---------- ---- -------------------------------I------------- -� �- 132:1 ' I ------I--------I--------'------------0 ------------I---------I-----------I-------!----- -i c` I-- WT I--------) 3200 ------------------) 0.33 ---------I------------------------------------. WR. 44— . ., . I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I ' 1EXISTING 1 0.75 1 I I---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1EXIST + REG GROWTH + C"ITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS T.C.U. I -----I- .---.. ' I--------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- 1EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. -------_----•-•-----------------------•_--__----__------_-_---------------------------------. ' 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 0.9D ' 1_) Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be Less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will ' be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: ' PROJECT FORM II CH661SPH ' CH6615AM ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY A MARGUERITE AVENUE 6615 ' EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1993 AM -------------------------------------------------____________________________________________ IEXISTINGIPRGPDSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICCMMITTEDI PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio lVoLuma-I V/C I ICapacitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume-1 Volume- lw/o Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I I I I volume,-- I I I I___________________________________________________________________________________________I I NL 1 1600 1 1 168 1 0.11 * I I I I I -----------------'--------------------------'--------I---------I-------------------i-------i NY 68 s _',::k NR 1 1 45 I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I SL 1 1600 1 1 64.1 0.04 1 1 1 1 1 I = ` -----------------i--------i-----------------i--------i---------i-------------------i------- --------) 1600 i--_____-i__-.49-) 0.09 i________i_________-_____---___i-----__i_-_____ SR 95 I___________________________________________________________________________________________1 ' I EL 1 1600 1 1 86-1 0.05 * 1 1 1 1 I I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 I ET— 1 32001 1 765.1 0•24 1 1 1 1 1 I I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I ER' 1 16M 1 1 46-1 0.03 1 1 I WL_ 1 1600 1 1 25.1 0.02 I _________________I--------'--_----- -------iI----____I__-_--___-__---------I-_-_---I--____- :.= � �-- ---) 3zoo i--------i---� -) 0.53 --------i---------i-----------�-------i-----.. WRa. 61 1----------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------I (EXISTING 1 0.78 1 1 1---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I (EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED WPROPGSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I I I___________________________________________________________________________________________1 ' (EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------'-------- ' 1 1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be Less then 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_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will ba•less than I.C.U. without project ----------------------------------------------- ------- ---- Description of system improvement: ' PROJECT FORM IT CH6615AN ICI l)I 1 I ' CH6800AN INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY R POPPY AVENUE 6800 S BASED 01 GE DAILY IC WINTERISPRING ' -E%IST TRAEXISTING PROPOSED EXIST NGAEXISTING R GIFORAL COMMITTEDI PROJECTED- PROJECT P 1993 JECT IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVolume I V/C I I ICapacitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume -Iw/o Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I -----------------'--------I----------------- -------- --------- ----------- _------ ------- NL ......19 ' I I I ' _ I NT 16001 1 3 0.021 1 1 1 1 1 I........) ------------------) -----------------------------------------------I ' I NR I I I 73 I I I I I I SL 1 1 29 I--------) ..................) ...............................................I ST 1600 1 1 4 . 0.03 * I I I I I --------) -------- .---.._....---... .--_..._I SR 11 I--------------------------------- -----I ' I EL 1 1600 1 1 10 1 0.01 * I I I I I --- ----------_i----_---i-------------------------i---_---_-i-----------i-------i_---. - ET 752 I --------)' 3200 ---------i--------) 0.24 ---------I-----------------------------i-------I ER8 1-------------------------------------------------------------------- -_---I 1 WL 1 1600 1 1 9 1 0.01 1 1 1 1 1 1 ----- i----------- ------- ------- -----_-I--------I-------_- _-----'-_---_- -----I ' --------) 3200 i--------i ) 0.49 i--------i---------I-----------i----___i-------I WR 15 I____ ----------------I-----_--I-------_-------------------------------_------I OM I ' IE%-STING ------- IE%IST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSG 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 I_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be Less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORM II CH6800AN 1 CH6800PM ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY 6 POPPY AVENUE 6800 ' EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1993 PH --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALIC"ITTEDI PROJECTED 1PR0JECTIPR0JECTI IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio lVol me I V/C I I ICapacitylcapacityl Volume I Ratio I Voluss I Volume lw/o Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I _-._•.--.._-.-•--i...-•---i................. ..-..... -..._---.------------ ------- -------I NL 33 i i i i 1........) ------------------) ....................----.......................I I HT 1600 1 1 5 0.05 1 1 1 1 1 1 ........) ..................)- I.......................----------------------- NR 46 -----------------i--------i-- ------- ---------_...----- ----------- --------------- SL 78' i i i I........) ..................) ----------.....................................I ST 1600 1 1 8 0.06 • I I I I I ---SR--) I-----------------) ---....--I------------------------------------- ---------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------I ' 1 EL 1 16001 1 221 0.011 1 1 1 1 1 _..ET---------------------------- ---------i.-....-.i...---..-i....-..------------------- I --------) 3200 ------------------) 0.51 i--------i---------i-----------i-------i-------! --- --- - I ER - I WL 1 1600 1 1 27-1 0.02 * I I I I I ' ...�-----------i----..--i....... .......i.......-i--._.---.i-----------i--------------- 965 I---.....) 3200 ..................) 0.31 I-.....--'---------I---...-----I--....-i------- WR 11 1-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I ' 1EXISTING 1 0.59 1 1 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-------- ' 1_1 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 then 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 li CH6800PH ' 10 APPENDIX C ' PARKING CALCULATIONS ' Fashion Island Expansion C-1 Austin-Foust Associates,Inc. Traffic Analysis 017043.rpt '' -------------- PARKING CALCULATIONS ' 3661 spaces occupied (April) = 2.73 spaces occupied (April) 1340.19 7SF* TSF 2.73 (April Rate) _ 3.64 spaces filled (Design Period) ' 0.75 (April to Design ratio) TSF ' A parking lot can be considered "full"when parking demand equals 85 to 90 percent of the actual number of spaces. This accounts for the turnover of spaces between vehicles coming and going ' and minimizes the number of vehicles searching for vacant spaces. For the existing mall and 309,550 square feet of expansion, the design period parking demand would be: 1340.19 TSF x 3.64 spaces/TSF = 4878 spaces ' + 0.723 x 309.55 TSF x 3.64 spaces/I'SF = 815 spaces 5693 spaces (occupied at peak time) Note that the same factor (0.723) was applied to the expansion's parking demand as was to the expansion's trip generation. Calculation of safety factor (i.e. buffer) with code required parking: 5693 spaces occupied ' 6599 spaces provided (at 4 spaceMF) = 0.86 Okay, indicates parking buffer will be within normal design criteria ' * Includes 27,500 S.F. of theater use (1700 seats) Fashion Island Expansion G2 Austin-Foust Associate,Inc. Traffic Analysis 017043spt l A survey of the existing Fashion Island parking lot showed that there are 5,699 parking spaces currently available. The following calculation shows that the anticipated parking demand during the ' design period will exceed the available parking by 900 spaces: ' 6599 required spaces (@ 4 per TSF) - 5699 available spaces 900 deficit (design period) I ' Fashion Island Expansion G3 Austin-Foust Associates,Ina i Traffic Analysis 017043.rpt I ME Y Tzui 71 ar " ���� '1 %.✓... �[ai[:FSV:Ni•A:' txv'7•ik.> �. '�Y.3:✓...:.Yrl:^^� -.:J •..•y.7•t�a.«.�. o� X YfS�Y � DNA FASHION ISLAND EXPANSION Traffic Analysis Prepued for. City ofNeeport Bad Prep wW by: Awt6NFwot Aswei u 2020 N. Tuttia Avenue Saute Am, Gd bmii 9=1 (714)667.0496 July 14, 1994 CONTENTS Pogo BXECU M SUMMARY L INTRODUCTION Proj=Desa4mba . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . .. . ...... . . .. . .. . . . .. . .. . .. .. . I-1 AnidydsScope . .. . .. . . . . . . . ..... . . .. . .. .. . . . . .. . .. .. . . . . ... . . .. . I i Ddbgtkms . .. ... . . . . .. . .. . . . . .. . . . . . .... . . . . . . . .. .. . .. . . . . . . . . . I.4 Rddrawm.... .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. .. . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .... . . I-5 IL PROJECT SRTt G �BMIAW4 Netwack .. . .. . . ... .. . .. .. . . . . .. .. . .. . .. . . . .. . II•1 Editing and Brokproand Conditiom.... . . . . ... .. . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . .... . U-2 III. ` TRIP GfiN13RATION IV. UP TRAFFIC ANALYSIS V. ORT RANCrB AlPACIS VL PARKING ANALYSIS APPIMICES: A. &dtdoat(2010)ICU Worksheets B. Mdm,,Phmius Qnttamm ('i'P(?) Warbhocu i LIST OF FIGURES Page I-1 Project Lo ation .. ..... . .. . .. . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2 I-2 Iateraecskoa Study I.ac dk= . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3 M-1 PM Peals Hour Project Mtti mdan Percaatades . . . . . .... . .. . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . M-5 IV 1 Year 2010 AVr Vol== -witb Projcct. .... . . . .. ... .. . .. .. . ... .. . .. .. . . TV-2 VI-1 Avagabb Newpoct Center Parking Sp&M Mpical weekday) . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . .. V14 ii R}r{ k � I LIST OF TABLES Paps U-1 ICU CMVUiKM-Rdsting and Bw Futmd OmWd m: . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . II 3 III-i Tidp CTenerstion Summmy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . ... .. .. . . M-2 IV-i t(2010) ICU Comp uWn .. . . .. .. . .. . .. . .. . .... . . .. .. ... .. ... . . IV-3 V-1 IM Mab*InWaecWas Itanbed.by Order of Impact . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-2 V-2 Im, Mab *ICU with a 266 TO Project . . . . . . .. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-3 } �'`, pt EXECUTIVE SUMMARY t l a r6JCA ythadug The proposed project would expaFdshiva Ldand Shopping Canter by anadditional 266,000 square f is subjecewport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance �o (TPO). In addition,43,550sgttarefxt haseveloped entitktttant resulting in ,7. ,,,, squaw feat that has bees relative t0 the parking needs of the overall expanded center. � �,r 6enrrr.� plt•� . An analysis of the project buildouiu&u 2010)conditions teveals that the proposed 266,000 square foot expansion would have no signifc ant impact on the circulation system The ICU at eight intcii=—i nsvm—uidi=uwbyowp==MmA teremaining61interaectionswouldhavenochange of their ICU due tothepn t �a�� s�' 1``^" Jun• � oG is -" w� W ,m- PnJ uk , o �+t, is avw r"rsriilcss paG 1 'in¢,p `vf a, d ``II cv� f A1P0 ans�sle reveals that the 266,000 square flbotecp4non would fair the one pe=t test % v,r, at IS inham; ti nz during the PM peak hour,thcs f nal analysis. is Of the 15, w, fy%% u only two (MacArthur Boulevard at San Miguel Drive and at San Joaquin Hire Road)exceed level `sup"r'V 4 fi: of service(LOS) 'V. Additionally,imptoventeati for MacArthur Boulevard(which art:Planned" be in place before the pro*Is completed) will f t ny mitigate each intersection to LOS M"or better. L I-en�w/tMp.w/ oSe.A er4) .a...l 'ef I V tl• Burldout&the proposed�ptoject as well as unbuilt,but entitled,development would result in the need for approximately I,M additional puking spaces during the peak holiday season and during one or two spatial events throughout the year. This Parking shortage could be eliminated by one or more of the following actions: rH� - Restripe the existing parking dot to more (but smaller)spaces - Construct it multi-level parking structure on one of the misting surfam lots - Implement an off-site parking program where employees park in other Newport Center parting lots Anti are xhuttled to Fashion Island " Prov;Ac wddf{'ienr.I PurE,`� .61= st#-.c aid-t.�. wri�,� nd:; vs.111 o��sV-6.hw of Wtt'� +.LC.aYufi sGr1=N� su�ti` A survey of Fashion Island tenants and employees shows that a wMcient number of employees would be available to k off-site, thus making enough parking aP� available for Z AA400t&W su of available parking in Ntwrpurt Ccuwx vedfics that suf5dOnt ld be available for as uou islan em oyees to park there.1 .�.. I INTRODUM N This report prowess the resuba of a trek impact and parlang maty* of the proposed c Tanaion of rho Fmh&m Nand shopping Coma;in the chy of Newport l3eaoh. MOP=DESCRWEEON The propoW pmjwt consists of expmdipg the a&sing Fashion island Sboppmg Ceater by approdmatcly 20 Pe¢c'ant Fipue I 1 shows the location of FuN n himd. The composition of the asp nidon would be retail uses wmpatiblt W&the CdIuWg Center and would be located at various locations within the mall At this ' wither thetit of uses nor their spodgc locations ban been determined. Zeta siae� OOD square fock wbich is the bash ,✓ of the T"Mc phodag Ordinanon(M)malysiL The pmkm4 aaalyris Am aadre"m AOCO aqum feet that is entitled if the developer builds an afiotdabic scaler housing pn*cct at Lowot liayvkw ,ra Landing per the terms of the Crcula m Improvement and Open space Agreement and alm 13,55O square feet coO&ts of anbutlt,but previouslf approved nddement in Fashion Island. 11tis bdw the totaladded sgnare.fnotap analyzed in the parking study to 309450 KF=beet ANALYSIS SCOPE The trafc analysis examines theEimpacts of adding ptojectI mated trek to the existing trWEV on tlw xuroundiag usenet wtwosir. This analysis wns done in w=dmm with the C%ty a Newport)leach's TPO Guidelines. The Tp0 requires any intersection within the(Sty to be studied if the addition.of rsglouat gruwLb,wiwuiued projects and the propontxt pmjcct iaucam rho volume of any approach by one percent or more. The 33 intrrseCtions where the one Percent test wan appIM are shown in Fiyute I 2. IW2*0 Mad aiy,r.i w I-2 wa,u�Favt w..o�r>eN.Tm Tra4ft AoHrb 7"pix IXAtltiWATSu'OHLY9 � noa PROJECT SITE i i i tug YN 7` Ne= PACIRC OCEAN Ftgure i-1 PROJECT LOCATION 11 /3 p � Mac 9R-55 ACKi1MEHT IS 1 - d/dtAIIAAC d♦LY 1 1 14 1n 29 �1 r 1 � n is 34 1 33 37 i ILAY so as na PROTECT SITE 1_ 40 44 43 # p 1 52 1 41 -- 46 Z r 47 49 N 48 53 34 MIMY �~ 27 _ d T 6 it may +T °' PACFIC 2 'OCEAN Figure 1-2 MTER9ECTION STUDY LOCATIONS +, GP A IL Condom arith the format nod for project g4mw*the USM anal9dt mateial presented here is ad out as follow': Mapter 11-Pmjoat Setting Cfwpter III- Project Trip Generation Chapter IV-BuU4out Trdk Aaatlab Chapter V-Shmt.Range(TPO)Analysis tampter VI-Parft Anab* Detailed subsis milts no also contained at the and of the report as technical appendices and referenced in the test where appropriate. DEFINMONS Curia terms and abbreviations used tbrooghout this report are defined below to clarify their intended meaning: ADT Average DA41VAM •'� ICU Intersection Capacitor Utr7isatioa. A f rotor uaod to manure the voiomelcapacity ratio for an intersection and to determine its level Of Service. LOS I.erel of Service. A Scale used to evaluate circulation system pc fOrmance based on vuhunciOtpaCity ratios Of arterial Segment' Or intersection ICU values. The levels rap from"A' to 'a:," with LOS "A' representing fege flow traffic and LOS "F tepraentiag Severe traffic aongesticm. PEAR HOUR 'Ibis geaera4 resets to the hour during the AM peat period(typically 7-9 AM) or rho PM pair parsed (typicatiy " PIK) hi which the greatest number of vehicle trips ate generated by it given fend use or arc travda8 on a given roadway. VPD Vehida Per Day. TW has the a=meaning as ADT but is Swerally used in a trip Aeteration coated rather than in rcf=mw to the hW way volume of an arterial segment. V/C Votume4o•OspacityRatio. This is typicailg descnbed a a percentage of capacity utilized by eustlag or projected traffic on a segment of arterial or an intersection turn movement. rn8iw Loud 8+r . = rdAram��.� Taft AMIYO REFERENCES 1. 'Tap Gc=adml Sth Edition. Imdtute of Transportation En&=M 1991. 2. "1992.1993 bWneebm Count Data,"City of Newport Beach CalKn * 1991 r-� PfMblm 2Wo0�b° 13 A=d*VQ%rt AmaLon.L¢ 1l'allfa Ards -� II PR(l_TF.C'T SF=fz ma chapter deacabes the project site m relation to the ttaosportation sashay, The Costin3 circulation tystean is dbcw= ,and using and ba ftround traffic volumes and levels at service are svmmarkc& SURROUNDING HIGHWAY NEf WORK Re&aal roues to the project site is cu=*provided via the C mm rW Mar FAY (SR 73) and the San Diego Remy(1405) wbxb are located apprammately three and five mr'ka, rapccdvclyt to rho nos%L. The SR-73 Ftccvvay cmmutly tormmUs at MacArthur Boulevard which then continua peat the project site. Rc&nd access is also provided by Pac&Coat Mghwq which runs along the east appmximately one-half mile from the project. Additionalre&IW arealaWnwMbeprovidod in the future by the pLmnodsanjoa4m lulls Transportation Corridor(S7RTC'D. The SJHW is a controlled access tall road that will eatond the SR-73 Freeway in the CRy of Newport Bomb southerly from MacArthur Boulevard to the Santa Ana (I--5)Fre"W in south that County. The SJ=(SR-73)wM be located appraaomately two mnca northeast of the pmect with inkrdtangea at MacArthur Boulevard anal Ford Road The SJI•M is scheduled to-be amnpleted by March of 1997 while the completion of this project i alas currently antx3pated to occvr in 1997. With the escgton of the STITI'C, the roadway system within the Study ma is largely budtouL Jamboeoe Road is a six-kne major arterial just west Of the prt' jm site which prwkiea access from the north and the south. MacArthur Boulevard Cmt east of the Pam) also PrU kks north/South access. MacArthur Boulevard is c urmu ly snr lanes to the north of Boon Avenue, five Lana browses Bison Avenue and Ford Road and four lanes to the south. PLdnS am mmeatiy being rw,�w M.uo n r wntle.ibud A.vrd.u.,tee ThMAo1171r 01704S* prepared to widen MacArthur Boulevard to eight ISM north of Fad Road and to sir]am from ,-� Ford Road through San Jottquin IitOs Road. San Joaquin liilYi Rand is a sac lanemaja artaiai from Jamboree Road to Marguer]te Avenue where it continua to Newport Coast Drive W a four lane per,ateru (Aal S44L"%ce. &T cc y 4,�&Wc7 l!vks r WjPmtkp 4 �ts,kl c+cwss� A detailed analysis of this circulation system is prmcWcd in the >30110wiug chapter. The Gw'") Plu^ lwildout amlysis(year 2010)lank:at intmsecticm and roadway linim throe;bout the City of Newport Beach. Tbo short-range (M) analysis studies the Mowing list of 33 mwsecUous idenufled for tasting by City Stag 2 B000spedw i PM W.h6cArOm i VIM I Rfimsbls&KH 3a.JambmvsaFad & Tana i mm A ahauaaa i Fad 1 m9Q&dW4& mpr 46. JmbmeeiSHRaW 11 Jmwm&c cum 4&Ambom4h:K i IX 0mryw&2d0dN. 44. SerfsRami31HRaW 14. ) i&MatK 46. Uw*t wiUKAnd 17. tbmgw&Vd"S 46, UWArOW 41 So beet la. ]eMvb i" ' -a. 47.Xa4°ei QW r i Teri 27. Do afflgimo i PM 4R AtON&a KH SR 801Wei Fm 49. KWArdW i PCH 29. NkAtrir i 3mDa m Sl. Oddrmvd i K7i 30. Jmbom a A Sb -I I , - i 31H Rota U Jmbom i aaLbt i S&a4romm a Kit 34, kmbaa i l WM*y % hm i KH 7f. femhaaw X Aiam a� EUSTING AND BACKGROUND CONDITIONS ar ��ere"^ Editing traffic volume:were obtained fivm the City of N Beach's 1992.1993 TPQ Database(Reference 2). the czls g conditions data condsts of oo performed m 1992 and 1993- to be used for all tra®c studies prepared for the City. In addition,bmi;groand'traft prided by the City and represent awes prgwis that have already ret: b"apptovat from the City m well as regional growth. Table II 1 summarim the ICU's for add*and bwJWOuud cunditions (mmud ICU cak:uhuims arc Included is Appendix D} P'mhim hdn"EWPmlm II-2 AwrroFnmt AModNe6 Tank AWj* 1 'labile IId r� ' ICU COMPARMN lSd t W Batgom!L1WMM B)OBMO Bxgrrm 4 ��gg991.74Q0) RAOtl[7ROtlMt! IItlERgBCfION /lift PM 3tl�f PM Z BdbottSuNatoc4tPQi .73 90 T. Rhalm A PC6 .7P .P4 8. 'NHt 4t PC11 d9 .76 9 MWAIG Mr A CAM= .78 86 11. Va rr s cm w 38 13. JtobaeesCOMpw .61 +12 iS Coupea tt 8e1M61 N. A4 31 I& Bkei&BdMol N. .76 Jib 17. ampmand"& sx .13 a Bka 0 arm& 6e As V. Dmwmgdm ok PCH .71 A6 zs " PC1i e.5 m .76 s ZR l(WAcdlW&J lbQm .70 J3 3a JwbMW A R" N. AS IAl 3Z Jobau&lkI- I 70 31 3t Jsebote &u*mrdw A➢ At 3S 36dbare A 8ba m .74 37. M4oNdw a am 32 AZ 38 tutbaea s Fad AS a 36 MwarowaPbld 46 Al 40. J6abom SMRod A9 .71 41. 7mbMW R Sub Bo76w S6 .79 r' 4Z lmbom l PCH AD .78 44. SoMt Rag R S1H Rad 34 AD 45. idmoNOwc'«.MiRad A7 .PI 46. hWMAMw4t 8m MpM m 3D 41. Nwepottcomw3PCH Al A9 46. Ammb*PCH .31 AD 4% bboArom R PC H 37 AD SL oddomw o PCit .73 90 n UmVmdle4tMHRO@d m .34 Si umww h t PCH 78 A9 34. pww 4t xn 39 .74 IA'Wd 6M IN KOM AO- ADA Al- .70 D It- .9D C Al. JOD 31-1AO B AbM IAD F •NO&TRU M 11eMa�1eLnd Gpwrpa 1XA Anrte•FhM AtIIOdMM Im ?cefliaAwl)6ic 017043* PRMCT I,M GENERATION This dmptadacnbes the trip generation of ftpropxw pit- �e setual p data is given as well'ts a disco dw of the derivation of the trip racer. M dkcuMal in Chapta 4 an prom pwjoct wa tbis of expowilug Me eadsttag Fahbn Island awwws cenw. The opwion woadd not Caceed 264m:bane ka aced would wMt of row um dispea w tbrwgbotat the Mau that woatld to oompattbb with tlto emsting Comer. --�M�o addid=W 43,550 squ me fcet dac=W earlier w bong antdyad in the parVmg auaYw �y s `lts W part of the a kit aced W*gmund condition. UaeSora, the baf0c impact portion of this anat*will only be coadving the proposed 2KOW square feet. t\N� As Tabu III 1 indicates, the 260M squaro fact addition being propaad is aft ted to geaerata5,2o3 d*trips,of wbkch 378 trips wM be gm=awd during the critical PM peak hrmr. @ TYrp rotas for tho paopaal addition am band on the rM equation for shopping Ceuta: as aPPb:d to trip generation afiureatly o=ffing at the cam. Case studies reported by PPE have shown that the trips geoeaated by a:bopping Center do not incaeare linearly with An i=*Me in SIM �\ of the centao In other words,a percentage of the "trips" to a new stop would harp boon at the center she*. Fw"Mud a wwalm TIM An.lio.lbaK AM tua MIM AUb* , Irsta ut-i ram. TRIP OBNERAWN SUM KARY —PIA PEAK HOUR— r�xn rSE UNITS IN OUT 7WAL ADT FX*"bw awsmom 2%TSF 165 213 378 51M ADT AND FEM HOUR TRIP RATE SUMMARY —PM PEACHm-- ISM I= 1N = _RUAL ADS FssAfaL atS�sniaa TSF -a W L42 19if •^1 Flr"Lined g"=Wa III 2 Awt s.F°tMt Amd tm Im Tuffie Ambsk The following tabie shows that based on"HE equation for shopping venters over S70 TSF, the trip generation for a 1,200IW venter is 36,831 vehicles per day. Ile trip geasxation for a 1,700 TSF center is 47,926 vehicles per day. This indicates that the additional SW TSF generated 11,W trips or 22.19 trips per TSF. This rate (22.19 trips per 45F)is 723.pecoent of the 1,200 ISF rate. lib TRIP OENMtATiON BOUA710M FOR RIOPPINO CENM W:GREATER THAN s7o TSF LaM•0.7561aM+S.t54 wtasn T-ALIT ufp aeaxsfbn xU Pfolm do(M TRIP OYNFRATION SUMMARY $C/$ am RATE t,=7W 36AM 3Qb9 1�Lereaoe Ilm WA The Fashwa)'stand Shopping Center collects driveway counts 24 hours a day,365 days a year. r These counts.together with the sine of the esistimg Fashion ti WA Sbaimi g CJerut indicate that an average daily trip generstion of 27.05 vehicles per TSF is being gea>ctatod by the existing center. Applying the praviousty discussed factor of 72.3 pmmt to this measav ed rate malts in a daily trip generation rate is 19.56 vehicles per TSF. This is the rate utilized to aaal}ree the proposed expansion as it represetlta the Sndiags of rM studies applW to the trip gc ocration cbaraatcristics mcasurod at Fashiatt Island. The ratio of the PM pears hour trip rate to this d*trip rate is taken to be the same as the relationship between the two rates is the Newport Beach TrafSc Analysis Model QWAM). The table below shows this relationship. NOTAM Mon= ADTRsm zzao It.% PM Pwk How lhw %AD IA2 Rado 1381 t3at rhrhim]id�nd E1q,anim 111+3 Amah0 of 02A M 1W. Tn6 Auly* Dkug stun of pmjmt generated trafc was totem from the dumbution for Fashion Island generated by the NBTAhL Pigure.Ml shawl the project'= PM pear hour distrbutkm within the study aces for short-rangc(,(FvSni'IVYcondWom Tho numb=shown in F*m M I rCpraroat the percent of the projects totat(Wmxmd plus outbound)trip pmerationby dire dim ApP=mately 20 percent of the pmjcct nips=ezpcctod to begin or end within Newport Center itself: Therefore, d0 percent of the toW trip generation it dbU*u ed onto the highway netw dr- mry� nu Airm Fowe aA tea IV BUR ROUT TRAFFIC A •YSIS This chapter presents the results of a buildout (year 2010)analysis of the proposed 2CA00D square foot exp onion of the Fashion Island ShoppinS Center. Tbc Nuwpurt Beach Tralliic Analysis Modcl(NHTAM)was used to determine what impacts, if any,the proposed project would have on the CiVs buildout circulation system. Figure W-1 shows the yea 2010 ADT volumes with the project trips included. As can be seen ci Table IV 1, the project increases the ICU at eight intmiecdons by one percent or less and such impacts arc not considered significant. The remaining 61 intersectiom are not aftcted by the project. / Of the eight affected intersections, only one, Jamboree Road at Bristol Street North, is forecast to be over capacity with or withnut this project. For this location the PM peak hour ICU increases from 1.11 to 1.12 due to an increase of ten trips in the southbound through direction. This ud 5 iuteDwtiou is situated a relatively long distance from the actual project site and it wems doubtful that an increase of 10 trips in this remote intersection will actually have even the one percent impact predicted by this analysis. In concluaionr the proposed 266,000 square feet project has no sigmt"mt impact on the Uty's buildout circulation system. Fwwot UUnd Bxpmift N-1 Aw�in-Fomc Ire. Mi tie Amtyxit 1 w Amf N SR-7y6 AUGH4EetT IS J" 'r gMRAIIAM ONLY .I � . I a I � )fit + F WY y` .w aO PR0.gCT 577E '> I n j 9 A a to u si �� 11f! 1 3 � � ♦ + r Mi YY 1 2 ♦ IM 1� ItRUQ PACIFIC 4 s 'OCEAN a I.WEM Figure III-1 PERCENT OF TOTAL PM PEAK HOUS PM PELW HOUR TRIP GENERATION (BY DMECTLON) PROJECT LMSTRLHUTION PERCENTAGES J z auw�A— �IYS �� 4s �, 4-/ e 5 6 u 6 � I' a ' a �a � Y i h ►' to m ICI Tt Ulf i PACIFIC OCEAN Fipure IV-1 �{ r G •- YEAR 2010 A PROWMES (000s) 1 TAW 1Vd �1 BURMUT(2010)1ct1 COMPARISON WnMUT WIIH FROA= FROM= AN PM . AM PM L PYcmda a Supwm A •64 .60 .64 z 81vawaFCH .86 AO 36 A0 & Diatpmt a H"tw .79 m .79 Jr- 4. Nmpmt SD ROMP a Ncrpmt 32 .6s d2 A S. Norpm a VIA Lido .0 .73 45 .73 & NowpW a 321d 74 79 .74 .79 7. Rho*&APCH .67 a .67 A6 !R Taad4 a PCH $7 AS s7 65 A UwAnbw a CYtlpw 90 L04 AO i OP 10. MacA"bw&Dkvb .87 m .67 A6 11. VO4 Ratmn it C+mpu .72 91 .72 91` 12 fAWATUM A Von Rnmm J8 Aa SS AZ M Zambom&CMIpta .79 m .79 A3 14. Jambmw a SkO .77 A0 .77 AO M Cmgw a Sdotd N Ji6 L17 A6 IXT'.' 16 W b W8Io1N .79 .97 .79 M." 17. C mpim a Hdad S S7 1.08 97 1Ai' ' 18. 8imb a Mvi S .62 93 42 9f` 19 fnift*bim 1.15 129 LL45 L2! 2u UTM A Umm" .7$ L21 .73 ix 21. 11ri4caSmdllW=d A6 A7 A6 67 22 avbw a HwdmkirAV& JO 39 m J" 2& k. A Dww/19th .0 .62 42 A 24. lnin&1*491dM tb A 97 a A7 25. Dwcra Wotidq[ SO .47 30 .47 x EW%W a Lek 46 •45 36 AS 27. Dmw$rjab=&PCH SD .82 W .82 2& Hry"a FM 91 .97 91 A7 29 MamlitbarAJaaabma,: -,wr- $6 .1.12 f��i�bmrs"a•ldiktI4"^._ � - 1,06� L11. e _Lro6r Lls;;; � �: 32 Jambmw a Bw6id S .81 1.24 J31 1ri1 IL Jmiwear a Rarim V im 97 JIG 34. Jambaoa a 1l4mrsky A Lll A 7+tYry 935. Jat4b m a BY04 Ad AJ AG J16 ✓ 37. MwArMwAVbw .61 AD .61 AD 3K Ja41"m a ftd A3 9S AS W, 39. Mac"ur a Fad .38 M s8 A3 40. Jaalbmaa a WH Rd 91 A2 Jri A2 4L Jaatbam A Sams Barbara .64 .75 44 79 42 Ja®bo m A KV A9 86 99 A6 (4:anttnaai) Fmhkm Isbad BR+atwton IV-a Amin-Faye Atwdum I= TaW Andysb 017043.tpt Zhwa TV-1(w 9 BMLDOIIT(MO)ICU COMPARISON WITHOUT wrm PROJECT PROMCT i»'I'FpaT'MON AM EM AM PM *a Somb C=A SM Rd .40 A2 .40 A3 44, Santa Row SIR Rd 31 AS .31 .45 45. MrAdW SJH Rd .53 .79 53 .79 46. MWAMT A am 14WW .77 .n .77 .75 47. Newport Cmkr A PCH is A2 .55 .42 4& Avoodo A KH J7 .71 .57 .71 49. YAWAT W A PCH J3 J2 43 J2 sa Sm fAfpd A S)H Rd J3 m m $5 31. Oddmwd i PCH .74 Ao .76 Av 051 Msyralfe A SJH R4 J6 A6 .56 .47 ✓ 33. bbWmue 8'PCH .77 .75 .77 Js 54. ftff&PCH is Al d8 At 03s. Isthamm .63 $9 A 49 ✓ .S, BW&KH .76 81 .76 42 57. Newpott WS UW 4t PCH 42 P3 42 is s0. NmVM Cams A TCH .51 A .Sl 44 M SMh"Hilt A 4AI Rd A m .63 .52 6m San wpd A Spyplma Hm .15 16 .15 .16 61 Coyam q%A DMIw Cyn 37 Al .97 .St a" Qu Dr A tlanpa CYO .64 A7 .64 A � 65. Nmpm cut A SJH Rd 74 As .74 d8 66. Bbm A SIHIC ER Rmp .63 .67 .H4 67 ^. 67. Bias A SJMC WB RamDa .51 56 JI J6 6R And A$11M BD Ramp" 39 .74 39 .14 69. Fad A InITC WB Romps A A AS .66 71. Nwtpon Coast A SBdTC BB .48 .74 A8 .14 73. Nowpx Cora&Wln'CWD Sr .62 J2 J2 074. SuA Qm A MM BB Ramp .61 A A .49 ✓ 75. Saod 00 A M=WD RampO .66 67 66 JT 0 lndfatat lawdm wh ICU inaeme LA%*of dW taMM 00- .60 A A- .70 B .71- 40C Al- AD m-IN It AbM 1.00 F Fehioa btaa/66pw»ioa N-4 AuAta.Fout Amclatca.lac 11stOC Aaaty+ia 017043.tpe r� V SHOO .RANGE HVIPACTS The prof es :tort-range (pre4HrM impacts vtere analymd using the City$ m momadoloV. mm wo mathodo m involvas Hr *at j mwaw traffic is greater dtan eta patoent of the=bring plw background velum for ONO"appcmach. If the project hassle is Im than tW uo fuM=study is roquirod at that krardan. a .st rcvtY l' r�Svl�y,'t., a eLw .0 .r ,01 If an iutetaectian faits the came sett, the TM states that midption is mgtdred if the resulting ICU'it 091 (LM"E')or As can be seen is Table V l iS of the 33 intersections fan the ow petoent test for the proposed 2KOW TW prajoct. Table V 2 shawl that two intmwcdm%MwA►rtbur Boulevard at San M pcI Drtvo and at Sao JOKM HM Rand,exceed LOB "D"dteasotbe -)-r�(G� h tfw -r-xis{, fl.rt 6.tk�rer++A• -�-n��ia. addi}im .Pry The City of.Wowpost Beach has roadway impmvemem schodukd far MwArdw Boulevard at its intmoctioas with San AGgud Drive and Son Joaquin H1l Rand that add a thud thru-lsae in each&ccbm The table blow shoves that tbese imps WAI midgata the two intasoctions to IuM of mrAz (LW)"W cm bcUcr. PM FEM HOUR ICU-- tx7tmRA[`I'tffN WI0WMATTON WA JMTI0N MscAnitur ssa)Qpat .9r 32 MwAtthw A Im Jewgd.M&Rd .92 At F*Wm hand Qwmw„ va Amtk4rbl*Amodsftfv Im (411 ANALYSIS 1 II1 _x �) 7tC1I0 HY ORDBR OF DfACr ALLOWABLE ALLOWAKE MAMMON TRIM SIMPOUR BEFORE CAITICAL DWIRMIMON W FAUZM 3% FAILQtO 1% LOCATION APPROACH in TM CRrr tIA C.tt111l1t1A SZ Mr paft A SJR Rd WB i 2313E 46. MWArtbW t So Opel WB 69i 3 37 73F 44. SO=Ham A SIR Rd NB 1016, 6 42 7W 41. Ne"M CMWA YM SR I % l0 42 TIW 40. 3mbaM&VH Rd WB 12% S 47 TW M Bird A Bdetol& NB 2% 2 70 TSP 47. McMeAre B sm Hd Es 10% 11 7713E 4L ]uNgm arm W8 tS7i 2A 1m 7w 34. Jmdan&UW mdty WB 3% 6 141 TSF 3S. Jmbm=&Vwd V7H 1% 2 1417W 39. blrMrtbWaFad NB 11% 26 1"IV M. JmbOrM i Bboa NB 30% 32 225 TV 2L 80"a Pow Ws 11% 38 243 7SF L lbtle A PCH WB 9% 32 270 2w 37. Nwkdiw&Sion NR 7% 26 20 7v 7 H oill"NANK Ws 9% 34 2"7w 27 DorlclB"m a PC11 WB 11% 42 20 7w V. MwArllrtlembom Ns 3% 13 34S 73F 1 3"ft4rm WB f* 29 340TSP 32. Umbmw All Iet I S. NB 6% 30 352 73F 4L Atvoedo R KH WB 3% 16 3m 7w :�• SL Oddemuiarm WH 2% 19 44613E a vulockmwapm Tm 316 21 493OIW S4. FaPPI&KH WB 2% 17 ox 73E 73. M1tva1 &KH WB 2% 10 so 73B 11 3mbmw 4b Cxmpm SD 2% 20 704 TSF % vAmr titer!d ue SB 2% 23 Ko 73F 4L Jmbom*AeoUBe 1 VVA 1% 13 on TSF IL Bbd t Bdeed N. WB 2% 27 97013E 30. Jemb=R BtM N. NB 3% 42 986 Tor 17. OWN 4b WAW 9. BB 296 29 1021 TIP 13. CURM all- N. NB 1% 17 111713E 12. vcwk ea a Campm N/A 0% NIA N/A N/A-NO MOM f bW ` f -Cyr °� 1 LL 6, 2 IS I rabbi"Lied B+4dm v-2 AWdn;+not Amadmt .Iea Taft Awl)ti 017N&rpt L 1 Tou V4 AwY33 ICU WITS PR 2M IMPIOII= PY PEAK i�QC.:� norm rar ?i. VAWoft t SIH Rd w 44. VAW*W t Sp Mb its 44. 3=RM&S81 Rd A 47. t4aipolt Raul i KH d0 41L Jrbme A SIS Rd .71 IS. errs&BdomS. Ad 43. MmAnla t SIH Rd jr 47. JanbxwAPr33 19 34. J4ebDM i Zlaimft 8o A sob"i NO eP M IdrAe*e i Pbrd At 35. swum..t Bb m .74 7d, aq"&PM .77 6 Tath&PCS .76 37. 36WArdw s Bbm A3 •HMa&LOS ly FFa R3 AnktR•Faut A IOa -� vi PARKLNG ANALYSIS ,SW�,IY The beau of this parking an**voasicts o proposed 266,000 square foot ptojW as well as 43,Sb0 square feet of square Pootsge previmnly discumad in Chapter L This results in 309,150 square meat that is subject to this anatpiL The adsttag parking demand at Fashion island was surveyed in order to develop an wcunte preditdion of the demand with the project in place. Parking lot comta tsars performed in April for both a weekday and the woekead. Historical count data for Fashion Island shoes that the amount of traffic entering the mail on a typical Saturday in April is 75 percent of that aapecienced during the ^. design period 'Phis lodge period was taken to be the average of the Saturdays between Tbanksgl q and Qrristmas which represents the higbeat stopping demand of the year: Equating this relationaMp to the observed paddog patterns fa April, the paidog demand doming the design period was calculated as Ulu= 3661 awWW fApo 2.8 apacas occWd 4tD O 13=69 23F 2MT 2.8 Opff Rose) 3.7 apaaa JW (Datsx POW 0.75 OpO to Dsx4p ratio) 7SF A parking lot can be considered•fn8'when partmand equals 85 percent of the actual number of spaces. This accaumts for the turnover of s vehicles coming and going and miniariaes the number of vehicles searching for vacan spaces. For the cdtting mail and 309,5M square foot of expansion, the design period parking demand would be: 6.iuAowww+A�n� tz-t Awlo-raacAro��rae, U950AWb* i 1312.69 T5F x 3.7 spaomAW = 4857 space r + Q723 x 309.55 TSF x 3.7 spaceOW =—M :!slow 5W space Os35 • 66M required apaoes Note that the rant factor(Q723)was applied to the cgarnsion's parking demand a Mae to the 's trip VMSOOIL dvr•� , A auive7 of tic edsting Pasbion Island parking that them era 5499 apace currmtky avaibab The following cakmladon sbowa de anticipated parking aaseeod the available parker by 989 spseea th mead$. 6688 required speoee _�M available spaasa 989 deficit(design period) St- as I%Wy 44 Part of the propoeed espaaaon might be built on a portion of the adsting parking lot. It is estimated that thin would eluninate approximately 290 parking spaces. This fg=is baaod on a 100 TSF bn7dmg area and a Wor of 3S0 aquare�akmm Sig the 290Iat spaces from Oisus s ll` the 5,M9 eIing spama re dta in 5,409 available spaces, If this were to happen,the parking deficit v would increase to 1,2W spaces. To mitigate this anticipated lurking shortage, am or move of the Mowing measure would need to be taimn. An Wcnease in apace could be realized by restriping the current 10 feet wide spaces to nine or nine and one-ball feet. The erect number of space gained by restripi g would depend on the amount of pleaW and median reconstruction that is done. F tra+a'` 7be construction of a multi-level parking stavcture in place 02 of the va&Wag surface lots could potend*provide the necessary number of spacm a4 d U. +' uM cc fad- s t o(e 5 dd �� �7•z ,4• w; A shuttle system that would brie emp%ees from off cite parking lots to the center mold be r implemented during the peak demaai season. The shuttle would need to be in operation on weekends from Tbankipmg until the bend af3er New Year's Day. In addition,the shuttle would also have to tun everyday during the before Christmas. One or two days during the year when special events are held at the center, shuttle would also haw to be used. To verity that eawtgh a Sv r! e emporyees would be available to free spaces, a survey was developed for both the Fashion Island tenants and their employees. The results of this survey indicated that during the peak shopping.hours there are currently 2,500 employm at the mall,of which appm,dmately 90 percent \„vr drove their own vehicles. increase to over 3,000 employees upon completion of the project This results in an available pool of 2,700 vehicles that could be parked off-site. A survey of the parking in Newywt Cktrter revealed that thcm would be enough swplw parking tv "Vurumvclairs the Fashion Island.employees. Figure VI-1 shows the number of available spaces on a weekday at three diffimnt locations. On the weekends (wh^,.n an employee off-site parking program is most likely)there would be an even greater amount of parking spaces available in Newport Center. The number of shuttle busses required would depend on the pickup and drop-off locations that are chosen. Suflacient busses would'be required in order to keep shuttle hcadways to five minutes or leas, to ensure employees did not have an inoentive to violate the system by parking in,the main Fashion ^ Island parking lot 774,ts Anfcvwv`^ b,wA G. still- %r. l e A— , r F i ti..si- I u(.r„�r f G•�- l.e G.4., s oaf J r.YIP AJ Av'� t1!.0 e•e.,6 rr ►o d l Vo a f{r r to.�kis s a�Plvy.� V � P"yrl�� wr e. s �5luw.t V� pvk&JlAe� on wa�.Ftw.ts u ..d � (idbrl, d,h cunt,.l4.fi5 [.za prr(t SIB.#• 1I t�.✓t 2) IC s✓e4ete- sPsccs AAe ifi�M,a k1�nd Papaodou VI-3 Antln•Fowr A"tcs,Ix TnMc Aulpk ur nr+sryr `, Inc�1 4 1tM�d I� f�'�""..J'' n. �` cu—i.�i/s�aM i ��•6¢ ls"��. __ I I vv v{-w••{♦ 'J000.'f0 i•Ji {v{{{v..�+.�. •J�040•JPi i f' ♦�f f��{{� f{♦♦1{1f{{{ 1{• ♦�{1f•♦ 1 •♦1 {♦{{a{f / ♦1{ ifff11f1 ♦*+*+4 11 1t1{fiat {♦ ♦�♦1f/f�1f ♦ {{{♦{f{{♦ 1{♦f♦�♦ {{♦ ♦1♦11f11f♦ f i�{t{��1.{ /f 111f♦�f♦I •1f♦{{♦{•♦i 1f{{1{{♦{4i ♦♦f♦ f�f♦{� 1f♦{{ ♦ {{f1 ♦�♦�111f{♦ ♦ •♦1f ♦{♦1♦ ♦♦ 1f • ♦{ f .♦ 41♦f1f{♦f {� �f•`•••{••{•{•f•{•{+{ 1.1•{•{•�•{•�•f•f•{•i f•1•ff•{•ffif•f•{ ff•�•i•{•�•{•�•�1•i {•f•{{{{1{{{{{1{{{{� 1•f•{•f•1•{•�•ffi•1 f•{•{•1•{•{•f•�•f•{•1 /•f1�{•f•{�f•��{•fi �•f•{•1•{f{•ff•�{•� fff•{•f•{•�•{•f•1•� ff•1i•/•{•�•{�{•i{ I•{•{�{•f•{�f•{i���i i f{i{•{•�i•��{•f•� ♦ { { I f f� f .♦ ♦f f{ f f{{f ♦f {{{{♦♦ {♦ f♦♦♦{♦{{•♦ ♦{♦♦{♦ f 1 ♦ �f•{•1�ff•{�f•{•1•f1 {�1•{14f�1�f�f�11f�� 1f♦ f-f♦f♦ 1�1 1 ♦ 1f�f♦♦ 1J/ •♦f{ 11f{f{i •{♦{f{♦1f1i ♦♦f�if 1f11 � ♦f�f{.�a{:i .f.�fi4a D.�f.{� .�{J.ff.�{A��� ���..f����.� �.{1) {�a��+.f I • a s• APPENDIX A BUIIrDOUT (2010) ICU woRSSAEETS Art APPENDIX B TRAMC PHAMG ORDINANCE (M) WORKSHEVIS 7t�o.4rpM atao�acpe