The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTS104 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES 9�qo 4 0�g CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH i ROLL INDEX CALL detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. r * * A Use PermitNo. 3555 (PublicHearine) item No.3 Request to permit the establishment of a full service outdoor restaurant up3555 with incidental alcoholic beverage service, live entertainment and valet parking on property located in the APF-H District. The proposal also Approvea includes: a request to transfer development entitlement from Fashion Island to the restaurant site located in Block 600 of Newport Center. AND B. Traffic Study No. 104(Public Hearing) Request to approve a traffic study so as to allow the establishment of a full-service restaurant on the subject property. LOCATION: Parcel 3, of Parcel Map 25-14 (Resubdivision No. 271), located at 630 Newport Center Drive, on the northerly side of Newport Center Drive, between Santa Rosa Drive and Santa Cruz Drive, in Newport Center. ZONE: APF-H APPLICANT: Dennis Constanzo (Twin Palms Restaurant), Pasadena OWNER: The Irvine Company,Newport Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that inasmuch as staff had a concern that the noise from the restaurant could affect the surrounding land uses, and that a large portion of the restaurant is an outdoor restaurant, that Condition No. 20, Exhibit "A", was revised to address the concern. He -13- COMMISSIONERS • MINUTES �F�F�ti�o9o2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Allay 18, 1995 ROLL INDEX CALL pointed out that the Four Seasons Hotel is the nearest quasi-residential use to the proposed outdoor restaurant, and he expressed a concern that noise from the restaurant could be transmitted to the hotel guests. He said that the noise limit of 55 dBA as suggested in the revised Condition No. 20 between 10:00 p.m. and 2:00 a.m. is the loudest noise level that would be allowed in a residential area during the day, and typically the noise level drops down to 50 dBA in the evenings. He suggested that the Planning Commission may want to consider a lower noise level during the evening hours of 50 dBA during the evening hours and 55 dBA during the daytime hours. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Director Hewicker replied that a Noise Ordinance is currently pending before the City Council. The current Noise Ordinance is inadequate as it affects residential uses unless the nuisance abatement regulation is utilized. The language in revised Condition No. 20 is designed to reflect what would be contained in the proposed Noise Ordinance. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Dennis Constanzo, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. In response to a question posed by Mr. Constanzo, Director Hewicker explained revised Condition No. 20, Exhibit"A". He stated that from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. it would be 55 dBA, and from 10:00 p.m.to 2:00 a.m. it would be 50 dBA at the nearest hotel room. Mr. Constanzo concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A", as revised; however, he stated that the applicant would prefer the original Condition No. 20, stating "that the noise from the proposed live entertainment shall be confined to the site". In response to a question posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Mr. Constanzo stated that construction would commence as soon as possible inasmuch as the goal is to open the restaurant on October 15, 1995. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. -14- IL COMMISSIONERS • • MINUTES �F9921�0�o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL INDEX CALL Commissioner Di Sano stated that the subject restaurant has a fine reputation in the Pasadena area, and it would be a fine addition to the City of Newport Beach. He supported revised Condition No. 20 based on the Motion * proposed Noise Ordinance. Motion was made to approve Use Permit No: 3555 and Traffic Study No. 104, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A", including revised Conditions No. 17 and 20. Condition No. 20 is based on the noise level as stated in the proposed Noise Ordinance. Commissioner Adams stated that the subject restaurant will be a fine addition to the City of Newport Beach, and it would be very appropriate for the community. Chairman Gifford concurred that the restaurant has an excellent reputation in Pasadena, and the establishment would benefit the community. Mr. Tom Redwitz,Vice President of The Irvine Company, appeared before the Planning Commission. He stated that the residential standard as it is addressed in Condition No. 20 indicates that during the day that the noise level shall be 60 dBA for residential uses. , Mr. Redwitz and Director Hewicker discussed whether or not the 60 dBA is consistent with the proposed Noise Ordinance. Commissioner Brown opined that the daytime noise level is irrelevant and the issue is the nighttime noise level. Following a discussion between the Planning Commission and staff, the motion was amended to revise Condition No. 20 to state unless superseded by the adoption of a comprehensive Noise Control Ordinance. Motion All Ayes was voted on,MOTION CARRIED. A TRAFFIC STUDYNo. 104 Findings: 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the peak-hour traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Policy S-1. -15- COMMISSIONERS • • MINUTES °oF �y o � CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH i\\ May 18, 1995 ROLL INDEX CALL 2. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project-generated traffic will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic on any 'major,"primary-modified,'or'primary'street. 3. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project-generated traffic will not be greater than one percent of the existing traffic during the 2.5 hour peak period on twelve of the eighteen study intersections and that the ICU analysis for six of the eighteen intersections indicates an acceptable ICU value of less than 0.90. B. USE PERMIIT N0. 3555 Findings: 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. That adequate on-site parking is available for the existing and proposed uses. 3. That the proposed development will not have any significant environmental impact. 4. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. 5. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.80.060 ofthe Municipal Code. 6. That the waiver of development standards as they pertain to walls and landscaping surrounding the restaurant site will not be detrimental to surrounding properties. -16- COMMISSIONERS • MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 7. That adequate provision for vehicular traffic circulation is being made for the restaurant facility. 8. That the General Plan Transfer of 11,000 sq.ft. from Fashion Island to Block 600 Newport Center is consistent with the intent of the General Plan and that the transfer will not result in any adverse traffic impacts. 9. The approval of Use Permit No. 3555 will not, under the circumstances of the case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and further that the proposed modification related to the proposed signing is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. Conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plan and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That one parking space for each 50 sq.ft. of"net public area" (175 spaces) shall be provided on-site. 3. That the development standard pertaining to perimeter walls and landscaping shall be waived. 4. That all signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code. 5. That grease interceptors shall be installed on all fixtures in the restaurant where grease may be introduced into the drainage systems, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department and the Public Works Department. 6. That kitchen exhaust fans shall be designed to control smoke and odor to the satisfaction of the Building Department. -17- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 9ia F9o�o a ROLL INDEX CALL 7. That the proposed restaurant facility and related parking structure shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. 8. That the project shall comply with State Disabled Access requirements. 9. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 10. That the on-site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. 11. That a valet operations plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 12. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 13. That all employees shall park on-site. 14. That the hours of operation shall be limited between 7:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m. daily. 15. That all trash areas shall be screened from adjoining properties and streets. 16. That the project shall be designed to eliminate light and glare spillage on adjacent uses. 17. That no paging system shall be permitted in conjunction with the proposed operation. 18. That a washout area for refuse containers be provided in such a way as to allow direct drainage into the sewer system and not into the Bay or -18- COMMISSIONERS • • MINUTES c'��i9��P*�'�Llo CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH i L t ROLL INDEX CALL storm drains, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department and the Public Works Department. 19. That dancing and live entertainment shall be permitted in accordance with a Cafe Dance Permit and Entertainment Permit issued by the Revenue Manager in accordance with Title 5 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 20. That the noise from the proposed live entertainment shall not exceed a sound level of 1) 60 dBA between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., and 50 dBA between 10:00 p.m. and 2:00 a.m. at any surrounding residential unit; 2) 65 dBA between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., and 60 dBA between 10:00 p.m. and 2:00 a.m. at the nearest commercial building (600 Newport Center Drive) across Newport Center Drive; and 3) 55 dBA between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., and 50 dBA between 10:00 p.m. and 2:00 a.m. at the nearest hotel room, unless superseded by the adoption of a comprehensive Noise Control Ordinance. 21. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this Use Permit or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this Use Permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this Use Permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 22. That this Use Permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. -19- • Planning Commission Meeting May 18, 1995 Agenda Item No. 3 ' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT;,' A. Use Permit No. 3555 (Public Hearing) Request to permit the establishment of a full service outdoor restaurant with incidental alcoholic beverage service, live entertainment and valet parking on property located in the APF-H District. The proposal also includes: a request to transfer development entitlement from Fashion Island to the restaufant site located in Block 600 of Newport Center. AND B. Traffic Study No. 104(Public Hearing) Request to approve a traffic study so as to allow the establishment of a full-service restaurant on the subject property. LOCATION: Parcel 3, of Parcel Map 25-14 (Resubdivision No. 271), located at 630 Newport Center Drive, on the northerly side of Newport Center Drive, between Santa Rosa Drive and Santa Cruz Drive. ZONE: APF-H APPLICANT: Dennis Constanzo(Twin Palms Restaurant),Pasadena OWNER The Irvine Company,Newport Beach Apolicatiom This is a Request to permit the establishment of a full service outdoor restaurant with incidental alcoholic beverage service, live entertainment and valet parking on property located in the APF-H District. The proposal also includes:a request to transfer development entitlement from Fashion Island to the restaurant site located in Block 600 of Newport Center. Use permit procedures are set forth in Chapter 26.86 ofthe Municipal Code and traffic study procedures are set forth in Chapter 15.40 of the Municipal Code. Environmental Si canoe This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class I (Existing Facilities). TO: Planning Commission-2 t' Conformance with the General Plan The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial"uses. Asestaurant is a permitted use within this designation, as a support retail commercial use. The Land Use Element allocates a maximum square footage for Block 600 in Newport Center of 959,134 sq.ft.. The additional outdoor area of the proposed restaurant will increase the square footage of Block 600 over and above that which is allocated by the Land Use Element. •The applicant is therefore proposing to transfer development entitlement from the Fashion Island Planned Community to Block 600. The entitlementtransfer is discussed in further detail below. Subject Property and Surrounding Land Uses The subject property is occupied by a five story parking structure which serves the westerly half of Block 600 Newport Center. The proposed restaurant will.be located in a portion of the ground level of said parking structure,with the balance of the ground level being occupied by a real estate office. The remainder of the parking structure is used in common for parking purposes by the surrounding office buildings. To the northeast, across San Joaquin Hills Road, are single family dwellings in Big Canyon; to the southeast are-offices uses and related parking areas; to the southwest, across Newport Center Drive,is Fashion Island; and to the northwest are offices uses and related parking areas. Analysis The proposed restaurant facility will be located in a vacant office suite which contains a gross square footage of approximately 10,640 sq:ft.. A portion of the existing'floor area will,be utilized for indoor dining (approximately 3,061 sq.ft.), with the remainder devoted to kitchen, offices, storage, employee lockers, restrooms and an ancillary retail shop consisting of approximately 540 sq.ft.. The balance of the restaurant will be housed beneath a tent-like outdoor structure,which contaim approximately 6,520 gross sq.ft., and consists mainly of dining areas with approximately 434 sq.ft. devoted to alcoholic beverage service, approximately 200 sq.ft. devoted to employee service areas and approximately 200' sqA devoted to a bandstand. The restaurant will contain a gross floor area of approximately 17,160 sq.ft.,with a"net public area"of approximately 8,747 sq.ft.. The proposed restaurant will be offering lunch and dinner with on-sale alcoholic beverages and live" entertainment. The proposed hours of operation are from 7:00 a.m.to 2:00 am., daily. The applicant does not anticipate the service a breakfast at this time, but would like to leave the option open in the future. The maximum number of employees during peak hours is approximately 35 employees. live entertainment will be offered during the service of lunch and:dinner on a daily basis, as well as during brunch service,on Sundays. The live entertainment will consist of jazr, fusion, soft pop, classical and other refined types of entertainment. The applicant has indicated that, although the proposed facility will operate primarily as a dining facility, dancing may be offered when appropriate(see attached letter from the applicant). As may be seen on the attached floor plan,_the restaurant contains a 288 sq.ft.banquet room which will be available for private parties. The attached floor plan also denotes a small retail shop(approximately 540 sq.ft.) within the subject restaurant. Said retail shop will serve as a specialty food (i.e. special TO: Planning Commission-3 sauces and wines) and gift shop, with take-out food from the kitchen available "to-go." Staff has no objection to the restaurant's operational characteristics as proposed. Traffic Study No. 104 The attached traffic study satisfies the requirements of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance and Council Policy S-1. The trip generation forecasts are set forth in Table 1, located on Page 8 of the attached traffic study. A detailed explanation of the criteria used for the trip generation forecasts is set forth on Page 7 of the traffic study. The City Traffic Engineer has identified the eighteen intersections which could be affected by the proposed project. These intersections are listed in Table 3,located on Page 15 ofthe attached traffic study. The first step in evaluating intersections is to conduct a one percent 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 one percent of the projected 2'h hour volume in either the morning or afternoon, an Intersection Capacity Utilization(ICU)analysis is required. Based on an analysis of each of the eighteen intersections,the increase in traffic at each intersection leg exceeded 1% of the projected 2-'/s hour morning and afternoon peak traffic on six of the intersections and was less than 1% on twelve of the intersections, as indicated on Table 4, located on Page 16 of the attached traffic study. Therefore, an Intersection Capacity Utilization(ICU) analysis was prepared for each of the above noted six intersections. As indicated in Table 5, located on Page 19 of the attached traffic study, the ICU values during the A.M. and P.M. peak for these six intersections did not exceed 0.90. Therefore,it is determined that the proposed project will have a very nominal impact on the level of service at the key intersections and that the project is in conformance with the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Required Off-Street Parkins The Municipal Code requires one parking space for each 40 sq.ft. of"net public area" within the restaurant facility unless modified 'or waived by the Planning Commission. Based on the proposed 8,747 sq. ft. of"net public area", 219 parking spaces are required for the proposed restaurant(8,7471 sq.ft. divided by 40 sq.ft. =218.6 or 219 spaces). The parking requirement could also vary from 175 spaces(one parking space for each 50 sq.ft. of"net public area")to 292 spaces(one parking space for each 30 sq.ft. of"net public area"). Staff would typically be of the opinion that this type of restaurant would generate the need for one parking space for each 40 sq.ft. of"net public area!; however, the parking demand study within the attached traffic study indicates that one parking space for each 50 sq.ft. of"net public area" would be adequate for the subject restaurant due to the amount of walk-in patrons expected from the neighboring office uses and Fashion Island (see Parking Demand Analysis, located on Page 22 of the attached traffic study). Staff concurs with this analysis and is of the opinion that one parking space for each 50 square feet of"net public area" is sufficient for the proposed use. Condition No. 2,of the attached Exhibit"A,"reflects this parking ratio. TO: Planning Commission-4 Proposed Off-Street Parking A parking demand study has been prepared as part of the traffic analysis for the subject project. The parameters on which the parking demand estimates were made are set forth on Page 20 of the attached traffic study. Table 8, located on Page 24 of the attached traffic study presents a comparison of parking requirements in accordance with Title 20 of the Municipal Code (utilizing a standard requirement of 1 parking space for each 40 sq.ft. of"net public area" for a restaurant) to the actual parking supply in Block 600 of Newport Center. It should be noted that the parking requirement for the office uses and,the proposed restaurant use on the westerly half of Block 600 is 1,535 spaces,with al• arkin supply in the westerly parking structure of 1,650 spaces,which results in a surplus of an actu P g PP Y Y P g P 115'parking spaces for the common usage of the surrounding office buildings on the westerly half of Block 600. Should the Planning Commission modify the parking-requirement for the restaurant to 1 parking space for each 50 sq.ft. of"net public area," then the surplus would increase to 159 parking spaces. The conclusion,based on the analysis in'the traffic study,'is that the existing off-street parking will be adequate for the proposed restaurant use. Vehicular Access and On-Site Circulation The proposed on-site circulation for the Twin Patens Restaurant is illustrated on the Existing Site Plan (Exhibit 2,Page 3 of the attached traffic study) and the Proposed Site Plan(Exhibit 3, Page 4 of the attached traffic study). Parking Structure No. 2, shown on Exhibit 2, will provide the parking for the proposed restaurant. The ingress/egress to said .parking structure is provided,'from Center Drive, which is internal to Block 600,extending between Santa Cruz Drive and Santa RosaDrive. The Proposed Site Plan(Exhibit 3,attached traffic study)calls for a 25 foot wide valetlpassenger drop- off with entry from Center Drive, and an exit to the short roadway that connects Center Drive to Newport Center Drive . Arriving restaurant patrons will be able to go directly to Parking Structure No. 2, or utilize the valet driveway, which will have sufficient space to stack 10 vehicles(2 lanes of 5 • vehicles each). The valet attendant pattern will consist of a left tum.exitm the driveway y and a second left turn onto Center Drive,followed-by aright turn into Parking Structure No. 2. While the driveway no significant conflicts are• ins a close to the Center Drive intersection, n ce and exit o f ar e entrance P anticipated,.due to the relatively light nature of the existing traffic at said intersection. Transfer of Entitlement The Land Use Element of the General Plan states that transfers of development rights in Newport ' Center are permitted, subject to the approval of the City,with the finding that the transfer is consistent with the intent of the General Plan and that the transfer will not result in any adverse traffic impacts. Inasmuch as the proposed addition of outdoor dining will result in an square footage of development for Block 600 Newport Center(approximately,965,654 sq.ft)which exceeds that which is allowed by the Land Use Element(959,134 sq.ft.),the applicant is requesting the approval to transfer 11,000 sq fL of entitlement rights from Fashion Island-to Block 600. Should the Planning Commission approve this General Plan entitlement transfer, Block 600 will be left with a development surplus of approximately 6,520 sq.ft.. Inasmuch as the subject restaurant use is considered retaiUcommercial in nature,just as the permitted uses in neighboring Fashion Island(from where the transfer is being taken),the transfer is not anticipated to result in any adverse traffic impact on the area as a whole. Therefore, staff has no f el ment objections to a transfer o development ment entitle J P TO: Planning Commission-5 Restaurant Development Standards Chapter 20.72 of the Municipal Code contains development standards for restaurants to ensure that any proposed development will be compatible with adjoining properties and streets. Said development standards include specific requirements for building setbacks, parking and traffic circulation, walls surrounding the restaurant site, landscaping, exterior illumination, signage, underground utilities, and storage. Section 20.72.130 of the Municipal Code states that any of the above mentioned development standards for restaurants may be modified or waived if such modification or waiver will achieve substantially the same results and will in no way be more detrimental to adjacent properties or improvements than will the strict compliance with the standards. Staff is of the opinion that the on-site development standards as they apply to walls and landscaping should be waived if the Planning Commission approves this application, due to the existing physical characteristics of the site. Specific Findings and Recommendations Section 20.80.060 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that in order to grant any use permit,the Planning Commission shall find that the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use or building applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare ofthe City. Should the Planning Commission wish to approve Use Permit No. 3555,the findings and conditions of approval set forth in the attached Exhibit "A' are suggested. Staff cannot reasonably conceive of findings for denial inasmuch the proposed restaurant use, in this particular case, conforms to the requirements of the Title 20 of the Municipal Code and does not appear to have any detrimental effect on the surrounding neighborhood. However, should information be presented at the public hearing which would warrant the denial of this application, the Planning Commission may wish to take such action. PLANNING DEPARTMENT TAMES D.HEWICIER,Director sy `�,nn,nl,Q• �la2�til Dana O. Aslami Associate Planner Attachments: Exhibit"A" Vicinity Map Letter from the Applicant Proposed Floor Plan Traffic Study Plot Plan, and Elevations TO: Planning Commission-6 EXHIBIT"A„ FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR TRAFFIC STUDYNO. 104 AND PERMIT NO.3555 A TRAFFIC STUDY No. 104 Findin s: 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the peak-hour traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Policy S-1. 2. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project-generated traffic will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic on any'major,"primary-modified,'or'primary'street. 3. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project-generated traffic will not be greater than one percent of the existing traffic during the 2.5 hour peak period on twelve of the eighteen study intersections and that the ICU analysis for six of the eighteen intersections indicates an acceptable ICU value of less than 0.90. B. USE PERMIT NO. 3555 Findin 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. That adequate on-site parking is available for the existing and proposed uses. 3. That the proposed development will not have any significant environmental impact. 4. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. S. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code. 6. That the waiver of development standards as they pertain to walls and landscaping surrounding the restaurant site will not be detrimental to surrounding properties. 7. That adequate provision for vehicular traffic circulation isbeing made for the restaurant facility. TO: Planning Commission-7 8. That the General Plan Transfer of 11,000 sq.ft. from Fashion Island to Block 600 Newport Center is consistent with the intent of the General Plan and that the transfer will not result in any adverse traffic impacts. 9. The approval of Use Permit No. 3555 will not, under the circumstances of the case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and firther that the proposed modification related to the proposed signing is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. Conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plan and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That one parking space for each 50 sq.ft. of"net public area" (175 spaces) shall be provided on- site. 3. That the development standard pertaining to perimeter walls and landscaping shall be waived. 4. That all signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code. 5. That grease interceptors shall be installed on all fixtures in the restaurant where grease may be introduced into the drainage systems, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department and the Public Works Department. 6. That kitchen exhaust fans shall be designed to control smoke and odor to the satisfaction of the Building Department. 7. That the proposed restaurant facility and related parking structure shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. 8. That the project shall comply with State Disabled Access requirements. 9. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 10. That the on-site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. 11. That a valet operations plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 12. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 13. That all employees shall park on-site. 14. That the hours of operation shall be limited between 7:00 am. and 2:00 a.m. daily. TO: Planning Commission-$ 15, That all trash areas shall be screened,from adjoining properties and streets. 16. That the project shall'be designed to eliminate light and glare spillage on adjacent uses. 17. That no outdoor loudspeaker or paging system shall be permitted in conjunction with-the proposed operation. 18. That a washout area for refuse containers be provided in such a way as to allow direct drainage into the sewer system and not into the Bay or storm drains, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department and the Public Works Department. 19. That dancing and live entertainment shall be permitted in accordance with a Cafe Dance Permit and Entertainment Permit issued by the Revenue Manager in accordance with Title 5 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 20. That the noise from the proposed live entertainment shall,be confined to the site. 21. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this Use Permit or recommend to the City Council,the revocation of this Use Permit, upon,a determination that the, operation which is the subject of'this Use Permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety,peace,morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 22. That this Use Permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A ofthe Newport-Beach Municipal Code, , VICINITY MAP frTic ft m • .J a!� 4e n � f !. p Si V v n r • >^ s• fP 4 tp vn unw nN .l r[ v, Q SAN J WOUN 0.5 'V/Zu v 0•5 r'"'[ a .... APF•N on ye �OqO P-C _" / ' ay s.S A APF-0 r APF O PF.y P D SOS Apf•H Riv 1P APF-H E APF -H a � a us D' � s>OfivE P-C o RC @ ' 3 Jet MAP we —CITY—OF—NEWPORT— BEACH—CALIFORNIA �°«�NO.112, f....a "[`'1O0iN [mnaN 112f aK!•e3 xevmioxs .urRwm• IPGra urt !uM]urr wuirOM .m aVMWm OC1TIox. AT {. PN qMf. F401. NN`ri NP.1FG{lM• ♦•11•t[ MOMII•. RR NR•.MIM.P.uP Yrr• 1-N•n .MN I41 F.Y,PWrV•RL-My Y,r�I R.I•yI - / W..RNI• [I,MIIr N.Iftl. ['M1�[MON rr(.[R.N • MPMwRY..T V4rY.•Y,Y•MAN 11.1-}t M[rtr Nl4Ylr• ti•�IMA!•NL..NiN1tw[ �r pprrY Ny. M NPNIfM IPYMMM4MiR.rn IIyM11. •7pt •^ IN,V RN t a��PamA• ry, � .•N—M••Y�� a•I.I! Ir/p[• O.Tlit. .r.1. M m�fgYR�eM. •-•1•n./rrw A'r..M.wy Y a w fia vttt iw!•RirN~gr N'Rrr.r T,[[•Fe iwn wy Y.f Y0. wNMIMJ �M�^.ry IrrI� !•Y nr m.p,IMrNN�r rat . 1•r�wT N..NIIMP w t00 O q0 MM ft0 rCw Ne.0 II IOVrrr.r 11[YR y, N.MN•. rJNNNM Jra Jr•[: rtlaatoanrcnl.w a<w nmw i:J "e:w:�'wN ;• sNw ru[.![l.r.,wr[ Jam — IN IJn '49' ' y..r • � '� nv[N Iwm it wn w ' N.l.Nwr mn.N,Im USE PERMIT No . 3555"" win Palms March 31, 1995 RECEIICED B PLAN19ING DEpARTPAENT ?V OF B-FACla Ms. Dana 0. Aslami Associate Planner AM PM Planning Department L7181tJi1Gtlltl?I�12t314t5t6 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard P. 0. Box 1768 ; Newport Beach, 'California 92658-8915 Dear Ms. Aslami: My architect, The Arroyo Group, has asked me to give you some statistics regarding operational characteristics at the Twin Palms Newport Beach restaurant, as follows: Hours of Operation 7 a.m. to 2 a.m Number of Employees The number of employees at peak hours is estimated to be 35. Entertainment Our entertainment concept at Twin Palms is a very.sophisticated cabaret style venue that includes jazz, fusion, soft pop, torch singing, classical, etc, for a very discriminating clientele. Obviously, our sound levels are appropriate to that clientele base and we ask for no special dispensation from the City of Newport Beach regarding noise. Dancine Again, we view Twin Palms primarily as a restaurant, however, on occasion we allow dancing when appropriate. 101 West Green street Pasadena.CA 91105 Sia 57-PALMS(577-2567) Fox 810 577-1306 Bus.0lnee fits 577-0127 � b Ms. Dana 0. Aslami March 31, 1995 Page Two If you have any questions on the above, please do not hesitate to contact me at (818),449-3566. Looking forward to working with you in the future. Sincerely,. L DI N: IS . CONSTANZO Chief Executive Officer DHC:sd cc: The Arroyo Group anc\as1..'2.dhc F � fir IN Amm ?©atef ..■ : :. a�:•®low # jr lot lot Z! IMP � �• •� ra r I - • � ,� � r �i . a . o � _ 6 0 Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY BLOCK 600 NEWPORT CENTER TWIN PALMS RESTAURANT Newport Beach, California Prepared For: THE IRVINE COMPANY 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Submitted By: LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS 1580 Corporate Drive - Suite 122 Costa Mesa, California 92626 Phone: (714) 641-1587 FAX: (714) 641-0139 April 28, 1995 (2-951761-1) h��oC�AFC-S �� 2c W ?1 s No. 0142 Pr oared under the supervision of h Exp.31311M Jack M. Greenspan, P.E. sr ntAc 9TFOF CAA* Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers TABLE OF CONTENTS DESCRIPTION PAGE NO. I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Project Location and Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Traffic Analysis Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Parking Analysis Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Organization of Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 II. FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUME PROJECTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 ProjectTraffic Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Project Traffic Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 ProjectTraffic Assignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Existing + Regional Growth + Committed Traffic Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Regional Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Committed Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 "With Project" Traffic Projections . 11 III. INITIAL TRAFFIC ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 IV. FULL TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Significant Traffic Impact Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 ICU Method of Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 V. ON= CIRCULATION AND PARKING ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Description of Onsite Circulation System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Parking Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Code Parking Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Parking Demand Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 VI. SITE ACCESS . . . . . . . . . , 29 VII. SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30- APPENDIX'A: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Worksheets APPENDIX B: ICU Analysis Worksheets � i Linscatt, Law & Greenspan, Engineers LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE NO. DESCRIPTION NO. 1 TRAFFIC GENERATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2 COMMITTED PROJECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3 TRAFFIC STUDY INTERSECTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4 ONE PERCENT TEST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5 ICU TEST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 6 CODE PARKING REQUIREMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 7 EXISTING PARKING SUPPLY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 8 CODE 'PARKING ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 9 PARKING OCCUPANCY SURVEY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 10 OBSERVED PARKING ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 11 OPERATIONAL PARKING DEMAND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 LIST OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT PAGE NO. DESCRIPTION NO. 1 VICINITY MAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 EXISTING SITE PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : : 3' 3 PROPOSED SITE PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 9 5 21/2 HOUR PEAK PERIOD PROJECT VOLUMES . . . :. . . . . . . . 10 6 PEAK HOUR PROJECT VOLUMES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 i ( S Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY BLOCK 600 NEWPORT CENTER TWIN PALMS RESTAURANT Newport Beach, California I. INTRODUCTION This Traffic Impact and Parking Analysis Study addresses the potential traffic and parking impacts associated with the conversion of previous office space and annexing an, outdoor space to develop 16,446 square foot Twin Palms restaurant located in Newport Center, in the City of Newport Beach. The potential traffic impacts of the proposed development have been evaluated for horizon,year 1996, one year after expected project completion. Parking code and demand analyses have been conducted to determine the potential availability of existing parking in Block 600 of Newport Center to support the Twin Palms restaurant. Proiect Location and Description The proposed project site is located generally to the south of San Joaquin Hills Road, between MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road, in Block 600 of Newport Center, Exhibit 1 presents a Vicinity Map, which illustrates the general location of the project site and depicts its orientation within the surrounding street system. The proposed Twin Palms Restaurant would be located in currently vacant office space in Building 630 which occupies a part of the Parking Structure Number 2 ground floor. Exhibit 2 presents Existing Site Plan of Block 600, showing Building 630 located in the middle of the block. The proposed Twin Palrits restaurant would be developed in 7,685 square feet space of former office space. An additional enclosure would be incorporated to 'expand, indoor restaurant space outward to match the drip line of the parking structure. An outdoor area ' would also be added to produce a total of 16,446 square feet. Out of 16,446 square feet of total space, 7,699 square feet is expected to be used as non public space (kitchen, lockers, storage),while the remaining 8,747 square feet will be used as,dining space and considered public space for parking computation. Exhibit 3 presents Twin Palms restaurant Site Plan. Traffic Analysis Methodology The scope for the traffic study was developed in conjunction with the City of Newport Beach traffic staff. The basic assumptions, technical methodologies and geographic scope of the study were identified as part of the study approach. 1 'n (• FC�� S+rH { rC}x rJy fear, 3j,� Ma' 1 ENV YA gp y. �,riS' i.Gr• .�c �•'IJWY..m �• > fv ��y_{tea- `,Y l�f•q��udt%�sav:.. *"'�. �'`�:u�� t� � r!+).' • >�'�''.Vl'."1.17��'�F�', }'�r,G'F 73 nr�,s r G r.,•? f1 �� mow,• ...- i '' MY,;IF MOE . ' / •n.• �i� SL1�� 9� ".a � r • 1 a SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD WB LOT 660 PARKING STRUCTURE #2 620DLOT660r IOTC630 FOUR SEASONS HOTEL I xxX I GROUND LEVEL RETAIL - COMMERCIAL SPACEIN PARKING STRUCTURE L J 2 NO SCALE jG $jam PLAN BLOCK 600 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE LINSCOTT,- LAW & GREENSPAN. ENGINEERS TWIN PALMS RESTAURANT 1 - I ' I 1 I 1 3 NO SCALE PROPOSED SITE PLAN BLOCK 600 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE LINSCOTT, LAW dt GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS TWIN PALMS RESTAURANT S� I 'Linscott, Law & Greenspan; Engineers , The basic methodology was developed in full compliance with the Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). The TPO requires a two step analysis to determine project impact, (1) an initial traffic contribution analysis for all study intersections, and (2) a full traffic impact analysis for intersections impacted by project traffic. The initial traffic analysis, also called "one percent traffic test', requires comparison of two- and-half hour AM and PM peak period project traffic to projected future volumes at each leg of each intersection identified by staff for study. If the project generates one percent or more of the projected traffic volumes on one or more legs of an intersection, this intersection is considered impacted by project traffic. The impacted intersections are their selected fora full traffic analysis. The full traffic analysis for a project requires the evaluation of traffic conditions at each of the impacted intersection before and,after completion of the project during both the AM and PM peak hour. This was accomplished by analyzing the following three traffic scenarios: • DdstinE - Assessment of year 1993 or 1994 traffic volumes and peak hour Levels of Service (Provided by the City of Newport Beach). • E)dstinp_ + Regional Growth + Committed Projects - Projection of future traffic conditions without the proposed development, resulting from other committed developments and' regional itraffic growth. (Committed development traffic and growth rates provided by the City of Newport Beach). • With Project-Analysis of future traffic operations resulting from the addition of project-generated traffic to the future traffic conditions. Parking Analysis Methodology The parking analysis conducted for this study was designed to identify whether a potential parking shortage or surplus exists within Block 600 of-Newport Center. A code parking analysis was conducted to determine whether, after the proposed restaurant addition, the amount of parking provided on-the site would still satisfy city requirements.-Supply/demand analysis was conducted to determine if the additional demand generated by the proposed project would cause a possible parking shortage within Newport Center Block 600. 5 • • II Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers Organization of Report This report is divided into five chapters. Chapter II presents traffic forecasts including background traffic volumes and project traffic forecasts. Chapter III describes the initial "one percent"peak period traffic analysis. Peak hour level of service analysis is summarized in Chapter IV. Chapter V presents onsite circulation description, a code parking analysis and a parking demand/supply analysis. Site access is described in Chapter VI.•Chapter VII provides the summary of this study. Details of the technical analysis are provided in appen- dices. 6 Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers I H. FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUME PROJECTIONS In order to properly evaluate the potential impactof the proposed development on the local street system, it was necessary to develop estimates of future traffic conditions with and without the proposed project. Forecasts of project-generated traffic involve a three step process: trip generation, trip distribution, and traffic assignment. Traffic forecasts were developed for both 2.5 hour morning and evening peak periods and morning and evening. peak hours.,, Project Traffic Generation Traffic generation estimates for the proposed project were developed using generation rates obtained from the City of Newport Beach. Table 1 summarizes the proposed project traffic generation and the traffic generation rates. It can be seen that the proposed project is expected to generate approximately 1,100 daily trips, with 10 morning peak hour inbound and 2 morning peak hour outbound trips, and with 58 evening peak hour inbound and 26 evening peak hour outbound trips. It should be noted that 2.5 hour peak period trip generation was computed by doubling the peak hour volumes. Proiect Traffic Distribution The geographic distribution of traffic generated by a development such as the proposed project is dependent upon several factors including the distribution of population, employment and accessibility to the site. The distribution pattern-developed for the project was based on existing traffic patterns in the area,discussions with the City of Newport Beach staff and previous studies. It should be noted that the traffic distribution pattern, illustrated in Exhibit 3, was reviewed and approved by the City of Newport Beach traffic staff. Proiect Traffic Assignment The trip distribution pattern described above was applied to the traffic generation estimates to assign project-generated traffic to the local street system. Exhibit 4 illustrates 2.5 hour morning and evening peak period project volumes, while Exhibit 5 presents morning and evening peak hour assigned project traffic. 7 �Z Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers TABLE 1 TRAFFIC GENERATION BLOCK 600 NEWPORT CENTER TWIN PALMS RESTAURANT AM PM IN OUT IN OUT DAILY Traffic Generation Factor Peak Hour 0.6 0.1 3.5 1.6 66.9 (Vehicle Trips/1,000 SF) 1 Peak Hour Volume 2 10 2 58 26 2 1/2 Hour Peak Volume; 20 4 116 52 1,100 1 Source: City of Newport Beach, Quality Sit-Down Restaurant. 2 Based on 16,446 sf. Peak Hour Volume x 2. CUMCITAB1ESU7611EL1 8 r23 P�fi �1S �4Z �JX • WCART KW T I3% '7%7 NNy 73 P fi SANTA APfi ROSA DR V N�'kIr dyt v , � %Z-, +. � r fAS Jar MANDN �� 7 Q!'Z A, 7gh�$W�•I CAV�R 6i.WD CENRR DA' I)k EO;r dL'A !� • 7 ^ -0 SANTA .�. BARBARA OR tc <SX X%-a BAIypC_� DD%Tt DR. l► R ,3%l h XLY ®N <=_INBOUND PPERCENTAGE4 1=_CUEeaRn PERCENTAGE NO SCALE o_snw wENE2¢eno" TRAFFIC DISTRIDDTION PERCENTAGES ELM 600 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE t7NSCOTL LAW&CREENSPAN. ENGINEERS TWIN PALES RESTAURANT 73 V %a SANTA lid LSr ' •fp BOA DR V or I` CA Olt `F J V At BIN EWPOBt�>� �w11 Ors A°r� .N ,��_ FASHION Dot '° �' CUZ 9 IAAND REIrooR7Dk ` •.\p7 ��ry ,� OR �s CENiFR B�a� 7EB X, hn 7 n ?y SANTA hC BARBARA DR 0 4 w 0 'h0�r N A �o n C r BAYS pE DR W R tit£R O J/177- q n n KEr 5 N <XK/YY-AM/PM INBOUND VWlMES NO SCALE �7ayYY AM/PM Ovreouem VauR+6 2 J 2 HOUR PEAK PERIOD PROJECT VOLUMES •-SNDY INIQ6ECild/ I _ BLOCK 600 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE IJNSCOTT. LAW k GREENSPAN. ENGINEERS TWIN PALMS RESTAURANT �n J 1 • •Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers 1 Existing + Regional Growth + Committed Traffic Projections Cumulative traffic growth within the study area is expected to occur from two, primary sources: area wide or regional growth, and traffic generated by committed developments within the City of Newport Beach and neighboring communities. Regional Traffic The City of Newport Beach determined that regional traffic growth will affect the following three major highways serving the study area: Pacific Coast Highway, Jamboree Road, and MacArthur Boulevard. Based on the five years average growth rate from the City's Transportation Model, the regional traffic along these highways will increase existing traffic volumes by one percent per year. The City also indicated that other minor streets in the study area are not expected to be affected by the regional traffic growth. Committed Projects In order to evaluate the impact of the proposed project within the context of other committed developments in the vicinity, cumulative project peak period and peak hour traffic volumes for all analyzed intersections were obtained from the City of Newport-Beach Transportation Model. The list of committed projects, presented in Table 2, was also provided by the City. Traffic generated by the committed projects was added to the background traffic previously adjusted for regional growth. The resulting Existing + Regional Growth + Committed Projects volumes, which represent future volumes without the proposed project, were then used in"One Percent Traffic Analysis" described in the next chapter. Peak hour committed projects traffic volumes were utilized to calculate volume-to-capacity ratios for the Existing + Regional Growth + Committed Projects scenario in a full traffic analysis, described in Chapter IV. "With Project" Traffic Projections Peak hour traffic volumes expected from the proposed project,illustrated in Exhibit 6,were then added"to the Existing + Regional Growth + Committed Projects traffic volumes..The resulting "With Project" traffic forecasts represent future traffic volumes with the addition of project-generated traffic. 11 Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers • TABLE 2 COMMITTED PROJECTS BLOCK 600 NEWPORT CENTER TWIN PALMS RESTAURANT PROJECT PERCENT NUMBER PROJECT NAME OCCUPIED 009 Civic Plaza 96% 010 Corporate Plaza 30% 618 Newport Place 96% 031 Valdez 40% 033 Koll Center Npt No. 1 TPP 0% 034 See Projects 340 to 343 0% 053 See Projects 530 to 533 0% 060 1400 Dove Street 80% 063 Koll Center TPP Amend. 4A 0% 065 Rosan's Development 65% 100 Fashion Island #2 0% 111 28th Street Marina Project 50% 120 Pacific Bell Site 0% 121 Newport Village 0% 122 Castaways Marina 0% 123 Koll Center Carl's Jr. 96% 124 Civic Plaza - 0% 125 Corporate Plaza &West 0% 128 Harbor Pacific Plaza 0% 129 Hoag Hospital Extension 0% 130 Corporate Plaza West II 0% 134 Interpretive Center 0% 135 Pacific Mutual 1601 Avocado 0% 136 Newport Diagnostic#85 0% 139 Pac Tel Mini Storage 0% 140 Four Seasons Addition 0% 141 Family Fitness Center 0% 341 Amendment No. 1 Ford Aero 0% 342 . Amendment No. 1 Ford Aero 0% 343 Amendment No. 1 Ford Aero 0% 555 Ciosa - Irvine Project 0% 910 Newport Dunes 0% 920 Bayview 0% 930 City of Irvine Development 0% QVMMTABLJ=7617EL2 12 wog V ° ROSA M V okj 01%1 p FASNDN r ° �O r?��,t�CRUZ pro r e� DR. ph �.P l CENIDT Dg, okj A� �A A 7J SANTA -� . u SARSARA DR. W • '4b . 0 nA 1 r AA DR ' DD,£R DR n 2N4 A n my N <7DM- AU/PM MOM,RUMES NO SCALE AAt/PM 0U7B0UN0,aUntEs • mror wmluctwR PEAK HOUR PROJECT VOLUMES - CLOCK 600 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE LINSCOTT. LAWt GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS TWIN PALMS RESTAURANT vV Linst, Law & Greenspan, Engineers • III. INITIAL TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Initial traffic analyses were conducted for both the morning and evening 2.5 hour peak periods in order to identify intersections impacted by proposed project traffic. A full traffic impact analysis including volume-to-capacity analysis were subsequently conducted for those impacted,intersections which did not pass the one percent test. One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis The City of Newport Beach Traffic Engineer identified eighteen intersections expected to be most likely affected by the proposed project traffic . The list of these intersections is presented in Table 3. A one percent traffic volume test was conducted for each of these eighteen intersections to determine those intersections where the project is expected to contribute one percent or more to future traffic(Existing + Regional Growth + Committed Projects) on any leg of an intersection. As illustrated in Table 4, six out of eighteen analyzed intersections are expected to be impacted by the proposed project traffic. The calculation worksheets for the "One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis" are attached in Appendix A. 14 • . j Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers TABLE 3 TRAFFIC STUDY INTERSECTIONS BLOCK 600 NEWPORT CENTER TWIN PALMS RESTAURANT Study Intersections 1. Jamboree Road / Santa Barbara Drive 2. Jamboree Road /San Joaquin Hills Road . 3. Jamboree Road / Ford-Eastbluff 4. Jamboree Road / MacArthur Blvd 5. MacArthur Blvd / San Miguel Drive 6. MacArthur Blvd /San Joaquin Hills Road 7. MacArthur Blvd /Ford Road 8. MacArthur Blvd /Bison Avenue 9. Coast Highway/ Dover-Bayshore 10. Coast Highway/ Bayside Drive 11. Coast Highway/Jamboree Road 12. Coast Highway /Newport Center Drive 13. Coast Highway /MacArthur Blvd 14. Coast Highway/ Goldenrod Avenue 15. Coast Highway / Marguerite Avenue 16.. Coast Highway/Poppy Avenue A San Joaquin Hills Road /Santa Cruz Drive, 18. San Joaquin Hills Rd /Santa Rosa Dr - Big Canyon C:VMG%TABLM7611ML3 15 Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers TABLE 4 ONE PERCENT TEST BLOCK 600 NEWPORT CENTER TWIN PALMS RESTAURANT Exceeds 1% Threshold 1 Study Intersections No Yes 1. Jamboree Road/Santa Barbara Drive X 2. Jamboree Road/San Joaquin Hills Road X 3. Jamboree Road /Ford-Eastbluff X 4. Jamboree Road /MacArthur Blvd X 5. MacArthur Blvd /San Miguel Drive X 6. MacArthur Blvd/San Joaquin Hills Road X 7. MacArthur Blvd/Ford Road X 8. MacArthur Blvd /Bison Avenue X 9. Coast Highway/Dover-Bayshore X 10. Coast Highway/Bayside Drive X 11. Coast Highway/Jamboree Road X 12. Coast Highway/Newport Center Drive X 13. Coast Highway. /MacArthur Blvd X 14. Coast Highway/Goldenrod Avenue X 15. Coast Highway/Marguerite Avenue X 16. Coast Highway/Poppy Avenue X 17. San Joaquin Hills Road/Santa Cruz Drive X 18. San Joaquin Hills Rd/Santa Rosa Di - Big Canyon X 1 Project traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of projected peak 21/2 hour traffic volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (UCI) analysis is required. (See Table 4). QVMGITA13LM7611BL4 16 Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers IV. FULL TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS This chapter summarizes the results of the full traffic impact analysis conducted for intersections impacted by the proposed project. The analysis was conducted by assessing the projected operating conditions of the street system under future conditions with and without the proposed project traffic. As concluded in the "One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis", described in previous chapter, six out of eighteen critical intersections were determined to be impacted;by the proposed project traffic. Significant Traffic Impact Criteria This traffic study has been designed to satisfy the requirements of the TPO. Based on the standards established by the TPO, a project is considered to have a significant traffic impact if it causes or makes worse an unsatisfactory level of service on any "major", "primary modified" or "primary" street. Unsatisfactory level of service is defined as LOS E or F (volume-to-capacity ratio 0.91 or higher). Using this criteria, it should be noted that the project is not considered to have a significant impact at an intersection if the ,intersection would operate at LOS D or better after the- addition of project traffic, regardless of the volume of traffic which is added to the- intersection or the incremental change in the V/C ratio. ICU Method of Analysis Detailed intersection capacity analysis was conducted at each of the six impacted intersections. Based on standards established in the TPO the Intersection -Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology was used to analyze volume-to-capacity ratios and levels.of . service. The ICU technique is used for signalized intersections to estimate the volume to capacity (V/C). relationship for'an intersection based on individual V/C ratios for key conflicting movements.-The ICU numerical value represents the percent of the signal green time, and thus capacity, required by existing or future traffic. It should be noted that-the ' ICU methodology assumes uniform traffic distribution per intersection approach_lane;and - optimal signal operation.. The ICU value translates to a Level of Service (LOS) condition which is.a relative measure .of the performance of the intersection. Six levels of service have been defined ranging from A, (free flow with an ICU of 0.60 or less) to F (forced flow with an ICU in excess of 1.00). Level of service D (ICU of 0.81 to 0.90)is traditionally considered the maximum acceptable level of service for urban and suburban peak hour conditions. The ICU value is the sum of 17 7� Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers the critical volume to capacity ratios at an intersection, and is not intended to be indicative of the LOS of the individual turning movements. Peak hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Peak hour intersection capacity analyses were conducted for Existing, Existing + Regional Growth + Committed Projects, and for "With Project" (Existing + Regional Growth + Committed Projects + Project) scenario at the six impacted intersections. The results of , these analyses are presented in Table 5, while detailed ICU worksheets are attached in. Appendix B,•As shown in the second column of that table, the addition of regional growth and committed projects traffic is expected to cause an increase in volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios at all six'analyzed intersections. The six analyzed intersections are expected to operate at satisfactory LOS D or better under this scenario. As indicated in the third column of Table S ("With Project"), the addition of proposed project traffic is expected to cause an increase of V/C ratios at two intersections: MacArthur Boulevard @ San Miguel Drive and San Joaquin Hills Road @ Santa Rosa Drive. At both intersections an increase of V/C ratio due to the project traffic is expected to occur during the PM peak hour. After the addition of the project traffic, all six analyzed intersections are projected to operate at*satisfactory level of service D or better with V/C ratios not exceeding the 0.90 threshold. Therefore the project is not expected to have any significant traffic impact and no mitigation measures are required. 18 2'z 0 • e Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers TABLE 5 ICU TEST BLOCK 600 NEWPORT CENTER TWIN PALMS RESTAURANT WITH EXISTING PROJECT + REG GROWTH Wm EXCEEDS EXISTING + COMMITTED PROJECT 0.90 V/C VIP V/C V%C THRESHOLD Study Intersections AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM 5. MacArthur/San Miguel Drive 0.53 0.68 0.60 0.83 0.60 0.84 No No 6. MacArthur/San Joaquin Hills 0.73 0.67 0.88 0.85 0.88 0.85 No No 14. Coast Hwy/Goldenrod 0.65 0.78 0.84 0.88 0.84 0.88 No No 16. Coast Hwy/Poppy Avenue 0.53 0.57 0.63 0.67 0.63 0.67 1 No No 17. San Joaquin Hills/Santa Cruz 0.23 0.30 0.35 0.36 0.35 0.36 No No 18. San Joaquin Hills/Santa Rosa 0.23 0.34 0.25 0.39 0.25 0.40 No Na G1JMGNTAB1X9d761TBL5 19 0 Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers V. ONSITE CIRCULATION AND PARKING ANALYSIS Description of Onsite Circulation System The proposed onsite circulation for Twin Palms restaurant is illustrated on the Existing Site Plan (Exhibit 2), and on the Twin Palms Site Plan (Exhibit 3). Parking Structure Number 2, shown•on Exhibit 2, will 'provide the parking for the.Twin Palms restaurant. The ingress/egress to that parking structure is provided from Center Drive which is internal to Block 600, extending between Santa Cruz Drive and Santa Rosa Drive. The Twin Palms site plan calls for a 25 foot wide valet/passenger drop-off with entry from Center Drive and exit to the short roadway that connects Newport Center Drive East to Center Drive (see Exhibit 3). Arriving restaurant patrons will be able to go directly-to parking in Structure Number 2, or use the valet driveway, which will have sufficient room to store 10 vehicles (two lanes of five vehicles each). The valet attendant pattern will consists of a left-turn exiting the restaurant driveway and a second left-turn onto Center Drive,followed by right-turn into Parking Structure Number 2. While the driveway entrance and exit points are close to the Center Drive intersection, traffic is relatively light and no significant conflicts are anticipated. Parking Analyses A code parking analysis was conducted to determine whether parking provided in the West Half of Block 600 meets or exceeds code requirements. This analysis was based on the City of Newport Beach Planning Code provisions and Use Permit No. 1805-for Block 600. A parking occupancy survey, conducted in the West Half of Block 600 provided data for-the observed demand analysis. The demand analyses were carried out to determine a potential operational parking surplus which could accommodate the proposed Twin Palms restaurant parking needs.. Code Parking Analysis The City of Newport Beach Planning Code requires a specified number of parking spaces for developments in the Newport Center area. Table 6 illustrates the amount of parking required for-the East and West Half of Block 600. As shown in that table, the City requires 842 parking spaces for office and health club uses located in the East Half of Block 600. The City requires 1,535 parking spaces for offices and the proposed Twin Palms restaurant located in the West Half of Block 600. Entire Block 600 is required to provide a total of 2,377 parking spaces. It should be noted that Twin Palms Restaurant code parking, requirements were estimated by applying a rate of 1 space/40 square feet to the restaurant's public area of 8,747 square feet. 20 �• C • Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers TABLE 6 CODE PARKINGREQUIREMENT BLOCK 600 NEWPORT CENTER TWIN PALMS RESTAURANT REQUIRED PARKING Net Required Description Use Leasable Parking 6W Newport Center Drive Health Club 18,250 sf 113 610 Newport Center Drive Office 2 273,533 sf 729 Sub-Total East Half 842 620 Newport Center Drive Office 236;933 sf 632 660 Newport Center Drive Office 249,294 sf 665 630 Newport Center Drive Offices 7,362 sf 19 Restaurant 4 16,446'sf 219 Sub-Total West Half 1,535 GRAND TOTAL 2,377 1 Health Club parked at 6.2 spaces/1,000 sf. _ -- 2 Office use parked at 1 space/375 sf per Use Permit No. 1805. 3 14,447 sf less 7,085 sf transferred to restaurant use = 7,362 sL Restaurant parked at 1 space per 40 sf of public area per City Code. Public area assumed to be 8,747 sf(16,446 sf-7,699 sf non-public). Required parking,= 8,747/40 = 219 spaces. QVMa%TAZL=7619nL6 21 2/ Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers The parking inventory for Block 600 was provided by Ace Parking, the company managing parking facilities at Newport Center. This inventory, summarized in Table 7, indicates that there are 2,766 parking spaces supplied in Block 600, with'1,116 parking spaces provided in the East Half of Block 600 and 1,650 parking spaces provided in the West Half of Block 600. Table 8 presents a comparison of parking required by the City Code to actual parking supply. Tliis table indicates that, after accounting for the proposed Twin Palms restaurant parking, parking supply exceeds code requirements, resulting in a surplus of 389 parking spaces. Out of these 389 surplus spaces, 274 spaces are located in the East Half of Block 600 and '115,spaces are located in the West Half of Block 600. The Code Parking Analysis demonstrates that the amount of parking provided in Block 600 exceeds the City requirements. The proposed conversion of vacant office space to the Twin Palms restaurant would increase the amount of required parking in the West Half of Block 600 by about 200 parking spaces (the previous office required 19 parking spaces, the Twin Palms restaurant would require 219 parking spaces). After the restaurant conversion, the supplied parking would still exceed the Code requirements by 115 parking spaces. It should be noted that an additional surplus of 274 parking spaces currently exists in the East Half of Block 600 located within walking distance from the proposed restaurant. Parking Demand Analysis The parking occupancy survey for Parking Structure Number 2 and adjacent surface lots was conducted on Thursday, March 23, 1995 between 10:00 AM and 1:00 PM, the time of the greatest office parking activity. The survey results, which are summarized in Table 9, indicate that parking peak occurred at 11:00 AM when occupancy reached 69%. At that time, a total of 1,137 vehicles were parked in Parking Structure Number 2 and four surface parking lots combined. In order to estimate parking demand in the West Half of Block 600 an observed parking analysis was conducted. The results of this analysis are.illustrated in Table 10. As indicated in this table, 88% of leasable office space in the West Half of Block 600 is currently occupied. During the parking survey, peak parking demand for 1,137 spaces was observed in all parking facilities combined. Based on the observed peak demand, an observed offc6- parking rate of 1 space per 387 square feet was derived. As shown in Table 9,the observed .parking demand (1,137 spaces) is lower than:the number of spaces required by the•Code (1,175), implying that the Code requirements exceed observed parking needs. The operational parking demand analysis for the West Half of•Block 600 is summarized in Table 11. As shown in that table, total leasable office space is expected to generate the parking demand for 1,275 spaces. Calculation of the proposed Twin Palms restaurant parking demand involved an adjustment for walk-in customers. As concluded from a mid- day Tutto Mare 'Restaurant customer walk-in survey, it is expected .that about 29% of customers would be walk-in customers attracted from local offices, and therefore they are not expected to generate any restaurant specific parking demand. Using the walk-in customer adjustment, it was estimated that the Twin Palms restaurant would generate a 22 9rl Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers TABLE 7 EXISTING PARKING SUPPLY BLOCK 600 NEWPORT CENTER TWIN PALMS RESTAURANT PARKING SUPPLY Number Facility of Spaces Parking Structure 1 1,099 Lot A 17 Sub-Total Fast Half 1,116 Parking Structure 2 1,362 Lot B 23 Lot C 21 Lot D 28 Lot 660 216 Sub-Total West Half 1,650 GRAND TOTAL 2,766 Source: Ace Parking QVMGWASUMU7617Bf.7 23 22 Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers TABLE 8 CODE PARKING ANALYSIS BLOCK 600 NEWPORT CENTER TWIN PALMS RESTAURANT Required Parking Surplus Parking Generation Parking Supply (Deficiency) 600 Newport Center Drive 113 610 Newport Center Drive 729 Sub-Total East Half 842 1,116 274 620 Newport Center Drive 632 660 Newport Center Drive 665 630 Newport Center Drive 238 Sub-Total West Half 1,535 1,650 115 GRAND TOTAL 2,377 2,766 389 QVMG%TABLFM76ITBL8 24 29 TABLE 9 PARKING OCCUPANCY SURVEY WEST HALF BLOCK 600 - NEWPORT CENTER TWIN PALMS RESTAURANT PARKING LOTS PARKING STRUCTURE No. 2 Lot B Lot C Lot D Lot 660 Total-Lots GRAND TOTAL (1362 Spaces) (23 Spaces) (21 Spaces) (28 Spaces) (216 Spaces) (288 Spaces) (1650 Spaces) E: N TIME OF Spaces % Spaces %. Spaces % Spaces % Spaces % Spaces % Spaces % c DAY Occup. Occup. Occup. Occup. Occup. Occup. Occup. Occup. Occup. Occup. Occup. Occup. Occup. Occup. " _ r m 10:00 AM 903 66% 10 43% 4 19% 28 100% 131 61915 173 60% 1,076 65% 90 Ln 1030 AM 914 67% 8 35916 4 19% 27 9695 125 58% 164 57% 1,078 65% G) 11:00 AM 975 72% T 30% 3 14% 20 71% 132 61% 162 56% 1,137 6990 ID _ N 1130 AM 974 72% 8 35% 2 10% 19 68% 131 61% 160 56% 1,134 69% m 0 IZ 00 Noon 897 66% 9 39% 1 5% 16 57% E127 59% 153 53% 1,050 64% m 12 30'PM 885 65% 5 22% 3 14% 16 57% 15 53% 139 48% 1,024 62% m . N • Source: Acutek parking count of Thursday,March 23, 1995. CWMa117617aL9 0 Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers TABLE 10 OBSERVED PARKING ANALYSIS WEST HALF BLOCK 600 - NEWPORT CENTER TWIN PALMS RESTAURANT Occupied Code Net Percent Net Required Description Use Leasable Occupied Leasable 1 Parking 620 Newport Center Drive Office 236,933 sf 630 Newport Center Drive Office 14,447 sf 251,380 sf 87% 218,701 sf 583 Spaces 660 Newport Center Drive Office 249,294 sf 89% 1 221,872 sf 592 Spaces TOTAL 500,674 sf 88% 440,573 sf 1,175 Spaces OBSERVED DEMAND 2 1,137 Spaces OBSERVED RATE (Space per square foot) W87 DIFFERENCE (Code Required vs Observed Demand) + 38 Spaces 1 At 1 space/375 sf, per Use Permit No. 1805. 2 Thursday, March 23, 1995 at 11:00 AM. QVMG%TABLM7617BL10 26 r ur Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers TABLE 11 OPERATIONAL PARKING DEMAND WEST HALF BLOCK 600 - NEWPORT CENTER TWIN PALMS RESTAURANT NET PARKING DESCRIPTION USE LEASABLE DEMAND 629 Newport Center Drive Office 236,933 sf 612 660 Newp6ri•Center Drive Office 249,294 sf 644 630 Newport Center Drive Office 7,362 sf 19 Restaurant 16,446 sf 2 173 TOTAL DEMAND 1,448 PARKING SUPPLY 1,650 SURPLUS 202 t Office parked at observed rate of 1 Space/387 sf. 2 Code Demand 16,446 sf-7,699 non-public = 8,747 sf 8,747 sf/40 = 219 spaces. Assume Customer Demand = 72%; Employee Demand = 28% Customer Parking = 219 x 0.72 = 158 Spaces Employee Parking = 219 x 0.28 = 61 Spaces Walk-in customer survey at Tutto Mare Restaurant shows 29%walk-in, 71%drive-in (Wednesday March 22, 1995, 11:30 AM - 1:00 PM) Adjusted customer parking demand 158 x.71 = 112 spaces Total demand = 112 + 61 = 173 Spaces (Appro)omateiy 1 Space/50 so a WABfES\176r ULU 27 W Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers parking demand for 173 spaces. The office space and restaurant are expected to generate a combined total parking demand for 1,448 spaces. Previously described parking inventory indicates that the West Half of Block 600 parking supply amounts to 1,650 spaces. Hence, it was determined that an operational surplus of 202 parking spaces in the West Half of Block 600 could be expected after the project completion. As concluded in Parking Code Analysis, after the proposed restaurant addition, a parking supply in the West Half of Block 600 is expected to exceed the City of Newport Beach Code requirements by 115 spaces or by about 7 %. On an operational basis, comparison of the existing parking supply to projected demand indicates that there would be a surplus of 202' parking spaces in the West Half of Block 600 after the proposed restaurant addition. 28 Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers VI. SITE ACCESS The Block 6007win Palms Restaurant site is served by San Joaquin Hills Road,.Santa Cruz Drive, Santa Rosa Drive and Newport Center Drive East. Traffic coming from Corona del Mar and Laguna Beach will also use San Miguel Drive. All of these streets and the nearby intersections associated with the proposed project are fully developed, and all key intersections are signalized with separate left-turn lanes. Access to parking is via Center Drive which has full left-turn ingress/egress at Santa Cruz Drive and right-turn only (no left turns) at Santa Rosa Drive. Traffic circulation patterns are well established and Block 600 access well defined. No site access problems are anticipated. 29 Linsco t, Law & Greenspan, Engineers • VII. SUMMARY • The proposed Twin Palms restaurant, located in Newport Center, in the City of Newport Beach, would consist of 16,446 square feet of indoor and outdoor space. • The restaurant is expected to generate approximately 1,100 daily trips, with. 10 morning peak hour inbound and 2 morning peak hour outbound trips, and with 58 evening peak hour inbound and 26 evening peak hour outbound trips. Two-and-half hour peak period trip generation was computed by doubling the peak hour volumes. • The eighteen intersections were identified by the City of Newport Beach staff for traffic impact analysis. • The One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis was conducted for the eighteen analyzed intersections. Six out of eighteen intersections were determined to be impacted by 2.5 hour peak period project traffic. • ICU test was carried out for the six impacted intersections, indicating that none of these six intersections is expected to exceed 0.90 volume-to-capacity threshold under future conditions with the addition of the project traffic. • As concluded in ICU test, the six impacted intersections are•expected to operate at satisfactory level of service D or better after the project traffic addition. Therefore, the project is not expected to have any significant traffic impact and no mitigation measures are required. • The Code Parking Analysis indicates that the City requires 1-535' parking spaces for the land uses (including the proposed restaurant) located in the . West Half of Block 600. The parking inventory indicates•that 1,650 spaces are supplied on the site, resulting in a surplus of 115 parking spaces. • The operational parking demand analysis for the West Half of Block 600 indicates that the office space and the proposed restaurant are expected to ' generate a combined total parking demand for 1,448 spaces. The parking • .inventory indicates that the West Half of Block 600 parking supply amounts to 1,650 spaces. Hence, an operational surplus of 202 parking spaces could be expected in the West Half of Block 600 after the project completion. 30 c1 C Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers APPENDIX A - 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Worksheets 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Jamboree Rd / Santa Barbara Dr (Existing Traffic Volumes based on verage inter Pring 93 AM Peak 2$ Hour Approved - Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected Ion of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 3790 3% +��1� ` ( 6 7' (� Southbound 2746 % 3938 3q C Eastbound _0_ �� Igo 190 � O i i Westbound 468 24i� Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume l Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 21 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. Th/1Ii1 gAi^tM1--) Es TA P,AAlr W, B0k &M, DATE 3 nal 4 S PROJECT: ur7 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Jamboree Rd / Santa Barbara Dr (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average n er pring 9 _ M Peak 211 Hour , Approved Approach Existing Regionali Projects Projected I% of Projected- Project Direction Peak Zh Hour Growth— Peak--2;rHour enk-2Jt.Hour_ —Pe-ak-21TH6ur Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 2737 3/, (f 717- 3631 4 Southbound 4421 3% +(33� 1235 5� Q4 58 13 Eastbound _0_ 0� go So r { Westbound 2013 DY ,2638 26 ! p Project Traffic is estimated -to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 212- Hour Traffic Volume Q Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. PROJECT: PRiMS aTAJRAi1S 31.0(�k6LY) ])ERT iOfbM DATE 4.3 3l;7 l,l� 0 Z. 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/SAN JOAQUIN HILLS RD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 94)AM Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected =P,,Pkro12 Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Pdak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 3706 l{- 77;¢)' 1(9 q 6 Southbound 4063 141IZ 5556 56 2 Eastbound 909 32 74' Cj r Westbound 861 10 O dU Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 231 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected. ❑ Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. Tril/nl PAI IAb Rr�TAJEfiAT — StOCK 6w k EF-% Po CUSP— DATE: PROJECT: . FORM I 2. 1% Traffic .Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/SAN JOAQUIN HILLS RD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Xverage n er pr ng 9 PM Peak 2y Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2$ Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2K Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 38.59 z% (+� � 121Ir- 5I50 52 Zq Southbound 5489 z% 363 6952 o N. Eastbound 484 0 30Lr 18� Westbound 2443 4 101 2644 19 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2;1 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 21� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection .Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. Sn?IN PAia/S STAutk11T aLWA 4,00 1 ryoPaRx, DATE PROJECT: FORM I 3 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/FORD—EASTBLUFF DR (Existing Traffic Volumes based on verage inter Spring 1993TAM Peak 211 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1 of Protected Project Direction Peak 1p Hour Growth Peak 2;, Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 211 Hour Peak 2y Hour VoI Volume Volume Volume volume Volume Northbound 4161 3 � //+ �z5) � � 62 ��$ rj�) 1 southbound 3056 1262 44- /0 f Eastbound 937 C� 162 �� 1 I Nestbound O% 162- p 5O i C9 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 21, Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. TiUira {�Ac M< 6TflJR n7r r�toer i� rJR>PS C`t'd DATE 3 .z7 r PROJECT: CI 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Jamboree Rd For d Rd Eastb uff D (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage Inter pring �3 PM Peak 2y Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of ProjectedTPeako2h ject Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2h Hour Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volumelume Northbound- 4932 3/ ({ 149) 0 q-6 64 Southbound 4614 3/ (+ -S2) I32G 60 -72 Eastboupd 1097 ( /. Westbound 449 615 C7 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 231 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 'rmlm 1'A4.M6 Rv--rAu0r,�r 3it��x C� �aPnf M(LDATE 27-�/.S" PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection A MACARTHUR BOULEVARD (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage inter/spring 9 94' AM Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Pegk 2k Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 2984 2•! `+60) 43R ?jet `L�! 2 5 0 d 1791 z �+outhoun 978 � 0) 1 020 ZO (, 90SHE 3673 133} 1I32- 0 estbound i�;/ 74—$ 2.5 :�5— 26 ! P d Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project' Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2Z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. TN)IfJ �At MS �r`vTfIJR �T Rty"+ ''>; (�D �iv�fiap" eSR DATE PROJECT: /"2 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection -JARBOREE ROAD MACARTHUR BOULEVARD (,Existing Traffic Volumes vased on Average nter pr ng 9 — PM Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project 01rectlon Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour peak 2y Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2k Hour volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound . 1954 27, 25 _76 ZG 3 Sduthbound 3117 2-1 (462) JB i } 1 Eastbound 2340 2/ �G/ q f J�J O-)� 3� 4 Westbound 4304 2� Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume Q Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. PROJECT: • _. rdl. 5 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHUR BOULEVARD/SA11 MIGUEL DRIVE (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage Winter/Spring B_) AM Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 211 Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y,Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 3053 l ki) ZZI r2J�?j7jrj 33 y Southbound 2200 � Eastbound 505 �� l7� G 1 1 Westbound 624 1 q 4 Sig c9 O Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I-C.U.) Analysis is -required. iJny F�h}t MS {�a�TPrUt ,Z f31.C�R�( � NVJ�O(.1 Q:i1Z DATE 23-95' PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHUR BOULEVARD SAN MIGUEL DRIVE (Existing Traffic Volumes based on verage inter - pring 94 PM Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Pro ect Direction Peak 28 Hour Gronth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 1830 2/. �36 d$ 2 0 4 2,2� 2� Southbound 3107 Zi (+6z 4q 4 3 6'G� 3- L) Eastbound 2143 (�� L3� z4jgf ,`l6 ' it Westbound 797 0� 102 899 D Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 23-, Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I-C.U.) Analysis is required. —L3LOOK, Fop 11�W>'aRT VTR DATE ? o GS- PROJECT: r_ I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MacArthur Blvd / San Joaquin Hills Rd (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring- 19 93) AM Peak 231 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 2928 3 l It$8\\ 350 3366 3�f southbound 3785 3 { 6-1 44 Z Eastbound 516 �� l o2 6 18 162 Nestbound 1647 b 1170 1 8I� I g 3 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2i Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is .required. 7"w/nf f�i4� M5 REM0,08-A Yi 6"&Y- 6M W5Lk)?09:r 04k DATE PROJECT: rn 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MacArthur Blvd / San Joaquin Hills Rd (Existing Traffic Volumes based on verage Inter pring 9 _ PM Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projecte"cted Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2y Hoak 2y Hour Yglume Volume Volume Volume •Volume Northbound 2558 3% r*7?�; 415 3050OSouthbound 4623 3% (+ (39 )zEastbound1825 �/ q z7—g41�121 � 11'qZ ✓ Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2i Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected (� Peak 23-. Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 7N1N Q/+LJJ$ �E_i�7 AJ2Rn1 i K nnr � ,�1FyJjbrl,'1-' T�. OATE Z 21-95'' PROJECT: r-4 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHUR BOULEVARD/FORD ROAD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pring _ AM Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2k Hour .YoIume Volume Volume Volume volume Volume Northbound 4255 'Z,l (�5) 5G �(�` �•� Q (7 Southbound 4913 2 / l41$ G2 G1 Eastbound �� 50 D 480 Westbound 2350 / S ,L5o2 2 rr C7 J d Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. -row Alko:, DATE PROJECT:- cnn" . t C 7. 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHUR BOULEVARD/FORD ROAD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average nter pr ng _ PM Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 y Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2 8 Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 4093 u (tgl) Co r- 0 '+g4Z, 42 Southbound 6052 2� ��"�z r� ro� 2� 6,1 g I Eastbound 663 Q% 20 6�J7 `4 3 Westbound 1189 Q / 34•- 1223 12 ! Q Project Traffic is estimated to be less than '1% of Projected• Peak 23,-. Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection- Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. • Tui A3 r�At r+� StatrPfttli tat G��t 6Do !3 W(a�P' Qs}' DATE 3 ZS-5S PROJECT: Mnv • I ... 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHUR BL/BISON AV (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1991371AM Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected -Project Direction Peak 211 Hour Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 5276 3 /. (415Y) 20Lf- 5638 56 0 Southbound 482g 3'/ �F�(�5 Z(� G�� 5p f Eastbound 740 n /. 7! , �q� 3 i Westbound —0_ 9 27 taZ O Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Q Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. TVjO '�AtMS ��: 7ryt 1' - f3Wk 6GCi }.�1.:MPOP�Pi, DATE: iDATE• PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHUR BL/BISON AV (Existing Traffic Volumes 'based on Average n er pring 9 93 PM Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects projected 1=2hHour =PeapLk2�h Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 4029 ,?'/ �{ f2•�) 55 4�+o8 [� rWe uthbound 4307 3'/. �' 12.9), 9astbound 963 Oistbound _0_ C,/ Z O 2 L9 Q 11 O dProject Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 21 Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. rry/N' t�At hL5 p2F�fAu?FrNT Cal DC� hOD )bam� DATE 3— PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast H / Dover Dr/Ba shore Dr (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pring 19 93)AM Peak 2)1 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak.2y Hour Growth Pe Peak 211 Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 297 r Southbound 2280 0'/ 2-5-9 2 S32 29 3 Eastbound 4164 3 / I{' 15 3 Westbound 3� (+�32 �jf$ `5O$Z_ 51 2 4392 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Id Peak 23-, Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected El Peak 23-,. Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 7w W •PA4-. k6 40 RA%S, — $L&& 6Z kieOP6 CT C,Q. DATE: 3-2q-945" PROJECT: ^^_ 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast H / Dover Dr Ba shore Dr (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage inter pr ng 9 93 PM Peak 2h Hour Approved -- Approach Existing Regional ProJeets Projected 1% of Projected, Project Direction Peak 2k,Hodr Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour .Volume Volume Yolume Volume Volume '' Volume Northbound 277 0 •/ o 2�• 3 , Southbound 2 910 b I 1 Eastbound 4230 Y/ 41z4) (61 5-o [2 50 Westbound' 6757 (+ 203) q(� 'Gf(�•`7 (� i ( 6 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2x Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. PA-14A ,_nAoR� a 1op1t o i'o DATE: 3-2 — s' r,�,a s � PROJE CT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY BAYSIDE DRIVE (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on Average toter pring 94 Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 1056 �'�, 2� 1o52 O southbound 157 /. (S b „ I Eastbound 5907 Westbound 3402 2 c��$) 302 J 2. dProject Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2j Hour Traffic Volume O Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 23-,. Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. _Tui�� PRLP,ir`^('AURA•n1T^Fl4.Gt1{'' " I1FaPG,rrc OTCi DATE � 2.7 9S PROJECT: � r- • 10. 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/BAYSIDE DRIVE (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pr ng gk PM Peak 2$ Hour Apprbved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 24 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 1217 / 1220 1 Z. ( L Southbound 147 _2 ,q �7 9 /� Eastbound , J E� Nestbound 6163 z% +1 6T6 G9--[2 6q ' 6 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of -Projected Peak 2i Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization, (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. i3LbolL boo X. anf kr r, Q.. DATE PROJECT: „ , r 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection coast Hwy / Jamboree Rd (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage inter pring 9 93 AM Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected lx of Projected Project Direction Peak '2y Hour Growth Peak 211 Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 1494 2�'/ C4 1( I i J Southbound 1860 / 2—c oI 26 Eastbound 5212 3/ �f�Jr�o ��p(� 6Jr�� r6- Westbound 9' 2737 � / (4 �z 24 Er Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 23-2 Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C:U.) Analysis is required. �iy�.l QAUA�.�, fZ.rSTA•o ftr'�;5�'--l-,o- �r..aCll ��rvd POFT C'"m DATE:3 L�•--y5' PROJECT: � n 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Hwy / Jamboree Rd (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average n er pr ng 93)PM Peak 211 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 21S Hour Peak 2$;Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 1076 sNouthboouunnd 439075 Eastdnd `, ( ) it 3f 5 3 4761 J$50 eb 3•,� I412Z, 6001 1+-4 p rj Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1r00 PAwO QaTA0P-P& r&CU, 6W 1JF0faer erg. DATE 3 9.J 95- PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter pring _ AM Peak 211 Hour dPeak,2hHour [WApproachxisting Regional 12� 1X of Protected Protect k 2y Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume volume Volume volume 0— 0jOon310 0%3616 `1% (f72�2 � (161) 33 t 0 EJ Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2 z Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE 3 --9& ' PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 _ pM Peak 2y Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 24 Hour Penk 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour volume Volume Volume Volume Volume 'Volume Northbound —0— p'/- 0 0 Southbound 1718 0 j 2142 r g o 6 ZO Eastbound 4246 21 (4-95) 360 /��,j � 1 41 Westbound 3608 z (� 2� 2 3Q 2 6 3 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected [� Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. tuiA) 641-A5 2t r DRaNi - RL6n4 60-� AlwWfbr'_-t. i1p DATE -19-fd ' PROJECT: rnnu . n 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Hwy / MacArthur Blvd (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 9 93 ) AM • Peak 211 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Protect Direction Peak 2+s Hour Growth Peak 2)1 Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2� Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound _0_ 5'/ 0 O t Southbound 1226 �-4 97,�. cJ 0 S Eastbound 2437 / —' : Jl 120 2C30 2(9 � Westbound 4788 ? �r� �24 �55G E; _. Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. T,)m 09/-M5 —6 OU tco AJZJVA61ZT Q'X DATE 3 z31 ,fo-'• PROJECT: ni 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Hwy / MacArthur Blvd (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter pr ng _) P14 Peak 2$ Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 211 Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peek 2y Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume volume Volume Northbound —• Southbound 2342 S (1 40 14Z 2 55 Z Eastbound 4111 3% (4 )2,2) J2J 4 S57 Westbound 3634 3/ (4109) 'P2 40 I �'. Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. ,N R1tM$ �cb%A(1QRA)%-• , cdCK G DATE: a Z'tg5 PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/GOLDENROD AVENUE (Existing Traffic Volumes ase On Average inter pring _ AM Peak 2y Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects 'Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 211 Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 312 �i 16 330 3' 1 V Southbound 1 9 '/, 2-6 .2.2.6 7 j Eastbound 1951 .2/ + ?JQ 166 -2- 1 5W p/I Westbound 4193 2'� l� 23) �J �g T 1' q Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume O Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. Tu,11J PRi ins ;ku�fu —B�t�etc Eno JUi,UA„2;C7rZ DATE: .?-27-95 PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/GOLDENROD AVENUE (Exist ing ing Traffic Volumes Dased on Average In er r n p 9 _ PM Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected .'Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 257 0 6 Z6 3 3 Southbound Eastbound bo nd }z/ �y{ +--lLr 560 C � 547o 55 12- Westbound 3292 .'� (+66 232 35q p 3 z 6 I Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2.4iour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be re g ater than 1% of Projected Peak 2=4iour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.1 Analysis is required. PROJECT. DATE 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/MARGUERITE AV (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pring 9 93 AM Peak 2� Hour Approved i Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 24 Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peek 231 Hour Peak 2y Hour' Volume Volume Volume VolLume Volume Volume Northbound 639 0% 6 L 3 0 Southbound 433 Q/ 4 4 -1 `I, 0 Eastbound 2029 6" [36, 2 z Z6 2Z Westbound 3947 3� l�' � GJ&7 �t7J I 4-7 3 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. TW �'�vv�ts <r�✓RFu," — 1_0 Ena ,JEuA kr arA DATE 3 2a—f.7 PROJECT: n C 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/MARGUERITE AV (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 993 ) PM Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2$ Hour Peak 24 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 719 p/ ,Z, .�� Z southbound 68.6 p'� g 6q 4 rr r ��`` yy ! Eastbound 4229 �1 l� l2a% 516 Y! 8 I'2 4q ; !� Westbound 2891 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 231 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. r3 dQle (-,Co NEMki— n DATE- 4 PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/POPPY AVENUE (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/spring _) AM Peak 2y Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected -Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 73 (V 4 4 y_ 0 Southbound 98 9 106 1 y � Eastbound 1624 Z ,� ;�� 1 Westbound 2 d Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater. than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. _Tw�ni PFtaa,s K-6r�wRAu — KLa e 6aa lcg Pa2r CrP- DATE 3 a..7 fd— PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/POPPY AVENUE (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average in er pr ng 4g pM Peak 2y Hour Approved, Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 24 Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2h Your Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Yolume Northbound 148 0/ 2 1 J olb 2 2, Southbound 200 04 / 6 .201(,I II2 •2 ✓ Eastbound 3635 2�' I� 3) �26 12 Westbound 2/ (444) )29 26y 5 Z; [O Q Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 21,2 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. _ 'rullu Pau�S '--�}uRAu— ,�,tLek 6uo XJ¢wfbNf er-R DATE 3 2? fS PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection SAN JOAQUIN HILLS RD/SANTA CRUZ DR (Existing Traffic Volumes based on verage Winter/Spring 19 94 AM Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound . 252 �'� 100 2SZ Z Southbound 238 .20 _ I Eastbound 1465 l 00 I-4- 65 i g Westbound 779 rJ/ Z )0 z I O d Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. �1viN_fJ �Ms t srAuP ,�� - BcOeK 600 N�w1b+2r eTR DATE 3—Q9—Is- PROJECT: , FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection SAN JOAQUIN HILLS RD/SANTA CRUZ DR (Existing Traffic• Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 9 PM Peak 2y Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2$ Hour Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour Peek 24 Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume y Volume Volume Northbound 1178. C)/, b i q G T Z 0 ✓ southbound 20 3 Q% 20 223 2 !, Eastbound 1402 �/ 63 ► 4 G5 15 � 5 ✓ Westbound 1164 O/ ( z 3 2 �2 Project Traffic is estimated to. be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1u.0 PAaMs R�Es;Aur�/IIJr [�tGC��bGti A1�uPor27 GiR DATE a Z�-AT PROJECT: FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection SAN JOAQUIN HILLS RD/SANTA ROSA DR (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 93)AM Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected7Peak ect . Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2JI Hour Peak 2). Hour Peak 2k Hour6 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volumeume Northbound 250 0l 60 3 0 3 Southbound 3.12 b'/ 312. 3 i 1 Eastbound 706 Westbound 606 0/ Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. rhi i C,4 r e 660 ,c/o�)f042. C7'-4 DATE: 3-2�• dS PROJECT: FORM I Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers APPENDIX S ICU Analysis Worksheets 4� MA7135AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD 6 SAN MIGUEL DRIVE 7135 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1994 AM ----""------------------------------------"--------------"-•------------_.................... I 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 ICapacitylCopacityl Volume I Ratio I Volune I Volume Iw/o Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I I........................................................................................:..a I NL I 1600 I I 95 l o.ob l 2 1 IZ 1 0,07�1 2 10 04 -----------------I--------I----------------------------------------- MT I I 1152 ^---------------------I • 1 23 -------) 3200 ------------------) 0.42 •-------------- ---<-0,46-j........C 414 I__________________ 203 i '1- 1 1 1 1 — I I I SL I ---- I--------i------�----D.00 ---I---,-----i----------i-- i------- I----------------------------------- l-- sT qq ^II --------) 3200 ------------------) 0.30 I---Q---!--C_-- I b zl_— SR 1 It 1 Z2S j 1 I-----------------------------------------------------------/--------------------------------I I EL I 3200----------------16------0-02I-----------�l-----'�07--'-----------0T1 I - 1 ET -- UL---) 3200 - ---------- -------I-!----I.----f----�----0 -1--'r I I i n i I---------------- ------------------ -- 1 1600-I 1 141 1 0.09 • I q 1 0, 01A I , 10,f�9 1 I WT 1' 1 159 --------------------I --------) 3200 --------------- - I I q 3 I - f708 1 / I 0.08 I--------- I uR I---STING-------------------------- ---0.53----------------------------------------! I I------------------------------------ I I 1EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0,66 I I' I----------------------------- ------ - - - .- 1EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 1 0.6(7 I -------------------------------------------------- 1r/`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 traffil: I.C.U. with project improvements will be Less than I.C.U, without project ------------------------------------- Descriptfo0 of system improvement: • ' PROJECT MA7135AN FORM 11 MA7135PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD S SAN MIGUEL DRIVE 7135 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1994 PH ................:............................................................................ ' •1 IEXISTINGIPROPOSED[EXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICDMMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I'PROJECT I V/C Ratio lyolume I V/C I I I W yl W yl _.-I I- Lune I Votuoe IW/o Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume 1' J 1 I..... .........0 Co ..... Volume R-0... * Vo....._..........._.................._......I Ratio I I 1 I I I I :t• I 0.0.5"I 12 1 ao61 1--••---•-----------------=----------------------••--•---_... •-----..._......----I _ NT _ i 1 --- ) 0.21 I 7 1 T6 -------)........ tyl 3200 .................... I MR 1 1 163 1 91 1 !� I I - I I I ..........................................:...........:...................................I I SL 1 1600 1 1 3 1 0.00 1 g- 1 -, I ,I�r I ' I r2r 1 1•-------------------------------------•-----------------------------------------:•I 1 997 1,Sr 1 �0 I !/� •�-- - ' ) 3200 ------------•---• ) 0.41 • -... ---• - 7 L. 1- 1 SR I 1 322 I-------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- I EL 1 3200 I j 559 1 0.17 * 1 /35� ( 0.22i 10.2z I-----------•-------------------------------------------------------------------------------I ---ET--- I. 1 --- ) 0.13 1 .. 1 6�__<...:�6.j...._... yl 3200 __________________ _._. I ER 1 1 172 ' 1 ,r• 1 /9 .1 I `-- 1 I I------------------------•------•---------------•------•-----•-•----•--- ------__-__ I WL 1 1600 i I 126 1 0.08 i 1 Z 1 U. Dg I I — 1202I I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I . I Wr 11 1 160 1 �_ 141 1 1 I I I--------) 3200 ------------------) 0.06 r..................�•----•••.. �.___� ' I uR 1 1 20 i i 1 -9' 1 0 0' 'j..�- 1004 I� I-------•-----------------------------------------.......................................... (EXISTING 1 0.68 I________________________________________________ ____-_-_____-___-- [EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I----•---••---•------••-------------•-•-•-------------------,..._..---................_.....I (EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. '1 0 0, I_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 1IM/Projected + project traffic I.C.U. Will be less than oh 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/systrnx lvprovement Will be Less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected +project traffic t.C.U. With project improvements Will be 'less than I.C.U. without project ......................................................................................... Description of system foprovmmnt:. IA)/Al 104"As P. 6ra•un�anjY- 13Z•�K ( ,Ut�UPdk7- r�., ' PROJECT MA7135PH FORM it i MA5070AM a INTERSECTION CAPACITY-UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD 5070 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1993 AM -----------------------------------------------------------1--------------------------------- I IEXISTINGIPROPOSED IE%1STINGIEXISTI NGIREG(ONALICOMMITTEDI 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 ICapacitylCapacttyl Votum I Ratio I Volume I VetUme Iw/o Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I I---------------------------------------0.05----------------------- 1 N� 1600___________________�- ±__�---_�._ -__-�--0'i0' I 1 0.05 1 �1 - ------------------ 1 NT .1 .'•4800 I 1 1232 1 0.26 1 `Jj7 1 1 6"I 1 0- 3D 1 1 0.3O I I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I ' NR 1 1600 1 1 9 1 0-01 1 .fr 1 -6, 1 0, 01 I - 10.0 1, ________________________________________________________________________________ 1 SL 1 3200 1 1 211 1 0.07 1 G 1 6 1 0.0-� I , 10.0f 1, I______________________________________________________________________ ___ ST 1 32001 1 9581 0.30 * 4 1 S3k 1 0. 4 I----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ---I I SR I H.S. 1 1 6121 1 18 1 167- 1 1 1 I I I--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---EL---1-- 3200-1_ I 81 1 0.03 * '. 1 - ,4 1 (7.0�- 41 X 10.O�f'j -------------- -------- ----------------------------------------------I 1 ET I I I --- i 0.03 �- ------- l-- 1 P 0� 1 � 10.0�1 I ' - ) 4800 - - I ER I 1 1 40 1 I , 11 .._i - _._....j... ,I I_______________________________________________________________________ WL ---u`---L__1600 1 1 13 I. 0.01 1 'or' 1 c7.0/ 1 _ 10,L/ I ------------- -- -------- ---------------------------------------------- I WT 1 32001 1 2201 0.071 - 1 34 1 0.08 I Z 10.a21 I-------------------------------------------- ---------------------------- ---------------- I WR 1 1600 ** 1 552 1 0.35 * 1 551 1 0 .?>,g�1 — 103e I--------EXISTING ---------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------i . I I i (EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1' 0, F L I 1 I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I✓•2Z I - ------------------------------------------------------_._-._ __- _-_--.--. • **Right turns only from single lane I'' 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 wtll be less than I.C.U. without project ----------------- Descripetion of system improvement: Toth NAuAS Q� AU4ANT Rl,�pk Feh l3F�JR3QT' diR PROJECT MA5070AM FORM II rl • i � 6. MA5070PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY WILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD 6 SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD 5070 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1993 PH I •-IEXISTIHGIPROPOSED[EXISTIHGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMHITTEDI PROJECTED [PROJECT PROJECT Movement Lanes Lanes PK HR V/C GROWTH PROJECT I V/C Ratio Voluac V/C I I IICapacitylCapaeityl Yoltmo i Ratio i Valuna i Voltmo 'w/Yolune�t 'Ratio i I .:.....................................................:............ f.......i•--p31 I xL .1 1600 I i 41 1 0.03 • .I I i I O.�.3 '� . p I - - ........................................................... . . .. I Rt 1• •4800 I 1 1045 [ 0.22 1 31 I 217G 1 _ ....... I•D•2 l _________________________________________________________________________________________ NR 1 1600 1 1 11 1 0.01 - Ot I 1 0,0/ _•_____________________________________________0.-__-__-- _____-__ - .-.__.__.________._. I SL 1 32001 1 439 [ 0.14 113 1 f)•tl I r i (7•�js I----------------------------------------------------------------------- ._.... I ST 1 3200 1 1 1291 1 0.40 « 39 I ?off I �`i ' ---------•------ --•------------------------- I SR I H.S. 1 1 348 1 1 10 1 30 1 __' •1_-.G._L...._-i 1_____________________•________________________._____________________.___...__._..:..__._... SD4 I---E--_--_ ---- I - 1 --- I 0-16 « I (99 I D. 1 3 1 O- - -• -- = -= -----•- ------------------------- II ET1 I ---•----) 4800 I--•-------------•) 0.07 297 � E = - ..�.._.._.h --- 1 --1 O oQ o8, I---ER------------- i 58_ I - 18 I ._..._..--•--- ••--••--•--..•.-•---._...-•--..--•...................... I WL 1 1600 1 1 13 1 0.01 I----------------- --•----------------.--------- —-- ------- -- I UT - I--------) 4800 ..................) 0.08 ................... P 009 1 WR 1 1 262 y------- �c�- •7~I I Z2 1 p �'1 9 1 I------------------------•---• .............. ...........IEXISTING 1 0.671 ....:............................ I I---------••-------•---•-----------•--------•--- _---- •------... 1EXIST + REG GROWTH+ COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 D, 85, 1 .._•.•-:.. _I............................................................................... i. 1EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH +PROJECT I.C.U. ___ -------------------------- 10.251 ' Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to o.90 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. WILL be greater than 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. W/systems Inprovemmnt 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 j ro ect P ----------- ....................-.............................................. Description of system inprovcment: T�inJ QAe ►J.s � s, .avRa/S[ 3+ o�K ti� A1Ew�Paz1- @tR PROJECT M07OPH FORM It 14 . CH6355AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY & GOLDENROD AVENUE 6355 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING1994 AM-------------- - I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMHITTEDI 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 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 .e� NL 1 1 107 1 - I q I I I 1 ), ---- -- - --) --- ---- --- ---- zc------ - - - r------ I NY 1600 I i 1 0.08 • — I "a" I 0. 09 I 10.49„I 1- ) ------------------) -------------------<--------- --------E----�I I MR I I 13 I - I g' I ----------I--- I i SL 1 1 29 1 - 1 (0 I 1 - I I I--------) ------------------) ------------------- ------------------ E--- j ST 1600 1 1 18 0.07 1 ` I &I' I O.0fl 10.Off I--------) • ------------------) --- •--------------E-------- }---- -l- -- 1 SR 1 [ 67 I 1 /+ 1 I------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - ---- ---- 1 EL 1 1600 1 1 29 1 0.02 ' Jr l g 1 0. OZ_'� I iJ I (7.oZ _______________________________________________________________ ___________________________I 1 ET 1 1 822 _10271 --------) 3200 ------------------ _ _ - <._:ER I I15 0- I I 1 I - - - - - -------------- -- - - ---------- I - I I I WL 1 1600 1 1 33 1 0.02 1 1 %-g' 10.9Z I - 10.01_ I_____________________________________________ _____________- I WT 1 1 1729 1 5S 1 W 1 6/'kl Z I �� --------) 3200 ------------------) 0.55 ------------------_E_Q.--_----------19a_� WR 1 i 26 I I __________�______I I I__________________________________ ________I 1EXISTING 1 0.65 1 1 1---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0 1 [EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 • L 4• 1 1 I-------------- -----1 1EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 10.24 1 ------------^----------------------------------------------------------------------- ---• r [-(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 improvemerit 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: �.Jiu Parals 2;rrA�2RAr -d�oo� boo NsuMc�i 6TR _ PROJECT FORM II CH635SAM �n r * i4 . CH6355PH INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY S GOLDENROD AVENUE 6355 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1994 PH IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXiSTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMHITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio' IVoluno I V/C I I ICopacitylCapacityl VOLune I Ratio I Volunc I Volune Iw/o Projeetl I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Votunc I I I I------------------------------------------•----------------------------•--_----------------1 � HT '1600 ._ _..� • 1.....___1...._0 0.07 Q- -' I-----•-• -••= ---I -�:° ..__/..I0.0 - I MR - _ I i 23 ? _ i...---. ----�I 1 SL, 1- I. 1, 35 1 1600 12 0.051sr _ I /Y 10 'b ICIJJI -----......------ I SR 1 1 35 1 1 1 ?— I 1 / 1 I-------------•-•--------•----------------•-•---------•--------------------•----------------I I EL 1 1600 I 1 34 1 0.02 1 - 1 1 4 1 0, 02 1 { 10.02.1 I------------------------------------------------------------O---------� —------------—a f I' 1 I --------) 3200 -------- _ 0 __O_69_!___!_.__I._ _.._I._.... 1 1 1__. ...�L 46 ;, i l7_a2'�1 I O.oZ ER ------- I [ WL I 1600 I [ 29 I 0.02 I I I I WT 1 1 1282 (, I--------s 3200 --•- -----> 0.41 ... -• - --- '- --<-0.446 .......0I Of.1. I WR 1 I 79 10 I � 1 1 - I I I-----•---------------------------------•- ------ ---------------------------I IEXISr[NG .I 0.78 1 1 1 I---•-•--------•---- ----------------- ----_-----------_------------- I 1EXIST + REG GROWTH +COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0, 2 Q I I I•-------•----•--•-------•-----------------•-•--------------•-------•-------........__..... [EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I •i :7• 22l ..............................•-•......--••------..--............__.....___.......__......... 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 ioprovemcnt •WILL be Less than or equal to 0.90- Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. Without project .........................................:...........................:................... Descrtptfon of sydtem improvement: • iA�.,J .i'.4�.N5 .Pf-r57'AdkR,J=diner E�+o AlraJft rR PROJECT FORM II CH6355PH Y,S2 CII6800AN INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY & POPPY AVENUE 6800 EXIST.TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1994 AN -__--__-____•----•--_______--•-----------------•--___-•••---•-------••••-------------••------ I IEXISTINGlPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI 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 Icapacityl Capacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume Iw/o Projeetl I Ratio I I ( - I I I I I I Volume I I I -----------------I-------------- -------------------------------------------�--------- HL -fi 1 - 1 2- 1 1 I--------) . . ------------------) -------------------- NT 1600 1 1 2 0.02 1 - 1 2 1 C2•OZ 1 - 10:0Z I __________________3 _______--_-______-______---•-__- ___---1 I NR I 1 11 1 - 1 9 . 1 I I i _________________i_______-i_____ _______________________________--_________________--__-_1 SL 37 1 10, 1 1 1 i I________) __________________) ------------------------- I ST 1600 1 1 3 0.03 * - 1 0 1 0 03�1 IO,a; 7. I ) ------------------) I SR I I 11 -----------•-------------------I I - 1 I ' 1 ,6 I I I------------------------------ ----------- --------- 1 EL 1 1600 1 1 6 1 0.00 * ,q' I I I 0;0D•'(-I 'r 1 (900v _________________i_____-__--•-•----_______ __-___I_I________-______-____q_--___--_j-_-_________-1 ET I--------) 3200 ---) 0.22 -__----------------�.�:G.��. :1 /� �(�,�J�1 I ER 1 I --16 I I - ----------- I I 1600 I 1 16 I 0.01 1 �I yg I . a 0! I 1 0, 0/ 1 ------------------------•---------------------- - --�o-•-- -----06�z I WT I 1 1590 1 3Z 1 Z Z3 1 �1 I I--------) 3200 ---------- ) 0.50 *----------------•-c �' L I WR I 1 9 I I I I I I 1---------------------------------------------------•--------------------------------------- 1EXISTING 1 0.53 I-•---•--------------------------=------•-----------•---------------------2--- I 1EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 I-------------------------•------------------•----•------------- -- - - ---------- ---1 1EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 10. 691 ----••-•---------------------•------•----•-----------•---------------------•-•-----•--------- 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 uilt 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: 'rw'AJt�RNtS � TAWPgA}T BLGLtK hOG Ni—WR7.e>✓ QTX PROJECT FORM 11 CH6800AN CI CHWOPH INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY 6 POPPY AVENUE 6800 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE'DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1994 PH . . I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOHNITTEOI 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 lCapacitylCapaeityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Votume lw/o Projectl I Ratio I I ' I i 1 1 1 _ 1 1 Volume I I I -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 NL 1 1 20 1 .......... ------------------- P------'r:=--- I NT . 1600 l I 5 0.04 1 , I I 0•0�1 I - I v.dl/' I I......--) ..................) -------------------<.........>------- .... I MR 1 1 31 1 1 0 1 I - 1 i I---------------------------------__________________________________________________________1 I SL 1 1 85 - I__----__) — _____) �__--____ :� t-.__- ____-____l_-____-i_____:I I sT 1600 1--. 1. 5 0.06 • 1 9 1 (?,0,'`I 10.0�� --------) I i t.. ............. .......... ..--- SR ' l___________________________________________________________________________________________ I EL l 1600 i I is 1 0.01 1 y� I I 1 (9 0f I I ODII I---------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------- -- I ET 1569 1 �Z. 1 L63 I p §: a 1 Z. 1 C --------) 3200 I--------I--------) 0.50 •-------------- R 4 I ER 1 1 27 1 1 1 .9' I 1 1 1 i I------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I WL 1 1600 1 1 13 1 0.01 • g 1 0 1 a•D�Y1 1U`.(�� _________________________________________________9____________ ___-.______-__I I^---__) 3200 1 I --- 1 ; ( y ---c----------PA-------i`�0'3%11 I WR I I B I 1 ,0- 1 1 — I I I___________________________________________________________________________________________l (EXISTING 1 0.57 1 1 I----------------------------------------------------------------------------______________________________ .1 (EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. l____________________________________________________________ ___---___-_________I . 1EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. ............................................................................................. . 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 improvemen} wilt be less than or equal to 0.90 ; 1_1 'projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be Less then I.C.U. without project .............................................................................:........... Description of system improvement: PAc AAS �%,afAuiPfM);— BLdQK b00 d)J��(bQT CSR PROJECT FORM II CH6800PH . Ci'n SJ5060AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD S SANTA CRUZ DRIVE 5060 5065 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1994 AM ---------------"-".--•--._.".....-•------------------------------•-----..........------------ I 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 ICapacitylcapaeityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume Iw/o Projectl I Ratio I I . •.1 1 1 1 1 1 _ - 1_ Volume I I I 1 xL i 3200 1 1 56 I 0.02 l I 25- I 0. 03 1 10.03 1 -----._------------------------ --P-i-----------------i------_._i._....-----i._ ----------77 xT ------- ----------- --4d /J i ��77J3r I I1 sL ---- ! -------------15---------------------�------0 0 ( vj-------i----- �j. --------I---- ---i ---•-•i----------- 0 -----•----------—---i---------i-----•-I-"•�'I I___________ _____ __ V 1 I 1 1600 - 5 0.00 1--------- ........................................................I I SR 1 1600 1 1 79 1 0.05 1 ' 1 0 10 OS I -, 10.0S1 I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I EL 1 1600 '1 1 46 1 0.03 1 ' 119 1 01031 10.011 I---------------------- ------ -- ---------- ------ -------- ET 3 (I /// JE I--------) 4800 ------------------) 0.13 I----•---- - �....j_ I ER 1 1 238 I I 140 I I I 1 I I------------------------------------------------------------------ ------ - ..._ I, I WL 1 1600 1 1 122 1 0.08 . - 1 IZZ 1 (�• fs'�Ii �.ISf" --------------:-----------I------- --------------------------- ---------------------------I I--------) 4800 ------------------) 0.05 --------------�--•- - SOS?-------E�0-0�1 I WR 1 I 16 I I------------------------------------------------------ -- --------------- ------- -------I 1EXISTING . 1 0.23 1 1 1EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I O• �S I I I------------------------------------------------------------------------------- �. 3Sj 1EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyj 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: liyiA) i�Rt.MS >°.GST.4URAA1'i Q1.0�1C 6O0 aF�.1P0/CT' QT12 PROJECT FORM II SJ5060AM SJ5060PH INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD i SANTA CRUZ DRIVE 5060 5065 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC HINTER/SPRING 1994 PH ...................................................................:......................... I IEXISTINGI PROPOSED I EXISTING IEXISTINGI REGIONAL[COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT IPROJECTI IMovamentl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR i V/C i GROWTH ( PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVolune I V/C I l 1C0pacitYlC0pacitYl Votunc I Ratio I Votune I Voltmc IW/o Projeetl I Ratio I I I I volune I _ I I__________ _________________________________ I NL 1 3200 I I 397 1 0.12 • I �y i �•� T I ( I (7.�� I I-------------------------------•------•-- --•----••-----•---"- 1 1 . • 211 1 - 1 6 1 I I I 1________)' '1600 --••-•••------"••' 0.07 -•••-••--------- I I �13 -j.� -i---- --i DII I NR I I 94 I _ I---------------------'•-•---------------'•--••-•------•-------- --- •••-----__i I sL I tbao I I 13 I 0.01 I 1 10 I .:_(2.0( 1 10.ol i I---------------------------------•--------------------------- .... ST I 1600 1 1 9 1 0.01 • I ,�• I C7•p11'-^"•1 d.01�1 I--•------ •"'................."-......----"-......._..._..._...__..._.."-...._..i SR 1 1600 I 1 43 I 0.03 1 1 k? 1 ().01 1 10.03 1 1-'•------••---•-----•---•-----------'•-•--•----•----------•-•--•--------------------------�I I EL 1 1600 I 1 104 I Ii 0.07 • 1 0 1 D,v� `_I...-_...1�0l2.:0�7___________________________________ - . -Er 1 1240 1 I r I' Q1--------) 4800 ..................) 0.09 (--........ ER L�1 + 214 I--------------------•-------------------------------•-- WL 1 1600 1 1 29 I 0.02 I I -23 -_...- ;.................•'-•'I •-•'-••.__•-• I o. I I p. I I. WT 1 478 ) o.to I 13 j'1 0.//.I I' I - I l I - i I--------) 4800 •--•- ------------ +................. e-s J_ - •ate._.._.. I uR 1 I 24 {-....rl I•-•--••••--'•-•.......:.............. i _ i .0 .............................. [EXISTING 0.30 • I---•-----"'-----•---------------------•- --------'•--------•- I (EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED V/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1._........................................ I (EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I0 5G I .......................................... I-Projected + project traffic I.C.U. Will be less than or equal to 0.90, 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C:U. will be greater than 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. W/systems Improvement will be 'Less than or equat to 0.90 1_I•Projected + project traffic J.C.U. with project iaprovemrnts wilt be less than I.C.U. without project ........... ............................................................:...........• ...... Description of system loorovement: T.,�/N Pills 99-(ST VPdAlr- 6L,JdK 1000 MAOU 6 pT— EJTzk PROJECT SJ50611PH FORM I1 �Z SJ5065AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD & SANTA ROSA DRIVE/BIG CANYON 5065 ' EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1993 AM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------•------------ I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEOIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio lVolune I V/C I I lCapacitylcapaeityl Votuae I Ratio I Votuae I Volune lW/o Projectl I Ratio I I I . I I I I I I Volune I I I I-----=-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---I I NL f 1600 I 35 - 0.02 I l f 1 0 03 I I O.03l -- ,k l NT ,1 .1600 1 1 s I 0.01 * 1 I 0.01I E� I Q•dll I -= - --- - - ---- - - - ----- /�— I i NR I 1600 1 l 62 l 0.04 1 1 1� 1 0.OJ I I I DOJ 1.c__________________________________________ l SL 1 1600 l i 64 l 0.04 • I �� I (7. (?[(� I--------------------•------------------------------------------- l sr 1 1600 1 1 12 1 0.01 l I J I O.D 1 1 1 coo/1 I--------- --------------- ---------------------------------•-------------- I SR 1 1600 .1 1 57 1 0.04 1 - I /ar I 0.I7* I 10.0�{ I______________________________________________________________ ___-____--_ I EL 1 1600 1 1 51 1 0.03 1 I I .0 1 0. 01E I 1(2 041 -----------------I------------• ---------------------------------------------------------I. ET 185 _ � I--------) 4800 ------------------> 0.06 - ---- I ER l 1 108 I 11 7I- I----------------- ---•--------------------- - ------------------------- -------- -----22-- WL 1 3200 1 1 371 1 0.12 * I _1 Z 1 Q. I.J 1--------------------------I------- -------------------------------------------"---------- --------> 480D ------------------> 0.08 - �- I E 0 (D 10101 I 1 86 = -- -=-�I I-------- --------------------------------------------I-�-•I---•-------I._--•-I------•I 1------------------------------------- l I (EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 p,ZS I i I---------------------------------------------------------------------------------•---------i (EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. '1 0 ZSI ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- )y—1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. Witt be greater than 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement Will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements Witt be less than I.C.U. without project ------------------- Description of system improvement: Twiti �AcAAS I�t=4T4tIPA/u7' djGGC'K 6LYi Al�tufb� Ci"2 PROJECT SJ5065AM FORM It SJ5065PH INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD •3 SANTA ROSA ORIVE/BIG CANYON 5065 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING • 1993 PH ............................................_________________________________________________ I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXiSTINGIREGIONALICOMHITTEDI PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI IMovcmentl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C 1, GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio lyolume I V/C I I Votuae I Ratio I Volume I Volume Iw/o Projeetl I Ratio I I:Ca�__cit YICa citY - w I I I I I volume I _ I I I HL 1 1600 1 1 164 1 0.10 I I I I f�•(( I - 10.(I ,I----- -- . ---- ----------------- ------i � ------------ --- --�.0( I ' ----- --- -- - I I I I ________________---------------------------------------------------------------------______ l MR •I ' 1600 1 1 340 1 0.21 ** • I 3G 1 ,0,231`•I � I-p.Z4•k ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I SL 1 1600 '_I I __66_ I. 0.04 • I ,�' i _ L0.Ol_I_ -- ---------- - -- _ • __ I St 1 1600 I 1 13 1 0.01 1 - i k I (q.(91 1 3 1,0 01 1 -------------------- __--_----------_---- ----- SR 1 1600 1 1 471 0.03 1, • 1 1 0.03 i 10.011 ----------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------1 I EL, 1 1600 1 1 41 1 0.03 1 ' I & 1 0. 03 1 — I aa3 i �----------------I----_-_-I------- ---------'--------I ---- ------.----��i-_-----I-��---'--� I--------) 4800 ..................) 0.09 ------------------4•j ...._..� .......<') �y-I I ER I - 1 60 I I 77_ I I I I ------ ------- ------------------ _--. -_--. i WL 6 3200 1 • 1, 222 1 0.07 1 1 3 1 0 0� I I I`0.021 -------------------------------------------------- ------------__-- .------I I WT 1 1 174 1 - 1 Z0 1 I : -el0Q6 I --------) 4800 ------------------3 0.05 I---------- , __ 1��12 f_ WR 89 ------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________ 1EXISi[NG ( 0.34 I ^ ,� I----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0 •3 1 I I---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --1 1EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 10.401 -----------------•-......_.....----._.........._.....-_..._._....._..._.._............._..... **Assumed WBL included in NBR. 152(Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than-or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic t.C:U. will be greater than 0.0 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 t.C.U. with project .improvements wilt be less than I.C.U. without project ... .................................................................................... Description of system improvement: T21.0 A I_MS Eei rRURAtir- Be cQ9 6G6 A!&O&fir CKR PROJECT FORM It SJ506SPH vl 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection SAN JOAQUIN HILLS RD/SANTA ROSA DR (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on Average Winter Spring 1g 93 PM Peak 2 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2� Hour I Growth Peak 215 Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2> Hour Peak'2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 1165 Q 100 1 Southbound 348 YI/ d 349 c Eastbound 1.105 10/. 14L Westbound 1218 / �� `2 $ Z .13 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 21,. Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. PROJ E PRt i! t rC'£i r AtJkf„�T"�c 0I7G 6cCr VFn1 Pber LTG DATE 3-�� %S PROJECT: —' FORM I C/ �j r . , 0 PoR�� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH V M P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92658-8915 PLANNING DEPARTMENT(714) 644-3225 May 16, 1995 Mr.Tom Redwitz The Irvine Company 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach,CA 92660 Subject: Traffic Study for the proposed Twin Palms Restaurant at Block 600 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach(TS #104) Dear Mr. Redwitz: As you are aware, the Traffic Study for Twin Palms Restaurant is being prepared by Linscott, Law& Greenspan Engineers (LLGE). Due to the revision in the project's site plan, LLGE has determined that additional study will be required; the anticipated work not to exceed $4,000. A copy of the contract amendment request is attached. The revised fees requested are as follows: Traffic Consultant fees 4,000 City fees(10%) 400 Total Request $4,400 Please submit a check in the amount of$4,400 payable to the City of Newport Beach. Should you have any questions or need more information regarding this letter, please contact me at 644-3236. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By M .OL Aziz M.Aslami Associate Planner F:\WP51\...\Aziz-a\Traffic\TS104\redwitz '` 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach V 0 f LINSCOTP, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS TRANSPORTATION PLANNING•TRAFFIC ENGINEERING•PARKING 1580 CORPORATE DRIVE,SUITE 122,COSTA MESA,CALIFORNIA 92626 TELEPHONE:(714)641.1587•FAX:(714)641.0139 .5 PHILIP M.LINSCOTT,P.E. JACK M.GREENSPA May 8, 1995 PLC!) ;1.J P.�L,Ms!B i..=RT WILLI M A.LAW,PEN,P.E. CITY ()F f4 - a,PORT BEACE PAUL W.WILKINSON,P.E. LEON D.WARD,P.E. JOHN P.KEATING,P.E. Ali [�iH:i K 1395 Mr. Aziz M. Aslamil�ll�;ll11211121314,t P6 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 LLG REFERENCE: 2-951761-1 SUBJECT: ATTACHED CONTRACT AMENDMENT REQUEST FORM FOR BLOCK 600 ENTITLEMENT TRANSFER Dear Mr. Aslami: We are submitting the attached Contract Amendment Request related to the Block 600 project. The Contract Amendment is needed due to a requirement by City Staff of a re- analysis as a result of a change in the project description. So as to provide quality and expeditious service to our clients, we have developed the attached Contract Amendment Request form. You will note that the form refers back to our original Contract of March 29, 1995, such that all terms and conditions agreed to in that document will continue to apply except as amended herein. If you concur with the request to amend the Contract, please countersign the original form and return immediately to our office so that we can proceed with the additional tasks. If you have any questions, please call. Very truly yours, LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS OG k �L Jack M. Greenspan, P.E. Principal Attachment 4`UMGkMEM0SLM1761C0NTAMD OTHER OFFICES:PASADENA TELEPHONE:(213)681-2629•FAX:(818)792-0941 SAN DIEGO TELEPHONE:(619)299-3090•FAX:(619)299-7041 AN LG2WB COMPANY L LINSCOTr, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS TRANSPORTATION PLANNING•TRAFFIC ENGINEERING•PARKING 1580 CORPORATE DRIVE,SUITE 122,COSTA MESA,CALIFORNIA 92626 TELEPHONE:(714)641-1587•FAX:(714)641-0139 PHILIP M.UNSCOTT,P.E. JACK M.GREENSPAN,P.E. May 8, 1995 WILLIAM A.LAW,P.E. PAUL W.WILKINSON,P.E. LEON D.WARD,P.E. JOHN P.KEATING,P.E. Mr. Aziz M. Aslami CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 LLG REFERENCE: 2-951761-1 PROJECT: BLOCK 600 ENTITLEMENT TRANSFER SCOPE OF WORK FOR AMENDMENT NO. 1: Extensive revisions to traffic and parking calculations and analysis resulting from change in project description. Traffic and parking analysis initially completed and presented to Staff required complete re-analysis as a result of a change in the square footage used to describe the total restaurant (for traffic analysis), and the new public floor area available to diners (for parking analysis). ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT (March 29, 1995): $ 8,825.00 PRIOR CONTRACT AMENDMENT: $ None ADDITIONAL BUDGET REQUESTED: $ 4,000.00 ADJUSTED CONTRACT AMOUNT: $12,825.00 Upon return of a fully executed authorization, this service fee and condition shall become a part of the Contract Agreement dated March 29, 1995, except as amended herein. APPROVED BY: APPROVED BY: LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENG ERS By: By: Title: W, tl✓1CV Title: Date: May 8, 1995 Date: C:UMMMEMOSLM1761CONT.AMD OTHER OFFICES:PASADENA TELEPHONE:(213)681-2629•FAX:(818)792-0941 SAN DIEGO TELEPHONE:(619)299.3090•FAX:(619)299.7041 AN LG2WS COMPANY LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS TRANSPORTATION PLANNING•TRAFFIC ENGINEERING•PARKING 1580 CORPORATE DRIVE,SUITE 122,COSTA MESA,CALIFORNIA 92626 TELEPHONE:(714)641-1587•FAX:(714)641-0139 PHILIP M.UNSCOTT,P.E. JACK M.GREENSPAN,P.E. May 8, 1995 WILLIAM A.LAW;P.E. PAUL W.WILKINSON,P.E. LEON D.WARD,P.E. JOHN P.KEATING,P.E. Mr. Aziz M. Aslami CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 LLG REFERENCE: 2-951761-1 SUBJECT: ATTACHED CONTRACT AMENDMENT REQUEST FORM FOR BLOCK 600 ENTITLEMENT TRANSFER Dear Mr. Aslami: We are submitting the attached Contract Amendment Request related to the Block 600 project. The Contract Amendment is needed due to a requirement by City Staff of a re- analysis as a result of a change in the project description. So as to provide quality and expeditious service to our clients, we have developed the attached Contract Amendment Request form. You will note that the form refers back to our original Contract of March 29, 1995, such that all terms and conditions agreed to in that document will continue to apply except as amended herein. If you concur with the request to amend the Contract, please countersign the original form and return immediately to our office so that we can proceed with the additional tasks. If you have any questions, please call. Very truly yours, LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS G��=� �d"�7cuc Jack M. Gr'eenspan, P.E. Principal Attachment 09MGIMEMOSLE111761CONTIAMD OTHER OFFICES:PASADENA TELEPHONE:(213)681-2629•FAX:(818)792-0941 SAN DIEGO TELEPHONE:(619)299-3090•FAX:(619)299.7041 AN LG2WI3 COMPANY LINSCOIT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS TRANSPORTATION PLANNING•TRAFFIC ENGINEERING•PARKING 1560 CORPORATE DRIVE,SUITE 122,COSTA MESA,CALIFORNIA 92626 TELEPHONE:(714)641-1587•FAX:(714)641-0139 PHILIP M.LINSCOTT,P.E. May 8, 1995 JACK M.GREENSPAN,P.E. WILLIAM A.LAW,P.E. PAUL W.WILKINSON,P.E. LEON D.WARD,P.E. JOHN P.KEATING,P.E. Mr. Aziz M. Aslami CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 LLG REFERENCE: 2-951761-1 PROJECT: BLOCK 600 ENTITLEMENT TRANSFER SCOPE OF WORK FOR AMENDMENT NO. 1: Extensive revisions to traffic and parking calculations and analysis resulting from change in project description. Traffic and parking analysis initially completed and presented to Staff required complete re-analysis as a result of a change in the square footage used to describe the total restaurant (for traffic analysis), and the new public floor area available to diners (for parking analysis). ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT (March 29, 1995): $ 8,825.00 PRIOR CONTRACT AMENDMENT: $ None ADDITIONAL BUDGET REQUESTED: $ 4,000.00 ADJUSTED CONTRACT AMOUNT: $12,825.00 Upon return of a fully executed authorization, this service fee and condition shall become a part of the Contract Agreement dated March 29, 1995, except as amended herein. APPROVED BY- APPROVED BY: LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENGI4TERS By: V--Ln By: Title: W- Title: Date: May 8, 1995 Date: QV MGVASMOSLBn1761CONT.AM D OTHER OFFICES:PASADENA TELEPHONE:(213)681.2629•FAX:(818)792.0941 SAN DIEGO TELEPHONE:(619)299-3090•FAX:(619)299.7041 AN LG2WB COMPANY LINSCOTI', LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS �L^ TRANSPORTATION PLANNING-TRAFFIC ENGINEERING•PARKING 1580 CORPORATE DRIVE,SUITE 122,COSTA MESA,CALIFORNIA 92626 TELEPHONE:(714)641-1587-FAX:(714)641-0139 May 4, 1995 PHILIP M.LINSCOTT,P.E. JACK M.GREENSPAN,P.E. WILLIAM A.LAW,P.E. FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED LEON D.WARD,PAUL W. P.E. P.E. JOHN P.KEATIN ,P.E. Mr. Aziz M. Aslami CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SERVICES BLOCK 600 - ENTITLEMENT TRANSFER INVOICE No. 1 File No. 2-951761-1 For Transportation Engineering Consulting Services during the period of February 27 through April 23, 1995. Services. Coordinated with City Traffic Engineering Staff to identify study intersections (18 intersections designated). Obtained City traffic model data for 1% Test, ICU Test (where required) and related projects. Prepared trip distribution analysis and submitted to Staff for approval, received Staff comments and revised distribution as appropriate. Prepared 1% Test analysis. Conducted ICU Test calculations at 6 intersections which crossed 1% Test threshold. Determined significant impact (none). Prepared Block 600 code parking analysis for proposed Twin Palms Restaurant. Conducted parking counts in Parking Structure No. 2 to determine existing operation. Based on current occupancy rates, determine expected usage of Parking Structure No. 2 with full occupancy of adjacent office buildings. Conducted walk-in traffic count at Tutto Mare Restaurant and projected expected Twin Palms Restaurant parking requirement. Prepared traffic and parking study per City guidelines. Principal Engineer . . . . . . . . . 32.00 hrs. @ $127/hr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 4,064.00 Transportation Planner III . . . 31.25 hrs. @ $ 80/hr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 2,500.00 Transportation Eng. II . . . . . . 10.00 hrs. @ $ 75/hr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 750.00 Transportation Eng.I . . . . . . . . 4.00 hrs. @ $ 57/hr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 228.00 CARD Drafter/Sr. Tech. . . . . . 7.00 hrs. @ $ 57/hr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 399.00 Word Processor/Sec . . . . . . . . . 9.00 hrs. @ $ 45/hr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 405.00 Current Charges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 8,346.00 (Continued on Page 2) PLEASE REMIT COPY OF INVOICE WITH PAYMENT TO ADDRESS INDICATED ABOVE. OTHER OFFICES:PASADENA TELEPHONE:(213)681-2629-FAX:(818)792.0941 SAN DIEGO TELEPHONE:(619)299-3090-FAX:(619)299-7041 AN LG2WB COMPANY � . • • Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LLG File No. 2-951761-1 May 4, 1995 Page -2- Balance Forward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 8,346.00 SUB-CONSULTANT: Accutek (Includes 15% Handling Fee) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 460.00 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE THIS INVOICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 8,806.00 Invoice No.: 2010 WCUTEM TO: Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers 21114 Trigger Lane 1580 Corporate Dr. Suite 122 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Costa Mesa. CA 92626 909-595-6199 Attention: Mr. Richard B. 909-595-6022 Fax DATE JOB NO. BILLING DATE DUE DATE 3-23-95 3-24-95 4-7-95 �v Number of Days Location & Description Amount 1 Parking Lot Survey at New Port Center $400.00 RECEIVED W28M I �.a LINSCOTT, L.CVJ& GRLEN'SPAN I COSTA :r4ES.A � Iow� 79� 7iza.n5 Q� 3 a3-93 Sub Total i Zone Charge \A � Total $400.00 U 0. r� 4,l q-95 q 1 rnn hc`fi i `f :JCS LUG ACCOUNTING LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS TRANSPORTATION PLANNING-TRAFFIC ENGINEERING-PARKING 1580 CORPORATE DRIVE,SUITE 122,COSTA MESA,CALIFORNIA 92626 TELEPHONE:(714)641-1587-FAX:(714)641-0139 May 3, 1995 PHILIP M.LINSCOTr,P.E. JACK M.GREENSPAN,P.E. WILLIAM A.LAW,P.E. PAUL W.WILKINSON,P.E. FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED LEON D.WARD,P.E. JOHN P.KEATING,P.E. Mr. Aziz M. Aslami Associate Planner CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SERVICES E-Z AIRPARK EXPANSION/MacARTHUR COURT City's Authorization: TPO #103 INVOICE No. 1 File No. 2-951762-1 For Transportation Engineering Consulting Services during the period of March 6 through April 23, 1995. Services. Initial coordination with City Staff to obtain 1% Test and ICU Test data, plus related project data from City model. Conduct traffic counts to determine actual trip generation and site traffic distribution. Principal Engineer . . . . . . . . . . 2.50 hrs. @ $127/hr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 317.50 Transportation Eng. II . . . . . . . 2.00 hrs. @ $ 75/hr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 150.00 Engineering Aide I . . . . . . . . . . 3.00 brs. @ $ 28/hr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 84.00 Current Labor Charges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 551.50 SUB-CONSULTANT: Accutek - Traffic Counts (Includes 15% Handling Fee) . . . . . . . . . . . $ L127.00 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE THIS INVOICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1267850 ✓ PLEASE REMIT COPY OF INVOICE WITH PAYMENT TO ADDRESS INDICATED ABOVE. OTHER OFFICES:PASADENA TELEPHONE:(213)681-2629-FAX:(818)792-0941 SAN DIEGO TELEPHONE:(619)299.3090-FAX:(619)299-7041 AN LG2WB COMPANY • • 2951762-I Invoice No.: 2015 f11CQ,'U7EK TO: Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers 21114Trigger Lane 1580 Corporate Dr. Suite 122 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 909-595-6199 Attn: Mr. Richard Barretto 909-595-6022 Fax DATE JOB NO. BILLING DATE DUE DATE 4-3-95 4-4-95 4-10-95 4-25-95 4-7-95 Number of Days Location & Description Amount 3 Mac Arthur Ct/ E-Z Airpark 450.00 3 Martin/ Campus Drive 240.00 13 Mac Arthur Court/Birch St. 240.00 RECEiotED� APR 12 t995� LINSCOT' -J a7gq Sub Total 930.00 Zone Charge •50.00 Total 980.00 SEW PORT °� em CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3 z P.O. BOX 1768,NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658.8915 c94 Fo FRN�P PLANNING DEPARTMENT(714) 644-3225 PLAPv`i`,U DE'fHKn.&:NT C111f OF wwP611T BEAc"[6 March 31, 1995 (k AY `-' TZ-1195 PM AIPA Mr. Brett Madison 181%10Ill1141121341-,�;6 Twin Palms Restaurant L, 101 W. Green Street Pasadena,CA 91105 Subject: Traffic Phasing Ordinance Study for the proposed Twin Palms Restaurant at Block 600 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach(TPO #104) Dear Mr. Madison: Enclosed please find a copy of a proposal submitted by Linscott, Law, and Greenspan Engineers regarding Traffic Engineering Services required for traffic phasing analysis for the proposed Twin Palms Restaurant facility in Block 600 Newport Center Drive in Newport Beach. If you agree with the proposal, please complete the authorization form, included, and send it to my office. The proposal contains an outline of the required work, schedule of time,and estimated fee required for preparation of the task. The requested Traffic Consultant fees have been reviewed by the City and are considered appropriate and warranted. The fees are as follows: Consultant Fees $8,825,00_._._ City Fees (10%) 4882.50 �\ Total Request: $?9,707.50 Also, please submit a check in the amount of $9,707.50 payable,,t6' the City of Newport Beach. After the Planning Department receives thk comple dliauthonzatton form and the required fee, the City would authorize the consultant to proceed with the traffic study for the subject project Your prompt response in this matter will expedite the permit process. If there are any questions regarding the above, or need more information, please contact me at(714)644-3225. Very truly yours, ' % I PLANNING DEPARTMENT ' JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director • By A . ��60 Aziz M. Aslami Associate Planner 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach SEW PORT a ;, \�� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH U P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658.8915 C'9GlFO RN�P PLANNING DEPARTMENT(714)644-3225 REC EINED March 27, 1995 , Jack M. Greenspan � 2 8 i Linscot,Law and Greenspan Engineers LINSColl LAN+ &G""'`I:�r'�V 1580 Corporate Drive, Suite 122 COSTA MESA Costa Mesa,CA 92626 Subject: 1. Traffic Study:Block 600 Fashion Island Entitlement. 2. Traffic Study:MacArthur Court E-Z Airport Shuttle Dear Mr. Greenspan: Enclosed please find copies of the two proposals regarding the subject projects submitted to the City for review and approval. The City's Traffic Engineer reviewed the proposals and his comments are marked in red. Please revise the subject proposals as suggested by the Traffic Engineer. As soon as I J P P receive the revised proposals,I will begin to process the subject projects. If you have any other questions or need additional information,please contact me at(714)644-3225. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT TAMES D.BEWICIMR,Director P Aziz M.Aslami yyN Associate Planner X F:\WP51\..\A7iz•a\Traffic\TS 103\propos 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach L _ LINSCOIT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS TRANSPORTATION PLANNING•TRAFFIC ENGINEERING•PARKING 1580 CORPORATE DRIVE,SUITE 122,COSTA MESA,CALIFORNIA 92626 TELEPHONE:(714)641-1587•FAX:(714)641-0139 PHILIP M.UNSCOTT,P.E. March 29, 1995 MILLI MIS.ARLAW,P.E. P.E. PAUL W.WILKINSON,P.E. LEON D.WARD,P.E. JOHN P.KEATING,P.E. Ms. Patricia Lee Temple Advance Planning Manager CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 92659-1768 SUBJECT: PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SERVICES BLOCK 600 FASHION ISLAND ENTITLEMENT TRANSFER Newport Beach, California Dear Ms. Temple: Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers is pleased to submit this proposal to provide traffic engineering services in connection with the Block 600 Fashion Island Entitlement Transfer. Based on our meeting with City Staff and the applicant (The Irvine Company), we will prepare a preliminary Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) traffic study aimed at providing an immediate test to determine if the one percent traffic increase TPO threshold is crossed. Should the one percent threshold be exceeded, then a full traffic study pursuant to,the TPO guidelines will be prepared. Since the availability of parking in Block 600 also merits consideration, we will prepare a parking analysis to demonstrate that there are a sufficient number of parking spaces to support the entitlement transfer. As we understand it, the proposed project will be a quality restaurant in existing vacant office-commercial space on the ground floor of Parking Structure 2 which is located at the north-westerly end of Block 600. We further understand that this will be a Twin Palms Restaurant which will consist of 7,082 square feet of existing former office space, and an additional enclosure of about 3,000 square feet, plus an outdoor dining area of about 8,000 square feet. This will produce an 18,082 square foot facility, of which around 11,000 square feet will be "new" floor area in Block 600. OTHER OFFICES:PASADENA TELEPHONE:(213)681-2629•FAX:(818)792-0941 SAN DIEGO TELEPHONE:(619)299-309D•FAX:(619)299-7041 AN LG2WB COMPANY a 4 ` d-7d,O - c�33 lvj l t4 PAIJA 818—SAS" 1212 (816)yr?.7- 25�7 ��IRlllik �6ie0 8re'f�' IK�rso� (ot VJ (Ireetj . Q (IOT Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers Ms. Patricia Lee Temple CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 29, 1995 Page 2 SCOPE OF WORK Task 1.0 - Proiect Initiation 1.1 Obtain from the City of Newport Beach the most current (1993 - 1994) AM and PM 2 1/2 hour peak period intersection counts and associated Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) computations. 1.2 Obtain approved trip generation factors, regional growth rates, related project traffic and distribution patterns from the City Traffic Engineer as appropriate. 1.3 Research our office files concerning Block 600 and compile all pertinent data. 1.4 Obtain from the City Traffic Engineer the number and location of the intersections to be analyzed for project impact. We understand, from City Traffic Engineer Richard Edmonston, that eighteen (18) intersections will be subject to analysis. (See attached list) Task 2.0 - Initial Traffic Analysis 2.1 Prepare traffic generation forecast for the proposed Twin Palms Restaurant. This will take into account the traffic generation potential of the existing vacant space should the space have been occupied in the past year. Otherwise, no credit will be taken for the existing floor space. However, since there is a potential for significant walk-in traffic from surrounding office buildings, special spot surveys will be conducted, at a site to be agreed to by the City. This will assist in projecting the amount of walk-in patrons, so as to produce the most likely trip generation figures. 2.2 Distribute and assign generated traffic to the eighteen (18) study intersections. 2.3 Determine regional traffic growth volumes (2 1/2 hour peak traffic periods, AM and PM). 2.4 Determine approved projects 2 1/2 hour traffic volumes at the eighteen (18) study intersections. Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers Ms. Patricia Lee Temple CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 29, 1995 Page 3 2.5 Conduct one percent (1%) traffic volume analysis pursuant to the TPO. This will be based on 1% of the sum of the existing 2 1/2 hour traffic volumes provided by the City, plus regional growth, plus approved projects, compared to the 2 1/2 hour peak period traffic generated by the Twin Palms Restaurant. Identify locations, if any, where the 1% impact threshold is exceeded. Task 3.0 - Full Traffic Analysis 3.1 Prepare ICU computations, using data to be provided by the City Traffic Engineer, at each impacted intersection identified in Task 2.5 above. This will be conducted in accordance with the TPO guidelines. 3.2 Where the resulting ICU values are over 0.90,appropriate systems improvement measures will be identified and performance tested. Task 4.0 - Parking Analysis 4.1 Conduct a code parking analysis to determine if there is a code surplus of parking. 4.2 Research historical parking records to determine number of striped parking spaces in Parking Structure Number 2, and the three surface parking lots on Center Drive northwesterly of Building 620. Conduct physical inventory if required. 4.3 As a means of determining the amount of walk-in patrons to the Twin Palms Restaurant(patrons already parked elsewhere in Fashion Island),a lunch period survey will be conducted at one of the Fashion Island restaurants similar in character to the Twin Palms Restaurant Tuttomare Dail Grill T.S. Chan s . ( � Y g ) (See Task 2.1) 4.4 Conduct a count of all parked vehicles in Parking Structure Number 2 and adjacent surface lots at 10:00 AM and 12:30 PM on a Thursday (the day of greatest office parking activity). 4.5 Compare parking supply to observed demand (Thursday parking count) and identify operational surplus. Analyze demand to determine if the number of parked vehicles demonstrate realistic need in terms of spaces per thousand square feet and employee density. Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers Ms. Patricia Lee Temple CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 29, 1995 Page 4 4.6 Prepare a parking demand forecast for the noon lunch period, taking into account both City code required parking and potential walk-in patrons already parked elsewhere in Fashion Island. 4.7 Compare identified operational surplus and forecast restaurant parking demand, and determine supply-demand relationship. Task 5.0 - Traffic and Parking Study Report 5.1 Prepare complete Traffic and Parking Study Report pursuant to current City of Newport Beach guidelines. 5.2 Submit draft report to City for review, and revise as appropriate and submit final report. Task 6.0 - Meetings 6.1 Participation in up to four project meetings with City Staff and/or the applicant. We are prepared to begin work immediately and will have the Task 2 Initial Traffic Analysis completed in draft for presentation to Staff on March 29, 1995. The Task 4 Parking Analysis will be conducted parallel to the Initial Traffic Analysis. Should a full traffic analysis be needed, another ten (10) working days will be required to prepare the complete Traffic and Parking Study Report. FEE Our fee for the work set forth above will be billed on an hourly basis, using the attached Fee Schedule, not to exceed $8,825.00, without prior authorization. ADDITIONAL WORK We will also be pleased to provide additional support beyond the Scope of Work outlined above as you may require. Such additional tasks include, but are not limited to the following: preparation of scaled improvement drawings and attendance at public meetings. Such tasks will be considered extra work and will be billed on a time and materials basis using the attached Fee Schedule or the Fee Schedule in effect at the time of the request. Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers Ms. Patricia Lee Temple CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 29, 1995 Page 5 PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY Should this proposal be accepted, the Client (represented by the signature below) agrees to limit Linscott, Law& Greenspan, Engineers liability to the Client and to all Contractors and, Sub-contractors on the project due to Linscott, Law &Greenspan, Engineers negligent acts, errors or omissions, such that the total aggregate liability of Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers to all those named shall not exceed $50,000 or Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers total fee for services rendered on this project, whichever is greater. We carry appropriate liability insurance, both general and professional and workman's compensation insurance. If this proposal is acceptable, you may indicate approval by signing in the space provided below and returning the original for our files, or by issuance of an appropriate purchase order or consultant contract. A copy of this proposal is enclosed for your convenience. We welcome the opportunity to submit this proposal and look forward to working with Staff and the applicant. If there are any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS ck M. Greenspan, P-V E. rincipal Attachments cc: Mr. Tom Redwitz, The Irvine Company Mr. Jeff Dodd, The Irvine Company Mr. Paul Wilkinson, LLG Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers Ms. Patricia Lee Temple CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 29, 1995 Page 7 Study Intersections for Twin Palms Restaurant 630 Newport Center Drive Note: North/South street assignments are shown in all capitals. 1. JAMBOREE ROAD /East Coast Highway 2. JAMBOREE ROAD /Santa Barbara Drive 3. JAMBOREE ROAD /San Joaquin Hills Road 4. MACARTHUR BLVD /East Coast Highway 5. MACARTHUR BLVD /San Miguel Drive 6. MACARTHUR BLVD /San Joaquin Hills Road 7. MACARTHUR BLVD /Ford Road 8. MACARTHUR BLVD /Bison Avenue 9. MACARTHUR BLVD /Jamboree Road 10. BAYSIDE DRIVE/East Coast Highway 11. NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE/East Coast Highway 12. DOVER DRIVE - BAYSHORE DRIVE/East Coast Highway 13. GOLDENROD AVENUE/East Coast Highway 14. MARGUERITE AVENUE/East Coast Highway 15. SANTA CRUZ DRIVE/San Joaquin Hills Road 16. SANTA ROSA DRIVE /San Joaquin Hills Road 17. POPPY AVENUE/East Coast Highway 18. JAMBOREE ROAD /Ford Road FEE SCHEDULE Effective January 25, 1993 TITLE PER HOUR Princi al Principal Engineer * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 127.00 Transportation Engineers Senior Transportation Engineer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 103.00 Transportation Engineer III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 88.00 Transportation Engineer II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 75.00 Transportation Engineer I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 57.00 Transportation Planners Senior Transportation Planner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 88.00 Transportation Planner III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 75.00 Transportation Planner II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 57.00 Transportation Planner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 52.00 Technical Support Engineering Associate II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 62.00 Engineering Associate I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 57.00 CADD Drafter/Senior Technician . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 57.00 Modeling Technician II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 57.00 Modeling Technician I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 52.00 Engineering Computer Analyst II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 52.00 Engineering Drafter/Technician . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 52.00 WordProcessor/Secretary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 45.00 Engineering Computer Analyst I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 39.00 Engineering Aide H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 39.00 EngineeringAide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 28.00 * Principal-In-Charge will be billed at $155 per hour. Public Hearing support may be charged at 125%of the base rate. Subcontractors and other project-related expenses will be billed at cost plus 15%. P J � Consultation in connection with litigation and Court appearances will be quoted separately. g PP q P The above schedule is for straight time. Overtime will be charged at 1.50 times the standard hourly rates. g 8 Interim and/or monthly statements will be presented for completed work These will be due and payable upon presentation unless prior arrangements are made. A finance charge of 1.5%may be charged each month on the unpaid balance. Linscott, Law& Greenspan, Engineers Aslami, Aziz From: Aslami,Aziz To: Douglas, John Subject: RE: Newport Pavilion invoice Date: Thursday, April 20, 1995 1:09PM When I spoke to Jack Greenspan yesterday, I gave him the name and phone number of the applicant's agent and suggested to him to call the applicant or his agent. He said that he will call Tom Redwitz and the applicant, and would let me know of their response. I assume that LLG, simultaneously, got two projects because they prepared the ACE Parking Shuttle System and perhaps the applicant contacted LLG or maybe Rich did it. From: Douglas, John 'To:Aslami,Aziz Cc: Edmonston, Rich;Temple, Patty Subject: RE: Newport Pavilion invoice Date:Thursday, April 20, 1995 10:58AM Thanks Aziz-- To all concerned (Patty/Rich), I'm not real comfortable with the way TIC plays fast and loose with the rules. There are reasons why we have our procedures, and some people think we are too cozy with them already. In addition, it takes more work in the long run to deviate from the standard procedures(staff time figuring out what's going on). So, my suggestion is to try to stick to procedures as much as possible. Maybe someone should mention this to Redwitz. Also, why did LL&G get 2 traffic studies at the same time? (Rich?) From: Aslami, Aziz To: Douglas, John Subject: RE: Newport Pavilion Invoice Date: Wednesday, April 19, 1995 5:11 PM Regarding Twin Palms Traffic Study,we received two proposals from Linscott, Law&Greenspan, one for Twin Palms and the other for E-Z Airport Shuttle Service on March 17, 1995, Rich reviewed both of the proposals and requested certain revisions to each of the proposals. I sent the proposals back to Jack Greenspan and requested revised proposals per Richard's comments and Jack returned the revised proposals back to me on March 30,1995. On March 31 1 sent letters to the applicants demanding fundings for the traffic studies and they have not responded to date. Jay has scheduled Twin Palms Use Permit and Traffic Study No. 104 for May 4th, Planning Commission Hearing. Today, I talked to Jay and indicated to him that we may not have a completed traffic study for Twin Palms soon•enough that the project could be presented to the Planning Commission and subsequently , I called Jack Greenspan to find out if the applicant had any contact with them and if the received any money for their traffic study services. Jack told me that Tom Redwitz, during a meeting with the City and the applicant, asked Greenspan firm to go ahead with the traffic study for Twin Palms and in response to a question I asked him regarding the traffic study fees, he stated that he is not worried about the money because the Irvine Co. has a good credit standing with Greenspan. Also, I have indicated to Jack that, as the project was reviewed by the City's Strutural Engineer, some structural retrofitting of the parking structure may be required. He indicated that may become a major time and money issue. I told Jack, if this becomes a reason that the applicant stops persuing the project,the City does not have any liability to pay for the services provided by them. because the City did not authorize any work regaring Twin Palms Traffic Study. From: Douglas, John To:Aslami,Aziz Page 1 Subject: FW: Newport Pavilion invoice Date: Tuesday, April 18, 1995 3:08PM Aziz- Do you know the status of this? From: Edmonston, Rich To: Douglas, John Subject: RE: Newport Pavilion invoice Date:Tuesday, April 18, 1995 3:02PM I think janet already answered that this is ok. On another project, whatever happened to the traffic and parking study for Twin Palms? We've never seen it. From: Douglas, John To: Edmonston, Rich Cc: Divan, Janet Subject: Newport Pavilion invoice Date: Tue,Apr 18, 1995 9:12AM We received an invoice from Austin-Foust for$4500 out of a total budget of$7500 for the Newport Pavilion traffic study(MacArthur/Coast Hwy). Does that sound ok? Page 2 1 ioy i 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS NQ TRANSPORTATION • TRAFFIC ENGINEERING • PARKING COSTA MESA • PASADENA • SAN DIEGO, CAUFORNIA 1 1 Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY ' BLOCK 600 NEWPORT CENTER TWIN PALMS RESTAURANT Newport Beach, California t I ' Prepared For: iTHE IRVINE COMPANY 550 Newport Center Drive ' Newport Beach, CA 92660 ' Submitted By: t LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS 1580 Corporate Drive - Suite 122 Costa Mesa, California 92626 Phone: (714) 641-1587 ' FAX: (714) 641-0139 April 28, 1995 (2-951761-1) oQFOF $�S py�� ,tits-�Fiy F2 cc 14o.0142 '0 ' Pr oared under the supervision of: Ev• Ulm Jack M. Greenspan, P.E. sr ntAc tArFOF CALIF�Q ' Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers ' TABLE OF CONTENTS DESCRIPTION PAGE NO. I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Project Location and Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Traffic Analysis Methodology I Parldng Analysis Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 ' Organization of Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 11. FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUME PROJECTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Project Traffic Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Project Traffic Distribution 7 Project Traffic Assignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 ' Existing + Regional Growth + Committed Traffic Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Regional Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 ' Committed Projects . . . . . . . . 11 "With Project" Traffic Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 ' III. INITIAL TRAFFIC ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis ' . 14 ' IV. FULL TRAFFIC RvJPACT ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Significant Traffic Impact Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 ICU Method of Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 . . . • . . • • • , . . . . . . • . • . Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis . 18 ' V. ONSITE CIRCULATION AND PARKING ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Description of Onsite Circulation System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 20 ParkingAnalyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 ' Code Parking Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Parking Demand Analysis . . . • . . • . • . . . • . . . • . • . . . • . . . . 22 t VI. SITE ACCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 VII. SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 1 APPENDIX A: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Worksheets ' APPENDIX B: ICU Analysis Worksheets 1 L ' Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers tLIST OF TABLES ' TABLE PAGE NO. DESCRIPTION NO. ' 1 TRAFFIC GENERATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2 COMMITTED PROJECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 ' 3 TRAFFIC STUDY INTERSECTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 t4 ONE PERCENT TEST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5 ICU TEST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 6 CODE PARKING REQUIREMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 ' 7 EXISTING PARKING SUPPLY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 ' 8 CODE PARKING ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 9 PARKING OCCUPANCY SURVEY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 ' 10 OBSERVED PARKING ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 ' 11 OPERATIONAL PARKING DEMAND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 ' LIST OF EXHIBITS ' EXHIBIT PAGE NO. DESCRIPTION NO. ' 1 VICINITY MAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 EXISTING SITE PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 ' 3 PROPOSED SITE PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 ' 4 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 ' S 2 1/2 HOUR PEAK PERIOD PROJECT VOLUMES . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6 PEAK HOUR PROJECT VOLUMES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 ' Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers ' TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY BLOCK 600 NEWPORT CENTER ' TWIN PALMS RESTAURANT Newport Beach, California ' I. INTRODUCTION ' This Traffic Impact and Parking Analysis Study addresses the potential traffic and parking impacts associated with the conversion of previous office space and annexing an outdoor space to develop 16,446 square foot Twin Palms restaurant located in Newport Center, in the City of Newport Beach. The potential traffic impacts of the proposed development have been evaluated for horizon year 1996, one year after expected project completion. Parking ' code and demand analyses have been conducted to determine the potential availability of existing parking in Block 600 of Newport Center to support the Twin Palms restaurant. Project Location and Description ' The proposed project site is located generally to the south of San Joaquin Hills Road, between MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road, in Block 600 of Newport Center. Exhibit 1•presents a Vicinity Map, which illustrates the general location of the project site and depicts its orientation within the surrounding street system. The proposed Twin Palms Restaurant would be located in currently vacant office space in Building 630 which occupies a part of the Parking Structure Number 2 ground floor. Exhibit 2 presents Existing Site Plan of Block 600, showing Building 630 located in the ' middle of the block. The proposed Twin Palms restaurant would be developed in 7,085 square feet space of ' former office space. An additional enclosure would be incorporated to expand indoor restaurant space outward to match the drip line of the parking structure. An outdoor area would also be added to produce a total of 16,446 square feet. Out of 16,446 square feet of ' total space, 7,699 square feet is expected to be used as non public-space (kitchen, lockers, storage),while the remaining 8,747 square feet will be used as dining space and considered public space for parking computation. Exhibit 3 presents Twin Palms restaurant Site'Plan. 1 Traffic Analysis Methodology ' The scope for the traffic study was developed in conjunction with the City of Newport Beach traffic staff. The basic assumptions, technical methodologies and geographic scope of the ' study were identified as part of the study approach. 1 IM e < < #` n 1.r —61 IV Y y m �} � C++it� y� �■� L` ol ��lt�i��'/�, � 'r . ��°mod , '�, , '��s"��n�r°�� #"I�r� ■ -k QR IVA 1 �`��< }-� • ■ I � � to .�� /�I i�•t Ja • > , 4,•I -��•� �[Y.y�{:s➢•L.F. Et f ,In9� h ��7� / ,I p�"�,R ' t. �. Y �_ + � ' ' t� ,��Y>S�6■�6�'iL�,��11LIG:1� �� t�\�.7i..'��i '�, +IG �ra ,AII© �-a • SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD LOT 660 PARKING STRUCTURE #2 620 BOT PARKING STRUCTURE #t iR O LOT c� 660 CLOT C 16301 LOT 610G 1 600 I1 Q' w DRIVE =�Q FOUR SEASONS HOTEL IxxxI GROUND LEVEL RETAIL - COMMERCIAL SPACE IN PARKING STRUCTURE L_J 2 NO SCALE Mgq*IlijG $gam PLO BLOCK 600 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS TWIN PALMS RESTAURANT I 1 ' tutu ut,[ I S t I I ewe 1 J i _ _ _L _ 27 O y I r c O �rr fir— e rr r/ tart �/ I tta'tta 3 NO SCALE PROPOSED SITE PLAN BLOCK 600 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS TWIN PALMS RESTAURANT ' Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers tThe basic methodology was developed in full compliance with the Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). The TPO requires a two step analysis to determine project impact, (1) an initial traffic contribution analysis for all study intersections, and (2) a full traffic impact analysis for intersections impacted by project traffic. ' The initial traffic analysis, also called "one percent traffic test", requires comparison of two- and-half hour AM and PM peak period project traffic to projected future volumes at each leg of each intersection identified by staff for study. If the project generates one percent or ' more of the projected traffic volumes on one or more legs of an intersection, this intersection is considered impacted by project traffic. The impacted intersections are then selected for a full traffic analysis. The full traffic analysis for a project requires the evaluation of traffic conditions at each of the impacted intersection before and after completion of the project during both the AM and PM peak hour. This was accomplished by analyzing the following three traffic scenarios: • Ddstin - Assessment of year 1993 or 1994 traffic volumes and peak hour ' Levels of Service (Provided by the City of Newport Beach). • Existing + Reyional Growth + Committed Projects - Projection of future ' traffic conditions without the proposed development, resulting from other committed developments and regional traffic growth. (Committed ' development traffic and growth rates provided by the City of Newport Beach). • With Project-Analysis of future traffic operations resulting from the addition ' of project-generated traffic to the future traffic conditions. ' Parking Analysis Methodology The parking analysis conducted for this study was designed to identify whether a potential ' parking shortage or surplus exists within Block 600 of Newport Center. A code parking- analysis was conducted to determine whether, after the proposed restaurant addition, the amount of parking provided on the site would still satisfy city requirements. Supply/demand ' analysis was conducted to determine if the additional demand generated by the proposed project would cause a possible parking shortage within Newport Center Block 600. ' 5 I� ' Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers ' Oeeanization of Report ' This report is divided into five chapters. Chapter II presents traffic forecasts including background traffic volumes and project traffic forecasts. Chapter III describes the initial "one percent"peak period traffic analysis. Peak hour level of service analysis is summarized ' in Chapter IV. Chapter V presents onsite circulation description, a code parking analysis and a parking demand/supply analysis. Site access is described in Chapter VI. Chapter VII provides the summary of this study. Details of the technical analysis are provided in appen- dices. 6 ' Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers II. FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUME PROJECTIONS ' In order to properly evaluate the potential impact of the proposed development on the local street system, it was necessary to develop estimates of future traffic conditions with and without the proposed project. Forecasts of project-generated traffic involve a three step ' process: trip generation, trip distribution, and traffic assignment. Traffic forecasts were developed for both 2.5 hour morning and evening peak periods and morning and evening peak hours. Project Traffic Generation ' Traffic generation estimates for the proposed project were developed using generation rates obtained from the City of Newport Beach. Table 1 summarizes the proposed project traffic ' generation and the traffic generation rates. It can be seen that the proposed project is expected to generate approximately 1,100 daily trips, with 10 morning peak hour inbound and 2 morning peak hour outbound trips, and with 58 evening peak hour inbound and 26 ' evening peak hour outbound trips. It should be noted .that 2.5 hour peak period trip generation was computed by doubling the peak hour volumes. ' Project Traffic Distribution ' The geographic distribution of traffic generated by a development such as the proposed project is dependent upon several factors including the distribution of population, employment and accessibility to the site. The distribution pattern developed for the project was based on existing traffic patterns in the area, discussions with the City of Newport Beach staff and previous studies. It should be noted that the traffic distribution pattern, illustrated ' in Exhibit 3, was reviewed and approved by the City of Newport Beach traffic staff. ' Project Traffic Assignment The trip distribution pattern described above was applied to the traffic generation•estimates ' to assign project-generated traffic to the local street system. Exhibit 4 illustrates,2.5 hour morning and evening peak period project volumes, while Exhibit 5 presents morning and evening peak hour assigned project traffic. ' 7 Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers ' TABLE 1 TRAFFIC GENERATION ' BLOCK 600 NEWPORT CENTER TWIN PALMS RESTAURANT ' AM PM IN OUT IN OUT DAILY Traffic Generation Factor ' Peak Hour 0.6 0.1 3.5 1.6 66.9 (Vehicle Trips/1,000 SF) 3 Peak Hour Volume 7 10 2 58 26 2 1/2 Hour Peak Volume 3 20 4 116 52 1,100 t1 Source: City of Newport Beach, Quality Sit-Down Restaurant. a Based on 16,446 sf. ' 3 Peak Hour Volume x 2. QVMMTABLES\17617BL1 8 4UCARIHUR c' j3% OI S yA e SROSSA DR. 'or L♦ '�4 4,��V Irk 1 v 4 I ��r gas' gE CRT C ern $� 1 tGy♦� yK� ♦� _��••'f9,r FASHION CRUZ 1a LAMJD 6 bk7 Ti,� � DR. cDNTER°�' DR SANTA BARBAR,{OIL 0 -<fiz N_n BAIypE OR, n� A ODVEFt DR. 7SX'/ A M n ' " 4 N <XXX-ROOM PERCERACE Tax-OUTBOUND PERCENTAGE NO SCALE a-rnmr RnamcnoN TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES BLOCK 600 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE UNSCOTT. LAW k GREENSPAN. ENGINEERS TWIN PALMS RESTAURANT f 0�� J� �D/7. MACARTAUR �' *0 7 1 c 3 .e C C' 'b M1 ROTA DR. \' v $ 4TP O rs .g• Q � _ s � Nie i ors styo �o $+� CRUZ 4'c�, N�R0R7 DR Tkr cwrFx oai °i is SANTA � M1 \ DARDARA DR din c Q� 0 7h0•I X,A A >>tiDE DR DOVER DR 3/A7 A n h wr 5 N :m-µdy'wig i OUTBOUNDNo scaLE _SIUDy INTMMON 2 1/2 HOUR PEAK PERIOD PROJECT VOLMIES BLOCK 600 NEWPORT CENTER-DRIVE LINSCOTT, LAW&GREENSPAN. ENGINEERS TWIN PALMS RESTAURANT ' Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers ' Existing + Regional Growth + Committed Traffic Projections Cumulative traffic growth within the study area is expected to occur from two primary sources: area wide or regional growth, and traffic generated by committed developments within the City of Newport Beach and neighboring communities. ' Regional Traffic The City of Newport Beach determined that regional traffic growth will affect the following ' three major highways serving the study area: Pacific Coast Highway, Jamboree Road, and MacArthur Boulevard. Based on the five years average growth rate from the City's ' Transportation Model, the regional traffic along these highways will increase existing traffic volumes by one percent per year. The City also indicated that other minor streets in the study area are not expected to be affected by the regional traffic growth. ' Committed Projects ' In order to evaluate the impact of the proposed project within the context of other committed developments in the vicinity, cumulative project peak period and peak hour traffic volumes for all analyzed intersections were obtained from the City of Newport Beach ' Transportation Model. The list of committed projects, presented in Table 2, was also provided by the City. ' Traffic generated by the committed projects was added to the background traffic previously adjusted for regional growth. The resulting Existing + Regional Growth + Committed Projects volumes, which represent future volumes without the proposed project, were then used in "One Percent Traffic Analysis" described in the next chapter. Peak hour committed projects traffic volumes were utilized to calculate volume-to-capacity ratios for the Existing + Regional Growth + Committed Projects scenario in a full traffic analysis, described in ' Chapter IV. ' "With Project" Traffic Proiections ' Peak hour traffic volumes expected from the proposed project,illustrated in Exhibit 6,were then added to the Existing + Regional Growth + Committed Projects traffic volumes. The resulting "With Project" traffic forecasts represent future traffic volumes with the addition ' of project-generated traffic. ' 11 ' Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers ' TABLE 2 COMMITTED PROJECTS BLOCK 600 NEWPORT CENTER TWIN PALMS RESTAURANT ' [NUMBER ROJECT PERCENT PROJECT NAME OCCUPIED 009 Civic Plaza 96% 010 Corporate Plaza 30% ' 018 Newport Place 96% 031 Valdez 40% 033 Koll Center Npt No. 1 TPP 0% ' 034 See Projects 340 to 343 0% 053 See Projects 530 to 533 0% 060 1400 Dove Street 80% 063 Koll Center TPP Amend.4A 0% ' 065 Rosan's Development 65% 100 Fashion Island #2 0% ill 28th Street Marina Project 50% ' 120 Pacific Bell Site 0% 121 Newport Village 0% 122 Castaways Marina 0% ' 123 Koll Center Carl's Jr. 96% 124 Civic Plaza 0% 125 Corporate Plaza& West 0% 128 Harbor Pacific Plaza 0% ' 129 Hoag Hospital Extension 0170 130 Corporate Plaza West II 0% 134 Interpretive Center 0% ' 135 Pacific Mutual 1601 Avocado 0% 136 Newport Diagnostic#85 0% 139 Pac Tel Mini Storage 0% 140 Four Seasons Addition 0% ' 141 Family Fitness Center 0% 341 Amendment No. 1 Ford Aero 0% 342 Amendment No. 1 Ford Aero 0% ' 343 Amendment No. i Ford Aero 0% 555 Ciosa- Irvine Project 0% 910 Newport Dunes 0% ' 920 Bayview 0% 930 City of Irvine Development 0% ' QVMCAMOLBS11MME.2 ' 12 10� IO/ MAOAR7{A/R r On I ? 1/A7 / 73 o P i L1� 9 SROSSA OR yA� oC((LLIa�.4 COI-4 F �TPQ pip\ ' A o_ .S�r', 07 5!� O` • 6C�L, V` L�'rp Ord C ' rises � 15 °a � ° pry �L�' °Oh'- MAW 0,7� �00 F > �OR OILy�a�r eENreR pR r o� 8 A A A' J A 7 A SANTA = BARRARA OR 0 I-j W 0 O°��I�, � a A H r BATyOE OIL e� ^ oowi DR. 2/vi A n 'EY / 6 <XX/Yrff- AM/PM OUTBOUINBOUNND VOLUMES NO SCALE �>«M'- AM/PM WTfiWND\Ot11NES •-STUDY mmRSECTON PEAK HOUR PROJECT VOLUMES BLOCK 600 P CENTER DRIVE 7 LINSCOTT, LAW&GREENSPAN, ENGINEERSTUNN PALMS RESTAURANT Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers in. INITIAL. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Initial traffic analyses were conducted for both the morning and evening 2.5 hour peak ' periods in order to identify intersections impacted by proposed project traffic. A full traffic impact analysis including volume-to-capacity analysis were subsequently conducted for those impacted intersections which did not pass the one percent test. One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis ' The City of Newport Beach Traffic Engineer identified eighteen intersections expected to be most likely affected by the .proposed project traffic . The list of these intersections is ' presented in Table 3. A one percent traffic volume test was conducted for each of these eighteen intersections to determine those intersections where the project is expected to contribute one percent or more to future traffic(Existing + Regional Growth + Committed Projects) on any leg of an intersection. As illustrated in Table 4, six out of eighteen analyzed intersections are expected to be ' impacted by the proposed project traffic. The calculation worksheets for the "One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis" are attached in Appendix A. 14 Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers ' TABLE 3 ' TRAFFIC STUDY INTERSECTIONS BLOCK 600 NEWPORT CENTER TWIN PALMS RESTAURANT Study Intersections 1. Jamboree Road / Santa Barbara Drive ' 2. Jamboree Road / San Joaquin Hills Road 3. Jamboree Road / Ford-Eastbluff ' 4. Jamboree Road /MacArthur Blvd 5. MacArthur Blvd / San Miguel Drive ' 6. MacArthur Blvd / San Joaquin Hills Road 7. MacArthur Blvd / Ford Road 8. MacArthur Blvd / Bison Avenue 9. Coast Highway /Dover-Bayshore 10. Coast Highway / Bayside Drive 11. Coast Highway/ Jamboree Road 12. Coast Highway / Newport Center Drive 13. Coast Highway/MacArthur Blvd ' 14. Coast Highway/ Goldenrod Avenue ' 15. Coast Highway / Marguerite Avenue 16. Coast Highway /Poppy Avenue ' 17. San Joaquin Hills Road / Santa Cruz Drive 18. San Joaquin Hills Rd / Santa Rosa Dr - Big Canyon ' C:VMGITABI.BS17611BL3 15 Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers ' TABLE 4 ' ONE PERCENT TEST BLOCK 600 NEWPORT CENTER TWIN PALMS RESTAURANT ' Exceeds 1% Threshold 1 Study Intersections No Yes ' 1. Jamboree Road/Santa Barbara Drive X ' 2. Jamboree Road/San Joaquin Hills Road X 3. Jamboree Road /Ford-Eastbluff X ' 4. Jamboree Road/MacArthur Blvd X 5. MacArthur Blvd/San Miguel Drive X ' 6. MacArthur Blvd/San Joaquin Hills Road X 7. MacArthur Blvd/Ford Road X ' 8. MacArthur Blvd/Bison Avenue X 9. Coast Highway/Dover-Bayshore X ' 10. Coast Highway/Bayside Drive X 11. Coast Highway/Jamboree Road X ' 12. Coast Highway/Newport Center Drive X 13. Coast Highway/MacArthur Blvd X ' 14. Coast Highway/Goldenrod Avenue X 15. Coast Highway/Marguerite Avenue X 16. Coast Highway/Poppy Avenue X 17. San Joaquin Hills Road/Santa Cruz Drive X ' 18. San Joaquin Hills Rd/Santa Rosa Dr - Big Canyon X ' 1 Project traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of projected peak 21/2 hour traffic volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (UCI) analysis is required. (See Table 4). QVMG\TABIEft761TBL4 � , 16 ' Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers IV. FULL TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS ' This chapter summarizes the results of the full traffic impact analysis conducted for intersections impacted by the proposed project. The analysis was conducted by assessing the projected operating conditions of the street system under future conditions with and without the proposed project traffic. As concluded in the "One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis", ' described in previous chapter, six out of eighteen critical intersections were determined to be impacted by the proposed project traffic. Significant Traffic Impact Criteria ' This traffic study has been designed to satisfy the requirements of the TPO. Based on the standards established by the TPO, a project is considered to have a significant-traffic impact ' if it causes or makes worse an unsatisfactory level of service on any "major", "primary modified" or "primary" street. Unsatisfactory level of service is defined as LOS E or F t (volume-to-capacity ratio 0.91 or higher). Using this criteria, it should be noted that the project is not considered to have a significant impact at an intersection if the intersection would operate at LOS D or better after the addition of project traffic, regardless of the volume of traffic which is added to the intersection or the incremental change in the V/C ratio. ' ICU Method of Analysis ' Detailed intersection capacity analysis was conducted at each of the six impacted intersections. Based on standards established in the TPO the Intersection Capacity ' Utilization (ICU) methodology was used to analyze volume-to-capacity ratios and levels of service. The ICU technique is used for signalized intersections to estimate the volume to capacity (V/C) relationship for an intersection based on individual V/C ratios for key ' conflicting movements. The ICU numerical value represents the percent of the signal green time, and thus capacity, required by existing or future traffic. It should be noted that the ICU methodology assumes uniform traffic distribution per intersection approach lane, and ' optimal signal operation. The ICU value translates to a Level of Service (LOS) condition which is a relative measure of the performance of the intersection. Six levels of service have been defined ranging from A, (free flow with an ICU of 0.60 or less) to F (forced flow with an ICU in excess of 1.00). Level of service D (ICU of 0.81 to 0.90) is traditionally considered the maximum acceptable ' level of service for urban and suburban peak hour conditions. The ICU value is the sum of ' 17 ' Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers ' the critical volume to capacity ratios at an intersection, and is not intended to be indicative of the LOS of the individual turning movements. ' Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis ' Peak hour intersection capacity analyses were conducted for Existing, Existing + Regional Growth + Committed Projects, and for "With Project" (Existing + Regional Growth + ' Committed Projects + Project) scenario at the six impacted intersections. The results of these analyses are presented in Table 5, while detailed ICU worksheets are attached in Appendix B. As shown in the'second column of that table, the addition of regional growth ' and committed projects traffic is expected to cause an increase in volume-to-capacity(V/C) ratios at all six analyzed intersections. The six analyzed intersections are expected to operate at satisfactory LOS D or better under this scenario. ' As indicated in the third column of Table 5 ("With Project"), the addition of proposed project traffic is expected to cause an increase of V/C ratios at two intersections:MacArthur ' Boulevard @ San Miguel Drive and San Joaquin Hills Road @ Santa Rosa Drive. At both intersections an increase of V/C ratio due to the project traffic is expected to occur during the PM peak hour. After the addition of the project traffic, all six analyzed intersections are ' projected to operate at satisfactory level of service D or better with V/C ratios not exceeding the 0.90 threshold. Therefore the project is not expected to have any significant traffic impact and no mitigation measures are required. I ' 18 1 ' Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers ' TABLE 5 ICU TEST BLOCK 600 NEWPORT CENTER TWIN PALMS RESTAURANT ' WITH EXISTING PROJECT ' + REG GROWTH WITH EXCEEDS EXISTING + COMMITTED PROJECT 0.90 V/C V/C V/C V/C THRESHOLD Study Intersections AM I PM AM PM AM PM AM PM ' 5. MacArthur/San Miguel Drive 0.53 0.68 0.60 0.83 0.60 0.84 No, No 6. MacArthur/San Joaquin Hills 0.73 0.67 0.88 0.85 0.88 0.85 No No ' 14. Coast Hwy/Goldenrod 0.65 0.78 0.84 0.88 0.84 •0.88 No No 16. Coast Hwy/Poppy Avenue 0.53 0.57 0.63 0.67 0.63 0.67 No No 17. San Joaquin HiUs/Santa Cruz 0.23 0.30 0.35 0.36 0.35 0.36 No No 18. San Joaquin HiI1s/Santa Rosa 0.23 0.34 0.25 0.39 0.25 0.40 No No CVMMTABLEM76M S t ' 19 ' Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers ' V. ONSITE CIRCULATION AND PARKING ANALYSIS ' Description of Onsite Circulation System The proposed onsite circulation for Twin Palms restaurant is illustrated on the Existing Site Plan (Exhibit 2), and on the Twin Palms Site Plan (Exhibit 3). Parking Structure Number .2, shown on Exhibit 2, will provide the parking for the Twin Palms restaurant. The ' ingress/egress to that parking structure is provided from Center Drive which is internal to Block 600, extending between Santa Cruz Drive and Santa Rosa Drive. ' The Twin Palms site plan calls for a 25 foot wide valet/passenger drop-off with entry from Center Drive and exit to the short roadway that connects Newport Center 'Drive East to Center Drive (see Exhibit 3). Arriving restaurant patrons will be able to go directly to parking in Structure Number 2, or use the valet driveway, which will have sufficient room to store 10 vehicles (two lanes of five vehicles each). The valet attendant pattern will consists of a left-turn exiting the restaurant driveway and a second left-turn onto Center Drive,followed by right-turn into Parking Structure Number 2. While the driveway entrance and exit points are close to the Center Drive intersection, traffic is relatively light and no ' significant conflicts are anticipated. Parking Analyses A code parking analysis was conducted to determine whether parking provided in the West ' Half of Block 600 meets or exceeds code requirements. This analysis was based on the City of Newport Beach Planning Code provisions and Use Permit No. 1805 for Block 600. A parking occupancy survey, conducted in the West Half of Block 600 provided data for the ' observed demand analysis. The demand analyses were carried out to determine,a potential ' operational parking surplus which could accommodate the proposed Twin Palms restaurant parking needs. ' Code Parking Analysis ' The City of Newport Beach Planning Code requires a specified number of parking spaces . for developments in the Newport Center area. Table 6 illustrates the amount of parking required for the East and West Half of Block 600. As shown in that table, the City requires t 842 parking spaces for office and health club uses located in the East Half of Block 600. The City requires 1,535 parking spaces for offices and the proposed Twin Palms restaurant located in the West Half of Block 600. Entire Block 600 is required to provide a total of ' 2,377 parking spaces. It should be noted that Twin Palms Restaurant code parking requirements were estimated by applying a rate of 1 space/40 square feet to the restaurant's ' public area of 8,747 square feet. ' 20 Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers ' TABLE 6 CODE PARKING REQUIREMENT ' BLOCK 600 NEWPORT CENTER TWIN PALMS RESTAURANT REQUIRED PARHING Net Required Description Use Leasable Parking. 600 Newport Center Drive Health Club 1 18,250 sf 113 610 Newport Center Drive Office z 273,533 sf 729 Sub-Total East Half 842 w620 Newport Center Drive Office 236,933 sf 632 660 Newport Center Drive Office 249,294 sf 665 630 Newport Center Drive Office 3 7,362 sf 19 Restaurant" 16,446 sf 2 — Sub-Total West Half 1,535 GRAND TOTAL 2,317 ' Health Club parked at 6.2 spaces/1,000 sf. ' 2 Office use parked at 1 space/375 sf per Use Permit No. 1805. 3 14,447 sf less 7,085 sf transferred to restaurant use = 7,362 sf. 4 Restaurant parked at 1 space per 40 sf of public area per City Code. ' Public area assumed to be 8,747 sf(16,446 sf- 7,699 sf non-public). Required parking = 8,747/40 = 219 spaces. ' QVMO\TA8LM1761TBL6 ' 21 ' Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers The parking inventory for Block 600 was provided by Ace Parking, the company managing parking facilities at Newport Center. This inventory, summarized in Table 7, indicates that there are 2,766 parking spaces supplied in Block 600, with 1,116 parking spaces provided in the East Half of Block 600 and 1,650 parking spaces provided in the West Half of Block 600. Table 8 presents a comparison of parking required by the City Code to actual parking supply. This table indicates that, after accounting for the proposed Twin Palms restaurant ' parking, parking supply exceeds code requirements, resulting in a surplus of 389 parking spaces. Out of these 389 surplus spaces, 274 spaces are located in the East Half of Block 600 and 115 spaces are located in the West Half of Block 600. The Code Parking Analysis demonstrates that the amount of parking provided in Block 600 exceeds the City requirements. The proposed conversion of vacant office space to the Twin Palms restaurant would increase the amount of required parking in the West Half of Block 600 by about 200 parking spaces (the previous office required 19 parking spaces, the Twin Palms restaurant would require 219 parking spaces). After the restaurant conversion, the, supplied parking would still exceed the Code requirements by 115 parking spaces. It should . be noted that an additional surplus of 274 parking spaces currently exists in the East Half ' of Block 600 located within walking distance from the proposed restaurant. Parking Demand Analysis ' The parking occupancy survey for Parking Structure Number 2 and adjacent surface lots was conducted on Thursday, March 23, 1995 between 10:00 AM and 1:00 PM, the time of the ' greatest office parking activity. The survey results, which are summarized in Table 9, indicate that parking peak occurred at 11:00 AM when occupancy reached 69%. At that time, a total of 1,137 vehicles were parked in Parking Structure Number 2 and four surface ' parking lots combined. In order to estimate parking demand in the West Half of Block 600 an observed parking ' analysis was conducted. The results of this analysis are illustrated in Table 10. As indicated in this table, 88% of leasable office space in the West Half of Block 600 is currently occupied. During the parking survey, peak parking demand for 1,137 spaces was observed in all parking facilities combined. Based on the observed peak demand, an observed office parking rate of 1 space per 387 square feet was derived. As.shown in Table 9, the observed parking demand (1,137 spaces) is lower than the number of spaces required by the Code ' (1,175), implying that the Code requirements exceed observed parking needs. The operational parking demand analysis for the West Half of Block 600 is summarized in ' ' Table 11. As shown in that.table, total leasable office space is expected to generate the parking demand for 1,275 spaces. Calculation of the proposed Twin Palms restaurant parking demand involved an adjustment for walk-in customers. As concluded from a mid- ' day Tutto Mare Restaurant customer walk-in survey, it is expected that about 29% of customers would be walk-in customers attracted from local offices, and therefore they are ' not expected to generate any restaurant specific parking demand. Using the walk-in customer adjustment, it was estimated that the Twin Palms restaurant would generate a ' 22 I ' Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers ' TABLE 7 ' EXISTING PARKING SUPPLY BLOCK 600 NEWPORT CENTER ' TWIN PALMS RESTAURANT ' PARKING SUPPLY Number ' Facility of Spaces Parking Structure 1 1,099 ' Lot A 17 Sub-Total East Half 1,116 Parking Structure 2 1,362 Lot B 23 Lot C 21 ' Lot D 28 Lot 660 216 Sub-Total West Half 1,650 ' GRAND TOTAL 2,766 Source: Ace Parking ' QVMG%TABIJMV6rML7 23 ' Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers ' TABLE 8 CODE PARKING ANALYSIS BLOCK 600 NEWPORT CENTER TWIN PALMS RESTAURANT ' Required Parking Surplus Parking Generation Parking Supply (Deficiency) ' 600 Newport Center Drive 113 610 Newport Center Drive 729 ' Sub-Total East Half 842 1,116 274 620 Newport Center Drive 632 660 Newport Center Drive 665 ' 630 Newport Center Drive 238 Sub-Total West Half 1,535 1,650 115 ' GRAND TOTAL 2,377 2,766 389 ' QVMG1TAa1FS1761TBL8 ' 24 TABLE 9 PARKING OCCUPANCY SURVEY WEST HALF BLOCK 600 - NEWPORT CENTER TWIN PALMS RESTAURANT PARKING LOTS PARKING STRUCTURE No. 2 Lot B Lot C Lot D Lot 660 Total Lots GRAND TOTAL (1362 Spaces) (23 Spaces) (21 Spaces) (28 Spaces) (216 Spaces) (288 Spaces) (1650 Spaces) 9 N TIME OF Spaces % Spaces % Spaces % Spaces % Spaces % Spaces % Spaces % c DAY Occup. Occup. Occup. Occup. Occup. Occup. Occup. Occup. Occup. Occ ip. Occup. Occup. Occup. Occup. r 10:00 AM 903 66% 10 43% 4 19% 28 100% 131 61% 173 60% 1,076 65% f Ln 10:30 AM 914 67% 8 35% 4 19% 27 96010 125 58% 164 57% 1,078 65% CD 11:00 AM 975 72% 7 30% 3 1496 20 71% 132 61% 162 56% 1,137 69% N 11:30 AM 974 72% 8 35% 2 10% 19 68016 131 61% 160 56% 1,134 69% m 0 12:00 Noon 897 66% 9 39% 1 5% 16 57% 127 59% 153 53% 1,050 64016 m 12:30 PM 885 65% 5 22% 3 14010 16 57% 115 53% 139 48% 1,024 62% m N Source: Acutek parking count of Thursday,March 23, 1995. QVMG\1761TBL9 Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers ' TABLE 10 ' OBSERVED PARKING ANALYSIS WEST HALF BLOCK 600 - NEWPORT CENTER TWIN PALMS RESTAURANT Occupied Code Net Percent Net Required Description Use Leasable Occupied Leasable 1 Parking 620 Newport Center Drive Office 236,933 sf 630 Newport Center Drive Office 14.447 sf 251,380 sf 87% 218,701 sf 583 Spaces 660 Newport Center Drive Office 249,294 sf 89% 221,872 sf 592 Spaces TOTAL 500,674 sf 88% 440,573 sf 1,175 Spaces OBSERVED DEMAND 2 1,137 Spaces ' OBSERVED RATE (Space per square foot) 1/387 DIFFERENCE (Code Required vs Observed Demand) + 38 Spaces ' 1 At 1 space/375 sf, per Use Permit No. 1805. 2 Thursday,March 23, 1995 at 11:00 AM. ' Q%MG TABLES1176MMG 26 Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers TABLE 11 OPERATIONAL PARKING DEMAND WEST HALF BLOCK 600 - NEWPORT CENTER TWIN PALMS RESTAURANT NET PARKING DESCRIPTION USE LEASABLE DEMAND 620 Newport Center Drive Office 236,933 sf 1 612 660 Newport Center Drive Office 249,294 sf 644 ' 630 Newport Center Drive Office 7,362 sf 19 Restaurant 16,446 sf 2 173 TOTAL DEMAND 1>448 ' PARKING SUPPLY 1,650 SURPLUS 202 1 Office parked at observed rate of 1 Space/387 sf. ' 2 Code Demand 16,446 sf-7,699 non-public = 8,747 sf 8,747 sf/40 = 219 spaces. ' Assume Customer Demand = 72%; Employee Demand = 28% Customer Parking = 219 x 0.72 = 158 Spaces Employee Parking = 219 x 0.28 = 61 Spaces ' Walk-in customer survey at Tutto Mare Restaurant shows 29%walk-in, 71% drive-in (Wednesday March 22, 1995, 11.30 AM - 1:00 PM) Adjusted customer parking demand 158 x.71 = 112 spaces Total demand = 112 + 61 = 173 Spaces (Approximately 1 Space/50 so GWMG\TABLM761TBL11 1 27 ' Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers ' parking demand for 173 spaces. The office space and restaurant are expected to generate a combined total parking demand for 1,448 spaces. Previously described parking inventory ' indicates that the West Half of Block 600 parking supply amounts to 1,650 spaces. Hence, it was determined that an operational surplus of 202 parking spaces in the West Half of Block 600 could be expected after the project completion. ' As concluded in Parking Code Analysis, after the proposed restaurant addition, a parking supply in the West Half of Block 600 is expected to exceed the City of Newport Beach Code ' requirements by 115 spaces or by about 7 %. On an operational basis, comparison of the existing parking supply to projected demand indicates that there would be a surplus of 202 parking spaces in the West Half of Block 600 after the proposed restaurant addition. 1 28 I� ' Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers ' VI. SITE ACCESS The Block 600 Twin Palms Restaurant site is served by San Joaquin Hills Road, Santa Cruz ' Drive, Santa Rosa Drive and Newport Center Drive East. Traffic coming from Corona del Mar and Laguna Beach will also use San Miguel Drive. All of these streets and the nearby intersections associated with the proposed project are fully developed, and all key ' intersections are signalized with separate left-turn lanes. Access to parking is via Center Drive which has full left-turn ingress/egress at Santa Cruz ' Drive and right-turn only (no left turns) at Santa Rosa Drive. Traffic circulation patterns are well established and Block 600 access well defined. No site access problems are anticipated. 29 ' Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers VII. SUMMARY • The proposed Twin Palms restaurant, located in Newport Center, in the City ' of Newport Beach, would consist of 16,446 square feet of indoor and outdoor space. • The restaurant is expected to generate approximately 1,100 daily trips, with 10 morning peak hour inbound and 2 morning peak hour outbound trips, and ' with 58 evening peak hour inbound and 26 evening peak hour outbound trips. Two-and-half hour peak period trip generation was computed by doubling the peak hour volumes. ' The eighteen intersections were identified by the City of Newport Beach staff for traffic impact analysis. ' The One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis was conducted for the eighteen analyzed intersections. Six out of eighteen intersections were determined to ' be impacted by 2.5 hour peak period project traffic. • ICU test was carried out for the six impacted intersections, indicating that ' none of these six intersections is expected to exceed 0.90 volume-to-capacity threshold under future conditions with the addition of the project traffic. ' As concluded in ICU test, the six impacted intersections are expected to operate at satisfactory level of service D or better after the project traffic addition. Therefore, the project is not expected to have any significant traffic impact and no mitigation measures are required. • The Code Parking Analysis indicates that the City requires 1,535 parking ' spaces for the land uses (including the proposed restaurant) located in the West Half of Block 600. The parking inventory indicates that 1,650 spaces are ' supplied on the site, resulting in a surplus of 115 parking spaces. • The operational parking demand analysis for the West Half of Block 600 ' indicates that the office space and the proposed restaurant are expected to generate a combined total parking demand for 1,448 spaces. The parking inventory indicates that the West Half of Block 600 parking supply amounts ' to 1,650 spaces. Hence, an operational surplus of 202 parking spaces could' be expected in the West Half of Block 600 after the project completion. 30 Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers APPENDIX A 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Worksheets 1 1 . 1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis 1 Intersection Jamboree Rd / Santa Barbara Dr (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on Verage Winter/Spring 19 93)AM Peak 2JI Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 211 Hour Growth Peak 21s•Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 24 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume i Volume outhbound 3790 Y6- 10 i t IflNiouthbound 2746 % +g2 lcolO 397j8 Eastbound _0— Jd O l90 2 i 0 Westbound 468 71 7 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% •of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1 i 1 . i 1 1 1 1 TIUI6 ?A 4--611)R n1r— rnk 6M A1Fu afq- CTR DATE: 9-7- q 1 PROJECT: ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection Jamboree Rd / Santa Barbara Dr (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pring — M Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 24 Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 21j Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ' Northbound 2737 3% If$Z/ 77(Z. 353 1 ' southbound 4426 3% +!330 12 35 S� Q4 58 j �3 Eastbound _0_ 0? gO I go (7 i ' Westbound 2013 0/ 725 2638 2G ! 0 i Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected i� Peak 2Z Hour Traffic Volume ' Q Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 24 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. Tvilm PItMRs LE616222tfE--. uV.o K, CTR DATE: 3 Z3�5 ' PROJECT: i z i 1% Traffic Volume Analysis 1 Intersection JAMBOREE RD/SAN JOAQUIN HILLS RD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 94)AM 1 Peak 211 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 211 Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2h Hour 1 Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 3706 21 (4- 74) 1(,9 qg 1 Southbound 4063 z/ +gl ' 1412. 5/5,56 56 2 Eastbound 909 (7 % JZ q!�1 1 Westbound 861 0/1 116 CI 7 4 10 1 mfi Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected U Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume 1 a Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization 1 (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 -riow f'A-MS 6W I)Q0POZ7 CSk- DATE: 3 23x-9v— PROJECT: 1 FORM I 2. t1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection JAMBOREE RD/SAN TOAQUIN HILLS RD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 9 PM Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Protected 1% of Protected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 3859 V (f'g) 12.14- .5150 52- 2,9 / ' Southbound 5489 Z/, l+ 110 1363 6952 Eastbound 484 pY. 3p�f88 ' Westbound 2443 101 2�44 25- � O ' p j Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected u Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ' D Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection .Capacity Utilization ' (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1 •'( Nim PAL.ans R.F-5TAUeAMT 3LOC4 (nO M�QJPoP_T Cr &DATE: 2a-i5 PROJECT: FORM I 1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/FORD—EASTBLUFF DR (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 993TAM ' W(t k 2 Hour Approved jDpipecatci Regional Pnojects Projected 1% of Projected Project Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ' �+ �25) 6 Z6t q2 126.2 t�l�. 1pl (a2 16 q i ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume '❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C:U.) Analysis is required. 1 _TiJlr� I i46 P bTflil2 Nr� �t/�Q� 4�6 S vJF�PS L'i� DATE 3 .z q,,r '. PROJECT: 3. ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection Jamboree Rd Ford Rd Eastbluff Dr (Existing Traffic Volumes basedon verage inter prtng 9 93 PM ' Peak 211 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k our Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume / Volume Volume Volume ' Northbound 4932 3`/ `f��($ 1466 (/� ��6 6 ' Southbound 4614JOY 3l tl?�g� 132G b D -78 0/ ; g Eastbound 1097 I Z 1139I' i6 Westbound 4490/1 615 (21 ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ' a Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization. (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 1 -r I t� FAt-M5 PrSTRU eA& — ia-p". Gw 1�-W PART &O DATE: :S-Z-7-gl6- ' PROJECT: MntA ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection 111RTHUR B ULEVARD (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage n er pring 94 AM ' Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 211 Hour Growth Peak 211 Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 211 Hour Peak 2k Hour ' Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 2984 2.(. (+�o) 1/11 1-0 q 34 o3 2 5 6 ' South bound 978 Zj `4-Z0) 1020 t,Z� O i g �2 0 � I Eastbound 3673 Z'/ �t l33 1132. `Yg3B 4"I ` 0 ' Westbound 1791 % �* 7.4-2 25�5 2.6 Y Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume ' Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected [] Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. ' TvJiN RAFNIS 2i 6T AJ2Psm [ FL.0 � �p �j yJ�(k( R DATE 1 2� ql PROJECT: t 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection R E ROAD MACARTHUR BOULEVARD (Existing Traffic Vol sed on Average Winter/Spring 19 9 PM ' Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected rPeEaproil ct Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2y Hour Hour Volume Volume Volume volume e ' Northbound 1954 2'�. (f 3Q 583 256 Southbound 3117zY (462) G -3 3�2�Eastbound2340 2� Li ��) q77 3?J63Westbound 4304 2/ ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 24 Hour Traffic Volume 'a Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1 ' QAcS Qrr — L �MPOt?.r CT& DATE: ' PROJECT: ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHUR BOULEVARD/SAID MIGUEL DRIVE ' (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average In er pr ng 1994_) AM ' Peak 2$ Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2$ Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ' Northbound 3053 2-X (fhi) 2-21 32:�35 33 y Sout hbound 2200 2Y• (+44 GIB 28G f 27 C? ' Eastbound 505 �� 1 o G 1 1 6 I ' Westbound 624 0;/ i q 4 Sig Q ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 21,-. Hour Traffic Volume ' Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1 t A4E ) bgT Q:Y- DATE z3-9S' ' PROJECT: 1 s. i 1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis 1 Intersection MACARTHUR BOULEVARD SAN MIGUEL DRIVE (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/spring 1994 PM 1 Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume 1 Northbound 1830 2-/ +36 � 163 2 o 5-4 ' 1 ,24 1 Southbound 3107 2% +(z (�� ?J �G� 3-f v Eastbound 2143 d% ' �3� z581 z6 �.i 1 Westbound 797 0 j 10Z 10 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume 1� Project Traffic is estimated to -be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 21., Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1 1 1 i 1 ' 1 1 1 tuoRT' �T�. DATE: EW 1 PROJECT: ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection MacArthur Blvd / San Joaquin Hills Rd (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/spring 19 93) AM Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 10A of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume i Volume ' Northbound 2928 (t88) 350 Southbound 3785 3'i i-114) 1072 L-qv I 4f 2 ' Eastbound 516 o/ l o 2 6 18 6 2 ' Westbound 1647 b/ 1 170 1 8 1* I g t 3 ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2Z Hour Traffic Volume ' ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utfl ization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1 Tw/10 P91-M6 RF,-r-AURAt� C-6LQ4� 6a u5w>'of,Y 01-R DATE• 3-Z1_r:5' ' PROJECT: cnn.. + ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection MacArthur Blvd / San Joaquin Hills Rd (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring M ' Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 231 Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ' Northbound 2558 3/ C77), 4/67 305o 31 ; O Southbound 4623 3% (+ i 39) 7 J2- Jr��(/�I �J� ) 2. Eastbound 1825 �� 9 zzg4 23 � y' Westbound 1121 �� l �� Z 1Z 7 ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2i Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2Z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1 t TiolN (�+�,a5 tQr57'AJP�lnl i x68e4 cex� M6�Po2'r QTe DATE Z 27—Rs tPROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHUR BOULEVARD/FORD ROAD ' (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring _ AM ' Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2q Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ' Northbound 4255 .2'l ((+'g5) 5(� �-�' pn7' 4q IQ' Southbound 4913 ' Eastbound 480 r z0 50 0 f ,Westbound 2350 1 S2 zJ��2 2 S (� 1 ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2i Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ' ❑ Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1 ' 'row V44�r I)fa)fa2T 59, DATE: Z 2'7-jr ' PROJECT: cnnu r ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis t Intersection MACARTHUR BOULEVARD/FORD ROAD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/spring _) PM Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Protects protected 1% of Protected Protect Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2$ Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume rr'' Volume Volume Volume "( ' Northbound 4091 2�' C�� T O g4z 48 QG South bound 6052 2-/ l{lzl N4-51 Eastbound 663 O% 20 (083 ' Westbound 1189 n '/ 3N— ��3 �2 0 ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ' [] Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. Tw�N i'4L,n5 STRU(�Pr1�1 8),60f, boo k0WP0R: OT,' DATE: 3 ys" PROJECT: rnoM r 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHUR BL/BISON AV (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 993 AM Peak 211 Hour Approved ' Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 211 Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2)1 Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume tNorthbound 5276 3 / Cf 1 SB 20L' 5-639 56 0 Southbound 4828 Z6 Eastbound 740 -7917 8 ' Westbound _0_ g2 �Z i Q ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 23-,. Hour Traffic Volume ' Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of• Projected [] Peak 22 .Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. TAW -PPr),•N5 P yrFJr?o-,s'- &G3—K F�(� 11�MP,947- Cir, DATE:Cir, DATE: ' PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHUR BL/BISON AV (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average winter/Spring 19 93) PM ' Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing •Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 211 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ' Northbound 4029 3 //(viz 558 Lf--Tog Southbound 4307 3 I.f 12q) ' Eastbound 963 0! � ~>' I /'�0 _ Westbound 0_ p j Z D 20 O I i ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume ' Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected (] Peak 231 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1 �iy/N" i�FlthtS i2F�TAU i�NT C3!OCK F fbFy� 0 cg DATE: 3-2P —q • ' PROJECT: 1 'I 1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast H / Dover Dr/Ba shore Dr 1 (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average nter/Spring 19 93)Art 1 Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 211 Hour Peak 211 Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume 1 Northbound 297 (. 3o I 3 D E bound 2280 f 25-8 2 53$ 2 5bound 4164 3 HIE; 950bound 3�4392 C} �jz �j�g �jOQj2 5� 2 1 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 21 Hour Traffic Volume 1 Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 TwrrJ -PA�I..MS 4F-,;TA-URA»S 6L.&PK 6Z ASS AC11 (-wM DATE: PROJECT: ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection Coast H / Dover Dr/Ba shore Dr (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average winter/spring 1993 PM ' Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 24 Hour Growth Peak 211 Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 24 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ' Northbound 277 0 '� 1(2 2 ' [r uthbound 2910 Eastund 4230 412�) 661 50 /2 S0 stouneo 1 P� I 6757 (f 203) q& q4. 7- q ! 16 ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ' ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. I 1 1 P91 M SMAORA�S— 1-0Q!t 0 — ' � R bo � i'oR'� �(L, DATE: PROJECT: 1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection COAST HIGHWAY BAYSIDE DRIVE (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on tiverage winter/spring 1994 AM ' Peak 211 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Protect Direction Peak 24 Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2h Hour Peek 2h Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ' Northbound 1056 0'/, 2� 1Og2 1 Q ' Southbound 157 17 / �5 /3'' ;• 1 l� 3 b Eastbound 5907 Z� �6Sq (� ' Nestbound 3402 2 / (+6 b) 302 3�-1t 2 J, ' d Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. Tu;ti� PP�PMS t�Y,ruf��1e r Bt-Gt'l>' tx� Il�aPvtrs aTR DATE 27 95' ' PROJECT: ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/BAYSIDE DRIVE (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 g_&) M Peak 2y Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ' Northbound 1217 -0/ 1220 Sout hbound 147 0/ 21��J �73 9 6 ' gasttiound 6455 ,22/, +122� 1t ao TC7�l{ 4-b zs ' Westbound 6163 2Y. (H2-3) ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ' ❑ Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1%910 PA1-N16 ff�aTAUP-Mt r'- Pl boll bQQ K. WbZI, CTe- DATE ' PROJECT: rn n.. ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Hwy / Jamboree Rd ' (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 93)Art ' Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of ProjectedE2h Direction Peak 211 Hour Growth Peak 2J, Hour Peak 2Ji Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ' Northbound 1494 ?�"/ �1�5> �j'Z 15R I Southbound 1860 3 / 'I"tj 6' 695 Z(, �� 26 Eastbound 5212 6Y I4-1 SG ll2/(7 6544 6S ' Westbound 2737 3 � `f W2 2� 1 3033 3D Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected (� Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C'U.) Analysis is required. --( wf� l {�f3�►�� RrsTAokH��- 1oC� �loL'14 rWGD�T CilrR DATE 3 Z�. QS ' PROJECT: 1 1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis 1 Intersection Coast Hwy / Jamboree Rd (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 93 )PM Peak 211 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume' Volume Volume Volume Northbound 1076 Y/ �i jZ �i� �� 'I �f 2 6' Southbound 3975 g`/, �� Q�J2 4'�E6 Jr� [3 Eastbound 4761 3% (�I�t3) q�(�p Ilj 5990 1 Westbound 4062 3 / (4122,) 601 '' 4 c?3 g � 5 1 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume 1 ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 _ -r^J)N P -µ5 Qa-rA R Slyr— 6LCO-4 6 O l)fWfbkT CTR.) DATE: 3.M—16- 1 PROJECT: ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average In er pr ng 19 _ AM ' Peak 2)1 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 24 Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Penk 2k Hour Peak 2$ Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound —0— j 0 0 South bound 310 0% '�:f2 7J gZ 1+ i O ' Eastbound 3616 z a72) tWestbound 3060 2'1 Ct61) 201 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 23-2 Hour Traffic Volume ' El Peak Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. rW„� Ar MS �iSTNU�tNi — $�e�QK f�C6 &rv,0PbWt - Q i L DATE '5 9-7 -9L' ' PROJECT: ' 12 . 1% Traffic Volume Analysis t Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/spring 19 _) PM ' Peak 211 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 24 Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ' Northbound —0— 01�, l/ 0 Q SouthbDund 1718 0/. / 242 t LT6 Zo 5 ../ Eastbound 4246 2X ( F gS�1 360 46 1 1 41 lz ' Westbound 3608 z (f72/ 246 13q 2, 6 3 0 ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 23g Hour Traffic Volume ' Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected El Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1"01ti RLoer- Goo A1rPfbP--1- u- DATE: ' PROJECT: C(1DM T 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Hwy / MacArthur Blvd t (Existing Traffic Volumes based on verage nter pring 93 AM ' Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 211-Hour Growth Peak 21, Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 211 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound _0_ 3 / 0 I O soutnbound 1226 3 i 1� 3I 23� I5171 I J j ' Eastbound 2437 ,! f! . 31 120 Westbound 4788 l�l �`i 624 1j 6SJ6 56 ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ' Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 23-, Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 1 1 ' �viw ��n5 T�4vkl�ns —B�oCkl luG—Nl ar 07-k DATE: PROJECT: ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Hwy / MacArthur Blvd — (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on AverageWinter/Spring pM Peak 2k Hour Approved ' Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2)1 Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound _0_ 3y � -' Southbound 2342 3% ({-40 L4 -S 121 5S z� ' Eastbound 4111 3/ (i' 124 32S 4557 6 Westbound 3634 3/. l+ f o9) Igg 4031 4U 1 2q ' rY' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected LU Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1 1 p�,� -rPOW R9LM5 +�FSlf�(JRF�IV%- ic8"ar-. 6aQ .�Jf_-wy0e)&Y CTR DATE: 7-2-7-16- PROJECT: ClloM r 1 1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis 1 Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/GOLDENROD AVENUE (Existing Traffic Volumes based op Averagewinterlbprin—g—M-4-)— Alm Peak 211 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 211 Hour Growth Peak 24 Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 24 Hour Volume Volume Volume �LVolume Volume Volume 1 Northbound 312 (� 7�jO 3 V Southbound 1 $ '/, 2-6 J-2.G z 0 1 Eastbound 1951 .2/. +J�9� 1 166 21 5�p�i,,II 23 I I 1 Westbound 4173 Zl' (� 23) 6(& 42 "F4 4q Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected NN�J Peak 2i Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected 1 Peak 23j Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ti PRvN6 —6J-0el< Elks Vxnlfli Ong, DATE: 1 PROJECT: Mov T ' 14. ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/GOLDENROD AVENUE ' (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring _) pM Peak 2y Hour Approved ' Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 24 Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ' Northbound 257 O% ( 2-6 3 3 2 Southhound 196 Q (� 19-0 0 1 Z 1 Z �N/, I ' Eastbound .-Z/ I f Jl�G1� 5470 �� + �2 Westbound 3292 (+6G) Z32 3E q 0 36 z ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 41our Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2kiliour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.1 Analysis is required. 1 1 Lw�N �R4J15 >Au�A�T- 6tACC 6ca AifJOP02 Pik DATE: 2 2Z� fzr- ' PROJECT: rn n.. 1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/MARGUERITE AV (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/spring 9 93 ) AM ' Peak 211 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Protected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2y Hour Pdak 2h Hour Peak 211 Hour f Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ' Northbound 639 (0 6.4 0 ' Southbound 433 Q/ / 16 0 4 q l (� Eastbound 2029 �v/ 641) (3G 22 26 2.2. I ' Westbound 3947 3'/ (+ 118 �j�l�� 4659 .4� 3 ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 2Z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. t 1 t 1�lA) ,)E'aA4R7✓ Ci' DATE 3 2,3 % ' PROJECT: ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection ' COAST HIGHWAY/MARGUERITE AV (Existing Traffic Volumes based on verage inter pring 99 1 PM ' Peak 211 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2)1 Hour Growth Peak 24 Hour Peak 2h Hour Pdak 2y Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ' Northbound 719 0/ 2, o u t bo u n d 686 0/ g ( 'G� 1 Eastbound 4229 3/ r4. 1— �) 5�6 'I2'9�Z 4q � (� ' Westbound 2891 3/ l`{ gJ I `� I 4-6 32— f Project Traffic is estimated to be -less than 1% of Projected ' Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ' ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1 1 1 wi)u Pg4,Ms gcGcK hto N�m!'497- ('iR DATE: 3-2A-<,J✓ ' PROJECT: GnoM r 1 1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis 1 Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/POPPY AVENUE (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring _ prq 1 Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 24 Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h,Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume 1 Northbound 73 South bound 98o 106 (� ; 1 Eastbound 1624 2� q p 1 Westbound 2�3664 1 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 21,- Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected 1 ❑ Peak 23-, Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1 . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Twine Pi9GMS rAuRfru —fLo hd AIZQPJP-7" 0-7-,2 DATE: 27 iS 1 PROJECT: IG . 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/POPPY. AVENUE (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pr ng gg pM 1 Peak 211 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2J* Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 24 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 148 / 2 16-0 2 2 ✓ [estbo�nd uthbound200 �� 6 206 2 j •2- ✓ stbound `�%, r� .3) 52 2 3 4 42-3635 2/ 2 6 T � 26 ' a Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ' Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. I 1rruiiu 111+ nns DATE: 3-23-95 ' PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis 1 Intersection SAN JOAQUIN HILLS RD/SANTA CRUZ DR (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 94 AM 1 Peak 2)s Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1%gHour Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2's Hour Peeak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 252 0,/ 100 35-2 Z 1 Southbound 238 -25E 3 (9 _ I Eastbound 1465 300 6h g 1 Westbound 779 Z 10 .2 J t O 1 d Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 2, Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization 1 (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 �sr�uK�,vr� B�oeK (W N g•—avfb am DATE 3� 9S PRROJECOJEC T: 1 FORM I ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection SAN JOAQUIN HILLS RD/SANTA CRUZ DR (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/spring 19 94) Prl ' Peak 231 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 24 Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 211 Hour Peak 2k Hour ' Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 1178 p% GJ Gj 6 Z 0 ✓ 223 ' Southbound I 203 20 0'/ 2 0 Eastbound 1402 0� 6 3 I G G 5 (5 45 Westbound 1164 O7 ( 2 3 -Z �Z ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected .Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization ' (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1 ' 1 ' Swirl PAUhS �r'�sT/ht.lK�1Y—C;u6K60rc '00,vfbk7' (IrK. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I ' l8 1 ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection SAN JOAQUIN HILLS RD/SANTA ROSA DR ' (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 93)AM Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2h. Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume tNorthbound 250 0 / 60 310 •Southbound 312 4 / 0 312 3 Eastbound 706 0*/ 125 8,31 cbpp O Westbound 606 0/ 22-4 ISSO ' 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected IrPeak 23-2 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1 1 1 ' TWIL r19&^f C-W AIO JAa47- e7K DATE PROJECT: 'll ' FORM I ' Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers APPENDIX B ICU Analysis Worksheets i I I tMA7135AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & SAN MIGUEL DRIVE 7135 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1994 AM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ' I IEXISTINGIPROPOSED[EXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio lyolume I V/C I I [Capacityl0apacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volune Iw/o Project[ I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I ' I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------•----------�-CI I "L ^ 1600 I I 95 I D-06 I- 2 I 1L I f7 O-4�1 Z 1 0 0- 1 -----I ' I--------) 3200 I--------' -----) 0.42 I 23 I ---0----1< 0 �f9 I 10.1i6 =---- �- IMR 1 [ 203 I 4- 11 1 1 I I___________________________________________________________________________________________I ' I SL I 1600 1 I 6 I 0.00 * a- I A 1 4 1 � 10 1 I----------------------------------------------------------------- -------- -------------- 1 I $I 1 1 422 19 1 9�- I I________) 3200 i•••••---i -- 553? 0.30 - _..-__.,( kl ' SR I l i 122S I I I EL 1 3200 I 1 118 1 0.04 I / I' ?J 1 0 . Q� I _ 1 0-041 I__________________________________________________________________________________________ 60 I---ET---) 3zoo �------------ ---) 0.0z 1- ------- 2�---1 _1-0�}........� Do ----- - - IER 1 1 17 I I 1� I I -ir I ' I I___________________________________________________________________________________________ ' I WL I 1600 I I 141 1 0.09 * " . I W I (7, plA 1 , 10, I------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I WT I--------) 3200 ---------'--------) —0.05 - ----I --- I O.DS I ' I -------- I 14 I I �- ----------I I I (EXISTING I 0.53 I---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I 60 I I I - - -- - -- - - - - - (EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. ____________________________________________________________________ ' 12Projected + 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_[ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be Less then or equal to 0.90 ' 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ' Description of system improvement: PROJECT MA7135AH FORM II MA7135PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD S SAN MIGUEL DRIVE 7135 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1994 PH ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio lVolume I V/C I I [CapacitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume Iu/o Project[ I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I ' ' [------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I i HL 1 1600 I I 62 1 0.04 * 1 11 N I 0,05"�l 12 16).061- --------3 --3200 ---------I---97--) 0.21 ----------�6----E-�2----)-------��Z�I ' I NR 1 1 163 1 " 1 4 I I - I I I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I SL 1 1600 1 1 3 1 0.00 1 0 1 -0' 1 '0' I ' I JX I I-------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------I------I I ST 1 1 997 I 0 1 ) n3 1 �/ — I--------) 3200 ------------------) 0.41 *------------------�---_7-L- -------- ' I SR 1 1----------------------------------------------------------- EL322 1 3200 1 1 559 1 0.17 i 1 13 S 1 0. I , 10. 2Z --- --------------------------------------------------------------2--------------------- ET 1 1 253 1 1 65 1 6 1 1 0'16 I ---<1--------) 3200 ------------------) 0.13 --------------- ----- -------------------;q I ER 1 1 172 1 1 1(7 1 -1 5 1 1 I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I 1 WL 1 1600 1 1 126 1 0.08 _i 1 21 (9. 09 1 — 10,091 I---------------- -------------------------------------------- ---------- ----------------I 1 WT 11 1 160 1 -� 'I " I I -- I I I---.....) 3200 ----------------') 0.06 ------------------�-------- --------�---- I WR 1 1 20 I _i 1 -0' 1 C7 0l I / 1 (2.o- i 1---------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------I [EXISTING 1 0.68 1 I I------------------------------------------------------------- ------ - ----- 1EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0, 2J I I I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 1EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 10.4 I --------------------------------•_--------_------•---_---------__-----------...-------------- 1m/Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 tI_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I__I 'Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be Less than or equal to 0.90 ' ' 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- . ' Description of System improvement: _r)/A)_ AW," )?96 A-0A74-Mf- bZ ,U6#UP6k7-07 PROJECT FORM II MA7135PM MA5070AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD $ SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD 5070 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 IVotume I V/C I I IGapacItylcapacityl 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 1600 I 1 75 1 0.05 * 2 1 � 1 O.o5 j . 10..oS 1 I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I ' I NT 1 4800 1 1 1232 1 0.26 1 3 7 1 16 q 10. 30 I . 10.301 1------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----- I MR 1 1600 1 1 9 1 0.01 1 „8' 1 -0, 1 0, o f I - 1 0.01 1 I________________________________________s____•______________ I ' I SL 1 3200 1 1 211 1 0.07 1 6 1 5 10,01 1 1 0-of 1 I-------------------------------------------------------------=------------ /' 1 ST 1 3200 1 1 958 1 0.30 * .ZQ I 33* I 0. 4/�--�---i 0.4 'Ns. `-----•-------•------------------•---•---•--•------I ' SR 1 1 6121 1 18 i 162 1 1 J I I I______________________________________________________________ /_'___•_______________ EL 1 3200 1 1 81 1 . 0.03 * 1 �I�' 1 C7 o. *I %J I q.ar r ' I--------� 4800 ------------------i 0.03 ih 1 P 0� I 0:0�1 I ER I I I 4U -_____ 1 I I ___________________________________________________________________________________________1 I__ WL•--1---1600-1--------1-----73'1...0_01_1_ , I R' 1 0.0/ 1 — 10.0/ 1 __ uT I - 3200 1 - -•- 1 220 1 0.07 1 - 1 54 1 O.O S 1 2 ' ----- --------------- ------------------------ ---- -------- I WR 1 1600 ** 1 552 1 0.35 * �. 1 51 1 0 .3i — 1 0 I-------- --------••----------•--••--------- ----------------------••-------•---•---•----•-- EXISTING 1 0.73 I------•-••----------••---•--•---•-----------------------•---•-•----------•-- ' 1EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I Q, 2 g I 1 I---------•------•----•--•-••----------------------•---•----•---•--------------•----•---•--•I 1EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. IV, -••---------------•---•------------------• d"Rightturns only from single lane I 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: TrJitJ AAzaAS QcSTfu�RANC R r /ry, uFrJfBRt" Q7R PROJECT ' MA5070AM FORM II 1 ' MA5070PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD 5070 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC HINTER/SPRING 1993 PH -------------------------•-------••---•---•------------------------•------•-----•------------ I' IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTING REGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI 1Movementl Lanes �I Lones I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio 1Volume I V/C I I 1CapacitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume IN/o Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I I I Volume I I I I' ----••------------------•--------------------------•------------- - I NL 1 1600 1 1 41 1 0.03 * I I I 1 (9. D3 '�1 10.03(` I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I ' I NT 1 4800 1 1 1045 1 0.22 1 31 1 2196 1 0•Z'1 1 - 1 0.2� 1 I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I MR 1 1600 1 1 11 1 0.01 1 a I ,e- I Vol I -- 10.of I I................................................................. [ St. 1 3200 1 1 439 1 0.14 1 13 1 30 1 i7. tS I -- 1 I-•-----------•-------•------------------------------------------------•-------------- 1 ST 1 3200 1 1 1291 1 0.40 * 39 1 j01 1 0, J 1 1 1 0 Sl I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I SR I N.S. 1 1 3481 1 10 1 30 1 1 .G 1 1 I--•------------------------------------•-----------------------•--------------------------- EL 1 3200 1 9 504 1 0.16 * i I 19q 1 0. Zel 31 O.ZZT. I----------•---------------------•----------------------••----------------------•------•---•I ' ET I 1 297 I - 1 zB 1 0 08 1 4 I og I ER I---•---------------------------ss-----------...._._-__—_.-----------------------------•I ' I WL 1 1600 1 1 13 1 - 0.01 1 ' 1 0 1 0.691 1 - 1 0 0/ 1 1 1 I WT-- -- i - i z6z - - i - 2 g 0 q�� 9 i�o_.oa� -------'---------------------------- -------------------------------------------I .__u.. ) 4800 ..................) 0.08 Y t.._C.. -._.... (EXISTING 0.67 1 1 I•----------------•-----•--•------•---------------------------------------•-- 1, (EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0. 3 5 1 I I-----------------•---------•--------------------•----•-------------------------•-----------I [EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 10,?5 I --- -' ----------------------------------•------------•---------------------•-----•-------Projected + project traffic I.C.U. Witt be Less than or equal to 0.90 ' 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. Witt be greater than 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. N/systems improvement Witt be Less than or equal to 0.90 Projected 1_I J ted + project traffic I.C.U. With improvements project np Will ' be Less than I.C.U. Without project ---------------------•---------------------.-.---------•-- Description of system improvement: TOItC, Pad-1.6 KV,5TAviA4T - ZLooK /,90 A1Ep1&pr- CtR ' PROJECT MA5070PM FORM it 1 14. 1 CH6355AN INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS 1 INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY & GOLDENROD AVENUE 6355 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1994 AM 1 I IEXISTINGIPROPOSED[EXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio lVotume I V/C I I ICapacitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio, I Volume I Volume Iw/o Projectl I Ratio I 1 I I I I I I I I Volume I I I NL 1 1 107 ----------------- ) ----- - -- t- --y- ---------- I - NT 1600 I I 1 0.06 • 1 ,�' I �, (7(j _____ la'09 I 1 -----) -- --- -- NR 13 ' ___----3•-----'------------•-_2--) ______-i..^_...i..(�__•• ----:____]1____-__ •-p� 1 . . ) ------------------) --- �•-----•- - sr 160o is o.07 oel 10. 1 I SR I 67 - ---- �------ -- --- EL I 1600 1 I 29 1 0.02 "' .� i ,{� I �, OZ'� I I_______________________________$�____________I�_____'___ --------I 1 I ET 1 1 I I I........) 3200 ------------------)' 0.26 --................. I ER 1 I 15 1f3, r I J I i _ -__---•----- ______________________ I u i I I 33 I I I - I OD-- I 10,02 I - ---- ---- ---- .-- ._.._..-- I WT I I in9 13S I 311 1 Q 6,/-*1 Z 19 1 I--------) 3200 ------------------) 0.55 "------------------'f' '------ -------, .a I WR I I 26 1 '0' I .9' I ---•- _ I I ..........................i._._----i---..._•--•--•-----...---. --••-•-•-- IEXISTING 0.65 1 I 1EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I Q, 9�- 1 I 1-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----�-r•I [EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I O.G'T I 1 -----------------------------------•------•-------------------------------------------------- Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equat 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 wilt be Less than or equat to 0.90 - I_I Projected +.project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements Will be less than I.C.U. without project --•---------- '-----------------------------------------------------------------•--------- 1 Description of system improvement: •�wiiu PAtels kFrsauP2�Ar, -&-00C hoe .U�kr QT"K PROJECT FORM 11 1 CH6355AM 1 1 1 CH6355PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY & GOLDENROD AVENUE 6355 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1994 PM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 I IEXISTINGIPROPOSED[EXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI 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, 1, Volume I Volume Iw/o Project[ I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I 1 -----I NL I 1 77 1 - 1 3 I 1 ( 1 1 I > ------------------> -------------------1-------- { I HT 1600 1 I 10 0.07 * 1 ,2' 1 0• o? 1 - 10.0�1 1 i--------) --•--•------------> -------------------t-------j-------[--- 1+1 I MR 1 1 23 1 - I ,cam I i I I ----------------------------•----- ------------------•--------- • - ...-----------I sL 1 1 35 1 _ 1 0 I 1 ...I _ I--------> ------------------> -----.._----------'<---- ..�_ .1 I ST 1600 1 1 12 0.05 I - I yr 1 0.0 I •- I n v?1 --------) ------------------> - - --- - --------<----'-- -}-- --<- /----�I SR 1 1 35 1 12 I I_-/ I I I_________________________________________________________________________ ____---____I I EL 1 1600 1 1 34 1 0.02 1 - I I ?— 1 0. 02- 1 ( I a.021 I_____________________ ________________________________________ ____________________________I I ET 1 I 2147 1 3 I 2-8Z 1 p� a�`1 �( 1 p, 1 '--'ER_-> 3200 -----------------) 0.62 i------•---------- __Y_'�!_ ,---�"'i_•'jh� I_________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 1 [ WL 1 1600 1 1 29 1 0.02 * I - 1 '9 1 • (7.OZI I O2 I---------------------------------------------------------------- ------I-- O � I Wr 1 1 1282 1 26 I i:0 1 0.46 1 0 1 1 1--------> 3200 ------------------> 0.41 -------------------<-------- �-------{------ ' I WR I 1 79 1 ,f I ,y I I - I I --------------•---------•--1 IEXISTING 1 ' 0.78 1 1 i_____________________________________ ----- �P - 1EXIST I II+ REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I------------------------------------------------------- ----------•------------------ .._. IEXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I 10 I _____________________________________________________________________________________________ iI_I 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 I_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: iWiA) i'Az N5 � TAtIQfI Ji bLDCC f�JO �1/G'NfdkT �fR PROJECT FORM II ' CH6355PM 1 1 ' IG . � ' CH6800AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY $ POPPY AVENUE 6800 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1994 AM _____________________________________________________________________________________________ ' I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVolume I V/C I I ICapacitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio . I Volume I Volume Iw/o Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I ' I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I NL I I to I - I Z I tr-I , i I ' I NT 1600 I 1 2 0.02 1 — 1 '0' I 0. 07_ 1 - I O,OZ I I--------) ............... ) --------------------------------_.............. I MR I 1 11 R' I I I I ' -----------------------------------------------------I--------=------------- SL I I I I I I I ST 1600 1 1 3 0.03 * - 1 , 1 0.0 3�1 ' 1 O.a3lr I........) __________________) ____-_________--__________- __-_-__I ' 1 SR 1 I 71 1 — -- I ` 1 ,6 I I I --- - - - ---- I - - -- -- ------------------ I EL 1 1600 1 1 6 1 0.00 * 0 1 1 1 '000-- I0— I C7 OQ ------------' -------------------- ---------------------------' ---------------------------I ' I ET --------) 3zoo ----------------fi) 0.22 ---14 6� 4-- --- �__4-7---A ER 1 TI ' e i I I I__________________________________________________ _______:I 1 WL I I 1 I Iy I �.Df I 10,011 ---- -- ---- - .________ - -- I WT I 1 1590 1 32- 1 9-931 -I 1 1 --------) 3200 ---------- ) 0.50 *- -----------c- ------- ' I WR I I 9 1 I C II--------- ---- I I (EXISTING 1 0.53 1 1 1---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 . (EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0,63 1 I I---------------------------------------------------_------------------------------------___I IEXISTING•+ COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 10, �71 _____________________________________________________________________________________________ I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. Will be less than or equal to 0.90 1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. Will be greater than 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/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: 7wrw1 ,'au L5 �Ksrt�o I�AnTr c3�c�c hoc N�„uR�erg e;k PROJECT FORM II ' CH6800AM ' 16 . ' CH6800PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY $ POPPY AVENUE 6800 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1994 PM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio [Volume I V/C I I ICapacitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume Iw/0 Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I I HL 1 1 20 1 -- 1 I I I I I I I........) ------------------) ....................6--------->-------e:-- A I NT 1600 [ I 5' 0.04 I I •� ( (J.O� I I(7.d�f 1 I- ) ..................) ...................<--------- >-------( - it I Nit 1 1 31 1 - I 1 1 I I ----------- ------------------------- -------------------------- ' I SL 1 1 85 1 - I .tr I I -- I I' I ) ------------------) ------------------- j- ____'l - I ST 1600 I I 5 0.06 * I la" i (9,0�� [ — 10. 0 f I--------) ----------------- -------------------{_...----- ---- ---t------zI ' i SR I I 12 I_________________________ it EL I 1600 I I 15 1 0.01 1 I I 1 l�.Q( I I �,�/ l ET I I 1569 , 1 5z- 1 Z63 1 0.Sg d,1 I-------- 3200 __________________) 0.50 -------------------�______ __� .____L I ER 1 1 27 I I 1 2' 1 1 I I I I---------------__________________________________________________________�____-__________`�. I WL 1 1600 1 1 13 1 0.01 * fg 1 Q 1 0.0/ I 1(9,0/4 -------- ------ ------------------------------------------------- --- I WT I 1 900 1 19 1 % 1 0 2 .I 5 1 -$Z1 3200 __________________) 0.28 -------------------i/....._._..�________ 8 -j WR I I I !F I I I I I (EXISTING 1 0.57 1 1 1---------------------------------------------------------------------------- [ [EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0.6 fi I___________________________________________________________________________________________ (EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 1 (I. 61 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- u-rojected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be Less than or equal to 0.90 ' 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project -------__________________________________________________________________________________ Description of system improvement: vu„) PAtius 56fAOeANi- &oog boo d)twPIDer eTR, PROJECT FORM II CH6800PM SJ5060AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' INTERSECTION: SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD & SANTA CRUZ DRIVE 5060 5065 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING -------------1994 AM ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - . . I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI .i 1Movementl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio Ivatume 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 Volume I I I I----- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I NL 1 3200 1 1 56 1 0.02 1 1 25- 1 t?. 0j 1 1 1 70L I I_______________________________________________________________________---------___._---___� HT ________________�__ w......._ _ 1�•YJ.. ....__._ !1� I I I I I I I I I ' i___NR__D 1600 0.01 ^__Lc_ __ �. . ya_I I I 151 I - 125 I I I I I--------------------------------------------------------------------------v- I I I I 13 ...............J sL 160o I 0.01 1 8' l 0•o l i 1 0.01 1 ' I------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ - - --I I sT 1 1600 1 1 5 1 0.00 1 - I ( 0 1 0, 01 1 1 0.01 I I--------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------I I SR 1 1600 1 1 79 1 0.05 1 - 1 0 1 0 0S- I - I O.OSI I___________________________________________________________________________________________I I EL 1 1600 1 1 46 1 0.03 1 • - I ff 1 (2.031 1 O•031 ' I---------------------------------- ------ ------------------------------ ET xO J6 _. __._.IYI.__.____D 4800 _________________> 0.13 --------- 1_V - I .:. ER I ' 1 238 I I 1------------------------------------------- ----------------------------- I� I WL 1 1600 1 1 122 1 0-08 " — ---1--1ZZ 1 0. 157-.T I------------------------- -------- -------- ------------------------ -----I 1 WT 1 1 209 1 - i 49- O.O S ---) 4800 ------------------) 0.05 ..................'zC-----__..3...--".I"..._ I ' IWR I I 16 I I ,B" I I I I 1EXISTING . 1 0•?3 1 1 1____________________________________________________________________________ I ' 1EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0. 25- 1 I 1-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 0- - 1 1EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. ' -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------'-----__.. 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 ID 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: -rkv o.t) PFttMS .>°;F- AtI RAAI i- QLOee- 600 /Jr4 106RT ark PROJECT FORM It ' SJ5060AM ' SJ5060P.. INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' INTERSECTION: SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD & SANTA CRUZ DRIVE 5060 5065 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1994 PH ---- ' I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXiSTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI lMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK RR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT i V/C Ratio lVolume 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----------------------------------------------------------------------------•---------------I I HL 1 3200 1 1 397 1 0.12 * - I )`1-�' I Q [ 7 I 1 0 1 0.14�1 I-------------- --------------------••------•----------•------ --------•---------•--------I NT (9,1/, ' I-------) 1600 ---------------9—i 0.07 -------------------i_ T-I____-_-I D ' I I_______________________________________________________ I St. 1 1600 1 1 13 1 0.01 1 - I 10 1 (9,01 1 • 10.011 ' I----------------------------------------------- ---- -- . ----I-0.01 I ST I 160D I 1 9 1 0.01 * 1 -E� o I I--------- ------------------•----•--------•--------------•------•-------•-----------I SR 1 1600 EL I ---- I 1 43 I 0.03 I 1 ,6 i 0 .02)---- ----------- 1 1 104 1 0.07 * • 1 0 1 d.0�Yf l 10.07 I I --------} ---- ----------•-------------------------------•••-----•-------•-•-----^•--•--I ' 1 ET �1 �1 '----•---I--- --- ] 0.09 -- 'I I ER 1 I 214 I 128 I I3 I I I_________________ _________ ___--_-_____--____ _--_____-___-_--_-_____-______-_I ' I WL 1 1600 1 1 29 I 0.02 I _. 1 23 1 0. 03 I 1 p.o3 I I-----------------------------c---- ------ - -------•----------- ------- I WT 1 1 478 _ II-------) 4800 i--------------24) 0.10 -----------f 3----- 1 0!l l I----------------,- -------------------------------------------------------------_ - 1EXISTiNG 1 0.30 1 1 1---------•---•-----•----•--•------------------•-----•------------- ' [EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I_____________________________________________________________ 1 1EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I O•.'�� I_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 1�6rojected + 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. Wsystems 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: S�iti Pftc.,�1s ,@Esl�-uR�rtrT bc.�x moo N�n�Pa�r- �JT�e. PROJECT FORM II ' SJ5060PM ' 19 . SJ506SAM ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD & SANTA ROSA DRIVE/BIG CANYON 5065 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1993 AH ----------------------_--------.---------------------._---------------------._._.....-------- I EXISTING IPROPOSEDIEXI STING[EXISTING IREGIONAL ICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI ' lHovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVolume I V/c I I Icapacitylcapacityl Votume I Ratio I volume I Volume lW/o Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I I I I votume I___NL______________________________________________________________________________________I 1 I tboo 35 — �Z 1 I f�l i 0 03 I - 1 0.o31 --_•_--_•__--�� I NT 1 1600 1 1 a 1 0.01 * - 1 0 1 0.01 -"1 (� I (7.P/ I 1 1---------------------------------Z----0-04----------------------------------------------- I HR 1600 I 0 1 0.05" I I D.o51 i___________________________________-___-____--_______-_--_-__--____--_________---____ _- sl 1 1600 1 1 64 1 0.04 * - 1 0 1 0• (0L��1 10.0w I -- - 160 __ 1 ----- 1 - - - 1 - •---I I sr I 1600 1 1 -- 1 ---- l I I ©•O1 1 1 ---- I SR 1 1600 1 1 57 1 0.04 1 - I ,a' 1 0.t2* I I P.04 I I--------------------------------------------------------------------- - - ... --. I EL 1 1600 1 1 51 1 0.03 1 10 1 0. 04 1 - 1 U 041 1----•------------I--------I i -------------------------------------------^7-------_-•-------- 1 ET 1 l 185 --------0 4800 -------•----------? 0.06 ' ER 108 „ I WL 1 3200 l I 371 I 0.12 -1------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I WT I > 4800 - -- z94 I . 1 1 0 1 0 to I " 1 0101 0.08 i-----•--I-- -'I E-------•-'---____i..t_ WR I I 96 ' (EXISTING .--_- -•__----_----•----•---'-0.23 -----------------------------------•-------••-_I I-------------- -----------•------------------------------------------------ 1 1EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED WPRQPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I �, `�5 I I I--------------- ----------------------------------------------•---------------- 1EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 1 Z,S1 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- �(I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equat to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. Witt 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 wilt be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: ' 71L)/A) f&L.MS �>~crarlR�yT' 2K0 6GsG tlEsufb Ct"k PROJECT SJ5065AN FORM II i SJ5065PH ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' INTERSECTION: SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD $ SANTA ROSA DRIVE/BIG CANYON 5065 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 (Volume I V/C I I ICapacitylCapacityl Votune I Ratio I Votune I Volume Iw/o Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I I-------------------------------------------------•----------------------------------•------I HL 1 1600 1 1 164 1 0.10 1 -- I 15- 1 0 (( I - 1 0. 1/ 1 I---------------------------------------------- --------------------------------•----------I 1 HT 1 1600 1 1 21 1 0.01 I I zr 1 (9.0( 1 1 1001 1 ---------------------------------------- - ' 1 NR ( 1600 1 1 340 i 0.21 ** 1 3 G 10,23 1 :� 1 (5 ._..-----•--------•-----------------------------••- -•- •--------------- -•-.-- I u 1 SL 1 1600 1 1 66 1 0.04 ► - I ,9- 1 0.041 10.OG I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I ' 1 ST 1 1600 1 1 13 1 0.01 1 - I k 1 0.01 1 3 10 0f I I-------------------------------------------------------------_-----------------------------I 1 SR 1 1600 1 1 47 1 0.03 I I ,? 1 003 I 10•03' 1 1------___-_- -----------------------------------------------------I ' 1 EL. 1 1600 I 1 41 1 0.03 1 - 11 D• OJ7 I -' I �' I ________________I_-_-____-____--- ___--__-_I--_-_---i -- Z___-__-______ -------------- ET 1 385 4800 ] 0.09 1 -- - --.._-_.{`�J Gj.I 1 ER 1 1 60 1 - 1 37 1 1 I I I----------•--------•--------- --I 1 WL 1 3200 1 1 222 1 0.07 1 1 3 1 0 0:� I (;5 10.Qg I 1-------------------------------------------•-------------------------------/-------------------I WT 174 ) 4800 I i --- 3 0.05 I I K/ .Q�l!-�Z_i-_•---i WR 89 I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------i ' (EXISTING 1 0.34 1 I--------------------------------------------------------------------•------- (EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0 •9J I I i !-------------------------------_--------------------------•-----.-_-_•------.-.__..-.---//- -,! (EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 10.491 **Assumed WBL included in "BR. Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. Witt 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 ' I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. With project improvements will be less than I.C.U. Without project ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ' Description of system improvement: -rjVI.0 t"'f3LM RrfdUR�1Ni &OQ9 6--6 A94Q 0*r• 87" PROJECT FORM 11 ICI , SJ5065PH ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection SAN JOAQUIN HILLS RD/SANTA ROSA DR ' (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Ave Inter Spring 19 93 PM Peak 211 Hour Approved ' Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1`, of ProjectJ]�21117 Direction Peak 2: Hour I Growth Peak 2k Hour ; Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ' Northbound 1165 �� 1 Q(� ; I265 13 Southbound 348 O� 3Ll 3 Eastbound 1105 —I o/. 27=7 3 g2. 141218 U 12 p2 12 7 D J Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 231 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1 �iU/Oy PRcuK ,G'i� RtJi F;U7 '- 3ca�lC 6<x 4yrggPG4i e-Tr DATE 3—Z? f� ' PROJECT: FORM I