HomeMy WebLinkAboutTS113 City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
March 19, 1998 INDEX
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
3, ity for the following reasons:
�� Although the application does not include the
addition of an alcoholic beverage license, staff
believes the applicant's disregard for the
regulations which relate .to alcoholic beverage
consumption will continue to the detriment of the
neighborhood,which is located in an area with an
h� over-concentrationof alcoholic beverage outlets.
• Tke previous use or extension of off-site alcoholic
bNerage license holders is not within the legislative
inter�of the Municipal Code or the City Council
Policy Guidelines.
• Adequate parking is not available on-site for the
proposeNse and the resulting parking demand
cannot be accommodated by the available on-
site parking Ad will be detrimental to surrounding,
properties.
• The potential for occupancy of the facility to
exceed the recorQmended limitations both
daytime and in the eveging has been increased by
the expansion of the net public area which has
already occurred within the facility.
• Traffic and circulation proble,ms created by the
narrow streets in the area are exacerbated by the
attendees arriving and leaving within a shorter
period of time. \\
• Noise impacts of the use-will advers@ly affect the
neighboring residential uses in the dv�ng and
nighttime hours.
• The applicant has disregarded regulations and
state law regarding alcoholic beverage
consumption. \
SUBJECT: Bistango Restaurant(David Hohmann, applicant) item No. 3
900 Bayside Drive Use Permit No. 3619,
• Use-Permit No.3619 iTraffic Study No. 113 and
• Traffic Study No. 113 Negative Declaration
• acceptance of a Negative Declaration
To allow the construction of a full service restaurant and cocktail lounge Approved
with outdoor patio dining. The application includes:
• a request to allow a modification to the Zoning Code to allow the
6
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
March 19, 1998 INDEX
no indicationthat alcohol was prohibited during the 90 day trial period
• miscommunication
Co issionerAd I s noted that the speciatevent permit that was issued
for th events on December 11, 12, 13 and 14 is specifically conditioned
that th sale or service of alcoholic beverages for on-site consumption
shall be p hhibited.
'PublicComrrl ntwas closed.
Commissioner dams noted that on November 20th, Commissioner
Ridgeway made motion to continue this application to February 19,
1998.and the oper ion to be accommodated through the use of special
event permit(s) with the conditions and findings in Exhibit A and as
amended by staff to • e used for these special event permit(s). In the
minutes,Exhibit A states,"The sale or service of alcoholic beverage for on-
site consumption shall b prohibited unless an amendment to the use
permit is first approved b ,the Planning Commission to allow for the
establishmentof a licensed al oholic beverage service facility including a
determination that the propos d use serves the public convenience and
necessity." So, on November, the applicant should have been fully
aware that under no circumsta ces should alcohol be served at that
facility. The bus issue was also a oncern noted at that meeting, the
applicant said that the buses would qe parked at a remote off-site area
and would not affect the neighborhooW.
Motion was made by CommissionerAda \de,'
ny Use Permit No.3614 as
provided for in Exhibit"A".
Ms.Temple noted an additional finding foal be added to,Exhibit A:
The statement that, the applicant has disregard d regulations and state
law.regarding alcoholic beverage consumption.
Commissioner Selich stated that from a land use poi,t, the application is
not compatible to this area. To bring that many peoi5 a into the area1n
ri highly concentrated peod,of times,to bring buses on ib streets that are
small whetherthey go off site to park or not is inapproprtat%
Discussion continued to support the motion.
With one abstaining, without objection and by show of hands, OTION
PASSED
FINDINGS:
1. The approval of Use Permit No.3614 will, under the circumstances
of the ease be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals,
5
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
March 19, 1998 INDEX
use of tandem parking in conjunct ion with valet parking service,
• a request to waive a portion of the restaurant development
standards specified by Section 20.82.040 of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code,
• live entertainment,
• the sale and service of alcoholic beverages,and
• continued service of alcohol after cessation of the regular food
service before closing.
Ms.Temple noted that this application would allow for the construction of
a new restaurant on Bayside Drive next to the Pavilion's market,a site that
was previously occupied by "Gladstone's for Fish". The complete analysis
of the project is contained in the original staff report prepared for March
51h. A subsequent report has been prepared based upon a revised site
plan provided by the applicant prior to this meeting. A more recent site
plan has been provided which addresses the parking lot and its internal
circulation. As noted in the reports, the primary issues of staff's concern
are the number and arrangement of parking spaces for the facility. The
proposal is to provide the restaurant with one parking space for each fifty
square feet of net public area which is the least amount of parking
permitted by the Code for the Planning Commission to establish for such a
use. Staff believes this is an appropriate parking ratio for this operation
given the nature of the restaurant's low turnover and the general
operational characteristics limited by the conditions of approval. The
primary concern with the original parking arrangement as well as the
subsequent arrangement is the high number of tandem spaces used for
valet service.The applicant has shown an aisle way through the parking
lot which will provide internal circulation between the restaurant's parking
lot and the adjoining parking lot for the supermarket and other stores. This
should help with problems of ingress and egress. As indicated in the
supplemental staff report,staff is of the opinion that the two valet parking
spaces located along Bayside Drive should be removed. If removed,that
would increase the number of spaces which could be used for self
parking,which would be an important component of the project design.
If the Commission supports this recommendation,it would require a further
reduction of 100 square feet net public area. The new plan will allow for
valet parking to be moved deeper into the property.
At Commission inquiry Ms.Temple noted:
• that there is no criteria in the Code to be used to evaluate the request
to make a modification to approve tandem parking
• there are a few restaurants along Mariner's Mile on Coast Highway
that have an equally high level of valet spaces
• hedges along the driveway will be trimmed back and will comply
with the site distances standards
• the noticing of this item was done within the 300 foot radius to owners
only
7
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
March 19, 1998 INDEX
• the Newport Marina apartment tenants were not notified
• there is no formal arrangement fora reciprocal easement,agreement
between the shopping center and the restaurant
Public Comment was opened.
Carol Hoffman,Vice President of the Irvine Company spoke on behalf of
this application referencing an exhibit on the wall noted:
• company renovated the center in 1986 which was built 1965 and has
operated and maintained since then
• location of a market,drug store,bank building and in-line stores
• a restaurantwas intended for this location from the beginning
• Bistango Restaurant is a high quality restaurant
• there are two segments to the public's use of the restaurant parking lot
-handicap location and valet parking with a covered walkway
• operation relies on valet parking as preferred by patrons
• all mechanical equipment is contained under the roof
• there are two sections to the restaurant- one with an-outside patio
that is 950 square feet,enclosed with glass panels which extend three
feet above the top of a two foot planter and covered with both
canvas umbrellas and wood trellis
• no open windows to the outdoor patio
• requested live entertainmentis totally enclosed within the building
• speakers allowed on the patio are for background type music only
• requested hours of operation to 1:00 a.m.daily applies to the interior of
the restaurant only
• patio closes at 10:00 p.m. Sunday thru Thursday and 12:00 p.m. Friday
and Saturday
• driveway location at the rear of the project will allow true circulation
into the center,with a reciprocal easement agreement between the
shopping center and the restaurant- the parking spaces eliminated
will be re-striped within the existing parking lot with a result of no net
loss
• a meeting was held at the request of the Irvine Apartment Community
managementteam for the residents of Promontory Point-with notices
sent to owners within a 300 foot radius
• would be willing to have a meeting with any other resident groups as
requested
• trash enclosure, located to the rear of the restaurant, is adjacent to
the retaining walf*and will be screened with trash pick up prohibited
between the hours of 10:00 p.m.and 8:00 a.m.
• the site distance will be complied with for the hedges
• the market will be contacted to review the revised site plan
• Promontory Point was built in 1973-75 with a restaurant operation in the
centersince 1965
8
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
March 19, 1998 INDEX
At Commission inquiry, the applicant agreed to the following additional
conditions:
• no charge for valet parking
• outdoor dining area enclosed by a five foot wall consisting of a
landscape planter and glass panels
• trash cannot betaken to the dumpster after 9:00 p.m.
The following people spoke in support of the application:
Martha Kim,Promontory Point
Peter Cunliff,623 East Promontory(above the restaurant)
Stuart Shrimpton,Promontory Point(above the restaurant)
Noting:
• within walking distance
• well thought out plans
• never had a problem with previous restaurant operations
The following people spoke in opposition of the application:
Stanley Marlin,Promontory Point
Don Gregory,Via Lido Park Drive
Gary Pomeroy,Promontory Point
Joyce Henke,Promontory Point
Annette Appleby,Promontory Point
Noting:
• with no air conditioning,will not be able to open windows at night due
to noise
• a traffic light will be necessary to accommodate ingress and egress
into the lot with the additional traffic
• suggested that the live entertainmentbe conditioned to be inside only
and to completely enclose the outdoordining patio
• use of restaurant is not compatiblewith the residences
• noise will be a problem due to prevailing wind condition
• tandem parking at night will add another noise element
• reduction of hours to be 12:00 p.m.Friday and Saturday and 11:00 p.m.
for the rest of the week
• eliminate amplified music
• restrict outdoor dining hours by 1 one hour
• most residents at Promontory Point were not notified
Staff noted that Coastal Commissioner requirements for noticing of renters
is 100 foot radius and should reach some of the closer aligned tenants of
Promontory Point and that there are seven restaurant categories in affect
now.
9
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
March 19, 1998 INDEX
Public Comment closed.
Commissioner Ridgeway noted that the restaurant is well thought out and
the applicant has addressed and agrees to every sensitive issue
presented. This is a high end operation. Motion was made to approve Use
Permit No. 3619, Traffic Study No. 113 and acceptance of a Negative
Declaration subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit A.
Chairperson Kranzley noted that the issue of noise is addressed in
condition number 6 which includes any music emanating from the
speakers. Condition number 3 addresses odors by the use of a high end,
charcoal filtering system.
Commissioner Adams noted the proximity to Newport Marina Apartments
of the outdoor dining patio. There are conditions to address amplified
music and the glass enclosure will help the situation. Should this be
approved, if the restaurant does become a problem and affects the
quality of life,let Commission know.
Chairperson Gifford stated that this site is zoned to accommodate a
restaurant and the proposal is for a very high quality restaurant. The
applicant hasshown a great sensitivity to the neighborhood and in seeing
the design and noting the conditions the applicant has agreed to
supports this application. Commission has listened to the residents in
Promontory Point, those that lived there during the time the site was
previously occupied by a previous restaurant did not find it to be a
problem. People who have recently moved there are apprehensive
which is understandable.
Commissioner Selich noted that in looking at the geography of Newport
Beach,there is no place where a restaurant can be placed where it does
not affect residential property. Commission has to evaluate these matters
in a way that is properly conditioned and the two uses can co-exist. This is
a well thought out concept except the original parking lot design.
However,with the cut through in the driveway and the availability to use
the shopping center parking,supports this application.
Chairperson Kranzley asked that several additional and/or edited
conditions that were presented and agreed to by the applicant, be
added to Exhibit A:
• no charge for valet parking
• outdoor dining area enclosed by a five foot wall consisting of a
landscape pianterand glass panels
• trash can not be taken to the dumpsterafter9:00 p.m.
• two valet spaces adjacent to the thirteen self parking spaces
adjacent to Promontory be deleted commensurate reduction of a loss
of 100 feet in the net public area - after deliberation, this condition
10
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
March 19, 1998 INDEX
was deleteddue to the avoilabilityof the market shopping spaces.
• reciprocal easement agreement (REA) between the shopping center
and the restaurant shall allow for shared ingress, egress and shared
parking with each use meeting it's own parking requirement
• incorporate a cut-through driveway north to the site
• hours of operation of the outdoor dining patio shall be limited to 10:00
p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 12:00 midnight Friday, Saturday
and holidays
Public comment was opened
Ms. Carol Hoffman agreed on behalf of The Irvine Company and
restaurant proprietorto the additional conditions.
Without objection and by show of hands MOTION CARRIED-all ayes
Exhibit A:
A. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT: Accept the environmental
document,making the following findings:
Findings:
1. That based upon the information contained in the Initial Study,
comments received, and all related documents, there is no
substantial evidence that the project,as conditioned,could have
a significant effect on the environment; therefore a Negative
Declaration has been prepared. The Negative Declaration
adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of the
project,and satisfies all the requirements of CEQA,and is therefore
approved. The Negative Declaration was considered prior to
approval of the project.
2. An Initial Study has been conducted,and considering the record
as a whole there is no evidence before this agency that the
proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on
wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. On
the basis of the evidence in the record, this agency finds that the
presumption of adverse effect contained in Section 753.5(d) of Title
14 of'the California Code of Regulations(CCR) has been rebutted.
Therefore, the proposed project qualifies for a De Minimis Impact
Fee Exemption pursuant to Section 753.5(c)of Title 14,CCR.
Mitigation Measures:
1. That erosion and siltation control measures of the construction
operations shall comply with the City Excavation and Grading
11
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
March 19, 1998 INDEX
Code(NBMC Section 15.04.140or applicable sections).
2. That the project shall conform to the requirements of the National
Pollution Discharge(NPDES)and shall be subject to the approval of
the Public Works Department to determine compliance.
3. That adequate hood equipment with smoke and odor control
capabilities shall be provided to serve the facility. Additionally,
that the hood system shall include a charcoal filtering system for
the control of odors and a grease collection system for the
capture/removal of grease accumulation. The hood system shall
be subject to approval by the Building Department and the
Planning Director. The operator shall also provide for monthly
cleaning,and maintenance of the hood vents, ducting and filters.
The operator shall keep a maintenance schedule on-site with
appropriate record keeping of equipment servicing available for
inspection by the Code Enforcement Division upon request.
4. That the operator of the restaurant facility shall be responsible for
the control of noise generated by the subject facility. The use of
outside loudspeakers, paging system or sound system shall be
included within this requirement. The noise generated by the
proposed use shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 10.26 of
the Newport Beach Municipal Code. That is, the sound shall be
limited to no more than depicted below for the specified time
periods:
Between the hours of Between the hours of
7:00 a.m,and 10:00 p.m. 10:00 p.m.and 7:00 a.m.
Interlo exterio Interio exlerior
Measured at the property
line of commercially zoned
Properly: N/A 65 dBA N/A 60 dBA
Measured at the properly
line of residentially zoned
property: N/A 60dBA N/A 50dBA
Residential property: 45 dBA 55 dBA 40 dBA 50 dBA
5. That the doors and windows of the facility shall remain closed
whenever live entertainment is performed within the restaurant
facility.
6. That speakers located in the outdoor dining area of the restaurant
or bar area shall be limited to no more than the noise level criteria
specified in Mitigation Measure.No.4 above,and shall comply with
the provisions of Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal
12
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
March 19, 1998 INDEX
Code. Should any music emanating from the patio speakers or
indoor live entertainment be heard across Bayside Drive or the
property line of Promontory Point above,the patio speaker volume
shall be reduced as determined by the Planning Director, to
eliminate any noise impacts. Further,that the speakers shall not be
utilized in conjunction with the sound system of the live
entertainment or paging of patrons. The outdoor speakers will be
utilized for ambient background noise effect and shall be limited to
pre-recorded music only.
7. That the applicant shall retain a qualified engineer specializing in
noise/acoustics to monitor the sound generated by the live
entertainment to insure compliance with these conditions, if
required by the Planning Director.
8. That the project shall be designed to eliminate light and glare
spillage onto adjacent properties or uses. The plans shall be
prepared and signed by a licensed Electrical Engineer
acceptable to the City,with a letterfrom the engineerstating that,
in his opinion,this requirement has been met. That prior to issuance
of the certificate of occupancy or final of building permits, the
applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code
Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare specified
by this condition of approval.
9. That prior to the issuance of any building permit the applicant shall
provide to the Planning Department, in conjunction with the
lighting system plan, lighting fixture product types and technical
specifications,including photometric information,to determine the
extent of light spillage or glare which can be anticipated. This
information shall be made a part of the building set of plans for
issuance of the building permit.
B. USE PERMIT NO.3619
Findings:
1. That the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local
Coastal Program Land Use Plan designate the site for "Retail and
Service Commercial' uses and a restaurant is a permitted use
within this designation.
2. That the proposed development will not have any significant
environmental impact, based on information presented and
incorporated into the negative declaration.
3. That the proposal includes no physical improvements which will
13
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
March 19, 1998 INDEX
conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large ,for
access through or use of property within the proposed
development.
4. That public improvements may be required of the developer per
Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code.
5. That Traffic Study 113 has been reviewed and approved by the
Traffic Engineer and meets the requirements of the Traffic Phasing
Ordinance.
6. That the purpose or intent of the restaurant development
standards related to walls will not be achieved to any greater
extent by strict compliance with those requirements for the
following reasons:
• Adequate employee parking will be provided on-site.
• Walls in full compliance with the standards would adversely
impact traffic circulation and access to the on-site parking
spaces from Bayside Center.
7. The approval of Use Permit No. 3619 to allow the establishment of
the restaurant facilitywill not,under the circumstancesof 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 for the following
reasons:
• The restaurant use is compatible with the surrounding
commercial and residential uses since restaurant uses are
typically allowed in commercial districts and conditions of
approval have been incorporated which will minimize
lighting and noise impacts.
• The issues related to access and site circulation have been
adequately addressed by conditions of approval to
prevent vehicle back-ups onto Bayside Drive.
• That the limited hours of operation and use of outdoor
patio speakers should limit potential noise impact on the
neighboring residential uses.
• No significant adverse traffic or circulation impacts are
anticipated from the proposed project as determined by
the project analysis in Traffic Study No. 113.
Conditions:
1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the
approved site plan, floor plan and elevations, except as noted
below.
14
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
March 19, 1998 INDEX
2. That the hours of operation of the restaurant facility shall be limited
to between 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m., daily. That the hours of
operation for the outdoor dining patio shall be limited to 10:00p.m.
Sunday through Thursday and 12:00 midnight Friday,Saturday and
holidays. Any increase in the hours of operation shall be subject to
the approval of an amendment to this use permit:
3. That deliveries and refuse collection for the facility shall be
prohibited between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., daily,
unless otherwise approved by an amendment to this use permit.
4. That one parking space for each 50 sq.ft. of "net public area" (80
spaces) shall be provided on-site. That a reciprocal easement
agreement (REA) between the shopping center and the
restaurantshall allow for shared ingress, egress and shared parking
with each use meeting it's own parking requirement.
5. That all employees shall park on-site.
6. That the restaurant facility shall be operated in such a manner that
valet vehicles will not be allowed to block access driveways. The
valet parking lanes operation shall be monitored at all times by the
applicants' representatives at the site. If back-ups occur, the
incoming customers shall be directed to bypass the facility. If a
traffic congestion problem occurs on Bayside Drive related to the
restaurant facility that is not immediately corrected, the Planning
Commission may recommend to the City Council revocation of
this Use Permit.
7. That a valet operating plan shall be reviewed and approved by
the Traffic Engineer prior to the issuance of Building Permits. There
will be no charge to customers for valetparking.
8. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by
movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper
use of traffic control equipment and flag-men. Traffic control and
transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in
accordance with state and local requirements.
9. That a drainage study be prepared by the applicant and
approved by the Public Works Department. Any modifications or
extensions to the existing storm drain shown to be required by the
study shall be the responsibility of the developer.
10. That a landscape and irrigation plan for the site shall be submitted
to the Building Deparlment in conjunction with plans for
construction of the project and shall be approved by the Public
15
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
March 19, 1998 INDEX
Works and'Planning Departments. That the outdoor dining area
shall be enclosed by a five foot wall consisting of a landscape
planter and glass panels.That prior to issuance of the certificate of
occupancy or final of building permits the applicant shall schedule
an inspection by the Code Enforcement Division to confirm
installation of the landscaping specified by this condition of
approval
11. The landscape planter areas shall be regularly maintained free of
weeds and debris. All vegetation shall be regularly trimmed and
kept in healthy condition at all times.
12. That the operator of the food service use shall be responsible for
the clean-up of all on-site and off-site trash, garbage and litter
generated by the use.
13. That storage outside of the buildings in the front or at the rear of
the propertyshall be prohibited.
Standard Requirements
14. That all signs shall conform to the provisions of the Municipal.Code,
15. That no temporary"sandwich"signs, balloons or similar temporary
signs shall be permitted, either on-site or off-site, to advertise the
food establishment,unless specifically permitted.Temporary signs
shall be .prohibited in the public right-of-way, unless otherwise
approved by the Public Works Department in conjunction with the
issuance of an encroachment permit or encroachment
agreement.
16. That the proposed restaurant facility and related parking shall
conform to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code,
including State Disabled Access requirements, unless otherwise
approved by the Building Department.
17. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance
and the Public Works Department.
18, That all mechanical equipment shall be screened from view of
adjacent properties and adjacent public streets within the limits
authorized by this use,permit, and shall be sound attenuated in
accordance with Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal
Code,Community Noise Control,
19. That the on-site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian
circulation systems shall be subject to further review by the City
16
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
March 19, 1998 INDEX
Traffic Engineer in conjunction with the review of plans issued for
building permits. That a cut-through drivewaynorth to the site shall
be incorporated.
20. That the intersection of the private drives and Bayside Drive shall
be designed to provide sight distance in compliance with the
City's Sight Distance Standard 110-L. Slopes,landscape,walls and
other obstruction shall be considered in the sight distance
requirements. The existing advertising sign be relocated behind
the sight distance limited use area. Landscaping within the sight
line shall not exceed twenty-fourinches in height.
21. 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.
22. That overhead utilities serving the site be undergrounded to the
nearest appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.24.140 of
the Municipal Code unless it is determined by the City Engineer
that such undergroundingis unreasonable or impractical.
23. That a fire protection system acceptable to the Fire Department
be installed by the developer and tested by the Fire Department
prior to the storage of any combustible materials or the start of any
structural framing.
24. That the project will comply with the provisions of Chapter 14.30 of
the Newport Beach Municipal Code for commercial kitchen
grease disposal.
'25. That should this business be sold or otherwise come under different,
ownership, any future owners or assignees shall be notified of the
conditions of this approval by either the current business owner,
property owner or the leasing company.
26. That Coastal Commission approval shall be obtained prior to
issuance of any building permits.
27. That a covered wash-out area for refuse containers and kitchen
equipment shall be provided and the area drains directly into the
sewer system unless otherwise approved by the Building Director
and Public Works Director in conjunction with the approval of an
alternative drainage plan.
28. That all trash shall be stored within the building or within dumpsters
stored in the trash enclosure, or otherwise screened from view of
17
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
March I9, 1998 INDEX
neighboring properties except when placed for pick-up by refuse
collection agencies. That the trash dumpsters shall be fully
enclosed and roofed and the top shall remain,closed at all times,
except when being loaded or while being collected by the refuse
collection agency. That trash can not be taken to the dumpster
after 9:00 p.m.
29. That the applicant shall maintain the trash dumpsters or
receptacles so,as to control.odors which may include the provision
of fully self contained dumpsters or may include periodic steam
cleaning of the dumpsters,if deemed necessary by the Planning
Department.
30. 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.
31. That this Use Permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months
from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.91.050 of the
Newport Beach Municipal Code.
C. TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 113
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 15 of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code and City Policy L-18.
2. That the Traffic Study has been reviewed by the City Traffic
Engineer and found in compliance with the Traffic Phasing
Ordinance.
3. 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 at any of the
four intersections selected for evaluation by City staff and based
on the characteristicsof the proposed development.
4. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project-generated traffic
will be greater than one percent of the existing traffic during the
2.5 hour afternoon peak period at the intersections of East Coast
Highway/Boyside Drive, East Coast Hwy./Jamboree Road, and
18
a r • •
• a
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
March 19, 1998 INDEX
Bayside Drive/Jamboree Road. Therefore,ICU analyses have been
completed for these three study intersections during the PM peak
hour. Further ICU analysis of the p.m. peaks for the intersection of
East Coast Highway and Jamboree Road, which currently
operates at a LOS C, are forecast to deteriorate one service level
and operate at LOS D (ICU of 0.88). All three intersections are
forecast to operate at LOS D or better during the PM peak hour.
ommissiontook a five minute break
SUBJECT: Billo's Cafe(Dennis D'Alessio, applicant) Item No.4
325 Old Newport Boulevard Use Permit No.3622
Use Permit No. 3622
A use perm t for a 650 square foot, 20 seat, full-service, small-scale eating Approved
and drinking stablishment (coffee shop). The application includes a
request for a w S iver of all required off-street parking spaces.
Commissioner Fulle confirmed with staff that the four parking spaces
shown on the parking\oped.
an are located on City property.
Public Comment was
Dennis D'Alessio Jr. and Sr., 32,5 Old Newport Boulevard spoke on behalf
of their application. They hapsked for a waiver of parking due to the
large lot located next door. T>e question came up as to how to
approach this, with an encroach ,ent permit or parking site plan. The
Planning Commission indicated a requirement to provide and maintain
a minimum of four off-street parking spqces. At Commission inquiry, the
applicant stated he has read and agree I
to the findings and conditions
of Use Permit No.3622.
Commissioner Fuller confirmed that the appli ant will pave only these.
four parking spaces with the ingress and egressfQ.those spaces and that
will be accommodated by an Encroachment Per tt.
Ms. Temple noted that if the conditions under which the use permit was
approved should disappear, then the use permit woulVave to come
back as a new application or the restaurant would have cease
operation.
Assistant City Attorney Clauson noted that there were no foreseeable
plans to turn that lot into a Municipal Parking Lot. If it would be en
included in the Encroachment Permit are provisions that the City could
invoke its right to take over this use. At that time, it would be worked e'ut
with whatever is available, i.e., an in lieu program or an additional
19
s
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
March 19, 1998 INDEX
giver.
Pu.151 Comment was closed.
Motion',was made by CommissionerSelich to approve the Use Permit No.
3622 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit A.
Without objection and by show of hands,MOTION PASSED.
Findings:
1. That the Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the
site for'Retaill and Service Commercial'uses and a restaurant is a
permitted us&VIthin this designation.
2. That the projeXis located within 'the Old Newport Boulevard
Specific Plan Ds rict which permits eating and drinking
establishments withhe approval of a use permit.
3. That this project has be n reviewed, and it has been determined
that it is categorically xempt from the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act under Class 1 (Existing
Facilities).
4. That the approval of Use Perm No. 3622 to allow a full-service,
small-scale eating and drinking establishment will not, under the
circumstances of the case, be detl�imental to the health,safety,
peace, morals, comfort and generb welfare of persons residing
or working in the neighborhood or blk or injurious to
property or improvements in the neigfborhood or the general
welfare of the City because the pr „posed coffee shop is
compatible with the surrounding co�\erci,,al and nearby
residential uses since restaurant 'uses areliy allowed in
mixed commercial/residential districts.
5. Furthermore, the project is conditionedit the seating
capacity to nine seats which is necessary to insure that the
project would not result in additional off-street park ng demand.
Conditions:
1. That a maximum of nine (9) seats shall be permitted. r
2. That no live entertainment or dancing shall be permitted mthe
project site.
3. That no alcoholic beverages shall be sold or served on ihe' .
20
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
March 5, 1998 INDEX
and will, not under the circumstances of the particular case be
'*` materially,detrimental to the public welfare of injurious to property
ir�hi provementsin the neighborhood because:
• The.`applicant has designed a dwelling that substantially
preserves views of the Bay enjoyed by residents in the
vicinity oNe project.
Conditions:
1. That development shall be in subs#antial conformance with the
approved site plan, floor plan and elevations submitted for the
Planning Commission meeting of March 5, 1998, including the
bedroom,stairwell,deck and chimney modificbt'ons.
2. That all conditions of Variance 1202 be complied with.
SUBJECT: Bistango Restaurant(David Hohmann, applicant) Item No. 3
900 Boyside Drive Use Permit No.3619 and
(Continued from February 19,1998) Traffic Study No. 113
• Use Permit No.3619
• Traffic Study No. 113 Continued to 3/19/98
To allow the construction of a full service restaurant and cocktail lounge
with outdoor patio dining. The application includes:
• a request to allow a modification to the Zoning Code to allow the
use of tandem parking in conjunctionwith valet parking service,
• a request to waive a portion of the restaurant development
standards specified by Section 20.82.040 of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code,
• live entertainment,
• the sale and service of alcoholic beverages,and
• continued service of alcohol after cessation of the regular food
service before closing.
Applicant has requested a continuance of this item to March 191h.
Motion was made by Commissioner Selich to continue this item to March
19th.
Without objection and by acclamation MOTION CARRIED-All Ayes
5
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
February 19, 1998 INDEX
SUBJECT: Bistango Restaurant(David Hohmann, applicant) Item No.5
900 Bayside Drive UP 3619 and Traffic
• UP 3619 Study No. 113
• TS No.113
Continued to 3/5198
The project involves the approval of a negative declaration, use permit and a
traffic study to allow the construction of a 10,014 square foot, full service
restaurant with patio dining and related off-street parking. The use permit
includes a request to allow a modification to the Zoning Code to allow the use of
tandem parking in conjunction with valet parking service and a request to waive a
portion of the restaurant development standards specified by Section 20.82.040
of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The operational characteristics include
live entertainment,the sale and service of alcoholic beverages and the continued
service of alcohol after cessation of the regular food service before closing. The
site is currently vacant and was formerly occupied by a full-service restaurant
facility(G ladstones for Fish).
Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to continue this item to March 5'h.
Without objection and by acclamation, motion passed -4 Ayes, 3 Absent.
"�DDITIONALBUSINESS. Additional
Business
a.) City Council Follow-up - Oral report by the Assistant City Manager
9garding City Council actions related to planning- Mrs. Wood reported
that'�the Use Permit for Windows on the Bay was called up for re-
consiasrii
stilon on five or six conditions of approval; Amendment for
Rockwell s introduced and that a report was given by the Planning
Director onow� standard conditions of approval are handfed. (Ms.
Temple then gav a brief synopsis of her report for benefit of the
Commission)
b.) Oral report by the Pianni Director regarding the approval of Outdoor
Dining Permits, Planning DAre tor's Use Permits, Modification Permits
and Temporary Use Permits %v.,a Condominium Conversion was
approved for 2700 Bayside Drive a E(404 Fernleaf Avenue; a Lot Line
Adjustment was approved for 1871'`'R Westbourne Place and a
Modification was approved for 1 Vintage D77�ibe.
c.) Oral report from Planning Commission's represe aativeto the Economic
Development Committee - Commissioner Seiich?I rted that he is
assuming the chairman leadership role and will be app�igqted by the City
Council on February 23, 1998. He expressed that his c6h erns of any
possible conflict as a Commissionerhad been allayed.
d.) Matters which a Planning Commissionerwould like staff to report on a
subsequent meeting-none.
9
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
February 19, 1998 INDEX
e.) ers,which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future'
agen action and,staff,report-none.
f.) Requestssfore�xcu sences-none.
+.
ADJOURNMENT: 8:20 p.m.
THOMAS ASHLEY,SECRETARY
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION
10
JAN 1 6
E N G I N E E R S
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 15, 1998
TO: Jay Garcia, Senior Planner
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
FROM: Richard E. Barretto, Transportation Engineer III
SUBJECT: BISTANGO RESTAURANT
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
Newport Beach, CA
The following pages and/or sections of the Traffic Impact Study for the Bistango Restaurant project
have been revised based on an updated committed projects list provided by the City of Newport
Beach on January 14, 1997. The enclosed copies of the above referenced report have been revised
accordingly. Please discard all other copies of the Bistango Restaurant traffic study, dated November
24, 1997, or replace the following pages and/or sections of those reports with the attached copies.
Title Sheet: lower right left corner has date of revision included
Page 8: last paragraph has been revised
Page 9: revised Table 2 reflects updated committed projects list
Page 11: revised Table 3 reflects updated I% Traffic Volume Analysis
Page 12: paragraphs 3 and 4 have been revised
Page 13: revised Table 4 reflects updated ICU/LOS summary
Appendix A
Pages A 1 through A-4: Revised I%Traffic Volume Analysis Calculation Sheets
Appendix B
Pages B-1 through B-4: Revised ICU/LOS Calculation Sheets
* * * * * * * * * * * *
If you have any question, place call me.
cc:
1923JD.DOC
�gW PpRT
: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
V P.O.BOX 1768,NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658.8915
e.<
• C'9</Fp RN�P
PLANNING DEPARTMENT(714)644-3206
January 15, 1998
David Hohman Architects
19100 Von Karman,Suite 230
Irvine,CA 92715
Attention: David Hohman
Subject: Traffic Study No. 113 for Bistango Restaurant,
900 Bayside Drive(a full-service restaurant)
Dear Mr.Hohman:
Enclosed please find a copy of a contract amendment from Linscott, Law and Greenspan (1580
Corporate Drive,Suite 122,Costa Mesa,CA 92626)regarding revisions to Traffic Study No. 113.
The requested Traffic Consultant fees have been reviewed by the City and are considered
appropriate and warranted. The revised fees are as follows.
Original Consultant Fees $3,500.00
Original City Fees(10%) $ 350.00
Additional Consultant Fees $ 750.00 (per attached amendment)
Additional City.Fees(10%) $ 75.00
Total Request: $4,675.00
Previous Remittance: ($3,850.00)
Current Request: $ 825.00
Please submit a check in the amount of$ 825.00 payable to the City of Newport Beach and sign
and return the enclosed authorization. Your prompt response in this matter is appreciated.
Very truly yours,
PATRICIA L.TEMPLE,Planning Director
BY
avier S. Garcia,AICP
Senior Planner
attachment: Contract Authorization,to be signed and returned
Copy of Traffic Consultant Contract Amendment
F:\USERS\PLN\SHARED\PENDING\BISTANGO\TS•COST2.DOC
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
aEvvPO,Qr
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
z
e� P.O.BOX 1768,NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92658.8915
C"'I F019k PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714)644-3200
January 15, 1998
Linscott,Law and Greenspan
1580 Corporate Drive,Suite 122
Costa Mesa,CA 92626
Attn: Richard Barretto
Subject: Traffic Study for construction of a full service restaurant,
located at 900 Bayside Drive(Bistango Restaurant)
CONTRACT AMENDMENT APPROVALIAUTHO1 R�,,IZATION.-
Approved By: Javier S. Garcia QTau•. A!6 ,
Title: Senior Planner 1
Firm: City of Newport Beach
Date: January 15, 1998
Traffic Consultant: Linscott,Law and Greenspan
1580 Corporate Drive, Suite 122
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Date of Proposal: September 16, 1997, copy on file
Date of Amendment: January 13, 1998, copy on file
Project Applicant: Bistango Restaurant
(David Hohman, applicant)
Applicant Approval: Signature
(David Hohman, applicant)
for Bistango Restaurant
Project Address: 900 Bayside Drive
PATRICIA L.TEMPLE,Planning Director
BY
veer S. Garcl , AICP
Senior Planner
F:\USGRS\PLN\SHARED\I PLANCOM\PENDING\BISTANGO\TS 113AP2.DOC
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
C,t�1998 TUE 17:46 FAX 714 641 0139 L L G ENGINEERS P901
ILINSCOTT
LAW `
E N G I N- E E R S
ENGINEERS&PLANNERS • TRAFFIC,TRANSPORTATION,PARKING
1580 Corporate Drive,Suite 122 • Costa Mesa,California 92626
Phone:714 641-1587 • Fax:714 641.0139
January 13, 1998
Mr.JayUau'cia,Senior Planner VIA FAX:(714)644-3250
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
P.O.Box 1768
Newport Beady CA 92659-1768
I.L.G REFERENCE:2-971923-1
SUBJECT: ATTACHED CONTRACT AMENDMENT REQUEST FORM R
BISTANGO RESTAURANT
Dear Mr.Garcia:
LLGr is submitting the attached Contract Amendment Request related to the proposed Bistaogo
Restaurant to be located at SIM Bayside Drive m the City of Newport Beach This Contract
Amendment is needed to revise the traffic study based on a change in project description(9,892 SF to
10,014 SF),as well as a change in the committed projects list recently provided by City staff-
So as to provide expeditious service to our clients, we have developed the attached Contract
Amendment Request form- You will note that the form refers to our orignal contract dated
September 16, 1997, such that all terms and conditions agreed to in that doom em will continue to
apply except as ammiled herein. If you concur, please have the original form countersigned by the
appropriate person and return it immediately to our office if you have any questions,please catL
Sincerely,
LTNSCOTT,LAW&GREENSPAN,ENGINEERS
Richard R.Barretto
Transportation Engineer M
attachment
A1924-IAOC
Plsillp M.LhucotL P.E.(Rn.)
lack M.Greenspan,P E.
WIIBaM A.Law,P.E.(Ret.)
Paul W.Wilkinson,P.E.
John P.Keating,P.E.
David S.Shtndcr,P.E.
Pasadena-818 796.2322 • San Diego-619 299-3090 • Las Vegas-702 451-1920 • An LG21A43 Company
OIV13:98 TUE 17:46 FAX 714 641 0139 L L G ENGINEERS zoo-)
E N C. I N t C R 5
January 13, 1998
CLIENT: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
P.O.Box 1769
Newport Beach,CA 92659-1768
LLG REFERENCE:2-971923-1
PROJECT. BISTANGO RESTAURANT
SCOPE OF WORK:
1) Update Traffic Impact Study for the proposed Bistango Restaurant based on change in project
description. Traffic Study has been revised and was submitted on November 24, 1997.
2) Update November 24, 1997 traffic study based on revisions to the committed projects list and
additional City staff comments. Revised information was provided by Janet Divan on January 13,
1998.
ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT: $3,500.00
AMENDMENT NO. 1 AUTHORIZATION: $750.00
ADJUSTED CONTRACT AMOUNT: $4,250.00
DATE OF FINAL PRODUCT'DEUV'BRY: one week after receipt of written authorization to proceed.
Upon return of a frilly executed authorization, this service fee and condition sball become a part of the
Contract Agreement dated September 16, 1997,except as amended herein.
APPROVED BY: APPROVED BY:
LINSCOTT,LAW&GREENSPAN CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
By: By:
Title: Title:
Date: 1 l3 Dom:
01/13/98 TUE 17:46 F-LX 714 641 0139 L L G ENGINEERS Q1001
� • �ruLd �6�t w�av(y`
E N G I N- E, E R •S
ENGINEERS&PLANNERS • TRAFFIC,TRANSPORTATION,PARKING
1580 Corporate Drive,Suite 122 ■ Costa Mesa,Calfforn(a 92626
Phone:714 641-1567 • Fax:714 641.0139
January 13, 1998
Mr,Jay Garcia, Senior Planner VIA FAX. (714) 644-3250
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
P.O.Box 1768
Newport Beach,CA 92659-1768
LLG REFERENCE-2-97192;-1
SUBJECT: ATTACHED CONTRACT AMENDMENT REQUEST FORM 01
BTSTANGO RESTAURANT
Dear N k. Garcia:
LL.G is submitting the attached Contract Amendment Request related to the proposed Bistartgo
Restaurant to be located at 900 Bayside Drive in the City of Newport Beach. This Contract
Amendment is needed to revise the traffic study based on a change in project description(9,892 SF to
t 0,014 SF), as well as a change in the committed projects list recetttly provided by City staff.
So as to provide expeditious service to our clients, we have developed the attached Contract
Amendment Request form. You will note that the form refers to our original contract dated
September 16, 1997, such that all terms and conditions agreed to in that document will continue to
apply except as amended herein_ if you concur, please have the original form countersigned by the
appropriate person and return it immediately to our office. If you have any questions,please call
Sincerely,
LIINS�1CO-TtT,LAW&�GREENSPAN,ENGINEERS
Richard F.Barretto
Transportation En&4neer TF
attachment eA. -* 1qj
A197-34.doc
I'hillp M.Llnscoty P.E.(Retd
lack M.Greenspan,P.E.
William A.Law,P.E (Ret.)
Paul W.Wilkinson,P.E.
lohn P.Keating,P.E.
David S.Shender,P.E.
Pasadena-818 796.2322 • San Diego-619 299-3090 • Las Vegas•702 451-1920 • An LG2W8 Company
i
01/13/98 TUE 17:46 FAX 714 641 0139 L L G ENGINEERS 0 002
• •
E N G 1 N E•E R 5
January 13, 1998
CLIENT: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
P.O.Box 1768
Newport Beach,CA 92659-1768
LLG REFERENCE:2-971923-1
PROJECT: BYSTANGO RESTAURANT
SCOPE OF WORK:
1) Update Traffic Impact Study for the proposed Bistango Restaurant based on change in project
description. Traffic Study has been revised and was submitted on November 24, 1997.
2) Update November 24, 1997 traffic study based on revisions to the committed projects list and
additional City staff'comments. Revised information was provided by Janet Divan on January 13,
1998.
ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT: $3,500.00
AMENDMENT NO. 1 AUTHORIZATION: $750.00
ADJUSTED CONTRACT AMOUNT: $4,250.00
DATE OF FINAL PRODUCT DELIVLRY: one week after receipt of written authorization to proceed
Upon return of a My executed authorization, this service fee and condition shall become a part of the
Contract Agreement dated September 16, 1997,except as amended berein.
APPROVED BY: APPROVED BY:
LINSCOTT,LAW& GREENSPAN CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
By. By:
Title: Title:
Date: 13��� Date: _.
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
•
E N G I N E E R S
TRAFFIC 11"FACT STUDY
BISTANGO RESTAURANT
Newport Beach,California
Prepared For:
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
P.O.BOX 1768
Newport Beach,California 92659
Prepared By:
LINSCOTT,LAW& GREENSPAN,ENGINEERS
1580 Corporate Drive, Suite 122
Costa Mesa,CA 92626
Phone: (714) 641-1587
FAX: (714) 641-0139
2-971923-1
November 24, 1997
Prepared By:
Richard E.Barretto
Transportation Engineer III
�rav➢e
LINSCOTT
GREENS . .
E N G I N E E R S
ENGINEERS&PLANNERS • TRAFFIC,TRANSPORTATION,PARKING
1580 Corporate Drive,Suite 122 • Costa Mesa,California 92626
Phone:714 641-1587 • Fax:714 641-0139
November 24, 1997
]Y1r. Javier S. Garcia, Senior Planner
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach,CA 92659-1768
Subject: TRAFFIC EgTACT STUDY
BISTANGO RESTAURANT
Newport Beach, California
Dear Mr. Garcia:
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) is pleased to submit this Traffic Impact Study for the
Bistango Restaurant project. The project is a full service,Italian restaurant to be located at 900 Bayside
Drive in the City of Newport Beach,California.
Our study investigates the potential traffic impacts as well as circulation needs associated with the
development of a 10,014 square-foot restaurant within the project study area. The analysis evaluates
the relative traffic impacts of the proposed project at four study intersections for a near-term(1999)
horizon year. Briefly, based on the results of our analysis, the proposed Bistango Restaurant will not
have a sigaificant impact at any of the four study intersections. A summary of findings and conclusions
can be found on page 16 of this report.
We appreciate the opportunity to prepare this investigation for the City of Newport Beach. Should
you have any questions regarding this analysis,please call us at(714) 641-1587.
Very truly yours,
uNSCOTT,LAW&GREENSPAN,ENGINEERS
Richard E.Barretto
Transportation Engineer III
1923COV.DOC
Philip M.Lmscotq P.E.(Ret.)
Jack M.Greenspan,P.E.
William A.Law,P.E.(Ret)
Paul W.Wilkinson,P.E.
John P.Keating,P.E.
David S.5hender,P.E.
Pasadena-818 796-2322 • San Diego-619 299-3090 • Las Vegas-702 451-1920 • An LG2WB Company
I
E N G I N E E R S
W
Q
0
E N G I N E E R S
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
DESCRIPTION NUMBER
PROJECTDESCRIPTTON................................................................................................................. 1
PROJECT TRAFFIC GENERATION................................................................................................. 1
PR07ECT TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT.......................................................... 5
TRAFFICIMPACT ANALYSIS..........................................................................................................5
SITE ACCESS AND INTERNAL CIRCULATION.......................................................................... 14
I
SUMMARY......................................................................................................................................... 16
APPENDICES:
APPENDIX A: 1%Traffic Volume Analysis Worksheets
APPENDIX B: ICU/LOS Calculation Sheets
LIST OF TABLES
PAGE
TABLE DESCRIPTION NUMBER
1 PROJECT TRAFFIC GENERATION FORECAST.................................................. 4
2 COMMITTED PROJECTS LIST................................................................................9
3 1%TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS...................................................................... 11
4 PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY.......................................... 13
•
E N G I N E E R S
LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT PAGE
NO. DESCRIPTION NO.
1 VICINITY MAP........................................................................................................ 2
2 PROPOSED SITE PLAN.......................................................................................... 3
3 PROJECT TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PATTERN.................................................. 6
4 2'/2 HOUR PEAK PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES........................:....................... 7
5 ACCESS AND CIRCULATION LAYOUT............................................................. 15
•
E N G I N E E R S
V
al
ti
•
E N G I N E E R S
TRAMC IMPACT STUDY
BISTANGO RESTAURANT
Newport Beach,California
PROJECT DESCRIMON
The proposed project consists of a 10,014 square-foot, Bistango Restaurant. The project is a hill service,
Italian restaurant to be located at 900 Bayside Drive in the City of Newport Beach. The project site is a
1.12-acre, vacant parcel of land, located north of Bayside Drive and east of Promontory Drive. Exhibit 1
presents a Vicinity Map, which illustrates the general location of the project and depicts the surrounding
street system.
Exhibit 2 presents the current site plan for the proposed restaurant project, as prepared by the David
Pierce Hohmann,Architect.The proposed Bistango Restaurant will have a main indoor dining area, a cafe'
section where the bar is located, a reception/lobby area, and kitchen/service area, all totaling 8,014 SF. A
wine cellar totaling 2,000 SF is proposed in the basement of the building. As shown in Exhibit 2,there are
41 standard parking spaces (with 4 handicapped parking stalls) and 38 valet parking spaces. It is our
understanding that valet parking will be provided during the hours of operations of Bistango (11:30 am to
1:00 am,daily).
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
Traffic generation is expressed in vehicle trip ends, defined as one-way vehicular movements, either
entering or exiting the generating land use. Generation factors and equations used in the traffic forecasting
procedure are typically found in the Fifth Edition of Trip Generation, published by the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (PTE) [Washington, D.C., 1991 and February 1995 update) and San Diego
Traffic Generators,dated December 1996,published by San Diego Associated Governments(SANDAG).
Table 1 summarizes the trip generation rates used in forecasting the impact of the proposed Bistango
Restaurant project. Trips generated by the proposed project were estimated using ITE Land Use 831
(Quality Restaurant)rates published in the February 1995 update to the Fifth Edition of Trip Generation.
1
$�yr •: p� xn ty r•(.-�we.wcsuY. :2-rw�,at .. (6�;'"�" J
�Y.M1s, 4�IF`;�,' 'oa1��. 'ay'. , <3' ti; :i;},-:v Y`::'li . �v�v;�S�'•r.`)i'L ..
SS'' i� h) •M:"+' trcCzy ai c,.�`
��`�� �'�'Kt rtL°.. - >-'�ra't�'t"ti` z:=a;n �cc•:,• -." � *utsn'"4,11;4 Y p
�, 8•.- s'a" �°5�.v�:t" ]�r�t"
C,e%�.'-'`' :,;.us',7�' :>„�i�' �.r+�n�s� ;,, ' �r�c,' t ,.r "•�, .,f��+-'p x: 'd; .,n §i>
•F dy'r^ .t .? ',%•} :rT' {t•1',`jG.''jw W•rl . ,-'t' ' isiy ° ' � ..:`: ,..-:^ta' . sr� .ji:'_ys3{'.":
<�?�sir� �. r�$3,��i;,C- -h.. .a�J _ :+: '3ih+ Shy�rn£ 'r�,.=�0 :;ti' nt••i-: r.t�``-. ..
` f�•+" '3':'-�f l .(ta ;�.K� YFz-'�>,"«�;;'���r:? vova�3'�-y, ,l• is ' _ .' �t ">%..3?*
z,'1' =s,-`4a'F.S�;'�h� �-'f-`-;" .p . .: x,<<v��:� e,.i ' .;,s�=��.��t'^, ,j�� '`•t;-�� a:i' tm`�`'• - ,»L
-'ivl
' ..ram. -1 -y "�. ..,F�°Y'�sr`21.i•''^.'.0 - "3t.,.s�.' , - 'A.� : ': - `a-:'?.�y:.s• `,�: J{
N%'N^f "i4,e�bra"`-':i'- l i�Yif'¢;:V`t '•3-: � - _-,-?-.- �,f�`a.;:�_yr ti' i,7.�• xr
'rr•- tt'..°'t% 'o�."z:Y�'- .k�sd` -:--X ,1. <Yy�.3 - - `�-'• - tF' _ -„�-'' -
-7�.sc�^ Oi?`-` �'�• -Wit`-�t�'::�,..,,c�y;`'�i,�.�-;: ;\��.4 - __ ;'fi'- - - _ _ - _
i�''tr T: -au 'k•",.,§N x �; .3Sy,r;• .;i .� t-�"� � - - '{�sf .:1 � � „�• >r d `•i _ v'x
'r!7e•>, wv•aF. .� J,•. $-- •''�''`''•it ,J Aft
,"+v". t 'Q <' - -:°:.'"h 'rlC!'z','-:' :•:r, �,8: ss� >r=.:. r'(
� �v,:'- s.�'y;``.�'",�� .�." _ � - P1i•,,.y• -."F:=-%"'` 1
%ai•" ;„t:'e Tt ' '3r �w4 �`, ztni•� . F,"'i':�-� z''= /Q .•_ _ 'i. t. � ;r�r'r' -i- �".S� -.-i
„:rtYn �. �,5,.^`nTf.•«:.5'•tt.>-�• ,... .�m,�i'n'�V;' .._. - _ ..`1{-a •<, r,:; .._l.s:.-,
'Q _y;J,4-s. •(r / ".-,. y r`..1; '.a.. c 34 {°� y:Y:t-,:F Y:%. x�y{:'Y .1
-
.•aw7A,v t8t<"�,'rs'• ,..e i"" x _ ,,:Y,,.�' r, :;u` i.•_ ,� tk z 'tY. _:,4.r:..'.
°, s,r��5 ,)7+ 'b;s ,, •'i h '"' 'a' :;�'• -:-•�r,:,' -•-y,` ��:�:'::::+Q� �- :te ,; .�.>> 9,. •,w"rt;�_. •
_•� 1'r%'.:.. �t, i.�]7�` q�+4st�;� r:,:f'i';,_„ ez 43l py xF,'I,X`'i�s: Y..Lo
'1 'A- ,Y�,; ,,,:, ``:> r ,�: C':,c'�Yh`,'1,..: .,r.ie.,.� '.:iry'- `•:.-.5.-�, h� rw•. e5 'a i::L.,;� �.><
�. ,., •c t�utd�ar3l,lnm y '.
. ,pY.y: a.,`�`'�y .y; ;� `i.r;'Pir::',.N:•V •?�, i t
L!Wm�,-�f;�>,,rr '` ,,q�< - .+:�ai;��C ' ., _,��R.' . 9` '�2 *:�;`''„ `,:dt..'^s.Y: fi �ft„?'Y ]�+,h�v..v,,- •�`,Z"S`:' g'y._.4.. ,
�„ `iY t ,r, t � rgt'k'}'.+'iiS'9�U'�_ti 5t ga„ r��ilrrn'']ty p2� a lv 5.v :a{.: � �'�- a 7 �s �i• :u;-, ° �'.�.:-x)' J :,,, :'17 3�'; fi; -fA'u'' x?Yh�, .:,��, •'!< f'�� .L 34 7 i?�'Yi,.� ,y, ?; �.,, i:�- La ? +;h7 's?i• eft �d':;:,?u°;a,�L, " '.A �' :y�
_ vS.,'4�t t S�� t;t{ :. rf 'siS< L'}�t,'S 'i S.E2,.ry�'.1 n- • a;'G y+'ss a si, ct Y,.:r zr. ":N;is r,:,t}':`;,;va''f,.
, .nt `.�`�' - l' �; ^ ��7�.�YT_tla :'ti�;,1�`t",•�,'Srfi i3., 1��JJ2 r3^' t+rri r�;^.b?i�;?5h1,a',&9i",.fit`•4.`, �dt pp - o'. .sr�- y 1`.' �u��t• K���3 �.L,�--��ry�f s.=
Il 0. � a 11R{1�"U S 1 �' 1- � j T•N'`-..`.c: "``•r- ;•, a n •{i,r•h'„ ,; •'`�•
rLs ,ts�we�;rF�'',-•�i�'h�a»,*<..,.'r y,r- .v�•, (/�. :3{..-;:,, `v�Fa,��, •�k. �J .hfaar. �, d.Y�,s �•'F
�s' elNcECT
y��i a,`F\w •' �t�A -•� 1' tt`:� J�-'Y_N -� Y:k fil >nk .�'i3i-'3
`N < }.�'1''° 7Y'ikA a,y,' - - )�� = s +t t '.t'ik`,i` ,'-'• _&"QI�,'i„",^�`3,t;�: - ,L�,t..a. tU.bµ �.Ss'`. ..J
SITE
.y}
.t'l.r 9.-.3�y!`��. ..t^;•'h" y�y, ��+. _ - :i � '•,'}]�.•`f:<* '/<t ..._,r'
,;r-.s ' v4^'a�-�Cs-:'M -w,`.! •r- +'QY ', _ ''c ' =k a � f•: `. '.`p., r"t'„c %ay, they„ = -:• 'ai'r :.�
N .S .i°f' ` .'�,_. :%f X '.L::y „F- "it••�j-�. .-l.:3,• _/ �:�.n;^
,.s(� -e,�^ ,a 'Y�:;1nC� ..if,`_� v _ 'mt:.. t �� , '.j�{;'., - <������;-:.� 's•. r. •`..Lj}"�^`.'."i:l �.'�a`,. F`2';`"',�%'
Y' ._'JSt - t+:0'•egiv.eLgv;s�+,u{ <xd�ib�u.`.Sv�^ _ C _ y - " 7•[: ,�Y� �i,.�.r �r ".,a_?''
rya, r.�-`,:t� tC: 5k �-`.'."`P: :. '� `" '�'' _ _ •Y.'}n,:;r_ - _ v�< ::.],'i,:,%; r \•�+.' #='. 1,s lzc• �:s s.7.
�,-rp,N. ���,ery�ye .� '�? , - �x'`e,`�!� `&/:.` _.�:� '�t,�. ��r. zLL.•s �:.r
`vs�� - y��xm' �o a� s•_«'h���:s'�'�».�^�' _ =1 ' _ - - _ ''�-,ri f--�;�.�;"�� _ ��-�� t -z'1T2��n., c�
r�-',• '"s+G =r:,'— t"-? is�o.�fr^ r! �-K'a-J'x-:s :�'f�'-h���"t�Ss<,y-.n,F l:, p�'S` �:r � 'a?�i":� ^'�. - -� :.:.
ity .z, s^J.;•C}rv- yy,,yy ,.;C.�,{,�a� >�a{��L���i:SYs_`�'����f�F 16r ��N1F<... .A:p�' - -..i _�rst_. v. +;z;, t : -s a ,-+� 6�, i`, _
�{t'5� .:�., .ixy :1cozn• - 'tC rk .*,.': `s t 1 {�..�.. •;�' {:y {��T•,:' k:��,�s � �y�. ,,T';p _ •+y'J::':%.� v�y •+
1esA• ;r3'.: - -n:, 5'v;`^, .'^+;.+ re ay2�iy,,;���� Yc;4"f�, `zl^��,k'7"''F'•;. ,. t �,+'SS-•a;� .'iu��i%�n,�/ ',t_'t<•b'^,-',y::i.� 2,;, ,,
.?u. 151 `Y,�yN> ^iry •.�',*si„ e5 h�"„t t•¢ _+�-C+Y`Gz '{*)X°�",••-�f' ti:,t.a^''.�5 .1 ' ,?: '3+•' �..��
�')9,;+-'�l�ir');<Z°'2i�+" .,. Y {, j,� ��`.'•...u,.,;l+~r'',. ;'.•, m t 9•n•� .{,,, ;,„ pi �..
t,,,.,f+: •-rT. :,:..+"t;;.i j;^.a'D' :-- l�`�-v%Yft `,:r. .r...,«s .tw r-_a .r.*: •,�,1�•, .- - .aa+, �}�� , -. v' ,n3.(,
:,•S.{,t:ii,$'r,'�<•;raT;:��'T„Sx,"i -..c - - �.S'� *.?. ............... .r-','��K(`/l ��'-i'l- ::ii.a•:t• #:'". (.i�;er,�-Ci.;,u 1;i��i`�iti'�=ir~ �' '�
{ rVr i;.^:... r. • )�..: ii lipe '' - if(.t;'.,' ._,.F i�`'� n
34 _ri u.,f,: ��y� �4=s3.1.�_L, �'r,_.: E .�'v') ;,;' u.3��-'- i t." ry' -�,'�5" r''. t, • "=�- '>`
ap
�'•'-.•r'.C.S?1-',A' %•� 1:'�y:: ...ra r4 z`1t ;5.7t.,;,'�+i�i}F•Xti"rl ,.�,/ua J�,;�����:,`,� �' ` �• L 4` '•,� ,.4�F -�%v.
y'�aa d.a,- ':'i:;;:,:,. ;,:c„ �' Sr,e ti a:s`��.�+{,,'�/.r,,,z�4'�;ffr:..,��r^•,�M1). '-� 'c,}�`�a3, ;�� LLy .r.. :,„}¢,.lr.:w ��;`-�; -:;�Y•.
y ' :, �t�,Y� • '`� M J`i:e: y�dv1',. :;E:k`Dc4t x.,< liu.:5�'.y,t'i rti��. •F^'rn�4 -Y• '^r'v,.- �n r ����'r ..
,,-•s• _ ti3 ;i' . iF, �.y1 .r.?'aml` ' ,.,-:z4xst: :N:'IS n 5�5, rd/W?y.5 �` ty: .!>'•,V^35 4'',fii9 ^'`= o -L' -x t �':;;Ls, 2•. :i�i,.`t,yA,y;-_`:f',G J,' '�
- �� �� h'�"S..?M: j,,,;' •�' ` ':.,Y�t��.r`'•S'f7? ,'es°"'`"}It{)y�,t� ! �;'4,.� •sF%'a'°.;'�":r F• ,;e..,,z�jt'Lt'
7•, =i ) ���,..•� ,:IN�'�a'�-, t,�� �' 5a�,�t'?,.Y -`�ri ti ��� y C:� en: cjhi
p ,•� �_` , w K rGaF +di,,n,.:$'„f. "- ,rm C'•jXrtZ'3.`''y Tusth7;a+ J'"ntj 2f55 J ,-�'-•` s, ri, 'l` 91 a
_ u �{'f�:iS r;I•;� b, e 4'�A': r- - J�Vj��rssr.` 3 h,��HT' �`•''yNs � �`',/,di y.'"
'�p.'7r`:�; {,.y . ,, ,�,,.,, ,r••c�,'`f1Y ^�F• ;�,t t,+tzrts. 4�,'tr ��o!�- :`Z?�yr- '^.•a' ,� i., r �1.��';y `J i s: �`" 9
��' F.x' i.(5� :d;5i�', �� :< ,.ii,;� s,r�.�'•%{.y.�txb �. yf.b",S,m� :rc.�s`te� -:�..,'�. � .;I'+•%:ty 9p �4'w , •3
a %l" 't ah 'f 5 4' � - :u`: � .,ik ,"Y rrfy,�.. �t�: ats r c2,H.y •6n` N,=' x.t• .h
4�.,. - thy'��r-ii`��� I, - - ,• 1' r�:' � ,�''.�'N. � I � -v". � . •.';.•
n. `j4{I%ap$' 1 t l vy t. !. _...-.. .{:;.,n :a�; C i4 „G�^.•. '.�;� a..x
�,.. )YV• tg ly4i�,Sf r`ri1;,,n ''•,- --'"• . •0. 'SG•.:-.<_�':-it.!%Yu.'?� �_ _�y.i, <.. _ J �,-•-r, .l.�i- 1 /
J Y' .�i;r'Na'�'-+v'' 'k}r' !Z'4P�//;;��;�'�1'�'is'.�uh`M':cs'%r,�= _ ••;ft' - a"5; - ' ,' '�s tl."�,� �?'c'. ;MSygi, s e�
sks•."i}.,�ib�� � G` t{,ht1' a ,.il t.r ::,.':•-, . ''�.....•,;.-•'•�r!t'. _ m
` --,ru]Yk';ss 74i`.';J'1•" .nys�s.:,.'yic-ri4?�"i:>i✓x"_.^ti`-u v:r • - •'- _ - ° <:s, e
V Y _ `i%*-`,r+r.<::�.s, �i?;� yJ'. .!)r'i :�' G�iv�.•:;• r- - _ SX.,.
•_ �` ^Jl��;�hG! L�fJ�j}'S•„1,3:�.'}'`.Ira1 h; {y- � - '�• .` .4a-S4�N)N-i c� Y�.
1 `3+ '/C+`Nl�YY��..++``Ti //��'�;AA;;;{{``��{{)).L,.:''�n {Y`< �aa !y.`•rv.•tyVy_��:-�.�.1`:i"-J"!�Jy�Ny, y_ w�}}'",p ��.(e, , - l I
- U
EXHIBIT 1
N NO SCALE
UNSCorr
CREENSP1IN NEERS WP BISTANGO RESTAURANT, NEORT BEACH
E R9I
U
MffSI•!YE Ix Tr
^1 �.--rL ANDO CAr! a�EA� j
I
O M1MII
/ oaxlDre.lerauw I '
tl ' v I
tl
H
oY= ye
� T o
V
x
1 t
U u - � lxCiHi s'owe
p CL19C) tPl1'J D
U
Y y �
Y
n ° Y
v �
<a
a
4
Ji
EXHIBIT 2
tO SCALE
UNSCOTT
LAW& PROPOSED SITE PLAN
GVINENGINEERS BISTANGO RESTAURANT, NEWPORT BEACH
3
•
E N G I N E E R S
TABLE 1
PROJECT TRAFFIC GENERATION FORECAST
Bistango Restaurant, Newport Beach
Y^µ
k {SL' GD / t�# + 4i'rt �Mt�Rk1t1IOUIis` , b§kM)N}'AIIO[ °.a=
�XiOJEt�TT�bES�.GItIP�IUN€.%t.��Ya�
Generation Factors:
• 831: Quality Restaurant 95.99 0.81 0.06 0.87 4.95 2.44 7.39
(TE/1 SF)'
Generation Forecast:
Bistango Restaurant 960 8 1 9 50 24 74
(10,014 S
:: .2%HOURAM'PEA K ::. 2%: QUR P1l�PEAK :.
TN• . r.OUT T.OTAE.. • Il!1°, .. OUT .TOTAL
2%Hour Peak Factors:
• 831: Quality Restaurant 1.62 0.12 1.74 9.90 4.88 14.78
E/1000 SF 2
2%Hour Peak Forecast:
• Bistango Restaurant 16 2 18 100 48 148
10,014 SF
TE/1000 SF=Trip ends per 1000 square-feet(SF) of development.
Source: Trip Generation, 5th Edition,Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE),February 199S Update to the Sth Edition,
[Washington,D.C.]
2 The peak hour trip potential of the project has been adjusted by a City approved factor of two(2)to anticipate the projeWs 2%:hour
peak traffic generation
4
•
E N G I N E E R S
Review of Table 1 shows that, during a"typical"weekday, the restaurant project is expected to generate a
total of 960 vehicular trips on a daily basis (480 inbound, 480 outbound), with 9 trips (8 inbound, 1
outbound)produced during the AM peak hour, and 74 trips(50 inbound,24 outbound) forecast during the
PM peak hour.
The AM and PM peak hour volumes have been adjusted upwardly by a City approved factor of two (2)to
anticipate the project's 2'/2 hour peak traffic generation. During the AM peak 2'h hour period, a total of 18
vehicles are expected. A total of 148 vehicle trips are projected during the PM peak 2'/x hour period.
PROJECT TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT
An arrivalldeparture pattem which illustrates the roadways that the site generated vehicles would utilize to
enter/exit the site is depicted in Exhibit 3. Project traffic volumes in and out of the site have been
distributed and assigned to the adjacent street system based upon the following considerations: 1)the site's
proximity to major traffic carriers (e.g., East Coast Highway, Jamboree Boulevard, Dover Drive); 2)
expected localized traffic flow patterns based on adjacent street channelization and presence of traffic
signals; 3) ingress/egress availability at site driveways on Bayside Drive; 4) existing peak hour turning
movement volumes, and 5)input from City staff. As shown in Exhibit 3,project traffic is evenly distributed
to the surrounding street system
Exhibit 4 presents the anticipated 2'/: hour AM and PM peak project traffic volumes at the key study
intersections. The project traffic assignment was completed by distributing the project traffic volumes
shown in Table 1 to the distribution pattern illustrated in Exhibit 3.
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
City Methodology
This traffic analysis follows the procedures set forth in the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing
Ordinance. (TPO). The TPO calls for a two step process to determine potential project impact, (1) an
initial traffic contribution analysis at each designated study intersection, and (2) a complete volume to
capacity analysis at those intersections identified as being impacted in the initial analysis.
5
0
25:L N C5z NEWPORT
<25 DUNES
W. COAST HWY ~ 30X�r RESORT
25z► � F, c
CRESNIEW Oa_
Z tp
a� LINDA A�OMo �a
SLE
m a OF R ON OR xk
2gy Ko 00 Rip-
sox-1 �
5X
3XA
PROJECT s'
SITE s
BALBOA ISLAND bt7
� o
U
KEY EXHIBIT 3
tN0 SCALE <XXX = OUTBOUND PERCENTAGE
-4XX% = INBOUND PERCENTAGE
LINSCOTT
UR CEWEN9Pi1N PROJECT TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PATTERN
ENGINEERS BISTANGO RESTAURANT, NEWPORT BEACH
i�
a
NEWPORT
W. coAsr ,-4Y DUNES
RESORT
RESORT
f
CRESMEW � ' co
� �r 2
a`f LINDA p�Oy�
SLE �o Qgys' �Ry / 'i 5/30
a
O PROJECT
SITE
BAIL20A ISLAND z o
s
KEY
v
XX/YY = AM/PM PROJECT VOLUMES EXHIBIT 4
tw SCALE
utocoTT
CREENSPAN 2 1/2 HOUR PEAK PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES
EM O,-NE E Ra BISTANGO RESTAURANT, NEWPORT BEACH
i
E N G I N E E R S
The initial traffic analysis, also called the "One Percent Traffic Test," compares 2'/2 hour AM and/or PM
peak period project traffic to forecast future traffic volumes at intersections to be studied. If the proposed
Bistango Restaurant project generates the equivalent of one percent or more of the forecast traffic volume
on one or more approaches of a study intersection, that intersection is determined to be impacted by the
project. The impacted intersection(s) are then subjected to a full traffic analysis.If the project traffic is less
than.1% of background traffic, the project is not anticipated to have a significant impact on the operations
of that intersection.
The full project traffic analysis, called the "ICU Test," is conducted for the AM and/or PM peak hours,
using the Intersection Capacity Utilization(ICU)method,and evaluates the following three conditions;
1. Ddstin - Volume to capacity ratio of base traffic year. Assessment of year 1996 and/or 1997
traffic(provided by City ofNewport Beach).
2. Existing &_Regional & Committed Projects - Forecast of future conditions, without the proposed
project, resulting from regional traffic growth and other committed development. (Committed
development traffic and regional traffic growth rates provided by the City of Newport Beach).
3. With Project - Analysis of future traffic operations resulting from the addition of project generated
traffic.
The "With Project' impact is determined based on TPO criteria. An intersection is considered to be
impacted by project traffic when the ICU value (volume to capacity ratio) is greater than 0.90. Project
impact is considered to be mitigated when system improvements modify the ICU value to less than or equal
to 0.90, or project improvements modify an ICU value to less than the"Without Project'ICU.
Committed Projects
Table 2 presents a list of committed projects recently updated by the City of Newport Beach. The list
shows three projects that are partially occupied and 13 projects that have yet to begin to be occupied.
8
E N G I N E E R S
TABLE 2
COM UTTED PROJECTS LIST'
Bistango Restaurant,Newport Beach
hTVAMA TPR0JECTNAME OCCiTPtIED+::
121 Newport Village 0
124 Civic Plaza 0
125 Corporate Plaza&West 13
129 Hoag Hospital Extension 2
134 Interpretive Center 0
142 Hoag Hospital Expansion 0
147 Balboa Bay Club Expansion 0
148 Fashion Island Expansion 2
152 Fletcher Jones Mercedes 0
154 Temple Bat Yahm Expansion 0
156 Corona Del Mar Plaza 0
157 Ford Development 0
158 TLA Drive Thru Restaurant 0
555 Ciosa-Irvine Project 0
910 Newport Dunes 0
930 City of Irvine Development 0
3 Source:City of Newport Beach
9
E N G I N E•E R S
Analyzed Intersections
Based on the location of the proposed restaurant, the following four intersections have been selected for
evaluation by City Staff for this project.
1. East Coast Highway @ Dover Drive/Bayshore Drive
2. East Coast Highway @ Bayside Drive
3. East Coast Highway @ Jamboree Boulevard
4. Bayside Drive @ Jamboree Boulevard
Traffic Data Provided by the City of Newport Beach
As stated previously, existing traffic volumes, regional growth rates, and traffic to be generated by
approved cumulative projects have been provided by City staff for each of the above intersections on an
intersection approach basis. This data has been used to estimate the 2'/2 hour peak background traffic
volumes.
One-Percent(10/6)Traffic Volume Analysis Test
Table 3 depicts the 1% peak background approach volumes, the 2'/2 hour project traffic volumes, and
results of the 1% Traffic Volume Analysis test, for each of the intersections studied during the PM peak
period. A 1% Traffic Volume Analysis test for the 2%2 hour AM peak conditions was not prepared since
the proposed project is expected to generate only a nominal amount of traffic. As shown in Table 1 and
Exhibit 4, the Bistango Restaurant project has a 2%2 Hour AM peak generation of 18 trips (2 inbound, 16
outbound), and at worst,will add a maximum of 10 trips to any of the adjacent study intersections.
Detailed analysis sheets of the 21/2 hour PM peak conditions,using the City's methodology, are attached at
the end of this report in Appendix A.
As shown in Table 3, comparing the 2'h hour PM peak project traffic to the 1%background volumes for
each intersection approach indicates that one of the four intersections' approach volumes are impacted by
less than 1% of the background volume. Hence, it can be concluded that the proposed Bistango
Restaurant project will not have a significant impact at the study intersection of East Coast Highway and
Dover DriveBayshore Drive.
10
•
E N G I N E E R S
TABLE
1%TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS'
Bistango Restaurant,Newport Beach
wn
4T
iiLi 1.14
1. East Coast Highway @ NB 2 0 No
Dover/Bayshore Drive SB 30 5 No
EB 53 25 No
WB 101 14 No
2. East Coast Highway @ NB 13 14 Yes
BaysideDrive SB 39 0 No
EB 72 30 No
VvrB 75 0 No
3. East Coast Highway @ NB 17 29 Yes
Jamboree Boulevard SB 44 30 No
EB 81 0 No
WB 57 30 No
4. Bayside Drive @ NB 5 3 No
Jamboree Boulevard SB 10 60 Yes
EB 7 33 Yes
WB 4 5 Yes
4 Appendix A contains the 1%Traffic Volume Analysis Worksheets for each of the study intersections.
E N G I N E E R S
However, at the intersections of East Coast Highway/Bayside Drive, East Coast Highway/Jamboree
Boulevard, and Bayside Drive/Jamboree Boulevard, the 2'/2 hour PM peak project traffic volume exceeds
one percent of the background traffic volumes on at least one of the approaches. Therefore, ICU analyses
have been completed for these three study intersections during the PM peak hour.
Capacity Analysis(ICU method)
Table 4 presents the results of the level of service analyses for East Coast Highway @ Bayside Drive, East
Coast Highway @ Jamboree Boulevard, and Bayside Drive @ Jamboree Boulevard. As shown, all three
study intersections currently operate at Level of Service (LOS) C or better during the PM peak commute
hour.
The PM peak hour LOS at East Coast Highway and Bayside, and Bayside and Jamboree, are forecast to
deteriorate one service level and operate at LOS C with the addition of background (ambient and
cumulative)traffic. The level of service at East Coast Highway and Jamboree Boulevard also deteriorates.
However,this study intersection is forecast to operate at LOS D (ICU= 0.88) during the PM peak hour
with the addition of ambient and cumulative project traffic.
The addition of project-related traffic volumes to these three key intersection is not expected to change the
forecast background LOS during the critical evening peak commute hour. The project is not expected to
increase the ICU values of these three intersections. All three intersections are forecast to continue to
operate at LOS D or better during the PM peak hour.
Based on the results of this analysis, we conclude that the proposed Bistango Restaurant project will not
have a significant impact at the intersections of East Coast Highway/Bayside Drive, East Coast
Highway/Jamboree Boulevard, and Bayside Drive/Jamboree Boulevard, as well.
12
E N G I N E E R S
TABLE 4
PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY'
Bistango Restaurant,Newport Beach
rp Nn I• r nr•..ww.w �� pr• .rr.;r.r.".11•,•,r.r...._.•.,.n:n.�t ail�.!( att9,:aq•i
u l"'i.'t ° 1i; "'ki, r7y• (7gtt�I w `i Fr99°BaC X tur 9�9+Itlrt�re PrQ �C ,
� 741kw�1� !(� +� it �•!tC ii+l 1. �� �r YID ryFh m 1 tik�3. r t rrr #l'1 ;#'• rk Y"�.t, � U�... '
'3�� � J•�: �1 "i,ltl l'l'lf•. .d4 •II,yN�Conlit�onsi,tl'��7F;',+y���','yy�n� ltltl It �4�!_�I{lI,XY 1t0 COC�.3r�1'Xatle '�j%kr-Is,�iiC[ ' r ykl,
E�Ife atrifexs�cHen�akr .�'#s�'��Q,iJ �F<,�0���:�fl.Ciifl���iLOSi�3��~3rICII;��i€�t:+:I:OSr^•i1 v�z���•r:�.�t:�"�z�r •;�'�
East Coast Highway @
Ba side Drive 0.68 B 0.79 C 0.79 C 0.00
East Coast Highway @
Jamboree Boulevard 0.75 C 0.88 D 0.88 D 0.00
Bayside Drive @
Jamboree Boulevard 0.68 B 0.69 B 0.69 B 0.00
s Appendix B contains the PM peak hour ICU/I.OS calculation worksheets.
13
•
E N G I N E•E R S
SITE ACCESS AND INTERNAL CIRCULATION
Site Access
Exhibit 5 illustrates the access and circulation layout of the proposed Bistango Restaurant and the
existing Bayside Center (Von's Pavilion) located at 1000 Bayside Drive. As shown, access to
Bistango will be provided by an existing driveway located on the northside of Bayside Drive,
approximately 260 feet east of Promontory Drive. This driveway is one of three existing, full access
unsignalized driveways that currently serves Bayside Center. Both left-turns and right-turns into and
out of this entry/exit are now permitted. No changes to the existing driveway access configuration
are recommended with the development of the proposed Bistango Restaurant project.
Internal Circulation
A review of the conceptual site plan presented in Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 5 indicates adequate on-site
circulation. No changes to the proposed parking layout are recommended. Review of the site plan
indicates that a drive aisle, measuring 26 feet wide at its narrowest point, will be provided between the
proposed valet parking spaces. As stated earlier, we understand that valet parking will be provided during
Bistango's operating hours.
However, to minimise vehicular conflicts, we recommend that the six spaces (three standard and three
valet)in the upper northwest corner of the site be designated for employee/staffparking(See Exhibit 5).
Further,to ensure that the project entry/exit driveway at Bayside is kept clear of project traffic at all times,
we recommend that stacking storage for four(4)vehicles is provided. Assuming an average car length of
22 feet, approximately 88 feet of storage will be required. Sufficient storage can be maintained by requiring
the first vehicle of a platoon to pull forward to approximately to the fourth valet stall(See Exhibit 5).
14
i
I
tt
DESIGNATE AS "�d
EMPLOYEE/STAFF
PARKING n fry.
° J i a '
♦ ww / � I9.ICL.w6 � •
i� 1r
it
PULL FORWARD --...—_ ' — _r— »-»� .••,
TO THIS POINT "
♦ Y'I
smps
fe
iiR
Y
LtwL
rtgg `'�• iltit�tl. 'I �E: =i't�:• ���.l�itit fi
t t
+4O ° I 1 •
IC�w t1C I •1 O� .1
\\_ \ • t2 n:w��ti1
,
��Ysrd ''� �"�: •, jliilliljtiil �
KEEP ENTRY/EXIT CLEAR
AT ALL TIMES
a
.g
A
I"
U
(tNG SCALE EXHIBIT 5
UNSCOTT
LAWeN PAN ACCESS AND CIRCULATION LAYOUT
GREENGINEERS BISTANGO RESTAURANT, NEWPORT BEACH
15
1
•
E N G I N E•E R S
SUMMARY
1. The proposed project consists of a 10,014 square-foot,Bistango Restaurant. The project site is a 1.12-
acre,vacant parcel of land,located north of Bayside Drive and east of Promontory Drive,in the City of
Newport Beach. `
2. A total of 79 parking spaces is proposed, consisting of 41 standard parking spaces(with 4 handicapped
parkingstalls)and 38 valet parking spaces. Valet parking will be provided at Bistango during all hours
of operations.
3. The Bistango Restaurant project is expected to generate a total of 960 vehicular trips on a daily basis,
with 9 trips produced during the AM peak hour, and 74 trips forecast during the PM peak hour. The
project's 21/z hour peak period trips total 18 vehicles and 148 vehicles during the AM and PM peak 2'/z
hour periods,respectively.
4. The results of the One Percent Test and the ICU Test, conducted pursuant to the Newport Beach
TPO, indicated that project generated traffic is not expected to produce a significant traffic impact at
any of the four intersections selected for evaluation by City staff.
5. Stacking storage for approximately four vehicles is required to ensure that the project entry/exit
driveway at Bayside is kept clear at all times, especially during Bistango's peak hours of operation.
1923TT4AOC(Nov®bar24,19971036 XVO
16
I
•
E N G I N E E R S
W
•
E N G I N E E R S
APPENDIX A
1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
�r�WPOa,.
• I % Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersedon COAST HIGHWAY / DOVER DRIVE — BAYSHORE DRIVE
( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1997 PH )
Approach Existing Peak 2 112 Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project
Re Tonal Projects Peak 2 112 Hour
Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour a Peak 2 i/2 Hour Peak 2112 Hour
Volume Gro'� PEAK 2 1e Hour Volume Volume Volume
Volume �9g� Volume
Northbound 234 F} 23q r
Southbound 2813 -770 5
Eastbound 4638 0131 2�;
Westbound 9100 fez, (60b tDtO�b pt 14
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 i% of Projected
Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis Is required.
Y�Tf1��� IVd'I �"1l�NI DATE:
PROJECT: A '
D fY1YQM
O� z � •
1 % Traffic Volume Analysis
�`eFOae`'
Intersection COAST HIGHWAMAYSIDE DRIVE
( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 49 96 — FM )
Approach Existing Peak 2 112 Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project
Re tonal Projects Peak 2 112 Hour
Direction Peak 2 112 Hour g Peak 2 1/2 Hour peak 21/2 Hour
Volume Growth PEAK 2 1 Hour
Volume Volumee Volume Volume Volume
(�
Northbound 1258
Southbound 137 -B Z� °i 3 111 •e
Eastbound 6651 Div" �f$�' 'j2'27-7
Westbound 6732 207i � -7`f9 L' i5;
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume.
t�/1 Project Traffic Is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis Is required.
�I�b►�1�1`' ��a •' �� DATE:
PROJECT: A-?,-
0 tYtKll M
Ili
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection JAMBOREE/
(Existing Traffic Volumes base on verage Inter Spring 1991 PM
Peak 231 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projecte f Projected Project
Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 23; Hour Pea our Peak2hHour Peayotumeour
Volume Volume Volume Volume
Volume
Northbound 484
southbound 907 �I2 1 V I l � '
i
33 ,
Eastbound 727 'e' 16; 17
Westbound 348 3 i'6 9
' 5
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.
DATE:
PROJECT: A^3 FORM I
123
` • 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis
�+Xc1cona`r Intersec�on COAST MY / JAMBOREE RD
( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter I Spring 19 97 ) PM
Approach Existing Peak 2 112 Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project
Re tonal Projects Peak 2 iMt Hour
Direction Peak 2 112 Hour g Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2112 Hour
Volume Growth PEAK 2 112 Hour Volume Volume Volume
Volume(RJq Volume
Northbound 1682 1-6- AA-
Southbound 3708 74.
Eastbound 7093 go&v b
Westbound 4874 1'
❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume.
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
Pi" ' GD DATE: �1Ito[ 17
PROJECT:0 �l 1/j
tYMMR "(
•
E N G I N E E R S
APPENDIX B
ICU/LOS CALCULATION SHEETS
CH306OPH • • �� 1
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Q�O �
INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY&DOVER DRIVE/BAYSHORE DRIVE YYP 3060
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1997 PM
I I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED] Y PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I
I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I
I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I
I I I I I I I I Volume I I I
I - - - - - -
I NL 1 1600 1 I 11 1 0.01 I I �• -�_-_--^—
I NT I I 63 � i — I I I I I
I ---- 1 3200 - - 1 0.03 ---- I
MR
32
1 1 I I I
I SL 1 48001 1 9881 0.21
I ST 1 16001 1 881 0.06
I SR 1 16001 1 1731 0.11 I I I --_ —•- I I
I EL 1 32001 1 1451 0.0S I I I I
1 ET I I I 17SI I I I I I I
4800 -_------ _.—__._ 1 0.37 _---_--'_ __---------------_ __ ____-___-_--'-
I ER I 1 1 26 1 1 1 I I I
-_--- -- ---•-- - --- -- ...._ _ .. _....... —.. .- ------------• •• -------------••—••• ----- — — I
I WL 1 16001 I 34 ) 0.02 I I 1 1 I I
__.._—.. .. . -.....__.-. .. -- ------------- -••••"'------------- -------------• -- --'._....__. I
I WT 1 48001 I 2695 1 0S6 -'--•---... --.-___.__ i__.__-_.__-__ I._-..____. ._--. i
I WR 1 N.S. 1 I 1593 I
I EXISTING I.C.U. I 0.85 I I
I EXISTING+REG GROWTH+COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I 1
I EXISTING+COMMITTED+REGIONAL GROWTH+PROJECT I.C.U. 1
1 -1 Projected+project traffic I.C.U.will be less than or equal to 0.90
1 -
1 _1 Projected+project traffic I.C.U.will be greater than 0.90
1 -1 Projected+project traffic I.C.U.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:
FORM 11
PROJECT
CH306OPM
� I
CH5440PH
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY 8 BAYSIDE DRIVE 5440
EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1996 PM
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I IEXISTIHGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTIHGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI
IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio (Volume I V/C• 1
I ICapacitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume IW/o Projectl I Ratio I
I l --------------------------- I ICI 1 I I Volume I I
I
j R� 1 1 472 1 ' 1 2. I ` I I I
I--------) ------------------) y -3------------------
NT 4800 1 1 10 0.11 * � I _\ ' 1 O.1'L41 — 1b12
I--------) ------------------) -----------------�------------------- --------I
MR 1 1 62 1 — I � I_... I - I I
I--------------------------------- -------------- -----------
1 SL 1 1600 1 1 13 1 0.01 1 -� 1 64 1 O,06 +1 -- 1 O,06*
----------------------------------------------- -------------------------------I
sT I 1 9 1 1 0 1 p,< I — 10,as I
1600 ------------------) 0.03 *---------__ --' - 1
SR 1 1 39 I I �Jlo "I I ^ I I
I--------------------------------------------------------- -----------I
EL 1 1600 1 1 73 1 0.05 * S- 1 7j,2; 1 ,01 "k1 — 1 .07 -it'
I--------------------------------- ------ I --------------------- --- I
1 ET 1 4800 1 1 2.160 1 0.45 1 ( 5 I j S O I --- 151 I
1---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------
ER 1 1600 1 1 468 1 0.29 1 V4 1 O 1 s 3b 1 I"y( 1 .31 1
I---------------------------------------------------------------------------- .........
WL 1 1600 I I 57 I 0.04
1I
Z O�---' 4
WT 1 I I---3 - I
-----'--) 6400 ^----------------) 0.49 * --I-- ----
WR 1 I 34 I
iII
1 -eI
______ ___________________i--' -------------- _______________ _ - -I-------
1EXIST[HG 0.68 I1 1 I I'
1----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0,;'71 1 I
--------------------------- ----I
[EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U--------------- -------------I--1 q 1
------------------------ --------
r4rojected + 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 C.C.U. With project improvements will
be less than I.C.U. Without project
----------------------------------------------------------
Description of system improvement:
,P1scA1A&p �'��7 gel�►,
PROJECT FORM 11
CH5440PM
• •
CH5055PM
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY&JAMBOREE ROAD 5055 1997 PM
EXISTINGTRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING
1' EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT 1 PROJECT 1
1 Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I Vic I
I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I
Volume
------ - -- --- - ----
1 NL 1 1600 1 I 55 1 0.03 I I f 0 1o,pq-
I NT I I 528 I — I 1,---- 17, --'k l }I 0
3200 - ------ - --------- } 0.20 ` -------— - ----
1 NR 1 1119
1 SL I 1600 I I 147 I 0.09
— -- ---- - -- -- -------- - -------- - -----
I ----- - --- — - ------- - ------ - — -- - - --
1 ST I 32001 1 5,71 0.16 I �.a--- ----Z--- �r11----- g:__
1 -------- - --------- - --------- - --------- - --------- - ---Z
I SR I N.S. I
I EL I 4800 1 --- 1 -- 942 1 0.20 I 221 I 0�i5 _Np
----- - ------ ----- - - -- - -------- I
-- 0.27 _ ----- ------------ - —�--- - -------- i
I ER I I 19 1 p I 4)L
---------- - ------------- - -------- - -------- I
1 WL I 3200 1 1 1731 0.05 1 3 I f?j I otC) , I f5 1 0,06 1
WT I 6400 1 1 16801 0.26 /�'
_ -------- _ -------- _ __________ _ _____________ _ ________ _ ________ 1
WR I N.S. I 1 1641
---- - ---- - --- — - --------- - ---- - -------
I EXISTING . I.C.U. 1 0.75
I EXISTING+REG GROWTH+COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U.
I
- - --------- - --------- - --------- - ---------- - - ------- --- - ----- -- - --- ---- I
I XISTING+COMMITTED+REGIONALGROWTH+PROJECT I.C.U.
IS
i3- Projected+project traffic I.C.U.will be less than or equal to 0.90
1<I Projected+project traffic I.C.U.will be greater than 0.90
1_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:
- , - - - FORM II
PROJECT
CH5055PM
{3-3
JA5485PM
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE RD. & BAYSIDE * 5485
EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1991 PM
I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI
IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio [Volume I V/C I
1 ICapacitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume 1w/o Projectl 1,Ratio I
I I I I I I \q`LOI I I volume I I I
----------------•----------------------------------------- I
I ' NL 1 1600 1 1 165 1 0.10* 1 0 1 0."10 -jK4 1 10,101 "
------ ------------------------•--------____••-------I
NT I I 230 1 11 0,to 1 D � 0(b 1
89 ------------- ---------
1------- ------------------------------•------------------------------•--.------------------1
3200 ---------------'--) 0.10 I
NR 1 1 -r 1 0 1
I SL 1 1600 1 1 . 60 1 0.04 I 2S I Or 0`l 1 0 10.Cr
--------------------------------------------------------------
1 ST 1 1600 1 1 5871 0.37*J I I, 1 D.381 6 1
--------------------------------------------------------------I
1 SR 1 1600 1 260 0.16 ( -- 11� D,( ( ��! 10, tq
i-----------•-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I EL 1 1600 1 1 100 1 0.06 — I B 1 0,07 1 1+ I D,0$'1
I-----------•------------------------•--------------------------------------- --------------I
I ET 1 1600 1 1 329 1 0.21* 1 0 1 01 21 4,1 I 1 0.?A I
I---------------•---------------------------------------------------------------------------I
I ER 1 1600 1 1 298 1 0.19 1 I a 1 0,,1ci 11 1 0,11 1
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------_1
I WL 1 1600 1 1 1 1 0.00* - 1 a 1 D, LIV* & 101W I
1----- -----------i--------i----------------i--------i--O---------------i-------------
WT
80
j--------
I WR 1 267 1 -- . 1 1 r� 1 1 0 1 I
L -----I
1EXISTING I O.bB I I
I---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I
1EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I 01(pl- I I
I-------------------------•----_-----_----------_..-_---------'•----••---------------- ----I
[EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I O P'I
------------------------------------------------------------- --•---
Projected + project traffic will be less than or equal to 0.90
1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90
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 will
be Less than I.C.U. without project
-•--.-..-•----------------------------------------------------------`-`--------------------
Description of system improvement: j��'fy�,/M.rfr 'I _ «1t0l��
PROJECT I- ll
124 JA5485PM f�
I 1J
ENGINEERS &PLANNERS ■ TRAFFIC, TRANSPORTATION , PARKING
SEW Pp�T
CIT?OF NEWPORT BE CH
z
U P.O. BOX 1768,NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658.8915
c'9Cl pO0.N�P
PLANNING DEPARTMENT(714)644-3206
September22, 1997
David Hohman Architects
19100 Von Karman,Suite 230
Irvine,CA 92715
Attention: David Hohman
Subject: Traffic Study for Bistango Restaurant,
1000 Bayside Drive(a full-service restaurant)
Dear Mr.Hohman:
Enclosed please find a copy of a proposal submitted by Linscott, Law and Greenspan (1580
Corporate Drive, Suite 122, Costa Mesa, CA 92626) regarding a traffic study required for traffic
phasing analysis for the proposed restaurant located at 1000 Bayside Drive. 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 $3,500
City Fees(10%) $ 350
Total Request: $3,850
Please submit a check in the amount of$ 3,850.00 payable to the City of Newport Beach and sign
and return the enclosed authorization. Your prompt response in this matter is appreciated.
Very truly yours,
PATRICIA L. TEMPLE,Planning Director
avier S. Garcia,AICP
Senior Planner
attachment: Contract Authorization,to be signed and returned
Copy of Traffic Consultant Proposal
F:\USERS\PLN\SHARED\PENDING\BISTANGO\TS-COST.DOC
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
aEW pp�T • •
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
V P.O.BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915
Cq�IFORN\P PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3200
September 22, 1997
Linscott,Law and Greenspan
1580 Corporate Drive,Suite 122
Costa Mesa,CA 92626
Attn: Richard Barretto
Subject: Traffic Study for construction of a full service restaurant,
located at 1000 Bayside Drive(Bistango Restaurant)
CONTRACT APPROVALIAUTHORIZATZON.'
Approved By: Javier S. Garcia ao�
Title: Senior Planner
Firm: City of Newport Beach
Date: September 22, 1997
Traffic Consultant: Linscott, Law and Greenspan
1580 Corporate Drive, Suite 122
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Date of Proposal: September 16, 1997, copy on file
Project Applicant: Bistango Restaurant
(David Hohman, applicant)
Applicant Approval: Signature �"' S igh a�U►�
(David Hohman,applicant) cl
for Bistango Restaurant
Project Address: 1000 Bayside Drive
PATRICIA L.TEMPLE,Planning Director
BY
avler S. Garc1 ,AICP
Senior Planner
F:\USERS\PLN\SHARED\I PLANCOM\PENDING\BISTANGO\TS 113-AP.DOC
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
ONSCOTT
. .
E N G I N -E E R s RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ENGINEERS&PLANNERS • TRAFFIC,TRANSPORTATION,PARKING CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
1580 Corporate Drive,Suite 122 • Costa Mesa,California 92626 SEP 191997
Phone:714641-1587 • Fax:714641.0139 Ad P1111
September 16, 1997 7i8l9� l2is5 6
Mr. Javier S. Garcia, Senior Planner
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768
Subject: PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SERVICES
BISTANGO RESTAURANT @ BAYSIDE CENTER
Newport Beach, California
Dear Mr. Garcia:
As requested, Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers is pleased to submit this proposal to provide
professional traffic engineering services related to the construction of a 9,892 square-foot (SF), full-
service restaurant (Bistango Restaurant) located at 1000 Bayside Drive. The project site is
currently vacant and is located on the northeast comer of Bayside Drive and Promotory Drive in
the City of Newport Beach.
Based on our discussions with the City of Newport Beach Planning and Traffic Engineering Staff,
preparation of a Traffic Impact Study as defined by the following Scope of Work is required. The
Traffic Impact Study will be prepared according to the procedures outlined the City's Traffic Phasing
Ordinance, dated February 14, 1994. The potential project-related traffic impacts and possible
improvements,if any,will be investigated and addressed in the Traffic Impact Study.
SCOPE OF WORK
Task I: Existine Traffic Volume Data
As defined by the City Traffic Department,the following four intersections will make up the study
area:
1. East Coast Highway @ Dover Drive Bayshore Drive
2. East Coast Highway @ Bayside Drive
3. East Coast Highway @ Jamboree Boulevard
4. Bayside Drive @ Jamboree Boulevard
Philip M.Linscoll.P.E.(Ret.)
lack M.Greenspan,P.E.
William A.Law,P.E.(Ret.)
Paul W.Wilkinson,P.E.
John P.Keating;P.E.
David S.Shender,P.E.
Pasadena-818 796-2322 • San Diego-619 299-3090 1 Las Vegas-702 451-1920 • An LG2WB Company
• Mr. Jale S. Garcia, Senior Planner
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
September 16, 1991
Page 2
E N G I N E E a 5
It is our understanding that peak hour traffic volume data for each of these intersections is on file and
will be provided by the City of Newport Beach.
Task H' Proiect Traffic Generation & Distribution
Traffic anticipated to be generated the proposed Bistango Restaurant will be based on standard trip
generation rates established by the City of Newport Beach Traffic Engineer. The project related traffic
will be distributed and assigned to the street system based on anticipated travel patterns to/from the site.
The project-related traffic forecast and distributions patterns will be reviewed by City staff prior to
incorporating this information in the traffic report.
Task III: Intersection Analysis
Using the City's two and one-half hour (2%2) analysis procedure, the four study intersections will be
analyzed to determine whether a formal analysis using the Intersection Capacity Utilization(ICU) method
will be required.
As stated in City guidelines, if project generated traffic during the two and one-half hour (2'/2) period is
greater than one percent (1%) of the total background (existing plus regional growth plus approved
projects) two and one-half hour (2'/2) traffic volume, then an ICU analysis for the AM and/or PM peak
hour will be completed for the following conditions:
A) Existing traffic volumes,plus regional growth,plus approved projects'
B) "A"plus project traffic
Based on the ICU analysis, mitigation measures will be suggested/recommended to off-set any
adverse traffic impacts caused by the proposed Bistango Restaurant project.
Task IV: On-site Circulation Analysis and Parkins!Evaluation
Review and comment on pedestrian and vehicular access and circulation for the proposed project. This
analysis will include discussion on the following items in the traffic study for the project:
• Pick-up/drop-off areas for valet parking
• Sidewalks/pedestrian access between off-she and on-she parking areas and restaurant
• Traffic controUlimitations at site driveways, including spacing, vehicular conflicts, sight lines,
left-turn provisions from Bayside Drive, locations of proposed driveways with respect to
existing(conflicting)driveways,striping configurations,and median modifications.
• Calculate the parking requirements for Bistango Restaurant based on the City of Newport
Beach off-street parking requirements.
It is our understanding that the City will provide information on existing volumes,regional growth and
approved project traffic volumes at the study intersections.
i
• Mr. Ar S. Garcia, Senior Planner
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
September 16, 1997
E N G I N E E R S Page3
Task V: Traffic Impact Study
A Traffic Impact Study will be prepared which will outline our findings and recommendations. this
report will be consistent with the City of Newport Beach Traffic Study Format and include
appropriate tables, exhibits, and appendix materials.
Draft copies will be submitted to the City of Newport Beach for screencheck review. If necessary, the
draft report will be updated based on City comments and final copies of the Traffic Impact Study will be
submitted to the City of Newport Beach for approval.
COST ESTIMATE AND METHOD OF PAYMENT
We estimate that our fee for the services outlined in Tasks I through V, can be accomplished within a total
cost,not to exceed$3,500.00,without your prior authorization. Our fees will be billed monthly on a time-
and-reimbursable expense basis according to the attached Fee Schedule.
SCHEDULING
We estimate that our Draft Report can be available three to four weeks after we receive written
authorization to proceed. This time estimate assumes issues of direct impact (ie. project description and
development program) are well enough defined to allow our analysis to proceed effectively and that
existing traffic counts and approved projects traffic volumes will be provided by the City within the first
week of our authorization to proceed.
ADDITIONAL WORK
We will also be pleased to provide any additional support beyond the Scope of Services outlined above as
you may require. Such additional tasks may include, but are not limited to the following: conducting
manual turning movement counts, evaluating potential project related traffic impacts at other key
intersections, preparation of conceptual mitigation improvement plans, and attendance at meetings with
team members, City Staff and/or public hearings. 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
the those services are requested. For the additional services, a separate contract amendment will be
prepared.
AUTHORIZATION
If this proposal is acceptable, you may indicate approval by signing on the lines 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 records.
• Mr. JaMr S. Garcia,'Senior Planner
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
September 16, 1997
Page 4
E N G I N E E R S
This proposal is valid for 90 days from the date of this letter.
Should this proposal be accepted,the Client (represented by the signature below) agrees to limit Linscott,
Law, &Greenspan's liability to the Client and to all Contractors and Subcontractors on the project due to
Linscott, Law, &Greenspan's negligent acts, errors, or omissions, such that the total aggregate liability of
Linscott, Law, & Greenspan to all those named shall not exceed $50,000.00 or Linscott, Law, &
Greenspan's total fee for the services rendered on this project,whichever is greater.Please note that for the
purposes of preparing contract paperwork, Linscott,Law&Greenspan,Engineers,is a DBA for LG2WB,
Engineers,Inc., a California corporation.
We appreciate the opportunity to submit this proposal and look forward to working with the City of
Newport Beach on this project. If you have any questions regarding this proposal,please do not hesitate to
call me.
Sincerely,
LINSCOTT,LAW& GREENSPAN,ENGINEERS
fA�" el,�
Richard E.Barretto
Transportation Engineer III
Attachment
ACCEPTED FOR TASKS I THROUGH V AS OUTLINED ABOVE,FOR A FEE NOT TO EXCEED
$3,500.00
(Authorized Agent) (Title)
(Firm) (Federal I.D. #)
(Address) (Date)
P29701033=
•
FEESCHEDULE
E N� G I N E E R S
Effective March 1, 1996
TI PER HOUR
Principal
PrincipalEngineer*.................................................................................................................$ 133.00
TwMportation Engineers
Senior Transportation Engineer.......................................................................................I......$ 108.00
TransportationEngineer III.....................................................................................................$ 92.00
TransportationEngineer II......................................................................................................$ 79.00
TransportationEngineer I.......................................................................................................$ 60.00
Trawportation Planners
Senior Transportation Planner................................................................................................$ 92.00
TransportationPlanner III.......................................................................................................$ 79.00
TransportationPlanner II........................................................................................................$ 60.00
TransportationPlanner I..........................................................................................................$ 55.00
Technical Support
EngineeringAssociate II.........................................................................................................$ 65.00
EngineeringAssociate I..........................................................................................................$ 60.00
CADDDrafter/Senior Technician..........................................................................................$ 57.00
ModelingTechnician II...........................................................................................................$ 60.00
ModelingTechnician I............................................................................................................$ 55.00
Engineering Computer Analyst II...........................................................................................$ 55.00
Engineering Drafter/Technician..............................................................................................$ 52.00
WordProcessor/Secretary.......................................................................................................$ 45.00
Engineering Computer Analyst I............................................................................................$ 45.00
EngineeringAide II.................................................................................................................$ 39.00
EngineeringAide I..................................................................................................................$ 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%.
Consultation in connection with litigation and Court appearances will be quoted separately.
The above schedule is for straight time. Overtime will be charged at 1.50 times the standard hourly rates.
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.
Rev.311196
David Pierce Hohmann
A R C H I T E C T
To0irYmA-!�/1�'.� 9OD LETTER OFTRANShIMAL
i3 3c& .I. �r�1&1110 19I00 Von Karman Avenue
Suite220
Irvine.California 92715
(714)724-1599
Attention e-4 r 62 ,9'e}q' Facsimile(714)724-1399
We transmit Via Date a
❑Attached ❑US.Mail +❑fune day File No.
❑Under separate cover ❑U.P.S. ❑Next day Regarding/r j" 574iUG�
Miffourier service ❑Telefax
❑Your pick up Total telefax copies
including transmittal
Co ies Dazed Deseri uon Sig. Fax.
i
These are transmitted as checked below:
❑For approval B'As requested ❑Your files ❑Documents returned
L�r your use ❑For review and comment ❑Construction ❑
1
Remarks
Copy to If enclosures are not as noted,please inform us immediately,
f�Acknowledge receipt of enclosures.
❑Return enclosures to us.
Sign
�SEW�Rr
CITIOF NEWPORT BERCH ,
P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92658.8915
FAX COVER SHEET
DATE: _C1 2q (Ct
nn ,
TO: f'C c c Pnct✓Ir� U 1/✓L° O
BUSINESS PHONE:
FAX NUMBER: —0l?i-1
RE: _ Jl S 1 o4 0 1���C `�
I S .
THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENT IS FROM:
c) LlU VL��
CITY OF NEWPORT EACH
3300 NEWPORT BO LEVARD
NEWPORT BEACH, CA. 92663 ;
i
PHONE NO.: (714) 6+q 3?b(,o
FAX NO.: (714)644-3250
NO. OF PAGES:
SPECIAL $•t
INSTRUCTIONS: (1.)� n G�t cs N.o&d ctt,cQ / PcP��s
A:
1
A
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
t,
7
CITY OF NEW PORT BEACH
U x P.O. BOX 1768. NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92658.8915
a.,
c'141FORN�~ PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714)644-3200
September 22, 1997
Linscott,Law and Greenspan
1580 Corporate Drive,Suite 122,
Costa Mesa,CA 92626
Attn: Richard Barretto
Subject: Traffic Study for construction of a full service restaurant,
located at 4908 Bayside Dr►ve(Bistanizo Restaurant)
qoo
CONTRACT A PPR 0 VA LIA UTHORIZA TION.-
Approved By. Javier S. Garcia � '
Title: Senior Planner
Firm: City of Newport Beach
Date: September 22, 1997
Traffic Consultant: Linscott, Law and Greenspan
1580 Corporate Drive, Suite 122
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Date of Proposal: September 16, 1997,copy on file
Project Applicant: Bistango Restaurant
(David Hohman, t)
Applicant Approval: Signature
(D ,applicant)
900 for Bistango Restaurant
Project Address: i•9A9 Bayside Drive
PATRICIA L.TEMPLE,Planning Director
.
BY �J
.avier S. Garc1 ,AICP
Senior Planner
F.\USERS\PLNISNAREDU PLANCOM\PENDYNGIAISTANGO\T5113-AP.DOC
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
Mr. A S. Garcia, Senior Planner
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
September 16, 1997
ENGINEERS Page
This proposal is valid for 90 days from the date of this letter.
Should this proposal be accepted, the Client (represented by the signature below) agrees to limit Linscott,
Law, &GreenVan's liability to the Client and to all Contractors and Subcontractors on the project due to
Linscott, Law, &Greenspan's negligent acts, errors, or omissions, such that the total aggregate liability of
Linscott, Law, & Greenspan to all those named shall not exceed $50,000.00 or, Linscott, Law, &
Greenspan's total fee for the services rendered on this project,whichever is greater. Please note that for the
purposes of preparing contract paperwork,Linscott, Law&Greenspan,Engineers, is a DBA for 1)02WB,
Engineers,Inc.,a California corporation.
We appreciate the opportunity to submit this proposal and look forward to working with the City of
Newport Beach on this project. If you have any questions regarding this proposal,please do not hesitate to
call me.
Sincerely,
LINSCOTT,LAW& GREENSPAN;ENGINEERS
p &.ram--
Richard E.Barretto
Transportation Engineer III
Attachment
ACCEPTED FOR TASKS I THROUGH V AS OUTLINED ABOVE,FOR A FEE NOT TO EXCEED
$3,500.00
(Autho zep IAgent) (Title)
(Firm) 1 (Federal I.D.#)
33o0 lJ!,tper-t- Myd I Ark
(Address) (Date
P2970103.DM
Hug
MINIMUM
E N G I N E E R S
ENGINEERS&PLANNERS • TRAFFIC,TRANSPORTATION,PARKING
1580 Corporate Drive,Suite 122 • Costa Mesa,California 92626
Phone:714641-1587 • Fax:714641-0139
September 16, 1997
Mr. Javier S. Garcia, Senior Planner
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768
Subject: PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SERVICES
BISTANGO RESTAURANT @ BAYSIDE C�NTE
Newport Beach, California n
Dear Mr. Garcia: f�q� g"I sia o - `D V t cf�e
As requested, Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers is p ased to submit this proposal to provide
professional traffic engineering services related to the co ction of a 9,892 square-foot (SF), full-
service restaurant (Bistango Restaurant) located at 8��. The project site is
currently vacant and is located on the northeast corner of Bayside Drive and Promotory Drive in
the City of Newport Beach.
Based on our discussions with the City of Newport Beach Planning and Traffic Engineering Staff,
preparation of a Traffic Impact Study as defined by the following Scope of Work is required. The
Traffic Impact Study will be prepared according to the procedures outlined the City's Traffic Phasing
Ordinance, dated February 14, 1994. The potential project-related traffic impacts and possible
improvements,if any,will be investigated and addressed in the Traffic Impact Study.
SCOPE OF WORK
Task I: Existin2Trafffc Volume DataVolume Data
As defined by the City Traffic Department, the following four intersections will make up the study
area:
1. East Coast Highway @ Dover Drive Bayshore(hive
2. East Coast Highway @ Bayside Drive
3. East Coast Highway @ Jamboree Boulevard
4. Bayside Drive @ Jamboree Boulevard
Philip M.Linscou,P.E.Met.)
lack M.Greenspan,P.E.
William A.Law,P.E.(Ret.)
Paul W.Wilkinson,P E.
John P.Keating,P.E.
David S.Shender,P.E.
Pasadena-618 796-2322 • San Diego-619 299-3090 • Las Vegas-702 451-1920 • An LG2W6 Company
• Mr. Javier S. Garcia, Senior Planner
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
September 16, 1997
Page 2
E N G I N E E R S
It is our understanding that peak hour traffic volume data for each of these intersections is on file and
will be provided by the City of Newport Beach.
Task II: Proiect Traffic Generation & Distribution
Traffic anticipated to be generated the proposed Bistango Restaurant will be based on standard trip
generation rates established by the City of Newport Beach Traffic Engineer. The project related traffic
will be distributed and assigned to the street system based on anticipated travel patterns to/from the site.
The project-related traffic forecast and distributions patterns will be reviewed by City staff prior to
incorporating this information in the traffic report.
Task III: Intersection Analysis
Using the City's two and one-half hour (2'/2) analysis procedure, the four study intersections will be
analyzed to determine whether a formal analysis using the Intersection Capacity Utilization(ICU) method
will be required.
As stated in City guidelines, if project generated traffic during the two and one-half hour (2%:) period is
greater than one percent (1%) of the total background (existing plus regional growth plus approved
projects) two and one-half hour (2%2) traffic volume, then an ICU analysis for the AM and/or PM peak
hour will be completed for the following conditions:
A) Existing traffic volumes,plus regional growth,plus approved projects'
B) "A"plus project traffic
Based on the ICU analysis, mitigation measures will be suggested/recommended to off-set any
adverse traffic impacts caused by the proposed Bistango Restaurant project.
Task IV: On-site Circulation Analysis and Parking Evaluation
Review and comment on pedestrian and vehicular access and circulation for the proposed project. This
analysis will include discussion on the following items in the traffic study for the project:
• Pick-up/drop-off areas for valet parking and et rcu.tati o n of vatei oeernavt ° ° r' rty
• Sidewall&pedestrian access between off-site and on-site parking areas and restaurant hPa ces .
• Traffic controMimitations at site driveways, including spacing, vehicular conflicts, sight lines,
left-turn provisions from Bayside Drive, locations of proposed driveways with respect to
existing(conflicting)driveways, striping configurations, and median modifications.
• .-Ealeul
It is our understanding that the City will provide information on existing volumes,regional growth and
approved project traffic volumes at the study intersections.
f • Ivlr. Javier S. Garcia, Senior Planner
•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
September 16, 1997
E N G I N E E R S Page
Task V: Traffic Impact Study
A Traffic Impact Study will be prepared which will outline our findings and recommendations. this
report will be consistent with the City of Newport Beach Traffic Study Format and include
appropriate tables, exhibits, and appendix materials.
Draft copies will be submitted to the City of Newport Beach for screencheck review. If necessary, the
draft report will be updated based on City comments and final copies of the Traffic Impact Study will be
submitted to the City of Newport Beach for approval
COST ESTIMATE AND METHOD OF PAYMENT
We estimate that our fee for the services outlined in Tasks I through V, can be accomplished within a total
cost,not to exceed$3,500.00,without your prior authorization. Our fees will be billed monthly on a time-
and-reimbursable expense basis according to the attached Fee Schedule.
SCHEDULING
We estimate that our Draft Report can be available three to four weeks after we receive written
authorization to proceed. This time estimate assumes issues of direct impact (i.e. project description and
development program) are well enough defined to allow our analysis to proceed effectively and that
existing traffic counts and approved projects traffic volumes will be provided by the City within the first
week of our authorization to proceed.
ADDITIONAL WORK
We will also be pleased to provide any additional support beyond the Scope of Services outlined above as
you may require. Such additional tasks may include, but are not limited to the following: conducting
manual turning movement counts, evaluating potential project related traffic impacts at other key
intersections, preparation of conceptual mitigation improvement plans, and attendance at meetings with
team members, City Staff and/or public hearings. Such tasks will be considered extra work and will be
billed on a time and materials basis using the attached fee schedule or the fee schedule in effect at the time
the those services are requested. For the additional services, a separate contract amendment will be
prepared.
AUTHORIZATION
If this proposal is acceptable, you may indicate approval by signing on the lines provided below and
returning the original for our files, or by issuance of an appropriate purchase order or consultant contract.
A copy of this proposal is enclosed for your records.
i
FEE SCHEDULE
E N G I N E E R 5
Effective March 1, 1996
TITLE PER HOUR
fnci al
PrincipalEngineer*.................................................................................................................$ 133.00
Transportation Engineers
Senior Transportation Engineer..............................................................................................$ 108.00
TransportationEngineer III.....................................................................................................$ 92.00
Transportation Engineer II............................................. $ 79.00
.........................................................
TransportationEngineer I.......................................................................................................$ 60.00
Transportation Planners
Senior Transportation Planner................................................................................................$ 92.00
TransportationPlanner III.......................................................................................................$ 79.00
TransportationPlanner II........................................................................................................$ 60.00
Transportation Planner I..........................................................................................................$ 55.00
Tecknical Suppport
EngineeringAssociate II.........................................................................................................$ 65.00
EngineeringAssociate I..........................................................................................................$ 60.00
CADD Drafter/Senior Technician..........................................................................................$ 57.00
ModelingTechnician II...........................................................................................................$ 60.00
ModelingTechnician I............................................................................................................$ 55.00
Engineering Computer Analyst II...........................................................................................$ 55.00 I
Engineering Drafter/Technician..............................................................................................$ 52.00
WordProcessor/Secretary.......................................................................................................$ 45.00
Engineering Computer Analyst I............................................................................................$ 45.00
EngineeringAide Ii.................................................................................................................$ 39.00
EngineeringAide I..................................................................................................................$ 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%.
Consultation in connection with litigation and Court appearances will be quoted separately.
The above schedule is for straight time. Overtime will be charged at 1.50 times the standard hourly rates.
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.
Rev.3/1/96
EWE
RECEIVED BY
E N G I N E E R S PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ENGINEERS&PLANNERS • TRAFFIC,TRANSPORTATION,PARKING CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
1580 Corporate Drive,Suite 122 • Costa Mesa,California 92626 Z 9 199T
Phone:714641-1587 • Fax: 714641-0139 � SE SEP '99
September 16, 1997 71a3�9�0�1i]2i1w�36141516
Mr. Javier S. Garcia, Senior Planner
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768
Subject: PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SERVICES
BISTANGO RESTAURANT @ BAYSIDE CENTER
Newport Beach, California
Dear Mr. Garcia:
As requested, Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers is pleased to submit this proposal to provide
professional traffic engineering services related to the construction of a 9,892 square-foot (SF), full-
service restaurant (Bistango Restaurant) located at 1000 Bayside Drive. The project site is
currently vacant and is located on the northeast corner of Bayside Drive and Promotory Drive in
the City of Newport Beach.
Based on our discussions with the City of Newport Beach Planning and Traffic Engineering Staff,
preparation of a Traffic Impact Study as defined by the following Scope of Work is required. The
Traffic Impact Study will be prepared according to the procedures outlined the City's Traffic Phasing
Ordinance, dated February 14, 1994. The potential project-related traffic impacts and possible
improvements,if any,will be investigated and addressed in the Traffic Impact Study.
SCOPE OF WORK
Task I: Existing Traffic Volume Data
As defined by the City Traffic Department,the following four intersections will make up the study
area:
1. East Coast Highway @ Dover Drive Bayshore Drive
2. East Coast Highway @ Bayside Drive
3. East Coast Highway @ Jamboree Boulevard
4. Bayside Drive @ Jamboree Boulevard
Philip M.Lmscoll,P.E.(Ret.)
lack M.Greenspan,P.E.
William A.Law,P.E.(Ret.)
Paul W.Wilkinson,P.E
John P.Keating,P.E.
David S.Shender,P.E.
Pasadena-818 796-2322 • San Diego-619 299-3090 • Las Vegas-702 451-1920 • An LG2W8 Company
I
• Mr. 7a•S. Garcia, Senior Planner
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
September 16, 1997
ENGINEERS Paget
It is our understanding that peak hour traffic volume data for each of these intersections is on file and
will be provided by the City of Newport Beach.
Task It: Proiect Traffic Generation & Distribution
Traffic anticipated to be generated the proposed Bistango Restaurant will be based on standard trip
generation rates established by the City of Newport Beach Traffic Engineer. The project related traffic
will be distributed and assigned to the street system based on anticipated travel patterns to/from the site.
The project-related traffic forecast and distributions patterns will be reviewed by City staff prior to
incorporating this information in the traffic report.
Task III: Intersection Analysis
Using the City's two and one-half hour (2%2) analysis procedure, the four study intersections will be
analyzed to determine whether a formal analysis using the Intersection Capacity Utilization(ICU) method
will be required.
As stated in City guidelines, if project generated traffic during the two and one-half hour (2'/:) period is
greater than one percent (19/o) of the total background (existing plus regional growth plus approved
projects) two and one-half hour (2%) traffic volume, then an ICU analysis for the AM and/or PM peak
hour will be completed for the following conditions:
A) Existing traffic volumes,plus regional growth,plus approved projects'
B) "A"plus project traffic
Based on the ICU analysis, mitigation measures will be suggested/recommended to off-set any
adverse traffic impacts caused by the proposed Bistango Restaurant project.
Task IV: On-site Circulation Analysis and Parking Evaluation
Review and comment on pedestrian and vehicular access and circulation for the proposed project. This
analysis will include discussion on the following items in the traffic study for the project:
• Pick-up/drop-off areas for valet parking
• Sidewalks/pedestrian access between off-site and on-site parking areas and restaurant
• Traffic control/limitations at site driveways, including spacing, vehicular conflicts, sight lines,
left-turn provisions from Bayside Drive, locations of proposed driveways with respect to
existing(conflicting)driveways, striping configurations, and median modifications.
• Calculate the parking requirements for Bistango Restaurant based on the City of Newport
Beach off-street parking requirements.
It is our understanding that the City will provide information on existing volumes,regional growth and
approved project traffic volumes at the study intersections.
• 1VIr. Javier S. Garcia, Senior Planner
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
September 16, 1997
E NG IN EE Rs Page
Task V: Traffic Impact Study
A Traffic Impact Study will be prepared which will outline our findings and recommendations. this
report will be consistent with the City of Newport Beach Traffic Study Format and include
appropriate tables, exhibits, and appendix materials.
Draft copies will be submitted to the City of Newport Beach for screencheck review. If necessary, the
draft report will be updated based on City comments and final copies of the Traffic Impact Study will be
submitted to the City ofNewport Beach for approvaL
COST ESTIMATE AND METHOD OF PAYMENT
We estimate that our fee for the services outlined in Tasks I through V, can be accomplished within a total
cost,not to exceed$3,500.00,without your prior authorization. Our fees will be bled monthly on a time-
and-reimbursable expense basis according to the attached Fee Schedule.
SCHEDULING
We estimate that our Draft Report can be available three to four weeks after we receive written
authorization to proceed. This time estimate assumes issues of direct impact (ie. project description and
development program) are well enough defined to allow our analysis to proceed effectively and that
existing traffic counts and approved projects traffic volumes will be provided by the City within the first
week of our authorization to proceed.
ADDITIONAL WORK
We will also be pleased to provide any additional support beyond the Scope of Services outlined above as
you may require. Such additional tasks may include, but are not limited to the following: conducting
manual turning movement counts, evaluating potential project related traffic impacts at other key
intersections, preparation of conceptual mitigation improvement plans, and attendance at meetings with
team members, City Staff and/or public hearings. 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
the those services are requested. For the additional services, a separate contract amendment will be
prepared.
AUTHORIZATION
If this proposal is acceptable, you may indicate approval by signing on the limes 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 records.
• Mr. Javier S. Garcia, Senior Planner
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
September 16, 1997
E N G I N E E R S Page 4
This proposal is valid for 90 days from the date of this letter.
Should this proposal be accepted,the Client (represented by the signature below) agrees to limit Linscott,
Law, &Greenspads liability to the Client and to all Contractors and Subcontractors on the project due to
Linscott, Law, &Greenspan's negligent acts, errors, or omissions, such that the total aggregate liability of
Linscott, Law, & Greenspan to all those named shall not exceed $50,000.00 or Linscott, Law, &
Greenspan's total fee for the services rendered on this project,whichever is greater. Please note that for the
purposes of preparing contract paperwork,Linscott, Law&Greenspan,Engineers,is a DBA for LG2WB,
Engineers,Inc., a California corporation.
We appreciate the opportunity to submit this proposal and look forward to working with the City of
Newport Beach on this project. If you have any questions regarding this proposal,please do not hesitate to
call me.
Sincerely,
LINSCOTT,LAW&GREENSPAN,ENGINEERS
Richard E.Barretto
Transportation Engineer III
Attachment
ACCEPTED FOR TASKS I THROUGH V AS OUTLINED ABOVE,FOR A FEE NOT TO EXCEED
$3,500.00
(Authorized Agent) (Title)
(Firm) (Federal I.D. #)
(Address) (Date)
P29701031)OC
FEESCHEDULE
E N G I N E E R S
Effective March 1, 1996
TITLE PER HOUR
ri c' 1
PrincipalEngineer*.................................................................................................................$ 133.00
TrayAportatlon Engineers
Senior Transportation Engineer..............................................................................................$ 108.00
TransportationEngineer III.....................................................................................................$ 92.00
Transportation Engineer II......................................................................................................$ 79.00
TransportationEngineer I.......................................................................................................$ 60.00
Transportation Planners
Senior Transportation Planner................................................................................................$ 92.00
TransportationPlanner III.......................................................................................................$ 79.00
Transportation Planner II........................................................................................................$ 60.00 ,
TransportationPlanner I..........................................................................................................$ 55.00
Technical Super
EngineeringAssociate II.........................................................................................................$ 65.00
EngineeringAssociate I..........................................................................................................$ 60.00
CADD Drafter/Senior Technician..........................................................................................$ 57.00
Modeling Technician II...........................................................................................................$ 60.00
ModelingTechnician I............................................................................................................$ 55.00
Engineering Computer Analyst II...........................................................................................$ 55.00
Engineering Drafter/Technician..............................................................................................$ 52.00
Word Processor/Secretary.......................................................................................................$ 45.00
Engineering Computer Analyst I............................................................................................$ 45.00
EngineeringAide II.................................................................................................................$ 39.00
EngineeringAide I..................................................................................................................$ 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%.
Consultation in connection with litigation and Court appearances will be quoted separately.
The above schedule is for straight time. Overtime will be charged at 1.50 times the standard hourly rates.
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.
Rev.3/1/96
A ��W PORT • •
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
V z P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915
11.1 FO RN
PLANNING DEPARTMENT(714)644-3200
September9, 1997
Linscott,Law and Greenspan
1580 Corporate Drive,Suite 122
Costa Mesa,CA 92626
Attn: Mr.Richard Varretto
Subject: Traffic Phasing Ordinance Study for
Bistango Restaurant(David Hohman,applicant
1000 Bayside Drive,Newport Beach
Dear Mr.Varretto:
The City of Newport Beach Planning Department has received an application for the construction
of a full service restaurant on a site located at 1000 Bayside Drive in the City of Newport Beach.
The proposed facility would require a TRAFFIC STUDY to determine the impact of the subject
proposal on the City's Traffic Circulation System.
The City invites you to submit a proposal to prepare a Traffic Phasing Ordinance Study for this
project. If you are interested, at your earliest convenience, please submit a proposal to the City
including project tasks, budget,and timing. A copy of the site plan and conceptual building plans
have been included for your information and use.
For traffic data or technical questions please contact,Janet Divan in the City's Traffic Engineering
Division at (714) 644-3349. Should you have any other questions or need additional information
regarding this project,please contact me at the number above.
Very truly yours,
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PatriciaL. Temple,Director
By \ �
Jdvier S. Garcia, CP
Senior Planner
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
R. Varretto
September5, 1997
Page two
Attachment: Enclosure from Traffic Engineering
Letter from the Applicant Describing the Proposed Operation
Copy of Proposed Plans
F:\USERS\PLN\SHARED\I PLANCOM\PENDINGOISTANGO\TS 113RFP.DGC
I�
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
TRAFFIC STUDY FORMAT
1. TABLE OF CONTENTS
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3. LOCATION MAP
4. SITE PLAN
5. TRIP GENERATION (table and discussion)
6. TRIP DISTRIBUTION (map and discussion)
7. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
A. List committed projects
B. Intersections to be analyzed
C. 1% test (table and discussion)
D. ICU test (table and discussion)
8. MITIGATIONS (if required)
A. Discussion
B. Schematic of proposed improvements
C. Preliminary 40-scale layout
(if improvement is complex or requires R/W)
9. ONSITE CIRCULATION AND PARKING
10. SITE ACCESS
11. SUMMARY
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
REGIONAL TRAFFIC ANNUAL GROATS RATE
COAST HIGHWAY
East City limit to MacArthur Boulevard I%
MacArthur Boulevard to Jamboree Road 1$
Jamboree Road to Newport Boulevard 1$
Newport Boulevard to west city limit 1�
IRVINE AVENUE
All 1$
JAMBOREE ROAD
Coast Highway to San Joaquin Hills Road 1�
San Joaquin Hills Road to Bison 1�
Bison to Bristol 14;
Bristol to Campus 1%
MACARTHUR BOULEVARD
Coast Highway to San Joaquin Hills Road 1%
San Joaquin Hills Road to north city limit 1%
NEWPORT BOULEVARD
Coast Highway to north city limit 1%
Street segments not listed are assumed to have o% regional growth.
David Pierce Hohmann
A R C H I T E C T
To " �F� ����/Ja/j�/ fj p� LM7EROFTRANSb1177AL
19100 Yon Karman Avenue
Suite 220
Irvine.California 92715
(714)724-1599
Attention -J111 69 aelI,¢ Facsimile(714)724-1399
We transmit ova Daze
ld'Attached ❑U.S.Mail ❑Same day Fit Na
❑Under separate cover ❑ups. ❑Next day Regarding
-O'Courier service ❑Telefax
❑Your pick up Total telefax copies
❑ including transmittal
Copies Dazed Description Sig. Fax.
rg
These am transmitted as checked below:
❑�For approval ❑As requested ❑Your files ❑Documents returned
0"For your use ❑For review and comment �❑Construction ❑
Remarks
Copy to 1f enclosures am not as noted.please inform as immediately.
IE'.Xcknowledge receipt of enclosures.
❑Return enclosures to us.
ned ��
i
C
G S F E F F F F F F =FF ^
/
s � i � s
� s
S F F F F F F F S F F F S
S S
4
S C C C G C C G G c
S C C G G e G G w " S O
S G C C C C C C C C C C e e e C N
s c v�.�` O
s s s
S S S S P
S
S � �
S STALL LEGEND
S S PROPOSED SYMBOL DESCRIPTION NUMBER
OF STALLS
RESTAURANT S Standard 8'-6" x 18' parking stall 28
A F 45°8'-6'x 18' 21
R
C Compact Stall 8' x 15' 34
O TOTAL 83
� T
" O
R Y
o NOTES
Q 1. 15 off site stalls being secured.
PROPOSED
2 NHandicewpoap
rt Beachgstaffbe recommended by City of
RESTAURANT
BAYSIDE DRIVE
City of Newport Beach , California Parking Management Plan
P.O.9 x 16635
�, Irvine,CA 92623 Scale: 1 --32'
O l PPS 'i I (7141 223.8707 28 August 1997
fe (7141223.8715
II
David Pierce Hohmann
A R C H I T E C T
To ! LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
' 19100 Von Karman Avenue
_ Suite 220
Irvine,California 92715
(714)724-1599
Attention ` Facsimile(714)724-1399
We transmit Via Daze 7--7777
❑Attached ❑US.Mail ❑Same day Fite No. ��
❑Under separate cover ❑U P.S. ❑Next day Regarding
—50
-0 Courier service ❑Tekfax
❑Your pick up Total telefax copies
❑ including transmittal
Copies Dated Description Sig. Fax.
These are transmitted as cheeckkeed below:
❑For approval ;jikls requested ❑Your files ❑Documents returned
❑For your use ❑For review and comment ❑Construction ❑
Remarks
Copy to If enclosures are not as noted,please inform us immediately.
❑Acknowledge receipt of enclosures.
❑Ream enclosures to us. i9,y
1.
Operating hours
Cafe Section:
Sunday thru Thursday--Lunch and dinner: 11:30 am to 10:30 pm
Friday and Saturday—Dinner: 11:30 am to 11:3,0 pm
Dinning Room:
Monday thru Friday--Lunch: 11:30 am to 3:00 pm
Sunday thru Thursday--Dinner: 5:00 pm to 10:00 pm
Friday and Saturday—Dinner: 5:00 pm to 11:00 pm
Concept
In order to attract a wide market share, like we have accomplished at Bistango in
Irvine, our concept will offer high quality food combined with a fair pricing policy and an
unmatched atmosphere in Newport Beach.
The proposed Bayside Drive Restaurant will be convenient for the locals to walk
or drive to for a casual lunch or dinner on the Cafe side or for a more formal
experience on the dining room side. We also anticipate to draw tourists as well as
business people from hotels in Orange County.
19100 Von Karman Avenue / Irvine, California 92715/(714) 752-5222
L
August Twenty Nine
Nineteen Hundred Ninety Seven
o PPS ' i
r. Jolin GnouKassian
Owner
Bistango Restaurant
19100 Von Karman
Irvine, CA 92612
SUBJECT: Proposed Bayside Drive Restaurant
City of Newport Beach
Dear John:
At your request, I have designed a parking management plan that should satisfy
Newport's parking requirements. Some mitigating factors to consider that impact
the current one space per fifty square feet ratio are as follows;
• Fifteen off site spaces for employee parking.
• Low table turnover resulting from high average ticket will result in less
vehicle trips.
• A substantial portion of your business will be from walk in's (local), and
taxi's or vans (hotel).
• Also in the last three years, as a result of tougher drunk driver penalties
and education, vehicle loads have increased while vehicle trips have
decreased due use of commercial transportation alternatives.
Handicap parking was not addressed in this plan. I would suggest soliciting advice
from City of Newport Beach staff as to appropriate placement of spaces, or if
existing handicap spaces in adjacent existing spaces satisfies requirement.
As we discussed this proposal is preliminary, please call me with any questions
and or comments. I have also enclosed a reference list for your perusal. PPS
looks forward to providing all your guests with a positive parking experience.
Sn Sincerely'
e
Ge eranager
/SP
enclosures P.O. Box 16635
Irvine, CA 92713
tele[714] 223.8707
fax [714] 223.8715
e-mail PARKPPS@aol.com
= PPS PARKING, Inc.
-Professional References-
WESTIN SOUTH COAST PLAZA SOUTH COAST PLAZA
666 Anton Blvd. 3333 Bristol
Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Costa Mesa, CA 92626
(714) 540-2500 (714)435-2000
Mr. John Gilbert Mr.David Grant
General Manager Director of Operations
PREGO RESTAURANT NEWPORT BEACH MARRIOTT
18420 Von Karman Ave. 900 Newport Center Drive
Irvine, CA 92715 Newport Beach, CA 92660
(714) 553-1333 (714) 640-4000
Mr.Franco Vessia Ms. Michele Stneck
General Manager General Manager
SAN RAMON MARRIOTT CALIFORNIA ANGELS
2600 Bishop Drive 2000 Gene Autry Way
San Ramon, CA 94583 Anaheim, CA 92806
(415) 867-9200 (714)937-7282
Mr. Blaine Anderson Ms. Kimberly Andrew
Dir. of Rooms Operations Community Relations
PHOENIX CROWNE PLAZA ORANGE COUNTY PERFORMING
111 N. Central Ave. ARTS CENTER
Phoenix, AZ 85004 600 Town Center Drive
(602) 257-1525 Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Mr. Steven Cohn (714) 556-2122
General Manager Ms. Kathryn Glassmyer
SPORTS CLUB IRVINE PHOENIX HILTON SUITES
1980 Main Street 10 East Thomas Road
Irvine, CA 92715 Phoenix, AZ 85012
(714) 975-8400 (602) 222-1111
Ms. Chris Collett Mr.Lee Chipman
General Manager General Manager
FLETCHER JONES MCCORMICK & SCHMICK'S
1301 Quail Street 2000 Main Street
Newport Beach, CA 92660 Irvine, CA 92714
(714)955-1540 (714)756-0505
Mr. Garth Blumenthal Mr. Shawn Ghanbari
General Manager General Manager
L'OPERA LAGUNA CLIFF'S MARRIOTT
101 Pine Ave. 25135 Park Lantern
Long Beach, CA 90802 Dana Point, CA 92629
(310) 491-0066 (714) 661-5000
Mr.Terry Antonelli Mr.Michael Miner
Owner General Manager
****ADDITIONAL REFERENCES AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST****
- PAS PARKING,'Inc.
-Professional References-
WATERFRONT HILTON TORRANCE MARRIOTT
21100 Pacific Coast Hwy. 3635 Fashion Way
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Torrance, CA 90503
(714) 960-7873 (310) 316-3636
Mr.Terry Ashton Mr.Robert Dictor
General Manager General Manager
THE CATCH SAN FRANCISCO AIRPORT
1929 State College Blvd. MARRIOTT
Anaheim, CA 92806 1800 Old Bayshore Hwy.
(714) 634-1829 Burlingame,CA 94010
Mr.Don Meyers (415) 692-9100
General Manager Mr. Stan Moore
NEWPORT LIDO General Manager
MEDICAL CENTER INN AT THE PARK
351 Hospital Road, Ste 307 1855 S. Harbor Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663 Anaheim, CA 92806
(714) 645-0500 (714) 756-1811
Ms.Madonna Molinari Mr. Russell Cox
Property Manager General Manager
NEWPORT HARBOR YACHT CLUB BOB BURNS RESTAURANT
720 W.Bay Drive 881 Newport Center Drive
Newport Beach,CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660
(714) 673-7730 (714) 644-2030
Mr.Brian Taylor Ms. Beth Burns
Special Events Director Owner
BIRTCHER PROPERTIES SPORTING CLUB
18101 Von Karman Ave.,Ste 1240 18007 Von Karman
Irvine, CA 92715 Irvine, CA 92612
(714) 955-5257 (714) 250-4422
Ms. Diane K. Scott Mr.Michael Alpert
Property Manager General Manager
CAJUN HOUSE BISTANGO
7117 E. 3rd Avenue 19100 Von Karman
Scottsdale, AZ 85251 Irvine, CA 92715
(602)905-8366 (714) 752-5222
Mr.Matt Tractenberg Mr. John Ghoukassian
General Manager Owner
****ADDITIONAL REFERENCES AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST****
(800) 701-3763
Ol •. - "
IJ�+
.. � .,
1 ,
.���
a� �•;
r -
.�h .
1 •'"'r
-�
_ ` -.
a
'L
Ih ��
'.ail
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1LAW
LINSCOTT
GREENSPAN
E N G I N E E R S
1 �I
LINSCOTT
E N G I N E E R S
1
TRAFFIC EWFACT STUDY
' BISTANGO RESTAURANT
Newport Beach,California
' Prepared For:
' CTTY OF NEWPORT BEACH
P.O.BOX 1768
' Newport Beach, California 92659
' Prepared By:
' LINSCOTT,LAW& GREENSPAN,ENGINEERS
1580 Corporate Drive, Suite 122
Costa Mesa,CA 92626
' Phone: (714)641-1587
FAX: (714) 641-0139
' 2-971923-1
November 24, 1997
' Prepared By:
Richard E.Barretto
Transportation Engineer III
1®aylA 19➢8
iLINSCOTT
00
E N G I N E E R S
ENGINEERS&PLANNERS • TRAFFIC,TRANSPORTATION,PARKING
' 1580 Corporate Drive,Suite 122 • Costa Mesa,California 92626
Phone:714 641-1587 • Fax:714 641-0139
November 24, 1997
' l&.Javier S. Garcia,Senior Planner
' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768
' Subject: TRAFFIC IlVIPACT STUDY
BISTANGO RESTAURANT
' Newport Beach, California
Dear IW. Garcia:
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) is pleased to submit this Traffic Impact Study for the
Bistango Restaurant project.The project is a full service,Italian restaurant to be located at 900 Bayside
Drive in the City of Newport Beach, California.
' Our study investigates the potential traffic impacts as well as circulation needs associated with the
development of a 10,014 square-foot restaurant within the project study area. The analysis evaluates
the relative traffic impacts of the proposed project at four study intersections for a near-term(1999)
' horizon year. Briefly, based on the results of our analysis, the proposed Bistango Restaurant will not
have a significant impact at any of the four study intersections. A summary of findings and conclusions
can be found on page 16 of this report.
' We appreciate the opportunity to prepare this investigation for the City of Newport Beach. Should
you have any questions regarding this analysis,please call us at(714) 641-1587.
' Very truly yours,
LINSCOTT,LAW&GREENSPAN,ENGINEERS
Richard E.Barretto
' Transportation Engineer III
1923CDv.DDc
1
Philip M.Linscoa,P.E.1Retd
' lack M.Greenspan,P.E.
William A.Law,P.E.(Ret.)
Paul W.Wilkinson,P.E.
John P.Keating,P.E.
David S.Shender,P.E.
' Pasadena-818 796-2322 0 San Diego-619 299-3090 • Las Vegas-702 451-1920 • An LG2WB Company
E N G I N E E R S
t `
W
O
•
E N G I N E E R S
' TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
DESCRIPTION NUMBER
PROJECTDESCRIPTION................................................................................................................. 1
PROJECTTRAFFIC GENERATION................................................................................................. 1
' PROJECT TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT.......................................................... 5
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS..........................................................................................................5
' SITE ACCESS AND INTERNAL CIRCULATION.......................................................................... 14
' SUMMARY......................................................................................................................................... 16
' APPENDICES:
APPENDIX A: 1%Traffic Volume Analysis Worksheets
' APPENDIX B: ICU/LOS Calculation Sheets
LIST OF TABLES
PAGE
TABLE DESCRIPTION NUMBER
' 1 PROJECT TRAFFIC GENERATION FORECAST.................................................. 4
2 COMMITTED PROJECTS LIST................................................................................9
' 3 1%TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS...................................................................... 11
t4 PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY.......................................... 13
E N G I N E E R S
' LIST OF EN BITS
' Ei XMIT PAGE
NO. DESCRIPTION NO.
1 VICINITY MAP........................................................................................................ 2
' 2 PROPOSED SITE PLAN.......................................................................................... 3
3 PROJECT TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PATTERN.................................................. 6
4 2'/x HOUR PEAK PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES................................................ 7
5 ACCESS AND CIRCULATION LAYOUT............................................................. 15
E N G I N E E R S
i
1
t l
V
i
•
E N G I N E E R S
' TRAFFIC RVIPACT STUDY
BISTANGO RESTAURANT
Newport Beach,California
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
' The proposed project,consists of a 10,014 square-foot, Bistango Restaurant. The project is a full service,
Italian restaurant to be located at 900 Bayside Drive in the City of Newport Beach. The project site is a
' 1.12-acre, vacant parcel of land, located north of Bayside Drive and east of Promontory Drive. Exhibit 1
presents a Vicinity Map, which illustrates the general location of the project and depicts the surrounding
' street system
Exhibit 2 presents the current site plan for the proposed restaurant project, as prepared by the David
' Pierce Hohmann,Architect.The proposed Bistango Restaurant will have a main indoor dining area, a cafe'
section where the bar is located, a reception/lobby area, and kitchen/service area, all totaling 8,014 SR A
wine cellar totaling 2,000 SF is proposed in the basement of the building. As shown in Exhibit 2, there are
41 standard parking spaces (with 4 handicapped parking stalls) and 38 valet parking spaces. It is our
' understanding that valet parking will be provided during the hours of operations of Bistango (11:30 am to
1:00 am,daily).
' PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
' Traffic generation is expressed in vehicle trip ends, defined as one-way vehicular movements, either
entering or exiting the generating land use. Generation factors and equations used in the traffic forecasting
' procedure are typically found in the Fifth Edition of Trip Generation, published by the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) [Washington, D.C., 1991 and February 1995 update) and San Diego
' Traffic Generators,dated December 1996,published by San Diego Associated Governments(SANDAL).
Table 1 summarizes the trip generation rates used in forecasting the impact of the proposed Bistango
Restaurant project. Trips generated by the proposed project were estimated using TIE Land Use 831
(Quality Restaurant)rates published in the February 1995 update to the Fifth Edition of Trip Generation.
1
' 1
�'t�i?zh`,;�.r,,� .. •I#lif_t';yx+ g �NSPF .S�e���` ¢t t» ,r'•+vvtr- ..;n .ko4• .it,Y4`s`,�` .
qy::.R: Y ,t#^,�r-;: $ � iT�i' ' ., St�_'�M�#.. i,'.;( =!]e-" .:� cis •�4�'r�>::lh:t ir.
$: �^r'J`,iyAr' TY:':`7' e::r x��+ :S r ��i,A. 't. ¢' :=s4 ?•.ti`;a/� tM! f`, 'L-r, .
Y .5.r, ', <;•.��.;t�,t57 f.>�rl�}aLt�.`7'" �''o•-'q.:'•:;",r f5'�'' �i� <2�•- �, ''a~�:%� .:i��:� � -'t�er'.n>;,tr
r���"„��„>= S y ,a •.,�i�}��Ydizr.'tS',. '- � >,�`r�>1=t•e{• r'j,- :; �,.`' - ,: :,:;i,',7 ,C. ;,J�;,+
w°•�'h�{,�^bi:.i'f.'•rg�, a"^'„l'''�Srk��T ii+.. ''a-"- Ta M,.i ,•>'f''� 9c �''�,^^-.- .,1_:-�,.' '-:}: �;.:;'. _ .i, n4,}:r;
' rr".rk`:S:a„S},i ^<'%k:."',yv7", _ ya'✓-'•tlf")if n x��. .,:;_:.'','•y." 3.;� n.. �.3ti.
�yaCf'b�'ar e':akF�'F�1?r. ;�t'+ n , _ ``C�t_rry _ _ •- iy`�b�)Y��tr'��i z'- _ 7:`,�;'{1. ,;< _... .' '_';;�„si
S , a T.#;,., �",S.`,,"r,'u�y 1`��i'=5uy` .�;'i: .. '�tr.S--'. '"'3� , ;`;,� "'-:-..'t :•, - '.� :.,,
u:5:_ ni:-i•r?y�rv,;'.kt�rf,->�',�,�y, :�. __ Y,'y ', -�•���'^+i� :." - o-_,r. \�,, +{I --g3
> sr.srY=f`a'.wq.: �,`�.#:a Yifl Ci.]'i:�:':».L✓�.�o� _ _ _ '''e% - +:, rr:i�7^..:5:'?•.i lZ}y f, a'i ,*,
.SFA x, ,%iti 3�e�,t:;,uy��,+dyA,v l. #,�.;��.n�.- f��,'.2 T�'�x::'.T. >` v'vi�`!1'%,-'=ft��;" ;yv .Y,d'•a'��� '' �F
s .t:ytn. .£uyVL 1j;A�2 ram ? ,5.4 -. .,;• 1' a''� - •.0 ;1.°i _ F.('v,..Eyti4'h3.t�: �
Q• F• .+,:t;'- ..y�: i,t n �� �'X a Yf'jtll"'e .:'n, .. _ .'t.
//yyam�k. :.�i�..((.yy'''� a✓/( 3' .b: - - 4`:i's=��-w{',e' >,j,?
�.,�h -may .4 'R A� .P:-�'. f�•,.Y7xN iS�'.�i:l^0.lu ?t�.'. - ,.Ft;1. -:�] •?!!Y-y ,v, a.' 1. •U{',,��Js'> t�}r'+S �:-a.-r t. x_. •-��.'�;;:F,-;';. - i :T:>'%e a; �i�:�:,
�.� µ. p,�,� 'ifP ''R. �,t5,g+�t'hy, -7.F.�Gfih'.',?.� _ *',•, _ cxt
,#,"��, ��,,yy5 Gr, -�'rj�,64 -Y, 'Yi a t•e. _ _ _ '°."-�, se« [ie•;a'i, 'j'ah .:�}� �'.�i?';LC sa
j•:''�-'�:,�;, •:R��-- a1'/`•° .,r:t r _ r£iii:;i i,:a f�rai"^s„c'!��cs�''"r��''`,.7:
�� >-,1l^:R '��:'� .,.y,- . f..« fv:•� `r, x_,-„ .>�,n =_i
^T n'f i,}'w, y',ai'r^ C_ 'Vr,J1, k ^P� �.?,ti ti - -f ci"t '.5 :2sC,..��n�, '_ i4i �" !4F•iS!.y7�•,n'
�.,f �^tki xx���� .F 5 �# _ ::.n;S.a,µ��`�" �y+ _ �,<,r�"�'. .��;;`Y:af^ ;.ci. �� r,�, :t•�3�:1}:,;�f, ;,a:_V",,? '1
. f ,v'. ,�,f„i'. i,_:: �z .:`�„ =.:u_,' ��„:ee ] 1 :s�_. •••7r -S.Mxi�c`✓;ri:. ,,uJ 1A�:•ff ;9 4
.fie•',• >"}, Y'� ry'> 5.f S.". 4' �',L'` ;'Ff.,'.i,. Y• } F IS '.`.,'>p`-. '\' J'^.
Y�- �, ♦ �7 P '� f � .,; - r-p t'k. 4F„''r J •pp ., fiwl J� '"'' t`'= i��,..v''�
t 1 `jam �� � •i--" I_•,'.r r»._'�' S°'`-<;,,.
-'Y r � i-h- �'kr" kr§.- {�< > ��' n.�,�v z�"z_saa, t.Ak%':;-"�.,n ,.<. ,pnt,5, "i,:Y' Ukm+:-;.>�',.lxa'.�.s•i'z �3^".x•.�:':"
`+� r«5,'� `"F3 � •` `�-', cq'.lSti +q 9:;a �, r�'' ,.`ify$ti���y'C`aa>6 7r`a�3'a Lti3"',�"`45 .a'�1�' .;:y.;. C^:`.:y �'_� :.." it r-.v.'-' 4'�.'
1 } ?i3iS,1, .fsy tri,Ut�- 4 M^,.,. . 'C S✓-a,:: :< r }�� }pY� ,a;'.• P i 8i''7 :�`�` ." '3.G^ ;Y+].• iY Yi•cg' F;awYl?�..::t+s^it T'3'ief•f f;n't-a .i��\•S;Z>'Y- ? .�� �5 z.:. - :�l• .. sd j '�4 ?:!.fin..,`t •Yl +'_ if aFS1n t 5i�
•{. yj'.:t",.H)5.'s.'. ,��"`ziF9'''t'[`(' n'jjf'i7i hyi ta "F1RSa• <r stti ;•t_J ?:t'rrk;4.i,mt'�•,7 -,t`aJ v.�... J•. i;v:t,� •,
b f tS7 ems^" :a: e3 h.'k h � 'i+ ,`. ,y'�''{• '§„ n No�S;^•,
ern �:.��, PROJEC �.:.•t<��.�
T ,r: ,c., ��`, 7'•y.'�"�~ � a ,i .:,, v't ^H%• S,'v:� ?d P.3,.
1 p
1�� �� v."y S_g;,;�', Qp5 k,.` :vt a<?t»tr•, t. - e�
SITE pT,�:` _ 1 �_ �:�•. .:'�� ��G'�:i,<.: , . �;. a,,' ��:
+��.';t't•, � Q". _ '. ,': rj." �'�,2-�`l�.`7`. ,st•a.'s tr'-g'd: °:4"x,µi,,� `+.
vt, `z �tr� �':.'°•:�.: �a.-g•� `v.r'v�'. ;1`;, _ 6s kr..3�s, e;,, f� .1. :ft._•y fei. 2`. '�x��n••,,� ;:m�
N '�1p�,�` F.'�k i� x?r��k:,�,•�i>-�,l, w . .<,. .�,�,; ` ?_ ;L, i.' t _ :.`!,._ . -�:�.�n..:"
r5 #`-�«,t a,`:4:cls'1i`�`a'i'•'1't�t-'1'i "'q- �'.: t y�[.fr..`'[�I,.�a:b,E,�t••Hr .f,:- -."\,
.'"`�_ , 'n`=.s"-+•.,i F• -4, f'�� f d.'.�,a .';�, .:'� ' ,; ..:(� +'F:. < L#„Ur't� :r., ,A'r,`:: A' '?*:;S,s. �"�.<.r,•.;;:St.r`:
>r •a'x. •'�k�rf�-cn�.r y,,;F���ta, _ �.,:�„ g, _ 7f} t�¢l�S.'• ��•�vk„$�•y � t'a:'s•: �7;,>' t_ y��' _
P"�'t� a' �-'' "• IFm-�w�E$e"`x'.• .t T�i'..'L',,a-,rtf"Yut. - 'y-'� , rta. '��7->a `fir: r* FR#`_-"- ;x18 rr r1 T uii ° v{;:a �._i•_�ti%
t� a" ,£.A.., n^•9' ,,(SE�s.e;.{ }� F rht� x^ - ' - .•3 - �',.j.� r. ,c r3 y::•y :
iW
- ;,ri�,�,�,'+s".., ,•.� d;w} .�3 �J'iX3S'e`^, �y��", "-�,; ;�:--' � }};�'1 - ...rA- ':s `��. -#i.t:�iG, �'� t� ,.�i - �. ',..
'S. o, �"#- '.•�. 0.�� ,< .-5- Y`�n�'. .. yih '-r,',)ui^, c,. :a.r f,'�•�..rc ':p i.-�.' '"�..-�a.;r "
Ya '^ - �r.,, '•- d, -" A- ' . ., , i�;.JX txsesn _ .-Z-. t�� h?'t "'^v)T,` 'b. �,.:'ir' , �"'fir yr � .rya „ti�i
i-,.je s��:]"'n�t•„y ;.%;toi`•s 7i:" '-i-7. th,.�.i'.f'�"ki3,y.,s�'a-t: '5...5js., '�•` 'it.�\v� .,�''c-fiz. "� i'S'<;�" � •" .,w
,i, sT ;�.. ?'" Ki.•e•, "`••- TS� _ _ ,r��^i..��"'� -
t ,s .t .. ' a ttz.'s ( Q.S YS,.•L`'rvr,?' s; yv u ... .r
ti'.± ` •.y l'n.Yc),6 L 4✓.;I4:' ,x'v� ?v l ll 1 i Pi y_ �n41.11 tt.� .+�q 5.�'-S' �,�F•��II 4 tF"•�, _ 'h�`\iY ¢�,�' _p~�"'' �Yi< 'x
- • ;r; o- x:a;, it,f�, sux s 4 a-:tr: xa ... �t -U`}(•
:rk'*'•'- ;A,-s+.^£ '.ti n; •]r e,•rr., }t;i:yb ,.rtiY `Y�':. Fsat ' �.
� ..a'S ' '�:r7 ^'s::'�?:,._y:. 3;"t?.a:4"_,,`X .u,.•�.�,<55: 1 .�1 -
_ G e%l:A.:.N'$ .;�n. -nt�:iy- �1vn" <4�. 'LR,r• '" ,?'ti;;tfi.��';�iY,,- 1.Rf�.ytt�t>�4Z r$. �� _ 3 .-T�Sa", '.,c �L:-� „'1 2'
�F-`°'�.'x�1,rh.1:-1+^:=1:?{; 1;»! '.�5':..°'sue'�'�,h ,}. ;,;,^.�If -� °,itY-va /', f, �\ �T' _ �.. i• [vim,`a ., �, ." F r
`��ii��,... �.� k ,f �•. ,1 ,. .(`3:.Y'�'nt,'.Ttio..! S�uax1�:" �'f,-?`.S,'p.:.�.� `..'.; L 4] "����.-;.i.r.;ASV., -Q 'j$�l l`� n
'�' ,%v'.,ii<Yr=rAC�wi'xs_HS°.�C s'-�c sago✓,,__``t,H "{ .�:':a ��tir{ 1 � 'A v<f� i � r(�$?.._ .• •{�,i,FT,i1:1.. �c^ ,ris 'i`"'S '�
�. ;.4" w'�r� r#H�%'•�,� rip kn cs, q; n. ;s �g . ¢,>$F�-,r.%,:1�.' "�,p�, e
y\ ,t �� r°�a x``'d t-i; :�'�?':: ;?'.;; ';3.'•`" 4...;t.-�• t''bSA" : `t`7,�'ATzgl /y!."'2 Sit. 4.,:s', �y
7
F ;r:: .•'x•ie t• } Mn)'QS § F- t. N}ts
1�d�Ye -�tjr,'d=;".�.�'= "'»`-` < +y,e`i s•.§ . f'• y�+ f.Jc t�,^ ''_.,._ #�Y. f�4-\TyT e.� f ,
, r,; to "'� ,• h``-�` '"_i,•.�K �,t � ]�3-2c,+ (1�• f��•. �Yr,,:.'°'.>?4 ,..1
+�.� , !P,' a. e. r:.,a-+•- •°1 $
ri r"_1:,�:��: - '_�'Sir, vY �.�,r• � �et,�5>c at'f," \.. ->n\ Jn..�._,•, i'nA:;' (:N y;
{#kks3`{ {•4„Sc:•',i,. '.:;?.:- 'C# zJ F`3-n>»;-.'7+g#' ��q;Ysp3�5 yn`s��ssw.` ,zl{`T ,h .>.'n' ' r? °'
1 •�.as' 'S:; •J{'"6.3�)?tS.Y'j`, x�`." Esd'�' n ��•if' `r.`�fi„4'� � �:ry 9
�?�W., r�� �1�r�"^,"`qJ �'t..:': •�, �� ��`11Gh�'�t"''h.r5iw'Y,;L'^"7 '_ n�}':�z^:w:,. v,�:,•• 4;t,
•sa* xy`r•vn's l„ `v`y'�,s �'� ',o'•l:n\ _ - , s- „ �,> ;ofi;.;
��(EA�1. ,� ,,`yr, y.; ,.< 'fs;•.r' S,nt<::11 !7�� ��tt S : x + <'jj Zy-,'rj•' `'` ,1
} :+.,{' ,f���K I.a�dj;F: .•h_.' ,�.._ .. _�,w.," ,__ .O vf'2�.,,.I'^�i 'Y��ti�.Y'�.,Iy.i> '' Vat ..
- ��,.5 i'it:fi3s�yh�,�:j),Fr�ftf Sh�n,•.l is, yti^ts'�\•:]uf.. - •.�� , x �Y ;+.'£^'d tt- - °'
'u]tJ •.� .�i _ _. �%:.- i
U
(tNO SCALE EXHIBIT 1
UNSC07T
uw & VICnNM MAP
GREENSPAN
E N97MEERS
BISTANGO RESTAURANT, NEWPORT BEACH
1 'I
1
%� 1 oaxw r.a.ieu.xo .
C '
< W I
i4 Y
• r o
j �QOP05=D I�STAL¢dM n
u
1 Lw44 d1/ ^ L w
v u � , txvi,nr•wm
`� covn� ram n
u
< ry.
Iie < 4t�. Y /fGCYI
ar •4< \ ^
^t <
,a r
1 Dp jVE
1 �
m
1
�*1 EXHIBIT 2 y� NO SCALE
UNSCOrr
1 LAW& y PROPOSED SITE PLAN
E N 6 i N E 6 R 5 BISTANGO RESTAURANT, NEWPORT BEACH
i3
j�_
E N G I N E E R S
' TABLE 1
PROJECT TRAFFIC GENERATION FORECAST
Bistango Restaurant, Newport Beach
�P
{y�RUSE{ DFl"i} �i 1rr �lf. �I' ` . •, . .. „r, _,_..,;. AX
#•a,s
RbJigOiT+MES,GF.I$,�'i�� abAI O. ; g& , OIL .;,d'Q,T
Generation Factors:
• 831: Quality Restaurant 95.99 0.81 0.06 0.87 4.95 2.44 7.39
' E/1000 SF '
Generation Forecast:
' • Bistango Restaurant 960 8 1 9 50 24 74
10,014 SF
2?/z IiOIIR A 1VI PAIL':. :: ::2'/x IIQUItrPMYEA
' T.OTAL. :.:-:LN .:.i'1:OUT.:: 'TOTAL,
2%Hour Peak Factors:
• 831:QualiryRestaurant 1.62 0.12 1.74 9.90 4.88 14.78
E/1000 Slt z
2%Hour Peak Forecast:
' • Bistango Restaurant 16 2 18 100 48 148
10 014 S
' TE/l000 SF=Trip ends per 1000 square-feet(SF) of development.
1
1
' Source: Trip Generation,A Edition,Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), February 1995 Update to the Sth Edition,
[Washington,D.C.)
2 The peak hour trip potential of the project has been adjusted by a City approved factor of two(2)to anticipate theproject's Yahour
' peak tnaftgencrah . 4
E N G I N E E R S
' Review of Table 1 shows that,during a "typical'weekday, the restaurant project is expected to generate a
total of 960 vehicular trips on a daily basis (480 inbound, 480 outbound), with 9 trips (8 inbound, 1
' outbound)produced during the AM peak hour, and 74 trips(50 inbound, 24 outbound)forecast during the
PM peak hour.
' The AM and PM peak hour volumes have been adjusted upwardly by a City approved factor of two (2)to
' anticipate the project's 2'/x hour peak traffic generation. During the AM peak 2'/z hour period,a total of 18
vehicles are expected. A total of 148 vehicle trips are projected during the PM peak 2'/z hour period.
' PROJECT TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT
' An arrival/departure pattern which illustrates the roadways that the site generated vehicles would utilize to
enter/exit the site is depicted in Exhibit 3. Project traffic volumes in and out of the site have been
distributed and assigned to the adjacent street system based upon the following considerations: 1)the site's
proximity to major traffic carriers (e.g., East Coast Highway, Jamboree Boulevard, Dover Drive); 2)
expected localized traffic flow patterns based on adjacent street channelization and presence of traffic
signals; 3) ingress/egress availability at site driveways on Bayside Drive; 4) existing peak hour turning
movement volumes, and 5)input from City staff. As shown in Exhibit 3,project traffic is evenly distributed
tto the surrounding street system
tExhibit 4 presents the anticipated 2'/2 hour AM and PM peak project traffic volumes at the key study
intersections. The project traffic assignment was completed by distributing the project traffic volumes
' shown in Table 1 to the distribution pattern illustrated in Exhibit 3.
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
' City Methodology
This traffic analysis follows the procedures set forth in the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing
' Ordinance. (ITO). The TPO calls for a two step process to determine potential project impact, (1) an
initial traffic contribution analysis at each designated study intersection, and (2) a complete volume to
' capacity analysis at those intersections identified as being impacted in the initial analysis.
5
S o�
gQ1�.
25� >K r5x NEWPORT
�� 'n <25 DUNES
W. COAST HWY 4k 30% RESORT
25X► , F
CRESMEW c°q
c� LINDA
SLE o 6y NrORr R A' izov
o F
rn ROMONiORyOR x>K
-wsz
5 sX7 � o
X> 1! �Q
3x
O PROJECT s3
SITE s
BALBOA ISLAND x�
7
U
KEY EXHIBIT 3
TNO SCALE <xxx = OUTBOUND PERCENTAGE
�XX% = INBOUND PERCENTAGE
UNSCOTT
LAB N PNV PROJECT TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PATTERN
ENOIMEER! BISTANGO RESTAURANT, NEWPORT BEACH
i�
%
}
0
NEWPORT
DUNES
W. coA5r HWY RESORT �o
CRESTVIEW ' 00,
S
a� LINDA A�Ob F��
SLE @qys/ OQY / tr 5/30
2 F ROM0NI0 OR y
PROJECT
SITE
BALBOA ISLAND La
KEY
3
V
XX/YY = AM/PM PROJECT VOLUMES EXHIBIT 4
tNO SCALE
UNSCOTF
LAW A
SPAN 2 1/2 HOUR PEAK PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES
ENGINEERS BISTANGO RESTAURANT, NEWPORT BEACH
•
E N G I N E E R S
i
The initial traffic analysis, also called the "One Percent Traffic Test," compares 2'/z hour AM and/or PM
' peak period project traffic to forecast future traffic volumes at intersections to be studied. If the proposed
Bistango Restaurant project generates the equivalent of one percent or more of the forecast traffic volume
' on one or more approaches of a study intersection, that intersection is determined to be impacted by the
project. The impacted intersection(s) are then subjected to a full traffic analysis. lithe project traffic is less
than.l% of background traffic, the project is not anticipated to have a significant impact on the operations
of that intersection.
' The frill project traffic analysis, called the "ICU Test," is conducted for the AM and/or PM peak hours,
using the Intersection Capacity Utilization(ICU)method,and evaluates the following three conditions;
1. Existing - Volume to capacity ratio of base traffic year. Assessment of year 1996 and/or 1997
' traffic(provided by City ofNewport Beach).
2. Existing &Regional & Committed Projects - Forecast of future conditions, without the proposed
' project, resulting from regional jtraffic growth and other committed development. (Committed
development traffic and regional traffic growth rates provided by the City of Newport Beach).
' 3. With Project - Analysis of future traffic operations resulting from the addition of project generated
traffic.
' The "With Project' impact is determined based on TPO criteria. An intersection is considered to be
impacted by project traffic when the ICU value (volume to capacity ratio) is greater than 0.90. Project
' impact is considered to be mitigated when system improvements modify the ICU value to less than or equal
to 0.90,or project improvements modify an ICU value to less than the"Without Project'ICU.
' Committed Projects
Table 2 presents a list of committed projects recently updated by the City of Newport Beach. The list
shows three projects that are partially occupied and 13 projects that have yet to begin to be occupied.
8
•
E N G I N E E R S
' TABLE 2
' COMMITTED PROJECTS LIST'
Bistango Restaurant,Newport Beach
PROUGT NAM' . ' : ':':' •:OGCUPi$b.?
121 Newport Village 0
' 124 Civic Plaza 0
125 Corporate Plaza&West 13
129 Hoag Hospital Extension 2
' 134 Interpretive Center 0
142 Hoag Hos ital Expansion 0
147 Balboa Bay Club Expansion 0
148 Fashion Island Expansion 2
152 Fletcher Jones Mercedes 0
154 Temple Bat Yahm Expansion 0
156 Corona Del Mar Plaza 0
' 157 Ford Development 0
158 TLA Drive Thm Restaurant 0
555 Ciosa-Irvine Project 0
' 910 Newport Dunes 0
930 City of Irvine Develo ment 0
' 3 Source.City of Newport Beach
' 9
•
E N G I N E E R S
Analyzed Intersections
' Based on the location of the proposed restaurant, the following four intersections have been selected for
evaluation by City Staff for this project.
1. East Coast Highway @ Dover Drive/Bayshore Drive
2. East Coast Highway @ Bayside Drive
' 3. East Coast Highway @ Jamboree Boulevard
4. Bayside Drive @ Jamboree Boulevard
' Traffic Data Provided by the City of Newport Beach
As stated previously, existing traffic volumes, regional growth rates, and traffic to be generated by
' approved cumulative projects have been provided by City staff for each of the above intersections on an
intersection approach basis. This data has been used to estimate the 2%: hour peak background traffic
' volumes.
One-Percent(1%)Traffic Volume Analysis Test
' Table 3 depicts the 1% peak background approach volumes, the 2'/2 hour project traffic volumes, and
' results of the 1% Traffic Volume Analysis test, for each of the intersections studied during the PM peak
period. A 1% Traffic Volume Analysis test for the 2'/2 hour AM peak conditions was not prepared since
the proposed project is expected to generate only a nominal amount of traffic. As shown in Table 1 and
' Exhibit 4, the Bistango Restaurant project has a 2'/2 Hour AM peak generation of 18 trips (2 inbound, 16
outbound),and at worst,will add a maximum of 10 trips to any of the adjacent study intersections.
' Detailed analysis sheets of the 2'/z hour PM peak conditions,using the City's methodology, are attached at
the end of this report in Appendix A.
' As shown in Table 3, comparing the 2'h hour PM peak project traffic to the 1%background volumes for
each intersection approach indicates that one of the four intersections' approach volumes are impacted by
less than 1% of the background volume. Hence, it can be concluded that the proposed Bistango
' Restaurant project will not have a significant impact at the study intersection of East Coast Highway and
Dover DriveBayshore Drive.
' 10
1
E N G I N E E R S
' TABLE 3
' 1%TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSW
Bistango Restaurant,Newport Beach
I�,,1# '�� ,��C.� �� ,.ui I'1@�4�it I-I � �+d �, ry1r��l �tti ��r.�• 'ii��i i�fi `�Ij' ''� SI a�{{
;. o.& �> T^F f,Aiy" ,� ?};. :ff t +�kCi.'. ...i� r<r� Y,, fN� ,.t!"�' "•'."'ili r + yi3q
TRAYFi �OLlYlE _ 1.: k _AlY
',' 9 , t�......��:x• s;t�•.�i Fi.
#c��2'/�cP�al��o
1. East Coast Highway @ NB 2 0 No
Pover/Bayshore Drive SB 30 5 No
' EB 53 25 No
WB 101 14 No
2. East Coast Highway @ NB 13 14 Yes
Bayside Drive SB 39 0 No
EB 72 30 No
WB 75 0 No
3. East Coast Highway @ NB 17 29 Yes
' Jamboree Boulevard SB 44 30 No
EB 81 0 No
WB 57 30 No
4. Bayside Drive @ NB 5 3 No
Jamboree Boulevard SB 10 60 Yes
EB 7 33 Yes
WB 4 5 Yes
4 Appendix A contains the 1%Traffic Volume Analysis Worksheets for each of the study intersections.
' 1)
E N G I N E E R S
' However, at the intersections of East Coast Highway/Bayside Drive, East Coast Highway/Jamboree
Boulevard, and Bayside Drive/Jamboree Boulevard, the 2'h hour PM peak project traffic volume exceeds
' one percent of the background traffic volumes on at least one of the approaches. Therefore, ICU analyses
have been completed for these three study intersections during the PM peak hour.
' Capacity Analysis(ICU method)
' Table 4 presents the results of the level of service analyses for East Coast Highway @ Bayside Drive,East
Coast Highway @ Jamboree Boulevard, and Bayside Drive @ Jamboree Boulevard. As shown, all three
' study intersections currently operate at Level of Service (LOS) C or better during the PM peak commute
hour.
' The PM peak hour LOS at East Coast Highway and Bayside, and Bayside and Jamboree, are forecast to
deteriorate one service level and operate at LOS C with the addition of background (ambient and
cumulative)traffic. The level of service at East Coast Highway and Jamboree Boulevard also deteriorates.
However, this study intersection is forecast to operate at LOS D (ICU = 0.88) during the PM peak hour
' with the addition of ambient and cumulative project traffic.
' The addition of project-related traffic volumes to these three key intersection is not expected to change the
forecast background LOS during the critical evening peak commute hour. The project is not,expected to
' increase the ICU values of these three intersections. All three intersections are forecast to continue to
operate at LOS D or better during the PM peak hour.
Based on the results of this analysis, we conclude that the proposed Bistango Restaurant project will not
have a significant impact at the intersections of East Coast Highway/Bayside Drive, East Coast
' Highway/Jamboree Boulevard, and Bayside Drive/Jamboree Boulevard, as well.
12
L
•
E N G I N E E R 5
' TABLE 4
' PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY'
Bistango Restaurant,Newport Beach
�« ' *•,j0 #E.'.:�4'. `_iE,L. J. T}'Fw+' E79�lei+.t}�.i�V' ik 1C
on I in
i4 '�•ih �IA
" Condi tonffi B tls
,�.•._ .�•�"�n.
1�,u_J—'t.. MHO}iYM:i.it'-'2� FSiSi-i '[�✓ -.+�n"�iCC� «� yr 4+� `
) I
xCe Yens hOn t $ kr'CCU.` 0 5 E sZC[J LOOS WN1W EYI30S us # .; r,
' East Coast Highway @
Ba side Drive 0.68 B 0.79 C 0.79 C 0.00
East Coast Highway @
Jamboree Boulevard 0.75 C 0.88 D 0.88 D 0.00
Bayside Drive @
Jamboree Boulevard 0.68 B 0.69 B 0.69 B 0.00
t ,
1
1
' s Appendhc B contains the PM peak hour ICU/LOS calculation worksheets.
13
E N G I N E E R S
1 SITE ACCESS AND INTERNAL CIRCULATION
1 Site Access
1 Exhibit 5 illustrates the access and circulation layout of the proposed Bistango Restaurant and the
existing Bayside Center (Von's Pavilion) located at 1000 Bayside Drive. As shown, access to
1 Bistango will be provided by an existing driveway located on the northside of Bayside Drive,
approximately 260 feet east of Promontory Drive. This driveway is one of three existing, full access
unsignalized driveways that currently serves Bayside Center. Both left-turns and right-turns into and
1 out of this entry/exit are now permitted. No changes to the existing driveway access configuration
are recommended with the development of the proposed Bistango Restaurant project.
1 Internal Circulation
1 A review of the conceptual site plan presented in Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 5 indicates adequate on-site
circulation. No changes to the proposed parking layout are recommended. Review of the site plan
1 indicates that a drive aisle, measuring 26 feet wide at its narrowest point, will be provided between the
proposed valet parking spaces. As stated earlier, we understand that valet parking will be provided during
1 Bistango's operating hours.
However, to minimize vehicular conflicts, we recommend that the six spaces (three standard and three
1 valet)in the upper northwest corner of the site be designated for employee/staffparking(See Exhibit 5).
1 Further,to ensure that the project entry/exit driveway at Bayside is kept clear of project traffic at all times,
we recommend that stacking storage for four(4)vehicles is provided. Assuming an average car length of
1 22 feet, approximately 88 feet of storage will be required. Sufficient storage can be maintained by requiring
the first vehicle of a platoon to pull forward to approximately to the fourth valet stall(See Exhibit 5).
1
1
1 14
1
' DESIGNATE AS
EMPLOYEE/STAFF
PARKING n nr•
/ �lA ♦.t jIA—
I IV
' �� • PULL FORWARD - -�_ _ __- - -- ^•»
TO THIS POINT
' SHOPS _.. ) w.-
• i tt < r�
j woo ..m a l :1. I�.l'�:: ,..•L,j��jjj fzS
. rri::: •", � y • fi;li�al 'i t� � '1jJt;• i�'•�`�I" „1 r :ZS
' t:¢•. f •\a< `•+<e t •� 4 1 .In� , 'Fip I, 1 ' � G] ..'{ 're 1 1 • 1_I
i
12
-- to . ,...•� ;�
KEEP ENTRY/EXIT CLEAR
' AT ALL TIMES
a
' •9
7
a
' EXHIBIT 5
tw SCALE
' LINSCOTT
ILAWNSPAN ACCESS AND CIRCULATION LAYOUT
GUE' ENGINEERS BISTANGO RESTAURANT, NEWPORT BEACH
15
•
t '
E N G I N E E R S
SUMMARY
' 1. The proposed project consists of a 10,014 square-foot,Bistango Restaurant.The project site is a 1.12-
acre,vacant parcel of land,located north of Bayside Drive and east of Promontory Drive,in the City of
Newport Beach.
2. A total of 79 parking spaces is proposed, consisting of 41 standard parking spaces(with 4 handicapped
parking stalls) and 38 valet parking spaces. Valet parking will be provided at Bistango during all hours
of operations.
' 3. The Bistango Restaurant project is expected to generate a total of 960 vehicular trips on a daily basis,
' with 9 trips produced during the AM peak hour, and 74 trips forecast during the PM peak hour. The
project's 2'/2 hour peak period trips total 18 vehicles and 148 vehicles during the AM and PM peak 2'Y2
' hour periods,respectively.
' 4. The results of the One Percent Test and the ICU Test, conducted pursuant to the Newport Beach
TPO, indicated that project generated traffic is not expected to produce a significant traffic impact at
any of the four intersections selected for evaluation by City staff.
5. Stacking storage for approximately four vehicles is required to ensure that the project entry/exit
driveway at Bayside is kept clear at all times, especially during Bistango's peak hours of operation.
19231YA.DOC(Novemb=24,19971036 A"
16
1
E N G I N E E R S
1
A
a
E N G I N E E R S
1
1
APPENDIX A
' 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
1'
1
I % Traffic Volume Analysis
Guco R�`' Intersection COAST HIGHWAY / DoVER DRIVE — BAYSHORE DRIVE
( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter I Spring 1997 rM )
Approach Existing Peak 2 V2 Hour 9 Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour
Re lonal Projects Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 21/2 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour
Volume Cro'� PEAK 2 1 Hour
Volume I Volumee Volume Volume Volume
9gg
' Northbound 234 E} -9 234 0
' Southbound 2813 � �p ?jD(3 ZjD 5
' Eastbound 4638 013 �jC(t7 JZZI Cj?j
' Westbound 9100 1$L j lot DIP
' Mill Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
11 V�ll Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume.
❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
DATE.
' PROJECT: A I
0 iXRLUYM
I % Traffic Volume Analysis
"FOp r IlltefS0d011 COAST HIGHWAY/RAYSIDE DRIVE
' ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter I Spring 19 96 — PM )
Approach Existing Peak 2 112 Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project
Re Tonal Projects Peak 2 112 Hour
Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour 9 Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2112 Hour
Volume Growth PEAK 2 1/2 Hour Volume Volume Volume
Volume Volume
Northbound 1258
' Southbound 137 'B"
' Eastbound 6651 1i7O
Westbound 6732 20v � / 15
1
' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume.
' Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
' IsT IGa mil'
DATE: 1XIt�lOn
V •'t—iA^i� _
' PROJECT:
tia IX4411YCOR
1 '
1
1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis
1 Intersection JAMBOREE/BAYSIDE
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter Spring 1991 PM
1 Peak 231 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1n of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peaour Peak
VolumeHour PeaVolumeour PeaVolumeour
Volume Volume ig19•; Volume
1 3
Northbound 484
Southbound
1 907
Eastbound 112 �7�`� `-71b 33� I
727
49
i
1 Westbound 348
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
1
1
i
1
1 [VtOtll
DATE:
PROJECT: A-3
1 123 FORM I
I °/o Traffic Volume Analysis
COAST HWY / JAMBOREE RD
Intersdon
' ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter!Spring 19 97 ) PM
' Approach Existing Peak 2 112 Hour Approved Projected I% of Projected Project
Re Tonal Projects Peak 2 112 Hour
Direction Peak 2 112 Hour 9 Peak 2 112 Hour peak 2112 Hour
Volume Oro`'+ PEAK 2 1e Hour Volume Volume Volume
Volume(Ray Volume Q
' Northbound 1682 r'� %
' Southbound 3708 74, �0Z "G /`j(�• ILA
' Eastbound 7093 pgv g
Westbound 4874
' ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume.
' Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of ,Projected
Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
'
UD � DATE: lilt 1 e 17
' PROJECT:
B tY44 ra -
E N G I N E E R S
APPENDIX B
ICU/LOS CALCULATION SHEETS
1
1
1
' CH3O6OPM 1
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY&DOVER DRIVE/BAYSHORE DRIVE 1 3060
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1997 PM
I I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT- I PROJECT I
' I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I WC I
I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I
I I I I I I I I Volume I I I
N — - - •--- -- --_--_ _-- _
I NI. I 16001 I 11 1 I 0.01 I I 1 I I
1 63 1 I I I I I
I NT I I _
NR 1 —__ 32
1 SL 1 48001 I 9881 0.21 • I I I I I
' I ST 1 16001 I 881 0.06 1 I 1 I 1
I SR 1 16001 I 173 1 0.11 I
I EL 1 3200 1 I 145 1 0.05
1 ET I 1 I 1751
' I ................ .. 4800 ......--........ .. ........----26 1 0.37 i...._...
I ER I 1 1
WL 1 1600 1 1 34 1 0.02 I I I I•_---- �_—.. 1
I WT 1 48001 1 26951 0.56
WR I N.S. 1 1 1593 I
EXISTING I.C.U.
1 I 0.85
I 1
1 EXISTING+REG GROWTH+COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I I I
' I EXISTING+COMMITTED+REGIONAL GROWTH+PROJECT I.C.U.
I -1 Projected+project traffic I.C.U.will be less than or equal to 0.90
I _
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
I
Description of system Improvement:
Moir
"1
' PROJECT FORM II
CH306OPM
1
1
' CH5440PM
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
' INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY & BAYSIDE DRIVE 5440
EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1996 PM
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
' I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALIC OHM ITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI
IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVolume I V/C' I
I ICapacitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I VOIUma IN/0 Projectl I Ratio I
I I I I I I Ifi I I Volume I I I
' -""-"-------------------------------"""----------------------"--------___-------I I NL I I 472 I — I ;y 1 • I "7 I 1
I ----- ) ----""---------- ?J" "--- I
I - HT_ 4800 1 1 10 0.11 * 1 I 0. 17,4 1 — IO,12
--) ------------------) -------'"---- I
I HR 1 1 62 1 — I t� I"... "-I__.. I I
I___________________________________________________________ ___________
I"-St. 1---1600-1--------1- 131 0.01_1-�_._I_. _J___1_ 0,06_'Irl------IO-C,/,;,*
--------------- _
I ST I 1 9 I I 1 0 1 0,0Sc I 10,or I
1600 ------------------) 0.03 *---------------- 3 I
I SR 1 1 39 1 13b I I -- 1 1
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
I EL 1 1600 1 1 73 1 0.05 * I- I J7� I ,o7 *1 — I ,07 ..a.
I---------------"----------------------"------""---------------------------""----- --------I
' I ET I 4800 1 1 2160 1 0.45 1 (v5 1-'[( J 1 190 1 -- 1 ,5I 1
.__--------------------"-----"---------------------___"-----"--------""---'"----'__------"-I
ER 1 1600 1 1 468 1 0.29 1 l4 1 Q I i &' I
-- - ---- - --- - -- �3I
I = I
1 WL I 1600 1 I s7 1 0.04 I Z I �� I ..07 I I �Oy_I
I___WT --"---'-"I--'-----L 3112 ----'---'I'�,3"I----___'-- --___4- �1
6400 ------------------3 0.49 *-----------"--='- .�� '1
WR" 1 I 34 1 1 19 I
- -------"
(EXISTING I 0.68 I I
�------'------'----------- --- '-----'"---'----------'----.___ 1
1-----"--------------------------"--------------.._'------------------------- I
' (EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0.11 1 1
I______________________________________________________________________________________ ____
(EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 1011-II
-----'"------"-"---"-------------"----- ..______
' Nrojected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90
t I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90
I_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be
Less than or equal to 0.90
' I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will
be less than I.C.U. without project
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description of system improvement: 1C.1 ell
PROJECT FORM II
' CH5440PM
CH5055PM
1 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UIILIZAIION ANALYSIS
' INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY&JAMBOREE ROAD 5055 - 1997 PM
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING
I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I
' I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I
I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I
I I I I �qq Volume I
NL 1 1600 1 1 55 1 0.03 1 I D 1 0,,0+
I NT 1 I 528
0.203200
` -------- - ---- ---
I NR 1 I 119 I
I SL 1 1600 1 I 147 1 0.09 -
I ST 1 3200 1 I 9171 0.16 1 (0 I
--------- - --------- - --Z— - -�A - - - - -- -
I SR I N.S. I I 1111 I 1 2 I I I I I
' - 942 1 I 0.20 0 (�- ---- --- - - -22� - - --- 5- -I ------ 1 t 2 5
I EL 1 4800 1 I I I I — —
--ET - - '--- —_--- —1709----- I —2 --- I _l=17
7 - -- - ----- JI I
I ER 1 1 19 I p I
' I WL I 3200 1 --- 1 --173 1 — 0.05 I 3- 1 3 — 1 0, — 1 tS-- 1 0,06 1
WT I 64001 1 16801 0.26 " 3t� I Z"jI I b,3tI — 10,zl�
----- - -`------- - --- -------- - ------- - -------- I
t I WR I N.S. I I 164 l 1 3 I I i I I
—_ --__ _ ________ I
I EXISTING . I.C.U. 1 0.75 1
I --- - - - --- - -- - -- - -- - ——— - 1
' I EXISTING+REG GROWTH+COMMITTEDW/PROPOSEDIMPROVEMENTSI.C.U.
--------- - ---- -------- - -------- I D. ---- I
I EXISTING+COMMITTED+REGIONAL GROWTH+PROJECT I.C.U. 00
IM Projected+project traffic LC.U.will be less than or equal to 0.90 —
Projected+project tmffic 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:
- - - - •FORM 11
' PROJECT
CH5055PM
' �,•3
JA5485PM
' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE RD. & BAYSIDE * 5485
tEXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING__-- --------------1991 PH-
I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI
' IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio ]VOIume I V/C I
ICapacitylCapecityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume 1w/o Project] [,Ratio I
I I I I I I kcMol I I Volume I I
i--------------------------------------------------------------------;----------------------
' ] ' NL 1 1600 1 1 165 1 0.10* �' I C7 1'-OII -�-,---'I---1•(9,(0
1---NT------------I--------i--------------------------I--- O,Io
230 ]_ �. 1 0' 210(b I 1________) 3200 ------------------) 0.10 -------
MR 1 1 89 1 _T_31__ _______________1 0 1 I
______________________________________________ } _______________I
SL 1 1600 1 1 . 60 1 0.04 — I 'L5 1 01015 10 10,C 1
i-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------]
ST 1 1600 1 1 587 1 0.3744 •r 1 11 I
I--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------
' SR 1 1600 1 1 260 1 0.16 ] I IOr I 0.(M I -$K I n fq'I
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
EL 1 1600 1 1 too 1 0.06 — I 8 1 0,01 11+ 1 00g•1
I-----------------------------------------------_-------------- --I Y
1 ET 1 1600 1 1 329 1 0.21* --- I 0 1 01� Q I I 0,Z{ I !�
------------- --------------------------------I
ER 1 1600 1 1 298 1 0.19 1 1 d 1 0,, 1CI 11 10,111
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
1 WL 1 1600 1 1 1 1 0.00* -- 1 a 1 O, VC,* b 1010) 1
' 1--- ------------i--------i----------------i--------i-- ----------------i---------.-.--��---T O1
80
-------- 3200 ------------------) 0.11 --- -------------- ?3.t,----------
WR -I1 1 1 267 1 - I 1� I I C, I I
______________1
[EXISTING I O.bb I
I
1EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0,(& 1 I
' I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
1EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I � �
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
' Projected + project traffic will be less than or equal to 0.90
' I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90
I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. 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
Des- ------------------------------- � "--___---- 1
' Description of system improvement: {7J1 ., p
PROJECT y ,1��_vv I-✓ I �^'' ll ll
' 1 24 JA5485PM
i
ENGINEERS &PLANNERS ■ TRAFFIC, TRANSPORTATION , PARKING