Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
GP_UPDATE_DRAFT_EIR_V2
111111111 lill 11111111111111111111111111 lill III *NEW FILE* G P_U P DATE_D RAFT_E 1 R_V:2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN 2006 UPDATE Volume II Draft Environmental Impact Report Appendices SCH No. 2006011119 Prepared for City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658-8915 Prepared by EIP Associates 12301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430 Los Angeles, California 90025 April 21, 2006 F L f..l I I I 11 I 1] 11 1 I � CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH � GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 1 Notice of Preparation/Initial Study 1 1 Prepared for City of Newport Beach 1 Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard 1 Newport Beach, California 92658-8915 ' Prepared by EIP Associates 12301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430 Los Angeles, California 90025 1 1 ' January 2006 1 I 1 1 I CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 DATE: January 27, 2006 TO: Agencies, Organizations, and Interested Parties (see distribution list) FROM: City of Newport Beach, Planning Department SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report The City of Newport Beach will be the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and will prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Newport Beach General Plan Update (proposed project). The City has prepared an Initial Study and will prepare a comprehensive environmental document evaluating the potential environmental effects of the General Plan Update. Agencies: The City requests your agency's views on the scope and content of the environmental information relevant to your agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project, in accordance with California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15082(b). Your agency will need to use the EIRwhen considering any permit or other approval that your agency must issue for the project. Organizations and Interested Parties: The City requests your comments regarding the environmental issues that should be addressed in the EIR. Project Location and Description: A detailed Project Description is attached. The entire PlanningArea includes the existing City of Newport Beach boundaries (totaling 13,062 acres, excluding waterways) and its sphere of influence. The General Plan Update defines comprehensive land use, noise, housing, circulation and infrastructure, I public service, resource conservation, and public safety policies for the entire City. While policies regarding future land use and growth are addressed from a citywide perspective, the majority of land use changes are limited to nine primary study areas. Accordingly, the EIR will comprehensively address the impacts of all policies throughout the 1 City and, additionally, focus on those areas in which the most significant land use changes could occur. Refer to the attached Project Description for more information. ' Environmental Impact Report: By its nature, the General Plan Update requires a program4evel EIR. According to Title 12, Section 15168 of the California Code of Regulations, a program EIR may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and are related geographically; as logical parts in the chain of ' contemplated actions; in connection with the issuance of rules, regulations, plans, or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program; or as individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory authority and having generally similar environmental effects which can be mitigated in similar ways. A program -level EIR can provide an occasion for a more exhaustive consideration of effects and alternatives than would be practical in an EIR or on an individual action, ensure consideration of cumulative impacts that might be slighted in a case -by -case analysis, and to allow the lead agency to consider broad policy alternatives and program - wide mitigation measures at an early time when the agency has greater flexibility to deal with basic problems or cumulative impacts. A program4evel EIR differs from the more common type of EIR which evaluates environmental effects at the project level. A project -level EIR examines the environmental impacts of a specific development project. A project - level EIR focuses primarily on the changes in the environment that would result from a development project and examines all phases of the projectincludingplanning,construction, and operation. Generally, the analysis contained in a program -level EIR is not as detailed -as the analysis in a project -level EIR. , Potential Environmental Effects; The City has prepared an Initial Study that describes the potential environmental effects of the.proposed project. AnEIRwill be prepared to evaluate theproject's potential impacts on the environment and analyze alternatives. As identified in the Initial Study, the environmental issueslisted below will be addressed in the EIR. With the exception of Agricultural Resources, the EIR will include all of the environmental issue areas contained in the CEQA Guidelines. • Aesthetics and Visual Resources • Biological Resources ■ Air Quality , • Cultural and Historic Resources ■ Geology and Soils • Hazards and Hazardous Materials , • Hydrology and Water Quality ■ Land Use and Planning ■ Mineral Resources • Noise , ■ Population and Housing • Public Services, including > Fire Protection > Police Protection > Schools > Parks ' > Other public facilities • Recreation ■ 'Transportation/Traffic • Utilities and Service Systems, including > Sewer > \hater System and Storm Dr:dnagc > Solid Waste ' DocumentAvailability: The Notice of Preparation, Initial Study, andProject Description are available for review at the following locations: , City of Newport Beach, Planning Department Newport Beach Public Library 3300 Newport Boulevard 1000 Avocado Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Newport Beach, CA 92660 , Telephone: 949.644.3225 Telephone: 949.717.3800 Responses and Comments: Ifyouwould like to submit written comments on the Notice of Preparation, please ' send them to the City of Newport Beach at the address shown below. Please be specific in your statements describingyour environmental concerns. Due to the time limits mandated by state law, your written response must be sent at the earliest possible date, but not -later than February27, 2006, which is 30 days from the date o£ , this notice. Project Title: Newport Beach General Plan Update Project Applicant: City of Newport Beach , Send Responses,to: Gregg B. Ramirez; Senior Planner Planning Department, Community and Economic Development City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Boa 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Telephone: 949.644.3219 Facsimile: 949.644.3229 The City Newport Beach I I CONTENTS ProjectDescription...........................................................................................................................1 Environmental Setting and Location.................................................................................................................1 Statementof Objectives......................................................................................................................................2 ProjectCharacteristics......................................................................................................................................... 9 1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .............. L II I I J 11 I 11 ............................................ 21 Determination (to be completed by the Lead Agency)..................................................................21 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts...........................................................................................22 I. Aesthetics...............................................................................................................................................22 II. Agriculture Resources..........................................................................................................................23 24 III. Air Quality............................................................................................................................................. IV. Biological Resources.............................................................................................................................25 V. Cultural Resources................................................................................................................................27 VI. Geology and Soils.................................................................................................................................28 Materials VII. Hazards and Hazardous ......................................................................................................30 Vill. Hydrology and Water Quality.............................................................................................................33 IX. Land Use and Planning........................................................................................................................36 X. Mineral Resources.................................................................................................................................37 XI. Noise.......................................................................................................................................................37 XII. Population and Housing......................................................................................................................39 XIII. Public Services.......................................................................................................................................39 XIV. Recreation..............................................................................................................................................41 XV. Transportation/Traffic........................................................................................................................41 XVI. Utilities and Service Systems...............................................................................................................43 XVII. Mandatory Findings of Significance...................................................................................................45 Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 RegionalLocation...........................................................................................................................3 PlanningArea.................................................................................................................................. 5 Subareas 7 Tables Table 1 Current Elements of the General Plan........................................................................................2 Table2 Existing Land Use........................................................................................................................I I Table 3 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Existing and Proposed Land Use...............12 Table 4 Transportation Improvements under Proposed General Plan Update................................17 Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Initial Study The City Newport Beach I PROJECT DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND LOCATION Located in the Southern California region, Newport Beach is at the western edge of Orange County, adjacent to the Pacific Ocean, as shown in Figure 1. Generally, Newport Beach is bordered by Costa Mesa to the northwest, Huntington Beach to the west, Irvine to the northeast, and unincorporated pardons of Orange County to the southeast. ' Regional access to the City is provided by several freeways. The 405 Freeway runs north to south within Southern California, and intersects both State Routes 73 and 55. State Route 55 extends south from State Route 91 and terminates in the City of Newport Beach. State Route 73 extends along the northern boundary of the City, connecting the 55 and 405 Freeways with Interstate 5. Highway 1 (Coast Highway) runs along the California coast and all the way through Newport Beach. I J I L. J I J II The entire Planning Area includes the existing City boundaries and its sphere of influence (SOI). The current City boundaries total 13,062 acres, excluding waterways. Approximately 53 acres of the area known as Banning Ranch is within the City boundaries, with another 361 acres of this property in the City's SOI, subject to Orange County jurisdiction. The entire property is surrounded by a one -foot strip within the City's jurisdiction. The Planning Area is illustrated in Figure 2. The City of Newport Beach General Plan Technical Background Report (I'BR) provides existing data for the entire Planning Area. The TBR was published June 2004 and is available for review at the Planning Department and Central Library. The General Plan Update provides comprehensive land use, housing, circulation and infrastructure, public service, resource conservation, and public safety policies for the entire city. While policies regarding future land use and development are addressed from a citywide perspective, the majority of land use changes are limited to nine primary study areas, which include about 10.5 percent of the City's land area. Accordingly, the EIR will comprehensively address the impacts of all policies throughout the City and, additionally, focus on those areas in which the most significant land use changes could occur. These areas are illustrated in Figure 3. Background General Plan The General Plan is a state -required legal document (Government Code Section 65300) that provides guidance to decision makers regarding the conservation of resources and the future physical form and character of development for the city. It is the official statement of the jurisdiction regarding the extent and types of development of land and infrastructure that will achieve the community's physical, economic, social, and environmental goals. The General Plan expresses the City's goals and articulates the City's intentions with respect to the rights and expectations of the general public, property owners, community interest groups, prospective investors, and business interests. Although the General Plan consists of individual sections, or "elements," that address a specific area of concern, it also embodies a comprehensive and integrated planning approach for the jurisdiction. Under state law, each General Plan must contain seven elements: ■ Land Use ■ Circulation ■ Housing Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Initial Study The City of Newport Beach ■ Conservation ■ Open Space ■ Noise • Safety Provisions of Orange County's Measure M require jurisdictions to adopt a Growth; Management Element describing how public services and facilities will be provided to residents and businesses within each community. The City's has incorporated Growth Management policies into the Circulation Element to meet Measure M requirements. Table 1 includes a list of current elements of the General Plan and when they were last revised. It is important to note that all land use regulations, capital improvements, and other City actions pertaining to the physical development of the City must be consistent with the adopted General Plan. The General Plan policies for the SOI, however, are only advisory to Orange County as to the City's intentions for development; the County still maintains jurisdictional authority over the SOI areas unless they are annexed to the City. Table 1 Current Elements of the General Plan CwWOemetds Date dad u Land Use 1988 with several amendments since Housing 2003 with amendments and re•certificafion in 2005 Recreation and Open Space 1998 Conservation of Natural Resources 1974 Circulation 1998 Public Safety 1975 Noise 1994 Growlh Management 1992 Harbor and Bay 2001 STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES The project seeks to achieve the objectives identified by the community during the extensive public outreach and participation process, as expressed in the Visioning Statement developed by the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) and approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council. ■ Preserve and enhance Newport Beach's character as a beautiful, unique residential community. ■ Reflect a conservative growth strategy that Balances needs for housing, jobs and services Limits land use changes to a very small amount of the City s land area Directs land use changes to areas where residents have expressed a willingness to consider change and where sustainable development can occur Protects natural resources, open space, and recreational opportunities ■ Protect and enhance water quality. ■ Protect and enhance recreational opportunities and public access to open space and natural resources. • Modify land uses, densities, and intensities so that traffic generation is controlled. I I I I I I I F1 I 1 I 1 Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Initial Study IMI am IMI M IMI M am m m m m� m r m imm i 1 .t _S1TOF I � GYCF f J SUCH ) nP 66'GF CH • , OF Y ^n Cd FY OF r iii Invlvz i I �1 urYca `! ,s rvEwnaxT _ �C, $ ei+cii 9,Y \ F� # •4ViPj1[E " MW PS'b C JN! rY :AK 'J.(G'J CBY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN EIR Figure 7 REGIONAL LOCATION W cftyo Nome Beoah y (''�'''( t_i act w.I� C--ODfty R5Tia91o"wclw gayy W RaOCt SVO WW FEOOfO K tffA --__ Portray ROotl __ram o e m secs Grdrtw�teematarv+nvl.FWalarw�•a taimm lefnmvBNvm400nGy8T/Yl�ht'YRFYd arm�ra�a.l�i .xm Ssvroe PROJEafM3M 1057941 Retryest0ty OP F]mfedby;W DG19. 1111)06 -_--E-I-T': m m m m� i m! m m m m i m M M m m COSTA HESA % 7et IRVINE a Via` � - �T••,' � e abibY .may , ` ` Y?' • •a`. � _ "'ta �OP wtgt _ F sbYr bsq� ` ' W.exlttlNO r 9 ,.4 nm.m ClfYof NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN EIR Figure 3-2 PLANNING AREA ..... PbnNng Argo EaaadmV C�. ea<.,c+gtzaltcnsa HydXVaMW Rd�ek4'Rvls.and Suarno ged lands ,, "M,emw Roods Stato ord Federal Hvmc y Sheets •Nol6. t. haLm cl Ear891kachMEln O.1'hMt laN<6aam) '1. 1 �p� tt0]tNh O o swo .am rcee 1� spca araPcwpsmanwaaAnxwwsb+arv, IMAY C. dvi Sb/a).U,WCbmLmi O]v ®Apf#G6Py I.EMv/.2}Jl PRQIECr IRUB R: 10579-01 Requestedb{ CP Cleoletlby: RR/ Nte: 01/1406 ... " m � m m m r m � Airport COSTA MESA +/ - IRVINE Banning`` __ __--_I _._.r L/yh ,, `` ,, •\ •,. ; _ ., _ , , Ranch . _ __ _ �, y'� '�' . v' s ` �'•'�. '� ' Is '_, r I to i; r. ;` ; r`; itr _ °'.,,� 1--, 0(do,t" ..� n�1 I"'Nc �SFi- `si .•'ram>y. i; i•;[ rrtv+ ;- .. s.��v'I't West •q :i�'_ �Gu_LeY5A1„ ,:, •\ ..a 3f,3 ♦ -:'+ ma's Newport ,r.: ``•%'::;s .Z`- '4, ,''".•�' _ - tl', Highway '`;.v',,�J` ,y, _ �YFC;^: : �4: ;tf '.Lido Cannery,; NewportCeneerl ✓;i.f Village Fashiwa Island !�-", - McFaddew. :'- - '. -. -- - Square R` 1,--d .^..• ,"t,, '$`s%.,is a:,. .¢. •"Coroi a-• Village CRYSTAL COVE STATE PARK CllYof NEWPORTBEACH GENERAL PLAN EIR FIGURE 3 PLANNING SUB -AREAS Planning Sub -Area 9 as — I Fine, Jt 10.579411 EE C1ec!RdW. W The City Newport Beach ■ Improve traffic flow without changing the character of the City. ■ Preserve and enhance parks, art, cultural and education facilities and programs that contribute to residents' quality of life. ■ Ensure the City has adequate municipal revenue to provide first rate municipal services, such as police, fire, lifeguard, library, recreation, refuse collection and recycling, and infrastructure maintenance. ■ Attract visitors to Newport Beach's harbor, beaches, hotels, restaurants, and shops with as little impact as possible on residents and natural resources. ■ Encourage revitalization of older and economically challenged commercial areas so that the areas ' continue to be community resources and have a positive impact on the value of nearby, property and the local economy. ■ Maintain Newport Harbor as one of the premier small boat recreational boating harbors in the ' world, while causing little or no impact on the environment. ■ Control and contain noise and traffic impacts from operations at John Wayne Airport to protect the residents' quality of life and property values. ' ■ Modify the Land Use Element and other elements to reflect changes in the law and planning practices that have occurred in the 17 years since the last comprehensive amendments were approved. ' ■ Provide effective means to ensure compliance with Section 423 of the Charter. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS Elements and Components of the Proposed General Plan The proposed General Plan is a comprehensive update of the current General Plan. Elements of the existing General Plan have been re -organized by thematic topic for clarity and to avoid redundancy, as encouraged by the State's General Plan Guidelines. The updated City of Newport Beach General Plan is organized into the following elements: ■ Land Use ■ Housing ■ Circulation ■ Recreation ■ Natural Resources ■ Safety ■ Noise ■ Historic Resources ■ Arts and Cultural Resources Goals and policies in the existing Harbor and Bay Element will be retained in a separate element or incorporated in the Land Use, Circulation, Recreation, Safety, and Natural Resources Elements. Growth ' Management Element goals and policies are incorporated into the Circulation/Mobility Element. Goals and polices for the protection of the City's open spaces, currently found in the Recreation and Open Space Element, are incorporated into the Natural Resources Element. Updated General Plan Potential Land Use Changes Existing land uses by major category and potential land use changes resulting from the update of the ' General Plan are described below. I ' Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Initial Study The City of Newport Beach Existing Land Uses Information regarding existing land uses and potential development within Newport Beach is presented below. More detail regarding the existing uses is presented in the General Plan TBR. The City of Newport Beach Planning Area contains 26,676 acres or 41.7 square miles. These are net acres and do not include streets and roadways, which account for approximately 20 percent of the total gross land acreage. Approximately 42 percent (11,119 acres) of the Planning Area is water, which includes the Upper and Lower Newport Bay and its channels, and the Pacific Ocean. The following discussion pertains to the 13,062 acres of developed and undeveloped land in the Planning Area. Existing land uses in the Planning Area have been classified into seven primary categories: ■ Residewia�—Residential uses include a mix of housing developed at varying densities and types. Residential uses in the Planning Area include single-family, multiple -family, condominium, mobile, and senior housing. ■ Commetdal/Office—This category includes commercial uses that offer goods for sale to the public (retail) and service and professional businesses housed in offices (accountants, architects, etc). Retail and commercial businesses include those that serve local needs, such as restaurants, neighborhood markets and dry cleaners, and those that serve community or regional needs, such as auto dealers and furniture stores. Visitor -serving retail uses such as regional shopping centers and hotels are also included in this category. ■ Industrial —The industrial category includes a mix of manufacturing and light industrial uses, some of which are found in business, research, and development parks. Light industrial activities include warehousing and some types of assembly work. This category also includes wholesaling and warehousing. ■ Gouenmrental, Educational, and IurktrrtioualFacilides (GE1FrGovernment buildings, libraries, schools and other public institutions are found in this category. Uses in this category support civic, cultural, and educational needs of residents. ■ Open Space —This category encompasses public and private recreational spaces, local and regional parks, and beaches. Recreational areas, such as golf courses, also contribute to open space uses in the Planning Area. ■ T/acant--Vacant lands are undeveloped lands (as of June 2003) that are not preserved in perpetuity as open space or for other public purposes. ■ Ir/ater--The bay, harbor, channels and reservoirs ate included in this category. Existing land uses are listed below in Table 2. Proposed Land Use Changes Table 3 presents the proposed land uses for Newport Beach. As shown, City-wide changes would occur in the following land use categories: Residential (single- and multi -family), Commercial, Office, Industrial, Visitor Serving, Institutional, and Parks/Open Space. Newport Beach is almost fully developed. Therefore, the General Plan focuses on how limited population and employment growth can be strategically accommodated to preserve the distinguishing and valued qualities of the community. For most of the City, the updated General Plan conserves the existing pattern of uses and intensity of development, and establishes policies for protection and long- term maintenance of established neighborhoods. 10 Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Initial Study The City Newport Beach I 1.1 1 I 0 Table 2 Existing Land Use Land Use Acres Percentof CJVsTotal Residential 5,436.0 41.6% Single -Family Detached 3,932.8 Single -Family Attached 625.3 Two -Family Residential 360.9 Multi -Family Residential 480.0 Mixed Residential 37.0 Commercial 1,154.6 8.8% Retail 382.0 Administrative, Professional, and Financial 473.0 Marine and Auto Related 73.7 Visitor -serving 225.9 Industrial 114.4 0.9% Industrial 68.9 Multi -Tenant Industrial 20.5 Industrial Business Park 25.0 Other 6,356.7 — Govemment, Educational, Institutional Facilities 446.6 3.4% • Quasi -Public 53.5 0.4% • Right of Way/Undesignated 4.8 <1% Recreation & Environmental Open Space 4,516.4 34.6% Vacant Land 1,260.2 1 9.6% Water 75.2 0.6% Total 13,061.7 100% SOURCE: EIP Associates GIS, 2003 Generally, new development in accordance with the updated General Plan would result as re -use of economically underperforming properties and obsolete development, conversion of uses in response to market demand (e.g., office and industrial to residential) and more intense use of land in limited, defined areas. Several subareas within Newport Beach determined to have special planning considerations were the subjects of special study during the update process. These areas are described below. Largely, the existing General Plan provides adequate guidance for development outside of these subareas within the City and changes have been made only to select locations where circumstances warrant. The land use changes in each of the special study subareas, and citywide totals are presented in Table 3. It should be noted that the amount of development that could occur within the subareas does not add up to the citywide total because the subareas represent only 10.5% of the total land area of the City. Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Initial Study 71 The City of Newport Beach Table 3 Office (sf) city MabM, Beach General Plan and Proposed Land Use 6eboo I 9aima I wedMeWpcd I OldNewpat Existing 12,M,827 453,530 266,270 3,592,080 5,427,333 0 22,920 305,540 97,740 Current GP 14,576,930 784,280 466,190 3,635,670 6,786,916 235,600 89,260 375,390 147,020 Proposed 12,687,500 1,025,865 294,725 3,675,670 4,825,101 0 12,000 80,656 185,696 Residential (dul MFR 20,667 2,472 188 245 0 0 178 8 292 8 E)dsting SFR(A) 18,702 108 820 0 1,191 257 384 _ Current MFR 29,504 2,649 188 245 0 2,510 242 8 293 8 GP SFR(A) 19,570 98 837 225 1,190 352 584 MFR 34,303 3,492 625 845 4,300 687 512 823 361 244 Proposed SFR(A) 20,402 98 837 688 1,196 291 579 Commercial (sf) Existing 5,154,398 72,170 633,950 1,556,320 665,019 0 203,360 643,020 35,350 48,700 Current GP 6,679,942 72,170 776,800 1,861,980 871,500 50,000 217,340 669,110 50,030 66,380 Proposed 7,005,520 50,910 853,208 1.986,980 880,620 15,000 192,503 745,320 57,935 92,848 Visitor Servina-(hotel•motel rooms) Existing 3,365 177 925 974 0 34 41 23 Current GP 5,676 204 M10 984 0 34 41 63 Proposed 6,549 204 1,175 1,213 75 265 240 53 Industrial (sf) Existing 1,291,079 678,530 508,759 0 58,950 300 Current GP 1,956,092 1,191,722 551,930 164,400 0 0 Proposed 885,310 837,270 0 0 0 0 Institutional (sf. beds. students) Existing 575,370 sf 351 beds 99,410 sf 100,000 sf 86,096 sf 0 - 21.710 Current GP 743,913 sf 1,265 beds 105,260 sf 105,000 sf 97,000 sf 0 32,010 Proposed 695,713 sf 1,265 beds 105,260 sf 105,000 sf 96,996 sf 500 students 96,710 12 Newport Beach -General Plan Update EIR Initial Study i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i 1♦ i i i The City Newport Beach Table 3 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Existing and Proposed Land Use Sabaeas WestNewpat I Maned I Newpatcerder/ I John WaymArpat I Sommg Baboa Baboa I WedNewport I OW Newpal ParkslOnen Snace (acresl Existing 128A 0.2 0 Current GP 127.8 0.2 0 Proposed 183.8 1 60 Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Initial Study 13 The City of Newport Beach ' Subareas ' The proposed Land Use Element identifies the special study subareas as districts or corridors, depending on,their physical form, functional role, and how they relate to the land or water adjoining them. Districts Districts are uniquely ,identifiable by their common functional role, mix of uses, density/intensity, ' physical form and character, and/or environmental setting. Generally, they encompass areas that extend equally in length and breadth. While Newport Beach contains many subareas, the General Plan policies in the following areas focus on those that are likely to change over the next 20 years as existing viable , land uses are enhanced, underperforming properties are revitalized, and opportunities are provided to accommodate the City's fair share of regional housing needs. Policies are directed to the management of these changes to assure that they complement the characteristics that are valued by Newport Beach's , residents. WEST NEWPORT MESA , The Plan allows for the establishment of a number of distinct and cohesive districts. Adjoining Hoag Hospital and on the Newport Technology Center site, properties would be designated for medical -related uses including offices, labs, convalescent and long-term care facilities, and limited retail sales. At its ' northern edge abutting the City of Costa Mesa, properties would be encouraged to retain light manufacturing and research and development uses. Muld-family housing would be maintained and newly developed on underutilized residential, commercial, and industrial properties between these nodes. , NEWPORT CENTER/FASHION ISLAND The Plan allows for expanded retail opportunities at Fashion Island, including an additional anchor ' department store and ancillary shops, another hotel or additions to existing hotels, and 600 additional housing units. Limited new capacity for office development (40,000 square feet) would be limited to minor expansion of existing buildings and could not be converted to retail use. Plan policies encourage improved pedestrian connections and streetscape amenities connecting the area's diverse districts JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT AREA , The Plan allows for the maintenance and/or limited expansion of the currently developed mix of uses, including office, airport -supporting commercial, hotel, and public uses. Additionally, it allows the opportunity for the development of new residential neighborhoods as replacement of existing and , allowed future uses and, in some cases, on underutilized surface parking lots. Policies establish criteria for the development of cohesive residential neighborhoods oriented around neighborhood parks and local - serving convenience commercial facilities and interconnected by a network of pedestrian -oriented streets. , BANNING RANCH The updated General Plan prioritizes the retention of the Banning Ranch property as open space, consolidating existing oil operations, restoring wedands and habitat, and development of a community park with active playfields to serve adjoining neighborhoods. Should the property not be acquired for open space, the Plan considers the possible development of a mixed -density residential village, with , housing oriented around a neighborhood park, convenience commercial, and small hotel, and preservation of the majority of the site as open space. Policies stipulate that any development would have to be located and designed to protect views, the bluffs, natural drainage, and important habitat. ' 14 Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Initial Study ' ' The City Newport Beach BALBOA PENINSULA The Plan differentiates Balboa Peninsula into a series of commercial, residential, mixed -use, and water - oriented districts. The Plan encourages enhancement of Lido Village as a pedestrian -oriented district of small retail shops, bay supporting uses, small lodging facilities (bed -and -breakfast and inns), and mixed - use buildings that integrate housing with retail uses. Properties inland of the bay front in Cannery Village containing a fragmented mix of housing, commercial, and industrial uses could be re -used as a primarily residential village of two family and townhome residential, with mixed -use and live/work structures at intersections. Bay fronting properties east of Lafayette Avenue would continue to support water - dependent and marine -related uses. The Plan supports the retention of McFadden Square as an ocean ' and pier -oriented village containing visitor -serving retail, small overnight lodging facilities, and mixed -use buildings. The Newport Boulevard Corridor would contain retail commercial and mixed -use buildings. Policies provide for the development of improved streetscapes and a waterfront promenade to link the districts. Cumulatively, the updated General Plan would allow for reductions in the area's commercial and industrial capacity, which would be replaced by opportunities for new housing. For Balboa Village, the General Plan would allow for the consolidation of commercial uses to enhance the area's economic ' vitality, which would be replaced by medium density housing (including townhomes and small -lot, attached single family) and mixed -use structures that would integrate housing with ground -level retail uses. Bay -fronting properties would be prioritized for marine -related and water -dependent uses. Programs for streetscape enhancements would be continued. HARBOR AND BAY The goals and policies in the existing Harbor and Bay Element will be retained, either in a separate element or incorporated in the Land Use, Circulation, Recreation, Safety, and Natural Resources Elements of the General Plan Update. The goals and policies pertaining to Harbor and Bay issues are intended to guide the content of regulations related to development of, and the activities conducted on, the water. Additional goals and policies recognize the important component of land use decisions related to waterfront property around Newport Harbor. The aim of Harbor and Bay related goals and policies is to preserve the diversity and charm of existing uses without unduly restricting the rights of the waterfront property owner. Goals and policies related to the Harbor and Bay have been organized to address both water and land related issues. Corridors Corridors share common characteristics of districts by their identifiable functional role, land use mix, density/intensity, physical form and character, and/or environmental setting. They differ in their linear configuration, generally with shallow depth parcels located along arterial streets. They are significantly impacted by traffic, often inhibiting access during peak travel periods. While the City is crossed by a number of commercial corridors, the General Plan's policies focus on those in which change is anticipated to occur during the next 20 years. Additionally, they provide guidance for the maintenance of corridors in which it is the objective to maintain existing types and levels of development. WEST NEWPORT HIGHWAY Visitor- and neighborhood -serving commercial uses would be allowed in the area concentrated on the Pacific Coast Highway, near the Orange and Prospect Avenue intersections, with the intervening highway fronting properties developed for multi -family housing. The Plan encourages properties at the entry to the City to be enhanced as a "gateway" for amenities supporting Orange County River Park and/or new multi -family residential. Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Initial Study 15 The City of Newport Beach , OLD NEWPORT BOULEVARD The Plan allows for a mix of medical office and retail uses supporting Hoag )iospital, convenience retail, and mixed -use buildings that integrate housing with ground level retail or office uses on Old Newport Boulevard. ' MARINERS' MILE The Plan provides for the differentiation of Mariners' Mile into distinct commercial, water -related, and , mixed -use districts. Bayfronting properties would be prioritized for water -dependent and marine -related uses, including restaurants and service uses, with the development of housing on a limited portion of the properties. The Coast Highway frontages of all inland properties would be restricted to community- , serving and marine -related commercial uses. Interior sites, generally between Riverside Avenue and the extension of Irvine Avenue, would be developed for neighborhood -serving commercial uses, mixed -use buildings with housing above retail, and multi -family residential buildings. Streetscape improvements are proposed to enhance the area's pedestrian character, as well as its identity along Coast Highway. Policies also support the relocation of the City's parking lot and the Postal Distribution Center. CORONA DEL MAR ' The Plan encourages development along this corridor to include a pedestrian -oriented "village" serving as the center of community commerce, culture, and social activity and providing identity for Corona del ' Mar. Other Land Use Changes , While land use changes would be accommodated in other areas of the City by the updated Plan, these are generally small and retain the basic land use character as provided by the existing General Plan. For example, the General Plan would allow for land use changes in the Dover Drive area. These changes ' include redesignating the area from Administrative, Professional, and Financial Commercial uses to "mixed use," allowing a mix of office and multi -family residential uses. Transportation Improvements ' Several transportation -related improvements are included in the proposed General Plan. The improvements listed in Table 4 would be implemented under the proposed General Plan to ensure that ' impacts resulting from buildout of the General Plan Update are minimized. Goals and Policy Changes , The General Plan Update includes new policies in the Land Use Element, the Circulation Element, the Safety Element, the Natural Resources Element, and the Recreation Element. The new policies are briefly described below. , Land Use Element The Land Use ,Element contains new General Plan policies related to Community Character. These ' policies encourage maintenance and enhancement of Newport Beach's residential neighborhoods, commercial districts, employment centers, corridors, and open spaces, and help assure that new , development complements and reinforces these characteristics. New policies related to Urban Form are also contained in this Element. These policies establish and reinforce particular area's scale and development pattern. These policies are included in the General Plan , Update to help establish or maintain physical and visual continuity and a sense of complete and identifiable neighborhoods and established strategies for areas of the City that require enhancement and revitalization. 16 Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Initial Study I The City Newport Beach I I F C J L 1 II '1 Table 4 Transportation Improvements under Proposed General Plan Update Intersection Add&W1lnhvsecNon lm m vements wMi 1. Bluff Rd. (NS) at Coast Hw. (EW) Provide two SB left -turn lanes and two SB right -turn lanes (2nd with overlap phase). Provide two EB left -turn lanes. Provide one WB right -turn lane. 2. 15th St. (NS) at Coast Hw. (EW) Provide 2nd SB right turn lane with overlap phase. Provide 2nd EB left turn lane. 3. Newport BI. (NS) at Hospital Rd. (EW) Provide 2nd NB left turn lane. 4. Riverside Av. INS) at Coast Hw. (EW) Provide 3rd EB through lane. 5. MacArthur BI. (NS) at Campus Dr. (EW) Provide 2nd NB left turn lane. Restripe SB to provide 3.5 through lanes and 1.5 right turn lanes. 6. Von Karman Av. (NIS) at Campus Dr. (EW) Provide 2nd EB left turn lane. 7. Jamboree Rd. (NS) at Campus Dr. (EW) Provide NB 1st right turn lane with overlap phase. Provide 4th SB through lane. Provide WB right turn overlap phase for current right turn lane. 8. Campus Dr. (NS) at Bristol St. N (EW) Provide 5th WB through lane. Provide 3rd NS through lane. Provide 3rd SB through lane. Provide 1st EB right turn lane. Provide 2nd WB left turn lane. Construct funded improvements, but EB 9. Irvine Av. INS) at Mesa Dr. (EW)—Funded right turn lane not necessary. Improvements University Dr. (EW) Provide 3rd NB through lane. Provide 3rd SB through lane. Restripe EB to include 1.5 left turn lanes, 1.5 through lanes, and 1 right turn lane. 10. Dover Dr. (NS) at Coast Hw. (EW) Provide 4th WB through lane. 11. MacArthur BI, (NS) at Jamboree Rd. (EW) Provide 4th EB through lane. Provide 3rd WB left turn lane. 12. Jamboree Rd, (NS) at Bristol St. S (EW) Provide 6th NB through lane. Provide 4th SB through lane. MacArthur BI. (NS) at Ford Rd./Bonita Provide 3rd SB left turn lane. 13. Canyon Dr. (EW) and San Joaquin Hills Rd. Provide 3rd SB left turn lane. Provide 3rd EB left turn lane. Provide 4th NB (EW) lthrough lane. Circulation Element The Circulation Element contains new General Plan policies related to water transportation services and waterfront walkways. These policies encourage enhancement and maintenance of public water transportation services and expanded public water transportation uses and land support facilities. Policies related to waterfront walkways include encouraging the development of walkways along the Lido Marina Village boardwalk, along Rhine Channel, between Lido Village and Mariners' Mile, and along the Mariners' Mile waterfront. Recreation Element The Recreation Element contains new General Plan policies related to coastal recreation and support facilities. These policies encourage protection and enhancement of a wide range of recreational opportunities along the coast and beaches as well as the provision of adequate support facilities serving recreational opportunities within the coastal zone. The Recreation Element also contains policies that encourage the provision and maintenance of marine recreation related facilities that enhance the enjoyment of the City's natural resources and the provision and maintenance of public access for recreational purposes to the City's coastal resources. Many of these policies are in the existing Harbor and Bay element. Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Initial Study 17 The City of Newport Beach -, Safety Element ' New General Plan policies related to hazardous materials, disaster planning, and coastal hazards are contained in the Safety Element. Policies related to hazardous materials minimize exposure of people and , the environment to hazardous materials associated with methane gas extraction, oil operations, leaking underground storage tanks, and hazardous waste generators. Policies related to disaster planning include measures for effective emergency response to natural or human -induced disasters that minimizes the loss ' of life and damage to property, while also reducing disruptions in the delivery of vital public and private services during and following a disaster. Policies related to coastal hazards are included to ensure that adverse effects of coastal hazards related to tsunamis and rogue waves to people and property are minimized. Natural Resources Element New General Plan policies related to water quality are contained in the Natural Resources Element. These policies establish the goal of enhancing and protecting the water quality of all natural water bodies, including coastal waters, creeks, bays, harbors, and wetlands. Additionally, the General Plan Update , contains new policies related to management of the Upper Newport Bay. These policies help achieve the goal of protection and management of Upper Newport Bay commensurate with the standards applicable to our nation's most valuable natural resources. Many of these policies are in the existing Harbor and Bay , Element. Other new policies in this element include measures related to air quality, archaeology and paleontology, and energy conservation. Air Quality policies serve to reduce mobile source emissions, reduce air pollution emissions from stationary sources, and reduce air pollution emissions from aircraft. , Historical Resources Element This new Element addresses the protection and Bust inability of Newport Beach's historic and , paleontological resources. Goals and policies presented within this Element are intended to recognize, maintain, and protect the community's unique historical, cultural, and archaeological sites and structures. Arts and Cultural Resources Element , The goals and policies of the Arts and Culture Element are intended to be a guide for meeting the future cultural needs of the community. This Element is intended to serve as a mechanism for integrating these resources in order to provide improved and expanded arts and cultural facilities and programs to the community. I Alternatives In accordance with Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines, alternatives to the proposed General Plan , are analyzed. Four alternatives that would feasibly attain the most basic project objectives while avoiding or substantially lessening some of the significant effects of the project were analyzed. An environmentally superior alternative is also identified. These alternatives include the following: ' ■ No Project/No Development —With this alternative, development under the proposed General Plan would not occur. The Planning Area would remain developed with existing landuses. ■ No Project/No Action Alternative —With this alternative, development under the proposed , General Plan would not occur. Development would be guided by continued implementation of the existing General Plan. ■ Alternative A: GPAC Recommendations —With this alternative, development under the , General Plan would consist of the land use recommendations formulated by GPAC. The ■ 18 Newport Beach'Generol Plan Update EIR Initial Study , The CityNewport Beach ' Alternatives Chapter of the EIR will provide a detailed breakdown of the proposed land uses under this Alternative. ■ Alternative B: Subarea Only Minimum With this alternative, development under the General ' Plan would consist of a mixture of land -use intensities for the various subareas. The Alternatives Chapter of the EIR will provide a detailed breakdown of the proposed land uses under this Alternative. I L7 I II I 1 1 1 1 ' Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Initial Study 19 IThe City Newport Beach I ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED II The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ® Aesthetics ® Biological Resources ® Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Public Services ® Utilities / Service Systems ❑ Agriculture Resources ® Air Quality ® Cultural Resources ❑ Geology/Soils ® Hydrology / Water Quality ® Land Use / Planning ® Noise ❑ Population / Housing ® Recreation ® Transportation/Traffic ® Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE LEAD AGENCY) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a ❑ NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, ❑ there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ❑ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, ❑ because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are Imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Dale Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Initial Study The City of Newport Beach L Less Than Slgr0cont PoteMally With Less Than Significant Mtigotlon Slgmlicont No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Would the project: (a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ® ❑ ❑ [] Discussion Although there are no officially designated scenic vistas in the City, many natural features such as the ocean and bay provide open coastal views. The City has identified particular roadway segments that provide coastal views as significant vistas. In addition, parks and viewing areas throughout the City also provide significant views. While future development within the City would generally consist of infill and intensification of uses within a primarily built -out area, development associated with the General Plan could affect views to the identified vistas. Specifically, if new developments blocked- or obscured views from any of the significant public viewpoints, then impacts would be potentially significant. This issue is potentially significant and w% be further analyzed in the EIR. (b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not ❑ ❑ ® D limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Discussion There are currently no officially designated scenic highways within the City of Newport Beach. However, SR-1 is identified by the City as eligible for State Scenic Highway designation. Although it is anticipated that this impactwould be less than significant, this issue will be further analyzed in the EIR. (c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Discussion ® ❑ ❑ ❑ The proposed General Plan Update would concentrate infill development and redevelopment in several specified subareas: Newport Center/Fashion Island, Balboa Village, Balboa Peninsula, West Newport Mesa, West Newport Highway, Mariner's Mile, and the John Wayne Airport Area. In addition, while the General Plan Update prioritizes the retention of the Banning Ranch property as open space, the Plan also considers the possible development of a mixed- density residential village with a small component of resident- and visitor -serving commercial should the property not be acquired for open space. It is generally anticipated that development under the General Plan Update would compliment the areas surrounding new development, ultimately providing a more cohesive development pattern throughout the City. In addition, the General Plan Update would include policies to protect the character of the City's communities. However, because some areas of the City, including Banning Ranch, could experience a significant change in the overall visual character, this impact is considered potentially significant. The EIR will evaluate the development scenarios under the General Plan Update to determine impacts to the existing visual character of the City. I „I I I I J I I I I D I I� I 22 Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Initial Study The City of Newport Beach Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than ' Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (d) Create anew source of substantial light or glare which ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ' would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? ' Discussion The City of Newport Beach is primarily built -out, and a significant amount of ambient light from urban uses already exists. However, new development permitted under the proposed General Plan Update could create new sources of light and glare from any of the following: exterior building lighting, lighted recreation facilities (such as outdoor ball fields), parking lots/structures, glare from reflective building ' surfaces, or the headlights of vehicular traffic. As a result, these new sources of light or glare could affect the day or nighttime views of adjacent sensitive land uses. This impact is considered potentially significant. With the incorporation of appropriate mitigation measures, this impact could be reduced to a ' less -than -significant level. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) ' prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: (a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of ❑ ❑ ❑ ' Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and ' Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? (b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a ❑ ❑ ❑ ' Williamson Act contract? ❑ ❑ ❑ (c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion ' of Farmland, to nonagricultural use? Discussion a—c: The City of Newport Beach does not contain any significant agricultural resources as the City is ' almost entirely built out. No impact would occur on agricultural resources and this issue area will not be analyzed in the EIR. 1 t ' Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Initial Study 23 The City Newport ' of Beach Lea Than Slgnillcanl Potanttaly wdh Lew Than Significant MIIlgalion Significant No ' Impact Incorporated Impact Impact AIR Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: , (a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable ® ❑ ❑ ❑ air quality plan? ' Discussion The Planning Area is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which is identified as a non- attainment area for various criteria pollutants. As a result, any new emissions into the SCAB are ' considered significant and adverse impacts. The Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for SCAB was prepared to accommodate growth, to reduce the high levels of pollutants within the areas of the South Coast Alt Quality Management District's (SCAQMD), and to return clean air to the region. ' Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would result in increased population, development, and vehicular traffic in the Planning Area. These increases could lead to increases in construction and operation activities which could ultimately conflict with or obstruct implementation of ' the AQMP. Projects that are considered inconsistent with the AQMP would interfere with attainment because the growth induced by such projects is not included in the projections used to formulate the AQMP. Therefore, the EIR will evaluate whether the proposed General Plan Update is consistent with , the AQMP. This issue is potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR. (b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially ® ❑ ❑ ❑ , to an existing or projected air quality violation? Discussion ' Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would result in increased population, development, and vehicular traffic in the Planning Area. These increases could lead to increases in construction and operation activities which could result in exceeding the SCAQMD's thresholds of ' potential significance. Therefore, it is necessary that the EIR evaluate the proposed General Plan Update's potential to violate any air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further , analyzed in the EIR. (c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Discussion ❑ ❑ ❑ Activities associated with implementation of the General Plan Update may result in potentially significant , air quality impacts that are cumulatively considerable. The possible General Plan Update components could result in air quality impacts, as well as contribute to cumulative impacts from the implementation of all possible projects. Additionally, the General Plan update could potentially contribute to air quality ' impacts when combined with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects within the Planning Area. Potentially significant impacts could occur, and therefore, the EIR will analyze and J 24 Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Initial Study ' ' The City of Newport Beach Less Than ' Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ' evaluate air quality impacts related to potential increases of criteria pollutants for which the General Plan Update region is in non -attainment under federal or state ambient air quality standards. ' (d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ® ❑ ❑ ❑ concentrations? Discussion ' Sensitive receptors are populations that are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than are the population at large. The General Plan Update could have potentially significant impacts on sensitive receptors, as identified by the SCAQMD, in the Planning Area including single-family and multi -family ' residences located within the City. Carbon monoxide (CO) "hot spots," or areas of high CO concentration, can occur at traffic congested roadway intersections as a result of accumulating vehicle CO emissions. A significant air quality impact would occur where sensitive receptors are exposed to CO ' levels that exceed state or federal standards. Potentially significant impacts could occur, and therefore, the EIR will farther analyze and evaluate air quality impacts, including potentially significant impacts to 1 sensitive receptors adjacent to, and in the immediate vicinity of, the City. (e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial ® ❑ ❑ ❑ number of people? ' Discussion Implementation of the General Plan Update could create objectionable odors caused by construction ' and/or operational sources. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR. ' Would the project: (a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ' through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife ' Service? Discussion ' Eleven special -status wildlife species occur or have the potential to occur within the City of Newport Beach: San Diego fairy shrimp, Tidewater goby, California black rail, light-footed clapper rail, western snowy plover, California least tern, southwestern willow flycatcher, coastal California gnatcatcher, least ' BeTs vireo, Belding's savannah sparrow, and pacific pocket mouse. In addition, other sensitive species include 27 sensitive wildlife species and 24 sensitive plant species that occur or potentially occur within the Newport Beach area. Implementation of the General Plan Update could potentially have a substantial adverse effect on special -status species within the Planning Area. This impact is considered potentially significant. The EIR will include an analysis of potential impacts to special -status species. Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Initial Study 25 The City of Newport Beach Less Than SigNlicont Potenilally Wilh Less Than ' Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat El, or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? ' Discussion Many plant habitats can be found in Newport Beach that includes scrub, chaparral, grassland, and riparian habitats. Implementation of the General Plan Update could affect riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This impact is considered ' potentially significant. The EIR will address the potential effects to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities as a result of build -out under the General Plan Update. (c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected FA El wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Discussion ' The marine resources of the City and surrounding ocean waters are very diverse. They include plants and animals of marshes and wetlands living in Upper Newport Bay, the developed channels, beaches, and areas of Lower Newport Bay (Newport Harbor), and the intertidal and subtidal landforms (sandy ' beaches, rocky intertidal, sandy subtidal, and subtidal reefs) along the coast of Newport Beach between the Santa Ana River and the boundary between the City and unincorporated Orange County. Many of these areas are considered wetland habitat by the State of California and federal wetland definitions are ' protected by a no -net loss wetlands policy. Implementation of the General Plan Update could have a significant impact on these resources. This impact will be further analyzed in the EIR. (d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native Z El El resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, ' or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Discussion Undeveloped areas supporting natural habitats that may be capable of supporting sensitive biological , resources within the City ate referred to as Environmental Study Areas (ESAs) by the Local Coastal Plan. An ESA may support species and habitats that are sensitive and rare within the region or may function as a migration corridor for wildlife. There are 28 identified ESAs within the City of Newport Beach. ' Implementadon of the General Plan Update could potentially interfere with the movement of native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species within these corridors. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR 26 Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Initial Study I The City of Newport Beach Less Than Signilficant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ' (e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting ❑ ❑ ® ❑ biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 1 Discussion The EIR will identify any local policies and ordinances that relate to the protection of biological resources and evaluate the applicability and any impact to these policies or ordinances. It is not anticipated that the General Plan Update would conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Impacts are considered less than significant. ' (f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Discussion 1 The Orange County Central -Coastal NCCP Subregional Plan is the applicable habitat conservation plan for the Planning Area. In July of 1996, the City became a signatory agency in this plan. As a signatory agency, the City is responsible for enforcing mitigadon measures and other policies identified in the NCCP/Habitat Conservation Plan Implementation Agreement for properties located within the City Limit that are part of the NCCP Subregional Plan. Impacts resulting from implementation of the General Plan Update would be less than significant. CULTURALV. • ' Would the project: (a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of ® ❑ ❑ ❑ a historical resource as defined in 15064.5? ' Discussion There are a number of federal, state, and locally recognized historical resources in the Planning Area. Redevelopment under the General Plan Update could result in the demolition of historic or potentially historic structures to enable a different or more intensive use of a site. Additionally, infrastructure or other public works improvements could result in damage to or demolition of other historic features. It is ' not anticipated that significant land use changes would occur in areas of the Planning Area that contain historical resources. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR. (b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of ❑ ® ❑ ❑ an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5? Discussion The Planning Area has a long cultural history and is known to have been home to Native American ' groups prior to settlement by Euro-Americans. Archaeological materials associated with occupation of the Planning Area are known to exist and have the potential to provide important scientific information regarding history and prehistory. Ground -disturbing activities associated with the General Plan Update, ' particularly in areas that have not previously been developed with urban uses have the potential to ' Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Initial Study 27 ' The City of Newport Beach LessThan SIgnllieanl Potenlialty Wth Less Than Significant Mitigallon Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact damage or destroy historic or prehistoric archaeological resources that may be present on or below the ' ground surface. This impact is considered potentially significant. The EIR will recommend mitigation measures to reduce this impact to a less -than -significant level. (c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Discussion Paleontological resources may be present in fossil -bearing soils and rock formations below the ground surface. A number of locadons in the City have a variety of known significant paleontological resources, including portions of the Vaqueros formation that underlie the Newport Coast, the Newport Banning Ranch portion of the SOI, the Topanga and Monterey Formations, and Fossil Canyon in the North Bluffs area of the Planning Area. Ground -disturbing activities in these fossil -bearing soils and rock formations have the potential to damage or destroy paleontological resources that may be present below the ground surface. This impact is considered potentially significant. The EIR willrecommend mitigation measures to reduce this impact to a less -than -significant level. (d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Discussion Archeological materials, including human burials, have been found in the City. Human burials outside of formal cemeteries often occur in prehistoric archaeological contexts. Particularly in the areas of the City that are still mostly undeveloped for urban uses, such as the Banning Ranch area, the potential still exists for these resources to be present. Development under the General Plan Update could potentially affect these resources. This impact is considered potentially significant. The EIR will recommend mitigation measures to reduce this impact to a less -than -significant level. Would the project: (a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving; (I) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Paolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. (11) Strong seismic ground shaking? Discussion (i—ii) The City of Newport Beach is located in the northern part of the Peninsular Ranges Province, an area that is exposed to risk from multiple earthquake fault zones. The highest risks originate from the Newport -Inglewood fault zone, the Whittier fault zone, the San Joaquin Hills fault zone, and the Elysian I I I I 1 I I I 28 Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Initial Study The City of Newport Beach Less Than ' Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Park fault zone, each with the potential to cause moderate to large earthquakes that would cause ground shaking in Newport Beach and nearby communities. The area faults could significantly impact the City but these impacts generally can be addressed through adherence to applicable regulations (i.e., Uniform Building Code) and design, grading, and structural recommendations. The EIR will include an analysis of impacts associated with seismic hazards associated with implementation of the General Plan Update and will recommend mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate these impacts. 1 (III) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction6 ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Discussion Areas of Newport susceptible to liquefaction and related ground failure (i.e., seismically induced settlement) include areas along the coastline that includes Balboa Peninsula, in and around the Newport Bay and Upper Newport Bay, in the lower reaches of major streams in Newport Beach, and in the floodplain of the Santa Ana River. It is likely that residential or commercial development will never occur in many of the other liquefiable areas, such as Upper Newport Bay, the Newport Coast beaches, and the ' bottoms of stream channels. However, implementation of the General Plan Update could affect other areas susceptible to liquefaction. This impact is considered potentially significant. The EIR will recommend mitigation measures to reduce this impact to a less -than -significant level. ' (iv) Landslides? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Discussion ' Much of the area in eastern Newport Beach has been identified as vulnerable to seismically induced slope failure. Approximately 90 percent of the land from Los Trancos Canyon to the Crystal Cove State Park boundary is mapped as susceptible to landsliding by the California Geologic Survey. Additionally, the ' sedimentary bedrock that crops out in the San Joaquin Hills is locally highly weathered. In steep areas, strong ground shaking can cause slides or rockfalls in this material. Rupture along the Newport - Inglewood Fault Zone and other faults in Southern California could reactivate existing landslides and 1 cause new slope failures throughout the San Joaquin Hills. Slope failures can also be expected to occur along stream banks and coastal bluffs, such as Big Canyon, around San Joaquin Reservoir, Newport and Upper Newport Bays, and Corona del Mar. Thus, impacts resulting from development under the General ' Plan Update are considered potentially significant. The EIR will recommend mitigation measures to reduce this impact to a less -than -significant level. ' (b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Discussion ' Erosion is a significant concern in Newport Beach, especially along the shoreline, where beach sediments and coastal bluffs are highly susceptible to erosion by wave action. Other parts of the City, including bluffs along Upper Newport Bay, canyon walls along tributary streams leading to the Bay, and slopes ' (both natural and man-made) within the San Joaquin Hills are also susceptible to erosion. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR. I Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Initial Study 29 The City of Newport Beach (c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? Discussion Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Compressible soils underlie a significant part of the City, typically in the lowland areas and in canyon bottoms. These are generally young sediments of low density with variable amounts of organic materials. Under the added weight of fill embankments or buildings, these sediments will settle, causing distress to improvements. Low -density soils, if sandy in composition and saturated with water, will also be susceptible of the effects of liquefaction during a moderate to strong earthquake, This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR. The EIR will recommend mitigation measures to reduce this impact to a less -than -significant level. (d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of ❑ ® ❑ ❑ the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Discussion Some of the geologic units in the Newport Beach areas including both surficial soils and bedrock, have fine-grained components that are moderate to highly expansive. These materials may be present at the surface or exposed by grading activities. Man-made fills can also be expansive, depending on the soils used to construct them. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR. The EIR will also recommend mitigation measures to reduce this impact to a less -than - significant level. (e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of ❑ [l 0 septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Discussion The City of Newport Beach is almost entirely built out with established utility services and new development would not require the use of septic tanks. For this reason, this impact is not further analyzed in the EIR. Would the project: (a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ �] environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Discussion 1 ❑ 1 Implementation of the General Plan Update would concentrate infill development and redevelopment in several specified subareas: Newport Center/Fashion Island, Balboa Village, Balboa Peninsula, West Newport Mesa, West Newport Highway, Mariner's Mile, and the John Wayne Airport area. In addition, 30 Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Initial Study ' The City of Newport Beach Less Than ' Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact while the General Plan Update prioritizes the retention of the Banning Ranch property as open space, the Plan also considers the possible development of a mixed -density residential village with a small component of resident- and visitor -serving commercial should the property not be, acquired for open space. Implementation of these land use changes would not generally involve the transportation, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Further, industrial uses within the City would decrease upon implementation of the General Plan Update and any development that would handle or use hazardous materials would be required to comply with the regulations, standards, guidelines established by the EPA, State of California, Orange County, and the City of Newport Beach. For these reasons, this impact is considered less than significant and will not be further analyzed in the EIR. (b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ® El El ❑ environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Discussion Demolition of existing structures in the City could result in exposure of construction personnel and the public to hazardous substances such as asbestos or lead -based paints. In addition, the disturbance of soils and the demolition of existing structures or the potential relocation of oil wells located on Banning Ranch could result in the exposure of construction workers or employees to health or safety risks if contaminated structures and/or soils are encountered during construction or maintenance activities. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR. (c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely ❑ ® ❑ ❑ hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Discussion Under the General Plan Update, the increase of residential and mixed -use land uses could increase the quantity of sensitive receptors (including schools) in areas adjacent to industrial and commercial land uses, thereby potentially increasing the risk of exposure to hazardous materials. Thus, hazardous materials sites may be located within one -quarter mile from school sites. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR The EIR will recommend mitigation measures that would reduce this impact to a less -than -significant level. ' (d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of ❑ ® ❑ ❑ hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would ' it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Discussion ' The City contains sites that have been identified as being contaminated from the release of hazardous substances in the soil, including oil fields, landfills, sites containing leaking underground storage tanks, and large and small -quantity generators of hazardous waste. Implementation of the proposed General. Plan Update could lead to development of these sites that could create a significant hazard to the public or environment. This impact is considered potentially significant will be further analyzed in the EIR. The EIR will recommend mitigation measures that would reduce this impact to a less -than -significant level. ' Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Initial Study 31 Newport ' The City of Beach Less Than Significant Potbnlialy with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No , Impact Incoporatea Impact Impact (e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Discussion Newport Beach borders the southeastern portion of John Wayne Airport. In addition, the City lies beneath the arrival traffic pattern of Long Beach Airport. Between the two airports, JWA generates nearly all aviation traffic directly above the City of Newport Beach-6'ecause the descent pattern for Long Beach air traffic generally takes place over the ocean rather than over the City. An emergency incident, although rare, could impact the City's response capabilities. Additionally, the potential growth and development that could occur through implementation of the General Plan Update, in particular residential development in the Airport Area, could place people at risk from an aviation hazard. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR. (f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would El El [] ® ' the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Discussion ' There are no existing private airstrips within the City. As a result, no safety hazard associated with location near a private airstrip would occur for the proposed General Plan Update. (g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an ® 0 adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ' Discussion With additional growth in the City's population that could result from implementation of the proposed General Plan Update, traffic conditions could become more congested. In the event of an accident or natural disaster, the increase in traffic in the City may impede the rate of evacuation for the residents. Concurrently, the response times for emergency medical or containment services could also be adversely , affected by the increased traffic conditions in the City. This issue area will be further analyzed in the EM (h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, [1 M® , injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Discussion , The eastern portion of the City and portions of the Newport Beach region and surrounding areas to the north, east, and southeast include grass- and brush -covered hillsides with significant topographic relief ' that facilitate the rapid spread of fire, especially if fanned by coastal breezes or Santa Ana winds. In those areas identified as susceptible to Nvildland Ere, land development is governed by special State codes. In addition, the Fire Department enforces locally developed regulations which reduce the amount and continuity of fuel (vegetation) available, firewood storage, debris clearing, proximity of vegetation to structures and other ineasures aimed at Hazard Reduction. In addition, new development that would occur in areas susceptible to wildland fires as a result of the General Plan Update would be subject to the , 32 Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR initial Study , ' The City of Newport Beach Less Than I Slgnificant Potentially with Less Than Stgniticont Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ' Uniform Building Code, which is designed to increase the fire resistance of a building. This impact is considered less than significant. I Would the project: (a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge ❑ ® ❑ ❑ requirements? Discussion Implementation of the General Plan Update would involve infill development and redevelopment in several areas throughout the City that would potentially result in site characteristics that could cause runoff to adversely affect water quality. For projects that would potentially affect water quality, the City is required to prepare a water quality management plan pursuant to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, which addresses impacts on water quality. The ability of development under the General Plan Update to meet applicable waste discharge and water quality ' requirements will be addressed in the EIR. This impact is considered potentially significant will be further analyzed in the EIR. The EIR will also recommend mitigation measures to reduce this impact to a less -than -significant level. (b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere ® ❑ ❑ ❑ substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level that would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Discussion Construction activities associated with the implementation of the General Plan Update could take place near or in natural groundwater recharge areas and sub -surface aquifers. This is particularly the case in the Banning Ranch subarea. Where construction activities take place on recharge areas, such as vacant fields, natural drainages, and other open spaces covered with permeable surfaces, percolation of water into the ' aquifer may be hindered by the presence of construction -related vehicles, stockpiles, tarps, etc. These activities could constitute a temporary impact on groundwater recharge at construction sites. Operation of development associated with the General Plan Update would not involve direct additions or ' withdrawals of groundwater. It is not anticipated that the City's groundwater supply would be altered due to the implementation of the General Plan Update. Nonetheless, short term impacts are considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR. I 11' Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR initlal Study 33 City Newport Beach ' The of Less Than slgnl0can) Potentially wish Less than Significant M ligalion significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site El El El, or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site? Discussion Development under the proposed General Plan would result in alterations to drainage, such as changes in ground surface permeability via paving, changes in topography via grading and excavation, and changes in the flow of waterways via filling. The potential for these impacts to occur exists primarily in the Banning Ranch subarea. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR. (d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site El (] or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially Increase the rate -or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on or off site? , Discussion Development under the proposed General Plan could result in alterations to natural drainages and could potentially alter storm drain infrastructure. Construction of buildings, roadways, and, parking lots would , increase impervious surfaces, which would subsequently increase stormwater runoff in the City. This increased runoff could exceed the capacity of existing and planned infrastructure and cause downstream flooding impacts. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR. (e) Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the El 0 EJ, capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Discussion Development associated with the General Plan Update could result in alterations to natural drainages and could potentially exceed the capacity of storm drain infrastructure. Operation of the proposed General Plan could degrade runoff water quality by contributing chemicals associated with household, commercial, transportation, and landscape uses. This impact is considered potentially significant and will ' be further analyzed in the EIR. (f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Discussion , In coastal groundwater basins, such as the Orange County Groundwater Basin, groundwater quality can be degraded through the intrusion of seawater primarily by pumping the aquifer for domestic and , irrigation water supply. It is possible that below -grade structures proposed for construction as a result of implementation of the General Plan Update would be comprised of materials capable of leaching out to the groundwater during the lifetime of the development, thereby degrading groundwater quality. Hazardous materials used during construction could contaminate surface water and percolate into the aquifer underlying the project site if the materials are not properly contained. Other common sources of groundwater contamination are leaking underground storage tanks, septic systems, oil fields, landfills, and I 34 Newport Beach General Plan Update,EIR Initial Study ' ' The City of'Newport Beach Less Than ' Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact general industrial land uses. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR. (g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as ® ❑ ❑ ❑ mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Discussion The 100-year flood zone generally lies in and along the edges of Newport Bay and along the coastline of ' the Planning Area. Because development associated with the General Plan Update includes an increase in residential development throughout the City, it is possible residential uses could be sited in the flood zone. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR. (h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that ® ❑ ❑ ❑ would impede or redirect flood flows? Discussion Flood flows primarily travel along Newport Bay and across the coastline. Although structures that ' substantially impede flood flows, such as dams and levees, would not be constructed under the proposed General Plan, overall intensification of development could alter existing passages through which flood waters flow. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR. (1) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, ® ❑ ❑ ❑ injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? ' Discussion Several dams are located within and in the vicinity of the City of Newport Beach. Portions of Newport Beach are threatened by inundation resulting from failure of Prado Dam, Santiago Creek Reservoir, Villa Park Reservoir, San Joaquin Reservoir, Big Canyon Reservoir, and Harbor View Reservoir. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR. (j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Discussion ' Seiching in large, enclosed bodies of water, such as the reservoirs in the City and, to an extent, Newport Harbor and Newport Bay, would inundate immediate areas surrounding the body of water. Prolonged rainfall during certain storm events would saturate and could eventually loosen soil, resulting in the flow ' of mud down steep slopes and slope failure. In addition, the proximity to the ocean leads to natural risk of tsunamis from offshore and distant seismic events. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR. I I Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Initial Study 35 The City of Newport Beach Lou than Significant ' Potentially Wilh Leu Than Significant Mitigation Slgnificanl No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ix. LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the project: (a) Physically divide an established community? ® [l Discussion The implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would not physically divide an established community as it would provide increased development in various separate locations with the intention of increasing the cohesiveness of the city. This impact is considered less than significant but will'be further ' analyzed in the EIR. (b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (Including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an , environmental effect? Discussion ' The General Plan Update contains updated land use polices that govern development in the City and the Planning Area for the next 20 years. It also provides for new land use and development patterns, which are different from the City's existing General. Plan and Zoning Code for some areas, such as the Airport Area and Newport Centet/Fashion Island. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR. (c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or 11 ® , natural community conservation plan? Discussion The Orange County Central -Coastal. NCCP Subregional Plan is the applicable habitat conservation plan for the Planning Area. In July of 1996, the City became a signatory agency in this plan. As a signatory agency, the City is responsible for enforcing mitigation measures and other policies identified in the ' NCCP/Habitat Conservation Plan Implementation Agreement for properties located within the City Limit that are part of the NCCPSubregional Plan. Impacts resulting from implementation of the General Plan Update would be less than significant. , I I I 34 1 Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR initial Study , I The City of Newport Beach F I 1 I I 11 less Than SlgniFlcant Potentially with Significant Mdtgation Impact Incorporated Would the project: (a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource ❑ that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important ❑ mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Discussion C Less Than Significant No Impact Impact ® ❑ ® ❑ (a—b) Two separate production and reserve areas exist within the Planning Area: the Newport oil field and the West Newport oil field. The Newport Oil Field is located in the western portion of the Planning Area, and is estimated to have oil reserves of approximately 35 million barrels (Mbbl) and produces approximately 55 billion cubic feet of gas. The West Newport oil field, located in the Banning Ranch area, produces approximately 20.5 billion cubic feet of gas with a daily production per oil well of approximately 5 bbl. Estimated oil reserves within this field are approximately 728 Mbbl. Thirty-three abandoned oil wells are located in numerous sites throughout the City, concentrated along the northwest boundary. Other than oil and gas resources, there is no active mining within the Newport Beach area. Mineral Resource Zones (MRZ) within the City are either classified as containing no significant mineral deposits (MRZ-1), or the significance of mineral deposits has not been determined (MRZ-3). Section 1401 of the City's Charter does not allow new drilling, or production or refining of oil, gas, or other hydrocarbon substances within the City. However, the Section does not prohibit these activities within any area annexed to the City after the effective date of the Charter if these activities were already in operation. The City's Municipal Code does allow for slant drilling activities for oil, gas, tar, and other hydrocarbon substances within a designated area of Newport Beach. Thus, this impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR. Would the project result in: (a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in ® ❑ ❑ ❑ excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Discussion With implementation of the General Plan Update, it is expected that there would be increases noise levels throughout the City. Noise levels associated with construction activities could temporarily exceed noise level standards established by the City. In addition, the increase population, commercial and retail, and corresponding traffic could cause operational increases in noise levels which could be in excess of established standards. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR. Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Initial Study 37 The City of Newport Beach Less Than Significant Potentially wth Less Than Significant Mitigation significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Discussion Implementation of the General Plan Update would include construction activities associated with development. Construction activities typically create an increase in groundborne vibrations and noise levels. Groundborne vibrations and noise generated by construction activities associated could increase noise levels intermittently at nearby sensitive receptors, which generally include residential and school land uses. Groundborne vibration impacts are considered potentially significant. This issue will be further analyzed in the EIR. (c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels ® ❑ ❑ ❑ in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient ® ❑ ❑ ❑ noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Discussion (c—d) Implementation of the General Plan Update could increase ambient noise in the City above existing levels. This would be due to the increase in population, traffic flow and patterns, increased business, and increased construction throughout the City. Some of these sources would be regulated by existing noise ordinances, but could still exceed existing levels. This impact is considered potentially significant and Nv)ll be further analyzed in the EIR. (e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Discussion ❑ ❑ ❑ The General Plan Update covers an area that has flight paths directly overhead from John Wayne Airport. Although aircraft noise can be heard throughout Newport Beach, the highest noise levels are experienced just south of the ahport, in the Airport Area, Santa Ana Heights Area, Westcliff, Dover Shores, the Bluffs, and Balboa Island, and are generated by aircraft departures. Development in these locations within the Planning Area would expose an increased a greater number of residents and visitors to noise generated by operations at John Wayne Airport. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR. (f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would ❑ ❑ ❑ the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Discussion There are no private airstrips in the vicinity of the City and would have no impact. This impact will not be further discussed in the EIR. I 38 Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Initial Study r The City of Newport Beach L.I 1 I I I it 11 Less Than Significant Potentialty with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: (a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either ❑ ❑ .0 ❑ directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Discussion Development associated with implementation of the General Plan Update would induce substantial population growth in the Planning Area. It is not anticipated that the population growth that would result from the General Plan Update would be greater than regional population projections since many of the land use changes in the General Plan Update would serve to accommodate these already -identified increases in population. The EIR will evaluate the changes in population resulting from proposed changes in land use designations. This impact is considered less than significant but will be further analyzed in the EIR. (b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, ❑ ❑ ® ❑ necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Discussion (b—c) Implementation of the General Plan Update would result in the development of single and multi- family residential uses. The increase in residential land uses in the City would serve to accommodate the increase in population that would occur as a result of State and regional population growth. Implementation of the General Plan would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing and/or people. This impact is considered less than significant. (a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: (I) Fire protection? Discussion The Newport Beach Fire Department, the Orange County Fire Authority, and the Costa Mesa Fire Department provide fire protection services for the City and Planning Area. Development under the proposed General Plan would increase over existing conditions in the Planning Area. Any development Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Initial Study 39 The City of Newport Beach I Less Than Signillcont Potentially wJh Significant Mtligation impact Incorporated Less Than Signiricant No Impact Impact increase that would occur as a result of implementation of the proposed General Plan would have a corresponding increase in traffic volumes and congestion problems on surface streets, which could hinder response times for calls for service (for both fire protection and emergency medical service). Tlils impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR. The EIR will recommend mitigation measures that would reduce this impact to a less -than -significant level. (ii) Police protection? Discussion The Newport Beach Police Department, the Orange County Sheriff Department, and the Costa Mesa Police Department provide police services to the City and the Planning Area. Increases in population resulting from build out of the General Plan Update could affect the ratio of law enforcement officers per 1,000 residents. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR. The EIR will recommend mitigation measures that would reduce this impact to a less -than - significant level. (Ili) Schools? Discussion The Newport -Mesa Unified School District provides educational services to the City of Newport Beach as well as the City of Costa Mesa and other unincorporated areas of Orange County. The Airport Area is served by the Santa Ana Unified School District. Population increases resulting from implementation of the General Plan Update would increase the demand for school services which could ultimately result in an exceedance of capacity at the District's schools. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR. The EIR will recommend mitigation measures that would reduce this impact to a less -than -significant level. (iv) Parks? Discussion The City contains approximately 278 acres of developed parks. Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would increase the population of the Planning Area and could ultimately increase demand on the City's parkland resources. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR. The EIR will recommend mitigation measures that would reduce this impact to a less -than -significant level. (v) Other public facilities? Discussion An increase in population resulting from implementation of the General Plan Update would increase demand on other public facilities including libraries. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR. The EIR will recommend mitigation measures that would reduce this impact to a less -than -significant level. 40 Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Initial Study The City of Newport Beach Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mingatton Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact xiv. RECREATION (a) Would the project increase the use of existing ® ❑ ❑ ❑ neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Discussion The City has approximately 286 acres of developed parks and approximately 90 acres of active beach recreation acreage, for a total of 376.8 acres. Although the City of Newport Beach appears largely built out, there are a number of vacant parcels available for future development. An increase in population resulting from implementation of the proposed General Plan Update may place an even higher demand on these existing facilities such that deterioration of these facilities would be accelerated. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR. (b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require ❑ ® ❑ ❑ the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the ' environment? Discussion Development under the General Plan would include construction of recreational facilities that would ' serve current and future City residents. Construction of such facilities could have an adverse effect on the environment. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR. The EIR will recommend mitigation measures to reduce this impact to a less -than -significant level. I I i 11 1 Would the project: (a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation ® ❑ ❑ ❑ to the existing traffic lood•and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of ® ❑ ❑ ❑ service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Discussion (a—b) Development associated with the General Plan Update would result in an increase in traffic and modifications to existing roadways. A traffic analysis technical report will be prepared to assist in the evaluation of the potential impacts related to traffic that would result from project implementation. The General Plan Update would generate additional vehicular trips that could potentially result in a substantial traffic increase in the City. This increase in traffic would further add to the existing traffic load and could impact the existing capacity of the street system. The potential impacts due to increased 1 Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Initial Study 41 The City Newport Beach of Less Than Sigmltcant Potentially vrith Lem Than ' Significant Mitigation SIgnlBcant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact trip generation, changes to the volume -to -capacity ratio on roads, and congestion at intersections will be analyzed in the EIR. ' (c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either El 1:1 an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? - Discussion Newport Beach borders the southeastern portion of John Wayne Airport. The increased in population and traffic volume resulting from implementation of the General Plan Update is, however, not anticipated to increase use of this airport to a level that would significantly increase air traffic levels or require a change in air traffic patterns. Impacts are considered less than significant. (d) Substantially Increase hazards due to a design feature El 0 ® ❑ (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or Incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) Discussion , Implementation of the General Plan Update would .include several roadway improvement measures, but would not include design features that would result in roadway hazards. The General Plan would also include goals and policies that would govern the safety of the City's roadways. This impact is considered , less than significant and will be further evaluated in the EIR. (e) Result in inadequate emergency access? Discussion Development associated with the General Plan Update would be required to comply with the Municipal Code and other applicable polices that set forth guidelines for emergency access to and from development sites. However, on a City-wide scale, significant increases in traffic volumes on roadways could impede access for emergency vehicles such as ambulances and police cars. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR. (f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? [] ® 0 ' Discussion The implementation of the General Plan Update would cause an increased demand for parking as new residential and commercial land uses would increase. However, new development that would occur under the GeneralPlan would be required to adhere to the Municipal. Code standards as well as any applicable parking policies for the area. This impact is considered less than significant and will not be further analyzed in the EIR. (g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting altemative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ' Discussion The General Plan Update will not conflict with any policies, plans, or programs which support alternative transportation in the City. The General Plan Updates contains updated policies regarding alternative transportation modes in the City. The General Plan Update contains updated transportation polices that , 42 Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Initial Study ' The City of Newport Beach Less Than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact guide circulation issues in the City over the next 20 years. Thus, by its nature, the General Plan Update would not conflict with any adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. No impact would result and no further analysis is required. Would the project: (a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Discussion Any development resulting from implementation of the General Plan Update would be required to obtain a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) that would contain requirements for wastewater discharge, Best Management Practices, and a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program. Within the NPDES permit the effluent quality criteria shall be specified in the permit as determined by the RWQCB. Compliance with requirements set forth by the RWQCB would reduce impacts to a less -than -significant level. ' (b) Require or result in the construction of new water or ❑ ® ❑ ❑ wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Discussion 1 Domestic water for the City is supplied by both groundwater and imported surface water. Groundwater is provided from the Orange County Groundwater Basin and the remaining water supply is provided to the City by the Metropolitan Water District. Wastewater generated in the City is treated by the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). Development resulting from implementation of the General Plan Update would result in increased demands on water and wastewater treatment facilities which could ultimately result in the construction of new facilities. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR. The EIR will recommend mitigation measures to reduce this impact to a less -than -significant level. (c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ' drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? ' Discussion The City provides storm drain facilities to the Planning Area. Undeveloped areas within the Planning Area, including Banning Ranch, do not currently have storm water facilities and would require new facilities if development were to occur under the General Plan Update. Construction of new facilities or expansion of existing facilities could have adverse environmental effects in currently undeveloped areas. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR. I ' Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Initial Study 43 The City of Newport Beach ' Len than Significant ' Potentlalry with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the E] El E project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Discussion , Domestic water for the City is supplied by both groundwater and- imported surface water. Currently, about 64 percent of the water supplied to both the City and Costa Mesa's service area is from groundwater from the Orange County Groundwater Basin (administered by the Orange County Water District or OCWD), and the remaining 36 percent of water supply is provided by the Metropolitan Water District (MWD), which delivers surface water imported from the Colorado River and State Water , Project. Increases in population resulting from implementation of the General Plan Update could place a demand on water suppliers that would exceed existing entitlements and resources. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in die EIR. The EIR will recommend mitigation measures to reduce this impact to a less -than -significant level. (e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has , adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand In addition to the provider's existing commitments? ' Discussion Wastewater treatment is provided by the OCSD. Increases in wastewater generation resulting from , implementation of the General Plan could exceed the capacity of die existing treatment facilities. The EIR will include an analysis of the current and future capacity of OCSD facilities to determine whether impacts would result from implementation of the General Plan Update. If applicable, mitigation measures will be recommended to reduce any potentially, significant impacts, to a less -than -significant , level. (f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Discussion (f—g) Implementation of the General Plan would result in increased generation of solid waste. The EIR , will include an analysis of the ability for existing landfills to accommodate future solid waste disposal needs in the Planning Area. In addition, the EIR will discuss compliance with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. If applicable, mitigation measures will be recommended to reduce any potentially significant impacts to a less -than -significant level. I 44 Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Initial Study , The City of Newport Beach I I I I I I Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the ® ❑ ❑ ❑ quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Discussion The General Plan Update could potentially convert open land within the City and already developed land to higher density development which could have the above listed impacts. As discussed above, the General Plan Update could potentially affect aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, recreation, transportation, and utilities and service systems. Additionally, impacts to any of the issue areas described above (which have potentially significant impacts identified) could be considered to affect the quality of the environment. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR. (b) Does the project have impacts that are individually ® ❑ ❑ ❑ limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Discussion The implementation of the General Plan Update along with cumulative development in surrounding cities is considered the cumulative scenario, as the City as well as surrounding areas are the whole of the area that could be impacted. Because of this, each issue area will include an analysis of cumulative impacts. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR. (c) Does the project have environmental effects that will ' cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Discussion ' As previously discussed, the proposed project could potentially result in environmental effects that may cause adverse effects on human beings with regard to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, recreation, transportation, and utilities and service systems. Impacts are considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR. II INewport Beach General Plan Update EIR Initial Study 45 r ' �ORANGH COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION FOR ORANGE COUNTY 3160 Airway Avenue • Costa Mesa, California 92626 - 949.252.5170 fax: 949.252.6012 LANNI February 27, 2006 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FEB 2 8 2006 PM Gregg B. Ramirez, Senior Planner iq 819110111112111213141516 Planning Department, Community and Economic Development City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Subject: City of Newport Beach General Plan Update ' Dear Mr. Ramirez: Thank you for the opportunity to review the Initial Study for the City of Newport Beach General ' Plan Update in the context of the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission's Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport (JWAAELUP). We wish to offer the following ' comments and respectfully request consideration of these comments as you proceed•with the of Environmental Impact Report (EIR). preparation your As you may know, the powers and duties of the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) include " .. assisting local agencies in ensuring compatible land uses in the vicinity of all new airports and in the vicinity of existing airports to the extent that the land in the vicinity of those airports is not already devoted to incompatible -uses." CAL.PUB.UTIL.CODE §2I674(a). To fulfill this basic ' obligation, the ALUC has two specific duties: (i) to prepare an airport land use plan for each airport within its jurisdiction; and (ii) to review local agency land use actions and plans. CAL.PUB.UTIL.CoDE §§21674(c), 21674(d) and 21675(a). Therefore, the ALUC must provide appropriate prospective land use planning through, for example, the adoption of land use compatibility measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards, such as height restrictions on buildings, appropriate land use compatibility determinations for specified areas, and building standards. The proposed General Plan Update raises potentially significant land use compatibility impact concerns in the Subarea labeled "John Wayne Airport Area." In light of this Subarea's close ' proximity to John Wayne Airport, Orange County (SNA) ("JWA"), and its location which is directly under a general aviation, low -altitude, primary flight corridor, the EIR should specifically address the impacts of development of new residential neighborhoods as replacement of existing and allowed future uses. With the proposed increase in residential and mixed use land uses it is important that the EIR ' address the portions of the proposed project area that are within the Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 Imaginary Surfaces aeronautical obstruction area in the vicinity of JWA and those portions located on the AELUP Height Restriction Zone Map for JWA. The environmental document should address these height restrictions and imaginary surfaces within the Hazards and , Hazardous Materials section. Given that the proposed general plan amendment provides for new residential development patterns in the John Wayne Airport Area, the land use section of the environmental document should discuss the incompatibility of residential land uses within close proximity to JWA. ' General Plan policies and environmental mitigation measures should be included restricting residential uses within areas of the General Plan -designated "John Wayne Airport Area" that experience significant overflight by aircraft and aircraft noise. Future zoning level development standards related to residential development surrounding JWA should be considered. The proposed project also affects areas within JWA noise impact zones. The Noise Section of the ' EIR should address impacts related to incompatible development withimthe 65 dB and 60 dB CNEL contours and address ALUC polices contained in the JWAAELUR Included in the following sections of this letter are more specific suggestions for the City to , consider as General Plan policies and EIR mitigation measures. Sound Attenuation: Include General Plan sound attenuation policies and EIR mitigation measures for all John Wayne Airport Area residential development in order to minimize the noise impacts on the residences from present and projected future noise levels, including roadway, aircraft, helicopter and railroad and other noise sources. The sound attenuation requirements ' should, at a minimum, meet all current City interior and exterior noise standards. Avigation Easement: Include policies and mitigation measures requiring all John Wayne Airport Area residential development to record an avigation easement in the chain of title of each , residential dwelling unit for noise and related aviation impacts in favor of the County of Orange, the airport proprietor of JWA, prior to issuance of building permits. The avigation easement ' should be in a form consistent with current Airport requirements. (This avigation easement is separate from and in addition to the "Avigation Easement for Orange County Airport' recorded March 17, 1964 in book 6965, page 721, which represents a separate John Wayne Airport ' "ownership" avigation easement already existing over portions of the City of Newport Beach.) Height Li nitations: Include General Plan policies and EIR mitigation measures addressing height limitations on all John Wayne Airport Area residential development to limit the height of any permanent or temporary structure, to a height under 203.68 feet Above Mean Sea Level ("AMSL" ), reference National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD 29), consistent with current Orange County Surveyor Adjustment Datum. ' Obstruction Lighting and Marking: Include General Plan policies and EIR mitigation measures addressing lighting and marking on all John Wayne Airport residential development to comply , with the conditions and recommendations by the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") with respect to obstruction lighting and/or marking consistent with the criteria provided in FAA Advisory Circulars 70n460-1 and 70/7460-1K. Disclosure of JWA Proximity: Jnclude General Plan policies and EIR mitigation measures for occupancy disclosure to be provided in future sales literature and sales/rental/lease agreements for ' the residential developments stating that the property is located in the vicinity of JWA. Deed Disclosure Notice: Include General Plan policies and EIR mitigation measures for deed disclosure notification on all John Wayne Airport Area residential development units which , ' require a "Deed Disclosure Notice" of the avigation easement. This disclosure notice must be submitted to the City and signed as a part of each sales/rental/lease agreement. ' Signage, Include General Plan policies and EIR mitigation measures for signage on all "John Wayne Airport Area' parks and recreational development which requires every local park, recreational area, and private recreational facility to place appropriate signage indicating the presence of operating aircraft. 1 Density and Intensity Limitations. Include General Plan policies and EIR mitigation measures in order to minimize the safety impacts on the residences from aircraft operations. The safety measures should establish appropriate criteria limiting the maximum number of dwellings or ' people in areas close to the airport. The density and intensity limitations should be consistent with those provided by the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for the Airport. A referral by the City to the ALUC is required for this project due to the location of the proposal - within an AELUP Planning Area and due to the.nature of the required City approvals (he. General Plan Amendment) under PUC Section 21676(b). In this regard, please note that the Commission wants such referrals to be submitted and agendized by the ALUC staff between the Local Agency's expected Planning Commission and City Council hearings. Since the ALUC meets on the third Thursday afternoon of each month, submittals must be received in the ALUC office by the first of the month to ensure sufficient time for review, analysis, and agendizing. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this initial study. Please contact Lea Umnas at (949) 252-5123 or via email at lumnasOocair.com if you need any additional details or information regarding the future referral of your project. ' Sincerely, Karl A. Wgoni Executive Officer ' cc: Gerald Bresnahan Alan Murphy ' Larry Serafini John Leyerle I7 17 i JOHN P. AND SUZANNE V. CHAMBERLAIN , 260 CAGNEY LANE - UNIT 304 , NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92663 949.476.8303 , February 27, 2006 HAND DELIVERED and U.S. MAIL , Gregg B. Ramirez, Senior Planner , Planning Department - - - I-U CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH I`LAi'etVENG DhPARTMh'; E P.O. Box 1768 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard ' Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 FEB 2 7 2006 RE: Newport Beach General Plan Update �${�{1p{11i12{1{2�3�4{5{6 ' Dear Mr. Ramirez: This is in response to the Notice of Preparation of a Draft EIR for ' the Newport Beach General Plan Update ("Project"), and is made after review of the Initial Study and the City of Newport Beach General Plan Technical Background Report ("TBR").' ' Introduction: Role of the TBA as Stated in Citv Documents "For the update of the General Plan, the City has identified a , Planning Area for which the Plan will provide policies ... [The] TBR provides existing data for the entire Planning Area ..."x The 1 'Initial review of the TBR was attempted at the Newport Beach Central Library, however, while the binder was full to overflowing, , it was determined that certain chapters were missing sections, among them Chapter 3 Infrastructure, Section 3.1 Circulation. Then consulted was the only other copy of the TBR available to the ' public, a much -depleted version in the Planning Department. This too, was missing Section 3.1 Circulation. Upon inquiry as to the whereabouts of Section 3.1, staff provided a separate document designated "Draft" and entitled "Traffic Model Executive Summary ' Newport Beach General Plan Update Existing Conditions and Currently Adopted General Plan Buildout Forecasts,11 which document was reviewed.. ' Additionally, this response is made with certain questions to staff regarding the Initial Study and TBR, still unacknowledged and pending. ' 2TBR at page 1-3. 1 ' purpose of [the TBRI, is to serve as a comprehensive database that ' describes the City's existing conditions for physical, social, and economic resources . The TBR is the foundation document from which subsequent planning policies and programs will be formulated (emphasis added)."' "From the key physical, environmental, and ' economic conditions and trends identified in the technical analyses contained in the TBR, implications for the City will be assessed and presented as planning issues. Consideration of the'planning ' issues ... will be critical in updating the General Plan (emphasis added) .j4 Central to this process and plan is the Planning Area which it appears has not been accurately identified in the TBR. Additionally, the TBR's determination and identification of existing conditions, together with its basis of assessment for potential development, appear fundamentally flawed. As "... the TBR will serve as the `Environmental Setting' section for each technical environmental issue analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report ...,"5 it can be anticipated that this analysis too, would be flawed. Accordingly, the comments which follow, in highlighting deficiencies in the TBR, present environmental issues which should be addressed in the EIR. ' Planning Area ' The Planning Area upon which the TBR operates is the existing City boundaries and its sphere of influence (11S0I"). Both the Initial Study and the TBR agree that, exclusive of waterways, the City encompasses 13,062 acres. As to the Banning Ranch area, however, 1 the two documents differ. The TBR states, "[a]pproximately 45 acres of the area is within the City's SOI [and] the City has jurisdiction over a one -foot strip along the perimeter of Banning Ranch that totals approximately 25 acres, and Orange County has jurisdiction over the remainder of the area."' The Initial Study states, "[a]pproximately 53 acres of the Banning Ranch is within the City's boundaries, with another 361 acres of this property in the City's SOI, subject to Orange County jurisdiction. The entire property is surrounded by a one - foot strip within the City's jurisdiction."' ' 'TBR at page 1-2. °TBR at page 1-4. 5TBR at page 1-2. ' 'TBR at page 1-3. 'Initial Study at page 1. 2 Whether SOI, subject to jurisdiction or within City bounds, the discrepancy in land area to be planned is glaring, and it is neither explained or even acknowledged in the Initial study, the most recent of the two documents. Requisite environmental analysis for the Project demands accurate determination of the area subject to it so that it is not parced and impacts accurately identified and assessed. Land Use Land use --existing and future --is the very reason for planning, and is the sole impetus for any document addressing development such as a General Plan. In the TBR, land use is discussed in Section 2.1 of Chapter 2 entitled "Community Development." For the TBR, information regarding existing land use and potential development was derived from 11 .. a visual field survey and discussion with City staff, a review of July 2003 aerial data, and review of adopted Specific Plans, the General Plan, and Zoning'Code.j8 - Existing Land Use As to existing land use, the TBR notes that data was derived upwards of three years ago from "... visual field surveys and discussions with City staff."-' These existing land uses are then classified by the TBR into seven categories, two of which are "Industrial," and "Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities." The General Plan breaks use and development into four major categories, each then refined by way of sub -categories. These General Plan categories include "Industrial," and a sub- category within "Public, Semi -Public and Institutional" designated "Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities." In comparing uses as set forth in these two documents and among these particular categories, it becomes apparent that existing land use has been either miscategorized or ignored by the TBR. The degree to which this has been done across the developed and undeveloped land in the Planning Area is unknown. The problem which this presents for the public .and any subsequent EIR or General Plan, however, can be illustrated by the use "hospital." Both the Initial Study and the TBR contain descriptions of the seven categories of existing land use.10 None of these definitions, including those for "Industrial" or "Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities," mention hospital as a land use. Both documents contain identical Tables of "Existing BTBR at page 2.1-1. 'TBR at page 2.1-1. "Initial Study at page 10; TBR at pages 2.1-1 - 2.1-2. 3 I Land Use" with percentages shown for each alleged use." Whether by knowledge that since the early 1990's, the approximately 38 acres collectively constituted by the upper and lower campuses of Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian ("Hoag" or "Hospital") have been zoned "Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities," or by intuition that a hospital would be considered an "institutional facility," many would view the Table and believe Hoag's acreage would be reflected in the 3.40-. of the City's total for "Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities" use. They would be misled, however, for only by proceeding further in the text of the TBR is it disclosed that "hospital" is categorized as an "Industrial" use. The Table further breaks "Industrial" into three sub -categories with corresponding acreage: Industrial/68.9 acres; Multi -Tenant Industrial/20.5 acres; and Industrial Business Park/25.0 acres. In that Hoag's property is about 38 acres, if it is included as "industrial" use, it constitutes 550 of the 68.9 acres for the sub- category and 339- of the total category "Industrial" use within the City. This would appear to be an inordinately high percentage and likely an incorrect representation of use. The TER represents that the data in Table 2.1-1, "... is illustrated in Figure 2.1-1,j12 a map said to show existing land use by color code. While the Figure includes three separate color codes corresponding to its three sub -categories noted above within the use "Industrial," again, using the Hoag example, no part of its property is coded for "Industrial." Rather, the Hospital's lower campus use is, by color code, "Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities." Oddly, its upper campus bears no color code which, according to the Figure's legend, indicates existing land use as "Study Area." Not only is "Study Area" no where defined but such a designation, whether based on visual survey or staff discussion, defies all reason when applied to a property on which upwards of 900,000 square feet of development exists.13 ' The problems associated with mischaracterizing use and the uncertain percentage within the City which it constitutes persist throughout the analysis of conditions in the TBR. Table 2.1-4 I I I 11TBR/Table 2.1-1; Initial Study/Table 2. "TBR at page 2.1-2. 13Problems with the visual survey, the TBR and this site are perhaps best illustrated by the picture at page 2.1-37 of a modest office building on the northeast corner of Hospital Road and Placentia Avenue, erroneously identified as Hoag Hospital. U illustrates this point. This Table purports to set forth a "Comparison of Existing Land Uses vs. General Plan Designations." While combining some categories, the acreage figures shown for "Existing Land Use" are virtually the same as those as shown on Table 2.1-1. It should be noted that in the General Plan, the sub' -category "Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities" includes as an "institutional facility," among other things, hospitals.l' As demonstrated above, there is, at best, a reclassification of some use and, at worst, a misclassification of some use as between the General Plan and the TBR. To compare disparate data as Table 2.1-4 seeks to do can only result in mistakes presented as facts in the "Difference" column and error in conclusions. - Potential Development If determination of existing land use involved visual survey, it may be assumed that information regarding potential development was derived from the balance of resources as noted in the TBR, to wit, " . discussion with City staff, a review of July 2003 aerial data, and review of adopted Specific Plans, the General Plan, and Zoning Code.t15 These resources are as incomplete as the picture of potential development which the TBR presents. Many other plans and actions shape actual development within the City. Such plans include the Coastal Plan, County and State mandates and Development Agreements. Actions include such things as Planning Director Discretion which, deriving from certain code provisions, can excuse additional building bulk or add square footage in seeming contravention of articulated Policies or Statistical Area figures stated in the General Plan, or otherwise in the municipal code. The TBR states, "[t]he General Plan clarifies and articulates the City's intentions with respect to the rights and expectations of the general public, property owners., special interest groups, prospective investors, and business interests. Through the General Plan, the City informs the community of its goals, policies, and development standards, thereby communicating the City's expectations of the private sector in meeting the intentions [again, as set forth in] the General Plan."16 This seems somewhat misleading given these other forces bearing on development. "Land Use Element (as amended through August 2004) at page 25 15TBR at page 2.1-1. 16TER at page 1-1. 1 I L_ J J 1 I I I I ' While addressing policies for the entire City, the General Plan Update focuses on areas where the most significant land use changes could occur. Though there is discrepancy between the TBR and the Initial Study as to how many and what constitutes these study areas, it appears that as many as five are in close proximity to Hoag.11 This serves as a telling example, in that the Development Agreement between the City and Hoag will run well into the 20-year life anticipated for the General Plan Update yet, like other Development Agreements for areas throughout the City, is virtually invisible in the discussion or analysis. While this is procedurally allowed, the substantive, reciprocal impact between Hoag's development and that of these other five areas --many of which have slated changes in land use attendant to which is greater trip -generation --cannot be denied. This is particularly disturbing when it has already been determined that many intersections within these areas, based on currently anticipated use per the General Plan buildout, will be deficient .1e These forces which alter stated development goals and limits, whether currently operating in a particular area or potentially ' applicable City-wide, should be identified, the range of their respective cumulative impacts assessed in the EIR, and ultimately reflected in the General Plan Update in order that it, "... provides a comprehensive land use, housing, circulation and infrastructure, public service, resource conservation, and public safety policies for the entire city [sic] (emphasis added)."19 To do any less is a disservice to the General Plan process and to the ' residents, investors and businesses who seek to rely on it. ' 17Special Study Areas identified in the TBR at Subsection 2.1-1 and believed of relevant impact: Mariner's Mile (also the subject of a Specific Plan); West Newport Industrial, Old Newport Boulevard (also the subject of a Specific Plan); Lido Village/City Hall; Newport Shores (also the subject of a Specific Plan). Special Study sub -areas identified in the Initial Study at ' pages 14 - 16 and believed of relevant impact: Mariner's Mile (also the subject of a Specific Plan); West Newport Mesa; Old Newport Boulevard (also the subject of a Specific Plan); Banning Ranch; West Newport Highway. "Traffic Model Executive Summary Newport Beach General Plan Update Existing Conditions and Currently Adopted General Plan Buildout Forecasts (March 26, 2003; revised December 8, 2003). 1Initial Study at page 1. ' 6 Conclusion ' Though only few examples and brief discussion were provided herein, , as they relate to land area and use from which virtually all General Plan concerns flow, it is believed they illustrate the inaccuracy of data and its attendant analysis likely throughout the , TBR and so, draw into question its overall methodology, intent and value. Despite the Initial Study's findings of the Project's significant impact across most considered environmental factors, impact cannot be accurately assessed if its source has not been accurately identified, and the efficacy of any attendant mitigation would seem unlikely. As the TBR is represented to serve as the "environmental setting" for each environmental issue discussed in the EIR, its potential adequacy is suspect, and the document may fail to provide the disclosure CEQA requires and the public deserves. , Very truly yours, , 4an1CL�jyru/ 4�v-tw ���GCctiJ Viau Chamberlain t I !J I ' FROM :CITY OF COSTA MESA FAX NO. :714 754 4856 Feb. 27 2006 04:45PM P2 u I I I I I CITY OF COSTA MESA P.O. BOX 1200 • 77 PAIR DRIVE . CALIFORNIA 02020.1200 AUIMIr�a DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT February 27, 2006 Mr. Gregg B. Ramirez, Senior Planner Planning Department, Community and Economic Development City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O, Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 SUBJECT: NOTICE OF PREPARATION FOR DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CITY OF NEWPORT REACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Dear Mr. Ramirez; The City of Costa Mesa has reviewed the Notice of Preparation for Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City of Newport Beach General Plan update. The proposed project ' consists of a General Plan update including the existing City of Newport Beach boundaries (totaling 1$,062 arces, excluding waterways) and its sphere of influence. Following are the City's comments on the proposed update. . LAND USE PLANNING I 1 I I The City would appreciate the acknowledgement and analysis of Impacts to changes In the West Newport Mesa and Banning Ranch Planning Sub -Areas on Costa Mesa's Wests(de revitalization efforts as set forth in the draft urban plans for the Westside. Draft copies of the Westside urban plans are enclosed for your convenience. • PUBLIC SERVICES The Notice of Preparation acknowledges that Costa Mesa Police and Fire Departments currently provide services in Newport Beach. Additional analysis Is recommended for the Environmental Impact Report to include the degree to which increases in population and employment as a result of the build out of the General Plan also results In Increased demand for Costa Mesa Police and Fire service demands, personnel, and equipment. 150ding Dlvlalnn'7") 75A �27' • Cods Enfo"nlef1(714) 7U.6023 • PlanNng Dj&Tan (714) 7.%5245 FAX (714) 784.4B50 - TDD (714) 754-5244 • WWW.d.c Ia- ma,CO,U$ FROM :CITY OF COSTA MESA FAX NO. :714 754 485E Feb. 27 2006 04:45PM P3 1 Mr. Ramirez Feeftary27, 2009 page 2 • 7RANSPORTA N/C ULATION For Year 2025, the City encourages that the future General Plan analysis .be conducted under the following assumptions: (a) SR-55 Freeway is not extended south of 19t' Street (b)19th Street bridge over the Santa Ana River is not constructed The City recommends that all mitigaWn measures be conditioned based on these assumptions. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this update. The City of Costa Mesa Is very Interested in the City of Newport Beach General Plan update. We hope to continue to have close communication on this update and an opportunity to fully understand any significant impacts. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at (714) 754-56091 Sincerely, a R' MICHAEL ROBINSON Asst. Dev. Svs. Director cc Donald D. Lamm, Deputy City Mgr., Dev. Svs. Director tQmberly Brandt, Principal Planner Peter Naghavi, Transportation Mgr. Raja Sethuraman, Assoc. Engineer Rebecca Robbins, Assistant Planner i 1 1 1 1 1 1 I !J 1 i I 1 1 C 1 1 1 II STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RESOURCES AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, GOVERNOR I r r 1 IJ I1 DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION DIVISION OF OIL, GAS, AND GEOTHERMAL RESOURCES 5816 Corporate Avenue, Suite 200, Cypress, CA 90630-4731 PHONE 714/816-6847 . FAX 714/816.6853 . WEB SITE conservation,ca,gov February 7, 2006 Mr. Greg B. Ramirez, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 92658-8915 t1; CETr=0 8Y ;�LANNING nEPARTME.:T r1ITY OF NFWPORT PEACH FFR 0 d 2006 PM 718,9110111112,11213141516 Subject: Notice of Preparation for the City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Dear Mr. Ramirez: The Department of Conservation's (Department) Division of 011, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (Division) has reviewed the above referenced project. The Division supervises the drilling, maintenance, and plugging and abandonment of oil, gas, and geothermal wells in California. The proposed project is located within the administrative boundaries of the West Newport and Newport oil fields. There are numerous active, idle, plugged and abandoned wells within or in proximity to the project boundaries. These wells are identified on Division Map 136 and records. The Division recommends that all wells within or in close proximity to project boundaries be accurately plotted on future project maps. Building over or in the proximity of plugged and abandoned wells should be avoided if at all possible. If this is not possible, it may be necessary to plug or re -plug wells to current Division specifications. Also, the State Oil and Gas Supervisor is authorized to order the reabandonment of previously plugged and abandoned wells when construction over or in the proximity of wells could result in a hazard (Section 3208.1 of the Public Resources Code). If reabandonment is necessary, the cost of operations is the responsibility of the owner of the property upon which the structure will be located. Finally, if construction over an abandoned well is unavoidable an adequate gas venting system should be placed over the well. Furthermore, if any plugged and abandoned or unrecorded wells are damaged or uncovered during excavation or grading, remedial plugging operations may be required. If such damage or discovery occurs, the Division's district office must be contacted to obtain information on the requirements for and approval to perform remedial operations. the Department ofConservation s mission is to pmtect Caafornians and thdren¢dmnment ty: rpmtecting fives andpropeq from earthquake andlam(sfufes, Ensuring safe mining andodandgas drifng, Conserving Cafifor iasfarmlarra�- andSaving energyandresoumes through recycrrng. Mr. Greg B. Ramirez, City of Newport Beach February 7, 2006 Page 2 I To ensure proper review of building projects, the Division has published an informational packet , entitled, "Construction Project Site Review and Well Abandonment Procedure" that outlines the information a project developer must submit to the Division for review. Developers should contact the , Division's Cypress district office for a copy of the site -review packet. The local planning department should verify that final building plans have undergone Division review prior to the start of construction. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Preparation. If you have questions on our comments, or require technical assistance or information, please call me at the Cypress district office: 5816 Corporate Avenue, Suite 200, Cypress, CA 90630-4731; phone (714) 816-6847. ' Sincerely, Paul Frost Associate Oil & Gas Engineer I J 1 H I L L H H 10 (Alan C. Lloyd, Ph.D. Agency Secretary CaYEPA 1 1 i 1 1 1 i 1 1 i 1 Department of Toxic Substances Control Maureen F. Gorsen, Director Arnold Schwarzenegger 5796 Corporate Avenue Governor Cypress, California 90630 PLANNING DEPAR T M1.rtE. ,1 CITY OF NFRNPORT BEACH FEB 2 7 2006 PM 71819110111,12,11213141516 February 21, 2006 Mr. Gregg Ramirez City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 9285-8915 NOTICE OF PREPARATION FOR THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH# 2006011119) Dear Ms. Wellman: The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has received your submitted Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the above -mentioned project. The following project description is stated in your document: "The General Plan Update defines comprehensive land use, noise, housing, circulation, and infrastructure, public service, resource conservation, and public safety policies for the entire City. While policies regarding future land use and growth are addressed from a citywide perspective, the majority of land use changes are limited to nine primary study areas. Accordingly, the EIR will comprehensively address the impacts of all policies throughout the City and, additionally, focus on those areas in which the most significant land use changes could occur." Based on the review of the submitted document, DTSC has comments as follow: 1 1) The EIR should identify and determine whether current or historic uses in the Project area may have resulted in any release of hazardous wastes/substances. 1 2) The EIR should identify any known or potentially contaminated sites within the proposed Project area. For all identified sites, the EIR should evaluate whether 1 conditions at the site may pose a threat to human health or the environment. 1 Printed on Recycled Paper Mr. Gregg Ramirez , February 21, 2006 Page 2 A Phase I Assessment may be sufficient to identify these sites. Following are the ' databases of some of the regulatory agencies: • National Priorities List (NPL): A list maintained by the United States ' Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.EPA). • Site Mitigation Program Property Database (formerly CalSites): ' A Database primarily used by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control. ' • Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS): A database of RCRA facilities that is maintained by U.S. EPA. • Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS): A database of CERCLA sites that is maintained by U.S.EPA. • Solid Waste Information System (SWIS): A database provided by the ' California Integrated Waste Management Board which consists of both open as well as closed and inactive solid waste disposal facilities and transfer stations. • Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) / Spills, Leaks, Investigations and Cleanups (SLIC): A list that is maintained by Regional , Water Quality Control Boards. • Local Counties and Cities maintain lists for hazardous substances cleanup sites and leaking underground storage tanks. • The United States Army Corps of Engineers, 911 Wilshire Boulevard, , Los Angeles, California, 90017, (213) 452-3908, maintains a list of Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS). ' 3) The EIR should identify the mechanism to initiate any required investigation and/or remediation for any site that may be contaminated, and the government agency to provide appropriate regulatory oversight. If hazardous materials or ' wastes were stored at the site, an environmental assessment should be conducted to determine if a release has occurred. If so, further studies should be carried out to delineate the nature and extent of the contamination, and the ' potential threat to public health and/or the environment should be evaluated. It may be necessary to determine if an expedited response action is required ' I Mr. Gregg Ramirez ' February 21, 2006 Page 3 to reduce existing or potential threats to public health or the environment. If no immediate threat exists, the final remedy should be implemented in compliance with state regulations, policies, and laws. 4) All environmental investigations, sampling and/or remediation for the site should be conducted under a Workplan approved and overseen by a regulatory agency that has jurisdiction to oversee hazardous substance cleanup. The findings of any investigations, including Phase I and II investigations, should be summarized in the document. All sampling results in which hazardous substances were found should be clearly summarized in a table. 5) Proper investigation, sampling and remedial actions, if necessary, should be conducted at the site prior to the new development or any construction, and overseen by a regulatory agency. 6) If any property adjacent to a project site is contaminated with hazardous chemicals, and if the proposed project is within 2,000 feet from a contaminated site, except for a gas station, then the proposed development may fall within the "Border Zone of a Contaminated Property." Appropriate precautions should be taken prior to construction if the proposed project is within a "Border Zone Property. 7) If building structures, asphalt or concrete -paved surface areas or other structures are planned to be demolished, an investigation should be conducted for the presence of lead -based paints or products, mercury, and asbestos containing materials (ACMs). If lead -based paints or products, mercury or ACMs are identified, proper precautions should be taken during demolition activities. Additionally, the contaminants should be remediated in compliance with California environmental regulations, policies, and laws. 8) The project construction may require soil excavation and soil filling in certain ' areas. Appropriate sampling is required prior to disposal of the excavated soil. If the soil is contaminated, properly dispose of it rather than placing it in another location. Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) may be applicable to these soils. ' Also, if the project proposes to import soil to backfill the areas excavated, proper sampling should be conducted to make sure that the imported soil is free of contamination. 9) Human health and the environment of sensitive receptors should be protected during the construction or demolition activities. A study of the site, overseen by ' the appropriate government agency, might have to be conducted to determine if Mr. Gregg Ramirez February 21, 2006 Page 4 there are, have been, or will be, any releases of hazardous materials that may pose a risk to human health or the environment. 10) If it is determined that hazardous wastes are, or will be, generated by the proposed operations, the wastes must be managed in accordance with the California Hazardous Waste Control Law (California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, chapter 6.5) and the Hazardous Waste Control Regulations (California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5). 11) If it is determined that hazardous wastes are or will be generated and the wastes are (a) stored in tanks or containers for more than ninety days, (b) treated onsite, or (c) disposed of onsite, then a permit from DTSC may be required. If so, the facility should contact DTSC at (818) 551-2171 to initiate pre application discussions and determine the permitting process applicable to the facility. 12) If it is determined that hazardous wastes will be generated, the facility should obtain a United, States Environmental Protection Agency Identification Number by contacting (800) 618-6942. 13) Certain hazardous waste treatment processes may require authorization from the local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). Informatlon about the requirement for authorization can be obtained by contacting your local CUPA. 14) if the project plans include discharging wastewater to storm drain, you may be required to obtain a wastewater discharge permit from the overseeing Regional Water Quality Control Board. 15) If during construction/demolition in the Project area, soil and/or groundwater contamination is suspected, construction/demolition in the area should cease and appropriate health and safety procedures should be implemented. If it is determined that contaminated soil and/or groundwater exist, the EIR should Identify how any required investigation and/or remediation will be conducted, and the appropriate government agency to provide regulatory oversight. 16) If a site in the'Project area was and/or is used for agricultural activities, onsite soils may contain pesticide, herbicides and agricultural chemical residue. Proper investigation and remedial actions, if necessary, should be conducted at the site prior to construction of the project. J 1 I I I 1 1 1 I I I I Mr. Gregg Ramirez February 21, 2006 Page 5 DTSC provides guidance for cleanup oversight through the Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP). For additional information on the VCP, please visit DTSC's web site at www.dtsc.ca.gov. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Mr. Joseph Cully, Project Manager, at (714) 484-5473 or email at jcully@dtsc.ca.gov. Sincerely, Greg Holmes Unit Chief Southern California Cleanup Operations Branch - Cypress Office cc: Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse ' P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812-3044 Mr. Guenther W. Moskat, Chief Planning and Environmental Analysis Section CEQA Tracking Center i Department of Toxic Substances Control P.O. Box 806 Sacramento, California 95812-0806 ' CEQA ## 1312 1 MEMORANDUM To: Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner, City of Newport Beach From: Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee City of Newport Beach Subject:. Notice of Preparation ("NOP") for the City of Newport Beach General Plan Update (the "Project") Date: February 28, 2006 , I Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the NOP for the captioned Project. , We offer the following comments in the hopes of improving the Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR') and the Project. A. Proiect Description: The NOP contains an incomplete and confusing Project description which the DEIR should complete and clarify. Nine planning subareas are identified, including Banning Ranch. Page 7, Figure 3 however, the subareas/districts discussion on pages 14-17, adds "West Newport Mesa" and "Harbor and Bay" subareas. The DEIR should use consistent terminology throughout the document. The Statement of Objectives further refers to allowing growth where sustainable development can occur. The DEIR should define sustainable development and explain whether it will reduce or eliminate potential environmental impacts from the Project. The Project Description conflicts with other parts of the NOP. The NOP states that Orange County Measure M Growth Management policies are incorporated in the Circulation Element of the NOP. However, the discussion of Circulation Element on Page 17 does not mention the Measure M requirement. Page 2, paragraph 1 If Measure M Growth Management policies are incorporated in the Circulation Element, that should ' be specifically identified in the DEIR. Also, the term "Circulation" reportedly describes how "public services and , facilities will be provided to businesses and residents," but no mention of it is included in Section XV (Transportation/Traffic) and XVI (Utilities/Service Systems) on Pages 41-44. , The DEIR should clarify the relationship of Circulation requirements to these areas. r I L1 1 I EQAC City of Newport Beach Page 2 February 27, 2006 The Alternatives Section of the Project description states that Alternative A: GPAC Recommendations and Alternate B: Subarea Only Minimum will be analyzed in the EIR. Pages 18-19 However, all four alternatives should also be analyzed for comparison purposes. Figure 3 should be revised to include all the subareas. For example, West Newport Mesa and Balboa Peninsula are not depicted on the map. Further, the DEIR should include a discussion of whether the subarea Corona del Mar is intended to include only the properties with frontage on Pacific Coast Highway, or the larger area commonly referred to as Corona del Mar. Figure 3-2 should be revised to depict Newport Coast within the city limits of the City of Newport Beach. Table 3 should be revised to include all subareas, such as Corona del Mar, and provide a column that identifies the Existing, Current General Plan, and Proposed General Plan land use for the balance of the City. ' The proposed General Plan Update will add approximately 15,000 dwelling units to the existing City inventory. At approximately 2.75 people per unit, this equals 42,000 additional residents. According to Table 3, only 61 additional park acres will be provided ' (60 acres in Banning Ranch). Using the Quimby Act park dedication ratio of 5 acres per 1,000 people, approximately 200 park acres is needed. ' In order to ftuther Project objectives to protect and enhance recreational and open space opportunities, the DEIR should evaluate whether additional Parks/Open Space land use is warranted and amend the land use table with the applicable open space acreage. B. Environmental Checklist and Discussion: ' I. Biological Resources: The NOP states that there are eleven special -status wildlife species and states that there are 27 sensitive wildlife and 24 sensitive plant species that occur or potentially occur within the Newport Beach area. The Discussion states that the EIR will include an analysis of potential impacts to special -status species. The DEIR should include an analysis of potential impacts on the 27 sensitive wildlife and 24 sensitive plant species, including location, quality of habitat and risks, including the impacts associated with lighting, noise, etc. II. Hazards and Hazardous Materials: This section recognizes that the Project may create significant impacts unless mitigation occurs. EQAC , City of Newport Beach Page 3 February 27, 2006 Sub -sections (c) and (d) address the potential for hazardous emissions within one- , quarter mile of an existing or a proposed school and the potential to locate development on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites. These two sub -sections are designated as "Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" on the , Environmental Checklist. This language is confusing. If the impact is currently "potentially significant," the potential impacts should be analyzed as such. It is especially critical that there is a thorough evaluation of all the impacts associated with the -potential to develop a school or a housing development on a hazardous materials site. It is especially The DEIR may , point out what can or cannot be done about them and what specific mitigation measures can be taken for some of these impacts. However, it appears to be premature to determine that these potentially significant impacts can be mitigated to a less than , significant level. It should not be predetermined that these potentially significant impacts will not be completely discussed in the DEIR. The DEIR must identify the potential impacts, thoroughly examine these potential , impacts, discuss the threshold of significance, study the significance of the potential impacts and, if necessary, propose mitigation. III. Hydrology and Water Ouality: As with the discussion of Hazards and Hazardous Materials, sub -section (a) states , that even though implementation of the General Plan Update "coul& cause runoff to adversely affect water quality, this potential impact is `Less Than Significant With Mitigation hncorporated."' Without the full identification of the potential impacts, it appears premature to determine that these potentially significant impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level. The DEIR must identify the potential impacts to hydrology and water quality of the proposed Project, including the flooding impacts associated with urban streams, thoroughly examine these potential impacts, discuss the threshold of significance, study the significance of the potential impacts and, if necessary, propose mitigation. , IV. Land Use and Plannine: Sub -section (a) of the Land Use and Planning Section states that the purpose for , increasing development in select areas of the City is to increase cohesiveness in the City. However, the objectives of the Statement of Objectives does not include the phrase "cohesiveness." The DEIR should fully define the meaning of cohesiveness and discuss its relationship to the objectives of the General Plan Update. In the John Wayne Airport area where 4,300 dwelling units are proposed, there , are no public parks. Much of Newport Beach developed over the past 40 years with a single landowner and master planned neighborhoods. Acquisition of public parks in the , ' EQAC City of Newport Beach Page 4 February 27, 2006 ' John Wayne Airport area presents a significant challenge because it is built -out and has numerous landowners that will make master planning and aggregation of property for neighborhood parks difficult. I I r LJ I I I I I I The DEIR should include mitigation measures that provide creative methods to consolidate and acquire multiple properties into a large neighborhood park for the residents of the John Wayne Airport area. The DEIR should also identify whether the City's vision is for each project to meet its park dedication requirement with on -site private parks. If park dedication is dependent entirely upon on -site private parks, residents in the John Wayne Airport area will be left with very little choice over the parks available to them. This will lead to further use of existing public parks elsewhere in the City. The NOP describes the addition of approximately 1,200 additional dwelling units on Balboa Peninsula and Balboa Village. This equates to approximately 3,300 additional residents, and 16 acres of additional parkland using the Quimby Act formula. Similar to the challenge of providing public parks in the John Wayne Airport Area, the DEIR should identify the means to acquire public parkland for residents to use in this area of the City. The same issue presents itself with approximately 1,000 additional dwelling units in West Newport Mesa. The DEIR should disclose whether the Newport -Mesa Unified School District has formulated a strategy for accommodating students from 11,000 additional homes permitted under the proposed Project outside the John Wayne Airport Area. The DEIR should evaluate the cumulative traffic, school, and park impacts of additional dwelling units in Irvine's IBC proposed through General Plan Amendments, Zoning Entitlement, Preapplications, and other criteria for appropriate mitigation measures. Solutions to school capacity issues in the Irvine Business Complex may be applicable to residential development in the John Wayne Airport Area. The proposed Project will add approximately 1,000 hotel rooms within the subareas, and 2,100 additional hotel rooms throughout the rest of the City. The addition of 2,100 hotel rooms outside the subareas is a significant increase over the current hotel room inventory. The DEIR should identify the location of the additional hotel rooms outside the subareas and evaluate the environmental impacts of them. The proposed land use plan redesignates large portions of the subareas from nonresidential to residential land uses. The transition from nonresidential to residential will take many years. The DEIR should evaluate whether this transition may cause blight if properties will become nonconforming uses, or if nonresidential buildings are not maintained because they will be recycled to residential use sometime in the future. The NOP describes the plan for West Newport Mesa as encouraging the retention of light industrial. The DEIR should describe whether Newport Beach's plan is EQAC City of Newport Beach Page 5 February 27, 2006 compatible with Costa Mesa's plan ,for its property adjacent to West Newport Mesa, and provide mitigation measures that will ensure the two neighboring areas will become cohesive as each City implements its General Plan Update. The NOP describes the plan for Corona del Mar as a pedestrian oriented village. Corona del Mar already meets this description. The DEIR should clearly contrast the new plan with the existing neighborhood and provide mitigation measures to ensure that the existing character of the -neighborhood is maintained. V. Transportation and Circulation: Sub -sections (a) and (b) recognize that the proposed Project may create significant traffic impacts. Reference is made to increased traffic congestion due to the proposed Project and that these impacts will be analyzed in the DEIR. However, no critical areas of congestion are identified for analyses. If Table 4 on Page 17 is used as a guide for this analysis, it seems to be seriously lacking in understanding of the traffic impacts on Balboa Peninsula. The proposed Project would add 471 hotel -motel rooms and 75,000 sq. ft. of institutional use on the Peninsula, but the NOP does not identify a need for additional Peninsula Transportation Improvements per Table 4. This appears to be a major oversight, which requires in-depth analysis the DEIR. Sub -section (d) states that "less than significant" impacts will result from roadway improvements associated with implementation of the proposed Project. This assessment is premature and needs to be re-evaluated when the roadway improvements are actually identified in the DEIR analysis. Sub -section (e) recognizes a "potentially significant impact" in emergency access resulting from implementation of the proposed Project. However, itis not specifically stated that certain areas within the City are vulnerable to this situation, including the Balboa Peninsula and the Airport Area. The DEIR should thoroughly analyze emergency access throughout the City and, if necessary, propose mitigation for Project impacts. The discussion promises a traffic study, and if necessary, mitigation or Project features which may address potential impacts related to traffic that would result from the proposed Project implementation. The DEIR should incorporate the analysis promised by the NOP and also discuss, analyze and if necessary propose mitigation for Project impacts. The DEIR should analyze whether the proposed Project adequately addresses alternative modes of transportation. ' EQAC City of Newport Beach ' Page 6 February 27, 2006 1 VI. Utilities and Service Systems: The Discussion for Sub -section (b) notes that the potential need for new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities is "potentially significant" and states that this need will be analyzed in the DEIR. It is assumed that the analysis will lead to mitigation measures to reduce potential impact to "Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated." As stated previously, this designation appears to be premature. The NOP should designate this potential impact as "potentially significant" until the DEIR analysis is completed. tSub -section (d) refers to availability of water supplies to support the proposed Project and should be designated as "potentially significant" until the EIR analysis shows otherwise. The DEIR analysis should consider how the proposed Project could be designed to make maximum use of recycled water to minimize the need for fresh water. Sub -sections (e) and (f), which address wastewater generation and increased general of solid waste, should also be designated as "potentially significant" until the EIR analysis proves otherwise. C. Conclusion: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important Project. We hope that these comments will assist the City in the DEIR and the final Project. I 1 t P 1 1 1 1 1 I GREENLIGHT PO Box 3362 Newport Beach, CA 92659 (949) 721-1272 Mr. Greg Ramirez, Senior Planner Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 r February 23, 2006 1 References: 1.) City of Newport Beach, General Plan Update, Notice of Preparation/Initial Study (NOP) 2.) Draft Circulation Element 01232-28b.doc Dear Mr. Ramirez: The following eight points need to be addressed in the EIR prepared on the basis of Ref. 1. NOP. Importantly the EIR must assess its proposed mitigation measures for the traffic growth created by the General Plan Update and its handling by the city along with traffic growth permitted under the current General Plan and planned huge traffic growth in the Irvine Business Complex. As a baseline, the latest city traffic studies currently show that six intersections in the city are unsatisfactory i.e. operate at LOS E or above. This, means that the city does not have the funding to correct current discrepancies in its Circulation System. (1.) The NOP projects major and expensive intersection and in some cases roadway improvements that are totally unfunded. The proposed improvements, whose funding is highly questionable as further described below, still leave four intersections remaining that are not operating at a satisfactory level (LOS D or below). These four intersections are shown in the Ref.2.) Traffic Study to operate at LOS E and above and therefore are in violation of the state requirement that the Land Use Element match the capacity of the Circulation Element. An even larger problem presents itself in the proposed mitigation of the 13 intersections and/or arterials named in the NOP. Newport Beach City Law (The Traffic Phasing Ordinance) was changed to meet constitutional rulings that developments can be charged only for their proportional share of the cost of mitigating unsatisfactory traffic created by their project. While many of the developments authorized by the General Plan Update will be built within a few years of its approval, it will take many years for additional developments to be built that will furnish sufficient additional funding to actually enlarge an intersection and/or roadway. It will also be that in many cases very close to a full additional load will be placed upon an intersection but the funds to complete the improvements will be lacking-. During that interim period, that is indeterminate in length, the roadways will be more congested than would' bee indicated by the false assumption that all the intersections were improved as of the date of the EIR study. u l (2.) A further problem presents itself in the city's proposed plan to enlarge 13 intersections. Most of these proposed improvements require widening of the intersection to add more turn lanes or through lanes. This widening will require expensive condemnation of land. Where is the funding for these actions plus noise abatement walls and the actual construction of the additional lanes? (3.) Therefore, the EIR must examine a phased implementation of Circulation system ' improvements and the resultant traffic congestion until the time in the future when the city will be able to accumulate sufficient funding to actually improve all intersections. A summary of the proposed thirteen intersection and arterial street improvement costs is needed along with a ' timeline display of when the improvements will actually be made along with the projected construction rate of the proposed developments. (4.) Also of great concern, the widening of intersections will place traffic closer to residential areas. Noise mitigation that is acceptable to the homeowners is also required. (5.) Has the traffic generated by the huge residential dwelling complex in the City of Irvine on Jamboree Road near Campus Drive been included in the traffic calculations? (6.) The City of Irvine has changed its General Plan and completed an EIR to permit the construction of approximately 10,000 more dwelling units in the Irvine Business Complex. The Circulation system traffic numbers and subsequent proposed mitigation must include provisions for a good portion of this excess traffic that will unquestionably use Newport Streets in the ' Airport Area, and Bristol, Campus, McArthur and Jamboree Roads. While the city of Newport Beach has announced it is looking into measures to block or mitigate this City of Irvine plan at this late date, the Newport EIR must contain provisions for this traffic even if only as an alternate ' case. (7.) The intersection of Goldenrod and PCH has been shown in traffic studies conducted over the last five years to operate at unsatisfactory levels. Recently, a statement was issued that this intersection would operate at LOS F because it couldn't be mitigated. An explanation is needed as to how the traffic in this intersection was claimed to have been recalculated and the problem eliminated. ' (8.) The impacts of summer traffic need to be studied and mitigation measures proposed. In particular, given the proposed 245 units of housingplus mixed use commercial projected for the Mariner's Mile section of Pacific Coast Highway, what will be the summer season impacts on Pacific Coast Highway, Newport Blvd and impacted arterials between the freeways and beach access locations. Given the 3300 housing units proposed for the airport area, how will summer traffic mix with those units plus the 10,000 additional city of Irvine Dwelling Units? Thank you, Greenlight ' Philip Arst I Feb 27 21 03:49p P,1 , r J� #& City of Huntington Beach 2000 MAIN STREET CALI FORNIA 92648 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING , Phone 536•5271 Fax 374.1640 374-1648 February 27, 2006 Gregg B. Ramirez,.Serdor Planner Planning Department, Community and Economic Development City of Newport Beach , 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Subject., Notice of Preparationgnitial Study for City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Dear Mr. Ramirez: The City of Huntington Beach has reviewed the Notice of Preparation/Initial Study for the City of Newport Beach General Plan and does not have any comments at this time. We look forward , to reviewing the Draft Environmental Impact Report when it is available. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the project. Sincerely, Mary e Bxceren Principal Planner Cc: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning Scott Hess, Planning Manager '.J 02/27/2006 17:24 9497246440 CITY OF IRVINE CD PAGE 02/03 February 27, 2006 Community Development Department www.dirvine.ca.us City of Irvine, One Civic Center Plaza, P.O. Box 19575, Irvine, California,92623.9575 (949) 724-6000 Gregg B. Ramirez, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard PO Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92668-8915 1 RE: Notice of Preparstion IS — City of Newport Seach General Plan Update I I r I I I Dear Mr. Ramirez: The City of Irvine has received the Notice of Preparation for the above project. Based on its review, the City of Irvine has the following comments: 1. Land Use Changes in the John Wayne Airport §ubarea. Please provide specific information on the location of proposed land use Intensity changes that increase development potential in the John Wayne Airport area, as well as witywide, Table 3 of the NOP identifies an increase of 4,300 additional multi family units over the existing General Plan. In particular, please identify each location where the increase is proposed, including surface parking lots. Provide information on the existing land use designation for each site and the Current development potential as well as the proposed land use designation and site specific acreages. A comparison of each aike's existing General Plan land use designation and its proposed General Plan designation will provide the City of Irvine with the opportunity to determine if a substantial environmental impact will occur as a result of the proposed General Plan Update. 2. Given the proposed General Plan intensity increases in the John Wayne Airport Business subarea, the traffic analysis should Include arterials and intersections within the City of Irvine bounded'by Main Street to the north, Red Hill Avenue to the west and Harvard Avenue/University Drive to the east. Depending on where the proposed Intensification is within the subarea, the traffic analysis study area should be expanded to the north and east accordingly. Additionally, the study area should be expanded if impacts are identified along these boundary arterials and intersections. 3. The traffic analysis should analyze the cumulative impacts of the significant projects currently under review within the City of Irvine. Contact City staff for an active list of projects to include based on the cut-off date of the traffic analysis. 1 nomITCM AM OCrVrl CA DAD= 02/27/2006 17:24 9497246440 CITY OF IRVINE CD PAGE 03/03 ' Mr. Gregg B. Ramirez February 27, 2006 Page 2 4. Table 4, the EIR should include the analysis of the impacts due to these proposed transportation improvements. In particular, the City.is concerned with those intersections bordering or located within the City of Irvine at MacArthur/Campus, Von Karman/Campus, Jamboree/Campus and MacArthur/Jamboree. 5, Transportation Improvements. Please provide a detailed analysis of the following transportation improvements described In Table 4 of the NON • MacArthur BI. (NS) at Campus Dr. (EW) • Von K__ rma�n Av, (NS) at Campus Dr. (EM • Jamboree Rd. (N$) at Campus Dr. (EW) • MacArthur BI. (NS) at Ford Rd./Bonita Canyon Dr. (EW) and San Joaquin Hills Rd. (EW) Thank you for the opportunity to provide input towards this proposal. The City of Irvine looks forward to review of this matter as additional information comes forward. Please feel free to contact me at (949) 724-6354 or by email at bcurtis@ci.irvine.ca.us if you have any questions regarding this matter, Sin y, BARRY CU TIS, AICP Principal Planner cc: Director of Community Development Manager of Planning Services Kerwin Lau, Supervising Transportation Analyst Amy Urois, Associate Planner I IFEB. 27.2006 4:24PM AIRPORT LRND USE COMMISSION NO.292 P.2/10 I I '' AI[tTaORf orange County, California AIanLMurphy AlrpartDlrector February 27, 2006 Gregg B. Ramirez, Senior Planner Planning Department, Community and Economic Development City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658.8915 Subject: Notice of Preparation4riiiialStudyfoxCity ofNewportBeachGeneral Plan Update Dear Mr. Ramirez: John Wayne Airport, Orange County (SNA) (1WA" or "the Airport") appreciates this opportunity to comment on the Notice of Preparation/initial Study ("NOP/1S'D for the Environmental Impact Report ("EIlt") that will be prepared for the City of Newport Beach's ("City")General Plan Update project, We understand from The NOP/ISthattheGeneralPlan Update includes a specific "Sohn Wayne AirpoxtArea" special study subareawhiohwill allow for the development of newresidentialneighborhoods as replacement ofexisting and allowed fatnre uses. We would appreciate an opportunity to reviewtlre General Pan Update document when it can be made available to us. GENERAL COMMNTS In the NOPAS, references are made to policies that "establish criteria for the development of cohesive residential neighborhoods oriented around neighborhood parks and local -serving convenience commercial facilities and interconnected by a network of pedestrian -oriented ' streets" witlft the subarea designated as "John Wayne Airport Area." The Airport requests that the City address the impacts of any new residential development policies considering JWA's existing and future airport operations and given the proximity of this subarea to the ' Airport. General Plan policies and/or EIR mitigation measures should be considered which incorporate speoific•infonnationregarding the foliowingrequiremeats: (1) sound attenuation; (2) height limitations; (3) density/intensity limitations, (4) notification requirements; (5) avigation easements; (6) obstruction lighting and marking requirements; and (7) compliance with all Federal Aviation Administration("FAA's, California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics ("Caltrans"), and Airport Land Use Commission ("ALUC") 'requirements. 316oAMyAvenue In addition, the Airport has a number ofmorespecific comments that wewould Eke the Cityto 1 CostaMesa, CA consider as it moves forward on the General Plan Update, as provided below. 92626.4608 949,252,1111 949.252,5178 feu www.=Ir.com 9 g 1 e no FE13.27.2006 4:24PM RIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION NO.292 P.3/10 Gregg Ramirez City of Newport Beach February 27, 2006 Page 2 SPECIFIC COMMENTS Gg"RAL PLAN POLICIES AND EIRMXT1"TION MEASiJI 9 The following restrictions shouldbe inoluded as oeneral Plan policies and EIR mitigation measures for all residential development within the John Wayne Airport Area residential development. 1. Sound At(enuption, Include General Plan sound attenuation policies and BIR mitigation pleasures for all John Wayne Airpott.Area residential development in order to minimize the noise impacts on the residences from present and projected fitt ne noise levels, including roadway, aircraft, helicopter, railroad and other noise sources, The sound attenuation requirements should, at a minimum, meet all current City interior and exterior noise standards. 2,AvIgation Easement. Include General Plan policies and EM mitigation measures requiring all John Wayne AirportArearesidontial development to record an avigation. casement inthe chain oftitle of eaehresidential dwelling unit for ngiso and related aviation impacts in favor of the County of Orange, the airport proprietor of JWA, priortq issuance of building permits. The avigation easement should be in a form consistent with current Airport requirements. (This avigation casement is separate from and in addition to the "Avigation Basement for Orange County Airport"recordedMarch 17,1964 in book 6965, page 721, which represents a separate John Wayne Airport "ownership" avigation easement already existing over portions of the City of Newport Beach) 3. ReightLimitations: Include General Planpolioiesand EIRmitigationrneasuresaddressing height limitations on all John Wayne AirportArearesidential developmeatto limitthe height of any permanent or temporary structure, to a heigbt under 203.68 feet Above Mean Sea Level ("AMSL") reforenceNational Geodetic Verdeal Datum of 1929 (NOVD 29) consistent with current Orange County Surveypr Adjustment Datum. 4, obstruction Lighting and Marking: Include General Plan policies and BIR mitigation measures addressing lighting and marking on all John Wayne Airport Area residential development to comply with the conditions and recommendations bythe FAA with respect to obstmotiou lighting and/or marking coasistentwiththe oriteriaprovidedinFAAAdvisory Circulars 70/7460-1 and 70/7460-1K. 5. Disclosure of J1'i<A Proximity: Include General Plan policies and BIR mitigation measures for occupancy disclosure to be provided in future sales literature and sales/rental/lease agreements forthe residential developments stating that theproperty is located inthe vicinity of JWA. I I I J 'i I i 1 ' FEE.27.2006 .4:24PM AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION. NO.292 P.4/10 L Qregg Ramirez City of Newport Beach February 27, 2006 Page 3 6. VeedDisctbsureNotice; Include General Planpoliciesand FJRMitigation measures for deed disclosure notification on all John Wayne Airport Area residential development units which require a "Deed pisclosure Notice" 4f the avigation easement. This disclosure notice must be submitted to the City and signed as a part of each saieshentalllease agreement. 7, signage: include General Plan policies and EIR mitigation measures for signage On all Mm Wayne Airport Area parks and recreational development which requires every local park, recreational area, andprivate recreational facilityto place appropriate signage indicating the presence of operating aircraft 8. Density and Intensity Limitations: Include General Plan policies and EIR mitigation measures in orderto minimize the safety impacts on the residences from sircra#toperations. The safety measures should establish appropriate criteria limiting the maximum number of I dwellings orpeople in areas close to the airport, The density and intensity limitations should be consistent with those provided by the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for the Airport. EIR ANALYSrs The land use designation changes being proposed for the John Wayne Airport Area are, in certain cases, significant departures from the land uses currently designated for the Area, The current nonresidential designations permit uses which are generally compatible with the nearby JWA use. In contrast, the proposed residential uses are generally not compatible with a nearby airport. We ' believe that the EIR needs to include 0, complete analysis oferivirournental impacts OHIO Proposal to amend the General Plan to provide additional residential development in proximity of the Airport. ConsistentwithourunderstandingoftheCity'sgoalsofdevelopinggastrategyorpIanforresidential development in the John Wayne Airport Area, we haveprovidedbelow specific comments relatedto the proposed residential policies for the area and potential impacts and mitigation measures that ' should be addressed in the E1R. 1. General Flan Policies for Residential, Development in the General Plan John Wayne I Airport Area Subarea Should Include Adequately Protecting Future Residential Development From Operations at JWA. Cue of the goals of developing a strategy or plan ,fcr residential development in the City's TWA subarea should be to adequately protect future residential development from current and projected future aircraft operations at JWA. Specifically. one of the goals should be to ensure that any future residential projects are well planned and provided with the type of protections (i.e., sound attenpation, height limitations, density/intensity limitations, and Gregg Ramirez City of Newport Beach February 27, 2006 Page 4 ' adequate notice) needed. These protections should include previously in this letter and discussed in more detail below. The General Plan Should Include Specific Development Policies for the John Wayne AUI)ortArea Related to Operations at TWA. The following issues should be addressed inthe EIR related to any residential development that is proposed for the John Wayne Airport Area subarea: Sound attenuation development standards fQr all residential development. Avigation easement requirements for all residential development. Height limitation development standards for all residential development, Density/intensity limitation development standards for all residential development. Disclosure of JWA proximity development requirements. Deed disclosure development requirements. Signage development requirements for public parks and recreational areas. General Plan and FUR Maps Depicting the John Wayne Airport Area Should Include TWA's 753 70, 65 and 69 dB CNFL Noise Contour and the ,Airport's Runway Protection Zones. A map should be included in the EIR depicting the 75, 70, 65 and 60 decibels NIV) Community Noise Equivalent Level ("CNEL") noise contours for JWA� In addition, L,,,.(10) single event noise levels should be determined through field measurements collected during an appropriate time period of representative aircraft operations and included in the EIR, Only in this way oaa the information provide a true and complete picture of the noise environment resulting from airport operations that would result if &residential project is built at a given location within the JWA planning subarea, Information regarding the number of flights that are projected to take off and land at JWA should also be provided. Finally, the map should include the current boundaries of the Airport's Runway Protection FEB.27.2006 4:25PM AIRPORT LRND USE COMMISSION NO.292 P.6/10 Cxregg Ramirez City of Newport Beach February27, 2006 Page 5 Zones. The Airport is available to work Wn the City on these issues and to provide any necessary information. 4. The AirportLand Use Commission Compatlbility Policies Should beAddressed in the General Plan and EM The General Plan and EIR. should include a detailed discussion regarding Airport Land Use Commission (!'ALUC") land use compatibility policies and whether the proposed JWA ' planning subarea is consistent with these policies, Although the City is required to submit the proposed General, Plan Update project to the ALUC for an independent consistency determination with the JWA Airport Environs Land Use Plan, the General Plan and EIR I should provide a discussion of the ALUC policies and the extont to which the City believes that the General Plan Update is consistent with these policies. 5. The General Plan Update and EIR Should Address Policies and 1Vliitigations for Residential Land Use in the JWA Planning Subarea including Sound Attenuation, llensityAntensity Limitations, Avigation went, ure�ud m Limitations, Obstruction Lighting and Marling, Occupancy and n Because the location of the subarea designated "John Wayne Airport Area" is in close proximity to JWA, the policies and mitigation measures used for residential development should be tailored toward minimizing incompatibilities between any new residential development and the ongoing operations at JWA, to the extent possible. We believe that using the following set of guidelines will help create the type of neighborhood that will be successful, desirable and sustainable in the long term. A. SoundAtienuation Portions of the General Plan/Jobn Wayne Airport Area will be impacted by current and projected future aircraft noise levels. Single event noise level standards that applyto the interior of residential units located witbinthe 60 dE CNEL noise contour should be incorporated into the General Plan policies and EIRmitigationmeasmes as ' a standard for future residential development. In addition, the mitigation measures should provide detail regarding the type of acoustical testing that will be required to ensure that the interior noise level criteria has been met- B. Avigation Easements ' The General plan and EM should include policies and mitigation measures that require all Jqhn Wayne Airport Area residential development to record an avigation lI u FEB.27.2006 4:25PM AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION NO.292 P.7i10 ' Gregg Ramirez City ofNewportBeach February 27, 2006 Page 6 I 11 easement for noise andrelatedw4ationimpactsinfavoroftheCounty ofOrange) the ' airport proprietor of JWA, prior to issuance of building permits. The avigation - casement should be in a form consistent with current Airport requirements. C. HeightLimitations The STATBABRONAUTICS ACT (PUBLIC UTIIaTMs CODS §§21001, et seq.) provides , for the right of flight over private property, unless conducted in a dangerous manner or at altitudes below those prescribed by federal authority. M.UTu..CoDE §21403(a). No use shallbemadeofairspace above apropertywhichwouldinterfere with the right of flight, including established approaches to a runway. PUB.UT&CoDB §21402. Specifically, the guidelines of FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATION (FAR)Part779 ObjectsAffectingNAvigableAirspace (14 C.F.R. §§77, et seq.), establishes imaginary surfaces for airports and runways as a means to identify objects that are obstructions to air navigation. Each surface is defined as a slope ratio or at a certain altitude above the airport elevation, The "FAA uses FAR Part 77 obstruction standards as elevations above which , structures may constitute a safety problem. The regulations require that anyone proposing to construct an objeetwhichcould affectthe navigable airspace around an airport submit information about the proposed construction to the FAA. The FAA then conducts an aeronautical study, the outcome of which Isla determination as to whether the object would be a potential hazard to air navigation. If the proposed object is determined to pose a hazard, the FAA may object to its construction and issue a determination of a hazard to air navigation, examine possible revisions of the proposal to eliminate the problem, require that the project be appropriately marked and lighted as an airspace obstruction, and/or initiate changes to the aircraft flight procedures for the airport so as to account for the object. The dimensions of the imaginary Surfaces vary, depending on,the type ofapproachto a particular runway based on the ultimate dimensions shown on the airport layout plan. Where imaginary surfaces overlap, the lowest surface is used to determine whether or not anobjectwouldbeanobstractiontoair navigation. The MPart 77 , horizontal surfaces limit the height of structures on a project site to an elevation of 203.68 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) reference National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NOVI) 29) consistent with current Orange County Surveyor , Adjustment Datum. In addition to the FAR Part 77 requirements, the County of Orange imposes specific height restrictions on buildings and other structures in the environs of JWA. ' FES.27.2006 4:26PM AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION NO.292 P.8/10 r-, Gregg Ramirez city ofNewport Beach Februay 27, 2006 Page 7 Specifically, on March 17,1964; the Orange County Board of Supervisors retarded an "Avigation Easement for Orange County Airport, In Boole 6965, page 721" 1 covering approximately 18,500 acres around the airport. The avigation easement specifies: "the air avigation easement does not allowbuildings or structures to project into the airspace above the surfaces shown and defined, and allows aircraft usingthe Orange County Airport to operate above these surfaces." In the four decades history of the Avigation Easement the Board has, on a case -by -case basis and for substantial tu=cial remuneration, allowed particular non-residential high-rise buildings to be constx acted above, and therefore, into the County's avigation easement elevation of 203.68 feet AMSL in the "horizontal surfaces" area. However, also during this time period, the Board has maintained consistent policy of notpermitting anyresidential project to be constructed within the horizontal surfaces. In maintaining this strict standard, the Board has focused on the safety of, and environmental impact%high- rise residential buildings near JWA that result from aircraft operations. The General Plan Update/John Wayne Airport Area boundary falls within the approximate 10,000-foot radius "horizontal surface" area near JWA. The General Plan and EIR should therefore include a discussion of the County's avigation easement surrounding JWA and the FAR Part 77 requirements, In addition, the General Plan and LAIR should include policies and mitigation measures that restrict the height of buildings consistent with Part 77 and the County's avigation easement height limitations. D. Obstruetion iigltting and Marking In addition to the FAR Part 77 height requirements, the FAA also specifies lighting and marling requirements for structures and related land uses in order to minimize air hazards in the areas surrounding airports. R is important for the City of Newport Beach to impose consistent lighting and marking development standards on all John Wayne Airport Area residential development which requires all development to comply with the conditions and recommendations by the FAA with respect to obstruction lighting and/or marking consistent with the criteria provided in FAA ' Advisory Ciroulars 70/7460-1 and 70/7460-IK.. E. Disclosure of JWA Proximity California Civil Code sections 1103.4(c)(1) and 1353(a), and CaliforniaBuslness and Professions Code sections 11010(a) and 11010(b)(12)(B) require the disclosure of airport noise, vibration, gild odors in expert -prepared natural hazard disclosure reports for residential property sales or lease. Speeifioally, if the property is located I FEB.27.2006 4-'26PM AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION NO.292 P.9/10 , Gregg Ramirez City of Newport Beach February 2'7, 2006 Page 8 within the airport influence area of JWA, the report must contain the following statement: "NOTICE OF AIRPORT IN VICINITY This property is presently located in the vicinity ofan Airport, within what is known as an airport iiilluence area. Fot that reason; the property may be subject to some of the annoyances or inconveniences associated with proximity to airport operations (for example: noise, vibration or odors). Individual sensitivities to those annoyances can varyfrom person to person. You may wish to consider what airport annoyances, if anry, are associated with the properly before you completeyourpurchase and determine whether they are acceptable to you." The General Plan policies and EIRmitigation measures for residential development in the JWA planning subarea should include this Notice of ,Airport in Vicinity noti$oation requirement, p. Dced Disclosure Notice In addition to the disclosure ofJWA proxlmitynotice requirements discussed above, General Plan policies and EIR mitigation measures should specify that deed disclosure police requirements be imposed on all John Wayne Airport Area residential development, A "Deed Disclosure Notice" of the avigatlon easement should be submitted to the City and signed as a pert of each sales/rental/lease agreement. G. Signage It is importantthatthe General Plan andMR recognize the noise impacts associated with outdoor recreational use (as opposed to indoor residential use). Inthis regard, the General Plan and EIR should include policies and mitigation measures for signage on all Jobn Wayne Airport Area park and recreational development indicating the presence of operating aircraft. H, Densityllntensity .LImitations It is important that the General Plan and EIR recognize the safety impaots associated with development in proximity to the Airpork The overall objective of safety compatibility criteria is to minimize *a risks associated with potential 11 I ' FEB.27.2006 4:26PM AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION NO.292 P.10/10 F Gregg Ramirez City of Newport Beach February Z7, 2006 Page 9 aircraft accidents. There are two components to this objective, however. The most fundamental safety compatibility component is to provide for the safety of people and property on the ground in the event of an aircraft accident near an airport, The other important component is to enhance the chances of survival of the occupants of an aircraft involved in an accident which takes place beyond the immediate runway environment. Specific compatibility strategies must consider both components of the safety compatibility objective. The primary strategy is to limit the use (the number of people concentrated on the site) in locations most ' susceptible to an off -airport aircraft accident. The most direct method of reducing the potential severity of an aircraft accident is by the establishment of criteria limiting the maximum number of dwellings or people in areas close to the airport. The General Plan and BIR should include policies and mitigation measures that recognize these compatibility strategies related to safety concerns. lI I II L LJ LI F We appreciate your efforts to address the issues contained in this letter and look forward to continuing to work with you in connectionwiththe preparation and approval of the City ofNewport Beach General Plan Update and EIR in order to ensure that the General Plan and EIR provide adequate means for implementing policies and enforcing EIR mitigation measures, to the extent possible, to rnninimize the impact of airport operations on residential developmentwitbinthe General Plan area near 7WA. Sinceerr^ellyy���'��' Kad A. Rigoni Planting Manager co: Airport Director Assistant Airport Director Deputy Airport Director, Public Affairs Deputy Airport Director, Facilities Manager, Airport Planning Manager, Access and Noise Senior Deputy County Counsel Airport Special Counsel Newport Banning Ranch LLC February 21, 2006 VIA FACSIMILE & OVERNIGHT MAIL Mr. Gregg B. Ramirez, Senior Planner Planning Department, Community and City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P. O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 j- : t^U .1 PLANNING DEPARTME 4`i CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH F8 2 7 2006 PM 17 819110111,12,11213141516 Economic Development SUBJECT: NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Dear Mr. Ramirez: On behalf of the property owners of the Newport Banning Ranch we appreciate the opportunity to offer comments to your Notice of Preparation CNOP°) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report in support of the City's General Plan Update. We have been participating in the General Plan Update through attendance at the various community workshops, committees and via testimony before the City Planning Commission and City Council. Although some sentiment exists for acquisition of the entire Banning Ranch property for open space purposes, the property owners believe a high quality master planned re -development of the site holds the most promise. For many decades the Banning Ranch has been used for oil and gas production and these uses still encumber most of the site. In addition to land value, we believe the open space acquisition option in the City's General Plan needs to consider the significant additional costs associated with proper oil field closure and consolidation as well as the fiscal realities related to subsequent habitat restoration and long term maintenance obligations. The owners have attempted to work with all interested parties on acceptable General Plan thresholds for the future use and/or development of the property. These thresholds for the property would allow for up to: a) 1375 residential dwelling units, b) 75,000 square feet of retail commercial uses, c) a 75 room coastal inn, and d) open space preservation and recreational uses. In reviewing table 3 of the City's NOP document, we noticed an effort had been made to essentially allocate the proposed 1375 dwelling units as one-half multi -family and MP605502-1 Newport Banning Ranch LLC, 3030 Saturn St., Suite 101, Brea, CA 92821 I one-half single family units. We expect the project to provide a range of residential housing types based on future planning and market studies and as such, would not want to be constrained by an artificial allocation at the present time. Table 3 also makes reference to up to 500 students as a proposed use. We assume this allocation is made in context of the property owned by the Newport -Mesa Unified School District. Although unknown at the present time, it is possible future discussion and planning with the school district could result in addressing school needs with offslte facilities. If that were the case, we would not want to create the burden of a future General Plan Amendment. We are not in a position to represent the views of the school district on this matter but would propose the 500 student reference to represent an "allowable but not mandatory" use for General Plan purposes. Finally, table 3 also shows what appears to be 60 acres of Park/Open Space. We acknowledge and support the City's desire to reflect adequate park and open space in a future re -use of our property but do not understand where the referenced acreage number came from and therefore are not in a position to offer our consent. We anticipate the Banning Ranch will feature large areas devoted to natural open space preserves, trails and active recreation uses. The precise size and location of which will be determined through a collaborative planning process. In closing, we look forward to continuing our efforts to work with the City and its residents on the General Plan Update. Sincerely, George'C. Basye Manager Newport Banning Ranch LLC 1 GLB:mep cc: Sharon Wood Assistant City Manager 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Andy Stewart ' Cherokee Newport Beach LLC 4600 South Ulster St., Suite 500 Denver, CO 80237 ' ' Mpws=-2 ' Newport Banning Ranch LLC, 3030 Saturn St., Suite 101, Brea, CA 92821 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION LlSLL1Ct 12 I .1_. •.IR Y 3337MichelsonDrive,Suite 380 F-LA t!N!NGDE'74 14,E'' i *I Irvine, CA 92612-8894 r%l G� NF_I�IPCFiT REACH Tel: (949) 724-2262 'R� Itr Fax (949) 724 2592 FEB 2 4 2006 Be enerVd ftpc! nrrl , February 10, 2006 KM P-6 Greg Ramirez File: IGR/CEQA City of Newport Beach SCH#: 2006011119 3300 Newport Boulevard Log #: 1678 ' Newport Beach, California 92685 SR-1, I-5, SR 73, SR-55 Subjects: City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Dear Mr. Ramirez, ' Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Notice of Preparation/Initial Study for and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the City of Newport Beach General Plan Update. The General Plan Update includes the existing City of Newport Beach boundaries and its sphere of influence. Caltrans District 12 status is a reviewing agency on this project at this time and would like to , work in active partnership with the local jurisdictions and the private sector to ensure.that: 1. The General Plan states policies stressing Caltrans coordination and early involvement in project ` and program development. 2. The General Plan addresses the fact that Caltrans has regulatory authority over certain ' developments that directly or indirectly impact State Transportation facilities. 3. The General Plan, specifically the Transportation/ Circulation element takes the regional overview of the transportation issues, problems, and solutions in to consideration. Including language , requiring the City to develop policies stressing coordinationbetween the City and Caltrans early in the land use and transportation planning process. 4. Caltrans right of way and possible need for encroachment permits are identified. ' If you have any questions or need to contact us, please do not hesitate to call Maryam Molavi at (949) 724-2267. ' Were 1ROS Chi IGR/Community Planning Branch , C: Terry Roberts, Office of Planning and Research , Terri Pencovic, Caltrans HQ IGR/Community Planning We McIntyre, Deputy District Director ' .'Caltrans Improves =6111ry across Calorornla" 1 � h m o�\�EOFPLAgy(d,�'rY STATE OF CALIFORNIA°* Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit"'EOF�puFo' Sean Walsh Arnold ' Schwarzenegger Director Governor Notice of Preparation PLANOG D PARTMEJ ' January27, 2006 CITY OF NEWPORTBEACH FEB 0 6 Z006 PM To: Reviewing Agencies 7181911011111211,213141516 ' Re: City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR SCH# 2006011119 ' Attached for your review and comment is the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Responsible agencies must transmit their comments on the scope and content of the NOP, focusing on specific information related to their own statutory responsibility, within 30 days of receipt of the NOP from the Lead Agency. This is a courtesy notice provided by the State Clearinghouse with a reminder for you to comment in a timely ' manner. We encourage other agencies to also respond to this notice and express their concerns early in the environmental review process. Please direct your comments to: Gregg Ramirez City of Newport Beach .3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92685-8915 ' with a copy to the State Clearinghouse in the Office of Planning and Research. Please refer to the SCH number noted above in all correspondence concerning this project. If you have any questions about the environmental document review process, please call the State Clearinghouse at ' (916)445-0613. Sincerely, S organ Project Analyst, State Clearinghouse ' Attachments cc: Lead Agency 1 1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95812-8044 TEL (916) 446-0613 PAX (916) 323.3018 www.opr.ca.gov Document Details Report I State Clearinghouse Data Base SCH# 2006011119 , Project Title City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Lead Agency Newport Beach, City of Type NOP Notice of Preparation ' Description The General Plan Update defines comprehensive land use, noise, housing, circulation, and Infrastructure, public service, resource conservation, and public safety policies for the entire City. While pollcles regarding future land use and growth are addressed from,a citywide perspective, the , majority of land use changes are limited to nine primary tudy areas. Accordingly, the EIR will comprehensively address the impacts of all policies thoughout the City and, additionally, focus on those areas in which the most significant land use changes could occur. ' Lead Agency Contact Name Gregg Ramirez , Agency City of Newport Beach Phone (949)644-3219 Fax small , Address 3300 Newport Boulevard City Newport Beach State CA Zip 92685.8915 Project Location , County Orange City Region Newport Beach , Cross Streets Parcel No. Township Range Section Base ' Proximity to: Highways SR 55, SR 73 Airports John Wayne Airport ' Railways Waterways Newport Bay Schools NMUSD schools , Land Use The existing General Plan for the City of Newport Beach currently designates land use. Project Issues Aesthetic/Visual; Agricultural Land; Air Quality; Archaeologic -Historic; Biological Resources; Coastal , Zone; Drainage/Absorption; Flood PlainiFlooding; Forest Land/Fire Hazard; Geologic/Seismic; Minerals; Noise; Population/Housing Balance; Public Services; Schools/Unlvereitles; Septic System; Sewer Capacit)q Soil Erosion/Compac0on/Grading; Solid Waste; Toxic/Hazardous; TraffidCirculation; , Vegetation; Water Quality; Water Supply; Wetland/Rlparian; Wildlife; Landuse; Cumulative Effects Reviewing Resources Agency; California Coastal Commission; Office of Historic PreservatIon; Department of ' Agencies Parks and Recreation; Department of Water Resources; Department of Fish and Game, Region 5; Department of Health Services; Office of Emergency Services; Native American Heritage Commission, California Highway Patrol; Department of Housing and Community Development; Caltrans, District 12; , Department of Toxic Substances Control; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region'8 Date Received 01/27/2006 Startot'Review 01/27/2006 End ol'Review 02/27/2006 J I Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient Information provided by lead agency. M! I• s IM M M M r i NOP Distribution List County: Q Yq•Yk%_ ❑ Fish & Game Region 3 ❑ Public utilities Commission ❑ Caltrans, District 8 Resources AoenCy Robert Floerke Ken Lewis Dan Kopulsky ❑ Resources Agency Nadell Gayou Dept of Boating & Waterways qqyy�� David Johnson 5� California Coastal Commission Elizabeth A. Fuchs -❑ Colorado River Board Gerald R. Zimmerman ❑ Dept of Conservation Roseanne Taylor ❑ California Energy Commission RogerJohnson ❑ Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection Allen Robertson '1W Offlce of Hlstorle Preservation Wayne Donaldson Dept of Parks & Recreation Environmental Stewardship Section ❑ Reclamation Board DeeDee Jones ❑ S.F. Bay Conservation & Dev'L Comm. y� Steve McAdam G� Dept. of Water Resources Resources Agency Nadeil Gayou I❑ Conservancy Fish & Game Region 4 State Lands Commission ❑ Caltrans, District 9 Mike Mulligan Jean Serino Gayle Rosander ' Fish & Game Region 5 ❑ Tahoe Regional Planning ❑ Caltrans, District 10 Don Chadwick Agency(TRPA) Tam Dumas Habitat Conservation Program Cherry Jacques ❑ ❑ Fish & Game Re Ion 6 C Itrans, District 11 M Fish and Game ❑ Depart. of Fish & Game Scott Flint Environmental Services Division ❑ Fish & Game Region 1 Donald Koch ❑ Fish & Game Region 2 Banky Curtis 9 Gabdna Gatchel Habitat Conservation Program ❑ Fish & Game Region 611M Tammy Allen Inyo/Mono, Habitat Conservation Program ❑ Dept. of Fish & Game M George Isaac Marine Region Other Departments ❑ Food & Agriculture Steve Shaffer Dept. of Food and Agdculture ❑ Depart. of General Services Public School Construction ❑ Dept of General Services . Robert Sleppy Environmental Services Section ' Dept. of Health Services Veronica Ramertz Dept. of Health/Ddnldng Water Independent Commissions,Boards ❑ Delta Protection Commission Debby Eddy t>d Office of Emergency Services Dennis Castdllo ❑ Governor's Office of Planning & Research State Clearinghouse Native American Heritage Comm. Debbie Treadway Business, Trans & Housin ❑ Caltrans - Division of Aeronautics Sandy Hesnard ❑ Caltrans-Planning Teni Pencovic California Highway Patrol Mark Mulgrew Office of Special Projects .Housing & Community Development Use Nichols Housing Policy Division Dept. of Transportation ❑ Caltrans, District 1 Rex Jackman ❑ Caltrans, District 2 Marceline Gonzalez ❑ Caltrans, District 3 Alyssa Begley ❑ Caltrans, District 4 TIM Sable ❑ Caltrans, District 5 David Murray ❑ Caltrans, District 6 Marc Birnbaum - ❑ Caltrans, District 7 Cheryl J. Powell ano Orso ® Coltrane, District 12 Bob Joseph Cal EPA r M I' M M M SCH# M. . — ... v . — - Air Resources Board ❑ Airport Projects Jim Lemer ❑ Transportation Projects Kurt Karperos ❑ Industrial Projects Mike Tollstrup ❑ California Integrated Waste Management Board Sue O'Leary ❑ State Water Resources Control Board Jim Hockenbeny Division of Financial Assistance ❑ State Water Resources Control Board Student intern, 401 Water Quality Certification Unit Division of Water Quality ❑ State Water Resouces Control Board Steven Herrera yam, Division of Water Rights r!!i Dept. of Toxic Substances Control CEQA Tracking Center ❑ Department of Pesticide Regulation Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) ❑ RWQCB 1 Cathleen Hudson North Coast Region (1) ❑ RWQCB2 Environmental Document Coordinator San Francisco Bay Region (2) ❑ RWQCB3 Central Coast Region (3) ❑ RWQCB 4 Jonathan Bishop Los Angeles Region (4) ❑ RWQCB 5S Central Valley Region (5) ❑ RWQCB 5F Central Valley Region (5) Fresno Branch Office ❑ RWQCB 5R Central Valley Region (5) Redding Branch Office ❑ RWQCB6 Lahontan Region (6) ❑ RWQCB 6V Lahontan Region (6) Victorvilie Branch Office ❑ RWQCB7 Colorado River Basin Region (7) RWQCB 8 Santa Ana Region (8) ❑ RWQCB 9 San Diego Region (9) ❑ Other Last Updated on 01/26/06 i SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION Of GOVERNMENTS 28 February2005 Mr. Gregg Ramirez Senior Planner Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard PO Box1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 CITYOFNFtW0' RTRFxC°j,' AM MAR 01 2006 7181�3i10I11 I1211121314p916 RE: SCAG Comments on the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Main office Report for the Newport Beach General Plan Update Bill West Seventh Street SAC No. 12000006tx tzth Floor Dear Mr. Ramirez Los Angeles, California goot7.3435 Thank you for submitting the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the above -mentioned plan to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) for review and comment. SCAG's responsibility as the region's clearinghouse per t (213) 236•d800 Executive Order 12372 Includes the implementation of California Environmental Quality Act f (213) 236.02$ (CEQA) §15125 [d]. This legislation requires the review of local plans, projects and programs for consistency with regional plans, WNWsorg Ca.gov Dilieen: Resfdent-TonilbUn.Pod Ilu meme • nsst Pre Psesidenh Ywnne Burke, Los Angeles County • Semnd Yk President; Gary ain, Son Bemardim County Immadlate Past President: Pon Pobens. iemetUla Imperial County: victor Camlia, Imperial County . ,,Edney,0106nito orange County. Chus Darby, orange County s ChdMne Dames, to Palma • John Beluman, Dreg • tou Bone.Tustin •Ad Bluvm, Buena Park • Rkhaid Chavez. Anehelm • Debbie Cook, nun ingua BW[h • Cathryn Maur& lapoa Mtud • Richard Dion, lake Forest • Minivan Pot. Jos Alamitos • Tod Ridgewar Heopori Death trouble County: Jeff Stone. Rtnuside Counts Thomas Barkley, Lake Elsinore • Bonnie nKMnter• Morino Valley • Ron lowidge. gMenide • Greg Perlis. Cathedral Ory, • Ron Robeds,Temttula San Bernardino Counts Gary Drill, San Bernardino County • Laramie Bale, Dmslow • Paul Eaton, Monlcalr • tee Ann Garda, Grand Tenate•Tlmlasper, Lowe of Apple Valle/•, tatty McCalah. Iiilhand • Deborah Robertson, Rialto •Alan Wapner, Ontario Ventura County: Judy Mlels, Ventura County Gan Betert"ImIlVail" - Cad Morehouse, San Bu enuvenlun • Toni Young. Pod Hueneme orange County TransponatIon Authodty: Lou Correa, Couner et orange gheNde "An" Tan"tialao Commission: Rohn lore, Hemet Ventura County Transpudallon Commission Keith Mulhouse. Moospa ik We have determined that the proposed Plan is regionally significant per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Section 15206). The project is a local General Plan Update. SCAG bases review of such plans on its adopted regional plans: Destination 2030: 2004 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG) —1996 Version Compass Growth Vision CEQA requires that MRS discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the applicable general plans and regional plans (Section 15125 [d]). Please state separately how the proposed plan will or will not support each regional plan. Please cite specific policies in the regional plans that the proposed plan supports. If there are inconsistencies, an explanation and rationalization for such inconsistencies should be provided. Visit www.scaq ca_l for downloadable versions of these documents. SCAG also offers:tite3 €oliowimg,comments: The Compass Growth Vision embraces strategic residential infill to achieve improved mobility, livability, prosperity, and sustainability. It appears that the proposed Newport Beach General Plan Update would encourage a better jobs -housing balance in existing employment centers. Please explain how the Newport Beach General Plan Update will or will not encourage such policies consistent with the Compass Growth Vision. Please provide a minimum of 45 days for SCAG to review the EIR when this document is available. If you have any questions regarding the attached comments, please contact me at (213) 236-1851. Thank you. Sincerely, WarBrian ace Associate Regional Planner Intergovernmental Review DOCS # 149404A i i I L, i J I I i I i I I i I i I i ID ftuduoLepsrMrvpn ssanl,alos Air Quality Management District 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4182 (909) 396-2000 • www.agmd.gov January 31, 2006 Mr. Gregg B. Ramirez, Senior Planner Planning Dept., Community and Economic Development City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Cq-�oAI11VG& pDSY IV��/p p�AiMF T AM "FB 01 2006 g�ACy 71819110111112,11218141 P4 Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for City of Newport Beach General Plan Update The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) appreciates the opportunity to comment on -the above -mentioned document. The SCAQMD's comments are recommendations regarding the analysis of potential air quality impacts from the proposed project that should be included in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Please send the SCAQMD a copy of the Draft EIR upon its completion. In addition, please send with the Draft EIR all appendices or technical documents related to the air quality analysis and electronic versions of all air quality modeling and health risk assessment files. Air Quality Analysis The SCAQMD adopted its California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Handbook in 1993 to assist other public agencies with the preparation of air quality analyses. The SCAQMD recommends that the Lead Agency use this Handbook as guidance when preparing its air quality analysis. Copies of the Handbook are available from the SCAQMD's Subscription Services Department by calling (909) 396-3720. Alternatively, lead agency may wish to consider using the California Air Resources Board (GARB) approved URBEMIS 2002 Model. This model is available on the SCAQMD Website at: www.agmd. og v/cega/models.html. The Lead Agency should identify any potential adverse air quality impacts that could occur from all phases of the project and all air pollutant sources related to the project. Air quality impacts from both construction and operations should be calculated. Construction -related air quality impacts typically include, but are not limited to, emissions from the use of heavy-duty equipment from grading, earth-loading/unloading, paving, architectural coatings, off -road mobile sources (e.g., heavy-duty construction equipment) and on -road mobile sources (e.g., construction worker vehicle trips, material transport trips). Operation -related air quality impacts may include, but are not limited to, emissions from stationary sources (e.g., boilers), area sources (e.g., solvents and coatings), and vehicular trips (e.g., on- and off -road tailpipe emissions and entrained dust). Air quality impacts from indirect sources, that is, sources that generate or attract vehicular trips should be included in the analysis. Consistent with the SCAQMD's environmental justice enhancement I-4, in October 2003, the SCAQMD Governing Board adopted a methodology for calculating localized air quality impacts and localized significance Mr. Gregg B. Ramirez, Senior Planner -2- January 31, 2006 thresholds (LSTs). LST's can be used in addition to the recommended regional significance thresholds as a second indication of air quality impacts when preparing a CEQA document. Therefore, when preparing the air quality analysis for the proposed project, it is recommended that the lead agency perform a localized significance analysis by either using the LSTs developed by the SCAQMD or performing dispersion modeling as necessary. Guidance for performing a localized air quality analysis can be found at hn://www.agmd. og vlcega/handbook/LST/LST httnl. It is recommended that lead agencies for projects generating or attracting vehicular trips, especially heavy-duty diesel -fueled vehicles, perform a mobile source health risk assessment. Guidance for performing a mobile source health risk assessment ("Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing CancerRisk from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis") can be found on the SCAQMD's CEQA webpages at the following internet address: httu://www.agmd.Rov/cega/handbook/mobilR toxiclmobile toxic html. An analysis of all toxic air contaminant impacts due to the decommissioning or use of equipment potentially generating such air pollutants should also be included. Mitieation Measures In the event that the project generates significant adverse air quality impacts, CEQA requires that all feasible mitigation measures that go beyond what is required by law be utilized during project construction and operation to minimize or eliminate significant adverse air quality impacts. To assist the Lead Agency with identifying possible mitigation measures for the project, please refer to Chapter 1 I of the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook for sample air quality mitigation measures. Additionally, SCAQMD's Rule 403 —Fugitive Dust, and the Implementation Handbook contain numerous measures for controlling construction -related emissions that should be considered for use as CEQA mitigation if not otherwise required. Other measures toreduce air quality impacts from land use projects can be found in the SCAQMD's Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning. This document can be found at the following internet address: h!M://www.agmd.ggy/prdas/agguide/agzuide,httnl. Pursuant'to state CEQA Guidelines §15126.4 (a)(1)(1)), any impacts resulting from mitigation measures must also be discussed. Data Sources SCAQMD rules and relevant air quality reports and data are available by calling the SCAQMD's Public Information Center at (909) 396-2039. Much of the information available through the Public Information Center is also available via the SCAQMD's World Wide Web Homepage (bgp://www.agmd.goY). The SCAQMD is willing to work with the Lead Agency to ensure that project -related emissions are accurately identified, categorized, and evaluated. Please call Charles Blankson, Ph.D., Air Quality Specialist, CEQA Section, at (909) 396-3304 if you have any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, 519v-e. 61,71V \ Steve Smith, Ph.D. Program Supervisor, CEQA Section Planning, Rule Development and Area Sources SS:CB:li ORC060127-02LI Control Number ' 02/27/2006 13:57 7148486643 HEDERM JAN D. VANDERSLOOT, M.D. 2221 fast le Sheet 11ome Phone (949) 548-6326 N"Ort Beach, CA 92663 Office FAX (714) $48.6643 February 27, 2006 ' NIr. Greg Ramirez, Senior Planner Planning Depattment City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd, P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 City of Newport Beach General PIan Update Notice of Preparation/lnitial Study January 2006 I I 1 By Fax: 949.644.3229 Dear Mr. Ramirez, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the NOP for the General Plan Update. I have the following questions that should be addressed in the EM PAGE 01 1. Table 3. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Existing and Proposed Land Use. Can you provide a total of how many residential units (du) will be added to the existing dwelling units under the Existing, Current GP and Proposed GP, and what the incremental changes are? For example, I now have to add the Existing N1FR and SFR to get 39,369 du, I have to add 29,504 NIFR to 19,570 SFR to get 49,074 du under the Current GP, and I have to add Proposed MFR 34,303 plus 20,402 SFR to get 54,705 du under the Proposed General Plan. 'Thus, the Proposed General Plan will have 15,336 more du than existing, and 5,631 du more than the Current GP, and the Current GP over existing is 5,631. This is important for people to know how much the City will grow under the different scenarios. 2. What is the growth in population who will occupy the dwelling units, and what is the per cent growth compared to the existing? 3. What is the number of people per household under the different categories of Existing, Current GP, and Proposed GP? 4. What percent growth in population will occur under the Current GP and the Proposed GP? 5. What is the number of park acreage required under the Quimby Act and will the proposed GP meet these requirements? E 02/27/2006 13:57 7148486643 HBDERM PAGE 02 ' JAN D. VANDERSLOOT, M.D. 2221 Lasrl& Street Home Phone (949) 548-6326 NewportBeaeh, CA92663 Office FAX (714) 843.6643 6, Table 4, Transportation Improvements under Proposed General Plan Update. There are 13 additional intersection improvements with project proposed. The EIR should identify what actions need to be taken at each of these locations. Will land need to be acquired to improve the intersections? If so, from whom and at what cost? if land is not acquired, how will the improvements be accomplished? 7. Will parking need to be removed from the sides of streets to accomplish widening of highways such as Coast Highway in Mariners Mile? 8, Will land need to be acquired to widen streets? From whom? At what cost? 9. The EIR should examine eliminating alternatives that are not feasible, such as the 19* StreetBanning Bridge over the Santa Ana River. Both the cities of Huntington Beach and Costa Mesa are actively working to eliminate this bridge from the County Master Plan of Arterial highways. What will happen to Newport Beach traffic circulation if this bridge is not built? The traffic alternatives should include this very possible scenario in the EIR. For example, the city of Costa Mesa has proposed a series of alternatives to mitigate for loss of the bridge. 'these alternatives can be obtained from the City Manager of Costa Mesa and shouldbe included in the ER 10. How will the recently announced decision of the city of Irvine to add an overlay, of 10,000 dwelling units near John Wayne ,Airport and Jamboree affect the circulation of Newport Beach and its capacity to handle the traffic from the development? See attached article from the Daily Pilot February 13, 2006 entitled: Housing Plans worry Newport". Thanks again for the opportunity to comment on the NOP. Please put me on the.mailing list for the EIR notices. Sincerely, Jan D. Vandersloot, MD Attachment: Daily Pilot Article February 13, 2006, "Housing plans worry Newport" [_J I I I �J 1 Page: 1 03/08/2006 2:36 PM URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 1 File Name: n•\n...ie..f� - an nt.11\9040n-00+\10579-03 Newoort Heach GPU EIR\Data\Air Quality da• Project Name: Project Location: On -Road Motor Vehicl OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE TOTALS (lbs/day,unm Page: 2 03/08/2006 2:36 PM 11 URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 ' File Name: P:\Projects - All Users\10400-00+\10579-03 Newport Beach GPU EIR\Data\Air Quality da , Project Name: Newport Beach GP Update - Existing (2005) Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC20D2 version 2.2 SUMMARY REPORT ' (Pounds/Day - Winter) OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 2,729.94 4,495.49 33,794.40 27.12 2,640.98 11 I 1 t I I I Page: 3 03/08/2006 2:36 PM URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name: P:\Projects - All Users\10900-00+\10579-03 Newport Beach GPU EIR\Data\Air Quality da Project Name: Newport Beach GP Update - Existing (2005) Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 SUMMARY REPORT (Tons/Year) OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 TOTALS (tpy, unmitigated) 523.47 649.69 6,353.06 5.22 481.98 1 Page: 4 ' 03/08/2006 2:36 PM URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 , File Name: P:\Projects - All Users\10400-00+\10579-03 Newport Beach GPU EIR\Data\Air Quality d� Project Name: Newport Beach GP Update - Existing (2005) Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 DETAIL REPORT , (Pounds/Day - Winter) UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO 502 PM10 Single family housing 2,729.94 4,495.49 33,794.40 27.12 2,640.98 TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs/day) 2,729.94 4,495.49 33,794.40 27.12 2,640.98 Does not include correction for passby trips. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES Analysis Year: 2005 Temperature (F): 50 Season: Winter EMFAC Version: EMFAC2002 (9/2002) Summary of Land Uses: No. Total Unit Type Acreage Trip Rate Units Trips Single family housing 10,046.30 9.57 trips/dwelling unit 30,]38.90288,429.27 Sum of Total Trips 288,429.27 Total Vehicle Miles Traveled 1,736,344,22 Vehicle Assumptions: Fleet Mix: Vehicle Type Percent Type NOp-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto 56.10 2.30 97.10 0.60 Light Truck < 3,750 lbs 15.10 4.00 93,40 2.60 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 15.50 1.90 96.80 1.30 Mad Truck 5,751- 8,500 6.80 1.50 95.60 2.90 Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 1.00 0.00 80.00 20.00 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 0.30 0.00 66.70 33.30 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 1.00 10.00 20.00 70.00 Heavy -Heavy 33,001-60,000 0.80 0.00 12.50 87.50 Line Haul > 60,000 lbs 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 Urban Bus 0.10 0.00 0.00 100.00 Motorcycle 1.60 87.50 12.50 0.00 School Bus 0.30 0.00 0.00 100.00 Motor Home 1.40 14.30 78.60 7.10 Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home- Home- Home- work Shop Other Commute Non -Work Customer Urban Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Rural Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 Trip Speeds (mph) 35.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 4 of Trips - Residential 0.0 0.0 100.0 ' Page: 5 03/08/2006 2:36 PM Changes made to the default values for Land Use Trip Percentages ' Changes made to the default values for Operations The home based work selection item changed from 8 to 7. The home based work trip percentage changed from 20.0 to 0. The home based shopping selection item changed from 9 to B. The home based shopping trip percentage changed from 37.0 to 0. The home based other selection item changed from 9 to 8. The home based other trip percentage changed from 43.0 to 100. The commercial based commute selection item changed from 9 to 8. The commercial based commute urban trip length changed from 10.3 to 0. The commercial based non -work selection item changed from 9 to S. The commercial based non -work urban trip length changed from 5.5 to 0. The commercial based customer selection item changed from 9 to B. The commercial based customer urban trip length changed from 5.5 to 0. ' 1 In u 1 11 I II 1 , Page: 6 03/08/2006 2:36 PM URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name: P:\Projects - All Users\10400-00+\10579-03 Newport Beach GPU EIR\Data\Air Quality da Project Name: Newport Beach GP Update - Existing (2005) ' Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 DETAIL REPORT (Pounds/Day - Summer) UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 Single family housing 2,937.54 3,092.15 35,319.73 29.38 2,640.98 TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs/day) 2,937.54 3,092.15 35,319.73 29.38 2,640.98 Does not include correction for passby trips. , Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES Analysis Year: 2005 Temperature (F): 90 Season: Summer EMFAC Version: EMPAC2002 (9/2002) Summary of Land Uses: ' No. Total Unit Type Acreage Trip Rate Units family housing 10,046.30 9.57 trips/dwelling 30,138.90288,429.27 Trips Single unit Sum of Total Trips 288,429.27 Total Vehicle Miles Traveled 1,736,344.22 Vehicle Assumptions: ' Fleet Mix: Vehicle Type Percent Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto 56.10 2.30 97.10 0.60 Light Truck < 3,750 lbs 15.10 4.00 93.40 2.60 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 15.50 1.90 96.B0 1.30 Had Truck 5,751- 8,500 6.80 1.50 95.60 2.90 Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 1.00 0.00 80.00 20.00 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 0.30 0.00 66.70 33.30 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 1.00 10.00 20.00 70.00 Heavy -Heavy 33,001-60,000 0.80 0.00 12.50 Line Haul > 60,000 lbs 0.00 0.00 0.00 87.50 100.00 Urban Bus 0.10 0.00 0.00 100.00 Motorcycle 1.60 87.50 12.50 0.00 School Bus 0.30 0.00 0.00 100.00 Motor Home 1.40 14.30 78.60 7.10 Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home- Home- Home- work Shop Other Commute Non -Work Customer Urban Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Rural Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 Trip Speeds (mph) 35.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 6 of Trips - Residential 0.0 0.0 100.0 11 ,I ' Page: 7 03/08/2006 2:36 PM Changes made to the default values for Land Use Trip Percentages ' Changes made to the default values for Operations The home based work selection item changed from 8 to 7. The home based work trip percentage changed from 20.0 to 0. The home based shopping selection item changed from 9 to 8. The home based shopping trip percentage changed from 37.0 to 0. The home based other selection item changed from 9 to S. The home based other trip percentage changed from 43.0 to 100. The commercial based commute selection item changed from 9 to 8. The commercial based commute urban trip length changed from 10.3 to 0. The commercial based non -work selection item changed from 9 to 8. The commercial based non -work urban trip length changed from 5.5 to 0. The commercial based customer selection item changed from 9 to S. The commercial based customer urban trip length changed from 5.5 to 0. ' I 1 I 11 It II II II Page: 8 03/08/2006 2:36 PM I URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 1 File Name: P:\Projects - All Users\10400-00+\10579-03 Newport Beach GPU EIR\Data\Air Quality da, Project Name: Newport Beach GP Update Existing (2005) Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMPAC2002 version 2.2 DETAIL REPORT (Tons/Year) UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO $02 PM10 Single family housing 523.47 649.69 6,353.06 5.22 481.98 TOTAL EMISSIONS (tons/yr) 523.47 649.69 6,353.06 5.22 481.98 Does not include correction for passby trips. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES Analysis Year: 2005 Season: Annual EMFAC Version: EMFAC2002 (9/2002) Summary of Land Uses: No. Total Unit Type Acreage Trip Rate Units Trips Single family housing 10,046.30 9.57 trips/dwelling unit 30#138,90288,429.27 Sum of Total Trips 288,429.27 Total Vehicle Miles Traveled 1,736,344.22 Vehicle Assumptions: Fleet Mix: Vehicle Type Percent Type Light Auto 56.10 Light Truck < 3,750 ibs 15.10 Light Truck. 3,751- 5,750 15.50 Med Truck 5,751- 8,500 6.80 Lite-Heavy 8,501-16,000 1.00 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 0.30 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 1.00 Heavy -Heavy 33,001-60,000 0.80 Line Haul > 60,000 lbs 0.00 Urban Bus 0.10 Motorcycle 1.60 School Bus 0.30 Motor Home 1.40 Travel Conditions Home - Work Urban Trip Length (miles) 11.5 Rural Trip Length (miles) 11.5 Trip Speeds (mph) 35.0 16 of Trips - Residential 0.0 Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel 2.30 97.10 0.60 4.00 93.40 2.60 1.90 96.80 1.30 1.50 95.60 2.90 0.00 80.06 20.00 0.00 66.70 33.30 10.00 20.00 70.00 0.00 12.50 87.50 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.60 0.00 100.00 87.50 12.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 14.30 78,60 7.10 Residential Home- Home - Shop Other 4.9 6.0 4.9 6.0 40.0 40.0 0.0 100.0 Commercial Commute Non -Work. Customer 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 40.0 40.0 40.0 ' Page: 9 03/08/2006 2:36 PM IChanges made to the default values for Land Use Trip Percentages I I I I Changes made to the default values for Operations The home based work selection item changed from 8 to 7. The home based work trip percentage changed from 20.0 to 0. The home based shopping selection item changed from 9 to 8. The home based shopping trip percentage changed from 37.0 to 0. The home based other selection item changed from 9 to B. The home based other trip percentage changed from 43.0 to 100. The commercial based commute selection item changed from 9 to 8. The commercial based commute urban trip length changed from 10.3 to 0. The commercial based non -work selection item changed from 9 to 8. The commercial based non -work urban trip length changed from 5.5 to 0. The commercial based customer selection item changed from 9 to 8. The commercial based customer urban trip length changed from 5.5 to 0. 1 Page: 1 ' 03/08/2006 2:37 PM URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name: P:\Projects - All Users\10400-00+\10579-03 Newport Beach GPU EIR\Data\Air Quality daI Project Name: Newport Beach GP Update - Existing (2005) Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 SUMMARY REPORT (Pounds/Day - Summer) OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 359.52 396.22 4,839.33 4.19 363.66 I I .1 11 I I I I I i� I 1 I I Page: 2 03/08/2006 2:37 PM URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name: P:\Projects - All Users\10400-00+\10579-03 Newport Beach GPU EIR\Data\Air Quality da Project Name: Newport Beach GP Update - Existing (2005) Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 SUMMARY REPORT (Pounds/Day - Winter) OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) 356.90 582.83 4,258.56 3.71 363.66 Page: 3 03/08/2006 2:37 PM URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name: P:\Projects - All Users\10400-00+\10579-03 Newport Beach GPU EIR\Data\Air Quality da ; Project Name: Newport Beach GP Update - Existing (2005) Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) _ On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 SUMMARY REPORT (Tons/Year) OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 TOTALS (tpy, unmitigated) 65.45 63.66 847.85 0.74 66.31 I I 11 t I r� I I [1 I I I I I I Page: 4 03/08/2006 2:37 PM URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name: P:\Projects - All Users\10400-00+\10579-03 Newport Beach GPU EIR\Data\Aix Quality da• Project Name: Newport Beach GP Update - Existing (2005) Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 DETAIL REPORT (Pounds/Day - Winter) UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO S02 Single family housing 356.90 582.83 4,258.56 3.71 TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs/day) 356.90 582.83 4,258.56 3.71 Does not include correction for passby trips. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES Analysis Year: 2005 Temperature (F): 50 Season: Winter EMFAC Version: EMFAC2002 (9/2002) Summary of Land Uses: PM10 363.66 363.66 No. Total Unit Type Acreage Trip Rate Units Trips Single family housing 722.60 9.57 trips/dwelling unit 2,167.8020,745.85 Sum of Total Trips 20,745.85 Total Vehicle Miles Traveled 238,577.23 Vehicle Assumptions: Fleet Mix: Vehicle Type Light Auto Light Truck < 3,750 lbs Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 Mad Truck 5,751- 8,500 Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 Heavy -Heavy 33,001-60,000 Line Haul > 60,000 lbs Urban Bus Motorcycle School Bus Motor Home Travel Conditions Percent Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel 56.10 2.30 97.10 0.60 15.10 4.00 93.40 2.60 15.50 1.90 96.80 1.30 6.80 1.50 95.60 2.90 1.00 0.00 80.00 20.00 0.30 0.00 66.70 33.30 1.00 10.00 20.00 70.00 0.80 0.00 12.50 87.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 100.00 1.60 87.50 12.50 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 100.00 1.40 14.30 78.60 7.10 Home - Work Urban Trip Length (miles) 11.5 Rural Trip Length (miles) 11.5 Trip Speeds (mph) 35.0 8 of Trips - Residential 100.0 Residential Commercial Home- Home - Shop Other Commute Non -Work Customer 4.9 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.9 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 I Page: 5 03/08/2006 2:37 PM Changes made to the default values for Land Use Trip Percentages Changes made to the default values for Operations The home based work selection item changed from 8 to 7. The home based work trip percentage changed from 20.0 to 100. The home based shopping selection item changed from 9 to S. The home based shopping trip percentage changed from 37.0 to 0. The home based other selection item changed from 9 to S. The home based other trip percentage changed from 43.0 to 0. The commercial based commute selection item changed from 9 to 8. The commercial based commute urban trip length changed from 10.3 to 0. The commercial based non -work selection item changed from 9 to S. The commercial based non -work urban trip length changed from 5.5 to 0. The commercial based customer selection item changed from 9 to S. The commercial based customer urban trip length changed from 5.5 to 0. ' Page: 6 03/08/2006 2:37 PM URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name: P:\Projects - All Users\10400-00+\10579-03 Newport Beach GPU EIR\Data\Air Quality da Project Name: Newport Beach GP Update - Existing (2005) Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 DETAIL REPORT (Pounds/Day - Summer) UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 Single family housing 359.52 396.22 4,839.33 4.19 363.66 TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs/day) 359.52 396.22 4,839.33 4.19 363.66 Does not include correction for passby trips. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES Analysis Year: 2005 Temperature (F): 90 Season: Summer EMFAC Version: EMFAC2002 (9/2002) Summary of Land Uses: No. Total Unit Type Acreage Trip Rate Units Trips Single family housing 722.60 9.57 trips/dwelling unit 2,167.8020,745.85 Sum of Total Trips 20,745.85 Total Vehicle Miles Traveled 238,577.23 Vehicle Assumptions: Fleet Mix: Vehicle Type Percent Type Light Auto 56.10 Light Truck < 3,750 lbs 15.10 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 15.50 Mad Truck 5,751- 8,500 6.80 Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 1.00 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,006 0.30 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 1.00 Heavy -Heavy 33,001-60,000 0.80 Line Haul > 60,000 lbs 0.00 Urban Bus 0.10 Motorcycle 1.60 School Bus 0.30 Motor Home 1.40 Travel Conditions Home - Work Urban Trip Length (miles) 11.5 Rural Trip Length (miles) 11.5 Trip Speeds (mph) 35.0 4 of Trips - Residential 100.0 Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel 2.30 97.10 0.60 4.00 93.40 2.60 1.90 96.80 1.30 1.50 95.60 2.90 0.00 80.00 20.00 0.00 66.70 33.30 10.00 20.00 70.00 0.00 12.50 87.50 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 87.50 12.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 14.30 78.60 7.10 Residential Home- Home - Shop Other 4.9 6.0 4.9 6.0 40.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 Commercial Commute Non -Work Customer 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 40.0 40.0 40.0 Page: 7 03/08/2006 2:37 PM Changes made to the default values for Land Use Trip Percentages Changes made to the default values for Operations The home based work selection item changed from 8 to 7. The home based work trip percentage changed from 20.0 to 100. The,home based shopping selection item changed from 9 to 8. The home based shopping trip percentage changed from 37.0 to 0. The home based other selection item changed from 9 to 8. The home based other trip percentage changed from 43.0 to 0. The commercial based commute selection item changed from 9 to S. the commercial based commute urban trip length changed from 10.3 to 0. The commercial based non -work selection item changed from 9 to S. The commercial based non -work urban trip length changed from 5.5 to 0. The commercial based Customer selection item changed from 9 to 8, The Commercial based customer urban trip length changed from 5.5 to 0. Page: 8 03/08/2006 2:37 PM URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name: P:\Projects - All Users\10400-00+\10579-03 Newport Beach GPU EIR\Data\Air Quality da Project Name: Newport Beach GP Update - Existing (2005) Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 DETAIL REPORT (Tons/Year) UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 Single family housing 65.45 83.66 847.85 0.74 66.37 TOTAL EMISSIONS (tons/yr) 65.45 83.66 847.85 0.74 66.37 Does not include correction for passby trips. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES Analysis Year: 2005 Season: Annual EMFAC Version: EMFAC2002 (9/2002) Summary of Land Uses: No. Total Unit Type Acreage Trip Rate Units Trips Single family housing 722.60 9.57 trips/dwelling unit 2,167.8020,745.85 Sum of Total Trips 20,745.85 Total Vehicle Miles Traveled 238,577.23 Vehicle Assumptions: Fleet Mix: Vehicle Type Percent Type Light Auto 56.10 Light Truck < 3,750 lbs 15.10 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 15.50 Ned Truck 5,751- 8,500 6.80 Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 1.00 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 0.30 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 1.00 Heavy -Heavy 33,001-60,000 0.80 Line Haul > 60,000 lbs 0.00 Urban Bus 0.10 Motorcycle 1.60 School Bus 0.30 Motor Home 1.40 Travel Conditions Home - Work Urban Trip Length (miles) 11.5 Rural Trip Length (miles) 11.5 Trip Speeds (mph) 35.0 % of Trips - Residential 100.0 Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel 2.30 97.10 0.60 4.00 93.40 2.60 1.90 96.80 1.30 1.50 95.60 2.90 0.00 80.00 20.00 0.00 66.70 33.30 10.00 20.00 70.00 0.00 12.50 87.50 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 87.50 12.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 14.30 78.60 7.10 Residential Home- Home - Shop Other 4.9 6.0 4.9 6.0 40.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 Commercial Commute Non -Work Customer 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 40.0 40.0 40.0 '1 Page: 9 03/08/2006 2:37 PM I Changes made to the default values for land Use Trip Percentages Changes made to the default values for Operations The home based work selection item changed from 8 to 7. The home based work trip percentage changed from 20.0 to 100. The home based shopping selection item changed from 9 to S. The home based shopping trip percentage changed from 37.0 to 0. The home based other selection item changed from 9 to S. The home based other trip percentage changed from 43.0 to 0. The commercial based commute selection item changed from 9 to 8. The commercial based commute urban trip length changed from 10.3 to 0. The commercial based non -work selection item changed from 9 to S. The commercial based non -work urban trip length changed from 5.5 to 0. The commercial based customer selection item changed from 9 to- 8-The commercial based customer urban trip length changed from 5.5 to 0. I I 1.1 I r II Page: 1 03/08/2006 2:39 PM URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name: P:\Projects - All Users\10900-00+\10579-03 Newport Beach GPU EIR\Data\Air Quality da: Project Name: Newport Beach GP Update - Existing (2005) Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 SUMMARY REPORT (Pounds/Day - Summer) OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES' ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 3,089.94 3,405.38 41,592.39 36.02 3,125.57 ' Page: 2 03/08/2006 2:39 PM , URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name: P:\Projects - All Users \10400-00+\10579-03 Newport Beach GPU EIR\Data\Air Quality da Project Name: Newport Beach GP Update - Existing (2065) Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 SUMMARY REPORT (Pounds/Day - Winter) OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NO% CO S02 PM10 TOTALS (ibs/day,unmitigated) 3,067.44 5,009.23 36,600.84 31.88 3,125,57 I Page: 3 03/08/2006 2:39 PM URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name: P:\Projects - All Users\10900-00+\10579-03 Newport Beach GPU EIR\Data\Air Quality da• Project Name: Newport Beach GP Update - Existing (2005) Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 SUMMARY REPORT (Tons/Year) OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 TOTALS (tpy, unmitigated) 562.54 719.05 7,286.96 6.32 570.42 '1 Page: 4 03/08/2006 2:39 PM URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name: P:\Projects - All Users\10400-00+\10579-03 Newport Beach GPU EIR\data\Air Quality da Project Name: Newport Beach GP Update - Existing (2005) Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 DETAIL REPORT (Pounds/Day - Winter) UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO 502 PM10 Single family housing 3,067.44 5,009.23 36,600.84 31.88 3,125.57 TOTAL EMISSIONS (•lbs/day) 3,067.44 5,009.23 36,600.84 31.88 3,125.57 Does not include correction for passby trips. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal hips. OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES Analysis Year: 2005 Temperature (F): 50 Season: Winter EMFAC Version: EHFAC2002 (9/2002) Summary of Land Uses: No. Total Unit Type Acreage Trip Rate Units Trips Single family housing 6,210.50 9.57 trips/dwelling unit 18,631.50178,303.46 Sum of Total Trips 178,303.46 Total Vehicle Miles Traveled 2,050,489.73 Vehicle Assumptions: Fleet Mix: Vehicle Type Percent Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto 56.10 2.30 97.10 0.60 Light Truck < 3,750 lbs 15.10 4.00 93.40 2.60 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 15.50 1.90 96.80 1.30 Mad Truck 5,751- 8,500 6.80 1.50 95.60 2.90 Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 1.00 0.00 80.00 20.00 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 0.30 0.00 66.70 33.30 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 1.00 10.00 20.00 70.00 Heavy -Heavy 33,001-60,000 0.80 0.00 12.50 87.50 Line Haul > 60,000 lbs 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 Urban Bus 0.10 0.00 0.00 100.00 Motorcycle 1.60 87.50 12.50 0.00 School Bus 0.30 0.00 0.00 100.00 Motor Home 1.40 14.30 78.60 7.10 Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home- Home- Home - Work shop Other Commute Non -Work Customer Urban Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Rural Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 Trip Speeds (mph) 35.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 b of Trips - Residential 100.0 0.0 0.0 II Page: 5 03/08/2006 2:39 PM Changes made to the default values for Land Use Trip Percentages Changes made to the default values for Operations The home based work selection item changed from 8 to 7. The home based work trip percentage changed from 20.0 to 100. The home based shopping selection item changed from 9 to 8. The home based shopping trip percentage changed from 37.0 to 0. The home based other selection item changed from 9 to S. The home based other trip percentage changed from 43.0 to 0. The commercial based commute selection item changed from 9 to 8. The commercial based commute urban trip length changed from 10.3 to 0. The commercial based non -work selection item changed from 9 to 8. The commercial based non -work urban trip length changed from 5.5 to 0. The commercial based customer selection item changed from 9 to 8. The commercial based customer urban trip length changed from 5.5 to 0. ' 11 I I I I II II II 1I II Page: 6 03/08/2006 2:39 PM URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name: P:\Projects - All Users\10400-00+\10579-03 Newport Beach GPU EIR\Data\Air Quality da Project Name: Newport Beach GP Update - Existing (2005) Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EVXAC2002 version 2.2 DETAIL REPORT (Pounds/Day - Summer) UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 Single family housing 3,089.94 3,405.38 41,592.39 36.02 3,125.57 TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs/day) 3,089.94 3,405.38 410592.39 36.02 3,125.57 Does not include correction for passby trips. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES Analysis Year: 2005 Temperature (F): 90 Season: Summer EMFAC Version: ERFAC2002 (9/2002) Summary of Land Uses: No. Total Unit Type Acreage Trip Rate Units Trips Single family housing 6,210.50 9.57 trips/dwelling unit 18, 631.50178, 303.46 Sum of Total Trips 178,303.46 Total Vehicle Miles Traveled 2,050,489.73 Vehicle Assumptions: Fleet Mix: Vehicle Type Percent Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto 56.10 2.30 97.10 0.60 Light Truck c 3,750 Its 15.10 4.00 93.40 2.60 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 15.50 1.90 96.80 1.30 Med Truck 5,751- 8,500 6.80 1.50 95.60 2.90 Lite-Heavy 81501-10,000 1.00 0.00 80.00 20.00 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 0.30 0.00 66.70 33.30 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 1.00 10.00 20.00 70.00 Heavy -Heavy 33,001-60,000 0.80 0.00 12.50 $7.50 Line Haul > 60,000 lbs 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 Urban Bus 0.10 0.00 0.00 100.00 Motorcycle 1.60 87.50 12.50 0.00 School Bus 0.30 0.00 0.00 100.00 Motor Home 1.40 14.30 78.60 7.10 Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home- Home- Home- work Shop Other Commute Non -Work. Customer Urban Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Rural Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 Trip Speeds (mph) 35.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 & of Trips - Residential 100.0 0.0 0.0 ' Page: 7 03/08/2006 2:39 PM Changes made to the default values for Land Use Trip Percentages Changes made to the default values for Operations The home based work selection item changed from 8 to 7. The home based work trip percentage changed from 20.0 to 100. The home based shopping selection item changed from 9 to 8. The home based shopping trip percentage changed from 37.0 to 0. The home based other selection item changed from 9 to 8. The home based other trip percentage changed from 43.0 to 0. The commercial based commute selection item changed from 9 to 8. The commercial based commute urban trip length changed from 10.3 to 0. The commercial based non -work selection item changed from 9 to B. The commercial based non -work urban trip length changed from 5.5 to 0. The commercial based customer selection item changed from 9 to S. ' The commercial based customer urban trip length changed from 5.5 to 0. I I U 11 I! II Page: 8 03/08/2006 2:39 PM 11 URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name: P:\Projects - All Users\10400-00+\10579-03 Newport Beach GPO EIR\Data\Air Quality da- '• Project Name: Newport Beach GP Update - Existing (2005) Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 DETAIL REPORT (Tons/Year) UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 Single family housing 562.54 719.05 7,286.96 6.32 570.42 TOTAL EMISSIONS (tons/yr) 562.54 719.05 7,286.96 6.32 570.42 Does not include correction for passby trips. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES Analysis Year: 2005 Season: Annual EMFAC Version: EMFAC2002 (9/2002) Summary of Land Uses: No. Total Unit Type Acreage Trip Rate Units Trips Single family housing 6,210.50 9.57 trips/dwelling unit 181631.50178,303.46 Sum of Total Trips 178,303.46 Total Vehicle Miles Traveled 2,050,489.73 Vehicle Assumptions: Fleet Mix: Vehicle Type Percent Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto 56.10 2.30 97.10 0.60 Light Truck < 3,750 lbs 15.10 4.00 93.40 2.60 Light Truck. 3,751- 5,750 15.50 1.90 96.80 1.30 Mad Truck 5,751- 8,500 6.80 1.50 95.60 2.90 Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 1.00 0.00 80.00 20.00 Lite-Heavy 10,901-14,000 0.30 0.00 66.70 33.30 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 1.00 10.00 20.00 70.00 Heavy -Heavy 33,001-60,000 0.80 0.00 12.50 87.50 Line Haul > 60,000 lbs 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 Urban Bus 0.10 0.00 0.00 100.00 Motorcycle 1.60 87.50 12.50 0.00 School Bus 0.30 0.00 0.00 100.00 Motor Home 1.40 14.30 78.60 7.10 Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home- Home- Home - Work. Shop Other Commute Non -Work. Customer Urban Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Rural Trip Length (miles) 21.5 4.9 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 Trip Speeds (mph) 35.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 % of Trips - Residential 100.0 0.0 0.0 ' Page: 9 03/08/2006 2:39 PM ' Changes made to the default values for Land Use Trip Percentages Changes made to the default values for Operations The home based work selection item changed from 8 to 7. The home based work trip percentage changed from 20.0 to 100. The home based shopping selection item changed from 9 to 8. ' The home based shopping trip percentage changed from 37.0 to 0. The home based other selection item changed from 9 to S. The home based other trip percentage changed from 93.0 to 0. The commercial based commute selection item changed from 9 to 8. The commercial based commute urban trip length changed from 10.3 to 0. The commercial based non -work selection item changed from 9 to 8. The commercial based non -work urban trip length changed from 5.5 to 0. The commercial based customer selection item changed from 9 to 8. The commercial based customer urban trip length changed from 5.5 to 0. I If [I I II Ul Ul 'i Page: 1 , 03/08/2006 2.40 PM URBEMIS 20D2 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name: P:\Projects - All Users\10400-00+\10579-03 Newport Beach GPU EIR\Data\Air Quality dw Project Name: Newport Beach GP Update - Existing (2005) Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 SUMMARY REPORT i (Founds/Day - Summer) OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROO NOx CO S02 PM10 i TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 5,803.45 5,659.17 63,185.28 56.99 5,174.99 i I i i i i 1 11 i i Page: 2 03/08/2006 2:40 PM URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name: P:\Pro3ects - All Users\30900-00+\10579-03 Newport Beach GPU EIR\Data\Air Quality dw Project Name: Newport Beach GP Update - Existing (2005) Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 SUMMARY REPORT (Pounds/Day - Winter) OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 4,574.75 8,308.29 57,251.84 52.99 5,174.99 Page: 3 03/08/2006 2:40 PM URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name: P:\Projects - All Users\10400-00+\10579-03 Newport Beach GPU EIR\Data\Air Quality da Project Name: Newport Beach GP Update - Existing (2005) Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 ' SUMMARY REPORT (Tons/Year) OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO 502 PM10 , TOTALS (tpyt unmitigated) 984.38 1,193.95 11,170.36 10.12 944.44 I Page: 4 03/08/2006 2:40 PM URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name: P:\Projects - All Users\10400-00+\10579-03 Newport Beach GPU EIR\Data\Air Quality da Project Name: Newport Beach GP Update - Existing (2005) Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 DETAIL REPORT (Pounds/Day - Winter) UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO $02 PM10 General office building 4,574.75 8,308.29 57,251.84 52.44 5,174.99 TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs/day) 4,574.75 8,308.29 57,251.84 52.44 5,174.99 Does not include correction for passby trips. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES Analysis Year: 2005 Temperature (F): 50 Season: Winter EMFAC Version: EHFAC2002 (9/2002) Summary of Land Uses: No. Total Unit Type Acreage Trip Rate Units Trips General office building 3.32 trips/1000 sq. ft. 97,706.60324,385.91 Sum of Total Trips 324,385.91 Total Vehicle Miles Traveled 3,406,052.08 Vehicle Assumptions: Fleet Mix: Vehicle Type Percent Type Light Auto 56.10 Light Truck < 3,750 lbs 15.10 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 15.50 Med Truck 5,751- 8,500 6.80 Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 1.00 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 0.30 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 1.00 Heavy -Heavy 33,001-60,000 0.80 Line Haul > 60,000 lbs 0.00 Urban Bus 0.10 Motorcycle 1.60 School Bus 0.30 Motor Home 1.40 Travel Conditions Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel 2.30 97.10 0.60 4.00 93.40 2.60 1.90 96.80 1.30 1.50 95.60 2.90 0.00 80.00 20.00 0.00 66.70 33.30 10.00 20.00 70.00 0.00 12.50 87.50 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 87.50 12.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 14.30 78.60 7.10 Residential Home- Home- Home - Work Shop Other Urban Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 Rural Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 Trip Speeds (mph) 35.0 40.0 40.0 & of Trips - Residential 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ of Trips - Commercial (by land use) General office building Commercial Commute Non -Work Customer 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.3 5.5 5.5 40.0 40.0 40.0 35.0 17.5 47.5 Page: 5 03/08/2006 2:90 PM Changes made to the default values for Land Use Trip Percentages Changes made to the default values for Operations The home based work selection item changed from 8 to 7. The home based work trip percentage changed from 20.0 to 0. The home based shopping selection item changed from 9 to S. The home based shopping trip percentage changed from 37.0 to 0. The home based other selection item changed from 9 to 8. The home based other trip percentage changed from 43.0 to 0. The commercial based commute selection item changed from 9 to B. The commercial based commute urban trip length changed from 10.3 to 10.5. The commercial based non -work selection item changed from 9 to 8. The commercial based non -work urban trip length changed from 5.5 to 10.5. The commercial based customer selection item changed from 9 to 8. The commercial based customer urban trip length changed from 5.5 to 30.5. Page: 6 03/08/2006 2:40 PM URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name: P:\Projects - All Users\10400-00+\10579-03 Newport Beach GPU EIR\Data\Air Quality da Pro3ect Name: Newport Beach GP Update - Existing (2005) Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 DETAIL REPORT (Pounds/Day - Summer) UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 General office building 5,803.45 5,659.17 63,185.28 56.99 5,174.99 TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs/day) 5,803.45 5,659.17 63,185.28 56.99 5,174.99 Does not include correction for passby trips. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES Analysis Year: 2005 Temperature (F): 90 Season: Summer EMFAC Version: EMFAC2002 (9/2002) Summary of Land Uses: No. Total Unit Type Acreage Trip Rate Units Trips General office building 3.32 trips/1000 sq. ft. 97,706.60324,385.91 Sum of Total Trips 324,385.91 Total Vehicle Miles Traveled 3,406,052.08 Vehicle Assumptions Fleet Mix: Vehicle Type Percent Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto 56.10 2.30 97.10 0.60 Light Truck < 3,750 lbs 15.10 4.00 93.40 2.60 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 15.50 1.90 96.80 1.30 Mad Truck 5,751- 8,500 6.80 1.50 95.60 2.90 Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 1.00 0.00 80.00 20.00 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 0.30 0.00 66.70 33.30 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 1.00 10.00 20.00 70.00 Heavy -Heavy 33,001-60,000 0.80 0.00 12.50 87.50 Line Haul > 60,000 lbs 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 Urban Bus 0.10 0.00 0.00 100.00 Motorcycle 1.60 87.50 12.50 0.00 School Bus 0.30 0.00 0.00 100.00 Motor Home 1.40 14.30 78.60 7.10 Travel Conditions Residential Home- Home- Home- work Shop Other Urban Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 Rural Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 Trip Speeds (mph) 35.0 40.0 40.0 8 of Trips - Residential 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ of Trips - Commercial (by land use) General office building Commercial Commute Non -Work Customer 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.3 5.5 5.5 40.0 40.0 40.0 35.0 17.5 47.5 Page: 7 03/08/2006 2:40 PM Changes made to the default values for Land Use Trip Percentages Changes made to the default values for Operations The home based work selection item changed from 8 to 7. The home based work trip percentage changed from 20.0 to 0. The home based shopping selection item changed from 9 to 8. The home based shopping trip percentage changed from 37.0 to 0. The home based other selection item changed from 9 to S. The home based other trip percentage changed from 43.0 to 0. The commercial based commute selection item changed from 9 to 8. The commercial based commute urban trip length changed from 10,3 to 10.5. The commercial based non -work selection item changed from 9 to 8. The commercial based non -work urban trip length changed from 5.5 to 10.5. The commercial based customer selection item changed from 9 to 8. The commercial based customer urban trip length changed from 5.5 to 10.5. Page: 8 03/08/2006 2:40 PM URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name: P:\Projects - All Users\10400-00+\10579-03 Newport Beach GPU EIR\Data\Air Quality Project Name: Newport Beach GP Update - Existing (2005) Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 DETAIL REPORT (Tons/Year) UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 General office building 984.38 1,193.95 11,170.36 10.12 944.44 TOTAL EMISSIONS (tons/yr) 984.38 1,193.95 11,170.36 10.12 944.44 Does not include correction for passby trips. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES Analysis Year: 2005 Season: Annual EMFAC Version: EMFAC2002 (9/2002) Summary of Land Uses: No. Total Unit Type Acreage Trip Rate Units Trips General office building 3.32 trips/1000 sq. ft. 97,706.60324,385.91 Sum of Total Trips 324,385.91 Total Vehicle Miles Traveled 3,406,052.08 Vehicle Assumptions: Fleet Mix: Vehicle Type Percent Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto 56.10 2.30 97.10 0.60 Light Truck < 3,750 lbs 15.10 4.00 93.40 2.60 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 15.50 1.90 96.80 1.30 Mad Truck 5,751- 8,500 6.80 1.50 95.60 2.90 Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 1.00 0.00 80.00 20.00 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 0.30 0.00 66.70 33.30 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 1.00 10.00 20.00 70.00 Heavy -Heavy 33,001-60,000 0.80 0.00 12.50 87.50 Line Haul > 60,000 lbs 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 Urban Bus 0.10 0.00 0.00 100.00 Motorcycle 1.60 87.50 12.50 0.00 School Bus 0.30 0.00 0.00 100.00 Motor Home 1.40 14.30 78.60 7.10 Travel Conditions Residential Home- Home- Home - Work 'Shop Other Urban Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 Rural Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 Trip Speeds (mph) 35.0 40.0 40.0 6 of Trips - Residential 0.0 0.0 0.0 % of Trips - Commercial (by land use) General office building Commercial Commute Non -Work Customer 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.3 5.5 5.5 40.0 40.0 40.0 35.0 17.5 47.5 Page: 9 03/08/2006 2:40 PM Changes made to the default values for Land Use Trip Percentages Changes made to the default values for Operations The home based work selection item changed from 8 to 7. The home based work trip percentage changed from 20.0 to 0. The home based shopping selection item changed from 9 to 8. The home based chopping trip percentage changed from 37.0 to 0. The home based other selection item changed from 9 to 8. The home based other trip percentage changed from 43.0 to 0. The commercial based commute selection item changed from 9 to S. The commercial based commute urban trip length changed from 10.3 to 10.5. The commercial based non -work selection item changed from 9 to 8. The commercial based non -work urban trip length changed from 5.5 to 10.5. The commercial based customer selection item changed from 9 to 8. The commercial based customer urban trip length changed from 5.5 to 10.5. I Page: 1 03/08/2006 2:31 PM URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name: P:\Projects - All Users\10400-00+\10579-03 Newport Beach GPU EIR\Data\Air Quality da Project Name: Newport Beach GP Update - Current GP Buildout (2030) Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 SUMMARY REPORT (Pounds/Day - Summer) OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitngated) 720.87 558.53 7,347.60 21.19 3,229.83 Ul Page: 2 03/08/2006 2:31 PM 1 , URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7,0 File Name: P:\Projects - All Users\10400-00+\10579-03 Newport Beach GPU EIR\Data\Air Quality da Project Name: Newport Beach GP Update - Current GP Buildout (2030) Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 SUMMARY REPORT (Pounds/Day - Winter) ' OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 605.92 800.15 6,176.61 18,38 3,229.83 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 I Page: 3 03/08/2006 2:31 PM Ll I URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name: P:\Projects - All Users\10400-00+\10579-03 Newport Beach GPU EIR\Data\Air Quality d& Project Name: Newport Beach GP Update - Current GP Buildout (2030) Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 SUMMARY REPORT (Tons/Year) OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 TOTALS (tpy, unmitigated) 124.57 116.63 1,306.20 3.70 589.44 Page: 4 03/08/2006 2:31 PM URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 ' File Name: P:\Projects - All Users\10400-00+\10579-03 Newport Beach GPU EIR\Data\Air Quality da ' Project Name: Newport Beach GP Update - Current GP Buildout (2030) Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 DETAIL REPORT ' (Pounds/Day - Winter) UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 Single family housing 605.92 800.15 6,776.61 18.38 3,229.83 TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs/day) 605.92 800.15 6,776.61 18.38 3,229.63 Does not include correction for passby trips. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES Analysis Year: 2030 Temperature (F): 50 Season: Winter EMFAC Version: EMFAC2002 (9/2002) Summary of Land Uses: No, Total Unit Type Acreage Trip Rate Units Trips Single family housing 12,363.00 9.57 trips/dwelling unit 37,089.00354,941.73 Sum of Total Trips 354,941.73 Total Vehicle Miles Traveled 2,136,749.21 Vehicle Assumptions: Fleet Mix: Vehicle Type Percent Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto 52.50 0.00 100.00 0.00 Light Truck < 3,750 lbs 15.90 0.00 100.00 0.00 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 16.70 0.00 100.00 0.00 Mad Truck 5,751- 8,500 7.60 0.00 100.00 0.00 Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 1.00 0.00 80.00 20.00 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 0.30 0.00 66.70 33.30 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 0.50 0.00 22.26 77.80 Heavy -Heavy 331001-60,000 0.70 0.00 0.00 100.00 Line Haul > 60,000 lbs 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 Urban Bus 0.20 0.00 50.00 50.00 Motorcycle 1.50 33.30 66.70 0.00 School Bus 0.10 0.00 0.00 100.00 Motor Home 2.60 0.00 92.30 7.70 Travel Conditions Residential, Commercial Home- Home- Home- work Shop Other Commute Non -Work Customer Urban Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Rural Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 Trip Speeds (mph) 35.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 It of Trips - Residential 0.0 0.0 100.0 Page: 5 03/08/2006 2:31 PM 1 Changes made to the default values for Land Use Trip Percentages Changes made to the default values for Operations The operational emission year changed from 2005 to 2030. The home based work selection item changed from 8 to 7. The home based work trip percentage changed from 20.0 to 0. The home based shopping selection item changed from 9 to S. The home based shopping trip percentage changed from 37.0 to 0. The home based other selection item changed from 9 to 8. The home based other trip percentage changed from 43.0 to 100. The commercial based commute selection item changed from 9 to S. The commercial based commute urban trip length changed from 10.3 to 0. The commercial based non -work selection item changed from 9 to 8. The commercial based non -work urban trip length changed from 5.5-to 0. The commercial based customer selection item changed from 9 to 8. The commercial based customer urban trip length changed from 5.5 to 0. Page: 6 ' 03/OB/2006 2:31 PM URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 ' File Name: P:\Projects - All Users\10400-00+\10579-03 Newport Beach GPU EIR\Data\Air quality da , Project Name: Newport Beach GP Update - Current GP Buildout (2030) Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 DETAIL REPORT (Pounds/Day - Summer) UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 Single family housing 720.87 558.53 7,347.60 21.19 3,229.83 TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs/day) 720.87 558.53 7,347.60 21.19 3,229.83 Does not include correction for passby trips. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES Analysis Year: 2030 Temperature (F): 90 Season: Summer E FAC Version: EMFAC2001 (9/2002) Summary of Land Uses: No. Total Unit Type Acreage Trip Rate Units Trips Single family housing 12,363.00 9.57 trips/dwelling unit 37,089.00354,941.73 Sum of Total Trips 354,941.73 ' Total Vehicle Miles Traveled 2,136,749.21 Vehicle Assumptions: Fleet Mix: Vehicle Type Percent Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto 52.50 0.00 100.00 0.00 Light Truck < 3,750 lbs 15.90 0.00 100.00 0.00 Light Truck 3,751- 5,760 16.70 0.00 100.00 0.00 Mad Truck 5,751- 8,500 7.60 0.00 100.00 0.00 Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 1.00 0.00 80.00 20.00 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 0.30 0.00 66.70 33.30 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 0.90 0.00 22.20 77.80 Heavy -Heavy 33,001-60,000 0.70 0.00 0.00 100.00 Line Haul > 60,000 lba 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 Urban Bus 0.20 0.06 50.00 50.00 Motorcycle 1.50 33.30 66.70 0.00 School Bus 0.10 0.00 0.00 100.OD Motor Home 2.60 0.00 92.30 7.70 Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home- Home- Home - Work Shop Other Commute Non -Work Customer Urban Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Rural Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 Trip Speeds (mph) 35.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 3k of Trips - Residential 0.0 0.0 100.0 ' Page: 7 03/08/2006 2:31 PM ' Changes made to the default values for Land Use Trip Percentages I iJ I I I Changes made to the default values for operations The operational emission year changed from 2005 to 2030. The home based work selection item changed from 6 to 7. The home based work trip percentage changed from 20.0 to 0. The home based shopping selection item changed from 9 to 8. The home based shopping trip percentage changed from 37.0 to 0. The home based other selection item changed from 9 to 8. The home based other trip percentage changed from 43.0 to 100. The commercial based commute selection item changed from 9 to 8. The commercial based commute urban trip length changed from 10.3 to 0. The commercial based non -work selection item changed from 9 to S. The commercial based non -work urban trip length changed from 5.5 to 0. The commercial based customer selection item changed from 9 to 8. The commercial based customer urban trip length changed from 5.5 to 0. Page: 8 , 03/08/2006 2:31 PM URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name: P:\Projects - All Users\10400-00+\10579-03 Newport Beach GPU EIR\Data\Air Quality dw ' Project Name: Newport Beach GP Update - Current GP Buildout (2030) Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 DETAIL REPORT , (Tono/Year) UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO $02 PM10 Single family housing 124.57 116.63 1,306.20 3.70 589.44 TOTAL EMISSIONS (tbns/yr) 124.57 116.63 1,306.20 3.70 589.44 Does not include correction for passby trips. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES Analysis Year: 2030 Season: Annual EMFAC Version: EMFAC2002 (9/2002) Summary of Land Uses: No. Total Unit Type Acreage Trip Rate Units Trips Single family housing 12,363.00 9.57 trips/dwelling unit 37,089,00354,941.73 Sum of Total Trips 354,941.73 Total Vehicle Miles Traveled 2,136,749.21 Vehicle Assumptions: Fleet Mix: Vehicle Type Percent Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto 52.50 0.00 100.00 0.00 Light Truck < 3,750 lbs 15.90 6.00 100.00 0.00 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 16.70 0100 100.00 0.06 Ned Truck 5,751- 8,500 7.60 0.00 100.00 0.00 Lite-Heavy 81501-10,000 1.00 0.00 80.00 20.00 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 0.30 0.00 66.70 33.30 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 0.90 0.00 22.20 77.80 Heavy -Heavy 33,001-60,000 0.70 0.00 0.00 100.00 Line Haul > 60,000 Its 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 Urban Bus 0.20 0.00 50.00 50.00 Motorcycle 1.50 33.30 66.70 0.00 School Bus 0.10 0.00 0.00 100.00 Motor Home 2.60 0.00 92,30 7.70 Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home- Home- Home - Work Shop Other Commute Non -Work Customer Urban Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Rural Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 Trip Speeds (mph) 35.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 Is of Trips - Residential 0.0 0.0 100.0 ' Page: 9 03/08/2006 2:31 PM Changes made to the default values for Land Use Trip Percentages ' Changes made to the default values for Operations The operational emission year changed from 2005 to 2030. The home based work selection item changed from 8 to 7. The home based work trip percentage changed from 20.0 to 0. The home based shopping selection item changed from 9 to 8. The home based shopping trip percentage changed from 37.0 to 0. The home based other selection item changed from 9 to S. The home based other trip percentage changed from 93.0 to 100. The commercial based commute selection item changed from 9 to 8. The commercial based commute urban trip length changed from 10.3 to 0. The commercial based non -work selection item changed from 9 to 8. The commercial based non -work urban trip length changed from 5.5 to 0. The commercial based customer selection item changed from 9 to 8. ' The commercial based customer urban trip length changed from 5.5 to 0. I J II I Page: 1 03/08/2006 2:32 PM 11 ' URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name: P:\Projects - All User3\10400-00+\10579-03 Newport Beach GPU EIR\Data\Air Quality da Project Name: Newport Beach GP Update - Current GP Buildout (2030) , Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on ENFAC2002 version 2.2 SUMMARY REPORT (Pounds/Day - Summer) OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 715.43 625.40 8,975.85 28.00 3,959.08 j 11 11 I ' Page: 2 03/08/2006 2:32 PM ' URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name: P:\Projects - All Users\10400-00+\10579-03 Newport Beach GPU EIR\Data\Air Quality da• ' Project Name: Newport Beach GP Update - Current GP Buildout (2030) Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 SUMMARY REPORT (Pounds/Day - Winter) OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 ' TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 691.66 911.36 7,522.31 22.66 3,959.08 F, 1 1 r Page: 3 03/08/2006 2:32 PM A URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.710 File Name: P:\Projects - All Users\10400-00+\10579-03 Newport Beach GPU EIR\Data\Air Quality da ' Project Name: Newport Beach GP Update - Current GP Buildout (2030) Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 SUMMARY REPORT (Tons/Year) OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 TOTALS (tpy, unmitigated) 129.12 131.53 1,549.67 4.79 722.53 11 I I i 7 I 11 I Page: 4 03/08/2006 2:32 PM URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name: P:\Projects - All Users \10400-00+\10579-03 Newport Beach GPU EIR\Data\Air Quality da• Project Name: Newport Beach GP Update - Current GP Buildout (2030) Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 DETAIL REPORT (Pounds/Day - Winter) UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 Single family housing 691.66 911.36 7,522.31 22.66 3,959.08 TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs/day) 691.66 911.36 7,522.31 22.66 3,959.08 Does not include correction for passby trips. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES Analysis Year: 2030 Temperature (F): 50 Season: Winter EMFAC Version: EMFAC2002 (9/2002) Summary of Land Uses: No. Total Unit Type Acreage Trip Rate Units Trips Single family housing 7,921.30 9.57 trips/dwelling unit 23,763.90227,420.52 Sum of Total Trips 227,420.52 Total Vehicle Miles Traveled 2,6i5,336.01 Vehicle Assumptions: Fleet Mix: Vehicle Type Percent Type Light Auto 52.50 Light Truck < 3,750 lbs 15.90 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 16.70 Mad Truck 5,751- 8,500 7.60 Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 1.00 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 0.30 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 0.90 Heavy -Heavy 33,001-60,000 0.70 Line Haul > 60,000 lbs 0.00 Urban Bus 0.20 Motorcycle 1.50 School Bus 0.10 Motor Home 2.60 Travel Conditions Home - Work Urban Trip Length (miles) 11.5 Rural Trip Length (miles) 11.5 Trip Speeds (mph) 35.0 % of Trips - Residential 100.0 Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 80.00 20.00 0.00 66.70 33.30 0.00 22.20 77.80 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 50.00 50.00 33.30 66.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 92.30 7.70 Residential Home- Home - Shop Other 4.9 6.0 4.9 6.0 40.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 Commercial Commute Non -Work Customer 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 40.0 40.0 40.0 Page: 5 03/08/2006 2:32 PM Changes made to the default values for Land Use Trip Percentages Changes made to the default values for Operations The operational emission year changed from 2005 to 2030. The home based work selection item changed from 8 to 7. The home based work trip percentage changed from 20.0 to 100. The home based shopping selection item changed from 9 to S. The home based shopping trip percentage changed from 37.0 to 0. The home based other selection item changed from 9 to 8. The home based other trip percentage changed from 43.0 to 0. The commercial based commute selection item changed from 9 to S. The commercial based commute urban trip length changed from 10.3 to 0. The commercial based non -work selection item changed from 9 to 8. The commercial based non -work urban trip length changed from 5.5 to 0. The commercial based customer selection item changed from 9 to 8. The commercial based customer urban trip length changed from 5.5 to 0. I Page: 6 03/08/2006 2:32 PM I I I I URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name: P:\Projects - All Users\10400-00+\10579-03 Newport Beach GPU EIR\Data\Air Quality da Project Name: Newport Beach GP Update - Current GP Buildout (2030) Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 DETAIL REPORT (Pounds/Day - Summer) UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 Single family housing 715.43 625.40 8,975.85 28.00 3,959.08 TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs/day) 715.43 625.40 8,975.85 28.00 3,959.08 Does not include correction for passby trips. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES Analysis Year: 2030 Temperature (F): 90 Season: Summer EMFAC Version: EMFAC2002 (9/2002) Summary of Land Uses: No. Total Unit Type Acreage Trip Rate Units Trips Single family housing 7,921.30 9.57 trips/dwelling unit 23,763.90227,420.52 Sum of Total Trips 227,420.52 Total Vehicle Miles Traveled 2,615,336.01 Vehicle Assumptions: Fleet Mix: Vehicle Type Percent Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto 52.50 0.00 100.00 0.00 Light Truck < 3,750 lbs 15.90 0.00 100.00 0.00 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 16.70 0.00 100.00 0.00 Mad Truck 5,751- 8,500 7.60 0.00 100.00 0.00 Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 1.00 0.00 80.00 20.00 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 0.30 0.00 66.70 33.30 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 0.90 0.00 22.20 77.80 Heavy -Heavy 33,001-60,000 0.70 0.00 0.00 100.00 Line Haul > 60,000 ibs 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 Urban Bus 0.20 0.00 50.00 50.00 Motorcycle 1.50 33.30 66.70 0.00 School Bus 0.10 0.00 0.00 100.00 Motor Home 2.60 0.00 92.30 7.70 Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home- Home- Home - Work Shop Other Commute Non -Work Customer Urban Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Rural Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 Trip Speeds (mph) 35.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 $ of Trips - Residential 100.0 0.0 0.0 Page: 7 03/08/2006 202 PM Changes made to the default values for Land Use Trip Percentages Changes made to the default values for Operations The operational emission year changed from 2005 to 2030. The home based work selection item changed from 8 to 7. The home based work trip percentage changed from 20.0 to 100. The home based shopping selection item changed from 9 to 8. The home based shopping trip percentage changed from 37.0 to 0. The home based other selection item changed from 9 to 8. The home based other trip percentage changed from 43.0 to 0. The commercial based commute selection item changed from 9 to 8. The commercial based commute urban trip length changed from 10.3 to 0. The commercial based non -work selection item changed from 9 to 8. The commercial based non -work urban trip length changed from 5.5 to 0. The commercial based customer selection item changed from 9 to S. The commercial based customer urban trip length changed from 5.5 to 0. I II Page: 8 03/08/2006 2:32 PM URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name: P:\Projects - All Users\10400-00+\10579-03 Newport Beach GPU EIR\Data\Air Quality da, Project Name: Newport Beach GP Update - Current GP Buildout (2030) Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 DETAIL REPORT (Tons/Year) UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 Single family housing 129.12 131.53 1,549.67 4.79 722.53 TOTAL EMISSIONS (tons/yr) 129.12 131.53 1,549.67 4.79 722.53 Does not include correction for passby trips. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES Analysis Year: 2030 Season: Annual EMFAC Version: EMFAC2002 (9/2002) Summary of Land Uses: No. Total Unit Type Acreage Trip Rate Units Trips Single family housing 7,921.30 9.57 trips/dwelling unit 23,763.90227,420.52 Sum of Total Trips 227,420.52 Total Vehicle Miles Traveled 2,615,336.01 Vehicle Assumptions: Fleet Mix: Vehicle Type Percent Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto 52.50 0.00 100.00 0.00 Light Truck < 3,750 lbs 15.90 0.00 100.00 0.00 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 16.70 0.00 100.00 0.00 Med Truck 5,751- 8,500 7.60 0.00 100.00 0.00 Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 1.00 0.00 80.00 20.00 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 0.30 0.00 66.70 33.30 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 0.90 0.00 22.20 77.80 Heavy -Heavy 33,001-60,000 0.70 0.00 0.00 100.00 Line Haul > 60,000 lbs 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 Urban Bus 0.20 0.00 50.00 50.00 Motorcycle 1.50 33.30 66.70 0.00 School Bus 0.10 0.00 0.00 100.00 Motor Home 2.60 0.00 92.30 7.70 Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home- Home- Home - Work Shop Other Commute Non -Work Customer Urban Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Rural Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 Trip Speeds (mph) 35.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 it of Trips - Residential 100.0 0.0 0.0 Ir� ' Page: 9 03/08/2006 2:32 PM Changes made to the default Values for Land Use Trip Percentages Changes made to the default values for Operations .� The operational emission year changed from 2005 to 2030. The home based work selection item changed from 8 to 7. The home based work trip percentage changed from 20.0 to 100. The home based shopping selection item changed from 9 to 8. The home based shopping trip percentage changed from 37.0 to 0. The home based other selection item changed from 9 to B. ' The home based other trip percentage changed from 43.0 to 0. The commercial based commute selection item changed from 9 to S. The commercial based commute urban trip length changed from 16.3 to 0. The commercial based non -work selection item changed from 9 to S. The commercial based non -work urban trip length changed from 5.5 to 0. The The commercial commercial based customer selection item changed from 9 to S. based customer urban trip length changed from 5.5 to 0. , I 1I tl I ti ' Page: 1 03/08/2006 2:33 PM URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name: P:\Projects - All Usexs\10400-00+\10579-03 Newport Beach GPU EIR\Data\Air Quality da Project Name: Newport Beach GP Update - Current GP Buildout (2030) Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 SUMMARY REPORT (Pounds/Day - Summer) OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 73.24 64.02 918.89 2.87 405.31 1 1 II 1 i r I I I [1 I Page: 2 03/08/2006 2:33 PM URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name: P:\Projects - All Users\10400-00+\10579-03 Newport Beach GPU EIR\Data\Air quality da Project Name: Newport Beach GP Update - Current GP Buildout (2030) Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 SUMMARY REPORT (Pounds/Day - Winter) OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx Co S02 PM10 TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 70.81 93.30 770.09 2.32 405.31 I I I _1 I Page: 3 03/08/2006 2:33 PM URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name: P:\Projects - All Users\10400-00+\10579-03 Newport Beach GPU EIR\Data\Air Quality da Project Name: Newport Beach GP Update - Current GP Buildout (2030) Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 SUMMARY REPORT (Tons/Year) OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 TOTALS (tpy, unmitigated) 13.22 13.47 158.65 0.49 73.97 Page: 4 03/08/2006 2:33 PN 1 URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name: P:\Projects - All Users\10400-00+\10579-03 Newport Beach GPU FIR\Data\Air Quality da� Project Name: Newport Beach GP Update - Current GP Buildout (2030) Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 DETAIL REPORT (Pounds/Day - Winter) UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO $02 PM10 Single family housing 70.81 93.30 770.09 2.32 405.31 TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs/day) 70.81 93.30 770.09 2.32 405.31 Does not include correction for passby trips. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES Analysis Year: 2030 Temperature (F): 50 Season: Winter EMFAC Version: EMFAC2002 (9/2002) Summary of Land Uses: No. Total Unit Type Acreage Trip Rate Units Trips Single family housing 810.93 9.57 trips/dwelling unit 2,432.8023,281.90 Sum of Total Trips 23,281.90 Total Vehicle Miles Traveled 267,741.80 Vehicle Assumptions: Fleet Mix: Vehicle Type Percent Type Light Auto 52.50 Light Truck < 3,750 ibs 15.90 Light Truck. 3,751- 5,750 16.70 Ned Truck 5,751- 8,500 7.60 Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 1.00 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 0.30 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 0.90 Heavy -Heavy 33,001-60,000 0.70 Line Haul > 60,000 lbs 0.00 Urban Bus 0.20 Motorcycle 1.50 School Bus 0.10 Motor Home 2.60 Travel Conditions Home - Work Urban Trip Length (miles) 11.5 Rural Trip length (miles) 11.5 Trip Speeds (mph) 35.0 § of Trips - Residential 100.0 Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 010D 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 80.00 20.00 0.00 66.70 33.30 0.00 22.20 77.80 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 50.00 50.00 33.30 66.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 92.30 7.70 Residential Home- Home - Shop Other 4.9 6.0 4.9 6.0 40.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 Commercial Commute Non -Work Customer 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 40.0 40.0 40.0 ' Page: 5 03/08/2006 2:33 PM Changes made to the default values for Land Use Trip Percentages Changes made to the default values for Operations The operational emission year changed from 2005 to 2030. The home based work selection item changed from 8 to 7. The home based work trip percentage changed from 20.0 to 100. The home based shopping selection item changed from 9 to S. The home based shopping trip percentage changed from 37.0 to 0. The home based other selection item changed from 9 to 8. The home based other trip percentage changed from 43.0 to 0. The commercial based commute selection item changed from 9 to 8. The commercial based commute urban trip length changed from 10.3 to 0. The commercial based non -work selection item changed from 9 to 8. The commercial based non -work urban trip length changed from 5.5 to 0. The The commercial commercial based customer selection item changed from 9 to 8. based customer urban trip length changed from 5.5 to 0. P I I 11 r^ [1 [1 �1 Page: 6 03/08/2006 2:33 PM 11 URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 1 File Name: P:\Projects - An Users\10400-00+\10579-03 Newport Beach GPU EIR\Data\Air Quality da: Project Name: Newport Beach GP Update - Current GP Buildout (2030) Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMVAC2002 version 2.2 DETAIL REPORT (Pounds/Day - Summer) UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 Single family housing 73.24 64.02 918.89 2.87 405.31 TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs/day) 73.24 64.02 918.89 2.87 405.31 Does not include correction for passby trips. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES Analysis Year: 2030 Temperature (F): 90 Season: Summer EMEAC Version: EMFAC2002 (9/2002) Summary of Land Uses: No. Total Unit Type Acreage Trip Rate Units Trips Single family housing 810.93 9.57 trip0/dwelling unit 2,432.8023,281.90 Sum of Total Trips 23,281.90 Total Vehicle Miles Traveled 267,741.80 Vehicle Assumptions: Fleet Mix: Vehicle Type Percent Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto 52.50 0.00 100.00 0.00 Light Truck < 3,750 lbs 15.90 0.00 100.00 0.00 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 16.70 0.00 100,00 0.00 Ned Truck 5,751- 8,500 7.60 0.00 100.00 0.00 Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 1.00 0.00 80.00 20.00 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 0.30 0.00 66.70 33.30 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 0.90 0.00 22.20 77.80 Heavy -Heavy 33,001-60,000 0.70 0.00 0.00 100.00 Line Haul > 60,000 lbs 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 Urban Bus 0.20 0.00 50.00 50.00 Motorcycle 1.50 33.30 66.70 0.00 School Bus 0.10 0.00 0.00 100.00 Motor Home 2.60 0.00 92.30 7.70 Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home- Home- Home - Work Shop Other Commute Non -Work Customer Urban Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Rural Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 Trip Speeds (mph) 35.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 1, of Trips - Residential 100.0 0.0 0.0 ' Page: 7 03/08/2006 2:33 PM ' Changes made to the default values for Land Use Trip Percentages Changes made to the default values for Operations The operational emission year changed from 2005 to 2030. The home based work selection item changed from 8 to 7. The home based work trip percentage changed from 20.0 to 100. The home based shopping selection item changed from 9 to 8. The home based shopping trip percentage changed from 37.0 to 0. The home based other selection item changed from 9 to 8. The home based other trip percentage changed from 43.0 to 0. The commercial based commute selection item changed from 9 to 8. The commercial based commute urban trip length changed from 10.3 to 0. The commercial based non -work selection item changed from 9 to 8. The commercial based non -work urban trip length changed from 5.5 to 0. The commercial based customer selection item changed from 9 to 8. The commercial based customer urban trip length changed from 5.5 to 0. I I P I I 11 I Page: 8 03/08/2006 2:33 PM URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 1 File Name: P:\Projects - All Ucers\10400-00+\10579-03 Newport Beach GPU EIR\DSta\Air Quality da Project Name: Newport Beach GP Update - Current GP Buildout (2030) Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFACZ002 version 2.2 DETAIL REPORT (Tons/Year) UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 Single family housing 13.22 13.47 158.65 0.49 73.97 TOTAL EMISSIONS (tons/yr) 13.22 13.47 158.65 0.49 73.97 Does not include correction for passby trips. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES Analysis Year: 2030 Season: Annual EMFAC Version: EMFAC2002 (9/2002) Summary of Land Uses: No. Total Unit Type Acreage Trip Rate Units Trips Single family housing 810.93 9.57 tripa/dwelling unit 2,432.8023,281.90 Sum of Total Trips 23,281.90 Total Vehicle Miles Traveled 267,741.80 Vehicle Assumptions: Fleet Mix: Vehicle Type Percent Type Light Auto 52.50 Light Truck < 3,750 lbs 15.90 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 16.70 Mad Truck 5,751- 8,500 7.60 Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 L.00 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 0.30 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 0.90 Heavy -Heavy 33,001-60,000 0.70 Line Haul > 60,600 Its 0.00 Urban Bus 0.20 Motorcycle 1.50 School Bus 0.10 Motor Home 2.60 Travel Conditions Home - Work Urban Trip Length (miles) 11.5 Rural Trip Length (miles) 11.5 Trip Speeds (mph) 35.0 16 of Trips - Residential 100.0 Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel 0.00 100.00 0.00 O.od 106.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 80,00 20.00 0.00 66.70 33.30 0.00 22.20 77.80 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 50.00 50.00 33.30 66.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 92.30 7.70 Residential Home- Home - Shop Other 4.9 6.0 4.9 6.0 40.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 Commercial Commute Non -Work Customer 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 40.0 40.0 40.0 ' Page: 9 03/08/2006 2:33 PM Changes made to the default values for Land Use Trip Percentages Changes made to the default values for Operations The operational emission year changed from 2005 to 2030. The home based work selection item changed from 8 to 7. The home based work trip percentage changed from 20.0 to 100. The home based shopping selection item changed from 9 to 8. The home based shopping trip percentage changed from 37.0 to 0. The home based other selection item changed from 9 to B. The home based other trip percentage changed from 43.0 to 0. The commercial based commute selection item changed from 9 to 8. The commercial based commute urban trip length changed from 10.3 to 0. The commercial based non -work selection item changed from 9 to 8. The commercial based non -work urban trip length changed from 5.5 to 0. The commercial based customer selection item changed from 9 to 8. The commercial based customer urban trip length changed from 5.5 to 0. ns Page: 1 03/08/2006 2:35 PM i 1 URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name: P:\Projects - All Users\10400-00+\10579-03 Newport Beach GPU EIR\Data\Air Quality da Project Name: Newport Beach GP Update - Current GP Buildout (2030) Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 SUMMARY REPORT (Pounds/Day - Summer) OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG Now CO SO2 PM10 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) 1,541.46 1,040.56 13,593.93 42.77 6,606.64 tl 11 II 11 11 11 1 i 11 11 NI 11 Page: 2 03/08/2006 2:35 PM URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name: P:\Projects - All Users\10400-00+\10579-03 Newport Beach GPU EIR\Data\Air Quality da Project Name: Newport Beach GP Update - Current GP Buildout (2030) Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 SUMMARY REPORT (Pounds/Day - Winter) OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 1,084.14 1,512.13 11,732.44 37.00 6,606.64 �t Page: 3 03/08/2006 2:35 PM iI URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name: P:\Projects - All Users\10400-00+\10579-03 Newport Beach GPU EIR\Data\Air Quality da Project Name: Newport Beach GP Update - Current GP Buildout (2030) Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 SUMMARY REPORT (Tons/Year) OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NO% CO S02 PM10 TOTALS (tpy, unmitigated) 253.50 218.59 2,367.65 7.45 1,205.71 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 1I 11 11 11 Page: 4 03/08/2006 2:35 PM URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name: P:\Projects - All Users\10400-00+\10579-03 Newport Beach GPU EIR\Data\Air Quality da Project Name: Newport Beach GP Update - Current GP Buildout (2030) Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 DETAIL REPORT (Pounds/Day - Winter) UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 General office building 1,084.14 1,512.13 11,732.44 37.00 6,606.64 TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs/day) 1,084.14 1,512.13 11,732.44 37.00 6,606.64 Does not include correction for passby trips. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES Analysis Year: 2030 Temperature (F): 50 Season: Winter EMFAC Version: ENFAC2002 (9/2002) Summary of Land Uses: No. Total Unit Type Acreage Trip Rate Units Trips General office building 3.32 trips/1000 sq. ft. 125,524.10416,740.01 Sum of Total Trips 416,740.01 Total Vehicle Miles Traveled 4,375,770.13 Vehicle Assumptions: Fleet Mix: Vehicle Type Percent Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto 52.50 0.00 100.00 0.00 Light Truck < 3,750 lbs 15.90 0.00 100.00 0.00 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 16.70 0.00 100.00 0.00 Med Truck 5,751- 8,500 7.60 0.00 100.00 0.00 Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 1.00 0.00 80.00 20.00 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 0.30 0.00 66.70 33.30 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 0.90 0.00 22.20 77.80 Heavy -Heavy 33,001-60,000 0.70 0.00 0.00 100.00 Line Haul > 60,000 lbs 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 Urban Bus 0.20 0.00 50.00 50.00 Motorcycle 1.50 33.30 66.70 0.00 School Bus 0.10 0.00 0.00 100.00 Motor Home 2.60 0.00 92.30 7.70 Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home- Home- Home - Work Shop Other Commute Non -Work Customer Urban Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 10.5 10.5 10.5 Rural Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 Trip Speeds (mph) 35.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 $ of Trips - Residential 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ of Trips - Commercial (by land use) General office building 35.0 17.5 47.5 II ilI J Page: 5 03/08/2006 2:35 PM Changes made to the default values for Land Use Trip Percentages Changes made to the default values for Operations The operational emission year changed from 2005 to 2030. The home based work selection item changed from 8 to 7. The home based work trip percentage changed from 20.9 to 0. The home based shopping selection item changed from 9 to B. The home based shopping trip percentage changed from 37.0 to 0. The home based other selection item changed from 9 to 8. The home based other trip percentage changed from 43.0 to 0. The commercial based commute selection item changed from 9 to S. The commercial based commute urban trip length changed from 10.3 to 10.5. The commercial based non -work selection item changed from 9 to S. The commercial baced non -work urban trip length changed from 5,5-to 10.5. The commercial based customer selection item changed from 9 to B. The commercial based customer urban trip length changed from 5.5 to 10.5. I Page: 6 03/08/2006 2:35 PM URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name: P:\Projects - All Users\10400-00+\10579-03 Newport Beach GPU EIR\Data\Air Quality da Project Name: Newport Beach GP Update - Current GP Buildout (2030) Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 DETAIL REPORT (Pounds/Day - Summer) UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ' ROG VOX CO SO2 PM10 General office building 1,541.46 1,040.56 13,593.93 42.77 6,606.64 TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs/day) 1,511,46 1,040,56 13,593.93 42.77 6, 106.64 Does not include correction for passby trips. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES Analysis Year: 2030 Temperature (F): 90 Season: Summer EMFAC Version: EMFAC2002 (9/2002) Summary of Land Uses: No. Total Unit Type Acreage Trip Rate Units Trips ' General office building 3.32 trips/1000 sq. ft. 125,524.10416,740.01 Sum of Total Trips 416,740.01 Total Vehicle Miles Traveled 4,375,770.13 Vehicle Assumptions: Fleet Mix: Vehicle Type Percent Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto 52.50 0.00 100.00 0.00 Light Truck < 3,750 lbs 15.90 0.00 100.00 0.00 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 16.70 0.00 100.00 0.00 Ned Truck 5,751- 8,500 7.60 0.00 100.00 0.00 Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 1.00 0.00 80.00 20.00 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 0.30 0.00 66.70 33.30 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 0.90 0.00 22.20 77.80 Heavy -Heavy 33,001-10,000 0.70 0,00 0,00 100.00 Line Haul > 60,000 lbs 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 Urban Bus 0.20 0.00 50.00 50.00 Motorcycle 1.50 33.30 66.70 0.00 School Bus 0.10 0.00 0.00 100.00 Motor Home 2.60 0.00 92.30 7.70 I Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home- Home- Home- Urban Trip Length (miles) work Shop Other Commute Non -Work 11.5 4.9 6.0 10.5 10.5 Customer 10.5 Rural Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 Trip Speeds (mph) 35.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 96 of Trips - Residential 0.0 0.0 0.0 Is of Trips - Commercial (by land use) General office building 35.0 17.5 47.5 Page: 7 03/08/2006 2:35 PM Changes made to the default values for Land Use Trip Percentages Changes made to the default values for Operations The operational emission year changed from 2005 to 2030. The home based work selection item changed from 8 to 7. The home based work trip percentage changed from 20.0 to 0. The home based shopping selection item changed from 9 to S. The home based shopping trip percentage changed from 37.0 to 0. The home based other selection item changed from 9 to 8. The home based other trip percentage changed from 43.0 to 0. The commercial based commute selection item changed from 9 to S. The commercial based commute urban trip length changed from 10.3 to 10.5. The commercial based non -work. selection item changed from 9 to S. The commercial based non -work urban trip length changed from 5.5 to 10.5. The commercial based customer selection item changed from 9 to 8. The commercial based customer urban trip length changed from 5.5 to 10.5. [J Page: 8 03/08/2006 2:35 PM URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name: P:\Projects - All Users\10400-00+\10579-03 Newport Beach GPU EIR\Data\Air Quality da• Project Name: Newport Beach GP Update - Current GP Buildout (2030) Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 DETAIL REPORT (Tons/Year) UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 General office building 253.50 218.59 2,367.65 7.45 1,205.71 TOTAL EMISSIONS (tons/yr) 253.50 218.59 2,367.65 7.45 1,205.71 Does not include correction for passby trips. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES Analysis Year: 2030 Season: Annual EMFAC Version: EMFAC2002 (9/2002) Summary of Land Uses: No. Total Unit Type Acreage Trip Rate Units Trips General office building 3.32 trips/1000 sq. ft. 125,524.10416,740.01 Sum of Total Trips 416,740.01 Total Vehicle Miles Traveled 4,375,770.13 Vehicle Assumptions: Fleet Mix: Vehicle Type Percent Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto 52.50 0.00 100.00 0.00 Light Truck < 3,750 lbs 15.90 0.00 100.00 0.00 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 16.70 0.00 100.00 0.00 Had Truck 5,751- 8,500 7.60 0.00 100.00 0.00 Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 1.00 0.00 80.00 20.00 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 0.30 0.00 66.70 33.30 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 0.90 0.00 22.20 77.80 Heavy -Heavy 33,001-60,000 0.70 0.00 0.00 100.00 Line Haul > 60,000 lbs 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 Urban Bus 0.20 0.00 50.00 50.00 Motorcycle 1.50 33.30 66.70 0.00 School Bus 0.10 0.00 0.00 100.00 Motor Home 2.60 0.00 92.30 7.70 Travel Conditions Residential Home- Home- Home - Work Shop Other Urban Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 Rural Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 Trip Speeds (mph) 35.0 40.0 40.0 % of Trips - Residential 0.0 0.0 0.0 § of Trips - Commercial (by land use) General office building Commercial Commute Non -Work Customer 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.3 5.5 5.5 40.0 40.0 40.0 35.0 17.5 47.5 Page: 9 03/08/2006 2:35 PM Changes made to the default values for Land Use Trip Percentages Changes made to the default values for Operations The operational emission year changed from 2005 to 2030. The home based work selection item changed from 8 to 7. The home based work trip percentage changed from 20.0 to 0. The home based shopping selection item changed from 9 to S. The home based shopping trip percentage changed from 37.0 to 0. The home based other selection item changed from 9 to S. The home based other trip percentage changed from 43.0 to 0. The commercial based commute selection item changed from 9 to 8. The commercial based commute urban trip length changed from 10.3 to 10.5. The commercial based non -work selection item changed from 9 to 8. The commercial based non -work urban trip length changed from 5.5 to 10.5. The commercial based customer selection item changed from 9 to 8. The commercial based customer urban trip length changed from 5.5 to 10.5. Page: 1 03/08/2006 2:46 PM URBEMIS 2002 For Windows . 8.7.0 File Name: P:\Projects - All Users\10400-00+\10579-03 Newport Beach GPU EIR\Data\Air Quality da Project Name: Newport Beach GP Update - Current GP Buildout (2030) Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 SUMMARY REPORT (Pounds/Day - Summer) OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 765.72 593.29 7,804.81 22.51 3,430.81 Page; 2 03/08/2006 2:46 PM URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name: P:\Projects - All Users\10400-00+\10579-03 Newport Beach GPU EIR\Data\Air Quality da Project Name: Newport Beach GP Update - Current GP Buildout (2030) Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 SUMMARY REPORT (Pounds/Day - Winter) OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) £MISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO $02 PM10 , TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 643.63 849.94 7,198.29 19.53 3,430.81 I I I r 1 t I I Cl Page: 3 03/08/2006 2:46 PM URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name: P:\Projects - All Users\10400-00+\10579-03 Newport Beach GPU EIR\Data\Air Quality da• Project Name: Newport Beach GP Update - Current GP Buildout (2030) Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 SUMMARY REPORT (Tons/Year) OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 TOTALS (tpy, unmitigated) 132.32 123.89 1,387.48 3.93 626.12 1 Page: 4 03/08/2006 2:46 PM , URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name: P:\Projects - All Users\10400-c0+\10579-03 Newport Beach GPU EIR\Data\Aix Quality da Project Name: Newport Beach GP Update - Current GP Buildout (200) Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 DETAIL REPORT (Pounds/Day - Winter) , UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 , Single family housing 643.63 849.94 7,198.29 19.53 3,430.81 TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs/day) 643.63 849.94 7,198.29 19.53 3,430.81 Does not include correction for passby trips. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES Analysis Year: 2030 Temperature (F): 50 Season: Winter ' EHFAC Version: EMFAC2002 (9/2002) Summary of Land Uses: ' No. Total Unit Type Acreage Trip Rate Units Trips Single family housing 13,132.30 9.57 trips/dwelling unit 39,396.90377,028.33 , Sum of Total Trips 377,028.33 Total Vehicle Miles Traveled 2,269,710.56 Vehicle Assumptions: ' Fleet Mix: Vehicle Type Percent Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto 52.50 0.0q 100.00 0,00 Light Truck < 3,750 Its 15.90 0.00 100.00 0.00 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 16.70 0.00 100.00 0.00 Ned Truck 5,751- 8,500 7.60 0.00 100.00 0.00 Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 1.00 0.00 80.00 20.00 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 0.30 0.00 66.70 33.30 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 0.90 0.00 21.20 77.80 Heavy -Heavy 33,001-60,000 0.70 0.00 0.00 100.00 Line Haul > 60,000 lbs 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 Urban Bus 0.20 0.00 50.00 50.00 , Motorcycle 1.50 33.30 66.70 0.06 School Bus 0.10 0.00 0.00 100.00 Motor Home 2.60 0.00 92.30 Travel Conditions 7.70 , Residential Commercial Home- Home- Home - Work Shop Other Commute Non -Work Customer Urban Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 , Rural Trip Length (miles) `11.5 4.9 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 Trip Speeds (mph) 35.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 " 44 of Trips - Residential 0.0 0.0 100.0 Page: 5 03/08/2006 2:46 PM I L.J I ! I I I 1 I V� I n Changes made to the default values for Land Use Trip Percentages Changes made to the default values for Operations The operational emission year changed from 2005 to 2030. The home based work selection item changed from 8 to 7. The home based work trip percentage changed from 20.0 to 0. The home based shopping selection item changed from 9 to S. The home based shopping trip percentage changed from 37.0 to 0. The home based other selection item changed from 9 to 8. The home based other trip percentage changed from 43.0 to 100. The commercial based commute selection item changed from 9 to 8. The commercial based commute urban trip length changed from 10.3 to 0. The commercial based non -work selection item changed from 9 to B. The commercial based non -work urban trip length changed from 5.5 to 0. The commercial based customer selection item changed from 9 to 8. The commercial based customer urban trip length changed from 5.5 to 0. Page: 6 ' 03/08/2006 2:46 PM URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 ' File Name: P:\Projects - All Users\10400-00+\10579-03 Newport Beach GPU EIR\Data\Air Quality da Project Name: Newport Beach GP Update - Current GP Buildout (2030) Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 DETAIL REPORT (Pounds/Day - Summer) UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 Single family housing 765.72 593.29 7,804.81 22.51 3,430.81 TOTAL £MISSIONS (lbs/day) 7,65.72 593.29 7,804.81 22.51 3,430.81 Does not include correction for passby trips. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES Analysis Year: 2030 Temperature (F): 90 Season: Summer EMFAC Version: EMFAC2002 (9/2002) Summary of Land Uses: No. Total Unit Type Acreage Trip Rate Units Trips Single family housing 13,132.30 9.57 trips/dwelling unit 39,396.90377,028.33 Sum of Total Trips 377,028.33 Total Vehicle Miles Traveled 2,269,710.56 Vehicle Assumptions: Fleet Mix: Vehicle Type Percent Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto 52.50 0.00 100.00 0.00 Light Truck < 3,750 lba 15.90 0.00 100.00 0.00 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 16.70 6.00 100.00 0.00 Had Truck 5,751- 8,500 7.60 0.00 100.00 0.00 Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 1.00 0.00 80.00 20.00 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 0.30 0.00 66.70 33.30 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 0.90 0.00 22,20 77.80 heavy -Heavy 33,001-60,000 0.70 0.00 0.00 100.00 Line Haul > 60,000 lbs 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 Urban Bus 0.20 0.00 50.00 50.00 Motorcycle 1.50 S3.30 66.70 0.00 School Bus 0.10 0.00 0.00 100.00 Motor Home 2.60 0.00 92.30 7.70 Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home- Home- Home- work Shop Other Commute Non -Work Customer Urban Trip Length (miles) 11,5 4.9 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Rural Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 Trip Speeds (mph) 35.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 96 of Trips - Residential 0.0 0.0 100.0 Page: 7 03/08/2006 2:46 PM ' Changes made to the default values for Land Use Trip Percentages I I U L.� I 1 1 I Changes made to the default values for Operations The operational emission year changed from 2005 to 2030. The home based work selection item changed from 8 to 7. The home based work trip percentage changed from 20.0 to 0. The home based shopping selection item changed from 9 to 8. The home based shopping trip percentage changed from 37.0 to 0. The home based other selection item changed from 9 to 8. The home based other trip percentage changed from 43.0 to 100. The commercial based commute selection item changed from 9 to S. The commercial based commute urban trip length changed from 10.3 to 0. The commercial based non -work selection item changed from 9 to 8. The commercial based non -work urban trip length changed from 5.5 to 0. The commercial based customer selection item changed from 9 to B. The commercial based customer urban trip length changed from 5.5 to 0. Page: 8 05/08/2006 2:46 PM URBEMTS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 � File Name: P:\Projects - All Ucers\10400-00+\10579-03 Newport Beach GPU EIR\Data\Air Quality da ' Project Name: Newport Beach GP Update - Current GP Buildout (2030) Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 DETAIL REPORT , (Tons/Year) UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 Single family housing 132.32 123.89 1,387.48 3.93 626.12 TOTAL EMISSIONS (tons/yr) 132.32 123.89 1,387.48 3.93 626.12 Does not include correction for passby trips. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES Analysis Year: 2030 Season: Annual EMFAC Version: EMFAC2002 (9/2002) Summary of Land Uses: No. Total Unit Type Acreage Trip Rate Units Trips Single family housing 13,132.30 9.57 trips/dwelling unit 39,396.90377,028.33 Sum of Total Trips 377,028.33 Total Vehicle Miles Traveled 2,269,730.56 Vehicle Assumptions: Fleet Mix: Vehicle Type Percent Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto 52.50 0.00 100.00 0.00 Light Truck < 3,750 The 15.50 0.00 100.00 0.00 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 16.70 0.00 100,00 0.00 Med Truck 5,751- 8,506 7.60 0.00 100.00 0.00 Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 1.00 0.00 80.00 20.00 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 0.30 0.00 66.70 33.30 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 0.90 0.00 22.20 77.80 Heavy -Heavy 33,001-60,000 0.70 0.00 0.00 100.00 Line Haul > 60,000 lbs 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 Urban Bus 0.20 0.00 50.00 50.00 Motorcycle 1.50 33.30 66.70 0.00 School Bus 0.10 0.00 0.00 100.00 Motor Home 2.60 0.00 92.30 7.70 Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home- Home- Home- work Shop Other Commute Non -Work Customer Urban Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Rural Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 Trip Speeds (mph) 35.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 % of Trips - Residential 0.0 0.0 100.0 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 Page: 9 03/08/2006 2:46 PM Changes made to the default values for Land Use Trip Percentages Changes made to the default values for Operations The operational emission year changed from 2005 to 2030. The home based work selection item changed from 8 to 7. The home based work trip percentage changed from 20.0 to 0. The home based shopping selection item changed from 9 to 8. The home based shopping trip percentage changed from 37.0 to 0. The home based other selection item changed from 9 to S. The home based other trip percentage changed from 43.0 to 100. The commercial based commute selection item changed from 9 to 8. The commercial based commute urban trip length changed from 10.3 to 0. The commercial based non -work selection item changed from 9 to 8. The commercial based non -work urban trip length changed from 5.5 to 0. The commercial based customer selection item changed from 9 to 8. The commercial based customer urban trip length changed from 5.5 to 0. I I I 'u u Page: 1 , 03/08/2006 2:47 PM URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 ' File Name: P:\Project3 - All Users\10900-00+\10579-03 Newport Beach GPU EIR\Data\Air Quality da , Project Name: Newport Beach GP Update - Update GP Buildout (2030) Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EWAC2002 version 2.2 SUMMARY REPORT ' (Pounds/Day - Summer) OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 ' TOTALS (1bs/day,unmitigated) 78.06 68.23 979.29 3.05 431.95 1. 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Page: 2 03/08/2006 2:47 PM URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name: P:\Projects - All Users\10900-00+\10579-03 Newport Beach GPU EIR\Data\Air Quality Project Name: Newport Beach GP Update - Update GP Buildout (2030) Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 SUMMARY REPORT (Pounds/Day - Winter) OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 75.46 99.43 820.70 2.47 431.95 Page: 3 03/08/2006 2:47 PM I URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 , File Name: P:\Projects - All Userc\10400-00+\10579-03 Newport Beach GPU EIR\Data\Air Quality da Project Name: Newport Beach GP Update - Update GP Buildout (2030) Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 SUMMARY REPORT , (Tons/Year) OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 TOTALS (tpy, unmitigated) 14.09 14.35 169.07 0.52 78.83 I I I tPage: 4 03/08/2006 2:47 PM URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name: P:\Projects - All Users\10400-00+\10579-03 Newport Beach GPU EIR\Data\Aix Quality da� Project Name: Newport Beach GP Update - Update GP Buildout (2030) Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 DETAIL REPORT (Pounds/Day - Winter) UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 Single family housing 75.46 99.43 820.70 2.47 431.95 TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs/day) 75.46 99.43 820.70 2.47 431.95 Does not include correction for passby trips. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES Analysis Year: 2030 Temperature (F): 50 Season: Winter EMFAC Version: EMFAC2002 (9/2002) Summary of Land Uses: No. Total Unit Type Acreage Trip Rate Units Trips Single family housing 864.23 9.57 trips/dwelling unit 2,592.7024,812.14 Sum of Total Trips 24,812.14 Total Vehicle Miles Traveled 285,339.60 Vehicle Assumptions: Fleet Mix: Vehicle Type Percent Type Light Auto 52.50 Light Truck < 3,750 lbs 15.90 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 16.70 Mad Truck 5,751- 8,500 7.60 Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 1.00 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 0.30 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 0.90 Heavy -Heavy 33,001-60,000 0.70 Line Haul > 60,000 lbs 0.00 Urban Bus 0.20 Motorcycle 1.50 School Bus 0.10 Motor Home 2.60 Travel Conditions Home - Work Urban Trip Length (miles) 11.5 Rural Trip Length (miles) 11.5 Trip Speeds (mph) 35.0 6 of Trips - Residential 100.0 Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 80.00 20.00 0.00 66.70 33.30 0.00 22.20 77.80 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 50.00 50.00 33.30 66.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 92.30 7.70 Residential Home- Home - Shop Other 4.9 6.0 4.9 6.0 40.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 Commercial Commute Non -Work Customer 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 40.0 40.0 40.0 Page: 5 03/08/2006 2:47 PM Changes made to the default values for Land Use Trip Percentages Changes made to the default values for Operations The operational emission year changed from 2005 to 2030. The home based work selection item changed from 8 to 7. The home based work trip percentage changed from 20.0 to 100. The home based shopping selection item changed from 9 to S. The home based shopping trip percentage changed from 37.0 to 0. The home based other selection item changed from 9 to 8. The home based other trip percentage changed from 43.0 to 0. The commercial based commute selection item changed from 9 to 8. The commercial based commute urban trip length changed from 10.3 to 0, The commercial based non -work selection item changed from 9 to 8. The commercial based non -work urban trip length changed from 5.5 to 0. The commercial based customer selection item changed from 9 to B. The commercial based customer urban trip length changed from 5.5 to 0. Page: 6 03/08/2006 2:47 PM URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name: P:\Projects - All Users\10400-00+\10579-03 Newport Beach GPU EIR\Data\Air Quality da Project Name: Newport Beach GP Update - Update GP Buildout (2030) Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 DETAIL REPORT (Pounds/Day - Summer) UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Single family housing 78.06 68.23 979.29 3.05 431.95 TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs/day) 78.06 68.23 979.29 3.05 431.95 Does not include correction for passby trips. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES Analysis Year: 2030 Temperature (F): 90 Season: Summer EMFAC Version: EMFAC2002 (9/2002) Summary of Land Uses: No. Total Unit Type Acreage Trip Rate Units Trips Single family housing 864.23 9.57 trips/dwelling unit 2,592.7024,.812.14 Sum of Total Trips 24,812.14 Total Vehicle Miles Traveled 285,339.60 Vehicle Assumptions: Fleet Mix: Vehicle Type Percent Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto 52.50 0.00 100.00 0.00 Light Truck < 3,750 lbs 15.90 0.00 100.00 0.00 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 16.70 0.00 100.00 0.00 Mad Truck 5,751- 8,500 7.60 0.00 100.00 0.00 Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 1.00 0.00 80.00 20.00 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 0.30 0.00 66.70 33.30 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 0.90 0.00 22.20 77.80 Heavy -Heavy 33,001-60,000 0.70 0.00 0.00 100.00 Line Haul > 60,000 lbs 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 Urban Bus 0.20 0.00 50.00 50.00 Motorcycle 1.50 33.30 66.70 0.00 School Bus 0.10 0.00 0.00 100.00 Motor Home 2.60 0.00 92.30 7.70 Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home- Home- Home - Work Shop Other Commute Non -Work Customer Urban Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Rural Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 Trip Speeds (mph) 35.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 8 of Trips - Residential 100.0 0.0 0.0 ' Page: 7 03/08/2006 2:47 PM , Changes made to the default values for Land Use Trip Percentages Changes made to the default values for Operations , The operational emission year changed from 2005 to 2030. " The home based work selection item changed from 8 to 7. The home based work trip percentage changed from 20.0 to 100. The home based shopping selection item changed from 9 to S. , The home based shopping trip percentage changed from 37.0 to 0. The home based other selection item changed from 9 to 8. The home based other trip percentage changed from 43.0 to 0. The commercial based commute selection item changed from 9 to 8. The commercial based commute urban trip length changed from 10.3 to 0. The commercial based non -Work selection item changed from 9 to 8. The commercial based non -work urban trip length changed from 5.5 to 0. The commercial based customer selection item changed from 9 to 8. The commercial based customer urban trip length changed from 5.5 to 0. , I I I LI Page: 8 03/08/2006 2:47 PM URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name: P:\Projects - All Users\10400-00+\10579-03 Newport Beach GPU EIR\Data\Air Quality da• Project Name: Newport Beach GP Update - Update GP Buildout (2030) Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EITAC2002 version 2.2 DETAIL REPORT (Tons/Year) UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 Single family housing 14.09 14.35 169.07 0.52 78.83 TOTAL EMISSIONS (tons/yr) 14.09 14.35 169.07 0.52 78.83 Does not include correction for passby trips. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES Analysis Year: 2030 Season: Annual EMFAC Version: EMFAC2002 (9/2002) Summary of Land Uses: No. Total Unit Type Acreage Trip Rate Units Trips Single family housing 864.23 9.57 trips/dwelling unit 2,592.7024,812.14 Sum of Total Trips 24,812.14 Total Vehicle Miles Traveled 285,339.60 Vehicle Assumptions: Fleet Mix: Vehicle Type Percent Type Light Auto 52.50 Light Truck < 3,750 lbs 15.90 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 16.70 Ned Truck 5,751- 8,500 7.60 Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 1.00 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 0.30 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 0.90 Heavy -Heavy 33,001-60,000 0.70 Line Haul > 60,000 lbs 0.00 Urban Bus 0.20 Motorcycle 1.50 School Bus 0.10 Motor Home 2.60 Travel Conditions Home - Work Urban Trip Length (miles) 11.5 Rural Trip Length (miles) 11.5 Trip Speeds (mph) 35.0 8 of Trips - Residential 100.0 Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 80.00 20.00 0.00 66.70 33.30 0.00 22.20 77.80 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 50.00 50.00 33.30 66.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 92.30 7.70 Residential Home- Home - Shop Other 4.9 6.0 4.9 6.0 40.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 Commercial Commute Non -Work Customer 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 40.0 40.0 40.0 ' Page: 9 03/08/2006 2:47 PM Changes made to the default values for Land Use Trip Percentages Changes made to the default values for Operations The operational emission year changed from 2005 to 2030. The home based work selection item changed from 8 to 7. The home based work trip percentage changed from 20.0 to 100. The home based shopping selection item changed from 9 to B. ' The home based shopping trip percentage changed from 37.0 to 0. The home based other selection item changed from 9 to B. The home based other trip percentage changed from 43.0 to 0. The commercial based commute selection item changed from 9 to B. The commercial based commute urban trip length changed from 10.3 to 0. , The commercial based non -work selection item changed from 9 to 8. -. The commercial based non -work urban trip length changed from 5.5 to 0. The commercial based customer selection item changed from 9 to 8. The commercial based customer urban trip length changed from 5.5 to 0. ' P I I I Page: 1 03/08/2006 2:48 PM URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name: P:\Projects - All Users\10900-00+\10579-03 Newport Beach GPU EIR\Data\Air Quality da• Project Name: Newport Beach GP Update - Update GP Buildout (2030) Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 SUMMARY REPORT (Pounds/Day - Summer) OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) £MISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 720.81 630.10 9,043.23 28.21 3,988.80 Page: 2 03/08/2006 2:48 PM 11 , URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name: P:\Projects - All Users\10400-00+\10579-03 Newport Beach GPU EIR\Data\Air Quality da Project Name: Newport Beach GP Update - Update GP Buildout (2030) ' Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 SUMMARY REPORT (Pounds/Day - Winter) ' OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 696.85 918.20 7,578.78 22.83 3,988.80 ' TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 11 11 11 I I 11 11 11 11 Li I I Page: 3 03/08/2006 2:48 PM URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name: P:\Projects - All Users\10400-00+\10579-03 Newport Beach GPU EIR\Data\Air Quality da Project Name: Newport Beach GP Update - Update GP Buildout (2030) Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 SUMMARY REPORT (Tons/Year) OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 TOTALS (tpy, unmitigated) 130.09 132.52 1,561.30 4.82 727.96 Page: 4 03/08/2006 2:48 PM 11 URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 ' File Name: P:\Projects - All Users\10400-00+\10579-03 Newport Beach GPU EIR\Data\Air Quality dap ' Project Name: Newport Beach GP Update - Update GP BuildoUt (2030) Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 DETAIL REPORT (Pounds/Day - Winter) UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 Single family housing 696.85 918.20 7,578.78 22.83 3,988.80 TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs/day) 696.85 918.20 7,578.78 22.83 3,988.80 Does not include correction for passby trips. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES Analysis Year: 2030 Temperature (F): 50 Season: Winter EMFAC Version: EMFAC2002 (9/2002) Summary of Land Uses: No. Total Unit Type Acreage Trip Rate Units Trips Single family housing 7,980.77 9.57 trips/dwelling unit 23,942.30229,127.81 Sum of Total Trips 229,127.81 Total Vehicle Miles Traveled 2,634,969.83 Vehicle Assumptions: Fleet Mix: Vehicle Type Percent Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto 52.50 0.00 100.00 0.00 Light Truck < 3,750 lbs 15.90 0.00 200.00 0.00 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 16.70 0.00 100.00 0.00 Ned Truck 5,751- 8,500 7.60 0.00 100.00 0.00 Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 1.00 0.00 80.00 20,00 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 0.30 0.00 66.70 33.30 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 0.90 0.00 22.20 77.80 Heavy -Heavy 33,001-60,000 0.70 0.00 D.00 100.00 Line Haul > 60,000 lbs 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 Urban Bus 0.20 0.00 50.00 50.00 Motorcycle 1.50 33.30 66.70 0.00 School Bus 0.10 0.00 0.00 100.00 Motor Home 2.60 0.00 92.30 7.70 Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home- Home- Home - Work Shop Other Commute Non -Work Customer Urban Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Rural Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 Trip Speeds (mph) 35.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 % of Trips - Residential 100.0 0.0 0.0 Page: 5 03/08/2006 2:48 PM Changes made to the default values for Land Use Trip Percentages Changes made to the default values for Operations The operational emission year changed from 2005 to 2030. The home based work selection item changed from 8 to 7. The home based work trip percentage changed from 20.0 to 100. The home based shopping selection item changed from 9 to 8. The home based shopping trip percentage changed from 37.0 to 0. The home based other selection item changed from 9 to S. The home based other trip percentage changed from 43.0 to 0. The commercial based commute selection item changed from 9 to S. The commercial based commute urban trip length changed from 10.3 to 0. The commercial based non -work selection item changed from 9 to 8. The commercial based non -work urban trip length changed from 5.5 to 0. The commercial based customer selection item changed from 9 to 8. The commercial based customer urban trip length changed from 5.5 to 0. I 1 I U I I 1 I Page: 6 ' 03/08/2006 2:48 PM URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name: P:\Projects - All Users\10400-00+\10579-03 Newport Beach GPU EIR\Data\Air Quality da, ' Project Name: Newport Beach GP Update - Update GP Buildout (2030) Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 DETAIL REPORT (Pounds/Day - Summer) UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 Single family housing 720.81 630.10 9,043-23 28.21 3,988.80 TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs/day) 720.81 630.20 9,043.23 28.21 3,988.80 Does not include correction for passby trips. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES Analysis Year: 2030 Temperature (F): 90 Season: Summer EMFAC Version; EMPAC2002 (9/2002) Summary of Land Uses: No. Total Unit Type Acreage Trip Rate Units Tripe Single family housing 7,980.77 9.57 trips/dwelling unit 23,942.30229,127.81 Sum of Total Trips 229,127.81 Total Vehicle Miles Traveled 2,634,969.83 Vehicle Assumptions: Fleet Mix: Vehicle Type Percent Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto 52.50 0.00 100.00 0.00 Light Truck < 3,750 lbs 15.90 0.00 100.00 0.60 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 16.70 0.00 100.00 0.00 Ned Truck 5,751- 8,500 7.60 0.00 100.00 0.00 Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 1.00 0.00 80.00 20.00 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 0.30 0.00 66.70 33.30 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 0.90 0.00 22.20 77,80 Heavy -Heavy 33,002-60,000 0.70 0.00 0.00 100.00 Line Haul > 60,000 lbs 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 Urban Bus 0.20 0.00 50.00 50.00 Motorcycle 1.50 33.30 66,70 D.00 School Bus 0.10 0.00 0.00 100.00 Motor Home 2.60 0.00 92.30 7.70 Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home- Home- Home - Work Shop Other Commute Non -Work Customer Urban Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Rural Trip Length (miles) 12.5 4.9 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 Trip Speeds (mph) 35.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 16 of Trips - Residential 100.0 0.0 0.0 ' Page: 7 03/08/2006 2:48 PM Changes made to the default values for Land Use Trip Percentages Changes made to the default values for operations The operational emission year changed from 2005 to 2030. The home based work selection item changed from 8 to 7. The home based work trip percentage changed from 20.0 to 100. The home based shopping selection item changed from 9 to 8. The home based shopping trip percentage changed from 37.0 to 0. The home based other selection item changed from 9 to 8. The home based other trip percentage changed from 13.0 to 0. The commercial based commute selection item changed from 9 to 8. The commercial based commute urban trip length changed from 10.3 to 0. The commercial based non -work selection item changed from 9 to S. The commercial based non -work urban trip length changed from 5.5 to 0. The The commercial commercial based customer selection item changed from 9 to based customer urban trip length changed from 5.5 S. to 0. I I I LJ `r I v I II i Page: 8 ' 03/08/2006 2:48 PM UREEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name; P:\Projects - All Users\10400-00+\10579-03 Newport Beach GPU EIR\Data\Air Quality da ' Project Name: Newport Beach GP Update - Update GP Euildout (2030) Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 DETAIL REPORT (Tons/Year) UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 Single family housing 130.09 132.52 1,561.30 4.82 727.96 TOTAL EMISSIONS (tons/yr) 130.09 132.52 1,561.30 4.82 727,96 Does not include correction for passby trips. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES Analysis Year: 2030 Season: Annual EMFAC Version: EMPAC2002 (9/2002) Summary of Land Uses: No. Total Unit Type Acreage Trip Rate Units Trips Single family housing 7,980.77 9.57 trips/dwelling unit 23,942.30229,227.81 Sum of Total Trips 229,127.81 Total Vehicle Miles Traveled 2,634,969.83 Vehicle Assumptions: Fleet Mix: Vehicle Type Percent Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto 52.50 0.00 100.00 0.00 Light Truck < 3,750 lbs 15.90 0.00 100.00 0.00 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 16.70 0.00 100.00 0.00 Ned Truck 5,751- 8,500 7.60 0.00 100.00 0.00 Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 1.00 0.00 80.00 20.00 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 0.30 0.00 66,70 33.30 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 6.90 0.00 22.20 77.80 Heavy -!Heavy 33,001-60,000 0.70 0.00 0.00 100.00 Line Haul > 60,000 lbs 6.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 Urban Bus 0.20 0.00 50.00 56.00 Motorcycle 1.50 33.30 66.70 0.00 School Bus 0.10 0.00 0.00 100.00 Motor Home 2.60 0.60 92.30 7,70 Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home- Home- Home - Work Shop Other Commute Non -Work Customer Urban Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Rural Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 Trip Speeds (mph) 35.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 4 of Trips - Residential 100.0 0.0 6.0 ' Page: 9 03/08/2006 2:48 PM Changes made to the default values for Land Use Trip Percentages Changes made to the default values for Operations The operational emission year changed from 2005 to 2030. The home based work selection item changed from 8 to 7. The home based work trip percentage changed from 20.0 to 100. The home based shopping selection item changed from 9 to 8. The home based shopping trip percentage changed from 37.0 to 0. The home based other selection item changed from 9 to 8. The home based other trip percentage changed from 43.0 to 0. The commercial based commute selection item changed from 9 to 8. The commercial based commute urban trip length changed from 10.3 to 0. The commercial based non -work selection item changed from 9 to S. The commercial based non -work urban trip length changed from 5.5 to 0. The commercial based customer selection item changed from 9 to 8. The commercial based customer urban trip length changed from 5.5 to 0. I I I I I I II II II Page: 1 , 03/08/2006 2:48 PM URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name: P:\Projects - All Users\10400-00+\10579-03 Newport Beach GPU EIR\Data\Air Quality do Project Name: Newport Beach GP Update - Update GP Buildout (2030) Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2602 version 2.2 SUMMARY REPORT (Pounds/Day - Summer) OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 ' TOTALS (lba/day,unmitigated) 1,557.83 1,051.61 13,7$8.24 43.23 6,676.77 iI !I 11 11 11 it 11 1I 11 11 11 it Page: 2 03/08/2006 2:48 PM URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name: P:\Projects - All Users\10900-00+\10579-03 Newport Beach GPU EIR\Data\Air Quality da' Project Name: Newport Beach GP Update - Update GP Buildout (2030) Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 SUMMARY REPORT (Pounds/Day - Winter) OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 1,095.65 1,528.18 11,856.98 37.39 6,676.77 Page: 3 03/08/2006 2!98 PM URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name: P:\Projects - All Users\10900-00+\30579-03 Newport Beach GPU 81R\Data\Air Quality da Project Name: Newport Beach GP Update - Update GP Buildout (2030) Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) _ On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 SUMMARY REPORT (Tons/Year) OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 P1410 TOTALS (tpy, unmitigated) 256.19 220.91 2,392.79 7.53 1,218.51 I I I I I I I ' Page: 4 03/08/2006 2:48 PM URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name: P:\Projects - All Users\10400-00+\10579-03 Newport Beach GPU EIR\Data\Air Quality ,da Project Name: Newport Beach GP Update - Update GP Buildout (2030) Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EHFAC2002 version 2.2 DETAIL REPORT (Pounds/Day - Winter) UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 General office building 1,095.65 1,528.18 11,856.,98 37.39 6,676.77 TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs/day) 1,095.65 1,528.18 11,856.98 37.39 6,676.77 Does not include correction for passby trips. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES Analysis Year: 2030 Temperature (F): 50 Season: Winter EMFAC Version: EMFAC2002 (9/2002) Summary of Land Uses: No. Total Unit Type Acreage Trip Rate Units Trips General office building 3.32 trips/1000 sq. ft. 126,856.60421,163.91 Sum of Total Trips 421,163.91 Total Vehicle Miles Traveled 4,422,221.08 Vehicle Assumptions: Fleet Mix: Vehicle Type Percent Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto 52.50 0.00 100.00 0.00 Light Truck < 3,750 lbs 15.90 0.00 100.00 0.00 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 16.70 0.00 100.00 0.00 Mad Truck 5,751- 8,500 7.60 0.00 100.00 0.00 Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 1.00 0.00 80.00 20.00 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 0.30 0.00 66.70 33.30 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 0.90 0.00 22.20 77.80 Heavy -Heavy 33,001-60,000 0.70 0.00 0.00 100.00 Line Haul > 60,000 lbs 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 Urban Bus 0.20 0.00 50.00 50.00 Motorcycle 1.50 33.30 66.70 0.00 School Bus 0.10 0.00 0.00 100.00 Motor Home 2.60 0.00 92.30 7.70 Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home- Home- Home - Work Shop Other Commute Non -Work Customer Urban Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 10.5 10.5 10.5 Rural Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 Trip Speeds (mph) 35.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 t of Trips - Residential 0.0 0.0 010 % of Trips - Commercial (by land use) General office building 35.0 17.5 47.5 1 Page: 5 03/08/2006 2:48 PM Changes made to the default values for Land Use Trip Percentages Changes made to the default values for Operations The operational emission year changed from 2005 to 2030. The home based work selection item changed from 8 to 7. The home based work trip percentage changed from 20.0 to 0. The home based shopping selection item changed from 9 to S. The home based shopping trip percentage changed from 37.0 to 0. The home based other selection item changed from 9 to 8. The home based other trip percentage changed from 43.0 to 0. The commercial based commute selection item changed from 9 to 8. The commercial based commute urban trip length changed from 10.3 to 10.5. The commercial based non -work selection item changed from 9 to S. The commercial based non -work urban trip length changed from 5.5 to 10.5. The commercial based customer selection item changed from 9 to 8. The commercial based customer urban trip length changed from 5.5 to 10.5. Cage: 6 03/08/2006 2:48 PM IURBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 I File Name: P:\Projects - All Users\10400-00+\10579-03 Newport Beach GPU EIR\Data\Air Quality dw Project Name: Newport Beach GP Update - Update GP Buildout (2030) Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on ENFAC2002 version 2.2 DETAIL REPORT (Pounds/Day - Summer) UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO $02 PM10 General office building 1,557.83 1,051.61 13,738.24 43.23 6,676.77 TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs/day) 1,557.83 1,051.61 13,738.24 43.23 6,676.77 Does not include correction for passby trips. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES Analysis Year: 2030 Temperature (F): 90 Season: Summer EMFAC Version: EMFAC2002 Summary of Land Uses: Unit Type (General office building Vehicle Assumptions: Fleet Mix: Vehicle Type Light Auto Light Truck < 3,750 lb Light Truck 3,751- 5,75 Ned Truck 5,751- 8,50 Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,00 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,00 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,00 Heavy -Heavy 33, 001-60,00 Line Haul > 60,000 lb Urban Bus Motorcycle School Bus Motor Home 'Travel Conditions II (9/2002) No. Total Acreage Trip Rate Units Trips 3.32 trips/1000 sq. ft. 126,856.60421,163.91 Sum of Total Trips 421,163.91 Total Vehicle Miles Traveled 4,422,221.08 Percent Type s 0 0 0 0 0 0 s Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel 52.50 0.00 100.00 0.00 15.90 0.00 100.00 0.00 16.70 0.00 100.00 0.00 7.60 0.00 100.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 80.00 20.00 0.30 0.00 66.70 33.30 0.90 0.00 22.20 77.80 0.70 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.20 0.00 50.00 50.00 1.50 33.30 66.70 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 100.00 2.60 0.00 92.30 7.70 Home - Work Urban Trip Length (miles) 11.5 Rural Trip Length (miles) 11.5 Trip Speeds (mph) 35.0 % of Trips - Residential 0.0 Residential Home- Home - Shop Other 4.9 6.0 4.9 6.0 40.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 4 of Trips - Commercial (by land use) General office building Commercial Commute Non -Work Customer 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.3 5.5 5.5 40.0 40.0 40.0 35.0 17.5 47.5 II , Page: 7 03/08/2006 2:48 PM Changes made to the default values for Land Use Trip Percentages Changes made to the default values for Operations The operational emission year changed from 2005 to 2030. The home based work selection item changed from 8 to 7. The home based work trip percentage changed from 20.0 to 0. The home based shopping selection item changed from 9 to 8. The home based shopping trip percentage changed from 37.0 to 0. _ The home based other selection item changed from 9 to S. The The home based commercial other trip percentage changed from 43.0 to 0. based commute selection item changed from 9 to 8. The commercial based commute urban trip length changed from 10.3 to 10.5. The commercial based non -work selection item changed from 9 to 8. The commercial based non -work urban trip length changed from 5.5-to 10.5. The commercial based customer selection item changed from 9 to S. the commercial based customer urban trip length changed from 5.5 to 10.5. �I I I I 1 I [I J Page: 8 03/08/2006 2:48 PM IURBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 I File Name: P:\Projects - All Users\10400-00+\10579-03 Newport Beach GPU EIR\Data\Air quality da Project Name: Newport Beach GP Update - Update GP Buildout (2030) Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMF'AC2002 version 2.2 DETAIL REPORT (Tons/Year) UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 General office building 256.19 220.91 2,392.79 7.53 1,218.51 TOTAL EMISSIONS (tons/yr) 256.19 220.91 2,392.79 7.53 1,218.51 Does not include correction for passby trips. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES Analysis Year: 2030 Season: Annual EMFAC Version: EMFAC2002 (9/2002) Summary of Land Uses: Unit Type Acreage IGeneral office building ' Vehicle Assumptions: Fleet Mix: Vehicle Type Light Auto Light Truck < 3,750 lbs Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 Med Truck 5,751- 8,500 Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 ` Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 Heavy -Heavy 33,001-60,000 Line Haul > 60,000 lbs Urban Bus Motorcycle School Bus Motor Home Travel Conditions No. Total Trip Rate Units Trips 3.32 trips/1000 sq. ft. 126,856.60421,163.91 Sum of Total Trips 421,163.91 Total Vehicle Miles Traveled 4,422,221.08 Percent Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel 52.50 0.00 100.00 0.00 15.90 0.00 100.00 0.00 16.70 0.00 100.00 0.00 7.60 0.00 100.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 80.00 20.00 0.30 0.00 66.70 33.30 0.90 0.00 22.20 77.80 0.70 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.20 0.00 50.00 50.00 1.50 33.30 66.70 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 100.00 2.60 0.00 92.30 7.70 Residential Home- Home- Urban Trip Length (miles) work 11.5 Shop 4.9 Rural Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 Trip Speeds (mph) 35.0 40.0 4 of Trips - Residential 0.0 0.0 8 of Trips - Commercial (by land use) General office building I L Commercial Home - Other Commute Non -Work Customer 6.0 10.5 10.5 10.5 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 0.0 35.0 17.5 47.5 I Page: 9 03/08/2006 2:48 PM Changes made to the default values for Land Use Trip Percentages Changes made to the default values for Operations The operational emission year changed from 2005 to 2030. The home based work selection item changed from 8 to 7. The home based work trip percentage changed from 20.0 to 0. The home based shopping selection item changed from 9 to S. The home based shopping trip percentage changed from 37.0 to 0. The home based other selection item changed from 9 to S. The home based other trip percentage changed from 43.0 to 0. The commercial based commute selection item changed from 9 to B. The commercial based commute urban trip length changed from 10.3 to 10.5. The commercial based non -work selection item changed from 9 to B. The commercial based non -work urban trip length changed from 5.5 to 10.5. The commercial based customer selection item changed from 9 to B. The commercial based customer urban trip length changed from 5.5 to 10.5. Plan Update Daily Trip Generation (Productions+ Attractions) Newport Beach General - Existing (2005) Suildoul w/o Prot. (2030) Bwldoul w Pro). (2030) Daily Trip Ends Length Lan th Length Home Based Work 178,303 it.' ":"1 11.5 229,128 11.5 Home Based Other (Inc, Home -Shop) 288,429 6.02 354942 6.02 377,028 602 Home Based School 20,746 11.5 23,282 11.5 24,813 1L5 Work Based Other 120,137 10.5 154,334 10.5 151.112 1015 Other 204,249 10.5 282AOB 10.5 270052 10.6 Work +Other 324,386 416.740 421,164 Pollutant Emissions Summer Change: GP Update comp. to ROG Existing GP Current Home Based Work 3,090 715 721 Home Based Other (inc. Home -Shop) 2,938 721 766 Homo Based School 360 73 78 Work +Other 5,803 1,541 1,55E Total 12,191 3,050 3,123 -74.4% 2,4% NOX Home Based Work 3,405 625 630 Home Based Other (Inc. Home -Shop) 3,092 658 593 Home Based School 396 64 68 Work +Other 5,659 1,041 1,052 Total 12,552 Z288 2,343 .81.3% 2.4% CO Home Based Work 41592 8,976 9,043 Home Based Other (Inc. HomeShop) 35320 7,348 7,805 Home Based School 4839 919 979 Work+Other 63185 13.594 13,738 Total 144,936 30,837 31.565 .782% 2.4% Sot Home Based Work 36 28 28 Home Based Other (inc. Home -Shop) 29 21 23 Home Based School 4 3 3 Work +Other 57 43 43 TOW 126 95 97 -23.0% 2.1% PM10 Home Based Work 3126 3,959 3,989 Home Based Other(inc. Home -Shop) 2641 3230 3.431 Home Based School 364 405 43T Work +Other 5175 6607 6,677 Total 11.306 14,201 14,529 28.5% 2.3% Winter Change: GP Update comp. to ROG Existing GP Current Home Based Work Home Based Other (Inc. Homc-Shop) 3,067 2.730 692 606 697 644 Home Based School 367 71 75 Work+Other 4.575 1,084 1.096 Total 10,739 2,453 2.512 -766% 2.4% Home Based Work 5,009 911 918 1 Home Based Other (Inc. Home -Shop) 4,495 800 850 Home Based School 583 93 99 Work+Other 8,308 1.512 1.528 Total CO 18,395 3.316 3,395 .81.5% 241Y. Home Based Work 36601 7,522 7,579 Home Based Other (Inc. Home -Shop) 33794 6,777 7,198 Home Based Schaal 4259 770 821 Work +Other Total 57252 11,732 11,857 -79.2% 2.4% 27,455 26,801 131,906 SO2 Home Based Work 32 23 23 Home Based Other (Inc. Home -Shop) 27 18 19 Home Based School Work +Other 4 52 2 37 2 37 ' Total 115 80 81 .29.6% 1.3% PM10 Home Based Work 3126 3,959 3,989 Home Based Other (Inc. Home -Shop) 2641 3230 3.431 Home Based School 364 405 432 Work +Other 5175 6607 6,677 Total 11,306 14,201 14,529 28.5% 2.3% L SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10579-01 Project Title: Newport OPEIR Background Information NearestAir Monitoring Slogan measuring CO: X Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 7.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 5.9 Persistence Factor. 0.7 Analysis Year: 2005 Roadway Data Intersection: 28. Bayslde & Coast Highway Analysis Condition: Existing Traffic Volumes North -South Roadway: 28. Bayakle East-West Roadway: 28. Coast Highway A.M. Peak HourTralfic Volumes HlghestTra0. Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 0 E-W Road: 0 No. of Average Speed Roadway Type , Lanes A.M. P.M. Al Grade 4 15 30 At Grade 6 15 30 P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes NS Road: 1,073 E-W Road: 6,334 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions. (A x 0 x C) y 10D,ODO' At A2 Aa B C Rafarence COConpontrations Tmflk Emaslon EaUmalad COComntraWns Roadway 25 Feot 60 Foo1 100 Foet Valame Factors; 25 Feot SOFeel 100 Faet A.M. PeakTmBk Hour North -South Road 7.0 5.4 3.8 0 8.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 East-West Road 2.3 2.0 1.7 0 8.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 2.6 22 1.7 1,073 5.61 0.16 OA3 0.10 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 6.334 5.51 2.13 1.71 1.22 ' Methodology from Say Area Air quality Management District BAAQMD CEOA Gu(dellnes (1996). s Emission factors from EMFAC2002 (2003). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions. North -South Concentration + East-West Concentration+ Background 1-hour Concentrations 8-Hour Emissions. ((Highest Peak Hour Concentration - Background 1-hour Concentmtbn) x Persistence Factor)+ Background 8-hour Concentration' A.M. P.M. Peak hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 7.0 9.3 7.5 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 7.0 8.8 72 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 7.0 8.3 6.8 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air quality Management District BAAQMD CEOA Guidelines (1996). 11 I 11 II CO Sayside_Coast Highway Exist.xls EIP Associates 3/8/2006 , i ISIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10579-01 Project Title: Newport GP EIR Background Information I I I I I I I I Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: X Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 7.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 5.9 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2005 Roadway Data Intersection: 15. Campus & Bristol N Analysis Condition: Existing Tragic Volumes North -South Roadway: 15. Campus Dr. East-West Roadway: 15. Bristol N A.M. Peak Hour Tragic Volumes Highest Tragic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 0 E-W Road: 0 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions = (A x B x C) / 100,000' No. of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. At Grade 4 15 15 At Grade 4 15 15 P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N-S Road: 3,608 E-W Road: 4,230 Ar As As B C Reference CO Concentratlons Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Foet ioo Feet Volume Faclors2 25 Feel 50 Feel 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 7.0 5.4 3.8 0 8.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 East-West Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 0 8.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 2.6 22 1.7 3,608 8.10 0.76 0.64 0.50 East-West Road 7.0 5.4 3.8 4,230 8.10 2.40 1.85 1.30 t Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). ' 2 Emission factors from EMFAC2002 (2003). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions= NorthSouth Concentration+ East-West Concentration + Background 1-hour Concentra0on2 I B-Hour Emissions - ((Highest Peak Hour Concentration - Background 1-hour Concentration) x Persistence Factor)+ Background 8-hour Concentration" A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 7.0 10.2 8.1 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 7.0 9.5 7.6 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 7.0 8.8 7.2 a Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 1 ICO Campus_BristolN Exist.xls EIP Associates 318/2006 I SIMPLIFIED CALWE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS ' Project Number: 10579.01 Project Tille: NewportGPEIR Background Informatlon Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: X Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 7.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 5.9 Persistence Factor. 0.7 Analysis Year: 2005 Roadway Data Intersection: 27. Dover It Coast Highway Analysis Condition: Existing Traffic Volumes North -South Roadway: 27. Dover East-West Roadway: 27, Coast Highway A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes HlghestTraOk Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) NS Road: 0 E-W Road: 0 No. o1 Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. At Grade 2 15 25 At Grade 4 15 25 P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N•S Road: 1.393 E-W Road; 5.420 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions. (Ax B x C) / 100.000' Ar A2 At 8 C Rolerence COCommnlmtioro Traffic Emission Eelimated COConcnmraticns Roadway 25 Feet SoFeet 100 Foot Volume Faclorsr 25 Feet SOFeet 100 Feel A,M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 7.6 5.7 4.0 0 8.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 East-West Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 0 8110 0.00 0.00 0.00 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 2.7 22 1.7 1,393 6.10 023 0.19 0.14 East-West Road 7.0 SA 3.8 5,420 6.10 2.32 1.79 126 1 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guk/efines (1996). ' Emission factors from EMFAC2002 (2003). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions. North -South Concentration+ East-West Concentration+ Background I -hour Concentration 8-Hour Emissions. ((Highest Peak Hour Concentration - Background 1-hour Concentration) x Persistence Factor)+ Background 8-hour Concentration' A.M. P.M. Peak Hour 'Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 7.0 9.5 7.7 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 7.0 9.0 7.3 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 7.0 8.4 6.9 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District DAAQMD CEQA Guklellnes (1996). r 11 11 11 I it 11 1 1 1 1 CO Dovwr.Coast Highway EXIeLxis EIP Associates 3/8I2006 ' I SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10579-01 Project Title: NewportGP EIR Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: X Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 7.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 5.9 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2005 Roadway Data Intersection: 19. Irvine & Mesa Analysis Condition: Existing Traffic Volumes No. of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M North -South Roadway: 19. Irvine At Grade 4 15 15 ' East-West Roadway: 19. Mesa At Grade 4 15 15 A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Highest Troffto Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 0 N-S Road: 3,012 E-W Road: 0 E-W Road: 1,242 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions = (A x B x C) / 100,000' A, As A3 B C Reteroncs COConcenlratmns Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Faclowr 25 Feet 50 Feat 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 7.0 5.4 3.8 0 8.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 East-West Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 0 8.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 7.0 5A 3.8 3,012 8.10 1.71 1.32 0.93 East-West Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 1,242 8.10 0.26 0.22 0.17 ' Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 3 Emission factors from EMFAC2002 (2003). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions = North -South Concentration + East-West Concentration + Background 1-hour Concentrallon2 8-Hour Emissions - ((Highest Peak Hour Concentration - Background 1-hour Concentration) x Persistence Factor) + Background 8-hour Concentration' A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 7.0 9.0 7.3 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 7.0 8.5 7.0 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 7.0 8.1 6.7 r Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEOA Guidelines (1996). , CO lwlne_Mesa Exist.xls EIP Associates 3/8/2006 I SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10579.01 Projectiillo: Newport GPEIR Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: X Background 1-tour CQ Concentration (ppm): 7.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 5.9 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year. 2005 Roadway Date Intersection: 20. Irvine & University Analysis Condition: Existing Traffic Volumes Nonh-South Roadway: 20. ]Nine East-West Roadway: 20. University A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 1-ighesLTra6k Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) No. of Average Speed Roadway Type as A.M. P.M. At Grade 4 15 20 At Grade 4 15 20 P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N-S Road: 0 N-S Road: 3,407 E-W Road: 0 E-W Road: 814 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions. (A x B x C) / 100,000' A, Az As B C Reference COConconuaeons Traffic Emission Estimated COConcerdrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feel 100 Feet V01um0 Factorar 25 Feet SOFeet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 7.0 5.4 3.8 0 8.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 East-West Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 0 8.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 7.0 6.4 3.8 3,407 6.93 1.65 1,28 0.90 East-West Road 2.6 22 1.7 814 6.93 0.15 0.12 0.10 ' Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEOA Guldalines (1996), 1 Emission factors from EMFAC2002 (2003). Total Roadway CO Concentratons Peak Hour Emissions . North -South Concentration+ East-West Concentration+ Background 1-hour Concentration' 8-Hour Emissions - ((Highest Peak Hour Concentration -Background 1-hour Concentration) x Persistence Factor) + Background 8-hour Concentration' A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 7.0 8.8 7.2 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 7.0 SA 6.9 100 Feelfrom Roadway Edge 7.0 8,0 6.6 Z Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guldellnes (1996), I I I I t I I CO Irvine University ExlsUls EIP Associates 302006 , SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10579-01 Project Title: Newport GP EIR Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: X Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 7.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 5.9 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2005 Roadway Data Intersection: 24. Irvine & Weslcliff Analysis Condition: Existing Traffic Volumes North -South Roadway: 24, Irvine East-West Roadway: 24. Westcliff A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 0 E-W Road: 0 No. of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. At Grade 4 15 25 At Grade 4 15 25 P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N-S Road: 2,179 E-W Road: 2,729 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions = (A x B x C)1100,000' A, As As B C Reference COConoentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 7.0 5.4 3.8 0 8.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 East-West Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 0 8.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 2,179 6.10 0.35 0.29 023 East-West Road 7.0 5.4 3.8 2,729 6.10 1.17 0.90 0.63 ' Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). s Emission factors from EMFAC2002 (2003). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions = North -South Concentration + East-West Concentration + Background 1-hour Concentrations 8-Hour Emissions= ((Highest Peak Hour Concentration - Background 1-hour Concentration) x Persistence Factor) +Background 8-hour Concentrations A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 7.0 8.5 7.0 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 7.0 8.2 6.7 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 7.0 7.9 6.5 s Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). CO Irvine Westcliff Exist.As EIP Associates 3/8/2006 SIMPLIFIED CAUNE4 CARBON MOI Project Number. 10579.01 Project Tille: NewportGPEIR Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: X Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 7.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration(ppm); 5.9 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2005 Roadway Data intersection: 13, Jamboree & Campus Analysis Condition: Existing Traffic Volumes Nodh-South Roadway: 13. Jamboree East-West Roadway: 13. Campus Dr. A.M. Peak HourTraffk: Volumes HghestTraffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 0 E-W Road: 0 No. of Average Speed Roadway Type as A.M. P.M. At Grade 6 15 20 At Grade 4 15 20 P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N-S Road: 4.898 E-W Road: 2,108 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions. (A x B x C) / 100.000' At A2 Aa B C Releranco COConcentrallom Traffic Enuaslon Fsamatod COCom6nuatiuns Roadway 25 Feet 50 Foet 100 Feat Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Fast 100 Feet A.M. Peak Tragic Hour North -South Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 0 8.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 East-West Road 2.6 22 1.7 0 8.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 4,89B 6.93 2.07 1.66 1.19 East-West Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 2.108 0.93 0.38 0.32 025 'Methodology from Say Area Air quality Management Dlshkt BAAOMD CEOA Guidelines (1096). ' Emission factors from EMFAC2002 (2003), Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions. North -South Concentration+East-West Concentration+ Background 1-hour Concentration' 8-Hour Emissions . ((Highest Peak Hour Concentration - Background 1-hour Concentration) x Persistence Factor) +Background 8-hour Concentration' A.M. P.M, Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 7.0 9.5 7.6 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 7.0 9.0 7.3 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 7.0 8.4 6.9 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air quality Management Disuld BAAOMD CEOA Guidelines (1996). 00 Jambotes_Campus Exist.xls EIP Associates 3/8/2006 D SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10579.01 Project Title: Newport GPEIR Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: X Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 7.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 5.9 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2005 Roadway Data ' Intersection: Analysis Condition: 10. MacArthur 81. & Birch St. Existing Traffic Volumes North -South Roadway: 10 MacArthur 81. East-West Roadway: 10. Birch St. A.M, Peak Hour Traffic Volumes L No. of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. At Grade 6 15 30 At Grade 4 15 30 P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 0 N-S Road: 2,716 E-W Road: 0 E-W Road: 1,819 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions - (A x B x C)1100,000' At A2 Aa B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 0 8.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 East-West Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 0 8.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 I C P.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 2,716 5.51 0.91 0.73 0.62 East-West Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 1,819 5.51 0.26 , 0.22 0.17 ' Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). ' Emission factors from EMFAC2002 (2003). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions - North -South Concentration + East-West Concentration+ Background 1-hour Concentration' 6-Hour Emissions . ((Highest Peak Hour Concentration - Background 1-hour Concentration) x Persistence Factor) + Background 8-hour Concentration' A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 7.0 8.2 6.7 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 7.0 8.0 6.6 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 7.0 7.7 6.4 a Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). ICO MacArthur Birch Exist.xis SIP Associates 3/8/2006 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10579.07 Project Tltie: NewportGPEIR Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: X Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 7.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 5.9 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2005 Roadway Data Intersection: 9. MacArthur St. & Campus Dr. Analysis Condition: Existing Traffic Volumes North -South Roadway: 9. MacArthur BI. East-West Roadway: 9. Campus Dr. A.M. Peak HourTraffic Volumes Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 0 E-W Road: 0 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions - (A x B x C) / 100.000' No. of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. Al Grade 6 15 20 AtGrade 4 15 20 P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N-S Road: 1,716 E-W Road: 2,006 A, Ai As B C Relerenoe COCcnoontralions Traffic Emission Estimated COConcentrolionv Roadway 251'eot 60Feol 100Foel Volume Famon? 25F"t 50Foot 10DFael A.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 0 8.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 East-West Road 2.6 22 1.7 0 8410 0.00 0.00 0.00 P.M. Peak Truffle Hour North -South Road 2.3 2.0 1.7 1,716 6.93 0,27 0.24 0.20 East-West Road 7.0 5A 3.8 2,006 6,93 0.97 0.75 0.53 ' Methodology from Bay Area Air quality Management District SAAOMD CEOA Gufdellnds (1996). 2 Emission factors from EMFAC2002 (2003), Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions- North -South Concentration + East-West Concentration+ Background 1-hoUr Conconua8on' 8-Hour Emissions - ((Highest Peak Hour Concentration - Background 1-hour Concentration) x Persistence Factor)+ Background 6-hour Concomm [one A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 7.0 8.2 6.8 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 7.0 8.0 6.6 100 Feel from Roadway Edge 7.0 7.7 6.4 2 Methodology from Bay AreaAlr Quality Management District BAAQMD CEOA GuldeUnes (1996). CO MacArthur_Campus Existxis EIP Associates 302008 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10579-01 Project Title: Newport GPEIR Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: X Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 7.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 5.9 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2005 Roadway Data Intersection: 49. MacArthur & Ford/BonRa Analysis Cardigan: Existing Tragic Volumes North -South Roadway: 49. MacArthur East-West Roadway: 49. Ford/Bonita A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 0 E-W Road: 0 No. of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. At Grade 8 15 20 At Grade 4 15 20 P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N-S Road: 6.058 E-W Road: 3,207 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions = (A x B x C) / 100,000' A, Ai Aa B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feot 50 Feat 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 5.7 4.6 3.4 0 8.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 East-West Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 0 8.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 5.7 4.6 3.4 6,058 6.93 2.39 1.93 1.43 East-West Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 3,207 6.93 0.58 0.49 0.38 1 Methodology from Bay Area Air quality Management District SAAQMD CEQA Guldellnes (1996). 2 Emission factors from EMFAC2002 (2003). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions = North -South Concentration + East-West Concentration + Background 1-hour Concentrallonc 8-Hour Emissions = ((Highest Peak Hour Concentration -Backgrountl 1-hour Concentration) x Persistence Factor) +Background 8-hour Concentration" A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 7.0 10.0 8.0 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 7.0 9.4 7.6 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 7.0 8.8 7.2 3 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District SAAQMD CEQA Guldellnes (1996). CO MacArthur Ford Bonita Exist.xls EIP Associates 3/8/2006 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10579.01 Project Title: Newport GPEIR Background Information I Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: X ' Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 7.0 Background 8-tour CO Concentration (ppm): 5.9 Perolstence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2005 , Roadway Date intersection; 29. MacArthur d Jamboree Analysis Condition: Existing Traffic Volumes North -South Roadway: 29. MacArthur East-West Roadway: 29. Jamboree A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Highest Tragic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 0 E-W Road: 0 No. of Average Speed Roadway Type Lane, A.M. P.M. At Grade 6 15 15 At Grade 6 15 15 P.M. Peak Hour Traffio Volumes NS Road: 3,231 E-W Road; 3,758 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions . (A X 8 x C)1100.000" A, A2 Aa B C Reference COConcunfrations Traffic Emisslon Esllmalod COConcenlmllam Roadway 25 Feat 50 Feot 100 Foot Volume Factom2 25 Fect 50 Feul 100 Feol A.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 0 8.10 0.00 0100 0.00 East-West Road 2.3 2.0 1.7 0 8.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 RM. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 2.3 2.0 1.7 3.231 8.10 0.60 0.62 0.44 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 3,758 8.10 1.86 1A9 1.07 ' Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAOMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 2 Emission factors from EMFAC2002 (2003). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions. NonhSouth Concenuatbn + East-West Concentration +Background 1-hour Concentrations 8-Hour Emissions. ((Highest Peak Hour Conoenlrotlon- Background 1-hour Concentration) x Persistence Factor) + Background 8-hour Concentration' A.M, P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour a -Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 7.0 9.5 7.6 60 Feet from Roadway Edge 7.0 9.0 7.3 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 7.0 8.6 7.0 a Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District SAAQMD CEQA Guldelines (1996), I I I 1 I 00 MacAMur Jamboree ExlsUls EIP Associates 3IW2006 1 FI I SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10579-01 Project Title: NewportGP EIR Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO; X Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 7.0 Background 8-hourCO Concentration (ppm): 5.9 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2005 Roadway Data Intersection: 50. MacArthur & San Joaquin Hills Analysis Condition: Existing Traffic Volumes North -South Roadway: 50. MacArthur East-West Roadway: 50. San Joaquin Hills A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) No. of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. At Grade 8 15 15 At Grade 6 15 15 P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N-S Road: 0 N-S Road: 5,981 E-W Road: 0 E-W Road: 2.016 - Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions = (A x 8 x C) / 100,000' ' A, As Ac B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feel Volume Factors2 25 Feet 50 Feel 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour i North -South Road 5.7 4.6 3.4 0 8.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 East-West Road 2.3 2.0 1.7 0 8.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 J J II II P.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 5.7 4.6 3.4 5,981 8.10 2.76 2.23 1.65 East-West Road 2.3 2.0 1.7 2,016 8.10 0.38 0.33 0.28 ' Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). a Emission factors from EMFAC2002 (2003). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions = North -South Concentration+ East-West Concentration+ Background 1-hour Concentration 8-Hour Emisslons= ((Highest Peak Hour Concentration- Background 1-hour Concentration) x Persistence Factor)+ Background 8-hour Concentratfonc A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 7.0 t0.1 8.1 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 7.0 9.6 7.7 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 7.0 8.9 7.2 P Methodology from Bay Area Air quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guldellnes (1996). ' CO MacArthur San Joaquin Hills Exist.xls EIP Associates 3/8/2006 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number. 10579-01 Project Tille: Newport GP EIR Background Information I Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: X Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 7:0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 5.9 Persistence Factor. 0.7 Analysis Year: 2005 Roadway Data Intersection: 59, MargUnte, & Coast Highway Analysis Condition: Existing Traffic Volumes North -South Roadway: 59. Margur8e East-West Roadway: 59. Coast Highway A.M. Peak HourTrafk Volumes Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) No. of Average Speed Roadway Type Lane$ A.M. P.M. At Grade 2 15 20 Al Grade 4 15 20 P.M. Peak HourTraffk: Volumes N-S Road: 0 N•S Road: 565 E-W Road: 0 E-W Road: 3,622 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions. (A x B x C) / 10D,000' I I I A, A2 As B C ,. Referenco COConcenuaflons Traffic Emission ESUmatod COConcenlrations Roadway 25 F061 SO Foot 100 Foot Volume FaCIOM? 25 F001 50 Foot t00 Feot A.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 7.6 5.7 4.0 0 8.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 ' East-West Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 0 8.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 2.7 22 1.7 565 6.93 0.11 0.09 0.07 East-West Road 7.0 5A 3.8 3,622 6.93 1.78 1.36 0.95 1 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA GuldeRnes (1096), s Emission factors from EMFAC2002 (2003). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions. North -South Concentration+ East-West Concentration + Background 1-hour Concentration' 8-Hour Emissions. ((Highest Peak Hour Concentration - Background 1-hour Concentration) x Persistence Factor)+ Background 8.hour Concentration' A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 7.0 8.9 7.2 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 7.0 BA 6.9 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 7.0 8.0 6.6 'Methodology from Day Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEOA Guldellrles (1996), CO Margurite Coast Highway ExLSLxis EIP Associates &=006 I ' SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10579.01 Project Title: Newport GPEIR Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: X Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 7.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 5.9 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2005 Roadway Data Intersection: 4 Newport BI. & Hospital Rd. Analysis Conciltion: Existing Traffic Volumes North -South Roadway: 4. Newport BI East-West Roadway: 4. Hospital Rd. A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 0 E-W Road: 0 No. of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. At Grade 6 15 30 At Grade 4 15 30 P.M. Peak Hour Tragic Volumes N-S Road: 3,867 E-W Road: 1.140 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions = (A x B x C) / 100,000' A7 As A" B C Reference COConcentrations Traffic Emission Estimated COConcentrattons Roadway 25 Feet SoFeet 10o Feet Volume Factors' S Feel 50 Feel 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 0 8.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 East-West Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 0 8.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 3.867 5.51 1.30 1.04 0.75 East-West Road 2.6 22 1.7 1.140 5.51 0.16 0.14 0.11 t Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District SAAQMD CEQA Guldellnes (1996). " Emission factors from EMFAC2002 (2003). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions - North -South Concentration + East-West Concentration + Background 1-hour Concentraton" 8-Hour Emissions= ((Highest Peak Hour Concentration - Background 1-hour Concentration) x Persistence Factor)+ Background 8-hour Concentration" A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 7.0 8.5 6.9 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 7.0 8.2 6.7 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 7.0 7.9 6.5 " Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guldellnes (1996) CO Newport_Hospital ExisLxls EIP Associates 3/8/2006 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10579.01 Project Titlo: Newport GPEIR Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: X Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 7.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 5.9 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2005 Roadway Data Intersection: 7. Riverside Av. & Coast Hw. Analysis Condition: Existing Tragic Volumes North -South Roadway: 7. Riverside Av, Past -West Roadway: 7. Coast Hw. A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 0 E-W Road: 0 No. of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. At Grade 2 15 15 Al Grade 6 15 15 P.M. Peak Hour Tragic Volumes N-S Road: 839 E-W Road: 5A82 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions. (A x B x C) / 100,000' Ar A2 Aa B C Roferonce COConcontmllono Traffic Emuston Estirnaiod COOoncontralioro Roadway 25 Foot � 50 Foot 100 Feet Volume FamOrea 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Tragic Hour North -South Road 7.6 5.7 4.0 0 8.10 0.00 0100 0.00 East-West Road 2.3 20 1.7 0 8.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 P.M. Peak Tragic Hour North -South Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 839 8.10 0.18 0.15 0.12 East-West Road (1A 4.9 3.6 5,482 8.10 Z71 2.18 1.65 'Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAOMD CEQA Guldens (1998). 1 Emission factors from EMFAC2002 (2003). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions. North -South Concentration+ East-West Concentration + Background I -hour Concentm0ona 6-Hour Emissions. ((Highest Peak Hour Concentration - Background 1-hour Concentration) x Persistence Factor)+ Background 8-hour Concentra8on2 A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 7.0 9.9 7.9 50 Feel from Roadway Edge 7.0 9.3 7.6 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 7.0 8.7 7.1 2 Methodology from Say Area Air Quality Management District SAAQMD CEQA Guldellnes (1996). I [l it CO Riverske Coast Highwayl Exist.xls EIP Associates 3/8/2006 ' I ' SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10579-01 Project Title: Newport GP EIR Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: X Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 7.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 6.9 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2005 Roadway Data Intersection: 8. Tustin Av. & Coast Hw. Analysis Condibon: Existing Traffic Volumes North -South Roadway: 8. Tustin Av. East-West Roadway: U. Coast Hw. A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 0 E-W Road: 0 No. of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. At Grade 2 15 30 At Grade 4 15 30 P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N-S Road: 262 E-W Road: 4,304 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions - (A x B x C) / 100,000' Al A2 A3 B C r Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet SOPeet 10e Feat Volume Factors 25 Feel 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 7.6 5.7 4.0 0 8.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 East-West Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 0 8.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour North -South Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 262 5.51 0.04 0.03 0.02 East-West Road 7.0 5.4 3.8 4,304 5.51 1.66 1.28 0.90 f Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Gu/dellnes (1996). Emission factors from EMFAC2002 (2003). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions. NodhSouth Concentration + East-West Concentration+ Background 1-hour Concentrations 8-Hour Emissions - ((Highest Peak Hour Concentration - Background 1-hour Concentration) x Persistence Factor)+ Background 8-hour Concentrations A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 7.0 8.7 7.1 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 7.0 8.3 6.8 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 7.0 7.9 6.5 s Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guldellnes (1996). CO Tustir_Coast Highwayl Exist.xls EIP Associates 318/2006 I SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10579-01 Project Title: Newport GPEIR Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Slogan measuring CO: X Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 7.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 5.9 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year. 2005 Roadway Data Intersection: 11. VonKarman & Campus Dr. Analysts Condition: Existing Traffic Volumes North -South Roadway: 11. VonKarman East-West Roadway: 11. Campus Dr. A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Highest Trolgc Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 0 E-W Road: 0 No, of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. At Grade 4 15 25 At Grade 4 15 25 P,M. Peak HourTragb Volumes N-S Road: 2,024 E-W Road: 1,873 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions. (A x S x C) / 100,0o0t A, A2 A3 B C Reforonco COConcentrallons Traf0c Emisclon EsUmatod COCcncontmlloro Roadway 25 Fool 50 Foel 100 Foot Volume Factors 25 Fool SO Foal 10O Foot A.M. Peak Tragic Hour North -South Road 7.0 SA 3.8 0 8.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 East-West Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 0 8.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 P.M, PeakTraff -Hour North -South Road 7.0 SA 3.8 2,024 6.10 0.86 0,67 0.47 East-West Road 2.6 22 1.7 1.873 SAO 0.30 025 0.19 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEOA Guidefines (1996). x Emission factors from EMFAC2002 (2003). ' Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions. North -South Concentration+ East-West Concentration+ Background 1-hour Concentratioe 8-Hour Emissions. ((Highest Peak Hour Concentration • Background 1-hour Copcentmton) X Persistence Factor)+Background 8-hour Concenlmllorz A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 6-HoUr 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 7.0 8.2 6.7 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 7.0 7.9 6.5 10D Feet from Roadway Edge 7.0 7.7 6A 2 Methodology from Bay Area AlrQualily Management District BAAQMD CEQA Gutdelines (1996). it it it 11 !I 11 it 11 11 11 11 it it CO VopKarman_Campus Exist.xls EIP Associates 3/62006 1 i I Appendix CI Biological Resources Addendum 1 i i w i f �y 1' EIP ASSOCIATES eM. 10 two OE Local Coastal Plan and General Plan Am I,;a ��..✓{`�'�^ 4C9,�ut+'yR( S��Tf�nyfj'� i Biological Resources Addendum City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Plan and General Plan Prepared for: City of Newport Beach Prepared by: EIP Associates December 4, 2003 Biological Resources Addendum City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Plan and General Plan Prepared for: City of Newport Beach Prepared by: EIP Associates December 2003 n 1 i TABLE OF CONTENTS H I TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Pale 1. INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................1-1 2. METHODOLOGY..............................................................................................2-1 3. BIOLOGICAL HABITATS..................................................................................3-1 4. LITERATURE CITED........................................................................................4-1 APPENDIX A. Figures P.,Tmjects-All Employees\10579.02 Newport Beach BIolAddendumladdendum doc iv December 8, 2003 I I 9. INTRODUCTION 1 I I I I I SECTION 1.0 — INTRODUCTION In August of 2003, EIP conducted reconnaissance -level biological surveys to supplement and refine information presented in the City of Newport Beach, California, Local Coastal Plan — Biological Appendix (Chambers Group and Coastal Resources Management, December 2002) and the City of Newport Beach, California, General Plan — Newport Beach Biological Resources (Chambers Group and Coastal Resources Management, January 2003). A detailed mapping and characterization of seven "Environmental Study Areas" (ESAs)— Banning Ranch, Buck Gully, Coastal Foredunes, MacArthur -San Miguel, Morning Canyon, Semeniuk Slough, and Spyglass Hill —was performed to provide further detail on the habitat composition and quality of each ESA, including the presence of potential waters/wetlands ef4he U.S., and the habitat's potential to support special -status species. From these data, a ranking system was developed, based on inherent habitat value, to evaluate the sensitivity of the ESAs to future development and guide the City with respect to biological resource permitting and ultimate development of the site(s). 1.1 PURPOSE OF STUDY EIP Associates was contracted by the City of Newport Beach to supplement the findings presented in the City of Newport Beach, California, Local Coastal Plan — Biological Appendix (Chambers Group and Coastal Resources Management, December 2002) and the City of Newport Beach, California, General Plan — Newport Beach Biological Resources (Chambers Group and Coastal Resources Management, January 2003). A Local Coastal Plan (LCP) is required under provisions of the California Coastal Act and is a basic planning tool used by local governments to guide development in the coastal zone, in partnership with the Coastal Commission. The Biological Appendix prepared for the City of Newport Beach, California, Local Coastal Plan in December 2002 included the delineation of 19 Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHAs), which are defined by the California Coastal Act as areas -in which "plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or are especially valuable because of their special role in an ecosystem that could easily be disturbed or degraded by human activities or development." The City of Newport Beach determined that the data used to delineate four of the ESHAs (Semeniuk Slough, Buck Gully, Morning Canyon, and Banning Ranch) was not detailed enough for the area to warrant designation as an ESHA. This document aims to provide the detail necessary to allow the Coastal Commission the ability to determine what areas, if any, within these four ESAs may be designated as ESHAs. An additional Non-ESHA Sensitive Habitat (p.4-58 in City of Newport Beach, Califomia, Local Coastal Plan) —the Coastal Foredunes—was also re-evaluated for the same purpose. This refinement of the habitat mapping of these areas will facilitate the decision -making process associated with any proposed development in these areas. The Biological Resources section of the General Plan is intended to serve as an update to the City of Newport Beach, California, General Plan by identifying ESHAs in Newport Beach that warrant protection. The Biological Resources Reportforthe General Plan includes the delineation of nine areas previously designated PAProjocls-All Employees\10579-02 Nowpod Beach BMAddendum\addendum doci_1 December 8, 2003 1. Introduction as ESHAs, two of which (MacArthur and San Miguel, and Spyglass Hill) the City concluded warranted additional analysis. As above, this document aims to provide the detail necessary to allow the City and Coastal Commission the ability to determine what areas, if any, within these two ESAs may be designated as ESHAs, according to criteria in the California Coastal Act. Refinements to maps based on this additional data will allow the City and potential developers to facilitate the decision -making process surrounding development proposed in these areas. PAProjacts. All Employoas110570.02 Nowport Boach BMAddordumladdandum.dA-2 December 8, 2003 I 1 I I ' 2. METHODOLOGY I t 1 SECTION 2.0 — METHODOLOGY 2.1 LITERATURE REVIEW/INFORMATION SEARCH Information on occurrences of special -status species in the vicinity of the Study Area was gathered from the California Department of Fish and Game's (CDFG) Natural Diversity Data Base (CDFG, 2003) and the California Native Plant Society's (CNPS) Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS, 2003) for the quadrangles containing the Study Area (i.e. Newport Beach, Tustin, and Laguna Beach 7.5 minute quadrangles). The CNDDB and CNPS Electronic Inventory are historical observation records and do not constitute an exhaustive inventory of every resource. Additional background on biological resources within the study area was derived from the Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California (Holland, 1986), the California Native Plant Society's Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (Tibor, Ed., 2001), The Jepson Manual — Higher Plants of California (Hickman, J.C., Ed., 1993), and the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report Newport Banning Ranch Local Coastal Program (PCR, 2000). Lastly, EIP biologists reviewed the City of Newport Beach, California, Local Coastal Plan — Biological Appendix (Chambers Group and Coastal Resources Management, December, 2002) and the CityofNewport Beach, California, General Plan — Newport Beach Biological Resources (Chambers Group and Coastal Resources Management, January, 2003) for relevant information on the specific ESAs covered in this report. 2.2 HABITAT VALUE RANKING Basis of the Ranking System For this report, EIP Associates has developed a system to rank specific areas within each of the respective ESAs based on a composite score of variables that collectively represent habitat quality. Habitats are attributed a low (3), moderate (2) or high (1) rank based on the number of positive or negative ecological attributes or functions (see below) in each area. In general, the more positive attributes or functions maintained by the habitat, the higher the rank, whereas areas with more negative attributes or functions are ranked lower. Moderate and highly ranked habitats are those more ecologically valuable and more likely to be adversely affected by development. The following attributes were evaluated in ranking the various habitats within each ESA: • Ability of the habitat to support special status species (recorded or potential) • Waters of the U.S. or jurisdictional wetlands • DFGICNDDB Sensitive Community (e.g. sage scrub, dune, etc.) • Degree of habitat integrity I connectivity ' P:Iftocfs-All Employees110579-02Nowpod Beach BfoViddendumleddondumdoc2-2 December8, 2003 2 — Methodology While most of the above habitat characteristics are easily documentable from a variety of sources, habitat integrity/connectivity is a more subjective measure of biological value, which considers various attributes affecting a given habitat's quality in a particular geographic area. Attributes contributing to (or detracting from) habitat integrity include: • Patch size and connectivity— Large "pieces" of habitat adjacent to or contiguous with similar or related habitats are particularly useful for more mobile species that rely on larger territories for food and cover. • Presence of invasive / non-native species — Invasive/non-native species often provide poorer habitat forwildlife than native vegetation. Proliferation of exotic plant species alters ecosystem processes and threatens certain native species with extirpation. • Disturbance — This includes disturbance due to human activities such as access (trails), dumping, vegetation removal, development, pollution, etc. • Proximity to development — Habitat areas bordering development provide marginal habitat values to wildlife due to impacts from negative edge effects. This proximity presents the possibility of secondary effects to the habitat due to spillover or human Intrusion. Deterioration of habitat results from intrusion of lighting, non-native invasive plant species, domestic animals, and human activity. • Fragmentation —The converse of "connectedness", habitat fragmentation is the result of development of large areas of undisturbed', contiguous habitat. The resulting breaking up of these areas into isolated, disjunct parcels can create barriers to migration, reduce wildlife food and water resources and generally compress territory size to reduce existing wildlife populations to nonviability. Fragmentation increases negative edge effects, whereby the interior area of habitat is affected bythe different conditions of the disturbance on its edges. The smaller a particular habitat is, the greater the proportion of its area which experiences the edge effect, and this -can lead to dramatic changes in plant and animal communities. In general, loss of habitat produces a decline in species total population size, and fragmentation of habitat can isolate small sub -populations from each other. This process leads to conditions whereby animals and plant species are endangered by local, then more widespread, extinction. PAfm/ocls-Aft Emp/oyoosI10579-02Newport Bosch BbWddondudaddandum.da2-3 December 8, 2003 1 2 — Methodology Use of the Ranking System The habitat ranking system can be used to direct development away from higher -value habitats or, at a minimum, indicate which areas will likely receive a greater level of resource agency scrutiny in the permitting process. It may also be used to guide mitigation. Specific habitats within the respective ESAs are attributed a rank of 1 (high value) where proposed development would definitely require a resource permit, including, but not limited to: 1. U.S. Clean Water Act, Section 404 Permit through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - waters of the U.S. and associated wetlands; 2. U.S Endangered Species Act Section 7 or 10 consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service — Listed threatened or endangered species or those proposed for listing; 3. California Fish & Game Code, Section 2081 Incidental Take Permit from the California Department of Fish and Game - Threatened or endangered species or those proposed for listing underthe California Endangered Species Act; 4. California Fish & Game Code Section 1601-1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement with the California Department of Fish and Game — waters of the State. Habitats with a rank of 2 (moderate value) maintain significant characteristics to support the presence of special status plant and wildlife species. Proposed development in these areas will require additional field surveys to determine if resources are present, which would necessitate permitting activities. Habitats with a rank 3 (low) are generally predominated by non-native species or otherwise exhibit a history of disturbance that make resource permitting a very unlikely requirement in these areas. 2.3 FIELD SURVEYS Reconnaissance -level field surveys of were conducted on August 25, 26, and 27, 2003, by Ron Walker and Joshua Boldt of EIP Associates to examine each ESA in orderto describe existing resources and to determine their distribution and relative abundance. Surveys focused on identification of areas exhibiting characteristics of natural or undisturbed habitats and areas that could potentially support special -status plant or wildlife species. Surveys of each ESA were conducted on foot and, in each, habitat types were identified and mapped and observed wildlife and plant species were recorded. Surveys were conducted following a period of elevated precipitation for the Newport Beach area. While precipitation totals for the 2001-2002 wet season were well below average (3.55 in., average is 11.52 in.), those for the 2002-2003 wet season were slightly above average (14.73 in.) P:IPmJocfs - All Employoesh0579-02 Newport Beach BloiAddendumladdondum.doc2-4 December 8, 2003 2 — Methodology (http://wwW.oc.ca.gov/prfd/envres/Rainfall/rainfalldata,asp). Consequently, the composition of vegetation communities — in particular annual species and the extent of wetland areas —was likelyto be representative of what is typically found in years of average precipitation. 2.4 MAP PREPARATION Maps and data were created in GIS (Geographical Information Systems) format at a 12400 scale, or 1 inch = 200 feet, using ArcView 3.2a, using aerial photographs, coastal zone boundaries, ESA boundaries (Chambers, 2002, 2003) roads, parks, and parcels as base layers. Field observations and measurements were -used to subdivide habitats within the existing ESA boundaries. Roads (either dirt or paved) that bisected a habitat were included within the boundaries of an ESA; whereas roads at the edge of an ESA were excluded. The subdivided ESAs were then ranked according to their relative value and resource permitting requirements. Maps of all the ESAs were printed out, using the aerial photos as a base 2.5 ESA DEFINITION When the City of Newport Beach drafted the first Local Coastal Program (LCP) Land Use Plan in the 1980s, the term "environmentally sensitive habitat area" was used to identify riparian areas, wetlands, intertidal areas, and other habitats that are considered to be environmentally sensitive. These environmentally sensitive habitat areas were described as being located on all or portions of twelve large areas. In 2002, a biological assessment study was conducted for use in updating the biological resource sections of the LCP Land Use Plan (Chambers Group and Coastal Resources Management, December, 2002) and the General Plan (Chamber&Group and Coastal Resources Management, January, 2003). This biological assessment study carried over the term "environmentally sensitive habitat area" or "ESHA" to describe twenty-eight areas, including the twelve areas described in the existing LCP Land Use Plan. The California Coastal Commission staff advised City staff that describing areas as ESHAs should be given careful consideration given the limitations on development within these areas as set forth in Section 30240(a) of the Coastal Act, Section 30240(a) requires the protection of environmentally sensitive habitat areas against any significant disruption of habitat values and 'limits uses to only those that are dependent on those resources. Consequently, subsequent drafts of the LCP Land Use Plan now identify these areas as "environmental study areas" (ESAs) to distinguish their geographic identification from the ESHAs that may be located within them. To avoid further confusion, this addendum to the 2002 biological assessment study has been prepared to more correctly identify the twenty-eight areas (nineteen in the coastal zone and nine outside of the coastal zone) as "environmental study areas." ESAs are typically undeveloped areas supporting natural habitats that may be capable of supporting sensitive biological resources. An ESA may support species and habitats that are sensitive (e.g. wetlands) and rare LI I I I I I I 1 1 J ! _J P.Projads-All &aployvosI10579-02NowpodBoach8b14ddandumladdondum.dx2-5 December8, 2003 2 — Methodology ' within the region or may function as a migration corridor for wildlife. ESAs may contain areas referred to as Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHAs), as defined under Section 30107.5 of the California Coastal Act. These are areas in which "plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or are especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem that could easily be disturbed or degraded by human activities or development". While an ESHA is, by Coastal Commission definition, a sensitive habitat, an ESA, as defined in this report, requires further study to determine if such a designation is appropriate or if a given ' area contains resources of particular value or concern. I I I 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 3. BIOLOGICAL HABITATS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i i 1 1 I 1 I I 1 1 1 SECTION 3.0 — BIOLOGICAL HABITATS 3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY AREAS A variety of diverse, valuable, and sensitive habitats occur within the City of Newport Beach. Environmental Study Areas (ESAs) are those portions of the City that contain natural habitat. An ESA may contain areas that are considered ESHAs. 3.1.1 Semeniuk Slough (Oxbow Loop) 3.1.1.1 Description Semeniuk Slough is a remnant channel of the Santa Ana River that historically drained into West Newport Bay and is still exposed to limited tidal influence through a tidal culvert connected between the Santa Ana River and the slough. The 76.74-acre site is bordered by the Newport Shores residential development to the south, the Santa Ana River to the west, and the Banning Ranch ESA to the north and east (Figures 2-3). The ESA is located on the USGS Newport Beach 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. The Semeniuk Slough ESA includes the main slough channel immediately north of Newport Shores and the coastal salt marsh habitat to the north, including a narrow sliver of salt marsh habitat in the far north of the ESA, flanked by the Santa Ana River on the west and the Banning Ranch ESA on the east. Several smaller interconnected channels and inundated depressions are located throughout the salt marsh habitat. Semeniuk Slough is predominantly an open -water estuary, with southern coastal salt marsh as the predominant fringing vegetation and chenopod scrub and ornamental vegetation as a less significant component of the ESA. Southern coastal salt marsh vegetation on -site is dominated by pickleweed (Salicomia virginica), alkali heath (Frankenia salina), California cord grass (Spartina foliosa), California sea -lavender (Limonium californicum), and salt grass (Distichlis spicata), with shore grass (Monanthohloe littoralis), fleshy jaumea (Jaumea carnosa), and saltwort (Batis maritima) as associated species. Sea -fig (Carpobrotus chilensis) has invaded some of the upland portions of the salt marsh habitat in areas adjacent to disturbance. Other ornamental plant species found along the margin of the main slough channel, primarily in the eastern and southern section of the ESA near Newport Shores, include myoporum (Myoporum sp.), acacia (Acacia sp.), Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia robusta), pine (Pinus sp.), and eucalyptus (Eucalyptus sp.). An island in the southwest part of the ESA has been graded or otherwise disturbed in the recent past and the resulting plant community is less established than the surrounding salt marsh. This area is dominated by a mixture of salt marsh species, such as salt grass, heliotrope (Heliotropium curassavicum), and pickleweed, and upland ruderal species, such as burclover (Medicago sp.) and melilotus (Melilotus sp.) A small area of chenopod scrub occurs along the levee separating the Santa Ana River and the Semeniuk Slough ESA and is dominated by saltbush (Atriplex sp.) P:1Pm/acts-AS Employees110570.02Newport Beach BIWAddendumUddendum.doc.M December8, 2003 3. Biological Habitats ' 3.1.1.2 Habitat Value Ranking The following resources contribute to the habitat value rankingsillustrated in Figures 2-3. DFGICNDDB Sensitive Habitats: The following sensitive habitats occur within the Semeniuk Slough ESA: • Southern Coastal Salt Marsh Special -Status Species (Potential) Habitats within the Semeniuk Slough ESA include southern coastal salt marsh, open estuary, and chenopod scrub. These habitats are capable of supporting a variety of special -status plants and animals, Including: • Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. maritimus (Salt marsh bird's beak): FE, SE, CNPS 1 B • Aphanisma blitotdes (aphanisma): CNPS 1 B • Atrip/ex pacifica,(South Coast saltbush): CNPS I • Atriplex parishii (Parish's brittlescale): CNPS 1 B • Centromadia parryl ssp. australts (southern tarplant): CNPS I • Helianthus nuttallii ssp. parishii (Los Angeles sunflower): FSC, CNPS 1A • Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri (Coulter's goldfields): CNPS 1 B • Suaeda esteroa (Estuary seablite): CNPS 1 B • Clcindela gabbii (tiger beetle): CSC • Tryonia imitator (California brackishwater snail): FSC • Eucycolgobius newberryi (tidewater goby): FE, CSC • Laterallus jamaicensis cotumiculus (California black rail): FSC, ST • Rallus longirostris levipes (light-footed clapper rail): FE, SE • Charadrius atexandrinus nivosus (western snowy plover): FT, CSC • Sterna antillarum brown (California least tem): FE, SE • Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi (Belding's savannah sparrow): SE • Gavle immer (Common loon): FSC, CSC • Pelecanus erythrorhynchos (American white pelican): CSC • Circus cyaneus (northern harrier): CSC • Elanus leucurus (white-tailed kite): FSC • Falco columbarids (merlin): CSC • Numenius americans (long -billed curlew): FSC, CSC • Rynchops niger (black skimmer): CSC I I P.w,oJous-All Employao.,uos7aazrrmvponeeacnewwddondummddondum.da3-2 December8, 2003 11 ' 3. Biological Habitats • Sterna elegans (Elegant tem): FSC, CSC • Passerculus sandwichensis rostratus (large -billed savannah sparrow): CSC FE = Federally Endangered FT = Federally Threatened SE = State Endangered ST = State Threatened FSC = Federal Species of Concern CSC = State Species of Special Concern CNPS 1A = California Native Plant Society List 1A Plant CNPS 1 B = California Native Plant Society List 1 B Plant CNPS 2 = California Native Plant Society List 2 Plant Special -Status Species (Known Occurrences) The following special -status species have recorded CNDDB occurrences or other known occurrences within or ' adjacent to the Semeniuk Slough ESA: • Centromadia panyi ssp. australis (southern tarplant) (CNPS 1 B) (CNDDB Occurrence #65): This occurrence of southern tarplant is from the "Newport Slough, south of the oil fields on the edge of the salt marsh and the access road." This is mapped at the western end of the access road north of the main slough channel in the Semeniuk Slough ESA. More than 100 plants were observed in 1998. This population is presumed to still be present. • Suaeda esteroa (Estuary seablite) (CNPS 1B) (CNDDB Occurrence# 13): This occurrence of estuary ' seablite is from the "Newport Slough, south of the oil fields on the edge of the salt marsh and the access road." This is mapped along the margin of the access road north of the main slough channel, east of the southern tarplant occurrence, imthe Semeniuk Slough ESA. This population is presumed to still be present. ' Passerculus sandwichensis balding! (Belding's savannah sparrow) (CSC) (CNDDB Occurrence # 43): The location of this occurrence of Belding's savannah sparrow is the "Santa Ana River mouth, ' Newport Slough area." The CNDDB maps this occurrence on the entire southwest portion of the ESA. 17 pairs were observed in 1996, and 36 pairs in 2001. This population is presumed to still be present. In addition, this species is known to breed in nearby areas including Upper Newport Bay and salt marsh habitat in Huntington Beach (MEC 1991). I IPAPmjacts- All EmployeesI10579.02Newport Beach BlolAddendumloddendumdoc3-3 December8, 2003 3. Biological Habitats • Aphanisma blitoides (aphanisma) (CNPS 113) (CNDDB Occurrence #23): The information for this occurrence is from a 1932 herbarium collection from "Costa Mesa, along base of sea cliffs." It is mapped along the bluff separating Banning Ranch from Highway 1 and Semeniuk Slough. Although this population is presumed to still be present, it has not been observed since 1932. • The California least tem (Sterna antillarum) (FE, SE), which has a large nesting colony on the Huntington Beach side of the Santa Ana River mouth, forages occasionally in the slough -channels (Atwood and Minsky 1983). • Small numbers of western, snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) (FT, CSC) breed in the Huntington Beach least tem colony in some years (Gallagher 1997). Western snowy plovers are observed occasionally in Semeniuk Slough (MEC 1991). • The California brackish water snail (Tryonia Imitator) (FSC) has been collected in substantial numbers in the channels of Semeniuk Slough (MEC 1991). WatersNVetlands of the U.S. The entire Semeniuk Slough ESA site is salt marsh/open estuary, except for small area of chenopod scrub along western border. Intecid The Semeniuk Slough ESA is a relatively large, uninterrupted coastal salt marsh. It is hydrologically and tidally connected to the Santa Ana River, which empties Into the Pacific Ocean, and is also contiguous with the large Banning Ranch ESA on its northern and eastern borders. This provides wildlife with a relatively large, diverse area for foraging, shelter, and movement. The proximity to the Newport Shores residential development has introduced numerous ornamental and non-native species to the eastern perimeter of the site, and also allows use of the sloughs for recreational use. A few oil -well related structures are located in the southern part of the ESA, immediately north of the main slough channel. The land surrounding these structures has been cleared. Two roads bisect the ESA - one leading from the Santa Ana River levee to the Banning Ranch area, and the other leading to the oil well structures. I I I I I I 0 1 0 0 I P.V'lojods-All Emplayess110579-02NowportEnch Bfoviddond=Wddondum doc3-4 December 8, 2003 1 ' 3. Biological Habitats 3.1.2 Buck Gully ' 3.1.2.1 Description ' The Buck Gully ESA is a steep, open canyon extending 2.5 miles from Little Corona Beach to Newport Coast Drive in the San Joaquin Hills (Figures 9-12). The canyon is divided by the Coast Highway. The lower section ' extends from Little Corona Beach to the Coast Highway and the larger, upper section stretches from the Coast Highway to Newport Coast Drive. The 261.95-acre ESA is bordered by the Pacific Ocean and Little Corona Beach to the west, and residential and commercial development to the east, north, and south of the site. The ' Buck Gully site is located on the Laguna Beach 7.5-minute USGS topographic quadrangle. ' The Buck Gully ESA is dominated by Diegan coastal sage scrub and southern mixed chaparral, with southern willow scrub, annual grassland, and coastal freshwater marsh occurring as smaller components of the ' community. Diegan coastal sage scrub and southern mixed chaparral encompass the majority of the gully - from the upper rims to the alluvial bottoms. A narrow ribbon of southern willow scrub riparian habitat is supported by an unnamed creek that flows along the canyon bottom the length of the gully. Patches of annual ' grassland occur throughout the chaparral and coastal sage scrub habitats and also in areas where native vegetation has been cleared for fire prevention. ' The narrow, western reach of the canyon is largely encroached upon by the adjacent residential areas to the southeast and northwest. The upper slopes in this area of the canyon support a mix of disturbed southern mixed chaparral, a small patch of coastal sage scrub, and non-native ornamental vegetation originating from the surrounding homes. Typical chaparral species in this area include toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), laurel ' sumac (Malosma laurina), and ceanothus (Ceanothus sp.) Non-native and ornamental species include giant reed (Arundo donax), acacia, eucalyptus, myoporum, Mexican fan palm, Brazilian pepper tree (Schinus ' terebinthifolius), Peruvian pepper tree (Schinus molle), castor bean (Ricinus communis), tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca), pampas grass (Cortaderia sp.), and fennel (Foeniculum vulgare). The canyon bottom in ' this area is dominated by riparian vegetation including willows (Salix spp.), blackberry (Rubus sp.), cattail (Typha sp.), and bulrush (Scirpus sp.). A small freshwater marsh comprised almost exclusively of cattail is situated at the mouth of the gully adjoining Little Corona Beach. ' The central section of the canyon immediately northeast of the Coast Highway, while closely confined by ' residential development, contains fewer ornamental plant species than the coastal portion and supports southern mixed chaparral and southern willow scrub habitats with species compositions similar to the lower ' canyon. The chaparral in this area supports toyon, laurel sumac, ceanothus, chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum), lemonadeberry (Rhus integrifolia), scrub oak (Quercus berberidifolia), southern honeysuckle 1 tP.IPmjads-All EmployeesII0579-02NewportBeochBloWdendumladdendumdoc3-5 December8, 2003 3. Biological Habitats ' (Lonicera subspicata), redberry (Rhamnus crocea), bush monkey flower (Mimulus aurantfacus), and sugar bush (Rhus ovata). Approximately adjacent to the intersection of 5th Avenue and Poppy Avenue, the gully veers east and opens into a broader canyon. The southern slopes of the canyon in this area support dense stands of southern , mixed chaparral, while the northern slopes support disturbed annual grassland, possibly established as chaparral and coastal sage scrub, but subsequently cleared for fire prevention by homeowners. At present, ' the annual grassland contains black mustard (Brassica nigra), tocalote (Centaurea melitensis), artichoke thistle (Cynara cardunculus), wild oats (Avena fatua), soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus), barley (Horedum sp.), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), and fennel. Diegan coastal sage scrub becomes more dominant as the canyon slopes on the upper portions,of the canyon veer eastward. This community is composed of California sagebrush (Artemisia califomica), California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), white sage (Salvia aplana), prickly pear (Optunia sp.), coyote brush (Bacchads pilularis), blue elderberry (Sambucus mexicana), laurel sumac, lemonadeberry, and California bush sunflower (Encella califomica). ' The canyon floor of Buck Gully supports a southern willow scrub community, dominated by willows and mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia), with occasional western sycamore (Platanus racemosa) and cottonwood (Populus , fremontii). Associated plant species Include cattail, blue elderberry, poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), rush (Juncus spp.), and nutsedge (Cyperus sp.). ' The upper canyon is broader than the lower canyon and is therefore less impacted by adjacent development. ' Vegetation in this area is primarily Diegan coastal sage scrub and southern mixed chaparral, interrupted by occasional patches of annual grassland, and southern willow scrub associated with the creek at the canyon bottom. ' 3.1.2.2 Habitat Value Ranking ' The following resources contribute to the habitat value rankings illustrated in Figures 9-12. ' DFG1CNDDI3 Sensitive Habitats: The following sensitive habitats occur within the Buck Gully ESA: • Diegan coastal sage scrub ' • Southern mixed chaparral • Southern willow scrub • Coastal freshwater marsh , PAPmJons-All Emp1oyvos11O57"2Newport Beach BlaAddondumladdondum.doc3-6 December 8, 2003 1 3. Biological Habitats D 1 1 Special -Status Species (Potential) The Diegan coastal sage scrub, southern mixed chaparral, southern willow scrub, annual grassland, and coastal freshwater marsh in the Buck Gully ESA are capable of supporting a variety of special -status plants and animals, including: • Chorizanthe parryl var. fernandina (San Fernando spineflower): FC, SE, CNPS 1B • Verbesina dissita (crownsbeard): FT, ST, CNPS I • Abronia villosa var. aurita (chaparral sand -verbena): CNPS I • Aphanisma blitoides (aphanisma): CNPS 1 B • Atriplex coulted (Coulter's saltbush): CNPS 1 B • Atriplex pacifica (South Coast saltbush): CNPS 1 B • Atriplex serenane var. davidsonii (Davidson's saltbush): CNPS 1 B • Calochortus weed# ssp. intermedius (intermediate mariposa lily): CNPS 1 B • Centromadia party! ssp. australis (southern tarplant): CNPS I • Chaenactis glabriuscula var. orcuttiana (Orcutt's pincushion): CNPS 1 B • Dudleya multicaulis (many -stemmed dudleya): CNPS 1 B • Dudleya stolonifera (Laguna Beach dudleya): FT, ST, CNPS 1 B • Euphorbia misera (cliff spurge): CNPS 2 • Helianthus nuttalld ssp. parishii (Los Angeles sunflower): FSC, CNPS 1A • Horkelia cuneata ssp. puberula (mesa horkelia): CNPS 1 B • Isocoma menziesii var. decumbens (decumbent goldenbush): CNPS 1 B • Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri (Coulter's goldfields): CNPS 1 B • Lepidium virginicum var. robinsonii (Robinson's pepper -grass): CNPS 1 B • Name stenocarpum (mud nama): CNPS 2 • Navarretia prostrate (prostrate navarretia): CNPS 1B • Quercus dumosa (Nuttall's scrub oak): CNPS 1 B • Sagittaria sanfordi! (Sanford's arrowhead): CNPS I • Sidlacea neomexicana (salt spring checkerbloom): CNPS 2 • Eucycolgobius newbenyi (tidewater goby): FE, CSC • Phrynosoma coronatum blainvillei (San Diego horned lizard): FSC, CSC • Cnemidophorus hyperythrus (orange -throated whiptail): CSC • Crotaullus tuber tuber (northern red -diamond rattlesnake): CSC • Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus (western snowy plover): FT, CSC • Sterna antillarum brown (California least tern): FE, SE • Empidonax frailll! extimus (southwestern willow flycatcher): FE • Polioptila californica californica (coastal California gnatcatcher): FT, CSC 1 P.Vxjacts-All Employees110579-02 Newport Boach BloWddendumleddondum.doc21-7 December 8, 2003 3. Biological Habitats ' • Vireo bell/i pusillus (least Bell's vireo): FE, SE • Phalacrocorax auritus (double -crested cormorant): CSC • Accipiter cooperii (Cooper's hawk): CSC • Elanus leucurus (white-tailed kite): FSC • Campylorhynchus brunnelcapillus (coastal cactus wren): CSC • Dendroica petechia brewsted (yellow warbler): CSC • lcteria virens (yellow -breasted chat): CSC • Perognathus longimembris pacificus (Pacific pocket mouse): FE, CSC FE = Federally Endangered FT = Federally Threatened SE = State Endangered ST = State Threatened FSC = Federal Species of Concern CSC = State Species of Special Concern CNPS 1A = California Native Plant Society List 1A Plant CNPS 1B = California Native Plant Society List I Plant CNPS 2 = California Native Plant Society List 2 Plant Special -Status Species (Known Occurrences) The following special -status species have recorded CNDDB occurrences•within the Buck Gully ESA: • Euphorbfa misera (cliff spurge) (CNPS 2) (CNDDB Occurrence # 21): The location forthis occurrence is listed as "Corona del Mar State Beach" and consists of a total of three colonies at the following locations: "Inspiration Point south of Orchid Ave. at Ocean Blvd.; adjacent to Glen Dr./Beach Dr.; andr south of Glen Dr." This first location is just north of the mouth of Buck Gully. A "Glen Dr." does not exist in Newport Beach, but the colonies associated with these locations are assumed to be in the general vicinity of the first colony. 60 plants were observed in 1989. This population is presumed to still be present. • Dudleya multicaulis (many -stemmed dudleya) (CNPS 1 B) (CNDDB Occurrence # 94): The source for this occurrence is a 1908 herbarium collection from "Corona del Mar bluffs." This population has not been relocated and is believed to be no longer present. • Quercus dumosa (Nuttali's scrub oak) (CNPS 18) (CNDDB Occurrence # 3): This occurrence is reported to be due east of the comer of 5"Ave, and Poppy Ave. in Buck Gully in an area of chaparral I 1 ri P9PmJeds•All Em&yoes110570.02 NmpM Boach BbWdendumWddendum d=3-8 December 8, 2003 11 ' 3. Biological Habitats and coastal sage scrub. Four to seven plants were observed in 1991, and this occurrence is presumed to still be present. • Lasthenia glabrata (Coulter's goldfields) (CNPS 1 B) (CNDDB Occurrence # 58): Location information for this occurrence is 'Buck Gully, about one mile upstream from Highway I." Two plants were observed in 1998 in a clay depression near willow woodland in the valley bottom. This -occurrence is ' presumed to still be present. WaterslWetlands of the U.S. The unnamed creek channel flowing the length of Buck Gully is a likely water of the U.S. Sections of the riparian corridor and the coastal freshwater marsh at the mouth of the canyon near Little Corona Beach may also be considered "associated wetlands." ' Integrity 1 1 II II II The lower (western) portion of Buck Gully is isolated from the upper Buck Gully by the Coast Highway. This area is closely confined by residential development on the south and north. The proximity to development, accessibility by local residents and their pets, and abundance of non-native ornamental plant species detract from the quality of habitat for wildlife species in this area. The upper (eastern) portion of Buck Gully is a broad, open, relatively undisturbed canyon. Coastal sage scrub and mixed chaparral dominate much of the area, except for the riparian corridor along the canyon bottom and the tops of the canyon, which are influenced by the adjacent residential development. Much of the native vegetation near the rim of the canyon has been removed to reduce wildfire hazard. Ornamental and non-native plant species from the adjacent residential development have encroached into Buck Gully, especially in the lower, narrow portions. Annual grasslands in Buck Gully consist of non-native annual grasses and (orbs. Some non-native inclusions were also observed in the Diegan coastal sage scrub, southern mixed chaparral, and southern willow scrub habitats. 3.1.3 Morning Canyon 3.1.3.1 Description Morning Canyon, an 8.26-acre ESA perpendicular to the coastline, is located between Corona Highlands and Cameo Highlands above the Coast Highway, and between Shore Cliff and Cameo Shores on the ocean side of Coast Highway (Figure 9). Morning Canyon is bordered by the Pacific Ocean to the west, Pelican Hills Golf II RLOrclocls- All EmployeesII0579-02 Newport Beech BmVlddandumladdendum.docM December 8, 2003 3. Biological Habitats Course to the east, and residential development to the north and south. This ESA is located on the Laguna Beach 7.5 minute USGS topographic quadrangle. Morning Canyon is characterized by disturbed, remnant, southern mixed chaparral vegetation on the canyon floor and along the upland slopes, This area, however, contains few remaining native species and is dominated by non-native and ornamental species that have invaded the canyon from adjacent residential areas located immediately to the northwest and southeast. Native plant species in the remnant southern mixed chaparral community include coyote brush, toyon, mountain mahogany (Cercopcarpus betuloides), lemonadeberry, and blue elderberry. Non-native species include fennel, pampas grass, acacia, date palm (Phoenix sp.), fig (Ficus sp.), hottentot fig (Carpobrotus edulls), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), tree tobacco, pittosporum (Pittosporum sp.), and castor bean. The canyon bottom once supported a southern willow scrub and willows, mule fat, and mugwort (Artemisia douglasiana) can still be observed growing among the dominant non-native Vegetation, though these species are no longer common enough to consider this habitat to be southern willow scrub. Non-native plant species now dominate the bottom and lower slopes of the canyon and include giant reed, acacia, hottentot fig, eucalyptus, myoporum, Mexican fan palm, Brazilian pepper tree, Peruvian pepper tree, pampas grass, ivy (Hedera sp.), and fennel. Although most of the native riparian -associated species have been displaced by non-native and ornamental species, the area is still used by riparian wildlife, such as American crow (Corvus brachyrhyncus), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), cedarwaxwing (Bombycilla garrulous), English sparrow (Passer domesticus), raccoon (Procyon ltor), and opossum (Didelphis vlrginlana). The presence of a perennial watercourse along with a structurally diverse woody vegetation community provides the necessary habitat.attributes that are essential to riparian -associated species. 3.1.3.2 Habitat Value Ranking The following resources contribute to the habitat value rankings illustrated in Figure 9. DFGICNDDB Sensitive Habitats: • Southern mixed chaparral (disturbed, remnant) P.Wm/acts.ANEmployoosV0579.02Nowport Basch BloWddandumladdondum.docM 0 December 8, 2003 1 3. Biological Habitats Special -Status Species (Potential) Habitats within the Morning Canyon ESA include disturbed, remnant southern mixed chaparral and the,creek channel. These habitats are capable of supporting a variety of special -status plants and animals, including: • Verbesina dissita (crownsbeard): FT, ST, CNPS I • Abronia villosa var. aurita (chaparral sand -verbena): CNPS I • Calochortus weedii ssp. intermedius (intermediate mariposa lily): CNPS 1 B • Dudleya multicaulis (many -stemmed dudleya): CNPS 1 B • Dudleya stolonifera (Laguna Beach dudleya): FT, ST, CNPS I • Horkelia cuneata ssp. puberula (mesa horkelia): CNPS 1 B • Isocoma menziesii var. decumbens (decumbent goldenbush): CNPS 1 B • Lepidium virginicum var. robinsonii (Robinson's pepper -grass): CNPS 1 B • Quercus dumosa (Nuttall's scrub oak): CNPS 1 B • Sidlacea neomexicana (salt spring checkerbloom): CNPS 2 • Vireo bellii pusillus (least Bell's vireo): FE, SE • Phrynosoma coronatum blainvillei (San Diego horned lizard): FSC, CSC • Crotauliustuber tuber (northern red -diamond rattlesnake): CSC • Elanus leucurus (white tailed kite): FSC • Empidonax traillii extimus (southwestern willow flycatcher): FE • Dendroica petechia brewsted (yellow warbler): CSC • Icteria virens (yellow -breasted chat): CSC FE = Federally Endangered FT = Federally Threatened SE = State Endangered ST = State Threatened FSC = Federal Species of Concern CSC = State Species of Special Concern CNPS 1A = California Native Plant Society List 1A Plant CNPS 1 B = California Native Plant Society List 1 B Plant CNPS 2 = California Native Plant Society'List 2 Plant Special -Status Species (Known Occurrences) There are no recorded occurrences of special -status species in the CNDDB for the Morning Canyon ESA. I ' PAPm)ecfs-AIIEmployees170579.02 Newport Beach 131olAddendumisddendum.dac3-11 December 8, 2003 3. Biological Habitats WetlandslWaters of the U.S. The unnamed creek channel flowing the length of Morning Canyon is likely a jurisdictional waters of -the U.S. Inte rit The lower, southwestem section of Morning Canyon is separated from the upper section of Morning Canyon by the Coast Highway. The entire canyon is very narrow and closely bordered by residential development on the northwest and southeast, the Pacific Ocean to the southwest, and the Pelican Hills Golf Course at the northeastern edge of the area. Ornamental species have completely displaced native vegetation in much of canyon and now dominate throughout the majority of this ESA. Pets from the adjacent residences likely use the area and further discourage wildlife use of the canyon. 3.1.4 MacArthur and San Mlauel 3.1.4.1 Description The 7.69-acre MacArthur and San Miguel ESA (Figure 7), consists of two relatively small and isolated patches of undeveloped land divided by San Miguel Drive, and bordered by Avocado Avenue to the northwest and MacArthur Boulevard to the southeast. The area south of San Miguel Drive is bordered by an open lot to the south (north of the Central Library), while the area north of San Miguel Drive is bordered by San Joaquin Hills Road to the northeast. The site is located on the USGS Newport Beach 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. The area south of San Miguel Drive is 3.54 acres of predominantly Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat, consisting of California sagebrush, deerbrush (Lotus scoparius), and coyote brush, along with the non-native tocalote and scattered instances of prickly pear. Other common, non-native species include black mustard and various grasses. The perimeter of this portion of the site has been -previously disturbed by adjacent road development and several ornamental species occur immediately outside the boundaries of this area, including eucalyptus, myoporum, and Peruvian pepper tree, Much of the adjacent undeveloped land - particularly the large lot separating the site from the Central Library - supports ruderal vegetation. Two drainages intersect in the middle of this parcel, An east -west flowing drainage supports a limited amount of disturbed southern willow scrub habitat containing willow, cattails, bulrush and mule fat. The north -south flowing drainage supports a small seasonal wetland consisting of cattail and duckweed (Lemna sp.) The area north of San Miguel Drive consists of 4.15 acres dominated by mowed annual grassland containing ripgut brome, wild oat, soft chess, Bermuda grass (Cyonodon dactylon), Bermuda buttercup (Oxalis pes- u it tJ L P.Wmlocls-AO EmployoosV0578-02Nowpod Soochabt4ddonduminddondum d.3-12 December 8, 2003 3. Biological Habitats I 1 II caprae), and black mustard. There are also some scattered coyote brush, California sagebrush, and saltbush (Atriplex sp.) shrubs typically associated with the coastal sage scrub that likely dominated the site prior to development. This area has been graded adjacent to MacArthur Boulevard, but then slopes steeply towards Avocado Avenue. A public transit center on the northern third of this parcel is bordered by ornamental (Mexican fan palm and pine) trees and turf grass, which also occur at the corner of MacArthur Boulevard and San Miguel Drive. Two concrete -lined ditches - one adjacent to Avocado Avenue and the other crossing the site near San Miguel Drive — drain the area. Sediment depostion at the downstream ends of these drainages support limited vegetation including wetland -associated species such as nutsedge. 3.1.4.2 Habitat Value Ranking The following resources contribute to the habitat value rankings illustrated in Figure 7. DFG/CNDDB Sensitive Habitats: The following sensitive habitats occur within the MacArthur/San Miguel ESA: • Diegan coastal sage scrub • Southern willow scrub (disturbed) ISpecial -Status Species (Potential) II Habitats within the MacArthur/San Miguel ESA include Diegan coastal sage scrub and southern willow scrub. These habitats are capable of supporting a variety of special -status plants and animals, including: • Chorizanthe parryi var. femandina (San Fernando spineflower): FC, SE, CNPS 1B • Verbesina dissita (crownsbeard): FT, ST, CNPS 1 B • Abronia villosa var. aurita (chaparral sand -verbena): CNPS 1 B • Aphanisma blitoides (aphanisma): CNPS 1 B • Atriplex coulteri(Coulter's saltbush): CNPS 1B • Atriplex pacifica (South Coast saltbush): CNPS 1 B • Atriplex serenana var. davidsonii (Davidson's saltbush): CNPS 1 B • Calochortus weedi/ ssp. intermedius (intermediate mariposa lily): CNPS 1 B • Dudleya multicaulis (many -stemmed dudleya): CNPS 1 B • Dudleya stolonifera (Laguna Beach dudleya): FT, ST, CNPS 1 B • Euphorbia misera (cliff spurge): CNPS 2 • Horkelia cuneata ssp. puberula (mesa horkelia): CNPS 1 B • Isocoma menziesii var. decumbens (decumbent goldenbush): CNPS 1 B • Lepidium virginicum var. robinsonii (Robinson's pepper -grass): CNPS 1 B P.IftJecfs -All EmployoesII0579-02 Newport Beach BloNddendumladdendum.dO03-13 December 8, 2003 3. Biological Habitats Navanetia prostrate (prostrate navarretia): CNPS 1 B Quercus dumosa (Nuttall's scrub oak): CNPS I Sidlacea neomexicana (salt spring checkerbloom): CNPS 2 Phrynosoma coronatum blainvillei (San Diego homed lizard): FSC, CSC Cnemidophorus hyperythrus (orange -throated whiptail): CSC Polioptila califomica califomica (coastal California gnatcatcher): FT, CSC Vireo bells/ pusillus (least Bell's vireo): FE, SE Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus (coastal cactus wren): CSC FE = Federally Endangered FT = Federally Threatened SE = State Endangered ST = State Threatened FSC = Federal Species of Concern CSC = State Species of Special Concern CNPS 1A = California Native Plant Society List 1A Plant CNPS 18 = California Native Plant Society List I Plant CNPS 2 = California Native Plant Society List 2 Plant Although suitable habitat exists forthese species within the MacArthur/San Miguel ESA, the small, fragmented nature of the area and its proximity to development, makes it unlikely that most species would utilize this area. Special -Status Species (Known Occurrences) There are no recorded occurrences of special -status species in the CNDDB for the MacArthur/San Miguel WatersNyetlands of the U.S. The two drainages traversing the parcel south of San Miguel Drive, along with the small seasonal wetland associated with the north -south flowing drainage, could be potential "waters of the U.S." The concrete -lined ditches north of San Miguel Drive are, however, not likely to be considered "waters of the U.S." This ESA is relatively small in size (7.69 acres) and completely isolated from any adjacent, associated habitats by urban development, thereby precluding the use of this ESA by most wildlife species. This proximity to P.•Ift;vas-A# Employaas110579A2 Nowpcd Beach Bl Wddandumladdondumdoc3-14 December 8, 2003 I 3. Biological Habitats 1 1 I �I J II II fl I II development has introduced numerous ornamental and non-native species to the perimeter of the site, further reducing the integrity of the ESA. The fact that the area north of San Miguel Drive is maintained in a mowed condition makes use of this area by wildlife highly unlikely. 3.1.5 Spyglass Hill 3.1.5.1 Description The 17.31-acre Spyglass Hill ESA includes the uppermost reaches of Big Canyon (Figure 8). The site consists of a well-defined canyon with vegetated slopes bordered by residential development and a seasonal, southeast to northwest flowing drainage at the canyon bottom. This ESA is west of Spyglass Hill Road and northeast of Mission Bay Drive. The site is located on the USGS Newport Beach 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. This community is dominated by the Diegan coastal sage scrub and southern mixed chaparral, with several ornamental trees along the northeast -facing slope, just up from the vegetated canyon bottom. In addition, native vegetation immediately adjacent to the. residential development has been cleared for fire prevention purposes. The upland areas on the north and east slopes of the main drainage support dense Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat, dominated by California sagebrush, coyote brush, lemonadeberry, California buckwheat, deerweed, white sage, and laurel sumac. Slopes south and west of the drainage support southern mixed chaparral, dominated by toyon, ceanothus, coyote brush, bush mallow (Malacothamnus sp.), scrub oak, live oak (Quercus agrifolia), bush monkey flower, poison oak, blue elderberry, lemonadeberry, and chamise. The drainage itself is ephemeral and therefore is unable to support typical riparian habitat. It is characterized by species associated with the Diegan coastal sage scrub to the northeast and the southern mixed chaparral to the southwest. 3.1.5.2 Habitat Value Ranking The following resources contribute to the habitat value rankings illustrated in Figure 8. DFG/CNDDB Sensitive Habitats: The following sensitive habitats occur within the Spyglass Hill ESA: Diegan coastal sage scrub Southern mixed chaparral ' P1Pm/ects.AMEmployees1f0579-02Newport Beach BioAddendunraddendumdoc3-15 December 8, 2003 3. Biological Habitats , Special -Status Species (Potential) The Diegan coastal sage scrub and southern mixed chaparral habitats within the Spyglass Hill ESA are capable of supporting a variety of special -status plants and animals, including: • Chorizanthe panyi var. femandlna (San Fernando spineflower): FC, SE, CNPS 16 • Verbesina dissita (crownsbeard): FT, ST, CNPS 1 B • Abronia villosa var. aurita (chaparral sand -verbena): CNPS 18 • Aphanisma blitoides (aphanisma): CNPS 1 B • Atriplex coulter) (Coulter's saltbush): CNPS 1B • Atriplex pacifrca (South Coast saltbush): CNPS 16 • Atriplexserenana var. davidsonil (Davidson's saltbush): CNPS 113 • Calochortus weedfl ssp. intermedius (intermediate mariposa lily): CNPS 1 B • Dudleya multicaulis (many -stemmed dudleya): CNPS 1 B • Dudleya stolonifera (Laguna Beach dudleya): FT, ST, CNPS 1 B • Euphorbia misera (cliff spurge): CNPS 2 • Norkella cuneata ssp. puberula (mesa horkelia): CNPS 1 B • Isocoma menziesiivar. decumbens (decumbent goldenbush): CNPS 113 Lepidium virginicum var. robinsonii (Robinson's pepper -grass): CNPS 16 • Navaretla prostrate (prostrate navarretla): CNPS 1 B • Quercus dumosa (Nuttall's scrub oak): CNPS 1 B • Sidlacea neomexicana (salt spring checkerbloom): CNPS 2 • Phrynosoma coronatum blainvillei (San Diego horned lizard): FSC, CSC • Cnemidophorus hyperythrus (orange -throated whiptail): CSC • Crotauliusruberruber(northern red -diamond rattlesnake): CSC • Polioptila califomica califomica (coastal California gnatcatcher): FT, CSC • Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus (coastal cactus wren): CSC • Perognathus longimembris pacifrcus (Pacific pocket mouse): FE, CSC FE = Federally Endangered FT = Federally Threatened SE = State Endangered ST = State Threatened FSC = Federal Species of Concern CSC = State Species of Special Concern CNPS 1A = California Native Plant Society List 1A Plant I I P.Wt acts-AOEM&yeostl057"MowportBooch BioWdondumleddondumdoc3-1 G December8, 2003 , 3. Biological Habitats 11 1 LJ r I 1 I CNPS 1 B = California Native Plant Society List 1 B Plant CNPS 2 = California Native Plant Society List 2 Plant Special -Status Soecies (Known Occurrences) The following special -status species have recorded CNDDB occurrences within the Spyglass Hill ESA: • Perognathus longimembris pacificus (Pacific pocket mouse) (FE, CSC) (CNDDB Occurrence # 4): This is a historic collection from 1971 centered around "Spyglass Hill". The occurrence is believed to be no longer present. Waters/Wetlands of the U.S. The unnamed creek channel flowing the length of through this ESA is a potential waters of the U.S. Integrity The Spyglass Hill ESA is a relatively undisturbed area of high -quality Diegan coastal sage scrub and southern mixed chaparral. Except for the area immediately adjacent to the residential development to the west and southwest, the habitats in the Spyglass Hill ESA are almost entirely composed ofnative species. However, this ESA is completely isolated from any adjacent, associated habitats by residential development, and overall the area is relatively small (17.31 acres). This is an ideal example of fragmented habitat. While supporting undisturbed native vegetation communities, the isolated nature of the area possibly precludes its use by many wildlife species. 3.1.6 Coastal Foredunes 3.1.6.1 Description Foredune habitats are identified by stands of dense to sparse annual and perennial herbs, grasses, or shrubs occurring on sand dunes along the coast. In Newport Beach, southern coastal foredune habitat extends southwest, from 10th Street to the tip of the Balboa peninsula along the ocean side of Balboa,'immediately adjacent to the bike lane (Figures 4-6). The vegetation in this community is generally sparse with overall cover ranging from 20 to 70 percent in some areas, while other areas are completely devoid of vegetation. Areas of open sand fragment this southern coastal foredune habitat. Dominant plants include non-native species such as sea -fig, hottentot fig, sea rocket (Cakile maritima), and native purple sand -verbena (Abronia umbellate), beach evening primrose (Camissonia cheiranthifolla), beach morning glory (Calystegfa soldanella), and beach 1 PAPmJecfs-All Employees110579-02 Newpan Beach BIGiAddendumleddendum.doc3-17 December 8, 2003 3. Biological Habitats bur (Ambrosia chamissonis). Many areas are almost completely covered by sea -fig and hottentot fig, which seem to have been introduced from the residences fronting the beach area. Although many areas within the Coastal Foredunes ESA have extensive non-native cover, these species are considered to be a component of southern coastal foredune habitat and were therefore not mapped differently from those areas supporting a predominance of native species. 3.1.6.2 Habitat Value Ranking The following resources contribute to the habitat value rankings illustrated in Figures 4-6. DFGICNDDB Sensitive Habitats: The following sensitive habitats occur within the Coastal Foredunes ESA: • Southern coastal foredune Special -Status Species (Potential) Habitats within the Coastal Foredunes ESA include southern coastal foredune and open beach, which could support a variety of special -status plants and animals, including: • Cordylanthus madtimus ssp. maritimus (salt marsh bird's -beak): FE, SE, CNPS 1 B • Aphanisma blitoides (aphanisma): CNPS I • Atriplex coulted (Coulter's saltbush): CNPS 1B • Atriplex pacifica (South Coast saltbush): CNPS 1 B • Chaenactis glabriuscula var. orcuttiana (OrcutVs pincushion): CNPS I • Hordeum intercedents (vernal barley): CNPS 3 • Nemacaulis denudata var. denudata (coast woolly -heads): CNPS 1 B • Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus (western snowy plover): FT, CSC • Stema antillarum brown (California least tem): FE, BE • Phalacrocorax auritus (double -crested cormorant): CSC • Passerculus sandwichensis tostratus (large -billed savannah sparrow): CSC FE = Federally Endangered FT = Federally Threatened SE = State Endangered ST = State Threatened FSC = Federal Species of Concern P.IPro/sus-MkjnployoosV057"2Nowport Beach WaWddondumladdendumdoc3-18 December 8, 2003 1 I 3. Biological Habitats C I CSC = State Species of Special Concern CNPS 1A = California Native Plant Society List 1A Plant CNPS 1B = California Native Plant Society List 1B Plant CNPS 2 = California Native Plant Society List 2 Plant Special -Status Species (Known Occurrences) The following special -status species have recorded CNDDB occurrences within the Coastal Foredunes ESA: • Nemacaulis denudata var denudata (coast woolly -heads) (CNPS 1 B) (CNDDB Occurrence # 17): This occurrence consists of three collections on Newport Peninsula from the harbor entrance north to about 9th St. Collections include ".....from 61h St. to harbor entrance", ".... 81h and 9th St. sand dunes", and "Newport Beach". This occurrence is presumed to still be present. Waters/Wetlands of the U.S. No potential wetlands/waters of the U.S. were observed during biological surveys within the Coastal Foredunes ESA. ' Integrity I II II II II Ornamental and non-native species, likely introduced from the adjacent residences, dominate much of the southern coastal foredune habitat in this ESA. Numerous residences use the beach area as an extension of their backyards and residents have planted and irrigated the ornamental species that have replaced native species in these areas. Increased human activity and public access also adversely impact these dune habitats, as evidenced by the numerous trails bisecting the dunes. 3.1.7 Banning Ranch 3.1.7.1 Description The 282.40-acre Banning Ranch ESA is located near the mouth of the Santa Ana River (Figures 13-14). This ESA is bordered to the northeast and east by residential and commercial development, to the north by Talbert Regional Park, to the south by West Coast Highway, and to the south and west by the Newport Shores residential community and the Semeniuk Slough ESA. The Banning Ranch site is located on the Newport Beach 7.5 minute USGS topographic quadrangle. ' P.Iftlacts-AIIEmployees110579-02 NewportBeach Blo'Addendumladdendum.003-19 December 8, 2003 3. Biological Habitats The Banning Ranch ESA encompasses four distinct topographic features that influence the type and character of biological resources on the site. The western edge of Newport Mesa, which comprises much of the eastern portion of the site, represents a coastal plane that slopes gently from east to west. Historic oil -extraction related infrastructure is found throughout the mesa, Including the location of wells, pipelines, buildings, improved and unimproved roads, and open storage pipes and machinery. Bluffs form the western edge of the mesa, which are very steep along the southern and southwestern edges of the mesa, but become less severe in the north. These bluffs provide a transition between mesa uplands to the east and the lowlands to the west. The bluffs and mesa are incised at various points along their/its length by a number of drainages. Two of these drainage features - one in the southern portion of the site and one in the northern portion - are markedly larger than the others and referred to as "arroyos". The majority of the lowlands in the western portion of the project site were historically tidal marsh associated with Semeniuk Slough. The construction of a levee between the Banning Ranch lowlands and Semeniuk Slough removed the former from tidal influence, very likely to facilitate oil extraction activities. Subsequent channelization of the Santa Ana River and oil extraction activities at Banning Ranch, dating back at least 75 years, have altered these lowlands area to where they are now characterized by narrow channels and low pockets of periodically -standing water in some areas. Tidal influence is presently limited to only 4.8 acres at the southwest comer of the lowlands. The entire area supports a network of roads, pipelines, oil derricks, and a few buildings. Plant communities on the Banning Ranch property range from relatively undisturbed native to highly disturbed exotic populations. Upland (mesa) areas generally support southern coastal bluff scrub and non-native grassland, while the lowlands support riparian and wetland vegetation: Current plant communities Include: (1) southern coastal bluff scrub; (2) sage scrub -grassland ecotone/sere; (3) annual grassland; (4) ruderal (uplands); (5) ruderal wetlands; (6) vernal pool; (7) alkali meadow; (8) southern coastal salt marsh; (9) coastal brackish marsh; (10) mulefat scrub; (11) southern black willow forest; (12) developed areas; (13) disturbed areas; and (14) ornamental vegetation (Figures 13-14), Scattered portions of both upland and lowland areas of Banning Ranch contain ruderal vegetation dominated by non-native grasses and forbs. Plant species associated with this community include black mustard, wild radish (Raphanus sativus), pampas grass, fennel, and filaree (Eroldum sp.). The lowland portions of this ESA consist of ruderal wetlands, alkali meadows, southern coastal salt marsh, and coastal brackish marsh. Ornamental vegetation occurs throughout the site, though primarily in the upland areas, and include hottentot- fig, myoporum, and eucalyptus. Aiftads-ANEmployeos110570-02NawpW Beach Bla Addendumladdendumdoc3-20 December 8, 2003 1 3. Biological Habitats 3.1.7.2 Habitat Value Ranking The following resources contribute to the habitat value rankings: DFGICNDDB Sensitive Habitats: The following sensitive habitats occur within the Banning Ranch ESA: • Southern Coastal Bluff Scrub • Vernal Pool • Alkali Meadow • Southern Coastal Salt Marsh • Coastal Brackish Marsh • Southern Black Willow Forest Special -Status Species (Potential) The southern coastal bluff scrub, annual grasslands, ruderal wetlands, vernal pool, alkali meadow, southern coastal salt marsh, coastal brackish marsh, mulefat scrub, and southern black willow forest in the Banning Ranch ESA are capable of supporting a variety of special -status plants and animals, including: • Chorizanthe parryivar. femandina (San Fernando spineflower): FC, SE, CNPS 1B • Cordylanthus maritimus sap. maritimus (salt marsh bird's -beak): FE, SE, CNPS 1 B • Verbesina dissita (crownsbeard): FT, ST, CNPS 1B • Abronia villosa var. aurita (chaparral sand -verbena): CNPS 1 B • Aphanisma blitoides (aphanisma): CNPS 1 B • Atriplex coulteri (Coulter's saltbush): CNPS 1 B • Atriplex pacifica (South Coast saltbush): CNPS 1 B • Atriplex parishii (Parish's brittlescale): CNPS 1 B • Atriplex serenana var. davidsonii (Davidson's saltbush): CNPS 1 B • Calochortus weedii ssp. intermedius (intermediate mariposa lily): CNPS 1 B • Centromadia panyi ssp. australis (southern tarplant): CNPS 1 B • Chaenactis glabriuscula ,var. orcuttlana (Orcutt's pincushion): CNPS 1 B • Dudleya multicaulis (many -stemmed dudleya): CNPS 1 B • Dudleya stolonifera (Laguna Beach dudleya): FT, ST, CNPS 1 B • Euphorbia misers (cliff spurge): CNPS 2 • Helianthus nuttallii ssp. parishii (Los Angeles sunflower): FSC, CNPS 1A • Hordeum intercedents (vernal barley): CNPS 3 • Horkelia cuneata ssp. puberula (mesa horkelia): CNPS 1 B P.IPmJects•AMEmp/oyeesI10579.02 Newport Beach BloWdendumladdendum doe3-21 December 8, 2003 , 3. Biological Habitats • Isocoma menziesii var. decumbens (decumbent goldenbush): CNPS I • Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulter! (Coulter's goldfields): CNPS I • Lepidlum virginicum var. robinsonli (Robinson's pepper -grass): CNPS 1 B • Name stenocarpum (mud name): CNPS 2 • Navametia prostrate (prostrate navarretia): CNPS 1 B • Quercus dumosa (Nuttali's scrub oak): CNPS I • Sagittaria sanfordii (Sanford's arrowhead): CNPS I • Sidlacea neomexicana (salt spring checkerploom): CNPS 2 • Branchinecta sandiegoensis (San Diego fairy shrimp): FE • Cicindela gabbii (tiger beetle): CSC , • Tryonia Imitator (California brackishwatersnail): FSC • Eucycolgobius newberryi (tidewater goby): FE, CSC • Phrynosoma coronatum blafnvillel (San Diego homed lizard): FSC, CSC • Cnemidophorus hyperythrus (orange -throated whiptail): CSC , • Crotaulius ruber ruber (northern red -diamond rattlesnake): CSC • Laterallus jamaicensis cotumiculus (California black rail): FSC, ST , • Rallus longirostris levipes (light-footed clapper rail): FE, SE • Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus (western snowy plover): FT, CSC • Stema antillarum brown (California least tem): FE, SE • Empidonax trail/!! extimus (southwestern willow flycatcher): FE ' • Polioptila calffibmica califomlca (coastal California gnatcatcher): FT, CSC • Vireo be/111jousillus (least Bell's vireo): FE, SE • Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi (Belding's savannah sparrow): SE , • Phalacrocorax auritus (double -crested cormorant): CSC • Accipiter cooperli (Cooper's hawk): CSC • Circus cyaneus (northern harrier)rCSC • Elanus leucurus (white-tailed kite): FSC • Falco columbadus (merlin): CSC ' • Numenfus amedcanus (long -billed curlew); FSC, CSC • Rynchops niger (black skimmer): CSC • Athena cuniculada (burrowing owl): CSC • Eremophila alpestris(horned'lark): CSC , • Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus (coastal cactus wren): CSC • Lanius ludovicianus (loggerhead shrike): CSC • Dendrolca petechia brewsted (yellow warbler): CSC • icteda virens (yellow -breasted chat): CSC , P:Iftlecls-AM Employaos110579-02Newport Booch Wot4ddenduminddondumd=3-22 December 8, 2003 1 3. Biological Habitats • Passerculus sandwichensisrostratus (large -billed savannah sparrow): CSC • Perognathus longimembris pacificus (Pacific pocket mouse): FE, CSC FE = Federally Endangered FT = Federally Threatened SE = State Endangered ST = State Threatened FSC = Federal Species of Concern CSC = State Species of Special Concern CNPS 1A = California Native Plant Society List 1A Plant CNPS 1 B = California Native Plant Society List 1 B Plant ' CNPS 2 = California Native Plant Society List 2 Plant ' Special -Status Species (Known Occurrences) The following special -status species have recorded CNDDB occurrences orotherknown occurrences within or adjacent to the Banning Ranch ESA: • Centromadia parryi ssp. australis (southern tarplant) (CNPS 1B) (CNDDB Occurrence #64): This occurrence of southern tarplant is from the "south end of the Newport oil fields in disturbed areas adjacent to oil pipelines" and is mapped near the southwestern border of the Banning Ranch ESA near its boundary with the Semeniuk Slough ESA. More than 1000 plants were observed in 1998. It was also observed on Banning Ranch by PCR during surveys conducted in 2000 for the Draft. ' Program Environmental Impact Report NewportBanning Ranch Local Coastal Program (PCR, 2000). This population is presumed to still be present. ' • Aphanisma blitoides (aphanisma) (CNPS 1B) (CNDDB Occurrence # 23): The information for this occurrence is from a 1932 herbarium collection from "Costa Mesa, along base of sea cliffs" and was mapped along the bluff separating Banning Ranch from Highway 1 and Semeniuk Slough. Although this population is presumed to still be present, it has not been observed since 1932. ' San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegoensis) (FE) was documented by PCR during surveys ' conducted in February and March 2000 for the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report Newport Banning Ranch Local Coastal Program (PCR, 2000) from the vernal pool and a small depression ' immediately to the south. ' P.IPmjects-All EmployeesI10579-02NewpodBeach BrolAddendumleddendumdoc3-23 December 8, 2003 3. Biological Habitats • Coastal California gnatcatcher (Polloptila califorrilce californica) (FT, CSC) has been observed primarily within coastal bluff scrub onsite during focused surveys from 1992 to 1998. 19 pairs were observed in 1992 and between 1993 and 1996, the number of observed pairs ranged from 16 to 29, 17 pairs were observed in 1997, and 19 pairs were observed in 1998 (PCR, 2000). • Coastal cactus wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus) (CSC) Ten pairs were observed in 1997 and seven pairs were observed in 1998 (PCR, 2000). • The following special -status species were observed either on -site or flying over the area during surveys conducted by PCR for the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report Newport Banning Ranch Local Coastal Program (PCR, 2000): California least tem, yellowwarbler, Belding's savannah sparrow, southwestern willow flycatcher, northern harrier, Cooper's hawk, golden eagle, sharp - shinned hawk, white-tailed kite, and osprey. No further details about these observations were given. Waters/Wetlands of the U.S. A 1998 wetland delineation performed by PCR determined there were 57.5 acres of jurisdictional waters on Banning Ranch, including 57.15 acres of jurisdictional wetlands and 0,35 acre of unvegetated channels. The majority of these wetlands are in the lowland portion in the northwest part of the ESA, with otherjurisdictional areas associated with four drainages originating at various locations on the upper portions of the site. In addition, one vernal pool was identified near the central portion of the site (PCR, 2000). .Intecirity The Banning Ranch ESA is a large, relatively undeveloped, but historically disturbed assemblage of diverse habitats that, together with the contiguous Semeniuk Slough ESA, provides wildlife with a significantly large, diverse area for foraging, shelter, and movement: Infrastructure related to oil exploration and extraction is scattered throughout the area, especially in the northern portion of the mesa, degrading the native habitats where they occur. Much of the land surrounding developed areas (i.e. oil infrastructure) is disturbed and does not support any vegetation. Improved and unimproved roads bisect the entire ESA, fragmenting habitat and creating increased areas of "edge effect". Areas supporting annual grassland and ruderal vegetation communities are dominated by non-native species, typically annual grasses and (orbs. Ornamental species are found throughout the site, primarily in upland areas. The entire Banning Ranch ESA is closed to public access, though pets from nearby residences and feral domestic animals are common transients through these habitats. P.R*ds-A11Emp1omsi1O57"2 Nowpod Bench BrnWddondumladdendum.doc3-24 December 8, 2003 ' !f J ' k 3. Biological Habitats While disturbance associated with the oil infrastructure does diminish the quality of habitat in the Banning ' Ranch ESA to some extent, the overall area should be regarded as relatively high -quality wildlife habitat due to its large size, habitat diversity, and continuity with the adjacent Semeniuk Slough ESA. 1 3.2 SUMMARY The information in this report is presented as a supplement to the City of Newport Beach, California, Local Coastal Plan— Biological Appendix (Chambers Group and Coastal Resources Management, December 2002) ' and the City of Newport Beach, California, General Plan — Newport Beach Biological Resources (Chambers Group and Coastal Resources Management, January 2003). Together with the ESA maps provided in Figures 2-14, this information can facilitate the decision -making process associated with any proposed development in ' these areas. This will guide the City in focusing development in areas with the fewest impacts to biological resources and attempting preservation and protection in areas with the highest biological value. The habitat value ranking system presented in this report will also guide resource permitting efforts of prospective developers by indicating which sub -areas of the studied ESAs either definitely will require some level of permitting or for which additional studies need to be performed to determine whether such permitting is ' required. I II' AL -rejects -AU EmployeoSU0579-02 Newport Beach Biol4odendumWeldendum.d003-25 December8, 2003 I 4. LITERATURE CITED 1 II II I I I 1 1 SECTION 4.0 — LITERATURE CITED Atwood, J.L., and D.E. Minsky. 1983. Least Tern Foraging Ecology at Three Major California Breeding Colonies. Western Birds 14:57-71. California Department of Fish and Game. 2003. California Natural Diversity Database. California Native Plant Society. 2003. Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. Chambers Group and Coastal Resources Management. 2002. City of Newport Beach, California, Local Master Plan — Biological Appendix. Chambers Group and Coastal Resources Management. 2003. City of Newport Beach, California, General Plan — Newport Beach Biological Resources. Gallagher, S.R. 1997. Atlas of Breeding Birds Orange County, California. Sea and Sage Audubon Press. Hickman, J.C., Ed. 1993. The Jepson Manual — Higher Plants of California. Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. MEC Analytical Systems, Inc. 1991. Ecological Descriptions and Evaluations of Proposed Enhancement/Restoration for Eight Southern California Wetlands Prepared in Response to California Coastal Commission for Southern California Edison Company. PCR. 2000. Draft Program Environmental Impact Report Newport Banning Ranch Local Coastal Program. Tibor, D.P., Ed. 2001. California Native Plant Society's Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California. P.IPm/acts-AUEmployeestIO579-02Newport Beach BAMdendumladdendum.doc 4-1 December 8, 2003 J APPENDIX I I IAppendix A Figures I I I! I I I 1 II II II II I 1 F 1 1 The fl'" ^^I^r f' JI "'o f; vi iron rro nxinilnhlc nc nnr+ of fha TRR nnrilnr nn fha Cifv'S GP 1 1 1 1 II II II i m m m m m= m m m m m m m m m m m m City of Newport Beach'= t y Key Map & Envitontnental Study Ateas FIGURE 1 tit c s >; ," j,•. ��, y. \ ! 'Ly 1. r. '.J ." \"! w .rdt i j;�,. �,') _ _ • �K;,(�'/ I $'l'/�t A F 5 0 C: ) A 1 1< ~ QR.otW«.3«.MbF�I "'w Qr. MQ �•»� Gxa1FrtlsaYW(f�enf) ', 3&wGrsd3o5vb lFaw>->A Q a�.aadff+teA Q �F+�IFR Wl Q Rdud Upbd(Ryaeiitq Rdn.i WdadlKNm 1}U) •".' sssvaGdoatrud=I}{q Q s JRdmdffgweA Q Eors6empdWJb.Rm1{F�Iilq C-„1 Soatsm CmddvSSwbQiryalltq O sa.twco,wF�s,��iw<9 �,-,',' Smhm CafW 53}1vS (fqunLJ) so¢iun rcml wpf.d (<s�w i{A xabcWao.saab(FiwtaAtA _^r IIDLdSkYm(r,�miq Q vav)Foo4ffrfv 1}tq PO�t'mlvmdtmou City of Newport Beach Emdtonmental StudyAreae FIGUM 2 - Semen4uk Slough XJ lilt+r•A•=•Y�a:�,••,ow...F�,.is„+m>mV � »ei..mYoo.y � s,.ray.nsrur is c�,YdsQ+ N t,f,W Y ttli� M C1Il'lXtri{Tgil4Adi { Al , a F am City of Newport Beach Eummmentai Study Areas FIGURE 3 - Semeniuk Slough h^e'amER9�'+^iVetnam-Ad&Km19nrP�1 nnaemPnmkrintU^Kdl ?�� U➢m05+lWx L-„ SeubmCaulLFaaS O Q Chmgisa.b Ommd N f¢W 0 so f�iw �rornr:sroxraxAat .�asx>rt �rec 'P ` ~ •d v ��,-gyp_ �+y' i City of Newport Beach Environmental StudyAmas FIGURE 4- Coastal Dunes avwtaeoarvaal oop, tw '14 I AP *, 71-06�; 0- TV, IS I 2 2 2 m m m m m m m m m m m m m m M M M M M M! M M m m m m m •m m m City of Newport Beach Environmental Study Areas FIGURE 5 - Coastal Dunes �4 xnntre'TvvosaarnaNc ENo1RON8SNCALSN➢Y axaae N vao A., QiYOFNLVWAT6PAQi I --E-I P-_ - 2m 24VUWM WAL STUDY MUM ___________________I City of Ne"O t Beach ', t SnvironmentalStudy Areas FIGURE 7 - MacArthur and San Miguel ,. ail i�l. 1MrrAT4AL1J21tQ4MG ENYIII6k73IItNfAL 3'1LDYAk[SA! • • y,' x: i f d 6c •' � e � �Y3 4' iN£ C4. �.. 44 .kj ! y✓ 1 �tN� ` 't o w ,00 tfa M. 0 to to a rm Q[YOPI.EWMf.TNAGt i 4� ��'.Y ..} mil.• •t'j' L' .l e V •\ v� .I �j• �. j�9�A,,. � y 4.t h ».,''�Ya.`kY,M."":.� :•�•�»:'"�h.,„-��t i�� .y ite Tv • � ° j .� -, ', j!' , t.. ^ye:' .,. '•.s f. s -' �t� ii I Li f �+�jrLtd t£i M1 5SOCIirfiS oz Tr —410 Fc#urnrvuve>urmvc 't�;,w.1i,,.s 'K�7A•tt`". �j ._� Lam,---- i avvimv�vtntmmrue¢ts �.' ��•!f . #� � f �'�l � p j'z� ti 1.s _ 1 y �: �# •i ars W �. i Y -� ,:... < iy. a..3 !a K f%_ "�F N� � 7" ..ALI t a e !A 4 f �• VIP ��j�j �'�M•YY' 1 .j;``,. 3 " 3tK1•y ;'�" R➢/,_ �F..t• +�yl'� t # 'w > Y �4'��1� � _ m m m m m � m City of Newport Beach Environmental Study Areas FIGURE 9 - Buck Gully and Morning canyon rscexa IN F,>,�..n�a,rF.y�.•a ltaowPevai�tFm]1..�5yrsnkgam! `e �. VudOapp.nf � C�IFmE�avNW 4amkmWBaw&rt6 facto o m fm ao a fau m xo fm so cw ta QTFOFTtLPOIIiWQt El — MT, 'agy?yjf.• � +�`+'V �. � �: •wi 'fe s '�rJ,°_'�ra.`-��+r:��r �Y" ,' °h"^ ap�'y34"i'-yY`iY�y y•r„�§{jy/%t.,t'Ty`f����Yyi�•yy� .�".�LA(:.� ,ate i,ry.._:^;��� W• 4-� '4; '�t ?AL 11 . '. fi sa.r 4f i I Si sill T tj. City ofNewport Beach Environmental Study Areas FIGURE 10 - Buck Gutty � *...-.:sly:•+ -m.eteal+Lgr�al••,Jol..as,.q.ly:d Fix sm:,,.aaa 't" i r. 3, r , • 'a 3 %Y -AI--fait`., !'t 4,-"4 m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m�! m City of Newport Beach Environmental Study Areas FIGURE It -Buck Gully �asND Itm¢Pum®ttagmd �- INooa Pasi.mj� 31e•AeexoeJSa.q.Pydml � re.�awt14v�6dr .. f,�"i n.pnGmat5p5av6 0.6 Grv�sd 4xls Som6mR6aw5mb t1i00 0 30 SW W 14ma 0 1W 2'D XO 1W JW 6[0 t CTh'Wi.ZR'PO0.T1FAQ1 i EU27 h5SU4I A LS Vti 4 ti ,.—brfr ,���, •may i. iedi,M �a�' .'lr+q �•+�i�r �". �34R � 'ws:r 'x+p �+-Y.Y4`i1�4. �� `Q.+ ` Y ay rY: 311 �,�yosro� Sar..i vr6'J ,".i h _' F+. "eT�t�l '6i4 t� ;'. L j City of Newport Beach Environmental Study Areas KE Ieseatq:d �>iefeyt..v.-NiWf..mh�+� SrYm,^ •t3atd � ra.i. N ssxo O b t0 m iolY. re aiTolA:s/oRSlrAal I I ---E- � Y. Tt IF _� ".�i � �',. � may_ 1• _. \ \ e !*r---i! AS t � 1 � �,. •es G �A m� a m m m= m m m m m m a m a� m m ICity of Newport Beach Environmental Study Areas FIGURE 13 - Banning Ranch bamhm<G6PvZte-Adfi'ardSrv,.riLy:nd Q Ate^ . . C.w.'soSceScr@W per (� s�,,,esaDsa4.n.@ �j Mdtukm6 grr��sjt�+ 1�6vuCmdDb9Yue6 �Iea�il iw:..l (,� Sa%LuaGu,ISJ=WM (� aebal vpbed Q Y•+dPod mud C3 �t {141i ✓X % % 140 f•A !Ti artaenzcroarauao 1 •rp _ ,;.' - .. - %rya_ .. * :- _ :{-'. .. NU {f 'rl S. s.t'a.( d f' "�},P"� �S 1 �0 ,i, / �-.`"°•,�+}4.�-� f y'h},.p,%y:y •T>�l'(l�'+. '� 4• rYDi ~1�'S v � �..I F • 3 yJ 4{ ���-• vS,�u•• � t..;rf ..�`��!yrv� 7�^y�. 1 , a7r .�.• fit. � � .�,s %1`tlti��''e°�.'a o t i _ $ )!s 3:. ''w- '3'r ``•:.. rc's ��'�;,;.y�'fx «. x','ryi+.'�yC �� %��: SOS --. -�5 �4,H lh"�,.'.. .'�.-'yit•�,fit dt i-dC$�lr �•rd,w'°',g t�'$f-+iy'' �,_"DYr _�v'� '•;.:.«„�e...r.r,s �' x�' ".'w� Fpp � ...ems •.yam, 'size sF,sa � sL"• .' .nn '.,-: 4(�t�t>i ?. _ 'm :1irn ..s "•'jd'. °a y Y.LM1..'�•. R, y�i P fig• 5, 7 C—, �i ! ��'i• -Sw9 4� T Y � •W u I City of NewpostBeach Environmental Study Atean FIGURE 14 - Banning Ranch u°MND LE Rs.raraakis•R.oi.i S.A•c wsrw.a y..Ar.A N rA anurawa,cwi 1p -,UP-_ A. A ., ,• :% i f 5 t • r'j4 i •---� 3�"11� s i:;:.e••, - [1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 L I - Status Federal State CNPS Species alphabeticallybycommonname American badger Taxidea taxus SC Aphanisma Aphanisma blitoides 1 B Belding's savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi SE Bell's sage sparrow Amphispiza Belli beN SC Big free -tailed bat Nyctinomops macrotis SC Burrowing owl Athena cunicularia SC California beardtongue Penstemon califomicus 1 B California black rail Laterallus jamaicensis cotumiculus ST California homed lark Eremophila alpestris actia SC California least tern Sterna antillarum brown FE BE Chaparral sand -verbena Abronfa villosa var. aurita 1 B Cliff spurge Euphorbfa misers 2 Coast (San Diego) horned lizard Phrynosome coronatum (blainvillff) SC Coast patch -nosed snake Salvadora hexalepis virgultea SC Coast woolly -heads Nemacaulis denudata var. denudata 16 Coastal California gnatcatcher Polioptila californica californica FT SC Coastal cactus wren Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus sandiegensis Sc Coastal western whiptail Aspidoscelfs hgds stejneged Sc Coulter's goldfields Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri 1 B ICity of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR C2-1 Appendix C2 Special•Stotus Species Table C2-1 List of Special -Status Species Potentially Occurring within the General• -• Status Federal State CNPS S ks al belle by common nornei Coulter's sallbush 1 B Atdplex coulted Crownbeard FT FT I Verbesina dissita Davidson's saltscale 1B Atdplex serenana var. davidsonii Dulzura pocket mouse SC Chaetodipus califomicus femoralis Estuary seablite 1 B Suaeda esteroa Globose dune beetle Coelus globosus Golden eagle SC Aquila chrysaetos Hales monardella 1B Monardella macrantha asp. hallif Intermediate mariposa Illy 1 B Calochorfus weedii var. Intermedas Laguna Beach dudleya FT ST 1B Dudleya stolonifera Least Bell's vireo FE FE Vireo belfif puslllus Light-footed clapper rail FE FE Rallus longirostdsWipes Lang-spined spineflower 1 B Chodzanthe polygonoides var. longispina Los Angeles pocket mouse SC Perognathus longimembris brevinasus Los Angeles sunflower 1A Hellanthus nuftalld sap, padshii Many -stemmed dudleya 1 B Dudleya multicaulis Mesa horkelia 1 B Horkelfa cuneata ssp. puberula Mexican long -tongued bat SC Choeronycteris mexicana Mimic tryonia (=California brackishwater snail) Tryonia imitator Monarch butterfly Danaus plexippus Mud nama 2 Nama stenocarpum Nevin's barberry FE FE 16 Berbeds neWnii C2.2 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 1 I Appendix C2 Special -Status Species l I I I I 1 I Table C2-1 List of Special -Status Species Potentially Occurring within the General. -. Status federal State cNPS Species al habeticaltyb common name Northern red -diamond rattlesnake Crotalus ruberruber SC Northwestern San Diego pocket mouse Chaetodipus fallax fallax SC Nuttall's scrub oak Quercus dumosa 1 B Orange -throated whiptail Aspidoscelis hyperythra SC Orcutt's pincushion Chaenactis glabduscula var. orcuttiana 1B Pacific pocket mouse Perognathus longimembds pacificus FE SC Parish's brittlescale Atriplex parishii 1B Parish's chaenactis Chaenactis parishii 1 B Prostrate navarrefla Navarretia prostrata 1 B Quino checkerspot butterfly Euphydryas editha quino FE Rayless ragwort Senecfo aphanactis 2 Rosy boa Charina trivirgata Salt marsh bird's -beak Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. maritimus FE FE 1 B San Bernardino aster Symphyotdchum defoliatum 1 B San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit Lepus californicus bennettii SC San Diego desert woodrat Neotoma lepida intermedia SC San Diego fairy shrimp Branchinecta sandiegonensis FE San Diego milk -vetch Astragalus oocarpus 113 San Felipe monardella Monardella nana ssp. leptosiphon 1B San Fernando Valley spineflower Chodzanthe parryi var. fernandina FC SE 1 B Sandy beach tiger beetle Cicindela hirticollis gravida South Coast saltscale Atdplex pacifica 1 B n City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Appendix C2 Special -Status Species I Table C2-1 List of Special -Status Species Potentially Occurring within the General• -• Staters Federal State CNPS Specles (alphabeficallyby common name Southern California rufous -crowned sparrow Sc Almophils ru(ceps canescens Soulhem California saltmarsh shrew SC Sorex omatus salicomicus Southern grasshopper mouse Sc Onychomys tomdus ramona Southern tarplant 113 Centromadia parryi ssp, australis Southwestern pond turtle Sc Emys (-Clemmys) marmorata palllda Stephens' kangaroo rat FE ST Dipodomys Stephens! Summer holly tB Comarostaphylis diversifolla ssp. diversi(olia Summer tanager SC Range cobra Tidewater goby FE Sc Eucyclogobius newberryi Tiger beetle Cicindela gabbii Tiger beetle Cicindela latesignata latesignata Western snowy plover FT SC Charaddus alexanddnus nivosus Western spadefoot SC Spea (=Scaphiopus) hammondil Yellow warbler SC Dendrolca petechia brewsted Yellow -breasted chat Sc Merle wens I I I SOURCE: CNDDB 2ooS Federal (FEDI FE =Federally listed; Endangered FT =Federally listed, Threatened FC =Federal candidate species (former Category I candidates) SST = State listed; Threatened SE = Stale listed; Endangered SC= California Species of Special Concern California Native Plant Society ICNPS) deslanalions analyzed List IA: Plants presumed extinct in California List 1 B: Plants rare and endangered In California and throughout their range list 2: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered In California but more common elsewhere in theirronge C2.4 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR ' 0 URBAN CRC)55Roa0s 41 Corporate Park, Suite 300 Irvine, CA 92606 Prepared by: Carleton Waters, P.E. Marlie Whiteman, P.E. Archie Tan, E.I.T. Prepared for: Mr. Elwood Tescher EIP ASSOCIATES 12301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430 Los Angeles, CA 90025 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN TRANSPORTATION STUDY NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA March 22, 2006 J N:01232-32 CW:MW:mt ' TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 1 n u 1 L 1 SECTION PAGE ES.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................. ES-1 ES.1 Trip Generation ES.2 Daily Traffic Volumes ES.3 Intersection Performance ESA SpecialIssues 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY....................................................... 1-1 1.1 Goals and Objectives 1.2 Methodology Overview 1.2.1 Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) Structure 1.2.2 Land Use to Socioeconomic Data Conversion Process _ 1.2.3 Trip Generation 1.2.4 Trip Distribution 1.2.5 Mode Choice 1.2.6 Time of Day Factoring 1.2.7 Roadway Network Representation 1.2.8 Traffic Assignment 1.2.9 Data and Analysis Methodology 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS............................................................................... 2-1 2.1 2001 / 2002 Land Use Data 2.2 2002 Socioeconomic Data 2.3 Trip Generation 2.4 Home -Work Trip Mode Choice Data 2.4.1 Trip Distribution Survey Data 2.5 General Model Trip Distribution Results 2.6 Roadway Network 2.7 Shoulder Season Daily Traffic Volume Data 2.8 Peak Season Daily Traffic Volume Data 2.9 Daily Roadway Segment Analysis 2.10 Traffic Source Analysis 2.10.1 Model Traffic Source Analysis 2.11 Peak Hour Intersection Operations 2.12 Truck Facilities 2.13 Parking 2.14 Trail System 2.15 Public Transit 2.16 Air Travel 2.17 Marine Transport 2.18 Freeway/Tollway and Ramp Analysis C 3.0 4.0 MODEL TRIP GENERATION FOR SUBAREA LAND USE ALTERNATIVES.............................................................................................. 3-1 3.1 Trip Generation Rates and Adjustments 3.1.1 Coastal Trip Generation 3.1.2 Mixed Use Developments 3.1.3 High -Rise Apartments 3,2 Subarea Land Use Alternatives Trip Generation Summaries 3.2.1 Airport Area 3.2.2 Balboa Village 3.2.3 Banning Ranch 3.2.4 Cannery Village 3.2.5 Corona Del Mar 3.2.6 Lido Village 3.2.7 Mariners Mile 3.2.8 McFadden Square 3.2.9 Newport Center / Fashion Island 3.2,10 Old Newport Boulevard 3.2.11 West Newport Highway and Adjoining Residential 3.2.12 West Newport Mesa 3.3 Conclusions GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT (POST-2030) LAND USE WITH PROJECT NETWORK SCENARIO ................................... 4-1 4.1 Land Use and Socioeconomic Data (SED) 4.1.1 General Plan Buildout Without Project Land Use Data 4.1.2 General Plan Buildout Without Project Socioeconomic Data (SED) 4.2 Trip Generation 4.3 Traffic Assignment 4.4 Daily Capacity Analysis 4.5 Peak Hour Forecasts 4.6 Freeway/Tollway and Ramp Analysis C I J l . 1 5.0 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT (POST-2030) ' LAND USE WITH PROJECT NETWORK SCENARIO ................................... 5-1 5.1 Land Use and Socioeconomic Data (SED) 5.1.1 General Plan Buildout With Project Land Use Data 5.1.2 General Plan Buildout With Project Socioeconomic Data (SED) 5.2 Trip Generation 5.3 Traffic Assignment 5.4 Daily Capacity Analysis 5.5 Peak Hour Forecasts 5.6 Freeway/Tollway and Ramp Analysis ' 6.0 SPECIAL ISSUES........................................................................................... 6-1 6.1 6.2 Nineteenth Street Bridge SR-55 Freeway Extension 6.3 Banning Ranch ' 6.4 6.5 Coast Highway through Mariners Mile Individual Intersection Summaries 6.6 MacArthur Boulevard at Jamboree Road 1 � III . 1 1 ' APPENDICES 2002 LAND USE...........................................................................................I........... ADE EMPLOYMENT MEMORANDUM..................................................................... 2002 SOCIOECONOMIC DATA.............................................................................. 2002 DAILY TRIPS.................................................................................................... HOME -WORK TRIP MODE CHOICE DATA FOR THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH........................................................................... ORIGIN -DESTINATION SURVEY DATA FOR TRIPS ORIGINATING IN. THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH........................................................................... ORIGIN -DESTINATION SURVEY DATA FOR TRIPS DESTINED FOR THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH............................................................................ SHOULDER SEASON 2001 / 2002 DAILY TRAFFIC COUNT DATA .................... 2001 / 2002 DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS .............................................. PEAK SEASON DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES........................................................ DAILY VOLUME COUNT DATA FOR NEWPORT BOULEVARD OVERTHREE WEEKS............................................................................................. DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME VARIATION OVER THREE WEEKS ............................. TRIP SOURCE ANALYSIS RAW DATA................................................................... TRAFFIC SOURCE ANALYSIS COLLECTION TIME DISTRIBUTION ..................... 2001 / 2002 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS ............................. RECENT (2003-2005) PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION COUNT DATA ..................... PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION COUNT DATA TREND ANALYSIS .......................... 2002 COUNTED INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) WORKSHEETS.......................................................................................................... EXISTING FREEWAY MAINLINE ANALYSIS........................................................... EXISTING FREEWAY RAMP ANALYSIS.................................................................. A B C D E F G H I J K L M N 0 P Q R S T I MIXED USE TRIP GENERATION INFORMATION .................................................. U MIXED USE INTERNAL CAPTURE EXAMPLE........................................................ V GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT LAND USE ............................. W GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT SOCIOECONOMIC DATA(SED)............................................................................... X GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT TRIP GENERATION .............. Y WITH PROJECT AND CONSTRAINED ROADWAY SYSTEM ASSUMPTIONS LETTERS............................................................ ........ ....... ................. A .......... I ..... ....... Z GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT SCENARIO INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) WORKSHEETS (EXISTING LANES)................................................................................................... AA GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT SCENARIO INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) WORKSHEETS (WITH IMPROVEMENTS).............................................................. I F 1 I ................. BB 1 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT FREEWAY MAINLINE ANALYSIS............................................................................. CC GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT FREEWAY RAMP ANALYSIS.................................................................................... DD GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT LAND USE .................................... EE GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT LAND USE CHANGE FROM GENERAL PLAN' BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT BY TAZ........................ FF GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT SOCIOECONOMIC DATA(SED)............................................................................... GG GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUTWITH PROJECT TRIP GENERATION ..................... HH GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT TRIO GENERATION CHANGE FROM GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT BY TAZ........................ II GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) WORKSHEETS (EXISTING LANES)................................................................................................... JJ u 1 1 H GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) WORKSHEETS (WITH IMPROVEMENTS)........................................................................................ GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT FREEWAY MAINLINE ANALYSIS............................................................................. GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT FREEWAYRAMP ANALYSIS................................................................................... KK LL MM t LIST OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT PAGE ES -A EXISTING COUNT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) .......................... ES-8 ES-B CURRENTLY ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT).......................................................... ES-9 ' ES-C GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT).......................................................... ES-10 ES-D FINAL LOS SUMMARY (WITH RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS)................................................................................... ES-25 ' 1-A NBTM OVERALL COVERAGE AREA ...................................................... 1-3 ' 1-B NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC MODEL (NBTM) PRIMARY STUDY AREA........................................................................ 1-5 ' 1-C NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC MODEL (NBTM) OVERALL MODELING METHODOLOGY .............................................. 1-6 1-D TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE (TAZ) SYSTEM .......................................... 1-9 1-E NBTM PRIMARY AREA TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE (TAZ) STRUCTURE................................................................................ 1-10 ' 1-F TRAFFIC ANALYSIS DISTRICTS........................................................... 1-12 1-G NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC MODEL (NBTM) ' TRIP GENERATION PROCESS ...................................................... I...... 1-13 1-H NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC MODEL (NBTM) tTRIP DISTRIBUTION PROCESS............................................................ 1-21 1-1 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS LOCATIONS ............................................... 1-27 2-A MODE CHOICE FOR WORK TRIPS OF NEWPORT BEACH RESIDENTS........................................................... 2-13 ' 2-B MODE CHOICE FOR HOME -WORK TRIPS OF NEWPORT BEACH WORKERS............................................................. 2-14 U 2-C PURPOSE FOR TRIPS ORIGINATING IN NEWPORT BEACH BY DESTINATION..................................................................... 2-16 2-D PURPOSE OF TRIPS ORIGINATING IN NEWPORT BEACH ............... 2-18 2-E DESTINATIONS OF TRIPS ORIGINATING IN NEWPORT BEACH ................................................... 2-19 2-F PURPOSE OF TRIPS DESTINED FOR NEWPORT BEACHBY ORIGIN................................................................................. 2-21 2-G PURPOSES OF TRIPS DESTINED FOR NEWPORT BEACH .............. 2-22 2-H ORIGINS OF TRIPS DESTINED FOR NEWPORT BEACH ................... 2-23 2-1 NEWPORT BEACH EXISTING THROUGH LANES ............................... 2-26 2-J EXISTING COUNT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) ......................... 2-27 2-K EXISTING VOLUME / CAPACITY (V/C) RATIOS ................................... 2-34 2-L NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC SURVEY CORDON LOCATIONS .......... 2-38 2-M TRAFFIC SURVEY RESULTS FOR NB COAST HIGHWAY SOUTH OF NEWPORT COAST DRIVE ................................................. 240 2-N TRAFFIC SURVEY RESULTS FOR SB COAST HIGHWAY SOUTH OF SANTA ANA RIVER............................................................. 2-43 2-0 TRAFFIC SURVEY RESULTS FOR SB MACARTHUR BOULEVARD NORTH OF BONITA CANYON DRIVE ........................... 2-45 2-P GENERAL DISTRIBUTION OF MODEL TRAFFIC FROM COAST HIGHWAY SOUTH OF NEWPORT COAST DRIVE ................. 2-47 2-Q GENERAL DISTRIBUTION OF MODEL TRAFFIC FROM COAST HIGHWAY AT THE SANTA ANA RIVER ....................... 2-48 2-R GENERAL DISTRIBUTION OF MODEL TRAFFIC FROM MACARTHUR BOULEVARD NORTH OF ,BONITA CANYON DRIVE....................................................................... 2-49 2-S INTERSECTION COUNT LOCATIONS ............................................. I.... 2-51 2-T EXISTING INTERSECTION DEFICIENCIES(6)...................................... 2-55 2-U FACILITIES WHERE COMMERCIAL VEHICLES IN EXCESS OF 6,000 POUND ARE PROHIBITED ................................ 2-56 2-V STANDARD BIKE PATH CROSS -SECTIONS ......................................... 2-58 2-W NEWPORT BEACH EXISTING BICYCLE FACILITIES .......................... 2-59 2-X EXISTING PUBLIC TRANSIT ROUTES .................................................. 2-61 3-A NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN SUB AREAS ............................... 3-10 4-A NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT THROUGH LANES ...................................................... 4-7 4-13 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT)......................................................... 4-9 4-C GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT VOLUME / CAPACITY (V/C) RATIOS ..................................................... 4-15 5-A GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT)......................................................... 5-9 5-B GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT VOLUME / CAPACITY (V/C) RATIOS ..................................................... 5-18 6-A JAMBOREE ROAD AT BRISTOL STREET CONCEPTUAL STRIPING PLAN............................................................. 6-13 LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE ES-1 DAILY TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY ........................................... ES-3 ES-2 AM PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY ......................... ES-4 ES-3 PM PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY .......................... ES-5 ES-4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CURRENTLY ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC GROWTH GREATER THAN 10,000 VPD FROM EXISTING ............ ES-11 ES-5 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC GROWTH GREATER THAN 10,000 VPD FROM EXISTING ............................. ES-12 ES-6 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY ......................... ES-14 ES-7 STUDY AREA LOS COMPARISON NUMBER OF LOCATIONS / PERCENT OF LOCATIONS ............... ES-16 ES-8 DEFICIENT INTERSECTION SUMMARY ......................................... ES-17 ES-9 IMPROVEMENT NEEDS SUMMARY .............................................. ES-22 ES-10 STUDY AREA LOS COMPARISON WITH IMPROVEMENTS (NUMBER OF / PERCENT OF LOCATIONS) .................................. ES-24 ES-11 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT SUMMARY AND COMPARISON TABLE............................................................ ES-26 1-1 LAND USE TO SOCIOECONOMIC DATA CONVERSION FACTORS ...................................................... 1A6 1-2 NBTM SOCIOECONOMIC DATA (SED) BASED TRIP RATES....................................................................... 1-18 1-3 TYPICAL NBTM 3.1 RESIDENTIAL TRIP GENERATION EXAMPLES ............................ 1-20 1-4 NBTM TIME OF DAY FACTORS ...................................................... 1-23 1-5 ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITIES ............................................... 1-26 2-1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH EXISTING LAND USE SUMMARY.... 2-2 2-2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LAND USE BASED EXISTING SOCIOECONOMIC DATA SUMMARY ............................ 2-3 2-3 COMPARISON OF EXISTING CITY AND EXISTING MODEL SOCIOECONOMIC DATA ................................................... 2-4 2-4 SOCIOECONOMIC DATA COMPARISON OF INITIAL NEWPORT BEACH (2002) AND OCP-2004 (2000) DATA................................................................... 2-5 2-5 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH EXISTING TRIP GENERATION .......... 2-8 2-6 - MODE CHOICE PERCENTS FOR WORK TRIPS OF NEWPORT BEACH RESIDENTS...................................................... 2-11 2-7 MODE CHOICE PERCENTS FOR HOME -WORK TRIPS OF NEWPORT BEACH WORKERS........................................................ 2-12 2-8 PURPOSES OF TRIPS ORIGINATING IN NEWPORT BEACH (REGIONAL SURVEY DATA)........................................................... 2-15 2-9 PURPOSES OF TRIPS DESTINED FOR NEWPORT BEACH (REGIONAL SURVEY DATA)........................................................... 2-20 2-10 TRIP DISTRIBUTION COMPARISON .................................................. 2-24 2-11 24'-HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME'PEAK'PERIOD AND HOUR RELATIONSHIPS.................................................................. 2-29 2-12 SUMMER TIME ADT COMPARISON ................................................. 2-31 2-13 DAILY VOLUME VARIATION OVER PEAK THREE SUMMERWEEKS............................................................................... 2-32 2-14 TRAFFIC SOURCE ANALYSIS CONFIDENCE INTERVALS ............ 2-36 2-15 TRAFFIC SURVEY RESULTS FOR NORTHBOUND COAST HIGHWAY SOUTH OF NEWPORT COAST DRIVE ......................... 2-39 2-16 TRAFFIC SURVEY RESULTS FOR SOUTHBOUND COAST HIGHWAY SOUTH OF THE SANTA ANA RIVER .............. 2-42 2-17 TRAFFIC SURVEY RESULTS FOR SOUTHBOUND MACARTHUR BOULEVARD NORTH OF BONITA CANYON DRIVE ..................... 2-44 2-18 NBTM EXISTING COUNT INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY...................................................................... 2-53 2-19 EXISTING SR-73 FREEWAY / TOLL WAY MAINLINE ANALYSIS..... 2-64 2-20 EXISTING SR-73 FREEWAY PEAK HOUR RAMP ANALYSIS .......... 2-65 3-1 CONVERSION FACTORS BASED ON PM TOTAL ONLY .................. 3-5 3-2 OVERALL MIXED USE CONVERSION FACTORS ........................... 3-7 3-3 ABSOLUTE WORST CASE CONVERSION FACTORS .................... 3-8 3-4 APARTMENT TRIP GENERATION RATE COMPARISON ................ 3-9 3-5 AIRPORTAREA SUBAREA TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY ..................................... 3-12 3-6 BALBOA VILLAGE SUBAREA TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY ...................................... 3-13 3-7 BANNING RANCH SUBAREA TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY ...................................... 3-14 3-8 CANNERY VILLAGE SUBAREA TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY ... 3-16 3-9 CORONA DEL MAR SUBAREA TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY..... 3-18 3-10 LIDO VILLAGE SUBAREA TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY ............. 3-19 3-11 MARINERS MILE SUBAREA TRIP GENERATION 'SUMMARY ......... 3-21 3-12 MCFADDEN SQUARE SUBAREA TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY................................................................... 3-22 3-13 NEWPORT CENTER/FASHION ISLAND SUBAREA TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY......................................................... 3-24 3-14 OLD NEWPORT BOULEVARD SUBAREA TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY......................................................... 3-25 3-15 WEST NEWPORT HIGHWAY AND ADJOINING RESIDENTIAL SUBAREA TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY ....................................... 3-26 3-16 WEST NEWPORT MESA SUBAREA TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY......................................................... 3-28 3-17 AM PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY ............................. 3-29 3-18 PM PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY ............................. 3-30 ' 3-19 DAILY TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY .............................................. 3-31 3-20 WITH PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION ' COMPARISON TO WITHOUT PROJECT ....................................... I... 3-32 3-21 WITH PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON TO WITHOUT PROJECT ........................................... 3-33 3-22 WITH PROJECT DAILY TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON TO WITHOUT PROJECT ........................................... 3-34 ' 4-1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT LAND USE GROWTH FROM EXISTING....... 4-2 ' 4-2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT LAND USE BASED SOCIOECONOMIC DATA GROWTH FROM EXISTING............................................................. 4-4 ' 4-3 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT TRIP GENERATION ...................................... 4-5 ' 4-4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT TRIP GENERATION GROWTH ...................... 4-6 ' 4-5 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC GROWTH ......... 4-10 , 4-6 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) ' COMPARISON TO EXISTING........................................................... 4-18 4-7 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR , GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT .......................... 4-21 4-8 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT , SUMMARY OF IMPROVEMENT NEEDS BEYOND 2005 EXISTING LANES ....................................................... 4-27 ' 4-9 BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT SR-73 FREEWAY/TOLL WAY MAINLINE ANALYSIS...........................................I..".......................... 4-29 4-10 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT SR-73 FREEWAY PEAK HOUR RAMP ANALYSIS ............................ 4-31 ' 1 5-1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT LAND USE COMPARISON .................................. 5-2 5-2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT LAND USE GROWTH FROM EXISTING ............... 5-3 5-3 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT LAND USE BASED SOCIOECONOMIC DATA GROWTH FROM EXISTING ................................................... 5-5 5-4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY ........................... 5-6 5-5 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON .................... 5-7 5-6 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT ' WITH PROJECT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC COMPARISON ........ 5-10 5-7 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT ' WITH PROJECT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC GROWTH ................ 5-14 5-8 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT t INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) COMPARISON TO WITHOUT PROJECT .......................................... 5-21 5-9 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) ' COMPARISON TO EXISTING............................................................. 5-23 5-10 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR ' GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT ................................... 5-26 5-11 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT SUMMARY OF IMPROVEMENT NEEDS BEYOND 2005 EXISTING LANES........................................................................ 5-33 5-12 BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT SR-73 FREEWAY / TOLL WAY ' MAINLINEANALYSIS.......................................................................... 5-35 5-13 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT SR-73 FREEWAY PEAK HOUR RAMP ANALYSIS ............................ 5-37 I 1 1 I I I I C I I I L LJ 1 I II II CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN TRANSPORTATION STUDY ES.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Executive Summary concisely summarizes all of the information in the Newport Beach General Plan Transportation Study (Urban Crossroads, Inc., March, 2006). For full details, the reader should also review the main body of the report. This report summarizes the Existing conditions and buildout alternatives traffic analysis completed for the City of Newport Beach General Plan update. Existing conditions are described and two General Plan buildout alternatives are evaluated: Without Project (buildout of existing General Plan) and With Project (buildout of proposed General Plan) conditions. The buildout alternatives are analyzed using a roadway system that incorporates the constrained roadway network (with only those improvements from the currently adopted General Plan Circulation Element that have not been deemed "uncertain"), with the addition of the 19th Street bridge over the Santa Ana River, and the widening of Coast Highway through Mariner's Mile. Alternative modes of transport are also discussed in the report. ES.1 Trip Generation Trip generation is the initial step in determining future traffic conditions. Trip distribution (where people are going) and traffic assignment (what route, what time of day, and even what direction people are going) are equally important parts of the traffic forecasting process. The potentially beneficial effects achieved through improved mixes of complimentary land use leads to the true measure of future traffic volumes and, most importantly, intersection peak hour operations. As demonstrated in subsequent sections of this report, the slightly increased trip generation for the ES-1 With Project scenario compared to the Without Project (currently adopted General Plan) scenario actually results in a decrease in the number of projected intersection deficiencies (with no improvements to the roadway system) and a reduced list of the needed roadway improvements. Trip generation calculations have been performed for existing, Without Project, and With Project scenarios. Tables ES-1 through ES-3 summarize the results of this analysis for daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour conditions, respectively. Citywide trip generation for the Without Project scenario is projected to increase by 27%. For the With Project scenario, trip generation is expected to increase by 31%, a difference of 4%. Existing represents 2002 conditions, consistent with the rest of the Environmental Impact Report. Existing differs slightly from previously published reports as the data sets continue to be reviewed, refined, updated, and generally improved. Increased trip generation / volume may not necessarily increase congestion. The effects are dependent on many other factors, including peaking characteristics of traffic, directional split, even quantity of cross -street traffic. Trip generation rates were derived during the Newport Beach Traffic Model update to reflect conditions in Newport Beach. In Coastal areas, residential uses were found to generate less traffic than in other areas of the City. Daily Coastal trip generation is approximately 85 to 87% of trip generation in the majority of the City. Therefore, an adjustment of approximately 12 to 15% was made in trip generation for land uses in this area as part of the traffic model validation and is reflected in the General Plan Transportation Study. The analysis documented herein is a series of steps that lead, ultimately, to the real meaning: How does the system work during peak traffic hours, with the recommended / planned improvements? This is the real measure of performance, not changes in trip generation or traffic volumes. ES-2 m m m m = � r m m� m m m m m m m m TABLE ES-1 D WITH PROJECT 0 WTH TRIPS GROWTH I /D GROWTH 7.8% 128,638 28,971 29.1% 6.7% 20,849 2,116 11.3% 19.7% 14,296 14,223 19483.6% 8.7% 10,342 —2,709 —20.8% 19.1% 54,634 8,827 19.3% 8.8% 15,653 2,905 22.8% 19.2% 55,576 12,439 28.8%. 13.3% 12,9881 5,492 73.3% 7.10/6 118,395 15,320 14.9% t2.3% 14,073 7,174 104.0% 7.5% 9,901 1,461 17.3% 75.3% 54,769 28,504 108.5% 23.8% 510,014 124,723 32.40/a 30.0%1 110,160 29.3D/o 16.7'/ol 486,0941 67,392 16.1% 26.9%1 234,8831 30.9% 20.1%1 996,1081 192,1151 23.9% m .b TABLE ES-2 AM PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY AREA EXISTING CURRENTLY ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN WITH PROJECT TRIPS I GROWTH %GROWTH TRIPS I GROWTH %GROWTH AIRPORT 8,875 10,178 1,303 14.7% 11,137 2,262 25.5% BALBOA VILLAGE 1,474 1,595 121 8.2% 1,699 225 15.3% BANNING RANCH 8 2,080 2,072 25900.0% 1,317 1,309 16362.5% CANNERY VILLAGE 930 1,022 92 9.9% 755 -175 -18.8% CORONA DEL MAR 3,721 4,413 692 18.6% 4,416 695 18.7% LIDO VILLAGE 931 1,028 97 10.4% 1,102 171 18.4% MARINERS MILE 3,521 4,160 639 18.1% 4,445 924 26.2% MCFADDEN SQUARE 545 6211 76 13.9% 949 404 74.1% NEWPORT CENTERIFASHION ISLAND 8,523 9,042 519 6.1% 9,718 1,195 14.0% OLD NEWPORT BOULEVARD 594 852 258 43A% 1,189 595 100.2% WEST NEWPORT HIGHWAY AND ADJOINING RESIDENTIAL 746 787 41 5.5% 854 108 14.5% WEST NEWPORT MESA 2,564 4,590 2,026 79.0% 5,347 2,783 108.5% TOTAL 32,432 40,368 7,936 24.5% 42,928 10,496 32.4% REMAINDER OF CITY -2002 EXISTING 1 35,3031 43,9691 8,6661 24.5%1 43,6721 8,3691 23.7% REMAINDER OF CITY - 2005 EXI5TING 1 -38,7821 43,9691 5,187 13.4'/.l 43,6721 4,8901 12.6% CITY TOTAL - 2002 EXISTING 1 67,7351 84,337 16,6021 24.5% 86,6001 18,8651 27.9% CITY TOTAL - 2005 LA15 I ING 1 71,2141 84,337 13,123 18.4-/oil 86,6001 15,3861 21.6% U:1UcJobsl_01100-01500\ 01200\01232\Excel\[01232-32.xIs]ES-2 m 1p , cn TABLE ES-3 PM PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY AREA EXISTING CURRENTLY ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN WITH PROJECT TRIPS GROWTH % GROWTH TRIPS IGROWTH %GROWTH AIRPORT 9,182 10,798 1,616 17.6% 11,752 2,570 28.0% BALBOA VILLAGE 1,684 1,809 125 7.4% 1,889 205 12.2% BANNING RANCH 7 1,990 1,983 28328.6% 1,285 1,278 18257.1% CANNERYVILLAGE 1,180 1,279 99 8.4% 930 -250 -21.2% CORONA DEL MAR 4,116 4,917 801 19.50/6 4,925 809 19.7% LIDO VILLAGE 1,158 1,263 105 9.1% 1,412 254 21.9% MARINERS MILE 3,889 4,644 755 19.4% 6,014 1,125 28:9%' MCFADDEN SQUARE 678 763 851 12.5% 1,169 491 72.4% NEWPORT CENTERIFASHION ISLAND 9,413 10,094 681 7.2% 10,819 1,406 14.9% OLD NEWPORT BOULEVARD 622 885 263 42.3% 1,272 650 104.5% WEST NEWPORT HIGHWAY AND ADJOINING RESIDENTIAL 760 816 56 7.4% 890 130 17.1% WEST NEWPORT MESA 2,386 4,210 1,824 76.4% 5,000 2,614 109.6% TOTAL 35,075 43,468 8,393 23.9% 46,357 11,282 32.2% REMAINDER OF CITY - 2002 EXISTING 1 35,2221 44,536 9,314 26.4'/ol 44,338 9,116 25.9% REMAINDER OF CITY - 2005 EXISTI G 1 39,1651 44,5361i5,3711 13.7%1 44,338 5,1731 13.2% CITY TOTAL - 2002 EXISTING 1 70,2971 88,0041 17,7071 25.2%1 90,6951 20,3981 29.0% CITY TOTAL - 2005 EXISTING 1 74,2401 88,0041 13,7641 18.5%1 90,6951 16,455 22.2% U:\UCJ obs\_01100-01500\_01200\01232\Excel\[01232-32.xl s]ES-3 This General Plan updated traffic analysis demonstrates that the proposed General Plan results in less congestion than we have today. This is a result of better land use planning, combined with more effective roadway improvements. In conjunction with earlier analysis of land use alternatives, research was conducted to determine whether trip rate adjustments are appropriate for certain kinds of land uses being considered in the Newport Beach General Plan update. For mixed use developments, it was found that there is a range in trip generation savings of 10-40%. The adjustment applied for the Newport Beach General Plan Transportation Study is 10%, at the conservative end of research findings. High- rise apartments have been shown to generate up to and beyond 40% fewer trips than typical apartments. To portray a conservative worst case scenario, a factor of 20% is used for high-rise apartments in this General Plan Transportation Study. ES.2 DailV Traffic Volumes The latest version of the Newport Beach Traffic Model (NBTM) has been used to evaluate each of the General Plan buildout alternatives. The model has been updated in this process to incorporate the most current demographic data available for areas outside the City of Newport Beach, and the most current income statistics available within the primary study area. Daily traffic volumes for Existing conditions is shown on Exhibit ES -A. Peak season daily traffic volumes have been collected for select locations (primarily in coastal areas) of the City of Newport Beach. Daily traffic volume counts were collected over a one week period in August of 2003 for each selected roadway segment, and are included in Appendix "J". For each roadway segment selected for summertime counts, the highest typical weekday (Tuesday through Thursday) volume has been compared to the shoulder season count volume at the same location. All segments increase for summer conditions by at least 5% and as much ES-6 as 74%. The only location with a volume increase of more than thirty (30) percent is on Balboa Boulevard east of 20th Street on the Peninsula. Review of the data clearly indicates that Newport Boulevard is the most popular and heavily impacted access route to the beach for summertime rrarnc. Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard appear to be the least affected routes, with increases in traffic of between 5 and 10 percent. Newport Coast Drive experiences a higher percentage increase in summertime traffic, but the magnitude of the increase (approximately 3,400 vehicles per day) is very similar to the increase on MacArthur Boulevard north of Coast Highway. The traffic increases along Coast Highway itself are also less than the increases on routes leading to the beach, suggesting that people are oriented towards traveling to the beach/coast, rather than along it. General Plan buildout Without Project and With Project daily traffic volumes are included in Exhibits ES-B and ES-C, respectively. Growth from Existing to Without Project and With Project conditions has been calculated. The majority of roadway segments increase by less than 10,000 vehicles per day (VPD). Roads expected to carry traffic increases greater than 10,000 vehicles per day are shown on Table ES-4 Without Project and on Table ES-5 With Project. In general, these roads are in the Airport Area or serve regional through traffic as well as local traffic. The only roadway experiencing growth in excess of 15,000 VPD is Newport Coast Drive for both Without and With Project conditions. A comparison of the change in traffic from Without Project to With Project conditions has also been completed. In general, daily traffic volumes change by 1,000 vehicles per day (VPD) or less on most roadways from the Without to With Project conditions. Volumes on a few roadways (Birch Street, Coast Highway, Jamboree Road, and MacArthur Boulevard) change by as much as 3,000 VPD. ES-7 5- 27 1 42 EXHIBIT ES -A COUNT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC,(ADT) 54 LEGEND: 10 =VEHICLES PER DAY (000'S) 46 is a 29 17 17 PACIFIC OCEAN NEWPORT REACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE TRAFFIC STUDY. Newport Reach, Cal'domia-0123225 u 94N � � r r � � � r r r r ■� r � r � � � � EXHIBIT ES-B CURRENTLY ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT 95 s ;oa 5924 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) 4 79 23 47 i m (1) cb 40 7 8 go Y 11 Y � 3 14 vxo n 11 12 6 7 125 20 29 <tl L`J a+m�an�a 9731 i 22 722 31 38 535417 5 52 13 I, 41 Hws swmnd^" 26 1 73 10 11 �. 3 2 17 70 9 10 l 32 46 13 4 33 60 6 55 14 4 3 31 '• =�l 17 2 12 3 22 xwxwZ°m ` 44 9 26 23 4 2�..��� 14 6 37 11 26 32 li 5 15 2 11 2 11 20 8 41 it 36 29 4 8 16 10. 49 45 93 vancvs W. 42 45 136 5 WR0. 3 35 6 28 m!� _" 42 -- 33," 74 12 4 54 LEGEND: - 10 -VEHICLES PER DAY (000'S) PACIFIC 23 OCEAN EXHIBIT ES-C GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT 82 � AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) 30 7 81. 41 10 136 47 15 m (rnfl "* 1 13 O � mod" 74 ».,,, 6 33 57 61 14 �4 4 aa`'�41 4 32 1 2 12 3 11 g g „ 2:.,04. 45 9 7 3 y 4 2 14 fi 37 40 125 13 a zz 4 1 113 G4 6 63 15 m x 5 6 g w` 42 X28' -��. .z 76 12 - 3 21 5 12 11 .1 1 3 1 17 LEGEND: ss - - - - 22 10 r, - 10 - VEHICLES PER DAY (000'S) -- - 50 4 --- - 4 -' PACIFIC 39 � +v.a,4 . 8 35 OCEAN URBAN NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE TRAFFICSTUDY,Newport Beach, Cal'rfornia-01232:howp_adt.mxd «ossno..o: TABLE ES-4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CURRENTLY ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC GROWTH GREATER THAN 10,000 VPD FROM EXISTING WITHOUT EXISTING COUNT PROJECT 'LOCATION (2001/2002) FORECAST CHANGE % CHANGE Campus Dr. (Bristol St. North to Bristol St. South) 30,000 41,000 11,000 37% Campus Dr. (north of Bristol St. North) 28,000 39,000 11,000 39% ' Campus Dr. (Von Karmen Ave. to MacArthur Blvd.) 20,000 35,000 15,000 75% Campus Dr. (west of MacArthur Blvd.) 26,000 39,000 13,000 50% Coast Hwy (east of Newport Coast Dr.) 35,000 49,000 14,000 40% Coast Hwy. (Bayside Dr. to Jamboree Rd.) 51,000 62,000 11,000 22% Coast Hwy. (Dover Dr. to Bayside Dr.) 63,000 74,000 11,000 17% Coast Hwy. (Newport Blvd. to Riverside Ave.) 53,000 64,000 11,000 21 % Coast Hwy. (Riverside Ave, to Tustin Ave.) 45,000 56,000 11,000 24% ' Coast Hwy. (Superior Ave. to Newport Blvd.) 28,000 40,000 12,000 43% Irvine Ave. (Bristol St. South to Mesa Dr.) 27,000 38,000 11,000 41% Jamboree Rd. (Birch St, to MacArthur Blvd.) 42,000 55,000 13,000 31% ' Jamboree Rd. (Campus Dr. to Birch St.) 36,000 47,000 11,000 31% 20% MacArthur Blvd. (north of Bison Ave.) 61,000 73,000 12,000 Newport Coast Dr. (north of Coast Hwy.) 12,000 27,000 15,000 125% Newport Coast Dr. (south of San Joaquin Hills Rd.) 15,000 32,000 17,000 113% New ort Coast Dr. SR-73 F . to San Joaquin Hills Rd. 17,000 34,000 17,000 1000/o U:\UcJobs\ 01200\01232\Excel\(01232-32.xis]ES-4 ' ES-11 11 TABLE ES-5 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC GROWTH GREATER THAN 10,000 VPD FROM EXISTING LOCATION EXISTING (200112002) I COUNT WITH PROJECT I FORECAST GROWTH % GROWTH Campus Dr. (Bristol St. North to Bristol St. South) 30,000 41,000 11,000 36.7% Campus Dr, (north of Bristol St. North) 28,000 40,000 12,000 42.9% Campus Dr. (Von Karmen Ave. to MacArthur Blvd.) 20,000 34,000 14,000 70.0% Campus Dr. (west of MacArthur Blvd.) 26,000 40,000 14,000 53.8% Coast Hwy (east of Newport Coast Dr.) 35,000 49,000 14,000 40.0% Coast Hwy. (Bayside Dr. to Jamboree Rd.) 51,000 63,000 12,000 23.5% Coast Hwy. (Dover Dr. to Bayside Dr.) 63,000 76,000 13,000 20.6% Coast Hwy. (Newport Blvd. to Riverside Ave.) 53,000 67,000 14,000 26.4% Coast Hwy. (Riverside Ave. to Tustin Ave.) 45,000 58,000 13,000 28.9°% Coast Hwy. (Superior Ave. to Newport Blvd.) 28,000 41,000 13,000 46.4% Coast Hwy. (Tustin Ave, to Dover Dr.) 42,000 53,000 11,000 26.2% Irvine Ave. (Bristol St. South to Mesa Dr.) 27,00D 38,000 11,000 40.7% Irvine Ave. (Mesa Dr. to University Dr.) 31,000 42,000 11,000 35.5% Jamboree Rd. (Birch St. to MacArthur Blvd.) 42,000 56,000 14,000 33.3% Jamboree Rd. (Campus Dr. to Birch St.) 36,000 48,000 12,000 33.3% Jamboree Rd. (Ford Rd. to San Joaquin Hills Rd.) 46,000 57,000 11,000 23.9% Jamboree Rd, (MacArthur Blvd. to Bristol St. North) 36,000 47,000 11,000 30.6% Jamboree Rd. (San Joaquin Hills Rd. to Santa Barbara Dr.) 34,000 45,000 11,000 32A% MacArthur Blvd. (north of Bison Ave.) 61,000 73,000 12,000 19.7% MacArthur Blvd. (south of Jamboree Rd,) 27,000 38,000 11,000 40.7% Newport Blvd. (Hospital Rd. to Coast Hwy.) 43,000 54,000 11,000 25.6% Newport Coast Dr. (north of Coast Hwy.) 12,000 28,000 16,000 1333% Newport Coast Dr. (south of San Joaquin Hills Rd.) 15,000 32,000 17,000 113:3°/u Newport Coast Dr, SR-73 Fwy. to San Joaquin Hills Rd. 17,000 34,000 17,000 1 100.0% U*lUcJobs\ o1200101232\Excel\[01232-32.xls]ES-5 1 11 I I I O ES-12 II Traffic source analysis, providing information on the destination of roadway users, was performed for three key entries to the City of Newport Beach: • Northbound Coast Highway, south of Newport Coast Drive • Southbound Coast Highway, south of the Santa Ana River • Southbound MacArthur Boulevard, north of Bonita Canyon Drive For each of the three entries, traffic internal to the City of City of Newport Beach accounts for more than 60% of the vehicles studied, with primary destinations for all three locations being Corona Del Mar, Newport Center, and Bayside / Balboa Island. ES.3 Intersection Performance The true measure of traffic flow is peak hour intersection operations. The individual intersection level of service for each of the three scenarios has been summarized in Table ES-6. Comparisons of the three scenarios and the percentage of intersections with each service level are demonstrated in Table ES-7. The current standard for acceptable level of service in the City of Newport Beach is "D". As shown in Table ES-7, over 75% of intersections experience Level of Service "D" or better operations in every scenario. For With Project conditions, approximately 20% of intersections experience deficient operations (12 intersections in the AM peak hour and 14 intersections in the PM peak hour), while the Without Project conditions result in approximately 21% of intersections experiencing deficient operations (14 intersections in the AM peak hour and 13 intersections in the PM peak hour). Table ES-8 provides a summary of intersections experiencing deficient operations in any of the three analysis scenarios without additional improvements. In every case where intersection LOS changes from Without to With Project, it is only by one level. II ES-13 INTERSECTION (NS/EW) EXISTING CURRENTY ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN WITH PROJECT AM PM AM PM AM PM 1a. Bluff Rd. & Coast Hw. N/A NIA B D B 1b.15th St. & Coast Hw. N/A NIA C D C 2, Superior Av. &,Placentia Av. B B B A B A 3. Superior Av. & Coast Hw. D D D C D C 4. Newport Bl. & Hospital Rd. A B C E D E 5. Newport Bl. & Via Lido A A A A A A 6. Newport Bl. & 32nd St. C C D D D E 7. Riverside Av, & Coast Hw. D El El E El E 8. Tustin Av. & Coast Hw. C B E C El D 9. MacArthur Bl. & Campus Dr. B D C F D F 10. MacArthur Bl. & Birch St. A B C D C D 11. Von Kerman Av. & Campus Dr. A C B E C E 12. MacArthur Bl. & Von Kerman AV. A A A B A B 13. Jamboree Rd. & Campus Dr. C D E F E F 14. Jamboree Rd. & Birch St. A A E D E D 15. Campus Dr. & Bristol St. N C E E F F F 16. Birch St. & Bristol St. N B B E C D C 17. Campus DrArvine Av. & Bristol St. S C A E C D C 18. Birch St. & Bristol St. S A A A A A A 19. Irvine Av. & Mesa Dr. B E E F E F 20. Irvine Av. & University Dr. D D F F F F 21. Irvine Av. & Santiago Dr. B C B C B C 22. Irvine Av. & Highland Dr. A A A B A B 23. Irvine Av. & Dover Dr. C BI C B cl B 24. Irvine Av. & Westcllff Dr. A cl B C B D 25. Dover Dr. & Westcliff Dr. A A A A A A 26. Dover Dr. & 16th St. A A A A A A 27. Dover Dr. & Coast Hw. B C C E D E 28. Ba side Dr. & Coast Hw, B B D D D D 29. MacArthur Bl. & Jamboree Rd. D E E E E F 30. Jamboree Rd. & Bristol St. N A A B B B B 31. Bayvlew Pl. & Bristol St. S A A A B AlB 32. Jamboree Rd. & Bristol St. S cl ClE D El D 33. Jamboree Rd. & Bayview W. A A A BI A B 34. Jamboree Rd. & Eastbluff Dr./University Dr. A B B B B 35. Jamboree Rd. & Bison Av. AA B A B 36. Jamboree Rd, & Eastbluff Dr./Ford •Rd: BC 1111 C C 37. Jamboree Rd. & San Joa uin Hills Rd. A A C B C TABLE ES-6 (Page 2 of 2) INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY INTERSECTION NS/EW EXISTING CURRENTY ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN WITH PROJECT AM PM 11 AM I PM AM PM 38. Jamboree Rd. & Santa Barbara Dr. A B AlC A C 39. Jamboree Rd. & Coast Hw. B C C C C C 40. Santa Cruz Dr. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. A A A A A A 41. Santa Rosa Dr. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. A A A B A C 42. Newport Center Dr. & Coast Hw. A A A B A B 44. Avocado Av. & San Miguel Dr. A C A C A C 45. Avocado Av. & Coast Hw. A B C C C C 46. SR-73 NB Ram s& Bison Av. A A A B AlB 47. SR-73 SB Ramps & Bison Av. A A A A AlA 48. MacArthur BI. & Bison Av. B A C C C1 C 49. MacArthur BI. & Ford Rd./Bonita Canyon Dr. C D C E C1 E 50. MacArthur BI. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. B E C F C F 51. MacArthur BI, & San Miguel Dr. A B B C B C 52. MacArthur BI. & Coast Hw. A C C C C C 53. SR-73 NB Ramps & Bonita Canyon Dr. AlAlF C F C 54. SR-73 SB Ramps & Bonita Canyon Dr. A A AlB A B 55. Spyglass Hill Rd. & San Miguel Dr. A A A A A A 56. San Miguel Dr. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. A A A C A C 57. Goldenrod Av. & Coast Hw. E B E B El B 58. Marguerite Av. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. A A A A A A 59. Marguerite Av. & Coast Hw. D D E E E E 60. Spyglass Hill Rd. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. A A A A A A 61. Poppy Av. & Coast Hw. B C B C 62. Newport Coast Dr. & SR-73 NB Rams M B A B A 64. Newport Coast Dr. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. B A B A 65. Newport Coast Dr. & Coast Hw. BI B C 1General Plan scenarios show results based on recommended improvements. U:\UcJobs\_01200\01232\Excel\[01232-32.xis]ES-6 ES-15 11 TABLE ES-7 STUDY AREA LOS COMPARISON WITHOUT IMPROVEMENTS' NUMBER OF LOCATIONS AM PM TOTAL LOS_ EXISTING CURRENTLY ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN WITH PROJECT EXISTING ICURRENTLY ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN I WITH PROJECT LISTING CURRENTLY ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN WITH PROJECT A 36 22 21 28 121 12 64 34 33 B 12 _ 12 12 14 13 12 26 25 24 C 8 13 11 9 19 18 17 32 29 D 5 3 8 6 7 8 11 10 16 Total Acceptable 61 '50 52 57 51 50 118 101 102 E 1 12 9 5 7 71 6 191 16 F 0 2 3 0 6 7 01 8 10 Total Deficient 1 14 12 51 13 14 6 27 26 TOTAL 62 64 64 621 64 64 124 128 128 PERCENT OF LOCATIONS AM PM TOTAL LOS 'EXISTING CURRENTLY ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN WITH PROJECT EXISTING CURRIENTLY1 ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN. WITH I PROJECT EXISTING CURRENTLY ADOPTED GENERAL WITH PROJECT A 58.06% 34.38% 32,81% 45.16% 18.75% 18:75% 51.61% _PLAN 26.56% 25.78% B 19.35% 78.75% 18.75% 22.58% 20,31% 22.58%E4.84% 19.53% 18.75% C 12.90% 20.31% 17.19% 14.52% 29.63% 29.03% 25.00% 22.66% D 8.06% 4.69% 12.50% 9.68% 10.94% 12.50% 7.81% 12.50% Total Acceptable 98.39% 78.13% 81,25% 91,94% 79.69% 82.86% 78.91% 79.69% E 1.617 18.75% 14.06% 8.06% 10.94% 10.94% 14.84% 12.50% 0.00% 3.13% 4.69% 0.00% 9.38% 10.94% 6,25% Total Deficient 1.61% 21.88% 18.75% 8.060/o 20.31% 21.88% 4.84%1 21.09% 20.31% TOTAL 100.00% 100.00%1 100.00%1,-00.00%j 10D.00%1 104.74%1 100.00%1 100.00% 100.00% New Intersections show results based on recommended improvements. U:\UcJobsl 01200\01232\Excel\[01232-32.xls]ES-7 11 I ES-16 TABLE ES-8 DEFICIENT INTERSECTION SUMMARY CURRENTLY ADOPTED GENERAL EXISTING PLAN WITH PROJECT ' INTERSECTION NS/EW AM PMA P M 4. Newport BI. & Hospital Rd. A B C E D E 6. Newport Bi. & 32nd St. C C D D D E 7. Riverside Av. & Coast Hw. D E E EED E 8. Tustin Av. & Coast Hw. C B E C D 9. MacArthur BI. & Campus Dr. B D C F F ' 11, Von Karman Av. & Cam us Dr. A C B E E F 13. Jamboree Rd. &Cam us Dr. C D E F 14. Jamboree Rd. & Birch St. A AlE D E D 15. Campus Dr. & Bristol St. N C E E F F F 16. Birch St. & Bristol St. N B B E C D C ' 17. Campus DrArvine Av. & Bristol St. S C AlE C D C E F 19. Irvine Av. & Mesa Dr. B E E F 20. Irvine Av. & UniversityDr. D D F F F F 27. Dover Dr. & Coast Hw. B C C E D E 29. MacArthur Bi. & Jamboree Rd, D E E E E F ' 32. Jamboree Rd. & Bristol St. S) C C E D E D 49. MacArthur BI. & Ford Rd./Bonita Canyon Dr. C D C E C E ' 50. MacArthur BI. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. B E C F C F 53. SR-73 NB Ramps & Bonita C n. Dr. A AlF C F C 11 ' 57. Goldenrod Av. & Coast Hw. E B E B E B 59.Mar uerite Av. & Coast Hw. D D E E E E ' U:\UcJobs\ 01200101232\Excel\[o1232-32.xls]ES-8 ' ES-17 Twelve intersections that have acceptable existing operations experience LOS "D" or worse conditions (without improvements) in both General Plan buildout scenarios; two additional intersections experience this change only in the Without Project scenario; one additional intersection experiences this change only in the With Project scenario. These intersections are the following. • Newport Boulevard at Hospital Road (Without Project and With Project) • Newport Boulevard at 32"d Street (With Project) • Tustin Avenue at Coast Highway (Without Project and With Project) • MacArthur Boulevard at Campus Drive (Without Project and With Project) • Von Karman Avenue at Campus Drive (Without Project and With Project) • Jamboree Road at Campus Drive (Without Project and With Project) • Jamboree Road at Birch Street (Without Project and With Project) Birch Street at Bristol Street North (Without Project) • Campus Drive/Irvine Avenue at Bristol Street South (Without Project) • Irvine Avenue at University Drive,(Without Project and With Project) • Dover Drive at Coast Highway (Without Project and With Project) • Jamboree Road at Bristol Street South (Without Project and With Project) • MacArthur Boulevard at Ford Road/Bonita Canyon Drive (Without Project and With Project) • SR-73 NB Ramps at Bonita Canyon Drive (Without Project and With Project) • Marguerite Avenue at Coast Highway (Without Project and With Project) The intersections that experience deficient operations in the Without Project (currently adopted General Plan) condition, but do not experience the same deficiency in the With Project conditions are Birch Street at Bristol Street North (in the AM peak hour) and Campus Drive/Irvine Avenue at Bristol Street South (in the AM peak hour). These intersections are in the Airport Area and serve regional through traffic as well as local traffic. ES-18 Of the 21 total intersections that require improvements, 12 of the intersections have the same improvements in the Without Project and With Project scenarios. Six intersections require more improvements for the Without Project scenario when compared to the With Project scenario. Bluff Road at Coast Highway requires multiple additional through lanes to achieve LOS "D." Jamboree Road at Campus Drive would need a third WB left turn lane. For Birch Street at Bristol Street North to operate at LOS "D," the westbound approach needs to be reconstructed to provide 2 left turn lanes, 2.5 through lanes, and 1.5 right turn lanes. It would be necessary to reconstruct Campus Drive at Bristol Street South to provide 2 left turn lanes, 2.5 through lanes, and 1.5 right turn lanes. Dover Drive at Coast Highway would require a fourth westbound through lane. Jamboree Road at Bristol Street South would need to provide 2.5 left turn lanes, 1.5 through lanes, and 2 right turn lanes. There are three intersections that require more improvements in the With Project scenario than the Without Project scenario. Newport Boulevard at 32"d Street requires that the eastbound movements be restriped to provide 2 left turn lanes and 1 shared through -right lane, and the westbound movements be restriped to provide 1 left turn lane, 1 through lane, and 1 free right turn lane. MacArthur Boulevard at Jamboree Road would need the addition of a fourth east bound through lane. MacArthur Boulevard at San Joaquin Hills Road requires a fourth northbound through lane. Improvements have been suggested that provide operations at a level of service traditionally determined acceptable in Newport Beach (LOS "D") at all potentially deficient intersections (outlined within the body of the report). In most cases, these improvements involve spot improvements such as additional turn lanes, rather than extensive roadway widening, and are feasible without significant widenings that could impact community character. Therefore, it is recommended that LOS "D" remain the acceptable standard for the vast majority of intersections in Newport Beach. There are some areas, however, where special circumstances make it infeasible or undesirable to make the improvements necessary to ES-19 maintain LOS "D." For these "exception intersections," listed below, LOS "E" is recommended as the acceptable service standard. It should- be noted that this is not a new policy direction for Newport Beach. The existing Circulation Element lists 18 intersections in the Airport Area that were projected to perform at a level of service worse than "D," and includes a policy that there Was a conscious decision to accept these levels of service in the Airport Area and focus efforts to Improve service on areas less affected by regional traffic. • Dover Drive (NS) at Coast Highway (EW): LOS "E" • Riverside Avenue (NS) at Coast Highway (EW): LOS "E" Congestion at this intersection Is related to regional through traffic and improvement beyond LOS "E" requires significant right-of-way acquisition and widening that could impact pedestrian and bicycle use of the intersection. • Campus Drive (NS) at Bristol Street North (EW): LOS "E" The barrier that John Wayne Airport presents to through traffic, combined with regional traffic in the Airport Area, causes this intersection to perform below LOS "D". LOS "D" cannot be achieved without extremely costly right-of-way acquisition and improvements. • Goldenrod Avenue (NS) at Coast Highway (EW): LOS "E" • Marguerite Avenue (NS) at Coast Highway (EW): LOS "E" The widening of Coast Highway through Corona Del Mar would not achieve LOS D at the intersections of Coast Highway with Goldenrod Avenue and Marguerite Avenue unless one westbound through lane was added at Goldenrod Avenue and the same westbound lane and one eastbound through lane was added at Marguerite Avenue. These additional lanes would require roadway widening and/or parking/pedestrian facility removal of 12 feet per lane. These improvements are not recommended, as the character of Corona Del Mar as a pedestrian village would be compromised. Localized widening was I ES-20 II implemented on Coast Highway at Marguerite Avenue, and was removed because it did not work operationally. Based on these standards, Table ES-9 shows recommended intersection improvements to provide acceptable operations at study area locations for Without Project and With Project conditions. Comparisons of the three scenarios and the percentage of intersections with each service level with recommended improvements are demonstrated in Table ES-10. For With Project conditions, approximately 95% of the locations with recommended improvements operate at LOS "D" or higher. The Without Project conditions with recommended improvements result in over 92% operating at LOS "D" or higher. Approximately 5% of the intersections for With Project conditions (3 intersections in the AM peak hour and 4 intersections in the PM peak hour) operate at LOS "E", while approximately 7% of the intersections for Without Project conditions (4 intersections in the AM peak hour and 5 intersections in the PM peak hour) operate at LOS "E". Exhibit ES-D summarizes the final intersection LOS with improvements for all scenarios. A comparison of intersection improvements and levels of service to the currently adopted Circulation Element is included in Table ES-11. The currently adopted Circulation Element identified 18 intersections that would operate at unacceptable (with one or both peak periods at LOS "E" and 6 with at least one peak period at LOS "F") conditions. The proposed Circulation Element reduces the number of intersections experiencing LOS "E" to five and none at LOS "F". ESA Special Issues Several special issues have been evaluated in this Transportation Study. Without the potential 19t' Street bridge over the Santa Ana River, Bluff Road at Coast Highway and Superior Avenue at Coast Highway experience deficient operations requiring substantial additional improvements. The bridge would provide relief to Coast Highway, resulting in the need for at least one fewer II ES-21 TABLE ES-9 (Page 1 of 2) IMPROVEMENT NEEDS SUMMARY ADDITIONAL INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS INTERSECTION CURRENTLY ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN WITH PROJECT Bluff Rd. (NS) at: • Coast Hw. (EW) Provide two SB left turn lanes -and two SB right turn lanes (2nd Provide two SB left turn lanes and two SB Fight turn lanes (2nd with overlap phase). Provide two EB left turn lanes. Provide one with overlap phase). Provide two EB left turn lanes. Provide one WB right turn lane. WB right turn lane. Multiple additional through lanes required to achieve LOS-'D'. 15th SL (NS) at: • Coast Hw. (EW) Provide two SB left hum lanes and two SB right turn lanes (2nd Provide two SB left turn lanes and two SB right turn lanes (2nd with overlap phase). Provide two EB left turn lanes. Provide one with overlap phase). Provide two EB lefttum lanes. Provide one WBright turnlane. WBright turnlane. Newport BL (NS) at: • Hospital Rd. (EW) Provide 2nd NB left turn lane. Provide 2nd NB left turn lane. • 32nd St. (EW) Restripe EB to provide 2left turn lanes and 1 shared through-righ lane. Restdpe WB to provide 1 left hum lane, 1 through lane, and 1 free right turn lane. Riverside Av. (NS) at: - • Coast Hw. (EW) Provide 3rd EB through lane. Provide 3n1 EB through lane. Tustin Av. (NB) at: - - • Coast Hw. (EW) Provide 3rd EB through lane_ Provide 3rd EB through lane. MacArthur BI. (NS) at: • Campus Dr. (EW) Provide 2nd NB left turn lane. Provide 2nd NB left turn lane. Restripe SB to provide 3.5 through lanes and 1.5 right turn lanes. Reseipe SB to provide 3.5 through lanes and 1.5 right turn lanes. Von Karmen Av. (NS) at Campus Dr. (EW) Provide 2nd EB left turn lane. Provide 2nd EB lefttum lane. Jamboree Rd. (NS) at: • Campus Dr. (EW) Provide NB 1st right turn lane with overlap phase. Provide NB 1st Fight turn lane with overlap phase. Provide 4th SB through lane. Provide 4th SB through lane. Provide WB righttum overlap phase for current right turn lane. Provide WB right turn overlap phase for current right turn lane. Additionally, to achieve LOS'D', provide 3rd WB through lane. • Birch St (EW) Provide 4th SB through lane. Provide 4th SB through lane. Campus Dr. (NS) at: • Bristol St. N (EW) Provide 5th WB throw h lane. Provide Sib WB through lane. M M M M M M M i M' M M M a i M M= M TABLE ES-9 (Page 2 of 2) IMPROVEMENT NEEDS SUMMARY ADDITIONAL INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS INTERSECTION CURRENTLY ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN WITH PROJECT Birch St, (NS) at: • Bristol St N (EW) Reconstruct WB approach to provide 1 left turn lane, 2.5 through lanes, and 1.5 right turn lanes. Campus Dr. (NS) at: • Bristol SL S (EW) Reconstruct EB approach to provide 2left turn lanes, 2.5 through lanes, and 1.5 right turn lanes. Irvine Av. (NS) at: • Mesa Dr. (EW) -Funded Improvements Provide 3rd NB through lane. Provide 3rd SB through lane. Provide 3rd NS through lane. Provide 3rd SB through lane. Provide 1st EB right turn lane. Provide 2nd WB left turn lane. Provide tat ES right turn lane. Provide 2nd WB left turn lane. Construct funded improvements, but EB right turn lane not Construct funded improvements, but EB right turn lane not necessary. necessary. • University Dr. (EW) Provide 3rd NB through lane. Provide 3rd NB through lane. ' Provide 3rd 5B through lane. Provide 3rd SB through lane. Reshipe EB to Include 1.5 left turn lanes, 0.5 through lanes, and 1 Reshipe EB to include 1.5 left turn lanes, 0.5 through lanes, and 1 right turn lane. right turn lane. Dover Dr. (NS) at: • Coast Hw. (EW) Provide 4th WB through lane. MacArthur Bl. (NS) at: • Jamboree Rd. (EW) Provide Sid WB left turn lane. Provide 4th EB through lane. Provide 3rd WB left turn lane. Jamboree Rd. (NS) at: • Bristol St S (EW) Provide 6th NB through lane. Provide 6th NB through lane. Provide 4th SB through lane. Provide 4th SB through lane. To achieve LOS'D`, provide additional EB left turn lane (making EB movement 2.5 left turn lanes, 1.5 through lanes, and 2 right turn lanes). MacArthur BI. (NS) at: • Ford RdJBonita Canyon Dr. (EW) Provide 3rd SB left turn lane. Provide 3rd SB left turn lane. • San Joaquin Hills Rd. (EW) Provide 4th NB through lane. Provide 3rd SB left turn lane. Provide 3rd SB left turn lane. Provide 3rd EB left turn lane.. Provide 3rd EB left turn lane. SR-73 NB Ramps (NS) at - Bonita Bonita Canyon Dr. (EW) Provide 2nd WB left turn lane. Provide 2nd WB left turn lane. U1UGobs\ 0120010129PEX.Tg01202J2 ASIES9 I TABLE ES-10, STUDY AREA LOS COMPARISON WITH IMPROVEMENTS' NUMBER OF LOCATIONS LOS AM PM TOTAL EXISTING CURRENTLY ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN WITH PROJECT EXISTING CURRENTLY ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN WITH PROJECT EXISTING CURRENTLY ADOPTED GENERAL ' PLAN WITH PROJECT A 361 22 28 12 1 12 64 _ 35 34 B 12 141 16 14 14 14 26 28 30 C 8 14 11 9 18 18 17 32 29 D 5 9 12 6 15 16 11 24 28 Total Acceptable 61 60 61 57 59 60 118 119 121 E 1 4 3 5 5 4 6 9 7 F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Deficient 1 4 3 5 5 4 6 9 7 TOTAL 62 64 64 62 64 64 124 1 1281 126 LOS PERCENT OF LOCATIONS AM PM TOTAL EXISTING CURRENTLY ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN WITH PROJECT EXISTING CURRENTLY ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN WITH PROJECT EXISTING CURRENTLY ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN WITH PROJECT A 1 58.06%1 35.94% 34.38% 45.16% 18.75% 18.75% 51.61% 27.34% 26.56% B 1 19.35% 21.88% 25.00% 22.58% 21.88% 21.88% 20.97% 21.88% 23.44% C 1 12.90% 21.88% 17.19% 14.52% 28.13% 28.13% 13.71% 25.00% 22.66% D 1 8.06% 14.06% 18.75% 9.68% 23.44% 25.00% 8.87% 18.75% 21.88% Total Acceptable 98.39,% 93.75% 95.31% 91.94% 92.19% 93.75% 95.16% 92.97% 94.53% E 1.61% 6.25% 4.69% 8.06% 7.81% 6.25% 4.84% 7.03% 5.470 F 0.00% 0.00% 0.00-1011 0.00% 1 0.00% 1 0.00% j o 0.00% Total' Deficient 1.61% 6.25% 4.69% 8.06% 7.81% 6.25% 4.84°/a 7.03% 5.47% TOTAL 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1 100.00% 1 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% ' New Intersections show results based on recommended Improvements. a Improvements analysis not performed for existing conditions. U.lUeJobs1 012001012321ExcelgESI O.AB]ES-10 ES-24 I 11 I I I I 1 1 1 II II II 11 EXHIBIT ES-D FINAL LOS SUMMARY (WITH RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS) 59 EXISTING PREVIOUS G.P. WITH PROJECT LEGEND: ❑ - LOS A-D © = LOS E-F .0 NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE TRAFFIC STUDY Newport Beach, California -01232:97 URBAN ES-25 TABLE ES41 (Page 1 of 6) INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT SUMMARY AND COMPARISON TABLE RESULTING WITH WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION FEASIBILITY/ PROJECT LOS PREVIOUS CIRCULATION PREVIOUS LOS AM PM AM PM INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS - ROW REQUIRED I ELEMENT IMPROVEMENTS Bluff Rd. (NS) at: • Coast Hw. (EW) Provide two SB left-tum lanes and two SS right- B D Bluff Road to be constructed with B D turn lanes (2nd with overlap phase). Provide two a four -lane cross-section. EB left-tum lanes. Provide one WB right-tum lane. 15th St. (NS) at - CoastHw.(EW) Provide two SB left -turn lanes and two SB right- C D 15th Street to be constructed with A A wm lanes (2nd with overlap phase). Provide two a four -lane cross-section. EB Ief -tum lanes. Provide one WS right-tum lane. Superior Av. (NS) at - Placentia Av. (EW) (none) B A (none) A B m • Coast Hw. (EW) CA none D C none D D N Newport St. (NS) at: - Hospital Rd. (EW) Provide 2nd NB left -hum lane. Consistent with D D Add one EB left -turn lane. D E - historic plan. • Via Lido (EW) (none) A A (none) 13 C • 32nd SG (EW) Restdpe EB to provide 2left turn lanes and 1 A B Add a separate SB right tum lane. A B shared through -right lane. Restripe WB to provide i left turn lane,1 through lane, and 1 free right turn lane. Riverside Av. (NS) at, • Coast Hw. (EW) Provide 3rd EB through lane. Eliminate WB right- Consistentwith B E Add an optional SB left-tum lane, C C turn lane. historic plan. Would a separate SB right -turn lane, and remove parking and one EB left -hum lane. WB right-tum lane on rrorih side of street. Tustin Av. (NS) at • CoastHw.(EW) none B D none C D m Cf) N v TABLE ES-11 (Page 2 of 6) INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT SUMMARY AND COMPARISON TABLE RESULTING WITH WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION FEASIBILITY/ PROJECT LOS PREVIOUS CIRCULATION PREVIOUS LOS INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS ROW REQUIRED AM PM ELEMENT IMPROVEMENTS AM PM MacArthur BI. (NS) at: • Campus Dr. (EW) Provide 2nd NB left-tum lane. Restripe SB Would require narrow C D Add a SB left -turn lane, a WB left- B F approach to provide 3.5 through lanes and 1.5 lanes or minor turn lane, a NB right -turn lane, right-tum lanes. landscape area and a separate EB right -turn lane. reductions. • Birch St (EW) none C D none D C Von Kerman Av. (NS) at • Campus Dr. (EW) Provide 2nd EB left turn lane. Eliminate EB right- Can be accomplished B D (none) C E turn lane. Eliminate NB free right -turn lane. within existing curb to curb section by eliminating NB and EB riht-tum lanes. MacArthur BI. (NS) at • Von KarmanAv. (EW) none A B Add an EB through lane. B E Jamboree Rd. (NS) aL- • Campus Dr. (EW) Provide NB 1st right -turn lane with overlap phase. D D (none) F F Provide 4lh SB through lane. Provide WB right turn overlap phase for current right-tum lane. Eliminate EB free right -turn lane. • Birch St (EW) Provide 4th SS through lane. D C none C C Campus Dr. (NS) at: • Bristol St N (EW) Provide 5th WB through lane. Based on field E E Add one WB left-tum lane.1 D F reconnaissance, it appears this could be accomplished on inside (south side), involving improvements to SR- 73 NB On -ramp. m fn N OD TABLE ES41 (Page 3 of 6) INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT SUMMARY AND COMPARISON TABLE WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION FEASIBILITY/ WAMPM PREVIOUS CIRCULATION PREVIOUS LOS INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS ROW REQUIRED ELEMENT IMPROVEMENTS AM PM Birch SL (NS) at • Bristol St. N (EW) (none) D C Add one SB through lane and one B E WB left-tum lane. This may require widening the freeway bridge. mpus DrJlrvine Av. (NS) at • Bristol St S (EW) none - - D C none F D Birch St. (NS) at; • Bristol St S (EW) (none) A A Add one NB through lane and one D B EB through lane. This may require the widening the freeway bridge. Irvine Av. (NS) at: • Mesa Dr. (EW) -Funded Improvements Provide 3rd NS through lane. Provide 3rd SB Assumes reallocated C D Add a separate SB right -turn lane, E E through lane. Provide 1st EB rfght-fum lane. PM WB left- a NB right-lum lane, a WB left - Provide 2nd WB left-tum lane. Construct funded tumtthrough volume. turn lane and an EB through lane. - Improvements, but EB right turn lane not necessary. Eliminate WB right -hum lane. • University Dr. (EW) Provide 3rd NB through lane. Provide 3rd SB ROW and potential D D Add an EB through lane. F E through lane. ResMpe EB approach to include-1.5 environmental issues. left -turn lanes, 0.5 through lanes. and 1 right-tum lane. • Santiago Dr. (EW) (none) B C (none) B A • Highland Dr. (ESN) (none) A B (none) A A • Dover Dr.(EW) (none) C B (none) B B • Westcliff Dr. (EW) one B D none A B wr w w w � ■w � w w w w� w w w� w w iw w M = M = ■ In CO N INTERSECTION Dover Dr. (NS) at • Westcliff Dr. (EW) • 16th St (EVV) • Coast Hw. (EVV) Bayside Dr. (NS) at: • Coast Hw. (EW) MacArthur BI. (NS) at: • Jamboree Rd. (EW) Jamboree Rd. (NS) at: • Bristol St. N (EW) Bayview PI. (NS) at: • Bristol St. S (EW) Jamboree Rd. (NS) at: • Bristol St. S (EW) • Bayview Wy. (EW) • Eastbluff Dr./University Dr. (EW) • Bison Av. (EVV) ITI co w 0 TABLE ES-11 (Page 5 of 6) INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT SUMMARY AND COMPARISON TABLE RESULTING WITH WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION FEASIBILITY! PROJECT LOS PREVIOUS CIRCULATION PREVIOUS LOS INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS ROW REQUIRED_ AM _ _ PM ELEMENT IMPROVEMENTS AM PM Jamboree Rd. (NS) al: • Easthluff DrJFord Rd. (EW) (crone) C C (none) E D • San Joaquin Hills Rd. (EW) (none) B C (none) C G • Santa Barbara Dr. (EW) (none) A C (none) B C • Coast Hw. (EW) none C C none D D Santa Cruz Dr. (NS) at: - • San Joaquin Hills Rd. (EW) none A A none A C Santa Rosa Dr. (NS) at: ' • San Joaquin Hills Rd.-(EW) none A C none A A Newport Center Dr. (NS) at • Coast Hw. (IV) ) none A B none E A Avocado Av. (NS) at: • Coast Hw.(EW) none C C (none)A I H MacArthur Bl. (NS) al: - • Bison Av.(EW) (none) C C Add a SB left -turn lane, a W B left- C D turn lane and a NB left -turn lane. • Ford RdJBonifa Canyon Dr. (EW) Provide Sid SB left turn lane. C D (none) D D • San Joaquin Hills Rd. (EW) Provide 4th NB through lane. All three B D (No improvement necessary, B D Provide 3rdSBleft-turn lane. improvements - donewi(31anes.) Provide 3rd EB left -turn lane. required to achieve Eliminate NB right -turn lane. LOS "D'. May require narrow lanes and leadllag left -turn operations. M r M M M M M = = goM 'M Mf = M M M M M M M M M r M M M� M M M M M = = r m 0) r W TABLE ES41 (Page 6 of 6) INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT SUMMARY AND COMPARISON TABLE RESULTING WITH WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION FEASIBILITY! PROJECT LOS PREVIOUS CIRCULATION _ PREVIOUS LOS AM PM AM PM INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS ROW REQUIRED ELEMENT IMPROVEMENTS MacArthur BL(NS) at: • San Miguel Dr. (EW) (none) B C Add a WB left -turn lane. A E • Coast Hw.(EW) none C C none A E San Miguel Dr. (NS) at: . San Joaquin Hills Rd. (EW) none A C Add a WB left -turn lane. A D Goldenrod Av. (NS) at: - Coast Hvv.(EW) none E B none D D Marguerite Av. (NS) at: • San Joaquin Hills Rd. (EW) (none) A A (none) A B • Coast Hw. (EW) none E E none D B Poppy Av. (NS) at • Coast Hw. (EW) none B C none C D The Intersection of Campus Drive and Bristol Street North has high traffic volumes due to Ks direct access to SR-73 and the fact that Campus Drive and Birch Street serve as the erteriak between the Irvine Business Complex and the high Intensly office developments in the northern portion of the Cdy of Newport Beach and SR-73. Because of the particular geometries and baffic volumes and distribubon at this Intersection, dw@ be difficult for conventional intersamons to carry the forecast tra0iic. Adddionai lanes mould be provided, however the weave movements between southbound right turn from Campus to SR-73 mould make this operationally ddficuh to achieve. Therefore, It is recommended that this be defined as a special project area with alternative solutions being sought that could range from major intersection upgrading to possible grade -separation. U.IUCJobs1 01200 W 12321Excetj0123232YIsIES-11 The potential extension of the SR-55 freeway is not recommended, as it would ' result in additional through traffic congestion on Coast Highway through Mariners Mile. The City Council has identified open space as the preferred use of Banning Ranch, but the analysis contained in this Transportation Study has assumed worst case conditions, including alternate residential and commercial development on the Banning Ranch property. If the open space preservation occurs, roadway segments through the property (Bluff Road and 15t' Street) will not be constructed, the relief to Superior Avenue at Coast Highway will not be provided by the new Bluff Road connection, and Superior Avenue at Coast Highway will experience Level of Service "E" conditions. With development on Banning Ranch, Bluff Road at Coast Highway would experience unacceptable levels of service unless the 15t' Street extension is constructed. Without this improvement, an additional westbound through lane would be required on Coast Highway to provide LOS "D" conditions at the intersection of Bluff Road at Coast Highway. Based on this analysis it is recommended that two new roadways provide access to Coast Highway through the Banning Ranch property, should the alternate land use be constructed. The widening of Coast Highway through Mariners Mile is recommended, as it would alleviate congestion through this key stretch of roadway, and the City has already begun reserving right-of-way for this .improvement. To facilitate this widening, it is recommended that the City pursue obtaining control of Coast Highway from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), so that the widening may be constructed to City of Newport Beach standards. Grade separation for the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard at Jamboree Road is one improvement that was considered to maintain LOS "D" at this location. During the Visioning Process, citizens indicated a desire to not incorporate additional grade separated intersections in the roadway system. Acceptable ES-32 i Ioperations can be achieved with at -grade improvements (a 4th eastbound ' through lane and a 3rd westbound left turn lane), and those improvements are recommended. The City of Newport Beach (in conjunction with the City of Irvine) is in the process of studying improvement alternatives, including potential grade separation. r7 L 1 I 1 L'! I 1 1 I I I 1 I 1 ES-33 I THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 1 u 1 I 1 11 i 1 1 1 11 i F i 1 1 I ES-34 1 I I! 11 II II II II IF I II II II II 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY This report has been prepared in support of the update of the City of Newport Beach General Plan and Circulation Element. This report documents the traffic analysis performed to determine the impacts and provide recommendations in developing the City of Newport Beach General Plan Circulation Element. This chapter of the report introduces the reader to the existing and General Plan buildout analysis portion of the City of Newport Beach General Plan Circulation Element update project and presents the goals and objectives of the work effort. The General Plan forecasts have been prepared using the Newport Beach Traffic Model, version 3.1 (NBTM 3.1). For detailed discussion of the model, see Newport Beach Traffic Model (NBTM) 3.1 Technical Documentation Report (Urban Crossroads, Inc., December, 2003). The NBTM 3.1 travel demand forecasting tool has been developed for the City of Newport Beach to identify traffic and circulation issues in and around the City. The NBTM 3.1 tool has been developed in accordance with the requirements and recommendations of the Orange County Subarea Modeling Guidelines Manual (August, 1998) and has been found by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) to be consistent with these guidelines. The NBTM 3.1 is intended to be used for roadway planning and traffic impact analyses, such as: • General Plan/Land Use analysis required by the City of Newport Beach. • Amendments to the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH). • Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP) analysis. The NBTM 3.1 is a vehicle trip based modeling tool, and it is intended for evaluating general roadway system supply and demand problems and issues. The NBTM 3.1 has been specifically calibrated to represent "shoulder season" (spring/fall) conditions in the City of Newport Beach, consistent with longstanding practice for traffic analysis in the City of Newport Beach. This is also consistent with current practices at many other local agencies in the region. I1 1-1 The NBTM has been updated as part of this work effort to incorporate the most current demographic information available, including socioeconomic data outside the primary area, and new income data within the primary area. Examples of substantial changes outside the City of Newport Beach include John Wayne Airport expansion plans, University of California, Irvine (UCI) expansion, as well as reuse of the Marine Corps Air Stations at Tustin and El Toro. 1.1 Goals and Objectives The goals of the General Plan Update Traffic Study are to present the existing traffic network, volumes, and evaluation; develop and analyze future General Plan buildout, without and with project, daily and peak hour volume forecasts; compile data for additional transportation systems; present special issues. 1.2 Methodolooy Overview This section provides a broad overview of the analysis methodology. Subsequent sections provide additional detail regarding the forecasting methodology. The overall coverage area of the NBTM 3.1 is depicted on Exhibit 1-A. The NBTM 3.1 coverage area includes the five county urbanized area which is included in the parent Orange County Transportation Analysis Model, Version 3.1 (OCTAM 3.1) tool. The basic model structure recommended in the subarea modeling guidelines is a "focused" modeling approach. The concept of a focused model is to provide the greatest level of detail within the primary analysis or study area, with the least detail included in those parts of the model which are geographically distant from the primary study area. This concept is further refined in the guidelines as a three tier system. Tier 1 is the least detailed component of the subarea model. The intent of the Tier 1 level of definition is to provide the minimum amount of detail necessary to accommodate regional traffic as it enters the Tier 2 coverage area. 1-2 PA EXHIBIT 1-A NBTM OVERALL COVERAGE AREA d NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE TRAFFIC STUDY, Newport Beach, Califomia-01292:016 URBAN The Tier 1 level of detail is not intended to support detailed analysis within the Tier 1 area. The Tier 2 level of detail corresponds directly to the parent OCTAM 3.1 model, while Tier 3 incorporates more detail than the parent model. Exhibit 1-A also presents the limits of each tier or level of detail. While the Tier 3 area incorporates additional detail surrounding the City of Newport Beach, the City is the primary study area for this work effort. The primary study area of the NBTM is shown on Exhibit 1-8. The primary study area of the NBTM is generally bounded by the Brookhurst Street/Santa Ana River on the west, Adams Avenue/Baker Street/Campus Drive/SR-73 on the north, Crystal Cove State Park on the east, and the Pacific Ocean on the south. As described previously, Tier 2 area level of detail and vehicle traffic forecasting capability is equal to that of the parent OCTAM 3.1 travel demand forecasting tool. The Tier 2 area is generally bounded by the northwest Orange County line, 1-5 Freeway, Fairhaven Avenue, Santiago Canyon Road, El Toro Road, Santa Margarita Parkway, Trabuco Creek, and the Pacific Ocean. The NBTM is derived from the OCTAM 3.1. Exhibit 1-C provides an overview of the NBTM modeling process. The general modeling steps or processes are: • Land use to socioeconomic data (SED) conversion • Trip generation and mode choice • Trip distribution • Time of day factoring • Traffic assignment • Post -assignment data refinement processing. 1-4 r r r +• r r �r � >•. � r a■� rr �r � � ar rr �. EXHIBIT 1-B NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC MODEL (NBTM) PRIMARY STUDY AREA 2`L 1 `D4 y TURSLE Sl• � � OpNYON yy< S4'�3 s BRISTOL ST. n y \�S `9 ' 00 MESA DR ,'I� 51HTc 9 DEL MAR AVE O 90 Y,r . 1 4� QCOq�Oq 10�� FO�O PO SPYG A i �s ¢ s > 6 z U7 I 22ND ST. 1 G Nhs Cp�Sp, S1`SOA tr A i HIGHLAND OR. ti 2 OpJ SAN Y P O > 19TH > c m O Q q 90 O�yON lycF m m _ p Q w� C Cj �iy 17rH ST VESTCLIF m 0 ul 94 HIGHWAY p0 15TH ST. % NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE TRAFFIC STUDY, Newport Beach, California - 01 232:04D URBAN EXHIBIT 1-C NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC MODEL (NBTM) OVERALL MODELING METHODOLOGY Subarea Land Use Regional Trip Generation, Mode Choice, and Trip Distribution Models to Regional Vehicle Trips (Drive alone, Subarea Trip HC TOLL5) Generation Re-evaluate Regional Travel Characteristics Tier 1&2 Zones Are local trips or network Yes substantially different from regional trips or network? P,n P&A Growth/ Expansion Factors I Fratar/Matrix Expand I Time of Day/ P-A to O-D Factoring Trip Existing l Data I _ I Post Model Traffic Model Data I"� Refinements Count Data Final Refined Forecasts Regional Highway Network Subarea Network 1-6 The NBTM relies on regional model estimates of trip generation, trip distribution, and mode choice. The model structure accommodates changes in land use/socioeconomic and network characteristics in the following manner: Trip Generation - Trip generation estimates are based on socioeconomic ' data driven trip generation rates. The primary study area socioeconomic data is derived from the City of Newport Beach land use. The calculated trip generation is then used to adjust the regional trip ' generation results to match the, more detailed local NBTM trip generation estimate. Trip Distribution - Trip distribution estimates are based on trip distribution patterns estimated by the regional travel demand model and incorporated into the subarea model. The number of trips attributed to the primary study area in the regional model is adjusted to match the project trip generation using an analytical approach commonly referred to as the Fratar model. This process ' automatically adjusts the trip distribution patterns as necessary. Mode Choice - Mode choice (driving, riding as a passenger, or taking a bus) is estimated by using regional model mode share results, which are then incorporated directly into the subarea model. Traffic Assignment - Traffic is assigned to the roadway system on the basis of travel time and cost. Tolls (assumed for both existing and future conditions) are explicitly included in the traffic assignment process using the procedures obtained from the regional travel demand model. 1 1-7 Traffic is assigned separately for the AM, mid -day, PM, and nighttime periods of the day, to allow for more accurate representation of the effects of congestion on the choice of travel routes by drivers. Post Model Refinements -The goal of the future traffic volume forecast refinement or post model refinement processing is to utilize all available data to prepare the best possible estimate of future traffic conditions. The NBTM procedure incorporates 2002 traffic count data, 2002 model validation data (traffic estimates), and future (raw) model forecasts (estimates) as inputs. 1.2.1 Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) Structure The overall NBTM TAZ Structure is shown on Exhibit 1-D. The primary study area (City of Newport Beach) TAZ structure is shown on Exhibit 1-E and incorporates 194 TAZs for purposes of aggregating individual land uses to a level of detail suitable for local area modeling. By contrast, the OCTAM 3.1 TAZ system includes 69 TAZs for the same area. The additional TAZ structure detail is intended to support accurate forecasting of traffic on all arterial roadways (as well as study area freeways) within the study area. The NBTM 3.1 TAZs generally aggregate to the OCTAM 3.1 TAZs within the primary modeling area. This is a requirement of the consistency guidelines. The only exception/deviation was the Newport Coast area, where the OCTAM TAZs do not correspond to approved circulation and development patterns. OCTA staff indicated that this would be acceptable at a cooperative meeting held on May 22, 2002 at Urban Crossroads, Inc.. M. EXHIBIT 1-D TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE (TAZ) SYSTEM OF STUDY AREA wr\ n� NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE TRAFFIC STUDY, Newport Beach, California - 01232:10 URBAN EXHIBIT 1-E NBTM PRIMARY AREA TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE (TAZ) STRUCTURE 0 NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE, Newport Beach, California • 01232:nbbn_primarea_faz.pdf (051205) URBAN ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! +! offices. Within the NBTM 3.1 secondary (Tier 2) analysis area, the NBTM TAZs correspond to the OCTAM 3.1 TAZs on a one-to-one basis Traffic Analysis Districts group areas with similar characteristics for use in traffic source analysis, Fratar Modeling (a trip generation/distribution adjustment process), and occupancy adjustments. Traffic Analysis Districts are shown on Exhibit 1-F. 1.2.2 Land Use to Socioeconomic Data Conversion Process The conversion of land use to SED is the first step in the NBTM modeling process. Exhibit 1-G illustrates the overall land use to SED conversion and trip generation process. The City of Newport Beach maintains land use data that is used for many purposes, including providing input data to the NBTM traffic forecasting process. Regional modeling consistency requirements necessitate use of consistent input data that provides trip generation estimates that are also consistent with the regional modeling tool. OCTA uses the following variables as the input data for OCTAM 3.1: • (Total) Population • Household Population • Employed Residents • (Non -Institutionalized) Group Quarters Population • Occupied Single -Family Households • Occupied Multiple -Family Households (including all households other than single family households) • (Total Occupied) Dwelling Units • Retail Employment • Service Employment 3 N EXHIBIT 1-F TRAFFIC ANALYSIS DISTRICTS l C L 9 l 10: r �P IN 0� NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE, Newport Beach, Califomia-01232:nbtm districts,pdf (051205) URBAN EXHIBIT 1-G NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC MODEL (NBTM) TRIP GENERATION PROCESS NEWPORT BEACH LAND USE DATA CONVERT LAND USE TO SOCIOECONOMIC DATA (SED) DAILY TRIP RATES BY PURPOSE AND PRODUCTIONS/ ATTRACTIONS LAND USE SUPPLEMENTAL BASED SED SED ADD SED GENERATE TRIPS OVERALL SED FROM SED 1 DAILY TRIPS BY PURPOSE FROM SED aDD DAILY VEHICLEj_� SPECIAL GENERATOR TRIPS BY PURPOSE I DAILY VEHICLE TRIPS PRIMARY STUDY AREA LOCAL DAILY VEHICLE TRIPS BY PURPOSE AND LEGEND: INPUT/OUTPUT DECISION MODELING DATA RULE PROCESS 0 UPDATE TRAFFIC STUDY, Newport Beach, California-01232:01 URBAIS 1-13 • Other Employment (Non -Service and Non -Retail) • Total Employment • Median Household Income • Elementary/High School Enrollment • (Non -Resident or Commuter Student) University Enrollment Many of these variables are self -descriptive. A brief explanation is provided for those variables which are not self -descriptive. Non -Institutionalized Group Quarters Population: Non -institutionalized group quarters population refers to military personnel living in barracks and students living in dormitories. It also includes similar populations, such as seminaries, convents, orphan homes, agricultural workers living in dormitories/barracks, homes for unwed mothers, and institutional staff (at hospitals, prisons, etc.) who live on the premises where they work. Retail Employment: The definition is consistent with the definition presented in the documentatiorn for the OCTAM 3.1 (OCTAM 3.1 Summary Documentation and Validation Report, June 2001). Per this definition, all employment falling into Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes 52 - 59 is considered retail employment. These codes include retail shops, eating and drinking establishments (SIC 58), etc. Service Employment: For the purposes of this modeling effort and consistent with OCTAM 3.1, all employment falling into Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes 70-89 is considered service employment. Examples of service employment include hotels and other lodging, personal services (dry cleaners, beauty salons, etc.), auto repair shops, medical/dental offices, educational services (schools, libraries, etc.), and social services. it 11 1-14 Conversion factors for each of the land use codes maintained in the city land use dataset have been developed by Urban Crossroads, Inc. staff. Table 1-1 shows the SED conversion factors that were the result of this ' calibration process. Initial factors were derived from previous modeling efforts, then refined to provide socioeconomic data that more closely matches citywide summary data provided by City of Newport Beach staff, and regionally accepted data. IOccupancy factors and SED conversion factors have been differentiated for the "Balboa" area, corresponding to District 3, 9, and 10 on Exhibit 1-F. For instance, lower retail occupancy is experienced during the "shoulder" seasons represented by the NBTM. 1.2.3 Trip Generation Subarea models are now required to match (nearly exactly) regional trip generation estimates derived from socioeconomic data (SED) at the regional model traffic analysis zone (TAZ) level for base year and future year consistency scenarios. It has long been recognized that there are ' differences between land use and SED based trip generation approaches. These differences have been addressed and reduced in recent years. The approach taken for NBTM 3.1 is to convert land use to SED and generate traffic that is fairly consistent with the regional trip generation estimates. Trip generation rates by socioeconomic data variable have been calibrated to provide validated city-wide traffic volumes. Initial rates were found in previous recent studies. Rates were then adjusted to reflect the unique characteristics of the City of Newport Beach. Production and attraction based trip generation rates are shown on Table 1-2. Please note that multi -family residential units do generate Home -Work attractions ' 1-15 rn TABLE 14 (1 OF 2) LAND USE TO SOCIOECONOMIC DATA CONVERSION FACTORS NBTM LAND USE NBTM LAND USE DESCRIPTION UNITS [CEDWELLING SINGLE FAMILY UNITS _ MULTI- FAMILY DWELLING UNITS GROUP QUARTERS POPULATION POPU. LATION RESIDENT WORKERS RETAIL EMPLOY- MENT SERVICE EMPLOY - MENT OTHER EMPLOY- MENT TOTS- EMPLOY- MENT ELEMEN. 7ARY/NIGH SCHOOLCODE STUDENTS STUDENTS 1 Res-Low(SFD)-Balboa DU 0.90 1 0 0 2.20 1.00 0.02 0.15 0.03 0.20 0 0 1 Res -LOW ISFD) DU 0.95 1 0 0 2.50 1.60 0.02 0.15 0.03 0.20 0 0 2 Res -Medium (SFA)-Balboa DU 0.90 0 1 0 2.10 0.90 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.03 0 0 2 Res -Medium (SFA) DU 0.95 0 1 0 2.40 1.50 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.03 0 0 3 Apartment -Balboa DU 0.90 0 1 0 1.70 0.80 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.03 0 0 3 Apartment DU 0.95 0 1 0 1.70 1.30 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.03 0 0 4 Elderly Residential DU 1.00 0 1 0 1.40 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 5 Mobile Home -Balboa DU 0.90 0 1 0 1.70 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 5 Mobile Home DU 0.95 0 1 0 2.20 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 6 Motel ROOM 0.90 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0-10 1.00 0.20 1.30 0 0 7 Hotel ROOM 0.90 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.10 1.20 0.50 1.80 0 0 9 Regional Commercial TSF 0.80 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 1.30 0.34 0.44 2.08 0 0 10 General Commercial TSF 0.90 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.20 0.20 2.40 0 0 11 CommJRecreation ACRE 1.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 1.00 4.00 0.00 5.00 0 0 13 Restaurant TSF 0.90 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 2.70 0.00 0.50 3.20 0 0 15 Fast Food Restaurant TSF 0.90 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 3-.30 0.00 0.70 4.00 0 0 16 AutoDealedSales TSF 1.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 1.50 0.30 1.00 2.80 0 0 17 Yacht Club TSF 1.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.60 2.50 0.00 3.10 0 0 18 Health Club TSF 1.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.60 2.50 0.00 3.10 0 0 19 Tennis Club CRT 1.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.70 2.70 0 0 20 Marina SLIP 1.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.12 0.22 0 0 21 Theater SEAT 1.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.05 0 0 22 Newport Dunes ACRE 1.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.20 0.25 1.35 0 0 23 General Office TSF 0.90 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.50 2.73 3.36 0 0 24 Medical Office TSF 0.90 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.30 2.50 1.00 3.80 0 0 25 R & D TSF 0.90 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.90 1.50 2.40 0 0 26 Industrial TSF 0.90 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.20 2.20 0 0 M r i low M M M M a M M ass a IMI IM ,� � M� � M M w r M M M M M M M M M M M� M M TABLE 1-1 (2 OF 2) LAND USE TO SOCIOECONOMIC DATA CONVERSION FACTORS NBTM LAND USE CODE NBTM LAND USE DESCRIPTION UNITS ACTIVITY LEVEL! OCCUPANCY RATE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNITS MULTI- FAMILY DWELLING UNITS GROUP QUARTERS POPULATION I POPU- LATION RESIDENT WORKERS RETAIL EMPLOY- MENT SERVICE EMPLOY- MENT OTHER EMPLOY- MENT TOTAL EMPLOY- MENT ELEMEN- TARY/HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS UNIVERSITY STUDENTS 27 Mini-StoragefWarehouse TSF 0.90 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 1.70 1.80 0 0 28 Pre-School/Day Care TSF 1.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 0 0 29 Elementary/Private School STU 1.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 1 0 30 JuniodHigh School STU 1.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 1 0 31 Cultural/Leaming Center TSF 1.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 4.00 0 0 32 Library TSF 1.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 4.00 0 0 33 Post Office TSF 1.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.10 4.05 1.00 5.15 0 0 34 Hospital BEDS 1.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.40 2.80 4.20 0 0 35 Nursing/Conv. Home BEDS 1.00 0 0 1 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.10 0.40 0 0 36 Church TSF 1.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.80 1.00 1.80 0 0 37 Youth Ctr/Service TSF 1.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 0 0 38 Park ACRE 1.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.60 0 0 39 Regional Park ACRE 1.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.60 0 0 40 Golf course ACRE 1.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.60 0.00 0.70 0 0 41 Resort Golf CouTj___LACREJ, 1.00 0 0 0 1 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.10 1 0.60 1 0.00 1 0.70 0 0 U:IUcJobsl 01200\012321Fxce11[01232-32xis]T7-1 TABLE 1 2 NBTM SOCIOECONOMIC DATA (SED) BASED TRIP RATES VARIABLES Single Family Residential Multi Family Residential Population Employed Residents Income Retail Employment Service Employment Other Employmenti EI./HS Enrollment University Coll. Enroll. UNITS DU DU POP E-R $MIL EMP EMP EMP Stu Stu PRODUCTION TRIP RATES H-W 0 0 0 1.15 0 0 0 0 0 0 O-W 0 0 0 0 0 1.6 0.7 0.64 0 0 H-O 1 0.6 0.2 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 HSho 0.8 0.4 0.1 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 O-O 0.4 0.4 0 0 2 4.5 0.6 0.24 0 0.2 H-U _ 0 of 0.04 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 H-Sch 0 0 0.14 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 ATTRACTION TRIP RATES H-W 0.1 0.1 0 0 0 1.15 1.15 1.15 01 0 O-W 0.2 02 0 0 0 1.6 0.6 0.54 0 0.2 H-0 0.4 0.3 0 0 1 _ 2 0.5 0.1 0 0 H-Shop 0 0 0 0 0 5.2 0 0 0 0 O-O 0.4 0.4 0 0 2.- 4,5 0.6- 02 0 0.2 H-U 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 0. 0.91 H-Sch 0 0 0 01 01 0 0 0 0.88 0 DAILY 1 3.31 2.4 0.481 1.151 261 20.551 4.151 2.771 0.88 1.51 U:1UcJobsl 01200\012321 XMR01232.32-dsiT7-2 to account for relatively transient employment related to these uses. Subsequent steps convert production -attraction based trip ends into linked trips, then, via the time of day factoring process, into origin -destination trip tables. The number of trips generated by a typical dwelling unit (single-family detached, single-family attached, or apartment) is also a function of the dwelling unit population, the number of resident employed workers, employees (e.g. self-employed), and income. Table 1-3 presents example calculations for single-family detached dwelling units, single-family attached dwelling units, and apartments and illustrates the similarity to the land use based trip generation rates used in the previous version of N BTAM. 1.2.4 Trip Distribution Exhibit 1-H illustrates the NBTM trip distribution process. Separate procedures are employed for consistent scenarios and for scenarios where the local model deviates from the subregional model inputs and assumptions. 1.2.5 Mode Choice Most mode choice (e.g., drive -along, carpool, transit, etc.) issues are regional in nature, superseding cities' boundaries. For this reason, the NBTM approach is to acknowledge the role of mode choice through data obtained from the regional mode choice model. This data may be used directly for minor adjustments to account for future system refinements. It is necessary to return to the regional model for evaluation of major transit system changes. Adjustments to the NBTM are then reflected in terms of zonal vehicle trip generation adjustments. Regional mode choice survey data directly relevant to Newport Beach is presented to facilitate such minor adjustments. 1-19 TABLE 1-3 TYPICAL NBTM 3.1 RESIDENTIAL TRIP GENERATION EXAMPLES ig Units ition yed Residents Employment e Employment Employment e (Median Annual) Dwelling Units Population Employed Residents Service Employment Other Employment Income (Median Annual) Daily Units Quantity Daily Trip Rate Trips DUs 1 3.3 3.3 POP 2.5 0.48 1.2 E-R 1.6 1.15 1.84 RE 0.02 20.55 0.411 SE 0.15 4.15 0.623 OE 0.03 2.77 0.083 $MIL 0.12 26 3.12 Daily Units Quantity Daily Trip Rate Trips DUs 1 2.4 2.4 POP 1.7 0.48 0.816 E-R. 1.3 1.15 1.495 SE 0.02 4.15 0.083 OE 0.01 2.77 0.028 $MIL 0.08 26 2.08 Residential UAUcJobsl 012001012321F-xcellt01232-32,xlsjT1-3 1-20 EXHIBIT 1-H NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC MODEL (NBTM) TRIP DISTRIBUTION PROCESS TABLES BY PURPOSE AND VEHICLE OCCUPANCY REGIONAL AGGREGATE PRIMARY STUDY AREA TRIPS TO FRATAR DISTRICTS DISTANT PARTS OF TRIP TABLES FRATAR DISTRICT PRIMARY STUDY INTERMEDIATE AREA LOCAL DAILY REGIONAL TRIP TABLES VEHICLE TRIP BY PURPOSE AND FACTORS = LOCAL TRIPS/ REGIONAL TRIPS CALCULATE AGGREGATI FACTORS FRATAR FACTORS APPLY FRATAR POST-FRATAR TRIP GENERATION/ INTERMEDIATE 'RIBUTION PROCEDURE REGIONAL TRIP TABLES LEGEND: INPUT/OUTPUT DECISION MODELING DATA RULE PROCESS TIER 1/2 INTERMEDIATE REGIONAL TRIP TABLES TRIPS) OCTAM TAZ OR FRATAR DISTRICT DISAGGREGATION FACTORS DISAGGREGATE TRIP TABLES TO NBTM TAZS BY PURPOSE (IN PRODUCTION/ ATTRACTION FORMAT) 1-21 1.2.6 Time of Day Factoring The NBTM 3.1 time of day factors are summarized on Table 1-4. These factors have been derived from the regional model time of day factoring procedures and modified to reflect local knowledge. 1.2.7 Roadway Network Representation The NBTM 3.1 network processing procedure replicates the OCTAM 3.1 coding conventions within the study area, The highway network is represented by roadway links. Roadways with the same basic cross-section (number of through lanes and median treatment) exhibit substantial differences in free flow speed and capacity. Factors that can influence roadway speeds and capacities include the number of mid -block access points, signalized intersections per mile, posted speed limit, mid -block traffic control devices such as stop signs, etc. 1.2.8 Traffic Assignment The OCTAM 3.1 subregional model incorporates four time periods. The NBTM traffic assignment procedure therefore also utilizes four time periods per regional model procedure, with conversion to AM and PM peak hour volumes directly from the AM and PM peak periods, respectively. Conversion factors using local traffic count data have been evaluated.in the course of this work effort. The conversion factors specific to Newport Beach have been calculated in the model process and are presented with the count data. The general model parameters (e.g., coding procedures, time of day origin(destinatfon factors, and traffic assignment procedures) were initially derived directly from the OCTAM model. Most of these parameters remain unchanged. Time of day factors have been modified based on local data to produce better traffic volume forecasts. 1-22 TABLE 1-4 NBTM TIME OF DAY FACTORS TIME PERIOD DIRECTION WORK OTHER SCHOOL OTHER OTHER AM PEAK (7:00 AM -10:00 AM) P-A 0.5093 0.2848 0.5567 0.0442 0.1046 A-P 0.0301 0.0686 0.0376 0.3245 0.1098 PM PEAK (2:45 PM - 6:45 PM) P-A 0.0792 0.2320 0.1581 0.5290 0.3766 A-P 0.3814 0.4146 0.2476 0.1023 0.4090 PEAK TOTAL 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0006 1.0000 MID DAY (10:00 AM - 2:45 PM) P-A 0.2493 0.3030 0.2651 OA404 0.3862 A-P 0,2043 0.2376 0.4073 0.4354 0.4231 NIGHTTIME (6:45 PM - 7:00 AM) P-A 0.2835 0.1310 0.0235 0.0679 , 0.0910 A-P 0.2629 0.32841 0.3041 0.0563 0.0997 OFF-PEAK TOTAL 1.00001 1.00001 1.00001 1.00001 1.0000 U:\UcJobs\_01200\01232\Excel\[01232-32.xIs]T1-4 1[I II II Ul II ' 1-23 1.2.9 Data and Analysis Methodology The City of Newport Beach has a circulation system consisting of arterial roadways and local streets. State Route (SR-) 55, SR-73 and Highway 1 ' (Coast Highway) provide regional access to the City. Established transit service also connects the City to nearby communities. A bicycle and pedestrian system is also in place. For vehicular transportation, a hierarchal roadway network is established , with designated roadway types and design standards. The roadway type is linked to anticipated traffic levels. As growth within the City occurs, capacity - analysis should be performed and improvements made to the roadway system. Because local circulation is linked with the regional system, the Circulation Element also focuses on participation in regional programs to , alleviate traffic congestion and construct capacity improvements. 'Plans prepared by Caltrans, the County and other regional agencies guide ' developmentlimprovement of the regional transportation system. Strategies to handle anticipated traffic levels from future regional development are currently being developed as discussed hereafter. I Existing conditions data has been collected by field verification. Analysts , have identified existing roadway network characteristics, and vehicles have been counted at locations throughout the study area. Existing conditions land use data has been provided by City of Newport Beach staff. The existing land use data is combined with the existing roadway system in the' , Newport Beach Traffic Model (NBTM) development validation scenario. Adjustments have been made to the existing input data to incorporate the most current demographic data available. 1 1-24 11 ' Future land use and roadway data has been provided by City of Newport Beach staff and the City's planning consultant, EIP Associates. Raw forecasts from the General Plan Buildout scenario of the NBTM have been ' refined using existing count data and validation model results. Daily roadway segment analysis (including freeways) requires calculating the daily traffic volume divided by the roadway segment capacity. The City of Newport Beach daily roadway capacities used in this analysis are ' presented in Table 1-5. For analysis purposes, the upper end of the approximate daily capacity range has been used. ' The daily capacity of a roadway correlates to a number of widely varying factors including peaking traffic eakin characteristics, traffic turning volumes, and the volume of traffic on crossing streets. The daily capacities are therefore most appropriately used for long range General Plan analysis, or as a screening tool to determine the need for more detailed peak hour analysis. ' Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis has been performed at sixty- three (63) study area intersections (see Exhibit 1-1). ICU values are used to determine levels of service at study area intersection locations. To calculate the ICU value for an intersection, the volume of traffic using the intersection is compared with the capacity of the intersection. The ICU is usually expressed as a decimal percent (e.g., 0.86). The decimal percent ' represents that portion of the hour required to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate all intersection traffic if all approaches operate at capacity. 1-25 TABLE 1-5 ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITIES CLASSIFICATION I RIGHT-OF-WAY CURB TO CURB WIDTH # OF LANES MEDIAN WIDTH I APPROXIMATE CAPACITY IMINIMUMI IYPIUALIMAXI 8 Lane Divided 158 Variable 8 14-18 60,000 68,000 75,000 Ma'orAU mented Variable Variable 6-8 Variable 52,000 58,000 70,000 Major 128-134 106-114 6 14-18 45,000 51.000 65,000 Primary Augmented Variable Variable 4-6 Variable 35,000 40,000 50,000 Prima 104-108 84 4 16-20 30,000 34,000 45,000 ISecondary 1 84 1 64 1 4 1 0 1 20,000 23,000 30,000 Commuter 1 60-70 1 40-50 1 2 1 0 1 7,000 10,000 20,000 ' The daily capacity of a roadway correlates to a number of widely varying factors, Including traffic peaking characteristics, traffic turning volumes, and the volume of traffic on crossing streets. The actual daily capacity of a roadway can thus vary widely. The daily capacities are therefore most appropriately used for long range General Plan analysis, or as a screening tool to determine the need for more detailed peak hour analysis. Couplets: Secondary couplet - 2 lanes for each leg Primary couplet - 3 lanes for each leg Major couplet - 4 lanes for each leg U:IUcJobs\ 012001012321Exce11t01232-32.xlsjT1-5 1-26 3 N v I i a EXHIBIT 1-1 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS LOCATIONS " LEGEND: • = INTERSECTION COUNT LOCATION PACIFIC 65 = INTERSECTION ID OCEAN I 1 i THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ' .1 I 0 I 1 1-28 1 I Ij I I II 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS Existing conditions data and analysis is important to provide a benchmark for comparison of future conditions forecasts. Existing data has been provided by City of Newport Beach staff and collected by Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2.1 2001 /2002 Land Use Data Land use data within the primary study area is a key input to the modeling process. The initial land use data was provided to Urban Crossroads, Inc. staff by the City of Newport Beach. Table 2-1 summarizes the overall 2002 land uses for the City of Newport Beach. Appendix "A" of this report includes a series of reports documenting the explicit land use data included in NBTM 3.1 for 2002 conditions. The first set of reports in Appendix "A" summarizes the City of Newport Beach land use (provided by City of Newport Beach staff) by NBTM traffic analysis zone (TAZ). The same data are presented again at increasing levels of aggregation, including aggregation to OCTAM TAZs and for the overall City. 2.2 2002 Socioeconomic Data Socioeconomic data (SED) that has been converted from land use is summarized in Table 2-2. A comparison of SED for the City (as provided by the model) to data received from City staff is shown in Table 2-3. The difference in dwelling unit totals (-5.3%) is attributable directly to a basic difference in the definition of dwelling units. The data provided by the City of Newport Beach includes all dwelling units, while the NBTM (and regional socioeconomic projections) only utilize occupied dwelling units. The population variable matches very closely, as there is no difference in the variable definition. Appendix "B" contains a discussion of employment in Newport Beach prepared by ADE. Table 2-4 compares the NBTM SED to OCP-2000 existing data by Traffic Analysis District. Table 2-4 includes all of Newport Beach (including recently annexed areas), as well as small parts of adjacent cities (particularly the City of 2-1 TABLE 2-1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH EXISTING LAND USE SUMMARY NBTM CODE'l DESCRIPTION UNITS 2 QUANTITY3 1 Low Density Residential DU 18,702 2 Medium Density Residential DU 10,974 3 Apartment DU 9,703 4 Elderly Residential DU 200 5 Mobile Home DU 600 TOTAL DWELLING UNITS DU 40,179 6 Motel ROOM 134 7 Hotel ROOM 3,231 9 Regional Commercial TSF 1,331.000 10 General Commercial TSF 3,823.398' 11 CommerciaVRecreation ACRE 5.100 13 Restaurant TSF 99.450 15 Fast Food Restaurant TSF 15.640 16 Auto Dealer/Sales TSF 201.300 17 Yacht Club TSF 51.830 18 Health Club TSF 16.770 19 Tennis Club CRT 60 20 Marina SLIP 1,055 !, 21 Theater SEAT 5,489 22 Newport Dunes ACRE 64.00 23, General Office TSF 11,657.109 24 MedicaVGovemment Office TSF 959.718 25 Research & Development TSF 81.730 26 Industrial TSF 1,291.079 27 Mint-Storage/Warehouse, TSF 196.420 28 Pre-schoor/Day Care TSF 48.050 29 Elementary/Private School STU 4,999 30 Junior/High School STU 5,215 31 Cultural/Learning Center TSF 35.000 32 Library TSF 78.800 33 'Post Office TSF 53.700 34 Hospital BED 1,031 35 Nursln /Conv. Home BEDS 661 36 Church TSF 377.780 E Youth Ctr./Service TSF 149.540 38 Park ACRE 128.360 39 Regional Park ACRE A01 Golf Course ACRE 305.330 ' Uses 8.12, and 14 are part or the old NSTAM model structure and are notcurrenlly utilized in the City land use datosets. 2 Units Abbreviations: DU = Dwelling Units TSF = Thousand Square Feet CRT = Court STU = Students Includes Newport Coast and recent annexation areas. U:lUcJobsl 0l200101232%ExceR[01232-32.xlslr2.1 2-2 I H 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 i 1 1 I TABLE 2-2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LAND USE BASED EXISTING SOCIOECONOMIC DATA -SUMMARY VARIABLE QUANTITY Occu ied Single Family Dwelling Units 17,467 Occupied Multi -Family Dwelling Units 20,136 TOTAL OCCUPIED DWELLING UNITS 37,603 Group Quarters Po ulation 661 Population 83,007 Em to ed Residents 49,632 Retail Employees 11,525 Service Em to ees 19,681 Other Employees 41,468 TOTAL EMPLOYEES 72,674 Elem/High School Students 10,214 ' Includes Newport Coast and recent annexation areas. UAUcJobs\ 01200\01232\Excel\[01232-32.xls]T2-2 1 2-3 TABLE 2-3 COMPARISON OF EXISTING CITY' AND EXISTING MODEL SOCIOECONOMIC DATA PROVIDED BY CITY OF NEWPORT DERIVED IN PERCENT CATEGORY BEACHIADE MODEL2 DIFFERENCE DIFFERENCE TOTAL DWELLING UNITS 36,644 1 34,716 -1,928 5.3 TOTAL POPULATION 75,662 76,249 587 0.8 TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 65,337 69,090 3,753 5.7 'Excluding Newport Coast 'Assumes Occupancy Factors described In Table 1.1 U:1UcJobsl 012001012321Excell[D1232-32.xis)T 2.3 Kell m r m m N W TABLE 2-4 (1 of 21 SOCIOECONOMIC DATA COMPARISON OF INITIAL NEWPORT BEACH (2002) AND OCP-2004 (2000) DATA TRAFFIC ANALYSIS DISTRICT TYPE OCCUPIED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNITS OCCUPIED MULTI- FAMILY DWELLING UNITS TOTAL OCCUPIED DWELLING UNITS GROUP QUARTERS POP. POP. EMPLOYED RESIDENTS RETAIL EMP. SERVICE EMP. OTHER EMP. TOTAL EMP. ELEM/HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 1-BanninRwp0" aWw1-Banning OCP 2126 4294 6420 266 15489 9004 823 1482 6366 8671 1036 Ran ,Neort NS 1904 4850 6764 244 16120 95531 790 1305 6114 8210 1594 1-Banning Ranch/W. Newport Diff -222 556 334 -22 631 649 .33 -176 -252 461 558 2-Mariner's Mile/Newport Heights — OCP 2200 2122 4322 387 9739 50201 2774 4907 2284 9965 4207 2-Mariner's Mile/Newport Heights NB 2173 . 2062 4235 448 10188 6051 2390 3820 5585 11795 2620 2-Mariner's Mile/Newport Heights Diff 27 -60 -87 61 449 1031 -384 -1087 3301 1830 -1587 3-New ort Bay - OCP 893 1450 2343 - 0 4786 2789 1685 790 1604 4079 0 3-Newport Bay NB - 1128 1319 2447 0 5149 2244 1327 776 1254 3357 0 3-Newport Bay Diff- 235 -131 104 0 363 -545 -358 -14 -350 -722 0 4-Airport Area OCP 6 0 6 0 16 16 1883 11901 10033 23817 - 160 4-Airport Area NB - 0 0 0 0 0 0 1991 3813 14984 20788 - 0 AirportArea Diff -6 0 -6 0 -16 -16 108 78088 4951 -3029 -160 5-Bayview OCP 459 147 606 0 1370 757 129 - 765 1836 2730 21 5-Bayview NB 428 89 517 0 1279 817 542 1050 3803 5395 0 5-Bayview Diff .31 -58 -89 0 -91 60 413 285 1967 2665 -21 6-Dover/Westcliff OCP 1 2360 17861 4146 391 9458 50311 554 1243 1206 3003 2538 6-Dover/Westcliff NB 1 2436 20211 4457 261 9707 64051 348 9151 1333 25961 1963 6-Dover/Westcliff Diff 76 2351 311 _ -13 249 1374 -206 -328 127 -407 -575 7-Eastbluff OCP 532 2595 3127 6 6083 3208 128 452 650 1230 2477 7-Eastbluff NB 437 2593 3030 0 6377 4320 159 455 505 1119 2415 7-Eastbluff Diff -95 -2 -97 -6 294 1112 31 3 -145 -111 -6 8-Newport Center OCP 519 1094 1613 0 3198 1572 3825 6874 6921 - 17620 0 8-Newport Center NB 251 1545 1796 0 4014 2504 2750 4763 9742 17255 0 8-Naw art Center Diff -268 451 183 0 816 - 932 -1075 -2111 2821 -365 0 TABLE 2.4 (2 of 2) SOCIOECONOMIC DATA COMPARISON OF INITIAL NEWPORT BEACH (2002) AND OCP-2004 (2000) DATA TRAFFIC ANALYSIS DISTRICT TYPE OCCUPIED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNITS OCCUPIED MULTI- FAMILY DWELLING UNITS TOTAL OCCUPIED DWELLING UNITS GROUP QUARTERS- POP. POP. EMPLOYED RESIDENTS RETAIL EMP. SERVICE EMP. OTHER EMP. TOTAL EMP. ELEWHIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 9-Ba ide/Balboa Island OCP 2560 2517 5077 5 9520 5222 992 982 2032 40D6 0 9-Bayside(Balboa Island NB 2956 2409 _ 65 0 11309 5061 1154 868 1024 3046 12 9-BaysidelBalboa Island - Diff 396 -108 238 -5 1789 -161 162 - -114 -1008 -960 12 10-Balboa Peninsula OCP- 1028 1364 2392 2 4762 2947 693 490 448 16311 541 10-Balboa Peninsula NB 1322 1384 2706 0 5669 2521 439 638 265 1342 389 10-8alboa Peninsula Diff 294 20 314 2 907 -426 -254 148 -183 -289 -15 11-Bonita Can on OCP 573 1594 2167 0 "4374 _ 2612 449 284 578 1311 _ 0 11-Bonita Canyon NB 753 1953 2706 0 5555 3845 351 567 746 1664 34 11-Bon'Ita Canyon Diff = 180 3591 539 01 1181 1233 -98 2831 168 353 5-4 12-Harbor View Hills/Newport Ride OCP 2378 942 3320 0 8908 4032 402 229 748 1379 1449 12-Harbor View Hills/Newport Ridge NB 2213 1628 3841 - 0 8633 5655 314 672 536 1522 1674 12-Harbor Yew Hilts/Newport Ridge Diff -165 636 521 0 -275 1623 -88 443 -212 143 2251 13-Newport Coast WJCorc na Del Mar OCP 2158 2061 4219 286 9036 4847 342 434 756 1532 501 13-Newport Coast WJCorona Del Mar NB 2857 852 3709 2 8845 5611 513 1214 554 2281 762 13-Newport Coast WJCorona Del Mar Diff 699 71209 -510 -284 -191 764 171 780 -202 749 261 14-Newport Coast E. OCP 524 186 " 710 0 1633 880 0 96 131 227 304 14-Newport Coast E. NB 753 264 1017 - 0 2525 1598 15 115 182 312 1050 14-New ort Coast E. Diff 229 78 307 0 892 718 15 19 - 51 85 746 OCP TOTAL - _ 18316 221521 40468 991 1 88372 _ _ 479371 146791 30929 35593 81201 13234 NBTM TOTAL 19611 22969 42580 7201 953701 56111351 139831 209721 46627 80682 12513 DIFFERENCE NBTM-OCP 1295 3171 2112 -2711 69931 3248 -1596 - -99 911 72 %DIFFERENCE 7% 4% 5% -27% 8%1 17X -111/61 31% -6°/s -5°/ 'contains supplemental SED from outside the City or Newport Beach (e.g. OCTArd tune overlaps City boundary) U:NUwobsL012W W12321Excehtof 23232.Xis)T2-4 I Costa Mesa) that are part of the same OCTAM TAZ as a portion of the City of Newport Beach. The totals on Table 2-4 do not match the totals on Table 2-3 for these reasons. Appendix "C' presents the SED resulting from the conversion of land use to SED using the factors previously presented on Table 1-1. The SED from land use is again presented by NBTM TAZ, OCTAM TAZ, and overall City of Newport Beach. The same set of reports is included for supplemental SED (not derived from land use), and for'the overall SED (the sum of the SED from land use and the supplemental SED). Socioeconomic data for the remainder of the Tier 3 area has been disaggregated from OCP-2004 data for year 2000. No growth was assumed from Year 2000 to 2002 because of the recession in California. The data itself is contained in Appendix "C" of this report. The City should coordinate with regional demographers to minimize these differences in future data sets. 2.3 Trip Generation Table 2-5 summarizes the overall trip generation for 2002 conditions for the City of Newport Beach. Appendix "D" contains a report of trip generation by NBTM TAZ for the City of Newport Beach, broken down by NBTM TAZ and OCTAM TAZ. Most of these trips have been calculated from the final 2002 SED presented previously. The three land use codes listed below had been special generators in the previous NBTAM model: • Tennis Club Marina • Newport Dunes For each of these land use categories, supplemental trips have been added to increase the daily trip generation to match the previous rate (see Appendix "D"). The overall trip generation for the City of Newport Beach is an estimated 761,225 daily vehicle trips. 2-7 TABLE 2-5 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH EXISTING TRIP GENERATION TRIP PURPOSE PRODUCTIONS ATTRACTIONS PRODUCTIONS - ATTRACTIONS PRODUCTIONS / ATTRACTIONS Home Based Work 61,128 88,446 -27,318 0.69 Home Based School 11,756 8,990 2,766 1.31 Home Based Othe 165,256 115,052 50,204 1.44 Work Based Other 55,488 60,741 -5,253 0.91 Other -Other 98,005 96,363 1,642 1.02 TOTAL 391,6331 369,5921 22,0411 1.06 OVERALL TOTAL 761,225 Home -Work Includes Home -Work and Home -University trips, consistent with OCTAM mode choice output. 2 Home -Other Includes Home -Shop and Home -Other trips, consistent with OCTAM mode choice output. U:1UcJobsl 01200101232\ExceR[01232-32.xlsJT2-5 W. 2.4 Home -Work Trip Mode Choice Data The home -work trip mode choice data provided by SCAG to Urban Crossroads, Inc. initially included mode choice data (travel method used) for home -work (either end in Newport Beach) trips. This mode choice data has been summarized in the form of a spreadsheet listing the names of cities/geographic areas, along with quantities of trips. Appendix "E" includes the initial data summaries in the form of two separate tables. The first table in Appendix "E" lists the mode choice data for survey respondents living in Newport Beach, while the second table includes the home- work mode choice data for survey respondents whose workplace is in Newport Beach. The mode choice categories analyzed include: • Drive Alone 2 Person Carpool 3 or more Person Carpool • Public Transportation • Motorcycle • Non -Motorized • Other Means The data has been further grouped into logical geographic areas. Cities/geographic areas have been grouped by overall County outside Orange County. Within Orange County, cities have been identified as adjacent to Newport Beach, or generally located north of (North County) or south of (South County) the City of Newport Beach. Adjacent cities include Costa Mesa, Huntington Beach, Irvine, and Laguna Beach. The division between North County and South County cities used for this analysis is the SR-55 Freeway. W Tables 2-6 and 2-7 show the results of this analysis for Newport Beach origin trips (residents) and Newport Beach destination trips (persons that work in Newport Beach), respectively. Exhibits 2-A and 2-B depict these results graphically. The majority of trips are drive alone. The second -most used mode for trips with only one end in Newport Beach is 2-person carpool, while the second -most popular mode for Home -Work trips with both ends in the City is non -motorized. Generally, it appears that the accessibility of the City of Newport Beach via transit is most utilized by North Orange County residents who work in the City of Newport Beach. The second highest percentage of workers that utilize transit to travel to the City of Newport Beach is associated with the adjacent cities. Public transportation accounts for less than 2% of all home -work travel to and from the City of Newport Beach for all other geographic areas within the SCAG region. The percentage is actually higher for locations outside the SCAG region, most likely associated with the use of John Wayne airport to travel to and from the City of Newport Beach for more distant destinations. 2.4.1 Trip Distribution Survey Data Data provided by SCAG related to the origins and destinations of trips made to and from the City of Newport Beach. The trip distribution data was collected in the form of trip diaries in 1991. The trip distribution data was organized into six (6) trip purposes for trips ending or beginning in Newport Beach and summarized by geographic area at the other end of the trip. Table 2-8 summarizes the geographic data by adjacent cities, north Orange County, south Orange County, and each other county in Southern California represented in the dataset for trips originating in Newport Beach. Exhibit 2-C shows the same data graphically. Appendix "F" contains the background data supporting Table 2-8 and Exhibit 2-C. As might be expected, the highest totals are for trips with both ends within the City of Newport Beach, followed by trips with one end in an adjacent city. 2-10 LJ I TABLE 2-6 IMODE CHOICE PERCENTS FOR WORK TRIPS OF NEWPORT BEACH RESIDENTS I I I 1 I I I F I 2 DRIVE PERSON 3+PERSON PUBLIC MOTOR- NON - WORKPLACE TRIPS ALONE CARPOOL CARPOOL TRANSPORTATION CYCLE MOTORIZED OTHER New ort Beach 11,686 84% 5% 1% 1% 0% 9% 1% Adjacent Cities 11,420 900/6 6% 0% 1% 0% 2% 0% North Orange County 7,522 92% 6% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% South Oran a Count 2,103 93% 6% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Los Angeles County 3,460 920/- 6% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Riverside Count 282 92% 8% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% San Bemardino County 229 97% 3% 0% 0% 00/0 0% 0% Ventura Count Outside SCAG Re ion 10 245 0% 70% 100% 14% 0% 0% 2%1 0°/u 0% 13% TOTAL I 36,957 1 88% 6% 1% 1% I 0% 1 01- ' Adjacent Cities = Huntington Beach, C U:\Ucdobs1 01200\01232\Excel\[01232- TABLE 2-7 MODE CHOICE PERCENTS FOR HOME -WORK TRIPS OF NEWPORT BEACH WORKERS 3+ PUBLIC 1ALONEICARPOOLICARPOOLl DRIVE 2 PERSON PERSON TRANSPORTATIO MOTOR- NOW RESIDENCE TRIPS N CYCLE MOTORIZED OTHE Newport Beach 11;686 84% 5% 1% 1% 0% 9% 1% Adjacent Cities' 19;923 1 86% 8% 1% 3% 00/0 1% 0% North Orange County 13,729 77% 12% 4% 50/1 0% 0% 1% South Orange County 9,835 88% 8°/n 2% 1% 0% 0% 00 Los Angeles County 3,657 86% 7% 5% '0% 0% 0% 00 Riverside County 1,277 69% 20% 10% 0% 1% 0% 0% San Bamardino County 620 72% 22% 4% 1% 1% 0% 0% Ventura Court 40 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Outside SCAGRe ion 1,426 89% E 7°/u 1% 2% 0% 0% 170/0 TOTAL 1 62,203 82% 8% 2% 2%1 0% 2% E/ ' Adjacent Citias = HuntIngton Beach, Costa Mesa, Irvine, and Laguna Beach. , U.1Uciobsl 01200\012321Exceft[01232-32.xis]T2-7 11 2-12 11 m m r m m r so ow so"" m Ift m w am as " a. als m mm Moo 91 EXHIBIT 2-A MODE CHOICE FOR WORK TRIPS OF NEWPORT BEACH RESIDENTS NcVrport adjaosnf TVaiils f3iange'�buffi'�range C.a�.%ngele� i�ivetsl`1e Sari C%ntui'a �u#sit�$ seacri Cities Gxi>tpty POW* - iiuraiy Gaunt}+ Bedt&difto nwity smid, i"dw 0 NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE TRAFFIC STUDY, Newport Beach, Califomia - 01232: 04.dwg URBAN EXHIBIT 2-B MODE CHOICE FOR HOME -WORK TRIPS OF NEWPORT BEACH WORKERS LVVUV ® DRIVE ALONE t8000 132 PERSON CARPOOL 1113+PERSON CARPOOL 16000 ❑PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION EIMOTOR-CYCLE 14000 N NON-MOTQRIZED MOTHER 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2oao 0 Newport Adjacent North Orange South Orange Los Angeles Beach Cities County County County Residence Riverside Sam Ventura Outside County Bernardino County SCAG Region County NEWPORT BEACH GENERALPLAN UPDATETRAFFIC STUDY. Newport Beach, Califomia-01237-10A URM 4m *= I♦, as M so � � Ioi me, 'no � a* ma so so so an I I Fl I I '1 I L 1 TABLE 2-8 PURPOSES OF TRIPS ORIGINATING IN NEWPORT BEACH (REGIONAL SURVEY DATA) DESTINATION RHOME-HOME- SHOP HOME- WORK OTHER- OTHER OTHER- WORK WORK AT HOME TOTAL %OF TRIPS Newport Beach 56,407 10,7991 11,5291 19,328 15,677 1,0341 114,774 52.17% Adjacent Cities' North Orange County 18,380 4,663 5,9031 900 13.629 10,938 10,788 3,529 12.799 3,795 2231 1631 61,722 23,988 28.05% 10.90% South Orange County 2,350 0 4,690 737 1,165 0 8,942 4.06% Los Angeles County 1,337 0 1,773 159 3,593 0 6,862 3.12% San Bernardino County 847 0 1,233 416 0 0 2,496 1.13% Riverside County 705 0 208 0 104 0 1,017 0.46% Ventura Countv 1 208 0 0 0 0 0 208 0.09% TOTAL 8-4,8971 17,602 44,0001 34,9571 37,1331 1,4201 220,009 100% PERCENTAGE 38% 8% 20% 16% 17% 1% 1 'Adjacent Cities = Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa, Irvine, and Lac IU-.\UcJobs101200\01232\Excel\[01232-32.xisIT2-8 EXHIBIT 2-C PURPOSE FOR TRIPS ORIGINATING IN NEWPORT BEACH BY DESTINATION 60,000 50,000 40,000 - - -- - ■HOME -OTHER EMOME-SHOP 6 MHOME-WORK N !- �'0� _ — ` - 1101HER-OTHER 60THER-WORK OWORK AT HOME Z0,000 _ - 10,000 0 Neftart Adjacent Norlit Smith Los Angetes San Riverside ventwa Beach Chtes grange otanga County Bernardino County County t.',out* County County v4stlnstian N:: 7PORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE TRAFFIC STUDY, Newport Beach, Caliromia-01232: 06.dwg - URBAN oft nib r m am tip AM ,m OW Im we in M as ttitial `iii * �m am `r As shown in Table 2-8, 52% of the trips surveyed are contained within Newport Beach and 80% of the trips originating in Newport Beach are contained entirely in Newport Beach and the adjacent cities. Exhibit 2-D depicts the overall trip purposes summary for trips beginning in Newport Beach. Most trips are Home -Other (38%), with a high number of Home - Work (20%). The categories with fewest trips are Work at Home and Home -Shop. Exhibit 2-E shows the City or County at the other end of the trip for trips originating in Newport Beach. Areas closest to Newport Beach have the most interactions with the City. Table 2-9 summarizes the geographic data by County (outside Orange County) or portion of Orange County for trips destined for Newport Beach. Exhibit 2-F shows the same data graphically. Appendix "G" contains the supporting background data for Table 2-9 and Exhibit 2-F. The highest totals are for trips with both ends in the City of Newport Beach (52%), followed by trips from an adjacent city (28%). Exhibit 2-G depicts the overall purposes for trips ending in Newport Beach. Most trips are Home - Other (38%), followed by Home -Work (22%). The fewest trips are Work at Home and Home -Shop. Exhibit 2-H shows the origin City or County for trips destined for Newport Beach. Areas closest to Newport Beach have the most interactions with the City. 2.5 General Model Trip Distribution Results Model trips with at least one end in the City of Newport Beach have been further analyzed and compared to the regional origin -destination survey data related to the City of Newport Beach. Table 2-10 summarizes this analysis. Model trips which both start and end in the City comprise approximately forty-two (42) percent of the total City of Newport Beach trips (about 290,000 trip ends). The regional survey data indicated 52% capture of trips within the City of Newport Beach. All trips which are 2-17 EXHIBIT 2-D PURPOSE OF TRIPS ORIGINATING IN NEWPORT BEACH WONKATHOME 1% 1I I it I 1 o it I SOUTH ORANGE 4°% Li EXHIBIT 2-E DESTINATIONS OF TRIPS ORIGINATING IN NEWPORT BEACH OTHER 2% 0 NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE TRAFFIC STUDY, Newport Beach, Calfornia-01232:16 URBAN 2-19 TABLE 2-9 PURPOSES OF TRIPS DESTINED FOR NEWPORT BEACH (REGIONAL SURVEY DATA) ORIGIN HOME- OTHER HOME- SHOP HOME- I WORK OTHER- I OTHER OTHER- I WORK I AT HOME TOTAL % OF TRIPS Newport Beach 56,407 10,799 11,529 19,328 15,677fl163 114,774 52.09% Adjacent Cities 20;269 6,129 15,080 7,569 13,455 62,501 28.37% North Orange Count 3.038 610 10,168 2,612 5,515 22,106 10.03% South Oran a Coun 2,035 0 6,050 126 1,206 9,41.7 4,27% Los An eles Coun 934 513 4,733 285 908 7,373 3.35% San Bernardino Coun 847 0 1,010 0 992 2,849 1,29% Riverside Coun 542 0 208 163 0 913 0.41 % Ventura County407 0i 01 0 0 -or-- 70-71 0.180/a OTAL 1 84,4791 18,051 48,776 30,082 37,753 , 1,197 220,341 100.00% PERCENTAGE 1 38% 8%1 22% 14% 17% 1% 'Adjacent Cities = Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa, Irvine, and Laguna Beach. U:1UWobs1 012001012321Excell[01232.32.xIsjT2.9 I 1 F I I I ll I I 2-20 I FE 60,1000 40,000 20,000 10,000 m EXHIBIT 2-F PURPOSE OF TRIPS DESTINED FOR NEWPORT BEACH BY ORIGIN Newport Adjacent North Soulh Lo§ ATigeleS_ San RtverWde Ventura 06ch Cifias Orange Omrige Vblufity Berfi2tdiho County County County County r;oM(y Origin HOME -SHOP HCiME-WORK 0 NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE TRAFFIC STUDY, Newport Beach, Cardornia-01232: 09.dwg URBAN EXHIBIT 2-G PURPOSES OF TRIPS DESTINED FOR NEWPORT BEACH WORK AT HOME 1% !I 11 0 NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE TRAFFIC STUDY, Newport Beach, California • 01232:18 URBAN 2-22 SOUTH ORANGE 4% LOS P 3% OTHER 2% EXHIBIT 2-H ORIGINS OF TRIPS DESTINED FOR NEWPORT BEACH 1 0 NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE TRAFFIC STUDY, Newport Beach, California-01232:17 URBAN 1 2-23 TABLE 2-10 TRIP DISTRIBUTION COMPARISON NBTM PERCENTAGE SURVEY DATA PERCENTAGE WITHIN NEWPORT BEACH 41.65% 52.17% WITHIN ADJACENT CITIES 1 24.82% 28.05% SUBTOTAL NEWPORT BEACH AND ADJACENT CITIES 66.47% 80,22 REMAINDER OF REGION 33.53% 19.78%. Adjacent cities are Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa, Irvine, and Laguna Beach. U:1UcJobs\ 01200\01232\Excell[01232.32.xls]T 2-10 2-24 I J 2.7 II contained in the City of Newport Beach and the adjacent four cities (Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa, Irvine, and Laguna Beach) make up approximately sixty-six (66) percent of the total trips with at least one end in Newport Beach. The regional survey data again indicates a higher percentage (80%) within this local area. These lower values suggest that the regional socioeconomic data (SED) based models generate fewer trips, then distribute the trips over longer distances. Roadway Network Field -review of existing roadways was performed. Exhibit 2-1 shows existing through lanes on Newport Beach roadways matches these configurations. Shoulder Season Daily Traffic Volume Data The existing model network Daily traffic volume data for locations counted as part of this study effort were collected in Spring/Fall of 2001/2002, and are included as Appendix "H" of this report. Freeway data comes from the Caltrans Publication, Traffic Volumes on State Highways. Exhibit 2-J presents the daily traffic volumes, which have been used to validate the NBTM. Daily traffic count data has been collected and/or compiled for 64 locations in the City of Newport Beach. Additional daily volume data reported by the California Department of Transportation has been incorporated into the NBTM update work effort. The SR-55 Freeway north of the SR-73 Freeway carries the highest daily traffic volume (approximately 155,000 vehicles per day) in the NBTM primary modeling area. The arterial roadways carrying the highest traffic volume in the NBTM primary modeling area are Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard. A daily traffic count of approximately 63,000 vehicles per day was estimated on Coast Highway between Dover Drive and Bayside Drive II 2-25 EXHIBIT 2-1 NEWPORT BEACH EXISTING (2002) THROUGH LANES 60 19ATAillfm LEGEND: 4 -NUMBER OF THROUGH LANES D =DIVIDED U - UNDIVIDED $ fiD R fiD eALeDA 84 v 4 o OCEAN NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE TRAFFIC STUDY, BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE TRAFFIC STUDY, Newport Beach, CalBeach, 'rfomia - 01232:27 URBAN Mo NO r so m AM am tm Sm m as a w air Ve as No as m ai so so m m in so in m am ! i an � m an " ! " � Vl111Gi EXHIBIT 2-J AUCDAnc nail V TRAFFIC (ADT) .EGEND: 10 = VEHICLES PER DAY (000'S) 0 URBAN W-1 and on MacArthur Boulevard between Bison Avenue and Ford Road. Other roadways carrying traffic volumes in excess of 50,000 vehicles per day (VPD) include: • Newport Boulevard (maximum volume of 53,000 VPD south of Coast Highway). • Coast Highway (53,000 VPD east of Newport Boulevard and 51,000 between Bayside Drive and Jamboree Road). All of the counted daily traffic volume data was input into a roadway segment traffic volume analysis database in 15 minute intervals. A sample size of 55 24-hour traffic counts was evaluated in this study effort. The study areawide volumes were analyzed to determine the peak characteristics for the study area (see Appendix "I"). The results of this analysis are summarized on Table 2-11. The peak hour was determined within typical peak periods (6-9AM and 3-7 PM). For the entire primary study area, the AM peak hour begins at 7:30 AM, and the PM peak hour begins at 4.45 PM. Individual locations have various peak hour start times, as seen in Appendix "I". Within Newport Beach, the total volume percent in the peak hours of traffic is approximately 19%. This is higher than the typical value of 1.6 percent that Urban Crossroads, Inc. staff has observed in various other studies in Orange County and is probably related to the relatively high proportion of employment oriented land uses in the City of Newport Beach. Peak Season Daily Traffic Volume Data Peak season daily traffic volumes have been collected for select locations (primarily in coastal areas) of the City of Newport Beach. Daily traffic volume counts were collected over a one week period in August of 2003 for each selected roadway segment, and are included in Appendix "J". For each roadway segment selected for summertime counts, the highest typical weekday (Tuesday through Thursday) 2-28 TABLE 2-11 24-HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME PEAK PERIOD AND HOUR RELATIONSHIPS HOUR PERCENT OF PERIOD PERIOD PERCENT OF DAY HOUR PERCENT OF DAY AM PM AM PM AM j PM 44.73 29.14 19.43 35.54 8.67 10.36 AM PEAK HOUR = 7:30 - 8:30 AM PM PEAK HOUR = 4:45 - 5:45 PM 1 1 U:\UcJobs\ 01200101232\Excel\[01232-32.x1s]T 2-11 2-29 volume has been compared to the shoulder season count volume at the same location. Table 2-12 contains the results of this analysis. All segments increase for summer conditions by at least 5% and as much as 74%. The only location with a volume increase of more than thirty (30) percent is on Balboa Boulevard east of 20th Street on the Peninsula. Review of the data clearly indicates that Newport Boulevard is the most popular and heavily impacted access route to the beach for summertime traffic. Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard appear to be the least affected routes, with increases in traffic of between 5 and 10 percent. Newport Coast Drive experiences a higher percentage increase in summertime traffic, but the magnitude of the increase (approximately 3,400 vehicles per day) is very similar to the increase on MacArthur Boulevard north of Coast Highway. The traffic increases along Coast Highway itself are also less than the increases on routes leading to the beach, suggesting that people are oriented towards traveling to the beach/coast, rather than along it. For one special case (Newport Boulevard in front of City Hall), daily traffic volume data was collected, every day for three weeks. Appendix "K" contains the count data for Newport Boulevard between 32nd Street and Finley Avenue. Although the count collection instrument was on the street for three weeks, a few days had to be removed from the sample for various reasons (e.g. count tube was displaced). A graphic depiction of the variation- in daily summer volume is included in Appendix 1". As seen in Appendix 1", daily volumes range from approximately 35,000 to 50,000 with definite peaking trends on summer weekend days. Table 2-13 provides analysis of daily summer traffic volume patterns over the three weeks collected on Newport Boulevard in front of City Hall. The average summer weekday volume is approximately 40,500 vehicles per day (vpd). The Monday volume is very near this same volume, but traffic is more evenly spread throughout the day. Saturday has the highest average summer volume with 48,144 vpd. The average Friday summer volume is approximately 2,500 vpd greater than the average summer Sunday volume. 2-30 !1 I I I I L.i I ' I I I I I I TABLE 2-12 SUMMER TIME ADT COMPARISON COUNTS ID I ROAD NAME ROAD SEGMENT DELTA 0 DIFFERENCE SHOULDER SEASON SUMMER TIME 3 Su erior Av. Into Coast Hw. 23,535 30,533 6,998 29.73% 5 New ort Bi. s/o Coast Hw. 52,844 55,582 2.738 5.18% 39 Jamboree Rd. n/o Coast Hw. 31,264 33,028 1,764 5.64% 52 MacArthur BI. n/o Coast Hw. 30.904 34,266 3,362 10.88% 65 Newport Coast Dr. n/o Coast Hw. 12.223 15,638 3,415 27.94% 68 Balboa BI. s/o Coast Hw. 19,227 21,906 2,679 13.93% 157 Coast Hw. e/o Dover Dr. 62,526 70.303 7,777 12.44% 195 Coast Hw. e/o Newport Coast Dr 35,375 41,917 6,542 18A9% 223 Coast Hw. e/o Santa Ana River 46,000 48,513 2,513 5.46% 261 Balboa BI. e/o 20th St. 17,451 30,427 12,976 74.36% TOTAL 331,349 382,113 50,764 15.32% U:\Uciobs\_012OOkOI2321ExeelqOI232-32 x1 TABLE 2-13 DAILY VOLUME VARIATION OVER PEAK THREE SUMMER WEEKS DAY WEEK WEEK2 I WEEK3 I WEEK4 AVERAGE Sunday 45,0991 42,982 41,796 43,292 Monday 40,779 40,779 Tuesday 43,7081 39,542 36,999 40,083 Wednesday 42,412 40,487 36,994 39,964 Thursday 43,248 40,301 41,775 Friday 47,683 45,437 44,077 45,732 Saturday 49.611 47,768 47,052 48,144 Average of Summer Monday and Friday 44,494 Average Summer Weekday (Tu-Th) 40,461 Average Summer Weekend Day 45,718 Shoulder Season I 36,000 U.kUcJobs\ 012001012321ExceI1t01232-32.xls]T-2-13 2-32 !J 1 2.9 Daily Roadway Segment Analysis The ratio of daily roadway segment volumes to daily planning level capacities (presented in Table 1-10) provides an initial measure of roadway segment operations. The daily capacity of a roadway correlates to a number of widely varying factors, including traffic peaking characteristics, traffic turning volumes, and the volume of traffic on crossing streets. The actual daily capacity of a roadway can thus vary widely. The daily capacities are therefore most appropriately used for long range General Plan analysis, or as a screening tool to determine the need for more detailed peak hour analysis. Volume/Capacity (V/C) Ratios for Existing conditions are shown on Exhibit 2-K. Roadway segments with V/C ratios greater than 0.90 are: • Newport Boulevard north of Via Lido • Irvine Avenue north of University Drive • Jamboree Road north of Bayview Way • Jamboree Road north of University Drive • MacArthur Boulevard north of Ford Road MacArthur Boulevard north of San Joaquin Hills Road • MacArthur Boulevard north of Coast Highway • Irvine Avenue south of University Drive • Bristol Street North west of Campus Drive • Bristol Street South west of Campus Drive • Bristol Street South east of Birch Street • Bristol Street South west of Jamboree Road • Coast Highway west of Riverside Drive • Coast Highway east of Dover Drive • Coast Highway east of MacArthur Boulevard • Coast Highway east of Goldenrod Avenue • Coast Highway east of Marguerite Avenue 2-33 EXHIBIT 2-K EXISTING,VOLUME/CAPACITY (V/C) RATIOS .29 LEGEND: 71 .84 ..2 .82 = VOLUME/CAPACITY RATIO 7753 .s0 PACIFIC .90 s .57 OCEAN NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE TRAFFIC STUDY, Newport Beach, Califomia - 0123235 rev.12/15/05 URBAN sm a r si s sm s a s s s s� sm m ma� s s I C I L I 1 �J 1 I I I I More detailed peak hour analysis has been conducted at key intersections in the vicinity of all these roadway segments to quantify actual peak hour operations and levels of service. 2.10 Traffic Source Analysis Traffic source analysis provides information on the destination of actual roadway users. This analysis has been used in this study primarily to identify through traffic that is utilizing the City of Newport Beach arterial roadway system. Traffic source evaluation was performed in the City of Newport Beach using car following techniques to determine their destinations in late spring of 2002. Three key entries to the City were evaluated in this process: Northbound Coast Highway, south of Newport Coast Drive • Southbound Coast Highway, south of the Santa Ana River • Southbound MacArthur Boulevard, north of Bonita Canyon Drive At each of the three locations, 100 cars were followed until they left the arterial system or the City of Newport Beach. The predictive value or accuracy of a sampling process is best evaluated in terms of the sample's confidence interval. The confidence interval for a sample size of 100 is 10%. Table 2-14 shows the sample percentage of daily (one-way) volume for each source analysis location. For each vehicle followed, the data includes start time (when the vehicle was on the analysis location), end time (when the vehicle left the City or the arterial system), destination (interim traffic analysis zone or cordon location), vehicle type (brief description of the vehicle), initials, and date. Analysts were directed to select vehicles from each lane, and a variety of vehicle types. The resulting data from this exercise appears in Appendix "M". As requested by City of Newport Beach staff, data was primarily collected during the peak periods (from 7:00 to 9:00 AM and from 4:30 to 6:30 PM). Appendix "N" I 2-35 TABLE 2-14 TRAFFIC SOURCE ANALYSIS CONFIDENCE INTERVALS LOCATION ADT ADT SIZE PERCENTAGE NB Coast Hw, south of Newport Coast Dr. 35,0001 17,5001 100 0.570 SB Coast Hw. south of the Santa Ana River 46,000 23,000 100 0.43% SB MacArthur BI. North of Bonita Canyon Dr. 39,000 19,500 100 0.51 U:1Uejobs\_012001012321ExceNO1232-32.xlsjT2.14 r 11 I� I' I I I -1 11 1 2-36 1 I[] Icontains graphs showing time distribution of sample data. This does not 1 correspond to traffic flow patterns in Newport Beach, only to the time of collection. The graphs are provided to demonstrate that the data does reflect at least 30% of samples taken within each of the AM and PM peak periods for each of the three (3) starting point locations. The City of Newport Beach has been divided into fourteen (14) traffic analysis districts, as shown previously on Exhibit 1-F. For the purpose of this analysis, districts 3 and 10 have been combined. Exhibit 2-L shows through trip destinations (cordon locations). Each cordon location is a roadway segment where vehicles can exit the City. Once a vehicle has left the City of Newport Beach, it is considered an external trip and is not further studied. Table 2-15 contains a summary of the results for the northbound Coast Highway south of Newport Coast Drive. Internal traffic (with destinations in the City of Newport Beach) accounts for 64% of the vehicles studied. This percentage is slightly lower in the AM peak (60%) and higher in both the PM peak and off peak time frames. The top three traffic districts attracting vehicles from this location are 13, 8, and 9. District 13 roughly corresponds to Newport Coast West / Corona Del Mar. District 8 is approximately Newport Center. District 9 is Bayside/Balboa Island. Through traffic from northbound Coast Highway south of Newport Coast Drive travels primarily to cordons A, W, and U. Each of these cordons was the destination of more than 5 of the 100 vehicles followed. Cordon A is Coast Highway at the Santa Ana River and received seven percent (7%) of the vehicles studied. Cordon W is Newport Coast Drive northeast of the SR-73 freeway and was the destination of seven percent (7%) of vehicles involved. Cordon U (the destination of six percent (6%) of the vehicles followed) is Bison Avenue northeast of the SR-73 freeway (towards University of California, Irvine). Exhibit 2-37 EXHIBIT 2-L NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC SURVEY CORDON LOCATIONS N co s■ir r rr >.r �■r r r r r r ,� r ar r r s r r r• C] LJ i [I i I I I I TABLE 2-15 TRAFFIC SURVEY RESULTS FOR NORTHBOUND COAST HIGHWAY SOUTH OF NEWPORT COAST DRIVE DESTINATION AM PEAK I PM PEAK OFF-PEAK TOTAL 1 1 2 0 3 2 3 1 1 5 3 0 0 1 1 4 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 6 2 2 0 4 7 0 2 0 2 6 4 5 2 11 9 1 7 1 9 10 0 0 0 0 11 0 2 0 2 12 3 0 0 3 13 6 11 5 22 14 1 1 0 2 INTERNAL SUBTOTAL 211 33 10 64 A 1 4 2 7 B 0 0 0 0' C 0 1 0 1' D 0 1 0 1 E 0 0 0 0 F 0 0 0 0 G 0 0 0 0 H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 K 0 0 0 0 L 0 0 0 0 M 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 O 1 3 1 5 p 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 S 0 2 0 2 T 3 1 1 5 U 3 2 1 6 V 0 0 0 0 W 4 3 0 7 X 1 0 0 1 Y 0 0 0 0 Z 1 0 0 1 EXTERNAL SUBTOTAL 141 171 51 36 TOTAL 351 soi 151 100 INTERNAL PERCENT 60% 66% 67% 64% EXTERNAL PERCENT 40% 34% 33% 36% U:\UcJobs\ 01200\01232\Excel\[01232-32.xlsIT2-15 2-39 I EXHIBIT 2-M TRAFFIC SURVEY RESULTS FOR NB COAST HIGHWAY SOUTH OF NEWPORT COAST DRIVE A �YI�INl11YYlY1�C1� � � � M w r a M M wo+ r M an r s ,M �� Survey results for southbound Coast Highway south of the Santa Ana River are summarized in Table 2-16. Internal (City of Newport Beach) traffic comprises 66% of the 100 trips analyzed. In the off-peak time frame, this percentage is much lower, but the off-peak sample size is small (8 vehicles). Primary destinations include traffic analysis districts 2, 8, 3/10, and 9. District 2 is Mariners Mile/Newport Heights. Newport Center is district 8. District 3/10 is Newport Bay and the Balboa Peninsula, and district 9 is Bayside/Balboa Island. Through traffic from the starting point on Coast Highway south of the Santa Ana River primarily exits the City of Newport Beach either at cordon C (Superior Boulevard north of 15th Street), or at cordon Y (Coast Highway south of Newport Coast Drive). Cordon C captured eleven percent (11%) of traffic studied, while Cordon Y was the destination of seven percent (7%) of vehicles followed. All other cordons had fewer than 5 of the 100 vehicles studied leaving. A graphic depiction of travel patterns for vehicles traveling into the city on Coast Highway south of the Santa Ana River is shown on Exhibit 2-N. Table 2-17 contains survey results for southbound MacArthur Boulevard north of Bonita Canyon Drive. Almost 90% of traffic on this segment remains in the City of Newport Beach. Major destinations include districts 8, 13, 9, and 12. District 8 (Newport Center) was the destination of 37 vehicles. 32 total vehicles ended their trips in districts 13 and 9 (Newport Coast West/Corona Del Mar and Bayside/Balboa Island, respectively). District 12 is Harbor View Hills/Newport Ridge (the destination of 11 vehicles). During the peak hours, 11 of the 100 vehicles did travel through the City. Their primary cordon destination was Y (Coast Highway south of Newport Coast Drive) to which seven percent (7%) of vehicles traveled. Exhibit 2-0 shows generalized trip distribution patterns for vehicles studied on MacArthur Boulevard north of Bonita Canyon Drive. 2-41 TABLE 2.16 TRAFFIC SURVEY RESULTS FOR SOUTHBOUND COAST HIGHWAY SOUTH OF THE SANTA ANA RIVER DESTINATION AM PEAK I PM PEAK I OFF-PEAK TOTAL 1 3 5 8 2 13 1 1 15 3 6 3 9 4 1 1 5 0 6 1 1 7 1 1 8 9 2 11 9 3 4 2 9 10 0 11 2 2 12 2 2 13 3 4 7 14 0 INTERNAL SUBTOTAL 421 21 L 31 66 A 1 1 g 1 1 2 C 6 5 11 D 0 E 0 F 0' G 1 1! H 1 1 I 0 1 0 K 0 L 0 M 0 N 0 O 1 1 2 P 0 O 0 R 0 S 2 2 T 1 1 2 U 0 V 0 W 0 X 1 1 Y 4 3 7 Z 1 31 1 1 4 EXTERNAL SUB TOTAL 17 12 5 34 TOTAL 59 33 8 100 INTERNAL PERCENT 71% 64% 38% 66% EXTERNAL PERCENT 29% 36% 63% 34% U;VUcJobsl 01200\012321Excetl(01232-32.x1s]T2.16 2-42 m mm m m m m i m m m m m m m i i m m N W EXHIBIT 2-N TRAFFIC SURVEY RESULTS FOR SB COAST HIGHWAY SOUTH OF SANTA ANA RIVER n -vul nMi IVUIYIUcn NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE TRAFFIC STUDY, Newport Beach, California-01232:22 URBAN TABLE 2-17 TRAFFIC SURVEY RESULTS FOR SOUTHBOUND MACARTHUR BOULEVARD NORTH OF BONITA CANYON DRIVE I DESTINATION AM PEAK PM PEAK I OFF-PEAK TOTAL 1 0 2 1 2 1 4 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 17 12 8 37 9 8 5 2 15 10 0 11 0 12 1 7 3 11 13 8 6 3 17 14 4 1 5 INTERNAL SUBTOTAL 391 321 181 89 A 1' 1 B 0 C 1 1 D 0 E 0 F 0 G 0 H 0 [ 0 J 0 K 0 L 0 M 0 N 0 O 0 p 0 Q 0 R 0 S 0 T 0 U 1 1 V 0 w 0 X 1 1 Y 2 5 7 Z 0 EXTERNALSUBTOTAL 4 7 0 11 TOTAL 43 39 18 100 INTERNALPERCENT 91% 82%1 100% 89% EXTERNALPERCENT 9% 18% 0% 11% U:1UcJobsl 01200\01232\Excell[01232.32.xIsIT2.17 2-44 N Gl EXHIBIT 2-0 TRAFFIC SURVEY RESULTS FOR SB MACARTHUR BOULEVARD NORTH OF BONITA CANYON DRIVE n—✓u�nw.� n✓nm�n NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE TRAFFIC STUDY, Newport Beach, California • 01232:21 URBAN 2.10.1 Model Traffic Source Analysis Each facility of interest in the traffic source analysis has been evaluated to determine corresponding model trip distribution representation. Travel patterns in the existing validation model generally reflect the results of the traffic survey. The model does reflect more through traffic. This is probably related to the longer trip lengths in socioeconomic data based models. Exhibit 2-P shows the percent of traffic on each roadway segment from Coast Highway (northbound) south of Newport Coast Drive. Much of the model traffic exits the City of Newport Beach on SR-73 northbound (near John Wayne Airport). Coast Highway at the Santa Ana River into Huntington Beach (6%) and Bonita Canyon Drive north of Newport Coast Drive into Irvine (9%) were the destinations of most of the rest of the through traffic, well correlated to observed actual traffic. The larger proportion of through traffic is most likely related to the longer trip lengths in socioeconomic data based models. Much of the traffic that remained in the City of Newport Beach was destined for Newport Center, Newport Coast West/Corona Del Mar, and Newport Bay/Balboa Peninsula. Exhibit 2-Q shows the trip distribution percents of traffic from Coast Highway southbound at the Santa Ana River. Much of the traffic was headed for Newport Bay/Balboa Peninsula. Other primary destinations included West Newport, Mariners Mile/Newport Heights, and, to a lesser extent, Newport Center.' Through traffic exits the City of Newport Beach via Superior Boulevard into Costa Mesa (18%), and Placentia Avenue into Costa Mesa (7%), and on Coast Highway south of Newport Coast Drive towards Laguna Beach (4%). Traffic percentages from MacArthur Boulevard southbound north of Bonita Canyon Drive are shown on Exhibit 2-R. The only significant through r it r� r� r �r r r �r r r r r ■r r �r r� r r EXHIBIT 2-P GENERAL DISTRIBUTION OF MODEL TRAFFIC FROM COAST HIGHWAY I 15 IF a r SOUTH OF NEWPORT COAST DRIVE X �j 37 37 - r� LEGEND: 10 = VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'5) B vxo-m aEnx NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UFDATETRAFFIC STUDY. Newoort Beach. California-01232:47 rev. 12/1/03 EXHIBIT 2-Q GENERAL DISTRIBUTION OF MODEL TRAFFIC FROM COAST HIGHWAY I \ 11 a I AT THE SANTA ANA RIVER 1 2 inn i 3 2 1OC 2 7 4 :o;nZ-01232.48 NEWPORT13EACH6NERALPLAN DATE TRAFFIC STUDY.Newoort8each. Cal*rev.1211103 1 LEGEND: 10 = VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'5) m m m m i m m m m m m m m r m m m m m EXHIBIT 2-R GENERAL DISTRIBUTION OF MODEL TRAFFIC FROM MACARTHUR BOULEVARD NORTH OF BONITA CANYON DRIVE DR °a o � a BIL510.5f k AV Cgiq WE OR T�gPORTATlg1 m 2 SPx JDA�� 4 Fk q O EL WW AV. 10 100 4 20 N LAP°P' g V pP 1 PO 4A� L^ S p C (GS (�O'°' ° 4 9� 78 x 6 F Mto DR O - 2 10 16 14 a s 8 5 5 ¢, 49 sw 1 7 ` 10 6 32 <L RD B q `�y ]fx 5 _ s ¢ YIFSTCIF 2 8 1 � AY 3 1 29 27 3 < 421 19 26 1 24. i ISM ST �m LEGEND: 10 = VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'S) `gUgE PXM °LFAx 0 NEWPOR'r BEACH GENERAL PLAN L FRD�ATETRAFFICSTUDY, Newport Beach, Cal'omia-01232:49 rev.12/1/03 URBAN traffic leaves the City of Newport Beach traveling southbound on Coast Highway south of Newport Coast Drive (19%). Primary destinations within the City of Newport Beach include Harbor View Hills/Newport Ridge, Newport Center, and Newport Coast West/Corona Del Mar. 2.11 Peak Hour Intersection Operations Peak ,period and hour traffic count data has been obtained from a variety of sources. Obtaining 2001/2002 data has been an emphasis of the validation effort. Peak period and hour turning movement traffic volume data have been compiled or counted at a total of 62 intersections throughout the City of Newport Beach, as shown on Exhibit 2-S. These locations were selected for analysis by City staff because of their locations along key travel corridors within the community. Appendix "O" contains the AM and PM 2 hour peak period traffic count data and the calculated one hour peak volumes. The data collected/compiled was input into a turning movement analysis database. For each location, leg inbound and outbound volumes were calculated. These were compared to those for surrounding intersections for conservation of flow. Some adjustments were necessary to provide reasonable flow conservation at adjacent intersections without significant intervening access such as driveways or local residential streets. An example of this type of situation is a freeway interchange. All necessary flow conservation adjustments are -shown explicitly in Appendix "O". Recent peak hour intersection count data (from 2003, 2004, and 2005) has been provided by City staff. The recent count data Is contained in Appendix "P". Total volume at each study area intersection where new count data was available has been compared to the total volume counted for the baseline analysis in 2002. The analysis is shown in Appendix "Q". As shown in Appendix "Q", there is a general decrease in traffic volume at study area intersections for each recent count year. From 2002 to 2003, intersection volumes decrease by approximately 6%. From 2002 to 2004, intersection volumes decrease by approximately 7%. From 2002 to 2005, intersection volumes decrease by approximately 2%. Based on this analysis, volumes forecast using 2002 count data are conservative. 2-50 m m m m i m m i== m m= m m m� m m EXHIBIT 2-S INTERSECTION COUNT LOCATIONS DR. /,P TURtLE PO`�0�. LEGEND: • - INTERSECTION COUNT LOCATION 65 m INTERSECTION ID 0 URBAN An additional adjustment was to include a minimum of 1 vehicle for every allowed turning movement to ensure proper operation of the intersection capacity utilization (ICU) calculator and the future turn forecast algorithm. Geometric data has been collected for the 62 existing intersections selected for analysis. The geometric data was used to calculate existing (2002) intersection capacity utilization values (ICUs) at all 62 existing analysis intersections. Appendix "R" contains the detailed ICU calculation worksheets for existing count conditions. The worksheets in Appendix "R" summarize the intersection geometric data and the AM and PM peak intersection turning movement volumes. Table 2-18 summarizes the ICU and Level of Service (LOS) for existing counted conditions. Exhibit 2-T shows intersections with deficient operations. The following 6 intersections currently experience deficient (LOS "E" or worse) peak hour operating conditions based on 2002 traffic counts: • Riverside Drive (NS)/Coast Highway (EW) - PM • Campus Drive (NS)/Bristol Street (N) (EW) - PM • Irvine Avenue (NS)/Mesa Drive (EW) - PM • MacArthur Boulevard (NS)/Jamboree Road (EW) - PM • MacArthur Boulevard (NS)/San Joaquin Hills Road (EW) - PM • Goldenrod Avenue (NS)/Coast Highway (EW) — AM 2.12 Truck Facilities Commercial vehicles weighing in excess of 3 tons (6,000 pounds) are permitted on City of Newport Beach roads. Commercial' vehicles weighing in excess of 3 tons are prohibited from certain study area roadways, as signed. Exhibit 2-U identifies the roadways where commercial vehicles are prohibited. 2-52 J iJ I I I [1 TABLE 2-18 (1 of 2) NBTM EXISTING COUNT INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY INTERSECTION NS & EW AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR ICU LOS ICU LOS 2 Superior Av. & Placentia Av. 0.66 B 0.67 B 3 Superior Av. & Coast Hw. 0.84 D 0.90 D 4 Newport BI. & Hos ital Rd. 0.54 A 0.70 B 5 Newport BI. & Via Lido 0.41 A 0.37 A 6 Newport BI. & 32nd St. 0.73 C 0.78 C 71 Riverside Av. & Coast Hw. 0.84 DI 0.93 E 8 Tustin Av. & Coast Hw. 0.80 Cl0.67 B 9 MacArthur Bl. & Campus Dr. 0.61 131 0.85 D 10 MacArthur Bl. & Birch St. 0.49 Al0.66 B 11 Von Karmen Av. & Cam us Dr. 0.55 A 0.79 C 12 MacArthur BI. & Von Karman Av. 0.46 A 0.53 A 13 Jamboree Rd. & Campus Dr. 0.74 C 0.85 D 14 Jamboree Rd. & Birch St. 0.55 A 0.60 A 15 Campus Dr. & Bristol St. N 0.77 C 0.94 E 16 Birch St, & Bristol St. N 0.66 B 0.61 B 17 Campus Dr./Irvine Av. & Bristol St. S 0.72 C 0.58 A 18 Birch St. & Bristol St. S 0.46 A 0.44 A 19 Irvine Av. & Mesa Dr. 0.70 B 0.94 E 20 Irvine Av. & University Dr. 0.82 D 0.89 D 21 Irvine Av. & Santiago Dr. 0.66 B 0.72 C 22 Irvine Av. & Highland Dr. 0.57 A 0.60 A 23 Irvine Av. & Dover Dr. 0.72 C1 0.64 B 24 Irvine Av. & Westcliff Dr. 0.57 Al0.77 C 25 Dover Dr. & Westcliff Dr. 0.38 Al0A8 A 26 Dover Dr. & 16th St. 0.55 A 0.57 A 27 Dover Dr. & Coast Hw. 0.70 B 0.74 C 28 Ba side Dr. & Coast Hw. 0.69 B 0.70 B 29 MacArthur BI. & Jamboree Rd. 0.88 D 0.91 E 30 Jamboree Rd. & Bristol St. N 0.55 A 0.59 A 31 Bayvlew Pl. & Bristol St. S 0.48 Al0.56 A 32 Jamboree Rd. & Bristol St. S 0.75 Cl0.72 C 33 Jamboree Rd. & Bayview W . 0.41 Al0.57 A 34 Jamboree Rd. & Eastbluff Dr. /University Dr. 0.60 A 0.64 B 35 Jamboree Rd. & Bison Av. 0.45 A 0.51 A 36 Jamboree Rd. & Eastbluff Dr./Ford Rd. 0.69 B 0.65 B 37 Jamboree Rd. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. 0.66 A 0.57 A 1 2-53 TABLE 2.18 (2 of'2) ' NBTM EXISTING COUNT INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY , INTERSECTION NS & EW AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR ICU LOS 1ICU LOS 38 Jamboree Rd. & Santa Barbara Dr. 0.47 Al0.63 B 39 Jamboree Rd. & Coast Hw. 0.68 131 0.74 C 40 Santa Cruz Dr. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. 0.36 A 0.36 A 41 Santa Rosa Dr. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. 0.32 A 0.52 A 42 Newport Center Dr. & Coast Hw, 0.40 A 0.52 A 44 Avocado Av. & San Miguel Dr. 0.33 A 0.72 C 45 Avocado Av. & Coast Hw. 0.58 A 0.66 B 46 SR-73 NB Ramps & Bison Av. 0.31 Al0.37 A 47 SR-73 SB Ramps & Bison Av. 0.26 A 0.17 A 48 MacArthur BI. & Bison Av. 0,63 B 0.60 A 49 MacArthur BI. & Ford Rd./Bonita Canyon Dr. 0.71 C 0.90 D 50 MacArthur BI. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. 0.64 B 0.93 E 51 MacArthur BI. & San Miguel Dr. 0.56 A 0.65 B 52 MacArthur BI. & Coast Hw. 0.60 Al0.71 C 53 SR-73 NB Ramps & Bonita Canyon Dr. 0.55 A 0.43 A 54 SR-73 SB Ramps & Bonita Canyon Dr. 0,30 A 0.41 A 55 Spyglass Hill Rd. & San Miguel Dr. 0.28 A 0.31 A 56 San Miguel Dr. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. 0.44 A 0.54 A 57 Goldenrod Av. & Coast Hw. 0.99 E 0.69 B 58 Marguerite Av. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. 0.311 A 0.35 A 59 Marguerite Av. & Coast Hw. 0.83 D 0.82 D 60 Spyglass Hill Rd. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. 0.44 A 0.30 61 Poppy Av. & Coast Hw. 0.61 B 0.65 B 62 Newport Coast Dr. & SR-73 NB Rams 0.45 A 0.31 A 64 Newport Coast Dr. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. 1 0.37 Al0.29 65 Newport Coast Dr. & Coast Hw, 1 0.47 Al6.50 A Avera a All Locations 0.581 Al0.63 B U:\UcJobsl 01200\01232\Exceh[01232.32.)ds]T2-18 I i 2-54 EXHIBIT 2-T EXISTING INTERSECTION DEFICIENCIES (6) LEGEND. 2�'�s/ Y w..'400or O =AM DEFICIENCY a♦♦♦♦ �♦:w �: -0 = PM DEFICIENCY ♦♦ • =AM/PM DEFICIENCY �"O,� ♦�♦ (ALL LOS "E") ys r t♦ � . �� PACIFIC OCEAN +♦�♦� NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE TRAFFIC STUDY, Newport Beach, Callfomia-01232:41 rev. 12/05/03 URBAN FACILITIES WHERE N CJI 1 EXHIBIT 2-U VEHICLES IN EXCESS OF 3 TONS ARE PROHIBITED %O LEGEND: TRUCK5 PROHIBITED PACIFIC OCEAN I I 2.14 Trail System Trail systems, while providing alternates to automobile travel, also provide recreational opportunities for the community. The existing trail system in Newport Beach has been developed to provide access for commuter and recreational bicyclists, along with pedestrians. The Newport Beach bikeways system contains off-street bike paths, sidewalk bikeways, and on -street bike trails. Exhibit 2-V shows design cross -sections for bikeways, per the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, 5th Edition. The existing bikeway facilities in the study area are shown on Exhibit 2-W. Newport Beach has off-street bike paths primarily along parts of Coast Highway, Irvine Avenue, University Drive, Jamboree Road, Spyglass Hill Road and San Joaquin Hills Road. Additional off -road facilities are located in the San Diego Creek Channel along Newport Bay and through Buffalo Hills Park. Sidewalk bikeways include the access roads to Fashion Island and: • Coast Highway from the westerly city limit to Riverside Drive, and from the projection of Irvine Avenue to Avocado Avenue • Balboa Boulevard • Campus Drive/Irvine Avenue • Dover Drive • MacArthur Boulevard • Von Karman Avenue • Jamboree Road • Bristol Street • Eastbluff Drive • Bayside Drive • Bison Avenue • Ford Road • Spyglass Hill Road • Marguerite Avenue • San Joaquin Hills Road 2-57 EXHIBIT 2-V STANDARD BIKE PATH CROSS -SECTIONS CLASS 1 TWO-WAY BIKE PATH ON SEPARATE RIGHT-OF-WAY (Min.) -_I0.6m (Min.) GRADED . 2% 2Am (Min.) WIDTH PAVED 2% , OAMID.) GRADED I _ GRADED II�� CLASS 11 ., TYPICAL CROSS-SECTION OF BIKE WAY ALONG HIGHWAY HIGHWAY w\ `CURB ONE WAY BIKE WAY ISM (MIN.) SOURCE: CALTRANS HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL S "EDITION ol NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE TRAFFIC STUDY, Newport Beach, California-01232:54 URBAN 2-58 1 m m m N U7 EXHIBIT 2-W NEWPORT BEACH EXISTING BICYCLE FACILITIES SOURCE: BIKEWAYS: AM TRAILS IN NEW AND VICINITY (1 Imb.1 NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE TRAFFIC STUDY, Newport Beach, California - 01232:51 rev. 12/OS/03 URBAN On -street bike trails occur on San Miguel Drive, Newport Coast Drive, Irvine Avenue, Coast Highway and other minor streets throughout the City. Recreational use of alternative travel modes (especially bicycle and pedestrian) is prevalent in the City of Newport Beach. The Back Bay trail is particularly popular among recreational travelers. 2.15 Public Transit Public bus service is provided by OCTA. An established network of bus routes provides access to employment centers, shopping and recreational areas within the City. OCTA periodically updates a county -wide Bus Service Implementation Program (BSIP) which includes changes to service levels and route configurations. Exhibit 2-X shows existing public -transit service in Newport Beach. Local bus routes in the City of Newport Beach include; • Route 1 (along Coast Highway) • Route 47 (provides access from Balboa Boulevard north of Fairview Street) • Route 55 (from 17th Street in Costa Mesa providing access to Newport Center/Fashion Island) • Route 57 (along Bristol Street and Jamboree Road to Newport Center) • Route 71 (from the Balboa Fun Zone north along the SR-55 freeway) • Route 75 (from Newport Center up Jamboree Road) • Route 76 (along San Miguel Drive and MacArthur Boulevard) • Route 79 (from Newport Center along Eastbluff Drive to University Drive) The Newport Transportation Center and Park -and -Ride facility is located at MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road in Newport Center. Community bus route 178 passes through the Airport Area of Newport Beach 2-60 EXHIBIT 2-X LEGEND: I EXISTING PUBLIC TRANSIT ROUTES .; =47 = 55 ..... =57 =71 59459 =75 76 79 ;####=178 = 470 —i—i = 471 ----•— = CITY LIMIT NEWPORTBEACH California - 0 URBAN before entering Santa Ana Heights. Additional bus service passes very near to Newport Beach, particularly in the vicinity of John Wayne Airport and the University of California at Irvine. Public transportation service typically operates periodically throughout the day, with less frequent or even no service in the middle of the night. 2.16 Air Travel Air Travel for residents, workers, and visitors in Newport Beach is served by John Wayne Airport (located just northwest of Campus Drive along the City boundary). SNA is a local airport, acting as a secondary facility to Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). 2.17 Marine Transport The proximity of the City of Newport Beach to the Pacific Ocean creates a unique opportunity for transportation solutions. Transportation related to maritime uses increases the potential for traffic problems around Newport Bay. Specific examples of alternative travel modes in Coastal' Newport Beach include the Santa Catalina Ferry (providing access from the Balboa Pavilion to Santa Catalina Island), and the Balboa Ferry (connecting Balboa Island to the Balboa Peninsula). 2.18 Freeway/Tollway and Ramp Analysis After conferring with Caltrans staff, it was determined that Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies were to be used in analyzing freeway mainline and ramp operation levels of service. Caltrans, staff was contacted to obtain the necessary data to perform the analysis. Some input parameters were provided; however, other parameters have been determined through further investigation and use of default HCM parameters, where necessary. All scenarios were analyzed using HCS2000 software by McTrans. 2-62 The existing volumes on the SR-73 freeway through Newport Beach indicate that the AM peak hour peak direction is northbound, while the PM peak hour peak direction is southbound. This flow pattern is consistent with the southern parts of Newport Beach and Orange County consisting mainly of residential housing. Table 2-19 shows the operational levels of service of the segments within City boundaries. The analysis sheets are contained in Appendix "S." The following mainline segments of the SR-73 Freeway operate at a deficient level of service (LOS "E" or "F") in either the AM or PM peak hour: SR-73 Freeway Northbound: • 1-405 Freeway to Bear Street (AM) • Bear Street to SR-55 Freeway (AM) • SR-55 Freeway to Jamboree Rd. (AM/PM) SR-73 Freeway Southbound: • 1-405 Freeway to Bear Street (PM) • Bear Street to SR-55 Freeway (PM) • SR-55 Freeway to Jamboree Rd. (PM) The methodology to analyze freeway ramp operations is more complicated than for the mainline analysis. In addition to ramp volumes and lanes; the number of freeway mainline lanes, freeway mainline volumes, and the length of acceleration/deceleration lane(s) were also required. Appendix "T" contains the worksheets for the ramp analysis. Table 2-20 summarizes the results. Under Existing conditions, the ramps operating at a deficient level of service (LOS "E" or "F") are: J • Bristol Street Northbound Off • Bristol Street Southbound Off • Jamboree Road Northbound On • Jamboree Road Southbound On 2-63 TABLE 2.19 EXISTING SR-73 FREEWAY/TOLL WAY MAINLINE ANALYSIS AM SEGMENT ADT I NORTHBOUND I SOUTHBOUND ILANESIVOLUMEILOSILANESIVOLUME LOS 405 Fw. to Bear St. 110,000 3 8,733 F 3 2,817 B Bear St. to 55 Fw. 118,000 3 9,368 F 3 3,022 C 55 Fw, to Jamboree Rd. 150,000 3 11,909 F 3 3,841 C Jamboree Rd. to Bonita Canyon Dr. 63,000 3 5,002 D 3 1,613 A Bonita Canyon Dr. to Newport Coast Dr. 67,000 4 6,319 C 4 1,716 A Newport Coast Dr. to Toll Plaza 66,000 3 5,240 D 3 1,690 A PM SEGMENT ADT I NORTHBOUND I SOUTHBOUND I LANES I VOLUME I LOS'LANES VOLUME LOS 405 Fw. to Bear St. 110,000 3 4,600 D 3 7,445 F Beat St. to 55 Fw. 118,000 3 4,935 D 3 7,986 F 55 Fw. to Jamboree Rd. 150,000 3 6,273 F 3 10,152 F Jamboree Rd. to Bonita Canyon Dr. 63,000 3 2,635 B 3 4,264 C Bonita Canyon Dr. to Newport Coast Dr. 67,000 4 2,802 B 4 4,635 C Newport Coast Dr. to Toll Plaza 66,000 3 2,760 B 3 4,467 D U:\Ucdobs\ 01200\01232\Excel\[01232.32.xlsIT2-19 2-64 TABLE 2-20 EXISTING SR-73 FREEWAY PEAK HOUR RAMP ANALYSIS RAMP MOVE LANES ON FWY. FREEWAY VOLUME RAMP LANES LENGTH OF ACCELERATION DECELERATION LANE tft) PEAK HOUR VOLUME DENSITY LOS AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Bristol St. NB Off 3 11,909 6,273 1 0 1,096 544 53.6 T 48.7 F F Bristol St. SB Off 3 3,841 10,1521 2 2,725 1,632 941 NOM 1 6.3 A F Jamboree Rd. Jamboree Rd. NB On SB On 3 3 5,002 3,841 2,635 10,152 1 1 120 1,700 559 578 597 1,203 43.5 1 31.8 25.4 87.4 F Fz C' F MacArthur BI. NB Off 3 5,002 2,635 2 1,480 1,598 176 9.1 NOM A A MacArthur Bl. MacArthur Bl. NB On SB Off 3 3 5,002 1,613 2,635 4,264 1 1 340 1,340 1,636 2,026 1,883 1,882 44.1 9.9 33.6 24.2 F F' D F University Dr. NB On 3 5,002 2,635 1 200 281 533 33.2 22.8 D C University Dr. SB Off 1 3 1,613 4,264 1 1,400 466 503 4.3 19.7 A B Bison Av. NB Off 1 3 5,002 2,635 1 0 481 119 38.2 22.6 E C Bison Av. Bison Av, NB On SB Off 3 3 5,002 1,613 2,635 1 4,264 1 1 250 0 160 745 649 1 434 31.9 17.6 22.7 32.2 D B C D Bison Av. SB On 3 1,613 1 4,264 1 740 71 247 10.2 26.2 B C Bonita Canyon Dr. NB Off 4 5,319 2,802 1 1,250 305 189 18.0 6.3 B A Bonita Canyon Dr. NB On 3 5=2 2,635 1 2,440 249 106 21.8 6.6 C A Bonita Canyon Dr. SB Off 4 1,613 4,264 1 0 114 163 12:0 23.9 B C Bonita Canyon Dr. SB On 4 1,613 4,264 1 400 514 143 11.3 16.8 B B Newport Coast Dr. NB Off 3 5,240 2,760 1 0 298 220 36.6 23.5 E C New ort Coast Dr. NB On 4 5,240 2,760 1 1,250 598 286 35.6 18.5 F B New ort Coast Dr. SB Off 4 1,716 4,535 1 0 222 119 13.0 24.8 B C New ort Coast Dr. JSB On 1 3 1 1,716 1 4,535 1 1 360 156 219 13.7 29.4 B D ' Ramp failure due to ramp volumes over capacity. 2 Worse LOS with lower volume dut to adjacent ramp Influence U:\UcJobs\ 01200\01232\Excel\t0123232.xis]T2-20 1 2-65 • MacArthur Boulevard Northbound On • MacArthur Boulevard Southbound Off • Bison Avenue Northbound Off • Newport Coast Drive Northbound Off • Newport Coast Drive Northbound On 2-66 I II 3.0 MODEL TRIP GENERATION FOR SUBAREA LAND USE ALTERNATIVES This chapter documents trip generation for each subarea land use scenario identified for evaluation (existing, without project and with project) in this phase of the General Plan update process. Previously published analysis of a broader range of subarea land use alternatives identified by the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) was then considered in identifying these subsequent alternatives. Full analysis with the traffic model has been run on two comprehensive future alternatives derived from the subarea data and overall City-wide data for the remainder of the City. Thirteen subarea land use tables were provided to Urban Crossroads, Inc. staff. Each table contains land use data quantities and comparisons for existing, without and With Project conditions for the subarea. Urban Crossroads, Inc. staff has extracted trip generation results directly from the Newport Beach Traffic Model (NBTM) for each subarea. Daily and peak hour trips have been computed. Higher trip generation/volume may not necessarily increase congestion. The effects are dependent on many other factors, including peaking characteristics of traffic, directional split, even quantity of cross -street traffic. 3.1 Trip Generation Rates and Adiustments This section provides information on trip generation characteristics unique to the City of Newport Beach and/or the types of land uses contemplated in the General Plan (including adjustments to some standard/typical rates). Coastal trip generation for residential land use is compared with general residential trip generation by type. Mixed use trip rate refinements are discussed. High-rise apartments trip generation rates are evaluated in comparison to typical apartments. Trip generation for the subarea alternatives has been extracted directly from the traffic model. 11 3-1 3.1.1 Coastal Trip Generation As the Newport Beach Traffic Model (NBTM) was developed, Urban Crossroads, Inc. staff determined (during model validation) that the traffic patterns/trip generation rates in the coastal areas were different from elsewhere in the City of Newport Beach. The initial Existing conditions (validation) traffic model volumes were higher in the coastal areas than the actual traffic count data. Specialized occupancy factors and trip rates were therefore developed for residential uses in the coastal areas during the validation process. The shoulder season (spring/fall) occupancy rate for typical City of Newport Beach residential uses is 95%. For Coastal areas, the estimated occupancy rate is 90%. For total AM, total PM, and Daily trip rates, the trip generation range in Coastal areas is between 79% and 88% of typical residential trip rates. The PM peak hour is the timeframe in which the highest number of operational deficiencies has been identified, and in the PM peak hour, the coastal trip rates are between 85% and 87% of typical trip rates. 3.1.2 Mixed Use Developments Mixed use development is being contemplated in the General plan With Project scenario. Mixed use is anticipated in 8 of the 12 subareas, including: • Airport Area • Balboa Village • Cannery Village • Lido Village • Mariners Mile • McFadden Square • Newport Center • Old Newport Boulevard 3-2 Based on research presented in this chapter, ten percent (10%) for both residential and commercial components of the proposed mixed use developments represent a conservative reduction in trip generation. Mixed use trip generation information and research compiled by Urban Crossroads, Inc. has been included as Appendix "U". Information has been gathered from sampling done by ITE and documented in Trip Generation, 5th Edition (ITE, 1991). More recent versions of ITE's Tri Generation do not include information on mixed use sites. There are two examples of mixed use developments containing residential uses in the 5th Edition. Internal capture (the proportion of traffic that would typically be generated, then distributed to the surrounding system that is instead served on -site as a result of the land use mix) has been identified. The first example contains 606 dwelling units and 64,000 square feet of commerciaVoffice. The internal capture rates are 27% for the PM peak hour and 17% for the daily. The second example is for a larger site, with 2,300 dwelling units and over 160 thousand square feet of total commercial, office, restaurant, and medical center uses. This site also includes schools, a church, and a day-care center. The internal capture for this site is substantially higher (45% or more for all time periods). An additional data resource was the Santa Monica Civic Center study. The Santa Monica Civic Center study included a 50% reduction for the retail component, but no reduction was done on other uses. The net result in the analysis was an overall reduction of approximately 10%. A final data resource consulted was the San Diego Association of Governments trip generation handbook. The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) trip generation handbook suggests up to a 10% reduction. 3-3 Based on the examples cited, an adjustment factor of 10% of traffic for mixed -uses will provide a conservative representation of trip generation. The factor is applied in cases where the land use has been defined as mixed use development. Where both the mixed use and coastal factors are applicable, only one is applied to avoid overstating trip generation benefits. Later sections of this report will discuss individual sub -area land use representation. Sample mixed use calculations showing internal capture are contained in Appendix "V", Sample calculations for Balboa Village reveal that 11-12% internal capture is predicted. Therefore, 10% is conservative. Sample calculations have been prepared to show the effect of introducing residential uses to a commercial and office environment. The introduction of residential uses results in an expected internal capture of 14%, greater than the 10% used in mixed use calculations for this study. In the Airport Area, the 20% high rise apartment reduction has been applied, with no accompanying reduction for mixed use. To assist with land use planning refinements in mixed use areas, conversion factors have been developed from the model trip generation rates. Table 3-1 contains the results of this analysis for the PM peak period. As shown in Table 3-1, for the PM peak hour, a reduction of one single-family detached residence allows 220 square feet of commercial without an increase in trip generation. A transfer the other direction (from commercial to single-family detached residential) could be performed to increase dwelling units by 4.49 for every thousand square feet of commercial lost. Similar conversion factors are included for single-family attached and apartment residential uses. The factors presented in Table 3-1 are related to'the PM peak period (consistent with other trip generation calculations for Newport Beach modeling purposes), Conversion factors could potentially be related to 3-4 TABLE 3-1 CONVERSION FACTORS BASED ON PM TOTAL ONLY STARTING LAND USE UNITS ENDING LAND USE UNITS CONVERSION FACTOR Res -Low SFD DU I General Commercial TSF 0.22 Res -Medium SFA DU General Commercial TSF 0.17 Apartment DU General Commercial TSF 0.16 General Commercial TSF Res -Low SFD DU 4.49 General Commercial TSF Res -Medium (SFA) DU 5.82 General Commercial TSF Apartment DU 6.32 ' TSF = thousand square feet DU = Dwelling Units UAUWobs\ 01200\01232\Excel\[01232-32.As]T3-1 I� J 1 1 1 3-5 3.2 daily traffic or AM peak hour, or a subset of AM or PM peak hour total. These factors are included in Table 3-2. The worst case conversion for each type of residential use is included in Table 3-3. To provide the most conservative conversion, AM peak hour inbound rates should' govern for converting residential uses to commercial (approximately 70 to 120 square feet per dwelling unit). To convert from commercial to residential using the worst case conversion factor, the AM outbound should be used (and 1.25 to 1.67 units would result from a reduction of 1 thousand square feet of commercial). 3.1.3 High -Rise Apartments High-rise apartments are a special apartment use. As defined by ITE Trip Generation Manual, Vh edition (2003), high-rise apartments have more than 10 floors and typically include one or two elevators. Trip Generation rates for high-rise apartments are compared to general apartment trip generation rates in Table 34. As shown in Table 34, the ratio of trip generation for high-rise apartments to apartments ranges from 0.56 to 0.63 trips, depending on the time period. Because the ITE rates show a trip reduction of 37 to 43%, the reduction factor of 20% used for high-rise apartments in this General Plan analysis is conservative. Subarea Land Use Alternatives Trip Generation Summaries Exhibit 3-A depicts the various subareas where detailed land use alternatives have been evaluated. 3.2.1 Airport Area The With Project scenario contains a total of approximately 4,300 residential units developed at urban densities. There is no residential component for the Existing or Without Project (currently adopted General 3-6 TABLE 3-2 OVERALL MIXED USE CONVERSION FACTORS STARTING LAND USE UNITS ENDING LAND USE UNITS PEAK HOUR DAILY AM I PM IN OUT I TOTALI IN I OUT TOTAL Res -Low SFD DU lGeneral Commercial TSF 0.12 0.80 1 0.33 0.32 0.15 0.22 0.23 Res -Medium (SFA) DU General Commercial TSF 0.07 0.68 1 0.26 0.26 0.11 0.17 0.17 Apartment DU General Commercial TSF 0.07 0.60 0.23 0.24 0.10 0.16 0.16 General Commercial TSF Res -Low SFD DU 8.68 1.25 3.06 3.12 6.71 4.49 4.43 General Commercial TSF Res -Medium (SFA) DU 13.94 1.46 3.83 3.87 9.42 5.82 5.74 General Commercial TSF Apartment DU 14.66 1.67 4.29 4.25 10.05 6.32 6.24 2 TSF = thousand square feet DU = Dwelling Units U:\UcJobs\ 01200\01232\Excel\t01232-32.xisIT3-2 3-7 TABLE 3-3 ABSOLUTE WORST CASE CONVERSION FACTORS STARTING LAND USE UNITSZ ENDING LAND USE UNITS DIRECTION FACTOR Res -Low SFD DU General Commercial TSF AM IN 0.12 Res -Medium (SFA) DU General Commercial TSF AKIN 0.07 Apartment DU General Commercial TSF AM IN 0.07 General Commercial TSF Res -Low SFD DU AM OUT 1.25 General Commercial TSF Res -Medium (SFA) DU AM OUT 1.46 General Commercial TSF Apartment DU AM OUT 1.67 2 TSF = thousand square feet DU = Dwelling Units U.1UcJobs\ 01200\012321ExceRIO1232-32.xlsIT3-3 MH TABLE 3-4 APARTMENT TRIP GENERATION RATE COMPARISON' LAND USE ITE CODE UNITS PEAK HOUR I DAILY AM PM IN I OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL Apartment 220 DU 1 0.10 10.41 0.51 0.40 0.22 0.62 6.72 High -Rise A artme it 222 DU 1 0.08 1 0.231 U__6_.21_L0.14j 0.35 4.20 Ratio (High -Rise Apt. /Apartment) I 1 1 0.59 0.56 0.63 I Source: ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) Trip Generation Manual, 7lh Edition, 2003. 2 DU = Dwelling Units 1 U:\UcJobsl 01200\01232\Excel\[01232-32.xis)T3-4 [1 39 EXHIBIT 3-A CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN SUB AREAS l rl� Legend MAPAM &tZm Pennwta Udo N �n�uore 6 Cotora delDRar M M®hett NP.e LT-. Newport Center kuhbn 8 Old Newport Bmkl d M Yl" Newport FT.� W' y \'/ed Newpod N %o r M smm i M' 'ate M M ,M Mum M i` lM a Mw i it Plan) scenarios. Table 3-5 summarizes the results of the analysis. PM peak hour trip generation grows from 9,182 peak hour trips in the Existing conditions scenario to 10,798 peak hour trips for Without Project conditions or 11,752 for With Project conditions. Daily and AM peak hour trip generation follows the same pattern as for the PM peak hour (Without Project increases from Existing conditions, but the With Project scenario results in the maximum trip generation). 3.2.2 Balboa Village Table 3-6 summarizes the land use and trip generation data and results for Balboa Village. The With Project scenario has a mixed use component. There are 270 mixed use residences and 174,693 square feet of mixed use commercial in the With Project scenario. PM peak hour trip generation increases from 1,684 peak hour trips in the Existing condition to 1,809 peak hour trips in the Without Project (currently adopted General Plan) scenario or 1,889 peak hour trips in the With Project (Preferred Alternative) scenario. In each of the three time periods (AM peak hour, PM peak hour, and daily), the With Project scenario generates more traffic than the Without Project scenario. 3.2.3 Banning Ranch The City Council has identified open space as the preferred use of Banning Ranch, but this analysis has assumed worst case conditions, including development on the Banning Ranch property. Banning Ranch has not been analyzed as part of the coastal area (e.g. no trip reduction has been assumed). Table 3-7 summarizes the results of the analysis. PM peak hour trip generation ranges from 7 peak hour trips in the Existing conditions scenario to 1,990 peak hour trips for Without Project conditions. The Without Project (currently adopted General Plan) 3-11 w N TABLE 35 AIRPORT AREA SUBAREA TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY MIXED USE! HIGH-RISE MIXED USE GEN. GEN. MEDJGOV. JSERVICE APARTMENT HOTEL COMM. COMM. OFFICE OFFICE INDUST. TRIPS ALT DU ROOM S S S S S AM PM DAILY Eyisting 0 974 0 665.019 5427.333 86.096 508.759 0 8,875 9,182 99,667 Without Project 0 984 0 871.5 5786.916 86.096 551.93 10.9 10,178 10,798 117,430 With Project 4510 1213 181.275 699.345 4825.101 86.096 0 10.9 41,137 11,752 128,63E U:U1WobS\ 0120010123ZEKC0101232-32.XISIT3-5 m m a = ■ COASTAL RESIDENTI RES- RES- LOW MEDIUM APP (SFD) (SFA) ME ALT DU DU D Existing 577 614 Without Project 375 815 rt Project 381 815 W W U.wWobsl alzootO1232XEKmR[o123za2 w A TABLE 3-7 BANNING RANCH SUBAREA TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY ALT RES-LOW (SFD) (DU) APARTMENT DU HOTEL ROOM GENERAL COMM. S _ GENERAL OFFICE S INDUST. S ELEMENTARY/ PR. SCHOOL STU PARK AC TRIPS AM I PM I DAILY Existing 0_ 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 81 7 73 Without Project 225 2510 0 50 235.6 164.4 0 0 2,080 1,990 22,075 i Project 688 687 75 75 0 0 500 60 1,317 1,285 14,296 ' Land use inclues 14 units outside Banning Ranch but In overall Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs). U:\UcJobsl 01200101232Wxceh[01232-32.AsIM7 1 generates the highest number of trips. The With Project (worst case, rather than open space) scenario indicates the site may generate as much as 1,285 PM peak hour trips. This represents a worst case scenario, in the event that the property is not acquired for Open Space. 3.2.4 Cannery Villacte Cannery Village is composed of two Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs), each of which is analyzed individually, as the options are not related and should be considered separately. TAZ 1449 is located west of Newport ' Boulevard south of 32nd Street while TAZ 1454 is east of Newport Boulevard south of 32nd Street. Because of the location, the mixed use residential in the With Project scenario of TAZ 1449 may be represented as coastal residential (e.g., no double counting of potential trip reductions). The same is true of mixed use residential in TAZ 1454. In both cases, coastal representation has been used. TAZ 1449 also includes 67,235 square feet of mixed use commercial. TAZ 1454 contains 36,209 square feet of mixed use commercial. Table 3-8 summarizes the results of the analysis. For TAZ 1449, PM peak hour trip generation increases from 320 existing peak hour trips to 335 without project or 400 with project peak hour trips. Trip generation for AM peak hour and daily traffic follow the same pattern as for the'PM peak hour (the Without Project scenario generates fewer trips than the With Project scenario). For TAZ 1454, PM peak hour trip generation increases from 860 peak hour trips for Existing conditions to 944 peak hour trips for Without ' Project conditions. For With Project conditions, trip generation decreases to 530 PM peak hour trips. Trip generation for AM peak hour and daily traffic follow the same pattern as for the PM peak hour (trip generation is less than Existing for the With Project scenario, and greater than Existing for the Without Project scenario). 1 3-15 w rn TABLE 3-8 CANNERY VILLAGE SUBAREA TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY ALT COASTAL RESIDENTIAL MD(ED USE GEN. COMM. SF) COMMJ RECREATION I (ACI GEN. OFFICE INDUST. YOUTH CTRI I SERVICE S TRIPS RES-LOW (SFD) DU RES-MEDIUM (SFA) DU APART MENT DU COMM. S APARTJ MENT DU AM I PM .DAILY TAZ 1449 Existing 9 78 0 0 0 71.44 0 20.02 0 0 252 320 3,552 Without Project _ 0 95 0 0 0 74.9 0 20.02 0 0 263 335 3,703 With Project o 95 0 6T.235 160 15 0 0 0 0 326 400 4.460 TAZ 1454 Existing 41 19 0 0 0 19627 0.85 91.32 47.85 4.651 678 860 9,499 ithout Pro ect 41 172 0 0 0 201.78 0.85 101.5 0 4.65 759 944 10,487 ith Project 0 _ 0 73 36.209 119 7327 0.85 42.156 0 4.65 429 530 5.882 U:1UcJobs\_01200\01232\Excel\[01232-32.x1s]T3-8 a■� r r r � r ar ar �Ir �■i■ r� r ■r art r r ar r� it I 3.2.5 Corona Del Mar Table 3-9 summarizes the land use and trip generation data and results for Corona Del Mar. PM peak hour trip generation increases from 4,116 peak hour trips in Existing conditions to 4,917 peak hour trips for Without Project conditions or 4,925 peak hour trips for With Project conditions. The With Project scenario also generates the most AM peak hour and daily trips. 3.2.6 Lido Village Lido Village is composed of two Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs), each of which is analyzed individually. TAZ 1452 is located northeast of Via Lido. TAZ 1453 is located between Via Lido, 32nd Street, and Newport Boulevard. Table 3-10 summarizes the results of the analysis. There is a mixed use component in each TAZ for the With Project scenario. For TAZ 1452, PM peak hour trip generation increases from 565 peak hour trips for Existing conditions to 570 peak hour trips for Without Project conditions or 879 peak hour trips for With Project conditions. Trip generation for AM peak hour and daily traffic follow the same pattern as for the PM peak hour. For TAZ 1453, PM peak hour trip generation increases from 593 peak hour trips for Existing conditions to 693 peak hour trips for Without Project conditions. For With Project conditions, there is a decrease in peak hour trips (to 533). Trip generation for AM peak hour and daily traffic follow the same pattern as for the PM peak hour. 3-17 TABLE 3-9 CORONA DEL MAR SUBAREA TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY RES-LOW SFD' APARTMENT GEN. GEN. POST COASTAL OTHER COASTAL OTHER COMM. OFFICE -LIBRARY OFFICE CHURCH PARK TRIPS ALT DU (DU) DU DU S SF SF) S SF AC AM PM I DAILY Existing 1435 1447 8 62 406.842 84:921 3.8. 0.5 12.34 6 3,721 4,116 45,707 Without Project 1629 1584 0 54 538.63 148.06 3.8 0.5 12.34 6 4,413 4,917 54,431 Willi— -Project 1629 1584 0 54 538.63 148.06 3.8 0.5 12.34 6 4.416 4.925 54,534 w I. co ' Land use inclues land use outside Corona del Mar but In overall Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs). U.AUcJobs% 012001012321ExceRt01232-32 As)T&9 w co TABLE 3-10 LIDO VILLAGE SUBAREA TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY ALT COASTAL RESIDENTIAL RES-MEDIUM (SFA) (DU HOTEL ROOM GENERAL COMM. S MIXED USE THEATER T GENERAL OFFICE SF YOUTH CTR/ SERVICE (TS CIVIC CENTER SF CHURCH (TSF TRIPS COMM. S APART- MENT IDU_JS_ AM PM DAILY TAZ 1452 Existing 12 0 129.28 0 0 0 90.22 6 0 0 444 565 6,258 Without Project 12 0 130.510 0 0 0 90.22 6 0 0 448 570 6,273 i Project 0 100 62.4 124.799 208 0 35 6 0 0 697 879 9,740 TAZ 1453 Existing 0 0 105.12 0 0 685 64.68 0 0 15.71 487 593 6,490 Without Project 0 0 111.58 0 0 685 119.900 0 0 26.01 580 693 7,598 t Project 0 0 111.58 21.192 70 685 3.5 0 75 15.71 405 533 5,913 U:1UcJohs\ 012001012321E:KmR[01232-32.xl$IT 2.11 11 3.2.7 Mariners Mile Mariners Mile has not been represented as having coastal residential characteristics, so the mixed use apartments in the With Project scenario are represented as mixed use for trip generation purposes. The mixed use commercial has been factored as well. Table 3-11 summarizes the results of the analysis. PM peak hour trip generation increases from 3,899 peak hour trips for Existing conditions to 4,644 peak hour trips for Without Project conditions or 5,014 peak •hour trips for With Project conditions. The AM peak hour and daily trip generation follow the same pattern as the PM peak hour. 3.2.8 McFadden Square McFadden Square is composed of two Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs), each of which is analyzed individually. TAZ 1450 is located east of Newport Boulevard in the vicinity of the intersection of Balboa Boulevard and Newport Boulevard. TAZ 1451 is located west of TAZ 1450. Table 3-12 summarizes the results of this analysis. TAZ 1450 contains mixed use residential (represented as coastal residential) and mixed use commercial. For TAZ 1450, PM peak hour trip generation ranges from 321 peak hour trips for Existing conditions to 663 peak hour trips for With Project conditions (the Without Project scenario generates 371 peak hour trips). Trip generation for AM peak hour and daily traffic follow the same pattern as for the PM peak hour. Only the coastal residential adjustment applies to TAZ 1451. For TAZ 1451, PM peak hour trip generation ranges from 357 peak hour trips for Existing conditions to 506 peak hour trips for With Project conditions (the Without Project scenario generates 392 peak hour trips). Trip generation I 3-20 11 i m m w tV ALT RES- lOW / (SFD) DU Existing 820 Without Project 837 With Project 837 U.wwots%01200%012321E w N N 11_1=i ;4c5pA McFADDEN SQUARE SUBAREA TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY ALT COASTAL RESIDENTIAL MOTEL (ROOM) HOTEL (ROOM) GEN. COMM. TSF MIXED USE GEN. OFFICE (TS INDUST. (TSF) YOUTH CTRI -SERVICE fTSFI TRIPS RES-LOW (SFD) (DU) RES-MEDIUM (SFA) (DU) APART- MENT DU -COMM. S APART- MENT DU AM PM DAILY TAZ 1450 Existing 2 55 3 16 0 66.64 0 - 0 35.75 11.1 0 57 321 3,514 WithoutProject 0 159 3 16 0 67.59 0035.75 0 0 :09 371 4,121 With Project 0 159 3 16 0 73.03 67.387 185 0 0 0 534 663 7,376 TAZ 1451 Existing. 22 106 51 31 22 -74.271 01 01 3.551 01 61 2881 3571 3,982 Without Project 22 110 5 3 22 82.75 0 0 8 0 6 312 392 4,369 With Project 22 -- 110 5 3 121 93.218 0 0 0 0 6 415 506 5,612 U:lUcJobsl o12D0a123ZEKce11to1232-32ASIT3.12 m m m a m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m I� for AM peak hour and daily traffic follow the same pattern as for the PM peak. 3.2.9 Newport Center / Fashion Island New residential uses (apartments) are proposed for the Newport Center/Fashion Island subarea. All of the new apartments in Newport Center are High Rise apartments. Table 3-13 summarizes the results of the trip generation analysis. PM peak hour trip generation grows from 9,413 peak hour trips for Existing conditions to 10,819 peak hour trips for the With Project scenario or 10,094 for the Without Project scenario. The Without Project (currently adopted General Plan) scenario generates fewer trips than the With Project scenario. AM peak hour and daily trip generation follows the same pattern as for the PM peak hour. 3.2.10 Old Newport Boulevard Although there is a true mixed use development in Old Newport Boulevard for With Project conditions, the small size of the development precludes it from qualifying for mixed use trip reduction factoring. Table 3-14 summarizes the results of this analysis. PM peak hour trip generation increases from 622 peak hour trips in Existing conditions to 885 peak hour trips for Without Project conditions or 1,272 peak hour trips for With Project conditions. Trip generation for AM peak hour and daily traffic follow the same pattern as for the PM peak. 3.2.11 West Newport Highway and Adioininq Residential Table 3-15 summarizes the results of the West Newport Highway and adjoining Residential analysis. PM peak hour trip generation increases from 760 peak hour trips for Existing conditions to 890 peak hour trips for With Project conditions or 816 peak hour trips for Without Project conditions. 3-23 TABLE 3-13 NEWPORT-CENTERIFASHION ISLAND SUBAREA TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY ALT MEDIUM (SFA) SU APART- MENT DU HOTEL RO0 REG. COMM. GEN. COMM. S TENNIS CLUB C THEATER SEA GEN. OFFICE S MED.IGOV. OFFICE S CULTUIM LEARNING CENTER S LIBRARY S GOLF COURSE AC TRIPS AM PM DAILY 6dsting 419 245 925 1259 297.32 22 3774 3240:13 351.95 35 65 99 8.523 9.413 103,075 Without Project 419 245 1110 1559 302.98 22 3850 3283.72 351.95 40 65 99 9.042 10.094 110,372 flh Project 419 845 1175 1684 302.98 22 3850 3323.72 351.95 40 65 99 9,718 10,819 118,395 w N A U:\UcJobs\ 01200\01232\Exce11I01232-32.xisjT3-13 m m m m m m IM m i m m m m m m Im m m m m m m m m w N Ut TABLE 3-14 OLD NEWPORT BOULEVARD SUBAREA TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY ALT MIXED USE RES-LOW (SFD) DU RES-MEDIUM (SFA) DU APART- MENT DU HOTEL (ROOM GEN. COMM. TSF GEN. OFFICE (TSF) INDUST. (TSF MEDICAL OFFICE (TS TRIPS COMM. (TSF) APART- MENT (DU AM I PM I DAILY Existing 0 0 280 104 8 23 48.7 90.34 300 7.4 594 622 6,899 Without Project 0 0 205 379 8 53 66.38 135.73 0 11.29 852 885 9,816 With Project 92.848 236 200 379 8 53 0 0 0 185.696 1,189 1,272 14,073 U:\UcJobs\ 012001012321Exce11t01232-32.)dsIT3.14 w N TABLE 3-15 WEST NEWPORT HIGHWAY AND ADJOINING RESIDENTIAL SUBAREA TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY ALT RES=LOW (SFD) DU APARTMENT DU MIXED USE APARTMENT DU HOTEL ROOM MOTEL ROOM GENERAL COMMERCIAL S PARK AC TRIPS AM I PM I DAILY Existing 462 292 0 01 901 0 wml 01 7461 760 8,440 Without Project 462 293 0 0 90 50.03 0 787 816 9.076 With Project 462 361 0 0 90 57.935 0 854 890 9,901 U.XUcJobs\_012001012321Exce11[01232-32.xIs]T3-15 m m M m ,m ' 3.2.12 West Newport Mesa ' For West Newport Mesa, no adjustments have been made. Table 3-16 ' summarizes the results of the analysis. PM peak hour trip generation increases from 2,386 for Existing conditions to 5,000 for With Project conditions or 4,210 or Without Project conditions. AM peak hour and daily trip generation follow the same pattern as the PM peak hour traffic. 3.3 Conclusions 1 Tables 3-17 through 3-19 present total City trip generation for Existing, Without and With Project scenarios in the AM peak hour, PM peak hour, and daily timeframes, respectively. Overall City trip generation increases from Existing conditions by less than 30% in all scenarios and timeframes included in this analysis. Similar tables have been prepared to show the change between the General Plan buildout scenarios. Tables 3-20 through 3-22 contain these comparisons for with ' AM peak hour, PM peak hour, and daily conditions. In each timeframe, With Project increases exceed the Without Project increases by between 2 and 3% ' citywide. Some of these increases actually reduce the impact to the roadway system because of a better balance of residences and employment generating uses or locating commercial uses in close proximity to the residential uses they are most likely to serve. ' 3-27 TABLE 346 WEST NEWPORT MESA SUBAREA TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY ALT RES-LOW (SFD) DU APARTMENT 13 I NURSING HOME BEDS I GENERAL COMMERCIAL S I GENERAL OFFICE S I MEDICAL OFFICE S HOSPITAL BEDS INDUST. S DAY CARE S SCHOOL STU PARK AC TRIPS AM PM I DAILY Existing 108 2472 593 72.17 150.63 302.9 351 678.53 T.7 622 0.2 2,564 2,386 26,265 Without Project 98 2649 593 72.17 373.73 410.55 1265 1191.722 7.7 622 0.2 4,590 4,210 46,038 With Project 98 3542 593 50.91 306.67 719.195 1265 837.27 7.7 622 0 5,347 5,000 54.769 11 K-lUcJobsl 012001012321Exceil(01232-32.xis)T3-16 W CD TABLE 3-17 AM PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY AREA EXISTING WITHOUT PROJEE[:� WITH PROJECT TRIPS GROWTH %GROWTH TRIPSI GROWTH I %GROWTH AIRPORT 8,875 10,178 1,3031 14.7% 11,137 2,262 25.5% BALBOA VILLAGE 1,474 1,595 121 8.2% 1,699 225 15.3% BANNING RANCH 8 2,080 2,072 25900.0% 1,317 1,309 16362.5% CANNERY VILLAGE(TAZ1449) 252 263 11 4.4% 326 74 29.4% CANNERY VILLAGE(TAZ1454) 678 759 81 11.9% 429 -249 -36.7% CORONA DEL MAR 3,721 4,413 692 18.6% 4,416 695 18.7% LIDO VILLAGE TAZ 1452 444 448 4 0.9% 697 253 57.0% LIDO VILLAGE TAZ 1453 487 580 93 19.1% 405 -82 -16.8%i MARINERS MILE 3,521 4,160 639 18.1% 4,4451 924 26.2%' MCFADDEN SQUARE TAZ 1450 257 309 521 20.2% 534 277 107.8% MCFADDEN SQUARE TAZ 1451 288 312 24 8.3% 415 127 44.1% NEWPORT CENTERIFASHION ISLAND 8,523 9,042 519 6.1% 9,718 1,195 14.0% OLD NEWPORT BOULEVARD 594 852 258 43.4% 1,189 595 100.2% WEST NEWPORT HIGHWAY AND ADJOINING RESIDENTIAL 746 787 41 5.5% 854 108 14.5% WEST NEWPORT INDUSTRIAL 2,564 4,590 2,026 79.0% 5,347 2,783 108.5% T TAL 32,432 40,368 7,936 24.5% 42,928 10,496 32.4% JREMAINDFR OF CITY 35,3031 43,9691 8,6661 24.5%1 43,672 -8,3691- 23.7% ICITY TOTAL 67,735 84,3371 16,6021 24.5%1 86,600 18,8651 27.9% U:\UcJobs\_01100.01500\ 01200\012321Exce1\[01232-32 xis]T 3-17 TABLE 3-18 PM PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY AREA EXISTING VVITH PROJECT TRIPS I GROWTH I %GROWTH jFTiRIPS GROWTH I %GROWTH AIRPORT 9,182 10,798 1,616 17.6% 11,752 2,570 28.0% BALBOAVILLAGE 1,684 1,809 125 7.4% 1,889 205 12.2% BANNING RANCH 7 1,990 1,983 28328.6% 1,285 1,278 18257.1% CANNERY VILLAGE(TAZ1449) 320 335 15 4.7% 400 80 25.0%' CANNERY VILLAGE(TAZ1454) 860 944 84 9.8% 530 -330 -38.4% CORONA DEL MAR 4,116 4,917 801 19.5% 4,925 809 19.7% LIDO VILLAGE TAZ 1452 565 570 5 0.9% 879 314 55.6% LIDO VILLAGE TAZ 1453 5931 693 100 16.9% 533 .60 -10.1% MARINERS -MILE 3,889 4,644 755 19A% 5,014 1,125 28.93% MCFADDEN SQUARE TAZ 1450 321 371 50 15.6% 663 342 106.5% MCFADDEN SQUARE TAZ 1451 357 392 35 9.80/0 506 149 41.7% NEWPORT CENTER/FASHION ISLAND 9,413 10.094 681 7.2% 10,819 1,406 14.9% OLD NEWPORT BOULEVARD 622 885 263 42.3% 1,272 650 104.5% EST NEWPORT HIGHWAY AND ADJOINING RESIDENTIAL 760 816 56 7.4% 890 130 172.1010 INDUSTRIAL 2,386 4,210 1,824 76.4% 5,000 1309. AEWPORT 35.075 43,48 8,393 23.9% 357 1,26214 .2% 35,222 44,536 9,314 2 .4- ,338 9,1161 25.9% ICITY TOTAL - 70,2971 88,0041 17,7071 25.2016 90,6951 20,3981 29.mc UAUcJobs\ 01100.01500\ 01200\01232\ExceRO1232-32.xlsJT 3-18 m r W c� AREA AIRPOI BALBO BANNII CANNE CANNE COROI LIDO V LIDO V MARIN MCFAE MCFAE NEWP OLD N WEST WEST SUBAI REMAI CT T UAUGJ TABLE 3-20 WITH PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON TO WITHOUT PROJECT AREA PROJECT I PROJECT I CHANGE % CHANGE AIRPORT 10,178 11,1371 959 9% BALBOAVILLAGE 1,595 1,699 104 7% BANNING RANCH 2,080 1,317 -763 -37% CANNERY VILLAGE TAZ1449 263 326 63 24% CANNERY VILLAGE(TAZ1454) 759 429 -330 -43% CORONA DEL MAR 4,413 4,416 3 0% LIDO VILLAGE TAZ 1452 448 697 249 56% LIDO VILLAGE TAZ 1453 580 405 -175 -30% MARINERS MILE 4,160 4,445 285 7% MCFADDEN SQUARE TAZ 1450 309 534 225 73% MCFADDEN SQUARE TAZ 1451 312 415 103 33% NEWPORT CENTERIFASHION ISLAND 9,042 9,718 676 7% OLD NEWPORT BOULEVARD 852 1,189 337 40% WEST NEWPORT HIGHWAY AND ADJOINING RESIDENTIAL 787 854 67 9% WEST NEWPORT MESA 4,590 5,347 757 16% 40,3681 42,9281 2,5601 60 PEWANDER OF CITY 1 43,9691 43,672 -297 -1% ,ICITY TOTAL 84,3371 86,6001 2,263 2.T/ U:1UcJobs\ 01100.016001 01200%012321Excen[01232.32.:Js]T 3-20 3-32 I i i I i i i u i i I 11 ,I 1 TABLE 3.21 WITH PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON TO WITHOUT PROJECT AREA WITHOUT PROJECT WITH PROJECT CHANGE I % CHANGE AIRPORT 10,798 11,752 954 9% BALBOA VILLAGE 1,809 1,889 80 4% BANNING RANCH 1,990 1,285 -705 -35% CANNERY VILLAGE(TAZ1449) 335 400 65 19% CANNERY VILLAGE(TAZ1454) 944 530 -414 -44% CORONA DEL MAR 4,917 4,925 8 0% LIDO VILLAGE TAZ 1452 570 879 309 54% LIDO VILLAGE TAZ 1453 693 533 -160 -23% MARINERS MILE 4,644 5,014 370 8% MCFADDEN SQUARE TAZ 1450 371 663 292 79% MCFADDEN SQUARE TAZ 1451 392 606 114 29% NEWPORT CENTER/FASHION ISLAND 10,094 10,819 725 7% OLD NEWPORT BOULEVARD 885 1,272 387 44% WEST NEWPORT HIGHWAY AND ADJOINING RESIDENTIAL 816 890 74 9% WESTNEWPORTMESA 4,210 5,000 790 19% L 43,468 46,3571 2,889 7% IREMAINDER OF CITY 1 44,5361 44,338 .198 0% 88,0041 90,6951 2,6911 3.06% IU:\UcJobs\ 01100- i i TABLE 3.22 WITH PROJECT DAILY TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON TO WITHOUT PROJECT WITHOUTI WITH I' AREA PROJECT I PROJECT I CHANGE % CHANGE AIRPORT 117.430 128,638 11,208 10% BALBOAVILLAGE 19,981 20,849 868 4% BANNING RANCH 22,075 14,296 -7,779 -35% CANNERY VILLAGE TAZ1449 3,703 4,460 757 20% CANNERY VILLAGE TAZ1454 10,487 5,882 -4,605 44% CORONA DEL MAR 54,431 64,534 103 0% LIDO VILLAGE TAZ 1452 6,273 9,740 3,467 55% LIDO VILLAGE TAZ 1453 7,598 5,913 -1,685 -22% MARINERS MILE 51,410 55,576 4,166 8% MCFADDEN SQUARE TAZ 1450 4,121 7,376 3,255 79% MCFADDEN SQUARE TAZ 1451 4,369 5,612 1,243 28% NEWPORTCENTERIFASHION ISLAND 110,372 118,395 8,023 7% OLD NEWPORT BOULEVARD 9,816 14,073 4,257 43% WEST NEWPORT HIGHWAY AND ADJOINING RESIDENTIAL 9,076 9,901 825 9% WEST NEWPORT MESA 46,038 54,769 8,731 19% EA 477.180 510,014 32,834 7% 488,531 486,094 -2,437 0% ,ICITY TOTAL965,711 296,1081 30,397 3.15% I� U:IUcJobsl 01100-015001 012001012321Excell[01232-32.xls]T 3-22 3-34 I I I 1 4.0 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT (POST-2030) LAND USE �I WITH PROJECT NETWORK SCENARIO This chapter presents 'General Plan buildout Without Project (Post-2030) conditions. The Without Project designation refers to the currently adopted General Plan. The anticipated General Plan (future) network is essentially the same for both future scenarios and is discussed. in subsequent sections of this report. General Plan buildout model inputs are discussed and forecast volumes are presented. Data are compared to Existing Conditions to show traffic growth trends. 4.1 Land Use and Socioeconomic Data (SED) This section discusses the land use and socioeconomic data inputs. 4.1.1 General Plan Buildout Without Proiect Land Use Data The General Plan buildout Without Project land use data was provided to Urban Crossroads, Inc. staff by City of Newport Beach staff. Appendix "W" of this report documents the explicit land use data included in NBTM 3.1 for General Plan buildout Without Project (currently adopted General Plan) conditions in this analysis. Table 4-1 summarizes the overall General Plan buildout Without Project land uses for the City of Newport Beach. Land uses have been updated compared to previous reports, based on more detailed information available (especially in the Newport Coast and Newport Ridge areas, where detailed land use information was unavailable in previous analyses). Table 4-1 also shows General Plan buildout Without Project land use growth from Existing conditions. Medium density residential and apartments each grow by more than 4,000 dwelling units. Non-residential categories that grow by more than 500,000 square feet include general commercial, general office, and industrial land uses. TABLE 4.1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT LAND USE GROWTH FROM EXISTING NBTM CODE' DESCRIPTION UNITS EXISTING OUANTITY3 BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT OUANTITY3 GROWTH %GROWTH 1 Low Density Residential DU 18,702 19,570 868 4.640/a 2 Medium DensityResidential DU 10,974 15,077 4,103 37.38% 3 Apartment DU 9.703 14.427 4,724 48.69% 4 Elder/ Residential DU 200 200 0,00% 5 Mobile Home DU 6001 455 -145 -24.17% TOTAL DWELLING UNITS DU 40,1791 49,729 9,550 23.77% 6 Motel ROOM 134 139 5 S.73% 7 Hotel ROOM 3.231 5.537 2,306 71.37% 9 Regional Commercial TSF 1,331.000 1,559.000 228.000 17.13% 10 General Commercial TSF 3,823.398 5.120.942 1,297.544 33.94% 11 Commercial/Recreation ACRE 5.100 5.100 0.00% 13 Restaurant TSF 99.450 198.860 99.410 99.96% 15 Fast Food Restaurant TSF 15.640 15.640 0.00% 16 Auto Dealer/Sales TSF 201.300 386.050 184.750 91.78% 17 Yacht Club TSF 51.830 70.310 1 18.480 35.65% 18 Health Club TSF 16.770 61.330 44.560 265.71% 19 Tennis Club CRT 60 59 1 -1.67% 20 Marina SLIP 1,055 1.055 0.00% 21 Theater SEAT 5,489 5.475 -14 -0.26% 22 Newport Dunes ACRE 64.00 64.00 0.00% 23 General Office TSF 11.657.109 13,492.354 1,835.245 15.74% 24 Medical/GovemmentOfOce TSF 959.718 1.084.576 124.858 13.01% 25 Research & Development TSF 81.730 81.730 0.00% 26 Industrial TSF 1,291.079 1,956.092 665.013 51.51% 27 Mini -Stara e/Warehodse TSF 196.420 196.420 0.00% 28 Pre-school/Day Care TSF 48.050 49.000 0.950 1.98% 29 Elementary/Private School STU 4,999 51055 56 1,13% 30 Junior/High School STU 5,215 5.215 0.00% 31 Cultural/Leamind Center TSF 35.000 40.000 5.000 14.29% 32 Library TSF 78.800 84.600 5.800 7.36% 33 Post Office TSF 53.700 73.700 20.000 37.24% 34 Hospital BED 1,031 2.001 1 970 94.08% 35 Nursin /Conv. Home BEDS 661 566 95 -14.37% 36 Church TSF 377.780 511.704 133.924 35.45% 37 Youth Ctr./Service TSF 149:540 103.209 33.669 22.52% 38 Park ACRE 128.360 127.780 -0.580 -0.45% 39 Regional Park ACRE 45.910 45.910 NIA 40 Golf Course ACRE 305,330 298.290 7.040 2.31% 'Uses S. 12, and 14 are pad of the old NBTAM model structure and are not currently Wllzed in the City land use dolosels. = Units Abbreviations: DU = Dwelling Units TSF = Thousand Square feet CRT =Court STU=Students ° Includes Newport Coast and recent annexation areas. U.1UcJobsl012001012321 COR101232-3ZYJSJr4.1 4-2 I I 4.2 4.3 4.1.2 General Plan Buildout Without Proiect Socioeconomic Data (SED) General Plan buildout Without Project SED that has been calculated from land use is summarized in Table 4-2. Appendix "X" contains SED summaries by traffic analysis zone. Table 4-2 also contains a comparison of General Plan buildout Without Project SED to Existing SED for the City of Newport Beach. The total number of dwelling units are projected to grow by 8,818 units (23 %) from Existing conditions. For total employment, an increase of 20,292 employees (28 %) is anticipated. Trip Generation Table 4-3 summarizes the updated General Plan buildout Without Project trip generation in the City of Newport Beach. Table 4-4 summarizes the overall trip generation for General Plan buildout Without Project conditions for the City of Newport Beach and compares it to Existing conditions trip generation. Appendix "Y" contains a report of trip generation by NBTM TAZ for the City of Newport Beach. Most of these trips have been calculated from the final General Plan buildout SED presented previously. Some trips are derived from supplemental SED or represent special generator trips within the City of Newport Beach. The overall trip generation for the City of Newport Beach currently adopted General Plan is an estimated 1,022,385 daily vehicle trips. Traffic Assignment Exhibit 4-A shows the anticipated General Plan buildout through lanes on all Newport Beach arterial roadways. Appendix "Z" contains letters prepared by Urban Crossroads to document recommendations on roadway system features for the constrained and the With Project network. The General Plan buildout With Project model network matches the With Project configurations. This network is used to analyze both the Without Project and With Project scenarios, to maintain consistency. 4-3 I TABLE 4.2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT LAND USE BASED SOCIOECONOMIC DATA GROWTH FROM EXISTING VARIABLE EXISTING' QUANTITY BUILDOUT2 WITHOUT PROJECT QUANTITY GROWTH %GROWTH Occu led single Family Dwelling Units 1 17.4671 18,3241 857 5% Occu led Multi-FamilyDwellingUnits 20,136 28,097 7,961 40% TOTAL OCCUPIED DWELLING UNITS 37,603 46,421 8,818 23% 1GrbuP Quarters Population 661 566 -95 -14% Po ulation 3,0071 100,6261 17,618 21% Em Io ed Resident 1 49,6321 60,9191 11,287 23% Retail Employees 1 11,5251 i5,1081 3,583 31% Service Employees 19,681 25,887 6.206 32% Other Employees 41,468 51,971 10,503 25% TOTAL EMPLOYEES 72,674 92,9661 20,292 26% Elem/High School Students 1 10,2141 10,270 56 1% ' Includes data converted from land use only. Excludes Newport Coast and recent annexation areas. Z Includes Newport Coast and recent annexation areas. U.lUoJobs% 012001012321Exceig01232-32adsIT4.2 t i TABLE 4-3 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT TRIP GENERATION TRIP PURPOSE PRODUCTIONS ATTRACTIONS PRODUCTIONS - ATTRACTIONS PRODUCTIONS / ATTRACTIONS Home Based Work 74,938 112,693 -37,755 0.66 Home Based School 14,241 9,041 5,200 1.58 Home Based Otherz 195,168 148,526 46,642 1.31 Work Based Other 71,257 77,664 -6,407 0.92 Other - Other 125,391 123,330 2.061 1.02 TOTAL 480,9951 471,2541 9,7411 1.02 OVERALL TOTAL 952,249 I Home -Work Includes Home -Work and Home -University trips, consistent With OCTAM mode choice output. 2 Home -Other Includes Home -Shop and Home -Other tips, consistent with OCTAM mode choice output. U:\UcJobs\ 01200\01232\Exceh[01232-32.xis]T4-3 '1 I 4-5 TABLE 4.4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN SUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT TRIP GENERATION GROWTH TRIP PURPOSE DAILY TRIP ENDS GROWTH PERCENT GROWTH EXISTING BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT Home Based Work Productions 61,128 74,938 13,810 22.59°/u Home Based Work Attractions 88,446 112,693 24,247 27.41% Home Based School Productions 11,756 14,241 2,485 21.14% Home Based School Attractions 8,990 9,041 51 0.57% Home Based Other Productionsz 165,256 195,168 29,912 18.10% Home Based Other Attractions 115,052 148,526 33,474 29,09% Work Based Other Productions 55.488 71,257 15,769 28.42% Work Based Other Attractions 60,741 77,664 16,923 27.86% Other- Other Productions 1 98,0051 125,3911 27,3861 27.94% Other - Other Attractions 1 96,3631 123,3301 26,9671 01 TOTAL PRODUCTIONS i 391,6331 480.9951 89,3621 22.82% TOTAL ATTRACTIONS 1 369,5921 471,2541 101,6621 27.51% OVERALLTOTAL 1 761,2251 9522491 191,0241 25.090yo ' Home -Work Includes Home -Work and Home -University trips, consistent with OCTAM mode choice output. I Y Home -Other includes Home -Shop and Home -Other trips, consistent with OCTAM mode choice output. ' U:\UcJohsl 01200\012321Excell101232-32.xis]T44 4-6 I U Z C.)Q W U a o p N N p a P p 0 p J p ry ❑ J N J AY 3NA1� N p P P J N N J N e N J N N N ❑ Yj/ p � p AV. N N N N <❑ 'J ry N N p e N N ❑ '�P P N p 0.4iL AYYIIYYLIYS N N N;c N JtFcl N Q uS J �P N 9� i1.N z s ,c� F �^JNGN N b "j VGA ❑ P S� ❑ �� AY391M10 J N N p N P ❑ i N N ❑ P ISYi V1�N 7 N J Nb b b �p J e 'AVtlOP13dMP P N N p 153N'NILWMLI ^ O p �° m n 'Gr a N p N e ❑ p� J a /� � Mm ❑ �p P P / !V J ��•� �n rd}n P `J db i VW" aj N p � P ❑ O b \ p m � � O a `� 4-7 The constrained network was developed in response to visioning process input that residents want to minimize further widening and extension of the arterial roadway system, as well as staff and consultant information on roadway improvements that are uncertain due to political or funding issues. Differences in the constrained (versus original Baseline) network include: No -extension of SR-55 Freeway • No widening of Coast Highway through Mariners Mile • No extension of 19t' Street across the Santa Ana River • No widening of Jamboree Road north of Ford Road While the extension of the SR-55 freeway is included in regional plans, it is not expected to be completed prior to buildout of the City of Newport Beach. Appendix 7' contains a letter prepared by Urban Crossroads to document changes to the currently adopted roadway system for the constrained network (used previously in the preliminary alternatives analysis). The network outside the Tier 3 area is unchanged from before. Key roadway changes reflected in the currently analyzed roadway system (versus constrained) include: • Widening of Coast Highway through Mariners Mile Extension of 19th Street across the Santa Ana River These changes are based on the findings of the preliminary alternatives analysis, which indicated that these improvements are critical to maintaining acceptable levels of service on key arterial roadways in the City of Newport Beach. Exhibit 4-B summarizes the NBTM 3,1 refined General Plan buildout With Project network daily traffic volumes throughout the City of Newport Beach. Table 4-5 compares these refined forecasts to existing counted volumes (presented in Chapter 2 of this Report). The highest daily traffic volume increase on a study area roadway segment occurs on Newport Coast Drive. Throughout Newport Coast � M� m i mwm m*m" m om "Ei"*am" m m n / -g�a � S \4 A 7 16 EXHIBIT 4-B GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) 21 l 19 155 1 1 29 2,9 Nss,u5219 1 6 97 31 22 22 31 38 52 � 3 5 4/ , ' /� �� 27 17 52 +13 m 14 31 7NO W ,1 4 2 A 11 (r C x 1�,<I \\QL 29 l '31 �,-m sc IWESfCLLF 24 6 62 \12 28 20 4 12 54 1 `\e )2p 57�1 9 \8 �D 4,K5 �9\ 3323 ^� 4U —� —� 28 NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE,Newport Beacb, Calrfomia. 01232.gpbonp_adt ddff 6 , J \ s ,60 t4 1 '8 3 4P L 26 223 i 3 *14�6 71525,\`27 2036 1 0 5 45 93 .,, �4 > i 42 LEGEND: 10 -VEHICLES PER DAY (000'S) PACIFIC OCEAN 0 URBAN TABLE 4-5 (Page 1 ofA) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC GROWTH LOCATION EXISTING COUNT (2001/2002) BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT FORECAST CHANGE % CHANGE 15th St (Coast Hwy. to Bluff Rd.) 0 9,000 9,000 NI 16th St. (Irvine Ave. to Dover Dr.) 5,000 6,000 11000 20% 32nd St. (west of Newport Blvd.) 8,000 9,000 1,000 13% 32nd St. (east of Newport Blvd.) 3,000 5,000 2,000 67% Avocado Ave. (north of San Miguel Dr.) 5,000 5,000 0 0°% Avocado Ave. (south of San Miguel Dr.) 12,000 11,000 -1,000 -8% Avocado Ave, (north of Coast Hwy.) 11,000 10,000 -1,000 -9% Balboa Blvd. (south of Coast Hwy.) 18,000 22,000 4,000 22°% Bayside Dr. (south of Coast Hwy.) 10,000 12,000 2,000 20% Birch St, (Jamboree Rd. to Von Karmen Ave.) 12,000 19,000 7,000 58°% Birch St. (Von Karman Ave. to MacArthur Blvd.) 15,000 21,000 6,000 40% Birch St (west of MacArthur Blvd.) 16,000 21,000 5,000 31 Birch St. (north of Bristol St. North) 23,000 29,000 6,000 26°% Birch St (Bristol St Norlh4o Bristol St South) 19,000 22,000 3,000 16°% Birch St (south of Bristol St. South) 15,000 17,000 2,000 13°% Bison Ave. (Jamboree Rd. to MacArthur Blvd.) 13,000 17,000 4,000 31% Bison Ave. (MacArthur Blvd, to SR-73 Fwy.) 7,000 10,000 3,000 43% Bluff Rd. (Coast Hwy: to 15th St.) 0 8,000 81000 NI Bluff Rd. (15th St, to 17th St.) 0 9,000 9,000 NI Bonita Canyon Dr. (east of MacArthur Blvd.) 26,000 32,000 6,000 23°% Bonita Canyon Dr. (west of SR-73 Fwy.) 17,000 26,000 9,000 53% Bristol St. North (west of Campus Dr.) 28,000 34,000 6,000 21°% Bristol St. North (Campus Dr. to Birch St) 23,000 29,000 6,000 26°% Bristol St. North (east of Birch St) 22,000 29,000 7,000 32°% Bristol St North (west of Jamboree Rd.) 16,000 19,000 3,000 19°% Bristol St South (west of Campus DrArvine Ave.) 28,000 33,000 51000 18°% Bristol St. South (Campus Dr. to Birch St.) 17,000 22,000 5,000 29°% Bristol St South (east of Birch St.) 16,000 22,000 6,000 3B% Bristol St Sough (west of Jamboree Rd,) 31,000 38,000 7,000 23°% Campus Dr. (Jamboree Rd, to Von Karman Ave.) 16,000 23,000 7,000 44°% Campus Dr. (Von Karman Ave. to MacArthur Blvd.) 20,000 35,000 15,000 75°% Campus Dr. (west of MacArthur Blvd.) 26,000 39,000 13,000 50°% Campus Dr. (north of Bristol St. North) 28,000 39,000 11,000 39°% Campus Dr. (Bristol St North to Bristol St. South) 30,000 41,000 11,000 37°% Coast Hwy. (west of Bluff Rd.) 46,000 45,000 -1,000 -2% Coast Hwy. (Bluff Rd. to Superior Ave.lBalboa Blvd,) 46,000 49,000 3,000 7°% Coast Hwy. (Superior Ave. to Newport Blvd.) 28,000 40,000 12,000 43°% Coast Hwy. (Newport Blvd. to Riverside Ave.) 53,000 64,000 11,000 21% Coast Hwy. (Riverside Ave, to Tustin Ave.) 45,000 56,000 11,000 24% Coast Hwy. (Tustin Ave. to Dover Dr.) 42,000 51,000 9,000 21°% Coast Hwy. (Dover Dr. to Bayside Dr.) 63,000 74,000 11,000 17°% Coast Hwy. (Bayside Dr, to Jamboree Rd. 51,0001 62,0001 11,000 1 22°% I d 4-10 I I I I I I Ll I I I t_ J I I TABLE 4-5 (Page 2 of 4) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC GROWTH LOCATION EXISTING COUNT (2001/2002) BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT FORECAST CHANGE % CHANGE Coast Hwy. (Jamboree Rd. to Newport Center Dr.) 42,000 49,000 7,000 17% Coast Hwy. (Newport Center Dr. to Avocado Ave.) 35,000 42,000 7,000 20% Coast Hwy. (Avocado Ave. to MacArthur Blvd.) 36,000 45,000 9,000 25% Coast Hwy. (MacArthur Blvd. to Goldenrod Ave.) 40,000 45,000 5,000 13% Coast Hwy. (Goldenrod Ave. to Marguerite Ave.) 39,000 43,000 4,000 10% Coast Hwy. (Marguerite Ave. to Poppy Ave.) 35,000 42,000 7,000 20% Coast Hwy. (Poppy Ave. to Newport Coast Dr.) 28,000 38,000 10,000 36% Coast Hwy (east of Newport Coast Dr.) 35,000 49,000 14,000 40% Dover Dr. (Irvine Ave. to Westcliff Dr.) 9,000 11,000 2,000 22% Dover Dr. (Westcliff Dr. to 16th St.) 22,000 24,000 2,000 9% Dover Dr. (16th St. to Cliff Dr.) 25,000 28,000 3,000 12% Dover Dr. (Cliff Dr. to Coast Hwy.) 29,000 33,000 4,000 14% Eastbluff Dr. (west of Jamboree Rd. at University Dr.) 10,000 11,000 1,000 10% Eastbluff Dr. (west of Jamboree Rd. at Ford Rd.) 15,000 15,000 0 0% Ford Rd. (Jamboree Rd. to MacArthur Blvd.) 9,000 13,000 4,000 44% Goldenrod Ave. (north of Coast Hwy.) 2,000 4,000 2,000 100% Highland Dr. (east of Irvine Ave.) 2,000 2,000 0 0% Hospital Rd. (Placentia Ave. to Newport Blvd.) 13,000 15,000 2,000 15% Hospital Rd. (east of Newport Blvd.) 7,000 9,000 2,000 29% Irvine Ave. (Bristol St. South to Mesa Dr.) 27,000 38,000 11,000 41 % Irvine Ave. (Mesa Dr. to University Dr.) 31,000 41,000 10,000 32% Irvine Ave. (University Dr. to Santa Isabel Ave.) 33,000 40,000 7,000 21% Irvine Ave. (Santa Isabel Ave. to Santiago Dr.) 29,000 33,000 4,000 14% Irvine Ave. (Santiago Dr. to Highland Dr.) 27,000 32,000 5,000 19% Irvine Ave. (Highland Dr. to Dover Dr.) 27,000 32,000 5,000 190/0 Irvine Ave. (Dover Dr. to Westcliff Dr.) 22,000 29,000 7,000 32% Irvine Ave. (Westcliff Dr. to 16th St.) 12,000 12,000 0 0% Jamboree Rd. (Campus Dr. to Birch St.) 36,000 47,000 11,000 31% Jamboree Rd, (Birch St. to MacArthur Blvd.) 42,000 55,000 13,000 31% Jamboree Rd. (MacArthur Blvd, to Bristol St. North) 36,000 44,000 8,000 22% Jamboree Rd. (Bristol St. North to Bristol St. South) 47,000 51,000 4,000 9% Jamboree Rd. (Bristol St. South to Bayview Wy.) 47,000 52,000 5,000 11% Jamboree Rd. (Bayview Wy. to University Dr.) 47,000 52,000 5,000 11 % Jamboree Rd. (University Dr. to Bison Ave.) 37,000 42,000 5,000 14% Jamboree Rd. (Bison Ave. to Ford Rd.) 39,000 46,000 7,000 18% Jamboree Rd. (Ford Rd. to San Joaquin Hills Rd.) 46,000 55,000 9,000 20% Jamboree Rd. (San Joaquin Hills Rd. to Santa Barbara Dr.) 34,000 44,000 10,000 29% Jamboree Rd. (Santa Barbara Dr, to Coast Hwy.) 32,000 42,000 10,00 331 0 Jamboree Rd. ( Coast Hwy. to Bayside Dr.) 12,000 15,000 3,000 25% MacArthur Blvd. (Campus Dr. to Birch St.) 27,000 34,000 7,000 26% MacArthur Blvd. (Birch St. to Von Karman Ave.) 22,000 27,000 5,000 23% MacArthur Blvd. Von Karmen Ave. to Jamboree Rd. 26,000 33,000 7,000 27% i 4-11 TABLE 4.5 (Page 3 of 4) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC GROWTH LOCATION EXISTING COUNT (2001/2002) BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT FORECAST CHANGE %CHANGE MacArthur Blvd. (south of Jamboree Rd.) 27,000 36,000 9,000 331/c MacArthur Blvd. (north of Bison Ave.) 61,000 73,000 12,000 20°/n MacArthur Blvd. (Bison Ave. to Ford Rd.) 63,000 70,000 7,000 110/0 MacArthur Blvd. (Ford Rd. to San Joaquin Hills Rd.) 54,000 60,000 6,000 111/0 MacArthur Blvd. (San Joaquin Hills Rd. to San Miguel Rd.) 35,000 31,000 2,000 60/0 MacArthur Blvd. (San Miguel Rd, to Coast Hwy.) 31,000 36,000 5,000 161/0 Marguerite Ave. (south of San Joaquin Hills Rd.) 7,000 9,000 2,000 29% Marguerite Ave. (north of Coast Hwy.) 6,000 9,000 3,000 50% Mesa Dr. (east of Irvine Ave.) 12,000 13,000 1,000 8% Newport Blvd. (north of Hospital Rd.) 36,000 43,000 7,000 19°% Newport Blvd. (Hospital Rd, to Coast Hwy.) 43,000 52,000 9,000 21% Newport Blvd. (Coast Hwy. to Me Lido) 48,000 57,000 9,000 19% Newport Blvd. (Via Lido to 32nd SL) 36,000 40,000 4,000 • 11°% Newport Blvd. (south of 32nd St.) 29,000 33,000 4,000 14% Newport Center Dr. (north of Coast Hwy.) 14,000 16,000 2,000 14% Newport Coast Dr. (SR-73 Fwy. to San Joaquin Hills Rd.) 17,000 34,000 17,000 100°% Newport Coast Dr. (south of San Joaquin Hills Rd.) 15,000 32,000 17,000 113°% Newport Coast Dr. (north of Coast Hwy.) 12,000 27,000 15,000 125% Placentia Ave. (north of Superior Ave.) 12,000 12,000 0 0% Placentia Ave. (Superior Ave. to Hospital Rd.) 7,000 11,000 4,000 57% Poppy Ave. (north of Coast Hwy.) 2,000 3,000 1,000 50°% Riverside Ave. (north of Coast Hwy.) 9,000 10,000 1,000 11% San Joaquin Hills Rd. (Jamboree Rd, to Santa Cruz Rd.) 16,000 17,000 1,000 6% San Joaquin Hills Rd. (Santa Cruz Rd. to Santa Rosa Rd.) 11,000 12,000 1,000 9% San Joaquin Hills Rd. (Santa Rosa Rd. to MacArthur Blvd.) 21,000 26,000 5,000 24% San Joaquin Hills Rd. (MacArthur Blvd. to San Miguel Rd.) 19,000 23,000 4,000 21% San Joaquin Hills Rd. (San Miguel Rd. to Marguerite Ave.) 18,000 25,000 7,000 39% San Joaquin Hills Rd. (Marguerite Ave. to Spyglass Hill Rd.) 12,000 19,000 7,000 58% San Joaquin Hills Rd. (Spyglass Hill Rd. to Newport Coast Dr.) 12,000 19,000 7,000 58% San Miguel Dr. (north of Spyglass Hill Rd.) 7,000 9,000 2,000 29% San Miguel Dr. (south of Spyglass Hill Rd.) 7;000 9,000 2,000 29% San Miguel Dr. (north of San Joaquin Hills Rd.) 12,000 14,000 2,000 17% San Miguel Dr. (San Joaquin Hills Rd. to MacArthur Blvd,) 12,000 15,000 3,000 25% San Miguel Dr. (MacArthur Blvd. to Avocado Ave,) 19,000 20,000 1,000 5°% San Miguel Dr. (west of Avocado Ave.) 10,000 11,000 1.000 10% Santa Barbara Dr. (east of Jamboree Rd,) 10,000 11,000 1,000 10% Santa Cruz Dr. (south of San Joaquin Hills Rd.) 8,000 9,000 1,000 13% Santa Rosa Dr. (south of San Joaquin Hills Rd.) 11,000 14,000 3,000 27% Santiago Dr. (Tustin Ave. to Irvine Ave.) 5;000 6,000 1,000 20°% Santiago Dr. (east of Irvine Ave.) 3,000 3,000 0 00 Spyglass Hill Rd. (San Miguel Dr. to San Joaquin Hills Rd.) 4,000 5,000 1,000 25% SR-55 Freeway north of SR-73 F 155,0001 188,000 33,000 21% 4-12 I I J I L I I I TABLE 4-5 (Page 4 of 4) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC GROWTH LOCATION EXISTING COUNT (200112002) BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT FORECAST CHANGE % CHANGE SR-55 Freeway (22nd St. to 19th St.) 94,000 125,000 31,000 33% SR-73 Freeway (SR-55 Fwy. to Campus Dr.) 94,000 135,000 41,000 44% SR-73 Freeway (Jamboree Rd. to University Dr.) 59,000 97,000 38,000 64% SR-73 Freeway (Bonita Canyon Rd. to Newport Coast Dr.) 62,000 136,000 74,000 119% SR-73 Freeway (east of Newport Coast Dr.) 56,000 127,000 71,000 127% Superior Ave. (north of Placentia Ave.) 17,000 20,000 3,000 18% Superior Ave. (Placentia Ave. to Hospital Rd.) 22,000 18,000 -4,000 -18% Superior Ave. (Hospital Rd. to Coast Hwy.) 24,000 20,000 .4,000 -17% Tustin Ave. (north of Coast Hwy.) 2,000 3,000 1,000 50% University Dr. (east of Irvine Ave.) 3,000 3,000 0 0% University Dr. (east of Jamboree Rd.) 11,000 13,000 2,000 18% Via Lido (east of Newport Blvd.) 8,000 10,000 2,000 25% Von Karmen Ave. (Campus Dr. to Birch St.) 14,000 19,000 5,000 36% Von Karmen Ave. (Birch St. to MacArthur Blvd.) 12,000 16,000 4,000 33% estcliff Dr. Irvine Ave, to Dover Dr. 16,000 16,000 0 0% IU:\UcJot I I I__1 I I I 1 U 4.4 Drive, traffic increases by 15,000 to 17,000 vehicles per day (VPD). This increase is largely caused by the additional development anticipated in Newport Coast/Newport Ridge subsequent to 2002. The already constructed roadway cross-section of Newport Coast Drive can accommodate this projected increase in traffic at acceptable levels of service. Other study area roadway segments to experience traffic increases of greater than 10,000 VPD are: • Campus Drive/Irvine Avenue from Von Karman Avenue to Mesa Drive • Coast Highway from Superior Avenue to Tustin Avenue, from Dover Drive to Jamboree Road, and east of Newport Coast Drive • Jamboree Road from Campus Drive to MacArthur Boulevard • MacArthur Boulevard from SR-73 Ramps to Bison Avenue Volume increases on all of these roadways are attributed to growth in the City of Newport Beach and surrounding regional, growth. Daily Capacity Analysis Daily roadway segment capacity analysis has been performed at study area roadways, and is shown on Exhibit 4-C. The following roadway segments are expected to operate with daily V/C greater than 0.90: • Newport Boulevard north of Via Lido • Jamboree Road north of Campus Drive • Jamboree Road north of Birch Street • Irvine Avenue north of University Drive • Irvine Avenue north of Santiago Drive • Irvine Avenue north of Highland Drive • Irvine Avenue north of Dover Drive • Dover Drive north of Westcliff Drive • Dover Drive north of Coast Highway • Jamboree Road north of Bayview Way • Jamboree Road north of University Drive 4-14 m» r m m" m w EXHIBIT 4-C GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT VOLUME/CAPACITY (V/C) RATIOS R v NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE,Newport Beach, Cal'rfornia-01232:hon yc..dF rev. 1219/05) URBAN �..__,p.,( � _._._.� • Jamboree Road north of San Joaquin Hills Road • MacArthur Boulevard north of Bison Avenue • MacArthur Boulevard north of Ford Road • MacArthur Boulevard north of San Joaquin Hills Road • Newport Coast.Drive north of SR-73 NB Ramps • Newport Coast Drive north of San Joaquin Hills Road • Newport Boulevard south of Hospital Road • Jamboree Road south of Birch Street • Irvine Avenue south of University Drive • Campus Drive east of MacArthur Boulevard • Bristol Street North east of Birch Street • Bristol Street South east of Birch Street • Coast Highway east of Dover Drive • Coast Highway east of Bayside Drive • Coast Highway east of Jamboree Road • Ford Road east of MacArthur Boulevard • Coast Highway east of MacArthur Boulevard • Coast Highway east of Goldenrod Avenue • Coast Highway east of Marguerite Avenue • Coast Highway east of Poppy Avenue • Coast Highway east of Newport Coast Drive • Coast Highway west of Superior Avenue/Balboa Boulevard • Coast Highway west of Riverside Drive • Bristol Street North west of Campus Drive • Bristol Street South west of Campus Drive • Dover Drive west of Irvine Avenue • Bristol Street South west of Jamboree Road The daily capacity of a roadway correlates to a number of widely varying factors, including traffic peaking characteristics, traffic turning volumes, and the volume of 4-16 I II F u I traffic on crossing streets. The daily capacities are therefore most appropriately used for long range General Plan analysis, or as a screening tool to determine the need for more detailed peak hour analysis. More detailed peak hour analysis has been conducted at key intersections in the vicinity of all these roadway segments to quantify actual peak hour operations and levels of service. 4.5 Peak Hour Forecasts The final and most meaningful data used to evaluate the General Plan buildout Without Project scenario was intersection volume and geometric data for the 64 intersections selected for analysis. The geometric data was provided by City staff and was used to calculate existing General Plan Buildout intersection capacity utilization values (ICUs) at all 64 analysis intersections. Table 4-6 summarizes the General Plan buildout Without Project ICUs, based on the AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes and existing (2005) intersection geometric data, as compared with existing (2002) conditions ICUs. Appendix "AA" contains the detailed ICU calculation worksheets. The worksheets in Appendix "AA" summarize the intersection geometric data and the AM and PM peak intersection turning movement volumes. As shown in Table 4-6, ICU values generally increase in the General Plan Buildout conditions compared to Existing conditions. The exceptions occur where new parallel facilities are available, or where an increase in lanes results in increased capacity. Intersections with ICU values greater than 0.90 (LOS "E" or worse) in either peak period without improvements beyond 2005 conditions are: • Newport Boulevard (NS)/Hospital Road (EW) (PM) • Riverside Avenue (NS)/Coast Highway (EW) (AM/PM) • Tustin Avenue (NS)/Coast Highway (EW) (AM) • MacArthur Boulevard (NS)/Campus Drive (EW) (PM) • Von Karman Avenue (NS)/Campus Drive (EW) (PM) • Jamboree Road (NS)/Campus Drive (EW) (AM/PM) u 4-17 TABLE 4.6 (Page 1 of 2) GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) COMPARISON TO EXISTING INTERSECTION NSIEW AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR EXISTING COUNT WITHOUT PROJECT I DELTA EXISTING COUNT WITHOUT PROJECT DELTA 1a. Bluff Rd. & Coast liw. NIA 0.65 NIA NIA 0.94 NIA tb. l5th SL & Coast Hw. NIA 0.74 NIA NIA 0.89 NIA 2.Su riorAv.&Placentlah 0.66 0.65 .0.01 0.67 0.55 -0.1 3. Su riork, & Coast Hw. 0.84 0.89 0.05 0.90 0.75 -0.16 4. Newport III. & Hospital Rd. 0.64 0.15 0.21 0.70 0.91 0.21 5. Newport St. & Via Lido 0.41 0.56 0.15 0.37 0.40 0.03 6. N rt BI. & 32nd SL 0.73 0.821 0.09 0:781 0.68 0.10 7. Riverside Av. & Coast Hw. 0.84 0.98 0.14 0.93 0.92 -0.01 6. Tustin Av. & Coast Hw. 0.80 0.91 0.11 0.67 0.76 0.W 9.MacArthur Bl.&Campus Dr. 0.61 0.76 0.15 0.85 1.21 0.36 10. MacArthur 81. & Birch SL 0.49 0.79 0.30 0.66 0.90 0.24 11. Von Karman Av. & Cam us Dr. 0.55 0.70 0.15 0.79 0.93 0.14 12. MacArthur St. & Von Kerman Av. 0.46 0.58 0.12 0.53 0.66 0.13 13. Jamboree Rd. & Campus Dr, 0.70 0.911 0.21 0.851 1.18 0.33 14. Jamboree Rd. & Birch SL 0.61 1.00 0.39 0.601 0.84 0.24 15. Campus Dr. & Bristol SL N 0.77 0.99 0.22 0.941 1,07. 0.13 16. Birch SL & Bristol St. N 0.66 0.94 0.28 0.61l 0.74 0.13 17.Cam usDrArvineAV.&BristolSL S 0.72 0.91 0.19 0.58 0.75 0,17 18. Birch SL & Bristot SL S 0.46 0.52 0.06 0.44 0.52 0.08 19, Irvine Av. & Mesa Dr. 0,70 0.99 0.29 0.94 1.19 0.25 20.Irvine AV. & University Dr. 0.82 1.17 0.35 0.89 1.08 0.19 1.Irvine Av. & Santiago Dr. 0.66 0.68 0.02 0.72 0.76 0.04 22. Irvine Av. &H hlandDr. 0.57 0.60 0.03 0.60 0.65 0.05 23.IrvineAv. &Dover Dr. 0.72 0.T7 0.051 0.64 0.68 0.04 24. Irvine Av. & Weslcliff Dr. 0.57 6.64 0.071 0.771 0.80 0.03 25. Dover Dr. & Westcli f Dr. 0.38 0.38 0.00 0.48 0,53 0.05 26. Dover Dr. & 161h 6L 0.55 0.60 0.05 0.57 0,60 0.03 27. Dover Dr. & Coast Hw. 0.70 0.80 0.10 0.74 0.93 0.19 28. Bayside Dr. & Coast Hw. 0.69 0.88 0.19 0.70 0.85 0.15 29. MacArthur 81. & Jamboree Rd. 0.88 0.92 0.04 0.91 0.98 0.07 0. Jamboree Rd. & Bristol St. N 0.55 0.68 0.13 0.59 0.65 0.06 31. Bayview Pl. & Bristol SL S 0.48 0.60 0.12 0.561 0.62 0.06 2. Jamboree Rd. & Bristol SL S 0.75 0.96 0.21 0.72 0.85 0.13 33. Jamboree Rd. & Bayview W . 0.41 0.46 0.05 0.57 0.67 0.10 34. Jamboree Rd. & Eastbluff Dr. /UniversityDr. 0.60 0.68 0.20 0.64 0.66 0.12 35. Jamboree Rd.& Bison Av. 0.45 0.52 0.07 0.51 0.62 0Ai 6. Jamboree Rd. & Easlbluff DrJFord Rd. 0.69 0.80 0.11 0.65 0.76 0.11 37, Jamboree Rd. & San Jon uin Hills Rd. 0.56 0.60 0.04 0.57 0.71 0,14 ME Fill L_1 I 11 I I I I I I r TABLE 4-6 (Page 2 of 2) GENERAL PLAN BUILOOUT WITHOUT PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) COMPARISON TO EXISTING INTERSECTION NS/EW AM PEAK HOUR I PM PEAK HOUR EXISTING COUNT WITHOUT PROJECT I DELTA EXISTING COUNT WITHOUT PROJECT DELTA 38. Jamboree Rd, & Santa Barbara Dr. 0.47 0,54 0.07 0.631 0.76 0.13 39. Jamboree Rd. & Coast Hw. 0.68 0.77 0.09 0.741 0.78 0.04 40. Santa Cruz Dr. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. 0.36 0,36 0.00 0.36 0.34 -0.02 1. Santa Rosa Or. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. 0.32 0.39 0.07 0.52 0.69 0.17 2. Newport Center Dr. & Coast Hw. 0.40 0.47 0.07 0.52 0.62 0.10 44, Avocado Av. & San Miguel Dr. 033 0.35 0.02 0.72 0.79 0.07 5. Avocado Av. & Coast Hw. 0.58 0.73 0.15 0.66 0.79 0.13 46. SR-73 NB Rams & Bison Av. 0.31 0.51 0.20 0.37 0.61 0.24 7. SR-73 SB Rams & Bison Av. 0.26 0.42 0.161 0.171 0.32 0.15 48. MacArthur 81, & Bison Av. 0.63 0.77 0.141 0.601 0.79 0.19 49. MacArthur BI. & Ford Rd.Bonita Canyon Dr. 0.71 0.79 0.08 0.901 1.00 0.10 50. MacArthur BI. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. 0.64 0.78 0.14 0.931 1.11 0.18 51. MacArthur 61. & San Miguel Dr. 0.56 0.64 0.08 0.651 0.75 0.10 52, MacArthur Bl. & Coast Hw. 0.60 0.73 0.13 0.71 0.77 0.06 53. SR-73 NB Ramps & Bonita Canyon Dr. 0.55 1.08 0.53 0.43 0.75 0.32 54, SR-73 SB Ramps & Bonita Canyon Dr. 0.30 0.46 016 0.41 0.67 0.26 55. Spyglass Hill Rd. & San MI uel Dr. 0.28 0.30 0.02 0.31 0.37 0.06 56. San MI uel Dr. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. 0.44 0.56 0.12 0.54 0.74 0.20 57. Goldenrod Av. & Coast Hw. 0.991 0.99 0.00 0.69 0,69 0,00 58. Marguerite Av. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. 0.31 0.431 0.12 0.35 0.521 0.17 59.MarguedtoAv.&CoastHw. 0.83 0.971 0.14 0.82 1.00 0.18 60. Spyglass Hill Rd. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. 0.44 0.61 0.17 0.30 0.51 0.21 1. Poppy Av. & Coast Hw. 0.61 0.70 0.09 0.65 0.76 0.11 62. Newport Coast Dr. & SR-73 NB Rams 0.45 0.64 0.19 0.31 0.39 0.08 64. Newport Coast Dr. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. 0.37 0.62 0.25 0.29 0.48 0.19 65. New o l Coast Dr. &Coast Hw. 0.47 0.70 0.231 0.50 0.73 0.23 IU:\UcJob8101200\01232\Excel\[01232-32.xIsIT4-6 4-19 ON. • Jamboree Road (NS)/Birch Street (EW) (AM) • Campus Drive (NS)/Bristol Street North (EW) (AM/PM) • Birch Street (NS)/Bristol Street North (EW) (AM) • Campus Drive (NS)/Bristol Street South (EW) (AM) • Irvine Avenue (NS)/Mesa Drive (EW) (PM) • Irvine Avenue (NS)/University Drive (EW) (AM/PM) • Dover Drive (NS)/Coast Highway (EW) (PM) • MacArthur Boulevard (NS)/Jamboree Road (EW) (AM/PM) • Jamboree Road (NS)/Bristol Street South (EW) (AM) • MacArthur Boulevard (NS)/Ford Road/Bonita Canyon Drive (EW) (PM) • MacArthur Boulevard (NS)/San Joaquin Hills Road (EW) (PM) • SR-73 NB Ramps (NS)/Bonita Canyon Drive (EW) (AM) • Goldenrod Avenue (NS)/Coast Highway (EW) (AM) • Marguerite Avenue (NS)/Coast Highway (EW) (AM/PM) Intersection analysis has been performed to determine the additional improvements necessary to provide acceptable levels of service. ICU worksheets are included in Appendix 'BB". Table 4-7 summarizes intersection analysis for buildout conditions, including potential improvements and discussion regarding improvement feasibility. Table 4-7 also compares the ICU results with and without additional improvements. Improvements necessary to provide acceptable levels of service are listed in Table 4-8. Improvements that require the least additional right-of-way or other environmental impacts have generally been recommended. Individual intersections 'improvements are discussed in Chapter 6 for each location requiring improvements. Freewav/Tollway and Ramp Analysis For the General Plan buildout Without Project scenario, the volumes on the SR-73 increase enough that all segments being analyzed are failing, as shown on Table 4-9. Anticipated regional improvements were taken from OCTAM (Orange- County Transportation Analysis Model). Worksheets for the analysis 4-20 M r r mom� S M m r= r m S m so M M M TABLE 4-T (Page 1 of 6) INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFIC Coast Hw. (EW) -LOS D Improvements TS 0 0 0 1 2 0 2= Ith SL (NS) at: Coast Hw. (EW) -LOSDlmprovements TS 0' 0 0 2 0 2' iperior Av. (NS) at: Placentia Av. (EW) TS 1 2 1 1 2 d Hospital Rd. N Via Lido St. (EW) -LOS D I T32nS 11 2 d 1 2 0 TS -LOS EImp Improvements I TS 10 1 d 0.5 0.5 1> -LOS D Improvements TS 0 1 d 10.5 0.5 1> istin Av. (NS) at: Coast Hw. (EW) TS 0 1 0 0 1 0 -LOS D Improvements TS 0 1 0 0 1 0 3cArthu_r BI. (NS) at Campus Dr. (EW) TS 1 4 1 1 4 1 -LOS E Improvements TS 1 4 1 1 3.5 1.5 -LOS D Improvements I TS 12 4 1 1 1 3.5 1.5 PPROACH LANES' LEVEL OF , EAST- WEST- BOUND BOUND ICU SERVICE FEASIBILITY/COMMENTS L T R L T R AM I PM AM I PM 2 3 0 0 3 1 0.69 0.84 B 1 D Shares Southbound volume with 15th St. 2 3 0 0 3 1 0.74 0.89 C D IShares Southbound volume with Bluff Rd. 1 1 1 0.5 1.5 0 0.65 0.65 B A 2 3 d 1 4 d 0.89 0.75 D C 2 1 1 1 2 0 0.75 0.91 C E 2 1 1 1 2 0 0.75 0,74 C D Consistent with historic plan 0 0 0 1 0 2> 0.56 0.40 A A 1.5 0.5 1 0.5 1.5 1>> 0.82 0.88 D 1 D 1 2 0 1 3 1 0.98 0.92 E E 1 3 0 1 3 0 0.69 0.93 B E Consistent with historic plan. Would remove parking and WB RT lane on north side of street 2 3 0 1 3 0 0.75 0.88 C D ISevere ROW constraints. 1 2 0 0 3 1 0.91 0.76 E C 1 3 0 0 3 1 0.62 0.75 B C Consistent with historic plan 2 3 d 2 3 1>> 0.76 1.21 C F 2 3 d 2 3 1» 0.76 0.93 C E 2 3 d 2 3 1>> 0.76 0.84 C D Would require narrow lanes or minor landscape area reductions. 1.5 1.5 0 1 2 1» 0.79 0.90 C D A r N N TABLE 4-7 (Page 2 of 6) INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WEST- LEVELOF TRAFFIC BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND ICU . SERVICE I L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM I PM INTERSECTION CONTROL] FEASIBILITY/COMMENTS Von Kansan Av. (NS) at • Campus Dr. (EW) TS 1 2 1>> 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 0 0.70 0.93 B E -LOS D AULmathre 1 TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 2 2 0 1 2 0 0.59 0.86 A D Can be accomplished within e)dsdng curb to curb section by eliminating NB and EB RT lanes. -LOS D Altemative 2 TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 3 0 0.65 0.82 B D Logical (high demand movement) improvement. -LOS DAttemative 3 TS 1 2 1>>1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 0.70 0.84 B D Would encroach on landscape area on north leg of intersection. -LOSDAItemative 4 TS 1 2 1>> 1 3 0 1 2 1 1 2 0 0.70 0.79 B C Logical (high demand movement) improvement Would encroach on landscape area on north leg south leg of intersection. MacArthur BL (NS) at:and • Von KamlanAV. EW TS 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 2 1>> 2 1 1>> 0.58 0.66 A I B Jamboree Rd. (NS) at • Campus Dr. (EW) TS 2 4 0 2 3 0 2 2 1>> 2 2 1 0.91 1.18 E F -LOSEImprovements TS 2 4 1> 2 4 0 2 2 0 2 2 1> 0.87 0.92 D E Achieves LOS D for With Project -LOS D Improvements TS 2 4 1> 2 4 0 2 2 0 2 3 1> 0.87 0.89 D D - Birch St. (EW) TS 1 3 0 1 3 1>> 1.5 0.5 1» 0 1 0 1.00 0.84 E D -LOS DAItemativeI TS 1 3 0 1 4 1>> 1.5 0.5 1>> 0 1 0 -0.89 6.78 D C -LOS DAItematfve2 TS 1 2 3 0 1 3 1>> 1.5 0.5 1>> 0 1 0 0.86 0.791 D C _ Campus Dr. (NS) at • Bristol -St. N (EW) TS 2 3 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 2 4 0 0.99 1.07 E F Based on field reconnaissance, it appears this -LOSE Improvements TS 2 3 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 2 5 0 -0.92 0.97 E E could be accomplished on inside (south side), involving improvements to SR-73 NB On -ramp. -LOS D Altemative 1 TS 2 4 0 0 4 1>> 0 0 0 2 5 0 0.75 0.86 C D SB Free Right Imples braided ramp to allow access to Freeway- Runway height limit Issues 11 -LOS D Altemative 2 2 4 0 0 4 3 0 0 0 2 5 0 0.75 0.86 C D Impacts building on NW comer ,� � +� � � � s r w� � �■r w � r r�r rr � r � M Mr M M IMs m m a M m m m r a r. M M A N W TABLE 4-7 (Page 3 of 6) INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES' NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WEST- LEVEL OF TRAFFIC BOUND BOUND BOUND I BOUND ICU SERVICE L T R L T R I L T R L T R AM I PM AM PM INTERSECTION CONTROLZ FEASIBILITY/COMMENTS Birch SL (NS) at • Bristol St. N (EW) TS 2 2 0 0 1.5 2.5 0 0 0 1.5 3.5 0 0.94 0.74 E C -LOS D Alternative 1 TS' 2 3 0 0 1.5 2.5 0 0 0 1.5 3.5 0 0.80 0.74 C C -LOS D Alternative 2 TS 2 2 0 0 1.5 2.5 0 0 0 1 2.5 1.5 0.83 0.79 D C Restrl a only Not needed for With Project Campus Dr. (NS) at: • Bristol St. S (EW) TS 0 5 0 1 3 0 1.5 2.5 2 0 0 0 0.91 0.75 E C -LOS D Improvements TS 0 5 0 1 3 0 2 2.5 1.5 0 0 0 0.85 0.76 D C Restdpe only Not needed for With Project) Birch St. (NS) at • Bristol St. S EW TS 0 2.5 1.5 2 '2 0 1.5 3.5 0 0 0 0 0.52 0.52 A . A Irvine Av. (NS) at • Mesa Dr. (EW) TS 1 2 d 1 2 d 1 1 0 1 1 1 0.99 1.19 E F -Funded Improvements TS 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 0.70 0.94 B E -LOS D Alternative 1 TS 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 1> 1 2 0 0.75 0.88 C D Highly problematic ROW / topographic issues on the west leg of the intersection. -LOS D Alternative 2 TS 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 0 2 1 0 0.73 0.86 C D Assumes reallocated PM WB LT / Thru Volume. • University Dr. (EW) TS 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 d 1 1 d 1.17 1.08 F F -LOS D Improvements TS 1 3 0 1 3 1 1_5 0.5 1 1 1 d 0.79 0.83 C D ROW and potential environmental issues. • Santiago Dr. (EW) TS 1 2 0 1 2 d 0 1 d 0 1 d 0.68 0.76 B C • Highland Dr. (EW) TS 1 2 d 1 2 d 0 1 d 0 1 d 0.60 0.651 A B • Dover Dr. (EW) TS 1 2 d 1 2 d 1 1 0 1 1 d 0.77 0.68 C B • Westcliff Dr. EW TS 2 2 d 2 2 d 2 2 0 1 2 0 0.64 0.80 B C Dover Dr. (NS) at: • Westcliff Dr. (EW) TS 2 2 0 0 1 1 2 0 1>> 0 0 0 0.38 0.53 A A • 16th SL (EW) TS 1 2 d 1 2 d 0.5 0.5 d 1 1 1 0.60 0.60 A A • Coast Hw. (EW) TS 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 3 0 1 3 1>> 0.80 0.93 C E -LOSD Improvements TS 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 3. 0 1 4 1>> 0.80 0.78 C C Highly problematic ROW issues. Bayside Or. (NS) at • Coast Hw.(EW) EW TS 2.5 0.5 0 1 1 d 1_ 3 1 1 4 0 1.88 j 0.85 D I D TABLE 4-7 (Page 4 of 6) INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR GENERAL PLAN BUILOOUT WRHOUT PROJECT INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES' NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WEST- LEVEL OF TRAFFIC BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND ICU . SERVICE INTERSECTION CONTROLZ L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM FEASIBILITY/COMMENTS MacArthur 81. (NS) at: - - • Jamboree Rd. (EW) TS 2 3 1> 2 3 1>> 2 3 1» 2 3 1>> 0.92 0.98 E E -LOS D Alternative 1 TS 2 3 1> 2 3 1>> 2 3 1>> 3 3 1>> 0.89 0.89 D D Jamboree Improvement only. (LOS E for With -LOS D AHernative 2 TS 2 3 1> 2 3 1>> 2 4 1>> 3 3 1>> 0.87 0.81 D D Feasible at -grade improvements. -LOS D ABematrve 3A TS 2 0 0 2 3 1 0 0 1 2 3 1 0.39 0.73 A C Grade separated alternative. -LOS D Alternative 3B TS 0 3 1 0 0 0 2 3 0 0- 0 0 0.77 0.63 C B Grade se anted alternative. Jamboree Rd. (NS) at • Bristol St. N EW TS 2 3 0 0 2.5 1.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.68 0.65 B B Bayview P6 (NS)-at - - • Bristol SL S EW TS 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 0.60 0.62 A B _ Jamboree Rd. (NS) at • Bristol St. S (EW) TS 0 5 0 0 3 0 1.5 1.5 2 0 0 0 0.96 0.85 E D -LOS EImprovements TS 0 6 0 0 4 0 1.5 1.5 2 0 0 0 0.91 0.80 E D Improvements currently understudy. (LOS D for With Project) -LOS D 1Npmvements TS 0 5 0 0 3 0 2.5 1.5 2 0 0 0 0.73 0.79 C C Appears feasible, butm)ght cause operational issues. • Bayview Wy. (EW) TS 1 4 0 1 4 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 0.46 0.67 A B • Eastbluff DrJUniversity Dr. (EW) TS 1 3 1 2 3 1 1.5 0.5 1 1.5 -1.5 1>> 0.68 0.66 B B • Bison Av. (EW) TS 0 3 d 2 3 1 1 0 1 2 0 2 0.52 0.62 A 8 • Easbluff DrJFord Rd. (EW) TS 2 3 0 2 3 1 1 1 1>> 1.5 1.5 1 0.80 0.76 C C • San Joaquin Hills Rd. (EW) TS 1 3 1>> 2 3 1 1.5 1.5 1 2 1 1>> 0.60 0.71 A C • Santa Barbara Dr. (EW) TS 1 3 1 2 3 1 1 1 0 1.5 0.5 1 0.64 0.76 A C • Coast Hw. EW TS 1 2 0 1 2 1>1 3 4 0 2 4 1>> 0.77 0.78 C C Santa Cruz Dr. (NS) at • San Joa uin Hills Rd. EW TS 2 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 3 0 1 3 0 0.36 0.34 A A M a a M M� air wo M a• M M M ,ate M M i r M ! ! ! ! ! ! �! ! ! a! ! ■! ! ! man ! m ! TABLE 4-7 (Page 5 of 6) INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT -P.ROACH LANES' LEVEL OF EAST- WEST- BOUND BOUND ICU SERVICE FEASIBILITY/COMMENTS L T R L T R AM I PM AM PM 1 3 0 2 3 0 0.39 0.69 A B 2 3 0 0 3 1>> 0.47 0.62 A B 1 2 0 2 2 0 0.35 0.79 A C 1 3 d 1 3 1 0.73 0.79 C C 1 2 0 0• 2 1 0.51 0.61 A B 0 2 1 2 2 0 0.42 0.32 A A 2 2 1>> 2 2 1 0.77 0.79 C C 2 2 1 2 2 1>> 0.79 1.00 C E 2 2 1 2 2 1>> 0.79 0.89 C D 2 3 0 1 2 1>> 0.78 1.11 C F 2 3 0 1 2 1>> 0.66 0.92 B E 3 3 0 1 2 1>> 0.68 0.91 B E 3 3 0 1 2 1>> 0.70 0.90 B D May require narrow lanes and lead I lag LT operations. (Results for LOS E for With Project) 2 2 0 2 2 d 0.64 0.75 B C 2 3 0 0 3 1>> 0.7310.771 C I C 0 2 1 1 2 0 1.08 0.75 F C 0 2 1 2 2 0 0.86 0.63 D B I 0 2 1 2 3 0 0.46 0.67 A B 1 2 d 1 2 d 0.30 0.37 A A 2 3 0 1 3 0 0.56 0.74 A C A N Co TABLE 4.7 (Page 6 of 6) INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES' NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WEST- LEVEL OF TRAFFIC BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUNDJAM ICU SERVICE L_ T R L T R L T R L T PM AM PM INTERSECTION CONTROL2 FEASIBICITYICOMMENTS Goldenrod Av. (NS) at: • Coast Hw. EW TS 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 d 1 2 d 0.99 0.69 E .B Marguerite Av. (NS) at: • San Joaquin Hills Rd. (EW) TS 1.5 0.5 1 1 1 0 1 2 1> 1 3 d 0.43 0.52 A A • CoastHw.(EW) TS 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 0 0.97 1.00 E E -LOSD Improvements TS 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 3 0 1 3 0 0.76 0.82 C D Highly problematic ROW issues. Inconsistent with Corona Del Mar character. Spyglass H91 Rd. (NS) at: • San Joaquin Hills Rd. EW TS 1 1 0 1 1 d 1 2 1 1 2- d 0.61 0.51 A A Poppy Av. (NS) at • Coast Hw. EW TS 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 2_ 0 1 2 0 0.70 0.76 B C t C Newporoast Dr. (NS) at • SR-73 NB Ramps (EW) TS 0 2 1» 0 2 0 0 0 0 1.5 0 0.5 0.64 0.39 8 A • San Joaquin Hi0s Rd. (EW) TS 2 3 0 0 3 1 1 0 2> 0 0 0 0.62 0.48 B A • Coast Hw.(EW) TS 1 1 1 2 1 1>> 1 3 1 1 3 1>> 0.70 0.73 B C -LOS D Improvements TS 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 d 1 3 0 0.71 0.69 C g Highly problematic ROW issues. Inconsistent with Corona Del Mar character. t When a fight turn is designaled. the lane con e8herbe striped orumbiped. Toruricdon as a right turn lane there must be sufficient wldthtordght Wmhg vohides to travel outsldo the thmugh hoes. L = Left T = Through; R - Right, > = Overlap; » = Free Right? =Improvement TS=Trdf0esignai U.WcJobst 0120010123ZEv 40123242xb)T47 M it M M M M M r M so M M i ,m m so i �� M I I I 1 1 1 I 1 I I TABLE 4.8 (Page 1 of 2) GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT SUMMARY OF IMPROVEMENT NEEDS BEYOND 2005 EXISTING LANES INTERSECTION ADDITIONAL INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS Bluff Rd. (NS) at: • Coast Hw. (EW) Provide two SB left turn lanes and two SB right turn lanes (2nd with overlap phase). Provide two EB left turn lanes. Provide one WB right turn lane. Multiple additional through lanes required to achieve LOS "D". 15th St. (NS) at: • Coast Hw. (EW) Provide 2nd SB right turn lane with overlap phase. Provide 2nd EB left turn lane. Newport BI. (NS) at: Hospital Rd. (EW) Provide 2nd NB left turn lane. Riverside Av. (NS) at: Coast Hw. (EW) Provide 3rd EB throu h lane. Tustin Av. (NS) at: Coast Hw. (EW) Provide 3rd EB through lane. MacArthur BI. (NS) at: Campus Dr. (EW) Provide 2nd NB left turn lane. Restripe SB to provide 3.5 through lanes and 1.5 right turn lanes. Von Kerman Av. (NS) at: Campus Dr. (EW) Provide 2nd EB left turn lane. Jamboree Rd. (NS) at: • Campus Dr. (EW) Provide NS 1st right turn lane with overlap phase. Provide 4th SB through lane. • Birch St. EW Provide WB right turn overlap phase for current right turn lane. Additionally, to achieve LOS "D", provide 3rd WB through lane. Provide 4th SB through lane. Campus Dr. (NS) at: Bristol St. N (EW) Provide 5th WB through lane. Birch St. (NS) at: • Bristol St. N (EW) Reconstruct WB approach to provide 1 left turn lane, 2.5 through lanes, and 1.5 right turn lanes. Campus Dr. (NS) at: Brlstol St. S (EW) h Reconstruct EB approach to provide 2 left turn lanes, 2.5 through lanes, and 1.5 right turn lanes. Irvine Av. (NS) at: • Mesa Dr. (EW) -Funded Improvements Provide 3rd NB through lane. Provide 3rd SB through lane. Provide 1st EB right turn lane. Provide 2nd WB left turn lane. Additional Improvements Construct funded Improvements, but EB right tum lane is not necessary. • University Dr. (EW) Provide 3rd NB through lane. Provide 3rd SB through lane. Restri a EB to include 1.5 left turn lanes 0.5 throu Inlanes and 1 right turn lane. TABLE 4-e (Page 2 of 2) GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT SUMMARY OF IMPROVEMENT NEEDS BEYOND 2005 EXISTING LANES INTERSECTION ADDITIONAL INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS MacArthur Bl. (NS) at: • Jamboree Rd. (EW) Provide 3rd WS left turn lane. Jamboree Rd. (NS) at: Bdstol St. S (EW) Provide 6th NB through lane. Provide 4th SB through lane. To achieve LOS "D", provide additional EB left turn lane (making EB movement 2.5 left turn lanes 1.5 through lanes, and 2 rt ht tum lanes). MacArthur Bl, (NS) at: • Ford Rd./Bonita Canyon Dr. (EW) Provide 3rd SB left turn lane. • San Joaquin Hills Rd. (EW) Provide 3rd SB left turn lane. Provide 3rd EB left turn lane. SR-73 NB Ramp(NS) at: Bonita Can ons Dr. EW Provide 2nd WB left turn lane. U:1UcJobsl 012001012321ExcoP401232.32xJsjT" 3 TABLE 4-9 BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT SR-73 FREEWAYITOLL WAY MAINLINE ANALYSIS Aryl SEGMENT ADT NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND LANES VOLUME LOS LANES VOLUME I LOS 405 Fw. to Bear St. -with anticipated regions! im rovements Z 135,000 3 10,718 F 3 3,457 C 5 F 4 B :with additional improvements 6 D 6 A Bear St. to 55 Fw. 158,000 3 12,544 F 3 4,046 C -with anticipated regional improvementsZ 5 F 5 B -with additional improvements 6 F 6 B 55 Fw. to Jamboree Rd. -with anticipated regional im rovementsZ 135,000 3 10,718 F 3 3,457 C 5 F 5 B :with additional improvements 6 D 6 A Jamboree Rd. to Bonita Canyon Dr. 97,000 136,000 3 7,701 10,797 F 3 2,484 3,483 B -with anticipated regional improvementsZ Bonita Canyon Dr. to Newport Coast Dr. 5 4 D F 5 4 A B -with anticipated regional improvements' 6 E 6 A -with additional improvements 7 D 6 A Newport Coast Dr. to Toll Plaza -with anticipated regional improvements 1 127,000 3 10,083 F 3 3,252 C 5 F 6 A :with additional improvements 6 B 6 A PM SEGMENT ADT NORTHBOUND I SOUTHBOUND LANES VOLUME LOS LANES I VOLUMEJ LOS 405 Fw. to Bear St. -with anticipated regional improvementsZ 135,000 3 5,646 E 3 9,137 F 5 C 4 F -with additional improvements 6 B 6 D Bear St. to 55 Fw. -with anticipated regional improvementsZ 158,000 3 6,607 F 3 10,694 F 5 C 5 F -with additional improvements 6 C 6 D 55 Fw. to Jamboree Rd. -with anticipated regional improvements' 135,000 3 5,646 E 3 9,137 F 5 C 5 E with additional improvements 6 B 6 D Jamboree Rd. to Bonita Can on Dr. 97,000 136,000 3 4,057 5,687 C 3 6,565 9,205 F -with anticipated regional improvementsZ Bonita Can on Dr. to New ort Coast Dr. 5 4 B C 5 4 C F -with anticipated regional improvements' 6 B 6 D :with additional improvements 7 B 6 D Newport Coast Dr. to Toll Plaza 127,000 3 5,311 D 3 8,596 F -with anticipated regional improvementsZ 5 F-C-F 6 C -with additional improvements 6 D 6 C 1 = Improvement z-Anticipated regional Improvements taken from OCTAM IU9UcJobs\_01200\01232\Excel\[01232-32.xis]T4.9 LI 4-29 are contained in Appendix "CC." Even with these improvements, the following segments operate at a deficient level of service and require further improvements: SR-73 Freeway Northbound • 1-405 Freeway to Bear Street (AM) • Bear Street to SR-55 Freeway (AM) • SR-55 Freeway to Jamboree Rd. (AM) • Bonita Canyon Drive to Newport Coast Drive (AM) • Newport. Coast Drive to Toll Plaza (AM) SR-73 Freeway Southbound • 1-405 Freeway to Bear Street (PM) • Bear Street to SR-55 Freeway (PM) • SR-55 Freeway to Jamboree Rd. (PM) Mainline operations can also be negatively affected by ramp operational problems. The ramp analysis for the General Plan build'out Without Project scenario was analyzed with freeway lanes that are consistent with the anticipated regional improvements. Appendix "DD" contains the calculation worksheets. Ramp failure could be due to a number of factors. Insufficient freeway lanes could cause ramp failure if the volume on the freeway exceeded capacity. Ramp volumes exceeding ramp capacity also cause a deficient level of service. Dependent on the situation, excess or insufficient length in the acceleration or deceleration could cause deficient operations. The summary of the analysis is shown on Table 4-10. The following locations operate at a deficient level of service: • Bristol Street Northbound Off • Jamboree Road Southbound On • MacArthur Boulevard Northbound On 4-30 TABLE 4-10 FRAI Bris -wit Bris Jan Jan -wit Mac Mac -wit Mac -wit Uni, Unh Bisc Bisc Bisc Bisc Bor Bor -wit Bor Bor Neo -wit Nei -wit Neu -wit NeN ' Re 1=1 UAU • MacArthur,Boulevard Southbound Off • Bonita Canyon Drive Northbound Off • Newport Coast Drive Northbound Off • Newport Coast Drive Northbound On • Newport Coast Drive Southbound Off 4-32 1 5.0 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT (POST-2030) LAND USE WITH �l II LJ II II II PROJECT NETWORK SCENARIO This chapter presents General Plan buildout (Post-2030) With Project conditions. General Plan buildout model inputs are discussed and refined forecast volumes are presented. Data are compared to Existing conditions and the Without Project (currently adopted General Plan) conditions (as defined in Chapter 4 of this report) scenario. The roadway system has remained unchanged (the project network) from the General Plan buildout Without Project scenario. 5.1 Land Use and Socioeconomic Data (SED) This section discusses the land use and socioeconomic data inputs. 5.1.1 General Plan Buildout With Proiect Land Use Data The General Plan buildout with project land use data was provided to Urban Crossroads, Inc. staff by City staff and the City's General Plan consultant, EIP Associates. Appendix "EF of this report documents the explicit land use data included in NBTM 3.1 for General Plan buildout With Project conditions in this analysis. Table 5-1 summarizes the overall General Plan buildout with project land uses for the City of Newport Beach. Appendix "FF" contains the land use changes by TAZ compared to the Without Project (currently adopted General Plan) scenario. Land uses have changed based on data provided by the City. Large land use changes occur in the Airport Area (to incorporate residential uses in an area dominated by employment uses), in Newport Center (where additional residential and commercial uses are included) and in places like Mariners Mile and Old Newport Boulevard (where a mixed use component has been added). Table 5-2 shows General Plan buildout With Project land use growth from Existing conditions. There is an increase in apartments of almost II 5-1 TABLE 54 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT LAND USE COMPARISON NBTM CODE' DESCRIPTION UNITS' BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT QUANTITY3 BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT QUANTITY' DIFFERENCE % DIFFERENCE 1 Low Density Residential DU 19,570 20,402 832 4.25% 2 Medium Density Residential DU 15,077 14,223 854 -5.66% 3 Apartment DU 14,427 19,114 4,687 32A9% 4 Elderly Residential OU 200 200 0.00% 5 Mobile Home DU 455 455 D.00% TOTAL DWELLING UNITS DU 49,729, 54,394 41,666 6 Motel ROOM 139 136 3 -2.16% 7 Hotel ROOM 5,537 6,413 876 15.82% 9 Regional Commercial TSF 1.559.000 1.684.000 125.000 8,02% 10 General Commercial TSF 5,120.942 5.268.840 147.898 2.89% 11 Commercial/Recreation ACRE 5.100 5.100 0.00% 13 Restaurant TSF 198.860 198.860 0.000 0.00% 15 Fast Food Restaurant TSF 15.640 15.640 0.00% 16 Auto Dealer/Sales TSF 386.0501 386,050 0.00% 17 Yacht Club TSF 70.310 70.310 0.00% 18 Health Club TSF 61.330 61.330 0.000 0.00% 19 Tennis Club CRT 59 59 0.00% 20 Marina SLIP 1,055 1',055 0.00% 21 Theater SEAT 5,475 5,475 0.00% 22 Newport Dunes ACRE 64.00 64.00 0.00% 23 General Office TSF 13,492.354 11,209.939 2,282.415 AR 92% 24 Medical/GovemmentOffice TSF 1,084.576 1,657.561 572.985 52.83% 25 Research & Development TSF 81.7301 81.730 0.00% 26 Industrial TSF 1,956.092 885.310 1,070.782 -54.74% 27 Mini-Storage/Warehouse TSF 196A20 196.420 0.00% 28 Pre-school/Day Care TSF 49.000 40.600 8A00 -17.14% 29 Elementary/Private School STU 5,055 5,555 500 9.89% 30 Junior/High School STU 5,215 5,215 0.00% 31 Culturaill-eaming Center TSF 40.000 40.000 0.00% 32 1 Library TSF 84.600 84.600 0.00% 33 Post Office TSF 73.700 73.700 0.00% 34 Hospital .'BED 2,001 1 2,001 0.00% 35 Nursin /Conv. Home BEDS 566 566 0.00% 36 Church TSF 511.704 465.904 45.800 -8,95% 37 Youth Ctr./Service TSF 183:209 189,209 6.000 3.27% 38 Park ACRE 127.780 183,680 55.900 43.75% 39 Regional Park ACRE 45.9101 65.910 20.000 43.56% 40 Golf Course ACRE 298.290 1 298.290 0.00% ' Uses 8, 12, and 14 ere part of the old NBTAM model structure and are not currently utilized In the City land use dalasets. ° Units Abbreviations: DU = DWelling Units TSF = Thousand Square Feet CRT=Court STU = Students ° Includes Newport Coast and recent annexation areas. UAUWobsl 0120010123Z%ExcoP40123232.x1s1T5.1 5-2 TABLE 5.2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT LAND USE GROWTH FROM EXISTING NBTM CODE' DESCRIPTION UNITS 2 EXISTING QUANTITY BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT QUANTITY3 GROWTH % GROWTH 1 Low Density Residential DU 1 18,702 20.402 1,7001 9.095% 2 Medium ensity Residential DU 1 10,974 14,223 3,249 29.61% 3 Apartment DU 9,703 19,114 9,411 96.99% 4 Elderly Residential DU 200 200 0.000% 5 Mobile Home DU 600 455 -145 -24.17% TOTAL DWELLING UNITS DU 40,179 54,394 14,215 35.38% 6 Motel ROOM 134 1361 2 1.49% 7 Hotel ROOM 3,231 6,413 3,182 98.48% 9 Regional Commercial TSF 1,331.000 1,684.000 353.000 26.52% 10 General Commercial TSF 3,823.398 5,268.840 1,445.442 37.81% 11 Commercial/Recreation ACRE 5.100 5.100 0.00% 13 Restaurant TSF 99.450 198.860 99.410 99.96% 15 Fast Food Restaurant TSF 15.640 15.640 0.00% 16 Auto Dealer/Sales TSF 201.300 386.050 184.750 91.78% 17 Yacht Club TSF 51.830 70.310 18.480 35.66% 18 Health Club TSF 16.770 61.330 44.560 265.71% 19 Tennis Club CRT 60 59 1 -1.67% 20 Marina SLIP 1,055 1,055 0.00% 21 Theater SEAT 5,489 5,475 -14 -0.26% 22 Newport Dunes ACRE 64.00 64.00 0.00% 23 General Office TSF 11,657.109 11,209.939 447.170 -3.84% 24 Medical/Government Office TSF 959.718 1,657.561 697.843 72.71% 25 Research & Development TSF 81.730 81.730 - 0.00% 26 Industrial TSF 1,291.079 885.310 405.769 -31.43% 27 Mini-Stora eMarehouse TSF 196.420 196,420 0.00% 28 Pre-school/Day Care TSF 48.050 40.600 7.450 -15.50% 29 ElennentaryPrivate School STU 4,999 5,555 556 11.13% 30 Junior/Hi h School STU 5,215 5,215 - 0.00% 31 Cultural/Leaming Center TSF 35.000 40.000 5.000 14.29% 32 Library TSF 78.800 84.600 5.800 7.36% 33 Post Office TSF 53.700 73.700 20.000 37.24% 34 Hospital BED 1,031 2,001 970 94.08% 35 Nurs[n /Conv. Home BEDS 661 566 95 -14.37% 36 Church TSF 377.780 465.904 88.124 23.33% 37 Youth Ctr./Service TSF 149.540 189.209 39.669 26.53% 38 Park ACRE 128.360 183.680 55.320 43.10% 39 Re ional Park ACRE 65.910 65.910 N/A 40 GoIfCcurse ACRE 305.330 298.290 -7.040 -2.31% ' Uses 8, 12, and 14 are part of the old NBTAM model structure and are not currently utilized in the City land use datasets. Units Abbreviations, DU = Dwelling Units TSF =Thousand Square Feel CRT = Court STU = Students Includes Newport Coast and recent annexation areas. U:1UcJobs\ 012001012321Excell[0123232.xlsIT5.2 5-3 5.2 10,000 dwelling units. Non-residential categories that grow by more than 500,000 square feet include general commercial and medical/government office. At the same time, the quantity of general office and industrial use are projected to decrease by approximately 450,000 and 400,000 square feet, respectively. 5.1.2 General Plan Buildout With Proiect Socioeconomic Data (SED,) General Plan buildout SED that has been calculated from land use is summarized in Table 5-3. Appendix "GG" contains the supporting data, along with supplemental and final SED summaries. Table 5-3 also contains a comparison of General Plan buildout With Project SED to Existing SED for the City of Newport Beach. The total number of dwelling units is projected to increase by 13,295 units (35 %) from Existing conditions. For total employment, an increase of 15,454 employees (21%) is anticipated. Trip Generation Table 5-4 summarizes the overall trip generation for the General Plan buildout With Project conditions for the City of Newport Beach and compares it to Existing conditions trip generation. Appendix "HH" contains a report of trip generation by NBTM TAZ for the City of Newport Beach. Most of these trips have been calculated from the final General Plan buildout SED presented previously. Some additional trips result from supplemental SED or represent special generator trips. The overall trip generation for the City of Newport Beach With Project scenario is an estimated 981,997 daily vehicle trips. Table 5-5 compares General Plan buildout With Project trip generation to General Plan buildout Without Project trip generation. Total trip generation increases by approximately 29,748 daily trips (2.91%). Appendix "II" shows the zone by zone trip generation comparison. 5-4 I I 1 I I J L TABLE 5-3 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT LAND USE BASED SOCIOECONOMIC DATA GROWTH FROM EXISTING VARIABLE EXISTING' QUANTITY BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT QUANTITY' GROWTH % GROWTH Occupied Single Family Dwelling Units 17,467 19,105 1,638 9% occupied Multi -Family Dwelling Units 20,136 31,793 11,657 58% TOTAL OCCUPIED DWELLING UNITS 37,603 50,898 13,295 35% Group Quarters Population 661 566 -95 Po ulation 83,007 108,421 25,414Em A34% io ed Residents 49,632 66,581 16,949 Retail Employees 11,5251 15,480 3,955 34% Service Employees 19,681 27,336 7,655 39% Other Employees 41,468 45,312 3,844 9% TOTAL EMPLOYEES 72,6741 88,128 15,454 21.% EIemIHi h School Students 10,214 10,770 556 5% ' ' includes Newport Coe U:\UcJobs\-01200\012: TABLE 5.4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY TRIP PURPOSE DAILY TRIP ENDS GROWTH PERCENT GROWTH EXISTING' BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT' Home Based Work Productions 61,128 81,761 20,633 33.75% Home Based Work Attractions 88,446 107,577 19,131 21.63% Home Based School Productions 11,756 15,332 3.576 30.42% Home Based School Attractions 8,990 9,481 491 5.46% Home Based Other Productions 165,256 212,617 47,361 28.66% Home Based Other Attractions 115,052 153,163 3B,111 33.13% or Based Other Productions 55,488 69,271 13,783 24.84% Work Based Other Attractions 60,741 76,428 15,6B7 25.83% Other - Other Productions 98, 051 129,0811 31.076 31.711/u Other - Other Attractions 96,3631 127.2861 30,923 32.09% TOTAL PRODUCTIONS 1 391,6331 508,0621 116,4291 29.73% TOTAL ATTRACTIONS 1 369,5921 473,9351 104,3431 28.23% OVERALL TOTAL 1 761,2251 981,9971 220,7721 29.00% ' Home -Work includes Home -Work and Home -University trips, consistent with OCTAM mode choice output. 2 Home -Other Includes Home -Shop and Home -Other trips, consistent with OCTAM mode choice output. 3 Includes Newport Coast and recent annexation areas. U.,\UcJobs\ 01200\01232\Excel\[01232-32.)dsITS 4 5-6 TABLE 5-5 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON TRIP PURPOSE DAILY TRIP ENDS GROWTH PERCENT GROWTH BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECTS BUILDOUT WITH PROJECTS Home Based Work Productions 74,938 81,761 6,823 9.10% Home Based Work Attractions 112,693 107,577 -5,116 -4.54% Home Based School Productions 14,241 15,332 1,091 7.66% Home Based School Attractions 9,041 9,481 440 4.87% Home Based Other Productionsz 195,168 212,617 17,449 8.94% Home Based Other Attractions 148,526 153,163 4,637 3.12% or Based Other Productions 71,257 69,271 -1,986 -2.790o Work Based Other Attractions 77,664 76,428 -1,236 -1.59% Other - Other Productions 125,391 129,081 3,690 2.94% Other - Other Attractions 123,3301 127,286 3,956 3.21 % TOTAL PRODUCTIONS 480,9951 508,062 27,067 5.63% TOTAL ATTRACTIONS 471,2541 473,9351 2,6811 0.57% OVERALL TOTAL 952,2491 981,9971 29,748 3.12% ' Home -Work includes Ho 2 Home -Other Includes He a Includes Newport Coast U:\Uc.lobs\ 01200\012321E 5.3 5.4 Traffic Assi nment The roadway system for the General Plan buildout With Project alternative is identical to the roadway system presented in Chapter 4 of this report. Exhibit 5-A summarizes the NBTM 3.1 refined General Plan buildout With Project scenario daily traffic volumes throughout the City of Newport Beach. Changes from the General Plan buildout without project forecasts are shown on Table 5-6. Volume changes occur primarily because of land use changes in the Airport Area. Roadways that experience the largest increases include Birch Street, Coast Highway, Jamboree Road, and MacArthur Boulevard. Table 5-7 compares these refined forecasts to existing counted volumes. The highest daily traffic volume increases occur on Campus Drive/Irvine Avenue, Coast Highway, Jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard, Newport Boulevard, and Newport Coast Drive. Each of these facilities experiences an increase in excess of 10,000 vehicles per day. The traffic volumes are very similar to the traffic volumes previously presented for the Without Project (currently adopted General Plan) scenario. Daily Capacity Analysis Daily roadway segment capacity analysis has been performed at study area roadways, and is shown on Exhibit 5-B. The following roadway segments are expected to operate with daily V/C ratios greater than 0.90: • Newport Boulevard north of Via Lido • Jamboree Road north of Campus Drive • Jamboree Road north of Birch Street • Irvine Avenue north of University Drive • Irvine Avenue north of Santiago Drive C I I J I 01 CO 8 M M� M M M M EXM 5TE GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT �2 31,9,1 I66 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC�(ADT) 30 rw�lo 16 8 1 IIL2 16 18 44 '3°c�.rooa 17 22 6 3 4 10 63 14 4 136 5 LEGEND: 10 = VEHICLES PER DAY (000'S) 11—�50 39 'w 2 -a �1:1 35C�9 P4 PACIFIC 2OCEAN NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE.Newport Beacb,California - 01232:gphowp_adLpdf URBAN I TABLE 5.6 (Page 1 of 4) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC COMPARISON LOCATION WITHOUT PROJECT FORECAST WITH PROJECT FORECAST CHANGE % CHANGE 151h St. (Coast Hwy. to Bluff Rd.) 9,000 8,000 -1,000 -813% 16th St. (Irvine Ave. to Dover Dr.) 6,000 6,000 0 0.0% 32nd St (west of Newport Blvd.) 9,000 8,000 -1,000 -11.1°A 32nd St (east of Newport Blvd.) 51000 4,000 -1,000 -20.0% Avocado Ave. (north of San Miguel Dr.) 51000 51000 0 0.0% Avocado Ave, (south of San Miguel Dr.) 11,000 11,000 0 0.0°% Avocado Ave. (north of Coast Hwy.) 10,000 10,000 0 0.0% Balboa Blvd. (south of Coast Hwy.) 22,000 22,000 0 0.0% Bayside Dr. (south of Coast Hwy.) 12,000 12,000 0 0.0°% Birch St (Jamboree Rd. to Von Karman Ave.) 19,000 20,000 1,000 5.3% Birch St (Von Karmen Ave. to MacArthur Blvd.) 21,000 22,000 1,000 4.8% Birch St. (west of MacArthur Blvd.) 21,000 24,000 3,000 14.3% Birch St (north of Bristol St. North) 29,000 30,000 1,000 3.40 Birch St. (Bristol SL North to Bristol St. South) 22,000 23,000 1,000 4.5% Birch St (south of Bristol St South) 17,000 17,000 0 0.01 Bison Ave. (Jamboree Rd, to MacArthur Blvd.) 17,000 18,000 1,000 5.9°% Bison Ave. (MacArthur Blvd. to SR-73 Fwy.) 10,000 10,000 0 0,0% Bluff Rd. (Coast Hwy. to 15th St.) 8,000 7,000 -1,000 -20% Bluff Rd. (15th St to 17th St.) 9,000 6,000 -3,000 -33% Bonita Canyon Dr. (east of MacArthur Blvd.) 32,000 31,000 -1,000 -3.1% Bonita Canyon Dr. (west of SR-73 Fwy.) 26,000 26,000 0 0.0% Bristol St North (west of Campus Dr.) 34,000 35,000 1,000 2.9% Bristol St. North (Campus Dr. to Birch St.) 29,000 30,000 1,000 3.4% Bristol St North (east of Birch SL) 29,000 30,000 1,000 3.4% Bristol St North (west of Jamboree Rd.) 19,000 20,000 1,000 5.3% Bristol St South (west of Campus Dr./Irvine Ave.) 33,000 33,000 0 0.0% Bristol St. South (Campus Dr. to Birch St.) 22,000 23,000 1,000 4.5% Bristol St South (east of Birch St) 22,000 22,000 0 0.0% Bristol St South (west of Jamboree Rd.) 38,000 39,000 1,000 2.6% Campus Dr. (Jamboree Rd. to Von Karmen Ave.) 23,000 23,000 0 0.0% Campus Dr. (Von KarmamAve, to MacArthur Blvd.) 35,000 34,000 -1,000 -2.9% Campus Dr. (west of MacArthur Blvd.) 39,000 40,000 1,000 2.6% Campus Dr. (north of Bristol St North) 39,000 40,000 1,000 2.6% Campus Dr. (Bristol St. North to Bristol St. South) 41,000 41,000 0 0.0°% Coast Hwy. (west of 15th St.) 45,000 46,000 1,000 2.2° Coast Hwy. (Superior Ave. to Newport Blvd.) 40,000 41,000 1,000 2.5% Coast Hwy. (Newport Blvd. to Riverside Ave.) 64;000 67,000 3,000 4.7% Coast Hwy. (Riverside Ave. to Tustin Ave.) 56,000 58,000 2,000 3.6% Coast Hwy. (Tustin Ave. to Dover Dr.) 51,000 53,000 2,000 3.9% Coast Hwy. (Dover Dr. to Bayside Dr.) 74,000 76,000 2,000 2.7% Coast Hwy. (Bayside Dr. to Jamboree Rd. 62,0001 63,000 1-,000 1.6% I I I t 1 1 U 1 I CI 1 I J 5-10 I 1 ,' 1 I i] 1 TABLE 5-6 (Page 2 of 4) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC COMPARISON LOCATION WITHOUT PROJECT FORECAST WITH PROJECT FORECAST CHANGE % CHANGE Coast Hwy. (Jamboree Rd. to Newport Center Dr.) 49,000 50,000 1,000 2.0% Coast Hwy. (Newport Center Dr. to Avocado Ave.) 42,000 42,000 0 0.0% Coast Hwy. (Avocado Ave, to MacArthur Blvd.) 45,000 45,000 0 0.0% Coast Hwy. (MacArthur Blvd. to Goldenrod Ave.) 45,000 45,000 0 0.0% Coast Hwy. (Goldenrod Ave. to Marguerite Ave.) 43,000 43,000 0 0.0% Coast Hwy. (Marguerite Ave. to Poppy Ave.) 42,000 42,000 0 0.0% Coast Hwy. (Poppy Ave. to Newport Coast Dr.) 38,000 38,000 0 0.0% Coast Hwy (east of Newport Coast Dr.) 49,000 49,000 0 0.0% Dover Dr. (Irvine Ave. to Westcliff Dr.) 11,000 11,000 0 0.0% Dover Dr. (Westcliff Dr. to 16th St.) 24,000 24,000 0 0.0% Dover Dr. (16th St. to Cliff Dr.) 28,000 28,000 0 0.0% Dover Dr. (Cliff Dr. to Coast Hwy.) 33,000 33,000 0 0.0% Eastbluff Dr. (west of Jamboree Rd. at University Dr.) 11,000 10,000 -1,000 -9.1% Easlbluff Dr. (west of Jamboree Rd. at Ford Rd.) 15,000 15,000 0 0.0% Ford Rd. (Jamboree Rd. to MacArthur Blvd.) 13,000 13,000 0 0.0% Goldenrod Ave. (north of Coast Hwy.) 4,000 4,000 0 0.0% Highland Dr. (east of Irvine Ave.) 2,000 2,000 0 0.0% Hospital Rd. (Placentia Ave, to Newport Blvd.) 15,000 17,000 2,000 13.3% Hospital Rd. (east of Newport Blvd.) 9,000 11,000 2,000 22.2% Irvine Ave. (Bristol St. South to Mesa Dr.) 38,000 38,000 0 0.0% Irvine Ave. (Mesa Dr. to University Dr.) 41,000 42,000 1,000 2.4% Irvine Ave. (University Dr. to Santa Isabel Ave.) 40,000 40,000 0 0.0% Irvine Ave. (Santa Isabel Ave. to Santiago Dr.) 33,000 33,000 0 0.0% Irvine Ave. (Santiago Dr. to Highland Dr.) 32,000 32,000 0 0.0% Irvine Ave. (Highland Dr. to Dover Dr.) 32,000 33,000 1,000 3.1 % Irvine Ave. (Dover Dr. to Westcliff Dr.) 29,000 29,000 0 0.0% Irvine Ave. (Westcliff Dr. to 16th St.) 12,000 13,000 1,000 8.3% Jamboree Rd. (Campus Dr. to Birch St.) 47,000 48,000 1,000 2.1 % Jamboree Rd. (Birch St. to MacArthur Blvd.) 55,000 56,000 1,000 1.8% Jamboree Rd. (MacArthur Blvd. to Bristol St. North) 44,000 47,000 3,000 6.8% Jamboree Rd. (Bristol St. North to Bristol St. South) 51,000 63,000 2,000 3.9% Jamboree Rd. (Bristol St. South to Bayview Wy.) 52,000 53,000 1,000 1.9% Jamboree Rd. (Bayview Wy. to University Dr.) 52,000 52,000 0 0'.0% Jamboree Rd. (University Dr. to Bison Ave.) 42,000 , 43,000 1,000 2.4% Jamboree Rd. (Bison Ave. to Ford Rd.) 46,000 47,000 1,000 2.2% Jamboree Rd. (Ford Rd. to San Joaquin Hills Rd.) 56,000 57,000 2,000 3.6% Jamboree Rd. (San Joaquin Hills Rd. to Santa Barbara Dr.) 44,000 45,000 1,000 2.3% Jamboree Rd. (Santa Barbara Dr. to Coast Hwy.) 42,000 42,000 0 0.0% Jamboree Rd. ( Coast Hwy, to Bayside Dr.) 15,000 15,000 0 0.0% MacArthur Blvd. (Campus Dr. to Birch St.) 34,000 37,000 3,000 8.8% MacArthur Blvd. (Birch St. to Von Karman Ave.) 27,000 28,000 1,000 3.7% MacArthur Blvd. Von Karman Ave. to Jamboree Rd. 33,000 34,000 1,000 3.0% I TABLE 5.6 (Page 3 of 4) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC COMPARISON LOCATION WITHOUT PROJECT FORECAST WITH PROJECT FORECAST CHANGE % CHANGE MacArthur Blvd. (south of Jamboree Rd.) 36,000 38,000 2,000 6.6% MacArthur Blvd, (north of Bison Ave.) 73,000 73,000 0 0.0% MacArthur Blvd. (Bison Ave, to Ford Rd.) 70,000 70,000 0 0.0% MacArthur Blvd, (Ford Rd. to San Joaquin Hills Rd.) 60,006 61,000 1,000 1.7% MacArthur Blvd. (San Joaquin Hills Rd. to San Miguel Rd.) 37,000 37,000 0 0.0% MacArthur Blvd, (San Miguel Rd, to Coast Hwy.) 36,000 36,000 0 0.00 Marguedte Ave. (south of San Joaquin Hills Rd.) 9,000 9,000 0 0.0% Marguedte Ave. (north of Coast Hwy.) 9,000 8,000 -1,000 -11.10 Mesa Dr. (east of Irvine Ave,) 13,000 13,000 0 0.0% NewportBlvd, (north of Hospital Rd,) 43,000 45,000 2,000 4.7% Newport Blvd. (Hospital Rd. to Coast Hwy.) 52,000 64,000 2,000 3.8% Newport Blvd. (Coast Hwy. to Via Lido) 57,000 58,000 1,000 1.8% Newport Blvd. (Via Udo to 32nd St) 40,000 42,000 2,000 5.0% Newport Blvd. (south of 32nd St.) 33,000 35,000 2,000 6.1% Newport Center Dr, (north of Coast Hwy.) 16,000 17,000 1,000 6.3% Newport Coast Dr. (SR-73 Fwy. to San JoaquimHilis Rd.) 34,000 34,000 0 0.0% Newport Coast Dr. (south of San Joaquin Hills Rd.) 32,000 32,000 0 0.0% Newport Coast Dr. (north of Coast Hwy.) 27,000 28,000 1,000 3.7% Placentia Ave. (north of Superior Ave.) 12;000 12,000 0 0.0°% Placentia Ave. (Superior Ave. to Hospital Rd.) 11,000 11,000 0 0.0% Poppy Ave. (north of Coast Hwy.) 3,000 3.000 0 0.0% Riverside Ave, (north of Coast Hwy.) 10,000 11,000 1,000 10.0% San Joaquin Hills Rd. (Jamboree Rd, to Santa Cnxft) 17,000 18,000 1,000 5.9% San Joaquin Hills Rd. (Santa Cruz Rd. to Santa Rosa Rd.) 12r000 12,000 0 0.0% San Joaquin Hills Rd. (Santa Rosa Rd. to MacArthur Blvd.) 26,000 27,000 1,000 3.8% San Joaquin Hills Rd. (MacArthur Blvd, to San Miguel Rd.) 23,000 23,000 0 0.0% San Joaquin Hills Rd. (San Miguel Rd. to Marguerite Ave,) 25,000 24,000 -1,000 -4.0°% San Joaquin Hills Rd. (Marguerite Ave. to Spyglass Hill Rd.) 19,000 19,000 0 0.0% San Joaquin Hills Rd. (Spyglass Hill Rd, to Newport Coast Dr.) 19,000 19,000 0 0.0°% San Miguel Dr. (north of Spyglass Hill Rd.) 9,000 9,000 0 0.0°% San Miguel Dr. (south of Spyglass Hill Rd,) 9,000 9,000 0 0.0% San Miguel Dr. (north of San Joaquin Hills Rd,) 14,000 14,000 0 0.0% San Miguel Dr. (San Joaquin Hills Rd. to MacArthur Blvd.) 15,000 16,000 1,000 6.7°% San Miguel Dr. (MacArthur Blvd, to Avocado Ave.) 20,000 20,000 0 0.0°% San Miguel Dr. (west of Avocado Ave.) 11,000 12,000 1,000 9.1°% Santa Barbara Dr. (east of Jamboree Rd.) 11,000 13,000 2,000 18.2% Santa Cruz Dr. (south of San Joaquin Hills Rd:) 9,000 9,000 0 0,0°% Santa Rosa Dr, (south of San Joaquin Hills Rd.) 14,000 14,000 0 0.0°% Santiago Dr. (Tustin Ave. to Irvine Ave.) 6,000 6,000 0 0.0°% Santiago Dr. (east of Irvine Ave,) 3,000 4,000 1,000 33.3% Spyglass Hill Rd. (San Miguel Dr. to San Joaquin Hills Rd.) 5,000 5,000 0 0.0°% SR-55 Freeway north of SR-73 F 188,000 189,000 1,000 0.5°% L n 1 C U F I P 1 I 5-12 I-1 I LJ I TABLE 5-6 (Page 4 of 4) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC COMPARISON LOCATION WITHOUT PROJECT FORECAST WITH PROJECT FORECAST CHANGE % CHANGE SR-55 Freeway (22nd St. to 19th St.) 125,000 125,000 0 0.0% SR-73 Freeway (SR-55 Fwy. to Campus Dr.) 135,000 136,000 1,000 0.7% SR-73 Freeway (Jamboree Rd. to University Dr.) 97,000 98,000 1,000 1.0% SR-73 Freeway (Bonita Canyon Rd. to Newport Coast Dr.) 136,000 136,000 0 0.0% SR-73 Freeway (east of Newport Coast Dr.) 127,000 128,000 1,000 0.8% Superior Ave. (north of Placentia Ave.) 20,000 21,000 1,000 5.0% Superior Ave, (Placentia Ave. to Hospital Rd.) 18,000 18,000 0 0.0% Superior Ave. (Hospital Rd. to Coast Hwy.) 20,000 22,000 2,000 10.0% Tustin Ave. (north of Coast Hwy.) 3,000 3,000 0 0.0% University Dr. (east of Irvine Ave.) 3,000 3,000 0 0.0% University Dr. (east of Jamboree Rd.) 13,000 13,000 0 0.0% Via Lido (east of Newport Blvd.) 10,000 10,000 0 0.0% Von Karmen Ave. (Campus Dr. to Birch St.) 19,000 19,000 0 0.0% Von Karman Ave. (Birch St. to MacArthur Blvd.) 16,000 17,000 1,000 6.3% Westcliff Dr. Irvine Ave. to Dover Dr. 16,0001 16,qq0t 0 0.0% U:1UcJobs\ 01200\012321ExcehI01232-32xlsIT5.6 1 5-13 11 TABLE 5.7 (Page 1 of 4) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC GROWTH LOCATION EXISTING (2001/2002) COUNT WITH PROJECT FORECAST I GROWTH % GROWTH 15th St (Coast Hwy. to Bluff Rd.) 0 8,000 8,000 16th St. (Irvine Ave. to Dover Dr.) 5,000 6,000 1,000 20.0% 32nd St. (west of Newport Blvd.) 8,000 8,0001 0 32nd St (east of Newport Blvd.) 3,000 4,000 11000 33.3% Avocado Ave. (north of San Miguel Dr.) 6,000 5,000 0 0.0°% Avocado Ave. (south of San Miguel Dr.) 12,000 11,000 -1.000 -813°% Avocado Ave. (north of Coast Hwy.) 11,000 10,000 -1,000 -9.1% Balboa Blvd. (south of Coast Hwy.) 18,000 22,000 4,000 22.2% Bayside Dr. (south of Coast Hwy.) 10,000 12,000 2,000 20.0% Birch St (Jamboree Rd. to Von Kerman Ave,) 12,000 20,000 8,000 66.7% Birch St. (Von Karmen Ave. to MacArthur Blvd.) 15,000 22,000 7,000 46.7% Birch St. (west of MacArthur Blvd.) 16,000 24,000 8,000 50.0% Birch St. (north of Bristol St. North) 23,000 30,000 7,000 30A% Birch St (Bristol St. North to Bristol St South) 19,000 23,000 4,000 21.1% Birch St, (south of Bristol St. South) 15,000 17,000 2,000 13,3% Bison Ave. (Jamboree Rd. to MacArthur Blvd.) 13,000 18,000 5,000 38.5% Bison Ave. (MacArthur Blvd. to SR-73 Fwy.) 7,000 10,000 3,000 42.9% Bluff Rd. (Coast Hwy. to 15th St) 0 7,000 7,000 Bluff Rd. (15th St to 17th St.) 0 6,000 6,000 - Bonita Canyon Dr. (east of MacArthur Blvd,) 26,000 31,000 5,000 19.2% Bonita Canyon Dr. (west of SR-73 Fwy.) 17,000 26,000 91000 52.9°% Bristol St North (west of Campus Dr.) 28,000 35,000 7,000 25.0% Bristol St. North (Campus Dr. to Birch St.) 23,000 30,000 7,000 30.4"% Bristol St. North (east of Birch SL) 22,000 30,000 8,000 36.4% Bristol St. North (west of Jamboree Rd.) 16,000 20,000 4,000 25.0% Bristol St South (west of Campus DrArvine Ave.) 28,000 33,000 51000 17.91 Bristol St. South (Campus Dr. to Birch St,) 17,000 23,000 6,000 35.3% Bristol St. South (east of Birch St.) 16,000 22,000 6,000 37.5% Bristol St South (west of Jamboree Rd.) 31,000 39,000 8,000 25.8% Campus Dr. (Jamboree Rd. to Van Kerman Ave.) 16,000 23,000 7,000 43.8% Campus Dr. (Von Kerman Ave. to MacArthur Blvd.) 20,000 34,000 14,000 70.0% Campus Dr. (west of MacArthur Blvd.) 26,000 40,000 14,000 53.8% Campus Dr. (north of Bristol St. North) 28,000 40,000 12;000 42.9% Campus Dr. (Bristol St North to Bristol St South) 30,000 41,000 11,000 36.7% Coast Hwy. (west of Bluff Rd.) 46,000 46,000 0 0.0% Coast Hwy. (Superior Ave. to Newport Blvd.) 28,000 41,000 13,000 46.4% Coast Hwy. (Newport Blvd, to Riverside Ave.) 53,000 67,000 14,000 26.4% Coast Hwy. (Riverside Ave, to Tustin Ave.) 45,000 58,000 13,000 28.9°% Coast Hwy. (Tustin Ave. to Dover Dr,) 42,000 53,000 11,000 26.2% Coast Hwy. (Dover Dr. to Bayside Dr.) 63,000 76,000, 13,000 20.6% Coast Hwy, (Bayside Dr, to Jamboree Rd. 51,000 63,000 12,000 23.504 I r H H I 1 5-14 r I I J k I TABLE 5-7 (Page 2 of 4) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC GROWTH LOCATION EXISTING (2001/2002) COUNT WITH PROJECT FORECAST GROWTH % GROWTH Coast Hwy. (Jamboree Rd. to Newport Center Dr.) 42,000 50,000 8,000 19.0% Coast Hwy. (Newport Center Dr, to Avocado Ave.) 35,000 42,000 7,000 20.0% Coast Hwy. (Avocado Ave. to MacArthur Blvd.) 36,000 45,000 9,000 25.0% Coast Hwy. (MacArthur Blvd. to Goldenrod Ave.) 40,000 45,000 5,000 12.5% Coast Hwy. (Goldenrod Ave. to Marguerite Ave.) 39,000 43,000 4,000 10.3% Coast Hwy. (Marguerite Ave. to Poppy Ave.) 35,000 42,000 7,000 20.0% Coast Hwy. (Poppy Ave. to Newport Coast Dr.) 28,000 38,000 10,000 35.7% Coast Hwy (east of Newport Coast Dr.) 35,000 49,000 14,000 40.0% Dover Dr. (Irvine Ave. to Westcliff Dr.) 9,000 11,000 2,000 22.2% Dover Dr. (Westcliff Dr. to 16th St.) 22,000 24,000 2,000 9.1% Dover Dr. (16th St. to Cliff Dr.) 25,000 28,000 3,000 12.0% Dover Dr. (Cliff Dr. to Coast Hwy.) 29,000 33,000 4,000 13.8% Eastbluff Dr. (west of Jamboree Rd. at University Dr.) 10,000 10,000 0 0.0% Eastbluff Dr. (west of Jamboree Rd. at Ford Rd.) 15,000 15,000 0 0.0% Ford Rd. (Jamboree Rd. to MacArthur Blvd.) 9,000 13,000 4,000 44.4% Goldenrod Ave. (north of Coast Hwy.) 2,000 4,000 2,000 100.0% Highland Dr. (east of Irvine Ave.) 2,000 2,000 0 0.0% Hospital Rd. (Placentia Ave. to Newport Blvd.) 13,000 17,000 4,000 30.8% Hospital Rd. (east of Newport Blvd.) 7,000 11,000 4,000 57.1 % Irvine Ave. (Bristol St. South to Mesa Dr.) 27,000 38,000 11,000 40.7% Irvine Ave. (Mesa Dr. to University Dr.) 31,000 42,000 11,000 35.5% Irvine Ave. (University Dr. to Santa Isabel Ave,) 33,000 40,000 7,000 21.2% Irvine Ave, (Santa Isabel Ave. to Santiago Dr.) 29,000 33,000 4,000 13.8% Irvine Ave. (Santiago Dr. to Highland Dr.) 27,000 32,000 5,000 18.5% Irvine Ave. (Highland Dr. to Dover Dr.) 27,000 33,000 6,000 22.2% Irvine Ave. (Dover Dr. to Westcliff Dr.) 22,000 29,000 7,000 31.8% Irvine Ave. (Westcliff Dr. to 16th St.) 12,000 13,000 1,000 8.3% Jamboree Rd. (Campus Dr. to Birch St.) 36,000 48,000 12,000 33.3% Jamboree Rd. (Birch St. to MacArthur Blvd.) 42,000 56,000 14,000 33.3% Jamboree Rd. (MacArthur Blvd. to Bristol St. North) 36,000 47,000 11,000 30.6% Jamboree Rd. (Bristol St. North to Bristol St. South) 47,000 53,000 6,000 12.8% Jamboree Rd. (Bristol St. South to Bayview Wy.) 47,000 53,000 6,000 12.8% Jamboree Rd. (Bayview Wy. to University Dr.) 47,000 52,000 '5,000 10.6% Jamboree Rd. (University Dr. to Bison Ave.) 37,000 43,000 6,000 16.2% Jamboree Rd. (Bison Ave. to Ford Rd.) 39,000 47,000 8,000 20.5% Jamboree Rd. (Ford Rd. to San Joaquin Hills Rd.) 46,000 57,000 11,000 23.9% Jamboree Rd. (San Joaquin Hills Rd. to Santa Barbara Dr.) 34,000 45,000 11,000 32.4% Jamboree Rd. (Santa Barbara Dr. to Coast Hwy.) 32,000 42,000 10,000 31.3% Jamboree Rd. ( Coast Hwy. to Bayside Dr.) 12,000 15,000 3,000 25.0% MacArthur Blvd. (Campus Dr. to Birch St.) 27,000 37,000 10,000 370% MacArthur Blvd. (Birch St. to Von Karman Ave.) 22,000 28,000 6,000 2130% MacArthur Blvd. Von Karmen Ave. to Jamboree Rd. 26,000 34,000 8,000 30.8% TABLE 5-7 (Page 3 of 4) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC GROWTH LOCATION EXISTING (200112002) COUNT WITH PROJECT FORECAST GROWTH % GROWTH MacArthur Blvd. (south of Jamboree Rd.) 27,000 38,000 11,000 40.7°% MacArthur Blvd. (north of Bison Ave.) 61,000 73,000 12,000 19.7°% MacArthur Blvd. (Bison Ave. to Ford Rd.) 63,000 70,000 7,000 11.1% MacArthur Blvd. (Ford Rd. to San Joaquin Hills Rd.) 54,000 61,000 7,000 13,0°% MacArthur Blvd. (San Joaquin Hills Rd, to San Miguel Rd.) 35,000 37,000 2,000 5.7°% MacArthur Blvd. (San Miguel Rd. to Coast Hwy.) 31,000 36,000 6,000 16.1°% Marguerite Ave. (south of San Joaquin Hills Rd.) 7,000 9,00D 2,000 28.6 Marguerite Ave. (north of Coast Hwy.) 61000 8,000 2,000 33.3°% Mesa Dr. (east of Irvine Ave,) 12,000 13,000 1,000 8.3% Newport Blvd. (north of Hospital Rd.) 36.000 45,000 9,000 25.0% Newport Blvd, (Hospital Rd. to Coast Hwy.). 43,000 54,000 11,000 25.6% Newport Blvd. (Coast Hwy, to Via Lido) 48,000 58,000 10,000 20.8°% Newport Blvd. (Via Lido to 32nd SL) 36,000 42,000 6,000 16.7% Newport Blvd. (south of 32nd St.) 29,000 35,000 6,000 20.7% Newport Center Dr. (north of Coast Hwy.) 14,000 17,000 3,000 21A% Newport Coast Dr. (SR-73 Fwy. to San Joaquin Hills Rd.) 17,000 34,000 17,000 100.0°% Newport Coast Dr. (south of San Joaquin Hills Rd.) 15,000 32,000 17,000 113.3°% Newport Coast Dr, (north of Coast Hwy.) 12,000 28,000 16,000 133.3°% Placenta Ave. (north of Superior Ave.) 12,000 12,000 0 0.0°% Placentia Ave. (Superior Ave. to Hospital Rd.) 7,000 11,000 4,000 57.1% Poppy Ave. (north of Coast Hwy.) 2,000 3,000 1,000 50.0°% Riverside Ave. (north of Coast Hwy.) 9,000 11,000 2,000 222°% San Joaquin Hills Rd. (Jamboree Rd. to Santa Cruz Rd.) 16,000 18,000 2,000 12.5°% San Joaquin Hills Rd. (Santa Cruz Rd. to Santa Rosa Rd.) 11,000 12,000 1.000 9.1°% San Joaquin Hills Rd, (Santa Rosa Rd. to MacArthur Blvd,) 21;000 27,000 6,000 28.6°% San Joaquin Hills Rd. (MacArthur Blvd. to San Miguel Rd.) 19,000 23,000 4,000 21.1% San Joaquin Hills Rd. (San Miguel Rd. to Marguerite Ave,) 18,000 24,000, 6,000 33.3% San Joaquin Hills Rd. (Marguerite Ave, to Spyglass Hill Rd.) 12,000 19,000 7,000 68.3° San Joaquin Hills Rd. (Spyglass Hill Rd. to Newport Coast Dr.) 12,000 19,000 7,000 58.3°% San Miguel Dr. (north of Spyglass HIII Rd.) 7,000 9,000 2.000 28.6°% San Miguel Dr. (south of Spyglass Hill Rd.) 7,000 9,000 2,000 28.6% San Miguel Dr. (north of San Joaquin Hills Rd,) 12,000 14,000 . 2,000 16.7% San Miguel Dr. (San Joaquin Hills Rd. to MacArthur Blvd.) 12,000 16,000 4,000 33.3°% San Miguel Dr. (MacArthur Blvd. to Avocado Ave.) 19,000 20,000 1,000 5.3°% San Miguel Dr. (west of Avocado Ave.) 10,000 12,000 2,000 20.0% Santa Barbara Dr. (east of Jamboree Rd.) 10,000 13,000 3,000 30.0% Santa Cruz Dr. (south of San Joaquin Hills Rd.) 8,000 9,000 1;000 12.5% Santa Rosa Dr. (south of San Joaquin Hills Rd.) 11,000 14,000 3,000 27.3°% Santiago Dr. (Tustin Ave. to Irvine Ave.) 5,000 6,000 1,000 20.0°% Santiago Dr. (east of Irvine Ave.) 3,000 4,000 1,000 33.3% Spyglass Hill Rd. (San Miguel Dr. to San Joaquin Hills Rd,) 4,000 5,000 1,000 25.0% SR-55 Freeway north of SR-73 F 155,000 189,000 34,000 21.9%11 1 I I 1 u 1 1 I I 5-16 I LI ICJ iJ 1 TABLE 5-7 (Page 4 of 4) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC GROWTH LOCATION EXISTING (2001/2002) COUNT WITH PROJECT FORECAST GROWTH %GROWTH SR-55 Freeway (22nd St. to 19th St.) 94,000 126,000 31,000 33.0% SR-73 Freeway (SR-55 Fwy. to Campus Dr.) 94,000 136,000 42,000 44.7% SR-73 Freeway (Jamboree Rd. to University Dr.) 59,000 98,000 39,000 66.1% SR-73 Freeway (Bonita Canyon Rd. to Newport Coast Dr.) 62,000 136,000 74,000 119.4% SR-73 Freeway (east of Newport Coast Dr.) 56,000 128,000 72,000 128.6% Superior Ave. (north of Placentia Ave.) 17,000 21,000 4,000 23.5% Superior Ave. (Placentia Ave. to Hospital Rd.) 22,000 18,000 -4,000 -18.2% Superior Ave. (Hospital Rd. to Coast Hwy.) 24,000 22,000 .2,000 -8.3% Tustin Ave. (north of Coast Hwy.) 2,000 3,000 1,000 60.0% University Dr. (east of Irvine Ave.) 3,000 3,000 0 0.0% University Dr. (east of Jamboree Rd.) 11,000 13,000 2,000 18.2% Via Lido (east of Newport Blvd.) 8,000 10,000 2,000 25.0% Von Kerman Ave. (Campus Dr. to Birch St.) 14,000 19,000 5,000 35.7% Von Karman Ave. (Birch St. to MacArthur Blvd.) 12,000 17,000 5,000 41.7% Westcliff Dr. Irvine Ave. to Dover Dr. 16,000 16,000 0 0.0% U:\UcJobs\ 01200\01232\Excell[01232-32.xls]T5-7 1 5-17 co EXHIBIT 5-B - GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT VOLUME/CAPACITY (V/C) RATIOS Is NEW -PORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN.UPDATE,Newport Be"h, Callfomta-01232:howp vcpdf (rev, 12_(15 OS v URBAN m = m = m m 'm I� u • Irvine Avenue north of Highland Drive • Irvine Avenue north of Dover Drive • Dover Drive north of Westcliff Drive • Dover Drive north of Coast Highway • Jamboree Road north of Bayview Way • Jamboree Road north of University Drive • Jamboree Road north of Ford Road • Jamboree Road north of San Joaquin Hills Road • MacArthur Boulevard north of Bison Avenue • MacArthur Boulevard north of Ford Road • MacArthur Boulevard north of San Joaquin Hills Road • Newport Coast Drive north of SR-73 Northbound Ramps • Newport Coast Drive north of San Joaquin Hills Road • Newport Boulevard south of Hospital Road • Jamboree Road south of Birch Street • Irvine Avenue south of University Drive • Hospital Road east of Newport Boulevard • Campus Drive east of MacArthur Boulevard • Bristol Street North east of Birch Street • Bristol Street South east of Birch Street • Coast Highway east of Dover Drive • Coast Highway east of Bayside Drive • Coast Highway east of Jamboree Road • Ford Road east of MacArthur Boulevard • Coast Highway east of MacArthur Boulevard • Coast Highway east of Goldenrod Avenue • Coast Highway east of Marguerite Avenue • Coast Highway east of Poppy Avenue • Coast Highway east of Newport Coast Drive • Coast Highway west of Superior Avenue/Balboa Boulevard 5-19 ' • Coast Highway west of Riverside Drive • Bristol Street North west of Campus Drive • Bristol Street South west of Campus Drive • Dover Drive west of Irvine Avenue t • Bristol Street South west of Jamboree Road The daily capacity of a roadway correlates to a number of widely varying factors, including traffic peaking characteristics, traffic turning volumes, and the volume of traffic on crossing streets. The daily capacities are therefore most appropriately used for long range General Plan analysis, or as a screening tool to determine the need for more detailed peak hour analysis. More detailed peak hour analysis has been conducted at key intersections in the vicinity of all these roadway segments to quantify actual peak hour operations and levels of service. 5.5 Peak Hour Forecasts The final and most meaningful data evaluated for the General Plan Buildout With Project scenario was intersection volume and geometric data for the 64 intersections selected for analysis. The existing intersection configurations have been used for calculation of the initial General Plan Buildout With Project intersection capacity utilization values (ICUs). Table 5-8 summarizes the General Plan Buildout With Project ICUs based on the AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes and the existing intersection. geometric data compared with General Plan buildout Without Project ICUs. Appendix "JJ" contains the detailed ICU calculation worksheets. The worksheets in Appendix "JJ" summarize the intersection geometric data and the AM and PM peak intersection turning movement volumes. The differences in Level of Service are generally less than 0.10 (a single letter grade level). A comparison of General Plan Buildout With Project ICUs with existing (2005) lanes to existing (2002) ICUs is shown on Table 5-9: Intersections with ICU values 5-20 I I I I L_.l I I I I I TABLE 5.8 (1 of 2) GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) COMPARISON TO WITHOUT PROJECT INTERSECTION NS/EW AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT DELTA BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT DELTA 1 a. Bluff Rd. & Coast Hw. 0.65 0.61 -0.04 084 0.89 0.05 1b.15th St. & Coast Hw. 074 0.72 -0.02 0.89 0.90 0.01 2. Su eriorAv. & Placentia Av. 0.65 0.67 0.02 0.55 0.57 0.02 3. Superior Av. & Coast Hw. 0.89 0.88 -0.01 0.75 0.76 0.01 4. Newport 81. & Hospital Rd. 0.75 0.83 0.08 0.91 0.96 0.05 5. Newport 81, & Via Lido 0.56 0.58 0.02 0.40 0.41 0.01 6. Newport 81. & 32nd St 0.82 0.86 0.04 0.88 0.91 0.03 7. Riverside Av. & Coast Hw. 098 0.97 -0.01 0.92 0.93 0.01 8. Tustin Av. & Coast Hw. 0.91 0.94 0.03 0.76 0.83 0.07 9. MacArlhur Bl. & Campus Dr, 0.76 0.81 0.05 1.21 1.24 0.03 10. MacArthur 81. & Birch SL 0.79 0.79 0.00 0.90 0.90 0.00 11. Von Karman Av. & Campus Dr. 0.70 0.73 0.03 0.93 0,97 0.04 12. MacArthur Bl. & Von Karman Av. 0.58 0.54 -0.04 0.661 0.65 -0.01 13. Jamboree Rd. & Campus Dr. 0.91 0.93 0.02 1.18 1.18 0.00 14. Jamboree Rd. & Birch St. 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.84 0.84 0.00 15. Campus Dr. & Bristol St. N 0.99 1.02 0.03 1.07 1.06 -0.01 16. Birch St. & Bristol St N 094 0.90 -0.04 0.74 0.72 .0.02 17. Campus Dr./Irvine Av. & Bristol St S 0.91 0.89 -0.02 0.75 0.78 0.03 18. Birch St. & Bristol St. S 0.52 0.51 -0.011 0.52 0.54 0.02 19. Irvine Av. & Mesa Dr. 0.99 0.98 -0.01 1.191 1.19 0.00 20. Irvine Av. & University Dr. 1.17 1.19 0.02 1.08 1.09 0.01 21. Irvine Av. & Sanlia o Dr. 0.68 0.69 0.01 0.76 0.77 0.01 22. Irvine Av. & Highland Dr. 0.60 0.60 0.00 0.65 0.65 0.00 23. Irvine Av. & Dover Dr. 0.77 0.78 0.01 0.68 0.69 0.01 24. Irvine Av. & Westcliff Dr. 0.64 0.66 0.02 0.80 0.82 0.02 25. Dover Dr. & Westcliff Dr. 0.38 0.38 0.00 0.53 0.54 0.01 26. Dover Dr. & 16th St. 0.60 0.60 0.00 0.601 0.60 0.00 27. Dover Dr. & Coast Hw. 0.80 0.81 0.01 0.931 0.94 0.01 28. Sayslde Dr. & Coast Hw. 0.88 0.89 0.01 0.85 0.85 0.00 29, MacArthur 131. & Jamboree Rd. 092 0.93 0.01 0.98 1.02 0.04 30. Jamboree Rd. & Bdstol St. N 0.68 0.68 0.00 0.65 0.67 0.02 31. Sayview PI, & Bristol St. S 0.60 0.601 0.00 0.62 0.63 0.01 2, Jamboree Rd. & Bristol St S 0.96 0.94 -0.02 0.85 0.87 0.02 33. Jamboree Rd. & Bayview W . 0.46 0.45 -0.01 0.67 0.67 0.00 34. Jamboree Rd. & Eastbluff Dr. /University Dr. 0.68 0.68 0.00 0.661 0.67 0.01 35. Jamboree Rd. & Bison Av. 0.52 0.52 0.00 0.62 0.62 0.00 36. Jamboree Rd. & Eastbluff Dr.IFord Rd. 0.80 0.80 0.00 0.76 0.77 0.01 37. Jamboree Rd. & San Joa uin Hills Rd, 1 0.60 0.61 001 0.711 0.72 0.01 5-21 TABLE 5.8 (1 of 2) GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) COMPARISON TO WITHOUT PROJECT INTERSECTION NSIEW AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT I BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT DELTA BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT I BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT DELTA 1a. Bluff Rd. & Coast Hw. 0.65 0.63 -0,02 0.84 0.82 -0.02 lb. l5thSt. & Coast Hw, 0.74 0.72 .0.02 0.69 0.83 -0.06 2.Su Bork.&PlacentiaAv. 0.65 0.67 0.02 0.55 0.57 0.02 3. Superior Av. & Coast Hw. 0.69 0.88 -0.01 035 0.76 0.01 4. Newport BI. & Hospital Rd. 0.75 0.83 0.08 0.91 0.96 0.05 5. NwMort BI. & Via Lido 0.56 0.58 0.02 0.40 0,41 0.01 6. Nmvpod BI. & 32nd SL 0.82 0.861 0.04 0.88 0.91 0.03 7. Riverside Av. & Coast Hw. 6.98 0.97 .0.01 0.92 0.93 0.01 8. Tustin Av. & Coast Hw. 0.91 0.94 0.03 0.761 0.83 0.07 9. MacArthur 81. & Campus Dr. 0.76 0.81 0.05 1.21 124 0.03 10. MacArthur BI, & Birch SL 0.79 0.79 0.00 0.90 0.90 0.00 11. Von Kerman Av. & Campus Dr. 0,70 0.73 0.03 0.93 0.97 0.04 12. MacArthur BI. & Von Kansan Av. 0.58 6.54 -0.04 0.66 0.65 -0.01 13. Jamboree Rd. & Campus Dr. 0.91 0.93 0.02 L18 1.18 0.00 14. Jamboree Rd. & Birch St. 1.00 1.001 0.00 0,84 0.94 0.00 15. Campus Dr. & Bristol SL N 0.99 1.02 0.03 1.07 1.06 -0.01 16. Birch SL & Bristol St. N 0.94 0.90 -0.04 0.74 0.72 -0.02 V. Campus Dr./Irvine Av. & Bristol St. S 0191 0.89 -0.02 0.75 0.78 0.03 18. Birch SL & Bristol St S 0.52 0.51 401 0.62 0.54 0.02 19, Irvine Av. & Mesa Dr. 0.99 0.98 -0.01 1.19 1.19 0.00 20. Irvine Av. & University Dr. 1.17 1.19 0.02 1.08 1.09 0.01 21. Irvine Av. & Santiago Dr. 0.68 0.691 0.01 0.761 0,77 0.01 22.Irvine Av. & Highland Dr. 0.60 0.60 0.00 0.65 0.65 0.00. 23. Irvine Av, & Dover Dr, 0.77 0.78 0.01 0.6B 0.69 0.01 24.Irvine Av. &WeslcldlDr. 0.64 0.66 0.02 0.80 0.82 0.02 25. Dover Dr. & Westcli0 Dr. 0.38 0.38 0.00 0.53 0.54 0.01 26. Dover Dr. & 16th St. 0.60 0.60 0.00 0.60 0.60 0.00 27. Dover Dr. & Coast Hw. 0.80 0.81 0.01 0.93 0.94 0.01 28. Bayside Dr. & Coast Hw. 0.88 0.891 0.01 0.851 0.85 0.00 29. MacArthur BI. & Jamboree Rd. 0.92 0.93 0.01 0.98 1.02 0.04 30. Jamboree Rd. &Bristol St. N 0.68 0.68 0.00 0.65 0.67 0.02 1. Bayview PI. & Bristol SL S 0.60 0.60 0.00 0.62 0.63 0.01 32. Jamboree Rd. & Bristol St. S 0.96 0.94 -0.02 0.85 0.87 0.02 33. Jamboree Rd. & Bayvlew W . 0.46 0.45 -0.01 0.67 0.67 0.00 34. Jamboree Rd. & Eastbiuff Dr. /University Dr. 0.68 0.68 0,00 0.66 0.67 0.01 5, Jamboree Rd. & Bison Av. 0.52 0.52 0.00 0.62 0.62 0. 00 36. Jamboree Rd. & Easlbluff DrJFord Rd, 0.80 0.80 0.00 016 0.77 0.01 37. Jamboree Rd. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. 6.601 6.611 0.011 0.71 0.72 0.01 I '1 I I I I i I I I 1 I 5-22 I I r I I I I C J TABLE 5.9 (1 of 2), GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) COMPARISON TO EXISTING INTERSECTION NS/EW AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR EXISTING COUNT WITH PROJECT DELTA EXISTING COUNT WITH PROJECT I DELTA Ia. Bluff Rd. & Coast Hw. NIA 0.63 N/A N/Al 0.82 NIA lb.15th St. & Coast Hw. NIA 0.72 N/A NIAI 0.83 NIA 2. Superior Av. & Placentia Av, 0.66 0.67 0.01 0.671 0.57 -0.10 3. Su eriork. & CoaslHw. 0.84 0.88 0.04 0.901 0.76 -0.14 4. Newport BI. & Hospital Rd. 0.54 0.83 0.29 0.70 0.96 0.26 5. Newport Bl. & Via Lido 0.41 0.58 0.17 0.37 0.41 0.04 6. Newport BI. & 32nd St 0.73 0.86 0.13 0.78 0.91 0.13 7. Riverside Av. & Coast Hw. 0.84 0.97 0.13 0.93 0.93 0.00 8. Tustin Av. & Coast Hw. 0.80 0.94 0.14 0.67 0.83 0.16 9. MacArthur III. & Campus Dr. 0.61 0.81 0.20 0.85 1.24 0.39 10. MacArthur BI. & Birch St. 0.49 0.79 0.30 0.661 0.90 0.24 11. Von Karman Av. & Campus Dr. 0.55 , 0.73 0.18 0.79 0.97 0.18 Q. MacArthur BI. & Von Karman Av. 0.46 0.54 0.08 0.53 0.65 0.12 13. Jamboree Rd. & Campus Dr. 0.70 0.931 0.23 0.85 1.18 0.33 14. Jamboree Rd. & Birch St 0.61 1.00 0.39 0.60 0.84 0.24 15. Campus Dr. & Bristol St N 0.77 1.02 0.25 0.94 1.06 0.12 16. Birch St. & Bnstol St. N 0.66 0.90 0.24 0.61 0.72 0.11 17. Campus Dr./Irvine Av. & Bnstol St. S 0.72 0.89 0,171 0.581 0.78 0.20 18, Birch St & Bristol St. S 0.46 0.51 0.05 0.441 0.54 0.10 19. Irvine Av. & Mesa Dr. 0.70 0.98 0.28 0.941 1.19 0.25 20. Irvine Av. & University Dr. 0.82 1.19 0,37 0.891 1.09 0.20 21, Irvine Av. & Santiago Dr, 0.66 0.69 0.03 0.721 0.77 0.05 22. Irvine Av. & Highland Dr. 0.57 0.60 0.03 0.601 0.65 0.05 23. Irvine Av. &Dover Dr. 0.72 0.781 0.06 0.64 0.69 0.05 24. Irvine Av. & Westcliff Dr. 0.57 0.66 0.09 0.77 0,82 0.05 25. Dover Dr. & Westcliff Dr. 0.38 0.38 0.00 0.48 0.54 0.06 26. Dover Dr. & 16th St. 0.55 0.60 0.05 0.57 0.60 0.03 27. Dover Dr. & Coast Hw. 0.70 0.81 0.11 0.74 0.94 0.20 28. Bayside Dr. & Coast Hw. 0.69 0.89 0.20 0,70 0.85 0.16 29. MacArthur Bl. & Jamboree Rd. 0.88 0.93 0.05 0.911 1.02 0.11 30. Jamboree Rd. & Bristol St. N 0.55 0.68 0.13 0.591 0.67 0.08 31. Bayview PI. & Bristol St. S 0.48 0.60 0.12 0.56 0.63 0.07 32, Jamboree Rd. & Bristol St. S 0.75 0.94 0.19 0.721 0.87 0.15 33. Jamboree Rd. & Bayvlew W . 0.41 0.45 0.04 0.571 0.67 0.10 34. Jamboree Rd. & Eastbluff Dr. /University Dr. 0.60 0.68 0.08 0.64 0.67 0.03 35, Jamboree Rd. & Bison Av. 0.45 0.52 0.07 0.51 0.62 0.11 36. Jamboree Rd. & Easlbluff Dr./Ford Rd. O.fi9 0.80 0.11 0.65 0.77 0.12 37. Jamboree Rd. &San Joaquin Hills Rd. 0 56 0.61 0.05 0.57 0.72 0015 Fl 5-23 r TABLE S-9 (2 of 2) GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) COMPARISON TO EXISTING INTERSECTION NS/EW AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR 0 ISTING1 COUNT WITH PROJECT I I DELTA EXISTING COUNT WITH PROJECT DELTA B.JambareeRd.&SantaBarbaraDr. 0.47 0158 0.11 0.63 0,79 0.16 39. Jamboree Rd. & Coast Hw. 0.68 0.77 0.09 0.74 0.80 0.06 0. Santa Cruz Dr. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. 0.36 0.38 0.02 0.36 0.34 -0.02 1, Santa Rosa Dr. & Son Joaquin Hilis Rd. 0.32 0.41 0.09 0.52 0.71 0.19 2. NewportCenterDr.&CoastHw. 0.40 0.48 0.08 0.52 0.63 0.11 44. Avocado Av. & San M' uat Dr. 0.33 0.36 0.03 0.72 0.79 0.07 5. Avocado Av. & Coast Hw. 0.58 0.731 0.15 0.661 0.78 0,12 6. SR-73 N B Ramps & Bison Av. 0.31 0.52 0.21 0.37 0.61 0.24 7. SR-73 SB Ramps & Bison Av. 0.26 0.42 0.16 0.17 0.32 0.15 48, MacArthur 91. & Bison Av. 0.63 0.78 0.15 0.60 0,79 0.19 9. MacArttur Bl. & Ford RdJBonite Canyon Dr. 0.71 0.80 0.09 0.90 1.00 0.10 50. MacArthur 61. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. 0.64 0.79 0.15 0.93 1.12 0.19 51. MacArthur 91. & Son Miguel Dr. 0.56 0.64 0.08 0.65 0.76 0.10 52. MacArthur 91. & Coast Hw. 0.60 0.721 0.12 0.711 0.78 0.07 53. SR-73 NB Ramps & Bonita Canyon Dr. 0.55 1.06 0.51 0.431 0.76 0.33 54,SR-735BRamps &Bonita Canyon Dr. 0.30 0.46 0.16 0.41 0.66 0.25 5. Spyglass Hill Rd. & San Miguel Dr. 0.28 0.30 0.02 0.31 0.38 0.07 56, San Miguel Dr. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. 0.44 0.55 0.11 0.54 0.74 020 7. Goldenrod Av. & Coast Hw. 0.99 0.99 0.00 0.69 0.69 0.00 B. Marg uedte Av. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. 0.31 0.42 0.11 0.35 0.61 0.16 59.MarguedtoAv.&CoastHw. 0.83 0.98 0.15 0.82 1.00 0.18 60, Spyglass HIII Rd. & San Joaquin Hilts Rd. 0.44 0.60 0.161 0.301 0.49 . 0-11911 1, Poppy Av, &,CoastHw. 0.61 0.70 0.09 0.65 0,76 0.11 2.Newport CoastDr.&SR-73NBRam s 0.45 0.65 0.20 0.31 0.40 0.09 Newport Coast Dr. & San Joa ulnHillsRd. 6.37 0.62 0.25 0.29 0.49 0.20 65, Newport Coast Dr. & Coast Hw, 0.47 0.70 023 n;nF 0.73 0.23 U:\UcJobsl 012001012321Exca1110123232.xlsjTS•9 [1 I I I I I I 5-24 'r r I greater than 0.90 (LOS "E" or worse) in either peak period without improvements beyond 2005 conditions are: • Newport Boulevard (NS)/Hospital Road (EW) (PM) • Newport Boulevard (NS)/32"d Street (EW) (PM) • Riverside Drive (NS)/Coast Highway (EW) (AM/PM) • Tustin Avenue (NS)/Coast Highway (EW) (AM) • MacArthur Boulevard (NS)/Campus Drive (EW) (PM) • Von Karman Avenue (NS)/Campus Drive (EW) (PM) • Jamboree Road (NS)/Campus Drive (EW) (AM/PM) • Jamboree Road (NS)/Birch Street (EW) (AM) • Campus Drive (NS)/Bristol Street North (EW) (AM/PM) • Irvine Avenue (NS)/Mesa Drive (EW) (AM/PM) • Irvine Avenue (NS)/University Drive (EW) (AM/PM) • Dover Drive (NS)/Coast Highway (EW) (PM) • MacArthur Boulevard (NS)/Jamboree Road (EW) (AM/PM) • Jamboree Road (NS)/Bristol Street South (EW) (AM) • MacArthur Boulevard (NS)/Ford Road/Bonita Canyon Drive (EW) (PM) • MacArthur Boulevard (NS)/San Joaquin Hills Road (EW) (PM) • SR-73 NB Ramps (NS)/Bonita Canyon Drive (EW) (AM) • Goldenrod Avenue (NS)/Coast Highway (EW) (AM) • Marguerite Avenue (NS)/Coast Highway (EW) (AM/PM) Table 5-10 summarizes intersection analysis for buildout conditions, including intersection lanes. Two intersections do not experience a deficiency With the Project, but did experience deficiencies Without the Project: Birch Street at Bristol Street North and Campus Drive at Bristol Street South. Intersection analysis has been performed to determine improvements necessary to provide acceptable levels of service. ICU worksheets are included in Appendix "KK". Table 5-10 also compares the ICU results with and without 5-25 TABLE 5-10 (Pagel of 6) INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES NORTH- SOUTH EAST WEST- LEVEL OF TRAFFIC BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND ICU SERVICE INTERSECTION CONTROL? L T R L T R L T R L T R AM I PM AM PM FEASIBILITY/COMMENTS Bluff Rd. (NS) at: - • Coast Hw.(EW) -LOS D Improvements TS 0 0 0 2 0 2> 2 3 0 0 3 1 0.63 0.82 B D Shares Soulhbound volume with 15th St 15th St. (NS) at: Coast Hw. (EW) -LOS D Improvements TS 0 0 0 2 0 2> 2 3 0 0 3 1 0.72 0.83 C D Shares Southbound volume with Bluff Rd. Superior Av. (NS) at _ • Placentia Av. (EW) TS 1 2 1 1 2 d 1 1 1 0.5 1.5 0 0.67 0.57 B A • Coast Hw. EW TS 1.5 1.5 0 1.5 1.5 2> 2 3 d 1 _ 4 d -6.88 0.76 D C w Newport Bl. (NS) at fv • Hospital Rd. (EW) TS 1 3 1 1 3 d 2 1 1 1 2 0 0.83 0.96 D E -LOS D Improvements TS 2 3 1 1 3 d 2 1 1 1 2 0 0.83 0.89 D D Consistent with historic plan • Via Udo (EW) TS 0 3 1 2 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 2> 0.58 0.41 A A • 32nd SL (EW) TS 1 2 d 1 2 0 1.5 0.5 1 0.5 1.5 1>> 0.86 0.91 D E -LOS D Improvements TS 1 2 d 1 2 0 2 1 0 1 1 1>> 0.58 0.66 A B Restriin Si nal modification only Riverside Av. (NS) at • CoastHW.(EW) TS 0 1 d 0.5 0.5 1> 1 2 0 1 3 1 0.97 0.93 E E -LOS E Improvements TS 0 1 d 0.5 0.5 1> 1 3 0 1 3 0 0.68-0.95 B E Consistent with historic plan. Would remove parking and-WB RT lane on north side of street -LOSDImprovements TS 1 0 1- -d 0.5 0.5 1> 1 2 3 0 1 3 0 0.74 0.90 1 C I D Severe ROW constraints. Tustin Av. (NS) at • CoastHw.(EW) TS 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 3 1 0.94 0.83 E I D -LOS D Improvements TS 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 3 0 0 3 1 0.64 -0.83 B D MacArthur St. (NS) at Campus Dr. (EW) TS 1 4 1 1 4 1 2 3 1 2 3 1>> 0.81 1.24 D F li -LOS E Improvements TS 1 4 1 1 3.5 1.5 2 3 d 2 3 1>> 0.78 0.98 C E -LOS D Improvements TS 2 4 1 1 3.5 1.5 2 3 1 2 3 1>> 0.78 0.88 C D Would require narrow lanes or minor landscape - - area reductions. • Birch St EW TS 1 3 1 1 4 0 1.5 1.5 0 1 1 2 1>> 0.79 0.90 C D r r r �r r �r r r� r r �■■ r a. �■■� r r r �. TABLE 5-10 (Page 2 of 6) INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES' NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WEST- ICONTROCIL LEVEL OF TRAFFIC BOUND I BOUND BOUND BOUND ICU SERVICE T Ri L T R L T R L T RI AM PM AM PM INTERSECTION FEASIBILITYICOMMENTS Von Kaman Av. (NS) at: • Campus Dr. (EW) TS 1 2 1>> 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 0 0.73 0.97 C E -LOS D Alternative 1 TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 2 2 0 1 2 0 0.63 0.90 B D Can be accomplished within existing curb to curb section by eliminating NB and EB RT lanes. -LOS D Alternative 2 TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 3 0 0.68 0.85 B D Logical (high demand movement) improvement. -LOS D Alternative 3 TS 1 2 1>> t 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 0.73 0.89 C D Would encroach on landscape area on north leg of intersection. -LOS D Alemative 4 TS 1 2 1>> 1 3 0 1 2 1 1 2 0 0.73 0.83 C D Logical (high demand movement) improvement. Would encroach on landscape area on north leg and south leg of intersection. MacArthur BI. (NS) at: • Von Kansan Av. EW TS 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 2 1>> 2 1 1>> 0.54 0.65 A B Jamboree Rd. (NS) at: • Campus Dr. (EW) TS 2 4 0 2 3 0 2 2 1>> 2 2 1 0.93 1.18 E F -LOSE Improvements TS 2 4 1 2 4 0 2 2 0 2 2 1> 0.88 0.99 D E -LOS D Improvements TS 2 4 1> 2 4 0 2 2 0 2 2 1> 0.88 0.90 D D • Birch SL (EW) TS 1 3 0 1 3 1>> 1.5 0.5 1>> 0 1 0 1.00 0.84 E D -LOS D Alternative i TS 1 3 0 1 4 1>> 1.5 0.5 1>> 0 1 0 0.89 0.78 D C -LOS D Alternative 2 TS 1 2 3 0 1 3 1>> 1.5 0.5 1» 0 1 0 0.87 0.79 D C Campus Dr. (NS) at: • Bristol St N (EW) TS 2 3 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 2 4 0 1.02 1.06 F F Based on field reconnaissance, it appears this -LOS Elmprovements TS 2 3 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 2 5 0 0.95 0.96 E E could be accomplished on inside (south side), Involving improvements to SR-73 NB On -ramp. -LOS D Alternative 1 TS 2 4 0 0 4 1>> 0 0 0 2 5 0 0.79 0.86 C D SB Free Right imples braided ramp to allow 1 access to Freeway- Runway height limit issues -LOS D Alternative 2 TS 2 4 0 1 0 4 3 0 0 0 1 2 5 0 10.7910.861 C I D I Impacts building on NW comer C31 N TABLE 5-10 (Page 3 of 6) INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WEST- LEVEL OF TRAFFIC BOUND I BOUND BOUND BOUND ICU SERVICE L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM INTERSECTION CONTROL FEASIBILITYICOMMENTS Birch SL (NS) at • Bristol SL N EW TS 2 2 0 0 1.5 2.5 0 0 0_ 1.5 3.5 0 0.90 0.72 D C _ Campus Dr. (NS) at: • Bristol SLS EW _ TS 0 5 0 1 3 0 1.5 2.5 2 0 0 0 0.89 0.78 D C Birch SL (NS) at: • Bristol St. S EW TS 0 2.5 1.5 2 2 0 1.5 3.5 0 0 0 0 0.51 0.54 A A Irvine Av. (NS) at: - • Mesa Dr. (EW) TS 1 2 d 1 2 d i 1 0 1 1 1 0.98 1.19 E F -Funded Improvements TS 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 0.68 0.94 B E -LOS DAHemative 1 TS 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 1> - 1 2 0 0.74 0.87 C D Highlyproblemal'ic ROW I topographic issues on the west leg of the intersection. -LOS D Altemaftve 2 TS 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 0 2 1 0 0.71 0.86 C D Assumes reallocated PM W B LT I Thru Volume. • University Dr. (EW) TS 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 d T 1 d IAS 1.09 F F -LOS D Improvements TS 1 3 0 1 3 1 1_5 0.5 1 1 1 d 0.81 0.84 D D ROW and potential environmental issues. • Santiago Dr. (EW) TS 1 2 0 1 2 d 0 1 d 0 1 d 0.69 0.77 B C • Highland Dr. (EW) TS 1 2 d 1 2 d 0 1 d 0 1 d 0.60 0.65 A B • Dover Dr. (EW) TS 1 2 d 1 2 d 1 1 0 1 1 d 0.78 0.69 C B • Westdiff Dr. EW TS 2 2 d 1 2 2 d 2 2 0 1 2 0 0.66 0.82 B D Dover Dr. (NS) at: • Westcliff Dr. (EW) TS 2 2 0 0 1 1 2 0 1>> 0 0 0 0.38 0.54 A A • 16th SL (EW) TS 1 2 d 1 2 d 0.5 0.5 d 1 1 1 0.6D 0.60 A A • Coast Hw. (EW) TS 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 3 0 1 3 1>> 0.81 0.94 D E -LOS D Improvements; TS 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 3 0 1 4 1>> 0.81 0.78 0 C Highly problematic ROW issues. Bayside Dr. (NS) at - • Coast Hw. E1N TS 2.5 0.5 0 1 1 d 1 3 1 1 4 0 0.89 0.85 D D �■■� a■� a� a� a� a. a. a man �■■i >• a� � rs TABLES-10 (Page5016) INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES' NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WEST- LEVEL OF TRAFFIC BOUND BOUND I BOUND I BOUND ICU SERVICE INTERSECTION CONTROL L T R L T R L _T R L T Rj AM PM AM I PM FEASIBILITY/COMMENTS Santa Rosa Dr. (NS) at • San Joaquin Hills Rd. EW TS 1 1 1> 1 1 1 1 3 0 2 3 0 OA1 0.71 A C Newport Center Dr. (NS) at • Coast Hw. EW TS 0 0 0 2 0 1>> 2 3 0 0 3 i>> OA8 0.63 A B Avocado Av. (NS) at - - - - • San Miguel Dr. (EW) TS 1 1 1> 1 1 1> 1 2 0 2 2 0 0.36 0.79 A C • Coast Hw. EW TS 1 1 1 1.5 0.5 1 1 3 d 1 3 1 0.73 0.78 C C SR-73 NS Ramps (NS) at I---- . Bison Av. EW TS 1.5 0 1.5 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 1 0.52 0.61 A B SR-73 SB Ramps (NS) at • Bison Av. EW TS 0 0 0 2 0 1>> 0 2 1 2 2 0 0.42 0.32 A I A MacArthur BL (NS) at: - • Bison Av. (EW) TS 2 4 1>> 2 4 1> 2 2 1>> 2 2 1 0.78 0.79 C C_ • Ford RdJSonita Canyon Dr. (EW) TS 2 4 1>> 2 4 1>> 2 2 1 2 2 1» 0.80 1.00 C E -LOS D Improvements TS 2 4 1 3 4 1>> 2 2 1 2 2 1>> 0.79 0.89 C D • San Joaquin Hills Rd. (EW) TS 2 3 1 2 3 1» 2 3 0 1 2 1>> 0.79 1.12 C F LOS EARemaWe 1 TS 2 4 0 3 3 1>> 2 3 0 1 2 1>> 0.68 0.94 B E LOS EAltemalive 2 TS 2 4 0 2 3 1>> 3 3 0 1 2 1>> 0.69 0.92 B E LOS EAlternatfve 3 TS 2 3 1 3 3 1>> 3 3 0 1 2 1>> 0.71 0.91 C E -LOS D Improvements TS 2 4 0 3 3 1>> 3 3 0 1 2 1>> 0.65 0.62 B D All improvements req'd to achieve LOS'D`. May require narrow lanesandlead l lag LT operations. • San Miguel Dr. (EW) TS 2 3 1 2 3 1> 2 2 0 2 2 d 0.64 0.75 B C • Coast Hw. EW TS 0 0 0 2 0 1>> 2 3 0 1 0 3 1» 0.72 0.78 C C SR 73 NB Ramps (NS) at • Bonita Canyon Dr. (EW) TS 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 1.06 0.76 F C -LOS DImprovements TS 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 2_ 2 0 0.84 0.63 D B SR-73 SB Ramps (NS) at - • Bonita Canyon Dr. EW TS 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 3 0 OAS 0.66 A B _ Spyglass Hill Rd. (NS) at • San Miguel Dr. EW TS 0 1 d 0 1 1 1 2 d 1 2 d 0.30 0.38 A A San Miguel Dr. (NS) at: • San Joaquin Hills Rd. EW TS i 2 0 1 2 1> 2 3 0 1 3 0 0.55 0.74 A C M m i M M i M a M M M M M M M M i m M TABLE 5-10 (Page 6 of 6) INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES' NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WEST- LEVEL OF TRAFFIC BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND ICU SERVICE INTERSECTION CONTROL2 FEASIBILITYICOMMENTS L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM Goldenrod Av. (NS) at: • Coast Hw. (EW) TS 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 d 1 2 d 0.99 0.69 E B -LOS-D Improvements TS 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 d 1 3 0 0.71 0.69 C B Highly problematic ROW issues. Inconsistent with Corona Del Mar character. Marguerite Av. (NS) at • San Joaquin Hills Rd. (EW) TS 1.5 0.5 1 1 1 0 1 2 1> 1 3 d 0.42 0.51 A A • Coast Hw. (EW) TS 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 0 0.98 1.00 E E -LOS D Improvements TS 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 3 0 1 3 0 0.77 0.83 C D Highly problematic ROW issues. Inconsistent with Corona Del Mar character. Spyglass Hill Rd. (NS) at • San Joaquin Hills Rd. E TS 1 1 0 1 1 d 1 2 1 1 2 d 0.60 0.49 A A Poppy Av. (NS) at: • Coast Hw. E TS 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 0.70 0.76 B C Newport Coast Dr. (NS) at: • SR-73 NB Ramps (EW) TS 0 2 1>> 0 2 0 0 0 0 1.5 0 0.5 0.65 0.40 B A • San Joaquin Hills Rd. (EW) TS 2 3 0 0 3 1 1 0 2> 0 0 0 0.62 0.49 B A • Coast Hw. E TS 1 1 1 2 1 1» 1 3 1 1 3 1» 0.70 0.73 B C ' When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstnped. To function as a right lum lane there must be sufficient wdth for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. L = Len; T = Through; R = Right; > = Overlap; >> = Free Right;j = Improvement 2 TS=Traffic Signal U.IUcJobs\ 0110(-015001 01200101232ExmI1[01232.32.xisjT5-10 improvements. Improvements necessary to provide acceptable levels of service are shown in Table 5-11. Improvements that require the least additional right-of- way or other environmental impacts have generally been recommended. Individual intersections improvements are discussed in Chapter 6 for each location -requiring improvements. Freewayrlbllway and Ramp Analysis For the General Plan buildout With Project scenario, the volumes on four segments have slightly increased when compared to the General Plan buildout Without Project scenario. The analysis summary is shown on Table 5-12. With anticipated regional improvements, the same segments that operated deficiently in the General Plan buildout Without Project scenario also operate at a deficient level of service in the General Plan With Project scenario, including: SR-73 Freeway Northbound • 1-405 Freeway to Bear Street (AM) • Bear Street to SR-55 Freeway (AM) • SR-55 Freeway to Jamboree Rd. (AM) • Bonita Canyon Drive to Newport Coast Drive (AM) • Newport Coast Drive to Toll Plaza (AM) SR-73 Freeway Southbound • 1-405 Freeway to Bear Street (PM) • Bear Street to SR-55 Freeway (PM) • SR-55 Freeway to Jamboree Rd. (PM) However, the following segments require additional lanes when compared with the General Plan Without Project scenario: SR-73 Freeway • Bear Street to SR-55 Freeway (Northbound/Southbound) • SR-55 Freeway to Jamboree Road (Northbound/Southbound) 1 11 11 5-32 I I I k TABLE 5-11 (Page 1 of 2) GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT SUMMARY OF IMPROVEMENT NEEDS BEYOND 2005 EXISTING LANES ADDITIONAL INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION Bluff Rd. (NS) at: Coast Hw. (EW) Provide two SB left turn lanes and two SB right turn lanes (2nd with overlap phase). Provide two EB left turn lanes. Provide one WB right turn lane. 15th St, (NS) at: • Coast Hw. (EW) Provide two SB left turn lanes and two SB right turn lanes (2nd with overlap phase). Provide two EB left turn lanes. Provide one WB right turn lane. Newport BI. (NS) at: • Hospital Rd. (EW) Provide 2nd NB left turn lane. • 32nd St. (EW) Restripe EB to provide 2 left turn lanes, and 1 shared through -right lane Restri a WB to provide 1 left turn lane, 1 through lane, and 1 free right turn lane. Riverside Av. (NS) at: Coast Hw. (EW) Provide 3rd EB throw h lane. Tustin Av. (NS) at • Coast Hw. (EW) Provide 3rd EB through lane. MacArthur Bl. (NS) at: • Campus Dr. (EW) Provide 2nd NB left turn lane. Restripe SB to provide 3.5 through lanes and 1.5 right turn lanes. Von Karmen Av. (NS) at: • Campus Dr. (EW) Provide 2nd EB left turn lane. Jamboree Rd. (NS) at: • Campus Dr. (EW) Provide 1st NB right turn lane with overlap phase. Provide 4th SB through lane. Provide WB right turn overlap phase for current right turn lane. • Birch St. (EW) Provide 4lh SB through lane. Campus Dr. (NS) at: Bristol St. N (EW) Provide 5th WS through lane. Irvine Av. (NS) at: • Mesa Dr. (EW) -Funded Improvements Provide 3rd NB through lane. Provide 3rd SB through lane. Provide 1st EB right turn lane. Provide 2nd WB left turn lane. Additional Improvements Construct funded improvements, but EB right turn lane not necessary. • University Dr. (EW) Provide 3rd NB through lane. Provide 3rd SB through lane. Restri a ES to Include 1.5 left turn lanes 0.5 through lanes and 1 ri hl tum lane. I 5-33 TABLE 5.11 (Page 2 of 2) GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT SUMMARY OF IMPROVEMENT NEEDS BEYOND 2005 EXISTING LANES ADDITIONAL INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS INTERSECTION WITH PROJECT MacArthur BI. (NS) at: Jamboree Rd. (EW) Provide 4th EB through lane. Provide 3rd WB left turn lane. Jamboree Rd. (NS) at: Bristol St. S (EW) Provide 6th NB through lane. Provide 4th SB through lane. MacArthur 81. (NS) at: • Ford Rd./Bonita Canyon Dr. (EW) Provide 3rd SB left turn lane. • San Joaquin Hills Rd. (EW) Provide 4th NB through lane. Provide 3rd SB left turn lane. Provide 3rd EB left turn lane. SR-73 NB Ramps (NS) at: Bonita Canyon Dr. (EW) Provide 2nd WB left turn lane. U:1Ud0bsL0120010123MwVt01232-32.Xls3T5.11 k �J I I 1J I 5-34 TABLE 5-12 BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT SR-73 FREEWAYITOLL WAY MAINLINE ANALYSIS AM SEGMENT I ADT NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND LANES VOLUME LOS LANES VOLUME I LOS 405 Fw. to Bear St. 135,000 3 10,718 F 3 3,457 C -with anticipated regional im rovements' 5 F 4 B -with additional improve ments 6 D 6 A Bear St. to 55 Fw. -with anticipated regional im rovements2 159,000 3 12,623 F 3 4,072 C 5 F 5 B -with additional improvements 8 D 7 A 55 Fw. to Jamboree Rd. 136,000 3 10,797 F 3 3,483 C -with anticipated re ional im rovements 2 5 F 5 B -with additional improvements 7 D 6 A Jamboree Rd. to Bonita Canyon Dr. -with anticipated regional im rovements2 Bonita Canyon Dr. to Newport Coast Dr. 98,000 136,000 3 7,780 10,797 F 3 2,510 3,483 B 4 F 5 4 A B -with anticipated regional improvements 2 6 E 6 A -with additional improvements 7 D 6 A Newport Coast Dr. to Toll Plaza 128,000 3 10,162 F 3 3,278 C -with anticipated regional improve 5 F 6 A -with additional im rovements 6 D 6 A PM SEGMENT ADT NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND LANES VOLUME LOS LANES VOLUME LOS 405 Fw, to Bear St. -with anticipated regional improvements 2 135,000 3 5,646 E 3 9,137 F 5 C 4 F -with additional improvements 6 B 6 D Bear St. to 55 Fw. -with anticipated regional improvements 2 169,000 3 6,650 F 3 10,761 F F 5 C 5 -with additional improvements 8 B 7 D 55 Fw. to Jamboree Rd. 136,000 3 5,687 E 3 9,205 F -with anticipated regional im rovements2 5 C 5 E -with additional improvements 7 B 6 D Jamboree Rd. to Bonita Canyon Dr. -with anticipated regional improvements' 98,000 3 4,098 C 3 6,633 F 5 B 5 C Bonita Canyon Dr. to New orhCoast Dr. -with anticipated regional improvements' 136,000 4 5,687 C 4 9,205 F 6 B 6 D -with additional im rovements 7 B 6 D Newport Coast Dr. to Toll Plaza 128,000 3 5,353 D 3 8,663 F -with anticipated regional improvements' 5 C 6 D -with additional improvements 6 B 6 D 1 = Improvement 2-Anticipated regional improvements taken from OCTAM U:1UcJobsl_012001012321Excell[01232-32.xIsIT5-12 5-35 Because the needed improvements to serve cumulative future traffic volumes on the freeway exceed the planned system improvements, a potentially significant cumulative impact to the freeway system may occur. The ramp volumes for the General Plan With Project scenario are similar to the ramp volumes for the General Plan Without Project scenario, which resulted in the same operational deficiencies. Table 5-13 summarizes the analysis. The deficient ramps are: • Bristol Street Northbound Off • Jamboree Road Southbound On • MacArthur Boulevard Northbound On • MacArthur Boulevard Southbound Off • Bonita Canyon Drive Northbound Off • Newport Coast Drive Northbound Off • Newport Coast Drive Northbound On • Newport Coast Drive Southbound Off 5-36 I i TABLE 5-13 1 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT SR-73 FREEWAY PEAK HOUR RAMP ANALYSIS r L 1 1 1 1 1 I I RAMP MOVE LANES ON FWY. FREEWAY VOLUME RAMP LENGTH OF AccELERATION DECELERATION PEAK HOUR VOLUME DENSITY LOS AM I AM I PM AM PM AM I PM Bristol St. NB Off 5 110,7181 5,646 1 0 2,280 920 1 54.71 30.5 F I D -with improvements NB Off 6 10,718 5,646 2 280 2,280 920 34.8 17.1 D B Bristol St. SB Off 5 3,457 9,137 2 2,725 1,370 690 NOM NOM A A Jamboree Rd. NB On 5 7,780 4,098 1 120 480 850 21.0 17.3 C B Jamboree Rd. SB On 5 3,483 9,205 1 1,700 630 1,610 15.1 38.0 B F -with improvements SB On 6 3,483 9,20E 1 1 570 630 1,610 12.7 30.6 B D MacArthur BI. NB Off 5 7,780 4,098 2 1,480 930 490 0.8 NOM A A MacArthurBl. NSOn 5 7,780 4,098 1 340 2,570 2,210 -' - F F -with improvements NB On 6 7,780 4.098 2 340 2,570 2,210 32.1 25.2 D C MacArthurBl. SB Off 5 2,510 6,633 1 1,340 2,220 2,310 15.8 28.5 F F -with improvements SB Off 6 2,510 6,633 2 1,340 2,220 2,310 3.2 11.2 A B University Dr. NB On 5 7,780 4,098 1 200 1,310 1,470 22.5 20.2 C C University Dr. 8B Off 5 2,510 6,633 1 1,400 800 840 7.2 19.7 1 A B Bison Av. NB Off 5 7,780 4,098 1 0 520 330 34.5 22.3 D C Bison Av. NB On 5 7,780 4,098 1 250 280 860 19.0 16.0 B B Bison Av. SB Off 5 2,510 6,633 1 0 1,000 380 20.9 29.7 C D Bison Av. SB On 5 2,510 6,633 1 740 120 440 9.6 21.4 A C Bonita Canyon Dr. NB Off 6 10,797 5,687 1 1,250 980 220 30.1 12.8 D B Bonita Canyon Dr. NB On 5 7.780 4,098 1 2,440 720 420 47.8 22.9 F C -with improvements NB On 5 7,780 4,098 1 1,020 720 420 34.4 20.5 D C Bonita Canyon Dr. SB Off 5 2,510 6,633 1 0 410 500 17.6 30.3 B D Bonita Canyon Dr. SB On 5 2,510 6,633 1 400 300 820 10.9 19.7 B B Newport Coast Dr. NB Off 5 10,162 5,353 1 0 560 290 43.0 25.8 1 F I C -with improvements NB Off 6 10,162 5,353 1 240 560 290 34.9 21.3 D C New ort Coast Dr. NB On 5 10,162 5.353 1 1,250 480 330 53.3 27.4 F C -with im rovements NB On 6 10,162 5,353 1 860 480 330 34.8 20.5 D C New ort Coast Dr. SB Off 6 3,483 9,205 1 0 680 1,050 2008 37.1 C E -with improvements JSB Off 1 6 3,483 9,205 1 240 680 1,050 18.7 34.9 B D Newport Coast Dr. 1513 On 6 3,483 9,205 1 360 460 1 600 13.0 21.7 B C r Ramp failure due to ramp volumes 1 1 = Improvement U:1UcJ obsl 01200W 12321Exce R[01 i i i 1 1 i THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK I 1, F I I I I I I 5-38 1 I 1 6.0 SPECIAL ISSUES Several special issues have been evaluated in this Traffic Study. The following sections discuss the special issues that have been addressed. This chapter also provides a summary comparison of the results of intersection analysis. 6.1 Nineteenth Street Bridge There are two additional crossings of the Santa Ana River south of the 1-405 freeway on the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (Gisler Avenue / Garfield Avenue and 19th Street / Banning Avenue). Of particular interest in evaluating traffic issues in the City of Newport Beach is the 19th Street bridge. Without the potential 19th Street bridge over the Santa Ana River, Superior Avenue at Coast Highway experiences deficient operations requiring substantial additional improvements and additional potential intersections at Bluff Road and 15th Street need to be constructed with additional lanes beyond what is necessary with the bridge. The bridge would provide relief to Coast Highway, resulting in the need for at least one fewer additional through lane in each direction. Therefore, it is recommended that Newport. Beach continue to be an advocate for the 19th Street bridge. 6.2 SR-55 Freeway Extension A possible extension of the SR-55 Freeway south from its current terminus to 17th Street has been discussed. While this extension may provide some relief to Newport Boulevard, it is projected to draw additional through traffic to Coast Highway. The potential extension of the SR-55 Freeway would result in additional through traffic on Coast Highway. I 6-1 M. M, Banning Ranch The City Council has identified open space as the preferred use of Banning Ranch, but the analysis contained in this Traffic Study has assumed worst case conditions, including alternate residential and commercial development on the Banning Ranch property. If the open space preservation occurs, roadway segments through the property (Bluff Roadand 151h Street) will not be constructed, the relief to Superior Avenue at Coast Highway will not be provided by the new connections, and Superior Avenue at Coast Highway will experience Level of Service "E" conditions. If the Banning Ranch property is acquired for open space, Superior Avenue at Coast Highway is expected to operate at LOS "E" in both the AM and PM peak hours without improvements. Previous analysis has indicated that necessary improvements to achieve acceptable LOS are expected to include one northbound right turn lane, a fourth eastbound through lane, and a fifth westbound through. These improvements exceed the existing / planned roadway cross-section substantially. Therefore, a roadway crossing the Banning Ranch open space would still be required. With development on Banning Ranch, Bluff Road at Coast Highway would experience unacceptable levels of service unless the 15'h Street extension is _I I 1 constructed. Without this improvement, an additional westbound through lane would be required on Coast Highway to provide LOS "D" conditions at the , intersection of Bluff Road at Coast Highway. Based on this analysis it is recommended that two new roadways provide access to Coast Highway through the Banning Ranch property, should the alternate land use be constructed. Coast Highway through Mariners Mile The widening of Coast Highway through Mariners Mile is recommended, as it would alleviate congestion (which is caused by high volumes of traffic in the peak direction along this segment of Coast Highway) through this key stretch of ri 11 11 6-2 III IJ ' 6.5 I11 !I roadway, and the City has already begun reserving right-of-way for this improvement. To implement this widening, it is recommended that the City pursue obtaining control of Coast Highway from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), so that the widening may be constructed to City of Newport Beach standards. Individual Intersection Summaries Individual intersections requiring improvements in any scenario are documented below. Bluff Road (NS) at Coast Highway (EW) Bluff Road is a new roadway facility that will connect from 17th Street through the Banning Ranch property to Coast Highway. An alternate alignment may be acceptable at the discretion of City staff. In order to provide LOS "D" operations in the Without or With Project scenario, it is recommended that two southbound left -turn lanes and two southbound right -turn lanes (with overlap phase) be constructed at Coast Highway. In addition, two eastbound left -turn lanes and one westbound right -turn lane should be provided. 15th Street (NS) at Coast Highway (EW) 15th Street is projected to extend west (from its current terminus) through the Banning Ranch site to Coast Highway. An alternate alignment may be acceptable at the discretion of City staff. It is recommended that two southbound left -turn lanes and two southbound right -turn lanes with overlap phase (i.e. right turn arrow) be provided at Coast Highway. In addition, two eastbound left -turn lanes and one westbound right -turn lane should be provided. With this intersection configuration, the intersection is projected to operate at acceptable LOS during both the AM and PM peak hours in the Without or With Project scenarios. 6-3 Newport Boulevard (NS) at Hospital Road (EW) Under Without Project conditions, this intersection is expected to operate at LOS "C" during the AM peak hour and at LOS "E" during the PM peak hour. For With Project conditions, the intersection is projected to operate at LOS "D" during the AM peak hour and LOS "E" during the PM peak hour. In order to improve operating conditions, it is recommended that a second northbound left -turn lane be provided. With this improvement in place, the intersection is projected to operate at LOS "C' or "D" during all peak hours. The City of Newport Beach previous Circulation Element recommended that this left -turn lane be added. The previous Circulation Element projected the improved intersection to operate at LOS "D" during the AM peak hour and at LOS "E" during the PM peak hour. Newport Boulevard (NS) at 32"d Street (EW) Newport Boulevard at 32nd Street is projected to operate at acceptable Levels of Service for Without Project conditions. For With Project conditions, the PM peak hour is projected to experience LOS "E" operations. Acceptable LOS can be achieved by restriping the eastbound approach to have two left turn lanes and one shared through -right lane; the westbound approach to have one left turn lane, one through lane, and one free right turn lane; signal modification would also be necessary. The previous Circulation Element projected acceptable LOS at this location. Riverside Avenue (NS) at Coast Highway (EW) Under Without Project and With Project conditions, this intersection is expected to operate at LOS "E" during both the AM and PM peak hours. In order to improve operating conditions, it is recommended that a third eastbound through travel lane be provided (consistent with the planned widening of Coast Highway through Mariners Mile). To accomplish this, the westbound right -turn lane can be NE H I� 1 t eliminated. With these improvements in place, the intersection is projected to operate at LOS "B" during the AM peak hour and at LOS "E" during the PM peak hour for Without Project or With Project conditions. The City of Newport Beach previous Circulation Element recommended that an optional southbound left -turn lane, a separate southbound right -turn lane, and one eastbound left -turn lane be added. These improvements are not consistent with the current recommendations. The previous Circulation Element projected the improved intersection to operate at LOS 'B" during the AM peak hour and at LOS "C" during the PM peak hour. Adding a second eastbound left turn lane would provide LOS "D" or better operations, but would impactleliminate the existing improvements that have been built to serve pedestrians and bicyclists. Tustin Avenue (NS) at Coast Highway (EW) With the existing configuration for the Without Project scenario, Tustin Avenue at Coast Highway is expected to operate at LOS "E" conditions in the AM peak hour and LOS "C" in the PM peak hour. For the With Project scenario, it is projected to experience LOS "E" in the AM peak hour and LOS "D" in the PM peak hour. To improve operations to LOS "D" or better in all peak hours, an additional eastbound through lane on Coast Highway is recommended, consistent with the planned widening of Coast Highway through Mariners Mile. MacArthur Boulevard (NS) at Campus Drive (EW) Under Without Project conditions, this intersection is expected to operate at LOS "C" during the AM peak hour and at LOS "F" during the PM peak hour (without improvements). For the With Project scenario, it is expected to operate at LOS "D" during the AM peak hour and LOS "F" during the PM peak hour. In order to improve operating conditions, it is recommended that a second northbound left turn lane be provided and the southbound approach be restriped to provide three (3) through travel lanes, one (1) shared through -right lane, and one (1) right turn iI 6-5 lane. With these improvements in place, the intersection is projected to operate at LOS "C" during the AM peak hour and at LOS "D" during the PM peak hour for Without Project and With Project conditions. The City of Newport Beach previous Circulation Element recommended that a southbound left -turn lane, a westbound left -turn lane, a northbound right -turn lane, and a separate eastbound right -turn lane be added. These improvements are not consistent with the current recommendations. The previous Circulation Element projected the improved intersection to operate at LOS "B" during the AM peak hour and at LOS "F" during the PM peak hour. Von Karman Avenue (NS) at Campus Drive (EW) Under Without Project conditions, this intersection is expected to operate at LOS "B" during the AM peak hour and at LOS "E" during the PM peak hour. For With Project conditions, it is projected to operate at LOS "C" during the AM peak hour and LOS "E" during the PM peak hour. In order to provide acceptable operating conditions, it is recommended that a second eastbound left turn lane be provided. To implement this improvement, both the eastbound right turn lane and northbound free right turn lane can be eliminated. With these improvements in place, the intersection is projected to operate at LOS "A" during the AM peak hour for Without Project conditions and LOS "B" for With Project conditions, and at LOS "D" during the PM peak hour for either case. The City of Newport Beach previous Circulation Element provided no recommendations for improving this intersection. The previous Circulation Element projected the intersection to operate at LOS "C' during the AM peak hour and at LOS "E" during the PM peak hour. Jamboree Road (NS) at Campus Drive (EW) Under Without Project or With Project conditions, this intersection is expected to operate at LOS "E" during the AM peak hour and at LOS "F" during the PM peak hour (without improvements). In order to improve operating conditions, it is I I recommended that a northbound right turn lane (with overlap phase), a fourth southbound through travel lane, and a right -turn overlap phase for the current westbound right turn lane be provided. To implement these improvements, the eastbound free right -turn lane can be eliminated. With these improvements in place, the intersection is projected to operate at LOS "D" during the AM and LOS "E" during the PM peak hours. These same improvements provide acceptable operations (LOS "D") for With Project conditions. To achieve LOS "D" conditions for the Without Project scenario, a third westbound through lane is also necessary. The City of Newport Beach previous Circulation Element provided no recommendations for improving this intersection. The previous Circulation Element projected the intersection to operate at LOS "F" during both the AM and PM peak hours. Jamboree Road NS at Birch Street EW Jamboree Road at Birch Street is projected to experience LOS "E" conditions in the AM peak hour and LOS "D" conditions in the PM peak hour without improvements. To achieve acceptable operations, an additional (4th) southbound through lane or a second (2"d) northbound left turn lane is necessary at this location. The previous Circulation Element projected intersection operations of LOS "C" in both the AM and PM peak hours. Campus Drive (NS) at Bristol Street North (EW) Under Without Project conditions, this intersection is expected to operate at LOS "E" in the AM peak hour and LOS "F" in the PM peak hour. For With Project conditions, both peak hours experience LOS "F" conditions. In order to improve operating conditions, it is recommended that a fifth westbound through travel lane be provided. With this improvement in place, the intersection is projected to operate at LOS "E" during both the AM and PM peak hours. The City of Newport Beach previous Circulation Element recommended that one westbound left turn 6-7 lane be added. This improvement is not consistent with the current recommendation. The previous Circulation Element projected the improved intersection to operate at LOS "D" during the AM peak hour and at LOS "F" during the PM peak hour. Any additional improvements would impact the existing building on the northwest corner of the intersection and would also require widening of the bridge over the freeway to achieve an acceptable (LOS "D") level of service. Birch Street (NS) at Bristol Street North (EW) The intersection of Birch Street at Bristol Street North is projected to experience LOS "E" conditions in the AM peak hour and LOS "C" conditions in the PM peak hour without improvements for the Without Project scenario. For the With Project scenario, the intersection experiences acceptable operations. To achieve acceptable operations, it is recommended that the westbound approach be restriped to provide one left turn lane, two through lanes, a shared through -right lane and a right turn lane. These improvements are not necessary for the With Project condition. In the previous Circulation Element, Birch Street at Bristol Street North was projected to experience LOS "B" conditions for the AM peak hour and LOS "E" conditions for the PM peak hour. Campus Drive (NS) at Bristol Street South (EW) The intersection of Campus Drive at Bristol Street South is projected to experience LOS "E" conditions in the AM peak hour and LOS "C" conditions in the PM peak hour for Without Project conditions. For With Project conditions, it experiences acceptable Levels of Service. To achieve acceptable levels of service for the Without Project scenario, it would be necessary to restripe the eastbound approach to include two left turn lanes, two through lanes, a shared through -right lane, and a right turn lane. These improvements are not necessary for the With Project condition. I 1 L I I I I Irvine Avenue (NS) at Mesa Drive (EW) Under Without Project or With Project conditions, this intersection is expected to operate at LOS "E" during the AM peak hour and at LOS "F" during the PM peak hour without improvements. Funded improvements include a third northbound through travel lane, a third southbound through travel lane, an eastbound right turn lane and a second westbound left -turn lane. It is projected that acceptable operations can be achieved without westbound or eastbound right turn lanes. Because of the available westbound left turn lanes, it is expected that drivers desiring to travel southwest on Irvine Avenue will turn left, rather than proceeding through the intersection and turning left at the next available route. The funded improvements will achieve an acceptable level of service with such a shift in future traffic volumes. The City of Newport Beach previous Circulation Element recommended that a separate southbound right turn lane, a northbound right turn lane, a westbound left turn lane, and an eastbound through travel lane be added. These improvements are not consistent with the current recommendation. The previous Circulation Element projected the improved intersection to operate at LOS "E" during both the AM and PM peak hours. Irvine Avenue (NS) at University Drive (EW) Under Without Project or With Project conditions, this intersection is expected to operate at LOS "F" during both the AM and PM peak hours. In order to improve operating conditions, it is recommended that a third northbound through travel lane and a third southbound through travel lane be provided. In addition, the eastbound approach should be restriped to provide one left turn lane, one shared left -through lane, and one right -turn lane. With these improvements in place, the intersection is projected to operate at acceptable LOS during both peak hours. The City of Newport Beach previous Circulation Element recommended that an .• eastbound through travel lane be added. This improvement is not consistent with the current recommendations. The previous Circulation Element projected the improved intersection to operate at LOS "F" during the AM peak hour and at LOS "E" during the PM peak hour. Dover Drive (NS) at Coast Highway (EW) This intersection is expected to operate at LOS "E" during the PM peak hour under Without Project or With Project conditions. In order to improve operating conditions, a fourth westbound through travel lane would need to be provided. This would require right-of-way that is unavailable. The City of Newport Beach previous Circulation Element recommended that an eastbound through travel lane and a westbound through travel lane be added. The previous Circulation Element projected the improved intersection to operate at LOS "D" during the AM peak hour and at LOS "C" during the PM peak hour. MacArthur Boulevard (NS) at Jamboree Road (EW) Under Without Project conditions, this intersection is expected to operate at LOS "E" during the AM and PM peak hours. For the With Project conditions, the intersection experiences LOS "E" in the AM peak hour and LOS "F" in the PM peak hour. In order to improve operating conditions for Without Project, a third westbound left -turn lane should be provided. With this improvement in place, the intersection is projected to operate at LOS "D" during both the AM and PM peak hours. It should be noted that a triple left turn works best when four receiving lanes are available. A triple left turn lane into three receiving lanes may not operate as efficiently. For With Project conditions, a fourth eastbound through lane is necessary, in addition to the third westbound left turn lane, to achieve acceptable LOS. The City of Newport Beach previous Circulation Element provided no recommendations for improving this intersection. The previous Circulation Element projected the intersection to operate at LOS "F" during both the AM and PM peak hours. 6-10 Jamboree Road (NS) at Bristol Street South (EW) intersection is to Under Without Project or With Project conditions, this expected operate at LOS "E" during the AM peak hour and at LOS "D" during the PM peak hour. In order to improve operating conditions, it is recommended that a sixth ' northbound through travel lane and a fourth southbound through travel lane be provided. The City is currently evaluating the feasibility of these improvements. A conceptual striping plan is shown on Exhibit 6-A. With these improvements in place, the intersection is projected to operate at LOS "E" during the AM peak ' hour and LOS "D" during the PM peak hour for Without Project conditions. These improvements achieve LOS "D" for With Project conditions. Without the project, an additional eastbound left turn lane is also required to achieve LOS "D" in the AM peak hour. The City of Newport Beach previous Circulation Element recommended that an eastbound through travel lane and a northbound ramp onto SR-73 freeway be added. These improvements are not consistent with the ' current recommendations. The previous Circulation Element projected the improved intersection to operate at LOS "C" during the AM peak hour and at LOS "D" during the PM peak hour. MacArthur Boulevard (NS) at Ford Road/Bonita Canyon Drive (EW) ' Under Without Project and With Project conditions, this intersection is expected to operate at LOS "C" during the AM peak hour and at LOS "E" during the PM ' peak hour. In order to improve operating conditions, it is recommended that a third southbound left turn lane be provided. The northbound free right turn lane ' can be converted to a right turn lane to accommodate this improvement. With this improvement in place, the intersection is projected to operate at LOS "C" in ' the AM peak hour and LOS "D" during the PM peak hour. The City of Newport Beach previous Circulation Element provided no recommendations for improving ' this intersection. The previous Circulation Element projected the intersection to operate at LOS "D" during both the AM and PM peak hours. ' 6-11 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK 6-12 i i >• i�� i i i i i i� i i i i i� EXHIBIT 6-A JAMBOREE ROAD AT BRISTOL STREET CONCEPTUAL STRIPING PLAN /I 801 lil - - u a -- o i� I a i 'I I `' ' `� ;'' ! h� 1 1°`� `- i— rr N_, _ _ = JAN�BiOREE RO L( I ------ - 9 u— _.Tt�.. r - a -- .w r - / SOURCE RBFCONSULTING ;Y URBAN NEW PORT BPACN GENERAL PLAN UPOATE,N rtB..d; ONo 'R-OID2-t00.d — ' MacArthur Boulevard (NS) at San Joaquin Hills Road (EW) Under Without Project or With Project conditions, this intersection is expected to operate at LOS "C" during the AM peak hour and at LOS "F" during the PM peak hour. In order to improve operating conditions, it is recommended that a third southbound left turn lane and a third eastbound left turn lane be provided. With ' these improvements in place, the intersection is projected to operate at LOS 'B" during the AM peak hour and at LOS "D" during the PM peak hour for Without ' Project conditions. For With Project conditions, a fourth northbound through lane is required to achieve acceptable LOS. The City of Newport Beach previous Circulation Element provided no recommendations for improving this intersection. The previous Circulation Element projected the intersection to operate at LOS "B" during the AM peak hour and at LOS "D" during the PM peak hour. ' SR-73 NB Ramps (NS) at Bonita Canyon Drive (EW) ' For Without Project or With Project conditions, LOS "F" is projected to occur in the AM peak hour and LOS "C" in the PM peak hour for the SR-73 northbound ramps at Bonita Canyon Drive. An additional (2nd) westbound left turn lane is necessary to provide acceptable (LOS "D") operations. Goldenrod Avenue (NS) at Coast Highway (EW) Under Without Project or With Project conditions, this intersection is expected to operate at LOS "E" during the AM peak hour and at LOS 'B" during the PM peak ' hour. While additional through lanes on Coast Highway would provide acceptable operations, no improvements are recommended at this location. The widening of Coast Highway is inconsistent with the community character of ' Corona Del Mar. The City of Newport Beach previous Circulation Element provided no recommendations for improving this intersection. The previous Circulation Element projected the intersection to operate at LOS "D" during both the AM and PM peak hours, most likely because the SR-73 was assumed to be untolled at City buildout. ' 6-15 I 6.6 Marguerite Avenue (NS) at Coast Highway (EW) Under Without Project or With Project conditions, this intersection is expected to operate at LOS "E" during both the AM and PM peak hours. While additional ' through lanes on Coast Highway would provide acceptable operations, no improvements are recommended at this location. The widening of Coast ' Highway is inconsistent with the community character of Corona Del Mar. The City of Newport Beach previous Circulation Element provided no , recommendations for improving this intersection. The previous Circulation Element projected the intersection to operate at LOS "D" during the AM peak ' hour and at LOS "B" during the PM peak hour, most likely because the SR-73 was assumed to be untolled at City buildout. ' MacArthur Boulevard at Jamboree Road ' As shown in Table 5-10, grade separation for the intersection of MacArthur ' Boulevard at Jamboree Road is one improvement that was considered to maintain LOS "D" at this location. During the Visioning Process, citizens indicated a desire to not incorporate additional grade separated intersections in the roadway system. Acceptable operations can be achieved with at -grade ' improvements (a 4t' eastbound through lane and a 3`d westbound left turn lane), and those improvements are recommended. ' I I ' Appendices to the Traffic Study can be found at http://www.nbvision2025.com i 1 1 i 1 1 i 0 t 1 [1 1 1 1 0 11 11 i 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 II II u 1 � I 5 I I I I I I 0 URBAN CROSSROADS 41 Corporate Park, Suite 300 Irvine, CA 92606 Carleton Waters, P.E. Marlie Whiteman, P.E. Prepared for: Mr. Elwood Tescher EIP ASSOCIATES 12301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430 Los Angeles, CA 90025 NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN EXISTING WITH PROJECT EVALUATION NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA March 24, 2006 JN:01232-34 CW:MW:cg 41 Corporate Park, Suite 300 Irvine,CA92606 949.660.10%main 949.660.1911fax www.urbanxfoads.coln 11 u I March 27, 2006 Mr. Elwood Tescher EIP ASSOCIATES 12301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Subject: Existing With Project Evaluation Dear Mr. Tescher: This letter has been prepared as a supplement to the City of Newport Beach General Plan Transportation Study (Urban Crossroads, Inc., March 21, 2006). Throughout this letter, the _City of Newport Beach General Plan- Transportation Study (Urban Crossroads, Inc., March 21, 2006) shall be referred to as the Transportation Study. The purpose of this letter is to analyze the direct effects of the Newport Beach General Plan Update project in the absence of surrounding regional growth. To remove the effects of regional growth, an Existing With Project scenario has been prepared. This scenario identifies traffic growth and inputs related only to the anticipated growth within the City of Newport Beach. The General Plan Buildout With Project scenario is in essence, the Existing With Project scenario with the addition of regional growth. Comparing these two scenarios will help to determine the impacts of regional growth on the transportation system. This evaluation has been performed using a special run of the Newport Beach Traffic Model (NBTM) that combines existing travel characteristics surrounding the City of Newport Beach with the City of Newport Beach General Plan project travel characteristics. Land use and roadway characteristics of the City of Newport Beach General Plan project have been included in this run. Only the summaries of these characteristics are repeated in this letter. For details of the project description, please see Chapter 5 of the Transportation Study. In this letter, Existing With Project model inputs are discussed and refined forecast volumes are presented. Data are compared to Existing conditions and the General Plan Buildout With. Project (including regional growth) conditions (as defined in Chapter 5 of I I Mr. Elwood Tescher EIP ASSOCIATES March 27, 2006 Page 2 the Transportation Study) scenario. The roadway system has remained unchanged (the project network) from the General Plan Buildout With Project scenario. The roadway system therefore includes funded / planned improvements outside the City of Newport Beach or controlled by agencies other than the City of Newport Beach (for instance, improvements such as adding high occupancy vehicle lanes to the SR-73 Freeway). Land Use and Socioeconomic Data (SED) This section discusses the land use and socioeconomic data inputs. Existing With Project Land Use Data The Existing With Project land use is identical to the General Plan Buildout With .Project land use included in the Transportation Study. Table 1 summarizes the overall Existing With Project land uses for the City of Newport Beach and compares them to Existing land uses. There is an increase of over 10,000 dwelling units. Non-residential categories that grow by more than 500,000 square feet include general commercial and medical/government office. At the same time, the quantity of general office and industrial use are projected to decrease by approximately 450,000 and 400,000 square feet, respectively. Existing With Proiect Socioeconomic Data (SED) Existing With Project SED that has been calculated from land use is summarized in Table 2. Table 2 also contains a comparison of Existing With Project SED to Existing SED for the City of Newport Beach. The total number of dwelling units is projected to increase by 13,295 units (35 %) from Existing conditions. For total employment, an increase of 15,454 employees (21 %) is anticipated. Trip Generation Table 3 summarizes the overall trip generation for the Existing With Project conditions for the City of Newport Beach and compares it to Existing conditions trip generation. I TABLE 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN PROJECT LAND USE'GROWTH FROM EXISTING NBTM CODE" DESCRIPTION UNITS 2 EXISTING QUANTITY3 EXISTING WITH PROJECT QUANTITY' GROWTH % GROWTH 1, Low Density Residential DU 18,702 20,402 11700 9.09% 2 Medium Density Residential DU 10,974 14,223 3,249 29.61% 3 Apartment DU 9,703 19,114 9,411 96.99% 4 Elderly Residential DU 200 200 0.00% 5 Mobile Home DU 600 455 -145 -24.17% TOTAL DWELLING UNITS DU 40,179 54.394 14,215 35.380 6 Motel ROOM 134 136 2 1.49% 7 Hotel ROOM 231 6,413 3182 98.48% 9 Regional Commercial TSF 1,331,000 1,684.000 353.000 26.52% 10 General Commercial TSF 3 823.398 5,268.840 1,445.442 37.81% 11 Ciommercial/Recreation ACRE 5,10D 5.100 0.00% 13 Restaurant TSF 99.450 198,860 99.410 99.96% 15 Fast Food Restaurant TSF 15.640 15.640 O.OF% 16 Auto Dealer/Sales TSF 201.300 386,050 184.760 91.78% 17 1 Yacht Club TSF 51.830 70.3101 18.480 35.66% 18 Health Club TSF 16.770 61.330 44.560 265.71% 19 Tennis Club CRT 60 59 1 A*67% 20 Marina SLIP 1055 11055 O.OD% 21 Theater SEAT 5,489 5,475 -14 -0.26% 22 Newport Dunes ACRE 64.00 64.00 0.00% 23 General Office TSF 11,657.109 11209.939 447.170 -3.9% 24 Medical/GovemmentOffice TSF 959.718 1.657.561 697.843 72.71% 25 Research & Development TSF 1 81.730, 81,730 0.00% 26 Industrial TSF 1,291.079 885.310 405.769 -31A3% 27 Minl-Story e/Warehouse TSF 196.420 196A20 0.00% 28 Pre-school/Day Care TSF 48.060 40.600 7.450 A5.50% 29 Elementary/Private School STU 4,999 5,555 556 11.13% 30 Junior/High School STU 5,215 5,215 0.OD% 31 Cultural/Learning Center TSF 35.000 40.000 5.000 14,29% 32 Library TSF 78.800 84.600 5.800 7.36e/s 33 Past Office TSF 53.700 1 73.700 20.000 37.24% 34 Hospital BED 1,031 2001' 970 94.08% 35 Nursln Conv. Homo BEDS 661 666 95 -14.37% 36 Church TSF 377.780 465.904 88.124 23.33% 37 Youth Ctr./Service TSF 149.540 189.209 39.669 26.63% 38 Park ACRE 128.360 183.680 55.320 43.10°% 39 Regional Park ACRE 65.910 65.910 N/ 40 Golf Course ACRE 305.330 298.290 -7.040 -2.31% ' Usos a,12, and 14 am partof tho old N13TAM model structure and are notcunantlyulillzed In the City land use datesets. 2 Units Abbreviations: DU = Dwelling Units TSF = Thousand Square Feet CRT =Court STU=Students Includes Newport Coast and recent annexation areas, U9U Wobs1 0120D%012321ExwN01232.34AsITS1 3 11 11 TABLE 2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN PROJECT LAND USE BASED SOCIOECONOMIC DATA GROWTH FROM EXISTING VARIABLE EXISTING' QUANTITY EXISTING WITH PROJECT QUANTITY' IGROWTHI%GROWTH Occupied Sin le Family Dwelling Units 17,467 19,105 1,638 9% Occu led Multi -Family Dwelling Units 20,1361 31,793 11,657 58% TOTAL OCCUPIED DWELLING UNITS 37,6031 50,898 13,295 35% Group Quarters Population 661 566 .95 -14% Population 83,007 108,4211 25,414 31% Employed Residents 49,632 66,5811 16,949 34% Retail Employees 11,5251 15,480 3,955 34% Service Employees 1 19,681 27,336 7,655 39% Other Employees 1 41,4681 45,312 3,844 9% TOTAL EMPLOYEES 72,6741 88,128 15,454 21% Elem/Hf h School Students 10,2141 10,770 556 5% tIncludes Newport Coast and recent annexation areas. U:\Uciobs\ 01200\01232\Excel\[01232.34.xIsIT5-2 II rd II TABLE 3 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH EXISTING WITH PROJECT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY TRIP PURPOSE DAILY TRIP ENDS GROWTH PERCENT GROWTH EXISTING EXISTING WITH PROJECT' Home Based Work Productions 61,128 81,761 20,633 33.75% Home Based Work Attractions 88.446 107,577 19,131 21.63% Home Based SchoolProductions 11,756 15,332 3,676 30.42% Home Based School Attractions 8,990 9,481 491 5.46% Home Based Other Productions 165,256 212,617 47,361 28.66% Home Based Other Attractions 116,052 163,163 38,11.1 33.13% Work Based Other Productions 65,488 69,2711 13.783 24.84% Work Based Other Attractions 60,741 76,4281 15,687 25.83% Other - Other Productions 98,005 129,0811 31,076 31.71% Other - Other Attractions 96,363 127,286 30,923 32,09% TOTAL PRODUCTIONS 391,633 608.0621 116,4291 29.73% TOTAL ATTRACTIONS 1 369,5921 473,9351 104,3431 28.23% OVERALL TOTAL 1 761,2261 981,9971 220,7721 29.00% ' Home -Work Includes Home -Work and Home -University trips, consistent with OCTAM mode choice output. 3' Home -Other includes Home -Shop and Home -Other trips, consistent with OCTAM mode choice output. 3 Includes Newport Coast and recent annexation areas. U:\UcJobs\ 01200\012321Excel\[01232-34.xlsTr-3 5 II Mr. Elwood Tescher EIP ASSOCIATES March 27, 2006 Page 6 The overall trip generation for the City of Newport Beach With Project scenario is an estimated 981,997 daily vehicle trips (resulting in growth of 29% from the existing 761,225 daily vehicle trips). Traffic Assignment The roadway system for the Existing With Project alternative is identical to the roadway system presented for the General Plan Buildout With Project scenario of the Transportation Study. Exhibit A summarizes the NBTM 3.1 refined Existing With Project scenario daily traffic volumes throughout the City of Newport Beach. Changes from the Existing count and General Plan Buildout With Project forecasts are shown on Table 4. Roadways that experience the largest increases from existing include Coast Highway and Newport Coast Drive. Each of these locations experiences an increase of 10,000 vehicles per day (VPD) or more with the project. Additional roadways experiencing the growth in excess of 10,000 VPD in the General Plan Buildout (Post-2030) With Project scenario in the primary traffic study report (including regional growth) are Campus Drive, Jamboree Road, and MacArthur Boulevard. Each of these locations experiences an increase of 10,000 VPD or more with buildout of the surrounding area. Daily Capacity Analysis Daily roadway segment capacity analysis has been performed at study area roadways, and is shown on Exhibit B. The following roadway segments are expected to operate with daily V/Cratios greater than 0.90: • Newport Boulevard north of Via Lido • Irvine Avenue north of University Drive • Irvine Avenue north of Santiago Drive • Irvine Avenue north of Dover Drive EXHIBIT A WITH PROJECT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) 28 3 76 6 33 36 '""'°"`"" 21 i / 69 7 10 w 8 3 f 2 77 6 J \ / \2a 11 &1 1 \ \ \ 11 1. \5 18 17 t a 15 22 20 i 16 6 126 �-- T/3y0 j 70 11 LEGENb: 10 a VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'S) + 22 a0 R i �/� PACIFIC 38 s` 47 "'wti 8>OCEAN 'lia+w NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE.Newport BemhXalHornia� 01232:exwp_adt.mxd f URBAN i i i i i r i i i Ii i a■r i M M C m m� m M r m m m men TABLE 4 (1 of 5) EXISTING PLUS PROJECT E+P AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC COMPARISON LOCATION EXISTING I (200112002) COUNT I EXISTING+ PROJECT FORECAST GROWTH FROM EXISTING %GROWTH FROM EXISTING I BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT GROWTH (E+P) TO BUILDOUT %GROWTH (E+P) TO BUILDOUT 15th St. (Coast Hwy. to Bluff Rd.) 0 7,000 7,000 8,000 1,000 14.3% 16th St. (]-vine Ave. to Dover Dr.) 5,000 6,000 1,000 20.0% 6,000 0 0.0% 32nd St. (west of Newport Blvd.) 8,000 8,000 0 0.0% 8,000 0 0.0% 32nd St. (east of Newport Blvd.) 3,000 4,000 1,000 333% 4,000 0 0.0% Avocado Ave. (north of San Miguel Dr.) 5,000 5,000 0 0.0% 5,000 0 0.0% Avocado Ave. (south of San Miguel Dr.) 12,000 11,000 -1,000 -8.3% 11,000 0 0.0% Avocado Ave. (north of Coast Hwy.) 11,000 10,000 -1,000 -9.1% 10,000 0 0.0% alboaBlvd.(southofCoastHwy.) 18,000 22,000 4,000 222% 22,000 0 0.0% Bayside Dr. (south of Coast Hwy.) 10,000 1I,000 1,000 10.0% 12,000 1,000 9.1% Birch St. (Jamboree Rd. to Von Karman Ave.) 12,000 14,000 2,000 16.7% 20,000 6,000 42.9% Birch St. (Von Karman Ave. to MacArthur Blvd.) 15,000 18,000 3,000 20.0% 22,000 4,000 22.2% Birch St. (west of MacArthur Blvd.) 16,000 21,000 5,000 313% 24,000 3,000 14.3% Birch St. (north of Bristol St. North) 23,000 28,000 5,000 21.7% 30,000 2,000 7.1% Birch St. (Bristol St. North to Bristol St. South) 19,000 22,000 3,000 15.8% 23,000 1,000 4.5% Birch St. (south of Bristol St. South) 15,000 14,000 -1,000 -63% 17,000 3,000 21.4% Bison Ave. (Jamboree Rd. to MacArthur Blvd.) 13,000 18,000 5,000 38.5% 18,OOD 0 0.0% Bison Ave. (MacArthur Blvd. to SR-73 Fwy.) 7,000 7,000 0 0.0% 10,000 3,000 42.9% BluffRd. (Coast Hwy. to 15th St.) 0 6,000 6,000 7,000 1,000 16.7% IuffRd. (15th St. to 17th St.) 0 5,000 5,000 - 6,000 1,000 20.0% Bonita Canyon Dr. (east of MacArthur Blvd.) 26,000 27,000 1,000 3.9% 31,000 4,000 14.8% Bonita Canyon Dr. (west of SR-73 Fwy.) 17,000 21,000 4,000 23.5% 26,000 5,000 23.8% Bristol St. North (west of Campus Dr.) 28,000 30,000 2,000 7.1% 35,000 5,000 16.7% Bristol St. North (Campus Dr. to Birch St.) 23,000 26,000 3,000 13.0% 30,000 4,000 15.4% Bristol -St. North (east of Birch St.) 22,000 24,000 2,000 9.1% 30,000 6,000 25.0% Bristol St. North (west of Jamboree Rd.) 16,000 17,000 1,000 6.3% 20,000 3,000 17.6"/u Bristol St. South (west of Campus DrArvine Ave.) 28,000 30,000 2,000 7.1% 33,000 3,000 10.0% Bristol St. South (Campus Dr. to Birch St.) 17,000 20,000 3,000 17.6°/a 23,000 3,000 15.0% Bristol St. South (east of Birch St.) 16,000 17,000 1,000 6.3% 22,000 5,000 29.40/c Bristol St. South west of Jamboree Rd.) 31,000 33,000 2,000 6.5% 39,000 6,000 19.2% Lf] TABLE 4 (2 of 5) EXISTING PLUS PROJECT E+P AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC COMPARISON LOCATION EXISTING (200112002) COUNT EXISTING+ PROJECT FORECAST GROWTH FROM EXISTING % GROWTH FROM EXISTING BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT GROWTH (E+P) TO BUILDOUT %GROWTH (E+P) TO BUILDOUT Campus Dr. (Jamboree Rd. to Von Karman Ave.) 16,000 16,000 0 0.0% 23,000 7,000 43.8% Campus Dr. (Von Karmen Ave, to MacArthurBlvd.) 20,000 24,000 4,000 20.0% 34,000 10,000 41.7% Campus Dr. (west of MacArthur Blvd.) 26,000 31,000 5,000 19.2% 40,000 9,000 29.0% Campus Dr. (north of Bristol St. North) 28,000 32,000 4,000 14.3% 40,000 8,000 25.0% Campus Dr. (Bristol St. North to Bristol St. South) 30,000 34,000 4,000 13.3% 41,000 7,000 20.6% Coast Hwy. (west of 15th St.) 46,000 44,000 -2,000 -4.3% 46,000 2,000 4.5% Coast Hwy. (Superior Ave. to Newport Blvd.) 28,000 39,000 11,000 393% 41,000 2,000 5.1% Coast Hwy. (Newport Blvd. to Riverside Ave.) 53,000 65,000 12,000 22.6% 67,000 2,000 3.1% Coast Hwy. (Riverside Ave. to Tustin Ave.) 45,000 56,000 11,000 24.4% 58,000 2,000 3.6% Coast Hwy. (Tustin Ave. to DoverDr.) 42,000 50,000 8,000 19.0010 53,000 3,000 6.0% Coast Hwy. (Dover Dr. to Bayside Dr.) 63,000 70,000 7,000 11.1% 76,000 6,000 8.6% Coast Hwy. (Bayside Dr. to Jamboree Rd.) 51,000 59,000 8,000 15,7% 63,000 4,000 6.8% Coast Hwy. (Jamboree Rd. to Newport Center Dr.) 42,000 50,000 8,000 19.0°/a 50,000 0 0.0% Coast Hwy. (Newport Center Dr. to Avocado Ave.) 35,000 42,000 7,000 20.0% 42,000 0 0.0% Coast Hwy. (Avocado Ave. to MacArthur Blvd.) 36,000 45,000 9,000 25.0% 45,000 0 0.0% Coast Hwy. (MacArthur Blvd. to Goldenrod Ave.) 40,000 43,000 3,000 7.5°% 45,000 2,000 4.7% CoastHwy. (Goldenrod Ave. to Marguerite Ave.) 39,000 41,000 2,000 5.1% 43,000 2,000 4.9% Coast Hwy. (Marguerite Ave. to Poppy Ave.) 35,000 39,000 4,000 11.40/a 42,000 3,000 7.7% Coast Hwy. (Poppy Ave, to Newport Coast Dr.) 28,600 34,000 6,000 21.40/a 38,000 4,000 11.8% Coast Hwy (east of Newport Coast Dr.) 35,000 43,000 8,000 229% 49,000 6,000 14.0% Dover Dr. (IrvineAve. toWesteliffDr.) 9,000 10,000 1,000 11.1% 11,000 1,000 10.0% over Dr. (NestcliffDr. to 16th St.) 22,OOD 22,000 0 0.0% 24,000 2,000 9.1% over Dr. (16th St. to Cliff Dr.) 25,OOD 26,000 1,000 4.0% 28,000 2,000 7.7% Dover Dr. (Cliff Dr. to Coast Hwy.) 29,000 30,000 1,000 3.4% 33,ODO 3,000 10.0% astbluffDr. (west of Jamboree Rd, at University Dr.) 10,000 10,000 0 0.0% 10,000 0 0.0% Eastbluff (west of Jamboree Rd. at Ford Rd.) 15,000 15,ODO 0 0.0% 15,000 0 0.0% Ford Rd. (Jamboree Rd, to MacArthur Blvd.) 9,000 11,000 2,000 22.2% 13,000 2,000 18.2% Goldenrod Ave. (north of Coast Hwy.) 2,000 4,000 2,OOD 100.0% 4,000 0 0.0% Highland Dr. (east of Irvine Ave.) 2,000 2,OOD 0 0.0% 2,000 0 0.0% M M M 0 m m i!!' MM M a= ! TABLE 4 (3 of 5) EXISTING PLUS PROJECT E+P AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC COMPARISON LOCATION EXISTING I (200112002) COUNT EXISTING +1 PROJECT FORECAST GROWTH FROM EXISTING % GROWTH FROM EXISTING BUILDOUT WITH i PROJECT GROWTH (E+P) TO BUILDOUT % GROWTH (E+P) TO BUILDOUT Hospital Rd. (Placentia Ave. to Newport Blvd.) 13,000 16,000 3,000 23.1% 17,000 1,000 6.3% Hospital Rd. (east of Newport Blvd.) 7,000 10,000 3,000 42.9% 11,000 1,000 10.0% Irvine Ave. (Bristol St. South to Mesa Dr.) 27,000 31,000 4,000 14.8% 38,000 71000 22.6% Irvine Ave. (Mesa Dr. to University Dr.) 31,000 33,000 2,000 6.5% 42,000 9,000 27.3% Irvine Ave. (University Dr. to Santa Isabel Ave.) 33,000 35,000 2,000 6.1% 40,000 5,000 14.3% Irvine Ave. (Santa Isabel Ave. to Santiago Dr.) 29,000 30,000 1,000 3.4% 33,000 3,000 10.0% Irvine Ave. (Santiago Dr. to Highland Dr.) 27,000 30,000 3,000 11.1% 32,000 2,000 6.7% Irvine Ave. (Highland Dr. to Dover Dr.) 27,000 31,000 4,000 14.8% 33,000 2,000 6.5% Irvine Ave. (Dover Dr. to Westcliff Dr.) 22,000 27,000 5,000 22.7% 29,000 2,000 7.4% Irvine Ave. (Westcliff Dr. to 16th St.) 12,000 13,000 1,000 8.3% 13,000 0 0.0% Jamboree Rd. (Campus Dr. to Birch St.) 36,000 39,000 3,000 8.3% 48,000 9,000 23.1% Jamboree Rd. (Birch St, to MacArthur Blvd.) 42,000 43,000 1,000 2.4% 56,000 13,000 30.2% Jamboree Rd. (MacArthur Blvd. to Bristol St. North) 36,000 38,000 2,000 5.60/a 47,000 9,000 23.7% Jamboree Rd. (Bristol St. North to Bristol St. South) 47,000 46,000 -1,000 -2.1% 53,000 7,000 15.2% Jamboree Rd. (Bristol St. South to Bayview Wy.) 47,000 46,000 -1,000 -2.1% 53,000 7,000 15.20/0 Jamboree Rd. (Bayview, Wy. to University Dr.) 47,000 45,000 -2,000 4.3% 52,000 7,000 15.6% Jamboree Rd. (University Dr. to Bison Ave.) 37,000 36,000 -1,000 -2.7% 43,000 7,000 19.4% Jamboree Rd. (Bison Ave. to Ford Rd.) 39,000 41,000 2,000 5.1% 47,000 6,000 14.6% Jamboree Rd. (Ford Rd. to San Joaquin Hills Rd.) 46,000 50,000 4,000 8.7% 57,000 7,000 14.0% Jamboree Rd. (San Joaquin Hills Rd. to Santa Barbara Dr.) 34,000 40,000 6,000 17.6% 45,000 5,000 12.5% amboree Rd. (Santa Barbara Dr. to Coast Hwy.) 32,000 38,000 6,000 18.80/0 42,000 4,000 10.5% Jamboree Rd. ( Coast Hwy. to Bayside Dr.) 12,000 15,000 3,000 25.0% 15,000 0 0.0% MacArthur Blvd. (Campus Dr. to Birch St.) 27,000 31,000 4,000 14.8% 37,000 6,000 19.4% MacArthur Blvd. (Birch St. to Von Karman Ave.) 22,000 23,000 1,000 4.5% 28,000 5,000 21.7% MacArthur Blvd. (Von Karman Ave. to Jamboree Rd.) 26,000 27,000 1,000 3.8% 34,000 7,000 25.9% MacArthur Blvd. (south of Jamboree Rd.) 27,000 28,000 1,000 3.70% 38,000 10,000 35.7% MacArthur Blvd. (north of Bison Ave.) 61,000 69,000 8,000 13.1% 73,000 4,000 5.80A MacArthur Blvd. (Bison Ave. to Ford Rd.) 63,000 64,000 1,000 1.6% 70,000 6,000 9.40% acArthurBlvd. (Ford Rd. to San Joaquin Hills Rd.) 54,000 57,000 3,000 5.60/a 61,0001 4,000 7.0% TABLE 4 .(4 of 6) EXISTING PLUS PROJECT E+P AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC COMPARISON EXISTING COUNT I EXISTING+GROWTH PROJECT FORECAST FRM EXISTING %GROWTH FROM EXISTING BUILDOU_T WITH PROJEGT GROWTH (E+P) TO BUILDOUT I%GRO: H(2001J2002) (E+P)OLOCATION BUILDUT MacArthur Blvd. (San Joaquin Hills Rd. to San Miguel Rd.) 35,000 34,000 -1,000 -2.99/0 37.000 3,000 8.8% MacArthur Blvd. (San Miguel Rd. to Coast Hwy.) 31,000 33,000 2,000 6.5% 36,000 3,000 9.1% Marguerite Ave. (south of San Joaquin Hills Rd.) 7,000 8,000 I'm14.3% 9,000 1,000 12.5% Marguerite Ave. (north of Coast Hwy.) 6,000 8,000 2,000 33.3% 8,000 0 0.0% esa Dr. (east of Irvine Ave,) 12;000 10,000 -2,000 -16.7% 13,000 3,000 30.0% Newport Blvd. (north of Hospital Rd.) 36,000 42,000 6,000 16.7% 45,000 3,000 7.1% ewport Blvd. (Hospital Rd. to CoactHwy.) 43,000 52,000 9,000 20.90,E 54,000 2,000 3.8% Newport Blvd. (Coast Hwy. to Via Lido) 48,000 56,000 8,000 16.7% 58,000 2,000 3.6% Newport Blvd. (ViaLido to 32nd St.) 36,000 40,000 4,000 11.1% 42,000 2,000 5.0% Newport Blvd. (south of32nd SL) 29,000 34,000 5,000 17.20/0 35,000 1,000 29% Newport CenterDr. (north of Coast Hwy.) 14,000 17,000 3,000 21.45/c 17,000 0 0.0% Newport Coast Dr. (SR-73 Fwy. to San Joaquin Hills -Rd.) 17,000 29,000 12,000 70.6% 34,000 5,000 17.20E ewport CoastDr. (south of San Joaquin Hills Rd,) 15,000 29,000 14,000 933% 32,000 3,000 103% Newport CoastDr-(northofCoast-Hwy.) 12,000 26,000 14,000 116.7% 28,000 2,000 7.7% Placentia Ave. (north of Superior Ave.) 12,000 12,000 0 0.0% 12,000 0 0.0% Placentia Ave. (Superior Ave. to Hospital Rd.) 7,000 10,000 3,000 42.9% 11,000 1,000 10.0% Poppy Ave. (north of Coast Hwy.) 2,000 3,000 11000 50.0% 3,000 0 0.0% Riverside Ave. (north of Coast Hwy.) 9,000 11,000 2,000 222% 11,000 0 0.0% San Joaquin Hills Rd. (Jamboree Rd. to Santa Cruz Rd.) 16,000 16,000 0 0.0% 18,000 2,000 12.5% San Joaquin Hills Rd. (Santa CruzRd. to Santa Rosa Rd.) 11,000 111000 0 0.00/0 12,000 1,000 9.1% San Joaquin Hills Rd. (Santa Rosa Rd- to MacArthurBlvd.) 21,000 27,000 6,000 28.6% 27,000 0 0.0% San Joaquin Hills Rd. (MacArthur Blvd, to San Miguel -Rd.) 19,000 20,000 1,000 5.3% 23,000 3,000 15.0% San Joaquin Hills Rd. (San Miguel Rd. to Marguerite Ave.) 18,001) 22,000 4,000 22.2% 24,000 2,000 9.1% San Joaquin Hills Rd. (Marguerite Ave. to Spyglass Hill Rd.) 12,000 16,000 4,000 33.3% 19,000 3,000 18.8°% San Joaquin Hills Rd. (Spyglass Hill Rd. to Newport Coast Dr.) 12,000 17,000 51000 41.7% 19,000 2,000 11.8% San Miguel Dr. (north of Spyglass Hill Rd.) 7,000 8,000 1,000 14.3% 9,000 11000 12.5% San Miguel Dr. (south of Spyglass Hill Rd.) 7,000 8,000 1,000 1430/9 9,000 1,000 12.5% San Miguel Dr. (north ofSan Joaquin Hills Rd.) 12,000 13,000 1,000 8.3% 14,000 1,000 7.7% San Miguel Dr (San Joaquin HillsRd.toMacArthurBlvd.) 12,000 15,000 3,000 25.00/0 16,000 1.000 6.7% a� a a a a a)■f at a a a as a� a a a �a a M M � N TABLE 4 (5 of 5) EXISTING PLUS PROJECT E+P AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC COMPARISON LOCATION EXISTING (2001/2002) COUNT EXISTING + PROJECT FORECAST GROWTH FROM E)aSTINGj `/a GROWTH FROM EXISTING BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT GROWTH (E+P) TO BUILDOUT % GROWTH (E+P) TO BUILDOUT San Miguel Dr. (MacArthur Blvd. to Avocado Ave.) 19,000 20,000 1,000 5.3% 20,000 0 0.0% San Miguel Dr. (west of Avocado Ave.) 10,000 12,000 2,000 20.0% 12,000 0 0.0% Santa Barbara Dr. (cast of Jamboree Rd.) 10,000 12,000 2,000 20.0% 13,000 1,000 8.3% Santa Cruz Dr. (south of San Joaquin Hills Rd.) 8,000 8,000 0 0.0% 9,000 1,000 12.5% Santa Rosa Dr. (south of San Joaquin Hills Rd.) 11,000 15,OOD 4,000 36.4% 14,000 -1,000 -6.7% Santiago Dr. (Tustin Ave. to Irvine Ave.) 5,000 6,000 1,000 20.0% 6,000 0 0.0% Santiago Dr. (east of Irvine Ave.) 3,000 3,000 0 0.0% 4,000 1,000 33.3% Spyglass Hill Rd. (San Miguel Dr. to San Joaquin Hills Rd.) 4,000 4,000 0 0.0% 6,000 1,000 25.0% SR 55 Freeway (north of SR-73 Fwy.) 155,000 171,000 16,000 10.3% 189,000 18,000 10.5% SR-55 Freeway (22nd St. to 19th St.) 94,000 117,000 23,000 24.5% 125,000 8,000 6.8% SR-73 Freeway (SR-55 Fwy. to Campus Dr.) 94,000 115,000 21,000 22.3% 136,000 21,000 18.3% SR-73 Freeway (Jamboree Rd. to University Dr.) 59,000 75,000 16,000 27.1% 98,000 23,000 30.7% SR-73 Freeway (Bonita Canyon Rd. to Newport Coast Dr.) 62,000 76,000 14,000 22.6% 136,000 60,000 78.9% SR-73 Freeway (east of Newport Coast Dr.) 56,000 65,000 9,000 16.1% 128,000 63,000 96.9% Superior Ave. (north of Placentia Ave.) 17,000 4,000 -13,000 -76.5% 21,000 17,000 425.0% Superior Ave. (Placentia Ave. to Hospital Rd.) 22,000 21,000 -1,000 4.5% 18,000 -3,000 -14.3% Superior Ave. (Hospital Rd. to Coast Hwy.) 24,000 18,000 -6,000 -25.0% 22,000 4,000 22.2% Superior Ave. (Hospital Rd. to Coast Hwy.) 24,000 21,000 -3,000 -12.5% 22.000 1,000 4.8% Tustin Ave. (north of Coast Hwy.) 2,000 3,000 1,000 50.0% 3,000 0 0.0% University Dr. (east of Irvine Ave.) 3,000 3,000 0 0.0% 3,000 0 0.0% University Dr. (east of Jamboree Rd.) 11,000 11,000 0 0.0% 13,000 2,000 18.20/0 Via Lido (east of Newport Blvd.) 8,000 10,000 2,000 25.0% 10,000 0 0.0% IKarman Ave. (Campus Dr. to Birch St.) 14,000 16,000 2,000 14.3% 19,000 3,000 18:8% Von Karman Ave. (Birch St. to MacArthur Blvd.) l2,000 14,000 2,000 16.7% tt,000 3,000 21.4% estcliffDr.(Irvine Ave. to Dover Dr. 16,000 I5,000 -1,000 -6.3% 16,000 1,000 6.7% ARTERIAL TOTAL 2,981,000 3,344;000 1 363,000 1 12.2%1 3,737,0001 393,000 11.80/10 FREEWAY TOTAL 520,0,001 619,0001 99,000 19.0% 812,000 193,000 31.2% OVERALL TOTAL 3,501,000 3,963,000 962,000 13.0% 4,5489,000 586,000 14.8% U:1UcJobsl 012001012321ExceNO1232-34.xis]T-4 EXHIBIT B EXISTING WITH PROJECT VOLUMEMAPACITY (V/C) RATIO NEWPORi BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDAT KPWportBacb CaGfo 1 •01232:exWD vcmxd �IRBAN m m Im m m m m i � � m m m � � m� m m Mr. Elwood Tescher ' EIP ASSOCIATES March 27, 2006 Page 14 • Dover Drive north of Westcliff Drive • Jamboree Road north of San Joaquin Hills Road • MacArthur Boulevard north of Bison Avenue MacArthur Boulevard north of Ford Road • MacArthur Boulevard north of San Joaquin Hills Road • Newport Coast Drive north of SR-73 Northbound Ramps • Newport Boulevard south of Hospital Road • Hospital Road east of Newport Boulevard Bristol Street North east of Birch Street t. Bristol Street South east of Birch Street • Coast Highway east of Dover Drive • Coast Highway east of Bayside Drive ' Coast Highway east of Jamboree Road • Coast Highway east of MacArthur Boulevard ' Coast Highway east of Goldenrod Avenue • Coast Highway east of Marguerite Avenue t• Coast Highway east of Poppy Avenue • Coast Highway west of Superior Avenue / Balboa Boulevard • Coast Highway west of Riverside Drive • Bristol Street North west of Campus Drive ' • Bristol Street South west of Campus Drive • Dover Drive west of Irvine Avenue ' Bristol Street South west of Jamboree Road The daily capacity of a roadway correlates to a number of widely varying factors, including traffic peaking characteristics, traffic turning volumes, and the volume of traffic on crossing streets. The daily capacities are therefore most appropriately used for long ' range General Plan analysis, or as a screening tool to determine the need for more Mr. Elwood Tescher EIP ASSOCIATES March 27, 2006 Page 15 detailed peak hour analysis. More detailed peak hour analysis has been conducted at key intersections in the vicinity of all these roadway segments to quantify actual peak hour operations and levels of service. Peak Hour Forecasts The final and most meaningful data evaluated for the Existing With Project scenario was intersection volume and geometric data for the 64 intersections selected for analysis. The existing intersection configurations have been used for calculation of the initial Existing With 'Project intersection capacity utilization values (ICUs). Table 5 summarizes the Existing With Project ICUs based on the AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes and the existing intersection geometric data compared with Existing (Without Project) and General Plan Buildout With Project ICUs. Attachment A contains the detailed ICU calculation worksheets for Existing With Project conditions. The worksheets in Attachment A summarize the intersection geometric data and the AM and PM peak intersection turning movement volumes. Intersections with ICU values greater than 0.90 (LOS "E" or worse) in either peak period for Existing With Project conditions without improvements beyond 2005 conditions are: • Newport Boulevard (NS) / Hospital Road (EW) (PM) • Riverside Drive (NS) / Coast Highway (EW) (AM) • MacArthur Boulevard (NS) / Campus Drive (EW) (PM) • Jamboree Road (NS) / Campus Drive (EW) (PM) • Campus Drive (NS) / Bristol Street North (EW) (PM) • Irvine Avenue (NS) / Mesa Drive (EW) (PM) • Irvine Avenue (NS) / University Drive (EW) (PM) • MacArthur Boulevard (NS) / San Joaquin Hills Road (EW) (PM) • Goldenrod Avenue (NS) / Coast Highway (EW) (AM) m m m m rn TABLE 5 (1 of 3) EXISTING WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) COMPARISON INTERSECTION NS & AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR EXISTING COUNT EXISTING WITH PROJECT GROWTH FROM EXISTING BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT GROWTH TO BUILDOUT EXISTING COUNT EXISTING WITH PROJECT GROWTH FROM EXISTING BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT GROWTH TO BUILDOUT la. Bluff Rd. & Coast Hvr. DNE' 0.69 NIA 0.61 -0.08 DNE 0-.82 N/A 0.89 0.07 lb.151h St & Coast Hw. DNE' 0.71 NIA 0.72 0.01 DNE 0.86 NIA 0.90 0.04 2. Su er orAv. & PlacenBaAv. 0.66 0.67 0.01 0.67 0.00 0.67 0.53 -0.14 0,57 0.04 3. Su er orAv. & Coast Hw. _ 0.84 0.83 -0.01 0.88 0.05 0.90 0.72 -0.18 0.76 0.04 4. Newport BI. & Hospital Rd. 0.54 0.78 0.24 0.83 0.05 0.70 _ 0.91 0.21 0.96 0.05 5. Newport BI. & Via Lido 0.41 0.54 0.13 0.58 _ 0.04 0.37 _ 0.39 0.02 0.41 0.02 6. Newport 81. & 32nd St 0.7311 0.82 0.091 0.86 0.041 0.781 0.87 0.091 0.91 0.04 7. Riverside Av. & Coast Hw. 0.84 0.92 0.08 0.97 0.05 0.93 0.89 -0.041 0.93 0.04 8. Tusfin Av. & Coast Hw. 0.80 0.87 0.07 0.94 0.07 0.67 0.76 0.09 0.83 0.07 9. MacArthur BI. & Campus Dr. 0.61 0.64 0.03 0.81 0.17 0.85 0.99 0.14 1.24 0.26 10. MacArthur BI. & Birch St. 0.49 0.55 0.06 0.79 0.24 0.66 0.81 0.15 0.90 0.10 11. Von Karman Av. & Campus Dr. 0.55 0.60 0.05 0.73 0.13 0.79 0.77 -0.02 0.97 0.20 12. MacArthur BI. & Von Karman Av. 0.46 0.45 -0.01 0.64 0.09 0.53 0.51 -0.02 0.65 0.14 13. Jamboree Rd. & Campus Dr. 0.701 0.67 -0.03 0.93 0.26 0.851 0.96 0.11 1.18 0.22 14. Jamboree Rd. & Birch St 0.61 0.54 -0.07 1.00 0.46 0.60 0.64 0.04 0.84 0.21 15. Campus Dr. & Bdstol St. N 0.77 0.85 0.08 1.02 0.1 0.94 0.95 0.01 1.06 0.11 16. Birch St & Bristol St (N 0.66 0.68 0.02 0.90 0. 0.61 0.61 0.00 0.72 0.11 17. Campus Dr./Irvine Av. & Bristol St S 0.72 0.77 0.05 0.89 0.13 0.58 0.68 0.10 - 0.78 0.10 18. Birch St. & Bdstol St S 0.46 0.48 0.02 0.51 0.03 0.44 0.43 -0.01 0.54 0.11 19. Irvine Av. & Mesa Dr. 0.70 0.78 0.08 0.98 0.20 0.94 0.95 0.01 1.19 0.24 20. Irvine Av. & University Dr. 0.82 0.89 0.07 1.19 0.301 0.891 0.99 0.10 1.09 0.10 21. Irvine Av. & SanBa o Dr. 0.66 0.62 -0.04 0.69 0.071 0.721 0.75 0.03 0.77 0.02 22. Irvine Av. & Highland Dr. 0.57 0.57 0.00 0.60 0.03 0.60 0.621 0.021 0.65 0.03 23. Irvine Av. & Dover Dr. 0.72 0.72 0.00 0.78 0.06 0.64 0.671 0.031 0.69 0.02 4. Irvine Av. & Westcifff Dr. 0.57 0.611 0.041 0.66 0.05 0.771 0.75 -0.021 0.82 0.07 ti TABLE 5 (2 of 3) EXISTING WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) COMPARISON INTERSECTION NS & AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR EXISTING COUNT EXISTING WITH PROJECT GROWTH FROM EXISTING BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT GROWTH TO BUILDOUT EXISTING COUNT EXISTING WITH PROJECT GROWTH FROM IXISTING I BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT GROWTH TO BUILDOUT 5. Dover Dr. & WestdODr. 0.38 0.36 -0.02 0.38 0.02 0.48 0.50 0.02 0.54 0.04 6. Dover Dr. & 16th St 0.55 0.57 0.02 0.60 0.03 0.67 0.67 0.00 0.60 0.03 7. Dover Dr. & Coast Hw. 0.70 0.74 0.04 0.81 0.07 0.74 0.86 0.12 0.94 0.08 28. Baysirle Dr. & Coast Hw. 0.69 0.86 0.17 0.89 0.03 0.70 0.79 0.09 0.85 0.06 29. MacArthur BL & Jamboree Rd. 0.88 0.76 -0.12 0.93 0.17 0.91 0.79 -0.12 1.02 0 .23 30. Jamboree Rd. & Bristol St N 0.55 OSt -0.04 0.68 0.17 0.59 0.56 -0.03 0.67 0.11 1. SayAew PL & Bristol St. S 0.481 0.47 -0.011 0.60 0.13 0.561 0.55 -0.011 0.63 0.08 2 Jamboree Rd. & Bristol St. S 0.75 0.73 -0.02 0.94 0.21 0.72 0.78 0.06 0.87 0.09 33. Jamboree Rd. & Bayview VVy, 0.41 0.37 -0.04 0.45 0.08 0.67 0.61 0.04 0.67 0.0 34. Jamboree Rd. & EastbluH Dr. JUniversity Dr. 0.60 0.59 -0.01 0.68 0.09 0.64 0.65 -0.10 0.67 0.1 35. Jamboree Rd. & Bison Av. 0.45 _ 0.52 0.07 0.52 0.00 0.61 0.60 0.09 0.62 0.0 36. Jamboree Rd. & Easiblu0 DdFord Rd. _ 0.69 0.73 0.04 0.80 0.07 0.65 0.67 0.02 0.77 0.1 7. Jamboree Rd. & San Joaquin Hils Rd, 0.80 0.55 -025 0.611 0.06 1.00 0.65 -0.35 0.721 0.0 38. Jamboree Rd. & Santa Barbara Dr. 0.47 0.56 0.09 0.58 =4 0.63 0.781 0.15 0.79 0.01 39. Jamboree Rd. & Coast Hw. 0.68 0.721 0.04 0.77 0.05 0.74 0.72 -0.02 0.80 0.08 Q. Santa Cruz Dr. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. 0.36 0.34 -0.02 0.38 0.04 0.36 0.33 -0.03 0.34 0.01 1. Santa Rasa Dr. & San Joaquin FG®s Rd. 0.32 _ 0.43 0.11 0A1 _ -0.02 0.52 0.74 0.22 0.71 -0.03 2. Newport Center Dr. & Coast Hw. 0.40 0.46 0.06 0.48 0.02 0,52 0.61 0.09 0.63 0.0 44. Avocado Av. & San M uel Dr. 0.33 0.36 0.03 0.36 0.00 0.72 0.76 0.04 0.79 0.0 S.Avocado Av. & Coast Hw. 0.58 0.71 0.13 0.73 0. 0.66 0.80 0.14 038 -0.0 6.SR-73NBRamps &BisonAv. 0.31 0.33 0.02 0$2 0.1 0.37 0.41 0.04 0.61 0.20 7. SR-73 SB Ram & Bison Av. 0.26 027 0.01 0.42 0.1 0.17 0.16 -0.01 0.32 0.1 B.MackthurBl.&Bison Av. 0.63 0.78 0.15 0.78 0. 0.60 0.71 0.11 0.79 0. 9. MwArhhrr Bl. & Ford RdJBor ita Ca Dr. 0.71 0.76 0.05 0.80 0. 0.90 0.88 -0.02 f.00 0.1 .MacAdhur Bl. & San Jo uin Hills Rd. 0.64 0.69 0.05 0.79 0.1 0.93 1.08 h-151 1.121 0.04 � M a M M M s M M M M M i� M M M M ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! TABLE 6 (3 of 3) EXISTING WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) COMPARISON F9 ! ! ! INTERSECTION NS & AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR EXISTING COUNT EXISTING WITH PROJECT GROWTH FROM EXISTING BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT GROWTH TO BUILDOUT EXISTING COUNT EXISTING WITH I PROJECT GROWTH FROM EXISTING BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT GROWTH TO BUILDOUT 51. Macftur 81. & San Miguel Dr. 0.56 0.63 0.06 0.641 0.02 0.65 0.70 0.04 0.75 0.06 2.MaWthur81.&CoastHw. 0.60 0.69 0.09 0.721 0.03 0.71 0.72 0.01 0.78 0.06 53. SR-73 NB Ramps & Bonita Canyon Dr. 0.55 0.65 0.10 1.06 0.41 0.43 0.48 0.05 0.76 0.28 54. SR-73 SB Ramps & Bonita Canyon Dr. 0.30 0.33 0.03 0.46 0.13 0.41 0.53 0.12 0.66 0.13 55. Spyglass Hill Rd. & San Miguel Dr. 0.28 026 -0.02 0.30 0.04 0.31 0.32 0.01 0.38 0.06 55. San Miguel Dr. & San Joa tin Hills Rd. 0.44 0.50 0.06 0.55 0.05 0.54 0.66 0.12 0.74 0.08 57. Goldenrod Av. & Coast Hw. 0.99 0.96 -0.03 0.99 0.031 0.69 0.701 0.01 0.69 -0.01 58. Marguerite Av. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. 0.31 0,351 0.04 0.42 0.0 0.35 0.411 0.06 0.51 0.10 9.Marguerite Av. & Coast Hw. 0.83 0.861 0.03 0.98 0.12 0.82 0.90 0.08 1.00 0.10 60. Spyglass Hill Rd. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. 0.44 0.451 0.01 0.60 0.15 0.30 0.39 0.09 0.49 0A0 61. Po Av. & Coast Hw. 0.61 0.611 0.00 0.70 0.09 0.65 0.70 0.05 0.76 0.06 62. Newport Coast Dr. & SR-73 NB Rams 0.45 0.47 0.02 0.65 0.18 0.31 0.33 0.02 0.40 0.08 64. Newport Coast Dr. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. 0.37 0.55 0.18 0.62 0.0 0.29 0.31 0.02 0-49 0-18 65.New ortCoastDr.&CoastHw. 0.47 0.60 0.13 0.70 0.11 0.50 0.66 0.16 0.73 0.07 U.1UcJobsl 012001012321Excen10123234.x1s)T-5 Mr. Elwood Tescher EIP ASSOCIATES March 27, 2006 Page 19 Less than half (9 vs. 19) of the intersections projected to experience deficiencies for future General Plan Buildout With Project conditions would still experience deficiencies (without improvements) for Existing Plus Project conditions. Intersection analysis has been performed to determine improvements necessary to provide acceptable levels of service. ICU worksheets are included in Attachment B. Table 6 also compares the ICU results with and without improvements. Improvements necessary to provide acceptable levels of service are shown in Table 7. Improvements that require the least additional right-of-way or other environmental impacts have generally been recommended. Freeway / Tollway and Ramp Analvsis For the Existing With Project scenario, the volumes on most segments have slightly increased when compared to the Existing (Without Project) scenario. The analysis summary is shown on Table 8. With anticipated regional improvements, the following segments operate at a deficient level of service in the Existing With Project scenario: SR-73 Freeway Northbound • Bear Street to SR-55 Freeway (AM) • SR-55 Freeway to Jamboree Rd. (AM) SR-73 Freeway Southbound • 1-405 Freeway to Bear Street (PM) Additional segments that operate at a deficient level of service in the General Plan With Project scenario include: SR-73 Northbound • 1-405 Freeway to Bear Street (AM) • Bonita Canyon Drive to Newport Coast Drive (AM) • Newport Coast Drive to Toll Plaza (AM) M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M! M M TABLE 6 (Page 1 of 4) IBILITY[COMMENTS and volume with 15th St. and volume with Bluff Rd. historic plan historic plan. Would remove RT lane on north side of eoonnaissance, it appears this plished on inside (south side), rements to SR-73 NB On -ramp. N TABLE 6 (Page 2 of 4) INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR EXISTING WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WEST- LEVEL OF TRAFFIC BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND ICU SERVICE INTERSECTION CONTROL L T R L T R L - T R L T R AM PM AM PM FEASIBILITY/COMMENTS Birch SL(NS) at • Bristol St. N TS 2 2 0 0 1.6 2.5 0 0 0 1.5 3.5 0 0.68 0.61 B B Campus Dr. (NS) at: • Bristol SL S- TS 0 5 0 1 3 0 1.5 2.5 2 1 0 0 0 0.77 0.68 C a Birch SL (NS) at: - • Bdstol St. S TS 1 0 2.5 1.5 2 2 0 1.5 3.5 0 0 0 0 0.68 0.61 B B Irvine Av. (NS) at • Mesa Dr. (EW) TS 1 2 d 1 2 d 1 1 0 1 1 1 0.78 0.95 C E -Funded Improvements TS 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 0.54 0.69 A 8 • University Dr. (EW) TS 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 d T 1 d 0.89 0.99 D E -LOS D Improvements TS 1 2 0 1 3 0 1 2 1 1 1 1 0.89 0.76 D C ROW and potential environmental issues. • Santiago Dr. (EW) TS 1 2 0 1 2 d 0 1 d 0 1 d 0.62 0.75 8 C • Highland Dr. (EVV) TS 1 2 d 1 2 d 0 1 d 0 1 d 0.57 0.62 A B • Dover Dr.(EW) TS 1 2 d 1 2 d 1 1 0 1 1 d 0.72 0.67 C B • WestdtO Dr. TS 2 2 d 2 2 d 2 2 0 1 2 0 0.61 0.75 B C Dover Dr. (NS) al• - • Westclif Dr.(EW) TS 2 2 0 0 1 1 2 0 1>> 0 0 0 0.36 0.50 A A • 16th SL (EW) TS 1 2 d 1 2 d 0.5 0.5 d 1 1 1 0.57 0.57 A A • Coast Hw. TS 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 3 0 1 3 1>> 0.74 0.86 C D Sayside Dr. (NS) at • Coast Hw. TS Z6 0.5 0 1 1 d 1 3 1 1 4 0 0.66 0.79 D C MaWthur61. (NS) at - • Jamboree Rd. - TS 2 3 1> 2 3 1>> 2 3 1>> 2 3 1>> 0.76 0.79 C C Jamboree Rd. (NS)2 • Bdsloi St. N TS 2 3 0 0 2.5 1.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.51 0.56 A A Bayview PI. (NSj at - - • Bristol SL S TS 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 0.47 0.55 A A Jamboree Rd. (NS) at - - • Bristol SL S (EW) TS 0 5 0 0 3 0 1.5 1.6 2 0 0 0 0.73 0.78 C C • BayviewWy.(EVV) TS 1 4 0 1 4 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 0.37 0.61 A B • Eastbluff DrJUriiversity Dr. (EW) TS 1 3 1 2 3 1 1.5 0.5 1 1.5 1:5 1>> 0.69 0.55 A A • Bison Av.(EW) TS 0 3 d 2 3 1 1 0 1 2 0 2 0.52 0.60 A A - • Eastblu0 DrJFord Rd. (EW) TS 2 3 0 2 3 1 1 1 1» 1.5 1.5 1 0.73 0.67 C 8 • San Joaquin Hills Rd. (EW) TS 1 3 1>> 2 3 1 1.5 1.5 1 2 1 1>> 0.55 0.65 A B • Santa Barbara Dr. (EW) TS 1 3 1 2 3 1 1 1 0 1.6 0.5 1 0.56 0.78 A C • Coast Hw. TS 1 2 0 1 2 1» 3 4 0 2 4 1>> 0.72 0.72 C C M i M i M M M M M M i M M M M M M no N N TABLE 6 (Page 3 of 4) INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY -FOR EXISTING WRN PROJECT INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WEST- LEVEL OF TRAFFIC BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND ICU SERVICE INTERSECTION CONTROL L T R L T R L T RI L T R AM I PM AM PM I FEASIBILITYICOMMENTS Santa Cruz Dr. (NS) at • San Joaquin Hills Rd. E TS 2 1 0 1 1 1 1 3 0 1 3 0 0.34 0.33 A I A Santa Rosa Dr. (NS) at: • San Joaquin Hills Rd. TS 1 1 1> 1 1 1 1 3 0- 2 3 0 0.43 A C Newport Center Dr. (NS) at: - • Coast Hw. TS 0 0 0 2 0 1>> 2 3 0 0 3 1>> 0.46 A B vomdo Av. (NS) at: ]074 • San Miguel Dr. (EW) TS 1 1 1> 1 1 1> 1 2 0 2 2 0 0.36 A C • Coast Hw. E TS 1 1 1 1.5 0.5 1 1 3 d 1 3 1 0.71 C C SR-73 NB Ramps (NS) at • Bison Av. TS 1.6 0 1.6 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 1 0.33 A A SR-73 SB Ramps INS) at: • Bison Av. TS 0 0 0 2 0 1>> 0 2 1 2 2 0 027 GAS A A MacArthur BI. (NS) at • Bison AV,(EW) TS 2 4 1>> 2 4 1> 2 2 1>> 2 2 1 0.711 0.71 C C • Ford RdJBonita Canyon Dr. (EW) TS 2 4 1>> 2 4 1>> 2 2 1 2 2 1>> 0.76 0.88 C D • San Joaquin Hills Rd. (EW) TS 2 3 1 2 3 1>> 2 3 0 1 2 1>> 0.69 1.08 B F LOS EAltemative i TS 2 3 1 3 3 1>> 2 3 0 1 2 1>> 0.63 1.00 B E LOSEAltemative2 TS 2 4 0 2 3 1>> 2 3 0 1 2 1>> 0.62 1.00 B E LOSEAItemative3 TS 2 3 1 2 3 1>> 3 3 0 1 2 1>> 0.66 0.95 B E COS D Alternative 1 TS 2 3 1 3 3 1>> 3 3 0 1 2 1>> 0.60 0.87 A D -LOS D Alternative 2 TS 2 4 0 2 3 1>> 3 3 0 1 2 1>> 0.59 0.87 A D May require narrow lanes and lead8ag LT - operations. • San Miguel Dr. (EW) TS 2 3 1 2 3 1> 2 2 0 2 2 d 0.63 0.70 B B • Coast Hw. TS 0 0 0 2 0 1>> 2 3 0 0 3 1» 0.69 10.72 1 B I C SR-73 NS Ramps (NS) at: • Bantle Canyon Dr. TS 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 0.65 GA8 B A SR-73 SB Ramps (NS) at: • Bonita Canyon Dr. TS 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 3 0 0.33 0.53 A A Spyglass Hill Rd. (NS) at: • San Mi uel Dr. (EVA TS 0 1 d 0 1 1 1 2 d 1 2 d 0.26 0.32 A A San Miguel Dr. (NS) at: • San Joeuin Hills Rd. TS 1 2 0 1 2 1> 2 3 0 1 3 0 0.50 0.66 A B Goldenrod Av. (NS) al: • Coast Hw. (EW) TS 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 d 1 2 d 0.96 0.70 E B Marguerite Av. (NS) at: - • San Joaquin Hills Rd. (EW) TS 1.5 0.5 1 1 1 0 1 2 1> 1 3 d 0.35 0.41 A A • Coast Hw. TS 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 7 1 2 0 0.86 0.90 D D TABLES (Page4of4) INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR EXISTING WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WEST- LEVEL OF TRAFFIC BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND ICU SERVICE INTERSECTION CONTROL L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM- AM PM FEASIBILITYICOMMENTS Spyglass Hill Rd. (NS) at: - • San Joaquin Hills Rd. TS 1 1 0 1 1 d 1 2 1 1 2 d 0.45 0.39 A A Poppy Av. (NS) at: • Coast Hw: TS 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 0.61 0.70 B B Newport Coast Dr. INS) al: - • SR-73 NB Ramps (EW) TS 0 2 1>> 0 2 0 0 0 0 1.5 0 0.5 0.47 0.33 A A • San Joaquin Hills Rd. (EW) TS 2 3 0- 0 3 1 1 0 2> 0 0 0 0.55 0.37 A A • Coast Hw. TS 1 1 1 2 1 t» 1 3 11 1 3 1>> 0.60 0.661 A 0 ' Nfien adght tum is daslgnat¢d,Ne Wacn eiMer be stdpsd ar unabiped. To funcY¢n asadghltum Ana Nan rtxrstDe suRdant with fordghl henB'g vWW" to travel outside the Uvough We& N L -Left; T- TtaoUgh: R = Right: > = Ovedap: » = Fne W9h61= Impnuem t W > Ta =Traf0c5ignal U1Uafob3L0120WI2321Excefy0723234idsIT-6 I TABLE 7 EXISTING WITH PROJECT SUMMARY OF IMPROVEMENT NEEDS BEYOND 2005 EXISTING LANES ADDITIONAL INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION Bluff Rd. (NS) at: • Coast Hw. (EW) Provide one SB left turn lane and two SB right turn lanes (2nd with overlap phase). Provide two EB left turn lanes. Provide one WB right turn lane. 15th St. (NS) at: • Coast Hw. (EW) Provide one SB left turn lane and two SB right turn lanes (2nd with overlap phase). Provide two EB left turn lanes. Provide one WB right turn lane. Newport BI. (NS) at: • Hospital Rd. (EW) Provide 2nd NB left turn lane. Riverside Av. (NS) at: • Coast Hw. (EW) Provide 3rd EB through lane. Note: This intersection experiences LOS "E" conditions for Existing Plus Project conditions without improvements. LOS "E" is considered acceptable at this location in the proposed Circulation Element. This improvement provides LOS "D" operations for Existing With Project conditions. The same improvement is required to achieve LOS "E" operations in both General Plan Buildou scenarios. MacArthur BI. INS) at: • Campus Dr. (EW) Restri a SB to provide 3.5 through lanes and 1.5 right turn lanes. Jamboree Rd. (NS) at: • Campus Dr. (EW) Provide WB right turn overlap phase for current right turn lane. Campus Dr. (NS) at: • Bristol St, N (EW) Provide 5th WB through lane. Note: This intersection experiences LOS "E' conditions for Existing Plus Project conditions without improvements. LOS "E" is considered acceptable at this location in the proposed Circulation Element. This improvement provides LOS "D" operations for Existing With Project conditions. The same improvement Is required to achieve LOS "E" operations in both General Plan Buildout scenarios. Irvine Av. (NS) at: • Mesa Dr. (EW) Provide 3rd NS through lane. Provide 3rd SB through lane. Provide 1st EB right turn -Funded Improvements lane. Provide 2nd WS left turn lane. Note: As for General Plan Buildout With Project conditions, the EB right turn lane is not necessary. • University Dr. (EW) Provide 3rd SB through lane. MacArthur BI. (NS) at: • San Joaquin Hills Rd. (EW) Provide 4th NB through lane. Provide 3rd EB left turn lane. U:\UcJobsl 01200\012321ExceI1101232-34.xls]T-7 24 I TABLE 8 I EXISTING PLUS PROJECT SR•73 FREEWAYITOLL WAY PEAK HOUR MAINLINE ANALYSIS I AM SEGMENT ADT I NORTHBOUND I SOUTHBOUND P751 VOLUME LOS I LANES I VOLUME I LOS 405 Fw. to,Bear St. 107,000 3 8,495 F 3 2,740 B -with anticipated regional improvements 2 5 D 4 B -with additional im rovements 5 D 5 A Bear St. to 55 Fw. 121,000 3 9,606 F 3 3;099 C -with anticipated re tonal improvements' 5 E 5 B :With additional improvements 6 D 5 B 55 Fw. to Jamboree Rd. 115,000 3 9,130 F 3 2,945 B -with antici ated regional Improvements 2 5 E 5 A -with additional Improvements 6 D 5 A Jamboree Rd. to Bonita Canyon Dr, 75,000 3 5,954 E 3 1,921 B -with antici aced re tonal Improvements' 5 C 5 A Bonita Can on Dr. to Newport Coast Dr. 78,000 4 6,034 D 4 1,946 A New ort Coast Dr. to Toil Plaza 65 000 3 5160 D 3 1 665 A PM SEGMENT ADT I NORTHBOUND I SOUTHBOUND ILANESIVOLUMEILOSILANES VOLUME LOS 405 Fw. to Bear St. 107,000 3 4,475 D 3 7,242 F -with antici atedre ional im rovementsZ 5 B 4 E -with additional Improvements 5 B 5 D Bear St. to 55 Fw. 121,000 3 5,060 D 3 8,190 F -with anticipated reional Improvements' 5 C 5 D -with additional improvements 6 B 5 D 55 Fw, to Jamboree Rd. 115,000 3 4,810 D 3 7,783 F D -with anticipated reionalimprovements' 5 B 5 -with additional Improvements 6 A 5 D Jamboree Rd. to Bonita Can on Dr. 75,000 3 3,137 C 3 5,076 D -with anticipated re Tonal improvements 5 B 5 C Bonita Canyon Dr. to Newport Coast Dr. 76,000 4 3,178 B 4 5,144 C Newport Coast Dr. to Toll Plaza 65 000 3 2 719 B 3 4,399 D 1 = Improvement 2 - Anticipated regional improvements taken from OCTAM U:\UcJobs\ 01100-01500\ 01200\01232\Excel\101232-34.xls]T-8 25 ' Mr. Elwood Tescher EIP ASSOCIATES March 27, 2006 Page 26 ' SR-73 Southbound • Bear Street to SR-55 Freeway (PM) o SR-55 Freeway to Jamboree Road (PM) ' Because the needed improvements to serve Existing Plus Project traffic volumes on the freeway exceed the planned system improvements, a potentially significant impact to the freeway system may occur. SThe ramp volumes for the Existing With Project scenario are similar to the ramp volumes for the Existing scenario, which resulted in the same operational deficiencies. t' Table 9 summarizes the analysis. The deficient ramps are: • Bristol Street Northbound Off ' • Jamboree Road Southbound On • MacArthur Boulevard Northbound On ' • MacArthur Boulevard Southbound Off Bonita Canyon Drive Northbound On Additional ramps that experience deficient levels of service for General Plan Buildout with Project conditions are: • Newport Coast Drive Northbound Off • Newport Coast Drive Northbound On ' • Newport Coast Drive Southbound Off I 7 TABLE 9 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT SR-73 FREEWAY PEAK HOUR RAMP ANALYSIS ' LENGTH OF PEAK LANES"REEWAY gCCELERATION HOUR ' ONRAMP DECELERATION VOLUME DENSITY LOS RAMP MOVE FWY.LANES LANE(n) AM I PM AM PM AM PM Bristol St. NB Off 5 8,495 4,475 1 0 1,600 710 34.5 25.9 F C ' -with improvements NB Off 5 8,495 4,475 2 0 1,600 710 33.9 15.6 D B Bristol St. SB Off 5 2,740 7,242 2 2,725 1,410 620 NOM NOM A A Jamboree Rd. NB On 5 5,954 3,137 1 120 480 930 18.2 16.5 B B ' Jamboree Rd. SB On 5 2,945 8.190 1 1,700 480 1,320 1.1.9 33.6 B F -wJth Improvements SB On 5 2,945 8,190 1 1,460 480 1,320 12.1 31.5 B D MacArthur BI. NB Off 5 5,954 3,137 2 1,480 620 190 NOM NOM A A MacArthur BI. NS On 1 5 5,964 1 3137 1 1 340 2,740 2.350 -'1 ' F F ' -with Improvements NB On 5 5,954 3,137 2 340 2,740 2,350 1 33.0 26.0 D I C MacArthur BI. SB Off 5 1,921 5,076 1 1,340 2.190 2,670 13.0 26.2 F F -with Improvements, SS Off 5 1,921 5,076 2 1,340 2.190 2,670 1.4 11.3 A UniversityDr. NB On 5 5,954 3,137 1 200 980 650 20.0 16.1 C UniversityDr. SB Off 5 1,921 5.076 1 1,400 810 750 4.7 14.8 A Bison Av. NB Off 5 5,954 3,137 1 0 350 130 28.4 18.7 •D Bison Av. NB On, 5 5,954 3,137 1. 250 160 600 15.7 13.5 B JAA Bison Av. SB Off 5 1.921 5,076 1 0 700 260 16.6 24.6 B Bison Av. SB On' 5 1,921 5,076 1 740 70 210 7.5 17.5 A Bonita Canyon Dr. NS Off 6 6,034 3.178 1 1,250 820 160 18.8 7.8 B , BonitaCan on Dr. NBOn 5 5,954 3,137 1 2,440 540 320 34.4 15.2 F -with improvements NB On 5 5,954 3,137 1 1 440 540 320 32.0 17.3 D B C ' Bonita Canyon Dr. SB Off 5 1,921 6,076 1 0 290 380 14.3 25.3 B Bonita Canyon Dr. SB On 5 1,921 6,076 1 400 200 740 9.0 17.7 A B Newport Coast Dr. NB Off 5 5,160 2,719 1 0 250 130 24.9 16.9 C B Newport Coast Dr. NB On 1 5 5,160 2,719 1 1,250 570 320 27.3 14.5 C B New ort Coast Dr. SB Off 6 1,946 5,144 1 0 660 950 16.5 28.8 B D ' New ort Coast Dr. SB On 6 1,946 5,144 1 360 300 3 00 10.1 16.8 _@_j B ' Ramp failure due to ramp volumes over capacity. ' 1 = Improvement ' U:\UcJobsl 01200\01232\Excel\[01232-34.xis]T-9 , 27 ' Mr. Elwood Tescher EIP ASSOCIATES March 27, 2006 Page 28 Because the needed improvements to serve Existing Plus Project traffic volumes on the 1 freeway exceed the planned system improvements, a potentially significant impact to the freeway system may occur. The result of the analysis is that less than half the growth in traffic and projected intersection deficiencies is directly related to growth in the City of Newport Beach; the remainder is caused by regional (surrounding .area) growth. Needed improvements are reduced at % of the study area intersections where deficiencies were identified for Post- 2030 conditions, when regional traffic growth is removed from consideration. Sincerely, URBAN CROSSROADS, INC. I 40� ZJOv f ��-yzz�- Marlie Whiteman, P.E. Carleton Waters, P.E. Senior Engineer Principal CW:MW:cg JN:01232-34 xc: Ms. Patricia Temple, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Mr. Richard Edmonston, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Attachments I 1 t t 1 I I 1 1 I i 1 I Fi I I I 41Corporate Park, Suite300 Irvme,CA92606 949.660.1994main 949,660.1911fak www.urbanxfoads.com a March 27, 2006 Mr. Elwood Tescher EIP ASSOCIATES 12301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430 Los Angeles, California 90025 Subject: Current (2006) Existing Conditions Count Data Dear Mr. Tescher: Current (2006) count data has been collected in order to provide additional information to supplement the analysis in the City of Newport Beach General Plan Transportation Study (Urban Crossroads, Inc., March, 2006). No consistent citywide traffic growth trend has been shown in this analysis. It would appear that area of high traffic growth correlate directly to areas where growth anticipated in the General Plan has already occurred between 2002 and 2006. The analysis of the City of Newport Beach General Plan was performed using count data collected in 2001 and 2002. Exhibit A shows the existing average daily traffic volumes included in the General Plan analysis. Daily traffic volumes have been collected on a sampling of study area roadway segments for 2006 shoulder season conditions in March of 2006. The data collection worksheets are contained in Attachment A. The 2006 data contained in Attachment A has been compared to existing (2001/2002) data. Table 1 shows the vast majority of segments change by less than 6,000 vehicles per day (VPD). Both increases and decreases in traffic have occurred. Most of the decreases are in the vicinity of Coast Highway. Ongoing development (Bonita Canyon) has occurred near the largest increases on Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard. Additional development in Newport Coast Mr. Elwood Tescher EIP ASSOCIATES March 27, 2006 Page 2 and Newport Ridge is reflected in increases on Newport Coast Drive and Coast Highway. There Is one segment for which the volume changes (increases) by more than 10,000 VPD (43%). The apparent increase is on Coast Highway east of MacArthur Boulevard. The 2002 count at this location was estimated from adjacent peak hour intersection volumes based on citywide peak to daily relationships. The new (2006) count has been reviewed for peaking and directionality characteristics and the directly comparable peak hour data suggest an increase of only 17%. Attachment B contains the analysis of characteristics for Coast Highway east of MacArthur Boulevard. No consistent citywide traffic growth trend has been shown in this analysis. It would appear that area of high traffic growth correlate directly to areas where growth anticipated in the General Plan has already occurred between 2002 and 2006. Sincerely, URBAN CROSSROADS, INC. W� M Me Whiteman, P.E. Senior Engineer CW:MW:cg JN:01232-33 Carleton Waters, P.E. Principal xc: Patricia Temple, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Richard Edmonston, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Attachments W EXHIBIT A EXISTING (2001/2002) COUNT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC,(ADT) 155 9 27 s - 23 > 6 4 27 2 2 22s__. 2 17 16 25 31 47 27 15 7 NE ApP 6 � 6 m 31 aW,AV 1C 8 3 33 rj m < <6 Z� 0 0 9 12 wo 5 3 3 27 12 12 6 6 > 3 iuc'aAem os 4 27 14 g / 22 a 9 l 35 m m x—�sraor 24 22 1216 Imm 2 4 25 i xs 63 36 2 �N 1 O 42 54 1 3 PACIFIC OCEAN iz LEGEND: 10 = VEHICLES PER DAY (000'S) NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN U TABLE 1 DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME COUNT COMPARISON (2006 VERSUS 200112002) ROADWAY SEGMENT 2001/2002 V_ OLUME SOURCE' 2006 VOLUME I DIFFERENCE PERCENT DIFFERENCE Superior Av. n/o Coast Hw. 23,535 C 22.849 -686 -2.91% Dover Dr. n/o Coast Hw. 29,448 C 27.552 -1,896 -6.44% Jamboree Rd. Eastbluff Dr./Ford Rd. to San Joaquin -Hills Rd. 46,302 C 50,071 3,769 8.14% Jamboree Rd. n/o Coast Hw. 31,264 C 32,668 1,404 4 49% MacArthur BI. Ford Rd./Bonita Canyon Dr, to San Joaquin Hills Rd. 54.320 C 60,046 5,726 10.54% Newport Coast. Dr. Bonita Canyon Dr. to SR-73 Fwy. 9,954 C 11,803 1 1,849 18.58% Newport Coast Dr. n/o Coast Hw. 12,2231 C 15,976 3,753 30.70% Newport BI. SR-55) slo Hospital Rd. 43,480 C 48,690 5,210 11.98% MacArthur BI. elo Fairchild Rd. 27,277 C 32,620 5,343 19.59% Jamboree Rd. n/o University Dr. -46,935 C 46,432 -503 -1.07% Coast Hw. Dover Dr. to Bayside Dr. 62,526 C 64,912 2,386 3.82% San Joaquin Hills Rd. MacArthur Bl. to San Miguel Dr. 18,901 C 21.370 2.469 13.06% Coast W. eto MacArthur BI. 40,000 E 57,304 17,304 43.26/0 Coast Hw. elo Newport Coast Dr. 35,375 C 38,739 3,364 9.61% Coast Hw. At the Santa Ana River 46,000 E 43,488 -2,512 -5.46% Balboa BI. 23rd St. to 15th St 1 16,9401 Cl20,638,1 3,698 21.83% Irvine Av. s/o 22nd St. 1 26,6651 C1 26,127 -538 -2.02% SUBTOTAL ACTUAL COUNTS 485,145 520,4931 35,348 - 7.29% OVERALLTOTAL 1 571,1451 1 621,2851 50,140 8.78% ' E = Estimated; C =Actual Count U.lUcJobsl 012001012321ExcelgCountAnalysis2006.x1s]Sheetl M i M M M Ir M sm, r M M no alp an M M M IM I 1 d 1 1 11 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 i 1 i 1 1 ATTACHMENT A EXISTING (2006) CONDITIONS AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) VOLUMES TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES, INC. LOCATION CODE 03607.001 RfKRRMtRHifMRff # H#RRKKHHHH#RRfbYewYHHRHfRRNRRYMRHlHYMufRKKR}RR 1NM kRNYFN/.RKiKKYf f fff}11}H}RRfIRR LOCATION - SUPERIOR-N/O COAST HUY AVERAGED VOLUMES FOR — WEDNESDAY 3/8/06 TO THURSDAY 3/9106 *Ai NRRRRMRNRRRMMRRHYRANMRRRRYIkkfbtKKH+HRRR fiiHY}HRRRRMRlRRfRNRNt PN HlHHHNNRRRRNNRK#f TIME NB SB TOTAL TIME NO SO TOTAL RMNRMIRRMRRR#YfRMM}fMRHRRIffYRHffMRMRtRRRHHMMR}M}fH N NMiKYKYHRNRRM/NRRRRHtfNHNfeRRR}RRMRR IWO - MIS 34 30 64 12:00 - 12:15 158 162 320 12:15 - IWO 13 24 37 12315 - 12:30 164 180 3" 12:30 - 12:45 26 15 41 12:30 - 12s45 158 176 334 12:45 - 1sDO 23 96 12 81 35 177 12:45 - 1:00 176 656 154 672 330 1328 1t00 - 1115 13 10 23 1:00 - 1:15 180 163 343 is15 - 1:30 8 11 19 1:1S - 1:30 172 ISO 330 1:30 - 1145 18 14 32 1:30 - 1:45 194 140 334 1:45 - 2t0O 6 45 5 40 11 85 1:45 - 2.00 168 714 154 615 322 1329 2300 - 2115 8 18 26 2:OD . 205 186 165 351 2:15 - 2130 4 5 9 2:15 - 2:30 176 157 333 2:30 - 2145 ,6 3 9 2.30 - 2145 156 190 AS 2s45 - 3t00 8 26 5 31 13 57 2:45 - 3100 218 736 198 710 416 1446 3:00 - 3:15 7 7 14 3:00 - 305 In t66 338 3:15 - 313o 5 1 6 3115 - 3:30 186 246 432 3,30 - 3:45 5 4 9 3s30 - 3:45 194 239 433 3:45 - 400 2 19 2 14 4 33 3:45 - 4:00 192 744 240 $91 432 1635 4:00 - 4:15 7 3 fo 400 - 4-j$ 174 214 388 4:15 - 4:30 11 6 17 4:15 - 4:30 164 232 396 4:30 - 4145 8 4 12 4:30 - 4:45 140 288 428 4:45 - 5:00 15 41 16 29 31 70 4:45 - 5:00 160 636 250 984 410 1622 5:00 - 5:15 18 14 32 5:00 - 5:15 136 330 466 5:15 - 5s30 17 14 31 5:15 - 51$O 142 344 466 5:30 - 5t45 34 18 52 5:30 - 5245 130 276 406 5245 - 6100 61 130 25 71 86 201 524S - 6-00 172 580 285 1235 457 IBIS 6:00 - 6:15 60 34 94 6:00 - 6115 188 272 430 6.15 - 6:30 97 51 148 6:15 - 600 156 260 416 6s30 - 6=45 166 58 224 6130 - 6:45 141 226 367 6:45 . 7:00 174 497 9B 241 272 733 6:45 - 7:00 124 579 187 945 �11 1524 7:00 - 7:15 218 112 330 7to0 - 7:15 110 178 288 7:15 - 700 243 122 365 7:15 - WO 1D6 154 260 7130 - 7:45 272 136 408 7s30 - 7:45 100 1" 244 7:45 - 8s00 375 1108 140 510 515 1618 7:45 - 8100 90 406 114 $90 204 996 8:00 - 8:15 370 149 519 8:00 • 0:15 93 153 246 805 - 8:30 340 117 457 8:15 - 8-30 76 108 184 8:30 - 8:45 362 133 495 800 - 8:45 82 94 176 8145 - 9s00 308 1380 133 532 441 1912 8s4S - 9:0D 94 345 10B 463 202 808 9:00 - 905 300 151 451 9.00 - 9115 75 105 ISO 9:15 - 9:30 236 117 353 9:15 - 9:30 92 91 183 9:30 - 9t45 221 130 351 9:30 - 9:45 69 182 171 9:45 - 10=00 196 953 131 529 327 1482 9:45 - 10.00 68 3D4 91 369 159 693 10:00 - 10:15 176 132 308 IWO - 10:15 70 62 132 10s15 - IWO 198 144 342 10:15 - 19:30 61 52 113 IWO - 10-45 177 154 331 10:30 • 10:45 59 47 106 10145 - 11s00 166 719 134 564 302 1283 tOs45 - 11:00 60 250 36 197 96 447 11,00 - 11:15 164 156 320 11t00 • 11:15 30 39 69 11:15 - 11:30 172 147 319 11:15 - 11:30 40 34 74 11,30 - 11:45 175 148 323 11:30 11:45 24 34 58 11.45 - 12:00 182 693 160 611 342 1304 11s45 IWO 17 111 28 135 45 246 HR#HRfR1R RfH1ffKlKYMiMRRRRRHRRRKfRHYM RMf Rf H f RMYMRR}f }Rf HYMRtHf}f •Rfffi}kfRYNiliffHRRiiHf f if f f/ tMf TOTALS 5,707 3,253 8,960 6,063 7,826 13,889 ADTsS 11,770 11,079 22,849 RRIRRMRNMRNfHf fNkRtf NHNRYlR###RHRRNRHRlk#Rf KRNHRR RRMRRRRRRMNRRNfRRHNRHf HNf KiffYHKKH!#MHN '30"SOAS VLYII 0I33111iL OZOZTPBYTL %VS LTLT 9003/60/CO I TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES, INC. LOCATION CODE 03607,005 RNRRMMMRRRMRM RRMRRMMXNxRRXM RRWRYRHlMRKwMiwwKKW Nk*WWNN NWRWRRwwMwffwlfwtlyyYNfflYR11RRRMRRYlflfKi W*YYxrt LOCATION - DOVER-N/0 COAST HWY AVERAGED VOLUMES FOR - TUESDAY 3/7/06 TO WEDNESDAY 3/8/06 RMRRRRWMRRYMfk#fRWRRRR AN #kRRM#*RRRMRRWRR#RRRRK fwwRRywyNMWfwYR#RMRRRXRRR PM Rwfi*iYW*Mwf#wRx#MMHR TIME N8 SD TOTAL R##fi#YNYRRYft#fY#xxNRW WRYYi*WW#WWWNYY#RR11fNNRfkR#RRrtfiRRRRRRRMRRRftRf TIME N8 SB TOTAL WwlHfKftYYYWYMRMRRFRRRkkkRfl.feKYYYWWxRMMY 12:00 • 12:15 10 11 21 12:00 - 12:15 283 212 495 12:15 • 12:30 15 14 29 12:15 - 12:30 291 272 563 12330 • 12145 6 4 10 12:30 • 12:45 222 276 498 12:45 - 100 9 40 2 31 11 71 12:45 • 1:00 2% 1092 271 1931 567 2123 1:00 - 1:15 8 8 16 1:00 • 1:15 244 256 500 1:15 - 1:30 4 6 10 1:15 - 1:30 280 262 542 1:30 - 1.45 3 3 6 1:30 - 1.45 228 226 454 1.45 - 2:00 41 26 5 22 16 48 1:45 - 2.00 252 1004 220 964 472 1968 200 - 2:15 10 2 12 2:00 - 2.15 242 223 465 205 - 2:30 3 5 8 2:15 - 2.30 292 235 527 2:30 - 2:45 4 2 6 2.30 - 2:45 252 260 512 2:45 - 3:00 0 17 0 9 0 26 2:45 - 3:00 368 1154 269 987 637 2141 3.00 - 3:15 2 0 2 300 - 3:15 298 252 550 3:15 • 3:30 2 3 5 3.15 • 3:30 311 260 571 3:30 - 3.45 2 6 8 3130 - 3:45 289 266 555 3:45 - 4.00 2 8 9 18 11 26 3:45 • 4:00 296 1194 253 1031 $49 2225 4:00 • 405 5 5 10 4:00 - 4.15 294 246 540 4.15 - 4:30 4 5 9 4:15 - 4.30 309 224 533 4:30 - 4:45 4 10 14 4:30 - 4:45 318 228 546 4.45 • 5:00 14 27 18 38 32 65 4.45 • 5:00 262 1183 242 940 504 2123 5100 - 5.15 14 9 23 5.00 • 5:1$ 302 281 583 5:15 - 5:30 12 19 31 5:15 - 5.30 328 243 571 5:30 • 5:45 21 26 47 5:30 • 5:45 319 240 559 5:45 - 6:00 34 81 26 8D 60 161 5:45 - 6.00 302 1251 248 1012 550 2263 6:00 - 6:15 44 51 95 6.00 - 6:15 298 243 541 6.15 - 6:30 43 74 117 6:15 - 6:30 261 218 479 6:30 - 6.45 54 96 150 6:30 - 6:45 230 202 432 6145 - 7:00 76 217 124 345 200 562 6.45 - 7:00 197 986 170 833 367 1819 7:00 - 705 92 162 254 7:00 • 705 196 161 357 7:15 • 7:30 144 186 330 705 - 7.30 140 156 2% 7:30 • 7.45' 172 319 491 7:30 - 7:45 120 145 601 142 116 575 262 261 1176 7:45 8:00 214 622 400 1067 614 1689 7:45 8:00 8:00 - 6:15 239 261 500 8:00 - 8.15 112 110 222 8,15 8:30 187 266 453 8:15 • 8:30 134 105 239 8:30 8:45 8145 9:00 166 202 794 256 254 1037 422 456 1831 8:30 8:45 8.45 9.00 111 108 465 78 86 379 189 194 844 9,00 • 9:15 227 213 "0 9:00 • 9:15 110 84 194 192 9:15 - 9:30 220 198 418 9:15 - 900 113 79 51 13B 9:30 - 9:45 - 9:45 10:00 224 219 890 188 231 830 412 450 1720 9:30 9:45 • 9.45 - 10:00 87 88 398 46 260 134 658 10:00 - 10.15 217 210 427 10:00 • 1005 62 52 24 114 90 1005 - 10:30 212 190 402 10:15 • 10:30 66 24 70 1060 - 10:45 197 225 422 474 1725 10.30 10.45 - 10:45 • 11.00 46 50 224 25 125 75 349 10:45 - 11:00 244 870 230 855 11:00 - 11.15 209 192 401 11100 • 11,15 46 25 71 52 ' 11.05 - 11.30 218 210 428 1105 - 11130 28 26 24 11 37 11:30 • 11.45 225 188 413 11:30 - 11:45 28 128 13 73 41 201 11:45 • 1200 246 898 250 640 496 1738 11145 • 12:00 W WM#RRRRRI.ffRW #MRMfikRR11RRN}fRRR! W iixik W ti#RRRRxRMRRfRR W Y'Yf Y W MRRRRM#MffMt**YR#RRRRRRRRlIfMMY*#YRRMRRRRRfi 8,210 17.890 TOTALS 4,490 5,172 9,662 9,680 14,170 13,382 27,552 AOTIS W NY#kf#f W HRM#fi RRR W MRfR*eKti*RWRYRRRRRRRRYf*iiWW###RkrtRRRIYIiYWW4YMR*RW WY*itYWRRRRR#RRKYMR W RMMRRWYNWY i 900 [a ONI'•SOAS VIVO OIAAVU 0909TrO L XV3 9T:LT 0002/60/CO TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES, INC. LOCATION CODE 03607.007 ANRf f IMikRAYttr1MMMRMMRtMMYMMfrf}of MfiN4MRYNRRktRRRYf RRNRRRMRMtMNM Mf aiiN44RRRRR RYMMfariYf tftMf4fR LOCATION - JAMBOREE -BIN EASTOLUFF/FORD/SAN JoAgUIN MILLS AVERAGED VOLUMES FOR - TUESOAY 3/7/06 TD WEDNESDAY 3/6106 N4NrffYffRrtRRRMRMRRRRRAMMRf1RttRRRRRRRtRRIfRRRRRk RNRRRRRIRHMYMtfMYffNif FM tfttRRttRRRMRRRR,IRRtYhih T114E NO $0 TOTAL TIME NS SS TOTAL RNRRRRtRRf tRRRRRRRRNfRNYRfiRRfriMRNMNiNNMhfRihtiMN,Rkf NRRRNRRRiANRRMRRRRRRMR �RRiarRMRRfNRMRNiRtRRRRRRR�RRRR 12.00 - 12:15 33 32 65 12:00 - 12:15 401 426 629 12115 - 12.30 28 14 42 12:15 - 12,30 395 456 853 12:30 - 12:45 36 29 65 1230 - 12:45 366 456 842 12:45 - 1-OD 18 115 11 86 29 201 12145 - Izoo 438 1620 446 1788 884 3408 1s00 - 1:15 14 15 29 1100 - 1:15 404 392 796 1.15 - 1:30 7 8 5 1:15 - 1:30 436 407 $43 1:30 - 1:45 17 9 16 1:30 - 1:45 417 354 771 1:45 - 2.00 15 53 13 45 28 98 1:45 - 2:00 458 1715 398 1551 856 3266 2:00 - 205 12 11 23 2:00 - 205 436 469 90S 2:15 - 200 11 11 22 205 - 2130 4" 402 870 260 - 2:45 13 9 22 2:30 - 2.45 491 367 858 2$45 - 3:00 1 37 5 36 6 73 2:45 - 3:00 462 1857 412 1650 874 3507 3:00 - 3:15 7 8 15 3:OD - 3:15 524 369 89b 3:15 - 3:30 2 10 12 305 - 3:30 464 474 938 3:30 - 3:45 8 8 16 3t30 - 3:45 458 49D 948 3:45 - 4:OD 8 25 12 38 20 63 3:45 - 4:00 441 1887 440 177E 881 3660 4:00 - 4.15 17 6 23 4:00 - 4:15 517 376 893 4:15 - 4:30 9 t8 27 405 - 4s30 526 426 952 00 - 4:45 12 24 36 4:3D - 4:45 448 387 835 4,45 - 5:00 28 66 A6 94 74 160 4145 - 5200 486 1979 448 1637 936 3616 5:00 - 5:15 32 55 87 5-DO - 5,15 527 415 942 5:15 - S13O 36 68 104 5:15 - 513O 598 561 159 5.30 - 5:45 54 126 ISO 5:30 - 5:45 494 556 050 5:45 - 6:00 92 2% '213 462 305 676 5s45 - 6,00 $12 2131 651 2193 1163 43% 6:00 - 605 98 165 263 6:00 - 6:15 481 $22 1003 6:15 - 6330 120 174 294 605 - 6:30 473 570 1043 6:30 - 6:45 159 20T 366 600 - 6:45 365 484 849 6.45 - 7:00 252 629 334 880 536 1509 6s45 - 700 345 1664 363 1939 708 3603 7t00 - 7:15 310 346 656 7t00 - 705 300 334 634 7:15 - 7:30 416 358 774 7:15 - 7:30 271 284 555 7,30 - 7:45 587 416 1003 7:30 - 7:45 250 256 506 7;45 - 8.00 546 1859 544 1664 logo 352b 7:45 - 800 230 1051 236 1110 466 2161 8:00 - 8:15 395 470 865 6.00 - $315 239 208 447 8.15 - 8:30 462 448 910 8:15 - 8:30 202 188 390 800 - St45 464 422 886 8130 - 8,45 184 198 382 8:45 - 9:00 424 1745 458 1798 882 3543 8145 - 9300 156 781 190 744 346 1565 9:00 - 9:15 346 445 796 9:OD - 9115 260 165 428 9:15 - 0:3D 314 421 735 905 - 9:30 206 182 388 9:30 - 9:45 325 331 656 9:30 - 9245 172 138 310 9.45 - IWO 367 1354 398 1596 765 2952 9:45 - 10:OD 128 766 142 630 270 1396 10100 - 10215 263 342 605 10:CD - 1005 124 104 228 10215 - 10130 296 340 636 10:15 - 10:30 116 110 226 1Ds30 - 10:45 311 332 643 10s30 - 10:45 94 74 168 10:45 - 11:00 312 1182 361 1375 673 2557 10:45 - 11:00 98 432 82 370 130 802 11:00 - 11:15 346 352 700 11t00 - 11215 80 65 145 this - 11:30 340 373 713 1105 - 11:30 at 63 1" 11.30 - lla45 324 402 726 11t30 - 11:45 43 41 84 11:45 - 12.00 423 1435 398 1525 821 2960 11s45 - 12:00 49 253 36 205 85 458 1f HRRRI,MRRRRRtRRRRRRRRRRfiRtHf Mf4kitttttf RRR RYRRR RRRMYYN4Ni4RRRf RMfR4Yrhfrf 1iRMRR1RRNRfrrNfhiikiRRRMtR�MRif ti TOTALS 8,714 9,601 18,315 16,136 15,620 31,756 AD7,S 24,850 25,221 50,071 RRRNRNRRMNMreMNNYNNtt4tRRRRRtR ttrrrtlN4iAiiRRRR4RtRRMNNrhf Y4RNRRRRRMMr Yi4YhRY4RRMtltff fM�RtMRf RIMMtN4 9000 'ONI"50AS VIM DIMM ���,_ OZOMSM YV3 9T:6T 9003/60/CO TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES, INC. LOCATION CODE 03607.008 RRMRMRRMMRRRRMRMRMRMRRRrkRRMlRffr»rafff***LLWR'RWRMRRRMM WeffMfRLWWRRRRRRRRttWf�kK*KWRWRRffff Wf WMWRMWMR LOCATION - JAMBOREE-N/O COAST HVY AVERAGED VOLUMES FOR TUESDAY 3/7/06 TO NEDNESDAY 3/8/06 W*#MM#*#*MKRRW#WKM*RW AM MMRRMMRK*M..MK***W RRMRMHfi##KR*R*WRRMMM PM #*fittRMRRMR##K*MWMR TIME MRRRMRkkrtMRMrtrtMMrtkRRRRRRRkkRR*MMW NB SB TOTAL TIME NS /W**#*MMWRRRRRRRRRYfRRRRRtRWtWRR#*MWRRRRRRMRf*.KYWMRtRRRRRRRMe*KKWRRRR SS TOTAL 12:00 - 1205 18 18 36 12:00 - 12:15 211 304 515 583 12:15 , 12:30 12 9 21 12:15 - 12:30 256 327 518 12:30 - 12.45 18 22 57 40 13 110 12:30 - 12.45 - 12:45 1:00 R52 254 973 266 265 1182 539 2155 12.45 1:00 5 53 8 1:00 1:15 9 14 23 1:00 • 105 220 290 510 1:15 1,30 13 3 16 1:15 - 1:30 226 246 477. 1:30 - 1:45 5 3 8 17 64 1:30 • 1:45 - 1:45 2:OD 231 222 899 247 308 1091. 478 530 1990 1:45 - 2:00 10 37 7 27 2:00 - 2:15 7 5 12 2.00 - 205 245 304 549 2:15 - 2.30 10 4 14 2:15 • 2:30 234 290 524 2.30 - 2:45. 8 4 12 2.30 - 2:45 272 266 538 2:45 - 3:00 0 25 1 14 1 39 2:45 - 3:00 272 1023 325 1185 597 2206 3:00 - 305 2 5 7 3:00 - 3.15 264 316 600 3:15 - 3:30 3 3 6 3:15 - 3:30 266 354 620 3.30 • 3,45 7 5 12 9 34 3:30 - 3.45 - 3:45 4.00 274 250 1074 374 372 1416 648 622 2490 3:45 - 4:00 5 17 4 17 4:00 - 4.15 3 3 6 4.00 - 4:15 264 308 572 4.15 - 4:30 3 4 7 4:15 - 4:30 255 394 649 4.30 • 4:45 10 8 18 61 4:30 • 4:45 - 4:45 5:00 226 261 1006 376 326 1404 602 587 2410 4:45 - 5:00 22 38 8 23 30• 5:00 - 5.15 12 10 22 5100 - 5:15 292 431 723 5.15 - 5:30 21 20 41 5:15 - 5:30 293 460 753 5:30 - 5:45 34 30 64 5.30 - 5,45 - 5:45 6:00 262 271 1118 433 514 1838 695 785 2956 5.45 - 6.00 68 135 52 112 120 247 6:00 - 6:15 72 56 126 6:00 . 6:15 234 459 693 659 6:15 - 6.30 92 73 165 6.15 - 6:30 228 431 579 6:30 - 6.45 136 88 224 319 836 6:30 - 6.45 • 6:45 7:00 203 208 873 376 343 1609 551 2482 6:45 - 7-00 177 477 142 359 7:00 - 7:15 254 158 412 7:00 - 7:15 182 292 474 7:15 - 7:30 322 186 $08 7.15 - 7:30 158 219 377 322 7:30 - 7:45 458 172 630 7-.30 - 7:45 138 135 613 184 200 895 335 1508 7:45 - 8:00 388 1422 262 776 650 2200 7:45 - 8:00 8:00 - SAW 364 254 618 8:00 - 605 129 155 284 280 8:15 • 8:30 396 204 600 9.15 - 8:30 120 160 256 8.30 - 8145 391 220 611 8:30 - 8:45 • 8:45 9:00 119 94 462 137 142 594 236 1056 8:45 • 9.00 307 1458 264 942 571 2400 9:00 - 9.15 298 257 555 9:00 - 9:15 139 118 257 258 9.15 - 9.30 245 256 501 9.15 - 9.30 118 140 119 224 9.30 - 9.45 - 9:45 MOD 234 264 1041 224 236 973 458 500 2014 9:30 - 9:45 - 9:45 10:00 105 84 446 104 481 188 927 10.00 • 10:15 103 232 425 10:00 - 10:15 80 66 92 140 154 10.15 - 10:30 204 250 454 1005 - 10.30 62 46 62 108 10:30 • 10:43 - 10:45 11:00 222 240 859 215 254 951 437 494 1810 10:30 - 10:45 - 10:45 11:00 34 222 57 279 91 $01 11:00 • 11:15 225 214 439 11:00 - 11:15 30 51 33 81 65 11.15 • 11:30 226 234 460 11.15 - 11:30 32 20 30 50 11:30 - 11.45 200 290 498 1940 11:'30 - 11:45 11:45 • 12:00 12 94 22 136 34 230 11:45 - 12:00 244 903 299 MYWMWM 1037 543 RRRRRKf M#*RLrtRRRRRMi•rkWWRRRRMKKK*MRMRRrt#artYRRRRIIRR***RRYMtR#RM WRRRRMrrR/LW#i*#WRYk#RRRMRRRMWMf 8,803 12,110 20,913 TOTALS 6,465 5,290 11,755 �t ��6N 400 32,668 ADT'S .......... ...._.......--......�La..�a.rMfYWWRMMerKwRRRMRRrMRRRRR � I 6001n 'DNI"SDAS VS,VQ MdXiUl OZOMISM %V3 9T:!T 8003/60/0 TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES, INC. LOCATION CODE 03607.010 KRMMRffHRHM1fiKMRMRfHMRRMiffRMifKMRH HRMHMMiKf hHHfRiRKHHHRYtMMRMfKRRMMRKRtMfRHfRRMi LOCATION - MACARIWUR•STN FORD/GONITA CYN/SAW JOAQUIN AVERAGED VOLUMES FOR - NESDAY 3/7/06 TO WEDNESDAY 3/8/06 fHRHRHMMHRMifiHYfNAN1ftMHRHRHRfifMf.if YRY +,RRRfi.MYMYAYYRRRRifMHYFNRRRRtRRiikifhkHltRHRefM TIME NS S8 TOTAL TIME ND S8 TOTAL ftHYRYRHHfRHRRRR1fRRMMMRKYffYR1MR}RHHMYfiiif}iMYYMRRRRRRRMKfKIHlMf RRR}RifitKYRf►RRfRMRffffNRYYHk 12:00 • 12:15 24 35 59 12:00 • 12115 514 473 987 12:15 • 12:30 28 30 58 MIS - 12:30 4" 498 94Z 1200 12t45 33 22 55 12:30 12145 515 538 1056 12:45 • 1.00 24 109 21 108 45 217 12.45 ItOD 498 1974 540 2049 1038 4023 1100 - 105 14 14 28 1:00 - 1115 486 506 992 1:15 - 1:30 13 17 30 1.15 1:30 504 472 976 1.30 • 1145 14 18 32 1t30 - 1:45 476 $03 979 1:45 - 2:00 21 62 17 66 38 128 1:45 - 200 494 1960 468 1949 962 3909 2:00 - 205 20 14 34 2100 - 2815 478 464 942 2:15 - 2:30 21 8 29 2:15 2s30 524 462 966 2:3D • 2:45 10 12 22 2s30 • 2:45 $44 445 989 2:45 - 3100 10 61 12 46 22 107' 2:45 - 3t00 546 2092 500 1871 1046 3963 3:00 • 3.15 10 12 22 3200 • 3:15 550 465 1018 305 - 3:30 16 8 18 3:15 - 300 624 468 1092 3s30 3t45 8 10 1S 3:3D - 3:45 - 3145 4:00 540 617 MI 498 512 1946 1038 1129 4277- 3.45 • 4:00 18 46 14 44 32 90 4:00 - 4:15 14 % 30 4t00 • 4:15 $91 461 1052 405 - 4t30 12 15 27 4:15 - 4130 577 516 1093 4:30 - 4.45 8 22 30 4:30 - 4.45 554 459 1013 4s45 - St00 22 56 60 113 82 169 4:45 - 5100 552 2274 S30 1966 W112 4240 5100 • 505 28 66 94 5200 5:15 596 $24 1122 5:15 • '5:30 64 64 128 5:15 - 3330 637 564 1221 5:30 . SAS 78 80 168 5:30 - 5345 554 604 1158 5t45 - 600 96 266 176 386 27d 652 5:45 - 6:00 608 2397 605 2317 1213 47% 6:00 - 6:15 122 162 284 6:00 - 6:15 526 576 11012 6.15 • 6:30 166 260 426 6:15 - 6:30 490 526 1009 6:30 - 6.45 - 6t45 7:00 214 257 759 350 414 1186 564 671 1945 6:30 - 6:45 - 6.45 7:00 464 466 1886 545 428 2075 834 3961 7:QO - 705 288 458 746 700 - 7:15 337 442 779 7:15 - 7:30 368 456 824 7115 • 7:30 390 354 744 7:30 - 7:45 514 536 1050 7:30 - 7.45 298 296 S% 570 2687 7:45 - 800 560 1730 676 2126 1236 3856 7s45 • MOD 302 1327 268 1360 BsOD - 8s15 550 683 1233 8300 • 8:15 234 245 214 479 502 8115 - 8:30 627 654 1281 AM - 6:30 288 412 WO • 8:45 $64 644 1205 4886 8:30 • 8:45 - 8:45 WO261 211 994 201 192 852 453 1446 8145 • 9,00 500 2241 664 2645 1164 900 • 9:15 520 605 1133 9:00 - 9:15 278 179 457 448 9:15 - 9-30 470 500 970 9:15 . 9,30 264 184 178 392 9:30 • 9:4S 400 526 926 9s30 - 9.45 - 9:45 MOD 214 183 939 128 669 311 1608 9t45 - 10200 415 1513 596 2137 921 3950 10:00 - 1005 408 516 924 10100 - 10=15 192 141 333 275 10:15 - 10:30 406 422 828 1005 . 10130 136 136 139 113 2 9 10t30 - 10:45 - 10:45 11:00 408 434 1656 473 456 1897 881 920 3553 10.30 - 10.45 - 10t45 11100 IRS $92 70 463 198 1055 MOD - 11115 444 482 926 11100 • 11115 99 56 155 148 MIS • 11:30 414 436 850 1105 - 11:30 94 54 57 125 11130 - 11145 437 484 921 11:30 - 11t45 66 47 308 28 195 75 $03 11.45 - MOD 472 1767 538 1940 1010 3707 11:45 - 12:00 fMYffHf HHH!lHYMR1RRRRRRMRtHMifffRHRfRi}KNOMfRRRR}RfKYYf/MYRM1tiMYHRRMMRffKifRHRftiRHHRRRReifHRf 19,074 17,712 36,786 TOTALS 10,566 12,694 23,260 29,640 30,4D6 60,046 ADDS ._.- ...................a..........NO HR}KRlRMRRHMfYlHRRRNO TTO2 DNI "SOAS VIM DIdavu I OZOMSM %Vd 8T:LT 9009/60/0 TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES, INC. LOCATION CODE 03607.011 XN+WWNRXxNXXxXNRNRXXRXXxxNXXXWXNa+f f NN+HHRW aw+N W+++Wf W W wW WXWWWWFWNRWRwf WXfffaf NH#iWXWWWXxXXWXRXRxRHf He LOCATION - NENPORT COAST -ATM BONITA CYN/SR-73 VOLUMES FOR - WEDNESDAY 318/06 RRRXXWRWWWWXNNRW#wNWWWx+xAMYXWRWWWwwWFWRRxxwwRRNRRH aW+.f+f+W-iWN+wwxiWwWwxwWwk PM xafafffiyWWWWWRWNRRXRHw TIME NO 56 TOTAL TIME NO SB if{f+fHNf++XffRlrx+xR+NRHfH+Nf+f+f++Hf W+fiiiNw#NWwwWWWWWwkRWXWRRRRXXWWfwl,+ktf++fH+WWNRMRXRRRNHRfwRRRWikiN TOTAL 12:00 - 12:15 7 6 13 12:00 - 12.15 98 68 75 166 48 12.15 - 12.30 9 6 15 12.15 - 12:30 73 192 12:30 - 12.45 6 8 14 51 12:30 12:45 12:45 - 1,00 96 SO 347 96 82 321 162 668 12:45 - 1:00 4 26 5 25 9 1100 - 1,15 1 6 7 1:00 1:15 101 76 177 1:15 - 1:30 2 6 8 1:15 - t:30 84 79 163 147 1:30 - 1.45 1 1 2 1:30 1:45 73 74 1:45 - 2:00 2 6 1 14 3 20 1:45 - 2:00 106 364 76 305 182 669 2:00 - 2:15 3 3 6 2:00 - 2:15 86 78 164 2:15 - 2:30 3 4 7 2:15 2:30 108 80 ISO 2:30 - 2.45 5 3 8 2:30 . 2:45 86 63 169 2:45 - 3.00 2 13 3 13 5 26 2:45 - 3:00 100 380 89 330 189 710 3:00 - 3:15 1 1 2 3:00 - 3.15 114 86 200 3:15 - 3:30 0 0 0 3:15 - 3.30 128 94 222 3.30 • 3:45 3 1 4 3:30 • 3:45 144 86 230 3:45 - 4:00 1 5 1 3 2 8 3.45 - 4:00 143 529 88 354 231 883 4:00 - 4:15 0 1 1 4:00 - 4:15 122 76 193 405 - 4.30 3 1 4 4:15 - 4.30 129 90 219 4:30 - 4:45 3 3 10 6 11 22 4:30 4:45 - 4:45 - 5:00 93 107 451 96 88 350 189 195 801 4:45 - 5:DO 6 12 5 5:00 . 5:15 4 3 7 5:00 - 5:15 106 110 216 505 - 5:30 15 8 23 5.15 . 5:30 136 116 252 5.30 - 5:45 22 10 32 5,30 - 5.45 102 140 242 5:45 - 6.00 28 69 14 35 42 104 5:45 - 6.00 115 459 140 506 255 965 6100 . 6.15 34 17 51 6:00 - 6:15 100 152 120 252 202 6.15 . 6.30 45 32 77 605 6:30 82 80 126 208 6:30 - 6:45 • 6:45 7:00 47 51 183 56 78 183 103 135 366 6:30 6:45 - 6:45 - 7:00 80 342 106 506 186 $48' 7:00 - 7:15 78 86 164 7:00 - 7:15 67 114 181 7:15 - 7:3D 123 84 207 7:15 - 7:30 65 90 155 131 7:30 - 7:45 - 7:45 8.00 140 186 527 96 76 342 236 262 869 7.30 7:45 - 7.45 • 8:00 57 53 242 74 81 359 134 601 8:00 - 805 ISO 106 256 8:00 - 8:15 37 65 102 126 8:15 - 8:30 166 76 242 B-15 - 8:30 42 84 95 8:30 - 8:45 142 62 204 8:30 8:45 - 8.45 - 9:00 37 38 154 58 70 277 10B 431 8:45 - 9:00 150 608 82 326 232 934 9:00 - 9:15 158 80 235 9:00 • 9:15 42 54 62 196 24 9.15 - 9:30 102 90 192 9.15 • 9:30 62 59 90 9:30 - 9:45 113 77 190 9130 9:45 • 9:45 - 10:00 31 20 155 46 221 66 376 9:45 - 10.00 111 484 92 3E9 Z03 823 10:00 - 10:15 68 64 132 10:00 - 10.15 29 54 35 83 66 10.15 - 10:30. 104 6B 172 10.15 - 10:30 31 40 70 10:30 - 10:45 104 44 148 145 597 10-,30 10:45 - 10:45 - 11:00 30 25 115 28 157 53 272 10.45 - 11:00 89 365 56 232 11:00 - 11:15 84 64 148 11:00 - 11.15 19 22 16 41 30 11:15 - 11:30 92 57 149 mu - 11:30 14 13 19 32 m30 - 11:45 91 66 157 11.30 - 11:45 5 51 10 67 15 118 11:45 - R.-DO 112 379 75 262 187 641 11:45 • 12:00 WWwWfRR RRHWRIf11XIM111,MRRwfHfe+fkH4WXWWWWf1YNNHwXH+wf+fk+kiWWYxWwwkWHwWHff#+wWWHRRNwHxxRHWwWxWWXWWWRXRXX4Y'ff TOTALS 2,677 1,784 4,461 3,589 3,753 1,342 6,266 3 5,537 11,803 ACT'S faf.ff+ ZTO PI DNI"SOAS Y,LVO: DI9AVHI OZOZT6BDTL Va 6T:LT 9009/60/90 TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES, INC. LOCATION CODE 03607.012 MffM1RRRMRRRRMRMRMRRMRRR�NRlNlfif!lHRRRRRRRRRRRR�NffYRMlYRYRR Nf MRRRNlHNAf f MRMNRNIRlYkfNMMMrMdt LOCATION - NEWPORT COAST-N/O COAST HWY VOLUMES FOR • WEDNESDAY 3/8/06 RRNRfRRRRfRHXRMNRN RRMANRNXXNRi+t+++f+++MXXMXR MRRRRRRRt+NNlKXNlXM RR ,PM NR+NRHI#RMRRRfRRMRH TIME No SO TOTAL TIME NB s0 TOTAL ♦KRMNNif+if NYlNf}f+afiM+NlNMHMfRfRN1RRRMf f RRRRRNRRtMfNN1HRRMMRRRR RRNfHlMRRRMf RfNR1RRRN+fkH 12-00 - MIS 9 9 18 12:00 - 12.15 126 112 238 12:15 - 1200 5 8 13 12:15 • 12:30 128 120 249 IWO - 12z45 6 8 14 12:30 - 12:45 124 110 234 12:45 - 1100 1 21 3 28 4 49 12245 - 1100 124 502 106 448 230 950 1:00 • 1:15 6 2 a UDO • 1:15 162 146 308 lzis - 1:30 0 4 4 1:15 1130 134 110 244 1:30 - 1.45 3 3 6 1:30 • 1,45 156 93 249 1145 • 2:00 3 12 2 11 5 23 1145 • 2z0o 148 600 127 476 275 1076 2:00 • 205 4 3 7 2:00 - 2115 144 116 260 2z1S - 2:30 3 0 3 2.15 - 2:30 156 102 258 2,30 • 2:45 2 2 4 2:30 - 2z45 154 128 282 2.49 - 3:00 3 12 0 5 3 17 2:45 - 3:00 158 612 124 47D 202 1052 3.00 - 305 1 2 3 3.00 - 3:15 160 130 290 3:15 - 3:30 1 0 1 3:15 - 3,30 174 ISO 332 3:30 • 3:45 2 0 2 3:3D - 3:45 172 154 326 3145 • 4:00 0 4 0 2 0 6 3.45 - 4100 180 666 IN 422 360 1308 4:00 - 4:15 4 4 8 4z08 - 4:15 167 144 311 4:15 - 4:30 1 0 1 4zI5 - 4130 152 154 306 4:30 - 4145 4 5 9 4:30 - 4:45 144 164 308 4:45 - 5:00 4 13 5 14 9 27 4:45 • 5:00 150 613 156 418 306 1231 5:00 - $:15 7 7 14 $:00 • 5:15 156 172 328 5:15 - 5:30 17 9 26 5:15 - S OO ISO 182 332 5z30 - 5:45 16 15 31 5:30 • 5145 134 206 340 5,45 6:00 36 78 12 43 SO 121 Sz45 - 6:00 128 568 184 744 312 1312 6:00 - 6:15 32 18 SO 6:00 • 6:15 104 224 32A 6:15 • 6:30 59 14 73 6:15 6:30 122 170 292 6z3D • 6245 77 38 115 6:30 6:45 122 150 an 6:45 - 7:00 105 273 60 130 165 403 6:45 - 700 98 446 157 701 255 1147 7%qO - 7115 126 72 198 700 - h15 96 128 224 7115 • 700 146 96 242 7115 • 1:30 76 94 170 7:30 - 7:45 214 72 286 7:30 - 7z45 69 101 170 7145 • 8.00 220 706 108 343 328 1054 7145 - 8:00 74 MS 77 400 151 715 8:00 • ails 20B 97 305 8,00 • 6,15 72 87 159 132 8:15 - B-30 1B6 106 292 805 • 8:38 62 70 8:30 • 0:45 205 90 295 8:30 - 8z45 5o 67 117 8:45 - 9z00 216 815 96 391 314 1206 8:45 - 900 58 242 57 281 115 523 9200 • 9:15 149 106 255 9z00 • 9315 48 52 100 112 9:15 • 9:30 143 104 247 905 • 9:30 56 56 8s 9:30 - 9145 - 9:45 10100 116 116 524 94 104 409 210 220 932 9:30 - 9:45 • 9:45 10:00 44 42 190 41 54 2D3 % 393 10100 - 10:15 122 113 235 10:00 - 10:15 50 43 93 62 TOM • 10z30 102 104 206 1005 • 10.30 29 33 69 10:30 - 10:45 148 96 244 10-N - Ids45 29 40 146 68 292 10145 • 11:00 135 510 119 432 257 942 10:45 - 11z00 36 146 30 11100 • 11:15 140 92 232 11 zoo - 11:15 24 19 43 33 11:15 - 11z30 144 116 260 MIS • 11:30 20 13 20 40 11230 - 11:45 US 126 282 IWO - 11:45 20 63 25 141 11:45 • 12:00 142 582 110 444 252 1026 11145 • 12:00 f NRRRRMXNNRMRRRRRRRYXXfKRRf 14 76' 11 RRtRRYHNXXf HH/HfNf RffMf f Mf1ff RMRMtf f HlfRffIRRRMRX+XXXKXXRf HRRMf fRXRXNf 5,172 10,170 TOTALS 3,550 2,256 5,806 4,995 8,548 7,428 15,976 ADT1S RRMMMtRfRRRMNNRRekfNH1H1RMRM1Rf+R+iY1MRRRRRMRRf ff+iff iHMRMRR}Rf tiiNRR}RRRNtff fYYRMMRIMNNlNf f fRRf++ u CTO DI IDNI•ISOAS diva oIddvu 1. OZOZTI<S6TL %vd ST UT 9003/60/90 TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES, INC. LOCATION CCOE 03607.002 fHRRRRWkRWWWYfffHWRHWfiRRRXRkWWkW#iR*W W W W W WfRMflfffflHMH}RRRMYYY}RR}RR11YM}}R}RMRYWRRYYMYMWYYfiYYWMYYMRYWM LOCATION - NEWPORT (SR-55)-S/0 HOSPITAL RD AVERAGED VOLUMES FOR - WEDNESDAY 318/06 TO THURSDAY 3/9/06 MHMHRRMWWRMMWi}iHH PM RMRRMRRMMW}WW#RWMH}WW TIME NB S8 TOTAL TIME NO SB TOTAL kWflntXRMRMRYMMHHRfHRRRRRRMWWWXWWWt}tW}RWfifMHWHHRfRRYRWMWYYMWRWWMWWWYWWWWWWHWiWWRWW#W#t#YWfM#ef#HMWif WR W 12:00 - 12:15 74 41 115 12:00 - 12:15 416 412 828 1205 - 12:30 40 45 85 12:15 - 12:30 416 432 848 12.30 - 12:45 38 37 75 1230 - 12:45 403 426 829 12:45 - 100 53 205 44 167 97 372 12:45 - 100 432 1667 414 1684 846 3351 1.00 - 1:15 43 31 74 1:00 - 1:15 458 432 890 1:15 - 1:30 32 20 52 1:15 - 1,30 453 419 872 1.30 - 1:45 42 28 70 1:30 - 1.45 440 3% 826 1-.4$ - 2.00 22 139 16 95 38 234 1:45 - 2:00 396 1747 392 1629 786 3376 2;00 - 2:15 24 19 43 2:00 2:15 410 364 794 2:15 - 2:30 28 14 42 205 - 2:30 404 410 814 2:30 - 2.45 17 16 33 2:30 - 2:45 388 406 794 2:45 - 3:00 10 79 14 63 24 142 2:45 - 3,00 400 1602 358 1558 758 3160 3:00 - 3:15 8 12 20 3:00 - 3:15 395 401 796 305 - 3:30 8 12 20 3.15 - 300 413 437 850 3.30 - 3:45 16 9 25 3:30 - 3,45 410 419 829 3:45 - 4100 9 41 19 52 28 93 3:45 - 4:00 436 1654 420 1677 856 3331 4:00 - .405 16 24 40 4:00 - 4:15 396 336 782 405 - 4:30 20 17 37 4:15 - 4.30 386 406 792 4:30 - 4.45 22 18 40 4:30 - 4:45 369 482 851 4:45 • StOO 21 79 28 87 49 166 4:45 - 5:00 358 1509 486 1760. $44 3269 5.00 - 5:15 42 42 64 5:00 - 5.15 372 501 873 5:15 - 5:30 53 46 99 5:15 - 5430 341 498 839 5:30 - 5:45 96 68 164 5t30 - 5:45 334 425 759 5:45 - 6:00 92 283 118 274 210 557 5:45 - 6:00 347 1394 468 1892 815 3286 6:00 - 6.15 130 138 268 6:00 - 6:15 353 466 819 605 - 6:30 ISO 145 295 6:15 - 6.30 328 487 815 6:30 - 6:45 192 175 367 6:30 - 6:45 302 480 782 6:45 - 7:00 306 778 278 736 584 1514 6:45 - 7.00 285 1268 456 1889 741 3157 7t00 - 7t15 328 256 SB4 7:00 - 7:15 296 424 720 7:15 - 7:30 410 280 690 7:15 - 7:30 242 394 636 7:30 - 7:45 500 256 756 730 - 7;45 268 346 614 7.45 - 5.06 472 1710 310 1102 782 2812 7:45 - 8.00 263 1069 350 1514 613 2583 3:00 - 8:15 456 329 785 8:00 - 8.15 248 290 $38 8,15 - 800 472 324 796 8:15 - 8:30 246 262 $08 8:30 - 8:45 398 320 718 6:30 - 8:45 221 268 489 8:45 - 9:00 416 1742 318 1291 734 3033 8:45 - 9:00 218 933 250 107D 468 R003 9:00 - 905 388 369 757 9:00 - 9:15 224 224 445 905 - 9:30 415 370 785 9.15 - 9.30 222 242 464 9:30 - 9:45 3" 354 718 9.30 - 9:45 236 224 460 9.45 - 10:00 388 1555 379 1472 767 3027 9:45 - 10:00 214 896 190 880 404 1776 10:00 - 10:15 384 348 732 10:00 - 10:15 195 156 351 MIS - IWO 369 302 671 10:15 - 10:30 144 156 300 10,30 - 10:45 120 232 352 10.30 - 10.45 141 133 274 10:45 - 11:DO 368 1241 342 1224 710 2465 10:45 - 11:00 136 616 122 567 258 1%3 11:OD - 11.15 374 372 746 11:00 - 11.15 106 104 210 11:15 - 11.30 336 398 734 11a15 - 11:30 95 61 156 11t30 - 11:45 406 410 $16 11.30 - 11t45 86 72 158 11.45 - 12:00 416 1532 428 1608 844 3140 11145 - 12:00 70 357 66 303 136 660 WYY}YfWMMHf1'}W}}}HWRRWW}RRWRRfRRR1XWWRRHH#RWRRIRWWHR##1H#HW MW W kY##Wit##}WWWWYWMWWWRRWRRMMRMRMWMWRMRWHW 7DTALS 9,384 8,171 17,555 14,712 16,423 31,135 ADTIS 24,096 24.594 48,490 MYYYWWMWMWWMMWWWtt}1M WHfHM#ft#}WiX#M}WWWWWW#WRRWYWYYRRRtRWRRRRM}fHfHHHMHfiR###WWWWWWW}WWWYRW}RRRRHf W W coo@ 'DAI " SDAS VJ.VQ DIadVIU OZ09TVSVTL %V3 LT:LT 9009/60/90 TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES, INC. LOCATION CODE 03607.009 tHMtRRttMff MY�MMRMRlRMRRlARRRNYRRR}RRMfff»fKf INfAMANRf R}}RMlfffffff Hffff t1kRRHf!lRRf MYf•fiKlNYYRM LOCATION - KACARTHUR•9/0 FAIRCHILD AVERAGED VOLUMES FOR • TUESDAY 3/7/06 TO WEDNESDAY 3/8/06 MRMHR}N fRRR}RRMMfRMRR AN }HRRMlfMY»K»flYffffi NMHRYNAM YYMHftY»»f PN pRMlMtRMMYffAH�A'Hk T114E ED NS TOTAL TIME EO NB TOTAL tltfHkfllKhtAKf fif»H»»»flHKtk»!RY}tlfMlMlf HYMMM„MfYY»»f H! WNIRRRNNlR1NMlKif iKRRIRM,RNHRMff 12:00 - 12.15 17 8 25 12:00 • 12:15 284 256 $40 12:15 - 12:30 12 4 16 12:15 • 12.30 270 232 SD2 12:30 • 12:45 7 10 17 12:30 • 12:45 264 Z66 $30 12:45 • 1:00 7 43 10 32 17 75 12145 - 1100 266 1084 302 1056 565 2140 1:00 • 1:15 5 3 8 1t00 - 1115 216 317 535 105 1:30 9 4 13 1115 - 1:30 262 288 550 1.30 • 1:45 6 1 7 1:30 - 1,45 224 255 479 1t45 • 2t00 4 24 3 11 7 35 1,45 • .2s00 215 919 234 1094 449 2013 2.00 • 2.15 4 5 9 2:00 - 205 238 268 5D6 205 - 2s30• 3 3 6 2:15 • 2:30 246 245 491 2:30 • 2.45 3 1 4 2z30 - 2:45 222 240 462 2:45 3:00 2 12 '1 10 3 22 2s45 - 3t00 244 950 230 983 474 1933 3.00 - 3:15 2 2 4 3t00 • 3.15 224 240 464 3:15 - 3s30 1 2 3 3:15 • 3:30 230 247 477 300 - 3:45 4 1 5 3:30 • 3.45 254 230 484 3:45 • 4:00 1 8 3 8 4 16 3.-45 - 4:00 281 989 258 975 539 1964 4:00 - 4:15 5 3 6 4t00 - 4-15 298 246 544 4.15 • 4130 3 5 8 4:15 - 4-30 343 206 549 4:30 - 4:45 4 12 16 4:30 - 4:45 366 224 61p 4:45 - 5:00 11 23 12 32 23 55 4s45 - St00 414 1443 208 864 624 2327 5:00 - SO$ 12 15, 27 5:DD - 5:1S 532 2% 748 5.15 - 5:36 20 43 63 504 - 500 670 283 958 500 • 5145 22 74 96 5.30 - 5.45 665 188 853 5:45 • 6:00 35 89 96 228 131 317 5z45 - 6:00 592 2459 236 928 828 3367 600 - 6:15 26 96 124 600 • 6215 S13 199 712 6:15 - 6:30 56 136 192 MIS - 6130 502 192 694 6.30 - 6t45 86 140 226 6,30 • 6:45 437 177 614 6145 - 7:00 75 245 226 59A 301 843 6:45 • 7.00 339 1791 150 718 489 2509 7100 - 7115 96 314 410 7:00 - 705 249 122 371 7115 - 7.30 118 416 $36 705 • 7:30 278 136 414 7:30 • 7s45 116 475 591 700 - 7:45 182 108 290 7:45 - 8:00 143 473 727 1934 $70 2407 7:45 • 8:00 184 993 92 458 276 1351 8s00 - 8:15 116 687 803 8:00 - 8:15 168 92 260 8:15 - 8:30 180 740 920 8:15 • 5:30 1" 108 252 8230 - 8-45 163 723 886 8:30 - B145 134 66 200 8:45 • 9:00 162 621 658 2808 820 3429 6:45 - MO 121 567 78 3" 199 911 9300 - 9:15 167 578 745 9300 - 9:15 82 88 170 9,15 • 9.30 149 424 $73 9:15 • 9:30 102 72 174 9s30 - 9s45 172 348 $20 9130 • 9:45 77 65 142 9145 • 10:00 178 666 272 1622 , 450 2288 9,45 - 10:00 65 326 55 280 120 606 10z00 - 10:15 166 270 436, 10.00 - 10115 64 48 112 10:15 - 10:30 159 228 387 10:15 • 10:3p 52 38 90 10:30 - 10:45 165 218 383 10130 - 10:45 45 30 75 10:45 - MOO 192 662 226 942 414 1624 10:45 11100 3D 191 37 153 67 344 11:00 11s15 191 228 419 11200 • 11315 25 18 43 11115 - 11s30 224 239 463 1105 - 11s30 17 20 37 11:30 - 11145 258 216 474 11t30 • 11:45 12 12 24 11145 - 12100 294 967 244 927 535 1894 11:45 • 1200 16 70 10 60 26 130 ft�lkkftftfffffRMtMHHRRfN RRRR»f»HlfHRMMlRM»AKKYNt1f fRMMtM1HlffffMMMRHMtRNlHf}tRHtNHNtRM TQtALS 3,853 91152 13,005 11,682 7,933 19,615 ADVS .15,535 17,085 32,620 RMHf MRRRffffYfffffiMiflAMYYf RRMt»fMf Kftif MMMRMYNHltf HRHMRt»lHitHt}R}M}}Hfif!►Mt}HHfffMtlf MR OT0121 ONI"SDAS 1',EVQ aI33V2LL OZOZTfi M %V3 9TUT 9009/60/90 10002 03/22/2006 10:33 FAX 7146412020 TRAFFIC DATA SVCS.,INC. TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES, INC. LOCATION CODE 03607.CO6 fiRX*RXX*XRRXXXRRMfiXXRRkkXXXXXRXXXXXXXkXXXRXRfixttXti**+X+i*+*tM*+++*+WkkWWXXXXWkXXWWXXWkXXXXXXWkXXXXXXRXXXXXX*XXRRXXXY,X ' LOCATION - IAMIIIIE-1/0 UNIVERSITY VOLUMES FOR - TUESDAY 3/21/06 +RR*xxRwxtwxxR*xRwR***xx'MR ( x*RtRRRwR##xxRRRwwtrt*!+t* tW#ww#WX**wrNRWWkRRWMWRWMkR FM XrRRRkRX RRRRRRRXXxRRR*RX* TIME NB S3 TOTAL TIME NB SB TOTAL R***xxxxrxRRRltxRxxxxwrxxxxxxxrxxRRRxxxxxxxxxx#txfit#****t& a* A F#wwwr#twwrrrwwRrrrrRxrrxxrRrrrrrr 12:00 - 1205 33 37 70 12:00 - 12:15 420 363 783 12:15 - 12:30 21 29 50 12:15 - 12:30 406 408 814 12.30 - 12.45 12 19 31 12:30 - 12:45 326 384 710 12.45 - 1.00 17 83 16 101 33 184 12:45 - 1:00 410 1562 435 1590 845 3152 1.00 - 1.15 13 18 31 1:00 • 1:15 - 1.15 1:30 423 408 356 356 779 764 105 - 1:30 6 11 17 100 - 1:45 8 8 16 1.30 - 1:45 422 352 774 1:45 - 2:00 11 38 8 45 19 83 1:" 2:00 421 1674 342 1406 763 3080 ' 2:00 • 2.15 11 B 19 2:00 - 205 413 374 787 2:15 • 2,30 12 5 17 2:15 - 2:30 406 354 760 2:30 - 2:45 15 8 23 2:30 • 2:45 462 370 $32 2:45 - 3:00 8 46 6 27 14 73 2:45 - 3:00 343 1624 421 1519 764 3143 3.00 - 3:15 4 6 10 3:00 3:15 440 349 789 3:15 - 3:30' 4 12 16 3:15 3.30 450 380 830 3.30 • 3,45 4 6 10 3:30 - 3.45 462 380 $42 3:45 - 4:00 12 24 6 30 18 54 3:45 - 400 395 1747 372 1481 767 3228 4:00 - 4.15 7 9 16 4.00 - 405 482 413 $95 4:15 - 4,30 13 20 33 405 - 4,30 410 394 104 4:30 - 4:45 - 4:45 5:00 18 22 60 29 45 103 47 67 163 4:30 - 4:45 - 4:45 5:00 439 3B4 1715 448 459 1714 887 643 3429 5:00 - 5:15 38 61 99 5:00 - 5.15 467 510 977 5:15 - 5:30 50 50 100 5:95 - 5:30 402 504 906 5:30 - 5.45 88 109 197 5:30 - 5:45 424 589 1013 " 5:45 - 600 98 274 162 382 260 656 5:45 • 6.00 374 1667 536 2139 910 3806 600 - 6.15 104 121 231 6:00 - 605 424 470 894 6:15 - 6:30 166 178 344 6:15 - 6:30 356 460 816 6:30 - 6.45 194 216 410 6:30 - 6:45 348 432 780 6:45 • 7:00 270 734 304 825 574 1559 6:45 - .7:00 288 1416 360 1722 648 3138 7:00 - 7:15 353 279 334 632 702 7:00 7:15 - 7:15 - 7.30 278 272 308 294 586 566 7!15 - 7.30 368 7:30 - 7:45 430 368 798 7.30 - 7:45 236 246 482 7:45 - 8.00 626 1777 372 1353 998 3130 7,45 • 8:00 186 972 220 1066 406 204D ' 8.00 - 8.15 497 330 827 8:00 - 8.15 220 210, 430 355 8:15 - 8.30 510 352 862 8:15 - 8:30 172 183 8:30 - 8:45 470 369 859 8:30 - 8:45 204 192 396 8:45 . 9:00. 483 1960 364 1455 867 3415 B:45 - 9:00 166 762 220 805 3B6 1567 ' 9:00 - 905 417 318 735 9.00 - 905 180 178 358 9:15 • 9:30 366 320 686 905 . 9:30 225 146 371 9:30 - 9:45 357 296 653 9:30 - 9:45 158 134 292 9:45 - 10:00 314 1454 322 1256 636 2710 9:45 - 10:00 136 699 124 582 26D 1281 1000 - 10:15 334 295 629 10:00 - 10:15 122 155 277 10:15 10:30 318 312 630 10:15 - 10:30 90 95 "1 IWO - 10:45 316 284 600 10.30 - 10:45 102 88 190 10:45 • 11:00 302 1270 296 1187 598 2457 10:45 - 11:00 60 374 64 402 124 776 11:00 • 1t:t5 350 314 664 1100 - 11:15 102 $2 154 11:15 - 11:30 343 352 695 1105 - 11:30 46 56 102 1 11.30 - 11:45 387 373 760 11:30 - 11.45 41 34 75 11:45 - 12:00 382 1462 398 1437 780 2899 11:45 • 12:00 45 234 33 175 78 409 rRNRRRRrRNrrkrNRrRXXRxxRNxI**ANt*x*x*##t###wtk#####w#rrwNwwkxWxxxxxkMRxxxxx###t#r#i+tt####W#rwrwwwNrxwkrxNrRxrrxrNlrr TOTALS 9,182 8,201 17138.3 14,446 14,603 29, D49 ADPS 23,628 22,804 46,432 xxy wntw#Ytwr#xww*####r##xwR#M*wr#*Ynkr*#wrxxrR*WNrxxwxRlrxxxt**R*kttttt####*#W#tMN*M#MxxrrwMerwrRN*RlrxtxRRNRRXXtt#*w##r#rr TRAFFIGOATA SERVICES, INC. LOCATION CODE 03607.075 KYMtKMftfHtNHfHRfRfYRMftH1flRHffHNNffNRNNlNKff NflifleiRAMfitAAYfRRYfRRR}RRRRARKNfRiifYfffifAffYA LOCATION - COAST HUY-SiN OOVSR/SAYSIOE AVERAGED VOLUMES FOR - TUESDAY 3/7/06 TO NEDNESDAY 3/0/06 RRRRRMMMRfl1RMYfYYf}fMANH4HffftflHRMRH1NN1t 11KMifKKAfff4tMfAARfRM PM RMRRMRNRHYHYfHMHY TIME EE NO TOTAL TIME EE NB TOTAL Kfffrf NRftMRRRRHRMMf MMR fRRM RMMRRA}RRRRRAM RM RARRRMR RRRRRARRMRRMMkf M�RR RR}Rf MRRIRRtflfftYfflflN,YRffA4R 12100 • 12:15 39 44 83 12:00 - 12.15 535 $56 1091 1205 - 12:30 30 40 70 1205 - 12:30 587 541 112A 12:30 - 12:45 36 33 69 12:30 - 12145 546 528 1074 12:45 - 1.-00 21 126 22 139 43 265 12:45 - lion 583 2251 536 2161 1119 4412 1:00 - 1:15 22 18 40 1100 - 1115 598 473 1071 105 - 1.30 18 17 35 1:15 - 1:30 562 570 1132 1:30 - 1s45 12 10 22 1:30 - 1:45 $60 $45 1105 1:45 - 2.00 24 76 16 61 40 137 1:45 - 2:06 512 2232 563 2151 1075 4383 2100 - 2.15 11 20 31 2:00 - 2:15 558 586 1144 2.15 - 2:30 18 10 28 2115 - 2130 534 618 1152 2.30 - 2.45 5 12 17 2.39 - 2.45 528 573 1101 2145 - 3:00 4 38 7 49 11 8T 2:45 - 3:00 600 2220 577 2354 1177 4574 3.00 - 3.15 2 6 8 3.00 - 3:15 562 584 1146 3:15 - 3:30 11 6 17 3315 - 3130 518 689 1407 3.30 - 3:45 12 8 20 300 - 3.45 598 626 1224 3:45 - 4:00 20 45 17 37 37 82 3:45 - 4:00 556 2234 694 2593 1250 4827 4:00 - 4:15 12 12 24 4:00 - 4:15 584 612 1196 405 - 4:30 8 6 14 4:15 - 4:30 526 766 1312 4:30 - 4s45 26 12 38 430 - 4.0 562 662 1224 4s45 - 5:00 38 84 26 56 64 140 4.45 - 5:00 598 2270 647 2707 1245 4977 Sion - 5:15 26 25 51 5:00 - 5:15 576 752 1328 5,15 - 5:30 44 30 74 5:15 - 5:30 606 $40 1446 5:30 - 5:45 66 46 112 5:30 - 5:45 579 734 1313 5:45 - 6:00 100 236 80 181 180 417 5:45 - 6.OD 563 2324 849 3175 1412 5499 6:00 - 6.15 137 97 234 6100 - 605 529 704 1233 .605 - 600 182 126 308 6:15 - 6150 513 688 1201 6z30 - 6:45 244 174 418 6:30 - 6.45 440 596 1045 6:45 - 7:00 396 959 222 619 618 1578 6:45 - 7.00 458 1949 531 2519 989 4468 7,00 - 7:15 463 248 711 7:00 - 7:15 356 462 $is 7:15 - 7:30 575 316 891 7:15 - 7:30 332 339 671 1:30 - 7:45 666 362 1028 7:30 - 7:45 338 332 670 7:45 - 8,00 816 2520 418 1344 1234 3964 7:45 - 8:00 266 1292 332 146S $98 2757 8:00 - 805 726 429 1155 8:00 - 8:15 255 302 557 8:15 - 8.30 802 460 1262 8:15 - 8:30 246 290 536 8:30 - 8:45 745 395 1140 8:30 - 8s45 249 262 511 8:45 - 9:00 714 2997 $04 17$8 1218 4775 8145 - 9s00 193 943 291 1145 484 2088 9:0D - 9:15 590 462 1052 9:00 - 9.15 232 300 532 9115 - 9.30 483 $32 1015 Q:15 - 9130 216 260 496 9.36 - 9.45 550 429 979 9:30 - 9.45 188 245 433 9s45 - 10100 566 2189 514 1937 1030 4126 9145 - 10100 158 794 232 1057 390 1851 10100 - 10:15 469 438 907 10:00 - 1005 153 185 343 10:15 - 10:30 4BO 476 956 10:15 - 10:30 718 176 294 IWO - 10:45 521 454 975 10130 - 10:45 94 136 230 10:45 - 11:00 516 1988 493 1861 loll 3649 10:45 - 11100 93 463 134 631 227 1094 Ilion - 11:15 502 458 960 11:00 - 11:15 82 124 206 11:15 - 11:30 499 482 981 11:15 - 11.30 62 87 149 11:30 - 11:45 SID $34 1044 11130 - 11:45 62 83 145 11.45 - 12:00 535 2046 550 2024 1085 4070 11,45 - 12:00 31 237 61 355 92 592 R►4R4RH4HKRRK4MA41Kef4lfKM4AksAKAA4AKA�AR4KMRRR4RRM R RRM4RMRLf Nf1f KANAKAK4RRARRR�RMRRRRMKR4Rf4Kf TOTALS 13,294 10,096 23,390 19,209 22,313 41,522 ADI'S 32,603 32,409 64,912 KfNMfMRRRMRRAffRRRRM AA1RRRf R4 MRRMMMffHHHfN1MrRfMlMfAYKKARMR1MfRfARffYfftlfffffflffKMRffRfYMRRM r_ 9TOIn '30"SOAS VIVQ DIAAYaL OZOZUSPIL XVA BTUT 9009/60/CO LOCATION CODE 03607.013 TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES, INC. RRRkRRRR:rRRR}RRRRR}RRRRMRf*ffHY#fY#i##RRRRWRRRRRRRtrrftt#ft**#*RRkRRRfRM ftitYii##R**RRRtiftt#iY*R*RWRRRRRtYee#i*#WRk LOCATION . SAN JOAQUIN MILL$-STN MACARTRUR/SAN MIGUEL AVERAGED VOLUMES FOR - TUESDAY 3/7/06 TO WEDNESDAY 3/8/06 RR}RRR}R*R}RRRRrMifiYYff+HrAMW**#WWRWf}*RRR*ftfttai**#W f*}**e###*RRRR*kkRRRRRRR#ii PM *R*RRRRHtefW#*R*fR*A"** TOTAL TIME E8 VB TOTAL iffiYRNYYWfYRRRRWRRRRRRRR}RRR*RRf#Rfi*t*ir##YkRRRRRRRRRkRRfff*#t#*Hkkk**Rkrt*eRRf##**#*RR*RRRRRff*NRRRRR TIME EG WB ItR*R339„t#*R 12.OD • MIS 13 3 16 12.00 . 12:15 181 158 176 366 12:15 • 12:30 11 2 13 12.15 - 12:30 - 12:30 12:45 210 234 168 402 12:30 - 12:45 6 8 14 16 59 12:45 • 1:00 167 792 166 668 333 1460 12:45 • 1:00 13 43 3 16 1.00 - 1:15 8 0 B 140 - 1:15 185 160 174 345 342 1:15 • 1:3D 4 6 10 7 1.15 • 1:30 - 1:30 1:45 168 180 175 355 1:30 1:45 5 2 9 7 32 1.45 - 2.00 168 701 160 669 328 1370 1:45 - 2z00 6 23 1 2:00 - 2:15 8 5 13 2:00 - 2:15 174 149 178 323 362 2.15 - 200 6 4 10 2.15 - 2:30 - 2:30 2:45 184 199 156 355 200 • 2:45 1 2 3 6 32 2:45 • 304 200 757 190 673 390 1430 2:45 - 3:00 2 17 4 15 3:00 • 3:15 3 1 4 3:00 - 3.15 242 226 254 468 463 305 - 3.30 3 0 3 3:15 • 3:30 3:30 3.45 209 196 194 386 3:30 - 3:45 1 1 2 4 13 3:45 - 4.00 214 861 192 862 406 1723 3:45 - 4:00 3 10 1 3 4:00 - 4:15 5 3 8 4.00 - 4.15 - 4:15 4.30 192 210 198 164 390 74 4z15 • 4.30 4 4 7 8 9 4.30 4:45 203 178 381 4:30 • 4:45 2 25 21 46 4.45 - 5:00 210 815 134 674 3" 1489 4:45 • 5.00 10 21 11 5:00 • 5:15 10 11 21 5.00 • 5:15 224 153 150 3" 452 505 - Sz30 14 28 42 43 5:15 - 5.30 5.30 5.45 302 267 138 425 5:30 5.45 - 5:45 6:00 9 24 5T 34 48 121 72 178 5:65 - 6.00 256 1069 161 602 417 1671 6.00 • 6:15 28 60 88 6:00 ' 605 240 302 140 136 380 430 6.15 - 6:30 58 70 128 178 6.15 - 6:30 - 6.30 6:45 251 126 330 6:30 - 6:45 • 6:45 7:00 94 151 331 84 128 342 279 673 6:45 7:00 202 995 106 508 308 1503 7:00 - 7:15 122 150 272 7:00 705 174 142 10B 92 82 2234 705 - 7-30. 95 212 307 451 5 7:105 7:30 - 7:30 - 7.45 137 68 7:30 - 7:45 - 7:45 8:00 161 2D6 584 290 27T 929 483 1513 7:45 - 8:00 108 561 64 332 172 893 8:00 • 8:30 344 526 8:00 8,15 • 6.15 - 8:30 104 111 63 58 167 169 8:30 - 8:45 182 143 397 397 6:30 8:45 82 52 134 8:30 • 8:45 - 8:45 9:00 143 157 689 254 254 250 1143 407 1837 8:45 - 9.00 81 378 52 225 133 603 900 - 9.15 165 226 391 9:00 - 9:15 84 77 56 A5 140 122 9:15 • 9:30 132 217 349 905 9:30 - 9:30 9:45 80 44 124 9:30 • 9:45 • 9:45 10:00 155 193 605 171 177 791 326 330 1396 9:45 - 10:00 60 301 42 181 102 488 10:00 10:15 159 768 327 10:00 1005 57 66 30 26 87 � 10:15 • 10:30 142 156 298 336 10:15 10:30 . 10:30 1G:45 46 43 89 10:30 - 10:45 164 172 161 657 313 1274 10:45 • 1100 32 201 25 124 57 325 10:45 - MOD 152 617 II. -OD • 11:15 161 130 291 11:00 11.15 - 11:15 - 11:30 28 23 1q 47 32 11:15 - 11:30 141 ISO Z91 301 11.30 - 11:45 22 17 39 11,30 11:45 • 11:45 - 12:00 168 184 654 133 158 571 342 1225 11:45 • 12:00 13 86 6 51 19 137 RRRR�'/r##i*#*YRYY*YR*RRRR*R*R***tfi!#k*MRRR*RRf1##ifYk*kRRRRR**#t*###*RkRRR**ft#i***RRf*RR*i####R**RRRMei**RR*RRR#f#N** 7,517 5,575 13,092 TOTALS 3,651 4,627 8,278 11,168 10,202 21,370 ADTIS I I 'VTO '0:4I " SOAS VIVA 0IdAVNI OZOZTVSVTL %Vd 6T:LT 90OZ/60/CO TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES, INC. LOCATION CODE 03407.016 Nff1NNRRRf}fRNRRRNHRfRRRRNNNRN}R}NRff ffHKRRRNNRRNRRNRHfteNRNRRpN}NIRRNNNRRNR1fiRRNRRR}RNtR LOCATION • COAST HUY4/0 HACARTHUR AVERAGED VOLUMES FOR • WEDNESDAY 3/8/06 TO THURSDAY 319/06 "*f "HNefifAfRAfefffif ANRMRNNMffiNfffHAyt}1t RRNRRHNYNfMYMfR}N}Nf PH HNfRRRNRYiiNffi'NRMN TINE NN RRRNRRRR#RNNNRNN E8 W9 TOTAL TINE EB W8 TOTAL NRHHNpNik#N##R RNRNRMMNANNf N#RRNNNAMMH##f #R#RRNNNANNNRNNRRRRfYN}RN MOD - 1205 44 39 83 12,00 - 12,15 464 384 548 12:15 - 12:30 30 37 67 MIS • MR 493 403 896 12:30 - 12:45 50 36 56 12s30 - 12:45 $36 4% 950 12:45 . 1:00 43 167 28 140 71 307 12145 - 1:00 535 2028 437 1638 972 3666 1.0.0 - 1:15 24 9 33 1800 • 1:15 444 441 085 1;15 - 100 26 19 45 1:15 - 1:30 396 398 794 1:30 - It45 20 16 36 1130 • 1:45 361 374 735 1145 • 2:00 22 92 13 57 35 149 1s45 - 2s00 406 1607 440 1653 846 3260 2:00 • 2:15 10 16 26 2;00 - 2:15 350 438 788 2:15 - 2:30 14 4 18 2.15 - 2:30 397 400 797 2:30 - 2:45 15 10 28 240 - 2145 370 430 800 2:45 • 3:00 9 51 9 39 18 90 2:45 - 3:00 402 1519 401 1669 303 3188 3:00 • 3:15 3 3 6 3:00 - 305 429 470 $99, 305 - 3:30 3 7 10 3:15 • 3:30 446 480 926 3:30 - 3145 9 8 17 3:30 - 3:45 416 42D 638 3:45 - 4:00 13 28 8 26 21 54 3s45 • 4:00 354 1647 474 19" 825 3491 4s00 - 4:15 26 14 42 4:00 - 4,15 326 4" 812 4:15 • 4:30 16 13 29 4.15 4930 346 482 830 4230 - 4:45 22 14 36 4:30 • 4345 390 422 812 4:45 - Ss00 33 99 32 73 65 172 4:45 5:00 663 1727 384 1774 1047 3501 5sD0 • 5.15, 28 35 63 5,00 . 5:15 830 422 1252 S:15 • 500 45 49 94 5:15 - 5130 7G4 391 1155 5:30 - 5:45 54 55 139 5:30 + 5:45 809 434 1243 4764 5:45 - 600 126 233 129 298 255 551 5:45 - 6:00 702 3105 412 1659 1114 6:00 - 6:15 162 122 264 6:00 - 6215 760 396 1150 6115 - 6130 255 167 422 6:15 - 600 672 382 1054 6:30 - 6:45 354 228 612 00 - 6s45 650 363 1013 6:45 • 7:00 436 1237 304 821 740 2058 6s45 - 7:00 584 2666 334 1475 918 4141 7:00 - 705 523 336 859 7:00 - 7,15 5" 274 020 7:15 - 7:30 497 463 960 7.15 - 7:30 478 76S 743 7.30 - 7:45 432 544 976 7:30 • 7:45 562 210 772 650 2985 7:45 • 0:00 552 2OD4 481 1824 1033 3828 7:4S - 8100 436 2022 214 963 8200 - 8:15 525 516 1041 8:00 805 410 186 596 552 8:15 - 813E 541 525 1066 8:15 • 8:30 303 169 8:30 • 8:45 500 526 1026 6s30 ^ 8.45 314 1454 162 153 670 476 500 2124 8:45 - 9.00 512 2078 550 2117 1062 4195 0:45 9:OD 347 9:00 • 9:15 564 526 1092 9400 - 9.15 283 176 459 548 9:15 - 9:30 410 426 696 9.15 9s30 374 174 447 9:30 • 9.45 - 9.45 10:00 486 484 2004 445 446 1845 931 930 3849 9:30 • 9.45 9:45 10100 290 251 1196 157 182 6" 433 1387 10300 - 10215 540 403 948 10:00 - 10:15 261 132 393 344 1005 - 10230 446 403 849 10:15 - 10:30 192 152 10:30 - 10:45 504 366 070 1000 - 10:45 170 784 109 101 494 279 Z62 127E 10s45 - MOD 450 1940 446 1623 896 3563 10:45 - 11s00 161 11:00 • 11:15 468 392 880 11200 - 11:15 92 108 94 200 184 11:15 - 11:30 514 378 892 11:15 • 11.30 90 141 11:30 • 11:45 - 11:45 12:DO 499 540 2040 372 366 1528 870 926 3968 1100 • 11:45 • 11:45 12:00 76 69 329 63 41 306 110 635 MRRRRNRNH1NNRt,RMRRRRRMNHYYYNHN#NNRf RRN#RRNRRRRHKYHYNttRRR N1RM#RRfiY#YRRIR#f RRtRRN##MHN#N#Nf R TOTALS 11,993 10,391 22,384 20,086 14,834 34,920 ADTIS 32,079 25,225 57,304 if fNAANNRNRfkNYRRlR##N RR NRRRRRRR}tiff f NfNf AflNMNRRNNNf ifRNAKf NN}RNNRR}1tNKfNNRf R#!NR}RkAAff f Hf I LTOI@ 'O,1II"SOAS V.LVQ DIMM OZOZT49VTL Ida BT:LT 9003/60/CO II '1 LOCATION CODE 03607.C77 TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES, INC. hRR}hW}RRRWlhRRf Rtf }ff tf1fYlf i!lYkW}WWh}YnRnnlnf YKYhhhWhRnfhRffffflYWWW#}RM1lYf fn#khnR#knnniWWYWW RRM}ff f •e LOCATION - COAST HWY-E/O NEWPORT COAST VOLUMES FOR - WEDNESDAY 3/8/06 h}}}}1hR11R1f R1hhhR}1tR1hRhANlftfkfn#WYRYf}RRRR1RYhtff YWk}MVf}W}htffllfY##lhlnhR PM klnWW}f}k}hRtfnWYWWtYRR TOTAL 71ME EB yffff 1nnlYnff #f!lKlfnflKhWRW#kRkRRKYRRRtf WB TOTAL TIME EB WB ifnf nYWhhR}}hhRRRRRKylffif#YWWRRRRRRhnlYflMYYWRRRRRynYRWYNRR'MI}hR 12:00 - 12:15 17 25 42 12:00 • 12:15 304 248 266 552 530 1205 • 12:30 28 24 52 47 12:15 - 12:30 12:30 12:45 264 264 282 546 12:30 - 12;45 - 12:45 1;00 27 14 86 20 9 78 23 164 12:45 • 1:00 252 1084 290 1086 542 2170 100 - 1:15 11 18 29 1:00 - 1:15 287 285 572 567 1:15 - 1:30 15 14 29 1.15 1:30 261 272 306 304 576 1:30 • 1:45 13 14 27 17 102 1;30 - 1,45 1.45 2:00 295 1115 331 1226 626 2341 1:45 - 2:00 7 46 10 56 2.00 - 2:15 9 10 19 2:00 2.15 289 309 306 598 602 205 - 2:30 3 6 9 2:15 • 2,30 296 288 600 200 - 2.45 10 7 17 7 52 2:30 - 2:45 • 2.45 340 312 318 1215 344 1247 662 2462 2:45 - 300 2 24 5 28 3.00 • 3:15 2 6 8 3:00 - 305 316 316 324 63Z 682 3:15 - 3:30 3 8 9 11 13 3:15 3:30 - 3:30 3:45 358 353 369 722 3:30 3:45 - 3:45 4.00 4 7 16 4 27 11 43 3:45 4:00 355 1382 356 1365 711 2747 4:00 - 4:15 9 3 12 4:00 • 405 354 376 730 4.15 - 4.30 9 5 14 4:15 - 4:30 338 315 653 742 4:30 - 4:45 9 17 54 26 46 98 4.30 4:45 - 4.45 - 5:00 420 500 1612 322 294 1307 794 2919 4:45 - 5:00 17 44 29 5:00 - 5.15 17 32 49 5:00 - 5;15 468 321 350 789 846 5.15 • 5:30 20 46 66 100 5:15 5:30 • 5:30 • 5:45 496 512 352 864 5:30 - 5:45 - 5:45 6:00 30 40 107 70 105 253 145 360 5145 - 6:00 480 1956 286 1300 766 3265 6:00 - 6:15 56 120 176 6:00 - 6:15 476 281 757 731 605 - 6:30 80 202 282 6115 - 6:30 417 314 691 6.30 - 6.45 131 205 797 342 458 1258 6:30 6:45 - 6:45 • 7:00 430 342 1665 261 220 1076 562 2741 6:45 • 7:90 188 461 270 7:00 - 7:15 226 334 560 7:00 • 7:15 301 188 489 435 705 - 7;30 300 420 720 7;15 7.30 - 7:30 - 7:45 263 271 172 138 409 7.30 • 7:45 - 7.45 8.00 231 264 1021 518 487 1759 749 751 2780 7:45 • 8:00 222 1057 156 654 378 1711 800 - 8.15 246 534 782 8;00 - 805 214 128 120 342 329 8:15 - 8.30 272 457 729 825 8:15 8,30 - 8:30 • 8:45 209 170 124 294 8:30 - 8.45 - 8:45 9:00 267 US 1065 538 497 2026 755 3091 8:45 - 9:00 ISO 773 110 482 290 1255 9:00 - 9:15 253 437 690 9:00 - 9:15 156 118 121 274 297 9;15 - 9:30 272 368 640 9:15 9130 - 9.30 • 9:45 176 151 121 272 9.30 • 9:45 - 9:45 10:00 222 238 985 351 329 1485 573 567 2470 9:45 - 10:00 121 604 123 483 244 1087 10:00 - 10:15 273 302 575 10:00 - 10:1S 142 92 108 234 10:15 - 10:30 242 300 542 1005 - 10.30 113 73 1Z2211 IWO - 10,45 - 10:45 11:00 212 240 967 322 328 1252 $34 568 2219 10:30 10:45 • 10:45 - 11:00 11D 83 448 90 363 173 811 11:00 - 11:15 218 274 492 11:00 • 11:15 51 83 134 101 11.15 - 11.30 268 285 553 11.15 - 11130 46 55 46 96 11:30 • 11:45 279 304 583 11:30 - 11.45 50 26 173 39 223 65 396 11:45 - 12.00 259 1024 310 1173 569 2197 11:45 • 12:CO RRRRWRRRIRRRI1nRMI,RRRRRyRWRRR1rRttYff*fnWWWfRMRfIRRnRRRRRRnRYf#tYfkYYWWRhff1MRRRYtRRfWYnYYYY}RWWR}RRRYRRRRYWYYYWYW 23,905 TOTALS 5,846 8,988 14,834 13,084 10,821 18,930 19,609 38,739 AOT3S }RRRRM}}}AAA }}1fRR}hRnk}WRRRMhhRRnfnffff WfnYWYWYRIhR}f RnRhRRRfffnfefnnWMW4Mf RRRhRRRRtWHekf/YWW WRYYMRRRRf fy BTO[in '00 " SDAS VIVQ DI33VUI OZOZT695TL XV3 OZ:LT 90OZ/60/CO TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES, INC. LOCATION 000E 03607.014 RRNRMRRNMRRM R\RAMRRRA#Rff Hf HRf»MAfMlf }!AR»\RRR RN1RMRf}R»»f»f f}ftRYARR#RfRRR} W R»»fAN»iMMY#»RRMf LOCATION - COAST NY -JUST E/O SANTA ANA RIVER AVERAGED VOLUMES FOR WEDNESDAY 3/8/06 TO TINIRSOAY 3/9/06 tHMMNRRRNMRRRR/RRRRRR MfRRRRR»f»1MfffMflfN NM MRRNRMRRMR}RRRA»f! PM lifRfRRRHff}MflfltfffW TIME EB NB TOTAL TIME ER 11B TOTAL YRMfR\lfMfff WMitf W kiklY W RIRi»fiMR\Rff}R\fRRRN\RRRMRRRNHHHMNIklfiifRMAWR\MRMRRfN W fRRNfttlM/i\R\R 12s00 ^ 12-IS 29 60 89 1200 - 12:15 256 284 540 12:15 - 12:30 32 48 80 12:15 - 12:30 247 297 544 12:30 - 12:45 22 38 60 1200 - 12:45 201 268 549 12:45 - I100 20 103 25 171 45 274 12:45 - I:OO 310 1094 264 1113 $74 2207 1:00 - 1,15 17 23 40 1100 - Ills 241 271 s12 Ills - 1130 14 22 36 Ills - 1:30 265 278 546 1:30 - 1:45 18 19 37 1:30 ts45 242 289 531 1145 - 2100 13 62 20 84 33 146 1:45 • 2:00 266 1017 322 1160 588 2177 2100 . 2175 14 19 33 2,00 - 2:15 238 304 542 2115 - 2.30 10 9 19 2:15 - 2:30 290 352 642 2:30 - 2:45 7 8 15 2t30 , 2s45 274 320 594 2:45 - 3:00 3 34 9 45 12 79 2:45 - 300 310 1112 414 1390 724 2502 3100 - 305 8 12 20 3tO0 - 3:15 255 391 646 305 - 3130 4 6 10 3.15 - 3:30 2% 474 77o 300 - 3t45 9 9 18 3:30 - 3:45 282 521 803 3:45 • 4100 9 30 16 43 25 73 3:45 - 4:00 290 1123 528 1914 $18 3037 4.00 - 405 1& 10 26 4.00 - 405 278 $37 $15 4:15 - 4:30 14 18 32 4:15 - 4:30 268 606 874 4:30 - 4:45 22 7 29 4t30 - 4145 280 664 944 4s45 - 5:00 32 84 20 55 52 139 4:45 - 5100 302 112E 620 2427 922 3555 5.00 - 5:15 31 28 59 5:00 - 5:15 no 722 972 5t15 . 5:30 36 32 66 5:15 - 5t30 294 788 1082 5t30 - 5c4S 69 39 108 5.30 - 5:45 306 760 1066 5:45 - 6.00 128 264 SO 149 178 413 5:45 - 6:00 322 1172 688 2958 1010 4130 6:00 - 6:15 ISO 48 198 6:00 - 6:15 284 659 943 605 - 6:30 238 96 334 6:15 - 6:30 336 614 950 6130 - 6145 369 102 471 6:30 - 6s45 245 529 774 6t45 - 7:00 472 1229 140 386 $12 1615 6.45 - 7:00 272 1137 406 2208 67B 3345 7100 - 7:15 502 164 666 7:00 - 7:15 190 326 516 705 - 7.30 643 100 833 1`05 - 7:30 169 334 503 7.30 - 7:45 712 238 950 7:30 - 7:45 170 259 429 7:45 - 8:00 951 2808 208 880 1239 36M 7145 - 8:00 156 685 288 1207 444 1892 6.00 - 8:15 686 233 919 8:00 - 8.15 144 235 379 9:15 - 800 726 268 1014 8t15 - 8:30 132 234 366 Odd - 8:45 716 254 970 8:30 - 8:45 127 204 331 8:45 - 9:00 708 2836 256 1031 %4 3867 8:45 • 9:00 I18 521 188 861 306 1382 900 - 9:15 463 216 679 9.00 - 9.15 113 174 291 9M - 9130 370 228 598 9115 - 9:30 119 239 358 9:30 - 9:45 324 228 552 900 - 9145 96 194 NO 9t45 - MOO 383 1540 209 Sol 592 AZI 9145 - 10,00 92 420 194 805 286 IM 10100 - lolls 284 208 492 10:00 - 10:15 94 162 256 10:15 - 10:30 253 234 487 10t15 - 1o:30 % 124 220 10%30 - 1Ot45 257 263 $20 10:30 - 10:45 86 107 193 10:45 - IWO 298 1092 224 929 522 2021 10:45 - 11:00 66 342 104 497 170 839 11100 - 11t15 250 269 $19 11:00 - 11:15 55 78 133 11:15 - 11:30 234 218 452 11115 - 11:30 54 67 121 1100 , 11:45 253 257 510 11t30 - 11245 36 84 120 lit45 - 12:00 252 989 244 992 50o 1981 11t4S - 12:00 53 198 53 282 106 460 RNYNRM\RNtMRN RtR#RRRRRRMHf»fiffYNMMNRMf1MRM»}N! W RNfRRRNRMRRNfffMRRR W RRRRRRtfRfiMRRRYRMR\}\RR TOTALS 11,071 5,646 16,717 9,949 16,822 26,771 ADTJS 21,020 22,468 43,488 NNfRMYHNY W \M W RARMRR»f!flfRf»fNRRRMRNRttRR»HHWMt\i\RRRRRMYHf»NfiftAYR RfRfff»fetY WRMR#RRtRRRH! 9TOO 'ONI"SOAS Y,LVO 0I33VILL 0309TV2M %VH OT:LT 900Z/80/CO I TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES, INC. LOCATION CODE 03607.003 fRRRRRRMRYNf+tM+H111RRRRkRRkRYWRYkWW#ifxwHWi+lffxWfrriftfeftffWRWfewRWrWRfIRfIfWRRWRW1ffRWRRwNR1NfWWtf+lff+}YRMf1W ' LOCATION - BALBOA-STN 23RD/15TH AVERAGED VOLUMES FOR - WEDNES04Y 3/8/06 TO THURSDAY 3/9/06 *RRR**RWWWHfirkWWRlkfikkfW TINE AM +++xftrr:/MWR)RRRRRwRRRRR NB sB TOTAL RIRWWNWk1R%WtR+WWW'H'WHfWM pM ftfeµfHeWw4ffftwo".tlt TIME NB 88 TOTAL W4+fWRRRRWRMRfRWKWY4efeffRtRNRRRRRRrtrtIMNNNR%+i4+ff++Wi4ffftffRYRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRY%RRRWWRRfRWYRYRYMIYffWRYRYR%YYRR1RffYN 12,00 12:15 21 27 48 12:00 - 12;15 169 140 309 12,15 - 12:30 12 21 33 12.15 - 12:30 135 202 337 12:30 - 12:45 14 19 33 12.30 - 12,45 160 164 324 12:45 - 1:00 25 72 23 90 48 162 12.45 - 1:00 168 632 195 701 363 1333 1:00 - 1.15 16 16 32 4:00 - 105 184 214 398 1:15 - 1:30 16 13 29 1:15 - 1:30 239 174 413 1:30 - 1.45 11 10 21 1:30 - 1;45 155 150 305 1.45 - 2.00 5 48 8 47 13 95 1:45 - Z.-DO 149 727 197 735 346 1462 2:00 - 2.15 - 205 2:30 7 8 8 6 15 14 2:00 • 2:15 - 2:15 2:30 156 209 184 144 340 353 2.30 - 2145 7 6 13 2.30 - 2;45 138 168 306 2:45 - 3:00 2 24 8 28 10 52 2:45 • 3:00 1" 647 180 676 324 1323 3.00 - 305 4 2 6 3:00 - 305 145 189 334 305 . 3:30 1 2 3 305 - 3:30 ISO 162 342 300 - 3:45 6 2 8 3:30 - 3:45 196 224 410 3:45 - 4:00 5 16 4 10 9 26 3.45 • 4:00 194 705 179 754 373 1459 ' 4.00 - 4.15 8 7 15 4:00 - 4:15 193 190 383 4:15 - 4:30 10 1 11 4:15 - 4,30 184 157 341 4.30 - 4:45 6 7 13 4:30 - 4.45 179 186 365 4:45 - S:00 - 5:00 5:15 11 35 19 3 6 18 14 53 25 4.45 - 9-00 - 5.00 505 174 730 149 204 737 184 378 1467 333 5:15 - 5:30 26 9 35 5:15 - 5;30 155 202 357 5:30 - 5:45 36 10 46 5.30 - 5145 136 218 354 5:45 - 6.00 44 125 22 47 66 172 5.45 - 6:00 152 592 225 829 377 1421 6:00 - 6:15 66 27 93 6;00 - 6:15 174 249 423 6:15 - 6:30 63 36 99 60S - 6:30 157 238 395 6:30 - 6:45 88 42 130 6:30 - 6;45 162 201 363 ' 6.45 - 7:00 123 340 75 180 198 520 6:45 - 7:00 118 611 222 910 340 152.1 7.00 - 7:15 134 87 221 7:00 - 7:15 126 166 292 7:15 - 7:30 176 86 262 7:15 - 7:30 95 166 261 7.30 - 7:45 210 116 326 7.30 - 7:45 115 129 244 7:45 - 8:00 248 768 220 509 468 1277 7:45 - 8:00 102 438 132 593 234 1031 11:00 - 8:15 Us 170 438 8:00 - 8:15 107 146 253 8:15 - 6.30 - 8:30 8.45 192 220 107 112 299 332 8:15 - 8.30 - 8,30 8.45 85 105 113 124 198 229 8:45 - 9:D0 176 856 142 531 318 1387 8:45 - 9:00 118 415 128 $11 2" 926 9:00 - 9:15 195 12B 323 9:00 - 9:15 134 116 250 905 - 9:30 146 134 280 9:15 - 9.30 78 104 182 9:30 - 9:45 135 112 247 9:30 - 9.45 94 116 21D 9;45 - 10:00 132 608 146 520 278 1128 9:45 - 10,00 74 380 86 422 1611 902 ' 10:00 - 10:15 154 145 299 10:00 • 10:15 59 52 98 69 157 121 1005 - 10:30 132 126 258 10:15 10:30 10.30 • 10:45 160 134 294 10:30 - 10.45 34 67 101 10:45 - 11:00 157 603 130 535 287 11311 10:45 - 11:00 50 195 54 288 104 483 11.00 - 11-15 ISO 118 268 11.00 - 1105 29 55 84 1105 - 11.30 148 148 296 11:15 - 11:30 30 39 69 11:30 - 11:45 124 124 248 11:30 • 11:45 24 33 57 11:45 - 12:00 174 596 158 548 332 1144 11.45 - 12:00 18 101 28 155 46 256 ' RWRRWRRRRRRRRRRRYWRRRR1fRM1RWRWWW4RWMfRRRFRkRRRRRWRNRRRRRNRRRRFWRRRRRRRRRRf+WMt11WWttHfe+W+iWWi4YYWW%MRRRRNRMRRRRRRR TOTALS 4,091 3,063 7,154 6,173 7,311 13,484 ADT'S 19,264 10,374 20,08 WWWWWWWW4W4W+1f++ff++ffWRWR1ffRWWWltteffiWW4teffYW+YYMWWRWW%%MN%RWNNNRWRRRRMRRRRRRRRRRRFTfff WWrrtaWW+iYWWNRRIMWRRRRRRW POPE axr'•sans vsva aiddVxs, OZOZTD9DTL $Vd LT:LT 9009/60/90 TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES, INC. LOCATION CODE 63607.CO4 RlfRffNfeNtefffff KNRtRRKRRR H#RRRRRRRRNKtRtR}fH}RRNRHRNglffNAN NHftebKbNKNNlYffRRRRfRRRRRRRRRIIRRR LOCATION - IRVINE-8/0 22NDISAATIAGO AVERAGED VOLUMES FOR • TUESDAY 3/7106 TO WEDNESDAY 3/8/06 MRRRN NRRMfRMNRKK/HfAMNNKNNNNNRNHKfN ifN NfaKalaafiaaff#YYAAAi DN RRRRN RRNHHfifffHNN TINE NR SO TOTAL TIME MR S8 TOTAL RRKNN/ffff}NR/Nf R#RRRRNRRRf RRRRRRtRRK NRK K RRRMRNRR}NRkRKRR fH RN} MHff N#H/faf KHYKiNKf fNlNtYNYK1 12:00 - 12:15 12 14 26 IWO - 12115 170 288 458 12:15 • IWO 8 12 20 12:15 - 12.30 204 264 468 12130 - VAS 9 9 18 12:30 • 12:45 190 264 454 12145 - 1.00 5 34 4 39 9 73 12145 - lc00 221 785 259 1075 450 1660 1300 - 1:15 6 14 20 1100 - 105 231 202 433 1:15 • 1.30 6 7 13 1:15 - 1.30 212 230 442 1;30 - 1:45 8 5 13 1:30 • 1:45 194 226 420 1:45 • 2:00 8 28 5 31 13 59, 1:45 • 2.00 216 $53 204 862 420 1715 2c00 - 2115 3 4 7 2:o0 - 2,15 200 204 404 205 • 2:30 3 5 8 2:15 - 2130 196 204 400 2.30 - 2:45 2 4 6 2:30 - 2:45 180 232 412 2:45 • 3:00 0 8 2 15 2 23 2:45 - 3:00 208 784 265 905 473 1689 3:00 - 3:15• 1 2 3 3.00 • 3:15 228 242 470 305 - 3:30 3 3 6 3:15 - 3:30 240 307 547 3130 - 3.45 1 4 S 3:30 - 3:45 218 226 444 3:45 - 4:00 1 6 4 13 5 19 3:45 - 4:00 202 888 275 1050 477 1938 4:00 - 405 6 5 11 400 - 4:15 215 236 451 4:15 - 4.30 6 5 11 405 - 4:30 194 277 471 4130 - 4:45 6 11 17 4:30 - 4:45 221 240 481' 4145 - 5.00 8 26 14 35 22 61 4:45 - 5:00 US $55 342 1115 567 1970 5100 - 5:15 12 6 18 Sion - 5215 203 340 543 5:15 • 5:30 21 11 32 5:15 - 5130 209 402 611 5130 - 5;45 47 16 63 5:30 - 5t45 182 391 573 5:45 - 61DO 54 134 28 61 82 195 5:45 • 6,00 200 794 478 1611 678 2405 6:00 • 6115 51 39 90 6:00 - 6.15 198 352 550 6:15 • 6130 57 42 99 6:15 - 6:30 192 356 545 6:30 - 6:45 72 92 164 6130 - 6:45 158 314 472 6.45 • 1':00 143 323 90 263 233 $86 6145 - 7100 116 664 233 1255 349 1919 7:00 - 7:15 151 130, 281 710d - 7:15 146 226 372 705 - 7130 241 114 415 7:15 - 7,30 114 193 307 7130 - 7145 289 250 539 7:30 - 7:45 108 166 274 7:45 - 8:00 470 1151 210 764 680 1915 7145 - Sion 89 457 149 734 238 1191 8:00 • 8:15 46D 184 644 8:00 - 8215 96 118 214 8115 - 4.30 403 154 587 6:15 - 8:30 91 IDS 199 8:30 • 8.45 381 216 597 830 - 8:45 78 106 184 8145 - 9.00 298 1542 169 753 467 295 6.45 - 9:00 66 351 87 419 173 770 9:00 - 9.15 254 198 452 9:00 - 9:15 67 $8 155 9:15 - 9.30 230 174 404 90S • 9,30 72 88 160 9:3D - 9.45 193 167 360 900 - 9145 57 74 131 9:45 - lining 166 843 179 718 345 1561 9:4$ - 10:00 50 246 59 309 109 555 10:00 - 10:15 203 168 371 10100 - 10115 52 63 115 10:15 • 10:30 144 171 315 10:15 - 10:30 46 70 116 10.30 - 10:45 146 152 298 10,30 • 10:45 23 64 87 10:45 • 11:00 172 665 173 664 345 1329 10:45 - 11:00 21 142 34 231 55 373 11:00 • 11.15 168 188 356 11:00 - 11:15 24 24 48 11:15 - 11:30 170 189 359 11:15 - 11:30 16 24 40 11130 - 11:45 156 174 330 11130 - 11:45 15 30 45 11145 - 12-00 183 677 242 793 425 1470 11:45 - 12:00 11 66 12 90 23 156 MRRRRRRRRt*R1tRRRR/rRRRMffiKiKfiRKiRRRfKf RRRRRRRRRRRRKRKRRLiMAtRKRRRRRR RRRRMMtKRRNRHKRRKRHRKRRRRRfRRRRR R TOTAL$ 5,437 4,149 9,586 6,885 9,656 16,541 ADI'S 12,322 13,505 261127 NfNffKKKffiKRf RYtkYRRRRRRRRRRRRRNKf/f NA/Rf RKRRRRRRRff •f Hf f KRf if RRRIMRfff NNffNR NRNRKf //KN f RRf R# RfiRK 900121 00 "SDAS VZVQ 0Idd1'ILL ,_ OZOZTVSVTL Wd LT:LT 9009/60/CO I 1 ATTACHMENT B ' COAST HIGHWAY EAST OF MACARTHUR BOULEVARD PEAKING AND DIRECTIONALITY CHARACTERISTICS II u Ll J 1 1 Coast e/o MacArthur I 1 1 1 1 1 1_ AM PEAK HOUR �� VOLUMEI PERCENT PM PEAK HOUR T VOLUME EB WB EB+WB PERCENT AM+PM EB WB EB+WB EB WB EB _ WB EB JWB EB+WB 2002 1362 2107 3469 39.3% 60.7% 2142 2107 4249 50.4% 49.6% 3504 4214 7718 2006 GROWTH 2117 755 2129 4246 49.9% 3105 1659 4764 65.2% 34.8% 5222 1718 3788 -426 -10% 9010 1292 22 96_3 -448 %GROWTH 55% 1% 45% -21% - 49% 170% U:\UcJobs\ 01200\01232\Exce112006CountDirectionali .xls Sheet3_ f _ M M m M� �m � M M M M� � i M 'm} 'J 1 J J k Hour Volume2I)a jAM Peak % of D PM PMCoaste/oMacArthur4192 4764 7% 8% Coast e/o MacArthur AM 976 1033 1041 1066 4116 1026 4166 1062 4195 ends at 9:15 1092 4246 PM 1047 1252 1155 1243 4697 ends at6:00 1114 4764 1156 4668 1054 4567 � I =I U:\UcJobs\ 01200\01232\Excel\ 2006CountDirectionalit .xls Sheet2