Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout13.13 TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE*NEW FILE* 3.33 TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE 0 ORDINANCE NO. 94- 2 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 15.40.030(C) OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE TO CHANGE THE EXEMPTION CRITERIA IN THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE The City Council of the City of Newport Beach DOES ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council finds and declares that: a. The Traffic Phasing Ordinance, adopted in 1978, has been an effective tool of the City in assuring that necessary intersection improvements occur in a timely manner with new development; and b. Since the adoption of the Ordinance, no intersection improvement has been required of any development which generates 300 average daily trips (ADT) or less; and c. It is unlikely than any small development generating 300 ADT will be required to make an intersection improvement pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance; and d. The cost of preparing a traffic study is substantial, and significant time delays to new development are experienced as a result of the requirement to prepare a traffic study; and e. Relief from the requirement to prepare a traffic study will benefit the establishment of smaller businesses in the City, facilitate the creation of jobs and positively impact economic development; and f. The changes to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance will not create any inconsistency between the General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements; and g. The changes to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance will not affect the City's compliance with the programs mandated by Proposition I I I and Measure M; and h. The project has been reviewed is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. SECTION 2. Section 15.40.030(C) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended to read: Exemption. Any project which has an Average Daily Trip generation of 300 daily trips or less shall be exempt from the requirements of this Chapter. SECTION 3. This Ordinance shall be published once in the official newspaper of the City and the same shall be effective thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption. This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held on the 24th day of January . 1994, and was adopted on the 14th day of February . 1994, by the following vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS SANSONE, WATT, TURNER HART COX, DERAY NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NONE ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS HEDGES Ceti MAYOR ATTEST: COUNCIL MEMBERS 4#"ITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Q MINUTES 41 ROLL CALL Motion All Ayes February 14, 1994 INDEX 28. Mayor Turner opened the public hearing Ord 94-2 Traffic regarding proposed ORDINANCE 10. 94-2_, being. Phasing AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL (26) OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING SECTION 15.40.030(C) OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE To CHANGE THE ESEEPTION CRITERIA IN THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE. Report from Planning Department. The City Manager stated that if approved, the proposed amendment will change certain provisions of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. As proposed by the Economic Development Committee, the change will increase the exemption threshold from 130 Average Daily Trips and to 300 Average Daily Trips, and eliminate the building square and dwelling units thresholds contained within the exemption section. Hearing no one wishing to address the Council, the public hearing was closed. Council Member Watt stated that she concurs in the above recommendation inasmuch as she felt it will not change the "good" of the Ordinance, however, she reserves the right to bring it back at a future date. x In view of the foregoing, notion was made by Council Member Coz to adopt Ordinance No. 94-2; and amend Council Psaicy L-1the AdZjnXSrr&r1V8 procedures fox lamenting the traffic P 4sing Ordinance, consistent with Ordinance 94-2. Ord 94-3 9. Mayor Turner opened the public hearing regarding proposed ORDINANCE NO. 94-3, Zoning being, (94) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING TITLE 20 OF THE NEWPORT CH MUNICIPAL CODE SO AS TO SE VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE ZO G CODE CHANGING THE TION OF GROSS FLOOR AREAS TO IN E THOSE PORTIONS OF RESIDENT BUILDINGS OR RELATED STRUCTURES CH, SPAN MORE THAN ONE FLOOR WHICH ARE LOCATED OVER UNINHABI LE AREAS (PLANNING PCA 789 COMMISSION No. 789). Report from Planning Depa ment. The Planning Director advise that the proposed amendment is a follow- to the problem the City was having with c rtain duplexes on Balboa Island and the -construction of clerestory are , specifically in the areas of garages a opposed to other inhabitable areas of Volume 48 - Page 48 COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY OF NE"ORT BEAC" MINUTES Motion All Ayes x February 14, 1994 The. City Clerk advised that after the agenda was printed, a letter of protest was received from Mike Hoskinson of the Spaghetti Bender, 6204 W. Coast Highway. The Public Works Director stated that following a public hearing that was held n October 12, 1992, the Council irected the staff to use a procedure of pter 27 of the Improvement Act of 1 1 to complete the remaining curb and si awalk on 62nd Street and on Prospect Str at between Coast Highway and Newport She s Drive. Under this procedure the prop ty owners are responsible for compl ting the frontage improvements as is the case uniformly elsewhere in the City. The City paid the cost of constru tang the 62nd Street pavement. This pro act was initiated to improve drainage onditions, and it has made some impr ement to provide a place for pedestrian to walk on the narrow streets, an to improve the appearance in an area t has been upgrading for the past sev ral years. The work was done under a competitively bid public works contract with the final cost to the ppropperty o era ranging from $1,133 to $2,977. The aving costs to the City on 62nd Street was a little over $200000; in addi on, the City funded the cost of eng caring and contract administration. Reference was made \to the letter of protest received and eferenced earlier by the City Clerk, "'rein the Public Works Director stated that the staff will continue to work w th the affected property owner's to resol the driveway, grade and drainage pr\per to the extent that is possible o. The policy typa objections weard and considered at a previoushearing when it was decided to prith this project. He recommended tCouncil confirm the assessmentslow the property owners three yepay for the improvements purto an agreement at a rate of ear on the unpaid balance. Hearing no others wishing to addredp the Council, the public hearing was eloped. Council Member Debay stated that she kas met twice previously with Mr. Hoskin u regarding his concerns, and that t Public Works Director has assured he that the staff and she would be meeting with him again to work on those problems; therefore, she moved to confirm the assessments and allow the property owner three ears in which to pay his assessment with an interest rate of 6% per anus on the unpaid balance. Voltsse 48 - Page 47 62nd St Cnstr/PCH Prospect S1 City Council Meeting February 1!& 1994 Agenda Item No. 28 • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Planning Department ( 'k SUBJECT: Ordinance No 94-2 (Traffic Phasing Ordinance) Request to amend Section 15.40.030(C) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (Traffic Phasing Ordinance) to change the exemption thresholds contained within the ordinance. INITIATED BY: City of Newport Beach Pro osal • If approved, the proposed amendment will change certain provisions of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. As proposed by the Economic Development Committee, the change will increase the exemption threshold from 130 Average Daily Trips (ADT) to 300 ADT, and eliminate the building square footage and dwelling units thresholds contained within the exemption section. Sunoested Action Hold hearing, close hearing; if desired, adopt Ordinance No. 94-2, being AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING SECTION 15.40.030(C) OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE TO CHANGE THE EXEMPTION CRITERIA IN THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE &KIND • Amend Council Policy L-18, the Administrative Procedures for Implementing the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, consistent with Ordinance No. 94-2. Environmental Significance This project has been reviewed and it has been determined that the project is categorically exempt under Class 5 - Minor Alterations in Land Use Limits. TO: Vr and Members of the City Council - V " Discussion The Economic Development Committee has reviewed several aspects of the City's regulatory structure, One of the regulations reviewed was the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. In this review it was the position of staff that the Ordinance is a critical component of the City's program to • provide for correlated land use and circulation system planning, as well as an important compliance mechanism for the requirements of Proposition 111 and Measure M. Therefore, the review of Ordinance criteria was aimed at the elimination of unnecessary traffic studies as opposed to substantially altering the ability of the Ordinance to achieve impact mitigation. Currently, a Traffic Study is required of all new commercial and industrial development which is greater than 10,000 square feet or generates Average Daily Traffic (ADT) greater than 130 daily trips, as well as any residential project with more than 10 dwelling units. Staff reviewed all projects which were required to have traffic studies approved since the original adoption of the Ordinance in 1978. This review showed that no project generating 300 ADT or less had ever been required to make an intersection improvement pursuant to the requirements of the Ordinance. Therefore staff proposed to the Committee that the exemption threshold be increased to the 300 ADT level since it was unlikely that a project with this level of traffic generation would be required to make an intersection improvement. The establishment of the new exemption level will significantly lower the number of projects which are subject to the Ordinance, and relieve those projects of the significant costs ($5,000 to $10,000 and higher) and time delays (8 to 10 weeks) associated with this category of approval. • Also proposed is the elimination of the commercial and industrial square footage thresholds, and the residential dwelling unit thresholds. In making thisrecommendation, it is the opinion of staff that the critical issue is the traffic generated by a project, and not the size of the building or the number of dwelling units. It should be noted that, in making the determination of daily trip generation, the staff uses the trip table contained in the traffic model, and would require a trip generation study if a proposed use did not fit into any of the land use categories listed in the trip table. Attached to this report is Council Policy L-18, with the changes needed to achieve consistency with the changes to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance indicated in stfikeeut and underline format. Respectfully submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. BEWICKER, Director By--"-n"L— • Patricia L. Temple Advance Planning Manager Attachments: 1. Ordinance No. 94-2 2. Council Policy L-18 PLT:..\Wn4 WORD\TI'MMOC l-I ORDINANCE NO. 94_ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO • SECTION 15.40.030(C) OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE TO CHANGE THE EXEMPTION CRITERIA IN THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE The City Council of the City of Newport Beach DOES ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council finds and declares that: a. The Traffic Phasing Ordinance, adopted in 1978, has been an effective tool of the City in assuring that necessary intersection improvements occur in a timely manner with new development, and b. Since the adoption of the Ordinance, no intersection improvement has been required of any development which generates 300 average daily trips (ADT) or less; and c. It is unlikely than any small development generating 300 ADT will be required to make an intersection improvement pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance; and d. The cost of preparing a traffic study is substantial, and significant time delays to • new development are experienced as a result of the requirement to prepare a traffic study; and e. Relief from the requirement to prepare a traffic study will benefit the establishment of smaller businesses in the City, facilitate the creation of jobs and positively impact economic development; and f. The changes to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance will not create any inconsistency between the General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements; and g. The changes to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance will not affect the Citys compliance with the programs mandated by Proposition I I I and Measure M; and h. The project has been reviewed is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. SECTION 2. Section 15.40.030(C) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended to read: • Exemption. Any project which has an Average Daily Trip generation of 300 daily trips or less shall be exempt from the requirements of this Chapter. SECTION 3. This Ordinance shall be published once in the official newspaper of the City and the same shall be effective thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption. 4 This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City ofNewport Beach held on the 24th day of January 1994, and was adopted on ` the day of 1994, by the following vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS • NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK rU' %W1 NW0=TPOORooOC • • yJ • • ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMEI THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE I. Administrative Procedures A. General: L-18 These procedures apply to all projects which have an Average Daily Trip generator of more than 300139-daily B. Evaluating Projects: 1. The applicant files a request for consideration of the entire project, under the provisions of the Ordinance, with the Planning Department The request must be accompanied by a project description, project phasing schedule, site plan, and fees as set by the City Council. 2. A traffic analysis shall then be prepared by a qualified traffic engineer under contract to the City according to the methodology approved by the City Council. 3. The traffic analysis shall evaluate the traffic generated from all proposed land uses. Subject to the provisions of sub -section BA., in the case of conversion of an existing building to a more intense land use, the incremental difference in traffic generated by the development shall be evaluated. 4. Traffic generated by both existing and proposed land • uses shall be evaluated for any project proposed subsequent to, and within the time frame for analysis used by (one year subsequent to the anticipated date of occupancy), a previously approved Traffic Study. C. Staff Recommendation: 5 D. 1. The City's Traffic Engineer will review the report prepared by the consultant and transmit the findings and worksheet to the Planning Department for presentation • to the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Review and Findings: The Planning Commission shall review the determination and recommendations of the Traffic Engineer and the Planning Department, at a duly noticed public hearing, and make one of the following findings: 1. The City has issued a building or grading permit for the project prior to May 8, 1978, and that the person to whom such permit was issued has, in good faith and in reliance upon such permit, diligently commenced construction and performed and incurred substantial liabilities for work and materials necessary therefor. No change, causing a substantial increase in traffic volumes, has been made in such project, except in accordance with the provisions of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance; or 2. The traffic projected one year after project completion, during any a.m. or p.m. 2.5 hour peak traffic period on each leg of each critical intersection, will be increased less than 1% by traffic generated from the project during any a.m. or p,m. 2.5 hour period, or 3. A traffic analysis has been performed and accepted. The traffic analysis was based on the projected street system and projected traffic volumes one year after completion of the project or portion of the project for which the traffic analysis was performed. The traffic analysis has shown that, at that time, the additional traffic generated by the project, or portion of the project, including any approved trip generation reduction measures: • a. will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on any "major," "primary modified," or "primary" streets, iT or • b. may cause or make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on one or more "major," "primary modified," or "primary" streets; or C. may cause or make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on one or more "major," "primary modified," or "primary" streets, however, the benefits outweigh the anticipated negative impact on transportation facilities, for the following reasons: (specify) E. Approval of Applications: A simple majority vote by the Planning Commission, subject to City Council review or appeal, is required for finding D.1, D.2, D.3.a., or D.3.b. A four -fifths majority vote by the Planning Commission (or by the City Council on appeal or review) is required for finding D.3.c. . F. Appeals: 1. The determination of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council pursuant to the procedure set forth in Section 20.80.070 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 2. The City Council shall have a Right of Review as set forth in Section 20.80.075 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Il. Outline of Methodology for Traffic Analyses A. Designation of Impacted Intersections and Determination of Project Impact for the a.m. and p.m. 2.5 Hour Peak Periods: 1. The Traffic Engineer will determine which intersections • will be affected by the proposed project according to its size and geographic location. 2. An analysis will be done whereby it will be determined if one year after completion of the project, or portions of the project for which the traffic analysis is being performed, the project (including those portions for 7 which traffic analyses have been previously approved) will generate one percent or more of the projected traffic volumes for each leg of each impacted intersection during that a.m. and p.m. 2.5 hour peak periods. If less • than a one percent increase is demonstrated for each leg, then the analysis is concluded, and finding LD.1 may be made. B. If the initial Traffic Study indicated the project, or portion of the project; for which the traffic analysis is being performed, one year after completion may generate one percent or more of projected traffic volumes on one or more legs of any impacted intersection, then the Traffic Engineer or a qualified consultant will analyze the intersection capacity utilization for the impacted intersection(s): The report will indicate the following: 1. Existing traffic. 2. Projected increases in regional traffic by using the • transportation model and average growth rate for each roadway over the preceding five (5) years. 3. Projected traffic from committed projects including all projects within the City and sphere -of -influence including the Newport Dunes, the Irvine Coastal Area, Santa Ana Heights, Beeco-Banning property and additional projects as determined by the Traffic Engineer which would have significant traffic impacts in the City. 4. Traffic generated by the proposed project, or portion of the project, without trip generation reduction measures. 5. Traffic generated by the proposed project, or portion of the project, with approved trip generation reduction measures. C. Where a full traffic analysis is performed under Section IlB, the • following LC.U. calculations shall be performed for each impacted intersection: 1. The existing LC.U. 2. The I.C.U., with traffic system improvements that will be NJ installed before one year after project completion. This I.C.U. calculation shall be based on all projected traffic • sources except the proposed project. 3. The I.C.U., with traffic system improvements that will be installed before one year after project completion, based on all sources of traffic, including traffic generated by the proposed project, with approved trip generation reduction measures. I.C.U. calculations shall assume a lane capacity value of 1600 vphg for both through and turn lanes; no factor for yellow time shall be included. LC.U. calculations shall be carried to three decimal places and rounded to two decimal places. III. Definitions and Analysis Restraints A. Traffic System Improvements: Traffic system improvements may be included in the traffic • analysis for a proposed project, provided that: 1. The improvement will be completed no more than one year after completion of the project or project phase for which the traffic analysis is being performed; and 2. The improvement is included in the Circulation Element of the General Plan, and is defined sufficiently therein to permit an I.C.U. analysis to be performed; or 3. The improvement design has been approved by the City Council, and is defined sufficiently to permit an I.C.U. analysis to be performed. B. Projected Capacity Increases from Traffic System Improvements: For purposes of the traffic analysis, 70% of the incremental • increase in intersection capacity (based on a capacity of 1600 vehicles per hour of green time for each full traffic lane) shall be utilized. Upon completion of the improvement, traffic volume counts shall be updated, and any additional available capacity may then be utilized in future traffic analyses. C. Traffic Volumes: I D. 1. Traffic volumes shall be based on up-to-date estimates of traffic volumes expected to exist one year after • completion of the project, or portion of the project, for which the traffic analysis is being performed. Such estimates shall include existing traffic as determined by biennial field counts plus traffic generated by previously approved projects or portions of projects expected to exist in the same time period plus estimated increases in regional traffic. If the intersection configuration being analyzed is the ultimate configuration consistent with the Circulation Element or otherwise approved by the City Council, then the traffic volumes used in the analysis shall include total traffic expected to be generated from all previously approved projects even if they will not be completed at the time the subject project is completed. 2. The incremental regional traffic for the time period between the date of existing counts and one year after • project completion will be estimated based on the rate projected by the traffic model or on a growth projection developed by the Traffic Engineer and approved by the Planning Commission. 3. For making the 1% test of I1A.2., traffic volumes shall not be used which exceed the capacity of the circulation system specified in the General Plan. Trip Generation: 1. Trip generation estimates for the project shall be based on standard trip generation values established by the City Traffic Engineer. Standard trip generation rates may be modified only when the applicant proposes specific, permanent measures that will reduce peak hour traffic generated by the project, provided that: a. The applicant describes in writing, in advance of • the traffic analysis, the proposed measure, the estimated reduction in trip generation that will result, and the basis for the estimate. The estimate must be approved by the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal or review before the trip 10 0 0 generation figures may be reduced, and • b. The applicant provides the Planning Commission with a written assurance that the proposed trip generation reduction measure will be permanently implemented, and agrees to make said permanent implementation a condition for project approval. 2. Credit shall be given for existing uses on the project site except that no credit shall be given for any use that has been terminated for more than one year prior to the filing of an application for new development on the property. E. Traffic Distribution: Traffic distribution shall be based on the traffic network expected to exist one year after project completion including those portions of the network associated with previously • approved projects or portions of projects expected to exist at that time. F. Improvements or Modifications to the Circulation System: If the applicant wishes to propose quantifiable improvements or changes to the circulation system, which may not appear to, be strictly consistent with the Circulation Element, or special assumptions as a basis for the traffic analysis, he shall provide a description of such proposals in writing to the Planning Commission, along with supporting data justifying their use, in advance of the traffic analysis. Such proposals may then be used in the Traffic Analysis if they are approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council. IV. Issuance of Permits Permits may be issued for all or a portion of a project after an • appropriate finding under I.D. has been made. A. Grading Permits: Grading permits may be issued prior to performance of the traffic analysis if vesting rights associated with grading are waived by applicant. B. Building Permits: Where traffic system improvements have been included in the • traffic analysis, building permits may be issued only after traffic system improvement timing has been confirmed as follows: 1. It has been budgeted and committed for development by the City; or 2. The State or County or other governmental agency making the improvementhas accepted bids; or 3. The improvement is to be installed or guaranteed by the applicant in conjunction with the development project and is approved by the appropriate governmental jurisdictions. Formerly S-1 Adopted - February 26,1979 Amended - November 23,1981 Amended - November 12,1985 Amended - November 26,1987 Amended - November 27,1989 Amended - March 22,1993 Amended - January 24,1994 Amended - February 7,1994 rz • 0ITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES ROLL CALL Present Excused Motion All Ayes Motion All Ayes Motion All Ayes REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING PLACE: Council Chambers TIME: 7:00 P.M. DATE: January 24, 1994 INDEX x x x x x x ROLL LL• x x Reading of utas of Meeting of January 10, 1994, and Adjo ad Meetings of January 14, and January 15, 4 was waived, approved as written, and orders sled. x Reading in full of ordinances, and resolutions under consider on was waived, and City Clerk was directed to ad by titles only. CONSENT CALENDAR x The following items were approved, except those items removed: ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION - Pass to 2nd reading and public hearing on Februayy 14, 1994• 1. Proposed ORDINANCE NO. 94-2. bein$t. Ord 94-2 Traffic AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL Phasin OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH (26) AMENDING SECTION 15.40.030(C) OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE TO CHANGE THE MOWTION CRITERIA IN THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE. [Report from Planning Department] Ord 94-3 2. Proposed ORDINANCE NO. 94-3, being, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL Zoning (94) OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING TITLE 20 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE SO AS TO REVISE VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE CHANGING THE CALCULATION OF GROSS FLOOR,AREAS TO INCLUDE THOSE PORTIONS OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS OR RELATED TRUCTURES WHICH SPAN MORE THAN 0 FLOOR AND WHICH ARE LOCATED OV UNINHABITABLE AREAS (Planning Co ssion Amendment No. 789). [Rep t from Planning Department] 3. Proposed ORDI CE N0. 94-4, being, Ord 94-4 Zoning AN ORDIN E OF THE CITY COUNCIL (94) OF THE C OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING TI E 20 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICI CODE SO AS TO REVISE A PORT N OF DISTRICTING MAP NO. 2 ESTAB SHING A 10 FOOT YARD SETBACK ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY SID F 47TH STREET BETWEEN RIVER AVE AND NEPTUNE , AVENUE IN WEST NEWT T (Planning Commission Amendment No. 791) [Report from Planning artment] Pass to 2nd reading on February 14, 1 4: 4. -Proposed ORDINANCE NO. 94-5, bein Ord 94-5 Refuse AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY CO L (44) OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEA AMENDING SECTIONS 6.04.120 AN 6.04.150 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO REFUSE AND COLLECTION. [Report from,General Services Director] Volume 48 - Page 21 CITY OF NEWPORT BEA* COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES January 24, 1994 Proposed ORDINANCE NO. 94-6, being, Ord AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL TOTa (40) OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING CHAPTER 3.16 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX. [Report from Revenue Manager, Finance Department] 6. R oved from the Consent Calendar. RESOLUTI S FOR ADOPTION 7. Remo ad from the Consent Calendar. 8. Reso1 ion No. 94-5 establishing No Res Parkin restrictions from 6:00 a.m. to Park 8:00 a m. on Monday and Friday for Rest street weeping in Balboa Business (85) District [Report from Traffic Affairs Committe CONTRACTS AND AG EMENTS 9. Removed fro the Consent Calendar. 10. CLAIMS - For enial by the City Manager (36) Continental En rgy Systems dba Debin & Associates, see ng indemnity from claim filed on Nov emb r 5, 1993 in Superior Court regarding xplosion at El Torito Restaurant, Fa shi Island, on August 1, 1993. Robert H. Harrison a eking reimbursement for storage of vehic from 12-13 to 12- 22-93 at towing fac ity, on December 10, 1993. Nobest, Inc. seeking indemnity from claim filed by Marie Esposito Eakin relating to trip and f 1 near Corona del Mar State Beach on A at 15, 1992. Nezih Salem alleging his r was towed in error, seeking reimburs' ant, at 419 N. Newport Blvd, on January,7, 1994. PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULING - Februa 14, 1994 11. CONSTRUCTION OF CURB, G , ER AND Cnst SIDEWALK ON BOTH SIDES OF 62N STREET 62nd BETWEEN PACIFIC COAST HIG Y AND (74) NEWPORT SHORES DRIVE; CONS ON OF CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK ALONG P SPECT STREET BETWEEN NEWPORT SHORES DRI AND PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY (0-2929). [R ort from Public Works Department] 12. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS - Meeting f Plat January 6, 1994 and Agenda of Janus (68) 20, 1994. [Report from Planni Department] 13. CHANNEL PLACE AND BALBOA BOULEVARD TIDAL ids VALVES AND VAULTS - Authorize Public Valy Works Department to negotiate with (74) Gillespie Construction for the construction of two tidal structures Volume 48 - Page 22 94-6 94-5 Street i City Council Meeting January 24, 1994 • Agenda Item No. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Mayor and Members ofA the City Council FROM: Planning Department * SUBJECT: Traffic Phasing Ordinance Request to amend Section 15.40.030(C) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (Traffic Phasing Ordinance) to change the exemption thresholds contained within the ordinance. INITIATED BY: City of Newport Beach • Proposal If approved, the proposed amendment will change certain provisions of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. As proposed by the Economic Development Committee, the change will increase the exemption threshold from 130 Average Daily Trips (ADT) to 300 ADT, and eliminate the building square footage and dwelling units thresholds contained within the exemption section. Suggested Action If desired, introduce Ordinance No. 94- . and pass to second reading and public hearing on February 14, 1994, being AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING SECTION 15.40.030(C) OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE TO CHANGE THE EXEMPTION CRITERIA IN THE TRAFFIC • PHASING ORDINANCE Environmental Significance This project has been reviewed and it has been determined that the project is categorically exempt under Class 5 - Minor Alterations in Land Use Limits. TO: i0ayor and Members of the City Council - 2. Discussion The Economic Development Committee has reviewed' several aspects of the City's regulatory structure. One of the regulations reviewed was the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. In this review it was the position of staff that the Ordinance is a critical component of the City's program to provide for correlated land use and circulation system planning, as well as an important compliance mechanism for the requirements of Proposition i 11 and Measure M. Therefore, the review of Ordinance criteria was aimed at the elimination of unnecessary traffic studies as opposed to substantially altering the ability of the Ordinance to achieve impact mitigation. Currently, a Traffic Study is required of all new commercial and industrial development which is greater than 10,000 square feet or generates Average Daily Traffic (ADT) greater than 130 daily trips, as well as any residential project with more than 10 dwelling units. Staff reviewed all projects which were required to have traffic studies approved since the original adoption of the Ordinance in 1978. This review showed that no project generating 300 ADT or less had ever been required to make an intersection improvement pursuant to the requirements of the Ordinance. Therefore staff proposed to the Committee that the exemption threshold be increased to the 300 ADT level since it was unlikely that a project with this level of traffic generation would be required to make an intersection improvement. The establishment of the new exemption level will significantly lower the number of projects which are subject to the Ordinance, and relieve those projects of the significant costs ($5,000 to $10,000 and higher) and time delays (8 to 10 weeks) associated with this category of approval. Also proposed is the elimination of the commercial and industrial square footage thresholds, and the residential dwelling unit thresholds. In making this recommendation, it is the opinion of staff that the critical issue is the traffic generated by a project, and not the size of the building or the number of dwelling units. It should be noted that, in making the determination of daily trip generation, the staff uses the trip table contained in the traffic model, and would require: a trip generation study if a proposed use did not fit into any of the land use categories listed in the trip table. In association with the public hearing on this item, staff will prepare equivalent changes to Council Policy L-18. Respectfully submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By- 0 tu Patricia L. Temple Advance Planning Manager PLT..AWIN WORDUPOLDOC Attachment: Draft Ordinance C J • n ORDINANCE NO. 94- • AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 15.40.030(C) OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE TO CHANGE THE EXEMPTION CRITERIA IN THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE The City Council of the City of Newport Beach DOES ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council finds and declares that: a. The Traffic Phasing Ordinance, adopted in 1978, has been an effective tool of the City in assuring that necessary intersection improvements occur in a timely manner with new development; and b. Since the adoption of the Ordinance, no intersection improvement has been required of any development which generates 300 average daily trips (ADT) or less; and c. It is unlikely than any small development generating 300 ADT will be required to make an intersection improvement pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance; and • d. The cost of preparing a traffic study is substantial, and significant time delays to new development are experienced as a result of the requirement to prepare a traffic study; and e. Relief from the requirement to prepare a traffic study will benefit the establishment of smaller businesses in the City, facilitate the creation ofjobs and positively impact economic development; and f The changes to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance will not create any inconsistency between the General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements; and g. The changes to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance will not affect the City's compliance with the programs mandated by Proposition I I I and Measure M; and h. The project has been reviewed is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. SECTION 2. Section 15.40.030(C) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code is hereby • amended to read: Exemption. Any project which has an Average Daily Trip generation of 300 daily trips or less shall be exempt from the requirements of this Chapter. SECTION 3. This Ordinance shall be published once in the official newspaper of the City and the same shall be effective thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption. This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the -City Council of the City of Newport Beach held on the 24th day of Jnnuary 1994, and was adopted on the day of 1994, by the following vote, to wit: • AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK • FLT..AWINWORMPMORD Doo �1ftt 01151c I o a d studied Should New�iort Beach halt all real estate development p near Coast Hwy. until traf- fic conditions arelmproved) City Councilman Paul Ryckoff of Balboa Island, asked the question at a Jan, 12 Council meeting, and the city Community Develop- ment Dept, is making a study at his request. The study will show how much traffic will be using the high- way when all -development nn�Rww allowed by the city den. ei�at plan is conVIWO,: SIGN 1/22/76 /.?, /g OO'NOT Remove WPORTER 1/21/76 ii ing,� . mratorium to Ease Traff,ic , - 1,,Goastioute C logged F:dak , Voad E staff members were at wgrk this Week on a report prot£dseQ to the city council on the relottod of comhfunity density, new Opn-, sfruc{ion and traffic. At the last city council nts4IOg, i CauhBilman Paul Ryckoff said 'he j believed that traffic congestion WAS y getting so bad the city sh0uid at least study the possibillty 0f all now construction onstrucmoratorium t on untiln hetraffic problem can be relieved. He asked City Manager 3obert i Wygti if the staff could put to er a* a study in 30 to 60 days, Txr ootaicil voted to have the study ?' prephred. Wynn has outlined the scope of file t, study in a memorandum W Rtpbord Hagan, director of the DepartiWO m of .Comynity Development, pnd asked tha ,%e study be compleW in time for tl February 9 meeting of the council. Truffle Estimate , In' the first phase of the atttity, W,yim asked Hogan to study to pad£ic Coast highway, in 410 4* ft n Jamboree to MacArthu'6 toe{timate the average daily generated from the max"{pn $Wld-out" permitted by the Ws ,G@ti,ersl Plah. gP "In other words," Wynn wr to rr an, "what should be sho in irst phase is the city 's est t , , patile generated -fro A era) Plan in 1990, or who oral Plan land use is compl ! utilized. This should be compMd i With capacities today of the street 1 ----- --- - - system and projected capacities 1 Within the traffic element. Traffic... "The next phase would be Continued from page one recommendations from staff, in - eluding a possible moratcrmtn if capacity. It is my belief, however, ultifnate build -out exceeds'the city's that the second phase should not _ R_ _ Continued to Page s be accomplished until the first phase is reviewed by the city council." Ryckoff, and other members of the council, are concerned about the increasing traffic on the coast high- way. During last week's unusual ,summer weather, traffic was Racked up from the bridge to Newport Center Drive. !And we know that the bridge is nearly three years away," Ryckoff added. This was confirmed with the State Department of Transpoftat4'on which said it did not intend to ad- vertise for bids for the bridge construction until'December, 1977, as it �yifl take that long to get the Environmental Impact Report and the necessary apprdlhl'P from all agencies involved. — — DO NOT REMOVE February 26, 1979 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. F-2 ( STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEM NO. 8 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: Public Works Department SUBJECT: ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE RECOMMENDATION: Council Policy S-1 DISCUSSION: The City Council has approved Ordinance 1787 known as 'the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. It is desirable for the City Council to• C adopt the administrative procedures for implementing the ordinance and it is proposed that they be adopted as Council Policy S-1. Three alternate versions of the proposed Council Policy S-1 are attached for use in determining the final wording. Attachment A is the alternate submitted by LEAF. Attachment B shows how the work of the Ad -hoc Committee would be modified by the revised LEAF alternate (Attachment A). Attachment C is the alternate proposed by Gordon Jones of Gordon Jones and Associates. Section III. B. in all versions contains a percentage or range of percentages that is to be applied in determining the incre- mental capacity from traffic system improvements. The value of this percentage needs to be established in the adoption of Council Policy S-1. Richard M. Edmonston- Traffic Engineer RME:gv N (10 0 cry 0: ORDINANCE NO. 1787 \\ NgW2cuf: �e AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING CHAPTER 15.40 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE TO CLARIFY THE PURPOSE OF THE ORDINANCE IN'SECTION 15.40.020, AND ADDING OR CHANGING WORDING IN SECTIONS 15.40.030, 15.40.050 and 15.40.070 The City Council of the City of Newport Beach DOES ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1- Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code is amended to read: "CHAPTER 15.40 TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE Sections: 15.40.010 Finding. 15.40.020 Purpose. 15.40.030 Traffic Impact Limitation. 15.40.040 Definitions. 15.40.050 Procedure. 15.40.060 Fees. 15.40.070 Appeal. 15.40.080 Severability. 15.40.010 Finding. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach finds that congestion of streets and inter- sections, traffic accidents, interference with emergency vehicles, and general overcrowding of existing neighborhoods have resulted, or will soon result, from inadequate phasing of commercial, industrial, and residential growth, in rela- tion to traffic capacity, which is harmful to the public health, safety and general welfare. 15.40.020 Purpose. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach declares that aggravation of these condition can be avoided, eliminated or alleviated by enacting the following, designed to permit major development only in those areas of the City of Newport Beach where adequate transportation facilities exist, are being implemented, or will be installed in conjunction with the development which will accommodate the traffic generated by such development, or where other trip generation reductions are adopted which will alleviate traffic impacts. 15.40.030 Traffic Impact Limitation. (A) No building or grading permit shall be issued, and no construction shall be commenced, for any project not exempt from this Chapter until the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach shall make a written finding that the pro- posed project (i) will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on.any 'major,' 'primary-modi-fied,' or 'primary' street; or (ii) shall be excepted pursuant to subsection (D) of this section; provided, however, that such finding shall, state the exception granted and the facts which justify the exception. (B) Hearing. The.Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing, noticed in the manner provided in Section 20.80.050(B) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, and shall make its written findings supported by the weight of the evidence. (C) Exemption. Any commercial or industrial project which has a gross floor area equal to or less than 10•,000 square feet, or any residential project of 10 dwelling units or less shall be exempt from the requirement of this Chapter. -2- (D) Exceptions. The Planning Commission shall except any project from the requirements of this•Chapter: (i) if it shall find that the City has issued a building or grading permit for the project prior to the effective date of this Chapter and that the person to whom such permit was issued has in good faith and in reliance upon such permit diligently commenced construc- tion and performed and incurred substantial liabilities for work and materials necessary therefor. No change causing a substantial increase in traffic volumes may be made in such project, except in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter; (ii) if it shall find that traffic during any 2.5 hour peak traffic period on each leg of each critical intersection will, be increased by less than 1% by traffic generated from the project during that 2.5 hour period-; (iii) if, by a vote of four -fifths (4/5ths), of the members eligible to vote, it shall make a decision, supported by a written finding setting forth its reasons therefor, that the benefits of the project, including trip _ generation reductions, outweigh the project's anticipated negative impact on transportation facilities. The City Council shall not grant the exception under this subsection (iii) on appeal or review until it shall have first made the findings required by this subsection supported by an affirmative vote of four -fifths (4/5ths) of its members eligible to vote. (E) Action. The application for any building, grading, or other permit on'a project, which is 'not exempt from this Chapter, shall be approved, conditionally approved, or denied within one year from the date on which.said appli- -3- cation has been received and accepted as complete by the City. Any appeal to the City Council from an action by the Planning Commission on an application shall be made within the time periods set out in Sections 20.80.070 and 20.80.075 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. In the event action is not taken on an application within the time limits hereof, such failure shall be deemed approval of the project which otherwise is consistent.with the ordinances and General Plan of the City of Newport Beach. 15.40.040 Definitions. The following terms used in this Chapter shall have the meanings indicated'below: UNSATISFACTORY LEVEL OF TRAFFIC SERVICE means peak period traffic service which is worse than Level of Service. 'D' for one hour determined according to standard traffic engineering practices. PROJECT shall be determined by reference to the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code 921000 et seq.] and the administrative guidelines established thereunder. LEVEL OF SERVICE 'D' shall mean that level of traffic service set forth as 'Level of Service 'D " in the Highway Capacity Manual (1965) or any subsequent edition thereof; provided, however, that such level of service shall.not exceed the most appropriate of the following criteria, as applicable: (i) intersection capacity utilization of 0.90; (ii) other criteria selected by the City Traffic Engineer which are consistent with subsection (i), and which have been reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. -4- C 0 • CRITICAL INTERSECTION shall mean any intersection operating at an unsatisfactory level of traffic service, either prior to or as a result of a project, on any 'major,' 'primary -modified,' or 'primary' street. 'MAJOR,' 'PRIMARY -MODIFIED,' or 'PRIMARY' street shall be defined by the General Plan of the City of Newport Beach Circulation Element. ELIGIBLE TO VOTE shall mean all members lawfully holding office except those disqualified from voting due to a confict of interest. 15.40.050 Procedure. Subject to review by the Planning Commission, the City Traffic Engineer, exercising professional discretion, shall: (A) Determine traffic periods, streets and inter- sections which will be significantly affected by the propose project, taking into account the type, character, and location of the proposed project, as well as the character of the streets which will serve the project; (B) Determine if the project, when complete, will cause or make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic services at any such street or intersection; (C) 1. Establish standard trip generation figures of project; '! 2. Establish criteria for calculating trip i generation reductions which may result from specific measures proposed by the applicant. The Planning Commissio shall specifically find that any such measures can be adequately quantified and guaranteed to assure the long -ter; validity of such reductions prior to their inclusion in the traffic analysis) 3. Establish the bases for performing the traffic analysis at project completion; -5- (D) Transmit these determinations to the Planning Commission with recommendations. 15.40.060 Fees. The application shall be accompanied by a fee as established by resolution of the City Council to defray the expense of administering this Chapter. 15.40.070 Appeal. (A) Any determination of the Planning Commission shall be final unless there shall be an appeal by the applicant or any other person pursuant to the procedure set forth in Section 20.80.070,of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Such appeal shall be limited to evidence presented before, and the findings of, the Planning Commission. (B) The City Council shall have a Right of Review as set forth in Section 20.80.075 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, as limited above. (C) The City Council shall make its written finding in the same manner as set forth in Section 15.40.030 of this Chapter. 15.40.080 Severability. If any section or portion of this Chapter is declared invalid, the remaining sections or portions -are to be considered valid_" SECTION 2. This ordinance shall be published once in the official newspaper of the City and shall be effective thirty days after the date of its adoption. This ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held on the 22nd day of January , 1979, and was adopted on the 0 12th day of February the following vote, tojdt: ATTEST: City Clerk AYES, COUNCILMEN NOES, COUNCILMEN ASSENT COUNCILMEN' Mayor -7- 1979, by DDO/kb 2/13/79 0 ntachment A ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE I. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES A. General: - These procedures apply to all commercial or industrial projects which have a gross floor area greater than 10,000 sq. ft., and all residential projects of more than ten dwelling units. B. Evaluating Projects: n The applicant files a request for consideration of the entire project, under the provisions of the Ordinance, with the Community Development Department. The request must be accompanied by a project description, ro'ect hasin schedule, site plan, and fees as set by the City Counci . A traffic analysis shall then be prepared by a qualified traffic engineer according to the methodology approved by the City Council. C. Staff Recommendation: The City's Traffic Engineer will review the report prepared by the consultant and transmit the findings and worksheet to the Community Development Department for presentation to the Planning Commission. D. Planning Commission Review and Findings: The Planning Commission shall review the determination and recommendations of the Traffic Engineer and the Community Development Department, at a duly -noticed public hearing, and make one of the following findings: 1. The City has issued a building or grading permit for the project prior to May 8, 1978, and that the person to whom such permit was issued has in good faith and in reliance upon such permit diligently commenced construction and performed and incurred substantial liabilities for work and materials necessary therefore. No change causing a substantial increase in traffic volumes has been made in such project, except in accordance with the pro, visions of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance; or 2. The traffic projected one year after project completion during any 2.5 hour peak traffic period on each leg of each critical intersection will be increased less than 1% by traffic generated from the project during that 2.5 hour period; or 0 ADM[NISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING PAGE 2 THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE 3. A traffic analysis has been performed and accepted. The appeeyed traffic analysis was based on the projected street system and projected traffic volumes one year after prejeet eermp4et4ea completion of the project or portion of the projec for which the traffic analysis was performed. The traffic analysis has shown that, at that time, the additional traffic generated by the project, or portion of the project, w4tk including any approved trj'p generation reduction measures: a. will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on any "major", "primary -modified", or "primary" street; or b. may cause or make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on one or more "major", "primary -modified", or "primary" streets; or c, may cause or make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on one or more "major", "primary -modified", or "primary" streets; however, the benefits outweigh the j anticipated negative impact on transportation facilities, \, for the following reasons: (specify) E. Approval of Applications: A simple majority vote by the Planning Commission, subject to City Council review or appeal, is required for Finding D.1, D.2, D.3.a.,or D.3.b. A four -fifths majority vote by the Planning Commission (or by the City Council on appeal or review) is required for finding D.3.c. F. Appeals: 1. The determination of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council pursuant to the procedure set forth in Section 20.80.070 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 2. The City Council shall have a Right of Review as set forth in Section 20.80.075 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. II. OUTLINE OF METHODOLOGY FOR TRAFFIC ANALYSES A. Designation of Impacted Intersections and Determination of Project Impact for 2.5 Hour Peak Period: 1. The Traffic Engineer will determine which intersections will be affected by the proposed project according to its size and geographic location. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING PAGE 3 THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE 2. An analysis will be done whereby the-prejeet-eemp4et4•ep completio of the�nrolect for which the tra it will be determined if one year after of the project, or portions f;r analytic is haina nP_rfarmed. have been previously approved will generate one percent or more of the projected traffic volumes for each leg of each e)4t4ea; impacted intersection during that 2.5 hour peak period. If less than a one percent increase is demonstrated for each leg, then the analysis is concluded, and finding I.D.2. may be made. B. If the initial Traffic Study indicated the project, or portion of the project, for which the traffic analysis is being pey7foFmed,.one year after completion may generate one percent or more of projected traffic volumes on one or more legs of a-er�t4ea4 � impacted intersection, then the Traffic Engineer or a qualified consultant will analyze the intersection capacity utilization for the impacted intersection(s): The report will indicate the following: 1. Existing traffic. 2. Projected increases in regional traffic. 3. Projected traffic from committed projects that will be completed w4th4R before one year of after the completion date of the project or portion of the project for which the traffic analysis is being performed. 4. Traffic generated by the proposed project, or portion of the project, without trip generation reduction measures. 5. Traffic generated by the proposed project, or portion of the project, with approved trip generation reduction measures. Existing capacity of the intersection for each movement. (6. 7. Projected capacity of the intersection for each movement, including projected capacity increases from traffic system improvements that will be installed w4th4R before one year after project completion. 0 ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING PAGE 4 THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE C. Where a full traffic analysis is performed under Section IIB, the following I.C.U. calculations shall be performed for each impacted intersection:, 1. The ex•isting'I.C.U. 2. The I.C.U., with traffic system improvements that will be. installed w4h4n before one year after project'completion. This I.C.U. calculation shall be based on all projected traffic sources except the proposed project. 3. The I.C.U., with traffic system improvements that will be installed w4th4R before one year after project completion, based on all sources of traffic, including traffic generated by the proposed project, with approved trip generation reduction measures. This I.C.U. must be 0.90 or less to make finding I.D.3.a. III. DEFINITIONS AND ANALYSIS RESTRAINTS / A. Traffic System Improvements l Traffic system improvements may be included in the traffic analysis for a proposed project, provided that: The improvement will be completed no more than one year after completion of the project or project phase for which the traffic analysis is being performed; and 2. The improvement is included in the Circulation Element of the General Plan, and is defined sufficiently therein to permit an I.C.U. analysis to be performed; or 3. The improvement design has been approved by the City Council, and is defined sufficiently to permit an I.C.U. analysis to be performed. B. Projected Capacity Increases from Traffic System Improvements �lc . For purposes of the traffic analysis, ( L5)% of the incremental increase in intersection capacity (based on a capacity of 1600 vehicles per hour of green time for each full traffic lane) shall be utilized. Upon completion of the improvement, traffic volume counts shall be updated, and any additional available capacity may then be utilized in future traffic analyses. C. Traffic Volumes 1. Traffic volumes €er-eaeh-er4t4ea4-4nterseet4en shall be based on up-to-date estimates of traffic volumes expected to exist one year after completion of the project; or portion of the project, forwhich the traffic analysis is being performed. Such estimates shall include existing traffic as determined by annual field counts plus traffic generated by previously approved projects or portions of projects expected to exist in the same time period plus estimated increases in regional traffic. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING PAGE 5 THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE If the intersection configuration being analyzed is the ultimate configuration consistent with the Circulation Element or otherwise approved by the City Council, then the traffic volumes used in the analysis shall include total traffic expected to be generated from all previously approved projects even if they will not be completed at the time the subject project is completed. 2 --The-reg4ena;-tra€€4e-ene-year-a€ter-prejeet-eefpiet4en-w444-be estimated- by-fa4t4p}y4n9-the-ex4stin9-re94ena4-tra€€4e-aeiufe- by-the-eempeanded-grewth-rate: The-eempeanded-grewth-rate-w441-be-deterHi4ned-by-tak4ng-the average-grewth-rate-€er-the-street-er-geegraph4e-area-ever-the prier-three-year-per4ed-and-eempeand4ng-4tv--The-ex4st4ng-reg4enak tra€€4e-YeiaFae-w4;4 -be -estimated-using-the-tex4et4ng'-'-eend4t4ens tra€€4e-HiedeTr D. Trip Generation Trip generation estimates for the project shall be based on standard trip generation values established by the City Traffic Engineer with the approval of the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal_ or review. These trip generation figures may be modified only when the applicant proposes specific, permanent measures that will reduce traffic generated by the project, provided that: 1. The applicant describes in writing, in advance of the traffic analysis, the proposed measure, the estimated reduction in trip generation that will result, and the basis for the estimate. The estimate must be approved by the Planning Commission or Cit Council on appeal or review before the trip generation figures may a reduced. 2. The applicant provides the Planning Commission with a written assurance that the proposed trip generation reduction measure will be permanently implemented, and agrees to make said permanent implementation a condition for project approval. 0 0 ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING PAGE 6 THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE E. Traffic Distribution Traffic distribution shall be based on the traffic network expected to exist one year after project completion including those portions of the network associated with previously approved.projects or portions of projects expected to exist at that time. F. Improvements or Modifications to the Circulation System If the applicant wishes to propose quantifiable improvements or changes to the circulation system, which may not appear to be strictly consistent with the Circulation Element, or special. assumptions as a basis for the traffic analysis, he shall provide a description of such proposals in writing to the Planning Commission, along with supporting data justifying their use, in advance of the traffic analysis. Such proposals may then be used in the traffic analysis if they are approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council. IV. ISSUANCE OF PERMITS Permits may be issued for all or a portion of a project after an appropriate finding under I.D. has been made. A. Grading Permits Grading permits may be issued prior to performance of the traffic analysis if vesting rightsff6re waived by applicant. B. Building Permits Where traffic system improvements have been included in the traffic analysis, building permits may be issued only after traffic system improvement timing has-been confirmed as follows: 1. It has been budgeted and committed for development by the City; or 2. The State or County or other governmental agency making the improvement has accepted bids; or 3. The improvement is to be installed or guaranteed by the applicant in conjunction with the development project and is approved by the appropriate governmental jurisdictions. ' Ittachment B ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE I. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES A. General: These procedures apply to all commercial or industrial projects which have a gross floor area greater than 10,000•sq. ft., and all residential projects of more than ten dwelling units. B:--Exeept}ens- the-P}ann4mg-6esm}ss4en-may-emeept-ppeieets-€rem-the-rega}refente e#-these-ppeeedares-by-niak}ng-the-€e}}ew}n@-#4nd}ngs= }:--;:he-&4ty-has-}ssaed-a-ba4}d}nQ-er-grad}ng-perm#t-€er-the pre3eet-pr}er-te-May-B;-}9�8;-and-that-the-persen-to-whey sash-per�fit-was-fissaed-Has-3n-geod-€a#th-and-}n-re}#anee- apen-sdeh-per�3t-d�}agent}y-ee��enee�-eenstpaet}en-and pep#epFRed-and-4nearped-sebstant}a}-}3ab#}}t4es-#er-werk-and- materia}s-there€ere;-and- 2:--Ne-ehanges-eaas4ng-a-sabstant#a}-#nerease-4n-tra€##e-ae}ames ha,ve-been-made-4n-the-prejeetr B. Evaluating Projects: 1. The applicant files a request for consideration of the entire project, under the provisions of the Ordinance, with the Community Development Department. The request must be accompanied by a project description, project phasing schedule, site plan, and fees as set by the City Council. 2. A traffic analysis shall then be prepared by a qualified traffic engineer according to the methodology approved by the City Council. C. Staff Recommendation: 1. The City's Traffic Engineer will review the report prepared by the consultant and transmit the findings and worksheet to the Community Development Department for presentation to the Planning Commission. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING PAGE 2 THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE D. Planning Commission Review and Findings: The Planning Commission shall review the determination and recommendations of the Traffic Engineer and the Community Development Department, at a duly -noticed public hearing, and make one of the following findings: 1. The City has issued a building or grading permit for the project prior to May 8, 1978, and that the person to whom such permit was issued has in good faith and in reliance upon such permit diligently commenced construction and performed and incurred substantial liabilities for work and materials necessary therefore. No -change causing a substantial increase in traffic volumes may -be has been made in such project, except in accordance with the provisions of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance; or 2. The traffic projected one Year after project completion during any 2.5 hour peak traffic period on each leg of each critical intersection will be increased less than 1% by traffic generated from the project during that 2.5 hour period; or 3,--THe-prepesed-pre4eets-One;ed4pg-tray€4e-systeRi-4mpreve- mepts-apd�er-tv4p-geaerat4en-reduet4ens;-w444-ne4tber-eaase; ner-make-werse;-an-unsat$s€aetery-4eve4-a€-traf€4e-serv4se-ee aH -Rma er- 3--a pr4mary-meiJ4 0 e dL-e r-!-p r4mary-" streets,er- 3_ A traffic analvsis has been performed and accepted. The traffic is volumes one year after completion of the project or on of the project for which the traffic analysis was p raffic analysis Es -shown own that, at that time, the addi is generated by the project, or portion of the project Gina any ant. trio generation reduction measures: will ne ti ed" ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING PAGE 3 THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE ( 4:--The-prepesed-prejeet3-4nelud4ng-tra€€4e-systeRi-4rRpreverRents and�er-tr4p-geRerat4eR-reduet4ens3-rRay-eause3-er-Riake-weree3 an-unsat4s€aetery4eve4-e€-Ira€€4e-serv4ee-en-any--'maje43 -' pr4mary-rRed4€4ed'-'3-er--'pr4Rrary'-'-street: 5=--The-prepesed-prejeet-4ne4ud4ng-tra€€4e-systerRs-4mprsvemeRts aed�er-trip-generation-reduetiens-day-cause-er-ERake-weree. aR-uRsat4s€aetery-4eve4-a€-tra€€4e-serv4ee-eR-any--'rRajer='3 tpr4mary-med4€4ed-''-er--''pr4RAary°-street:--Hewever3-the-bene€4ts e€-the-prejeet-eutwe4gh-4ts-aRt4e4pated-Regat4ve-4rRpaet-en-trans- pertat4en-€ae444t4esT E. Approval of Applications: App}4eat4ens-may-be-approved-when-F4Rd4Rgs-E4�}3-E{2}3-er-6{3} are-made-by-a-s4rRp4e-rRajer4ty-er-4€-F4RdiRg-E46}-4s-rRade-by-a- €edr-€4€ths-a+ajerity:--�€-F4Rd4Rg-E�4}-is-rRade-by-tie-P�aRR4Rg 6eRrRr4ss4an3-then-an-app�4eat4eR-eaRRet-be-appealed-uR�ess-it-eaR be-deAmeRstrated-en-appeat--te-the-G4ty-Gedne44-that-the-bene€its-e€ ant4e4pated-Regat4ve-4mpaet-en-transpertat4eR-€ae444tiesz--{:'h4e €4nd4Rg-rRust-be-rRade-by-aR-a€€4rrRat4ve-vete-e€-€ear-€4€the-e€ the-members-e4494b;e-te-vete-en-the-64ty-GeuRe444w F. Appeals: 1. The determination of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council pursuant to the procedure set forth in Section 20.80.070 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 2. The City Council shall have a Right of Review as set forth in• Section 20.80.075 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. II. OUTLINE OF METHODOLOGY FOR TRAFFIC ANALYSES L A. Designation of Impacted Intersections and Determination of Project Impact for 2.5 Hour Peak Period: The Traffic Engineer will determine which intersections will be affected by the proposed project according to its size and geographic location. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING PAGE 4 THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE C 6=--An-ana4ys4s-w444-he-dene-whereby-4t-w444-he-deterf4ned-4€ one-year-a€ter-the-pre3eet-eeHip4et4on-the-prejeet-w444-generate-ene pereent-er-FRere-e€-the-pre3eeted-tra€€#e-ae4aFfles-€er-eaeh-4eg-e€-eaeh er€�4ea4-�nterseet�en-dar�Rg-that-6:5-beer-peak-per#ed=--�€-4ass than-a-ene-pereent-�Rerease-4s-de�ensj:rated-€er-eaeh-4eg3-then the-ana4ys€s4s-eeRe4aded= B:--;f-the-4n4t4a4-400e- Stu dy-4nd4eated- the- pre3eet,-ene-year-a€ter eerap4et4en-a+ay-generate-ene-pereent-er-Fxere-a€-pre3eeted-tra€€4e-ve4draes en-ene-er-n+ere-4egs-a€-a-er4*4ea4-4Rterseet4en;-then-the-bra€€4e-Eng4neer er-a-gaa44f4ed-eensa4tant-w444-ana4yge-the-tnterseetlien-eapae4ty-at4;4Eat4en €er-the-4nipaeted-4nterseet4en{s4+ The report will indicate the following: 4=--E�t4st4ng-4:6=d: �=--4=6:d=-w4th-the-pre3eet 3=--4=6=�=-w}th-the-pre3eet-and-t�=a€€4e-syste�-�rsp�eue�+eRts-and�er-tr4p- generat4eR-redaetiens: 1. Existing traffic. 2 Projected increases in regional traffic. 5. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING PAGE 6 THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE 6_. Existing capacity of the intersection for each movement. g=--gene}ds}ens-and-Reeermendd€}ens+ the-asgra�raa�e-de€er�xina€€eR4s3-sha}}-he-made-�R-eases-where-a €d}}-tra€€}e-ana}ys�s-}s-re�d�red-finder-See€fieR-}�3-sdeh-as-i;he €e}}ew}ng+ }:--the-}:6:d=-as-a-rend}i;-a€-the-gre�ee€-{a}ene3-w}}}-be-}ess khan-er-e�da}-te-=99-8R-w}}}-he-}ess-IrhaR-er-egda}-€e-€he e�4s€Ong-}:6:d:-��€-i;he-exfis€}RQ-}:6:d=-}s-a}ready-aheve-:99a. 8:--the-}:6:d:-as-a-resd}�-e€-€he-Rre3ee€;-}Re}ddiR§-€ra€€#e sys€em-4FAp reveFmente-andfer-€r}q-generat4eR- red de€}eRs3-w}}} he-}ess-khan-er-e�da}-€e-:98-9R-w}}}-he-}ess-€ban-er-e�da}-€e the-e�}s€4RQ-}=6:da-{}€-€he-e�}s€}nQ-}:6,d:-�s-a}ready-aheve ' Qrea€er-€haR-=99-8R-Brea€er-€haR-€he-ears€iRg-}=6=d=-{}€ the-em}st4ng-}=6=d=-}s-a}ready-aheve-=994:- 4=--€he-}=6:U:-as-a-rend}€-e€-the-�re3eet;-�Re}dd}Rg-€ra€€ie sys€ern-}�yreve�eR€s-and�er-€r}q-genera€}en-redde€}ens3-w}}} he-great:er-€han-=99-9R-greater-€han-€he-ex4s€}n§-}:6:d: {}€-the-ex�s€}ng-}T6:d:-}s-a}ready-aheae-T99}: 1. The existing I.C.U. s � • ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING PAGE 6 THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE III. DEFINITIONS AND ANALYSIS RESTRAINTS A. Traffic System Improvements Twa€€4e-systera-4mpweyeaen€s-wh4eh-awe-4ne4uded-4w- the- 64weu4a€4ew E4erflewt-e#-the-Gewewa4-P4aw;-eve-have-beew-appweved-by-the-64€y 6edwe443-awd-wh4eh-awe-desew4bed-su€€4e4ew#4y-te-a44ew-ah-FT6TU; . awa4ys4s-�e-be-pew#ewflied,-aiay-be-4we4uded-4w-the-Ewa€€4e-awa4ys4s;- sabjee�-fie-the-#e44ew4wg-eewd4�4ews-awd-westwa4w€s: , rflew#a4-4pewease-4n-eapae4ty-of-a-ew4t4ea4-4ntewsee€4ep 4based-eve-eapae4€y-a#-4609-veh4e4es-pew-heave-a#-Qweew-€eve each-€u44-#wa€#4e-4ape}-sha�4-be-u�444sed:--dpep-eeajp4e�4ew e€-the-4rflpwevemew�-#wa€€4e-ve4urae-eeuw*s-sha44-be-apda#ed awd-any-add4;t4ewa4-ava44ab4e-eapae4*y=rflay-then-be-ut444ped 4w-€utuwe-twa€4e-awa4ys4sT 2T--The-4mpweverflewt-w444-be-eemp4eted-no-mere-than-ewe-yeaw after-eemp4e;t4ew-e#-the-projee€-eve-a-pew*4ew-e€-the-projee€ €eve-wh4eh-the-#wa#€4e-awa4ys4s-4s-be4ng-pew€ewflaed3-4#-that 41appeveFReRt-45-Reeessawy-te-earry-€ra€€4e-genefated-by-*he pwejee€T Traffic system improvements may be included in the traffic anal B. Projected Capacity Increases from Traffic System Improvements 0 11 ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING PAGE 7 C. Traffic Volumes: Traffic volumes far-eaeb-er4t; ea;-4mterseet4en shall be based on up-to-date estimates of traffic volumes expected to exist one year after completion of the project, or portion of the project, for which the traffic analysis is being performed. Such estimates shall include existing traffic as determined by annual field counts plus traffic generated by previously approved projects or portions of projects expected to exist in the same time period plus estimated increases in regional traffic. If the intersection configuration being analyzed is the ultimate configuration consistent with the Circulation Element or otherwise approved by the City Council, then the traffic volumes used in the analysis shall include total traffic expected to be generated from all previously approved projects even if they will not be completed at the time the subject project is completed. 2. The incremental regional traffic for the time period between the date of existing counts and one-year after project completion will be estimated based on the rate projected by the traffic model or on a growth projection developed by the Traffic Engineer and approved by the Planning Commission." Trip Generation Trip generation estimates for the project shall be based on standard trip generation values established by the City Traffic Engineer with the approval of the Planning Commission or Ci_t Council on appeal or review. 'These trip generation figures may 5 modified only When the appTicant proposes specific, permanent measures that will reduce traffic generated by the project, provided that: 1. The applicant describes in writing, in advance of the traffic analysis, the proposed measures, the estimated reduction'in trip generation that will result, and the basis for the estimate. The estimate must be approved by the Planning Commission or City Council on a eat or review before the trip generation figures may a reduce .. 2. The applicant provides the Planning Commission with a written assurance that the proposed trip generation reduction measure will be permanently implemented, and agrees -to make said permanent implementation a condition for project approval. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING PAGE 8 THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE CE. Traffic Distribution Traffic distribution shall be based on the traffic network expected . to exist one year after project completion including those portions of the network associated with previously approved projects or portions bf projects expected to exist at that time. F. Improvements or Modifications to the Circulation System If the applicant wishes to propose quantifiable improvements or changes to the circulation system, which may not appear to be strictly consistent with"the Circulation Element, or special assumptions as a basis for the traffic analysis, he shall provide"a description of such proposals in writing to the Planning Commission, along with supporting data justifying their use, in advance of the traffic analysis. Such proposals may then be used in the traffic analysis if they are approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council. IV. ISSUANCE OF PERMITS for all A. Grading Permits fter Grad4Rg-perm4ts-FRay-be-4ssued-€er-the-teta4-pfejeet-pi-ey4ded-the- RtaRp�Rg-6ersa+4ss4eR-€4Rds-that-tbe-p�=epesed-grading-w€��-Re4tHe�-eaase3 ReP-make-we�se3-aR-aRsat4s€aetery-�evet-a€-tea€€4'e-sewv4ee-eR-any thai-tqe-devetepe�-agrees-4R-wr4 4Rg-te-wa4ae-any-�4gbt-te-€artHew- de�e}ep�eRt-Ret-app�eaed-by-the-64ty-pe�saaRt-te-the-rega4we�eRts-e€ tke-�Fwa#€4e-Rhas4Rg-8wd4Ranee-andfer-any-r4gHt-te-azst4Rg= or to B. Building Permits Ba4}�4Rg-pewra4ts-€ew-att-e�-a-pe�t4eR-e#-the-prejeet-gay-be-4ssaed on4y-a€ter-tra€€4s-systeffi 4mprevement-t4m4Rg-has-been-ee04 med-as #e44ew5= �=--Abe-4a�pneveraeRt-4s-te-be-4Rsta�ted-ew-gaawaRteed-by-tHe appt4eaRt-4R-eeR3aRet4ea-with-tHe-deae�epx�eRt-p�ejeet-and-4s- appreaed-by-the-app�ep�4ate-geae�Re+eRta�-jdw4sd4et4eRs3-s� 3=--4t-has-been-budgeted-and-eermA4tted-#er-devetepmeRt-by-t#e-G4tyt ew 3=--The--State-er-GeuRty-er-ether-gevernmeRtal-ageney-mak4Rg-the-4mp"ae- meRt-has-aseepted-bids= ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING PAGE 9 THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE It has been The the Attachment C CGordon Jones Alternative February 20, 1979 ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING' THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE I. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES A. General: These procedures apply to all commercial or industrial projects which have a gross floor area greater than 10,000 sq. ft., and all residential projects of more than ten dwelling units. B. Evaluating Projects: 1. The applicant files a request for consideration of the entire project, under the provisions of the Ordinance, with the Community Development Department. The request must be accom- C panied by a project description, project phasing schedule, site plan, and fees as set by the City Council. 2. A traffic analysis shall then be prepared by a qualified traffic engineer according to the methodology approved by the City Council. C. Staff Recommendation: The City's Traffic Engineer will review the report prepared by the consultant and transmit the findings and worksheet to the Community Development Department for presentation to the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Review and Findings: The Planning Commission shall review the determination and recom- mendations of the Traffic Engineer and the Community Development Department, at a duly -noticed public hearing, and make one of the following findings: The City has issued a building or grading permit for the project prior to May 8, 1978, and that the person to whom such permit was issued has in good faith and in reliance upon such permit diligently commenced construction and performed and incurred substantial liabilities for work and materials necessary there- fore. No change causing a substantial increase in traffic volumes has been made in such project, except in accordance with the provisions of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance;or ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING PAGE 2 THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE (r 2. The traffic projected one year after project completion during l any 2.5 hour peak traffic period on each leg of each critical intersection will be increased less than 1% by traffic generated from the project during that 2.5 hour period; or A traffic analysis has been performed and accepted. The traffic analysis was based on the projected street system and projected traffic volumes one year after completion of the project or portion of the project for which the traffic analysis was per- formed. The traffic analysis has shown that, at that time, the additional traffic generated by the project; or portion of the project, including any approved trip generation reduction measures: a. will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on any "major", "primary -modified", or "primary" street; or b. may cause or make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on one or more "major", "primary -modified", or "primary" streets; or ( c. may cause or make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on one or more "major", "primary -modified", or "primary" streets; however, the benefits outweigh the anti- cipated negative impact on transportation facilities, for the following reasons: (specify) E. Approval of Applications: A simple majority vote by the Planning Commission, subject to City Council review or appeal, is required for Finding D.1, D.2, D.3.a., or D.3.b. A four -fifths majority vote by the Planning Commission (or by.the City Council on appeal or review) is required for finding D.3.c. F. Appeals: 1. The determination of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council pursuant to the procedure set forth in Section 20.80.070 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 2. The City Council shall have a Right of Review as set forth in I Section 20.80.075 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. II. OUTLINE OF METHODOLOGY FOR TRAFFIC ANALYSES A. Designation of Impacted Intersections and Determination of Project Impact for 2.5 Hour Peak Period: ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING PAGE 3 THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE ( 1. The Traffic Engineer will determine which intersections will be affected by the proposed project according to its size and geographic location. 2. An analysis will be done whereby it will be determined if one year after completion of the project, or portions of the pro- ject for which the traffic analysis is being performed', the project (including those -portions for which traffic analyses. have been previously approved) will generate one percent or more of the projected traffic volumes for each leg of each impacted intersection during that 2.5 hour peak period. If less than a pne percent increase is demonstrated for each leg, then the analysis is concluded, and finding I.D.2. may be made. B. If the initial Traffic Study indicated the project, or portion of the project for which the traffic analysis is being performed, one year after completion may generate one percent or more of projected traffic volumes on one or more legs of any impacted intersection, then the Traffic Engineer or a qualified consultant will analyze the intersection capacity utilization for the impacted intersection(s): ( The report will indicate the following: 1. Existing traffic. 2. Projected increases in regional traffic. Projected traffic from committed on excepted projects on poxtion6 os these pnoject6 not Aequi&ing appnovaC under. the Tnass.Lc Phasing Ordinance, that will be completed before one year after the completion date of the project, or portion of the project, for which the traffic analysis is being performed. 4. Projected trass.ic srom ptojeetts, on portions os project6, approved undeA the TAass.ic Pha6.ing Ordinance that w U be completed before one yeah asteA the eomp.2eti,on date os the project, on poAtion os the project, soh which the tna64ic anaPyzi6 .is being performed. 5. Traffic generated by the proposed project, or portion of the project, without trip generation reduction measures. 6. Traffic generated by the proposed project, or portion of the project, with approved trip generation reduction measures. 6:--Ex4st4ng-eapae4ty-e€-the-4aterseet4en-€er-eaeh-mevement. 7---Projeeted-eagaeity-e€-the-4nterseet4en-€er-eaeh-raevement;-4ne4ud4ng projeeted-eapae4ty-4nereases--€rem-kra€€4e-syst"esi-4mprevements that-w444-be-4nsta44ed-be€ere-eae-year-a€ter-prejeet-eemp4et4en. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING PAGE 4 THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE C. Where a full traffic analysis is performed under Section IIB, the following I.C.U. calculations Shall be performed for each impacted intersection: 1. The existing I.C.U. The I.C.U., with any .in¢xementaC .ine eaae .in txab4ic capacity pxov.ided by 4undi.ng 4xom the pubtie dectox and committed ox excepted pxojecth, not Kegw&i.ng-appnovat under the Txa64.ie Pha,6ing Ohdinance, box traffic system improvements that will be installed before one year after project completion. This I.C.U: calculation shall be based on-a44-prejeeted-tra€€4e seurees-exeept-the-prepesed-prejeet exi,6ti.ng txa64.ic, pW xegiona2 txa4Jic growth and committed on excepted pnojec6 , on poxtiows o4 pxoject6 occwuring in .the dame time 6xame. 3. The I.C.U., with the .incnementat .incAea3e .in tna4jie capacity .in addition to that o6 11.8.2.b. pnov.ided by private hectax 6unding o4 traffic system improvements that will be installed before one year after project completion .in conjunction with the project ca by other projects approved undeA the Txa66ie Phahing Oxdinanee, based on all sources of traffic, including traffic generated by the proposed project ox poxtion o4 the pxojeet, with approved trip generation reduction measures. This I.C.U. must be 8.90 equal to or less than the I.C.U. o6 Item II.B.2.b. to make finding I.D.3.a. III. DEFINITIONS AND ANALYSIS RESTRAINTS A. Traffic System Improvements Traffic system improvements may be included in the traffic analysis for a proposed project, provided that: • • The improvement will be completed no more than one year after completion of the project or project phase for which the traffic, analysis is being performed; and 2. The improvement is included in the Circulation Element of the General Plan, and is defined sufficiently therein to permit an I.C.U. analysis to be performed; or 3. The improvement design "zumption has been approved by the City Council, and is defined sufficiently to permit an I.C.U. analysis to be performed. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING PAGE 5 THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE B. Projected Capacity Increases from Traffic System Improvements For purpdses of the traffic analysis, {70-354 (95)% of the incremental increase in intersection capacity (based on capacity of 1.500 1700 vehicles.per hour of green time for each full traffic lane) shall be utilized. Upon completion of the improvement, traffic volume counts shall be updated, and any additional available capacity may then be utilized in future traffic analyses. C. Traffic Volumes: 1. Traffic volumes shall be based on up-to-date estimates of traffic volumes expected to exist one year.after completion of the project, or portion of the project, for which the traffic analysis is being performed. Such estimates shall include existing traffic as determined by annual field counts plus traffic generated by previously commuted, excepted a approved projects or portions of projects expected to exist in the same time period plus estimated increases in regional traffic. / If the intersection configuration being analyzed is the ultimate ` configuration consistent with the Circulation Element or other- wise approved by the City Council, then the traffic volumes used in the analysis shall include total traffic expected to be generated from all previously committed, excepted an approved projects even if they will not be completed at the time the subject project is completed. 2. The incremental regional traffic for the time period between the date of existing counts and one-year after project comple- tion will be estimated based on the rate projected by the traffic model or on a growth projection developed by the Traffic Engineer - and approved by the Planning Commission. 3:--Fer-mak4ng-the-l%-test-a€-11:-A:2-;-tra€€4e-ve4urses-shall-net be-used-wh4eH-exeeed-the-eapae4ty-e€-the-e4reu1at4en-system spee4€4ed-4m-the-Genera444an D. Trip Generation Trip generation estimates for the project shall be based on standard trip generation values established by the City Traffic Engineer with - the approval of the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal or review. These trip generation figures may be modified only when the applicant proposes specific, permanent guanantteed measures that will reduce traffic generated by the project, provided that: ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING PAGE 6 THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE ( 1. The applicant describes in writing, in advance of the traffic analysis., the proposed measures, the estimated reduction in trip generation that will result, and the basis for the esti- mate. The estimate must be approved by the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal or review before the trip generation figures may be reduced. The applicant provides the Planning Commission with a written assurance that the proposed trip generation reduction measure will be permanefltly implemented bon a6 tong a6 needed and agrees to make said.perm4eeRt implementation a condition for project approval. Traffic -Distribution Traffic distribution shall be based on the traffic network expected to exist one year after project completion including those portions of the network associated with previously committed'on excepted - pno jectz and approved pro jectz under .the T=6j is Pha6 ing Ond•inance approved projects or portions of theae projects expected to exist at that time. F. Improvements or Modifications to the Circulation System If the applicant wishes to propose quantifiable improvements or changes to the circulation system, which may not appear to be strictly consistent with the Circulation Element, or special assump- tions as a basis for the traffic analysis, he shall provide a descrip- tion of such proposals in writing to the Planning Commission, along with supporting data justifying their use, in advance of the traffic analysis. Such proposals may then be used in the traffic analysis if they are approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council. IV. ISSUANCE OF PERMITS Permits may be issued for all or a portion of a project after an appro- priate finding under I.D. has been made. A. Grading Permits Grading permits may be issued prior to performance of the traffic analysis if vesting rights ahaoc,iated with .the grading are waived by applicant. B. Building Permits Where traffic system improvements have been included in the traffic analysis, building permits may be issued only after traffic system improvement timing has been confirmed as follows: 0 ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING PAGE 7 THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE ( 1. It has been budgeted and committed for development by the City; or 2. The State or County or other governmental agency making the improvement has accepted bids; or 3. The improvement is to be installed or guaranteed by the applicant in conjunction with the development project and is approved by the appropriate governmental jurisdictions. C10Y OF NEWPORT BEOH COUNCIL \MEN A y °0 °�Z �\s Regular Council Meeting Place: Council Chambers Time: 7:30 P.M. Date: February 27, 1978 MINUTES ITkvold ROLL CALL Present Motion Ayes Motion Ayes \ [xXxxxxx x x x x x x x x x x x x Roll Call. The rea f the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 13, 19TS�was�waived, and said Minutes were approved as amended and o�c2e d filed. The reading in full of all ordinances an tions under consideration was waived, and the City Clerk was directed to read by titles only. CONTINUED BUSINESS: Mayor Pro Tem Barrett stepped down from the Council table due to a possible conflict of interest on the following item. 1. A proposed Emergency Ordinance No. 1758, being, Moratorium 0-1758 AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF (2873) NEWPORT BEACH PROHIBITING THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING AND GRADING PERMITS FOR CONSTRUC- TION OF CERTAIN COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL AND RESIDENTIAL_ PROJECTS_(CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65858), was presented. A report was presented from the Community Develop- ment Department regarding the status of the General Plan review and amendments. A letter from Shirley Ynutsen was presented urging support of a moratorium. A letter from Mr. and Mrs. Edward P. Benson was presented opposing a moratorium and enclosing a clipping from the Wall Street Journal concerning the results of a growth -controlled plan adopted by Santa Barbara. The following people addressed the Council in favor'of the moratorium and/or initiative ordinance: Jean Watt, representing L.E.A.F.; Allan Beek; Calvin McLaughlin; Daniel Emory; Louise Greeley; Sue Ficker who made a slide presentation; Margot Skilling; and Hal Thomas. Motion x Sue Ficker was granted five additional minutes Ayes x x x x x x for her presentation. Absent x The following people addressed the Council in opposition to the moratorium and/or initiative ordinance: Glenn Martin, Executive Officer of the Board of Realtors; E. T. Benson; David Neish, representing The Irvine Company; Bob Alleborn, representing Emkay Development; Peg Forgit; Rudy Baron, President of the Newport Harbor Area Chamber of Commerce; John Macnab; Lyman Faulkner; and Bill Ficker, architect. Volume 32 - Page 39 i FILE C PY DO NOT REMOVE V"41 -y CITY OF NEWPORT BE*H COUNCILMEN MINUTES c+ <� yy a\ Fy $ 17_ 197R INDEX HULL I:ALL \ \ ` - -" - Motion x Councilman Ryckoff made a motion to adopt Ayes x x x Emergency Ordinance No. 1758 for a four -month period for commercial property in excess of Noes x x x 10,000 square feet of building area, and residen- Absent x tial development in excess of ten units per development, which motion failed to carry. Motion x Councilman McInnis made the following motion: Each Tuesday, starting March 70 at a time certain and with a publiahed,agenda, there will be held a series of weekly communication meetings_open to the public, with the staff, the Planning Commission, the Council, concerned -citizens and anyone else. The purpose_is for specific communications on specific projects, and/or proposed projects of all undeveloped land in town. The staff is to be the conducting agency unless there is an acceptable alternate person designated. There should be no voting, but, hopefully, meaningful dialogue that can be fitted info Planning Commission an_d subsequent Council deliberations. Councilman McInnis amended his motion to establish 7:30 p.m. as the time certain. Ayes x x x x A vote was taken on Councilman McInnis' amended -- — motion, which motion carried: Noes x x Absent x Mayor Pro Tem Barrett resumed his feat at the Council table. 2. A report was presented from the Public Works Department regarding the request of Burt Elliott, 7atk A.I.A., for a curb cut on Park Avenue to serve 201 Diamond Avenue. Motion x The request for a curb cut on Park Avenue was Ayes x x x x x x x denied. 3. A report was presented from the Public orks Encroachment Department regarding the request of H and and Pub R-O-W Marilyn Meek to construct a 3-foo high fence in DeAnza Dr the public right-of-way adjace et0 509 DeAnza (2866) Drive, Corona Highlands. A permit to construct temporary 3-foot-high picket Fence in the arkway adjacent to 509 Motion x DeAnza Drive was proved, subject to the Ayes x x x x x x x condition that a permit can be withdrawn at any time. 4. A repo was presented from the City Librarian Library reg ding the Newport Center Branch Library. (2030) Spencer Covert, Chairman of the Board of Library Trustees, addressed the Council. i Volume 32 - Page 40 r r f• 'li / I� -14n f' 0 1'rom the Office of Qjty Clerk TODAY'S MAIL Date: q-/T -7d' N . i1'ttTl : A co P ro (.' Slow-GrowthFoliO . Works on West Coast —Per aps Too Well Home rites Have Climbed In Santa Barbara, Calif.; Jobs Scarce;. Taxes.'High But City May Be Better Off • By G. CHRISTIAN HILL Staff Reporter Of THE WALLSTRESTJOURNAL I SANTA BARBARA, Calif.—Onlya hand- ful of tract'homes have -been built AM 1U I fn this cityAt 72,ouu people. Hundreds of res. E lRon,� Milna n' of c_ Plans for rye eveelooine o " A decaying, poverty-stricken little back- 0 water? Far from it, Santa Barbara and vl•. 3 cinity, known collectively as the Southl o Coast, is one of the most attractive places to live and work in• California. Thousands of 1 tourlsts=and potential residents -are drawn here by'the mild climate, scenic beaches and relaxed way of life. r That is just the way most South Cbasters f want the place to stay. Revolting against the t pressures exerted by rapid growth in the I- 1M—the .revolt received great impetus I from a million -gallon offshore oil spill nine t years ago -.they have made 'the area a ma- jor proving ground for various measures that have held back residential, commercial and industrial development. Paul Wack; as- sistant planner of Santa Barbara County, says:. Too High a Price? As a result the area seems frozen in 3 dme, is appearance an style almost un. 3 changed over t e past severa years. out 3 preservInguie scat us quo as s social an 1 emmmfc nneA—a n—fi- ce hi eno�give I 1 I t II / weighing similar moves. On the South Coast, growth control produced or contributed to several cc quences: I —Construction curbs have sent nrici DIMEreement as to Blame Those for and against gro over how much of the dan blamed directly on measures and how much should be attri eral economic conditions. Br disagree Keeping the Lid On: Plan to Curb can be red here 1 to gen• Growth Works, Perhaps Too Well rest lien[ i o ohc and unceoshlg;' says• Mayor David Schlffman;; who favors moderate growth. "People are viewing each other as enemies. This isn't typical of Santa Barbarans; we used to be able to argue and, then go and have,supper,together, the next night. No bou-fre same size as Santa Ba st west of It, has a water board 1 by no•growthers who since 1973 refused to authorize new water eastern fringe of Santa Barbara, have to the same step, In Santa Barbara Itself, Because home building was suppres the housing frenzy that struck much of ( fornia In the, past couple of years hit South Coast early and with heightened fe ity. Between April 1975- and April 1 prices in the South Coast area increl more than in any other region studied by Real -Estate Research Council of Soutl From First S Restricted in the number of homes they can put up, builders are sharply increasing their profit margins on the ones they do erect. Builder Gene Kuehnle, who calls the restriction .of housing "a social wrong;' adds: "The windfall profits being made here are unreal. Personally, I'm going to make a lot of money, but it's dirty money. You're stepping over people's bodies to make it." Schools Are -Affected Chamber of Commerce, tells of finding a, building III the area for a small company that wanted to relocate here; when the Information Magnetics Corp., one mon: a pro -growth unionist calls environ• mentalist opponents "goofier than pet coons," and anti-growthers speak of their foes as if they were robber barons intent on raping the South Coast for personal profit, The more thou htfal and• hers had con, cede that the nolfetes onted here ave some adverse social and eco omit im a , but t I'— e-F v areas tat too mac ou be worse. "What alternative do we baver sags? wrence Schatz, an official at Wost- ,mont College in Montecito and a former Santa Barbara City councilman, He contin• ues: "Anyone looking ,at cities of more than 100,000 sees increased crime, an expanslon of government and taxes, more poverty, more -minorities, more social problems to deal with. That's what happens when cities grow. The limited capacity of a city to dial with this has to be faced eventually. We de• tided to face it earlier than most places." The onnosine forces are closely matched h one snows eFas es e 12neror \ loot teat er. ve coup es are�one or gouth Coasters; feel most keenly the -re-: Y luum LL UC al'u'. V. .uca. an .m . — daug ters w o go a sew ere to find career opportunt es. "If's as own ne now many of our yo_unn eo le are iIl awa ; ' sovs Mr.l Sc� t e Santa Barbara mayor. "It's virtually impossible for them them t_ t' lob none of In four could, and even If they did they'd have had to live at home." General Research Corp.. a think tank based in Santa Barbara, sa s in a stud on r e nt CORSt roar a ut 1800 new wDr - ers ner year, mostly goune Dennis.enter the labor market here -but that the local econ• omv. slowed down by growth controls, pro- duces only about 1,400 o s. More im rtant, many of the jobs are In a'pos�ons, tthat don't o er re oppo tm t es of i price enough income ` or a larTULY to live on i—aal y. These positions (sometimes called "surf and sun jobs") are being taken by young single people and childless couples who drift to Santa Barbara and environs, attracted by the climate and relaxed way of life. They of- ten get by on low incomes by splitting rents -which also have risen sharply -with oth- ers. This creates'another roblem endemic crow n . In some secnons•of Santa Bar• bars t sn t unusu o rincl two fa es v inz in a small house with a sin to at . A 1975 census taker four our u is an s x children living in a Sears Roe uck ut 1 ty shed. Population Loss Foreseen According to the General Research study, however, the population of the area is e ected• to snow et oTss o a u between now and 1980, with Younger neople -starting new families anoo ng or t• ter to s a� nd ouTi sing-Oeingg Me—lpl' ncipal .emigres. says Ueneral Hesearanan st Harry Fox: ".4. ne LU p any atten on ._ . su ort households" I ono In ies o bring in more jobs are being lost, not only throw ththe curr on- new Industries but also because of'I oat ous n rices. Sept Stewart a ec dye vice prest ent of th,anta Barbara San. Diego I county, B3ooming SAN DIEGO (AP) = A' healthy economy, climate and tourism are expanding San Diego's population by 2.6 per- cent annually and help• ing a boom throughout the county, researchers said. The unemployment rate in San Diego, the nation's ninth largest city, has floated around 10 percent, higher than other population con. •ters. But a new study said the migration of re- sidents caused much of that. TORE.VERSLAND, author of the study done with= a $45,000 federal grant, said estimates that the county's popula• tion will grow by 60,000 a year "may well prove to be low:" "I think the city's at. tempts to bring jobs here will be very suc- cessful, and people always go where the jobs are." ., 0 • • • February 14, 1978 Fri Councilman McInnis and Members of the Newport Beach City Council 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 Dear Council Members: I wish to apologize for my hasty and inept speech before the Council on Monday evening. Mr. McInnis' comments made it sound like this was the first time the idea of a moritorium had been approached, or'that the people involved had not taken time to think about the consequences or problems involved for all citizens of Newport, or to offer some solutions regardless how inadequate he may feel they are. In my mind, the situation reminds me of an airplan loaded with passengers (citizens) in a holding pattern (moritorium) hovering over an airport (city) loaded with runway traffic (streets & roadways) waiting to land. The planes are stack- ing up behind (new citizens to Newport). If no positive steps are taken to make room for landing (General Plan changes)* _ 7 he runs out of fuel (time) and crashes. Thus loosing some hate citizens who will leave the area because of the congestion, fbrl' SEIIiiO� and the new ones will begin the pattern all over again. May,, Please forgive this corny simile, but I think it is Allnrney time to get off the dime and make a move. �IfornU:v Diptte� I feel we need to establish a reasonable standard for (] rnne, roadway service and phase our growth accordingly. 0 Councilmen Sincerely, aj Mrs. Sh; Oley Knutsen 321 Coral Ave. Balboa Island, Ca. 92662 Please make a copy for each Council member. I rN 1 C#Y OF NEWPORT BAH COUNCILMEN �o •P� '6 <,9� y�T cT�,yy yy� A pn1 l rAI l February 13, 1978 MINUTES Mayor Pro Tem Barrett resumed his seat at the Council table. CONTINUED BUSINESS: 1. A letter from L. D. Hubbell was presented regard- Encroach- ing encroachment permit for property located at ment 2919 Cliff Drive. Cliff Dr Park A report was presented from the Parks, Beaches (2582) and Recreation Director. Beaches and Recreation Director Cal gave a brief report. \addres ubbell, representing Mrs. Barbara Gartler, e Council. Motion x An encrfor 25 years was granted which %oacent Ayes x x x x x x would clear t le for the sale to proceed. Absent x CURRENT BUSINESS: 1. A letter from Feldsott & ee was presented Sundance Dr requesting Council to cone r the vacation of Dedication Sundance Drive now that the C is no longer a (2380) party to the lawsuit involved. A letter from Welton & Company was p sented regarding Sundance Drive street access. A report was presented from the City Attorn Martin Lee of Feldsott & Lee, representing the Newport Condominium Homeowners Association addressed the Council and urged consideration of the vacation of Sundance Drive. Motion x The request was denied. Ayes x x x x x x Absent Ix Mayor Pro Tem Barrett stepped down from the Council table due to a possible conflict of interest on the following item and appointed Councilman McInnis as Temporary Chairman. 2. A letter from Jean Watt for L.E.A.F. was pre- Moratorium sented regarding a proposed building moratorium. (2873) A letter from the Balboa Island Improvement Association was presented supporting a moratorium on developments of ten or more units, or greater than 10,000 square feet imposed by the Council. Letters from Marguerite Forgit and from the Newport Harbor Chamber of Commerce were presented opposing a building moratorium. Volume 32 - Page 28 FI Ll- COPY DO NOT REMOVE RTY OF NEWPORT BACH COUNCILMEN 'A 9 °O 1% A °�,y `2s am i cAi i s February 13, 1978 MINUTES n91mv, The City Attorney reviewed for Council the State law on moratoriums, and reminded the Council that six affirmative votes were necessary to adopt an emergency ordinance. The following people addressed the Council in favor of a building moratorium: Jean Watt, representing L.E.A.F.; Daniel Emory; Shirley Knutsen; and Frank Robinson. Motion x Jean Watt was granted an additional three minutes Ayes x x x x x for her presentation. Absent x x Motion x Daniel Emory was granted two additional minutes Ayes x x x x x for his presentation. Absent x x The following people addressed the Council and opposed a building moratorium: Glen Martin, executive officer of Newport Harbor Board of Realtors; Marguerite Forgit; Evelyn Hart for Newport Heights Homeowners Association; Goldie Joseph; and Dick Reeves, Vice President for Planning for The Irvine Company who read a letter in full. Motion x Mr. Reese was granted eight minutes for his Ayes x x x x x presentation. Absent x x Motion x The item was continued to February 27, 1978. Ayes xx xxx Absent x x Mayor Pro Tem Barrett resumed his seat at the Council table. Councilman McInnis was excused from the meeting. 3. A report was presented from the Parks, Beaches Council and Recreation Director regarding an amendment o Policy Council Policy I-5. (430F) Motion x Council Policy I-5, "Use, Priorities an Fees for Ayes x x x x x Facilities and Equipment" was amendeess recom- Absent x x mended by staff. % Mayor Pro Tem Barrett stepped down from the Council table due to a possible conflict of interest on the following item and appointed-touncilman Ryckoff as Temporary Chairman. ✓ 4. A report was presented from the Marine Department Harbor regarding Harbor Permit Application No. 259-106 Permits by Gary T*Att to replace an existing float at (304F) 106 S.rBay Front. Motion x Th aapplication was approved subject to the Ayes x x x x x condition that no vessel shall be moored on the Absent x x outside of the slip. Volume 32 - Page 29 • is Mrs. Jean 'Watt 4 Harbor Island Newport Beach, CA January 23, 1978 Newport Beach City Council 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Mayor Dostal and Members of the Council, 92660 Since September, 1977, we (L.N.A.F. members in particular) have: watched the General Plan review with interest; found the reports extremely valuable; evaluated the ,Planning Commission's suggestions of lower densities to be used as a test in the compu- ter model; and guessed at the outcome of all of this in relation to your request that densities be lowered and phasing be implemen- ted to bring the land use into conformance with the circulation. In addition, we have: developed a specific idea of what we believe should be our goals in regard to phasing of development; agreed on what would seem to be an appropriate maximum density goal where some growth must take place despite circulation defi- oiencies; and are in the process of finalizing a traffic phasing ordinance to be used as an initiative in order to be sure that as many of these goals as possible can be reached. I have discussed this ordinance with Mr. Darnell, Mr. O'Neil, and Mr. Hogan as well as independent "traffic engineers and lawyers - so that all ques- tions could be addressed by our group. We are making as many changes as we can to simplify the implementation but still main- tain the basic intent of the ordinance. Now you know where we are - this is what we think: 1. The best way to answer the problem is for a cooperative e£- fort"To`be made on all sides - with all the knowl-.1ge that we have recently gained - but with a firm committment by the City to assure that the necessary time will be taken to reach a real solution.. 2. • q [)PIP. 1,24 Cope SENT lo: tdnyor A7on; v.ar A4omcY P W I); tct Courn.ilirc;t V� C� The only way to assure us that this would be so is to enact an "urgency ordinance" or moratorium - and to do so prior to the February General Plan hearings. Without that assurance, we will feel that any implied phasing or density changes are virtually meaningless. An ordinance by initiative is not the best way to an s problem but, if,it is the only way to insure a tan real solution, then it is what we feel we must do Sincerely, CG%tC CG�i `; Jean Watt`' cPrY OF NEWPORT BACH MINUTES 13, 1978 (i) To Pending Legislation and Procedural Ethics Committee, a letter from Ralph Winkler, National Chairman of "Not One Square Inch," requesting that the City of Newport Beach place the Panama Canal Issue on the ballot in the City's General Municipal Election. (Copies mailed to Council) (j) To staff for report back, a letter from Howard and Marilyn Meek requesting permission to encroach into the public right-of-way by building's fence along the curb line at 509 DeAnza Drive. This request was denied by the Public Works Department. (Copies mailed to Council) Communica- tions (20) Encroach- ment Pub R-O-W DeAnza Dr (2867) () To taff for reply, a letter from Frank Zinzer OrCo asking for information about whom to contact Airport in regard to the noise generated by commercial (195) rcraft taking off from Orange County Ai ort. (Attached) (1) To at, f for report back, a letter from Bert Curb Cut/ Elliott, A.I.A. requesting the City Council Park Ave to allow 12'8" new curb out on Park Avenue (2867) on Balboa *and. (Copies mailed to Council) 3. The following cotions were referred to the City Clerk for fil and inclusion 1n tthe records: (a)Letters of appreciatio from Mr. and Mrs. Loren Buist and Chris Hurd for the coopera- tion of the staff eN pity Council in the City's acquisition of t e Buist property for the widening of $alboa Boulevard. (Copies mailed to %ouncil) (438) (b) A letter from Jane and Cecil Gibsa expressing appreciation for the wor of the Police Department in recovering t air property which was stolen in November 1977. (Copies mailed to Council) (1622) (c) A letter from Warren Bostick congratulating the Council on its decision not to accept the 4th year HUD grant. (Copies mailed to (2082) Council) (d) A letter from the City of Santa Ana expres- sing appreciation of the City of Newport Beach's support for the Bowers Museum expansion. (Copies mailed to Council) (2807) (e) A letter from SPON congratulating Council for taking a positive step_to�fed a ____' solution to the traffic and 'density problems. (Oopies mailed to Council) (673) Volume 32 - FILE Covoy DO NOT REMOVE ArY OF NEWPORT BORCH COUNCILMEN Amoy �\ anti cell � February 13, 1978 MINUTES 2. The following communications were referred as indicated; (a) To staff for reply, a letter from the Npt Theatre/ Friends of Newport Theatre/ Arts Center Arts Center requesting permission to serve wine with (1294) the refreshments at the Invitational Dress Opening of Newport Theatre/Arta Center. (Copies mailed to Council) (b) To staff for inclusion in on -going study, Traffic a letter from Jean Morris requesting firm Complaints drastic steps be taken in connection with (1154F) density and traffic problems. (Copies mailed to Council) (c) To staff for reply, a letter from Burr Eastbluff/ Allegaert regarding the malfunctioning Jamboree traffic signal at Eastbluff Drive/Ford Traffic Road and Jamboree and requesting a Signals drastically reduced speed limit in order (690) to prevent any accidents. (Copies mailed to Council) (d) staff for reply, a letter from Mr. and Federal . Everett E. Bieger asking that the Revenue Ci use some of the Revenue Sharing Funds Sharing to p ve a dedicated street, Avon Avenue (1159) from veraide Drive to Santa Ana Avenue, since is used by 51 families and customers of the stores in the area. (Copies mailed to Council) (a) To Pending gislation and Procedural Nat'l League Ethics Commi ee, a resolution from the of Cities City of Costa as requesting the National (2550) League of Citie to make a change in its voting polity, opies mailed to Council) (f) To Pending Legisla on and Procedural' Legislation/ Ethics Committee, a esolution of the City Other Cities of Costa Mesa request g the County of Resolutions Orange to act as the I d agency in the (1429) study and evaluation of ighway traffic capacities within the Can ral/Southern Orange County area. (Cops mailed to Council) (g) To Pending Legislation and Pro edural SCAG Ethics Committee, a resolution rom the (447F) City of Garden Grove requesting at the SCAG Executive Committee provide 60-day comment period and information wor hops for SCAG publications impacting loca government. (Copies mailed to Counci (h) To Pending Legislation and Procedural SCAG Ethics committee, a letter and resolution (447F) from the City of Rolling Hills Estates objecting to the Southern California Association of Governments regional housing model. (Attached) Volume 32 - Page 32 • • PO BOX 10.2'`" BA"C•BOf4t-1SLANi7;.;:_CE1:Ll,z`59266.2 .- ..I January 18, 197 U 'RECEIVED \ Community 8 DeVzIDPment 1 D c;Pt. JAD) �-sI- Members of the Newport Beach City Council CITYoF < Newport Beach City Hall N}Qo F�+oN ; 3300 Newport Blvd. / Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 Dear Council: You are to be congratulated in making a positive step to find a solution to our traffic and density concerns . with the General Plan review. The Planning Commission has done an ef£icient.job in their recommendations as far as they go(without the infor- mation the traffic computer may have given). 'Since the computer will not do its job in time for the February General Plan changes, I wish to urge you to continue the, procedures you have begun regardless of the computer and not delay what all of us know are present and continuing to grow problems. We need to lower densities and to phase development NOW in order to develop in an orderly manner within our planned framework of road systems and future growth. Thank you, Shirley Knut n SPON Vice President Please make a copy for each Council member. ,✓'� Date COPIES SIM TO: (( r��� �, C_; JD Mayor z - pMmIlager _ EJ C-1 T l A;torncy ...- rto o -�: P W Director Q CoinDa Director O> [] other / f< v Q Councllmeit 1 1 1 II II II II August 28, 1978 TO: CITY MANAGER FROM: Traffic Engineer SUBJECT: TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE Attached for City Council information and use is a compilation of the various documents related to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The document is broken into eight (8) sections. Section eight (8) contains existing traffic conditions data for the 36 potentially critical inter- sections.' Implementation of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance will require further policy decisions to be made by the City Council. A complete •report outlining the Public Works Department concerns, questions, and •maintenance and operating costs will be presented to the City Council September 11, 1978. Bill E. Darnell Traffic Engineer BED:jd Att. cc: City Council Public Works Director Community Development Department '1 II LIST OF EXHIBITS 1. COUNCIL POLICY S-1 2. TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE ORDINANCE NO. 1777 3. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE. 4. OUTLINE OF METHODOLOGY FOR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 5. MAJOR, PRIMARY, PRIMARY MODIFIED STREETS 6. CRITICAL INTERSECTION IDENTIFICATION 7. TRAFFIC ENGINEERING ASSUMPTIONS 8. EXISTING CRITICAL INTERSECTION TRAFFIC CONDITIONS (WINTER/SPRING 1978) a) 22 Hour Peak Period Approach Volumes and 1% Volumes b) Existing Conditions P.M. Peak Hour I.C.U. Turn Volumes I OP K4 OLTCY TO COORDINATE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT WITH TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES S-1 5/8/78 The City Council of the City of Newport Beach finds that overdevelopment of real property located in the City of Newport Beach has created an uncon- trolled demand on the City's street system, which is harmful to the.public's health, safety and general welfare. Pending a revision to the City's General Plan, which will be aimed at preventing further overcrowding.and traffic congestion, the City Council wishes to adopt this policy as a guideline for the City Staff, City Council, Planning Commission and persons wishing to develop property in the City of Newport Beach prior to said revisions in the General Plan. Section 1. No building or grading permit shall be issued for a commercial or industrial project having a gross floor area equal to or more than 10,000 square feet, or any residential project which is equal to or more than ten dwelling units, unless the Planning Commission and/or City Council make the following findings: a. That traffic during any 2.5 hour peak traffic period on each "major," "primary -modified" or "primary" street which will have an unsatisfactory level of traffic service prior to, or as a result of, the project will be increased less than 1% by traffic generated from the project. b. If by a vote of 4/5ths of the entire Planning Commission and/or City Council that the benefits of the project to the City of Newport Beach outweigh the project's anticipated negative impact, the project may be approved, notwithstanding the requirements of Section l.a above. Section 2. "Unsatisfactory level of traffic service" for the purposes of this policy means peak period traffic service which is worse than "Level of Service D" for more than o-ne hour,_ determined according to standard traffic engineer- ing practices. "—"Level of Service D" is that level of traffic service set forth in the Highway Capacity Manual (1965), or any subsequent edition thereof; provided, however, that such level of service does not exceed the following criteria: (i) intersection capacity utilization of 0� 90_ - (ii) 1,450 vehicles per hour using Critical Movement Summation Method; or (iii) volume -capacity ratio of 0.90. S-1 5/8/78 POLICY TO COORDINATE, FUTURE DEVELOPMENT WTTH TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES - Page 2 Section 3. The City Traffic Engineer, subject to review by the Planning Commission, shall be responsible to conduct the necessary studies and to evaluate the project pursuant to the regulations of this policy. The Traffic Engineer, subject to review by the Planning Commission, shall exercise responsible discretion in determining traffic periods on "major," 'primary -modified" or "primary" streets, intersections which will be significantly affected by the proposed project, volume -capacity ratio studies and other criteria essential for the administration of this policy. If ambiguity exists in the administration of this policy, the Planning Commission and/or City Council is to be consulted to provide the proper interpretation. Adopted - May 80 1978 TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE ORDINANCE NO. 1777 AMENDMENTS TO ORDINANCE NO. 1765 INTRODUCED ON AUGUST 14, 1978 AND SET FOR SECOND READING ON AUGUST 28, 1978. ATTACHMENT T .� ORDINANCE NO. kj 71� AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADDING CHAPTER 15.40 TO THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING A TRAFFIC PHASING PLAN TO COORDINATE DEVELOPMENT OF CERTAIN PROJECTS WITH TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES IN NEWPORT BEACH The City Council of the City of Newport Beach DOES ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Chapter 15.40 is hereby added to the Newport Beach Municipal Code to read as follows: "CHAPTER 15.40 TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE Sections 15.40.010 Finding. 15.40.020 15.40.030 Purpose. Traffic Impact Limitation. 15.40.040 Definitions. 15.40.050 Procedure. 15.40.060 Fees. 15.40.070 Appeal. 15.40.080 Severability. 15.40.010 Findin : The City Council of the City of Newport Beach finds that congestion of streets and inter— sections, traffic accidents, interference with emergency vehicles, and general overcrowding of existing neighborhoods have resulted, or will soon result, from inadequate phasing of commercial, industrial and residential growth, in relation to traffic capacity, which is harmful to the public health, safety and general welfare. •' I A 15.40.020 Purpose. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach declares that aggravation of these conditions can be avoidede eliminated or alleviated by bhaeting the following, designed to permit major develop- ment only in those areas of the city of Newport Beach f/J where adequate transportation facilities exist or will be "G� 4 installed in conjunction with the development to accommodate the traffic`generated by such development. 15.40.030 Traffic Impact Limitation. (A) Limitation. r No building or grading permit shall be issued, and no construe- tion shall be commenced, for any project not exempt from this' Chapter until the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach shall make a written finding that the proposed project, pp including traffic mitigation measures: �,_ J (i) will neither cause nor make Worse an unsatisfactoiry level of traffic service on any 'major,' 'primary -modified' or 'primary' streets or (A) shall be excepted pursuant to subsection (B) of this sections provided, however, that such finding shall state the -exception granted and the facts which justify the exception. (B) Hearing. The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing, noticed in the manner provided in Section 20.50.050(B) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, and shall make its written findings supported by the weight of the evidence. (C) Exemption. Any commercial or industrial project which has a gross floor area equal to or less than 10,000 square feet, or any residential project of 10 dwalling.units or less shall be exempt from the requirements of this Chapter. (b) Exceptions. The Planning- Commission shall except any project from the requirements of this Chapter: -2- I� 11 A I (i) if it shall find that the City has issued a building or grading permit for the project prior to the effective date of this Chapter and that the person to whom such permit was' issued has in good faith and in reliance upon such permit diligently commenced construction and performed and incurred substantial liabilities for work and materials necessary therefor. No change causing a substantial increase in traffic volumes may be made in such project, except in accord- ance with the provisions of this Chapter; (ii) if it shall find that traffic during any 2�6 4yg 2_5- hour peak traffic period on eaeh-street-wh*eh-w#}}-pave-an unsat4s€aetery-�eve�-a#-tra€€4e-sere#ee-pr#er-ter-er-as-a result-e€r-the-prejeet each leg of each critical intersection will be increased less than 1% by traffic generated from the project during that 2:6 3,g z.s hour period; (iii) if, by a vote of four -fifths (4/5ths) of the members eligible to vote, it shall make a decision, supported by a written finding setting forth its reasons therefor, that the benefits of the project outweigh the project's anticipated negative impact on transportation facilities. The City Council shall not grant the exception under this subsection (iii) on appeal or review until it shall have first made the findings required by this subsection supported by an affirmative vote of four -fifths (4/5ths) of its members eligible to vote. (E) Action. The application for any building, grading or other permit on. a project, which is not exempt from this Chapter, shall be approved, 'conditionally approved or denied within one year from the date.on which said appli- cation has been received and accepted as complete by the City. Any appeal to the City Council from an action by the Planning Commission on an application or a determination - by the City Council to review an application, shall be made within the - 3 - time periods set out in Sections 20,80.070 and 20.80.075 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. In the event action is not taken on an application within the time limits hereof, such failure shall be deemed approval of the project which otherwise is consistent with the ordinancesand General Plan of the City of Newport Beach. 15.40.040 Definitions. The following terms used in this Chapter shall have the meanings indicated below: UNSATISFACTORY LEVEL OF TRAFFIC SERVICE means peak period traffic service which is worse than Level of Service 'D' for inere-than one hour determined according to standard traffic engineering practices. PROJECT shall be determined by reference to the California Environmental Quality Act [California Public Resources Code f1 2100 at seq.] and the administrative guidelines established thereunder. LEVEL OF SERVICE 'D' shall mean that level of traffic service set forth as 'Level of Service 'D " in the Highway Capacity Manual (1965)-or any subsequent edition thereof, provided, however, that such level of service shall not exceed the most appropriate of the following criteria, as applicable: (i) intersection capacity utilization of 0.90; (##�---}r4Sg-veh4e}es-per-hear-us4ng-she-6r#b4ea} Meven�eni-Se�nn�ai#en-NeEhedT 4444) velu�ne-eapae#6y-rai#a-a€-G.96►-er (4v)(ii) other criteria selected by the City Traffic Engineer which are consistent with subsection (i) Waugh E4444-above. and which have bean reviewed and Approved by the Planning Commission. CRITICAL INTERSECTION shall mean any intersection operating at an unsatisfactory level of traffic service, either prior to or as a result of a project, on any 'major,' 'primary - modified,' or 'primary' street. —4— II 1, I 'MAJOR,' 'PRIMARY -MODIFIED' or 'PRIMARY' street shall be defined by the General Plan.of the City of Newport Beach, Circulation Element. ELIGIBLE TO VOTE shall mean all members lawfully holding office except those disqualified from voting due to a conflict of interest. 1.5.40.050 Procedure. Subject to review by the Planning Commission, the City Traffic Engineer, exercising 'professional discretion, shall: (A) Determine traffic periods, streets and intersections which will be significantly affected by the proposed project, taking into account the type, character and location of the proposed project, as well as the character of the streets which will serve the project; (B) Determine if the project, when complete, will cause or make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic services at any such street or intersection; (C) Transmit these determinations to the Planning Commission with recommendations. , 15.40.060 Fees. The application shall be accompanied by a fee as established by,resolution of the City Council to defray the expense of administering this Chapter. 15.40.070 Appeal. (A) The determination of the Planning Commission shall be final unless there shall be an appeal by the applicant or any other person pursuant to the procedure set forth in Section 20.80.070,of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Such appeal shall be limited to evidence presented before, and the findings of, the Planning Commission. (B) The City Council shall have a Right of Review as set forth in Section'20.80.075 of the Newport Beach Munici- pal Code, as limited above. ' -5- (C) The City Council shall make its written finding, in the same manner as set forth in Section 15.40.030 of this Chapter. 15.40.080 Sevarability. If any section or portion of this Chapter is declared invalid, the remaining sections or portions are to be eonsiderad valid." SECTION 2. The City Council shall amend the General Plan of the City of Newport Beach to conform to this Ordinance. SECTION 3. This Ordinance shall be published once in the official newspaper of the City and shall be effective thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption. This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council the City of Newport Beach held on the q� day of J(,� 1N 1�.i . 1978, and was adopted' on the day of _ _ , 1978, by the following vote, to wit: ATTESTS city Clark AYES, COUNCILMEN• NOES, COUNCILMEN: ABSENT COUNCILMEN: Mayor -6- BDO/kb 6/16/78 � ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE (PRELIMINARY SUBJECT T I ATTACHMENT 2 ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE A. General: These procedures apply to all commercial or industrial projects• which have a gross floor area equal to or greater than 10,000 sq.ft., and all residential projects of -ten dwelling units or more. B. Exceptions: The Planning Commission may except projects from the requirements of these procedures by making the following findings: 1. The City has issued a building or grading permit for the project prior to May 8, 1978, and that the person to whom such permit was issued has in good faith and in reliance upon such permit diligently commenced construction and • performed and incurred substantial liabilities for work and materials therefore; and 2. No changescausing•a substantial'increase in traffic volumes have been made in the project. C. Evaluating Projects: 1. The applicant files a request for consideration of the project, under the provisions of the Ordinance, with the Community Development Department. The request must be accompanied by a project description, site plan, and fees as set by the City Council. 2. A traffic analysis shall then be prepared by a qualified traffic engineer according to the methodology approved by the City Council. D. Staff Recommendation: The City's Traffic Engineer will review the report prepared by the consultant and transmit the findings and worksheet to the Community Development Department for presentation to the Plan- ning Commission. E. F. G. Planning Commission Review and Findings: The Planning Commission shall review the determination and recommendations of the Traffic Engineer and'the Community Development Department, at a duly -noticed public hearing, and make one of the following findings: a) The City has issued a building or grading permit for the project prior to May 8, 1978, and that the person to whom such permit was issued has in good faith and in reliance upon such permit diligently commenced construction and performed and incurred substantial liabilities for work and materials necessary therefore. No change causing a substantial increase in traffic volumes may be made in such project, except in accord- ance with the provisions of Council Policy S-1; or b) The traffic during any 2.5 hour peak traffic period on each leg of each critical intersection will be increased less than 1% by traffic generated from the project during that 2.5 hour period; or c) The proposed project, including traffic mitigation measures, will neither cause, nor more worse, an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on any "major", "primary, -modified" or "primary" street; or d) The proposed project, including traffic mitigation measures, may cause, or make worse, an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on any "major", "prima'ry- modified" or "primary" street. Approval of Applications: Applications may be approved when Findings E(a), E(b)'or E(c) are made. If FindingE(d) is made•bv the Planning Commission, hen an ap_plicat�ion cannot be approved unless it,can be demonstrated that tie Gene s of the ro e,2„c __ e � of ewpor eac ou wet—igffi`tWe projecti's anticipated n_eg_a eve plc, on a`nsPorta ion ac_'il—fi_eess� (This finding mus-Vbe supported by an affirmative vote of four -fifths of the members eligible to vote on the Planning Commission). Appeals a) The determination of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council pursuant to the procedure set forth in Section 20.80.070 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. b) The City Council shall have a Right of Review as set' forth in Section 20.80.075 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. OUTLINE OF METHODOLOGY FOR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS I(PRELIMINARY SUBJECT TO COUNCIL APPROVAL ON AUGUST 28, 19781 I 1.1 i OUTLINE OF METHODOLOGY FOR TRAFFIC ANALYSES I. DESIGNATION OF IMPACTED INTERSECTIONS AND DETERMINATION OF PROJECT IMPACT FOR 2.5 HOUR PEAK PERIOD. A. The Traffic Engineer will determine which inter- sections will be'affected by the proposed project according to its size and geographic location. B.' An analysis will be done whereby it will be determined if the project will generate more than one percent of existing traffic volumes for each leg of each critical intersection during that 2.5 hour peak period. If less than a one percent increase is demonstrated for each leg, then the analysis is concluded. II. IF THE INITIAL TRAFFIC STUDY INDICATED THAT THE PROJECT MAY GENERATE MORE THAN ONE PERCENT OF EXISTING.TRAFFIC VOLUMES ON ONE OR MORE LEGS OF A CRITICAL INTERSECTION, THEN THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER OR A QUALIFIED CONSULTANT WILL ANALYZE THE INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION FOR THE IMPACTED INTERSECTIONS. The report will indicate the following: 1) Existing I.C.U. 2) I.C.U. with the project 3) I.C.U. with the project and mitigation u lip III. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The appropriate determination(s) shall be made in cases where a full traffic analysis is required under Section II; such as the following: A. The I.C.U. as a result of the project (alone) will be less than or equal to .90 OR will be less than or equal to the existing I.C.U. (if the _ �'_;Q existing I.C.U. is already above .90). B. The I.C.U. as a result of the project, including mitigation measures, will be less than or equal to .90 OR will be less than or equal to the existing I.C.U. (if the existing I.C.U. i-s already above .90). C. The I.C.U. as a result of the project (alone) will be greater than .90 OR greater than the existing I.C.U. (if the existing I.C.U. is already above .90). D. The I.C.U. as a result of the project, including mitigation measures, will be greater than .90 OR greater than the existing I.C.U. (if the exist- ing I.C.U. is already above .90). 0 MAJOR, PRIMARY, AND PRIMARY -MODIFIED STREETS DEFINED BY GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CIRCULATION ELEMENT i rl INN Cj\ 1 \ a;a`ir /�• mot` ate, i + �1 \� r I'i\-'c ��+�-$,�+ja1✓v'r/%. �- 1J'-sv'+i��xj\,r(C�i:•�% i "-=� .,wd,• •• �r^r � __ i,: kAO J :'�' } � wpRA mn �'^ o./f�@�%\' � e _...I � i � e,�'m``t- l� _"'-` � • �� -- e , rye' ���� �1 Kk-;':I `-`'L _ ' \� �.,-C`- , i.r�`_�t ,i �• \ WOall ti y'�.W�!•,VO��yi����l�-y`�.?^X�✓,.�` f . -a.. \qy ;�t0f \di'�✓� T a �)i��sl to'< ._b� i, jt•-4� ,\ ;�1 '3�i-117-%i: �� `- .i'V i .\ % •.i.�nk"=_ :; .:. - i mil �.... 'asy �' � 2 .Lai'!-; �.+- - - • •+` �� ... OW00,.'1� '.«�k i +-•t—�(liy I �a ... - ,,7T•l �t "' .._ __7.7.%.Tu�as'-�,.J-'` :�� -,�'.:"^wv-a�{;m �t':::r�,,_,��\\�%yet `. +.a.�+:;i.=i�•'=� MAJOR, PRIMARY, AND \ �' �, ; • '" _ - PRIMARY- MODIFIED STREETS CRITICAL INTERSECTION IDENTIFICATION The City of Newport Beach has been subdivided into seventeen (17) geographic areas. Critical intersections have then been identified that might be impacted by a project to be built in that geographic area. The Traffic Engineer will review the size of the project and its location to determine the actual number of intersections to be evaluated. �`, ``a-t t\L !fit\ `•, ''• y _ ` i ,.• � � ' - bbb !-`v:` `-`�'lS\\\`-�y�.-r /i• E�`\� � �'! Y, � ice, r 4 _ iMs- ,rZ�@�;,._.'•,�o ;r.�`r�—:,.-, ��,.��_i-�r'••• 0�.-_ _._'.--� tea,../ \ ✓'/ .l %'.���-i� � � � ', sue. l �i�"•"' ._ .fin �:� .!� Zz- t. y q �.I •• �e�l'I � 1� t `�•Mt�� �f\it' �- ,vi�'.'�t\�S� % .1 � \`-' �t•��\ ©\ _ �� gyp` �/ ", F � O. ^',-i..Y11��Y�=�1_'-'�t�T•, �� � •rya � � q ��.,�z.P>'•��`' �7 `'� ji 17 - 'z �r\ «��` L�;� I � } �'•,"\;;�`. -'�- _fit ai4�-Y �"�"` dG'-a• _ `' �•� .. � [_ ice'' �. .. - _.v v - \t\tom • •,.� -.. _�.__�,Ci ^ if% �1 -r.. � �' r•--J� - ,� s•.�r ." 1 i t.l ,' :a.cs �F\S\•:� •.•� �L'�' �� M - l — � -`a=�a -__�' c .tit ,. ,�,n �•.: r � .. •t�1�h StiSttt53'1, �_ �.\ \ '•+'�+ a � � -��___ b-. .� _ �^_ `1r•t-t yi ,�� 1 1'�'a�id�.-'. i _�.�=•� � __� � .O� tamp '4 O "rillY%)CITY OF NEWPWR BEACH . k C iR A TPAFaC RHAS�NG QRDINAOM Critical IntersecUQTI Identification For cprrnaaph c Areas of the City 'i 1 TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE Critical Intersection Identification For Geographi.c Areas of the City -Bristol St. No. at Campus Dr. at Birch St. - " at Jamboree Rd. -Bristol St. at Campus Dr. -Irvine " at Birch St. - at Jamboree Rd. -Jamboree Rd. at Campus Dr. at MacArthur Blvd. . It at San Joaquin Hills Rd. !' at -Coast Highway - It at Ford Rd. -MacArthur Blvd. at Campus Dr. at Ford Rd. " at San Joaquin Hills Rd. at Coast Highway -Bristol St. No. at Campus Dr. - " at Birch St. - it at Jamboree Rd. -Bristol St. at Campus Dr -Irvine it at Birch St. It at Jamboree Road -Irvine Ave. at Santiago Dr./22nd St. - " at University Dr. -Jamboree�Rd. at MacArthur Blvd. Coast Highway at Dover Dr. It at Bayside Dr. at Jamboree Rd. at MacArthur Blvd. -Jamboree Rd. at San Joaquin Hills Rd. at Ford Rd. at Bristol St.No. at Bristol St. -MacArthur Blvd. at San Joaquin Hills -Bristol St. No. at Campus Dr. Rd. _ " at Birch St. _ It at Jamboree Rd. -Bristol St. at Campus Dr. -Irvine - at Birch St. - at Jamboree Rd. -Jamboree Rd. at Coast Highway - at San Joaquin Hills Rd. - at Ford Rd./Eastbluff Dr. - at Eastbluff Dr. (North) - at Bison Ave. - at MacArthur Blvd. - it at Campus Dr. -MacArthur Blvd. at Campus Dr. - at Ford Rd. - at San Joaquin Hills Rd. - at Coast Highway 5 -Dover Dr. at Westcliff Dr. It at 16th St. It at Coast Highway -Irvine Ave. at Santiago Dr./22nd St. " at University Dr. at Dover Dr. " at Westcliff Dr. Coast Highway at Dover Dr. " at Bayside Dr. It at Jamboree Rd. It at MacArthur Blvd. Jamboree Rd. at San Joaquin Hills Rd. " at Ford Rd. at Bristol St. No. " at Bristol St. MacArthur Blvd. at San Joaquin Hills Rd. -Bristol St. No. at Campus Dr. -Bristol St. at Campus Dr. -Irvine Ave'. -Coast Highway at Dover Dr. " at Bayside Dr. at Jamboree Rd. at Newport Center Dr. it at MacArthur Blvd. 11 at Marguerite Ave. -Jamboree Rd. at Santa Barbara Dr. at San Joaquin Hills Rd. at Ford Rd. " at Bristol St. No. at Bristol. St. " at MacArthur Blvd. -MacArthur Blvd. at San Joaquin Hills Rd. - It at Ford Rd. iS 9 and 10 -Coast Highway at MacArthur Blvd. at Marguerite Ave. -MacArthur Blvd. at San Joaquin Hills Rd. " at Ford Rd. at Jamboree Rd. 6 11 and 12 -Coast Highway at Dover Dr. " at Bayside Dr.' at Jamboree Rd. at,Newport Center Dr. at MacArthur Blvd. " at Marguerite Ave. -San Joaquin Hills Rd. at Jamboree Rd. at MacArthur Blvd.. AREA 13 -Coast Highway at Dover Dr. " at Bayside Dr. at Jamboree Rd. It at Riverside Ave. -Dover Dr. at Westcliff Dr. - " at 16th St. -Irvine Ave. at Westcliff Dr./l7th St. at Dover Drive " at Santiago Dr./22nd St. -Coast Highway at Bayside Dr. at Jamboree Rd. " at Riverside Ave. - at Dover Dr. at Balboa Blvd/Superior Ave. -Newport Blvd. at Hospital Rd. -Irvine Ave. at Westcliff Dr./l7th St. at Dover Dr./19th St. 15 -Coast Highway at Orange St. " at Balboa Blvd./Superior Ave. at Riverside Ave. at Dover Dr. -Newport Blvd. at Via Lido at 32nd St. at Hospital Rd. at Balboa Blvd. -Coast Highway at Orange St. It at Balboa Blvd./Superior Ave. It at Riverside Ave. -Newport Blvd. at Hospital Rd. -Superior Ave. at Placentia Ave. PROJECT DESCRIPTION - PROJECT DESCRIPTION - I 11 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING ASSUMPTIONS TRAFFIC ENGINEERING ASSUMPTIONS 1. BASE CONDITIONS ARE 1978 WINTER/SPRING 2. 22 HOUR PEAK TRAFFIC VOLUMES OCCUR FROM 3:30 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. 3. CRITICAL PEAK HOUR OCCURS DURING THE P.'M. - 22 HOUR PEAK PERIOD 4, TRIP GENERATION'RATES WILL BE APPROVED BY THE CITr TRAFFIC ENGINEER. 5. TRIP DISTRIBUTION VILL BE APPROVED BY THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER 6. LANE CAPACITY IS 1600 VEHICLES PER HOUR PER LANE, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON I.C.U. FORMS. 7. A YELLOW TIME OF 0.10 WILL BE USED FOR ALL I.C.U. ANALYSIS. FURTHER REFINEMENT OF THIS VALUE WILL BE 'NECESSARY TO REFLECT ACTUAL LOSS TIME AT EACH INTERSECTION. 8. EXCLUSIVE FREE RIGHT TURN LANES WILL NOT BE INCLUDED IN I.C.U. ANALYSIS. t 1 EXISTING CRITICAL INTERSECTION TRAFFIC CONDITIONS The following tables represent an average winter spring 1978 traffic condition for the City of Newport Beach .� �r r r � r r�r .� r rr ■r r - r� r r = r M-F-78r SUMMARY DATA TnnrrTr nuncTNc nDnTNANPF _ WTNTFR/SPRTNn 1978 Page 1 of 2 INTERSECTION EXISTING CONDITIONS Peak Hour I.C.U. 232 HOUR PEAK PERIOD APPROACH VOLUMES AND 1% VOLUMES ORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND Exist. 1% of Exist. 1% of Exist. 1% of Exist. 1% of 232 Hr. Exist. 232 Hr. Exist. 23z, Hr. Exist. 232 Hr. Exist. Peak 232 Hr. Peak 232 Hr. Peak 232 Hr. Peak 232 Hr. Volume Peak Volume Peak Volume Peak Volume Peak Balboa Blvd. at 23rd St. 0.37 811 8 37 1 1234 12 777 8 at Newport Blvd. 0.40 1710 17 2048 20 - - Bristol St. at Campus Dr. -Irvine 0.72 1606 16 3164 32 3027 30 - _ at Birch St. 0.36 223 3 50 943 2359 9 24 2656 2778 27 28 - - - at Jamboree Rd. 0.54 4996 Bristol St. No. at Campus Dr. 1.00 1504 15 3705 37 - _ 4790 48 31 at Birch St. 0.5 552 6 2120 21 - 3053 1162 12 at Jamboree Rd. 0.72 5153 52 2811 28 - - Coast Highway 0.91 196 2 191 2 2610 26 5088 51 at Orange St. at Balboa Blvd./Superior 0.94 -1658 17 2303 23 3202 32 37 3460 ' 3871 35 39 at Riverside Ave. 0.83 30 1 2' 925 '2100 9 21 3666 3489 35 5279 53 at Dover Dr. 0.99-' 0. 242_ 1819 18 . 180 2 4847 48 3860 39 at Bayside Dr. at Jamboree Rd. 0.83 1015 10 2959 30 4264 . 43 3185 32 26 at.JamborCenter Dr. 0.62. - - 2848 2258 28 23 3142 3204 31 32 2566 3432 34 at MacArthur Blvd. 0.77 - 613 - 6 430 4 3132 31 2401 24 at Marguerite Ave. 0.68 Dover Dr. at Westcliff 0.46 1857 19 999 10 1444 14 Irvine Ave. Westcliff Dr/17th St. 0.87 1679 17 2571 26 2243 22 1601 16 at at Dover Dr./19th St. 0.67 2034 20 3321 33 434 4 4 505 380 5 3 at Santiago Dr./22nd St. 0.80 2073 21 3879 39 72 6 72 7 1 at University Dr. 0.86 1985 20 3864 39 m li 8-23-78 SUMMARY DATA TRAFFTC vuAtTNA nRDTNANCE - WINTER/SPRING 1978- Page 2 of 2 INTERSECTION N CONDITIONS Peak Hour I.C.U. 2k HOUR PEAK PERIOD APPROACH VOLUMES AND 1% VOLUMES ORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND Exist. 1% of Exist. 1% of Exist. 1% of FExist. 1% of 22 Hr. Exist. 22 Hr. Exist. 2z Hr. Exist. 2 Hr. Exist. Peak 22 Hr. Peak 22 Hr. Peak 22 Hr.eak 2h Hr. Volume Peak Volume Peak Volume Peak olume Peak Jamboree Rd. at Santa Barbara Dr. 0.53 1895 19 2653 27 - - 1299 2533 13 25 at San Joaquin Hills Rd. 0.64 2581 26 4134 41 385 981 4 10 753 8 at Eastbluff Dr./Ford Rd, 0.83 4574 1681 46 17 2937 2814 29 28 2923 29 3037 30 ur Blvd. at MacArthur 0.85 1.17 3452 35 3417 34 2042 20 1637 16 at Campus Dr. MacArthur Blvd. at Campus Dr. 0.94 2888 29 3129 31 1693 17 2004 20 at Ford Rd. 1.01 3657 37 4032 40 1584 16 31 1007 1451 10 15 at San Joaquin Hills Rd. 0. 1484 15 3065 31 3140 Newport Blvd. 32nd St. 0.67 1868 19 2965 30 518 5 473 5 at at Via Lido 0.67 2601 26 36 4683 3559 47 36 - 1855 - 19 1307 971 13 10 at Hospital Rd. 0.79 3568 San Joaquin Hills Rd. 0.41 120 1 684 7 2133 21 1196 -12 at San Miguel Dr. at Santa Rosa Dr.- Big Canyon 0.57 2200 22 333 3 1545 15 1461 15 at Santa Cruz - Big Canyon 0.45 943 10 447 4 1606 16 1632 16 I. _ _.-- INTERSECTION 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Balboa Boulevard[ 3rd St_r P� t (1) (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Project Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volu Approach Direction Existing Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Northbound 811 8 Southbound 37 1 Eastbound 1234 12 Westbound 777 8 Project Traffic is estimated.to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume ❑Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. (1) Balboa Boulevard is assumed east and west M FORM I PROJECT: $-j- s L Z NL OT S II II (I II II II II II U II II INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Balboa Blvd./23rd Street (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter Spring 1978) Move- ment Lanes Capa- city Existing Peak Hr Volume Project Peak Hr Volume Existing Plus Project Peak Hr Volume Exist. V/C Ratio Project V/C Ratio NL 333 NT 3200 1 .12* NR — 50 SL ST SR 1 1600 18 .01 EL - ET 2 3200 477 .15* ER - WL - WT 2 3200 365 .11 WR - Yellow Time Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. .37 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 EExisting Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 ElFurther analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION Balboa Blvd./23rd Street FORM II PROJECT: - --- INTERSECTION 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Balboa Boulevard/Newport Boulevard (Existing Traffic Volumes based on,Average Winter/Spring 1978) Project Peak 23-2 Hour Traffic.Volume Approach Direction Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume 1% of Existing Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume Northbound 1710 17 Southbound 2048 20 Eastbound - -- Westbound 777 8 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. Balboa Boulevard/Newport Boulevard FORM I PROJECT: INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Balboa Boulevard/Newport Boulevard (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter Spring 1978) Move- ment Lanes Capa- city Existing Peak Hr Volume Project Peak Hr Volume Existing Plus Project Peak Hr Volume Exist. V/C Ratio Project V/C Ratio NL NT 2 N.S. 932 - NR SL 1 N.S. 49 - ST 2 3200 606 •19* SR - EL - ET - ER - WL - WT 2 3200 365 WR 2 N.S 932 .11* Yellow Time .10 Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. .40 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left ❑ Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 FExisting Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to -I Existing Conditions I.C.U. Fl Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 LJ Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION ' PROJECT: Balboa Boulevard/Newport Boulevard i r INTERSECTION tPROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL STREET/�IMPUS DRIVE_- IRVINE AVE. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1976) Project Peak 2 2 Hour Traffic Volum Approach Direction Existing Peak 23, Hour Traffic Volume 1% of Existing Peak 2 2 Hour Traffic Volume Northbound 1606 16 Southbound 3164 32 Eastbound 3027 30 Westbound -- -- EProject Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ❑Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 23-2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I•..C.U.) Analysis is required. BRISTOL STREET/CAMPUS DRIVE - IRVINE AVE.FORM I INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Bristol Street/Campus Drive -Irvine Avenue (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 197$) Move- ment Lanes Capa- city Existing Peak Hr Volume Project Peak Hr Volume Existing Plus Project Peak Hr Volume Exist. V/C Ratio Project V/C Ratio NL - I - ' NT 2 3200 445 .14 NR 1 1600 207 .13 SL 1 1600 81 .05 ST 2 3200 1481 .46* SR - EL 1 1600 142 •09 ET 4 6400 947 .16* ER 108 - WL - - - WT - - - WR - - - Yellow Time .10 ExistingIntersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. 72 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 (-j Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to t—� Existing Conditions I.C.U. INTERSECTION ' PROJECT: Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures Bristol Street/Campus Drive -Irvine Avenue FORM II INTERSECTION 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Bristol Street/Birch Street (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Project Peak 2 z Hour Traffic VoluniE Approach Direction Existing Peak 2 2 Hour Traffic Volume 1% of Existing Peak 2 2 Hour Traffic Volume Northbound 223 3 outhbound 943 10 Eastbound 2656 27 Westbound Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ❑Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. FORM I IPROJECT: INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Bristol Street/Birch Street (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 197_) Move- ment Lanes apa- city Existing Peak Hr Volume Project Peak Hr Volume Existing Plus Project Peak Hr Volume Exist. V/C Ratio Project V/C Ratio NL - - - NT 1 1600 1 30 .02 NR 1 8 SL 1 1600 66 .04 ST 2 3200 285 .09* SR - - - - EL 173 ET 4 6400 863 •17* ER - - 46 WL - - - WT - - - WR - - - Yellow Time .10 Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. .36 Existinq Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left MExisting Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 n Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to �—I Existing Conditions I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 El Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION ' PROJECT. Bristol Street/Birch Street 1 1 1 1 1 ,1 ' INTERSECTION PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRTSTOL STREET�AMBQitFF ROAn (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Project Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume Approach Direction Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume 1% of Existing Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume Northbound 4996 50 Southbound 2359 24 Eastbound 2778 28 Westbound Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ❑Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U:) Analysis is required. BRTSTOL STREET/JAMBOREE ROAD I FORM I INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Bristol Street/Jamboree Road (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Move- ment Lanes —Ca—pa- city Existing Peak Hr Volume Project Peak Hr Volume Existing Plus Project Peak Hr Volume Exist. V/C Ratio Project V/C Ratio NL 2 3200 1005 •31* IT 3 4800 1065 23 NR - 31 ' SL - - - ST 3 4800 1092 •23 SR - - - EL 1 1600 79 .05 ET 2 3200 406 .13* ER 2 3200 689 •22 WIC - - - - WT - - - - WR - - - Yellow Time 10 Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. .54 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 rj L-' Existing Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to Conditions I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 ' Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION Bristol Street/Jamboree Road PROJECT. — II t INTERSECTION ' PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection RRTSTQ1 STRF M,IIS nRTVE - I%?INE AVE. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter/Spring T97_) Project Peak 22 Hour Traffic Vol.um Approach Direction Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Northbound 1504 15 Southbound 3705 37 Eastbound -- ' - estbound 1 4790 48 QProject Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ❑Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. BRISTOL STREET NORTH/CAMPUS DRIVE- IRVINE AVE.FORM I I INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Bristol Street North/Campus Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes Base on Average Winter Spring 197$) _ffo­v_e-_1 ment Lanes apa- city Existing Peak Hr Volume Project Peak Hr Volume Existing Plus Project Peak Hr Volume Exist. V/C Ratio Project V/C Ratio. NL 1 1600 81 .05* NT 2 3200 587 .18 NR - - - SL - - - ST 12 3200 1241 .59* SR 637• EL - - - ET - - - ER - - - WL 1 1600 321 .20 WT 4 6400 1660 .26* WR 30 Yellow Time .10 Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. 1.00 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 FExisting Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. El Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 El Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION 1 PROJECT: Bristol Street North/Campus Drive I INTERSECTION PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Bristol Street North/Birch Street (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Project Peak 2 2 Hour Traffic Volum pproach . - Direction Existing Peak 2: Hour Traffic Volume 1% of Existing Peak 2 z Hour Traffic Volume Northbound 552 6 Southbound 2120 21 Eastbound -- estbound 3053 31 ElProject Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of.Existing Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 21-2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. Bristol Street North/Birch Street FORM I INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Bristol Street North/Birch Street (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Move- ment Lanes Capa- city Existing Peak Hr Volume Project Peak Hr Volume Existing Plus Project Peak Hr Volume Exist. V/C Ratio Project V/C Ratio NL 1 1600 36 •02* NT 2 3200 203 .06 NR - - - SL - - - ST 2 3200 285 27* ' SR 571 EL ET ER - - - WL 46 WT 4 6400 1205 .20* WR 36 Yellow Time 10 Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. •59 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. 1-1 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0,90 INTERSECTION PROJECT: ` Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures Bristol Street North/Birch Street RM II INTERSECTION 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL STREET NORTH/JAMBOREE ROAD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Project Peak 2 2 Hour Traffic Volume Approach Direction Existing Peak 2 2 Hour Traffic Volume 1% of Existing Peak 2 z Hour Traffic Volume Northbound 5153 52 Southbound 2811 28 Eastbound -- estbound Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ❑Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. STREET ROAD FORM I PROJECT: INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Bristol Street North/Jamboree Blvd. (Existing Traffic Volumes Base on Average Winter/Spring 197 Move- ment Lanes Capa- city Existing Peak Hr Volume Project Peak Hr Volume Existing Plus Project Peak Hr Volume Exist. V/C Ratio. Project V/C Ratio NL 2 3200 1005 •31* NT 3 4800 1144 .24 NR ' SL - - ST 3 4800 1047 •22* SR 1 1 11600 218 .14 EL - - ET - - ER - - WL 15 WT 3 4800 571 09* WR 8 Yellow Time .10 Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. •72 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left 11 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ElExisting Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. I INTERSECTION PROJECT: Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0,90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures Bristol Street North/Jamboree Road FORM II I! II li 11 INTERSECTION 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersections c_i+ hw'd Anna Avanua (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Project Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Approach Direction Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Northbound 196 2 Southbound 191 2 Eastbound 2610 2 Westbound 5088 51 .0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume aProject Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. Coast Highway/Orange Avenue a FORM I PROJECT II INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Coast Highway/Orange Avenue (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Move- ment Lanes Capa- city Existing Peak Hr Volume Project Peak Hr Volume Existing Plus Project Peak Hr Volume Exist. V/C Ratio Project V/C Ratio NL 44 NT 2 3200 10 O1 NR 32 SL 39 ST 1 1600 14 .05* SR 25 EL 1 1600 39 •02* ET 3 4800 975 .20 ER 62 WL. 1 1600 58 .04 WT 2 3200 2362 •74* WR 1 1600 38 .02 Yellow Time .10 Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. .91 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left 11 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 EL Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to I Existing Conditions I.C.U. ,1 INTERSECTION PROJECT: Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures t Hi Avenue INTERSECTION PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Highway/Balboa Boulevard -Superior Avenue (T) (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Project Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume pproach Direction Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume I 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Northbound 1658 17 Southbound 2303 23 Eastbound 3202 32 estbound 3460 35 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ❑Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. (1) Coast Hwy is assumed east and west Coast Highway/Balboa Boulevard -Superior Avenue FORM I INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Coast Highway/Balboa Blvd. -Superior Ave. (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Move- ment Lanes Capa- city Existing Peak Hr Volume Project Peak Hr Volume Existing Plus Project Peak Hr Volume Exist. V/C Ratio Project V/C Ratio NL 01 349 NT 3 4800 268 .14* NR 62 SL 1 1600 131 .08 ST 1 1600 303 •19* SR N.S. 592 EL 2 3200 218 •07* ET 2 3200 734 •23 ER 1 1 1600 A 314 .20 WIC 1 1600 79 .05 WT 2 3200 1407 .44* WR 1 1600 78 .05 Yellow Time .10 Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. •94 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 EExisting Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 ElFurther analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures �, � -------- INTERSECTION Coast Highway/Balboa Blvd. -Superior Ave. IROJECT: II I� INTERSECTION 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Highway/Riverside Avenue (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Project Peak 2 2 Hour Traffic VolunK Approach Direction Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume 1% of Existing Peak 2 2 Hour Traffic Volume Northbound 30 1 outhbound 925 9 [Eastbound 3666 37 estbound 3871 39 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 23-2 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 23-2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. Coast Highway/Rivers FORM I PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Coast Highway/Riverside Avenue (Existing Traffic Volumes Base on Average Winter Spring 1978) Move- ment Lanes Capa- city Existing Peak Hr Volume Project Peak Hr Volume Existing Plus Project Peak Hr Volume Exist. V/C Ratio Project V/C Ratio NL NT 1 1300 16 O1 NR SL 1 1 1600 73 .05 ST SR 1 1600 345 •22* EL 1 1600 270 .17* ET 2 3200 1258 .39 ER WL 1 1600 14 Ai WT 3 4800 1629 .34* WR 1 1300 40 .03 Yellow Time .10 Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. .83 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 n Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to �—I Existing Conditions I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 El Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION XROJECT-: Coast Highway/Riverside Avenue FORM II II II IT IT I i U A II INTERSECTION PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Highwav/Dover Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 197$) Project Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volum Approach Direction Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume 1% of Existing Peak 2 z Hour Traffic Volume Northbound 242 2 Southbound 2100 21 Eastbound 348 335 Westbound 5279 53 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ElProject Traffic is estimated to be -greater than 1% of Existing Peak 2111 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization' (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. Coast Highway/Dover Drive FORM 1 II Ii I INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection r've (Existing Traffic Volumes Base on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Move- ment Lanes Capa- city Existing Peak Hr Volume Project Peak Hr Volume Existing Plus Project Peak Hr Volume Exist. V/C ' Ratio Project V/C Ratio NL NT 12 1600 57 * NR 1 1600 22 SL 2 3200 671 21* ST oil 1600 79 .13 SR 127 EL 1 1600 * ET 2 ER WL WT 3600 3438 qq* WR 699 Yellow Time Existinci Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 n Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to L-' Existing Conditions I.C.U. El Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 INTERSECTION PROJECT: Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures Coast Hi FORM II ` INTERSECTION 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection r.a�+ Higyf�y���IA Drive (Existing Traffic VolumQes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978)- Project Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volunw Approach Direction Existing Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume 1% of Existing Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume Northbound IRIQ thbound SFase 18 tbound 4847 8 bou ndd 3860 39 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ❑Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. Coast Highway/Bayside Drive FORM I PROJECT: INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Coat H' aay/Ba ide Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes -Base on Average Winter5pring 197$) Move- ment Lanes Capa- city Existing Peak Hr Volume Project Peak Hr Volume Existing Plus Project Peak Hr Volume Exist. V/C Ratio Project V/C Ratio NL 2 3200 780 •24* NT 1 1600 23 .02 NR 7 SL 1 1600 13 .01 ST 11 1600 8 .•04* 54 1600 50 .03* 3200 1509 •47 T 1600 500 .31 1600 9 .01 3200 1531 •48* 5 Yellow Time .10 ExistingIntersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. 89 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 E] Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 nFurther analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION Coast Highway/Bayside Drive PROJECT: INTERSECTION ' PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection^ast Hlq}]Y""��amhhroo Rnari (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average winter/Spring 1978) Project Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volu ---------------- Approach Direction Northbound Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Southbound An Eastbound estbound Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ❑Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity'Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. Coast Highway/Jamboree Road FORM I INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Coast Highway/Jamboree Road (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 197$) Move- ment Lanes Capa- city Existing Peak Hr Volume Project Peak Hr Volume Existing Plus Project Peak Hr Volume V/C Exist. ]:Ratio Ratio oject V/C NL 1 1600 40 .03 NT 2 3200 333 A. .14* NR 103 1- SL 1 1600 114 •07* ST 2 3200 545 .17 SR 1 1600 530 .33 EL 2 3200 603 •19 ET 2 3299 1138 •37* ER 56 - WL 1 1600 240 .15* WT 2 3200 905 .28 WR N.S. - 88 - Yellow Time .10 Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. .83 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 EExisting Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. INTERSECTION PROJECT: Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures Coast Highwa.v/Jamboree,Road II .. --- INTERSECTION PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Highway/Newport Center Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average winter/Spring 1978) Project Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volu Approach Direction Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume 1% of Existing Peak 2Z Hour Traffic Volume Northbound -- -- Southbound 2848 28 Eastbound 3142 31 estbound 2566 26 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ❑Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. Coast H Center Drive FORM I INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Coast Hiohwa New ort Center Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on verage Winter/Spring 197 9 Move- ment Lanes Capa- city Existing Peak Hr Volume Project Peak Hr Volume Existing Plus Project Peak Hr Volume Exist. V/C Ratio Project V/C Ratio NL NT NR - SL 2 3200 500 .16* ST SR N.S - EL 2 3200 314 .10* ET 2 3200 988 .31 ER WL - WT 2 3200 816 •26* WR N.S - 193 - Yellow Time .10 Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. .62 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left El Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 El Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to I Existing Conditions I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I�I Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing LJ I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 INTERSECTION PROJECT: Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures Coast FORM II I 11 II it !r f 1 1 It Ii INTERSECTION 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection (Existing Traffic'Volumes based on Average winter/Spring 1978) Project Peak 22 Hour Traffic VolumE Approachour Directionlume ing =TPeakx2i-32t1, 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Northbound -- Southbound 2258 23 Eastbound 3204 3 Westbound 3432 34 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. Coast Highway/MacArthur Boulevard FORM I IPROJECT: INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Coast Highway/MacArthur Boulevard (Existing Traffic Volumes Base on Average Winter Spring 197 9 Move- ment Lanes Capa- city Existing Peak Hr Volume Project Peak Hr Volume Existing Plus Project Peak Hr Volume Exist. V/C Ratio Project V/C Ratio NL - - - - NT - - - - NR - - - - SL 2 1200 828 •26* ST - - - - SR 1 1600 197 .12 EL 1 1600 223 .14* ET 2 3200 1322 .41 ER - WL - - - - WT 2 3200 839 •26* WR N.S. Yellow Time 10 Existing Intersection Ca acit Utilization I.C.U. .77 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left 11 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 1-1 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures I INTERSECTION 1R_0JEC`T_: Boulevard II II II U t II II i 1 II U INTERSECTION 1 PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Ave age Winter/Spring 1978) Project Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Approach Direction Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Northbound outhbound 430 Eastbound 3 Westbound 240 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of`Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. Coast Highway/Marguerite Avenue FORM I INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Coast Highway/Marguerite Avenue (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Move- ment Lanes Capa- city Existing Peak Hr Volume Project Peak Hr Volume Existing Plus Project Peak Hr Volume Exist. V/C Ratio Project V/C Ratio NL 1 1600 83 .05 NT 1 1600 98 •09* NR 46 SL 1 1600 87 .05* ST 1 1600 73 1 .06 SR 28 EL 1 1600 43 .03 ET 2 3200 1237 •39* ER 1 1600 68 .04 WL 1 1600 78 .05* WT 2 3200 850 .28 WR 50 ' Yellow Time 10 Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. .68 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 j-j Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to �I Existing Conditions I.C.U. 1-1 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 DFurther analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION PROJECT: FORM II INTERSECTION 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Dover Drive/Westcliff Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Approach Direction Existing Peak 2 2 Hour Traffic Volume 1% of Existing Peak 2 2 Hour Traffic Volume Northbound 1857 19 Southbound 999 10 Eastbound 1444 14 estbound -- - ElProject Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. Dover Drive/Westcliff Drive FORM I CT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS 1 Intersection Dover Dr./Westcliff Dr. (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average inter Spring 197$) Move- ment Lanes Capa- city Existing Peak Hr Volume Project Peak Hr Volume Existing Plus Project Peak Hr Volume Exist. V/C Ratio Project V/C Ratio NL 2 1 3200 381 •12* NT 1 1600 351 •22 NR ' SL ST 1 1600 299 .19* SR 1 1600 109 .07 EL 2 3200 152 .05* ET' ER NS 424 - WL WT - - WR Yellow Time .10 Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. .46 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 EL Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to I Existing Conditions I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION PROJECT: Dr./Westcliff Dr. IFORM II INTERSECTION ' PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Irvine Avenue/Westcliff Drive-17th Street (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Project Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volum Approach Direction Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Northbound 1679 17 Southbound 2571 26 Eastbound 1 22 E2243 estbound 1601 1 16 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. Irvine Avenue/Westcliff Drive-17th Street FORM I INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Irvine Ave./Westcliff Drive-17th Street (Existing Traffic Volumes BaseU on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Move- ment Lanes Capa- city Existing Peak Hr Volume Project Peak Hr Volume Existing Pl us Project Peak Hr Volume Exist. V/C Ratio Project V/C Ratio NL 1 1600. 195 •12* NT 2 3200 520 .18 NR 48 SL 1 1600 136 .08 ST 2 3200 652 .30* SR 322 EL 1 1600 236 .15* ET 2 1 3200 571 22 ER T 1 142 WL 1 1600 59 .04 WT 2 3200 500 •20* WR 124 Yellow Time 10 Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. 87- Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=T.hrough, R=Right, L=Left Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 FExisting Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION PROJECT: Irvine Ave/Westcliff Drive-17th Street RM II INTERSECTION PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Irvine Avenue/Dover Drive-19th Street (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Project Peak 2 2 Hour Traffic Volunw Approach Direction Existing Peak 2 2 Hour Traffic Volume 1% of Existing Peak 2 2 Hour Traffic Volume Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ❑Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. Irvine Avenue/Dover Drive-19th Street FORM I I INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Irvine Ave./Dover Dr-19th Street (Existing Traffic Volumes Base on Average inter/Spring 197 Move- ment Lanes Capa- city Existing Peak Hr Volume Project Peak Hr Volume Existing Plus Project Peak Hr Volume Exist. V/C Ratio Project V/C Ratio NL 1 1600 46 .03* NT 2 3200 821 .26 NR 27 - SL 1 1600 159 .10 ST 1 2 3200 1294 .43* SR J 87 ' EL 1 1600 47 .03* ET 1 1600 95• 08 ER 39 ' WL 1 1600 25 •02 WT 1 1600 127 .08* WR 1 1600 201 .13 Yellow Time .10 Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. .67 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 EExisting Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. El Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 El Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION Irvine Avenue/Dover Dr.-19th Street ' PROJECT: II 1 r r r 1 r 1 r i r r r r i �1 �r r INTERSECTION rPROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Irvine Avenue/Santiago Drive-22nd Street (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Project Peak 22 Hour Traffic VolumE Approach Direction Existing Peak 2Z Hour Traffic Volumerafic Existing T"Peok'f2 Hour Volume Northbound 2073 21 Southbound 3879 39 Eastbound 396 4 Westbound 324 3 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. Irvine Avenue/Santiago Drive-22nd Street FORM I INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Irvine Ave/Santiago Dr-22nd St. (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 197 Move- ment Lanes Capa- city Existing Peak Hr Volume Project Peak Hr Volume Existing Plus Project Peak Hr Volume Exist. V/C Ratio Project V/C Ratio NL * NT 25 NR SL .11 ST .53* SR 181 EL 46 ET 1600 47 .10* ER 69 WL 24 WT 50 •08 WR 59 Yellow Time 10 Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. .'80- Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, Wight, L=Left 11 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 n Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to �—I Existing Conditions I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION kR —OJ E C- T-': Irvine Avenue 22nd Street II I INTERSECTION PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Irvine Avenue/University Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Project Peak 2 2 Hour Traffic Volum Approach Direction Existing Peak 2 2 Hour Traffic Volume 1% of Existing Peak 2 z Hour Traffic Volume Northbound 1985 20 Southbound. 3864 39 Eastbound 672 7 estbound 80 1 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ElProject Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. Irvine Avenue/University Drive FORM I INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Irvine Ave./University Dr. (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Move- ment Lanes Capa- city Existing Peak Hr Volume Project Peak Hr Volume Existing Plus Project Peak Hr Volume Exist. V/C Ratio Project V/C Ratio NL 1 1600 107 .07* NT 2 3200 672 .21 NR 12 00 15 .01 3200 1574 .60* ILI 359 1600 85 •07* 23 ER 1 1600 194 .12 WL. 13 WT 1 1600 9 •02* WR y17 Yellow Time .10 Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. •86 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Existing Existing Plus•Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to Conditions I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 nFurther analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION_ Tryine Ayonue/University Dr. tPROJECT: II INTERSECTION PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Jamboree Road/Santa Barbara Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Project Peak 2 z Hour Traffic Volu Approach Direction Existing Peak 2 2 Hour Traffic Volume 1% of Existing Peak 2 2 Hour Traffic Volume Northbound 1895 19 ISouthboundastbound -- -- estbound 1299 13 QProject Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 231 Hour Traffic Volume ❑Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. Jamboree Road/Santa Barbara Drive FORM I I INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Jamboree Road/Santa Barbara Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter Spring 1978) Move- ment Lanes Capa- city Existing Peak Hr Volume Project Peak Hr Volume Existing Plus Project Peak Hr Volume Exist. V/C Ratio Project V/C Ratio NL NT 2 3200 720 •22 NR 1 1600 57 .04 SL 1 1600 106 .07 ST 2 3200 1062 .33* SR EL ET ER WL 270 WT 3 4800 0 10* WR 231 Yellow Time .10 Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. .53 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left Existing Pius Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 EExisting Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to ►-I Existing Conditions I.C.U. 1 INTERSECTION kR­0JECT_:_ Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.O. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures Jamboree Road/Santa Barbara Drive FORM II 1 II II II II It II 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Jamboree Road/San Joaquin Hills Road (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Project Peak 2k Hour Traffic VolumE Approach Direction Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume 1% of Existing Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume orthbound 2581 26 Southbound 4134 41 Eastbound 385 4 estbound 2533 25 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ❑Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of'Existing Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. ~INTERSECTION Jamboree Road/San Joaquin Hills Road FORM I PROJECT: INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Jamboree Road/San Joaquin Hills Road (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Move- ment Lanes Capa- city Existing Peak Hr Volume Project Peak Hr Volume Existing Plus Project Peak Hr Volume Exist. V/C Ratio Project V/C Ratio NL 1 1600 115 .07 NT 2 3200 892 •28* NR 1 1600 123 .08 SL 2 3200 495 .15* ST 2 3200 1039 •32 SR 1 1600 233 .15 EL 1 1600 52 .03 ET 2 3200 40 :03* ER 46 WL 1 1600 131 .08* WT 2 3200 80 .02 WR N.S. 921 - Yellow Time .10 Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. .64 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 EExisting Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 Further.analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION PROJECT: Jamboree Road/San Joaquin Hills Road II I I 1 1 i 1 U II li II INTERSECTION PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Jamboree Road/Eastbluff Drive -Ford Rd. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1918) Project Peak 2 2 Hour Traffic Volunx Approach Direction Existing Peak 2 z Hour Traffic Volume 1% of Existing Peak 2 z Hour Traffic Volume Northbound 4574 46 Southbound 2937 29 Eastbound 981 10 Westbound 753 8 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ❑Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 231 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. Jamboree Road/Eastbluff Drive -Ford Road FORM I INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Jamboree Road/Eastbluff Drive -Ford Road (Existing Traffic Volumes Base on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Move- ment Lanes I Capa- city Existing Peak Hr Volume Project Peak Hr Volume Existing Plus Project Peak Hr Volume Exist. V/C Ratio Project V/C Ratio NL 2 3200 465 .15* NT 2 3200 1339 .42 NR 1 1 1600 185 .12 SL 1 1600 67 .04 ST 2 3200 1150 .36* SR 1 1600 42 .03 EL 1 1600 16 .01 ET 1 3200 114 .11* ER 248 Wh 1 1600 173 .11* WT 2 3200 99 .03 WR 1 1600 32 .02 Yellow Time .10 Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. .83 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, Wight, L=Left Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. El Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 INTERSECTION PROJECT: Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing T.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures Jamboree Road/Eastbluff Drive Ford Road 11 INTERSECTION PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis (1) Intersection JAMBOREE ROAD/MacARTHUR BLVD. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Project Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volunm Approach Direction Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Northbound 1681 17 Southbound 2814 28 Eastbound 2923 29 Westbound 3037 30 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume aProject Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 2Z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. ' (1) MacArthur Blvd. is assumed north and south JAMBOREE ROAD/MacARTHUR BLVD. FORM I ! INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Jamboree Road/MacArthur Blvd. (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 197$) Move- ment Lanes Capa- city Existing Peak Hr Volume Project Peak Hr Volume Existing Plus Project Peak Hr Volume Exist. V/C Ratio Project V/C Ratio NL 1 1600 26 .02 NT 2 3200 520 •21* NR 161 SL 1 1600 135 .08* ST 2 3200 744 •23 SR N.S. 399 - EL 1 1600 448 .28 ET 3 4800 885 .18* ER N.S. 3 - WL 1 1600 446 •28* WT 3 4800 881 .18 WR N.S. 10 - Yellow Time 10 ExistingIntersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. 85 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left 11 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U.' will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION Jamboree Road/MacArthur Blvd. ;R_0JECT_:' II I I I I! I1 I1 ' INTERSECTION XROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE BLVD./CAMPUS DRIVE (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Project Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volum pproach Direction Existing Peak 2: Hour Traffic Volume 1% of Existing Peak 2? Hour Traffic Volume Northbound 3 Southbound 3417 34 Eastbound Westbound ElProject Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of -Existing Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. BLVD FORM I INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Jamboree Blvd./Campus Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Averige inter Spring 197g) Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Exist ng Plus Project Exist. V/C Project V/C ment city Peak Hr Volume Peak Hr Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio NL 1 1600 32 .02 NT 2 3200 1328 .44* NR 75 SL 1 1600 256 .16* ST 3 4800 1115 SR 181 EL 3 4800 225 .23* ET 370 ER N.S. - 20 WL 1 1600 82 .05 WT 1 1600 379 •24* WR 1 1600 286 .18 .10 Yellow Time 1.17 Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. Existin Plus Project Intersection Ca acit Utilization I.C.U. ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 EExisting Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to I Existing Conditions I.C.U. INTERSECTION PROJECT: Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures Jambo Drive II INTERSECTION 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MacArthur Boulevard/San Joaquin Hills Road (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Project Peak 2 2 Hour Traffic Volum Approach Direction Existing Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Northbound 1484 15 Southbound 3065 31 Eastbound 1 3140 1 31 Westbound 1 1451 1 15 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume ❑Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. MacArthur Boulevard/San Joaquin Hills Road FORM I PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection MacArthur Boulevard/San Joaquin Hills Road (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Move- men t Lanes Capa- city Existing Peak Hr Volume Project Peak Hr Volume Existing Plus Project Peak Hr Volume Exist. V/C Ratio Project V/C Ratio NL 1 1600 63 .04 NT 1 2 3200 361 .15* NR 129 SL 2 3200 412 .13* ST 2 3200 746 .23 SR N.S. - 250 - EL 2 3200 772 .24* ET 13 4800 648 .15 ER 80 WL 1 1600 70 .04 WT 3 4800 285 .10* WR 178 Yellow Time .10 Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. .72 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left 11 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 FExisting Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to - I Existing Conditions I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures t.--------- INTERSECTION MacArthur Boulevard/San Joaquin Hills Road 1 PROJECT: INTERSECTION PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MacArthur Boulevard/Ford Road (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978)' Project Peak 22 Hour Traffic VolumE Approach Direction Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Northbound 3657 37 Southbound 4032 40 Eastbound 1584 16 Westbound I 1007 10 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak•22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. MacArthur Boulevard/Ford Road FORM I INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection MacArthur Boulevard/Ford Road (Existing Traffic Volumes Base on Average Winter/Spring 197 ) Move- ment Lanes apa- city Existing Peak Hr Volume Project Peak Hr Volume Existing Plus Project Peak Hr Volume Exist. V/C Ratio Project V/C Ratio NL 1 1600 30 .02 NT 2 3200 1346 .44* NR 49 SL 1 1600 370 .23* ST 2 3200 1413 .44 SR .1 1600 132 .08 ' EL 1 1600 •279 .17* ET 1 1600 228 .14 ER 1 1600 88 .06 WL 1 1600 19 .01 WT 1 1600 113 .07* WR 1 1600 194 .12 Yellow Time .10 Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. 1.01 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound,•S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 EExisting Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. 1-1 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is'currently greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION PROJECT: MacArthur Boulevard/Ford Road INTERSECTION 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MacARTHUR BLND� AMP ISL DR'Y)E (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter%Spring 197�) Project Peak 2 z Hour Traffic VolumE h [Di7rection Existing Peak 2 2 Hour Traffic Volume 1% of Existing Peak 2 2 Hour Traffic Volume rthbound 2888 29 Southbound 3129 31 Eastbound 1693 17 Westbound 2004 20 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ❑Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. MacARTHUR BL FORM I PROJECT: INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection MacArthur Blvd./Cam us Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 197$) Move- ment Lanes Capa- city Existing Peak Hr Volume Project Peak Hr Volume Existing Plus Project Peak Hr Volume Exist. V/C Ratio Project V/C Ratio NL 1 1600 ill •07* NT 2 3200 .. 1044' .33 NR - 73 SL 1 1600 56 .04 ST 3 3200.- 1026 •32* SR 1 1600 201 .13 EL 1 1600 285 .18* ET 2 3200 - 421 .15 ER - 53 - WL 1 1600 100 .06 WT 2 3299 825 •27* WRJ 1 - 54 - Yellow Time .10 Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. •94 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left 11 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to -I Existing Conditions I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 El Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION PROJECT: Blvd./Campus Dri II INTERSECTION PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Newport Boulevard132nd Street (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Approach Direction Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Northbound 1868 19 Southbound 2975 30 Eastbound 518 5 Westbound 473 5 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection,Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. Newport Boulevard/32nd Street FORM I INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Newport Blvd./32nd Streer (Existing Traffic Volumes Base on Average Winter Spring 1978) Move- ment Lanes Capa- city Existing Peak Hr Volume Project Peak Hr Volume Existing Plus Project Peak Hr Volume Exist. V/C Ratio Project V/C Ratio NL 1 1600 64 .04* NT 2 1 3200 658 .21 NR J 14 SL 1 1600 44 .03 ST 2 3200 1044 .40* SR J 235 EL 1 1600 114 •07* ET 1 1600 38 .04 ER -- 28 " WL 36 WT 2 3200 64 .06* WR 86 Yellow Time .10 Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. •67 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be -less than or equal to 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to �—I Existing Conditions I.C.U. INTERSECTION PROJECT: Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures Newport Blvd./32nd Street II INTERSECTION PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersectionpor a^!�pvard/y�a i ido (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average winter/Spring 1978) Project Peak 2 2' Hour Traffic Volume Approach Direction Existing Peak 2 2 Hour Traffic Volume 1% of Existing Peak 2: Hour Traffic Volume Northbound 2601 26 Southbound 4683 47 Eastbound -- -- estbound 1307 13 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ❑Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. Newport Boulevard/Via Lido FORM I INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Newport Blvd/Via Lido (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Move- ment Lanes Capa- city Existing Peak Hr Volume Project Peak Hr Volume Existing Plus Project Peak Hr Volume Exist. V/C Ratio Project V/C Ratio NL NT 2 3200 1128 .35* NR N.S. ' SL 2 3200 597 •19* ST 2 3200 1432.. .45 SR EL ET ER W4 1 1600 42 .03* WT WR 2 3200 491 .15 Yellow Time .10 ExistingIntersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. 67 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left INTERSECTION PROJECT: Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0,90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures rt Blvd/Via Lido II I II II II 1/ �J II II INTERSECTION ' PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection �P� ���+T aR, lavard/ nspital Road (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Project Peak 2 2 Hour Traffic Volume pproach irection lorthbound Existing Peak 2 2 Hour Traffic Volume 1% of Existing Peak 2 z Hour Traffic Volume 3568 36 Southbound 3559 1 36 Eastbound 1855 19- estbound t 971 1 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ❑Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. Newport Boulevard /Hospital Road FORM I INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection d. Hospital Rd. (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter Spring 1978) Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio NL 1 1600 153 .10* NT 3 4800 1093 .25 NR 94 SL 1 1600 30 .02 ST 3 4800 1450 •32* SR 103 EL 1 1600 167 .10 ET 1 1600 231 .14* ER 1 1600 367 •23 WL 203 WT 3200 205 13* fj:� WR 12 Yellow Time .10 ExistingIntersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. 79 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk N N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, Wight, L=Left Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 EExisting Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 E] Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION PROJECT II 1 INTERSECTION PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection San Joaquin Hills Ro d/San Mig�Ql Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/ pring 1978) Project Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Approach Direction Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Northbound 120 1 Southbound 684 7 Eastbound 1 2133 21 Westbound 1 1196 12 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ❑Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. San Joaquin Hills Road/San Miguel Drive FORM I INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection San Joaquin Hills Rd/San Miguel Dr. (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Move- ment Lanes Capa- city Existing Peak Hr Volume Project Peak Hr Volume Existing Plus Project Peak Hr Volume Exist. V/C Ratio Project V/C Ratio NL 1 1600 24 .02 NT 1 1600 8 .01* NR 1 1600 10 .01 SL 1 1600 116 .07* ST 2 3200 5 .05 SR 141 EL 2 3200 446 .14* ET 3 4800 609 .13 ER WL 1 1600 43 .03 WT 3 4800 348. •09* WR 82 Yellow Time .10 Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. .41 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 EExisting Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION PROJECT. San Joaquin Hills Rd/San Miguel Dr. FORM II. INTERSECTION ' PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection San Joaquin Hi11s Road/Santa Rosa -Big Canyon (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Project Peak 22 HourDirection Traffic Volum Approach Peak Ex:::;I Traffiraffic % of Existing Peak 22 Hour Volume Northbound 2200 22 Southbound 333 3 Eastbound 1545 15 estbound 1461 15 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ❑Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. San Joaquin Hills Road/Santa Rosa -Big Canyon FORM I INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection San Joaquin Hills Rd/Santa Rosa -Big Canyon (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter Spring 197$) Move- ment Lanes Capa- city Existing Peak Hr Volume Project Peak Hr Volume Existing Plus Project Peak Hr Volume Exist. V/C Ratio Project V/C Ratio NL 1 1600 317 •20* NT 1 1600 25 .02 NR 1 1600 624 •39 SL 1 1600 76 .05 ST 00 11 01* SR 33 EL V31 00 54 .03 ET 00 582 .15* ER 160 WL 2 3200 350 .11* WT 3 4800 181 .05 WR 74 Yellow Time 10 Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. .57 Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I I.C.U. -Existing ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=T,hrough, R=Right, L=Left 'R Existing Plus Project.Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 E] Existing Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to Conditions I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90, Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.O. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION ' PROJECT: San Joaquin Hills Rd./Santa Rosa -Big Canyon Drive FORM II INTERSECTION '-PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection San Joaquin Hi11s Road/Santa Cruz -Big Canyon (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Project Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volu pproach Direction Existing Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume 1% ofMVolume Peak Traff orthbound 943 10 Southbound 447 4 Eastbound 1606 16 estbound 1632 16 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing ElPeak 23-2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. San Joaquin Hills Road/Santa Cruz -Big Canyon FORM I INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection San Joa uin Hi11s Rd./Santa Cruz -Big Canyon (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter Spring 1978) Move- ment Lanes Capa- city Existing Peak Hr Volume Project Peak Hr Volume Existing Plus Project Peak Hr Volume Exist. V/C Ratio Project V/C Ratio NL 2 3200 335 .10* NT 1 1600 17 .03 NR 32 SL 1 1600 70 .04* ST 1 1600 22 .01 SR 1 1600 96 .06 EL 1 1600 92 .06* ET 2 3200 336 .10 ER 1 1600 228 .14 WL 1 1600 11 O1 WT 3 4800 714 .15* WR JL 27 Yellow Time .10 Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. .45 Exi sting Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left 13 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 EExisting Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to .I Existing Conditions I.C.U. El Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U, that is currently greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION ' ' - PROJECT: FORM II