Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPHASING PLAN NEWPORT PL*NEW FILE* PHASING PLAN NEWPORT PL CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT August 4, 1983 TO: Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator FROM: Sheri Vander Dussen, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Development in Industrial Site, Newport Place Planned Community On July 27, 1983, a building permit was issued for construction of a two story office building at 3919 Westerly Place. This building replaces a one story structure on the site that was demolished by fire. The chart below outlines the existing, proposed, and allowable development on the site: Existing net floor area on site 9,240 sq. ft. (prior to demolition by fire) Proposed net floor area 18,480 sq. ft. (allowed by building permit issued 7-27-83) Increase in net floor area 9,240 sq. ft. Allowable remaining development on site 9,820 sq. ft. (per Emkay/Newport Place Traffic Phasing Plan) Net allowable remaining development 580 sq. ft. (9,820 sq. ft. - 9,240 sq. ft.) PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, DIRECTOR By Sheri Vander Dussen Associate Planner SVD:imp DEVELOPMENT PHASING REMAINING FOR FOR FOR FOR FOR FOR ALLOWED OCCUPANCY OCCUPANCY OCCUPANCY OCCUPANCY OCCUPANCY OCCUPANCY OWNER- SQ.FT. 1979-SQ.FT. 1980-SQ.FT. 1981-SQ.FT. 19B2-SQ.FT. 1983-SQ.FT. 1985-SQ.FT. Undeveloped Parcels: Emkay 292,388 -0- 206,269 66,442 -0- -0- -0- Bear Brand Ranch 61,000 61,000 -0- -0- -0- -0-. -0- Air California 40,951 -0- 40,951 -0- -0- -0- -0- Ketchum 87,019 87,019 -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- Boyle Engineering �, (( (Amend. No. 1) 12,000 -0- -0- 12;000 -0- -0- -0- lf7 Lucas Development Co. W (Amend. No. 2) 17,000 -0- -0- __. 17,000 -0- -0- -0- Far West 5 6 L (Amend. No. 3) 17,000 -0- -0- -0- 17,000 -0- -0- University Athletic Club 1 -0- -0- -0- 516 -0- (Amend. No. 4) 516 -0- c Sheraton Hotel Expansion (Amend. No. 5) 119 (ROOMS)2 -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- 119 (Rooms) .°, m m 1 proposed conference room sq.ft. 2 proposed hotel M rt i I Zh Motion All Ayes � •,;'tion x Motion x Motion Ayes x Noes x x x1x 0 OF NEWPORT BEACH March MINUTES (h) Mitigation proposed needs to indicate degree of permanence in order to meet the test. The regular order of the Agena was resumed. 3 F. 1. Mayor Ryckoff opened the public hearing .regarding Planning Commission Amendment No. 527, a request initiated by the City of Newport Beach to consider an amendment to the Civic Plaza Planned Community Development Plan to require the preparation of a traffic phasing plan and reduction in allowable intensity of 'development and the acceptance of an Environmental Document on property bounded by San Joaquin Hills Road, Santa Cruz Drive, San Clemente Drive, and Santa Barbara Drive in Newport Center; zoned P-C. A report was presented from the Community Develop- ment Department. Ron Hendrickson of The Irvine Company addressed the Council and stated that Council had voted to make Civic Plaza an excepted project, and asked that the revised P-C Plan be approved, and that the project be considered on a 30%/70% approach. The hearing was closed after it was determined that no one else desired to be heard. Councilman Hummel made a motion that the test of ,reasonableness be applied to 100% of the Civic Plaza project. Councilman Heather made a statement for the record, as follows: "I feel that this project which was accepted and has had its zone changed and reduced, and is now being further impinged by 100% development review instead of 30%, I think that it is beyond the scope of this Council to make that kind - I, personally feel, legally, that we do not have the right to further discrim- inate against this project." Councilman Hart made a substitute motion to continue the item to March 26. Councilman McInnis made a substitute substitute motion to adopt Resolution No. 9517 amending the Planned Community Development Plan for Civic Plaza revising the allowable development plan, and accepting an environmental document, which motion carried. CONTINUED BUSINESS: Previously considered. 2. A report was presented from the Community Develop- ment Department regarding Planning Commission action with regard to a request of Emkay Develop- ment and Realty Company for the approval of a Volume 33 - Page 60 DEX Newport Center Civic Plaza (2285) R-9517 Newport Place Planned Community (1275) 0 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCILMEN MINUTES s ROLL CALL �'�'� March 12, 1979 INDEX Phasing Plan for the remaining development in the Newport Place Planned Community, located on i property bounded by MacArthur Boulevard, Bristol 1 Street North and Birch Street, in Newport Place. The following people addressed the Council in behalf of Emkay Development and Realty Company: Robert Alleborn; Kevin Hansen, who presented "Position Paper With Regard to Appeal of the Phasing Plan for Newport Place Planned Community;" and Bob Break,•attorney, who stated he was avail- able to answer questions. Robert Hill,lrepresenting Bear Brand Ranch, addressed the Council and requested approval and that the decision of the Planning Commission be sustained. Mr. Hill stated that they were allowed to•build 84,000 sq. ft. and proposed to build only 61,000 sq. ft. and would be happy to stipulate that that would always remain reduced on their property to mitigate any future possible traffic impact. Motion x Councilman Heather made a motion to accept the negative declaration and sustain the decision of the Planning Commission, Kevin Hanson, representing Emkay Development and Realty Company, again addressed the Council and stated that they were willing to accept, as a condition of approval, a reduction in the allowed square footage on their remaining eleven acres by 24%. Councilman Heather stated that she would accept the offered limitations as part of her motion. Motion x Mayor Ryckoff made a substitute motion Ayes x to continue the item to April 9 for staff to Noes x x x x x x consider the effect of future traffic on what has been offered, which motion failed. Ayes x x x x x x A vote was taken on Councilman Heather's motion, Noes x and the negative declaration was accepted, the decision of the Planning Com mission was sus- tained, and the reductions offered by Emkay D evelopment and Realty Company and by Bear Brand Ranch were accepted. 3. A report was presented from the Traffic Affairs Seashore Committee regarding the cul-de-sac of Seashore Drive Drive. (300) Margot Skilling, President, and Mike Johnson, Secretary, of the West Newport Improvement Association addressed the Council endorsing the use of Seashore Drive as a one-way street with the dividing line at 46th Street, with one twelve -foot �.• lane and one eight -foot bike lane, and requesting that a public hearing be held. i i Volume 33 - Page 61 City Councillteting March 12, 1979 Agenda Item No. F- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • March 7, 1979 TO: City Council FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Report from the Department of Community Development regarding Planning Commission action with regard to a request of Emkay Development and Realty Company, Newport Beach', for the approval of a Phasing Plan for the remaining development in the Newport Place Planned Community, located on property bounded by MacArthur Boulevard, Bristol Street North, and Birch Street, in Newport Place. APPLICANT: Emkay Development and Realty Company, Newport Beach • Suggested Action If desired, accept the Negative Declaration and sustain, modify or overrule the decision of the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Recommendation FINDINGS: 1. That the Phasing Plan is consistent with the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. 2. That adequate traffic facilities will be available to handle that traffic generated by the project at the time of occupancy of the buildings involved. CONDITIONS: 1. Occupancy of the floor space considered for construction in 1979 shall not occur until a third lane is developed • on MacArthur Boulevard in each direction at the Campus Drive intersection and the Corona del Mar Freeway con- nection is made to the west and the San Diego Freeway. 2. The occupancy of buildings shall not occur until the MacArthur/Ford improvements are completed. 3. The opening of the Von Karman overcrossing and the ad- dition of a northbound lane on Jamboree Boulevard by the City of Irvine shall be accomplished prior to occupancy of any buildings. TO: City Cou cil - 2. 40 ` 4. Future development in the Emkay-Newport Place Planned Community shall occur in accordance with the phasing plan. 5. Prior to the issuance of any building permits in the expansion space of 190,200 sq.ft, of building area, in any amount greater than 30% of the remaining space to be developed on each parcel, a separate traffic analysis shall be accomplished. Prior to the issuance of any building permits the applicant shall indicate in writing to the Department of Community Development that he understands and agrees to Conditions 1, 2, and 3 above and that the i-mprovements indicated above shall be as defined in the R. Crommelin & Associates' report and as approved by the Public Works Department. Background Information The Emkay Development and Realty Company has requested approval of a Traffic Phasing Plan to comply with Resolution No. 9742 of the Newport Beach City Council and Amendment No. 514 to the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Attached for City Council consideration in regard to this request are: 1) Planning Commission Minutes of February 8, 1979 (draft) 2) Staff Report to Planning Commission - February 8, 1979 3) Planning Commission Minutes of January 18, 1979 (draft) 4) Staff Report to Planning Commission - January 18, 1979 with attachments: a Resolution No. 9742 b Amendment No. 514 c The Phasing Plan prepared by the applicant for the remaining allowed development in the Planned Community District d) A response to the Planning Commission's guidelines for review of Phasing Plans e) A Traffic Study prepared by Robert Crommelin & Associates for the applicant. 5) Negative Declaration 6) Corrections to Traffic Analysis - February 2, 1979 Phasing Plan As previously indicated, a copy of the Phasing Plan prepared by Emkay Development and Realty Company to comply with Resolution No. 9742 is attached for the City Council's consideration. The remaining allow- able square footage to be developed is under multiple ownerships. Presently there are undeveloped parcels under the ownership of Emkay, Bear Brand Ranch, Air California, and Ketchum and the potential for expansion on numerous individually -owner parcels within the Newport Place P-C District. A summary of the applicant's proposal to phase development is as follows: 0 0 • TO: • . 0 01 City Council - 3. OWNER Undeveloped Parcels: Emkay Bear Brand Ranch Air California Ketchum Subtotal: Expansion Space Various Parcels: TOTAL NEWPORT PLACE Resolution No. 9742 REMAINING FOR FOR FOR ALLOWED OCCUPANCY OCCUPANCY OCCUPANCY SQ.FT. 1979 1980 1981 358,8.30° 0 206,269 152,561 81,162 0 0 _81,162:: 40,951- 0 40,951 0 0 0 87,019) 87,019 567,962 168,181 247,220 152,561 190,262 .758.1224 1 Attached for the City Council's consideration is the response of Emkay Development and Realty Company to the Planning Commission's guidelines •for the review of phasing plans to comply with Resolution No. 9742 of the City of Newport Beach. The applicant has responded to each of the six guidelines recommended by the Planning Commission to the City Council and an additional two items suggested by staff in its original recom- mendation to the Planning Commission. Summary 1. The following summarizes the existing development and development remaining to be completed: - Allowed by P.C. = 2,556,626 sq.ft. - Completed = 1,562,329 sq.ft. - Under construction = 236,073 sq.ft. - Vacant parcels = 567,962 sq.ft. - Possible expansion = 190,262-sq.ft. - Total buildout w/o expansion = 2,366,364 sq.ft. - Total buildout with expansion = 2,556,626 sq.ft. 2. The City Traffic Engineer designated sixteen intersections as critical. Table No. 3 in the attached response to the Planning Commission's guidelines indicates the percent of traffic contri- bution to each critical intersection. 3. Ten of the critical intersections analyzed exceed the 5% test, and four intersections had an ICU of 0.90 or greater. Future planned road improvements to these intersections are indicated. on Page 2 of the response to the Planning Commission guidelines. (Attachment No. 4)d) to this report) TO: City Council - 4. 4. Additionally, information on Emkay Development and Realty Company's previous design features to reduce roject traffic is provided on Pages 3 and 4 of Attachment No. Traffic Study A Traffic Study was prepared for the applicant by Robert Crommelin and Associates. This study analyses the following: 1) Development Phasing; 2) Existing Area Traffic Conditions and Growth Trends; 3) Site Traffic Generation and Distribution; 4) Future'Projected Traffic Characteristics; 5) Critical Intersection Determination; 6) Critical Intersection ICU; 7) Impact of Planned Roadway Improvements; 8) Need for Development Phasing. The applicant provided correction to the original analysis which is attached to this report (Attachment No. 6). • TO: City Council - 5. THE FOLLOWING SUMMARIZES THE INTERSECTIONS ANALYSIS 2k hr. % of increase on highest leg of 21,, hr. No. of vehicles increased 2.5 hour Existing ICU Existing plus Timing of ICU W/ Intersection intersection on highest leg -% increase Spring '78 project ICU improvement improvements 1. MacArthur/Campus 21.3% 685 i5% 0.9259 1.0762 Early '80 0.8875 2. Jamboree/Campus 11.7% 252 i5% 1.1343 1.1627 Late '79 0.9000 3. Jamboree/MacArthur 8.3% 247 )5% 0.8604 0.8673 N/A N/A 4. Bristol(N)/Campus 13.3% 694 >5% 1.0016 1.0941 (Accomplished) 0.8351 5. Bristol(N)/Birch 44.4% 318 )5% 0.5911 0.6977 N/A N/A 6. Bristol(N)/Jamboree 1.7% 50 <5% N/A N/A N/A N/A 7. Bristol/Campus 9.1% 296 i5% 0.7276 0.7526 N/A N/A 8. Bristol/Birch 11.0% 318 >5% 0.3582 0.3851 N/A N/A 9. Bristol/Jamboree 2.3% 68 < 5% N/A N/A N/A N/A 10. Irvine/University 1.6% 63 G 5% N/A N/A N/A N/A 11. Jamboree/ford 2.2% 64 < 5% N/A N/A N/A N/A 12. MacArthur/Ford 5.6% 231 -i5% 1.0121 1.0265 Early '80 0.8056 13. MacArthur/San Joaquin Hills 6.0% 189 •>5% 0.7196 0.7327 N/A N/A 14. Jamboree/San Joaquin Hills 1.0% 43 f5% N/A N/A N/A N/A 15. Jamboree/Coast 1.4% 43 4 5% N/A N/A N/A N/A 16. MacArthur/Coast 6.3% 147 ?5% 0.7719 0.7897 N/A N/A N/A = Not applicable either 2.5 hr. percent increase is less than 5% or peak hour ICU existing plus project is less than 0.9000. - • • TO: City Council - 6. Environmental Significance The City of Newport Beach Environmental Affairs Committee has reviewed • the project and determined that it will not have significant environ- mental effect. A copy of the Negative Declaration is attached. Alternative Actions If desired, the City Council could direct the applicant to revise the development phasing plan based upon criteria established by the City Council's review of the Planning Commission's "Test of Reasonableness." Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V.HOGAN, Director by D TA REEL C Environmental Coordinator FT/kk • Attachments for City Council only: 1) Planning Commission Minutes of 2/8/79 (draft) 2) Staff report to Planning Commission - 2/8/79 3)) Planning Commission Minutes of 1/18/79 (draft) 4) Staff report to Planning Commission (1/18/79) with attachments: a Resolution No. 9742 b Amendment No. 614 c Phasing Plan prepared by the applicant for remaining allowed development in P-C District d) Response to Planning Commission's guidelines for review of Phasing Plans e) Traffic Study prepared by Robert Crommelin & Associates for applicant 6 Negative Declaration 6 Corrections to Traffic Analysis - 2/2/79 0 CC11 WSSIONERS 0 40TTACHMENT 1 City of Newport Beach February 8, 1979 MINUTES DRAFT r�r CALL INDEX a) Reduce allowable development for Office Park by 85,294 sq. ft., and Civic Cultural by 16,000 sq. ft., consistent with General Plan Amendment 78-2. b) Require the preparation of a traffic phasing plan for any development in excess of 30% of. the ad- ditional allowable development. c) Revise the site plan map to be consistent with the recommended change in allowable development. Motion Ayes Noes x x x x - x x x x Amende otion was made that the Planning Commission accept the Negat a Declaration and adopt Resolution No. 1032 re - commending the City Council that Amendment No. 527 for the Civic Plaz Planned Community District be approved as follows: a) Reduce allow le development for Office Park by • 85,294 square t, and Civic Cultural by 16,000 square feet consi ent with General Plan Amend- ment 78-2. b) Require the preparation-o a traffic phasing plan for any development in exce of 0% of the ad- ditional allowable development. c) Revise the site plan map to be cons tent with the recommended change in allowable develo ent. All Ayes The original motion was then voted on, which motion c ried'. Planning Commission recessed at 9:00 p.m. and reconvened at 9:10 P.M. Request for the approval of a Phasing Plan for remaining de- velopment in the Newport Place Planned Community. (Con- tinued Discussion). Item $5 PHASING PLAN, • Location: Property bounded by MacArthur Boulevard, Bris NE PPORT PLACE PLANNED COMMUNITY tol Street North, and Birch Street, in New- port Place. Applicant: Emkay Development and Realty Company, Newport Beach APPROVED CONDI- TIONALLY -15- COMMISSIONERS Ift City of Newport Beck February 8, 1979 MltSilTES 'IDRAFT ROLL CALL The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Kevin Hansen, representing the Emkay Development and Realty Company of Newport Beach approached the Planning Com- mission to relay statements of the history of this plan and to reiterate the contents of the Staff Reports relating to this plan. He also stated that he concurred with the find- ings and conditions as set forth in the Staff Report. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard on thi item, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Beek expressed his concern that contrary to the intent of the Traffic Phasing Report, he did not feel that said report assures the City that the continuation of the development is not going to have an adverse effect on the City's circulation system. Motion x Motion was made that Planning Commission make the following Ayes x x x x x x findings: Noes x 1. That the Phasing Plan is consistent with the Circula- tion Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. 2. That adequate traffic facilities will be available to handle that traffic generated by the project at the time of occupancy of the buildings involved. and approve the Phasing Plan for the remaining development 1 the Newport Place Planned Community, subject to the followin conditions: 1. Occupancy of the floor space considered for constructi in 1979 shall not occur until a third lane is develope on MacArthur Boulevard in each direction at the Campus Drive intersection and the Corona del Mar Freeway con- nection is made to the west and the San Diego Freeway. 2. The occupancy of buildings shall not occur until the MacArthur/Ford improvements are completed. 3. The opening of the Von Kaman overcrossing and the ad- dition of a northbound lane on Jamboree Boulevard by the City of Irvine shall be accomplished prior to oc- cupancy of any buildings. 4. Future development in the Emkay-Newport Place Planned Community shall occur in accordance with the phasing plan. -16- 9 on d 19 • • COIv1M(SSIONERS \�\9\�\��\P\9\�\ City of Newport Beach 11 • February 8, 1979 �J MINUTES DRAFT CALL INDEX 5. Prior to the issuance of any building permits in the expansion. space of 190,200 sq. ft. of building area, in any amount greater than 30% of the remaining space to be developed on each parcel, a separate traffic analysis shall be accomplished. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the ap- plicant shall indicate in writing to the Department of Community Development that he understands and agrees to conditions 1, 2 and 3 above and that the improvement indicated above shall be as defined in the R. Crommelin & Associates report and as approved by the Public Works Department. Request.to permit the installation of two permanent, com- It #b munity identification signs for the Newport Place Planned USE PERM Community. SPERM Location:' Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 63-27 (Resubdivis n No. 458) and Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 57 2 APPROVED (Resubdivi•sion No. 386) located at 99 and CONDI- 4101 MacArthur Boulevard, on the orthwesterl IONALLY and southwesterly corners of M Arthur Boule- vard and Newport Place Driv n Newport Place. Zone: P-C Applicant: Emkay Development Realty Company, Newport Beach Owner: Daon Corpor ion, Newport Beach James Hewicker, AspTstant Director -Planning, commented re- garding an amen nt to the Staff Report stating that Public Works has wit rawn its opposition to the 5' setback from the right-of-way and he stated that it was the Staff's recom meadatio hat Condition No. 2 of the Staff Report be deletes and th regarding Condition No. 1, the words "...except as not in Condition No. 2." be deleted. ifblic hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Kevin Hansen, representing the Emkay Development and,Realty Company of Newport Beach appeared before the Planning Com- mission to relate that he was in compliance with the find- ings and conditions as revised by Staff. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard on thi item, the public hearing was closed. -17- • • • 4 l ATTA#ENT 'L y Planning Commission Meetin February 8, 1979 Agenda Item No. 5 January 29, 1979 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Department of Community Development Property bounded by MacArthur Boulevard, Bristol Street North, and Birch Street, in Newport Place. APPLICANT: Emkay Development and Realty Company, Newport Beach Background At the January 18, 1979 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission continued the request for approval of a phasing plan for the remaining development in the Newport Place Planned Community to the meeting of February 8,, 1979. Attached for your review is a copy of the staff report from the meeting of January 18, 1979. The following indicates corrections to that report: Page no. 1 Paragraph 2 "Background": Reads "February 22, 1979" - should be "February•12, 1979" Page no. 2 Footnote no. 1: „ Reads "1,799 sq-ft." - should be "1,799,941 sq.ft. Page no. 3 Paragraph 4 "Staff Analysis": Reads "February 22, 1979 - should be "February 12, 1979" Page no. 3 Chart: Reads "Existing ICU" - should be "Existing ICU plus Project" Reads "MacArthur/Ford 1.0265 Early 1980 0.8056" should be MacArthur/Ford 1.0265 Early 1980 0.8194" Page no. 2 Attachment 2 "MacArthur/Ford" Reads "0.8056" - should be "0.8194" Additional Information: Subsequent to the Planning Commission meeting, staff met with the applicant and based on that discussion the following additional condition is suggested for Planning Commission consideration: - 1 - TO: Planning Commission 2. Prior to the issuance of any building permits the applicant shall indicate in writing to the Department of Community Development that he understands and agrees to conditions 1t, 2, and 3 above and that the improvements indicated above shall be as defined in the R. Crommelin 6 Associates report and as approved by the Public Works Department. Bristol St. North/Campus. Additionally, at the January 19, 1979 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission approved the Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Company's proposal with the condition that certdin improvements be made to the intersection of Bristol St. North/Campus Drive. The improvements were an additional southbound option right turn/through lanThe and TrafficsStudyng to preparedate forathetapplicanttbyuRobertft turn a Crommelinne. & Associates discusses this intersection on page 2 of Attachment no. to the staff report. Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. NOGAN, DIRECTOR By 4re4a ar co Environmental Coordinator FT/dt Attachment: January 18, 1979 Planning Commission report with attachments. �J • • COWIMISSIONERS 0 ATT/OMENT 3 City of Newport Beech DRAFT January 18, 1979 MINUTES INDEX Initiaa eZThe City of Newport Beach Owner: The Irvine Comp ort Beach Item #16 lotion Oyes Voes 4bsent x x x x x x Request for the approval of a Phasing Plan for remaining development in the Newport Place Planned Community. (Discuss.ion) Location: Property bounded by MacArthur Boule- vard, Bristol Street North, and Birch PHASING PLAN NEWPORT PLACE PLANNED COMMUNITY CONTINUED Street, in Newport Place. • Applicant: Emkay Development and Realty Company, Newport Beach. TO FEB. 8 1979 110 -- - - - - - - - - ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: Motion All Ayes Absent x x 1. Motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 1031 setti a public hearing for February 22, 1979, to consi re- classification of the Caltrans parcels in Newport. RESOLUTE NO. 1631 Motion All Ayes Absent x 2. Motion was made to adjourn to a spe ' study session at 7:30 p.m. on January 25, 197 , to discuss the Circu_ lation Element of the Gene lan. Motion Ayes x x x x x x 3. Commissioner Cokas ed to be excused from the Special Study Session o anuary 25, 1979. Noes Absent x x Ther eing no further business, the Planning Commiddion ad- rned at 11:40 p.m. • GEORG COKAS, Secretary City o Newport Beach Planning Commission GC/gg -34- `J • January 1'0, 1979 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: Planning Commission Meeting January 18, 1979 Agenda Item No. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH planning Commission Department of Community Development Property bounded by MacArthur Boulevard, Bristol Street North, and Birch Street, in Newport Place. APPLICANT: Emkay Development and Realty Company, Newport Beach Background The Emkay Development and Realty Company has requested the Planning Commissions consideration of a phasing plan to comply with Resolution • No. 9742 of the Newport Beach City Council and Amendment No. 514 to the Newport Beach Municipal Code. A copy of Resolution No. 9742 and Amendment No. 514 are attached to this report. Additionally, attached to this staff report are: 1. The Phasing Plan prepared by the applicant for the remaining allowed development in the Planned Community District; 2. A response to the Planning Commissions guidelines for review of Phasing plans; and 3. A Traffic Study prepared by Robert Crommelin & Associates for the applicant. At the January 8, 1979 City Council meeting, the City Council reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendations concerning; definition of the term "reasonableness"' as applied to a Traffic Phasing plan. The City Council continued consideration of the definition to the City Council meeting of February 22, 1979.and directed staff to provide additional information to the City Council. Phasing Plan • As previously indicated, a copy of the Phasing Plan prepared by Emkay Development and Realty Company to comply with Resolution No. 9742 is attached for the Planning Commission's consideration. The remaining allowable square footage to be developed is under multiple ownerships. Presently there are undeveloped parcels under the ownership of Emkay, Bear Brand'Ranch, Air California, and Ketchum and the potential for expansion on numerous individually owner parcels within the Newport Place P-C District. A summary of the applicant's proposal to phase development is indicated on the next page: - 1 - TO: OWNER Undeveloped Parcels: Emkay Bear Brand Ranch Air California Ketchum Subtotal: Expansion Space: Various Parcels Total Newport Place Planning Commission - 2. Resolution No. 9742 REMAINING FOR FOR FOR ALLOWED OCCUPANCY OCCUPANCY OCCUPANCY SQ. FT. 1979 1980 1981 358,830 0 206,269 152,561 81,162 81,162 0 0 40051 0 40,951 0 87,019 87,019 0 0 567,962 168,181 247,220 152,561 190,262 758,224 Attached for the Planning Commission's consideration is the response of Emkay Development and Realty Company to the Planning Commission's No. 97.42eoffor thethe Cityeofew of Newportasing plans Beach. Theto comply applicantwith has rResolution responded to each of the 6 guidelines recommended by the planning Commission to the City Council an additional two items suggested by staff in its original recommendation to the Planning Commission. Summary: 1. The following summarizes the existing development and development remaining to be completed: - Allowed by P.C. - Completed - Under construction - Vacant parcels - possible expansion Total buildout w/o expansion - Total buildout with expansion • LJ = 21556,626 sq.ft. 1 = 10562,329 sq.ft. 1 236,073 sq.ft. 2 567,962 sq.ft. = 190,262 sq.ft. 2,366,364 sq.ft. = 2,656,626 sq.ft. Footnotes 1. Resolution No. 9742 indicated that 1,799 sq.ft. of development was existing or under construction as of October 1, 1978. The revised figures presented in the phasing plan represent a correction to that information to more accurately reflect existing conditions. The difference is 1539 sq.ft. 2. Resolution No. 9742 indicated additional allowable development • in Newport Place in the amount of 566,423 sq.ft. This figure included the vacant parcels on which no development has yet occured. Some of the parcels which have been developed were not developed to the full extent permitted in the P-C. It is possible that some of the exsiting uses may want to expand to the amount permitted at some time in the future, but if so, we have no information at this time. When all these remainders are added together, it amounts to 190,262 sq.ft., and is called the expansion area for purposes of this report. TO: Planning Commission - 3. 2. The City Traffic Engineer designated 16 intersections as critical. Table No. 3 in the response to the Planning Commission's guidelines indicates the percent • oftraffic contribution to each critical intersection. 3. Nine of the critical intersections analyzed exceed the 5% test and four intersections had an ICU of 0.90 or greater. Future planned road improvements to these intersections are indicated on page 2 or the response to the Planning Commission guidelines. (See staff Analysis for further information). 4. Additionally, information on Emkay, Development and Realty Company's previous design features to reduce project traffic .is provided on pages 3 and 4 of the above mentioned document. Traffic Study A Traffic Study was prepared for the applicant by Robert Crommelin and Associates. This study analyses the following: 1) Development Phasing; 2.) Existing Area Traffic Conditions and Growth Trends; 3.) Site Traffic Generation and Distribution; 4.) Future Projected Traffic Characteristics; 5.) Critical Intersection Determination; 6.) Critical Intersection ICU; 7.) Impact of Planned Roadway Improve- ments; and 8.) Need for.Development Phasing. The firm of Robert • Crommelin and Associates summarized the need for development phasing as follows: "The phasing as proposed under the maximum development rate by Emka.y Development Company for Newport Place project can be accommodated by planned improvements of the roadwa,y.system. The maximum development rate (excluding the expansion allowance) can be accomplished if the following phasing occurs in association with the various improvements noted: 1. Occupancy of the floor space considered for construction in 1979 should not occur until a third lane is developed on MacArthur Boulevard in each direction at the Campus Drive intersection and the Corona del Mar freeway connection is made to the west and the San Diego Freeway. 2. Similarly, the,occupancy should be forestalled until the MacArthur/Ford improvements are completed although this is of much lesser importance that the improvements to close proximity to the site. 3. The opening of the Von*Karman overcrossing combined with the addition of a northbound lane on Jamboree Boulevard • by the City of Irvine will improve traffic conditions at the Jamboree/Campus intersection to a reasonable level so that phasing of the project will not be required. 4. By phasing the additional development over a three-year period, the entire project can be accomplished without a negative impact upon the adjacent street system once the intital improvements noted in this report are accomplished. 0 0. TO: Planning Commission - 4, Prior to progressing on the expansion space of 190,200 sq.ft, of building area, a separate traffic analysis should be accomplished at a later date." Staff Analysis Resolution No. 9742 Resolution No. 9742 provides that devblppment in excess of 30% of the additional allowable development in the Emkay-Newport Place Planned Community District shall be approved only after it can be demonstrated that adequate traffic facilities will be available to handle the traffic generated by the project at the time of occupancy of the buildings involved. Further, such demonstration may be consistent with the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. C] At its meeting of October 5, 1978, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that the Planned Community Districts for Emkay Newport Place, Koll Center Newport, Aeronutronic Ford, North Ford, and Corporate Plaza be amended to include language regarding the 1 presentation by the property owner of a phasing plan prior to the development of the last 70% of the remaining undeveloped land in the Planned Community. In discussing its recommendation, the Commission noted ... "that it does not intend to use the criteria of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, but rather to apply a test of reasonableness to the rdview of the phasing plans"... On November 27, 1978, the City Council accepted the recommendation of the Planning Commission and adopted Resolution No. 9,742 amending the language in the Planned Community Districts. Then an additional motion was passed directing the planning Commission ... "to provide definitions of 'test of reasonableness' and such other information as they wish to provide that would indicate how a demonstration can be made of a phasing plan, as they suggest on their amendment, to come back to Council on January 8, 1979," As previously mentioned at the January 8, 1979 City Council meeting, the City Council continued their consideration of the Planning Commi- ssion recommendation until February 22, 1979. The following indicates the intersections impacted with an existing ICU of 0.90 or greater, date of completion of circulation systems improvement and projected ICU after completion of the improvement: Timing Projected l Existing ICU Improvement I.C.U. - 8ristol (North)/Campus 1.0608 (Accomplished) 0.8351 • - MacArthur/Campus 1.0762 Early 1980 0.8878 - Jamboree/Campus 1.1627 Late 1979 0.9000 - MacArthur/Ford 1.0265 Early 1980 0.8056 1. This includes development of Emkay, Bear Brand Ranch, Air California, and Ketchum but hot expansion of':the various + other Newport Place parcels, and does not consider future traffic other than project -related traffic. 'TO: Planning Commission - 5. The Circulation System Improvements indicated in the Phasing Plan in response to the Planning Commission guidelines are consistent • with the Newport Beach General Plan Circulation Element. It is important to note that while this project does not include future traffic generated by projects other than the vacant parcels in the Newport Place Planned Community that this analysis is not required by the Planning Commission guidelines nor would it be required under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code). Environmental Significance The City of Newport Beach Environmental Affairs Committee has reviewed the project and determined that it will not have significant environ- Mental effect. A copy of the Negative Declaration is attached. Suggested Action: If desired, make the following fiindings in regard to the Newport Place Planned Community District: Findings • The Planning Commission in its collective judgement and considering the rights of owners to use and develop their property, approve the Phasing Plan and find: 1. That the Phasing Plan is consistent with the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. 2. That adequate traffic facilities will be avialable to handle that traffic generated by the project at the time of occupancy of the buildings involved. Subject to the following conditions: Conditions Occupancy of the floor space considered for construction in 1979 shall not occur until a third lane is on MacArthur Boulevard in each direction at the Campus Drive intersection and the Corona del Mar Freeway connection is made to the west and the San Diego Freeway. The occupancy of buildings shall not occur until the MacArthur/Ford improvements are completed. • 3. The opening of the Von Karman overcrossing and the addition of a northbound lane on Jamboree Boulevard by the City of Irvine shall be accomplished prior to occupancy of any bui 1'di ngs. TO: Planning Commission - 6. 4. Future development in the Emkay-Newport Place Planned Community shall occur in accordance with the phasing plan. 5. Prior to the issuance of any building permits in the expansion space of 190,200 sq.ft. of building area, in any amount greater than 30% of the remaining space to be developed on each parcel, a separate traffic analysis shall be accomplished. -AND- Send the Phasing Plan for the Newport Place Planned Community District forward to the City Council with such recommendation(s) as the Planning Commission deems appropriate Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R, V. HOGAN, DIRECTOR By % �Aj /Z/49"� r a Environmental Coordinator FT/dt Attachments: 1. Resolution No. 9742 2. Amendment No. 514 3. Newport Place P.C. Phasing Plan 4. Emkay response to Planning Commission Guidelines 5. Traffic Study - Robert Crommelin & Associates 6. Negative Declaration u 10 ae ti Q�af yD Q� Q< � Onf .3 NOV30 1978s. RESOLUTION NO. 9 47 2 6 NOµ. %,'t BF 4 GOFEICHI A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF THE CORPORATE PLAZA, NORTH FORD, EMKAY DEVELOPMENT, ROLL CENTER NEWPORT, AND AERONUTRONIC-FORD PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICTS TO REQUIRE PREPARATION OF PHASING PLANS CONSISTENT WITH THE CIRCULA- TION ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN (AMENDMENT NO. 514) WHEREAS, Section 20.51.045 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that amendments to a Planned Community Development Plan shall be approved by a,resolution of the City Council setting forth full particulars of the amendments; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on October 5, 1978, at which time it considered amend- ments to the Planned Community Development Plans for Corporate Plaza, North Ford, Emkay-Newport Place, Roll Center Newport, •and•Aeronutronic-Ford; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing the Planning Commission adopted its Resolution No. 1018, recommending to ,• the City Council that certain amendments to the Planned Community Development Plans for Corporate Plaza, North Ford, Emkay Newport Place, Roll Center Newport, and Aeronutronic- Ford be adopted as follows: A. CORPORATE PLAZA Section 1, Statistical Analysis, paragraph 6, at page 2: "6. PHASING OF DEVELOPMENT. 162,644 sq. £t. of development was existing or under construction as of • October 1, 1978. The additional allowable development in the total approved development plan is 287,356 sq, ft, Any further development subsequent to October 1` 1978, in 'b u excess of 301 of the additional allowable development, being 86,206 sq. ft., shall be approved only after it can be demonostrated that adequate traffic facilities will be available to handle that traffic generated by the project at the time of occupancy of the buildings involved. Such demonstration may be made by the pre- sentation of a phasing plan consistent with the Circu- lation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan." a. NORTH FORD Section 1, Statistical Analysis, at page 2, by adding paragraph entitled "Phasing of Development": "PHASING OF DEVELOPMENT. 129,260 sq. ft. of development was existing or under construction as of October 1, 1978. The additional allowable development in the total approved development plan is 770,740 sq. ft. Any further development subsequent to October 1, • 1978, in excess of 30% of the additional allowable development, being 231,222 sq. ft., shall be approved only after it can be demonstrated that adequate traffic facilities will be available to handle that• traffic generated by the project at the time of occupancy of the buildings involved. such demonstration may be made by `the presentation of a phasing plan consistent with the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan." C. EMKAY-NENPORT PLACE Amending General Notes at page 1, by adding paragraph 7, to read: 07. PHASING OF DEVELOPMENT. 1,799,941 sq. ft. of development was existing or under construction as of October 1, 1978. The additional allowable development in the total approved development plan is 566,423 sq. ft. -2- v Any further development subsequent to October 1, 1978, • in excess of 30% of the additional allowable development, being 169,927 sq. ft., shall be approved only after it can be demonstrated that adequate traffic facilities will be available to handle that traffic generated by the project at the time of occupancy of the buildings involved. Such demonstration may be made by the pre- sentation of a phasing plan consistent with the Circu- lation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan." • D. ROLL CENTER NEWPORT Amending Development Considerations, at page 4, ' by adding paragraph 6, to read: "6. PHASING OF DEVELOPMENT. 1,651,757 sq. ft. ' of development was existing or under construction as of • October 1, 1970. The additional allowable development in the total approved development plan is 1,058,863 sq. ft. • Any further development subsequent to October 1, 1978, in excess of 30% of.the additional allowable development, being 317,658 sq. ft., shall be approved only after it can be demonstrated that adequate traffic facilities will be available to handle that traffic generated by ' the project at the time of occupancy of the buildings ,involved. Such demonstration may be made by the presen- tation of a phasing plan consistent with the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan." E. AERONUTRONIC-FORD ' ' Use Permit No. 419 and subsequent approvals adopted prior to May 8, 1978, which Use Permits constitute the development plan for the Aeronutroric-Ford Planned Community are amended by adding the following language: • "PHASING OF DEVELOPMENT. '962,400 sq. ft. of development was existing or under construction as of -3- a IL October 1, 1970. The additional allowable development • is the total approved development plan is 1,691,000 sq. £t. Any further development subsequent to October 1, 1977, in excess of 30% of the additional allowable development, being 507,300 sq. ft., shall be approved only after it can be demonstrated that adequate traffic facilities will be available to handle that traffic generated by the project at the time of occupancy of the buildings involved. Such demonstration may be made by the presentation of a phasing plan consistent with the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan"; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that said amendments to the Planned Community 'Development Plans for Corporate Plaza, North Nord, Emkay-Newport Place, Eoli Center Newport, and Aeronutronic-Ford as set forth above are desirable • and necessary? and WHEREAS, the City Council has conducted a public hearing on said proposed amendments in accordance with all provisions of law, NON, THERzFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council 'hereby approves the proposed amendments to the Planned Community Development Plans for Corporate Plaza, North cord, Emkay-Newport Plaee, Xoll Center Newport, and Aeronutronic-Ford as set forth hereinabove. ADOPTED this MI-I� day of mtwe m6er , 1978. Mayor ATTEST: C ty. er HRC/kb 11/13/78 -4- ---- - - --- ---- - - ------ 6 City Council Meeting November 27, 1978 Agenda Item No. • OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY November 21., 1978 TO: City Council FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Continued Public Hearin regarding Plannin Commission mendment No. 514 A proposed amendment to the Planned Community initiated by the City of Newport Beach, Districts, to require the preparation of a phasing plan with the Circulation Element of the .consistent General Plan for the following P-C District areas: . 1. Corporate Plaza • 2. North Ford 3. Emkay Newport Place 4. Koll center Newport 5. Aeronutronic-Ford Suggested Action Hold hearing; close hearing; if desired, approve Negative Declaration and adopt Resolution No. amending Planned Community Develop- ment Standards of the Corporate Plaza, North Ford, Emkay Newport Place, Koll Center Newport, and Aeronutronic-Ford P-C Districts to require preparation of phasing plans consistent with the Circulation Element of the General Plan. Background On November 13, 1978, the City Council initiated a public hearing on Amendment No. 514, and continued this item to the meeting of November 27. The City Council requested additional information regarding the. basis of the Planning Commission's recommendation. This memo provides a further explanation of the Planning Commission's recommendation and is intended'.to supplement the previous staff report attached. • Exp-lanation of Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission's recommendation on Amendment No. 514 is that wording be added to the adopted P-C development plans requiring a phasing plan for the areas listed above, as follows: "PHASING OF DEVELOPMENT sq.ft. of development was existing or 10: City Council - 2. �Z "under construction as of October 1, 1978. The additional allowable development in the total approved development plan is sq.ft. Any further development subsequent to October 1, 1978 in excess of 30% of the additional allowable (levelopment, being sq.ft. shall be ap- proved only after it can be demonstrated that adequate traffic facilities will be available to handle that traffic generated by the project at the time of occupancy of the buildings in- volved. Such demonstration may be made by the presentation of a phasing plan consistent with the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan." • The effect of this amendment, if adopted, would be to require the , preparation of a development phasing plan to assure that adequate road capacity exists at the time of occupancy of a project. This phasing plan would apply to any development in excess of 30% of the additional allowable development as of October 1, 1978, in each of the P-C districts. In other words, the final 70% of the additional allowable development could not be built without first demonstrating that ade- qute roadway capacity would be available. A maximum of 30% of the additional allowable development could be built without any phasing . requirement. In recommending this 30%/70% ratio with respect to the phasing require- ment, the Planning Commission intended to arrive at an approach that would be'both reasonable -and effective in addressing traffic problems dst,ociated with approved development. It was thought that these per- centages would allow approved projects currently in process to continue, while assuring that a substantial portion (70%)of future development in these P-C's would be subject to the approval of a phasing plan by the City. This phasing requirement applies as follows: 30% of 70% of Additional Total Additional Allowable Subject Additional Allowable to Phasing plan Allowable 1) Corporate Plaza 86,206 201,150 287,356 L) North Ford 231,222 539,518 770,740 3) Lmkay Newport Place 169,927 386,496 5569423 1) Kull Center Newport 317,658 741,205 1,058,863 a) Aernnutronic-Ford 507,300 1,183,700 1,691,00 TOTALS 1,312,313 3,052,069 4,364,382 �3 TO City Council - 3. • Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R . V . H O GA.N,,,By DAVID J. DPJOHOWSKi . DJD/kk Attachments for City Council Only: 1) Previous staff report 2) Planning Commission Minutes • 3) Negative Declaration • 0 1i a � r January +11, 1979 EMMY DEVELOPMENT AND REALTY COMPANY PHASING PLAN TO COMPLY WITH RESOLUTION NO. 9472 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • Newport Place is an approved Planned Community which the Newport Beach City Council determined to be excepted from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The information herein submitted represents Emkay's response to the requirement that a phasing plan be presented for approval to allow development on undeveloped parcels in Newport Place to proceed in accordance with Resolution No. 9472. Included for review are: 1) Phasing Plan for the remaining undeveloped parcels, 2) Response to Planning Commission guidelines for review of plan, 3) Traffic Study prepared by Robert Crom elin and Associates, Inc. PHASING PLAN Newport Place has been developed on a phased basis over the past eight years and as of today 70% of the allowed square footage has been completed. All public improve- ments for undeveloped parcels have been installed or bonded and all undeveloped parcels have been graded. The remaining undeveloped land in Newport Place is under four different ownerships. The following table outlines the distribution of remaining allowed square footage and the • phasing plan for the development of that space in terms of square feet available for occupancy as indicated by each property owner, It should be noted that none of the projects are under construction now and occupancy in 1979 will not take place until the fourth quarter of the year. Within Newport Place there remains 190,262 square feet of space allowed but not built on parcels which have already been developed. These parcels are not owned by Emkay and this allowed square footage is viewed as expansion space. We have no way of knowing if or when any of this space might be developed and, accordingly, it is not included in the phasing plan. It is assumed that a property owner desiring to expand in excess of 30% of the allowed square footage would prepare a plan showing the phasing of such expansion. For information only, the traffic generating characteristics of this expan- sionspace have been shown in the traffic study. OWNER Undeveloped Parcels: Emkay Bear Brand Ranch Air California Ketchum Subtotal: Expansion Space: Various Parcels Total Newport Place REMAINING ALLOWED SQ. FT. 358,830 81,162 40,951 87,019 567,962 190,262 758,224 FOR OCCUPANCY 1979 0 81,162 0 87,019 168,181 FOR OCCUPANCY 1980 206,269 0 40,951 0 247�220 FOR OCCUPANCY 1981 152,561 0 0 •0 152j561 The attached traffic study demonstrates the adequacy of the circulation system to handle the traffic volume generated by the above phased development plan for undeveloped parcels. January 5, 1979•,. -1- MAY DEVELOPMENT AND REALTY COMPANY PHASING PLAN TO COMPLY WITH/ RESOLUTION NO. 9472 ll CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH The following information is intended to, respond. to the guidelines, as,presented by the city staff to the Planning Commission —at —the stud) session o December 7, 1978, for review of phasing plans: 1. Each project subject to the phasing requirement of Council Resolution No. 9472 shall be examined as to the extent of existing development and the amount of development remaining to be completed. This information is summarized in Table 1. 2. Information shall be submitted indicating the amount of traffic being generated'by existing development and that projected for remaining development. The information herein requested is presented in the attached Traffic Study prepared by Robert Crommelin and Associates, Inc., in cooperation with the city staff. For your convenience, tables summarizing pertineut'data have been extracted from that report. Mr. Crommelin is available to answer any questions you may have regarding • the Traffic Study. Table 2 shows the volume of traffic generated by all land uses within Newport Place for existing as well as future development. • Table 2 PR2SMX AdD FUTUBB SITC TRAFFIC VOLUIe Y,vport plan 'traffic Study DAILY TRAFFIC AS OF MAY •78 AODITi TRAFFIC VOLUlCi DLTIMATL (b) RinnA- SIT: T2AF71C IACO USE QrwITITY AS CT :.AY 176 & Factor Vail/Day 2978 1979 1980 1981 Minn (vpd) VOLVlC (vpd) %vph) (vpd) (vpd) (vpd). (vpd) Ottin Pau 1e032.3 Mat 14/Mal 14.730 4,LOD 2.330 3,450 2.100 1.550 2E.300 Rota11/Ceaet4 113.3 Met 50/Mat 5.650 2,100 - - - 450 3,200 Caarreial - - 6,100 Aeat.uieeta 42.5 Mat 190/Mat 2.100 - - - - - 4,200 Ye[d/Matd 2U3 Won.12/in (105.! Y+t) 2,500 1.700 - - Auto Center 70.4 P4F 2!/Nst 5 l.730 - 1• 900 3.55D Ceeacnctiom 4 - 3,000 . 2.000 - I.OD9 Th[u Traffic -3T 35.. j� 5,900 2.350 3.450 2.100 3.800 33,350 TOTAL: f 1.233.3 e4f 126I.W' ACC.^61AT1VF TRAsrSs 3.730 i;a1.650 44.0D0 47.45D 49.55D 53,350 (e)T:et[le R.••r•--n, !=,or µsad to balsam totd estimated voluse For each land we vith the ,etosl =AU10 tounec2- (b)Iecludes pro3.ct, ow?l.ced or under e.Tntructloft b.tvMao 5/78 end 12/78. (Se, 7eble I For quantity of day.lop.fat For Mach year.) . ,•. . G1'47f WK IG 14 IA1aWRiAL SLT:. i.• ... i.♦1 4 r�l MA i, "It t C3UMEkE7Al '.'. Nam,' mum ' 1t.N T5'AL 13.i iE *k, UP" :?.3 '3 .M :7.$ GaM.4 $y� .7.. NTt� Table l WAY CEVILDMEN1Y 6 R«A.iY CC, A.,.;hEo ACTUALLY UAC:R j.+ %y 2:tYr CONS71. " 1 VMS } Y ,_1,r IOTA. ,eA.. t 34136 • 1 # o 4 24110 6313E 25742 m E 25141 3739E 316M ;11is3 MR 1221!? 316219 m 34m44 .... ..............v............................................................... 396.71 10584 70.74E 46mi95 ISM 122s,: 81953E 4601W f 31W9 E;4331 f �113531 7Ef61 t 76f67 37463 21116E MIS . 141974 171799 19391 i/741r 1wi 1 17819 161410 n It4t1 13130 f 1 3333n 6392 1�/6r 37119 f f S7473 -1613 ...... ............................ I............._...... . . .. ._.. I ................ • 1411001 141164 141114 44501 1101,311 7i113 3a r saw f n as5#1 1 ltsr �1 f ! e2sc r ............ I . . . . . I . I . . . . . M...quwJ........ A.. u.....M• ...........w ...N • 6415r 6473E m f 6415n f r1 t' ` 22SiC 2t31n Z 6 ft51: 4 6llf 61rf 3 1 69nm r ................................................................ ....._.......---•--•-- 2141E 2941n E f t9411 f }A'.. 116844 111N7 $1337 f 126E44 1 .......................................................................................... 166044 IRM 61331 n 116844 1 13119 13M f E 140 1 W32 317st r r 3173t f ...n..1..+..................... I .......................... .......... ...................... 441S2 4411t m f 441SZ I A 35111 M31 1 1 4001 425E 1171i 4130 f f 439t 6E51 4E96n 41351 ! "v 4,45, 6149 SAP AIJ ............................................................•• ,... ... —.... $ 1162ti :26%5 .._..__.._._...................•._.................,..._._................____.._........ 1 235662E 1562;d9 230,73 3679}i 2366364 190262 ' SS}ftii:iiii}S LSIILStiiiSOfiti3iiitiSA}212F1SYtit2:Lif Siifiii ASie._S}:S:SY� ._.Y_._}SiiSAF W L it January 5, 1979 W5 3. An examination shall be made of the circulation system in the vicinity of the project to determine what improvements remain • to be completed, with particular consideration being given to those improvements which will directly aid in moving traffic generated by the project. The area to be examined shall extend to those intersections where traffic generated from the project increases the traffic at the intersection during the peak two and one-half hour period by 5% or more. The city's traffic engineer has designated 16 intersections as critical and, there- fore, requiring 5% Traffic Volume Analysis. The intersections where project generated traffic will increase the volume by 5% or more during the peak two and one-half hour period are identified in Table 3. Of the eight intersections so impacted, four have an ICU of .90 or greater and require further examination as to road improvements which need to be completed to directly aid the movement of project generated traffic. These four intersections are listed below: . Bristol (North)/Campus The improvement required is striping a southbound right turn lane in the 30 feet available on the northerly leg of Bristol. This improvement has been completed. The ICU will be reduced from 1.0608 to 0.8351. , . MacArthur/Campus • The improvement required is the addition of a third northbound lane on MacArthur plus a right turn lane northbound on MacArthur to Campus. This project is scheduled by Caltrans for completion by early 3.980. Funds have been allocated for the project. The ICU will be reduced from 1.0762 to 0.8878. Jamboree/Campus The improvement required is the addition.of a third northbound traffic lane from Fairchild to Campus. This project is scheduled by the City of Irvine for completion in late 1979, Funds have been allocated for this project. This improvement plus the completion in early 1979 of the Von Karmen overpass will reduce the ICU from 1.1627 to 0.9000 or less. . MacArthur/Ford The road improvements required for this intersection are detailed on Page 15 of the attached traffic study. The project is scheduled for completion in early 1980. Funds have been allocated for this joint City -State improvement project. The ICU will be reduced from 1.0265 to 0.8056. Three other major improvements are nearing completion which will -have significant positive impact on traffic circ-.:letion near Newport Place. Connection of Bristol North and South to the Corona Del Mar Freeway. This should reduce Northbound traffic on MacArthur and Jamboree as it provides access to the San Diego Freeway. This is scheduled for early 1979. 1$ r, t y Table 3 PERCENT PROJECT TRAPPIC CONTRIIUTION TO CRITICAL INTERSECTIONS ' Newport Place Traffic Study 2.5-HOUR T FFIC vO1JD0'. PROJECT 1978 2.3-NOUR TRAPPIC INTERSECTION DIREC- Spring Added (a) fareent 1978 I TION 197b Praiser Total Volume of Total MacArthur/Cam us Nb SB 2688 31" 288 166 3176 3295 495 222 5.6 n A e w (0.93) 1b 1693 40 1733 190 wB 2004 13 2017 19 Jamboree Car ua NB SB 3452 3411 120 48 S72 3465 * 88 2.5 n s e, w (1,17) E1 2042 a 2050 252 wB 1637 * 1637 * Jamboree NB 1681 36 71 4.1 MacArthur 11 2914 147 2961 247 s/w �i 11 2923 9 2932 17 b wB 3037 1 3066 # Drirtal M CY NB 81 1304 370s 17 3b h 3743 208 . w ■ . 1.00 w1 47 0 393 5183 694 13.4 lrirtel lreh Ni E1 SS2 2120 S 73 2193 18 500 22.81 ■ w a • 0.59 ws 3053 406 3459 262 lristo N ambore NB 11 5153 2911 16 86 2897 2 50 0.4 1.7 7w off 0.72 wb 1162 . 1191 19 1.6 Bristol C us NB 160 IS 162 22 1.4 r w a s $B 3164 32 3196 63 2.0 0.72 EB 3027 223 3250 296 rrn Eristol Bitch Nl 223 St 943 59 1002 68 6. ' (0.36 EBB 2656 102 2768 18 9. Iris tol Jamboree NB SB• 499 A359 7 66 2425 22 50 0.4 2.1 e w n a 0.54 1B 2778 126 2904 68 2.3 Irvine Universit 'MB 31 1985 3564 17 *2 2002 899 62 22 *3 *.6 n a e, v (0.86) 1b 672 Mb 80 a 1 80 Jaaborae Yard NB 4574 it 4585 15 0.3 n s , w SE 2937 32 2969 64 2.2 (0.83) Z5. gal981 *6 *7 wb 153 759 0.9 MacArthur Ferd NB S1 4574 2937 93 46 4 3030 68 197 L4.�5J n s a w (0.83) L aS A, 981 w 7i3 it 764 15 2.0 MacArthur Son Nb 2561 39 2620 53 2.0 Jor uia Nilis $E 4134 *6 422330 161 3.8 D/s • w to 385 385 0.64 WN 2333 11 2544 15 0.6 ,Jamboree/ NB 2581 11 2592 t5 0.6 San Joa uin n/a s w $B 4134 22 4156 43 1.0c EB 30 * 385 0.64 w6 2533 * 2533 Jamboree Coast HW3 ND 55 1015 2959 5 22 1020 2981 11 43 1.1 1.4 n ■ a w (0.83) EB 4264 2 4266 3 wS 3185 5 3190 7 SB 2258 71 2329 125 5.4tHv!•e(w n EB 3204 11 3215 15 0.5 wB 3432 28 3460 38 1.1 (a) At 1951 project completion, excluding expansion of 190,262 square teat. * Nominal. volume. M Project contribution exceeds five, percent. 0 0 January 5, 1979 -3- 1� Completion of'the Von Karman overpass should also relieve northbound traffic on MacArthur and Jamboree as it provides access for northbound through • traffic not entering the San Diego Freeway. This improvement is scheduled for early 1979. The one-way frontage roads, Bristol North and South, are nearly completed and have contributed significantly in moving traffic generated by Newport Place. 4. Existing traffic at those intersections shall be shown prior to making any projections. This'information is also shown in Table 3. 5. The developer may include in his proposed traffic phasing plan completion of or contribution to completion of needed improvements consistent with the level of traffic generation and a reasonable proportion of the cost of these improvements. Emkay cooperated with other Newport Beach developers and city staff to prepare a Major Thoroughfare Improvement Funding Program. Emkay views this program as a positive step toward relieving traffic congestion. The • funding of Circulation Element improvements has been a continuing problem, made more difficult by reduced tax revenue to governmental agencies. We are all aware that significant traffic system improvements have been realized by making such improvements required of the developer for tract map approval. Emkay has stated publicly that we, are willing to step forward together with the other Newport Beach developers and contribute over $5,000,000 in additional fees for road improvements. To date this offer has not been accepted by the City Council. However, Emkay again states its willingness to participate in the Major Thoroughfare Funding Program. 6. The developer is also to,take into consideration in the preparation of his plan characteristics in the design of his development which either reduce traffic generation or guide traffic onto less impacted arterials or through intersections in the least congested direction. The following design features help reduce traffic generated within Newport Piave or direct it to less congested areas. a. Newport Place Drive aligns with Von Karman and. traffic generated by Emkay as well as other Newport Place traffic will easily flow, along Von Karman over the freeway and away from the areas congested inter- sections. • b. The Quail, Dove, Westeriy loop provides interior circulation thus keeping local Newport Place traffic off surrounding arteries. January 5, 1979 -4- �o c. Newport Place includes shopping, dining service and recreational facilities within its boundaries, thus substantially reducing the need for Newport • Place workers to utilize the city's surrounding road system in pursuit of these activities. d. Developed parcels have been built at a reduced density of 190,262 square feet which is a direct traffic mitigating measure. I e. Newport Place is located in the north part of Newport Peach and most of the generated traffic, as shown in the traffic report, moves north and 4'', west, thus away from congested areas within the city. f. Several prime office sites were developed at the request of the city, with car dealerships which generate less traffic volume and more tax revenue. g. The working hours of some firms have been voluntarily adjusted resulting in the Newport Place peak traffic period occurring 15 minutes prior to that of the adjacent highway system, as shown in the traffic report. h. Emkay has not utilized the pooled parking concept and thereby has reduced development intensity otherwise available. I. The off -site street pattern was considered in designing the projects' interior circulation to minimize the addition of unnecessary intersections, • turning movements and possible traffic conflict points. All minor street intersections with MacArthur Boulevard and Bristol North are right -turn only. The following information is not required, however, it is presented for your consider- ation. These items were in the original staff recommendation. 7. A comparison shall be made between the amount of development permitted by the Planned Community Development Plan and the amount actually constructed or proposed for construction along with any difference in traffic generation. This information is also available from Table 2. It is important to note that at project build -out there will be remaining•190*262 square feet allowed which will only be built if property owners seek to expand 'existing facilities. The resulting difference between traffic generated from proposed development (49,550 vpd) and from allowed development (53i350 vpd) is 3,800 vpd. 8. Information shall be submitted showing what contributions have been made by the developer to off -site street improvements. At the December 7, 1978 study session, the Planning Commission indicated that off -sit e• street improvements completed by the developer were not to be considered because they are part of the usual requirements imposed on the developer. This is true, however, it January 5, 1979 -5- may be informative to recall the magnitude of those improvements and recognize that • with development come major traffic system improvements that accommodate not only traffic generated by the development but also that generated from other sources. Such is the case at Newport Plcae where an additional traffic lane, plus 1/2 traffic signal for MacArthur Boulevard from Birch to Jamboree was completed by Emkay. Total cost to Emkay was $275,000 in 1972. Also, Emkay completed both lanes of the freeway frontage road (now called North Bristol) from Birch to Jamboree at a cost of $180,000 in 1974. These improvements are in addition to all interior roads completed by Emkay. • is s G t ROBERT CROMMELIN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. �z TRANSPORTATION ANO 'TRAFFIC ENGINEERS 17071 VENTURA BOULEVARD ENCINO. CA. 91316 January 4, 1978 Mr. Kevin T. Hanson, Project Coordinator Emkay Development and Realty Company 1201 Dove Street, Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject: Newport Place Traffic Study Update Dear Mr. Hanson: TELEPHONE 12131 78B-8570 • As authorized, we have conducted a comprehensive traffic analysis of the impact of Emkay's proposed office project located in Newport Place in the City of Newport Beach, California. The purposes of the study were to update our earlier report on the projett;1� to supply information concerning the traffic impact of the project, and to provide input to a Traffic Phasing Plan as required by the City of Newport Beach. In April 1978, Emkay requested Robert Crommelin and Associates, Inc. to conduct a partial update of the 1970 Study. In May 1978, a series of traffic counts were taken to identify the traffic characteristics of Newport Place. These data, along with projections of what has since occurred, serve as a base for the current analysis. Study Purpose and Project Description The City of Newport Beach has adopted a requirement that developers of five Planned Community Districts submit a phasing plan geared to the City's Circulation Element. As a basis for reviewing such plans, the Planning Commission has established a "test of reasonableness". This report provides information on the traffic characteristics of the • existing and expanded Newport Place project as required by that test. (1)The Newport Project Traffic Study, Robert Crommelin and Associates, Encino, California, November 1970, • 0 • Newport Place is a major development of 200 acres located in northern Newport Beach in the vicinity of the Orange County Airport. Under development since 1971, a total of 1,562,300 square feet of floor area currently has been developed with a variety of land uses, principally office space. An additional 236,100 square feet is now under construction. When these developments are completed, Newport Place will have 1,798,400 square feet of building floor area as shown in Table I. Figure 1 shows the general regional location of Newport Place as well as the area roadway system. Table 1 APPROVED PROJECT LAND USE Newport Beach Traffic Study QUANTITY - FLOOR AREA 1000 s .ft. Under Occupied Added Construe. Total Approved LAND USE -in Ma 78 b Dec 78 in Dec 78 to Date Office Uses 1,052. 1136.0 155.8 1,344.0 Retail Commercial 56.4 41.4 - 97.8 Restaurants 42.5 - - 42.5 Hotel/Motel 106.5 - 80.3 186.8 Auto Center '70.4 - - 70.4 General Commercial 56.9 - - 56.9 TOTAL: 1,384.9 177.4 236.1 1,798.4 As Newport Place continues developing, Emkay Development and Realty Company proposes to build 358,800'square feet of floor area of mixed office uses on the last major undeveloped portion of Newport Place under their ownership. Emkay has divided the site into two parcels for ease of development and financing. Located in the center of the project, the site has good access to all of the major access routes serving the triangular -shaped Newport Place project. Besides Emkay, other c-ners plan to de:e'_op 209,100,square feet of office space within the general project boundary. An additional 190,200 square feet has been included as part of the approved Planned Community District and is allocated for future expansion. -2- KEY GENERALIZED DIRECTIONAL 0°/. DISTRIBUTION OF NEWPORT PLACE TRAFFIC -31 ■ • LOCATION MAP 2 5 Development Phasing • Table 2 shows how Newport Place will grow within the next few years. It represents the maximum development rate which will be used in this test analysis. Under this program, 168,200 square feet will be developed in 1979; 247,200 square feet in 1980; and 152,600 square feet in 1981. Table 2 PRESENT A'M TNaEor`RO1.ce a CT AT N DEVEWFMNT RAT[ N IARn use — office Uue 1,344.0 - 168.2 206.2 41.0 152.6 - 110.0 2.022.0 - 97.E gte11 Corsaretel 97.8 - - _ 42.5 _ Baerwunu 42.5 - _ _ IB6.8 Rotel/lbeal IB6.8 - - - _ _ _ 71.5 141.9 70.4 - - - - Auto Cantor _ _ 6.7 65.6 Gnaul Coaarrefal 56.9 - - 168.2 206.2 41.0 152.6 - 190.2 2.556.E TOTAL, 1.795 4 - • P21neludaa buildings currently under tonatruttion. I Existing Area Traffic Conditions Newport Place is located in an area with high traffic volumes, principally oriented to the regional freeway system which converges in this portion of. Orange County. Bristol Street southwest of the project carries approximately 33,000 vehicles per day (vpd) and currently it is being improved by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to consist of two four -lane frontage roads on either side of the right-of-way of the future Corona Del Mar Freeway. These frontage roads will significantly increase traffic capacity in this portion of the city of Newport Beach. MacArthur Boulevard, on the east side of Newport Place, currently carries volumes of 27,000 to 28,500 vpd and is developed to major highway standards. Birch Street on the northwest edge of the project as well as Campus Drive both carry • relatively high volumes of traffic with Campus Drive serving as a major area circulation element. -4- y(A Site Traffic Generation and Distribution our 1970 report(2) made estimates of the total daily and peak hour traffic generation of the Newport Place project as well as its direc- tional distribution. Since that report, there have been some changes in land use. in order to determine the present characteristics of Newport Place's traffic, a complete cordon count was taken whereby automatic counters were set out at the eight streets providing access to the project from Birch Street, MacArthur Boulevard, and North Bristol Street. Table 3 summarizes the total two-way traffic volumes by hour of the day for the period counted. Figure 3 depicts the variation in hourly traffic volumes for Wednesday, May 10, 1978. W (2)0p. Cit. 4000 sego s:w -stro s000 20oo 1000 rarAt VA10 Y0l!/�r£+ 36,000 YEMIOAY 0 RY 2 6 6 Iv Ian z A.K. mu)r START/NC 4 6 6 ID it P.M. NEWPORT PLACE HOURLY TRAFFIC VARIATION IWAWS, Ar YA► lo, IM As may be noted in the table and the figure, a rather unusual pattern existed at Newport Place; there was a mid -day peak around noontime reflecting the unusual traffic -attracting characteristics of restaurants within the Newport Place project. - 5 - K r L J 11 • 77 Z'l • M C7 T.bl. 3 MACIaNE COUNT SC.N UT W. orr Tl.n Traffic Study CONDUCTED ON )Ef rONT TIACE. N2TROET BV_ TYPE OF COUNT + ❑ OIRECTIONA4 0 2-.AY DATE DELUN 5-88-73 1 + DIRECTION: SUNDAY IMONDAY ITUESDAY IWEDNESDAI THUESDAY IFUDAY SATUEDAY I 3-618 I 5-178 15-10-78 I 5-11-78 1l0 I 121 I I i.6 I 37 I 56 I I I 13 I 20 I 37 I 16 ( to ij 33 I I B I 10 I 15 I 63 I 66 I 82 I 457 I 493 534 I I I 1426 I 1537 I 1536 I I I 3134 I 3209 I 3021 I 1 I I 2180 I -2159 I 2299 i 2210 I 2215 I I I + I I 3052 I 2925 i -6- u , Based upon the average of the two highest days of these counts, it was determined that the total average daily two-way traffic volume generated by Newport Place was 35,750 vpd. Between 8:00 and 9:00 • A.M., the two-way volume was 3,225 cars; between 12:00 Noon and 1:00 P.M., the volume was 3,495 cars; and between 4:30 and 5:30 P.M., the highest hour of the day, the total volume into and out of Newport Place was 3,485 vehicles. For the 2.5-hour peak period (3t30 to 6:00 P.M.), the total volume was 7,255 vehicles, representing approximately 20 percent of the total daily traffic volume. Table 4 summarizes these values and also indicates the volumes on each of the eight streets serving as access to Newport Place. It was found that 33 percent of the traffic was oriented to MacArthur Boulevard, 13 percent to Bristol Street, and 54 percent to Birch Street. These values are very close to those projected in our November 1970 report (27 percent to MacArthur, 23 percent to Bristol, and 54 percent to Birch). The variation in percentage was due primarily to the fact that the freeway • Table 4 CURRENT NEWPORT PLACE TRAFFIC GENERATION Newport Place Traffic Study DAILY 2-WAY PFr.R PERIODS 8:00- 12:00 N- '4:30- 3:30- 2-WAY LOCATION VOLUME 9:00 AM 1:00 PM 5:30 PM 6:00 PM West of MacArthur Blvd @ Corinthian Way 2,630 165 350 260 470 Newport Place Drive 5,150 330 540 570 1,115 Bowsprit Drive 30970 525 310 425 815 Subtotal: (11,750) (1,020) (1,200) (1,255) (27400) Northeast of N. Bristol St @ 2,860 245 275 295 630 Dove Street Spruce Street 1,740 25Q 165 130 310 Subtotal: ( 4,600) ( 495) ( 440) ( 425) ( 940) Southeast of Birch St @ 3,380 150 295 200 615 Corinthian Way Dove Street 9,220 855 900 755 1,780 Quail Street 6L80tl 705 660 850 1,520 Subtotal: (19,400) (1,710) (1,855) (1- 805) (3,915) Total Volume: 35,750 3,225 3,495 3,485 7,255 Percent of Daily: - 9.OZ 9.8% 9.7% 20.3% -7- �I• I had not been constructed and Spruce Avenue on the south side of the - project did not connect to both directions of the Bristol Street frontage roads, as assumed in the 1970 report. The 35,750 daily trips generated by the Newport Place project represents a traffic generating factor of 25.8 daily two-way trips per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area which was occupied in May 1978. This is quite a high value considering that almost 80 percent of the present land use is devoted to office space which normally has a traffic generating factor of 13 to 15 trip ends per 1,000 square feet of floor area. This divergence from normal standards may be explained by the fact that the restaurant and retail traffic attracted to Newport Place has a relatively high factor. In addition, over 400,000 square feet of building area was under construction at the time of the counts; considerable volume occurred as part of that activity, • i one other characteristic of Newport Place traffic which is of interest is that its single peak hour starts at 4:30 P.M., 15 minutes earlier than the .peak hour on adjacent off -site roadways which starts at 4:45 P.M. Future Project Traffic Characteristics Figure 4 shows the current status of the Newport Place project's land use; a major portion developed and occupied in May 1978; additional portions of the project under construction or occupied since last spring; and the remaining 11-acre Emkay parcel in the center of the project as well as two other areas to be developed by others. Table 6 summarizes our estimates of traffic volumes asso- ciated with each of the various land uses under current and future • conditions with the addition of traffic associated with projects currently under construction as well as additional development by Emkay.and others. w C to DEVELOPED & OCCUPIED 5/T8 COMPLETED BETWEEN 5/78 - 12/78 . i © FUTURE PROJECTS (00.0) FLOOR AREA (1000 SQ-FT.) Y UNDER CONSTRUCTION AS OF 12/18 J NOTE t EXPANSION AREAL ARE NOT SHOWN. al (68.5) = HOTEL\EXPAN5101 U (142\OOMSi U.C. AN ADDITIONAL 87.0 MSF OF OFFICE SPACE IS PROGRAMMED. NEWPORT PLACE LAND 139E MpYI. O.M.. EMKAY OEYEtOPt1ENT AND REALTY COMPANY f .- 1_'!•• ••1•• • • • Table 5 TRAFFIC GENERATION CHARACTERISTICS AND FACTORS Newport Beach Traffic Study LAND USE DAILY TRAFFIC PER UNIT 2.5 HOUR VOLUME P.M. PK HR VOLUME In Out Total In Out Total Office Uses 14.0/Msf 1.3 3.7 5.0 0.4 2.0 2.4 Retail/General 50.0/Msf 4.9 5.1 10.0 2.2 2.8 5.0 Commercial Restaurant's 190.0/Msf 14.2 9.8 24.0 6.3 3.7 10.0 Hotel/Motel 12.0/room 1.0 0.6 1.6 0.5 0.3 0.8 Auto Center 25.0/Msf 2.4 3.6 6.0 1.2 ' 1.8 3.0 By comparing normal traffic generating rates with the quantities of land use in May 1978 and the actual traffic counts, estimates of gene- ration factors were made. These are shown in Table 6 and will be used to estimate the future site traffic characteristics. It is expected that the total traffic generation of Newport Place will grow from the May 1978 level of 35,750 vpd to a total of 53,350 vpd. The traffic associated with new development in 1979, 1980, and 1981 is shown. By the end of 1981, Newport Place will generate 49,950 vpd under the maximum development rate excluding the traffic associated with the expansion space. Table 6 PRESENT AND FUTURE SITE TRAFFIC VOLUME Newport Place Traffic Study ULTIMATE SITE TRAF. OlLice Uaee 1.052.3 Not 14/M.f 14,750 4,100 2,350 3,45D 2.100 1,550 28.7D4 Ratall/General 113.3 Met 50/Mef 5,650 2.100 - - - 450' 8,2DO Co.rcl.l _ _ ge 100 J.acaurenta 42.5 Hsi 190/Mef 8,100 - - - G zoe roman 12/ra 2,500 1,700 - - - - Noul/Mou1 (106.5 Maf) Auto Center70.4 Hof 25/M,f 1,750 - - - - 1,800 J,550 - - Cooatnecion . ,0D0 2000 - - 1,OD0 A _ _ 3 Thrw Traffic .650 2,100 3,800 57.750 TpyAC; 1,383.6 Wf 11 26/Mef 35,750 5.900 2.750 3,450 , ACC HUL/TIVE TRAFFIC VOLUME: 44.000 47.450 49 ,350 53.350 WTratfle generation factor tread to balance total eaeicated volume for each li.d use with the actual traffic couniedi (b)lncludea prolecta coaiplec.d or under construction between 5/78 and 12/78. (See Table 1 tot quantity of deweleprnt for each year. 0 0 Using the peak period characteristics shown in Table 7, the future traffic generation counts of Newport Place, and phased land use, estimates were prepared of the peak 2.5-hour (3:30 to 6:00 P.M.) period volume as well as the evening peak -hour volume for Newport Place for additions since May 1978 when the counts were taken as well as in the future. Table 7 shows these values. Tale 7 SSTIMnRO ADOITINAL "WICT TMrFIC AMR SPRING 1979 O"rt Plata Traffic Stody LAND USE ADOLD -Nda KAR TMt I AD }.M. }LAIC MOIR 7MFtI (1 Hey 74 a Growth Ran". len 1%&Z Total Since 79 • M•y IS. teed Creuth 1979 1930 B11 R•PAn- •r" Total Since N. 72 1979 1910 1911 Office Wu 1460 640 1233 765 S50 4.150 7011 40S 595 US 113 2,330 Retail/Oenml ce•aarcial 415 - - 05 SOD "I - - - 40 245 105t4aT•nta MedfHatd • 315 — - - - - - - 21S • 113 - - - - - 115 Ante Cmtar - - - - 470 430 Construction A Term Traffic -4N - - - _;SO -240 - - - - -240 "TALI 1620 940 1235 7{S 1065 3,325 no 405 9S 7{S �30 3,ff5 Tabrd SSf 1 220 320 900 35% 1,650 1 213 70 100 f0 1!0 SfS WtYaund Y 1O{S f1O 913 Sf! 710 3,pS S{5 by 495 70! 370 1,070 WAlrondy neeuPied at curroatly ualhr eenatruccloe. (Y)Wltulatd Im IN/out RPM& of Individual 1e04 0444 04dn1 /urbs that ti4a Period. Directional splits of traffic associated with the various land uses were shown in Figure 1. They can be applied to allow determination of the project's traffic impact upon adjacent intersections as required by the Cityrs policies. Critical Intersection Determination The policy of the Newport Beach Planning Commission concerning the test of reasonableness of a project as part b£ a Traffic Phasing Plan included examination of the circulation system in the vicinity of the project. The criteria for determining the extent of this examination was that intersections should be reviewed up to a point where there was less that a five percent change in traffic volume due to the additional -10- -r development contemplated by the project. Discussions with City Staff indicated that this analysis should use total entering traffic volumes on each of the legs of each critical intersection. For Newport Place, besides the spring 1978 traffic, there would be additional traffic for development completed since spring 1978 as well as that currently under construction. The test as to whether the intersection should be studied under an ICU analysis involved whether the project traffic for a 2.5-hour period for the proposed development would increase the total traffic volume on any approach by over five percent. Traffic associated with development completed since May 1978 or currently under construction also was added. As noted in Tables 6 and 7, this amounted to 5,900 vpd and 1,620 vehicles during a 2.5- hour peak period. Table 8 summarizes our calculations for 16 intersections which have been designated 'critical by the City of Newport Beach in the Newport Place environs. It was found that nine of these intersections would have project traffic which would be greater than five percent on one or more approaches when the project is completed. It should be noted that the quantity of project development did not include the 190,200 square feet of expansion area. The critical intersections determined as needing ICU analysis included: MacArthur/Campus, Jamboree/Campus, Jamboree/MacArthur, Bristol (N) /Campus, Bristol (N) /Birch, Bristol/Campus, Bristol/Birch, MacArthur/Ford and MacArthur/Coast Highway. Of these, the greatest impact occurred on the intersections along Bristol Street south of the project. Critical Intersection ICU The technique of ICU analysis was developed by Robert W. Crommelin and has been accepted, not only by the City of Newport Beach, but by other political jurisdictions as a method to compare traffic volumes, capacities, and levels of service. An appendix describes the technique as normally applied, although the City of Newport Beach requires cal- culation of ICU to four decimal places and use of a yellow allowance 9 -11- i ►..J ?Ln Table 8 PERCENT PROJECT TRAFFIC CONTRIBUTION TO CRITICAL INTERSECTIONS Newport Place Traffic Study 2.5-HOUR TM17gC VOLDISP., PROJTRAFFIC 1Add*d 2.5-HOUR (e) Percent kNTERSECTION AIAEC- Spring 1978 ICU TIC, 1978 ! ect Total Volume of Total MacArthur/Ca us NB Sb 2883 3129 246 166 3176 3295 495 222EU n s e/w (0.93) LB 1693 40 1733 190 • WB 2004 13 2017 19 ' Jamboree Ca us MB so 3452 3417 120 48 3465 8s 2 5 r s e V (1.17) s3 2042 8 2050 952 Vs 1631 1 1637 Jawhoree Ni 1681 71 4.1 MacArthur 8s 2814 147 2961 241 e/w a a Ea 2923 9 2932 17 _6®6_ 0.85 MS 3037 1 3066 • Bristol(N)ICaw us NB S8 1504 3703 17 38 b'L 3743 20tl Pal e/w n s 1.00 WB 4790 3 6183 614 13.4 Bristol N Birch NB Ss 352 2120 5 73 2193 1 SW • V n s 0.59 WB 3053 406 3459 262 Driatol N arbors NB So 5153 2811 16 86 6 2897 22 50 .4 1.1 7V n s 0.72 W8 1162 1191 19 1.6 Bristol Ca us NB se 1606 3164 15 32 1621 3196 22 63 1.4 2.0 • V m s 0.72 BB 3027 223 325D 296 Bristol DSeh N8 223 * e V 1 s SD 943 59 1002 68 6. 0.36 r6 2656 102 2 5 8 9. Bristol Jamborar N8 as• 996 2359 7 66 2425 22 SO 0.4 2.1 a w n s 0.54 is 2778 126 1 2904 68 2.3 Irvin* Universit 'N8 ss 1985 3964 17 32 2D02 3896 22 63 1.1 1.6 n s e V 37 672 * 672 Wa so * 80 Jamboree cord NS 4574 11 4585 15 0.3 n s Oro 31 2937 32 2969 *4 2.2 (0.83) •Ea 961 . Wa 753 6 759 7 0.9 MacArthur Ford No Sa 4574 2937 93 4624 303 68 1*7 n/s e w (0.83) ED 981 961 WB 733 11 764 15 2.0 MacArthur/San Ne 61 39 2620 53 2.0 Jos ufs Hills £834 96 422330 161 3.8 n/s 0.64) a w ED WB 385 U2333 11 3 2544 15 0.6 Jamboree/ NB 2581 11 2592 15 0.6 San Joaquin n/a e/V Se 4134 11 22 4156 43 1.0 EB 385 * 385 0.64 WB 2S33 * 2533 Jamboree Coast N NB SB 1015 2039 22 1020 2981 11 43 1.1 1.4 n s *IV (0.83) Ea 4264 2 4266 3 WB 1 3185 5 3190 7 MacArthur SD 2258 71 2329 125 15.41 Coast Hwy nix e w ED 3204 11 3215 i5 0.5 0.77 k6 3432 2s 3460 38 1.1 (a) At 1981 project completion, axeludint expansion of 190,262 squire feet. * Nowinal voluma. m Project contribution exceeds five percent. 12- C: • A of 0.1000 rather than the adjusted value as shown in the original technical paper on ICU. ICU's were calculated for nine intersections where project traffic during the 2.5-hour peak period exceeded five percent of the prior entering volume. The calculation sheets are attached as an appendix to this report. Table 9 summarizes the ICU characteristics for each of the nine intersections. Values for both the existing condition and the existing plus project are shown in the table. In order to determine the need for phasing the project as well -as the effect of planned area roadway improvements, further examination was assumed necessary when the ICU exceeded 0.9000. it was found that this condition would exist at four intersections; Bristol (N) /Campus, Jamboree/Campus, MacArthur/Campus, and MacArthur/Ford. These intersections will receive principal examination to determine what roadway improvements remain to be completed, particularly those which will directly aid in moving traffic generated by the proposed project. Table 9 SUMMARY OF CRITICAL INTERSECTION ICU CHARACTERISTICS Newport Place Traffic Study INTERSECTION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION FURTHER STUDY NEEDED? n Existing Plus Project Yes No Bristol(N)/Campus iO.?5911 1.0608 x Bristol/Campus-Irvine 0.7526 x Bristol(N)/Birch ,0.6977 x Bristol/Birch 0.3582 0.3851 x Jamboree/Campus 1.1343 1.1627 x Jamboree/MacArthur 0.8604 0.8673 x MacArthur/Campus 0.9259 1.0762 x MacArthur/Ford 1.0121 1.0265 x MacArthur/Coast Hwv 0.7719 0.8109 x -13- Impact of planned Roadway Improvements Caltrans has several projects in the northwest portion of the City of Newport Beach which will significantly improve traffic operations. In early spring 1979, a freeway, connection will be opened between the Bristol Street frontage roads and the Corona Del Mar Freeway to the west. Direct connection will be made from Bristol Street just west of Campus Drive to both the Newport Freeway and the San Diego Freeway. This improvement will cause a diversion of MacArthur Boulevard traffic, principally that with a destination to and from the west on the San Diego Freeway. Another Caltrans project involves the widening of MacArthur Boulevard in the vicinity of Campus Drive to allow three full lanes northbound plus a right -turn lane serving northbound traffic on MacArthur Boulevard desiring to turn right on Campus Drive. This project, along with traffic signal system improvements is scheduled for advertising in mid-1979. Construction should be completed by early 1980. As an interim improve- ment, consideration should be given to the provision of three full lanes southbound on MacArthur Boulevard to take advantage of the widening which has already occurred on.MacArthur Boulevard in front of the Newport Place project. Opening of the Von Karman overcrossing of the San Diego Freeway between MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Boulevard will provide traffic relief to both the MacArthur and Jamboree interchanges with the San Diego Freeway. Scheduled for opening in late January 1979, the overcrossing will improve area circulation and reduce volumes at the Jamboree/Campus intersection which is one of the critical intersections in this study. Currently, Jamboree Boulevard carries 48,000 vpd south of Route 405 and 23,500 vpd north of the freeway. MacArthur Boulevard carries 53,800 vpd to the south and 36,300 vpd to the north, It would not be unreasonable to expect the Von Kerman bridge to direct 8,000 to 12,000 of these trips from Jamboree and MacArthur Boulevards. Currently there are about 20,000 trips through the MacArthur interchange and 13,000 through on Jamboree (excluding ramp traffic). -14- 5.� A fourth improvement scheduled for early 1980 is the realignment of Ford Road at MacArthur Boulevard in conjunction with roadway improvements • to MacArthur itself. The cooperative City -State project will provide two left -turn lanes, two through lanes, and one right -turn lane for each approach on MacArthur Boulevard. The westerly leg will have two left - turn lanes and two lanes for through and right -turn movements. The easterly leg will have one left -turn lane and two lanes for through and right -turn movements. These roadway improvements will significantly increase roadway capacity and reduce congestion at this intersection. The City of Irvine has included a project in its 1978-1979 budget which will improve traffic. operations at the Jamboree/Campus intersection. It involves widening the east side of Jamboree Boulevard south of Campus Drive to provide one additional northbound lane. Construction will be completed in Fall 1979 according to the Irvine Public Works Department. The roadway improvements mentioned above currently are planned by the • various jurisdictions. All are imminent for implementation. Each will have an impact upon the four critical intersections noted in the previous section. Revised ICU analysis sheets are included in the appendix for all four of the intersections. The painting of a southbound right -turn lane in the 30 feet available on the northerly leg of Bristol Street serving southbound traffic will significantly change the ICU at that intersection. This minor painting and signing already was accomplished last week by the City of Newport Beach. The ICU will be reduced from 1.0608 to 0.8351. These numbers represent the existing plus project traffic condition. There will be adequate capacity remaining to serve traffic diverted from MacArthur Boulevard to the new freeway connection. The improvements noted for the MacArthur/Campus intersection will • reduce the ICU from 1.0762 to 0.8878, not taking into consideration any diversion of traffic from that roadway to the new Corona Del Mar Freeway connection. The principal change occurs by providing more capacity -15- 3b 1 on MacArthur Boulevard to handle through traffic. Although the coordination of traffic signals does not directly improve capacity, it will significantly improve traffic operating conditions on the roadway. By allowing three full through lanes on each approach on MacArthur Boulevard, as well as a separate northbound right -turn lane, the ICU will be lowered to an acceptable level. By adding a southbound and eastbound double left -turn lane to the MacArthur/Ford intersection, the ICU will be reduced from 1,0265 to 0.8056. The most important improvements are the provision of double left -turn lanes for the two movements noted. The Jamboree/Campus intersection currently has an ICU of 1.1343 which will increase to 1.1627 with the full development of Newport ''lace, excluding the expansion allowance. Widening of the easterly aide of Jamboree Road south of Campus Drive by the City of Irvine will occur during 1979. By provision of an additional lane northbound on Jamboree Boulevard approaching Campus Drive, the ICU for the intersection would be reduced to 1.0091 with project volumes added. As mentioned previously, opening the Von Kaman overcrossing will divert some traffic from this busy intersection. We have not prepared a detailed traffic analysis of the future usage of the Von Karman overcrossing but feel it would be reasonable to assume that sufficient volume on the heavier approaches would be diverted to the alternate route to reduce the ICU to a reasonable level. Opening of the overcrossing combined with the widening of Jamboree Boulevard will bring the ICU to 0.900 or less. Need for Development Phasing The phasing as proposed under the maximum development rate by Emkay Development Company for the Newport Place project can be accommodated by planned improvements of the roadway system. The maximum development rate (excluding the expansion allowance) can be accomplished if the following phasing occurs in association with the various improvements noted; -16- C7 C] 1. Occupancy of the floor space considered for construction in 1979 should not occur until a third lane is developed on MacArthur Boulevard in each direction at the Campus Drive intersection and the Corona Del Mar Freeway connec- tion is made to the west and the San Diego Freeway. 2. Similarly, the occupancy should be forestalled until the MacArthur/Ford improvements are completed although this is of much lesser importance that the improvements to close proximity to the site. 3. The opening of the Von Kerman overcrossing combined with the addition of a northbound lane on Jamboree Boulevard by the City of Irvine will improve traffic conditions at the Jamboree/Campus intersection to a reasonable level so that phasing of the project will not be required. 4. By phasing the additional development over a three-year period, the entire project can be accomplished without a negative impact upon the adjacent street system once the initial improvements noted in this report are accommodated. 5. Prior to progressing on the expansion space of 190,200 square feet of building area, a separate traffic analysis should be accomplished at a later date. If you have any questions concerning our findings, please let us know. It has been a pleasure to serve Emkay Development and Realty Company once again on this most interesting project. Respectfully submitted, ROBERT CROMMELIN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 14Ig, (0 �w! Callo. 9;67 Robert W. Crommelin, P.E. President Registered Professional Engineer State of California Civil C9667; Traffic TR488 RWC:In #18271 rF CA tA'D INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ROBERT CROMMELIN AND ASSOCIATES. INC. FREQUENTLY USES AN ANALYTICAL • TECHNIQUE CALLED INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) TO RELATE VEHICLE VOLUMES, CALCULATED CAPACITIES, AND LEVELS OF SERVICE, THIS MONOGRAPH DESCRIBES THAT TECHNIQUE. The capability of a roadway to move traffic volume is referred to as capacity. Capacity is nearly always greater between intersections and more restrted at intersections. This is true because the roadway normally flows continuoicusly between intersections and flows only during a green phase at signalized inter- sections. Signals are generally warranted and installed before capacity is reached for non -signalized intersections- One seldom encounters non -signalized intersectios operating at echniques he been which allown nthe calculation ofathe capacity tofaantintersection approach edeveloped based upon its various geometric, demographic, and traffic flow characteristics. It is important to note that traffic volumes may be counted or estimad offted,wthe nearest ereas capacity is a calculated value. Usually, a are 5 vehicles per hour (vph) and capacities to the nearest 10 vehicles per hour of green time (vphG) per lane. The capacity calculation methods are outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual.(1 Sometimes, a single value of 1500 to 1700 vphG is used. Research in the Los Angeles metropolitan area has found an average value of 1700 vphG per lane to apply to both through and left -turn lanes for the value of roadway capacity. Use of a value such as this greatly simplifies the calculation. Level of Service (LDS)_ The term level of service is used to describe quality of traffic flow. Levels of Service A to C operate quite well. Level C normally is taken as a design levl in al , Level D typically fore ewhich abmetropolitan earea ide aStreet nsystem ais designed. Level Eilevels the represents volumes at or near the capacity Of the highway which will result in possible soppages ofat tfacility iamoverloadeduand iis characterized bybst sle top-goetrafficvel F ccurs when omentary with stoppages of long duration. ICU and LOS Relationships The technique utilized to compare volume and capacity (ICU) a)ICtios with level of service is called "Intersection. Capacity Utilization" (ICU).2) ICU represents the proportion of the total hour required to accommodate intersection traffic volumes if all approaches are operating at capacity (Level of Service E). This does not mean that Level E is appropriate for urban design, but the evaluation of present and future operating conditions in relationship to total capacity is more easily understood. In other words, operating at 85 percent of capacity is easier to comprehend than operating at L05 D. The following relationships between level of service and ICU are used: Level of Service (LOS) A, 0.68 ICU or less; LOS B, 0.69 to 0.71 ICU; LOS C, 0.72 to 0.79 ICU; LOS D, 0.80 to 0.89 ICU; LOS E, 0.90 to 1.00 ICU; and LOS F, over 1.00 ICU. 0 • tjl To determine the current and future operational efficiency of the street system In the study area, a volume/capacity (v/c) analysis is made at selected important intersections. The method used at each location is to determine the proportion • of total signal time needed in one hour for each conflicting movement and to compare it with the total time available (100 percent of the hour). For example, a movement with 1,000 vehicles per hour (vph) on an approach with a calculated capacity of 3,000 vph would require 33 percent of the total available signal time. The capacities used are for Level of Service E, as defined in the Highway Capacity Manual. Continuing this procedure for critical approach signal phases will yield the total amount of time required to meet traffic volume demands. The critical approach phases are those which control the timing of the overall cycle of a traffic -actuated controller. With multi -phase controllers, the critical movements on one of the streets usually are heavy left -turn movements and their opposing through movements. An allowance for yellow clearance times is added with the total representing the ICU. The ICU calculations assume that signals are properly timed. At poorly timed locations, it is possible to have an ICU of well below 1.00, yet severe traffic congestion occurs on one approach or more because a movement is not getting enough time to satisfy its demand with excess time being wasted. This is an operational problem which should be remedied. • C7 The ICU technique also can be used to test the impact of adding lanes and revising signal phasing and to determine future operating conditions with or without a proposed new development. Thus, with actual present hourly volumes or estimated future volumes, different intersection configurations can be tested to determine which would optimize future traffic operating conditions. SAMPLE CALCULATION Movement Volume Ca acit VIC Ratio (vph) (vphG) Northbound 1500 3400 0.34 Southbound 1650 3400 0.49* Eastbound 300 1700 0.18 Westbound 425 1700 0.25* Yellow 0.08* ICU 0.82 LOS "D" Indicates critical movement included in the ICU. (1)Highway Capacity Manual, 1976; Highway Research Board Special Report No. 87; Washington, D.C. (2)Robert W. Crommelin, "Use of Intersection Capacity Utilization Values to Estimate Overall Level of Service," Traffic Engineering, July 1974. '47- TmNAaDItATgN ANO iPMppq YWeI"m& DtFINITION5 AND AgRAEVIATICNg • to wur taParle. terms ore u,eA ddeh &to spawn to the Trefllc Ioaimi profession but may not be clear to other&. The following "IthltIONO royal C s my wood ism. Addltlopal definition, my be found in She Transportation and Traffic fntlnv_sl"a NAMb"k, institute of Ttamportatim InNlntettI Washington, D.C.* 1976. or the Nirhwai Careelty w,"1, sptctal Affect No. al. NINNuey A eoveh Doord, Washington, D.C.. 1965. COMMON AgNMEVIATiONS TPAF[IC ADT' --'?-At daily WPM vehicles Mr bout tralfle VPWI vshlelm Mr home Tairt the mulna of a panm or vahlelu from One to - Awl Average weoWmy at arts, (signal gotten (or/gin) to another (dertleAtinn). tTRUST also) coot Central Waimea Lts left TAIP-LIOI one and of a Itip At either the .,rldlb tar district AS$ right destt"tl"t La. each trip has two trip.,lids. Shift Regatta feet In TRIP pKMSCt the reason why the trip is made (to or "ON Rod 1: nlll(w at we- from seek. shopping, school, ate.). hlttas entering pimi United grata$ Do- (InNr&aatlm) "trimmest of Trans- $MtN-Lissl to imaginary Ilea or physical feature WHA still"a of "- Poetatlm street Which all trips are eowted, nenolly to verify kleto mil" "WAS Federal highway CW Validity of "thema[Igol traffic madels. MXro Whlds all" of Adminittntl" West Csltr&ng1 Coliforgls Depart- TAIP CENssATtOI VACMI A traffic vuluma estimating Ph Net peak hour "Igo least of Trosomr- teal. Feat stdleo of similar land uses, the Aonunt 0: traffic ei61141 tell" of traffic (trip%) produced by of attracted a. tlo Phan Th Is transportation tad use to related to some Identifying matt such At too, vehicle* par day Aor&orth board lad area, gross floor Reel. Population, employment, act. AM applied to the amount ,d that wit for the TRAFFIC Sang ors wage ndy. Pot edglc, to trips Par day par dwelling watt tortes to 3 trips lnbeuod and ) trlph mtknwd from the genarAting wit. AVtRACt DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT)i the total "lion dOring a given rims Period (usually One Year) divided by ilia number of IayA to that rise Period. VFNICW PCA DAY (vpUt the total volume of traffic passing a plat, usually to both dlnctlms, for a 16 hour Nrl,wt. to ,net traffic analysts prepared by up. ^'prior estate to Average weskday traffic. KASS NDIAI "tAptt the highest number of vehicles feud to be palming oust A section of a Iona or a roadway dur- ing So consetutiva m(sutss, usually designated as the morning peak hour AM the evening peak hour. KMLTVI the sumbo, of vehicles occupying a wit length at the thrnuph traffic IAFWA of a roadway At any given 1"pant. 0 ,461ty vxpronul in valiftWo per mile. I" FACT06l • ratio of the total number of Attila sit - met intervals that art fully gelllaed by traffic during the Polk hour td the total number of on" intervals for that approach during the same period. Its maximum ea- tAln,bly VAt" iv MO. P1AK HOUR FACTORS a ratio of the VolusO "cutting ddr- IRA the peak Synge to the maxims. rate of flow durint a germ rise period stable thv peak tour. It 10 a mature1t ►*Aklnp chnasaertstlko, whoa maxlmes attainable valley to me. Two tam seat be Vol li(led by A specified Abort perld within the hourl this /e usually $ or 6 leln- Alto to, freeway operation and 1S sioutax for lntenattim oMntl". UPSTALAMs the dlreeti" *Iona the roadway free uhfeh the vehicle flow under consideration has coma. DO06TACWt the direction #ion& the roadway toward which the vehicle flow wider CwiderAtion is sai IfIT711NCCKt A constriction along A traveled way which limit* the amount of traffic uhlch can ➢rooted dnwftTesn it. In locitlm. VLAT0,14: a closely grouped ,!evant l component of traf- fle, c,AePoosd at $wont veblttet, roving or Aeanding raddY to omve over a ro&4u4y with Clear APAne ahead and "hind. WRDUN: An hmglnery Ilea AnuM An eyes Across which vehicle.. p,rnnns, or other Item$ are counted (In Red. out). VEHICId MIIE51 A measure of the amount at usage of a see- llon of highway normally used In aetldent wlyAlo to Im- part tlmllor highways. obtained by multiplying the avenge daily traffl, by 365 AM 411,141ng by the length of section In Mh•+, umdlly anted In mllllvelt. • GWAAL DESIGN TDIO GtolomtC DTSIGNI tht arc"Punt of the visible ele- mra pnof a read, tueh as ,t $tsent, *codas, tight dis. imcea, widths, olopd, Ott. INMRCKANG6t a &yet" of intatce calm! rVadoay, In tmiwetlm with A trade aspaestlon or tease "pen• t tea, providing for the Interchange of traffic between am or star, Intersattint rpadways. NECIANI this portion of a divided hlthway separating the travoltd ways for traffic In opposite directions. TRAVICLtO IAYt the portion at the roadway for the save. meet of vehicles "t)uolve of Shoulders end A•all fery two. AVNILIANY fANEt the Portion of I" -:At Nr .dlnlning the traveled way for parking, Spnd chanted, or for other PUSPOISS SupPlementsry to thrtwAh teaffle "WCA!"t. SNWUnt the Portion of the roadway, contiguous with the traveled way for edaomeedttloo of Stopped, vehicles, for emergency use. and fee IAEetAl support of bale And surtsra course,. TRAFFIC LANE: the portion of the traveled way fur the "Von nk of a single line of vehicle, NIGHT am DAY: the )rod owed by • pubthe Agency l which • lsetd" the star pd.la sidewalks, trip end other grog, Sveh u rho" used for Pl,nelna strips LTIAWELitATICN: the mpitAtion of regulation of con- fllcttnt traffic movements State definite Path$ of tn- vat by the use of pavement m,rbtntq raised islands, or other suitable mew to fecslltaty the safe and or. derly movements of both vehleles AM pedestrians. MViNG SECTION: A length of one-way rOAdway, designed to Attornmdace weavthgo At one and of which two oAt-usy roadways surge And at the other and of which they sap• &rate. IOdIPt a connecting roadway between two Intersecting highways At on interchange. Contteuts " reverse HIGHWAY CAPACITY TRAFFIC SIGNALS Any devise, wb�ehrr mnntlly, rleerrlen llY. or merh.nl- CAPAUITY: the m.zlmun number of veh l<ten wldrh bra, alb •'prr.tN, by which lfaff/t le alternately directed a reasonable expectation of PAestnA ever n given sec•- pvrmlttrd to Proceed. tlon of a lane or a roadway In one or ha Hi dieter Lens eiand during . given time period under peeve illnR roadway SILNAL INDICATION: the IIIuvLo.ti.. of n traffic signal and traffic conditions. • lent nr equlv.lmt devtee ar a combination of several fence. err equivalent devices At the ..me time. broad) interpreted, a term niteh, Y P LEVEL OF any dmotu any one of An infinite number of differing mom- me binatlons conditions that may occur an a T1NF. CYCLE: the time period requlvd for one complete of operating uquenm• or signal indicselods, given lane or roadway when it to accommodating various the time cycle allocated to any traf- traffic valance. Level of service is a qualitative measure of the effect of a number of factors, which In• PRASLI a part of to any combination of traffic movements elude speed and travel time, traffic interruptions, flc move"nt or the rl all -nf•wY simultaneously during one or freedom to maneuver. safety. dtivtng comfort end .on- e u•Ivinµ rrry veniance, and operating costs. In practicaa selected Intervnly. .pacific levels era defined in rearms of particular llm= pRETEMO SIGNAL: a type of traffic control signal which iting values of certain of these factors. directs traffic to stop and permit. it to proceed in ae- Six Levels of service have base designated by letters esrdanee with predetermined time schedule,. to represent the beet condition ("A" ft.. flowing) and the worst ("F" forced flow at very low speeds). $Or- TRAFFIC•ACTUATED SIGNAL: a type of traffic control at$ - molly, Levels "C" (sable floe) or "0" (unstable flow gal which the interval. to with but tolerable operations) are used for design purposes. jI t.risd the the demands ,f tnflle es ra{lst... d by the actuation of de detectors. SERVICE VOLUME: the m.xlmun number of vehicles that 1, Smi•tcaffic-actw$.d slansl: a type of traffic can pan over a given 'acting of A lane or roadway to highways (or to both dire, - actuated signal to which means are provided for ono direction on multilane tion, an a two- or thre.-lane highway) during a $peet- traffic actuation in one or mans but not all .p- tied time period while operating conditions are matn- proscho to the intersection. tailed corresponding to the selected or specified level I. full traffle•aetwted signal: a type of traffic of $.,vice. In the absence of a time modifier, service Act wpd slgnal In which means are provided for raluea ls.an hourly volimm. era lfte se tuns log on all approach.. to the Inter• $.et,m. ), pedestrian -¢tested signal: a type of traffic control signal which may be aetwtod by a Votes- , trlan. PROGRESSIVE SYSTEM: a atonal system In which the $oceas- a given street &tva "ago LEVEL OF SERVICE VS. OPERATING CRAMCTERISTICS live signal feels controlling Indications in accordance With a time schedule to Vomit (as neary as of groups o[ IS RL OF lesl.longptheistreat atlaupis ... drratenof mpeed,, SERVjSir_ 0 RFC ION OPERATING [HA^ACTEII tsT[L which m y vary in different parts of the system. A he, flow few Vol---. high speed • (Mat) selectivity, lm das.tcy. Drivers not impelled by other traffic. At startle s ROADWAY TYPE no driver watt, more than • one signal cycle and all turns are easily made. ARTERIAL • highway II forWthr a smart term denusually g Stable flow Operating speeds beginning prince/ty for through Lral[lc, wand ly as • cantina- primarily to be restricted by traffic ow. route. conditions. Suitable !or EXPRESSWAY: a divided .rterial highway for through 'control rural design yelw,. At signal, drivers begtming traffic with full or partial of Access. to feel somewhat restnlettd. FREEWAY: an expreuvAy with full control of Access G Stable flow Vol.. restrict, driver's and .11 grade ..assists eliminated (design value) ,peed and msnoverabillty; suitable rot urban design CONTROL OF ACCESS: the condition. where the right of values. At signal.. del - aware or occupants of abutting l.ad,., other Per ... I vats may have to *,oast. - to seta., light, sir, or view in eomeetion with A ally Wait more than oft hiShvay Is fully or partially controlled by public cycle to clear.' authority. p Approaching Temporary restriction GYM arterial highway for noneamtrtiAl trAf- unstable flow eapa in VVoollum�A �{s PMRWY: an tic. Wlrh full or partial control of access, and we,• or[ ally located Within a part or A ribbon of parklike de- Iona wtenbta for share p.rW,. At s1g$.Is. short valnpment. Ranks may develop gutws MAJOR STREET OR MAJOR HIGHWAY: an arterial highway which .111 clear during wills intersection. at Slide and direct access to abut- lacer cycles. Excessive ting pro party, and an which Seen trlc design and test- back-up does not occur. tic control mesur., are used to oxdadlte the safe E Unstable flow ' Speeds on freeways at 00 mph movement or through traffic. (capacity) with ante tary stoppages. At signals there my be long KCAL g1REET OR LOCAL ROAD: A street or road pri- queu., of vehicle. with de- marlly fur access to residence, business, or other lays up to several Signal abutting prnprrty• cycle.. Unsuitable for as • THROUGH STNSET: every highway or portion thereof at in design. the In to which whleuUt traffic from !n[ei- F Ported [low Law apeeds, many stoppages .acting bfghways to required by taw to stop before (worst) on freeways, long 9waves. .nt.ring o[ Or... leg the same and when stop signs Are cad high delay.; ...duty erected be...., storage Area. lock- up fro, one signal may block DIVIDED HIGHWAY: a highway With separated roadways adjacent intersections. Vol - for tea frle In Opposite directions. ones carried are unpredict• able. FNOKe a goals: a Intel at ... t car road aw/lt.ey to .ad Inr.t.d an the aid- of an arterial highway far service to abutting property and .djacmt area and for ",great of eC.eas. CU1: D1: SAP STREET: a local street open at one and only. Revised June 1, 1975 .ad of,h np,e1.1 provl.lnn for turning around. q` 0 • INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION FOR • EXISTING ROP.DWAY CONDITIONS I INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION AIQALYSIS Inteftection Bristol Street North/Campus Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) 56Te-7 ment Lanes Ca a- 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 nor». ! . 0506 , OSOG NT 2 3200 587 r1 o n , 7 . / 34 . / 3- NR - - — - SL ST 2 3200 1241 2? / 68 .586 G2/9 SR 637 85" 722 EL - - — ET ER - - - WL 1 1600 321 7 328 17006 12060 WT 4 6400 1660 1.55 / $/S , 26¢ .29834 WR 30 nc..,. 30 Yellow Time '/000 ,/O0 Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. /. 0 O/ 6 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.). /'06 D ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*j N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, Wight, L=Left Noh+. I na n 11 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 Bristol Street North/Campus Drive n 1 PROJECT: u I move- ment NR INTATION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANAOIS Intersection Bristol Street/Campus Drive -Irvine Avenue (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) anes Capa- I Existing I Project T Existing Exist. Pr0i city I Peak Hr I Peak Hr - Plus Project o /C� Rat 2 3200 445 445 ./3 •/% ' 4 . 129 .12 94 1 1600 207 1 1600 61 o I .060 2 3200 1481 34 15"15 ..462 7 SR - .a888 EL 1 1600 142 /42 A ,/792A ET 4 6400 947 Cl 2 10 3 4 . 6 ER 10B WL - WT - - Wk - - . j 000� . laoo Yellow Time .72 76 Exjstjn Intersection Caoacit Utilization I-C.U. ,-76 26 Existin Plus Project Intersection Ca acity 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 AM=M0MjNA1 ® 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 Fays1 is Existing Conditions I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.II. 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 • 0 • INTERSEMON CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALY * Intersection Bristol Street North/Birch Street (Lxisting Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1976) a Existing Project Existing Lx1sL Move- Lane's�CaP - peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C ment I I City Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio HR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL ra M .�� M_ Mash 46 ,4 6400 1205 Z V/C 3 (o . O?--zsN . 022 q 302 .063 •0q`) 'L SS .?.675� 351 o � r 37 193 0 310 .,'" 3 6 1000 :01, 1 .1000tK ,541 I Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization ►•L,•u• ,6 9 % % Existin Plus Proiect Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk M N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, LR=Right, _J L=Left NOM = ND v Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 rl Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to L1 Existing Conditions I.C.U. •EJ Existing Pius 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/Birch Street (FORM II INTERW ON CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANAL Intersection Bristol Street/Birch Street r{� (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 197_) Muve- mvnt 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 1600 30 NOM, HR 8 SL I 1600 66 N OM, 041 Z d'// ST 2 3200 285 -z, 019 q Iik , l o o X SP. - --- EL 173 27 2 4 6400 863 6 3 FR - - 46 46 - - - -._.-- WT - - - WR - - - Yellow Time I 1000'X .1000'K Existino Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. . 3992. Existing Plus Project Intersection capacity Utilization (I.C.U.)----,3951 ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (-* N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, Wight, L=Left r 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 1-1 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures C • Bristol Street/Birch Street FORM 11 N ove- L ent rm b NL gNT NR SL a ST SR EL ET u ER WL WT � WR Yellow Existin „ INTEOCTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANAL' Intersection Jamboree Blvd./Campus Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes Base on Average Winter Spring 1978) Capa-1 Existing city I Peak Hr 1 1600 82 2 00 379 286 Time ct Existing Exist. vroje Hr Plus Project I V/C ^V/C 0/00, , 0/O 5' , / 00 0 C.U. /./343 I. /6Z% t Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) a N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left M o.ni�a 'i 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 ElExisting Conditions I.C.U. S 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 i� PRn.IFrT - Blvd./Campus urive FORM II I INTERSEPON CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSO Intersection Jamboree Road/MacArthur Blvd. <j0 (Existing Traffic Volwnes Base on Average Winter Spring 197— Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. PT Iment Tr city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C .r_,.._ bona Nr Vnlume Ratio I 2 F ST 2 SR N, EL l E7 3 ER N WL 1 WT 3 WR N 1600 161 135 744 399 448 446 10 2.6 .DI62 O�62 542 2 2 219� .064 860 ,2325 .2PT6 63 .2800 .2 3 g .164 A 8 Ml. 3 6 _ .27 Bi3 , a l Se 04 ization (I C U ) •�fOp .Q673 ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left 0 = A% to 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 L' • 11 Jrl • , • INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection MacArthur Blvd./Campus Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average wjinter/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 2 1600 73200 i l l 1044 3 1 /3 65 7.349/' 84, NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL 1 3 1 1 2 1 - 1600 3200 1600 1600 3200 - 1600 73 56 1026 201 285 421 53 100 2 9 non,. 64 /S 20 0,., 6 0 2 D O 63 06 - 10.3 2O6 1256 79/+ - O 25' i0350 , 9 7 ./3 O .0662 WT 2 3299 825 n owe. ._257 2 Yellow Time Existin Intersection Ca acit Utilization I.C.U. 3259 ExistingPlus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. I, O7G2 ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk N N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, f L - 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 El Existing Conditions I.C.U. L J Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 54 (�jj Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 i Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION vd Drive II r 0 0 INACTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALOS intersection MacArthur Bouleter varord Road y 4. (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Aver —age Win%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 30 Y1 CM • 30 ti 0/ $8 , 0 I s NT 2 3200 1346 2 6'7 /i3S NR 49 rla,...• 4 SL 1 1600 370 23/ .2456 ST 2 3200 1413 102 4 4 / SR 1 1600 132 H oh1. • a EL 1 1600 279 "e.•, . /_% i / ET 1 1600 228 no.n. 1-426 0425 ER 1 1600 88 n •. ,• . 0 WL 1 1600 19 .,„, /0119 WT 1 1600 113 //.3 Q70 WR 1 7600 194 S 1;? Yellow Time , /000 '1006 Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. 1. On / Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.)� GZ ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N*Northbound,•S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L■Left r+o,.,, ne '^ 0 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 q Existing Conditions I.C.U. 1-1 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1� Existing Plus Project Traffic.I.C.U. will be greater than existing L/ " I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 INTERSECTION PROJECT: Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures MacArthur Boulevard/Ford Road L_J 0 is I•RSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS r�3 • Inte%section •plac-- - Coast Hw (Existing Traffic Volumes Base on Average winter/Spring 1978) Move- ment Lanes Capa- city Existing Peak Fir 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 828 /2 S 9 6-3 z68Y �97 ST - - - SR 1 1600 197 '- l9-7 EL ET 1 2 Irnn 3200 223 1322 2 723 / 3Zz /39Y �//3/ l g9y. •�//�/ -- — ER - - - — WL - _ - WT 2 3200 839 — d 3 .-z a Z" WR N.S. — 360 ply. 4'o y Yellow Time Exisiiiq Intersection Ca acit Utilization I.C.U. 1•771 Existin Plus Project Intersection Ca2acity 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 I Y,orn. "0 r% �x Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 n Existing Plus Project Traffic T.C.U. will be less than or equal to t-1 Existing Conditions I.C.U. •EJ Existing Plus Project Traffic T.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 f— Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing L�a T.C.U. that is curren=iy greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION MacArthur/Coast Hwy 11 • rr � rf+• ,r v' r INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATIaV FOR REVISED (IMPROVED) ROADWAY CONDITIONS • • • • 0 INTATION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANA IS REVISED - WITH ROADWAY IMPROVEMEN lnte�section Bristol Street North/Campus Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average winter Spring 1978) Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. V/C Project V/C ment city Peak Hr Volume Peak Hr Volume Plus Project Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio NL 1 1600 81 $ I .OT0 050 ro NT 2 3200 587 M 68'7 .1834 NR - SL ST 2 3200 1241 27 / Z 6 8 .3S 3 62 SR 1 1600 637 S 7 2 2 .3 81 .451 Z EL - V_— ET ER - - -' WL 1 1600 321 -7 3 2 r!5 . 2006 , 2oso WT 4 6400 1660 16S l 1S .2641* .21363 WR 30 J.•/V onn. a o .l000 ,1000 Yellow Time Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization• I.C.U. .`a OZS Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. J ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (�f) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left N om = i nl L- ® Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 EJExisting 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 I i Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing l_I I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures Paint separate southbound right turn lane on Campus Drive, north of Bristol Street (North). INTERSEeON CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIP REVISEQ - WITH ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS Intersection am oree fvd7CamPus Drive rj({ (Existing Traffic Volumes €Ease on veeragW,nter Spring 1978) _ _ xisting Exist. Pt Move- lanes cay Existing Project I ment Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project Y/C v,.iilma peak Hr Volume I Ratio I I M. ST SR tK N.S. - WL 1 1600 82 n WT 2 00 379 P) Pon 3 9 120 WR 286 Yletn. 2 6 P82 Existin Plus Project Intersection Ca acit utiilzacion �•�•�• ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N•Northbound, S=Southbound, E•Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, l=Left 0 Existing Pius 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. NOTE! This ICU Analysis does not recognize the diversion of traffic from this intersection to the Von Karman-mieftossing . z ... a :.• . • Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0,90 ® Existing s Project tTraffic ly I.C.U. .Cer than will be a greater than existing • Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures — - REVISIONS: (By City onorthbound Fall 1cb to Provide 3 northbouno lanes. •�7 Move- • I ment NR SL S7 SR EL ET ER FWT INA CTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION AN•SIS REVISED - WTTB ROADWAY TMPROVEMENT Intersection MacArthur Blvd. Cam us Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes Base on verage Winter/Spring 1978) Capa- I Existing city[Peak Hr l 1600 111 3 4800 1044 I 1600 73 1 1600 56 3 4800 1026 201 1 1600 285 S. ect I Existing Hr Plus Project ume Peak Hr Volume 106 RZS 56 V/C C Ratio Ratio O 2327 2 4 .O 6 .063 .p D 035( 2556e .2 0� .178f� ,1q•6) MS .06.25 1.OGG , / 000' . S6o9 Existino Intersection Caaacity Utilization I.C.U. S S 7 8 Existino Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (4) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound,'W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, ®Existing Plus Project Traffic I.L.U. will be 'less tan or equal to 0.90 w t t't- �7a d wo.�l I w-P �•v �-••"h' s Go..•- �J I Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. 11 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Existing Plus Project TrafficI.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures Revise island and signals on northeast corner to allow one added northbound lane thru intersection; p separate northbound right turn lane. 0 r INTEATION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANAS REVISED — WITH ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT Intersection MacArthur Boulevard/Ford Road SS (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1976) Move- ment Lanes Capa- city Existing Peak Hr Volume Project Peak Hr Volume Existing Plus project Peak Hr Volume Exist. V/C Ratio Project Y/C Ratio NL 1 1600 30 NT 2 3200 1346 '21 3 6 .42-7 NR SL 1 2 1600 3200 49 370 23 //5-60 Z28* ST 2 3200 1413 1 o z 1515' ,4416 4734 SR 1 1600 132 N o 1 3 Z B 25 , 08 z5 EL ET 2 2 320D 3200 279 228 Ns 0 tA , 275.087 2 z .087 0988-1 ER 88 mom,g WL 1 1600 19 19 .0119 WT 1 1600 113 M 3 . 0706$ .07049 WR 1 1600 194 5 l 9 9 2 .1244 Yellow Time 41000 , / 00p Existino Intersection Ca acity Utilization I.C.U. . 8056 Existing Plus Project Intersection Ca acity Utilization (I.C.U.)--- ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (yJ N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, Wight, L=Left r 4 Existing Plus Project Traffic T.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 DExisting Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. 'will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 0 Further analysis required to d6termine applicable mitigation measures REVISION: Add southbound and eastbc and other spot Widenings. BY: Caltrans/City in 1979. t turn • • .7 5 • • ! NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO: Secretary for Resources 1416 Ninth Street, Room 1311 Sacramento, California 95814 FROM: Community Development Dept. City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Calif. 92663 Clerk of the Board of Supervisors X P. 0. Box 687 Santa Ana, California 92702 NAME OF PROJECT: Newport Place Planned Community - Phasing Plan PROJECT LOCATION: Property bounded by MacArthur Boulevard; Bristol Street North, and Birch Street in Newport Beach PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for the approval of a Phasing Plan for re- maining development in the Newport Place Planned Community. FINDING: Pursuant to'the provisions of City Council Policy K-3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental • Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. MITIGATION MEASURES:1. Occupancy of the floor space considered for construction in 1979 shall not occur until a third lane is developed on MacArthur Blvd. in each direction at the Campus Drive intersection and the Corona del Mar Freeway connection is made to the west and the San Diego Freeway. 2. The occupancy of buildings shall not occur until the MacArthur/Ford-improvements are completed. 3. The opening of the Von Kaman overcrossing and the addition of a northbound lane on Jamboree Blvd. by the City of Irvine shall be accomplished prior to occupancy of any buildings. 4. Future development in the Emkay-Newport Place Planned Community shall occur in accordance with the phasing plan. 5. Prior to the issuance of any building permits in the expansion space of 190,200 sq.ft. of buildiger than 30% of developednonaeach parcel,aaoseparate unt ttraffic analysis shall remaining � rea, in shallbeaccomplished. INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY: Emkay Development and Realty Company • INITIAL STUDY AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT: DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 � r . re arico , Environmental Coordinator Date: January 15, 1979 i, PROPOSED SQ. FT.. . :..........._. 250 000• EMKAY DEVELOPMENT AND REALTY COMPANY DEVELOPMENT PHASING WITH ROAD IMPROVEMENTS :._.000 • _. _._ «. _. _ -.- ..... ; .. ... - .. � ... . . ' 1 r .. _.._�:_.+_.. _ .. it _ 1501000 - fir• - _ ._ _ :._L _ T _ + F-!-T4-L y -- 100y000 _ __ . . _ . ._ _ . ._.-__-'., . . _ _ - • - • ----- it .:.50-000 -ICU i_C0D9Q . 33�k - `r 979 "--'' -' 1980 .. 1981 _ :_ICtL_less_khinQ.9.DDIE._._. __.--------_--'- - - _: •completion -of-- -" '-1Yaterssdtidn• imps. - .__ ...- - - •- pus/Bristol-No _ .. _ �--• - �— — ,. B. Ca!mpus/MacArthur.. ^ . - C. _ Campus/Jambbree` : ' �._._.: _ . _. _ .. . _ 4mro 00 Ford/MacArthsr-- - -- - - ... -- -`•- - -__ v�� �, • • ATTACHMENT 6 DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS EMKAYKNUDSEN DEVE�LOPMENT AND REALTY COMPANY MPANY .- �- 1201 COVE STREET. SUITE200 / P.O. BOX2390 • NEWPORT BEACH, FORMA 92663 f U S A PHONE: (710) 833-86303�SSB0 February 2, 1979 To: City of Newport Beach From: Emkay Development and Realty Company Re: Traffic Phasing Plan O ��FO pF'0c Oj� � om� o2OnQt• ,�g1 Q'v ` FILE COPY DO 'NOT REMOVE The enclosed package represents pages which have been corrected for minor errors in the traffic analysis. • The only significant result of these corrections is that one intersection, MacArthur/San Juaquin, was impacted by more than 5% and therefore, received ( ICU analysis which resulted in a value of less than .90 with project gener— ated traffic added. We apologize for these corrections. Sincerely, Kevin T. Hanson Project Coordinator KTH/m Attachments 0 CORRECTIONS TO PHASING PLAN 0 0 v v '•'January 5, 1979 • -2- 3' 3. An examination shall be made of the circulation system in the vicinity of the project to determine what improvements remain to be completed, with particular consideration being given to • those improvements which will directly aid in moving traffic generated by the project. The area to be examined shall extend to those intersections where traffic generated from the project increases the traffic at the intersection during the peak two and one-half hour period by 5% or.more. The city's traffic engineer has designated 16 intersections as critical and, there- fore, requiring 5% Traffic Volume Analysis. The intersections where project generated traffic will increase the volume by 5% or more during the peak two and one-half hour. period are identified in Table 3. Of the eight intersections so impacted, four have an ICU of .90 or greater and require further examination as to road improvements which need to be completed to directly aid the movement of project generated traffic. These four intersections are listed below: Bristol (North)/Campus The improvement required is striping a southbound right turn lane in the 30 feet available on the northerly leg of Bristol. This improvement has been completed. The ICU will be reduced from 1.0941 to 0.:8684. MacArthur/Campus • The improvement required is the addition of a third northbound lane on MacArthur plus a right turn lane northbound on MacArthur to Campus. This project is scheduled by Caltrans for completion by early 1980. Funds have been allocated for the project. The ICU.will be reduced from 1.0762 to 0.8878.. Jamboree/Campus The improvement required is the addition of a third northbound traffic lane from Fairchild to Campus. This project is scheduled by the City of Irvine for completion in late 1979, Funds have been allocated for this project. This improvement plus the completion in early 1979 of the Von Karman overpass will reduce the ICU from 1.1627 to'0.9000 or less. i. MacArthur/Ford The road improvements required for this intersection are detailed on Page 15 of the attached traffic study. The project is scheduled for completion in early 1980. Funds have been allocated for this joint City -State improvement project. The ICU will be reduced from 1.0265 to 00294. • Three other major improvements a--e nearing completion which will have significant positive impact on traffic cir:-•? tion near Newport Place. Connection of Bristol North and South to the Corona Del Mar Freeway. This • should reduce Northboc=c traffic on MacArthur and Jamboree as it provides access to the San Diego Freeway. This is scheduled for early 1979. • uute 3 VIRC2NT ?AWZCr TRAMC CONrAINUT104 TO CRITLCAL INILRUC216N5 Neuport place Traffic Study 2.5-HOUR TRAYFIC YOLV'C 1AWY= 1976 2. NOVA TGF7IC (a) precast 1Nri'RSCCTION Df1CC- Orin Added 1976 ICU rIo" 1476 pro ect Total 9oluoe et Total MeeArthur C v. Nl 21 2513 3129 324 16i 3.216 3.296 I W 222 21.3 6.7 a s f Y (0.93) 1S 1491 1 4 1.693 1M 2004 13 S 017 19 0.9 coolus • 3,452 • puo• Y (1.17) U 32 2042 6 120 3.464 2.162 ss 252 2.s it.7 DI 1637 a 1.637 ]avboree/ MacArthur No so 1651 2■14 36 147 1.719 2.961 11 147 4.1 a.3 e/u p a 2s 2023 9 2,932 17 0.6 O.bs 101 3037 19 3.056 lriatal(N Ga ua Nf 31 1504 3705 38 , 3.743 209 .6 • Y n/a 1.00 176 4790 A" 21 69L lft. tal N atreh Alf sl 352 2120 is I.IR3 ■ 36D 4 .6 • Y ph 7.6 0.3 We 3033 406 3.459 262 lriatcl N 3•oberu Nl as 5153 261) ■ 86 3,3Ni 2.697 22 50 0.4 1.7 e/Y r/a 0.72 Its 1162 1 1.191 19 1.6 tlristol Ca us q 1605 13 1.621 22 1.4 e/Y n a as 3164 32 3.196 63 2.0 0.71 To M27 223 ] 150 296 9.1 srLtel atrch Ni 223 • 223 • Y • a as 943 59 1,002 66 6.9 0.36 is 2656 ] Ib 3161111.01 tltiatol Amb erke NA 4996 16 , 1 22 0.4 r Y n e so 2339 20 2,37f 50 I 2.1 0.54 to 277s 126 2 4 6■ 2.3 ltvin�e/U fverattr ND s/ 1965 3664 25 32 , 0 3.672 22 43 2.1 1.6 p/S dY 11 $72 WE so • LO 3sabatae par Ntl 4514 1 4,555 15 0.3 n a • Y Sa 2937 32 2.969 64 2.2 (0.63) 1s 931 101 7S3 6 739 7 0.9 MaGrthur/Ford NA 1 30 3.707 4.349 6s 231 1.6 5^6 U/a A/Y as 4031 117 (t ,01) + 1,384 vs j5 7 11 1.018 IS 1.a MacArthur/San N6 30" 39 96 1.123 3,1{1 53 3s9 3.5 [jam 3a• Y1N YS1L as . u so 73 3140 * 3,140 f m 1411 11 1.462 is 1.0 .laabatae se ND 2591 11 2,592 .0 0.6 3oatuik E17.L $l 4134 22 4.156 43 1.0 MIS r/Y Ls 305 0.6A lf6 2533 • 913 :Aaberee Cant hl so vies 1013 2951 22 s411oy0.wn 2.019 2,901 43 0. 1.4 2 s A r v to.u) MaUrthar CcuaC BYr. 53 2256 3204 5 22 3.215 35 0.3 p/e a/Y L (0,77 i n 3432 2E 3 460 3s 2.1 (e) At 335) prYG ca.pletlw, exclUdint axpauoloa of 19D,262 e.rar_' '1kkt. • ioss-ire•--. eatekde five percent. 0 CORRECTIONS TO TRAFFIC ANALYSIS • • I development contemplated by the project. Discussions with City Staff indicated that this analysis should use total entering traffic volumes on each of the legs of each critical intersection. For Newport Place, besides the spring 1978 traffic, there would be additional traffic for development completed since spring 1978 as well as that currently under construction. The test as to whether the intersection should be studied under an ICU analysis involved whether the project traffic for a 2.5 hour period for the proposed development would increase the total traffic volume on any approach by over five percent. Traffic associated with development completed since May 1978 or currently under construction also was added. As noted in Tables 6 and 7, this amounted to 5,900 vpd and 1,620 vehicles during a 2.5-hour peak period. Table 8 summarizes our calculations for 16 intersections which have been designated critical by the City of Newport Beach in the Newport Place environs. It was found that ten of these intersections would have project traffic which would ge greater than five percent on one or more approaches when the project is completed. It should be noted that the quantity of project development did not include the 190,200 square feet of expansion area. The critical intersections determined as needing ICU analysis included: MacArthur/Campus, Jamboree/Campus, Jamboree/MacArthur, Bristol(N)/Campus, Bristol(N)/Birch, Bristol/Campus, Bristol/Birch, MacArthur/Ford, MaeArthur/San Juaquin Hills, and MacArthur/Coast Highway. Of these, the greatest impact occurred on the intersections along Bristol Street south of the project. Critical Intersection ICU The technique of ICU analysis was developed by Robert V. Crommelin and has been accepted, not only by the City of Newport Beach, but by other political jurisdicti=ns as a method to compare traffic volumes, capacities, and levels of service. An appendix describes the technique as normally applied, althzugh the City of Newport Beach requires cal- culation cf ICU to focr decimal places and use of a yellow allowance -11- 0 0 4 d . 1 • N • T.ble 8 p1R=T YA0]ECr TRAFFIC CONIRIDOTICH TO CRITICAL INTERSECr10N5 Newport place Tr.ffIc Study 2.5-HOOF TRAFFIC VOLDIE IrROI1Cr 2.5-HOUR TRAFFIC 1978 (•) pereent INTERSECTIOI DIREC- SprinD Added (1978 ICU) T104 1978 Tee eet Tot.l volume of 7ota Haretchur/C w ND SD 2888 3129 '328 167 3.216, 3.296 6B3 I 222 21.3 6.7 a/s e « (0.93) n 1693 • 1,693 + 10 2004 13 2.017 19 0.9 Jamboru Caepua ND 3452 ! 3 .452 - • • 7417 67 3,48C 88 2.5 ED 2042 MO ='637 252 liw7 I e 1637 ].mboree/ ND 1681 38 1.739 71 4.1 H.Nrchur 56 2814 147 2,961 247 I 8.]17 EB 2923 9 2,932 0.6 0.85 US 1037 19 3.056 DrlstolfN)/Wvvu. NB SD 1504 3705 6 38 1.510 3,743 " I 209 I 5.6 e/v n/a 1.00) HB 4790 -'420 5 210 694 13.3 Driecol(N)/BSrrh ND ss� 552 2120 . 5 .13 717 2,193 318 500 44.4 22.8 e/« A 7.6 0.59 OB' - 3053 406 3 4 9 262 Dribcol(N)/Jabal!! NB SD 1 5153 I 2811 J3 86 +5.236 2.897 I 22 SO 0.4 1.7 e/v a/a 0.72 OB 1162 29 1.191 19 2.6 Driscol/Wmow NB 1606 15 1.621 22 1.L e/v n/. 55 3164 32 3,196 63 2.0 (0.72 i 3027 223 3.250 296 f 9.1 Briecol/Birch NB 223 " 223 e/v a/. 53 943 59 1.002 68 6.8 0.36 11 2656 232 2 B8B 3181 11.0 Driscol Jamboree Ni 55 4996 2359 16+ 30 to 2.379 I 22 SO 0. 2.1 •/v n a 0.54) ER 2778 126 2 904 68 2.3 lrvine/Oni veraler NB 55 1985 3864 ,15 2 2.Opo 3,896 22 63 1.1 1.6 a s e/« (0.86) ED 672 672 AB BD ord NB 4574 11 4.585 15 0.3 SD 2937 32 2.969 64 2.2 ZD 981 • 981 WB 753 6 759 7 0.9 Ford NB 3657 50 3.707 4.149 68 231 1.8 5.6* /vSD Fm/s 4032 ,;17 1,584 N0T 11 1 028 15 1.5/San 484 39 1.523 3.161 53 189 3.5ia 31 6.0e/« HilSD 7063 96 1D 3140 • 3,1D w e 0.72) OB 14 1 11 1.442 IS 1.0 J eabvice./Sm ND 2581 11 2.592 15 0.6 Jo.9uJa Hills 53 4134 22 4,11586 I 43 1*0 n/s e/v 7J1 385 385 (0.64 I1D 2533 " 2,S31 • " Jmboree/ro_eet H NB 56 3035 2959 3, 22 1.018 2,981 4 43 0.4 1.4 n/a e/v (0.83) ED 4264 3 4.267 4 .0.1. lib 3185 5 3.190 7 0.2 1LCArehur/Coa.e SB 15 2258 3204 5 11 2. 33 3.215 1 47 35 0.5 n e a/v (0.77 R9 3432 28 3 460 38 1.1 (a) At 1981 proje- cn+platim, azdudinA espawlm of 390;[b1 sgwre feet- vviae- D project .==tbotlm e,c..a. five per emt. -12- of 0.1000 rather than the adjusted value as shown in the original technical paper on ICU. ICU's were calculated for ten intersections where project traffic during the 2.5-hour peak period exceeded five percent of the prior entering volume. The calculation sheets are attached as an appendix to this report. Table 9 summarizes the ICU characteristics for each of the ten intersections. Values for both the existing condition and the existing plus project are shown in the table. In order to determine the need for phasing the project as well as the effect of planned area roadway improvements, further examination was assumed necessary when the ICU exceeded 0.9000. it was found that this condition would exist at four intersections: Bristol (N) /Campus, Jamboree/Campus, MacArthur/Campus, and MacArthur/Ford. These intersections will receive principal examination to determine what roadway improvements remain to be completed, particularly those which will directly aid in moving traffic generated by the proposed project. Table 9 SMzIARY OF CRITICAL INTERSECTION' ICU CHARACTEVISTICS Newport Place Traffic Study INTERSECTION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION FURTHER STUDY NEEDED? Existing Condition Existing Plus Pro ect Yes No Bristol(N)/Campus ✓ 1.0016 1.0941 x Bristol/Campus-Irvin 0.7276 0.7526 x Bristol(11)/Birch.. 0.5911 0.6977 x . Bristol/Birch 0.3582 0.3851 x Jamboree/Campus v 1.•1343 1.1627 x Jamboree/MacArthur 0.8604 0.8673 x MacArthur/Campus 0.9259 1.0762 x NacArthur/Ford 1.0121 1.0265 X - MacAr*=ISan Joagtin 0.7196 0.7327 x MacAttm= /Coast Hwy 0.7719 0.7897 x -13- 0 r . A fouith improvement scheduled, for early 1980 is the realignment of Ford Road at MacArthur. Boulevard in conjunction with roadway improvements MacArthur itself. The cooperative City -State project will provide • to two left -turn lanes, two through lanes, and one right -turn lane for each approach on MacArthur Boulevard. The westerly leg will have two left - lanes and two lanes for through and right -turn movements. The turn easterly leg will have one left -turn lane and two lanes for through and right -turn movements. These roadway improvements will significantly increase roadway capacity and reduce congestion at this intersection. The City of Irvine bas•included a project in its 1978-1979 budget . which will improve traffic. operations at the Jamboree/Campus intersection. It involves widening the east side. of Jamboree Boulevard south of Campus Drive to provide one additional northbound lane. Construction will be in Fall-1979 according to the Irvine Public Works Department. completed The roadway improvements mentioned above currently are planned by the ' • various' jurisdictions. All are imminent for implementation. Each will have an impact upon the four critical intersections noted in the previous section. Revised ICU analysis sheets are included in the appendix for all four of the intersections. The painting of a southbound right -turn lane in the 30 feet available leg of Bristol Street serving southbound traffic will on the northerly significantly change the ICU at that intersection. This minorpainting and signing already was accomplished last week by the City Newport The ICU will be reduced from 1.0941'-to 0.8684. These numbers Beach. the existing plus project traffic. condition.. There will be represent remaining to serve traffic diverted from MacArthur adequate capacity Boulevard to the new freeway connection. • `_= the MacArthur/Campus intersection will The improvements noted 0.8878, not taking into consideration reduce t:e ICU fro= 1.074-3 to from that roadway to the new Corona Del Mar any diversion of tra_=ic by providing more capacity Freeway connection, he principal change occurs -15- 41 I INTEPWTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANAWI-ySIS Intefection Bristol Street North/Campus 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 1 1600 81 nom, J to a , O5O4: NT 2 3200 587 n n» . '7 / 34- s / 3¢ NR SL - ST 2 3200 1241 207 1?-as .586 , 4 Z49 SR 637 BS 722 EL ET - - — — — — ER WL 1 1600 321 7 328 , 2006 , 20so WT 14 6400 1660 368 Z01218 , 264- ,32 6 -WR—D 1 30 nv►.,. 3Q Yellow Time Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. L 0 oI 6 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) " 0 9 ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk M N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left ip%0h4. : Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 FExisti.ag Plus Project Traffic T.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 19 Existi:a Plus Project-raffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. =`at is cc:rrertly greater than 0.90 `9 Further analysis required, to determine applicable mitigation measures . • C INTERSECTION Bristol Street North/Campus Drive 11 INTE$CTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION AN�.->LZ, ' I Intersection MacArthur Boulevard San Joa uin Hills Road (Existing Traffic Volumes Base on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Move- Lanes Capa- Existing ProjTExisting Exist. Prv/Cc • I ment city Peak Hr Peakus Project V/CVolume VolHr Volume Ratio Ratio NL 1 NT 2 NR SL 2 EL ET ER WL WT 1600 2 3200 N.S. - 2 3200 3 4800 1 1600 3 4800 Tim io I 63 361 .moo... 63 .o34q- .03� 129 412 746 12 0 12-9 43 2 . l288" ,2331 . 13 17! 250 772 648 r,o,,,. nor+• •77Z 6� 8 ''`' 7n H orn . 70 to-4- o4 285 178 ,./0001 ,/ , -7/ 96 Existin' Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization ti.,_.u. ICU is sum critical movements, -denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left i nOM...Q Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 (— 1 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to l—� Existing Conditions I.C.U. Existing Pius 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 currerciy greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION MacArthur Boulevard/San Joaquin Hills Road FORM I II 1 M INTERSECTff CAPACITY UTILI2ATIUN ANALYSI� Intersection Coast Highway/MacArthur Bou vard (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 197 • • ® Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to U.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. 0 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U.will be greater than 0.90 . Existing Pius Project _rr-fic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. t is curr r,-:Qv greater than 0.90 El Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures NTERSECTION Coast Highway/MacArthur Boulevard Ii , s, {• , �V1SED - l2ITH ROADL!`AY 1*IPROVF�T 13 r!'Ofil Bristol Street Borth/pus Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes Base on Average Winter Spring 197BJ r Move- nt Lanes Capd- city Existing Peak Hr Volume Project Peak Hr Volume Existing Plus Project Peat, Hr Volume Exist. VIC Ratio Project VIC Ratio NL NT 1 2 1600 3200 81 587 587 Ofor A .1834 . 05o ro' B34 NR - - SL - 2 3200 - 1241 27 I / 2 6 8 ST SR 1 1600 637 5( -7 2 2 .3 61 .4512 I EL I - _ ET - ER - WL 1 1600 321 7 W7 4 6400 1660 WR I 30 • I 000� ,/0003 t- Yellow Time Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C_U.) g ozs Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. 1 IICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk IN=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Lett N O*A = 11V ®Existing Plus Project Traffic I-C-U- will be less than or equal to 0-90 w i tF- ro �d, ,.� ,- �,s _ems c� f, I._+e_ t, ❑Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. • Existin_ Pius Project - =;,'ic I_C_U_ will be greater than 0.90 Existin; Plus Project Traf,'ic I.C.U. will be greater than existing (-3 1'-C.U.thai is currently greater than 0_90 r Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures - REVIsioli: Paint separate southbound right turn lane on Campus Drive, north of Bristol Street (North). ruary 5, 1981 MINUTES. City of Newc)ort Beach ROLL CALL I 1 1 1 1 (1 1 1 INDEX Motion All Ayes Comm ts•sslioner Beek stated that he is concerned with the"sh4ortage of housing for the people who are employed'I,n�Newport Beach. He stated that an alternative s�o�uld be included in the EIR, that the entire pro3ft-t be devoted to housing with a neighborhood comme �al shopping center. 111 Motion was made to initiate Gener1�1 Plan Amend- X * X X X ment No. 81-2 and to direct staff t�0'�a n re the necessary environmental documentation and —to schedule public hearings, which MOTION CARRIED', Lmr.�, Request to amend the conditions of approval of Newport P1'ace P-C Traffic Phasing Plan for inter- section improvements•at MacArthur Boulevard and Campus Drive. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach and the Emkay Development and Realty Company, Newport Beach The discussion opened in connection with this item, and Mr. -Don Webb, Assistant City Engineer, explained to the Commission the background of this request. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Balalis, Mr. Webb stated that the project should be completed approximately nine months after the contract is awarded. Motion X Motion was' -made to allow Emkay Development -and All Ayes X * X X X X Realty Company to contribute $26,320 to the Trans- portation and Circulation Fund in lieu of com- pleting improvements at this time to the Campus Drive -MacArthur Boulevard intersection that are required under the traffic phasing ordinance, which.MOTION CARRIED. Re•q•U.est•to convert an existing duplex into a two uirit`residential condominium complex. A variance too,,�he Zoning Code is also requested in that the subjlectproperty'contains 3,400 sq. ft. of land area where the Code requires 5,000 sq. ft: of land' area in o'rder to convert residential property into condominium Lses'. tem USE PERMIT NO. 9969 AND CITY OF NEtii'PORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 640-2218 September 3, 1980 Borders, Richmond and Associates Attn: Donald G. Richmond 5030 Campus Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Mr. Richmond: After reviewing the Planned Community text the Emkay-Newport Place Planned Community, been assembled to assist you in preparing a 4001 MacArthur Blvd. and Traffic Phasing Plan for the following information has feasibility study for The Far West Savings and Loan Association site is located in Professional and Business Offices Site 4 in the Newport Place Planned Community. This 9.0 acre site is divided between Far West, with 1.837 acres (20.4%) and Daon Southwest, with 7.163 acres (79.6%). At its meeting of March 21, 1979, the Newport Beach City Council approved a Traffic Phasing Plan for the remaining development in Newport Place. A total of 29,381 additional square feet of office space can be built on Site 4. By dividing this total remaining square footage between both land owners in Site 4, based on the percentage of land area each owns, Far West Savings and Loan may build an additional 5,994 square feet (29,381 x 20.4%); Daon may build an additional 23,387 square feet (29,381 x 79.6%). It should be noted that should Daon wish to relinquish any or all of the square footage available to them, then that could be allocated to the Far West portion of the Site. Under the terms of the Traffic Phasing Plan, 30% of the allowable expansi.on, 1,798 square feet, may be constructed without a Traffic Phasing Plan; should you decide to exceed this amount, a Traffic Phasing Plan would be necessary. Should you have any questions, or need any additional information, please call. Sincerely, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES . HEWICKER, DIRECTOR By &4' Chris Gustin Associate Planner City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach. California 92663 Jg January 10, 1979 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: APPLICANT: Background Planning Commission Meeting January 18, 1979 Agenda Item No. _• 16 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Department of Community Development Request for the approval of a Phasing Plan for i. remainin develo ment in the Newport Place Planned Communit Y. Discussion Property bounded by MacArthur Boulevard, Bristol Street North, and Birch Street, in Newport Place. Emkay Development and Realty Company, Newport Beach The Emkay Development and Realty Company has requested the Planning Commissions consideration of a phasing plan to comply with Resolution No. 94.72 of the Newport Beach City Council and Amendment No. 514 to the Newport Beach Municipal Code. A copy of Resolution No. 9472 and Amendment No. 514 are attached to this report. Additionally, attached to this staff report are: 1. The Phasing Plan prepared by the applicant for the remaining allowed development in the Planned Community District; 2. A response to the Planning Commissions guidelines for review of Phasing plans; and 3. A Traffic Study prepared by Robert Crommelin & Associates for the applicant. At the January 8, 1979 City Council meeting, the City Council reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendations concerning; definition of the term "'reasonableness" as applied to a Traffic Phasing plan. The City Council continued consi ation of the definition to the City Council meeting of F b 9.and directed staff to provide additional information to the City Council. Phasing Plan N12 As previously indicated, a copy of the Phasing Plan prepared by Emkay Development and Realty Company to comply with Resolution No. 9472 is attached for the Planning Commission's consideration. The remaining allowable square footage to be developed is under multiple ownerships. Presently there are undeveloped parcels under the ownership of Erokay, Bear Brand Ranch, Air California, and Ketchum and the potential for expansion on numerous individually owner parcels within the Newport Place P-C District. A summary of the applicant's proposal to phase development is indicated on the next page: - 1 - f T0: tanning Commission •: 2. REMAINING FOR FOR FOR ALLOWED OCCUPANCY OCCUPANCY OCCUPANCY OWNER SQ. FT. 1979 1980 1981 Undeveloped parcels:' Emkay 358,830 0 206,269 152,561 Bear Brand Ranch 81,162 81,162 0 0 Air California 40,951 0 40,951 0 Ketchum 87,019 87,019 0 0 Subtotal: 567,962 168,181 247,220 152,561 Expansion Space: Various Parcels 1909262 Total Newport Place 758,224 Resolution No. 9412 Attached for the Planning Commission's consideration is the response of Emkay Development and Realty Company to the Planning Commission's guidelines for the review of phasing plans to comply with Resolution No. 9472 of the City of Newport Beach. The applicant has responded to each of the 6 guidelines recommended by the Planning Commission to the City Council an additional two items suggested by staff in its original recommendation to the Planning Commission. Summary: 1. The following summarizes the existing development and development remaining to be completed: - Allowed by P.C. = 2,556,626 sq.ft. 1 - Completed = 1,562,329 sq.ft. - Under construction = 236,073 sq.ft. I - Vacant parcels = 567,962 sq.ft. - possible expansion = 190,262 sq.ft. - Total buildout w/o expansion = 2,366,364 sq.ft. - Total buildout with expansion = 2,556,626 sq.ft. Footnotes 1. Resolution No. 9472 indicated that 1,799,�sq.ft. of development was existing or under construction as of October 1, 1978. The revised figures presented in the phasing plan represent a correction to that information to more accurately reflect existing conditions. The difference is 1539 sq.ft. Resolution No. 9472 indicated additional allowable development in Newport Place in the amount of 566,423 sq.ft. This figure included the vacant parcels on which no development has yet occured. Some of the parcels which have been developed were not developed to the full extent permitted in the P-C. It is possible that some of the exsiting uses may want to expand to the amount permitted at some time i-n the future, but if so, we have no information at this time. When all these remainders are added together, it amounts to 190,262 sq.ft., and is called the expansion area for purposes of this report. • TO: Planning Commission - 3. The City Traffic Engineer designated 16 intersections as critical. Table No. 3 in the response to the Planning Commission's guidelines indicates the percent of traffic contribution to each critical intersection. Nine of the critical intersections analyzed exceed the 5% test and four intersections had an ICU of 0.90 or greater. Future planned road improvements to these intersections are indicated on page 2 or the response to the Planning Commission guidelines. (See staff Analysis for further information). 4. Additionally, information on Emkay Development and Realty Company's previous design features to reduce project traffic is provided on pages 3 and 4 of the above mentioned document. Traffic Study A Traffic -Study was prepared for the applicant by Robert Crommelin and Associates. This study analyses the following: 1) Development Phasing; 2.) Existing Area Traffic Conditions and Growth Trends; 3.) Site Traffic Generation and Distribution; 4.) Future Projected Traffic Characteristics; 5.) Critical Intersection Determination; 6.) Critical Intersection ICU; 7.) Impact of Planned Roadway Improve- ments; and 8.) Need for.Development Phasing. The firm of Robert Crommelin and Associates summarized the need for development phasing as follows: "The phasing as proposed under the maximum development rate by Emka.v Development Company for Newport Place project.can be accommodated by planned improvements of the roadway.system. The maximum development rate (excluding the expansion allowance) can be accomplished if the following phasing occurs in association with the various improvements noted: Occupancy of the floor space considered for construction in 1979 should not occur until a third lane is developed on MacArthur Boulevard in each direction at the Campus Drive intersection and the Corona del Mar Freeway connection is.made to the west and the San Diego Freeway. 2. Similarly, the occupancy should be forestalled until the 'MacArthur/Ford improvements are completed although this is of much lesser importance that the improvements to close proximity to the site. 3. The opening of the Von Karman overcrossing combined with the addition of a northbound lane on Jamboree Boulevard by the City of Irvine will improve traffic conditions at the Jamboree/Campus intersection to a reasonable level so that phasing of the project will not be required. I. By phasing the additional development over a three-year period, the entire project can be accomplished without a negative impact upon the adjacent street system once the intital improvements noted in this report are accomplished. 10: Planning Commission - 4. Prior to progressing on the expansion space of 190,200 sq.ft. of building area, a separate traffic analysis should be accomplished at a later date." Staff Analysis Resolution No. .9472 Resolution No. 9472provides that development in excess of 30% of the additional allowable development in the Emkay-Newport Place Planned Community District shall be approved only after it can be demonstrated that adequate traffic facilities will be available to handle the traffic generated by the project at the time of occupancy of the buildings involved. Further, such demonstration may be consistent with the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. At its meeting of October 5, 1978, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that the Planned Community Districts for Emkay Newport'Place, Koll Center Newport, Aeronutronic Ford, North Ford, and Corporate Plaza be amended to include language regarding the presentation by the property owner of a phasing plan prior to the development of the last 70% of the remaining undeveloped land in the Planned Community. In discussing its recommendation, the Commission noted ... "that it does not intend to use the criteria of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, but rather to apply a test of reasonableness to the review of the phasing plans"... On November 27, 1978, the City Council accepted the recommendation of the Planning Commission and adopted Resolution No.9472 amending the language in the Planned Community Districts. Then an additional motion was passed directing the Planning Commission..."to provide definitions of 'test of reasonableness' and such other information as they wish to provide that would indicate how a demonstration can be made of a phasing plan, as they suggest on their amendment, to come back to Council on January 8, 1979." As previously mentioned at the January 8, 1979 City Council meeting, the City Council continued their consideration of the Planning Commi- ssion recommendation until February 22 1a79. The following indicates the intersections impacted with an existing ICU of 0.90 or greater, date of completion of circulation systems improvement and projected ICU after completion of the improvement: Timing Projected 1 Existing ICU+ Improvement I.C.U. aE+�cWt1N S201E._. ��- Rristol (North)/Campus 1.0608 (Accomplished) 0.8351 a+zs9_ tacArthur/Campus 1.0762 Early 1980 0.8878 Jamboree/Campus 1.1627 Late 1979 0.9000 ►'o�zl - MacArthur/Ford 1.0265 Early 1980 .8.,.8.9&rY.0.%Jg4 1. This includes development of Emkay, Bear Brand Ranch, Air California, and Ketchum but not expansion of the various other Newport Place parcels, and aces not consider future traffic other than project -related traTf c. AL Y 3 J * 0 TO: Planning Commission - 5. The Circulation System Improvements indicated in the Phasing Plan in response to the Planning Commission guidelines are consistent with the Newport Beach General Plan Circulation Element. It is important to note that while this project does not include future traffic generated by projects other than the vacant parcels in the Newport Place Planned Community that this analysis is not required by the Planning Commission guidelines nor would it be required under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code). Environmental Significance The City of Newport Beach Environmental Affairs Committee has revi:ewed the project and determined that it will not have significant environ- Mental effect. A copy of the Negative Declaration is attached. Suggested Action:_ If desired, make the following fdindings in regard to the Newport Place Planned Community District: Findings The Planning Commission in its collective judgement and considering the rights of owners to use and develop their property, approve the Phasing Plan and find: 1. That the Phasing Plan is consistent with the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. 2. That adequate traffic facilities will be avialable to handle that traffic generated by the project at the time of occupancy of the buildings involJed. Subject to the following conditions: Conditions 1. Occupancy of the floor space considered for construc+ir^ in 1979 shall not occur until a third lane is developed on MacArthur Boulevard in each direction at the Campus Drive intersection and the Corona del Mar Freeway connection is made to the west and the San Diego Freeway. 2. The occupancy of buildings shall not occur until the MacArthur/Ford improvements are completed. 3. The opening of the Von Karman overcrossing and the addition of a northbound lane on Jamboree Boulevard by the City of Irvine shall be accomplished prior to occupancy of any buil'dings. TO: 0 Planning Commission - 6. 4. Future development in the Emkay-Newport Place Planned Community shall occur in accordance with the phasing plan. 5. Prior to the issuance of any building permits in the expansion space of 190,200 sq.ft. of building area, in any amount greater than 30% of the remaining space to be developed on each parcel, a separate traffic analysis shall be accomplished. - AND - Send the Phasing Plan for the Newport Place Planned Community District forward to the City Council with such recommendation(s) as the Planning Commission deems appropriite Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. NOGAN, DIRECTOR By itw'/ 14zj�� Fr a ico Environmental Coordinator FT/dt Attachments: 1. Resolution No. 9472 2. Amendment No. 514 3. Newport Place P.C. Phasing Plan 4. Emkay response to Planning Commission Guidelines 5. Traffic Study - Robert Crommelin b Associates 6. Negative Declaration it cl Ot Oeojmon: NOV30 1978s. RESOLUTION NO. 9 47 2 6 N 'PO, r SEAo / �uF. H' n A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF THE CORPORATE PLAZA, NORTH FORD, EMEAY DEVELOPMENT, ROLL CENTER NEWPORT, AND AERONUTRONIC-FORD PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICTS TO REQUIRE PREPARATION OF PHASING PLANS CONSISTENT WITH THE CIRCULA- TION ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN (AMENDMENT NO. 514) WHEREAS, Section 20.51.045 of the Newport Beach -Municipal Code provides that amendments to a Planned Community Development Plan shall be approved by a resolution of the City Council setting forth full particulars of the amendments; and . .WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on October 5, 1978, at which time it considered amend- ments to the Planned Community Development Plans for Corporate Plaza, North Ford, Emkay-Newport Place, Roll Center Newport, .and Aeronutronic-Ford; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing the Planning Commission adopted its Resolution No. 1018, recommending to the City Council that certain amendments to the Planned Community Development Plans for Corporate Plaza, North Ford, Emkay`Newport Place, Roll Center Newport, and Aeronutronic- Ford be adopted as follows: A. CORPORATE PLAZA Section 1, Statistical Analysis, paragraph 6, at page 2: "6. PHASING OF DEVELOPMENT. 162,644 sq. ft. of development was existing or under construction as of October 1, 1978. The additional allowable development in the total approved development plan is 287,356 sq. ft. Any further development subsequent to October ly 1978, in N excess of 30% of the additional allowable development, being 86,206 sq. ft., shall be approved only after it can be demonostrated that adequate traffic facilities will be available to handle that traffic generated by the project at the time of occupancy of the buildings involved. Such demonstration may be made by the pre- sentation of a phasing plan consistent with the Circu- lation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan." B. NORTH FORD Section 1, Statistical Analysis, at page 2, by adding paragraph entitled "Phasing of Development": "PHASING OF DEVELOPMENT. 125,260 sq. ft. of development was existing or under construction as of October 1, 1978. The additional allowable development in the total approved development plan is 770,740 sq. ft. Any further development subsequent to October 1, 1978, in excess of 30% of the additional allowable development, being 231,222 sq. ft., shall be approved only after it can be demonstrated that adequate traffic facilities will be available to handle that traffic generated by the project at the time of occupancy of the buildings involved. such demonstration may be made by 'the presentation of a phasing plan consistent with the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan." C. EMKAY-NEWPORT PLACE Amending General Notes at page 1, by adding paragraph 7, to read: "7. PHASING OF DEVELOPMENT. 1,799,941 sq. ft. of development was existing or under construction as of October 1, 1978. The additional allowable development in the total approved development plan is 566,423 sq. ft. -2- w 9 W Any further development subsequent to October 1, 1978, in excess of 30% of the additional allowable development, being 169,927 sq. ft., shall be approved only after it can be demonstrated that adequate traffic facilities will be available to handle that traffic generated by the project at the time of occupancy of the buildings involved. Such demonstration may be made by the pre- sentation of a phasing plan consistent with the Circu- lation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan." D. ROLL CENTER NEWPORT Amending Development Considerations, at page 4, by adding paragraph 6, to read: "6. PHASING OF DEVELOPMENT. 1,651,757 sq. £t. of development was existing or under construction as of October 1, 1978. The additional allowable development in the total approved development plan is 1,058,863 sq. ft. Any further development subsequent to October 1,• 1978, in^• i excess of 30% of.the additional allowable development, being 317,658 sq. ft., shall be approved only after it can be demonstrated that adequate traffic facilities will be available to handle that traffic generated by the project at the time of occupancy of the -buildings involved. Such demonstration may be made by the presen- tation of a phasing plan consistent with the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan." E. AERONUTRONIC-FORD ' Use Permit No. 419 and subsequent approvals adopted prior to May 8, 1978, which Use Permits constitute the development plan for the Aeronutronic-Ford Planned • Community are amended by adding the following language: "PHASING OF DEVELOPMENT. 962,400 sq. ft. of development was existing or under construction as of -3- Ib October 1, 1978. The additional allowable development in the total approved development plan is 1,691,000 sq. ft. Any further development subsequent to October 1, 1977, in excess of 30% of the additional allowable development, being 507,300 sq. ft., shall be approved only after it can be demonstrated that adequate traffic facilities will be available to handle that traffic generated by the project at the time of occupancy of the buildings involved. Such demonstration may be made by the presentation of a phasing plan consistent with the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan"; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that said amendments to the Planned Community Development Plans for Corporate Plaza, North Ford, Emkay-Newport Place, Eoll Center Newport, and Aeronutronic-Ford as set forth above are desirable and necessary; and WHEREAS, the City Council has conducted a public hearing on said proposed amendments in accordance with all provisions of law, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council 'hereby approves the proposed amendments to the Planned Community Development Plans for Corporate Plaza, North Ford, Emkay-Newport Place, Roll Center Newport, and Aeronutronic-Ford as set forth hereinabove. ADOPTED this cll k day of (oYe vy16et- , 1978. mayor ATTEST: City Clerk NRC/kb 11/13/78 -4- 1 November 21.,- 1978 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Suggested Action City Council Meeting November 27, 1978 Agenda Item No CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Department of Community Development eaardinq Plan D-1 A proposed amendment to the Planned Community Districts, initiated by the City of Newport Beach, to require the preparation of a phasing plan consistent with the Circulation Element of the General Plan for the following P-C District areas: 1. Corporate Plaza 2. North Ford 3. Emkay Newport Place 4. Koil Center Newport 5. Aeronutronic-Ford Hold hearing; close hearing; if desired, approve Negative Declaration and adopt Resolution No. amending Planned Community Develop- ment Standards of the Corporate Plaza, North Ford, Emkay Newport Place, Koll Center Newport, and Aeronutronic-Ford P-C Districts to require preparation of phasing plans consistent with the Circulation Element of the General Plan. Background On November 13, 1978, the City Council initiated a public hearing on Amendment No. 514, and continued this item to the meeting of November 27. The City Council requested additional information regarding the basis of the Planning Commission's recommendation. This memo provides a further explanation of the Planning Commission's recommendation and is intended to supplement the previous staff report attached. Explanation of Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission's recommendation on Amendment No. 514 is that wording be added to the adopted P-C development plans requiring a phasing plan for the areas listed above, as follows: "PHASING OF DEVELOPMENT sq.ft. of development was existing or 1% 1 I0: City Council - 2. "under construction as of October 1, 1978. The additional allowable development in the total approved development plan is sq.ft. Any further development subsequent to October 1, 1973 in excess of 30% of the additional allowable (levelopment, being sq.ft. shall be ap- proved only after it can be demonstrated that adequate traffic facilities will be available to handle that traffic generated by the project at the time of occupancy of the buildings in- volved. Such demonstration may be made by the presentation bf a phasing plan consistent with the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan." The effect of this amendment, if adoptede would be to require the r preparation of a development phasing plan to assure that adequate road capacity exists at the time of occupancy of a project. This phasing plan would apply to any development in excess of 30% of the additional allowable development as of October 1, 1978, in each of the P-C districts. In other words, the final 70% of the additional allowable development could not be built without first demonstrating that ade- qute roadway capacity would be available, A maximum of 30% of the additional allowable development could be built without any phasing requirement. In recommending this 30%/70% ratio with respect to the phasing require- ment, the Planning Commission intended to arrive at an approach that would be'both reasonable and effective in addressing traffic problems associated with approved development. It was thought that these per- centages would allow approved projects currently in process to continue, while assuring that a substantial portion (70%)of future development in these P-C's would be subject to the approval of a phasing plan by the City. This phasing requirement applies as follows: 30% of 70% of Additional Total Additional Allowable Subject Additional Allowable to Phasing Plan Allowable 1) Corporate Plaza 86,206 201,150 287,356 t) North Ford 231,222 539,518 770 J40 3) Cmkay Newport Place 169,927 386,496 556,423 d) Kull Center Newport 317,658 741,205 1,058,863 5) Aeronutronic-Ford 507,300 1,183,700 1,691,060 TOTALS 1,312,313 3,052,069 4,364,382 } 0} �?J TO: City Council - 3. Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN,BY DAVID J. D OHOWSKI i DJD/kk i i Attachments for City Council Only: 1) Previous staff report 2) Planning Commission Minutes 3) Negative Declaration January 11, 1979 0 0 1� EMKAY DEVELOPMENT AND REALTY COMPANY PHASING PLAN TO COMPLY WITH RESOLUTION NO. 9472 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Newport Place is an approved Planned Community which the Newport Beach City Council determined to be excepted from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The information herein submitted represents Emkay's response to the requirement that a phasing plan be presented for approval to allow development on undeveloped parcels in Newport Place to proceed in accordance with Resolution No. 9472# Included for review are: 1) Phasing Plan for the remaining undeveloped parcels, 2) Response to Planning Commission guidelines for review of plan, 3) Traffic Study prepared by Robert Crommelin and Associates, Inc. PHASING PLAN Newport Place has been developed on a phased basis over the past eight years and as of today 70% of the allowed square footage has been completed. All public improve- ments for undeveloped parcels have been installed or bonded and all undeveloped parcels have been graded. The remaining undeveloped land in Newport Place is under four different ownerships. The following table outlines the distribution of remaining allowed square footage and the phasing plan for the development of that space in terms of square feet available for occupancy as indicated by each property owner. It should be noted that none of the projects are under construction now and occupancy in 1979 will not take place until the fourth quarter of the year. Within Newport Place there remains 190,262 square feet of space allowed but not built on parcels which have already been developed. These parcels are not owned by Emkay and this allowed square footage is viewed as expansion space. We have no way of knowing if or when any of this space might be developed and, accordingly, it is not included in the phasing plan. It is assumed that a property owner desiring to expand in excess of 30% of the allowed square footage would prepare a plan showing the phasing of such expansion. For information only, the traffic generating characteristics of this expan- sionspace have been shown in the traffic study. REMAINING FOR FOR FOR ALLOWED OCCUPANCY OCCUPANCY OCCUPANCY OWNER SQ. FT. 1979 1980 1981 Undeveloped Parcels: Emkay 358,830 0 206,269 152,561 Bear Brand Ranch 81,162 81,162 0 0 Air California 40,951 0 40,951 0 Ketchum 87,019 87,019 0 0 Subtotal: 567,962 168,181 247,220 152,561 I'.xpanyion Space: Various Parcels 190,262 Total Newport Place 758,224 The attached traffic study demonstrates the adequacy of the circulation system to handle the traffic volume generated by the above phased development plan for undeveloped parcels. t 'January 5, 1979, -1- • EMKAY DEVELOPMENT AND REALTY COMPANY I5 PHASING PLAN TO COMPLY WITH RESOLUTION NO. 9472 CITY OF NE14PORT BEACH The following information is intended to respond to the guiddlines, as presented by the city staff to the Planning Commission at the study session of December 73, 1978, for review of phasing plans: 1. Each project subject to the phasing requirement of Council Resolution No. 9472 shall be examined as to the extent of existing development and the amount of development remaining to be completed. This information is summarized in Table 1. 2. Information shall be submitted indicating the amount of traffic being generated by existing development and that projected for remaining development. The information herein requested is presented in the attached Traffic Study prepared by Robert Crommelin and Associates, Inc, in cooperation with the city staff. For your convenience, tables summarizing pertinent data have been extracted from that report. Mr. Crommelin is available to answer any questions you may have regarding the Traffic Study. i ,I Table.2 shows the volume of traffic generated by all land uses within Newport Place for existing as well as future development. Table 2 PRESENT AND nROM $ITC TRAFFIC YOLUtc Newport Place Traffic Study , •78 I ADDISI TRAFFIC PoLVlO: ULTIMLTPLAr C SIP DAILY INA2FIC AS OF MAY USE gLAN= AS CF :.AY '78 (a) actor Vevph)(P Eionn- e(vpd) LU.-- ( LAND (Pd) (Pd)) pd7off Ica Uaee 1.052.3 Maf 14)M.f14,750 r2978 2,350 3,450 2,100 1,550 28,300 Retail(Gneval 113.3 Mef 5DA62 5.650 - - - 450 3,200 commercial Raat.uranca 42.5 Mat 19D/Mrf 8.10C - - 4,200 8at.11Moral 203 room[ (105.5 eaU 121= 2,500 1.700 - _ - 3,800 3ss0 Auto Cr.ter 10.4 F-f 25M.af 1,750 - - Coneerueelen A _ 3,Cv9 2.000 - Thruaic j :' 5� 3,9 3,-450 6DD 3t3,,o3a50i 00 TOTAL; L.3. I ACCUuitYE TRAf2C ==t 3.750 j Ai.650 44.000 47,450 429..-1505533,,-3 (a)Iral Cie =en. r.rt� `-+-r•r u.»d to baLar+ t0t41 e.elnatad voluaa for each land us. with the acrmal tr.!Cie eaumced: (b)locludea pro)ecta camplac.d or under codt.-.+colon betuaao 5(78 and 12178. , (Sre Tab&. 1 for q"nzLty of davelapa mr for e.ch year.) ,r 1 6ECErnE� ;3 ,97e LShE its tli, C Table 3. MAT ; KAG'T W. A-GChEn ACTUALLY UN";R '3T5_ •:0;-- :1 C,IL; cnlai-. i�:�a:_: a�:_..J ExRA1•Si;:• a.G iA J41U 21 63M :.6 3a 3162H ;.$ 4 BUIV L9... ........... 2.a TC'n. 7MQ 1 2.1 ;j 3.1 1&2 Ei9550 ,,( 3.2 3A 11S53a 3.3 4 20ilEd 3.4 5 1654Gl J.5 6 42420 i+ 3.6 7 55069 11.1.7 ................... 4.0 TOTAL 14990000 4ii 4 5.0 RETAIL CO.-MERCIAL 5651l0 + S.L 2 E2SO ................... ` 6.9 TOTAL 6475E 6.1 7.2 JtiI wEF;i'LIRESM.RAN-3 1 7.1 1 2251£ 7.2 690a 74 .............. E.4 ;OTAG 294it { E.1 t 9.0 COMMtEIAG/n6TEL 9.1 1A C lE IW4: ' 9.2 ................... 10.0 TOTAL IM44 11.2 2A :1.R3R ••- U.1 7" E p i ,41 i11 2574 9 25742 37396 :Ea23? 1335: 12211: 316M 0 254220 E 234:24 34044 ......................... W195 ......L--...-----•--•--------------------- 13662 1221:i 596.7i 165570 4607ty a 33EESe E195;2 0 73667 0 y 7E 47 37463 49925 14;374 a 171791 29301 7E461 0 E70;9' 146546E 0 35E36 0 : 35333 65E2 57413 0 0 5147;, -1613 ........................... 740464 141E74 -------,-----•- 44R-, ........................ i3281i7 M0 SM; 2 1 SEINO SM 0 E ME ................................ 647 1 9 b 64751 2z516 c c 69ES u i ---...-..- 2941y 1 s 106557 603?1 C, ......................................... W507 6E331 1 0 13000 13020 3t752 ----- -- -- 4475. 447:2 ............... 0 &� 2251a 690i 294i17 1E6344 186344 14M) 31752 44T52 c.2 2 1117U 4630 ...t aT1JL' SL1'L a L JL.:L "Lva .......................................................................................... a :4.0 T7;A: 129r2 I;62:. ; if11:31 12e71 I.J ........................................................... .............................. :7.0 C.W.: ''.;At. 2S56626 IV=; 23:_73 567M 2366364 190262 ---------------- t L � , January 5, 1979 • -2- 17 3. An examination shall be made of the circulation system in the vicinity of the project to determine what improvements remain to be completed, with particular consideration being given to those improvements which will directly aid in moving traffic generated by the project. The area to be examined shall extend to those intersections where traffic generated from the project increases the traffic at the intersection during the peak two and one-half hour period by 5% or more. The city's traffic engineer has designated 16 intersections as critical and, there- fore, requiring 5% Traffic Volume Analysis. The intersections where project generated traffic will increase the volume by 5% or more during the peak two and one-half hour period are identified in Table 3. Of the eight intersections so impacted, four have an ICU of .90 or greater and require further examination as to road improvements which need to be completed to directly aid the movement of project generated traffic. These four intersections are listed below: i Bristol (North)/Campus The improvement required is striping a southbound right turn lane in the 30 feet available on the northerly leg of Bristol. This improvement '! has been completed. The ICU will be reduced from 1.0608 to 0.8351. MacArthur/Campus The improvement required is the addition of a third northbound lane on MacArthur plus a right turn lane northbound on MacArthur to Campus. This project is scheduled by Caltrans for completion by early 1980. Funds have been allocated for the project. The ICU will be reduced from 1.0762 to 0.8878. . Jamboree/Campus The improvement required is the addition of a third northbound traffic lane from Fairchild to Campus. This project is scheduled by the City of Irvine for completion in'late 1979, Funds have been allocated for this project. This improvement plus the completion in early 1979 of the Von Barman overpass will reduce the ICU from 1.1627 to 0.9000 or less. . MacArthur/Ford The road improvements required for this intersection are detailed on Page 15 of the attached traffic study. The project is scheduled for completion in early 1980. Funds have been allocated for this joint City -State improvement project. The ICU will be reduced from 1.0265 to Three other major improvements are nearing completion which will have significant positive impact on traffic circulation near Newport Place. Connection of Bristol North and South to the Corona Del Mar Freeway. This should reduce Northbound traffic on MacArthur and Jamboree as it provides access to the San Die_o Freeway. This•is scheduled for early 1979. y 0 Table 3 PERCENT PROJECT TRAFFIC CONTRIBUTION TO CRITICAL INTERSECTIONS Newport Place Traffic Study 2.5-HOUR TMFFIC VOLIQB: PROJECT 1978 2.5-HDUR TMPFIC INTERSECTION DIREC- Sprint Added07* Percent 1978 ICU TION 1978 Pro ect of Total MacArthur/Cam us NB SB 2888 3129 288 166 W n s ex (0.93) EB1693 40 WB 2004 13 il Jamboree Campus NB SB 3452 3417 120 48 2.6 n/a e/w (1.17) EB 2042 B Ws 1637 R Jamboree NB 1681 38 1719 71 4.1 MacArthur SB 2814 147 2961 247 e/w n s EB 2923 9 2932 17 0.6 0.85 WB 3037 19 3066 Bristol(N)IC N8 SB 1504 3705 I7 38 16" 3743 20*8 5 6 e/w B/s 1.00 WB 4790 393 5183 694 113.4 Bristol(N)/Bireh NB SB 552 2120 75 73 6 2193 3108 500 50. ON n ■ 2 .B 7. 0.59 WB 3053 406 3459 262 Bristol Manbore NB SE 5153 2811 16 86 16 2897 22 50 0.4 1.7 e/w n/a 0.72 WB 1162 29 1191 19 1.6 Bristol/Campus NB SB' 1606 3164 15 32 1621 3196 22 63 1.4 2.0 e/w n/s 0.72) EB 3027 223 3250 296 W. Bristol/Birch NB 223 * 2 e w n s SB 943 59 1002 68 6.8 (0.36) EB 1 2656 102 2758 318 9. Bristol Jamboree NB SB. 4996 2359 7 66 500 2425 22 50 0.4 2.1 WWI n/s 0.54 EB 2778 1 126 2904 68 2.3 Irvine/University. -NB SB 1985 3864 17 32 2002 3896 22 63 1.1 1.6 n/s e/W (0.86) EB 672 * 672 WB 80 * 80 Jamboree/Fotd NB 4574 11 45BS 15 0.3 n/s e w SB 2937 32 2969 64 2.2 (0.83) EB 961 * 981 WB 753 6 769 7 0.9 MacArthur Ford VS 513 4574 2937 50 93 4624 30030 68 1*97 �11 --5y I*� n/s e/w (0.83) EB 981 981 WB 753 11 764 15 2.0 MacArthur/San NB 2561 39 2620 53 2.0 Joaduin Hills SB 1-134 96 4230 161 3.8 n/s e/w EB 385 * 385 ' 0.64 W8 2533 11 2544 15 0.6 Jamboree/ NB 2581 11 2592 15 0.6 San Joaquin n/s e/w SB 4134 22 4156 43 1.0. EB 385 * 385 * 0.64 W8 2533 * 2533 * Jamboree Coast H NB SB 1015 2959 5 22 1020 2981 11 43 1.1 1.4 n/s e/w (0.83) E8 4264 2 4266 3 W3 1 3185 5 3190 7 MacArthur/ SS 2258 71 2329 125 J5.41 Coast Hwy n/s e/w EB 1 3204 11 3215 15 0.5 0.771 28 3460 38 1.1 (a) At 1981 project campletion, excluding expansion of 190b262 square feet. * Nominal volume. E] Project contribution exceeds five percent. ' January 5, 1979 • -3- • ,9 . Completion of the Von Karman overpass should also relieve northbound traffic on MacArthur and Jamboree as it provides access for northbound through traffic not entering the San Diego Freeway. This improvement is scheduled for early 1979. • The one-way frontage roads, Bristol North and South, are nearly completed and have contributed significantly in moving traffic generated by Newport Place. 4. Existing traffic at those intersections shall be shown prior to making any projections. This'information is also shown in Table 3. 5. The developer may include in his proposed traffic phasing plan completion of or contribution to completion of needed improvements consistent with the level of traffic generation and a reasonable proportion of the cost of these improvements. Emkay cooperated with other Newport Beach developers and city staff to prepare a Major Thoroughfare Improvement Funding Program. Emkay views this program as a positive step toward relieving traffic congestion. The funding of Circulation Element improvements has been a continuing problem, made more difficult by reduced tax revenue to governmental agencies. We are all aware that significant traffic system improvements have been realized by making such improvements required of the developer for tract map approval. Emkay has stated publicly that we are willing to step forward together with the other Newport Beach developers and contribute over $5,000,000 in additional fees for road improvements. To date this offer has not been accepted by the City Council. However, Emkay again states its willingness to participate in the Major Thoroughfare Funding Program. 6. The developer is also to take into consideration in the preparation of his plan characteristics in the design of his development which either reduce traffic generation or guide traffic onto less impacted arterials or through intersections in the least congested direction. The following design features help reduce traffic generated within Newport Place or direct it to less congested areas: a. Newport Place Drive aligns with Von Karman and traffic generated by Emkay as well as other Newport Place traffic will easily flow along Von Karman over the freeway and away from the areas congested inter- sections. b. The Qu-sil, Dove, Westerly loop provides interior circulation thus keeping local Yewport Place traffic off surrounding arteries. January 5, 1979 0 -q- • ; YD t c. Newport Place includes shopping, dining service and recreational facilities within its boundaries, thus substantially reducing the need for Newport Place workers to utilize the city's surrounding road system in pursuit of these activities. d. Developed parcels have been built at a reduced density of 190,262 square feet which is a direct traffic mitigating measure. e. Newport Place is located in the north part of Newport Beach and most of the generated traffic, as shown in the traffic report, moves north and west, thus away from congested areas within the city. f. Several prime office sites were developed at the request of the city, with car dealerships which generate less traffic volume and more tax revenue. g. The working hours of some firms have been voluntarily adjusted resulting in the Newport Place peak traffic period occurring 15 minutes prior to that of the adjacent highway system, as shown in the traffic report. h. Emkay has not utilized the pooled parking concept and thereby has reduced development intensity otherwise available. I. The off -site street pattern was considered in designing the projects' interior circulation to minimize the addition of unnecessary intersections, turning movements and possible traffic conflict points. All minor street intersections with MacArthur Boulevard and Bristol North are right -turn only. The following information is not required, however, it is presented for your consider- ation. These items were in the original staff recommendation. 7. A comparison shall be made between the amount of development permitted by the Planned Community Development Plan and the amount actually constructed or proposed for construction along with any difference in traffic generation. This information is also available from Table 2. It is important to note that at project build -out there will be remaining 190,262 square feet allowed which will only be built if property owners seek to expand existing facilities. The resulting, difference between traffic generated from proposed development (49,550 vpd) and from allowed development (53,350 vpd) is 3,800 vpd. 8. Information shall be submitted showing what contributions have been made by the developer to off -site street improvements. At the December 7, 1978 study se-raion, the Planning Commission indicated that off -site street improvements completed by the developer were not to be considered because they are part of the usual requirements imposed on the developer. This is true, however, it January 5, 1979 -5- may be informative to recall the magnitude of those improvements and recognize that with development come major traffic system improvements that accommodate not only traffic generated by the development but also that generated from other sources. Such is the case at Newport Plcae where an additional traffic lane, plus 1/2 traffic signal for MacArthur Boulevard from Birch to Jamboree was completed by Emkay. Total cost to Emkay was $275,000 in 1972. Also, Emkay completed both lanes of the freeway frontage road (now called North Bristol) from Birch to Jamboree at a cost of $180,000 in 1974. These improvements are in addition to all interior roads completed by Emkay. , ROBERT CROMMELIN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ENGINEERS 17071 VENTURA BOULEVARD ENCINO, CA. 01316 TELEPHONE 12131 Ise-e570 January 4, 1978 Mr. Kevin T. Hanson, Project Coordinator Emkay Development and Realty Company 1201 Dove Street, Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject: Newport Place Traffic Study Update Dear Mr. Hanson: As authorized, we have conducted a comprehensive traffic analysis of the impact of Emkay's proposed office project located in Newport Place in the City of Newport Beach, California. The purposes of the study were to update our earlier report on the project;' to supply information concerning the traffic impact of the project, and to provide input to a Traffic Phasing Plan as required by the City of 4 Newport Beach. In April 1978, Emkay requested Robert Crommelin and Associates, Inc. to conduct a partial update of the 1970 Study. In May 1978, a series of traffic counts were taken to identify the traffic characteristics of Newport Place. These data, along with projections of what has since occurred, serve as a base for the current analysis. Study Purpose and Project Description The City of Newport Beach has adopted a requirement that developers of five Planned Community Districts submit a phasing plan geared to the City's Circulation Element. As a basis for reviewing such plans, the Planning Commission has established a "test of reasonableness". This report provides information on the traffic characteristics of the existing and expanded Newport Place project as required by that test. (1)The Newport Project Traffic Study, Robert Crommelin and Associates, Encino, California, November 1970. 1 u ' r � Z3 Newport Place is a major development of 200 acres located in northern Newport Beach in the vicinity of the Orange County Airport. Under development since 1971, a total of 1,562,300 square feet of floor area currently has been developed with a variety of land uses, principally office space. An additional 236,100 square feet is now under construction. When these developments are completed, Newport Place will have 1,798,400 square feet of building floor area as shown in Table 1. Figure 1 shows the general regional location of Newport Place as well as the area roadway system. Table 1 APPROVED PROJECT LAID USE Newport Beach Traffic Study UANTITY - FLOOR AREA 1000 s .ft. Under Occupied Added Construe. Total Approved LAND USE 'in May 78 by Dec 78 in Dec 78 to Date Office Uses 1,052.2 136.0 155.8 1,344.0 Retail Commercial 56.4 41.4 - 97.8 Restaurants 42.5 - - 42.5 Hotel/Motel 106.5 - 80.3 186.8 Auto Center 70.4 - - .70.4 General Commercial 56.9 - - 56.9 TOTAL: 1,384.9 177.4 236.1 1,798.4 As Newport Place continues developing, Emkay Development and Realty Company proposes to build 358,800'square feet of floor area of mixed office uses on the last major undeveloped portion of Newport Place under their ownership. Emkay has divided the site into two parcels for ease of development and financing. Located in the center of the project, the site has good access to all of the major access routes serving the triangular -shaped Newport Place project. Besides Emkay, other owners plan to develop 209,1001square feet of office space within the general project boundary. An additional 190,200 square feet has been included as part of the approved Planned Community District and is allocated for future expansion. -2- SAN DIEGO FW..r 0 AIRPORT 05 C.1) P� / �'Nff�l ` IVC SCALEUNIVERSITY t2% KEY 'GENERALIZED DIRECTIONAL O% DISTRIBUTION OF NEWPORT PLACE TRAFFIC -3, o: 01 LOCATION MAP t Development Phasing Table 2 shows how Newport Place will grow within the next few years. It represents the maximum development rate which will be used in this test analysis. Under this program, 168,200 square feet will be developed in 1979; 247,200 square feet in 1980; and 152,600 square feet in 1981. Table 2 PRESENT AND PHASED PROJECT Al MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT RATE Nevpart Place Traffic Study VANTITY FLOOR AREA (1000 a . ft. Prose. (a) 1979 1980 1981 Future EasyOthers crK. Others Poke Others - LAND USE Development Ex ...ion 110.0 Total Office Uses 1,344.0 - 168.2 206.2 41.0 152.6 2,022.0 mm Retail Commercial 97.8 - - - - - - - 97.8 Restaurants 42.5 - - - - - - - 42.5 Hotel/Hotel 186.8 - - - - - - - 186.3 Auto Center 70.4 - - - - - - 71.5 141.9 0enaral Commercial 56.9 - - - - - - 8.7 65.6 TOTALI 1,798.4 - 168.2 206.2 41.0 152.6 - 190.2 2,556.6 (a)Includes buildings currently under construction. Existing Area Traffic Conditions Newport Place is located in an area with high traffic volumes, principally oriented to the regional freeway system which converges in this portion of Orange County. Bristol Street southwest of the project carries approximately 33,000 vehicles per day (vpd) and currently it is being improved by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to consist of two four -lane frontage roads on either side of the right-of-way of the future Corona Del Mar Freeway. These frontage roads will significantly increase traffic capacity in this portion of the City of Newport Beach. MacArthur Boulevard, on the east side of Newport Place, currently carries volumes of 27,000 to 28,500 vpd and is developed to major highway standards. Birch Street on the northwest edge of the project as well as Campus Drive both carry relatively high volumes of traffic with Campus Drive serving as a major area circulation element. -4- • yG r Site Traffic Generation and Distribution Our 1970 report(2) made estimates of the total daily and peak -hour traffic generation of the Newport Place project as well as its direc- tional distribution, Since that report, there have been some changes in land use. In order to determine the present characteristics of Newport Place's traffic, a complete cordon count was taken whereby automatic counters were set out at the eight streets providing access to the project from Birch Street, MacArthur Boulevard, and North Bristol Street. Table 3 summarizes the total two-way traffic volumes by hour of the day for the period counted. Figure 3 depicts the variation in hourly traffic volumes for Wednesday, May 10, 1978. s500 s210 slio soon 2000 1000 TOTAL DAtAr YOLOMf • 36,000 VEM/bAr O 12M 2 A 6 6 10 12N 2 4 6 6 p 12 A.M. Rk AVUR STARr/NC NEWPORT PLACE HOURLY TRAFFIC VARIATION MY'AvrsOAr ArAr /O, /!7f (2)0p. Cit. As may be noted in the table and the figure, a rather unusual pattern existed at Newport Place; there was a mid -day peak around noontime reflecting the unusual traffic -attracting characteristics of restaurants within the Newport Place project. 3 — 5 — 2;1 Sa61t 3 NACBINE COUNT 5L^ff1AYT rgvport Plata Tratllt Study CONDUCTED ON NT.APORT PUS BEYPORT BLAO ' TYPE OF COUNT, ❑ DIRECTIONAL El 2---Y 047E I7mm DIRECTION % DATE SUNDAY IMOND4Y ITUESDAY 6EDNESDW'THU2SDAY IFEIDAY 5ATUMAY DAY ¢6.78 I 5-41-78 5-10-75 I S-f1-78 12-1 74 110 121 I I 46 I 37 56 2-11-2 2 33 I I 13 I 20 i 37 3-1 I I 16 18 I 12 1 4-5 I 8 I 10 I 15 5-6 63 66 82 .I I A.M. A.M. 6-7 I I 457 498 534 I I 7-8 I I 1426 1537 I 1536 8-9 I I 3134 I 3209 I 3021 9-10 I I 2180 I •2158 I 2299 I i tall I I 2210 I 2215 11-12 I I 3052 I 2925 12-1 I 3457 I 3499 1-2 I 3096 I 3234 2-3 I 2655 I 2769 3-4 2432 I 2460 I i 4-5 I 2862 I 2927 5-6 I 3172 3170 I P.M. P. M, 6-7 I 1565 I 1663 I 1TM I I I 7-8 100E 1137 1190 I 8-9 797 ( 84- I 916 9-10 529 56: I 654 i I F 11 I 342 465 I 466 I I 11-12 1 :61 I .- -64 i f TOTAL 1 4_02 I 35.423 1 36.073 1 7.713 1 I j -6- ..Z$ Based upon the average of the two highest days of these counts, it was determined that the total average daily two-way traffic volume generated by Newport Place was 35,750 vpd. Between 8:00 and 9:00 A.M., the two-way volume was 3,225 cars; between 12:00 Noon and 1:00 P.M., the volume was 3,495 cars; and between 4:30 and 5:30 P.M., the highest hour of the day, the total volume into and out of Newport Place was 3,485 vehicles. For the 2.5-hour peak period (3:30 to 6:00 P.M.), the total volume was 7,255 vehicles, representing approximately 20 percent of the total daily traffic volume. Table 4 summarizes these values and also indicates the volumes on each of the eight streets serving as access to Newport Place. It was found that 33 percent of the traffic was oriented to MacArthur Boulevard, 13 percent to Bristol Street, and 54 percent to Birch Street. These values are very close to those projected in our November 1970 report (27 percent to MacArthur, 23 percent to Bristol, and 54 percent to Bitch). The variation in percentage was due primarily to the fact that the freeway Table 4 CURRENT NEWPORT PLACE TRAFFIC GENERATION Newport Place Traffic Study DAILY I PF!`1L PERIODS 2-WAY 8:00-LOCATION (f2-WAY VOLUME 9:00 AM' I 1?0 00PMI 5:30 PM 6:00 PM West of MacArthur Blvd @ 2,630 165 350 260 470 Corinthian Way Newport Place Drive 5,150 330 540 570 1,115 Bowsprit Drive 3,970 525 310 425 815 Subtotal: (11,750) (1,020) (1,200) (172 55) (2,400) Northeast of N. Bristol St @ 2,860 245 275 295 630 Dove Street Spruce Street 1,740 250 165 130 310 Subtotal: ( 495) ( 440) ( 425) ( 940) ( 4,600) Southeast of Birch St @ 3,380 150 295 200 615 Corinthian Way Dove Street 9,220 855 900 755 1,780 Quail Street 6,800 705 660 850 1,520 Subtotal: (19,400) (1,710) (1,855) (1,805) (3,915) Total Volume: 35,750 3,225 3,495 3,485 7,255 Percent of Daily: - 9.0% 9.8% 9.7% 20.3% -7- 7•`1 had not been constructed and Spruce Avenue on the south side of the project did not connect to both directions of the Bristol Street frontage roads, as assumed -in the 1970 report. The 35,750 daily trips generated by the Newport Place project represents a traffic generating factor of 25.8 daily two-way trips per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area which was occupied in May 1978. This is quite a high value considering that almost 80 percent of the present land use is devoted to office space which normally has a traffic generating factor of 13 to 15 trip ends per 1,000 square feet of floor area. This divergence from normal standards may be explained by the fact that the restaurant and retail traffic attracted to Newport Place has a relatively high factor. In addition, over 400,000 square feet of building area was under construction at the time of the counts; considerable volume occurred as part of that activity. One other characteristic of Newport Place traffic which is of interest is that its single peak hour starts at 4:30 P.M., 15 minutes earlier than the peak hour on adjacent off -site roadways which starts at 4:45 P.M. Future Project Traffic Characteristics Figure 4 shows the current status of the Newport Place project's land use; a major portion developed and occupied in May 1978; additional portions of the project under construction or occupied since last spring; and the remaining 11-acre Emkay parcel in the center of the project as well as two other areas to be developed by others. Table 6 summarizes our estimates of traffic volumes asso- ciated with each of the various land uses under current and future conditions with the addition of traffic associated with projects currently under construction as well as additional development by Emkay and others. l0 lu 'N DEVELOPED B OCCUPIED 5/T8 COMPLETED BETWEEN 5/78 - 12/78 i © FUTURE PROJECTS (00.0) FLOOR AREA (1000 SQ. FT.) O UNDER CONSTRUCTION AS OF 12/78 OFFICE {I41.9 j; J NOTE; EXPANSION AREAS ARE NOT SHOWN. al (68.5) _ - _. _ I;'HOTEL\EXPAN! - U• _ _ J, (142\00I U.C. AN ADDITIONAL 87.0 MSF OF OFFICE SPACE IS PROGRAMMED, LAND 09£ NEWPORT PLACE Win.@.an Hwv[ EMKAY DEVELOPMENT AND REALTY COMPANY -- — [[�.n[[ a nu[• Table 5 ?J� TRAFFIC GENERATION CHARACTERISTICS AND FACTORS Newport Beach Traffic Study LAND USE DAILY TRAFFIC PER UNIT 2.5 HOUR VOLUME P.M. PK HR VOLUME In Out Total In Out Total Office Uses 14.0/Msf 1.3 3.7 5.0 0.4 2.0 2.4 Retail/General 50.O/Msf 4.9 5.1 10.0 2.2 2.8 5.0 Commercial Restaurants 190.0/Msf 14.2 9.8 24.0 6.3 3.7 10.0 Hotel/Motel 12.0/room 1.0 0.6 1.6 0.5 0.3 0.8 Auto Center 25.0/Msf 2.4 3.6 6.0 1.2 1.8 3.0 By comparing normal traffic generating rates with the quantities of land use in May 1978 and the actual traffic counts, estimates of gene- ration factors were made. These are shown in Table 6 and will be used to estimate the future site traffic characteristics. It is expected that the total traffic generation of Newport Place will grow from the May 1978 level of 35,750 vpd to a total of 53,350 vpd. The traffic associated with new development in 1979, 1980, and 1981 is shown. By the end of 1981, Newport Place will generate 49,950 vpd under the maximum development rate excluding the traffic associated with the expansion space. Table 6 PRESENT AND FUTURE SITE TRAFFIC VOLUME Nevport Place Traffic Study DAILY TRAFFIC AS OF MAY -78 F ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC VOLUME ULTIMATE QUANTITY (a) I b) 1 Expan- SITE TRAFFIC LAND USE AS OF HAY '78 Factor I Veb/D.y 1978 1979 1980 1981 lion VOLUME (vph) (vpd) (vpd) . (vpd) (Vpd) vpd) (vpd) Office Uses 1,052.3 Haf 14/Msf 14,750 4,100 2.350 3,450 2.100 1.550 28,300 Retail/General 113.3 Msf 50/Maf 5,650 2.100 - - - 450 8,200 Coumerei.l Restaurants 42.5 Msf 19O/Msf 8,100 - - - - - 8,100 Hotel/Moral 208 rooms (106.5 Hsf) 12/rm 2,500 1,700 - - - - 4,200 Auto Center 70.4 Nei ` 1,750 - - - - 1,800 3.550 Coostruccion i 125/Mef 3,000 2,000 - - - - 1,000 Thru Traffic TOTAL: 1,383.8 Msf 26/Haf 35.750 5.900 2.350 3.450 2.100 31800 53,350 ACLT4ULATIVE TRAFFIC VOLLTL°: 35,750 41,650 1 44 , 000 47,450 49,550 53,350 (.)Trafflc generation factor used to balance total astimeted volume for each land use with the actual traffic counted. (b)Includes projects completed or under construction between 5178 and 12/78. (See Table 1 for quantity of development for each year.) lJ Z Using the peak period characteristics shown in Table 7, the future traffic generation counts of Newport Place, and phased land use, estimates were prepared of the peak 2.5-hour (3:30 to 6:OQ P.M.) period volume as well as the evening peak -hour volume for Newport Place for additions since May 1978 when the counts were taken as well as in the future. Table 7 shows these values. Table 1 ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL PROUCT TRAFFIC AFTER SPRING 1078 Navport Place Traffic Study ADDED 2.5-HOUR PEAR TRAFFIC ADDED P.X. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC (a) PhAaad Grouch Total (a) Phased Cravth Total Hay 78. Expan- Since Hay 7B& Expan- Since LAND USE 1979 1990 1981 elan Ma 78 D 78 1979 198D 1981 elan Hay 78 Offln Una 1460 840 1235 76S 550 4,850 700 405 $95 365 265 2,330 Ratall/Cewal 415 - - - 85 S00 205 - - - AO 245 Co"arcial Rdsuuranta - - - - - - - HotelfHotel 225 - - - 225 115 - - - - li5 Auto Center - - - - 430 430 - - - - 215 215 Construction 4 -480 - - - - -480 -240 - - - -240 Thru TraffI, TOTAU 1620 840 1235 765 1065 S,$25 780 405 595 365 $20 2.665 Inbound 555 220 310 20D 355 1,65D 215 70 I00 60 150 595 Outboundlb) 1065 620 915 565 710 3.975 565 335 495 303 1 370 2.070 (SIAlready decupled Or currently under CDRetcucildn. (d)Caleulated from Intout split$ of lndtvldual land uxes added durIn8 that clot petlod. Directional splits of traffic associated with the various land uses were shown in Figure 1. They can be applied to allow determination of the project's traffic impact upon adjacent intersections as required by the City's policies. Critical Intersection Determination The policy of the Newport Beach Planning Commission concerning the test of reasonableness of a project as part of a Traffic Phasing Plan included examination of the circulation system in the vicinity of the project. The criteria for determining the extent of this examination was that intersections should be reviewed up to a point where there was less that a five percent change in traffic volume due to the additional -10- 33 development contemplated by the project. Discussions with City Staff indicated that this analysis should use total entering traffic volumes on each of the legs of each critical intersection. For Newport Place, besides the spring 1978 traffic, there would be additional traffic for development completed since spring 1978 as well as that currently under construction. The test as to whether the intersection should be studied under an ICU analysis involved whether the project traffic for a 2.5-hour period for the proposed development would increase the total traffic volume on any approach by over five percent. Traffic associated with development completed since May 1978 or currently under construction also was added. As noted in Tables 6 and 7, this amounted to 5,900 vpd and 1,620 vehicles during a 2.5- hour peak period. Table 8 summarizes our calculations for 16 intersections which have been designated 'critical by the City of Newport Beach in the Newport Place environs. It was found that nine of these intersections would have project traffic which would be greater than five percent on one or more approaches when the project is completed. It should be noted that the quantity of project development did not include the 190,200 square feet of expansion area. The critical intersections determined as needing ICU analysis included: MacArthur/Campus, Jamboree/Campus, Jamboree/MacArthur, Bristol (N) /Campus, Bristol (N) /Birch, Bristol/ Campus, Bristol/Birch, MacArthur/Ford and MacArthur/Coast Highway. Of these, the greatest impact occurred on the intersections along Bristol Street south of the project. Critical Intersection ICU The technique of ICU analysis was developed by Robert W. Crommelin and has been accepted, not only by the City of Newport Beach, but by other political jurisdictions as a method to compare traffic volumes, capacities, and levels of service. An appendix describes the technique as normally applied, although the City of Newport Beach requires cal- culation of ICU to four decimal places and use of a yellow allowance -11- A I 0 Table 8 • PERCENT PROJECT TRAFFIC CONTRIBUTION TO CRITICAL INTERSECTIONS Newport Place Traffic Study 2.5-HOUR TRAFFIC VOLM' PROJECT 1978 2.5-HOUR TRAPPIC INTERSECTION DIREC- Spring Added (a) Percent 1978 ICU TION 1978 project Total Volume of Total MacArthuf/Cam us NB SB 2888 3129 268 166 3176 3295 495 222 16.6 n s e w (0.93) EB 1693 40 1733 Igo ' NB 2004 13 2017 19 Jamboree/Ca us NB SE 3152 3417 120 48 3572 3465 88 2.5 n s e v (1.17) EB 2042 B 2050 262 WE 1637 * 1637 Jamboree NB 1681 38 1719 71 1 4.1 MacArthur SB 2814 147 2961 247 e/w n s ES 2923 9 2932 17 0.6 0.85) WE 3037 19 3D66 Bristol N /Cam Us NB SB 1504 3705 17 38 164 3743 208 .6 a/w n s 1.00 Sri 4790 393 5183 694 13.4 Bristol N Birch NB SB 552 2120 75 73 2193 318 500 50. e/w n s 22.81 0.59) NB 3053 406 3459 262 7.6 Bristol N ambore NB SB 5153 2811 16 86 69 2897 22 5o 0.4 1.7 ON n/s 0.72 WE 1162 29 1191 19 1.6 Bristol/Cam us NS 1606 15 1621 22 1 1.4 e w Ws SB 3164 32 3196 63 2.0 0.72 RE 3027 223 3250 296 W. Bristol Birch NB 223 * L e w n s SB 943 59 1002 1 68 6. (0.36 EB 2656 102 275E 318 9. Bristol Jamboree NB SB 4996 2359 7 66 500 2425 22 50 0.4 2.1 e/w n/a (0.54) EB 2778 126 1 2904 66 2.3 Irvine/Universit 'NB SB 1985 3864 17 32 2002 3896 22 63 1.1 1.6 n s e w (0.86) EB 622 * 672 WE 80 * 80 Jamboree/Ford NB 4574 11 4585 15 0.3 n/s e w SB 2937 32 2969 64 2.2 (0.83) EB 981 * 981 *• NB 753 6 759 7 0.9 MacArthur Ford NB 4574 50 4624 68 5 n/s e w SB 2937 93 3030 197 (0.83) EB 981 * 981 WE 753 11 764 i5 2.0 MacArthur/San HE 2551 39 2620 53 2.0 Joaquin Hills SB 4134 96 4230 161 3.8 n/s e/w BE 385 * 385 0.64 WE 2533 11 2544 15 0.6 Jamboree/ NB 2581 11 2592 15 0.6 San Joaquin n/s Ow SS 4134 22 4156 i 43 1.0 EB 385 * 385 0.64 NB 2533 * 2533 Jamboree Coast H NB SB 1015 2959 5 22 1020 2981 11 43 1.1 1.4 n/s e/w (0.83) EB 4264 2 4266 3 WB 3185 5 3190 7 MacArthur/ SB 2258 71 2329 125 t5.41 Coast tlwy n/s e/w EB i 3204 11 3215 i5 0.5 0.77 WE 3432 28 3460 38 1.1 (a) At 1981 project completion, excluding expansion of 190,262 square feet. * Nominal volume. M Project contribution exceeds five percent. -1.2- J5 , 1 of 0.1000 rather than the adjusted value as shown in the original technical paper on ICU. ICU's were calculated for nine intersections where project traffic during the 2.5-hour peak period exceeded five percent of the prior entering volume. The calculation sheets are attached as an appendix to this report. Table 9 summarizes -the ICU characteristics for each of the nine intersections. Values for both the existing condition and the existing plus project are shown in the table. In order to determine the need for phasing the project as well as the effect of planned area roadway improvements, further examination was assumed necessary when the ICU exceeded 0.9000. It was found that this condition would exist at four intersections: Bristol (N) /Campus, Jamboree/Campus, MacArthur/Campus, and MacArthur/Ford. These intersections will receive principal examination to determine what roadway improvements remain to be completed, particularly those which will directly aid in moving traffic generated by the proposed project. Table 9 SUMMARY OF CRITICAL INTERSECTION ICU CHARACTERISTICS Newport Place Traffic Study INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION FURTHER STUDY NEEDED? Existing Existing Yes No INTERSECTION Condition Plus Project Bristol(N)/Campus 1.0016 1.0608 x Bristol/Campus-Irvine 0.7276 0.7526 x Bristol (N) /Birch 0.5911 .0.6977 x Bristol/Birch 0.3582 0.3851 x Jamboree/Campus 1.1343 1.1627 x Jamboree/MacArthur 0.8604 0.8673 x MacArthur/Campus 0.9259 1.0762 x MacArthur/Ford 1.0121 1.0265 x MacArthur/Coast Hwv 0.7719 0.8109 x -13- Impact of Planned Roadway Improvements Caltrans has several projects in the northwest portion of the City of Newport Beach which will significantly improve traffic operations. In early spring 1979, a freeway connection will be opened between the Bristol Street frontage roads and the Corona Del Mar Freeway to the west. Direct connection will be made from Bristol Street just west of Campus Drive to both the Newport Freeway and the San Diego Freeway. This improvement will cause a diversion of MacArthur Boulevard traffic, principally that with a destination to and from the west on the San Diego Freeway. Another Caltrans project involves the widening of MacArthur Boulevard in the vicinity of Campus Drive to allow three full lanes northbound plus a right -turn lane serving northbound traffic on MacArthur Boulevard desiring to turn right on Campus Drive. This project, along with traffic signal system improvements is scheduled for advertising in mid-1979. Construction should be completed by early 1980. As an interim improve- ment, consideration should be given to the provision of three full lanes southbound on MacArthur Boulevard to take advantage of the widening which has already occurred on.MacArthur Boulevard in front of the Newport Place project. Opening of the Von Karman overcrossing of the San Diego Freeway between MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Boulevard will provide traffic relief to both the MacArthur and Jamboree interchanges with the San Diego Freeway. Scheduled for opening in late January 1979, the overcrossing will improve area circulation and reduce volumes at the Jamboree/Campus intersection which is one of the critical intersections in this study. Currently, Jamboree Boulevard carries 48,000 vpd south of Route 405 and 23,500 vpd north of the freeway. MacArthur Boulevard carries 53,800 vpd to the south and 36,300 vpd to the north. It would not be unreasonable to expect the Von Karman bridge to direct 8,000 to 12,000 of these trips from Jamboree and MacArthur Boulevards. Currently there are about 20,000 trips through the MacArthur interchange and 13,000 through on Jamboree (excluding ramp traffic). -14- 3 , A fourth improvement scheduled for early 1980 is the realignment of Ford Road at MacArthur Boulevard in conjunction with roadway improvements to -MacArthur itself. The cooperative City -State project will provide two left -turn lanes, two through lanes, and one right -turn lane for each approach on MacArthur Boulevard. The westerly leg will have two left - turn lanes and two lanes for through and right -turn movements., The easterly leg will have one left -turn lane and two lanes for through and right -turn movements. These roadway improvements will significantly increase roadway capacity and reduce congestion at this intersection. The City of Irvine has included a project in its 1978-1979 budget which will improve traffic operations at the Jamboree/Campus intersection. It involves widening the east side of Jamboree Boulevard south of Campus Drive to provide one additional northbound lane. Construction will be completed in Fall 1979 according to the Irvine Public Works Department. The roadway improvements mentioned above currently are planned by the various jurisdictions. All are imminent for implementation. Each will have an impact upon the four critical intersections noted in the previous section. Revised ICU analysis sheets are included in the appendix for all four of the intersections. The painting of a southbound right -turn lane in the 30 feet available on the northerly leg of Bristol Street serving southbound traffic will significantly change the ICU at that intersection. This minor painting and signing already was accomplished last week by the City of Newport Beach. The ICU will be reduced from 1.0608 to 0.8351. These numbers represent the existing plus project traffic. condition. There will be adequate capacity remaining to serve traffic diverted from MacArthur Boulevard to the new freeway connection. The improvements noted for the MacArthur/Campus intersection will reduce the ICU from 1.0762 to 0.8878, not taking into consideration any diversion of traffic from that roadway to the new Corona Del Mar Freeway connection. The principal change occurs by providing more capacity -15- T 3 on MacArthur Boulevard to handle through traffic. Although the coordination of traffic signals does not directly improve capacity, it will significantly improve traffic operating conditions on the roadway. By allowing three full through lanes on each approach on MacArthur Boulevard, as well as a separate northbound right -turn lane, the ICU will be lowered to an acceptable level. By adding a southbound and eastbound double left -turn lane to the MacArthur/Ford intersection, the ICU will be reduced from 1.0265 to 0.8056. The most important improvements are the provision of double left -turn lanes for the two movements noted. The Jamboree/Campus intersection currently has an ICU of 1.1343 which will increase to 1.1627 with the full development of Newport Place, excluding the expansion allowance. Widening of the easterly side of Jamboree Road south of Campus Drive by the City of Irvine will occur during 1979. By provision of an additional lane northbound on Jamboree Boulevard approaching Campus Drive, the ICU for the intersection would F be reduced to 1.0091 with project volumes added. As mentioned previously, opening the Von Karman overcrossing will divert some traffic from this busy intersection. We have not prepared a detailed traffic analysis of the future usage of the Von Karman overcrossing but feel it would be reasonable to assume that sufficient volume on the heavier approaches would be diverted to the alternate route to reduce the ICU to a reasonable level. Opening of the overcrossing combined with the widening of Jamboree Boulevard will bring the ICU to 0.900 or less. Need for Development Phasing The phasing as proposed under the maximum development rate by Emkay Development Company for the Newport Place project can be accommodated by planned improvements of the roadway system. The maximum development rate (excludi= the expansion allowance) can be accomplished if the following phasing occurs in association with the various improvements noted: -16- .✓1 1. Occupancy of the floor space considered for construction 7 in 1979 should not occur until a third lane is developed on MacArthur Boulevard in each direction at the Campus Drive intersection and the Corona Del Mar Freeway connec- tion'is made to the west and the San Diego Freeway. 2. Similarly, the occupancy should be forestalled until the MacArthur/Ford improvements are completed although this is of much lesser importance that the improvements to close proximity to the site. 3. The opening of the Von Karman overcrossing combined with the addition of a northbound lane on Jamboree Boulevard by the City of Irvine will improve traffic conditions at the Jamboree/Campus intersection to a reasonable level so that phasing of the project will not be required. 4. By phasing the additional development over a three-year period, the entire project can be accomplished without a negative impact upon the adjacent street system once the initial improvements noted in this report are accommodated. 5. Prior to progressing on the expansion space of 190,200 square feet of building area, a separate traffic analysis should be accomplished at a later date. If you have any questions concerning our findings, please let us know. It has been a pleasure to serve Emkay Development and Realty Company once again on this most interesting project. Respectfully submitted, ROBERT CROMMELIN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. p2 {� 'f- giw c No. 9I Roberts W. C o melin, P.E. 9TFOF CA\ President RWC:ln #18271 Registered Professional Engineer State of California Civil C9667; Traffic TR488 �A INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ROBERT CROMMELIN AND ASSOCIATES, INC, FREQUENTLY USES AN ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUE CALLED INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) TO RELATE VEHICLE VOLUMES, CALCULATED CAPACITIES, AND LEVELS OF SERVICE, THIS MONOGRAPH DESCRIBES THAT TECHNIQUE, The capability of a roadway to move traffic volume is referred to as capacity. Capacity is nearly always greater between intersections and more restricted at intersections. This is true because the roadway normally flows continuously between intersections and flows only during a green phase at signalized inter- sections. Signals are generally warranted and installed before capacity is reached for non -signalized intersections. One seldom encounters non -signalized intersections operating at capacity. Analytical techniques have been developed which allow the calculation of the capacity of an intersection approach based upon its various geometric, demographic, and traffic flow characteristics. It is important to note that traffic volumes may be counted or estimated, whereas capacity is a calculated value. Usually, volumes are rounded off to the nearest 5 vehicles per hour (vph) and capacities to the nearest 10 vehicles per hour of green time (vphG) per lane. The capacity calculation methods are outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual.(l) Sometimes, a single value of 1500 to 1700 vphG is used. Research in the Los Angeles metropolitan area has found an average value of 1700 vphG per lane to apply to both through and left -turn lanes for the value of roadway capacity. Use of a value such as this greatly simplifies the calculation. Level of Service (LOS) The term level of service is used to describe quality of traffic flow. Levels of Service A to C operate quite well. Level C normally is taken as a design level in urban areas outside a regional core. Level D typically is the level for which a metropolitan area street system is designed. Level E represents volumes at or near the capacity of the highway which will result in possible stoppages of momentary duration and fairly unstable flow. Level F occurs when a facility is overloaded and is characterized by stop -and -go traffic with stoppages of long duration. ICU and LOS Relationships The technique utilized to compare volume and capacity (v/c) atios with level of service is called "Intersection Capacity Utilization" (ICU)j2) ICU represents the proportion of the total hour required to accommodate intersection traffic volumes if all approaches are operating at capacity (Level of Service E). This does not mean that Level E is appropriate for urban design, but the evaluation of present and future operating conditions in relationship to total capacity is more easily understood. In other words, operating at 85 percent of capacity is easier to comprehend than operating at LOS D. The following relationships between level of service and ICU are used: Level of Service (LOS) A, 0.68 ICU or less; LOS B, 0.69 to 0.71 ICU; LOS C, 0.72 to 0.79 ICU; LOS D, 0.80 to 0.89 ICU; LOS E, 0.90 to 1.00 ICU; and LOS F, over 1.00 ICU. To determine the current and future operational efficiency of the street system in the study area, a volume/capacity (v/c) analysis is made at selected important intersections. The method used at each location is to determine the proportion of total signal time needed in one hour for each conflicting movement and to compare it with the total time available (100 percent of the hour). For example, a movement with 1,000 vehicles per hour (vph) on an approach with a calculated capacity of 3,000 vph would require 33 percent of the total available signal time. The capacities used are for Level of Service E, as defined in the Highway Capacity Manual. Continuing this procedure for critical approach signal phases will yield the total amount of time required to meet traffic volume demands. The critical approach phases are those which control the timing of the overall cycle of a traffic -actuated controller. With multi -phase controllers, the critical movements on one of the streets usually are heavy left -turn movements and their opposing through movements. An allowance for yellow clearance times is added with the total representing the ICU. The ICU calculations assume that signals are properly timed. At poorly timed locations, it is possible to have an ICU of well below 1.00, yet severe traffic congestion occurs on one approach or more because a movement is not getting enough time to satisfy its demand with excess time being wasted. This is an operational problem which should be remedied. The ICU technique also can be used to test the impact of adding lanes and revising signal phasing and to determine future operating conditions with or without a proposed new development. Thus, with actual present hourly volumes or estimated future volumes, different intersection configurations can be tested to determine which would optimize future traffic operating conditions. SAMPLE CALCULATION Movement Volume Ca acit V/C Ratio (vph) (vphG) Northbound 1500 3400 0.34 Southbound 1650 3400 0.49* Eastbound 300 1700 0.18 Westbound 425 1700 0.25* Yellow 0.08* ICU 0.82 LOS "D" * Indicates critical movement included in the ICU. (1)Highway Capacity Manual, 1976; Highway Research Board Special Report No. 87; Washington, D.C. (2)Robert W. Crommelin, "Use of Intersection Capacity Utilization Values to Estimate Overall Level of Service," Traffic Engineering, July 1974. '47- EE v TItA:yYOaTATIDN AND YIIASmc gW*Ne,1m DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS In not rryurtb, term ark used which are cayman to the Traffic Engineering profusion but ray not be clear to others. The following doflnitlons cover commonly wed terse. Addltlontl definitions Rey be found in the Transportation and Traffic rat W—rink Handbook, Inrt huts of Transportation tnsineeel. Heehington. b.C.. 1976. or the Hitlwal CAPSCLty runUAl. Special Rkpett NO. g), Ntghwse Easeareh Eoard, Nashrngtdhp D.d.s 196S. ADT: tvertgv daily vph: vehicles per hour trattle vphGl vehicles pee hour AVD: Average weekday of green (signal traffic time) Clot central business Lt: left district Art right MSP: square feet in 1.000's NVtt millions of ve- hicles entering USOOT: United States Oe- (Intarsoction) partmant of Trans- Mmi millions of ve- portation hicle silos FRHA: Federal Ntghway VMTI vehicle miles of Administration travel Caltrsas: California Depart - Pk Met peak hour volume Rant of Tnnspor- 0: traffic signal tation phis* TRI: Transportation vpe: vehicles par day Research ►card TRAFFIC AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT)t the total volume during a given than pacind (usually one year) divided by the number of days In that time periods VEHICLES PER DAY (vpd)t the total volume of traffic posing a point. usually In both directions, for a 24 hour period. In Met traffic analyses prepared by uss "vp" refers to Average weekday traffic. PtAK HOUR VOIAMES the highest number of vehicles found to be Pus Ing over A section of a lane or a roadway due- ing 60 consecutive minutes, usually designated as the mnrnioA peak hour And the svening peak hour. OEIMtVi till number at vehicles occupying a unit length of the thrnvµh traffic lanet, of a roadway At Any given Instant Usually exproasrd in vehicles pet mile. LOAD FACTOR& a ratio of the total number of green Sit - oil intervals that are fully utilized by traffic during the pask hour to the total numbor of grain Intervals for that gproaeh during the same period. Its mccinum at- talnbl" I lug is one. FW HOUR FACTOR; a ratio of the volume Occurring due- Ing the "sit hour to the maximum rate of flow during A given it" period within the peak hour. It to a measure of peaking characteristics, whose Instant, attainable valve Is oat. The term most be qualified 1T a specified short parted within the hour; this it usually S or 6 min- utes for frteWy Operation And 15 minutes for Intersection operation. UPSTFtAMI the direction along the roadway from which the vehicle flow under consideration he, come. DOMTREAMI the direction along the roadway toward which the vehicle flow under consideration is moving. DOTILEW01 A eohstricklen Along a traveled way which limits the Assume of traffic which can proceed downstream from ltn location. FLATIMM: A closely grouped ,4ement I component. of tra. mm- tie, epnsed of several vehicles, moving or Standing ready to move over a roadway with clear Negeee Ahead And behind. COW4n an Imaxlwry line around an area Across witch vvhlcles, prrsnna, or other item are counted (In And out), VEHICIX MILkS1 a measure of the Amount of usage of a see - clan of highway no. III used In accident analysis to cos - pre aW I;r highways. Obtalnnt by multiplying the Average daily test it by 365 and dividing by the length of section In relics, usually xtAted In millions. TRAFFIC TRIPS the moving of A person or vehicle from one to - cities (origin) to another (destination). TRIP-IND: one end of a trip at either the orlAtn art destination; i.e, each trip has two trip -undo. TRLP FUIIPOSE- the reason why the trip is made (to or from work, shopping, school, etc.). SCREEN -LINE: an Imaginary line or physical feature across which all trips ate counted, across lly to verity thi valtdLty of eAthomatical traffic models. TRIP GENERATION FACTDR: A traffic volume estimating tool, from studies of Stoller land usess the amount of traffic (trips) produced by or attracted to the land use is related to area Identifying unit such se land trot, seats floor Area. population, employment. ate. mod applied to the amount ,a that unit for e6e land use under study. fat tassels, 10 trips per day per duelling unit refers to 5 trips Inbound snd S trip. outbound free the generating wit. GENERAL DESIGN TERMS GEOMETRIC DESIGN- the arrangement of the visible ele- Sears of A road, Such as allgoment, grades, sight dis. tances, widths. Slopes, etc. INICRCRANCI: a system of inteeeonneeting rugd•.Ayn in con)unttlon with a grade separation or grade 'am rat. tions providing for the interchange of traffic between two at sore Intersecting roadways. MEDIAN: the portion of a divided highway sdpAratLKA the traveled ways for traffic in opposite directions. TRAVELED MAY- the portion of the roadway for the Bove• mint of vehicles exclusive of shoulders and auxiliary lanes. AUXILIARY LINE: the portion of the cAisway Ad)elntng the traveled way for parking, speed change, or for other purposes supplementary to through traffic movement. SHOULDER. the portion of the roadway contiguous with the traveled way for Accom odAtlon of stopped vehicles, for emergency use, And for Lateral support of base and Surface courses. TRAFFIC LAME. the portion of the traveled way Soo the movement of a single line of vehicles. SIGHT OF HAY: the land o'nled by a public Agency witch Include& the roadbed, sldevallt$. And other Sees% such at those used for planting strips CHANNEWATION: the separation of regulation of con- litering traffic movements Into definite path$ of tra- vel by the use of pavement markings, raised islands, or other sutttblt means to facilities the Info and or- derly movements of both violater and pedestrians HEAVING SECTION: a length of one-way roadway, designed to accommodate weaving. at one end of which %W one•way roadways Mesa And at too other no of which they sap• *Me. RAMPS a connecting roadway between two intersecting hghwayx at an Interchange. Continued on reverse TRAFFIC SIGNALS Any device, whether manually, electrically, or mech.nL- H�e,lly operated, by which traffic is alternately directed J to stop and permitted to proceed. SIGNAL INDICATION: the ill. cnetlan of a traffic signal lens or equivalent device or A combination of several lenses or equivalent devices At the same itnw. TiNF. CYCLE: the time period required for one complete sequence of signal Indications. plueL: a part of the time cycle allocated to any traf- fic movement or to any combination of traffic movements rrrelvinµ the rlµht-of-way simultaneously during one or more intervals. MET THID SIGNAL: a type of traffic control signal which direct, traffic to stop and permits It to proceed in ac- cordance with predetermined time schedules. TRAFFIC -ACTUATED SIGNAL: a type of traffic control sig- nal In which the intervals era varied in accordance with the demands of traffic as registered by the actuation of detector.. 1. Semi-traffic-attum led signal: a type of traffic actuated signal in which means are provided for traffic actuation In ant or me. but not all ap- proaches to the intersection. 2. Full traffic -actuated signal: a type of traffic actuated signal In which mans are provided for traffic actuation on all approach., to the inter- section. 0. Pedestrian -actuated signal: a type of traffic control signal which may be actuated by a pedes- trian. PROGRESSIVE SYSTEN: a signal system in which the Settee' give signal faces controlling a &Ivan street give "go" indications In accordance with a time schedule to permit (as nearly as possible) continuous operation of group, of vehicles along the street at a planed rate of speed, which may vary to different p!res of the system. ROADWAY TYPE ARTERIAL HIGHWAY: a general term denoting A highway primarily for through traffic, usually on a continu- ous route. EXPRESSWAY: a divided arterial highway for through traffic with full or partial control of access. FREEWAY: an expressway with full control of access and all grade crosstnga eliminated OONTROL OF ACCESS: the conditions where the right of .ware or occupants of abutting land or other persons to access, light, aLt. or view In connection with a highway is fully or partially controlled by public authority. PARKWAY: an arterial highway for noncommercial traf- fic, with full or partial control of access, and usu- ally located within a part or a ribbon of parklike de- vaf.pment. KkJOR STREET OR HUOR HIGHWAY: an arterial highway with intersections at grade and direct access to abut- ting property, and on which geometric design and test - tic control measures are wed to expedite the Oafs .movement of through traffic. LOCAL STREET OR LOCAL ROAD: a street or road pri- rarlty fur access to residence, business, or other Abutting property. THROUGH STREET: every highway or portion thereof At the entrance to which vehicular traffic from inter - meeting highways is required by law to stop before entering or crossing the same and when stop signs are erected. DIVIDPD HIGHWAY: A highway with separated roadways far traffic In opposite directions. FROUTAGB ROAD: a local street or road auxiliary to And located on the aid- of an arterial highway for ,#,vice to abutting property and adjacent areas and for central of aceen. CUL-DE-SAC STREET: a local street open at one and only, and with special provisions for turning Around. HIGHWAY CAPACITY CAPACITY: the maximum number of vehicle, which be, a re ..... hie expectation of passing over A given see' ties of A lane or a roadway in one or both directions during a given time period under prevailing roadway and traffic conditions. LEVEL OF SERVICE: a term which, broadly interpreted, denotes any one of an infinite number of differing com- binatfons of operating conditions that may occur on a given lane or roadway when it is accommodating various traffic volumes. Level of Service is a qualitative measure of the effect of a number of factors, which In- clude speed and travel time, traffic interruptions, freedom to maneuver, safety, driving comfort and con- Ventence, and operating costs. In practice, selected specific levels are defined In crane of particular lim- iting values of certain of these factors. Six Levels of Service have been designated by letters to represent the best condition ("A" free flowing) and the worst ("F' forced flow at very low speeds). Nor- mally, Levels "C" (stable flow) or "D" (unstable flow but tolerable operations) are used for design purposes. SERVICE VOLUME: the maximum number of vehicles that can pass over a given section of a lane or roadway In one direction on multilane highways (or to both direc- tions on a two- or three-lano highway) during a speci- fied time period while operating conditions are main- tained corresponding to the selected or specified level of service. In the absence of • time ncdiffer. service volume is an hourly volume. LEVEL OF SERVICE VS. OPERATING CMRACIERISTICS LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTION OPERATING CNARAMRTSTTCS A Free flow Low volumes, high speed (best) selectivity, Lou density. Drivers not impaired by other traffic. At signals no driver waits sore than one signal cycle W all turns are easily eade. g stable flow Operating speeds begimtng to be restricted by traffic conditions. Suitable for rural design values. At signal, drivers beginning to feel somewhat restricted. C Stable flew Volume restricts driveres (design value) speed and manuverablliey; suitable for urban design values. At signals, dri- vers may have to accession - ally waft more than opt cycle to clear. 0 Approaching Temporary restrictions cause unttable flora drop in volume A" speed; eafort And comovate: ce Is law but tolerable for short periods. At signals, short pesks may develop queues ' which will clear during later cycles. Excessive beck -up does not occur. E Unstable flow, Spada on freeways at 30 mph (Capacity) with momentary stoppages. At signals there may be long queues of vehicles with de- lays up to several signal cycles. Unsuitable for use In design. P Forced flow low speeds, many stoppages (worst) on freeways, long queues, sad high delays; roadway , becomes storage area. Back- up from one signal may block adjacent intersections. Vol- umas carried are unpredict- able. Revised Jun. 1. 1975 liq INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION FOR EXISTING ROADWAY CONDITIONS ' I&SECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION IOLYSIS a t Inteftection Bristol Street North/Campus Drive Nfj '(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 ject /C tio ;Ro NL 1 1600 81 Ylom. 81 , 05064 NT 2 3200 587 n o n , 7 / 34 . / 34 NR - - "' - SL - - ST 2 3200 1241 21 168 .586 62/9 SR 637 85" 722 EL - - - - ET- - - - ^ ER - - -_ - WL 1 1600 321 7 328 , 2006 , 2060 WT 4 6400 1660 ! S5 /8/S .26 .2883 WR 30 y a.n . 30 Yellow Time d 000 ./oo Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. /• o O/ 6 Existinq Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. /.06 0 ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left r%oM, 1. no n a r El 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 L—� 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 Bristol Street North/Campus Drive PROJECT INTIOCTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION AWSIS Intersection Bristol Street/Campus Drive -Irvine 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 NT 2 3200 445 Ngm 446' ./3 ./3 NR 1 1600 207 214 . l � 9.4 .l 2 94 SL ST 1 2 1600 3200 81 1481 N o s4 1 15-16- . O50 .OSO SR - - EL ET 1 4 1600 6400 142 947 92 /42 /039 .O 8 ./6 '�` .0898 •/792 ER 108 pM 106 - ^ - - - r:WT WR Yellow Time I . 000 gF . /000 Existin Intersection Caoacit Utilization T.C.U. .% 2 X Existin Plus Project Intersection Ca acity Utilization I.C.U. ,75Z6 ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (�k) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left = N I... f � f ® Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will -be less than or equal to MC 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.I1. 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 I' e � • INTERSOION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANA# S Intersection Bristol Street North/Birch Street (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Peak Hr Project Peak Hr Existing Plus Project Exist. V/C Project V/C ment city Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio 1 1600 36' N OtA 3 (o .0Z25� . 0225 NL 2 3200 203 99 3 O 2 .D63 , 0 94 NT NR SL 2 3200 285 0 2 SS .aG75� .3519� ST SR 571 7 0 641 EL ET ERpq - WL46 37 WT1205 0 3 t o , 20 I 4 .22331X WR 36 N CAM. 3 6 . 1000 ,1OOo'�` Yellow Time Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. ,5911 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. .6g77 ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (- N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left NoM= N O Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 LCJ rl Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to L-1 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 Bristol Street North/Birch Street FORM II INTERI,TION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANAOIS 4 Intersection Bristol Street/Birch Street (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 1 f 1600 30 3 t) a NR 8 mom. fa SL 1 1600 66 .OQ 1 2 Oy/Z ST 2 3200 285 Z 2 .O 'X ,1006*K SR -- EL 173 2% 2 ET 4 6400 863 F3 63 ER - - 46 N OM. 4 6 WL - - - WT .. - .. ..- .... r - WR Yellow Time , �DOO' ` .1000* Existino Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. . 39 i3 2 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.),3851 ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (-* N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left N 19m - 4. tz 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 1-1 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures Bristol Street/Birch Street d II INTER•TION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANA* S Intersection Jamboree Blvd./Campus Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter Spring 1978) 11 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to u-vu Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to L-1 Existing Conditions I.C.U. 4.1 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I•.C.I1. will be greater than. existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 ❑ Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures �i INTERSECTION PRn,lFrT vd./Campus Dri 1NTER5'ION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANAOIS i A ! Intersection Jamboree Road/MacArthur Blvd. tjD (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 26 2> .0 t 6 2 . 01 6 Z NT 2 32001 520 'Z �J 4 2 212 2-19 7 NR 161 Q PA.(, SL 1 1600 135 e, M. /.35' -0 - , 064 -1f ST 2 3200 744 lob 850 .237.6 .2.(#56 SR N.S. 399 2.1 47-60 EL 1 1600 448 6' 53 .2800 .2 3 ET 3 4800 885 N OM, g 5 150 .1 64'� B ER N.S. 3 NQM. 3 — -' WL 1 1600 446 NA o 6 62788 , a70 WT 3 4800 881 NpM Swf I g 6 , I $ 35 WR N.S. 1 10 NoM I 0 .-. Yellow Time I 000' )pno''x Existino Intersection CaDacity Utilization I.C.U. .0fo p Existino Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.). 86 73 ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (�) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left NOM— NOAA%A\AL� ® 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 tc 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 II t A INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS 5 ` Intersection MacArthur Blvd./Campus 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 1 1600 111 nowt. NT 2 13200 1044 3 2 / 1 34O/ NR Y - 73 2 9 O 2 ' SL 1 1600 56 n o, • 6 i 0350 .O 3SO ST 3 3200 1026 64 / O Q 2O6 . 339 SR EL 1 1 1600 1600 201 285 /S 20 30,67• 1256 % 7B/ .13 O • / ET 2 13200 421 »oM / /*8 ER - 53 N o.n 5'3 ' WL 1 1600 100 6 /06 O 25" .0662 WT 2 3299 825 n ow+. �25% , 2 WR 1 13.5� 54 »o.v,. ' Yellow Time Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. g2j9 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 ^0M. ' no ^4 f 3 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 i + Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. 1 s Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.9 f�1 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing L� T.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 i, Further analysis required to determine -applicable mitigation measures I ' INTERSECTION MacArthur Blvd./Campus Drive INFECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION AOSIS 0 '52. Intersection MacArthur Boulevard/Ford 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 30 Y1 0,n . 30 ti 0/ 88 toles NT 2 3200 1346 2 I 67 , .¢3S- NR 49 " 0 . 4 SL 1 1600 370 3 23/2 2456 ST 2 3200 1413 102 . %4! , 4734 SR 1 1600 132 »o.•r. EL 1 1600 279 v/o,.,.2 719 ET 1 1600 228 ER 1 1600 88 P7.r.,. D 5" WL 1 1600 19 r,,.,, / WT 1 1600 113 map". 112 O�Q WR 1 1600 194 S / 99 1212 2 Yellow Time , /004 Existinq Intersection Capacity Utilization(I.C.U.)__l� o/ Z Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.)� 2 ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left rlo„�. ' f 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 MacArthur Boulevard/Ford Road FORM II PROJECT: ! I: ARSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATIONOALYSIS Intersection '-MacArthur/Coast Hwy (Existing Traffic Volumes Base on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Move- ment Lanes Capa- city Existing Peak fir Volume Project Peak Hr Volume Existing I Plus Project IPeak fir Volume Exist. V/C Ratio Project VIC Ratio NL — — NT - - - — — — NR SL 2 •3200 828 /Z1- 965 zs�ry zg7g ST SR 1 1600 197 /7-7' EL 23 2 'Z 3 739 Y .! 'V95' ET 2 3200 1322 1 /-52- Z Ar- ER- - - — — — — WL- - - — — WT 2 3200 839 WR k N.S. - 360 ' y,t/! �✓0 y _ Yellow Time ./ovo ExistingIntersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. d•77J7 ExistingPlus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) 0•8/09 ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left Y,o,M, no n �x Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90. (� Existing Plus Project Traffic T.C.U. will be less than or equal to L' Existing Conditions I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Existirg Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is curren=iy greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures ' INTERSECTION MacArthur/Coast Hwy II INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION FOR REVISED (IMPROVED) ROADWAY CONDITIONS w.k. INTENCTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION AMYSIS REVISED - WITH ROADWAY IMPROVEIWT lntersection Bristol Street Northam us Drive C f� (Existing Traffic Volumes Base on Average Win/Cter 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 81MOM, $ I .OSO * . 050 6 NT 2 3200 587 587 1 .11334 NR - - SL - - ST 2 3200 1241 2 7 / 2 6 0 .30 R3181 3 6 2 SR 1 1600 637 S 1 7 2 2 .45/ Z EL - ET - ER - WL 1 1600 321 7 WT 4 6400 1660 ISS I tS .2641* WR 36 NOM. Z O Yellow Time I , 1000 OOoe- Existino Intersection Cavacity Utilization I.C.U. .a OZS Existinq Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.), B35f ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (X) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left NOM = i L ® Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 w J k(_ ro 0.A w ,) 1'T io r a.,.. A-.s c o,,.. P I.4.%e_C4 , Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. EJ Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I� Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing l� I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 LFurther analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures raznt separate southbound right turn lane on Campus Drive, north of Bristol Street (North). INTEROTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALOS REVISED - WITR ROADWA]' I14'ROVEMENTS Intersection Jam oree v ampus Drive rJ(f (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 Z 3Zo0 32 noa,. 32 /00 NT 0 1328 no 32 , 29Z 923 NR - 75 rN,,.,. '7S - SL 1 1600 256 no,n. 23' 600. ST 3 4800 1115 no M. 70 SR 181 2 2 0 EL 3 4800 725 /60 ZS-4422 2¢9 ET 370 no 370 ER N.S. - 20 n e - WL 1 1600 82 n a m, , . 0S' Z WT 3200. 379 3 79 , 2o7 # d WR 286 nom. Z 6 Yellow Time Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. 9 B82 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 hom. . noN,J.,a r El Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Ltt_.�i Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. NOTE: This ICU Analysis does not recognize the diversion of traffic from this intersection to the Von Karman-6,76icrossing. 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 LZN I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures REVISIONS: Widen the northbound approach to provide 3 northbound lanes. (By City of Cirvine, Fall 1979.) * A, . IN*ECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ;&YSIS REVISED - WITH ROADWAY IMPROVErMi RT Intersection MacArthur Blvd./Campus Drive (Existing Traffic volumes Base on verage Winter/Spring 1978) Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Peak Hr Project 'Peak Hr Existing Plus Project Exist. V/C Project V/C ment city Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio NL 1 1600 Ill Nam, NT 3 4800 1044 R 2 1 136 .2S27 •2 44 NR 1 1 1600 1600 73 56 29 mom,56 102. .0 6 .O o .0638 03S0 SL ST 3 4800 1026 54 / o SO . 2556* . 2-00 SR 201 6' 21 —M06-25' .— EL 1 1600 285 20 2 05.1701X ET 2 3200 421 i 4 Z 1ER - 53 73WL 1 1600 10o 106 WT 2 3200 825 N o �ZS . ZS 78 .2SJ8''� WR 1 13. S. 54 N O M . / 000 / 00G', , Yellow Time Existina Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. S;0J Existino Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ,5878 ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (-%) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left 1-4 ®Existing Plus Project Traffic, I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 w 1 t t.- roa of w W) 1.,, 47 rod/ S co... f 14� . 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 Revise island and signals on northeast corner to allow one added northbound lane thru intersection; provide separate northbound right turn lane. u a INACTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION AS1S REVISED - WITH ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT Intersection MacArthur Boulevard/Ford Road (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1918) 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 30 NoYA, 3 . OI 96 . 0166 NT 2 3200 1346 21 3 (6 .47-i NR 1 1600 49 SL 2 3200 370 23 393 /1 69 2-28' ST 2 3200 1413 o 2. )S15 6 .4 73 If SR 1 1600 132 N om, 13 Z B 2S . 08 Z6, EL 2 3200 279 1 N o m. 271 .0872. .087 ET 2 3200 228 1 N o , 2 z 4, o988'l ER 88 o M,8 B WL 1 1600 19 0, M.19 .OI19oil 9 WT 1 1600 113 /13 . 070G*-v , 0 ocx WR 1 1600 194 / r/ 0, 1.1212 .124,4 Yellow Time . 1 Gop , / pod Existino Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. . 6056 Existing Plus Proiect Intersection Ca acity Utilization (I.C.U.) 9/ 9 ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (r) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, Wight, L=Left Nmm — No mttiAL_ Existing PluusdProject Traffic T.C.U. will be lessthan 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 nExisting Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. 'will be greater than existing LJ I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 0 Further analysis required to d6termine applicable mitigation measures REVISION: Add southbound and eastbound double left turn and other spot widenings. BY: Caltrans/City in 1979. NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO: Secretary for Resources FROM: Community Development Dept. 1416 Ninth Street, Room 1311 City of Newport Beach Sacramento, California 95814 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Calif. 92663 Clerk of the Board of Supervisors X P. 0. Box 687 Santa Ana, California 92702 NAME OF PROJECT: Newport Place Planned Community - Phasing Plan PROJECT LOCATION: Property bounded by MacArthur Boulevard; Bristol Street North, and Birch Street in Newport Beach PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for the approval of a Phasing Plan for re- maining development in the Newport Place Planned Community. FINDING: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council Policy K-3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. MITIGATION MEASURESI. Occupancy of the floor space considered for construction in 1979 shall not occur until a third lane is developed on MacArthur Blvd. in each direction at the Campus Drive intersection and the Corona del Mar Freeway connection is made to the west and the San Diego Freeway. 2. The occupancy of buildings shall not occur until the MacArthur/Ford improvements are completed. 3. The opening of the Von Karman overcrossing and the addition of a northbound lane on Jamboree Blvd. by the City of Irvine shall be accomplished prior to occupancy of any buildings. 4. Future development in the Emkay-Newport Place Planned Community shall occur in.accordance with the phasing plan. 5. Prior to the issuance of any building permits in the expansion space of 190,200 sq.ft. of building area, in any amount greater than 30% of the remaining space to be developed on each parcel, a separate traffic analysis shall be accomplished. INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY: Emkay Development and Realty Company INITIAL STUDY AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT: 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: �`4,4U'i'o d. l 'Freed Tallarito ' Environmental Coordinator Date: January 15, 1979 Transmittal To. City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Aiin, Fred Talarico Re. Desc(Oon. � e �f r „ '44Y It, .pP"'r�{ Ab if I 1 nl''r"' Date. February 28, 1980 Project Name. Upper Newport Plaza Project No, 78030 Copy of letter originally mailed December 20, 1979. For your use. By, Dan Heinfeld ac. /lh Leason F. Pomeroy, William H. Bigelow Robert O. Kupper, Terry D. Jacobson / Principals December 20, 1979 RANCH CO. 0 Mr. Fred Talarico Environmental Coordinator City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re; Upper Newport Plaza Dear Mr. Talarico: We understand that occupancy of the floor space within Upper Newport Plaza is conditioned upon the following: 1. Development of a third lane on MacArthur Boulevard in each direction at the Campus Drive intersection. 2. The completion of the improvements ,at the inter- section of MacArthur and Ford Roads. 3. The opening of the Bond Karman overcrossing and the addition of a northbound lane on Jamboree Boulevard by the City of Irvine. Thank you. ROH:jj' xc: Phil Kroeze' Sincerely yours UPPER NEWPORT PLAZA By: Bear Brand Ranch mpany its General P n t By: Ro erttHi] Land Investment and Development 250 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE,11-100 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 4­ 7141640-4404 DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS EEMKAY DEVELOPMENT AND REALTY COMPANY 1201 DOVE STREET, SUITE 200 / P.O. BOX 2390 NEWPORT BEACH, CAUFORMA92663 / U.S.A. PHONE: (714) 833-8680 May 17, 1979 Mr. Richard Hogan Director of Community Development City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, California 92663 Dear Mr. Hogan: On March 12, 1979, the Newport Beach City Council approved a phasing plan for the remaining development in the Newport Place Planned Community District pursuant to Resolution No. 9472 of the Newport Beach City Council, finding that the phasing plan is consistent with the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan and that adequate traffic facilities will be avail- able to handle that traffic generated by the project at the time of occupancy of the buildings involved. Approval of the phasing plan was made subject to specified conditions, the last of which being that Emkay Development & Realty Company indicate in writing to the Newport Beach Department of Community Development that it understands and agrees to certain.of the conditions limiting occu- pancy of the floor space approved for construction in 1979 pending completion of five defined street improvements; a) The opening of the Von Karman over - crossing of the San Diego Freeway; b) The restriping of MacArthur Boulevard -ef the intersection with Campus Drive to provide for a third lane in each direction, as shown in Exhibit A hereto; c) Completion of the connection of the Corona del Mar Freeway with Bristol Street North northeasterly of Campus Drive, as specified by California Department of Transpor- tation Contract No. 07-048364, approved February 28, 1977, and as shown on Exhibit B hereto; A MORRISON KNUDSEN COMPANY k..• EMKAY DEVELOPMENT AND REALTY COMPANY Mr. Richard Hogan Page Two May 17, 1979 d) Addition of a third northbound lane, without curb and gutter on the east- erly side of Jamboree Boulevard from Fairchild to Campus Drive, as currently contemplated in Contract No. 01-52065-80 of the City of Irvine approved as shown in Exhibit C hereto and; e) Completion of the improvements to the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Ford Road as currently contemplated in Contract No. 1882 of the City of Newport Beach, approved on April 3, 1979, 11T N as shown on Exhibit D her 6 ��r•e .. o(y to st+dS To By this letter, Emkay Development & Realty Co pa nderstands and agrees to the above conditions n the further understanding that the City of Newport Beach proceed with the above street improve- ments within it's jurisdiction as scheduled, and will cooperate fully with Emkay Development & Rea1ty Company in the satisfaction of these conditions so that occupancy of the buildings in accordance with the approved phasing plan may occur. 14 rioe, K KT •� tb -' /00 a &-W w -CATS Lt /•.C- NIT f-ri PA S's N-r Sincerely, lob rLo/ ed! Tye C! 4 •'+�C,q Tv / T may_ t! T �i •GF /'L Y Ts// T!=..�. i.w.p rr l.� Kevin T. Hanson Project Manager KTH/wb Attachments Received and accepted: M Community Development A MORRISON KNUDSEN COMPANY tixisT. cun8 �� EXHIBIT B IN ORANGE COUNTY IN AND NEAR NEWPORT BEACH AND COSTA MESA FROM 0.2 MILE SOUTH OF JAMBOREE ROAD To02 MILE NORTH OF RED HILL AVENUE I de^y^ Molor pgAN,.t 6E I �. — I I COUNTY � V h Yi �' V an. R 1.51 9 1 4 h*�. / i ? cwx'a+ ° °° h �' r° ♦� s .e / I S i wPQ ♦� ` -� \ t ,ovOIIR° _ B � S/yE 1.J1 _ �yxin • ] 1 !� ♦r�+•°E NAMES AND TYPES OF SISUCNEt3 ♦ 7 A 7 ( ..� pE d drd o- I t r... Ot SSSY R✓�tiE Y �. ti ry`io�4l 3 � - _ /�5 ,� l L � /Fyv Eunn °i we.Y frr • OF uttro � 'v6 ion nr•r: �� \`Or Mf.%A p 5[I.1 IH Il[1 Q California Department of Transportation IWO of 90;v com"Mo, Contract No. 07-048364. EXHI BIT C • ;; ;,,, ,CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM SUMMARY PROJECT t79 -. TOTAL COST MTV rnsm TRAFFIC SIGNALS 1. Main @ Red Rill 50,000, $ 18,000 i 1 % 2. Lake Forest @ Irvine Center Drive,,,; '' '_' 1090000 .- 22,000 ,3. Jamboree @ Barranca i 45,000 45,00(, 4. Von Karman @ Michelson 60j000• 60,000 •_5- Von Karman @ Main = •,60,000 60,000 6. Culver Drive Traffic Signal 54,000 54,000 Interconnect I-405 to Campus SUB -TOTAL $ 1 438,000 $ 319,000 PUBLIC BUILDINGS 1. Street sweeping depositories .: $..; 4,000 $ 4,000 at various locations 2. Construct Corporate Yard r. a''. '350,000 350,000 Transition Phase Project '78 50,000 • Y yS4i:{'A•' a ' SUB -TOTAL""" ''$ 354,000 $ 354,000 STREET IMPROVEMENTSa� ':+:'4°. 1'.` •i•,t:: .,i,�.',•t.-s''-� yX4Y'f1-.iif5n: 1. University Drive : widen and $ ,1809000 $ realign Campus to future Harvard7. :r; '• { :r . 2. Walnut Avenue - widen. east of a.i'??"'t `}" "`200,000 ` Kazan realign at on/off ramp '@, ;," ` . ' ; _• Santa Ana Freewayf'' 3. Jamboree Blvd. -widen to{aia ?Nc4Tn,� �60,000at >' lanes from Fairchild to-Cau P m '{y �''�. '_� -_g• 4. Ford Road - Construct intersection 48,000 with MacArthur 7 37,000 60,000 24,000 i CITY $ 18,000 22,000* 45,000 bO,000 60,000 -54,000 $259,000 $: 4,000 $ 18,000 22,000* 4,500 b,000 , •� 5,000 54,000 $105,000 $ 4,000 301;000'. '.' 101,000 $305,000 $ 0* 37,000 60,000 . 24,000* $105,000 $ 0 37,000 60,000 24,000* 'F• Exhibit D Refer to Improvement Plans for A.H.F.P. Project No. 947 & 948. Contract No. 1882 on file in Newport Beach Public Works Department. Planning Commission Meeting May 10, 1979 Agenda Item No. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 1, 1979 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Amendment No. 530 (Public Hearing) Request to consider an amendment to the adopted Development Plan for the Newport Place Planned Community, so as to reduce the allowable develop- ment to be consistent with the Phasing Plan ap- proved by the City Council. INITIATED BY: 'City of Newport Beach Background This Amendment has been initiated to bring the future allowable development indicated in the P-C text into conformance with the development phasing plan approved by the City Council on March 12, 1979. The preparation of a development phasing plan was mandated by Amendment No. 514, adopted November 27, 1978. In approving the development phasing plan, the City Council'accepted offers by the property owners to reduce future allowable develop- ment as follows: Undeveloped Allowed by Allowed by • Proposed Parcels P-C Text Phasing Plan Reduction ,Emkay (Office site 1 & 2) 358,830 sq. ft.' 272,711 -86,119 %Bear Brand Ranch p, aj A710$ (Industrial Site 3A L 81,162 61,162 -20,000 JAir California (Industrial Site 3A) 40,951 40,951 No change Ketchum (Office site I' 4) 87,019 87,019 No change In addition to the figures shown above, the P-C text would allow an expansion of up to 190,000 sq. ft. amoung the already developed parcels in Newport Place which are not built to the zoning maximum. No change for these parcels is suggested as part of this Amendment. i0; • Planning Commission - 2. • r Effect of Amendment The proposed amendment would revise the text' of the Newport Place Planned Community Development Plan to reflect a reduction of 86,119 sq. ft. for Office Site 1 & 2, and a reduction of 20,000 sq. ft. for Industrial Site 3A (map attached). The Air California project and Ketchum project would not be effected. These changes are incorporated into the draft P-C text excerpts .attached. With regard to the Ketchum property, an addition to the existing buildings of approximately 22,000 sq. ft. is in process. It is anticipated that no further development on this parcel will occur, leaving 55,000 sq. ft. unused. The Air California property is expected to develop consistent with the current zoning and phasing plan. Phasing Plan For the Planning Commission's information, the construction is schedule included in the approved development phasing plan as follows: wOccupancy Occupancy Occupancy Parcels 1979 1980 1981 Emkay - - - - 192,711 sq. ft. 80,000 Bear Brand Ranch 61,162 - - - - - " - - Air California - - - - 40,951 - - - - Ketchum 87,019. - - - - (22,000 onlyprojected) - - Conformance with General Plan The Newport Place P-C is designated on the Land Use and industrial uses. Plan for a The proposed combination of office, retail amandment is consistent with the General Plan Environmental Significance The proposed amendment has been reviewed in terms of the California Environmental Quality Act, and no EIR is required. A Negative Declaration has been prepared and is attached for the Planning Commission's consideration. .r . • Planning Commission - 3 • suaaested Action If desired, approve Negative Declaration and adopt Resolution No. recommending to the City Council that the Newport Place planned community development plan be amended to reduce allowable development by 86,119 sq. ft. on Office Site 1 & 2, and 20,000 sq. ft. on Industrial Site 3A, consistent with the approved development phasing plan. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. H06AN, DIRECTOR By David Dmohowski Advance Planning Administrator DD/sf Attachments: Location Map Revised Text Negative Declaration P STATISTICAL ANALYSIS PART I. INDUSTRIAL* A. Building Sites Site lA ... 2.0 acres (3)(9) S;re 2B ... 3.7 acres... 5.7 acres(3)(9) Site 3A .............. 21.3 acres(2.4) Site 4 .............. 16.9 acres .... B. Building Area ............................. 43.9 acres (9) Site lA ... 34,130 sq-ft. .. 0.8 ac. (3)(9) Site 2B ... 631138 sq.ft... 1.4 ac... 97,268 sq. ft.. 2.2'ac. (3)(9) (Proposed) ** Site 3A ............................ 296,208sq.ft. 6.8 ac.(2,4,14) Site 4 .....................:...... 288,264 sq.ft.. 6.6 cc. 681,740 so.ft.15.6 ac... 15.6 ac.(9,14) The following statistics are for information only. Development may include but shall not be limited to the following. C. Parking (Criteria: 3 spaces/1000 sq. ft. @ 363 sq. ft./space) Site ]A.... 102 cars.... 0.9 acres (3)(9) Site 2B ....191 cars .... 1.6 acres ... 293 cars ...... 2.4 ac. (3)(9) Site'3A ...........................889 cars ..... 7.4 ec.(2,4,14) Site 4 ........................... 865 cars ...... 7.2 ac. _,047 cars .....17.0 ac.17.0 ac. (9,14) D. Landscaped - Open Space Site IA ... 0.30acres (3)(9) Site 2B ...0.70acres .....1 .0 acres (3)(9) Site 3A .................. 6.6 acres (2,4,14) Site 4 .................. 3.1 acres (9) 10.7 acres (9,14) Net Open -3.8 acres ............... Space .... 6.9 acres* (14) *3.8 acres have been allotted for service stations exclusive of permitted building acres and subject to use permit. ** Industrial site 3A has been reduced by 20,000 sq. ft. with the reduction allocated to the allowable building area for Parcel No. 3 of resubdivision 529. The allowable building area for Parcel No. 3 of Resubdivision 529 is now 61,162 sq. ft. (14). 4 GENERAL NOTES The Newport Project, a planned community development is a project of Emkay Development Company, Inc., a subsidiary of Morrison- Knudsen Company, Inc. The area is most appropriate for commercial and light industrial use because of its central location, ideal topography, availability to four freeways, accessibility to two railroads and its relation to the Orange County Airport. Attached drawings indicate land use, grading and roads, storm drains, water and sewer, topography and traffic analysis. 2. Water within the Planned Community area will be furnished by the City of Newport Beach. 3. Sewerage Disposal facilities within the Planned Community area are by the City of Newport Beach. 4. Prior to or coincidental with the filing of any tentative map or use permit, the developer shall submit a master plan of drainage to the Director of Public Works. 5. The height of all buildings and structures shall comply with F.A.A. criteria. 6. Except as otherwise stated in this ordinance, the requirements of the zoning code, City of Newport Beach, shall apply. ' The contents of this supplemental text notwithstanding, no construction shall be proposed within the boundaries of this Planned Community District except that which shall comply with all provisions of the Building Code and the various mechanical and electrical codes ielated thereto. 7. Phasing of Development. 1,799,941 sq. ft. of development was existing or under construction as of October 1, 1978. The additional allowable development in the total approved develop- ment plan is 566,423 sq. ft. Any further development subsequent to October 1, 1978, in excess of 30% of the additional allowable development, being 169,927 sq. ft., shall be approved only after it can be demonstrated that adequate traffic facilities will be available to handle that traffic generated by the project at the time of occupancy of the buildings involved. Such demonstration may be made by the presentation of a phasing plan consistent with the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. (13) (Phasing Plan approved by City Council March 12,1979 for all development subject to this regulation.) STATISTICAL ANALYSIS PART II. COMMERCIAL/PROFESSIONAL & BUSINESS OFFICES A. Building Sites Site I & 2 .... 38.5 acres Site 3A........5.2 acres (5) Site 4......... 9.0 acres Site 5......... 7.4 acres Site 6 ........ 1.9 acres Site 7........ 2.5 acres......... ........................64.5 acres B. Building Area (Proposed) *Site 1 &2.... 733,411 square feet (5) (14) Site 3A ...... 115,530 square feet(5) Site 4........ 201,180 square feet Site 5 ....... 165,480 square feet Site 6 ........ 42,420 square feet Site 7......... 55,860square feet................1,400,000 square feet The following statistics are for information only. Development may include but shall not be limited to the following. C. Building Area Story heights shown are on average building height. The buildings within each parcel may vary within these ranges. Site 1 & 2 ....733,411' square feet(5) (14) ` a. Two Story ................. 8.42 acres b. Three Story .............:... 5.61 acres C. Four Story ................. 4.21 acres d. Five Story ................. 3.37 acres e. Six Story ..................2.81 acres Site 3A ....... 115,530 square feet(5) a. Two Story ..................1.33 acres b. Three Story .88 acres C. Four Story ................. .66 acres d. Five Story ................. .53 acres e. Six Story ...............•... .44 acres f. Seven Story ................ .37 acres g. Eight Story ..................33 acres *Commercial/Professional and Business Office Site 1 and 2 have been reduced by 86,119 feet with the reduction allocated to the allowed building area for Parcels 1 & 2 of Resubdivisi( 585.. The allowable building area for parcel 1 & 2 of resubdivision 585 is now 272,711 square feet. (14) -5- D. Site 4 ........201,180 square feet a. Two Story ................. 2.31 acres b. Three Story ................ 1.54 acres C. Four Story ................. 1.15 acres d. Five Story ................. .92 acres e. Six Story ................. .77 acres Site 5 ........165,480 square feet Two Story 1.90 acres a. b. ................. Three Story ................ 1.27 acres Story .95 acres C. Four d. Five Story ................ .76 acres Story .63 acres e. Six ................. Site 6 square feet .........42,420 a. Two Story ................. .49 acres b. Three Story ................ .32 acres C. Four Story ................. .24 acres d. Five Story ................. .19 acres Six Story .16 acres e. .................. Site 7......... 55,860 square feet a. Two Story .64 acres b. Three Story ................ .43 acres C. Four Story .32 acres d. Five Story ................. .26 acres e. Six Story .................. .21 acres Parking (Criteria: 1 spoce/225 sq. ft. C 363 sq. ft./space) Site 1 & 2 ... 3,260 cars ......... 27.17 acres(5) 141 Site 3A...... 514 cars ......... 4.28 acres(5) Site 4 ....... 894 cars ......... 7.45 acres Site 5 ....... 735 cars ......... 6.13 acres Site 6 ....... 188 cars ......... 1.57 acres Site 7 248 cars ......... 2.07 acres 5,839 cars.................................48..67 acres( U.fl E. • Landscaped - Open Space • Site 1 & 2 (5)14)Gross Site .......... 38.5 acres Parking ............ 27.17 acres Net ............... acres Two Story ................8.42 acres .............`Z" Three Story ...............5.61 acres ............. S;yZ Four Story ................4.21 acres ............. 7.1? Five Story ................ 3.37 acres ............. Six Story2.81 ................ acres ............. 8.52 ac r Site 3A(5) Gross Site ......... 5.2 acres Parking ........... 4.28 acres Net ..........:... .92 acres Two Story ................. Three Story ............... Four Story ................ Five Story ................ Six Story ................. Seven Story ............... Eight Story .... .,.0....... Site 4 Gross Site ......... Parking ............ Net ............... 1.33 acres ............ N A. .88 acres ............ .04 acres .66 acres ............ .26 acres .53 acres ............ .39 acres .44 acres ............ .48 acres .37 acres ............ .55 acres .33 acres ............. .59 acres 9.0 acres 7.45 acres 1.55 acres Two Story ............... 2.31 acres ............. N.A. Three Story .............. 1..54 acres ............. .01 acres Four Story ............... 1.15 acres.........:... .40 acres Five Story ............... .92 acres............. .63 acres Six Story .77 acres ............. .78 acres Site 5 Gross Site ......... 7.4 acres Parking ........... 6.13 acres Net .............. 1.27 acresacres Two Story ............... 1.90 acres .............. N.A. Three Story .............. 1.27 acres.............. .00 acres Four Story ............... .95 acres.............. .32 acres Five Story ............... .76 acres.............. .51 acres Six Story ............... .63 acres.............. .64 acres -7- FOO�ES (cont'd) Planned Community Text Amendment No. 9, dated April 11, 1977 (y) changes: incorporating the following 9 a. Expand the permitted uses for General Commercial . b, Re -designate General Commercial Site 1-A and 2-8 to General Commercial Sites 1, 2 and 3. half of Industrial c. Expand General Commercial Site 3 to include one Site 1A. d, Convert Industrial Site 2A to General Commercial Site4. e, Restrict the allowable building area and the permitted uses for General Commercial Sites 1, 21 3 and 4. (10) Planned Community Text Amendment No. 10, dated May 23, 1977 incorporating the following change: a, Delete the provision added1by fromuSect on II8, D, b City Council on June 10, opted by the (11) Planned Community Text Amendment No. 11, dated April 10, 1978 incorporating the following change: a, Establish guidelines for an exception to the minimum site area. (12) Planned Community Text Amendment No. 12, dated July 11, 1978 incorporating the following change: a. Revised the allowable building height for Parcel No. 1 of Resubdivision \a. 585. (PROPOSED) (13) Planned Community Text Amendment No. 13, dated November 27, 1978 incorporating the following changes: ed by the Planning a, Requirement that a Phasing Plan be approv Commission for seventy (70) percent of the undeveloped allowable building area existing as of October 1, 1978- (14) Planned community Text Amendment No. 14, dated incorporating the following changes: a. Reduce the allowable building area of Industrial Site 3A. b. Reduce the allowable building area of Commercial/Professional and Business Office Site 1 and 2. -37- 0 0 THE REGISTER - March 14, 1979 tea' FOR bFFI CE COMPLEX p Newport Beach O Ks Scaled -Down Plans NEWPORT BEACH — The city council approved two building projects Mon- day but only after the de- velopers agreed to scale down their building plans. Emkay Development and Realty Co., along with f three other firms, will de- velop an office complex in Newport Place. Separate approval also was granted for an office park, art museum, library, theater and restaurant at a plaza in central Newport. Robert Alborn, president of Emkay Development, V told the council -he has been trying to get the project off the ground for eight years and he was starting to lose his patience with the slow pace of negotiations. Alborn offered to reduce the portion of the property that he would develop by 24 percent. He said the cut would P mean 86,000 square feet wouldn't be developed at a cost to the company of $10.4 i million. Another developer work- I ing on the project, Robert Hill, also decided to cut the amount of land that he would develop from the al- lowable 84,000 square feet to 61,000. Even with -those comes- !lions, some. councilmen were not sure that they should accept the plan with- out assurances that the two other landowners also would reduce their land de- Velopment. . However, Mayor Paul Ryckoff was the only coun- cil member to vote against the project. Those in favor of the measure were Coun. cil members Donald A. McInnis, Donald A. Strauss, Jackie Heather, Ray E. Williams, Evelyn Hart and Paul Hummel. Ryckoff said he voted against the project because he felt future effects of traffic in the area should have been considered be- fore a decision was made. The cuts in the plaza pro. ject were made to the office park, reduced from 320,000 square feet to 234,706 square feet. A smaller li- brary was approved with a cut from 30,000 square feet to 14,000 square feet. The council will continue a hearing on April 23 on a request by Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Co. to build two seven -story office structures at 800 Newporl Center Drive. The company originalll wanted to build two 10-stor7 buildings, scaled dow, plans were presented Mon day, but no action was to ken pending studies. 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER March 13, 1979 DICK HOGAN, DIRECTOR TO: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: P.C. TEXT CHANGES Please institute Planned Community Modifications to the Emkay Development, reducing Emkay's allowed square feet by 86,119 square feet, Bear Brands Branch by 20,000 square feet, and Ketchum by 64,000 square feet. This request is consistent with the City Council action of March 12. ROBERT L. WY N RLW:1b RF oe 0 /ljq�,� E,r yen ti�Ao �o y9j9 3 Rr F q</peFgcy 4 k mm (cx4A4s a --Jew doWT I k �ace.,►o 6ti�,,ess --~ Boa -to '�^as�►�Gcd�1+a1�-C_,_ Cc�rec�en. I -j - 2' /gL _I/�jvtvW A ew 0 0 - . hYG Zr,vro scamsrW& ✓ , KAf J. Lcvc! a� xr'vru cGucsrc�'ar�o� MINUTES City of Newport Be ch February 8, 1979 ROLL CALL Motion Ayes Noes Ayes x x x x x x x x a) Reduce allowable development for Office Park by 85,294 sq. ft., and Civic Cultural by 16,000 sq. ft., consistent with General Plan Amendment \Requirethe preparation of a traffic phasing plan development in excess of 30% of the ad - allowable development. he site plan map to be consistent with the dried change in allowable development. Amended motion was mab@@ that the Planning Commission accept the Negative Declaratio`�and adopt Resolution No. 1032 re - commending to the City CO kt�Cil that Amendment No. 527 for istrict be approved as follows: a) Reduce allowable dent for Office Park by 85,294 square feeti is Cultural by 16,000 the Civic Plaza Planned Comfh\trqaffphasing square feet consisth neral Plan Amend- ment 78-2. b) Require the preparof a traff phasing planfor any developmenxcess of Oq the ad- ditional allowableopment.c) Revise the site plto be consistent w'th therecommended changelowable development.All The original motion was then on, which motion carried. Planning Commission recessed at 9:00 p.m. and reconvened at 9:10 P.M. INDEX `- Request for the approval of a Phasing Plan for remaining de- velopment in the Newport Place Planned Community. (Con- tinued Discussion). Location: Property bounded by MacArthur Boulevard, Bris tol Street North, and Birch Street, in New- port Place. Applicant: Emkay Development and Realty Company, Newport Beach -15- Item #5 PHASIC P N, _ ORT PLACE D S1� .Mi1UN IT APPROVED CONDI- TIONALLY W COMMISSIONERS 1\0\ lity of Newport Beach February 8, 1979 MINUTES `�: s ROIL CALL The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Kevin Hansen, representing the Emkay Development and Realty Company of Newport Beach approached the Planning Com- mission to relay statements of the history of this plan and to reiterate the contents of the Staff Reports relating to this plan. He also stated that he concurred with the find- ings and conditions as set forth in the Staff Report. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard on thi item, the public hearing was closed, Commissioner Beek expressed his concern that contrary to the intent of the Traffic Phasing Report, he did not feel that said report assures the City that the continuation of the development is not going to have an adverse effect on the City's circulation system. Motion x Motion was made that Planning Commission make the following Ayes x x x x x x findings: Noes x 1. That the Phasing Plan is consistent with the Circula- tion Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. v 2. That adequate traffic facilities will be available to handle that traffic generated by the project at the time of occupancy of the buildings involved. and approve the Phasing Plan for the remaining development 1 the Newport Place Planned Community, subject to the followir conditions: 1. Occupancy of the floor space considered for constructic in 1979 shall not occur until a third lane is develope( on MacArthur Boulevard in each direction at the Campus Drive intersection and the Corona del Mar Freeway con- nection is made to the west and the San Diego Freeway. 2. The occupancy of buildings shall not occur until the MacArthur/Ford improvements are completed. 3. The opening of the Von Karman overcrossing and the ad- dition of a northbound lane on Jamboree Boulevard by the City of Irvine shall be accomplished prior to oc- cupancy of any buildings. 4. Future development in the Emkay-Newport Place Planned Community shall occur in accordance with the phasing plan. -16- )n i INDIX COMMISSIONERS 9sm 9( ssmao�s,�s�va;( 0 • City of Newport Beach February 8, 1979 MINUTES ROLL CALL 5. Prior to the issuance of any building permits in the INDEX expansion space of 190,200 sq. ft. of building area, in any amount greater than 30% of the remaining space to be developed on each parcel, a separate traffic analysis shall be accomplished. 6. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the ap- plicant shall indicate in writing to the Department of Community Development that he understands and agrees to conditions 1, 2 and 3 above and that the improvement indicated above shall be as defined in the R. Crommelin & Associates report and as approved by the Public Works Department. Request to permit the installation of two permanent, com- Item #6 munity identification signs for the Newport Place Planned Community. USE PERMIT NO. 1899 Location: Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 63-27 (Resubdivision No. 458) and Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 57-12 APPROVED CONDI- (Resubdivision No. 386) located at 4099 and 4101 MacArthur Boulevard, on the northwester) TIONALLY and southwesterly corners of MacArthur Boule- vard and Newport Place Drive in Newport Place. Zone: P-C A licant: Emkay Development & Realty Company, Newport Beach Owner: Daon Corporation, Newport Beach James Hewicker, sistant Director -Planning, commented re- garding an amendme to the Staff Report stating that Public Works has withdrawn 1 opposition to the 5' setback from the right-of=way and he tated that it was the Staff's recom- mendation that Condition �2�� of the Staff Report be delete and that regarding ConditionNo. 1, the words "...except as noted in Condition No. 2." be ��f1 leted. Public hearing was opened in conned 'on with this item, and Kevin Hansen, representing the Emkay velopment and Realty Company of Newport Beach appeared before he Planning Com- mission to relate that he was in complianc with the find- ings and conditions as revised by Staff. _ There being no others desiring to appear and be he d on this item, the public hearing was closed. -17- 0 lity of Newport Beach February 8, 1979 INUTES r ROLL CALL Commissioner Beek then responded that he felt the signs under discussion would not be a benefit to the community, but unnecessary and confusing additional information. Motion x Motion was made that Planning Commission make the following Ayes x x x x x findings: Noes x \ 1. That the request is consistent with the standards and requirements of the Planned Community Text. 2. The approval of Use Permit No. 1899 will not, under th ircumstances of this case, be detrimental to the heat safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of peigons residing and working in the neighborhood or be improvements detrimental or injurious to property and in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City to the following and approve Permit No. 1899, subject conditions: 1. That the wal ,signs be in substantial conformance with d elevations. the approved p4\constr 2. That the signs be illuminated. Request to permit thtion of 2, two-story buildinc that may include a mixture of etail, office and light mane facturing uses on a site in thecreation and Marine Com- mercial area of the Mariners' MiTFFF@ Specific Plan Area, and the acceptance of an Environmental\Document. A modificatic from the required parking standards` s also requested, sin( a portion of the required offstreet parking spaces are for cogpact automobiles. Existing uses along the West Coast Highway frontage of the property and a portion of Larson's Shipyard facility are proposed to remain on the site in conjunction with the proposed development.', Location: A portion of Lot H. Tract No. 419, located i 2701-2703 West Coast Highway, on\the southe, side of West Coast Highway, betweeNRiversii Avenue and Tustin Avenue on Mariner Mile. Zone: Specific Plan Area No. 5 Applicant: Edward B. Robinson, Newport Beach r Owners: Elmer John Larson, Newport Beach; and Gwend lyn I. Snyder, Balboa Island -18- )n :e it ie INDEX Planning Commission Meeleig February 8, 1979 Agenda Item No. 5 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH �rvk February 2, 1979 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Additional Information: Request for the approval of a Phasing Plan for remaining development in the Newport Place Planned Community. (Discussion).. Attached for Planning Commi'ssion's review is additional information supplied by the applicant indicating corrections to the previous staff reports. DEPARTMENT OF COMMU ITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, DIRECTO R r By Fd Ma% I 'Q/l.Y�//%LG Fred 7ala o Environmental Coordinator FT/dt Attachment DEVELOPERS C AND BUILDERS,EMKAY DEVELOPMENT AND REALTY COMPANY"�A MORRISON•KNUDSEN COMPANY1201 DOVE STREET. SUITE 2001 P O. BOX 2390.pQ��NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 926631 USA.'4PHONE• (714) 833-8680�l�.QFebruary 2, 1979 To: City of Newport Beach From: Emkay Development and Realty Company Re; Traffic Phasing Plan The enclosed package represents pages which have been corrected for minor errors in the traffic analysis. The only significant result of these corrections is that one intersection, MacArthur/San Juaquin, was impacted by more than 5% and therefore, received ICU analysis which resulted in a value of less than .90 with project gener- ated traffic added. We apologize for these corrections. Sincerely, Kevin T. Hanson Project Coordinator KTH/m Attachments • C� January 5, 1979 -2- ' 4 3. An examination shall be made of the circulation system in the vicinity of the project to determine what improvements remain to be completed, with particular consideration being given to those improvements which will directly aid in moving traffic generated by the project. The area to be examined shall extend to those intersections where traffic generated from the project increases the traffic at the intersection during the peak two and one-half hour period by 5% or more. The city's traffic engineer has designated 16 intersections as critical and, there- fore, requiring 5% Traffic Volume Analysis. The intersections where project generated traffic will increase the volume by 57 or more during the peak two and one-half hour. period are identified in Table 3. Of the eight intersections so impacted, four have an ICU of .90 or greater and require further examination as to road improvements which need to be completed to directly aid the movement of project generated traffic. These four intersections are listed below: . Bristol (North)/Campus The improvement required is striping a southbound right turn lane in the 3.0 .feet available on the northerly leg of Bristol. This improvement has been completed. The ICU will be reduced from 1.0941 to 0.8684. . MacArthur/Campus The improvement required is the addition of a third northbound lane on MacArthur plus a right turn lane northbound on MacArthur to Campus. This project is scheduled by Caltrans for completion by early 1980. Funds have been allocated for the project. The ICU.will be reduced from 1.0762 to 0.8878.. . Jamboree/Campus The improvement required is the addition of a third northbound traffic lane from Fairchild to Campus. This project is scheduled by the City of Irvine for completion in'late 1979, Funds have been allocated for this project. This improvement plus the completion in early 1979 of the Von Karman overpass will reduce the ICU from 1.1627 to 0.9000 or less. MacArtlnn /Ford The road improvements required for this intersection are detailed on Page 15 of the attached traffic study. The project is scheduled for completion in early 1980. Funds have been allocated for this joint • City -State improvement project. The ICU will be reduced from 1.0265 to 0.8194. Three other maior improvements are nearing completion which will have significant positive impar+- on traffic cjrc= =tion near Newport Place. Connec—t-on of Bristol tiorth and South to the Corona Del Mar Freeway. This . should. reduce Northba=� traffic on MacArthur and Jamboree as it provides access to the San ego Freeway. This is scheduled for early 1979. Table 3 PERCENT PROJECT TRAFFIC CONTRIBUTION TO CRITICAL INTERSECTIONS Newport Placa Trattde Study 2.5-HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME PROJECT 2.S-/loud TEAFFIC 1978 (s) Percent INTERSECTION DIREC- Spring Added (1978 ICU TION 1978 Pro eee Toesl Volu*e of Tocel MacArthur/Ce�pUS NB SB 2888 312P 328 167 3.216 3,29b 685 ! 222 21.3 6.1 m/s e/v (0.93) EB 1693 + 1,693 * + UB 2004 13 2.017 ( 19 0.9 Jacboree/r-evus NB • 3.452 a/c c/v SB 67 3,484 8B 2.5 (1.37) EB A 22D 2,162'I 252 31.7 UB * 1 637 Jarboree/ NB 1681 38 1,719 71 4.1 MacArthur SB 2814 147 2.96I 247 E.3 e/v a/a EB 2923 9 2.932 t 17 0.6 0.85 UB 3D37 19 3.056 Bristol(N)/Canons N8 53 1504 3705 6 38 3.510 3,743 ` 208 1 5.6 e/w n/a (1.00) UB 479D 420 5.210 694 13.3 Snscol (tt)/Birch hB $B• 552 2120 165 73 717 2.193 I 316 500 44.4 22.8 7.6 (0.59) v0 3053 406 3.459 262 Brlatol(N)/Jaeboree NB SB 1 5153 I 2811 83 86 5.236 2.897 22 50 0.4 1.7 e/v a/s (0.72) UB 1162 29 1.191 19 I.6 Bristol/C.... NB 1606 15 1,621 22 1.4 e/w n/a SB 3164 32 3,196 63 2.0 (0.72 EB 3021 223 3 250 296 9.1 Bristol/Birch KB 223 • 223 t/w n/s SB 943 59 3.002 6B 6.8 0.36) EB 2656 232 2 883 318 11.0 Briscoi/Javboree NB SB 4996 I 2359 16 20 5.012 2.379 22 30 '0.4 2.1 •e/w n/s 0.54) EB 2778 126 ;-got. 66 2.3 Irviuelu.lversicr NB 5B 1985 3864 15 32 2,00D 3.896 I 22 63 1.1 1.6 n/s e/v (0.86) EB 672 * 672 HB 80 * BO Jaabocee/Ford NB 4574 11 4.585 15 0.3 n/s a/ve/v 5B 2937 32 2.969 4 b4 2.2 (0.83) EB 981 * 981 * * UB 753 6 759 I( 7 0.9 MacArthur/Ford bB 3657 50 3,707 68 1.8 n/s e/v SB 4032 217 4. 149 I 231 5.6 (1.01) EB 3584 * 1,5&. UB 1007 11 2.018 I IS 1.5 H.eArthur/San HB 1454 39 1,523 53 3.5 Joaquin H111a SE 3065 96 3,161 189 6.0 a/s e/v EB 3140 + 3.14D 0.72) WE 1451 11 1 462 15 1 1.0 J..bnree/San m 2581 11 2.592 "15 0.6 Joaquin M111n SB 4134 22 4.156 '43 1.0 a/. e/v EB 385 * 385 (0.64) UB 2533 * 2.533 :;.bor.e/Come F 2"D SB 3035 2959 3 22 1,018E 2.981 4 43 0.4 1.4 a/a e/v (0.83) 7B 4264 3 4,267 4 0.1 US 3185 .5 3.190 7 0.2 MaGrthur/Coact EvTI 53 L9 2258 3204 75 11 2.333 3.215 II 147E u 6.3 0.5 1 n/a e/v (p.77) '{ :3 3432 28 3 460 t 38 1.1 (a) At 19BI prcjee t:si+leCioa, excluding expemlvo of 190.262 squi-_ .ee_ Prrj = e.--'j--•-'on exceed. five percent. t E development contemplated by the project. Discussions with City Staff indicated that this analysis should use total entering traffic volumes on each of the legs of each critical intersection. For Newport Place, besides the spring 1978 traffic, there would be additional traffic for development completed since spring 1978 as well as that currently under construction. The test as to whether the intersection should be studied under an ICU analysis involved whether the project traffic for a 2.5 hour period for the proposed development would increase the total traffic volume on any approach by over five percent. Traffic associated with development completed since May 1978 or currently under construction also was added. As noted in Tables 6 and 7, this amounted to 5,900 vpd and 1,620 vehicles during a 2.5-hour peak period. . Table 8 summarizes our calculations for 16 intersections which have been designated critical by the City of Newport Beach in the Newport Place environs. It was found that .ten of these intersections would have project traffic which would ge greater than five percent on one or more approaches when the project is completed. It should be noted that the quantity of project development did not include the 190,200 square feet of expansion area. The critical intersections determined as needing ICU analysis included: MacArthur/Campus, Jamboree/Campus, Jamboree/MacArthur, Bristol(N)/Campus, Bristol(N)/Birch, Bristol/Campus, Bristol/Birch, MacArthur/Ford, MacArthur/San Juaquin Hills, and MacArthur/Coast Highway. Of these, the greatest impact occurred on the intersections along Bristol Street south of the project. Critical Intersection ICU The technique of ICU analysis was developed by Robert W. Crommelin and has been accepted, not only by the City of Newport Beach, but by other poLtical jurisdictions as a method to compare traffic volumes, capacities, and levels c= service. An appendix describes the technique as normally, applied, although the City of Newport Beach requires cal- culation of ICU to fo= decimal places and use of a yellow allowance -11- Teble 8 PERCENT PROJECT TRAPPIC CONTR18UI103 TO CRITICAL INTERSECTIONS Newport Placa Traffic Study 2.5-HOUR TRAFFIC VOLU!(E PROJECT 7 UR 2.5-HOTRAFFIC INTERSECTION DIRE. Spring Adde978d (0) Pereeac (1978 ICU TION 1978 Pro ert Tgta1 Volume of Tgtal MacArthur/Cemoua NB SB 2811 3129 328 167 3,216. 3,29b 685 I 222 23.3 6.7 e/s e/r (0.93) EB 1693 + 1,693 - YB 2004 13 2 017 i 19 0.9 Jsxbncee/Campus ND 3452 + 3,452 + + Ole e/u SB 3417 67 3,484 88 2.5 (1.17) ED 2042 120 2.262 ( 252 1 11.7 HB 1637 + 1.637 + Jamboree/ HB 1681 38 1,719 1 71 4.1 MacArthur SB 2814 147 2.961 247 8.3 ON MIS ED 2923 9 2.932 1 17 0.6 0.85 UB 3037 19 3.056 1 • + Bristol(N)/Campus NB SD 1504 3705 6 38 1,510 3,743 + 208 > e/u n/s 5-1,3.00) NB 4790 420 5 210 I 694 13.3 Brdstol(N)/eireh HB SB 552 2120 165 73 717 2,393 318 SOD 44.4 22.8 e)u n/s 7.6 (0.59 AB 3053 406 3.459 262 Brlsrol(N)/Jamboree HB SB 5153 2811 83 86 5.236 2,897 I 22 50 0.4 3.7 e/u m/s (0.72) HB 1162 29 1.191 19 1 1.6 Brlsrol/Cemous IiB 1606 15 1.621 22 1.4 e/u n/s SB 3164 32 3.196 63 2.0 (0.72) ED 3027 223 3.250 296 1 9.1 Bristol/Birch NB 223 + 223 e/u n/s SB 943 59 1,002 68 6.0 0. 36) EB 2656 232 2.888 318 11.0 Bristol/Jamboree NB 55 4996 2359 16 20 5,012 2.379 22 50 0.4 2.1 e/. "Is 0.54) ED 2778 126 2 904 68 2.3 Irvine/Univerairy NB SB 1985 3864 15 32 2,000 3,896 I 22 63 1.1 1.6 n/s e/u (0.86) ED 672 > 672 • > VB 80 • 80 + > Jamboree/Ford NB 4574 11 4.585 35 0.3 n/s e/u SB 2937 32 2,969 I 64 2.2 (0.83) ED 981 • 981 HD 753 6 759 7 0.9 MacArthur/Ford hB 3657 50 3,707 68 1.8 a/s e/u SB 4032 117 4,149 I 231 1 5.6 (1.01) EB 1584 * 1.584 1.B 1007 11 1.018 IS 1.5 MacArthur/San hB 1484 39 1.523 53 3.5 Joaquin Hills SD 3065 96 3,161 189 I 6.0 MIS 'e/u ED 3140 + 3,140 0.72Y HB 1451 1 11 1.462 15 1.0 Jaubcxee/Sa NB 2181 11 2.592 15 0.6 Joaquin Hills SD 4134 22 4,156 43 1.0 m/s e/v ED 385 • 385 * I > 0.64) HB 2533 + 2.533 Jmboree/Coact Ev,T NB SB 1015 2959 "3, 22 1,018 2,981 4 43 0.4 1.4 n/s e/n (0.83) ED 4264 3 4,267 4 0.1' .NB 3285 5 3.190 7 0.2 ,MacArthur/Coast HvF SD EA 2258 3204 75 11 2,333 3,215 147 15 6.3 0.5 a/s e/v (0.77 TB 3432 28 3 460 38 3.1 (s) At 1981 yr sec evpletiw, exeludlug expamlen of 190,262 square feet + Ha_ai vO r- Oprc3c exceeds floe percent. -12- • of 0.1000 rather than the adjusted value as shown in the original technical paper on ICU. ICU's were calculated for ten intersections where project traffic during the 2.5-hour peak period exceeded five percent of the prior entering volume. The calculation sheets are attached as an appendix to this report. Table 9 summarizes the ICU characteristics for each of the ten; intersections. Values for both the existing condition and the existing plus project are shown in the table. In order to determine the need for phasing the project as well as the effect of planned area roadway improvements, further examination was assumed necessary when the ICU exceeded 0.9000. It was found that this condition would exist at four intersections: Bristol(N)/Campus, Jamboree/Campus, MacArthur/Campus, and MacArthur/Ford. These intersections will receive principal examination to determine what roadway improvements remain to be completed, particularly those which will directly aid in moving traffic generated by the proposed project. Table 9 SUMMARY OF CRITICAL INTERSECTION ICU CHARACTERISTICS Newport Place Traffic Study INTERSECTION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION FURTHER STUDY NEEDED? Existing Condition Existing Plus Project Yes No Bristol(N)/Campus 1.0016 1.0941 x Bristol/Campus-Irvine 0.7276 0.7526 x Bristol(N)/Birch 0.5911 .0.6977 x . Bristol/Birch 0.3582 0.385.1 x Jamboree/Campus 1.•1343 1.1627 x Jamboree/MacArthur 0.8604 0.8673 x• MacArthur/Campus 0.9259 1.0762 x MacAr:Siur/Ford 1.0121 1.0265 ?t MacArt==[San Joagcln' 0.7196 0.7327 x MacArtu_•r/Coast Hwy 0.7719 j 0.7897 x -13- A fou=tb improvement scheduled for early 1980 is the realignment of Ford Road at MacArthur Boulevard in conjunction with roadway improvements to Maarthur itself. The- cooperative City -State project will provide two left -turn lanes, two through lanes, and one right -turn lane for each approach on MacArthur Boulevard. The westerly leg will have two left - turn lanes and two lanes for through and right -turn movements. The easterly leg will have one left -turn lane and two lanes for through and right -turn movements. These roadway improvements will significantly increase roadway capacity and reduce congestion at this intersection_ The City of Irvine bas.included a project in its 1978-1979 budget . which will improve traffic. operations at the Jamboree/Campus intersection_ It involves widening the east side of Jamboree Boulevard south 'of Campus Drive to provide one additional northbound lane. Construction will be completed in Fall 1979 according to the Irvine Public Works Department. The roadway improvements mentioned above currently are planned by the various'jurisdictions. All are imminent for implementation. Each will have an impact upon the four critical intersections noted in the previous section. Revised ICU analysis sheets are included in the appendix for all four of the intersections. The painting of a southbound right -turn lane in the 30 feet available on the northerly leg of Bristol Street serving southbound traffic will significantly change the ICU at that intersection. This minor painting and signing already was accomplished last week by the City of Newport Beach. The ICU will be reduced from 1:OAV to 0.8684`. These numbers represent the existing plus project traffic. condition. There will be adequate capacity remaining to serve traffic diverted from MacArthur Boulevard to the new freeway connection. The imp=cvements noted = the MacArthur/Campus intersection will reduce tie ICU from 1-07d= to 0.88782 not taking into consideration any dive`sion of t21 from that roadway to the new Corona Del Mar Freeway connection.. The principal change occurs by providing more capacity -15- INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Int�section Bristol Street North7Cam us 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 1 1600 81 norn. NT 2 1 3200 587 n o n . 7 / 34 1 / 3* NR - - . SL - _ _ ST 2 3200 1241 2? / 68 .5$6 CZ19 SR 637 1 gS 72 Z EL - - - - - - ET - _ ER - - - WL 1 1600 321 7 328 .2006 .2050 WT 4 6400 1660 368 20 2 8 .2 64 , 32 /6 WR 0 1 30 »o„v. 30 Yellow Time ,J000 ,/pp Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. /• o 0/ 6 Existing Plus Project Intersection Ca acit Utilization (I.C.U. ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk N N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left , c 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. Exis44lrg Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ®Existi.� Plus Pro � Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U_ at is cu::_ly greater than 0.90 © Further analysis required, to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION Bristol Street North/Campus Drive INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS P_ InAction MacArthur Boulevard/Joaquin Hills Road (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 63 ✓lo,.,, 63 .039 . o3q4 NT 2 3200 361 1 31 .153 .1584 NR 129 nO.. 1 Z.9 SL 2 3200 412 •22. 43 128Sf .l3S6 ST 2 3200 746 80 26 , 7_331 SR N.S. - 250 ,a o.-•. 2 So -- ^' EL Z 3200 772 y,d,r,. 772 , 24l2 ET 3 4800 648 r, o... 61� 8 j:z . / 5 • / 51 ER 80 WL 1 1600 70, » o,-• • 70 WT 3 285 Y,b,,,,, 2 5 O .0975 WR [4800 178 �83 �./OOp ,l000 Yellow Time Existing Intersection Capacii Utilization I.C.U. ?/ �6 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization (I..C.U. •`l32 ICU is sum critical• movements, -denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left " 0 t. ' v. o.,. s. CLl Existing P1us,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 M1 Existing Plus Project Traffic 'I.-C.U. will be greater than existing I.C_U_ that is curre Lly greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION MacArthur Boulevard/San Joaquin Hills Road II INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Interseion Coast Highway/MacArthur 4 evard (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 197 � Move- Lanes -Ca Existing Project Existing Plus Project Exist. V/C Project V/C ment city Peak Hr Volume Peak Hr Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio NL - NT - - NR SL - 2 - 3200 - 828 577 S 65" . 25$g , 2766 ST - - - SR 1 1600 197 23 220 ./23) /375' EL 1- _ 1600 223. 5" 27.8 ET 2 3200 1322 /322 ER WL WT 2 3200 839 2622 , 26ZZ WR N.S. - 360 /2 372 /COOS ,/000 Yellow Time 7�19 nw0Existin Existing Intersection Ca acit Utilization I.C.U. T(I. Plus Project Intersection Ca acit UtilizatioC.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 I—1 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 Existing Plus Project T��ffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is current v greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION Coast Highway/MacArthur Boulevard (FORM II rVISED _ WITH ROADWAY 1_*SPROVErENT I. Inter Lion Bristol Street Nort mpus Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter 5pring W B) Move- Lanes Lapa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C Y/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio HL 1 1600 81 g 1 , 050 � . OSo r. NT 2 3200 587 587 .1834 3 NR SL ST 2 3200 - 1241 r 27 I 1263. .39 62 ` SR 1 1600 637 5 72 2 , 3 81 _4512 EL - ET ER - - " W,LTE- 6600 P 321 3 2 , 2006 , ZoSo WT6400 1660 I 368 2028 . 2641'N .3216 ` WR 30 NOM. 3 0 Yellow Time Existing Intersection Caoacjty Utilization (I_C_U.) . S oZ5 Existing Plus Project Intersection Candcity Utilization (I.C.U. ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (3E) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left N oM = 1 N . t- ® f Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U_ will be lessthanor equal to 0.90 EJExisting Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. Existin, Plus Project -:_ ,"ic I_C_U_ will be greater than 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C_I1. will be greater than existing I:C_U_ that is currently greater than 0_90 (r !Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures - L. REVISION: Paint separate southbound right turn lane on Campus Drive, north of Bristol Street (North)_ • City Council Meetj January 22, 1979 I_ Agenda Agenda ,Item No. SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH January 22, 1979 TO: City Council FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Impact of Signal Development Corporation's project on the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard/Campus Drive. Background In the staff report prepared for the City Council meeting.of October 24, '1978, the staff reported to you (Page 3) that the existing ICU at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard/Campus Drive was .9335 and that the ICU with the addition of the project traffic would remain the same at .9335. Subsequent to the preparation of that report, which is dated October 18, 1978, it was brought to the attention of the staff that an error had been made in calculating the existing ICU for that inter- section. The staff does not recall whether the error was verbally reported to the City Council or not. Therefore the purpose of this supplemental report is to communicate to you that an error did occur and the magnitude of that error. On October 24, 1978 we should have reported to you that the existing ICU at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard/Campus Drive was .9259 and that the project traffic when added to the intersection would increase the ICU to .9335. This is an increase of .0076 and is . created by adding four cars to the south through leg, nine cars to the east left leg and two cars to the west through leg. Based on. this information, the Council could make a finding that the "Exist- ing Plus Project Traffic ICU will be greater than Existing ICU that is currently greater than .90" and required further analysis to deter— mine applicable system improvements. A corrected copy of the ICU analysis sheet is attached and is designated as Attachment I. It can also be noted by exmaining the same staff report that the existing ICU at this intersection has been reported at various times to be .95, .94 and .93. The .95 figure was derived from a report prepared for the City of Newport Beach by Weston Pringle and Asso- ciates dated April 6,•1978, using data obtained from manual counts performed by the City of Irvine on April 4, 1978, and includes 379,000 sq.ft. of ofFice space proposed for B1.ock C in Koll Center a � T0: City0uncil - 2. Newport. The .94 figure was developed by JHK and Associates and is reflected in their report to the City dated September 5, 1978. The .93 figure was also developed by JHK and Associates and is re- flected in their second report to the City dated October 3, 1978. It is this latter figure, when calculated to four decimal places, that produces the .9259 ICU. (Note: The figures developed by JHK are based upon existing'traffic and do not reflect proposed develop- ment in Office Site "C" of Koll Center- Newport) Planned Improvements The ultimate geometrics for the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard/ Campus Drive will include three lanes in each direction, left -turn lanes (double left -turn lane capability), plus right -turn lanes. These improvements are illustrated on the sheet designated as Attachment II and were included by the City Council with the approval of Amendment No. 505 on July 11, 1978 (Office Site "C" - Koll Center Newport). These improvements were also included in the approval of Resubdivision No. 579 and The Irvine Company has executed the agree- ments and posted the bonds as required by'the City Council on July 24,, 1978. The same improvements were also required with the approval of Resubdivision No. 603 for Campeau Corporation on September 7, 1978. However, it is the understanding of the staff that the Campeau Cor- poration is no longer pursuing the acquisition of Office Site "C" in Koll Center Newport and that the responsibility for improving the intersection would revert to The Irvine Company, which according to the terms of the bonds would have to be completed no later than July 27, 1980. In addition to bonds and agreements noted above, the City Council should also be aware that CALTRANS has scheduled FAU traffic systems improvements on MacArthur Boulevard from Bonita Canyon Road to I 405 in July, 1979. These improvements will include the installation of a -coordinated traffic signal'system and widening of the southeast corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Campus Drive to its ultimate configuration as shown on Attach.III. If CALTRANS meets the July 1979-bid advertise- ment date, the project should be constructed by spring of 1980. ICU With Planned Improvements In the report of Weston Pringle and Associates, dated April 6, 1978, for Amendment No. 505, it was indicated that the Existing ICU would be reduced from .93 to.82 (Attachment IV) with the proposed inter- section geometrics and with 346,000 sq.ft. of office space in Office Site "C", the ICU would be reduced from .95 to .83 (Attachment V). Suggested Action If desired, the City Council may"wish to withhold the issuance of Signal Development Corporation's building pernits until the planned TO: CitlCouncil - 3. 6 improvements at this intersection are in place and have been tested, or you may wish to tie the occupancy of the buildings to the con- struction or completion stage of the improvements. Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, Director by Q,y,, [� i-9 oMES D. HEWICKER A sistant Director - Planning JDH/kk Attachments for City Council Only: 1) Corrected copy of ICU analysis 2) Existing and Proposed Intersection Geometrics (Weston Pringle and Associates - April 6, 1978) 3) Project as proposed by CALTRANS 4) Existing ICU with proposed geometrics, 5) Existing ICU with proposed geometrics plus 346,200 sq.ft.- of office space in Office Site "C" - Koll Center Newport 6) Staff report dated October 18, 1978 -_ PROJECT MITIGATION MEASURES IJ§RSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 11NALYSIS Intersection MacArthur Blvd.Cam us Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Pt ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V%C ** vninma vnlume Peak Hr Volume Ratio I 111 NL 1 1600 111 NT 2 3200 1044 9 1053 MR - •73 - 73 SL. 1 1600 56 - 56 ST 3 3200 ' 1026 4 1030 SR 1 1600 .201 3 204 EL 1 1600 285 9 294426 ET 2 3200 421 5 ER - 53 - 53 100 WL 1• 1600 100 - WT 2. 3200 825 2 827 WR 1 �- 54 54 Yellow -Time Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.0 . 0071H . 0; 33 :04 �2ola .13 C* * io 33 .15' 06 .26 Existi . ng Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) L- " ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*)- N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, II With Mitigation Measures Project Mitigation Measure Analysis Brief Description: Calculated existing and project V/C Ratio with existing westbound non-stop right turn. 1—j Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. with mitigation mean {—J sure(s) will be less than or equal to 0.90. Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. with mitigation mea- sure(s) will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. INTERSECTION rthur Blvd./ us Figure 3 ING AND Fur1RE IA'rERSECTION GEO STRICS EXIST Mlchrthur Do levard and Campus 3 .c 4 I 1 Existing To Be Added — - It lt:�s burn a plcasur.- to prepare this traffic analysis for you. If there are nce, please do not hesitate any questions, or if We can be of further assista to call us. Itr,prt•t(utiy submitted, t1i:;l'ON 11It1Nt:1.E. ANU A55lX:TA'l'Ii5 lJrston S. 1'rin1;1.•, 1'.N. 14SP:1.:h:u} # 8210 \ r- q �¢strJpi�y by Ca/trc7rlS It UTAPfA UunNt hH11111 n1H rman CUNI'llIANra k'mmei and Associates. Inc. mov. ' 17S • �P¢sfrip/ray by Ca/frar�s by -Calla ans (Proj¢cfad Comp/efio,7 $print' /9S0 } 1�1(plol U LT I M A'r6 (5-pring 1960) MAC A421'NUf2 CAMPU5 B Movement Northbound Thro Northbound Righ Northbound Left Southbound Thro Southbound Righ Southbound Left Eastbound Thrc Eastbound Rigl Eastbound .Left Westbound Thr< Westbound Rigi Westbound Lefi * city Utilization lap - Critical Movement Included in Total to Determine Intersection Cape INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION' MACARTNUR BOULEVARD AND CAMPUS DRIVE Existing Traffic Volumes Plus Traffic Generated by 346,200 Square Feet of Building Movement Volume Capacity Volume/Capacity Existing Geometries Proposed Geometries Existing Geometries Proposed Geometries Lanes Vehicles Lanes Vehicles AN PM per hour per hour AM PM AM PM Northbound Northbound Northbound Through Right Left 1240 70 60 1110 80 90 2 1 1 3200 1600 1600 3 1 2 4800 1600 3200 39 10 10* 35 10 10* 26 10 10* 23 10 10* Southbound Southbound Southbound Through Right Left 1700 320 340 1150 170 120 2 1 1 3200 1600 1600 3 1 2 4800- 1600 3200 53* 20 21 36* 11 10 35* 20 11 24* 11 10 Eastbound gastbound Eastbound Through Right Left 590 30� 380 440 70� 260 2 0 1 3200 1600' 2 1 1 3200 1600 1600 19 10 24* 16 10 16* 18 10 24* 13 10 16* Westbound Westbound Westbound Through Right Left 350 70 " - 90 740 200 100 2 1 1 3200 i600 1600 2 11 1 3200 1600 1600 1 ll* .10 10 23* 13 10 1 ll* 10 10 23* 13 10 0 w U Intersection Capacity Utilization 98 85 60 73 _E • 10 +-10 Y�«cscv 7i,rtE * : Critical Movement•Inelcided in Total to Determine Intersection Capacity Utilization J S f u • City Council Meeting Agendatem No. October 24, 1978 u CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH October 18, 1978 TO: City Council FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Public Hearing and City Council Review of Planning Commission's Action of September approving a traffic study for two garden general office buildings. LOCATION: Lots 18, 19, 43, and 44, Tract 4060 and 4100 Campus Drive and Street, southeasterly of Campus westerly of Dove Street, across County Airport. ZONE: APPLICANT: OWNER: Application M-1-A 21, 1978, type No. 3201, located at 4063 and 4101 Birch Drive and south - from the Orange Signal Development Corporation, Irvine The Irvine Company, Newport Beach This application requests the approval of a traffic study prepared in accordance with the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance and requests, that the City make its findings, as required by -the Ordinance, in order to -allow the issuance of building permits. Section 15.40.636 (iii)E of the Municipal Code provides for an 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. Suggested Action, Hold hearing; close hearing; if desired, sustain, modify or overrule the decision of the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Recommendation At its meeting of September 21, 1978, the Planning Commission voted A 4 Ayes, 2 Noes, 1 Absent) to make the finding that: "The proposed project, including traffic mitigation measures, will neither cause nor make worse an -unsatisfactory level of traffic service on any 'major', 'primary -modified' or 'primary' street;" lorl^rCf;7/l7�iUi" __U__ ` TO: Ci ty unci 1 - 2. • and accept the Traffic Report, subject to the condition that: ".The occupancy of the buildings will not occur until improvements have been implemented." Background An initial traffic study, dated September 5, 1978, and attached to the Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 15, 1978, was -prepared by JHK and Associates and completed in conformance with -the administrative guidelines adopted by the City Council. The conclu- sions of the study are summarized on Page 4 of that report, and the standard work sheets used to arrive at•those conclusions are contained in Appendix A of the report. Seven critical intersections were identified by the City,'s Traffic Engineer for analysis. Of.the seven, only two were affected by additional traffic from the proposed project. These intersections were identified as Bristol Street (North)/Campus Drive where the ICU was increased by .01 from 1.00, and.MacArthur Boulevard/Campus Drive where the ICU was increased'by .01 from .94. The difference of .01 in each case was created by the addition of sixteen cars to the West - Through movement at the intersection of Bristol Street Uorth/Campus, and the addition of two cars to the West -Through movement at -the.. - MacArthur Boulevard/Camp.us intersection. A supplemental report to the Planning Commission, dated September 20, 1978, further analyzed the affect the project traffic would have on these two intersections. In the case of Bristol Street (North)/ Campus Drive, the critical movement calculation which changes the ICU is the westbound through -right movement which changes from .2641 to .2670, a difference of .0029 which rounded causes the.ICU to go from .26 to .27. *In the case of MacArthur/Campus, the critical move- ment calculation which changes the ICU was also the westbound through right movement which changed from .2747 to .2753, a difference of-..•- .0006which rounded causes. the ICU to go from .27 to .28. It was further noted in the supplemental staff report that the existing ICU at MacArthur/Campus would be reduced from .94 to .73 at the P.M. peak hour with the improvements required by the City pursuant to the approval of Amendment No. 505. Because of the marginal effect caused by this project and the fact that road improvements were planned which would mitigate this effect, i.e., the required improvements at MacArthur/Campus and proposed restriping at Bristol(North)/Campus, the Commission felt the accep- tance of the study, with occupancy of the structures tied to instal- lation of the improvements, was a logical, reasonable and prudent course of action to follow. Subsequent Traffic Report Subsequent to the Planning Commission action of September 21, T978, a second traffic study was performed by JHK. and'Associates to determine . , TO: City Council - 3. what mitigation measures would be required to reduce the impact of the project so that the ICU with the project•wauld be equal to or below the existing ICU level. The conclusions of the consultant are found on Page 5 of the report dated October 3, 1978. In summary,'the report finds that the existing ICU at the intersection of Bristol(North)/Campus can be reduced from 1.00 to .81 (.8064 rounded to four figures), by providing an exclusive right -turn lane for southbound to westbound on Campus. Sufficient pavement width exists to provide .this lane. In fact, vehicles are presently using the excess pavement for this purpose. This additional width is under the jurisdiction of the County and would require an encroach- ment permit from the County to accomplish the work. With respect to the MacArthur/Campus Drive intersection, it was found that the Campus Drive .westbound non-stop right -turn lane to Mac- Arthur northbound had not been included in the ICU Analysis Forms initially provided by the City. When this intersection was re- analyzed, the existing ICU was reduced from .94 to .93 (.9335 rounded to four figures). With the addition of the project traffic the ICU remains the same at .93 (.9335 rounded to four figures). Conclusion Based on the study performed subsequent to the Planning Commission meeting of September 21, 1978, the City Council can concur in the finding of the Planning Commission. Except in this case, the sole mitigation required would be the additional exclusive right -turn lane from southbound Campus to westbound Bristol (North). In order to assure that the mitigation can be carried out, the staff would recommend that the applicant be required to obtain the required encroachment permit to stripe the intersection prior to the issuance of building permits by the City for the project. Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGANDirector By 'mil ,D• 4 B (JAtIES D. HEWI KER ss•stant Director - Planning JDH/kk Attachments for Council Only: 1) Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 15, 1978 with attachments 2) Supplemental Report dated September 20, 1978 3) Excerpt of Minutes from Planning Commission Meeting of September 21, 1978 4) Traffic Report dated October 3, 1978 5) ICU Calculations with Figures Rounded to Four Decimal Places eoeec-cTezZ coel OP OOIUVWT� f-�>AX�G- W '(:Las �oud�;nou �o•(�, r �r� COMMISSIONERS 7 o` ATTO MENT 3 City of Newport Beach FT DRA January 18, 1979 MINUTES -- ROLL uxi; — INDEX Init ai a The City of Newport Beach Owner: The Irvine Comp ort Beach Item #16 Motion Ayes Noes Absent x x x x x x Request for the approval of a Phasing Plan for remaining development in the Newport Place Planned Community. (Discussion) Location: Property bounded by MacArthur Boule- vard, Bristol Street North, and Birch PHASING PLAN/ NEPPORT PLACE PLANNED COMMUNITY CONTINUED Street, in Newport Place. • Applicant: Emkay Development and Realty Company, Newport Beach. TO FEB. 8 1979 IF ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: Motion All Ayes Absent x x 1. Motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 1031 setti a public hearing for February 22, 1979, to consi re- classification of the Caltrans parcels in Newport. RESOLUTE NO. 1� Motion All Ayes Absent x 2. Motion was made to adjourn to a spe study session at 7:30 p.m. on January 25, 197 to discuss the Circu_ 1ation Element of the Gene lan. Motion Ayes x x x x x x 3. Commissioner Cokas ed to be excused from the Special Study Session o anuary 25, 1979. Noes Absent x x Ther eing no further business, the Planning Commiddion ad- rned at 11:40 p.m. GEORG COKAS, Secretary City o Newport Beach Planning Commission GC/gg -34- i 01 • Planning Commission Meet* February 8, 1979 January 29, 1979 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: APPLICANT: Background Agenda Item No. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Department of Community Development rema a Khasi N�ew�or ssionl. DO Nor u-mon Property bounded by MacArthur Boulevard, Bristol Street North, and Birch Street, in Newport Place. Emkay Development and Realty Company, Newport Beach At the January 18, 1979 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission continued the request for approval of a phasing plan for the remaining development in the Newport Place Planned Community to the meeting of February 8, 1979. Attached for your review is a copy of the staff report from the meeting of January 18, 1979. The following indicates corrections to that report: Page no. 1 Paragraph 2 "Background": Reads "February 22, 1979" - should be "February 12, 1979" Page no. 2 Footnote no. 1: Reads "1,799 sq.ft." - should be 111,799,941 sq.ft." Page no. 3 Paragraph 4 "Staff Analysis": Reads "February 22, 1979 - should be "February 12, 1979" Page no. 3 Chart: Reads "Existing ICU" - should be "Existing ICU plus Project" Reads "MacArthur/Ford 1.0265 Early 1980 0.8056" should be MacArthur/Ford 1.0265 Early 1980 0.8194" Page no. 2 Attachment 2 "MacArthur/Ford" Reads "0.8056" - should be "0.8194" Additional Information: Subsequent to the Planning Commission meeting, staff met with the applicant and based on that discussion the following additional condition is suggested for Planning Commission consideration: - 1 - T0: Plaoing Commission - 2. B. Prior to the issuance of any building permits the applicant shall indicate in writing to the Department of Community Development that he understands and agrees to conditions 1, 2, and 3 above and that the improvements indicated above shall be as defined in the R. Crommelin & Associates report and as approved by the public Works Department. Bristol St. North/Campus Additionally, at the January 19, 1979 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission approved the Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Company's proposal with the condition that certnan improvements be made to the intersection of Bristol St. North/Campus Drive. The improvements were an additional southbound option right turn/through lane and restriping to create a optional/westbound/ left turn lane. The Traffic Study prepared for the applicant by Robert Crommelin & Associates discusses this intersection on page 2 of Attachment no. to the staff report. Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, DIRECTOR By Fre Talarico Environmental Coordinator FT/dt Attachment: January 18, 1979 Planning Commission report with attachments. • Planning Commission Meeting January 18, 1979 Agenda Item No. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH January 10, 1979 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Request for the approval of a Pha remaining development % the Newp LOCATION: Property bounded by MacArthur Boulevard, Bristol Street North, and Birch Street, in Newport Place. APPLICANT: Emkay Development and Realty Company, Newport Beach Background The Emkay Development and Realty Company has requested the Planning Commissions consideration of a phasing plan to comply with Resolution No. 9742 of the Newport Beach City Council and Amendment No. 514 to the Newport Beach Municipal Code. A copy of Resolution No. 9742 and Amendment No. 514 are attached to this report. Additionally, attached to this staff report are: 1. The Phasing Plan prepared by the applicant for the remaining allowed development in the Planned Community District; 2. A response to the Planning Commissions guidelines for review of Phasing plans; and 3. A Traffic Study prepared by Robert Crommelin & Associates for the applicant..' At the January 8, 1979 City Council meeting, the City Council reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendations concerning, definition of the term "reasonableness" as applied to a Traffic Phasing plan. The City Council continued consideration of the definition to the City Council meeting of February 22, 1979.and directed staff to provide additional information to the City Council. Phasing Plan As previously.indicated, a copy of the Phasing Plan prepared by Emkay Development and Realty Company to comply with Resolution No. 9742 is attached for the Planning Commission's consideration. The remaining allowable square footage to be developed is under multiple ownerships. Presently there are undeveloped parcels under the ownership of Emkay, Bear. Brand Ranch, Air California, and Ketchum and the potential for expansion on numerous individually owner parcels within the Newport Place P-C District. A summary of the applicant's proposal to phase development is indicated on the next page: - 1 - 70. OWNER Undeveloped Parcels: Enikay Bear Brand Ranch Air California Ketchum Subtotal: Expansion Space: Various Parcels Total Newport Place 0 Planning Commission - 2. REMAINING FOR FOR FOR ALLOWED OCCUPANCY OCCUPANCY OCCUPANCY SQ. FT. 1979 1980 1981 358,830 0 206,269 152,561 81,162 81,162 0 0 40,951 0 40,951 0 87,019 87,019 0 0 667,962 168,181 2472220 152,561 Resolution No. 9742 190,262 758,224 b Attached for the Planning Commission's consideration is the response of Emkay Development and Realty Company to the Planning Commission's guidelines for the review of phasing plans to comply with Resolution No. 9742 of the City of Newport Beach. The applicant has responded to each of the 6 guidelines recommended by the Planning Commission to the City Council an additional two items suggested by staff in its original recommendation to the Planning Commission. Summary• 1. The following summarizes the existing development and development remaining to be completed: - Allowed by P.C. - Completed - Under construction - Vacant parcels - possible expansion - Total buildout w/o expansion - Total buildout with expansion 2,556,626 sq.ft. 1,5620329 sq.ft. 236,073 sq.ft. 567,962 sq.ft. 190,262 sq.ft. 2,366,364 sq.ft. 2,556,626 sq.ft. Footnotes 1. Resolution No. 9742 indicated that 1,799 sq.ft. of development was existing or under construction as of October 1, 1978. The revised figures presented in the phasing plan represent a correction to that information to more accurately reflect existing conditions. The difference is 1539 sq.ft. Resolution No. 9742 indicated additional allowable development in Newport Place in the amount of 566,423 sq.ft. This figure included the vacant parcels on which no development has yet occured. Some of the parcels which have been developed were not developed to the full extent permitted in the P-C. It is possible that some of the exsiting uses may want to expand to the amount permitted at some time in the future, but if so, we have no information at this time, When all these remainders are added together, it amounts to 190,262 sq.ft., and is called the expansion area for purposes of this report. • TO: Planning Commission - 3. The City Traffic Engineer designated 16 intersections as critical. Table No. 3 in the response to the Planning Commission's guidelines indicates the percent of traffic contribution to each critical intersection. Nine of the critical intersections analyzed exceed the 5% test and four intersections had an ICU of 0.90 or greater. Future planned road improvements to these intersections are indicated on page 2 or the response to the Planning Commission gguidelines. (See staff Analysis for further information). 4. Additionally, information on Emkay. Development and Realty Company's previous design features to reduce project traffic is provided on pages 3 and 4 of the above mentioned document. Traffic Study A Traffic Study was prepared for the applicant by Robert Crommelin and Associates. This study analyses the following: 1) Development Phasing; 2.) Existing Area Traffic Conditions and Growth Trends; 3.) Site Traffic Generation and Distribution; 4.) Future Projected Traffic Characteristics; 5.) Critical Intersection Determination; 6.) Critical Intersection ICU; 7.) Impact of Planned Roadway Improve- ments; and 8.) Need for.Development Phasing. The firm of Robert Crommelin and Associates summarized the need for development phasing as follows: "The phasing as proposed under the maximum development rate by Emkay Development Company fo.r Newport Place project can be accommodated by planned improvements of the roadway.system. The maximum development rate (excluding the expansion allowance) can be accomplished if the following phasing occurs in association with the various improvements noted:• Occupancy of the floor space considered for construction in 1979 should not occur until a third lane is developed on MacArthur Boulevard in each direction at the Campus Drive intersection and the Corona del Mar Freeway connection is made to the west and the San Diego Freeway. Similarly, the occupancy should be forestalled until the MacArthur/Ford improvements are completed although this is of much lesser importance that the improvements to close proximity to the site. 3. The opening of the Von Karman overcrossing combined with the addition of a northbound lane on Jamboree Boulevard 'by the City of Irvine will improve traffic conditions at the Jamboree/Campus intersection to a reasonable level so that phasing of the project will not be required. I. By phasing the additional development over a three-year period, the entire project can be accomplished without a negative impact upon the adjacent street system once the intital improvements noted in this report are accomplished. TO: Planning Commission - 4. 0 S. Prior to progressing on the expansion space of 190,200 sq.ft. of building area, a separate traffic analysis should be accomplished at a later date." Staff Analysis Resolution No. 9742 Resolution No. 9742 provides that development in excess of 30% of the additional allowable development in the Emkay-Newport Place Planned Community District shall be approved only after it can be demonstrated that adequate traffic facilities will be available to'handle the traffi-c generated by the project at the time of occupancy of the buildings involved. Further, such demonstration may be consistent with the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General plan. At its meeting of October 5, 1978, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that the Planned Community Districts for Emkay Newport Place, Koll Center Newport, Aeronutronic Ford, North Ford, and Corporate Plaza be amended to include language regarding the presentation by the property owner of a phasing plan prior to the development of the last 70% of the remaining undeveloped land in the planned Community. In discussing its recommendation, the Commission noted ... "that it does not intend to use the criteria of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, but rather to apply a test of reasonableness to the rdview of the phasing plans"... On November 27, 1978, the City Council accepted the recommendation of the Planning Commission and adopted Resolution No. 9742 amending the language in the Planned Community Districts. Then an additional motion was passed directing the Planning Commission ... "to provide definitions of 'test of reasonableness' and such other information as they wish to provide that would indicate how a demonstration can be made of a phasing plan, as they suggest on their amendment, to come back to Council on January 8, 1979." As previously mentioned at the January 8, 1979 City Council meeting, the City Council continued their consideration of the Planning Commi- ssion recommendation until February 22, 1979. The following indicates the intersections impacted with an existing ICU of 0.90 or greater, date of completion of circulation systems improvement and projected ICU after completion of the improvement: Timing Projected Existing ICU Improvement I.C.U. - Bristol (North)/Campus 1.0608 (Accomplished) 0.8351 - tacArthur/Campus 1.0762 Early 1980 0.8878 - Jamboree/Campus 1.1627 Late 1979 0.9000 - MacArthur/Ford 1.0265 Early 1980 0.8056 I. This includes development of Emkay, Bear Brand Ranch, Air California, and Ketchum but not expansion of the various other Newport Place parcels, and oe� s not consider future traffic other than project -related tralTfic. 0 0 TO: Planning Commission - 5.. The Circulation System Improvements indicated in the Phasing Plan in response to the Planning Commission guidelines are consistent with the Newport Beach General Plan Circulation Element. It is important to note that while this project does not include future traffic generated by projects other than the vacant parcels in the Newport Place Planned Community that this analysis is not required by the Planning Commission guidelines nor would it be required under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code). Environmental Significance The City of Newport Beach Environmental Affairs Committee has reviewed the project and determined that it will not have significant environ- Mental effect.' A copy of the Negative Declaration is attached. Suggested Action: If desired, make the following findings in regard to the Newport Place Planned Community District: Findings The Planning Commission in its collective judgement and considering the rights of owners to use and develop their property, approve the Phasing Plan and find: 1. That the Phasing Plan is consistent with the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. 2. That adequate traffic facilities will be avialable to handle that traffic generated by the project at the time of occupancy of the buildings involJed. Subject to the following conditions: Conditions 1. Occupancy of the floor space considered for construction in 1979 shall not occur until a third lane is on MacArthur Boulevard in each direction at the Campus Drive intersection and the Corona del Mar Freeway connection is made to the west and the San Diego Freeway. 2. The occupancy of buildings shall not occur until the MacArthur/Ford improvements are completed. 3. The opening of the Von Karman overcrossing and the addition of a northbound lane on Jamboree Boulevard by the.City of Irvine shall be accomplished prior to occupancy of any bui 1'di ngs. TO: Planning Commission - 6. Future development in the Emkay-Newport Place Planned Community shall occur in accordance with the phasing plan. 5. Prior to the issuance of any building permits in the expansion space of 190,200 sq.ft. of building area, in any amount greater than 30% of the remaining space to be developed on each parcel, a separate traffic analysis shall be accomplished. - AND - Send the Phasing Plan for the Newport Place Planned Community District forward to the City Council with such recommendation(s) as the Planning Commission deems appropriate Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, DIRECTOR By , Fr T1 I a ico Environmental Coordinator FT/dt Attachments: 1. Resolution No. 9742 2. Amendment No. 514 3, Newport Place P.C. Phasing Plan 4. Emkay response to Planning Commission Guidelines 5. Traffic Study - Robert Crommelin & Associates 6. Negative Declaration E i RESOLUTION NO. 9 47 2 4 Rlt iievelecomet 'eo ok ant t NOc 1978m, H ORT BF A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPME14T STANDARDS OF THE CORPORATE PLAZA, NORTH FORD, EMKAY DEVELOPMENT, KOLL CENTER NEWPORT, AND AERONUTRONIC—FORD PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICTS TO REQUIRE PREPARATION OF PHASING PLANS CONSISTENT WITH THE CIRCULA— TION ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN (AMENDMENT NO. 514) WHEREAS, Section 20.51.045 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that amendments to a Planned Community Development Plan shall be approved by a resolution of the City Council setting forth full particulars of the amendments; and i .WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on October 51 1978, at which time it considered amend- ments to the Planned Community Development Plans for Corporate Plaza, North Ford, Emkiy-Newport Place, Koll Center Newport, and Aeronutronic-Ford; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing the Planning Commission adopted its Resolution No. 1018, recommending to the City Council that certain'amendments to the Planned Community Development Plans for Corporate Plaza, North Ford, Emkay Newport Place, Koll Center Newport, and Aeronutronic- Ford be adopted as follows: A. CORPORATE PLAZA Section 1, Statistical Analysis, paragraph 6, at page 2: "6. PHASING OF DEVELOPMENT. 162,644 sq. ft. of development was existing or under construction as of October 1, 1978. The additional allowable development in the total approved development plan is 287,356 sq. ft. Any further development subsequent to October 1�, 1978, in a excess of 30% of the additional allowable development, being $6,206 sq. ft., shall be approved only after it can be demonostrated that adequate traffic facilities will be available to handle that traffic generated by the project at the time of occupancy of the buildings involved. Such demonstration may be made by the pre- sentation of a phasing plan consistent with the Circu- lation Element of the Newport Beach General Flan." B. NORTH FORD Section 1, Statistical Analysis, at page 2, by adding paragraph entitled "Phasing of Development": "PHASING OF DEVELOPMENT. 129,260 sq. ft. of development was existing or under construction as of October 1, 1978. The additional allowable development in the total approved development plan is 770,740 sq, ft. Any further development subsequent to October 1, 1978, in excess of 30% of the additional allowable development, being 231,222 sq. ft., shall be approved only after it can be demonstrated that adequate traffic facilities will be available to handle that traffic generated by the project at the time of occupancy of the buildings involved. Such demonstration may be made by 'the presentation of a phasing plan consistent with the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan." C. EMxAY-NEWPORT PLACE Amending General Notes at page 1, by adding paragraph 7, to read: "7. PHASING OF DEVELOPMENT. 1,799,941 sq. ft. of development was existing or under construction as of October 1, 1978. The additional allowable development in the total approved development plan is 566,423 sq. ft. -2- r 9 Any further development subsequent to October 1, 1978, in excess of 30% of the additional allowable development, being 169,927 sq. ft., shall be approved only after it can be demonstrated that adequate traffic facilities will be available to handle that traffic generated by ` the project at the time of occupancy of the buildings involved. Such demonstration may be made by the pre- sentation of a phasing plan consistent with the Circu- lation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan." D. ROLL CENTER NEWPORT Amending Development Considerations, at page 4, by adding paragraph 6, to read: "6. PHASING OF DEVELOPMENT. 1,651,757 sq. ft. of development was existing or under construction as of October 1, 1978. The additional allowable development in the total approved development plan is 1,058,863 sq. ft. Any further development'subsequent to October 1, 1978, in excess of 30% of.the additional allowable development, being 317.,658 sq. ft., shall be approved only after it can be demonstrated that adequate traffic facilities will be available to handle that traffic generated by ' the project at the time of occupancy of the buildings ,involved. Such demonstration may be made by the presen- tation of a phasing plan consistent with the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan." E. AERONUTRONIC-FORD Use Permit No. 419 and subsequent approvals adopted prior to May 8, 1978, which Use Permits constitute the development plan for the Aeronutroric-Ford Planned Community are amended by adding the following language: "PHASING OF DEVELOPMENT. 962,400 sq. ft. of ,development was existing or under construction as of -3- P 0 10 October 1, 1978. The additional allowable development in the total approved development plan is 1,691,000 sq. £t. Any further development subsequent to October 1, 1977, in excess of 30% of the additional allowable development, being 507,300 sq. ft., shall be approved only after it can be demonstrated that adequate traffic facilities will be available to handle that traffic generated by the project at the time of occupancy of the buildings involved. Such demonstration may be made by the presentation of a phasing plan consistent with the circulation Llement of the Newport Beach General Plan"; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that said amendments to the Planned Community Development Plans for Corporate Plaza, North Ford, Emkay-Newport Placa, Xoll Center Newport, and Aeronutronic-Ford as set forth above are desirable and necessary; and WHEREAS, the City Council has conducted a public hearing on said proposed amendments in accordance with all provisions of law, NOW, THERMIX, BE 2T RESOLVED that the City Council 'hereby approves the proposed amendments to the Planned Community Development Plane for Corporate Plaza, North Ford, Emkay-Newport Place, Xoll Center Newport, and Aeronutronic-Ford as set forth hereinabove. ATTESTt City Cler ADOPTED thin Z-1'N` day of K y(evvtber , i978. mayor HRC/kb 11/13/78 November 21.,• 1978 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: City Council Meeting November 27, 1978 Agenda Item No. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Suggested Action Department of Community Development c ra A proposed amendment to the Planned Community Districts, initiated by the City of Newport Beach, to require the preparation of a phasing plan consistent with the Circulation Element of the General Plan for the following P-C District areas: 1. Corporate Plaza 2. North Ford 3. Emkay Newport Place 4. Koll Center Newport 5. Aeronutronic-Ford Hold hearing; close hearing; if desired, approve Negative Declaration and adopt Resolution No. amending Planned Community Develop- ment Standards of the Corporate Plaza, North Ford, Emkay Newport Place, Koll Center Newport, and Aeronutronic-Ford P-C Districts to require preparation of phasing plans consistent with the Circulation Element of the General Plan. Background On November 13, 1978, the City Council initiated a public hearing on Amendment No. 514, and continued this item to the meeting of November 27. The City Council requested additional information regarding the basis of the Planning Commission's recommendation. This memo provides a further explanation of the Planning Commission's recommendation and is intended to supplement the previous staff report attached. Explanation of Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission's recommendation on Amendment No. 514 is that wording be added to,the adopted P-C development plans requiring a phasing plan for the areas listed above, as follows: "PHASING OF DEVELOPMENT sq.ft. of development was,existing or ' • II • 1 lu: City Council - 2. jZ "under construction as of October 1, 1978. The additional allowable development in the total approved development plan is sq.ft. Any further development subsequent to October 1, 1913 in excess of 30% of the additional allowable development, being sq.ft. shall be ap- proved only after it can be demonstrated that adequate traffic facilities will be available to handle that traffic generated by the project at the time of occupancy of the buildings in- volved. Such demonstration may be made by the presentation of a phasing plan consistent with the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan." The effect of this amendment, if adopted, would be to require the preparation of a development phasing plan to assure that adequate road capacity exists at the time of occupancy of a project. This phasing plan would apply to any development in excess of 30% of the additional allowable development as of October 1, 1978, in each of the P-C districts. In other words, the final 70% of the additional allowable development could not be built without first demonstrating that ade- qute roadway capacity would be available. A maximum of 30% of the additional allowable development could be built without any phasing requirement. In recommending this 30%/70% ratio with respect to the phasing require- ment, the Planning Commission intended to arrive at an approach that would be 'both reasonable and effective in addressing traffic problems a%,ociated with approved development. It was thought that these per- centayes would allow approved projects currently in process to continue, while assuring that a substantial portion (70%)of future development in these P-C's would be subject to the approval of a phasing plan by the City. This phasing requirement applies as follows: 30% of 70% of Additional Total Additional Allowable Subject Additional Allowable to Phasing Plan Allowable 1) Corporate Plaza 86,206 201,150 287,356 e) North Ford 231,222 539,518 7700740 �) Lmkay Newport Place 169,927 386,496 556,423 l) Kull Center Newport 317,658 741,205 1,058,863 Aeronutronic-Ford — 507,300 1,183,700 12691,000 TOTALS 1,312,313 3,052,069 4,364,382 1� TO: City Council - 3. Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, �Q BY DAVI�J. uMOHOWSKI DJD/ kk Attachments for City Council Only: 1) Previous staff report 2) Planning Commission Minutes 3) Negative Declaration January 11, 1979 0 E 1i EMKAY DEVELOPMENT AND REALTY COMPANY PHASING PLAN TO COMPLY WITH RESOLUTION NO. 9472 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Newport Place is an approved Planned Community which the Newport Beach City Council determined to be excepted from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The information herein submitted represents Emkay's response to the requirement that a phasing plan be presented for approval to allow development on undeveloped parcels in Newport Place to proceed in accordance with Resolution No. 9472. Included for review are: 1) Phasing Plan for the remaining undeveloped parcels, 2) Response to Planning Commission guidelines for review of plan, 3) Traffic Study prepared by Robert Crommelin and Associates, Inc. PHASING PLAN Newport Place has been developed on a phased basis over the past eight years and as of today 70% of the allowed square footage has been completed. All public improve- ments for undeveloped parcels have been installed or bonded and all undeveloped parcels have been graded. The remaining undeveloped land in Newport Place is under four different ownerships. The following table outlines the distribution of remaining allowed square footage and the phasing plan for the development of that space in terms of square feet available for occupancy as indicated by each property owner. It should be noted that none of the projects are under construction now and occupancy in 1979 will not take place until the• fourth quarter of the year. Within Newport Place there remains 190,262 square feet of space allowed but not built on parcels which have already been developed. These parcels are not owned by Emkay and this allowed square footage is viewed as expansion space. We have no way of knowing if or when any of this space might be developed and, accordingly, it is not included in the phasing plan. It is assumed that a property owner desiring to expand in excess of 30% of the allowed square footage would prepare a plan showing the phasing of such expansion. For information only, the traffic generating characteristics of this expan- sionspace have been shown in the traffic study. REMAINING FOR FOR FOR ALLOWED OCCUPANCY OCCUPANCY OCCUPANCY OWNER SQ. FT. 1979 1980 1981 Undeveloped Parcels: Emkay . 358s830 0 206,269 152,561 Bear Brand Ranch 81,162 81,162 0 0 Air California 40,951 0 400951 0 Ketchum 87,019 87,019 0 0 Subtotal: 567,962 168,181 247,220 1522561 Expansion Space: Various Parcels 190,262 Total Newport Place 758,224 The attached traffic study demonstrates the adequacy of the circulation system to handle the traffic volume generated by the above phased development plan for undeveloped parcels. January 5, 1979• MAY DEVELOPMENT AND REALTY COMPANY �5 PHASING PLAN TO COMPLY WITH RESOLUTION NO. 9472 CITY OF NE14PORT BEACH The following information is intended to respond to the guidelines, as presented by the city staff to the Planning Commission at the study session of December 7; 1978, for review of phasing plans: 1. Each project subject to the phasing requirement of Council Resolution No. 9472 shall be examined as to the extent of existing development and the amount of development remaining to be completed. This information is summarized in Table 1. 2. Information shall be submitted indicating the amount of traffic being generated by existing development and that projected for remaining development. The information herein requested is presented in the attached Traffic Study prepared by Robert Crommelin and Associates, Inc. in cooperation with the city staff. For your convenience, tables summarizing pertinent data have been extracted from that report. Mr. Crommelin is available to answer any questions you may have regarding the Traffic Study. Table 2 shows the volume of •traffic generated by all land uses within Newport Place for existing as well as future development. Table 2 }RL6rNr AYD i0IDR8 SITC TRAYFIC VOLIMS Mauport Place traffic Study ' DAILY TRAFFIC AS of NAY •78 AODITI TRAFFIC VOLU!Lr Q"'ITITY t78 a) (b) 1981 t m- aP a ion Sin TRAATne !A\9 USE AS C9 :J1Y acroe Ve h) ( Pd) (� ( Dd) (vPd) ( PVOLd! Office uaee 1.052.3 Maf 14/MA[ 14.750 4.100 2.350 3.450 2,100 1,550 28,300 Retail/General 113.3 Mat 5o/D2f '5.650 2,100 - - - 450 3,200 Coaaarcial Reataurante 42.5 Mat I90/Hsf 8.10C - - - - - 8,10D uotel/Horal 203 rooae (106.5 el f) 12/to 2.500 1.700 - - - - 4,20D Auto ceater 70.4 Ibf 25/. 2 t 1.750 - - - - 1,800 3.550 Construction t _ 3,C'v9 . 2,000 - - - - 1.OD) Thru Traffic TOTAL; I 1.3e3.a r>f 26)'I= 3`-. 7,5ji 3.900 2,)50 3.450 2.100 3.8DO 53,35o ,ACC':O.7dIIV1 TTAFF_S 7— : ! 35,7501141,65.0 44.000 47,450 149,550 53,350 (a):ra!flc fa=- uaad to W-1 total ocicat.d voluae for each land we with the ac=-1 rra!fle eouoee4-' (01neludo project* taaplated or under tnw-'r ccion W-06D 5178 And 12/78. , (See TAhI* I for quantity of dav*lop.+st *or each year.) , i Table 1 Qtcp@w t8 tin ENKAT 6EVELM.ENT 1 R347v CO. SFAi�3 IN `G ALL'AED ACTUALLY UKC ± �90 CC6874, ^M 1.0 110VTR::IL S, .: �^ 1.4 • IA 34186 f v • 3411u 2c. 4313E 25142 C 25742 3739t V 316200 :80233 13861 122113 316M D 'A 4 MUL 254221 :i i 254.E2 34344 _»..... ................•--•--.._....._................._........»---- 2./ F6:e« 1V.142 46d195 i"sdbl 122::: 59b.7i 1Y5Jr"D '. �r4,M,K1 Y:f14L 019530 460I90 1 3S88ic 81953E @ M1 ;j 115531 70B67 f 0 78167 37413 1I 2#1186 21925 141874 i 171799 21381 11340 70461 B 870:9 i6S480 Q ,a,q'.•;; 42421 35139 0 2 35838 6582 B, 53060 $7473 0 1 57473 1613 ...................................................... ................................... 741464 141814 4458»9 13181.7' 7180 4k :.*"IL OICNERCIAL 56511 565CZ 8 Q 5650U51 { .... ....Ust » t................................. g ' 411i , 10iltl 64759 64751 f Z 6475; { QWY I&LIRE•sU WTM k 7.1 I MU 22519 $ 6 225IE t 7.2 :A dot..................................•....tips ......_..._ 690Q- t .Yyf .._.. 1441G » 29418 S Q 29412 " #>�'t11Np�1CIAL/huiEL 16 I0i@44 11097 61337 0 186844 0 ft>4• ............. ..•---•---...........-»--».........---....----.»»---•........_......... .+,BTfq 186044 WON88337 G 186044 0 .11# ;[KIER 13120 130QD 6 L 1502D S 31152 31752 @ t 31752 0 i11.3 .......... I ................... ,»..,..._.».,.....,».»................................... :2.{ Al 44752 447°2 D 3 44Ts1 d lc.l ,1 13.1 GE1.iPA: CDh :;CIA, 13.1 350f•0 40050 0 D 40930 -5050 A. , 1170G MR 0 2 4M 6850 41331 @ L 4:$5: 6"+>' b 34131 30Di? B f 36.2? -11;:0 e.:.............................................. »........ ....... ......................... .. ;.J.....--•_-............................................__............._............__.._.. .7.0 G,YAt.0 '.iA. 2536616 1562329 23C713 3679os 2366364 19@261 li 4 � I T January 5, 1979 -2- L 17 3. An examination shall be made of the circulation system in the vicinity of the project to determine what improvements remain to be completed, with particular consideration being given to those improvements which will directly aid in moving traffic generated by the project. The area to be examined shall extend to those intersections where traffic generated from the project increases the traffic at the intersection during the peak two and one-half hour period by 5% or more. The city's traffic engineer has designated 16 intersections as critical and, there- fore, requiring 5% Traffic Volume Analysis. The intersections where project generated traffic will increase the volume by 5% or more during the peak two and one-half hour period are identified in Table 3. Of the. eight intersections so impacted, four have an ICU of•.90 or greater and require further examination as to road improvements which need to be completed to directly aid the movement of project generated traffic. These four intersections are listed below: . Bristol (North)/Campus The improvement required is striping a southbound right turn lane in the 30 feet available on the northerly leg of Bristol. This improvement has been completed. The ICU will be reduced from 1.0608 to 0.8351. . MacArthur/Campus The improvement required is the addition of a third northbound lane on MacArthur plus a right turn lane northbound on MacArthur to Campus. % This project is scheduled by Caltrans for completion by early 1.980. Funds have been allocated for the project. The ICU will be reduced from 1.0762 to 0.8878. Jamboree/Campus The improvement required is the addition of a third northbound traffic Is from Fairchild to Campus. This project is scheduled by the City of Irvine for completion in'late 1979, Funds have been allocated for this project. This improvement plus the completion in early 1979 of the Von Karman overpass will reduce the ICU from 1.1627 to 0.9000 or less. MacArthur/Ford The road improvements required for this intersection are detailed on Page l5 of the attached traffic study. The project is scheduled for completion in early 1980. Funds have been allocated for this joint City -State improvement project. The ICU will be reduced from 1.0265 to 0.8056. Three other major improvements are nearing completion which will have significant positive impact'on traffic circulation near Newport Place. Connection of Bristol North and South to the Corona Del Mar Freeway. This should reduce Northbound traffic on MacArthur and Jamboree as it provides access to the San Diego Freeway. This is scheduled for early 1979. r4 U C r r 0 1 Table 3 PERCENT PROJECT TRAFFIC CONTRIBUTION 10 CRITICAL INTERSECTIONS Newport Place Traffic Study 2.5-HOUR TRAFPIC VOLIM PROJECT 1 78 2.5-HOUR TRAFFIC INTERSECTION DIREC- Spring Added (a) Percent 1978 ICU TION 1978 Pro ect Total Volume of Total MacArthur/Cam ua Na SE 2888 3129 288 166 3176 3295 495 222 5 6 EEM n s e w (0.93) is 1693 40 1733 190 ' Fb 20 44 13 2017 19 Jamboree/Can ua NB 3452 120 3572 * *• n s e w as 3417 48 3466 88 2.5 (1.17) Es 2042 8 2050 252 Hf 1637 * 1637 * Jaimbome-1 NB 1681 38 1719 71 NerArthur as 2614 147 2961 241 ,4.1. f863� e/w �n s EB 2923 9 2932 17 .85 Ns 3037 19 3066 sristnl N Cam NB as 1504 3705 17 38 b' 3743 208 • w n e 1.00 wf 4790 393 5183 694 13.4 Bristol N irch Ns as 552 2120 75 73 2193 16 500 e w n ■ 0.59 AE 3053 406 3459 262 sristo smbore NB Ss 5153 2811 16 86 6 2897 2 50 0. 1.7 a W UFO 0.72 vs 1162 29 1191 19 1.6 Bristol C us ND as 260 3 664 15 32 1621 3196 22 63 .4 2.0 a v n a 0.72 is 3027 223 3250 296 Bristol firth Ns 223 a 223 e v n s SB 943 59 1002 68 6. ' (0.36 EB ' 2656 202 2758 318 Bristol Jamboree NB SB' 4996 2359 7 66 5 2425 22 50 0.4 2.1 e v n s 0.54 Es 2773 126 2904 68 2.3 Irvine Uniwzsie Nf as 1985 3664 17 32 2002 3896 22 63 17 1.6 n a e w (0.86) • Es 672 * 672 Wf 80 * 80 Jamboree Ford Ns 4574 11 4585 15 0.3 "Is e v as 2937 32 299669 fi 4 2.2 (0.83) EB, 961 WE 753 6 750 7 0.9 MacArthur Ford Ns 4574 50 4624 68 ]r¢ n s a w Sb 2937 *3 197 �@,�J (0.83) EWES 981 733 11 764 15 2.0 MACAuz San NA 2561 39 2620 53 2.0 0a'uin Hills Ss 4134 *6 422330 161 *.8 n/s e v Ell 341 385 0.64) Wf 2533 11 2544 15 0.6 Jamboree/ NB 2581 11 2592 15 0.6 San Joaquin n/s e SB 4134 22 4156 43 1.0. EB 385 a 385 0.64 WB 2533 * 2533 Jamboree Comet N NB Ss 1015 2959 5 22 1020 2981 11 43 1.1 1.4 n • e v (0.83) EB 4264 2 4266 3 W3 1 3185 5 3190 7 MacArthur SB 2258 71 2329 125 5.4 Coast Hw n/s e/w EB 1 3204 11 3215 15 0.5 0.77 WS 3432 28 3460 38 1.1 (a) At 1981 project complationt excludins expansion of 190p262 square feeta a Nominal volume. © Project contribution exceeds five percent. January 5, 1979 -3- 19 Completion of the Von Karman overpass should also relieve northbound traffic on MacArthur and Jamboree as it provides access for northbound through traffic not entering the San Diego Freeway. This improvement is scheduled for early 1979. The one-way frontage roads, Bristol North and South, are nearly completed and have contributed significantly in moving traffic generated by Newport Place. 4. Existing traffic at those intersections shall be shown prior to making any projections. This information is also shown in Table 3. 5. The developer may include in his proposed traffic phasing plan completion of or contribution to completion of needed improvements consistent with the level of traffic generation and a reasonable proportion of the cost of these improvements. Emkay cooperated with other Newport Beach developers and city staff to prepare a Major Thoroughfare Improvement Funding Program.' Emkay views this program as a positive step toward relieving traffic congestion. The funding of Circulation Element improvements has been a continuing problem, made more difficult by reduced tax revenue to governmental agencies. lie are all aware that significant traffic system improvements have been realized by making such improvements required of the developer for tract map approval. Emkay has stated publicly that we are willing to step forward together with the other Newport Beach developers and contribute over $5,000,000 in additional fees for road improvements. To date this offer has not been accepted by the City Council. However, Emkay again states its willingness to participate in the Major Thoroughfare Funding Program. 6. The developer is also to take into consideration in the preparation of his plan characteristics in the design of his development which either reduce traffic generation or guide traffic onto less impacted arterials or through intersections in'the least congested direction. The following design features help reduce traffic generated within Newport Lin:e or direct it to less congested areas: a. Newport Place Drive aligns with Von Kerman and, traffic generated by Emkay as well as other Newport Place traffic will easily flow along Von Karman over the freeway and away from the areas congested inter- sections. b. The Qu=�l, Dove, Westerly loop provides interior circulation thus'keeping local 'Newport Place traffic off surrounding arteries. l� • 0 • 1 January 5, 1979 -4- c. Newport Place includes shopping, dining service and recreational facilities within its boundaries, thus substantially reducing the need for Newport Place workers to utilize the city's surrounding road system in pursuit of these activities. d. Developed parcels have been built at a reduced density of 190,262 square feet which is a direct traffic mitigating measure. e. Newport Place is located in the north part of Newport Beach and most of the generated traffic, as shown in the traffic report, moves north and west, thus away from congested areas within the city. f. Several prime office sites were developed at the request of the city, with car dealerships which generate less traffic volume and more tax revenue. g. The working hours of some firms have been voluntarily adjusted resulting in the Newport Place peak traffic period occurring 15 minutes prior to that of the adjacent highway system, as shown in the traffic report. h. L*Ay has not utilized the pooled parking concept and thereby has reduced development Intensity otherwise available. I. The off -site street pattern was considered in designing the projects' interior circulation to minimize the addition of unnecessary intersections, turning movements and possible traffic conflict points. All minor street intersections with MacArthur Boulevard and Bristol North are right -turn only. The following information is not required, however, it is presented for your consider- ation. These items were in the original staff recommendation. 7. A comparison shall be made between the amount of development permitted by the Planned Community Development Plan and the amount actually constructed or proposed for construction along with any difference in traffic generation. This information is also available from Table 2. It is important to note that at project build -out there will be remaining•1900262 square feet allowed which will only be'built If property owners seek to expand existing facilities. The resulting difference between traffic generated from proposed development (49,550 vpd) and from allowed development (53;350 vpd) is 3,800 vpd. 8. Information shall be submitted showing what contributions have been made by the developer to off -site street improvements. At the December 7, 1978 study session, the Planning Commission indicated that off -site street improvements completed by the developer i9ere not to be considered because they are part of the usual requirements imposed on the developer. This is true, however, it 21 January 5, 1979 -5- may be informative to recall the magnitude of those improvements and recognize that with development come major traffic system improvements that accommodate not only traffic generated by the development but also that generated from other sources. Such is the case at Newport Plcae where an additional traffic lane, plus 1/2 traffic signal for MacArthur Boulevard from Birch to Jamboree was completed by Emkay. Total cost to Emkay was $275,000 in 1974'. Also, Emkay completed both lanes of the freeway frontage road (now called North Bristol) from Birch to Jamboree at a cost of $180,000 in 1974. These improvements are in addition to all interior roads completed by Emkay. 0 0 V 1 ROBERT CROMMELIN AND ASSOCIATES$ INC. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ENGINEERS 17071 VENTURA BOULEVARD ENCINO. CA. 91318 January 4, 1978 Mr. Kevin T. Hanson, Project Coordinator Emkay Development and Realty Company 1201 Dove Street, Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject: Newport Place Traffic Study Update Dear Mr. Hanson: TELEPHONE 12131 788-13570 As authorized, we have conducted a comprehensive traffic analysis of the impact of Emkay's proposed office project located in Newport Place in the City of Newport Beach, California. The purposes of the study were to update our earlier report on the project;') to supply information concerning the traffic impact of the project, and to provide input to a Traffic Phasing Plan as required by the City of Newport Beach. In April 1978, Emkay requested Robert Crommelin and Associates, Inc. to conduct a partial update of the 1970 Study. In May 1978, a series of traffic counts were taken to identify the traffic characteristics of Newport Place. These data, along with projections of what has since occurred, serve as a base for the current analysis. Study Purpose and Project Description The City of Newport Beach has adopted a requirement that developers of five Planned Community Districts submit a phasing plan geared to the City's Circulation Element. As a basis for reviewing such plans, the Planning Commission has established a "test of reasonableness". This report provides information on the traffic characteristics of the existing and expanded Newport Place project as required by that test. (1)The Newport Project Traffic Study, Robert Crommelin and Associates, Encino, California, November 1970. r ,; L Newport Place is a major development of 200 acres located in northern Newport Beach in the vicinity of the Orange County Airport. Under development since 1971, a total of 1,562,300 square feet of floor area currently has been developed with a variety of land uses, principally office space. An additional 236,100 square feet is now under construction. When these developments are completed, Newport Place will have 1,798,400 square feet of building floor area as shown in Table 1. Figure 1 shows the general regional location of Newport Place as well as the area roadway system. Table 1 APPROVED PROJECT LAND USE Newport Beach Traffic Study UANTITY — FLDOR AREA 1000 s .f . Under Occupied Added Construe. Total Approved LAND USE in Hay 78 by Dec 78 in Dec 78 to Date Office Uses 1,052.2 136.0 155.8 1,344.0 Retail Commercial 56.4 41.4 - 97.8 Restaurants 42.5 - - 42.5 Hotel/Motel 106.5 - 80.3 186.8 Auto Center 70.4 - - 70.4 General Commercial 56.9 - - 56.9 TOTAL; 1,384.9 177.4 t723=61:L 1,798.4 As Newport Place continues developing, Emkay Development and Realty Company proposes to build 358,800 square feet of floor area of mixed office uses on the last major undeveloped portion of Newport Place under their ownership. Emkay has divided the site into two parcels for ease of development and financing. Located in the center of the project, the site has good access to all of the major access routes serving the triangular —shaped Newport Place project. Besides Emkay, other o;.ners plan to dz,elop 209,100)square feet of office space within the general project boundary. An additional 190,200 square feet has been included as part of the approved Planned Community District and is allocated for future expansion. —2— 409l�5 KEY GENERALIZED DIRECTIONAL 0% DISTRIBUTION OF NEWPORT PLACE TRAFFLC -3, LOCATION MAP • Development Phasing Table 2 shows how Newport Place will grow within the next few years. It represents the maximum development rate which will be used in this test analysis. Under this program, 168,200 square feet will be developed in 1979; 247,200 square feet in 1980; and 152,600 square feet in 1981. Table 2 PRESENT AND PHASED PROJECT AT HAXIMUH DEVELOPMENT RATE Newport Plate Traffic Study VANTITY FLOOA AREA 1000 • tt. Present (a) 1979 1980 1981 Future EeKay Other, E.K. Other. Emta Others E. enslun LAND USE ➢evelo sent Total Office Uses •1,344.0 - 168.2 206.2 41.0 152.6 - 110.0 2,022.0 Well Commercial 97.0 - - - - - - - 97.8 Restaurants 42.5 - - - - - - - 42.5 HotellHotel 186.8 - - - - - - - 186.8 Auto Center 70.4 - - - - 71.3 I41.9 Central Commercial $6.9 - - - - - - 8.7 65.6 TOTAU 1,798 4 - 168.2 206.2 41.0 152.E - 190.2 2,556.E (a)lnrludea buildings currently under construction. Existing Area Traffic Conditions Newport Place is located in an area with high traffic volumes, principally oriented to the regional freeway system which converges in this portion of. Orange County. Bristol Street southwest of the project carries approximately 33,000 vehicles per day (vpd) and currently it is being improved by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to consist of two four -lane frontage roads on either side of the right-of-way of the future Corona'Del Mar Freeway. These frontage roads will significantly increase traffic capacity in this portion of the City of Newport Beach. MacArthur Boulevard, on the east side of Newport Place, currently carries volumes of 27,000 to 28,500 vpd and is developed to major highway standards. Birch Street on the northwest edge of the project as well as Campus Drive both carry relatively high volumes of traffic with'Campus Drive serving as a major area circulation element: -4- • 0 , 2G r Site Traffic Generation and Distribution Our 1970 report(2) made estimates of the total daily and peak -hour traffic generation of the Newport Place project as well as its direc- tional distribution. Since that report, there have been some changes in land use. In order to determine the present characteristics of Newport Place's traffic, a complete Cordon count was taken whereby automatic counters were set out at the eight streets providing access to the project from Birch Street, MacArthur Boulevard, and North Bristol Street. Table 3 summarizes the total two-way traffic volumes by hour of the day for the period counted. Figure 3 depicts the variation in hourly traffic volumes for Wednesday, May 10, 1978. 4000 330D 3210 31J0 3000 2000 1000 WAL DA/LY vowmC+ J6,DD0 VEN/DAY 0 I2Y 2 A $ * N) IZN 2 A 6 6 10 12 A.M. PA(. / WJ? START/HG NEWPORT PLACE HOURLY TRAFFIC VARIATION *rAVE60Ar YAr /0, /676 MOP. cit. As may be noted in the table and the figure, a rather unusual pattern existed at Newport Place; there was a mid -day peak around noontime reflecting the unusual traffic -attracting characteristics of restaurants within the Newport Place project. -5- 711 T.blr 3 N6C82NE, COUNT sL^.0L4RT "mPOrC tla" Irdiie Scud? CONDUCTED ON NNPORT PUCE, BENPORT HEACE TTPE OF COUNT+ ❑ •DIRECTIONAL El 2-war 047E BE" 5-8-18 gRECTION: DATE SUNDAY II __ �77 IMONDAY ITIIESDAY m'EDNESDAYI THURSDAY IFRIDAY SATURDAY DAY 5-F•76 I 5-4178 15 10-78 I S-11-78 1 12-1 I lc I 110 I 121 7-2 I I :6 37 56 2-3 I I 13 I 20 I 37 ' I •. 3-1 I I 16 I 12 I 12 1 4-5 I I 8 10 I is S-6 I 63 66 82 I A.M. .I A.M. 6-7 I I 457 498 534 I I 7-8 I I 1426 I 1537 I 1536 8-9 I I 3134 I 3209 I 3021 I 9-10 I I 2180 I •2158 I 2299 I 10-11 I I 2210 I 2215 11-12 I I 3052 I 2925 I 72-1 3457 I 3499 1-2 i 3096 I 3234 2-3 I 2655 I 2769 I I 3-4 2432 I 246D I i 4-5 I 2862 I 2927 5-6 3172 3170 .M. 6-7 I 1565 i 1663 I 1721 7-8 1001 1137 I 1190 j 8-9 I 797 I 54+ I 916 I I I 9+10 1 529 I 56: 654 1G-11 1 342 I 165 I 466 11-12 1 .61 I _.: •� 264 1 (TOTAL' 1 -•=02 I 35.423 I 36.073 I 7.7t3 .Q .,^ S Based upon the average of the two highest days of these counts, it was determined that the total average daily two-way traffic volume generated by Newport Place was 35,750 vpd. Between 8:00 and 9:00 A.M., the two-way volume was 3,225 cars; between 12:00 Noon and 1:00 P.M., the volume was 3,495 cars; and between 4;30 and 5:30 P.M., the highest hour of the day, the total volume into and out of Newport Place was 3,485 vehicles. For the 2.5-hour peak period (3:30 to 6:00 P.M.), the total volume was 7,255 vehicles, representing approximately 20 percent of the total daily traffic volume. Table 4 summarizes these values and also indicates the volumes on each of the eight streets serving as access to Newport Place. It was found that 33 percent of the traffic was oriented to MacArthur Boulevard, 13 percent to Bristol Street, and 54 percent to Birch Street. These values are very Close to those projected in our November 1970 report (27 percent to MacArthur, 23 percent to Bristol, and 54 percent to Birch). The variation in percentage was due primarily to the fact that the freeway Table 4 CURRENT NEWPORT PLACE TRAFFIC GENERATION Newport Place Traffic Study DAILY 2-WAY PFAK PERIODS 2-WAY 8:00- 12:00 N- '4:30- 3:30- LOCATION VOLUME 9:00 AMI 1:00 PMI 5130 PM 6:00 PM West of MacArthur Blvd @ Corinthian Way 2,630 165 350 260 470 Newport Place Drive 5,150 330 540 570 1,115 Bowsprit Drive 3,970 525 310 425 815 Subtotal: (11,750) (1,020) (1,200) (1,255) (2,400) Northeast of N. Bristol St @ 2,860 245 275 295 630 Dove Street Spruce Street 1.740 250 165 130 310 Subtotal: ( 4,600) ( 495) ( 440) ( 425) ( 940) Southeast of Birch St @ 3,380 150 295 200 615 Corinthian Way Dove Street 9,220 855 900 755 1,780 Quail Street Subtotal: 6,800 (197400) 705 (177 00) 660 (1,855) 850 (1,805) 1,520 (3,915) Total Volume: 35,750 3,225 3,495 3,485 7,255 Percent of Daily: - 9.0% 9.8% 9.7% 20.3% -7- 0 • 3 had not been constructed and Spruce Avenue on the south side of the project did not connect to both directions of the Bristol Street frontage roads, as assumed in the 1970 report. The 35,750 daily trips generated by the Newport Place project represents a traffic generating factor of 25.8 daily two-way trips per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area which was occupied in May 1978. This is quite a high value considering that almost 80 percent of the present land use is devoted to office space which normally.has a traffic generating factor of 13 to 15 trip ends per 1,000 square feet of floor area. This divergence from normal standards, may be explained by the fact that the restaurant and retail traffic attracted to Newport Place has a relatively high factor. In addition, over 400,000 square feet of building area was under construction at the time•of the counts; considerable volume occurred as part of that activity. one other characteristic of Newport Place traffic which is of interest is that its single peak hour starts at 4:30 P.M., 15 minutes earlier than the peak hour on adjacent off -site roadways which starts at 4:45 P.M. Future Project Traffic Characteristics Figure 4 shows the current status of the Newport Place project's land use; a major portion developed and occupied in May 1978; additional portions of the project under construction or occupied since last spring; and the remaining 11-acre Emkay parcel in the center of the project as well as two other areas to be developed by others. Table 6 summarizes our estimates of traffic volumes asso- ciated with each of the various land uses under current and future conditions with the addition of traffic associated with projects currently under construction as well as additional development by Emkay and others. t 10 0 DEVELOPED B OCCUPIED 5/T8 COMPLETED BETWEEN 5/78 - 12/78 ,i © FUTURE PROJECTS 41 �� L (00.0) FLOOR AREA (1000 SQ. FT.) ,.' o `g. r00. UNDER CONSTRUCTION O� C AS OF 12/78 w v_ LL O NOTE a EXPANSION AREAS ARE NOT SHOWN. al ,, • �' W8.5)-_-_ - ,; HOTEL\EXPAN! U.C. IONAL 8T.0 MSF OF OFFICE SPACE IS PROGRAMMED. NEWPORT PLACE LAND USE �j�( i��i ul�n w�ua owe. EMKAY DEVELOPMENT AND REALTY COMPANY �Y- / ul Ne I Table 5 3� TRAFFIC GENERATION CHARACTERISTICS AND FACTORS Newport Beach Traffic Study LAND USE DAILY TRAFFIC PER UNIT 2.5 HOUR VOLUME P.11. PK HR VOLUME Out Total In Out Total Office Uses 14.0/Msf 3.7 5.0 0.4 2.0 2.4 Retail/General 50.0/Msf r4. 5.1 10.0 2.2 2.8 5.0 Commercial Restaurants 190.0/Msf 9.8 24.0 6.3 3.7 10.0 Hotel/Motel 12.0/room 1.0 0.6 1.6 0.5 0.3 0.8 Auto Center 25.0/14sf 1 2.4 3.6 6.0 1.2 1.8 3.0 By comparing normal traffic generating rates with the quantities of land use in May 1978 and the actual traffic counts, estimates of gene- ration factors were made. These are shown in Table 6 and will be used to estimate the future site traffic characteristics. It is expected that the total traffic generation of Newport Place will grow from the May 1978 level of 35,750 vpd to a total of 53,350 vpd. The traffic associated with new development in 1979, 1980, and 1981 is shown. By the end of 1981, Newport Place will generate 49,950 vpd under the maximum development rate excluding the traffic associated with the expansion space. Table 6 PRESENT AND FUTURE SITE TRAFFIC VOLUME Nsvport Place Traffic Study DAILY TRAFFIC AS OF MAY .78 AOOITIONAL TRAFFIC VOL IRLr ULTIMATE QUANTITY '78 (a) Veh/De to) 1978 1979 1960 1981 ENPan- sicn SITE TRAFFIC VOLV14 LAND Use AS OF MAY ,feet (vph) (vpd) (vpd) (vpd) (vpd) (vpd) (vpd) i Office Use, 1,052.3 Msf 14/Mai 14.750 4.100 2.350 3,450 2.100 1.550 28.300 Retail/Canenl 113.3 Mef SO/Maf 5,650 2,100 - - - 450 8,200 Consarcial - - 6,100 Restaurants 42.5 Hof l90/Mef 8,100 - - - - 4,200 Notal/Motel 2Da Looms (106.5 Msf) 1P/,m 2.500 1,700 - - - Auto Center 70.4 Msf 25Mef ' 1,750 - - - - 1,800 J.550 Construction i _ 31000 2.000 - - - - 1,000 Theo Traffic 126/Maf 35 750 3,900 2,350 3,450 2, IOU 3,800 53,350 TOTAL: 1,387.8 Ns[ . ACCUMULATIVE TRAFFIC VOLCME: 33,750 41.650 44,ODD 47,450 49.550 53,350 (s)Ttaffif generation factor used to balance total astimated volume for each land "a Uith the actual traffic CmDtedc (b71ncludes projects completed or Under construction between 5/78 end 12/78. (Sea Table 1 for quantity of develop,ent for each year.) Im 37. Using the peak period characteristics shown in Table 7, the future traffic generation counts of Newport Place, and phased land use, estimates were prepared of the peak 2.5-hour (3:30 to 6:00 P.M.) period volume as well as the evening peak -hour volume for Newport place for additions sinde May 1978 when the counts were taken as well as in the future. Table 7 shows these values. Table 7 SSTSNATED ADDITIONAL PROJECT TRA7TIC AMR SPRING Wil Sol ?lack Traffic Study LAND USC ADOCD 2. -Nwll FLAK TRAFFIC AODLD }.X. FLAR NOUR TRATTIC N+ (Total y 71k PassedGrouts SRpan-• Stah Total Stagg No 7S (a) Nay 71. O S Pnaaad Orweh 1970 1990 lost Ewpan- sign Sldta may 79 t 79 1910 1921 attics usaa 1440 440 1235 765 $50 4,350 700 403 395 365 265 2.330 Astall/Canaral ;a rcial 415 - - - 95 $00 205 - - - 40 245 R+etsuraafe- Netd/Xoui 225 - - - 225 115 - - - - 113 Auto Canter - - - - 430 430 - - - 215 215 Construction i 1%tu Tatgle. -460 _ - - - -460 -240 - - - - -240 TOTAL 1620 340 1235 765 1065 3,525 260 405 595 36S 520 2,665 In6owd 353 220 320 200 355 1.630 215 76 100 60 150 $95 046wd16 IO6S 620 915 S63 710 3,97S 565 335 495 305 170 2.070 (s)Altea4y eceuPied or currently under eogatcuetlog. WC41e4loted grog in/wt a911to at individual load uses added ductal that tine Period. Directional splits of traffic associated with the various land uses were shown in Figure 1. They can be applied to allow determination of the project's traffic impact upon adjacent intersections as required by the City's policies. Critical Intersection Determination The policy of the Newport Beach Planning Commission concerning the test of reasonableness of a project as part bf a Traffic Phasing P]an included examination of the circulation system in the vicinity of the project. The criteria for determining the extent of this examination was that intersections should be reviewed up to a point where there was less that a five percent change in traffic volume due to the additional -10- 35 development contemplated by the project. Discussions with City Staff indicated that this analysis should use total entering traffic volumes on each of the legs of each critical intersection. For Newport Place, besides the spring 1978 traffic, there would be additional traffic for development completed since spring 1978 as well as that currently under construction. The test as to whether the intersection should be studied under an ICU analysis involved whether the project traffic for a 2.5-hour period for the proposed development would increase the total traffic volume on any approach by over five percent. Traffic associated with development completed since May 1978 or currently under construction also was added. As noted in Tables 6 and 7, this amounted to 5,900 vpd and 1,620 vehicles during a 2.5- hour peak period. Table 8 summarizes our calculations for 16 intersections which have been designated 'critical by the City of Newport Beach in the Newport Place environs. It was found that nine of these intersections would have project traffic which would be greater than five percent on one or more approaches when the project is completed. It should be noted that the quantity of project development did not include the 190,200 square feet of expansion area. The critical intersections determined as needing ICU analysis included: MacArthur/Campus, Jamboree/Campus, Jamboree/MacArthur, Bristol (N) /Campus, Bristol (N) /Birch, Bristol/ Campus, Bristol/Birch, MacArthur/Ford and MacArthur/Coast Highway.' Of these, the greatest impact occurred on the intersections along Bristol Street south of the project. Critical Intersection ICU The technique of ICU analysis was developed by Robert W. Crommelin and has been accepted, not only by the City of Newport Beach, but by other political jurisdictions as a method to compare traffic volumes, capacities, and levels of service. An appendix describes the technique as normally applied, although the City of Newport Beach requires cal- culation of ICU to four decimal places and use of a yellow allowance -11- 0 Table 8 PERCENT PROJECT TRAFFIC CONTRIBUTION TO CRITICAL INTERSECTIONS Nevport Place Traffic Study 2.5-HOUR TRAFFIC VOL�lMF.. PROJECT 1978 2.54OUR TRAFFIC INTERSECTION DIREC- Sprint Added (a) I Percent 1973 ICU TION 1978 Proect Total Volume I of Total MacArthur/Csm us NB 53 2888 3129 288 166 3176 3295 495 222 n s e w (0.93) DD 1693 40 1733 190 • wa 2004 13 2017 19 Jamboree Csm us NB 3452 120 A s e w BD 3417 48 3465 88 2 5 (1.17) BB 2042 8 2050 252 its 1637 * 1637 Jamboree Ns 1681 38 1 9 71 4.1 MacArthur St 2814 147 2961 247 f" e/w A s .1 2923 9 2932 17 0.85 ND 3037 19 3066 Bristol N Cam us ND Se ISO4 3103 17 36 1621 3743 208 e w A e MOO) we 4790 393 5183 694 1 13.4 Bristol N Birch ND SB 552 2120 75 73 Ur 2193 318 500 150111 e w Ufa (0.591 SOS 3033 406 3459 262 7.61 0.4 1.7 Driatol N ambore ND SD 5153 2911 16 86 2897 2 50 *w Ufa 0.72 Ns 1162 2 1191 19 1.6 Bristol Ca ua Na 1606 15 1621 22 1.4 • w Ufa SD 3164 32 3196 63 2.0 0.72 ES 3011 223 3250 1 296 rwn Bristol Birch NB 223 * 223 e w n a SD 943 59 1002 68 6. ' 0.36 EB 2656 102 2758 318 19.81 Driatol Jamboree NB $D• 4996 2339 7 66 5003 2426 22 50 0.4 2.1 e w n s 0.54 ED 2778 126 1 2904 68 2.3 Irvine/University 'ND 56 1985 3864 17 32 2002 3896 22 63 1.1 1.6 n s e w (0.86) ED 672 * 672 NB Bo * 80 11 Jamboree Ford Ns 4574 11 4585 75 0.3 n a e w SD 2937 32 2969 64 2.2 (0.83) EB 981 * 981 WB 753 6 759 7 0.9 MacArthurMad NB 4574 50 4624 68 jf5 n s e w SB 2937 93 3030 197J (0.83) E8 981 * 981 Sib 753 11 764 15 2.0 MacArthur/San NB 2561 39 2620 53 2.0 Joaquin Hills SB 4134 96 4230 161 3.8 n/a c w ED 385 * 385 0.64 Sib 2333 11 2544 15 0.6 Jamboree/ ND 11 2592 I 15 0.6 San Joaquin 12581 nts e/v SS 4134 22 4156 43 1.0 as 385 * 385 0.64 NB 2533 * 2533 Jamboree Coast M NB 1015 5 22 1020 11 43 1.1 *•4 n a e w (0.83) Es I 4264 4266 NB 1 3195 5 3190 7 a MacArthur/ SB 2258 71 2329 125 5.4 Coast Hwy n/a e/w EB 3204 11 3215 15 0.5 0.77 HB 3432 28 3460 38 1.1 (a) At 1981 project completion, excluding expansion of 190,262 square feet. * Nominal volume. [] Project contribution exceeds five percent. -12- 3� of 0.1000 rather than the adjusted value as shown in the original technical paper on ICU. ICU's were calculated for nine intersections where project traffic during the 2.5-hour peak period exceeded five percent of the prior entering volume. The calculation sheets are attached as an appendix to this report. Table 9 summarizes the ICU characteristics for each of the nine intersections. Values for both the existing condition and the existing plus project are shown in the table. In order to determine the need for phasing the project as well -as the effect of planned area roadway improvements, further examination was assumed necessary when the ICU exceeded 0.9000. It was found that this condition would exist at four intersections: Bristol (N) /Campus, Jamboree/Campus, MacArthur/Campus, and MacArthur/Ford. These intersections will receive principal examination to determine what roadway improvements remain to be completed, particularly those which will directly aid in moving traffic generated by the proposed project. Table 9 SUMMARY OF CRITICAL INTERSECTION ICU CHARACTERISTICS Newport Place Traffic Study INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION FURTHER STUDY INTERSECTION NEEDED? Existing Condition Existing Plus Project Yes No Bristol(N)/Campus 1.0016 1.0608 x Bristol/Campus-Irvine 0.7276 0.7526 x Bristol(N)/Birch 0.5911 0.6977 x Bristol/Birch 0.3582 0.3851 x Jamboree/Campus 1.1343 1.1627 x Jamboree/MacArthur 0.8604 0.8673 x MacArthur/Campus 0.9259 1.0762 x MacArthur/Ford 1.0121 1.0265 x MacArthur/Coast Hwv 0.7719 0.8109 x -13- 0 Impact of Planned Roadway Improvements Caltrans has several projects in the northwest portion of the City of Newport Beach which will significantly improve traffic operations. In early spring 1979, a freeway connection will be opened between the Bristol Street frontage roads and the Corona Del Mar Freeway to the west. Direct connection will be made from Bristol Street just west of Campus Drive to both the Newport Freeway and the San Diego Freeway. This improvement will cause a diversion of MacArthur Boulevard traffic, principally that with a destination to and from the west on the San Diego Freeway. Another Caltrans project involves the widening of MacArthur Boulevard in the vicinity of Campus Drive to allow three full lanes northbound plus a right -turn lane serving northbound traffic on MacArthur Boulevard desiring to turn right on Uampus Drive. This project, along with traffic signal system improvements is scheduled for advertising in mid-1979. Construction should be completed by early 1980. As an interim improve- ment, consideration should be given to the provision of three full lanes southbound on MacArthur Boulevard to take advantage of the widening which has already occurred on .MacArthur Boulevard in front of the Newport Place project. Opening of the Von Kerman overcrossing of the San Diego Freeway between MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Boulevard will provide traffic relief to both the MacArthur and Jamboree interchanges with the San Diego Freeway. Scheduled for opening in late January 1979, the overcrossing will improve area circulation and reduce volumes at the Jamboree/Campus intersection which is one of the critical intersections in this study. Currently, Jamboree Boulevard carries 48,000 vpd south of Route 405 and 23,500 vpd north of the freeway. MacArthur Boulevard carries 53#800 vpd to the south and 36,300 vpd to the north. It would not be unreasonable to expect the Von Kerman bridge to direct 8,000 to 120000 of these trips from Jamboree and MacArthur Boulevards. Currently there are about 20,000 trips through the MacArthur interchange and 13,000 through on Jamboree (excluding ramp traffic). -14- S / A fourth improvement scheduled for early 1980 is the realignment of Ford Road at MacArthur Boulevard in conjunction with roadway improvements to MacArthur itself. The cooperative City -State project will provide two left -turn lanes, two through lanes, and one right -turn lane for each approach on MacArthur Boulevard. The westerly leg will have two left - turn lanes and two lanes for through and right -turn movements. The easterly leg will have one left -turn lane and two lanes for through and right -turn movements. These roadway improvements will significantly .increase roadway capacity and reduce congestion at this intersection. The City of Irvine has included a project in its 1978-1979 budget which will improve traffic. operations at the Jamboree/Campus intersection. it involves widening the east side of Jamboree Boulevard south of Campus Drive to provide one additional northbound lane. Construction will be completed.in Fall 1979 according to the Irvine Public Works Department. The roadway improvements mentioned above currently are planned by the various jurisdictions. All are imminent for implementation. Each will have an impact upon the four critical intersections noted in the previous section. Revised ICU analysis sheets are included in the appendix for all four of the intersections. The painting of a southbound right -turn lane in the 30 feet available on the northerly leg of Bristol Street serving southbound traffic will significantly change the ICU at that intersection. This minor painting and signing already was accomplished last week by the City of Newport Beach. The ICU will be reduced from 1.0608 to 0.8351. These numbers represent the existing plus project traffic condition. There will be adequate capacity remaining to serve traffic diverted from MacArthur Boulevard to the new freeway connection. The improvements noted for the MacArthur/Campus intersection will reduce the ICU from 1.0762 to 0.8878, not taking into consideration any diversion of traffic from that roadway to the new Corona Del Mar Freeway connection. The principal change occurs by providing more capacity -15- on MacArthur Boulevard to handle through traffic. Although the coordination of traffic signals does not directly improve capacity, it will significantly improve traffic operating conditions on the By allowing three full through lanes on each approach on MacArthur Boulevard, as well as a separate northbound right -turn lane, the ICU will be lowered to an acceptable level. By adding a southbound and eastbound double left -turn lane to the MacArthur/Ford intersection, the ICU will be reduced from 1.0265 to The most important improvements are the provision of left -turn lanes for the two movements noted. The Jamboree/Campus intersection currently has an ICU of 1.1343 which will increase to 1.1627 with the full development of Newport Place, excluding the expansion allowance. Widening of the easterly side of Jamboree Road south of Campus Drive by the City of Irvine will occur By provision of an additional lane northbound Boulevard approaching Campus Drive, the ICU for the intersection would be reduced to 1,0091 with project volumes added. As mentioned previously, opening the Von Karman overcrossing will divert some traffic from this busy intersection. We have not prepared a detailed traffic analysis of the future usage of the Von Karman overcrossing but feel it would be reasonable to assume that sufficient volume on the heavier approaches would be diverted to the alternate route to reduce the ICU to a reasonable Opening of the overcrossing combined with the widening of Jamboree Boulevard will bring the ICU to 0.900 or less. Need for Development Phasing The phasing as proposed under the maximum development rate by Bmkay Development Company for the Newport Place project can be accommodated by planned improvements of the roadway system. The maximum development rate (excludin3 the expansion allowance) can be accomplished if the following phasing occurs in association with the various improvements noted: 1. Occupancy of the floor space considered for construction 51 in 1979 should not occur until a third lane is developed on MacArthur Boulevard in each direction at the Campus Drive intersection and the Corona Del Mar Freeway connec- tion is made to the west and the San Diego Freeway. 2. Similarly, the occupancy should be forestalled until the MacArthur/Ford improvements are completed although this is of much lesser importance that the improvements to close proximity to the site. 3. The opening of the Von Karman overcrossing combined with the addition of a northbound lane on Jamboree Boulevard by the City of Irvine will improve traffic conditions at the Jamboree/Campus intersection to a reasonable level so that phasing of the project will not be required. 4. By phasing the additional development over a three-year period, the entire project can be accomplished without a negative impact upon the adjacent street system once the initial improvements noted in this report are accommodated. 5. Prior to progressing on the expansion space of 190,200 square feet of building area, a separate traffic analysis should be accomplished at a later date. If you have any questions concerning our findings, please let us know. It has been a pleasure to serve Emkay Development and Realty Company once again on this most interesting project. Respectfully submitted, ROBERT CROMMELIN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Im ll"' a m No.9s67 C10- Robert W. Crommelin, P.E. glfOFCAL�� President RWC:In #18271 Registered Professional Engineer State of California Civil C9667; Traffic TR488 ►ia INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ROBERT CROMMELIN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. FREQUENTLY USES AN ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUE CALLED INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) TO RELATE VEHICLE VOLUMES] CALCULATED CAPACITIES, AND LEVELS OF SERVICE. THIS MONOGRAPH DESCRIBES THAT TECHNIQUEi The capability of a roadway to move traffic volume is referred to as capacity. Capacity is nearly always greater between intersections and more restricted at intersections. This is true because the roadway normally flows continuously between intersections and flows only during a green phase at signalized inter- sections. Signals are generally warranted and installed before capacity is reached for non -signalized intersections. One seldom encounters non -signalized intersections operating at capacity. Analytical techniques have been developed which allow the calculation of the capacity of an intersection approach based upon its various geometric, demographic, and traffic flow characteristics. It is important to note that traffic volumes may be counted or estimated, whereas capacity is a calculated value. Usually, volumes are rounded off to the nearest 5 vehicles per hour (vph) and capacities to the nearest 10 vehicles per hour of green time (vphG) per lane. 'The capacity calculation methods are outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual.(1 Sometimes,. a single value of 1500 to 1700 vphG is used. Research in the Los Angeles metropolitan area has found an average value of 1700 vphG per lane to apply to both through and left -turn lanes for the value of roadway capacity. Use of a value such as this greatly simplifies the calculation. Level of Service (LOS) The term level of service is used to describe quality of traffic flow. Levels of Service A to C operate quite well. Level C normally is taken as a design level in urban areas outside a regional core. Level D typically is the level for which a metropolitan area street system is designed. Level E represents volumes at or near the capacity of the highway which will result in possible stoppages�of momentary duration and fairly unstable flow. Level F occurs when a facility is overloaded and is characterized by atop -and -go traffic with stoppages of long duration. ICU and LOS Relationships The technique utilized to compare volume and capacity NO atios with 1Pvel of service is called "Intersection. Capacity Utilization" (ICU). 2) ICU represents the proportion of the total hour required to accommodate intersection traffic volumes if all approaches are operating at capacity (Level of Service E). This does not mean that Level E is appropriate for urban design, but the evaluation of present and future operating conditions in relationship to total capacity is more easily understood. In other words, operating at 85 percent of capacity is easier to comprehend than operating at LOS D. The following relationships between level of service and ICU are used: Level of Service (LOS) A, 0.68 ICU or less; LOS t, 0.69 to 0.71 ICU; LOS C, 0.72 to 0.79 ICU; LOS D, 0.80 to 0.89 ICU; LOS E, 0,90 to 1.00 ICU; and LOS Y9 over 1.00 ICU. ►il To determine the current and future operational efficiency of the street system in the study area, a volume/capacity (v/c) analysis is made at selected important intersections. The method used at each location is to determine the proportion of total signal time needed in one hour for each conflicting movement and to compare it with the total time available (100 percent of the hour). For example, a movement with 1,000 vehicles per hour (vph) on an approach with a calculated capacity of 3,000 vph would require 33 percent of the total available signal time. The capacities used are for Level of Service E, as defined in the Highway Capacity Manual. Continuing this procedure for critical approach signal phases will yield the total amount of time required to meet traffic volume demands. The critical approach phases are those which control the timing of the overall cycle of a traffic -actuated controller. With multi -phase controllers, the critical movements on one of the streets usually are heavy left -turn movements and their opposing through movements. An allowance for yellow clearance times is added with the total representing the ICU. The ICU calculations assume that signals are properly timed. At poorly timed locations, it is possible to have an ICU of well below 1.00, yet severe traffic congestion occurs on one approach or more because a movement is not getting enough time to satisfy its demand with excess time being wasted. This is an operational problem which should be remedied. The ICU technique also can be used to test the impact of adding lanes -and revising signal phasing and to determine future operating conditions with or without a proposed new development. Thus, with actual present hourly volumes or estimated future volumes, different intersection configurations can be tested to determine which would optimize future traffic operating conditions. SAMPLE CALCULATION Movement Volume Ca acit V/C Ratio (vph) (vphG) Northbound 1500 3400 0.34 Southbound 1650 3400 0.49* Eastbound 300 1700 0.18 Westbound 425 1700 0.25* Yellow 0.08* ICU 0.82 LOS "D" * Indicates critical movement included in the ICU. (1)Highway Capacity Manual, 1976; Highway Research Board Special Report No. 87; Washington, D.C. (2)Robert W. Crommelin, "Use of Intersection Capacity Utilization Values to Estimate Overall Level of Service," Traffic Engineering, July 1974. 47- • � �trm,iw�nrn • TIMNm/OITAiIO' ANO Tma#pC gMmiagM DtFINiTIONS AND A101MVIATIONS In our teptt** Set" ere used which are common to the Truffle faflMering profssalon but our trot be clear to olhats. The tsllusiAg definition* cover commonly wed terms. Additional deflnitlons Any No found in the Tramportation And Traffic To me_ttIIn N�dn6d�okt Institute of Transportation fnRlnUfe. Nuhtngton. D.C., 1076. or two Ntfhway capacity NAMMAI, fpaccsl bpi- - t Nv. gJ, Nlghway fwurch Yoard, Nuklogton, D.C., 1065. C99NON AlINNEVIATICNS ADTS WSW daily vpht vehicles Mr hour trAltic vpbgl vohieloo per boor mat average wbohday of Krone (sisal trsitit time) CgOt central business Let left Aistrlet Rtl right Hart square fat in 1.000to Will millions of we- hleldm entering 011port United states Do. (Imtetametla) ►!rtmaml of Trans. NMI mlll(ae of vo- prat/a Aleto miles MIAs FEE1, NlAlwoy VMS vehicle miles of Aitntstrotla travel Caltraas California Deport - ?it Nrl Ptah hour vvolung meat of Traos►or- 0; traffic signal tell" phase IRKS Transportation vng, vehicles par day Reaoarch bard TRAFFIC AVERACL DAILY TKAMC (ADT)i the total volumr during * given time Period (usually ono year) divided by the member of dap, In that it" period. VENICUS PLO DAY (vpd)t the total voles of traffic passing a point. usually In both direetlonp for a 36 beer ►erhd• to moat traffic Analyas prepared by us, avpd" refers to binge wekdap traffic. Wit IVA VOIARILt the highest number at Vohielau found to be psestax over A action of a lane or a roadway due- Ing 60 ceaecutive minutes, sleekly designated to the morales Peale hour and the evening peak hour. DKNSITYi the number at vehicles occupying a waft length of the through Seattle Ism•& at a roadway, At any given Instant. Usually expressed In vehlcics par mile. I" FACIM a ratio of the total number of great at&- mel IntervadA that Are fully utlliod by traffic during the put hour to the total number of green interval# for that approach during the Amme Period. Its maklmw At- tolnabiv value is one. PLAN NOUN MICAS a ratio at the volume occurring due Ing the peak hnur to the wvlmum rate of flow during A given time perind within the peak hour. It It ♦ measure at peaking characteristics, whose maximum attainable value Is rant. The term mat be qualified by a specified abort period within the hourt this Is usually 5 or 6 min- ute# for freeway operation ad 15 minutes for lntoractton upentlnn. UPSTRI:Ana the direction Along the roadway from which the vehicle floe under conetderAtlon her come. DOMIbIRkAM: the direction along the roadway toward which the vehicle flow under consideration to moving. miTTIaMCkt A constriction AI"g a traveled way uhics Ilmtto the .want of traffic wgeh can proceed downstream Iran Ica IntJtlnn. PLATaIN: a closely grouped elerrntal component of trap fit, C ,Hand of aeverAl vlhleleo. seeing or &ending ready to move over A roadway with clew Spaces ahead and behind. CONDOM: in tamatnary line around An area Across which vtblclex. Ptrnoda, at other items are counted (in And out). V011CU SIMMS A measure of the amount of usage of a $Na. tion of hlahway noreully used In Accident onaly,ig to c"- paro Nm/ar highway,. Obtained by multiplying the averdso dIIIV traffl, by 16S and dlvldtng by it., length of section In melt.•-, ugm11Y stated In Atillona. TFAVFIC TRSPI the moving Of a putting or vehicle from one te- eatlen (origin) to &mother (destination). TAtP-CIOI an end of A trip At either the origin or dastinatiom; I.*. each trip has two krp-vnda. TRIP yI Mtr the reason why the trip is rude (to or from work, shopping. school, ate.). $MIEN-LINOt an Imaginary ling or physical !curare Across which All trips are counted, 11611414 to vvrlfy the validity of mathematical traffic models. TRIP OUKRATION FACTORS a traffic volume estimating Coal, from otwfo of Similar land uees, the Instant of traffic (trips) predwed by or attracted to tla land we is ralatod to aam& identifying unit such AS land area, gross floor Area, Population, employment, ate. And applied to kbo Avows eI that unit for IS, lend woe wader study. ror exampla, 10 trips per day per dwtiing unit futon to S trips Inwood and S trip. outbowd from the xclaritiot unit. CENCRAL OESIGN TERM GEONMIC DPSiGNt the ITrbgement of the vLsIkIe Cie. meats of a road, such . Alignment. $red,$. sight dls• tosses, widths, Slopra, etc. IMLACPAWAt a system of Interconnecting ruadwayo In conjunction with a grad* apatatlon or gtado taprA- time providing for the Interchange of traffic bttw•en tw or mote Intersecting roadways. MDIANI the portion of a divided highway Separating the trAvelod ways for traffic In opposite directions. TRAVEUD WAYS the portion of the roadway fwr the move- ment of vahleten exclusive of shoulders and A:tillary labs. AMWAY LAWS the portion •,[ -- •vt.ar idinlnlnx the traveled way tar parking, Speed thinge, be (of other purpose tuppiemratary to thrcuAh trI(flc movement. SWUM: the portion of the roadway contiguous with the traveled way for Aecmmtmuitlon of stopped vehiele•c, for emergency use, and for lateral support at base And surface courses. TRAFFIC UM: the portion of the traveled way fur the movement of a single Ifs, of vehicle' RICNT Or WAYS the land awed by a public *Aeney which Includes the rankled, sidewalks, and other Areas Such an thou used tar planting strips CNAMEbty.ATIONt the separation of regulatten of cen- 11141ing traffic movement[ ere daftnite paths at Seat - vat by ens use of pavement markings, raid Wanda, or other suitable means to fatl4tate the We And er- dorly movements of both vehicles and pedestrians. MEAVINC SECTIONS a length of one-way roadway, designed to accommodate weavinx, At one end of which two nu -way roadway& merge and at the other end of which tbuy top. Arate. RAMPS a Connecting roadway between two Intersecting highways at an Interchange. Contilsw l Am reverse TRAFFIC SIGNALS Any dtvlce, 0t,thvr manually, electrically, or mechani- cally echani- cally opecado by which traffic is alternately directed to stop and permitted U, proceed. SIGNAL INDICATION: the Ill uninstion of a traffic .SsnAl tens or equivalent device or a combination of several Iealra or equivalent devices at the came time. TIMF. CYCLE: the time period required for one complete sequence of stgnal lndicatlads. PHASE: a part of the time cycle allocated to any tesf- fic movement or to any combination of traffic movements rervlving the right-nf-wy aimultaneously during one or .ore intumik. FRLTD4U SIGNAL: a type of traffic control signal which directs traffic to stop and permits it to proceed in sc- cordenu with predetermined time schedules, IRAFFLC.ACIUATLO SIGNAL: a type of traffic control sig- nal In which the intervals are varied in accordance with flue demands of traffic a. registered by the actuation of detectors. 1. S,mt-tr,fflc-actuated signal: a typo of traffic actuated atsnal in which nuns or. provided for traffic actuation in one or Door. but not all ap- proach*. to the Intersection. 2. full traffic-actwted aipal: a type of traffic actuated signal In which means are provided for traffic actuation on all approaches to the inter - Italian. y. hdestrlan-actuated signal; a type of traffic control signal which may be actuated by a pedes- trian. jAOl M SYSTEM: a signal system in which the succes- give signal faces controlling a given vtrest give "go" Indications in accordance with . time schedule to permit (&s nosily es possible) continuous operation of groups of vehicles along the street at a planned rate of speed. Mich Day vary to different parts of the system. ROADWAY TYPE ARIERIAL HIGHWAY: a general term denoting a highway primarily for through traffic, usually an A cmntinu- ews route. EXPAESSVAY: . divided artarial highway for through traffic with full or partial control of access. FRF.EVAY: An expressway with full control of access and all grade crossingo eliminated CONTROL OF ACCESS: the ..MLiters where the right of Downer, or occupants of abutting Land or other persons to acre.., light, air, or view In connection with a h ilhway 1. fully or partially controlled by public authority. FMRWAY: an arterial highway for noncommercial test - fie. with full or partial control of access, and usu- ally located within a part or a rLbbon of parklike de- valopment. MAJOR STREET OR MAJOX HIGHWAY: an arterial highway with Intersections at grade and direct access to •but- ting pro party, and on which to. tric design and traf- fic control s"esures are used to expedite the sofa movement of through traffic. LOCAL STREET OR LOCAL ROADt .strut or rokd pri- marily fur *octal to residence, business, or other abutting property. THROUGH STREET: every highway or portion thereof at the entrance to which vehicular traffic from intec- eseeing hlshwaym to required by law to stop before entering or crossing the same and when stop signs are erected. DIVIORO DICINAY: a highvey with separated r.Ad—y. file traffic In nppoalte directions. FRONTAGE ROAD: a local street or road auxiliary to and located can the aid- of an arterial highway for service to abutting property and •decent areas and for control of access. Cul: DE -SAC STREET: a loca� street open at an, end only, and with special provision. for turning around. HIGHWAY CAPACITY CAPACITY: the maximum number of vehicles Which has a reasonable expectation of passing over a given sew tion of a lens or a roadway in one or hwth dlceetl"ns during a given time period under prevailing roadway and traffic conditions. LEVEL OF SERVICE: a term which, broadly Interpreted, denotes any one of an infinite number of differing com- binatione of operating conditions that my occur can a given lens or roadway when it to accommodating various traffic volumes. Level of Service 13 s quslttattve ,.&sure of the affect of a number of factors, which in- clude speed and travel time, traffic interruptions, freedom to maneuver, safety, delving comfort and con- venience, and operating costa. In practice, selected specific levels are defined in term, of particular lim- iting values of certain of these factors. Six Levels of Service have been designated by letters to represent the beet condition P'A" free flowing) and the went ('r' forced flow at very low speeds). Nor- mally, Levels "C" (stable flow) or "0" (unstable flow but tolerable operations) are used for design purposes. SERVICE VOLUME: the maximum number of vehicles that can pass over a given section of a lens or roACuey in one direction on multilane highways (or in both direc- tions on a two- or three -lam highway), during a speci- fied time period White operating condition, are Data - pined corresponding to the selected or specified level of service. In the absence of a time =differ, service ,alum I an hourly voleise. LEVEL OF SERVICE VS. OPERATING CHAAACFERISTICS LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTION OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS A Free flow Lae volumes. hiN speed (best) selectivity, Iw dessity. Drivers not Instead by other traffic. At signals no driver wait, Donee fhb am signal cycle and all turns are easily Adds. g Stable flow Operating speeds beginaing to be restricted by traffic conditions. Suitable for rural design values. At signal, drivers beginning to feel somewhat restricted. C Stable flow Volume restricts driver's (design value) speed and manuver.bllity; suitable for urban design values. At signals. dri- Vote nay have to accession - ally vale more than one cycle to clear.' O Approaching Temporary, restrictions cauw unstable flow drop in valet sold ypred; comfort an: corronl4xca is law but eclarabl, for short perlcds. At sipals, short Peaks say, develop queues ' Mich will clear during later cycles. Excessive back-up does not occur. E Unstable flow Speeds on freeways at 70 mph (capacity) with momentary stoppages. At signals there may be long queues of vehicles with de- lays up to several signal cycles. Unsuitable for use In design. F Forced flow Lou speeds, many stoppages (west) as freeways, long queues, aid high delays; roadway , becomes storage area. back- up from one signal may block ad)ecent Intersections. Vol- umes carried are unpredict- able. Revised June 1, 1973 HA INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION FOR EXISTING ROADWAY CONDITIONS u INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intefection Bristol Street North/Campus Drive N, (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 81 rio„", 181 . D506 , OSOG NT 2 3200 587 „ o,,, , -7 . / 34- , / 34- NR SL - - - ST 2 3200 1241 2 7 / 68 . 586 , G ZI SR 637 85 72Z EL - - - ET - - — ER - - - WL 1 1600 321 7 326 ,2006 , 20so WT 4 6400 1660 / S5 /$ .26 .2883 WR 30/S yo..,. 3� Yellow Time Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. �• o O/ 6 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. /•D6 D ICU is sum critical movements; denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left v%oti+. • Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 f-1 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to L 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 Bristol Street North/Campus Drive 1 PROJECT: INACTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANOIS t Intersection Bristol Street/Campus Drive -Irvine Avenue I,kG (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on verage 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 - ` NT 2 3200 445 44S 129 .1294- NR 1 1600 207 2 SL 1 1600 81 N o I . 050 SOS"D ST 2 3200 1481 34 SR - EL 1 1600 142 /47- ET 4 6400 947 Cl2-/ 0 3 9 . A 8 10 ER y - WL _ r WT - WR - '' DSO Yellow Time I loco Existin Intersection Caoacit Utilization I.C.U. •%Z 76 76-26 Existin Plus Project Intersection Ca acity 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 = L ® 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 eQval 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 Bristol Street/Campus Drive -Irvine Avenue ' ANALYS INTERSVION CAPACITY UTILIZATION Intersection Bristol Street North/Birch Street 1978) 41� (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring Move- lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Plus Project Exist. VC Project V/C ment city Peak Hr —Vol ume Peak Hr Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio 1 1600 36 N 3 G .OZ25 U22S NL 2 320D 203 9 3 0 2 .062 •0 4 `i NT NR _ _ _ SL 3200 285 2 SS ..Zb ISM 3519 �` ST 2 p 571 7 $ SR _ _ EL _ _ ET _ _ ER 46 37 �3 WL WT 4 6400 1205 p 31 0 .ZOI 4 .2233 WR 36 NOM. 3 E .1000 ` .1000-A Yellow Time S'91 1 Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization(I.C.U-2 J Existinq Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. •6 9-1 % ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk ('t9 N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left 0 = NoMiKI ® Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.L.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. Existing Pius Project TrE fic I.G.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/Birch Street INTERAION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANAA ; Intersection Bristol Street/Birch Street 4t� (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 197 ) Muve- mvnt 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 1600 30 3 O NR 8SL =20z//Z 1 1600 66 ST 2 3200 285 Z 2 n ik SR - -�- EL 173 ET 4 6400 863 ER - - 46 N DtA, 4 6 WL WT- - - •� r .- WR - - - -- _ Yellow Time I . 1000.X ,)poolf Existino Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. . 35 9 2 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization (I,C.U.),3 951 ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (-*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left 5z Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 rl Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to l—� 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 Bristol Street/Birch Street u II INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALOS Intersection Jamboree Blvd./Campus Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes Base on Average Winter Spring 1978) w .7 1 INTER' PROA R N INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSO T r Intersection Jamboree Road/MacArthur Blvd. LjD (Existing Traffic Volumes Base on Average winter Spring 197— ® 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 tc 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 II z ' ' • • INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection MacArthur Blvd./Campus Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1918) Move- men Lanes Capa- city Existing Peak Hr Volume Project Peak Hr Volume P Peaio Project V/C Ratio NL 1 1600 i l l r1 o,n . Nz— 4 OG 9 NT 2 3200 1044 3 l 9/ J NR - 73 29. SL_t. SL 1 1600 56 n *. • 10350 , 0 36 ST 3 3200 1026 5-4 DRO i 2Oro .337 1350 SR EL 1 1 1600 1600 201 285 /S 20 /256 ET 2 3200 421 not r / �/ 9 ER 53 Hom S✓� - WL 1 1600 100 6 06 O 25' .O66Z T 3299 825 n o.r,. ,_25% 2 R E E2 1 N.5• 54 no.n. - Yellow Time ,/000 ,/OO 3259 Existin 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 nay nn ^ i 11 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 l Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to L—I Existing Conditions I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 f�i► Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently 'greater than 0.90 i Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION MacArthur Blvd /Campus Drive FORM II t r INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYPS Intersection MacArthur Boulevard/Ford Road (Existing Traffic Volumes— Based on verage 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 30 naPew . 30 ti 0/88 r D/88 2 3200 1346 2 67 r�35' NR 49 v1ea+• 4 SL tSRNT 1 1600 370 2.3/2 , 2456 ST 2 3200 1413 2 • 44 / 1 1600 132 NoM. O EL 1 1600 279 Z 79 __1174 11 ET 1 1600 228 nnn 1.22,6/42 ¢ZS ER 1 1600 88 n A6 , O A 1 1600 19 ,,,.,, / WT 1 1600 113 //3 We 0 WR 1 1600 194 .6 / 2 2 Yellow Time , /004 /Ced Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. /. On / Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.)�' GZ ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E-Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, LsLeft 11 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 EJExisting Plus Project Traffic T.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 Existina Plus Project 7raffic.I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. -chat is currently greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to d0termine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION MacArthur Boulevard/Ford Road 0 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Inteftection pacArthur/Coast HbFY ume (Existing Traffic Vols Base on Average linter/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 NR-- SL 2 3200 828 /2S 9s3 zstrif z97£r ST - - --- SR 1 1600 197 - /9-7 /Z3/ •/23/ EL 2 Z3Ar /39Y / a95 ET 2 3200 1322 /37-Z •4/!3/ '4//� ER - - - - — WL -— WT 2 3200 839 -- FS'3 i .-z- xz .2 G 2Y WR N.S. - 360 Yellow Time Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. d•77� 9 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.)a•8io9 ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, Might, L=Left Y%on,' 6 no ' n Ex Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.'90 (� Existing Plus Project Traffic T.C.U. will be less than or equal to �-1 Existing Conditions I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic T.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 MacArthur/Coast Hwy II 0 CA{ INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION FOR REVISED (IMPROVED) ROADWAY CONDITIONS 55 1NTE*CTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANAOIS REVISED - WITH ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT Intersection Bristol Street North/Campus 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 1 1600 81 $ I .OSo * . OSo ro NT 2 3200 587 587 .1834 NR SL ST - 2 3200 1241 `- 2.7 / 2 6 8 .38 3 q 62. SR 1 1600 637 651 7 2 2 .3 81 .4512 EL - - r ET - - ER WL 1 1600 321 7 3 2 Is . 2006 , Z06'0 WT 4 6400 1660 /SS / !S .264l .2$i33�` WR 30 Non . s o Yellow Time . /000* ,loon"- Existina Intersection Caoacity Utilization I.C.U. .`a OZS Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. , 835J ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (g) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left N orn = Nomi NAL- Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.0 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.0 Existing Conditions I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 co,..() I.a ie-a1, will be less .than or equal to EJ 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 I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 C! Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures REVISION: Paint separate southbound right turn lane on Campus Drive, north of Bristol Street (North). INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSI10 REVISED WITH ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS Intersection am oree v ampus Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage Winter Spring 1978) Move- lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist, Pr I ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C v.,..Ms Poak Hr-Volume Ratio F SR MN. r)**n neon. ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk M N■Northbound, S*SouthbouMd, E*Eastbo�undy W^Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, Existing Plus Project Traffic I.G.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 f 1 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to L—� Existing Conditions I.C.U. NOTE: intersection Analysis does not Von Karmen gn'ize the diversion of traffic from this ng- Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ® Existing tus Project tTraffic ly IrCthanwill be greater than existing Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures REVISIONS. Widen 0heor northbound Fall 1approach to provide 3 northbound lanes. 3 V INTE@ECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANOIS REVISED — WITH ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT InterseMacArthur Blvd. Cam us Drive tJ (Existing Traffic Volumes Base on Average Wtnter/Spring 1978) Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project 'Peak Hr Lxisttng Plus ProjectVolume V/C� ment city Peak Hr Volume PeakHr Volume RatioNL ARatio 1 1600 Ill a1044 36 2 4 NT 3 4800 2 29 02 ,0 6 ,p(,3 NR 1 1600 73 56 0 .351 SL 1 1600 56 1026 0 54 1 O SO . 2556 . 2 0 ST 3 4800 201 S 21 SR 1 1600 285 2.0 OS 140 EL 3 . �26I)� ET 2 3200 421 53 -� 3 WL 1 1600 100 WT 2 3200 825 0 �ZS .257 .2S'A WR 1 IJ,S. 54 NOM. 56 _ ` I ,/000' ,BOO Yellow Time S1'a09 :xistino Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. S 7 8 Existino 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 � �N ®Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less t an or equal to 0.90 C10 4 tt- fb4 d ww) 1',V 0--V & --'t' s Co.,.. f)14 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.L.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.G.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 REVISIONS: Revise island anprovide d signals on northeast cornallow one added northbound lane thru intersection; p separate northbound right turn lane. INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS REVISED - WITH ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT intersection MacArthur Boulevard/Ford Road ✓$ (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Sp/Spring 1978) Move- went 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 30 Nam, 3 o OM .0186 NT 2 3200 1346 121 17 6 .427 ZI NR 1 1600 49 SL 2 3200 370 23 393 /156 ZZS ST 2 3200 1413 z 15"15, 6 73 SR 1 1600 132 N 0M. 0 1925" .08Z6 EL 2 J 3200 279 Ne 271 . 08 7 .0872 ET 2 3200 228 N0 2 Z 0988 ER 88 Mom, e 8 WL 1 1600 19 M. 19 .01)9 4 WT 1 1600 113 113 . 0700 , 0 0C9 WR 1 1600 194 ;$ 121Z .1244 Yellow Time . 1000 , loop Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. ADC6 Existing Plus Proiect Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.)•8/ 9 ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (f) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Thro%gh, R=Right, L=Left tdnm = IJDMIAIAI_ Ewj�e tensAPW*ct^Tr A-- {.3.41 P be lessthan or equal to 0.90 LI Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to tt 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 LJ I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 0 Further analysis required to dAtermine applicable mitigation measures REVISION: Add sorthbound and eastbound double left turn and other spot widenings. BY: Caltrans/City in 1979. NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO: Secretary for Resources 1416 Ninth Street, Room 1311 Sacramento, California 95814 FROM: Community Development Dept. City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Calif. 92663 aClerk of the Board of Supervisors x P. 0. Box 687 Santa Ana, Californi:a 92702 NAME OF PROJECT: Newport Place Planned Community - Phasing Plan PROJECT LOCATION: property bounded by MacArthur Boulevard; Bristol Street North, and Birch Street in Newport Beach PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for the approval of a Phasing Plan for re- maining development in the Newport Place Planned Community. FINDING: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council Policy K-3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. MITIGATION MEASURES 1. Occupancy of the floor space considered for construction in 1979 shalt not occur until a third lane is developed on MacArthur Blvd. in each direction at the Campus Drive intersection and the Corona del Mar Freeway connection is made to the west and the San Diego Freeway. 2. The occupancy of buildings shall not occur until the MacArthur/Ford-improvements are completed. 3. The opening of the Von Kaman overcrossing and the addition of a northbound lane on Jamboree Blvd. by the City of Irvine shall be accomplished prior to occupancy of any buildings. 4. Future development in the Emkay-Newport Place Planned Community shall occur in accordance with the phasing plan. 5. Prior to the issuance of any building permits in the expansion space of 190,200 sq.ft. of building area, in any amount greater than 30% of the remaining space to be developed on each parcel, a separate traffic analysis shall be accomplished. INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY: Emkay Development and Realty Company INITIAL STUDY AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT: DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 I - ' Fred Ta arico Environmental Coordinator Date: January 15, 1979 PROPOSED SQ. FT. 300 ; U •EMKAY DEVELOPMENT AND REALTY COMPANY DEVELOPMENT PHASING WIT11 ROAD IMPROVEMENTS 100y000 -:_ICo I it" 1.(2(3(4 1.1-2(371'2(314 - -- -- 1979 — - — 1980 — _ 1981 "'—'-ICU 1eas—... t_ha.n Q..9b..at.--- — -- --- — — — .... .. _...._ _-.. _. ._...__�.__...`__ _. _ -completion intorssction',imps. _ _" __.�. -- ---• A._ •Campus/Bristol-No-. B. Campus/MacArthur C' Campus/Jamboree' • � _ peRt: 979'r _ D Ford/MacArthur •�j.1 ._ ..- • _ L DACKGROUND. 1. Name of Pro 2 Address and ..t•.,nJ:..n L:iIAL i:11k L'hLIST PDR:d ,EMX `f'ri De��loP.. �wTat %leol�y C� Number of Proponent: 3. Date of Checklist Submitted f' 4. Agency Requiring Checklist S. Name of Proposal, if applicable It. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers Are required on attached sheets.) YES MAYGE NO i. eartn. Will the proposal result in; a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes 1n geologic sub- V structures? . b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? — — — c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique / geologic or physical features? — — — o. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? — — — E Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? — g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar �• hazards? 2 Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air ✓ quality? — — b. 'no creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change is climate, either locally or regionally? — — — 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water t/ movements, In either marine or fresh waters? — — — b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns or the rate ✓ and amount of surface water runoff? — — — c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? tom—.. d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? — — face vrnter quality. Including but no: limited to temperature, dissolved -oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? I. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any spe. cies of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endan• gered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or In a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? S. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any spe• cies or animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, bcnthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endan• gered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Noise. Will- the proposal result in: a, Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? . 8. Land Uae. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? 9. Natural Ilasources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural re- source? 10. Risk of Upset Does the proposal involve a risk of an explo• sion or the release of hazardous sub in ' g, but not limited to, oil,.pesticides, chcmic o venter an accident or upset conditions REc S tl?vUZJV`EO j. NEyypIRTOBp. 9 OALfF,zACH r \V. J lopuiation. Will the proposal alter the location, dishibu- tio... Density, or glowth rate of the human population pf an area? 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing"housing,orcreato a demand for additional housing? 10. Tramportatlon/Cireuletion. Will the proposal result In: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or move- ment of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase In traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: L Fire protection? b. Police protection? C. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, Including roads? E Other governmental services? 13. Energy. Will the proposal result In: L Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase In demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? e. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? E Solid waste and disposal? 17. Human Health.. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 18. Aesthattes. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to pubtic view? 0 W&A V L/ MA YEr-(tAYnH 140 19. Recreation.' Will the propolal result in an Impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Archsologlcst/Historical. Will the proposal result in an al.' teratlon of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, J object or building? — — _- 21. Mandatory Findings of Slgnilleanea. (a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the qual. fly of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehisto• ry? _ b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term', to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of�timetwhile long-term Impacts will endure well Into the futurlR _ — c.' Does the project have impacts which are individually lim. Ited, but cunfulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each re- source Is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) — _ — d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either di• rectly or indirectly? Ill. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 1V. DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: Q 1 find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environ• ment. and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the envi• ronment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGA- TIVE DECLARATION WILL RE PREPARED. Q I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. .. Date (Signature) For NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 2IM3 and 21087, Public Resources Code. Reference: Sections 21000-21176, Public Resources Code. Xtstorn 1. New Appendix _I filed 10.8.76; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 76, No. 41). Note: Order designated that compliance with this appendix is authorized but not mandatory before D-E? R T 1-1I CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DEPARTttENT OF COMi�U?IITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEI•! REQUEST ' Richard Hogan Date January 8, 1979 Jim Hewicker AJADVANCE PLANNING DIVISION 'EI�,P.�UBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT UPLANS ATTACHED (PLEASE RETUI FB4GFFIC ENGINEER ; ❑ FIRE DEPARTMENT QPLANS.0N FILE IN 70NING AND QPLAN REVIEW DIVISION ORDINANCE AD14INISTRATION CIPAP,KS & RECREATION DIVISION - 'pPOL'I'CE DEPARTMENT ❑t--t MARINE SAFETY D GENERAL SERVICES APPLICATION OF Emkay'Development and Realty Company FOR A QVARIANCE []USE. PERMIT . QRESUBDIVISION RMXINM Traffic Phasing Plan 914 A REQUEST TO nonsider a phasing plan to comply with Resolution No: 9742 of -the Newport "Beach'City Council and Amendment No. 514 to the Newnort Beach Munirinal rnrla� ON LOT BLOCK ADDRESS • Newport Place P.C. REPORT REQUESTED BY i COMMISSION REVIEW COMMENTS January 10, 1979 January 18, 1979 TRACT e SIGNr. URE IL A PAT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW REQUEST chard Hogan DV.M Hewicker _ krADVANCE PLANNING DIVISION UNALIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FFI.0 ENGINEER ❑FIRE DEPARTMENT GPLAN REVIEW DIVISION CIPARKS & RECREATION OPOL"I'CEDEPARTMENT .. []MARINE SAFETY ❑GENERAL SERVICES APPLICATION OF Emkay'Development and Realty Company Date January 8, 1979 OPLANS ATTACHED. (PLEASE RETU QPLANS .0N FILE IN ZONING AND ORDINANCE ADMINISTRATION DIVISION FOR A QVARIANCE []USE PERMIT. QRESUBDIVISION �RRUIXRXI41 c Phasing Plan ON A REQUEST TO oons.ider a Phasinq plan to comoly with Resolution No: 9742 nf•the Newnnrt ON LOT Beach'City Council and Amendment No. 514 to the Newport Beach Municipal.Code.,, BLOCK TRACT ADDRESS Newport Place P.C. . REPORT REQUESTED BY January 10, 1979 COMMISSION REVIEW January 18, 1979 COMMENTS SIGNAT UP.E DATE It% n, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW REQUEST 54 R•v.a! A SN•. NADVANCE PLANNING DIVISIONVkOi= ❑PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT §WRAFFIC ENGINEER R►cth FIRE DEPARTMENT QPLAN REVIEW DIVISION CIPARKS & RECREATION ❑POLICE DEPARTMENT ❑ MARINE'SAFETY D GENERAL SERVICES APPLICATION'OF Da to q )OLANS ATTACHED (PLEASE RETURN QPLANS .ON FILE IN ZONTNG'AND ORDINANCE AD14INISTRATION DIVISION PL�E. RB[�t.1p �Y �'A,lJ. to i.T S•ao FOR A QVARIANCE []USE PERMIT ❑RESUBDIVISION �TR�4Ef-MAP "�Cp�� p�,a,syu�gN ON A REQUEST TO n -na*rf Jyl it, ON LOT BLOCK TRACT ADDRESS Mr'-&' REPORT REQUESTED BYca Tkl�i•�st� . COMMISSION REVIEW- T,e,N. 18 ly'ia COMMENTS SIGNATURE DATE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH. DEPARTMENT OF C01,11i4UNITY DEVELOPMENT r, PLAN REVIEW REQUEST Richard Hogan ���� d�m Hewicker _ .LDiVANCE PLANNING DIVISION DPUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ❑TRAFFI.0 ENGINEER ❑FIRE DEPARTMENT QPLAN REVIE14 DIVISION • QPARKS & RECREATION "- 'OPOL'I•CE DEPARTMENT ❑ MARINE SAFETY D GENERAL SERVICES APPLICATION OF Emkay'Development and Realty Company Date January 8, 1979 EIPLANS ATTACHED {PLEASE RETU QPLANS .ON FILE IN ZONING AND ORDINANCE ADMINISTRATION DIVISION FOR A QVARIANCE []USE PERMIT ❑RESUB01VISION •6RRXVIKRXf1W Traffic Phasing Plan ON A REQUEST TO eonsider a phasing plan to comply with Resolution No. 9742 of-the.•Newport Beach City Council and Amendment No. 514 to the Newport Beach Municipal.Code., ON LOT BLOCK ADDRESS Newport Place P.C. . REPORT REQUESTED BY COMMISSION REVIEW COMMENTS N• January 10, 1979 January 18, 1979 S.fl& .b to TRACT 04 lt-4�. ev, IPF I GNATUP,E 'DATE January 11, 1979 0 EMKAY DEVELOPMENT AND REALTY COMPANY PHASING PLAN TO COMPLY 14ITH RESOLUTION NO. 9472 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Newport Place is an approved Planned Community which the Newport Beach City Council determined to be excepted from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The information herein submitted represents Emkay's response to the requirement that a phasing plan be presented for approval to allow development on undeveloped parcels in Newport Place to proceed in accordance with Resolution No. 9472. Included for review are: 1) Phasing Plan for the remaining undeveloped parcels, 2) Response to Planning Commission guidelines for review of plan, 3) Traffic Study prepared by Robert Crommelin and Associates, Inc. PHASING PLAN Newport Place has been developed on a phased basis over the past eight years and as of today 70% of the allowed square footage has been completed. All public improve- ments for undeveloped parcels have been installed or bonded and all undeveloped parcels have been graded. The remaining undeveloped land in Newport Place is under four different ownerships. The following table outlines the distribution of remaining allowed square footage and the phasing plan for the development of that space in terms of square feet available for occupancy as indicated by each property owner. It should be noted that none of the projects are under construction now and occupancy in 1979 will not take place until the fourth quarter of the year. Within Newport Place there remains 190,262 square feet of space allowed but not built on parcels which have already been developed. These parcels are not owned by Emkay and this allowed square footage is viewed as expansion space. We have no way of knowing if or when any of this space might be developed and, accordingly, it is not included in the phasing plan. .It is assumed that a property owner desiring to expand in excess of 30% of the allowed square footage would prepare a plan showing the phasing of such expansion. For information only, the traffic generating characteristics of this expan- sionspace have been shown in the traffic study. REMAINING FOR FOR FOR ALLOWED OCCUPANCY OCCUPANCY OCCUPANCY , OWNER SQ. FT. 1979 1980 1981 Undeveloped Parcels: Emkay i!. 358,830 0 206,269 152,561 Bear Brand Ranch' 81,162 81,162 0 0 Air California 40,951 0 40,951 0 Ketchum .,_ 87,019 87,019 0 0 Subtotal: .l° 567 > 962 168 181 > 247,220 152,561 Expansion Space: I ' Various Par�cels� 190,262 Total Newport Place 758,224 The attached traffic study demonstrates the adequacy of the circulation system to handle the traffic volume generated by the -above phased development plan for undeveloped parcels. r •t January 5, 1979• _1_ I EMKAX DEVELOPMENT AND REALTY COMPANY PHASING PLAN TO COMPLY WITH RESOLUTION NO. 9472 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH The following information is intended to respond to the guiddlines, as presented by the city staff to the Planning Commission at the study session of December 71, 1978, for review of phasing plans: 1. Each project subject to the phasing requirement of Council Resolution No. 9472 shall be examined as to the extent of existing development and the amount of development remaining to be completed. This information is summarized in Table 1. 2. Information shall be submitted indicating the amount of traffic being generated by existing development and that projected for remaining development. The information herein requested is presented in the attached Traffic Study prepared by Robert Crommelin and Associates, Inc. in cooperation with the city staff. For your convenience, tables summarizing pertinent data have been extracted from that report. Mr. Crommelin is available to answer any questions you may have regarding the Traffic Study. Table,2 shows the volume of traffic generated by all land uses within Newport Place for existing as well as future development. Table 2 PRESENT A\T FUTURE SITE TRAFFIC VOLt= Newport Place Traffic Study • DAILY TRAFFIC AS OF MAY '78 I ADDITt TRAFFIC VOLU!fi SIT TRAFFIC IT-- TRAF Q'.:ASTITY LAND USE AS C? MAY '7R V<vph) (b) 1931 Eapan- a(vPdl VOLUMEion P ( Pd) ("74) ("Pd) ( ➢d) Office Hasa 1.052.3 M31 14,750 4,100 2.350 3,450 2.100 1.550 20.300 Retail/central 113.3 Yaf 5,650 2,100 - - - 4508.200 CoaaerelalReaeaurAnra ra 42.5 Hat 8,100 1203 - 4,200 reoas Hotel/Moral (105.5 Maf)1.800 2,500 1,700 - - - 3.550 Auto Beater 70.4 YE � 1,750 -coastcuction R 3,000 L 2,000 - - - - 1.OD0 Thru Traffic j i Maf ' 261:'af 35.:30 ;� 5,900 2.350 3.450 2,IDD 3,800 53,350 TOTAL: I 1,3:3.H rv+• ACCUMULATIVE TRAFFt="".----• 35,750 141.650 - 44.0D0 47.450 49,550 53,350 (*)Traffic genera,-'- 1s =r usad to balaaee rat., . mtlnated volusn for each land use ulth the ==sal traffic eowntt&" (b)locludes Projects enupicted or under eooat:uction between 5/78 and 12/78, „ (Sea Table 1 fat guaaticy 61 devslopseat for each Yost.) LECEMBEQ 18 1978 LINE NO 1.9 Ii%4o:7:A: SITES Table 1 EMKAY OE9ELOPY.E+T REALTY CO. ALL54EB ACTUALLY L`Y• ER • TOTAL SY PC B'-1LT :Chi-R, FE rTO = EBi-,),- 1.2 1A 34130 1.4 Lv 6313E 1.6 3A 316290 i.8 4 288264 f.9 --------------- 2.0 VIAL 701740 2.1 3.2 COMC4./PRO, OFFICE 3.1 I&2 E19539 3,2 3A 115530 201t80 3.4 5 165483 3.5 6 42429 3.6 7 55E62 c.1 4.0 TOTAL 1400000 4.1 5.0 RETAIL :.R;MERCIAL &1 1 5.2 2 5.3 6.0 TOTAL 6.1 7.9 C0M'40';A_'@E3TAURABiS 7.1 1 7.2 ZA 7.3 8.0 Tv,Tht 8.1 9.0 COMMERC4AL1HOTEL 0 25742 9 M233 f3362 254229 e• -------------------------- 4101,95 13a6L E 0 23741 IZZI1: 31622E 9 254229 --------------------- i LL{{r 5W I7L STATU3 TO TA: EXPANSI'IN T J4 s7396 0 34044 105572 469700 0 3588:i 829i32 0 78067 0 Z 73067 31463 29925 141874 0 i117" Z1381 78461 0 67919 i65480 0 35838 0 9 M33 658Z 5747� w 9 JI - 61 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 7-10W IM74 4451- 1320..7 71820 5659R 56500 2 9 5E599 00 E250 8250 0 0 8250 9 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 64759 64750 0 9 64750 R 2251E 22510 0 0 Mif 0 6905 690R 2 0 690v 0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mi4 29410 0 0 29416a 0 9.1 IA & IS 186844 9.2 ----------------- 10.0 TOTAL I86844 10.1 11.0 AUTO 11.1 1Z 11.2 2A 11.3 -- 12.0 TOTAL 12.1 :3.0 GENERAL COM'GERCIAL 106597 80337 - 1E6344 9 ------------- ---------------------------------------------------- 196307 80337 9 186844 0 ISM 2000 0 0 1M5 0 31752 31752 0 0 31752 0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 44752 4475Z 0 0 4475Z 0 1.3.1 1 35009 49050 0 0 40050 -5039 13-2 2 11700 4650 0 9 455� 6650 13.3 3 4E300 41351 0 0 41:;5f 00 34130 20900 0 0 3i205 4129 12.5 ------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------- :4.0 T37rL 129132 "625: 0 0 116251 12879 ----------s-------------------------------•------------------------- ------------ ------ ,7,0 CRR-D '•;;AL L5.6626 1562329 23L073 567962 Lo66364 14026Z January 5, 1979 • -2- • 3. An examination shall be made of the circulation system in the vicinity of the project to determine what improvements remain to be completed, with particular consideration being given to those improvements which will directly aid in moving traffic generated by the project. The area to be examined shall -extend to those intersections where traffic generated from the project increases the traffic at the intersection during the peak two and one-half hour period by 5% or more. The city's traffic engineer has designated 16 intersections as critical and, there- fore, requiring 5% Traffic Volume Analysis. The intersections where project generated traffic will increase the volume by 5% or more during the peak two and one-half hour period are identified in Table 3. Of the eight intersections so impacted, four have an ICU of .90 or greater and require further examination as to road improvements which need to be completed to directly aid the movement of project generated traffic. These four intersections are listed below: . Bristol (North)/Campus The improvement required is striping a southbound right turn lane in the 30 feet available on the northerly leg of Bristol. This improvement has been completed. The ICU will be reduced from 1.0608 to 0.8351. . MacArthur/Campus The improvement required is the addition of a third northbound lane on MacArthur plus a right turn lane northbound on MacArthur to Campus. This project is scheduled by Caltrans for completion by early 1980. Funds have been allocated for the project. The ICU will be reduced from 1.0762 to 0.8878. . Jamboree/Campus The improvement required is the addition of a third northbound traffic lane from Fairchild to Campus. This project is scheduled by the City of Irvine for completion in'late 1979, Funds have been allocated for this, project. This improvement plus the completion in early 1979 of the Von Karman overpass will reduce the ICU from 1.1627 to'0.9000 or less. . MacArthur/Ford The road improvements required for this intersection are detailed on Page 15 of the attached traffic study. The project is scheduled for completion in early 1980. Funds have been allocated for this joint City -State improvement project. The ICU will be reduced from 1.0265 to 0.8056. Three other major improvements are nearing completion which will have significant positive impact on traffic circulation near Newport Place. Connection of Bristol North and South to the Corona Del Mar Freeway. This should reduce Northbound traffic on MacArthur and Jamboree as it provides access to the San Diego Freeway. This is scheduled for early 1979. Table 3 PERCENT PROAk TRAFFIC CONTRIBUTION TO CRITICAL INTE IONS Newport Place Traffic Study .a TRAFFIC VOLUME. PROJECT 1978 2.5-HOUR TRAFFICINTERSECTIOITION (a) Percent DIREC-ring FP-5-HOUR Added 1978 ICU) 1978 Project Total Volume of Total MacArthur/Campus NB SB 2888 3129 288 166 3176 3295 495 222(G.93) Mg. n/s e/w EB 1693 40 1733 190WB 2004 13 2017 19 Jamboree/Campus NB SB 3452 3417 120 48 3572 3465 88 2.5 n/s e/w (1.17) EB 2042 2050 252 WE 16371637 *8 Jamboree/ NB 1681 38 1719 71 . 4.1 MacArthur SB 2814 147 2961 247 e/w n/s EB 2923 9 2932 17 0.6 0.85) WB 3037 19 3066 Bristol(N)/Campus NB SB 1504 3705 17 38 1521 3743 208 e/w nfs 5.6 13.4 (1.00 WB 4790 393 1 5183 694 Bristol (N)/Birch NB SB 552 2120 75 73 6 2193 318 500 ' 50.7- 22.8 e/w n/s (0.59) WB 3D53 406 3459 262 7.6 Bristol(N)A'ambore NB SB' 5153 2811 16 86 5169 2897 22 50 0.4 13 e/w n/s (0.72) WE 1162 29 1191 19 1.6 Bristol/Campus NB SB 1606 3164 15 32 1621 3196 22 63 1.4 2.0 e/w a/s (0.72) EB 3027 223 3250 296 9.11 Bristol/Birch NB 223 * 23 e/w n/s SB 943 59 1002 68 6.8 ,• (0.36) EB • 2656 102 2758 31819-81 Bristol/Jamboree NB SB• 4996 2359 7 66 5003 2425 22 50 0.4 2.1 e/w n/s (0.54) EB 2778 126 2904 68 2.3 Irvine/University 'NB SB 1985 3864 17 32 2002 3896 22 63 1.1 1.6 n/s e/w (0.86) EB 672 * 672 WE 80 * 80 Jamboree/Ford NB 4574 11 4585 15 0.3 n/s e/w SB 2937 *2 299669 64 2.2 (0.83) 'EB 981 WE 753 6 759 7 0.9 MacArthur/Ford NB SB 4574 2937 50 *3 4624 30380 68 197 1.5 * 5 n/s • e/w (0.83) EB 981 WE 753 11 764 15 2.0 MacArthur/San NB 2561 39 2620 53 2.0 Joaquin Hills SB 4134 *6 4230 161 n/s e/w EB 385 2544 15 *.8 0.6 (0.64) WE 2533 11 Jamboree/ NB 2581 11 2592 15 0.6 San Joaquin n/s e/w SB 4134 43 1.0N EB 385 (0.64 WE 2533 Jamboree/Coast H NB SB 1015 2959 J2981 11 43 1.1 1.4 n/s e/w (0.83) EB 4264 3 WB 3185 MacArthur/ SB 2258 125 5.4 Coast Hwy n/s e/w EB 3204 11 3215 15 0.5 0.77 WB 3432 28 3460 38 1.1 (a) At 1981 project completion, excluding expansion of 190,262 square feet. * Nominal volume. Q Project contribution exceeds five percent. January 5, 1979 • -3- • Completion of the Von Karman overpass should also relieve northbound traffic on MacArthur and Jamboree as it provides access for northbound through traffic not entering the San Diego Freeway. This improvement is scheduled for early 1979. The one-way frontage roads, Bristol North and South, are nearly completed and have contributed significantly in moving traffic generated by Newport Place. 4. Existing traffic at those intersections shall be shown prior to making any projections. This'information is also shown in Table 3. 5. The'developer may include in his proposed traffic phasing plan completion of or contribution to completion of needed improvements consistent with the level of traffic generation and a reasonable proportion of the cost of these improvements. Emkay cooperated with other Newport Beach developers and city staff to prepare a Major Thoroughfare Improvement Funding Program. Emkay views this program as a positive step toward relieving traffic congestion. The funding of Circulation Element improvements has been a continuing problem, made more difficult by reduced tax revenue to governmental agencies. We are all aware that significant traffic system improvements have been realized by making such improvements required of the developer for tract map approval. Emkay has stated publicly that we are willing to step forward together with the other Newport Beach developers and contribute over $5,000,000 in additional fees for road improvements. To date this offer has not been accepted by the City Council. However, Emkay again states its willingness to participate in the Major Thoroughfare Funding Program. 6.- The developer is also to take into consideration in the preparation of his plan characteristics in the design of his development which either reduce traffic generation or guide traffic onto less impacted arterials or through intersections in the least congested direction. The following design features help reduce traffic generated within Newport Place or direct it to less congested areas: a. Newport Place Drive aligns with Von Karman and traffic generated by Emkay as well as other Newport Place traffic will easily flow along Von Karman over the freeway and away from the areas congested inter- sections. b. The Quail, Dove, Westerly loop provides interior circulation thus keeping local -Newport Place traffic off surrounding arteries. January 5, 1979 • -4- • c. Newport Place includes shopping, dining service and recreational facilities within its boundaries, thus substantially reducing the need for Newport Place workers to utilize the city's surrounding road -system in pursuit of these activities. d. Developed parcels have been built at a reduced density of 190,262 square feet which is a direct traffic mitigating measure. e. Newport Place is located in the north part of Newport Beach and most of the generated traffic, as shown in the traffic report, moves north and west, thus away from congested areas within the city. f. Several prime office sites were developed at the request of the city, with car dealerships which generate less traffic volume and more tax revenue. g. The working hours of some firms have been voluntarily adjusted resulting in the Newport Place peak traffic period occurring 15 minutes prior to that of the adjacent highway system, as shown in the traffic report. h. Emkay has not utilized the pooled parking concept and thereby has reduced development intensity otherwise available. i. The off -site street pattern was considered in designing the projects' interior circulation to minimize the addition of unnecessary intersections, turning movements and possible traffic conflict points. All minor street intersections with MacArthur Boulevard and Bristol North are right -turn only. The follouoing information is not required, however, it is presented for your consider- ation. These items were in the original staff recommendation. 7. A comparison shall be_ made between the amount of development permitted by the Planned Community Development Plan and the amount actually constructed or proposed for construction along with any difference in traffic generation. This information is also available from Table 2. It is important to note that at project build -out there will be remaining 190,262 square feet allowed which will only be built if property owners seek to expand existing facilities. The resulting difference between traffic generated from proposed development (49,550 vpd) and from allowed development (53,350 vpd) is 3,800 vpd. 8. Information shall be submitted showing what contributions have been made by the developer to off -site street improvements. At the December 7, 1978 study session, the Planning Commission indicated that•off-site street improvements completed by the developer were not to be considered because they are part of the usual requirements imposed on the developer. This is true, however, it v January 5, 1979 • -5- may be informative to recall the magnitude of those improvements and recognize that ,with development come major traffic system improvements that accommodate not only traffic generated by the development but also that generated from other sources. Such is the case at Newport Plcae where an additional traffic lane, plus 1/2 traffic signal for MacArthur Boulevard from Birch to Jamboree was completed by Emkay. Total cost to Emkay was $275,000 in 1972. Also, Emkay completed both lanes of the freeway frontage road (now called North Bristol) from Birch to Jamboree at a cost of $180,000 in 1974. These improvements are in addition to all interior roads completed by Emkay. ' T January 5, 1979 • ����• EMKAY DEVELOPMENT AND REALTY COMPANY PHASING PLAN TO COMPLY WITH RESOLUTION NO. 9472 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Newport Place is an approved Planned Community which the Newport Beach City Council determined to be excepted from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The information herein submitted represents Emkay's response to the requirement that a phasing plan be presented for approval to allow development in Newport Place to proceed in accordance with Resolution No. 9472. Included for review are: 1) Phasing Plan for the remaining allowed development, 2) Response to Planning Commission guidelines for review of plan, 3) Traffic Study prepared by Robert Crommelin and Associates, Inc. PHASING PLAN Newport Place has been developed on a phased basis over the past eight years and as of today 70% of the allowed square footage has been completed. All public improve- ments for undeveloped parcels have been installed or bonded and all undeveloped parcels have been graded. The remaining land in Newport Place is under four different ownerships. The following table outlines the distribution of remaining allowed square footage and the phasing plan for the development of that space in terms of square feet available for occupancy as indicated by each property owner. It should be noted that none of the projects are under construction now and occupancy in 1979 will not take place until the fourth quarter of the year. OWNER Undeveloped Parcels: REMAINING FOR ALLOWED OCCUPANCY SQ. FT. 1979 FOR FOR OCCUPANCY OCCUPANCY 1980 1981 AVAILABLE FOR FUTURE EXPANSION Emkay 358,830 0 206,269 152,561 0 Bear Brand Ranch 81,162 81,162 0 0 0 Air California 40,951 0 40,951 0 0 Ketchum 87,019 87,019 0 0 0 Subtotal: 567,962 168,181 247,220 152,561 0 Expansion Space: (1) Various Parcels 190,262 0 0 0 190,262 Total Newport Place 758,224 168,181 247,220 152,561 190,262 (1) This represents square feet allowed but not built on various parcels which -have already been developed. This square footage may be used in the future to expand existing facilities. The attached traffic study demonstrates the adequacy of the circulation system to handle the traffic volume generated by the above phased development plan. a January 5, 1979. EKKAY DEVELOPMENT AND REALTY COMPANY PHASING PLAN TO COMPLY WITH RESOLUTION NO. 9472 CITY OF NE14PORT BEACH The following information is intended to respond to the guidelines, as presented by the city staff to the Planning Commission at the study session of December 7, 1978, for review of phasing plans: 1. Each project subject to the phasing requirement of Council Resolution No. 9472 shall be examined as to the extent of existing development and the amount of development remaining to be completed. This information is summarized in Table 1. 2. Information shall be submitted indicating the amount of traffic being generated by existing development and that projected for remaining development. The information herein requested is presented in the attached Traffic Study prepared by Robert Crommelin and Associates, Inc. in cooperation with the city staff. For your convenience, tables summarizing pertinent data have been extracted from that report. Mr. Crommelin is available to answer any questions you may have regarding the Traffic Study. Table 2 shows the volume of traffic generated by all land uses within Newport Place for existing as well as future development. Table 2 PRESENT AND FUTURE SITE TRAFFIC VOLUM Newport Place Traffic Study ' DAILY TRAFFIC '78 ADDIT20NAULTIHATE "'I'Tf(b) Expan- SITV TRAFFIC LA.\T1 USE AS OF NAY 178 (vph) (vPd) UME V` POffice (vpd) (vpd) (vp (vpd) Uaea 1,052.3 Nsf ffOF 14,750 4.100 2,350 3,450 2,100 1,550 28,300 RetAillceaasal 113.3 Mal 5,650 2.100 - - - 450 8,200 Cooaercial - - B,IOD Reataurant► 42.5 Nsf 8.100 - - - Hotel/Moral 203 roam (106.5 Nsf) 72/ro 2,500 1.700 - - - - 4,200 Auto Center 7D.4 ttsC 25/M3f 1.750 - - _ .. 1.000 3.550 Construction i -, r 3,000 2,000 - - - 1,000 Then Traffic TOTAL: ! 1.333.8 Maf 126/:'�f ! 35.750{ 5,900 2.350 3,450 2,100 3,800 53,350 ACNMfLITIVE TRAFFIC VCM"-: 35,750 I41.650 44,ODO 47,450 49,550 53.350 (.)Traffic generation !==r need to balance total estimated vole— for each land we with the actual traffic counted: (b)Ioeludca projects e,,plered or under conatrucciOn between 5/78 and 12/78. (Sea Table 1 for quantity of develop eat for each year.) DECEMBER 18 MS LXNE* 310 1.0 MDUST,31AL SITES Table 1 E9{AT-uEirEL N_iT C• hGACT CD. %,TPOS ALMED • ACTUA`-L'f U'< ER • TOTAL TOTAL BY PC WILT CONSTR. PROPOSED 8U'LD08T EXPANSION 1.2 19 341 1.4 M 63128 M 2A 316208 1..8 4 285264 1.9 - - --- 2.0 TOTAL 19MO 2+ 3.6'xWIiPRO. OFFICE 3.1 12 3.2 3A 3.3 4 3.4 5 3.5 6 3.6 7 3.7 -- 4.0 TOTAL 4.1 5.0 RETAIL COMMERCIAL 5.1 1 5.2 2 5.3 - 6.0 TOTAL 6.1 7.0 COMMERCIAL/RESTAURANTS 7.1 1 7.2 2A 7.3 8.9 TOTAL 8.1 9.0 COMMERIIAL/NOTEL 9.1 1A '& 18 9.2 -- 10.0 TOTAL 10.1 11.0 AUTO CENTER 11.1 10 11.2 2A 11.3 -- 12.0 TOTAL 12.1 5 0 0 O 14139 Z574L 0 0 2574E 37496 180233 ISM 122113 3102 0 254?i'i+ 0 0 25E1'20 34044 460195^~-�- 13862 -� - 122113 '59,5170 105570 819530 ITS= 4b0700 3x� '78067 0 '0 SS8S30 7 519530 78267 0 '37463 201180 29925 141974 0 171799 29381 163480 78461 0 57019 163490 0 42420 3583E 0 0 35835 6582 55860 57473 0 0 57473 .-1b13 --•.----------- 1400000 -------- _----- -- 74'9464 -------- .-_,..._-------------- 141874 445849 MOM 71813 56500 56500 0 0 S6500 0 8250 8250 0_ 0 5253 0 ----------------------------------- 64753 b4750 ----------------------------------------------- 0 0 64750 0 225i0 22510 0 0 22510 0 6900 6900 0 0 6900 0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 29410 29110 0 0 29410 0 186844 106507 80337 0 B6844 0 ---------- I------------------------------------------------------------------------ 186844 10007 S0.'•37 0 186844 0 13005 13000 0 0 13039 0 31752 31752 0 0 31752 0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 44752 44752 0 0 44752 0 13.0 GENERAL C.ONMERCIAL - - 13.1 1 35000 40950 0 0 40050 -5959 13.2 2 11700 4830 0 0 41850 6350 13,3 3 48300 11351 0 "v CM 6949 13.4 4 34130 30000- 0 0 39009 4130 13.5 ----------------------------- ----------------------------------------T ---------------- 14.0 TOTAL 129130 116251 0 0 12879 l5'0 --------------^--------------------------------------------- - --1t6 -i- --- - 17.0 GRAND TOTAL 2556626 156232q 23607.3 567962, 236b364 190262 17.1 January 5, 1979 • -2 • 3. An examination shall be made of the circulation system in'the vicinity of the project to determine what improvements remain to be completed, with particular consideration being given to those improvements which will directly aid in moving traffic generated by the project. The area to be examined shall extend to those intersections where traffic generated from the project increases the traffic at the intersection during the peak two and one-half hour period by 5% or more. The city's traffic engineer has designated 13 intersections as critical and, there- fore, requiring 5% Traffic Volume Analysis. The intersections where project generated traffic will increase the volume by 5% or more during the peak two and one-half hour period are identified in Table 3. Of the eight intersections so impacted, four have an ICU of .90 or greater and require further examination as to road improvements which need to be completed to directly aid the movement of project generated traffic. These four intersections are listed below: Bristol (North)/Campus V The improvement required is striping a southbound right turn lane in the 30 feet available on the northerly leg of Bristol., This improvement has been completed. The ICU will be reduced from 1.0608 to 0.8351. MacArthur/Campus The improvement required is the addition of a third northbound lane on MacArthur plus a right turn lane northbound on MacArthur to Campus. This project is scheduled by Caltrans for completion by early 1980. Funds have been allocated for the project. The ICU will'be reduced from 1.0762 to 0.8878. . Jamboree/Campus The improvement required is the addition of a third northbound traffic lane from Fairchild to Campus. This project is scheduled by the City of, Irvine for completion in late 1979. Funds have been allocated for this project. This improvement plus the completion in early 1979 of the Von Karman overpass will reduce the ICU from 1.1627 to 0.9000 or less. . MacArthur/Ford The road improvements required for this intersection are detailed on Page 15 of the attached traffic study. The project is scheduled for completion in early 1980. Funds have been allocated for this joint City -State improvement project. The ICU will be reduced from 1.0265 to 0.8056. Three other major improvements are nearing completion which will have significant positive impact on traffic circulation near Newport Place. Connection of Bristol North and South to the Corona Del Mar Freeway. This should reduce Northbound traffic on MacArthur and Jamboree as it provides access to the San Diego Freeway. This is scheduled for early 1979. 4anuary 5,.1979 • -3- • Completion of the Von Karman overpass should also relieve northbound traffic on MacArthur and Jamboree as it provides access for northbound through traffic not entering the San Diego Freeway. This improvement is scheduled for early 1979. The one-way frontage roads, Bristol North and South, are nearly completed and have contributed significantly in moving traffic generated by Newport Place. 4. Existing traffic at those intersections shall be shown prior to making any projections. This information is also shown in Table 3. 5. The developer may include in his proposed traffic phasing plan completion of or contribution to completion of needed improvements consistent with the level of traffic generation and a reasonable proportion of the cost of these improvements. Emkay cooperated with other Newport Beach developers and city staff to prepare a Major Thoroughfare Improvement Funding Program. Emkay views this program as a positive step toward relieving traffic congestion. The funding of Circulation Element improvements has been a continuing problem, made more difficult by reduced tax revenue to governmental agencies. We are all aware that significant traffic system improvements have been realized by making such improvements required of the developer for tract map approval. Emkay has stated publicly that we are willing to step forward together with the other Newport Beach developers and contribute over $5,000,000 in additional fees for road improvements. To date this offer has not been accepted by the City Council. However, Emkay again states its willingness to participate in the Major Thoroughfare Funding Program. 6. The developer is also to take into consideration in the preparation of his plan characteristics in the design of his development which either reduce traffic generation or guide traffic onto less impacted arterials or through intersections in the least congested direction. The following design features help reduce traffic generated within Newport Place or direct it to less congested areas: a. Newport Place Drive aligns with Von Karman and traffic generated by Emkay as well as other Newport Place traffic will easily flow along Von Karman over the freeway and away from the areas congested inter- sections. b. The Quail, Dove, Westerly loop provides interior circulation thus keeping local Newport Place traffic off surrounding arteries. --January 5, 1979 • -4- • c. Newport Place includes shopping, dining service and recreational facilities within its boundaries, thus substantially reducing the need for Newport Place workers to utilize the city's surrounding road system in pursuit of these activities. d. Developed parcels have been built at a reduced density of 190,262 square feet which is a direct traffic mitigating measure. 1 e. Newport Place is located in the north part of Newport Beach and most of the generated traffic, as shown in the traffic report, moves north and west, thus away from congested areas within the city. f. Several prime office sites were developed at the request of the city, with car dealerships which generate less traffic volume and more tax revenue. g. The working hours of some firms have been voluntarily adjusted resulting in ,the Newport Place peak traffic period occurring 15 minutes prior to that of the adjacent highway system, as shown in the traffic report. h. Emkay has not utilized the pooled parking concept and thereby has reduced development intensity otherwise available. i. The off -site street pattern was considered in designing the projects' interior circulation to minimize the addition of unnecessary intersections, turning movements and possible traffic conflict points. All minor street intersections with MacArthur Boulevard and Bristol North are right -turn only. The following information is not required, however, it is presented for your consider- ation. These items were in the original staff recommendation. 7. A comparison shall be made between the amount of development permitted by the Planned Community Development Plan and the amount actually constructed or proposed for construction along with any difference in traffic generation. This information is also available from Table 2. It is important to note that at project build -out there will be remaining 190,262 square feet allowed which will only be built if property owners seek to expand existing facilities. The resulting difference between traffic generated from proposed development (49,550 vpd) and from allowed development (53,350 vpd) is 3,800 vpd. 8. Information shall be submitted showing what contributions have been made by the developer to off -site street improvements. At the December 7, 1978 study session, the Planning Commission indicated that off -site street improvements completed by the developer were not to be considered because they are part of the usual requirements imposed on the developer. This is true, however, it January 5, 1579 • =5- • may be informative to recall the magnitude of those improvements and recognize that with development come major traffic system improvements that accommodate not only traffic generated by the development but also that generated from other sources. Such is the case at Newport Plcae where an additional traffic lane, plus 1/2 traffic signal for MacArthur Boulevard from Birch to Jamboree was completed by Emkay. Total cost to Emkay was $275,000 in 1972. Also, Emkay completed both lanes of the freeway frontage road (now called North Bristol) from Birch to Jamboree at a cost of $180,000 in 1974. These improvements are in addition to all interior roads completed by Emkay. ROBERT CROMMELIN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ENGINEERS 17071 VENTURA 6OULEVARO ENCINO. CA. 91316 TELEPHONE 12131 766-B570 January 4, 1978 Mr. Kevin T. Hanson, Project Coordinator Emkay Development and Realty Company 1201 Dove Street, Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject: Newport Place Traffic Study Update Dear Mr. Hanson: As authorized, we have conducted a comprehensive traffic analysis of the impact of Emkay's proposed office project located in Newport Place in the City of Newport Beach, California. The purposes of the study were to update our earlier report on the project;' to supply information concerning the traffic impact of the project, and to provide input to a Traffic Phasing Plan as required by the City of Newport Beach. In April 1978, Emkay requested Robert Crommelin and Associates, Inc. to conduct a partial update of the 1970 Study. In May 1978, a series of traffic counts were taken to identify the traffic characteristics of Newport Place. These data, along with projections of what has since occurred, serve as a base for the current analysis. Study Purpose and Project Description The City of Newport Beach has adopted a requirement that developers of five Planned Community Districts submit•a phasing plan geared to the City's Circulation Element. As a basis for reviewing such plans, the Planning Commission has established a "test of reasonableness". This report provides information on the traffic characteristics of the existing and expanded Newport Place project as required by that test. (1)The Newport Project Traffic Study, Robert Crommelin and Associates, Encino, California, November 1970. W • 0 Newport Place is a major development of 200 acres located in northern Newport Beach in the vicinity of the Orange County Airport. Under development since 1971, a total of 1,562,300 square feet of floor area currently has been developed with a variety of land uses, principally office space. An additional 236,100 square feet is now under construction. When these developments are'completed, Newport Place will have 1,798,400 square feet of building floor area as shown in Table 1. Figure 1 shows the general regional location of Newport Place as well as the area roadway system. Table 1 APPROVED PROJECT LAND USE Newport Beach Traffic Study UITY - FL'OOR AREA 1000 s .ft. Under Occupied Added Construc. Total Approved LAND USE in May 78 by Dec 78 in Dec 78 to Date Office Uses 1,052.2 136.0 155.8 1,344.0 Retail Commercial 56.4 41.4 - 97.8 Restaurants 42.5 - - 42.5 Hotel/Motel 106.5 - 80.3 186.8 Auto Center 70.4 - - 70.4 General Commercial 56.9 - - 56.9 TOTAL: 1,384.9 177.4 236.1 1,798.4 As Newport Place continues developing, Emkay Development and Realty Company proposes to build 358,800 square feet of floor area of mixed office uses on the last major undeveloped portion of Newport Place under their ownership. Emkay has divided the site into two parcels for ease of development and financing. Located in the center of the project, the site has good access to all of the major access routes serving the triangular -shaped Neu, -port Place project. Besides Emkay, other owners plan to develop 209,100,square feet of office space ' within the general project boundary. An additional.190,200 square feet has been included as part of the approved Planned Community District and is allocated for future expansion. -2- E KEY 'GENERALIZED DIRECTIONAL 06/*DISTRIBUTION OF NEWPORT PLACE TRAFFIC -31 LOCATION MAP Development Phasing Table 2 shows how Newport Place will grow within the next few years. It represents the maximum development rate which will be used in this test analysis. Under this program, 168,200 square feet will be developed in 1979; 247,200 square feet in 1980; and 152,600 square feet in 1981. Table 2 PRESENT A40 PHASED PROJECT AT MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT RATE Nevpmrt Place Traffic Study UANTITY FLODR AAEA (1000M 1979 1980 19eLAND USE Develo ment imn TotalOffice EmR Others EmXa Others Emka Uses 1,344.0 - 168.2 206.2 41.0 152.6 2,022.0Retail 97.8Restaurants Commercial 97.8 ---- 42.5Hotel/Motel 42.5 - - - - - 186.8Auto 186.8 - - - - - Center 70.4 - - - - - 141.9General - 7 65.6TOTAL: Commercial 56.9 - - - - 1.798.4 - 168.2 206.2 41.0 152.E2 2,556.E (a)Includes buildings currently under construction. Existing Area Traffic Conditions Newport Place is located in an area with high traffic volumes, principally oriented to the regional freeway system which converges in this portion of Orange County. Bristol Street southwest of the project carries approximately 33,000 vehicles per day (vpd) and currently it is being improved by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to consist of two four -lane frontage roads on either side of the right-of-way of the future Corona Del Mar Freeway. These frontage roads will significantly increase traffic capacity in this portion of the City of Newport Beach. MacArthur Boulevard, on the east side of Newport Place, currently carries volumes of 27,000 to 28,500. vpd and is developed to major highway standards. Birch Street on the northwest edge of the project as well as Campus Drive both carry relatively high volumes of traffic with Campus Drive serving as a major area circulation element. -4- r Site Traffic Generation and Distribution Our 1970 report(2) made estimates of the total daily and peak -hour traffic generation of the Newport Place project as well as its direc- tional distribution. Since that report, there have been some changes in land use. In order to determine the present characteristics of Newport Place's traffic, a complete cordon count was taken whereby automatic counters were set out at the eight streets providing access to the project from Birch Street, MacArthur Boulevard, and North Bristol Street. Table 3 summarizes the total two-way traffic volumes by hour of the day for the period counted. Figure 3 depicts the variation in hourly traffic volumes for Wednesday, May 10, 1978. 4000 a 0 i W 3210 Table 3 NACBINE COURT SC:MA87 Nr port FIACC Iraffic Study CONDUCTED ON MIORT PLACE. WRE2R7 MUM TYPE OF COUNT, ❑ DIRECTIONAL ID 2-.AT DATE BERlf 5-a-78 DIRECTION i DATE SUNDAY IMONDAY ITL.FSDAY kDNESDA11THUKSDAY IFRIDAY I SATURDAY I DAY I 54-78 I S..A-78 I 5-10-i8 I 5-11-78 112-1 I 74 I 110 ( 121 I I 1-2 I i 46 I 37 I 56 2-3 I I 13 I 20 I 37 3 I I 16 ( is I 12 I 1 4-5 I I B I 10 I 15 I , 'A.M. 5-6 I I 63 I 66 I 82 I I K M iA 6-7 I I 457 I 498 I 534 I I I 7-8 (, I 1426 1537 I 1536 I _I 8-9 I I 3134 I 3209 I 3021 9-1D 2180 2158 I 2299 10-11 I 2210 2215 I I I ( 3052 I 2925 12-1 I I 3457 I 3499 I I I 1-2 I 3096 I 3234 ( I 2-3 I 2655 I 2769 3-4 2432 I 2460 I i 4-5 I 2862 I 2927 I I I 5-6 I 3172 3170 I P.M. P. M. 6-7 I L565 I 1663 I 1721 I I I 7-6 100E I 1137 I 1190 j 8-9 797 84+ 916 I I I I I I I i 9-10 I 529 I 667 65, 1C-il I 342 I "5 1 466 ITOTAL I = :02 I 35.423 I 36.073 I 7.713 M Based upon the average of the two highest days of these counts, it was determined that the total average daily two-way traffic volume generated by Newport Place was 35,750 vpd. Between 8:00 and 9:00 A.M., the two-way volume was 3,225 cars; between 12:00 Noon and 1:00 P.M., the volume was 3,495 cars; and between 4:30 and 5:30 P.M., the highest hour of the day, the total volume into and out of Newport Place was 3,485 vehicles. For the 2.5-hour peak period (3:30 to 6:00 P.M.), the total volume was 7,255 vehicles, representing approximately 20 percent of the total daily traffic volume. Table 4 summarizes these values and also indicates the volumes on each of the eight streets serving as access to Newport Place. It was found that 33 percent of the traffic was oriented to MacArthur Boulevard, 13 percent to Bristol Street, and 54 percent to Birch Street. These values are very close to those projected in our November 1970 report (27 percent to MacArthur, 23 percent to Bristol, and 54 percent to Birch). The variation in percentage was due primarily to the fact that the freeway Table 4 CURRENT NEWPORT PLACE TRAFFIC GENERATION Newport Place Traffic Study DAILY 2-WAY PFbl, PERIODS 8:00- 12:OD N- 4:30- 3:30- 2-WAY LOCATION VOLUME 9:00 AMI 1:00 PM) 5:30 PM 6:00 PM West of MacArthur Blvd @ 2,630 165 350 260 470 Corinthian Way Newport Place Drive Bowsprit Drive 5,150 3,970 330 525 540 310 570 425 1,115 815 Subtotal: (11,750) (1,020) (1,200) (1,255) (2,400) Northeast of N. Bristol St @ 2,860 245 275 295 630 Dove Street Spruce Street Subtotal: 1,740 250 ( 495) 165 ( 440) 130 ( 425) 310 ( 940) ( 4,600) Southeast of Birch St @ 3,380 150 295 200 615 Corinthian Way Dove Street 9,220 855 900 755 1,780 Quail Street 6,800 705 660 850 1,520 Subtotal: (1,710) (1,855) (1,805) (3,915) (19,400) Total Volume: 35,750 31225 3,495 3,485 7,255 Percent of Daily: - 9.0% 9.8% 9.7% 20.3% -7- had not been constructed and Spruce Avenue on the south side of the project did not connect•to both directions of the Bristol Street frontage roads, as assumed in the 1970 report. The 35,750 daily trips generated by the Newport Place project represents a traffic generating factor of 25.8 daily two-way trips per 1,000 square feet -of gross floor area which was occupied in May 1978. This is quite a high value considering that almost 80 percent of the.present land use is devoted to office space which normally has a traffic generating factor of 13 to 15 trip ends per 1,000 square feet of floor aiea. This divergence from normal standards may be explained by the fact that the restaurant and retail traffic attracted to Newport Place has a relatively high factor. In addition, over 400,000 square feet of building area was under construction at the time of the counts; considerable volume occurred as part of that activity. One other characteristic of Newport Place traffic which is of interest is that its single peak hour starts at 4:30 P.M., 15 minutes earlier than the peak hour on adjacent off -site roadways which starts at 4:45 P.M. / Future Project Traffic Characteristics Figure 4 shows the current status of the Newport Place project°s land use; a major portion developed and occupied in May 1978; additional portions of the project under construction or occupied since last spring; and the remaining 11-acre Emkay parcel in the center of the project as well as two other areas to be developed by others. Table 6 summarizes our estimates of traffic volumes asso- ciated with each of the various land uses under current and future conditions with the addition of traffic associated with projects currently under construction as well as additional development by Emkay and others. 'fr 0 w = DEVELOPED Q OCCUPIED 5/78 COMPLETED BETWEEN 5/78 — 12/78 © FUTURE PROJECTS �00.0) FLOOR AREA j f, �qv (1000 SQ. FT.) O UNDER CONSTRUCTI < AS OF 12/78 OFFICE (141.9 NOTE a EXPANSION AREAS ARE NOT SHOWN. l OOMS) ff z—AN ADDITIONAL 87.0 MSF OF OFFICE SPACE IS PROGRAMMED. NEWPORT PLACE LAND USE �t,�j�� Ian ■MIM'�a u{ nu_n m.rrvf EMKAY DEVELOPMENT AND REALTY COMPANY Yf — - 11.f!1'&WHO. y A • • - Table 5 • TRAFFIC GENERATION CHARACTERISTICS AND FACTORS Newport Beach Traffic Study LAND USE DAILY TRAFFIC PER UNIT 2.5 HOUR VOLUME P.M. PK HR VOLUME In I Out Total In Out Total Office Uses 14.0/Msf 1.3 3.7 5.0 0.4 2.0 2.4 Retail/General 50.O/Msf 4.9 5.1 10.0 2.2 2.8 5.0 Commercial Restaurants 190.O/Msf 14.2 9.8 24.0 6.3 3.7 10.0 Hotel/Motel 12.0/room 1.0 0.6 1.6 0.5 0.3 0.8 Auto Center 25.0/Msf 2.4 3.6 6.0 1 1.2 1.8 3.0 By comparing normal traffic generating rates with the quantities of land use in May 1978 and the actual traffic counts, estimates of gene- ration factors were made. These are shown in Table 6 and will be used to estimate the future site traffic characteristics. It is expected that the total traffic generation of Newport Place will grow from the May 1978 level of 35,750 vpd to a total of 53,350 vpd. The traffic associated with new development in 1979, 1980, and 1981 is shown. By the end of 1981,'Newport Place will generate 49,950 vpd under the maximum development rate excluding the traffic associated with the expansion space. Table 6 PRESENT AND FUTURE SITE TRAFFIC VOLUME Newport Place Traffic Study DAILY TRAFFIC AS OF NAY -78 ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC VOLUME ULTIMATE QUANTITY (b) Expeo- SITE TRAFFIC LAND USE AS OF MAY 178 Y(vph) a(vpd) ion VOLUME (vpd) (vpd) (lvpd) (vpd) Office Uses 1,052.3 Hof 14,750 4.100 2,350 3,450 2,100 1.550 28.300 Retail/General 113.3 HaE JSO/m5f 5.650 2,100 - - - 450 8.200Cosmrcial Restaurants 42.5 Msf 8,100 - - - -- 8,300 tlotel/Motel (I00.4 Hsf)`- 2.500 1.700 - - - - 4,20D Auto Ceocer 70.4 HsE 25e 1,750 -_ - 1,800 3,550 Construction 6 _ - 3,000 -2.000 - - - - 1y000 Thru Traffic TOTAL: 1,383.8 Ysf 2fi/Nef 35,750 5,900 2.350 3.450 2,100 3,80D 53,350 ACCUMULATIVE TRAFFIC VOLUME: 35,750 41,650 44,OD0 47,450 49,550 53.350 (a)Traf Sic generation factor used to balance total estimated volume for each land use with the actual traffic counted. (b)Includes projects completed or under construction between 5/78 and 12/78. (Sea Table I for quantity of development for each year.) Q= Using the peak period characteristics shown in Table 7, the future traffic generation counts of Newport Place, and phased land use, estimates were prepared of the peak 2.5-hour (3:30 to 6:00 P.M.) period volume as well as the evening peak -hour volume for Newport Place for additions since May 1978 when the counts were taken as well as in the future. Table 7 shows these values. Table 7 ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL PROJECT TRAFFIC AFTER SPRING 1978 Newport Place Traffic Study -HOOK PEAR TRAFFIC ADDED P.H. PEAR HOUR TAAFFIC Grouch Total (a) Phased Grouch Total Expan- Since May 78• Expan- Since LAND USE 980 1981 sion May 78 Dec 78 1979 1980 1981 sion He 78 235 765 550 4,850 700 405 595 365 265 2,330 Office Uses Retail/General- - r415 85 Soo 205 - - - 40 245 CommercialRestaurantsIlotel/Hotel 115 - - - 225 115 - - - - - - 430 430 - - - - 2I5 215 Auto Center - - Construction 4 -480 - - - - -480 -240 - - - - -240 Thru Traffic 840 1235 765 1065 5,525 780 405 595 365 5202,665 TOTAL; 1620 Inbound 555 220 320 20D 355 1,650 215 70 100 60 150 595 (b3 1065 620 915 565 710 3,a75 565 335 495 305 370 2.070 Outbound (°)Already occupied or currently under construction. (b)Calculated from in/out splits of individual land uses added during that time period. Directional splits of traffic associated with the various land uses were shown in Figure I. They can be applied to allow determination of the project's traffic impact upon adjacent intersections as required by the City's policies. Critical Intersection Determination The policy of the Newport Beach Planning Commission concerning the test of reasonableness of a project as part bf a Traffic Phasing Plan included examination of the circulation system in the vicinity of the project. The criteria for determining the extent of this examination was that intersections should be reviewed up to a point where there was less that a five percent change in traffic volume due to the additional -10- development contemplated by the project. Discussions with City Staff indicated that this analysis should use total entering traffic volumes on each of the legs of each critical intersection. For Newport Place, besides the spring 1978 traffic, there would be additional traffic for development completed since spring 1978 as well as that currently under construction. The test as to whether the intersection should be studied under an ICU analysis involved whether the project traffic for a 2.5—hour period for the proposed development would increase the total traffic volume on any approach by over five percent. Traffic associated with development completed since May 1978 or currently under construction also was added. As noted in Tables 6 and 7, this amounted to 5,900 vpd and 1,620 vehicles during a 2.5— hour peak period. Table 8 summarizes our calculations for 16 intersections which have been designated critical by the City of Newport Beach in the Newport Place environs. It was found that nine of these intersections would have project traffic which would be greater than five percent on one or more approaches when the project is completed. It should be noted that the quantity of project development did not include the 190,200 square feet of expansion area. The critical intersections determined as needing ICU analysis included: MacArthur/Campus, Jamboree/Campus, Jamboree/MacArthur, Bristol (N) /Campus, Bristol (N) /Birch, Bristol/ Campus, Bristol/Birch, MacArthur/Ford and MacArthur/Coast Highway. Of these, the greatest impact occurred on the intersections along Bristol Street south of the project. Critical Intersection ICU The technique of ICU analysis was developed by Robert W. Crommelin and has been accepted, not only by the City of Newport Beach, but by other political jurisdictions as a method to compare traffic volumes, capacities, and levels of service. An appendix describes the technique as normally applied, although the City of Newport Beach requires cal— culation of ICU to four decimal places and use of a yellow allowance _11— Table 8 PERCENT PR03E RAF FIC CONTRIBUTION TO CRITICAL INTERSE NS Newport Place Traffic Study 4 V01,11ME. PROJECT197825-HOURTRAFFIC (a) Percen1978 INTERSECTION DIREC-ring r5-HOUR PARAFFIC dded ICU) TION 978 ro ect Total Volume of Total MacArthur/Campus" NB SB 288E 3129 288 166 3176 3295 495 1 222 15.6 6.7 n/s e/w (0.93) EB 1693 40 1733 19D • WB 2004 13 2017 19 0.9 Jamboree/Campus NB SB 3452 3417 120 48 3572 3465 88 2.5 n/s e/w (1.17) EB 2042 a 2050 252 2 3 WB 1637 * 1637 Jamboree/ NB 1681 38 1719 71 4.1 MacArthur SB 2814 147 2961 247 e/w n/s EB 2923 9 2932 17 0.6 0.85) WE 3037 19 3066 Bristol(N)/Campus NB SB 1504 3705 17 38 1521 3743 208 5.6 e/w n/s (1.00) WE 4790 393 5183 694 113.41 Bristol(N)/Birch NB SB 552 2120 7 73 9 318 '8 0.7 e/w n/s 0.59) WE 3053 406 3459 262 76 Bristoi(N)/Jambore NB SB 5153 2811 16 86 5169 2897 22 50 0.4 1:7 e/w n/s (0.72) WB 1162 29 1191 1 19 1.6 Bristol/Campus NB SB 1606 3164 15 32 1621 3196 22 63 1.4 2.0 e/w n/s (0.72) EB 3027 1 223 3250 296 1 9. Bristol/Birch NB 223 * 223 e/w n/s SB 943 59 1002 68 (0.36) EB 2656 102 2758 318 9. 81 Bristol/Jamboree NB SB 4996 2359 7 66 5003 2425 22 50 0.4 2.1 e/w n/s (0.54) EB 2778 126 1 2904 68 2.3 Irvine/University 'NB SB 1985 3864 17 32 2002 3896 22 63 1.1 1.6 n/s e/w (0.86) EB 672 * 672 WB 80 * 80 Jamboree/Ford NB 4574 11 •4585 15 0.3 n/s e/w SB 2937 32 2969 64 2.2 (0.83) 'EB• 981 * 981 *• ' WE 753 6 759 7 1 0.9 MacArthur/Ford NB SB 4574 2937 50 93 4624 3030 68 197 1.5 6.5 n/s e/w (0.83) EB 981 * 981 WE 753 11 764 15 2.0 MacArthur/San NB 2581 39 2620 53 2.0 Joaquin Hills SB 4134 96 4230 161 3.8 n/s e/w EB 385 * 385 (0.64) WE 2533 11 2544 15 0.6 Jamboree/ NB 2581 11 2592 15 0.6 San Joaquin n/s e/w SB 4134 22 4156 43 1.0 EB 385 * 385 (0.64) WE 2533 * 2533 Jamboree/Coast H NB SB 1015 2959 5 22 1020 2981 11 43 1.1 1.4 n/s e/w (0.83) EB 4264 2 4266 3 WE 3185 5 3190 7 MacArthur/ SB 2258 71 2329 125 15.41 Coast Hwy n/s a/w EB II 3204 11 3215 15 0.5 0.77 WB 3432 IOU28 30 11 38 1.1 (a) At 1981 project completion, excluding expansion of 190,262 square feet. * Nominal volume. Project contribution exceeds five percent. -12- of 0.1000 rather than the adjusted value as shown in the original technical paper on ICU. ICU's were calculated for -nine intersections where project traffic during the 2.5-hour peak period exceeded five percent of the prior entering volume. The calculation sheets are attached as an appendix to this report. Table 9 summarizes the ICU characteristics for each of the nine intersections. Values for both the existing condition and the existing plus project are shown in the table. In order to determine the need for phasing, the project as well as the effect of planned area roadway improvements, further examination was assumed necessary when the ICU exceeded 0.9000. It was found that this condition would exist at four intersections: Bristol (N) /Campus, Jamboree/Campus, MacArthur/Campus, and MacArthur/Ford. These intersections will receive principal examination to determine what roadway improvements remain to be completed, particularly those which will directly aid in moving traffic generated by the proposed project. Table 9 SUMMARY OF CRITICAL INTERSECTION ICU CHARACTERISTICS Newport Place Traffic Study INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION FURTHER STUDY NEEDED? Existing Existing Yes No INTERSECTION Condition Plus Project Bristol(N)/Campus 1.0016 1.0608 x Bristol/Campus-Irvine 0.7276 0.7526 x Bristol(N)/Birch 0.5911 .0.6977 x Bristol/Birch 0.3582 0.3851 x Jamboree/Campus 1.1343 1.1627 x Jamboree/MacArthur 0.8604 0.8673 x MacArthur/Campus 0.9259 1.0762 x MacArthur/Ford 1.0121 1.0263 x MacArthur/Coast Hwy 0.7719 0.8109 x Impact of Planned Roadway Improvements Caltrans has several projects in the northwest portion of the City of Newport Beach which will significantly improve traffic operations. In early spring 1979, a freeway connection will be opened between the I Bristol Street frontage roads and the Corona Del Mar Freeway to the west. Direct connection will be made from Bristol Street just west of Campus Drive to both the Newport Freeway and the San Diego Freeway. This improvement will cause a diversion of MacArthur Boulevard traffic, principally that with a destination to and from the west on the San Diego Freeway. I Another Caltrans project involves the widening of MacArthur Boulevard in the vicinity of Campus Drive to allow three full lanes northbound i plus a right -turn lane serving northbound traffic on MacArthur Boulevard desiring to turn right on Campus Drive. This project, along with traffic signal system improvements is scheduled for advertising in mid-1979. Construction should be completed by early 1980. As an interim improve- ment, consideration should be given to the provision of three full lanes southbound on MacArthur Boulevard to take advantage of the widening which has already occurred on.MacArthur Boulevard in front of the Newport Place project. Opening of the Von Karman overcrossing of the San Diego Freeway between MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Boulevard will provide traffic relief to both the MacArthur and Jamboree interchanges with the San Diego Freeway. Scheduled for opening in late January 1979, the overcrossing will improve area circulation and reduce volumes at the Jamboree/Campus intersection which is one of the critical intersections in this study. Currently, Jamboree Boulevard carries 48,000 vpd south of Route 405 and 23,500 vpd north of the freeway. MacArthur Boulevard carries 53,800 vpd to the south and 36,300 vpd to the north. It would not be unreasonable to expect the Von Karman bridge to direct 8,000 to 12,000 of these trips from Jamboree and MacArthur Boulevards. Currently there are about 20,000 trips through the MacArthur interchange and 13,000 through on Jamboree (excluding ramp traffic). -14- A fourth improvement scheduled for early 1980 is the realignment of Ford Road at MacArthur Boulevard in conjunction with roadway improvements to MacArthur itself. The cooperative City -State project will provide two left -turn lanes, two through lanes, and one right -turn lane for each approach on MacArthur Boulevard. The westerly leg will have two left - turn lanes and two lanes for through and right -turn movements. The easterly leg will have one left -turn lane and two lanes for through and right -turn movements. These roadway improvements will significantly increase roadway capacity and reduce congestion at this intersection. The City of Irvine has included a project in its 1978-1979 budget which will improve traffic, operations at the Jamboree/Campus intersection. It involves widening the east side of Jamboree Boulevard south of Campus Drive to provide one additional northbound lane. Construction will be completed in Fall 1979 according to the Irvine Public Works Department. The roadway improvements mentioned above currently are planned by the various jurisdictions. All are imminent for implementation. Each will have an impact upon the four critical intersections noted in the previous section. Revised ICU analysis sheets are included in the appendix for all four of the intersections. The painting of a southbound right -turn lane in the 30 feet available on the northerly leg of Bristol Street serving southbound traffic will significantly change the ICU at that intersection. This minor painting and signing already was accomplished last week by the City of Newport Beach. The ICU will be reduced from 1.0608 to 0.8351. These numbers represent the existing plus project traffic condition. There will be adequate capacity remaining to serve traffic diverted from MacArthur Boulevard to the new freeway connection. The improvements noted for the MacArthur/Campus intersection will reduce the ICU from 1.0762 to 0.8878, not taking into consideration any diversion of traffic from that roadway to the new Corona Del Mar Freeway connection. The principal change occurs by providing more capacity -15- on MacArthur Boulevard to handle through traffic. Although the coordination of traffic signals does not directly improve capacity, it will significantly improve traffic operating conditions on the roadway. By allowing three full through lanes on each approach on MacArthur Boulevard, as well as a separate northbound right -turn lane, the ICU will be lowered to an acceptable level. By adding a southbound and eastbound double left -turn lane to the MacArthur/Ford intersection, the ICU will be reduced from 1.0265 to 0.8056. The most important improvements are the provision of double left -turn lanes for the two movements noted. The Jamboree/Campus intersection currently has an ICU of 1.1343 which will increase to 1.1627 with the full development of Newport Place, excluding the expansion allowance. Widening of the easterly side of Jamboree Road south of Campus Drive by the City of Irvine will occur during 1979. By provision of an additional'lane northbound on Jamboree Boulevard approaching Campus Drive, the ICU for the intersection would be reduced to 1.0091 with project volumes added. As mentioned previously, opening the Von Karman overcrossing will divert some traffic from this busy intersection: We have not prepared a detailed traffic analysis of the future usage of the Von Karman overcrossing but feel it would be reasonable to assume that sufficient volume on the heavier approaches would be diverted to the alternate route to reduce the ICU to a reasonable level. Opening of the overcrossing combined with the widening of Jamboree Boulevard will bring the ICU to 0.900 or less. Need for Development Phasing The phasing as proposed under the maximum development rate by Emkay Development Company for the Newport Place project can be accommodated by planned improvements of the roadway system. The maximum development rate (excluding the expansion allowance) can be accomplished if the following phasing occurs in association with the various improvements noted: -16- 1. Occupancy of the floor space considered for construction in 1979 should not occur until a third lane is developed on MacArthur Boulevard in each direction at the Campus Drive intersection and the Corona Del Mar Freeway connec- tion'is made to the west and the San Diego Freeway. 2. Similarly, the occupancy should be forestalled until the MacArthur/Ford improvements are completed although this is of much lesser importance that the improvements to close proximity to the site. 3. The opening of the Von Karman overcrossing combined with the addition of a northbound lane on Jamboree Boulevard by the City of Irvine will improve traffic conditions at the Jamboree/Campus intersection to a reasonable level so that phasing of the project will not be required. 4. By phasing the additional development over a three-year period, the entire project can be accomplished without a negative impact upon the adjacent street system once the initial improvements noted in this report are accommodated. 5. Prior to progressing on the expansion space of 190,200 square feet of building area, a separate traffic analysis should be accomplished at a later date. If you have any questions concerning our findings, please let us know. It has been a pleasure to serve Emkay Development and Realty Company once again on this most interesting project. Respectfully submitted, ROBERT CROMMELIN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. ` ai i w f m No. 9167 zo �\ CtV\\ 9TFOF CAl Robert W. Crommelin, P.E. President RWC:ln It #18271 Registered Professional Engineer State of California Civil C9667; Traffic TR488 . y INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ROBERT CROMMELIN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. FREQUENTLY USES AN ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUE CALLED INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) TO RELATE VEHICLE VOLUMES, CALCULATED CAPACITIES, AND LEVELS OF SERVICE. THIS MONOGRAPH DESCRIBES THAT TECHNIQUE. The capability of a roadway to move traffic volume is referred to as capacity. Capacity is nearly always greater between intersections and more restricted at intersections. This is true because the roadway normally flows continuously between intersections and flows only during a green phase at signalized inter- sections. Signals are generally warranted and installed before capacity is reached for non -signalized intersections. One'seldom encounters non -signalized intersections operating at capacity. Analytical techniques have been developed which allow the calculation of the capacity of an intersection approach based upon its various geometric, demographic, and traffic flow characteristics. It is important to note that traffic volumes may be counted or estimated, whereas capacity is a calculated value. Usually, volumes are rounded off to the nearest 5 vehicles per hour (vph) and capacities to the nearest 10 vehicles per hour of green time (vphG) per lane. The capacity calculation methods are outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual.(I) Sometimes, a single value of 1500 to 1700 vphG is used. Research in the Los Angeles metropolitan area has found an average value of 1700 vphG per lane to apply to both through and left -turn lanes for the value of roadway capacity. Use of a value such as this greatly simplifies the calculation. Level of Service (LOS) The term level of service is used to describe quality of traffic flow. Levels of Service A to C operate quite well. Level C normally is taken as a design level in urban areas outside a regional core. Level D typically is the level for which a metropolitan area street system is designed. Level E represents volumes at or near the capacity of the highway which will result in possible stoppages of momentary duration and fairly unstable flow. Level F occurs when a facility is overloaded and is characterized by stop -and -go traffic with stoppages of long duration. ICU and LOS Relationships The technique utilized to compare volume and capacity (v/c) ratios with level of service is called "Intersection Capacity Utilization" (ICU).(2) ICU represents the proportion of the total hour required to accommodate intersection traffic volumes if all approaches are operating at capacity (Level of Service E). This does not mean that Level E is appropriate for urban design, but the evaluation of present and future operating conditions in relationship to total capacity is more easily understood. In other words, operating at 85 percent of capacity is easier to comprehend than operating at LOS D. The following relationships between level of service and ICU are used: Level of Service (LOS) A, 0.68 ICU or less; LOS B, 0.69 to 0.71 ICU; LOS C, 0.72 to 0.79 ICU; LOS D, 0.80 to 0.89 ICU; LOS E, 0.90 to 1.00 ICU; and LOS F, over 1.00 ICU. I To determine the current and future operational efficiency of the street system in the study area, a volume/capacity (v/c) analysis is made at selected important intersections. The method used at each location is to determine the proportion of total signal time needed in one hour for each conflicting movement and to compare it with the total time available (100 percent of the hour). For example, a movement with 1,000 vehicles per hour (vph) on an approach with a calculated capacity of 3,000 vph would require 33 percent of the total available signal time. The capacities used are for Level of Service E, as defined in the Highway Capacity Manual. Continuing this procedure for critical approach signal phases will yield the total amount of time required to meet traffic volume demands. The critical approach phases are those which control the timing of the overall cycle of a traffic —actuated controller. With multi —phase controllers, the critical movements on one of the streets usually are heavy left —turn movements and their opposing through movements. An allowance for yellow clearance times is added with the total representing the ICU. The ICU calculations assume that signals are properly timed. At poorly timed locations, it is possible to have an ICU of well below 1.00, yet severe traffic congestion occurs on one approach or more because a movement is not getting enough time to satisfy its demand with excess time being wasted. This is an operational problem which should be remedied. The ICU technique also can be used to test the impact of adding lanes and revising signal phasing and to determine future operating conditions with or without a proposed new development. Thus, with actual present hourly volumes or estimated future volumes, different intersection configurations can be tested to determine which would optimize future traffic operating conditions. SAMPLE CALCULATION Movement Volume Capacity V/C Ratio (vph) (vphG) Northbound 1500 3400 0.34 Southbound 1650 3400 0.49* Eastbound 300 1700 0.18 Westbound 425 1700 0.25* Yellow 0.08* ICU 0.82 LOS I "D" * Indicates critical movement included in the ICU. (1)Highway Capacity Manual, 1976; Highway Research Board Special Report No. 87; Washington, D.C. (2)Robert W. Crommelin, Use of Intersection Capacity Utilization Values to Estimate Overall Level of Service," Traffic Engineering, July 1974. TRANaPORTPTiCrJ AND TRAFFIC enrsruelRe DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS In our report-, terms are used which are common to the Traffic Engineering profession but may not be clear to others. The following deflnitlone cover commonly used terms. Additional definitions may be found in the Transportation and TNiffic F.ngLeetlagHandbook, Institute of Transportation Engineers$ Washington$ D.C., 1976, or the Highway Capacity Manual, Spacial Report No. 87$ Highway Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1965. COMMON ABBREVIATIONS ADT: average daily vph: vehicles per hour traffic vphG: vehicles per hour AHD: average weekday of green (signal traffic time) CBD: central business Lt: left district Rt: right MSF: square feet in 1.000's MVE: millions of ve- hicles entering USDOT: United States De - (intersection) partment of Trans- MVM: millions of we- portation hide mile. FHWA: Federal Highway VMT: vehicle miles of Administration travel Caltrans: California Depart - Pk Hr: peak hour volume ment of Transpor- 0: traffic signal tatlon phase TRB: Transportation vpd: vehicles per day Research Board TRAFFIC AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT): the total volume during a Riven time period (usually one year) divided by the number of days in that tine period. -. VEHICLES PER DAY (vpd): the total volume of traffic passing a point, usually in both directions, for a 24 hour period. In most traffic analyses prepared by us, "vpd" refers to average weekday traffic. PEAR HOUR VOLUME.: the highest number of vehicles found to be passing over a section of a lane or a roadway dur- ing 60 consecutive minutes, usually designated as the morning peak hour and the evening peak hour. DENSITY: the number of vehicles occupying a unit length of the through traffic loner of a roadway at any given Instant. Usually expressed in vehicles per mile. LOAD FACTOR: a ratio of the total number of green sig- nal intervals that are fully utilised by traffic during the peak hour to the total number of green intervals for that approach during the same period. Its maximum at- talnablo value is one. PEAK HOUR FACTOR: a ratio of the volume occurring dur- ing the peak hour to the maximum rat. of flow during a given time period within the peak hour. It is a measure of peaking characteristics, whose maximum attainable value is one. The term must be qualified by a specified short period within the hour; this is usually 5 or 6 min- utes for freeway operation and 15 minutes for Intersection operation. UPSTREAM: the direction along the roadway from which the vehicle flow under consideration has come. DOWNSTREAM: the direction along the roadway toward which the vehicle flow under consideration is moving. BOTTLENECK: a constriction along a traveled way which limits the .mount of traffic which can proceed downstream from Its location. PLATOON: a closely grouped elemental component of traf- fic, composed of several vehicles, moving or standing ready to move over a roadway with clear spaces ahead and behind. CORDON: an Imaginary line around an area across which vehlclee, persons, or other Items are counted (in and out). VEHICLE MILES: a measure of the amount of usage of a sec- tion of highway normally used in accident analysts to com- pary similar highways. Obtained by multiplying the average daily traffic by 765 and dividing by the length of section ' in mllvs, usually stated In millions. TRAFFIC TRIP: the moving of a person or vehicle from one lo- cation (origin) to another (destination). TRIP -END: one and of a trip at either the ortAin or destination; i.e. each trip has two trip -ends. TRIP PURPOSE: the reason why the trip 1% made (to or from work, shopping, school, etc.). SCREEN -LINE: an imaginary line or physical Craturc across which all trips are counted, normally to verify the' validity of mathematical traffic models. TRIP GENERATION FACTOR: a traffic volume estimating tool. Fran studies of similar land uses, the amount of traffic (trips) produced by or attracted to the land use is related to some identifying ,nit such ac land area, gross floor area, population, employment, etc. and applied to the amount of that unit for tho land use under study. For example, 10 trips per day per dwelling unit refers to 5 trips Inbound and 5 trips outbound from the generating unit. GENERAL DESIGN TERMS GEOMETRIC DESIGN: the arrangement of the visible ele- ments of a road, such as aiivment, grades, sight dis- tances, widths, slopes, etc. INTERCHANGE: a system of interconnecting roadways in conjunction with a grade separation or grade separa- tions providing for the Interchange of traffic between two or more intersecting roadways. MEDIAN: the portion of a,divided highway separating the traveled ways for traffic In opposite directions. TRAVELED WAY: the portion of the roadway for the move- mant of vehicles exclusive of shoulders and auxiliary lanes. AUXILIARY LANE.: the portion of the roadway adjoining the traveled way for parking, speed change, or for other purposes supplementary to through traffic movement. SHOULDER: the portion of the roadway contiguous with the traveled way for accommodation of stopped vehicles, for emergency use, and for lateral support of base and surface courses. TRAFFIC LANE: the portion of the traveled way for the movement of a single line of vehicles. RIGHT OF WAY: the land owped by a public agency which Includes the roadbed, sidewalks, and other areas such as those used for planting strips. CHANNELIZATION: the separation of regulation of con- flicting traffic movements into definite paths of tra- vel by the use of pavement markings, raised islands, or other suitable means to facilitate the are and or- derly movements of both vehicles and pedestrians. WEAVING SECTION: a length of one-way roadway, designed to accommodate weaving, at one and of which two one-way roadways verge and at the other end of which they sep- arate. RAMP: a connecting roadway between two intersecting highways at an Interchange. Continued on reverse • HIG CAPACITY , 1RWPIr C SIGNALS Any device, whether manually, electrically, or mechani- cally operated, by which traffic is alternately directed CAPACITY: the maximum number of vehicles which has to stop and permitted to proceed. a reasonable expectation of passing over a given see- tion of A lane or • roadway to one or both directions • given time period under prevailing roadway durSIGNAL INDICATION: the illumination of a traffic signal B and traffic Le Condit lone. end to fens or equlvalm t device or a combination of several lenses or equivalent devices at the same time. LEVEL OF SERVICE: a term which, broadly interpreted, denotes any one of An Infinite number of differing com- TIME CYCLE: the time period required for one complete binations of operating conditions that my occur on a sequence of signal indications. given lane or roadway when it is accommodating various traffic volumes. Level of Service Is a qualitative PHASE: a part of the time cycle allocated to any traf- measure of the effect of a number of factors, which in- flc movement or to any combination of traffic movements elude speed and travel time, traffic Interruptions, receiving the right-of-way simultaneously during one or freedom to maneuver, safety, driving comfort and con - more Intcrvalr. venience, and operating coats. In practice, selected specific levels are defined in terms of particular llm- PRETIMED SIGNAL: a type of traffic control signal which Ming values of certain of these factors. directs traffic to stop and permits it to proceed on ac- cordance With predetermined time schedules. Six Levels of Service have been designated by letters to represent the best condition ("A" free flowing) and TRAFFIC -ACTUATED SIGNAL: a type of traffic control Sig- the worst ("Fu forced flow at very low speeds). Nor- nel in which the intervals are varied In accordance with mally, Levels "C" (stable flow) or "D" (unstable flow the demands of traffic as registered by the actuation of but tolerable operations) are used for design purposes. detectors. SERVICE VOLUME: the maximum number of vehicles that 1. Semi -traffic -actuated signal: a type of traffic can pass over a given section of a lane or roadway In actuated signal in which means are provided for ono direction on multilane highways (or In both direc- traffle actuation in one or more but not all ap- dons on a two- or three -lane highway) during a speci- proaches to the intersection. fied time period while operating conditions are main- 2. Full traffic -actuated signal: a type of traffic talned corresponding to the selected or specified level actuated signal in which means are provided for of service. In the absence of a time modifier, service traffic actuation on all approaches to the inter- volume 1s an hourly volume. section. 3. Pedestrian -actuated signal; a type of traffic control signal which may be actuated by a pedes- trian. PROGRESSIVE. SYSTEM: a signal system in which the succes- sive signal faces controlling a given street give "go" LEVEL OF SERVICE VS. OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS indications In accordance with a time schedule to permit (as nearly as possible) continuous operation of groups of vehicles along the street at a planned rate of speed, LEVEL OF which may very In different parts of the system. SERVICE DESCRIPTION OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS A Free flow Low volumes, high speed (best) selectivity, low density. Drivers not impaired by ROADWAY TYPE other traffic. At signals no driver waits more than ono signal cycle and all ARTERIAL HIGHWAY: a general term denoting a highway turns are easily made. primarily for through traffic, usually on a Continu- B Stable flow Operating speeds beginning ous route. to be restricted by traffic lC Suitable for EXPRESSWAY: a divided arterial highway for through design r rural design values. At rural traffic with full or partial control of access. signal, drivers beginning somewhat restricted. to feel somewhat FREEWAY: an expressway with full control of access C Stable flow Volume restricts driver's and all grade crdssings eliminated (design value) speed and manuverab111ty; CONTROL OF ACCESS: the conditions where the right of suitable for urban design owners or occupants of abutting land or other persons values. At signals, dri- to access, light, air, or view in connection with a vers may have to accession - highway is fully or partially controlled by public ally watt more than one authority. cycle to clear.' D Approaching cause PARKWAY: an arterial highwayfor noncommercial traf- unstable flaw dropo in v lumerestand apeons drop !n volume end speed; ally with full or partial control of access, and and is r a de ally located within a part or a ribbon of parklike de- la but s low but to larable For chart tolerable velopmcnt. periods. At slgnals7 short peaks may develop queues MAJOR STREET OR MAJOR HIGHWAY: an arterial highway MA which will clear during with intersections at grade and direct eceeaa to abase- later cycles. Excessive ting property, and an which geometric design and traf- back-up does not occur. fie control measures are used to expedite the safe E Unstable flow Speeds on freeways at 30 mph movement of through traffic. (capacity) with momentary stoppages. LOCAL STREET OR LOCAL ROAD: A street or road pri- At signals there may be long madly for acees+ to residence, business, or other queues of vehicles with de - lays up to several signal abutting property. cycles. Unsuitable for use THROUGH STREET: every highway or portion thereof at In design. the entrance to which vehicular traffic from inter- F Forced flow Iov speeds, many stoppages setting highways is required by law to stop before (worst) on freeways, long queues, entering or crossing the snow and when stop signs are and high delays; roadway erected, becomes storage area. Back- up from one signal may block DIVIDED HIGHWAY: a highway with separated roadways Adjacent Vol - for traffic in opposite directions. umea earr led ore unpredict- carried are able. FRONTAGE ROAD: a local street or road auxiliary to and located on the aid- of an arterial highway for service to abutting property and adjacent areas and for control of access. CUL-DE-SAC STREET: a local street open at one end only, Revised June 1, 1975 and with special provisions for turning around. • INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION FOR EXISTING ROADWAY CONDITIONS INTJJECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION I#YSIS ~ Intersection Bristol Street North/Clam 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 81 • rio„�, / , 65O6 , OSOG NT 2 3200 587 1 n o r, , qg -7 , / 34 , / 3¢ NR- - -- - - - SL ST 2 3200 1241 2 7 1768 . 586 G Z/� SR 637 85" 72Z EL- - - -- - ET - - -- - - ER - - - - - - WL 1 1600 321 7 328 , 2oOG , 2050 WT 4 6400 1660 / SS /8/S .26¢ , 2883 WR 30 nam. 30 Yellow Time I100O� ,/00 Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U.) 0 0/ 6 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 t1 0 M. "o n 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 Bristol Street-North/Campus Drive FORM II PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Bristol Street/Campusaive-Irvine Avenue L te*ection (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 19 — Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project Plus Project V/C V/C ment city Peak Hr Volume Peak Hr Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio HL - - 2 3200 445 44� . /3 . /39 NT 207 21 .12q�} ,tZ94 NR 1 Iouu SL 1 1600 81 �1 0 I . O So .OS 0 T ST 2 3200 .1481 34 �S16" .462 SR - 1 1600 - 142 /42 .O P,8 '0888 EL 4 6400 947 9z 1039 ./6 .1792 ET ER 108 pM 06 _ - _- WL WT WR - - DOOM . %000 Yellow Time . ' Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. •7 2 76 Existin Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. , �526 ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left NOM= N At_ ® 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. FJ 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 I INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS. v Intersecon Bristol Street North/Birc*treet (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Plus Project Exist. V/C Project V/C ment city Peak Hr Volume Peak Hr Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio 1 1600 36 N 3 G .0Z25 . 07_ NL NT 2 3200 203 NR SL - 2 - 3200 285 0 2 Ss .a6?5 .3519 ST SR 571 7 0 S 41 . EL ET - ER - - - WL 46 3' �3 WT iE_ 6400 1205 0 1310 #.Z . Z233 WR I 36 NotA, 36 ,1000t� Yellow Time .1000 Existinq Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.). T 91I +6q-77 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ICU is sum ceitical movements, denoted by asterisk (-M N=Northbound, S=Sorthbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left NOM = NOMm) AL Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 VN DLL�-�� 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.I1. 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 _ FORM II INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ~ lnterstion Bristol Street/Birch Str'�et ('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 1 1600 30 h M. 3 C) . i1 Z NR 8 mom, g SL 1 1600 66 mom,.0412 Oy/Z ST 2 3200 285 32 2 .O 1 X d006K SR - - - EL 173 2'7 2 ET 4 6400 863 NOW F3 63 6 k 13 5 ER - - 46 N D M, .• 6 11 WL - - - — WT— WR�- Yellow Time I l000x .l000 Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. . 3s 8 z Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.),3 g 51 ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (-)t) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left N nm - ito t- 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.I1. 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 Bristol Street/Birch Street __ FORM II INTER56TION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Jamboree Blvd./Campusfrive t (Existing Traffic Volumi—esBased on Average Winter Spring 1978) 11 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 Existing Conditions I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.IJ. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION INTER#TION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANA YSIS ` Intersection Jamboree Blvd./Campus rive (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average winter Spring 1978) Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Peak Hr Existing Plus Project Exist. V/C Project V/C ment city Peak Hr Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio NL Z 3 00 32 now+ • 3Z , O/00 , O/O 4.3 ' N7 2 3200 1328 n o m . /328 ::yNR - 75 vnoh� -%S SL 1 1600 256 h on, • 2Sro i J 600 ST 3 4800 1115 ;27 SR 181 _27 208 EL 3 4800 725 /36 961 , 2291 ' ET 370 » o,r• , 3 70 ER N.S. - 20 n o 2 D WL 1 1600 82 n o. o • 82 WT 2 200 379 na,+• 3�9 WR 286 , / 00 0 Yellow Time Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. /, /343 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=West bound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Lert o m• 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 El Existing Conditions I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 9.90 (� Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.IJ. will be greater than existing l—� I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 ❑ Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION Jamboree Blvd./Cam us Drive FORM II a- --- INTERSECJON CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS t Intersection Jamboree Road/MacArthur lvd. (Existing Traffic Volumes Base on Average Winter Spring 1978) Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Peak Hr Project Peak Hr Existing Plus Project Exist. V/C Project V/C ment city Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio NL 1 1 600 26 N DNA NT 2 3200 520 2 542 212 .2197 NR 1 1600 161 135 6 136` SL ST 2 N.S. 1 3200 1600 744 399 448 06 850 -45 0+53 ,2,325 "— .28oO .2456 r .2 3 SR EL ET 3 4800 885 NOM 8 ER N.S. 3 o N1. 3 WL 1 1600 446 0 rn. 6 .27 88 . a 7 BB WT 3 4800 881 NN 0 1 6 .)935 WR N.S. 10 oM 0 OUOK )Odo'�` Yellow Time ExistingIntersection Capacit Utilization I.C.U. . ga 6 04 ion (I.06g73 Existino Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization . ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (),4) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left M o tA = VA% u AL — 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. Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.11. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures FORM II ;0 INA ECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION P*YSIS Intersection MacArthur Blvd./Campus 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 1 1600 i l l n o m. NT 2 1044 3 2 > 65 , 349/ a NR fLOO - 73 2 9 SL 1 1600 56 n o, ,. 6 i 0350 , c735O ST 3 3200 1026 S4 / D . 3206 . 332 SR EL 1 1 1600 1600 201 285 /S 20 i /25G ./3 0 ET 2 13200 421 non-, l �/ 8 WL 1 1600 100 6 /06 D 2S .066Z WT 2 3299 825 n o.ti . 25 , 2 7 WR 1 T.l. Se 54 ,/04 Yellow Time Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. , $259 ExistingPlus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. 1-0762 ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left N0M. : no ..a F 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. 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 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION MacArthur Drive INTE CTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION AN�YSIS �. Intersection MacArthur Boulevard/Ford 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 30 Y) o"' 30 1ti 0/ 88 0188 NT 2 3200 1346 21 1 /367 ,43s NR 49 SL 1 1600 370 2 3 3 ST 2 3200 1413 0 2 y ¢/ SR 1 1600 132 1-32 2 . U 82S EL 1 1600 .279 Z79 _ L /7 ET 1 1600 228 no,n. 2 1-42S 1/425 ER 1 1600 88 1n br,. OS S WL 1 1600 19 r,o, ,, / O// D / WT 1 1600 113 WR 1 1600 194 Yellow Time Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. L?/ Z / Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. �b2 ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left vno,^. : no , .o. 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 UfN I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 ® Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION PROJECT MacArthur Boulevard/Ford Road INOSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATIONOALYSIS { Intersection •MacArthur Coast Hw (Existing Traffic Volumes Base on Average 4linter(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 - - - — -- — NR SL 2 •3200 828 /Z S 9 S3 zS�fg z9>if ST - - - — SR' 1 1600 197 - /7-7 I23I !z3/ EL 1 1600 223 '- 2 77-3 ET 2 3200 1322 / `✓ Z Z . 4/i ell 3i , ER - - - - — — — WL- - - — — WT 2 1 3200 839 WR N. S . - 360 Ll5! yo v - - Yellow Time .lc�oo loop Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. d•7717 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.)8�09 ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*). N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left Y%n)", 0 no In �x Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90. E] Existing Plus Project Traffic T.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 Existirg Plus Project Traffic I.C.11. will be greater than existing L� I.C.U_ that is currently greater than 0.90 0 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION MacArthur/Coast Hwy- N I INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION? FOR REVISED (IMPROVED) ROADWAY CONDITIONS INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS t &VISED - WITH ROADWAY IMPROVEIAT_ '. Inters ction Bristol Street North/C7mpus 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 1 1600 81 $1 .050 �` .050o NT 2 3200 587 587 . 1 B34 1 19.34 NR - - SL - - ST 2 3200 1241 27 1260 .30 719� 0.3181 S9 62 SR 1 1600 637 5 7 2 2 .451 Z EL - - - ET - - - ER - - -- - WL 1 1600 321 7 320 . 2006 , Z050 WT 4 6400 1660 WR 30 None. 3 0 Yellow Time I .1000* ,1000 Existina Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. .`a OZ5 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (�;f) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left Nora = NomiNAL ® Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 W ►.K_ ,ro alw ,� I , io or ,c.,.._ 1-s c P l.c-+e-cA , 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 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 REVISION: Paint separate southbound right turn lane on Campus Drive, north of Bristol Street (North). INTERSSION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANA IS •` REVISE WITH ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS Intersection Jam oree v ampus Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter Spring 1978) F Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to U.90 f l Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to L—� Existing Conditions I.C.U. NOTE: This ICU Analysis does not recognize the diversion of traffic from this intersection to the Von Karman-over"crossing. 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 REVISIONS: Widen the northbound approach to provide 3 northbouno lanes. (By City of cirvine, Fall 1979.) a `ti 2WISED (Existing INTERJLCTION Intersection Traffic Volumes CAPACITY - WITH ROADWAY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS IMPROVEM* Blvd. Cam us Drive MacArthur Based on Average Winter/Spring.l978) Move- ment Lanes Capa- city Existing Peak Hr Volume Project 'Peak Hr Volume Existing Plus Project Peak Hr Volume Exist. Project V/C V/C Ratio Ratio NL NT NR SL sT SR EL ET ER WL WT 1 1600 4500 1600 1600 4800 1600 3200 - 1600 3200 illN 1044 73 56 1026 201 285 421 53 100 825 0 11A,.06 2- 29 Mom,556 54 66' Zo i N o 13 6 0 Z /oSo Z 1 3 OS Z 1 '� 3 1 O 6 LpZ.S . 2S 2 7 .0466 .O o .2556 .1 7 S ( . /4 & 1 . 06 2$ . 2.676 2 44 . 0638 03 SO .2 00 19 81 2 .2578''� 3 1 1 3 1 2 1 2 WR Yellow Existino 1J, S. 54 Capacit N o M . Utilization s6 I.C.U. -- ,/000'''e . 8609 — ,lovc 5878 1 Time Intersection Existing Plus Project Intersection Cavacity 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 Nom = N MINAL- Existing Plus Project Traffic- I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 c.+ i t t- Y(bu al W Al I 47 e'ov srt' s co.,.- 1J ) � Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to El Existing Conditions I.C.U. 11 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 ElI.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 ElFurther analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures S: Revise island and signals on northeast corner to allow one added northbound lane thru intersection; provide separate northbound right turn lane. 1NTETION CAPACITY UTILIZATION A YSIS Y�;,.4 SED - WITH ROADWAY IMPROVEME Intersection MacArthur Boulevard/Ford 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 NT 1 2 1600 3200 30 1346 N om. '21 3 b 3 67 . o l 80 Z .4z71 NR 1 1600 49 SL 2 3200 370 23 393 ST 2 3200 1413 oZ iSIS ,, 4 6 .473 SR 1 1600 132 Not % 3 Z S2S .08Z5 EL 2 3200 279 No 2 9 �007Z •087 ET 2 320o 228 N oM, 2 z . 09884 ER 88 o rn. g 8 WL 1 1600 19 r 9 . o l 19 9 WT 1 1600 113 N /l 3 . 070C�'� , o Obi WR 1 1600 194 �F % 4 I . 2 2 .12 Yellow Time . / Oop , / Dop Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. , E3056 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.ril •g/ 9 ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (X) N=Northbound,-S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left — N 0 MINAL- Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be lessthan or equal to 0.90 w,d G� e04 d wIJ ),Pros -- 5 C ., f 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 LJ I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 0 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures REVISION: Add southbound and eastbound double left turn and other spot widenings. BY: Caltrans/City in 1979. RESOLUTION NO. 9 419 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF THE CORPORATE PLAZA, NORTH FORD, EMKAY DEVELOPMENT, KOLL CENTER NEWPORT, AND AERONUTRONIC-FORD PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICTS TO REQUIRE PREPARATION OF PHASING PLANS CONSISTENT WITH THE CIRCULA- TION ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN (AMENDMENT NO. 514) WHEREAS, Section 20.51.045 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that amendments to a Planned Community Development Plan shall be approved by a resolution of the City Council setting forth full particulars of the amendments; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on October 5, 1978, at which time it considered amend- ments to the Planned Community Development Plans for Corporate Plaza, North Ford, Emkay-Newport Place, Koll Center Newport, and Aeronutronic-Ford; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing the Planning Commission adopted its Resolution No. 1018, recommending to _. the City Council that certain'amendments to the Planned Community Development Plans for Corporate Plaza, North Ford, Emkay-Newport Place, Koll Center Newport, and Aeronutronic- Ford be adopted as follows: A. CORPORATE PLAZA Section 1, Statistical Analysis, paragraph 6, at page 2: 116. PHASING OF DEVELOPMENT. 162,644 sq. ft. of development was existing or under construction as of October 1, 1978. The additional allowable development in the total approved development plan is 287,356 sq. ft. Any further development subsequent to October 1, 1978, in 'b • I excess of 300 of the additional allowable development, being 86,206 sq. ft., shall be approved only after -it can be demonostrated that adequate traffic facilities will be available to handle that traffic generated by the project at the time of occupancy of the buildings involved. Such demonstration may be made by the pre- sentation of a phasing plan consistent with the Circu- lation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan." B. NORTH FORD Section 1, Statistical Analysis, at page 2, by adding paragraph entitled "Phasing of Development": "PHASING OF DEVELOPMENT. 129,260 sq. ft. of development was existing or under construction as of October 1, 1978. The additional allowable development in the total approved development plan is 770,740 sq. ft. Any further development subsequent to -October 1, 1978, in excess of 30% of the additional allowable development, being 231,222 sq. ft., shall be approved only after it can be demonstrated that adequate traffic facilities will be available to handle that traffic generated by the project at the time of occupancy of the - buildings involved. Such demonstration may be made by the presentation of a phasing plan consistent with the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. C. EMKAY-NEWPORT PLACE Amending General Notes at page 1, by adding paragraph 7, to read: "7.' PHASING OF DEVELOPMENT. 1,799,941 sq. ft. of development was existing or under construction as of October 1, 1978. The additional allowable development in the total approved development plan is 566,423 sq. ft. -2- n �y 9 • Any further development subsequent to October 1, 1978, in excess of 30% of the additional allowable development, being 169,927 sq. ft., shall be approved only after it can be demonstrated that adequate traffic facilities will be available to handle that traffic generated by the project at the time of occupancy of the buildings involved. Such demonstration may be made by the pre- sentation of a phasing plan consistent with the Circu- lation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan." D. KOLL CENTER NEWPORT Amending Development Considerations, at page 4, by adding paragraph 6, to read: "G. PHASING OF DEVELOPMENT. 1,651,757 sq. ft. of development was existing or under construction as of October 1, 1978. The additional allowable development, in the total approved development plan'is 1,058,863 sq. ft. Any further development subsequent to October 1, 1978, in excess of 30% of.the additional allowable development, being 317,658 sq. ft., shall be approved only after it can be demonstrated that adequate traffic facilities will be available to handle that traffic generated by the project at the time of occupancy of the buildings involved. Such demonstration may be made by the presen- tation of a phasing plan consistent with the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan." E. AERONUTRONIC-FORD Use Permit No. 419 and subsequent approvals adopted prior to May 8, 1978, which Use Permits constitute the development plan for the Aeronutronic-Ford Planned. Community are amended by adding the following language: "PHASING OF DEVELOPMENT. 962,400 sq. ft. of development was existing or under construction as of -3- 0 • October 1, 1978. The additional allowable development in the total approved development plan is 1,691,000 sq. ft.- Any further development subsequent to October 1, 1977, in excess of 300 of the additional allowable development, being 507,300 sq. ft., shall be approved only after it can be demonstrated that adequate traffic facilities will be available to handle that traffic generated by the project at the time of occupancy of the buildings involved. Such demonstration may be made by the presentation of a phasing plan consistent with the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan"; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that said amendments,to the Planned Community Development Plans for Corporate Plaza, North Ford, Emkay-Newport Place, Koll Center Newport, and Aeronutronic-Ford as set forth above are desirable and necessary; and WHEREAS, the City Council has conducted a public hearing on said proposed amendments in accordance with all provisions of law, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council 'hereby approves the proposed amendments to the Planned Community Development Plans for Corporate Plaza, North Ford, Emkay-Newport Place, Koll Center Newport, and Aeronutronic-Ford as set forth hereinabove. ADOPTED this V^- day of t&\(Q-Mb,U / _, 1978. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk HRC/kb 11/13/78 -4- .A,' , N DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS EMKAY DEVELOPMENT AND REALTY COMPANY AMORRISON-KNUDSEN COMPANY 1201 DOVE STREET, SUITE 200 1 P.O. BOX 2390 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF08NIA 926631 USA PHONE- (714) 833-8680 March 7, 1979 Mr. Dick Hogan Director of Community Development City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 Dear Mr. Hogan: 11G The agenda for the City Council Meeting of March 12, 1979 includes two items of concern to Emkay: - The appeal of the Planning Commissionts approval of Emkay's Phasing Plan; and - The "test of reasonableness" as it applies to excepted Planned Communities. The enclosed Position Paper prepared for Emkay by Latham & Watkins outlines some of the legal questions we see in the Council's pending action on these items. I would appreciate an opportunity to discuss this material with you. Sincerely, `(D,,..,:, T Aw"v- rt Kevin T. Hanson Project Coordinator KTH/m Enclosure RE D CoCr,��Ne De❑c!„uutet um{ t MAR9 1979aa NEWPpRp EAC �� CALIF. H, �` • • MAY 6, 1979 • • • POSITION PAPER WITH REGARD TO APPEAL OF THE PHASING PLAN FOR NEWPORT PLACE PLANNED COMMUNITY • N 9 W ECEIV ED Comm mitY ' pev�l°?oent D:At. b-� MpR9 1g79� ,� WPpRT BEACH, 4.� NE Cp�IF• 7� � b prepared for EMKAY DEVELOPMENT AND REALTY COMPANY by Latham & Watkins 0 0 is I• I* rl I• 1• I• 1• �9 �• zt Table of Contents Section I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . II. A Summary History of Newport Place and the Phasing Requirement . . . . . III. Under Common Law Principles, the City Council May Not Change the Administra- tive Procedures of the "Test of Reasonableness" to Reject Emkay's Phasing Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV. A Refusal to Approve Emkay's Phasing Plan May Constitute an Unconstitutional "Taking" of Property Without Just Compensation . . . . . . . . . . . . . V. Disapproval of Emkay's Phasing Plan Would Constitute a Denial of Due Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI. Disapproval of Emkay's Phasing Plan Would Contravene Applicable Sections of the Government Code . . . . . . . . VII. Emkay Has a Moral, if Not Legal, Vested Right to Proceed with Its Project Under the Phasing Plan . . . . . . . . . . . VIII. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 1 0 `a 0 13 22 MI 31 35 [7 �r • I• C. I• U I• I• I. Introduction. Emkay Development and Realty Company ("Emkay") has submitted a phasing plan for the remaining development in Newport Place, which is to be reviewed by the Newport Beach City Council on March 12, 1979. The phasing plan submitted by Emkay projects phased construction and occupancy in the undeveloped sites in Newport Place through the end of 1981. Less than 30% of the remaining undeveloped sites will be occupied in 1979. An additional approximately 43% will be occupied in 1980, and the remainder in 1981. In each case, occupancy will depend upon completion of certain traffic improvements currently under way or scheduled which will more than accommodate the traffic to be generated by comple- tion of Newport Place. Emkay's phasing plan represents a reasonable one, as the City Staff and Planning Commission have recognized. Emkay asks that the Planning Commission's approval of that phasing plan be approved by the City Council on March 12, 1979. This position paper raises some of the legal implications of this review on appeal of Emkay's phasing plan. Emkay believes that these legal implications are of sufficient importance that they should be raised and discussed at this time. It is hoped that this position paper will help the City in its efforts to reach a reasonable and responsible approach to traffic congestion, and that the City will agree with its staff, its Planning Commission and Emkay that this phasing plan does meet the "test of reasonableness." 0 I• I II. A_ Summary History of Newport Place and the • Phasing Requirement. The Planned Community Development standards for the Newport Place planned community were adopted by the City • of Newport Beach on December 21, 1970. As part of the approval process for the planned community, Emkay was required to install the infrastructure, including all interior roads, • which would support the planned community upon completion to the full extent approved. Today, 70 percent of the allowed square footage has been completed in Newport Place, all • public improvements for the undeveloped parcels have been installed or bonded, and all of the undeveloped parcels in that planned community have been rough graded pursuant to • permits issued by the City. In the process, Emkay has been required to widen both MacArthur Boulevard and Bristol Street North contiguous to the planned community, has also • sold at below cost approximately thirty acres of land for the Corona Del Mar Freeway, and has voluntarily underdeveloped the completed sites in Newport Place by 190,000 square feet, • which equates to a reduction in traffic generation of 3,800 vehicles per day. In August, 1977, the City of Newport Beach approached • the major developers of projects in the City, and requested that they undertake a voluntary moratorium on major construc- tion. Ostensibly, the City asked the developers to voluntarily • withhold submitting major projects for approval to provide the City additional time to study ways in which the City 0 • 2 i• IE I• [7 I• I• [7 [] I• I• could meet a growing traffic congestion problem. Emkay and other developers in good faith agreed to this voluntary moratorium to provide the City time to undertake positive solutions. From that date on, the history of the City's approach to its perceived traffic problem has been character- ized by delay and indecision, while at the same time the developers in the City of Newport Beach have not only attempted to work with the City to accommodate its concerns, but also have proposed positive solutions to the perceived problem. In February, 1978, the City considered adoption of an ordinance imposing a mandatory moratorium on building in the City of Newport Beach. That proposal came to vote on February 27, 1978, when the City refused to adopt such a moratorium. Instead, on May 8, 1978, the City Council adopted Policy S-1, which called for the phasing of development with needed street improvements. This was followed on June 12, 1978, by adoption of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance as Ordinance No. 1765. sing Ordinance applied to undeveloped The Traffic Pha projects in the City. riowever, LLM �-�J, --- - claim of right to proceed in those planned communities already substantially underway on the effective date of the ordinance, excepted those planned communities in which substantial construction had occurred prior to the effective date of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Newport Place was one such planned community. 0 3 • • Even while the City was working on implementation • of such a controlled growth mechanism, Emkay and other developers were proposing positive steps to improve the City's traffic situation. In April, 1978, Emkay and other • developers met with City officials to indicate their support for implementation of road improvement fee districts which would provide funds for street improvements deemed necessary • by the City. In all, developers in the City of Newport Beach proposed to contribute approximately $7 million to street improvements in the City of Newport Beach. This • support for a road improvement fee district continued even after the determination that Newport Place and other similar planned communities were excepted from the Traffic Phasing • Ordinance. In fact, on October 2, 1978, the developers again met with City officials to support such a fee district. The efforts by the developers to propose positive • programs for improving the City's circulation system were not answered by the City. Instead, on October 5, 1978, the Planning Commission passed an amendment to the Planned • Community Development Standards for excepted planned communi- ties, Amendment 514, which called for a phasing plan to be submitted and approved for the last 70 percent of remaining • development in those planned communities. The adequacy o the phasing plans were to be tested by something called a "test of reasonableness." Shortly thereafter, Emkay met • with the City's Planning Director to discuss the requirements of such a phasing plan with respect to Newport Place. Emkay 0 '• 4 • had at least three meetings with the Planning Director for • the City between the passage of Amendment 514 by the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission's approval of procedures to be applied in the "test of reasonableness". Following • the approval of those procedures, and at the urging of the City's Planning Director and Planning Commission, Emkay submitted a phasing plan to the City and submitted working • drawings to the Building Department for review and issuance of a building permit for a new proposed commercial structure in Newport Place. • Emkay's phasing plan was submitted to the City staff on January 5, 1979, for their comments before submission of the phasing plan to the Planning Commission. On January • 12, 1979, the phasing plan was submitted to the Planning Commission by the City Staff,..and the matter was set for hearing by the Planning Commission on January 18, 1979. The • Staff report found that the Newport Place phasing plan complied with all requirements of the "test of reasonableness" and recommended approval of that phasing plan. On January • 18, the Planning Commission deferred discussion and consider- ation of the phasing plan to February 8, and on February 8 the Planning Commission approved Emkay's phasing plan by a • vote of 6 to 1. The City Council immediately thereafter appealed that approval. During this period, the City Council had indicated its desire to consider the "test of reasonableness" insofar as it permitted a project to add 5 percent to the traffic at 0 0 5 C C • • C 11 • an impacted intersection. With this in mind and despite the fact that the "test of reasonableness" was specifically not to involve the procedures of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, Emkay included in the traffic study supporting its phasing plan consideration of identified intersections impacted as much as 1 percent by traffic generated with phased completion of Newport Place, and in fact essentially followed the procedures then being utilized to implement the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. On February 12, the City Council had on its agenda consideration of the "test of reasonableness" in this respect, and for that purpose in fact had submitted to it as an example of the procedures utilized in that test Emkay's proposed phasing plan. The City Council deferred further consideration of the "test of reasonableness" until March 12, 1979, at which time.the City Council will also consider its appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Emkay's phasing plan. For approximately 18 months, Emkay has foregone major further construction while the City wrestled with approaches to improving the traffic situation in the City. During that 18 month period, Emkay has incurred costs on its undeveloped property of $891,000, and has lost revenues of $3,366,000. The City's response has been one of deferred decision while at the same time the City was encouraging Emkay and other developers to submit reasonable phasing plans for consideration. In this setting, Emkay respectfully submits that, for the reasons discussed below, its phasing C P �• plan is reasonable by accepted standards and procedures, that further deferral and delay is not warranted and that the Planning Commission's decision should be affirmed. I• I• I• I• C] 7 C III. Under Common Law Principles, the City Council • May Not Change the Administrative Procedures of the "Test of Reasonableness" to Reject Emkay's Phasing Plan. • Emkay's phasing plan is in compliance with current ordinances, rules, regulations and administrative guidelines of the City of Newport Beach. The City Staff recognized • this in their recommendation of approval of the phasing plan. The Planning Commission made that finding in their approval of Emkay's phasing plan. The question is whether • the City Council can nonetheless, even without the constitu- tional constraints, disapprove Emkay's phasing plan despite its compliance with the current "test of reasonableness." In other words, when and under what conditions may a munici- pality legally change the rules in the area of private development rights. • A municipality may not act unreasonably, arbitrarily, oppressively or discriminatorily. Kissinger v. City of Los Angeles, 151 Cal.App. 2d 454, 460 (1958). In practice, this • means that a municipality may not change the rules to foreclose development rights simply because it is presented by an application for development approval which would otherwise • comply with all requirements. McCombs v. Larsen, 176 Cal.App. 2d 105 (1959). "An administrative body may not legally change its regulations after application for a permit and • then deny a permit on the basis of the change". D. Hagman, California Zoning Practice § 5.62 (C.E.B. 1969). Moreover, I'• 8 I• if G �• �• I• I• C I• a selective change in zoning or to development rights is generally only appropriate if there has been some substantial change in the neighborhood of the affected parcel or parcels justifying the change. Scrutton v. County of Sacramento, 275 Cal.App. 2d 412, 419-420 (1969). Several cases illustrate the application of these rules in situations analogous to that presented by Emkay's phasing plan. Gabric v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, 73 Cal.App. 3d 183 (1977) is a case involving an attempt by a municipality to apply different standards to an application for development approval than those that existed at the time of the applica- tion. In that case, the applicant applied for a building permit to construct a two-story residence. Although the applicant was entitled to the permit under the existing ordinances, the application was "temporarily" denied in part because the City was contemplating changing the rules. The Court held that the City had acted improperly, and ordered the permit issued. The Court reasoned that the application had spawned the restudy of the City's zoning ordinances, so that the contemplated change was in essence an attempt to prevent the approval of the project. Moreover, and more importantly, the City, in considering the application, was acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, which required the City to follow the laws, rules and ordinances in effect at the time of the hearing. The Court found that it is improper PJ for a city to inject legislative considerations into this decision -making process. A city council cannot change administrative regulations after a permit application has been filed and withhold approval of the application on that basis. The case of G &.D Holland Construction Co. v. City of Marysville, 12 Cal.App. 3d 989 (1970) demonstrates a city's obligation to act in a fair, consistent and nondiscrim- inatory manner toward all developers in the exercise of its police power. That case concerned a square block of real estate on which the petitioner intended to construct apartments. The property was zoned "R-4" (general apartment district) on January 5, 1970, when the petitioner presented the City with building plans and an application for a building permit. The building plans conformed to the R-4 zone. However, at the next meeting of the planning commission, a group of citizens appeared and objected to the proposal. The next day the city engineer issued a public statement declaring that storm drainage had overloaded the City's sewerage system. The following day, the city council held a special hearing and received a petition from numerous citizens objecting to the proposed project because of concern for neighborhood property values. The council directed the City's building official to temporarily withhold the building permit. It subsequently down -zoned the property to R-3 in the interests of "the public health, safety and welfare." (Id. at 993, fn. 1.) 10 I• Ir I• I• to The petitioner in the Holland case sued for a writ mandating issuance of the building permit. The trial court entered summary judgment for the City, and the petitioner appealed. In reversing the trial court, the Court of Appeal found: "The principal limiting judicial inquiry into the legislative body's police power objectives, does not bar scrutiny of a quite different issue, that of discrimina- tion against a particular parcel of property. 'A city cannot unfairly discriminate against a particular parcel of land, and the courts may properly inquire as to whether the scheme of classification has been applied fairly and impartially in each instance.'" Id. at 994. on retrial, the trial court found the petitioner's project had been discriminated against, and mandated issuance of the building permit. These cases have direct application to any decisions respecting the phasing plan submitted by Emkay. Emkay's phasing plan complies with all currently applicable ordinances, rules and regulations of the City. The City Council, in hearing its appeal of the approval of Emkay's phasing plan, is sitting as a quasi-judicial body. It is legally charged with applying existing ordinances, rules and regulations. Emkay recognizes that the City Council is considering redefining the mislabelled "test of reasonableness", but that considera- tion is an administrative one. Moreover, it is unfortunately apparent that Emkay's phasing plan has itself spawned the extent of that redefinition effort. Should the City change the regulations and disapprove Emkay's phasing plan, it will • 101 C 0 41 r, G • be manifest that the City decided to examine the "test of reasonableness" in light of the first phasing plan submitted, not to make sure that it fairly permits development, but instead to ensure that the "test of reasonableness" is sufficiently unreasonable to preclude all development beyond the now permitted 30 per cent in the excepted planned communi- ties. Such conduct is impermissible under the established law. That conclusion also flows from the general due process protections against arbitrary, capricious and discrim- inatory action by a municipality. Newport Place is an excepted planned community. Ostensibly, that means that it is excepted from the operation of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. A number of projects have been approved by the City as being in compliance with that ordinance. In fact, Emkay's phasing plan incorporates the same standards as would have applied if Newport Place were not excepted. Now, the City is consid- ering applying a different, more stringent standard to Newport Place than has previously been applied to non - excepted projects. In effect, the result would be that excepted planned communities are worse off for the exception, a result which defies logic, is contrary to the legal signif- icance of being "grandfathered," and can only be characterized as arbitrary and discriminatory. A city's inherent power to protect the public welfare does not extend this far. 12 0 Iw �• A A C� IV. A Refusal To Approve Emkay's Phasing Plan May Constitute An Unconstitutional "Taking" Of Property Without Just Compensation. The rationale behind the City's requirement that excepted Planned Community Districts may not be developed until a.phasing plan is approved can be simply stated: given the heavy public use of the City's streets, private owners of undeveloped property may not have access to those streets beyond a minimal level unrelated to the reasonable use of the property . In other words, although the undevel- oped parcels of property have not contributed to the perceived traffic congestion, those parcels are now required to bear the immediate burden of this public problem. This raises two questions. May the City properly impose this public burden on the owners of undeveloped property? If so, may the City impose that burden longer than reasonably necessary for the City to improve the street system to permit reasonable access by owners of undeveloped property? The resolution of these questions depends upon a review of the operation of the constitutional prohibition against a public taking without payment of just compensation. Both the United States and California Constitutions prohibit the taking of private property for public benefit without the payment of just compensation. Article I, sec- tion 19 of the California Constitution provides: "Private property may be taken or damaged for public use only when just compensation ... has first been paid to... the owner." 13 The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution expresses the same fundamental prohibition. As stated in the case of Aaron v. City of Los Angeles, 40 Cal. App. 3d 471, 115 Cal. Rptr. 162 (1974): "A property owner may be required to bear without compensation incidental damages which are suffered alike by the public in general, but he is entitled to compensation for special and peculiar damage inflicted upon him." Id. at 483. There is admittedly no set formula for determining whether a Constitutional "taking" has occurred such that the economic injuries covered.by public action should be borne publicly "rather than disproportionately concentrated on a few persons." Penn Central Trans. Co. v. City of New York, 98 S.Ct. 2646 (1978). However, guidelines do exist. "... [S]everal...factors have particular significance. The economic impact of the regulation on the claimant, and, particularly, the extent to which the regulation has interfered with district invest- ment backed expectations are, of course, relevant considerations. [citation] So, too, is the character of the governmental action." Id. at 1659. " ..[S]uch goals [as limited growth] are properly achieved by exercise of the power of eminent domain, since they are clearly calculated to benefit the public at large, and closely resemble the taking of scenic easements to that end." Kopetze v. County of San Mateo, Bd. of Su er., 396 F.Supp. 100 009 N.D. Ca 75 . The principals and guidelines judicially developed to test whether governmental action constitutes an unconstitutional "taking" have been applied to situations, similar to that in 0 Newport Beach, where a local government prevents development of private property upon the excuse of an inadequate public 0 14 service facility. The conclusions have been that such actions may constitute an illegal "taking" of protected property rights. A New York case, Charles v. Diamond, 41 N.Y. 2d 318 (1977) is illustrative. In that case, the city had delayed making needed improvements to its sewage system, and upon the excuse that the sewage system was inadequate it denied development approval for the plaintiff's project. The plain- tiff sued to compel issuance of a building permit on the grounds that the city's actions constituted an illegal and unconstitutional "taking". The highest court in New York ordered the city to improve its sewage system to accommodate the project, and indicated that if it delayed unreasonably in doing so, the plaintiff could obtain an order directing issuance of the building permit in view of the unconstitution- ality of the city's action. The reasoning of that court is instructive. "Temporary restraints necessary to promote the overall public interest are permissible. Permanent interference with the reasonable use of private property for the purposes for which it is suited is not. We have held that police power enactments must be reasonable and that unreasonable exercises of the public power result in a degradation of property without due process. [citation] A police power regulation to be reasonable must be kept within the limits of necessity. [citation] .[I]n [an earlier case] we struck down a village zoning ordinance that prohibited I� all apartment house construction. The ordinance was purportedly justified by the fact that the village had inadequate sewage 0 15 treatment facilities and new multiple dwellings would increase pollution of the Hudson River. Yet the sewage problem was not caused by the nature of the plaintiff's land but was general to the community. It was,, we concluded, impermissible to single out one land owner to bear a heavy financial burden caused by a general community condition... However, the crucial factor, perhaps the decisive one. is whet er t e u timate cos rs o e or lacement or the entire burden u on particu ar property owners. [citation] Although reasonable excuse may justify delay, the village must be committed firmly to the construction and installation of the necessary improvements. [citation] Absent the constraints imposed by law or contract, governmental officials may conduct the affairs of the government at their own pace. However, where the municipality has s. unreasonable and necess development, a goal that would perhaps b of erwise unreachable. [citation] Develo went ma not be zoned out of a community v t e in irection of needless r construction." Id. at 325-326. (emphasis supplied.) The Court went on to suggest that the same result is dictated where the inadequate municipal service consists of streets and highways rather than sewage treatment facilities. Moreover, the above rationale was applied by the same Court in the earlier case of Westwood Forest Estates, Inc. v. Village of South Nyack, 23 N.Y. 2d 424 (1969), in which it held that a city could not permanently down -zone property, upon the excuse 16 of an admittedly inadequate sewage system, any more than•it could indefinitely delay development by refusing to up -grade public services. These decisions are not unique to New York. In California, the courts have even gone beyond the results of the New York courts and have not only recognized that unrea- sonable delay in providing public services made a condition to development is unconstitutional, but have awarded attorneys fees and interim damages to private developers. The rationale is identical. Inadequate public services are public burdens, and those burdens cannot constitutionally be shifted to owners of undeveloped property, which property has not contributed to the problem, by denying development rights. The most recent California case applying this rule of law in the context of traffic improvements is Jones v. People ex. rel. Dept. of Transportation, 22 Cal. 3d 144 (1978). i� In that case, the plaintiff had purchased land with the "investment backed expectation" of subdividing it. Shortly thereafter, the State announced plans to construct a freeway over a portion of that land, which would have deprived access to public streets. Even though the plaintiff did have street access to his land, through a private street, the private street was insufficient to carry traffic from the proposed development. On that basis, development approval was denied. 17 0 • The California Supreme Court held that the State's • actions in depriving the property of access to the public streets, coupled with the local governments denial of development rights, constituted a "taking" in inverse • condemnation. The state maintains that the deprivation of access did not amount to a 'taking' and therefore attorneys fees could not be properly awarded . We have recently held that the withdrawal' of lateral support amounts to a taking of an interest in land under section 1036 (formerly § 1246.3), reasoning that the section connotes a more expansive concept of taking than that set forth in the Constitution. [citation] The de rivation of an easement of access is as much a to ing of an interest in land as the denial of the right to lateral support. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in awarding attorney's fees to plaintiff." • Id. at 154. (emphasis supplied) Between the initial trial and the decision of the California Supreme Court, the state abandoned the proposed freeway, • thus presumably returning full market value and marketability to the property. Nonetheless, the California Supreme Court remanded the case back to the trial court for determination of damages sustained by the plaintiff for the period during which subdivision was prevented, and in a footnote suggested that such damages could include "an actual loss in rental • income." Id. at 155, footnote 5. In other words, denial, or even delayed recognition, of private development rights accomplished by a denial of the protected private right • of access to the public streets is a "taking" and can only legally be accomplished with payment of just compensation. • 18 The recognition in the Jones case of a protected • private "right of access" to public streets is not new. As stated in Bacich v. Board of Control, 23 Cal. 2d 343 (1943): "It has long been recognized in this state and • elsewhere that an owner of property abutting upon a public street has a property right in the nature of an easement in the street which is appurtenant to his abutting property and which is his private right, as distinguished from his right as a member of the public. ... [A]nd compensation must • be given for an impairment thereof. We are not now inclined to question or disturb that rule." Id. at 349-350. 'The extent of the easement of access may be said to be that which is reasonably required giving consideration to all the purposes to which the • property is adapted." Id. at 352. Moreover, protection of this private right of access, measured by "the purposes to which the property is adapted", has been consistently declared through the years. • See, e.g., Blumenstein v. City of Long Beach, 143 Cal. App. 2d 264, 267 (1956) ("An act of the municipality for the benefit of the public which destroys or substantially impairs • such easement is damage to the lot itself..."); Miro v. Superior Court, 5 Cal. App. 3d 87, 94 (1970) ("...the right of an abutting owner of access in a public street on which his • property abuts may not be substantially impaired or destroyed without payment of just compensation."); City of Los Angeles V. Ricards, 10 Cal. 3d 385, 387-388 (1973) ("Substantial • temporary impairment of access by a governmental entity... entitles a property owner to compensation for the reduction of use or rental value of the property for the period of impairment.")' • see also, Toso v. City of Santa Barbara, 151 Cal. Rptr. 912 (1979). • 19 A This rule of law has a direct application to the actions of the City of Newport Beach. Approximately eighteen months ago, the City asked Emkay and other major developers to voluntarily withhold applying for approval of major buildings so that the City could address the problems of its circulation system. Since then, the only major action accomplished by the City has been to enact the Traffic Phasing Ordinance and subject planned community districts excepted from that ordinance to a "test of reasonableness"*. That is not a positive action designed to upgrade the City's circulation system to accommodate development rights, but is instead a legislative attempt to shift the economic burden of the perceived problem onto selected private property owners. It is a denial of Emkay's private right of access to the public streets. In contrast, Emkay and other developers have voluntarily reduced the densities of their planned communities below what is currently allowed. Emkay and other developers have offered to contribute collectively approximately $7 million to street improvements. Moreover, Emkay has developed a plan to phase its development reasonably to coincide with projected traffic improvements. *It would be interesting to compute the total costs, in terms of time spent by the City, time spent by the City's "shadow" government, and time and money spent by developers, on the Traffic Phasing Ordinance and the "test of reasonable- ness," particularly in light of Proposition 13. 20 The traffic problem, to the extent it exists, was not caused by the undeveloped parcels of land in Newport Beach. It is instead a public burden created by the public generally. Not only is the City not currently affirmatively committed to providing the improvements that it is making the prerequisite to further development, but it has maintained a policy of delay and is refusing to recognize certain private access rights to the public streets. Emkay's phasing plan satisfies current requirements, represents a reasonable proposal, and sets forth a reasonable period for the provision of the needed street improvements. To delay longer may well be an illegal and unconstitutional taking of Emkay's protected property rights. 21 0 n u V. Disapproval of Emkay's Phasing Plan Would Constitute a Denial of Due Process. The "taking" clauses of the United States and California constitutions are not the only constitutional provisions involved in this appeal by the City Council. The due process guarantees contained in the United States and California Constitutions protect property owners against a variety of governmental abuses. At least two aspects of due process are involved in the processing of Emkay's phasing plan. First, in the words of the Jacobson v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 558 F. 2d 928, 932 (9th Cir. 1977): "The due process clause was intended to protect the individual from arbitrary exercise of the powers of government. This common-sense principle will not be circumvented by forms and procedures, unknown to our ancestors in England and therefore for which there is 'no age-old basis in the common law tradition." This prohibition against arbitrary exercise of governmental powers applies directly to the appeal of the approval of Emkay's phasing plan. The genesis of the requirement that Emkay phase its project to traffic improvements was the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The ostensible purpose behind that ordinance was to restrain ,development from outstripping needed street im- provements. The ordinance was applied to undeveloped parcels 22 A r] I• A is I• of property in the City of Newport Beach. The City also recognized that it would be unfair, if not also legally impermissible, for the City to prevent completion of those planned community districts in which substantial construction had occurred prior to the effective date of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Newport Place was one of those excepted planned communities. Despite the fact that Newport Place and other de - veloped planned communities were excepted from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, the City ostensibly determined that it should nonetheless take some steps to phase development in the excepted planned communities. As a result, the City came up with what is known as the "30/70 rule." Under that rule, each excepted planned community, in concept, would be required to reasonably phase..the last 70 per cent of its remaining development with improvements to identified impac- ted intersections in the city. Even at the time the 30/70 rule was imposed on the excepted planned communities, it was publicly recognized by the City that the 30/70 split was an arbitrary one. What is highlighted in the case of Newport Place has been applied only the arbitrariness of that particular split, but also the arbitrariness of the concept itself. The 30/70 rule, rather than the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, has been applied to Newport Place because it is morally if not legally a vested project. That status derives from the fact that it is one project and substantial construction has occurred in that project. In fact, Newport Place of all the CJ 23 excepted planned communities, is the project most near completion, with only 30 per cent of project remaining to be developed. However, the imposition of the uniform 30/70 split bears no rational relation to the rationale for recog- nizing its excepted status. It does not recognize in any respect the diligence of the developers of the excepted planned communities in completing those projects, both in terms of time and extent. Moreover, and more importantly, the purpose behind the imposition of any.constraint on completion of the excepted planned communities is to control traffic generation. The 30/70 split bears.no rational relation to that purpose. For example, under the 30/70 rule the developers in the Koll Center Newport and Ford Aeroneutronics planned .communities may develop, unphased, more square footage than nearly the total remaining development in Newport Place. In other words, each of those planned communities may generate more traffic without regard to phasing than would be generated by completion of Newport Place. That is definitionally arbitrary and capricious, since the rule bears no reasonable, rational relation to its purpose. The unfairness of this situation to Emkay, in terms of moderating its private development rights to the traffic situation, is made even clearer when development realities are considered. Since both Koll and Ford Aeroneutronics 24 have substantially greater development they can undertake without regard to phasing, the impact of not being able to develop a portion of their projects absent phasing is less immediate. In fact, it is probable that neither Koll nor Ford Aeroneutronics even without the requirement of phasing would have completed 30 per cent of the allowable development in their respective projects prior to completion of the traffic improvements identified by Emkay in its phasing plan. On the other hand, given the relatively small amount of remaining development in Newport Place, the impact of the delay occasioned by the 30/70 rule is immediate and harsh. In effect, the 30/70 rule only immediately impacts the smallest excepted planned communities or those most nearly completed. That is not only an arbitrary and irrational result, but inequitable. The significance of the unconstitutional arbitrari- ness of the 30/70 rule is involved in this appeal. Emkay's phasing plan represents a reasonable accommodation of private development rights and the public's interest in adequate street improvements. Approval of that plan will mitigate the arbitrariness of the requirement. However, disapproval of the phasing plan, which meets all current criteria, would not only perpetuate the harshness., confusion and delay oc- casioned by the arbitrary 30/70 rule, but could only be justified by imposing additional arbitrary conditions on this excepted planned community. 25 • This leads to the second aspect of due process. • "It is well settled that 'a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligance must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application, violates the first essential of due process." Sechrist v. Municipal Court, 64 • Cal .App. 3d 737, 745 (1976). The requirement of the 30/70 rule is that "a test of reasonableness should apply, rather than the criteria of • the Traffic Phasing Ordinance." Men of even uncommon intelli- gence can only guess what is meant by a "test of reasonableness." The unconscionable vagueness of the 30/70 rule is • cured somewhat by the current procedures for testing phasing plans, and Emkay's phasing plan passes that test as clari- fied. However, the evil of vagueness is that it permits a • municipality to substitute the rule of majority whim and prejudice for the rule of law. The City Council cannot con- stitutionally now find that Emkay's phasing plan is not • "reasonable" when it meets all current aspects of the test, nor can it change the administrative criteria of "reasonable- ness" in order to overturn the approval of Emkay's phasing • plan. That would be a substitution of administration by whim, and would be a denial of Emkay's constitutional guarantee of due process. • Despite the fact that the 30/70 rule was arbitrary and unreasonable with respect to its purported objectives, operated inequitably on the excepted planned communities, • and is vague in extreme, Emkay in good faith has prepared and presented to the City a phasing plan. That phasing plan is in all respects in compliance with the "test of reason- • 26 ableness" as it currently exists. Emkay's phasing plan is not only "reasonable", but in fact incorporates the criteria of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance itself as existed at the time of submittal. Emkay has worked with the city in preparing a phasing plan that will reasonably meet the interests of the public. In this process, it has suffered through the delays and vacillations of the City in developing some response to the reasonable public concerns for an adequate traffic system. That delay has continued now for approximately 18 months. In view of these factors, Emkay respectfully submits that the City Council should approve the actions of the Planning Commission and accept Emkay's phasing plan. In summary, the 30/70 rule is unconstitutionally arbitrary and vague. Approval of Emkay's phasing plan will mitigate this. Disapproval would be not just "unreasonable," but an institutionalization of a government in Newport Beach based upon arbitrary whim. Emkay respectfully submits that in fairness and reason, its phasing plan must be approved. 27 vI. Disapproval of Emkay's Phasing Plan Would Contravene Applicable Sections of the Government Code. Even in the absence of the constitutional protections of the "taking" clauses, the law in California does not permit a municipality to impose private developments with public traffic problems. Instead, a municipality may only condition development approval on the developer's -providing those public street improvements reasonably required to accommodate the traffic generated by the development itself. The California Government Code is not silent on the relation between development rights and the need for street improvements. In fact, Government Code § 66484 provides for a procedure whereby needed street improvements may be funded by establishment of a fee district and by collection of fairly apportioned fees as a condition to map approval or issuance of a building permit. Emkay and other developers have, for the past year, attempted to encourage the City to adopt this positive solution. Moreover, and of equal importance, Government Code § 65909 specifically prohibits a city from conditioning the issuance of a building permit on: (1) The dedication of land for any purpose not reasonably related to the use of the property for which the variance, building, or use permit is requested. f (2) The posting of a bond to guarantee • installation of public improvements not reasonably related to the use of the property for which the variance, building, or use permit is requested. In essence, these statutes recognize that the private right of access to public streets from undeveloped property cannot be denied because of traffic congestion, which is a public problem to be borne publicly. The case of Santa Clara County Contractors and Homebuilders Assn. v. City of Santa Clara, 232 Cal.App.2d 564 (1965) is applicable. In that case, the City of Santa Clara, a charter city, had adopted an ordinance requiring the payment of a set fee to go to a Capital Outlay Recreation Fund as a condition to approval of all final maps and issuance of building permits on residential projects. The plaintiffs contended that such a condition, designed to obtain funds "for general city benefits",'contravened State Law, and the trial court and Court of Appeals agreed, holding the ordinance illegal and invalid. "It rather clearly appears that these fee provisions are fund raising methods for the purpose of helping to meet the future needs of the entire city for park and school sites and drainage facili- ties, and that they are not reasonable requirements for the design and improvement of the subdivision itself. It seems obvious that this fund raising method is not related to the needs of this partic- ular subdivision or to the matter of making proper connections between this subdivision and the adjoining area; that it is not reasonably required by the type and use of the subdivision as related to the character of local and neighborhood planning and traffic conditions; and that it is inconsistent with and conflicts with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act which set forth the conditions and requirements necessary for obtaining an approval of the map. "The purpose and intent of the Subdivision Map Act is to provide for the regulation and 29 �4 • control of the design and improvement of a subdivi- sion with a proper consideration of its relation to adjoining areas, and not to provide funds for the benefit of an entire city. The authority to adopt local ordinances containing requirements supplementary to the Map Act is limited by the terms of the statute. While the power of a city to adopt many regulations in connection with the matters covered by the statute may well be implied, even though not expressly stated, the power to require the payment of large fees or contributions for general city benefits as a condition of the approval of a map may not reasonably be implied, and it is entirely inconsistent with the language and apparent intent of the statute. The imposition of such fees as a condition for the approval of such a map not only bears no relation to the requirements indicated in the statute but would directly impede the realization of what appears to be the intent and meaning of the act. It follows that the fees here in cuestion were illegally imposed and collected." Id. at 575. In the absence of Government Code H 66484 and 65909, a municipality, and particularly a charter city, may have enjoyed greater power to pass on the public burdens of congested streets to private developments. However, the cited statutes are controlling, and even a charter city cannot legally ignore them. The conclusion is that, the City may not condition reasonable development upon the developer's providing publicly required street improvements or dedications. Emkay's phasing plan, and the procedures under which it has been prepared and processed, are reasonable. To disapprove that phasing plan because of an anticipated change in procedures placing the burdens of regional traffic or traffic from other develop- ments on Newport Place may, and upon proper analysis would, be to exact at least a temporary, if not permanent, dedication of the undeveloped land in Emkay prohibited by the Government Code and case law. 30 w VII. Emkay Has a Moral, if Net Legal, Vested Right to Preceed with Its Project Under the Phasing Plan. Newport Place and other planned communities in • which substantial development has already occurred are excepted'from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. That exception resulted from the City Council's determination that, given the good faith reliance by developers in those planned communities upon the City's prior approvals, it would be unfair to unreasonably restrict completion of those projects. In the case of Newport Place, that reliance involves not just 70% completion of the project, but the installation of or bonding for all required infrastructure and utilities. a The City's exception.of Newport Place constituted a recognition that the degree of Emkay's reliance is sufficiently substantial to amount to moral, if not legal, "vesting". • Generally, the legal concept of vesting requires a building permit or equivalent for the immediate work involved. However, vested rights will be recognized in the completion of a financially and physically interdependent project. Moreover, the Courts also have declared that "the vested rights theory is predicated upon estoppel." Anderson v. City Council, 229 Cal.App.2d 79, 89 (1964). Equitable estoppel is a doctrine applied by the courts to prevent the perpetration of injustice on innocent parties by both private • and governmental action. This doctrine, as applied to municipal governments, was closely examined and clarified by 31 1• U I• A • • I• the California Supreme Court in City of Long Beach v. Mansell, 3 Cal. 3d 462 (1970): "As we pointed out in the recent case of Driscoll v. City of Los Angeles (1967) 67 Cal.2d 297, at p. 305 L61 Cal. Rptr. 661, 431 P. 2d 245], 'Generally speaking, four elements must be present in order to apply the doctrine of equitable estoppel: (1) the party to be estopped must be apprised of the facts; (2) he must intend that his conduct shall be acted upon, or must so act that the party asserting the estoppel had a right to believe it was so intended; (3) the other party must be ignorant of the true state of facts; and (4) he must rely upon the conduct to his injury.' Keeping in mind the admitted generality of this formulation and the flexibility which is necessary to its proper concrete application within the broad equitable framework we have expressed, it may be said that the elements here stated are basic to the general doctrine of equitable estoppel as it exists in this and other jurisdictions. (See generally 3 Pomeroy, Equity Jurisprudence (5th ed. 1941) § 805, pp. 190-198; 28 Am. Jur. 2d Estoppel and Waiver § 35, pp. 640-642; 31 C.J.S., Estoppel § 67, 00. 402-415.)" Id. at 489. "After a thorough review of the many California decisions in this area, as well as a consideration of various out-of-state decisions', we have concluded that the proper rule governing equitable estoppel against the government is the following: The government may be bound by an equitable estoppel in the same manner as a private party when the elements requisite to such an estoppel against a private party are present and, in the considered view of a court of equity, the injustice which would result from a failure to uphold an estoppel is of sufficient dimension to justify any effect upon public interest or policy which would result from the raising of an estoppel." Id. at 496-497. The principles underlying estoppel have been applied recently to prevent a municipality from exercising its inherent police power to convert a lawn bowling green on public property to a mini -park (Berkeley Lawn Bowling Club v. 32 • City of Berkeley, 42 Cal.App.3d 280 (1974)), to require a w municipality to relinquish claims to tidal lands otherwise held in trust for the people (City of Long Beach v. Marshall, 3 Cal. 3d 462 (1970)), and to remove an injuction against the use of a private airport constructed without a permit (People v. Synanon Foundation, Inc., 88 Cal.App.3d 304 (1979) ). Recent decisions in the area of "vested rights" indicate that the Courts are beginning to recognize that, as a question of estoppel, in planned communities the general rules may no longer apply as stringently. "If actual construction had occurred in the subdivision or expenditures of money had been made, there would be definite limitations upon the application and operation of the subsequently enacted zoning ordinances." Gisler v. Count of Madera, 38 Cal.App.3d 303, ( ). "[T]he date whdn the tentative map comes before the governing body for approval is the crucial date when that body should decide whether to permit the proposed subdivision. Once the tentative map is approved, the developer often must expend substantial sums to comply with the conditions attached to that approval. . . Conse- quently, it is only fair to the developer and to the public interest to require the governing body to vender its discretion any decision whether and upon what conditions to approve the proposed subdivision when it acts on the tentative map." Youn blood v. Board of Supervisors, 22 Cal. 3d - (97 ). In the case of Emkay, its expenditure of money, time, and effort in Newport Place has been more than substantial, and is deserving of protection. The City's actions amounting to an estoppel and a vested right in Emkay to proceed with completion of its C7 33 • project in accordance with its phasing plan are compelling. • Emkay, acting pursuant to requirements of the City and in reliance upon the City's approval of its planned community, has installed or bonded for all of the public improvements, • infrastructure, and utilities required for completion. The City asked Emkay to voluntarily withhold submission of plans for new sites 18 months ago upon the representation that the • City was seeking positive solutions to the traffic congestion resulting from delays in needed street improvements. Emkay complied in good faith, and incurred the costs of that • delay, although it could have proceeded with its project. With the City's recognition of excepted status for Newport Place, Emkay proceeded to develop plans for completion of • its project. When the City adopted the 30/70 rule and its "test of reasonableness", Emkay worked with the City to develop its phasing plan and perform the traffic study, and • submitted plans for review and issuance of a building permit, all at the urging of the Planning Department and with the City's knowledge. It would be unfair for the City now to • deny Emkay's right to proceed under the phasing plan, and render the expense encouraged and occasioned by the City's actions wasted. • • 34 • I• I• I• CE �0 I• I• VIII. Conclusion. Emkay's phasing plan meets, the City's "test of reasonableness" and there is currently no basis for rejecting it. The City cannot legally change the administrative procedures of that test in order to defeat the "reasonableness" of Emkay's phasing plan. Moreover, to further deny develop- ment's rights in Newport Place would raise serious questions under the due process, equal protection and "taking" clauses of the United States and California Constitutions. Finally, statutory and case law in California also would render further denial or delayed recognition of Emkay's right to complete Newport Place illegal. Emkay has in good faith cooperated with the City, in agreeing to the voluntary moratorium, in proposing a road improvements assessment district, and in preparing a reasonable phasing plan, which Emkay respectfully submits should be approved. 35