No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEIR BANK OF AMERICA-NEWPORT PLACEI Illlbll IIII III II�I011111IIIII IIIIII bll III IIII*NEW FILE* EIR BANK OF AMERICA/NEWPORT PL J y ICERTIFIED FINAL ENVIROMENTAL IMPACT REPORT IMPACT REPORT BANK OF AMERICA / NEWPORT PLACE � 11!WNH]'Rh�ll'N� Mi✓1>i: r: � aoirriiiT�� J I� Irb57'. _ 7pgW WON IRY�� rJ� on �yl1 m Ruh Fly r V. - Prepared for the City of Newport Beach May 1986 Phillips Brandt Reddick VOLUME I SCREENCHECK ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT BANK OF AMERICA/NEWPORT PLACE SCH #85061914 Prepared by: PHILLIPS BRANDT REDDICK 18012 Sky Park Circle Irvine, California 92714 Contact Person: Sid Lindmark, AICP Telephone Number: (714) 261-8820 Prepared for: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663-3884 Contact Person: Ms. Patricia Lee Temple Telephone Number: (714) 644-3225 May 1986 7CX:1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS 3 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 5 4.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS, IMPACTS 7 AND MITIGATION MEASURES 4.1 Transportation/Circulation 7 4.2 Air Quality 18 4.3 Acoustic Environment 28 4.4 Land Use 32 4.5 Relevant Planning 34 4.6 Geology/Soils 44 4.7 Housing 47 4.8 Aesthetics 55 4.9 Public Services/Utilities 57 5.0 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 67 6.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 68 7.0 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF THE 73 ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 8.0 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS 74 OF ENERGY SUPPLIES AND OTHER RESOURCES SHOULD THE PROJECT BE IMPLEMENTED 9.0 GROWTH -INDUCING IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT 75 i TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) 10.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT 77 11.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED 92 12.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY 94 13.0 APPENDICES A. Environmental Checklist B. Notice of Preparation of a Draft EIR and Non -Statutory Advisement of Preparation of a Draft EIR C. Responses to Notice of Preparation and Non -Statutory Advisement of Preparation of a Draft EIR D. Traffic/Circulation Technical Report E. Housing Impacts Technical Report F. Supplemental Technical Information G. Miscellaneous Correspondence H. Shared Parking Analysis ii LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit No. Title Following Page 1 Site Vicinity 5 2 Project Site 5 3 Route 73 Improvements 8 4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 11 5 Airport Noise Contours 29 6 Land Use Element 35 7 Site Photo Index 55 8 Site Photos - 1, 2 55 9 Site Photos - 3, 4 55 10 Site Photo - Oblique 55 11 Project Perspective 56 12 Potential Shade/Shadow Impact 56 13 Committed, Approved and Proposed Projects - 81 City of Newport Beach 14 Committed, Approved and Proposed Projects - 82 Surrounding Area iii r LIST OF TABLES Table No. Title Page r 1 Traffic Generation Rates 9 ' 2 Traffic Generation 9 3 Net Traffic Generation 10 ' 4 Ambient Air Quality 20 5 Ambient Air Quality Standards 21 6 Existing "Worst -Case" CO Concentrations 23 7 Estimated Project -Generated Emissions 26 8 Project Emissions Compared with SRA 18 Emissions 25 9 Existing Plus Project (1987) "Worst Case" CO Concentrations 26 10 Existing Distances to CNEL Contours 29 11 Area Office Building Statistics 42 ' 12 Housing Supply Characteristics - 1985 49 13 Journey -to -Work and Place of Work Characteristics - 1985 52 14 Place of Residence of Newport Beach Workforce - 1980 53 15 Place of Residence of Forecasted Households - 1985 53 16 Relative Housing Impacts by Area - 1985 54 17 Project Alternatives Statistics 69 18 City of Newport Beach Committed Projects Listing 78 19 Project Area Committed Projects - June 1985 83 20 Approved and Proposed Projects - Surrounding Area 84 , 21 Project Contribution to Cumulative Development 86 22 John Wayne Airport Operation - 1982-85 88 23 Air Travel Demand 90 iv ' I 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION ' This focused environmental impact report (EIR) has been prepared in con- formance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the city policies for the implementation of CEQA to assess the potential environmental impacts associated with the development ' of a fifteen -story office building and an adjacent multi -level parking structure in the city of Newport Beach. The project site is near the northwest corner of Newport Place Drive and MacArthur Boulevard (SR-73) southeast of John Wayne Airport. The project site is also located within and subject to the development standards of the Newport Place Planned Community. The site is currently occupied by a Bank of America facility and an adjacent office building occupied by McLachlan Investment Company ' and Rhodes and Bidna. Specifically, this EIR addresses the following discretionary actions which are requests of the project applicant. 1. Amendment of the development standards of the Newport Place Planned Community, with a request to exceed the current standards for building heights (number of stories) and building area (square footage). 2. Amendment of the uses permitted by the Newport Place Planned Community to allow retail, recreational and restaurant uses in a professional/ business office designation. 3. A request to approve a traffic study as set forth in the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The additional traffic generated by the project must be acceptable within the standards established by the city. 1 4. A modification to the code to allow parking requirements of one space per 250 square feet of net floor area for the project. 5. A modification is also requested to allow a portion of the required parking to be compact spaces. i The city of Newport Beach is the lead agency responsible for the prepara- tion of environmental documentation in compliance with CEQA and also has responsibility for project review and approval. This EIR focuses upon areas of potentially significant concern as identified through the Environ- mental Checklist Form. These concerns include the compatibility of the proposed office project with surrounding land uses, compliance with the city's Traffic Phasing Ordinance, visual impacts of the proposed project, existing and future air quality conditions, construction and long-term noise impacts, potential increases in housing demand related to the pro- ject and the potential cumulative impacts of the project when considering the committed and probable future projects anticipated within the project area. Natural system impacts other than geology/soils are considered insignificant or absent altogether as a reflection of the urban setting of the project site and vicinity. Appendices A-C include the Environmental Checklist Form, the Notice of Preparation, Nonstatutory Advisement of Preparation of a Draft EIR and Responses to the Notice of Preparation. Environmental consultation for the project has been prepared by Phillips Brandt Reddick, Inc. The professionals responsible for this analysis are listed in Section 11.0. � 2.0 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS IMPACTS Twenty analyzed intersections exceed the one percent volume criteria when project traffic is added to 1988 traf- fic conditions. Four intersections have ICU ratings above 0.90 which may be mitigated by road improvements so the ICU rating is below 0.90. I w MITIGATION MEASURES Traffic/Circulation LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Recommended intersection improvements Insignificant adverse impact. for these four intersections shall be in place prior to occupancy of the pro- posed project. The project shall participate in any Cumulative significant corridor fee programs applicable to adverse impact. the project area at the time of pro- ject approval. Five intersections have ICU ratings Feasible intersection improvements for Insignificant adverse impact. above 0.90 with recommended improve- these intersections shall be in place ments. prior to occupancy of the proposed pro- ject. Increased demand for parking will A parking structure of 1,331 spaces Insignificant adverse impact. occur with additional office develop- and 110 surface spaces will serve all ment. buildings near the project site. Air Quality Project emissions for carbon dioxide, . Development will comply with SCAQMD Insignificant adverse impact. nitric oxides and hydrocarbons are rules and regulations. less than 0.25 percent of Source Recep- tor Area 18 and are not a significant impact on ambient air quality. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES AFTER MITIGATION Acoustics . Increases in noise levels generated by . All structures shall be sound attenua- . Insignificant adverse impact. project traffic are less than 3 dB, ted to meet the noise requirements for which is not considered significant. the proposed uses. Geology/Soils Significant geotechnical impacts or The project shall comply with recommen- . Insignificant adverse impact. soil erosion on the project site is dations of a project -specific soil not anticipated. foundation study. Housing The relative housing demand generated None are required. . Insignificant adverse impact. by the project is less than one per- cent of the total city housing stock. Aesthetics No substantial demonstrable negative . None are required. . Insignificant adverse impact. aesthetic impacts are evident due to the proposed project. Public Services/Utilities Increased demand for public services. The project shall comply with the Uni- . Insignificant adverse impact. will occur but may be met by service form Building Code, city fire depart - providers, ment regulations and measures to con- serve energy and water resources. r WN M no M r M M no W ,= W M no M ins M M M 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ' The 6.76-acre project site is located in the city of Newport Beach near the northwest corner of Newport Place Drive and MacArthur Boulevard. A portion of the site also fronts Dove Street. The Newport Place Planned Community, in which the site is located, is bounded by Bristol Street, ' Birch Street and MacArthur Boulevard. While the Campus Drive -Jamboree Road -Bristol Street area is located within the city of Newport Beach, the surrounding area is either in the city of Irvine or in unincorporated Orange County (Exhibit 1). The project site is currently occupied by a Bank of America facility (21,511 square feet). The Rhodes-Bidna offices (14,068 square feet) and Continental -Dunn offices (78,500 square feet) are existing buildings near the project site (Exhibit 2). Existing access is obtained from Newport ' Place Drive and from, Dove Street. The proposed project will result in the removal of the existing bank structure. The proposed project consists of a 15-story office building 248.5 feet in height, which will occupy the bank site, and a proposed parking structure. The office tower will include 300,000 gross square feet, with 281,000 gross square feet of office and bank uses and 19,000 gross square feet of ' related recreational and retail uses located on the lower and ground floors. The Bank of America office and retail uses will occupy 61,000 square feet, McLachlan Investment Company will occupy 20,000 square feet and Snyder -Langston will occupy 20,000 square feet. The recreation/ser- vice uses occupy 19,000 square feet and the remaining 180,000 square feet is general office space. The building will employ approximately 1,137 per- sons. The restaurant, racquetball facilities and other retail uses will serve predominantly onsite office employees (Exhibit 2). The five -level parking structure will include 1,331 total spaces in one underground level and four above -ground levels. An additional 110 surface spaces are provided onsite for use by both the proposed project and exist- ing uses retained onsite. Ingress/egress will be from Dolphin Striker Court and Dove Street. The proposed parking structure includes 443,750 square feet and has a height of 33.5 feet. 1 5 Site Vicinity BANK OF AMERICA 'NEWPORT PLACE DRIVE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH t)r e: At MacArthur d and Newport ce Drive d 0 'EXHf3rr 1 OOVNIM ]ieq[R C WA DRl1RlY D.]]i Rnn Ixanxa xewlroriisr�nsncs r«x n«[.u.n cwvu Yn.ue «] L]eL« nee]n RxlweRl F«li/Ub M««IuxYl wl«Ml ear Tee«.. sl.ea laln[. M«e wk MtlN YWa1e eI«] IIW Co]MM ev LDwo uex iao oae er ioiu Loxes rwe. u,oaD DI he rmar $3.noo er f«MfYn 1],0008r Ineo Reel u.Doo er rwnnK rmmw M.O. Dr/M- wo,000 er evxo xD x[aw uov[a]WxD ueerea p1RxwY ]i DKwC[� IIO CY. pie[wn li]VC]Y[G 1]]I Gn -1 ww«e�eW. a Yer] dauN ]fRVt]YRI NIIdR ]LYK IRWMP iiif.n i0]RL i1RRIM01.611.LD ILLI Cu. Project Site BANK OF AMERICA NEWPORT PLACE DRIVE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH :n= EXHIBIT 2 The project applicant is requesting an amendment to the development standards of the Newport Place Planned Community to allow the proposed number of stories and building area on the project site. Specifically, current development regulations permit a maximum of six (6) stories and 186,764 square feet of commercial/professional. and business offices on Newport Place PC Site 5, on which the proposed project is located. The total office square footage currently on the site is 106,079. As permitted in the planned community development standards, an approval for modification of the parking requirement from one space for 225 square feet of net floor space to one space for 250 square feet of net floor space is requested. Approval of the project under the provisions of the city's ' Traffic Phasing Ordinance is also being requested. All commercial pro- jects in excess of 10,000 square feet are required to be analyzed in order ' to determine the impact of the proposed project on intersections in the community. Additional information on development standards for the site is included in Section 4.4. The project is being proposed as a major banking center which will also ' provide restaurant and other onsite services to serve primarily onsite pro- ject employees J 1 6 I 4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES ' 4.1 TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION A traffic study was prepared for the project by Kunzman Associates in accordance with the city of Newport Beach Traffic -Phasing 'Ordinance. The ' McLachlan Newport Place Traffic Study (May 21, 1986) is summarized below and included in Appendix D. J II 17 u II 1 I The city of Newport Beach revised the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (Ordinance 85-30) on November 12, 1985. The major change in the ordinance requires that a one percent traffic analysis be completed for both a.m. and p.m. periods. The previous ordinance required analysis of only the p.m. counts. The city is currently collecting a.m. traffic counts and the data was not available for this analysis. 4.1.1 Existing Conditions The major roadways in the vicinity of the proposed project site are MacArthur Boulevard (SR-73), Jamboree Road, Bristol Street, and the Corona del Mar Freeway (SR-73). MacArthur Boulevard (SR-73) is one of three major north/south links be- tween Coast Highway and the San Diego Freeway and provides regional access to and from the city of Newport Beach. (The other two thoroughfares are Newport Boulevard and Jamboree Road.) As presently constructed, it is a partially improved four -lane divided roadway between Bristol Street and Coast Highway. Jamboree Road varies from a four -lane divided road to a six -lane divided road at various locations north of Coast Highway. The southern terminus of Jamboree Boulevard forms a "T" intersection with Coast Highway and pro- vides a left turn lane, two through lanes, and a free -flowing right turn lane. Bristol Street operates as a one-way couplet between Red Hill Ave- nue and MacArthur Boulevard. There are four westbound travel lanes on Bristol Street between Jamboree Road and Campus Drive. In the eastbound direction, there are four travel lanes from Campus Drive to Cypress Street 1 7 and three travel lanes from Cypress Street to Jamboree Road. The right- of-way for the Corona del Mar Freeway separates the east and westbound travel lanes of Bristol Street. Bristol Street northerly of Red Hill Avenue is a four -lane divided highway. The Corona del Mar Freeway (SR-73) is constructed between the San Diego Freeway (I-405) and MacArthur Boulevard. The Corona del Mar Freeway con- sists of three travel lanes in each direction (Exhibit 3). In the long- term future, the Corona del Mar Freeway will be extended east of MacArthur Boulevard where it will transition into the San Joaquin Hills Transporta- tion Corridor (SJHTC). Traffic Generation The existing bank and office uses onsite currently generate an estimated 3,732 trips per day. Traffic generated by a site is based upon a genera- tion rate expressed as the number of trips generated each day per thousand square feet (TSF) of a land use type. The traffic generation rates util- ized for both the existing bank and proposed land uses are provided in Table 1. Based upon these rates and the gross square footage of each existing or proposed land use the number of trips for each use can be esti- mated as shown in Table 2. The number of trips currently generated by the site's existing uses can be totaled as shown in Table 3. The estimated number of trips generated by the proposed project and the increase in trips above existing trips are also provided in this table. The traffic generated by the site and vicinity is then distributed among the roadways in the area. The traffic distribution used in the traffic study was provided by the city and is based upon geographic locations of residential areas, commercial areas, employment areas, etc. The orienta- tion of traffic inbound varies slightly from the outbound traffic because of the divided nature of Bristol Street and because of traffic seeking to avoid localized evening congestion. Intersection Analysis Twenty-one (21) critical intersections were identified by the city and examined in the traffic study. A One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis is I I u 1 rRoute 73 MERICAents SOURCE: KUN2MAN ASSOCIATES BANK OF A NEWPORT PLACE DRIVE .• CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH EXHIBIT 3 Table 1 TRAFFIC GENERATION RATES Existing Land Use Pro'ect Land Uses Bank Office Racquet Bank per Per Restaurant Ball Cast Time Period per TSF* TSF TSF Per TSF per Court Evening Peak hour Inbound 5.3 5.3 0.6 2.7 2.5 Outbound 3.5 3.5 1.7 1.7 1.6 Total 8.8 8.8 2.3 4.4 4.1 Peak 2.5 Hours Inbound 10.6 10.6 1.2 5.4 S.0 Outbound 7.0 7.0 3.4 3.4 3.2 Total 17.6 17.6 4.6 8.8 8.4 Total Trip Ends 165 165 13 75 44 *TSF = thousand square feet gross area Table 2 TRAFFIC GENERATION Existing Land Uses Fro'ect Land Uses Bank Bank Office Restaurant 21,511 21,511 259,521 9,920 Racquet Square Square Square Square Ball Cast Time Period Feet Feet Feet Feet 4* Casts Evening Peak Four Inbound 114 114 156 27 10 Outbound 75 75 441 17 6 Total 189 189 597 44 16 Peak 2.5 Hours Inbound 228 228 311 54 20 Outbound 151 151 882 34 13 Total 379 379 1193 8B 33 Total Trip Ends 3549 3549 3374 744 176 * Gross area equals 9,048 square feet and includes lockers and shoiAws 9 Table 3 NET TRAFFIC GENERATION Total Total Net Existing Project Traffic Time Period Land Uses Land Uses Generation Evening Peak Hour Inbound 114 307 193 Outbound 75 539 464 Total 189 846 657 Peak 2.5 Hours Inbound 228 613 385 Outbound 151 1080 929 Total 379 1703 1324 Total Trip Ends 3549 7843 429:4::] NOTE: If the Rhodes-Bidna offices are included in existing land uses, the total existing trips are 3,732 and the net increase is 4,111 ' trips. 10 1 I 1 I utilized to establish whether a project adds greater than one percent of a critical intersection's approach volume. If so, the intersection must be analyzed further, according to the city Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Those intersections exceeding the one percent criteria are then analyzed using the Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis. Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Twenty (20) intersections were subjected to the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis. The intersections with the existing, 1988, and 1988 plus project ICU values are illustrated on Exhibit 4. 'Six of these intersections have an existing ICU of greater than 0.9 (90 percent). An additional five intersections have an existing ICU greater than 0.8. This indicates a lack of additional capacity at these locations. When project traffic is added to existing plus committed project plus regional growth traffic, all of the nine (9) intersections have an ICU rating greater than 0.9 and need improvements. However, without the pro- posed project, these nine intersections also have an ICU greater than 0.9 and lack additional capacity without roadway improvements. Access Access to the site is currently provided by right turns only via Newport Place Drive and by two -.way turns from Dove Street. Additional access is possible from Dove Street, across existing parking lots serving the Con- tinental Insurance Company building. Parking Parking onsite is currently at grade and open. Parking spaces are avail- able for both the bank building and office building. An existing agree- ment (R788) entitles the current Bank of America facility to use 89 sur- face parking spaces on the Continental -Dunn site. The city requires one parking space per 225 square feet of new office uses in the project area. L 1 I I Legend - Study Interne Intersection Capacity Utilization - BANK OF AMERICA NEWPORT PLACE DRIVE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH El InterseCti on Ci. Utilization _ 1988 Exist 198E Exist + + Committed CmTnitted + Need Critical Intersections Existing + Growth Growth + Project Improvements MacArthur and Campus 0.84 0.97, 0.98 Yes MacArthur and Birch 0.58 0.681 0.70 No MacArthur and Jamboree 0.76 0.83 0.84 No MacArthur and Bison 0.94 1.13j 1.14 Yes MacArthur and Ford 0.91 1.10, 1.11 Yes MacArthur and San Joaquin Hills 0.84 0.991 I 1.00 Yes Coast Highway and MacArthur 0.85 0.98f 1.00 Yes Jamboree and Campus 0.84 0.91,, 0.92 Yes Jamboree and Bristol N. 0.89 0.96 0.96 No Jamboree and Bristol 1.06 1.25, 1.25 No Jamboree and Eastbluff N. 0.61 0.78 0.78 No Jamboree and Bison 0.66 0.83 0.84 No Jamboree and Eastbluff/Ford 0.72 0.80 0.81 No Jamboree and -San Joaquin Hills 0.69 0.70 0.72 No Jamboree and Santa Barbara 0.73 0.80 0.82 No Coast Highway and Jamboree 1.OB 1.20 1.21 Yes Bristol N. and Campus/Irvine 1.15 1.33 1.35 Yes Bristol N. and Birch 0.95 1.10 1.13 Yes Bristol and Birch 0.73 0.84 0.85 No MacArthur and Newport Place 0.66 0.69 0.78 No SOURCE: KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES 1 EXHIBIT 4 1 I F �J I I 11 u 4.1.2 Impacts Traffic Generation As shown previously in Table 3, the project at buildout is estimated to generate a total of 7,843 trips per day. Subtracting trips from existing uses of the site, the project is anticipated to have a net impact of an additional 4,294 daily trips. Due to the lack of capacity at key vicinity intersections and due to continuing growth in the area and in the region, the project will add to a cumulatively significant impact on area traffic and transportation facilities. Intersection Analysis Except for the intersection of Bristol Street and Campus Drive, all ana- lyzed intersections exceed the one percent criteria when project traffic is added to 1988 traffic conditions. Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Nine of the twenty analyzed intersections exceed 0.9 capacity utilization under 1988 traffic conditions and need improvements. 1988 traffic condi- tions are defined to include regional growth and nearby committed pro- jects. When project traffic is added to 1988 traffic conditions, the same nine intersections have an ICU of greater than 0.9. At these nine inter- sections, project traffic causes the ICU values to increase from .01 to .03. These nine intersections will generally require improvements to maintain adequate traffic flows in 1988 either with or without the pro- posed project. Exhibit 4 compares ICU values under existing, 1988, and 1988 plus project conditions. The MacArthur Boulevard/Newport Place Drive intersection was also reviewed and found to have adequate capacity for future traffic volumes including project traffic. However, it may be desirable to add left -turn phasing to the existing signal in the east -west direction to reduce turning movement conflicts. The project impacts on the following five intersections are significant (the ICU rating remains above 0.90 with recommended improvements) and are not mitigated by recommended improvements: 1 12 1. MacArthur Boulevard/Bison Avenue 2. MacArthur Boulevard/San Joaquin Road 3. Coast Highway/MacArthur Boulevard 4. Jamboree Road/Coast Highway 5, Bristol Street North/Campus Drive Recommended approvements have been required of a previous approved project for the MacArthur Boulevard/Bison Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard/Ford Road intersections. Access Access to the proposed project site is provided by a main entrance on New- port Place Drive and secondary entrances on Dove Street and Dolphin Striker Court. The entrance is well positioned mid -block along Newport Place. The Newport Place entrance is separated into two 20-foot sections by a planted median. Due to the raised median on Newport Place Drive, access via the main entrance is restricted to right turn entries and exits. Landscaping should be restricted at this entrance to provide ade- quate sight distance. Outbound project traffic to MacArthur Boulevard can- not use this exit because left turns onto Newport Place Drive are prohibi- ted by the raised median. The northerly access on Dove Street enters directly into the parking structure. This access is well positioned along Dove Street to permit left turns. Two inbound lanes at this entry are recommended if access controls require vehicles to stop briefly. The secondary southerly access on Dove Street enters the surface parking lot near the McLachlan/ Rhodes/Bidna offices. Two additional entrances are provided to the project site from Dolphin Striker Court. Direct access to the parking structure is provided and surface parking access is provided at the court cul- de -sac. Two inbound lanes are also recommended at this location. Either left or right turns are possible from Dove Street into or out of the parking structure. Parking The parking structure will have four above -grade levels and one subterra- nean level. Clearances within the proposed structure are adequate for 13 I ' traffic circulation and parking maneuvers. Access to the various levels within the structure is via ramps along the west side of the parking struc- ture. Outside accesses to the structure are via direct entrance from Dove Street and from Dolphin Striker Court. Parking is provided for a net project office floor area of 279,000 square feet (93 percent of gross), which equates to 1,240 spaces. The parking structure provides 1,331 spaces and an additional 110 surface spaces are ' provided. A total of 1,441 spaces are provided for all buildings onsite. A shared parking analysis for existing and proposed projects on Site 5 (bounded by MacArthur Boulevard, Newport Place, Dove Street and Dolphin ' Striker Court) was completed to assess the maximum demand generated by individual onsite uses. The restaurant, racquetball courts and miscellane- ' ous retail services will be located in the basement area of the office building and are intended primarily to serve the tenants of the building. ' As indicated in Appendix H, the peak parking demand occurs at 2 p.m., when 1,180 parking spaces are required for all buildings and uses on the pro- ject site. Based on the shared parking analysis, no significant impact on parking results from project development. One space to 225 square feet is required by the Newport Place PC standards due to the area's limited on -street parking. The parking requirement may be lowered to one space for each 250 square feet of net floor area upon review and approval of the ' modification committee. IPedestrian Access Three elevators are included in the parking structure at the southeastern ' corner of the structure. Additional stairways will provide pedestrian ' access at other locations. ' 4.1.3 Mitigation Measures The following improvements are recommended to alleviate cumulatively high ' intersection capacity utilization at several locations in the project area. These improvements should be in place at the time the project is ' occupied. These improvements and/or other improvements will be necessary either with or without the proposed project due to regional growth and 1 14 nearby committed projects. The ICU values noted in the following measures ' are for future (1988) traffic conditions, including project traffic with- out and with improvements. Illustrations of the recommended intersection improvements are included in Appendix D. The following five (5) intersections have ICU ratings above 0.90 with recommended improvements. 1. MacArthur Boulevard/Bison Road. This intersection capacity will be ' improved by adding a fourth southbound through lane. This could be achieved by widening the roadway, relocating the existing median to the east and relocation of a signal on the east side of the roadway. This would improve the ICU at this location from 1.14 to 0.9. This ' improvement has been required of a previously approved project. 2. MacArthur Boulevard/San Joaquin Road. This intersection will gain , additional capacity by adding a third northbound through lane. This requires widening the intersection to the west, resulting in reloca- tion of the median and major signal relocations. This would improve the ICU rating at this location from 1.00 to 0.96. , 3. Coast Highway/MacArthur Boulevard. This intersection may be improved ' by adding a third eastbound through lane. It may be possible to achieve the improvement by reconstructing the existing exceptionally wide median. This improvement will lower the ICU rating from 1,00 to 0.93. 4. Jamboree Road/Pacific Coast Highway. This intersection could be ' improved by adding a third eastbound through lane. This improvement may require significant reconstruction of the intersection. With the recommended improvements, the ICU rating would improve from 1.21 to 5. Bristol Street North/Campus Drive. This intersection will experience , significant reductions in volumes in the westbound through direction because of the direct freeway access possible from MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Boulevard. Freeway access improvements now under con- ' 15 t III I I �I I F, i I 1 I struction may lower the ICU from 1.35 for all future traffic, with pro- ject traffic included, to 1.04. Additional physical improvements to improve capacity at this intersection may not be feasible due to the proximity of the freeway on -ramps near this intersection. The following four (4) intersections have ICU ratings below 0.90 with recommended improvements: 6. MacArthur Boulevard/Campus Drive. While the project contributes only north -south traffic to this intersection, adding a second eastbound left -turn lane is recommended. Signal relocation and widening of the west leg of the intersection is likely required. These improvements will lower the ICU rating from 0.98 to 0.89. 7. MacArthur Boulevard/Ford Road. This intersection could be improved by adding a third southbound through lane. This would improve the ICU from 1.11 to 0.85. The improvements suggested require the widening of the south leg of the intersection along the west curb, relocation of the signal at the southwest corner and restriping the current free right turn lane on the southbound approach. (This improvement has been required of a previously approved project.) 8. Jamboree Road/Campus Drive. Changing the existing eastbound free right lane to an additional through lane will provide additional capa- city. Widening of the east leg of the intersection is required. These improvements will lower the ICU rating from 0.92 to 0.87. 9. Bristol Street North/Birch Street. This intersection needs additional capacity in the westbound through direction, which will be provided through freeway improvements. This will eliminate the need for addi- tional intersection improvements and the ICU value may be reduced from 1.03 to 0.71. Two additional mitigation measures are recommended: 10. The project shall participate in any corridor fee programs for the pro- ject area in which the city participates at the time of project approval, including the San Joaquin Hills corridor fee program. 16 11. Adding left -turn phasing to the existing signal at MacArthur Boulevard/ Newport Place Drive in the east -west direction will reduce turning ' movement conflicts. 1 1 11 I I I I L 17 LJ ' 4.2 AIR QUALITY 1 4.2.1 Existing Conditions Climate The climate in the Newport Beach area, as with all of southern California, maintains moderate temperatures and comfortable humidities, and limits precipitation to a few storms during the winter "wet" season. Tempera- ' tures are normally mild with rare extremes above 100°F or below freezing. Winds in the area are almost always driven by the land/sea breeze circula- tion system. Regional wind patterns are dominated by daytime onshore sea breezes. At night, the wind generally slows and reverses direction tra- veling towards the sea. Southern California frequently experiences temperature inversions which inhibit the dispersion of air pollutants. Inversions may be either ground based or elevated. Ground based inversions are most severe during clear cold early winter mornings. Under conditions of a ground based inversion, very little air mixing occurs, and high concentrations of primary pollu- tants may collect near major roadways. Elevated inversions act as a lid over an area and restrict vertical air mixing.; however, below the elevated inversion, pollutant dispersion is not restricted. Mixing heights for ' elevated inversions are lower in the summer than in cooler months. This low summer inversion puts a lid over the South Coast Air Basin and is during summer months in responsible for the high levels of ozone observed the air basin. Air Quality Management ' Regionally, the proposed project is located in the South Coast Air Basin and lies within the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management ' District (SCAQMD) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The SCAQMD sets and enforces regulations for stationary air pollutant sources ' in the basin. The CARB is charged with controlling motor vehicle emis- sions. 1 18 The SCAQMD in coordination with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) has developed and revised an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the air basin. The AQMP has the goal of achieving health- ful levels of air quality by 1987, and is mandated by state and federal laws. Included in the plan are new stationary and mobile source controls, ride -sharing programs, and energy conservation measures. The AQMP is designed to accommodate a moderate amount of new development and growth throughout the basin. Orange County has developed a "Subregional Element for the 1982 Regional Air Quality Management Plan." The Orange County subelement encourages new development to incorporate commercial/industrial uses near residential communities to reduce trips and trip lengths. The element also encourages several parking management strategies, carpool and bus alternatives, and the promotion of bicycle racks. Ambient Air Quality Air quality at any site depends on both the regional ambient or surround- ing air quality and local sources of air pollutants. Regional air quality results from the release of pollutants throughout the air basin. Mobile or vehicular sources are considered the major source of emissions in the South Coast Air Basin. The South Coast Air Quality Management District divides the air basin into Source Receptor Areas (SRAs) in order to compare the air pollutant emis- sions generated by a project with the emissions currently generated in the area. The proposed project is located within Source Receptor Area 18. The nearest air quality monitoring station in this SRA is located in Costa Mesa, approximately 3-1/2 miles southwest of the project site. The data collected at this station is considered to represent air quality in the vicinity of the project. Annual air quality data for 1982 through 1984 for the Costa Mesa station is provided in Table 4. State and federal ambient air quality standards are provided in Table 5. E J LJ 19 F Table 4 AMBIENT AIR QUALITYI Number of Days State/Federal Standard Exceeded; [Maximum Concentration]2 Pollutant Locall 3 Countywide Ozone 1982 25/6 [.18] 79/42 [.32] 1983 41/15 [.25] 110/65 [.30] 1984 29/.7 [.25] 107/65 [.32] Carbon monoxide 1982 1/5 [21] 1/12 [21] 1983 0/1 [14] 1/8 [22] 1984 0/1 [.13] 1/6 [.21] Nitrogen dioxide 1982 0/NA [.23] 1/NA [.28] 1983 1/NA [.27] 4/NA [.33] 1984 O/NA [.22] 2/,NA [.25] Sulfur dioxide 1982 O/NA [.06] O/NA [.08] 1983 O/NA [.04] 0/NA [.05] 1984 0/NA [.04] 0/NA [.08] Particulates4 1982 .03/.02 [262] .28/.O1 [262] 1983 .18/0 [158] .35/0 [204] 1984 .11/0 [179] .41/0 [415] 1 Air Resources Board, California Air Quality Data, 1982-1984, Vols. XIV-XVI. 2 Particulates indicated in ug/m3. All other concentrations indicated in ppm. 3 Data from Costa Mesa Monitoring Station. 4 Expressed as percentage of samples taken; data from E1 Toro Station (Costa Mesa Station did not monitor). 20 Table 5 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS Pollutant Avreging Time California Standards' National Stendarde3 Concentratlen3 MrAow Mima�r ! s S000ndary3,s Moth"? OxWantls i hour 0.10 ppm ultraviolet — — — (200 u0/m3) Photometry Orono i hour — - up//mmrl SomeStandaPrimary Ethylene (235 ChemEumlen Carbon Monoxide S hour 9.0 ppm Non•Dity»rsWe 10m/m3 9 Saint se Non -Dispersive (10 mg/m3) Inbred Spectroscopy IS ppm) StiirMuds Infrared spectroscopy 1 hour 20 ppm 40 rng/m3 (NDIR) (Not") (23 mg/met) 135 point Nitrogen Dioxide Annual Average — Gas Phase 100 up/m3 10.05 poml Get obese Chamllumi- Same as Primary Standard Chamilumi"Wence 1 hour ppm — (410 up/m3) nascence Sulfur Dioxide Annual Average — 90 u% (0.03 ppm) 24 hour (1311 ug//m )3 uhroviolat 064 ppm) pararoseniline Fluorescence 3 hour — — 1300 tag/m3 (0.5 ppm) 1 hour 0.6 ppm— (1310 uq/m3) Suspended Annual Geometric 60 ug/m3 73 ug/m3 60 up/m3 Particulate Matter Mean !1 h Volume High Volume 24 hour 100 ug/m3 200 up/m3 ISO ug/m3 ampling Sampling Sulfates 24 hour 25 ug/mi Turbidimetrie — — — Sarlum Sulfate Load 30 day 1.5 ug/m3 Atomic — — — Average Absorption Calendar — — 1.6 ug/tn3 Some as Pri. Atomic Ouarter mary Standard Absorption Hyydropen 1 hour 0.03 ppm Cadmium Hydrox- — Sutfide (42 up/m3) We STRactsh Vinyl Chloride 24 hour 0.010 ppm Tedler tlaq (Chloroethena) (26 ug/m3) Collection, Gse Chromatography Visibility 1 observation In sufficient amount to Reducing reduce the prevailing vlsibilltys Partides to loss than 10 miles when the relative humidity is less than 70% — APPLICABLE ONLY IN THE LAKE TAHOE AIR 6ASIN, Carbon Monoxide a hour 6 ppm NDIR — 17 mg/m31 Visibility 1 observation In sufficient amount to Reducing reduce the prevailing viWWIIty3 — — Particles to loss then 30 miles when the rotative humidity is low than 70% Source: California Air Resources Board, California Air Quality Data, Volume XV, 1983. 21 n 1 F n L F The air quality data indicate that ozone is the air pollutant of primary concern in the area. Ozone is not directly emitted, but is the result of chemical reactions of other pollutants, most importantly hydrocarbons and nitrogen dioxide in the presence of bright sunlight. Motor vehicles are major sources of hydrocarbons and nitrogen dioxide. Pollutants emitted from upwind areas react during transport downwind to produce the ozone concentrations experienced in Newport Beach. Carbon monoxide (CO) is a relatively inert pollutant which is emitted in large amounts by motor vehicles. Carbon monoxide concentrations usually result from sources in the local area. The CO monitored at the Costa Mesa station probably reflects the station's local area, and may not be repre- sentative of the project site. Existing CO levels at the site are esti- mated from data at the Costa Mesa Station and by modeling traffic emis- sions with a computer dispersion model. This is discussed in detail in the following section. Local Air Quality Carbon monoxide is the pollutant of major concern along roadways. It is directly emitted from a variety of sources but the most notable source of carbon monoxide is motor vehicles. For this reason, carbon monoxide con- centrations based on current or projected traffic are added to existing air quality conditions and used as indicators of local air quality near a roadway network. Microscale carbon monoxide levels for the project area were projected using the CALINE3 computer model.l The model assesses air quality impacts that occur near transportation facilities from traffic. Assumptions used in the model are based upon "worst case" meteorological conditions, vehicular projections, and intersection locations. A 9.8 parts per million background CO concentration is added to the results. A ' 1 CALINE3 was developed by the California Department of Transportation (FHWA/CA/TL-79/23, November 1979). ' 22 , complete list of assumptions and calculations can be found in Appendix F. Table 6 lists the results of the CALINE3 model. Note that at the site and offsite at a nearby intersection, the state and federal 8-hour standard of ' 9 ppm is exceeded under worst case additional vehicular emissions. conditions prior to consideration of ' Table 6 EXISTING "WORST -CASE" CO CONCENTRATIONS ' Maximum 8-Hour Roadway Distance from Roadway (m)1 Concentration (ppm)2 MacArthur/ 15 11.4 ' Newport Place 30 10.6 45 10.4 ' MacArthur/ 15 11.0 Campus Drive 30 10.7 45 10.5 , 4.2.2 Impacts , Ambient Air Quality Short-term temporary impacts to air quality as well as long-term impacts that endure for the life of the project will occur when the project is ' developed. Short-term impacts will result from construction and grading activities ' but are anticipated to be minor. Fugitive dust is generated during grad- , ing and excavations. In addition, grading and construction requires the use of heavy diesel -powered machinery and trucks which add to local air , contaminant emissions. Nearby areas may be impacted by fugitive dust which could be considered a ' nuisance. Although these machine and fugitive dust emissions cannot be estimated accurately, these impacts are anticipated to be minimal for sev- eral reasons. The site encompasses 6.76 acres. The project site is flat 1 Measured from centerline of roadway. 2 Concentrations include a 9.8 ppm 8-hour average background CO concen- tration. 23 ' ' terrain which has been previously graded and thus will require only ' minimal surface grading. However, significant excavation for structural footings and the lower floor below ground level will occur. In addition, SCAQMD Rule 403 requires the application of water twice daily which is ' estimated to reduce total fugitive dust by 50 percent. ' Long-term air contaminant emissions on the project site and in the vicin- ity will occur from both mobile and stationary emissions sources. Since there are no known major stationary emittors in the vicinity, most station- ' ary emissions in the area will continue to occur from combustion of ' natural gas for water heating and space heating in buildings. In addi- from fossil fuel tion, the electricity used onsite will add to emissions combustion to generate electricity at power plants located outside the ' project vicinity. ' Stationary source air pollutant emissions generated by buildout of the pro- ject will be very small in comparison to generated mobile source emis- sions. Mobile source emissions considered to result from buildout of the project are vehicular pollutants released by increased vehicular traffic ' to and from the site. Several pollutants are directly emitted from motor vehicles. - Most notable are carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), hydrocarbons (HC), and particulates. Carbon monoxide is the pri- mary pollutant of major concern along roadways since air quality standards for CO along roadways are exceeded more frequently than the other pollu- tant standards. ' Table 7 shows estimated annual emissions above existing emissions which will result from buildout of the project as specified in Section 3.0 ' PROJECT DESCRIPTION. Stationary source emissions were estimated using AQMD emissions factors for land use types based on average consumption rates for electricity and natural gas. Mobile source emissions were ' derived using CARB's URBEMIS#1 air quality modeling program. The URBEMIS#1 model estimates vehicular emissions based on average trip length, number ' and speed associated with the location and types of land uses planned. The estimates do not include emissions from existing bank uses. 1 24 Table 7 ESTIMATED PROJECT -GENERATED EMISSIONS (Tons/Year) Stationary Mobile Total Pollutant Sources, Sources2 Emissions CO 0.42 167 167.4 NOx 3.97 15 19.0 HC .25 21 21.3 Particulates3 0.31 NA 0.9 Buildout of the project will incrementally add to the total emissions released in Source Receptor Area 18. The project's contribution to total SRA 18 emissions is very small in and of itself. Table 8 compares total future (year 2000) project -generated emissions as a percentage of estima- ted emissions for SRA 18. Table 8 PROJECT EMISSIONS COMPARED WITH SRA 18 EMISSIONS SRA 18 Contribution Pollutant Emissions (tons/,year)4 B Project CO 78,661 0.21% NOx 13,932 0.14% HC 14,089 0.16% Since emissions contributed by the project are a fraction of total SRA 18 emissions, the buildout of the project will not significantly impact ambient air quality, I Derived using SCAQMD Air Quality Handbook for Reports, revised December i96. 2 Derived using CARB URBEMIS#1 model. 3 Particulates are not included in URBEMIS#1 model. 4 Based on 1987 average summer weekday emissions Quality Handbook, December 1983. 25 1 given by SCAQMD Air L' I I I I. l , 1 1 II I t I 1 I t 5 Air Quality Management Air quality forecasts in the Air Quality Management Plan '(AQMP) are gen- erally based upon buildout of local general plans and the traffic associa- ted with those land uses. Buildout of the project is anticipated to gen- erate approximately 4,294 more trips per day than existing uses on the pro- ject site. The proposed project generates 7,843 trips at buildout, a 121 percent increase over the trips generated by the current site uses. As illustrated in Table 8, the project will contribute less than three -tenths of one percent of total SRA 18 emissions, and no significant conflict with the AQMP is anticipated. Local Air Quality As previously mentioned, carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations are consi- dered appropriate indicators of local air quality as impacted by roadways. Again, microscale CO concentrations are projected using the CALINE3 com- puter model. Worst -case conditions are assumed for meteorological, site and project traffic conditions. Note that a background CO concentration of 9.2 parts per million (ppm) is added to the results in Table 9. Table 9 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT (1987) "WORST CASE" CO CONCENTRATIONS Roadway MacArthur/Newport Place MacArthur/Campus Drive Distance from Roadway (m)l 15 30 45 15 30 45 Maximum 8-Hour Concentration (ppm)2 10.8 10.0 9.8 10.3 10.0 9.9 ' 1 Measured from centerline of roadway. 2. Concentrations include a 9.2 ppm 8-hour average background CO concen- tration. ' 26 The results of the model indicate that the state and federal 8-hour aver- age of 9 ppm will continue to be exceeded at all modeled locations. Build- out of the project in 1987 will generate trips which will cumulatively add ' to local and regional vehicular emissions. Although the project -generated trips will not significantly affect SRA 18 air quality, the increase in ' emissions will incrementally degrade local air quality in the project's general vicinity. However, due to improvement anticipated in individual ' vehicular emissions, local air quality is expected to improve in the future, even with additional vehicle trips. The program was run under future year 2000 conditions and the resulting 8-hour CO concentrations fall within the state and federal 8-hour standard of 9 ppm. , 4.2.3 Mitigation Measures 1. Development within the amended area shall comply with all SCAQMD rules and regulations; development should apply, to the extent feasible, all ' AQMP recommendations for commercial and office land uses including: a) employer -provided incentives for ridesharing, modified work sche- dules such as "flex -time," and utilization of public transporta- tion; b) developer -provided bus turnouts, bus shelters and bicycle racks; ' and, c) all Title 24 standards for energy conserving structures, heating/ ' cooling systems, lighting systems, appliances, etc. ' 2. The associated transportation system should be designed to improve ' traffic flow. (Refer to Section 4.19 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. 3. The impact of construction -generated dust should be reduced to the t extent feasible, by periodically sprinkling with water, and by paving the area proposed for parking as soon as possible. ' 1 27 1 d u I _I u I D R H I F 4.3 ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT 4.3.1 Existing Conditions The major sources of noise contributing to the project's ambient noise levels are the county airport and adjacent major roadways. Noise Measurement The unit used for measuring noise is the decibel (dB or dBA). The noise rating used for measuring ambient community noise levels is the Community Noise Equivalency Level (CNEL). This system takes average sound levels at an observation point and adds a weighting penalty to those sounds which occur during evening and night hours. The penalty is added to account for the fact that noise at night is more annoying than during the day. A penalty of 5 dBA is added between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. and a 10 dBA penalty is added between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. CNEL noise levels are often reported, for example, as "65 dBA CNEL" or just "65 CNEL." Noise Element Sensitive noise receptors such as residential areas, churches, and hospi- tals require lower noise levels. Newport Beach does not have a noise ordinance or noise standards. In such cases, the Orange County standards are recommended and have been applied in conjunction with the review of other projects in the city. The county recommends maximum noise levels for different types of land uses. The maximum noise levels for residen- tial areas should be 65 CNEL outdoors and 45 CNEL indoors. Commercial area levels can reach 65+ CNEL if interior noise levels are mitigatedto 45 to 65 dBA depending on the use. Exceptions are made for construction activities, but these activities should be restricted to regular working day hours between 7 a.m, and 8 p.m. There are no sensitive noise receptors located on the project site or in the Newport Place Planned Community. There are future residential areas which are sensitive receptors located south of the project site. The Phi L� Bayview project is located about one-half mile south, along Bristol Street and Jamboree Road, and the North Ford/San Diego Creek South site is loca- ted about one mile south along Jamboree Road. Existing Noise Levels ' Major noise sources located near the city of Newport Beach include John Wayne Airport, Tustin MCAS(H) overflights, and arterial traffic. The project site is primarily affected by traffic noise from MacArthur Boule- vard and John Wayne Airport, although it is also in close proximity to helicopter flight patterns. The 60 CNEL contour traverses the site indica- ting that the western portion of the site may experience noise levels above the 60 CNEL (Exhibit 5). , Traffic noise levels are estimated using the Federal Highway Administra- tion model.2 The highway noise model estimates noise levels generated by ' traffic at various observation points. The model considers traffic volume (average number of vehicles per day), vehicle mix (percentage cars, , trucks, heavy trucks), vehicle speed, and roadway geometry to compute the CNEL. Utilizing 1985 traffic data, existing CNELs along MacArthur Boule- vard at the project site which are generated by traffic are tabulated below. , Table 10 EXISTING DISTANCES TO CNEL CONTOURS ' Distance (ft.) from Roadway Centerline to CNEL , Roadway 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL MacArthur Blvd. (N. of Newport Place Drive) 141.0 426.2 I,341.2 4,238.8 , 1 Alfred Brady, Airport Land Use Commission, correspondence dated July 1985, ' 2 "FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, FHWA-RD-77-108," Decem- ber 1978. 3 For assumptions, refer to Appendix F. ' 29 Airport Noise Contour BANK OF AMERICA NEWPORT PLACE DRIVE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 7 SOURCE• BOLT BERANEK AND NEWMAN CNEL CONTOURS FORJOHN WAYNE AIRPORT1984 fal EXHIBIT 5 E 4.3.2 Impacts ' Potential noise impacts upon the project site and vicinity will be both short-term and long-term in nature. Short-term temporary impacts are associated with construction and grading for development of the project site. Long-term impacts will occur 'for the life of the project and ' include noise from increased vehicular traffic generated by the project. Short-term construction noise is generated by heavy equipment such as trucks, earth movers, concrete mixers, etc. Construction noise could potentially impact business areas located near the project site. both Potential long-term acoustic impacts stem from increased numbers of noise sources and noise receptors. Buildout of the project site will add ' new employees who will perceive noise at the site. The noise generated by aircraft over the site is not anticipated to impact the project nega- tively. The site lies within the 60 and 65 CNEL airport noise contours which is an acceptable outdoor noise level for the proposed uses. Build- ing structures provide approximately 20 dBA attenuation, thus interior noise levels will be acceptable for office use. Occasionally a single - event, such as overflight of a helicopter or plane, may generate a noise level which exceeds 65 dBA, and which may be perceived as annoying. How- ever, the average or community noise level is acceptable. A potential acoustic impact of buildout of the project site is noise from ' existing and project -generated traffic along nearby roadways. Noise impacts were modeled along MacArthur Boulevard because it is the principal arterial adjacent to the project site-1 The 70 CNEL and 65 CNEL contours ' from existing traffic along this roadway traverse the site. When project - generated traffic is also considered, the distances from the roadway to the 70 CNEL and 65 CNEL contour increases. Thus, noise levels are slight- ly increased near the boulevard when project traffic is added. However, ' an increase or decrease of 3 dB is necessary for the change to be detected by the human ear. Since noise levels at land uses along MacArthur Boule- vard are not increased by 3 dB or greater, the increase in noise by traf- fic from the project is not considered significant. ' 1 Refer to Appendix F for modeling results and assumptions. ' 30 4.3.3 Mitigation Measures 1. The following noise standards should be applied to the project. A. All structures should be sound attenuated against the combined input of all present and projected noise to meeting the following interior noise criteria: Typical Use Le h Private office, board room, conference room, etc. 45 General office, reception, clerical, etc. 50 Bank lobby, retail store, restaurant, typing pool, etc. 55 B. prior to sale, lease, or rental of any structure or portion there- of, the applicant/owner shall provide to each prospective purchas- er, lessee, or tenant a notice that the property is subject to overflight, sight, and sound of aircraft operating from John Wayne Airport. The form and method of distribution of said notice shall be as approved by the city. C. Any roof top or other mechanical equipment shall be sound attenu- ated in such a manner as to achieve a maximum sound level of 55 dBA at the property line. 31 I J I 4.4 LAND USE 4.4.1 Existing Conditions Onsite Conditions. The 6.76-acre site is currently occupied by a Bank of America facility and an adjacent office building occupied by McLachlan Investment Company and the law offices of Rhodes and Bidna. Surface park- ing is contiguous to the two-story buildings. The site is level and access is obtained from Newport Drive and Dove Street. Surrounding Conditions. The site is surrounded by other offices, commer- cial uses and contiguous parking areas. Continental Insurance Company and Charles Dunn Company occupy a three-story building immediately adjacent to the existing Bank of America facility. The Golden State Sanwa Bank (3-5 story offices) is located across Newport Place Drive from the project site. Notable structures west of MacArthur Boulevard within the Newport Place P.C. include: the,Golden State Sanwa Bank, Mitsui Manufacturers Bank (ten stories), and Apple Computers (seven stories). Other structures of simi- lar heights located east of MacArthur Boulevard include Lloyds Bank (nine stories), Microdata (ten stories) and the Security Pacific Bank building (ten stories). Approximately one-half mile north of the project site, several office buildings with similar heights to those described above are located. Wells Fargo Bank (nine stories) and Pacific National Bank (three stories) are located east of MacArthur Boulevard along Birch Street. MacArthur Court will include two 15-story office buildings containing over 600,000 square feet of office space. A five -level, 1,850-space parking structure is also planned. In summary, the surrounding area may be characterized as distinctly urban, with a consistent mixture of office buildings of varying heights. Additional discussion of other projects is included in Section 4.8 AESTHETICS and Section 9.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS.) �cY.l I 4.4.2 Impacts ' Onsite Impacts. The proposed project will result in demolition of the ' existing office buildings and construction of the parking structure and 15-story office. The proposed project represents an increase in scale ' related to the existing facilities onsite and in relationship to the Continental -Dunn offices contiguous to the west. Offices at 1401 Dove Street (two stories) which is a committed project will not be constructed if the proposed project is approved. The proposed project adds some retail and recreational uses to the site. Retail and recreational uses t are not permitted uses in the Newport Place PC standards. Surrounding Impacts. The proposed land use, offices with limited commer- cial and recreational use, is compatible with other uses in the Newport ' Place PC and the Koll Center Newport PC. Building height increase, in and of itself, does not constitute an incompatible land use adjacent to or near other office uses. The increased height of the proposed project is ' similar to newer projects in the surrounding areas, and of similar height to buildings under construction at MacArthur Court. Additional discussion ' of the projects in the surrounding area occurs in Sections 4.0 and 9.0 ' 4.4.3 Mitigation Measures ' No mitigation measures are required. 11 �I �I 1 I 33 1 'LI 4.5 RELEVANT PLANNING 4.5.1 Existing Conditions The General Plan of the city of Newport Beach consists of General Plan policies and individual elements. The policy report outlines various objectives for each of the elements of the General Plan. This section reviews each of the elements for objectives and regulations applicable to the proposed project. CIRCULATION ELEMENT - The Master Plan of Streets and Highways designates ' MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Boulevard as major roads (six -lane divided), Campus Boulevard as a secondary road (four -lane undivided) and ' Von Karman Avenue between MacArthur and Campus as a primary road (four -lane undivided). ' CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES ELEMENT - The major natural resources in the city of Newport Beach include the bay and ocean waters, the beaches and the air. Oil deposits constitute the only significant natural mineral resource. Several known sites containing archaeological and paleontologi- cal resources of great significance are located adjacent to and around the Upper Bay. These areas are removed from the project site. Bay and Ocean Water Quality. Newport Bay is the major nesting ground in ' the Pacific Flyway between Morro Bay and Mexico. City policy emphatically opposes the discharge of any raw sewage, sewage effluent, litter, debris ' or other wastes into Newport Bay and urges the county of Orange and public and private agencies to take all practical steps to reduce or eliminate sediment flows into Upper Newport 'Bay during the rainy seasons. Water ' quality control programs involving the city include: 1) environmental quality monitoring plan for Newport Bay, 2) waste discharge, holding tank ' and littering ordinances, and, 3) control of erosion and siltation through adoption of the Uniform Building Code. In Resolution 8098, the City Council proposed several general governmental ' actions to aid in restoration of Upper Newport Bay, including the future adoption of a new grading ordinance, with more stringent erosion control 1 34 and sediment discharge provisions and design, construction and maintenance of street drainage systems and other physical improvements in a manner which minimizes adverse impacts on water quality. Air Quality. Motor vehicles are the major source of air pollution in Orange County. Air quality proposals adopted by the city include review of possible stationary sources of air pollution during environmental reviews and pursuing the development of alternative means of transporta- tion which reduce automobile usage. Energy. Proposals suggested to reduce demand for energy include: 1) city will upgrade building codes to require high-grade insulation and weather sealing materials to cut both heating and cooling costs for all new struc- tures within the jurisdiction of Newport Beach, 2) set policies for all city buildings to conserve energy, 3) encourage architectural standards which take advantage of natural heat and light sources, 4) encourage busi- ness, industry, and the residential community to adopt and/or practice con- servation techniques, and 5) study traffic patterns and speed limits based on consideration of fuel conservation. LAND USE ELEMENT - The area north of the Corona del Mar freeway is designa- ted as General Industry, Retail and Service Commercial; Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial and Government, Education and Insti- tutional Facilities (Exhibit 6), The Land Use Plan was amended in Decem- ber 1974 to indicate that either Retail and Service Commercial or Adminis- trative, Professional and Financial Commercial or a mixture of the two, is an acceptable use. Newport Place and Koll Center Newport are planned com- munities in the project vicinity. The proposed project is located within the Newport Place PC. The Land Use Element proposes to control the intensity of commercial development in all areas through use of a "floor area ratio" ordinance. NEWPORT PLACE PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - The development standards for Newport PC were adopted in December 1970 and nineteen amend- ments have been adopted since that time, A statistical analysis for com- mercial/professional and business offices specifies building site acreages and building areas. Other statistics are included for information only. 35 I -.. a • • • 1 • • • 1 • y. • • � wyww !• V ` { : , Gr,• w •..j .tvi me .' + 1 # NE14PORT PLACE 1 .. P.C. ,= __mil; F£ •14 ' Q.'J i • •I} • ••P'w :. ••••Iw1V 1�....11 ADMIN., PROF. d .•••..•• COMMERCIAL RETAIL/SERVICE FINAN. GENERAL ........ COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL - INDUSTRY OENERALINDUSTRY RETAIL/SERVICE GOV. EDUCAT. d • •::• COMMERCIAL . ADMIN., .....::... . " � � �"" • PROF, d FINAN. INSTITUTIONAL "•"• FACILITIES COMMERCIAL GOV., EDUCAT. i ADMIN.. PROF, d INSTITUTIONAL FACILITIES ALTERNATE USES: RETAIL d - ' FINAN. COMMERCIAL SERVICE COMMERCIAL. ADMIN , PROF. d FINAN. COMMERCIAL Land Use Element BANK OF AMERICA 'NEWPORT PLACE DRIVE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ,EXHIBIT 6 ' Story heights for each site are included in the informational only cate- gory. The text specifies that "development may include but shall not be limited to the following" story heights on individual parcels. Section F specifies maximum building heights above ground level for all sites. The ' project site shall not exceed six (6) stories above ground. Permitted uses for business offices does not currently include restaurants, recrea- tional or other retail uses. The General Development Standards for Com- The merce include mandatory requirements for setbacks, signs and parking. parking requirement for professional offices is one space for each 225 ' feet of net floor area. The parking requirement may be lowered to one space for each 250 square feet of net floor area upon review and approval of a modification. A plan for pedestrian access must be submitted to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of building permits. ' is limited to a The general standard for signs in building identification ' single entity, an area not exceeding 1.5 square feet of surface per each lineal frontage foot of building and no sign shall exceed 200 square feet ' per face. The remaining allowable development in the entire Newport Place PC was ' evaluated in 1984 in the Initial Study for the Expansion of 1400 Dove Street (Marie E. Gilliam and Associates, February 1984). The remaining future allowable development of office, retail and industrial uses was 217,159 square feet. Site 5, of which the proposed project is a part had 63,042 square feet of remaining professional and business office uses. ' Table 3, included in the appendix, provides a statistical summary of re- maining allowable development. The City Council specified that any devel- opment in excess of 30 percent of the additional allowable development shall be approved only after it can be demonstrated that adequate traffic facilities are available when the project is occupied (March 12, 1979). An amendment in July 1984 (Text Amendment No. 19, July 23, 1984) transfer- red additional allowable building area from Site 4 to Site 5, resulting in a total building area of 185,764 square feet for Site 5. The total build- ing area for Site 5 is essentially assigned to existing and committed pro- jects. Square footages for the existing buildings total 114,079 square ' feet. 1 36 The Bank of America is 21,511 square feet, the Rhodes and Bidna offices are 14,068 square feet and the Charles Dunn building is 78,500. There- fore, the current development standards permit an additional 71,685 square feet of offices within Site 5. However, 67,000 square feet are committed to the Ketchum property, which is located west of the proposed project within Site 5 adjacent to Dolphin Striker Way. The committed project at 1401 Dove Street, which will likely not be constructed, is 12,482 square feet. Replacement of the existing Bank of America, combined with relin- quishing the commitments for 1401 Dove Street, would result in an avail- ability of approximately 105,678 square feet within Site 5 under current development standards. Additional building area beyond these limits requires amendments to the development standards of the Newport Place Planned Community. AIRPORT ENVIRONS LAND USE PLAN - The Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County has identified two planning issues applicable to the vicin- ity of John Wayne Airport: noise impacts and height restrictions. While the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has no authority to regulate local land use decisions, it will determine, through its aeronautical study, whether the project constitutes an obstruction or hazard to air navigation. Regardless of FAA findings, the city of Newport Beach retains the final authority to approve the project. NOISE ELEMENT - Projected CNEL (community noise equivalent level) contours for highways were completed by Wyle Laboratories in 1971, based on roadway capacities. The analysis projected conditions at buildout in 1990. Noise contours of 60 to 70 CNEL are indicated along MacArthur Boulevard near New- port Place Drive. CNEL contours for aircraft operations from John Wayne Airport are approximately 60 CNEL near the project site. The noise con- tours for military helicopters flying the "Palisades Route" from MCAS(H) to the sea are below 55 CNEL at the project site. Police helicopters do not have a set pattern of operation and duration and frequency (as received by office occupants) are very low. PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT - The purpose of the Public Safety Element is to introduce safety considerations in the planning process in order to reduce 37 I 1 H t loss of life, injuries, damage to property, and economic and social dislo- cation resulting from fire, flood and dangerous geologic occurrences. Seismicity. The only active fault within or immediately adjacent to the city of Newport Beach is the Newport -Inglewood fault zone, which extends from the southern edge of the Santa Monica Mountains southeastward to the offshore area near Newport Beach. While this fault could generate a 7.0 magnitude maximum credible earthquake, the project site is located in an area classified as of lowest potential risk for groundshaking (Category 1). Slope Stability. The more important general factors related to slope stability are the inherent strength of earth materials comprising the geo- logic formations, their moisture content and the attitude of the bedding within the materials. No slope stability hazards are evident in the project site. Expansive Soils. Collapsible and expansive soils usually have an adverse effect on building foundations, which may negatively impact the entire structure. The project site is classified as Category 1, of moderate to highly expansive soils. While collapsible soils are not prevalent within the city, they do occur locally and should be addressed on a project basis by geotechnical studies. Erosion and Siltation. Siltation of Newport Bay, the majority which enters the bay through San Diego Creek from the creek's watershed is a major concern of the city. The project site is classified of slight and moderate erosion potential. Flood Hazard. Localized instances of inundation are not addressed in the safety element and the project site is not located in an area of potential major damage from a severe storm. Fire. The project site is not located in a,potential fire hazard area. Disaster Planning. The project site is not restricted by single access ' evacuation routes. 1 38 I Risk Reduction Program. The problem of risk is one of public policy and , the appropriate allocation of resources to mitigate potential hazards. Among the areas of critical concern, geologic hazards for medium- and ' high-rise buildings and concentrations of dependent populations are listed. Measures included for mitigation of natural physical hazards to , life and property include requiring geology and seismic studies for devel- opment in areas of high potential hazard, critical review of development proposals in expansive and collapsible soils and requirements that build- ing Siting and design be compensatory with geologic hazards. , HOUSING ELEMENT Housing Element goals include providing a quality living environment and providing for the housing needs of all present and future residents. , Specifically, the housing goals include: 1. To promote quality residential development through the application of sound planning principles, and through policies which encourage preser- the housing vation, conservation, and appropriate redevelopment of stock. 2. To provide a balanced community, with a variety of housing types and designs and housing opportunities for all economic segments of the ' community: very low- and low-income as well as moderate- and upper - income households. ' 3. To extend ownership opportunities to as many households as possible, particularly those of moderate and upper incomes, This is where the greatest demand is projected. ' 4. To preserve and increase affordability, through rental housing, for very low- and low-income households. Additional discussion of housing goals and potential housing impacts of ' the proposed Bank of America project is included in Section 4.7. Two proposed residential projects south of the site are discussed below. ' 39 1 I I l I t k 1 LJI North Ford. The North Ford/San Diego Creek South is the closest undevel- oped residential designated parcel to the project site within the city of Newport Beach. The 79-acre site is designated multifamily residential in the General Plan and has planned community zoning. The site is currently 'being graded and has approvals for 888 units; 222 units will be for low and moderate -income households. The project also includes a 12-acre park and 50,000 square feet of commercial uses. Bayview. The Bayview project is located immediately southwest of Bristol Street South and Jamboree Boulevard, approximately one-half mile south of the project site. This are was recently annexed into the city of Newport Beach. The project includes commercial, open space/buffer and residential uses. A total of 145 detached single-family units, 88 multifamily units, a 250-room resort hotel and 21.2 acres of commercial uses are proposed. Additional information on the Bayview project may be obtained from General Plan Amendment 84 3 and Zone Change 84-8• Bayview Planned Development - EIR No. 440, (SCH No. 84022912), Phillips Brandt Reddick and Sanchez-Tala- rico Associates, August 1984. The document is available for review from the city of Newport Beach Planning Department. RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT - The Recreation and Open Space Element provides a long-range guide to the preservation, improvement and use of "permanent" open space areas, recreational trails, and scenic highways and drives within the city of Newport Beach. The Master Plan of 'Bikeways designates secondary bikeways along Campus Drive, MacArthur Boulevard between Campus Drive and Jamboree and along Jamboree Boulevard between Cam- pus and MacArthur. Von Karman Avenue, between MacArthur and Campus is also designated as a secondary bikeway. Bristol Street, between Campus and Jamboree, is a backbone bikeway. 4.5.2 Impacts The relationship of the proposed project to relevant planning programs are discussed either below or referenced to other sections. 1 40 CIRCULATION ELEMENT - Potential significant impacts are discussed in Sec- tion 4.1. The project will be consistent with the element with approval of the proposed Traffic Phasing Ordinance amendment. CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES ELEMENT - The project will comply with all city requirements concerning grading and control of runoff. No signi- ficant impact of erosion or siltation is expected. All construction shall comply with city standards for street drainage systems. Potential air quality impacts are discussed in Section 4.2 and energy impacts are discussed in Section 4.9. LAND USE ELEMENT - The project is consistent with the current land use ele- ment. Building statistics for office buildings in the surrounding area are listed in Table 11. The data indicates that several office structures of similar height are located in the surrounding area. The newer build- ings are generally of greater height and have floor area ratios (FAR) above 1.0. The floor area ratio is the quotient of the gross floor area and the building site area. The proposed "project" FAR, combining the pro- posed project and existing office uses retained onsite, is higher than typical for the floor area ratio within the Newport Place PC but is compar- able to the floor area ratio for some vacant office developments in the surrounding area. PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT - Soil stability is discussed in Section 4.4 and fire services are discussed in Section 4.9. No other public safety issues were identified. HOUSING ELEMENT - Potential housing impacts of the project are discussed in Section 4.7. RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT - The project will comply with require- ments, if any, related to the secondary bikeway along MacArthur Boulevard at later stages of planning. F i I D 41 Table 11 AREA OFFICE BUILDING STATISTICSI Maximum Year Gross Name/Address Stories Approved Acres Sq. Feet F.A.R. Mitsui Mfrs. Bank 10 1979 6.5 218,936 0.77 1 Newport Place Commerce Bank 6 1973 3.6 36,013 0.55 1201 Dove Street Bank of California 6 1972 3.6 77,258 0.49 1401 Dove Street Apple 7 1981 4.8 94,620 0.45 1500 Quail Street MacArthur Court 15 1978- 18.1 712,000 0.90 4665-4695 MacArthur Court 1985 Microdata/Security Pacific 10 1978 2.0 396,740 4.55 4000 MacArthur The Atrium (Irvine) 10 1983- 6.2 379,762 1.41. Von Karman 1984 Douglas Plaza/Tower 17 17 1985 5.3 298,394 1.29 Von Karman (Irvine) Brinderson Towers 12 1985- 12.7 600,000 1.08 MacArthur/Jamboree 1986 Proposed Project 15 - 6.76 392,568 1.33 and Existing Projects Onsite2 1 Source: City of Newport Beach and city of Irvine. 2 Includes proposed project (300,'00 square feet) and existing Continen- tal -Dunn (78,500 square feet) and existing McLachlan Investment/ Rhodes-Bidna offices (14,068 square feet). 1] 42 4.5.3 Mitigation Measures E No mitigation measures are required. Amendments to the Newport Place PC ' development standards for building height and building area and a Traffic Phasing Ordinance amendment are required for the proposed project. An , approval for modification of the parking requirement is also required. 1 I 5 I i 43 1 ' 4.6 GEOLOGY/SOILS A foundation investigation and report were prepared in 1984 by LeRoy Crandall and Associates, geotechnical engineers, for the western portion of the project site.l Borings for analyses were taken north of the Newport Place Drive/Dove Street intersection. This portion of the site is assumed for purposes of this EIR to have underlying soils representative of those underlying the entire site. 1 4.6.1 Existing Conditions ' The site is relatively flat terrain and portions of the site are covered with imported fill soils and pavement as well as existing buildings. The foundation investigation shows compacted fill soils, 2 to 12 feet in thick- ness. The compacted fill is firm and the underlying natural soils are ' generally firm. The fill soils encountered in the investigation consist of clay, silt, and 1 sand which were found to be firm wi-th a low expansion potential. The underlying natural soils encountered consist of clay, silt, and sand which ' are generally firm. At some locations, water seepage was encountered at 17 feet below the existing site grade. ' The proposed building is not located over any known faults. The probabil- ity of surface rupture due to faulting beneath or adjacent to the site is very remote. The nearest active fault is a branch of the Newport -Ingle- wood fault zone which is located approximately one mile south of the site. ' The northwest -trending Newport -Inglewood fault zone is seismically active and earthquakes along this zone strong enough to be felt are numerous and ' frequent.2 A maximum credible earthquake of Richter Magnitude 7.0 has been estimated for the Newport -Inglewood fault.3 This fault may be ' considered the controlling fault for building design and slope stability analysis. ' 1 "Report of Foundation Investigation, Proposed Building, Newport Place Drive and Dove Street," LeRoy Crandall and Associates, June 1984. 2 California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Report 114, A Review of the Geology and Earthquake History of the Newport -Inglewood Struc- tural Zone, Southern California, 1974. 3 Newport Beach General Plan, Public Safety Element, March 1975. ' 44 The Pelican Hill fault trends northwest and is probably a branch of the Newport -Inglewood fault system. The nearest branch of this fault is located approximately two miles southeast of the project site at its nearest point. The Pelican Hill fault is considered potentially active since Pleistocene activity (between 11,000 and three million years ago) has been noted.l 4.6.2 Impacts Due to the previously filled and developed nature of the site, the project will not significantly impact the site's soils. Development of the pro- ject will require typical engineering measures to alleviate settlement, possible groundwater seepage, possible expansive soils, and measures to protect the building from impacts of groundshaking. Buildings established in either the compacted fill or the undisturbed natural soils may require spread footings and/or pile footings. Surface water may infiltrate into the backfill which will necessitate measures such as compaction of back - fill and dampproofing of building walls below grade. Building levels, if below the water table, may require groundwater pumping. 4.6.3 Mitigation Measures 1. Site development shall be subject to grading permit and grading plan approval by the city Building and Planning Departments. Such grading plan and permit shall include the following: a, temporary and permanent drainage facilities; and, b. description of haul routes, site access points, and watering and sweeping programs designed to minimize haul operation impacts. 2. Control plans for erosion, siltation, and dust, which are prepared by a civil engineer and based on recommendations of a soil engineer and 1 California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Report 126, Geology and Engineering Geologic Aspects of the South Half Tustin Quadrangle, Grange County, California, 1976. 45 I I I engineering geologist (following completion of a comprehensive soil ' and geologic investigation of the site) shall be required prior to grading permit approval. 3. A project specific soils and foundation study shall be prepared prior to issuance of grading or building permits. ' 4. The project shall comply with the Uniform Building Code and city seismic design standards. ' 5. The following engineering mitigations are recommended based upon the 1984 foundation report: ' a. Spread footings and/or pile footings shall be established as required to support buildings on either the compacted fill or the ' underlying natural soils. ' b. To verify the presence of satisfactory soils at footing design elevations, excavations for the footings shall be examined by geotechnical engineers. Footing excavations should be deepened as necessary to extend into satisfactory soils, however, flooding should not be permitted. Footing excavations should be cleaned of ' loosened soils prior to placement of steel or pouring of concrete. c. Al applicable requirements of the California Construction and General Industry Safety Orders, the Occupational Safety and Health ' Act of 1970., and the Construction Safety Act shall be met. ' d. All required backfill shall be relatively non -expansive material which is within two percent of optimum moisture content. The back - fill shall be mechanically compacted, in layers not more than teight inches in thickness, to at least ninety percent of the maxi- mum density attainable by the ASTM Designation D1557-70 method of compaction. e. Any disturbed soils remaining after the planned excavation shall be replaced with properly compacted fill. Natural clay soils encountered shall be excavated and replaced with one foot of rela- tively non -expansive soils beneath the lower floor slab. 46 ' 4.7 HOUSING ' 4.7.1 Existing Conditions ' This section describes the impacts attributable to the proposed project known as Bank of America/Newport Place on the housing environments of ' Newport Beach and other affected cities in Orange County. Four housing characteristics are described, as follows: I H L It 1. Standing stock 2. Vacancy levels 3. Vacancy rates 4. Incremental housing supply Housing impacts caused by the proposed project include the following: 1. Incremental increase in housing demand 2. • Reductions in vacancy levels and rates 3. Some increased need for affordable housing For each city located in the affected market area, a share of the incremen- tal increase in housing demand is forecasted as a function of the follow- ing variables: 1. Total project -related employees based on project size in square feet and the city's employee generating factors. 2. Forecasted residential location (ie., city) based on the most recent data on journey -to -work and residential location behavior patterns. 3. Conversion of future employees located in each city to households based on the worker per household factors of each community. 4. Analysis of impacts to the standing stock of each city and the incremental housing supply of Newport Beach. 5. Analysis of impacts to the vacancy levels and rates in each city in the affected market area. 47 Five sources of secondary research information were used to gather data on the supply characteristics of each market area. These sources are listed ' below: 1. U.S. Bureau of Census, 1980 Census Population and Housing (the one ' data source that includes a variety of comparable housing supply data for all affected market areas). "Housing Population ' 2. California State Department of Finance, and Estimates for Cities, Unincorporated Areas and Counties - 1980-85." 3. Orange County Forecast and Analysis Center, Volumes 1-4, Popula- tion, Housing and Household Characteristics, 1980 Census. 4. City of Newport Beach, Housing Element of the General Plan, June 1984. 5. State Department of Economic Development, Annual Planning Informa- tion, Anaheim -Santa Ana -Garden Grove Standard a opolitan Area - 1984-1985, "Commuting patterns for Residents of Orange County - 1980 Census," p. S-45. ' Information on the existing housing environment is presented for Newport , Beach and several cities in Orange County. It is estimated that these areas would be the residential location of about two-thirds of the employees generated by the project if constructed as planned. The boun- daries of the market area are defined by the cities of Newport Beach, Costa Mesa, Irvine, Santa Ana, Huntington Beach and the remainder of Orange County. Four characteristics of existing conditions are 1) housing supply, 2) vacancy levels, 3) vacancy rates (percent vacant), and 4) future additions to supply. Housing Supply Employment generated by the proposed project will be located in the city of Newport Beach at MacArthur Boulevard and Newport Place Drive. One aspect of the existing environment is the opportunity that the housing ' supply provides in the areas in which the workforce will desire to live. ' 48 I I I L, I I! New employees (households) will desire housing within certain commuting times from the project location which includes the city of Newport Beach and other neighboring communities. Table 12 indicates the housing opportu- nities within the affected market area which includes Newport Beach, Costa Mesa, Irvine, Huntington Beach, Santa Ana and the remainder of Orange County. Table 12 HOUSING SUPPLY CHARACTERISTICS - 1985 Area Housing Units % Vacant Newport Beach 32,843 9.86% Costa Mesa 35,326 2.82 Huntington Beach 67,308 3.41 Santa Ana 69,925 4.30 Irvine 29,795 2.18 Balance of Orange County 538,221 Source: California State Department of Finance, "Housing and Population Estimates for Cities, Unincorporated Areas and Counties," 1985. Vacancy Levels and Rates Another key aspect of the housing environment is the level and rate of vacant housing units. The demand for housing generated by the proposed project can be satisfied by a combination of the existing stock through vacant units and turnover of the housing stock as well as by new construc- tion. As indicated by Table 12 almost ten percent of the housing supply in the city of Newport Beach was vacant as of January 1985. Although these figures seem high, they are not indicative of the actual vacancy rates among available units. For example, the 1980 Census reported that almost half of the vacant units either were "held for occasional use" or "held for other reasons." Rental vacancy surveys conducted in May 1983 indicate that the percent of vacant units ranges between two percent and four percent for multifamily housing (excluding single family and mobile home units). F I Other cities in the market area include, as noted earlier, Costa Mesa, 1 Huntington Beach, Santa Ana and Irvine. The percent of vacant units in , these four cities ranges between two and four percent. In these four cities there are an estimated 6,950 vacant housing units in the inventory of 202,350 dwellings. ' Additions to the Housing Supply New housing units are another source of meeting housing demand. In New- port Beach, new housing will be constructed on vacant as well as already developed land. According to the Housing Element of the General Plan, the 1 ultimate residential capacity of the city is 38,700 dwelling units. The projected housing units are based on the availability in 1984 of an estima- ted vacant residential land inventory of 245 gross acres. The growth pro- ' jections indicate a supply of 35,000 housing unfits by 1990. Consequently, it is estimated that about 2,100 housing units could be added to stock during the next five years. 4.7.2 Impacts , The impact analysis is intended to meet one of the policies adopted as , part of the Housing Element in 1984. The adopted Housing Element contains the following policy statement: ' "The Planning Commission and the developer of pro- posed major commercial/industrial projects shall assess the housing impact of such projects during the development review process. Prior to project approval, a housing impact assessment shall be devel- oped by the city, with the developer's active involve- ment. Such assessment shall indicate the magnitude of jobs to be created by the pro,�ect, where housing ' 0 ortun t es are ex ecte o e ova a e an what measures - public and prIVate — are necessaryf a� to ensure an adequate supply of housing for the pro3ec�fce rTa oarorceo___ _e pro ect.- (emphasis , T 50 I I I I 1 I I I n I I EMPLOYMENT GENERATION The proposed project, which will consist of 280,000 square feet of office space, is another example that the city is a desirable location for such uses. More specifically, the Housing Element contains the following observation: "The intense demand for housing in the city is compli- cated by the fact that employment growth has also been strong in the area. The city has become one of the most desirable office locations, not only within the region, but on an international basis. It is for this reason that demand for office, commercial, and industrial expansion competes with housing demand in the city." The "magnitude of jobs to be created by the project" is estimated on the basis of the city's employment generating factors. Application of these factors to the proposed project results in an estimate of 1,137 jobs to be generated by the project. HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES Commuting time patterns of the workforce in Newport Beach and Orange County are shown in Table 13. The mean travel time was 19 and 22 minutes for the city and county resident workforce, respectively. More than fifty percent of the Newport Beach resident workforce has a journey -to -work of 19 minutes or less. Commuting behavior is directly related to determining the place of residence of the project -induced work force and the impacts on the current and future housing supply. Often the allocation of workers to residential zones is done by applica- tion of a "gravity model" which accounts for employment location, accessi- bility of residential areas and the distance between employment areas and housing areas. However, data are available from the 1980 Census on the actual place of residence of persons working in Newport Beach. At that time, there were 44,200 persons employed in the city and 25 percent also lived in the city. 51 I Table 13 JOURNEY -TO -WORK AND PLACE OF WORK CHARACTERISTICS (City of Newport Beath and Orange County - 1980) Journey -to -Work Time Less than 5 minutes 5 to 9 minutes 15 to 19 minutes 20 to 29 minutes 30 to 44 minutes 45 to 50 minutes 60 minutes plus Median Time (in minutes) Place -of -Work In city Outside city Newport Beach N % 870 2.6 4,504 13.7 5,475 16.6 6,322 19.3 4,658 19.4 1,855 5.6 2,876 8.7 329906 100.0 19 Orange County N % 21,325 2.2 98,908 10.4 1441287 15.2 162,622 17.1 209,336 22.2 61,417 6,5 64.579 6.8 948,634 100.0 22 11,037 36.5% 212,604 25.3% 19,201 63.5% 628,750 74.7 ' 30,238 100.0% 841,354 100.0% Source: Orange County Administrative Office, Forecast and Analysis Center, 1980 Census Selected Population. Transportation. Housinq and House- hold characteristics, hole 3 - Transportation ana commuting Lnar- acter stics or C ties and Unincorporated Areas by Census Tracts. Table construction by Castaneda b Associates. Table 13 shows the percentage distribution of the city's workforce that resided in Costa Mesa, Huntington Beach, Santa Ana, Irvine and the balance of Orange County. That same distribution was applied to the project -in- duced workforce of 1,137 to derive an estimate of their future place of residence. The estimated place of residence of the project workforce is shown in the first column of Table 15. Housing demand is measured by the number of new households. There is not a new household generated for each new worker. The estimate of housing demand is derived from the ratio of workers per household for each city in the affected market area. These ratios were applied to the workforce figures to derive the estimates of the households which are shown in the last column of Table 15. 52 Y I 1 Table 14 PLACE OF RESIDENCE OF NEWPORT BEACH WORKFORCE - 1980 Percentage Place of Residence Number of Workers Distribution Newport Beach 11,037 25.0 Costa Mesa 6,600 14.9 Huntington Beach 4,512 10.2 Santa Ana 3,894 8.8 Irvine 3,588 8.1 Balance 14,581 33.0 44,212 100.0% SOURCE: State Department of Economic Development, Annual Planning Informa- tion, Anaheim, Santa Ana, Garden Grove, Standard Metropo itant Area I98T-1985, "Commuting Patterns for Residents of Orange County," 1980 Census, page S-45. Table 15 PLACE OF RESIDENCE OF NEWPORT BEACH WORKFORCE - 1980 Place Residence of Workers Per Forecasted Of Residence Projected Workers Household Ratio Households Newport Beach 284 1.65 172 Costa Mesa 169 1.39 122 Huntington Beach 116 1.45 80 Santa Ana 100 1.46 68 Irvine 92 1.54 60 Balance 375 1.40 269 of Orange County 1,137 771 SOURCE: Table construction and methodology by Castaneda & Associates. 53 In addition to evaluating housing impacts in absolute numbers, it also is appropriate to gauge relative impacts, To gauge relative impacts, it is necessary to compare the housing demand to the housing opportunities of each city. This is shown in Table 16, which provides information on the projected demand as a percent of all housing units in the supply, in all cases, the quantitative impacts are less than one-half percent. This means that the existing housing supply, through vacant units and/or turn- over, could accommodate the additional demand induced by the project. Table 16 Area RELATIVE HOUSING Housing Units IMPACTS BY AREA - Projected Units 1985 Projected Units As % of All Uni Newport Beach 32,843 172 .52 Costa Mesa 35,326 122 .35 Huntington Beach 67,308 80 .12 Santa Ana 69,925 68 .10 Irvine 29,795 60 .20 2350197 502 .21 SOURCE: Tables 1 and 4. In terms of new housing, the project -induced demand represents eight percent of the potential additions to the housing stock over the next five years. The project alone does not adversely impact the housing market. In addition, all of the statistical findings presented are "worst -case" in that they are based on the assumption that all the jobs are "new" and result in "new" households. Some of the occupants of the office space, however, could be relocating from other complexes in the city. Moreover, the workforce attracted to the project site already could be residing within acceptable commuting times and/or distances. This means they would not choose to move and express a demand for another housing unit. 4.7.3 Mitigation Measures Since the project alone does not adversely impact the city housing market, no mitigation measures are required. 11 P I I 54 ' 4.8 AESTHETICS ' 4.8.1 Existing Conditions The dominant visual features of the project site are surface parking and low structures. Elevations of the existing structures, in relationship to ' surrounding buildings offsite, are of minimal scale. However, the current structures are similar in height to the restaurants and Charles Dunn building to the north. Photos of the site and surroundings illustrate the ' range of architectural styles, scale, bulk and magnitude of building in the area (Exhibits 7 through 10). The Newport Place PC Development Standards were adopted in December 1970. The initial design concept, incorporated into the building area standards, specified maximum building heights in stories for each site. The initial ' maximum story height was six stories. Development standard amendments resulting in increases in building height occurred as early, as July 1973, when standards for site 3A were increased to eight stories. The building height for parcel no. 1 of Resubdivision No. 585 (Mitsui Manufacturing) was increased to ten stories in July 1978. Parcel 2 of Resubdivision 585 was also amended to allow a building height of seven stories in March 1981. After its initial adoption, nineteen amendments have been added to ' the development standards. The overall design concept initially estab- lished for the planned community was that of a central focus near the cen- ter of the community, with lower structures at the edges of the community. While the integrity of this design concept has been partially maintained, height increased in other locations within the community have occurred. ' The Apple facility (1500 Quail) is seven stories. The Sheraton Hotel (4545 MacArthur) is 7-10 stories in height. Each of these projects has widened the "focus" once established by the Mitsui Manufacturers building. ' Change in design character and structure height of the surrounding areas is occurring. Several buildings of twelve or more stories have been built ' or are under construction along MacArthur Boulevard, along Jamboree Boulevard and at more interior locations to these arterials. Chi 1 55 r I I I A. CONTINENTAL - DUNN 13. RHODES - BIDNA C. BANK OF AMERICA I0 5* NEWPORT Site Photo Index BANK OF AMERICA NEWPORT PLACE DRIVE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH U2� 13 .. EXHIBIT 7 Site Photos BANK OF AMERICA NEWPORT PLACE DRIVE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2 EXHIBIT 8 I d I L I I L Site Photos BANK OF AMERICA NEWPORT PLACE DRIVE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Ci EXHIBIT 9 9 • i :�' GGam.. r � I 3.- _ � .� rac�� / ILI •IL , -ti• ,.� + 4 r•,j . r ' 4.8.2 Impacts The proposed project will result in replacement of the current structure with an office building and adjoining multi -level parking structure. The office facade will be of granite and glass. The scale, height and charac- ' ter of onsite land uses will change substantially (Exhibit 11). However, a wide range of architectural styles and height may occur in an area with- ' out adverse aesthetic impacts. No substantial demonstrable negative asesthetic effects are evident due to the proposed project. L I� F Shade/shadow analysis of the area is presented in Exhibit 12. As shown, morning shade (8 a.m.) from the proposed project will extend westward over Site 5 across the site toward the Wells Fargo Realty Finance building (1600 Dove). The morning shadow impact is not significant. The proposed project shade/shadow will shift by noon and decrease in length as the sun rises so the Charles Dunn -Continental building (4141 MacArthur Boulevard) will receive noontime shading from the proposed office and parking structure. Late afternoon shade/shadows from the pro- posed project will extend eastward (4 p.m.) across MacArthur Boulevard to the Pacific Club facilities (4110 MacArthur Boulevard) and the parking structure will partially shade the E1 Torito Restaurant (4221 Dolphin Striker Court). Temporary shading of adjacent office structures is not considered a signi- ficant impact and no sensitive areas (dining, garden, pool or hotel areas) will be impacted for extended periods of time. However, late afternoon shadows (4 p.m.) will extend across MacArthur Boulevard to a portion of the Pacific Club and adjoining pond and partially shade the E1 Torito Restaurant. Since shading is temporary and the intensity of shading is not expected to be unusual for an urban area, the resulting impacts are not considered significant. 4.8.3 Mitigation Measures 1. No mitigation measures are required. 7 �J 56 L3ro% ient onrt►r►m !e 8:00a.m. �I 12:OOp.m. •� �. {+wfiTNC+FYS •vG.:.FR:J'�. Y Co oNewport Place Drive 0 p� Potential Shade/Shadow Impact BANK OF AMERICA NEWPORT PLACE DRIVE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH i Note: All Conditions For 21st Of December Source: Site Planning For Solar Access, U.S. Dept Of H.U.D. 1 -250' `EXHIBIT 12 I 1 I 4.9 PUBLIC SERVICES/UTILITIES The intensification of land uses on the project site will increase the demand for public services and facilities. Those agencies and organiza- tions which provide public services, facilities, and utilities were con- tacted for information on their ability to meet the increased demand at the project site. The written responses from these contacts are included in Appendices C or G. 4.9.1 Existing Conditions Fire Protection Fire protection is provided to the project site by the Newport Beach Fire Department-1 The nearest fire stations, services, and equipment are: ' Distance Response Intersection From Site Time Equipment Campus/Quail2 3/4 mile 1 minute 3-man pumper Santa Barbara/ Jamboree 3 miles 6 minutes 3-man pumper ' 4-man aerial ladder 2-man paramedic squad 1 P 1 The city of Newport Beach contracts annually from the Orange County Fire District for fire services from the Campus/Quail fire station, which is a county facility. If this contract is not renewed in the future, the Santa Barbara/ Jamboree and the Irvine/Mariners stations would serve the project site. (The Irvine/Mariners station is 3.5 miles from the site and has a 3-man pumper.) Police Protection The project site is within the service area of the Newport Beach Police Department.3 The city police department is located on Santa Barbara Drive 1 Correspondence with Don Jones, Deputy Chief, Newport Beach Fire Depart- ment, June 1985. 2 Campus/Quail fire station is an Orange County Fire District facility. 3 Correspondence with Al Dollar, Officer, Planning and Research, Newport Beach Police Department, June 1985. 57 near Jamboree Road and provides security services to 68,000 residents. It is a full service police department with over 200 employees and 138 sworn members. Response times to the project site vary with the location of per- sonnel and other activity in the city, however, response time is routinely only minutes. In addition, the department is involved in mutual aid agree- ments with neighboring cities should a situation require additional manpower. Solid Waste Solid waste disposal is provided to office and commercial establishments in Newport Beach by private contract haulers licensed by the city.l Two such contractors are G.S.X., a subsidiary of Genstar, and Dewey's Rubbish Service, a subsidiary of Waste Management, Inc. Most haulers in the Newport Beach area dispose of solid waste in Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill, which is located between Turtle Rock in Irvine and the northeast portion of Newport Beach.2 The Coyote Canyon landfill is scheduled for closure in 1988. Remaining capacity of the landfill at this time is 7.2 million cubic yards. Upon closure of Coyote Canyon, solid waste is proposed to be disposed at Bee Canyon, near E1 Toro Marine Corps Air Station, east of the city of Irvine. Using Orange County gen- eration factors, the site currently generates the following estimated amounts of solid waste: Use Employees3 Generation Factor4 Tons Year Commercial 140 2.5 lbs/emp/day 64 1 Correspondence with Wade Beyeler, General Services Department, Newport Beach, June 1985. 2 Telephone conversation with Po Wang, Orange County General Services Agency, August 1985. 3 Estimate based on one employee per 250 square feet. 4 Telephone conversation with Po Wang, Orange County General Services Agency, August 1985. m I ' Electricity The site is currently served by Southern California Edison Company.1 An eight -foot SCE easement is located adjacent to Newport Place Drive on the ' project site. The electric company plans to meet projected electricity demands within the project area and the proposed project needs are within the company's projections. Unless area needs exceed SCE's plans for new 1 generation resources, electricity supply will be adequate for the area. Natural Gas The project site lies within the service area of Southern California Gas Company.2 The gas company indicated that it can service the project without significant impacts based on the company's projected supplies. Telephone ' Pacific Bell provides telephone service to the project site and indicates the company can provide the needed service to the project.3 ' Water Water is supplied to the project site by the Newport Beach Utilities t Department; 100 percent of this water is provided by the Metropolitan Water District (MWD).4 The existing demand for water at the site is esti- mated using the city's factors as indicated below. Land Use Acreage Demand Factor Demand Fire Flow Commercial 3.1 3.0 AF/ac./yr. 9.3 AF/yr. 3,000+ (up to 2 stories) The site currently requires an estimated 9.3 acre-feet of water per year. ' On an average day the site requires 5.8 gallons per minute (GPM) and on a maximum day, the site requires 11.5 GPM. 1 Correspondence with M.D. Martin, Service Planner, Southern California Edison Company, June 1985. 2 Telephone conversation with Mr. Nelson, Marketing, Southern California Gas Company, July 1985. 3 Telephone conversation with Dennis Lansing, Engineer, Pacific Bell, July 1985. 4 Correspondence with Paul Malkemus, Utilities Engineer, Newport Beach Utilities Department, July 1985. 5 Estimated gross acreage. 59 I The MWD imports water from northern California through the State Water Pro- ject, and from the Colorado River. Although the ►+WD contracted in 1960 with the California Department of Water Resources for delivery of about two million acre-feet per year by 1990, the actual amount of water cur- rently delivered and anticipated in the future is much less. The MWD cur- rently receives approximately 700,000 acre-feet per year from northern California and 700,000 acre-feet per year from the Colorado River. This will be further reduced since MWD must incrementally return a portion of its Colorado River water entitlement to the Central Arizona Project on an annual basis. Thus the project may impact regional water resources. Wastewater The Newport Beach Utilities Department provides wastewater service to the project site.l However, wastewater collection is managed by the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD), and treatment occurs at the plant in Fountain Valley.2 The project will be served by the district's MacArthur Pump Station. The MacArthur Pump Station is a deficient facility. How- ever, improvements should be Completed in two years. Ultimately the pro- ject will be served by the Von Kaman Trunk Sewer which is currently under construction. OCSO indicates that adequate service is available for the project. Hospital Hoag Memorial Hospital is the major hosital located nearest the project site. It is a full service hospital with 471 beds and a 24-hour emergency room.3 Hoag Memorial, in addition to numerous smaller hospitals in the vicinity, can service the project. 1 Correspondence with Paul Malkemus, Utilities Engineer, Newport Beach Utilities Department, July 1985. 2 Correspondence from Thomas Dawes, Deputy Chief Engineer, Orange County Sanitation Districts, June 1985. 3 Telephone conversation with Diane Wilner, Director of Planning, Hoag Memorial Hospital, July 1985. 1] I I F 1 I t I I IJ :1 I I E I I L I Transit Orange County Transit District (OCTD) provides transit services in the project area. OCTD operates one route along MacArthur Boulevard; the route extends from Von Karman Avenue in Irvine to Fashion Island Shopping Center at Newport Center Drive. The bus stops nearest the project site are at the intersections of Bowsprit Drive, Newport Place Drive, and Birch Street. OCTD is also the rideshare agency in Orange County. 4.9.2 Impacts Fire Protection The project will add to areawide demand for fire protection and paramedic services. Adequate project access will be required to the site and also to tall buildings. The project will require sufficient water storage for potentially needed fireflows. The project in and of itself will not require an additional fire station, equipment or personnel. Police Protection Demand upon police protection services is not anticipated to increase sig- nificantly due to the project. Since the site is currently developed and patrolled, the project would not add to a patrol area; however, an in- crease in population in the area will increase demand for police services. Solid Waste The project will increase demand for solid waste collection from private haulers. Solid waste generation at the site will increase with the addi- tion of office and commercial square footage. The estimated additional solid waste generation at the site upon buildout is as follows: ,Net Net Use Employeesl Tons/Year2 Commercial 997 455 1 Estimate derived from city generation factors. 2 Includes solid waste generated by existing land uses. 61 This increase of 484 tons per year of waste generated at the site will in- crementally add to the increase in solid waste tonnage being disposed of In Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill. Unanticipated increases in disposal at the landfill will shorten the landfill lifespan. Due to the low capa- city remaining at Coyote Canyon and rapid growth in the area, the project could have a cumulatively significant impact on county solid waste dispo- sal facilities. However, assuming the approval and opening of the Bee Canyon Landfill, no significant impact to solid waste disposal facilities is anticipated. Electricity The project will utilize an additional estimated 3,398 megawatt -hours of electricity annually upon buildout (approximately 434 megawatt hours are currently utilized onsite).1 This is not considered a significant impact upon electrical resources. Natural Gas The completed project will utilize an additional estimated 6.7 million cubic feet of natural gas per year. (An estimated 0.9 million cubic feet is currently utilized at the site.)2 This is not anticipated to be a significant impact upon natural gas resources. Telephone The project will increase demand for telephone service and facilities. This is not considered a significant impact. Water The project will demand an additional 3.1 acre-feet of water per year of operation above current demand on the site. Five -thousand or more gallons per minute (an increase of 21000+ GPM) must also be available for fire - flows. 1 Based upon SCAQMD factors for energy consumption. Refer to Appendix F, Air Quality Assumptions, for calculations. 2 Ibid. 62 Land Use Acreage l Demand Factor Demand Fireflow Commercial 3.1 4.0 AF/ac./yr. 12.4 AF/yr. 5,000+ GPM (2+ stories) (special design) In view of potentially diminishing regional water supplies, the project will incrementally add to cumulatively significant demands for water in the region. Wastewater The OCSD indicates that the treatment plant at Fountain Valley has ade- quate capacity for treatment of the project's flows. Thus the project should not impact the wastewater treatment facility significantly. In addition, the deficient MacArthur Pump Station is currently being improved. Hospital The project is not anticipated to impact significantly the provision of hospital services. Transit The project will increase demand for transit services i-n the area. Although this project will not require additional transit service in and of itself, the cumulative impacts of new developments in the area may require additional service or facilities. 4.9.3 Mitigation Measures Fire Protection 1. The project shall comply with the 1985 edition of the Uniform Building Code and all local amendments. 1 Estimated gross acreage. 63 I 2. Prior to approval of a site plan and building designs, all-weather access, water supply needs, and alarm and evacuation designs should be approved by the fire department. Police Protection 1. The project shall be adequately lighted with low -shadow lighting. 2. Building addresses shall be clearly marked for easy location. Solid Waste 1. The business uses within the project shall consider the feasibility of a recycling program for solid waste generated onsite. 2, Trash compactors shall be utilized to the extent feasible to provide more effective trash disposal. Electricity 1. Project planners and architects shall consult with Southern California Edison for current energy -conserving techniques and apply these measures if feasible. 2. Project planners and architects shall consider energy -efficient and energy -conserving design techniques which reduce long-term demand for electricity (and thus combustion of fossil fuels) such as the follow- ing: a. Utilization of energy -conserving appliances and systems such as heating/cooling and lighting systems, b. Architectural planning which takes advantage of natural heating and cooling through sun and wind exposures and solar energy collection, proper insulation, and tinted windows; 1 1 L' 1 64 II II IF II c. Hot water systems which utilize alternative energy sources (eg., solar) and proper insulation of hot water pipes. Natural Gas 1. Project planners and architects should request consultation on gas conservation techniques from Southern California Gas Company and apply the recommended measures as feasible. 2. The energy conservation techniques described above will also reduce demands for natural gas. Telephone No mitigation measures are required. Water 1. The project shall construct any additional onsite water distribution facilities required by the new development. 2. The project shall pay the standard connection fees. 3. All applicable policies and regulations of the State Water Resources Board shall be implemented and incorporated into building of struc- tures and site development. Included are low -flow showers, low -flow faucets, low -flush toilets, and water -conserving appliances and irriga- tion systems. 4. Where feasible, reclaimed water should be utilized for non -contact purposes such as irrigation. 5. Drought -tolerant plants shall be utilized in landscaping. Extensively landscaped areas should be mulched to enhance the soil's water -holding capacity. 65 I 6. Efficient irrigation systems which minimize runoff and evaporation should be installed. Irrigation should be automatically timed during early morning hours to minimize waste and evaporation. Wastewater 1. The project shall provide all onsite wastewater facilities made neces- sary by the new development. 2. The project shall contribute proportionally to any offsite improve- ments required by the project. 3. The project shall pay the standard sewer connection fees. 4. Policies and regulations of the State Water Resources Board shall be applied and incorporated into the building of structures and site development in order to reduce the project's wastewater collection and treatment requirements. Hospital No mitigation measures are required. Transit 1. Pedestrian walkways (handicapped accessible) should be provided from the proposed project to MacArthur Boulevard for convenient access to bus facilities. 2. The project should establish a rideshare program in conjunction with CCTD for the project employees. Carpool and vanpool matching services could be provided as well as information on implementing demand manage- ment strategies for this service. I I I I L! I 1 r I t 66 J ' 5.0 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS Project -related impacts which are considered to be both unavoidable and adverse in nature are listed below. The summary section contained at the ' beginning of this report provides a listing of all significant project impacts and mitigation measures. J C' I I u D The project will incrementally intensify the urban character of the area and will result in increased traffic, air pollutant emissions, and noise levels within the immediate vicinity. The project will result in approximately 1,137 additional permanent employees. While it can be assumed that a major portion of new employees will be provided through the local labor market, a certain portion will be drawn from outside and will thus increase demand for housing, partially within the "affordable" range. The project is anticipated to generate 4,294 additional daily vehicle trips of which 625 will occur in the PM peak hour. Temporary conges- tion may occur in the immediate area and area intersections will be at or beyond their design capacity. Project implementation will incrementally add to demand for major new infrastructure in the area including circulation improvements, fire protection, water systems and electrical facilities. Project implementation will add to the cumulative demand for finite resources such as energy and water. 1 67 11 iI [li 6.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT This section defines and discusses a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed projects which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project consistent with Section 15126 of the CEQA Guidelines. The alternatives addressed in this section include a "No Project" alternative, six -story, nine -story and twelve -story office alternatives. The alter- natives are conceptual and do not represent actual projects. Since the parking structure will serve all buildings on Site 5, combined statistics for existing projects and project alternatives are presented. 6.1 NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE The California Environmental Quality Act requires that all environmental Impact reports include a comparative evaluation of the "No Project" alter- native. The no project alternative in this case consists of continuing the existing office and bank uses on the proposed site. The following section provides a brief description of the impacts associated with each scenario. A quantitative comparison of the alternatives is shown in Table 17. The data shown are estimates resulting from differing scenarios and do not reflect specific projects. The data is for general comparison only. Site -specific design studies are necessary to determine the precise parking requirements, levels of multi -level parking structures, etc. Relative to the proposed project, the no project alternative has only 114,079 square feet of office uses and employs approximately 446 employ- ees. The no project alternative generates approximately 5,752 trip ends. The environmental impacts of the no project alternative, relative to the proposed project, reflect the differences in traffic levels generated by each project. Air quality and acoustical impacts are minimized accord- ingly. Aesthetically, the height and bulk of the proposed project would not occur. Potential housing impacts and demand for public service/utili- ties are reduced accordingly. In light of the market demand for office space in the airport area and some degree of underutilization onsite, the project location is likely to 3] Table 17 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES STATISTICS (Site 5 - Proposed Project, Rhodes-Bidna and Continental -Dunn Offices) Proposed No Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Item Project Project 6-Story 9-Story 12-Story Offices Total Sq. Ft. 392,568 114,079 216,718 271,568 331,568 Sq. Ft. Added 300,000 21$11 124,150 1790000 2390000 F.A.R.4 1.33 0.39 0.74 0.92 1.13 Maximum stories 15 2 6 9 12 Employees 1,498 446 8456 1,0596 1,293 Parkin Spacesl 1,441 380 722 1,239 19105 Levels2 4 2 2 3 4 Approx. Sq. Ft. 443,750 1149029 221,875 3320812 374,800 Traffic Trip Ends 900465 4,7525 6,0876 6,8006 802537 1 Assumes one space per 225 square feet with a 25 percent reduction for elevators, etc. 2 Assumes one level underground for multi -level Structure above three levels. 3 Total square footage of parking structure. 4 Floor area ratio (FAR) is based on 6.76 net acres for Site 5. Parking is excluded in the total square footage. 5 Based on 13 trip ends per thousand square feet for office use. 6 Assumes bank and office use only. 7 See Tables 1 and 2 in Section 4.1 for data assumptions for restaurant and racquetball courts. 69 ' experience some development intensification in the near future. The no project alternative does not preclude generating secondary potential envi- ronmental impacts; demand for office space may merely shift to other loca- tions within the planned community or in the general area. While the no ' project alternative disregards potential market opportunities and addi- tional tax revenues, it is not rejected on environmental grounds and ' should be considered the environmentally superior alternative. 6.2 ALTERNATIVE i - SIX -STORY OFFICE This alternative assumes the project site is redeveloped at lower inten- ' sity than the proposed project, in conformance with the existing Newport Place development height standards. However, the maximum building area ' and related standards may need to be revised. Alternative 1 would include 124,150 square feet of office uses, resulting in 216,718 square feet and ' employ approximately 845 employees on Site 5. This alternative would generate approximately 67 percent of the trips generated by the proposed ' project. The recreational and commercial uses may be eliminated if the project size decreases. The relative environmental impacts compared to ' the proposed project, for air quality and acoustics, are related to the difference in traffic levels. Aesthetically, the height of Alternative 1 would be comparable to the Commerce Bank and Bank of California. Mitsui ' Manufacturers Bank would remain the tallest building within the planned community. Potential housing impacts and demand for public services/utili- ties are reduced accordingly to the reduction in the number of employees and square footage. Alternative i is not rejected on environmental ' grounds and should be considered in the review process. Alternative 1 is considered an environmentally superior alternative because of the lower ' levels of traffic generated and correspondingly lower air quality and acoustical impacts. However, the difference in magnitude between the traf- fic impacts of Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 is not substantial. Com- pared to the proposed project, Alternatives 1-3 may be less acceptable to the project applicant because of the decreases in square footage. 1 1 70 ' 6.3 ALTERNATIVE 2 - NINE -STORY OFFICE Alternative 2 would result in the addition of 179,000 square feet in a 9-story structure and result in 271,568 square feet on Site S. The alter- native would employ approximately 700 employees. Amendments similar to the proposed project would be required. Alternative 2 would generate approximately 75 percent of the proposed project traffic or 6,800 trips. ' Air quality and acoustical impacts would be reduced accordingly. Aestheti- cally, the alternative would result in a project of similar height to ' Mitsui Manufacturers Bank. Quantitatively, the potential housing and pub- lic service impacts of Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 are not signifi- cantly different. Alternative 2 is not rejected on environmental grounds and should be considered in the review process. , 6.4 ALTERNATIVE 3 - TWELVE -STORY OFFICE , Alternative 3 assumes that a 239,000 square -foot office facility is added onsite in a 12-story structure, resulting in 331,568 square feet on Site , 5. The offices would employ approximately 10293 employees and generate approximately 8,253 trip ends. Planned community amendments similar to ' the proposed project would be required. Alternative 4 would generate approximately 91 percent of the traffic generated by the proposed project- Related potential environmental impacts for air quality and acoustics ' would be reduced accordingly. Aesthetically, Alternative 4 would result in a project similar to the proposed Brinderson Towers facility located t near MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Boulevard. Like the proposed pro- ject, Alternative 3 would result in development of the tallest building ' within the Newport Place PC. Housing impacts for Alternative 3 and the proposed project are likely similar. Alternative 3 is not rejected on environmental grounds and should be considered in the review process. , 11 71 1 ' The Bank of America/Newport Place project is reflective of recent develop- ment within the surrounding communities of Irvine, Newport Beach, Costa Mesa, and parts of Santa Ana Heights (Table 11). The proposed project is an extension of the growth and development that has occurred over the past several years in the airport area. ' The proposed office development is similar in design and concept as others which presently exist in Koll Center/Newport, and Koll Center/Irvine. The ' office area fronts onto the major arterials across which lie the major office, commercial, and hotel complexes of Newport Beach and Irvine. ' The project is reflective of recently approved projects increasing the ' approved intensity of development. The city of Newport Beach approved a General Plan amendment in 1983 increasing the intensity of office uses in ' the MacArthur Court projects. The city of Irvine also has increased sub- stantially the intensity of development in the Irvine Business Complex (eg., Koll Center Irvine -North, Jamboree Center) and has provided for ' considerable conversion of industrial land to office and hotel use. Also, the city of Costa Mesa has approved dramatic increases in allowable devel- opment in the South Coast Metro, Town Center, Corporate Center, and Home Ranch areas. 72 ' 7.0 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND ENHANCE- MENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY The proposed project represents a long-term commitment to the on -going intensification of office and commercial uses in the area surrounding John Wayne Airport. Inasmuch as the project site is located within a highly t urbanized area of the city designated for industrial, commercial and office uses, the proposed project may be considered compatible with the ' city's existing long-range planning objectives. The project site is already committed to an urban use. The proposed pro- ject will act to increase productivity in the surrounding area in terms of increased land use efficiency, generation of new employment and increased ' revenues to businesses in the vicinity as well as revenues to the city of Newport Beach. This intensification of use in existing urban areas can be ' considered consistent with the urban development policies of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and the state of California. �l C 8.0 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF ENERGY SUPPLIES AND OTHER NONRENEWABLE RESOURCES The proposed project involves redevelopment of an existing urban use and, as such, does not affect a natural setting. The site is already committed to urban use and all previously existing flora and fauna were displaced by ' the existing use. ' Implementation of the proposed project will, however, represent a long- term commitment of a number of non-renewable resources. The proposed pro- ject will incrementally diminish existing supplies of fossil fuels and natural resources which can be considered limited, such as lumber and forest products, sand and gravel, and other building .products. Lastly, ' water, which is a limited resource, will be consumed during construction and throughout the life of the project. 74 I I I 9.0 GROWTH -INDUCING IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT Implementation of the project will significantly increase the intensity of use on the site and may generate a number of growth -inducing 'effects. Given the extent of development which has already occurred, that which has been recently approved, and the limited availability of undeveloped pro- perty not already approved for development, it is doubtful this project will have a significant cumulative growth -inducing effect. It is much more a reflection of growth and redevelopment already occurring in the region. The density of the project reflects existing market conditions, and evolving consumer demands. The proposed project will foster economic growth in the immediate vicinity by providing increased employment opportunities and a new employment center. Additionally, in conjunction with other past, present, and reason- ably foreseeable future projects, the proposed project will incrementally add to economic and population growth in the southern California region. New employment opportunities or transfer of employment opportunities from other business locations may attract new residents to the area. The magni- tude of these potential impacts are evaluated in Section 4.7. The housing impacts analysis concludes that the existing housing supply could accommo- date the additional demand created by the project. Increased employment opportunities are generally regarded as beneficial. The completion of the proposed project may be expected to provide some degree of inducement to the development (or intensification of develop- ment) in the surrounding area. It is not assumed that growth in the project area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little signifi- cance to the environment. The ongoing trend of intensification of use in the project area is occur- ring by the city., and is incorporated into the review of plan proposals. Each amendment to the planned community development standards requires dis- cretionary approval by the city. Similarly, the Traffic Phasing Ordinance must be complied with, or an override to ordinance provisions granted. Both provisions provide opportunities for city officials to evaluate the growth -inducement effects of proposed projects. 75 The Bank of America/Newport Place project is reflective of recent develop- , ment within the surrounding communities of Irvine, Newport Beach, Costa Mesa, and parts of Santa Ana Heights (Table 11). The proposed project is ' an extension of the growth and development that has occurred over the past several years in the airport area. , The proposed office development is similar in design and concept as others ' which presently exist in Koll Center/Newport, and Koll Center/Irvine. The office area fronts onto the major arterials across which lie the major office, commercial, and hotel complexes of Newport Beach and Irvine. ' The project is reflective of recently approved projects increasing the ' approved intensity of development. The city of Newport Beach approved a General Plan amendment in 1983 increasing the intensity of office uses in , the MacArthur Court projects. The city of Irvine also has increased sub- stantially the intensity of development in the Irvine Business Complex ' (eg., Koll Center Irvine -North, Jamboree Center) and has provided for considerable conversion of industrial land to office and hotel use. Also, the city of Costa Mesa has approved dramatic increases in allowable devel- opment in the South Coast Metro, Town Center, Corporate Center, and Home Ranch areas. I �I II 76 1 10.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT Over the last decade, an increased degree of interest has been expressed ' in the cumulative impacts of growth, reflecting an awareness that major land use proposals, when considered with other similar development, may be ' environmentally significant. The city of Newport Beach has established procedures for evaluating cumulative impacts by identifying total commit- ted projects and incorporating cumulative impacts into the transportation ' analysis via the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Both procedures are incorpor- ated into this analysis. Cumulative traffic impacts were discussed in ' Section 4.1. The city of Newport Beach's list of committed, approved but not committed, and proposed projects list is included as Table 18 and ' Exhibit 13. For purposes of examining the potential cumulative impacts of growth in ' the project area, the city of Newport Beach Committed Projects List was reviewed for projects located in the immediate area. The cities of Irvine ' and Costa Mesa, and Orange County were also contacted to obtain informa- tion on committed projects. Project locations are shown in Exhibit 13 and ' Table 18 lists project characteristics and projections of employees and trips generated by the committed projects. Committed projects are defined ' by the city of Newport Beach as those that have received all necessary approvals, including the Traffic Phasing Ordinance approval; but are not yet fully constructed and occupied. Correspondence related to committed projects is included in Appendix G. ' Projects which are approved but not committed, or proposed in the surround- ing areas outside of the Newport Place PC are listed in Table 19. As ' shown, the Santa Ana Heights Land Use Compatibility Program may include approximately 1.9 million square feet of business park uses and an addi- tional 1.1 million square feet of office uses is approved. An additional 631,644 square feet of office space is approved but not committed in the Bayview project, which is discussed in Section 4.5.1. 1 It is presently anticipated that the Bank of America/Newport Place project ' will be developed by 1987. It is not reasonable to expect that all com- mitted projects listed in Table 18 will occur within the same time frame. ' 77 Table 18 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COMMITTED PROJECTS LISTING COMMITTED PROJECTS The city requires that all projects in excess of 10,000 square feet of gross floor area or ten residential units comply with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). Once a project has received all necessary approvals, including TPO approval, it is considered a "committed" project for pur- poses of projecting traffic generation related to future development. Projects within Newport Beach which are committed, but not yet fully con- structed and occupied, are listed below and shown in Exhibit 13, The traffic analysis contained in the Traffic and Circulation section of this EIR is based upon consideration of the proposed project as well as committed projects listed. COMMITTED PROJECTS - JUNE 1986 Name Use Quantity 1. Hoag Hospital Hospital 268 beds 2. Pacesetter Homes Office 50,000 sq. ft. 3. Aeronutronic Ford Residential 300 units 4. Back Bay Office Office 69,790 sq. ft. 5. Civic Plaza Restaurant 80000 sq. ft. Theater 20,000 sq, ft. 6. Corporate Plaza Office 10IS150 sq. ft. 8. MacArthur Court Office 258,000 sq. ft, 9. National Education Office (Revised) Office 41,250 sq. ft. 10. Sheraton Hotel Expansion Hotel 119 rooms 11. Newport Place Office 194,411 sq. ft. 12, Shokrian Office 24,000 sq. ft. 13. Sea Island Residential 132 units 15. Harbor Point Homes Residential 21 units 16. Rudy Baron Office 8,500 sq. ft. Retail 7,500 sq. ft, 17. Martha's Vineyard Office 150831 sq. ft. Restaurant 2,920 sq. ft. 18. Valdez-3101 W. Coast Highway Office 410494 sq. ft, 19. Coast Business Center Office 37,000 sq. ft. 20. Koll Center Newport and No. 1 TPP Office 79650 sq. ft. Fla I �J J C F I Table 18 (cont'd) Name Use Quantity 21. Ford Aeronutronic Industrial 120,OOO sq. ft. 23. GPA 81-1, Banning Ranch Residential 406 units Industrial 164,400 sq. ft. Office 235,600 sq. ft. 24. Park Lido Medical Office 65,269 sq. ft. 25. Heritage Bank Office 17,465 sq. ft. Medical Office 13,323 sq. ft. Commercial 6,100 sq. ft. 26. Flagship Convalescent Hospital 68 beds 27. Big Canyon 10 Residential 21 units 28. Balboa Marina Fun Zone Retail 16,165 sq. ft. Office 26,320 sq. ft. Restaurant 6,866 sq. ft. 29. GPA 81-3, Marriott Hotel Expansion Hotel 234 rooms 30. St. Andrew's Church Expansion Church 1,400 person cap. 31. YMCA (Expansion) Recreational 45,000 sq. ft. 32. Allred Condos Residential 50 units 34. Four Seasons Hotel Hotel 325 rooms 35. Block 400 Medical (GPR 81-2) Medical Office 80,000 sq. ft. 36. North Ford (GPA 82-1) Residential 888 units Park 12 acres Commercial 50,000 sq. ft. 37. MacArthur Court/Koll Center Newport "Block C" Office 295,000 sq. ft. 38. Belcourt Area-8 (Revised) Residential 130 units 39. Carver Office Office 15,000 sq. ft. 40. Corona del Mar Homes Residential 40 units 41. Big Canyon Villa Apartments Residential 80 units 42. 1400 Dove Street Office 16,154 sq. ft. 43. 1100 Quail Street Office 1,091 sq. ft. 44. Superior Avenue Medical Medical Office 43,470 sq. ft. 45. Auer Office (Block 500) Office 23,500 sq. ft. 46. Villa Point Apartments Residential 154 units 47. Rosan Industries Redevelopment Restaurant 7,828 sq. ft. Retail 6,303 sq. ft. Office 23,380 sq. ft. 48. Newport Aquatic Center Recreational 18,228 sq. ft. 49. 2600 East Coast Highway Office 21,776 sq. ft. 50. Jasmine Park Residential 47 units 51. MacArthur Associates Bank/Office 32,460 sq. ft. 52. Newporter Inn Expansion Hotel 104 rooms 53. Bayview Office 631,644 sq. ft. Commercial 36,000 sq. ft. Residential 233 units Hotel 250 rooms 79 Table 18 (cont'd) Name Use Quantity TOTAL COMMITTED PROJECTS: Office Medical Office Commercial/Retail Restaurants Industrial Theater Hospital Residential Hotel Church Recreational Park APPROVED BUT NOT COMMITTED PROJECTS 2,188,396 sq, ft. 202,062 sq. ft. 1220568 sq. ft. 25,614 sq. ft. 284,400 sq. ft. 20,000 sq. ft. 336 beds 2,505 units 1,082 rooms 1,400 persons cap. 63,228 sq. ft. 12 acres The following projects have received approval by the City Council, but have not yet complied with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Consequently, they 'are not considered committed projects. A. GPA 81-2 1, Caltrans West 2. Office/Industrial B. Newport Center Residential C. Newport Dunes PROPOSED PROJECTS Residential 143 units Office/Industrial 439000 sq. ft. Residential 367 units Hotel 250 rooms In addition to committed and approved (but not committed) projects, sev- eral other projects and plans are in the planning process. These projects and plans require additional approvals by the city and/or other governmen- tal agencies and are listed below and shown in Exhibit 15. Statistics for specific area plans indicate additional allowable development based upon existing zoning. J 1 [I rI L E. Fifth Avenue Parcle Residential 115 units F. GPA 83-1 (D) ' Fifth Avenue/MacArthur Blvd. Residential 96 units G. Specific Area Plans (not currently in progress) 1. Central Balboa (6/82) Commercial 621,730 sq. ' ft, 2. West Newport Study Area Commercial 2,915,140 sq. ft. (6/82) 3. Mariners Mile (1976) Commercial 302,011 sq, ft, ' 4. Corona del Mar (6/82) Commercial 11283,933 sq. ft. Residential 273 units :, i ' Table 18 (cont'd) H. Cannery Village/McFadden Commercial 2,840,076 sq. ft. Square Specific Plan Industrial' 722,309 sq. ft. J. GPA 84-2 U.S. Post Office Commercial 60,000 sq. ft. ' (North Ford Area 2) (estimate) K. National Education Corp. Office 81,624 sq. ft. ' L. Pacesetter Homes Office 55,000 sq. ft. M. Newport Lido Medical Medical Office 85,000 sq. ft. ' N. Crown House Residential Elder Hotel 87 units P. Newport Center Office/Retail 1,500,000 sq. ft. ' Residential 700 units TOTAL PROPOSED PROJECTS: Industrial 722,309 sq. ft. Office 1,650,735 sq. ft. Medical Office 85,000 sq. ft. ' Residential Hotel 87 units Commercial 8,022,890 sq. ft. Residential 1,184 units iOTHER CONSIDERATIONS Planning and circulation issues pertaining to the project should be evalu- ated not only in the context of other developments, General Plan amend- ments, and specific area plans (as discussed above), but also should be considered in light of other road and transit improvement plans. The city ' of Newport Beach has been conducting studies analyzing such plans. The city and state are participating in studies to widen Pacific Coast Highway ' from MacArthur Boulevard to Newport Boulevard. The county of Orange and state of California are also presently participating in studies for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. These plans and studies may ' eventually effect the transportation system in the city and region and may also ultimately effect growth in the region. II II 81 Y dam. Y t---•IR�"'""�� ti • 1i• ' u / \a t 4aW T i Committed, Approved And Proposed Projects City- of Newport Beach BANK OF AMERICA NEWPORT PLACE DRIVE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH d 20 J g�I/�+ V �• 1 4'� ' \ \\ '1 Imo':.,. %; '- '_�,J �+; _ :,J •c NN l^f i.;�`' � 33 it '\�_��"j`-�-;r''• _ yy.! iV .f',T Q yiNtT T.N'YyC��=trvtF. �Xl 21 Yr \ '\ m t.:f.•s'a'4.'v++\\f. cam• 41 '�ly/��ir-_ �c!. .�- "''+��'�. t,rS�t' _.' •.-�_ L: �\ C4_•TF'�-� I��/�-':. \F ~`:�-• rn ��'F°1,-t�.�l± ?�'c, =,: �o-.'r __ `_.-�t •_ _ 'f�%-�:. �•�4%�`Jiw .15'!,'tti.i.'�r� i �� =� CAqN .c ``i1q.' �\ L'- _ ,"--iy.nh- •�(:,-t" �.., .^`-.:�:I /`'•�'„j i 4.h'vya'_�_.Y•\ .; �Tm t') ^� u• ✓i'i�:-.-f F. ..l s' S `t �\ - Z(—/i ,l-. / <_". .ilrt': .±-.. �'i I e`ti , •/ 34` - •• � � art..._ -,�` '' ..% ...'' 452 ' �11a 29 Q _.35'' 'y5lyu 'P�.c� .L-'_l-,-"'s`J�i` ei%s _. �" �,;yt13 •.o. ji`- ? r\:, Y'!-T-•:.. �'.�:p�r? Cf•.{ e e - 46 - 33 " '6 5Q •. �� - _. l,� •v• �.+ j��—� 'w- -_.`r ,a ,a.�1B-;,� �4t-4.9..::: 441;. •..': �y ,�iri .- ... ... ;?3: F='FIB;-= SOURCE *CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH - ', o E : a NOTE: SEE TABLE 17 EXHIBIT 13 I ' The actual phasing of these developments and those listed in Table 19 is dependent on economic, political, market demand and environmental consider- ' ations. However, it is expected to take at least twenty years to absorb the projected committed, approved but not committed and proposed projects. Table 19 comprises the list of committed projects for the city of Newport Beach and for the immediate project area located in the cities of Costa Mesa, Irvine and unincorporated Orange County. Approved and proposed projects for the immediate surrounding area are listed in Table 20 and located in Exhibit 14. ' The area chosen for cumulative analysis is bounded by the Newport -Costa ' Mesa Freeway, the San Diego Freeway, Jamboree Boulevard and generally, Mesa Drive. Like the project site, the surrounding area is urbanized, generally com- prised of office and ancillary commercial uses and experiencing rapid development trends in the remaining vacant parcels and continuing intensi- fication in all areas surrounding the airport. The airport environs were evaluated in the John Wayne Airport Master Plan and Santa Ana Heights Land ' Use Compatibility Program: Final EIR 508 and Final Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SCH 831130009). This document addresses the expansion and improvement of John Wayne Airport to accommodate 73 average daily departures and arrivals by air carrier aircraft and an associated land use ' compatibility program. The unavoidable adverse impacts noted in the docu- ment include infringement on the existing visual character of residential ' neighborhoods, elimination of residential/equestrian uses, increased con- gestion on project area roadways, displacement of 1,015 housing units, increased noise, increased traffic spillover into surrounding areas, and ' the exposure of persons and property to increased aircraft overflights. DEIR 508 is available for review at the Environmental Analysis Division, ' County of Orange, 400 Civic Center Drive, Santa Ana. ' The expected environmental effects of other individual projects are simi- lar to the proposed project. Reference has already been made to the Bay - view project in Section 4.5.1. Similarly, the impacts of the MacArthur Court office project are evaluated in GPA 82-1 EIR. The latter document ' 82 r r 10A DIRECTORY City of Irvine - Committed Projects 1 DuPont Associates 2 Koll Center Irvine/Phase 2 3 DuPont Plaza 4 Douglas Tower 5 Executive Plaza 6 Doyles N3 7 The Atrium 8A 2910 Red Hill 9A Scripps Technology Center 10A 215-225 Baker Street City of Newport Beach - Committed Projects 8 MacArthur Court 9 National Education 10 Sheraton Hotel 11 Newport Place 20 Koll Center Newport 37 MacArthur Court/Block C 42 1400 Dove Street 43 1100 Quail Street 51 MacArthur Associates Unincorporated Orange County - Approved but not Committed A Bayview B Countyside Inn C Santa Ana Heights Land Use Compatibility Program D DVM-Bristol, Spruce E John Wayne Airport Master Plan F 1515 Mesa City of Irvine - Approved but not Committed G 2600 Michelson H Koll Center Irvine/Phase 3 I Koll Center Irvine J Varian Committed and Approved But Not Committed Projects Surrounding Area BANK OF AMERICA NEWPORT PLACE DRIVE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH NOTE: SEE TABLE 18 d 19 ip EXHIBIT 14 Table 19 PROJECT AREA COMMITTED PROJECTS - JUNE 1985 Name Use Quantity Employees l TE/ksf CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH - Projects Located North of Bristol Street: 8 MacArthur Court Office 258,000 s.f. 1,032 15 9 National Education Office 41,250 s.f. 165 15 10 Sheraton Hotel Vehicle Trips expansion Hotel 119 rooms 83 10/room 11 Newport Place Office 194,411 s.f. 778 15 20 Koll Center Newport Office 7,650 s.f. 31 15 37 MacArthur Court Block C Office 295,000 s.f. 1,180 15 3,870 619 830 2,916 115 4,425 242 42 1400 Dove Street Office 16,1b4 S.T. oo LJ 43 1100 Quail Street Office 1,091 s.f. 4 15 16 51 MacArthur Associates Bank/Office 32,460 s.f. 130 15 487 SUBTOTAL Offices 846,016 s.f. 3,385 12,690 Hotel 119 rooms 83 CITY OF IRVINE - Projects Located Between Campus Drive, MacArthur Boule- vard, Michelson Drive and Jamboree Boulevard: 1 Dupont Associates Office 30,000 s.f. 120 15 450 2 Koll Center Irvine/ Phase 2 Office 220,000 s.f. 880 15 3,300 3 Dupont Plaza Office 243,718 s.f. 975 15 3,656 4 Douglas Tower Office 298,378 s.f. 1,194 15 4,476 5 Executive Plaza Office 52,974 s.f. 212 15 795 6 Doyles #3 Office 325,000 s.f. 1,300 15 4,875 7 The Atrium Office 257,900 s.f. 1,032 15 3,869 SUBTOTAL 1,427,970 s.f. 5,713 21,421 GRAND TOTAL Offices 2,273,986 s.f. 9,098 34,111 Hotel 119 rooms 83 1 Based on 250 s.f./office employee and 0.7 employees/hotel room. 83 t Table 20 APPROVED AND PROPOSED PROJECTS - SURROUNDING AREA UNINCORPORATED ORANGE COUNTY - Located Between Bristol Street, Jamboree Boulevard and Mesa Drive: 1. $qua — Location Project Use Feetre Employees TE/ksf Trip Ends Approved but Not Committed: t C Santa Ana Business 1,900,000 4,220 13 249700 Heights Land Use Park Compatibility ' Program D DVM-Bristol Office 72,000 290 15 10080 ' Spruce E John Wayne Terminal 337,900 1,500 - 39,015 ' Airport Master Plan Air Cargo 10,000 - F 1515 Mesa Residential 76 - 10 760 SUBTOTAL: Offices 1,972,000 s.f. 6,010 64,795 Airport 347,900 s.f, ' Residential 76 units CITY OF IRVINE - Located Between San Diego Freeway, MacArthur and Jamboree ' Boulevard: Approved but Not Committed G 2600 Michelson Office 409,750 10639 15 6,146 H Koll Center Office 280,000 1,120 15 4,200 ' Irvine Phase 3 I Koll Center Office 220,000 880 15 3,300 Irvine ' J Varian Office 218,500 874 15 3,278 ' SUBTOTAL 10128,250 4$13 16,924 TOTAL: Offices 3,100,250 s.f, 10,523 81,719 ' Airport 347,900 s.f. Residential 76 units 84 t Table 20 APPROVED AND PROPOSED PROJECTS - SURROUNDING AREA UNINCORPORATED ORANGE COUNTY - Located Between Bristol Street, Jamboree Boulevard and Mesa Drive: Square Location Project Use Feet Employees TE/.ksf Trip Ends Approved but Not Committed: C Santa Ana Business 1,900,000 4,220 13 24,700 Heights Land Use Park Compatibility Program D DVM-Bristol Office 72,000 290 15 1,080 Spruce E John Wayne Terminal 337,900 1,500 - 39,015 Airport Master Plan Air Cargo 10,000 - F 1515 Mesa Residential 76 - 10 760 SUBTOTAL: Offices 1,972,000 s.f. 6,010 64,795 Airport 347,900 s.f. Residential 76 units CITY OF IRVINE - •Located Between San Diego Freeway, MacArthur and Jamboree Boulevard: Approved but Not Committed - G 2600 Michelson Office 409,750 1,639 15 6,146 H Koll Center Office 280,000 1,120 15 4,200 Irvine Phase 3 I Koll Center Office 220,000 880 15 3,300 Irvine J Varian Office 218,500 874 15 3,278 SUBTOTAL 1,128,250 4,513 16,924 TOTAL: Offices 3,100,250 s.f. 10,523 81,719 Airport 347,900 s.f. Residential 76 units Proposed: K Von Karman Office 130,000 '520 15 1,950 Plaza Phase II L Koll Center Irvine Office 135,000 540 15 2,025 Phase 4 85 Table 21 PROJECT CONTRIBUTION TO CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT (Source: Table 17 and 18) Project contribution (300,000 square feet) to total square footage of all commercial/industrial uses: Case/Approval Status Square footage Percentage A. Committed in the city 2.84 million 10.6 of Newport Beach B. Committed in the surrounding 2.27 million 13.2 project areal C. Committed and approved but 3.28 million 9.1 not committed in the city of Newport Beach D. Committed and approved but 5.72 million 0.5 not committed in the surrounding project areal E. Committed, approved, and 13.76 million 2.2 proposed in the city of Newport Beachl P. Committed, approved and 5,99 million 0.5 proposed in surrounding project areal 1 Bounded by Bristol, SR-55, Interstate 405 and Jamboree Boulevard (includes portions of Newport Beach only). 1 11 86 , 11 I I e is available for review at the city of Newport Beach Planning Department. Documentation of the environmental effects for projects in Tables 18 and 19 is available, as indicated, from either the city of Irvine Community Development Department, 17200 Jamboree Road, Irvine, (714) 660=3600, or from the city of Costa Mesa Planning Division, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, (714) 754-5627. In summary, because of the urban environment, the primary expected impacts of additional office/commercial projects in the area is increased traffic and associated traffic impacts. The significance of the project's contribution to cumulative impacts, in relationship to total commercial,/industrial square footage added, varies according to the geographical area selected for comparison (Table 21). The cumulative land use impact of the project is considered significant in the context of committed projects both in the entire city of Newport Beach (Case A), and in the context of the surrounding project area (Case B), bounded by Bristol, SR-55, Interstate 405 and Jamboree. Similarly, the cumulative impact of the proposed project is considered significant in the context of the committed and approved but not committed projects in the entire city of Newport Beach (Case C). In Cases D and F, which compare the project in its surrounding context and in Case E, the cumulative impact of the project is not significant. ' Relationship of Project to John Wayne Airport ' John Wayne Airport, which is operated by the county of Orange, is the prin- cipal general aviation facility in the county serving regional needs. ' Table 22 lists the number and breakdown of annual flights and air passen- gers processed through John Wayne Airport for the past four years. tThe airport is faced with several problems related to congestion of its present facilities. Among them are vehicular traffic congestion during peak -hour conditions on major arterials providing access to the airport, a shortage of parking, and air safety concerns due to the high volume of air ' traffic. The airport currently allows 41 average daily departures (ADDs) by commercial air carriers. The county has been studying the improvement ' and expansion of the present facilities for a number of years. The Board 1 87 of Supervisors has started a process leading to an expansion of 55 average daily departures and towards an ultimate total of 73 average daily depar- tures by air carriers. Table 22 ' JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT OPERATIONS - 1982-85 , Number Of Annual Flights 1982 1983 1984 1985 General aviation 396,029 405,447 435,261 473,858 ' Commercial air carrier 29,655 30,462 29,299 38,144 Air taxi/commuter 16,429 20,008 21,847 12,699 Military 1,820 1,888 2t133 1,582 TOTAL 443,933 457,805 488,540 526,283 ' Number of Commercial Air Passengers 2,530,850 2,793,640 2,827,140 39283,975 , SOURCE: Chris Edwards, John Wayne Airport. Commercial air carrier and e number of commercial air passengers increase substantially in 1985, due to the increase in average daily departures (ADD) from 41 ADD to 55 ADD in April 1984. ' An agreement between the county of Orange and the city of Newport Beach , limits the number of annual commercial passengers and the number of average daily departures by commercial air carriers. The limitations are also related to the construction of a new terminal facility. ' Until a new terminal is constructed, the number of annual commercial pas- ' sengers is limited to 4.75 million6 (An individual flying in and out of the airport is counted as two commercial passengers.) Once the new termi- nal is constructed, the limitation increases to 8.4 million annual passeh- gers. The proposed new terminal facilities inlcude 343,000 square feet, ' excluding curb areas and will accommodate 14 boarding gates. A total of 8,400 parking spaces will be developed onsite. Until a new terminal is constructed, average daily departures under the tentative agreement are limited to 39 departures by Type A aircraft (with 88 , IJ P I n departure noise levels above 89.5 dBA at any departure aircraft noise monitoring stations). Planes with noise levels between 86.0-89.5 dBA (Type AA) are limited to 16 average daily departures. While there are no limits for aircraft with noise levels below 86.0 dBA, the total departures are limited by 4.75 million annual passengers. Once the new terminal is constructed, Type'A aircraft are limited to 39 average daily departures and Type AA are limited to 34 departures. Table 23 indicates the projected impact of all project -added land uses on the demand for increased services at John Wayne Airport. The methodology uses is similar to that used for the Banning Ranch, GPA 81-1 EIR. It is important to emphasize that these figures only estimate the number of potential additional air flights utilizing the John Wayne Airport. These figures do not, however, necessarily represent new trips that would not be generated if the project is not constructed. There are no known conclusive data that indicate that an office draws visitors to an area and is therefore responsible for generating airline passengers. ' When viewed in relationship to growth and development in the airport area the project, in and of itself, cannot be said to cause a significant adverse impact on demand for airport services. ' However, as discussed previously, the county of Orange -city of Newport Beach airport agreement limits the number of annual passengers. Demand ' generated by development no longer determines what level of airport ser- vices will be provided at JWA. On a cumulative basis, this project, in concert with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the region could add to the increased demand for airport services. However, denial of these projects will not decrease the demand of airport services in the county of Orange. Denial of the project would not eliminate the increased air service demand as the demand for new housing, additional office space and hotel rooms would be expected to be met elsewhere in the county by new development or redevelopment. M Table 23 AIR TRAVEL DEMAND Gross Square No. of Employees Annual Air JWA Land Use Footage Added Addedl 1hips2 Air Trips ' Office 259,521 19012 1,034 517 Restaurant 9,950 32 33 16 Racquetball 90050 9 9 5 ' TOTALS 278,521 10053 1,076 538 ' NOTES: 1. Number of office space employees is based on a rate of 3.9 employees/ 1,000 square feet of office space. ' 2. Number of air trips is based on a rate of 0,28 air trips/day/100 employees. 3. Because John Wayne Airport is a regional facility, it is estimated that approximately 50 percent of these trips will use LAX. (City of Newport Beach, Certified Final EIR-Newport Banning Ranch, GPA 81-10 1982.) The cumulative environmental impacts of significance are land use, and traffic/circulation impacts. Cumulative Land Use Impacts. The proposed project, in conjunction with ' other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, will have a significant cumulative impact on land use. These projects will convert existing vacant and/ or underdeveloped sites to more intense urban uses. Some of these projects and reasonable foreseeable future projects will also require the amendment to or modification of existing plans and poli- ' cies in several jurisdictions including the county of Orange and cities of Newport Beach, Irvine, and Costa Mesa. Additionally, the implementation , of the projects will cause incremental land use impacts that when viewed with other project and related project impacts (eg., traffic) should be ' considered cumulatively significant. Since the area is highly urbanized, the focus of cumulative land use impacts should be placed on associated impacts as opposed to the sole conversion of land use. Any inconsisten- ' cies between cumulative project proposals and adopted land use plans will be mitigated by adoption of general plan amendments, revision of regional population and housing projections, and revision of the air quality management plans. ' 90 ' The traffic engineering departments of the respective cities and the county are also involved in ongoing traffic analysis of the area. The 1 Inter -City Liaison Committee Five -Year Transportation Study, a joint effort of four cities, has identified potential road improvements within the study area and is discussing potential funding mechanisms. The county of Orange is being invited to join the joint effort and the study area ' would be expanded to include the Santa Ana Heights area. The joint effort will not impact most of the intersections related to the proposed Bank of ' America project. However, the joint study could potentially impact the Mac Arthur Boulevard/Pacific Coast Highway intersection. ' Final EIR 508 also discusses the expected traffic/circulation impacts, including airport access roads and proposed freeway airport access ramp mitigation measures in Section 4.10. As noted in DEIR 508, and in this analysis, the extension of the Corona del Mar Freeway may have the ' secondary effect of improving access to the area and relieving traffic congestion problems. ' The traffic engineering departments of the respective cities and the county are also involved in ongoing traffic analysis of the area. Cumulative Traffic and Circulation Impacts. The proposed project, in ' conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, will have a significant cumulative impact on traffic and ' circulation. The traffic analysis prepared for the proposed project (Appendix D) is comprehensive in scope and analyzes traffic conditions at twenty-one intersections throughout the city of Newport Beach for ' existing, 1988 existing plus committed and growth; and 1988 existing plus committed plus growth and project conditions. The impact of the Corona del Mar Freeway (SR-73) improvements on the area network is also noted. Mitigation measures for locations throughout the city are provided. ti. 91 ' i 1 11.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED City of Newport Beach Planning Department Patricia Temple Sheri Vander Dussen Utilities Department Paul Malkemus Library Services Judith M. Clark Fire Department Don Jones General Services Wade Beyeler Police Department Al Dollar Public Works Don Webb Traffic Rick Edmonson City Attorney Robert Burnham City of Irvine Community Development Ed Moore Enid Gary Nancy Madaris city of Costa Mesa Planning Mike Robinson Countv of Orange Advance Planning Bryan Speegle General Services De Wang EMA/ESP, Capital Projects Michael Ruane Transportation Planning Jerry E. Bennett Project Planning R.L. Rende Utility and Service'Agencies Southern California Gas M.T. Rosen Southern California Edison M.D. Martin Pacific Bell Dennis Lansing Other Agencies/Organizations Airport Land Use Commission Alfred Brady Chris Edwards Tim Hartwig 92 Southern California Assocation of Governments Wendy Murphy McLachlan Investment Company Donald Russell Snyder -Langston William Langston Ware & Malcolm Architects Jose Aran South Coast Air Quality Management District Brian Farris Orange County Transit District Jeffrey Ordway Hoag Memorial Hospital Lee Royalty County Sanitary Districts Diane Wilner of Orange County Thomas M. Dawes J.A. King & Associates Jerry King Environmental Consultants Phillips Brandt Reddick Phillip R. Schwartze Thomas F. Holm, AICP Sidney A, Lindmark, AICP Timothy Lattimer Melinda Vest Marianne Kearney Jayna Moore Other Consultants Castaneda & Associates Ralph Castaneda Kunzman Associates John Kain Lee Royalty State Agencies Air Resources Board Anne B. Geraghty California Regional Water - quality Control Board Nancy A. Olson Department of Transportation W.B. Ballantine 93 BIBLIOGRAPHY ' California Air Resources Board, Air Quality Analysis Tools, March 1983. California Air Resources Board, California Air Quality Data, Vols. XIII- Xv, 1981-1983. California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Report 126, Geology and Engineering Geologic Aspects of the South Half Tustin Quadrangle, Orange County, California 1976. California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Report 114, A Review of the Geology and Earthquake History of the Newport -Inglewood Structural Zone, Southern California, 1974. ' Rau, John G. and David C. Wooten, ed., Environmental Impact Analysis Hand- book. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, T907. South Coast Aix Quality Management District, Air Quality_ Handbook for Environmental Impact Reports, December 19 South Coast Air Quality Management District and Southern California Association of Governments, Air Quality Management Plan, August 1982. U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA-RD-77-108, FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, December 1978. I 911 PI I 1 1 p APPENDIX A Environmental Checklist I FNVIRONMENTAL CNECFLIST FORM Environmental Checklist Form I. Background 1. Name of Proponent BILL Lli1�k'SIZi'l� 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent 3. Date of Checklist Submission 6-H-126 4. Agency Requiring Checklist C :W 4 New eopzz - ?ka ..N 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable eU/pouT 'PLACF TwF_m, II. Environmental Impac' (Explanations of i "yes" and "maybe" answer, are required on attached sheets.) 1. Earth. will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, com- paction or overcovering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modi- fication of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? f. 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? YES MAYBE NO x is .. x X` P YES MAYBE NO g. Exposure of people or property to ' geological hazards such as earth— quakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deteri— I oration of ambient air quality? )C b. 1he creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally) ' 9. Water. Will the proposal result in; ' a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? �( ' Changes in absorption rates,, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? ' c. Alterations to the course of flow of flood waters? ' d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? ' e. Discharge into surface waters or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? ' I. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground , waters, either through direct addi- tions 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? X i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as , flooding or tidal waves? I YES MAYBE t) 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any•species of plants ' (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? x ' b. Reduction of the numbers of any , unique, rare or endangered species of plants? _ ' c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of ' existing species? x d. Reduction in acreage of any ' agricultural crop? 5. Animal Life. V:11, the proposal result in: ' a. Change in t'ie diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including, -reptiles, ' fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, or in+±ects)? ' b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? ' c. Introduction of new species of ani- mals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement " ' of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish -or wildlife habitat? X ' in: .6. Noise. Will the proposal result a. Increases in existing noise lev-els2 b. Exposure of people to severe noise ' levels? 7. ht and Glare. Will the proposal .produce new light or glare? t ' R. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or ' planned land use of an area? I 4. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of aajr, natural resources? b. Substantial depletion of any non— renewable natural resource? 10. _Risk of Upset, Dots the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location# distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an great 17. Housing. Wil :he Proposal affect existing hov_,-,, or create a demand for additions lousing? 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Ceneration 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 movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f, Increase in traffic haznrdous to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. Public Services. Hill the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: YFS MAYRF NO , X -�4 —. _X YES MAYBE NO a. Fire protection? X — x b. Police protection? —_ 1 1 C. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, x including roads? — X f. Other governmental services?• 15. Energ Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? --- b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development �;' new sources of energy? 16. Utilities. Will the p- iposal result in a .' need for new systems, •• substantial .. alterations to the fol':ring utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? X c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? X -- e. Storm water drainage? X — f. Solid waste and disposal? X --- 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. Aesthetics. 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 public view? x .1 YES MAYBE ND , 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? \( ' 20. Archeological/Historical. Will for Proposal result in an alteration of a , significant archeological or historical Site, structure, object or building? X 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, ' substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below ' self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major period.-, of California history or prehis ­ry? ^� b. Does the project have the pet::ntial to achieve short-term, to the d'•:dvontage ' of long-term, environmental. S..--is? (A short-term impact on the envii..:auent is one which occurs in a relatively brief ' definitive period of time while long- term impacts will endure well into the �( future.) c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumu- latively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but Acre 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 directly or indirectly? III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation: 62e G1� it1G�1R� ' Iv. Determination CI �I C 1 1 1 I 1 E, Da on the basis of this initial evaluation: 0 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Q I find that although the proposed project could .have a significant effect 'on the environment, there will not be a significant- effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ` ® I find the proposed' project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 11 �� Signature For ti .��, .'.!+LL1c ATTACHMENT 1 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Ia. The project will require grading of the site which may alter geologic substructures, lb. The project may displace and compact soil. 1g. Persons occupying the structure may be exposed to earthquake hazards. 2a. The project will result in substantial increase of vehicular trips which may deteriorate ambient air quality. 6a. The project will result in increased vehicular trips which may increase existing noise levels. 7. The proposed high-rise structure and related parking structure will produce new light and glare, both in the 1+icinity of the project and in the area's skyline. B. The proposed projet requires approval of b anned Community District Amendment 'o allow square footage -ubstantially in excess of that cur _itly allowed. The proposed height of the structure alters tht eight concept of the area established by the P-C Development , n. 9a. Implementation of the project may result in increased use of natural resources such as water and fossil fuels. 11. The proposal will result in increased employment opportunities in the area, which may result in increased human population in the area. 12. The proposal will result in increased employment opportunities in the area, which will create a demand for additional housing. 13a. The proposed project will result in additional vehicular movement in the area and the region. 13b. The proposed office building will require addition of parking facilities. 13c. The project will impact existing transportation systems. 13d. The project may alter circulation patterns in the area. 13e. The project may increase the demand for air service at John Wayne Airport. 13f. The project will result in increased vehicular trips which may be hazardous to bicyclists or pedestrians. I 1� 14a. The project will require fire protection which may result in the 1 necessity to provide a City fire station for the airport area. 14b. The project will require police protection which may require ' additional manpower and equipment. 14d. The employees at the new building may use City Parks and Recre- ation programs which utilize parks and other recreation facil- ities. 14e. The project will result in additional vehicular trips which may 1 increase road maintenance in the area. 15. Increased vehicular trips and the energy requirements of the project may use substantial amounts of fuel and energy, may 1 increase the demand on existing energy sources, or require development of new sources of energy. 16. The project will increase demand in all utility areas, which may 1 result in need for alteration to the existing facilities. 17b. The employees at the proposed project may be exposed to potential ' health hazards, such as traffic hazard and poor air quality. 18. The project will result in construction of a 15-story office 1 building in an area not previously planned for this height of structures. PLT2 i 1 1 1 F 1 -2 1 1 APPENDIX B Notice of Preparation of a Draft EIR and Non -Statutory ' Advisement of Preparation of a Draft EIR 1 1 CITY OF NEW PORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658.8915 NOTICE OF PREPARATION. OF A DRAFT EIR DATE: June 17, 1985 TO: FROM: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O.Hox 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 PLEASE RETURN THIS NOTICE WITH YOUR AGENCY'S COMMENTS BY July 17, 1985 PROJECT TITLE: Newport Place Tower PROJECT LOCATION: Northwest corner of Newport Place Drive and MacArthur Boulevard,of ort Bea California Exhibit 1 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND MAJOR LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: z W a See attached description and initial study w a CONTACT PERSON: TITLE: PHONE: Ms, -Patricia Temple Environmental Coordinator (714).644-3225 DESCRIBE SPECIFIC PERMIT AUTHORITY OF YOUR AGENCY RELATED TO THIS PROJECT: LIST SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: (Use additional pages as necessary) z w a CQ W H N z 0 a N CONTACT PERSON: TITLE: PHONE: DATE MAILED BY LEAD AGENCY: June 17, 1985 DATE RECEIVED.BY RESPONSIBLE•AGENCY: DATE RESPONSE R BY LEAD AGENCY: 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach CITY OF NEW PORT BEACH ' P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658.8915 I PROJECT DESCRIPTION ' The project applicant is requesting a Planned Community amendment to allow construction of a fifteen -story office building near the northwest corner ' of Newport Place Drive and MacArthur Boulevard near John Wayne Airport in the the City of Newport Beach. The proposed project consists of a 300,000 square foot office building and an t adjacent 336,000 square foot multi -level parking structure for 1,242 vehicles. The parking structure and the office building are connected by an underground tunnel, The project site currently includes a bank facility and an adjacent office building. The project is subject to the Planned Community Development Standards for "Newport Place," which regulates maximum building height for specific sites. The proposed project differs from the initial height standards ' for the site, necessitating the planned community amendment. The proposed office use is a regional banking facility and accompanying office tenant uses. The basement/atrium levels will include recreational, restaurant, and lounge ' areas. The environmental document will be a focused EIR and will address specific issues in proportion to their level of potential significance to this partic- ular project. Topics proposed to be addressed include: Land Use Traffic/Circulation Acoustics Aesthetics ' Air Quality/Energy Housing Impacts Geology/Soils Public Services ' The public and representatives of responsible agencies are invited to submit concerns and comments regarding the project within 30 days of receipt of ' this notice. 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach ' 1 1 Site Vicinity Site: At MacArthur Blvd and Newport Place Drive 1 NEWPORT PLACE TOWER CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH EXHIBIT 1 I 1 APPENDIX C Responses to Notice of Preparation and Non -Statutory ' Advisement of Preparation of a Draft EIR 1 t 1 1 I aEW PO CITY OF NEW PORT BEACH V P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658+8915 NONSTATUTORY ADVISEMENT OF PREPARATION' OF A DRAFT EIR DATE: TO: Distribution FROM: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O.Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 PLEASE RETURN THIS NOTICE WITH YOUR COMMENTS BY: July 17, 1985 PROJECT TITLE: ' Newport Place Tower PROJECT LOCATION: Northwest corner of Newport Place Drrfve & MacArthur Blvd. City of Newport Beach CA Exhibit 1 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND MAJOR LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: U 2 See Attached. A a L' a CONTACT PERSON: TITLE: PHONE: P4s. Patricia Tem le E6vironmental Coordinator AREA LIST SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: (Use additional pages as necessary) ~ CONTACT PERSON: TITLE: PHONE: DATE NAILED BY LEAD AGENCY: June 17, 1985 DATE RECEIVED BY INTERESTED PARTY: DATE RESPONSE F BY LEAD AGENCY: 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach I �F,VYPppr CITY OF NEW PORT BEACH u P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658.8915 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project applicant is requesting a Planned Community amendment to allow construction of a fifteen -story office building near the northwest corner of Newport Place Drive and MacArthur Boulevard near John Wayne Airport in the the City of Newport Beach. The proposed project consists of a 300,000 square foot office building and an adjacent 336,000 square foot multi -level parking structure for 1,242 vehicles. The parking structure and the office building are connected by an underground tunnel. The project site currently includes a bank facility and an adjacent office building. The project is subject to the planned Community Development Standards for "Newport Place," which regulates maximum building height for specific sites. The proposed project differs from the initial height standards for the site, necessitating the planned community amendment. The proposed office use is a regional banking facility and accompanying office tenant uses. The basement/atrium levels will include recreational, restaurant, and lounge areas. The environmental document will be a issues in proportion to their level ular project. Topics proposed to be Land Use Traffic/Circulation Acoustics Aesthetics Air Quality/Energy Housing Impacts Geology/Soils Public Services focused EIR and will address specific of potential significance to this partic- addressed include: The public and representatives of responsible agencies are invited to submit concerns and comments regarding the project within 30 days of receipt of this notice. I 1 I I I I I I L� I I. 1 1 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach ' •.I ��: • • ¢ter ' Ij `'iR•!�' z I ; �, . knport �( ' �• a An W r 91 s O o ♦BaYv(ewl O M ntN�' ♦3th � O, o, �•'� ''yafi I'. \• salt I }}ccEvaporators • '� 1/- 43 :.ORNM COUNTY\,.. C +4 ♦ L.N It ar Dorn+ 1 Site Vicinity NEWPORT PLACE TOWER i CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH �? Place EXHIBIT 1 r DIRECTORY 1. Police Department Newport Beach 2. Newport Beach General Services Department 3. Southern California Edison Company , 4* Newport Beach Fire Department 5. Newport Beach Public Library ' 6. County Sanitation Districts of Orange County 7. Orange County Transit District , 8. Newport Beach Utilities Department 9. Four Fours Homeowners Association , 10. Airport Land Use Commission 11. California Regional Water Quality Control Board 12. Department of Transportation - District 7 13. Southern California Association of Governments 14. Irvine Community Development Department 15. Air Resources Board 16. County of Orange/EMA - Planning (7-16-85) , 17. County of Orange/EMA - Transportation Planning 18. 19. County of Orange/EMA - Advance Planning Project , County of Orange/EMA - Planning 20. Southern California Gas 21. Department of Transportation - Division of Aeronautics , I I LJ iI 11 It 1 RECEIVED JUN 2 0 1" I I I 1 NEWPORT BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT P.O. BOX 7000, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-1700 (714) 644-3654 June 19, 1985 CHARLES R. GROSS Chief of Poiice Phillips Brandt Reddick 18012 Sky Park Circle Irvine, California 92714 ' ATTENTION: Sid Lindmark, Project Manager Dear Mr. Lindmark: This is in response to your request for information relative to your proposed office development located in the City of Newport Beach at Newport Place Drive ' and MacArthur Boulevard. I am answering your two questions in the order in which you asked them. ' 1. The Newport Beach Police Department, located at 870 Santa Barbara Drive, serves the community of 68,000 residents. The Department is comprised of over 200 employees, of whom 138 are sworn members. Newport Beach Police Department is a full service police department equipped to handle any emergency that may arise. Response time to the proposed project site is dependent on the location of field personnel and activity in the city, but is routinely only minutes away. ' 2. Mutual aid agreements are in effect among neighboring,cities,. should a situation arise that demands additional manpower. ' I foresee no future concerns or problems from the information and location exhibit you enclosed. If there is any more information or assistance I'can provide, please let me know. Sincerely, ' Charles R. Gross Chief Qf Po ice9 �/� �¢,\— ' Al Dollar, Officer Planning and Research I ' 870 Santa Barbara Drive, Newport Beach 2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658.8915 GENERAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3055 June 24, 1985 Mr. Sid Lindmark, AICP c/o Phillips Brandt Reddick 18012 Sky Park Circle Irvine, CA 92714 Subject: Proposed Office Development (Newport Place Towers) at MacArthur Boulevard and Newport Place Drive Ref: Your letter, dated June 17, 1985, same subject Dear Mr. Lindmark: In response to your question regarding solid waste disposal service to your proposed project, the Newport Beach General Services Department would not be able to provide that service. We do not service any type of high-rise buildings nor any large office developments, at the present time, In approximately 1966, the City Council then sitting in Newport Beach decreed that the City would not provide any "bin" type service such as the 3-yard capacity bins commonly used in structures of your type. prior to that, the City had just begun to service bins from one commercial account in Corona del Mar, and the hue and cry raised by the commercial haulers regarding unfair competition, etc., forced that action by the Council. With one excep- tion, (the City's own trailer park on Balboa Boulevard,) the only commercial establishments that we presently service (about 150) are small ones that can still use standard 50 lb. capacity refuse containers. You will have to contact one of the private contract haulers licensed by the City for service to your proposed development. G.S,X., a subsidiary of Genstar; and Dewey's Rubbish Service, a subsidiary of Waste Management, Inc. are two that come to mind. The disposal area still used by most haulers in this area is Coyote Canyon Landfill, midway between the Turtle Rock Area and northeast Newport Beach. This is still operated by the County, takes no hazardous waste of any kind and is closing in October 1988. I have no estimate of the capacity remaining. For that information you should contact Mr. Frank Bowerman, Orange County Solid Waste Program Manager, or his Chief Engineer, Mr. Mike Luke. Their offices are located at the County Operations Center at McFadden and Grand Avenues, 1300 South Grand. With regard to your question regarding pounds of refuse for office developments, since I don't service any, I really can't answer. However, the County rule -of -thumb they have used in the past for residential collection is three pounds/person/day. That may or may not be of some assistance to you. I I 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach Sorry I can't provide any more information or service. Should you have additional questions still unanswered, call me anytime from 7:00 AM to 4:00 P.M. Sincere Y. Wade S. Beyeler General Services Director WSB:hh cc: Pat Temple, Planning Department II 3 RECEIV80 JWIJ 2 7 125 Southern California Edison Company P.O. BOX 2069 ' 7333 BOLSA AVE. WESTMINSTER. CALIFORNIA 92083.1209 June 21, 1985 r Phillips Brandt Reddick ' 18012 Sky Park Circle Irvine, CA 92714 Attention: Sid Lindmark ' Subject: E.S.R. - Proposed office structure, N/W C/o Newport Place Dr. & MacArthur Blvd., Newport Beach Gentlemen: ' This is to advise that the subject property is located within the service territory of the Southern California Edison ' Company and that the electric loads of the project are within parameters of projected load growth which Edison is planning to meet in this area. Unless the demand for electrical generating capacity exceeds our estimates, and provided that there are no unexpected out- ages to major sources of electrical supply, we expect to meet , our electrical requirements for the next several years. our total system demand is expected to continue to increase ' annually; however, excluding any unforeseen problems, our plans for new generation resources indicate that our ability to serve all customer loads during peak demand periods will be adequate during the decade of the 180s. ' Current conservation efforts on the part of Edison's customers have resulted in energy savings. Optimization of conservation measures in this project will contribute to the overall energy savings goal. Very truly yours, ' M. D. Martin Service Planner MDM:da I ' DISTRICT OFFICE SERVING CORONA OEL MAR COSTA MESA. FOUNTAIN VALLEY T HUNT 'NO TON BEACH MIDWAY CIT V . NEWPORT BEACH . ROSSMOOR . SEAL BEACH . SUNSET BEACH . WESTMINSTER I 4 RECEIVED. Jla 2 % iJGJ 1 LJ NEWPORT BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENT P.O. Box 1768 - 475 32nd Street Newport Beach, California 92658-8915 (714) 644-3103 .fames Af rued Fire Chief June 26, 1985 Sid Lindmark, Project Manager ' Phillips Brandt Reddick 18012 Sky Park Circle Irvine, California 92714 Dear Mr. Lindmark: Information you requested regarding the project (office structure and parking structure near Newport Place and MacArthur Blvd.) is as follows; Fire Stations are located at: Campus and Quail (3/4 mile), response time one minute after notification, 3 man pumper. ' Santa Barbara and Jamboree (3 miles), response time six minutes after notification, 3 man pumper, 4 man aerial ladder, 2 man paramedic -squad. Please be aware that the station serving the area from Campus and Quail is an Orange County fire station contracted annually to provide service to the City of Newport Beach. In the event that this service should become unavailable, service will come from the Santa Barbara Drive location and from Irvine and Mariners, a 3 man pumper, located 3.5 miles from the location. Newport Beach is currently in the 1979 I.C.B.O. building and=fire codes. Preparations are underway to adopt the 1985 codes iri,the ' immediate future. Specifics with regard to fire department access, water supply needs and alarm and evacuation design should be reviewed with the fire department as soon as a preliminary site and building desi-gn are firmed up. ' Sincerely, D, DON JON Deputy Chief ' DJ : rw DATE: TO - N a c U' N N 5 ' CITY OF NEW PORT BEACIA JUN i 81985 P.O. BOX 1768. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658,8915 NONSTATUTORY ADVISEMENT ANE'WPO'Rt BPACMN OF PR P ION OF A DRAFT EIR 4 Distribution JuN4 81985 PLEASE RETURN THIS NOTICE TITLE. Place Tower See Attached. I FROM: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O.Sox 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 YOUR COMMENTS BY: July 17, 1985 Le TITLE: Provision of Municipal Library Services IST SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: (Use No environmental concerns. Judi AGENCY: June 17, 1985 TITLE: INTERESTED PARTY: pages as 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach PHONE: BY LEAD AGENCY: 1' 2 I 1 n I I COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P O. BOX 8127 FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92728-8127 +••?>=- i+ 10844 ELLIS, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708-7018 +nce coos (714) 540.2910 (714) 962 2411 June 27, 1985 City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard' P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Attention Mrs. Patricia Temple Environmental Coordinator SUBJECP: NORPORT PIACE TORM This project is the construction of a 300,000 square foot office building and parking facilities at MacArthur Boulevard and Newport Place Drive within the City of Newport Beach. The project will be served directly by the Districts' MacArthur Pump Station and indirectly by a trunk sewer system which terminates at the Districts' Fountain Valley Reclamation Plant. The project ultimately will be served by the construction of the new Von Karmen Trunk Sever now in progress. MacArthur Pump Station has been identified as a deficient facility, however, it is anticipated that the necessary improvements will be com- pleted to serve this project and the tributary drainage area within the next two years. Therefore, it is anticipated that the District will be able to provide satisfactory service for this project. Incorporation of water conservation facilities in this development to minimize sewage discharge is greatly encouraged. TMD:kk Thomas M. Dawes Deputy Chief Engineer RECEIVEDN Planniic Daparnnng JUL 1 1985- c1n. C;- NEWPOIZi i:sgCH+� CALIF 7 L ORANGE COUNTY TRANNIT DISTRICT July 10, 1985 Mr. Sid Lindmark Project Manager Phillips Brandt Reddick 18012 Sky Park Circle Irvine, CA 92714 Dear Mr. Lindmark: REMVEDJUL i 1 Off 1 SUBJECT! NOP Focused EIR Newport Place Tower We have received your request for information on transit services in the vicinity of this proposed project, for use in preparing a focused DEIR for the Newport Place Tower project, and are providing the following information- s OCTD currently operates one route on MacArthur Boulevard adjacent to the project location. The route alignment and service characteristics are shown in the attached map and tables. s While the addition of this project alone will not result in the provision of additional transit service in this area, increased service volumes on MacArthur Boulevard are likely as development continues in the area. s With regard to this specific project, there are several opportunities available to increase potential use of transit, while reducing the overall automobile traffic and parking impacts generated by the project. s Pedestrian walkways (handicapped accessible) should be provided from the Tower to MacArthur Blvd., for the convenience of employees and visitors who ride the bus. • OCTD is the official rideshare agency in Orange County, and District staff would be available to work with the project developer in estab- lishing a rideshare program for employees in Newport Place 'tower. Car and vanpool matching services can be provided, as well as information on implementing demand management strategies in support of, and to promote, a successful rideshare program. If you require further information on ridesharing, please contact Gary Edson, Manager of Rideshare, at (714) 971-6560. 11222 ACACIA PARKWAY. P.O. BOX 3005. GARDEN GROVE, CALIFORNIA 92a42 4 PHONE (114) 971-6200 1 r 1 1 i I 7I L� L 7 L LJ Sid Lindmark July 10, 1985 Page Two We appreciate the opportunity to provided input to this focused EIR and would appreciate receiving a copy of the DEIR when it is available. if you have any further questions please call me or Christine Huard -Spencer at (714) 971-6419. Sincerely, C. iry ffP. Ordway Environmental Coordinator JO:QN Enclosures cc: Ms. Patricia Temple, City of Newport Beach 0� 11 OCTD ROUTE 61 SERVICE CHARACTERISTICS AT NEWPORT PLACE TOWER (Effective June 16, 1985) Weekday Peak Frequency: 30 minutes Days of Operation: Monday through Friday Span of Service: 5:21 a.m. — 7:33 p.m. Areas Serviced: Santa Ana, Tustin, Irvine, John Wayne Airport, Newport Beach Schedule: Attached �l 11 11 11 7 L �I 11 11 n L P ROUTE 61"..,MON THRU FRI NORTHBOUND "> DO D FACE TIMES INDICATE AA�K'600M ' NEIYPOIIT BEACH TO D1YNK�TQ.BAN7A ANA p.,8 Haiti Monday 9rvflMq, "AM A 24'M i aa © © O 621A 427A 537A 647A 655A 703A 710A 714A 724 730 740 750 758 $06 813 $17 824 830 840 850 858 906 913 917 929 935 945 955 1003 1611 1018 1022 1033 1039 1049 ID59 1107 1115 1122 1126 1138 1145 1155 1206P 1214P 1223P 123DP 1234P 1243P 1250P 100P 111 119 128 135 139 140 155 205 216 224 233 240 244 218 226 239 250 301 312 319 323 256 303 316 327 338 349 358� 400 323 331 344 355 406 417 424 428 400 408 421 432 443 454 501' 505 438 446 459 510 521 532 539 543 503 511 524 535 546 551 604 608 543 551 604 616 626 637 644 648 638 644 654, 705 713 ?22 729' 733 SANTA ANA TRANSIT TERMINAL SEE 76 TIMETABLE ROUTE 61 MON THRU FPI SOUTHB0'. ND SANTA ANA TO IRVINE TO NEWPORT BEACH BOLD FACE TIMES INDICATE PEAK HOURS Peek Hann. Monday M Fdday, 6.9AM 8 UPM w 3 �qqaa 231 e © © 0,0 O © O 521A 523A 529A 537A 545A 555A 602A 609A 547 549 555 605 615 625 635 643 617 819 625 635 645 655 705 713 647 649 655 705 715 725 735 743 717 719 725 735 745 755 $05 $13 757 759 $06 $15 625 135 845 653 821 829 035 845 155 905 915 923 932 934 940 050 1000 1010 1020 1028 1037 1039 1045 1055 1105 1115 1125 1133 1142 1144 1150 1200P 1210P 1220P 1230P 1238P 1247P 1249P 1255P 105 115 125 136 143 152 154 20D 211 221 231 241 260 257 259 305 316 326 336 346 355 330 332 338 349 400 411 423 432 435 437 443 464 605 616 528 537 618 520 526 535 545 555 606 613' TERMINAL AND GRAND A MCFADDEN SEE 75 TIMETABLE' 152 s �"i77P��'�" _ � - , � "Jn• 1, j='A[`. �.\,r* � i \per.. b�: •' � si�i _" � _ "'t _.c:� •ate 'y _ ram:. ,.+t.. ri,:1'. � � •- is }}: z. nor d'ia � :'r �.�' "^ . r_N" 7 < - : � ✓ � f �A r• _ : . lJ �8. 3 nr ».i @r a ,�! n„# � �Cc, i .'',r�A y.., `c -\fJ / ,�F _ ~ 4• � . &AX.'. 13r.� •<M�,rh�".-4/ !/nay d.r.• `,rV �' � +:»: ).�. "r •�"� TA � � y` rrn�i F. yi gin» _ S-• a'-V+r.�' yyw /t'�� � / - r'"'- - •f ♦���e�'a '•- i Fri `• a �\��� niJ' F�r .Y �''a 'O ."t %��� .L � \� yt' :. � Y`- j • 111�� i •' +�r a/r3 . i % .n,w.. f � :{c w4»l,; r:: ..�. rlaf :.•'�\ rr �r�J-'� r.�jT��..i: r! �aAd �d�. � ^•�i \.p.. S 1 / ` // � ' � F i:�,�, _ t �[ _. Ii •n f._:^ Y` t\''�7\d. F ' %i;� I 44'�\ rJ'+i t i "��y�, .• ..� a •,�jjsi+iC,: S y 3 J 3 3 3 Y ' �z + ��� . t ti:A - r •, s I/ J�I,�'Ti� ,� J .�r—� <.T• 3 _ s� Y >r, w ,.. - y 'Y `f,�.ww `s .,?:: �-. �/ . • ;�, . / ^' �tt r L..11 � ,�.gJ J. 3 O t Adavi- � � sr�tit •�� �rz4: r�0.,_ `':<d! Z�!} d' ... �.J —TJ a. a,.µ}njG' a rlf :! r Art , •• +I-, e •, -..__ •�: _ .. `'' ' '� '' cx . 3d b r rr R r - r .* , Y t r .•�'' _ � yam_^.wunmrMr W � � Y?l �},\t • �.... cw.wa �_�� • i n� • ,. 7 � tea- ♦'+ � nu•.r. � � ,..� i • ,.iti.-.- u a r. [ ^ � n �7a t'tsd A � ,p r � >," � . �.1 ./" -_. t.� � �� }r -" �'. ,•�-. .,•• 'n6`'.r.' a.`� ` ,r: i. h. !„a ' - �E r r `9; d ., ji, tX�•.``-t .y �,.•-},..-.. �.-.�. :d°�,`t a, ,. a — .\ w r�i .�-.. - 7 f'Y3 � � O :r ♦ f:'� <..�� r(-Y}�\ice �.. • 4 1 ]n _ a +A� 4t ' � f. iy.'E'.}.`y_^. ;`,� •Ti1. �,.� f•� � � /z. 1 y •: KEY S .4 fij . = Y M •..\�� � �•'.�ey��}y� ; rr.n.nan } �-'� Ew ^ Itry { ® � fJ'�j�� 5 :�' +►r %t.\: �K''^�r 4'� ''�'�. yrA.�•S ,•i t. t (.�,ia„'� ��� 2 C �yw ��./ . \ a T•ltn� US R BO� t,41 _ /r p • -'� - ,vr �:n ,y �� ,,�i.' ;� ��� •mow`"'..' Bus 5fofs _ •tip ,.�.w. t i w'.4 � w✓ �i °i}'etY •.1-, p'�`: a,.��`�i� '. }� , s_ d'rrr ..-_ .r. -Ire-' °twR. '�'zt•. •� -. _ n. '. �••. F- f �� � '� .� ::lid '�V � • �A"r 9? t''r*.`s �3 J I II F E CEIVEG ,, �4L i i 1QA5 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658.8915 UTILITIES DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3011 July 9, 1985 Phillips Brandt Reddick 18012 Sky Park Circle Irvine, CA 92714 ATTENTION: Sid Lindmark Dear Mr. Lindmark: The following information applies to the proposed develop- ment near the northwest corner of Newport Place Drive and MacArthur Boulevard. 1. See attached maps for location and sizes of existing water and sewer mains. 2. The source of water is 100% imported from the Metropolitan Water District. 3. Sewage treatment is managed by the Orange County Sanita- tation District. 4. See attached chart for Demand Design. 5. Connection fees for water and sewer are as follows: Sewer connection - $30 3/4" Water Meter - $145 1" Water Meter - $210 1'h" Water Meter - $390 2" Water Meter - $505 Larger than a 2" Meter = $50. per diameter inch. Suggest checking with the City Subdivision Engineer, Dick Hoff- stadt for any other subdivision fees. Sincerely, Paul Malkemus Utilities Engineer PM:bc Enclosure 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach 1 Opp \ \ \ � 6 ♦ `% ,�'� Q �/ ✓i�,z 30• Ingress A Egrest _—�t-- -- \ I!T Storm Draln Emil .1112%140 m its IP if 010 k AO 61eb (` � � V E 'r0 Rp 61 s gGIke lb so 47 Q, 56 49 48 .; :� S�F �� .. �, 9 CFI +„r;, ,-•.. ' 1 Mt 43 A �� \� ♦\\ yp \\ �.�. / _-30' Ingress Q Egress sm I. —9063 r Esmt. Per O.R.1112/ � .:• - 02 9 V.C.p T i` 9 ♦\ i2 \\ 1 ii'' I oC% \ V. Fv Is Cite ''A•~ \\ ., � 1• •mil_ �♦ f • 5/ `y .. R t •ter"��v,. B` // _ - � •` r-�` a-' to .. �Lg of G cA" F� ties �� • '. - • . ',. • .. S�. 4 'r+��i5�'t�: �/ :S, ' 'all .r ; t,.•}: �r • I v" B. Demand Design LAND USE ate c.f Single Family 2.5 Multiple Family 3.5 High -Rise Residential 4.0 Commercial(over 2 stories), 4.0 Commercial(to 2 stories) 3.0 Industrial 4.0 Community Facilities I1.5 Maximum Day = Average Day X 2 Peak Hour = Average Day X 4 7 1.55 2,17 2.48 2.48 1.86 2.48 0.93 3.1 4.3 5.0 5.0 3.7 5.0 2.0 .6.2 8.6 •10.0 10.0 7.4 10.0 4.0 19000 31000 ' 51000 or more (Special Desk 5,000 or more (Special Der . 3,000 5,000 or (Specia"1 Der 10500 ' * Gross Area - including street R/W & open spac 1 DATE: TO: 9 DECEIVED ) U C 1 6 1985 } CITY OF NEW PORT BEACH �5 P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658.8915 NONSTATUTORY ADVISEMENT OF PREPARATION OF A DRAFT EIR Distribution 14 RECE` �0 , Qepat 1985 �r J G\V( bEAOH' NEY�POCP �F.� FROM: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O.Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-e915 PLEASE RETURN THIS NOTICE WITH YOUR COMMENTS BY: July 17, 1985 PROJECT TITLE: Newport Place Tower PROJECT LOCATION: Northwest corner of Newport Place Drrive.& MacArthur Blvd. City of Newport Beach CA Exhibit 1 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND MAJOR LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: u z See Attached. c a a CONTACT PERSON: TITLE: PHONE: Ms. Patricia Temple Environmental Coordinator714-644-3225 AREA LIST SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: (Use additional pages as necessary) �lApOrCT f XLF& fiL2000Y 1 /n P/+cre0 .— moi2E l3osiv.ss !j✓«o.�eS a— mu2i 13JY,ves5 — pl op''E Rill pL4,vf F'L' o itJG r92� UPPCSG-'F� 77,1 InURL N 'TNIS /924-A z 2�v2rS HvpE 0cJ2 FciV9 Yi-0s73 ~ CONTACT PERSON: TITLE: -� PHONE: DATE MAILED BY LEAD AGENCY: June 17, 1985 DATE RECDIVED BY INTERESTED PARTY: DATE RESPONSE R BY LEAD AGENCY: 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach 10 AIRPOR Z LAND USE ..;OMMISSION s FOR ORANGE COUNTY — 3151 Airway Avenue, Building K, Costa Mesa, California 92626' Phone: 714 834-6741 July 15, 1985 Mr. Sid Lindmark, Project Manager Phillips Brandt Reddick 18012 Sky Park Circle Irvine, California 92714 Subject, Newport Place Tower DEIR. Dear Mr, Lindmark: In response to your recent letter, I wish to offer the following comments on the subject DEIR. The Commission's Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP), as revised in 1983, presents two planning issues which are applicable in the vicinity of John Wayne Airport (JWA). These are the issues of noise impacts and height restrictions. in the matter of noise impact, it appears that the Tower site is located just outside of the 60 CNEL footprint, based on the current JWA noise map. (attached) However, the project is located in close proximity to established flight paths for both fixed -wing and helicopter aircraft. In my opinion, the AELUP recommended single event noise metric provides an appropriate criterion for mitigating noise impacts to the project.(AELUP Appendix F, attached) The issue of height restrictions is more complex. At fifteen stories, the Tower would become the highest structure in Newport Place. Federal Aviation Regulations, part 77, 'Objects Affecting the Navigable Airspace" requires the submittal of the Tower project to the FAA Regional office for an aeronautical study. Attached for your information and use are the FAA Advisory Circular and the submittal form pertinent to this issue. The FAA will determine, through their aeronautical study, whether the Tower will constitute an "obstruction" or a "hazard" to air navigation. However, regardless of the FAA finding, it must be understood that the City of Newport Beach retains the final responsibility to approve the Tower project. The FAA has no authority to regulate local land use decisions. t 1 I F t 1 1 I Page 2 ' The AELUP sets forth various guidelines under which the Commission would ' find development projects inconsistent with its policies. In essence, the Commission requires that multi -story buildings be properly obstruction lighted, that their design and usage not cause any visual or electronic interference to aeronautical operations, and that the projects not cause ' any adverse impacts to the navigable airspace or operational utility of the airport. A pertinent excerpt from the AELUP on this issue is also attached for your reference. ' Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the Newport Place Tower DEIR. I look foward to working with you, and with the City staff, to ensure a ' thorough review of this significant project near John Wayne Airport. Sincerely, Alfre��dy ' Secretary/Planner AWB:jI Attachments cc: Ms. Pat Temple, Newport Beach Planning Department Mr. Murry L. Cable, Manager, John Wayne Airport Mr. Ralph Odenwald, Manager, FAA Orange County ATCT ' AELUP/006 1 1 l ' 1 . S 0• /r •�.r. vAl p '� ,rat • :a•1 • M *:, L , APPENDIX F RECOMMENDED NOISE METRIC As the Commission recognizes the aircraft noise issue as a matter relating to the human perception of annoyance, the following noise impact metric is additionally recommended to local jurisdictions for use in reducing the effects of single noise events: Maximum interior sound levels due to intrusive sounds should not exceed 65 dB(A) for aircraft noise. The design level should be determined by calculating the energy average of the maxi- mum levels of the loudest 30% of intrusive sounds occurring during a 24-hour period. As this noise metric is currently in.use by -the County of Orange, the Commission urges all other local jurisdictions to adopt and utilize it for the benefit of citizens who live and work in the vicinities of airports. AC III: 70 40-2G ofT14T ' ,y"'.�-}� PATE: November 30, 1977 A��ADVISORY C 1"'R3� DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION SU JIECT: FROFOSED OONSTRU4TION OR ALTERATION OF OBJECTS �THAT MAY AFFECT AIRSPACE 1, PURPOSE. The purpose of this advisory circular is to advise those persons proposing to erect or alter an object that may affect the navigable airspace of the requirement to submit a notice to the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)., It also contains the addresses of the regional offices and availability of associated publications. 2. CANCELLATION, This cancels AC 70/7460-2F, dated January 22, 19T6. 3, KIND OF OBJECTS, The notice requirement criteria apply to the proposed construction or alteration of any structure (building, tower, roadway, overhead wires and their supporting structures, etc,), including any construction equipment employed. These criteria apply to the height of overhead communications and electric transmission lines above the terrain, or water if so situated, as well as the height of their supporting structures. 4. WHO MUST FILE A NOTICE, A construction sponsor is required by regulation to submit notice to t s Administrator of the FAA if his proposed construc- tion or alteration exceeds one or more of the following conditions: a. Greeter Than 200 Feet in Might. If the proposed object would be more than 200 feet a ove ground level (AGL) at its location. MAN *" r:r AO: Lee 3W AAOOL « M "so N�AedMws 1 J 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 i I Ell 1 16/ Parsons failing to averly with the provisions at the Federal Aviation Bogulatione� ' Part 776 say be liable to a find of u► to five :wadrd dollars ($300.00) as ►roviled for by Section 902(s) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1934, as amended. Inifisled by: AAT-240 1 1 [II 11/30/77 AC 70/7460-2G d, Near a Heliport, If the proposed object would be of a heliport listed in the "Airport Directory" or 1 Federal military agency; and would exceed one foot each 25 feet (25:1), horizontally from the nearest takeoff area of that heliport, I F J I t C within 5,000 feet operated by a in height for landing and A.pm.h.nd :�_ •o-.Lp,er �Sabr' Nn"..rum e.rn. ,]^ ..r u•, •}?'� � _ — f — — —/, err -- rpn fn, OI p.�n• r.•lir• -I I —I �. n Cv..d A.o.w«•Dews ..'�' n•a � • •r Buhl .Iwo a•.•rn„1. •»•. • ern. V.rT�.• Lag I I o �nq r %i IRn Inwyin,r. "Nd�p` S.rr.ff v L' ID II I .. , o r.e nl b•n�nq !tr•a•P•r• e. Highways and Railroads. If the which would,exceed at least one a - d above, after its height is ' Par 4 . N.G.. rgnutl ,. N.I... w .,wald proposed object is•a traverse way of the standards listed in Items adjusted upward-17 feet for an Interstate Highway, 15 feet for any other public roadway, 10 feet (or the height of the highest mobile objects that would normally traverse the road) for a private an amount equal to the height of would traverse a waterway or any mentioned. road, 23 feet for a railroad, or the highest mobile objects that other thoroughfare not previously ...r.- .Yf.. r1.. '. Nw. r p..... Page 3 21/30/77 AC 70/7460-1U 7. HOW TO NOTIFY FAA. Notification to the FAA may be made by forwarding one completed set of FAA Form 7460-1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration, to the Chief, Air Traffic Division, at the regional office having jurisdiction over the area within which the construction or altar- stion will be located. In Puerto Rico, notices should be forwarded to the Chief, Air Traffic Branch, San Juan Area Office, B. WHERE TO FILE A NOTICE. The geographic area of jurisdiction for each FAA office is indicated below: 11 AAL - ALASKAN AE 1 N al an ! ona df 6 j ut venw Anchorage, AK M01 Tel, 907-265.4271 21AWL -WL STERN RtGIOMI WOOD lWrd NewthoM, CA OW60 A4/il Addrest F.O. base 92007 Warldway Postal Center Las A•g91es, CA 00009 Tel. 213.636.6116 .TX— MIERN .lilts f• MIC JPA International Aitp&t ►edenl Wilding Jamaica, NY 11430 Tel. 212.995.3390 ADDRESS OF REGIONAL OFFICE$ AND SAN JUAN AREA OFFICE 41 ANW . Nuotim—MIT-M"N j N N 10 Na.—blUiEice Nt. -ng and egionTalEice w*it'A a a�+T-04itr FM Wilding, 8u ng Had TNtw irglend Executive MM w Mawb oW Seattle, WA 98100 Wtlinglaa, MA 01803 Farlwwlh, T% 76101 Tel. 206467.7610 ir1. 617-273.7285 Mail Addren F.O. box 1689 N N g A M- KY UN A N FMI Work, T)c 76101 ttn�q^_u Rocky !?Cllig.atro ice Tel. 817.624.4911,exi. 3% i tall Pelol, GA 30344 Alln. 1DISS Aven 111W - 11 CENTRAL REGION) Mail Address Aurasto rG A enna a ona ce F.O. hex 20636 Tel, 337 su weer Atlanta, GA 3D320 '� Kansas City, MO 64106 Tel. A04-763.1646 W. ildv]7L3101 GtSAN JUCN7CM Y � 13ON tSon au-a+n Alto iof fce lean Lakes Regional ice c o- is e•it w ip RFD -I, aa. 29A L•lea Serest SI•Lan WJUO tall Devion Venal Des Plaines, It. 60018 • aw v"W / Menelulu, 96815 Son Jua., A 00914 irl, 312-694•I50O,ext. 436 Mpil Addre Tel, 809.791-1250 Y.O. sex �1 Moglul , MI IEE lei. a 955.04 I I 1 I I u I t Par 7 Page 5 1 E ' 11/30/77 SAC 70/7460-20 ' Availability. FAA advisory circulars are available free of charge from: Department of Transportation, Publications Section, TAD-443.1, 400 7th Street, S.W., Washington, D. C. 20590. b. FAA Forms- ' (1) FAA Fora 7460-1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration. Purpose. To no'ify the FAA of the proposed construction or ' alteration of an object that may interfere with the navigable airspace. ' (2) FAA Form, 7460-2, Notice of Progress of Construction or Alteration. Purpcse. To notify the FAA of progress, when and as requested ' on the form. This fonn will be automatically furnished by the FAA regional office issuing the determination whenever notifi- cation is needed for charting purposes and to change affected aeronautical procedures. Availability. FAA forms are available free of charge from all ' FAA regional offices. (See Item 8.) c. Federal Aviation Regulation. ' (1) Feiara' Av'at',cr. Regalation (FAR) Part 77, !'Objects Affecting the Navigable Airspace." ' Purpose. To prescribe she standards for determining obstruc- tions in navigable airspace and to set forth the requirements for notice to the FAA of proposed construction oralteration. ' 'f� 7 is for from: Availability. FAR, Part 77 available Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C. 20402. Make check or money order payable ' to Superintendent of Documents. d. Marking Specifications and Standards. Aviation colors and paint should conform with the following: . (1) Federal Standard Number 595, Color Guide, Ready Mixed Paint. ' (a) Orange Number 12197 ' (b) White Number 17875 (2) Federal Specification TT-P-59, Aviation Surface Paint, Ready ' Mixed, International Orange. ' Par 10 Page 7 11/30/77 Military Speeificationes Commanding Officer Naval Publications and Forms Center 5801 Tabor Avenue Attention: NPFC-105 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19120 FAA Specificationes Chief, Airports Engineering Division, W-500 Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D. Co 20591 FAA Advisory Circulars! Department of Transportation Publications Section, TAD-443.1 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590 AC 70/71,60-RU 11, HOW TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL COPIES OF THIS ADVISORY CIRCULAR. a. AC 70/7460-2G, Proposed Construction or Alteration That May Affect the Navigable Airspace# dated 11/30/71, b. Identify the publication by its full title as in a. above and order from: Department of Transportation, Publications Section, TAD-443-it 400 7th Street, S.W. W shinaton, D.C. 20590. !AA employees obtain copies through norms distribution system. c. Payment. There is no charge for this publication. RA Director, Air Traffic Service Par 10 Page 9 n u I 1 t I ' 3.2.2 Specific Guidelines (Continued) uses are normally unacceptable in this zone. Industrial uses are accept- able providing that they adhere to the density and intensity of use restric- tions. Furthermore, because of the proximity to aeronautical operations, uses in this area must not emit excessive glare or light, nor produce or cause steam, smoke, dust, or electronic interference so as to interfere with, or endanger, aeronautical operations. ' HEIGHT RESTRICTION ZONE: ' .Any object, which by reason of its height or location would interfere with the establi.shed, or planned, airport flight procedures, patterns, or navi- gational systems, is unacceptable to the Commission. Similarly, any pro- posal which would cause a diminution in the utility of an airport is un- acceptable to the Commission. The standards, criteria, and procedures ' promulgated by the FAA for the thorough evaluation of development projects are designed to ensure the safe and efficient use -of the navigable air- space. The appli-cation of these principles by the Commission will ensure the stability of local air transportation as well as promote land uses ' compatible with the airport environs. However, any object which rises above the surrounding development, or is located in close proximity to any ' of the various flight paths, must be clearly visible during hours of twi- light or darkness and must not threaten, endanger, or interfere with aero- nautical operations. Such objects, even if within the above,height restric- tions, are not acceptable to the Commission unless they are clearly marked or lighted according to FAA Standards. ' In reviewing projects, the Commission will find any structure, either within or outside of the planning areas, inconsistent with this AELUP ' if it: 1. Is determined to be a "hazard" by the FAA; ' 2. Would raise the ceiling or visibility minimums at an airport for an existi-ng or planned instrument procedure (i.e., a procedure ' consistent with the FAA -approved airport layout plan or a proposed procedure formally on file with the FAA); 1 1 3. Would result in a loss in airport utility, such as causing the usable length of the runway to be reduced; 4. Would conflict with the VFR air space used for the airport traffic pattern or enroute navigation to and from the airport. I - 22 - STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECAIDJUL 1 )3�� CALIFORNIA REGIONS HATER t�OALITY CONTROL BOARD SANTA ANA REGION 9409 INDIANA AVENUE, SUITE 200 RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92SOO PHONES (714) $94-9330 July 16, 1985 Ms. Patricia Temple City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard P. 0. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 NOP: Newport Place Tower Dear Ms. Temple: GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor, We have reviewed the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Newport Place Tower project and wish to offer the -following comment. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) should note that an erosion/ siltation control plan must be approved by�the City of Newport Beach prior to the beginning of any construction activ4tfes. We look forward to review of the DEIR when it becomes available. If you have any questions concerning this comment, please contact the undersigned. Sincerely, C' c r ctl� Nancy A. Aon Environmental Technician NAO:kyb r. r.C.Y 11,,! PEACH, u I 1 I I I I u L Cli ' 12 ' STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Gommor 'DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 7, P.O. BOX 2304, LOS ANGELES 90051 (213) 620-5335 July 16, 1985 07 ORA 73 Notice of Preparation Newport Place Tower ' Ms. Patricia Temple City of Newport Beach Planning Department ' Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 I H 1 t CI Dear Ms. Temple: We have reviewed the Notice of Preparation for the Vewport Place Tower EIR. Caltrans will be a Responsible Agency for this project for any work on MacArthur Blvd. (Route 73) for which encroachment permits or other approvals would be required. The traffic and circulation to the transportation system included in project plans. 300,000 sq. ft. of office sp on the local transportation element should indicate the impacts and mitigations proposed to be The addition of approximately ace could have a significant effect system. The EIR for projects where a state agency is a Responsible Agency should also follow the State EIR Guidelines; as we would use your document in the process of approving permit applications. This should also include references to archaeological/historical surveys pertaining to the project area. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. We will wish to review the EIR when available. Contact person for our agency will be Ronald Kosinski of my staff at (213) 620-4524. Very truly yours, r W. B. A"NTI Chief;, „'r\ Environmental Planning Branch 9 REOEtvC.1� '`K,� PienrtP� � 1 13 I to 8/10CIATI 600 fouth Commonwealth Avenue .Juite 1000 • loi Angelo/ • Collfornla.90005 * 213/385-1000 DATE: July 16, 1985 TO: Ms. Patricia Temple City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Post Office Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 FROM: Metropolitan Clearinghouse SUBJECT: NEWPORT PLACE TOWER SCAG FILE NUMBER: OR-33296-NP Thank you for submitting the Notice to Prepare the envirorunental document for the referenced project for SCAG review. SCAG staff does not have comments at this time but looks forward to reviewing the environmental document when available. Sincerely, Clearing Ouse Officia z WAM:wp4 RECErVEC' penn�a �'lk'rtMM;t JUL 221985 ,k- N� 11 I I I -I I F 1� 14 8 Community Development Department City of Irvine, 17200 Jamboree Road. P.O. Box 18575, Irvine, California 92713 (714) 660-3600 July 17, 1985 Ms. Patricia Temple Environmental Coordinator City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 ' Newport Beach, CA 92658 Dear Ms. Temple: ' SUBJECT: NOTICE OF PREPARATION - NEWPORT PLACE TOWER ' Thank you for giving us the opportunity -to review the subject Notice of Preparation. Our comments are as follows: Transportation That full consideration be given to subregional/regional traffic impacts as well as local (defined as City of ' Newport Beach). Intersection Capacity Analysis (ICU) should be calculated at key intersections that might be outside of the City limits. The analysis should consider approved and proposed build out -of ad7acent land uses ' (i.e., IBC, Newport Center GPA, etc.)._ We look forward to reviewing the draft EIR during the forthcoming ' review and comment period. Sincerely, ' D M R , ICIP Principal Planner c °J Environmental Coordinator ' S RECEIVED MR: lb Planning s Daparkp)tnt ' cc: John Murphy t JUL221985- Mary Roush 1 CITY OF Shirley Land b NEWMR1' BEACH, CALIF. I N � F i5 STATE OP CALIFORNIA GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Gd, r, AIR RESOURCES BOARD 1102 O STREET .. P.O. BOX 2815 ' SACRAMENTO, CA 95812 July 18, 1985 ARB No. 850603 I -is. Patricia Temple City of Newport Beach Planning Department P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Dear Ms. Temple: Your June 77, 7985, notice of preparation for the Newport Place Tower Draft Environmental Impact Report was received on June 20, 1985, and has been reviewed. Because of the size of this project and its location in an area where air quality exceeds national ambient air quality standards, we recommend you prepare a transportation systems management (TSM) plan to minimize traffic congestion and resulting air pollution caused by development in the project area. We suggest that the environmental impact report identify a full range of mitigation measures and include specific details on when, by whom, and how they will be implemented. For additional information, please contact*Sydney Thornton of may staff at (976) 322-7109. S ince �rely, /"l Anne B. Geraghty, manager General Projects Section Technical Support Division cc: Culver City Redevelopment Agency State Clearinghouse Sydney Thornton 1 I I I 1 [I L J 1 I ` V MURRAY STORM DIRECTOR, EMA ' c ROBERT G. FISHER 4 N-rY O F DIRECTOR OF PLANNING 2 I LOCATION: ' 12 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA P.O. BOX 4048 5 � RANG E BANTA ANA, CA 92 02.4048 �/ MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 4048 ' ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY SANTA ANA, CA 92702.4048 PLANNING TELEPHONE: (714) 834.4643 July 16, 1985 FILE NCL 4130 RECEIVED f Patricia Temple S Planning Environmental Coordinator Department I0 City of Newport Beach JUL191985--,- P.O. Box 1768 CITYoF Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 i NEWPOP.T BEACH, CALIF. SUBJECT: NOP - Newport Place Tower �? Dear Ms. Temple: ' The County of Orange Environmental Management Agency has reviewed the above referenced document which proposes to address the environmental impacts associated with the construction of a fifteen -story office building. The building will be located near the northwest corner of -Newport Place Drive and MacArthur Boulevard near John Wayne Airport in the City of Newport Beach. Attached for your consideration arecommentsfrom this Agency's Divisions of Transportation Planning, Advanced Planning and Project Planning. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the NOP. 'We continue to mook forward to working with you, on•this prdject. We would appreciate receiving three copies of the DEIR when they become available. ' If you have any questions, please contact Sara Anderson at 834-5550. 1 SA:am(023) Attachments Very truly yours, Michael M. Ruane, Chief EMA/ESP, Capital Projects 1 17 County of Orange W�II� WHO July 8$ 1985 Tot F. W. Olson, Manager, Environmental i Special Projects Division r*xt Jerry E. Bennett, Managerr Transportation Planning Division SUBJECTS Newport Place Tower - Notice of Preparation We have reviewed the above -mentioned Notice of Preparation for the Newport Place Tower project at the northwest corner of Newport Place Drive and MacArthur Boulevard within the City of Newport Beachj we have the following comments: AIR QUALITYs The air quality analysis for this project should be prepared in accordance with the techniques recommended by the California Air Resources Board and the South Coast Air Quality Management District. We would like to review the final EIR when it becomes available. MR/KKzjnDM01-54 7/5/85 Pe5n-aee(ai80 roc< ? `County of Orange SUBJ 'J I I I I I F. W. Olson, Manager Bryan Speegle, Manager Comments on Newport P1 18I� /j ® F850-123.2 DATE: DEPT/DIST: EMA/Environmental/Special Projects ance Planning Division PHONE NO.: Advance Planning Division staff has reviewed the subject document and has the following comments: 1. The EIR should contain a complete discussion of the cumulative impacts of the project. An appropriate study area for this analysis would be bounded by: North - San Diego Freeway South - Bristol Street East - Jamboree Boulevard West - John Wayne Airport 2. The EIR should evaluate compliance with Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations including its public safety implications. 3. The EIR should address the possible land use precedence that could be set by this project and the potential for future planned community amendments for similar structures. Thank you for the opportunity to review this NOP. We would appreciate the opportunity to review the draft EIR when it becomes available. DLF:mm(7/018) 1 e fbco-unty of Orange AND � File: PPD 28 F850-125.2� DATE:_ June 20, 1985 TO- F. W. Olson, Manager DEFT/DIST: Environmental/Special Projects Division , FROM: R, L. Rende, Manager, Project Planning Division PHONE NO.: ' SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation - Newport Plaza Tower - City of Newport Beach This is in response to your request to review subject Notice of Preparation for a 15-story office building Along MacArthur Boulevard near John Wayne Airport in the City of Newport Beach. The draft Environmental Impact Report should address the impacts of the proposed project on circulation and traffic volumes on local and regional arterial high- ways and transportation corridors including the effects of increased trips on the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor and MacArthur Boulevard. L�1 R. L. Rende RLR:jar cc: Jerry Bennett RECEIVED III L 2 g 1985 20 ��L'iE•;E� ;. CALIFORNIA Ifl CC;I,Irjk.NY ' ORANGE COUNTY DIVISION • P O. BOX 3334, ANAHEIM, CALIF 92803 ' July 25, 1985 Phillips Brandt Reddick 18012 Skypark Circle ' Irvine, CA 92714 Attn: Sid Lindmark Subject: EIR - Newport Place Tower This letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual commitment to serve the proposed project, but only as an information service. Its intent is to notify you that the Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the area where the above -named project is proposed. Gas ' service to the project could be provided from an existing main as shown on the attached atlas sheet without any significant impact on the environment. The service would be in accordance -with the Company's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission at the time contractual arrangements are made. The availability of natural gas service, as set forth in this letter, is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, the Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities ' Commission. We can also be affected by actions of gas supply or the condition under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with revised conditions. I Estimates of gas usage for non-residential projects are developed on an individual basis and are obtained from the Commercial -Industrial Market Services Staff by calling (714)634-3173. ' We have developed several programs which are available, upon request, to provide assistance in selecting the most effective applications of energy conservation techniques for a particular project. If you desire further information on any of our energy conservation programs, please contact this office for assistance. ' Sincerely, M.T. Roaeen V ' Technical Supervisor LA/du attachment I ED { i 1 1 Go too C •.wiw�u M. �► 1 ,. 1 2 i T. 1 1 1 1t� ' doµ% ro, rLAC Olt ` 1 - toy f Y}� r O� 1 14 45-45 r s» !1 S WY+s�KIT YPm P.M.4!-14 i! ` /.N i I STATE OF CALIFORNIA-BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY 21 GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS ; 1120 "No STREET d I f ' 31 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 r (916) 322.3090 14 E p �� July 23, 1985 Ms_ Patricia Temple Newport Bea RECE - Plnn+Tin6 i pze,aTt 19a� clry CF Ace+. NENP� ALIKE. City of ch P. 0. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Dear Ms. Temple: City of Newport Beach, NOP Newport Place Tower,'SCH #85061914 The Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics, has con- ' sidered the above -referenced document with respect,sto those areas germane to its statutory responsibilities. The following sugges- I I tions are offered for your consideratio . r The draft EIR should address the impact of airport -generated noise and/or safety on the project as well as the impact of the project itself on the safety of airport operations. :Consideration should also be given to the issue of compatible land,uses in areas adjacent to the airport. This should help to relieve future conflict between airports and their surroundings. Thank you for the opportunity of reviewing and commenting on this proposal. Sincerely, JACK D. KEMMERLY, Chief Division of Aeronautics r Sandy HeAnard Environmental Planner J n J 1 APPENDIX D Traffic/Circulation Technical Report `,1J oI6( r rjfr i�Jj•I�r'2f1'rf:rJ i�'. /1 (r�,�'fy1•rnfr •j', t/ji •� ljY�•)WV "�.tr )�/ f{( rr.f,�;�I." �tfi S'mil,, /I,�Y.•f�'r/�`l �}j�'-.t'•, ,'��f; �•'t' �`,fuh' �1 i�f' �5��f �'ly{( �rr'.4� t d?'�, ` �r JJ..✓'J�{/��1,fn '+''S' ��y1(•;' / ��, i, •1 j `.1/'. ti t / J✓ 'i } �'r � 11 f ' !'.%t" •`r r r /• . J • F r 11 ' r, i • i r,' . fr �` 'I r!' : t�(j:i. Jja,:�+ �1+1 y / �t r' '7r�i f1� jrf JC� �yt�:.V�'�lf`'s',t'�}t `c!':c;vF/t r -: x%�ifr:?rJ�S�;}� ;kl % � ��'• �p;�����.� ' J r •Y,,, "��r�• (r,{.� e�'�/ .i'•�• lt,']jYJl,�F(y [)�[r >�/ I'I r /� �F��'�J't y; slr�I�'�•Y 17�f tl �7�r,� lir,f), f ,Z*i,�f//+�•�1'J'`T''{1!�J���%tl��!1` {�i�•.> ' !(J� �+ ��, ✓S +.�r}�j/f�`� (•••'✓r> �i. ,f(f r rJf•� (�� . • . �9 rtr ly//• ij �•I"r��,•1'� V'7, J�i:'i,t".�'/J�•1,�.{jr ����''llt�Y�Y.jj i •�.''. �r5 C.`( �':/)�,�',�. '�t. {�+• •• j r ,t�. / r h„ J �'/'�f+. /(� � �Frti' � r i •�[ JI,. ;('(Yh r�' � , a !+)��t Y� ,.•�;)C+1<��'+/J�y J(�'i'''� I;'�': �./-j�/�J�f rrrr�frr�7+Ut 1"1 j{ •''1•� •f�� l/: bf%f'lt•+•�••pt��/�i3���,•.r�r',✓'��l�'�'1��,� ' !��IT3 �lJ`� r'ti�'Kl cfi Ji �a%rV'rflr T�l.Y/yi'%�li:+'1?-f 147, �ii '•� ff X f�Jf'�fd•rj� • J r•�s�; j,•1f�,• flr%'Sfi1 ;/•j:<�J •j , �'rft��i , ) 1'�i!•• ' , StJ'i •'yl�' a ��),�',;{��i J(r+� /r�r,,�t�%r,.:,,,t1 �/,•f,�rr"tr�f��%$'t;:!,� �t�rt {. rIjj, )F di r McLachlan Newport Place f Traffic Study { ff _ f { rVi1 •r��� f'y�',r�, '%�t��fr/��� �T.,��� 1�:�:F� y'}F,rii r t �. "r: �''�,\7I ✓�'f++ 1 f'" J' + }J�y'j��t�• I r•' 1i�7GT,;�i• e!'/��J�� �� r � ; ' `��\rc J :'rl1•'if f j�/J�-J !t: • y�y r,�s(�J.j .., Cyyij�•'t)(1'r,4:)t1Ay�ji rr � •�. �� ?��y(r��. S..,,?}'YJ*IJ. �jlr%iF�FJ/�''f�` v,�,��"• fir. �r (K'�����,r!�(.✓' (f\'�,�`'�i �^� „"'� ✓� '•t �`,,t sYf t f� !',5 'd�.1G(}}`r'/r�3�.r��.•J)'>.Vj''�;C�I,C� ��, r��/�'°!�'y. a � �utn�u�la�n r.�ssociates � 1 � ssJJ'vv,� F Transportation Planning *Traffic Engineering •%fri ��,1•'; '`J'Y, �`�'��/:`'�, ),9�1/S�; ��,(�.f)i f '''�,A r/,' fr . :;jr,1l•/i 7�•nj�//rF�fj•� 1 :ll,J}�,r;/)�.,'tl.,� �1ry'J�r���Y'„y'�`f`r��'�,%r���,+•,•�*��l�y�'r,�•�Tj("/frr. ..!!%4*L ',,t jtt 1 Sl;'�, } ,/ F: J/ � C Jr i.� .J . /"�• .1 �. �t •j ..`•7i .l. �Td 7) /�{ r ' I •S� ,rlil , {(rr1n j . J� •S 1. J 'IjJ r 7r •( �'r �f i�h`�I"j�jr+If:Y�J�r��'• ����yl�r'tff +� i� .t���.tl .�: �JN��: 1 71 96uamap (�Assaciates Transportation Planning *Traffic Engineering May 21, 1986 Mr. Tom Holm Phillips, Brandt, Reddick 18012 Sky Park Circle Irvine, CA 92714 Dear Mr. Holm. We are pleased to present this interim traffic impact analysis for the McLachlan Newport Place Office Building. The analysis is in accordance with the requirements of the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance. This report contains (1) One Percent Traffic Volumes Analysis; (2) ICU Analysis; (3) ICU Analysis With Project Related Improvements; and (4) Internal Circulation and Parking. We trust that the findings will be of immediate as well as continuing value to you and the City of Newport Beach. Should you have any questions, or if we can be of. further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, KUN'ZMAN ASSOCIATES (7h Kain, AICP #822c 4664 Barrence Parkway ► Irvine, CA 92714 ► (714) 559-4231 McLachlan Newport Place Traffic Study D<uR3111al1 i'AnOciates Transportation Planning • Traffic Engineering (B TAMM OF OONMINTS Section Page No. 1. Project Description ..................................... 1 2. Project Traffic Generation .............................. 4 3. Project Traffic Distribution and Assignment 8 4. One Percent Intersection Analysis .......................11 S. Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis ..............18 6. Project Related Improvements ............................21 7. Internal Circulation and Parking ........................26 B. Other Traffic Considerations ............................28 Appendices Appendix A - One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis Work Sheets Appendix 8 - Intersection Capacity Utilization Work Sheets Appendix C - Alternative Improvements ICU Work Sheets LIST OF TABLES Table No. Title Page No. 1 Traffic Generation Rates .................... 5 2 Traffic Generation ........................... 6 3 Net Traffic Generation ...................... 7 4 One Percent Analysis Summary ................13 5 Committed Projects ..........................16 6 Intersection Capacity Utilization for Critical Intersections ..................19 7 One -Way Trip Lengths By Land Use ............29 3.IST OF FIGURM Figure No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Title Page No. Location Map ................................. 2 Site Plan ..........................•......... 3 Project Traffic Distribution (Inbound) 9 Project Traffic Distribution (outbound) a ... .•10 Study Intersections ..........•.•.••••........12 Corona Del Mar Freeway (Route 73) Improvements.................................25 i I 1 1 t 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Location The project is located at the northwest corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Newport Place Drive/Von Karman Avenue in the vicinity of John Wayne Orange County Airport. The site location is illustrated in Figure 1. Proposed Development The project consists of the construction of a 300,000 square foot fifteen story office building and adjacent parking structure as illustrated in Figure 2. The office building will include a restaurant, bank, racquet ball courts, and miscellaneous small retail services such as a newspaper -tobacco stand and flower shop. The new office building will replace the existing 21,511 square foot Bank of America building on the site. The parking structure will be constructed in an area currently utilized for surface parking. Two additional office buildings existing on the site will remain. The restaurant, racquet ball courts and miscellaneous retail services will be located in the basement area of the office building and are intended primarily to serve the tenants of the building. The restaurant will occupy a total area of 9,920 square feet and will include a lounge. The racquet ball facilities will consist of four courts and will include lockers and showers within the 9,048 square feet of the facility. The existing bank operation on the site will be relocated into the new office building upon completion. The bank will not provide drive -through banking service. 1 I 1 Figure 1` f Location Map s?4,` Sk! 0 Newport Pima a x � Ord S� 0 A m �If(� Cont ti• V603111an c?ssoCtaEcs Figure 2 Site Plan nwxw �r�r<a CaMr 2. P9WXCr TRAPTIc am1ERATI(M 1 The traffic generated by a site is determined by multiplying an ' appropriate trip generation rate by the quantity of land use. Trip generation rates are typically expressed in terms of trip ends per one thousand square feet of gross floor area. For this study, trip generation data were approved by the City of , Newport Beach. The generation rates used reflect a degree of interaction between the on -site service facilities and the office ' Space which reduces the trip generation slightly. Table 1 provides trip generation rates for existing and proposed ' land uses. The trip generation rate for the racquetball facility has been expressed on a per court basis rather than per thousand square feet as trip generation has been shown to correlate better on this basis. The racquet ball courts are , expected to interact highly with the project office space. Table 2 presents the traffic generated by existing and proposed land uses. The net floor area of 259,521 square feet attributable to project office use assumes the existing bank operation on the site will be relocated without changes in the ' scope of its operation to the new office structure. Table 3 summarizes traffic generation and presents the net amount ' of traffic the project will generate when allowance is made for the existing bank land use. [l 4 1 I I t Table 1 TRAFFIC GENERATION RATES Existing - Land Use Pro'ect Land Uses Bank Office Racquet Bank per per Restaurant Ball Court Time Period per TSF* TSF TSF per TSF per Court Evening Peak Hour Inbound 5.3 5.3 0.6 2.7 2.5 Outbound 3.5 3.5 1.7 1.7 1.6 Total 8.8 8.8 2.3 4.4 4.1 Peak 2.5 Hours Inbound 10.6 10.6 1.2 5.4 5.0 Outbound 7.0 7.0 3.4 3.4 3.2 Total 17.6 17.6 4.6 8.8 8.4 Daily Tao -way Traffic Total 165 165 1 13 75 44 I*TSF = thousand square feet gross area 1 1 r Table 2 TRAFFIC GENERATICN Existing ImO Uses Proect Iand Uses Bank Bank Office Restaurant 21,5ll 21,5ll 259,521 9,920 Racquet Square Square Square Square Ball court Time Period Feet Feet Feet Feet 4* courts ENening Peak Flour Inbound 114 114 156 27 10 Outbound 75 75 441 17 6 Total 189 189 597 44 16 Peak 2.5 flours Inbound 228 228 311 54 20 Outbound 151 151 882 34 13 Total 379 379 1193 88 33 Daily Tw" ey Traffic Total 3549 3549 3374 744 176 I I I I I * Gross area equals 9,048 square feet and includes lockers and showers I I LI 1 C I L. 0 I 1 i i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 i 1 Table 3 NET TRAFFIC GENERATION Total Total Net Existing Project Traffic Time Period Land Uses Land Uses Generation Evening Peak Hour Inbound 114 307 193 Outbound 75 539 4.64 Total 189 846 657 Peak 2.5 Hours Inbound 228 613 385 Outbound 151 1080 929 Total 379 1703 1324 Daily Two-way Traffic Total 3549 7843 1 4294 I 3. PROJECT TPA"IC DIOMBOTIOf AND ASSIGMENT I Traffic distribution and assignment is based on the directional ' orientation of traffic, and then the traffic is assigned to specific roadways. It is based on the geographical location of residential concentrations, along with commercial, business, and ' recreational, and employment opportunities. Traffic distribution and assignment was reviewed and approved by City of Newport Beach staff. The orientation of traffic inbound to the site is expected to ' vary slightly from the orientation for outbound traffic. This reflects the one-way attribute of Bristol Street and Bristol ' Street North, and the non -mirror routing of traffic due to localized evening congestion. Figure 3 illustrates the project traffic distribution for inbound traffic, Figure 4 illustrates outbound traffic. ' C 11 1 B I I F 1 F Figure 3 Project Traffic Distribution (inbound) 25 5 Oi f cJe 15 y\� r Ge`c E 5 �U Y ti ° it25 e m V 6^jsr A 5 °r ttCC e^�sr �O u Universit Drive u B E Leaend A 10- Percent Traffic To Project O� a u \0 10 day 10 'Varian i,-Anociates I Figure 4 Project trsffie Distribution (Outbound) 25 a 15 10 ien 25 G Y Cp 2 5 Q�esit 'j6 fh 70 6 %s% 10 r 5 e"%s SI 3 �0 Q u N� niversit� Legend 10 - Percent Trettle Frtlm Project ^fit' � �q fey` V6m3 nan t,4ssociates 10 10 11 11 H 1 I I I I 1 I I I 4. ONE PERCENT INTERSECTION ANALYSIS Twenty-one critical intersections were examined as identified by City staff for traffic volumes generated by the project. The location of these intersections is illustrated in Figure 5. The results of the One Percent Traffic Analysis are summarized in Table 4. Except for the intersection of Bristol Street/Campus Drive, all intersections examined exceed the One Percent volume criteria. The purpose of the One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis is to establish whether the project adds a volume that is greater then one percent of a critical intersection's approach volume. If less than one percent is added to all approaches of a critical intersection, then no further analysis is necessary as specified in the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. As part of the one percent analysis, regional growth and committed projects are included. Volume projections are made to a point in time one year after the project completion. This project's completion date is 1987, and traffic volumes are projected to 1988. Regional traffic has been forecasted in accordance with City procedures, and committed project traffic includes those projects listed in Table 5. 11 Figure 5 Study Intersections dt Legend a • Study IntarNcNon w Ford Sa s A k/f)o Coast ti �iun�rnan c.�ssoeiates I H I I 1 I H I II I C I F� Table 4 ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS SUMMARY Intersections Analyzed 1% of Projected 2.5 Hr. Peak Vol. Project's 2.5 Hour Peak Vol. Over 1% MacArthur and Campus -Northbound 33 232 Southbound 41 96 Yes Eastbound 22 0 Westbound 34 0 MacArthur and Birch Northbound 24 232 Southbound 30 96 Yes Eastbound 18 0 Westbound 20 0 MacArthur and Jamboree Northbound 35 38 Southbound 40 186 Yes Eastbound 20 0 Westbound 33 0 MacArthur and Bison Northbound 54 38 Southbound 77 93 Yes Eastbound 19 0 Westbound 0 0 MacArthur and Ford Northbound 44 38 Southbound 83 93 Yes Eastbound 11 0 Westbound 12 0 MacArthur and San Joaquin Hills Northbound 30 38 Southbound 49 93 Yes Eastbound 29 0 Westbound 10 0 Coast Highway and MacArthur Northbound 0 0 Southbound 34 93 Yes Eastbound 47 0 Westbound 41 38 Jamboree and Campus Northbound 59 139 Southbound 32 58 Yes Eastbound 27 46 Westbound 18 19 13 1 Table 2 (Continued) ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS SUMMARY Intersections Analyzed 1% of Projected 2.5 Hr. Peak Vol, Project's 2.5 Hour Peak Vol. Over 1% Jamboree and Bristol North Northbound 73 38 Southbound 57 93 Yes Eastbound 0 0 Westbound 3 0 Jamboree and Bristol Northbound 67 38 Southbound 29 93 Yes Eastbound 93 0 Westbound 0 0 Jamboree and Eastbluff North Northbound 59 38 Southbound 63 93 Yes Eastbound 4 0 Westbound 1 0 Jamboree and Bison Northbound 52 38 Southbound 53 93 Yes Eastbound 3 0 Westbound 11 0 Jamboree and Eastbluff/ Ford Northbound 59 38 Southbound 47 93 Yes Eastbound 7 0 Westbound 10 0 Jamboree and San Joaquin Hills Northbound 42 38 Southbound 57 93 Yes Eastbound 5 0 Westbound 7 0 Jamboree and Santa Barbara Northbound 28 38 Southbound 43 93 Yes Eastbound 0 0 Westbound 23 0 14 i 1 I I I 1 I I II I 11 I Table 2 (Continued) ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS SUMMARY Intersections Analyzed 1% of Projected 2.5 Hr. Peak Vol. Project's 2.5 Hour Peak Vol. Over 1% Coast Highway and Jamboree Northbound 9 0 Southbound 58 93 Yes Eastbound 58 38 Westbound 65 0 Bristol North and Campus/Irvine Northbound 28 19 Southbound 36 0 Yes Eastbound 0 0 Westbound 117 230 Bristol North and Birch Northbound 14 96 Southbound 33 186 Yes Eastbound 0 0 Westbound 63 93 Bristol and Campus/ Irvine Northbound 22 19 Southbound 26 0 No Eastbound 117 96 Westbound 0 0 Bristol and Birch Northbound 4 0 Southbound 12 46 Yes Eastbound 78 96 Westbound 0 0 MacArthur and Newport Place Northbound 27 38 Southbound 25 96 Yes Eastbound 12 96 Westbound 11 650 15 I Table 5 COMMITTED PROJECTS Hughes Aircraft N1 (industrial) Hoag Hospital (community facility) Far West Savings and Loan (office) Pacesetter Homes (office) Aeronutronic Ford (residential) Back Bay Office (office) Boyle Engineering (office) Cal Canadian Bank (office) Civic Plaza (office) Civic Plaza (office) Corporate Plaza (office) Koll Center Newport (office, industrial) MacArthur Court (office) National Education Office (office) North Ford (industrial) Orchard Office (office) Pacific Mutual Plaza (office) 3701 Birch Office (office) Newport Place (office) Shokrian (office) Bank of Newport (office) Bayside Square (office) Sea Island (residential) Haywood Apartments (residential) Harbor Point Homes (residential) Roger's Gardens (commercial) Seaview Lutheran Plaza (residential) Rudy Baron (office) Quail Business Center (office) 441 Newport Boulevard (office) Martha's Vineyard (restaurant) Valdez •- 3101 W. Coast Highway (office) Coast Business Center (office) Koll Center Newport No. 1 TPP (office) Ford Aeronutronics Amendment No. 1 Ross Mollard (medical office) Banning/Newport Ranch (officer industrial, residential) Park Lido (medical office) Hughes Aircraft #2 (industrial) Heritage Bank (bank officer medical office) Flagship Hospital Big Canyon 10 (residential) Fun Zone (commercial) Marriott Expansion St. Andrews Church YMCA I I I t i I I r I u i F F 16 ►J I i I P ,1 J i L I I I C I Table 5 (Continued) COMMITTED PROJECTS Allred Condominiums (residential) Morgan Development Four Seasons Hotel University Athletic Club Block 400 Medical (medical office) Sheraton Expansion Ford Aeronutronic Amendment No. 1 Amend. No. 1 MacArthur Court (office) National Education (office) Ford Aeronutronic Amendment No. 2 Carver Granville Office (office) Corona Del Mar Homes (residential) Big Canyon Villa Apartments (residential) 1400 Dove Street (office) 1100 Quail Street (office) Heltzer Medical Office (medical office) Koll Center TPP Amend. 4A Villa Point Rosan's Development Block 500 Newport Center Project Newport Aquatics Center 2600 E. Coast Highway Jasmine Park (office) MacArthur Associates (bank/office) L I! 17 I 1 S. INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' For intersections which would exceed the -one percent criteria, the Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis was performed, The results of this analysis are shown in Table 64 Of the twenty intersections analyzed, six have an existing intersection capacity utilization (ICU) of greater than 0.9. These intersections and their ICU values are MacArthur Boulevard/Bison (0,94), MacArthur Boulevard/Ford (0.91), Jamboree Road/Bristol Street (1.06), Coast Highway/Jamboree Road (1.08), Bristol Street North/Campus Drive (1.15), and Bristol Street North/Birch (0,95). In addition to these, there are an additional five intersections which have an existing ICU value , greater than O.B. These are MacArthur Boulevard/Campus (0.84), MacArthur Boulevard/San Joaquin Hills (0.84), Coast Highway/MacArthur Boulevard (0,85), Jamboree Road/Campus (0.84), and Jamboree Road/Bristol Street North (0.89). When regional growth And committed project traffic is added to existing traffic volumes, all of the 11 intersections cited above have an ICU value greater than 0.9. These intersections and their ICU values are MacArthur Boulevard/Campus (0.97), MacArthur Boulevard/Bison (1.13), MacArthur Boulevard/Ford (1.10), ' MacArthur Boulevard/San Joaquin Hills (0.99), Coast Highway/MacArthur Boulevard (0.98), Jamboree Road/Campus (0.91), Jamboree Road/Bristol Street North (0.96)1 Jamboree/Bistol Street (1.25), Coast Highway/Jamboree Road (1.20), Bristol Street North/Campus/Irvine (1.33), and Bristol Street North/Birch (1.10). When the project traffic is added to existing plus committed project plus regional growth traffic, the same 11 intersections as before have an ICU value greater than 0.9. These intersections and their ICU values are MacArthur Boulevard/Campus (0.98), MacArthur Boulevard/Bison (1.14), MacArthur Boulevard/Ford (1.11), MacArthur Boulevard/San Joaquin Hills (1.00), Coast Highway/MacArthur Boulevard (1.00), Jamboree Road/Campus (0.92), Jamboree Road/Bristol Street North (0.96), Jamboree/Bristol Street (1.25), Coast Highway/Jamboree Road (1.21), Bristol Street North/Campus/Irvine (1.35), and Bristol Street North/Birch (1.13). However, the Jamboree Road/Bristol Street and Jamboree Road/Bistol Street North intersections do not change in terms of ICU value with the project. 1 18 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I_I 1 I I 1 I I I I 1 Table 6 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UPILIZATICN FOR CRITICAL INTERSECTIONS Intersection Ca city Utilization 1988 Exist 198B Exist + + Committed Cannitted + Need Critical Intersections Existing + Growth Growth + Project Improvements MacArthur and Campus 0.84 0.97 0.98 Yes MacArthur and Birch 0.58 0.68 0.70 No MacArthur and Jamboree 0.76 0.83 0.84 No MacArthur and Bison 0.94 1.13 1.14 Yes MacArthur and Ford 0.91 1.10 1.11 Yes MacArthur and San Joaquin Hills 0.84 0.99 1.00 Yes Coast Highway and MacArthur 0.85 0.96 1.00 Yes Jamboree and Campus 0.84 0.91 0.92 Yes Jamboree and Bristol N. 0.89 0.96 0.96 No Jamboree and Bristol 1.06 1.25 1.25 No Jamboree and Eastbluff N. 0.61 0.78 0.78 No Jamboree and Bison 0.66 0.83 0.84 No Jamboree and Eastbluff/Ford 0.72 0.80 0.81 No Jamboree and San Joaquin Hills 0.69 0.70 0.72 No Jamboree and Santa Barbara 0.73 0.80 0.82 No 1 19 II Table 6 (continued) II=EGTION ChPACITY vrILIunev FOR CRITICAL INMRSECPION5 Intersection Ca city Utilization 9 Exist Ex st + + CcnTdtted Cannitted + Need Critical Intersections Existing + Growth Growth + Project Impravenents Coast Highway and Jamboree 1.08 1.20 1.21 Yes Bristol N. and Campus/Irvine 1.15 1.33 1.35 'Yes Bristol N. and Birch 0.95 1.10 1.13 Yes Bristol and Birch 0.73 0.84 0.85 No Hachrthur and Newport Place 0.66 1 0.69 0.78 No OWE I I 11 II 11 I 11 F 6. PROJECT RELATED IMPROVEMENTS As identified by the Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis, there are 11 intersections which would operate at an unacceptable level of service in the future. Improvements would be required to increase the capacity of nine of the 11 intersections. MacArthur Boulevard/Campus Drive ' This intersection will have an ICU of 0.98 for all future traffic and an ICU of 0.97 without project traffic. While the project contributes only north -south traffic to this intersection, an improvement which would be to add a second eastbound left turn lane. This improvement may require the widening of the west leg of the intersection and would include signal relocation. With this improvement, the intersection would have an ICU of 0.89 for all future traffic. MacArthur Boulevard/Bison Avenue This intersection will have an ICU of 1.14 for all future traffic including project traffic and an ICU of 1.13 without project traffic. The need for additional capacity at this intersection is greatest in the southbound through direction. An improvement which would increase the capacity of this intersection would be to add a fourth southbound through lane. This major improvement would require widening of the roadway and relocation of the existing median to the east as the west approach to the intersection has been recently improved to the ultimate configuration. Widening of the intersection would also require relocation of the signal on the east side of the roadway. With this improvement the intersection will have an ICU of 0.95 for the condition of all future traffic. While this ICU will exceed 0.90, it will be lower than the ICU of 1.13 which would exist in the future without the addition of project traffic. Therefore, with this improvement, the level of service which would exist with the addition of project traffic will not be worse than is currently projected without project traffic. This improvement has been required of a previously approved project. MacArthur Boulevard/Ford Road This intersection will have an ICU of 1.11 with all future traffic including project traffic and an ICU of 1.10 without 21 project traffic. The need for additional capacity at this intersection is greatest in the southbound through direction. ' An improvement which would increase the capacity of this intersection would be to add a third southbound through lane. This improvement may be achieved by restriping the free right turn lane on the southbound approach to utilise the existing pavement width on the outside of the roadway. This would also require the widening of the south leg of the intersection along the west curb and relocation of the signal at the southwest corner. It should be noted that this improvement has been required of a previously approved project. With this improvements the ICU of this intersection would be 0.85 for all future traffic, MacArthur Boulevard/San Joaguiti Bills Road This intersection will have an ICU of 1.00 for all future traffic r and an ICU of 0.99 without project traffic. The need for additional capacity is greatest in the northbound through direction. An improvement which would add additional capacity would be to add a third northbound through lane. Because the east side of the intersection has been improved to the ultimate right-of-way limit, this improvement would require widening the intersection to the west. This would result in relocation of the existing median and major signal relocations. The improvement would also change the critical movements in the north -south direction. With this improvement, the ICU would be 0,96 for all future traffic. While this ICU will exceed 0.901 it will be lower than the ICU of 0.99 which would exist in the future without the project. Therefore, with this improvement, the level of service will not be made worse than is currently projected without the addition of project traffic. Coast Highway/MacArthur Boulevard This intersection will have an ICU of 1.00 for all future and an ICU of 0.98 without project traffic. The need for additional capacity at this intersection is greatest in the eastbound through direction. An improvement which would add additional capacity would be to ' add a third eastbound through lane. It may be possible to achieve this improvement by reconstructing the existing median which is exceptionally wide at this location on Coast Highway. With this improvement, the ICU would be 0.93 for all future traffic. While this ICU is greater than 0,90, it will be lower zz 1 1 I than the ICU of 0.98 which would exist in the future without the project. Therefore, with this improvement the level of service will not be made worse than is currently projected without the addition of project traffic. Jamboree Road/Campus Drive This intersection will have an ICU of 0.92 for all future traffic and an ICU of 0.91 without project traffic. This intersection could benefit most from additional capacity in the eastbound ' direction. An improvement which would provide additional capacity would be to change the existing eastbound free right to an additional through lane. The existing free right is not required to handle the low right turn volume. This improvement would also require widening of the east leg of the intersection receive the 1 additional eastbound lane. With this improvement the ICU would be 0.87 for all future traffic. Jamboree Road/Coast Highway The intersection of Jamboree Road/Coast Highway is a problem intersection which operates with an existing ICU of 1.08 and a future ICU of 1.21 for all traffic with project traffic included. Major improvements are needed at this intersection to provide additional capacity. An improvement which would provide additional capacity would be to add a third eastbound left turn lane. This improvement may require significant reconstruction of the intersection. With this improvement, the ICU would be 1.12. While this ICU exceeds 0,90, the ICU will be lower than the ICU of 1.20 which would exist without project traffic. Therefore, with this improvement, the level of service will not be made worse. Bristol Street North/Campus Drive This intersection will have an ICU of 1.35 for all future traffic with project traffic included, and an ICU of 1.33 without project traffic. While this intersection needs additional capacity in the westbound through direction, a significant reduction in the volume of traffic in this direction may be expected to occur as a result of the freeway improvements under construction. The freeway improvements are illustrated in Figure 9. The freeway improvements which would allow northbound traffic on MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Boulevard direct access to the Iwestbound freeway will remove a significant volume of traffic 1 23 '-1 f_ from Bristol Street North which is currently bound for the existing freeway. If it is assumed that 75 percent of the traffic currently making a generalized northbound left turn movement from MacArthur and Jamboree to Bristol Street North is bound for the freeway, approximately 1956 vehicles would be removed from Bristol Street North due to the freeway improvements. With the above reduction in traffic volume, the ICU with all future traffic including project traffic would be 1.04. While this ICU will exceed 0.9, the ICU will be lower than is currently expected to exist in the future without the project. Additional , physical improvements to improve capacity at this intersection may not be feasible due to the proximity of the freeway on -ramp to this intersection. Bristol Street North/Birch Street This intersection will have an ICU value of 1.03 for all future r traffic including project traffic, and an ICU of 1.00 without - project traffic. This intersection also needs additional capacity in the westbound through direction. The same reduction of traffic on Bristol Street North due to freeway improvements will apply to this intersection. This reduction in through traffic would result in a significant improvement in the level of service without providing physical improvements. With the anticipated reduction of the westbound through volume, the ICU would be 0.71 for all future traffic including project traffic. This would eliminate the need for intersection improvements. The Intersection Capacity Utilization Worksheets with the improvements which have been discussed are contained in Appendix C. L1 I I I I 24 1 I Figure 6 Corona Del Mar Freeway (Route 73) Improvements Legend �Cuuarnan associates I 7. I! RMAL CIRCULATION/ AND PAR1CM ' Access to the ,site is provided by a main entrance on Newport , Place Drive and secondary entrances on Dove Street and Dolphin Striker Court as illustrated by the site plan, Figure 2. The main entrance is divided into two 20 foot halves, separated by a median planter. The main entry will be limited to right turns in/out only due to the existing raised median on Newport Place Drive and will provide access primarily to the surface , parking adjacent to the existing buildings. The entrance is well positioned mid -block along Newport Place. Landscaping should be restricted at this entrance to provide adequate sight distances. There are two access points to the site from Dove Street. The southerly access serves the existing building on the corner of Dove Street and Newport Place Drive. The northerly access on Dove Street enters directly into the parking structure. This access is well positioned along Dove Street to permit left turns. The site access from Dolphin Striker Court is a major access to the parking structure. This is desirable because traffic will be encouraged to utilize Dolphin Striker Court and turning movements on Dove Street will be concentrated at the formal intersection with Dolphin Striker. A third surface parking access is also provided from Dolphin Striker Court at the knuckle of the cul-de- sac. Clearances within the parking structure are adequate for traffic circulation and parking maneuvers. The parking structure is proposed to have three levels above grade and one below grade. Access to the various levels is via ramps located along the west side of the parking structure. , Parking for the site is provided primarily by the four story parking structure with additional short term parking provided adjacent to the office building entrance. Parking will be provided £or a net office floor area of 279,000 square feet which represents 93 percent of the 300#000 square feet gross area. The required parking ratio is one space per 225 square feet of office floor area$ which equates to 1#240 spaces. This parking ratio is required in this area of the city due to the limited availability of on -street parking and is higher than the normal ratio for office buildings of one space per 250 square feet. The site plan ' indicates that a total of 10331 spaces will be provided within the parking structure with an additional 110 surface spaces for a total of 1441. This parking should be adequate for the combined uses of the site. 26 r I During the morning peak hour, vehicles will be arriving at each of the parking structure entries at the rate of up to 4 or 5 vehicles per minute or one every 13 seconds. At the Dove Street access, two inbound lanes should be provided in the entry if access controls require vehicles to briefly stop. This will minimize the occurrence of stopped vehicles blocking the street or sidewalk. I I i 1 I I 1 ,11 I I [_l 11 27 I 1 B. Ol81tR TRAFlIc OCUSIDIMTI0f8 LARTS data by CalTrans suggests a 9.8 mile per trip average for employment trips as can be seen in Table 7. This estimate appears to be appropriate for the project site. Based upon the 9.8 mile average trip length discussed above, the proposed project will generate approximately 34,780 vehicle miles of travel daily. It should be noted that the vehicle miles of travel estimated above are not directly indicative of the air pollutant loading that will result from this project. The future users of this site are existing today and probably live in this air basin. By relocating, their current pollutant emissions will probably remain almost constant, on an overall basis, and simply be displaced. Additionally, vehicle miles of travel are not directly proportional to air pollutant emissions. other factors including cold starts, speed of travel, congestion, and vehicle age and maintenance strongly influence emission rates. The capacity of the major intersection closest to the site, MacArthur Boulevard/Newport Place Drives was reviewed and found to be adequate to accommodate future traffic volumes including traffic generated by the site. It may be desirable however to add left turn phasing to the existing signal in the east -west direction to reduce turning movement conflicts. FU 1 1 1 i 1 1 Table 7 ONE-WAY TRIP LENGTHS BY LAND USE Land Use Trip Length Miles Residential 6.9 Commercial 3.5 Employment 9.8 (estimated) High School 2 (estimated) Elementary School 1 (estimated) All Trips 7.2 SOURCE: Los Angeles Regional Transportation (LARTS Base Year Report with the "estimated" numb furnished by Kunzman Associates. * LARTS data indicated the home -to -work trip is 10.5 miles and all "other" trips to place of employment is 8.3 miles. The 9.8 assumes two work trips for each "other" trip. s APPEMCES Appendix A - one Percent Traffic Volume Analysis Work Sheets Appendix H - Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Work Sheets Appendix C - Project Related Improvement ICU Work Sheets APPENDIX A ONE PERCENT TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS WORK SHEETS 11 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage n er pr ng ¢L5 I 11 11 Approach Existing Peek 2h Hour. Regional Approved Project$ Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 21, Hour Peak 2y N Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 2797 5 452 3254 33 232 southbound 3590 7 524 4121 41 9 Eastbound 1938 I 65 159 2162 i 22 0 Westbound 2558 85 757 3400 34 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected [] Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. PROJECT: F' R.; I V. 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MacArthur Blvd,. @ Birch St. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 85 Peak 211 Hour. Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1;> of Projected Project Direction Peak 2+ Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2k, Hour Peak 212 Hour i Peak 2� Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 1966 4 423 2393 24 232 Southbound 2580 5 383 2968 30 92 Eastbound 1538 1 0 I 245 1738 18 0 Westbound 1480 0 474 1954 20 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak'23-2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. McLachlan Newport Place 2-13-86 PROJECT: FORIM I r 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Jamboree Road @ MacArthur Blvd. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 _ I i ApprobEh Existing Peak 2$ Hour. Regional Approved Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peek 2� Hour Growth Peak 24 Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y N Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 3090 15 425 3530 35 38 Southbound 3471 7 567 4045 40 186 am Eastbound 1741 - 3 276 2020 20 0 Westbound3053 15 278 3346 33 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ' Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ' �X Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 11 11 1' McLachlan Newport Place nnTc. 2-13-86 ' PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MacArthur Blvd. @ Bison Ave. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pring g� Peak 2� Hour. Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1ST of Projected I Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2i1 Hour Peak 2� Hour Volume I Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 4427 21 947 5395 54 38 northbound 6718 32 924 1 7674 77 93 Eastbound 1418 I i • 0 457 1875 i 19 0 Westbound -- 0 0 0 0 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. McLachlan Newport Place 2-13-86 PROJECT: F:I='; I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MacArthur Blvd. @ Ford Rd. (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Averaie Winter/Spring 19 ,_ Peak 24 Hour. Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1: of Projected IF Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2K Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y H Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 3536 17 875 4428 44 38 southbound 7395 35 829 8259 1 83 93 ga Eastbound 1026 ( • 0 32 1058 11 0 Westbound 1168 0 80 12481 12 0 El Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Q Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. NOW McLachlan Newport place FROJECT: 2-13-86 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MacArthur Blvd. @ San Joaquin Hills Rd. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on verage inter pr!ng 9 _ Peak 211 Hour. Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected I, of Projected Project Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 21i Hour Peak 2+ Hour Volume I Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound I 2491 19 504 3014 30 38 northbound 4148 20 1 724 1 4892 49 93 Eastbound 2459 0 424 2883 i 29 0 Westbound 916 0 63 979 10 _ 0 ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ® Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. n u 1 McLachlan Newport Place DATE: 2-13-86 ' PROJECT: 11 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Highway @ MacArthur Blvd. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on AVeFage winter/Spring 19957' Approach Direction Existing Peek 2 Hour Volume Peak 2$ Hour. Regional Growth Volume Approved Projects Peek 2$ Hour Volume Projected Peak 2h Hour Volume 11. of Projected Projec Peak 24 Hour Peak 2h Ir Volume Volume Northbound -- 0 20 20 0 0 sorthbound 298E 23 407 3412 34 93 Eastbound 3979 I 68 661 4708 47 0 Westbound 3516 85 530 4129 41 38 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ® Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. McLachlan Newport Place 2-13-86 PROJECT: F;;R 1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Jamboree Rd. @ Cam us Dr. (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on Average Inter pring 19 85 Peak 2+s Hour. Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected B,of Projected Project Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 2k Hour Peek 2y Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume volume Volume Northbound 5398 26 510 5934 59 139 Southbound 2797 1 13 399 1 3209 32 58 Eastbound 2323 0 284 2684 i 27 46 Westbound 1724 0 34 1815 18 19 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. McLahlan Newport Place 2-13-86 PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Jamboree Rd. @ Bristol St. North (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 85 Approach Existing Peak 2h Hour. Regional Approved Projects Projected Tr_ 11" of Projected I Project Direction Peak 2§ Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2'y Hour Peak 2y Hi Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 6423 12 898 7333 73 38 southbound 5270 25 371 5651 57 93 Eastbound I 0 i 7 0 0 Westbound 259 259 3 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume ® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. McLachlan Newport Place 1 2-13-86 1 PROJECT: F, ;Xi I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Jamboree Rd @ Bistol St. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 _ Peak 2+ Hour. Approved ApproaCh Existing Regional Projects Projected l:; of Projected Project Direction Peak 2; Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 21s Hour Peak 2; Hour Peak 2� Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 5752 11 898 6661 67 38 5outhbound 2490 12 1 371 f 2873 29 93 Eastbound 8151 140 i 1044 9334 93 0 Westbound 0 0 0 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. McLachlan Newport Place 2-13-86 PROJECT: I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Jamboree Rd. @ Eastbluff Dr. North (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring QL), Peak 2+s Hour. Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 10, of Projected Project Direction Peek 2y Hour Growth Peak Ds Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2� Ha' Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 5092 10 823 5925 59 38 Southbdund 5197 10 1073 6280 63 93 Eastbound 4 .0 0 440 4 0 Westbound Li -- 0 135 135 1 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ' []R Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. I LJ McLachlan Newport Place 2-13-86 ' `. DATE PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Jamboree Blvd. @ Bison Ave. (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage inter pring _ Peak 2h Hour. Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1,: of Projected Project Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 21, Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 4398 8 825 5231 52 38 southbound 4455 8 788 5251 53 93 Eastbound 206 0 I 72 278 3 0 Westbound 802 0 264 1066 11 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. McLachlan Newport Place 2-13-86 PROJECT: FORM. I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Jamboree Rd. @ Eastbluff Dr./Ford Rd. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 � . Peek 2h Hour. Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 11. of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h H�r Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 5020 10 843 5873 59 38 Southbound 3945 8 725 4678 1 47 93 Eastbound 692 -0 8 700 7 0 NeStbound 954 0 16 970 10 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ' Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ' nXX Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. I I r I I McLachlan Newport Place DATE: 2-13,86 , PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Jamboree Rd. @ San Joaquin Hills Rd. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pring 85 Peak 2h Hour. Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 3665 7 486 4158 42 38 Southbound 5004 10 734 5748 57 93 Eastbound 479 •0 i 44 523 5 0 Westbound 255 0 422 677 7 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. II II II II II II II II tPROJECT: A 1''I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection Jamboree Rd. @ Santa Barbara Dr. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Avirage Winter/Spring 19 U_)' Approach Existing Peak 2h Hour. Regional Approved Projects Projected T SS; of Projected Project Direction Peak 211 Hour Growth Peak 21s Hour Peak 21s Hour Peak 2�j Hour j Peak 24 H Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 2433 5 389 2827 28 38 Southbound 3821 7 473 4301 43 93 Eastbound I 0 0 0 0 0 Nestpou ". 25 0 253 2278 0 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 24 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected [X Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. McLachlan Newport Place DATE: 2-13-86 LM 1 1'I Ili PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Highway @ Jamboree Rd. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 85 Peak 21� Hour, Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1S; of Projected i Project Direction Peak 211 Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2'y Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 938 0 3 943 9 0 Southbound 5426 10 1 408 1 5844 58 93 Eastbound 4790 32 985 5807 58 38 Westbound 561 6452 65 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. McLachlan Newport Place rcnrr. 2-13-86 PROJECT: FORM I I 1' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Bristol 5t. North @ Campus/Irvine (Existing Traffic Volumes Sased on Average Winter/Spring 19 ar Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1. of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour I Growth I Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y it, Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 2629 59 152 2831 28 19 Southbound 412 3589 36 0 Eastbound 0 0 ' 0 0 Westbound 10176 L174 1370 1 11720 117 230 ■ Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected , Peak 2►s Hour Traffic Volume ® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ' Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. L1 McLachlan Newport Place 2-13-86 ' DATE:_ t' .,JEr.T: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Bristol St. North @ Birch St. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring _ Peak 2h, Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1S; of Projected Project Direction Peak 2�'Hour Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak 21, Hour Peak 2i, Hour Peak 2§ Hour Volume I Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 1222 0 188 1410 14 ! 96 Southbound 2822 0 483 3305 33 186 Eastbound __ 0 1 4 4 0 0 Westbound 7520 124 888 8262 83 93 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. McLachlan Newport Place 2-13-86 PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Bristol St. @ Campus/Irvine (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 a5 I 1, Approach Existing Peak 24 Hour, Regional Approved Projects Projected It of Projected Projec Ir Direction Peek 2h Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 21t Hour Peak 2y Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 2133 41 57 2231 22 19 Southbound 2371 79 125 2575 26 0 Eastbound 10016 172 1536 11722 117 96 Westbound 0 0 0 0 ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 24 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 231 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. McLachlan Newport Place 2-13-86 PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Bristol St. @•Birch St. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average WinterlSpring 985 Peak 2$ Hour, Approved Fpproa'ch Existing Regional Projects Projected 1S• of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 21, Hour Peak 2+ Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 420 0 1 421 4 0 5outhbound 1200 0 5 1205 12 46 Eastbound 2 I 111 1226 7819 78 96 Westbound 0 0 1 0 0 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. McLachlan Newport Place 2-13-86 PROJECT: I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis 11 t Intersection MacArthur Blvd. (N/S)/Newport Place Dr. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 8), Peak 2k Hour. Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1:; of Projected Projec Ir Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound ( 2272 4 425 2700 27 38 southbound1992 2 475 1 2469 1 25 96 Eastbound1175 0 1175 i 12 96 Ne3tbound !7+721 ' 11 650 111 El Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ' Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ' �X Peak 24 Hour Traffic Volume, Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1. I I McLachlan Newport Place _ -� DATE: 2-13-86� PROJECT: I 1 1 I I 11J APPENDIX B INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORK SHEETS INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS , Intersection MacArthur Blvd. @ Campus Dr. ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 19 85) I 111 Movement EXISTING Lines Cap. PADPOSED Lines Cap. EXIST, pK.Nk. Vol. EXIST. Y/C Ratio REGIONAL CADkTN Volume GDM'iITTFG PROJECT Vol Lane PROJECTED Y/C Ratio Vw/ool Projett Volume PRWEC7 Vol unt PRWECT V/C Ratio NL 1600 169 .106* 10 .112* .112* NT NR _1600 1 88 .055 .055 .055 SL -1600 122 .076 64 .116 .11 ST 4800 1125 .234* 2 193 .275* 48 .285* SR 1600 280 .175 1 4 .178 .178 EL 1600 268 .168* 9 10 .179* .179* ET 3200 479 .193 16 69 .223 .223 ER 139 5 4 WL 1600 130 .083 .083 .083 WT 3200 749 .234* 25 1 185 .300* .300* WR 1600 1 123 .077 183 .191 .191 YELLOWTIME .100* .100* .100* EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 84 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS T.C.U. 97 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 98 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ® Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 ----- -- - --------------------- - - - - - - Description of system improvement: McLachlan Newport Place PR03ECT DATE: 2-13-86 1 I Intersection MacArthur Blvd. @ Birch St. ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily :traffic Winter/Spring 1985) Movement EXISTING PROPOSED EXIST. PK.HR. EXIST. Y/C REGIONAL GROwIN COMMITTED PROJECT PROJECTED V/C Ratio w/o Project PROJECT Volume PROJECT V/C Ratio Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. Vol. Ratio Vol une Volume Volume NL 1600 88 .055* 1 .056* .056 NT 4800 733 .153 1 167 .188 116 .212* NR __ 17 44 SL _ 1600 93 .058 .058 .058* ST _ 1 6400 779 .159* 2 161 .190* 48 .197 SR 239 33 EL 322 62 ET 4800 290 .138* 60 .163* 163* ER 48 •2 WL 1600 88 .055 95 .114 .114 WT 3200** 402 .126* 143 .170* .170* WR 162 YELLOWTIME .100* i .100* .100* I l EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 5$ EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. .68 i EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 70 ** ASSUMES ALL LEFT -TURN TRAFFIC USES ONE LANE. Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 ------------------------- ------ - -- - - - Description of system improvement: hlan Newport Place ' PROJECT DATE: 2-13-86 FORM II Intersection Jamboree Rd. @ MacArthur Blvd. ' ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 19 85) Movement EXISTING Lanes Cap. PROPOSED Lines GD• EXIST. PK.MR. Vol. EXIST. VicRatio Ratfo REGIONAL Vol WTHWe Vol We COM'SITTED PROJECT Yotuae PRDJECTEO V/C Ratio M/o Project Volume. PROJECT Volume PROJECT V/C Ratio NL 3200 484 .151* 2 * NT 4800 599 .150 3 138 .195 1 NR 123 1 74 SL 1600 159 ST 4800 1126 .235* 2 175 .271* 46 .281* SR 4 EL 3200 211 .066* 61 * ET 4800 408 .085 1 74 .101 .101 ER WL 3200 268 .084 1 63 .104 104 WT 4800 1001 .209* 5 7 * WR 1600 367 .229 2 2 .371 .371 YELLOWTIME .100* .100* INPROYEMENTS I.C.U. .83 .100* EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 76 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U, .84 ® Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be , less than or equal to 0.90 ------------------------------------- Description of system improvement: ' McLachlan Newport Place _ DATE: 2-13-86 _ L T*OJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' Intersection MacArthur Blvd. @ Bison Ave. ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 19 85) Movement EXISTING Lanes Cep. PROPOSED Lanes CaD• EXIST. PK.RV/Catio Vol.l. EXIST. Ratio REGIONAL Volume Volume COMMITTED PROJECT Yolume PROJECTED Y/o Ratio w/o Project Volume Volume Volume PROJECT V/[ Ratio NL 1600 46 .029* 148 .121* .121* NT 3200 1828 .571 9 319 .674 19 .680 NR SL _ -- ST 4800 3254 .678* 16 299 .744* 46 .753* SR N.S. 145 162 EL 3200 411 .128* 116 .165* .165* ET ER N. S. 110 115 WL-- WT -- -- WR -- -- YELLOWTIME 1.00* .100* .100* 7 � i EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .941 1 7 i EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROYEMENTS I.C.U. EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 1.14 ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' ® Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 ----------------------------------•--- ' Description of system improvement: _ McLachlan Newport Place ----- ------ -- DATE: 2-13_86 FORM II NT CTJON CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection MacArthur Blvd. @ Ford Rd. , ' ( Existing Traffic Volumes Rases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 19_) Movement EXISTING Lanes Cap. PROPOSED Lanes Cap -Vol. EXIST. PK.NR. EXIST. V/C Ratio REGIONAL GROWTH Volume COMMITTED PROJECT Vol * PROJECTED V/C Ratio w/o Project Vol Lose PROJECT Volume PROJECT V/C Ratio NL 3200 47 .015* 148 .061* NT 4800 1503 .313 9 319 .381 19 .385 NR N.S. 22 SL 3200 638 .199 .199 .199 ST 3200 2158 ,674* 16 299 .733* 46 .787* SR N.S, 204 162 EL 1 3200 1 126 .039* 116 1 .076* 076* ET 3200 218 .068 .068 .068 ER 1600 83 .052 115 .124 WL 1600 21 .013 .013 WT 4800 120 .086* .086* WR 291 1.0886* YELLOWTIME 100* 100* j i 1 EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ,91 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROYEMENTS I.C.U.1 1,1 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 1.11 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 (� Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be ' less than or equal to 0.90 ------ ------ ------------------- - - - --- ' Description of system improvement; 11 _McLachlan Newport Place— --------.DATE: 2_13-86 _ II INTERSECiiON CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection MacArthur Blvd. @ San Joaquin Hills Rd. ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 19 85) Movement EXISTING Lanes Cap. PROPOSED Lanes Cap. EXIST. PK.HR. EXIST. V/C REGIONAL GROWTH COMMITTED PROJECT PROJECTED V/C Ratio w/o Project PROJECT Volume PROJECT V/C Ratio Vol. Ratio Volume Volume Volume NL 1600 59 .037 8 .042 .042 NT 3200 980 .316* 7 427 .452* 19 .458* NR 31 SL —3200 479 * * .161* ST 3200 1302 .407 13 364 .525 46 .539 SR N.S. 193 -- 14 EL 3200 631 .197* 8 200* .200* ET 4800 453 .110 2 1 .112 112 ER 77 5 WL 1600 10 .006 .006 .006 WT 4800 238 .072* 4 .080* .080* WR 107 36 YELLOWTIME .100* .100* 1 .100* EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .84 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U.1 99 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 1.00 Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 ------ ------------------------- - - - - - - Description of system improvement: _ McLachlan Newport -Place PROJECT DATE: 2-13-86 ------ -- FORM I I INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Coast Highway @ MacArthur Blvd. ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 19 85) ■ Movement EXISTING tines Cep. PROPOSED lanes Lap. EXIST. PA.NR. Vol. EXIST. Ratio REGIONAL Volume Volume COMITTED PROJECT Volume PROJECTED V/C Ratio w/o Project Vol Line PROJECT Volume PROJECT V/C Ratio NL NT NR SL _3200 944 .295* 7 159 .347* 46 .361* ST _- SR 1600 302 .189 46 .218 ,218 EL 1600 299 .187 5 89 .246 .246 ET 3200 1456 .455* 25 236 1 .537* .537* ER -- -- WL -- -- WT 4800 871 .182 21 165 .220 .220 WR 1600 550 .344 13 118 .426 19 .438 YELLOWTIME .100* .100* .100* EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION L .85 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U.1 98 1I EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. [] Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' ® Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 , ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be ' less than or equal to 0.90 --- - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- Description of system improvement: ' __ _McLachlan Newport Place PF ECT DATE., 2-13-86 t fGn!' II INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' Intersection Jamboree Rd. @ Campus Dr. ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 19 8B Movement EXISTING Lanes Cap. PROPOSED Lanes tap. EXIST. PK.HR. Vol. EXIST. VIC Ratio REGIONAL GROWTH Volume COW41TTED PROJECT Volume PROJECTED VIC Ratio w/o Project Yot ume PROJECT Volume PROJECT VIC Ratio NL 1600 41 .026 026 NT 6400 1821 .285* 6 255 .325* 70 .336* NR 1600 383 .239 1 .240 .240 SL 3200 315 .098* 098 .098 ST 4800 776 .177 4 165 .220 29 .226 SR 74 35 EL 4800 485 96 ET 662 .239* 46 .269* 23 .273* ER N.S. 87 WL 1600 104 .065 1 66 .066 WT 3200 251 .078 16 .083 10 .087 WR 1 1600 339 .212* 212* .212* YELLOWiIME .100* i 100* ; 1 .100* EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .84 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U.1 91 i EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 92 ** NOTE: SL IS NOT CRITICAL DUE TO OVERLAP W/WR ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1 ® Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 ------------------------------------- Description of system improvement: ' FFOJECT McLachlan Newport PlaceDATE__ 2-13-86 --- — - FORM I I INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Jamboree Rd. @ Bristol St. North ' ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 19 8�) Lanes Cap. Lines Cap. PROPOSED Lanes Cap. EXIST. PK.HR, Vol. EXIST. V/C Ratio REGIONAL GROWTH Volume COMMITTED PRWECT Volume PROJECTED V/C Ratio w/o Project Volume PAOJECT Volume PROJECT - VC Ratio NL 4800 1954 .407* 4 327 .476* 19 .480* NT 3200 775 .242 1 135 .285 .285 NR _ SL ` ST 3200 982 .307 5 178 .364 4 7 SR ** 222 38 * 6 4* * EL I ET 4 ER 1 WL WT Closed 113 WR YELLOWTIME .100* .100* i � a 1 I .100* EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION gg EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROYEMENTS I.C.U. ., EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. •96 ** ASSUMES NO THRU TRAFFIC IN OPTIONAL LANE. ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ® Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be , less than or equal to 0.90 - ------------------------------ - - - - - - Description of system improvement: McLachlan Newport Place PFC0ECT BATE: 2-13-86 --.-- -- FQRI! II 1! INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Jamboree Rd. @ Bristol St. ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 19_) Movement EXISTING Lanes Cap. PROPOSED Lanes Cap. EXIST. PK.NR. Vol. EXIST. RV/Catio Ratio REGIONAL Volume Volume COMMITTED Volume Vol ume7 ECTED V/C Ratio V/o Ratio Vol Project Volume Volume VolmeT PROJECT Y/C Ratio NL NT 8000 2385 .300* 5 450 .357* 19 .359* NR 13 SL -_ 1 -- ST 4800 1100 .229 5 184 .269 46 .278 SR EL 1600 386 .241 7 .246 .246 ET 3200 976 .305 17 144 .355 .355 ER 3200 2122 .663* 36 1 368 .789* .789* WL -- WT-- WR YELLOWTIME .100* 1 .100* I .100* EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.06 t EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROYEMENTS I.C.U. 1.•25 I EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PRDJECT I.C.U. 1.25 Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 ------------------------------- - - - - - - Description of system improvement: ■ _ McLarhlan Newport -Plane------------------- —•--DATE: 2-J3- -- f ROJECT HRM. 11 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Jamboree Rd. @ Eastbluff Dr. North ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 19 85) 11 a Movement EXISTINGEXIST. LinesesCap. lanes PROPOSEDCop. PK.HR. Vol. EXIST. V/C Ratio REGIONAL GROWTH Volume COWITTED PROJECT Vol line PROJECTED V/C Ratio w/o Project Volune PROJECT Volume PROJECT V/C Ratio NL 1600 12 .008 .008 .008 NT 2105 .439* 4 389 .520* 19 .524* NR _ -20 19 SL -1600 ,013* ISO .106* .106* ST 4800 1941 .404 4 386 .486 46 .495 SR1600 339 .212 .212 .212 EL * .053* .053* ET -- ER N.S. 6 WL _ 8 WT -- WR 60 YELLOWTIME .100* 1 100* j j I i i .100* EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY 'UTILIZATION ,61 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U, EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. .78 ® Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 - ---------------------------- -- - -- - -- ' Description of system improvement: McLachlan Newport Place ` PROJECT DATE: 2-13-86 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS iIntersection Jamboree Rd. @ Bison Ave. ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 19 85) Movement EXISTING PROPOSED EXIST. PK.HR. EXIST. V/C REGIONAL GROWTH COMMITTED PROJECT PROJECTED V/o Ratio Project PROJECT Volume PROJECT Y/[ Ratio Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. Vol. Ratio Volume Volume Vol Volume NL 1600 37 .023 .023 .023 NT 4800 1621 .368* 3 328 .453* 19 .457* NR 144 80 SL 200 98 .031* 89 .058* .058* ST 4800 1715 .357 3 305 .421 46 .431 SR 1600 79 .049 .049 .049 EL 27 ET 1600 43 .055* 36 .078* .078* ER 18 WL 1600 173 .108* 57 .144* .144* WT 1600 87 .054 36 ,077 .077 WR 3200 128 040 39 .052 .052 YELLOWTIME .100* .100* �..100* EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 66 I i EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROYEMENTS I.C.U. ,83 i EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 84 ® Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 ------------------------------------- Description of system improvement: PROJECT McLachlan Newport Place DATE: 2-13-86 r � n INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Jamboree Rd. @ Eastbluff Dr./ford Rd. ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 19M) movement EXISTING Lines Cap. PROPOSED Lanes Cep. EXIST. PK.HR. Vol. EXIST. VIC Ratio REGIONAL GROWTH Volume COhMITTED PROJECT Volume PROJECTED VIC Ratio w/o Project Volume PROJECT Volume PROJECT _ VIC Ratio NL 3200 316 .099* 5 1 * * NT 4800 1-679 .380 3 404 .466 19 .47 NR L 144 8 SL _1600 76 .048 4 .050 .050 ST 4800 1691 .352* 3 358 .428* 46 .437* SR 1600 33 .021 .021 .021 EL 1600 7 .004 004 4 ET 3200 74 .095 * 2 .0 ER 230 1 4800 266 .073* 5 4WTRJ 86 1 .075* 7 * 1600 46 .029 2 .030 .030 YELLOWTIME .100* ; .100* 1 72 I i W/PROPOSED INPROYEMENTS I.C.U. 80 .100* i EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. .81 ® Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 ------------------------------- - - - - - - Description of system improvement: McLachlan Newport Place DATE: 2-13-86 11 I INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Jamboree Rd. @ San Joaquin Hills Rd. ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1985) Movement EXISTING PROPOSED EXIST. PK.HR. EXIST. V/C REGIONAL GROWTH COMiITTED PROJECT PROJECTED V/C Ratio w/o Project PROJECT Volume PROJECT V/C Ratio Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. Vol. Ratio Volume Volume Volume NL 1600 104 .065* 1 .066* .066* NT 4800 1307 .272 2 214 .317 19 .321 NR -1600 111 .069 22 .083 .083 SL - 3200 482 .151 138 .194 .194 ST 3200 1532 .476* 3 211 .483* 46 .498* SR 1600 236 .148 18 .159 .159 EL 4800 72 .025* 18 ET 50 .029* .029* ER N.S. 81 2 WL 4800 68 23 WT 30 .020* .025* 025* WR 1600 -- 188 YELLOWTIME .100* .100* i it .100* EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .69 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GRDWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. .70 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. .72 ® Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 2 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 - ---=-------------------------------- Description of system improvement: I - McLachlan Newport Place t'L:•:.JECT - - -- -- - - DATE_-.- 2-13-86 --- FORM, II Intersection Jamboree Road @ Santa Barbara Drive ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 19.K) Movement EXISTING Lines Cap. PROPOSED lanes Cep. EXIST. MINI. Vol. EXIST. Y/C 1Y/C REGIONAL GAOIRM GROWTH COMlITTEO PAOJEti PROJECVOILM PROJECTED VA Ratio w/o Project Volume PROJECT Volume PROTECT Y/C Aetio NL NT 4800 853 .178 2 166 .213 19 .217 NR 1600 101 .063 29 .081 .081 SL 3200 159 .050 56 .067 .067 ST 3200 1526 .477* 3 180 ,534* 46 1 .548* SR EL -- ET -- ER -- WL 3200** 1 476 .149* 61 .168* 1 .168* WT -. WR 3200 420 .131 67 .152 .152 YELLOWTIME .100* I 0100* i i t i .80 .100* Ex15T1NG INTERSECTIDN CAPACITY UTILIZATION 73 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROYEMENTS J.C.U. EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. •82 • I **CONSIDERS OPTIONAL LEFT -TURN LANE IS 100':' OCCUPIED BY LEFT -TURNING TRAFFIC. ® Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 ------------------------------------- Description of system improvement: 1� I PROJECT FORM II 1 INTERSEC110N CAPACITY UTILIZk11ON ANALYSIS Intersection Bristol St. North @ Birch St. ( Existinq Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1985) EXISTING PROPOSED EXIST. PK.HR. EXIST. V/C REGIONAL GROWTH 7EDOJECTED COE PRo Ratio Project PRDJEC7 Volume PRDJEC7 V/C Ratio Movement Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. Vol. Ratio Volume Volume NL 1600 113 .071* .071* .071* NT 3200 350 .109 96 NR SL -- ST z 1600 365 .228 •228 SR 3200 906 .283* 240 .358* 70 .380* EL -- ET ER -- WL 191 WT •6400 2954 .498* 51 437 .575* 46 WR 43 1 .100* .100* 1 1 .100* YELLOwrIME EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .95 1 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1.10 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PRDJECT I.C.U. ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.9.0 1 © Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U..with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 ------------------------------- -- - - - - Description of system improvement: McLachlan Newport Place DATE: 2-13-86 FORM II PROJECT ll ON CAPACITY UIILIZATIOh PSIS Intersection Bristol St. @ Birch St. 1 ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1985) Mortaant Lines Ca Lines Cap. Lanes Lents Cap. EXIST. PX,NR. Vol. EXIST, V/C Ratio REGIONAL GROWN volume COWITED PROJECT Volume PROJECTED Y/[ Ratio w/o Project Volume PROJECT Volvnt PROJECT VIC Ratio NL NT 1600 140 .106* 1 .106* 116 NR 29 SL 1600 131 * * 1147* ST 200 421 .132 1 .132 48 SR EL 1 283 95 ET 6400 2497 .446* 43 518 .54 * * ER 75 WL WT -- WR YELLOWTIME .100* .100* i i I J i I I I .100 EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .73 EXISTING PLUS COPMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. ,8 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 85 ® Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Q Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 ------------------------------------- Description of system improvement: r McLachlan Newport Place DATE: 2-13-86 PROJECT FORM II ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZAIION ANALYSIS Intersection MacArthur/Newport Place ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1985) Movement EXISTING PROPOSED EXIST. PK.HR. EXIST. REGIONAL GROWTH COMIITTED PROJECT PROJECTED V/o Ratio w/o Project PROJECT Volume PROJECT Y/C Ratio Lanes Cap. lanes Cap. Vol. RV/Catio Ratio Volume Volume Volume NL 1600 69 .043* .043* * NT 4800 '752 .157 1 145 .187 .187 NR 1600 1 89 .056 .056 .056 SL 1600 45 .028 •028 -028 ST 4800 790 .165* 2 170 .200* * SR 1600 139 .087 .087 48 .117 EL 1600 107 1 .067 1 .067 116 .139 ET 1600 311 .194* .194* 11 * ER 1600 220 13 WL 1600 249 .156* * * WT '1600 247 .154 .155 WR 1600 127 .079 .079 YELLOWTIME lQO* 100* i i .100* EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 66 I EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROYEMENTS I.C.U. .69 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. •78 X© Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 ------------------------------------- Description of system improvement: McLachlan Newport Place ' PROJECT 2-13-86 FORM II INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Bristol St. North @ Campus/Irvine I rvic+inn 'fraffir Vnlwnac Raeac nn Guarana naily Trxffir Win+ar/Snrina 19 AS MoveaRnt EXISTING Lines hp. PROPOSED Lines Cep. EXIST. K.M pK.NR. EXIST. Y/C Recto REGIONAL GROWTH Volume COMIITTED PROJECT Volume PROJECTED V/C Ratio w/o Project Volume PROJECT Yolvne PROJECT Y/C Ratio NL 1600 341 .213* 6 2 .218* ,218 NT 3200 758 .237 14 74 .264 10 ,268 NR SL ST 3200 583 182 19 49 .20 SR** 3200 727 .227* 24 158 .284* 1.284* EL ET ER - WL 1600 358 .224 5 12 .235 .235 WT 6400 3879 612* 66 668 727* 116 .74549 WR 39 1 YELLOWTIME .100* .100* i i .100 EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.15 EXISTING PLUS COMIITTED PLUS 0MONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROYEMENTS I.C.U.1 1.33 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 1.35 ** CONSIDER OPTIONAL RIGHT TURN/THRU LANE IS 100% OCCUPIED BY RIGHT -TURNING TRAFFIC. ® Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 Description of system improvement: McLachlan Newport Place DATE: 2-13-86 1 PROJECT FORM II , ItN7EHSLLIION CAPACITY UTILIZAII N N Intersection Coast Highway @ Jamboree Rd. _ ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 19 p Movement EXISTING PROPOSED EXIST. PK.HR. EXIST. REGIONAL COMITTED PROJECT PROJECTED Y/o Ratio w/o Project PROJECT Vol me PROJECT Y/C Ratio Lanes Cap. Lanes Lap. Vol. Ratio Ratio Vol me Vol me Vol ume Yolume NL 1600 28 .018* 018* .018* NT 3200 269 .106 .106 .106 NR L 89 SL 1600 206 .129 14 .138 .138 ST 3200 949 .297* 2 .297* .297* SR 46 .565 EL 3200 702 .219* 5 173 .275* 19 .281* ET 3200 1237 .387 8 310 .486 .486 ER 1600 37 .023 .023 .023 WL 3200 110 .034 2 035 WT 4800 2151 .442 37 2 * * WR N.S. 212 13 100* .100* YELLOWTIME .100* ; EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.08 I EXISTING PLUS CObMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROYEMENTS I.C.U. .20 I EXISTING PLUS COhMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 1.21 Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 ---------- --------------------- - - - - - - Description of system improvement: McLachlan Newport Place ' PROJECT DATE: 2-13-86 FORM I1 APPENDIX C ALTERNATIVE IMPROVEMENTS ICU WORN SHEETS 1 L I CAPACITY I I I fJ 1 I iJ II I ,, A IA 11 II r t Intersection MacArthur/Bison Ave ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1985) Movement EXISTING PROPOSED EXIST. PK.HR. EXIST. V/C REGIONAL GRDWT COMMITTED PROJECT PROJECTED Y/[ Ratio w/o Project PROJECT Volume PROJECT V/C Ratio Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. Vol. Ratio Volume Volume Volume NL 1600 1600 46 .029* 148 .121* NT 3200 3200 1828 .571 9 319 .680 NR _ -- SL __ ST 4800 6400 3254 .678* 299 .558* 565* SR N.S. N.S. 145 EL 3200 3200 411 .128* * ET -- -- ER N.S. N.S. 110 WL WT-- WR YELLOWTIME .100* .100* .100* I EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .94 l EXISTING PLUS COFMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROYEMENTS I.C.U. .94 EXISTING PLUS CObMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 95 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equa.1 to 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 ---------- -------- ------------- - - - - - - Description of system improvement: Improve intersection to provide one additional,southbound through lane by widening intersection to the east. Improvement will also require major signal relocation. Improvement has been required of a previously approved project. With improvement ICU will be 0.95 but will be lower than ICU of 1.13 for condition of future traffic without project traffic. McLachlan Newport Place 2-13-86 PROJECT FORM II Intersection MacArthur/Ford Rd. I ( Existing Traffic Volumes bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1985) Movement EXISTING Lanes Cap. PROPOSED Lanes Cap. EXIST. pK.HR. Vol. EXIST. Y/C Ratio REGIONAL, GROWTH Volume COMM17M PROJECT Volume PROJECTED Y/C Ratio w/o project Yot ume PROJECT Volume PROJECT Y/C Ratio NL 3200 3200 47 .015* 148 .061,061 NT 4800 4800 1503 .313 9 31 NR N.S. N.S. 22 SL 3200 3200 F;3R* ST 3200 4800 2158 .674* 16 299 .515 46 SR N.S. N.S. 204 162 EL 3200 3200 126 .039* 116 1 076* .076 ET 3200 3200 1 218 .068 .068 .068.— ER 1600 1600 83 .052 115 .124 WL .013 WT 4800 4800 120 .086* .086* WR 291 YELLOWTIME .100* .100* i j i .100 EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILITATION .91 EXISTING PLUS COhMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. ,84 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. .55 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic T.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Q Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 ------------------------------------- Description of system improvement: Improve intersection to provide one additi.onal southbound through lane by restriDing free right turn area on southbound approach and widen south leg of intersection to the west. Also will require signal relocation at southwest corner. Improvement has been required of a previously approved project. r McLachlan Newoort Place PROJECT 2-13-86 FORM, III Intersection Coast HiohwaylJambor a Rd ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1985) Movement EXISTING PROPOSEDV/C EXIST. PK.HLanes EXIST. REGIONAL LOMITTEG PROJECT PROJECTED w/o Ratio Project PROJECT Val ume PROJECT Y/L Ratio Lap. Lanes Cap. Vol.Yol. Ratio Ratio Volme Volume Volume Volume Vol NL 1600 1600 28 .018* 018* * NT 3200 3200 269 .106 .106 .106 NR 69 SL 1600 1600 206 .129 14 .138 ST 3200 3200 949 .297* 2 * 2 * SR 3200 3200 1570 .491 3 188 EL 3200 4800 702 .219* 5 173 1$3 1 Q 18 ET 3200 3200 1237 .387 8 310 86 ER 1600 1600 37 .023 .023 .023 WL 3200 3200 110 .034 2 .035 .035 WT •4800 4800 2151 .442* 37 278 .514 514 WR N.S. N.S. 212 13 YELLOWTIME 1QO* .100* .100* EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.08 1 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U.t 1.11 I EXISTING PLUS COF1117TED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 1,12 ❑E ❑M is I Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than'or equal to 0.90 Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 Description of system improvement: Improve intersection to providd a fourth westbound through lane. With this improvement ICU will be 1.12 but will be lower than ICU of 1.20 for condition of future traffic without project traffic. McLachlan Newport Place DATE: 2-13-86 PROJECT FORM II Intersection Bristol 5t. North/Campus/Irvine I ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1985) Yove•*gent EXISUNG PROPOSED EXIST. pX,NR. EXIST. Y/C REGIONAL CR01nN COWITTCD PROJECT PROJECTED V/C Ratio PROJECT PROJECT Lanes Cap. Lanes tap. Vol. Ratio Volume Volume w/o Project Volume Volume Y/L Rati NL 1600 341 1 * 6 2 218* •218* NT 3200 758 .237 14 74 NR SL ST 3200 583 .182 SR** 3200 727 24 158 ,227* 1284* .284* EL ET -- ER - WL 1600 358 .224 6 12 .235 .235- WT 6400 3819 2172 .612* 66 62 668 423 .421* 116 440* WR 39 1 YELLOWTIME .100* .100* ; i .100*� EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.15 I i lXI5TING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED JNPROYEMENTS I.C.U. 1.02 i EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 1.04 NOTE: Volumes in parenthesis are estimated volumes with Freeway 73 improvements. , ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 ------------------------------------- Description of system improvement: , I McLachlan Newport Place DATE: 2-13'86 PROJECT FORK; III Intersection Bristol St. North/Birch St. ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1985) II It I1 II II Hoveaent EXISTING PROPOSED EXIST. PK.HR.Y/C EXIST. ' REGIONAL GR0V7IH COMMITTED PROJECT PRWECTED Y/C Ratio w/o Project PROJECT Volume PROJECT V/C Ratio Lanes Cap. lanes Cap. Vol. Ratio Volume Volume Volume NL 1600 113 07 * 071* 071* NT 3200 350 .109 96 .139 48 .139 NR __ -- SL __ -- ST 1600 365 .228 .228 23 •22 SR 3200 906 .283* 2 * .358* EL -- ET ER WL 191 WT '6400 2954 1247 .498* 51 47 437 192 26 * 46 979* WR 43 1 .100* 1 .100* .100* YELLOWfIME EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION L .95 1 1 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROYEMENTS I.C.U. 80 i EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 81 NOTE: Volumes in parenthesis are estimated volumes with Freeway 73 improvements. Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Description of system improvement: McLachlan N nrt Plana DATE: 2-14-R( PROJECT FORM II . Intersection MacArthur Blvd. @ Campus Dr. i Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 19 85) Movement EXISTING Lanes Cep. PROPOSED Lenee cap' EXIST. PX.NR. Vol. EXIST. V/C Ratio REGIONAL GROWTH Volume COMi1TUO PROJECT Yolue PACOUTEG V/C Ratio Project w/o P Volume PROJECT Volue PROJET V/C Asti NL 1600 1600 169 .106* 10 .112* .112 NT 6400 6400 NR 1600 1600 88 1 .055 .055 .055 SL 1600 1600 122 .076 64 .116 11 ST "4800 4800 1125 .234* 2 193 .275* 48 1 .285 SR 1600 1600 280 .175 1 4 .178 .178 EL 1600 3200 268 .168* 9 10 .090 ET 3200 3200 479 .193 16 69 .223 ER 139 5 4 A.30O* WL 1600 1600 130 .083 .083 WT 3200 3200 749 .234* -25 185 .300* WR 1600 1600 123 .077 183 .191 J:::J.191 YELLOWTIME 100* to j .100* I : 7 1i .100* EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .84 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. EXISTING PLUS C0M1TTEb PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. .89 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I,C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 d Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ® Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 ----- ------- ------- ------------------ Description of system improvement: Improve intersection to provide a second eastbound left turn lane. McLachlan Newport Place BATE: 2-13-86 , PROJECT FORM II ' Intersection MacArthur Blvd. @ San Joaquin Hills Rd. ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1985) Movement EXISTING Cep. PROPOSED Lanes Cap. EXIST. PK.HLanes EXIST. Y/C REGIONAL GROWvolume COMMITTED PROJECT PROJECTED V/C Ratio w/o Project PROJECT Volume PROJECT Y/C Ratio Vol. Val. Ratio Volume Volume Volume NL 1600 1600 59 .037 8 .042 * .042* NT 3200 4800 980 .316* 7 427 ,295 19 .299 NR 31 SL 3200 47 * .161 ST 3200 3200 1302 .407 13 364 .525* 46 .539* SR N.S. 193 14 EL 3200 3200 631 1 .197* 8 1 .200* .200* ET 4800 4800 453 .110 2 .112 .112 ER 77 5 WL 1600 1600 10 .006 .006 .006 WT 4800 4800 1 238 .072* 4 .080* .080* WR 107 36 YELLOWTIME 100* 100* lOQ* XISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ,84 1 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GRDWTH W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U.1 9bi XISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. AL •96 II I II Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 Description of system improvement: Improve intersection to provide a third northbound through lane. Improvements will require widening of intersection to the west and major relocation of signals. With this improvement ICU will be 0.96 but will be lower than ICU of 0.99 for condition of future traffic without project. McLachlan Newport Place DATE: 2-13-86 ,PROJECT FORM II Intersection Coast Highway @ MacArthur Blvd. ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 19 85) Mbrtolnt EXISTING Manta Cap. PROPOSED lanes Cap. EXIST. PX.MR. Vol. EXIST. V/C Ratio REGIONAL CRWTM Volume COMMITTED PROJECT Volume PROJECTED V/C Ratio w/o project Volume PROJECT Volw* PROJECT VA Ratio NL NT NR _ SL 3200 3200 944 .295 7 159 .347* 46 .361* 5T 1.246k SR 1600 1600 302 .189 46 .218 .218 EL 1600 1600 299 .187 5 89 .246* ET 3200 4800 1456 .455* 25 236 .358 .358 ER __ WL -- -- WT 4800 4800 871 .182 '21 165 .220* .22D1 WR 1600 1600 1 550 .344 13 118 .426 19 .438 YELLOWTIME .100* .100* i � M j I .100* EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .85 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED "PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. .93 El Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Q Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 ------------------------------- - - - - - - Description of system improvement: Improve intersection to add a third eastbound through lane. With improvement ICU will be 0.93 but will be lower than ICU of 0.98 for condition of future traffic without project traffic. McLachlan Newport Place DATE: 2-13-86 PROJECT FORK, II Intersection Jamboree Rd. @ Campus Dr. ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 19 85) I I I I I! u Movement EXISTING Lanes Cap. PROPOSED Lanes Cap. EXIST. PK.NR. Vol. EXIST. Y/C Ratio REGIONAL GROWTH Volume COMMITTED PROJECT Volume PROJECTED V/C Ratio w/o Project Volume PROJECT Volume PROJECT V/C Ratio NL 1600 41 .026 02 NT 6400 1821 .285* 6 255 .325* 70 .336* NR 1600 383 .239 1 .240 .240 SL '3200 315 .098* ST '4800 776 .177 4 165 .220 29 .226 SR 74 35 EL 4800 6400 485 96 ET 662 .239* 46 .215 23 .219 ER N.S. 87 WL 1600 104 .065 .066 WT 3200 251 .078 16 .083 10 .087 WR 1600 339 .212* .212* .212* YELLOWTIME .100* .100* .100* EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .84 EXISTING PLUS C0144 TTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS 1'.C.U. 85 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. .87 to II I ** NOTE: SL IS NOT CRITICAL DUE TO OVERLAP W/WR Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 Description of system improvement: Improve intersection to change existing eastbound through lane. Improvement will also require widening of east leg of intersection to accommodate additional eastbound through lane. McLachlan Newport Place DATE: 2-13-86 ' PROJECT FORM II I 1 APPENDIX E Housing Impacts Technical Report I I 1 I 1 HOUSING IMPACT ANALYSIS NEWPORT PLACE TOWER Prepared for: Phillips Brandt Reddick 18012 Sky Park Circle Irvine, CA 92714 prepared by: Castaneda & Associates 749 South Brea Boulevard Suite 45 Irvine, CA 92621 AUGUST 1985 F I HOUSING IMPACT ANALYSIS I INTRODUCTION I This section describes the impacts attributable to the proposed project known as ' Newport Place Tower on the housing environments of Newport Beach and other affected cities in Orange County. Four housing characteristics are described, as 0 follows: 1. Standing stock 2. Vacancy levels and rates 3. Incremental housing supply Housing impacts caused by the proposed project include the following: I. Incremental increase in housing demand 2. Reductions in vacancy levels and rates 3. Some increased need for affordable housing For each city located in the affected market area, a share of the incremental increase in housing demand is forecasted as a function of the following variables: , I. Total project -related employees based on project size in square feet and the City's employee generating factors. 2. Forecasted residential location (i.e., city) based on the most recent ' data on journey -to -work and residential location behavior patterns. 3. Conversion of future employees located in each city to households based on the worker per household factors of each community. 4. Analysis of impacts to the standing stock of each city and the incremental housing supply of Newport Beach, 5. Analysis of impacts to the vacancy levels and rates in each city in the affected market area. I I 1 I P I I F I I I I I Five sources of secondary research information were used to gather data on the supply characteristics of each market area. These sources are listed below: I. U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1980 Census of Population and Housing, (the one data source that includes a variety comparable housing supply data for all affected market areas) 2. California State Department of Finance, "Housing and Population Estimates for Cities, Unincorporated Areas and Counties -- 1980-85" 3. Orange County Forecast and Analysis Center, Volumes I-4, Population, Housing and Household Characteristics, 1980 Census. 4. City of Newport Beach, Housing Element of the General Plan, June 1984. 5. State Department of Economic Development, Annual Plannin Information, Anaheim -Santa Ana -Garden Grove Stan and Metropolitan Area -- 1984-1985, "Commuting Patterns for Residents of Orange County -- 1980 Census," p. S-45. Information on the existing housing environment is presented for Newport Beach and several cities in Orange County. It is estimated that these areas would be the residential location of about two-thirds of the employees generated by the project if constructed as planned. The boundaries of the market area are defined below: • City of Newport Beach • City of Costa Mesa • City of Irvine • City of Santa Ana • City of Huntington Beach • Remainder of Orange County EXISTING CONDITIONS Four characteristics are described: I. Housing Supply 2. Vacancy Levels 3. Vacancy Rates (% vacant) 4. Future Additions to Supply I Housing Supply Employment generated by the proposed project will be located in the City of Newport Beach at Mocarthur Boulevard and Newport Place Drive, One aspect of the existing environment is the opportunities that the housing supply provides in the areas in which the work force will desire to live. New employees (households) will desire housing within certain commuting times from the project location which includes the City of Newport Beach and other neighboring communities. Table I indicates the housing opportunities within the affected market area which includes Newport Beach, Costa Mesa, Irvine, Huntington Beach, Santa Ana and the remainder of Orange County. TABLE I HOUSING SUPPLY CHARACTERISTICS -- 1985 Area Housing Units % Vacant Newport Beach 32,843 9.86% Costa Mesa 359326 2.82 Huntington Beach 67,308 3.41 Santa Ana 69,925 4.30 Irvine 29.795 2.18 Balance of Orange County 538,221 SOURCEColifornia State Department of Finance, "Housing and Population Estimates for Cities, Unincorporated Areas and Counties)" 1985. 11 iJ I I I I 1 I I I i Vacancy Levels and Rates Another key aspect of the housing environment is the level and rate of vacant housing units. The demand for housing generated by the proposed project can be satisfied by a combination of the existing stock through vacant units and turnover of the housing stock as well as by new construction. As indicated by Table 1 almost 10% of the housing supply in the City of Newport Beach was vacant as of January 1985. Although these figures seem high, they are not indicative of the actual vacancy rates among available units. For example, the 1980 Census reported that almost half of the vacant units were either "held for occasional use" or "held for other reasons.' Rental vacancy surveys conducted in May 1983 indicate that the percent of vacant units ranges between 2% and 4% for multi -family housing (excluding single-family and mobile home units). Other cities in the market area include, as noted earlier, Costa Mesa, Huntington Beach, Santa Ana and Irvine. The percent of vacant units in these four cities ranges between two and four percent. In these four cities there are an estimated 6,950 vacant housing units in the inventory of 202,350 dwellings. Additions to the Housing Supply New housing units are another source of meeting housing demand. In Newport Beach, new housing will be constructed on vacant as well as already developed land. According to the Housing Element of the General Plan, the ultimate residential capacity of the City is 38,700 dwelling units. The projected housing units are based on the availability in 1984 of an estimated vacant residential land inventory of 245 gross acres. The growth projections indicate a supply of 35,000 housing units by 1990. Consequently, it is estimated that about 2,100 housing units could be added to stock during the next five years. 1 I� HOUSING IMPACTS The impact analysis is intended to meet the one of the policies which was adopted as part of the Housing Element in 1984. The adopted Housing Element contains the following policy statement: "The Planning Commission and the developer of proposed major commercial/industrial projects shall assess the housing impact of such projects during the development review process. Prior to project approval, a housing Impact assessment shall be developed by the city, with the developer's active involvement. Such assessment shall indicate Employment Generation The proposed project, which will consist of 280,000 square feet of office space, is another example that the City is a desirable location for such uses. More specifically, the Housing Element contains the following observation: "The intense demand for housing in the city is complicated by the fact that employment growth has also been strong in the area. The city has become one of the most desirable office locations, not only within the region, but on an international basis. It is for this reason, that demand for office, commercial, and industrial expansion competes with housing demand in the city." The "magnitude of jobs to be created by the project" is estimated on the basis of the City's employment generating factor. This factor is 3.9 employees per 1,000 square feet of office space. The application of this factor to the size of the proposed project results in an estimate of 1,092 jobs to be generated by the project. Housing Opportunities Commuting time patterns of the work force in Newport Beach and Orange County are shown in Table 2. The mean travel time was 19 and 22 minutes for the City and County resident work force, respectively. More than 50% of the Newport Beach resident work force had a journey -to -work of 19 minutes or less. Commuting behavior Is directly related to determining the place of residence of the project - induced work force and the impacts on the current and future housing supply. r r r 7 I r 11 r r r r r TABLE 2 JOURNEY -TO -WORK AND PLACE OF WORK CHARACTERISTICS: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AND ORANGE COUNTY -- 1980 Journey -to -Work Time Newport Beach Orange County N % N % Less than 5 minutes 870 2.6% 212325 2.2% 5 to 9 minutes 4504 13.7% 98,908 10.4% 10 to 14 minutes 5475 16.6% 144,287 15.2% 15 to 19 minutes 6322 19.3% 162,622 17.1% 20 to 29 minutes 6346 19.4% 209,336 22.2% 30 to 44 minutes 4658 14.1% 186,160 19.6% 45 to 50 minutes 1855 5.6% 612417 6.5% 60 minutes + 2876 8.7% 64,579 6.8% 32,906 100.0% 9482634 100.0% Median Time 19 22 (in minutes) Place -of -Work In City 1 1,037 36.5% 212,604 25.3% Outside City 19,201 63.5% 628,750 74.7 30,238 100.0% 841,354 100.0% RCEOrange County Administrative Office, Forecast and Analysis Center, 1980 Census Selected Population. Transportation. Housing and Household Characteristics, Table 3 -- Transportation and Commuting Characteristics for Cities and Unincorporated Areas by Census Tracts. Table construction by Castaneda & Associates. r I Often the allocation of workers to residential zones is done by application of a ' "gravity model" which accounts for employment location, accessibility of residential areas and the distance between employment areas and housing areas. However, data ' are available from the 1980 Census on the actual place of residence of persons working in Newport Beach. At that time, there were 44,200 persons employed in the City and 25% also lived in the City. Table 3 shows the percentage distribution of the City's workforce that resided in , Costa Mesa, Huntington Beach, Santa Ana, Irvine and the balance of Orange County. That some distribution was applied to the project -induced work force of 1,092 to derive an estimate of their future place of residence. The esimated place of residence of the work force is shown in the first column of Table 4. Housing demand is measured by the number of new households. There Is not a new ' household generated for each new worker. The estimate of housing demand is derived from the ratio of workers per household for each city In the affected market area. These ratios were applied to the work force figures to derive the estimates of ' the households which are shown in the last column of Table 4. In addition to evaluating housing impacts In absolute numbers, it also is appropriate ' to guage relative Impacts. To guage relative impacts, it is necessary to compare the housing demand to the housing opportunities of each city. This is shown in Table 5 which provides information on the projected demand as a percent of all housing units In the supply. In all cases, the quontative impacts are less than W. This means that the existing housing supply, through vacant units and/or turnover, could accomodate the additional demand induced by the project. '' in terms of new housing, the project -induced demand represents 8% of the potential additions to the housing stock over the next five years. The project alone does not adversely impact the housing market. In addition, all of the statistical findings presented are "worst -case" in that they are based on the assumption that all the jobs are "new" and result in "new" households. Some of the occupants of the office space, however, could relocating from other complexes in the City. Moreover, the workforce attracted to the project site already could be residing jrrwithin acceptable commuting times and/or distances. This means they would not choose to move and ' express a demand for another housing unit. I� LJ TABLE 3 PLACE OF RESIDENCE OF NEWPORT BEACH WORKFORCE -- 1980 Place of Residence Newport Beach Costa Mesa Huntington Beach Santa Ana Irvine Balance Number of Workers Percentage Distribution 112037 25.0% 62600 14.9% 42512 10.2% 3,894 8.8% 31588 8.1 % 14,581 33.0% 44,212 100.0% SOURCE: State Department of Economic Development, Annual Planning Information, Anaheim, Santa Ana, Garden Grove, Standard Metropolitan Area -- 1984-1985, "Commuting Patterns for Residents of Orange County," 1980 Census , page 5-45. TABLE 4 PLACE OF RESIDENCE OF FORECASTED HOUSEHOLDS -- 1985 Place of Residence Residence of Projected Workers Newport Beach 273 Costa Mesa 163 Huntington Beach III Santa Ana 96 Irvine 88 Balance of 361 Orange County 1,092 Worker's Per Household Ratio 1.65 1.39 1.45 1.46 1.54 1.40 Forecasted Households 165 117 77 64 57 258 738 SOURCE: Table construction and methodology by Costaneda & Associates. TABLES RELATIVE HOUSING IMPACTS BY AREA -- 1985 Projected Units Area Housing Units Projected Units As % of all Units Newport 32,843 165 • .50% Beach Costa Mesa 352326 117 .33% Huntington 672308 77 .II% Beach Santa Ana 692925 64 .09% Irvine 29,795 57 .19% 235,197 480 .20% SOURCE: Tables I and 4. SHADE/SHADOW METHODOLOGY ' Purpose: ' To project shadows cast by proposed 15-story office complex and analyze , the impact of these shadows on surrounding land use. Procedure: I All shadow projections are made for December 21, a worst -case situation ' when the sun is lowest in the sky and therefore projects the longest shadows. The times of day represented in this shade study, 8 a.m., 12 ' p.m., 4 p.m., are for exemplary purposes only. Shadows will be consis- tently moving in a west to east pattern throughout the day. The precise shadow projection was made by drawing a plan view of the pro- posed building then from an appropriate tablel finding the shadow length ' values for the morning, noon and afternoon times. These values are then multiplied by the height of the building to obtain shadow length. These ' lengths are then scaled off of the plan view of the building. The boundar- ies for the morning and afternoon shadow angles are 45 degrees east and , west of north. Finally the end points of the shadow lines are connected/corrected which results in the shadow pattern. , 1 1 Sources for this study: , Solar Access - It's the Law, Robert Thayer, ASLA; Site Planning for So ar Access, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban De ve opment. 1 I I 1 1 1 1 t 1 APPENDIX F Supplemental Technical Information r4 A f Y �SiY_ 3A 5 <a[C ' 91 " • /aQ' � / (e/+ean fLr;.raut vm I� ' wove a sia /. l / / /^•, w w w y2 4 r�"va i� i ' / ! /' Luro cEHrEa frrc zA w L /LSMSYL LMYK/rL i r sr EEr OFFICE SITC SA SfB/uvAv>; PROFESS/QNAC E r/CnYgvw.e auw•N r 5/IE ZA 4 1 ; BUS/.4IE53 OFFICES 5/rF .Cfr (Yfa r+YK+/l •rx I J wSAJ 1I O 3/ [FI� _ _ _ -_ •_ _ AIACARTHVR _ ��N mpT� roNnLYf aMiRf3i �(KfS `lVS INDUSTRIAL SITE < AREJI SuuU4av . ♦D"TRAL I] / iC 2 OFFICES ozs AC 'nvllc?C J., TJ AC SERVICE STA'O.ya IL AC AUrOAforlvE Se AC A C(x41QRORL f f AC A 'Ore, � .rorEL as Ac +^EsrACgaU: e] AC NET U.if.JBCE RHEA JfC aC Y.c 4RTNUR PL✓p rw) .-••axw /J Ac INTERIOR S:REETStlP /92 AC PROFti zo FREF,/Ar "i/N JOS ]C JAIIaCREC n^C Jerlclr- W j r AC IprAL AHEM tzC AC SERv2E �\ �ernlp IS�AL/ •\ RETI." CO.N RLfAL SIZE / �E M .... MARTINGALEWAY (( ' u /JI�r /wN<ssoxwt'• O+SIVCJf / brFJ. SII[ I. \ I.o]Fi. f/2 .e \ Q� ILAND USE NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA FOR —K-R EMKAY DEVELOPMENT AND REALTY COMPANY �7 Ld NEWPORT PLACE c EMNAY DEVELOPMENT AND REALTY COMPANY z LANGDON & WILSON F_ L AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS URBEMIS#1 ASSUMPTIONS URBEMIS#1 estimates automobile emissions based on land use types. The model has many numerical values inherent to the program. The model util- izes EMFAC6C emissions rates, trip lengths by type according to project location, and a cold start temperature of 55 degrees fahrenheit. The author of the URBEMIS#1 program, Pat Randall of the California Air Re- sources Board, has run comparative analyses using EMFAC6C and EMFAC6D fac- tors. The results indicated a difference of less than three .percent between the different factors and this difference showed that the EMFAC6C factors provide a more conservative analysis. The average trip length utilized in the analysis is based on the Kunzman Traffic Report and is 9.8 miles per trip. Trip rates are also based upon ' the Kunzman Traffic Report and are tabulated below. Land Use Trip Rate Bank 165/KSF Office 13/KSF ' Restaurant 75/KSF Racquetball 44/court or 19.5/KSF A trip speed of 30 mph is assumed. The results of this model are presen- ted in the following pages. CALINE3 ASSUMPTIONS Roadway locations and widths were estimated from the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways map dated November 1983. The intersections ' modeled are MacArthur Boulevard at Newport Place Drive and MacArthur Bou- levard at Campus Drive. Three onsite receptor locations at receding dis- tances from the intersections were selected to illustrate the decrease in carbon monoxide concentrations with distance. J I_J Meteorological, site and traffic conditions were set to estimate "worst case" concentrations. For worst case meteorological conditions a wind speed of two meters per second (2 mph) and an atmospheric stability Class F were set. Wind direction was set at a bearing of ten degrees from para- llel to the roadways since parallel and light winds result in worst condi- tions. These meteorological conditions are most typical of early morning hours, but they may also occur during winter evening hours. Since the areas adjacent to the roadways are developed with office uses, a surface roughness of 175 centimeters is used. This figure is based upon CALINE3 manual recommendations for surface roughness. A mixing height of 10000 meters is utilized as recommended in the manual. Since the project site is located nearest the Costa Mesa Air Quality Moni- toring Station, ambient CO concentrations are based upon a three-year average concentration (second highest 8-hour) measured at this station. This ambient concentration is considered worst case. Future ambient CO concentrations are estimated by reducing the current ambient concentra- tions by the average percentage reduction in emissions shown in Orange County EMFAC6D projections. Peak hour (worst case) traffic volumes are estimated at ten percent of the average daily traffic volumes (ADTs). These ADTs are from the Kunzman Traffic Report and from city of Newport Beach 1985 traffic counts. Emis- sions rates are EMFAC6D factors provided by the county of Orange. Traffic volumes, other assumptions and the results of the modeling are presented in the following pages. I n _J I 7 r 1 11 I LI 1 I� �u PROJECT :I•JEWPORT PLACE (NET PROPOSED; EXCLUDES EXISTING) ' PREPARED BY :MJV CLEARING HOUSE NUMBER : 0 PROJECTION YEAR : 1987 ' DATE. :09/25/85 URBEMIS #1 l'yPE OF UNIT SIZE - tl ENEP.AL OFFICE Bl.lILUIIVG2595'21 /SQFT UAI--ITY RESTAURANT ' 99:110 /SrlFT IVIC CENTER 9n4S /SQFT _ ' 140NI-40ME BASED -. - - _ -•- -_-_ TRIPS VIMT 28028 JORK: 1432 t 40- 3 tOTAI_ 4292- 42061 - HOME BASED - TRIPS VMT OME WORK'. 0 V TOME -SHOE' 0 0 OME-OTHER 0 0 TOTAL. 0 NONHOME BASED EMISSIONS ' VIDE (T/Y) = 167 CARBON MONO _ ------ •- -- - I•iYDROCARBONS (T/Y)= 21 NITROGEN OXIDES (T/Y)= 10--- FUEL C0145LJMPTION ($AL/YEAR)= 45355B — -�— HOME BASED EMISSIONS 'CARBON MONOXIDE (T/Y)= U--- HYDROCARBONS (T/Y)= 0 NITROGEN OXIDES (T/Y)= 0 'FUEL. CONSUMPTION (GAL./YEAR)=- ' ASSUMES TEMPERATURE = 55 CAL INEZ ' RUN MACARTHUR/NEWPORT PLACE (EXISTING) 1.0 SITE VARIABLES U= 2 M/S BRO= 80 DEGREES CLASS= 6 MIXH= 1000 M ATIM= 60 MINUTES AMA+= 9.8 PPM ZO= 175 CM VS= 0 CM/S VD= 0 CM/S 2.0 LINK VARIABLES LINK COORDINATES (M) # LINK # X1 Y1 X2 Y2 # -----------------------------------* 1 # -1000 0 0 0 2 # Ci 0 1000 0 ' 3 # 0 0 -200 0 4 # 0 0 -20 100 5 # -20 100 -^6,. 165 6 # -65 165 -150 210 ' ---------------------------------- , LINK DESCRIPTORS * LINK # TYPE VPH EF H W # _ -#----------- # -1 - , * A8 4S90 15.07 0 36.6 2 # AS 2750 15.07 0 36.6 ' 3 # AS 650 15.07 0 36.6 4 # AS 650 15.07 0 36.6 5 AS 650 15.07 0 36.6 '6 # AS 650 15.07 0 36.4 --#------------------------# ' 3.0 RECEPTOR COORDINATES (M) RECEPTOR * X Y Z # -----------#-------------------# _ _1 # -15 -15 1.3 2 # -30 -30 1.3 3 # -45 -45 1.3 ----------- #--------------------# ' 4.0 MODEL RESULTS *CO/LINK *TOTAL 8-HOUR , RECEPTOR # 1 2 3 4 5 b * PPM PPM ------ ---#---------------------------------'--------- 1 # .7 1.6 .1 0 0 0 # 12.1 11.4 2 # 0 1.2 0 0 0 0 ii 10.6 ' 3 # 0 .9 0 0 0 0 # 10.7 10.4 CALINE3 RUN: MACARTHUR/CAMPUS (EXISTING) ' 1.0 SITE VARIABLES U= 2 M/S BRG= 170 DEGREES CLASS= 6 INIXH= 1000 M ATIM= 60 MINUTES AMB= 9.8 PPM ZO= 175 CM VS= 0 CM/S VD= 0 CM/S ' 2.0 LINK: VARIABLES LINK: COORDINATES (M) LINK X1 Y1 X2 Y2 ----- ------------------------------ --* 1 * -133 -887 -133 -266 2 * -133+ -266 0 0 3+ * 0 0 222 266 4 -976 -709 -266 -89 5 -266 -89 O 0 6 * 0 0 266 -133 ' 7 * 266 -133 754 -709 -----*----------------------------------* ' LINK: DESCRIPTORS LINK; TYPE VPH EF H W ---------------------------- - * ' i # AS 4590 15.07 0 3+6.6 2 * AG 4590 15.07 ' 0 -36.63+ AG 4590 15.07 0 36.6 4 * AS 2325 15.07 0 36.6 5 AS 23+25 15.07 0 36.6 6 # AS 2325 15.07 0 36.6 7 # AS 23+25 15.07 ' 0 36.6 -----*------------------------ 3.0 RECEPTOR COORDINATES (M) RECEPTOR X Y Z -----------#-------------------* ' 1 # -15 15 1.3 2 * -30 30 1.3 3 -45 1.3 -----* -- ' 4.0 MODEL RESULTS *CO/LINK __.RECEPTOR * 1 2 3+ ---------------------------------------- 1 * 0 1..2 0 0 .5 0 0 2 * 0 .9 0 0 .4 0 0 ' 3 * O .7 0 0 .3 0 0 *TOTAL * PPM 8-HOUR PPM - -- 11.0 10.7 10.5 CALINE3 ' RUN A MACARTHUR/NEWPORT PLACE (EXISTING + PROJECT 1987) ' 1.0 SITE VARIABLES U= 2 M/S BRB= 80 D5eREES CLASS= b - MIXH= 1000 M ATIM= 60 MINUTES AMB= 9.2 PPM ZO= 175 CM VS= 0 CM/S VD= 0 CM/S ' 2.0 LINK VARIABLES LINK: COORDINATES (M) # LINK # X1 Y1 X2 Y2 # ' ---------------------------------- 1 # -1000 G 0 0 - -- 2 # 0 0 1000 0 3 # 0 0 -200 G 4 # 0 0 -20 IOG 5 # -20 100 -65 165 b # -65 165 -150 210 _-__r_______________________r_-r__# - ---- LINK. DESCRIPTORS LINK # TYPE VPH EP H W # _ --#-----------r_rrr- ---r-- 1 # A8 4693 14.14 ' i, 16.6 2 # AS 2853 14.14 0 36.6 3 # A8 753 14.14 0 36.6 4 # AS 753 14.14 --- - 0 36.6 5 # AS 753 14.14 0 36.6 b # AS 753 14.14 0 36.6 -__--#------------------------# 3.0 RECEPTOR COORDINATES (M) RECEPTOR # X Y Z # -----------#-------------------# ' 1 # -15 -15 1.3 2_ # --5 1.3 3 # -45 a5 -45 1.3 _#------------------ rr ----- - 4.0 MODEL RESULTS #CO/LINK *TOTAL 8-HOUR RECEPTOR # 1 2 3 4 5 6 # PPM ---------- ----------------------------------------- 10.8 1 # .6 1.6 .1 0 G 0 0 # 1i.5 U # 10.4 -10.0 2 # Cl 1.2 0 0 5 * 0 .9 .0 G 0 0 # 1G.1 9.8 ' ' CAL. T NE7. 'UM ;MACARTHL{R: CAMPUS (EXIST'ING + PROJECT 1967) SI [E VAR IABLES 2 M/S BRG= 170 DEGREES CLASS= b 'U= MIXH= 100 i hl Al.IM= 60 MINUTES AMB= 9.2 PPM ZO= 175 CM VS= 0 CM/S VD= 0 CM./S fl LIPK VARIABLES COORDINATES (M) m 'LlNK LINT; * X1 Y1 X2 Y2 k -----#---------------------------------- _ 1 # -133 -887 -133 -266 W -13ti -266 i) 0 y1 * 0 0 222 2.26 4 * -976 -709 -226 -89 S k-•226 -•86 0 C) ' 6 * 0 Cr 226 -1 _+- 7 .226 -133 754 -709 -----*-----------------------•-----W LINK DESCRIPTORS # LINK # TPE VPH EF 1.4 ' --4l- 1 * AB 469_ 14.14 0 :6. 6 2 AS 4693 14.14 0 36.6 # AS 4693, 14.14 0 36.6 4 * AG 2375 14.14 0 7.6.6 5 * AG 2325 14.14 Cr 36.6 6 * AG 2:25 14.14 0 ?6.6 ' 7 * AS 2325 14.14 0 36.6 .0 RECEPTOR COORDINATES (M) RECEPTOR * X Y Z k -----------*-------------------* 1 * -15 15 1.3 2 * - 30 30 1.3 3 -45 45 1.3 _____* •------ #-------------------* MODEL RESULTS *TOTAL '*:CO/LINK RECEPTOR * 1 2 .3 4 5 6 7 * PPM ---------- ------------------------------------------------- 1 C) 1.1 'Q 0 . 5 0 0 * 10.8 2 * Q . 9 0 cl .3 0 0 It i Q. 4 3 k 0 .7 0 0 .3 t-) 0 k 10.2 8-HOUR PPP1 . 10.3 10.0 9.9 CALINE3 RUN MACARTHUR/NEWPORT PLACE (YEAR 2000) 1.0 SITE VARIABLES U= 2 M/S BRG= 80 DEGREES CLASS= 6 MIXH= 1000 M ATIM= 40 MINUTES AMB= 6.6 PPM ZO- 175 CH VS= 0 CM/S VD= 0 CM/S 2.0 LINK VARIABLES LINK COORDINATES (M) # LINK # X1 Y1 X2 Y2 # _-_--#----------------------------------# 1 # -1000 0 0 0 2 # 0 0 1000 0 3 # 0 0 -200 0 4 # 0 0 -20 100 5 # -20 100 -65 165 6 # -65 165 -150 210 ---------------------------------- � LINK DESCRIPTORS # LINK # TYPE VPH EF H W # --------- ----- ------ 1- 1# 18 0 36.6 2 # AS 3450 10.18 0 36.6 3 # AS 1150 10.18 0 36.6 4 # AS 1690 10.18 0 36.6 5 # AS 1690 10.1E 0 36.6 6 # AG 1690 10.19 0 36.6 -----#------------------------# 3.0 RECEPTOR COORDINATES (M) RECEPTOR # X Y Z # -----------#-------------------# 1 # -15 -15 1.3 2 # -30 -30 1.3 3 # -45 -45 1.3 ----------- *-------------------# 4.0 MODEL RESULTS #CO/LINK *TOTAL RECEPTOR # 1 2 3 4 5 6 # PPM ---------- -------------------------------------_--� 1 # .2 1.3 .1 0 0 0 # 8.2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 # 7.6 3 # 0 .7 0 0 0 0 # 7.3 8-HOUR PPM 7.7 7.3 7.1 ' STATIONARY SOURCE EMISSIONS IAIR QUALITY CAL.CUt.ATIONS PI• ILL.IPS BRANDT REDDICK ' DATE:APRIL 25, RANGE:(Al..J85) 1985 MJV NOTES. -WET PROPOSED (EXCLUDES -EXISTING-ONSI•T-E-USE-St- STATIONARY SOURCE EMISSIONS - --------- Source. SC:AQMDAi r- QUal •i ty Handbook- for EIP.s, Der- 1983; - * from 1980 Handbook. USAGE_ -- ELECTRICAL ENERGY •- - TYPE UNITS SO FT KWH/YR/UIVI7' ------'---- IWWH/YR -----•---- RESIDENTIAL •--------- 0 •----------•----- 5,638 0.0 OFFICE - - 278 -489--- 3.397.6 RETAIL 0 0.0 INDUSTRIAL 0 36.6 * 0.0 1 OTHER 0 - 0.0 0.0 TOTAL- 3,397.6 - -----'----- --- , P[)4VEft PLANT Eh1TS57:C1N8 TONS/YR POLLUTANT 1_13/MWH NOX 2.10 3.6 SOX 1 .40 2.4---- — - - - - PARTS 0.18 0.3 I-!C 0. 13 0.2 NATURAL GAS CONSUMPTION TYPE -Y- SQ-FT---_- CF/MO/UNIT TOTAL MCF/YR --------------- -- SINGLE - FAMILY --UNITS-_ 0 3,665 0.0 MULTIFAMILY(>4) 0 3..,918 0.0 'OFFICE - <^•78;489-----2..0-- — . _. .. 6.7 0.0 RETAIL 0 2.9 INDUSTRIAL 0 3 * 0.0 OTHER - -fa •--- --- 0: E} 0.0 TOTAL 6.7 NATURAL GAS EIMISSIONS POLLUTANT LB/CF IMCF/YR CO 20 6.7 NOX dam 84 0.0 NOX cm], 120 6.7 NOX total Sax NEOL. 4.110 PARTS 0.15 6.7 HC S 6.7 TOTAL STATIONARY SOURCE EMISSIONS --------------------------------- POLLUTANT EMISSIONS ('TONS/YR) CO 0.42 NOX 3.97 Sox 2. ,,S PARTS 6.31 HC 0.25 TONS/YR C1. 1 11. 1;1 0.4 4.4 rl . CI TRAFFIC ASSUMPTIONS FOR AIR QUALITY AND ACOUSTIC ANALYSES: Existing,+ Future + Location Existing ADT Project (1987) Project MacArthur Blvd: N. of Newport Place 45,900 46,930 21,600 S. of Newport Place 27,500 28,536 34,500 Newport Place Drive: 6,500 7,530 11,500* VonKarman Avenue: 6,500 7,530 16,900 (at MacArthur) Location MacArthur Boulveard: 45,900 46,930 21,600 (at Campus) Campus Drive: 23,250 23,250 (€. of MacArthur) 17,400 (W. of MacArthur) 31,900 *Estimate by Lee Royalty, Kunzman Associates, August 9, 1985. (Note project contribution . 1030 ADT) CALINE 3 EMISSIONS FACTORS: Condition EMFAC6D Existing 15.07 Existing + Project (1987) 14.14 Future + Project 10.18 TABLE 1 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS DISTANCES TO CNELs RUN DATE: 8/S/85 ROADWAY SEGMENTS MACARTHUR NOTES: N OF NWPT PL, (EXISTING) * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 45900 SPEED (MPH)s 45 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES --- DAY EVENING NIGHT AUTOS 75.51 12.57 9.34 M—TRUCKS -1—TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 Cf.19 0.64 0.02 0.08 ACTIVE HALF —WIDTH (FT)s 43.66667 GRADES 0 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: HARD * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * # :NEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) : 72.09 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL 141.0 `426.2r ~` 1341.2 4238.8 11 II TABLE 2 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE. LEVEL ANALYSIS DISTANCES TO CNELs 't DATE: 8/8/65 DWAY SEGMENT: MACARTHUR d ES: S OF NWPT PL. (EXISTING) 0 * * ASSUMPTIONS * * 41RAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 27500 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: 0 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT JOS--- ------- ----- a 'OS 75.51 12.57 9.34 11RUCM.S i .56 0. 09 0. 19 1—TRUCK'S r0.64 0.02 0.08 aGTIVE HALF —WIDTH (FT): 43.66667 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: HARD ----------------------------•--------------------------------- * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS 4L AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 69.87 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL �70 CNEL 65CNEL 60CNEL 55—CNEL —— at_A 'VF17-7 804.3 2539.8 ----------------------------------------- 1 TABLE 3 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS - DISTANCES TO CNEIs JN DA'iE: S/G/95 -- JADWAY SEGMENT: MACARTHUR JTES: N OF NWPT (EXISTING + 1030) lMs_UKG + PRQJ, ---------------- _Tl---_..__--__—__—_____—___---------_-- * * ASSUMPTIONS * * I JERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 46930 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: 0 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES — DAY EVENING NIGHT JTOS 75.51 12.57 9.34 -TRUCKS - 1.56 0.09 0.19 - --- -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 0.05 CTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT)t 43.66667 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: HARD _ ----------------- ------------------------- - ---------- -----------_--- * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * I NEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 72.19 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70-CNEL 65 CNEL 60CNEL 55CNEL -Y 14:k.9 435.6 1371.2 4=3.9 -------__-.•_____-_------- __-----.--------------------------------- TABLE 4 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS DISTANCES TO CNELs RUN DATE: 8/ 8/85 ROADWAY SEGMENT: MACARTHUR NOTES: S OF NWPT (EXISTING + 1030) ISTING +_PROJECT)_____________, * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 28530 SPEED (MPH): 45 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT AUTOS 75.51 12.57 9.34 M-TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 0.19 H-TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 0.08 GRADE: 0 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 43.66667 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: HARD * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 70.03 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL -------------- ------ 94.1 267.1 834.3 2634.9 TABLE 5 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS DISTANCES TO CNELs JN DATES 8/8/85 JADWAY SEGMENTS MACARTHUR 3TESs N OF NWPT PL. (FUTURE) ---------------------------- * * ASSUMPTIONS * * )ERASE DAILY TRAFFICS 2.1600 SPEED (MPH)s 45 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT JTOS 75.51 12.57 9.34 —TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 0.19 —TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 0008 ZTIVE HALF —WIDTH (FT)s 43.66667 GRADES 0 SITE CHARACTERISTICS( HARD * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * VEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 68.82 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70CNEL 65CNEL 60CNEL 55GNEL r`^r 76.7 204.2 632.3 1995.1 t II TABLE 6 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS DISTANCES TO CNELs DATE: 8/8/85 )WAY SEGMENT: MACARTHUR ITES: S OF NWPT PL (FUTURE) * * ASSUMPTIONS # * I -AGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 34500 SPEED (MPH): 45 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT s 75.51 12,57 LICKS 1.56 0.09 -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 :� VE HALF —WIDTH (FT): 43.66667 9.34 0.19 0.08 GRADE: 0 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: HARD # CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS # AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 70.85 tDISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 0 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL ---------------------------- 109.8 3121.6 1008.5 .3186.2 -------------------------------------------------------- RECEIVED Flu U 3 'L.,J MCLACHLAN NATSTMENT CCONMBAM' January 31, 1986 Mr. Sid Landmark PHILLIPS BRANDT REDDICK 18012 Sky Park Circle Irvine, California 29714 Dear Sid: Per your request enclosed is the preleasing schedule for the Bank of America Tower. Yours sincerely, McLACHLAN INVESTMENT COMPANY Donald Russell / DR.'lt Enclosure cc: William Langston 1400 Do% L SwEr N�%e F MT BE %CH CALIKIKNi % 021,60 (714) 47s, 1200 Bank of America Tower Leasing Assumptions January 1, 1986 GROSS WEEK OF FLOOR SQUARE FT OCCUPANCY* TENANT Lower 19,000 114 Athletic Club Restaurant First 15,000 114 Bank of America Second 13,000 114 Bank of America Third 13,000 114 Bank of America Fourteenth 20,000 114 Snyder Langston, Inc. Fifteenth 20,000 114 McLachlan Investment Company Sixteenth** 20,000 114 Bank of America Fourth 20,000 Fifth 20,000 Sixth 20,000 Speculative lease -up Seventh Eight 20,000 20,000 over 18 months Ninth 20,000 Tenth 20,000 following shell completion Eleventh 20,000 Twelfth 20,000 300,000 sf * Number of weeks following construction commencement ** No thirteenth floor I I I I I NOTE: ONLY SELECTED PORTIONS OF THIS DOCUMENT ARE ENCLOSED PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS NEWPORT PLACE 0 ' , Emkoy Development Company, Inc. Newport Beach, California I I GENERAL NOTES 1. The Newport Project, a planned community development is a project of fmkay Development Company, Inc., a subsidiary of Monrison— 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 r 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 P.A.A. criteria. 6. Except as otherwise stated in this ordinance, the requirements of the zoning coder City of Newport Beach, shall apply. The contents of this supplemental text notwithstanding, do construction shall be proposed within the boundaiies of this Planned Community District except that which shall comply with oil provisions of the Building Code and the various mechanical and electrical codes related thereto. 7. Phasing of Development. 10799,941 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 square -feet. 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 demonstiated 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 Circula— tion Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. (Phasing Plan approved by City Council March 12, 1979 for all development subject to this regulation.) (13) -1- I I DEFINITIONS I Advertising Surface: The total area of the face of the structure, excluding supports. Area of Elevation: , Total height and length of a building as projected to a vertical plane. Building Line: An imaginary line parallel to the street right-of-way line specifying the closest point from this street right-of-way line that a building structure may be located (except for overhangs stairs and sunscreens). . Public Safety Area: A strip of land twenty (20) feet in width and running parallel with street rightr- of-way. Right -of -Way Line: When reference is made to right-of-way line it shall mean the line which is then established on either the adopted Master Plan of Streets and Highways or the filed Tract Map for Minor Roads as the ultimate right-of-way line for roads or streets. Side and Front of Comer Lots: For the purpose of this ordinance, the narrowest frontage of a lot facing the street is the front, and the longest frontage facing the intersecting street is the side, Irrespective of the direction In which structures face. Sign: Any structure, device or contrivance, electric or non -electric and all parts thereof which are erected or used for advertising purposes upon or within which any potter, bill, bulletin, printing, lettering, painting, device or other advertising L i 1 of any kind whatsoever is used, placed, posted, tacked, nailed, pasted or otherwise fastened or affixed, Site Area: ' The total land area of the land described in the use or other permit. ISpecial Landscaped Street: Special landscaped streets are designated as MacArthur Boulevard, Jamboree Road, Palisades North and Birch Street. The landscaping requirements for special landscaped streets and for the remaining streets are described in the following text. Streets - Dedicated and Private: Reference to all streets or rights -of -way within this ordinance shall mean dedicated vehicular rights -of -way. In the case of private or non -dedicated streets, a minimum setback from the right-of-way line of soid'streets of ten (10) feet shall be required for ail structures. [Except for sidewalks or access drives, this area shall be landscaped according to the setback area standards from dedicated streets contained herein. I I J I U I YJ I STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 1 PART 1. INDUSTRIAL' A. Building Situ Site IA._. 2.0acres.(3)(9) Site 28 ... 3,7 acres... 5':7, acres(3)(9) Site 3A ..:........... 21.3 ocres(2.4) Sited .............. 16.9 acre..................................43.9 acres (9) 0. Building Area Site 1A ... 34,130 sq.ft... 0.8 ac. (3)(9) SIte2B ... 63,138 sq,ft... 1.4 ac.. , 979268 sq.ft. 2.2 ac. (3)(9) * *Site 3A ............. . ....... 296,208 sq.ft. 6,8 ac. (2,4,14) Site 4 .........:............ 288,264 sdJ1. 6.6 ac, 681 j740 sq.ft, 16.6 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 spacs/1000 sg ft @ 363 sg ft,/s ace) Site 1A .... 102 cars'. . 0.9 acres(3)(9) SI1e29 .... 191 cars . , .. 1.6 acres ... 293 cars , 2.4 ac.(3)(9) Site 3A ........................ 889 cats . , .... 7.4 ac.(2 4 14) ,Site 4...........J. .... ........ 865 cars..,,, ~ ac , I 2047 cars, ....,17.0 ac... 17.0 ac.(9,14) D. Landscaped - Open Space Site 1A ... 0.30 acres (3)(9) Site 28 ... 0.70 acres ...... 1.0 acres (3)(9) Site 3A .... . .... . ... . . . 6.6 acres (2,4,14) Slte 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 allot)ed for service stations exclusive of permitted building acres and subject to use permit. , **Industrial site 3A has been reduced by 200000 sq.ft. with the reduction allocated to the allowable building area for Parcel No. 3 of resubdivlslon $29, The allowable building area for Parcel No. 3 of Resubdivlslon 529 Is now 61,162 sgft. (14). I I ISTATISTICAL ANALYSIS PART II. COMMERCIAL/PROFESSIONAL & BUSINESS OFFICES A. Building Sites I Site 1 & 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 *Site 1 & 2... 734,502 square £eet(5)(14)(17) Site 3A....... 115,530 square feet(5) Site 4........ 201,180 square feet Site 5........ 185,764 square feet (16)(19) Site 6........ 42,420 square feet Site 7........ 55,860 square feet.... 1,335,256 square feet(19) The follo-1.1ing 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 Ibuildings within each parcel may vary within these ranges. Site 1 & 2.... 734,502 square feet (5)(14)(17) a. Two Story ................... 8.42 acres b. Three Story ................. 5.61 acres C. Four Story .................. 4.21 acres d. Five Story...............z.. 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 I and 2 have been reduced by 36,119 feet with the reduction allocated to the allowed building area for Parcels 1 & 2 of Resubdivision 585. The allowable building area for Parcel 1 & 2 of Resubdivision 585 is now 272,711 Isquare feet.(14) 1 -5- I_ 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........ 185,764 square feet (16)(19) a. Two Story ................. 1.90 acres b. Three story., .... 1.27 acres c. Four Story ................ .95 acres d. Five Story ............... .76 acres e. Site Six Story ................. 6........ .63 acres 42,420 square feet a. Two Story ................. .49 acres b. Three Story ............... .32 acres C. Four Story ................ .24 acres d. Five Story ................ .19 acres e. Six Story ................. .16 acres , Site 7........ 55,860 square feet a. Two Story 1 ................. .64 acres b. Three Story ............... .43 acres c. Four Story ................ .32 acres d. Five Story ................ .26 acres e. Six Story ................. .21 acres D. Parking (Criteriae 1 space/225 sq.ft.@ 363 sq.ft/space) Site 1 & 2..... 3,260 cars....... 27.17 acres (5) (14) 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.S7 acres Site 76........ 248 cars....... 2.07 acres 5,839 cars .......................48.67 acres 1 1 1 -6- 1 I I Landscaped - Open Space Site 1 & 2(5,14) Gross Site .......... 38.5 acres Parking ........... 27.17 acres Net .............. 11.33 acres Two Story ............... 8.42 acres ...... 2.91 acres Three Story ..... ..... .... 5.61 acres ...... 5.72 acres Four Story .............. . 4.21 acres ..... 7.12 acres Five Story ..... . . .. ..... . 3.37 acres ...... 7.96 acres Six Story ................ 2.81 acres ..... 8.52 acres Site 3A(5) Gross Site ......... 5.2 acres Parking ....... I... 4.28 acres . Net .............. .92 acres Two Story ................. 1.33 acres ...0........ N .A. Three Story ............... .88 acres ............ .04 acres Four Story ................ .66 acres .26 acres Five Story, ....:.... ....... .53 acres ....... ..39 acres .SIX Story ................. .44 acres ............ .48 acres Seven Story ............... .37 acres •........... 055 acres Eight Story ............... .33 acres :............ .59 acres Site 4 Gross Site ......... 9.0 acres Parking ............ 7.45 acres Net ............... 1.55 acres Two Story ............... Three Story .......... .... Four Story ............... Five Story ............... Six Story ............... Site 5 Gross Site ......... Parking ........... Net .............. 2.31 acres ...........0. N.A. 1.54 acres ............. .01 acres 1.15 acres ............. .40 acres .92 acres ............. .63 acres .77 acres.....*.*.' .78 acres 7.4 acres 6.13 acres 1.27 acres Two Story ............... 1.90 acres .............. N A. Three Story .............. 1.27 acres.............. .00 acres tour Story ............... .95 acres.............. .32 acres Five Story ..:............ .76 acres.............. .51 acres Six Story ............... .63 acres.............. .64 acres ... i Site 6 Gross Site.......,.• 1,90 acres Forking.... a.a...... 1.57 acres Not.*.. a* a to. a. a at a 0.333 acres Two Story ................. .49 octet ............. N.A. .Three Story... a. add .32 acres ............01 acre, Four Story ...... u.. u..r♦ 624 acret .. •09 acres Five Story .19 acres ............. .14 acres Six Story ................ • .16 acres • ........... ♦ ,17 acres Site 7 Gross Site.........: 2.50 acres Parking ............ 2.07 acres Net ............... .�4. ogres - Two Story ................. .64 acres ............. N.A. , Three Story ....... . ........ .43 acres . u .. ,....... .00 acres Four Story ................. •32 acres ............• .11 acres Five! Start.* ..... .26 acres ............ • ,17 acres Six Story ........i . u i .21 acres ............. .22 acres F. .Building Height(5) (12)(15) r Maximum building height shall not exceed six (6) stories above ground level, except for Slle 3A whleh shall have a maximum building height of eight (8) stories above ground level, and for Parcel No. 1 of Aesub_ division No. $85 which shall have a maximum building height of ten (10) stories above ground level and Parcel No. 2 of kesubdivlslon No. 585 which shall have a maximum building height of seven (7) stories above ground level. _ I I I I 1 Section III. General Development Standards for Commerce Maximum building areas and building heights shall be as noted in the Statistical Analysis, Part II.A and Part ILL A. Setbacks All setbacks shod be measured from the property line. For the purpose of this ordinance, a street side property line is that line created by the ultimate right-of-way line of the frontage street. 1. Front Yard Setback Thirty (30) feet minimum; except that unsupported roofs or sun -screens may project six (6) feet into the setback area. 2. Side Yard ' Side yard setbacks will be required only when any one of the following conditions exist: a. Comer lot: Thirty (30) feet (street side setback only), except that unsupported roofs and sun -screens may project three (3).feet into setback area. b. Where property abuts other than commercially zoned property, a ten (10) foot setback is required. Unsupported roofs and sun -screens may project three (3) feet into the.setback area. 3. Rear Yard None required except on a through -lot in which case the required front yard setback shall be observed. B. Signs 1. Sign Area: General Standard Building identification shall be limited to a single (1) entity. Building identification signs shall have 1 29 I 2. 3. 4. ., an area not to exceed 1 1/2 square feet of surface for each one (1) foot of lineal frontage of building. However, no sion shall exceed two hundred (200) square foot per face. Building identification signs shall be limited to two (2) facades. Polo Sign One (1) identification pble sign per site will be allowed , for the following commercial businesses: a. Restaurant b. Cocktail lounge and/or bar c. *Motel and hotel If a pole sign Is utilized,, it shall be in lieu of other identification signs allowed by ordinance. Pole signs shall be limited to maximum fieigltt of twenty (20) foot and a maximum area of fifty (50) square feet per face, double faced. Wall Sign: I In no event shall an identification sign placed on a wall comprise more than ton (10) percent of the area of the ole4ation upon which the sign is located. Said signs. shall be fixture signs. Signs painted directly on the surface of the viW shall not be permitted. Ground Sign: An identification ground sign shall not exceed four (4) feet above grade in vertical height. Also, ground signs in excess of one -hundred and fifty (150) square feet in area (single face) shall not -be orected• in the first twenty (20) foot, as measured from the property line, of any street side setback. However, the above standards shall r not apply to the Community Directional Sign and Special Purpose Sign. J -30- ' S. Multi -Tenant Directory Sign: One (1) directory sign listing only the name of the firms or businesses on a site shall be allowed. Said sign shall be limited to a maximum height of twenty (20) feet. Panels identifying each individual story shall be no longer than one (1) foot in width and five (5) feet in length. 6. Special Purpose Sign: Subject to the standards established in Port I, Section 111, Item C.4. 7. Construction Sign: Subject to the standards established in Part 1, Section III, Item C.6. B. Future Tenant Identification: Subject to the standards established in Part 1, Section 111, Item C.7. i 9. Community Direction and/or Identification Sign: Subject to the standards established in Part I, Section 111, Item C.S. I C. Sign Standards Except as noted above, the same sign standards as outlined in Sub -Section D, Section Ill, Part I of this ordinance, shall prevail for developments in this area. D. Parking 1., Medical and Dental Five (5) spaces for each doctor or one (1) space for each 200'square feet of gross floor area whichever is greater. 2. Professional Offices One (1) space -for each 225 square feet of net floor area. The parking requirement may be lowered to one (1) space for each 250 square feet of net floor area upon review and approval of the modification committee. -31 I 3. Lodge, Halls, Private Clubs, Union Headquarters One (1) space for each 75 square feet of gross floor , area plus one (1) space for each 250 square feet of gross office floor area. 4. Restaurants, Outdoor, Drive -In ohd Take -Out (7) estauronts. a. Restaurant parking shall be in accordance with Section 20.38.030(d) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, except as noted under "b" and "c" below. b. Restaurants other than outdoor, drive-in or , flake -out restaurants within Retail -Commercial Sites 1 and 2 shall provide one (1) space for each 200 square feet of net floor area and , one (1) loading space for each 10,000 square feet of gross floor area, to the extent that the net floor area of all restaurants does not exceed 20% of the net floor area of the retail - commercial center. In the event that any restaurant causes lire total of all restaurant uses In the retail -commercial center to exceed 20% limitation noted above, that entire restaurant and any subsequent restaurants shall provide parking as noted under "a" above. c. Parking for outdoor, drive-in and take-out restaurants shall be provided in accordance with Section 20.53.060 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 5. Retail Commercial One (1) space for each 200 square feet of net floor area. One (1) loading spate for each 10,000 square feet of gross floor area. ' 6. Hotels and Motels (6) Parking for Hotel and Motel guest rooms; oil related restaurants, cocktail lounges, banquet and meeting rooms, retail shops; and all employees shall be based on a ' demonstrated formula to be reviewed and approved by I -32- 1 I the Planning Commission. The parking formula shall contain the minimum parking which would be required for each of the separate uses evaluated independently. Any reductions from this minimum parking requirement must be based on the joint usage of the facilities by hotel and motel patrons. 00) C! I 1 1 I i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 NEWPORT PLACE P-C REMAINING DEVELOPMENT FIGURE 6 �00 Ok '» « C mbas+e no^ scc o Ssa Soo �25�'wesfcba nrsnCi ' reAW10eWmeook..0 FHI Source: Initial Study for the Expansion of 1400 Dove Street, Newport Beach, February 17, 1984. I I I- Location l Portion Rem. Dev.2 TPP3 Year Amount 30% 70% Site4 Type A _ p HB 1A-1B B - 0 - - - - - HB 1A-1B C i 0 Yes RC-2 D i -330 Yes = = = - � SS-1 E 0 RC-1 f - 0 - - - - - RC-1 G 0 _ RC-1 H - 0 - - - - P&B-7 I 6 0 - - - - - P&B-6 J 6 0 P&B-6 K 0 - - - RS-1 L - 0 - - - - RS-1 0 RS-1 N 63,042 Yes 1979 63,042 18,913 44,129 P&B-5 0 - 0 - - - - - P&B-5 0-1 - 0 - - - - - P&B-5 P 4 4,111 1,233 2,879 P&B-4 Q p _ _ _ P&B-4 R _ 0 - - - - - RS-2a S 3a 37,463 _ _ _ 11,238 26,225 IS-3a T 0 ACS-1B u - -5,050 - - - GC-1 V 4 23,494 22=914 I6-4 W p = = = P&B-1&2 X p -580 P&B-1&2 Y _ 0 _ _ _ _ - P&B-1&2 Z 0 - - - _ P&B-1&2 AA _ 2,809 Yes 1981' 21809 = P&B-1&2 BB - 0 - - - - - P&B-1&2 CC 0 P&B-1&2 DD - 0 - - _ - - P&B-1&2 EE - 0 - - - - - P&B-1&2 0 P&B-1&2 GG GG 0 - P&6-1&2 ' HH - 0 - - - - P&B-1&2 II - 0 - - -• - - P&B-1&2 J3 p _ P&B-1&2 KK - 0 - - - - P&B-1&2 LL 3a 0 - - - - - IS-3a MM 3a 0 - _ IS-3a 1 NN 3a 0 Yes _ _ _ IS-3a 1 -14- Sited I 00 3a 40,951 Yes 1980 409951 - - IS-3A PP 3a 14,265 Yes - - 4,280 9,985 IS-3A RR 3a 0 IS-3A 3a 0 _ _ _ IS-3A SS 3a 0 - - - - - IS-3A TT 3a 0 - - - - - IS-3A UU 3a 0 - - - - - IS-3A YV 4 4,130 - - - 1,239 3,071 GC-4 WW 28 35,063 - - - 8,885 26,179 IS-2B XX IA 0 - - - - - IS -IA YY 3 3,474 - - - 1,042 2,432 GC-3 ZZ 1A 17,130 - - 5,139 119991 IS-1A AB 0 0 - - - - - ACS-2A AC 3 31474 - - - 1,042 20432 GC-3 AD 1 6,850 - - - 2,055 49795 GC-2 AE 3A 0 - - IS-3A TOTAL 2179169 106*802 55,646 157,032 1 - Per figure 5, page 13. 2 - Remaining future allowable development of office, retail, and industrial uses in square feet. 3 - Traffic Phasing Plan. 4 - Refer to Newport Place Planned Community District Text for definition. Source: City of Newport Beach Planning Deaprtment -15- APPENDIX 6 Miscellaneous Correspondence 1 1 `1 i i C J 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 CJ 1 PHI UPS BRANDT REDDICK July 31, 1985 Mr. Alfred Brady Airport Land Use Commission 3151 Airway Avenue Building K-101 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Subject: Newport Place Tower DEIR Dear Mr.. Brady: The Commission has already responded to our initial inquiry of July 3 related to the Bank of America/Newport Place project. As soon as information is available concerning the airport settlement please advise us of the land use and traffic implications of the plan. We expect to complete the Screencheck EIR by August 16 and the Draft EIR by early September. Sincerely, PHILLIPS BRANDT REDDICK Sid Lindmark Project Manager SL:cw (62-014) PLANNING . ARCHITECTURE • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH 1 18012 SKY PARK CIRCLE • IRVINE, CA 92714 • (714) 261-8820 CALIFORNIA COLORAD.O HAWAII RECEIVEDAUG G 7 5 CITY OF COSTA MESA CALIFORNIA 926284200 P.O. SOX 1200 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 00ARTMENT August 21 1985 Sid Lindmark, Project Manager PBR 18012 Sky Park Circle Irvine, CA 92714 Dear Mr. Lindmark: I am writing in response to your request for info=tion for preparation of the Newport Place Tower DEIR. Generally, the area in Costa Mesa bounded by the San Diego Freeway, John Wayne Airports Bristol Street and the Costa Mesa Freeway is fully developed or already committed to be de- veloped. No new large scale redevelopment plans have been submitted for review and approval. To aid in the preparation of your report, I have listed five projects which fall into the "committed projects" category: 1. 2910 Red Hill; 2-story industrial office building with 16,500 sq.ft. of floor area. 2. 2955, 2975, 2995 Red Hill (Scripps_ Technology Center); three, 2-story R&D/office buildings totalling 230,000 square feet. 3. 200 Baker Street; 2-story office building with 42,050 square feet of floor area 4. 215-225 Baker Street; 2-story %D/office building with 16,920 square feet of floor area. 5. 325 Bristol Street; 3-story, 180-roan motel with restaurant The last project is actually on the south side of Bristol and outside of the area designated in your letter of July 25, 1985. However, because of its proximity to the stuly area, I incluied information on the project for your reference. sincerely, R. MICHAEL RCBINSCN Senior Planner RMR:alm (C-8-94) �I r L_J I r I I r I r 7 L I Building Division (714) 754.5626 Code Enforcement/Business License (714) 754.6234 77 FAIR DRIVE Planning Division (714) 754.5245 1 i7 kECEIVEU�UG 0 8 1988 Y OF N G E ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY PLANNING FILE Mr. Sid Lindmark Phillips Brandt Reddick 18012 Sky Park Circle Irvine, CA 92714 August 7, 1985 ' Subject: Newport Place Tower DEIR I Dear Mr. Lindmark: MURRAYSTORM DIRECTOR, EMA ROBERT G. FISHER DIRECTOR OF PLANNING LOCATION: 12 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA P.O. BOX 4048 SANTA ANA, CA 92702-4048 MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 4048 SANTA ANA, CA 92702-4048 Pursuant to your request of July 25, below is a list of the proposed and approved projects in the identified study area for addressing the cumu- lative impacts of the proposed project. APPROVED PROJECTS: 1. Santa Ana Heights Land Use Compatibility Program USE: Business Park (conversion of existing residential) QUANTITY: approximately 1.9 million square feet ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: Final EIR 508 2. John Wayne Airport Master Plan USE: Airport and ancillary uses QUANTITY: Terminal-390,000 square feet Parking-10,800 spaces Air Cargo Building-10,000 square feet ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: Final EIR 508 3. Bayview USE: Mixed QUANTITY: Residential-236 units Office-631,644 gross square feet Commercial-36,500 gross square feet Hotel-300 rooms ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: Final EIR 440 4. DVM USE: Office QUANTITY: 72,000 square feet ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: Final EIR 443 TELEPHONE: (714) 834.4643 1 Mr. Sid Lindmark Page 2 PROPOSED PROJECT: 1. 1515 Mesa Drive (Lange Drive) USE: Residential QUANTITY: 76 units ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: Negative Declaration IS 85-091 This represents all of the active or approved projects in the County area which are known to us at this time. Please contact Dan Fricke of my staff at 834-5380 if you have any questions pertaining to this information. Yours very truly, Bryan G Speeg ~, Mag ger Adva Planni g Division DLFt=(7/029) Imo' I August 9, 1985 Mr. Sid Lindmark Phillips Brandt Reddick 18012 Sky Park Circle 1 Irvine, California 92714 Dear Sid: In response to your letter of July 24, 1985, we are providing the information detailed below on proposed, approved, and committed projects within the area bounded by the San Diego Freeway, MacArthur and Jamboree Boulevards. We are also including our response to your letter of July 26, 1985. The four projects shown on Table 1 include only those in the 1 immediate vicinity of the proposed Newport Place Tower. Existing office and hotel buildings between the San Diego 1 Freeway and Michelson were not included. PROJECT TITLE SQUARE FOOTAGE OFFICE (GROSS) Proposed Von Karman Plaza, Phase II 130,000 Roll Center Irvine #4 135,000 Approved But Not Committed 2600 Michelson 409,750 1 Roll Center Irvine, Phase 3 Roll Center Irvine 280,000 220,000 Varian 218,500 Committed 1 Dupont Associates/Comp. Care 30,000 Roll Center Irvine, Phase 2 220,000 Dupont Plaza 243,718 1 Douglas Tower 298,378 Executive Plaza 52,974 Doyles #3 325,000 1 The Atrium 257,900 1 1 Mr. Sid Lindmark 2 August 9, 1985 In addition to the projects listed above, the City of Irvine has received indications that a number of property owners and developers are interested in developing more square footage in this area. The area included in your information request is part of the Irvine Business Complex. The Irvine Business Complex is currently the subject of several studies which may result in changes in the type and amount of development which will occur. We hope the information we have provided is useful to you. Should you have any questions regarding this information, please contact me or Enid Cohn Gary at (714) 660-3832. S ED MO RE, AICP Prin ipal Planner EC :lb Enclosure d n L 7 Ll 11 I I 11 I r I I I 11 Name/Address Stor ' 1. The Atrium 10 Von Karman ' 2. Crocker Bank 9 19000 MacArthur ' 3. Douglas Plaza/ Tower 17 17 Von Karman 4. Brinderson Towers 12 macALthur/Jamboree 1� TABLE 1 AREA BUILDING STATISTICS Year Gross Approved Acres Sq. Feet 83 or 84 6.234 379,762 80-81 4.245 139,858 85 5.27 298,394 85-86 600,000 .4. AL PF LLPS BRANDT REDDICK September 18, 1985 Patricia Lee Temple Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd, Newport Beach, CA 92663-3884 Subject: Bank of America - Employment Estimate Dear Pat: Enclosed for your review are estimates of employment for the Bank of America facility based on the city generation ratios included in Table 11 of the Housing Element. Using these factors, the project would generate 1137 employees. Please confirm that this estimate should be used in the DEIR. Sincerely, PHILLIPS BRANDT REDDICK Sid tindmark Project Manager SL:cw (62-014) Encl. I 11 1 n �.J 1 1 i 1 7 L i tl G 1 1 1 J PLANNING - ARCHITECTURE • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE - ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH 18012 SKY PARK CIRCLE - IRVINE, CA 92714 - (714) 261-8820 CALIFORNIA COLORADO HAWAII 1 TABLE 1 BANK OF AMERICA EMPLOYMENT ESTIMATE Use Approx. Gross 2 Square Footage Factors Employees Cafe/Bari 9,950 3.2/1,0003 32 Racquetball 9,050 1.0/100004 9 Offices 281,000 3.9/1,0005 1,096 300,000 1,137 1 - Includes elevator area. 2 - Data supplied by project architect. 3 - City employment factor for restaurants. 4 - City employment factor for general commercial. 5 - City employment factor for business office. I APPENDIX H SHARED PARKING ANALLYSIS j 7 r, j ill I �J I SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS - SITE 5 Net Office Area Bank of America 259,521 (net sq. ft. added) Continental -Dunn 70,500 ' Rhodes-Bidna 13,083 Subtotal 343,104 ' Bank (existing) 21,511 Restaurant 9,920 Racquetball (4 courts) 9,048 ' Hour Demand Ratios Office Sp. Restaurant Sp. Bank Sp. Racquetball Sp. Total Sp. 6 0.1 34 34 7 0.6 206 0.5 5 - = 211 8 1.9 652 1.0 10 1.5 32 694 9 M 961 2.0 20 1.5 32 0.4 4 1,017 ' 10 3.0 1,029 4.0 40 1.5 32 0.4 4 1,105 11 3.0 1,029 6.0 60 2.9 62 0.4 4 1,155 ' Noon 2.7 926 10.0 99 2.9 62 0.4 4 1,091 1 2.7 926 14.0 139 2.9 62 0.4 4 1,131 2 2.9 995 12.0 119 2.9 62 0.4 4 1,180 ' 3 2.8 961 12.0 119 2.9 62 0.4 4 1,146 4 2.3 789 10.0 99 2.9 62 0.4 4 4 954 666 5 1.4 480 14.0 139 2.0 43 0.4 6 0.7 240 18.0 179 - 0.4 4 423 ' 7 0.2 69 20.0 198 - - 267 8 0.2 69 20.0 198 - - 267 ' 9 0.1 34 20.0 198 - - 232 10 0.1 34 18.0 179 - - 213 11 - 14.0 139 - - 139 mid- night - 10.0 99 - - 99 ' Peak Parking Demand: 1,180 Source: Kunzman and Associates, February 1986. Demand ratios are expressed as occupied parking units per thousand square feet. ' McLachlan Newport Place Traffic -Study D<upaman (,_Abgouatee Transportation Planning •Traffic Engineering (5 McLachlan Newport Place Traffic Study 9 uRu� rai ssociates Transportation Planning •Traffic Engineering cJCunaunnn v4ssociates Transportation Planning *Traffic Engineering August 20, 1986 Mr, Richard Edmonston, P.E. Traffic Engineer City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Dear Mr. Edmonston: We are pleased to present this traffic impact analysis for the McLachlan Newport Place Office Building. The analysis is in accordance with the requirements of the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance. This report contains (1) One Percent Traffic Volumes Analysis; (2) ICU Analysis; (3) ICU Analysis With Project Related improvements; and (4) Internal Circulation and Parking. We trust that the findings will be of immediate as well as continuing value to you and the city of Newport Beach. Should you have any questions, or if we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES John Kain, AICP #822c 4664 Clarrence Parkway * Irvine, CA 92714 t C7141 559-4231 McLachlan Newport Place Traffic Study uI13ty(aN ."ssoctates Transportation Planning *Traffic Engineering (F Table of Contents ' Section knee- No. , 1. Project Description ..................................... 1 2. Project Traffic Generation ....++.......... ...#.... ..,... 4 ' 3. Project Traffic Distribution and Assignment ............. 9 , 4. One Percent Intersection Analysis .......... +...+..,..... 14 S. Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis ..............22 ' 6. Project Related Improvements ... 4....... 6................ 28 7. Internal Circulation and Parking ...+....................31 , 8. Other Traffic Considerations ... .#.................. 4.... 37 Appendices Appendix A - one Percent Traffic Volume ' Analysis Work Sheets Appendix B - Intersection Capacity Utilization Work Sheets Appendix C - Alternative Improvements ICU ' Work Sheets List of Figures Figure No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Title Page No. Location Map ................................. 2 SitePlan .................................... 3 Project Traffic Distribution (Inbound) .......10 Project Traffic Distribution (outbound) ......12 Study Intersections ..........................21 AM Site Traffic Volumes ......................35 PMSite Traffic Volumes ......................36 List of Tables Table No. Title Pacts No. 1 Traffic Generation Rates 5 2 Existing Land Use Trips Generated 6 3 Proposed Land Use Trips Generated 7 4 Net Traffic Generation S 5 One Percent Analysis Summary ...............115 6 Committed Projects ..........................19 7 Intersection Capacity Utilization for Critical Intersections ..................26 a Cumulative Parking Demand By Hour of Day ....34 9 One -Way Trip Lengths By Land Use ............38 '' 1. Project Description ' Project Location The proj-ect is located at the northwest corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Newport Place Drive/Von Karman Avenue in the vicinity of John Wayne Orange County Airport. The site location is illustrated in Figure 1. ' Proposed Development ' The project consists of the construction of a 300,000 gross square foot, fifteen -story office building and adjacent parking structure as illustrated in Figure 2. The office building will include a restaurant/lounge, bank, racquet ball courts, and ' miscellaneous small retail services such as a newspaper -tobacco stand and flower shop. ' The new office building will replace the existing 21,511 gross square foot Bank of America building on the site. The parking structure will be constructed in an area currently utilized for surface parking. Two additional office buildings existing on ' the site will remain: the two-story McLaughlin Building contains 15,670 gross square feet, and the Continental Plaza Building contains 70,500 gross square feet. The restaurant, racquet ball courts and miscellaneous retail services will be located in the basement area of the office building and are intended primarily to serve the tenants of the building. The restaurant will occupy a total area of 9,920 square feet and will include a lounge. The racquet ball facilities will consist of four courts and will include lockers and showers within the 9,048 square feet of the facility. The existing bank operation on the site will be relocated into the new office building upon completion. The bank will not provide drive -through banking service. 1 3 7. Project Traffic Generation The traffic generated by a site is determined by multiplying an appropriate trip generation rate by the quantity of land use. Trip generation rates are typically expressed in terms of trip ends per one thousand square feet of gross floor area. For this study, trip generation data were approved by the city of Newport Beach. The generation rates used reflect a degree of interaction between the on -site service facilities and the office space which reduces the trip generation slightly. Table 1 provides trip generation rates for existing and proposed land uses. The trip generation rate for the racquet ball facility has been expressed on a per court basis rather than per thousand square feet as trip generation has been shown to correlate better on this basis. The racquet ball courts are expected to interact highly with the project office space. Table 2 presents the traffic generated by the existing land use. Table 3 presents the traffic generated by the proposed land uses. The net floor area of 259,521 square feet attributable to project office use assumes the existing bank operation on the site will be relocated without changes in the scope of its operation to the new office structure. Table 4 summarizes traffic generation and presents the net amount of traffic the project will generate when allowance is made for the existing bank land use. 4 Table 1 TRAFFIC GENERATION RATES Land U Office Restau Bank Racque Court Table 2 Morning Peak Hour Evening Peak Hour Land Use Quantity Units Daily in out In out Sank 21,511 TSF 86 43 114 74 31549 TSF - 1,000 square feet R I Table 3 PROPOSED LAND USE TRIPS GENERATED Morning Peak Hour Evening Peak Hour Land Use Quantity Units Daily In Out In Out Bank 21.511 TSF 86 43 114 75 31549 Office 259.521 TSF 519 103 155 441 3,373 Restaurant 9.92 TSF 9 4 26 16 744 Racquet Ball 4.0 Court 8 622 4 10 6 176 Total 154 305 538 7,842 TSF = 1,000 square feet Table 4 NET TRAFFIC GENERATION Land Use Morning Peak Hour Evening Peak Hour Daily 71842 3,549 In out In out Proposed Existing 622 86 154 43 305 114 538 75 Net Total 536 111 191 463 41293 I 11 1 11 1 E 11 3. Project Traffic Distribution and Assignment Traffic distribution and assignment is based on•the directional orientation of traffic, and then the traffic is assigned to specific roadways. It is based on the geographical location of residential concentrations, along with commercial, business, and recreational, and employment opportunities. Traffic distribution and assignment was reviewed and approved by City of Newport Beach. The orientation of traffic inbound to the site is expected to vary slightly from the orientation for outbound traffic. This reflects the one-way attribute of Bristol Street and Bristol Street North, and the non -mirror routing of traffic due to localized evening congestion. Figure 3 illustrates the project traffic distribution for inbound traffic; Figure A illustrates outbound traffic. 0 �~ 0 Project Traff Legend 10 Percent of Project Trafl OLUR ditQit r nno slums afO z cs as m m Figure 3A, Project Traffic Distribution (Inbound) ' 15 5 ' oig c°c 15 ' fhi n Jy moo` �c 5 C � E 5 5 0 300 25 Q Site ' 35 °^rh 9 m s 5 /O/ S ^'S o U •,l Universit Drive ° m Legend e 10- Percent Traffic To Project O�. 4 u x'O\Jtt 5 � day 10 clCui,;it,an v4ssociates 1 11 Figure 4 Drive Project Traffic Distribution (Outbound) Site 9 Srr Br � '� Strom N Figure 4A 8risto Sheet S V > Legend � A tj P Biso 10 Percent of Project Traffic 5 10 i N R o a g m pord 5 a > � � O Street all m tT, Santa Barbara Drive Joaqu• rn Strom 0 hills Q'O� hwa ,4 m Bays' a e' Z Drive i yoa5 5 0 c Tustin Avenue ,00 ` 11 5 Riverside Avenue U T r C 4 rd 0 a 4 G� J{1plall (-Asgociateos i n \.0 z ai Figure 4A Project Traffic Distribution (Outbound) L io J<L I 4. One Percent Intersection Analysis ' Thirty critical intersections were examined as identified by City staff for traffic volumes generated by the project. The location of these intersections is illustrated in figure S. The results of the One Percent Traffic Analysis are summarized in Table 5. of the 30 intersections examined, 19 intersections exceeded the one percent criteria; 18 for the AM peak 2.5 hour period, and 16 for the PM peak 2.5 hour period. The purpose of the One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis is to establish whether the project adds a volume that is greater than or equal to one percent of a critical intersection's approach volume. If less than one percent is added to each approach of a critical intersection, then no further analysis is necessary as specified in the Traffic Phasing ordinance. As part of the one percent analysis, regional growth and committed projects are included. Volume projections are made to a point in time one year after the project completion. This project's completion date is 1987, and traffic volumes are projected to 1988. Regional traffic has been forecasted in accordance with City procedures, and committed project traffic includes those projects listed in Table 6. Because of the proximity of this project to the Irvine Business Complex, committed project traffic from this area has also been included in the traffic volumes for committed project traffic and were furnished by the City of Newport Beach. 14 Table 5 ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS SUMMARY 1% of Projected 2.5 Hr. Peak Vol. Project's 2.5 Hour Peak Vol. over 1% Intersection Analyzed AM PM AM PM AM PM MacArthur and Campus Northbound Southbound 24 57 46 42 34 161 139 58 Yes Yes Yes Yes Table 5 ONS PERCENT.ANALYSIS SUMMARY (Continued) Intersection Analyzed 1t of Projected 2.5 Hr. Peak Vol. Projectes Hoax Peak 2.5 Vol. Over 1% AI4 PM: AM PM AM PI4 Jamboree and Campus Northbound 25 54 34 139 Yes Yes Southbound 60 30 161 58 Yes Yes Eastbound 9 22 11 46 Yes Yes Westbound 25 17 54 19 Yes Yes Jamboree and Birch Northbound 29 43 0 0 Ito No Southbound 57 35 161 58 Yes Yes Eastbound 4 17 34 139 Yes Yes Westbound 0 0 0 0 No No Jamboree and Eastbluff Northbound 52 64 54 19 Yes No No Southbound 56 55 11 46 No Eastbound 13 5 0 0 No No Westbound 1 1 0 0 No No Jamboree and Bison Northbound 57 57 54 19 Ito No Southbound 48 51 11 46 No No Eastbound 2 4 0 0 No No Westbound 8 8 0 0 Ito No Jamboree Eastbluff- FNorthbound 58 62 54 19 Ito Ito Southbound 43 54 11 46 Ito No Eastbound 11 13 0 0 No No Westbound 8 11 0 0 No No Jamboree and San Joaquin Hills Northbound 50 52 54 19 Yes No Southbound 55 46 11 46 No Yes Eastbound 8 5 0 0 No No Westbound 7 11 0 0 No No Jamboree and Santa Barbara Northbound 52 34 54 19 Yes No Southbound 37 50 11 46 Ito No Eastbound 0 0 4 0 6 9 Ito No No No Westbound 5 21 Jamboree and Bristol North Northbound 70 78 54 19 No Ito Southbound 32 47 1 11 4 46 6 No No No No Eastbound Westbound 0 0 2 0 9 No Ito 16 Table 5 ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS S=,MRY (Continued) Intersection Analyzed 1% of Projected 2.5 Hr. Peak Vol. Projectes Hour Peak 2.5 Vol. Over 1% AM PM AM PM AM PM Campus and Bristol North Northbound 49 27 161 57 Yes Yes Southbound 16 44 11 46 No Yes Eastbound 0 0 0 0 No No Westbound 37 88 78 325 Yes Yes Birch and Bristol North Northbound 32 15 322 115 Yes Yes Southbound 10 42 33 139 Yes Yes Eastbound 0 0 0 0 No No Westbound 31 63 56 232 Yes Yes Jamboree and Bristol Northbound 62 63 54 19 No No Southbound 25 29 11 46 No Yes Eastbound 56 59 0 0 No No Westbound 0 0 0 0 No No Campus -Irvine and Bristol Northbound 42 31 54 19 Yes No Southbound 13 39 11 46 No Yes Eastbound 68 76 375 134 Yes Yes Westbound 0 0 0 0 No No Birch and Bristol Northbound 8 5 54 19 Yes Yes Southbound 5 15 11 46 Yes Yes Eastbound 52 54 268 96 Yes Yes Westbound 0 0 0 0 No No Riverside and Coast Highway Northbound 1 0 0 0 No No Southbound 8 13 0 0 No No Eastbound 75 74 54 19 No No Westbound 41 69 11 46 No No Tustin and Coast Highway Northbound 0 0 0 0 No No Southbound 1 3 0 0 No No Eastbound 66 54 54 19 No No Westbound 43 72 11 46 No No Table 5 ONE PERCENT ANALYSTS SMZIARY (Continued) Intersection Analyzed 1% of Projected 2.5 Hr. Peak Vol. Projectes Hour Peak 2.5 Vol. Over 1% A14 P14 AM PM AM PM Dover-Hayshore and Coast Highway Northbound 3 3 0 0 140 No southbound 27 33 0 0 No No Eastbound 59 54 54 19 No No Westbound 63 72 11 46 No No Hayside and Coast Highway Northbound 13 18 0 0 No No southbound 3 4 0 0 No No Eastbound 79 77 54 19 Ito I10 Westbound 45 87 11 46 No No Jamboree and Coast Highway Northbound 20 11 0 0 No No southbound 21 62 11 46 ITo No Eastbound 87 72 54 19 No No Westbound 35 59 0 0 No No MacArthur and Coast Highwayy Northbound 0 0 0 0 No No southbouhd 18 42 11 46 No Yes Eastbound 26 54 0 0 No No Westbound 85 47 54 19 No No Goldenrod and Coast Highway Northbound 3 3 0 0 Ito No southbound 2 2 0 0 No ITo Eastbound 25 71 11 46 No No Westbound 66 42 54 19 No No ITarguerite and Coast Highway Northbound 6 7 0 0 ITo Ito southbound 5 7 0 0 No No Eastbound 25 61 11 46 No No Westbound 69 38 54 19 No No Pg. and Coast Highway Northbound 1 2 0 0 No No Southbound 1 6 0 0 Ito No Eastbound 19 63 11 46 No No Westbound 77 42 54 19 Ito No 18 Table 6 COMMITTED PROJECTS Hughes Aircraft #1 Hoag Hospital (commu Far West Savings and Pacesetter_ Homes_ (of Boyle Engineering Cal Canadian Bank Civic Plaza offi Civic Plaza offi Corporate Plaza ( Koll Center Newpo MacArthur Court ( National Educatio North Ford (indus Orchard Office (o Pacific Mutual P1 3701 Birch office Newport Place_(of r Point Homes fr. Gardens (c Boulevard Marina-s vineyara kreszau Valdez - 3101 W. Coast Hi Coast Business Center (of Koll Center Newport No. 1 Ford Aeronutronics Amendm Ross Mollard (medical off Bannina/Newport Ranch (of e, industrial) (office) .y (office) (office) No. 1 �, industrial, residential) Hughes Aircraft #2 (industrial) Heritage Bank (bank office, medical office) Flagship Hospital Big Canyon 10 (residential) Fun Zone (commercial) Marriott Expansion St. Andrews Church YMCA Allred Condominiums (residential) Morgan Development Four Seasons Hotel University Athletic Club Block 400 Medical (medical office) Sheraton Expansion Ford Aeronutronic Amendment No. 1 19 Table G (Continued) C0Mtt'ITP,D PRDJECIS Amend. No. I MacArthur Court (office) National Education (office) Ford Aeronutronic Amendment No. 2 Canyon Villa Apartments (residentie Dove Street (office) zeraMedicaleOffice (office) office) Center TPP Amend. 44A Project MacArthur Associates'(bank/office) Newporter.Inn E ansion Newport Lido Medd cal Center Pacesetter Homes Fashion Island Renaissance Crown House Corona del Mar Seniors Project Newport Dunes Bayview 20 Study Legend -Study Intersection >i290CLUNS a°' z" 0 na 5. Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis For intersections which would exceed the one percent criteria, the Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis was performed. The results of this analysis are shown in Table 7. Of the 30 intersections analyzed, 22 exceeded the one percent criteria; 21 for the AM traffic period and 20 for the PM traffic period. The intersection of MacArthur Boulevard/Campus Drive exceeds the one percent criteria for both the AM and PM peak periods. This intersection has existing ICUs of 0.63 and 0.93 for AM and PM respectively, ICUs of 0.76 and 1.10 for AM and PM for existing plus added non -project traffic, and ICUs of 0.17 and 1.11 for AM and PM for all future traffic. This intersection will require improvement in the PM only. The intersection of MacArthur Boulevard/Birch Street exceeds the one percent criteria for both the AM and PM peak periods. This intersection has existing ICUs of 0.46 and 0.62 for AM and PM respectively, ICUs of 0.56 and 0.75 for AM and PM for existing plus added non -project traffic, and ICUs of 0.56 and 0.75 for AM and PM for all future traffic. This intersection will not require improvement. The intersection of MacArthur Boulevard/Jamboree Boulevard exceeds the one percent criteria for both the AM and PM peak periods. This intersection has existing ICUs of 0.65 and 0.89 for AM and PM respectively, ICUs of 0.99 and 1,16 for AM and PM for existing plus added non -project traffic, and ICUs of 1,00 and 1.16 for AM and PM for all future traffic. This intersection will require improvement in the AM. Although the PM ICU for all future traffic will exceed 0.91 it will not be greater than the ICU which would exist without the project. This intersection therefore will not require improve in the PM. The intersection of MacArthur Boulevard/Bison Avenue exceeds the one percent criteria for both the AM and PM peak periods. This intersection has existing ICUs of 0.80 and 0.90 for AM and PM respectively, ICUs of 0,91 and 1.08 for AM and PM for existing plus added non -project traffic, and ICUs of 0.92 and 1.09 for AM and PM for all future traffic. This intersection will require improvement in both the AM and PM. The intersection of MacArthur Boulevard/Ford Road exceeds the one percent criteria for both the AM and P14 peak periods. This intersection has existing ICUs of 0.59 and 1.01 for AM and PM respectively, ICUs of 0.70 and 1,20 for AM and PM for existing plus added non -project traffic, and ICUs of 0.72 and 1.21 for AM 22 and PM for all future traffic. This intersection will require improvement in the PM only. The intersection of MacArthur Boulevard/San Joaquin Hills Road exceeds the one percent criteria for the AM peak period only. This intersection has an existing ICU of 0.70, an ICU of 0.84 and for existing plus added non -project traffic, an ICU of 0.85 for all future traffic. This intersection will not require improvement. The intersection of MacArthur Boulevard/Newport Place exceeds the one percent criteria for both the AM and PM peak periods. This intersection has existing ICUs of 0.57 and 0.42 for AM and PM respectively, ICUs of 0.66 and 0.47 for AM and PM for existing plus added non -project traffic, and ICUs of 0.71 and 0.54 for AM and PM for all future traffic. This intersection will not require improvement. The intersection of MacArthur Boulevard/San Miguel Drive exceeds the one percent criteria for both the AM and PM peak periods. This intersection has existing ICUs of 0.57 and 0.79 for AM and PM respectively, ICUs of 0.64 and 0.90 for AM and PM for existing plus added non -project traffic, and ICUs of 0.65 and 0.91 for AM and PM for all future traffic. This intersection will require improvement in the PM only. The intersection of Jamboree Road/Campus Drive exceeds the one percent criteria for both AM and PM peak periods. This intersection has existing ICUs of 0.63 and 0.59 for AM and PM respectively, ICUs of 1.02 and 0.80 for AM and PM for existing plus added non -project traffic, and ICUs of 1.03 and 0.82 for AM and PM for all future traffic. This intersection will require improvement in the AM only. The intersection of Jamboree Road/Birch Street exceeds the one percent criteria for both the AM and PM peak periods. This intersection has existing ICUs of 0.37 and 0.42 for AM and PM respectively, ICUs of 0.59 and 0.61 for AM and PM for existing plus added non -project traffic, and ICUs of 0.59 and 0.64 for AM and PM for all future traffic. This intersection will not require improvement.' The intersection of Jamboree Road/Eastbluff Drive exceeds the one percent criteria for the AM peak period only. This intersection has an existing ICU of 0.62, and ICU of 0.76 for existing plus added non -project traffic, and an ICU of 0.76 for all future traffic. This intersection will not require improvement. The intersection of Jamboree Road/San Joaquin Hills Road exceeds the one percent criteria for both the AM and PM peak periods. This intersection has existing ICUs of 0.62 and 0.72 for AM and 23 PM respectively, ICUs of 0.77 and 0.91 for AM and PM for existing plus added non -project traffic, and ICUs of 0.78 and 0.91 for AM and PM for all future traffic. This intersection will not require improvement in the AM. Although the ICU in the PM exceeds 0.91 it will not be greater than the ICU without the project. Therefore, this intersection will also not require improvement in the PM. The intersection of Jamboree Road/Santa Barbara Drive exceeds the one percent criteria for the AM peak period only. This intersection has an existing ICU of 0.56, and ICU of 0.70 for existing plus added non -project traffic, and an ICU of 0.71 for all future traffic. This intersection will not require improvement. The intersection of Campus Drive/Bristol Street North exceeds the one percent criteria for both the AM and PM peak periods. This intersection has existing ICUs of 0.66 and 0.89 for AM and PM respectively, ICUs of 0.76 and 1.09 for AM and PM for existing plus added non -project traffic, and ICUs of 0.79 and 1.11 for AM and PM for all future traffic. This intersection will require improvement for the PM only. The intersection of Birch Street/Bristol Street North exceeds the one percent criteria for both the AM and PM peak periods. This intersection has existing ICUs of 0.67 and 0.83 for AM and PM respectively, ICUs of 0.82 and 1.03 for AM and PM for existing plus added non -project traffic, and ICUs of 0.89 and 1.07 for AM and PM for all future traffic. This intersection will require improvement in the PM only. The intersection of Jamboree Road/Bristol Street exceeds the one percent criteria in the PM peak period only. This intersection has an existing ICU of 0.54, and ICU of 0.79 for existing plus added non -project traffic, and an ICU of 0,79 for all future traffic. This intersection will not require improvement. The intersection of Campus Drive -Irvine Boulevard/Bristol Street exceeds the one percent criteria for both the AM and PM peak periods. This intersection has existing ICUs of 0.67 and 0.86 for AM and PM respectively, ICUs of 0.78 and 0.93 for AM and PM for existing plus added hon-project traffic, and ICUs of 0.82 and 0.93 fob AM and PM for all future traffic. This intersection will not require improvement in the AM. Although the PM ICU exceeds 0.91 it will not be greater than the ICU without the project. Therefore, this intersection will also not require improvement in the PM. The intersection of Birch Street/Bristol Street exceeds the one percent criteria for both the AM and PM peak periods. This intersection has existing ICUs of 0.57 and 0.64 for AM and PM respectively, ICUs of 1.19 and 0.88 for AM and PM for existing 24 plus added non -project traffic, and ICUs of 1.29 and 0.89 for all future traffic. This intersection will require improvement in the AM only. The intersection of MacArthur Boulevard/Coast Highway exceeds the one percent criteria for the PM peak periods only. This intersection has an existing ICU of 0.91, and ICU of 1.12 for existing plus added non -project traffic, and an ICU of 1.12 for all future traffic. Although the PM ICU for all future traffic exceeds 0.91 it will not be greater than the ICU without the project. Therefore, this intersection will also not require improvement. Table 7 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTI=ZATION Intersection Capacity Utilization 1989 Exist. critical 1989 Exist. + Committed Need Intersections Peak + Committed + Growth + Improvements Hour Existing + Growth project MacArthur and AM 0.63 0.76 0.77 No Campus PM 0.93 1.10 1.11 Yes MacArthur and AM 0.46 0.56 0.56 No Birch PM 0.62 0.75 0.75 No MacArthur and AM 0.65 0.99 1.00 Yes Jamboree PM 0.89 1.16 1.16 No MacArthur and AM 0.80 0.91 0.92 Yes Bison P14 0.90 1.08 1.09 Yes MacArthur and Ford AM 0.59 0.70 0.72 No PM 1.01 1.20 1.21 Yes MacArthur and AM 0.70 0.84 0.85 No San Joaquin Hills MacArthur and AM 0.57 0.66 0.71 No Newport Place PM 0.42 0.47 0.54 No MacArthur and AM 0.57 0.64 0.65 No San Miguel P14 0.79 0.90 0.91 Yes Jamboree and AM 0.63 1.02 1.03 Yes Campus PM 0.59 0.80 0.82 No Jamboree and AM 0.37 0.59 0.59 No Birch Pill 0.42 0.61 0.64 No Jamboree and AM 0.62 0.76 0.76 No Eastbluti Jamboree and AM 0.62 0.77 0.78 No San Joaquin Hills PM 0.72 0.91 0.91 No Jamboree and A14 0.56 0.70 0.71 No Santa Barbara Campus and Bristol AM 0.66 0.76 0.79 No North PM 0.89 1.09 1.11 Yes 26 Table 7 CAPACITY UTILIZATION (Continued) Intersection Capacity Utilization 1989 Exist. Critical 1989 Exist. + Committed Need Intersections Peak + Committed + Growth + Improvements Hour Existing + Growth Project Birch and Bristol AM 0.67 0.82 0.88 No North PM 0.83 1.03 1.07 Yes Jamboree and PM 0.54 0.89 0.79 No Bristol Campus -Irvine and AM 0.67 0.78 0.82 No Bristol PM 0.86 0.93 0.93 No Birch and Bristol AM 0.97 1.19 1.29 Yes PM 0.64 0.88 0.89 No MacArthur and PM 0.91 1.12 1.12 No Coast Highway 6. Project Related Improvements ' As identified by the Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis, ' there are 16 intersections which would operate at an unacceptable level of service in the future with an ICU exceeding 0.9. Improvements would be required to increase the , capacity of 14 of the 16 intersections. MacArthur Boulevard Campus Drive In the PM peak hour, this intersection will have an ICU of 1.11 ' for all future traffic, and an ICU of 1.10 in the future without the project. ' An improvement which would increase the capacity of this intersection would be to add a second eastbound left turn lane. ' With this improvement, the intersection would have an ICU of 0.99 for all future traffic. While this ICU will exceed 0.9, it will be less than the ICU in the future without the project. MacArthur Boulevard/Jamboree Road ' In the AM peak hour, this intersection will have an ICU of 1.00 , for all future traffic and an ICU of 0.99 in the future without the project. An improvement which would increase the capacity of this ' intersection would be to add a second southbound left turn lane. With this improvment, the intersection would have an ICU of 0.78 for all future traffic. ' MacArthur Boulevard/Bison Avenue In the AM peak hour, this intersection will have an ICU of 0.92 for all future traffic and an ICU of 0.91 in the future without the project. An improvement which would improve the capacity of this intersection in the AM would be to add a third northbound through lane. With this improvement, the intersection would have an ICU of 0.64 for all future traffic. in the PM peak hour, this intersection will have an ICU of 1.09 for all future traffic and an ICU of 1.08 in the future without the project. An improvement which would increase the capacity of this intersection in the PM would be to add a third eastbound left turn lane. With this improvement, the intersection would have an ICU of 1.02 for all future traffic. While this ICU will 28 d I exceed 0.9, it will be less than the ICU in the future without the project. MacArthur Boulevard/Ford Road In the PM peak hour, this intersection will have an ICU of 1.22 for all future traffic and an ICU of 1.20 in the future without the project. An improvement which would increase the capacity of this intersecton would be to add a third southbound through lane. With this improvement, the intersection would have an ICU of 0.86 for all future traffic. This improvement has been required of another project and is presently underconstruction. MacArthur Boulevard/San Miguel Drive In the PM peak hour this intersection will have an ICU of 0.91 for all future traffic, and an ICU 0.90 in the future without the project. An improvement which would increase the capacity of this intersection would be to add a third southbound through lane. With this improvement the intersection would have an ICU of 0.72 for all future traffic. Jamboree Boulevard/Campus Drive In the AM peak hour, this intersection has an ICU of 1.03 for all future traffic, and an ICU of 1.02 in the future without the project. An improvement which would increase the capacity of this intersection would be to add a second westbound left turn lane. With this improvement, the intersection would have an ICU of 0.86 for all future traffic. Campus Drive/Bristol Street North In the PM peak, hour this intersection has an ICU of 1.11 for all future traffic and an ICU of 1.09 in the future without the project. An improvement which would increase the capacity of this intersection would be to add a second northbound left turn lane. With this improvement, the intersection would have an ICU of 1.01 for all future traffic. F] I Birch street/Bristol Street North In the PM peak hour, this intersection has an ICU of 1,07 for all future traffic, and an ICU of 1.03 in the future without the project. An improvement which would increase the capacity of this intersection would be to change the configuration of the southbound through lane to make it a combined through/right turn lane. With this improvement, the intersection would have an ICU of 1.03 for all future traffic. While this ICU will be greater than 0.9, it will not be greater than the ICU in the future without the project. Birch Street/Bristol Street In the AM peak hour, this intersection has an ICU of 1.29 for all future traffic, and an ICU of 1.19 in the future without the project. An improvement which would increase the capacity of this intersection would be to add a second northbound throuth lane. With this improvement, the intersection would have an ICU of 1.12 for all future traffic. While this ICU will exceed 0.9, it will be less than the ICU in the future without the project. The ICU worksheets for the improvements which have been discussed are contained in Appendix C. 1' 1 30 , ,'''' ' 7. Internal Circulation and Parking ' As illustrated by the Site Plan, Figure 2, the site is a 6.8 acre parcel of land at the corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Newport Place. The proposed fifteen -story office building will t occupy the southeast corner of the site on the footprint of the existing Bank of America Building. The existing Continental Plaza Building fronts onto MacArthur Boulevard north of the ' proposed office building, and the existing two-story McLaughlin Building is located at the corner of Newport Place and Dove Street. The five -level parking structure will occupy the ' majority of the northwest portion of the site currently used for surface parking. Surface parking and driveways will seperate the parking structure from the office buildings. Access to the site is proposed at six seperate locations, including driveways to the parking structure. The main entrance will be located on Newport Place. Two accesses are proposed from Dove Street, one of which is a driveway to the parking structure. The remaining three accesses are proposed from Dolphin Striker Court, two of which are driveways to the parking structure. As an aid in visulizing traffic flow and turning conflicts, Figure 6 illustrates AM site traffic volumes, and Figure 7 ' illustrates PM site traffic volumes. These figures have been prepared using the inbound and outbound traffic distributions and the traffic generation rates for the project. The main entrance is located approximately midway between is divided MacArthur Boulevard and Dove Street. The entrance into two 20 foot lanes, separated by a median planter. The main entry will be limited to right turns in/out only due to the ' existing raised median on Newport Place and will provide access primarily to the surface parking adjacent to the office buildings. Because the main entrance does not provide direct access to the parking structure, and because of the limited turning movements, this access will carry smaller amounts of traffic than some of the other accesses. There are two accesses proposed to the site from Dove Street. The southerly access will serve the surface parking adjacent to the office buildings and is located approximately 140 feet north of Newport Place. This access will carry relatively light traffic volumes due to the limited area it serves. The northerly access on Dove Street will enter directly into the ' parking structure and is located only 40 feet north of the other three travel access. The parking structure entrance will have lanes: one outside lane inbound, one outside lane outbound, and ' the center lane reversible. This access to the parking E 31 I structure will carry the largest traffic volumes in and out of the structure due to it's location. These two Dove Street accesses present several problems. While the southerly driveway will probably not carry high traffic volumes, the proximity of the two driveways to each other is poor, with only a 40 foot seperation. This will increase the number of traffic conflicts in this busy turning area only 140 feet north of the intersection of Dove Street and Newport Place. Assuming the parking structure will be gated, the parking structure also does not provide a sufficient queuing area for traffic entering the structure. Dove Street at this location is a relatively narrow 4-lane roadway with no center median and no parking/turning lane adjacent to the curbs. This will cause traffic waiting to enter the gate to block other traffic on Dove Street to some degree. The Dove Street site access would be improved significantly if the parking structure entrance was moved internal to the site, possibly to the southeast corner of the structure where the elevators are located. At this location, it would serve traffic entering both from Dove Street and Newport Place, reducing the volume of traffic which is now making a westbound right turn at the intersection of Dove/Newport. it would also provide a queuing area for the gated entrance allowing vehicles entering from Dove Steet to turn without blocking traffic any longer than necessary. There would then be only one Dove Street access eliminating the seperation conflict of the two driveways. There are three accesses proposed to the site from Dolphin Striker Court, a short cul-de-sac street. The first will be a parking structure entrance, physically identical to the structure entrance on Dove Street, and will be located approximately 115 feet east of Dove Street. The second access is also a parking structure entrance and is only 30 feet east of the first structure access. This entrance will have only two travel lanes, one inbound and one outbound. Because it is the second parking structure entrance from the intersection of Dove/Dolphin Striker, it is expected to carry less traffic. The third access is a driveway at the end of the cul-de-sac serving the surface parking adjacent to the Continental Plaza Building. This driveway will also serve a secondary parking structure entrance at the northeast corner of the structure. The two parking structure entrances on Dolphin Striker Court also present some problems because of their proximity to each other. With only a 30 foot seperation, they provide a limited queuing area for entry to the gates and also concentrate turning movements in a small area. it is also questionable whether this many in/out aisles are needed at this end of the structure for the traffic distribution of the site. 32 The Dolphin Striker court access would be improved if the easterly parking structure entrance was eliminated. If necessary, the parking structure access at the cul-de-sac driveway could be made a triple lane entrance. This would seperate parking structure traffic at the north end of the structure to a greater degree improving the flow of traffic inside the structure and the traffic flow entering the gates. There would then be only one parking structure access directly from Dolphin Striker eliminating the seperation conflict of the two structure driveways. To evaluate the demand for parking at the site, a time -of -day analysis has been conducted for weekday parking. This analysis is based on the methodology presented in the report Shared Parking by the Urban Land Institute (ULI). The peak demand rate selected for office uses was 3.0 spaces per gross thousand square feet (ULI), for restaurant was 15 spaces per gross thousand square feet (ULI modified), for bank was 3.35 spaces per gross thousand square feet (ITE use 911), and for racquet ball courts was 0.39 spaces per gross thousand square feet (ITE use 482). The results of this analysis are presented in Table 8. The analysis indicates that the peak parking demand will be 1154 spaces and will occur at 2:00 PM. This does not include 22 spaces aloted to the E1 Torito restaurant. The amount of parking proposed is 1730 spaces in the parking structure plus 110 surface spaces for a total of 1840 spaces at the site. This should provide more parking than the peak demand by a substantial margin. 33 Table 8 LU-iAATIW PARKING D MMU BY 00.R OF DAY office fliminun space Dau d = 1037.01 Pr:tarmt O4ia{aun 4=0 Domd = 145.01 011c abximm Ftxm Dined = 72.01 Ravjxt Ball % inun Slbrn Dowd = 4.01 percent POcmt percent Potent Total Of Parkirg of Parking of Packing of Parking PAirg Hckr of ftimm gmCes M1Kinlla $SJew^ , Mt%Ilnflf Myc{IM1 �7JM5 gfcem.> Day Domed wo*d Wmd W-Jad Dowd Nem cl Dowd N_lc N-xls] W-kily 6 M 3 31.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 10 0.4 31.5 7 m20 207.4 2 2.9 5 3.6 30 1.2 215.1 8 m 63 653.3 5 7.3 30 21.6 30 1.2 603.4 9 m 93 964.4 10 14.5 30 21.6 20 0.8 1001.3 10 m 100 1037.0 20 29.0 40 2B.8 20 0.8 3.2 1095.6 1126.9 11 7H Ram 100 90 1037.0 (M.3 3043.5 50 72.5 60 ion 43.2 72.0 80 90 3.6 1061.4 1 PH 90 933.3 70 101.5 100 72.0 90 3.6 1110.4 2 PH 97 175.9 60 87.0 80 57.6 90 3.6 1154.1 3 PM 93 %4.4 60 87.0 90 d..0 80 3.2 1119.4 4 PM 77 7%.5 50 72.5 90 64.8 80 3.2 939.0 5 PM 47 487.4 70 101.5 30 21.6 100 4.0 614.5 6 PM 23 238.5 90 130.5 10 7.2 100 4.0 3W.2 7 FM 7 72.6 100 145.0 0 0.0 100 4.0 221.6 8 PM 7 72.6 100 145.0 0 0.0 0.0 50 0 2.0 0.0 219.6 176.1 9 TM 10 FM 3 3 31.1 31.1 100 90 145.0 1M.5 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 161.6 11 PM 0 0.0 70 101.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 101.5 Mithiglt 0 0.0 50 72.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 72.5 34 Figure 6 2s AM Site Volumes 40 19 14 3S DOLPHIN STOINEfl COIIPT �_, Figure 7 91 PM Site Volumes 147 70 14 Sao UbVMiMlT 1REMCOb�T _ _ 67 49 [RRIlT1Nb i 35 ll � i � - --- - -- _ i 05�45 i + 1 111 r T 44 I fyl, r 1 �✓ T C 44 1 i-I i,�--------- - '^ PROPOSED L� > l �-' - Y FIREEN STOAT f o ]] -( I OFFICE BUILDING XJ- 57 134 134 364 NiWPOPT PLACE 175^^f19 XtIll 1Hp11 I SftppiAfPS 36 ' 8. Other Traffic Considerations LARTS data by CalTrans suggests a 9.8 mile per trip average for employment trips as can be seen in Table 9. This estimate appears to be appropriate for the project site. 1 1 1 k u 1 t t Based upon the 9.8 mile average trip length discussed above, the proposed project will generate approximately 42,071 vehicle miles of travel daily. It should be noted that the vehicle miles of travel estimated above are not directly indicative of the air pollutant loading that will result from this project. The future users of this site are existing today and probably live in this air basin. By relocating, their current pollutant emissions will probably remain almost constant, on an overall basis, and simply be displaced. Additionally, vehicle miles of travel are not directly proportional to air pollutant emissions. Other factors including cold starts, speed of travel, congestion, and vehicle age and maintenance strongly influence emission rates. The capacity of the major intersection closest to the site, MacArthur Boulevard/Newport Place Drive, was reviewed and found to be adequate to accommodate future traffic volumes including traffic generated by the site. It may be desirable however to add left turn phasing to the existing signal in the east -west direction to reduce turning movement conflicts. 37 1 Table 9 ONE-WAY TRIP LENGTHS BY LAND USE Land Use Residential Commer cial Employment High School Elementary School All Trips Trip Length Miles 6.9 3.5 9.8 (estimated) 2 (estimated) 1 (estimated) 7.2 SOURCE: Los Angeles Regional Transportation (CARTS) Base Xear Report with the "estimate-d numbers Ease furnished y Yunzman Associates. * LARTS data indicated the home -to -work trip is 10.5 miles and all "other" trips to place of employment is 8.3 miles. The 9.8 assumes two work trips for each "other" trip. M Appendices Appendix A - One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis Work Sheets Appendix 8 - Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Work Sheets Appendix C - Project Related Improvement ICU Work Sheets APPENDIX A ONE PERCENT TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS WORF SHEETS yt 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection: MacArthur Boulevard (NS) / Campus Drive (EW) Project: McLaughlin Newport Place ' Traffic Analysis Year For Project: 1989 A P P R O A C H D I R E C T I O N tPeak 2.5 Hour Northbound Southboi_ind Eastbound_ Westbo_ind_ Valumes_____ AM_ _PM_ AM PM_ AM_ PM_ _AM_ _PM_ ' ____ Existing (Yr 1986) 2041 3564 4323 3405 2325 2586 1325 3042 ' Regional Growth 3 5 6 5 0 0 33 75 Approved Projects 355 1022 1365 756 417 213 193 747 Total Projected 2399 4611 5694 4166 2742 2799 1551 3864 1 Percent 24 46 57 42 27 28 15 39 Project 34 139 161 56 0 0 0 0 AM Exceeded Yes Yes No No ' PM Exceeded Yes Yes No No Existing traffic volumes are based on average for Winter/Spring 1966 GI I I 1 I % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: MacArthur Boulevard (NS) / birch Street (EW) Project: McLaughlin Newport Plate Traffic Analysis Year For Project: 1989 A P P R 0 A C H D I R E C T I O N Peak 2.5 Hour Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound ---------- ---------- ---------- Volumes AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM ^1986) Existing Or 1887 2760 2483 8542 947 1668 647 1629 Regional Growth 3 4 4 4 0 0 0 0 Approved Projects 539 975 980 613 365 07 154 472 Total Projected 2429 3739 3407 3159 1312 1925 $01 2101 1 Percent 24 37 34 32 13 19 8 21 Project 34 139 161 58 0 0 0 0 AM Exceeded Yes Yes No No PM Exceeded Yes Yes No No Existing traffic volumes are based on average for Winter/Spring 1986 I % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: MacArthur Boulevard (NS) / Jamboree Boulevard (EW) Project: McLaughlin Newport Place Traffic Analysis Year For Project: 1989 A P P R O A C H D I R E C T I D N Peak 2.5 Hour Northbound ---------- Sorthbound ---------- - Eastbound ---------- Westbound ---------- Volumes AM PM AM ---- PM ---- AM ---- PM ---- ----------------- Existing (Yr 1986) ---- 1060 ---- 3169 4119 3467 3017 2154 Regional Growth 4 11 6 5 11 8 Approved Projects 876 798 1086 1149 959 630 Total Projected 1940 397.8 5211 4621 3987 2792 1 Percent 19 40 52 46 40 28 107 38 33 139 0 0 AM PM 1867 3276 5 657 1200 2527 4481 25 45 0 0 Project AM Exceeded Yes No No No PM Exceeded No Yes No No Existing traffic volumes are based on average for Winter/Spring 1986 I % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: MacArthur Boulevard (NS) / Bison Road (EW) project: McLaughlin Newport Place Traffic Analysis Year Far^ Project: 1989 A P P R O A C H A I R E C T I 0 N Peak 2.5 Hour Northbound Sorthbound Eastbound ----------- Westbound -" Volumes ---------- AM PM ---------- AM PM ---- AM PM ---- ---- AM PM ---- ---- ------------------ Existing (Yr 1986) ---- 6126 ---- 5195 ---- 4706 7145 589 2019 0 0 Regional Growth 22 18 17 25 0 0 S 0 Approved Projects 615 974 875 1068 192 327 13 0 coxccocxco ._.-=xcaa=xx x=oaxo=xcc axxoxaxcxc Total Projected 6763 6187 5598 8238 7$1 2346 13 0 1 Percent 68 62 56 82 8 23 0 0 Project 107 38 22 93 0 0 0 0 AM Exceeded Yes N-, No No PM Exceeded No Yes No No Existing traffic volumes are based on average for Winter/Spring 1986 V`/ I % Traffic Vole -me Analysis Intersection: MacArthurBoulevard (NS) / Ford Road (EW) Project: McLaughlin Newport Place Traffic Analysis Year For Project: 1989 A P P R 0 A C H D I R E: C T I 0 N Peak 2.5 Homr Northbound Sr_uthbound Eastbound ---------- Westbound ---------- Volumes ---------- AM PM ---------- AM PM AM PM ---- AM ---- PM ---- ----------------- Existing (Yr^ 1986) ---- 4560 ---- 4308 ---- 3322 ---- 7540 ---- 326 1365 1540 1168 2egir-nal Growth 16 15 12 27 0 0 0 0 )pproved Projects 923 i024 861 1330 0 38 140 76 otal Projected 5499 5347 4195 8897 -326 1.403 1680 1244 Percent 55 53 42 89 3 14 17 12 'ram ject 54 19 cc^ 92 0 0 54 19 )M Exceeded No No No Yes )M Exceeded No Yes No Yes Existing traffic volumes are based on average for Winter/Spring 1986 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection: MacArthmr Dr_ulevard (NS) / Say, Joaquin Hills Road (EW) Project: McLaughlin Newport Place Traffic Analysis Year For' protect; 1989 fr p P R 0 A C H D I R E C T I O N ' Peak 2.5 Hour Northbound�Soi_tthbo_ ind� East Westbound- ' � ^ VaIIMmeS AM PM AM PM AM F'M AM PM Existing (Yr 1986) 3477 2608 3023 5751 493 2367 21lS 1143 , Regional Growth 20 15 11 20 0 0 0 0 Approved Projects 535 552 799 1095 216 478' 163 104 , Total Projected 4032-y3175 36336866 709 2839 2281 1247 1 Percent 40 32 38 69 7 28 83 12 Project 54 19 11 46 0 0 0 0 , AM Exceeded Yes No No No PM Exceeded No No No Na ■ Existing traffic volumes are based on average for, Winter/Spring 1986 I I % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: MacArthur Boulevard (NS) / Newport Place (EW) Project: McLaughlin Newport Place Traffic Analysis Year For Project: 1989 A P P R O A C H D I R E C T I O N Peak 22.5 Hour Northbound Sorthbound Eastbound ---------- Westbound ---------- Volumes ---------- AM PM ---------- AM PM ---- AM ---- PM ---- AM ---- PM ---- ----------------- Existing (Yr^ 1986) ---- 2185 ---- 2699 ---- 1847 1091 1211 549 1231 423 Regional Growth 3 4 3 2 0 0 0 0 Approved Projects --44---182 --26---- 8 Total Projected -546---465 2734 3168 -515---494 2365 1587 1255 731 1257 431 1 Percent 27 32 24 16 13 7 13 4 Project 107 38 161 58 123 509 269 96 AM Exceeded Yes Yes Yes Yes PM Exceeded Yes Yes Yes Yes Existing traffic volumes are based on average for Winter/Spring 1986 I V. Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: MACArthUr So'.rlevard (NS) / san Miquel Drive (PEW) project: McLaughlin Newport Flare Traffic Analysis Year For Project: 1989 A P P R 0 h C H D I R E C T 1 0 N �Southbound Peak 2.5 Holm, Northbr_n_rnd� Eastbound Westbound y , rAMr^ VoIutnes AM PM AM PM AM PM- PM T r1986) Existing (Yr 3915 2378 1991 3605 y 346 2061 ` 594 751 Regional Growth 22 13 ll 20 0 0 0 0 Approved Projects 435 451 452 535 81 320 134 47 , Total Pratectcd 4372�r2842 2454 4150 427 2381 728 798 ' 1 Percent 44 48 Ln5 41 4 24 7 8 Project 54 19 11 46 0 0 0 0 , AM Exceeded Yes No No No PM Exceeded No Yes No No ■I F_)sisting traffic volumes are based on average for Winter/Spring 1986 II i 1 i I % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: Jamboree Boulevard (NS) / Campus Drive (EW) Project: McLaughlin Newport Place Traffic Analysis Year For Project: 1989 A P P R O PC H D I R E C T I O N Peak 2.5 Hour Northbound Southbound Eastbound ---------- -Westbound ---------- Volumes ---------- AM PM ---------- AM PM AM ---- PM ---- AM ---- PM ---- ----------------- Existing (Yr 1986) ---- ---- 1745 3440 ---- ---- 3899 2015 589 1778 22104 1625 Regional Growth 6 12 14 7 0 0 0 0 Approved Projects 746 1987 2109 995 347 413 390 103 -1728 Total Projected 2497 5439 6022 3017 936 2191 2494 1 Percent 25 54 60 30 9 22 25 17 Project 34 139 161 58 11 46 54 19 AM Exceeded Yes Yes Yes Yes PM Exceeded Yes Yes Yes Yes Existing traffic volumes are based on average for Winter/Spring 1986 0 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: Jamboree Boulevard (NS) / Birch Street (EW) Project: McLaughlin Newport Place Traffic Analysis Year For Project: 1989 A P P R O A C H D I R E C T 1 0 N xxxs�xxc'mxxammxxxsxxxxamxaaomexxxmsmxmxmm5zamxxxx Peak 2.5 Hour Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Volumes ---- ^----- AM PM --------- - AM PM '---------- AM PM ---------- AM - PM Existing (Yr 1986) 2163 2512 3511 4560 354 1499 23 38 Regional Growth 8 9 12 9 0 0 0 0 Approved Projects 697 1740 2147 958 49 248 0 0 ocaxCxC=x- Cmxxb¢C¢�xc =mtaxxmx =�� neS��-..�-� Total Projected 2868 4261 5670 3527 403 1747 23 38 1 Percent 29 43 57 35 4 17 0 0 Project 0 0 161 58 34 139 0 0 AM Exceeded No Yes Yes Nto PM Exceeded No Yes Yes No Existing traffic volumes are based on average for Winter/Spring 1986 ;r 1 X Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: Jamboree Road (NS) / Eastbluff Drive (EW) Project: McLaughlin Newport Place Traffic Analysis Year For Project; 1989 A P P R O A C H D I R E C T I O N Peak 2.5 Hour Northbound Southbound Eastbound ---------- Westbound ---------- Volumes ---------- AM PM ---------- AM PM ---- AM ---- PM ---- AM ---- PM ---- ----------------- Existing (Yr 1986) ---- 4278 ---- 5205 ---- 42Q8 3749 1092 461 0 0 Regional Growth 6 7 6 5 0 0 0 0 Approved Projects 1321--1796 -106---145 Total Projected -945--1239 5229 -6451 5615 5550 -259----31 1351 492 106 145 1 Percent 52 64 56 55 13 5 1 1 Project 54 19 11 46 0 0 0 0 AM Exceeded Yes No No No No PM Exceeded No No No Existing traffic volumes are based on average for Winter/Spring 1986 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: Jamboree Road (NS) / 6isin Road (EW) Projects McLaughlin Newport Place Traffic Analysis Year For Projeat: 1989 A P P R O A C H b I R E C T I 0 N cresiscaasSC3asaaa FacaFsdZcsa''cCmsaa/Zc:sssaaaxaCCFCCx Peak 2.5 Hour Northbound Southbound Eastbound y-^ r`- Westbound Volumes __. - AMPM AMPSI AM PM AM PM ----------------- Existing (Yr 1986) ---- -'--- 4669 4471 ---^ ---- 3574 3669 ---- 212 ---- 309 ---- 752 ---- 636 Regional Growth 7 6 5 5 a 0 0 0 Approved Projects 1073 1269 1176 1466 9 58 48 212 aasssSssaC saasssssss ssssisZ9aa ssxaaisaZa Total Projected 5749 5746 4755 5140 `r821 367 000 848 1 Percent 57 57 48 51 2 4 8 8 Project 54 19 11 46 0 0 0 0 AM Exceeded No No No No PM Exceeded No No No No Existing traffic volumes are based on average for Winter/Spring 1986 b,0Z 1 X Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: Jamboree Road (NS) / Eastbluff Drive -Ford Road (EW) Project: McLaughlin Newport Place Traffic Analysis Year For Project: 1989 A P P R O A C H D I R E C T I O N ---------------------------- Peak 2.5 Hour Northbound Southbound Eastbound ---------- Westbound ---------- Volumes ---------- AM PM ---------- AM PM ---- AM ---- PM ---- AM ---- PM ---- ----------------- Existing (Yr 1986) ---- 4682 ---- 4663 ---- 3132 •3965 1085 1316 841 1070 Regional Growth 7 7 4 6 0 0 0 0 Approved Projects 1064 1305 1198 1460 42 20 0 16 Total Projected 5753 6175 4334 5431 1127 1336 841- 1086 1 Percent 58 62 43 54 11 13 8 11 Project 54 19 11 46 0 0 0 0 AM Exceeded No No No No PM Exceeded No No No Na Existing traffic volumes are based on average for Winter/Spring 1986 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: Jamboree Road (NS) / San Joaquin Hills Road (EW) Project: McLaughlin Newport Place Traffic Analysis Year For Projectt 1989 A P P R O A C H D I R E C T I O N ==xxzaxaaxaoa=r=ascasxaxacazaxxxaxaaaasaaszcxx=bc Peak 2.5 Hour Northbound Southbound -- Eastbound -y-- Westbound - Volumes - AM `- PM ----` AMPM AMPM AM PM ---- ---- ----------------- Existing (Yr 1986) ---- 3987 ---- 4235 ---- ---- 4205 3060 ---- ---- 793 434 414 667 Regional Growth 6 6 6 4 0 0 0 0 Approved Projects 1028 981 1305 1541 5 33 264 475 szxxamaasa aazazaaaaa ataasaaazxa znaaaaaxxa Total Projected 5021 5222 5516 4605 798 467 678 1142 1 Percent 50 52 55 46 8 5 7 11 Project 54 19 11 46 0 0 0 0 AM Exceeded Yes No No No PM Exceeded No Yes No No Existing traffic volumes are based on average for Winter/Spring 1966 5`/ I % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: Jamboree Road (NS) / Santa Barbara Drive (EW) Project: McLaughlin Newport Place Traffic Analysis Year For Project: 1989 A P P R O A C H D I R E C T I O N Peak 2.5 Hour Northbound Southbound Eastbound ---------- Westbound ---------- Volumes ---------- AM PM ---------- AM PM ---- AM ---- PM ---- AM ---- PM ---- ----------------- Existing (Yr 1986) ---- 4311 a---- 2585 ---- 2671 3889 0 0 443 1833 Regional Growth 6 4 4 5 0 0 0 0 Approved Projects B96 827 1027 1154 0 0 95 284 Total Projected 5213 3416 3702 5048 0 0 538 2117 1 Percent 52 34 37 50 0 0 5 21 Project 54 19 li 46 0 0 0 0 AM Exceeded Yes No No No PM Exceeded No No No No Existing traffic volumes are based on average for Winter/Spring 1986 I % Traffic Volume'Analysis Intersection: Jamboree Road (NS) / Bristol Street North (EW) Project. McLaughlin Newport Place Traffic Analysis Year For Project: 1989 A P P R 0 A C H A I R E C T I 0 N zx=xxx�z=s=xxxxxxxx=xxxxxxzxcq==xzxxaxxxxxxexxxx Peak 2.5 Hour Northbound Sorthbound Eastbound -------- Westbound ---------- Volumes ---------- AM PM ---------- AM PM -- AM PM AM PM ---------�------- ---- ---- ---- ---- -- -- ---- ---- ---- Existing (Yr 1986) 6i24 6308 2284 3562 0 0 0 0 Regional Growth 9 9 3 5 0 0 0 0 Approved Projects 845 1509 945 1101 0 74 0 "4 xxxxxxxzzx xxxsxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxc zxaxzmxxx= Total Projected 6978 7826 3232 4668 0 74 0 204 1 Percent 70 78 32 47 0 1 0 2 Project 54 19 11 46 0 0 0 0 AM Exceeded No No No No PM Exceeded No No No No Existing traffic volumes are based on average for Winter/Spring 1986 5h 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: Campus Drive -Irvine Rd (NS) / Bristol Street North (EW) Project: McLaughlin Newport Place Traffic Analysis Year For Project: 1989 A P P R 0 A C H D I R E C T I O N Peak 2.5 Hour Northbound Sorthbound Eastbound Westbound ---------- ---------- Volumes ---------- AM PM ---------- AM PM ---- AM PM AM PM ---- ---- ---- ---- ----------------- Existing (Yr ---- ---- 1986) 4375 2457 ---- 1483 3717 0 0 3214 6691 Regional Growth 62 35 37 92 0 0 0 0 Approved Projects Total Projected 1 Percent Project AM Exceeded PM Exceeded Existing traffic vc 469 199 117 551 0 0 531 2108 ---------- 4906 2691 1637 4360 0 0 3745 8799 I % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersectionz Birch Street (NS) / Bristol Street North (EW) Project: McLaughlin Newport Place Traffic Analysis Year For Project; 1989 A P P R O A C H D I R E C T I 0 N Ca.Zm�aCam �aa��ammCa�����mC��==ga�mami{azSRL'�--� =�- Peak 2.5 Hour Northbound Southbound Eastbound ---------- Westbr_tund ----------- Volumes --------•-- AM PM ----------- AM PM AM PM AM PM - Existing (Yr1986) a612 1255 - 757 3597 - - 0 --- 0 2659 4735 Regional Growth 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 Approved Projects 600 243 215 613 0 0 412 1571 mfeam=zzato� azsaztlszsaa xaazaaassa samazms:s= Total Projected 3212 1498 972 4210 0 0 3071 6306 1 Percent 32 15 10 42 0 0 31 63 Project 322 115 33 139 0 0 56 232 AM Exceeded Yes Yes No Yes PM Exceeded Yes Yes No Yes Existing traffic volumes are based on average for Winter/Spring 1986 56 I % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: Jamboree Boulevard (NS) / Bristol Street (EW) Project: McLaughlin Newport Place Traffic Analysis Year For Project: 1989 A P P R O A C H D I R E C T I O N Peak 2.5 Hour Northbound Southbound Eastbound ---------- Westbound ---------- Volumes ---------- AM PM ---------- AM PM ---- AM ---- PM ---- AM ---- PM ---- ----------------- Existing (Yr 1986) ---- 5086 ---- 4948 ---- 1653 2031 4057 4018 0 0 Regional Growth 7 7 2 3 0 0 0 0 Approved Projects 1135 1374 866 864 1534 1916 0 0 Total Projected 6228 6329 2521 2898 5591 5934 0 0 1 Percent 62 63 25 29 56 59 0 0 Project 54 19 11 46 0 0 0 0 AM Exceeded No No No No PM Exceeded No Yes No No Existing traffic volumes are based on average for Winter/Spring 1986 I % Traffic Volume Analysis (EW) Intersection: Campus Drive -Irvine Rd (NS) / Bristol Street Projects McLaughlin Newport Place For Project: 1989 Traffic Analysis Year A P P R O A C H D I R E C T I O N �aaaaaaCtimCc-mzm=zm=aa ;=®m m.-...�mazm.Z�mazzsmCaazzzo Peak 2.5 Hour Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound ---------- ---------- AM PM AM PM ---------- AM ---- PM ---- ---------- AM ---- PM ---- ' ---YVolumes----- -----Volumes----------- Existing (Yr 1986) _--- ---- ---- --•-- 3615 2780 1036 3295 5437 6033 0 0 Regional Growth 51 39 15 47 0 0 0 0 ' Approved Projects 514 281 218 572 1339 1578 39 12 ' Total Projected 4180 3100 1269 3914 6776 7611 39 12 1 Percent 42 31 13 39 68 76 0 0 Project 54 19 11 46 375 134 0 0 AM Exceeded Yes No Yes No PM Exceeded No Yes Yes No Existing traffic volumes are based on average for Winter/Spring 1986 i U% O 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: Birch Street (NS) / Bristol Street (EW) Project: McLaughlin Newport Place Traffic Analysis Year For Project: 1989 A P P R O A C H D I R E C T I O N Peak 2.5 Hour Northbound Southbound Eastbound ---------- Westbound ---------- Volumes ---------- AM PM ---------- AM PM AM PM AM PM Existing (Yr 1986) 842 454 412 1391 3950 3877 0 0 Regional Growth 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Approved Projects 0 0 83 137 1247 1544 0 0 ---------- Total Projected ---------- 842 454 495 1528 5197 5421 0 0 1 Percent 8 5 5 15 52 54 0 0 Project 54 19 11 46 268 96 0 0 AM Exceeded Yes Yes Yes No PM Exceeded Yes Yes Yes No Existing traffic volumes are based on average for Winter/Spring 1986 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: Riverside Avenue (NS) / Coast Highway (EW) Project: McLaughlin Newport Place Traffic Analysis Year For Project: 1989 A P P R O A C H D I R E C T I O N sss=x r.'ss=sfe=ram=s s s c=c s===x s=sxs==e===sss==sx x s=.-.= Peak 2.5 Hour Northbound Sorthbound Eastbound Westbc-fund ---------- --- ----- ------- Volumes AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM --------------- ---- ---- ---- - --- --- ---- ---- Existing (Yr 1986) 100 44 809 1256 6322 6040 2996 5586 Regional Growth 0 0 0 0 54 51 25 47 Approved Projects 34 0 42 41 1078 1322 1043 1309 Total Projected 134 44 851 1337 7454 7413 4064 6942 1 Percent 1 0 8 13 75 74 41 69 Project 0 0 0 0 54 19 11 46 AM Exceeded No No No No PM Exceeded No No No No. Existing traffic volumes are based on average for Winter/Spring 1986 I % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: Tustin Avenue (NS) / Coast Highway (EW) Project: McLaughlin Newport Place Traffic Analysis Year For Project: 1989 A P P R O A C H D I R E C T 1 0 N - Peak 2.5 Hour --------------------- Northbound ---------------------- Southbound Eastbound ---------- Westbound ---------- Volumes ---------- AM PM ---------- AM ---- PM AM ---- PM ---- AM ---- PM ---- ----------------- Existing (Yr 1986) ---- ---- 11 15 ---- 116 348 5487 4029 3246 5856 Regional Growth 0 0 0 0 46 34 28 50 Approved Projects 0 0 13 0 1020 1313 1031 1336 Total Projected 11 15 129 348 6553 5376 4305 7242 1 Perci Pro,jeci AM Exc PM Exci Existi i % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: Dover Drive-Bayshore Drive (NS) / Coast Highway (EW) Project: McLaughlin Newport Place Traffic Analysis Year For Project: 1989 A P P R O A C H D I R E C T I 0 N �=xxx:xnaxxCcxxx=oxx=;;=xeex=px=nxss=a5exaxxxxaoee Peak 2.5 Hour Northbound Southbound Eastbound ---------- Westbound ----- _--- Volmmes ---------- AM PM ----------- AM PM AM PM AM PM Existing (Yr�1986) 335 268 2571 3176 4827 4104 5162 5761 Regional Growth 0 0 0 0 41 35 86 28 Approved Projects 0 0 134 104 1025 1305 1056 1371 Total Projected 335 268 2705 3280 5893 5444 6264 7160 1 Percent 3 3 27 33 59 54 63 72 Project 0 0 0 0 54 19 11 46 AM Exceeded No No No No PM Exceeded No No No No Existing traffic volumes are based on average for Winter/Spring 1986 ,r 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: Bayside Drive (NS) / Coast Highway (EW) Project; McLaughlin Newport Place Traffic Analysis Year For Project: 1989 A P P R O A C H D I R E C T I O N Peak 2.5 Hour Northbound Southbound Eastbound ---------- Westbound ---------- Volumes ---------- AM PM ---------- AM PM ---- AM ---- PM ---- AM ---- PM ---- •---------------- ixisting (Yr 1986) ---- ---- 1322 1824 ---- 180 162 6782 6352 3532 7383 tegional Growth 0 0 0 0 34 31 17 36 1pproved Projects 8 16 153 249 1126 1346 993 1267 otal Projected 1330 1840 333 411 7942 7729 4542 8686 Percent 13 18 3 4 79 77 45 87 )roject 0 0 0 0 54 19 11 46 aM Exceeded No No No No -IM Exceeded No No No No Sxisting traffic volumes are based on average for Winter/Spring 1986 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: Jamboree Road (NS) / Coast Highway (EW) Project: McLaughlin Newport Place Traffic Analysis Year For Protect: 1989 A P P R O A C H b I R E C T I 0 N _aomsa.amamaaaemmaxae�aaomza==oaaeazasea,asa�aeasaaa= Peak 2.5 Hour Northbound Southbound Eastbound ---------- Westbound ---------- Volumes ---------- AM PM --- ------- AM PM AM PM AM --- PM ---- ---------------- Existing (Yr 1986) ---- --'-_ 2001 1117 ---- _--- 1454 5294 7570 $678 2733 5147 Regional Growth 0 0 2 7 37 28 35 65 Approved Projects 0 0 629 853 1135 1447 685 712 -axnaa==aa =aaaaaa.ca __=_a.=o___ __ate==ac=a Total Projected 2001 1117 2085 6154 8742 7153 3453 5924 1 Percent 20 11 21 62 87 72 35 59 Project 0 0 11 46 54 19 0 0 AM Exceeded No No No No PM Exceeded No No No No Existing traffic volumes are based on average for Winter/Spring 1986 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: MacArthur Boulevard (NS) / Coast Highway (F-W) Project: McLaughlin Newport Place Traffic Analysis Year For Project: 1989 A P P R O A C H D I R E C T I O N Peak 2.5 Hour Northbound - Sorthbound Eastbound ------- Westbound Volumes ---------- AM ---------- PM AM PM AM PM AM ---- FM ---- ----------------- Existing (Yr 1986) ---- .0 ---- ---- 0 1451 ---- 3480 ---- 2271 ---- 4516 7125 3870 Regional Growth 0 0 8 20 29 57 126 68 Approved Projects 0 0 349 700 269 78: 1225 738 Total Projected 0-- 0 1808 4200 2569 5355 8476 4676 1 Percent 0 0 18 42 26 54 85 47 Project 0 0 11 46 0 0 54 19 AM Exceeded No No No No PM Exceeded No Yes No No Existing traffic volumes are based on average for Winter/Spring 1986 I Y. Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: Goldenrod Av*nue (NS) / Coast Highway (EW) Project: McLaughlin Newport Place Traffic Analysis Year For Project: 1989 A P P R O A C H A I R E C T I 0 N Peak. 21.5 Hour Northbound So"thbound East bound Westbound ---------- Vr_ IWOR.S ---------- AM PM ----------- AM GM ---------- AM PM AM PM -- -164 Existing (Yr 1986) 306 256 i9i 2051 5711 5277 3488 Regional Growth 0 0 0 0 36 101 93 62 Approved Projects 26 13 a 10 434 1255 1F29 685 Total Projected 332 269 169 191 8521 7067 6599 4235 1 Percent 3 3 2 2 25 71 66 42 Project 0 0 0 0 11 46 54 19 AM Exceeded No No No No PM Exceeded No No No No Existing traffic volumes rare based or, average for Winter/Spring 1986 6 tl II 1 Y. Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: Marguerite Avenue (NS) / Coast Highway (EW) Project: McLaughlin Newport Place Traffic Analysis Year For Project: 1989 A P P R O A C H D I R E C T I O N Peak 2.5 Hour Northbound^So_ithbound---Eastbo�_ind_ -_Westbo�_ind_ Volurmes AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Existing (Yr^1986) 556 662 463 722 2102 4837 5600 3055 Regional Growth 0 0 0 0 37 85 99 54 Approved Projects 0 3818 y740 _386--1220 1391655 Total Projected -__6____ 562 662 501 2525 6142 6890 3764 1 Percent 6 7 5 7 25 61 69 38 Project 0 0 0 0 11 46 54 19 AM Exceeded No No No No - No PM Exceeded No No Na Existing traffic volumes are based on average for Winter/Spring 1986 I % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: Poppy Avenge (NS) / Coast Highway (EW) Project: McLaughlin Newport Place Traffic Analysis Year For Protect: 1989 A P P R (I A C H b I R E C '1• 10 N peals 2.5 Hour Northbound So.ithbound Eastbound Westbound ---------- Volumes ---------- AM PM ---'------- AM PM ---------- AM F'M AM PM - - Existing(Yr1966) 73 155 l22 � 593 1537 5064 6397 3430 Regional Growth 0 0 0 0 27 89 113 60 Approved Projects 0 0 7 0 367 ii66 1164 662 --73- Total Projected 155 189 593 1931 6319 7694 4152 1 Percent 1 1. 6 19 63 77 42 Project 0 0 0 0 11 46 54 19 AM Exceeded No No No No PM Exceeded No No No No Existing traffic volumes Are based on average for Winter/Spring 19136 7k.1 ' APPENDIX B INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ' WORK SHEETS 7�, Project: McLaughlin Newport Place Intersection: MacArthur Boulevard (NS) / Campus Drive (EW) Traffic Analysis Year For Projects 1989 AM Intersection Capacity Utilization E X I S T I N G ADDED NON -PROJECT TRAFFIC PROJECT --------- rr Lane r r r V/C r -- - Regional r----------r Committed V/C V/C Move Capacity Volume Ratio Growth project --------- Ratio ----- Volume ------ Ratio ----- ---- NL -------- 16ee ------ Be ----- 0.05* -------- 0 0 0.05 0 0.05 NT 6400 677 0.11 1 179 0.13* 17 0.14* NR 1600 195 0.12 0 0 0.12 0 0.12 SL 1600 272 0.17 0 199 0.29* 0 0.29* ST 4800 1234 0.26* 2 472 0.36 80 0.37 SR 1600 496 0.31 0 13 0.32 0 0.32 EL 1600 270 0.17* 0 5 0.17* 0 0.17* ET 320O 709 0.22 0 204 0.29 0 0.29 ER 1600 87 0.05 0 0 0.05 0 0.05 WL 1600 63 0.04 2 0 0.04 0 0.04 WT 3200 466 0.15* 11 57 0.17* 0 0.17* WR ) > 1600 118 0.07 3 39 0.10 a 0.10 maa=c aa=sa me=bc ICU a 0.63 0.76 0.77 PM Intersection Capacity Utilization E X 15 T I N G ADDED NON -PROJECT TRAFFIC Lane V/C Move Capacity Volume Ratio - NL 1600 245 0.15* NT 6400 1251 0.20 NR 1600 72 0.04 SL 1600 211 0.13 ST 4800 910 0.19* SR 16e0 405 0.25 EL 1600 380 0.24* ET 32e0 828 0.26 ER 1600 117 0.07 WL 1600 136 0.08 WT 3200 1105 0.35* WR )) 1600 169 0.11 ICU a 0.93 * denotes critical movement )) denotes free right turn Regional Committed V/C Growth Project Ratio - -------- --r a 0.15 474 0.27* 0 0 0.04 e 64 0.17* 1 312 0.25 e 5 0.26 e GG e. i:5* 0 89 0.29 0 0 0.07 3 0 0.09 27 190 0. 41 * 4 183 0.22 a==aa 1.10 PROJECT ------------ V/C Volume Ratio - 0 0.15 69 0. c8* 0 0.04 0 0.17* 29 0.26 0 0.26 e e.25* 0 0. 07 0 0. 09 0 0.41* 0 0.22 1. 11 72 II II II II i 1 II I I II I I 1 1 Project: McLaughlin Newport Place Intersection: MacArthur boulevard (NS) / birch Street (EW) Traffic Analysis Year For Project: 1989 AM Intersection Capacity Utilization E X I S T I N G ADDED NON -PROJECT TRAFFIC PROJECT -- ---------------------- Lane V/C ------------------------ Regional Committed V/C V/C Move Capacity Volume Ratio Growth Project -------- Ratio ----- Volume Ratio ---- NL -------- 1600 ------ 93 ----- 0.06 -------- 0 20 0.07 0 0.07 NT 4800 737 0.15* 1 227 0.20* 17 0.20* NR > > 1600 25 0.02 0 25 0. 03 0 0.03 SL 1600 199 0.12* 0 0 0.12* 0 0.12* ST 6400 867 0.19 1 377 0.26 80 0.27 SR 0 350 0.00 0 83 0.00 0 0.00 EL 0 163 0.00 0 29 0.00 0 0.00 ET 4800 302 0. 11* 0 154 0.15* 0 0.15* ER 0 65 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 WL 1600 41 0.03 0 26 0.04 0 0.04 WT 3200 243 0.08* 0 52 0.09* 0 0.09* WR >> 1600 50 0.03 0 0 0.03 0 0.03 ICU = 0.46 0.56 0.56 PM Intersection Capacity Utilization E X I S T I N G ADDED NON -PROJECT TRAFFIC PROJECT ------------ ---------------------- Lane V/C ------------------------- Regional Committed V/C V/C Move Capacity Vol_ume Ratio Project- Ratio Volume Ratio NL 1600 224 0.14* -Growth- 0 6 0.14* 0 0.14* NT 4800 978 0.20 1 446 0.30 69 0.31 NR > > 1600 26 0.02 0 37 0.04 0 0.04 SL 1600 83 0. 05 0 0 0, 05 0 0.05 ST 6400 749 0.16* 1 259 0.21* 29 0.21* SR 0 258 0.00 0 51 0.00 0 0.00 EL 0 354 0.00 0 61 0.00 0 0.00 ET 4800 317 0.15* 0 67 0.16* 0 0.18* ER 0 45 0.00 0 2 0.00 0 0.00 WL 1600 37 0.02 0 91 0.08 0 0.08 WT 3200 550 0.17* 0 145 0.22* 0 0.22* WR > > 1600 1.92 0.12 0 0 0.12 0 0. 12 ICU = 0.62 0.75 0.75 * denotes critical movement >> denotes free right turn Projects McLaughlin Newport Place Intersections MacArthur Boulevard (NS) / Jamboree Boulevard (8W) Traffic Analysis Year For Protects 1989 AM Intersection Capacity Utilization E X I S T I N G ADDED NON -PROJECT TRAFFIC PROJECT ----- ^--------------- ------------------------- ._---------- Lane V/C Regional Committed V/C V/C Move Capacity Volume Ratio Growth Project Ratio ------ Volume ------ Ratio ----- ---- NL -------- 1600 ------ 63 ----- 0.04 -------- 0 --------- 39 0.06 0 0.06 NT 4800 272 0.08* 1 374 0.17* 54 0.18* NR 0 124 0.00 0 25 0.00 0 0.00 SL 1600 441 0.28* 1 256 0.44* 0 0.44* ST 4800 1183 0.25 2 254 0.30 11 0.30 SR ) ) 1600 293 0.18 0 40 0.21 6 0.2i EL 3200 570 0.18 c 50 0.19 0 0.19 ET 4800 1046 0.22* 4 396 0.30* 0 0.30* ER )) 1600 15 0.01 0 34 0.03 0 0.03 WL 3200 229 0.07* 0 25 0.08* 0 0.08* WT 4800 498 0.10 1 824 0.15 0 0.15 WR > > 1600 154 0.10 0 83 0.15 0 0.15 ICU = 0.65 0.99 1.00 PM Intersection Capacity Utilization E X I S T I N G ADDED NON -PROJECT TRAFFIC PROJECT -------------- -------- ---- --------------------- __---------- Lane V/C Regional Committed V/C V/C Move Capacity Volume Ratio Growth -------- Project -------^-+-- Ratio ----- Volume ------ Ratio ----- -- -- NL -------- 1600 ------ 200 ----- 0.12 1 84 0.18 0 0.18 NT 4800 781 0.27* 3 298 0.34* 19 0.34* NR 0 513 0.00 2 25 0.00 0 0.00 SL 1600 470 0. c9* 1 174 0. 40* 0 0. 40* ST 4800 716 0.15 1 353 0.22 46 0.23 SR > > 1600 179 0.11 0 45 0. 14 23 0.15 EL 3200 338 0.11* 1 40 0.12* 0 0.12* ET 4800 625 0.13 2 194 0.17 0 0.17 ER ) ) 1600 3 0.00 0 82 0.05 0 0.05 WL 3200 333 0.10 0 40 0.12 0 0.18 WT 4800 1060 0.22* 1 392 0.30* 0 0.30* WR >> 1600 152 0.09 0 173 0.20 0 0.20 ICU = 0. 89 1. 16 1.16 * denotes critical movement )> denotes free right torn �y Project: McLaughlin Newport Place Intersection: MacArthur- Boulevard (NS) / Bison Road (EW) Traffic Analysis Year For Project: 1989 AM Intersection Capacity Utilization E X I S T I N G ADDED NON -PROJECT TRAFFIC Lane V/C Regional Committed V/C Move Capacity Volume Ratio -Growth- -Project- Ratio NL 1600 339 0.21 0 35 0.23 NT 3200 2359 0.74* 8 274 0.83* NR 0 0 0.00 0 3 0.00 SL 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00* ST 4800 1703 0.35 6 360 0.43 SR >> 1600 512 0.32 0 81 0.37 EL 3200 197 0.06* 0 54 0.08* ET 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 ER > > 1600 43 0.03 0 42 0.05 WL 0 0 0.00 0 6 0.00 WT 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00* WR 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 ICU = 0.80 0.91 PM Intersection Capacity Utilization E X I S T I N G ADDED NON -PROJECT TRAFFIC ---------------------- Lane V/C ------------------------- Regional Committed V/C Move Capacity Volume Ratio Growth -------- Project ---- Ratio ---- NL -------- 1600 ------ 94 ----- 0. 06* 0 92 } 0. 1 c* NT 3200 2086 0.65 7 393 0.78 NR 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 SL 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 ST 4800 3216 0.67* 11 409 0.76* SR >> 1600 231 0.14 0 126 0.22 EL 3200 540 0.17* 0 99 0.20* ET 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 ER )> 1600 115 0.07 0 67 0.11 WL 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 WT 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00* WR 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 ICU = 0.90 1.08 * denotes critical movement >> denotes free right turn PROJECT ------------ V/C Volume Ratio 0 0.23 54 0. 84* 0 0.00 0 0.00* 11 0.43 0 0.37 0 0. 08* 0 0.00 0 0.05 0 0.00 0 0.00* 0 0.00 0.92 PROJECT V/C Volume Ratio 0 0. 12* 19 0.78 0 0.00 0 0.00 46 0. 77* '0 0.22 0 0. 20* 0 0.00 0 0.11 0 0.00 0 0.00* 0 0.00 1.09 1 7-5- Project: McLaughlin Newport Place Intersection: MacArthur Boulevard (NS) / Ford Road (EW) Traffic Analysis Year For Projects 1989 AM intersection Capacity Utilization E X I S T I N G ADDED NON -PROJECT TRAFFIC PROJECT ---------------------- Lane V/C --q----�---------------- Re tonal Committed V/C ---------- V/C Move Capacity Volume Ratio Growth project Ratio Volume ------ Ratio ----- ----- NL --------- 3200 ------ 42 ----- 0.01 -------- 0 --------- 4 ----- 0.01 0 0.01 NT 4800 1950 0.41* 7 462 0.50* 27 0.51* NR >> 1600 7 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 SL 3200 6 0.00* 0 9 0.00* 6 0.01* ST 3200 1255 0.39 4 418 0.52 6 0.53 SR ) > 1600 149 0.09 0 6 0.10 0 0.10 EL 3200 87 0.03* 0 0 0.03* 0 0.03* ET 3200 20 0.01 0 0 0.01 0 0.01 ER 1600 13 0.01 0 0 0.01 0 0.01 WL 1600 9 0.01 0 11 0.01 0 0.01 WT 4800 128 0. 15* 0 3 0. 17* it 0.17* WR 0 614 0.00 0 55 0.00 27 0.00 ICU = 0.59- 0.70 0.72- PM Intersection Capacity Utilization E X I S T I N G ADDED NON -PROJECT TRAFFIC PROJECT ---------------------- -----------^----•-•--- ------------ Lane V/C RegionAl Committed V/C V/C Move Capacity Volume Ratio Growth Project Ratio Volume Ratio --_.-- NL 3200 - 45 ----- 0.01* -------- 0 --------- 8 -_--- 0.02* ------ 0 0.02* NT 4800 1795 0.37 6 501 0.48 10 0.48 NR >) 1600 24 0.01 0 0 0.01 0 0.01 SL 3200 708 0.22 0 69 0.24 23 0.25 ST 3200 2738 0.86* 10 584 1.04* 23 1.05* SR >> 1600 161 0.10 0 14 0.11 0 0.11 EL 3200 1.71 0.05 0 8 0.06 0 0.06 ET 3200 242 0.08 0 2 0.08 0 0.08 ER 1600 i89 0.12* 0 e 0.12* 0 0.12* WL 1 S 00 25 0. 02* 0 0 0. 02* 0 0. 02* WT 4800 1.36 0.09 0 4 0.09 0 0.10 WR 0 282 0.00 0 34 0.00 10 0.00 ICU = 1.01 1.20 1.21 denotes critical movement )) denotes free right turn l6 Project: McLaughlin Newport Place Intersection: MacArthur Boulevard (NS) / Sari Joaquin Hills Road (EW) Traffic Analysis Year For Project: 1989 AM Intersection Capacity Utilization E X I S T I N G ADDED NUN -PROJECT TRAFFIC PROJECT ------------ ---------------------- Lane V/C ------------------------- Regional Committed V/C V/C Move Capacity Volume Ratio Growth Project Ratio Volume ------ Ratio ----- ---- NL -------- 1600 ------ 75 ----- 0.05 -------- 0 --------- 6 ----- 0.05 0 0.05 NT 3200 1348 0.42* 8 261 0.51* 27 0.52* NR 0 5 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 SL 3200 123 0.04* 0 15 0.04* 0 0.04* ST 3200 786 0.25 3 240 0.32 6 0.32 SR ) > 1600 528 0.33 0 147 0.42 0 0.42 EL 3200 102 0.03* 0 94 0. ID6* 0 0. 06* ET 4800 95 0.02 0 e 0.03 0 0.03 ER iD 14 0.00 0 5 0.00 0 0.00 WL 1600 14 0.01 0 0 0.01 0 0.01 WT 4800 365 0.21* 0 13 0.23* 0 0.23* WR 0 659 0.00 0 68 0.00 0 0.00 ICU = 0.70 0.84 0.85 * denotes critical movement >> denotes free right turn Project: McLaughlin Newport Place Intersection: MacArthur Boulevard (NS) / Newport Place (EW) Traffic Analysis Year For Project: 1989 AM Intersection Capacity Utilization E X I S T I N G ADDED NON -PROJECT TRAFFIC ---------------------- Lane V/C --- ____---------__----__ Regional Committed V/C Move Capacity Volume Ratio Growth Project --------- Ratio '---__ ---- NL -------- 1600 ---- �- toe ----- 0.06* -------- 0 46 0.09* NT 4800 682 0.14 1 230 0.19 NR >> 1600 52 0.03 0 0 0.03 SL 1600 80 0.05 0 0 0.05 ST 4800 686 0.14* 1 214 0.19* SR > > 1600 84 0.05 0 43 0.08 EL 1600 107 0.07 0 9 0.07 ET 1600 295 0.18* 0 3 0.19* ER >> 1600 244 0.15 0 10 0.16 WL 1600 302 0.19* 0 0 0.19* WT 4800 S,61 0.05 0 13 0.06 WR >> 1600 93 0.06 0 0 0.06 ICU = 0.57 0.66 PM Intersection Capacity Utilization E X I S T I N G ADDED NON -PROJECT TRAFFIC --------------------- Lane V/C Regional Committed V/C Move Capacity Volume Ratio Growth Project -----° Ratio ---- NL -------- 1600 ------ 105 ----- 0.07 -------- 0 16 0.06 NT 4800 810 0.17* 1 220 0.21* NR >) 1600 395 0.25 0 0 0. 25 SL 1600 157 0.10* 0 0 0.10* ST 4800 389 0.08 1 233 0.13 SR ) > 1600 110 0.07 0 13 0.08 EL 1600 56 0.03 0 42 0.06 ET 1600 193 0.12* 0 11 0.13* ER )> 1600 46 0.03 0 39 0.05 WL 1600 47 0.03* 0 0 0.03* WT 4800 133 0.03 0 4 0.03 WR > > 1600 28 0.02 0 0 0.02 ICU 0.42 0.47 * denotes critical movement >> denotes free right turn PROJECT V/C Volume Ratio 54 0. 13* 0 0.19 0 0. 03 0 0.05 0 0.19* 80 0.13 17 0.08 29 0. 20* 17 0.17 0 0.19* 134 0.08 0 0.06 z==== 0.71 PROJECT V/C Volume Ratio - 19- 0.09 0 0.21* 0 0.25 0 0. 13 29 0. 09 69 0. 10 115 0. c0* 69 0.10 a 0. 03* 49 0.04 0 0.02 0.54 70 Project: McLaughlin Newport Place Intersection: MacArthur Boulevard (NS) / San Miguel Drive (EW) Traffic Analysis Year For Project: 1989 AM Intersection Capacity Utilization E X I S T I N G ADDED NON -PROJECT TRAFFIC PROJECT ------------ ---------------------- Lane V/C ------------------------- Regional Committed V/C V/C Move Capacity Volume Ratio Growth Project --------- Ratio ----- VoIume ------ Ratio ----- ---- NL -------- 1600 ------ 238 ----- 0.15 -------- 0 31 0.17 0 0.17 NT 3200 1416 0.48* 8 189 0.54* 27 0.55* NR 0 i.18 0.00 0 2 0.60 0 0.00 SL IGOO 2 0.00* 0 0 0.00* 0 0.00* ST 3200 453 0.29 3 152 0.36 6 0.36 SR 0 467 0.00 0 75 0.00 0 0.00 EL 3200 83 0.03 0 17 0.03* 0 0.03* ET 3200 34 0.rA2* 0 15 0.02 0 0.OR ER 0 22 0.00 0 6 0.00 0 0.00 WL 1600 120 0. ,07-* 0 4 0.08 0 0.08 WT 3200 149 0.05 0 62 0.07* 0 0.07* WR 0 9 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 ICU = 0.57 0.64 0.65 PM Intersection Capacity Utilization E X I S T I N G ADDED NUN -PROJECT TRAFFIC PROJECT ------------ ---------------------- Larie V/C ------------------------- Regional Committed V/C V/C Move Capacity Volume Ratio Growth Project Ratio ----- Volume ------ Ratio ----- ---- NL -------- 1600 ------ 83 ----- 0.05* -------- 0 -------•-- 12 0.06* 0 0.06* NT 3200 671 0.25 1t 204 0.32 10 0.32 NR 0 128 0.00 0 8 0.00 0 0.00 SL 1600 8 0.00 0 2 0.01 0 0.1711 ST 3200 1374 0.48* 8 241 0.56*' 23 0.57* SR 0 163 0.00 0 18 0.00 0 0.00 EL 3200 500 0.16 0 72 0.18 0 0.18 ET 3200 255 0.18* 0 63 0.20* 0 0.20* ER 0 313 0.00 0 22 0.00 0 0.00 WL 1600 123 0. 08* 0 3 0. 0B* 0 17). 08* WT 32071 108 0.04 0 11 0.05 0 0.05 WR 0 31 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 ICU = 0.79- 0.90 0.91 * denotes critical movement Projecte McLaughlin Newport Place Intersection: Jamboree Boulevard (NS) / Campus Drive (EW) Traffic Analysis Year For Projectr 1989 AM Intersection Capacity Utilization E X I S T I N G ADDED NON -PROJECT TRAFFIC PROJECT -------•--------------- ------------------------- ----y-------- Lane V/C Regional Committed V/C V/C Mgye Capacity Volume Ratio Growth- Protect- Ratio Vol_ume Ratio NL 1600 88 0.05* 0 Be 0.10* 0 0.10* NT 6400 670 0.11 2 280 0.16 17 0.16 NR 0 54 0.00 0 15 0.00 0 0.00 SL 3200 298 0.09 0 0 0.09 0 0.09 ST 4800 1100 0.27* 4 943 0.50* Be 0.51* SR 0 219 0.00 0 113 0.00 0 0.00 EL 0 67 0.00 0 143 0.00 0 0.00 ET 4800 133 0.04* 0 21 0.08* 6 0.08* ER )) 1600 34 0.02 0 10 0.03 0 0.03 WL 1600 425 0.27* 0 120 0.34* 0 0.34* WT 3200 678 0.21 0 75 0.24 27 0.24 WR 1600 103 0.06 0 0 0.06 0 0.06 a==xs aaxas a�cxaa ICU = 0.63 1.02 1.03 PM Intersection Capacity Utilization E X I S T I N G ADDED NON -PROJECT TRAFFIC ----- PROJECT -•----------- ---------------------- Lane V/C -----------------•--_ Regional Committed V/C V/C Move Capacity Volume Ratio Growth- Project- Ratio Volume Ratio NL 1600 23 0.01 0 0 0.01 0 0.01 NT 6400 1170 0.23* 4 878 0.39* 69 0.40* NR 0 302 0.00 0 121 0.00 0 0.00 SL 3200 231 0.07* 0 0 0.07* 0 0.07* ST 4800 874 0.21 3 460 0.31 29 0.32 SR 0 130 0.00 0 40 0.00 0 0.00 EL 0 460 0.00 0 136 0.00 0 0.00 ET 4800 555 0.21* 0 71 0.25* 23 0.26* ER > > 1600 81 0.05 0 0 0.05 0 0.05 WL 1600 122 0.08* 0 25 0.09* 0 0.09* WT 3200 286 0.09 0 26 0.10 10 0.10 WR 1600 232 0.14 0 0 0.14 0 0.14 _ aaaas ea=aa ICU = 0.59 0.80 0.82 * denotes critical movement >> denotes free right turn Po Project: McLaughlin Newport Place Intersection: Jamboree Boulevard (NS) / Birch Street (EW) Traffic Analysis Year For Project: 1989 AM Intersection Capacity Utilization E X I S T I N G ADDED NON -PROJECT TRAFFIC Lane V/C Regional Committed V/C Move Capacity Volume Ratio Growth -------- Project --------- Ratio -- - ---- NL -------- 1600 ------ 174 ----- 0. 11* 0 0 0. 11* NT 4800 801 0.17 3 350 0.24 NR 0 6 0.00 0 0 0.00 SL 1600 4 0.00 0 0 0.00 ST 4800 1070 0.22* 4 1003 0.43* SR >> 1600 588 0.37 0 72 0.41 EL 0 123 0.00 0 20 0.00 ET 3200 3 0.04* 0 5 0.05* ER > > 1600 35 0.02 0 0 0.02 WL 0 2 0.00 0 0 0.00* WT 1600 2 0.00* 0 0 0.00 WR 0 2 0.00 0 0 0.00 ICU = 0.37 0.59 PM Intersection Capacity Utilization E X I S T I N G ADDED NON -PROJECT TRAFFIC ---------------------- Lane V/C ------------------------- Regional Committed V/C Move Capacity Volume Ratio Growth -------- Project ------ Ratio ---- NL -------- 1600 ------ 60 ----- 0.04* 0 0 0.04 NT 4800 1031 0.21 4 872 0.40* NR 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 SL 1600 4 0.00 0 0 0.00* ST 4800 943 0.20* 3 440 0.29 SR >> 1600 150 0.09 0 41 0.12 EL 0 563 0.00 0 124 0.00 ET 3200 1 0. 18* 0 0 0. 21 * ER >> 1600 128 0.08 0 0 0.08 WL 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00* WT 1600 0 0.00* 0 0 0.00 WR 0 7 0.00 0 0 0.00 ICU = 0.42 0.61 * denotes critical movement >> denotes free right turn PROJECT V/C Volume Ratio 0 0.11* 0 0.24 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0. 43* 80 0.46 17 0.00 0 0. 05* 0 0.02 0 0. 00* 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.59 PROJECT V/C Volume Ratio 0 0.04 0 0. 40* 0 0.00 0 0.00* 0 0.29 29 0.14 69 0.00 0 0. 24* 0 0.08 0 0.00* 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.64 1 8, Projects McLaughlin Newport Place Intersection: Jamboree Road (NS) / Eastbluff Drive (EW) Traffic Analysis Year For Project: 1989 AM Intersection Capacity Utilization E X I S T I N G ADDED NON -PROJECT TRAFFIC -------- PROJECT ------------ ---------------------- Lane V/C ----------------- Regional Committed V/C V/C Move Capacity Volume Ratio Growth Project Ratio ----- Volume ------ Ratio ----- ---- NL -------- 1600 ------ 17 ----- 0.01 --------- 0 ----'------- 0 0.01 0 0.01 NT 4800 2145 0.45* 3 469 0.55* 27 0.55* NR 1600 0 0.00 0 5 0.00 0 0.00 SL 1600 9 0.01* 0 38 0.03* 0 0.03* ST 4800 1580 0.33 2 602 0.45 6 0.46 SR 1600 191 0.12 0 23 0.13 0 0.13 EL 3200 518 0.16* 0 62 0.18* 0 0.18* ET 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 ER ) > 1600 5 0.00 0 68 0.05 0 0.05 WL 0 0 0.00 0 9 0.00 0 0.00 WT 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00* 0 0.00* WR 0 0 0.00 0 4S 0.00 0 0.00 —=xva coxiCa sxxacx ICU = 0 62 0.76 0.76 * denotes critical movement >> denotes free right turn Project: McLaughlin Newport Place Intersection: Jamboree Road (NS) / San Joaquin Hills Road (EW) Traffic Analysis Year For Project: 1989 AM Intersection Capacity Utilization E X I S T I N G ADDED NON -PROJECT TRAFFIC PROJECT Lane V/C Regional Committed V/C Move Capacity Volume Ratio Growth -------- Project --------- Ratio ----- ---- NL -------- 1600 ------ 37 ----- 0.02 0 0 0.02 NT 4800 1402 0.29* 2 473 0.39* NR >> 1600 241 0.15 0 43 0.18 SL 3200 753 0.24* 0 144 0.28* ST 3200 1125 0.35 2 503 0.51 SR 1600 55 0.03 0 7 0.04 EL 0 202 0.00 0 2 0.00 ET 4800 62 0.05* 0 0 0.06* ER )) 1600 57 0.04 0 0 0.04 WL 0 160 0.00 0 30 0.00 WT 4800 16 0.04* 0 0 0.04* WR 1600 14 0.01 0 102 0.07 ICU = 0.62 0.77 PM Intersection Capacity Utilization E X I S T I N G ADDED NON -PROJECT TRAFFIC ---------------------- Lane V/C ------------------------- Regional Committed V/C Move Capacity Volume Ratio Growth -------- Project --------- Ratio ----- ---- NL -------- 1'600 ------ 455 ----- 0.28* 0 1 0.28* NT 4800 1486 0.31 2 460 0.41 NR >> 1600 184 0.11 0 31 0.13 SL 3200 139 0.04 0 169 0.10 ST 3200 1154 0.36* 2 593 0.55* SR 1600 94 0.06 0 IS 0.07 EL 0 44 0.00 0 15 0.00 ET 4800 48 0.02* 0 0 0.02* ER > > 1600 72 0.04 _ 0 2 0.05 WL 0 216 0.00 0 31 0.00 WT 4800 58 0.06*' 0 0 0.06* WR 1600 29 0.02 0 201 0.14 ICU = 0.72 0.91 * denotes critical movement >> denotes free right turn V/C Volume Ratio 0 0.02 27 0. 40* 0 0.18 0 0.28* 6 0.51 0 0.04 0 0.00 0 0. 06* 0 0.04 0 0.00 0 0.04* 0 0.07 0.78 PROJECT V/C Volume Ratio 0 0. 28* 10 0641 0 0.13 0 0.10 23 0. 55* 0 0.07 0 0.00 0 0. 02* 0 0.05 0 0.00 0 0. 06* 0 0.14 0.91 Project: McLaughlin Newport Place Intersection: Jamboree Road (NS) / Santa Barbara Drive (EW) Traffic Analysis Year For Project: 1989 AM intersection Capacity Utilization E X I S T I N G ADDED NON -PROJECT TRAFFIC PROJECT ---------------------- --9--�------------------- ----__ Lane V/C Regional Committed V/C V/C Move Capacity Volume Ratio Growth Project --------- Ratio ----- Volume ----�- Ratio ----- ---- NL -------- 0 ------ 0 ----- 0.00 -------- 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 NT 4800 1829 0.38* 3 437 0.47* 27 0.48* NR 1600 414 0.26 0 12 0.27 0 0.27 SL 3200 524 0.16* 0 108 0.20* 0 0.20* ST 3200 792 0.25 1 405 0.37 6 0.3E SR 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 EL 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 ET 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00* 0 COO* ER 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 WL 2400 58 0.02* 0 B 0.03* 0 0.03* WT 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 WR 2400 129 0.05 0 40 0.07 0 0.07 ICU 0.56 0.70 0.71 * denotes critical movement S1.f 'I Project: McLaughlin Newport Place Intersection: Campus Drive -Irvine Rd (NS) / Bristol Street North (EW) Traffic Analysis Year For Project: 1989 AM Intersection Capacity Utilization E X I S T I N G ADDED NON -PROJECT TRAFFIC PROJECT Lane V/C Move Capacity Volume ------ Ratio ----- ---- NL -------- 1600 379 0.24 NT 3200 1468 0.46* NR 0 0 0.00 SL 0 0 0.00 ST 3200 400 0.12 SR 3200 310 0.10 Regional Committed V/C Growth Project Ratio ----- -------- 0 --------- 7 0.24 21 227 0.54* 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 10 12 0.13 0 47 0.11 EL 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 ET 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 ER 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 WL 1600 108 0.07 0 98 0.13 WT 6400 1154 0.20* 0 167 0.22* WR 0 106 0.00 0 0 0.00 ICU = 0.66 0.76 PM Intersection Capacity Utiliaati0r, E X I S T I N G ADDED NON -PROJECT TRAFFIC ---------------------- Lane V/C --------------- Regional Committed V/C Move Capacity Volume Ratio Growth -------- Project --------- Ratio ----- ---- NL -------- 1600 ------ 316 ---•-- 0.20* 0 5 0.20* NT 3200 594 0.19 8 94 0.22 NR 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 SL 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 ST 3200 781 0.24 19 57 0.27 SR 3200 896 0.28* 0 219 0.35* EL 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 ET 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 ER 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 WL 1600 558 0.35 0 201 0.47 WT 6400 2534 0.41* 0 847 0.54* W R 0 60 0.00 0 0 0.00 ICU = 0.89 * denotes critical movement 1.09 V/C Volume Ratio 0 0.24 81 0. 56* 0 0.00 0 0.00 6 0.13 @ 0.11 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.13 39 0. 23* 0 0. 00 0.79 PROJECT ------------ V/C Volume Ratio 0 0.20* 29 0.23 0 0.00 0 0.00 23 0.27 0 0.35* 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.47 162 0. 56* 0 0.00 1.11 Project, McLaughlin Newport Place Intersection; birch Street (NS) / Bristol Street North (EW) Traffic Analysis Year For Projecti 1989 AM Intersection Capacity Utilization E X I S T I N G ADDED NON -PROJECT TRAFFIC PROJECT Lane V/C Regional Committed V/C V/C Move Capacity Volume Ratio Growth Project Ratio ----- Volume ------- Ratio ----- ---- NL -------- 1600 ------ 154 ----- 0.10 -------- 0 --------- 0 0.10 0 0.10 NT 3200 1294 0.40* 0 299 0.50* 161 0.55* NR 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 SL 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 ST 1600 Be 0.05 0 42 0.08 6 0.0E SR 3200 245 0.08* 0 65 0.10* 11 0.10* EL 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 ST 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 ER 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 WL 0 89 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 WT 6400 1033 0.19* 0 206 0.22* 28 0.23* WR 0 87 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 =aa=� sscv= ssas- ICU = 0.67 0.68 0.88 PM Intersection Capacity Utilization E X I S T I N G ADDED NON -PROJECT TRAFFIC PROJECT ------------------- --- ------------------------- -- --------- Lane V/C Regional Committed V/C V/C Move Capacity Volume Ratio Growth Project Ratio Volume Ratio ---- -------- ------ ----- -------- --------- ----- ------ --..-- NL 1600 130 0.08* 0 0 0.0E* 0 0.08* NT 3200 321 0.10 0 123 0.14 58 0.16 NR 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 SL 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 ST 1600 454 0.28 0 41 0.31 23 0.32 SR 3200 1339 0.42* 0 266 0.50* 46 0.52* EL 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 ET 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 ER 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 WL 0 184 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 WT 6400 1866 0.33* 0 777 0.45* 116 0.47* WR 0 84 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 ICU a 0.83 1.03 1.07 * denotes critical movement 6 (! Project: McLaughlin Newport Place Intersection: Jamboree Boulevard (NS) / Bristol Street (EW) Traffic Analysis Year For Project: 1989 PM Intersection Capacity Utilization E X I S T I N G ADDED NON -PROJECT TRAFFIC ------------ PROJECT ---------------------- Lane V/C ------------------------- Regional Committed V/C V/C Move Capacity Volume Ratio Growth Project --------- Ratio Volume ----- ------ Ratio ----- ---- NL -------- 0 ------ 0 ----- 0.00 -------- 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 NT 8000 2021 0.25* 3 686 0.34* 10 0.34* NR 0 3 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 SL 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00* 0 0.00* ST 4800 960 0.20 1 433 0.29 23 0.30 SR 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 EL 0 647 0.00 0 175 0.00 0 0.00 ET 3200 290 0.29* 0 344 0.45* 0 0.45* ER 3200 826 0.26 0 441 0.40 0 0.40 WL 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00* 0 0.00* WT 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 WR 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 ICU = 0.54 0.79 0.79 * denotes critical movement Projects McLaughlin Newport Place Intersection: Campus Drive -Irvine Rd (NS) / Bristol Street (EW) Traffic Analysis Year For Project% 1989 AM Intersection Capacity Utilization E X I S T I N G ADDED NON -PROJECT TRAFFIC PROJECT ---------------------- --------------------------- ------------- Lane V/C Regional Committed V/C V/C Move Capacity Volume Ratio Growth Project --------- Ratio ----- Volume ------ Ratio ----- ---- NL -------- 0 ------- 0 ----- 0.00 -------- 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 NT 4800 1245 0.26* 18 57 0.27* 27 0.28* NR 16oe 387 0.24 0 199 0.37 0 0.37 SL 1600 45 0.03* 0 0 0.03* 0 0.03* ST 4800 435 0.09 6 108 0.11 6 0.12 SR 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 EL 2400 777 0.32 0 250 0.43 54 0.45 ET 4000 15o9 0.38* 0 412 0.48* 134 0.51* ER 1600 266 0.17 0 8 0.17 0 0.17 WL 0 0 0.00 0 7 0.00* 0 0.00* WT 0 0 0.00 0 13 0.00 0 0.00 WR 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 ICU 0.67 0.78 0.82 PM Intersection Capacity Utilization E X I S T I N G ADDED NON -PROJECT TRAFFIC PROJECT ---------------------- -------------------------•- ------------ Lane V/C Regional Committed V/C V/C Move Capacity Volume Ration Growth Project Ratio Volume Ratio ---- -------- ------ ----- -------- --------- ----- ------ NL 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 NT 4800 905 0.19 13 22 0.20 to 0.20 NR 1600 308 0.19 0 119 0.27 0 0.27 SL 1600 83 0.05 0 6 0.06 0 0.06 ST 4800 1506 0.31* 21 281 0.38* 23 0.38* SR 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 EL 2400 507 0.21 0 111 0.26 19 0.27 ET 4000 1206 0.30 0 672 0.47 48 0.48 ER 1600 876 0.55* 0 6 0.55* 0 0.55* WL 0 0 0.00 0 2 0.00* 0 0.00* WT 0 0 0.00 0 4 0.00 0 0.00 WR 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 oleo ICU = 0.86 0.93 0.93 * denotes critical movement Project: McLaughlin Newport Place Intersection: Birch Street (NS) / Bristol Street (EW) Traffic Analysis Year For Project: 1989 AM Intersection Capacity Utilization E X I S T I N G ADDED NON -PROJECT TRAFFIC PROJECT Lane V/C Regional Committed V/C Move Capacity Volume Ratio Growth -------- Project --------- Ratio ----- ---- NL -------- 0 ------ 0 ----- 0.00 0 0 0.00 NT 1600 476 0.31* 0 0 0.31* NR 0 20 0.00 0 0 0.00 SL 1600 81 0.05* 0 42 0.08* ST 3200 109 0.03 0 0 0.03 SR 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 EL 1600 974 0.61* 0 299 0.80* ET 3200 870 0.29 0 324 0.39 ER 0 44 0.00 0 0 0.00 WL 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 WT 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00* WR 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 ICU = 0.97 1.19 PM Intersection Capacity Utilization E X I S T I N G ADDED NON -PROJECT TRAFFIC Lane V/C Move Capacity Volume ------ Ratio ----- ---- NL -------- ' 0 0 0.00 NT 1600 140 0. 11* NR 0 38 0.00 SL 1600 214 0.13* ST 3200 554 0.17 SR 0 0 0.00 EL 1600 331 0.21 ET 3200 1199 0.40* ER 0 86 0.00 WL 0 0 0.00 WT 0 0 0.00 WR 0 0 0.00 ICU = 0.64 * denotes critical movement Regional Committed V/C Growth Project Ratio ----- -------- 0 --------- 0 0.00 0 0 0. 11* 0 0 0.00 0 40 0. 16* 0 29 0.18 0 0 0.00 0 101 0.27 0 670 0.61* _ 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00* 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.88 V/C Volume Ratio 0 0.00 27 0.33* 0 0.00 0 0. 08* 6 0.04 0 0.00 134 0. 88* 0 0.39 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0. 00* 0 0.00 1.29 PROJECT V/C Volume Ratio 0 0.00 10 0. 12* 0 0. 00 0 0. 16* 23 0.19 0 0.00 48 0.30 0 0.61* 0 0.00 0 0.00* 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.89 P(/ Project: McLaughlin Newport place Intersection: MacArths.m Boulevard (NS) / Coast Highway (EW) Traffic Analysis Year For Project; 1989 PM Intersection Capacity Utilization E X I S T I N G ADDED NUN -PROJECT TRAFFIC PROJECT ---------------------- Lane V/C ------------------------- Regional Committed V/C ------------ V/C Move Capacity Volume Ratio Growth Project ---•------ Ratio --^ - VoImide Ratio ---- NL --------- 0 ----I- 0 ----- 0.00 ---- ---- 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 NT 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00* 0 0.00* NR 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0,00 SL 3200 1369 0.43* 8 309 0.53* 23 0.53* ST 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 SR 1600 266 0.17 1 45 0.19 0 0.19 EL 1600 336 0.21 0 84 0.26 0 0.26 ET 3200 1541 0.48* 20 310 0.59* 0 0.59* ER 0 0 0.00 0 3 0.00 0 0.00 WL 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00* 0 0.00* WT 4800 1012 0.21 18 224 0.26 0 0.26 WR ) > 1600 558 0.34 0 150 0,44 10 0.44 ICU = 0.91 1.12 1.12 * denotes critical movernent )) denotes free riqht turn C1 0 II I II II II II II II II II II II II II II II Project: McLaughlin Newport Place Intersection: Goldenrod Avenue (NS) / Coast Highway (EW) Traffic Analysis Year For Project: 1989 AM Intersection Capacity Utilization E X I S T I N G ADDED NON -PROJECT TRAFFIC PROJECT ------ --------------- Lane - V/C --------- Regional Committed V/C Move Capacity Volume Ratio Growth -------- Project --------- Ratio -NL ---- 0 - - 146 ----- 0.00 0 13 0.00 NT 1600 @ 0. 1 @* 0 NR @ 8 0.00 0 SL 0 47 0.00 0 3 0.00* ST 1600 0 0.06 0 0 0 0.06 0.00 SR 0 42 0.00 0 EL 1600 34 0.02* 0 22 0.03* ET 3200 784 0.25 14 191 0.32 ER 0 21 0.00 0 6 0.00 WL 1600 5 0.00 0 0 0.00 WT 3200 2319 0.73* 41 6188 WR @ 21 0.00 @ 0.@0* ICU = 0.85 1.07 PM Intersection Capacity Utilization X I S T-I-N G---- ADDED NON -PROJECT TRAFFIC E Lane V/C ------------------------- Regional Committed V/C Move Capacity Volume Ratio Growth -------- Project --------- Ratio NL 0 81 ----- 0.00 0 NT 1600 19 0.07* 0 0 0.08* NR 0 19 0.00 0 3 0.00 SL 0 49 0.00 0 5 0.00* ST 1600 ii 0.05 0 0 0.06 SR 0 24 0.00 0 0 0.00 EL 1600 20 0.01 0 10 0.02 ET 3200 2574 0.82* 45 607 1.02* ER 0 39 0.00 0 15 0.00 WL 1600 .25 0.02* 0 3 0.02* WT 3200 1372 0.43 24 349 0.55 WR 0 e 0.00 0 0 0.00 ICU = 0.91- 1.12 * denotes critical movement V/C Volume Ratio @ 0.00 @ 0.10* @ 0.00 @ 0.00* 0 0.06 0 0.00 0 0. 03* 11 0.32 0 0.00 0 0.00 54 0.95* @ 0.00 1.08 PROJECT ------------ V/C Volume Ratio ----0 0.@@ 0 0. 08* 0 0.00 0 0. 00* 0 0.06 0 0.00 0 0.02 46 1. 04* 0 0.00 0 0.02* 19 0.55 0 0.00 1. 14- Projects McLaughlin Newport Place Intersection: Marguerite Avenue (NS) / Coast Highway (EW) Traffic Analysis Year For Project: 1989 AM Intersection Capacity Utilization E X I S T I N G ADDED NON -PROJECT TRAFFIC PROJECT ---------------------- Lane V/C ------------'------------- Regional Committed V/C ------------ V/C Move Capacity Volume Ratio Growth Project Ratio ----- Volume ------ Ratio -- - ---- NL '-------- 1600 ------ 113 ----- 0.07* -------- 0 --------- 3 0.07* 0 0.07* NT 1600 76 0.09 0 0 0.09 0 0.09 NR 0 65 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 SL 1600 60 0.04 0 1 0.04 0 0.04 ST 1600 65 0.09* 0 6 0.10* 0 0.10* SR 0 82 0.00 0 13 0.00 0 0.00 EL 1600 60 0.04* 0 8 0.04* 0 0.04* ET 3200 916 0.29 16 187 0.35 11 0.35 ER 1600 39 0.02 0 0 0.02 0 0.02 WL 1600 29 0.02 0 0 0.02 0 0.02 WT 3200 2392 0.76* 42 599 0.96* 54 0.98* WR 0 34 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 ICU = 0.96 1.17 1.19 PM Intersection Capacity Utilization E X I S T I N G ADDED NON -PROJECT TRAFFIC PROJECT ---------------------- ---'-- ------------------- ------------ Lane V/C Regional Committed V/C V/C Move Capacity Volume Ratio Growth Project --------- Ratio --'---- Volume ------ Ratio ----- ---- NL -------- 1600 ------ 118 ----- 0.07 -------- 0 0 0.07 0 0.07 NT 1600 113 0.1E_* 0 0 0.12* 0 0.12* NR 0 Be 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 SL 1600 168 0.10* 0 1 0.11* 0 0.11* ST 1600 120 0.11 0 0 0.12 0 0.i2 SR 0 62 0.00 0 8 0.00 0 0.00 EL 1600 55 0.03 0 25 0.05 0 0.05 ET 3200 2223 0.69* 39 588 0.89* 46 0.90* ER 1600 74 0.05 0 3 0.05 0 0.05 WL 1600 81 0.05* 0 0 0.05* 0 0.05* WT 3200 1085 0.36 19 338 0.47 19 0.48 WR 0 62 0.00 0 1 0.00 0 0.00 ICU = 0.96- 1.17 1.18 * denotes critical movement 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I c Project: McLaughlin Newport Place Intersection: Poppy Avenue (NS) / Coast Highway (EW) Traffic Analysis Year For Project: 1989 AM Intersection Capacity Utilization E X I S T I N G ADDED NON -PROJECT TRAFFIC PROJECT ---------------------------------------------------------- Lane V/C Regional Committed V/C V/C Move Capacity Volume Ratio Growth Project Ratio Volume Ratio ---- NL -------- 0 ------ 16 ----- 0.00 ------- 0 -- 0 0.00* 0 0.00* NT 1600 12 0.02 0 0 0.02 0 0.02 NR 0 12 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 SL 0 49 0.00 0 4 0.00 0 0.00 ST 1600 6 0.04* 0 0 0.04* 0 0.04* SR 0 5 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 EL 1600 20 0.01* 0 0 0.01* 0 0.01* ET 3200 632 0.21 11 185 0.27 11 0.27 ER 0 25 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 WL 1600 17 0.01 0 0 0.01 0 0.01 WT 3200 2525 0.89* 45 595 1.09* 54 1.11* WR 0 321 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 ICU = 0.94 1.14 1.16 PM Intersection Capacity Utilization S T-I-N G---- ADDED NON -PROJECT TRAFFIC PROJECT ------------ ---E-X-I Lane V/C ------------------------- Regional Committed V/C V/C Move Capacity Volume Ratio Growth Project --------- Ratio ----- Volume ------ Ratio ----- ---- NL -------- 0 ------ 22 ----- 0.00 -------- 0 0 0.00* 0 0.00* NT 1600 8 0.04 0 0 0.04 0 0.04 NR 0 42 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 SL 0 347 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 ST 1600 3 0.22* 0 0 0.22* 0 0.22* SR 0 9 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 EL 1600 8 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 ET 3200 2300 0.72* 41 587 0.92* 46 0.94* ER 0 19 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 WL 1600 23 0.01* 0 0 0.01* 0 0.01* WT 3200 1466 0.47 26 341 0.58 19 0.59 WR 0 30 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 ICU = 0.95 1.15 1.17 * denotes critical movement I 11 11 11 11 11 11 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX C I 1 ALTERNATIVE IMPROVEMENTS ICU WORK SHEETS 1 I 1� ' Project: McLaughlin Newport Place ' Intersection: MacArthur Boulevard (NS) / Campus Drive (EW) Traffic Analysis Year For Project: 1989 PM Intersection Capacity Utilization With Improvements ' Existing Existing + Added + Added Non -Project Existing Non -Project Traffic Proposed + Project Traffic Lane - Lane -- Movement Capacity Volume V/C Ratio Capacity -------- Volume -------- V/C Ratio --------- -------- -------- NL 1600 ----------------- 245 0.15* 1600 245 0.15 ' NT 6400 1727 0.27 6400 1796 0.28* NR 1600 72 0.04 1600 72 0.04 ' SL 1600 275 0.17 1600 275 0.17* 0.26 ST 4800 1223 0.25* 4800 1252 SR 1600 410 0.26 1600 410 0.26 EL 1600 402 0.25* 3200 402 0.13* ET 3200 917 0.29 3200 917 0.29 ' ER 1600 117 0.07 160e 117 0.07 WL 1600 139 0.09 1600 139 0.09 WT 320e 1322 0.41* 3200 1322 0.41* ' WR << 1600 356 1600 356 -0_22-- -0.22-- ICU = 1.10 0.99 ' * denotes critical move << denotes free right turn ' Projected + project traffic ICU with project improvements will be ' les5 than ICU without project. Description of system improvement: Improve intersection to add a second eastbound left turn lane. Project: McLaughlin Newport Place Intersection: MacArthur Boulevard (NS) / Jamboree Boulevard (EW) Traffic Analysis Year For Project: 1989 AM Intersection Capacity Utilization With Improvements Existing + Added Existing Non -Project Traffic Lane------------------- Movement Capacity Vo1utile V/C Ratio ---NL--- - 1600 -- 102 0.06 NT 4800 $47 0.17* NR 0 149 0.00 SL 1600 698 0.44* ST 4800 1439 0.30 SR << i600 333 0.21 EL 3200 622 0.19 ET 4800 1446 0.30* ER < < 1600 49 0.03 WL 3200 254 0.08* WT 4800 723 0,15 WR << 1600 237 0.15 W==WXW= ICU 0.99 * denotes critical move (( denotes free right turn Existing + Added Non -Project Proposed + Project Traffic Lane------------------- Capacity - Volume V/C Rattio -1600 102 0.06 4800 701 0.18* 0 149 0.00 3200 698 0.22* 4800 1450 0.30 1600 339 0.21 3200 622 0.19 4800 1446 0.30* 1600 49 0.03 3200 254 0.08* 4800 723 0.15 1600 237 0.15 =*==x== 0.78 Projected + project traffic ICU with protect improvements will be less than 0.9. Description of system improvement: Improve intersection to add a second southbound left turn lane. 'WO r 1 1 Project: McLaughlin Newport Place Intersections MacArthur Boulevard (NS) / Bison Road (EW) Traffic Analysis Year For Project: 1989 Existing Lane Movement Capacity -------- NL -------- 1600 NT 3200 NR 0 SL 0 ST 4800 SR << 1600 EL 3200 ET 0 ER << 1600 WL 0 WT 0 WR 0 AM Intersection Capacity Utilization With Improvements Existing + Added Non -Project Traffic ------------------- Volume V/C Ratio 374 2641 3 0 2069 593 251 0 85 6 0 ICU = * denotes critical move << denotes free right turn 0. 23 0. 83* 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.37 0. 08* 0.00 0.05 0.00 0. 00 _0_0___ 0.91 Existing + Added Non -Project Proposed + Project Traffic Lane ------------------- Capacity -------- Volume -------- V/C Ratio --------- 1600 374 0.23 4800 2695 0.56* 0 3 0.00 0 0 0.00 4800 2080 0.43 1600 593 0.37 3200 251 0.08* 0 0 0.00 1600 85 0.05 0 6 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 -0_00== 0.64 Projected + project traffic ICU with project improvements will be less than 0.9. Description of system improvement: Improve intersection to add a third northbound through lane. 1 q% Project: McLaughlin Newport Place Intersection: MacArthur Boulevard (NS) / Bison Road (EW) Traffic Analysis Year For Project: 1989 PM Intersection Capacity Utilization With Improvements Existing + Added Existing Non -Project Traffic Lane ------------ Movement Capacity Capacity Volume V/C Ratio -�-�---- NL -�------ 1600 - 186 0.12* NT 3200 2486 0.78 NR 0 0 0.00 SL 0 0 0.00 ST 4800 3636 0.76* SR << 1600 357 0.22 EL 3200 639 0.20* ET 0 0 0.00 ER (( 1600 182 0.11 WL 0 0 0.00 WT 0 0 0.00 wR 0 0 0.00 ====AM= ICU = 1.08 * denotes critical move << denotes free right turn Existing + Added Non -Project Proposed + Project Traffic Lane------------------- Capacity -------- Volume -------- V/C Ratio '--------- 1600 186 0. 12* 4800 2503 0.52 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 4800 3682 0.77* 1600 357 0.82 4800 639 0.13* 0 0 0.00 1600 182 0.11 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 >oocac:tc 1.02 Projected + project traffic ICU with project improvements will be less than ICU without project. , Description of system improvement: Improve intersection to add a third eastbound left turn lane. ' 1 II I I II 11 11 11 II II II II II II Ir lJ II ■_I II Project: McLaughlin Newport Place Intersection: MacArthur Boulevard (NS) / Ford Road (EW) Traffic Analysis Year For Project: 1989 .PM `Intersection Capacity Utilization With Improvements Existing Existing + Added + Added Non -Project Existing Non -Project Traffic Proposed + Project Traffic Lane------------------- Lane -------------------- Movement Capacity Volume V/C Ratio Capacity VoIWile - V/C Ratio -------- NL -------- 3200 -----l-- 53 --------- 0.02* -------- 3200 --- 53 0.02* NT 4800 2302 0.48 4800 2312 0.48 NR ( < 1600 24 0.01 1600 24 0.01 SL 3200 777 0.24 3200 800 0. i :5 ST 3200 3332 1.04* 4800 3355 0.70* SR ( < 1600 175 0.11 1600 1 *75 0.11 EL 3200 179 0.06 3200 179 0.06 ET 3200 244 0.08 3200 244 0.08 ER 1600 197 0.12* 1600 197 0.12* WL 1600 25 171.02* 160171 0.0i=:* WT 4800 140 0.09 4800 0.10 WR 0 316 0.00 0 326 0.00 ICU = -1.20 0.86 * denotes critical move (( denotes free right turn Projected + project traffic ICU with project improvements will be less than 0.9. Description of system improvement: Improve intersection to add a third southbound through lane. This improvement has been required for, a previously approved project. Project: McLaughlin Newport Place Intersection: MacArthur Boulevard (NS) / San Joaquin Hills Road (EW) Traffic Analysis Year For Project: 1989 PM Intersection Capacity Utilization With Improvements Existing + Added Existing Non -Project Traffic Lane----------------- - Movement Capacity Volume V/C Ratio � _--^--- -------- NL -------- 1600 -------- 62 0.04* NT 3200 1302 0.41 NR 0 14 0.00 SL 3200 659 0.21 ST 3200 2162 0.68* SR <( 1600 409 0.26 EL 3200 812 0.25* ET 4800 417 0.12 ER 0 138 0.00 WL 1600 18 0.01 WT 4800 248 0.10* WR 0 252 0 e0 ICU = 1.07 * denotes critical move (( denotes free right turn Existing + Added Non -Project Proposed + Project Traffic Lane------------------- Capacity Volume -------- V/C Ratio ------- --- 1600 3200 1321 0.42 0 14 0.00 3200 659 0.21 4800 2208 0.46* 1600 409 0.26 3200 $12 0. ^c5* 4800 417 0.12 0 138 0.00 1600 18 0.01 4800 248 0.i0* 0 252 0.00 ===M=== 0.85 projected + project traffic ICU with project traffic will be less than 0.9. Description of system improvement: Improve intersection to add a third southbound through lane. Ir'f' Project: McLaughlin Newport Place Intersection: MacArthur Boulevard (NS) / San Miguel Drive (EW) Traffic Analysis Year• For Project: 1989 PM Intersection Capacity Utilization With Improvements Existing + Added Existing Non -Project Traffic Lane -,----------------- Movement Capacity -------- Volume V/C Ratio ----------------- -------- NL 1600 95 0.06* NT 3200 879 0.32 NR 0 136 0.00 SL 1600 10 0.01 ST 3200 1623 0.56* SR 0 lei 0.00 EL 3200 572 0.18 ET 3200 318 0. c^_0* ER 0 335 0.00 WL 1600 126 0.08* WT 3200 119 0.05 WR 0 31 0.00 ICU = 0.90 * demotes critical move Existing + Added Non -Protect Proposed + Project Traffic Lane ------------------- Capaci.ty - Vol urile V/C Ratio 1600 95 0.06* 3200 889 17i. 2 0 1.36 0.00 1600 10 0.01 4800 1646 0.38* 0 181 0.00 3200 572 0.18 3200 318 0.20* 0 335 0.00 1600 126 0.08* 3200 119 0.015 0 31 0.00 0.72 Pro.iected + project traffic ICU with project improvements will be less than 0.9. Description of system improvement: Improve intersection to add a third southbound through .lane. Projects McLaughlin Newport Place Intersections Jamboree Boulevard (NS) / Campus Drive (EW) Traffic Analysis Year For Projects 1989 AM Intersection Capacity Utilization With Improvements Existing + Added Existing Non -Project Traffic Lane------------------- Movement Capacity Volume V/C Ratio - -- - NL 1600 168 0.10* NT 6400 952 0.16 NR 0 69 0.00 SL 3200 298 0.09 ST 4800 2047 0.50* SR 0 332 0.00 EL 0 210 0.00 ET 4800 154 0.08* ER < < 1600 44 0.03 WL 1600 545 0.34* WT 3200 753 0.24 WR 1600 103 0.06 CWCCC]TC ICU 1.. e2 * denotes critical move (( denotes free right turn Existing + Added Non -Protect Proposed + Project Traffic Lane------------------- Capacity Volume V/C Ratio ---- 1600 -- - 168 0.10* 6400 969 0.16 0 69 oleo 3�0e 298 0.09 4800 2127 0.51* 0 332 0.00 0 210 0.00 4800 160 0.08* 1600 44 0.03 3200 545 O.Si* 3200 780 0.24 1600 103 0.06 0.86 Projected + project traffic ICU with project improvements will be less than 0.9. Description of system improvements Improve intersection to add a second westbound left turn lane 10) 11 I I Project: McLaughlin Newport Place Intersection: Campus Drive -Irvine Rd (NS) / Bristol Street North (EW) Traffic Analysis Year For Project: 1989 PM Intersection Capacity Utilization With Improvements ' Movement r 1103 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR Existing + Added Existing Non -Project Traffic Lane ------------------- Capacity Volume V/C Ratio -------- --------- -------- 1600 321 0.20* 3200 696 0.22 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 3200 857 0.27 3200 1115 0.35* 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 1600 759 0.47 6400 3381 0.54* 0 60 ICU = -0_00== 1.09 * denotes critical move Existing + Added Non -Project Proposed + Project Traffic Lane ------------------- Capacity -------- Volume -------- V/C Ratio --------- 3200 321 0.10* 3200 725 0.23 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 3200 880 0.27 3200 1115 0.35* 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 1600 759 0.47 6400 3543 0.56* 0 60 -0_00__ 1.01 Projected + project traffic ICU with project improvement will be less than ICU without project. Description of system improvement: Improve intersection to add a second northbourid left turn lane. Project: McLaughlin Newport place Intersections Birch Street (NS) / Bristol Street North (EW) Traffic Analysis Year For Projects 1989 PM Intersection Capacity Utilization With Improvements Movement NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR Existing + Added Existing Non -Project Traffic Lane------------------- Capacity Volume V/C Ratio --1-- 600 --- 130 0.08* 3200 444 0.14 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 1600 495 0.31 3200 1607 0.50* 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 184 0.00 6400 2643 0.4'4* 0 84 0.00 a=s=esa ICU = 1.03 * denotes critical move Existing + Added Non -Project Proposed + Project Traffic Lane------------------- Capacity Volume V/C Ratio - -- -------- - - 1600 130 0.08* 3200 502 0.16 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 4500 518 0.48* 0 1653 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0. 00 0 0 0.00 0 184 0.00 6400 2759 0.47* 0 84 0.00 1.03 Projected + project traffic ICU with project irlprovements will not be greater than ICU without protect. Description of system improvement: Change configuration of southbottnd through lane to make it a combined through/right turn lane. JO L-{ Project: McLaughlin Newport Place Intersection: Birch Street (NS) / Bristol Street (EW) Traffic Analysis Year For Project: 1989 AM Intersection Capacity Utilization With Improvements Existing + Added Existing Nan -Project Traffic Lane ------------------- Movement Capacity Volume V/C ----------------- Ratio -------- NL -------- 0 0 0.00 NT 1600 476 0.31* NR 0 20 0.00 SL 1600 123 0.08* ST 3200 109 0.03 SR 0 0 0.00 EL 1600 1273 0.80* ET 3200 1194 0.39 ER 0 44 0.00 WL 0 0 0.00 WT 0 0 0.00 WR 0 0 0.00 ICU = 1.19 * denotes critical move Existing + Added Non -Project Proposed + Project Traffic Lane ------------------- Capacity Volume -------- V/C Ratio --------- -------- 0 0 0.00 3200 503 0.16* 0 20 0. 00 1600 123 0.08* 3200 115 0.04 0 0 0.00 1600 1407 0.86* 3200 1194 0.39 0 44 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 1.12 Projected + project traffic ICU with project improvements will be less than ICU without project. Description of system improvement: Improve intersection to add a second northbound through lane. projects McLaughlin Newport Place Intersections MacArthur Boulevard (NS) / Coast Highway (EW) Traffic Analysis Year For Projects 1989 PM Intersection Capacity Utilization With Improvements Existing + Added Existing Non -Project Traffic Lane ------------------- Movement Capacity Volume V/C Ratio ----�--- -------- --------- -'-------- NL 0 0 0.00 NT 0 0 0.00 NR 0 0 0.00 SL 3200 1686 0.53* ST 0 0 0.00 SR 1600 312 0.19 EL 1600 420 0.26 ET 3200 1871 0.59* ER 0 3 0.00 WL 0 0 0.00 WT 4800 1254 0.26 WR << 1600 702 0.44 =W*==== ICU 1. 12 * denotes critical move (< denotes free right turn Existinq + Added Non -Project Proposed + project Traffic Lane ------------------- Capacity Volume --------- V/C Ratio ------ -- 0 0 .00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 3200 173P 0.54* 0 0 0.00 1600 312 0.is 1600 420 0.26 4800 1871 0.39* 0 3 0.00 0 0 0.00 4800 1254 0.26 1600 721 0.45 =c==s=a 0.93 projected + protect traffic ICU with protect improvements will be less than ICU without project. Description of system improvement: Improve intersection to add a third eastbound through lane. /0& Project: McLaughlin Newport Place Intersection: Goldenrod Avenue (NS) / Coast Highway (EW) Traffic Analysis Year For Project: 1989 AM Intersection Capacity Utilization With Improvements Existing + Added Existing Non -Project Traffic Lane ------------------- Movement Capacity Volume V/C Ratio ----------------- -------- NL -------- 0 159 0.00 NT 1600 0 0.10* NR 0 B 0.00 SL 0 50 0.00 ST 1600 0 0.06 SR 0 42 0.00 EL 1600 56 0.03* ET 3200 989 0.32 ER 0 27 0.00 WL 1600 5 0.00 WT 3200 2978 0.94* WR 0 21 0.00 ICU = 1.07 * denotes critical move Existing + Added Non -Project Proposed + Project Traffic Lane ------------------- Capacity Volume -------- V/C Ratio --------- -------- 0 159 0.00 1600 0 0.10* 0 8 0.00 0 50 0.00 1600 0 0.06 0 42 0.00 1600 56 0.03* 3200 1000 0.32 0 27 0.00 1600 5 0.00 4800 3032 0.64* 0 21 0.00 0.77 Projected + project traffic ICU with project improvements will be less than 0.9. Description of Improve it 1n7 Project: McLaughlin Newport place Intersection: Goldenrod Avenue (NS) I Coast Highway (SW) Traffic Analysis Year For Project: 1989 PM Intersection Capacity Utilization With Improvements Existing + Added Existing Non -Project Traffic Lane--------- --------- movement Capacity Volume V/C Ratio -------- --------- -------- NL -------- 0 87 0.00 NT 1600 19 0.08* NR 0 22 0.00 SL 0 54 0.00 ST 1600 11 0.06 SR 0 24 0.00 EL 1600 30 0.02 ET 3200 3226 1.02* ER 0 54 0.00 WL 1600 28 0.02* WT 3200 1745 0.55 WR 0 8 0.00 ==mom:= ICU 1.12 * denotes critical move Existing + Added Non -Project Proposed + Project Traffic Lane ------------------- Capacity Volume V/C Ratio 0 87 1600 19 0 22 0.00 0 54 0.00 1600 11 0.06 0 24 0.00 1600 30 0.02 4800 3272 0.69* 0 54 0.00 1600 28 0.02* 4800 1764 0.37 0 8 0.00 ===_=== 0.79 Projected + project traffic ICU with project improvements will be less than 0.9. Description of system improvement: Improve intersection to add a third eastbound through lane. ' it Project: McLaughlin Newport Place ' Intersection: Marguerite Avenue (NS) / Coast Highway (EW) Traffic Analysis Year For Project: 1989 ' AM Intersection Capacity Utilization With Improvements ' Existing Existing + Added + Added Non -Project Existing Non -Project Traffic Proposed + Project Traffic Lane ------------------- Lane ------------------- ' Movement Capacity Volume V/C Ratio Capacity -------- Volume -------- V/C Ratio --------- -------- -------- NL 1600 -------- 116 --------- 0.07* 1600 116 0.07* ' NT 1600 76 0.09 1600 76 0.09 NR 0 E5 0.00 0 65 0.00 ' SL 1600 61 0.04 1600 61 0.04 0.10* ST 1600 71 0.10* 1600 71 SR 0 95 0.00 0 95 0.00 ' EL 1600 68 0.04* 1600 68 0.04* ET 3200 1119 0.35 3200 1130 0.35 ' ER 1600 39 0.02 1600 39 0.02 WL 1600 29 0.02 1600 29 0.02 WT 3200 3033 096*- 4800 3087 ' WR 0 34 0.00 0 34 -065*= 0.00 ICU = 1.17 0.86 denotes move * critical ' Projected + project traffic ICU with project improvements will be less than 0.9. ' Description of system improvement: Improve intersection to add a third westbound 'through lane. [1 1 JC�C1 Project! McLaughlin Newport Place Intersection: Marguerite Avenue (NS) / Coast Highway (EW) Traffic Analysis Year For Project: 1989 Movement NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR PM Intersection Capacity Utilization With Improvements Existing + Added Existing Non -Project Traffic Lane-----------------r- Capacity Volume V/C Ratio ____r__r -------- 118 0.07 1600 113 0. 12* 0 Be 0.00 1600 169 0. 11* 1600 120 0.12 0 70 0.00 1600 80 0.05 3200 2850 0.89* 1600 77 0.05 1600 81 0.05* 3200 1442 0.47 0 63 0.00 acs=sm= ICU 1.17 * denotes critical move Existing + Added Non -Protect Proposed + Project Traffic Lane --r--r------------ Capacity Volume V/C Ratio r------r -rrrr--r rr------- 1600 118 0.07 1600 113 0.12* 0 82 0.00 1600 169 0.11* 1600 120 0.12 0 70 0.00 1600 80 0.05 4800 2896 0.60* 1600 77 0.05 1600 81 0.05* 4800 1461 0.32 0 63 0. 00 0. 8B Projected + project traffic ICU with protect improvements will be less than 0.9. Description of system improvement; Improve intersection to add a third eastbound through lane. 110 Project: McLaughlin Newport Place Intersection: Poppy Avenue (NS) / Coast Highway (EW) Traffic Analysis Year For Project: 1989 AM Intersection Capacity Utilization With Improvements Existing + Added Existing Non -Project Traffic Lane ------------------- Movement Capacity Volume V/C Ratio ----------------- -------- NL -------- 0 16 0. 00 NT 1600 12 0.02 NR 0 12 0.00 SL 0 53 0.00 ST 1600 6 0.04* SR 0 5 0.00 EL 1600 20 0.01* ET 3200 828 0.27 ER 0 25 0.00 WL 1600 17 0.01 WT 3200 3165 1.09* WR 0 321 0.00 ICU = 1.14 * denotes critical move Existing + Added Non -Project Proposed + Project Traffic Lane ------------------- Capacity Volume V/C Ratio 0 16 0.00 1600 12 0.02 0 12 0. 00 0 53 0. 00 1600 6 0.04* 0 5 0.00 1600 20 0.01* 3200 839 0.27 0 25 0.00 1600 17 0.01 4800 3219 0.74* 0 321 0.00 0.79 projected + project traffic ICU with project improvements will be less than 0.9. Description of system improvement: Improve intersection ti Project; McLaughlin Newport Place Intersection; Poppy Avenue (NS) / Coast Highway (EW) Traffic Analysis Year For Project: 1989 PM Intersection Capacity Utilization With Improvements Existing + Added Existing Nor -Project Traffic Lane--------------,----- Movernent Capacity Volume V/C Ratio . __1----- -------- -------- --------- NL 0 22 0.00 NT 1600 a 0.04 NR 0 42 0.00 SL 0 347 0.00 ST 1600 3 0.22* SR 0 9 0.00 EL 1600 8 0.00 ET 3200 2928 0.92* ER 0 19 0.00 WL 1600 23 0.01* WT 3200 1833 0.58 WR 0 30 0.00 ====?M= ICU 1.15 * denotes critical move Existing + Added Non -Project Proposed + Project Traffic Lane ------------------- Capacity Volume -------- V/C Ratio --------- -------- 0 22 0.00 1600 8 0.04 0 42 0.00 0 347 0.00 1600 3 0.22* 0 9 0.00 1600 8 0.00 4800 2974 0.62* 0 19 0.00 1600 23 0.01* 4800 1852 0.39 0 30 0.00 C C2CGCC 0.85 Projected + project traffic ICU with project improvements will be less than 0.9. Description Of system improvement. Improve intersection to add a third eastbound through lane. 0 114