The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About13 - Santa Barbara Condominiums - 900 Newport Center DriveCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH . CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. ( 3 November 22. 2005 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Planning Department Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner (949) 644 -3208 rung @ city. newport- beach.ca. us SUBJECT: Santa Barbara Condominiums 900 Newport Center Drive (PA2004 -169) APPLICANT: Lennar Homes ISSUE •Should the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the applications listed below to allow the development of 79 condominiums on a 4.25 acre site presently developed with an outdoor tennis complex operated by the Newport Beach Marriott Hotel? RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council hold a public hearing and approve the request by adopting Resolution No. 2005 - for General Plan Amendment No. 2004 -005, LCP Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2005 -001, Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005 -014, Tentative Tract Map No. 2004 - 004(16774), Traffic Study No. 2005 -002, Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2005 -004 and Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH No. 2005 - 071067) and introducing Ordinance No. 2005 - for Planned Community Development Plan No. 2005- 003, and passing the ordinance to a second reading for adoption on December 13, 2005. DISCUSSION On November 3, 2005, the Planning Commission voted 6 ayes (one recused) to recommend approval of the proposed project to the City Council. The project involves the following discretionary applications for the City Council to consider: • General Plan Amendment - Change the land use designation of the 4.25 -acre site from Administrative, Professional, & Financial Commercial to Multiple - Family Residential. • LCP Land Use Plan Amendment — Change the land use designation of the 4.25 -acre site from Administrative, Professional, Financial Commercial to Multiple - Family Residential (1990 LCPLUP) or from Visitor - Serving Commercial to Medium Density Residential (2004 LCP). Santa Barbara Condominiums November 22, 2005 Page 2 • Planned Community Development Plan Text Adoption and Waiver of Minimum Acreage - 0 Rezone the subject property from APF to the PC District; adopt a Planned Community Development Plan to establish use and development regulations; and consider a waiver of the 10 -acre minimum land area requirement for Planned Community District adoption. • Subdivision - Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide the 4.25 -acre property from the 13.79 - acre Marriott Hotel development. Tentative Tract Map to subdivide the 4.25 -acre property for condominium ownership. • Traffic Study — Traffic analysis pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). • Coastal Residential Development Permit — For the construction of 10 or more new dwelling units within the Coastal Zone. The project consists of 79 residential condominium units with eight different floor plan options, ranging from 2,363 to 4,018 square feet in size. Access to the new residential development will be via two driveways from Santa Barbara Drive. The project is designed with two subterranean parking levels, and 201 parking spaces for residents and guests. The minimum building front, side, and rear setbacks proposed for the development are 15, 7 and 13 feet respectively. Land Use Element The current designation is Administrative, Professional, & Financial Commercial and the residential condominium project is consistent with the proposed Multi - Family Residential land use designation. The two percent (2 %) reduction in APF designation in Newport Center . proposed by the project is not a significant loss of opportunity for commercial /office uses as the site is being used for tennis courts and is an ancillary use to the existing hotel and club. In making its recommendation for approval, the Planning Commission believes the project to be compatible with the adjacent hotel and golf course, and nearby residential and office uses. The proposed residential project would add an additional 79 units to the Block 900 — Hotel Plaza area, an increase from 67 to 146 units. The existing Marriott Hotel currently has 532 rooms (79 rooms below the total 611 room allocation). The hotel could conceivably construct the remaining 79 rooms on the adjacent site, or potentially transfer the entitlement of the remaining rooms (with City approval) within the Newport Center area. Housing Element To be consistent with the goals, policies and programs of the General Plan Housing Element, the project is required to provide a minimum of 20% of the total units (16 units) to low and moderate income households. The applicant is proposing to enter into an agreement with the City to provide these units off -site, within the City's limits. The agreement will be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and Planning Director and will be executed and recorded prior to the recordation of the final tract map or the issuance of a building or grading permit for the proposed project. The Planning Commission required the affordable units to be constructed and completed prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy for the project. i Santa Barbara Condominiums November 22, 2005 Page 3 I* Charter Section 423 Analysis Amendment Area # of Dwelling A.M. Peak Hour Trips P.M Peak Hour Trips Units Pacific Republic 2,400 s.f. (80% 0 4.0 (80% of 5) 4.0 (80% of 5) GP2001 -003 of 3,000 Newport Sports Museum 1,240 s.f.(80% 0 4.0 (80% of 5) 4.8 (80% of 6) GP2004 -001 of 1,550 Proposed 79 39 35 Amendment Total 3,640 s.f. 79 47 43.8 As indicated in the preceding table, the project with "prior amendments" does not exceed the 100 peak hour trip, 40,000 square foot or 100 dwelling unit thresholds and a vote pursuant to Charter Section 423 is not required. Should the City Council approve the proposed amendment, it will become a "prior amendment' that will be tracked for ten years. The proposed changes to Statistical Area L1, Block 900 -Hotel Plaza and the Estimated Growth for Statistical Area L1 Table are shown as Exhibit "A" of the draft City Council Resolution (Attachment A). • Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan The 1990 LCPLUP designates the site for Administrative, Professional, & Financial Commercial. A change in land use would result in a 4.25 -acre reduction in land available to be potentially used for office uses consistent with the APF designation. However, within the Newport Center, there is approximately 200 acres designated APF and the two percent (2 %) reduction proposed by the project is not a significant reduction. The City is in the process of adopting a new Coastal Land Use Plan. The proposed CLUP tentatively scheduled for City Council consideration on December 13, 2005, has the site designated for Visitor- Serving Commercial (CV -B) uses. This designation was applied due to the existing use of the Marriott Hotel complex. The change in land use designation from CV -B to RM -C (Medium Density Residential C) is necessary for implementation of the proposed residential development and would reduce the land available for visitor - serving commercial uses by 4.25 acres. Although a reduction in area occurs, the opportunity to construct the remaining hotel room entitlement of 79 rooms would not be lost and it could be constructed nearby within the portion of Newport Center that is located within the Coastal Zone. The property is not located in close proximity to coastal resources, coastal recreational uses or the water and the project would not impact the adjacent visitor - serving uses other than to eliminate the accessory tennis courts, which is not a coastal dependent recreational activity. Planned Community District The applicant desires approval of a Code Amendment to change the zoning designation of the subject property from Administrative, Professional & Financial to Planned Community (PC) District. Santa Barbara Condominiums November 22, 2005 Page 4 The Zoning Code requires that PC's be a minimum of 10 acres to ensure that the project would take advantage of the superior environment provided through coordination of parcels that can result from large -scale community planning, would allow diversification of land uses and would include various types of land uses. A waiver is sought because the property is 4.25 acres in size. The proposed PC District does not strictly meet the intent and purposes for a PC adoption as the project is a single use less than 10 acres. Although when considering it in the larger context of the Newport Center area that includes a mixture of shopping, hotels, commercial support uses, professional offices, and residential developments, the proposed PC allows the site to be developed with flexibility to allow the project to integrate within Newport Center to create a superior environment. Proposed Development Standards The proposed draft Planned Community text for the proposed development is shown as Exhibit "A" of the draft Ordinance (Attachment B). Parcel and Tract Maps The applicant requests an approval of a parcel map to divide the 4.25 -acre project site from the Marriott hotel complex for financing and development purposes. Lot No. 1 is 4.25 acres in size to be devoted for the proposed residential project and Lot No. 2 contains the remaining 9.54 acres to continue to be occupied by the Newport Beach Marriott Hotel. The subsequent Tract Map is proposed for condominium ownership of the 79 unit project The required findings for the proposed maps have been met in accordance to the City Subdivision Code. Traffic Study A traffic study has been prepared for the project pursuant to the TPO and its implementing guidelines (Appendix D of the Mitigated Negative Declaration), CEQA analysis for cumulative projects and intersection capacity utilization (ICU), and General Plan analysis. The project will result in a net increase of 330 new average daily trips, 42 vehicle trips during morning (AM) peak hour and 39 vehicle trips during the afternoon (PM) peak hour. Fourteen (14) intersections were identified by the Traffic Engineer for inclusion in the study. The TPO analysis resulted in nine (9) out of fourteen (14) study intersections that exceed the one - percent threshold. ICU analysis was performed on these intersections and found that the project related traffic does not cause an unsatisfactory level of service at any of these 0 • 79 units 18.59 units per gross acre -Density FAR 1.90 Height 65 feet maximum -Building Building Front Setback 15 feet minimum (varies) Building Side Setback 7 feet minimum (varies) Rear Setback 13 feet minimum varies Parking 2 spaces per unit for resident and 0.5 space for guest The proposed draft Planned Community text for the proposed development is shown as Exhibit "A" of the draft Ordinance (Attachment B). Parcel and Tract Maps The applicant requests an approval of a parcel map to divide the 4.25 -acre project site from the Marriott hotel complex for financing and development purposes. Lot No. 1 is 4.25 acres in size to be devoted for the proposed residential project and Lot No. 2 contains the remaining 9.54 acres to continue to be occupied by the Newport Beach Marriott Hotel. The subsequent Tract Map is proposed for condominium ownership of the 79 unit project The required findings for the proposed maps have been met in accordance to the City Subdivision Code. Traffic Study A traffic study has been prepared for the project pursuant to the TPO and its implementing guidelines (Appendix D of the Mitigated Negative Declaration), CEQA analysis for cumulative projects and intersection capacity utilization (ICU), and General Plan analysis. The project will result in a net increase of 330 new average daily trips, 42 vehicle trips during morning (AM) peak hour and 39 vehicle trips during the afternoon (PM) peak hour. Fourteen (14) intersections were identified by the Traffic Engineer for inclusion in the study. The TPO analysis resulted in nine (9) out of fourteen (14) study intersections that exceed the one - percent threshold. ICU analysis was performed on these intersections and found that the project related traffic does not cause an unsatisfactory level of service at any of these 0 • Santa Barbara Condominiums November 22, 2005 Page 5 intersections and no significant impact occurs and no improvements are required at these intersections. The 9 intersections will operate at LOS D or better during peak hours. Coastal Residential Development Permit (CRDP) A Coastal Residential Development Permit is required when a project proposes to create 10 or more new residential units within the Coastal Zone. Affordable housing is required to be provided on -site if it is determined feasible to do so. The Planning Commission found that including the affordable units within the project was not feasible. Consistent with the previous Housing Element discussion, affordable units will be provided off -site within the City. Environmental Review A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared for the proposed project in accordance with the implementing guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The document was initially prepared to evaluate the project with traditional zoning of Multiple - Family Residential, followed by a 30 -day review period from July 15 to August 15, 2005. Since then, it was determined that the most suitable zoning designation for the property would be PC (Planned Community). This new zoning designation does not affect the size, . scope or design of the project that would potentially create additional physical environmental impacts, and therefore, does not require additional recirculation and review of the MND. An addendum has been prepared to address the change in the zoning designation including two additional mitigation measures (3.3.N and 3.3.0), required by the Planning Commission, to address the traffic and air quality impacts pertaining to exporting of materials from the subject property to the dump site. They have been attached to the MND for the City Council to consider. Public Notice Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website. Prepared by: Submitted by: Ro alinh M. Un9 Patricia L. Temple As�ociate Planner Planning Director • Attachments: A. Draft City Council Resolution B. Draft City Council Ordinance C. Draft Planning Commission Resolution No. 1681 (Without exhibits) Santa Barbara Condominiums November 22, 2005 Page 6 z;L D. Excerpt of the draft minutes from the November 3rd, 2005, Planning • Commission meeting E. Planning Commission Staff Report from the November 3rd, 2005 (Without attachments) F. Mitigated Negative Declaration & Initial Study (Errata, Response to Public Comments & Mitigation & Monitoring Program attached)' G. Project Plans' ' Distributed separately due to bulk. Available for public review at the City Clerk's Office. • J • ATTACHMENT "A" DRAFT CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 0 L I 0 r1 U • 13 . RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (SCH NO. 2005- 071067) AND APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2004 -005, LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2005- 001, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2005 -014, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2004 -004 (16774), TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 2005 -002 AND COASTAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 2005 -004 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 900 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE (PA 2004 -169) WHEREAS, an application was filed by Lennar Homes with respect to property located at 900 Newport Center Drive, and legally described as Parcel 1, as per map filed in Book 75 pages 33 and 34 of parcel maps, in the office of the County Recorder to construct 79 residential condominiums on a 4.25 -acre site presently developed with tennis courts operated by the adjacent Newport Beach Marriott Hotel. The applicant requests approval of. a General Plan Amendment and an Amendment of the 1990 Local Coastal Plan Land Use Plan (LCPLUP) to change the land use designations of the 4.25 -acre site from Administrative, Professional & Financial Commercial to Multiple - Family Residential; an Amendment of the 2004 LCPLUP to change the land use designation from Visitor - Serving Commercial (CV -B) to Medium Density Residential C (RM -C); a Zone Change to rezone the subject property from APF to the PC District; adopt a Planned Community Development Plan to establish permitted use and . development regulations; consider a waiver of the 10 -acre minimum land area requirement for Planned Community District adoption; a Parcel Map to subdivide the subject property from the hotel development for financing and development purposes; a Tract Map for the condominium ownership (79 residential units); a Traffic Study pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) and a Coastal Residential Development Permit regarding the provision of affordable housing in accordance with the Municipal Code and the General Plan Housing Element. WHEREAS, on November 3, 2005, the Planning Commission held a noticed public hearing in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California at which time the project applications, the Mitigated Negative Declaration and comments received thereon were considered. Notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with law and testimony was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at the hearing. With a vote of 6 ayes (one recused), the Planning Commission recommended approval of the above - mentioned applications to the City Council. WHEREAS, the property is located in the Block 900 — Hotel Plaza of the Newport Center (Statistical Area L1) of the Land Use Element and has a land use designation of Administrative, Professional & Financial Commercial (APF) and zoned APF (Administrative, Professional, Financial). WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 20.94 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the City Council held a noticed public hearing on November 22, 2005 to consider the proposed . applications and the recommendations of the Planning Commission. WHEREAS, a General Plan Amendment and an Amendment of the 1990 Local Coastal Plan Land Use Plan (LCPLUP) to change the land use designations of the site from 0 Page 2 of 21 Administrative, Professional & Financial Commercial to Multiple - Family Residential is necessary as the proposed residential use is not permitted in the APF designation. A change in land use would result in a 4.25 -acre reduction in land available to be potentially used for office uses consistent with the APF designation. However, within the Newport Center, there is approximately 200 acres designated APF and the two percent (2 %) reduction proposed by the project is not a significant reduction. WHEREAS, the residential condominium project is consistent with the proposed Multi - Family Residential land use designation. The proposed residential condominium project would be compatible with the residential developments to the south and northeast of the site. The proposed project is viewed as incompatible with the office uses across Santa Barbara Street and is also compatible with the adjacent hotel and golf course WHEREAS, the 2004 LCP Land Use Plan designates the site for Visitor Serving Commercial uses. This designation was applied due to the existing use of the Marriott Hotel complex. A change in land use designation from CV -B (Visistor- Serving Commercial) to RM -C (Medium Density Residential C) is necessary for the proposed residential development. The change in land use designation will reduce the land available for visistor - serving commercial uses by 4.25 acres. Although this reduction in area would occur, the opportunity to construct the remaining hotel room entitlement of 79 rooms would not be lost and they could be constructed nearby within a portion of Newport Center within the Coastal Zone. WHEREAS, Section 30250(a) of the California Coastal Act (CCA) provides criteria for the location of new development. The Coastal Act provides for the protection of coastal M resources by requiring that new development be located in close proximity to existing development with available public services to minimize the impacts associated with the extension of infrastructure and services. The project is located within Newport Center, which is a development area with all public services (utilities, roads, police, fire etc.) presently provided. WHEREAS, Section 30252(4) requires new development within the Coastal Zone to provide adequate parking facilities or provide substitute means of serving the development with public transportation. The proposed development provides an adequate number of on -site parking spaces. The project also will be conditioned so that the parking structures will have adequate dimensions, clearances, and access to insure their proper use. WHEREAS, Section 30212, requires public access must be provided from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline and along the coast in new development. The subject property is not adjacent to the ocean or bay; therefore, coastal access easements are not required. WHEREAS, Section 30222 requires the use of private land suitable for visitor - serving commercial recreational facilities for coastal recreation must have priority over private residential, general industry, or general commercial development. Although, the change in land use designation will reduce the land available for visistor serving commercial uses by 4.25 acres; the opportunity to construct the remaining hotel room entitlement of 79 rooms would not be lost and they could be constructed nearby within the portion of Newport Center that is located within the Coastal Zone. )0 Page 3 of 21 .WHEREAS, the City's General Plan indicates that the City shall maintain suitable and adequate standards for landscaping, sign control, site and building design, parking and undergrounding of utilities and other development standards to ensure that the beauty and charm of existing residential neighborhoods are maintained, that commercial and office projects are aesthetically pleasing and compatible with surrounding land uses. The proposed PC Text contains one classification of land use and provides the development standards for the entire subject property. The draft PC Text contains development regulations for the subject site which includes definitions and information concerning requirements for development site coverage, building height, setbacks, off - street parking, vehicular access, signing, lighting, storage, and screening and landscaping to ensure that the project would be compatible with the surrounding land uses consistent with the objectives of the Land Use Element. WHEREAS, to be consistent with the Housing Programs 2.2.1 and 2.2.3 of the City's Housing Element, the project is required to provide a minimum of 20% of the total units (16 units) for affordable income households for a minimum of 30 years. The applicant is requesting that the affordable housing provision be off -site, at an approved location within the City, as affordable housing is not feasible at the subject site. According to the applicant, the project's Home Owner's Association fees are expected to be a minimum of $1,500 per month, which is a substantial multiple of the statutory mortgage payment limits for affordable housing when combined with acquisition costs and taxes. With this provision, the applicant will be required to enter into an agreement with the City to provide said units off -site within the City's limits. The agreement will be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and will be executed prior to the recordation of tract map or the issuance of a building or grading permit for the proposed project. WHEREAS, an approval of the project is implementing Housing Program 3.2.4 that allows the City to consider and approve rezoning of property from non - residential to residential uses when appropriate to extend housing opportunities to as many renter and owner occupied households as possible in response to the demand for housing in the City. WHEREAS, Charter Section 423 requires all proposed General Plan Amendments to be reviewed to determine if the square footage, peak hour vehicle trip or dwelling units thresholds have been exceeded and a vote by the public is required. This project has been reviewed in accordance with Council Policy A -18 and a voter approval is not required as the project represents an increase of 39 — A.M. and 35 — P.M. peak hour trips for a new 79 dwelling unit development. These increases, when added with 80% of the increases attributable to two previously approved amendments, result in a total of 47 — A.M. peak hour trips and 43.8 — P.M. peak hour trips; 3,640 square feet of non - residential floor area and 79 dwelling units do not cumulatively exceed Charter Section 423 thresholds for a vote. WHEREAS, the project is located within Newport Center where public services and infrastructure are available to serve the proposed development. Additionally, all applicable improvements required by Section 19.28 (Subdivision Improvements) of the Subdivision Code are to be satisfied by the applicant. WHEREAS, the parking requirement for a multiple- family residential zoned project is two spaces per unit, including one covered, plus 0.5 spaces for guest parking for Page 4 of 21 developments of four or more units. A total of 158 spaces are required for the residences and • a minimum of 40 spaces are required for guest parking. A total of 201 spaces are proposed to serve the project, and therefore, the project meets the parking requirements of the Municipal Code. In addition to the provision of adequate on -site parking, the project is conditioned that the parking designs meet all City requirements regarding parking stall width, depth, grade, and aisle- turning radii. WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 19.12.070 of the City Subdivision Code, the following standard findings must be made to approve the Tentative Parcel Map and Tract Map. 1. The proposed Tentative Maps are consistent with the Newport Beach Subdivision Code (Title 19) and applicable requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. Conditions of approval have been included to ensure compliance with Title 19 and the Subdivision Map Act. 2. Lot 1 of the Parcel Map is being proposed for the residential development and is of sufficient size for the intensity of development and the site is physically suitable for the project. The project provides an adequate number of parking spaces as required by the Zoning Code. Access to the site can be provided through the proposed driveways along Santa Barbara Drive. Additionally, no earthquake faults were found on -site. There is no known incidence of landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse on -site or near the site; however, existing soils will be required to be excavated and re- compacted to create stable soil conditions to support the proposed development. The implementation of mitigation measures identified in the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration would reduce any potential impacts. The site is, therefore, physically suitable for development. 3. Lot 2 of Parcel Map is proposed to retain a General Plan land use designation of Administrative, Professional & Financial Commercial. Lot 2 is not proposed for new development and this parcel will continue to be used as a hotel and it is of sufficient size to support its existing use. 4. Under the proposed Parcel Map, Lot 2 does not include any improvements and the development of Lot 1 as a residential use is not expected to cause serious public health problems given the use of typical construction materials and practices. No evidence is known to exist that would indicate that the proposed subdivisions will generate any serious public health problems. All mitigation measures will be implemented as outlined in the Mitigated Negative Declaration to ensure the protection of the public health. 5. No public easements for access through, or use of, the property have been retained for the use by the public at large. Public utility easements for utility connections that serve the project site are present and will be modified, if necessary, to serve the proposed project. 6. Title 24 of the Uniform Building Code requires new construction to meet minimum . heating and cooling efficiency standards depending on location and climate. The I� Page 5 of 21 • Newport Beach Building Department enforces Title 24 compliance through the plan check and field inspection processes. 7. The proposed subdivision facilitates the creation of 79 new residential units. The provision of 16 affordable units will assist the City in meeting its housing needs as identified in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment. Public services are available to serve the proposed development of the site and the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project indicates that the project's potential environmental impacts are expected to be less than significant. 8. Waste discharge into the existing sewer system will be consistent with residential use of the property which does not violate Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) requirements. 9. The proposed subdivision is entirely within the coastal zone and the site subject to the tentative maps is not presently developed with coastal - related uses, coastal - dependent uses or water - oriented recreational uses. The project is consistent with the City's 1990 Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan and the recently modified and approved LCPLUP that will replace the 1990 certified LUP. The subject site to be subdivided does not abut the ocean or bay, and does not provide public access to coastal resources; therefore, no impacts to coastal access are anticipated. Recreation policies of the Coastal Act require that site resources for water - oriented recreational activities that cannot be supplied inland must be protected. These policies prioritize water - oriented recreational activities over other land uses and encourage aquaculture and water - oriented recreational support facilities. The project site proposed to be subdivided is not suitable for water - oriented recreational activities due to its size and location, approximately 1.5 miles from the shoreline. WHEREAS, the entire project is located within the Coastal Zone and requests the construction of 79 units. Pursuant to Chapter 20.86 of the Zoning Code, when a project proposes to create 10 or more units within the coastal zone, affordable housing must be included within the project unless it can be determined infeasible. The Housing Element of the General Plan determines the number and type of affordable housing that is required. In accordance with the Housing Element, 16 affordable housing units would be required to be provided. WHEREAS, a Traffic Study has been prepared by Kunzman Associates under the supervision of the City Traffic Engineer pursuant to the TPO and its implementing guidelines (Appendix D of the Mitigated Negative Declaration), CEQA analysis for cumulative projects and intersection capacity utilization (ICU), and General Plan analysis. The project will result in a net increase of 330 new average daily trips, 42 vehicle trips during morning (AM) peak hour and 39 vehicle trips during the aftemoon (PM) peak hour. The study concluded that the proposed project will not cause a significant impact at the study area intersections; therefore, no improvements are required at these intersections. • WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) have been prepared in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3. The Draft MND was circulated for public comment 0 Page 6 of 21 between July 15 and August 15, 2005. Comments were received from the California Coastal Commission, Airport Land Use Commission and Mr. Terek Saleh of Costa Mesa. The contents of the environmental document, including comments on the document, have been considered in the various decisions on this project. Since then, it was determined that the most appropriate zoning designation for the property would be PC (Planned Community). This new zoning designation does not affect the size, scope or design of the project that would potentially create additional physical environmental impacts. As result, it has been determined that the MND adequately describes the potential impacts of the project and does not require additional recirculation and review of the MND. An addendum has been prepared to address the change in the zoning designation and made it a part of the MND. WHEREAS, on the basis of the entire environmental review record, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact upon the environment and there are no known substantial adverse affects on human beings that would be caused. Additionally, there are no long -term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project, nor cumulative impacts anticipated in connection with the project. The mitigation measures identified are feasible and reduce potential environmental impacts to a less than significant level. The mitigation measures are applied to the project and are incorporated as conditions of approval. WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. 2004 -005, Planned Community Development Plan No. 2005 -003, Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005 -014, Tentative Tract Map No. 2004 -004 (16774), Traffic Study No. 2005 -002 and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2005 -004 shall only become effective upon the approval of LCP Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2005 -001 . by the California Coastal Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach does hereby adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH No. 2005 - 071067); approve General Plan Amendment No. 2004 -005 by amending the Land Use Element, Statistical Area L1, Block 900 -Hotel Plaza and the Estimated Growth for Statistical Area L1 Table of the General Plan as depicted in Exhibit "A" and Land Use map in Exhibit "B ", LCP Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2005 -001 by revising Land Use map as depicted in Exhibit "C ", Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005 -014, Tentative Tract Map No. 2004 -004 (16774), Traffic Study No. 2005- 002 and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2005 -004, subject to the conditions of approval listed in Exhibit "D" • 1 `l Page 7 of 21 • This resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption. Passed and adopted by the City Council of Newport Beach at a regular meeting held on the 22nd day of November 2005 by the following vote to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT, COUNCIL MEMBERS MAYOR ATTEST: • CITY CLERK • �5 Page 8 of 21 Exhibit "A" • THE FOLLOWING CHANGES WILL BE MADE TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT AND OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT SHALL REMAIN UNCHANGED: 10. Block 900 - Hotel Plaza. This area is bounded by Newport Center Drive, the Balboa Bay Tennis Club, the Newport Beach Country Club, Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara Drive. The site is designated for Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial and Multi - Family Residential land uses. The allowed development is 611 hotel rooms with ancillary hotel support facilities and 19,630 sq. ft. of office development [GPA 94 -1 (A)]. The residential sites is are allocated 67 146 (67 +79) dwelling units. U 1(p ESTIMATED GROWTH FOR STATISTICAL AREA LI Residential (in Commercial (in sq. do's) ft.) Existing Gen. Plan Projected Existing Gen. Plan Projected 01/01/1987 Projection Growth 01/01/1987 Projection Growth 1. Block 0 0 0 0 246,146 432,320 186,174 2. Block 100 0 0 0 196,545 199,095 2.550 3. Block 200 0 0 0 207,781 207,781 0 4. Block 300 0 0 0 130,408 134,908 4,500 5. Block 400 0 0 0 440,118 440,118 0 6. Block 500 0 0 0 377,170 377,170 0 7. Block 600 0 0 0 1,284,134 1,426,634 142,500 8. Block 700 0 0 0 327,671 327,671 0 9. Block 800 0 245 245 253,984 253,984 0 10. Block 900 67 146 79 616,630 625,630 9,000 11. Civic Plaza 0 0 0 365,160 456,710 91,550 12. Corporate Plaza 0 0 0 15,000 115,000 100,000 13. Tennis Club 0 0 0 0 0 0 14. NB Country Club 0 0 0 0 0 0 15. Amling's 0 0 0 3,960 5,000 1,040 16. Villa Point 0 228 228 0 0 0 17. Sea Island 132 132 0 0 0 0 18. Fashion Island 0 0 0 1,603,850 1,633,850 30,000 19. Newport Village 0 0 0 55,000 170,000 115,000 TOTAL 199 751 552 6,123,557 6,805,871 682,314 Population 394 1,331 937 Revised 08/10/2004 U 1(p • • Page 9 of 21 Exhibit "B" PROPOSED CHANGE TO THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM ADMINISTRATIVE, PROFESSIONAL, 8, FINANCIAL COMMERCIAL TO MULTIPLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. 21 Page 10 of 21 Exhibit "C" PROPOSED CHANGE TO THE 1990/2004 LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE MAP FROM APF/CV-B TO MFR/RM-C SFA RL* i Subject Site APF CV-B* to MFR RM-C* F I CV' Existing Coastal Land V� 'I Land Use Plan Use Plan *(Upon adoption of the 4 2004 LCP'LUP) F SFA Single -Fa m I ly Aftac he d RL Low Density Residential 4.6 - 6 DUIAC -!At MFR Mufti-Family Residential RM-A Medium Density Residenti o 7 - 6.1 -10 DUIAC V. PM{ Medium Density Residenfl:d 15.1 - 20 DU AC �� open • rr�a Open Space Space AFF Admin., Professional & Cv 0 V �hor Servin Commmer�i J Financial Commercial 0.5 -1.25 FAR It v me CkT .1 0 LJ CI 1 q Page 11 of 21 Exhibit "D" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005 -014, Tentative Tract Map No. 2004 -004 (16774), Traffic Study No. 2005 -002 (PA2004 -169) 1. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 2. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plans dated October 29, 2005. 3. Project approvals shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the effective date of approval as specified in Section 20.91.050A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Reasonable extensions may be granted by the Planning Director in accordance with applicable regulations. The Tentative Tract Map shall expire within 36 months from the date of approval unless extensions are granted prior to expiration in accordance with the Subdivision Ordinance and Subdivision Map Act. 4. The applicant shall obtain a Coastal Development Permit from the California Coastal Commission prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit for the project. 5. The applicant shall provide a minimum of 20% of the total units (16 units) for affordable income households in accordance with Housing Programs 2.2.1 and 2.2.3 of the Newport Beach Housing Element. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City to provide said units, which units may be provided off -site, at an approved location within the City. These units shall be identified in the agreement and constructed and completed prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy for the project. The agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and shall be executed and recorded prior to the recordation of the final tract map or the issuance of a building or grading permit for the proposed subdivision. 6. The applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City Building and Fire Departments. The construction plans must comply with the most recent, City- adopted version of the California Building Code. 7. The facility shall be designed to meet exiting and fire protection requirements as specified by the Uniform Building Code and shall be subject to review and approval by the Newport Beach Building Department and the Fire Department. 8. The proposed project shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code, any local amendments to the UBC, and State Disabled Access requirements, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department. Traffic Engineering • 9. All parking stall dimensions shall comply with City's Standard Drawings STD - 805 -L -A. j0\ Page 12 of 21 10. The main entry drive with median island shall comply with City Standard STD - 103 -L, . and have a 42' minimum outside radius and a maximum planter /median radius of 7'. 11. Show the locations of any proposed gates/kiosks to the parking areas. A vehicle turnaround area should be provided prior to gates/kiosk. 12. Driveway /drive aisle slopes shall comply with City Standard STD - 160 -L -C, which accommodate a 15 percent maximum slope and a maximum change in grade of 11 percent. 13. The entries to both parking areas on Garage Level A shall be modified to accommodate vehicles entering /exiting and traveling in both directions. Parking stall dimensions and drive aisle widths shall comply with City Standard STD - 805 -L -A. Dead end drive aisles shall be accommodated by a turnaround area and a 5 foot hammerhead. Final plans shall show all ventilation and mechanical equipment. 14. Project shall provide prominent pavement markings and signage to direct individuals to parking areas and exits. 15. The sharp 90 degree turns into Garage Level B shall be modified to ease access into and out of both parking areas. Typical ramps to parking areas are terminated into drive aisle rather than parking stalls. Revise parking /ramp layout as necessary to ease access to the parking areas (Building 1A & 2A). Parking stall dimensions and drive • aisle widths shall comply with City Standard STD - 805 -L -A. Dead end drive aisles shall be accommodated by a turnaround area and a 5 foot hammerhead. Final plans shall show all ventilation and mechanical equipment. 16. The site shall accommodate all deliveries /trash pick up etc. to be handled on -site. Vehicles shall not be permitted to back out onto Santa Barbara Drive. 17. Project driveway must conform to the City's sight distance standard 110 -L for a speed of 40 mph. The design shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 18. Staging of construction equipment shall not be permitted on the public right -of -way. 19. All work conducted within the public right -of -way shall be approved under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 20. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view of adjacent properties and adjacent public streets within the limits authorized by this permit, and shall be sound attenuated in accordance with Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Community Noise Control. Fire Department 21. All building shall be provided with fire sprinklers. IN Page 13 of 21 22. The applicant shall provide an additional fire hydrant at the north end of the lot, approximately 300 feet from other hydrants. 23. All elevators accommodating gurneys shall be in accordance with Chapter 30 of the California Building Code. 24. A Class I standpipe shall be provided in lower level parking area, in addition to ones provided on site. 25. A fire alarm system with fire control room shall be provided adjacent to the turnaround. 26. A dedicated recorded fire department access easement adjacent to the north tower shall be provided. 27. The hydrant adjacent to the North Tower road shall not be obstructed by fencing. Access gate adjacent to the hydrant with knox box shall be provided. 28. A Fire Department minimum turning radius shall be 20 feet inside, 42 feet outside. A 40 -foot radius to the face of the rolled curb shall be provided. 29. The applicant shall verify that the proposed easement and Tract Map boundaries are correctly shown on the submitted Map. 30. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit documentation that the Southern California Edison Company (SCE) has agreed to the existing easement abandonment and that SCE will not need to use the existing easement in the future. Development Services Engineering 31. A Parcel Map and a Tract Map shall be recorded. The Maps shall be prepared on the California coordinate system (NAD83). Prior to recordation of the Maps, the surveyor /engineer preparing the Maps shall submit to the County Surveyor and the City of Newport Beach a digital- graphic file of said Maps in a manner described in Section 7 -9 -330 and 7 -9 -337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. The Maps to be submitted to the City of Newport Beach shall comply with the City's CADD Standards. Scanned images will not be accepted. 32. Prior to recordation of the Maps, the surveyor /engineer preparing the Maps shall tie the boundary of the Maps into the Horizontal Control System established by the County Surveyor in a manner described in Section s 7 -9 -330 and 7 -9 -337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. Monuments (one inch iron pipe with tag) shall be set On Each Lot Corner unless otherwise approved by the Subdivision Engineer. Monuments shall be protected in place if installed prior to completion of construction project. 33. If it is desired to record a Map or obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements, the Applicant will provide the City through the Public Works aI Page 14 of 21 Department with either a refundable deposit or Materials /Labor /Performance bonds to guarantee satisfactory completion of the required public improvements. 34. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 35. A water demand, a storm drain system capacity, and a sanitary sewer system capacity study shall be submitted to the Public Works Department along with the first building plan check submittal. The recommendations of these studies shall be incorporated as a part of the submitted plans. 36. Street, drainage and utility improvements within the public right -of -way shall be submitted on City standard improvement plan formats. All of the plan sheets shall be wet sealed, dated, and signed by the California registered professionals responsible for the designs shown on said plans. 37. The width of the existing concrete sidewalk fronting the dvelopment along Santa Barbara Drive shall be maintained. 38. The design of the proposed driveway approaches along Santa Barbara Drive shall provide full ADA accessibility. 39. The proposed northerly driveway approach is located too close to the existing adjacent street light. 40. The construction plans shall show detailed profile of each of the proposed driveways. 41. The existing street trees and landscaping fronting this Development along Santa Barbara Drive shall be protected in place, unless otherwise approved by the General Services Department and the Public Works Department. 42. All new landscaping within the public right -of -way shall be approved by the General Services Department and the Public Works Department. 43. All above ground facilities, street trees, and shrubbery along the Santa Barbara Drive frontage shall be located outside the sight distance planes per City Standard Plan STD - 110 -L. 44. The applicant shall submit detail plans for the on -site drainage system(s) to demonstrate that it will prevent the underground garage from being flooded during storm events. 45. In case of underground ejection pump malfunction, the applicant shall provide a backup system to continue the on -site below -grade sanitary sewer system function. 46. The on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to further review and approval by the Traffic Engineer and any corrections /modifications shall be made to the satisfaction of the Traffic Engineer. au Page 15 of 21 • 47. A construction traffic control plan shall be approved by the City prior to the issuance of the Encroachment Permit. Said plan shall be wet sealed, signed, and dated by a California Registered Traffic Engineer. 48. County Sanitation District fees shall be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 49. Prior to the issuance of the building permit, Public Works Department plan check and inspection fee shall be paid. 50. Prior to the issuance of the building permit, Water Capital Improvement fee shall be paid. 51. The City of Newport Beach requires all new development and significant redevelopment projects to prepare and submit a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to the City for review and approval. Prior to issuance of grading or building permits, the project applicant shall have an approved final Project WQMP. 52. Prior to the issuance of the grading /building permits, the applicant shall prepare a construction phasing plan and construction delivery plan that includes routing of large vehicles. The plan shall include a haul route plan for review and approval of the Public Works Department. Said plan shall specify the routes to be traveled, times of travel, + total number of trucks, number of trucks per hour, time of operation, and safety /congestion precautions (e.g., signage, flagmen). Large construction vehicles shall not be permitted to travel narrow streets and alleys as determined by the Public Works Department. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. 53. Prior to the issuance of the grading permit, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) shall be prepared and approved by the City of Newport Beach as the local permitting agency in accordance with the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The SWPPP shall include BMPs to eliminate and /or minimize stormwater pollution prior to, and during construction. The SWPPP shall require construction to occur in stages and stabilized prior to disturbing other areas and require the use of temporary diversion dikes and basins to trap sediment from run -off and allow clarification prior to discharge. 54. Prior to the issuance of the grading permit, the applicant shall prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) specifically identifying the Best Management Practices (BMP's) that will be used on site to control predictable pollutant runoff. The plan shall identify the types of structural and non - structural measures to be used. The plan shall comply with the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP). Particular attention should be addressed to the appendix section "Best Management Practices for New Development." The WQMP shall clearly show the locations of structural . BMP's, and assignment of long term maintenance responsibilities (which shall also be included in the Maintenance Agreement). The plan shall be prepared to the format of the DAMP title "Water Quality Management Plan Outline" and be subject to the approval of the City. Page 16 of 21 55. Prior to the issuance of the grading permit, the applicant shall obtain a NPDES permit. . The applicant shall incorporate storm water pollutant control into erosion control plans using BMPs to the maximum extent possible. Evidence that proper clearances have been obtained through the State Water Resources Control Board shall be given to the Building Department prior to issuance of grading permits. 56. Prior to the issuance of the grading permit, the applicant shall submit evidence to the City Building Official that the applicant has obtained coverage under the NPDES statewide General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. 57. Prior to issuance of the grading permit, the project applicant shall document to the City of Newport Beach Building Department that all facilities will be designed and constructed to comply with current seismic safety standards and the current City - adopted version of the Uniform Building Code. 58. Prior to issuance of the grading permit, a geotechnical report shall be submitted with construction drawings for plan check. The Building Department shall ensure that the project complies with the geotechnical recommendations included in the "Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation" (Petra, 2003), as well as additional requirements, if any, imposed by the Newport Beach Building Department. 59. Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant shall submit an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) in a manner meeting approval of the City Building Official, to demonstrate compliance with local and state water quality regulations for grading and construction activities. The ESCP shall identify how all construction materials, wastes, grading or demolition debris, and stockpiles of soil, aggregates, soil amendments, etc. shall be properly covered, stored, and secured to prevent transport into local drainages or coastal waters by wind, rain, tracking, tidal erosion, or dispersion. The ESCP shall also describe how the applicant will ensure that all Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be maintained during construction of any future public right -of -ways. A copy of the current ESCP shall be kept at the project site and be available for City of Newport Beach review on request. Mitigation Measures of the Mitigated Negative Declaration 60. Any exposed soil areas shall be watered twice per day during grading activities. On windy days or when fugitive dust can be observed leaving the project site, additional applications of water shall be applied to maintain minimum 12 percent moisture content as defined by SCAQMD Rule 403. Under windy conditions where velocities are forecast to exceed 25 miles per hour (as ascertained by phone calls to the SCAQMD), all ground disturbing activities shall be halted until winds are forecast to abate below this threshold. 61. The proposed Project shall comply with regional rules such as SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403, which would assist in reducing short-term air pollutant emissions. Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with best available control measures so that A� Page 17 of 21 • the presence of such dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. Rule 402 requires dust suppression techniques be implemented to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance off -site. These dust suppression techniques are summarized as follows: a. Portions of the construction site to remain inactive longer than a period of three months shall be seeded and watered until grass cover is grown or otherwise stabilized in a manner acceptable to the City. b. All on -site roads shall be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or chemically stabilized. c. All material transported off -site shall be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. d. The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations shall be minimized at all times. 62. All vehicles on the construction site shall travel at speeds less than 15 miles per hour. 63. All material stockpiles subject to wind erosion during construction activities that will not be utilized within three days shall be covered with plastic, an alternative cover deemed • equivalent to plastic, or sprayed with a nontoxic chemical stabilizer. 64. Where vehicles leave the construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the streets shall be swept daily at the end of the work day to remove soil tracked onto the paved surface. Any visible track -out extending for more than fifty (50) feet from the access point shall be swept within thirty (30) minutes of deposition. 65. All diesel - powered vehicles and equipment shall be properly operated and maintained. 66. All diesel - powered vehicles and gasoline - powered equipment shall be turned off when not in use for more than five (5) minutes. 67. The construction contractor shall utilize electric or natural gas - powered equipment instead of gasoline or diesel - powered engines, where feasible. 68. As much as possible, the construction contractor shall time the construction activities so as not to interfere with peak hour traffic. To minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes adjacent to the site, a flag person shall be retained to maintain safety adjacent to existing roadways, if necessary. 69. The construction contractor shall support and encourage ridesharing and transit incentives for the construction crew. . 70. The construction contractor shall utilize, as much as possible, pre-coated/natural colored building materials. Water -based or low VOC coatings shall be used that comply with the most stringent SCAQMD Rule 1113 limits. Spray equipment with high Page 18 of 21 transfer efficiency, such as the high volume -low pressure (HVLP) paint applicators with • 50 percent efficiency or manual coatings application such as paint brush hand roller, trowel, spatula, dauber, rag, or a sponge shall be used to reduce VOC emissions, where practical. Additionally, paint application shall use lower volatility paint not exceeding 100 grams of ROG per liter. 71. If construction equipment powered by alternative fuel sources (LPG /CNG) is available at comparable cost, the developer shall specify that such equipment be used during all construction activities on the proposed Project site. 72. The developer shall require the use of particulate filters on diesel construction equipment if use of such filters is demonstrated to be cost - competitive for use on this proposed Project. 73. During demolition and excavation, daily total haul trucks shall travel no more than a cumulative 2,400 miles per day hauling materials from the site to and from the dumping site. 74. Prior to commencement of demolition and grading, the applicant shall submit to the City calculations showing the proposed travel route for haul trucks, the distance traveled, and how many daily truck trips that can be accommodated while keeping the cumulative miles traveled to below 2,400 miles each day. The daily haul truck trips shall not exceed 2,400 miles during demolition and excavation activities. • 75. Prior to the issuance of the -grading permit, the applicant shall provide written evidence to the Planning Director that a qualified archaeologist has been retained to observe grading activities and conduct salvage excavation of archaeological resources as necessary. The archaeologist shall be present at the pre - grading conference, shall establish procedures for archaeological resources surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the applicant, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification and evaluation of the artifacts as appropriate. If additional or unexpected archaeological features are discovered, the archaeologist shall report such findings to the applicant and to the Planning Department. If the archaeological resources are found to be significant, the archaeological observer shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the applicant, for exploration and /or salvage. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Director. 76. Prior to the issuance of the grading permit, the applicant shall provide written evidence to the planning director that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to observe grading activities and conduct salvage fossils as necessary. The paleontologist shall be present at the pre - grading conference, shall establish procedures for paleontological resource surveillance, and shall establish cooperation with the applicant, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification and evaluation of fossils. If major paleontological resources are discovered which require long term baiting or redirecting of grading, the paleontologist shall report such findings to the applicant and to the Planning Department. The paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the applicant, a(0 Page 19 of 21 411 which ensure proper exploration and /or salvage. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Director. 77. During construction of the proposed improvements, in accordance with Public Resources Code 5097.94, if human remains are found, the Orange County coroner must be notified within 24 hours of the discovery. If the coroner determines that the remains are not recent, the coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commissions in Sacramento to determine the most likely descendent for the area. The designated Native American representative then determines, in consultation with the property owner, the disposition of the human remains. 78. In areas where compacted fill will be required to establish design grades, and in design cut areas where the depth of the proposed cut does not exceed the thickness of the existing unsuitable surficial soils, on -site surficial soils shall be excavated and recompacted to create stable soil conditions and correct poor slope performance. 79. During grading activities, where cut -to -fill transitions exist following remedial grading, they shall be eliminated by over - excavating the 'but' portions of the building pads and replacing the excavated material as properly compacted fill. See Mitigation Measure 3.6. B of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for further detail and requirement. • 80. During remedial grading and construction of the proposed subterranean parking areas and associated improvements, temporary excavations with sidewalls varying up to approximately 13 feet in height may be necessary. Temporary excavation sidewalls will require sloping back at a ratio of approximately 12:1, horizontal to vertical. Flatter inclinations may be required locally should excessive caving be observed during grading. See Mitigation Measure 3.6.0 of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for further detail and requirement. 81. Construction activities shall be confined to the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and on Saturdays between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. 82. Equipment mufflers for construction equipment shall be used at all times. 83. Idling of construction vehicles and equipment shall be limited to the extent feasible. Construction vehicles and equipment shall be properly operated and maintained and shall be turned off when not in use for more than five (5) minutes. 84. Prior to issuance of the building permit, school impacts fees will be paid to the Building Department to assist in funding school facility expansion and educational services to area residents. 85. Sight distance at the proposed Project accesses shall be reviewed with respect to City of Newport Beach standards in conjunction with the preparation of final grading, landscape, and street improvement plans. 0 Page 20 of 21 86. On -site traffic signing and striping should be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the proposed Project. 87. Periodically review of traffic operations in the vicinity of the proposed shall be made by the Public Works Department to assure that the traffic operations are satisfactory once the proposed project is constructed. 88. The parking design shall meet all City requirements regarding parking stall width, parking stall depth, parking aisle grade, and parking aisle- turning radii. 89. Each parking level shall have large numbers on the pillars or walls designating on which floor level the user has parked. Letters can also be added to designate what area within a parking level the person has parked. 90. New landscaping shall incorporate drought - tolerant plant materials and drip irrigation systems, wherever possible. 91. Water leaving the project site due to over - irrigation of landscape, shall be minimized. If an incident such as this is reported, a representative from the Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division of the City Manager's Office shall visit the location, investigate, inform resident if possible, leave a note and in some cases shut -off the water. 92. Watering should be done during the early morning or evening hours to minimize • evaporation (between 4:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m., the following morning). 93. All leaks shall be investigated by a representative from the Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division of the City Manager's Office and the applicant shall complete all required repairs. 94. Water should not be used to clean paved surfaces, such as sidewalks, driveways, parking areas, etc., except to alleviate immediate safety or sanitation hazards. 95. Reclaimed water shall be used wherever available, assuming it is economically feasible. 96. Installation of Ultra -Low Flush Toilets (ULFT) in the residential units. 97. Prior to the issuance of the building Permit, the applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect. These plans shall incorporate drought tolerant plantings and water efficient irrigation practices, and the plans shall be approved by the Planning Department, General Services Department and Public Works Department. All planting areas shall be provided with a permanent underground automatic sprinkler irrigation system of a design suitable for the type and arrangement of the plant materials selected. The irrigation system shall be adjustable based upon either a signal from a satellite or an on -site moisture - sensor. Planting areas adjacent to vehicular activity shall be protected by a continuous concrete curb or similar permanent barrier. Landscaping shall be located so as not to impede vehicular sight distance to the satisfaction of the Traffic Engineer. is Page 21 of 21 98. All landscape materials and landscaped areas shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the approved landscape plan. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing and trimming. All landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds and debris. All irrigation systems shall be kept operable, including adjustments, replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of regular maintenance. 99. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupant, the applicant shall schedule an inspection by the Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division to confirm that all landscaping materials and irrigation systems have been installed in accordance with the approved plans. 100. The applicant shall be responsible for the payment of all administrative costs identified by the Planning Department within 30 days of receiving a final notification of costs or prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. • • 9� • LJ 0 3o 0 ATTACHMENT "B" DRAFT CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE r� �-A 3� 0 0 r'1 �a • ORDINANCE NO. 2005- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NO. 2005 -003 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 900 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE (PA2004 -169) WHEREAS, an application was filed by Lennar Homes with respect to property located at 900 Newport Center Drive, and legally described as Parcel 1, as per map filed in Book 75 pages 33 and 34 of parcel maps, in the office of the County Recorder to rezone the subject property from APF to the PC District; adopt a Planned Community Development Plan to establish use and development regulations; and consider a waiver of the 10 -acre minimum land area requirement for Planned Community District adoption. The applicant also requests approval of a General Plan Amendment and an Amendment of the 1990 Local Coastal Plan Land Use Plan (LCPLUP) to change the land use designations of the 4.25 -acre site from Administrative, Professional & Financial Commercial to Multiple - Family Residential; an Amendment of the 2004 LCPLUP to change the land use designation from Visitor - Serving Commercial (CV -B) to Medium Density Residential C (RM -C); a parcel map to subdivide the subject property from the hotel development for financing and development purposes; a Tract Map for the condominium ownership; a Traffic Study pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) and a Coastal Residential Development Permit regarding the provision of affordable . housing in accordance with the Municipal Code and the General Plan Housing Element The requests are necessary for the applicant to construct 79 residential condominiums on a 4.25 -acre site presently developed with tennis courts operated by the adjacent Newport Beach Marriott Hotel. WHEREAS, on November 3, 2005, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at this meeting. With a vote of 6 ayes (one recused), the Planning Commission recommended approval of the above - mentioned applications to the City Council. WHEREAS, the property is located in the Block 900 — Hotel Plaza of the Newport Center (Statistical Area L1) of the Land Use Element and has a land use designation of Administrative, Professional & Financial Commercial (APF) and zoned APF (Administrative, Professional, Financial). WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 20.94 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the City Council held a noticed public hearing on November 22, 2005 to consider the proposed recommendations of the Planning Commission. WHEREAS, The City's General Plan indicates that the City shall maintain • suitable and adequate standards for landscaping, sign control, site and building design, parking and undergrounding of utilities and other development standards to ensure that Page 2 of 3 the beauty and charm of existing residential neighborhoods are maintained, and that . commercial and office projects are aesthetically pleasing and compatible with surrounding land uses. The proposed PC Text contains one classification of land use and provides the development standards for the entire subject property. The draft PC Text contains development regulations for the subject site that include definitions and information concerning requirements for development site coverage, building height, setbacks, off - street parking, vehicular access, signing, lighting, storage, and screening and landscaping to ensure that the project would be compatible with the surrounding land uses consistent with the objectives of the Land Use Element. WHEREAS, the proposed PC District does meet the intent and purposes for a PC adoption as specified in Section 20.35.010 for a PC District adoption when considering it in a larger context beyond the site's boundaries given its location in the Newport Center area which includes a mixture of shopping, hotels, commercial support uses, professional offices, and residential developments that cohesively contain the ingredients of a planned community. The proposed PC District adds to this diversity assisting the City in larger scale community planning. WHEREAS, the adoption of PC District would allow the site to be developed with flexibility in establishing development standards such as minimum front, rear, and side yard dimensions and density to ensure that the project would be compatible with the surrounding land uses. WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) have • been prepared in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3. The Draft MND was circulated for public comment between July 15 and August 15, 2005. Comments were received from the California Coastal Commission, Airport Land Use Commission and Mr. Terek Saleh of Costa Mesa. The contents of the environmental document, including comments on the document, have been considered in the various decisions on this project. Since then, it was determined that the most appropriate zoning designation for the property would be PC (Planned Community). This new zoning designation does not affect the size, scope or design of the project that would potentially create additional physical environmental impacts. As a result, it has been determined that the MND adequately describes the potential impacts of the project and does not require additional recirculation and review of the MND. An addendum has been prepared to address the change in the zoning designation and made it a part of the MND. WHEREAS, on the basis of the entire environmental review record, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact upon the environment and there are no known substantial adverse affects on human beings that would be caused. Additionally, there are no long -term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project nor cumulative impacts are anticipated in connection with the project. The mitigation measures identified are feasible and reduce potential environmental impacts to a less than significant level. The mitigation measures are applied to the project and are . incorporated as conditions of approval. 31 Page 3 of 3 • THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The Santa Barbara Residential Planned Community District Regulations (PC -52) shall be adopted as provided in Exhibit "A" and revision to Zoning Map depicted in Exhibit "B ". SECTION 2: The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. This Ordinance shall be published once in the official newspaper of the City, and the same shall become effective thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption. This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held on , and adopted on the day of 2005, by the following vote, to wit: • ATTEST: CITY CLERK • AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS MAYOR 35 0 n �.I 0 F1 o 0 Exhibit "A" Santa Barbara Residential Planned Community District Regulations 0 Newport Beach, California November 2005 E 3kl TABLE OF CONTENTS . SANTA BARBARA RESIDENTIAL PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS Page Introduction.............................................................................. ..............................3 ProjectDescription ................................................................... ..............................3 Section I Uses and Development Standards ............. ..............................7 Section 11 General Notes ........................................... ............................... 11 List of Figures Figure I General Site Location ................................. ..............................5 Figure II Land Use Plan ............................................ ..............................6 FigureIII Site Plan ...................................................... .............................12 • 3S • Iry i rcvuu%, i wry The subject of this document is a 4.25 -acre parcel on Santa Barbara Drive that has been designated as "Santa Barbara Residential Planned Community District' on the Districting Map for the City of Newport Beach. The designation was adopted to allow the development of 79 condominium units. The Santa Barbara Residential Planned Community District designation and "Santa Barbara Residential Planned Community District Development Regulations" have been adopted consistent with Chapter 20.35, "Planned Community District ", of the Newport Beach Zoning Code. The project site is designated Multi- Family Residential in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. This designation permits both single - family and multiple - family dwellings. The 4.25 -acre parcel will be developed consistent with the General Plan and with regulations set forth herein and with all applicable ordinances, standards, and policies of the City of Newport Beach. The subject property is located within the Coastal Zone and development pursuant to this PC Text will require a Coastal Development Permit from the California Coastal Commission. The general site location and land use plan for the subject property are set forth in Figure I. • PROJECT DESCRIPTION The 4.25 -acre site is currently being used as a tennis club operated by the Newport Beach Marriott Hotel. There are eight outdoor tennis courts, a clubhouse and ancillary uses on the property which are surrounded by landscaping on all sides. The subject property has a relatively flat terrain, and slopes down to the west. Vehicle and pedestrian access to the site is provided by a driveway on Santa Barbara at the southeasterly corner of the site. The site is bordered to the east by Santa Barbara Drive, to the north and west by the Newport Beach Country Golf Course and to the south by the Newport Beach Marriott Hotel. Across Santa Barbara Drive and Newport Center Drive to the east are the Pacific Financial Plaza and the Colony Condominiums. The project consists of three separate buildings housing a total of 79 residential condominium units with eight different floor plan options, ranging from 2,363 to 4,018 square feet in size. All existing improvements will be demolished and removed for the development of the proposed project. The architecture of the project would be of old world Mediterranean hillside homes with bold colors, rich detailings and generous use of decks and Juliet balconies. Large expanses of glass, decks and balconies will be used to take advantage of ocean views. Access to the new residential development will be via two driveways from Santa Barbara Drive. The main entrance is designed to provide access for the residents and guests of the IVtwo most southerly buildings and the parking garages. The second driveway is designed 3 3011 for the residents and guests with access to the most northerly building and the • underground parking garage. The project is designed with two subterranean parking levels, with 201 parking spaces for residents and guests. The proposed project would provide approximately 79,140 square feet of open space throughout the development and approximately 21,300 square feet of recreation area consists of passive uses such as meandering walkways, water fountains, and seating areas with barbeques. The adoption of PC zoning district would allows the site to be developed with flexibility in establishing development standards such as minimum front, rear, and side yard dimensions and density, as set forth in the PC Development Plan. L. J • 4 �0 • 0 Figure I — General Site Location Casts l J* Wo t Newport . ♦ 611y Man L Lido Isle Newport Pwr.A 0 i ..Alrport Aroa ■ Fastbluff . Mariners • 1 i Harbor Vlow Fashlon Island • 'ice. Site Location Irvine Balboa bland ♦ . 0 py ass ,• Balboa Pier Corona Doi Mar Newport Coast The Wodpsa 5 NOT TO SCALE Crystal Cove { qk Figure II — Land Use Plan • i, } s ,BW Canyon Park f %!' n l`'r .` Police Hoadquanom - r•�, rFiro Station 'SarJ:�[eiuente Dr. _.._1l `. ` :San Joaquin }sills Rd. Jamboree Rd. San aibara Dr. i S - __- Mat Arthur Blvd. ' Newport Center Dr. ElResidential NO TO SCALE E 6 oZ • • SECTION I USES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 1. Area of Development Total Area: 2. Permitted Uses 4.25 Acres A. Condominiums B. Recreation Facilities Ancillary to Residential Uses C. Parking lots, structures and facilities 3. Densi Total allowed density: Building I: 27 units Building II: 31 units Building III: 21 4. Floor Area Ratio Floor Area Ratio 79 units (18.59 units /gross acre) 1.9 S. Maximum Buildable Area Maximum number of dwelling units for the residential development shall not exceed 79 dwelling units (1.9 FAR). 6. Building Height The maximum permissible height of the development shall be sixty -five (65) feet at the mid -point of the roof measured in accordance with Chapter 20.65, "Height Limits ", of the City of Newport Beach Zoning Code. 7. Building Setbacks A. Front Setback B. Side Setback C. Rear Setback D. Parking Structure VA 15' minimum 7' minimum 13' 3' minimum for each one (1) foot or fraction thereof that the parking structure 45 extends above adjoining • grade. 8. Sians A sign program for the Santa Barbara Residential Planned Community, approved by The Irvine Company shall be submitted for review and approved by the City of Newport Beach Planning Director or their designee. 9. Parkin A total 201 parking spaces shall be provided for the development. A minimum of 2 parking spaces shall be provided per unit. In addition, guest parking shall be provided at a minimum rate of 0.5 spaces per unit. Guest parking will be provided in the parking structure, in a manner acceptable to the City Public Works Department. Building I: 70 spaces (55 resident + 15 guest) Building II: 78 spaces (62 resident + 16 guest) Building III: 53 spaces (42 resident + 11 guest) Required off- street parking shall be provided on the site of use served, or • on a common parking area in accordance with applicable off - street parking requirements of the City of Newport Beach Zoning Ordinance. 10. Vehicular Access The development will take vehicular access from two driveway curb cuts. A main entrance will be provided for residents and guests to access the two most southerly buildings and garage and a secondary driveway will provide residents and guests access to the most northerly building and parking garage. 11. Landscaping & Irrigation Plants shall be adapted to the coastal climate of Newport Beach and appropriate to the specific soil, topographic, and sun /shade conditions of the project site. Drought - tolerant plants shall be used to the maximum extent practicable. Plant species having comparable water requirements shall be grouped together for efficient use of irrigation water. All plant materials shall conform to or exceed the plant quality standards of the latest edition of American Standard for Nursery Stock published by the American Association of Nurserymen, or the equivalent. Plants shall conform to the Newport Center Master Plan where applicable. Plant • 8 �� selection shall be harmonious to the character of the project and surrounding projects. Minimum Landscape Requirements • Landscaping shall incorporate current street tree species along Santa Barbara Drive. • Landscape shall incorporate the current species of plants within R.O.W. on Santa Barbara Drive. • At least ten (10) percent of the project site area shall be landscaped. • Planting areas adjacent to vehicular activity shall be protected by a continuous concrete curb or similar permanent barrier. • Landscaping shall be located so as not to impede vehicular sight distance to the satisfaction of the City Traffic Engineer. • All landscape materials and irrigation systems shall be maintained in accordance with the approved landscape and irrigation plans. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing and trimming. All landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds and debris. All irrigation systems shall be kept operable, including adjustments, replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of regular maintenance. The property owner shall execute and record a restrictive covenant and agreement which grants assurance to the City that the landscaping and irrigation system is properly maintained in accordance • with the approved plans. • Landscape planting and irrigation plans and specifications shall be submitted by the applicant for review and approval by the Building Department or Planning Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. Irrigation Guidelines An irrigation system shall be installed and shall incorporate appropriate locations, numbers, and types of sprinkler heads and emitters to provide appropriate amounts of water to all plant materials. Application rates and spray patterns shall be consistent with the varying watering requirements of different plant groupings. Irrigation systems and controls shall include technology that minimizes over watering by either: (a) directly measuring soil moisture levels, plant types, and soil types and adjusting irrigation accordingly; or, (b) receiving weather information on a least a daily basis via satellite or similar transmission and adjusting irrigation accordingly. The irrigation system shall be designed so as to prevent over - watering and minimize overspray and runoff onto streets, sidewalks, driveways, buildings, fences, and windows consistent with water conservation and pollution run -off control • objectives. 9 u5 12. Refuse Collection Area • A. All refuse collection areas shall be visually screened from access streets and adjacent property. Said screening shall form a complete opaque screen. B. No refuse collection area shall be permitted between a frontage street and the building line. 13. Telephone, Gas and Electrical Service All "on site" gas lines, electrical lines and telephone lines shall be placed underground. Transformer or terminal equipment shall be visually screened from view from streets and adjacent properties. 14. Grading Grading of the development area shall be conducted and undertaken in a manner both consistent with applicable grading manual, standards and ordinances of the City of Newport Beach and in accordance with a grading plan approved by the City of Newport Beach Building Department. 15. Lighting • Lighting of building interior common areas, exteriors and parking areas shall be developed in accordance with City Standards and shall be designed and maintained in a manner which minimized impacts on adjacent land uses including The Colony. Nighttime lighting shall be limited to that necessary for security. The plans for lighting shall be prepared and signed by a licensed electrical engineer and shall be subject to review and approval of the City Planning Director or their designee. 16. Screening All mechanical appurtenances on building roof tops and utility vaults shall be screened in a manner meeting the approval of the Director of Planning or their designee. 10 uip • SECTION II GENERAL NOTES 1. Water service to the Planned Community District will be provided by the City of Newport Beach. 2. Sewage disposal service facilities to the Planned Community District will be provided by Orange County Sanitation District No. 5. 3. Development of the subject property will be undertaken in accordance with the flood protection policies and requirements of the City of Newport Beach. 4. Grading and erosion control provisions shall be carried out on all areas of the Planned Community in a manner meeting the approval of the Director of Community Development. 5. Except as otherwise stated in this Ordinance, the requirements of the Newport Beach Zoning Ordinance shall apply. • 6. The contents of this text notwithstanding, all construction within the boundaries of this Planned Community District shall comply with all provisions of the City of Newport Beach's Uniform Building Code and the various mechanical codes related thereto. • 7. All mechanical appurtenances on building roof tops and utility vaults shall be screened from view in a manner meeting the approval of the Director of Community Development. 8. Prior to the issuance of grading permits the area shall be examined to determine the existence and extent of archaeological and paleontological resources in accordance with the adopted policies of the City of Newport Beach. 11 "k1 Figure III — Site Plan 12 0 C� • qK Exhibit "B" PROPOSED CHANGE TO THE ZONING MAP FROM APF TO PC Subject Site APF to PC-52 Santa Barbara Condominiums ;--PC- 01 A PC-21 PC,-35 PC-47 • Zoning 7DDistricts K-n PC47 C,.b Fnanaial C-W I unT.IAP, Ra ld.Ml CIO, • 4� 0 0 • hP • ATTACHMENT "C" DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1681 (Without Exhibits) n U 5� • 0 0 h� • RESOLUTION NO. 1681 DRAFT A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (SCH NO. 2005- 071067) AND .APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2004- 005, LCP LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2005 -001, PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 2005 -003, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2005 -014, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP No. 2004 -004 (TRACT 16774), TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 2005 -002 AND COASTAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 2005 -004 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 900 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE (PA 2004- 169). WHEREAS, an application was filed by Lennar Homes with respect to property located at 900 Newport Center Drive, and legally described as Parcel 1, as per map filed in Book 75 pages 33 and 34 of parcel maps, in the office of the County Recorder to construct 79 residential condominiums on a 4.25 -acre site presently developed with tennis courts operated by the adjacent Newport Beach Marriott Hotel. The application requests approval of. a General Plan Amendment and an Amendment of the 1990 Local Coastal Plan Land Use Plan (LCPLUP) to change the land use designations of the 4.25 -acre site from Administrative, Professional & Financial Commercial to Multiple - Family Residential; • an Amendment of the 2004 LCPLUP to change the land use designation from Visitor - Serving Commercial (CV -B) to Medium Density Residential C (RM -C), a Zone Change to rezone the subject property from APF to the PC District; adopt a Planned Community Development Plan to establish use and development regulations; consider a waiver of the 10 -acre minimum land area requirement for Planned Community District adoption; a parcel map to subdivide the subject property from the hotel development for financing and development purposes; a Tract Map for the condominium ownership (79 residential units); a Traffic Study pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) and a Coastal Residential Development Permit regarding the provision of affordable housing in accordance with the Municipal Code and the General Plan Housing Element. WHEREAS, on November 3, 2005, the Planning Commission held a noticed public hearing in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California at which time the project applications, the Mitigated Negative Declaration and comments received thereon were considered. Notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with law and testimony was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the hearing. WHEREAS, the property is located in the Block 900 — Hotel Plaza of the Newport Center (Statistical Area L1) of the Land Use Element and has a land use designation of Administrative, Professional & Financial Commercial (APF) and zoned APF (Administrative, Professional, Financial). • WHEREAS, a General Plan Amendment and an Amendment of the 1990 Local Coastal Plan Land Use Plan (LCPLUP) to change the land use designations of the site 53 DRAFT from Administrative, Professional & Financial Commercial to Multiple- Family Residential is • necessary as the proposed residential use is not permitted in the APF designation. A change in land use would result in a 4.25 -acre reduction in land available to be potentially used for office uses consistent with the APF designation. However, within the Newport Center, there is approximately 200 acres designated APF and the two percent (2 %) reduction proposed by the project is not a significant reduction. WHEREAS, the residential condominium project is consistent with the proposed Multi - Family Residential land use designation. The proposed residential condominium project would be compatible with the residential developments to the south and northeast of the site. The proposed project is viewed as incompatible with the office uses across Santa Barbara Street and is also compatible with the adjacent hotel and golf course WHEREAS, the 2004 LCP Land Use Plan designates the site for Visitor Serving Commercial uses. This designation was applied due to the existing use of the Marriott Hotel complex. A change in land use designation from CV -B (Visistor- Serving Commercial) to RM -C (Medium Density Residential C) is necessary to implemented for the proposed residential development. The change in land use designation will reduce the land available for visistor - serving commercial uses by 4.25 acres. Although this reduction in area would occur, the opportunity to construct the remaining hotel room entitlement of 79 rooms would not be lost and they could be constructed nearby within the portion of Newport Center within the Coastal Zone. WHEREAS, Section 30250(a) of the California Coastal Act (CCA) provides criteria for the location of new development. The Coastal Act provides for the protection of coastal resources by requiring that new development be located in close proximity to existing development with available public services to minimize the impacts associated with the extension of infrastructure and services. The project is located within Newport Center, which is a development area with all public services (utilities, roads, police, fire etc.) presently provided. WHEREAS, Section 30252(4) requires new development within the Coastal Zone one to provide adequate parking facilities or providing substitute means of serving the development with public transportation. The proposed development provides an adequate number of on -site parking spaces. The project also will be conditioned so that the parking structures will have adequate dimensions, clearances, and access to insure their proper use. WHEREAS, Section 30212, requires public access must be provided from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline and along the coast in new development. The subject property is not adjacent to the ocean or bay; therefore, coastal access easements are not required. WHEREAS, Section 30222 requires the use of private land suitable for visitor - serving commercial recreational facilities for coastal recreation must have priority over • private residential, general industry, or general commercial development. Although, the 5a WRAFT change in land use designation will reduce the land available for visistor serving commercial uses by 4.25 acres; the opportunity to construct the remaining hotel room entitlement of 79 rooms would not be lost and they could be constructed nearby within the portion of Newport Center that is located within the Coastal Zone. WHEREAS, the City's General Plan indicates that the City shall maintain suitable and adequate standards for landscaping, sign control, site and building design, parking and undergrounding of utilities and other development standards to ensure that the beauty and charm of existing residential neighborhoods are maintained, that commercial and office projects are aesthetically pleasing and compatible with surrounding land uses. The proposed PC Text contains one classification of land use and provides the development standards for the entire subject property. The draft PC Text contains development regulations for the subject site which includes definitions and information concerning requirements for development site coverage, building height, setbacks, off - street parking, vehicular access, signing, lighting, storage, and screening and landscaping to ensure that the project would be compatible with the surrounding land uses consistent with the objectives of the Land Use Element. WHEREAS, to be consistent with the Housing Programs 2.2.1 and 2.2.3 of the City's Housing Element, the project is required to provide a minimum of 20% of the total units (16 units) for affordable income households for a minimum of 30 years. The applicant is requesting that the affordable housing provision to be off -site, at an approved location within the City, as affordable housing is not feasible at the subject site. According to the applicant, the project's Home Owner's Association fees are expected to be a minimum of $1,500 per month, which is a substantial multiple of the statutory mortgage payment limits for affordable housing when combined with acquisition costs and taxes. With this provision, the applicant will be required to enter into an agreement with the City to provide said units off -site within the City's limits. The agreement will be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and will be executed prior to the recordation of tract map or the issuance of a building or grading permit for the proposed project. WHEREAS, approval of the project is implementing Housing Program 3.2.4 that allows the City to consider and approve rezoning of property from non - residential to residential uses when appropriate to extend housing opportunities to as many renter and owner occupied households as possible in response to the demand for housing in the City. WHEREAS, Charter Section 423 requires all proposed General Plan Amendments to be reviewed to determine if the square footage, peak hour vehicle trip or dwelling units thresholds have been exceeded and a vote by the public is required. This project has been reviewed in accordance with Council Policy A -18 and a voter approval is not required as the project represents an increase of 39 — A.M. and 35 — P.M. peak hour trips for a new 79 dwelling unit development. These increases, when • added with 80% of the increases attributable to two previously approved amendments, result in a total of 47 — A.M. peak hour trips and 43.8 — P.M. peak hour trips, 3,640 55 DRAFT square feet of non - residential floor area and 79 dwelling units do not cumulatively • exceed Charter Section 423 thresholds for a vote. WHEREAS, the project is located within Newport Center where public services and infrastructure are available to serve the proposed development. Additionally, all applicable improvements required by Section 19.28 (Subdivision Improvements) of the Subdivision Code are to be satisfied by the applicant. WHEREAS, the parking requirement for a multiple - family residential zoned project is two spaces per unit, including one covered, plus 0.5 spaces for guest parking for developments of four or more units. A total of 158 spaces are required for the residences and a minimum of 40 spaces are required for guest parking. A total of 201 spaces are proposed to serve the project, and therefore, the project meets the parking requirements of the Municipal Code. In addition to the provision of adequate on -site parking, the project is conditioned that the parking designs to meet all City requirements regarding parking stall width, depth, grade, and aisle- turning radii. WHEREAS, the proposed PC District does meet the intent and purposes for a PC adoption as specified in Section 20.35.010 for a PC District adoption when considering it in a larger context beyond the site's boundaries given its location in the Newport Center area which includes a mixture of shopping, hotels, commercial support uses, professional offices, and residential developments that cohesively contain the ingredients of a planned community. The proposed PC District adds to this diversity assisting the City in larger scale community planning. WHEREAS, the adoption of PC District would allow the site to be developed with flexibility in establishing development standards such as minimum front, rear, and side yard dimensions and density to ensure that the project would be compatible with the surrounding land uses. WHEREAS, Pursuant to Section 19.12.070 of the City Subdivision Code, the following standard findings must be made to approve the tentative parcel map and tract map. 1. The proposed tentative maps are consistent with the Newport Beach Subdivision Code (Title 19) and applicable requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. Conditions of approval have been included to ensure compliance with Title 19 and the Subdivision Map Act. 2. Lot 1 of the parcel map is being proposed for the residential development and is of sufficient size for the intensity of development and the site is physically suitable for the project. The project provides an adequate number of parking spaces as required by the Zoning Code. Access to the site can be provided through the proposed driveways along Santa Barbara Drive. Additionally, no earthquake faults were found on -site. There is no known incidence of landslide, • lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse on -site or near the site; 5`° DRAFT . however, existing soils will be required to be excavated and re- compacted to create stable soil conditions to support the proposed development. The implementation of mitigation measures identified in the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration would reduce any potential impacts. The site is, therefore, physically suitable for development. Lot 2 of parcel map is proposed to retain a General Plan land use designation of Administrative, Professional & Financial Commercial. Lot 2 is not proposed for new development and this parcel will continue to be used as a hotel and it is of sufficient size to support its existing use. 3. Under the proposed parcel map, Lot 2 does not include any improvements and the development of Lot 1 as a residential use is not expected to cause serious public health problems given the use of typical construction materials and practices. No evidence is known to exist that would indicate that the proposed subdivisions will generate any serious public health problems. All mitigation measures will be implemented as outlined in the Mitigated Negative Declaration to ensure the protection of the public health. 4. No public easements for access through or use of the property have been retained for the use by the public at large. Public utility easements for utility connections that serve the project site are present and will be modified, if necessary, to serve the proposed project. 5. Title 24 of the Uniform Building Code requires new construction to meet minimum heating and cooling efficiency standards depending on location and climate. The Newport Beach Building Department enforces Title 24 compliance through the plan check and field inspection processes. 6. The proposed subdivision facilitates the creation of 79 new residential units. The provision of 16 affordable units will assist the City in meeting its housing needs as identified in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment. Public services are available to serve the proposed development of the site and the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project indicates that the project's potential environmental impacts are expected to be less than significant. 7. Waste discharge into the existing sewer system will be consistent with residential use of the property which does not violate Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) requirements. 8. The proposed subdivision is entirely within the coastal zone and the site subject to the tentative maps is not presently developed with coastal - related uses, coastal- dependent uses or water- oriented recreational uses. The project is consistent with the City's 1990 Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan and the • recently modified and approved LCPLUP that will replace the 1990 certified LUP. The subject site to be subdivided does not abut the ocean or bay, and does not 5'A DRAFT provide public access to coastal resources; therefore, no impacts to coastal • access are anticipated. Recreation policies of the Coastal Act require that site resources for water - oriented recreational activities that cannot be supplied inland must be protected. These policies prioritize water - oriented recreational activities over other land uses and encourage aquaculture and water - oriented recreational support facilities. The project site proposed to be subdivided is not suitable for water - oriented recreational activities due to its size and location approximately 1.5 miles from the shoreline. WHEREAS, the entire project is located within the Coastal Zone and requests the construction of 79 units. Pursuant to Chapter 20.86 of the Zoning Code, when a project proposes to create 10 or more units within the coastal zone, affordable housing must be included within the project unless it can be determined infeasible. The Housing Element of the General Plan determines the number and type of affordable housing that is required. In accordance with the Housing Element, 16 affordable housing units would be required to be provided. WHEREAS, a traffic study has been prepared by Kunzman Associates under the supervision of the City Traffic Engineer pursuant to the TPO and its implementing guidelines (Appendix D of the Mitigated Negative Declaration), CEQA analysis for cumulative projects and intersection capacity utilization (ICU), and General Plan analysis. The project will result in a net increase of 330 new average daily trips, 42 vehicle trips during morning (AM) peak hour and 39 vehicle trips during the afternoon • (PM) peak hour. The study concluded that the proposed project will not cause a significant impact at the study area intersections; therefore, no improvements are required at these intersections. WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) have been prepared in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3. The Draft MND was circulated for public comment between July 15 to August 15, 2005. Comments were received from the California Coastal Commission, Airport Land Use Commission and Mr. Terek Saleh of Costa Mesa. The contents of the environmental document, including comments on the document, have been considered in the various decisions on this project. Since then, it was determined that the most appropriate zoning designation for the property would be PC (Planned Community). This new zoning designation does not affect the size, scope or design of the project that would potentially create additional physical environmental impacts. As result, it has been determined that the MND adequately describes the potential impacts of the project and does not require additional recirculation and review of the MND. An addendum has been prepared to address the change in the zoning designation and made it a part of the MND. WHEREAS, on the basis of the entire environmental review record, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact upon the environment and there are no known substantial adverse affects on human beings that would be caused. Additionally, • there are no long -term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project nor cumulative impacts are anticipated in connection with the project. The mitigation 5� DRAFT • measures identified are feasible and reduce potential environmental impacts to a less than significant level. The mitigation measures are applied to the project and are incorporated as conditions of approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: Section 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby find, on the basis of the whole record, that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the Planning Commission's independent judgment and analysis. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration SCH No. 2005 - 071067 included therewith. The document and all material which constitute the record upon which this decision was based are on file with the Planning Department, City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. Section 2. Based on the aforementioned findings, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment No. 2004- 005 per revised Newport Center (Statistical Area L -1) depicted in Exhibit "A" and Land Use map depicted in Exhibit "B ", LCP Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2005 -001 depicted in Exhibit "C ", Planned Community Development Plan No. 2005 -003 for text adoption depicted in Exhibit "D" and revision to Zoning Map depicted in "E ", Tentative • Parcel Map No. 2005 -014, Newport Tract Map No. 2004 -004 (TTM16774), Traffic Study No. 2005 -002 and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2005 -004 all subject to Conditions of Approval in Exhibit "F" attached hereto and made part hereof. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 3rd DAY OF NOVEMBER 2005. AYES: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toer e, McDaniel and Henn NOES: ABSENT: MM Michael Toerge, Chairman L- "V 0 Barry Eaton, Secretary 5 9 • C1 .�o 11 ATTACHMENT "D" NOVEMBER 3RD, 2005 DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Ll r-� u �u� i i r� \D ?- Planning Commission Minutes 11 /03/2005 Page 29 of 35 Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to continue this item to December 8, 2005 yes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker and McDaniel Noes: Henn bsent: None bstain: None Lennar Homes (PA2004 -169) ITEM NO. 5 900 Newport Center Drive I PA2004 -169 nnar Homes proposes to construct 79 residential condominiums on a 4.25 acre site Recommended �sently developed with tennis courts operated by the adjacent Newport Beach Marriott Hotel. for approval e applicant proposes to construct three buildings that are approximately 65 feet in height. e requested applications would change the General Plan and Local Coastal Land Use Plan id use designations from commercial to Multiple Family Residential. The existing APF zoning also proposed to be changed to PC (Planned Community) and a Planned Community velopment Plan text that would establish use and development regulations is proposed. plementation of the project also requires a Traffic Study pursuant to the Traffic Phasing dinance, Tentative Parcel and Tract Maps for subdivision purposes, and a Coastal isidential Development Permit regarding the provision of affordable housing in accordan h the Zoning Code and Housing Element of the General Plan. mmissioner Tucker recused himself from deliberation on this item. Rosalinh Ung gave an overview of the staff report, noting: pment consists of 79 condominium units with 8 different floor plan options round parking structures. . General Plan Amendment/LCP Land Use Plan - the change from APF to N Family Residential is necessary because the proposed residential uses are permitted in the APF designation. . The MFR land use designation is appropriate for the project and will compatible with the surrounding uses. . The Planned Community Development Plan Text Adoption is a request to rezoi the subject property from APF to the PC District and inclusive of the waiver of 1 acre minimum land area requirement for Planned Community District as tl subject property is approximately 4.25 acres in size. . Tentative Parcel Map is requested to sub - divide the property from the Marric Hotel complex. The subsequent Tract Map is proposed for the condominiu ownership. . The Traffic Study has been prepared pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinan and concluded that project related traffic does not cause an unacceptable level service at the studied intersections. . The Coastal Residential Development Permit is required as the project includes requirement for 16 units of affordable housing in accordance with the Municip Code. The applicant proposes to locate these units off -site within the City limits. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared to evaluate the project with file:l/F: \USERS \PLN \Shared \Gvarin \l l 0305.htm 1111012005 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 traditional zoning of multiple family residential followed by a thirty day period from July 15th to August 15th of this year. . Since then it has been determined the most appropriate zoning designation for property would be Planned Community. An addendum has been prepared address the change of the zoning designation and is attached to the document consideration. . Staff believes the findings for this project can be made and that it provii additional residential opportunities comparable with the surrounding area Newport Center. iairperson Toerge asked if the new condominiums would absorb any of the used hotel room allocation. He was answered no. Dustin Fuller of David Evans and Associates, responsible for the environ iments, noted: . The project will be exporting about 40,000 cubic yards of material, which equ, to approximately 80 truck trips per day over a 36 day period, which broken d( equals 11 -12 truck trips per hour. The total ADT added to the project will minimum and will not affect traffic impacts. . The air quality analysis includes mitigation measures that would also covering the free board on the export material and require cleaning of the as the trucks exit. . We will be adding language in assuming a 30 mile round trip for the fill site as tt maximum. The applicant will be looking for something closer. Based on a 30 mi round trip with 80 truck trips we would put a number on the trips. 'Durir demolition and excavation daily total haul trucks shall travel no more than cumulative 2400 miles per day hauling materials from the site to and fro . the dumping site.' Another mitigation measure to be added addresses a ha truck route. 'Prior to commencement of demolition and grading of the projec the applicant shall submit to the City calculations showing the propose travel route for all trucks, the distance traveled and how many daily truc trips that can be accommodated while keeping the cumulative mile traveled to below 2400 miles each day. The daily haul truck trips shall n exceed 2400 miles during demolition and excavation activities. Harp asked that 'review and approval by the City to be included in both rperson Toerge, referring to page 4 of the Errata, questioned the accuracy of ing coverage of 100% less setback represented in the chart. Temple explained that appears to be allowing coverage to the buildable area of hairperson Toerge asked if the construction worker parking was addressed in IR? He was answered, no. Page 30 of 35 Fuller noted that generally during construction, the workers park on the site.I �Oa file: //F:\ USERS \PLMShared \Gvarin \110305.htm 11/10/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 , there is no formal analysis. s. Temple stated this is not a matter of environmental review, rather it is a matter e Building Department and the Public Works Department as the grading plan )proved and the project building permits are approved. If there is a thought thi ight be a parking problem, we would ask the contractor to identify how that would anaged so there would not be on- street impacts. ling, Chairperson Toerge noted there is a discussion on what to do when leave the site. Considering the water quality issues, could we specify ig is the means of cleaning the street. Temple answered yes. Jerson Toerge, referring to page 346 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the housing stock and vacancy percentage. s. Temple answered there is a very high vacancy rate because of the high number =nd homes and, turnover in the rental stock. That is what the Census tells us. ralee Newman, Principal of Government Solutions, representing the applicant, n( t the Marriott Hotel has been going through an extensive renovation. As part of )rt they seek approval of a residential development on the property adjacent to el on land utilized as tennis courts. This would provide an opportunity to bring i sale' homes into Newport Center. She then introduced her team members. ed that Lennar has reviewed all the conditions in the staff report and mitiga asures and are in agreement with them all. ,Aarice White of Government Solutions, noted the following during a rcesentation: . Aerial photo of the site location. . As part of the Marriott renovation it became apparent that the tennis courts no longer being used. . The proposed project is 4.25 acre site with 79 luxury condominiums. . The proposed project will be going through the Coastal Commission for determination following approval of the applications. . This is a unique residential opportunity in Newport Center. • We are requesting that we have a maximum height of 65 feet while we are allowed up to 375 in the high rise district. • The FAR on the site is 1.9; which includes the 100% subterranean garage. • We have 201 spaces provided, 198 required, which is 2 spaces per resident with 112 space per guest. Page 31 of 35 . The guest spaces are equally distributed throughout the garages to coordinate) lv � I file://F:\USERS\PLN\Shared\Gvarin\I 10305.htm 11/10/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Page 32 of 35 1 with the units they are intended to serve and are not grouped in one specific area.I . The Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated in June of this year reviewing a number of areas such as air quality and no significant impacts were identified as a result of the project. . The surrounding neighbors would be the Colony Apartments across the the Marriott on one side, and the country club on the other side. . We are having on -going discussions with the country club on coordination, disclosures and CC and R's to protect both the residents and the golf course. Buchta, MVE, speaking for the applicant, noted the following on the project site: . Site is constrained on the Santa Barbara edge by 15 -20 feet of grade fall to golf course edge. . The building will be stepped back with a 2 and 3 stories over a one level parki garage. . The architecture is Mediterranean style with smooth stucco detailin! surrounds on the windows, wrought iron detailing on railings and Juliet and Mediterranean inspired roof details with built up fascias. • The Santa Barbara edge has the pedestrian linkages to Fashion Island and entries to the buildings. There are wide expanses of glass and expanded decks at the lower level. • He then explained some of the unit layouts and floor plans. ,ice White continued: • This project has been in the planning and design phase for two years. • It has received review and approval of The Irvine Company. • It is compatible with the surrounding uses. • The site has two entrances off Santa Barbara for both residents and guests. • There are two entrances off the promenade where both residents and guests will park. • There are several access points from the units where residents and guests can access Fashion Island. . She then noted exhibits showing views taken from a three story building ne and how the buildings will look along Santa Barbara, as well as from the course. I They have received many inquiries from potential buyers. to file: / /F:\ USERS \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \110305.htm 11/10/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 . This is a 4.25 acre site with nearly 2 acres of open space. Commission inquiry, Ms. White noted the applicant has agreed to a condition -y will locate 16 units of affordable housing somewhere in the City of Nev ach. The agreement will be in place approved by the City Attorney by the issu the certificate of occupancy. Eaton asked about the parking designation of visitor parking; Buchta, referring to the garage plan, showed the visitor parking designations. trice White added that residents' parking will be behind gates and that the CC a > are to be crafted in such a way that restrict residents to only park in those spac well as they are not able to lease those spaces out and that guest parking acifically marked and will be designated as 48 or 72 hour for guest parking. Gut rking will not be behind the gates, residents' parking will be gated. The parki ,els will be clearly marked with what building a driver is going to and spaces a ,els will have directional signage. Guests will have some type of phone security h allow access up into the building. issioner Cole asked what the feature that separates the golf course from tv is. . White answered that the building itself most places acts as a fence; where the Iding is open there will be a fence between the golf course and the property. pending on what the edge looks like, some of those units are 34 feet above grade they likely won't need a fence, but, in other places the golf course has expresses it desire to have a fence. We are working on something that will be amenable tc h Lennar and the golf course and nice for the residents. The buildings are )roximately 15 feet back from the property line. Commission inquiry, Ms. White noted: . They will be working on sales disclosures and CC and R's with regard to golf balls and the safety rules. . The architects are looking at special types of window materials. . The rotunda effect are end units and allow for floor -to ceiling windows in the units at that location. There is no common room as the residents will have the use of the Marriott. is comment was closed. Toerge asked: . Clarified the terminology used in the draft resolution. . PC regulations - segregate or include a breakdown of the livable floor area and the parking square footage so that it is clearly shown why they are over the FAR. Page 33 of 35 file: / /F:\ USERS \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \110305.htm 11/10/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Page 34 of 35 . Condition 39 looks to be describing a problem but not a condition. . Condition 81 - idling of construction vehicles for 5 minutes only then they are be shut off. Temple answered that the FAR reflects the total of the building and we estat suggested FAR in the Planned Community text to support the proposed project. imissioner Henn clarified in the agreement for the affordable housing, those u be identified and available by the time a certificate of occupancy is issued for Temple answered staff would want this at a minimum to be assured that they ally in place before the City would allow occupancy. Hawkins noted this should be made a condition. Harp noted that this will be incorporated into the agreement and add it to sioner Hawkins noted condition 15. The parking plan needs review I of the Public Works Department and City Traffic Engineer. Edmonston answered that condition 46 covers review by the Traffic Engineer. Motion was made by Chairperson Toerge recommend approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2004 -005, Local Coastal Plan Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2005- 001, Planned Community Development Plan No. 2005 -003, Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005 -014, Tentative tract Map No. 2004 -004 (16774), Traffic Study No. 2005 -002, and Coastal Residential Development No. 2005 -004 to the City Council to the City Council and approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration OA2004 -169 subject to the findings and conditions as modified. yes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel and Henn Noes: None bsent: Tucker bstain: None BUSINESS: ADDITIONAL BUSINESS City Council Follow -up - none provided due to late hour. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Deve Committee - none provided due to late hour Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan U Committee - none provided due to late hour Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Local Coastal Certification Committee - none provided due to late hour Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Zoning Committee - non provided due to late hour. b(� file://F:\USERS\PLN\Shared\Gvarin\I 10305.htm 11/10/2005 0 ATTACHMENT "E" NOVEMBER 3RD, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT (Without Exhibits) r-� U 0 i • • I CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 5 November 3, 2005 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner (949) 644 -3208 rung@city.newport-beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Santa Barbara Condominiums 900 Newport Center Drive General Plan Amendment No. 2004 -005 LCP Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2005 -001 Planned Community Development Plan No. 2005 -003 Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005 -014 Tentative Tract Map No. 2004 - 004(16774) Traffic Study No. 2005 -002 Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2005 -004 Mitigated Negative Declaration . (PA2004 -169) APPLICANT: Lennar Homes REQUEST The applicant proposes to construct 79 condominiums on a 4.25 acre site presently developed with an outdoor tennis complex operated by the Newport Beach Marriott Hotel. The development consists of three separate buildings that are approximately 65 feet high and a 201 -space subterranean parking structure. The project involves the following discretionary applications for the Planning Commission to consider: • General Plan Amendment/LCP Land Use Plan Amendment - Change the land use designation of the 4.25 -acre site from Administrative, Professional, & Financial Commercial to Multiple - Family Residential. • Planned Community Development Plan Text Adoption and Waiver of Minimum Acreage - Rezone the subject property from APF to the PC District; adopt a Planned Community Development Plan to establish use and development regulations; and consider a waiver of the 10 -acre minimum land area requirement for Planned Community District adoption. . • Subdivision - Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide the 4.25 -acre property from the 13.79 -acre Marriott Hotel development. Tentative Tract Map to subdivide the 4.25 - acre property for condomimium ownership. it 6� • 0 0 Santa Barbara Condominiums November 3, 2005 Page 2 VICINITY MAP Newport Center Current Development: Newport Beach Marriott Hotel's tennis club To the north: Newport Beach Country Golf Course To the east: Pacific Financial Plaza and the Colony Condominiums To the south: New ort Beach Marriott Hotel To the west: Newport Beach Country Golf Course -1 -1 u 14 Santa Barbara Condominiums November 3, 2005 • Page 3 • Traffic Stud — Traffic analysis pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). • Coastal Residential Development Permit — For affordable housing inclusion in accordance with the Municipal Code and Housing Element of the General Plan. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2004 -005, LCP Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2005 -001, Planned Community Development Plan No. 2005 -003, Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005 -014, Tentative Tract Map No. 2004 -004 (16774), Traffic Study No. 2005 -002, Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2005 -004 and Mitigated Negative Declaration to the City Council by adopting the attached draft resolution. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Site Description The 4.25 -acre site is currently being used as a tennis club operated by the Newport Beach Marriott Hotel. There are eight outdoor tennis courts, a clubhouse and ancillary is uses on the property which are surrounded by landscaping on all sides. The subject property has a relatively flat terrain, and slopes down to the west. Vehicle and pedestrian access to the site is provided by a driveway on Santa Barbara at the southeasterly corner of the site. Project Description The project consists of three separate buildings housing a total of 79 residential condominium units with eight different floor plan options, ranging from 2,363 to 4,018 square feet in size. All existing improvements will be demolished and removed for the development of the proposed project. The architecture of the project would be of old world Mediterranean hillside homes with bold colors, rich detailings and generous use of decks and Juliet balconies. Large expanses of glass, decks and balconies will be used to take advantage of ocean views. Access to the new residential development will be via two driveways from Santa Barbara Drive. The main entrance is designed to provide access for the residents and guests of the two most southerly buildings and the parking garages. The second driveway is designed for the residents and guests with access to the most northerly building and the underground parking garage. The project is designed with two subterranean parking levels, with 201 parking spaces for residents and guests. The proposed project would provide approximately 79,140 square feet of open space • throughout the development and approximately 21,300 square feet of recreation area consisting of passive uses such as meandering walkways, water fountains, and seating Santa Barbara Condominiums November 3, 2005 Page 4 • areas with barbeques. Supportive services and amenities that may be provided on -site include valet parking and maid and room services. It is also planned that the Marriott Hotel's swimming pool and spa facilities will be made available for the residents. The minimum building front, side, and rear setbacks proposed for the development are 15, 7 and 13 feet respectively. Building and Parking Summary Building Unit Count (dwelling unit Parking( Resident +Guest Building l 27 70(55+15) Building II 31 78(62+16) Building III 21 53(42+11) Total 79 201(159+42) DISCUSSION & ANALYSIS Land Use Element and 1990 Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan (LCPLUP) Designation Change The project is located in Block 900 — Hotel Plaza of Newport Center (Statistical Area L1) of the Land Use Element and has a land use designation of Administrative, Professional • & Financial Commercial (APF). This area is bounded by Newport Center Drive, the Balboa Bay Tennis Club, the Newport Beach Country Club, Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara Drive. The allowed development for this area is 611 hotel rooms with ancillary hotel support facilities, 19,630 square feet of office development, and 67 residential dwelling units (the Granville townhouse development). The Marriott Hotel facility currently has 532 rooms (79 rooms below the total 611 room allocation). The project proposes a change to the General Plan land use designation of the 4.25 - acre site from Administrative, Professional & Financial Commercial to Multi - Family Residential with no reduction of hotel rooms possible. The current LCPLUP and the Land Use Element of the General Plan have the same land use designation and identical policies for the project site. The amendment is necessary because the proposed residential use is not permitted in the APF designation. The change in land use would result in a 4.25 -acre reduction in land available to be potentially used for office uses consistent with the APF designation. However, within the Newport Center, there is approximately 200 acres designated APF and the two percent (2 %) reduction proposed by the project, is not, in staffs opinion, a significant reduction. According to the Land Use Element, the Multi - Family Residential land use designation is applied where multiple dwelling units are allowed on a single subdivided lot. Smaller condominium and other individually attached housing project are also given the designation, and this category allows either single ownership or condominium • development. The proposed residential condominium project therefore is consistent with the proposed Multi - Family Residential land use designation and would be compatible '1'P Santa Barbara Condominiums November 3, 2005 Page 5 with the residential developments to the south and northeast of the site. Residential is also compatible with the adjacent hotel and golf course. Staff also does not view the project as incompatible with the office uses across Santa Barbara Street. The proposed residential project would add an additional 79 units to the Block 900 — Hotel Plaza area, an increase from 67 to 146 units. I The Land Use Element has 12 general policies to guide consideration of the potential amendments. The following discussion relates to those general land use policies that are applicable to the proposed project. A. The City shall provide for sufficient diversity of land uses so that schools, employment, recreation areas, public facilities, churches and neighborhood shopping centers are in close proximity to each resident of the community. The proposed project is located in an area of the City that has multiple uses presently. Fashion Island shopping center, Pacific Financial Plaza, and Newport Beach Marriott Hotel are commercial and office development areas located east and south of the site. Residential use comprised of two multi - family developments (The Colony and Granville) are located northeasterly and southerly of the site, and the Newport Beach Country Club golf course is located along the westerly side of the site. Changing the land use • designation will allow a new residential use in the area in close proximity to the existing diversity of uses. D. The siting of new buildings and structures shall be controlled and regulated to ensure, to the extent practical, the preservation of public views, the preservation of unique natural resources, and to minimize the alteration of natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. No public views exit through the site and the site is not a coastal /bluff or cliff, therefore, the project is consistent with this policy. F. The City shall develop and maintain suitable and adequate standards for landscaping, sign control, site and building design, parking and undergrounding of utilities and other development standards to ensure that the beauty and charm of existing residential neighborhoods are maintained, that commercial and office projects are aesthetically pleasing and compatible with surrounding land uses and that the appearance of, and activities conducted within industrial developments are also compatible with surrounding land uses and consistent with the public health, safety and welfare. The proposed PC Text contains one classification of land use and provides the development standards for the subject property. The draft PC Text contains development regulations for the subject site which includes definitions and information . concerning requirements for development site coverage, building height, setbacks, off - street parking, vehicular access, signing, lighting, storage, and screening and A Santa Barbara Condominiums November 3, 2005 Page 6 • landscaping to ensure that the project would be compatible with the surrounding land uses. Housing Element According to Goal 2 of the Housing Element, the City is required to provide a balanced residential community, comprised of a variety of housing types, designs, and opportunities for all social and economic segments, including very low -, low -, moderate - and upper- income individuals and households. To achieve this goal, Housing Policy 2.2 encourages the housing development industry to respond to housing needs of the community and to the demand for housing as perceived by the industry, with the intent of achieving the Regional Housing Needs Assessment construction goals within the five year (2000 -2005) housing plan. Implementation of this Policy, Housing Program 2.2.1, calls for the City to require the inclusion of affordable housing in new residential developments or levy an in -lieu fee, depending on the project size. The city's goal over the five -year planning period is for an average of 20 percent of all new housing units to be affordable to very low, low- income and moderate income households. The units can be provided either on -site or off -site with the City approval. Housing Program 2.2.3 applicable only within the coastal zone, requires all affordable housing within new projects of 10 or more units and the units should be located on -site • if feasible; alternatively, off -site but within the Coastal Zone. Housing Program 2.2.4 requires all affordable units to have restrictions to maintain their affordability for a minimum of 30 years. The applicant contends that providing the units on -site is not feasible (see Exhibit 2). Should the City accept this argument, providing the units off -site is an option that is consistent with Program 2.2.1. If the Commission rejects the argument of infeasibility, on -site production will be required. To be consistent with these goals, policies and programs, the project is required to provide a minimum of 2b% of the total units (16 units) for affordable income households for a minimum of 30 years. The applicant will be required to enter into an agreement with the City to provide said units either on the subject site or off -site within the City's limits. The agreement will be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and will be executed prior to the recordation of the subdivision maps or the issuance of a building or grading permit for the proposed project. Lastly, Goal 3 of the Housing Element encourages the City to extend housing opportunities to as many renter and owner occupied households as possible in response to the demand for housing in the City. Under this goal, Housing Program 3.2.4 allows the City to consider and approve rezoning of developed or vacant property from non - residential to residential uses when appropriate. The project is consistent with this program. • 1� k • Santa Barbara Condominiums November 3, 2005 Page 7 Charter Section 423 Analysis Council Policy A -18 requires that proposed General Plan amendments be reviewed to determine if a vote would be required. If a project generates more than 100 peak hour trips, 40,000 square feet of non - residential floor area or exceeds 100 dwelling units, a vote of . the citizens would be required if the .Council approves the suggested Amendment. The proposed amendment requests approval 79 dwelling units and it does not include any commercial floor area; therefore, it does not exceed these two thresholds. The project generates more traffic than the existing tennis courts using ITE trip generation rates. Therefore, a vote would not be required based upon that criteria. However, the analysis below reveals that the increased AM and PM peak hour trip increase is below the peak hour trip threshold. Use AM Trips PM Trips Tennis courts 8 13 31 79 condominiums 2 52 66 Difference 39 35 1 ITE trip rate #491 for tennis courts . 2 ITE Trip rate #231 for low -rise condominium Although the proposed project does not exceed any of the identified thresholds; it is considered a minor amendment. Charter Section 423 requires that 80% of increases (units, area or traffic) from prior general plan amendments within the same statistical area be added to the traffic generated by the project to see if cumulatively a vote would be required. There were two prior amendments approved for Statistical Area L1, and the following chart shows the area and peak hour trips analysis. Amendment Area # of A.M. Peak P.M Peak Hour Dwelling Hour Trips Trips Units Pacific Republic 2,400 s.f. (80% of 0 4.0 (80% of 5) 4.0 (80% of 5) GP2001 -003 3,000 Newport Sports Museum 1,240 s.f.(80% of 0 4.0 (80% of 5) 4.8 (80% of 6) GP2004 -001 11550 Proposed Amendment 79 39 35 Total 3,640 s.f. 79 147 43.8 . As indicated in the preceding table, the project with "prior amendments" do not exceed the 100 peak hour trip, 40,000 square foot or 100 dwelling unit thresholds and a vote 1r� �6- Santa Barbara Condominiums November 3, 2005 Page 8 • pursuant to Charter Section 423 is not required. Should the City Council approve the proposed amendment, it to will become a "prior amendment' that will be tracked for ten years. The proposed changes to Statistical Area L1 pertaining to Block 900 — Hotel Plaza is shown as Exhibit "A" of the draft Planning Commission Resolution (Exhibit 1). Proposed 2004 Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan The City is in the process of updating this LCPLUP. The updated LCPLUP was approved by the City in May 25, 2004. The California Coastal Commission (CCC) approved a modified version on October 13, 2005. The modified document must be adopted by the City Council and confirmed by the CCC before it can take effect, and a hearing date at City Council has tentatively been scheduled for December 13, 2005. Due to status of the new LCPLUP, the City must consider the amendment in the content of the new plan. The new Land Use Plan designates the site for Visitor - Serving Commercial (CV -B) uses. This designation was applied due to the existing use of the Marriott Hotel complex. The change in land use designation from CV -B to RM -C (Medium Density Residential C) is necessary to implemented for the proposed residential development. The CV designation is intended to provide commercial land for accommodations, goods, and services intended to primarily serve the needs of visitors of Newport Beach. Whereas, the RM -C would allow residential developments with density ranges from 15.1 to 20 units per gross acre. The proposed density for the project is 18.59 units per gross arce and the RM -C designation is the most appropriate. The change in land use designation will reduce the land available for visitor serving commercial uses by 4.25 acres. Although the reduction in area occurs, the opportunity to construct the remaining hotel room entitlement of 79 rooms would not be lost and it could be constructed nearby within the portion of Newport Center that is located within the Coastal Zone. The change in land use does not impact the adjacent visitor serving uses other than to eliminate the accessory tennis courts, which is not a coastal dependent recreational activity. The proposed 2004 LCPILUP has land use and development policies to guide consideration of projects. The following discussion relates to those general land use policies that are applicable to the proposed project. Location of New Development 2.2.1 -2 Require new development be located in areas with adequate public services or in areas that are capable of having public services extended or expanded without significant adverse effects on coastal resources. The project is located within Newport Center where public services and infrastructure are available to serve the proposed development. Additionally, all applicable improvements �b .!b Santa Barbara Condominiums November 3, 2005 Page 9 required by Section 19.28 (Subdivision Improvements) of the Subdivision Code are to be satisfied by the applicant. Parking 2.9.3 -2. Continue to require all development shall provide adequate off - street parking to serve the approved use in order to minimize impacts to public on- street and off - street parking available for coastal access. The parking requirement for multiple- family residential zoned project is two spaces per unit, including one covered, plus 0.5 spaces for guest parking for developments of four or more units. A total of 158 spaces are required for the residences and a minimum of 40 spaces are required for guest parking. A total of 201 spaces are proposed to serve the project, and therefore, the project meets the parking requirements of the Municipal Code. 2.9.3 -3 Continue to require off - street parking in new development to have adequate dimensions, clearances, and access to insure their use. In addition to the provision of adequate on -site parking requirement, the project is conditioned that the parking designs to meet all City requirements regarding parking . stall width, depth, grade, and aisle- turning radii. Coastal Act Analysis Section 30250(a) of the California Coastal Act (CCA) provides criteria for the location of new development. The Coastal Act provides for the protection of coastal resources by requiring that new development be located in close proximity to existing development with available public services to minimize the impacts associated with the extension of infrastructure and services. The project is located within Newport Center, which is a development area with all public services (utilities, roads, police, fire etc.) presently provided. Section 30252(4) requires new development within the Coastal zone to provide adequate parking facilities or providing substitute means of serving the development with public transportation. The proposed development provides an adequate number of on -site parking spaces. The project also will be conditioned to their parking structures to have adequate dimensions, clearances, and access to insure their proper use. Section 30212, requires public access must be provided from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline and along the coast in new development. As previously discussed, the subject property is not adjacent to the ocean or bay; therefore, coastal access easements are not required. 0 Eli Santa Barbara Condominiums November 3, 2005 Page 10 Section 30222 requires the use of private land suitable for visitor - serving commercial recreational facilities for coastal recreation must have priority over private residential, general industry, or general commercial development. Although residential use is not a priority use, the site is not located in close proximity to coastal resources, coastal recreational uses or the waterfront. Additionally, the opportunity construct the coastal visitor serving uses remains available within portion of Newport Center that is located within the Coastal Zone. In summary, it is not anticipated the requested change to the 1990 LCPLUP or the proposed 2004 LCPLUP would create significant impacts to the implementation of land use plan as environmentally sensitive habitat areas, shore -line public access, water or marine resources, and coastal visitor - serving facilities would not be impacted given the nature and location of the site and design of the project. Considering the location of the project, the proposed residential development would not be in conflict with the Coastal Act. Planned Community District In addition to the General Plan and Local Coastal Program amendments, the applicant desires approval of a Code Amendment to change the zoning designation of the subject property from Administrative, Professional & Financial to Planned Community (PC) District in order to accommodate the proposed multiple - family residential development. Waiver of Minimum Area Requirement for PC District In order to meet the objectives set forth in Section 20.35.010 of the Municipal Code, an application for a planned community district shall contain a minimum of 25 acres of unimproved land area or 10 acres of improved land area. The subject site would qualify as an improved land area and, therefore, is subject to the 10 -acre minimum land area requirement. Because, as the property is 4.25 acres in size, a waiver of the minimum acreage requirement is necessary. The Planning Commission must consider and approve such request prior to the consideration of a zone change application pursuant to Section 20.35.020. The proposed PC District is designed to accommodate a single, multiple - family residential development within an area of 4.25 acres. The size and type of the development alone does not meet the intent and purposes for a PC adoption as specified in Section 20.35.010. The project, as designed, will not provide the coordination of parcels to take advantage of the superior environment which can result from large -scale community planning, does not allow diversification of land uses, nor include various types of land uses within the development plan. As a stand alone project, it would not meet the intent for a PC District adoption; however, if the issue is considered in a larger context beyond the site's boundaries given its location in the Newport Center area, the basic intent of PC zoning might be met. Newport Center has is �a Santa Barbara Condominiums November 3, 2005 • Page 11 been developed and continues to provide a unique mixture of land uses that is highly desirable to the community as a place to work, live and play. Newport Center includes a mixture of shopping, hotels, commercial support uses, professional offices, and residential developments that cohesively contain the ingredients of a planned community. In that context, the proposed development adds to this diversity assisting the City in larger scale community planning. Within the boarder context of Newport Center, staff believes that the waiver could be supported. It is also worth mentioning that the City has adopted several successful PC Districts that contain single land use development such as the Sea Island Apartments and Villa Point Apartments that do meet the acreage standards. Development Plan Condominiums as proposed in this application are typically permitted in the MFR District. The project as designed does not meet the minimum building setbacks and it exceeds the maximum allowable floor area limit (FAR) in the MFR zone. It is the applicant's desire to create a residential community through a PC District zoning adoption that allows flexibility in establishing unique development standards for the subject site that the MFR zone was not designed for. The MFR zoning classification is designed for the small scale multiple - family lots /development with individual garages. • The proposed project is a mid -rise residential development with a common underground garage that is defined as gross floor area, and the FAR standard of the MFR zone does not provide sufficient area given the proposed design. Furthermore, an approval of the PC District for the project site is needed due the irregular- shaped (narrowness) of the project site as the application of MFR setbacks reduces the buildable area such that when this type of development would not be achievable without deviation and a modification permit. The adoption of PC zoning district would allow the site to be developed with flexibility in establishing development standards such as minimum front, rear, and side yard dimensions and density, as determined appropriate by the Planning Commission for the type of project proposed, and set forth in the PC Development Plan. The draft PC Text contains development regulations for the subject site which includes definitions and information concerning requirements for development site coverage, building height, setbacks, off- street parking, vehicular access, signing, lighting, storage, screening and landscaping, etc. As proposed, the building height may not exceed 65 feet; staff finds the proposed building height for the development is acceptable as the subject property is located in the high rise height limitation zone that allows buildings to be 375 feet. The proposed floor area ratio for the property is 1.90 in order to accommodate the subterranean parking. It is slightly higher than the traditional limitation of 1.75 in the MFR zone. A total 201 parking spaces will be provided for the development which equate to 2 spaces for resident and 0.5 space for guest per each unit. The project has variable building setbacks due to the nature of the site design and the narrow depth of the property available for development. Staff finds the proposed building setbacks are acceptable as �3 Santa Barbara Condominiums November 3, 2005 Page 12 the site is not adjacent to sensitive uses, and is surrounded by open space to the north and west. The placement of buildings along Santa Barbara Drive does not appear to overshadow the street frontage as the street is approximately 76 feet wide and the variable landscaped front yard will give the visual impression that the buildings are situated further back from the public right -of -way. Proposed Development Standards Density 79 units 18.59 units per gross acre FAR 1.90 Building Height 65 feet maximum Building Front Setback 15 feet minimum (varies) Building Side Setback 7 feet minimum (varies) Rear Setback 13 feet minimum varies Parking 2 spaces per unit for resident and 0.5 space for guest Staff believes that should the General Plan and Local Coastal Program amendments be • approved, the PC zoning designation is appropriate for this location and would be consistent with other residential developments in Newport Center. Subdivisions Compliance — Parcel and Tract Maps In order to facilitate the residential development, the applicant requests an approval of a parcel map to divide the 4.25 -acre project site from the Marriott hotel complex for financing and development purposes. Lot No. 1 is 4.25 acres in size to be devoted for the proposed residential project and Lot No. 2 contains the remaining 9.54 acres to continue to be occupied by the Newport Beach Marriott Hotel. The subsequent tract map is proposed for the condominium ownerships. Pursuant to Section 19. 12.070 of the City Subdivision Code, the following standard findings must be made to approve the tentative parcel map and tract map. If the Planning Commission determines that one or more of the findings listed in relation to either map cannot be made, the tentative parcel map or tract map must be denied. That the proposed map and the design or improvements of the subdivision are consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan, and with applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and this Subdivision Code. As noted in the previous sections, staff believes that the project can be found consistent with the proposed General Plan designation. Should the proposed GPA not be approved, this finding cannot be made given the proposed uses, design and improvements proposed by the applicant. The Public Works Santa Barbara Condominiums November 3, 2005 Page 13 • Department has reviewed the proposed tentative maps and believes that they are consistent with the Newport Beach Subdivision Code (Title 19) and applicable requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. Conditions of approval have been included to ensure compliance with Title 19. 2. That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. Lot 1 is being proposed for the residential development and is of sufficient size for the intensity of development and the site is physically suitable for the project. The 4.25 -acre site will have a maximum building gross square footage of 351,747 square feet that equates to an approximate floor area ratio of 1.90. The project provides an adequate number of parking spaces as required by the Zoning Code. Access to the site can be provided through the proposed driveways along Santa Barbara Drive. Additionally, no earthquake faults were found on -site. There is no known incidence of landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse on -site or near the site; however, existing soils will be required to be excavated and re- compacted to create stable soil conditions to support the proposed development. The implementation of mitigation measures identified in the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration would reduce any potential impacts. The site therefore, is physically suitable for • development. Lot 2 is proposed to retain a General Plan land use designation of Administrative, Professional & Financial Commercial. Lot 2 is not proposed for new development, although the existing development is current undergoing substantial renovations. 3. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. However, notwithstanding the foregoing, the decision- making body may nevertheless approve such a subdivision if an environmental impact report was prepared for the project and a finding was made pursuant to Section 21081 of the California Environmental Quality Act that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and it concludes that no significant environmental impacts will result with proposed development of the site in accordance with the proposed subdivision maps; therefore, staff believes this finding can be met. 4. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to . cause serious public health problems. %_5 LIC Santa Barbara Condominiums November 3, 2005 Page 14 • Under the proposed parcel map, Lot 2 does not include any improvements other than renovations currents under construction and the development of Lot 1 as a residential use is not expected to cause serious public health problems given the use of typical construction materials and practices. No evidence is known to exist that would indicate that the proposed subdivisions will generate any serious public health problems. All mitigation measures will be implemented as outlined in the Mitigated Negative Declaration to ensure the protection of the public health. 5. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the decision - making body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided and that these easements will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This finding shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to the City Council to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within a subdivision. No public easements for access through or use of the property have been • retained for the use by the public at large. Public utility easements for utility connections that serve the project site are present and will be modified, if necessary, to serve the proposed project. 6. That, subject to the detailed provisions of Section 66474.4 of the Subdivision Map Act, if the land is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act), the resulting parcels following a subdivision of the land would not be too small to sustain their agricultural use or the subdivision will result in residential development incidental to the commercial agricultural use of the land. The site is not subject to a Williamson Act contract; therefore, this finding does not apply. 7. That, in the case of a "land project' as defined in Section 11000.5 of the California Business and Professions Code: (a) there is an adopted specific plan for the area to be included within the land project; and (b) the decision- making body finds that the proposed land project is consistent with the specific plan for the area. The subject property is not located within the boundaries of a specific plan. 1 • Santa Barbara Condominiums November 3, 2005 Page 15 8. That solar access and passive heating and cooling design requirements have been satisfied in accordance with Sections 66473.1 and 66475.3 of the Subdivision Map Act. Title 24 of the Uniform Building Code requires new construction to meet minimum heating and cooling efficiency standards depending on location and climate. The Newport Beach Building Department enforces Title 24 compliance through the plan check and field inspection processes. 9. That the subdivision is consistent with Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act and Section 65584 of the California Government Code regarding the City's share of the regional housing need and that it balances the housing needs of the region against the public service needs of the City's residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. The proposed subdivision facilitates the creation of 79 new residential units. Because 16 affordable units will be provided either on or off -site, it will assist the City in meeting its housing needs as identified in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment. Public services are available to serve the proposed development of the site and the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project indicates • that the project's potential environmental impacts are expected to be less than significant. 10. That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into the existing sewer system will not result in a violation of existing requirements prescribed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Waste discharge into the existing sewer system will be consistent with residential use of the property which does not violate Regional Water Quality Control Board ( RWQCB) requirements. The RWQCB did not provide any comments related to the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration during the 30 -day review period. 11. For subdivisions lying partly or wholly within the Coastal Zone, that the subdivision conforms with the certified Local Coastal Program and, where applicable, with public access and recreation policies of Chapter Three of the Coastal Act. The proposed subdivision is entirely within the coastal zone and the site subject of the tentative maps is not presently developed with coastal - related uses, coastal- dependent uses or water- oriented recreational uses. As noted previously, staff believes that the project is consistent with the Coastal Act. • �1 Santa Barbara Condominiums November 3, 2005 Page 16 Traffic Study The traffic study identifies the potential traffic and circulation impacts associated with the proposed development. A traffic study is required when a project will generate more than 300 average daily trips pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). The City Traffic Engineer prepared a preliminary estimate of trips and concluded that a traffic study would be required. A traffic study has been prepared by Kunzman Associates under the supervision of the City Traffic Engineer pursuant to the TPO and its implementing guidelines (Appendix D of the Mitigated Negative Declaration), CEQA analysis for cumulative projects and intersection capacity utilization (ICU), and General Plan analysis. The project will result in a net increase of 330 new average daily trips, 42 vehicle trips during morning (AM) peak hour and 39 vehicle trips during the afternoon (PM) peak hour. Fourteen (14) intersections were identified by the Traffic Engineer for inclusion in the study. The TPO analysis resulted in nine (9) out of fourteen (14) study intersections that exceed the one - percent threshold. Intersection Capacity Utilization analysis was performed on the following 9 intersections: 1. Jamboree Road at Eastbluff /Ford Road 2. Jamboree Road at Santa Barbara Drive 3. Santa Cruz Road at San Joaquin Hills Road 4. Santa Cruz Road at San Clemente Drive 5. Newport Center Drive at Santa Barbara Drive 6. Newport Center Drive at Coast Highway 7. Santa Rosa/Big Canyon at San Joaquin Hills Road 8. MacArthur Boulevard at Ford Road 9. MacArthur Boulevard at San Joaquin Hills Road The study concluded that the project related traffic does not cause an unsatisfactory level of service at any of these intersections and no significant impact occurs and no improvements are required at these intersections. Coastal Residential Development Permit (CRDP) The project requires a Coastal Residential Development Permit pursuant to Chapter 20.86 of the Municipal Code when a project proposes to create 10 or more units within the coastal zone. The amount of affordable units to be created is based upon the Housing Element was discussed previously. Affordable housing must be included within the project unless it can be determined not feasible. The applicant contends that on -site production is not feasible (see Exhibit No. 4) therefore, off -site production will be required in accordance with implementation of Housing Element Program 2.2.1 as discussed above. In compliance with the goals and policies of the Housing Element, the project is conditioned to provide 16 units for affordable income households. r 1 t.J • E. t'a, 0 Santa Barbara Condominiums November 3, 2005 Page 17 Environmental Review A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared by David Evans and Associates, Inc. for the proposed project in accordance with the implementing guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The MND is attached as Exhibit No. 3 for consideration. The MND identifies seven (7) issue areas where 35 mitigation measures are identified. Those issues are: Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Noise, Public Services, Transportation/Traffic, Utilities and Service Systems. With the implementation of the suggested mitigation measures, the projects environmental impacts will be reduced to less than significant levels. The document was initially prepared to evaluate the project with traditional zoning of Multiple - Family Residential, follow by a 30 -day review period from July 15 to August 15, 2005. Since then, it was determined that the most appropriate zoning designation for the property would be PC (Planned Community). This new zoning designation does not affect the size, scope or design of the project that would potentially create additional physical environmental impacts. Therefore, staff believes that the MND adequately describes the potential impacts of the project and does not require additional recirculation and review of the MND. An addendum has been prepared to address the change in the zoning designation and attached to the MND for the Planning • Commission to consider. Public Notice Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property (excluding roads and waterways) and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. The environmental assessment process has also been noticed in a similar manner and all mandatory notices per the California Environmental Quality Act have been given. Finally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website. Summary Staff believes that findings necessary for project approval can be made. It is staffs opinion the 79 -unit condominium project would not prove detrimental to the area because the project will provide additional residential opportunities compatible with the surrounding area of Newport Center. The proximity to goods and services is also advantageous. Should the Planning Commission conclude that the project as proposed would not be compatible with the surrounding uses and that the project would not be appropriate for • the site; the project should be denied or modified to address issues of design or density �q Santa Barbara Condominiums November 3, 2005 Page 18 i if a redesigned project is advisable; staff recommends a continuance to allow the applicant time to revise their plans accordingly should this course of action be sought. Prepared by: Submitted by: I U4 Pa"1AJTaM4L R salinh M. Ung, Ass ci to Planner Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Exhibits: 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2005 -_ 2. Applicants Letter of Request & Off -site Housing Analysis 3. Mitigated Negative Declaration & Initial Study (Errata & Responses to Public Comments attached) 4. Project Plans i n U qD z-Js 0 ATTACHMENT "F" MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION & INITIAL STUDY (Errata, Responses to Public Comments and Mitigation & Monitoring Program attached) 0 r� 01� ' C Cti AGENDA 1�NN 'Po .` t`, ~ a '`' oizN�..: . DRAFT INITIAL STUDY and MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION for the proposed SANTA BARBARA CONDOMINIUMS PROJECT I 1 Prepared for: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Rosalinh M. Ung, Associated Planner (949) 644 -3208 Prepared by: David Evans and Associates, Inc. 9635 Granite Ridge Drive, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92123 Dustin Fuller, Project Manager (858) 614 -4360 Draft: July 15, 2005 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. ............................1 -1 1.1 Introduction .............................................................................. ............................1 -1 1.2 Purpose of the Initial Study and MND ....................................... ............................1 -1 1.3 Summary of Findings .............................................................. ............................1 -2 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................... ............................2 -1 2.1 Project Location and Environmental Setting ............................. ............................2 -1 2.2 Description of the Proposed Project ........................................ ............................2 -5 2.3 Objectives of the Project ........................................................... ............................2 -5 2.4 Discretionary Actions ............................................................... ............................2 -7 3 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ........................................................... ............................3 -1 3.1 Aesthetics ................................................................................. ............................3 -2 3.2 Agriculture Resources .............................................................. ............................3 -5 3.3 Air Quality ................................................................................ ............................3 -6 3.4 Biological Resources ............................................................... ...........................3 -15 3.5 Cultural Resources .................................................................. ...........................3 -18 3.6 Geology and Soils ................................................................... ...........................3 -20 3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .......................................... ...........................3 -25 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality .................................................. ...........................3 -29 3.9 Land Use and Planning ........................................................... ...........................3 -35 3.10 Mineral Resources .................................................................. ...........................3 -40 3.11 Noise ....................................................................................... ...........................3 -41 3.12 Population and Housing .......................................................... ...........................3 -46 3.13 Public Services ........................................................................ ...........................3 -48 3.14 Recreation ............................................................................... ...........................3 -52 3.15 Transportation and Traffic ........................................................ ...........................3 -53 3.16 Utilities and Service Systems .................................................. ...........................3 -61 4 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ................................... ............................4 -1 4.1 Findings .................................................................................... ............................4 -1 4.2 Mitigation Measures ................................................................. ............................4 -2 5 LIST OF PREPARERS /REFERENCES .............................................. ............................5 -1 5.1 Preparers of the Initial Study/ MND ............................................ ............................5 -1 5.2 References ................................................................................ ............................5 -1 5.3 Persons Contacted .................................................................... ............................5 -3 Santa Barbara Condominiums Page i Initial Study and MND Table of Contents (continued) APPENDICES: A — ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM B — AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT C — PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION D — TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 2 -1 LIST OF TABLES -2 Table Vicinity Map .......................................................................................... ............................2 Page 2 -1 Building Summary ................................................................................. ............................2 -5 3 -1 Ambient Air Quality Standards ............................................................. ............................3 -7 3-2 Project Area Air Quality Monitoring Summary ....................................... ............................3 -9 3 -3 SCAQMD Emissions Significance Thresholds .............................. ............................... 3 -9 3-4 Estimated Project Emissions During Construction ...................... ............................... 3 -11 3 -5 Average Daily Project Source Air Pollution Emissions ................ ............................... 3 -13 3 -6 Schools in the Project Area ......................................................... ............................... 3 -27 3 -7 Project Setback Requirements .................................................... ............................... 3 -39 3 -8 City of Newport Beach Interior and Exterior Noise Standards ..... ............................... 3-42 3 -9 Population Growth ...................................................................... ............................... 3 -46 3-10 Regional Projections ............................................. ............................... ...........................3 -46 3 -11 Student Generation ..................................................................... ............................... 3 -50 3 -12 Project Traffic Generation ........................................................... ............................... 3 -55 3 -13 Intersection ICU and LOS Analysis ............................................. ............................... 3 -58 3 -14 Current and Projected Water Supplies ........................................ ............................... 3 -63 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 2 -1 Regional Location ................................................................................ ............................2 -2 2 -2 Vicinity Map .......................................................................................... ............................2 -4 2-3 Proposed Site Plan .............................................................................. ............................2 -6 3 -1 City of Newport Beach Height Limitation Zones .............................. ............................3 -4 3 -2 Newport Center Statistical Area Map ......................................... ............................... 3 -37 3 -3 Land Use Policy Map ...................................... ............................... ...........................3 -38 3-4 Project Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movements ............... ..................... 3 -56 3 -5 Project Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movements ..... ............................... 3 -57 Santa Barbara Condominiums Page it Initial Study and MND SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 INTRODUCTION This Initial Study evaluates and identifies the potential environmental impacts which may result from the proposed Santa Barbara Condominiums Project (proposed Project), in the City of Newport Beach. The Project proposes the development of 79 condominiums on a 4.25 acre site, currently in the Newport Beach Marriott Hotel's tennis complex. The project consists of three separate buildings with eight different floor plan options and has an approximately 79,140 square fee of open space and 21,300 square feet of recreational areas for use by residents and their guests. The four -story buildings are approximately 65 feet in height with subterranean parking levels. The project would require a General Plan Amendment and Local Coastal Plan Land Use Plan Amendment to change the current land use designation from Administrative, Professional, Financial (APF) to Multi - Family Residential (MFR); a Zone change to rezone the subject property from APF to MFR; a Parcel Map to subdivide the subject property from the hotel development for financing purposes; a Tract Map for the condominium ownerships; and a Modification Permit for the front yard setback encroachment. These discretionary actions are further discussed in Section 2.4 of this Initial Study. The proposed residential development is considered a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the City of Newport Beach is acting as the Lead Agency for the proposed Santa Barbara Condominiums Project. Section 21067 of CEQA defines a Lead Agency as the public agency that has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have a significant effect on the environment. The City of Newport Beach would be responsible for approving the proposed Project; thus, the City will serve as the Lead Agency, and has the authority to oversee and complete the environmental review process for the proposed Project. 1.2 PURPOSE OF THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY ■ As part of the environmental review process for the proposed Project, the City of Newport Beach has authorized the preparation of this Initial Study. The Initial Study provides a basis for understanding ' whether there are environmental impacts associated with the proposed Project and, if environmental impacts are likely to occur, whether such impacts could be significant. The purposes of this Initial Study, as stated in Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines, are as follows: ■ To provide the City of Newport Beach with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or Negative Declaration (ND) for the proposed Santa Barbara Condominiums Project; ' ■ To enable the City of Newport Beach to modify the proposed Project, by reducing or eliminating any adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the ' proposed Project to qualify for a negative declaration; ■ To assist in the preparation of an EIR, if one is required, by focusing the EIR on the effects determined to be significant; identifying effects determined not to be significant; and explaining reasons for determining that potentially significant effects would not be significant; ■ To identify whether a program EIR, tiering, or another appropriate process can be used for the analysis of the project's environmental effects; ■ To facilitate the environmental review of the project early in its design; Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 1 -1 Initial Study and MND Introduction ■ To provide documentation forfindings in a Negative Declaration that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment; ■ To eliminate unnecessary environmental impact reports; and ■ To determine whether a previously prepared EIR can be used for the project. Based on the findings of the Initial Study, the City of Newport Beach could then determine the subsequent environmental review needed for the proposed Project, which may take the form of a (Mitigated) Negative Declaration (MND /ND) or an EIR. Adoption of the MND ends the environmental review process for the proposed Project by identifying measures or incorporating changes to the proposed Project that would reduce or prevent the proposed Project's potential adverse impact and thereby, eliminating the need for an EIR. 1.3 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Based on the findings of the environmental analysis in Section 3 of this Initial Study, the proposed Santa Barbara Condominiums Project has the potential for creating significant adverse impacts in terms of Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Noise, Public Services, Transportation(Traffic and Utilities and Service Systems. Mitigation measures have been identified to prevent or reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. These measures are listed below. Air Quality The following mitigation measures would reduce emissions associated with construction of the proposed Project: Mitigation Measure 3.3.A: During grading activities, any exposed soil areas shall be watered twice per day. On windy days or when fugitive dust can be observed leaving the proposed Project site, additional applications of water shall be applied to maintain a minimum 12 percent moisture content as defined by SCAQMD Rule 403. Under windy conditions where velocities are forecast to exceed 25 miles per hour (as ascertained by phone calls to the SCAQMD), all ground disturbing activities shall be halted until winds that are forecast to abate below this threshold. Mitigation Measure 3.3.13: The proposed Project shall comply with regional rules such as SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403, which would assist in reducing short -term air pollutant emissions. Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with best available control measures so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. Rule 402 requires dust suppression techniques be implemented to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance offsite. These dust suppression techniques are summarized as follows: a. Portions of the construction site to remain inactive longer than a period of three months shall be seeded and watered until grass cover is grown or otherwise stabilized in a manner acceptable to the City. Santa Barbara Condominiums Initial Study and MND 1-2 Introduction b. All on -site roads shall be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or chemically stabilized. c. All material transported offsite shall be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. d. The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations shall be minimized at all times. Mitigation Measure 3.3.C: All vehicles on the construction site shall travel at speeds less than 15 miles per hour. Mitigation Measure 3.3.D: All material stockpiles subject to wind erosion during construction activities, that will not be utilized within three days, shall be covered with plastic, an alternative cover deemed equivalent to plastic, or sprayed with a nontoxic chemical stabilizer. ' Mitigation Measure 3.3.E: Where vehicles leave the construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the streets shall be swept daily or washed down at the end of the work day to remove soil tracked onto the paved surface. Any visible track -out extending for more than fifty (50) feet from the access point shall be swept or washed within thirty (30) minutes of deposition. Mitigation Measure 3.3.F: All diesel - powered vehicles and equipment shall be properly operated and maintained. ' Mitigation Measure 3.3.G: All diesel - powered vehicles and gasoline - powered equipment shall be turned off when not in use for more than five (5) minutes. Mitigation Measure 3.3.H: The construction contractor shall utilize electric or natural gas- ' powered equipment instead of gasoline or diesel - powered engines, where feasible. Mitigation Measure 3.31 As much as possible, the construction contractor shall time the construction activities so as not to interfere with peak hour traffic. To minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes adjacent to the site, a flag person shall be retained to maintain safety adjacent to existing roadways, if necessary. Mitigation Measure 3.3.J: The construction contractor shall support and encourage ridesharing and transit incentives for the construction crew. 11 11 11 Mitigation Measure 3.3.K: The construction contractor shall utilize, as much as possible, pre - coated /natural colored building materials. Water -based or low VOC coatings shall be used that comply with the most stringent SCAQMD Rule 1113 limits. Spray equipment with high transfer efficiency, such as the high volume -low pressure (HVLP) paint applicators with 50 percent efficiency, or manual coatings application such as paint brush hand roller, trowel, spatula, dauber, rag, or a sponge shall be used to reduce VOC emissions, where practical. Additionally, paint application shall use lower volatility paint not exceeding 100 grams of ROG per liter. Santa Barbara Condominiums Initial Study and MND Page 1 -3 Introduction (continued) Mitigation Measure 3.31: If construction equipment powered by alternative fuel sources (LPG /CNG) is available at comparable cost, the developer shall specify that such equipment be used during all construction activities on the proposed Project site. Mitigation Measure 3.3.M: The developer shall require the use of particulate filters on diesel construction equipment if use of such filters is demonstrated to be cost- competitive for use on this proposed Project. Cukural Resources The following mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts associated with unknown cultural resources on -site: Mitigation Measure 3.5.A: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall provide written evidence to the planning director that a qualified archaeologist has been retained to observe grading activities and conduct salvage excavation of archaeological resources as necessary. The archaeologist shall be present at the pre - grading conference, shall establish procedures for archaeological resources surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the applicant, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification and evaluation of the artifacts as appropriate. If additional or unexpected archaeological features are discovered, the archaeologist shall report such findings to the applicant and to the Planning Department. If the archaeological resources are found to be significant, the archaeological observer shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the applicant, for exploration and /or salvage. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Director. Mitigation Measure 3.5.B: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall provide written evidence to the planning director that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to observe grading activities and conduct salvage fossils as necessary. The paleontologist shall be present at the pre - grading conference, shall establish procedures for paleontological resource surveillance, and shall establish cooperation with the applicant, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification and evaluation of fossils. If major paleontological resources are discovered which require long term baiting or redirecting of grading, the paleontologist shall report such findings to the applicant and to the Planning Department. The paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the applicant, which ensure proper exploration and /or salvage. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Director. Mitigation Measure 3.5.C: In accordance with Public Resources Code 5097.94, if human remains are found, the Orange County coroner must be notified within 24 hours of the discovery. If the coroner determines that the remains are not recent, the coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commissions in Sacramento to determine the most likely descendent for the area. The designated Native American representative then determines in consultation with the property owner the disposition of the human remains. Santa Barbara Condominiums Initial Study and MND Page 1-4 1 ' Introduction (continued) Geology and Soils The following mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts associated with unsuitable on- site soils: Mitigation Measure 3.6.A: In areas where compacted fill will be required to establish design grades and in design cut areas where the depth of the proposed cut does not exceed the thickness of the existing unsuitable surficial soils, on -site surficial soils shall be excavated and recompacted to create stable soil conditions and correct poor slope performance. ' Mitigation Measure 3.6.13: During grading activities, where cut- to-fill transitions exist following remedial grading, they shall be eliminated by overexcavating the "cut' portions of the building pads and replacing the excavated material as properly compacted fill. The generally recommended depth of over excavation is one -half the maximum thickness of fill beneath the pad area, to a minimum depth of 3 feet and a maximum depth of 15 feet below proposed pad grade. The horizontal limits of overexcavation should extend to within approximately 1 to 2 feet of property lines and /or the tops and toes of slopes. The actual lots that will require overexcavation and overexcavation depths will have to be determined during grading by the proposed Project geotechnical consultant based on actual conditions encountered. Mitigation Measure 3.6.C: During remedial grading and construction of the proposed subterranean parking areas and associated improvements, temporary excavations with sidewalls varying up to approximately 13 feet in height may be necessary. Temporary excavation sidewalls will require sloping back at a ratio of approximately 12:1, horizontal to ' vertical. Should excessive caving be observed during grading, flatter inclinations may be required locally. Depending on required depths of cut and remedial grading, it may not be possible to ' construct temporary excavations along the east side of Buildings I and II (i.e., adjacent to Santa Barbara Drive) and along the southeast side of Building I (adjacent to the existing Marriott tower and appurtenant improvements) at a safe and stable slope ratio without I I encroaching into the adjacent street right -of -way and /or causing the loss of lateral support of the existing hotel building, the associated buried utilities and other improvements. For this reason, temporary shoring may be required in these areas. Recommendations for I, design of temporary shoring will be provided in the comprehensive preliminary geotechnical report once grading plans for the site become available for review. Noise The following mitigation measures are recommended to reduce construction noise impacts on adjacent noise sensitive land uses: Mitigation Measure 3.11A: Construction activities shall be confined to the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and on Saturdays between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and ' 6:00 p.m. Mitigation Measure 3.11.13: Equipment mufflers for construction equipment shall be used Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 1 -5 Initial Study and MND Introduction (continued) at all times. Mitigation Measure 3.11.C: Idling of construction vehicles and equipment shall be limited to the extent feasible. Construction vehicles and equipment shall be properly operated and maintained and shall be turned off when not in use. Public Services The following mitigation measure would reduce potential adverse impacts on school services: Mitigation Measure 3.13.A: Prior to issuance of the first building permit, school impacts fees will be paid to the Newport-Mesa Unified School District to assist in funding school facility expansion and educational services to area residents. Transportation ?rafric The following mitigation measures would reduce any potential traffic and parking related impacts from the proposed Project: Mitigation Measure 3.15.A: Sight distance at the proposed Project accesses should be reviewed with respect to City of Newport Beach standards in conjunction with the preparation of final grading, landscape, and street improvement plans. Mitigation Measure 3.15.13: On -site traffic signing and striping should be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the proposed Project. Mitigation Measure 3.15.C: The City of Newport Beach should periodically review traffic operations in the vicinity of the proposed Project once the proposed Project is constructed to assure that the traffic operations are satisfactory. Mitigation Measure 3.15.D: The parking design shall meet all City requirements regarding parking stall width, parking stall depth, parking aisle grade, and parking aisle - turning radii. Mitigation Measure 3.15.E: Each parking level should have large numbers on the pillars or walls designating on which floor level the user has parked. Letters can also be added to designate what area within a parking level the person has parked, such as 2B. Utilities and Service Systems While adequate water supplies would be available to serve the proposed Project site, the implementation of water conservation measures suggested by the City of Newport Beach, would reduce demand for groundwater, surface water and imported water supplies. These water conservation measures include: Mitigation Measure 3.16 A: New landscaping shall incorporate drought - tolerant plant materials and drip irrigation systems, wherever possible. Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 1 -6 Initial Study and MND Introduction Mitigation Measure 3.16 B: Water leaving the project site due to over - irrigation of landscape, shall be minimized. If an incident such as this is reported, a representative from the Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division of the City Manager's Office shall visit the location, investigate, inform resident if possible, leave a note and in some cases shut -off the water. Mitigation Measure 3.16 C: Watering should be done during the early morning or evening hours to minimize evaporation (between 4:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m., the following morning). Mitigation Measure 3.16 D: All leaks shall be investigated by a representative from the Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division of the City Manager's Office and any the applicant shall complete all required repairs. Mitigation Measure 3.16 E: Water should not be used to clean paved surfaces, such as sidewalks, driveways, parking areas, etc., except to alleviate immediate safety or sanitation hazards. Mitigation Measure 3.16 F: Reclaimed water shall be used wherever available, assuming it is economically feasible. Mitigation Measure 3.16 G: The project shall incorporate Ultra -Low Flush Toilets (ULFT) in all the residential units. The City of Newport Beach has determined that the proposed Project would not have significant adverse impacts on the environment with the implementation of mitigation measures, and no additional environmental analysis is warranted. The City of Newport Beach would consider adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Santa Barbara Condominiums Project, with the incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures, as outlined above. Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 1 -7 Initial Study and MND SECTION 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 2.1.1 Regional Setting Orange County The County of Orange is located in the western section of the Southern California region, and consists of 34 incorporated cities and 29 unincorporated areas on over 798.3 square miles. Orange County is located south of Los Angeles County, east of Riverside County and north of San Diego County. Orange County also includes portions of the Cleveland National Forest, and Chino Hills State Park. From 1970 to 1980, Orange County's resident population grew from 1,421,233 persons to 1,932,708 persons (or by 35 percent). From 1980 to 1990, the County's population grew to 2,398,400 residents or by 24 percent. From 1990 to 2000, population grew by approximately 16 percent, with the County having an estimated 2000 population of 2,846,289 people. Thus, an over twofold increase in population occurred in the County from 1970 to 2000. Currently, the County has an estimated 2004 population of 3,017,300 residents (an increase of 0.6 percent since 2000). 1' Housing growth has also been significant in the County, with a housing stock of 875,105 units in 1990 growing to 966,086 housing units by 2000 (or by 10 percent). Currently, the County has an estimated 1,003,929 housing units (an increase of 3.9 percent from 2000 to 2004). As of January I' 2004, the County had a housing vacancy rate of 3.57 percent and an average household size of 3.072 persons per household. M City of Newport Beach As shown in Figure 2 -1, Regional Map, the proposed Project site for the proposed development is located in the City of Newport Beach. The City of Newport Beach covers an approximately 50.5 square -mile area and is located in the western portion of Orange County along the Pacific Ocean. To the east, the City of Newport Beach is bounded by the Cities of Irvine and Costa Mesa. The City of Huntington Beach borders the City to the north, and the City of Laguna Beach and Crystal Cove State Park/Laguna Coast Wilderness Park border the City to the south. The Pacific Ocean borders the City along the entire western edge. Pacific Coast Highway (SR -1) extends along the entire western border of the City in a north -south direction. The Costa Mesa Freeway (SR -55), located just north of the City, is the main freeway access to the area and traverses in an east -west direction. Additionally, State Route 73 Freeway (SR -73), in a north -south orientation, acts as the eastern border between Newport Beach and the City of Irvine. The City of Newport Beach had a 2000 population of 70,032 persons, an incremental increase of approximately 4.7 percent from the 1990 population of 66,700. The City currently has an estimated 2004 resident population of approximately 80,800 persons, an increase of 13.3 percent from the 2000 population. Coupled with the recent population growth of the City is the increase in its housing stock. From 1990 to 2000, the number of housing units in Newport Beach rose from 30,860 units to 37,288 units by 2000, a 17.2 percent increase. The most recent (2004) housing stock is estimated at 41,851 dwelling units, and the vacancy rate is approximately 11.1 percent. The average household size is 2.089 persons per household. Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 2 -1 Initial Study and MND Jj GZ9 D ap OP D OOF *a a. 0 LL E .:3 C L.L L. E 0— -a a C c 0 0 ryQ CIO 4z aZ Lo k 10 4, ym OOF *a a. 0 LL E .:3 C L.L L. E 0— -a a C c 0 0 ryQ CIO 4z aZ Lo ym 0 cl OF �.P�JUH 0 OOF *a a. 0 LL E .:3 C L.L L. E 0— -a a C c 0 0 ryQ CIO 4z aZ Project Description (continued) The City has an estimated labor force of 48,980 persons as of November 2004, of which 48,090 persons are employed. These persons are expected to be holding jobs within the Newport Beach ' area. The City of Newport Beach is developed with a mix of land uses, although the majority of the land ' is developed with residential and recreational land uses. Approximately 92 acres of the City is designated for industrial uses, 1,224 acres for commercial uses, 483.36 acres for institutional uses, 4,553 acres for recreational uses and 6,349 acres for residential uses. The remaining 37 ' acres are considered "unclassified ". 2.1.2 Project Area ' The proposed Project site is an approximately 4.25 -acre site in the midsection of the City of Newport Beach. The proposed Project area is located within the Newport Center /Fashion Island area of the City, approximately 0.5 miles north of Pacific Coast Highway (SR -1) and 2.7 miles southeast of the ' Costa Mesa Freeway (SR -55) (see Figure 2 -2, Vicinity Map). The proposed Project would be located along Santa Barbara Drive, just west of the Fashion Island shopping /commercial area. Figure 2 -2, Vicinity Map, shows the proposed Project site in relation to the surrounding area. The site is surrounded by a variety of land uses including Recreational and Environmental Open Space (REDS), Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial (APF), Multi - Family Residential (MFR), and Retail and Service Commercial (RSC). The site is bounded by Santa ' Barbara Drive to the east, the Newport Beach Country Club Golf Course to the north and west and the Newport Beach Marriott Hotel to the south. Across Santa Barbara Drive and Newport Center Drive to the east are the Pacific Financial Plaza and the Fashion Island shopping /commercial area, respectively. The 4.25 -acre site is currently improved with the Newport Marriott tennis complex which includes eight tennis courts, an associated club house and parking utilized by the Newport Beach Marriott Hotel. The clubhouse and parking area are located in the southern portion of the site and the tennis courts and associated landscaping cover the remainder of the site. The proposed Project site has a relatively flat terrain, and slopes down to the west. On -site elevations range from ' approximately 170 feet above mean sea level (amsl) at the southeast comer of the site to 150 feet amsl at the northwest corner of the site. Vehicle and pedestrian access to the site is provided by a driveway on Santa Barbara Drive at the southeastern corner of the site. Regional access to the proposed Project site is provided by Pacific Coast Highway (SR -1) and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SR -73) via Jamboree Road or MacArthur Boulevard. The site is located approximately 0.5 mile north of SR -1 and two miles southwest of SR -73. The Costa Mesa Freeway SR -55, which is the main transportation corridor in Newport Beach is approximately 2.7 miles west of the proposed Project site. ' The proposed Project site is designated as Administrative, Professional, Financial Commercial (APF) in the Newport Beach General Plan. According to the City of Newport Beach Zoning Code, the ' zoning designation for the proposed Project site is also APF. According to the Land Use Element of the City of Newport Beach General Plan, the Project site is within "Block 900 — Hotel Plaza" of the "Newport Center (Statistical Area L1)." This planning area is bounded by Newport Center Drive, the i' Balboa Bay Tennis Club, the Newport Beach Country Club, Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara Drive. This planning area is designated for Administrative, Professional, Financial Commercial (APF) and Multi - Family Residential (MFR) land uses. ' Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 2 -3 Initial Study and MND 1 N C O J W J j z v 6 el RP �a c o� a° c l cPe b� 0 m` U Santa p0 $uyi 1w�hnaN Wb enm. mY� Y y� m V m Y K p 6 fpZ$u z � 0 m Z a v e m [tNe� rs N yea O' 41y p^ /8 X421 e� AmcaP 1)v 'QaSN4e"j u m m e a � 9 41 Q Igs � �Bt 0� D � JAB bCF i. yy au O �QaE 0a 0 a 9 i s U O cn E D_ C Q O > C U �C: �> m a N 0) N LL Z a N 0 a a °Z o � va C � N a my m- Project Description (continued) 2.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT The proposed Project involves a General Plan Amendment to redesignate 4.25 acres of land from Administrative, Professional, Financial Commercial (APF) to Multi - Family Residential (MFR) to accommodate the proposed residential development. The proposed Project site would require a zone change from APF to MFR. The proposed Project consists of three residential buildings totaling 79 condominium units (see Figure 2 -3, Proposed Site Plan). Residential The three proposed residential structures (Buildings 1, II and III) include a total of 79 condominium units totaling approximately 205,232 net square feet. Table 2 -1, Building Summary, provided below, summarizes the proposed organization of the three building. All three buildings would be no greater than 65 feet in height. The project proposes eight different floor plan options ranging from 2,363 to 4,018 square feet in size. The architecture of the proposed Project is Mediterranean with bold colors and rich detailings. The proposed Project utilizes large expanses of glass, decks and balconies to take advantage of ocean views. TABLE 2 -1 BUILDING SUMMARY Building Unit Count (du) Percentage Building 1 27 34.2% Building II 31 39.2% Building III 21 26.6% Total 79 100% Source: Douglas Bender and Associates Parking The proposed Project contains approximately 97,231 gross square feet of subterranean parking structures, which include 159 resident and 42 guest parking spaces, equaling a total of 201 parking spaces on -site. Parking for Building I, includes a total of 55 resident spaces and 15 guest parking spaces. Building II would be provided with 78 spaces, 16 of which would be guest spaces. Parking for Building III would include a total of 42 resident spaces and 11 guest spaces. Open Space and Recreational The proposed Project would provide approximately 79,140 square feet of open space and ' approximately 21,300 square feet of recreational area for use by residents and guests on the site. The recreational area is intended for passive uses and may contain features such as a fountain, seating, and barbecues. 2.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT The proposed Santa Barbara Condominiums Project seeks to accomplish the following objectives: • Approval of 79 high -end luxury for sale condominiums in Newport Center; ' Develop a site plan which concentrates proposed development within previously developed areas; ' Santa Barbara Con Initial Study and MND J Page 2 -5 .s� •1: E 1. JU. 1i •fir �Y:•'t .� 4a , r LL N N a 4- U O C � C O E Cn c -p O N U N Q m CIO C a°2 o ,u Ua . m N � Z m� r C :, Project Description (continued) Create a residential community which is compatible with the surrounding area and consistent with the data being collected through the City's General Plan Update process to provide additional residential units in Newport Center; Incorporate design elements to complement and reinforce the quality architecture Newport Center is known for — the architectural flavor will be reminiscent of old world Mediterranean hillside homes with bold colors and rich detailing with large expanses of glass, as well as generous decks and Juliet balconies, all to help facilitate dramatic views of the ocean and punctuate the notion of "coastal living "; and Maximize an opportunity for the development of a well - planned and designed project, which provides for the development of a unique residential product in Newport Center. 2.4 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS A discretionary action is a decision taken by a government agency that calls for the exercise of judgement in deciding whether to approve a project. For this proposed Project, the government agency with discretionary approval authority is the City of Newport Beach and the California Coastal Commission. To accomplish development of the proposed Project discussed above, the following actions would be made by the City of Newport Beach: ■ General Plan Amendment No. 2004 -005 — As discussed in Section 2, the proposed Project site is designated as Administrative, Professional, Financial Commercial (APF) in the Newport Beach General Plan. The proposed Project would require a General Plan Amendment to change the current land use designations for the site to Multi - Family Residential (MFR). This designation would allow for the development of the proposed 79 townhomes with minimum lot sizes of 5,000 square feet. ■ LCP Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2005 -001 — To change the land use designation from APF to MFR. ■ Code Amendment No. 2004 -008 - The proposed Project would also involve a rezoning of the property from the current zone of APF to MFR. The MFR zone would allow development of multi - family units with a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet and a minimum site area per unit of 1,200 square feet. ■ Parcel Map No. 2005 -014 — Resubdivision to Marriott's parcels for financing purposes — see drawings. ■ Tentative Tract Map No. 2004 -004 and 16774 —Condominium development. ■ Modification Permit No. 2005 -019 —Front yard setback encroachment. Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 2 -7 Initial Study and MND Description (continued) To accomplish development of the proposed Project discussed above, the following actions would be made by the California Coastal Commission: ■ Local Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment— To change the land use designation from APF to MFR. ■ Coastal Development Permit — Since the site is located within the Coastal Zone boundaries in the City of Newport Beach and the California Coastal Commission regulates development in the Coastal Zone, the proposed Project applicant would need to obtain an approved Coastal Development Permit for the proposed Project. Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 2 -8 Initial Study and MND SECTION 3: ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS This section of the Initial Study evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Project and provides explanations of the responses to the Environmental Checklist found in ' The environmental analysis in this section is patterned after the questions in the Environmental Checklist. Under each issue area, a general discussion of the existing conditions is provided. The Environmental Checklist questions are then stated and an answer is provided according to ' the environmental analysis of the proposed Project's impacts. To each question, there are four possible responses: • No Impact. The proposed Project will not have any measurable environmental impact ' on the environment. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project will have the potential for ' impacting the environment, although this impact will be below thresholds that may be considered significant. l' Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The proposed Project will have potentially significant adverse impacts which may exceed established thresholds, although mitigation measures or changes to the proposed Project's physical or I, operational characteristics will reduce these impacts to levels that are less than significant. Measures that may reduce this impact are identified. ' Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed Project will have impacts that are considered significant and additional analysis is required to identify mitigation measures that could reduce these impacts to insignificant levels. When an impact is determined to be potentially significant in the preliminary analysis, the environmental issue will be subject to detailed analysis in an environmental impact report (EIR). The references and sources used for the analysis are also identified after each response. J Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 3 -1 Initial Study and MND I. Appendix A of this document. The Environmental Checklist is based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines provides a list of checklist questions that correspond directly to the legal t standards for preparing Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs), Negative Declarations, and Mitigated Negative Declarations (MNDs). The environmental issues evaluated in this Initial Study include the following: ' Aesthetics Land Use and Planning • Agriculture Resources Mineral Resources • Air Quality Noise • Biological Resources Population and Housing • Cultural Resources Public Services • Geology and Soils Recreation • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Transportation/ Traffic • Hydrology and Water Quality • Utilities and Service Systems ' The environmental analysis in this section is patterned after the questions in the Environmental Checklist. Under each issue area, a general discussion of the existing conditions is provided. The Environmental Checklist questions are then stated and an answer is provided according to ' the environmental analysis of the proposed Project's impacts. To each question, there are four possible responses: • No Impact. The proposed Project will not have any measurable environmental impact ' on the environment. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project will have the potential for ' impacting the environment, although this impact will be below thresholds that may be considered significant. l' Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The proposed Project will have potentially significant adverse impacts which may exceed established thresholds, although mitigation measures or changes to the proposed Project's physical or I, operational characteristics will reduce these impacts to levels that are less than significant. Measures that may reduce this impact are identified. ' Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed Project will have impacts that are considered significant and additional analysis is required to identify mitigation measures that could reduce these impacts to insignificant levels. When an impact is determined to be potentially significant in the preliminary analysis, the environmental issue will be subject to detailed analysis in an environmental impact report (EIR). The references and sources used for the analysis are also identified after each response. J Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 3 -1 Initial Study and MND I. Environmental 3.1 AESTHETICS The proposed Project site is located in an urban area that includes a mix of residential, office and other commercial land uses. The proposed Project site is a 4.25 -acre area adjacent to Santa Barbara Drive and the Pacific Financial Plaza to the east, the Newport Beach Country Club Golf Course to the north and west and the Newport Beach Marriott Hotel to the south. The site is currently improved with the Newport Marriott tennis complex which includes eight lighted tennis courts, an associated club house and parking utilized by the Newport Beach Marriott Hotel. Use of the facility is limited to guests of the Marriott Hotel and the site is not open otherwise to the general public. Santa Barbara Drive is developed as a four -lane roadway, with landscaped parkways, non- contiguous sidewalks and streetlights. The sidewalks along either side of Santa Barbara Drive are buffered from the street by a landscaped area with ornamental vegetation such as grass, small shrubs and trees. There are no overhead power lines crossing over the site or adjacent to the site along the roadways. Public views of the site from Santa Barbara Drive are slightly blocked by tall trees lining the eastern edge of the site; however, partial views of the existing tennis courts, clubhouse and parking area exist. Further, the proposed Project site is slightly lower than Santa Barbara Drive, allowing for more distant views of the golf course bordering the site on the west. The site is not visible from Jamboree Road, due to its distance from the roadway and the vegetation planted on the adjacent golf course. Views from the site include Pacific Financial Plaza. Pacific Financial Plaza includes an eight -story office building, a two story parking structure and a surface parking lot. Additionally, views from the site to the northeast are of The Colony, a multi - family residential area, with three four -story buildings lining Santa Barbara Drive. Views from the site looking to the north and west consist entirely of the Newport Beach Country Club Golf Course and associated facilities. The 15 -16 story Newport Beach Marriott Hotel comprise views from the site looking to the south. (Sources: Site Survey and Aerial Photograph) A. Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than Significant Impact. Within the City of Newport Beach, scenic vistas are comprised mainly of ocean views, scenic coastal views and bluff areas. Views of the ocean and scenic coastal views are available from many locations throughout the City but are limited from the proposed Project site due to existing surrounding developments. According to the City of Newport Beach, a 'bluff is any landform having an average slope of 26.6 degrees (50 percent) or greater, with a vertical rise of 25 feet or greater. There are no existing bluff areas on or adjacent to the proposed Project site. The proposed Project would result in changes to the existing use of the site from eight relatively flat tennis courts to development of 79 townhomes, and subterranean parking areas, open space and recreation area. The proposed Project includes construction of three 50 to 65 -foot tall residential structures. The architecture of the proposed Project is Mediterranean with bold colors and rich detailing. The proposed Project would utilize large expanses of glass, decks and balconies to take advantage of ocean views. This style of architecture is common in southern California and would be compatible to the adjacent hotel use as well as the residential uses located across Santa Barbara Drive. The proposed structures may block existing views of the golf course from private land uses east of the proposed Project site; however, the City of Newport Beach does not have a Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 3 -2 Initial Study and MND 1 Environmental Analysis (continued) policy for protection of private views. Further, the golf course is not considered a scenic resource, and thus, this would not be considered a significant impact. Additionally, views from Santa Barbara Drive through the site to the golf course are not designated scenic vistas because no views of the ocean, coast or other scenic resources currently exist. Therefore, the 50 to 65 foot tall buildings would not block a scenic vista. Further, the proposed Project is in an area that allows high rise structures and has been designed to comply with City development standards, therefore, a less than significant impact on scenic vistas would result from the proposed Project. The proposed Project site is located within the High Rise Height Limitation Zone. According to the Newport Beach Zoning Code Chapter 20.65.040 E (High Rise Height Limitation Zone), the height limit for any structure shall not exceed 375 feet (see Figure 3 -1, City of Newport Beach Height Limitation Zones). The three proposed residential structures would be approximately 50 -60 feet in height and are far below the 375 feet height limitation set by the City of Newport Beach Zoning Code. Therefore, no impacts regarding building height would occur with proposed Project implementation. ■ (Sources: Newport Beach General Plan, Municipal Code, Project Plans, and Site Survey) ' B. Would the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? ' No Impact. There are no scenic resources on or near the proposed Project site. No rock outcroppings or historic buildings are found along or near the proposed Project site. None of the surrounding roadways are designated as scenic highways in California's Scenic Routes. There are a number of trees on -site that may need to be removed or relocated as part of the proposed Project during grading and construction activities. The majority, if not all, of the palm trees and Ficus rubiginosa on -site would be relocated and re- planted. In addition, the site currently has a Eucalyptus trees; however, due to current disease problems, the Eucalyptus trees on -site would need to be evaluated and certified as healthy in order for reuse. These trees are part of the existing ornamental landscaping on -site and are not considered part of a scenic resource. Therefore, no impact on scenic resources or scenic highways is expected to occur with proposed Project implementation. (Sources: Newport Beach General Plan, Site Survey, Project Plans and California's Scenic Routes) C. Would the Project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would change the visual quality of the proposed Project site through the development of residential condominiums in three 50 to 65 foot tall buildings, an approximately 79,140- square -feet of open space, and approximately 21,300 square -feet of hardscape for recreational use on the site. 11 1 1 On a short -term basis, during the construction period, the proposed Project site would be subject to construction activities. Views of disturbed areas with construction materials and equipment, and grading would be visible to passers -by. This change in the visual environment is short -term and is not considered significant. Additionally, because the Project would be similar to existing surrounding land uses, such as the residential area to the northeast, the proposed Project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. A less than significant impact would occur. (Sources: Site Survey, Aerial photographs and Project Plans) Santa Barbara Condominiums Initial Study and MND Page 3 -3 `'�. /: "' �iJ Environmental Analysis (continued) D. Would the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less than Significant Impact. Existing sources of light and glare on -site include tennis court lighting, security lighting in the parking lot, and streetlights and headlights from vehicles traveling along Santa Barbara Drive. Development on the proposed Project site would be accompanied by interior and exterior lighting from residential areas, security lighting, pedestrian pathway lighting and landscape lighting. Lighting on the proposed Project site would be visible from the surrounding areas. However, the proposed Project site is located in an urbanized area and would replace the existing tennis courts on -site, whose nighttime illumination is a significantly greater source of light and glare in the area. Proposed Project lighting would not increase the lighting levels of the site, in fact, on -site lighting levels are expected to be reduced with proposed Project implementation. (Sources: Site Survey and Project Plans) 3.2 AGRICULTURE RESOURCES The California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) ' develops statistical data for analyzing impacts on California's agricultural resources, for use by decision makers in assessing the present status, reviewing trends, and planning for the future of California's agricultural land resources. According to the California Department of Conservation ' FMMP,. there are no agricultural land resources within the City of Newport Beach and the proposed Project area is designated as Urban and Built -up Land. ' (Sources: Newport Beach General Plan, California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program and Site Survey) A. Would the Project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of ' Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use? No Impact. No Prime Farmland, Farmland of State or Local Importance, or Unique Farmland occurs within or near the proposed Project area. Since the proposed Project site is not used for agriculture and is not Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, the proposed Project would not result in converting farmlands to a non - agricultural use. The adjacent areas are not designated as Prime, Unique, or Statewide Important Farmland under the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency or in the Newport Beach General Plan. Thus, no impact on important farmlands would occur with the proposed Project. (Sources: Newport Beach General Plan, Califomia Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, and Site Survey) B. Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. According to the City's General Plan, the proposed Project site is currently designated as APF, which does not permit agricultural uses. According to the Newport Beach General Plan, there is no designated farmland within the proposed Project area. Adjacent areas are designated as APF, Multi- Family Residential, Retail and Service Commercial, and Recreational and Environmental Open Space in the City's General Land Use Plan map. There are no lands under a Williamson Act contract on or near the site. With the absence of agricultural areas Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 3 -5 Initial Study and MND Environmental Analysis near the site, no conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or contracts under the Williamson Act would occur. No impact on agricultural zones or resources in the City would result from the proposed Project. (Sources: General Land Use Plan of the Newport Beach General Plan, California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, Newport Beach Zoning Map, and Site Survey) C. Would the Project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use? No Impact The site is not being used for any agricultural purposes and is not designated as agricultural land. Since the proposed Project site is not used for agriculture, the proposed Project would not result in converting farmland to a non - agricultural use. Also, no agricultural uses are found near the site that may convert to non - agricultural use. No impact would occur as a result of the proposed Project. (Sources: Newport Beach General Plan, California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, and Site Survey) 3.3 AIR QUALITY An Air Quality Analysis for the proposed Project was prepared by Giroux and Associates in February 2005 to identify existing air quality conditions on and around the site, as well as analyze the proposed Project's potential impacts on air quality. The findings of the study are summarized below, and the complete Air Quality Analysis is provided in Appendix B at the end of this document. The climate of Orange County, as with all of Southern California, is governed largely by the strength and location of the semi - permanent high pressure center over the Pacific Ocean and the moderating effects of the nearby vast oceanic heat reservoir. Local climatic conditions in Newport Beach are characterized by a Mediterranean climate with average temperatures of 61 degrees annually, infrequent rainfall, and moderate daytime on -shore breezes. Nighttime breezes generally slow and reverse to become offshore breezes. Annual average temperatures in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) are 62 to 65 degrees Fahrenheit. The average annual rainfall is approximately 12 inches. Air Quality Standards Air quality is measured by comparing contaminant levels in ambient air samples to national and state standards. These standards are set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board at levels determined to be protective of public health and welfare with an adequate margin of safety. The federal Clean Air Act of 1970 first authorized national ambient air quality standards ( NAAQS). California ambient air quality standards ( CAAQS) were authorized by the State legislature in 1967. Air quality is considered in "attainment" of NAAQS if pollutant levels are below or equal to the standards continuously and exceed them on average no more than once each year. California standards are generally more stringent than the national standards. Whereas, one violation of national standards averaged over three years is still considered as meeting NAAQS, the definition of CAAQS attainment is zero violations. Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 3 -6 Initial Study and MND Environmenta /Ana /ysis (continued) Because of unique air quality problems introduced by the restrictive dispersion meteorology in California, there is considerable difference between state and national clean air standards. Those ' National and California standards currently in effect are shown in Table 3 -1, Ambient Air Quality Standards. TABLE 3 -1 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS Average California Standards National Standards Pollutant Concentration Method Primary Secondary Method Time 1 hour 0.09 ppm 0.12 ppm 0.12 ppm Ozone 180 /m3 Ultraviolet 235 /m3 235 /m3 Ethylene 8 hour _ 0.08 ppm 0.08 ppm Photometry Chemiluminescence 157 /m3 157 /m3 8 hours 9.0 ppm Non - Dispersive g ppm Non - Dispersive Carbon 10 /m3 Infrared 10 Mg/M3) Infrared Monoxide Spectroscopy None Spectroscopy 20 ppm 35 ppm 1 hour 23 m /m3) (NDIR) 40 m /m3) (NDIR) Annual 0.053 ppm 0.053 ppm Nitrogen Average _ Gas Phase 100 /m3 100 /m3 Gas Phase Dioxide (NOz) Chemiluminescence Chemiluminescence 1 hour 0.25 ppm — 470 /m3 Annual 0.03 ppm Average — 80 /m3 — 24 hours 0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm Sulfur Dioxide 105 /m3 Ultraviolet 365 /m3 — (SOz) Fluorescence Pararosaniline — 0.5 ppm 3 hours 1300 /m3 1 hour 0.25 ppm — — 655 /m3 Respirable 24 hours 50 pg /m3 150 pg /m3 150 pg /m3 Particulate Gravimetric or Beta Inertial Separation and Matter Attenuation Gravimetric Analysis Annual (PM10) Arithmetic 20 pg /m3 50 pg /m3 50 pg /m3 Mean Annual Fine Arithmetic 12 pg /m3 15 pg /m3 — Particulate Mean Gravimetric or Beta Inertial Separation and Matter Attenuation Gravimetric Analysis (PMz.$) 24 hours — 65 Vg/nn — Sulfates 24 hours 25 pg /m3 Ion Chromatography -- -- — 30-day 1.5 pg /m3 Average Lead Atomic Absorption Atomic Absorption Calendar Quarter — 1.5 pg /m3 1.5 pg /m3 Hydrogen 0.010 ppm Sulfide 24 hours (26 pg/m3) Gas Chromatography — — — Vinyl Chloride Source: Air Quality Analysis Santa Barbara Condominiums Initial Study and MND I 1 Page 3 -7 Environmental Analysis (continued) Air quality standards specify the upper limits of concentrations and duration in the ambient air consistent with the management goal of preventing specific harmful effects. There are national and state standards for ozone (03), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NOA airborne particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of less than 10 microns (PM -10), sulfur dioxide (SOA and lead (Pb). A federal standard for ultra -fine particulate matter (2.5 microns in diameter or less, or PM -2.5) was adopted in 1997. Since the California 24 -hour PM -10 standard, which includes PM -2.5 as a sub- set, is more stringent than the federal PM -2.5 standard, compliance with the state PM -10 standard is presumed to assure compliance with the federal 24 -hour PM -2.5 standard automatically. Also, a State standard for PM -2.5, which is more stringent than its federal counterpart, has been adopted. Local Air Quality The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) operates air monitoring stations in Orange County to monitor carbon monoxide, ozone, particulate matter10(PM1o), nitrogen dioxide, and other air pollutant levels. Existing and probable future levels of air quality in Newport Beach can be best inferred from ambient air quality measurements conducted by the SCAQMD at its Costa Mesa and El Toro monitoring stations. These stations measure both regional pollution levels such as dust (particulates) and smog, as well as levels of primary vehicular pollutants such as carbon monoxide. Table 3 -2, Project Area Air Quality Monitoring Summary, summarizes the last three years of published monitoring data from the SCAQMD's Costa Mesa monitoring station (see below). The data in Table 3-2 shows that carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide levels do not exceed state and federal clean air standards, although ozone and particulate levels occasionally exceed the standards. According to the Conservation of Natural Resources Element of the Newport Beach General Plan, mobile sources are the major cause of these air pollutants in Orange County. Particulate matter exceedances are also a result from grading and construction activities in the area. However, a trend towards better air quality can be seen, since the frequency of smog alerts due to high ozone levels, especially those considered unhealthy for all people, has dropped considerably since 1998. (Sources: Air Quality Analysis) A. Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. The Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the SCAB has been developed to address air pollution control in the air basin and to make air quality in the basin meet federal and state ambient air quality standards. The AQMP considered growth projections for the region and identified programs and measures needed to reduce pollutants anticipated from existing and future developments in the South Coast Air Basin. The SCAQMD has developed significance thresholds based on the volume of pollution emitted rather than on actual ambient air quality because the direct air quality impact of a project is not quantifiable on a regional scale. The proposed Project would need to comply with applicable thresholds as they relate to fugitive dust control during grading activities, architectural coatings, building construction, and other air pollutant regulations. Any Projects in the SCAB with daily emissions that exceed any of the thresholds shown in Table 3 -3, SCAQMD Emissions Significance Thresholds, are recommended by the SCAQMD to be considered individually and cumulatively significant. Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 3 -8 Initial Study and MND Environmental TABLE 3 -2 PROJECT AREA AIR QUALITY MONITORING SUMMARY Pollutant/Standard 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Ozone 1 -Hour > 0.09 ppm 1 5 1 1 1 0 4 1 -Hour > 0.12 ppm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 -Hour > 0.08 ppm 1 4 0 1 0 0 1 Max. 1 -Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.10 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.11 Carbon Monoxide 1 -Hour > 20. ppm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 -Hour > 9. ppm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Max. 1 -Hour Conc. (ppm) 7. 9. 8. 8. 6. 5. xx Max. 8 -Hour Conc. (ppm) 5.8 7.0 6.4 6.3 4.6 4.3 5.9 Nitrogen Dioxide 1 -Hour > 0.25 ppm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Max. 1 -Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.08 0.11 0.11 Inhalable Particulates (PM -10) 24 -Hour > 50 pg /m' 4/56 6/59 6 /60 2/60 3/57 5/60 2/xx 24 -Hour > 150 pg /m' 0/56 0/59 0 /60 0 /60 0/57 0 /60 O /xx Max. 24 -Hour Conc. (pg /m') 86. 70. 111. 98. 60. 80. 64. Ultra -Fine Particulates (PM -2.5) 24 -Hour > 65 pg /m' 0/65 1/119 01102 0/119 0 /xxx Max. 24 -Hour Conc. (pg /m') 57. 95. 53. 58. 51. Source: SCAUMD TABLE 3 -3 SCAQMD EMISSIONS SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS POUNDS PER DAY Pollutant Construction Operations ROG 75 55 NOx 100 55 CO 550 550 PM -10 150 150 sox 150 150 Source: Air Duality Analysis Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 3 -9 Initial Study and MND Analysis (continued) Compliance with the regulations of the SCAQMD would ensure that no conflict with the AQMP would occur and the proposed Project would not obstruct implementation of the AQMP. As shown in Table 3-4, Estimated Project Emissions During Construction and Table 3 -5, Average Daily Project Source Air Pollution Emissions shown below, construction and operation of the proposed Project would not exceed established thresholds that have been adopted to ensure that goals specified in the AQMP can be met. Additionally, the proposed Project would incorporate measures to reduce short -term construction emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD regulations. The proposed Project would not obstruct or conflict with SCAQMD's AQMP. (Sources: Air Quality Analysis) B. Would the Project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The proposed Project would lead to temporary construction emissions that may affect regional air quality. Construction, occupancy, operation of the proposed Project would lead to increases in pollutant emissions in the area associated with development of the proposed Project site. Temporary construction activity emissions will occur during proposed Project build -out. Such emissions include on -site generation of dust and equipment exhaust, and off -site emissions from construction employee commuting and /or trucks delivering building materials. Short- term/Construction Impacts The use of construction equipment for development of the proposed Project site would lead to emissions, which would add to local air pollution levels. Heavy -duty trucks, earth- movers, air compressors, and power generators would be used during the construction phase. Operation and application of these machines would temporarily increase air pollutant levels in the vicinity of the proposed Project. In addition, emissions from delivery and haul trucks, construction crew vehicles, concrete mixers, and other off -site vehicle trips would add to local pollutant levels. Construction emissions for CO, ROC, SOx, and PM -10 would generally be low from equipment use and truck trips. However, the use of diesel fuel in most of the equipment and trucks would lead to increased NOx levels, assuming construction equipment are used a full eight hours per day. Additionally, VOC emissions from architectural coatings (paints) would create ROG emissions during construction. Lastly, fugitive dust emissions on the site would be generated by ground disturbance during grading and excavation activities. These activities would generate a total of 40,000 cubic yards (cy) of cut materials to be exported off the site. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) emissions computer model URBEMIS2002 was used to estimate daily emissions during grading and finish construction with the following results (pounds /day) shown in Table 3 -4, Estimated Project Emissions During Construction, provided below: Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 3 -10 Initial Study and MND Environmental Analysis (continued) TABLE 3-4 ESTIMATED PROJECT EMISSIONS DURING CONSTRUCTION PM -10 PM -10 Equipment PM -10 Activity ROG NOx CO SOZ Total Exhaust Dust Grading 7.0 48.7 57.1 0.0 12.1 2.1 10.0° Finish Work 143.13 30.8 35.7 0.0 1.4 1.3 0.1 SCAQMD Threshold 75. 100. 550. 150. 150. 150 150 a Exceeds threshold due to application of paints and coatings. Maximum dally disturbance "footprint" during grading is 1.0 acre. Calculated PM -10 emissions have been calculated with the application of "standard" dust control, and with the application of enhanced dust control measures see pjrQuall Analysis for more details .. Source: Air Quality Analysis As shown above, during finish work, application of paintings and coatings could create ROG emissions exceeding the SCAQMD threshold. Additionally, limiting the grading footprint area and /or use of best available control measures (BACMs) are not required to achieve a less -than- significant dust (PM -10) emission rate. However, the non - attainment status of the air basin for PM -10 dictates that all reasonably available control measures be implemented. Use of BACMs during construction is therefore recommended even if thresholds are not exceeded. Mitigation measures that would reduce emissions associated with construction of the proposed Project include: Mitigation Measure 3.3.A: During grading activities, any exposed soil areas shall be watered twice per day. On windy days or when fugitive dust can be observed leaving the proposed Project site, additional applications of water shall be applied to maintain a minimum 12 percent moisture content as defined by SCAQMD Rule 403. Under windy conditions where velocities are forecast to exceed 25 miles per hour (as ascertained by phone calls to the SCAQMD), all ground disturbing activities shall be halted until winds that are forecast to abate below this threshold. Mitigation Measure 3.3.B: The proposed Project shall comply with regional rules such as SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403, which would assist in reducing short -term air pollutant emissions. Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with best available control measures so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. Rule 402 requires dust suppression techniques be implemented to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance offsite. These dust suppression techniques are summarized as follows: a. Portions of the construction site to remain inactive longer than a period of three months shall be seeded and watered until grass cover is grown or otherwise stabilized in a manner acceptable to the City. b. All on -site roads shall be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or chemically stabilized. c. All material transported offsite shall be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 3 -11 Initial Study and MND Environmental Analysis (continued) d. The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations shall be minimized at all times. Mitigation Measure 3.3.C: All vehicles on the construction site shall travel at speeds less than 15 miles per hour. Mitigation Measure 3.3.D: All material stockpiles subject to wind erosion during construction activities, that will not be utilized within three days, shall be covered with plastic, an alternative cover deemed equivalent to plastic, or sprayed with a nontoxic chemical stabilizer. Mitigation Measure 3.3.E: Where vehicles leave the construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the streets shall be swept daily or washed down at the end of the work day to remove soil tracked onto the paved surface. Any visible track -out extending for more than fifty (50) feet from the access point shall be swept or washed within thirty (30) minutes of deposition. Mitigation Measure 3.3.F: All diesel - powered vehicles and equipment shall be properly operated and maintained. Mitigation Measure 3.3.G: All diesel - powered vehicles and gasoline - powered equipment shall be turned off when not in use for more than five (5) minutes. Mitigation Measure 3.3.H: The construction contractor shall utilize electric or natural gas - powered equipment instead of gasoline or diesel - powered engines, where feasible. Mitigation Measure 3.3.1: As much as possible, the construction contractor shall time the construction activities so as not to interfere with peak hour traffic. To minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes adjacent to the site, a flag person shall be retained to maintain safety adjacent to existing roadways, if necessary. Mitigation Measure 3.3.J: The construction contractor shall support and encourage ridesharing and transit incentives for the construction crew. Mitigation Measure 3.3.K: The construction contractor shall utilize, as much as possible, pre - coated /natural colored building materials. Water -based or low VOC coatings shall be used that comply with the most stringent SCAQMD Rule 1113 limits. Spray equipment with high transfer efficiency, such as the high volume -low pressure (HVLP) paint applicators with 50 percent efficiency, or manual coatings application such as paint brush hand roller, trowel, spatula, dauber, rag, or a sponge shall be used to reduce VOC emissions, where practical. Additionally, paint application shall use lower volatility paint not exceeding 100 grams of ROG per liter. Mitigation Measure 3.31: If construction equipment powered by alternative fuel sources (LPG /CNG) is available at comparable cost, the developer shall specify that such equipment be used during all construction activities on the proposed Project site. Mitigation Measure 3.3.M: The developer shall require the use of particulate filters on diesel construction equipment if use of such filters is demonstrated to be cost- competitive for use on this proposed Project. Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 3 -12 Initial Study and MND Environmental Implementation of the mitigation measures outlined above would reduce emissions from construction activities to less than significant levels. Operational Impacts Emissions from vehicles travelling to and from the site would be the primary source of emissions resulting from use and occupancy of the proposed Project. Pollutants generated from proposed Project - related traffic would include carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PMio), and nitrogen oxides (NOJ Due to the size of the proposed Project and the anticipated increased vehicle trips to and from the proposed Project site, emissions from these vehicles would add to the regional air pollution levels. The proposed Project would generate approximately 330 new vehicle trips to area roadways. According to the Air Quality Analysis prepared for the proposed Project, the California ARB land use and air pollution emissions computer model URBEMIS2002 was run for a worst -case proposed Project build -out of year 2007. As shown in Table 3 -5, Average Daily Project Source Air Pollution Emissions, the proposed Project - related mobile source emissions burden would not exceed designated thresholds and all pollutant emissions are below significance levels by a wide margin of safety. Operation of the proposed Project would not result in a significant impact to air quality. TABLE 3 -5 AVERAGE DAILY PROJECT SOURCE AIR POLLUTION EMISSIONS Condominium Residential Uses ROG NOx CO sox PM -10 Total Area Source Emissions 4.1 0.6 1.4 0.0 0.0 Vehicle Source Emissions 8.5 9.4 101.8 0.1 9.1 Total 12.6 1010 103.2 0.1 9.1 SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 Exceeds Threshold No No No No No Percent of Threshold 23 18 19 <1 6 Source: Air Quality Analysis (Sources: Newport Beach General Plan, SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, and Project Plans) C. Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria ' pollutant for which the region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? ' Less than Significant Impact. In the event direct impacts from a project are less than significant, a project may still have a cumulatively considerable impact on air quality if the emissions from the ' project, in combination with the emissions from other proposed, or reasonably foreseeable future projects are in excess of the designated threshold levels identified above, and the project's contribution accounts for more than an insignificant proportion of the cumulative total emissions. ' Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 3 -13 ' Initial Study and MND Environmental Analysis (continued) As discussed above, construction and vehicle emissions associated with proposed Project would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds with implementation of the mitigation measures outlined above and would not be significant. Most mobile source pollutants create regional impacts after conversion of precursor emissions to their most unhealthful forms. Carbon monoxide (CO) is the one pollutant that is emitted in its already most unhealthful form. Congested intersections have often been found to be areas of highly localized violations of CO standards. These violations are called "hot spots ". According to the Air Quality Analysis prepared for the proposed Project, there are no "hot spot" CO impacts (individually or cumulatively) associated with implementation of the proposed Santa Barbara Condominium Project. Maximum background one -hour CO levels in Newport Beach are approximately 4 ppm. Upon buildout of the General Plan, the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Ford Road could create local CO levels that would exceed the one -hour CO standard by 0.1 ppm. However, the cumulative impact from the proposed Project is negligible for the following reasons: • The proposed Project contribution is immeasurably small; • The General Plan build -out condition would not be achieved until well into the future when cars are cleaner whereas the analysis was conducted assuming a 2005 traffic fleet; and • Since General Plan build -out conditions are well into the future, they may not be achieved. Therefore, there would be no cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutants and no significant impacts would result from development of the proposed Project. (Sources: Air Quality Analysis) D. Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant , concentrations? Less than Significant Impact. Sensitive receptors located near the proposed Project site include a multi - family residential area and The Colony, located across Santa Barbara Drive to the northeast. Short -term and long -term emissions that would result from development of the proposed Project have the potential to affect these sensitive receptors. Potential impacts to the residents in the adjacent residential area would include fugitive dust during grading and excavation and emissions from on -site construction equipment. However, implementation of mitigation measures during construction would avoid adverse impacts on these sensitive receptors. Also, long -term vehicle emissions would occur along the regional transportation network and would not be concentrated on or near the site to affect adjacent homes. (Sources: SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, Newport Beach General Plan, USGS Laguna Beach Quadrangle, and Site Survey) E. Would the Project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed residential development would not involve the handling of large quantities of solid waste materials, chemicals, food products, or other odorous materials, and has no potential to create objectionable odors. Vehicle use of the internal or adjacent roads is not expected to involve or generate odorous emissions, although vehicle idling may generate carbon monoxide and NO, fumes at local intersections. This impact is similar to Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 3 -14 Initial Study and MND Environmental vehicle exhaust generation along any other major roadway in the City or in the region and is not considered significant. During construction, there may be localized instances when the characteristic diesel exhaust odor is noticeable from construction equipment and asphalt paving, but such transitory exposure is a brief nuisance and would not threaten regional air quality standards. Thus, adverse impact in terms of objectionable odors during construction would be less than significant. (Sources: SCAQMD CEQA Handbook and Project Plans) 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The County of Orange has prepared a Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP) for the Central - Coastal region of the County. As indicated in the NCCP, most of the preserved area is located within the unincorporated jurisdiction of the County, with significant portions within the Cities of Irvine, Laguna Beach, Laguna Niguel, and San Juan Capistrano with smaller portions located in Costa Mesa and Newport Beach. The NCCP is designed to connect various geographic components of the plan area into a contiguous system to allow animals to move throughout the area via a continuous system of reserve habitat and linkages. The proposed Project site is not located within the boundary area of the NCCP. The City of Newport Beach contains a variety of natural resources including natural lands and wildlife areas that contain several types of flora and fauna habitat. These areas have been identified as Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) in the Recreation and Open Space Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. ESA's are defined as "those passive open space areas possessing unique environmental value, which may warrant some form of protection or preservation." Specifically, the Element indicates that these areas may support species which are rare, endangered, of limited distribution or otherwise sensitive. Additionally, these areas may include, but are not limited to: riparian areas, freshwater marshes, saltwater marshes, intertidal areas, other wetlands, and unique or unusually diverse vegetative communities. The vast majority of natural resources within the City are located in the Upper Newport Bay area, coastal bluffs, and within the beaches and harbors areas of the city. Eleven listed wildlife species and three listed plant species occur or may potentially occur within the City of Newport Beach. The proposed Project site is not identified as an ESA area in the Newport Beach General Plan. The proposed Project site is currently developed with tennis court and associated uses, with vegetation on the site limited to areas adjacent to the courts and the embankment adjacent to Santa Barbara Drive. This vegetation consists primarily of ornamental landscape species. Areas surrounding the site are highly developed with urban uses. Vegetation associated with these uses consists of ornamental species. As previously discussed, the Newport Beach Country Club Golf Course is adjacent to the proposed Project site. Vegetation associated with this use consists primarily of maintained grass with shrubs and trees. A number of trees are present on -site, along the existing rights -of -way, as well as adjacent to the roadways. Fauna associated with the proposed Project site would be consistent with urban environments. Species that may be anticipated in and around the site would likely consist of a variety of species commonly found in urban /developed areas. (Sources: Newport Beach General Plan, Aerial Photographs, and Site Survey, Central - Coastal Orange County NCCP) Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 3 -15 Initial Study and MND Environmental A. Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project area is located within an urbanized area of Newport Beach. The proposed Project area is heavily disturbed and does not support rare, candidate, sensitive, or special status species. The proposed Project site is currently developed with eight tennis courts, an associated clubhouse and parking area and does not contain any valuable biological resources. Sensitive plant species, such as Diegan Coastal sage scrub, that are known to be present within the City do not occur on the site due prior development and disturbance of the area. The nearest area with Diegan Coastal sage scrub is located approximately 0.27 miles to the east. Therefore, no impacts to sensitive plant species are expected. Because of the highly disturbed nature of the area and the lack of sensitive biological resources, no adverse impacts to sensitive biological resources are expected with the proposed Project. (Sources: Newport Beach General Plan and Site Survey) B. Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. The proposed Project site is currently developed and does not support riparian habitat. All on -site vegetation, including trees, shrubs and grasses, is due to prior landscaping of the site during previous development. There are no water channels or evidence of water flows in or near the proposed Project site. The USGS Laguna Beach Quadrangle does not show any blue line stream in or near the proposed Project area. Consequently, the proposed Project would not affect riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities, as identified by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (Sources: Newport Beach General Plan, USGS Laguna Beach Quadrangle, and Site Survey) C. Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. The proposed Project site does not support wetland habitat, as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and does not contain any designated blue line streams. No channels or evidence of flow occur in or around the proposed Project site and no permits from the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would be required. The nearest watercourse is Newport Bay, which is located approximately 0.6 miles to the west of the site as well as 1.3 miles to the south of the site. Therefore, no impacts to wetlands are expected to occur as a result of the proposed Project. (Sources: Newport Beach General Plan, Thomas Guide for Los Angeles and Orange Counties and Site Survey) Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 3 -16 Initial Study and MND Environmental D. Would the Project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No Impact. The proposed Project site is highly disturbed and vegetation on the site consists of non - native grasses and landscaped plants and trees. Due to the presence of urban development on all sides of the site, and its location in an urban setting, the proposed Project site is not expected to be used as a wildlife corridor for any migratory species. The proposed Project site is not designated as an established wildlife corridor and is not used as a nursery site by wildlife species. Species on -site include a variety of common bird, insect and reptile species commonly found in an urban setting, none of whose migration would be inhibited by development of the proposed Project. The proposed Project would not interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. (Sources: Newport Beach General Plan, Project Plans, Site Survey, and Aerial Photograph) E. Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact. Existing tree species present on the proposed Project site include palm trees (Mexican Fan Palms), street trees (Rusty leaf Fig) and mature Eucalyptus trees. The majority of the existing street and palm trees on -site would be relocated and replanted on the proposed Project site. However, due to current disease problems with Eucalyptus species, the existing trees would need to be evaluated and certified as healthy before replanting. None of these tree species are protected under a tree preservation policy or ordinance. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting trees categorized as Special, Landmark, Dedicated, or Neighborhood trees. Further, approximately 240 trees and additional landscaping would be planted on -site as part of the proposed Project. Thus, no conflict with the City's tree preservation ordinance and policies would occur with proposed Project implementation. (Sources: Newport Beach General Plan, Newport Beach City Code, Project Plans, and Site Survey) Would the Project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. The Coastal/Central Orange County NCCP approved in July 1996, includes areas previously protected through traditional land -use practices such as exactions, dedications, and purchases, as well as areas with at -risk habitat or species. The resulting preserve encompasses 37,380 acres containing 12 major habitats and 39 threatened or endangered plant and animal species. As discussed above the proposed site is not located within the NCCP and would, therefore, not conflict with the implementation of that plan. A Draft Local Coastal Program (LCP) Land Use Plan for the City, in coordination with the California Coastal Commission, has been created and is in the process of being approved. Once adopted the LCP would indicate land use intensity and location, the applicable resource protection and development policies, and, where necessary, a listing of implementing actions. This plan does not identify the site for resource protection and no conflict with this future LCP is expected with the proposed Project. Thus, the proposed Project would have no impact on local or regional habitat conservation plans. (Sources: Newport Beach General Plan and Site Survey, Coastal /Central Orange County NCCP) Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 3 -17 Initial Study and MND Environmental 3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES The City's first inhabitants were the Shoshone Indians who lived along the Pacific coast thousands of years ago. Decades later in the 1800's, land holdings of the Capistrano Mission were divided out as Spanish and Mexican land grants to war heroes and aristocratic families. American entrepreneurs by the names of Flint, Bixby, Irvine and McFadden later bought most of the land area known as Newport Beach's upper bay and lower bay. Later, the City of Newport Beach was incorporated in 1906. By 1936, the present day contour of Newport Beach was established and community members dedicated the City's main harbor, named Newport Harbor. World War II brought about an influx of new military operations and personnel working and living in the area. The Santa Ana Freeway (1 -5), built in the 1950's, brought even more people to the City. By the 1970's, rapid growth led to the building of shopping centers, hotels, restaurants, and many new homes. The City of Newport Beach has not been extensively studied or excavated. However, many archaeological sites have been discovered throughout the City, more specifically, adjacent to the "Upper Bay" area. Because the City has not been widely surveyed, the majority of the known or unknown archaeological sites have already been destroyed due to development in the area. Additionally, known unique paleontological resources have been discovered along the bluffs on the east shore of the bay and the adjoining foothills and in the North Bluffs area. There are three sites within the City currently listed on the Federal Register of Historic Places. Two sites within the City were previously designated as California Historical Landmarks; however, nothing more remains of these sites but a memorial plaque. None of the sites are located along the proposed Project area. (Sources: Site Survey, National Register of Historic Places, California State Historical Landmarks, Newport Beach City Code, and Conservation of Natural Resources Element of the Newport Beach General Plan) A. Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? No Impact. The proposed Project is not expected to create a direct impact on historical resources. The site is not identified as having historical resources nor any historic sites identified on the adjacent areas surrounding the site. The proposed Project would have no impacts on historical resources. (Sources: Site Survey and Conservation of Natural Resources Element of the Newport Beach General Plan) B. Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? Less than Significant Impact With Mitigation. The proposed Project is not expected to create a direct impact on archaeological resources. There is no evidence of archaeological resources on or adjacent to the proposed Project site. The area of archaeological interest identified in the City is adjacent to the "Upper Bay" area. The proposed Project site is not adjacent to this area and would not affect potential archaeological resources at that location. Additionally, as previously discussed the site and surrounding area has been developed. Any resources that may have been Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 3 -18 Initial Study and MND Environmental Analysis (continued) i present have likely been destroyed through this past development or have been collected. Based on past development at the site and areas known within the City to have a higher potential for ' archaeological resources, no impacts are expected to occur with development of the proposed Project. The mitigation measure that would reduce potential impacts associated with unknown archaeological resources on -site is as follows: Mitigation Measure 3.5.A: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall provide written evidence to the planning director that a qualified archaeologist has been retained to observe grading activities and conduct salvage excavation of archaeological resources as necessary. The archaeologist shall be present at the pre - grading conference, shall establish procedures for archaeological resources surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the applicant, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification and evaluation of the artifacts as appropriate. If additional or ' unexpected archaeological features are discovered, the archaeologist shall report such findings to the applicant and to the Planning Department. If the archaeological resources are found to be significant, the archaeological observer shall determine appropriate actions, in ' cooperation with the applicant, for exploration and /or salvage. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Director. (Sources: Site Survey and Conservation of Natural Resources Element of the Newport Beach General Plan) ' C. Would the Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? ' Less than Significant Impact With Mitigation. Proposed Project actions are not expected to create a direct impact on paleontological resources. According to the Newport Beach General Plan, the proposed Project site is not located in an area known to have evidence of paleontological resources. The proposed Project site is flat and does not contain bluffs or other unique geologic features. Consequently, no impact to unique paleontological resources or unique geologic features is expected to occur with implementation of the proposed Project. t The mitigation measure that would reduce potential impacts associated with unknown paleontological resources on -site is as follows: Mitigation Measure 3.5.B: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall provide written evidence to the planning director that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to observe grading activities and conduct salvage fossils as necessary. The paleontologist shall be present at the pre - grading conference, shall establish procedures for ' paleontological resource surveillance, and shall establish cooperation with the applicant, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification and evaluation of fossils. If major paleontological resources are discovered which require ' long term baiting or redirecting of grading, the paleontologist shall report such findings to the applicant and to the Planning Department. The paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the applicant, which ensure proper exploration and /or salvage. ' These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Director. (Sources: Site Survey, USGS Laguna Beach Quadrangle, and Conservation of Natural Resources Element of the Newport Beach General Plan) Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 3 -19 ' Initial Study and MND Environmental Analysis D. Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The proposed Project site and adjacent areas are highly disturbed due to previous urban developments. There is no evidence of human remains or a previous cemetery on or adjacent to the proposed Project site. Thus, development of the site as proposed by the Project would have no impact on human remains. The mitigation measure that would reduce potential impacts associated with unknown human remains on -site is as follows: Mitigation Measure 3.5.C: In accordance with Public Resources Code 5097.94, if human remains are found, the Orange County coroner must be notified within 24 hours of the discovery. If the coroner determines that the remains are not recent, the coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commissions in Sacramento to determine the most likely descendent for the area. The designated Native American representative then determines in consultation with the property owner the disposition of the human remains. (Sources: Site Survey and Conservation of Natural Resources Element of the Newport Beach General Plan) 3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS A Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation for the proposed Project was prepared by Petra Geotechnical, Inc. in November 2003. The report provides an evaluation of the subsurface soil conditions in order to make geotechnical recommendations pertaining to the proposed Project. The following discussion summarizes the results of this report. The full report can be found in Appendix C at the end of this document. Topography In general, Orange County is characterized by a variety of landforms including coastal shorelines, flatlands, hills, mountains, and canyons. The Pacific shorelines are characterized by broad sandy beaches, coastal bluffs, uplifted marine terraces, and tidal marshes. The nearest major ridgelines to the area occur in the Santa Ana Mountains, Lomas de Santiago, and the San Joaquin Hills. The entire County consists of a series of northwest- trending mountain ranges and valleys and similarly oriented earthquake faults. The proposed Project site is located in the midsection of the City of Newport Beach, 1.14 miles inland from Newport Bay. The proposed Project site has a relatively flat terrain with the highest on -site elevation at 170 feet above mean sea level (amsl) at the southeast comer of the site gently sloping westward to 150 feet amsl at the northwest corner of the site. Additionally, the Public Safety Element of the Newport Beach General Plan designates the site as having 25 percent slopes. Soils The Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation prepared for the proposed Project identifies four soil types on -site which include artificial fill, alluvial soils, marine terrace deposits and sedimentary bedrock of the Monterey Formation. The artificial fill, observed in the north- central portion of the site, was placed during the original grading and development of the Newport Marriott Tennis Complex. The fill material ranges in depth from approximately two to 16 feet and consists mainly of moist, loose to dense clayey sand and soft to stiff sandy clay. Naturally occurring alluvial soils Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 3 -20 initial Study and MND Environmental were observed in an approximately three foot layer beneath the artificial fill material. Alluvial soils on -site consist of moist, medium dense, moderately to highly compressible clayey sand. Marine terrace deposits found on -site vary in thickness from approximately six to 24 feet, and are generally composed of moist, dense clayey sand with moist dense poorly graded sand. The entire site is underlain by Sedimentary Bedrock of the Monterey Formation that exists beneath the fill, alluvial and marine terrace soils, except for in the extreme northwestern portion of the site, where it was encountered within two feet of the surface. This bedrock material consists of moist, hard, moderately weathered interbedded silty claystone, friable sandstone and cherty shale. Seismicity Southern California is a seismically active area that includes several types of fault systems including strike -slip, oblique, thrust, and blind thrust faults. The region is subject to seismic hazards of varying degrees, depending on the proximity and earthquake magnitude potential of nearby active faults, and the local geologic and topographic conditions. Seismic hazards include primary hazards from surface rupturing of rock and soil materials along active fault traces, and secondary hazards resulting from strong ground shaking. An active earthquake fault is defined as a fault that has had surface displacement within Holocene time (about the last 11,000 years). The City of Newport Beach is located in a seismically active region and has experienced several large earthquakes within the last 100 years. There are no known active earthquake faults Projecting towards or extending across the proposed Project site. However, several regional faults are located in the vicinity of the proposed Project site. Fault systems that could produce ground shaking within the City include the San Andreas Fault, Newport- Inglewood Fault Zone, Elsinore Fault, Palos Verdes Fault, Norwalk Fault, Raymond Fault Zone, San Jacinto Fault and San Fernando Fault Zone. The Newport - Inglewood Fault is the only active fault within or in the immediate vicinity of Newport Beach; however, while not located within the city, the San Andreas Fault has an active seismic history and the potential to affect land uses within the City of Newport Beach as well as most cities in California. The Newport- Inglewood Fault extends for approximately 46.5 miles from the southern edge of the Santa Monica Mountains southeast to just offshore from the City of Newport Beach. The Newport - Inglewood Fault is capable of producing a 7.0 or greater magnitude earthquake. Capable of producing a maximum credible earthquake of Magnitude 8.0 or greater, the San Andreas Fault is recognized as the longest and most active earthquake fault California. The San Andreas Fault is 625 miles long and runs from Cape Mendocino in Northern California to an area near the Mexican border. The Newport Beach General Plan identifies potential seismic and soil hazard areas and areas susceptible to slope instability within the City. The proposed Project site is located in a potential seismic hazard area designated as "Category 2" (stronger shaking potential) which is considered a low to moderate risk area. Within Newport Beach, areas of slope instability include areas in the San Joaquin hills and in the bluff areas located throughout the City. The proposed Project site is not located within a bluff area and while a portion of the site contains slopes of 25 percent or greater, the proposed Project site is not designated as an area susceptible to liquefaction or slope failure. (Sources: USGS Laguna Beach Quadrangle, Newport Beach General Plan, Southern Califomia Earthquake Data Center, Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, and Site Survey) Santa Barbara Condominiums Initial Study and MND Environmental A. Would the Project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effect, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Less than Significant Impact. There are no known local or regional active earthquake faults Projecting towards or extending across the proposed Project site. Additionally, the site is not located in a designated Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The active and potentially active fault systems that may create significant earthquake hazards to the site include the Newport - Inglewood and San Andreas Fault zones. The Newport- Inglewood Fault is located approximately three miles southwest of the site and the San Andreas Fault occurs at a distance of more than 50 miles inland from the proposed Project site. Since no earthquake faults cross through or extend onto the site, development on the site would not be exposed to fault ground rupture hazards. Thus, the proposed Project would not expose people or structures to substantial hazards associated with fault rupture. (Sources: USGS Laguna Beach Quadrangle, Project Plans, and Newport Beach General Plan Safety Element) B. Would the Project be subject to strong seismic groundshaking? Less than Significant Impact. There are no earthquake faults crossing through or extending onto the site. However, the proposed Project site is located in a seismically active region, and would be subject to groundshaking associated with earthquakes on nearby faults. Future development and infrastructure would be subject to groundshaking hazards, which could lead to damage of structures, roads, utility lines, and other structural hazards that could cause property damage and personal injuries. Residents, construction workers, and visitors on the site would be exposed to groundshaking hazards during an earthquake event. This hazard is no different than groundshaking hazards elsewhere in the City of Newport Beach or the region, but would present public safety hazards associated with structural damage, falling objects, utility line damage and resulting fires, and other property damage and public safety concerns. Compliance with applicable standards in the Uniform Building Code for Seismic Zone 4, including those associated with the design and engineering of buildings to minimize the effects of seismic activity and pertinent building standards of the City of Newport Beach would reduce groundshaking hazards to acceptable levels. Some pavement cracking and utility line damage may occur at the proposed Project site as a result of nearby earthquakes, but these are not expected to create major threats to life and property since the proposed structures would be constructed to withstand seismic forces. Thus, the impact of strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant. (Sources: USGS Laguna Beach Quadrangle, Greenbook, and Newport Beach General Plan Public Safety Element) Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 3 -22 Initial Study and MND 1 Environmental Analysis (continued) ' C. Would the Project be subject to seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? ' Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. Liquefaction is characterized by saturated soils that behave like liquid during groundshaking, associated with perched water conditions and loose ' soils. The site is not located within a designated liquefaction or seismically- induced landslide hazard zone as determined by the California Geological Survey. Furthermore, the site is not located within a designated Earthquake Alquist- Priolo Fault Zone, and no surface faults cross through or extend ' toward the site. However, on -site soils include loose artificial fill and alluvial soil material which are susceptible to liquefaction hazards. These materials are considered unsuitable for support of new structures, including the proposed development. Due to the potential for liquefaction from these materials, this is considered a significant impact. The other soil types on -site (native terrace ' deposits and bedrock material) are more dense and are not susceptible to liquefaction hazards. Design and construction of the proposed buildings would use applicable building codes, such as ' the Uniform Building Code to reduce potential impacts associated with expansive soils. However, mitigation measures would need to be incorporated to further reduce liquefaction hazards associated with loose surficial soils. ' Mitigation The following measures would reduce potential impacts associated with unsuitable on -site soils: ' Mitigation Measure 3.6.A: In areas where compacted fill will be required to establish design grades and in design cut areas where the depth of the proposed cut does not exceed the ' thickness of the existing unsuitable surficial soils, on -site surficial soils shall be excavated and recompacted to create stable soil conditions and correct poor slope performance. ' Mitigation Measure 3.6.B: During grading activities, where cut -to -fill transitions exist following remedial grading, they shall be eliminated by overexcavating the "cut' portions of the building pads and replacing the excavated material as properly compacted fill. ' The generally recommended depth of over excavation is one -half the maximum thickness of fill beneath the pad area, to a minimum depth of 3 feet and a maximum depth of 15 feet below proposed pad grade. The horizontal limits of overexcavation should extend to within ' approximately 1 to 2 feet of property lines and /or the tops and toes of slopes. The actual lots that will require overexcavation and overexcavation depths will have to be determined during grading by the proposed Project geotechnical consultant based on actual ' conditions encountered. Mitigation Measure 3.6.C: During remedial grading and construction of the proposed subterranean parking areas and associated improvements, temporary excavations with sidewalls varying up to approximately 13 feet in height may be necessary. Temporary excavation sidewalls will require sloping back at a ratio of approximately 12:1, horizontal to ' vertical. Should excessive caving be observed during grading, flatter inclinations may be required locally. I Depending on required depths of cut and remedial grading, it may not be possible to construct temporary excavations along the east side of Buildings I and II (i.e., adjacent to Santa Barbara Drive) and along the southeast side of Building I (adjacent to the existing Marriott tower and appurtenant improvements) at a safe and stable slope ratio without encroaching into the adjacent street right -of -way and /or causing the loss of lateral support Santa Barbara Condominiums Initial Study and MND 3 -23 Environmental Analysis (continued) of the existing hotel building, the associated buried utilities and other improvements. For this reason, temporary shoring may be required in these areas. Recommendations for design of temporary shoring will be provided in the comprehensive preliminary geotechnical report that will be prepared for the proposed Project. (Sources: California Geological Survey and Newport Beach General Plan Public Safety Element) D. Would the Project be subject to landslides? No Impact. The proposed Project site has a relatively flat terrain with a gentle east -west slope. On- site elevations range from 170 feet amsl at the southeastern comer of the site and gently descend to approximately 150 feet amsl at the northwestern corner of the site. The Newport Beach General Plan identifies areas with slope instability in the City, and while the site is designated as having 25 percent slopes, it is not within the area known to have unstable slope conditions. Additionally, proposed Project construction, grading and fill activities would decrease existing onsite slopes. Consequently, no impact associated with landslides would occur with the proposed Project. (Sources: USGS Laguna Beach Quadrangle, Site Survey, Project plans and Newport Beach General Plan Public Safety Element) E. Would the Project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than Significant Impact. The soils on the proposed Project site are somewhat subject to wind erosion and soil blowing impacts. Due to exposed soil during construction, grading and excavation activities for the proposed Project, these potential erosion and soil blowing impacts would be temporarily increased; however, would be confined to the excavation areas and would cease once the excavation /construction activities are completed. These impacts would be less than significant when standard dust and erosion control methods are implemented. Dust control measures outlined in Section 4.5, Air Quality, would reduce impacts associated with soil blowing and wind erosion. These measures include daily watering, stop work during high winds, use of soil binders, perimeter silt fences and sandbags, and prompt re- vegetation. With implementation of the control measures, impacts would be less than significant. (Sources: USGS Laguna Beach Quadrangle, Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, Newport Beach General Plan Public Safety Element and Newport Beach Municipal Code) F. Would the Project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on or off - site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The proposed Project site is not known to be located on an unstable geologic unit. Subsidence has not occurred along the proposed Project site. There is no known incidence of landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse on -site or near the site, however, existing soils on -site are considered unsuitable to support the proposed development. Implementation of mitigation measures 3.6.A through 3.6.0 outlined above, would reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. Thus, the proposed Project is not expected to be exposed to or create on or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse hazards. (Sources: USGS Laguna Beach Quadrangle, Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, Site Survey and Newport Beach General Plan Public Safety Element) Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 3 -24 Initial Study and MND ' G. Environmental Would the Project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The Public Safety Element of the Newport Beach General Plan designates the proposed Project area as a "Category 2" expansive and collapsible soil hazard area. A Category 2 listing is defined as having a moderate to high possibility for expansive soil hazard. On -site soils include artificial fill and alluvial soil material, which are considered unsuitable for support of new structures, including the proposed development. Therefore, design and construction of the proposed buildings would use applicable building codes, such as the Uniform Building Code to reduce potential impacts associated with expansive soils. In addition, implementation of mitigation measures 3.6.A though 3.6.0 outlined above, would reduce potential impacts associated with expansive soils to less than significant levels. (Sources: Site Survey, Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, Uniform Building Code, and Newport Beach General Plan Public Safety Element) H. Would the Project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact. The proposed development would be connected to the public sewer system through sewer lines in the surrounding streets. Use of existing sewer lines would prevent a need for septic tanks or other types of alternative wastewater disposal systems that could be limited by soil characteristics at the proposed Project site. Since sewers would be available for sewage generated by the proposed Project, septic tanks would not be affected by soils at the proposed Project site. Thus, no impacts to soils which are unsuitable for on -site sewage disposal systems would occur as a result of the proposed Project. (Sources: Newport Beach General Plan Public Safety Element, Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, Site Survey and Project Plans) I = 3.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS I' A hazardous material is defined as any substance that may be hazardous to humans, animals, or plants, and may include pesticides, herbicides, toxic metals and chemicals, volatile chemicals, explosives, and even nuclear fuels or low -level radioactive wastes. The City of Newport Beach has a ' wide variety of industries and land uses, which generate, use, or handle hazardous materials. Most of these sites are associated with industrial and commercial uses located throughout the City. II 1 The proposed Project site is currently developed with eight tennis courts, an associated clubhouse and parking area and no hazardous materials are visible on -site. Additionally, the proposed Project site is not listed in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Envirofacts Database as a location for a hazardous material user or handler. Land uses in the surrounding area that are reported by EPA to handle hazardous materials include Pacific Mutual 0.27 miles northwest of the site at the intersection of Santa Cruz Drive and Newport Center Drive; Land Rover Newport Beach approximately 0.5 miles north of the site at 1540 Jamboree Road; Newport Center Cleaners located approximately 0.45 miles east of the site at 521 Newport Center Drive; Raymond E Berg MD and J Caillouette MD located approximately 0.54 miles southeast of the site at 400 Newport Center Drive; and Irvine Company Towers 1, 2 and 6 at 550, 610 and 620 Newport Center Drive, respectively. Additionally, there are two gas stations located at the intersection of Jamboree Road Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 3 -25 Initial Study and MND Environmental Analysis (continued) and San Joaquin Hills Road, approximately 0.27 miles north of the site. Other hazardous material , users are located further away from the site and are unlikely to affect the proposed Project site. The proposed Project site is not located near an airport or airstrip, where hazards from aircraft operations are present. The nearest airport is John Wayne Airport located approximately 4.5 miles to the north of the site. The site is not located within a "potential fire hazard area" or in a "potential flood hazard area" as identified in the Newport Beach General Plan. Hazards associated with , earthquakes and soiVerosion etc. are discussed above in Section 3.6, Geology and Soils. No other hazards are known to be present on -site or near the site. ' (Sources: Newport Beach General Plan, EPA Envirofacts Database and Site Survey) A. Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public, or the environment t through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project site is not listed as a hazardous materials site. Nearby hazardous material handlers are not expected to pose hazards to on -site land uses. Development of the proposed Project site with residential units, subterranean parking areas, open space, and a recreational area would not create a significant hazard to the residents, employees, and visitors of the site. Hazardous material deliveries or transport to and from nearby hazardous materials handlers would utilize Newport Center Drive and other surrounding roadways that would be used by on -site vehicles. There is adequate capacity in the existing and planned street system to handle vehicle traffic volumes and no roadway hazards would be created which may lead to hazards associated with these hazardous material transports. Thus, no significant adverse impacts are expected from these nearby land uses. Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would involve the use of hazardous materials such as oil, gas, tar, and cleaning solvents. These hazardous materials could pose risks to construction workers or lead to soil and groundwater contamination, if not properly stored or used. Compliance with existing hazardous material regulations would prevent undue hazards. This impact is expected to be less than significant, since hazardous material use and disposal would be made in accordance with existing regulations. Residential development on the site could use household quantities of hazardous materials, such as cleaning solvents, paint, fertilizers, pesticides, etc. This usage would be limited and is not expected to create human health hazards or public safety hazards. Residents shall be informed of the two hazardous material disposal sites, Huntington Beach Regional Collection Center and Irvine Regional Collection Center, to encourage proper disposal of household hazardous wastes. This information is provided on the City's General Services Department website and through other public information programs. Impacts associated with residential use of hazardous materials would be less than significant. (Source: Site Survey, City of Newport Beach, Newport Beach General Plan and Project Plans) Santa Barbara Condominiums Initial Study and MND 3 -26 1 1 ' Environmental Analysis (continued) B. Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less than Significant Impact. Activities associated with the proposed Project construction may involve some hazardous materials use, such as paints, thinners, cleaning solvents, oil, grease, etc. Transport of these hazardous materials to and from the site during construction activities would add hazards to the surrounding roadways and freeways. The public and environment could be subject to release of hazardous materials into the environment through accidents that could occur as hazardous materials are en route to or from the proposed Project site. Such accidents could include vehicle or rail accidents or mistakes made during handling of materials. Hazardous materials uses would be subject to federal, state, and local regulations regarding the use, handling, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials to reduce the risk of such accidents. The regulations include established measures for proper storage, use, and disposal, and a risk management and prevention plan for accidents. Truck oil change, equipment maintenance or other activities that may release hazardous materials during construction would be conducted in accordance with existing regulations, such as the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), to prevent soil and water contamination and accidents. Compliance with relevant regulations would prevent spills and accident conditions that could release hazardous materials into the environment. Further, traffic safety signs and controls would be provided to create safe driving conditions and prevent vehicle accidents. Thus, hazardous material accidents are expected to be less than significant. (Source: Site Survey and Project Plans) C. Would the Project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would not routinely utilize or generate hazardous materials or wastes. Construction activities associated with development of proposed Project would involve the short -term use of hazardous materials for construction. The schools located closest to the proposed Project site are shown in Table 3 -6, Schools in the Project Area. Source: David Evans & Associates, Inc. The three school sites, listed in the table above, are at a far enough distance away from the site so that potential emissions from vehicle and stationary equipment during construction activities would not reach school students and faculty at those schools. Construction of the proposed Project would comply with existing hazardous material regulations to prevent undue hazards to nearby school users. Less than significant impacts on the adjacent schools are expected with the proposed Project. (Sources: Newport -Mesa Unified School District, Site Survey, and Project Plans) Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 3 -27 ' Initial Study and MND TABLE 3 -6 SCHOOLS IN THE PROJECT AREA School Name Address Distance from Project Site Corona Del Mar High School 2101 Eastbluff Drive 1.2 miles north Lincoln Elementary School 3101 Pacific View Lane 1.5 miles east Harbor View Elementa School 900 Goldenrod Avenue 1.5 miles southeast Source: David Evans & Associates, Inc. The three school sites, listed in the table above, are at a far enough distance away from the site so that potential emissions from vehicle and stationary equipment during construction activities would not reach school students and faculty at those schools. Construction of the proposed Project would comply with existing hazardous material regulations to prevent undue hazards to nearby school users. Less than significant impacts on the adjacent schools are expected with the proposed Project. (Sources: Newport -Mesa Unified School District, Site Survey, and Project Plans) Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 3 -27 ' Initial Study and MND Environmental Analysis (continued) D. Would the Project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No Impact. The U.S. EPA Envirofacts Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) show that the proposed Project site is not on the list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in a risk to the public or the environment. As discussed above, the nearest hazardous material users are the two gas stations at the intersection of Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills Road, Pacific Mutual, Land Rover Newport Beach, Newport Center Cleaners, Raymond E. Berg MD. and J. Caillouette MD., and Irvine Company Towers 1, 2, and 6. No impacts on these hazardous material users would occur with the proposed Project. (Sources: EPA Envirofacts Database, and Site Survey) E. For a Project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area? No Impact. The proposed Project site is not located near a public airport or airstrip, where hazards from aircraft operations are present. The nearest airports are the John Wayne Airport (approximately 4.5 miles to the north) and the Los Alamitos Army Airfield in the City of Los Alamitos (approximately 16 miles to the northwest). The proposed Project would not be exposed to airport hazards; would not affect aircraft operations; and would not create an airport safety hazard for people utilizing the roadway or residing and working in the proposed Project area. No impact is expected. (Sources: Thomas Guide for Los Angeles and Orange Counties, Site Survey, and Newport Beach General Plan) F. For a Project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area? No Impact. There are no private airstrips located immediately adjacent to or near the proposed Project site. Therefore, the proposed Project would not expose people in the area to air traffic hazards, during or after construction. (Sources: Project Plans, Thomas Guide for Los Angeles and Orange Counties and Site Survey) G. Would the Project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less than Significant Impact. The site is not used for emergency evacuation. According to the Newport Beach General Plan, Santa Barbara Drive is not designated as a major evacuation route; however, two major roadways near the site, Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard, are. Development of the site would not affect evacuation along these surrounding roadways. Therefore, the proposed Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Potential traffic congestion during construction along Santa Barbara Drive may impede emergency response, although this impact would be short-term and would not be significant. Access to all areas Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 3 -28 Initial Study and MND Environmental Analysis located adjacent to the site would be available at all times, so as not to preclude fire protection and emergency services. Access to individual lots would be maintained throughout the construction period and impacts to emergency evacuation are expected to be less than significant. (Sources: Newport Beach General Plan, Project Plans, and Site Survey) H. Would the Project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No Impact. The proposed Project site is currently developed with eight tennis courts, an associated clubhouse and parking area. The proposed development of the site includes construction of three residential buildings, subterranean parking areas, and open space and recreation areas. Proposed landscaping would use ornamental and specimen plants, which would be regularly irrigated. Additionally, according to the Newport Beach General Plan, the proposed Project site is not located in an area designated as a "Potential Fire Hazard Area." Construction of the proposed Project would not create brush fire hazards. Therefore, no risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires is expected from the proposed Project. (Sources: Site Survey, Newport Beach General Plan, and Project Plans) 3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY The majority of the County of Orange as well as the entire City of Newport Beach are located in the Santa Ana River Basin. The Santa Ana River system provides the primary drainage functions for the Santa Ana River Basin and is managed by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The basin includes the upper and lower Santa Ana River watersheds, the San Jacinto River watershed, and several other small drainage areas. More specifically, the proposed Project is located within Reach 1 of the Lower Santa Ana River watershed. Reach 1 extends from what is referred to as the Tidal Basin on the coast to 17'h Street in the City of Santa Ana. There are no major surface water resources in the vicinity of the proposed Project. According to the Santa Ana River Basin Plan, groundwater resources in the vicinity of the proposed Project include Irvine Forebay I and II and the Irvine Pressure sub - basins. Based on the information contained in the geotechnical report prepared for the site, moderate seepage was encountered at approximately 14 feet below the surface in one of the ten borings taken at the proposed Project site, no groundwater was encountered in any of the other borings done at the site. According to the Newport Beach General Plan, the proposed Project area is located outside of ' designated flood hazard zones. In addition, according to FEMA FIRM for Orange County, the nearest 100 -year flood hazard area is located approximately 500 feet northwest of the proposed Project area adjacent to Newport Upper Bay. The proposed Project area is located in "Zone V which indicates ' that it is within an area determined to be outside the 0.2% annual change floodplain. The entire area around Newport bay is considered to be within the 100 - yearflood plain. (Sources: Newport Beach General Plan, and USGS Laguna Beach Quadrangle, Santa Ana River Basin Plan) ' Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 3 -29 Initial Study and MND 1 Environmental A. Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less than Significant Impact . The proposed Project would not directly generate any stormwater or wastewater. However, construction, excavation and construction activities have the potential to generate pollutants that may enter the stormwater runoff. These include loose soils and organic matter, demolition wastes and construction materials, construction equipment fluids, and cleaning and maintenance solvents. This would degrade stormwater quality at downstream locations, including Newport Bay. Development of the site would have to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) General Permit for Construction Activity, which requires the developer to file a Notice of Intent with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and to prepare and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) for construction activities on one acre or more. The SWPPP would identify erosion, sedimentation and stormwater pollution control measures that would be implemented during construction activities, and seek to minimize the discharge of pollutants into the stormwater and existing drainage channels to the maximum extent practicable. Such best management practices BMPs include use of sandbags, gravel bags, check dams, silt fences, soil binders, erosion control blankets, fiber rolls, riprap pads, and practices that prevent debris and pollutants (loose soils, hazardous materials, oil, grease and solvents, other construction materials) from entering the storm drain system. Additionally, the City of Newport Beach requires that a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) be prepared for the proposed Project. The WQMP identifies specific design elements and BMPs that would be utilized by the proposed Project to ensure that stormwater runoff is minimized to the maximum extent possible. Through implementation of BMPs and compliance with NDPES regulations, stormwater pollution would be reduced and adverse impacts to stormwater quality would be prevented. Thus, the proposed Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. (Sources: Site Survey, Newport Beach General Plan, and Project Plans) B. Would the Project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre - existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? No Impact. The proposed residential development would lead to the demand for water, however, the Orange County Water District and the Municipal Water District of Orange County have indicated that there are adequate water resources to serve existing and future demands for the City, which includes the proposed development on the proposed Project site. Water service and demand is discussed in Section 3.16, Utilities. There are no existing groundwater wells on the site and no wells are proposed as part of the proposed Project. Excavation and grading activities are not expected to occur at depths that would affect groundwater resources. While preliminary borings did result in one site encountering moderate seepage at approximately 14 feet below ground level, no groundwater aquifers were encountered and no other borings resulted in any seepage. Seepage at the proposed Project site would not affect groundwater aquifers, however, could result in liquefaction at the proposed Project site. Potential impacts resulting from liquefaction and saturated soils are discussed in Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 3 -30 Initial Study and MND Environmental Section 3.6, Geology and Soils above. Mitigation measures included to address this impact have been included and would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. The proposed development would not reduce groundwater recharge in the proposed Project area. The majority of the site is currently developed with impermeable surfaces in the form of tennis courts, an associated clubhouse and parking area. However, the entire site would not be paved over after the site is developed. The proposed Project includes approximately 79,140 square feet of open space on -site and landscaped areas would surround each residential building. Therefore, the proposed Project would increase the amount of permeable surfaces on -site over that which currently exists. The proposed development is not expected to significantly effect groundwater recharge in the area. (Sources: Site Survey, Project Plans, and Newport Beach General Plan, Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation) C. Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed residential development would not alter the course of a stream or river, as no streams or rivers exist on the proposed Project site. Runoff from the site would be directed into curbs and gutters and into the storm drain system along Santa Barbara Drive. The proposed Project would not alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site. Impacts would be less than significant. (Sources: USGS Laguna Beach Quadrangle, Site Survey, and Newport Beach General Plan) D. Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site, or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would change the existing hydrology of the proposed Project site through the addition of impervious surface (buildings, roads, driveways, parking areas, pathways, etc.) and the addition of open space and recreational areas. However, the majority of the site is currently covered by impermeable surfaces due to previous site development. Similar to the existing conditions, the proposed Project would result in the site being covered with permeable and impermeable surfaces, and therefore is not expected to significantly alter the existing drainage patterns of the site. Runoff from the site would continue to be conveyed along curbs and gutters, and directed into the existing storm drain in Santa Barbara Drive and to the adjacent golf course. In addition, drainage ' from the open space /landscaped areas would be collected in area drains proposed on -site. Changes in drainage patterns would be internal to the site and would not affect the regional hydrology, or the drainage flows in the surrounding area. The runoff from the site is not expected to create flood hazards. No changes to flows within rivers, streams, or channels are expected. In addition, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map ' (FIRM) for the City of Newport Beach and the proposed Project area show that the site is not Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 3 -31 Initial Study and MND Environmental currently in an area which is subject to flooding or flood hazards. No adverse impacts associated with flooding on- or off- site are expected. (Sources: Site Survey, FEMA, Newport Beach General Plan and Project Plans) E. Would the Project create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed residential development would have the potential for generating stormwater, which may contain pollutants that could impact the groundwater or surface water resources in the area. Pollutant sources could include runoff over parking areas, landscaped irrigation overflows, waste and debris in the runoff path, vehicle washdowns, and other activities that could potentially result in pollutants affecting stormwater quality. Construction activities associated with development on the site could lead to pollutants entering the storm drainage system. These may include demolition and construction debris, construction equipment fuels, oil and grease, construction materials and solvents, loose soils, organic waste materials, etc. Conveyance of these materials into the storm drain system would lead to pollutants which could degrade stormwater quality. The proposed Project would comply with the NPDES General Permit for Construction Activity, which requires projects on one acre or more to notify the RWQCB and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for construction activities. Development would also comply with the NPDES regarding the implementation of on -site stormwater pollution mitigation and treatment and other best management practices for urban stormwater pollutant prevention. Street sweeping of public streets is provided to remove and prevent debris from entering the storm drain system. The City requires catch basin stenciling to discourage waste disposal into the storm drain system. Continued implementation of these citywide programs would further reduce potential stormwater pollution from development. Implementation of these existing programs and compliance with NPDES mandates would prevent significant adverse impacts relating to stormwater runoff quality from occurring with development of the site. (Sources: Site Survey, Newport Beach Municipal Code, and Newport Beach General Plan) F. Would the Project otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project is not expected to adversely change the existing hydrology of the site or lead to significant adverse impacts on groundwater or surface water resources. However, development of the site would result in the construction of structures and impervious pavements that could alter runoff volumes and increase the potential for stormwater pollution. The proposed Project would comply with the NPDES General Permit for Construction Activity, which requires projects on one acre or more to notify the RWQCB and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for construction activities. Development would also comply with the NPDES regarding the implementation of post- construction structural or operational stormwater pollution mitigation and treatment and other best management practices to reduce and prevent urban stormwater pollution. Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 3 -32 Initial Study and MND ' Environmental Analysis (continued) The proposed Project's potential to impact water quality through runoff is discussed in detail in 3.8.E, and the proposed Project is not expected to substantially degrade water quality. ' (Sources: Site Survey, Newport Beach General Plan, and Project Plans) 1 G. Would the Project place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary of a Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? No Impact. According to the FEMA's FIRM the proposed Project site is not within a 100 -year flood hazard area or in an area which is subject to flooding or flood hazards. Therefore, the proposed Project would not place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard as mapped on a federal ' Flood Hazard Boundary of a Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map. No adverse impacts associated with flooding are expected. (Sources: Site Survey, FEMA, Project Plans and Newport Beach General Plan Safety Element) H. Would the Project place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact. The site is not located within the 100 -year or 500 -year floodplain, as defined in FEMA's FIRM. Thus, the proposed Project would not place structures within a 100 -year or 500 - year floodplain. The proposed Project development would not affect flows within 100 -year flood hazard areas. No impacts are expected. (Sources: Site Survey, FEMA, Project Plans and Newport Beach General Plan Safety Element) Would the Project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? No Impact. The proposed Project area is not located downstream of a dam or levee, which may lead to inundation hazards. Therefore, residents and visitors of the proposed Project site would not be at risk of significant loss, injury, or death involving flooding, as a result of the failure of a levee or dam or as a result of the proposed Project. (Sources: Site Survey, USGS Laguna Beach Quadrangle, Newport Beach General Plan Safety Element, and Project Plans) Would the Project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Less than Significant Impact. Due to its close proximity to the Pacific Ocean, the proposed Project site may be subject to inundation, tsunami and/or mudflow hazards associated with seismic activity effects to large water bodies. However, this hazard is no different than areas elsewhere in the City of Newport Beach or other developments located within coastal areas, but would present public safety concerns and potential property damage. Additionally, due to the low frequency of these events, the proposed Project would not expose the residents to increased hazards associated with inundation, tsunami or mudflow above what currently exists. Therefore, no significant impacts would occur with proposed Project implementation. (Sources: Site Survey, Thomas Guide for Los Angeles and Orange Counties, USGS Laguna Beach Quadrangle, and Newport Beach General Plan Safety Element. Santa Barbara Condominiums Page Initial Study and MND Environmental Analysis (continued) K. Would the Project result in significant alteration of receiving water quality during or following construction? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in item 3.8 E above, the proposed Project has the potential for generating polluted stormwater. However, as discussed above, compliance with the NPDES General Permit for Construction Activity, implementation of a SWPPP for construction activities, and compliance with NPDES requirements for on -site stormwater pollution mitigation and treatment would ensure that less than significant impacts would result from the proposed Project. L. Would the Project result in a potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? No Impact. The proposed Project would not result in the use, storage or handling of any hazardous materials or vehicle fueling or maintenance areas. No delivery areas would be necessary with the development of the proposed Project. As such, no impact would result from the operation of the proposed Project. As discussed above, construction activities could result in the potential for stormwater pollutants. However, compliance with construction related permits ( NPDES) and required prevention plans ( SWPPP) would ensure that no significant impacts would result. M. Would the Project result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters? Less Than Significant Impact. Compliance with the NPDES General Permit for Construction activities, preparation of a SWPPP as well as compliance with NPDES requirements for on -site stormwater pollution mitigation and treatment would ensure that stormwater discharge created by the proposed Project would not affect the beneficial uses of any receiving bodies of water and that less than significant impacts would result from development of the proposed Project. N. Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in item 3.8 D above, the proposed Project is not anticipated to significantly alter the existing drainage patterns of the site (including velocity and volume of stormwater runoff). The existing site is currently developed with tennis courts, rendering the majority of the site covered with impervious surfaces. The proposed Project would similarly cover the majority of the site with impervious surfaces. Runoff from the site would continue to be conveyed along curbs and gutters, and directed into the existing storm drain in Santa Barbara Drive and to the adjacent golf course. In addition, drainage from the open space /landscaped areas would be collected in area drains proposed on -site. Changes in drainage patterns would be internal to the site and would not affect the regional hydrology, or the drainage flows in the surrounding area. No significant changes to flows or velocity are anticipated with proposed Project development and, therefore, no significant impacts would result. Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 3 -34 Initial Study and MND Environmental Analysis (continued) O. Create significant increases in erosion of the Project site or surrounding areas? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in item 3.8 C above, the proposed Project is not anticipated to significantly alter the drainage pattern of the site and would therefore, not create a significant increase in the erosion rates of the site or surrounding area. Runoff from the site would be directed into curbs and gutters and into the storm drain system along Santa Barbara Drive. The proposed Project would not alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site. Impacts would be less than significant. 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING Residential development within the City of Newport Beach includes lower density single - family residential areas, as well as more intensely developed beachfront residential areas. Commercial areas within the City range from master planned employment centers to marine industrial and visitor commercial areas. The General Plan identifies groupings of small communities or "villages" within Newport Beach. Additionally, the Land Use Plan is divided into "Statistical Areas" (Statistical Division A through N) which specify the permitted uses and building intensity for each division. Many of the newer developments within the City are based on a "planned community" concept. The proposed Project site is within the "Newport Center (Statistical Area 1-1)" planning area. This planning area is bounded by East Coast Highway, Jamboree Road, San Joaquin Hills Road and ' MacArthur Boulevard. This area includes Administrative, Professional, Financial Commercial (APF), Retail and Service Commercial (RSC), Recreational and Environmental Open Space (REDS), Multi - Family Residential (MFR) and Government, Educational and Institutional Facilities (GEIF) land use designations. Additionally, as shown in Figure 3 -2, Newport Center Statistical Area Map, the proposed Project site is located within the Newport Center — Block 900: Hotel Plaza (Statistical Area 1-1). This area is designated for APF and MFR land uses. The allowed APF development is 611 hotel rooms with ancillary hotel support facilities and 19,630 square feet of office development and the MFR area is allocated 67 dwelling units. The proposed Project site is currently developed with eight tennis courts, an associated clubhouse I and parking area. Existing land uses on the site and near the site include residential, commercial, institutionallopen space. As shown in Figure 3 -3, Land Use Policy Map, the proposed Project site is designated as Administrative, Professional, Financial Commercial (APF) in the Newport Beach ' General Plan. According to the City of Newport Beach Zoning Code, the zoning designation for the proposed Project site also APF. ' Multi- family residences within The Colony development are present at the intersection of Santa Barbara Drive and San Clemente Drive northeast of the site. The additional MFR area is located south of the Newport Beach Marriott Hotel. The area designated as APF located east of the site consists of the Pacific Financial Plaza and associated parking facilities. The RSC area located further to the east across Newport Center Drive contains multiple retail areas as well as restaurants and above ground parking facilities within Fashion Island, a regional mall. The City of Newport Beach has an existing Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan (LCP /LUP) for its coastal zone that was certified by the California Coastal Commission on January 9, 1990, and is in the process of updating the current LCP /LUP. Within the existing LCP /LUP, the subject property has ' Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 3 -35 Initial Study and MND Environmental a zoning designation of APF and the proposed LCP would designate the site as CommercialNisitor Serving (CV) to better reflect the existing land use (Hotel). The proposed Project would require an amendment to the existing LCP /LUP to change the current land use designation from APF to MFR or an amendment to the proposed LCP to change the proposed land use designation from CV to MFR, should that plan be certified by the California Coastal Commission. (Sources: Newport Beach General Plan, Aerial Photograph, Newport Beach LCP, Newport Beach Draft LCP, and Site Survey) A. Would the Project physically divide an established community? No Impact The proposed Project site encompasses approximately 4.25 acres located along Santa Barbara Drive currently developed as tennis courts. The proposed Project involves development of a multi - family residential area with open space and recreational areas. Currently there is a multi - family residential development located northeast of the site across Santa Barbara Drive. The proposed Project would not extend into or through this development. Additionally, the other surrounding land uses, including commercial uses, would not be affected or divided by the proposed residential development. The proposed Project would not divide an established community. (Sources: Newport Beach General Plan, Project Plans, and Site Survey) B. Would the Project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would involve a general plan amendment, LCP and zone change to alter the land use allowed on the proposed Project site. The current General Plan land use designation on the proposed Project site is Administrative, Professional, Financial (APF). The general plan amendment would change it to Multi - Family Residential (MFR). According to the Land Use Element of the General Plan, this land use category has been applied where multiple dwelling units are allowed on a single subdivided lot. Smaller condominiums and other individually owned attached housing projects are also given this designation. Further, this category allows for either single ownership or condominium development. The change in land use designation from APF to MFR to accommodate the proposed development would not be in conflict with the Newport Beach General Plan because the site would be developed in accordance with the Development Policies of the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The proposed Project would be consistent with Policy A, as it encourages a diversity of land uses so that schools, employment, recreation areas, public facilities, churches, and neighborhood shopping centers are in close proximity to each resident of the community. Additionally, the proposed Project would be consistent with Policy D as it doesn't block public views and with Policy I as it is not located within a flood hazard area. The proposed residential development within the Newport Center area serves to implement these policies. Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 3 -36 Initial Study and MND I Environmental Analysis (continued) V,\ �T ii OX A COD co* P C:3 SOIL City of Nen 18wch Project Site Block 900 9 Santa Barbara Condominiums Project Newport Center Statistical Area Map Figure 3-2 E] Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 3-37 Initial Study and MND R c m E c 0 c H U N O n p E� c > E U -0 no c U� U-0 m c J 8 3 t L 0 7 �' C^ LL , n r E c' c � U a G N � a a'' m` c� � c Environmental Additionally, the proposed Project would be compatible with other nearby residential land uses. A less than significant impact to the Newport Beach General Plan is anticipated with development of the proposed Project. The proposed Project would also require a zone change from APF to MFR in order to be consistent with the proposed General Plan designation. However, as discussed above, the proposed Project would help promote Policy A of the City's General Plan and would be compatible with the residential zones to the south and northeast of the site. A less than significant impact to the zoning code is anticipated with development of the proposed Project. The proposed Project site is within the designated coastal zone, which requires a Coastal Development Permit (CDP). As previously discussed, within the existing LCP /LUP, the subject property has a zoning designation of APF and the proposed LCP would designate the site as CommercialNisitor Serving (CV). The proposed Project would require an amendment to the existing LCP /LUP to change the current land use designation from APF to MFR and an amendment to the proposed LCP to change the proposed land use designation from CV to MFR. This change in land use designation would lead to the loss of 4.25 -acres of land available for office or visitor serving commercial uses . With regard to CV and uses, the Block 900 - Hotel Plaza in the General Plan Land Use Element is allocated the development of 611 hotel rooms. The existing Marriott Hotel currently has 532 rooms (79 rooms below the total 611 room allocation). The hotel could conceivably construct the remaining 79 rooms in the future on the adjacent hotel site, or potentially transfer the entitlement of the remaining 79 rooms (with City approval) within the Newport Center area. Thus, the loss of CV acreage would not eliminate the ability to develop additional visitor serving commercial uses. Similarly, the change in land use would result in a 4.25 -acre reduction in land available to be potentially used for office uses consistent with the APF designation. Within Statistical Area L -1 (Newport Center), there is approximately 200 acres designated APF and the 2% reduction proposed by the Project is not a significant reduction, and therefore, a less than significant impact would result. As the proposed Project would not affect environmentally sensitive habitat areas, shore -line access given the location of the site, water or marine resources, or coastal visitor - serving facilities, it is not anticipated that the requested zone change to the existing LCP /LUP or the proposed LCP would create significant impacts to this land use plan. Additionally, the proposed Project would be compatible with the residential zones to the south and northeast of the site. Setback requirements for the proposed Project area are governed by the City's Municipal Code. The requirements for the site are outlined in Table 3 -7, Project Setback Requirements, below. TABLE 3 -7 PROJECT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS Newport Beach Municipal Code Front Setback (ft.) Side Setback (ft.) Rear Setback (ft.) Multi - Family Residential 20 4 10 Santa Barbara Condos Residential Develo ment 15 5 10 Source: City of Newport Beach Municipal Code and Santa Barbara Condominiums Site Plan Based on these requirements, the proposed Project would not meet the required setback for front yards. The proposed Project would require a Modification Permit to deviate from this setback requirement. The majority of the proposed Project would exceed the front setback requirement; Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 3 -39 Initial Study and MND Environmental however, several portions of the buildings are approximately 17 feet from property lines. Those portions encroaching within the 20 -foot setback requirements include either architectural features or balconies /patios that are not habitable /living spaces. The reduced front setbacks, therefore, would not result in significant environmental impacts. As previously stated, the Block 900 — Hotel Plaza area is permitted to have 67 residential units. The proposed Project would add an additional 79 units to this area. The proposed MFR designation allows up to 36 dwelling units per acre. Based on the acreage of the proposed Project site (4.25 acres) the maximum allowed number of dwelling units would be 153. However, the Project is proposing a total of 79 dwelling units or 15.3 dwelling units per acre, well below the maximum allowable density under the MFR land use designation. Therefore no significant impact would result from the proposed Project. As the proposed Project site is located in Statistical Area L1, the number of residential units would be increased from 67 to 146 (67 + 79). (Sources: Newport Beach General Plan, Project Plans, and Newport Beach City Zoning Code) C. Would the Project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Impact. As discussed in Section 3.4, Biological Resources above, the County of Orange has prepared the Central - Coastal Orange County NCCP. However, the proposed Project site is not included within the boundaries of this plan and would, therefore, not conflict with this plan. No impacts to a habitat conservation plan of natural community conservation plan would occur. (Sources: Site Survey, and Newport Beach General Plan, Central- Coastal Orange County NCCP) 3.10 MINERAL RESOURCES According to the Conservation of Natural Resources Element of the City of Newport General Plan, oil deposits represent the only significant extractable mineral resources in the Newport Beach planning area. Oil companies are currently operating oil extraction wells in the unincorporated "County Island ", located in the West Newport area. Since the State Shell- Cunningham Act of 1955 prohibits oil extraction on all State tide and submerged lands from the northerly City limits of Newport Beach to the Mexican Border, the County Island is the only location in the area where oil extraction activities are allowed. There are no mining activities within the City or on the proposed Project site. No oil fields or oil wells are present in or near the proposed Project area and the proposed Project site and adjacent areas are not subject to oil, gas, or mining operations. (Sources: Newport Beach General Plan, USGS Laguna Beach Quadrangle and Site Survey) A. Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that ' would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact. The proposed Project site is not located in an area where known mineral resources , are present. Future development on the site would not affect regionally significant mineral resources since there are no known resources on the site. The proposed Project site is also not identified in the Newport Beach General Plan as a mineral resource area. (Sources: Newport Beach General Plan and USGS Laguna Beach Quadrangle) Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 3 -40 , Initial Study and MND ' Environmental Analysis (continued) B. Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a locally - important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact. The proposed Project site is not identified in the Newport Beach General Plan as a significant mineral resource area. There are no locally important mineral resources on the site, therefore there would not be a loss of availability of mineral resources in the area. The sand, gravel, and other construction materials that would be needed for construction of the proposed Project are not expected to represent a significant amount of local resources, when compared to available resources and the cumulative demand for these resources by construction activities in the region. Thus, the demand for sand and gravel resources, as needed for construction, would be considered less than significant. (Sources: USGS Laguna Beach Quadrangle, Site Survey and Newport Beach General Plan) 3.11 NOISE (� The Noise Element of the Newport Beach General Plan states that the main source of noise within the City is from transportation, which includes noise from traffic on freeways and roadways, water vehicles in the bay area, and aircraft flights from John Wayne Airport in the City of Santa I' Ana and the Los Alamitos Army Airfield in the City of Los Alamitos. Other non - transportation noise sources within the City consist of stationary sources such as bar /restaurant noise, recreational facilities and residential and other common sources in urban environments. The proposed Project site is located adjacent to Santa Barbara Drive. Nearby uses include commercial /office developments, a large hotel, a golf course and residential developments. The golf course and the residential area to the northwest are considered sensitive receptors. Noise sources in the proposed Project area generally consist of vehicular traffic noise along Santa Barbara Drive, landscape maintenance, exterior mechanical equipment, and on -site vehicular traffic. The Noise Element of the Newport Beach General Plan specifically addresses noise sensitive land uses such as schools, churches, libraries and residential land uses. According to the noise standards given in the General Plan, exterior noise levels near sensitive land uses and residential areas should be 65 CNEL or less and interior noise levels 45 CNEL or less (see Table 3 -8, City of Newport Beach Interior and Exterior Noise Standards, below). Otherwise, noise control measures need to be incorporated into the design and construction of these uses. Additionally, the City of Newport Beach has adopted a Noise Ordinance, Section 10.28.040 of the City's Municipal Code, which limits construction or demolition work to be conducted between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and on Saturdays between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Construction activities are not permitted on Sundays and holidays within the City. Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 3-41 Initial Study and MND Environmental Analysis (continued) TABLE 3 -8 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR NOISE STANDARDS Land Use Categories Energy Average CNEL Categories Uses Interior' Exterior Residential Single Family, Two Family, Multiple Family 45 55 65 Mobile Home - -- 65 Commercial Hotel, Motei, Transient Lodging 45 65 Industrial Commercial Retail, Bank, Restaurant 55 - -- Institutional Office Building, Research and 50 - -- Development, Professional Offices, City Office Building Amphitheater, Concert Hall, Auditorium, 45 --- Meeting Hall Gymnasium (Multipurpose) 50 - -- Sports Club 55 — Manufacturing, Warehousing, Wholesale, 65 Utilities Movie Theaters 45 - -- Institutional Hospital, Schools' Classroom 45 65 Church, Libra 45 - -- Open Space Parks - -- 65 Interpretation 1. Indoor environment excluding: Bathrooms. toilets, closets, corridors. 2. Outdoor environment limited to: Private yard of single family, multi - family private patio or balcony which is served by a means of exit from inside, mobile home park, hospital patio, park's picnic area, school's playground, hotel and motel recreation area. 3. Noise level requirement with closed windows. Mechanical ventilating system or other means of natural ventilation shall be provided as of Chapter 12, Section 1205 of UBC. 4. Noise level requirements with open windows, if they are used to meet natural ventilation requirement. 5. Exterior noise level should be such that interior noise level will not exceed 45 CNEL. 6. Except those areas around the airport within the 65 CNEL contour. Source: City of Newport Beach (Sources: Site Survey, Newport Beach Noise Ordinance, and Newport Beach General Plan) A. Would the Project result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. Implementation of the proposed Project would result in short-term construction- related noise increases. Additionally, long -term increased noise levels could result from the introduction of residential uses and associated vehicle traffic along the adjacent roadways. Construction Noise During construction, temporary noise impacts would occur from grading, equipment operations, and other construction activities. Temporary construction noise impacts would vary in noise level according to the type of construction equipment and its activity level. Noise from scrapers, jackhammers, pavers, and other types of construction equipment may range from 75 to 100 dBA at 50 feet from the source. Typical operating cycles may involve one to two minutes of full power operation followed by three or four minutes at a lower power. Construction noise would occur on a short-term and temporary basis during the construction phase. In compliance with the City's noise ordinance, the proposed Project would follow the mitigation measure discussed below to reduce Santa Barbara Condominiums Page Initial Study and MND Environmental potential construction noise impacts. Thus, noise from the construction activities on the site would be confined to the daytime hours, when noise sensitivity is less. Mitigation The following measure is recommended to reduce construction noise impacts: Mitigation Measure 3.11.A: Construction activities shall be confined to the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and on Saturdays between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Traffic Noise The proposed Project would lead to a slight increase in vehicle traffic noise sources at the subject site and along surrounding roadways. The increase in vehicles to and from the site is not expected to lead to a significant increase in the noise levels in the proposed Project area. A change in the noise environment that differs by less than 3.0 dB between the existing and post - project exposure may not be distinguished by many people. Exceeding a 3.0 -dB threshold from automobile traffic typically requires a doubling of traffic volumes on any individual roadway link. Few projects in already developed areas cause traffic volumes to double. As previously stated, Santa Barbara Drive is designated as a Secondary Roadway. According to the City of Newport Beach General Plan Transportation Element, Secondary roadways have a capacity to carry approximately 20,000 to 23,000 average daily trips (ADT). Assuming the existing number of ADT on Santa Barbara Drive is approximately one half its designated capacity (10,000 trips), the proposed Project would have to generate 10,000 trips to double ADT on the roadway, which in turn would cause a noise increase in excess of 3.0 -dB. According to the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the proposed Project, the proposed Project site would add approximately 330 daily vehicle trips. Therefore, the trips generated by the proposed Project would not be sufficient to increase traffic noise levels by more than 3.0-dB. Thus, the proposed Project's traffic related noise impacts are considered less than significant. Stationary Noise The proposed Project includes the development of 79 new townhomes, an open space area and a recreational area. Associated residential activities would not generate noise levels that would exceed the 65 dBA CNEL standard designated by the City of Newport beach for exterior noise in residential areas. Outdoor activities in the proposed open space and recreational areas could potentially create an outdoor noise source, however, noise levels are expected to be similar to the noise currently created from use of the eight existing tennis courts on -site. Sensitive receptors in the vicinity of proposed Project site would not be exposed to noise levels in excess of the City's standards. No significant adverse noise impacts would occur with the proposed Project. (Sources: Newport Beach General Plan, Site Survey, Newport Beach Municipal Code and Project Plans) B. Would the Project result in the exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? ' Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. Temporary noise sources would be generated as a result of the construction activities for the residential development. Temporary construction activities Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 3 -43 Initial Study and MIND 1 Environmental Analysis (continued) would create noises from construction equipment and vibration from excavation and grading activities. Temporary construction noise impacts would vary in noise level according to the type of construction equipment and its activity level. Short -term construction noise impacts tend to occur in separate phases, with large, earth- moving equipment generating greater noise and finish construction activities and equipment generating less noise. Noise levels from construction equipment range from 75 to 100 dBA at 50 feet from the noise source. As discussed above, construction activities would have to comply with the construction time limits (7 AM to 6:30 PM on weekdays and 8 AM to 6 PM on Saturday) set by the City's Noise Ordinance. Thus, noise impacts on the residential area to the northeast would be limited to the daytime hours when residents are typically away from their homes. Mitigation The following measures are recommended to reduce construction noise impacts on adjacent noise sensitive land uses: Mitigation Measure 3.11.13: Equipment mufflers for construction equipment shall be used at all times. Mitigation Measure 3.11.C: Idling of construction vehicles and equipment shall be limited to the extent feasible. Construction vehicles and equipment shall be properly operated and maintained and shall be turned off when not in use. Compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance and implementation of the mitigation measures outlined above would reduce potential noise impacts on sensitive noise receptors to less than significant levels. (Sources: Site Survey, Newport Beach General Plan, Project Plans, and Newport Beach Municipal Code) C. Would the Project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. Increased long -term noise levels would result from the proposed development and resulting traffic volumes along the adjacent roadways. During construction, noise impacts would occur from grading, equipment operations, and other construction activities. Noise from scrapers, jackhammers, pavers, and other types of construction equipment may range from 75 to 100 dBA at 50 feet from the source. Typical operating cycles may involve one to two minutes of full power operation followed by three or four minutes at a lower power. Construction noise would occur on a short -term and temporary basis, when development is under construction. As discussed in Mitigation Measure 3.11.A, construction activities would be confined to the designated daytime hours, 7 AM to 6:30 PM on weekdays and 8 AM to 6 PM on Saturday, and would comply with the noise regulations of the City of Newport Beach. Thus, noise from the construction activities on the site would be confined to the daytime hours, when noise sensitivity is less. Inclusion of this mitigation measure would be reduced to less than significant levels. Buildout of the proposed Project site would add approximately 165 residents who would perceive noise at the site. Future traffic volume increases along adjacent roadways would result in higher Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 3 -44 Initial Study and MND Environmental noise levels at the proposed Project site and in the adjacent area. However, the proposed Project is not expected to generate significant noise increases ( +3.0 dB) from increased traffic volumes. Sensitive receptors adjacent to the proposed Project site would not be exposed to noise levels in excess of the City's standards. (Sources: Site Survey, Project Plans, and Newport Beach General Plan) D. Would the Project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? Less than Significant Impact The proposed residential development would lead to a permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the proposed Project area. Sources of noise introduced by the proposed Project would include vehicles along the surrounding roadways, residents of the residential development, and noise from recreation activities. Stationary noise generated by on -site residential and related recreational activities would be intermittent and are not expected to exceed the noise thresholds established by the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, the proposed Project is not expected to result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the proposed Project vicinity above levels existing without the proposed Project Noise impacts associated with construction activities at the proposed Project site could result in adverse impacts to adjacent residents and noise sensitive land uses, as discussed above. Compliance with existing noise regulations of the City of Newport Beach and the mitigation measures outlined above would ensure that construction noise impacts would not adversely affect adjacent sensitive receptors. (Sources: Project Plans, Newport Beach Municipal Code, and Site Survey) E. For a Project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not ' been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. There are no airports located near the proposed Project area and there are no public airports, which generate aircraft noise, located within two miles of the proposed Project site. The ' nearest public airport is John Wayne Airport in the City of Santa Ana, approximately 4.5 miles to the north of the site. The noise contours of the John Wayne Airport do not extend into the proposed Project site. The proposed Project would not lead to or increase the exposure of people in the area to noise levels associated with aircraft and airport operations ' Sources: Site Survey, Newport Beach General Plan, and Thomas Guide for Los Angeles and Orange Counties) ' F. For a Project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact There are no private airports, which generate aircraft noise, located within the vicinity of the proposed Project site. The nearest private airport is the Los Alamitos Army Airfield in the City of Los Alamitos (approximately 16 miles to the northwest). The noise contours of the Los Alamitos Army Airfield do not extend into the City or the proposed Project site. The proposed Project would not lead to or increase the exposure of people in the area to noise levels associated with aircraft and airport operations i' (Sources: Site Survey and Thomas Guide for Los Angeles and Orange Counties) Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 3-45 Initial Study and MND 1 Environmental 3.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING The City of Newport Beach had a January 2004 population of approximately 80,800 residents. The City's population growth can be attributed to a trend of multi - family residential development, which has added housing stock and residents to the City. The California Department of Finance population estimates for the County of Orange and the City of Newport Beach are provided in Table 3 -9, Population Growth. TABLE 3-9 POPULATION GROWTH Year City of Newport Beach Annual Growth Orange County Annual Growth 1980 62,556 26% 1,932,709 26.5% 1990 66,643 6.5% 2,410,556 6.5% 2000 70,032 5.0% 2,846,289 15.2% 2003 79,900 14% 2,975,400 4.5% 2004 80,800 1.1% 3,017,300 1.4% Source: California Department of Finance Housing Coupled with the population growth of the City is the increase in its housing stock. From 1990 to 2000, the City's housing stock increased from 30,860 units to a total of 37,288 units, a 17.2 percent increase from 1990. The City's 2004 housing stock is estimated at 41,851 units, and the vacancy rate is approximately 11.1 percent. Projections SCAG has developed regional projections for growth by city in the region. These projections are provided in Table 3 -10, Regional Projections. As shown, the City of Newport Beach is expected to have 92,365 residents, 41,345 housing units, and 77,698 jobs by the year 2020. TABLE 3 -10 REGIONAL PROJECTIONS Year Newport Beach Orange County Population Households Employment Population Households Employment 2005 82,409 37,015 72,684 3,103,377 978,423 1,580,855 2010 89,527 39,443 75,386 3,291,628 1,034,027 1,749,985 2015 91,147 40,196 76,588 3,369,745 1,046,473 1,801,602 2020 92,365 41,345 77,698 3,433,609 1,063,976 1,848,135 Source: SLAG Affordable Housing Provisions The City of Newport Beach, in an effort to encourage the housing development industry to respond to affordable housing needs and to achieve the Regional Housing Needs Assessment construction goals within five years, has implemented a housing program for affordable housing provisions. In order to reach the City's goal of an average of 20% of all new housing units to be affordable to very low- and low- income households, the City requires a proportion of affordable housing in all new residential developments or levy an in -lieu fee depending on the following criteria for project size: Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 3 -46 Initial Study and MND Environmental Analysis (continued) 1. Projects where ten or fewer housing units are proposed shall be required to pay in -lieu fees; 2. Projects where the proposal is for more than ten housing units, but fewer than fifty, shall have the option of providing the units or paying the in -lieu fee; or 3. Projects where more than fifty units are proposed shall be required to provide the units on- site unless an off -site location is approved by the City. Thus, according to the housing program, because 79 units are proposed, the proposed Project would be required to provide 20% (or 16 units) of affordable housing units on -site unless the City approves an off -site location. In either case, 16 units of affordable to low or moderate income households are required per the Housing Element of the General Plan. (Sources: U. S. Census, SCAG, California Department of Finance Estimates and Newport Beach General Plan Housing Element) A. Would the Project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Less than Significant Impact. The Project proposes a development of 79 residential units, with open space and recreational areas, resulting in an increase of residential population in the immediate area. Based on an estimated ratio of 2.089 persons per household, a population increase of approximately 165 residents could be anticipated with the proposed Project. Residents already living in Newport Beach or the surrounding area, as well as new residents moving to the City would occupy the housing units. The on -site population would represent 0.37 percent of the City's 2004 population and 0.34 percent of the City's projected 2020 population. While any increase in population at the site would exceed the regional growth projections for the City, the increase would not represent a substantial growth in the area. No major infrastructure is needed to serve the proposed Project. Therefore, the population growth resulting from the proposed Project is not expected to result in a significant impact. (Sources: Newport Beach General Plan, California Department of Finance and Site Survey) B. Would the Project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The proposed Project would not result in the displacement of any existing housing. The proposed development would consist of 79 residential units, subterranean parking areas, and open space and recreational areas. Existing on -site development includes eight tennis courts, a parking area and associated clubhouse. No housing units presently occur on the site. Therefore, no displacement of existing housing would occur with proposed Project implementation. (Sources: Project Plans, Newport Beach General Plan, and Site Survey) C. Would the Project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The proposed Project would not result in the displacement of people. Existing on -site development includes eight tennis courts, a parking area and an associated clubhouse. No households are currently present on the site, and no persons would be displaced by the proposed Project. (Sources: Project Plans, Newport Beach General Plan, and Site Survey) Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 3 -47 Initial Study and MND Environmental 3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES Fire protection services in the City of Newport Beach are provided by the Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD). The nearest fire station to the proposed Project area is Fire Station 3, located at 868 Santa Barbara Drive, adjacent to the Newport Beach Police Department Headquarters, approximately 0.1 miles north of the Project site. Newport Beach currently has eight fire stations staffed with 102 firefighters and paramedics, with three paramedic ambulances, eight fire engines and 2 ladder trucks. Additionally, a new fire station is proposed in the Santa Ana Heights area and is currently in the preliminary design phase of development. Response time in the City average approximately five minutes or less. The Newport Beach Police Department provides Law enforcement services for the City of Newport Beach. The Police Department headquarters is located at 870 Santa Barbara Drive, at the intersection of Santa Barbara Drive and Jamboree Road, approximately 0.1 miles north of the proposed Project site. The Newport Beach Police Department currently has 280 full -time employees, of which 140 are full -time police officers; however this number fluctuates regularly (148 officer are budgeted). The City has adopted a service standard of two sworn police officers per thousand residents. Emergency response times in the City average approximately five minutes from the time the call is placed. The proposed Project area is located within the service boundaries of the Newport-Mesa Unified School District. The District covers 58.83 square miles and includes the cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa as well as other unincorporated areas. The Newport-Mesa Unified School District currently serves 22,477 students and has twenty -two elementary schools, two intermediate schools, four high schools (one of these high schools includes middle school grades), one alternative education center, and one adult education center within the City of Newport Beach. Library service is provided by the Newport Beach Public Library system. The Newport Beach Public Library system consists four libraries in the City of Newport Beach which include the Central Library, the Balboa Branch, the Mariners Branch and the Corona del Mar Branch. The Central Library would serve residents of the proposed Project and is located at 1000 Avocado Avenue, approximately one mile south of the proposed Project site. (Sources: Newport -Mesa Unified School District, the Newport Beach Fire Department, Newport Beach Police Department, Site Survey, Thomas Guide for Los Angeles and Orange Counties, and Newport Beach General Plan). Fire A. Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives in terms of fire protection? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed development of residential uses on the proposed Project site would result in increases in the on -site population and the introduction of new structures in the area, generating a demand for fire protection services. A Fire Master Plan has been developed for the proposed Project to ensure proposed Project compliance with the requirements set forth by the Uniform Fire Code (UFC) and the Uniform Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 3 -48 Initial Study and MND Environmental Analysis (continued) Building Code (UBC). The Fire Master Plan includes the addition of four fire hydrants, two on -site and two along Santa Barbara Drive, in addition to the two existing fire hydrants along Santa Barbara Drive. All other required fire safety measures are incorporated as part of the Fire Master Plan to reduce fire hazards in the proposed development. Building and site plan review of the proposed Project plans would be conducted by the NBFD in order to review the proposed Project's compliance with fire safety and emergency access standards. The Fire Department would also identify additional development features, which could reduce demand for fire services, prevent the creation of fire hazards, and facilitate emergency response to the proposed Project site. These would include provision of adequate fire access, fire lanes, fire alarm systems, sprinkler systems, adequate fire flows at nearby fire hydrants, and construction of structures to withstand fire standards, etc. Compliance with building standards relating to fire prevention, emergency access, fire safety, and emergency response standards would prevent any adverse impacts on fire protection services from the proposed developments on the site. Additionally, the close proximity of the site to Fire Station 3, would ensure that response times are not affected. (Sources: Site Survey and Project Plans) Police B. Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause I' significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives in terms of police protection? ' Less than Significant Impact The proposed development of residential uses on the proposed Project site would result in increases in the on -site population, structures, and vehicle trips in the area, generating a demand for law enforcement and police protection services. Increases in ' vehicle trips would result in greater potential for vehicular accidents and the resulting demand for police services. Future residents would create a demand for police services, associated with the incidence of property crimes and personal crimes on the site. The need for police protection would be dependent on complex variables such as presence of crime elements, attraction of ' development to criminals, security measures, perceived public safety, service demand in other areas of the City, and other factors. The Newport Beach Police Department currently has a ratio of 2 sworn personnel per thousand population. The 165 persons expected with the 79 condominium units on the site would create a demand for 0.33 police personnel in the City. Given the proximity to the police facility (0.1 miles north) response times would not be impacted. Therefore the proposed Project would not require an increase in police officers to serve the area. The proposed Project is not expected to result in significant adverse impacts on police protection services. (Sources: Newport Beach Police Department, City of Newport Beach, Site Survey and Project Plans) Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 3 -49 Initial Study and MND Environmental Schools C. Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives in terms of school services? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. Newport-Mesa Unified School District schools that would serve students generated by the proposed Project include Lincoln Elementary School (Vt grade through 60 grade), and Corona Del Mar High School (7"' grade through 12th grade). Using the School District's student generation factors, existing and projected student generation resulting from residential development on the proposed Project site is provided in Table 3 -11, Student Generation. TABLE 3 -11 STUDENT GENERATION School Student Generation Factor Existing Development Future Residential Development 79 units School 0.17 studentlunit 0 13 -Elementary Middle School 0.01 studentlunit 0 1 High School 0.02 studentlunit 0 2 Total 0 16 Source: NMUSD As shown in the table above, approximately 16 new students would be generated from the 79 proposed condominium units. These 16 students would require school services from the Newport-Mesa Unified School District, resulting in an incremental increase in the need for additional classroom space and supporting facilities in existing schools in the area. Lincoln Elementary School has the capacity to serve 644 students and Corona Del Mar High School has the capacity for 2,460 students. The current enrollments at these schools are 593 students and 2,221 students, respectively. Therefore, the existing school facilities would be able to accommodate the potential 13 elementary school students, one middle and two high school students created by the proposed Project. No impact to school services is expected with proposed Project implementation. The District imposes a school impact fee of $1.84 per square foot of new residential development. Based on a total residential square footage of 205,679 square feet, the proposed Project would be required to pay school impact fees of $378,449. Development on the proposed Project site would require payment of these fees prior to issuance of building permits. Payment of fees is expected to reduce potential impacts on school services to less than significant levels. Mitigation The following mitigation measure would reduce potential adverse impacts on school services: Mitigation Measure 3.13.A: Prior to issuance of the first building permit, school impacts fees would be paid to the Newport-Mesa Unified School District to assist in funding school facility expansion and educational services to area residents. (Sources: Newport Beach General Plan, Newport -Mesa Unified School District, Project Plans, and Site Survey) Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 3 -50 Initial Study and MND ' Parks Environmental Analysis (continued) ' D. Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives in terms of parks? ' Less than Significant Impact. Future residents of the proposed Project would utilize parks and recreational facilities in nearby areas, as well as on -site facilities that would be provided as part of the proposed Project. The Newport Beach General Plan establishes a parkland ratio of five acres per ' thousand residents. The residential development could result in approximately 165 residents, based on the City's 2004 average household size of 2.089 persons per household. Based on the General Plan requirement of five acres per thousand population, the proposed Project would require 0.825 acres of parkland. The proposed Project includes the construction of approximately 2.28 acres of open space and recreational areas on -site; however, these areas would not be designated as City parkland within the General Plan Recreation and Open Space Element. Based on Title 19 Subdivision Code, Section 19.52.050, Determination of Land or Fee, when a condominium project exceeds 50 dwelling units and does not designate City parkland in the General Plan Recreation and Open Space Element within the proposed site, the payment of in -lieu fees equal to the amount of $6,894.37 per dwelling unit is required. Thus the proposed Project would be required to contribute a total of $544,655.23 in City parkland in -lieu fees unless credit can be given for private recreational amenities provided on -site. No significant adverse impacts on existing and future parks and recreational facilities are expected with compliance with City regulations for park provision and payment of park development fees. (Sources: Project Plans, Site Survey, Newport Beach Municipal Code and Newport Beach General Plan) Other Public Facilities E. Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives in terms of other public facilities? Less than Significant Impact. Development on the proposed Project site would result in increases in the on -site population, creating a demand for medical and emergency services. Hoag Memorial Hospital is located approximately 4.3 miles west of the proposed Project site and could serve the emergency medical needs of the proposed development on -site. There are other medical services and hospitals in the area to serve the medical needs of the on -site population. Since medical services are generally provided based on demand, no adverse impacts on medical services are expected. The residential development would result in an increase in a demand for library services. The City is in the development stages for a new library, the Donna and John Crean Mariners Branch Library, to serve Newport Beach residents. The new library will replace the existing Mariners Branch library which is located in a 900 square foot portable trailer. The new Library will be over 15,000 square feet - this is approximately two- thirds larger than the existing Mariners Library Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 3 -51 Initial Study and MND Environmental Analysis (continued) facility. Construction and operation of this library would provide adequate library services for the existing and future population of the City (completion of the proposed library is anticipated by 2006). The residential development would not be completed until April of 2008. The proposed Project would not result in significant adverse impacts on library services. (Sources: Project Plans, Newport Beach Public Library, Newport Beach General Plan, and Site Survey) 3.14 RECREATION The City of Newport Beach provides recreational services through beach and harbor facilities, city parks, trails, sports facilities, community pool facilities, recreational programs, and organized activities. In 1998, the Recreation and Open Space Element of the Newport Beach General Plan designated a total of 219 acres, of parks and recreational facilities within the City, which includes numerous park facilities, select beach /coastal areas, community centers, sports fields and gymnasiums. In addition, approximately 4,553 acres (35.7 percent of the City) are designated open space within the City including the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Preserve, beaches, the bay/harbor, canyons and bluff areas (plus an undetermined area of ocean water open space). The nearest parks to the proposed Project site are Big Canyon Park, located along Jamboree Road and approximately 0.5 miles north of the proposed Project site and Irvine Terrace Park, located on Seadrift Drive, approximately 0.6 miles south of the proposed Project site. Other nearby parks include Bonita Canyon Sports Park, Harbor View Nature Park, Upper Bayview Landing, Buffalo Hills Park, San Joaquin Hills Park and Lincoln Athletic Center. Additionally, the Newport Beach Country Club Golf Course is located adjacent to the site to the west and north, however is a privately owned course and is not regulated by the City of Newport Beach. (Sources: Site Survey, Thomas Guide for Los Angeles and Orange Counties, and Newport Beach General Plan) A. Would the Project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Less than Significant Impact. The residential development would have a direct demand for parks or recreational facilities. The residents would use beach and harbor facilities, parks and recreational facilities in nearby areas, as well as the on -site open space and recreational areas available on their property. As previously discussed, the Newport Beach General Plan establishes a parkland ratio of five acres per thousand residents. Based on the 5 -acre standard, the City's has adopted a regulation for payment of a fee or dedication of land for park and recreation facilities in accordance with the Quimby Act. The regulation requires residential developers to dedicate land for parkland development or pay the fee equivalent to the calculated cost of land acquisition and park development associated with the demand created by the proposed Project. Fees are used by the City to develop park facilities in the area to serve the recreational needs of the residents of the development. The proposed Project includes the construction of approximately 2.28 acres of open space and recreational areas on -site; however, these areas would not be designated as City parkland. Per the discussion in Section 3.13, Public Services, above, the proposed Project would be required to contribute a total of $544,655.23 in City parkland in -lieu fees. No significant adverse impacts on Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 3 -52 Initial Study and MND Environmental existing and future parks and recreational facilities are expected with compliance with City regulations for park provision and payment of park development fees. (Sources: Site Survey, City of Newport Beach Recreation and Senior Services Department and Newport Beach General Plan) B. Does the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. The proposed Project provides open space and recreational areas throughout the development. The proposed Project would provide approximately 79,140 square feet of open space and approximately 21,300 square feet of recreational area for use by residents and guests on the site. The recreational area is intended for passive uses and could contain features such as a fountain, seating, and barbecues. The open space and recreational areas would be centrally - located and easily accessible to residents of the proposed Project, and would therefore have no adverse physical effect on the environment. (Sources: Site Survey, Project Plans, and Newport Beach General Plan) 3.15 TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC A Traffic Impact Analysis has been prepared for the proposed Project to identify existing traffic flow on and around the site, as well as analyze the proposed Project's potential impacts on traffic and circulation. The traffic analysis concluded that the proposed Project site did not cause a significant impact at the study area intersections; therefore, no improvements are recommended at the study area intersections. The findings of the study are summarized below, and the complete traffic study is provided in Appendix D of this Initial Study. The proposed Project site is located along the western side of Santa Barbara Drive between Jamboree Road and Newport Center Drive. Santa Barbara Drive is classified as a Secondary roadway that provides three travel lanes near the proposed Project site (one north and two south) and access from Fashion Island to Jamboree Road. ' Jamboree Road and Newport Center Drive are currently designated as Major Roads in the City of Newport Beach General Plan Circulation Element. Jamboree Road provides four to six travel lanes in the proposed Project vicinity and throughout the City. The intersection at Santa Barbara Drive and ' Jamboree Road is controlled by an existing traffic signal. Newport Center Drive provides two travel lanes in a circular orientation around the Fashion Island shopping area and other commercial and business areas. Nine intersections were analyzed as part of the traffic study to determine proposed Project related impacts. The study intersections are listed below. 1. Jamboree Road (NS) at Eastbluff /Ford Road (EW); 2. Jamboree Road (NS) at Santa Barbara Drive (EW); 3. Santa Cruz Road (NS) at San Joaquin Hills Road (EW); ' 4. Santa Cruz Road (NS) at San Clemente Drive (EW); 5. Newport Center Drive (NS) at Santa Barbara Drive (EW); 6. Newport Center Drive (NS) at Coast Highway (EW); ' 7. Santa Rosa Drive /Big Canyon Drive (NS) at San Joaquin Hills Road (EW); Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 3 -53 Initial Study and MND Environmental 8. MacArthur Boulevard (NS) at Ford Road (EW); and 9. MacArthur Boulevard (NS) at San Joaquin Hills Road. The City of Newport Beach's Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) accounts for expected traffic volumes from other projects in the City that have been approved but are not fully completed. More information on the TPO can be found in the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the proposed Project (see Appendix C). There are 14 of these approved projects in the proposed Project area, these include: • Fashion Island Expansion • Temple Bat Yahm Expansion • Ford Redevelopment • Cannery Lofts Village Hoag Hospital Phase II • Ciosa — Irvine Project • Newport Dunes • 1401 Dove Street • Newport Auto Center Expansion • Olsen Townhome Project • Bayview Landing Senior Housing • Birch Bayview Plaza II • 4941496 Old Newport Boulevard • 401 Old Newport Boulevard Therefore, the "existing conditions" analysis for the proposed Project includes existing traffic volumes plus expected traffic volumes from these 14 approved projects. Level of Service (LOS) is a quantitative measure used to describe the operational conditions within a traffic stream and a motorist's and/or passenger's perception of the roadway's performance. LOS is designated a letter from A to F, with LOS A representing the best traffic conditions, free flow, and LOS F representing the worst conditions, forced flow or failing /jammed conditions. Generally, LOS D or better is considered acceptable in urban areas such as the study area for the proposed Project. Mitigation is required for any intersection where proposed Project traffic causes the intersection to deteriorate from LOS D to LOS F. In order to determine LOS, the volume of traffic on a roadway is divided by its capacity (VIC). The VIC ratio on a roadway with LOS D ranges from 0.81 to 0.90 and on a roadway with LOS E ranges from 0.91 to 1.00. Any increase of .01 is considered an impact when existing levels are above 0.91 (LOS E). The Traffic Impact Analysis indicated that intersections in the proposed Project area are currently operating at LOS D or better, in accordance with City standards. (Sources: Newport Beach General Plan Circulation Element and Traffic Impact Analysis) A. Would the Project cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Less than Significant Impact: The proposed Project would result in an incremental increase in the number of vehicle trips to and from the proposed Project site. Existing on -site uses currently generate trips to and from the proposed Project site, the traffic analysis takes these existing trips into account and provides a "net increase" in trips. Trip generation forecasts for the existing uses and the proposed Project are provided in Table 3 -12, Project Traffic Generation. Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 3 -54 Initial Study and MND Environmental Analysis (continued) TABLE 3 -12 PROJECT TRAFFIC GENERATION Land Use Quantity AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily In Out Total In Out Total Generation Rates Tennis Club2 Per CT 0.66 0.66 1.32 1.68 1.68 3.36 38.70 Single Family Attached Per DU 0.17 0.49 0.66 0.47 0.36 0.83 8.10 Trip Generation Existing: Tennis Club 8 CT 5 5 10 13 13 26 310 Proposed: Single - Family Attached 79 DU 13 39 52 37 28 65 640 Difference 8 34 42 24 15 39 330 1 (CT = Courts, DU = Dwelling Units) 2 (Source: NBTAM Trip Generation Rates) 3 Source: Institute of Transportation En ineers ITE , Trip Generation 7" Edition, 2003M Land Use Cate o 490 Source: Traffic Impact Analysis As shown, a total of 330 trips would be added to the surrounding roadway network as a result of the proposed Project. The proposed development is projected to generate a net increase of 42 vehicle trips during the morning (AM) peak hour and 39 vehicle trips during the afternoon (PM) peak hour. The traffic impact analysis for the proposed Project identifies intersection traffic volumes during the AM and PM peak hours, as shown in Figure 3 -4, Project Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movements and Figure 3 -5, Project Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movements. The technique used to assess the operation of a signalized intersection is known as Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU). To calculate an ICU value the volume of traffic using the intersection is compared with the capacity of the intersection. The decimal represents the portion of the hour required to provide sufficient capacity tc accommodate all intersection traffic if all approaches operate at capacity. As shown in Table 3 -13, Intersection ICU and LOS Analysis, intersections in the vicinity of the proposed Project site would continue to operate at a LOS D or better during peak hours with proposed Project implementation. No impact would result from proposed Project development. Santa Barbara Condominiums Initial Study and MND 1 Page 3 -55 .`IMCC K.MIZ Cn E as' b.,u if Drive - Ne.wt Drive 5w. Algae 36ve Environmental Analysis (continued) Santa Rau I po'k,vay 13 Bmto -.qyon " Drive 2 b A oV! o 1s0 14 01!., t 01; 0—;+. 1!41 O-R 10 14 F 110 a 0 ci c; 0 C !J 7 ILO 4 , f _�: 7�02_.i 4 Intersection reference numbers ore in upper corner of turning movement boxes 3124,bt)M Project Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movements Figure 3-4 Figure Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 3-56 Initial Study and MND Santa Exbora Drive --, Site [astt;Wf Yve — Driw Ne*pk.t ientr ckiw Son miguef 5�5. Drive ' Environmental Analysis (continued) Santa RC50 . Parkway 13 Eomtc ccnyl. 1w �G 4 4 4 1 7—° 1 tr 10 14 T" f 4 sa .6 YI d-Q I �--" It I L4 i4 ti b W d 4 T Irdersedion reference ntirrbelli Ore in upper Comet Of taming MOVemnf boxes 3124/bbos So.ce Ku,aAMASSO-,-Tes Project Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movements Figure 3-5 Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 3-57 Initial Study and PAND • Environmental Analysis /continued) TABLE 3 -13 INTERSECTION ICU AND LOS ANALYSIS Peak Hour ICU -LOS Intersection Existing Existing+ Project AM PM AM PM Jamboree Road (NS) at: Eastbluff/Ford Road (EW) 0.78 -C 0.67 -B 0.78 -C 0.67 -B Santa Barbara Drive (EW) 0.57 -A 0.55 -A 0.57 -A 0.55 -A Santa Cruz Road (NS) at: San Joaquin Hills Road (EW) 0.34 -A 0.41 -A 0.34 -A 0.41 -A San Clemente Drive EW 0.16 -A 0.19 -A 0.16 -A 0.19 -A Newport Center Drive (NS) at: Santa Barbara Drive (EW) 0.12 -A 0.21 -A 0.13 -A 0.22 -A Coast Highway EW 0.37 -A 0.58 -A 0.37 -A 0.58 -A Santa Rosa Drive /Big Canyon Drive (NS) at: San Joaquin Hills Road EW 0.33 -A 0.48 -A 0.33 -A 0.49 -A MacArthur Boulevard (NS) at: Ford Road (EW) 0.75 -C 0.69 -B 0.75 -C 0.69 -B San Joaquin Hills Road 0.63 -B 0.81 -D 0.63 -B 0.81 -D Source: Traffic Impact Analysis (Source: Traffic Impact Analysis) B. Would the Project exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Less than Significant Impact. Intersections adjacent to the proposed Project site are currently operating at LOS C or better (except for the intersection of MacArthur and San Joaquin Hills Road operating at a LOS D). The proposed Project would add to the existing roadway system approximately 42 trips in the AM peak hour and 39 trips in the PM peak hour but would not create significant traffic impacts on surrounding roadways or degrade the LOS of the study intersections, as shown in Table 3 -13, Intersection ICU and LOS Analysis. Cumulative projects within the proposed Project study area include South Coast Shipyard, Morman Temple, Saint Mark Prespyterian, Our Lady Queen of Angels, St. Andrews Church, Mariners Church, Exodus Community Center, Newport Coast - TAZ 1 through TAZ 4, Newport ' Ridge - TAZ 1 through TAZ 3, and Bonita Canyon - Residential. According to the Traffic Impact Analysis, the proposed Project would not individually or cumulatively exceed the City's LOS standards of area roads or intersections near the proposed Project site. ' Per City Ordinance 94 -19, in order to fund needed circulation facility improvements identified by the Circulation Element, the proposed Project would be required to pay a "Fair Share Fee' of ' $1,346 per unit. Based on the 79 units proposed, the proposed Project would be required to contribute a total of $106,334 in Fair Share fees. Additionally, according to the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Agency, the proposed ' Project is located within the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Zone B and is therefore subject to their Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program. The proposed residential development, under this program, would be required to pay $1,748 per unit. Thus the proposed Project would be required to contribute a total of $138,092 (79 x 1,748). No significant adverse Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 3 -58 Initial Study and MND 1 Environmental Analysis (continued) impacts are expected with compliance with City regulations for payment of Fair Share and Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program fees. (Source: Traffic Impact Analysis and City of Newport Beach Municipal Code) C. Would the Project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. There are no airports near the proposed Project site. The proposed Project would not affect traffic at the nearest airport, as John Wayne Airport is located approximately 4.5 miles to the north of the proposed Project site. No direct demand for air transportation would be generated by the proposed Project. Thus, no impact on air traffic patterns would occur with the proposed Project (Sources: Thomas Guide for Los Angeles and Orange Counties and Newport Beach General Plan) D. Would the Project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The proposed Project site currently has access to Santa Barbara Drive from an existing southerly driveway and a new northerly driveway. The overall site circulation has been reviewed and approved by the City's Traffic Engineer. Thus, no traffic related hazards or incompatible uses would be introduced by the proposed Project. To ensure that no traffic related hazards would occur from the proposed Project or during the short - term construction traffic period, the following improvements are recommended from the Traffic Impact Analysis. Mitigation Mitigation Measure 3.15.A: Sight distance at the proposed Project accesses should be reviewed with respect to City of Newport Beach standards in conjunction with the preparation of final grading, landscape, and street improvement plans. Mitigation Measure 3.15.B: On -site traffic signing and striping should be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the proposed Project. Mitigation Measure 3.15.C: The City of Newport Beach should periodically review traffic operations in the vicinity of the proposed Project once the proposed Project is constructed to assure that the traffic operations are satisfactory. The implementation of the recommended improvements outlined above would allow roadways and intersections to operate and maintain at an acceptable LOS and would further reduce potential proposed Project related traffic impacts to less than significant levels. (Sources: Project Plans and site survey) Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 3 -59 Initial Study and MND Environmental Analysis (continued) E. Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access? ' No Impact. Adequate emergency vehicle access would continue to be provided by Santa Barbara Drive for land uses on and near the site. During construction, Santa Barbara Drive would remain open and unimpeded to all vehicles, including emergency vehicles. Thus, construction of the proposed facility would not affect emergency access to the area. Upon completion of construction, operational access and emergency access to the site would continue to be available through the proposed Project driveways along Santa Barbara Drive. Implementation of the proposed Project is not expected to result in inadequate emergency access. (Sources: Project Plans and Site Survey) ' F. Would the Project result in inadequate parking capacity? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The proposed Project provides a total of 201 on -site parking spaces (159 resident and 42 guest). The City of Newport Beach requires a total of 198 spaces for the residential development (two parking spaces per unit, plus 0.5 spaces per unit for guest parking on developments with four or more units). The proposed Project complies with the on- ' site parking requirements and therefore would not result in parking deficiency. To ensure that all City requirements for parking areas on -site are met, the following improvements are recommended from the Traffic Impact Analysis. ' Mitigation I' Mitigation Measure 3.15.D: The parking design shall meet all City requirements regarding parking stall width, parking stall depth, parking aisle grade, and parking aisle - turning radii. Mitigation Measure 3.15.E: Each parking level should have large numbers on the pillars or walls designating on which floor level the user has parked. Letters can also be added to designate what area within a parking level the person has parked, such as 2B. (Sources: Traffic Impact Analysis, Project Plans and City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 20.66 Off - Street Parking and Loading Regulations) G. Would the Project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? No Impact. The proposed Project may lead to an increase in the use of public transportation services to and from the site by residents and guests of the site. Buses currently run along Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara Drive and can be utilized to reach the site. The potential for increased bus ridership would result in better utilization of public transportation and would not adversely affect those services. Implementation of the proposed Project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. (Sources: Site Survey) Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 3 -60 Initial Study and MND Environmental Analysis (continued) 3.16 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Water Service Water services to the City of Newport Beach, including the proposed Project area, are provided by the City of Newport Beach Utility Department. Groundwater from the Orange County Groundwater basin, operated by the Orange County Water District (OCWD), is the primary water supply source for the area, supplying approximately 66% of the City's water demand. The remaining 34% is purchased from the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC), a sub - agency of the Metropolitan Water District (MWD). According to the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department 2000 Urban Water Management Plan, two well sites are currently located in Fountain Valley. The groundwater then travels over 6 miles of 30" transmission mains, through the cities of Fountain Valley, Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa and into Newport Beach. Solid Waste The City of Newport Beach does not provide solid waste disposal services within the City. However, the City of Newport Beach General Services Department provides a list of solid waste haulers which are licensed and franchised with the City. Collected solid wastes from the City are brought to one of the five Material Recovery Facilities (MRF) within the County, where the refuse is collected and sent to a landfill. Orange County's Integrated Waste Management Division owns and operates the three active landfills, (Bowerman Landfill, Olinda Alpha Landfill, and Prima Deschecha Landfill) as well as four household hazardous waste collection centers (HHWCC) within Orange County. Solid waste from all Orange County cities, including the City of Newport Beach, is taken to one of the three landfills. Orange County's three existing landfills have permitted capacity through 2035. The landfill that serves the City and the proposed Project site is Bowerman Landfill, located at 11002 Bee Canyon Access Road in the City of Irvine. The Bowerman Landfill is a Class III landfill and is permitted to receive a daily maximum of no more than 8,500 tons per day. Class III landfills do not accept hazardous or liquid waste. Hazardous waste is taken to the local HHWCC. The Bowerman landfill opened in 1990 and is scheduled to close in approximately 2022. The Integrated Waste Management Department is currently conducting a study that may extend the life and disposal capacity of the landfill. Sewer Service Sewage generated within the majority of the City of Newport Beach is collected and conveyed the City's local sewer lines and the regional sewer trunks of the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) for treatment, reclamation, and disposal. The District owns and operates two treatment plants, Treatment Plan No. 1 in Fountain Valley and Treatment Plan No. 2 located in Huntington Beach. While the treatment levels at these plants meet all current State and Federal requirements, the District is currently planing to upgrade both of the treatment plants to meet treatment standards for projected 2020 effluent flow. The plan includes the rehabilitation and upgrade of the existing facilities. The City, including the proposed Project site, is served by the Huntington Beach treatment plant. The Huntington Beach plant currently has an operating capacity of 340 million gallons per day. Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 3 -61 Initial Study and MND Environmental ' Electrical Power and Gas Service ' The City of Newport Beach is served by Southern California Gas Company for natural gas services and by the Southern California Edison Company for electrical power services. There are no overhead utility lines adjacent to the proposed Project site or in the surrounding area. ' (Sources: Newport Beach General Plan, City of Newport Beach, City of Newport Beach 2000 Urban Water Management Plan, Orange County Integrated Waste Management Division, Project Plans and Site Survey) A. Would the Project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Less Than Significant Impact. Wastewater generated by the proposed development would be disposed into the sewer system and would not exceed wastewater treatment standards of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. As discussed above, effluent would be treated at Treatment Plan Nos. 1 and 2. These facilities meet RWQCB standards for sewage treatment. Wastewater from residential uses is not expected to violate the standards of the RWQCB. Less than significant impacts are expected. (Sources: Site Survey and Project Plans) B. Would the Project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less than Significant Impact. Water demand is estimated at 390 gallons per day per dwelling ' unit or a total of 23,700 gallons per day for the proposed residential development. Sewage generation is estimated at 250 gallons per day per dwelling unit or a total of 19,750 gallons per day for the entire proposed Project. I' To provide water and sewer services to the site, the proposed Project would connect to existing infrastructure located in Santa Barbara Drive and in the vicinity of the site. The existing infrastructure for water service includes an 18.5 -inch water main that runs along Santa Barbara I' Drive and connects to a 12.0 -inch main in Newport Center Drive. The proposed Project would utilize an existing 8.0 -inch water line within a 10.0 -inch easement, located toward the southeast corner of the site, which connects the site to the water main in Santa Barbara Drive. ' To provide sewer services to the site, the proposed Project would also utilize existing infrastructure in Santa Barbara Drive. An existing 8.0 -inch sewer line runs along Santa Barbara ' Drive and connects to a 10.0 -inch sewer line in Newport Center Drive to the southeast, as well as to a 16 inch line in Jamboree Road, located to the north of the site. There is no existing easement connecting the site to the sewer main in Santa Barbara Drive, therefore, in coordination with the ' City of Newport Beach Utilities Department, the proposed Project would include the required connection to the sewer line. The existing infrastructure would provide adequate water and sewer services to serve the proposed ' Project. Connection and service fees would also be paid by development to obtain sewer and water services. No significant adverse impacts in terms of water and wastewater services are expected. ' (Sources: Project Plans, City of Newport Beach Utilities Department) Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 3-62 Initial Study and MND 1 Environmental C. Would the Project require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed Project includes the addition of impervious surfaces, such as structures, roadways, driveways and pathways that would change runoff patterns on -site. Runoff from the site would continue to be conveyed along curbs and gutters, and directed into the existing storm drain system in Santa Barbara Drive and to the adjacent golf course. In addition, drainage from the open space /landscaped areas would be collected in area drains proposed on -site. Changes in drainage patterns would be internal to the site and would not affect drainage flows in the surrounding area or impact existing facilities. Existing storm drainage facilities would be able to accommodate the proposed development and are expected to adequately handle runoff from the subject site without the creation of flood hazards. Additionally, proposed Project design features including curbs, gutters and on -site grades would direct flows to the existing facilities. No impact associated with the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities would occur. (Sources: Project Plans, USGS Laguna Beach Quadrangle, and Site Survey) D. Would the Project have sufficient water supplies available from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The proposed Project would require additional water supplies provided by groundwater from the Orange County groundwater basin and purchased water from the MWDOC water supply. The current and future water supply projections for the City of Newport Beach through 2020 are shown in Table 3 -14, Current and Projected Water Supplies. The future supply projection assumes that the city will continue to produce groundwater and purchase local water. Table 3 -14 Current and Projected Water Supplies (AFY Water Suppl y Sources 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Purchased from MWDOC 4690 5250 5275 5300 5325 Ground Water 14125 15800 15850 15900 15950 Recycled 420 350 350 350 350 Supply Total 19235 21400 21475 21550 21625 Demand Total 19235 21400 21475 21550 21625 Source: City of Newport Beach Utilities Department Future water demand for the City of Newport Beach would continue to be supplied by the Orange County groundwater basin as well as purchased from the MWDOC water supply through the year 2010 and is expected to meet any future water demands in the City including the proposed Project site. No impacts to water supply would occur with implementation of the proposed Project. The City of Newport Beach purchases recycled water from the MWDOC through a program called the Green Acres Project. The City annually purchases between 300 -800 acre -feet a year. Recycled water in the City is mainly used by golf courses, such as the Newport Beach Country Club golf course located adjacent to the site, and other landscape areas. The Green Acres Project has the capability to deliver up to 1,000 acre -feet per year. Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 3 -63 Initial Study and MND Environmental Analysis (continued) Mitigation While adequate water supplies would be available to serve the proposed Project site, the implementation of water conservation measures suggested by the City of Newport Beach, would reduce demand for groundwater, surface water and imported water supplies. These water conservation measures include: Mitigation Measure 3.16 A: New landscaping shall incorporate drought - tolerant plant materials and drip irrigation systems, wherever possible. Mitigation Measure 3.16 B: Water leaving the project site due to over - irrigation of landscape, shall be minimized. If an incident such as this is reported, a representative from the Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division of the City Managers Office shall visit the location, investigate, inform resident if possible, leave a note and in some cases shut -off the water. Mitigation Measure 3.16 C: Watering should be done during the early morning or evening hours to minimize evaporation (between 4:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m., the following morning). Mitigation Measure 3.16 D: All leaks shall be investigated by a representative from the Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division of the City Manager's Office and any the applicant shall complete all required repairs. Mitigation Measure 3.16 E: Water should not be used to clean paved surfaces, such as sidewalks, driveways, parking areas, etc., except to alleviate immediate safety or sanitation hazards. Mitigation Measure 3.16 F: Reclaimed water shall be used wherever available, assuming it is economically feasible. Mitigation Measure 3.16 G: Installation of Ultra -Low Flush Toilets (ULFT) in the residential units. While the proposed Project would create an increased demand for water resources in the City, local and regional water supplies have adequate capacities to serve the proposed development on -site. With implementation of the suggested water conservation measures to further reduce water use on -site, no significant adverse impact on the existing water system would occur with proposed Project implementation and no adverse impacts on available water supply are expected. (Sources: Site Survey, Project Plans, and City of Newport Beach Utilities Department) E. Would the Project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Less than Significant Impact. Sewer service would be required to serve the proposed development. The proposed Project site would be served by Treatment Plan No. 2 located in the City of Huntington Beach. Assuming that wastewater generation is 80 percent of water use, the proposed Project is expected to generate approximately 19,750 gallons of wastewater per day. The treatment plant has a design capacity of 340 million gallons per day (mgd) and currently operates at 240 mgd. Therefore, this increase in the amount of wastewater created from the proposed Project is not Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 3-64 Initial Study and MND Environmental Analysis (continued) expected to result in adverse impacts to existing sewer treatment capacity Treatment Plant No. 2. , The projected wastewater treatment demand of the proposed Project is not expected to result in a significant impact to the provider and would not significantly impact available capacity. , (Sources: Project Plans and Newport Beach General Plan) F. Would the Project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to ' accommodate the Project's solid waste disposal needs? Less than Significant Impact. According to the Orange County Integrated Waste Management Division, residential developments generate approximately 7.0 pounds of solid waste per resident per day. Thus, the proposed residential development would generate approximately 1,155 pounds of solid waste per day. Solid waste generated at the site would require disposal at Bowerman Landfill. Bowerman landfill has a capacity to receive a maximum of 8,500 tons of solid waste per day. If its daily tonnage limit is reached, waste is diverted to Prima Deschecha Landfill in San Juan Capistrano. Prima Deschecha Landfill has a capacity to receive 4,000 tons of solid waste per day. Bowerman Landfill has capacity to serve the site until 2022 and Prima Deschecha has adequate capacity to serve the diverted waste, if needed, until 2067. The residential development would be required to participate in City -wide recycling programs and household hazardous waste disposal to reduce demands for landfill space and prevent land or water contamination from hazardous wastes. The City of Newport Beach recycles approximately 25% of its waste at the five Material Recovery Facilities (MRF) operated by the County. By using this rate, the proposed Project would only generate approximately 866 pounds of solid waste per day that would require disposal at county landfills. Thus, the proposed Project would be adequately served by county landfills. No significant impact on solid waste disposal is expected (Sources: Project Plans, Newport Beach General Plan, and County of Orange Integrated Waste Management Division) G. Would the Project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Less than Significant Impact. The city does not provide refuse collection for the proposed Project site. The City of Newport Beach General Services Department provides a list of solid waste haulers, which are licensed and franchised with the City. The proposed Project would employ one of the listed haulers to transport waste from the site to the MRF for recycling and to final landfill disposal at Bowerman Landfill in the City of Irvine. The residential development would be required to participate in City -wide curbside recycling programs for residential uses and household hazardous waste disposal to reduce demands for landfill space and prevent land or water contamination from hazardous wastes. The proposed Project; therefore, would comply with federal, state, and local solid waste regulations. Less than significant impact is expected. (Sources: Project Plans, City of Newport Beach General Services Department) Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 3 -65 Initial Study and MND SECTION 4: MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 4.1 FINDINGS The environmental analysis in Section 3 of this Initial Study indicates that the proposed Santa Barbara Condominiums Project would not have the potential for significant adverse environmental impacts with implementation of standard City conditions and the recommended mitigation measures. The following findings can be made regarding the mandatory findings of significance set forth in Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines, as based on the results of this environmental assessment: ■ The proposed project would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment. There are no sensitive plant or animal species on the project site and the proposed project would not 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, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. No historic structures or sites, archaeological resources or paleontological resources are present in the project area, which may be affected by the proposed project. The proposed project would not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. ■ The proposed project would not have the potential to achieve short -term goals to the disadvantage of long term environmental goals. The proposed project contains 79 residential units with open space and recreational areas on a 4.25 -acre site in Newport Beach. Although the project would have impacts to air quality, cultural resources, geology and soils, noise, public services, transportation /traffic and utilities and service systems, mitigation measures would decrease these impacts to below a level of significance. The project would not significantly impact environmental resources. ■ The proposed project would not have environmental impacts, which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable, when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity of the site. The proposed project would not cumulatively lead to significant adverse impacts, when added to proposed, planned or anticipated development in the area. ■ The proposed project would not have environmental impacts, which may have adverse effects on humans, either directly or indirectly, with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. The project may create short -term noise and air quality impacts during demolition and construction. However, implementation of the recommended mitigation measures would avoid significant adverse impacts and would reduce the identified impacts to insignificant levels. The City of Newport Beach has determined that the proposed project would not have significant adverse impacts on the environment with the implementation of mitigation measures, and no additional environmental analysis is warranted. The City of Newport Beach would consider adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Santa Barbara Condominiums Project, with the incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures. Santa Barbara Condominiums Pape 4 -1 ' Initial Study and MND Mandatory Findings (continued) 4.2 MITIGATION MEASURES The proposed project would need to comply with existing federal, state and City regulations and applicable ordinances. In addition, the following mitigation measures are recommended to reduce or avoid the project's potentially significant adverse impacts to less than significant levels: Air Quality The following mitigation measures would reduce emissions associated with construction of the proposed project: Mitigation Measure 3.3.A: During grading activities, any exposed soil areas shall be watered twice per day. On windy days or when fugitive dust can be observed leaving the proposed Project site, additional applications of water shall be applied to maintain a minimum 12 percent moisture content as defined by SCAQMD Rule 403. Under windy conditions where velocities are forecast to exceed 25 miles per hour (as ascertained by phone calls to the SCAQMD), all ground disturbing activities shall be halted until winds that are forecast to abate below this threshold. Mitigation Measure 3.3.13: The proposed Project shall comply with regional rules such as SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403, which would assist in reducing short -term air pollutant emissions. Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with best available control measures so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. Rule 402 requires dust suppression techniques be implemented to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance offsite. These dust suppression techniques are summarized as follows: a. Portions of the construction site to remain inactive longer than a period of three months shall be seeded and watered until grass cover is grown or otherwise stabilized in a manner acceptable to the City. b. All on -site roads shall be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or chemically stabilized. c. All material transported offsite shall be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. d. The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations shall be minimized at all times. Mitigation Measure 3.3.C: All vehicles on the construction site shall travel at speeds less than 15 miles per hour. Mitigation Measure 3.3.D: All material stockpiles subject to wind erosion during construction activities, that will not be utilized within three days, shall be covered with plastic, an alternative cover deemed equivalent to plastic, or sprayed with a nontoxic chemical stabilizer. Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 4 -2 Initial Study and MND Mandatory Findings (continued) Mitigation Measure 3.3.E: Where vehicles leave the construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the streets shall be swept daily or washed down at the end of the work day to remove soil tracked onto the paved surface. Any visible track -out extending for more than fifty (50) feet from the access point shall be swept or washed within thirty (30) minutes of deposition. Mitigation Measure 3.31: All diesel - powered vehicles and equipment shall be properly operated and maintained. Mitigation Measure 3.3.G: All diesel - powered vehicles and gasoline - powered equipment shall be turned off when not in use for more than five (5) minutes. Mitigation Measure 3.3.H: The construction contractor shall utilize electric or natural gas - powered equipment instead of gasoline or diesel - powered engines, where feasible. Mitigation Measure 3.3.1: As much as possible, the construction contractor shall time the construction activities so as not to interfere with peak hour traffic. To minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes adjacent to the site, a flag person shall be retained to maintain safety adjacent to existing roadways, if necessary. Mitigation Measure 3.3.J: The construction contractor shall support and encourage ridesharing and transit incentives for the construction crew. Mitigation Measure UK The construction contractor shall utilize, as much as possible, pre - coated /natural colored building materials. Water -based or low VOC coatings shall be used that comply with the most stringent SCAQMD Rule 1113 limits. Spray equipment with high transfer efficiency, such as the high volume -low pressure (HVLP) paint applicators with 50 percent efficiency, or manual coatings application such as paint brush hand roller, trowel, spatula, dauber, rag, or a sponge shall be used to reduce VOC emissions, where practical. Additionally, paint application shall use lower volatility paint not exceeding 100 grams of ROG per liter. Mitigation Measure 3.3.L: If construction equipment powered by alternative fuel sources ' (LPG /CNG) is available at comparable cost, the developer shall specify that such equipment be used during all construction activities on the proposed Project site. ' Mitigation Measure 3.3.M: The developer shall require the use of particulate filters on diesel construction equipment if use of such filters is demonstrated to be cost - competitive for use on this proposed Project.. ' Cultural Resources ' The following mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts associated with unknown cultural resources on -site: ,I I .1 Mitigation Measure 3.5.A: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall provide written evidence to the planning director that a qualified archaeologist has been retained to observe grading activities and conduct salvage excavation of archaeological resources as necessary. The archaeologist shall be present at the pre - grading conference, shall establish procedures for archaeological resources surveillance, and shall establish, in Santa Barbara Condominiums Initial Study and MND Page 4 -3 Mandatory cooperation with the applicant, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification and evaluation of the artifacts as appropriate. If additional or unexpected archaeological features are discovered, the archaeologist shall report such findings to the applicant and to the Planning Department. If the archaeological resources are found to be significant, the archaeological observer shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the applicant, for exploration and /or salvage. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Director. Mitigation Measure 3.5.13: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall provide written evidence to the planning director that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to observe grading activities and conduct salvage fossils as necessary. The paleontologist shall be present at the pre - grading conference, shall establish procedures for paleontological resource surveillance, and shall establish cooperation with the applicant, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification and evaluation of fossils. If major paleontological resources are discovered which require long term baiting or redirecting of grading, the paleontologist shall report such findings to the applicant and to the Planning Department. The paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the applicant, which ensure proper exploration and /or salvage. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Director. Mitigation Measure 3.5.C: In accordance with Public Resources Code 5097.94, if human remains are found, the Orange County coroner must be notified within 24 hours of the discovery. If the coroner determines that the remains are not recent, the coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commissions in Sacramento to determine the most likely descendent for the area. The designated Native American representative then determines in consultation with the property owner the disposition of the human remains. Geology and Soils The following mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts associated with unsuitable on -site soils: Mitigation Measure 3.6.A: In areas where compacted fill will be required to establish design grades and in design cut areas where the depth of the proposed cut does not exceed the thickness of the existing unsuitable surficial soils, on -site surficial soils shall be excavated and recompacted to create stable soil conditions and correct poor slope performance. Mitigation Measure 3.6.13: During grading activities, where cut- to-fill transitions exist following remedial grading, they shall be eliminated by overexcavating the "cut" portions of the building pads and replacing the excavated material as properly compacted fill. The generally recommended depth of over excavation is one -half the maximum thickness of fill beneath the pad area, to a minimum depth of 3 feet and a maximum depth of 15 feet below proposed pad grade. The horizontal limits of overexcavation should extend to within approximately 1 to 2 feet of property lines and /or the tops and toes of slopes. The actual lots that will require overexcavation and overexcavation depths will have to be determined during Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 44 Initial Study and MND Mandatory Findings (continued) grading by the project geotechnical consultant based on actual conditions encountered. Mitigation Measure 3.6.C: During remedial grading and construction of the proposed ' subterranean parking areas and associated improvements, temporary excavations with sidewalls varying up to approximately 13 feet in height may be necessary. Temporary excavation sidewalls will require sloping back at a ratio of approximately 12:1, horizontal to vertical. Should excessive caving be observed during grading, flatter inclinations may be required locally. Depending on required depths of cut and remedial grading, it may not be ' possible to construct temporary excavations along the east side of Buildings I and II (i.e., adjacent to Santa Barbara Drive) and along the southeast side of Building I (adjacent to the existing Marriott tower and appurtenant improvements) ' at a safe and stable slope ratio without encroaching into the adjacent street right - of -way and /or causing the loss of lateral support of the existing hotel building, the associated buried utilities and other improvements. For this reason, temporary ' shoring may be required in these areas. Recommendations for design of temporary shoring will be provided in the comprehensive preliminary geotechnical report once grading plans for the site become available for review. Noise The following mitigation measures are recommended to reduce construction noise impacts on adjacent noise sensitive land uses: Mitigation Measure 3.11.A: Construction activities shall be confined to the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and on Saturdays between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Mitigation Measure 3.11.8: Equipment mufflers for construction equipment shall be used at all times. Mitigation Measure 3.11.C: Idling of construction vehicles and equipment shall be limited to the extent feasible. Construction vehicles and equipment shall be properly operated and maintained and shall be turned off when not in use. Public Services The following mitigation measure would reduce potential adverse impacts on school services: ' Mitigation Measure 3.13.A: Prior to issuance of the first building permit, school impacts fees will be paid to the Newport-Mesa Unified School District to assist in funding school facility expansion and educational services to area residents. ' Transportation/Traffic The following mitigation measures would reduce any potential traffic and parking related ' impacts from the proposed project: ' Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 4 -5 i Initial Study and MND Mandatory Findings (continued) Mitigation Measure 3.15.A: Sight distance at the project accesses should be reviewed with respect to City of Newport Beach standards in conjunction with the preparation of final grading, landscape, and street improvement plans. Mitigation Measure 3.15.B: On -site traffic signing and striping should be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the project. Mitigation Measure 3.15.C: The City of Newport Beach should periodically review traffic operations in the vicinity of the project once the project is constructed to assure that the traffic operations are satisfactory. Mitigation Measure 3.15.D: The parking design shall meet all City requirements regarding parking stall width, parking stall depth, parking aisle grade, and parking aisle - turning radii. Mitigation Measure 3.15.E: Each parking level should have large numbers on the pillars or walls designating on which floor level the user has parked. Letters can also be added to designate what area within a parking level the person has parked, such as 2B. Utilities and Service Systems While adequate water supplies would be available to serve the project site, the implementation of water conservation measures suggested by the City of Newport Beach, would reduce demand for groundwater, surface water and imported water supplies. These water conservation measures include: Mitigation Measure 3.16 A: New landscaping shall incorporate drought - tolerant plant materials and drip irrigation systems, wherever possible. Mitigation Measure 3.16 B: Water leaving the project site due to over - irrigation of landscape, shall be minimized. If an incident such as this is reported, a representative from the Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division of the City Manager's Office shall visit the location, investigate, inform resident if possible, leave a note and in some cases shut -off the water. Mitigation Measure 3.16 C: Watering should be done during the early morning or evening hours to minimize evaporation (between 4:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m., the following morning). Mitigation Measure 3.16 D: All leaks shall be investigated by a representative from the Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division of the City Manager's Office and any the applicant shall complete all required repairs. Mitigation Measure 3.16 E: Water should not be used to clean paved surfaces, such as sidewalks, driveways, parking areas, etc., except to alleviate immediate safety or sanitation hazards. Mitigation Measure 3.16 F: Reclaimed water shall be used wherever available, assuming it is economically feasible. Mitigation Measure 3.16 G: Installation of Ultra -Low Flush Toilets (ULFT) in the residential units. Santa Barbara Condor Initial Study and MND Page 4F ' SECTION 5: LIST OF PREPARERS /REFERENCES 1 5.1 PREPARERS OF THE MND /INITIAL STUDY David Evans and Associates, Inc. 23382 Mill Creek Drive, Suite 225 Laguna Hills, California 92653 -1684 (949) 588 -5050 Dustin Fuller, Project Manager Amy Gramlich, Environmental Planner /Analyst ' 5.2 REFERENCES The following references were used in the preparation of this Initial Study and are available for review by the public at the offices of the City of Newport Beach at 3300 Newport Boulevard in Newport Beach, California 92663 or at the offices of David Evans and Associates, Inc. at 23382 Mill Creek Drive, Suite 225 in Laguna Hills, California 92653 by calling during normal business hours. California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, Important Farmland, 2000. California Department of Conservation California Geological Survey, Seismic Hazard Mapping Program, 2005. California Department of Finance, E-4 Report, Revised Historical City, County, and State Population Estimates, 1990, 2000. California Department of Finance, E -5 Report, City /County Population and Housing Estimates, 2004. California Office of Planning and Research, California Environmental Quality Act and the CEQA Guidelines, 2004. California's Scenic Highway Program, California Scenic Routes, 2000. City of Newport Beach, General Plan Conservation of Natural Resources Element, 1975. City of Newport Beach, General Plan Housing Element, 2003. City of Newport Beach, General Plan Public Land Use Element, 2004, as amended. City of Newport Beach, General Plan Newport Beach Biological Resources, 2003. City of Newport Beach, General Plan Noise Element, Conservation of Natural Resources Element, 1974. City of Newport Beach, General Plan Public Safety Element, 1975. City of Newport Beach, General Plan Recreation and Open Space Element, 1998. Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 5-1 Initial Study and MND List of Preparers/References (continued) City of Newport Beach, City of Newport Beach Municipal Code 2003. City of Newport Beach, LCP Land Use Plan, Certified 1990 (as amended). City of Newport Beach, LCP Land Use Plan, Locally Adopted — not Certified 2005. City of Newport Beach Public Works Utilities Department, City of Newport Beach 2000 Urban Water Management Plan, 2000. City of Newport Beach website: http:l lwww.city.newport- beach.ca.us /, 2004. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Maps, 1996. Giroux and Associates, Air Quality Analysis Santa Barbara Condominium Project City of Newport Beach, California, February 25, 2005. Kunzman and Associates, City of Newport Beach Santa Barbara Condominium Traffic Impact Analysis (Revised), February 14, 2005. National Register of Historic Places, National Register Information System, 2005. Newport -Mesa Unified School Districtwebsile: http:llwww.nmusd.kl2.ca.us /, 2004. Orange County Integrated Waste Management Division website: http:llwww.oclandfills.com /, 2005. Petra Geotechnical, Inc., Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation for the Proposed Santa Barbara Condominiums, November 2003. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), 2004 RTP Growth Forecast, City Projections, 2004. Southern California Earthquake Data Center, Faults of Southern California. SCAQMD, Air Quality Management Plan for the South Coast Air Basin, 2002. SCAQMD, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, May 1993, as amended. SCAQMD, 1998 -2002 Air Quality Readings, 1998 -2002. Thomas Brothers Maps; Thomas Guide for Los Angeles and Orange Counties; 2004. U.S. Census Bureau, United States Census, 1990, 2000. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Envirofacts Database; 2004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment and Home Appliances, 1971. Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 5 -2 Initial Study and MND List of Preparers/References (continued) U.S. Geological Survey, 7'/2 Minute Quadrangle for Laguna Beach, 2004. 1 Western Regional Climate Center, Climate Data, 2002. 5.3 PERSONS CONTACTED 1 Alfred Castanon, Newport Beach Utilities Department Ara K. Zareczny, Newport -Mesa Unified School District 1 Gayleen Olson, Newport Beach Fire Department Linda Hagthrop, Orange County Integrated Waste Management Division Sergeant Steve Shulman, Newport Beach Police Department 1 II F 11 11 11 11 '1 Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 5-3 1 Initial Study and MND ERRATA FINAL MIND FOR THE SANTA BARBARA CONDOMHNHIMS PROJECT After completion of the Public Review period for the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, a Planned Community District (PCD) was developed for the proposed project (please contact the City of Newport -Beach Planning Department to review this document). Additionally, as a result of comments received, several typographical errors and/or clarifications to the MND text were identified. The addition of the PCD language as well as both minor typographical errors and clarifications were corrected in the text. All additions and/or corrections/modifications to the text are shown in strike - out/underline format provided below. The additions of the PCD language and the corrections have been reviewed and none of them affect the conclusions found in the impact analysis. All comments received during the review period from July 15 through August 15, 2005 and during the Planning Commission public meeting on November 3, 2005 for the Draft Santa Barbara Condominiums Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration document were noted and incorporated into the document. All revisions to the project document are provided in strikeout — underline format below. Section 1.1 Introduction: page 1 -1: Daragraph 1 This Initial Study evaluates and identifies the potential environmental impacts which may result from the proposed Santa Barbara Condominiums Project (proposed Project), in the City of Newport Beach. The Project proposes the development of 79 condominiums on a 4.25 acre site, currently in the Newport Beach Marriott Hotel's tennis complex. The project consists of three separate buildings with eight different floor plan options and has an approximately 79,140 square fee of open space and 21,300 square feet of recreational areas for use by residents and their guests. The four -story buildings are approximately 65 feet in height with subterranean parking levels. The project would require a General Plan Amendment and Local Coastal Plan Land Use Plan Amendment to change the current land use designation from Administrative, Professional, Financial (APF) to Multi- Family Residential (MFR); approval of a Planned Community District ( PCD) to rezone the subject property from APF to PC District, to establish use and development regulations, and to consider a waiver of the 10 -acre minimum land area requirement for PCD adoption: aen�e rezone the _ bjeet .....pelt. _a.a APF NJ o_a Parcel Map to subdivide the subject property from the hotel development for financing purposes; a Tract Map for the condominium ownerships; and approval of a Traffic Study pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). and a ° " Medi'.ieatiPennit for the front :,e<hl"kA.,AFAa-hrilen.. These discretionary actions are further discussed in Section 2.4 of this Initial Study. Section 1.3 Summary of Findings: pages 1 -3 and 1 -4: Mitigation Measures 3.3.E, 3.3.N and 3.3.0: Mitigation Measure 3,3.E: Where vehicles leave the construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the streets shall be swept daily . ei °�� eaa do :,rat the end of the work day to remove soil tracked onto the paved surface. Any visible track -out extending for more than fifty (50) feet from the access point shall be swept or washed within thirty (30) minutes of deposition. Mitieatiou Measure 3.3.N: Per review and approval by the City, during demolition and excavation, daily total haul trucks shall travel no more than a cumulative 2,400 miles per day hauling materials from the site to and from the duns ing site. Mitigation Measure 33.0: Per review and approval by the City, prior to commencement of demolition and grading the project applicant shall submit to the City calculations showing the proposed travel route for haul trucks the distance traveled and how many daily truck trips that can be accommodated while keeping the cumulative miles traveled to below 2,400 miles each day. The daily haul truck trips shall not exceed 2,400 miles during demolition and excavation activities. Section 1.3 Summary of Findings: page 1 -5: Mitigation Measure 3.11.0 Mitigation Measure 3.11.C: Idling of construction vehicles and equipment shall be limited to the extent feasible. Construction vehicles and equipment shall be properly operated and maintained and shall be turned I off when not in use for more than five (5) minutes. Section 2.2 Description of the Proposed Project: page 2 -5: paragraph 1 The proposed Project involves a General Plan Amendment to redesignate 4.25 acres of land from Administrative, Professional, Financial Commercial (APF) to Multi - Family Residential (MFR) to accommodate the proposed residential development. The .._,...esed n.e:eet site ,,..,.ad require a zone eh. age em APF to PteR. The proposed Project consists of three residential buildings totaling 79 condominium units (see Figure 2 -3, Proposed Site Plan). I Section 21 Description of the Proposed Project: page 2 -5: new paragraph 5 Draft Santa Barbara Residential Planned Community District The proposed P>iect includes the Draft Santa Barbara Residential Planned Community District (PCD). Upon adoption, development on the project site would be governed by the Santa Barbara Residential PCD. Develooment standards identified within the proposed Santa Barbara Residential PCD are intended to ug ide the zoning classification and development on the project site to ensure the proposed development would ♦ Permitted Uses ♦ Density ♦ Percentage of Site Coverage Setbacks ♦ Building Height Signs ♦ Parking Section 2.4 Discretionary Actions: page 2 -7: paragraph 1 ♦ Vehicular Access ♦ Landscape & Irrigation ♦ Refuse Collection ♦ Telephone, Gas and Electrical Service ♦ Grading ♦ Li ting ♦ Screening requirement for PCD adoption. 0 C de meend e..t N., 9/104 MY The pmpesed D- 'eet would al....:.,... lye a Faze.,: of the - eoe.a. A Faininnwn lot size ef 5.000 sauare fee4 and a minimum aFea oer unk of 1,200 sauaFe feet ...r_•..!- t.0.=- :...>,tF ^._. ■ Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005414 —To subdivide the 4.25 -acre subiect property from the 13.79 -acre Marriott Hotel development. ■ Tentative Tract Map No. 2004 -004 and- j167741 — To subdivide the 4.25 -acre submit property for Econdominium ownershipdovelopment. ■ TrgOic Study No 2005 -002 — Traffic Analysis pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). is FFentya-dsethaekenereaehmefit. ■ Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2005 -004 — For affordable housing inclusion in .,..ste. Co .......s.re= regletes develqpfnert in the 6.,..s.... Zone, the pf--p .. Section 3.3 Air Oualitv: case 3 -10: new varasravh 4 and 5 It is unknown at this time where the excavated material will be hauled. This will not be determined until after the rg adingpermit is issued and just prior to beginning excavation. The location is often dependant on other construction projects and where fill material is being accepted. For the purpose of calculating emissions, it is assumed as a worst -case estimate that a 30 -mile round trip would be required to reach the The California Air Resources Board (CARB) emissions eempate r rnedel URBEMIS2002 and EMFAC2002 computer models wereas used to estimate daily emissions during grading hauling and finish construction with the following results (pounds/day) shown in Table 3-4, Estimated Project Emissions During Construction, provided below. Section 3.3 Air Ouality: vase 3 -11: Table 3 -4 and Darasravh 1 TABI.B 3-4 Erru"T= VNWWNS DURING CONSTRUMON PM -10 PM -10 Equipment PM -10 Activity ROG NOx CO SOz Total Exhaust Dust Grading 7.0 48.7 57.1 0.0 12.1 2.1 10.0 Hauline 1_I 31.1 4_7 0_3 45.4 0_6 44_8" Finish Work 143.116 30.8 35.7 0.0 1.4 1.3 0.1 SCAQMD Threshold 75. 100. 550. 150. 150. 4-50 4-50 Maximum daily disturbance "footprint" during grading is 1.0 acre. Calculated PM -10 emissions have been calculated with the application of "standard" dust control, and with the application of enhanced dust control measures (see Air Quality Analysis for more details). 4' 0.031 lb/ton truck fillink and dumvinglixseeds Exceeds thre hold.(lite t,, ann!ication nfraints and watings Source: Air Quality Analysis As shown above, grading and hauling will not cause SCAOMD thresholds to be exceeded; however during finish work, application of paintings and coatings could create ROG emissions exceeding the SCAQMD threshold. Additionally, limiting the grading footprint area and/or use of best available control measures (BACMs) are not required to achieve a less- than - significant dust (PM -10) emission rate. However, the non - attainment status of the air basin for PM -10 dictates that all reasonably available control measures be implemented. Use of BACMs during construction is therefore recommended even if thresholds are not exceeded. Section 3.3 Air Ouality: page 3 -12: Mitigation Measures 3.3.E, 3.3.N and 33.0 Mitigation Measure 33.E: Where vehicles leave the construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the streets shall be swept daily er-�e at the end of the work day to remove soil tracked onto the paved surface. Any visible track -out extending for more than fifty (50) feet from the access point shall be swept or washed within thirty (30) minutes of deposition. Mitigation Measure 3.3.N: Per review and approval by the City, during demolition and excavation, daily total haul trucks shall travel no more than a cumulative 2,400 miles per day hauling materials from the site to and from the dumping site. Mitigation Measure 3.3.0: Per review and approval by the City, prior to commencement of demolition and rg ading the project applicant shall submit to the City calculations showing the proposed travel route for haul trucks. the distance traveled. and how many daily truck trips that can be accommodated while keeping the cumulative miles traveled to below 2,400 miles each day. The daily haul truck trips shall not exceed 2,400 miles during demolition and excavation activities. Section 3.9 Land Use and Planning: page 3 -36: paragraph 3 B. Would the Project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would involve a general plan amendment; and LCP alld ze:,e ehange o alter the land use allowed on the pFepesed— Project site. The poiect also includes adoption of a Planned Community District (PCD) to rezone the subject property from APF to PC District and to establish use and development regulations on the Project site. The current General Plan land use designation on the proposed Project site is Administrative, Professional, Financial Commercial (APF). The general plan amendment would change it to Multi - Family Residential (MFR). According to the Land Use Element of the General Plan, this land use category has been applied where multiple dwelling units are allowed on a single subdivided lot. Smaller condominiums and other individually owned attached housing projects are also given this designation. Further, this category allows for either single ownership or condominium development. Section 3.9 Land Use and Planning: page 3 -39: paragraph 2 ehange 4em 411P to MFR . erdeF to be consistent pfopesed Genefal Plan designatieti. PioweveF, as diseussed aboN-e. the proposed PrE�jeet would help promete il4ey A of the City's General Plan ajid would be compatible with the Fesidential zeneq to the soutil [in na-,theast of the site. A less than signifieant impaet to the ?�eqiqg eede is antieipated with developmew e Section 3.9 Land Use and Plannine: page 3 -39: paragraph 6 through page 3 -40: paragraph 1 FegUi..e,,,e fits for the site Fe outlined in Table a W n,.,, get C,d,..,.b n,,.,.:..,..,„,,,,,� Ti us setback so ofl,,hese ivquirenientg, the pfoposed Pr--I:ee* would no' meet the required F F....,t yards. . The the buildings 17 feet fforn pFopet45- lines. The ing within the 20 finot sethaek requirements inelude either arehiteetuFal features or ba e not habitable/living . As discussed in Section 2, Project Description, of this document, a Planned Community District {PCD) has been drafted for the proposed project. Development on the project site would be governed by the Draft Santa Barbara Residential PCD. Table 3 -7, Draft ,Santa Barbara Residential PCD Development RNuirements, shows the development requirements as set fourth in the draft PCD. TABLE 3 -7 DRAFf SANTA BARBARA RESIDENTIALPCDDEVELO ..PMENTRE UIREMENTS Density Densit 79 dwelling units 18.59 units r grass acre Percents a of Site Covers e Buildin" Covers a 100 " / " , less setback Buildin> Height 65 feet maximum Floor Area Ratio 1.90 t,andsca a 10% Building Setbacks Front 15 feet minimum Side 7 feet minimum Rear 13 feet minimum Parkin 2 spaces per unit for resident and 0.5 space for guest Source: Draft Santa Barbara Residential PCD Further development standards associated with building height, signa=e, parking, vehicular access, landscaping and irrigation refuse collection, telephone, gas and electric service, grading lighting and screening are also Development of the PCD follows the requirements set forth in the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. Development of the proposed Project, under the approval of the PCD, would result in less than significant impacts. Section 3.11 Noise: page 3 -44: paragraph 3 }[;ti; -ttion ?1ca ur e 3.11.0: T.I1:,i Z :-;f cnn_ N I:itic; zri! ^- ,,uipment ;hail be limited to tl.e extent feasible. Construction vehicles and equipment shall be properly operated and maintained and shall be turned off when not in use for more than five (5) minutes. Section 3.15 Transportation/Traffic: page 3 -60: paraeraph 2 F. Would the Project result in inadequate parking capacity? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The proposed Project provides a total of 201 on -site parking spaces (159 resident and 42 guest). The City of Newport Beach requires a total of 198 spaces for the residential development (two parking spaces per unit, plus 0.5 spaces per unit for guest parking on developments with four or more units). The Draft Santa Barbara Residential PCD provides for the required on -site parking per the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. Thus, Tthe proposed Project complies with the on -site parking requirements and therefore would not result in parking deficiency. To ensure that all City requirements for parking areas on -site are met, the following improvements are recommended from the Traffic Impact Analysis. Section 4.2 Mitigation Measures: page 4-3: Mitigation Measures 3.3,E, 33.N and 3.3.0. Mitigation Measure 3.3.E: Where vehicles leave the construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the streets shall be swept daily of washed down at the end of the work day to remove soil tracked onto the paved surface. Any visible track -out extending for more than fifty (50) feet from the access point shall be swept or washed within thirty (30) minutes of deposition. Mitigation Measure 3.3.N: Per review and approval by the City, during demolition and excavation, daily total haul trucks shall travel no more than a cumulative 2.400 miles per day hauling materials from the site to and from the dumping —site. Mitieation Measure 3.3.0: Per review and approval by the City, prior to commencement of demolition and grading the project applicant shall submit to the City calculations showing the proposed travel route for haul trucks, the distance traveled, and how many daily truck trips that can be accommodated while keeping, the cumulative miles traveled to below 2.400 miles each day. The daily haul truck trips sliall not exceed 2,400 miles during demolition and excavation activities. Section 4.2 Mitieation Measures: page 4 -5: Mitieation Measure 3.11.0 Mitigation Measure 3.11.C: Idling of construction vehicles and equipment shall be limited to the extent feasible. Construction vehicles and equipment shall be properly operated and maintained and shall be turned off when not in use for more than five (5) minutes Section 5.2 References: page 5 -2: item 5 City of Newport Beach. Draft Santa Barbara Residential Planned Community District, October 2005• Changes made to the Mitieation and Monitoring Program for the proposed Santa Barbara Condominiums Proiect: Mitigation Measure 33X-. Where vehicles leave the construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the streets shall be swept daily eFw*&hed-- dewtrat the end of the work day to remove soil tracked onto the paved surface. Any visible track -out extending for more than fifty (50) feet from the access point shall be swept or washed within thirty (30) minutes of deposition. to and from the dumping site. Mitigation Measure 3.3.0• Per review and approval by City, prior to commencement of demolition and grading the project applicant shall submit to the City calculations showing the proposed travel route for haul trucks, the distance traveled, and how many daily truck trips that can be accommodated while keeping the cumulative miles traveled to below 2,400 miles each day, The daily haul truck trips shall not exceed 2,400 miles during demolition and excavation activities Mitigation Measure 3.11.C: Idling of construction vehicles and equipment shall be limited to the extent feasible. Construction vehicles and equipment shall be properly operated and maintained and shall be turned off when not in use for more than five (5) minutes. See Attachment N r O C d E O �q00 G O 6 0 Q N E . V O N N N U W N •0 o 0. C> N U $ r N r O C « 9 N N 0 _ om 0' 3 v o c L «5y0`� U O Q c r c 3 i Q i v � N C N N= U O O 'O 00 N O D '•N'_J' U N �'+ ate.. � Z Q N � " t�O td N "0.."c"c5v.83o g °° =,�coa8 9W s Zv'pp o,4 3 ? ?V E v o c oZ.o, c E E .0 0 9= c a s QV V'S 26 OM �3o`av c>u3c f Q� j all I. Al r A O D Y m g: ri !ikl Woo -0 n o ° v y o o ¢o yy U c�3c00,g c� =m5 5 O C U G U N C a � 0 .al C O O- U U 0 0 0 j 5 0 3 '-0 v c 3 y E ° 0 j N U j a r 0 v o W E o N 6 d o 0 06 0 c E N ❑ v'vc 0 $ ❑ c > v 5 ' c °N O F.E'Sw'S �c 31 00'3 a-lo�o �,�09 >Qt3�L > > c v °— V ni = c OOD'O U U U �' T N z-._��Ww�� t «_ 0 C u U m. 00 y N c�0 =$co.?,Zo C .B 2 « G N N N O 12 V] y 0� 6'O O C C r? r v J o O c ttl 0 ,y o o Q u U-2 c 0 c � '> c c y 0 o E O i v N O 3 I� 4 4 c r U a c MR all N C 0 _' 0 0 �¢�?- v C J G C v'O C v u O Uu cS•� m 5 °'� E•a .?'.arm T'w LY 6 E G•7 Nz.. 000.�C ` rp G v oftVp O' L q E 7 Y e0 u �' y v i i C 'F c v c s O a� v O U y m $93"°. c °E U,O ra az ure3E 14 U U 3 'a m OV .� a 'o m i $ v E c7 'c o vii °'S 2'v § mza oa o8 � `� 3 02 u ce co^000'o?g m;n rau ^+"mom- ^+E�'` a °o3c °'� «° 0 y . 3 c .y b c E v c v d 3 v ' Q �` 0 0 m c E= v c.y c .E m c c c °� m W 3 `° ❑ O= o E z E u .E z vu c 3 O .y_ O gGC m >aC OmD v. «< C v a• .? o v.� E v= E E M N L 0 a dc� y•5 E yd�CaQcG .E y.E: =- v N M JAI If tQ f .ss O M fill if K [a 9 112 � 01 'a Ili 11jil 1 }7s @�j, p gya yp §af tg� it I - N cn y n I r U � N syy V d N C O N d 0 U 11" Is, p fill a foil, HI r E V 4 v eo 0 C 0 f r 0 t a o i a° os d N C O N d d E 0 L z z E E 0 U N _0 tA 0 41 M ce 0 ce Z4 �I r- (919 qVq `�' �W 4VT �0 p qQ� g n Ui�2 w W 'a QzLL � o ff$ o a � fA g y �%r All N V! �W 0 4 I a I C U 0 o° 6 O �y8 d C 0 d d 0 U atl 5y y9�0 oa.aC prz ap aC C7 LSO _0 C D9 t5 c to y6 �.Cy� •+. td 'C Q L N N 0.j YS N L '�'Z p G 0 c 6 G N y'Z ° N O 7 y u 0 3 6 •g9 i '' 3$ 'o mz 'o 2-0 0 0 p ,,, ta ra v m ON P o S ° a 3� c N° u s uo EU _ e. °;° Su aca Zy E �E oyov = o 2-9 E ta a u =� aerb d9om y ?v �'o Ei °•u'_u '� E N1 N1 N1 N1 � O a •y� y w �dm $ g co 9W ' O N UIl Q 0 Aq U� �G La Fm r V A q GI � 'S � M�` Y � p •� V N to O M f�l f�l M X s s Ill y �0 Q 0 a a Q C •0 0 �o J o a C S 'i - �9LIPOR�lP �' MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAM for the proposed SANTA BARBARA CONDOMINIUMS PROJECT NOVEMBER 9, 2005 C3 O M a C3 Z F O IL W 0 Z Q C3 Z_ Z O 2 O Q C7 F >r vi 3 0 U N O .- @ of ` N a a) m O L 'O Z t: M a) N OL o M mMO _mZ =N � o � Ev M w U a v 'pUw -p N {N @ N C (� UD ._ N Z CL Q - E � N N O N r- 0 T. m— ECD c t: 0 a) O 4^w U 3 c a) Z CL N CD o EL E O 7 O N L T.0 OL N w UE�a)O O r— C j v •- w o o aa) o UNVma 0 @ a) @ aw @ a U V�Er=0o CO @ m Q @ C C O` Tc a) o a @ D c� m 7 'o p > a) C7y >amr- M a a) m Wc N.L.. coa)��3 a) OL : c Eww,6gp o .L... '>O U.7 > 0 :3 C w @ a) C.— r- W >% c (n o a3 > N U a) U E C/) 0 '� @ a) CL (L Uc"a)r- a) Q) a ) p ~ m c -F Z r ai o L ^ a�j Vl C a 3Z M (nwZ U? r Ct C C C C m U @ p @ N > `p @ Z MOO U @ o N N M U o N r a) .0 > > CD -0 a) a16iE 1 M U a O CD w p co r > O O N C a) N w ma) mc-o QEc.2a)) M 0 O a) O CL 0 >`�> a) aci EOv .L Ta)d C N N aL N C 0. L N a) 3 of N O U L n ? > C O D 2 d (L C a) O r Q N o U N LA C E a) N a) m m O E c C w j d O C c C O d a)Ma)Cm om.��.- 5wP Er U O C7 CL E�aa) CJ�U E� W w Q' U O d U c D U L U m @ N F a C U m C O a t @ > O da)avg N aY V C O 0 M N M N o 'a.m a)E@E ` O C 02 7 - U N N N NL �W O vim Uv crn O LL) a) 0 a. a. o @ c ` c C 'O N .L.. a) E .im ap) E o 7 a N C m N E-0 a) E o r W L W @ o L 7 U o �) V7) N Q N O O L N W Q� W �L Z O a C7 F aa))goc E@0a) tM CL o N N N a O a - C N E m t: w w T a ) a) a NEav M a L L U a) a) E.E N c a) m O y CL L a) O N > a E M Z.2 C a) - w @ 2 M a) Om c .0E"E m C U L N a) U T a'O r- a) a) N O L 'O � a) - 'o3a °a CEO' `O °c) E .�c @u N 'O a N 'p L Opya) IE � 0 a) C @ o_E0)a CO L a ) O D N N N 0 m 0 O ry 0 y y o c a) N V .MY 7 _ C U Q a) y N r- -0 N > m M mF m` c o u - c a t .0 moa) 3a)Na)rn C � Nr E'C :3 a) a) a) 0 N p aL C M r r ENCV;E o N p 7w o m m° E a)n CL E vi a) L C v w °a C C C N W Q .3 Z O Q U' 2 v m 073 o rn U= CO � m c m U m a m C m C a� m a3) () Z c w m O T C m L O m LL E at and ca E a U H � m a`O d T C L O m 0 0 0 K N d N d 0 a rn G 0 '_ N O U �3 N m 0 U v s 3 d A E C mA ,d Ea �d N o a o 0 L m � L m m m T T N L _ - a ,mod °�18� _ 2 inn m o am �a ��maL�io z A < C � N Q __ duviE y m 2 y g 3 Q O Q c a N pOj � ri oma Q M N C> N m �aaC\l 0 dE�� 0 m 0 E:e0m V) 0 a O O m S? E V L L N O PL Z a� G a 0 y o E 4; e � E m o �) e QGU EO Q `° tam G m rJ r A a^ V Z O a w O Z Q Z_ O F Z O O Q F N cm r a m �a > Z E E U � e �� O E E a o a E � o GC O 0 �m m T O p� O O O O p� Q`m U U U N U came amt amc mmo amc .rr -a.omr L m m omr m omr N L m om0E N L m C C._._ m m p m m a m m m- v _omr Zjao a a am m am m m m m a0o m m J a a0a0 m m aoo CD m m NOS C a NOS C a C a C O C CD CD Z N Z N Z N = ' Z Z 0 o F CD O O .0 O .0 O O mace ii°' T-im 2 tm tm 2m yd L ca L ca L ca L cd L ca E U U U HE U U m a o ` 0 o ` 0 o � o ` W aQ at aU aU at ° d:� °m4. 6 as >c mom` > c mb >c - >c -omr >c O N 0 m o pU 0L) y OU aL) pU K 2 a€ D c o c T o CD o c m - � Q O V J 2 U & ` p N a C y C m h Z ~ Q 0 V .- O °Q a a .� u d mC o ">' 0 y c �L p to ag u � a r c m 'X�X O o �� 9? «L° c m m o c m v Q O O a 7 T�L V O.? E O N y L C f a C y N N j E > Y m m .-• 0 C O C N U -C m CN o « V V O r J S O N m N O N > => W E c j N w a Z. V N U L 0j L N E N C m 'm?�30a N Y J 2 N a m m N m > Narn mam m v m mho >a'm a CD m 0 «�m Za C m �i a O m ,� Ol C Y�'E 3 C N m m m m O >i m C O U yy V U N �_ «C� O V W N N a L N � m N N N m o 2 S N N> .J m m '?a49E v!?Nm>c.m� m-- ID ,9; 'pmm wE m a ; CD "' OCl m L N O' L L a O` M �, E c y c m > a > o Vl m N m Y1 m V > V- C N _ m « Q E a� m a - am, E m N y E L E m O E N'�y �? ° m« N a a CD M Y m a m a = m > -c m _ m a o m - ¢ a H N N N C C L N CD p a ¢ - „m N la `° " m L m J y J Q o L N a W > N :p C ri o J N- m > -E 8 m vi E {") N N .2 y "' N E {") M CD Ny O L N m >. U y N m C m N m L L O C N O T a a1 0 V E {") j L N m D >-• y j y E y � m a c N N fr O- C CD 'EA m = m '> N mL N O E J N V CD i U o cD d m N y w .m E �` m m O E o a d o L E o L L i m T - m o y C c� Y U N a 0 O (L .L. O Q U Q U H N C f C O C 0 > C a O1 L C O 0 m o m a m m U E c o m o m- m 2 o« 6 c�- m o O T m a uJi a_N �.ru 0 w v a ci a c -N y cC v 3 y s N �o> - >? sL S0o.v a m acct_ CD omr �3 a �a • N cm r a m �a > Z E E U � e �� O E E a o a E � o GC O 0 �m m o� NM r CDs 1 Lo TJ m C y d Z Or .'C c E ma c C •� U g m >' 0 Ol �' ° Ol ° Ol 0 0 U U N c N V c m N �- 0 T U ` U U T U T U c N Qa�C d'C amCD NL ;mom N a am >>°c NL> N amaci yL �maci y L 3°'m m 3(D Er m m m 0. c c ° N m N a 0 N d ° N m ° N m 0 0 d 000 m N CD0� UM �3rn 15mza iima iima ��rn �3arn p O N ,00 H m Z C N O,0 O N O O 0 m Z C lO Z C m aw ca d,�c Y O a cac 9 m ca g 000 ca 3 EL c p l0 C,5 CL�C p m C O «� 'mZ Y 'mZ « =z CD C Y a U) Y a U m nz a w o E E c c _ O c O c O c O o 0 N EEC TO i CD 2 i 2 i i T E aN -D �- ' LL N li d m C -" p CD Y M > U U U U U 0 0 a ° m m E ~- (a a ?' a o o 0 m CD r y 0 y 0 y 0 N %t O CO 0 . 3 O O lc`0 O lc`0 �. a A O N L lc0 CD > > c N IF�D C N a O 0 U N m Z > O 0 U m Z 0 a Q O OOOU O U a (� N m" = CO C Ol 0i M c c y U O 0.8 O > c CD c 3 E m aa�U'a R W o $t -- a o.cu m Z C U N -aE L° 0 c N aye .a�a M a � _Nt N~ N wE '-E r ° O FO N N c Cm m C S N .- o pmt m E p z rn E D d 0 �'E U. m r E° U c N'S a 0 c> °' CD r: a mo--0 i� C"D � =a o �m �^ CD CD E p m; ? O H y N> a° >, N y N E ��U?( R^ C� c t t N N C N 3 � 0 Z a l0 p` � C t@ N N r m`o N U CN U O L' N L °-' E N N N`o o c N c O 5 m c aE -`p $ �cM E op m 0 6,10 15 a C CD c m E N O C C = my N a� CO �.1 U 2 ,Qpp,m C „N„ L 8 N V d N L y ate; N- O N E "p CD O >m�L l0 an :a OL CD NO t 8 0- 'A O C� r �� A U c> O N C ? H 2 c E a N a� m�� CD - _ a CD r pct cccDcc - fl T fl N U C i C .0 ac D N N O Q L 3 N U «° 0- m N 0 O Ol ° C y N p a 'v � CC p E C 8 S N 2 = V+ y N r N � 0 H C '- c m o c L� c c E �i' cD C7 w $ N c .N- a U 2 L �i �=+i c Q - me m �'+i Y 0,aci c M=0 -j ? Ed z —E E m M0 c •_ M ri� «v m,c�.� MSC Ma �mE CD r N a M 0 C N N p r N W N" y m Z Q A N m CD N CD f L f NlU0 �0c NC f° N EC$ LO N.N= _ NUa N'l0 E N f C« 8 2 8 3 . 3° f a f o t g oaci a3ai orn� o f2 CD ozaCi oc� ooc k' mE m0- p2zm mt FO TOLL 0- AUE �8 amm' CD sad dram a� ��E aV' aa'Q aCD acmi> S U 7 C 'J _ ^J D 5 J 1) S K N. o� NM r CDs 1 Lo TJ m C y d Z Or .'C c E ma c C •� U g m W J Q r A K a z _Z 0 2 CO G O Q H M w c 0 U L c () L c w w 00 ` °' w W c E c 3 �r awir oa'cr'- O� > wm n a3im n N C C c W 00 N O w On o D c C y y C c wZ _Z _ c C am c~ aom W W ° a Uyy 'm O C U U E U w'.' wo ww ww LL E fy E y E ww o �C 0,6 it ^ °m E ° 0- B t7 ao ao w a o o o C O N O na O w_ N O w O� > > C p N N w c O A m A S d O N K C) U L w la D� m n E m y n a w g 0 d A N a o E N o m E � OCl O U - C 0 0 CD Y L C L wp� C N ME L 0 L �E � 8 w m t o y m y y p n y r ID wgb�o �rnw°� y 0 chi n 0 d -E; U N N c 'rn L Qa �aJ+�o'Ei�cO m w° w w w« N a a o�Mam mom m$w� wM > �O C iS C _N w C wN C la O O)� N pp a w E.8 r 0 N -ey�oo Ern Y C w L N Y Gl N w C 0 0 l`a L E NwwwX O T `O ID w O 3 y C w C w D- w H ° c y° l0 N w _oY o� c3 Q0 yQQar �� a�i�a�ciQoan'N won �e O m y!P 3 y O ° w.O. O e« w N m p w asc� °22m I ppp C�� O N m- O L 2 N�g L'a 0 N 0— �E�p N t E u N - F n C U L y O 3 N y L O 2 Be L° C d 0-5 N y C € N p ry o amooi yid °c�mo c' =wain 3�iii dH �� m �myy�g+��m °Ern w w N CQ w w Cp w .L.. C MME INO w o o rnE� 3 r N�c°i cE awwo tp�p.c> N L O O O O C ya� w'- T- 0 0 }}aa L_. .0 typ7i O w a O° U N 0- MM C N w w w rC M- C c� N L i coo�d� «oaYFT0;yo G W w W > w. N w w w N L ._ C$ 0 O a w N N Ol C « �a- 'C O C a 0 z Cl A C N O w O V IE L ApE C 0 a nc�c� n�y WXW v a 4 G E y QL c c �E wa c0 cc � ccU C O m cc mom° @ O w a O z O IL w 0 z ,Q V z R O H 2 O 2 z O Q F r� h PL 1 n� i N i G !E iII nC O ;U �9 i m im ne (n T %1 c U L CD U =U c U 'U c U L c aw CD aCDV ar aCD-t E CD CD a'm a dm a dm O� =2 a CD uD 0 O N O 0 0 n ° N C C N O c W a rn O K a a) K a0 a� D a0 3 rn a 0 y f D c y c A Z C c y N Z a c y c a Z V c � z L5 m N a N° a - N° m a - N° 5 a - ° m o d U) U) U) U) � C w , E � �. -5 Na N N 5 V al N L°o E2 LL CD N O C o Cl' � -5 E a 0 .0 c7 �Q �Q F E a o O o 0 :5 CD C0 - CD 00 yo cr om om om acL > c �« c 5« om y« D > > C > C UO OU OU OU OU K a O `Zc .- L ryp� NO1]O. y� _ EEoco CD CD oc �Z-d, rnt °ymE ; n0m0 0o EE�y�L 0 NN °'°u' A -� r C C L j N `0 N , 0- 'R'-x a u mm�o`80 c a^ C °oE? M- NIVa mZ CD CDEoiaD .� ac v° 0 .oa .a a� EEddd° CD a a0 FZ 6a'$ a a a�a0 °N V c�N m � =V> >°i CD «N�E a �a U�co�cQo ?tp�p.app _0m ��000� 00y0 = o E N U $ a L N O c c 0 C N a m C V O F N Y ." oo�a,0 m n ENV QO1E yam' «mma` om$,a T� Q ?CCEE_wa E aaym 5m� o<nECoC ?acoV EN N L" U V CD - r c N u �` >Q' �p ts5 N o -- M o E M N = C C� C C� la r C ° .0 N 0` ( C a O N U� pH U y la 0 a2j u E'mcZy 0 _N �L c "0 �vc0Ea VcE a —1-5 vm �CDcD0 a �o`f8 y0M >E0a>= i°Ern «O mo O- 0 N y I�Na ° Ida '3 - L .0 V z N O° L a C> N N L N V M z E «z`9' Sim °'.E H —(D �o�U D- 3�rE0'o 8NCD �cE kiEai`vvc rnE-Z'5 N Em au' c« V 0 a V N- N V �'.E N > V N N 0 la o o �Q N V �' Ol V CD N y ..�. LN�jN �> rn CD N VUcOHr Ol m'E O 3 m e Ta la rng' 0��' ;a� is Tr' N Nla�a> E o T �.L. _ p m '� la C CD Y a la N ,QN T c TV N N y Ol U NU.H� L N CTS N A « � O'%°N'•CC Ol la N N " CC M CQV CNp N y « .�, N A C % N� y Ol N V MO 0 0- v E$ %QNO 0 la O N V NC L O �j o tai m O E M a L ,c N N oo a �a N~ a M Z y a == V U N N— L `� a m > C O E N � hoc c 0= N« Ida V oa M �..0 -E N EE3:a i �O. i`a03�v Vx N a o N C N A `p� c E d N« y a C 8 c t+f may _ N N N ._�.N _N cyCD NL $H O O �Y � ;'E Vla N CD N Z` Z N Cy NC (A E 'N Olc NN U V V V ONM 0 o vi > O ?`wwV lNa a V > T N ° C f 2 m >tv•E E 8«>.� V c c0 c f�£m iEa NMN a��caL� O 00 �c�'woE of c O C O0N,�Y ?3yT� la N OOIrdA d 01 OOI� =« CNn ^NN3N O N> c -N QCy OIa CO C� i7 :0 C V - ._ N c M CD O7 -° Ya F A c= O N y- T ja ja C �- V a aE «�oaci0 tc •axu� poD t�a�aioEdo a�a�o� ID o0 �w I^ t- 7 S :J 4 .; 1 S O L F- L h PL 1 n� i N i G !E iII nC O ;U �9 i m im ne (n O w a O z O IL w 0 z ,Q V z 2 O H 2 O 2 z O Q F F N of CD j 2 e" U � m Q. 0 y m ,z D G mao 0 0 U 0 m Co n T C O m t m w O m mrn.°. CC 0 m C) V 0 C) V Q D EL 0 m m e 0 �« m ° c N E O O m« C O m m O C m r mo•o Ima)E Tmim�CD m� a m r p 0 r 00 ' m � 0 O C a a° m m c a m o a 0 W CD CD CD W Z = Z 0 Z o € C C c �Ee� N y y 2 m ya 2 m y 2 m N Ol i LL � L ca L ca c L 0 a — EE 0 U 0 U 0 U Oro a $ CD B y `0 a) `0 a) 0` y `0 C a m a m a m a m s� O o o o as >c >c >c >� O D OU OU OU OU w a CD m y N N _ -6S C z m Y m M E yO C, CD 'c 0 0 m O m C C z 0,6 O G "M y y W O c 0 c m a� m 0 Q Z L 2 ` m m _ C O vm0 �m_ >m � « E O Ti m N m .° O c aLE m arc a Z v y m Z5 E CD y m O —° y C C N c V D N U CD 4) CD _ �__ 0 �.0 A O C� a O F c m aC > ~ ma�3rn mm m ��' 2 S m QUO m _ N -2 m w CD m U l0 C m m l0 L C C N N m m s V R o f 'C 6 N O WE m L V N m m y > L c m L tr ._ r C a m O m OlN U C N m C 0 3 CD O 0 0 m T C mEmm� o E «v� m °u a m`� m 0 O CD A o 0 j 0 > m CD O U y E `c O a m a d d 0 m c c E N o o `� o CD ., m p m m N O y c ° 5« _w a m $cc2�a «!3 `mM TJT m 152.4) $ .2 m o rn c$ E c 0 m 2 m E a Z o >i a CD M U O V'—"5 N > C m c m c m N L m m C N= O D,L N N mv�in E0 Qo GO U�� ami a °c Ca CD c OK c y �'v+v E �.a % E a CD M C m m o 5 0 o ri E vi ri C o a m U C L 'cm cD -E 0 3 m« m= ma �0 E m : cc m T �� o« m E y= . LL C a CD _mc 'Em CD ao�r,�'m°>'a>i ami�° amid ami°'E E ami3` E� N ol� C) S E L C m L 'a-J Ol m c m m U a 0 C C O Ica ym.. '; C c io O c— m y c"my m 3 c�0 ca '+0 -1 «� Ol « y E N m D y E C m A '.pi «° V C N 0 ry wry ° y 0 0 0.9 W. m C p m o p a 0 UX N ` m m W SSE Ol V a� Ol m A =mE U �.°. U 1 iJ c y c �.°. m «a�ayo >•o rc a mZ CD nay �m N of CD j 2 e" U � m Q. 0 y m ,z D G mao 0 0 U 0 m Co n w a O Z w O IL w 0 2 a 2 2 O 2 O 2 2 O a F F Nn N � Ai m CD a d Z ae ga � e e E m 0 C+ C oil Z� m G m >, O U O U 'PS$ O1 BPS O! O O!iS -a U C c c c m 0 U m U L m L m U c U C U C U C am aaE LC aaE LC >,(L E LC aac aac >'L� aam >'L as 0 -c W,Q cma cma cma m cUE m cuE OME cw=u cc• -l�jm ao8 O m0 g m0 �jm OmO .v m a m v am' a m g mr mm m _O m m m aG a O m N N N N N N r N N a m m N p m m p N N N p N m a o a o o O N O N O a� c� 93333 ca3i� c3 c3 c3 c3 °'.z «z «m «m -�5Z ?3m «m U) m m mz U15 mz o ,omcmc vm 3 c 0 O v 3 c c cE @ m'€ c m�o cocmm 01615 c.4cm m rn mm mm tam E yomv 66Em c zCL zCL ya c E � �oLL _ a OEaay Ov ov 0'5 c E a a � c E ` z O p z d d 0 0 d 6 m a y o y `O y `O 0 o 0 `O y `O y `O c O O O as m > c m > c m > C O > C O > C O m > c O m > c 0 0 O OU pU 0 0 0 pU OU K a C m O N L N m N m U C O m > J5 m w J O '3 c � 4) O E E m N a u o c N E 3 a ° c Q Z 1Q 0 a � 9 y y� C V N t m Ol N F'� y �,TS E U 'v a' m E�m 3~ -6 y CD o m p m pp v a s U m m v m m a m o O ~ C c 5 m m m O` 1 m L m e a m m 0 Q m m S a �$ L m y O L N N m m 0 a 0 C y O V N H d V c O! Q N V p m E > y a m N A C G m m E as L c O 3 Z 2 .n .N O 0 00 CD Lna �zm o� O �� mN 0 C m?,'m O y L > 2` 'N 2 a CD U E Q a O a mi y L O V a L y m aL rr ami"axf cr c "' 3yrmn magi Ta >�c m> Y YE rn� z y m Ll N N m y G Z a O m y M_ c ama� i UO p0ra Ol m C2 M2 E (Ca spa�p CD >i m UN T a m M y O m m r UN y L >'O m . - � y m z z a t00 „y a m 0 U:� m 0 N m m 3 C 3 c c. m e y.g U my E Y m m L O uL 3 tnm y E d o m m c a 3 �' U) � .a H L' �L° W m N 'c ti Z y .2_.' Q U N m e U 'l1 L-' 0 .b W O m E y 0 y m a toy @ `Ophl�°_' �Lm `�cm m E n E mT m mL'P m$ moo mi�� mym m E ami� amim '� c c >i c O C c O c m m c a c c 3 O c 0 y 0.9 c c m c m i7 m A N m3E A 't me i7 O mug i7 5` mv? = O N my� y m $ 10 c2 O y O N a '� N N a+ m m y Im a) W� W A a7 CC W C W m m .y p �`p c- m m 7 E c > m 0 o c :7 < E ^] Nn N � Ai m CD a d Z ae ga � e e E m 0 C+ C oil Z� m G m L=, A O w a O z O IL w 0 z a z 2 O H 2 O 2 z O Q F F N CDs > 1 LU Fi a 1 � a C y m .1. m b tb C LZ �U � m O m Ol Z N C � CD O CD 2:1. � O CD � CD CD O ."-T' C O CD p O)w O4W U .j U c 0'N T l0 U .� U c 0'N m U ._ U C O'N m U ._ U C p'NU C p'N m U ._ m U ._ L- co co co co adv' -adv'- co co 0. O C C U °- ° 4 y o 4 0 V c m °0E�TmiopEE m y y �pEETmimEE c aci 0 m CD E c m mEE�mEE N CD m r m p nr r O p r N O p ac r ac r r N m 0 ar rN r $ m O m O m 0 y n CD n n CD n p. n d .-nC c n n- . n O 0w 0 y Z C15 Z 05 Z «9ow«m0w 05 Z 05 Z c 20 m c € CD' c m� �m LL E c O c O c O N 015 L E° H om U n E � o CD a y `O y `O y o y `O y `O N >+ n U at at at a,5 C t' ae O A > «c O m «c O m > «c O m O m «c >c U' DO DO DO DO of) amN, K a m o m E v m L O y m Z tE p Im ° y a U m C- m y m c 'A w Q mZ y C c E > U 6 N �c Em m0 �y j- m LL F..O Cm mg 7.p `m of m!' y 0 D m > v m L c m `y N _O ~ 2.'m CD me ; m m m of n o 0> CD m m m H CD F n U m > > O O °' m 0,6 m LL o 0 c y o+- v 0 � 3 ' O y O N CD:: l0 O i3 s a m C_ O p � m (J N C d V m'j a a d N y o� M� m 3 0 yECD E N c L C m N m •� =O c m o w c o MS c l`0 m E Q y L m . O l0 w � o mum N m m m m N N > Qwm �rn d y V m 0d w m w`m^ m m m N E 'm E , o o n y to 2 to M.- ._ m C . 0 V r m v O 3 m L SSN m O m m m p C > C m OQ R `+ m CD -'� tmp m m C '2' m> m m W m m y p m 0 E Y m C c L U « E cm c - p y y p O m m p +0 CD: p �' c O m E m rL O L m> ,n m S> O m C N N '-� +1 N 65 N CDs > 1 LU Fi a 1 � a C y m .1. m b tb C LZ �U � m O m Ol Z N Exhaust emissions will result from on- and off -site heavy equipment during grading. Emissions will also be generated during finish construction, especially during the application of paints or other coatings. The types and numbers of equipment will vary among contractors such that such emissions cannot be quantified with certainty. During excavation and grading, the following equipment fleet has been assumed to be utilized as a basis for estimating maximum daily equipment exhaust emissions: 1 Excavator 1 Other Equipment 1 Rubber Tire Loader 1 Trencher 1 Tractor /Loader /Backhoe 80 Truck Trips with Excavated Material The CARB's URBEMIS2002 and EMFAC2002 computer models wereas used to estimate daily emissions during grading, hauling and finish construction with the following results (pounds /day): Activity ROG NOx CO SO2 PM -10 Total PM -10 Equipment Exhaust PM -10 Dust Grading 7.0 48.7 57.1 0.0 12.1 2.1 10.0 Haulinu 1.1 31.1 4_7 0_3 45.4 006 44_8a Finish Work 143.1 ^" 30.8 35.7 0.0 1.4 1.3 0.1 SCAQMD Threshold 75. 100. 550. 150. 150. - 1 a 0.031 INton truck filling and dnmoin„ F Exceeds threshold due to application of paints and coatings. Simultaneous tyradinp and hauling will not cause SCAQMD thresholds to be exceeded. However dBuring finish work, application of paintings and coatings can create ROG emissions exceeding the SCAQMD threshold. This estimate is based upon every unit completed in a single month (22 working days). The actual project build -out will be phased over a much longer period. Nevertheless, use of available emissions reduction measures isare recommended to reduce ROG emissions. Emissions minimization can be accomplished by using pre-coated materials, using high efficiency paint applicators (HPI,V), and by extendinv the painting schedule using low -VOC aints.a +a�.+4ov Use of the above measures can reduce emissions from architectural coatings to perhaps 1/3 of their calculated values. Daily emissions can be reduced to about 48 pounds per day (143.1 - 3 = 47.7). This is less than the identified daily significance threshold. With the above _ —recommended measures, ROG emissions from paints and coatings can likely be maintained at less- than- significant levels. 15 I I I d I I I I I I I I I ,mot �J APPENDICES TO THE DRAFT INITIAL STUDY and MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION for the proposed SANTA BARBARA CONDOMINIUMS PROJECT Prepared for: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Rosalinh M. Ung, Associated Planner (949) 6443208 Draft: July 15, 2005 I LI 1 i� I I Appendix A - Environmental Checklist Form [1 I L 1 1 I I I I 11 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 6. General Plan Designation: Administrative, Professional, Financial Commercial (APF) 7. Zoning: Administrative, Professional, Financial (APF) 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary.) A proposed development of 79 condominiums on a 4.25 acre site, currently in the Newport Beach ' Marriott Hotel's tennis complex. The project consists of three separate buildings with eight different floor plan options and has an approximately 79,140 square fee of open space and 21,300 square feet of recreational areas for use by residents and their guests. The four -story buildings are approximately ' 65 feet in height with subterranean parking levels. The project would require a General Plan Amendment and Local Coastal Plan Land Use Plan Amendment to change the current land use designation from Administrative, Professional, Financial (APF) to Multi- Family Residential (MFR); a Zone change to rezone the subject property from APF to MFR; a Parcel Map to subdivide the subject property from the hotel development for financing purposes; a Tract Map for the condominium ownerships; and a Modification Permit for the front yard setback encroachment. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) The proposed project would be located along Santa Barbara Drive. Adjacent land uses include the Newport Beach Country Golf Course to the North and west, the Marriott Hotel to the south, Pacific Financial Plaza with a two story parking structure to the east and a multi - family residential development ("The Colony") to the northeast. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): California Coastal Commission— Coastal Development Permit ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: ' The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ' Page 1 of 11 1. Project Title: Santa Barbara Condominiums Project 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner (949) 644 -3208 ' 4. Project Location: 900 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Orange County 5. Project Sponsor's Name & Address: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard ' Newport Beach, CA 92663 6. General Plan Designation: Administrative, Professional, Financial Commercial (APF) 7. Zoning: Administrative, Professional, Financial (APF) 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary.) A proposed development of 79 condominiums on a 4.25 acre site, currently in the Newport Beach ' Marriott Hotel's tennis complex. The project consists of three separate buildings with eight different floor plan options and has an approximately 79,140 square fee of open space and 21,300 square feet of recreational areas for use by residents and their guests. The four -story buildings are approximately ' 65 feet in height with subterranean parking levels. The project would require a General Plan Amendment and Local Coastal Plan Land Use Plan Amendment to change the current land use designation from Administrative, Professional, Financial (APF) to Multi- Family Residential (MFR); a Zone change to rezone the subject property from APF to MFR; a Parcel Map to subdivide the subject property from the hotel development for financing purposes; a Tract Map for the condominium ownerships; and a Modification Permit for the front yard setback encroachment. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) The proposed project would be located along Santa Barbara Drive. Adjacent land uses include the Newport Beach Country Golf Course to the North and west, the Marriott Hotel to the south, Pacific Financial Plaza with a two story parking structure to the east and a multi - family residential development ("The Colony") to the northeast. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): California Coastal Commission— Coastal Development Permit ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: ' The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ' Page 1 of 11 I 1 I Page 2 of I I ' ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture Resources ■ Geology /Soils ❑ Biological Resources ■ Cultural Resources ❑ Land Use /Planning ❑ Hazards & Hazardous ❑ HydrologyANater Quality ❑ Population /Housing Materials ■ Noise ■ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Recreation , • Public Services ■ Air Quality • Utilities /Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance , DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency): On the basis of this initial evaluation: ' ❑ 1 find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. , ■ 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ 1 find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. , ❑ 1 find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. , ❑ 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are ' imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Date Rosalinh Ung Associate Planner City of Newport Beach Printed Name For I 1 I Page 2 of I I ' I 11 1 L I EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project - specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project- specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project - level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross - referenced). ' 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the 1 scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures ' Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site - specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. ' 7) Supporting Information Sources. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions form this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. ' 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. ' Page 3 of I 1 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS QUESTIONS: ' Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Issues: Significant With Significant No Impact , Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: , a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 0 0 0 0 b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic 0 0 0 0 ' buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or 0 p 0 0 quality of the site and its surroundings? , d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which p p 0 0 would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? IL AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining ' whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site , Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: ' a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping 0 0 0 0 , and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a p p p 0 ' Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in 0 0 0 0 , conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use? III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: , a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 0 p p 0 applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality 0 0 ' 0 0 violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - , attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient 0 0 0 0 air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant p p 0 p concentrations? Page 4 of I I ' F- I 1 I I I I 1 �I L: 1 I I 11 Issues: e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGYAND SOILS. Would the project: Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: Page 5 of I I ❑ Less Than ■ Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ No Impact ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Page 6 of 1 1 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Issues: Significant With Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. b) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ c) Seismic - related ground failure, including ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ liquefaction? d) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 e) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ f) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? g) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1 - B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ substantial risks to life or property? h) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a result, would ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 residing or working in the project area? Page 6 of 1 1 Page 7 of 11 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Issues: Significant With Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including p p p 11111 where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Vlll. HYDROLOGYAND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge p p 0 p requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course p p 0 p of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage p p 0 p systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood p p p 0 Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures p p ❑ 0 which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ • ❑ k) Result in significant alteration of receiving water quality p p 0 p during or following construction? Page 7 of 11 Less Than , Potentially Significant Less Than Issues: Significant With Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Incorporated Impact , 1) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? m) Result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ , affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters? n) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ environmental harm? o) Create significant increases in erosion of the project ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ site or surrounding areas? , IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? C) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally - important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: , a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ' or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ , groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? C) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ the project? ' d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ existing without the project? , Page 8 of I I ' I 11 Page 9 of I I Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Issues: Significant With Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project ❑ ❑ ❑ • expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the ❑ ❑ ❑ project area to excessive noise levels? ' XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of road or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing ❑ ❑ ❑ • ' elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project: a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to ' maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? ❑ ❑ • ❑ Police protection? ❑ ❑ • ❑ Schools? ❑ • ❑ ❑ Parks? ❑ ❑ • ❑ Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ • ❑ XIV. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ accelerated? ' b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 facilities which have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 11 Page 9 of I I Less Than i , Potentially Significant Less Than fssues: Significant With Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated XV. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either ❑ ❑ • ❑ the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion ❑ ❑ • ❑ management agency for designated roads or highways? , c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location ❑ ❑ ❑ • that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or ❑ • ❑ ❑ incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ • , f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ • ❑ ❑ g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ' applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ , facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are ❑ • ❑ ❑ new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected ❑ ❑ • ❑ demand in addition to the provider's existing , commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ regulations related to solid waste? Page 10 of I I Issues: XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat or a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current project, and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Page 11 of I I Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated F- L I 11 L Appendix B — Air Quality Assessment [l i I I I I 11 [1 11 I ' Giroux 8c Associates r Environmental Consultants AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS SANTA BARBARA CONDOMINIUM PROJECT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Prepared for David Evans & Associates Attn: Dustin Fuller 9635 Granite Ridge Drive, Suite 300 San Diego, California 92123 Date: February 25, 2005 3 Rushingwind, Irvine, California 92614 - Phone (949) 387 -5477 - Fax (949) 387 -5478 I METEOROLOGICAL SETTING ' The project site's climate, as with all Southern California, is dominated by the strength and position of the semi - permanent high pressure pattern over the Pacific Ocean near Hawaii. It creates cool summers, mild winters, and infrequent rainfall. It drives the cool daytime sea breeze, and it maintains comfortable humidities and ample sunshine after the frequent morning clouds dissipate. Unfortunately, the same atmospheric processes that create the desirable living climate combine to restrict the ability of the atmosphere to disperse the air pollution generated by the large population attracted in part by the desirable climate. Portions of.the Los Angeles Basin therefore experience some of the worst air quality in the nation for certain pollutants. ' Temperatures in the City of Newport Beach average 61 degrees annually. Daily and seasonal oscillations of temperature are small because of the moderating effects of the nearby oceanic thermal reservoir. In contrast to the steady temperature regime, rainfall is highly variable. Measurable precipitation occurs mainly from early November to mid -April, but total amounts are generally small. Newport Beach averages 12 inches of rain annually with January as the wettest ' month. Winds in the project vicinity display several characteristic regimes. During the day, especially in ' summer, winds are from the south in the morning, and from the west in the afternoon. Daytime wind speeds are 7 — 9 miles per hour on average. At night, especially in winter, the land becomes cooler than the ocean, and an off -shore wind of 3 -5 miles per hour develops. Early morning winds are briefly from the south -east parallel to the coastline before the daytime on -shore flow becomes well established again. One other important wind regime occurs when high pressure occurs over the western United States that creates hot, dry and gusty Santa Ana winds from the north and ' northeast across Newport Beach. The net effect of the wind pattern on air pollution is that any locally generated emissions will be ' carried offshore at night, and toward inland Orange County by day. Daytime ventilation is much more vigorous. Unless daytime winds rotate far into the north and bring air pollution from developed areas of the air basin into Newport Beach, warm season air quality is much better in the ' project vicinity than in inland valleys of the air basin. Both summer and winter air quality in the project area is generally good. ' In addition to winds that control the rate and direction of pollution dispersal, Southern California is notorious for strong temperature inversions that limit the vertical depth through which pollution can be mixed. In summer, coastal areas are characterized by a sharp discontinuity between the cool ' marine air at the surface and the warm, sinking air aloft within the high pressure cell over the ocean to the west. This marine /subsidence inversion allows for good local mixing, but acts like a giant lid over the basin. Air starting onshore at the beach is relatively clean, but becomes progressively more polluted as sources continue to add pollution from below without any dilution from above. Because of Newport B each's location relative to the ocean, the incoming marine air during warm season ' onshore flow contains little air pollution. Local air quality is not substantially affected by the regional subsidence inversions. ' CAWmk cp �W0 5 -W6 Santa Ba Condos Nmpm Bch -A.doc [J A second inversion type forms on clear, winter nights when cold air off the mountains sinks to the ' surface while the air aloft remains warm. This process forms radiation inversions. These inversions, in conjunction with calm winds, trap pollutants such as automobile exhaust near their , source. During the long nocturnal drainage flow from land to sea, the exhaust pollutants continually accumulate within the shallow, cool layer of air near the ground. Some areas of Orange County thus may experience elevated levels of carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides because of this winter , radiation inversion condition. However, the coastal areas of Orange County have not substantially been affected by limited nocturnal mixing effects (no elevated levels of CO) in approximately , 10 years. Both types of inversions occur throughout the year to some extent, but the marine inversions are very dominant during the day in summer, and radiation inversions are much stronger on winter nights when nights are long and air is cool. The governing role of these inversions in , atmospheric dispersion leads to a substantially different air quality environment in summer in the South Coast Air Basin than in winter. I 1 J n J , \WOrtVkyOM1SUW2W"OS-0 S6 aBarbva Ca Nc MBC A, Oa 2 1 AIR QUALITY SETTING ' Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) In order to gauge the significance of the air quality impacts of the proposed Santa Barbara Condominium Project, those impacts, together with existing background air quality levels, must be compared to the applicable ambient air quality standards. These standards are the levels of air quality considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare. The standards are designed to protect those people most susceptible to further respiratory distress such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or ' illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise, called "sensitive receptors." Healthy adults can tolerate occasional exposure to air pollutant concentrations considerably above these minimum standards before adverse effects are observed. Recent health research has shown, ' however, that chronic exposure to ozone (the primary ingredient in photochemical smog) may lead to adverse respiratory health even at concentrations close to the ambient standard. ' National AAQS were established in 1971 for six pollution species with states retaining the option to add other pollutants, require more stringent compliance, or to include different exposure periods. The initial attainment deadline of 1977 was extended several times in air quality problem areas like Southern California. In June 2003, EPA proposed a rule which could extend and establish a new attainment deadline for ozone, which would be as late as year 2021. Because California had established AAQS several years before the federal action and because of unique air quality ' problems introduced by the restrictive dispersion meteorology, there is considerable difference between state and national clean air standards. Those standards currently in effect in California are shown in Table 1. Sources and health effects of various pollutants are shown in Table 2. ' The Federal Clean A it A ct Amendments (CAAA) of 1990 required that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) review all national AAQS in light of currently known health effects. EPA was charged with modifying existing standards or promulgating new ones where appropriate. EPA subsequently developed standards for chronic ozone exposure (8+ hours per day) and for very small diameter particulate matter (called "PM- 2.5 "). New national AAQS were adopted on July 17, 1 1997. Planning and enforcement of the new federal standards for PM -2.5 and for ozone (8 -hour) were challenged by trucking and manufacturing organizations. In a unanimous decision published at the end of February 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that EPA did not require specific congressional authorization to adopt national clean air standards. The Court also ruled that health -based standards ' did not require preparation of a cost - benefit analysis. The Court did find, however, that there was some inconsistency between existing and "new" standards in their respective attainment schedules. Such attainment - planning schedule inconsistencies centered mainly on the 8 -hour ozone standard. EPA subsequently agreed to downgrade the attainment designation for a large number of communities to "non- attainment" for the 8 -hour ozone standard. Because the South Coast Air ' Basin is far from attaining the 1 -hour federal standard, the 8 -hour ozone non - attainment designation will not substantially alter the attainment planning process. The compliance deadline for the 8 -hour ozone standard has been extended to 2021. CAWwkUtcponsU�W0 S- Sane Barbma Condos Newport Bch -A.doc 3 Table 1 Ambient Air Quality Standards CAVMKV:RAPMCSWR TA EMTBLE 1 -AMBW AIR MW ST NDRDS.CM II i 1 I I 1 1 California Standards Federal Standards Averaging Pollutant Time Concentration Method Primary Secondary Method 1 Hour 0.09 ppm (180 pg /M3) Ultraviolet 0.12 ppm (235 pglm3) Same as Ultraviolet Ozone (03) Pho�ytry Primary Standard Photometry 8 Hour - p rr 0.08 pm (157 pglP) Respirable 24 Hour 50 pglrn3 150 pgIRP Particulate Annual GravimeLic or Same as Inertial Separation and Gravimetdc Matter(PM4o) Arithmetic 20 }5tm' Beta Attenuation 50 V91m' Primary Standard Analysis Mean Fine 24 Hour No Separate State Standard 65 pglr P Same as Irrediat Separation Particulate Annual Gravimetric a Beta Primary Standard and Gravimetic Matter (PM2.3) A �ntic 12 pgIRP Attenuation 15 pglr P Analysis 8 Hour 9.0 ppm (10 mg /m3) 9 ppm (10 mg /m3) Non - Dispersive Carbon Non-Dispersive None Infrared Photometry Monoxide 1 Hour 20 ppm (23 mg/ m3) Infrared Photometry 35 ppm (40 mg/m3) (NDIR) 8 Hour (CO) (NDIR) (Lake Tahoe) 6 ppm (7 mg /m3) - - Nitrogen Annual Dioxide Arithmetic Mean - Gas Phase 0.053 ppm (100 pglm3) Same as Gas Phase Chemiluminescence Primary Standard Chomiluminescence (NO2) 1 Hour 0.25 ppm (470 Vg/m3) - 30-Day average 1.5 pglnP - - - Calendar Same as High Volume Lead Atomic Absorption Quarter - 1.5 pglrn3 Primary Standard Sampler and Atomic Absorption Annual Arilhmetic - 0.030 ppm (80 pglm') - Mean Sulfur Dioxide Ultraviolet Spectr*otometry ($OZ) 24 Hour 0.04 ppm (105 pghro Fluorescence 0.14 ppm (365 pgkW) - (Pa��) ne 3 Hour - - 0.5 ppm (1,300 pglm') 1 Flour 0.25 ppm (655 pglrn3) - - Extinction coefficient of 0.23 per kilometer - Visibility visibllity of 10 miles or more (0.07-30 miles or Reducing g Hour more for Lake Tahoe) due topartideswhen No relative humidly is less than 70 percent. Particles Method: Beta Attenuation and Transmillance through Fitter Tape. Federal Sulfates 24 Hour 25 pglrn3 Ion Chromatography Hydrogen Ultraviolet Sulfide 1 Hour 0.03 ppm (42 pglrn3) Fluorescence Standards Vinyl Chloride 24 Hour 0.01 ppm (26 pglr P) Gas Chromatography CAVMKV:RAPMCSWR TA EMTBLE 1 -AMBW AIR MW ST NDRDS.CM II i 1 I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 r� L� 1 11 Table 2 Health Effects of Major Criteria Pollutants Pollutants Sources Primary Effects Carbon Monoxide • Incomplete combustion of fuels and other • Reduced tolerance for exercise, (CO) carbon- containing substances, such as motor • Impairment of mental function. exhaust. • Impairment of fetal development. • Natural events, such as decomposition of . Death at high levels of exposure. organic matter. • Aggravation of some heart diseases (angina). Nitrogen Dioxide • Motor vehicle exhaust. • Aggravation of respiratory illness. (NO2) • High temperature stationary combustion. • Reduced visibility. • Atmospheric reactions. • Reduced plant growth. • Formation of acid rain. Ozone • Atmospheric reaction of organic gases with • Aggravation of respiratory and (03) nitrogen oxides in sunlight. cardiovascular diseases. • Irritation of eyes. • Impairment of cardiopulmonary function. • Plant leaf injury. Lead (Pb) • Contaminated soil. • Impairment of blood function and nerve construction. • Behavioral and hearing problems in children. Fine Particulate Matter • Stationary combustion of solid fuels. • Reduced lung function. (PM -10) . Construction activities. • Aggravation of the effects of gaseous • Industrial processes. pollutants. • Atmospheric chemical reactions. • Aggravation of respiratory and cardio respiratory diseases. • Increased cough and chest discomfort. • Soiling. • Reduced visibility. Fine Particulate Matter • Fuel combustion in motor vehicles, • Increases respiratory disease. (PM -2.5) equipment, and industrial sources. • Lun g damage. d g • Residential and agricultural burning. • Cancer and premature death. • Industrial processes. • Reduces visibility and results in surface • Also, formed from photochemical reactions soiling. of other pollutants, including NOx, sulfur oxides, and organics. Sulfur Dioxide • Combustion of sulfur - containing fossil fuels. • Aggravation of respiratory diseases (asthma, (SO2) • Smelting of sulfur - bearing metal ores. emphysema). • Industrial processes. • Reduced lung function. • Irritation of eyes. • Reduced visibility. • Plant injury. • Deterioration of metals, textiles, leather, finishes, coatings, etc. Source: California Air Resources Board, 2002. Analysis of the most current data on the health effects of inhalation of fine particulate matter , prompted the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to recommend adoption of the statewide PM -2.5 standard that is more stringent than the federal standard. This standard was adopted on , June 20, 2002. The State PM -2.5 standard is more of a goal in that it does not have specific attainment planning requirements like a federal clean air standard. The state standard became enforceable in 2003 when it was incorporated into the California Health and Safety Code. Because , of the strong evidence that chronic ozone exposure is more harmful than short-term hourly levels, the ARB has proposed adoption of a new ozone standard. The new standard would mirror the ' federal longer -term (8 hour) exposure limit. Adoption of the new state standard is anticipated for 2005 with implementation beginning in 2006. Baseline Air Quality , Existing and probable future levels of air quality in Newport Beach can be best inferred from ' ambient air quality measurements conducted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) at its Costa Mesa and El Toro monitoring stations. These stations measure both regional pollution levels such as dust (particulates) and smog, as well as levels of primary vehicular , pollutants such as carbon monoxide. Table 3 summarizes the last seven years of the published data from a composite of gaseous species , monitored at Costa Mesa and particulates at El Toro (there are no particulate data available from Costa Mesa). The following conclusions can be drawn from these data: 1. Photochemical smog (ozone) levels periodically sometimes exceed standards. The frequency of , first -stage smog episodes, as evidence of extremely degraded air quality, is, however, almost non - existent in coastal Orange County with the last first -stage smog alert as far back as 1985. ' 2. Annual maximum ozone levels tend to reflect some annual variations in dispersion patterns that cause concentrated airflow from more developed areas of the air basin to be carried into the , coastal area during some years, while only the fringe of the basin -wide "urban plume" reaches the coastal corridor in others. Since 1993, the federal one hour standard of 0.12 ppm has not been exceeded. , 3. Measurements of carbon monoxide at the Costa Mesa station reflect the history of nocturnal air mass that has passed over intensively developed areas in Central Orange County before , following the Santa Ana River drainage toward the ocean. The last violation of the 8 -hour CO standard in Costa Mesa was in 1992. The project area has likely been in attainment for CO even longer. The data suggests that baseline CO levels in Newport Beach are generally healthful and ' can accommodate a reasonable level of additional traffic emissions before any adverse air quality effects would be expected. 4. PM -10 levels as measured at El Toro, periodically exceed the state standard, but no , measurements in excess of the national particulate standard has been recorded in the last seven ' years. With more of the air having a marine origin in Newport Beach than in El Toro area, the frequency of violations of the PM -10 standard near the proposed project site is likely to be slightly lower than that suggested in Table 3. 1 C \WorkV4porraV iA Wo 5006 Sanra Barbara COIIdM Ncwpm Bch -A.d 6 1 Table 3 Project Area Air Quality Monitoring Summary (1995 - 2001) (Number of days standards were exceeded, and maximum levels during such violations) Pollutant/Standard 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Ozone 1 -Hour > 0.09 ppm 1 5 1 1 1 0 4 1 -Hour > 0.12 ppm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 -Hour > 0.08 ppm 1 4 0 1 0 0 1 Max. 1 -Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.10 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.11 Carbon Monoxide 1 -Hour > 20. ppm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 -Hour > 9. ppm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Max. 1 -Hour Cone. (ppm) 7. 9. 8. 8. 6. 5. xx Max. 8 -Hour Cone. (ppm) 5.8 7.0 6.4 6.3 4.6 4.3 5.9 Nitrogen Dioxide 1 -Hour > 0.25 ppm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Max. 1 -Hour Cone. (ppm) 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.08 0.11 0.11 Inhalable Particulates (PM -10) 24 -Hour > 50 µg/m3 4/56 6/59 6/60 2/60 3/57 5/60 2 /xx 24 -Hour > 150 µg/m3 0/56 0/59 0/60 0/60 0/57 0/60 0 /xx Max. 24 -Hour Cone.(µg/m3) 86. 70. 111. 98. 60. 80. 64. Ultra -Fine Particulates (PM -2.5) 24 -Hour > 65 gWm3 0/65 1/119 0/102 0/119 0 /xxx Max. 24 -Hour Cone. (gg/m3) 57. 95. 53. 58. 51. Note: Entries shown as ratios = samples exceeding standards/samples taken. xx = Data not available. xxx = Data not available. Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, Costa Mesa Station for gaseous species; El Toro Station for particulate pollutants up to 1999, Mission Viejo from 2000 -2003. C'AWwtVfcyonsM412 M5-0 S.I. B.rbm. C.. N..Vo &c A 7 L Air Quality Management Planning The Federal Clean Air Act (1977 Amendments) required that designated agencies in any area of the ' nation not meeting national clean air standards must prepare a plan demonstrating the steps that will bring the area into compliance with all national standards by December 31, 1987. The South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) could not meet the deadline for ozone, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, or , PM -10. In the SCAB, the agencies designated by the govemor to develop regional air quality plans are the SCAQMD and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The two agencies first adopted the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) in 1979 and revised it several , times subsequently as earlier attainment forecasts were shown to be overly optimistic. In 1988, because of considerable uncertainty in Federal Clean Air Act reauthorization, the ' California Legislature enacted the California Clean Air Act (CCAA). The CCAA requires that regional emissions be reduced by 5 percent per year until attainment can be demonstrated. In July 1991, the SCAQMD adopted a revised AQMP that was designed to meet the CCAA ' requirements. The 1991 AQMP deferred the attainment date to 2010, consistent with the 1990 Federal Clean Air Act. The 1990 Federal Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) required that all states with air basins with , "serious" or worse ozone problems submit a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The 1991 AQMP was modified/adapted and submitted as the SCAB portion of the SIP. The 1991 SIP , submittal estimated that an 85 percent basin -wide reduction in volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions and a 59 percent reduction in oxides of nitrogen (NOx) between 1990 to 2010 was needed to meet federal clean air standards. About 40 percent of these reductions were to come from ' existing pollution control programs. The rest were to come from new rules, technologies or other reduction programs. In 1996, EPA approved the 1994 submittal of the SCAB portion of the SIP. The plan was finally ' approved after considerable debate on the contingency measures that should be implemented if progress is not as rapid as anticipated in the 1994 SIP. The CAAA required that an updated plan be , submitted by February 8, 1997 that included attainment plans for all pollutants exceeding federal standards. The CCAA requires an update of the state - mandated clean air plan every three years. The last update was completed December 31, 2003. An u pdated 1997 A QMP to m eet federal requirements w as 1 ocally adopted. T he C alifomia A it ' Resources Board (ARB) forwarded this plan on to EPA for its consideration and recommended approval. The 1997 AQMP was designed to meet both federal (EPA) and state (ARB) air quality , planning guidelines. Components of the 1997 plan update included: • Demonstration of attainment for ozone, CO, and PM -10. 1 • Updated emissions inventories (1993 base year) of VOC, NOx, CO, SOx and PM -10. • Emissions budgets for future years of the inventoried compounds. ' • An updated pollution control strategy. • Contingency measures if the plan as presently proposed fails to meet stated timetables. Additional research and photochemical computer modeling, as well as improved emissions , estimates, now suggest that formerly predicted emissions reductions required to meet standards need not be quite as severe as thought earlier. Table 4 summarizes the currently proposed regional ' CAWOhUtepatSUvUWO SA S. B"h CNl Wnv em.n.Ox 8 1 I I 1 Table 4 South Coast Air Basin Attainment Plan (Emissions in tons /day) a 2 Basc bear. 'with current emissions reduction programs and adopted growth forecasts. ' Source: California Air Resources Board, The 2005 California Almanac of Emission & Air Quality. II J I Am@00511Y0< -N1 Santa Bar ra C..&I acA -A d, 9 ROG NOx CO Current Inventory' Stationary + Areawide 304 103 246 On -Road Mobile 276 581 2.705 Off -Road While 131 2S0 1.003 TOTAL — — — 710 — — - 970 — — 3,953 — — i 2010 Forecastr' J Stationary 296 89 217 On -Road Mobile 212 434 2,048 Off -Road Mobile — —. — — 122 2'S7 1.094 TOTAL , X630 7$ll 3,359- 2020 Forecast" — ` Stationary 340 90 234 On -Road Mobile 130 206 1,097 Off -Road Mobilc 114 241 1.104 TOTAi , :- .� '<< :: - ' �"+S$d�,�' r _ °;5 -� _ = 2 435 a 2 Basc bear. 'with current emissions reduction programs and adopted growth forecasts. ' Source: California Air Resources Board, The 2005 California Almanac of Emission & Air Quality. II J I Am@00511Y0< -N1 Santa Bar ra C..&I acA -A d, 9 I attainment planning for ozone (ROG and NOx) and for carbon monoxide (CO). Further emissions ' reductions of around 18 percent for ROG, 45 percent for NOx and 38 percent for CO are anticipated from the currently proposed AQMP update. The Draft 1997 AQMP was challenged by several environmental organizations as not being consistent with the 1990 CAAA on rates of progress toward attaining the ozone standard. The ' Ninth Circuit Court found for these organizations. A 1999 Amendment to the proposed SIP Revisions was developed that accelerated the schedule for a number of new SCAQMD rules and regulations. The 1999 SIP Amendment complied with the court- ordered acceleration of the , development of new rules and regulations designed to bring the air basin into compliance. The 1999 SIP Amendment was approved by EPA in 2000. A new clean air plan has been approved locally (SCAQMD /SCAG) and at the state level (ARB). It , was forwarded to EPA and has recently become the adopted SIP Revision. The plan continues most emissions reductions programs, but also points out that some emissions have been undercounted , and incorrectly reported, and that additional control measures must be implemented if the federal attainment deadlines for clean air standards are to be met. The recent ozone trend toward increased numbers of violations of standards and higher absolute maxima than at the turn of this decade is ' particularly worrisome. A flattening of the improvement trend was anticipated, but the trend reversal suggests that a "backsliding" process is in motion. The likely failure to meet further near- term improvement targets may require invoking contingency measures that had been hoped as not necessary. With the conversion of the federal I -hour ozone standard to an 8 -hour standard, a new attainment ' timeline will likely be adopted. EPA's proposed attainment scheduled for the South Coast Air Basin is 17 years to 2021. The progress mile -posts would be spread out over a longer period than for the current 2010 attainment deadline for the I -hour standard. ' A residential development such as the Santa Barbara Condominium residential project relates to the air quality planning process through the growth forecasts that were used as inputs into the regional ' transportation model. If a proposed development is consistent with those growth forecasts, and if all available emissions reduction strategies are implemented as effectively as possible on a project - specific basis, then the air quality impact on a regional basis may be considered as less -than- ' significant. The South Coast AQMD, while acknowledging that the AQMP is a growth - accommodating document, recommends that project air quality impacts be analyzed independent of planning consistency. Inconsistency as to project scope or schedule is considered a basis for a ' finding of impact significance. The converse, however, i.e., project/clean air plan consistency, is not considered an adequate basis to support a finding of a less- than - significant impact. I I I c:�wo�fvmpon v.�zaosrosaa S =a � c� Nmr Bch -A m< 10 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 AIR QUALITY IMPACT Residential developments such as those proposed for the Santa Barbara Condominium project in Newport Beach potentially impact air quality almost exclusively through increased automotive emissions. Any single project typically does not cause enough traffic and associated air pollutants to be generated as to individually threaten clean air standards. It is the cumulative effect of hundreds of such developments that cause the small incremental impact from any one development to become cumulatively significant. Minor secondary emissions during construction, from increased fossil - fueled energy utilization and from small miscellaneous sources will also be generated, but these are usually much smaller in both duration and volume than the mobile source emissions. Standards of Significance Many air quality impacts that result from the dispersed mobile sources, i.e,, the dominant pollution generators in the basin, often occur hours later and miles away after photochemical processes have converted the primary exhaust pollutants into secondary contaminants such as ozone. The incremental regional air quality impact of an individual project is generally immeasurably small. The SCAQMD has therefore developed suggested significance thresholds based on the volume of pollution emitted rather than on actual ambient air quality because the direct air quality impact of a project is not quantifiable on a regional scale. Any projects in the SCAB with daily emissions that exceed any of the following thresholds are recommended by the SCAQMD to be considered individually and cumulatively significant: SCAQMD Emissions Significance Thresholds (pounds per day) Pollutant Construction Operations ROG 75 55 NOx 100 55 CO 550 550 PM -10 150 150 Sox 150 150 Source: SCAQMD CEQA Au Quality Handbook, November, 1993 Rev. ' C \WOkVleponaU� 5-0 Sava Barbara C.nd Newport Bch -A.doc 11 Additional Indicators In its CEQA Handbook, the SCAQMD also states that additional indicators should be used as screening criteria to determine the need for further analysis with respect to air quality. The additional indicators are as follows: ' • Project could interfere with the attainment of the Federal or State ambient air quality standards by either violating or contributing to an existing or projected air quality violation. , • Project could result in population increases within the regional statistical area which would be in excess of that projected in the AQMP. ' • Project could generate vehicle trips that cause a CO hot spot. • Project might have the potential to create or be subjected to objectionable odors. ' • Project could have hazardous materials on site and could result in an accidental release of air toxic emissions. • Project could emit an air toxic contaminant regulated by District rules or that is on a federal or , State air toxic list. • Project could involve disposal of hazardous waste. , • Project could be occupied by sensitive receptors near a facility that emits air toxics or near CO hot spots. ' • Project could emit carcinogenic air contaminants that could pose a cancer risk. Residential land uses, such as those proposed for the Santa Barbara Condominium project, are not 1 known to trigger the above secondary significance criteria. Potential impact significance thus relates mainly to the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook numerical emissions thresholds identified above. For PM -2.5 exhaust emissions, recently adopted policies require the gradual conversion of delivery , fleets to diesel alternatives, or the use of "clean" diesel if emissions are demonstrated to be as low as those from alternative fuels. Because health risks from toxic air contaminants (TACs) are cumulative over an assumed 70 -year lifespan, measurable off -site public health risk from TAC exposure would occur for only a brief portion early in project lifetime, and only in dilute quantity. Project-Related Sources of Potential Impact ' Intensification of land uses in the Orange County area potentially impacts ambient air quality on two scales of motion. As cars drive throughout Southern California, the small incremental contribution to the basin air pollution burden from any single vehicle is added to that from several million other vehicles. The impact from the Santa Barbara Condominium development, even if it , generates a significant number of new vehicle trips, is very small on a regional scale. Basin -wide air quality impacts are, therefore, addressed in terms of project compatibility with regional air , quality plans. If any given project or plan has been properly incorporated into basin -wide growth projections which are the basis for regional air quality/ transportation planning, then there will be no significant basin -wide impact because of unanticipated growth. ' C: \wwk\ReponaUif�200SPO5 -006 Sawa B.E . COMpS Ne . Bch -A d 12 ' Locally, changes in the location of any collection of automotive sources, or changes in the number ' of vehicles or travel speeds may impact the micro -scale air quality around any given development site. Traffic increases not only contribute air pollutants in direct proportion to their cumulative percentage of traffic volume growth, but they may slow all existing traffic to slower, more inefficient travel speeds. The development traffic /air quality impact is thus potentially compounded. ' Temporary construction activity emissions will occur during project build -out. Such emissions include on -site generation of dust and equipment exhaust, and off -site emissions from construction employee commuting and/or trucks delivering building materials. Construction activity emissions are difficult to quantify, since the exact type and amount of equipment that will be used or the acreage that may be disturbed on any given day in the future is not known with any reasonable certainty. The emphasis in environmental documents relative to construction activity emission impacts has therefore been to minimize the emissions as fully as ' possible through comprehensive emissions control even if the exact amount of emissions cannot be precisely quantified. ' Construction Activity Impacts Construction has traditionally been considered mainly a source of potential nuisance from dust or odors such that these temporary emissions are typically categorized as insignificant in many air quality impact analyses. However, because construction activities are substantial contributors to the basin -wide air pollution burden, they have become increasingly important in the regional air ' pollution attainment strategy. Regulatory programs such as SCAQMD Rule 403 have been strengthened, and CEQA -based discretionary emissions reduction measures for construction are actively encouraged and pursued. Dust is normally the primary concern during construction of new buildings and amenities. Dust includes small inhalable particulate matter, as well as larger diameter particles that rapidly settle out ' on any surface adjacent to the source. Because such emissions are not amenable to collection and discharge through a controlled source, they are called "fugitive" emissions. ' Dust (PM -10) emission rates vary as a function of many parameters (soil silt, soil moisture, wind speed, area disturbed, number of vehicles, depth of disturbance or excavation, etc.). Regulatory agencies typically use one universal factor based on the area disturbed assuming that all other input parameters into emission rate prediction fall into mid -range average values. The SCAQMD, in its 1993 "CEQA Air Quality Handbook," estimates daily PM -10 emissions during construction to be 26.4 pounds per day per acre disturbed when "standard" dust control procedures required by ' SCAQMD Rule 403 are used. Upgraded dust control procedures will reduce the average daily PM -10 emission rate to as low as around 10.0 pounds per day w hen a highly aggressive c ontrol program is implemented. ' Use of "standard" daily PM -10 emission factors allows for the simultaneous disturbance of around 5.7 acres to generate a potentially significant emission level of 150 pounds per day determined to be 1 CAWmkUleWMU�00MPo W S.0 "� Cam, N<wpo" &� ,, � 13 potentially significant in the SCAQMD Handbook (150 -: 26.4 = 5.7). If strongly enhanced dust control procedures are implemented, around 15 acres of the project site could be under simultaneous disturbance to maintain a less- than- significant daily PM -10 emission rate. The proposed project site occupies approximately 4.25 acres of land currently developed with tennis courts, along the southerly side of Santa Barbara Drive, between Jamboree Road and Newport Center Drive. It is unknown whether the entire site will undergo simultaneous disturbance. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) emissions computer model URBEMIS2002 predicts that the maximum daily disturbance "footprint" for the proposed land uses will be 1.0 acres. Calculated PM -10 emissions have been calculated with the application of "standard" dust control, and with the application of enhanced dust control measures. A comparison of PM -10 dust emissions for the entire site and the predicted disturbance area are as follows (pounds/day): Disturbance Area With Standard Dust Control With Best Available Control Measures Entire Site: 4.25 acres 1122. pounds /day* 42.5 pounds /day* Predicted Area: 1.0 acres 26.4 pounds /day* 10.0 pounds /day* *Below the 150 - pound/day suggested significance threshold. As shown above, limiting the grading footprint area and/or use of best available control measures (BACMs) are not required to achieve a less- than- significant dust (PM -10) emission rate. However, the non - attainment status of the air basin for PM -10 dictates that all reasonably available control measures be implemented. Use of BACMs during construction is therefore recommended even if thresholds are not exceeded. A new federal clean air standard for ultra -fine diameter particulate matter of 2.5 microns or less (called "PM -2.5 ") was promulgated in 1997. This standard is believed more closely tied to any adverse health effects from particulate inhalation. A baseline PM -2.5 level has not yet been established. However, construction activities are known to generate only very small amounts of PM -2.5 within their total particulate burden. Chemical analysis of airborne PM -2.5 in the South Coast Air Basin has found that only 5 to 10 percent of all PM -2.5 is in the form of "crustal material," i.e., soil particulate matter. For PM -10 dust, about one -third of the suspended fine particulate matter derives from soil disturbance. hi the almost complete absence of PM -2.5 within the fugitive dust generated during grading and construction activities, project - related construction activities will not adversely impact PM -2.5 exposure in the City of Newport Beach area. In addition to fine particles that remain suspended in the atmosphere semi - indefinitely, construction activities generate many larger particles with shorter atmospheric residence times. This dust is comprised mainly of large diameter inert silicates that are chemically non - reactive and are further readily filtered out by human breathing passages. These fugitive dust particles are therefore more of a potential soiling nuisance as they settle out on parked cars, outdoor furniture or landscape foliage rather than any adverse health hazard. Any dust nuisance potential will tend to be highly localized when a new tract is built in very close proximity to an already completed development. C Sv aBarbaa Cw NC dBch.AC 14 I 1 I 1 1 I II J I Exhaust emissions will result from on- and off -site heavy equipment during grading. Emissions will also be generated during finish construction, especially during the application of paints or other coatings. The types and numbers of equipment will vary among contractors such that such emissions cannot be quantified with certainty. During grading, the following equipment fleet has been assumed to be utilized as a basis for estimating maximum daily equipment exhaust emissions: 1 Excavator 1 Other Equipment 1 Rubber Tire Loader 1 Trencher 1 Tractor /LoaderBackhoe The CARB's URBEMIS2002 computer model was used to estimate daily emissions during grading and finish construction with the following results (pounds /day): Activity ROG NOx CO SOZ PM -10 Total PM -10 Equipment Exhaust PM -10 Dust Grading 7.0 48.7 57.1 0.0 12.1 2.1 10.0 Finish Work 143.1 ' 30.8 35.7 0.0 1 1.4 1.3 0.1 SCAQMD Threshold 75. 100. 550. 1 150. 150. - ' Exceeds threshold due to application of paints and coatings. During finish work, application of paintings and coatings can create ROG emissions exceeding the SCAQMD threshold. This estimate is based upon every unit completed in a single month (22 working days). The actual project build -out will be phased over a much longer period. Nevertheless, use of available emissions reduction measures are recommended to reduce ROG emissions. Emissions minimization can be accomplished as follows: • Use pre- coated building materials • Use high pressure -low volume (HPLV) paint applicators with 50 percent efficiency • Use lower volatility paint not exceeding 100 grams of ROG per liter Use of the above measures can reduce emissions from architectural coatings to perhaps 1/3 of their calculated values. Daily emissions can be reduced to about 48 pounds per day (143.1 _ 3 = 47.7). This is less than the identified daily significance threshold. With the above recommended measures, ROG emissions from paints and coatings can likely be maintained at less- than - significant levels. Construction activity air quality impacts occur mainly in close proximity to individual disturbance areas. There may, however, be some "spill- over" into the surrounding community. That spillover may be physical as vehicles drop or carry out dirt or silt is washed into public streets. Passing non- project vehicles then pulverize the dirt to create off -site dust impacts. Spill -over could also occur cAw�MM wUMT05 -o sou B„ corm. Ncwpm Bch-km 15 via congestion effects. Construction may entail roadway encroachment, detours, lane closures and ' competition between construction vehicles (trucks and contractor employee commuting) and ambient traffic for available roadway capacity. Emissions controls require good housekeeping procedures and a construction traffic management plan that maintains such "spill- over" effects at a less- than- significant level. Operational Impacts There are 330 projected `new' vehicle trips that will be generated at project completion. For typical ' local commuter trips in Orange County, averaging 10 miles one way, additional vehicle travel from project implementation will be about 3,300 vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per day. The California ARB land use and air pollution emissions computer model URBEMIS2002 was run for a worst -case project build -out of year 2007. The project - related mobile source emissions burden, along with a comparison of SCAQMD recommended significance thresholds, is shown in Table 5. Thresholds will not be exceeded and all pollutant emissions are below significance levels by a wide margin of , safety. Micro -Scale Impact Analysis In addition to regional air quality concerns that focus on the photochemical conversion of air pollution emissions to more harmful forms, vehicular exhaust may impact air quality immediately adjacent to the roadway travel lanes. Such impacts occur during periods of maximum traffic congestion and minimum atmospheric dispersion. ' As seen in Table 5, the carbon monoxide impacts from the proposed project are only nineteen (19) percent of the significance threshold. Any associated micro -scale air quality impacts would be expected to be minimal. In order to determine whether any possible traffic congestion may t contribute to localized air pollution standard violations, a screening procedure based upon the California roadway dispersion model CALINE4 was run at those intersections near the project site area with the most degraded levels -of- service (LOS). Carbon monoxide (CO) was used as an indicator pollutant to determine "hot spot" potential. Rush hour traffic was combined with minimum dispersion conditions in order to create the theoretical worst -case impact estimate. The result of these calculations is shown in Table 6. ' Calculations were performed for three traffic scenarios, including: Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) Compliance California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Consistency General Plan (GPA) Build -out The proposed project will add negligibly to any localized CO exposures. The maximum project- ' related CO increment is + 0.1 ppm (0.5 percent of the 1 -hour standard) for the CEQA -based analysis. The project increment is less than 0.05 ppm (0.25 percent of the most stringent CO standard) for the TPO or GPA traffic scenarios. I C S. B. c� N�. " h -n a 16 1 I I Table 5 Average Daily Project bile Source ' Air Pollution Emissions (pounds /day) I I i 1 I I 1 C I i 11 1 Condominium Residential Uses ROG NOx CO sox PM -10 Area Source Emissions 4.1 0.6 1.4 0.0 0.0 Vehicle Source Emissions 8.5 9.4 101.8 0.1 9.1 TOTAL 116 >: 10.0 .: 103.2 0.1 9.1 SCAQMD Threshold 55. 55. 550. 150. 150. Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No Percent of Threshold 23 18 19 <1 6 Source: URBEMIS2002 computer model, Output in Appendix 1 C". N' oiUR4wns+ 4ifdb�p, PUS�uuoS .muB.vWraGmAnsNcwpmBCh -AAO< 17 Table 6 I Micro -scale Impact Assessment ' (1 -Hour CO concentrations [ppm] above background levels) A.M. Peak Hour TPO Analysis CEQA Analysis GPA Analysis Intersection: Existing + Approved Existing + Approved + Project Existing + Approved + Cumulative Existing + Approved + Cumulative + Project Existing + Approved + Cumulative Existing + Approved + Cumulative + project Jamboree Road: Eastbluff Drive 4.6 4.6 6.2 6.2 - Coast Highway - 8.8 8.8 MacArthur Boulevard: Ford Road 6.7 6.7 8.4 8.4 7.7 7.7 San Joaquin Hills Road 4.6 4.6 5.0 5.0 1 6.4 6.4 I P.M. Peak Hour TPO Analysis CEQA Analysis GPA Analysis Intersection: Existing + Approved Existing + Approved + Project Existing + Approved + Cumulative Existing + Approved + Cumulative + Project Existing + Approved + Cumulative Existing + Approved Cumulativ + Project Jamboree Road: Eastbluff Drive 3.1 3.1 4.3 4.4 - Coast Highway - 8.9 8.9 MacArthur Boulevard: Ford Road 4.2 4.2 5.9 6.0 16.1 16.1 San Joaquin Hills Road 6.0 6.0 6.6 6.6 11.0 11.0 TPO = Traffic Phasing Ordinance CEQA = California Environmental Quality Act GPA = General Plan Amendment I I C: \WOAVtcport�U'v\20oSP05 -006 Sala anbare CoM s Ncwpon B h -k. 18 1 I Maximum background one -hour CO levels in Newport Beach are approximately 4 ppm. The worst - case p.m. peak hour local contribution under the GPA analysis is 16.1 ppm at MacArthur Boulevard and Ford Road because this intersection would operate at LOS = F. The sum of background plus local CO levels could exceed the one -hour CO standard. The cumulative impact from the project is negligible, however, because: 1 a. The project contribution is immeasurably small, b. The GPA build -out condition will not be achieved until well into the future when cars are cleaner whereas the analysis was conducted assuming a 2005 traffic fleet, and, c. GPA build -out causing LOS = F conditions may not be achieved. Non -GPA bould -out scenarios predict no violations of CO standards. There are thus no "hot spot" CO impacts (individually or cumulatively) associated with implementation of the Santa Barbara Condominium residential project in the City of Newport Beach. i fJ D 1 1 I 1 I I I 1 IC1Ww Vtcponril"v1200SP S5 Sma 8mbara Condos Ne m 4ch A 19 IMPACT MITIGATION Operational emissions from project - related traffic will not exceed suggested SCAQMD significance thresholds. Air quality impacts during construction could temporarily exceed significance threshold levels for ROG emissions in the absence of any mitigation measures. A mitigation plan for dust and air pollution should be developed to insure that scheduling and pollution management practices are followed as assumed in the air quality impact analysis. Even if the construction activity PM -10 emissions are maintained below SCAQMD thresholds, any increase in air pollution in a non - attainment area should be considered as an adverse impact and reduced to the extent reasonable and feasible. Emissions from construction activities should therefore be minimized where possible. Project conditions for approval should incorporate emissions control requirements to address these construction impact concerns. SCAQMD Rule 403 requires use of at least one dust control measure. An enhanced program incorporating multiple measures is recommended, including: During grading activities, any exposed soil areas shall be watered twice per day. On windy days or when fugitive dust can be observed leaving the project site, additional applications of water shall be applied to maintain a minimum 12 percent moisture content as defined by SCAQMD Rule 403. Under windy conditions where velocities are forecast to exceed 25 miles per hour (as ascertained by phone calls to the SCAQMM), all ground disturbing activities shall be halted until winds that are forecast to abate below this threshold. 2. The project shall comply with regional rules such as SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403, which would assist in reducing short-term air pollutant emissions. Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with best available control measures so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. Rule 402 requires dust suppression techniques be implemented to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance offsite. These dust suppression techniques are summarized as follows: a. Portions of the construction site to remain inactive longer than a period of three months shall be seeded and watered until grass cover is grown or otherwise stabilized in a manner acceptable to the City. b. All on -site roads shall be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or chemically stabilized. c. All material transported o Mite shall be either sufficiently w atered or securely c overed to prevent excessive amounts of dust. d. The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations shall be minimized at all times. 3. All vehicles on the construction site shall travel at speeds less than 15 miles per hour. C:lWwkIRNO^ >'UoV.J03W5-00 S5 Barbara CO Ncvga &c A.A 20 i 1 4. All material stockpiles subject to wind erosion during construction activities, that will not be utilized within three days, shall be covered with plastic, an alternative cover deemed equivalent to plastic, or sprayed with a nontoxic chemical stabilizer. 5. Where vehicles leave the construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the streets shall be swept daily or washed down at the end of the work day to remove soil tracked onto the paved surface. Any visible track -out extending for more than fifty (50) feet from the access point shall be swept or washed within thirty (30) minutes of deposition. 13. The developer shall require the use of particulate filters on diesel construction equipment if use of such filters is demonstrated to be cost - competitive for use on this project. i I 1 1 CAWo&\R�UUiVW0 05-0 Sorts BUbxn Condos Nmw n&bAd 21 6. All diesel - powered vehicles and equipment shall be properly operated and maintained. 7. All diesel - powered vehicles and gasoline- powered equipment shall be turned off when not in use for more than five (5) minutes. 8. The construction contractor shall utilize electric or natural gas- powered equipment instead of gasoline or diesel - powered engines, where feasible. 9. As much as possible, the construction contractor shall time the construction activities so as not to interfere with peak hour traffic. To minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes adjacent to the site, a flagperson shall be retained to maintain safety adjacent to existing roadways, if necessary. 10. The construction contractor shall support and encourage ridesharing and transit incentives for the construction crew. 11. The construction contractor shall utilize as much as possible pre- coated/natural colored building materials. Water -based or low VOC coatings shall be used that comply with the most stringent SCAQMD Rule 1113 limits. Spray equipment with high transfer efficiency, such as the high volume -low pressure (HVLP) spray method, or manual coatings application such as paint brush hand roller, trowel, spatula, dauber, rag, or a sponge shall be used to reduce VOC emissions, where practical. 12. If construction equipment powered by alternative fuel sources (LPG /CNG) is available at comparable cost, the developer shall specify that such equipment be used during all construction activities on the project site. 13. The developer shall require the use of particulate filters on diesel construction equipment if use of such filters is demonstrated to be cost - competitive for use on this project. i I 1 1 CAWo&\R�UUiVW0 05-0 Sorts BUbxn Condos Nmw n&bAd 21 I I 1 I I I I I I F1 I iq 11 I I APPENDIX URBEMIS2002 Computer Model Output Project Build-out Year 2007 Ic:%Won cpwUWF�WM5oocSam3 e.,nv,Co Nom" eon 21 Page: 4 1 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES (Summer Pounds per Day, Unmitigated) Source ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 Natural Gas 0.05 0.60 0.25 - 0.00 Wood Stoves - No summer emissions Fireplaces - No summer emissions Landscaping 0.16 0.01 1.17 0.00 0.00 Consumer Prdcts 3.86 - TOTALS(lbs /day,unmitigated) 4.08 0.61 1.42 0.00 0.00 I I I I 11 I I �Y I I r I I r r (Page: 5 I I I UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Condo /townhouse general 6.90 6.66 73.26 0.09 6.50 Tennis Courts 2.12 2.75 28.62 0.02 2.63 TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs /day) 8.52 9.91 101.87 0.06 9.13 Does not include correction for passby trips. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES Analysis Year: 2007 Temperature (F): 90 Season: Summer �EMFAC Version: EMFAC2002 (9/2002) Summary of Land Uses: Unit Type Trip Rate Size Total Trips Condo /townhouse general 8.10 trips / dwelling units 79.00 639.90 Tennis Courts 38.70 trips / Court B.00 309.60 Vehicle Assumptions: Fleet Mix: Vehicle Type Percent Type Non - Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto 55.20 1.80 97.80 0.90 Light Truck < 3,750 Its 15.10 3.30 99.00 2.70 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 16.10 1.90 96.90 1.20 Med Truck 5,751- 8,500 7.10 1.90 95.80 2.80 Lite -Heavy 8,501- 10,000 1.10 0.00 81.80 18.20 Lite -Heavy 10,001- 19,000 0.90 0.00 50.00 50.00 'Med -Heavy 19,001- 33,000 1.00 0.00 20.00 80.00 Heavy -Heavy 33,001- 60,000 0.90 0.00 11.10 88.90 Line Haul > 60,000 Its 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 Urban Bus 0.10 0.00 0.00 100.00 Motorcycle 1.70 82.90 17.60 0.00 School Bus 0.10 0.00 0.00 100.00 Motor Home 1.20 8.30 83.30 8.90 Travel Conditions Residential Comercial Home- Home- Home- work Shop Other Commute Non -Work Customer Urban Trip Length (miles) Rural Trip Length (miles) 11.5 9.9 11.5 9.9 6.0 6.0 10.3 10.3 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 1 Trip Speeds (mph) 35.0 90.0 90.0 90.0 90.0 90.0 & of Trips - Residential 20.0 37.0 93.0 % of Trips - Commercial (by land use) Tennis Courts 2.0 1.0 97.0 I I I Page: 6 , Changes made to the default values for Land Use Trip Percentages Changes made to the default values for Construction , Changes made to the default values for Area Changes made to the default values for Operations The operational emission year changed from 2009 to 2007. The double counting internal work trip limit changed from to 6.192. The double counting shopping trip limit changed from to 3.096. The double counting other trip limit changed from to 275.157. The travel mode environment settings changed from both to: none I I I I FJ I I 11 I I I I 1 Appendix C — Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation I 1 I I 11 I I i k I i 1 1 November 10, 2003 J.N. 319 -03 Mr. Mike Banhagel GREYSTONE HOMES, INC. i 26 Executive Park, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92614 SCOPE OF SERVICES The majority of the geotechnical services outlined in our proposal dated September 3, 2003, have been completed at this time. The work performed to date has included the following: 1 1. Review of existing reports and literature concerning soil and geologic conditions i within and adjacent to the site. This included a review of previous consultant reports for the subject site that are on file with the City of Newport Beach Planning Department. i [J i Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, Proposed Marriott Condominiums, 900 Newport Center Drive, City of Newport Beach, California Dear Mr. Banhagel: In accordance with your request, Petra Geotechnical, Inc. (Petra), is pleased to isubmit this preliminary geotechnical evaluation of the subject property. As ofthedate of this report, no definitive grading plan for the proposed development was available for review. Therefore, the discussion presented herein is based on the 40 -scale conceptual site plan and cross sections prepared by MV &P International (dated September 3, 2003). Detailed recommendations for site grading and building foundation design will be provided in the form of comprehensive geotechnical report ionce the grading plans for the site have been developed. SCOPE OF SERVICES The majority of the geotechnical services outlined in our proposal dated September 3, 2003, have been completed at this time. The work performed to date has included the following: 1 1. Review of existing reports and literature concerning soil and geologic conditions i within and adjacent to the site. This included a review of previous consultant reports for the subject site that are on file with the City of Newport Beach Planning Department. i [J i !1 GENERAL GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS , Soil and Bedrock Units Four distinct geologic units were encountered within the boundaries of the subject site during our subsurface investigation. These include 1) artificial fill placed during original development of the Newport Marriott tennis complex, 2) native alluvial soils, 3) marine terrace deposits, and 4) sedimentary bedrock of the Monterey Formation. Descriptions of these materials are provided in the following paragraphs: Artificial Fill: Artificial fill was observed in the north - central portion of the site in the area of proposed Buildings II and III. Based on our review of pre - development topographic maps and aerial photographs, it appears that this fill was placed within a previously existing natural drainage channel during original grading of the site. In general, this fill consists of moist, loose to dense clayey sand and soft to stiff sandy clay. The presence of abundant shale bedrock fragments in the fill suggests that this material was generated as a result of nearby excavations into Monterey Formation bedrock. Where exposed in our exploratory borings, the thickness of artificial fill beneath the , site ranges from approximately 2 to 16 feet. Samples of fill soils retrieved from our exploratory borings exhibited highly variable dry densities and moisture contents. GREYSTONE HOMES, INC. November 10, 2003 J.N. 319 -03 , Page 2 2. Subsurface investigation consisting of drilling, logging and selective sampling of 10 exploratory boreholes within and adjacent to the areas of proposed building construction. 3. Laboratory analysis of selected soil samples obtained from the exploratory borings. Analyses included determination of in -place moisture content, in -place dry unit weight, maximum dry density and optimum moisture content, expansion 1 index, consolidation characteristics, shear strength, soluble sulfate content, soil pH and minimum resistivity. 4. Analysis of the field and laboratory data and preparation of this summary report documenting our preliminary findings and conclusions. GENERAL GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS , Soil and Bedrock Units Four distinct geologic units were encountered within the boundaries of the subject site during our subsurface investigation. These include 1) artificial fill placed during original development of the Newport Marriott tennis complex, 2) native alluvial soils, 3) marine terrace deposits, and 4) sedimentary bedrock of the Monterey Formation. Descriptions of these materials are provided in the following paragraphs: Artificial Fill: Artificial fill was observed in the north - central portion of the site in the area of proposed Buildings II and III. Based on our review of pre - development topographic maps and aerial photographs, it appears that this fill was placed within a previously existing natural drainage channel during original grading of the site. In general, this fill consists of moist, loose to dense clayey sand and soft to stiff sandy clay. The presence of abundant shale bedrock fragments in the fill suggests that this material was generated as a result of nearby excavations into Monterey Formation bedrock. Where exposed in our exploratory borings, the thickness of artificial fill beneath the , site ranges from approximately 2 to 16 feet. Samples of fill soils retrieved from our exploratory borings exhibited highly variable dry densities and moisture contents. I L7 ' GREYSTONE HOMES, INC. November 6, 2003 J.N. 319 -03 Page 3 ' Alluvium: An approximately 3- foot -thick layer of alluvial soil was encountered beneath the existing artificial fill in one of the exploratory borings drilled by our firm within the site. This natural soil consists of most, medium- dense, moderately to highly compressible clayey sand. ' Terrace Deposits: Native marine terrace deposits were encountered beneath the surficial soils described above in six of our exploratory borings. Where observed, this unit varies in thickness from approximately 6 to 24 feet, and is generally composed of 1 moist, dense to locally very dense clayey sand interbedded with slightly moist to moist, medium -dense to locally very dense, poorly - graded sand. IFaulting and Seismicit Bedrock - Monterey Formation: Sedimentary bedrock of the Monterey Formation was encountered within 2 feet of the surface in the extreme northwestern portion of the site, and exists at depth beneath the surficial fill, alluvium and terrace deposit units ' across the remainder of the property. The bedrock materials consist of slightly moist to moist, moderately hard to hard, slightly to moderately weathered interbedded silty 1 claystone, friable sandstone and cherry shale. Based on our downhole logging and examination of oriented samples, the bedrock layers are locally folded with highly variable structural orientations. Bedding was observed to dip toward the southwest, northwest and northeast at angles ranging from approximately 8 to 25 degrees. Groundwater ' Moderate seepage was encountered at a depth of 14 feet below the surface in one of the exploratory boreholes drilled during our field investigation. Groundwater was not encountered in any of the other borings excavated as part of this investigation. IFaulting and Seismicit 7 11 No active or potentially active faults are known to pass through the subject property. In addition, the site does not lie within an Earthquake Fault Zone as designated by the State of California in the Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Zoning Act. Based on our review ' of published and unpublished geotechnical maps and literature pertaining to the regional geology, the closest active fault with respect to the site is the Newport - 1 Inglewood fault, located approximately 3 miles to the southwest. 7 11 I 1 GREYSTONE HOMES, INC. November 6, 2003 J.N. 319 -03 Page 4 Secondary Seismic Effects , The site is not located within an designated Seismic Hazard Zone as established by the ' California Geologic Survey pursuant to the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS , General Feasibility Based on the preliminary results of our field investigation and review available geotechnical literature and maps, it is the opinion of this firm that development of the subject site for residential purposes is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint; however, there are several geotechnical constraints that should be taken into , consideration by the Client and other members of the design team during the planning phases of the development. These issues are discussed in the following paragraphs. Primary Geotechnical Constraints I •• • • Compressible Surficial Soils: The majority of the site is underlain by surficial soil units (including artificial fill and alluvium) that were found to exhibit , variable in -place dry densities and moisture contents, and are thus considered unsuitable for support of new engineered fills and proposed structures. These materials will thus require excavation and recompaction to mitigate excessive , settlement and poor slope performance. The unsuitable surficial materials observed in our borings were typically found to extend to depths ranging from 2 to 16 feet below the surface. ' It is important for the project design team to note that the remedial grading requirement discussed above applies only to 1) areas where compacted fill will be required to establish the design grades, and 2) design cut areas where the depth of proposed cut does not exceed the thickness of existing unsuitable surficial soils. Where design cuts exceed the thickness of existing unsuitable , surficial material, no additional remedial removals will be needed (with the exception of building pad overexcavations that may be required to eliminate cut - to -fill and/or shallow fill -deep fill transitions). ' I F LJ I I I LJ I I i GREYSTONE HOMES, INC. November 6, 2003 J.N. 319 -03 Page 5 C Bedrock Excavatability: The surficial materials within the site are underlain by sedimentary bedrock that, while being hard to locally very hard, is expected to be excavatableby moderate ripping with conventional earthwork equipment (D -8 or D -9 bulldozers). Some local areas of cherty shale may require heavy ripping, but these areas are expected to be limited. •• • • Elimination ofCut/Fill Transitions: Based on the anticipated grading concept, it is likely that the design earthwork will result in cut -to -fill transitions being exposed at pad grades within at least some building areas. In some cases, cut -to- fill transitions may be eliminated as part of the remedial grading discussed in the previous paragraphs; however, where cut - to-fill transitions exist following remedial grading, they should be eliminated by overexcavating the "cut" portions of the building pads and replacing the excavated material as properly compacted fill. This procedure is recommended as a means to mitigate the detrimental effects of excessive differential settlement. The generally recommended depth of over excavation is one -half the maximum thickness of fill beneath the pad area, to a minimum depth of 3 feet and a maximum depth of 15 feet below proposed pad grade. The horizontal limits of overexcavation should extend to within approximately l to 2 feet of property lines and/or the tops and toes of slopes. The actual lots that will require overexcavation and overexcavation depths will have to be determined during grading by the project geotechnical consultant based on actual conditions encountered. As an alternative to eliminating cut - to-fill transitions through remedial grading as recommended above, it may be feasible to utilize deepened foundations (i.e., deepened conventional footings or caisson/grade beam systems) that extend through the fill and into the underlying bedrock. Appropriate recommendations for deepened foundations will be provided in the forthcoming geotechnical investigation report. •• • • Stability of Temporary Excavations: During remedial grading and construction of the proposed subterranean parking areas and associated improvements, temporary excavations with sidewalls varying up to approximately 13 feet in ' height are likely to be necessary. It is expected that the excavation sidewalls will expose a combination of artificial fill, terrace deposit and bedrock materials as described previously. Due to the locally loose condition of near - surface materials and the presence of granular, non - cohesive layers within the Monterey Formation bedrock, the proposed temporary excavation sidewalls are not likely to remain 11 GREYSTONE HOMES, INC. 1 November 6, 2003 , J.N. 319 -03 Page 6 stable at a vertical inclination. Therefore, it should be anticipated that temporary , excavation sidewalls will require sloping back at a ratio of approximately l • !l, horizontal to vertical. Should excessive caving be observed during grading, flatter inclinations may be required locally. Based on our review of the conceptual site plan, there appears to be sufficient area to lay back the excavation sidewalls at the above configurations along most , of the building perimeter areas; however, depending on the actual depths of cut and remedial grading that will be required, it may not be possible to construct temporary excavations along the east side of Buildings I and II (i.e., adjacent to Santa Barbara Drive) and along the southeast side of Building I (adjacent to the existing Marriott tower and appurtenant improvements) at a safe and stable slope ratio without encroaching into the adjacent street right -of -way and/or causing the loss of lateral support of the existing hotel building, the associated buried utilities and other improvements. For this reason, temporary shoring may be required in these areas. Recommendations for design of temporary shoring will be provided , in the comprehensive preliminary geotechnical report once grading plans for the site become available for review. .... Seepage and Groundwater: As noted previously, seepage was encountered at a depth of 14 feet below the surface during drilling of one of our exploratory borings. The absence of groundwater in any of the other boreholes suggests that ' this is a localized condition, possibly related to downward percolation of irrigation water from the nearby landscaped areas. Nonetheless, the localized occurrence of seepage should be anticipated during site grading, and may result , in the need for dewatering during the grading and construction of the subterranean portions of the proposed structures. •• • • Regional Seismicity: The subject site is located in a seismically active area of southern California; however, the subject site is not considered to be at a particularly greater level of seismic risk than other sites in the area. Other Geotechnical Factors I Seismically- Induced Liquefaction and Landsliding: The site does not lie within a designated liquefaction or seismically - induced landslide hazard zone as determined by the California Geologic Survey pursuant to the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act. Furthermore, the information obtained during our subsurface investigation indicates that the native terrace deposit and bedrock materials ' beneath the site exhibit adequate in -place densities to preclude seismically- I I, ' GREYSTONE HOMES, INC. November 6, 2003 J.N. 319 -03 Page 7 ' induced liquefaction. On this basis, the potential for liquefaction at the site is considered to be remote. This assumes all low - density alluvium and fill materials within the site are removed as part of remedial grading operations and replaced as properly compacted fill. 2. Seismic Design Considerations. The subject site is located in a seismically active area of southern California. The type and magnitude of seismic hazards, which may affect the site, are dependent on both the distance to causative faults and the intensity and duration of the seismic event. Although the probability of primary surface rupture is considered low, ground shaking hazards caused by earthquakes along regional active faults do exist and should be taken into account ' in the design and construction of the proposed facilities within the subject site. Seismic design for the proposed structures should be in accordance with the minimum requirements prescribed by the UBC for Seismic Zone 4. Site - specific seismic design parameters determined in accordance with Section 16 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) will be provided in the forthcoming ' comprehensive geotechnical investigation report. 3. Expansive Soil Considerations: The results of our limited laboratory tests indicate the earth materials that will be exposed at proposed finished grade elevations within the site are likely to exhibit highly variable expansion potentials. A final evaluation of expansion potential should be performed based on sampling and testing during or after completion of rough grading activities. 4. Tentative Building Foundation Design: Based on the results of this due diligence investigation and our experience with other nearby properties with similar soil conditions, it is our opinion that conventional or, alternatively, post- tensioned foundation systems will generally be feasible for the structures provided remedial grading is performed as described herein. However, as described previously, deepened foundation systems may be a desirable alternative to remedial grading in areas where cut -to -fill transitions occur 5. Soil Corrosivity: Based on limited laboratory testing performed as part of this study, site soils appear to have soluble sulfate and chloride contents which correspond to a negligible exposure to these chemical compounds. This condition should be verified by means of sampling of building pad subgrade soils following grading. Near - surface soils sampled and analyzed during our investigation exhibit a a "Low" to "Moderate" corrosivity potential with regard to buried ferrous metals A certified corrosion engineer should be consulted to prepare project - specific 1 1 GREYSTONE HOMES, INC. L November 6, 2003 , J.N. 319 -03 Page 8 recommendations to protect against corrosion. Additional selective sampling and analysis (soil pH and resistivity) should be performed following grading to more accurately assess soil corrosivity. LIMITATIONS 1 The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based solely on our understanding of the proposed site development concept, on the results of our site reconnaissance and subsurface investigation, and on our review of the referenced reports and literature. In the absence of a definitive grading plan for the site, these ' conclusions and recommendations should be considered as tentative and subject to modification or revision. I This report has been prepared consistent with the level of care being provided by other ' professionals providing similar services at the same locale and in the same time period. This report provides our professional opinions and, as such, they are not to be , considered a guaranty or warranty. In addition, the information contained herein has not been prepared for use by parties or projects other than those named or described ' herein. It may not contain sufficient information for other parties or other purposes. 1 LJ 1 1 GREYSTONE HOMES, INC. November 6, 2003 J.N. 319 -03 Page 9 This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. Please call if you have any questions pertaining to this report. Respectfully submitted, PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Scott Winslow Associate Geologist CEG 2009 SW /DH /tem W:\2003\300\319-03.sum.wpd David Hansen Senior Project Engineer RCE 56591 I F- L LJ I IJ I Appendix D - Traffic Report C F I I I L I i I I I OVER 25 YEARS OF EXCELLENT SERVICE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH SANTA BARBARA CONDONMINIUM PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS (REVISED) 1111 TOWN & COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 34 ORANGE, CA 92868-4667 PHONE: (714) 973 -8383 FAx: (714) 973 -8821 EMAIL: MAIL.®TRAFFIC- ENGINEER.COM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH SANTA BARBARA CONDOMINIUM PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS (REVISED) Prepared by: Carl Ballard and William Kunzman, P.E. QpDFESSlp4 r. yea° . K� r�iyc- A -V� W 3N.. TR0056z x ff 6 TRAFF �* February 14, 2005 KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES 1111 TOWN & COUNTR), ROAD, SUITE 34 ORANGE, CA 92868-4667 PHONE: (714) 973 -8383 FAX: (714) 973 -8821 EMAIL: MAIL ®TRAFFIC -ENGINEER.COM WEB: WWW.TRAFFIC- ENGINEER.COM LJ 1 11 I I .1 17 J 1 1 1 Table of Contents 1. Findings .............................................................................. ..............................2 Existing Traffic Conditions ............................................ ..............................2 TrafficImpacts .............................................................. ..............................3 MitigationMeasures ..................................................... ..............................4 2. Project Description ............................................................ ..............................6 Location........................................................................ ..............................6 Proposed Development .......:........................................ ..............................6 3. Existing Traffic Conditions ............................................... ..............................9 Study Area Intersections .............................................. ..............................9 Existing Travel Lanes and Intersection Controls .......... ..............................9 Existing Master Plan of Arterial Highways ................... .............................10 Existing Traffic Volumes .............................................. .............................10 4. Project Traffic .................................................................... .............................16 Traffic Generation ....................................................... .............................16 Traffic Distribution and Assignment ............................. .............................16 Project - Related Traffic ................................................ .............................17 5. TPO Analysis ..................................................................... .............................22 ApprovedProjects ....................................................... .............................22 RegionalGrowth ......................................................... .............................22 One - Percent Methodology .......................................... .............................22 Intersection Capacity Utilization ( ICU) ......................... .............................23 6. CEQA Analysis .................................................................. .............................33 Cumulative Projects .........................................:.......... .............................33 Intersection Capacity Utilization ( ICU) ......................... .............................33 7. GPA Analysis .................................................................... .............................43 Intersection Capacity Utilization ( ICU) ......................... .............................43 8. Conclusions ...................................................................... .............................50 Existing Traffic Conditions ........................................... .............................50 TrafficImpacts ............................................................. .............................51 MitigationMeasures .................................................... .............................52 Appendices Appendix A Glossary of Transportation Terms Appendix B Year 2003/2004 Worksheets Appendix C Approved Project Data Appendix D TPO One - Percent Analysis Calculation Worksheets Appendix E Cumulative Project Data Appendix F Explanation and Calculation of Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) List of Tables Table 1. Project Traffic Generation ...................................... .............................18 Table 2. Approved Project List ............................................. .............................24 Table 3. TPO Analysis One - Percent Threshold ................... .............................25 Table 4. TPO Analysis Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) and Levels of Service( LOS) ........................................................ .............................26 Table 5. Cumulative Project List .......................................... .............................35 Table 6. CEQA Analysis Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) and Levels'of Service( LOS) ........................................................ .............................36 Table 7. General Plan Buildout Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) and Levels of Service (LOS) ........................................ .............................45 I List of Figures Project Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes 20 ' Figure 10. Project Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes 21 1 Figure 1. Project Location Map ............................................. ............................... 7 , Figure2. Site Plan ................................................................. ............................... 8 Figure 12. Figure 3. Existing Through Travel Lanes and Intersection Controls ................... 11 ' Figure 4. City of Newport Beach General Plan Circulation Element .................. 12 ' Figure 5. City of Newport Beach General Plan Roadway Cross - Sections ......... 13 Figure 6. Existing Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement , Existing + Approved Projects Evening Peak Hour Intersection Volumes.............................................................. ............................... 14 Figure 7. Existing Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement ' Existing + Approved Projects + Project Morning Peak Hour Volumes.............................................................. ............................... 15 Figure 8. Project Traffic Distribution .................................... ............................... 19 , Figure 9. Project Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes 20 Figure 10. Project Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes 21 Figure 11. Approved Projects Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning ' Movement Volumes ............................................. ............................... 27 Figure 12. Approved Projects Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning , Movement Volumes ............................................. ............................... 28 Figure 13. Existing + Approved Projects Morning Peak Hour Intersection ' Turning Movement Volumes ............................... ............................... 29 Figure 14. Existing + Approved Projects Evening Peak Hour Intersection , Turning Movement Volumes ............................... ............................... 30 Figure 15. Existing + Approved Projects + Project Morning Peak Hour ' Intersection Turning Movement Volumes ............ ............................... 31 Figure 16. Existing + Approved Projects + Project Evening Peak Hour , Intersection Turning Movement Volumes ............ ............................... 32 II 1 11 ' Figure 17. Cumulative Projects Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes ............................................. ............................... 37 Figure 18. Cumulative Projects Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes ............................................. ............................... 38 Figure 19. Existing +Approved Projects+ Cumulative Projects Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes ... ............................... 39 Figure 20. Existing + Approved Projects + Cumulative Projects Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes ... ............................... 40 Figure 21. Existing + Approved Projects + Cumulative Projects + Project Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes ........... 41 ' Figure 22. Existing + Approved Projects + Cumulative Projects + Project Figure 25. General Plan Buildout With Project Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes ............................... ............................... 48 ,' Figure 26. General Plan Buildout With Project Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes ............................... ............................... 49 ' Figure 27. Circulation Recommendations ............................. ............................... 54 1 Li r Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes ........... 42 Figure 23. General Plan Buildout Without Project Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes ............ ............................... 46 ' Figure 24. General Plan Buildout Without Project Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes ............ ............................... 47 Figure 25. General Plan Buildout With Project Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes ............................... ............................... 48 ,' Figure 26. General Plan Buildout With Project Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes ............................... ............................... 49 ' Figure 27. Circulation Recommendations ............................. ............................... 54 1 Li r I 1 City of Newport Beach Santa Barbara Condominium Project ' Traffic Impact Analysis (Revised) I I This report contains the revised traffic impact analysis for the Santa Barbara ' Condominium project. The project site is located at 900 Newport Center Drive , adjacent to the existing Marriott Hotel. The proposed condominium project is located southerly of Santa Barbara Drive between Jamboree Road and Newport Center Drive. The proposed development consists of 79 condominium dwelling units. The traffic report contains documentation of existing traffic conditions, traffic ' generated by the project, distribution of the project traffic to roads outside the project, and an analysis of future traffic conditions. Each of these topics is contained in a separate section of the report. The first section is "Findings ", and ' subsequent sections expand upon the findings. In this way, information on any particular aspect of the study can be easily located by the reader. Although this is a technical report, every effort has been made to write the report ' clearly and concisely. To assist the reader with those terms unique to transportation engineering, a glossary of terms is provided in Appendix A. ' 1 ' 1. Findings 1 ' This section summarizes the existing traffic conditions, project traffic impacts, and the proposed mitigation measures. ' Existing Traffic Conditions a. The existing use is a tennis club (includes 8 tennis courts) and is an ancillary use to the Marriott Hotel. b. The project site currently has access to Santa Barbara Drive. 'C. Pursuant to discussions with City of Newport Beach staff, the study area includes the following intersections: ' Jamboree Road (NS) at: Eastbluff Drive /Ford Road (EW) ' San Joaquin Hills Road (EW) Santa Barbara Drive (EW) Coast Highway (EW) Santa Rosa Drive /Big Canyon Drive (NS) at: San Joaquin Hills Road (EW) Avocado Avenue (NS) at: Coast Highway (EW) MacArthur Boulevard (NS) at: Ford Road (EW) San Joaquin Hills Road (EW) San Miguel Drive (EW) Coast Highway (EW) 2 Santa Cruz Road (NS) at: San Joaquin Hills Road (EW) ' San Clemente Drive (EW) Newport Center Drive (NS) at: Santa Barbara Drive (EW) ' Coast Highway (EW) Santa Rosa Drive /Big Canyon Drive (NS) at: San Joaquin Hills Road (EW) Avocado Avenue (NS) at: Coast Highway (EW) MacArthur Boulevard (NS) at: Ford Road (EW) San Joaquin Hills Road (EW) San Miguel Drive (EW) Coast Highway (EW) 2 Traffic Impacts , a. The proposed project consists of 79 condominium dwelling units. ' b. The proposed development is projected to generate approximately 640 daily vehicle trips, 52 of which will occur during the morning peak hour and 65 of which will occur during the evening peak hour. As shown in Table 1, t the proposed development compared to the existing development is projected to generate approximately 330 more daily vehicle trips, 42 more ' of which will occur during the morning peak hour and 39 more of which will , occur during the evening peak hour. Santa Barbara Drive (EW) , C. The City of Newport Beach staff provided the approved and cumulative projects in the study area. The approved projects consist of development that has been approved but are not fully completed. Cumulative projects are known, but not approved project developments that are reasonably ' expected to be completed or nearly completed at the same time as the proposed project. ' d. The Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) analysis resulted in the following study area intersections exceeding the one - percent threshold and requiring ' additional analysis: Jamboree Road (NS) at: ' Eastbluff Drive /Ford Road (EW) Santa Barbara Drive (EW) Santa Cruz Road (NS) at: San Joaquin Hills Road (EW) San Clemente Drive (EW) , Newport Center Drive (NS) at: Santa Barbara Drive (EW) Coast Highway (EW) Santa Rosa Drive /Big Canyon Drive (NS) at: San Joaquin Hills Road (EW) MacArthur Boulevard (NS) at: ' Ford Road (EW) San Joaquin Hills Road (EW) e. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis (this part of the analysis is consistent with CEQA) included analysis of the same study area intersections as the TPO analysis. ' 3 1 L� The GPA analysis included ICU calculations at the following study area intersections: 1 Comparison of the one - percent increase in the General Plan Buildout ICU between the without project and with project traffic conditions (see Table 7) ' resulted in no study area intersections exceeding the one - percent threshold. ' Mitigation Measures The following measures are recommended to mitigate the impact of the project on ' traffic circulation: a. Site - specific circulation and access recommendations are depicted on 1 Figure 27. b. An existing two -way left turn lane on Santa Barbara Drive provides 1 adequate left turn storage for vehicles desiring to turn left into the project site. I C. On -site parking should be provided to meet City of Newport Beach parking code requirements. 1 1 4 1 Jamboree Road (NS) at: Eastbluff Drive /Ford Road (EW) San Joaquin Hills Road (EW) ' Santa Barbara Drive (EW) Coast Highway (EW) ' Santa Cruz Road (NS) at: San Joaquin Hills Road (EW) Newport Center Drive (NS) at: Coast Highway (EW) ' Santa Rosa Drive /Big Canyon Drive (NS) at: San Joaquin Hills Road (EW) ' MacArthur Boulevard (NS) at: Ford Road (EW) ' San Joaquin Hills Road (EW) San Miguel Drive (EW) Coast Highway (EW) 1 Comparison of the one - percent increase in the General Plan Buildout ICU between the without project and with project traffic conditions (see Table 7) ' resulted in no study area intersections exceeding the one - percent threshold. ' Mitigation Measures The following measures are recommended to mitigate the impact of the project on ' traffic circulation: a. Site - specific circulation and access recommendations are depicted on 1 Figure 27. b. An existing two -way left turn lane on Santa Barbara Drive provides 1 adequate left turn storage for vehicles desiring to turn left into the project site. I C. On -site parking should be provided to meet City of Newport Beach parking code requirements. 1 1 4 1 d. Sight distance at the project accesses should be reviewed with respect to ' Caltrans /City of Newport Beach standards in conjunction with the preparation of final grading, landscape, and street improvement plans. t e. On -site traffic signing and striping should be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the project. t f. The parking garage design shall meet all City requirements regarding parking stall width, parking stall depth, parking aisle width, parking aisle ' grade, and parking aisle- turning radii. g. Each parking level should have large numbers on the pillars or walls designating on which floor level the user has parked. Letters can also be ' added to designate what area within a parking level the person has parked, such as 2B. ' h. The parking garage shall be lighted to meet City code requirements. i. The project site did not cause a significant impact at the study area ' intersections (increase of one - percent or more at a study area intersection operating at worse than Level of Service D during the peak hours); therefore, no improvements are recommended at the study area , intersections. j. As is the case for any roadway design, the City of Newport Beach should ' periodically review traffic operations in the vicinity of the project once the project is constructed to assure that the traffic operations are satisfactory. ' s 1 11 1 I 1 I ' 2. Project Description 1 ' This section discusses the project's location, proposed development, and traffic characteristics of such a development. Figure 1 shows the project location map ' and Figure 2 illustrates the site plan. Location ' The project site is located at 900 Newport Center Drive adjacent to the existing Marriott Hotel. The existing use is a tennis club (includes 8 tennis courts) and is an ancillary use to the Marriott Hotel. The proposed condominium project is located southerly of Santa Barbara Drive between Jamboree Road and Newport Center Drive. ' Proposed Development The proposed development consists of 79 condominium dwelling units. The following describes the proposed land use from a traffic- engineering ' viewpoint: Condominiums: The traffic characteristics of this type of development reflect the smaller family sizes generally found in attached dwellings. Fewer trips result per dwelling in the peak hours and daily than would result from detached residential dwellings. 1 1 I 1 3 Figure 1 Project Location Mop Eoslbluff Drive _y Bonito Canyon Drive Fo d ROad 9p V �/1 O Son Clemente m Santo Barbara Drive `Fb9G� Drive Santo Cruz ys Santo Rosa �§ Drives y Parkway �$ Site $ t� {a ;J y Newport Center COasy Drive Son Miguel ti Drive to �c go P Kunzman Associates 3124 /1 I 3. Existing Traffic Conditions ' 1 The traffic conditions as they exist today are discussed below and illustrated on t Figures 3 to 7. Study Area Intersections ' Pursuant to discussions with City of Newport Beach staff, the study area includes the following intersections: ' Jamboree Road (NS) at: Eastbluff Drive /Ford Road (EW) ' San Joaquin Hills Road (EW) Santa Barbara Drive (EW) Coast Highway (EW) , Santa Cruz Road (NS) at: San Joaquin Hills Road (EW) ' San Clemente Drive (EW) Newport Center Drive (NS) at: ' Santa Barbara Drive (EW) Coast Highway (EW) , Santa Rosa Drive /Big Canyon Drive (NS) at: San Joaquin Hills Road (EW) , Avocado Avenue (NS) at: Coast Highway (EW) ' MacArthur Boulevard (NS) at: Ford Road (EW) San Joaquin Hills Road (EW) ' San Miguel Drive (EW) Coast Highway (EW) ' Existing Travel Lanes and Intersection Controls Figure 3 identifies the existing roadway conditions for arterials near the site. The ' number of through lanes for existing roadways and the existing intersection controls are identified. ' 7 I 1 I 1 Existing Master Plan of Arterial Highways Figure 4 exhibits the current City of Newport Beach General Plan Circulation Element. Both existing and future roadways are included in the Circulation Element of the General Plan and are graphically depicted on Figure 4. This figure shows the nature and extent of arterial highways that are needed to serve adequately the ultimate development depicted by the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Figure 5 shows the City of Newport -Beach General Plan roadway cross- sections. Existing Traffic Volumes The City of Newport Beach staff provided the Year 2003/2004 morning and evening peak hour approach volumes at each study area intersection (see Appendix B). Existing morning and evening peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Figures 6 and 7, respectively. I I I 1 io 1 Figure 3 Existing Through Travel Lanes and Intersection Controls Eostbluff Drive — gemente Sonto Barbaro 3 50 Drive Drive O rSonto Cruz rive' s F� Site Newport Center Drive � 8D Bonito Conyon Drive 40 Sonto Roso / Porkwoy v 6D 6D\ Ltaffid 40 40 0= Troffic Signol O Son Miguel /�i / 6 4 = Through Trovel Lanes Drive 13 D = Divided U = Undivided Jbbso >> = Free Right Turn Jbbso is -0htP il» Q ��'IYP Jbbsu dbbs� 0eD 0-7 140 0� o� Jbbsz 6-2 40 5 t0 a �0 dbbsi z�°IYI° ��hYP Jbbsu 2�11r ��h4P z�gYP o� - -- o� - -- 8D Bonito Conyon Drive 40 Sonto Roso / Porkwoy v 6D 6D\ Ltaffid 40 40 0= Troffic Signol O Son Miguel /�i / 6 4 = Through Trovel Lanes Drive 13 D = Divided U = Undivided 9 >> = Free Right Turn i 40 is D� il» Q Jbbsu dbbs� 0eD 0-7 140 0� o� Jbbsz 6-2 40 Jbbs9 Jbbsu Jbbru Jbbco 1�IT z�°IYI° ��hYP I�°ItP KunzTwn Associates Intersection reference numbers ore in upper left corner of turning movement boxes. 3124/3 11 9 �o to B is II - il» Jbbsz 0-7 Jbbs, a-7 Jbbsz 6-2 Jbbsi Jbbs9 Jbbco 1�IT I�°ItP 2�11r 7—e - -- 7—e - -- z—o .. �— o� o� 17 KunzTwn Associates Intersection reference numbers ore in upper left corner of turning movement boxes. 3124/3 11 Figure 4 City of Newport Beach General Plan Circulation Element Roadway Classification Consmuter Roadway (Two Lana Undivided) Secondary Road (Four Lane Undivided) PUmary Road (Four Lane Divided) Primary Augmented Road Malor Road (Six Lane Divided) Major Augmented Road Eight Lane Road (Divided) San Joaquin Mlle Transportation Corridor Adopted Freeway Routes Future Freeway Extension _= Routes Requiring Further Coordination Interchange • Adopted Interchange O Proposed Interchange City Boundary Newport Beach Sphere of Intiuenoe Kunzman Associates Source: City of Newport Beach 12 i 31244 Figure 5 City of Newport Beach General Plan Roadway Cross — Sections MAJOR HIGHWAY MAJOR STREET PRIMARY STREET 60'MIN ROW 40'MIN 10' 20'T -20' 10' Notes: 56' MIN ROW (1) Streets may require special 36' MIN design. 10' 18'T18' 10 i (2) May be reduced t o6 Ft. if no sidewalk is required LOCAL STREET (3) Where bicycle trail designated, sidewalk widths shall be adjusted as shown an Std. -120 -L K4LnzTa n Associates Source City of Newport Beach 13 3124/5 I F I I I 1 I I I I I r' Figure 6 Existing Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes Eostbluff Drive — y Bonito Canyon Drive Fa ROao �� 9 San Clemente m Santa Barbara 3 Drive 5 S Drive Santa Cruz 6 ys Santa Rasa Dr wv y Parkway Site o $ 7 9 J $ 12 -A 4 Newport Center posy Drive Son Niguel h Drive / 13 wo J4 I o 2018 v g� 13M o 971 v 7 115 1 °-21 c• 7 171 � / 1120 0 * � 0-777 8 ^ 0 / § N � a-9% = *1 b 116 a dbbsn/ a dbbsW a )b6s83 a 0 m�1YP ��1YP 10 0 11� 0lw I T r si6� si�IZ�a 2� 1787 X 1766 o IWI 14 / 511 62 ]l2 v 111 v 11 v 5 120 5 4-16 7 11 c B 4-ISo db^ 0-713 a == 0-17 %° 0-6 ° ^ 0 -1177 – bs217 9 dbbs13 9 dbbs3 9 of 1 0 57�1Tr 0 57�1Tr 0 /1�1Tr 0 70D'1gp 511- :1-V 56-0 rRe 33— -bt° I76o —o cdd 20(1 16Z 136 — oZ I IA v 185 v 2161 v 2::3 2815 v 1.180 v 897 v 9 067 10 1117 11 g„ 17 Q,o 1 I7 17 a 1/ ° 11071 A — IC 0-510 "� 0 -952 = F 0-161 R'P' x-297 �'+ a ++ dbbsl+7 1 dbbsal a dbb dbbs19 9 dbsm 9 dbbsa a 0 q�17r 0 191 :1ti9 0 q -0 Im�1tr 0 204-1 r 0 51711t789- g ^x Im--D ^g 178-0199-0 n2° A--0- 101 26- A� o 102 27 0 1526 a 1606 0 K4L9LZ77wn Associates Intersection reference numbers ore in upper left carrier of turning movement boxes. 3124/bbos 14 Figure 7 Existing Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes Eastbluff Drive — Santa Barbara Drive _ Cruz 6 ys Santa Rosa w:—i y_ Parkway Site Newport Center Drive San Miguel Driwe 13 1796 v 1645 v 7 $ d l b +-3i9 9-26 I 1-406 14 1957 0 4-114 - 9-1891 - 1 -169p a I tr a 64 4-23 on D 2 t6 10 dlbl ;ID a dlbl 161 a D �J1fP o I D 61s1fP IID 196 0 204 03 1 f ID 48 � R g v 4-25 A 9-82 1-29 a 373" =' D 51� 1 t D u�1fP - Im 1277� a 1321 13 0 ;Ray, IIBT= 1672 000 B2�wA 5 "' 4_a /1 /9-51 1225611 t26 f 4 l 43 a —2a a D 120— 1 f r F252 1 f ID 0 358 a e. R - S ry 757 - Bonita Canyon Drive 2 p° cY Q 1645 v 7 $ d l b +-3i9 9-26 I 1-406 14 7131 v / al67S d 16 4-114 - 9-1891 - 1 -169p a D 25� II-4 1 f P -:p 8; D "1s 1364 � pR U 7e 10 1755 0 14 / 1162 0 N dlbsa 4-675 ' 1086 a 18� - 3 n a dlbs199 o I - 115 377 0 IID 196 0 D 31� 1 f ID D 5M� 7 a ° d b b 4-25 A 9-82 1-29 a B d l lv 2157 4 -1690 a 1—a 14 D /76� 1 t D u�1fP D'uJ1fP 1277� 115 ;Ray, IIBT= 1672 000 B2�wA 123 1225611 0� 96 0 9 '� t/8 4-756 s2u a 521 0 2118 0 4 -719 9-229 251 - / 1999 0 12 6 `� - 91-185 t395 —n a 1755 0 4-20 9-239 y{ a 1162 0 N dlbsa 4-675 ' 1086 a la dlb n 14 ... R- 3 n a dlbs199 D 22- 1 f r IID A�44 D 31� 1 f ID D 5M� 1 f r D 667 1 f ID D /76� 1 t 10�9�`�s 1277� W� 0 IIBT= B2�wA 1225611 Sal ^ 16 0 Kunzn'mn Associates Intersection reference numbers are in upper left corner of turning movement boxes. 3124/bbas 15 I 1 4. Project Traffic J ' The existing use is a tennis club (includes 8 tennis courts) and is an ancillary use to the Marriott Hotel. The proposed development consists of 79 condominium dwelling units. The project site currently has access to Santa Barbara Drive. Traffic Generation The traffic generated by the project is determined by multiplying an appropriate trip generation rate by the quantity of land use. Trip generation rates are predicated on the assumption that energy costs, the availability of vehicles to drive, and our life styles remain similar to what we know today. A major change in these variables may affect trip generation rates. Trip generation rates were determined for daily traffic, morning peak hour inbound and outbound traffic, and evening peak hour inbound and outbound traffic for the proposed land use. By multiplying the traffic generation rates by the land use quantity, the traffic volumes are determined. Table 1 exhibits the traffic generation rates, project peak hour volumes, and project daily traffic volumes. The trip generation rates are from the Newport Beach Traffic Analysis Model (NBTAM) and 1 Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation, 7th Edition, 2003. The existing development currently generates approximately 310 daily vehicle trips, 10 of which will occur.during the morning peak hour and 26 of which will occur during the evening peak hour. ' The proposed development is projected to generate approximately 640 daily vehicle trips, 52 of which will occurduring the morning peak hour and 65 of which will occur during the evening peak hour. ' As shown in Table 1, the proposed development compared to the existing development is projected to generate approximately 330 more daily vehicle trips, 42 more of which will occur during the morning peak hour and 39 more of which will occur during the evening peak hour. Traffic Distribution and Assignment Traffic distribution is the determination of the directional orientation of traffic. It is ' based on the geographical location of employment centers, commercial centers, recreational areas, or residential area concentrations. The traffic distribution has ' also been based upon previous traffic studies for the project site. 16 Traffic assignment is the determination of which specific route development traffic , will use, once the generalized traffic distribution is determined. The basic factors affecting route selection are minimum time path and minimum distance path. Figure 8 contains the directional distribution and assignment of the project traffic for the proposed land use. Project- Related Traffic Based on the identified traffic generation and distribution, project related morning ' and evening peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Figures 9 and 10, respectively. 17 I F1 I I I I I F, I Table 1 Project Traffic Generation ' CT = Courts; DU = Dwelling Units ' Source: NBTAM Trip Generation Rates Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITEI. Trio Generati0dth Edition, 2003, Land Use Category 490. 18 Peak Hour Morning Evening Land Use Quantity Units' Daily Inbound Outboundl Total Inbound Outbound Total Generation Rates Tennis Club 8 CT 0.66 0.66 1.32 1.68 1.68 3.36 38.70 Single-Family Attached 79 DU 0.17 0.49 0.66 0.47 0.36 - 0.83 8.10 Trips Generated Existing: Tennis Club B CT 5 5 101 131 13 26 310 Proposed: Single - Family Attached 79 DU 13 39 52 37 28 65 640 Difference 81 341 421 241 15 391 330 ' CT = Courts; DU = Dwelling Units ' Source: NBTAM Trip Generation Rates Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITEI. Trio Generati0dth Edition, 2003, Land Use Category 490. 18 19 Figure 8 Project Traffic Distribution 25% Easlbluff 5% Drive — Bonita Canyon Fa'd / Drive R ✓/ 15% 10% 5% 35% 9 Clemente m 10% Santa Borbor Drive Drive 55 ys Santa Rasa Drives 5% y Parkway $ Site °off" 10z 40% 5% 15% 20% 25% Newport Cent 5% Cam' Drive 10% San ti Miguel 5% �o Drive 5%� Q go r Legend 10% = Percent To/From Project 152 Kun2mmn Associates 3124/8 19 Figure 9 Project Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes Eostbluff Drive —• Bonito Canyon Drive 1 For ROao 11 2. Q San Clemente m Santo Barbara 3 Drive 5°�h Drive Santo Cruz 6 ys Santa Rom wk`s Drive .p parkway �8 Site - $ 7 9 V J 12 'fy 4 C Newport Center oast Drive � Son Miquel ti Drive 13 fay tg )v 5v 1 a0 7 a0 , °J' all p / �a o dbbs' a dbbso a 8 dbbse a dbb�c a 0 0�ggp o a— ITr 10 0 0-00 o 1/ 1/ 14 Ov v v 6v 5 a0 6 a0 a0 — 5 a7 dbbsi � dbbso a dbbso a dbbso a P o�o�IgP o� 0� Ov Ov Iv Iv RO 9 a0 10 a0 II a0 17 a0 o a0 — o�ggp o o�algp o o�aq� o / 1Tr 0 o�hglo 7-000 00� 0� 0� 0� Kunz7nan Associates Intersection reference numbers are in upper left corner of turning movement boxes. 3124 /bbas 20 ° o --ohYP c-o9YP a� a� 7 0 20 ° 0 —o�IYP 0—o1TP 0� 0� 0 .r } Figure 10 Project Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes Eostbluff Drive — Santa Barbara Drive - Cruz 6 Santo Roso +e] y_ Parkway Site Newport Center Drive San mquel Drive + / 13 Bonito Canyon / Drive 2 90 Qo 9 70 Q i,Q — rs a zQ 2 zQ 10 Jbb1'4 1 dlb ru a a ° °� ° Q� dgbs4 o�'IT° e Q 4 Q�°ITP 4 o Jlbl Q� a 7 Q� a to t6 Q Jbb dbblru IQ Jlbsu ITP a °''hTP ° °'1TI° ° 7'OITI° ° °s1TP ° Jlbsu 7� J72 P ° u,1TP I e Q Bonito Canyon / Drive 2 21 17 0 Qo 9 6 0 Q i,Q — rs a / dbb io o ru a 7 dlb 10 ' Q�1Tl° zQ ° 0�)Jr a 14 °� zQ Q� dgbs4 e Q 4 4 o Jlbl 2 a 7 E a to t6 a Jbb dbblru a Jlbsu ITP a °''hTP ° °'1TI° ° 7'OITI° ° °s1TP ° °'h T1° 7� 21 Qo 9 zQ Qo IQ zp 20 II zQ /o I7 zQ Qo I7 zp ry Qo I/ zQ dgbs4 a dlbsa a Jlbl 2 a dbb ra a dlb ra a Jbb ra a ° O� ITP ° °''hTP ° °'1TI° ° 7'OITI° ° °s1TP ° °'h T1° a a a Kunzman Associates Intersection reference numbers are in upper left corner of turning movement boxes. 3124/bbas 21 I I I L I I I I 5. TPO Analysis Approved Projects The City of Newport Beach staff provided the approved projects in the study area for the TPO analysis. The approved projects consist of development that has been approved but are not fully completed (see Table 2 and Appendix C). The approved project morning and evening peak hour intersection turning movement volumes have been calculated and are shown on Figures 11 and 12, respectively. Regional Growth To account for regional growth on roadways, Year 2009 traffic volumes have been calculated based on a 1 percent annual growth rate of existing traffic volumes over a five -year period. The regional growth rate has been obtained from the City of Newport Beach. ' Regional growth has been added to peak hour traffic volumes on Jamboree Road, Coast Highway, and MacArthur Boulevard. One- Percent Methodology One - percent of the projected peak hour volumes of each approach of each study area intersection were compared with the peak hour distributed volumes from the proposed project. A summary of this TPO comparison is shown within Appendix D. I 1 [I �I I If one - percent of the existing + approved projects traffic peak hour volumes of each approach are larger than the peak hour "project approach volumes, no further analysis is required. Existing + approved projects morning and evening peak hour intersection turning movement volumes have been calculated and are shown on Figures 13 and 14, respectively. Existing + approved projects + project morning and evening peak hour intersection turning movement volumes have been calculated and are shown on Figures 15 and 16, respectively. If project peak hour approach volumes are higher than one - percent of the projected peak hour volumes on any approach of any intersection, the intersection would require analysis utilizing the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology. Comparison of the one - percent of the existing + approved projects traffic peak hour approach volumes with the project peak hour approach volumes resulted in the following study area intersections exceeding the one - percent threshold and requiring additional analysis (see Table 3 and Appendix D): 22 Jamboree Road (NS) at: , Eastbluff Drive /Ford Road (EW) Santa Barbara Drive (EW) Santa Cruz Road (NS) at: r San Joaquin Hills Road (EW) San Clemente Drive (EW) , Newport Center Drive (NS) at: Santa Barbara Drive (EW) Coast Highway (EW) Santa Rosa Drive /Big Canyon Drive (NS) at: r San Joaquin Hills Road (EW) MacArthur Boulevard (NS) at: Ford Road (EW) San Joaquin Hills Road (EW) , Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU The technique used to assess the operation of a signalized intersection is known as Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU). To calculate an ICU value the volume of traffic using the intersection is compared with the capacity of the intersection. An ' ICU value is usually expressed as a decimal. The decimal represents that portion of the hour required to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate all intersection traffic if all approaches operate at capacity. The Levels of Service for existing + approved projects traffic conditions have been calculated and are shown in Table 4. Existing + approved projects ICU , worksheets are provided in Appendix F. For existing + approved projects traffic conditions, the intersections in the vicinity of the site are projected to operate at Level of Service D or better during the peak hours. The Levels of Service for existing + approved projects + project traffic conditions have been calculated and are shown in Table 4. Existing + approved projects + project ICU worksheets are provided in Appendix F. For existing + approved projects + project traffic conditions, the intersections in the vicinity of the site are projected to operate at Level of Service D or better during the peak hours. ' 23 I I I I I I L� P I Table 2 Approved Project List. Project Name Fashion Island Expansion Temple Bat Yahm Expansion Ford Redevelopment Cannery Lofts Village Hoag Hospital Phase II Ciosa - Irvine Project Newport Dunes 1401 Dove Street Newport Auto Center Expansion Olsen Townhome Project Bayview Landing Senior Housing Birch Bayview Plaza II 494/496 Old Newport Boulevard 401 Old Newport Boulevard Pd•1 Table 3 TPO Analysis One - Percent Threshold ' Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 196 or projected peak how traffic. , Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICO anaysis is required. 25 Peak Approach Direction' Northboundl Southbound Eastbound Westbound Intersection Hour Jamboree Road (NS) at: Eastbluff Drive/Ford Road (EW) AM No No No No PM No No No Yes San Joaquin Hills Road (EW) AM No No No No PM No No No No Santa Barbara Drive (EW) AM No No No Yes PM No No No Yes Coast Highway (EW) AM No No No No PM No No No No Santa Cruz Road (NS) at: San Joaquin Hills Road (EW) AM Yes No No No PM No No No No San Clemente Drive (EW) AM No No Yes No PM No No No No Newport Center Drive (NS) at: Santa Barbara Drive (EW) AM Yes Yes Yes No PM Yes No Yes Yes Coast Highway (EW) AM No Yes No No PM No No No No Santa Rosa Drive/Big Canyon Drive (NS) at: San Joaquin Hills Road (EW) AM Yes No No No PM No No No No Avocado Avenue (NS) at: Coast Highway (EW) AM No No No No PM No No No No MacArthur Boulevard (NS) at: Ford Road (EW) AM No No Yes No PM No No No No San Joaquin Hills Road (EW) AM No No Yes No PM No No No No San Miguel Drive (EW) AM No No No No PM No No No No Hospital Drive (EW) AM No No No No PM No No No No ' Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 196 or projected peak how traffic. , Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICO anaysis is required. 25 iI ' Table 4 TPO Analysis Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) and Levels of Service (LOS) I I I I I I ' ICULOS I bo-rseet en Cepbeily llltlheuen. Lent N amv[e ' MI. b right Nm 4n1 n eespnbRa. the bnn nn eMet be surge t or ..11n d. To 1urcWn Its b Poll urn bee. Nnb must be sNri4nt rbN her roll burning vvek4s b brvel outside Ilw erst Wws. L = Let T I Tbreuob: R = RbbL» • Free Rol TUrn eTS •T4ec SCnel 26 Peak Hour ICU-LOS' Existing Inte section Lanes' Existing' Approved Projects. Northbound SouthtmLW Eastbwrld Westbound Traffic A roved Pro' Pro ICUlncrease Intersection Control' L T R L T R L T R L T R Moming Evening Morning Evening Morning Evening Jamboree Road (NS) at Eastbluff DriverFOrd Road (EW) TS 2 3 0 1 3 1 1 1 1» 0 3 1 0.78C 0.67 -B O.78C O,67 -B +0.00 .0.00 Santa Barbara Rive TS 1 3 1 2 3 1 1 1 0 0 2 1 0.57 -A 0.55 -A 0.57 -A 0.55 -A .0.00 .0.00 Santa Cruz Road (NS) at San Joaquin FFlls Road (EW) TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 3 0 1 3 0 0.34 -A 0,41-A 0.34-A 0.41 -A +0.00 +0.00 San Clemente Rive TS 1 3 0 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0.16-A 0.19 -A 0A6-A 0,19 -A .0.00 +0.00 Newport Center Rive (NS) al: Santa Barbara Drive (EW) TS 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 0 2 0 0.12 -A 0.21 -A 0.13 -A 0.22 -A +0,01 +0.01 Coast H TS 0 0 0 2 0 1» 2 3 0 0 3 1» 0.37 -A 0.58-A 0.37 -A 0.58 -A +0.00 +0.00 Santa Rosa DriverSig Canyon Rive (NS) at San Joaquin 1-ths Road TS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 0 2 3 0 0.33A 0.48 -A 0.33A 0,49 -A .0.00 .0.01 MacArthur Boulevard (NS) at: Ford Road (EW) TS 2 4 1» 2 4 1» 2 2 1 2 2 1>> O.75C 0.698 0.75C 0.69 -8 X0.00 X0.00 San Joaquin Hills Road (EW) TS 2 3 1 2 3 1>> 2 2 0 1 2 1>>1 0.63 -B 0.81 -D 0.638 0.81 -D X0.00 X0.00 ' ICULOS I bo-rseet en Cepbeily llltlheuen. Lent N amv[e ' MI. b right Nm 4n1 n eespnbRa. the bnn nn eMet be surge t or ..11n d. To 1urcWn Its b Poll urn bee. Nnb must be sNri4nt rbN her roll burning vvek4s b brvel outside Ilw erst Wws. L = Let T I Tbreuob: R = RbbL» • Free Rol TUrn eTS •T4ec SCnel 26 Figure 11 Approved Projects Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes Eoslbluff Drive — Clemente Santo Barbaro Drive 7 site 6 's Santo Row _� y / parkway Newport Center Drive Son Miguel /� DOW / 13 105 v 1114 v 107 v 1 o=0 �I 4 o 4 g 7 ot=— �o P o dbbs7 4 dbbspl0n 4 IJv gap� Co TO �o 0—D O ^^ al 0—°0.0 14 1� 0� 14 �0 , 0 75 90 o ru 0 7 5 dbb9 0 l0 bo—D dsa. a o -J It 6—JI sa a P-2 99"o dbbsa a dbbsi 9 sa 4 dbbsa Bonito Canyon i Drive K ° 1114 v II9v ° —D0� J d" bb 4 g a4 7 l S 4 D 6 � IJv gap� Co Bonito Canyon i Drive K ° 1114 v II9v J d" bb 4 g a4 7 l S 4 D 6 � IJv " gap� Co TO �o 11 al 14 1� 14 �0 , ao 90 7 a0 0 l0 bo—D dsa. a o -J It 6—JI sa a 4 dbbsa a dbbsi 9 sa 4 dbbsa 9 a� � T I° ° a� °I T I° ° o a °I T r RE02 9 T r ao 0o Jv IJv 9 Co TO �o 11 al a0 14 �0 dbbsa 4 dbbsa a dbbsi 9 sa 4 dbbsa 9 9 I� � T I° ° °' °I T I° ° If °I T r RE02 9 T r 76 —D OOO I—D — ^0000 0� 7� 0� l0 a 0 7 0 0 a Ku7mTwn Associates Intersection reference numbers ore in upper left corner of turning movement boxes. 3124 /bbos 27 Figure 12 Approved Projects Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes Eastbluff (Hive — Santa Barbara Drive i Site Newport Center Drive � 9 P 104 o�9TP 0 — 7 X 23 I� — 0� ) 0 si a dbb7 s a a dbbsi' s12 a ° T P a ° 4 a dbbsa — 1 -0�I�tP a-a 40 n7 a o� e 0_ 00 5 t0 6 �0 ° dbbsa a dbbso 1 T r a ° = a t6 a Jbb�o a 47� Cruzl 6 San Miguel Drive ' Santa Rosa / Parkway 13 Bonita Canyon i Drive E 97 0 P ° 79 0 o�9TP 7 �I o�9TP 9 I� — 0� ) 0 0 6 e dbbs� � 0 Cruzl 6 San Miguel Drive ' Santa Rosa / Parkway 13 Bonita Canyon i Drive E 97 0 P O o 79 0 I e 7 �I Is o 9 5 — 0� ) 0 0 6 e dbbs� e 0 a dbbsi' s12 a ° a ° a dbbsa 1 -0�I�tP dbbso 40 dbbs° a o� 0_ e � 19�IITr e � ° 7f9tP ° xe 1 T r = a t6 a Jbb�o a 47� 28 P O o I e Is o 15 a 0� ) 0 0 6 e — e 0 28 O o I e Is o 15 a ) 0 6 e — 41 to s12 a dbbso a dbbs7 a dbbsa a dbbso a dbbs° a 19�IITr ° 7f9tP ° 14 1 T r Kunzman Associates Intersection reference numbers ore in upper left corner of turning movement boxes. 1124/bbos 28 Figure 13 Existing + Approved Projects Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes Easlbluff Drive - San gemente Santa Barbara 3 Drive 1 Drive Sonta Cruz 6 Drives ..4D Slte Newport Center Drive � 1 3 v D � 775v 33-9 ^ 1 — °R 175 0-4 — 2 A_3 LI21 �� - dbbsne 9-377 a of b 9—I6 124 4 D 3I1�� T D 263 T ( 116 -D g�_;e 51—D R-8 517 Sz 57 =- e 1979 1485 e 1 51 31 v 124 v 124 v - 6 a =_ 176 dlb�i a dlb�t— �bb�13 D a R D 57s1Tr 56 � ;e R C 46� e 95 Son Miguel Drive ' Sonia Rosa / parkway 13 Bonita Canyon / Drive v D � 1037 v 33-9 ^ 3 ., §' 175 0-4 1449 -0000 4 0 ma, 9i 572.. LI21 �� - dbb4 57 9 7 9 D 27= 1114 jTr 2-0 llils 4v_r -- — Sz — 17� e 1 51 124 v 124 v - 7 dlb�i a dlb�t— 4-a a D n�1tP D D � �s°iTID 33-9 ^ ^�° 1 1449 -0000 U6� ^ a� n 1 a K1L7tZ171d74 ASSpC1di2S Intersection reference numbers are in upper left [owner of fuming movement boxes. 3124 /bbos of in upper left [owner of fuming movement boxes. 3124 /bbos of Figure 14 Existing + Approved Projects Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning. Movement Volumes Easibluff Drive — Santa Barbara Drive site Newport Center Drive � E7 6 San Miguel Drive ' Santa Rosa / parkway 13 Bonita Canyon i Drive 7273 v TP °° 2239, 4�m - 4=119 N R1418 a 9 !". _ a 4E, 9 705�1YP zM 4-1790 - 11 &m '° - 2749 9•-130 3i - Nv 5 za 17 , ]S - ° 6 v t25 dlbsu a A dbbslo 4•-54 - a dlbsn 419 dl6s259 u7 v 4 6s27 154�RpR a dlbs199 J7� °�� 4 S15 t P 9 � ]13 E7 6 San Miguel Drive ' Santa Rosa / parkway 13 Bonita Canyon i Drive 96 v 7273 v TP °° 2239, 4�m - 4=119 1358 v dbbsi79ii a 9 !". _ a 4E, 9 705�1YP zM 4-1790 - 11 &m '° - 2749 9•-130 3i - 1{01 -0R X395 4-196 17 , ]S - ° z20 � x-751 I4 X675 4-Ilal dlbs776 4 dlbsn 419 dl6s259 u7 v 4 6s27 a dlbs199 a dlbsa 4 57791 t P 9 110 9 ib > j1- 9 T P 1 A��;l 690-s °I T P 6 490 I T P 117�R^,�R I71�I� 16655 96 v TP °° 2239, 96 v 525, 2239, 1 1358 v 1168 v 9 !". _ a 248 4'-757 la - zM 4-1790 - 11 &m '° - 2749 9•-130 3i - X395 4-196 17 , ]S - ° z20 � x-751 I4 X675 4-Ilal dlbs776 4 dlbsn a dl6s259 4 6s27 a dlbs199 a dlbsa 4 ns'I t P 9 110 9 ib > j1- 9 T P 1 0 690-s °I T P 6 490 I T P 117�R^,�R I71�I� 16655 _ m59��P llp�°o° A 666 77e i7 1709 1237 0 Kunz7wn Associates Intersection reference numbers are in upper left corner of turning movement boxes. 3124fbbas 30 Figure 15 Existing + Approved Projects + Project Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes Eostbluff Drive — Santa Barbaro Drive Cruz 6 y Santa Rosa Parkway Site Newport Center Give `. San Miguel Drive / 13 Bonito Canyon Drive 6 9 0 3118 0 185 0- 1 --;e l b zl6 ^ X377 sn9 4 2 -� 1 l 221 ^_ X16 ,1,24 4 X 1999 ° 311'1_Y_P 316 -> _ ^ X- ° 261'1YP 51-9 (y; g 547 14 2-9 5 57 � - 1816 -0 17� �^ - 1941 51 1125 v n 1497 A o 21269 31 0 12 g3�m 1705 7 zl g 5 ^34^ dlbs226 z 20 X343 4 6 '.ac° dlbsl3 226 �I7 4 ° 57J1YP ^ dlbsa ° 59- 1YP ° 4-986 512 -9 SR a X377 56-9 R 5i ^ �� 200 .'dam_ 4-29OR 46 � 145 X810 0� e 81 a 95 Bonito Canyon Drive 6 31 1574 0 1099 0 185 0- Q� ^_^•^ d1b X47 59 4 4 �5t 416x83 X 1999 ^ 4 ° 27s1YP °1146s1YP 1 14 2-9 5 ^= 9 1816 -0 17� �^ n 1 51 1125 v 129 0 21269 12 g3�m 1705 7 zl g 8 L160 14" 21071 dbbs3 �6 a ^ dlbsa 1225^ 4 ° 4-986 °I��hYP 16s6ee X377 xo,QA �� .'dam_ 4-29OR 145 X810 0� 31 185 0- 2590 0 2%0 0 1382 a 900 0 10 i117 11 F.^� 21269 12 g3�m 1705 3ti z7 _ 14" 21071 :;PR dlbsat 4-986 = 16s6ee X377 �.�. �� .'dam_ 4-29OR dlbsa X810 a 4 dlbsl9 4 dlbsn2 1 4 W61444 ° 192-4 tS ° 4/'1YP ° n0- 1 ° 20/J1YP ° 14DV -9 ��o 182 -9 I¢E,R 202 -9 RRn 81-9 _�� 1012-0-- - 26� 81� - 45� = 21� = 0� 22 497 a 1602 1 0 Kunzman Associates Intersection reference numbers are in upper left corner of tuming movement boxes. 3124 /bbos 31 Figure 16 Existing + Approved Projects + Project Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes Eastbluff Drive — Clemente Santa Barbara Drive Cruz 6 ; s Santa Ram m: y Parkway site Newport Center Drive I Son Migue� Drive 13 345 5 4 0 120 1 3m3 i t 151'3 Bonita Canyon Drive `a � 9 r �R, `N�' n sal 41bb 172 9 10 3 27�1gP a 710 ITP 1` -0ags - IIOI�Rre 14 ---120T-- n {I9 725 0 [1748 7 4-25 4-3.3 d -1792 160;* I6�"ay� mom- a 96 a 525 - 2240 - 2116 - 1758 o 1168 e 9 4-48 100° 4_N 11 t7 49 12 ,,,�Q 4-395 nay 4-20 F 1 4 2 4-675 $ R S! 4J b b s2 28 d tl b b 4-1394 - `�� 4-232 - �"�+ 4-237 -O 4-252 %+ °� 4-1105 s71 4 � b b x260 4 alb b s27 a � b b x199 4 4 1 to so 4 2112 e 110J1gP ' 71 -'1qP ' 609J1gP a 69031T a 4903'1 qP Ilq Bma 200�"aL 404�W5V 377�M =5i _1250 ° 65� - 123 59� 0� 668 223 26 n 1709 0 Kunzmmn Associates Intersection reference numbers are in upper left corner of turning movement boxes. 3124/bbas 32 1990 0 2 2069 0 db6sii0 9 23 2 2 k k e 2 3 v 2o�`i o1q� 3 vb1aP -1977 1 1 423 R- Bonita Canyon Drive `a � 9 r �R, `N�' n sal 41bb 172 9 10 3 27�1gP a 710 ITP 1` -0ags - IIOI�Rre 14 ---120T-- n {I9 725 0 [1748 7 4-25 4-3.3 d -1792 160;* I6�"ay� mom- a 96 a 525 - 2240 - 2116 - 1758 o 1168 e 9 4-48 100° 4_N 11 t7 49 12 ,,,�Q 4-395 nay 4-20 F 1 4 2 4-675 $ R S! 4J b b s2 28 d tl b b 4-1394 - `�� 4-232 - �"�+ 4-237 -O 4-252 %+ °� 4-1105 s71 4 � b b x260 4 alb b s27 a � b b x199 4 4 1 to so 4 2112 e 110J1gP ' 71 -'1qP ' 609J1gP a 69031T a 4903'1 qP Ilq Bma 200�"aL 404�W5V 377�M =5i _1250 ° 65� - 123 59� 0� 668 223 26 n 1709 0 Kunzmmn Associates Intersection reference numbers are in upper left corner of turning movement boxes. 3124/bbas 32 96 a 525 - 2240 - 2116 - 1758 o 1168 e 9 4-48 100° 4_N 11 t7 49 12 ,,,�Q 4-395 nay 4-20 F 1 4 2 4-675 $ R S! 4J b b s2 28 d tl b b 4-1394 - `�� 4-232 - �"�+ 4-237 -O 4-252 %+ °� 4-1105 s71 4 � b b x260 4 alb b s27 a � b b x199 4 4 1 to so 4 2112 e 110J1gP ' 71 -'1qP ' 609J1gP a 69031T a 4903'1 qP Ilq Bma 200�"aL 404�W5V 377�M =5i _1250 ° 65� - 123 59� 0� 668 223 26 n 1709 0 Kunzmmn Associates Intersection reference numbers are in upper left corner of turning movement boxes. 3124/bbas 32 32 I 6. CEQA Analysis ' 1 The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis (this part of the analysis , is consistent with CEQA) included analysis of the same study area intersections as the TPO analysis. Cumulative Proiects t The City of Newport Beach staff provided the cumulative projects in the study area for the CEQA analysis. Cumulative projects are known, but not approved project developments that are reasonably expected to be completed or nearly completed at the same time as the proposed project. The cumulative project list is shown in , Table 5 and the cumulative project traffic generation is included in Appendix E. Appendix E contains the directional distribution of the cumulative project traffic. The cumulative project morning and evening peak hour intersection turning , movement volumes have been calculated and are shown on Figures 17 and 18, respectively. The CEQA traffic volumes were obtained by adding the cumulative projects traffic , volumes to the TPO traffic volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) The technique used to assess the operation of a signalized intersection is known ' as Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU). To calculate an ICU value the volume of traffic using the intersection is compared with the capacity of the intersection. An ICU value is usually expressed as a decimal. The decimal represents that portion ' of the hour required to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate all intersection traffic if all approaches operate at capacity. The Levels of Service for existing + approved projects + cumulative projects traffic conditions have been calculated and are shown in Table 6. Existing + approved projects + cumulative projects morning and evening peak hour intersection turning ' movement volumes have been calculated and are shown on Figures 19 and 20, respectively. Existing + approved projects + cumulative projects ICU worksheets , are provided in Appendix F. For existing + approved projects + cumulative projects traffic conditions, the intersections in the vicinity of the site are projected to operate at Level of Service D or better during the peak hours. ' The Levels of Service for existing + approved projects + cumulative projects + project traffic conditions have been calculated and are shown in Table 6. Existing ' + approved projects + cumulative projects + project morning and evening peak hour intersection turning movement volumes have been calculated and are shown 1 33 �I 11 LJ I I I I .1 F- L on Figures 21 and 22, respectively. Existing + approved projects + cumulative projects + project ICU worksheets are provided in Appendix F. For existing + approved projects ± cumulative projects + project traffic conditions, the intersections in the vicinity of the site are projected to operate at Level of Service D or better during the peak hours. 34 Table 5 Cumulative Project List Project Name South Coast Shipyard Morman Temple Saint Mark Presbyterian Our Lady Queen of Angels St. Andrews Church Mariners Church Exodus Community Center Newport Coast - TAZ 1 Newport Coast - TAZ 2 Newport Coast - TAZ 3 Newport Coast - TAZ 4 Newport Ridge - TAZ 1 Newport Ridge - TAZ 2 Newport Ridge - TAZ 3 Bonita Canyon - Residential 35 ' Table 6 CEOA Analysis Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) and Levels of Service (LOS) I 1 I 1.1 I V F1 I .' 'ICU-Los =xM on cwatly uavatim- LMN� 'w-46 to-faros ftS SSW. m lam can eYwN aHGa<wul+.4ae. To Mara n a 001 W km. M mu.l Eea+etl wft b Out lmin0 vdJrla.b trawl aNYa M xaaph,00m. L= Le. T =TN h: R M^>> =F-p Two IS =Tm goa 36 Peak Hour ICU -LOS' Existing + Existing' Approved Projects + Intersection A roach Lanes' Approved Projects + Cumulative Projects+ NoMbound Southbound Eastbound I Westbound Traffic Cumulative Projects Project ICU Increase L T R L T R L T R L T R Morning Evening Morning Evening Morning Eveni Intersection Control' Jamboree Road (NS) at Eastblu6 DrivelFord Road (EVV) TS 2 3 0 1 3 1 1 1 1» 0 3 1 0.85 -D 0.78-C 0.85 -D 0.78-C +0.00 .0.00 Same Barbara Drive TS 1 3 1 2 3 1 1 1 0 0 2 1 0.61 -B 0.60 -A 0.62 -B 0.60-A +0.01 +0.00 Santa Cnrz Road (NS) at San Joaquin Fills Road (EVV) TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 3 0 1 3 0 0.35 -A 0.42 -A 0.35-A 0.42 -A +0.00 +0.00 San Clemente Drive TS 1 3 0 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0.16 -A 0.19 -A 0.16 -A 0.19 -A +0.00 +0.00 Newport Center Dive (NS) at: Santa Barbara Drive (EW) TS 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 0 2 0 0.12 -A 0.21 -A 0.13-A 0.22 -A +0.01 +0.01 Coast Highway TS 0 0 0 2 0 1>> 2 3 0 0 3 1>>1 0.47 -A 0.66 -13 0.47 -A 0.66 -13 +0.00 +0.00 Same Rosa DnveGig Canyon Drive (NS) at San Joaquin Fills Road TS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 0 2 3 0 0.36 -A 0.55 -A 0.37 -A 0.55 -A +0.01 +0.00 MacArthur Boulevard INS) at: Ford Road (EVV) TS 2 4 1» 2 4 1» 2 2 1 2 2 1» 0.81-0 0.80 -C 0.81 -D 0.81 -D +0.00 .0.01 San Joaquin Fills Road (EM TS 2 3 1 2 3 1» 2 2 0 1 2 1 > 0.70 -B 0.8&D 0.MB O.BB-D +0.00 +0.00 'ICU-Los =xM on cwatly uavatim- LMN� 'w-46 to-faros ftS SSW. m lam can eYwN aHGa<wul+.4ae. To Mara n a 001 W km. M mu.l Eea+etl wft b Out lmin0 vdJrla.b trawl aNYa M xaaph,00m. L= Le. T =TN h: R M^>> =F-p Two IS =Tm goa 36 Figure 17 Cumulative Projects Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes Eastbluff Drive — Clemente Santa Barbaro Drive Site 6 y� Sonia Rosa 1 ,p / Parkway Newport Center Drive Son Miguel // 41 Drive / 13 Bonita Canyon i Drive �0 1 116 v R ° 2s�9TP 1 '22 n�9TP t$ a� a- p _ a Jbbs566 a a dbbsi a ° 11�1TP ° a�1TP 21 pp- o—o = &- 15� 0� 257 207 a- 0� 5 *gyp 6 �p dbbso a Jb4s00 a ° Bonita Canyon i Drive �0 1 116 v R ° 2s�9TP 10 1 n�9TP a� a� a- p a a Bonita Canyon i Drive �0 1 116 v R J 1 10 1 RN J a- p pp- a- a- 76- 173- Rim 160— 185- *gyp 10 Co — It IJ — �o a I/ �IIJ �7fi �a $dgbss+ a sa a db dbbs9 a dbbsa ° a"IT° as'ITP ° a °° JITP ° �s°IT50� = =/8� — s��°a^ 106 --° a� 17� a� 11 0 Ku=man Associates Intersection reference numbers are in upper left corner of turning movement boxes. 3124 /bbas 37 Ku=man Associates Intersection reference numbers are in upper left corner of turning movement boxes. 3124 /bbas 37 Figure 18 Cumulative Projects Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes Eastbluff Drive — Santo Barbara Drive _ Site Newport Center Drive � 160 v 1 X13 �0 /—a ° bbsii dbbsa a� a a "J_ -01 1 P W ffll as 170 ore 0 e pe 5 �p 6 to ° :07 : a Jbbsa a a Jbbsa6 1 0 1 1 P ° n�c-D o p s1e-1 e p Ml, San Uiquel Drive ' Santo Rosa / Parkway 13 Bonito Canton i Drive F 110 v 3 �0 /—a ° dbbsa a� a "J_ W as 0 e 1 e 7 �a ° 0 to dbbsn a Jbbsa6 1 0 1 1 P ° n�c-D s1e-1 ore ore me 219e 59� 1BIe 9 to 11 21} 11 2� F: 2gp X71 4-356 R� a-9a R °F X65 4-111 1 -51 a sa a 1 -116 b1 -a 1 °II° ° b90 17es75 -0518 ° IH -0 97 -0 J50 -0000 a� 19 /8 Kunzman Associates Intersection reference numbers ore in upper Jett corner of turning movement banes. 3124/bbas 38 c a� a a� 2gp X71 4-356 R� a-9a R °F X65 4-111 1 -51 a sa a 1 -116 b1 -a 1 °II° ° b90 17es75 -0518 ° IH -0 97 -0 J50 -0000 a� 19 /8 Kunzman Associates Intersection reference numbers ore in upper Jett corner of turning movement banes. 3124/bbas 38 Kunzman Associates Intersection reference numbers ore in upper Jett corner of turning movement banes. 3124/bbas 38 Figure 19 Existing + Approved Projects + Cumulative Projects Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes Easlbfuff Drive — Santa Barbaro Drive ---) r Sanlo Cruz 6 -r Santa Rom Drives "o Porkwoy Ste oy $ 7 9 12 ;u 2 Newport Center Drive Son Miguel �6., Drive / 13 'J 1 [1 Bonito Canyon / Drive ' 1 7 Re ga 16lo o Q00 v I 2 - w ] 275 1 2297 9 n n'ad a-N2 8 - a 0-1 - R ti 1-1292 =e sv1 a dbbsu / Jbb a3 a ° 322�aIp�1 10 ° 2799YP °If7291T10 5362 = -� 8--0a ^� 1913a 0 2196 14 a 513 700 3I2o a7� 1260 5 Q-p 6 226 0 9 2159 101 a°O 0 -17 - &' o'�X17116- Jbbsu 1 ° 57�1Tr ° s7�1Tr A ° m— 'M7- N -= 56 -O PtR e 162) 200- fd-a ti o g5 I o RE 195 0 2666 0 3070 0 1512 o 1095 0 10 2117 II 8 21312 le 12 �.. Q-75I 3.., a. 27 'per. 1 21211 FR 0-1166 - �+ 0-520 �'fq^= 1-556 ^�- 0-299 '� -+r 0-1165 dbbs93 / Jbbs764 / dbbcg121 / ° 1921 1� T r ° 111� T r ° 112-9 1� I �0 ° 2071 1� T r ° s9o-S1� T r Im-O ��g Wn Pte- 2)1-0 lean 91-,^11 1113-00°° ]6-9, - 91-1. ^' /s-a Nom_ = as a 72) °769) I ) Kunzman Associates Intersection reference numbers are in upper left wrner of turning movement bores. 3124 /bbas 39 11 Figure 20 Existing + Approved Projects + Cumulative Projects Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes Eostblu if Drive — Santa Barbara Drive _ Site Newport Center Drive � 2211 a 1 2116 0 1 _36 4-143 ;Q 2 2_ 9 °I - 2126 4-76 - *11 10 s1/6 14 J b b stn 4 D 'f` fD D 765 D - 12 -0 a - g —D R 9_f p X441 52-0 :4 - e� 3e7� 14 Rio- 4-77] 51� 4-328 x277 n 119 Jbba7 < 2201 4 Jbbs346 - 1601 440 *1 b 7 4-25 A 8- 5 �a Jbbs 29 Jbb�21/e ^ 4-162 D 13� 4i Y l° D 01 i 6 -43 1 694 01 D 120 lO �RR� Rggmpq�54 412 -0 ee,R -- 65�-9� 151 Pe_ ��an 536 1599000 K7 6 San Miguel Drive ' Santa Rosa / Parkway 13 Bonita Canyon ,/ Drive 2091 0 1 2443 N6Ie 4-310 ;Q 11130 1 u OR - J b to 27 408 a J b b si2l 4 01 27� 'f` fD D 765 Y fa - 12 -0 a - g 17a m9 g; e X441 1�- 13-s - e� ,L`e 14 Rio- 4-77] .11 4-328 x277 n 119 Jbba7 323 o 4 Jbbs346 an 0 141 *1 b 7 4-25 A 8- L167 ^ Jbbs 29 a Jbb�21/e so a D 13� 4i Y l° D II S-0 A r,;g 694 01 %S-41T ° �RR� 1��8.�.5 %0 5250 N6Ie 1276 -0000 11130 12J� - 15920 a� 11520 %0 5250 N6Ie 11130 15920 11520 9 049 la m °- 244 - II 7 `�mR 4-792 = 12� &� X441 13-s - �2a ,L`e 14 Rio- 4-77] .11 4-328 x277 4 Jbba7 4-17/6 4 Jbbs346 9-31a 141 *1 b 4-351 143 4 41 b 4-251 2DS 4 Jbbso 4-1315 a ° 22 1 T r 01 110 -1YID D 31s1Tr D ° 694 01 %S-41T ° �RR� 1��8.�.5 65�-9� Pe_ ��an 1599000 715 a 218 a fllt < 195 a Kunaman Associates Intersection reference numbers are in upper left carne of turning movement boxes. 3121 /bbas 40 1 Figure 21 Existing + Approved Projects + Cumulative Projects + Project Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes Eastbluff Drive — Clemente Santa Barbara Drive --� Cruz 6 ; s Santa Rasa rem y_ / Parkway Site Newport l:en� Drive / 1 San Miguel %e Q4,_ Drive 13 Bonita Canyon i Drive 2 �D� 1690 0 120 226) o 185 4 _ 25 2 T V R dbbs127 L76 4-16 a L291 5071 o W 0 281 dbbs10 4 1085 279 -0RR 9 IC 10 1 --PR 57� ^�� 11 H 8 191] -0�+�,_ ^ 12 -- B A � L751 4-556 a 11W 70 0 L2 4-296 ]12 14 � _ ^ L1214 4-1166 14 5 L20 5 L26 513 124 � dlbs22228 4 Jlbs3 4 a 0 57'1Tr 7 0 59 "ITP LM0 Jbba11 5n -0N -o Jbbs0 56 -0°5i^ H 19261 2W� 0 444 46� 0 145-4 %? l0 0 2916 8 IQ 590' 995 Bonita Canyon i Drive 2 �D� 1690 0 120 1215 - 185 4 _ 25 L81 Si L291 5071 o Q Jlb'59 a dbbs10 4 1085 279 11111s1TP 9 IC 10 1 --PR 2 -0 ^�� 11 H 8 191] -0�+�,_ ^ 12 -- B A � L751 4-556 5� ^ � L2 4-296 11�'` 14 � _ ^ L1214 4-1166 14 dbbs496 4 513 124 � 4 u1 4 Jlbs124 7 L1 0 8 LM0 Jbba11 . bbsi Jbbs0 4 0 19261 T r 0 444 6162n, 0 145-4 %? l0 0 2916 SMS -0�m IQ 590' -9 eel el 4113 --r 145 - g 0� 28I�Q 245�� 1 41 120 185 2666 0 5071 o I 1085 9 IC L67 4-567 1 --PR L117 4-1461 = 11 H 8 L1342 4-521 ^ 12 -- B A � L751 4-556 ^ � L2 4-296 � �' 14 � _ ^ L1214 4-1166 - dbbs496 4 bb4-a1 4 JbbsM 4 Jlbs124 4 Jbbs221 4 Jbba11 4 0 4e' T r 0 19261 T r 0 444 1 T r 0 145-4 %? l0 0 2916 1 T l0 0 590' 41 T r 4113 --r 126 g 28I�Q 245�� IIIO�000 ^k -'N -^ e 129 a 223 2697 1773 e 0 Kunzman Associates Intersection reference numbers ore in upper left corner of turning movement boxes. 3124/bbas 41 Figure 22 Existing + Approved Projects + Cumulative Projects + Project Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes Eastbluff Drive — Clemente Santa Barbara Drive - Site 6 ry- Santa Rasa _1 y Parkway Newport Center Drive \ San Miguel Drive 13 Bonita Canyon Drive 2 v % e 2344 e 525 a 1 Jbb1 L36 49 d 2 I��. Jbbstn LI26 0 2335 a a 0 255--0 367 14 —f0 51� pp= -- e 2207 a 1606 yry, 10 L44 9-1750 119 M v 11 671 0 12 ,� I. ._,€ L441 9-552 5 " bs4 LO 9-162 4 t25 R 1411 LM 8 9-51 s20 0 IMs 11T� F33� ry r 0 367 412-0 151 � me.� � a 116 -0_aR a 2276 -0 539 1 311 Bonita Canyon Drive 2 42 % e 525 a 3 J d b t345 sill a 1 m J b b L213 x17267 NQ 2335 a C 0 14 12-o 1� ry 9 9R- 1729 -0 6� yry, 10 L44 9-1750 119 325 a 11 671 0 12 ,� I. ._,€ L441 9-552 ] .. .. 7 �b6s29 t25 R 1411 0 albbso L171 9-1116 141 D 4 ry r 0 367 ry 1 a 116 -0_aR a 2276 -0 eoe 1 17� 0� a 0 21s f 10 42 % e 525 a 2462 a 2335 a 1 2 0 9 9R- L49 9-329 10 L44 9-1750 - 11 ..R 1792 9-]20 = 12 ,� I. ._,€ L441 9-552 ] .. .. t2O 9-252 1719 s279 a Jbbsn a Jbbs347 a dbbs143 1 o a 0 21s f 10 0 Il0- % f 0 311 % f 0 6191 % f [16 510-0 g 1611 -D g ,�„ a .311 -0 ^ ✓_ - 197-0 117 49� - 655 �` 178 717 229 2&31 1957 0 Ku= man Associates Intersection reference numbers are in upper left corner of turning movement bakes. 3124/bbas 42 7. GPA Analysis , 1 The GPA analysis traffic volumes have been obtained from the City of Newport , Beach. The GPA analysis does not take into account any trip credits for the site. Since, under General Plan Buildout traffic conditions, all entitlement for the site is shifted to the adjacent hotel. , Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) The technique used to assess the operation of a signalized intersection is known , as Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU). To calculate an ICU value the volume of traffic using the intersection is compared with the capacity of the intersection. An ' ICU value is usually expressed as a decimal. The decimal represents that portion of the hour required to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate all intersection traffic if all approaches operate at capacity. , The Levels of Service for General Plan Buildout without project traffic conditions have been calculated and are shown in Table 7. General Plan Buildout without , project morning and evening peak hour intersection turning movement volumes have been calculated and are shown on Figures 23 and 24, respectively General Plan Buildout without project ICU worksheets are provided in Appendix F. For ' General Plan Buildout without project traffic conditions, the intersections in the vicinity of the site are projected to operate at Level of Service D or better during the peak hours, except for the following study area intersections that are projected t to operate at Level of Service E/F during the evening peak hour: MacArthur Boulevard (NS) at: ' Ford Road (EW) San Joaquin Hills Road (EW) The Levels of Service for General Plan Buildout with project traffic conditions have been calculated and are shown in Table 7. General Plan Buildout with project morning and evening peak hour intersection turning movement volumes have ' been calculated and are shown on Figures 25 and 26, respectively General Plan Buildout with project ICU worksheets are provided in Appendix F. For General Plan Buildout with project traffic conditions, the intersections in the vicinity of the site are projected to operate at Level of Service D or better during the peak hours, except for the following study area intersections that are projected to operate at Level of Service E/F during the evening peak hour: ' MacArthur Boulevard (NS) at: Ford Road (EW) t San Joaquin Hills Road (EW) ' 43 1 I ' Comparison of the one - percent increase in the General Plan Buildout ICU between the without project and with project traffic conditions (see Table 7) ' resulted in no study area intersections exceeding the one - percent threshold. 1 1 1 1 1 -1 1 1 1 Table 7 1 GPA Analysis Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) and Levels of Service (LOS) I ICU -Los - Mhenetkwo Ce9edry Utdask s, - Level W 5wda ' Z WMn. r9kh non Lane n asghuhe0. Me We ran ~ M eMW a unsbved. To Mwtian as. ryM em I.n.. Tne nun W sulkti.nh wNk M h5N seems, wn' Jes m bawl pasNe N. ftm h h Wvs. L - Lea T - Thruh: R•RiK FM RNM T. 3 T = TaeFSppW 1 s Less Man one- Femenr jrueass wlhuh u b3 detimal leaps. Peak Hour ICU -LOS' Emshng Eusling a Approved Projeds e Intersection A Proach Larlesz Approved Projeds a Cumulaeve Projeds e NoMbound SOUtbb.W Eastbound Westbound Tr8ft CumWative Proleds PR iw ICU Increase Intersection ConM[W L T R L T R L T R L T R Mooning Evening Monning EMmnim Morning Evan Jamboree Road (NS) at Easiblue DdveJFad Rome! (EW) TS 2 3 0 1 3 1 1 1 1» 0 3 1 0.74 -C 0.70 -B 0.74 -C 0.70 -B W.00 WAD San Joaquin Hills Road (EW) TS 1 3 1» 2 3 1» 0 3 1» 0 3 1 0.81 -B 0.63-B 0.61 -B 0.63-B WAO •0.00 Santa Barbara Drive (EW) TS 1 3 1 2 3 1 1 1 0 0 2 1 0.52 -A (.69 -B 0.53 -A 0.71 -C •0.01 W.02 Coast Hi n E TS 1 2 0 1 2 1» 3 4 0 2 4 1» 0.84 -D 0.87-0 0a4-D 0.87 -D +0.00 W.00 Santa Cruz Road (NS) at: San Joaqu, Hips Road TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 3 0 1 3 0 0.38-A 0.51 -A 0.36 -A 0.51 -A WAD W.00 Nevport Caesar Drive (NS) at Coast Hi bsv TS 0 0 0 2 0 1» 2 3 0 0 3 1» 0.51 -A 0.62 -B 0.51 -A 0.62 -B +0.00 W.00 Santa Rosa Driveft Canyon Drive (NS) at an oagum Hitia Road E TS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 0 2 3 0 0.34-A 0.66 -B 0.34-A 0.66 -8 •0.00 •0.00 M ur Boulevard (NS) at: Ford Road (EW) TS 2 4 1» 2 4 1» 2 2 1 2 2 1» 0.76 -C 1.07 -F 0.77 -C 1.08 -F e0.01 W.OA San Joaquin Hills Road (EW) TS 2 3 1 2 3 1» 2 2 0 1 2 1» 0.71 -C 0.96E 0.71 -C 0.87 -E e0.00 W.Ofe San Miguel Drive (EW) TS 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 2 1 2 2 0 0.58-A 0.72 -C 0.58-A 0.72 -C e0.00 W.00 Coast Highway (EW) TS 0 0 0 2 0 1» 2 3 0 0 3 1» 0.72 -C 0.81 -D I 0.72 -C 0.81 -D W.00 W.00 I ICU -Los - Mhenetkwo Ce9edry Utdask s, - Level W 5wda ' Z WMn. r9kh non Lane n asghuhe0. Me We ran ~ M eMW a unsbved. To Mwtian as. ryM em I.n.. Tne nun W sulkti.nh wNk M h5N seems, wn' Jes m bawl pasNe N. ftm h h Wvs. L - Lea T - Thruh: R•RiK FM RNM T. 3 T = TaeFSppW 1 s Less Man one- Femenr jrueass wlhuh u b3 detimal leaps. 45 1 Figure 23 General Plan Buildout Without Project Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes Eastbluff Drive Bonita canyon 1 R� �Drive F «d 11 2 0 San Clemente m Santo Barbaro 3 Drive 59 °h $ Drive Santo Cruz 6 ys Santo Row k`4 Drine� y Parkway Site A $ 7 9 J 12 '714 Z Newport Center c0as� Drive \ San Mi uell Drive 13 oy �c Q 178o 2200 a g° 1480 a 177D e� 1R $ FI90o 2vFo F10 8 r 30 � �� = IM �,i90 Jbbs270 a Jbbslao 4 JbbaaO a Jbbs,m a c 10 1 100 o� oe 1me 5 i JD a to 7 4_o = a tlao RQR FXo 4—o Fo 8oR FI480 4 Jso 4 ao 4 Jlbso 4 0 0 o�1° °ISMi lTl° o� a� 150 v o e lOBD v 3130 v 150 v 940 v 9388 4—g$0 10 FO 11 R§ 4—fi3a 12 °�� 4-550 §aO ti1I0 II R d 14550 1640 4 J14 o 4 4bbs57a 4 Jbbs2o 4 J0 b 3a 4 do ar -1TI° 0 a�1TI' ��1TP a 150- ITI° o 70 -1TI' a 510' ITI° �3°R 03000 �°3--R 35038 d loo 3 _I05030 2170 a 1610 a 1980 a KYL96zman Associates Intersection reference numbers are in upper left corner of turning movement boxes. 3124 /bbos m�eg e I 9 a]310 � no I I I50�gTs OI z9o� o� 1190 46 e I T m3'I'�R � no I I I50�gTs OI z9o� o� 1a o 46 e I T m3'I'�R � no z Figure 24 General Plan Buildout Without Project Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes Eastbtuff Drive — Clemente Santa Barbera Drive —, Cruz 6 s Santa Rosa rem ,p_ / Parkway Site Newport Centor Drive Son Miguell w Drive 13 Bonita Canyon Drive 2 2121 o 3::2D 2980 v ,Q o ]120 A� ba 14 ° e Iq0 e 1 +—p 0 1150 _ 1-0 � o R 1 -21110 Jbbsp � ibbsp � IA o 2021 a e 1 gv =?.R z30 1-140 2 R L810 3210 0 Jbbr180 a Jbbs25o a ° ° 9 4�8 bbc521 4-gp 4-250 1 320 ' 4 40 �m 4-210 = 4 I2 8 m � JbbsA 2450 1-750 4 nor � 2ao o II o *1b X610 6-1670 o 4 sos1YP ° °s1YI° > 5 See A60�°IYP ° �DS1P ° 6°°1°IYI° P 0-90 $ R _ :.130I p R °& 5m-e IAA $ R $ .• 670-0 100 St $ R - SIC -e 150 $ R - 1600 6� 621 Bonita Canyon Drive 2 2121 o 3::2D 2980 v ,Q o ]120 A� ba 14 ° e Iq0 e 1 +—p 0 1150 _ 1-0 � o R 1 -21110 Jbbsp � ibbsp � 47 IA o a e 37'L o 3210 0 1%0 0 1560 0 9 4�8 bbc521 4-gp 4-250 1 10 Jbbco �p 4-p 4 11 $ �-' JbbcNO �m 4-210 = 4 I2 8 m � JbbsA 2450 1-750 4 3 R + -= Jbbs32o ip 4-250 0 _ 4 II o *1b X610 6-1670 o 4 sos1YP ° °s1YI° > 10s1YP ° A60�°IYP ° �DS1P ° 6°°1°IYI° 590 -° 130 $ R _ 0-0 o� = 5m-e IAA $ R $ .• 670-0 100 St $ R - SIC -e 150 $ R - 1600 6� e e60 c 0 7190 o IeSo a 600 0 Kunaman Associates Intersection reference numbers ore in upper left corner of turning movement boxes 3124/bbos 47 Figure 25 General Plan Buildout With Project Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning. Movement Volumes Eastbluff Drive — Santa Barbara Drive Cruz 6 s Santa Rosa re \P / Parkway Site Newport Center Drive San Miguel %re k Drive 13 Bonita Canyon Drive 2 1761 0 -7o — 4 7105 0 -3 4 10 14 I +Ibbs271 4-90 a 7 JbbsIt0 4-450 4 0 3131 0 + 1650 _ u6o 9900 0 400 R 8 6 tl6t e 7374 J 1501 too o 1Bp O o 4-660 4-551 L 5 t b 6 tp R ° R 41bb1131 4-360 + Jbb4 a-0 -0 4 ° dbb4 4560p-'e1YI° s -_ 4lbbssa u e1YI° 4 Jb4 790 p 0� ffl Iu RT a Bonita Canyon Drive 2 1 48 1185 T 0 41b64-96 -7o — 4 1776 v '� - dbbsl7o -3 4 10 14 fio�IT1 10 30� �1 ,— 7300 -e 70� 1 -IIP 3131 0 F- V 1650 _ u6o 940 0 7 6 tl6t J st S° -41 1Bp + 4-660 4-551 L °�oar 14 4 g0a ° dbb4 -7o 1 48 3131 0 1650 _ 940 0 I7 .. =� 4-660 4-551 3 g° tp 14 4 g0a dbb4 -7o 4 4lbbssa 4-411 4 Jb4 p 4 p T224 ffl RT > fs '"IYP > 70— 1Tr a 6to- 717 -eR ? 102- San 10%6 s0� a 1610 0 /Cumvwn Associates Intersection reference numbers are in upper left corner of turning movement bores 3124/bbas 1 48 Figure 26 General Plan Buildout With Project Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes Eastbluff Drive — Oemente Santa Borbara Drive i Euz 3 6 Santa Rasa Mi y_ / Parkway Site Newport Center Drive \ San Miguel %e Drive / 13 Bonita Canyon Drive 2111 v 170 v e a o S J16s5A go 1ORR ibbsear F12100 4 go 2.$R� dbbs250 HS�oa a 0 0 T� 0 14 w-cQ�s 2�0o 120 R 3002 w� - 4 ao w - 27511 - iaw eoo to ao 2156 5g z]p 6 cp 4 —:i 0 4-150 4 Jg4sn a 0 110 T T Jbbs20 v�90 —o + —� Jbbbsa 43D 0 a� a N o ^6JS1Tr - 671 a Bonita Canyon Drive 49 2111 v 170 v v a o S J16s5A 2 4 -200 0 a , y1�9A6 St Q — Jbbs 70 4- 14520 a 0 203IT� 211 0 0 e57s1Tr 1 o 14 w-cQ�s 1610 —c6t�& - - 4 ao w n o 7 to e e 2156 Jb�OSn 4 ebb ~2mo sa 4 —:i 0 h T 0 h T u—fo l0 Jbbs20 v�90 —o l0 + —� Jbbbsa a� a� a 49 170 v a o 211 0 1 o 1560 0 9 8 $° tsp w to 11 0 $�� 4.150 F752 J R 4 i�o� t6w F1676 —:i s24 4 4sa 4 Jbbs20 4 + —� Jbbbsa a N o ^6JS1Tr 0 ems0 J�72� fiw "ITr ID0� REx S6-0 1601 000 a� - IB50 - a Kunzman Associates Intersection reference numbers are in upper left corner of turning mavement bakes. 3124/bbas 49 1i t 8. Conclusions. ' This section summarizes the existing traffic conditions, project traffic impacts, and the proposed mitigation measures. Existing Traffic Conditions ' a. The existing use is a tennis club (includes 8 tennis courts) and is an ancillary use to the Marriott Hotel. b. The project site currently has access to Santa Barbara Drive. ' C. Pursuant to discussions with City of Newport Beach staff, the study area includes the following intersections: Jamboree Road (NS) at: . ' Eastbluff Drive /Ford Road (EW) San Joaquin Hills Road (EW) Santa Barbara Drive (EW) Coast Highway (EW) I 50 1 Santa Cruz Road (NS) at: ' San Joaquin Hills Road (EW) San Clemente Drive (EW) ' Newport Center Drive (NS) at: Santa Barbara Drive (EW) ' Coast Highway (EW) Santa Rosa Drive /Big Canyon Drive (NS) at: ' San Joaquin Hills Road (EW) Avocado Avenue (NS) at: Coast Highway (EW) MacArthur Boulevard (NS) at: Ford Road (EW) San Joaquin Hills Road (EW) San Miguel Drive (EW) I 50 1 1 Traffic Impacts a. The proposed project consists of 79 condominium dwelling units. b. The proposed development is projected to generate approximately 640 ' daily vehicle trips, 52 of which will occur during the morning peak hour and 65 of which will occur during the evening peak hour. As shown in Table 1, ' the proposed development compared to the existing development is projected to generate approximately 330 more daily vehicle trips, 42 more of which will occur during the morning peak hour and 39 more of which will , occur during the evening peak hour. C. The City of Newport Beach staff provided the approved and cumulative projects in the study area. The approved projects consist of development that has been approved but are not fully completed. Cumulative projects are known, but not approved project developments that are reasonably expected to be completed or nearly completed at the same time as the proposed project. d. The TPO analysis resulted in the following study area intersections exceeding the one - percent threshold and requiring additional analysis: Jamboree Road (NS) at: Eastbluff Drive /Ford Road (EW) Santa Barbara Drive (EW) Santa Cruz Road (NS) at: San Joaquin Hills Road (EW) , San Clemente Drive (EW) Newport Center Drive (NS) at: ' Santa Barbara Drive (EW) Coast Highway (EW) Santa Rosa Drive /Big Canyon Drive (NS) at: San Joaquin Hills Road (EW) :. MacArthur Boulevard (NS) at: Ford Road (EW) San Joaquin Hills Road (EW) ' e. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis (this part of the analysis is consistent with CEQA) included analysis of the same study area ' intersections as the TPO analysis. 51 1 I if rf. The GPA analysis included ICU calculations at the following study area intersections: Mitigation Measures The following measures are recommended to mitigate the impact of the project on ttraffic circulation: a. Site- specific circulation and access recommendations are depicted on ' Figure 27. b. An existing two -way left turn lane on Santa Barbara Drive provides ' adequate left turn storage for vehicles desiring to turn left into the project site. I C. On -site parking should be provided to meet City of Newport Beach parking code requirements. D 52 11 Jamboree Road (NS) at: Eastbluff Drive /Ford Road (EW) San Joaquin Hills Road (EW) Santa Barbara Drive (EW) Coast Highway (EW) ' Santa Cruz Road (NS) at: San Joaquin Hills Road (EW) Newport Center Drive (NS) at: Coast Highway (EW) 1 Santa Rosa Drive /Big Canyon Drive (NS) at: San Joaquin Hills Road (EW) MacArthur Boulevard (NS) at: Ford Road (EW) San Joaquin Hills Road (EW) San Miguel Drive (EW) Coast Highway (EW) Comparison of the one - percent increase in the General Plan Buildout ICU between the without project and with project traffic conditions (see Table 7) resulted in no study area intersections exceeding the one - percent threshold. Mitigation Measures The following measures are recommended to mitigate the impact of the project on ttraffic circulation: a. Site- specific circulation and access recommendations are depicted on ' Figure 27. b. An existing two -way left turn lane on Santa Barbara Drive provides ' adequate left turn storage for vehicles desiring to turn left into the project site. I C. On -site parking should be provided to meet City of Newport Beach parking code requirements. D 52 11 d. Sight distance at the project accesses should be reviewed with respect to , Caltrans /City of Newport Beach standards in conjunction with the preparation of final grading, landscape, and street improvement plans. e. On -site traffic signing and striping should be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the project. f. The parking garage design shall meet all City requirements regarding parking stall width, parking stall depth, parking aisle width, parking aisle , grade, and parking aisle- turning radii. g. Each parking level should have large numbers on the pillars or walls designating on which floor level the user has parked. Letters can also be ' added to designate what area within a parking level the person has parked, such as 2B. ' h. The parking garage shall be lighted to meet City code requirements. i. The project site did not cause a significant impact at the study area , intersections (increase of one - percent or more at a study area intersection operating at worse than Level of Service D during the peak hours); therefore, no improvements are recommended at the study area intersections. , j. As is the case for any roadway design, the City of Newport Beach should periodically review traffic operations in the vicinity of the project once the project is constructed to assure that the traffic operations are satisfactory. ' 53 II 1 I I J I i 1 i 1 1 11 Figure 27 Circulation Recommendations - -- - - - - - - - - - - On —site parking should be provided to meet Gty of Newport Beach parking code requirements. Sight distance at the project accesses should be ;r reviewed with respect to Cdtrans /City of Newport Beach standards in conNnclion with the preparation of find groding, landscape and street improvement plans. On —site troffic signing and striping should be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans for projed. The parking garage design shall meet all City requirements regarding parking stall width, parking stall depth, parking oisle width, parking oisle grade, and parking oisle—turning rodii, Eoch parking level should hove Jorge numbers an the pillars or walls designating an which floor level the user has parked. letters can also be added to designate what area within o parking level the person has parked, such as 28. The parking garage shall be lighted to meet City code requirements. As is the case for my roadway design, the City of Newport Bea, should periodically review traffic operations in the vicinity of the project once the project is constructed to ossure that the traffic merolions are Kunznzan Associates r r r r r r r r r r i r Site r r r r r r r r 54 Legend STOP = slap sign 3124/27 Appendices Appendix A Glossary of Transportation Terms Appendix B Year 2003/2004 Worksheets Appendix C Approved Project Data Appendix D TPO One - Percent Analysis Calculation Worksheets Appendix E Cumulative Project Data Appendix F Explanation and Calculation of Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) I 1 I I APPENDIX A Glossary of Transportation Terms i I I 1 1 F- L 1 1 I 1 IL I GLOSSARY OF TRANSPORTATION TERMS COMMON ABBREVIATIONS AC: ADT: Caltrans DU: ICU: LOS: TSF: V/C VMT: TERMS Acres Average Daily Traffic California Department of Transportation Dwelling Unit Intersection Capacity Utilization Level of Service Thousand Square Feet Volume /Capacity Vehicle Miles Traveled AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: The total volume during a year divided by the number of days in a year. Usually only weekdays are included. BANDWIDTH: The number of seconds of green time available for through traffic in a signal progression. BOTTLENECK: A constriction along a travelway that limits the amount of traffic that can proceed downstream from its location. CAPACITY: The maximum number of vehicles which can be reasonably expected to pass over a given section of a lane or a roadway in a given time period. CHANNELIZATION: The separation or regulation of conflicting traffic movements into definite paths of travel by the use of pavement markings, raised islands, or other suitable means to facilitate the safe and orderly movements of both vehicles and pedestrians. CLEARANCE INTERVAL: Nearly same as yellow time. If there is an all red interval after the end of a yellow, then that is also added into the clearance interval. CORDON: An imaginary line around an area across which vehicles, persons, or other items are counted (in and out). CYCLE LENGTH: The time period in seconds required for one complete signal cycle. i 1 L 1 1 1 5 u IJ CUL -DE -SAC STREET: A local street open at one end only, and with special provisions for turning around. DAILY CAPACITY: The daily volume of traffic that will result in a volume during the peak hour equal to the capacity of the roadway. DAILY TRAFFIC:. Same as average daily traffic. DELAY: The time consumed while traffic is impeded in its movement by some element over which it has no control, usually expressed in seconds per vehicle. DEMAND RESPONSIVE SIGNAL: Same as traffic - actuated signal. DENSITY: The number of vehicles occupying in a unit length of the through traffic lanes of a roadway at any given instant. Usually expressed in vehicles per mile. DETECTOR: A device that responds to a physical stimulus and transmits a resulting impulse to the signal controller. DESIGN SPEED: A speed selected for purposes of design. Features of a highway, such as curvature, superelevation, and sight distance (upon which the safe operation of vehicles is dependent) are correlated to design speed. DIRECTIONAL SPLIT: The percent of traffic in the peak direction at any point in time. DIVERSION: The rerouting of peak hour traffic to avoid congestion. FIXED TIME SIGNAL: Same as pretimed signal. FORCED. FLOW: Opposite of free flow. FREE FLOW: Volumes are well below capacity. Vehicles can maneuver freely and travel is unimpeded by other traffic. GAP: Time or distance between successive vehicles in a traffic stream, rear bumper to front bumper. HEADWAY: Time or distance spacing between successive vehicles in a traffic stream, front bumper to front bumper. I I 1 'LI 1 I L 1 11 INTERCONNECTED SIGNAL SYSTEM: A number of intersections that are connected to achieve signal progression. LEVEL OF SERVICE: A qualitative measure of a number of factors, which include speed and travel time, traffic interruptions, freedom to maneuver, safety, driving comfort and convenience, and operating costs. LOOP DETECTOR: A vehicle detector consisting of a loop of wire embedded in the roadway, energized by alternating current and producing an output circuit closure when passed over by a vehicle. MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE GAP: Smallest time headway between successive vehicles in a traffic stream into which another vehicle is willing and able to cross or merge. MULTI - MODAL: More than one mode; such as automobile, bus transit, rail rapid transit, and bicycle transportation modes. OFFSET: The time interval in seconds between the beginning of green at one intersection and the beginning of green at an adjacent intersection. PLATOON: A closely grouped component of traffic that is composed of several vehicles moving, or standing ready to move, with clear spaces ahead and behind. ORIGIN - DESTINATION SURVEY: A survey to determine the point of origin and the point of destination for a given vehicle trip. PASSENGER CAR EQUIVALENTS (PCE): One car is one Passenger Car Equivalent. A truck is equal to 2 or 3 Passenger Car Equivalents in that a truck requires longer to start, goes slower, and accelerates slower. Loaded trucks have a higher Passenger Car Equivalent than empty trucks. PRETIMED SIGNAL: A type of traffic signal that directs traffic to stop and go on a predetermined time schedule without regard to traffic conditions. PROGRESSION: A term used to describe the progressive movement of traffic through several signalized intersections. i 5i u i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCREEN -LINE: An imaginary line or physical feature across which all trips are counted, normally to verify the validity of mathematical traffic models. SIGNAL CYCLE: The time period in seconds required for one complete sequence of signal indications. SIGNAL PHASE: The part of the signal cycle allocated to one or more traffic movements. STARTING DELAY: The delay experienced in initiating the movement of queued traffic from a stop to an average running speed through a signalized intersection. TRAFFIC- ACTUATED SIGNAL: A type of traffic signal that directs traffic to stop and go in accordance with the demands of traffic, as registered by the actuation of detectors. TRIP: The movement of a person or vehicle from one location (origin) to another (destination). For example, from home to store to home is two trips, not one. TRIP -END: One end of a trip at either the origin or destination; i.e. each trip has two trip -ends. A trip -end occurs when a person, object, or message is transferred to or from a vehicle. TRIP GENERATION RATE: The quality of trips produced and /or attracted by a specific land use stated in terms of units such as per dwelling, per acre, and per 1,000 square feet of floor space. TRUCK: A vehicle having dual tires on one or more axles, or having more than two axles. UNBALANCED FLOW: Heavier traffic flow in one direction than the other. On a daily basis, most facilities have balanced flow. During the peak hours, flow is seldom balanced in an urban area. VEHICLE MILES OF TRAVEL: A measure of the amount of usage of a section of highway, obtained by multiplying the average daily traffic by length of facility in miles. I iJ F I 1 I 11 rl J J P 1 APPENDIX B Year 2003/2004 Worksheets i I I I % TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION. JAMBOREE ROAD & EASTBLUFF DRIVE/FORD ROAD 4980 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 AM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONALGROWTHI VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1% OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 1766 Southbound 1722 Fastbound 1203 Westbound 508 I Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. ' Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. 1 :1 1 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION. JAMBOREE ROAD & EASTBLUFF DRIVE/FORD ROAD 4980 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 PM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME I I% OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 1770 Southbound 1798 Eastbound 641 Westbound 233 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. JA4980AM EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.739 1 EXISTING + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I I — -- — — — — — — — -- — — -- — — — --- --- --- - - - --- - -- -- -- -- EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 1 _____________ . _____________ _ ---- — ---- —_ _ --_-__----_ _ ----- --_ -- _ --- Split Phase EIW direction I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 L1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 - 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project ---------_______-------•------------- ------- – ---- – ------------ ---------- -- ----_____ _--------------' - Description of system improvement: – ------------- _. ----------- _._____________________________– ------------- – -------------- - ---------------- PROJECT JA4980AM FORM II ' 1 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS "9< /F00.N INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD 8 EASTBLUFF DRIVEIFORD ROAD 4980 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 AM EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I - , I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I NL 1 3200 1 380 I 0.119 I I I I __ -------- ___ NT _ --- _--------- - --- ------- 1 1 1322 I I I I -- ---- -- } 4800 - -------------- - -----_____— } 0.289 _ ---- ----__ _ _---- --'- NR I 64 I I I I I SL 1600 I I 72 1 0.045 I I I I I I — — — ST - - ----- --- --- 1 4800 - -- --- ----- -- - -- -- -- - -- - — – – - - --- - - 1 1445 1 0.301 I ------ - - -- 1 -- -- - -- I I - -- I I SR 1 1600 I 1 205 1 0.128 I I I I I I EL 1 1600 I I 311 1 0.194 I I I I I ET 1 1600 1 1 346 1 0.216 I I I I I ER I N.S. 1 1 546 1 I I I I I I _ — – I WL – -- – — — – – – – - - - - -- - - -- - -- 1 I 116 1 I - -- -- — – - -- - -- I – - -- I I I ---- } 4800 -- - ---- - -- -- ---- } 0.103 - ---- WT 1 377 1 I I I i W R I 1600 1 1 15 1 0.009 1 I I I I I EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.739 1 EXISTING + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I I — -- — — — — — — — -- — — -- — — — --- --- --- - - - --- - -- -- -- -- EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 1 _____________ . _____________ _ ---- — ---- —_ _ --_-__----_ _ ----- --_ -- _ --- Split Phase EIW direction I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 L1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 - 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project ---------_______-------•------------- ------- – ---- – ------------ ---------- -- ----_____ _--------------' - Description of system improvement: – ------------- _. ----------- _._____________________________– ------------- – -------------- - ---------------- PROJECT JA4980AM FORM II ' 1 1 JA4980PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD & EASTBLUFF DRIVE/FORD ROAD 4980 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 PM LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U, will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project — - — - - -- - -- -- - ------ - ----- -- - Description of system improvement: PROJECT --- J-- - - - - -- JA4980PM :1 FORM II I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I Capacity Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I Volume I I I NIL 1 3200 I 1 370 1 0.116 I NT 1 1 1261 I I I I I } 4800 - } 0.292 NR I 1 139 I I I I SL 1 1600 I —^ 1 58 1 0.036 I I I I ST 1 4800 1 1613 0.336 I SR 1 1600 1 — 1 127 1 0.079 I - -- I I I I I EL 1 1600 I 6 I 0.040 ET 1 1600 1 1 204 1 0.128 I I I I I I ER 1 N.S. 1— 1 373 1 WL 1 1 110 I I I I I I } 4800 - - - -- } 0.044 WT I I WR 1 1600 1 -100 1 23 1 0.014 1 I I I I EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.624 I I I EXISTING +REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I -� Split Phase FJW direction LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U, will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project — - — - - -- - -- -- - ------ - ----- -- - Description of system improvement: PROJECT --- J-- - - - - -- JA4980PM :1 FORM II I% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION. JAMBOREE ROAD & SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD 5045 lExisdug Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 AM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1% OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 1402 Southbound 2018 Eastbound 391 Westbound 151 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. I % TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION. JAMBOREE ROAD & SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD 5045 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based an Average Daily Traffic 2003 PM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1 lo/ OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 1321 Southbound 1957 Eastbound 186 LWestbound 298 1 1 1 1 I 1 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than I% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. , Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. 1 JA5045AM I I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. Split Phase E/W direction I _1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 II _I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I _I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 II _I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. Without project _ _ ____ ------- __ _. ----- — --- — __ -------- _ ---- __ __ ------ _____ — _ ---- _------ _ _________________ __ ------ _ ----- _---- __ ----- _----------- __ __- -------- __ ----- ____ Description of system improvement: -------------- — - -___________ __ __ ------ _____. __ ___ ------- __ _ ______________ _ ---- _ ---- _----- __ -- __ _— _________ PROJECT FORM II JA5045AM 1 I I INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS C��P I INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD & SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD 5045 9[ /FOP EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 AM EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I I Volume I I NL 1 1600 1 1 20 1 0.013 1 1 1 I NT -- — I 4800 1 1 1282 1 0.267 -- -- I I I NR 1 N.S. I I 100 1 SL 1 3200 1 I 667 1 0.208 I I I 4800 1 I 1297 I 0.270 I ------ ----- --------- -- I - — - -- I — — -- - - -- -- - --_ST--- SR --- — - - - ------------- - ---------- - ------ --- I N.S. I 54 I I - — I I I - - ---- - -- ------ --- --- -- EL - ------------ - --- ------ -- - -- - -- ---- - ---------- - ----- ----- — --- --------- 1 I 263 1 - ------- I — ----- ----------- } 4800 - ----- --- --- - - -- } 0.070 • --------- - ------------ -- } -- - ---- ----- } --- -- ET ET I I 51 I I I ER I N.S. I 57 I I I I I - --- - -- - - -- wL - ----------- - ----- --- - ----- -- -- - - -------- - --- --- --- - --- - -- ---- I I 114 I - - -- -- - -- ---- I - -- 4800 - - - - - -- } 0.027 • - - - - -- wT — --------- WR - - - - -- — — —16 - ----- -- - - -- - -- — — I -- — — — — - -- 1600 1 21 0.013 I - - - -- - - -- - - -- - -- - -- I I I 1 1 EXISTING --- --- - -- EXISTING + I.C.U. I 0.572 I - --- - - ------------- - -- ---- - ------ ------ ' -- - ---- - ------------ REGIONAL GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. - - -- --- - I I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. Split Phase E/W direction I _1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 II _I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I _I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 II _I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. Without project _ _ ____ ------- __ _. ----- — --- — __ -------- _ ---- __ __ ------ _____ — _ ---- _------ _ _________________ __ ------ _ ----- _---- __ ----- _----------- __ __- -------- __ ----- ____ Description of system improvement: -------------- — - -___________ __ __ ------ _____. __ ___ ------- __ _ ______________ _ ---- _ ---- _----- __ -- __ _— _________ PROJECT FORM II JA5045AM 1 I I JA5045PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD & SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD 5045 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 PM EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT j Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I VIC I GROWTH 1 PROJECT I VIC Ratio I Volume I VIC I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio 1 I I I I I I I Volume I I I NL 1 1600 1` 1 131 1 0.082 I I I I I NT 1 4800 I 1 1092 1 0.228 I I I I I I NR 1 N.s.1 I SL I 3200 1 —se I 387 I 0.121 1 I I I 1 I ST 1 4800 1 1 1374 1 0.286 I I I I I SR 1 N.S.1 i 196 1 1 1 I I I EL — 1 87 } 4800 - - -- } 0.028 ET I 48 ER 1 N.S. I —_ 1— 51 WL 1 I 161 1 I I I } 4800 - — - } 0.049 WT I I 76 W R 1 1600 1 _ 1 61 1 0.038 EXISTING I.C.U. I 0.445 1 I I EXISTING +REGIONAL GROWTH +COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I 1 EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I Split Phase E1W direction I _I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I –I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. wlsystems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 I _I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. Without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT _ FORM 11 JA5045AM 1 11 I , d 1 1 I % TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD & SANTA BARBARA DRIVE 5310 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 AM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1% OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 1724 Southbound 1388 Eastbound 28 Westbound 125 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. I % TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD &SANTA BARBARA DRIVE 5310 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 1003 PM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR I REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1 %OFPROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 1051 Southbound 1685 Eastbound 40 Westbound 771 �J Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. �J Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes, Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: DATE: { JA5310AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS CAP HC /FO0.N INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD & SANTA BARBARA DRIVE 5310 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 AM EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR ( V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Rata I Volume I V/C Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I Volume I I NL I 1600 I I 3 1 0.002 I I I I I NT I 4800 I I 1358 I 0.283 I I I I - ---- -- - - - - - -- - - -- ---- ----- - --- - ---- - - ------- - ---- - - -- - -- - -- - - ---- _ NR I 1600 I I 363 I 0.227 I I I I I SL I 3200 I 579 I 0.181 I I I I ST I 4800 I 780 I 0.163 I I I - -- - - -- --- - - ---- --- - --- - ---- - ------ - ------ -- - - - ----- - - ---- -- I SR I 1600 I 29 I 0.018 I I - -- - -- I I I EL I 1600 I 21 I 0.013 I I I I - -- - -- --- - — - -- - - ---- - --- -- - ---- - -- - -- --- - - -- - -- --- ET I 2 I I I -- --- -- } 1600 - - --- -- --- - ---- -- } 0.004 — - -------- - -- } - --- } ER I 5 I I I - -- - - - - - -- - - --- - -- - ---- - - - - -- - -- - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - --- - - - - -- I WL I I 50 I I - - - - -- I I -- ------ } 3200 - ----- --- - ---- ----) 0.017 - --- — - - ----- } - ------ } WT I 4 I I I I WR 1 1600 1 1 71 I 0.044 I I I I EXISTING I.C.U. j 0.521 ' EXISTING + REGIONAL GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I ' EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I - - ----- ------ - ----------- - ---------- --- - --------- - --------- - - ------ - ----- --- --- • Split Phase EAN direction - -- --- --- - --------- ---- --- 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 IJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 CI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORM 11 JA5310AM iJA5310PM 1 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS 'INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD 8 SANTA BARBARA DRIVE 5310 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC i PROJECTED I V/C Ratio I w/o Project I Volume I I I—I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 IJ Projected + project traffic. I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I_! Projected + project traffic LC.U, w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT JA5310PM 2003 PM PROJECT I PROJECTI Volume I V/C 1 Ratio I I I - I I I - I I I - I I I I I I - I I I I I I - I I I I } I I - I } I I I I I - I I I I - I I I FORM II I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I I Capacity I Capacity I I I Volume I I I Ratio Volume I Volume I I I I NL I^ 1600 I I 9 1 0.006 I I I NT I 4800 I I 943 I 0.196 I I I ' NR I 1600 I 99 I 0.062 I I _ SL I 3200 I I 277 I 0.087 I I I ST I 4800 I I 1348 I 0.281 I SR I 1600 I 60 I 0.038 I I I EL I 1600 I I 25 I 0.016 ET I 11 I I 1600 - } 0.009 ER I I— 4 I I- W L - 1 I 406 -- - - -- - I I } 3200 - } 0.135 WT f I 26 I I W R _ - -- 1 1600 I _ I 339 1 0.212 EXISTING I.C.U. I 0.515 I — EXISTING + REGIONAL GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. Split Phase EfW direction i PROJECTED I V/C Ratio I w/o Project I Volume I I I—I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 IJ Projected + project traffic. I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I_! Projected + project traffic LC.U, w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT JA5310PM 2003 PM PROJECT I PROJECTI Volume I V/C 1 Ratio I I I - I I I - I I I - I I I I I I - I I I I I I - I I I I } I I - I } I I I I I - I I I I - I I I FORM II I % TRAFFIC VOL UME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY & JAMBOREE ROAD 5055 .r (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2004 AM APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONALGROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR. VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1% OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 512 Southbound 974 Eastbound 2896 Westbound 1159 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. I% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY & JAMBOREE ROAD 5055 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2004 PM APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK. HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONALGROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1% OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 415 Southbound 2134 Eastbound 1999 Westbound 2174 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. 0 Project Tragic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. .. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: DATE: CH5055AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY &JAMBOREE ROAD 5055 V EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2004 AM I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Rata I I I I I I I I Volume I I I — NL I 1600 I I 15 I 0.009 I I I I I NT I I 423 I I I I — — } 3200 - - ---- — - -- ---- } 0.155 ' -- - ---- -- } - - - -- } I NR I I 74 SL 1600 I 146 0.091 I I I I ST 3200 I I 238 I 0.074 I I I I I — — -- - - - - --- — — -- -- — -- — - --- -- — — — -- -- SR I N.S. I 590 I I I — -- — - - -- I I I I I - --- ---- - - -- - ------ -- - - -- - — - -- - - - -- -- EL I 4800 I I 1093 I 0.228 I - - -- -- - -- I I I I ET I I 1787 I I I — } 6400 - -- - ---- -- - --- - -- --- } 0.282 - -- -- -- -- - --- -- - -- -- } ER I I 16 WL 3200 I I 83 I 0.026 I I I I I I WT 6400 I 956 I 0.149 I I I ----------- - --- - ------ - - -- - - --- i ---- - -- -- ---- - ----------- ---- WR I N.S. l I 120 I - -- ---- - --- -- - - -- -- 1 I I I I EXISTING I.C.U. I 0.623 I I EXISTING + REGIONAL GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I I I-- — — - -- - -- — — — - - -- -- - ----- - ----- -- — — EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. — - - - -- — — I I I 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. wlsystems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project ' — ----- ---- - -- --- -- - - - ---- - ----------- - ------------ - --- --- --- - Description of system improvement: - ---- - -- - -- - - -- - - ---- - ' PROJECT CH5055AM 1 1 FORM If CH5055PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS CAP 'aGI FO RN INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY & JAMBOREE ROAD 5056 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2004 PM I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED i PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I VIC I GROWTH I PROJECT I VIC Ratio I Volume I V/C I Capacity I Capacity I Volume 1 Ratio I Volume I Volume 1 w/o Project I I Rata I I ! I I I I I I Volume I I 1 N L 1 1600 I 1 38 1 0.024 1 1 1 I I I NT 1 I 298 I I I I } 3200 - - } 0.118 NR I I 79 I I I I SL 1 1600 1 1 154 1 0.096 ST 1 3200 1 1 479 1 0.150 I I I 1 1 SR 1 N.S. 1 1501 I I I I I I I EL I 4800 I I 617 1 0.129 I ET 1 1 1364 1 ! I 1 1 } 6400 - } 0.216 ER I 1 18 I I I I WL 1 3200 1 1 169 1 0.053 I 1 I I I I WT 1 6400 1 1 1891 1 0.295 I I I I I WR I N.S. I 114 I I f I I I I EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.638 I I EXISTING + REGIONAL GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I IJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 IJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT CH5055PM FORM II ' Ll I % TRAFFIC VOL UME ANAL YSIS INTERSECTION. SANTA CRUZ & SAN 7OAQUIN HILLS RD 5060 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 1003 AM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR APPROVED PROJEC REGIONAL GROWTH PEAK HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1% OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 77 Southbound 69 Eastbound 768 Westbound 590 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. I% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION. SANTA CRUZ & SAN JOAQUIN HILLS RD 5060 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 1003 PM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR APPROVED PROJECT REGIONAL GRO WTH PEAK HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1% OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 538 Southbound 43 Eastbound 631 Westbound 457 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. .I PROJECT: :I DATE: SJ5060AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS d" CyCI FO �N�P . INTERSECTION: SANTA CRUZ 8 SAN JOAQUIN HILLS RD 5060 - EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 AM EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I I Volume I I NL I 1600 I j 57 0.036 I NT - - - --- i - -- i -- 5 . I ---- ---- } 3200 - - --- - -- - --- -- } 0.006 - — - --- --- } - —- } NR I 15 I I I SL I 1600 I 17 0.011 I I I I I ST I 9 I I I I I - - -- } 3200 - - ---- -- - -- -- } 0.016 ' - ---- - ------ - ---- - --- - I SR I 43 I I I I I EL I 1600 I I 571 0.0361 I -- --- I I I - --- -- — ET - - - - --- i --- - ---- i - -- 511 - i i i I } 4800 - - - - - -- - - - -- } 0.148 ER I I 200 I I i WL I 1600 I I 227 1 0.142 — WT - ---- ----- i - --------- i ----- 343 - ------ } 4800 - --- --- --- - - -- } 0.076 - ---- --- } — } WR 1 I 20 I I I EXISTING I.C.U. I 0.342 I EXISTING + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 . IJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 U Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements w ll be less than I.C.U. without project - ----- --- - --- -- -- - -- - --- - -- - --- - ---- - ---------- - ----------- Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORM II SJ5050AM ' SJ5060PM 1 i� INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: SANTA CRUZ 8 SAN JOAQUIN HILLS RD 5060 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 PM EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Rata I Volume I V/C I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Rata I I I I I I I I I Volume NL I 1600 I I 389 0.243 I NT I I 19 I I I I — } 3200 - — - } 0.047 NR _ I I 130 I I I I I SL I 1600 1 I 12 0.0081 I I I I ST 1 – } 8 3200 -- - } 0.010 ! I I I I SR I I 23 I I I I I I EL – 1600 I �— 120 1— 0.075 ET I I 358 I I I I 4800 - — - } 0.106 ER I I^ 153 I I I I I WL I 16001 I 431 0.0271 I I I I I WT I 1 414 I I I I } aeoo - - - - -- - } 0.086 • } } I WR I I 0 I I I I EXISTING I.C.U. I 0.414 I I 1 EXISTING + REG GROWTH +COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I I I LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1 -1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements wilt be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT SJ5060PM F U FORM II I% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: SAN CLEMENTE DRIVE & SANTA CRUZ DRIVE 5277 (Exisdag Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 AAf) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR APPROVED PROJECT REGIONAL GROWTH PEAK HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1% OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 95 Southbound 312 Eastbound 159 Westbound 56 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than I% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes, Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. I% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: SAN CLEMENTE DRIVE & SANTA CRUZ DRIVE 5277 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 PM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR APPROVED PROJEC REGIONALGROWTH PEAK HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1 %OF PROJEC ED1 PEAK HOUR I VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 333 Southbound 263 Eastbound 298 Westbound loo 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required: PROJECT: DATE: SC5277AM i INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS PROJECT FORM If SC5277AM I INTERSECTION: SAN CLEMENTE DRIVE 8 SANTA CRUZ DRIVE 5277 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 AM — I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I VIC I GROWTH j PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C j Capacity Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I I Volume I I I NL I 1600 I I 28 0.018 I NT I I 50 I I I I ------ -- } 4800 _ -- - -- - - ------ } 0.014 - - --- - - ---- } - - --- } I NR I I 17 I I I I SL I 1600 I I 18 0.011 I I I I I ST I I 111 I I I I I � ----- ----- } 3200 - - - -- - -- -- ---- } 0.092 ' --- -- -- - -- - - -- - — - I SR I I 183 I I I I I I EL I I 57 I I I I I ET 3200 I I 56 0.050 I ER I I 46 I I I WL 13 I I WT 4800 I I 17 0.012 I I WR- I I 26 I I I I I EXISTING I.C.U. I 0.160 I I EXISTING +REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.0 EXISTING+ COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. wilt be greater than 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems Improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected +.project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORM If SC5277AM I SC5277PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS CAP qGr FO RN INTERSECTION: SAN CLEMENTE DRIVE 8& SANTA CRUZ DRIVE 5277 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 PM I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Rata I Volume I V/C =_ I Capacity I Capacity I Volume - I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I I Volume I I NL I 1600 1 I 40 1 0.025 NT 1 I 268 I I I } 4800 - - } 0.061 NR 1 I 25 I I 1 SL I 16001 I 281 0.018 I I I I I ST I 197 I I I I 3200 - — - } 0.073 } SR 38 I I I I I I I EL I 252 I I I I ET } 3200 I 13 } 0.093 I I ER } I 33} I I } 1 } I WL I I 20 I I 1 1 I WT 4800 I I 54 0.021 1 1 I 1 WR I I 26 I I 1 EXISTING I.C.U. I 0.191 I EXISTING + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I I IJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems Improvement will be less than Or equal to 0.90 ID Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project Improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system Improvement: PROJECT SC5277PM FORM II ' I I I 11 H I I I i II I% TRAFFIC VOL UME ANAL YSIS INTERSECTION: NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE & SANTA BARBARA DRIVE 5280 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 1003 AM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1% OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 219 Southbound 124 Eastbound 210 Westbound 10 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than I% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. I % TRAFFIC VOL UME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE & SANTA BARBARA DRIVE 5280 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 1003 PM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 10,'* OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 265 Southbound 323 Eastbound 281 Westbound 136 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. i PROJECT: 11 DATE: NC5280AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS '9C/ FO RN QS INTERSECTION: NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE & SANTA BARBARA DRIVE 5280 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 AM I I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Rata I Volume I V/C j I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume i Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I i I Volume I I I NL I 1600 I I 73 I 0.046 I I I 1 I I NT � - -- 3200 I - - -- 1— 138 � —_ 0.043 NR I 1600 I 1 8 1 0.005 I I I I I 1 SL I 1600 I 9 1 0.006 I I I I I I ST I 3200 I 69 I 0.022 1 1 } 1 -- SR I 1600 I I 46 I 0.029 I I I I I I EL I 1600 I I 41 I 0.026 I I I I I 1 ET I I 33 I I I I I I I ------ } 3200 _ _ - ---- _ — } 0.053 ER 1 1 136 I I I I I WL I I 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 I WT 3200 I I 6 0.003 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 W R EXISTING I.C.U. I 0.121 I EXISTING +REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U.I I I I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I I _I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 _I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I _I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 I _I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT NC5280AM FORM It , LJ ' NC5280PM I I INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS iINTERSECTION: NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE & SANTA BARBARA DRIVE 5280 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 PM - — - — - - -- --- - ----- - -- ------ - -- ------ -- - I EXISTING I PROPOSED I -------- -- EXISTING - ----- --- - — -- --- -- I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I .� Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I 'I' I Capacity I Capacity I Volume Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I Volume I I I NL - -- - -- — I 1600 1 1 - - - - -- - - - -- 135 - - - - - - -- - - -- - -- — - 1 0.084 - - — - I 1 --- — NT — -- -- — — - I 3200 1 1 ------ ------ 94 - - -- -- -- — — — — — -- — 1 0.029 I I — — — -- -- I I I I NR I 1600 1 1 1 0023- 1 SL ---- --- --- 1 1600 1 1 ------- - -36 47 ---- 1 0.029 1 1 1 I I I - -- -- - -- - ST - - -- - - - - - -- - - -- -- -- -- - 1 3200 1 - - - - -- -- 182 - -- - - - -- - - - - -- - - - -- - -- 1 0.057 I - --- -- - - -- - - -- I I I - — - --- --- -- - ----- -------- - ----- 1 SR 1 1600 1 1 94 1 0.059 I I I I I EL 1600 1 I 43 1 0.027 I I I I I ----- - - - - -- ET - ------ - - - - -- 1 I - - -- — 115 — — — - - -- -- — -- I - - -- - -- — - -- I I I I ------ - - -- } 3200 - --- --- --- --- - - - - - ---- } 0.074 ' - ------ --- } - ----------- } I ER 1 I 123 I I 1 I I ! -- --- ------ WL - -- - -- --- - — ---- - ---- - 1 ----- - ------- 29 - ------ -- - --- - - - - -- I - - -- - ----- - - I I I I WT } -- - -- — 3200 — — — } — — -- - - - -- 0.043 I I -- -- - - - -- — — i 1 I I I I WR I --------------- 1 1 --------62 25 — - -- -- -- --- ------ I I -- - - --- --- ---- I I I I - --- — EXISTING — -- -- - - I.C.U. - - — - - — -- — --- - -- - I 0115 I - I I ------- ------ EXISTING +REG - -------- - - - -- - ------------- — — — — — — -- — — — — GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. — — I ( I I --------- ---- EXISTING + - ----- ------ - - - - - -- - ---- ------- COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + - -- --------- - ---- --------- -- - --- ---- PROJECT I.C.U. - - - ---- - - ---- - I I _I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 _I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 =1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 _I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project -- -- sc-ri --- - f--------- - ----------------- - ---------- --- - ----------- - -------------- -- Description of system improvement: --- -------------- - -- ---------- - --------------- - --- ------- - -------------- - --------------- -- PROJECT NC5280PM 1 I - ------- ------ - ---- - FORM II CH 5330PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY &NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE 5330 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 PM I I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT( Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Rata I Volume I V/C I I I Capacity I Capacity 1 Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Rata I. I I I I I Volume I I I I I NL NT I I I I I I I I I NR SL 1 3200 1 1 300 1 0.094 I ST I I I { I { I I I I■ 1 SR I N.s.1 I 4961 I I I I I 1 EL I 335 1 0.105 1 3200 I 1 ET 1 48001 I 16321 0.340 I 1 I I I 1 ER I WL I I I I I I I I I 1 WT 1 4800 1 1 1690 1 0.352 1 WR 1 N .S. 1 1 153 1 I I I I I I , I-- - - — - { 1 EXISTING I.C.U. 0.551 I 1 EXISTING +REG GROWTH+ COMMITTED WIPROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I 1 EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I CJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 L1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 0 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORM 11 CH5330PM I 1 I I i I I FJ I 1 I % TRAFFIC VOL UME ANAL YSIS INTERSECTION. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD & SANTA ROSA DR/ BIG CANYON 5065 (Existing to is Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 1003 AM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR APPROVED PROJEC REGIONALGROWTHI PEAK HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1% OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 102 Southbound 120 Eastbound 543 Westbound 1020 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. I % TRAFFIC VOL UME ANAL YSIS INTERSECTION. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD & SANTA ROSA DR /BIG CANYON 5065 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 1003 PM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR APPROVED PROJEC REGIONAL GROWTH PEAK HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1% OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 641 Southbound 96 Eastbound 564 Westbound 518 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes, Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: DATE: SJ5065AM 1 EXISTING I.C.U. ' .C.U. I 0.325 EXISTING + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I I Split Phase N/S Direction I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 U Projected + project traffic I.C.U. wlsystems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: — -- --____-- --- - --- ------- _ ---__– _ ------ -- - — _—_–__ _ --- ---- -- ' ------ _ - ----- _ — PROJECT FORM 11 SJ5065AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS S'9G/FCP O RN INTERSECTION: SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD & SANTA ROSA DRIVE I BIG CANYON 5065 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 AM EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume 1 w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I Volume � — - - ---'— 'I '-- - NL I 1600 I 36 1 0.023 I NT I 1600 I —_ —_ � 71 0.004 NR 1 1600 I I 59 1 0.037 I I I I SL 1 16001 I 75 1 0.047 I I I I I ^ST 1 1600 - I - - - - -- � - - - -- 10 1 0.006 I SR -- I -- 1600 I — I 35 I 0.022 I -- EL ^ 1 1600 I J I 47 1 0.029 -389 - � �ET `-- 1 - - -- } 4800 - -- ---" - -- --- } 0.103 • ER I I 107 1 I — -- I —_.-- —.-- WL _ i -- --3200 1 �- --- i -- 443 1 0.138 • ' `. i f WT I I 510 I I I - -- -- } 4800 ' —'- -- ' –— } 0.120 WR 1 67 I I I 1 EXISTING I.C.U. ' .C.U. I 0.325 EXISTING + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I I Split Phase N/S Direction I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 U Projected + project traffic I.C.U. wlsystems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: — -- --____-- --- - --- ------- _ ---__– _ ------ -- - — _—_–__ _ --- ---- -- ' ------ _ - ----- _ — PROJECT FORM 11 SJ5065AM ISJ5065PM I INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD & SANTA ROSA DRIVE I BIG CANYON 5065 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC I I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED j I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I VIC I GROWTH I PROJECT I VIC Ratio I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I I I I I I I I Volume I – NL 1 1600 _ 1 203 1 0.127 1 1 1 1 NT 1 16001 I 37 1 0.023 1 1 1 1 —NR 1 1600 1 401 1 0.251 1 I I SL 1 1600 1 I 57 1 0.036 I 1 I ST 1 1600 1 1 10 1 0.006 I I I SR 1 1600 1 1 29 1 0.018 1 1 1 1 EL 1— 1600 1 - -- 1 22 1 0.014 I I I 1 ET 1 1 433 1 1 1 I } 4800 - } 0.113 - } ER -- 1— I 109 I I I WL 1 3200 I I 214 I 0.067 I I I WT I 1 256 I I I } 4800 - } 0.063 - } WR I 48 I I I EXISTING I.C.U. — I 0.467 – — EXISTING + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I -� EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. Split Phase NIS Direction Assumed WBL included in NBR. LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1 -1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 IJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. wlsystems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1 -1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT-- - -; --- -- - - -- --- --- -- - ' SJ5065PM 7 L 2003 PM PROJECT I PROJECTI Volume I VIC I Ratio j I I - I I I I I I - I I I I I I - I I I I I I - I I I - I I } I I I I I - I I } I I I I I I I FORM II I % TRAFFIC VOL UME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY &AVOCADO AVENUE 6085 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2004 AM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK. HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR APPROVED PROJECT REGIONAL GROWTH PEAK HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR . VOLUME 1 %OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 223 Southbound 185 Eastbound 1391 Westbound 1152 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. I % TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY &AVOCADO AVENUE 6085 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2004 PM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR APPROVED PROJECT REGIONAL GROWTH PEAK HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME I %OFPROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 228 Southbound 524 Eastbound 1435 Westbound 1485 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to m greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: DATE: CH6085AM EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.428 I I EXISTING -+ REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I I I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I I I Split Phase N/S Direction LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 U Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 L1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORM If CH6085AM I INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS C��P qC/ INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY &AVOCADO AVENUE 6085 FO RN EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2004 AM ` I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Rata I Volume I V/C Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I I Volume I I - - ----- Ni. - -- - - - - -- - -- - -- - -- - — - - - - -- 1 1 66 1 0.041 • - - - - -- - - - _— 1 – 1 — –__ NT -- _—_ -- — __1600 — '---' —' 1 16001 1 551 0.034 I I 1 I-------- --- NR 1 1600 1 I— 102 1 0.064 1 I 1 St. -- I I 70 1 I I - - -- } 3200 _ – _ -- _ _— -- } 0.044 ' _ --- - - --- - -) -- } ST 1 72 I I - - -- SR - -- -- - -- 1 N.S. I 1 43 i -- i_ ---'–' i -- -- -- i -- i i EL 1 1600 I 1 192 1 0.120 ET 1 1373 1 I I I - - - -- } 4800 - - - - -- - } 0.291 - — - -- - —– } -- } ER 1 26 I I I W L I 1600 1 83 I 0.052 I I 1 1 1 WT — '–'- -- 1 I 952 I } 4800 - _ -- -' -- _ __ -- } 0.223 ------ I I ' - - - -- } - —' -- } WR 1 1 117 1 I I EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.428 I I EXISTING -+ REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I I I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I I I Split Phase N/S Direction LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 U Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 L1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORM If CH6085AM I CH6085PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS CP qC/ Fp INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY &AVOCADO AVENUE 6085 PN\ EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2004 PM I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I Movement I Lanes i Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Rata I Volume I V/C I i Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Rata I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Rata I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I NL 1600 1 1 100 1 0.063 1 NT I 1600 I I` 24 1 0.015 I I I I I NR 1 16001 1 104 1 0.065 1 1 I I 1 I SL 1 1 217 1 1 I I I } 3200 - } 0.118 - } } 1 ST 1 1 160 1 1 I - - I SR I N.S.1 1 1471 1 1 I I I I I EL 1 1600 1 1 110 1 0.069 I I ET 1 I 1277 I I I I } 4800 } 0.276 ER 1 I 48 16001 71 0.044 I WL 1 I I I I 1 I I I WT 1 I 1370 I I I } 4800 - - } 0.295 I ' I WR I I 44 I I I I EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.545 EXISTING + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSEDIMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I I I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I I I Split Phase N/S Direction , LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement wilt be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project Improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: - -- - -- - _ -- - - — — - - ' PROJECT FORM II CH6085PM LJ 1 II % TRAFFIC VOL UME ANAL YSIS 1l I I I I i I I I I 1 U INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & FORD ROAD 4985 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 1003 AM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR APPROVED PROJECT REGIONAL GROWTH PEAK HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1% OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 2372 Southbound 2464 Eastbound 300 Westbound 2331 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than I % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. I % TRAFFIC VOL UME ANAL YSIS INTERSECTION. MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & FORD ROAD 4985 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 1003 PM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR APPROVED PROJECT REGIONAL GROWTH PEAK HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME I°/ OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 2503 Southbound 2118 Eastbound 292 Westbound 1235 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than I % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic volumes. 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than I % of Projected Peak Hour. Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. MA4985AM 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 FJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project -- -- ---- -- - ---------- - - ---- -- _ --- _ --------- _ -- Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORM 11 MA4985AM 1 I I I I I I 1 I I 1 1 IA INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS CAP q�rFO RN INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & FORD ROAD 4985 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 AM I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I VIC I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Rata I Volume I VIC j Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I I Volume I I I NL 1 32001 I 701 0.022 I I I 1 I I NT -- -6400 I 2167 1 0.342 NR I N.S. 1 j 1151 I I I I I SL I 32001 I 3551 0.111 I I I I I ST I 64001 I 21051 0.329 1 1 —_ -- I I I I -_ -- SR 1 -- N.S. I 1 41 i i- EL 1 1 I 43 1 0.013 1 — ET – ^3200 1 3200 1 — — I 178 1 0.056 – —_ -- I ER - -- - - - - -- - 1 1600 1 -- -- -- - I 7s 1 o.oas I _ — WL -- I _- 3200 1 - -- 1 687 1 0.215 I I I I I • WT I 32001 1 376 1 0.118 1 I I I I I WR I N.S.1 1 12681 I I I I I I • ' EXISTING I.C.U. I 0.724 1 EXISTING + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I I I 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 FJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project -- -- ---- -- - ---------- - - ---- -- _ --- _ --------- _ -- Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORM 11 MA4985AM 1 I I I I I I 1 I I 1 1 IA I I C MA4985PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & FORD ROAD 4985 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 PM --- ------- ---- - -- ------ - ---------'--- - ----- --- - --- -- -- - -- - -- -- -- - - --- ' — - - -- - I EXISTING I PROPOSED i EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT 1 Movement I Lanes ( Lanes I PK HR I V/C . I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I Capacity Capacity I Volume I Ratio Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I– Volume ------------ -- NL - ------------ - ----- -- ---- 1 3200 1 - -- -- - - I 0 1 ----- - --- --- -- ---- - ---- 0.000 I I I I I I I---- ---- N-- - ------- ----- - -- --------- 1 6400 1 - - -- -- - 1 1 - - -- -- -- – — – - -- -- -- -- — I 367 1 • – NR -- -- - ------------- I N.S.1 -- -2350 ---- 1 1531 - — -- _ 1 1 I I I I I------ - - - - -- - ------ - - - - -- - ---- ----- - - - - -- ! - --- - - - - - -- - ------ 492 I - - -- - - -- — -- — -- - - - -- - -- - -- I I I I I I • ------SL --- ST ----- ---- - ----------- -- 1 64001 -- 1 16061 ---0–' - -- I 0.251 I I 1 I I I— ------ --- SR - ------ - - - - -- - --- - - - - -- I N I – --- I 20 I – - --- -- – – – — --- -- -- --- - --- I - -- - - -- EL --- - - --- --- ---- --------- 1 32001 -- --- - - 1 31 1 ----- -- I 0.010 ET 1 3200 1 1 197 1 0.062 ER I 16001 I 641 0.040 I I I I I I I- ---- - - - --- W L - -- --------- -- - ----- -- - - --- I 3200 1— -- -- — 1 257 I -- -- — - -- – -- - -- j 0.080 WT -------- 3200 1 - - - -- I 229 0.072 –_- -- I------ WR ---- -- - - ---- ------------- - I N.S. I - -- — --- 1 7491 – -- – – —' – — — - -- – - - -- I I I I I I – ---- ------- EXISTING - ----------- - --------------- - I.C.U. ------------ - --- 1 - 0.663 - ---- ------ – -- -- --- ---- - -- - -- - - --- - -- I 1 I I --- --- -- ------ EXISTING + - --------- - -- - ---- --------- - REG GROWTH + COMMITTED ---- -- ---- - - - ---- ------------ - ---------- - — - --- – – I W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I I I LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project - - - - ----- ------ - ---- -- Description of system improvement: --- -------------- - - ---- -- -- - ---- ------ - ------ --- - ------ - ------ -- --------- --- - -- ------ - --- - PROJECT FORM II MA4985PM I 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD 5070 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 1003 AM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME . PEAK HOUR APPROVED PROJECT REGIONAL GROWTH PEAK HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1% OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 1526 Southbound 2815 Eastbound 351 Westbound 1188 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. I % TRAFFIC VOL UME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD 5070 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 1003 PM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK. HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR APPROVED PROJEC REGIONAL GROWTH PEAK HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1% OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 1625 Southbound 1999 Eastbound 1119 Westbound 707 �J Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. IMA507QAM i Description of system improvement: - - ----------- - ------- ----- - -- ------- - -------- - ----------- - ------------ - --------- ---- - - - --- - ---- PROJECT FORM II MA5070AM I INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS C'9C/ F00.N�P INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD 5070 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 AM I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I VIC I GROWTH I PROJECT I VIC Ratio I Volume I VIC I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I Volume I I I NL I 3200 I 67 I 0.021 — NT I 4800 1 I 1453 1 0.303 I I I I I NR I 16001 I 61 0.004 1 1 I I 1 I SL I 3200 1 I 408 1 0.128 ST 1 4800 I 1420 1 0.296 I I I– - - - - -- - - -- I SR I N.S. I 9871 I I I I I EL 1 3200 I I 107 1 0.033 ET I 1 199 I I I I I —) 4800 - ---- - - -- --- } 0.051 I - - -- - - - - -- } - -- } I ER I I 45 I I I WL 1600 19 0.012 I I I I I I I I I I WT I 3200 I I 464 1 0.145 I I 1 I WR N.S. 7051 I I I I I I I I I EXISTING I.C.U. I 0.509 I EXISTING + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED /PROPOSED I.C.U. I W IMPROVEMENTS I I I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I I I 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: - - ----------- - ------- ----- - -- ------- - -------- - ----------- - ------------ - --------- ---- - - - --- - ---- PROJECT FORM II MA5070AM I MA5070PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS CAP INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD 5070 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 PM EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C 1 Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I 1 I Volume I I I NL 1 3200 I I 44 1 0.014 ( I I I I I I NT I 4800 I I 1567 1 0.326 NR 1 1600 I 1 14 1 0.009 I I I I I I SL 1 3200 I 1 570 1 0.178 I I I I I I t ST 1 4800 ( I 1209 0.252 I I I I 1 SR I N.S. I I 2201 I I I I I I EL 3200 I 1 588 1 0.184 I I I I I 1 ET I I 403 I I I I } 48DO - } 0.111 ER 1 I 126 I I I I 1 WL 1 1 6D 1 I 27 1 0.017 I I I I I I WT 32D0 1 I 285 1 0.089 I I I I I WR I N.S. I I 3951 I I I I I EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.777 1 I EXISTING + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I I I LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Lj Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1 -1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORM 11 MA5070PM I I 1 F i I F I% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & SAN MIGUEL DRIVE 7135 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 1003 AM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR APPROVED PROJECT REGIONAL GROWTH PEAK HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1% OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 1606 Southbound 1380 Eastbound 303 Westbound 516 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. 1 % TRAFFIC VOL UME ANAL YSIS INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & SAN MIGUEL DRIVE 7135 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 1003 PM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR APPROVED PROJECT REGIONAL GROWTH PEAK HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1% OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 1235 Southbound 1355 Eastbound 1098 Westbound 458 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. .I PROJECT: II i DATE: MA7135AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS I LJ I INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & SAN MIGUEL DRIVE 7135 `J 2003 AM EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL j COMMITTED I PROJECTED j PROJECT I PROJECT Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I Rata I 1 Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Rata I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I . I I I { I I I I Volume NL — I —3200 1 I 142 1 0.044 1 I I I I I--------- - - --'— - ------ - NT 48001 1245 I 0.259 1 1 I NR I 1600 I 2191 0.137 I I I I I SL I 3200 I I 11 0.000 I- 1 ST I 4800 I 1 749 1 0.156 -- -0.394 �- I -- SR -- I- --1600 I� — I— 630 1 --- -- —'— I -- - -- EL 3200 I - -'-- -- - --'—_204 { — 0.064 I I I I ET 78 3200 0.031 - - ------ - 21 } I I I — } I I - -- ER { W L 1 3200 1 I 212 I 0.066 I - I ---- -- - ---- - – 297 I -- ----- } 3200 - — 0.095 I W R i 17} I I` - --- -- I ----'— -- -- I EXISTING I.C.U. 1 ~ 0.418 I EXISTING +REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. wNrout project -' Description of system improvement` FORM II PROJECT MA7135AM I IMA7135PM i 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD 8 SAN MIGUEL DRIVE 7135 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 PM I I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I 1 I Capacity Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I I Volume I I I NL 1 3200 { { 74 1 0.023 I I I I { NT 1 4800 I 1 911 1 0.190 1 I I I I I NR 1 1600 I 1 2501 0.156 I I I I I 1 SL 1 32001 1 81 0.003 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ST 1 4800 1 1 1034 1 0.215 1 SR I 1600 1 1 313 1 0.196 1 1 I I I I 1 EL I 32-00 1 1 687 1 0.215 I ET 1 1 362 I I I 1 - } 3200 - } 0.128 ER 1 1 49 I I I I I W L 1 3200 1 1 199 1 0.062 I I I I I I I WT 1 1 239 I I I I - -- } 3200 - -- } 0.081 } } I I WR I 20 I I I I I EXISTING I.C.U. 0.534 I I I EXISTING + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I I I 1 -1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 CI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT MA7135PM FORM 11 I % TRAFFIC VOL UME ANAL YSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY &MACARTHUR BOULEVARD 5335 (Fxisting Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2004 AM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME JAPPRO VEDPROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR. VOLUME 1% OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 0 Southbound 776 Eastbound 1241 Westbound 2085 O Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. I% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY & MACARTHUR BOULEVARD 5335 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2004 PM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1% OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 0 Southbound 1264 Eastbound 2141 Westbound 2193 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic Is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: DATE: ICH5335AM i I INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY 8 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD 5335 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC I— 1 EXISTING PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I Movement I Lanes 1 Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I I I I I I I I I Volume I I 11 NL - - - -- I NT I I I I I I I I �1 NR I I I I I I I I SL 1 3200 I 516 1 0.161 I I I I STI - -- ----------- - --- ------ -- - - ---- - - - --- -- — - -- — -- -- — - -- — -- — - -- ' 1 I I I I I - - -- I — - -- I - - -- -- I -- SR I N.S.1 i 371 I I I I I I 11 EL 1 3200 I 1 513 I 0.160 1 ET 1 4600 I I 987 I 0.206 I I 1 I I I ER I I I I I I I I I I WL I I I I I I I I I '1 WT 1 4800 1 I 787 I 0.164 I I I I 1 WR I N.S. 1 1 1071 1 1 1 1 1 1 -- -- - - - - - -- - - — — — — — -- — -- — — — — - - - - -- - -- — - - -- — �I EXISTING I.C.U. I 0.485 1 1 EXISTING + REGIONAL GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I 1 EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I - -------- - --------- - ---- ---- - ----- ---- - --- --- - — _I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' I I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I _I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project -- ------------- - - ---------- - -- ----' Description of system improvement: — ---- --- --- - --- ------- PROJECT CH5335AM 2004 AM PROJECT I V/C I Ratio I FORM II CH5335PM I _I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I —I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I —I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1 —1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project I I i t I 11 I [J I L✓ Description of system improvement: INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS C��P '9< /FO0.N INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY & MACARTHUR BOULEVARD 5335 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2004 PM " I I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I Volume I I I NL I I I I I I I I I I I NT I I I I I I I I I NR I I I I I I I I I SL 1 3200 I I 772 1 0.241 I I I I I ST I SR I N.S.1 I 390 1 I I I I I 1 EL 3200 1 I 476 1 0.149 - I ET 4800 1 1 1225 1 0.255 1 I I I I I ER l WL I I I I I I I I I WT I 4800 1086 1 0.226 I I I I I WR 1 N.S.1 1 675 1 I I I I I I ' EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.616 I I - I EXISTING + REGIONAL GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I I ' EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I I _I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I —I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I —I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1 —1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project I I i t I 11 I [J I L✓ Description of system improvement: PROJECT - - - -- - - - -- - — - _ _ FORM If CH5335PM I 1 1 i I 11 I I l I 1 I I i APPENDIX C Approved Project Data 10- NOV -04 Traffic Phasing Data Projects Less Than 100% Complete ct Number Project Name Percent 148 FASHION ISLAND EXPANSION 36% 154 TEMPLE BAT YAHM EXPANSION 65% 157 FORD REDEVELOPMENT 95% 167 CANNERY LOFTS VILLAGE 0% 168 HOAG HOSPITAL PHASE II 0% 555 CIOSA - IRVINE PROJECT 91% 910 NEWPORT DUNES 0% 936 1401 DOVE STREET 0% 937 NEWPORT AUTO CENTER EXPAN 0% 938 OLSEN TOWNHOME PROJECT 0 0% 939 BAWIEW LANDING SENIOR HO 0% 940 BIRCH BAWIEW PLAZA II 0% 941 494/496 OLD NEWPORT BL 0% 942 401 OLD NEWPORT BL 0% page: 1 F-; m 3: a J'• N O W:- N W: ri W ; 2' E J: W; Y d U) LL d v d x It: ,n: O o a �! >d 0 IR 0 J'• C 00 O O nIt N N V W d 0 CL Z; m O ` c < CL > 0 w O 0 a w J 0 z: a Q 0 0 LL N: E: J m; m O Z•m Z:r CI¢ y W N m; N O W: r `m aY Lm; cn: 0O a E. °m 2 Z•. o Z:e Z: O C: — z 0 < CL • ¢a 3; a 0': W: F: W: 2' J GC W: Y G � d N a c O a > m o O Q) O �; N O y v � lN0 n. v :: S CL ? � m o � o Q CL Z J; Z; CL ¢ Q N O W m: W Z: ca ;< = ¢ N ca W FO Y dfQ: mi o m: m r o Z:m Z; m rn O z — 0 ¢a i r 3 0-1! 3i W: a W 3 0-1! W: W W: z C CG G W: Y m N a c E O a O a m >a O' C co 0 a a z; a m O` a z J a z. Q `n 0 Of w o: W M 0 m:me Z: ca 3! o W: Y arn:� m: E:° _ °o Z :m �°°: roe Z r rn Z z — o as d a A G 7 d co V d C 2 O 'O O C. 7� O� O C cn CD c co 0 iN+ V cc L � N CL d � � c CL �+ a H j O M M Q 0 O Z 0 3 U? 3 J� fh 3 C�I- W: W : N e° w: : W W m m a N: U J N W u r as K N Z: w z 3 z: x F N O Z: U O K W O:W m0 m:4 Z co C:Q N W FW• I Y d m: OJ W arn:� d: Ei� E x Zo M Z as 3, a J•� 3 w: W: w: m E J: E 3 W: s y to o a Er p�v: z c O dU cn; e u m C coo C 0 N N Iz K M L m y J J a. m m z: v O :; z n s m o Z: z: ~ 0 0 z z Q_ U) Z: M a fr 0 N fr K E: 3: z;r- z C:cn N p W; F- Y c0 � N m: LL U); m E E:� _ Z: C? z:N z, z G, — Z d 22 as I I @ @ . \ � ` � @ E I I � \ ` � @ E E c @ SE , ` k §L §/� co �0 ■ ■� E .� C z. « § E:; g : ƒ.\ � ) , � ¥ } Z :) 9: ` � !I I I 3 m 3: a J: N 3, W: W w W: W: G J: W: CG G W d m oa ash v m z , E o ' u). c o z p � d U Wi O •y y r d' V L m y J rn a = z: p 02 z a 5 H m o � a U) Z'w�, Q � 0 a ,: o Er Ali m;a m• N z:r 3: z C:a w -ro �m;nrn o W: F- Y m m: . a u): d: E _ y �N : p m: O o Z:N Z;� N Oc: - z o � � as \; ` E E , $ 2 ; E \0 CL o/� 7k) �R 0 ) a a� ( a. 9 / ) >. M \ :\ | :_ §:\ k \mG ; �:) CO: ) -. ® <I . m 3 A a J:� N 3: W; N — W; W; l0 C J.r W: G Y � d d � a c � O �> m O rno � J C co C m ) 0 t V L m N S: m a z; o 0; c a ° 'O J �f� F- 7 m it 0 Q Q it z: Q U Q .g m: p E': [r m: N m m; z, c:0 w M Go: �N O W: H Y dm;� a m: n : S D m Z : m m: N N o z; O c; — z 0 22 ¢a . � I @ @ � @ � @ @ �@ �@ � .� � @ @ @ . � .� .� \; \ \`2 Wt � Wt � 2 co E , � 2 a. ` K )]� 6 }4) cnk2 E )2� D IL a� § ) oea m F- C z 2 - E: ;/ M. ; , 7 :` �rn) \`e \k�\ , ; kCL \� ` E , E 2 , uE ` k §L 6/2 cn§) 20 k� E u0 \�` \ 2 2 e z J 7 � § \ Z \ :) S�) }`4 Z: ; z ` !! £ L , :, . E E , 3 E , \ \L omit O)B$ ' -0 )k§ ) ( §2k E ( § r:[ Z. / � ` ®� ) :m m m } Z:m !: 2 � !� APPENDIX D TPO One - Percent Analysis Calculation Worksheets 11 I I I I I I I 1 1 Ill I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 11 I 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD d EASTBLUFF DRIVEIFORD ROAD (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Dally Traffic 2003 AM) AM PEAK HOUR APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAKHOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1% OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 1766 88 75 1929 19 12 Southbound 1722 11 86 105 1913 19 1 2 Eastbound 1203 0 1 1204 12 0 Westbound 508 0 3 511 5 1 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD d FASTBLUFF DRIVEIFORD ROAD (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Dally Traffic 2003 PM) PM PEAK HOUR APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAKHOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME 1% OF PROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAKHOUR VOLUME Northbound 1770 89 113 1972 20 6 Southbound 1798 I g0 I 95 1983 20 I 6 Eastbound 641 0 2 643 6 0 Westbound 233 0 1 4 237 2 2 Project Traffic is estimated to be less Man 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis Is required. PROJECT: Santa Barbara Condominium Project DATE: 1 2/2 212 00 4 s' 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD d SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Avenge Dally Traffic 2003 AM) AM PEAK HOUR APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAL( HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1% OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 1402 70 83 1555 16 12 Southbound 2018 101 107 2226 22 3 Eastbound 391 0 0 391 4 0 Westbound 151 0 10 1 161 1 2 0 �X Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD d SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Dally Traffic 200 PM) PM PEAK HOUR APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAKHOUR VOLUME PEAKHOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAKHOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME 1% OF PROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAKHOUR VOLUME Northbound 1321 66 97 1484 15 5 Southbound I 1957 98 1 105 1 2160 22 1 8 Eastbound 186 0 5 191 2 0 Westbound 298 0 30 328. 3 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak How Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis Is required. PROJECT: Santa Barbara Condominium Project DATE: 1 212 212 00 4 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD d SANTA BARBARA DRIVE IlExistlng Traffic Volumes Based on Average Dally Traffic 2003 AM) AM PEAK HOUR APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAKHOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAKHOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME 1% OF PROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAKHOUR VOLUME Northbound 1724 86 75 1885 19 2 Southbounal 1388 69 1 114 1571 16 I 3 Eastbound 28 0 6 34 0 0 Westbound 125 0 6 131 1 19 Project Traffic is estimated to be loss than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD d SANTA BARBARA DRIVE IExlstlng Traffic Volumes Based on Average Dally Traffic 2003 PM) PM PEAK HOUR APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAKHOUR VOLUME PEAKHOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME 1% OF PROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAKHOUR VOLUME Northbound 1051 53 94 1198 12 5 Southboundl 1685 84 93 1862 19 8 Eastbound 40 0 3 43 0 0 Westbound 771 0 4 775 8 8 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Santa Barbara Condominium Project DATE: 12/22/2004 1% TRAFFIC VOLUMEANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD d COAST HIGHWAY 1Ex /sfing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Dally Traffic 20W AM) AM PEAK HOUR APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAKHOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAKHOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME 1% OF PROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAKHOUR VOLUME Northbound 512 0 1 513 5 0 Southbound 1 974 49 118 1141 11 7 Eastbound .2896 145 81 3122 31 2 Westbound 1159 58 44 1 1261 1 13 0 �X Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak How Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD &COAST HIGHWAY (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Dally TnNk 2004 PM) PM PEAK HOUR APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAKHOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAKHOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME 1% OF PROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAKHOUR VOLUME Northbound 415 0 3 418 4 0 Southbound 2134 107 79 2320 23 3 Eastbound 1999 100 128 2227 22 5 Westbound 2174 109 61 2344 .23 0 OProject Traffic is astknated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Santa Barbara Condominium Project DATE: 12/22/2004 I 1 I I I I 1.1 1 I 1 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: SANTA CRUZ ROAD& SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD ( Exlsting Traffic Volumes Based on Average Dally Traffic 2003 AM) AM PEAK HOUR APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1% OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 77 0 1 78 1 2 Southbound 69 0 1 70 1 0 Eastbound 768 0 1 769 8 0 Westbound 590 0 1 1 591 6 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 196 of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. �X Project Traffic is estmated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: SANTA CRUZ ROAD & SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Tragic 2003 PM) PM PEAK HOUR APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 196 OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 538 0 0 538 5 1 Southbound 43 0 1 44 0 0 Eastbound 631 0 1 632 6 0 Westbound 457 0 1 458 5 1 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Santa Barbara Condominium Project DATE: 1 212 212 00 4 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: SANTA CRUZ DRIVE d SAN CLEMENTE DRIVE ( Exisdng Traffic Volumes Based on Avenge Daily Traffic 2003 AM) AM PEAK HOUR APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1% OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 95 0 0 95 1 0 Southbound 312 0 0 312 3 0 Eastbound 159 0 0 159 2 2 Westbound 56 0 0 56 1 1 1 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: SANTA CRUZ DRIVE d SAN CLEMENTE DRIVE (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Avenge Dally Traffic 2003 PM) PM PEAK HOUR APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAKHOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAKHOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME 1% OF PROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAKHOUR VOLUME Northbound 333 0 0 333 3 0 Southbound 263 0 0 263 3 1 Eastbound 298. 0 0 298 3 1 Westbound 100 0 1 0 1,00 1 0 �X Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Santa Barbara Condominium Project DATE: 1 212 212 00 4 I ' 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS 1 I INTERSECTION: NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE 8 SANTA BARBARA DRIVE (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 AM) AM PEAK HOUR APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAKHOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAKHOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME 1% OF PROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAKHOUR VOLUME Northbound 219 0 0 219 2 2 Southbound 124 0 0 124 1 1 Eastbound 210 0 0 210 2 14 Westbound 10 0 0 10 0 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. �I �X Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. .1 I I 11 1 I 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE & SANTA BARBARA DRIVE (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily TmfRc 2003 PM) PM PEAK HOUR APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME 1% OF PROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAKHOUR VOLUME Northbound 265 0 0 265 3 6 Southbound 323 0 0 323 3 2 Eastbound 281 0 0 281 3 7 Westbound 136 0 0 136 1 - 1 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. I ^ Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Santa Barbara Condominium Project DATE: 12/2212004 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE 8 COAST HIGHWAY (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Dally Traffic 2003 AM) AM PEAK HOUR APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAKHOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME 1% OF PROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAKHOUR VOLUME Northbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 Southbound 115 0 9 124 1 5 Eastbound 1660 1 83 1 26 1 1769 18 0 Westhound 1287 1 64 1 32 1 1383 14 1 1 Project Traffic Is estimated to bets" than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. �X Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE B COAST HIGHWAY (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Dally Traffic 2003 PM) PM PEAK HOUR APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAKHOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAKHOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME 1% OF PROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAKHOUR VOLUME Northbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 Southbound 796 0 34 830 8 2 Eastbound 1967 98 46 2111 21 0 . Wastbound 1843 92 23 1958 20 4 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Santa Barbara Condorninium Project DATE: 12/22/2004 I I I I 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: SANTA ROSA DRIVEIBIG CANYON DRIVE d SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Dally Traffic 2= AM) AM PEAK HOUR APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAKHOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME 1% OF PROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAKHOUR VOLUME Northbound 102 0 10 112 1 3 Southbound 1 120 0 0 120 1 0 Eastbound 543 0 7 550 6 2 Westbound 1020 0 1 1021 10 1 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: SANTA ROSA DRIVEIBIG CANYON DRIVE & SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Dally Traffic 2m PM) PM PEAK HOUR APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAKHOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME 1% OF PROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAKHOUR VOLUME Northbound 641 0 26 667 7 2 Southbound 96 0 1 0 96 1 0 Eastbound 564 0 9 573 6 1 Westbound 516 0 12 530 5 3 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Santa Barbara Condorninium Project DATE: 12122/2004 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: AVOCADO AVENUE d COAST HIGHWAY (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Dally Trafc 2004 AM) AM PEAK HOUR APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1% OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 223 0 0 223 - 2 0 Southbound 185 1 0 0 185 2 0 Eastbound .1591 80 26 1697 17 5 Westbound 1152 58 33 1243 12 1 �X Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. OProject Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: AVOCADO AVENUE 8 COAST HIGHWAY (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Dally TmfOc 2004 PM) PM PEAK HOUR APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME 1% OF PROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAKHOUR VOLUME Northbound 228 0 0 228 2 0 Southbound 524 0 1 525 5 0 Eastbound 1435 72 35 1542 15 2 Westbound 1485. 74 20 1579 16 4]] Project Traffic is estimated to be less than I% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysts is required. PROJECT: Santa Barbara Condominium Project DATE: 12/22/2004 I 1] II J 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD& FORD ROAD /Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Dally Traffic 2003 AMJ AM PEAK HOUR APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAKHOUR VOLUME PEAKHOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAKHOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME 1% OF PROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAKHOUR VOLUME Northbound 2372 119 2 2493 25 4 Southbound 2464 123 3 2590 26 0 Eastbound 300 0 4 304 3 3 Westbound 2331 0 2 2333 23 1 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volume. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis Is required. . 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD &FORD ROAD (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Dally Tm is 2003 PM) PM PEAK HOUR APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAKHOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME 1% OF PROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAKHOUR VOLUME Northbound 2503 125 24 2652 27 2 Southbound 2118 106 14 2238 22 1 Eastbound 292 0 2 2S4 3 2 Westbound 1235 0 3 1238 F 12 3 X ,Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Santa Barbara Condominium Project DATE: 1212212004 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD d SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Dally Traffic 2003 AM) AM PEAK HOUR APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAKHOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAKHOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME 196 OF PROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAKHOUR VOLUME Northbound 1526 76 0 1602 16 0 Southbound 2815 141 4 2960 30 1 Eastbound 351 0 1 352 4 5 Westbound 1188 0 1 1189 12 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis Is required. 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD 8 SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Dally Traffic 200.3 PM) PM PEAK HOUR APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME 196 OF PROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAKHOUR VOLUME Northbound 1625 81 3 1709 17 0 Southbound 1999 100 1 15 2114 21 2 Eastbound 1119. 0 19 1138 11 3 Westbound 707 0 1 70S 7 1 L ^ J Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 196 of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is e.a;mated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Santa Barbara Condominium Project DATE: 12122!2004 I i I I 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD d SAN MIGUEL DRIVE (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Dally Traffic 2003 AM) AM PEAK HOUR APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1% OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 1606 80 0 1686 17 0 Southbound 1380 69 2 1451 15 0 Eastbound 303 0 1 304 3 2 Westbound 516 0 1 517 5 1 0 I I I I I I PM PEAK HOUR Project Traffic is estimated to be less than i % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. 1% OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. �i 1235 62 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS 1299 13 0 INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD 8 SAN MIGUEL DRIVE 1355 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Dally Traffic 2003 PM) I I I I I I PM PEAK HOUR APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1% OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 1235 62 2 1299 13 0 Southbound 1355 68 3 1426 14 0 Eastbound 1098 0 24 1122 11 1 Westbound 458 0 12 470 5 1 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Santa Barbara Condominium Project DATE: 12122/2004 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARDS COAST HIGHWAY (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2004 AM) AM PEAK HOUR APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAKHOUR VOLUME PEAKHOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAKHOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME 1% OF PROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAKHOUR VOLUME Northbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 Southbound 776 39 13 828 8 0 Eastbound 1241 62 2 1 1332 13 5 Westbound 2085 1 104 22 1 2211 1 22 1 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARDS COAST HIGHWAY (Existing Tmffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2004 PM) PM PEAK HOUR APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAKHOUR VOLUME PEAKHOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAKHOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME 1% OF PROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAKHOUR VOLUME Northbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 Southbound 1264 63 6 1333 13 0 Eastbound 2141 107 38 2286 23 2 Westbound 2193. 110 15 2318 23 4 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to bee qual to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection CopacitY Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Santa Barbara Condominium Project DATE: 1 212 212 00 4 I r 1 I 1 I 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & FORD ROAD (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Dally Traffic 2003 A IQ AM PEAK HOUR APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1% OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 2372 119 2 2493 25 4 Southboundf 2464 123 3 2590 26 1 0 Eastbound 300 0 4 304 3 3 Westbound 2331 0 2 2333 23 1 Project Traffic le estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic Is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & FORD ROAD (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Dally Traffic 2003 PM) PM PEAK HOUR APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1% OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 2503 125 24 2652 27 2 Southbound 2118 106 14 2238 22 1 Eastbound 292 0 2 294 3 2 Westbound 1235 0 3 1238 12 3 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volurras. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Santa Barbara Condondnium Project DATE: 1 212 212 0 0 4 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD d SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 AM) AM PEAK HOUR APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAKHOUR VOLUME PEAKHOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAKHOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME 1% OF PROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAKHOUR VOLUME Northbound 1526 76 0 1602 16 0 Southbound 2815 141 4 2960 30 1 Eastbound 351 0 1 352 4 5 Westbound 1188 0 1 1189 12 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD 8 SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Dally Traffic 2003 PM) PM PEAK HOUR APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1% OF PROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAKHOUR VOLUME Northbound 1625 81 3 1709 17 0 Southbound 1999 100 15 2114 21 2 Eastbound 1119. 0 19 1138 11 3 Westbound 707 0 1 708 7 1 �X Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Santa Barbara Condominium Project DATE: 12/2212004 i. 1 I i F] I I I 1 APPENDIX.E Cumulative Project Data e Table E -1 Cumulative Project Traffic Generation Project Peak Hour Daily' Morning Eveni Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound Total. South Coast Shipyard 35 1 20 55 41 38 79 892 Morman Temple 20 5 25 16 10 26 410 Saint Mark Presbyterian 36 30 66 42 44 86 N/A Our Lady Queen of Angels 47 31 78 6 6 12 N/A St. Andrews Church 3 f 4 11 10 21 N/A Mariners Church 157 95 252 182 137 319 4,505 Exodus Community Center 331 253 584 240 333 573 5,365 Newport Coast - TAZ f Newport Coast - TAZ 2 Newport Coast - TAZ 3 Newport Coast - TAZ 4 Subtotal 74 91 51 56 272 244 327 178 186 935 318 418 229 242 1,207 238 327 178 184 927 159 183 102 113 557 397 510 280 297 1,484 3,928 5,105 2,794 2,960 14,787 Newport Ridge - TAZ f Newport Ridge - TAZ 2 Newport Ridge - TAZ 3 Subtotal 135 63 26 224 317 222 779 658 452 285 145 882 464 222 122 808 353 127 57 537 817 349 179 1,345 8,778 3,487 1,822 14,087 Bonita Canyon - Residential 1 39 783 222 187 87 274 2,821 Total 1 1,164 2,277 1 3,375 1 2,460 1,759 4,219 42,867 1 N/A =Not Available i I I I J r TABLE 3 -1 TRIP GENERATION RATES' LAND USE UNITS PEAK HOUR DAILY AM PM IN OUT IN OUT Residential - Apartments DU 0.90 0.42 0.43 0.20 6.47 Commercial Retail TSF 0.60 0.50 1.90 2.00 45.00 General Office TSF 2.60 0.35 1.49 7.26 22.44 Source: City of Newport Beach Trip Generation Rates, Institue of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation, Sixth Edition, 1997, Land Use Category 710 Z DU = Dwelling Units TSF = Thousand Square Feet I USUCJobsl006361Exmh (00636- 02.xjs]T 3 -7 3 -2 I TABLE 3 -2 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION LAND USE QUANTITY UNITS' PEAK HOUR DAILY AM PM IN OUT IN OUT Existing Credits Commercial Retail 3.8 TSF 2 2 7 8 171 Commercial Office 10.4 TSF 27 4 15 76 233 TOTAL CREDITS 29 6 23 83 404 Prop osed Project Residential - Apartments 28 DU 25 12 12 6 161 Commercial Retail 19.6 TSF 12 10 37 39 882 Commercial Office 10.4 TSF 27 4 15 76 233 TOTAL 64 26 64 121 1,296 NET NEW TRIPS 35 20 41 38 892 ' DU = Dwelling Unit TSF = Thousand Square Feet U: \UUobs \00636 \Exoe11100636 -02.xlslT 3 -2 MM1 I 1 I I 3-5 as TABLE 4 -1 TRIP GENERATION RATES' WEEKDAY CONDITIONS LAND USE PEAK HOUR TRIP RATES DAILY RATE AM PM IN OUT IN OUT Moran Temple Rates Based on: 3.12 1 2.99 1 44.11 Thousand Square Feet 1.12 0.28 0.93 0.56 23.46 WEEKEND CONDITIONS LAND USE PEAK HOUR TRIP DAILY RATE IN OUT Morman Tem le Rates Based on: Thousand Square Feet 3.12 1 2.99 1 44.11 Source: Empirical data collection /trip generation analysis conducted by Solaegui Engineers, LTD (September 15, 2001) U: \UcJobs \00636 \ExceI1j00636 -02.x lsIT4 -1 I 4 -2 TABLE 4 -2 NEWPORT BEACH MORMON TEMPLE TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY WEEKDAY LAND USE TQUANTI QUANTITY UNITS' PEAK HOUR DAILY AM PM IN OUT IN OUT Mormon Temple Thousand Square Feet 1 17.46 1 TSF 1 54 52 1 770 Thousand Square Feet 17.46 1 TSF 20 5 16 10 410 WEEKEND LAND USE QUANTITY UNITS' PEAK HOUR DAILY IN OUT Mormon Temple Thousand Square Feet 1 17.46 1 TSF 1 54 52 1 770 TSF = Thousand Square Feet U: \UcJ obs \00636\Excel \[00636- 02.xisf r4 -2 4 -3 �Z � O mP X m w 1� _N 0 0. r W 0. G W 1C� G V- LW r_ CO 1 l 4 -5 0 d f 0 LL 0 O z Z v W W d W ' J o e/ z� TABLE 5 -1 TRIP GENERATION RATES' LAND USE UNITS2 PEAK HOUR DAILY AM PM IN OUT IN I OUT Church TSF 0.08 0.03 0.34 0.30 N /A3 Daycare TSF 6.90 6.12 6.40 7.22 79.26 ' Source: City of Newport Beach Trip Generation Rates 2 TSF = Thousand Square Feet 3 N/A = Not Available U: \UcJobs \00636 \Excel \[00636- 02.xlsrf St 5 -2 TABLE 5-2 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION [::LAND USE QUANTITY UNITS' PEAK HOUR AM I PM IN OUT IN OUT Church 34.8 TSF 3 1 12 10 JNIAV2 Da care 4.720 TSF 33 29 30 34 OTAL 36 30 42 44 ' TSF = Thousand Square Feet z N/A = Not Available U: IUcJobs \006361Excer4OO636 -02.xls]T 5.2 5 -3 1 LO z s m =� LU N � W 0. I W �- 0.z � O 0° a �z N [1 F] I I i I n I 5 -5 m =Z V w {= m N W CA aZ �0 �.n Q N \ i F- U) 5 -6 s 0 z f 0 z LL Z � W W c J s i1' .� M TABLE 6 -1 TRIP GENERATION RATES' LAND USE UNITS PEArHOUR DAILY AM PM IN OUT N OUT Church TSF 0.08 0.03 0.34 0.30 N /A' Classrooms STU 0.18 0.12 NOW NOM 1.09 ' Source: City of Newport Beach Trip Generation Rates Z TSF = Thousand Square Feet ; STU = Students ' N/A =Not Available NOM =Nominal U:\UcJobs %00636%Excel \[00636 -02xls)T 6-1 6 -2 TABLE 6 -2 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION TSF = Thousand Square Feet . STU = Students ' NIA = Not Available U: \U W obs\00636\Ezcel \[00636- 02.xls1T 6-2 6 -3 PEAK HOUR AM PM LAND USE UNITS' IN OUT IN OUT DAILY Church TSF 2 1 6 6 NIA' Classrooms STU 45 30 0 0 273 Total 47 31 6 6 1 NIA TSF = Thousand Square Feet . STU = Students ' NIA = Not Available U: \U W obs\00636\Ezcel \[00636- 02.xls1T 6-2 6 -3 co W ° IXam LU W6 09 W W � i cog °a ° 1 L \ / Fl w CO 6 -5 0 Z W 0 W J G 0 6 0 W 0 TABLE 7 -1 TRIP GENERATION RATES' ' Source: City of Newport Beach Trip Generation Rates ' TSF = Thousand Square Feet 3 N/A = Not Available U: \U W obs \00636 \Exce0[00636- 02.xis]T 7 -1 7 -2 PEAK HOUR AM PM LAND USE UNITS' IN OUT IN OUT DAILY Church TSF 0.08 0.03 1 0.34 0.30 N/A ' Source: City of Newport Beach Trip Generation Rates ' TSF = Thousand Square Feet 3 N/A = Not Available U: \U W obs \00636 \Exce0[00636- 02.xis]T 7 -1 7 -2 I I I i it i 1 1 [l II TABLE 7 -2 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION LAND USE UNITS' PEAK HOUR DAILY AM I PM IN I OUT I IN OUT Church I TSF 3 1 1 1 11 10 N/A ' TSF = Thousand Square Feet 2 N/A =Not Available U:\UCJobs \00636 \Exceh[00636- 02.xls]T 7 -2 7 -3 I=Z oo >> Z XVm LU Z � Z- a� N ♦ 1 l 7 -5 m A 0 C6 G O 0 oz Z v W °C W 6 W ' J ° ♦t I MA TABLE 10 -1 PERSON TRIP GENERATION RATES1 LAND USE UNITS PEAK HOUR DAILY AM PM IN OUT IN OUT Health Club TSF 1.25 0.85 2.93 1.93 54.14 Church, Synagogue TSF 0.63 0.38 0.55 0.46 13.09 ' Source: City of Irvine Mariners Church Master Plan, Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 2 TSF = Thousand Square Feet U: \UeJobs \00636 \Excel \[00636- 02.xIs)T 10 -1 10 -2 i TABLE 10 -2 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION LAND USE QUANTITY UNITS' PEAK HOUR DAILY AM I PM IN OUT IN OUT [Health on Trip Generation Club 35.0 TSF 44 30 103 68 1,895 ch, Synagogue 328.25 TSF 207 125 181 151 4,297 Person Trip Generation 251 155 284 219 6,192 Vehicle Trip Generation 157 95 182 137 4,505 ' TSF = Thousand Square Feet 2 Derived during traffic model mode choice process U: \Uclobs \00636 \Excel\j00636 -02.xls]T 10-2 10 -3 ♦ V W U) ♦ 1 1 1 4r 10 -5 0 c a i O c LL O r p z Z u W W a W c J lba m m g N c¢ z zz QO N W Z Zi > X y' W LL O u r� U U W U 6' 7 O N Jtt / Off/ TABLE 11 -1 PERSON TRIP GENERATION RATES' LAND USE UNITS' PEAK HOUR DAILY AM PM IN OUT IN OUT ITAM Person Trip Rates Health Club TSF 1.25 0.85 2.93 1.93 54.14 Church, Synagogue TSF 0.63 0.38 0.55 0.46 13.09 Hi h School STU 0.37 0.18 0.03 0.08 1.94 Elements , Middle School STU 0.24 0.17 0.03 0.07 1.54 Child Care Center TSF 9.53 9.14 6.13 13.25 99.99 ' Source: City of Irvine Exodus Community Center and Tarbut VTorah Expansion Traffic Study Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. ' STU = Students TSF = Thousand Square Feet U: \UCJOb9=636Exc ND 636-02.xls1T 11.1 11 -2 TABLE 11.2 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION LAND USE QUANTITY UNITS' PEAK HOUR DAILY AM PM IN OUT IN OUT Person Trips Health Club 48.73 TSF 61 41 143 94 2638 Church, Synagogue 83.49 TSF 53 32 46 38 1093 High School 320 STU 118 58 10 26 621 Elementary, Middle School 160 STU 38 27 5 11 246 Child Care Center 27.78 TSF 265 254 170 368 2778 TOTAL PERSON TRIP GENERATION 535 412 374 537 7376 11TOTAL VEHICLE TRIP GENERATION 331 253 240 333 5365 ' STU = Students TSF = Thousand Square Feet 2 Derived during traffic model mode choice process u: tUrJObsWO6361ExmP400636- 02.:isIT 11.2 11 -3 I == ` o m0� X ~ m Lu � N r 0 � aZ 0 �Za ux W S� SG G 0 V N O 0 x W W F- ♦ t I` ♦ �S I ♦♦ ♦ I 1 va 11 -5 .or W_ O d' i 0 0 G z 2 v W � W a W c J .� z,, 16 9. �o W 0 f ry Z W V Z f Z Z �O N a O w o� X10" W W 7 Zr c� 0 Of Z Va V C 7 O N �a" I e`er x u m TABLE 12 -1 TRIP GENERATION RATES' LAND USE 1UNITS Z PEAK HOUR DAILY AM PM IN OUT IN OUT Condominium/Townhouse DU 0.17 0.49 0.47 0.36 8.10 Multi Family Dwelling DU 0.42 0.43 0.20 6.47 Single Family Detached Residential I DU 0.20 0.70 0.70 0.40 11.00 State Park (gross acres) AC 0.21 0.90 0.29 0.31 19.15 m r' ' Source: City of Newport Beach Trip Generation Rates z DU = Dwelling Units AC = Acres U:% UcJobs\00636\ExmlU00636-02.xlsIT 12 -1 12 -2 l TABLE 12 -2 PROJECTTRIP GENERATION �z P DU =Dwelling t� AC =Acres c � U: WU /y�' b ObsW06361Exce6100636.02.xlsjT 12-2 ` O 12 -3 PEAK HOUR AM PM PLANNING QUANTITY UNITS' DAILY IN OIIf 1N OUT TAZ AREA ND USE DU 21 59 57 44 980 to ownhouse jij 121 396 1B tached Residential 36 DU 7 25 25 14 1C ownhouse 888 DU 151 435 417 320 7,193 1 2A tached Residential 206 DU 41 144 144 82 2,266 13C Multi Famil wellin 116 DU 104 49 50 23 751 13D Multi Famil Dwelling 116 DU 104 49 50 23 23 751 751 13E Multi Famil Dwellin 116 DU 104 49 50 793 529 TOTAL FOR TAZ 1 532 810 243 243 139 3,817 3,817 3A Single Family Detached Residential 347 DU 69 450 DU 90 315 315 160 4,950 3B Sin le Famil Detached Residential 48 Sin le Famil Detached Residential 587 DU 117 411 411 235 6,457 2 13A Multi Family Dwelling 117 DU 105 49 50 23 757 13B Multi Famil Dwelling 117 DU 105 49 50 23 757 14 Single Family Detached Residential 26 DU 5 18 18 10 286 17 State Park (gross acres) 2,807 AC 589 2,526 814 870 53,754 1,080 3,611 1,901 1,480 70,776 TOTAL FOR TAZ 2 12 43 43 25 682 2B Sin le Famil Detached Residential 62 DU 3 4A Single Family Detached Residential 784 DU 157 549 549 314 8,624 169 592 592 339 9,306 . TOTAL FOR 2C TAZ 3 Single Family Detached Residential 307 DU 61 215 23,377 5 Sin le Famil Detached Residential 300 DU 60 210 120 4 6 Sin le Fa mil Detached Residential 75 DU 15 53 30 t2.341 8 Condominium/Townhouse 289 DU 49 142 104 185 620 614 377 9,843 TOTAL FOR TAZ 4 1,966 1 5,633 –i-3.900 2 725 103 015 TOTAL FOR ALL ZONES �z P DU =Dwelling t� AC =Acres c � U: WU /y�' b ObsW06361Exce6100636.02.xlsjT 12-2 ` O 12 -3 0 0 j y\ \ \ I f s% 0 m r -I 3AV VNV runs 12 -5 N LQ r N m v -a m p - � N W a ~ N W a = a O 6 N � - N N Y a Q J f OQj Z C Q O O 2 3a� Z f Q Iii u 0 O N fn ao z W = o � LU MA O ao z� ca a� M6 aD- o V W ' z L 1 12 -6 1 N ❑J UMW W z I--Z� m m l: LU N a 0 _ z� a� IW6� �o d �a a� 0 a W z 0 W 0 o t 0 12 -7 m 16U O AU AU x cc LuN& cc z cc ca Y. LL, cc o 0 16U z I O ♦ I 12-8 N .1 /0 TABLE 13 -1 TRIP GENERATION RATES' F LAND USE [UNITS Z PEAK HOUR AM PM IN OUT IN OUT DAILY Multi Famil Dwelling DU !>JIS 0,42 0.43 0.20 6.47 Single Family Detached Residential I DU 0.20 0.70 0.70 0.40 11.00 Commercial I TSF 0.60 0.50 1.90 2.00 45.00 ' Source: City of Newport Beach Trip Generation Rates Z DU = Dwelling Units TSF = Thousand Square Feet U:% UCJobsX006361Exce1U00636 -02.xisrr 13 -1 13 -2 TABLE 13 -2 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION TAZ PLANNING AREA LAND USE QUANTITY UNITS' PEAK HOUR DAILY AM PM IN OUT IN OUT 7A Si le Family Detached Residential 93 DU 19 65 65 37 2 Single Family Detached Residential 147 DU 29 103 103 59 3 Single Family Detached Residential 138 DU 28 97 97 55 4 Single Family Detached Residential 125 DU 25 88 88 50 0647 5 Multi Family Dwelling 100 DU 90 42 43 20 7 Multi Famil Dwelli 63 DU 57 26 27 13 8 Multi Famil Dwellin 112 DU 101 47 48 .22 9 Multi Family Dwelling 112 DU 101 47 48 22 725 11 single Family Detached Residential 323 DU 65 226 226 129 3,553 12 Commercial 102.959 TSF 62 51 196 206 4,633 12 Si le Family Detached Residential 200 DU 34 98 94 72 1,620 TOTAL FOR TAZ 1 611 890 1,035 685 17,844 21 single Family Detached Residential 350 DU 70 245 245 140 3,850 2 22 Si le Family Detached Residential 705 DU 141 494 494 282 7,755 TOTAL FOR TAZ 2 211 739 739—T[--4-2-2—_L_ 11,605 13 Multi Family Dwelling 347 DU 312 146 149 69 2,245 3 14 Si le Family Detached Residential 26 DU 5 18 18 10 286 15 IMulti Family Dwelling 547 DU 492 230 235 109 3,539 TOTAL FOR TAZ 3 1 809 394 402 188 6,070. OTAL FOR ALL ZONES 1,631 2,023 1 2,176 1 1, 5 35,519 F7 DU= Dwelling Units ' TSF =Thousand Square Feet U; UrJobsWM36�Excen[00636- 02.xis]T 13 -2 [1, q,V 13 -3 �e-7 N Z I o� L W G Xya 10 W COAST Q O ry x P cc : Q 2 v W W NILL 7AV J O Q ♦` i 3nr . - W Y�� b'Vb SAM MIGUEL m `� V � ♦ 30 01— 1 *% OOMM3010 ♦ ii � N 3 a O N P w o N i =aid M o Z i OY 3380GrIV1 � o N O r 7d 1u13uura 0 � E0. 1 O Xa s -151 Hlz 2 3AV 3MIAO1 -40 o 3lwrm 3Ar MLLSfuL ev c 3Ar VNV rl33VS 0 s L n F G u 3nr 3oMwo 0 1 k lvod" N SM SSi15 rr `i PP PP0 �i 60•(i 13 -5 I I I LJ o 0 l N Q 0 13 -6 rka 1• rn ;: I_-ZW wya cc—d a� X2 1 LL,� LL,y �s WD iz op- W I I I LJ o 0 l N Q 0 13 -6 rka 1• f t M H 'WZ F0� ..a 0 a_ V m D L W i Z O 0 f fi IS, L po\ y I , I f O m N H �ta O 13 -7 a� � Eva I i I 1 C] TABLE 16 -1 TRIP GENERATION RATES' LAND USE UNITS2 PEAK HOUR DAILY AM PM IN OUT IN OUT Apartments DU 0.09 0.42 0.43 0.20 6.47 Source: City of Newport Beach Trip Generation Rates Z DU = Dwelling Units U:\ UcJobs\OO636\ExmNO0636- 02.xisIT 16-1 16 -2 TABLE 16 -2 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION PEAK HOUR AM PM F7AND USE UNITSZ IN OUT IN OUT DAILY Apartments DU 39 183 187 87 2821 Z DU = Dwelling Units U:\ UCJObs \00636\Excel \I00636-02AIs)T 16-2 16 -3 I J 16 -5 co a0 o r mZ� =om wy� r � H 1 0 a V a 0 ' m I J 16 -5 APPENDIX F Explanation and Calculation of Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) '; �J u .1 II u II �J 1 EXPLANATION AND CALCULATION OF INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) Overview The ability of a roadway to carry traffic is referred to as capacity. The capacity is usually greater between intersections and less at intersections because traffic flows continuously between them and only during the green phase at them. Capacity at intersections is best defined in terms of vehicles per lane per hour of green. If capacity is 1600 vehicles per lane per hour of green, and if the green phase is 50 percent of the cycle and there are three lanes, then the capacity is 1600 times 50 percent times 3 lanes, or 2400 vehicles per hour for that approach. The technique used to compare the volume and capacity at an intersection is known as Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU). ICU, usually expressed as a decimal, is the proportion of an hour required to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate all intersection traffic if all approaches operate at capacity. If an intersection is operating at 80 percent of capacity (i.e., an ICU of 80 percent), then 20 percent of the signal cycle is not used. The signal could show red on all indications 20 percent of the time and the signal would just accommodate approaching traffic. ICU analysis consists of (a) determining the proportion of signal time needed to serve each conflicting movement of traffic, (b) summing the times for the movements, and (c) comparing the total time required to the total time available. northbound traffic is 160 1200 vehicles per hour, vehicles per hour, then 1600/3200 or 50 percent percent of the signal time 50 plus 30, or 80 percent. they are incorporated ini usually the heavy left movements. For example, if for north -south traffic the I vehicles per hour, the southbound traffic is and the capacity of either direction is 3200 he northbound traffic is critical and requires of the signal time. If for east -west traffic, 30 is required, then it can be seen that the ICU is When left turn arrows (left turn phasing) exist, the analysis. The critical movements are urn movements and the opposing through The ICU technique is an ideal tool to quantify existing as well as future intersection operation. The impact of adding a lane can be quickly determined by examining the effect the lane has on the Intersection Capacity Utilization. ICU Worksheets That Follow This Discussion The ICU worksheet table contains the following information: 1. Peak hour turning movement volumes. 2. Number of lanes that serve each movement. 3. For right turn lanes, whether the lane is a free right turn lane, whether it has a right turn arrow, and the percent of right turns on red that are assumed. 4. Capacity assumed per lane. 5. Capacity available to serve each movement (number of lanes times capacity per lane). 6. Volume to capacity ratio for each movement. 7. Whether the movement's volume to capacity ratio is critical and adds to the ICU value. 8. The yellow time or clearance interval assumed. 9. Adjustments for right turn movements. 10. The ICU and LOS. The ICU Worksheet also has two graphics on the same page. These two graphics show the following: 1. Peak hour turning movement volumes. 2. Number of lanes that serve each movement. I 1 1 I I �i u F I I I 3. The approach and exit leg volumes. 4. The two -way leg volumes. 5. An estimate of daily traffic volumes that is fairly close to actual counts and is based strictly on the peak hour leg volumes multiplied by a factor. 6. Percent of daily traffic in peak hours. 7. Percent of peak hour leg volume that is inbound versus outbound. A more detailed discussion of ICU and LOS follows. Level of Service (LOS) Level of Service is used to describe the quality of traffic flow. Levels of Service A to C operate quite well. Level of Service C is typically the standard to which rural roadways are designed. Level of Service D is characterized by fairly restricted traffic flow. Level of Service D is the standard to which urban roadways are typically designed. Level of Service E is the maximum volume a facility can accommodate and will result in possible stoppages of momentary duration. Level of Service F occurs when a facility is overloaded and is characterized by stop- and-go traffic with stoppages of long duration. A description of the various Levels of Service appears at the end of the ICU description, along with the relationship between ICU and Level of Service. Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections Although calculating an ICU value for an unsignalized intersection is invalid, the presumption is that a signal can be installed and the calculation shows whether the geometries are capable of accommodating the expected volumes with a signal. A traffic signal becomes warranted before Level of Service D is reached for a signalized intersection. 4 1 i Signal Timing The ICU calculation assumes that a signal is properly timed. It is possible to have an ICU well below 100 percent, yet have severe traffic congestion.. This would occur if one or more movements is not getting sufficient green time to satisfy its demand, and excess green time exists on other movements. This. is an operational problem that should be remedied. Lane Capacity Capacity is often defined in terms of roadway width; however, standard lanes have approximately the same capacity whether they are 11 or 14 feet wide. Our data indicates a typical lane, whether a through lane or a left turn lane, has a capacity of approximately 1750 vehicles per hour of green time, with nearly all locations showing a capacity greater than 1600 vehicles per hour of green per lane. Right turn lanes have a slightly lower capacity; however 1600 vehicles per hour is a valid capacity assumption for right turn lanes. This finding is published in the August, 1978 issue of ITE Journal in the article entitled, "Another Look at Signalized Intersection Capacity" by William Kunzman. A capacity of 1600 vehicles per hour per lane with no yellow time penalty, or 1700 vehicles per hour with a 3 or 5 percent yellow time penalty is reasonable. Yellow Time The yellow time can either be assumed to be completely used and no penalty applied, or it can be assumed to be only partially usable. Total yellow time accounts for approximately 10 percent of a signal cycle, and a penalty of 3 to 5 percent is reasonable. During peak hour traffic operation the yellow times are nearly completely used. If there is no left turn phasing, the left turn vehicles completely use the yellow time. Even if there is left turn phasing, the through traffic continues to enter the intersection on the yellow until just a split second before the red. I L I 1 11 1 I 1 1, 1 I [1 1 1 1 '_ 1 1 1 I 1 Shared Lanes Shared lanes occur in many locations. A shared lane is often found at the end of an off ramp where the ramp forms an intersection with the cross street. Often at a diamond interchange off ramp, there are three lanes. In the case of a diamond interchange, the middle lane is sometimes shared, and the driver can turn. left, go through, or turn right from that lane. If one assumes a three lane off ramp as described above, and if one assumes that each lane has 1600 capacity, and if one assumes that there are 1000 left turns per hour, 500 right turns per hour, and 100 through vehicles per hour, then how should one assume that the three lanes operate. There are three ways that it is done. One way is to just assume that all 1600 vehicles (1000 plus 500 plus 100) are served simultaneously by three lanes. When this is done, the capacity is 3 times 1600 or 4800, and the amount of green time needed to serve the ramp is 1600 vehicles divided by 4800 capacity or 33.3 percent. This assumption effectively assumes perfect lane distribution between the three lanes that is not realistic. It also means a left turn can be made from the right lane. Another way is to equally split the capacity of a shared lane and in this case to assume there are 1.33 left turn lanes, 1.33 right turn lanes, and 0.33 through lanes. With this assumption, the critical movement is the left turns and the 1000 left turns are served by a capacity of 1.33 times 1800, or 2133. The volume to capacity ratio of the critical move is 1000 divided by 2133 or 46.9 percent. The first method results in a critical move of 33.3 percent and the second method results in a critical move of 46.9 percent. Neither is very accurate, and the difference in the calculated Level of Service will be approximately 1.5 Levels of Service (one Level of Service is 10 percent). • The way Kunzman Associates does it is to assign fractional lanes in a reasonable way. In this example, it would be assumed that there is 1.1 right turn lanes, 0.2 through lanes, and 1.7 left turn lanes. The volume to capacity ratios for each movement would be 31.3 percent for the through traffic, 28.4 percent for the right turn movement, and 36.8 percent for the left turn movement. The critical movement would be the 36.8 percent for the left turns. Right Turn on Red Kunzman Associates' software treats right turn lanes in one of five different ways. Each right turn lane is classified into one of five cases. The five cases are (1) free right turn lane, (2) right turn lane with separate right turn arrow, (3) standard right turn lane with no right turns on red allowed, (4) standard right turn lane with a certain percentage of right turns on red allowed, and (5) separate right turn arrow and a certain percentage of right turns on red allowed. Free Right Turn Lane If it is a free right turn lane, then it is given a capacity of one full lane with continuous or 100 percent green time. A free right turn lane occurs when there is a separate approach lane for right turning vehicles, there is a separate departure lane for the right turning vehicles after they turn and are exiting the intersection, and the through cross street traffic does not interfere with the vehicles after they turn right. Separate Right Turn Arrow If there is a separate right turn arrow, then it is assumed that vehicles are given a green indication and can proceed on what is known as the left turn overlap. The left turn overlap for a northbound right turn is ;the westbound left turn. When the left turn overlap has a green indication, the right turn lane is also given a green arrow indication. Thus, if there is a northbound right turn arrow, then it can be turned green for the period of time that the westbound left turns are proceeding. If there are more right turns than can be accommodated during the northbound through green and the time that the northbound right tuol arrow is on, then an adjustment is made to the ICU to account, for the green time that needs to be added to the northbound through green to accommodate the northbound right turns. 1 J 1 1 1 1 I rI 1 1 1 I. 5 1 1 7 1 1 1 1 I 1 Standard Right Turn Lane, No Right Turns on Red A standard right turn lane, with no right turn on red assumed, proceeds only when there is a green indication displayed for the adjacent through movement. If additional green time is needed above that amount of time, then in the ICU calculation a right turn adjustment green time is added above the green time that is needed to serve the adjacent through movement. Standard Right Turn Lane, With Right Turns on Red A standard right turn lane with say 20 percent of the right turns allowed to turn right on a red indication is calculated the same as the standard right turn case where there is no right turn on red allowed, except that the right turn adjustment is reduced to account for the 20 percent of the right turning vehicles that can logically turn right on a red light. The right turns on red are never allowed to exceed the time the overlap left turns take plus the unused part of the green cycle that the cross street traffic moving from left to right has. As an example of how 20 percent of the cars are allowed to turn right on a red indication, assume that the northbound right turn volume needs 40 percent of the signal cycle to be satisfied. To allow 20 percent of the northbound right turns to turn right on red, then during 8 percent of the signal cycle (40 percent of signal cycle times 20 percent that can turn right on red) right turns on red will be allowed if it is feasible. For this example, assume that 15 percent of the signal cycle is green for the northbound through traffic, and that means that 15 percent of the signal cycle is available to satisfy northbound right turns. After the northbound through traffic has received its green, 25 percent of the signal cycle is still needed to satisfy the northbound right turns (40 percent of the signal cycle minus the 15 percent of the signal cycle that the northbound through used). Assume that the westbound left turns require a green time of 6 percent of the signal cycle. This 6 percent of the signal cycle is used by northbound right turns on red. After accounting for the northbound right turns that occur on the westbound overlap left turn, 19 percent of the signal cycle is still needed for the northbound right turns (25 percent of the cycle was needed after the northbound through green 'time was accounted for [see above paragraph], and 6 percent was served during the westbound left turn overlap). Also, at this point 6 percent of the signal cycle has been used for northbound right turns on red, and still 2 percent more of the right turns will be allowed to occur on the red if there is unused eastbound through green time. For purpose of this example, assume that the westbound through green is critical, and that 15 percent of the signal cycle is unused by eastbound through traffic. Thus, 2 percent more of the signal cycle can be used by the northbound right turns on red since there is 15 seconds of unused green time being given to the eastbound through traffic. At this point, 8 percent of the signal cycle was available to serve northbound right turning vehicles on red, and 15 percent of the signal cycle was available to serve right turning vehicles on the northbound through green. So 23 percent of the signal cycle has been available for northbound right turns. Because 40 percent of the signal cycle is needed to serve northbound right turns, there is still a need for 17 percent more of the signal cycle to be available for northbound right turns. What this means is the northbound through traffic green time is increased by 17 percent of the cycle length to serve the unserved right turn volume, and a 17 percent adjustment is added to the ICU to account for the northbound right turns that were not served on the northbound through green time or when right turns on red were assumed. Separate Right Turn Arrow, With Right Turns on Red A right turn lane with a separate right turn arrow, plus a certain percentage of right turns allowed on red is calculated the same way as a standard right turn lane with a certain percentage of right turns allowed on red, except the turns which occur on the right turn arrow are not counted as part of the percentage of right turns that occur on red. Critical Lane Method ICU parallels another calculation procedure known as the Critical Lane Method with one exception. Critical Lane Method dimensions capacity in terms of standardized vehicles per hour per lane. A Critical Lane n J 1 1 11 L L�� 1 V I 1 L, 1 1 1 1 �F 1` 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 u Method result of 800 vehicles per hour means that the intersection operates as though 800 vehicles were using a single lane continuously. If one assumes a lane capacity of 1600 vehicles per hour, then a Critical Lane Method calculation resulting in 800 vehicles per hour is the same as an ICU calculation of 50 percent since 800/1600 is 50 percent. It is our opinion that the Critical Lane Method is inferior to the ICU method simply because a statement such as'The Critical Lane Method value is 800 vehicles per hour' means little to most persons, whereas a statement such as 'The Intersection Capacity Utilization is 50 percent" communicates clearly. Critical Lane Method results directly correspond to ICU results. The correspondence is as follows, assuming a lane capacity of 1600 vehicles per hour and no clearance interval. Critical Lane Method Result ICU Result 800 vehicles per hour 50 percent 960 vehicles per hour 60 percent 1120 vehicles per hour 70 percent 1280 vehicles per hour 80 percent 1440 vehicles per hour 90 percent 1600 vehicles per hour 100 percent 1760 vehicles per hour 110 percent I I I I i 1 I I i� INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) DESCRIPTION' Level of Service Description Volume to Capacity Ratio A Level of Service A occurs when progression is 0.600 and below extremely favorable and vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. Level of Service B generally occurs with good B progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles 0.601 to 0.700 stop than for LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. Level of Service C generally results when there is fair C progression and /or longer cycle lengths. Individual 0.701 to 0.800 cycle failures may begin to appear in this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, although many still pass through the intersection without stopping. Level of Service D generally results in noticeable D congestion. Longer delays may result from some 0.801 to 0.900 combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high volume to capacity ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. Level of Service E is considered to be the limit of E acceptable delay. These high delay values generally 0.901 to 1.000 indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high volume to capacity ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent. Level of Service F is considered to be unacceptable to F most drivers. This condition often occurs when 1.001 and up oversaturation, i.e., when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. It may also occur at high volume to capacity ratios below 1.00 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes to such delay levels. 'Source: Highway Capacity Manual Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board, ' National Research Council Washington D.C., 2000. J 1 Existing + Approved Projects F .1 L .1 I I I 1 I VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD (NS) and EASTBLUFF ORIVE /FORO ROAD (EN) COUNT GATE: 01 -01 -04 LANG USE: EXISTING + APPROVEO PROJECTS GEOMETRICS: Existing MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE VOLUME (AM) (PM) ADOEO VOLUME (AM) (PM) TOTAL VOLUME (AM) (PM) VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO (AM) (PM) Northbovd Left 2 3200 399 388 0 3 399 391 0.125' 0.122' Northbovd Through 3 4800 1388 1324 74 .105 1462 1429 0.319 0.329 Northbound Right 0 0 67 146 1 5 68 151 0.000 0.000 Southbound Left 1 1600 76 61 0 1 76 62 0.048 0.039 Southband Through 3 4800 1517 1694 105 95 1622 1789 0.338' 0.373' Southbovd Right 1 1600 215 133 0 0 215 133 0.134 0.083 Eastbound Left 1 1600 311 64 0 0 311 64 0.194 0.040 Eastbound Through 1 1600 346 204 0 0 346 204 0.216* 0.128' Eastbound Right Free 1 1600 546 373 1 2 547 375 0.342 0.234 westbound Left 0 0 116 110 2 4 118 114 0.000 0.000 Westbound Through 3 4800 377 100 0 0 377 100 0.103' 0.045' Nestband Right 1 1600 15 23 1 0 16 23 0.010 0.014 Northbound Right Turn Adjustment one of right turns (RT) are assumed to occur on 0.000' 0.000' Southbound Right Turn Adjustment red light when there is separate RT lane 8 when 0.000' 0.000' Eastbound Right Turn Adjustment movement is permitted. 0.000* 0.000' Westbound Right Turn Adjustment 0.000* 0.000' Clearance Interval 0.000' 0.000' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sun of Components with ') > 0.78 0.67 LEVEL OF SERVICE (A= .000 -.6 ICU; B= .601 -.7; C= .701-.8; 0= .801 -.9; E= .901 -1.0; F- 1.001 +) C B PLOT OF PEAK NOUR TURNING VOLUMES ANO LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES 215 - 133 A 0 [39,6001 I A A I 1 3702 - 3500 [39,6111 1622 -1789 North V (2 Nay volumes) North - 62 A 1913 -1984 121,4347 ( I 1789 -1516 [18,178] I76 WR L1.0- V SRJ IT LSL 16 - 23 991 - 624 [ 8,8831 511 - 237 1 4,1141 NT -3.0- 377 - 100 0- 118 - 114 �> -> 1204 - 643 110,1591 490 - 417 1 4,9891 2.0 = Lanes Ir NL <-> < -> 2195 -1267 119,0411 1001 - 654 1 9,1031 (2 Nay Volumes) (2 Nay Volumes) [19,0001 [ 9,1001 EL A 311 - 64 -1_ NT 2287 -2278 [25,108] 1 1929 -1971 [21,4501 V 346 - 204 - 1.0-ET NL I R LEGEND: A 547 - 375 - 1.0-�I ER 3.0 I 0 b8 - 151 AM -PM Peak Nour [Dailyl 4216 -4249 146,5581 Oaily = (AM +PM)* 5.5 V (2 Nay Volumes) Leg: North South East Nest 146,6001 0 14 2 -1429 % Entering (AM -PM) 52 - 57 46 - 46 51 - 36 55 - 51 LEGEND: AN -PM Peak Nour % of Oaity in Peak 9 - 9 9 - 9 11 - 7 12 - 7 [Estimated 2 -Nay Oailyl I 3 9 - 391 Nour (AN -PM) - Kunzman Associ INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD (NS) and SANTA BARBARA DRIVE (EW) COUNT DATE: 01 -01 -04 LAND USE: EXISTING + APPROVED PROJECTS GEONETRICS: Existing MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE VOLUME (AM) (PM) ADDED VOLUME (AM) (PM) TOTAL VOLUME (AM) (PM) VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO (AM) (PM) Northbound Left 1 1600 3 9 0 0 3 9 0.002 0.006 Northbound Through 3 4800 1426 990 72 92 1498 1082 0.312• 0.225 Northbound Right 1 1600 381 104 3 2 384 106 0.240 0.066 Southbound Left 2 3200. 608 291 1 4 609 295 0.190* 0.092 Southbound Through 3 4800 819 1415 112 83 931 1498 0.194 0.312* Southbound Right 1 1600 30 63 1 6 31 69 0.019 0.043 Eastbound Left 1 1600 21 25 6 2 27 27 0.017• 0.017• Eastbound Through 1 1600 2 11 0 1 2 12 0.004 0.010 Eastbound Right 0 0 5 4 0 0 5 4 0.000 0.000 Westbound Left 0 0 50 406 2 2 52 408 0.000 0.000 Westbound Through 2 3200 4 26 0 1 4 27 0.018 0.136 Westbound Right 1 1600 71 339 4 1 75 340 0.047• 0.213* Northbound Right Turn Adjustment I None of right turns (RT) are assumed to occur onn 0.000* 0.000* Southbond Right Turn Adjustment red light when there is separate RT lane 8 when 0.000• 0.000* Eastbound Right Turn Adjustment movement is permitted. 0.000 0.000* Westboud Right Turn Adjustment 0.000* 0.000• Clearance Interval 0.000* 0.000* INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sum of Components with > 0.57 0.55 LEVEL OF SERVICE (A=- 000 -.6 ICU; 8= .601 -.7; C= .701 -.8; D= .801 -.9; E= .901 -1.0; F =1 -001 +) A A PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES 31 - 69 0 [35,700] 1 I 1 3171 -3311 [35,651] 931 -1498 North North V (2 Way Volumes) 09 - 295 6I0 A 1571 -1862 [18,882] I 1 1600 -1449 [16,770] 1.I 3 0 2. � I V SR-1 LGL i `1.0- 75 - 340 38 - 105 [ < 7871 131 - 775 [ 4,9831 < ST 4 - 27 -> -> 2.0 = Lanes 0- 52 - 408 WL 34 - 43 1 4241 995 - 413 1 7,7441 < -> < -> 72 - 148 1 1,2101 1126 -1188 [12,727] (2 Way Vol uses) (2 Way Volumes) [ 1,2001 [12,700] EL A 27 - 27 -1.OJ NT 988 -1910 115,9391 V 1885 -1197 [16,951] V 2 - 12 - 1.0-ET NL R LEGEND: A 5 - 4 -0.% 3.0 0 AM -PM Peak Hour [Daily] 2873 -3107 [32,890] Daily = (AM+PM>* 5.5 V (2 Way Volumes) ER [32,900] 0 14 183�082106 Leg: North South East West X Entering (AM -PM) 50 - 56 66 - 39 12 - 65 47 - 29 LEGEND: AM -PM Peak Hour X of Daily in Peak 9 - 9 9 - 9 9 - 9 6 - 12 [Estimated 2 -Way Daily] I 3 - 9 Hour (AM -PM) - Ku zmmn Assoc 1 1 f i 1 a 1 1 I G 1.1 I I l_1 1 11 I I I I I VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION INTERSECTION: SANTA CRUZ ORIVE (NS) and SAM JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD (Ew) COUNT GATE: 01-01-04 LANO USE: EXISTING + APPROVEO PROJECTS GEOMETRICS: Existing MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE VOLUME (AM) (PM) ADOEO VOLUME (AM) (PM) TOTAL VOLUME (AM) (PM) VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO (AM) (PM) Northbound Left 1 1600 57 389 1 0 58 389 0.036' 0.243' Northbound Through 2 3200 5 19 0 0 5 19 0.007 0.047 Northbound Right 0 0 15 130 1 0 16 130 0.000 0.000 Southbound Left 1 1600 17 12 0 1 17 13 0.011 0.008 Southbound Through 2 3200 9 8 1 0 10 8 0.017' 0.010' Southbound Right 0 0 43 23 0 0 43 23 0.000 0.000 Eastbound Left 1 1600 57 120 0 0 57 120 0.036 0.075' Eastbound Through 3 4800 511 358 1 0 512 358 0.148' 0.107 Eastbound Right 0 0 200 153 0 1 200 154 0.000 0.000 Westbound Left 1 1600 227 43 1 0 228 43 0.143' 0.027 Westbound Through 3 4800 343 414 0 1 343 415 0.076 0.086' Westbound Right 0 0 20 0 0 0 20 0 0.000 0.000 Northbound Right Turn Adjustment I None of right turns (RT) are assumed to occur - 0.000' 0.000' Southbound Right Turn Adjustment red fight when there is separate RT fare B when 0.000' 0.000' Eastbound Right Turn Adjustment movement is permitted. 0.000' 0.000' Westbound Right Turn Adjustment 0.000' 0.000' Clearance Interval 0.000' 0.000' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sum of Components with ") > 0.34 0.41 LEVEL OF SERVICE (A= .000 - -6 ICU; B= .601-.7; C= .701 -.8; 0= .801 -.9; E= .901 -1.0; F= 1.001+) A A PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES ANO LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES 43 - 23 A 0 [ 1,800) I A A I I 152 - 183 [ 1,8431 10 - 8 North V (2 way Volumes) North 17 - 13 A 70 - 44 [ 6271 82 82 - 139 [ 1,2161 Wit SRJ IT LSL WT-3. .D- 20 - 0 444 - 827 [ 6,991) 591 - 458 [ 5,7701 D- 343 - 415 228 - 43 -> -> 769 - 632 [ 7,7061 545 - 501 [ 5,753) 2.0 = Lanes FI.D- NL < -> < -> 1213 -1459 (14,696) 1136 - 959 [11,5231 (2 way Volumes) (2 way Volumes) [14,700) [11,500) L 57 - 120 -1- NT A 438 - 205 [ 3,537) I 79 - 538 [ 3,3941 V 512 - 358 - 3.0-ET NL I R LEGEND: A 200 - 154 - 0.0-�I ER 2.0 I.0 16 - 130 AM-OM Peak.HOUr 10ai(y) 517 - 743 [ 6,9301 Oaily = (AM+PM)- 5.5 V (2 way Volumes) Leg: North South East west [ 6,900] 0 5 - 19 % Entering (AM -PM) 46 - 24 15 - 72 52 - 48 63 - 43 LEGENO: AM -PM Peak Hour % of Oaily in Peak 8 - 10 7 - 11 10 - 8 8 - 10 [Estimated 2 -way Oaily] I 8 - 389 Hour (AM-PM) Kunzman Assoc INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION INTERSECTION: SANTA CRUZ DRIVE (NS) and SAN CLEMENTE DRIVE (Ew) COUNT DATE: 01 -01 -04 LAND USE: EXISTING + APPROVED PROJECTS GEOMETRICS: Existing MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE VOLUME (AM) (PM) ADDED VOLUME (AM) (PM) TOTAL VOLUME (AM) (PM) VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO (AM) (PM) Northbound Left 1 1600 28 40 0 0 28 40 '0.018- 0.025• Northbound Through 3 4800 50 268 0 0 50 268 0.014 0.061 Northbound Right 0 0 17 25 0 0 17 25 0.000 0.000 Southbound Left 1 1600 is 26 0 0 18 28 0.011 0.018 Southbound Through 2 3200 ill 197 0 0 111 197 0.092' 0.073' Southbound Right 0 0 183 38 0 0 183 38 0.000 0.000 Eastbound Left 0 0 57 252 0 0 57 252 0.000 0.000 Eastbound Through 2 3200 56 13 0 0 56 13 0.050- 0.093 - Eastbound Right 0 0 46 33 0 0 46 33 0.000 0.000 Westbound Left 0 0 13 20 0 0 13 20 0.000- 0.000' Westbound Through 3 4800 17 54 0 0 17 54 0.012 0.021 Westbound Right 0 0 26 26 0 0 26 26 0.000 0.000 Northbound Right Turn Adjustment I None of right turns (RT) are assumed to occur on 0.000• 0.000• Southbound Right Turn Adjustment red light when there is separate RT lane 8 when 0.000' 0.000' Eastbound Right Turn Adjust menT movement is permitted. 0.000- 0.000 - westbound Right Turn Adjust.. -- 0.000- 0.000' Clearance Interva[ 0.000- 0.000 - INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sum of Components with ') > 0.16 0.19 LEVEL OF SERVICE (A= .000 -.6 ICU; 8= .601 -.7; C= .701 -.8; D= .801 -.9; E= .901 -1.0; F =1.0010 A A PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES 183 - 38 o [ 6,900) I I 445 - 809 [ 6,897] 111 - 197 North North V (2 way Volumes) 18 - 28 312 - 263 [ 3,163] I I 133 - 546 [ 3, 735] 0. 2.0 0 wR V SR-+ LSL .D- 26 - 26 228 - 132 [ 1,980) 56 - 100 [ 858) <- ST WT-3. D- 17 - 54 0- 13 - 20 159 - 298 [ 2,514) 91 - 66 [ 864) 2I0 = Lanes Fo wL < -> <_> 387 - 430 1 4,4941 147 - 166 1 1,7221 (2 way Vol ones) (2 way Volumes) [ 4,500) [ 1,700) L 57 - 252 -O.Q NT A 170 - 250 [ 2,3101 I I 95 - 333 [ 2,354] V 56 - 13 - 2.0 -ET NL R LEGEND: A 'AM 46 - 33 -O.0- ER 3.0 JJ.0 I 17 - 25 -PM Peak Hour [Daily) 265'- 583 [ 4,6641 Daily = (AM +PM)- 5.5 V (2 way Volumes) Leg: North South East west [ 4,700) o LEGEND: AM -PM Peak Hour 50 - 268 % Entering (AM -PM) 70 - 33 36 - 57 38 - 60 41 - 69 % of Daily in Peak 6 - 12 6 - 13 9 - 10 9 - 10 [Estimated 2-way Daily] 8 - 40 Hour (AM -PM) - Kunzman I I I I I J I i r I i I i .I INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION INTERSECTION: NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE (NS) and SANTA BARBARA DRIVE (EW) COUNT DATE: 01 -01-04 LAND USE: EXISTING + APPROVED PROJECTS GEOMETRICS: Existing MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE VDLUIE (AM) (PM) ADDED VOLUME (AM) (PM) TOTAL VOLUME (AM) (PM) VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO (AM) (PM) Northbound Left 1 1600 73 135 0 0 73 135 0.046• 0.084• Northbound Through 2 3200 138 94 0 0 138 94 0.043 0.029 Northbound Right 1 1600 8 36 0 0 8 36 0.005 0.023 Southbound Left 1 1600 9 47 0 0 9 47 0.006 0.029 Southbound Through 2 3200 69 182 0 0 69 182 0.022• 0.057• Southbound Right 1 1600 46 94 0 0 46 94 0.029 0.059 Eastbound Left 1 1600 41 43 0 0 41 43 0.026 0.027• Eastbound Through 2 3200 33 115 0 0 33 115 0.053• 0.074 Eastbound Right 0 0 136 123 0 0 136 123 0.000 0.000 Westbound Left 0 0 3 29 0 0 3 29 0.000• 0.000 Westbound Through 2 3200 6 82 0 0 . 6 82 0.003 0.043• Westbound Right 0 0 1 25 0 0 1 25 0.000 0.000 Northbound Right Turn Adjustment None of right turns (RT) are assured to occur on 0.000• 0.000• Southbound Right Turn Adjustment red light when there is separate RT lane 8 when 0.000• 0.000• Eastbound Right Turn Adjustment movement is permitted. 0.000• 0.000• Westbound Right Turn Ad)ustment 0.000• 0.000• Clearance Interval 0.000• 0.000• INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sur of Conponents with •) > 0.12 0.21 LEVEL OF SERVICE (A= .000 -.6 ICU; B= .601 -.7; C= .701 -.8; D= .801 -.9; E= .901 -1.0; F= 1.001 +) A A PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES 46 - 94 A a [ 4,300] I A A I y 304 485 4,3401 69 - 182 North V Vol North A 9 - 47 124 - 323 1 2,4591 I 180 - 162 1 1,6811 WR V SR- I `SL .0- 1 - 25 125 - 311 [ 2,3981 10 - 136 [ B031 <- <- ST WT -2.0- 6 - 82 0- 3 - 29 210 - 281 [ 2,7011 50 - 198 [ 1,3641 2.0 = Lanes F WL 335 - 592 1 5,0991 60 - 334 1 2,167] (2 Way Vol ores) (2 Way Vol uses) [ 5,1001 [ 2,2001 L 41 - 43 -1. NT A 208 - 334 1 2,9811 I 219 - 265 1 2,6623 V J 33 - 115 - 2.0 -ET NL R LEGEND: A 136 - 123 -0.&1 � 2.0 .0 AM-PM Peak Hour [Daily] 427 - 599 [ 5,6431 Daily = (AM+PM)• 5.5 V (2 Way Volumes) ER 8 - 36 Leg: North South East West [ 5,6001 a 1 8 - 94 % Entering (AM -PM) 41 - 67 51 - 44 17 - 41 63 - 47 LEGEND: AM -PM Peak Hour % of Daily in Peak 7 - 11 B - 11 3 - 15 7 - 12 [Estimated 2 -Way Daily] I - 135 Hour (AM -PM) - Kunzman Associ INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION INTERSECTION: NEWPORT CENTER ORIVE (NS) and COAST HIGHWAY (EW) COUNT GATE: 01.01 -04 LANO USE: EXISTING t APPROVEO PROJECTS GEOMETRICS: Existing MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE VOLUME (AM) (PM) AOOEO VOLUME (AM) (PM) TOTAL VOLUME (AM) (PM) VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO (AM) (PM) Northbound Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 Northbound Through 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000* 0.000* Northbound Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 Southbound Left 2 3200 37 300 0 3 37 303 0.042* 0.095* Southbound Through 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 Southbound Right Free 1 1600 78 496 9 31 87 527 0.054 0.329 Eastbound Left 2 3200 315 352 5 13 320 365 0.100* 0.114* Eastbound Through 3 4800 1428 1714 21 34 1449 1748 0.302 0.364 Eastbound Right- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 Westbound Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 Westbound Through 3 4800 1194 1774 31 18 1225 1792 0.255* 0.373* Westbound Right Free 1 1600 158 161 1 6 159 167 0.099 0.104 Northbound Right Turn Adjustmnt None of right turns MY) are assumed to occur on 0.000* 0.000* Southbound Right Turn Adjustment red light when there is separate RT lane & when 0.000* 0.000* Eastbound Right Turn Adjustment movement is permitted. 0.000* 0.000* Westbound Right Turn Adjustment 0.000* 0.000* Clearance Interval 0.000* 0.000* INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sum of Components with *) > 0.37 0.58 LEVEL OF SERVICE (A= .000 -.6 ICU; B= .601 -.7; C= .701 -.8; 0= .801 -.9; E= .901 -1 -0; F= 1.001♦) A A PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES ANO LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES 87 - 527 A 0 (10,800] I A A I 1 603 -1362 (10,808] 0 - 0 North V (2 Way Volumes) North - 303 A 124 - 830 ( 5,2471 I I 479 - 532 (5,561] I37 L 0.0 2.0 WP L1.0- V SR I LgL 1.0- 159 - 167 1312 -2319 (19,971] 1384 -1959 (18,387] ST WT -3 -0- 1225 -1792 -> -> 2I0 = Lanes F-0. 0- 0 - 0 WL 1769 -2113 (21,351] 1486 -2051 (19,454] -> < -> 3081 -4432 (41,322] 2870 -4010 (37,840] (2 Way Vol unes) (2 Way Volumes) (41,300] (37,800] EL A 320 - 365 -2. NT 0- 0( 07 I 0- 0 ( 0] � V 1449 -1748 - 3.0-ET NL R LEGENO: A 0 01 R .0 I - 0 AN -PM Peak Hour (08ily] 1 0 - ( Oaily = (AMFPM)* 5.5 V (2 Way Volunes) Leg: North South East West ( 01 o 0 - 0 % Entering (AN -PM) 21 - 61 0 - 0 48 - 49 57 - 48 LEGENO: AM -PM Peak Hour % of Oaily in Peak 6 - 13 0 - 0 8 - 11 7 - 11 (Estimated 2 -Way Oaily] I 0 - 0 Hour (AN -PM) - Klnzman Assoc I- I fi L9 LJ I I I I I I I P 7 I INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION INTERSECTION: SANTA ROSA DRIVE /BIG CANTON DRIVE (NS) and SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROA COUNT DATE: 01 -01 -D4 LAND USE: EXISTING + APPROVED PROJECTS GEONETRICS: Existing HOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE VOLUME (AM) (PM) ADDED VOLUME (AM) (PM) TOTAL VOLUTE (AM) (PM) VOLUTE TO CAPACITY RATIO (AM) (PM) Northbound Left 1 1600 '36 203 9 6 45 209 0.028 0.131 Northbound Through 1 1600 7 37 0 0 7 37 0.004 0.023 Northbound Right 1 1600 59 401 1 19 60 420 0.038• 0.262• Southbound Left 1 1600 75 57 0 0 75 57 0.047• 0.036• Southbound Through 1 1600 10 10 0 0 10 10 0.006 0.006 Southbound Right 1 1600 35 29 0 0 35 29 0.022 0.018 Eastbound Left 1 1600 47 22 1 0 48 22 0.030 0.014 Eastbound Through 3 4800 389 433 1 1 390 434 0.105• 0.115• Eastbound Right 0 0 107 109 6 8 113 117 O.ODD 0.000 Westbound Left 2 3200 443 214 0 12 443 226 0.138• 0.071• Westbound Through 3 4800 510 256 1 1 511 257 0.120 0.064 Westbound Right 0 0 67 48 0 0 67. 48 0.000 0.000 Northbound Right Turn Adjustment of right turns (RT) are assumed to occur on 0.000' 0.000• Cone Southbound Right Turn Adjustment red light when there is separate 1 lane 8 when 0.000• 0.000• Eastbo nd Right Turn Adjustment movement is permitted. 0.000• 0.000• westbO nd Right Turn Adjustment 0.000• 0.000• Clearance Interval 0.000• O.ODO• INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sum of Components with •) > 0.33 0.48 LEVEL OF SERVICE (A= .000 -.6 ICU; B= .601•.7; C= .701 -.8; D= .801 -.9; E= .901 -1.0; F= 1.001 +) A A PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUTES 35 - 29 A o [ 2,400] I A A I 242 - 203 [ 2,4481 10 - 10 North Y (2 way Vol uoes) North 75 - 57 A 120 96 1 1,1681 I 122 - 107 [ 1,2603 UR Y gRJ I LSL Lo -0- 67 - 48 591 495 1 5,9731 1021 - 531 1 8,5361 <- <- ST wT -3.0- 511 257 r2.0- 443 - 226 551 - 573 1 6,1821 525 - 911 1 7,8981 2.0 = Lanes wL < -> < -> 1142 -1068 [12,155] 1546 •1442 [16,434] (2 way Volumes) (2 way Volumes) [12,200] [16,400] EL 48 22 -1. J NT A 566 - 353 1 5,0551 I 112 - 666 1 4,2793 V 390 - 434 - 3.0-E1 NL R LEGEND: A 113 - 117 -O.DI 1.0 I.0 AM -PM Peak Hour y [Daily] 678 -1.019 [ 9,3341 Daily = (AM+PM 5.5 V (2 way Volumes) ER 60 - 420 Leg: North South East west [ 9,3001 0 7 - 37 % Entering (AM -PM) 50 - 47 17 - 65 66 - 37 48 - 54 LEGEND: AM -PM Peak Hour % of Daily in Peak 10 • 8 7 - 11 9 - 9 9 - 9 Matt mated 2 -way Daily] I 5 - 209 Hare (AM -PM) Kunzman Associ INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD (NS) and FORD ROAD (Ew) COUNT DATE: 01 -01 -04 LAND USE: EXISTING • APPROVED PROJECTS GEOMETRICS: Existing MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE ADDED TOTAL VOLUME TO VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME CAPACITY RATIO (AM) (PM) (AM) (PM) (AM) (PM) (AM) (PM) Northbound Left 2 3200 74 0 1 2 75 2 0.023 0.001 Northbound Through 4 6400 2296 2468 1 14 2297 2482 0.359' 0.388' Northbound Right Free 1 1600 121 161 0 8 121 169 0.076 0.106 Southbound Left 2 3200 373 517 0 1 373 518 0.117* 0.162' Southbound Through 4 6400 2210 1686 3 13 2213 1699 0.346 0.265 Southbound Right Free 1 1600 4 21 0 1 4 22 0.003 0.014 Eastbound Left 2 3200 43 31 1 0 44 31 0.014 0.010 Eastbound Through 2 3200 178 197 1 1 179 198 0.056' 0.062' Eastbound Right 1 1600 79 64 2 1 81 65 0.051 0.041 Westbound Left 2 3200 687 257 1 2 688 259 0.215' 0.081' Westbound Through 2 3200 376 229 0 1 376 230 0.118 0.072 Westbound Right Free 1 1600 1268 749 1 0 1269 749 0.793 0.468 Northbound Right Turn Adjustment FNone of right turns (RT) are assumed to occur an Southbound Right Turn Adjustment ed light when there is separate RT lane 8 when 0.000' 0.000' 0.000' O.ODO- Eastbound Right Turn Adjustment venent is permitted. 0.000' 0.000* Westbound Right Turn Adjustment 0.000' 0.000* Clearance Interval 0.000' 0.000' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sun of Components with ') > 0.75 0.69 LEVEL OF SERVICE (A= .000 -.6 ICU; B= .601 -.7; C= .701 -.8; D= .801 -.9; E= .901 -1.0; F= 1.001+) C B PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES 4- 22 I [64,400] 1 6200 -5501 [64,356] I I V (2 way Volunes) 2213 -1699 North North A 73 - 518 3I 259D -2239 [26,560] 3610 -3262 [37,796] � V 1 1. 4.0 2.0 LSL 1.0- 1269 749 455 - 254 1 3,9001 2333 -1238 [19,641] SR-+ IT w[ -2.0- 376 - 230 -> -> �2.D- 688 - 259 304 - 294 1 3,2891 673 - 885 1 8,5691 2.0 = Lanes wL 759 • 548 [ 7,1891 (2 way Vol unea) 3006 (2 -2123 [28,210] way Vol unxea) 0- [ 7,2001 [28,200] EL A 2982 -2023 [27,528] 2493 -2653 [28,303] 44 - 31 -2.4� V 1 179 - 198 - 2.0-ET INT NL I R LEGEND: AM -PM Peak Hour [Daily] A 5475 -4676 [55,831] 81 - 65 -1.01 21 4.0 .0 Daily = (AM+PM)* 5.5 V (2 way Volunxes) ER 1 - 169 Leg: North South East west [55,800] 0 2217112482 - % Entering (AM -PM) 42 - 41 46 - 57 78 - 58 40 - 54 LEGEND: AM -PM Peak Hour % of Daily in Peak 10 - 9 10 - 8 11 - 8 11 - 8 [Estimated 2 -way Daily] I - 2 Hour (AM -PM) Kurtzman Assoc I 5 u M I I I INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD (NS) and SAN JOAOUIN HILLS ROAD (Ew) COUNT DATE: 01.01 -04 LAND USE: EXISTING + APPROVED PROJECTS GEOMETRICS: Existing MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE VOLUME (AM) (PM) ADDED VOLUME (AM) (PM) TOTAL VOLUME (AM) (PM) VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO (AM) (PM) Northbound Left 2 3200 70 46 0 0 70 46 0.022 0.014 Northbound Through 3 4800 1526 1645 0 3 1526 1648 0.318• 0.343• Northbound Right 1 1600 6 15 0 0 6 15 0.004 0.009 Southbound Left 2 3200 428 599 0 0 428 599 0.134• 0.187* Southbound Through 3 4800 1491 1269 3 3 1494 1272 0.311 0.265 Southbound Right Free 1 1600 1036 231 1 12 1037 243 0.648 0.152 Eastbound Left 2 3200 107 588 0 19 107 607 0.033* 0.190* Eastbound Through 2 3200 199 403 1 0 200 403 0.077 0.166 Eastbound Right 0 '0 45 128 0 0 45 128 0.000 0.000 westbound Left 1 1600 19 27 0 0 19 27 0.012 0.017 Westbound Through 2 3200 464 285 1 1 465 286 0.145* 0.089* Westbound Right Free 1 1600 705 395 0 0 705 395 0.441 0.247 Northbound Right Turn Adjustment None of right turns (RT) are assumed to occur on 0.000* 0.000* Southbound Right Turn Adjustment red light when there is separate RT lane 8 when 0.000* 0.000* Eastbound Right Turn Adjustment movement is permitted. 0.000* 0.000* Westbound Right Turn Adjustment 0.000* 0.000* Clearance Interval 0.000* 0.000* INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sum of Conponents with *) > 0.63 0.81 LEVEL OF SERVICE (A= .000 -.6 ICU; B= .601 -.7; C= .701 -.8; D= .801 -.9; E= .901 -1.0; F= 1.001+) B D PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES 1037 - 243 A 0 [55,300) I A A I 5297 -4764 [55,336) 1494 -1272 North V (2 way Volumes) North 4I28 - 599 A 2959 -2114 [27,902) 1 2338 -2650 [27,434) 1. 3.0 .0 2 WR L,.D- V SRJ IT LSL WT-2.0- 705 - 395 1572 - 575 [11,809) 1189 - 708 [10,434) 465 - 286 r1.0- 19 - 27 > > '352 -1138 1 8,1951 634 -1017 1 9,0811 2.0 = Lanes INL < -> < -> 1924 -1713 [20,004) 1823 -1725 119,5141 (2 way Volumes) (2 way Volumes) [20,000) [19,500) L 107 - 607 -2. NT A 1558 -1427 [16,418] 1 1602 -1709 [18,2111 V 200 - 403 - 2.0 -ET NL LEGEND: A 45 - 128 -0.01 I�--NR 3. 0 1.0 AM-PM Peak.Hbur [Daily) 3160 -3136 [34,628) y = (AN+PN)* 5.5 V (2 way Volumes) ER 6 - 15 Leg: North South East west [34,600) 0 15 6 -1648 % Entering (AM -PM) 56 - 44 51 - 54 65 - 41 18 - 66 LEGEND: AM -PM Peak Hour % of Daily in Peak 10 - 9 9 - 9 9 - 9 10 - 9 [Estimated 2 -way Daily) I 0 - 46 Hour (AM -PM) Kunzman Assoc A. ii f 1 ! Existing + Approved Projects + Project I 1 I t i I i I 1_I I I I INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD (NS) and EASTBLUFF DRIVE /FORD ROAD (Ew) COUNT DATE: 01-01-04 LAND USE: EXISTING + APPROVED PROJECTS + PROJECT GEOMETRICS: Existing MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE VOLUME (AM) (PM) ADDED VOLUME (AM) (PM) TOTAL VOLUME (AM) (PM) VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO (AM) (PM) Northbound Left 2 3200 399 388 0 3 399 391 0.125' 0.122* Northbound Through 3 4800 1388 1324 83 109 1471 1433 0.321 0.330 Northbound Right 0 0 67 146 4 7 71 153 0.000 0.000 Southbound Left 1 1600 76 61 0 1 76 62 0.048 0.039 Southbound Through 3 4800 1517 1694 107 101 1624 1795 0.338* 0.374' Southbound Right 1 1600 215 133 0 0 215 133 0.134 0.083 Eastbound Left 1 1600 311 64 0 0 311 64 0.194 0.040 Eastbound Through 1 1600 346 204 0 0 346 204 0.216' 0.128' Eastbound Right Free 1 1600 546 373 1 2 547 375 0.342 0.234 Westbound Left 0 0 116 110 3 6 119 116 0.000 0.000 Westbound Through 3 4800 377 100 0 0 . 377 100 0.103' 0.045' Westbound Right 1 1600 15 23 1 0 16 23 0.010 0.014 Northbound Right Turn Adjustment of right turns (RT) are assumed to occur onn 0.000' 0.000' Cone Southbound Right Turn Adjustment red light when there is separate RT lane C whm 0.000' 0.000' Eastbound Right Turn Adjustment movement is permitted. 0.000' 0.000' Westbound Right Turn Adjustment 0.000' 0.000' Clearance Interval 0.000' 0.000' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sun of Components with ') > 0.78 0.67 LEVEL OF SERVICE (A= .000•.6 ICU; 6= .601 -.7; C= .701•.8; D= .801 -.9; E= .901.1.0; F= 1.001 +) C B PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES 215 - 133 A 0 [39,700] I A A I 3713 -3510 [39,727] 1624 -1795 North V (2 way Volumes) North - 62 A 1915 -1990 [21,478] I 1 1798 -1520 [18,249] I76 1. 3.0 I.0 wR L1 V SRJ II LSL -0- 16 • 23 991 - 624 1 8,8831 512.239 1 4,1311 T T -3.D- 377 - 100 -> -> 2.0 = Lanes F-0. 0- 119 - 116 wL 1204 - 643 [10,159] 493 - 419 1 5,0161 2195 -1267 [19,041] 1005 • 658 1 9,147] (2 way Volumes) (2 way Volumes) [19,000] [ 9,100] L 311 - 64 -1. NT A 2290 -2286 [25,168] 1 1941 •1977 [21,549] V 346 - 204 - 1.0-ET NL R LEGEND: A 547 • 375 1. ER 3.0 II.0 71 - 153 AN-PM Peak Hour [Daily] 4231 -4263 [46,717] Daily = (AM +PM)' 5.5 V (2 way Vol uses) Leg: North South East west [46,700] 0 14 1 -1433 % Entering (AM -PM) 52 - 57 46 - 46 51 - 36 55 - 51 LEGEND: AM -PM Peak Hour % of Daily in Peak 9 - 9 9 - 9 11 - 7 12 - 7 [Estimated 2 -way Daily] I 3 - 391 Hour (AM-PM) Klnzman Associ INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD (NS) and SANTA BARBARA DRIVE (EN) COUNT DATE: 01.01 -04 LAND USE: EXISTING + APPROVED PROJECTS + PROJECT GEOMETRICS: Existing MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE VOLUME (AM) (PM) ADDED VOLUME (AM) (PM) TOTAL VOLUME (AM) (PM) VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO (AM) (PM) Northbound Left 1 1600 3 9 0 0 3 9 0.002 0.006 Northbound Through 3 4800 1426 990 72 92 1498 1082 0.312' 0.225' Northbound Right 1 1600 381 104 5 7 386 111 0.241 0.069 Southbound Left 2 3200 608 291 4 12 612 303 0.199' 0.095' Southbound Through 3 4800 819 1415 112 83 931 1498 0.194 0.312 Southbound Right 1 1600 30 63 1 6 31 69 0.019 0.043 Eastbound Left 1 1600 21 25 6 2 27 27 0.017' 0.017' Eastbound Through 1 1600 2 11 0 1 2 12 0.004 0.010 Eastbound Right 0 0 5 4 0 0 5 4 0.000 0.000 Westbound Left 0 0 50 406 9 5 59 411 0.000 0.000 Westbound Through 2 3200 4 26 0 1 4 27 0.020 0.137 Westbound Right 1 1600 71 339 16 6 87 345 0.054' 0.216' Northbound Right Turn Adjustment None of right turns (RT) are assumed to occur on 0.000' 0.000' Southbound Right Turn Adjustment red light when there is separate RT lane & when 0.000' 0.000' Eastbound Right Turn Adjustment movement is penmitted. 0.000' 0.000' Westbound Right Turn Adjustment 0.000' 0.000' Clearance Interval 0.000' 0.000' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sum of Components with ') > 0.57 0.55 LEVEL OF SERVICE (A= .000-.6 ICU; 8= .601 -.7; C= .701 -.8; D= .801 -.9; E= .901 -1.0; F= 1.001+) A A PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES 31 - 69 A o [35,800] I A A I 3186 -3324 [35,805] V Volumes) 931 -1498 North (2 Nay North 612 - 303 A 1574 -1870 [18,942] I I 1612 -1454 [16,863] NR L1.0- V SR- LSL I 87 - 345 27 38 - 105 1 7871 150 - 783 1 5,1321 <- <- T WT -2.0- 4 0- 59 - 411 -> -> 34 - 43 [ 4241 1000 - 426 [ 7,8431 2.0 = Lanes F-0. WL < -> < -> 72 - 148 1 1,2101 1150 -1209 [12,975] (2 Nay Volumes) (2 Nay Volumes) [ 1,2001 [13,000] L 27 - 27 -1.0� NT A 995 -1913 [15,994] I 1 1887 -1202 [16,990] V 2 - 12 - 1.0-fT NL I NR LEGEND: A 5 - 4 -0.O- 1. 3.O FO AM•PM Peak Hour [Daily] 1 2882 -3115 [32,984] Daily = (AM +PM)' 5.5 V (2 Nay Volumes) ER [33,000] o 396 - 111 1458 -1082 Leg: North South East Nest % Entering (AM -PM) 49 - 56 65 - 39 13 - 65 47 - 29 LEGEND: AM -PM Peak Hour % of Daily in Peak 9 - 9 9 - 9 9 - 9 6 - 12 [Estimated 2-way Daily] I 3 - 9 Hour (AM -PM) - KunzmBn Assoc I 1 I 1 I 1 INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION INTERSECTION: SANTA CRUZ DRIVE (NS) and SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD (EW) COUNT DATE: 01-01-04 LAND USE: EXISTING + APPROVED PROJECTS + PROJECT GEOMETRICS: Existing MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE VOLUME (AM) (PM) ADDED VOLUME (AM) (PM) TOTAL VOLUME (AM) (PM) VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO (AM) (PM) Northbound Left 1 1600 57 389 1 0 58 389 0.036' 0.243' Northbound Through 2 3200 5 19 0 0 5 19 0.007 0.047 Northbound Right 0 0 15 130 3 1 18 131 0.000 O.ODO Southbound Left 1 1600 17 12 0 1 17 13 0.011 0.008 Southbound Through 2 3200 9 8 1 0 10 8 0.017' 0.010' Southbound Right 0 0 43 23 0 0 43 23 O.ODO 0.000 Eastbound Left 1 1600 57 120 0 0 57 120 0.036 0.075• Eastboud Through 3 4800 511 358 1 0 512 358 0.148' 0.107 Eastbound Right 0 0 200 153 0 1 2DO 154 0.000 0.000 Westbound Left 1 1600 227 43 1 1 228 44 0.143' 0.028 Westbound Through 3 4800 343 414 0 1 343 415 0.076 0.086' Westbound Right 0 0 20 0 0 0 20 _ 0 0.000 0.000 Northbound Right Turn Adjustment of right turns (RT) are assumed to occur on 0.000' 0.000' Cone Southbound Right Turn Adjustment red light when there is separate RT lane 8 when 0.000' 0.000' Eastbound Right Turn Adjustment movement is permitted. 0.000' 0.000' Westbound Right Turn Adjustment 0.000' O.ODO- Clearance Interval - 0.000' O.OGO' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sum of Components with ') > 0.34 0.41 LEVEL OF SERVICE (0.000 -.6 ICU; 8= .601 -.7; C= .701 -.8; D= .801 -.9; E= .901 -1.0; F= 1.001 +) A A PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES 43 - 23 A 0 [ 1,800] I A A I 152 - 183 [ 1,8433 10 - B North V (2 Way Volumes) North 17 - 13 A 70 - 44 [ 6271 82 - 139 [ 1,2161 [1R V SRJ II `SL _O- 20 - 0 444 - 827 [ 6,9913 591 - 459 [ 5,7753 T WT -3.0- 343 - 415 228 - 44 -> -> 769 - 632 1 7,7063 547 - 502 1 5,7703 2.0 = Lanes F-1.0- WL < -> < -> 1213 -1459 [14,696] 1138 - 961 [11,545] (2 Way Volumes) (2 Way Volumes) [14,700] [11,500] EL 57 - 120 -1.Oj NT A 438 - 206 [ 3 V ,542] I 81 - 539 [ 3,4103 512 - 358 - 3.0 -ET NL R LEGEND: A 200 - 154 -0. ER 2.0 I.0 j8 - 131 AM -PM Peak Hour [Daily] 1 519 - 745 [ 6,9523 Daily = (AM+PM)' 5.5 V (2 Way Volumes) Leg: North South East West [ 7,000] 0 LEGEND: AM -PM Peak Hour 5 - 19 % Entering (AM -PM) 46 - 24 16 - 72 52 - 48 63 - 43 % of Daily in Peak B - 10 7 - 11 10 - 8 8 - 10 [Estimated 2 -Way Daily] I 8 - 389 Hour (AM -PM) - Kunzman I INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION INTERSECTION: SANTA CRUZ DRIVE (NS) and SAM CLEMENTE DRIVE (EW) COUNT DATE: 01 -01.04 LAND USE: EXISTING + APPROVED PROJECTS + PROJECT GEOMETRICS: Existing MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE VOLUME (AM) (PM) ADDED VOLUME (AN) (PM) TOTAL VOL LIME (AM) (PM) VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO (AM) (PM) Northbound Left 1 1600 28 40 0 0 28 40 0.018' 0.025' Northbound Through 3 4800 50 268 0 0 50 268 0.014 0.061 Northbound Right 0 0 17 25 0 0 17 25 0.000 0.000 Southbound Left 1 1600 18 28 0 0 18 28 0.011 0.018 Southbound Through 2 3200 111 197 0 0 111 197 0.092' 0.074' Southbound Right 0 0 183 38 0 1 183 39 0.000 0.000 Eastbound Left 0 0 57 252 2 1 59 253 0.000 0.000 Eastbound Through 2 3200 56 13 0 0 56 13 0.050' 0.093' Eastbound Right 0 0 46 33 0 0 46 33 0.000 0.000 Westbound Left 0 0 13 20 0 0 13 20 0.000' 0.000' Westbound Through 3 4800 17 54 0 0 17 54 0.012 0.021 Westbound Right 0 0 26 26 0 0 26 26 0.000 0.000 Northbound Right Turn Adjustment of right turns (RT) are assumed to occur on 0.000' 0.000' Cone Southbound Right Turn Adjustment red light when there is separate FIT lane 8 when) 0.000' 0.000' Eastbound Right Turn Adjustment movement is permitted. 0.000' 0.000' Westbound Right Turn Adjustment 0.000' 0.000• Ctearance Interval 0.000' 0.000• INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sum of Components with ') > 0.16 0.19 LEVEL OF SERVICE (A= .000 -.6 ICU; 8= .601 -.7; C= .701 -.8; 0= .801 -.9; E= .901 -1.0; F= 1.001 +) A A PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES 183 - 39 A 0 [ 6,900] I A A I 447 - 811 [ 6,9191 111 - 197 North V (2 Way Volumes) North 18 - 28 A 312 - 264 1 3,168] I 135 - 547 [ 3,7511 WR V SRJ I `SL .0- 26 - 26 17 228 - 133 1 1,9861 56 • 100 1 8581 <- <- ST WT -3.0- - 54 -> -> 2.0 = Lanes F-0. 0- 13 - 20 WL 161 299 [ 2,5301 91 - 66 [ 8641 < -> < -> 389 - 432 1 4,5161 147 - 166 1 1,7221 (2 Way Volumes) (2 Way Volumes) [ 4,5001 [ 1,7001 EL I 59 - 253 -O.OJ NT A 170 - 250 [ 2,310] 'I 95 - 333 [ 2,354] V 56 - 13 - 2.0-ET NL R -iI LEGENO: A 46 - 33 -0. t.p 3.0 I.0 17 AN -PM Peak Nour [Daily] 265 - 583 1 4,664] Daily = (AM +PM)' 5.5 V (2 Way Volumes) ER [ 4,700] 0 - 25 0 - 268 Leg: North South East West % Entering (AM -PM) 70 - 33 36 - 57 38 - 60 41 - 69 LEGEND: AN -PM Peak Nour % of Daily in Peak 6 - 12 6 - 13 9 - 10 9 - 10 IEstimated 2-Way Daily] I 8 - 40 Nour (AM -PM) Kunzman Assoc u I I I i l I j I I I I INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION INTERSECTION: NEWPORT CENTER ORIVE (NS) and SANTA BARBARA ORIVE (Ew) COUNT GATE: 01 -01 -04 LAND USE: EXISTING t APPROVEO PROJECTS t PROJECT GEOMETRICS: Existing MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE VOLUME (AN) (PM) AOOEO VOLUME (AM) (PM) TOTAL VOLUME (AN) (PM) VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO (AM) (PM) Northbound Left 1 1600 73 135 2 6 75 141 .0.047' 0.088• Northbound Through 2 3200 138 94 0 0 138 94 0.043 0.029 Northbound Right 1 1600 a 36 0 0 8 36 0.005 0.023 Southbound Left 1 1600 9 47 0 0 9 47 0.006 0.029 Southbound Through 2 3200 69 182 0 0 69 182 0.022• 0.057' Southbound Right 1 1600 46 94 1 2 47 96 0.029 0.060 Eastbound Left 1 1600 41 43 3 2 44 45 0.028 0.028 Eastbound Through 2 3200 33 115 2 1 35 116 0.056' 0.076• Eastbound Right 0 0 136 123 9 4 145 127 0.000 0.000 Westbound Left 0 0 3 29 0 0 3 29 0.000• 0.000• Westbound Through 2 3200 6 82 0 1 6 83 0.003 0.043 Westbound Right 0 0 1 25 0 0 1 25 0.000 0.000 Northbound Right Turn Adjustment None of right turns (RT) are assumed to occur, on 0.000• 0.000• Southbound Right Turn Adjustment red light when there is separate FIT lane 6 when 0.000• 0.000• Eastbound Right Turn Adjustment movement is permitted. 0.000• 0.000• Westbound Right Turn Adjustment 0.000• 0.000• Clearance Interval 0.000• 0.000• INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sun of Components with •) > 0.13 0.22 LEVEL OF SERVICE (A= .000•.6 ICU; 8 =.601 -.7; C= .701•.8; 0= .801 -.9; E= .901 -1.0; F= 1.001♦) A A PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES ANO LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES 47 • 96 0 [ 4,4001 + I 1 308 - 489 [ 4,3841 69 • 182 North North V (2 way Vol ones) 9 - 47 A 125 - 325 1 2,4751 I 183 164 1 1,9091 wR V SRJ `SL .0- 1 25 128 - 320 1 2,4641 10 - 137 [ 8091 <- ST WT-2. D- 6 - 83 r-O.0- 3 - 29 -> > 224 288 [ 2,8161 52 - 199 [ 1,3811 2.0 = Lanes INL < -> < -> 352 - 608 [ 5,2801 62 - 336 1 2,1891 ' (2 way Volumes) (2 way Volumes) [ 5,3001 [ 2,2001 EL A 217 - 338 1 3,0531 I 221 - 271 1 2,7061 44 45'-l.OJ NT V 35 • 116 - 2.0-ET NL R LEGENO: A 145 - 127 �.4� R 2.0 .0 I8 - 36 AN -PM Peak.Hour [0aily] 1 438 - 609 [ 5,7591 Oaily = (AMtPM)• 5.5 V (2 way Vol ones) Leg: North South East west [ 5,800] 0 118 - 94 % Entering (AM -PM) 41 66 50 - 44 16 - 41 64 - 47 LEGENO: AN -PM Peak Hour % of Oaily in Peak 7 - 11 8 - 11 3 - 15 7 12 Matt mated 2 -way Oaily] I - 141 Hour (AM -PM) - Kunzman Assoc I I I i Ll F I INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION INTERSECTION: NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE (NSI and COAST HIGHWAY (EW7 COUNT DATE: 01-01-04 LAND USE: EXISTING + APPROVED PROJECTS + PROJECT GEOMETRICS: Existing MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE VOLUME (AM) (PHI ADDED VOLUME (AM) (PMI TOTAL VOLUME (AM) (PMI VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO (AM) (PHI Northbound Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '0.000 0.000 Northbound Through 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000• 0.000• Northbound Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 Southbound Left 2 3200 37 300 5 5 42 305 0.013* 0.095• Southbound Through 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 Southbound Right Free 1 1600 78 496 9 31 87 527 0.054 0.329 Eastbound Left 2 3200 315 352 5 13 320 365 0.100* 0.114* Eastbound Through 3 4800 1428 1714 21 34 1449 1748 0.302 0.364 Eastbound Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 Westbound Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 Westbound Through 3 4800 1194 1774 31 18 1225 1792 0.255* 0.373* Westbound Right Free 1 1600 158 161 2 10 160 171 0.100 0.107 Northbound Right Turn Adjustment one of right turns (RTI are assumed to occur on 0.000* 0.000* Southbound Right Turn Adjustment red light when there is separate RT lane 8 when 0.000* 0.000* Eastbound Right Turn Adjustment movement is permitted. 0.000* 0.000* Westbound Right Turn Adjustment 0.000* 0.000* Clearance Interval 0.000* 0.000* INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sum of Components with *7 > 0.37 0.58 LEVEL OF SERVICE (A= .000 -.6 ICU; B= .601 -.7; C= .701 -.8; D =.801 -.9; E =.901 -1.0; F= 1.001+7 A A PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES 87 - 527 I [10,9001 I I 609 -1368 [10,8741 I 0 - 0 North North V (2 Way Volunes7 - 305 A 129 - 832 1 5,2861 I I 480 - 536 1 5,5881 I42 1. Oi0 I� V I2.0 SR I Lg[ `1.0- 160 - 171 1312 -2319 [19,9711 1385 -1963 [18,4141 ST WT -3.0- 1225 -1792 F-0.0- 0 - 0 1769 -2113 [21,3511 1491 -2053 [19,4921 2.0 = Lanes WL < -> < -> 3081 -4432 [41,3221 2876 -4016 (37,9061 (2 Way Volumes) (2 Way Vol umes) [41,300] [37,900] 320 - 365 --2. O�L NT I A 0- 0 [ 07 I 0- 0 [ 07 y 1449 -1748 - 3.0-ET NL ( R LEGEND: A 0 - 0 -0.0� ER 0.0 I .0 0 - 0 AM-PM Peak Hour [Dally) I 0 - 0 [ 01 Daily = (AM +PM)* 5.5 V (2 Way Volumes) Leg: North South East West [ 07 a LEGEND: AM -PM Peak Hour 0 - 0 % Entering (AM -PHI 21 - 61 0 - 0 48 - 49 57 - 48 % of Daily in Peak 6 - 13 0 - 0 8 - 11 7 - 11 [Estimated 2-Way Daily? I 0 - 0 Hour (AM -PMI - Kunxman INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION INTERSECTION: SANTA ROSA DRIVE /BIG CANTON DRIVE (NS) and SAN JOAQUIN HILLS BOA COUNT DATE: 01-01 -04 LAND USE: EXISTING + APPROVED PROJECTS + PROJECT GEOMETRICS: Existing MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE ADDED TOTAL VOLUME TO VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME CAPACITY RATIO (AM) (PM) (AM) (PH) (AM) (PH) (AM) (PH) Northbound Left 1 1600 36 203 9 6 45 209 0.028 0.131 Northbound Through 1 1600 7 37 0 0 7 37 0.004 0.023 Northbound Right 1 1600 59 401 4 21 63 422 0.039• 0.264' Southbound Left 1 1600 75 57 0 0 75 57 0.047' 0.036' Southbound Through 1 1600 10 10 0 0 10 10 0.006 0.006 Southbound Right 1 1600 35 29 0 0 35 29 0.022 0.018 Eastbound Left 1 1600 47 22 1 0 48 22 0.030 0.014 Eastbound Through 3 4800 389 433 3 2 392 435 0.105' 0.115' Eastbound Right 0 0 107 109 6 8 113 117 0.000 0.000 Westbound Left 2 3200 443 214 1 14 444 228 0.139' 0.071' Westbound Through 3 4800 510 256 1 2, 511 258 0.120 0.064 Westbound Right 0 0 67 48 0 0 67 48 0.000 0.000 Northbound Right Turn Adjustment one of right turns (RT) are assured to occur on Southbound Right Turn Adjustment red light when there is separate RT lane 8 when 0.000' 0.000' 0.000' 0.000' Eastbound Right Turn Adjustment movement is permitted. 0.000' 0.000' Westbound Right Turn Adjustment 0.000' 0.000' Clearance Interval 0.000' 0.000' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sun of Components with ') > 0.33 0.49 LEVEL OF SERVICE (A= .000 -.6 ICU; B= .601 -.7; C= .701 -.8; D= .801 -.9; E= .901 -1.0; F= 1.001+) A A PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES A A A 35 - 29 o [ 2,400) 242 - 203 [ 2,448) I I V (2 Way Volumes) 10 - 10 North North A 75 - 57 120 - 96 [ 1,1881 122 122 - 107 [ 1,2601 WR V .0- 67 - 48 591 - 496 1 5,9791 1022 - 534 1 8,5581 SR� `SL <- <_ WT-3.D- 511 - 258 ST 1-2.0- 444 - 228 553 - 574 1 6,1991 530 - 914 1 7,9421 2.0 = Lanes WL <_-> < -> 1144 -1070 (12,177) (2 Way Volumes) 1552 (2 -1448 [16,500) Way Volumes) [12,200) [16,500) EL A 567 - 355 1 5,0713 115 - 668 1 4,3071 48 - 22 -I.OJ NT V I 392 - 435 - 3.0-ET NL R LEGEND: A AN -PM Peak'Nour (Daily) 682 -1023 [ 9,3781 113 - 117 -0. 7.0 1.0 Daily = (AN-PH)- 5.5 V (2 Way Vol ores) ER I.0 63 - 422 Leg: North South East West [ 9,400) o 7 - 37 X Entering (AM -PH) 50 - 47 17 - 65 66 - 37 48 - 54 LEGEND: AN -PH Peak No X of Daily in Peak 10 - 8 7 - 11 9 - 9 9 - 9 [Estimated 2 -Way Daily] I 5 - 209 Hour (AN-PH) -- Kuntman Assoc I I I I I I INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION INTERSECTION: MILCARTHUR BOULEVARD (NS) and FORD ROAD (Ew) COUNT DATE: 01-01-04 LAND USE: EXISTING + APPROVED PROJECTS + PROJECT GEOMETRICS: Existing MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE VOLUHE (AM) (PM) ADDED VOLUME (AM) (PM) TOTAL VOLUME (AM) (PM) VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO (AM) (PM) Northbound Left 2 3200 74 0 1 2 75 2 0.023 0.001 Northbound Through 4 6400 2296 2468 3 15 2299 2483 0.359- 0.388• Northbound Right Free 1 1600 121 161 2 9 123 170 0.077 0.106 Southbound Left 2 3200 373 517 0 1 373 518 0.117• 0.162* Southbound Through 4 6400 2210 1686 3 14 2213 1700 0.346 0.266 Southbound Right Free 1 1600 4 21 0 1 4 22 0.003 0.014 Eastbound Left 2 3200 43 31 1 0 44 31 0.014 0.010 Eastbound Through 2 3206 178 197 4 3 182 200 0.057• 0.063• Eastbound Right 1 1600 79 64 2 1 81 65 0.051 0.041 westbound Left 2 3200 687 257 1 3 688 260 0.215• 0.081• Westbound Through 2 3200 376 229 1 3 377 232 0.118 0.073 Westbound Right Free 1 1600 1268 749 1 0 1269 749 0.793 0.468 Northbound Right Turn Adjustment done of right turns (RT) are assured to occur en� 0.000• 0.000• Southbound Right Turn Adjustment light when there is separate RT lane 8 when 0.000• 0.000• Eastbound Right Turn Adjustment movement is rmitted. 0.000• 0.000* III -red Westbound Right Turn Adjustment 0.000• 0.000• Clearance Interval 0.000• 0.000• INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sun of Conpunents with •) > 0.75 0.69 LEVEL OF SERVICE (0.000 -.6 ICU; B= .601 -.7; C= .701 -_8; D= .801 -.9; E= .901 -1.0; F= 1.001 +) C B PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES 4- 22 0 [64,400] 1 I 1 6202 -5503 [64,378] 2213 -1700 North North V (2 way Vol ones) 3I73 - 518 A 2590 -2240 [26,565] 1 3612 -3263 [37,813] 1. 4 Z .0 I� V i0 SR-1 LgL `1.0- 1269 - 749 456 - 256 1 `,9161 2334 -1241 [19,663] ST WT-2.0- 377 - 232 -> -> 2.0 = Lanes Ir2.0- 688 - 260 NL 307 - 296 1 3,3173 678 - 888 1 8,6131 < -> < -> 763 - 552 1 7,2331 3012 -2129 [28,276] (2 way Volunes) (2 way Vol ones) [ 7,2001 [28,300] EL A 44 2982 -2025 [27,539] 1 2497 -2655 [28,336] - 31 -2-OJ NT - V 182 - 200 - 2.0 -ET NL R LEGEND: A 81 - 65 -1. 4.0 I.0 AM -PM Peak Hour [Daily] 5479 -4680 [55,875] Daily = (AM +PM)• 5.5 V (2 way VoLumes) ER [55,900] 0 1Z3 - 170 22 .-2483 Leg: North South East west % Entering (AM -PM) 42 - 41 46 - 57 77 - 58 40 - 54 LEGEND: AM -PM Peak Hour % of Daily in Peak 10 - 9 10 - 8 11 - 8 11 - 8 [Estimated 2 -way Daily] I - 2 Hour (AM -PM) - Klmzman Associ INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD (NS) and SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD (Ew) COUNT DATE: 01 -01.04 LAND USE: EXISTING • APPROVED PROJECTS • PROJECT GEOMETRICS: Existing MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE ADDED TOTAL VOLUME TO VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME CAPACITY RATIO (AN) (PM) (AN) (PM) (AN) (PM) (AN) (PM) Northbound Left 2 3200 70 46 0 0 70 46 0.022 0.014 Northbound Through 3 4800 1526 1645 0 . 3 1526 1648 0.318• 0.343• Northbound Right 1 1600 6 15 0 0 6 15 0.004 0.009 Southbound Left 2 3200 428 599 0 0 428 599 0.134• 0.187* Southbound Through 3 4800 1491 1269 3 3 1494 1272 0.311 0.265 Southbound Right Free 1 1600 1036 231 2 14 1038 245 0.649 0.153 Eastbound Left 2 3200 107 588 3 21 110 609 0.034• 0.190• Eastbourd Through 2 3200 199 403 3 1 202 404 0.077 0.166 Eastbourd Right 0 0 45 128 0 0 45 128 0.000 0.000 Westbound Left 1 1600 19 27 0 0 19 27 0.012 0.017 Nestbourd Through 2 3200 464 285 1 2 465 287 0.145• 0.090• Westbound Right Free 1 1600 705 395 0 0 705 395 0.441 0.247 Northbound Right Turn Adjustment None of right turns (RT) are assumed to occur on Southbound Right Turn Adjustment red light when there is separate RT lane 8 whM� 0.000• 0.000• 0.000• 0.000• Eastbound Right Turn Adjustment movement is permitted. 0.000• 0.000• westbound Right Turn Adjustment 0.000• 0.000• Clearance Interval 0.000• 0.000• INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sum of Components with •) > 0.63 0.81 LEVEL OF SERVICE (A= .000•.6 ICU; B= .601•.7; C= .701 -.8; D= .801 -.9; E= .901 -1.0; F =1.0010 a D PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES A A A 1038 • 245 a (55,400) 5301 •4768 (55,380) I I V (2 way Vol unes) 1494 •1272 North North A 4128 • 599 2960 •2116 (27,918) 2341 •2652 (27,462) "1 V 1 1. 3i0 Z.0 L1-D- I LSL 705 395 1573 • 578 (11,8311 1189 - 709 (10,439) SR-+ UT -2.D- 465 - 287 ST 1-1_D- 19 27 357 •1141 1 8,239) 636 •1018 1 9,0973 2.0 = Lanes wL < -> <-> 1930 -1719 [20,070) 1825 -1727 [19,536) (2 way Vol ones) (2 way Volumes) 120,100) [19,500) EL A 1558 •1427 [16,418) 1602 •1709 [18,211) 110 609 -2. NT V 1 202 - 404 - 2.0-ET NL I LEGEND: A I�71R Peak 3160 -3136 45 128 -0.0-1 21 3.0 1.0 Daily (AM•PM)* 5.5ly) V ER 6 • 15 Leg: North South East west [34,600) 0 11516 -1648 % Entering (AM-PM) 56 - 44 51 - 54 65 41 18 66 LEGEND: AM -PM Peak Hour % of Daily in Peak 10 - 9 9 9 9 - 9 10 - 9 [Estited 2•way Daily) ma I 0 - 46 Hour (AM -PM) - Kunzman Assoc IN 1_l I i I F1 I 1 Existing + Approved Projects + Cumulative Projects I I INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD (NSI and EASTBLUFF DRIVE /FORD ROAD (Ew7 COUNT DATE: 01-01-04 LAND USE: EXISTING + APPROVED PROJECTS + CUMULATIVE PROJECTS GEOMETRICS: Existing MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE VOLUME (AN) (PMI ADDED VOLUME (AN) (PMI TOTAL VOLUME (AN) (PH) VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO (AN) (PH) Northbound Left 2 3200 399 388 28 11 427 399 0.133* 0.125* Northbound Through 3 4800 1388 1324 285 270 1673 1594 0 -366 0.375 Northbound Right 0 0 67 146 19 62 86 208 0.000 0.000 Southbound Left 1 1600 76 61 6 23 82 84 0.051 0.053 Southbound Through 3 4800 1517 1694 177 331 1694 2025 0.353* 0 -422* Southbound Right 1 1600 215 133 16 2 231 135 0.144 0.084 Eastbound Left 1 1600 311 64 11 2 322 66 0.201 0.041 Eastbound Through 1 1600 346 204 24 64 370 268 0.231* 0.168* Eastbound Right Free 1 1600 546 373 16 14 562 387 0.351 0.242 Westbound Left 0 0 116 110 58 36 174 146 0.000 0.000 Westbound Through 3 4800 377 100 65 43 442 143 0-128* 0.060* Westbound Right 1 1600 15 23 23 13 38 36 0.024 0.023 Northbound Right Turn Adjustment None of right turns (RTI are assumed to occur on 0.000* 0.000* Southbound Right Turn Adjustment red light when there is separate RT lane 8 when 0.000* 0.000* Eastbound Right Turn Adjustment movement is permitted. 0.000* 0.000* Westbound Right Turn Adjustment 0.000* 0.000* Clearance Interval 0.000* 0.000* INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sum of Components with *1 > 0.85 0.78 LEVEL OF SERVICE (A= .000-.6 ICU; 8= .601 -.7; C= .701 -.8; D= .801 -.9; E= .901 -1.0; F= 1.001+1 D C PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES 231 - 135 1 143,9001 I I 1 4040 -3940 (43,8901 1694 -2025 North North V (2 way Volumes) - 84 A 2007 -2244 123,3811 1 2033 - 1696 20,5101 I82 IR V I1.0 SR-1 LgL `1'0- 38 - 36 143 1100 - 677 1 9,7741 <654 - 325 1 5,3851 ST WT-3.0- 442 - r-0.0- 174 - 146 > > 1254 - 721 110,8631 538 - 560 L 6,0391 2.0 = Lanes wL < -> < -> 2354 -1398 120,6361 1192 - 885 (11,4241' (2 way Volumes) (2 way Vol uoes) (20,6001 (11,4001 L 322 - 66 -1. NT A 2430 -2558 (27,4341 1 2186 -2201 124,129) V 370 - 268 - 1.0 ---- ET NL R LEGEND: A 562 - 387 -1. ER 21 3.0 I 0 I 86 - 208 AM -PM Peak Hour (Daily) I' 4616 -4759 (51,5631 Daily = (AM +PM)* 5.5 V (2 way Volumes) Leg: North South East west (51,6001 o 1673 -1594 % Entering (AM -PMI 50 - 57 47 - 46 55 - 37 53 - 52 LEGEND: AM -PM Peak Hour % of Daily in Peak 9 - 9 9 - 9 10 - 8 11 - 7 (Estimated 2 -way Daily) I 4 7 - 399 Hour (AM -PMI - Kunzman Associ 11 I I I I 11 INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD (NS) and SANTA BARBARA DRIVE (Ew) COUNT DATE: 01.01.04 LAND USE: EXISTING t APPROVED PROJECTS t CUMULATIVE PROJECTS GEOMETRICS: Existing MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE VOLUME (AM) (PM) ADDED VOLUME (AN) (PM) TOTAL VOLUME (AM) (PM) VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO (AM) (PM) Northbound Left 1 1600 3 9 0 0 3 9 -0.002 0.006* Northbound Through 3 4800 1426 990 '275 275 1701 1265 0.354* 0.264 Northbound Right 1 1600 381 104 3 2 384 106 0.240 0.066 Southbound Left 2 3200 608 291 1 4 609 295 0.190* 0.092 Southbound Through 3 4800 819 1415 228 312 1047 1727 0.218 0.360* Southbound Right 1 1600 30 63 1 6 31 69 0.019 0.043 Eastbound Left 1 1600 21 25 6 2 27 27 0.017* 0.017* Eastbound Through 1 1600 2 11 0 1 2 12 0.004 0.010 Eastbound Right 0 0 5 4 0 0 5 4 0.000 0.000 Westbound Left 0 0 50 406 2 2 52 408 0.000 0.000 Westbound Through 2 3200 4 26 0 1 4 27 0.018 0.136 Westbound Right 1 1600 71 339 4 1 75 340 0.047* 0.213* Northbound Right Turn Adjustment one of right turns (RT) are assumed to occur on� 0.000* 0.000* Southbound Right Turn Adjustment red light when there is separate RT la 8 when C ne 0.000* 0.000* Eastbound Right Turn Adjustment movement is permitted. 0.000* 0.000* Westbound Right Turn Adjustment 0.000* 0.000* Clearance Interval 0.000* 0.000* INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sum of Components with *) > 0.61 0.60 LEVEL OF SERVICE (A= .000•.6 ICU; 6= .601•.7; C= .701 -.8; 0= .801 -.9; E= .901 -1.0; F= 1,001♦) B A PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES 31 • 69 A o [39,700] ( A A I I 3490 •3723 [39,672] 1047 -1727 North V (2 way Volumes) North 6109 • 295 A 1687 -2091 [20,779] I 1 1803 •1632 [18,893] 1. 3.0 .0 2 � L,.O_ V SRJ JT`SL 75 - 340 38 - 105 [ 787] 131 - 775 [ 4,9831 wT -2.0- 4 27 F-0.0- 52 408 34 • 43 1 4241 995 413 1 7,7441 2.0 = Lanes INL 72 • 148 1 1,2101 1126 -1188 [12,727] (2 way Volumes) (2 way Volumes) [ 1,2001 [12,700] EL 27 27 --1. 4� NT 1104 •2139 [17,837] I 1 2088 -1380 [19,074] V A 2 12 - 1.0-EY ML I R LEGEND: A 5 4 --0.&1 ER � 3.0 I 0 384 • 106 AM-PM Peak Hour [Daily] j 3192 -3519 [36,911] Daily = (ANtPN)* 5.5 V (2 way Volumes) Leg: North South East west [36,900] 0 LEGEND: AM-PM Peak Hour 17 1 •1265 X Entering (AN•PN) 48 - 56 65 - 39 12 65 47 29 X of Daily in Peak 9 - 9 9 - 10 9 - 9 6 - 12 [Estimated 2-way Daily] 3 • 9 Hour (AM-PM) - Kunzman INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION INTERSECTION: SANTA CRUZ DRIVE (NS) and SAN JOAQUIN HILLS R0AD (EW) COUNT DATE: 01-01-04 LAND USE: EXISTING • APPROVED PROJECTS • CL04ILATIVE PROJECTS GEOMETRICS: Existing MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE VOLUME (AN) (PM) ADDED VOLUME (AN) (PM) TOTAL VOLUME (AN) (PM) VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO (AN) (PM) Northbound Left 1 1600 57 389 1 0 58 389 0.036' 0.243' Northbound Through 2 3200 5 19 0 0 5 19 0.007 0.047 Northbound Right 0 0 15 130 1 0 16 130 0.000 0.000 Southbound Left 1 1600 17 12 0 1 17 13 0.011 0.008 Southbound Through 2 3200 9 8 1 0 10 8 0.017' 0.010' Southbound Right 0 0 43 23 0 0 43 23 0.000 0.000 Eastbound Left 1 1600 57 120 0 0 57 120 0.036 0.075' Eastbound Through 3 4800 511 358 26 54 537 412 0.154' 0.118 Eastbound Right 0 0 200 153 0 1 200 154 0.000 0.000 Westbound Left 1 1600 227 43 1 0 228 43 0.143' 0.027 Westbound Through 3 4800 343 414 58 48. 401 462 0.088 0.096' Westbound Right 0 0 20 0 0 0 20 0 0.000 0.000 Northbound Right Turn Adjustment of right turns (RT) are assumed to occur on 0.000' 0.000' Cone Southbound Right Turn Adjustment red light when there is separate RT lane 8 when 0.000' 0.000' Eastbound Right Turn Adjustment movement is permitted. 0.000' 0.000' Westbound Right Turn Adjustment 0.000' 0.000' Clearance Interval 0.000' 0.000' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sum of Components with ') > 0.35 0.42 LEVEL OF SERVICE (A= .000 -.6 ICU; 8= .601 -.7; C= .701• -8; D =- 801 -.9; E= .901 -1.0; F= 1.001+) A A PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES 43 - 23 A 0 [ 1,8001 I A A I 1 152 - 183 [ 1,8431 10 - 8 North V (2 Way Volumes) North 17 - 13 A 70 - 44 [ 627] I I 82 - 139 [ 1,2161 0. 2.0 1.0 WR V SR I IT LSL .0- 20 - 0 502 - 874 [ 7,5681 649 - 505 [ 6,3473 WT -3.0- 401 - 462 r1.0- 228 - 43 -> -> 794 - 686 1 8,1401 570 - 555 1 6,1881 2.0 = Lanes WL 1296 -1560 [15,708] 1219 -1060 [12,535] (2 Way Volumes) (2 Way Volumes) [15,700] [12,500] E L 57 120 -1.N I NT 438 - 205 [ 3,537] I I 79 - 538 [ 3,3941 V 537 - 412 - 3.0-ET NL R LEGEND: A 200 - 154 �.Ol 2.0 I.0 AN -PM Peak Hour [Daily] 517 - 743 [ 6,9301 Daily = (AM+PM)' 5.5 V (2 Way Volumes) ER 16 - 130 Leg: North South East West [ 6,9001 0 5 - 19 X Entering (AM -PM) 46 - 24 15 - 72 53 - 48 61 - 44 LEGEND: AM -PM Peak Hour X of Daily in Peak 8 - 10 7 - 11 10 - 8 8 - 10 [Estimated 2 -Way Daily] I 8 - 389 Hour (AM -PM) - Kunzman Assoc iI 1 u 11 I I I !_J I I [I I I I i I INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION INTERSECTION: SANTA CRUZ DRIVE (NS) and SAN CLEMENTE DRIVE (Ew) COURT DATE: 01 -01 -04 LAND USE: EXISTING + APPROVED PROJECTS + CUMULATIVE PROJECTS GEONETRICS: Existing MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE VOLUME (AM) (PM) ADDED VOLUME (AM) (PM) TOTAL VOLUME (AM) (PM) VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO (AM) (PH) Northbound Left 1 1600 28 40 0 0 28 40 0.018- 0.025' Northbound Through 3 4800 50 268 0 0 50 268 0.014 0.061 Northbound Right 0 0 17 25 0 0 17 25 0.000 0.000 Southbound Left 1 1600 18 28 0 0 18 28 0.011 0.018 Southbound Through 2 3200 111 197 0 0 111 197 0.092• 0.073' Southbound Right 0 0 183 38 0 0 183 38 0.000 0.000 Eastbound Left 0 0 57 252 0 0 57 252 0.000 0.000 Eastbound Through 2 3200 56 13 0 0 56 13 0.050' 0.093• Eastbound Right. 0 0 46 33 0 0 46 33 0.000 0.000 Westbound Left 0 0 13 20 0 0 13 20 0.000' 0.000' Westbound Through 3 4800 17 54 0 0 17 54 0.012 0.021 Westbound Right 0 0 26 26 0 0 26 26 0.000 0.000 Northbound Right Turn Adjustment of right turns (RT) are assured to occur W 0.000• 0.000' FNone Southbo nd Right Turn Adjustment ed light when there is separate RT lane 8 when 0.000• 0.000• Eastbound Right Turn Adjustment ovement is permitted. 0.000* 0.000' Westbound Right Turn Adjustment 0.000' 0.000' Clearance Interval 0.000' 0.000' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sum of Components with ') > 0.16 0.19 LEVEL OF SERVICE (A= .000 -.6 ICU; B= .601 -.7; C= .701 -.8; 0 =.801 -.9; E= .901 -1.0; F= 1.001+) A A PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES 183 - 38 A 0 [ 6,900) I A A I 445 - 809 [ 6,8971 111 - 197 North V (2 way Volumes) North 18 - 28 A 312 - 263 1 3,163) 133 133 - 546 1 3,735) 0. 2.0 0 I SRJ I `SL wR .0- 26 - 26 V 228 - 132 [ 1,980) 56 - 100 [ 858) <- <- $I NT -3 -0- 17 - 54 0- 13 - 20 159 - 298 1 2,514) 91 - 66 1 8641 2.0 = Lanes wL < -> < -> 387 - 430 1 4,4941 147 - 166 1 1,722) (2 way Volumes) (2 way Volumes) [ 4,500) [ 1,7001 EL A I 57 - 252 �.QJ NT 170 - 250 [ 2,310) I I 95 - 333 [ 2,354] V 56 - 13 - 2.0-ET NL I R LEGEND: A 46 - 33 -0.0� 1 3.0 0.0 Daily Peak Hour [Daily) V 265 - 583 [ 4,664) y (2 way Volumes) ER 17 - 25 10.- Leg: North South East west [ 4,700] 0 268 % Entering (AN -PH) 70 - 33 36 - 57 38 - 60 41 - 69 LEGEND: AM -PH Peak Hour % of Daily in Peak 6 - 12 6 - 13 9 - 10 9 - 10 [Estimated 2 -way Daily) I 8 - 40 Hour (AN -PH) - Kunzman Associ INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION INTERSECTION: NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE (NS) and SANTA BARBARA DRIVE (EW) COUNT DATE: 01.01.04 LAND USE: EXISTING + APPROVED PROJECTS + CUMULATIVE PROJECTS GEOMETRICS: Existing MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE ADDED TOTAL VOLUME TO VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME CAPACITY RATIO (AM) (PM) (AM) (PM) (AM) (PM) (AM) (PM) Northbound Left 1 1600 73 135 0 0 73 135 0.046' 0.084' Northbound Through 2 3200 138 94 0 0 138 94 0.043 0.029 Northbound Right 1 1600 8 36 0 0 8 36 0.005 0.023 Southbound Left 1 1600 9 47 0 0 9 47 0.006 0.029 Southbound Through 2 3200 69 182 0 0 69 182 0.022' 0.057' Southbound Right 1 1600 46 94 0 0 46 94 0.029 0.059 Eastbound Left 1 1600 41 43 0 0 41 43 0.026 0.027' Eastbound Through 2 3200 33 115 0 0 33 115 0.053' 0.074 Eastbound Right 0 0 136 123 0 0 136 123 0.000 0.000 Westbound Left 0 0 3 29 0 0 3 29 0.000' 0.000 Westbound Through 2 3200 6 82 0 0 6 82 0.003 0.043' Westbound Right 0 0 1 25 0 0 1 25 0.000 0.000 Northbound Right Turn Adjustment 1 None of ri ht turns (RT) are assumed to occur on 9 0.000' 0.000` Southbound Right Turn Adjustment red light when there is separate RT lane A when 0.000' 0.000" Eastbound Right Turn Adjustment movement is permitted. 0.000' 0.000' Westbound Right Turn Ad)ustment 0.000' 0.000' Clearance Interval 0.000' 0.000' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sum of Components with ') > 0.12 0.21 LEVEL OF SERVICE (A= .000•.6 ICU; 8= .601 -.7; C= .701 -.8; D= .801•.9; E= .901 -1.0; F= 1.001 +) A A PLOT OF PEAK NOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES A A A 46 - 94 o ( 4,3001 1 304 - 485 [ 4,3401 I I V (2 Way Volumes) 69 • 182 North North A 9 - 47 124 - 323 1 2,4591 180 - 162 1 1,8811 WR V I 1. 2.0 0 1-0.0- LSL 1 25 125 - 311 1 2,3981 .10 - 136 1 8031 SRJ <- <- IT WT -2.0- 6 - 82 0- 3 - 29 210 - 281 [ 2,7011 50 • 198 [ 1,3641 F-0. 2I0 = Lanes WL < -> < -> 335 - 592 1 5,0991 (2 Way volumes) 60 - 334 1 2,1671 (2 Way volumes) [ 5,100) [ 2,2001 EL A 208 - 334 1 2,9811 219 • 265 1 2,6621 41 - 43 -1. NT V I 33 - 115 - 2.0-ET NL I�IIR LEGEND: A 1 5,6431 427 9Volumes) 136 - 123 -0.OI 11 2.0 1.0 Daily ve(AMNPM)'[5.51Y7 V (2 Way R I8 - 36 Leg: North South East West [ 5,600' 0 138 - 94 % Entering (AM -PM) 41 - 67 51 44 17 - 41 63 - 47 LEGEND: AM -PM Peak Hour % of Daily in Peak 7 - 11 8 - 11 3 - 15 7 - 12 [Estimated 2 -Way Daily) I - 135 Hour (AM -PM) Kurtzman I I A i L I I 1 I I LJ I n 1 r INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION INTERSECTION: NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE (NS) and COAST HIGHWAY MEW) COUNT DATE: 01 -01 -04 LAND USE: EXISTING + APPROVED PROJECTS + CUMULATIVE PROJECTS GEOMETRICS: Existing MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE VOLUME (AM) (PM) ADDED VOLUME (AM) (PM) TOTAL VOLUME (AM) (PM) VOLUTE TO CAPACITY RATIO (AM) (PM) Northbound Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 Northbound Through 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000' 0.000' Northbound Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 Southbound Left 2 3200 37 300 0 3 37 303 0.012' 0.095* Southbound Through 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 Southbound Right Free 1 1600 78 496 11 33 89 529 0.056 0.331 Eastbound Left 2 3200 315 352 6 15 321 367 0.100' 0.115' Eastbound Through 3 4800 1428 1714 195 562 1623 2276 0.338 0.474 Eastbound Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 Westbound Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 Westbound Through 3 4800 1194 1774 512 374 1706 2148 0.355' 0.448* Westbound Right Free 1 1600 158 161 1 6 159 167 0.099 0.104 Northbound Right Turn Adjustment one of right turns (RT) are assured to occur on�1I 0.000' 0.000' Southbound Right Turn Adjustment red light when there is separate RT lane d wF�m l 0.000' 0.000* Eastbound Right Turn Adjustment movement is pennitted. 0.000' 0.000' Westbound Right Turn Adjustment 0.000' 0.000' Clearance Interval 0.000* 0.000* INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sun of Conponents with ') > 0.47 0.66 LEVEL OF SERVICE (A= .000 -.6 ICU; B= .601 -.7; C= .701 -.8; 0= .801 -.9; E= .901 -1.0; F= 1.001 +) A B PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES 89 - 529 0 (10,800] I I 606 -1366 (10,846] 0 - 0 North V (2 way Vol uses) North 3I7 - 303 A 126 - 832 ( 5,2691 I I 480 - 534 ( 5,5771 1. 0.0 .0 2 SR- IT LSL WR L1.0- 159 - 167 V 1795 -2677 (24,596] 1865 -2315 (22,990] WT -3.0- 1706 -2148 -> -> 2.0 = Lanes F-0. O_ 0 - 0 WL 1944 -2643 (25,2291 1660 -2579 (23,315] < -> < -> 3739 -5320 (49,825] 3525 -4894 (46,305] (2 Way Vol a) (2 way Vol ones) (49,800] (46,300] EL 321 - 367 -2.OJ NT I A 0 - 0 ( 03 " I 0 - 0 ( 03 V 1623 -2276 - 3.0-ET NL R LEGEND: A 0 - 0 -0.4� R 0.0 .0 I IO - 0 AN-PM Peak Hour (Daily] "0 - 0 ( 01 Daily = (AM +PM)' 5.5 V (2 way Volu s) Leg: North South East West ( 01 0 LEGEND: AM -PM Peak Hour 0 - 0 % Entering (AM -PM) 21 - 61 0 - 0 53 - 47 52 50 % of Daily in Peak 6 - 13 0 - 0 8 - 11 8 - 11 (Estimated 2 -Way Daily] I 0 - 0 Hour (AM -PM) - Kunzean INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION INTERSECTION: SANTA ROSA ORIVE /BIG CANYON DRIVE (NS) and SAN JOAOUIN HILLS RDA COUNT DATE: 01-01.04 LAND USE: EXISTING t APPROVED PROJECTS t CUMULATIVE PROJECTS GEOMETRICS: Existing MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE ADDED TOTAL VOLUME TO VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME CAPACITY RATIO (AN) (PM) (AN) (PM) (AN) (PM) (AN) (PM) Northbound Left 1 1600 36 203 9 6 45 209 0.028 0.131 Northbound Through 1 1600 7 37 0 0 7 37 0.004 0.023 Northbound Right 1 1600 59 401 15 68 74 469 0.046• 0.293• Southbound Left 1 1600 75 57 0 0 75 57 0.047' 0.036• Southbound Through 1 1600 10 10 0 0 10 10 0.006 0.006 Southbound Right 1 1600 35 29 0 0 35 29 0.022 0.018 Eastbound Left 1 1600 47 22 1 0 48 22 0.030 0.014 Eastbound Through 3 4800 389 433 51 76 440 509 0.115• 0.130• Eastbound Right 0 0 107 109 6 8 113 117 0.000 0.000 Westbound Left 2 3200 443 214 54 63 497 277 0.155• 0.087• Westbound Through 3 4800 510 256 77 72 587 328 0.136 0.078 Westbound Right 0 0 67 48 0 0 67 48 0.000 0.000 Northbound Right Turn Adjustment one of right turns (RT) are assumed to occur on Southbound Right Turn Adjustment red light when there is separate RT lane 8 when fl 0.000• 0.000• 0.000• 0.000• Eastbound Right Turn Adjustment movement is permitted. J 0.000• 0.000• Westbound Right Turn Adjustment 0.000• 0.000• Clearance Interval 0.000• 0.000• INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sum of Components with •) > 0.36 0.55 LEVEL OF SERVICE (A= .000 -.6 ICU; B= .601 -.7; C= .701 -.8; 0= .801 -.9; E= .901.1.0; F= 1.001+) A A PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES I 35 • 29 1 2,400] I 242 203 1 2,4481 I V (2 Way Volumes) 10 • 10 North No rth A 75 - 57 120 96 1 1,1881 122 122 - 107 1 1,2601 WR V 1. 1.0 0 LSL .D- 67 - 48 667 566 1 6,7821 1151 - 653 1 9,9221 SRJ <- <- WT-3.D- 587 328 ST F2. D- 497 277 601 - 648 1 6,8701 589 -1035 1 8,9321 2.0 = Lanes WL < -> < -> 1268 •1214 [13,651] (2 Way Volumes) 1740 •1688 [18,854]' (2 Way Volumes) [13,700] [18,900] EL A 620 - 404 1 5,6321 126 • 715 [ 4,626] 48 - 22 -1. NT V I 440 - 509 - 3.0-ET ML I R I�71 LEGEND: A AN•PM Peak Hour [Oaily] .I 746 •1119 [10,258] 113 - 117 -0. 1.0 1.0 Oaily = (AM+PN)• 5.5 V (2 Way Volumes) ER I 14 469 Leg: North South East West [10,300] o 7 - 37 % Entering (AM -PM) 50 47 17 64 66 39 47 - 53 LEGEND: AM-PM Peak Hour - 8 7 11 9 - 9 9 9 [Estimated 2 -Way Oaily] 5 - 209 Hour (AM-PM) - Kuizman Assoc I I I 1 I I I L 1 I I I i I I I I I I 1 I I 11 I I INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD (NS) and FORD ROAD (EW) COUNT DATE: 01 -01 -04 LAND USE: EXISTING + APPROVED PROJECTS + CUMULATIVE PROJECTS GEOMETRICS: Existing MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE VOLUME (AM) (PM) ADDED VOLUME (AM) (PM) TOTAL VOLUME (AM) (PM) VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO (AM) (PM) Northbound Left 2 3200 74 0 1 2 75 2 0.023 0.001 Northbound Through 4 6400 2296 2468 '120 102 2416 2570 0.378• 0.402• Northbound Right Free 1 1600 121 161 81 99 202 260 0.126 0.163 Southbound Left 2 3200 373 517 27 80 400 597 0.125• 0.187' Southbound Through 4 6400 2210 1686 52 156 2262 1842 0.353 0.288 Southbound Right Free 1 1600 4 21 0 1 4 22 0.003 0.014 Eastbound Left 2 3200 43 31 1 0 44 31 0.014 0.010 Eastbound Through 2 3200 178 197 49 145 227 342 0.071• 0.107' Eastbound Right 1 1600 79 64 2 1 81 65 0.051 0.041 Westbound Left 2 3200 687 257 77 89 764 346 0.239• 0.108• Westbound Through 2 3200 376 229 144 89 520 318 0.163 0.099 Westbound Right Free 1 1600 1268 749 74 43 1342 792 0.839 0.495 Northbound Right Turn Adjustment of right turns (RT) are assumed to occur on 0.000• 0.000• rNom Southbound Right Turn Adjustment ed light uhm there is separate RT lane 8 when 0.000• 0.000• Eastbo nd Right Turn Adjustment ovement is permitted. 0.000• 0.000• Westbound Right Turn Adjustment 0.000• 0.000• Clearance Interval 0.000• 0.000• INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sun of Components with •) > 0.81 0.80 LEVEL OF SERVICE (A= .000 -.6 ICU; B= .601 -.7; C= .701 -.8; D= .801 -.9; E =.901 -1.0; F= 1.001+) D C PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES 4 - 22 A o [67,800) 1 A A I 1 6468 -5854 [67,771) 2262 -1842 North V (2 way Vol uses) North 4I0I0 - 597 A 2666 -2461 [28,199) I 1 3802 -3393 [39,573) 1. 4.0 2.0 WR L1.0- V SR- IT LSL WT-2.0- 1342 - 792 599 - 342 1 5,1761 2626 -1456 [22,451) 520 - 318 -> -> 2.0 = Lanes r2.0- 764 - 346 WL 352 - 438 1 4,3451 829 -1199 [11,154) < -> < -> 951 - 780 1 9,5211 3455 -2655 [33,605) (2 Way Vol uses) (2 Way Vol uses) [ 9,5001 [33,600] EL A 44 - 31 -2.OJ NT 3107 -2253 [29,480] I 1 2693 -2832 [30,388) V 227 - 342 - 2.0-ET NL R LEGEND: A 81 - 65 -1.0j 21 4.0 .0 A2 AM-PM Peak Hour [Daily) 5800 -5085 [59,868) Daily = (AN +PM)• 5.5 V (2 Way Vol uses) ER - 260 Leg: North South East West [59,900) o 24 6 -2570 % Entering (AM -PM) 41 - 42 46 - 56 76 - 55 37 - 56 LEGEND: AN -PM Peak Hour % of Daily in Peak 10 - 9 10 8 10 - 8 10 - 8 [Estimated 2 -Way Daily] I 5 - 2 Hour (AM -PM) - Kunzman Assoc VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD (NS) and SAN JOADUIN MILLS ROAD (EW) COUNT DATE: 01 -01-04 LAND USE: EXISTING + APPROVED PROJECTS + CUMULATIVE PROJECTS GEOMETRICS: Existing MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE ADDED TOTAL VOLUME TO VOLUME VOLUME VOL LIKE CAPACITY RATIO (AM) (PM) (AM) (PM) (AM) (PM) (AM) (PM) Northbound Left 2 3200 70 46 5 6 75 52 0.023 0.016 Northbound Through 3 4800 1526 1645 121 92 1647 1737 0.343• 0.362• Northbound Right 1 1600 6 15 45 153 51 168 0.032 0.105 Southbound Left 2 3200 428 599 27 71 455 670 0.142' 0.209• Southbound Through 3 4800 1491 1269 58 121 1549 1390 0.323 0.290 Southbound Right Free 1 1600 1036 231 30 42 1066 273 0.666 0.171 Eastbound Left 2 3200 107 588 35 59 142 647 0.044• 0.202• Eastbound Through 2 3200 199 403 32 93 231 496 0.086 0.195 Eastbound Right 0 0 45 128 0 0 45 128 0.000 0.000 Westboud Left 1 1600 19 27 105 116 124 143 0.078 0.089 Westbound Through 2 3200 464 285 92 66, 556 351 0.174• 0.110• Westbound Right Free 1 1600 705 395 46 46 751 441 0.469 0.276 Northbound Right Turn Adjustment None of right turns (RT) are assumed to occur on�7f 0.000• 0.000• Southbound Right Turn Adjustment red light when there is separate RT lane 8 when) 0.000• 0.000• Eastbound Right Turn Adjustment movement is permitted. 0.000• 0.000• Westbound Right Turn Adjustment 0.000• 0.000• Clearance Interval 0.000• 0.000• INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sum of Conponents with 0.70 0.88 LEVEL OF SERVICE (A= .000•.6 ICU; B =.601 -.7; C= .701 -.8; 0= .801 -.9; E= .901 -1.0; F= 1.001 +) B 0 PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES A A A 1066 - 273 o [59, 2001 1 5610 -5158 [59,224] V (2 Way Volumes) 1549 •1390 North North A 4555 - 670 3070 -2333 [29,717] 2540 •2825 [29,508] WR V 1 2 1. 3.0 .0 L1.0- LSL 751 - 441 1697 - 676 [13,052] 1431 - 935 [13,013] SRJ IT WT-2.0- 556 - 351 -> -> r1.0- 124 - 143 418 -1271 1 9,2901 737 -1334 [11,391] 2.0 = Lanes WL < -> < -> 2115 -1947 [22,341] 2168 -2269 [24,404] (2 Way Volumes) (2 Way Volumes) [22,300] [24,400] EL A 1718 -1661 [18,585] 1773 -1957 [20,515] 142 - 647 -2.OLI V 1 231 - 496 - 2.0-ET IMT NL ( I 21 R LEGEND: A AM -PM -Peak Hour [Daily] 1 3491 -3618 [39,100] 45 - 128 -0.0- 3.0 Daily = (AM +PM)• 5.5 V (2 Way Volumes) ER II.0 51 - 168 Leg: North South East West [39,100] o ) 7 -1737 % Entering (AM -PM) 55 45 51 - 54 66 41 20 - 65 LEGEND: AM -PM Peak Hour X of Daily in Peak 9 - 9 9 - 9 9 - 9 9 - 9 [Estimated 2 -Way Daily] - 52 Hour (AM -PM) - Kunzman I I I I I Existing + Approved Projects + Cumulative Projects + Project I I I I I I I I INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION I INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD (NS) and EASTBLUFF DRIVE /FORD ROAD (EW) COUNT DATE: 01.01-04 LAND USE: EXISTING + APPROVED PROJECTS + CUMULATIVE PROJECTS + PROJECT GEOMETRICS: Existing MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE ADDED TOTAL VOLUME TO VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME CAPACITY RATIO (AM) (PM) (AM) (PM) (AM) (PM) (AM) (PM) Northbound Left 2 3200 399 388 28 11 427 399 0.133' 0.125' Northbound Through 3 4800 1388 1324 294 274 1682 1598 0.369 0.377 Northbound Right 0 0 67 146 22 64 89 210 0.000 0.000 Southbound Left 1 1600 76 61 6 23 82 84 0.051 0.053 Southbound Through 3 4800 1517 1694 179 337 1696 2031 0.353' 0.423' Southbound Right 1 1600 215 133 16 2 231 135 0.144 0.084 Eastbound Left 1 1600 311 64 11 2 322 66 0.201 0.041 Eastbound Through 1 1600 346 204 24 64 370 268 0.231' 0.168' Eastbound Right Free 1 1600 546 373 16 14 562 387 0.351 0.242 Westbound Left 0 0 116 110 59 38 175 148 0.000 0.000 Westbound Through 3 4800 377 100 65 43 442 143 0.129• 0.061' Westbound Right 1 1600 15 23 23 13 38 36 0.024 0.023 Northbound Right Turn Adjustment None of right turns (RT) are assured to occur on 0.000' 0.000' Southbound Right Turn Adjustment red light when there is separate RT lane 8 when 0.000' 0.000' Eastbound Right Turn Adjustment movement is permitted. 0.000' 0.000' Westbound Right Turn Adjustment 0.000' 0.000' Clearance Interval 0.000' 0.000' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sum of Components with ') > 0.85 0.78 LEVEL OF SERVICE (0.000 -.6 ICU; 8= .601•.7; C= .701 -.8; D= .801•.9; E= .901 -1.0; F= 1.001+) D C PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES A A A 231 - 135 o [44,000] J V 4051 -3950 I VO[44,OD6] 1696 •2031 North North A - 84 2009 •2250 [23,425] 1 2042 -1700 [20,581] I82 � V 1 1. L1.O_ LSL 38 - 36 1100.677 1 9,7741 655 - 327 1 5,4011 SR- IT WT -3.0- 442 - 143 -> 1254 • 721 [10,863] ^> 541 - 562 1 6,0671 F-0. 0- 175 • 148 2.0 = Lanes WL < -> < -> 2354 •1398 [20,636) (2 Way Volumes) 1196 - 889 [11,468] (2 Way Volumes) [20,600] [11,500] L A 2433 •2566 [27,495] 2198 -2207 [24,228] 322 - 66 -1. NT V 1 370 268 - 1.0-ET NL I R LEGEND: A AM -PM Peak Hour (Daily] 1 4631 -4773 [51,722] 562 387 -1. 21 3.0 II.0 Daily = (AM +PM)' 5.5 V (2 Way Volumes) ER A9 • 210 Leg: North South East West [51,700] o 1 2 •1598 X Entering (AM -PM) 50 - 57 47 - 46 55 - 37 53 52 LEGEND: AM -PM Peak Hour X of Daily in Peak 9 9 9 9 10 8 11 - 7 [Estimated 2•Way Daily] I 4 7 - 399 Hour (AM -PM) Kunzman 1 I I I I E I I I I I i I I 11 I I I i i IJ INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD (NS) and SANTA BARBARA OR IVE (Ew) COUNT DATE: 01-01-04 LAND USE: EXISTING + APPROVED PROJECTS + CUMULATIVE PROJECTS + PROJECT GEOMETRICS: Existing MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE VOLUME (AM) (PM) ADDED VOLUME (AM) (PM) TOTAL VOLUME (AM) (PM) VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO (AN) (PM) Northboud Left 1 1600 3 9 0 0 3 9 0.002 0 -006• Northbound Through 3 4800 1426 990 275 275 1701 1265 0.354• 0.264 Northbound Right 1 1600 381 104 5 7 386 111 0.241 0.069 Southbound Left 2 3200 608 291 4 12 612 303 0.191• 0.095 Southbound Through 3 4800 819 1415 228 312 1047 1727 0.218 0.360• Southbound Right 1 1600 30 63 1 6 31 69 0.019 0 -043 Eastbound Left 1 1600 21 25 6 2 27 27 0.017' 0 -017' Eastbound Through 1 1600 2 11 0 1 2 12 0.004 0.010 Eastbound Right 0 0 5 4 0 0 5 4 0.000 0.000 Westbound Left 0 0 50 406 9 5 59 411 0.000 0.000 Westbound Through 2 3200 4. 26 0 1 4 27 0.020 0 -137 Westbound Right 1 1600 71 339 16 6 87 345 0.054• 0.216• Northbound Right Turn Adjustment of right turns (RT) are assured to occur m 0 -000• 0.000• Cone Southbound Right Turn Adjustment red light when there is separate RT lane A when 0.000• 0.000• Eastboud Right Turn Adjustment movement is permitted. 0.000• 0.000• westboud Right Turn Adjustment 0.000• 0.000• Clearance Interval 0.000• 0 -000• INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sun of Components with •) > 0.62 0.60 LEVEL OF SERVICE (A =.000 -.6 ICU; B= .601 -.7; C =.701 -.8; 0= .801 -.9; E= .901 -1.0; F= 1.001+) B A PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES 31 - 69 A 0 [39,800] I A A I 3505 -3736 [39,826] 1047 -1727 North V (2 way Vol ones) North 612 - 303 A 1690 -2099 [20,840] 1 1815 -1637 [18,986) SRJ IT LSL wR L1 -O- 87 - 345 V 38 - 105 [ 7871 150 - 783 [ 5,1321 T -2 -0- 4 - 27 _> �> 2.0 = Lanes FO-0- 59 - 411 NL 34 - 43 [ 4241 1000 - 426 [ 7,8431 < -> < -> 72 - 148 1 1,2101 1150 -1209 [12,975] (2 way Vol ones) (2 way Vol ones) [ 1,2001 [13,000] EL A 27 - 27 -I.OJ NT 1111 -2142 [17,892] 1 2090 -1385 [19,113] V 2 - 12 -1.0--ET NL R LEGEND: A 5 - 4 -0.0� 3.0 0 AN -PM Peak Hour [Daily] 1 3201 -3527 [37,004] Daily = (AM+PM)• 5.5 V (2 way Vol uses) ER I 396 - 111 Leg: North South East west [37,000] 0 17 1 -1265 X Entering (AM -PM) 48 - 56 65 - 39 13 - 65 47 - 29 LEGEND: AM -PM Peak Hour % of Daily in Peak 9 - 9 9 - 10 9 - 9 6 - 12 [Estimated 2 -way Daily] I 3 - 9 Hour (AN-PH) - Kanzman Assoc INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION INTERSECTION: SANTA CRUZ DRIVE (NS) and SAN JOAOUIN HILLS ROAD (Ew) COUNT DATE: 01 -01-04 LAND USE: EXISTING + APPROVED PROJECTS + CUMULATIVE PROJECTS + PROJECT GEOMETRICS: Existing MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE VOLUME (AM) (PM) ADDED VOLUME (AM) (PM) TOTAL VOLUME (AM) (PM) VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO (AM) (PM) Northbound Left 1 1600 57 389 11 0 58 389 0.036' 0.243' Northbound Through 2 3200 5 19 0 0 5 19 0.007 0.047 Northbound Right 0 0 15 130 3 1 18 131 0.000 0.000 Southbound Left 1 1600 17 12 0 1 17 13 0.011 0.008 Southbound Through 2 3200 9 8 1 0 10 8 0.017* 0.010' Southbound Right 0 0 43 23 0 0 43 23 0.000 0.000 Eastbound Left 1 1600 57 120 0 0 57 120 0.036 0.075' Eastbound Through 3 4800 511 358 26 54 537 412 0.154* 0.118 Eastbound Right 0 0 200 153 0 1 200 154 0.000 0.000 Westbound Left 1 1600 227 43 1 1 228 64 0.143' 0.028 Westbound Through 3 4800 343 414 58 48 401 462 0.088 0.096' Westbound Right 0 0 20 0 0 0 20 0 0.000 0.000 Northbound Right Turn Adjustment None of right turns (RT) are assumed to occur on 0.000' 0.000' Southbound Right Turn Adjustment red light when there is separate RT lane 6 when 0.000' 0.000' Eastbound Right Turn Adjustment movement is permitted. 0.000' 0.000' Westbound Right Turn Adjustment 0.000' 0.000' Clearance Interval 0.000' 0.000* INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sum of Components with ') > 0.35 0.42 LEVEL OF SERVICE (A= .000 -.6 ICU; 6= .601 -.7; C= .701 - -8; 0= .801 -.9; E= .901 -1.0; F= 1.001+) A A PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES 43 - 23 A 0 [ 1,800] I A A I 152 - 183 [ 1,8431 10 - 8 North V (2 way Volumes) North 17 - 13 A 70 - 44 [ 6271 I I 82 - 139 [ 1,2161 0. 2.0 1.0 wR V SR -J I LSL .0- 20 - 0 502 - 874 1 7,5681 649 - 506 1 6,3531 <- <- ST wT -3.0- 401 - 462 2.0 = Lanes F 1.0- 228 - 44 wL 794 - 686 1 8,1401 572 - 556 1 6,2041 < -> < -> 1296 -1560 [15,7081 1221 -1062 [12,557]" (2 way Volumes) (2 way Volumes) [15,700] [12,600] EL 57 - 120 -1. NT A 438 - 206 [ 3,542] I 81 - 539 1 3,4101 V 537 - 412 - 3.0-ET NL I R LEGEND: A 200 - 154 -O.O� 11 2.0 I.0 AM -PM Peak, Hour (Daily] 519 - 745 [ 6,9521 Daily = (AM +PM)' 5.5 V (2 way Volumes) ER I 18 - 131 Leg: North South East west [ 7,0001 0 5 - 19 % Entering (AM -PM) 46 - 24 16 - 72 53 - 48 61 - 44 LEGEND: AM -PM Peak Hour % of Daily in Peak 8 - 10 7 - 11 10 - 8 8 - 10 [Estimated 2 -way Daily] I 8 - 389 Hour (AM -PM) Kunzman Associ i u I J 7 I u I I I I.1 LJ 11 i P 1' CJ I I INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION INTERSECTION: SANTA CRUZ DRIVE (NS) and SAN CLEMENTE DRIVE (Ew) COUNT DATE: 01 -01.04 LAND USE: EXISTING + APPROVED PROJECTS + CUMULATIVE PROJECTS + PROJECT GEOMETRICS: Existing MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE VOLUME (AN) (PM) ADDED VOLUME (AM) (PM) TOTAL VOLUME (AM) (PM) VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO (AM) (PM) Northbound Left 1 1600 28 40 0 0 28 40 0.018- 0.025 - Northbound Through 3 4800 50 268 0 0 50 268 0.014 0.061 Northbound Right 0 0 17 25 0 0 17 25 0.000 0.000 Southbound Left 1 1600 18 28 0 0 18 28 0.011 0.018 Southbound Through 2 3200 111 197 0 0 111 197 0.092- 0.074 - Southbound Right 0 0 183 38 0 1 183 39 0.000 0.000 Eastbound Left 0 0 57 252 2 1 59 253 0.000 0.000 Eastbound Through 2 3200 56 13 0 0 56 13 0.050- 0.093 - Eastbound Right 0 0 46 33 0 0 46 33 0.000 0.000 Westbound Left 0 0 13 20 D 0 13 20 0.000• 0.000' Westbound Through 3 4800 17 54 0 0 17 54 0.012 0.021 Westbound Right 0 0 26 26 0 0 26 26 0.000 0.000 Northbound Right Turn Adjustment None of right turns (III) are assured to occur on 0.000' 0.000' Southbound Right Turn Adjustment red light when there is separate RT lane d when 0.000' 0.000• Eastbound Right Turn Adjustment movement is permitted. 0.000• 0.000' Westbound Right Turn Adjustment 0.000' 0.000• Clearance Interval 0.000' 0.000' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sun of Components with ') > 0.16 0.19 LEVEL OF SERVICE (A= .000 -.6 ICU; 8= .601 -.7; C= .701•.8; D= .801 -.9; E= .901 -1.0; F= 1.001 +) A A PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES 183 39 I [ 6,9001 1 I 1 447 811 1 6,9191 111 - 197 North North V (2 way Volunes) 18 • 28 A 312 - 264 [ 3,1681 135 135 - 547 [ 3,7511 0- 2.0 0 wR Lo V SRJ IT LSL WT-3. .0- 26 - 26 228 - 133 [ 1,9861 56 - 100 1 8581 0- 17 - 54 r-0.0- 13 - 20 -> > 161 - 299 [ 2,5301 91 - 66 1 8641 2.0 = •Lanes wL < -> < -> 389 - 432 1 4,5161 147 - 166 1 1,7221 (2 way Vol unea) (2 way Vol ones) 1 4,5001 1 1,7001 EL 59 253 -O. J NT A 170 - 250 [ 2,3101 I I 95 - 333 [ 2,3541 V 56 - 13 - 2.0-ET NL 4R LEGEND: A 46 - 33 -0- R {� I 3 0 0 0 I 17 - 25 _PM Peak Hour [Daily] 265 - 583 [ 4,6641 Daily = (AM +PM)• 5.5 V (2 way Volunes) Leg: North South East west 1 4,7001 0 LEGEND: AM -PM Peak Hour 0 - 268 % Entering (AM -PM) 70 33 36 - 57 38 - 60 41 69 % of Daily in Peak 6 - 12 6 - 13 9 - 10 9 - 10 [Estimated 2 -way Daily] I 8 - 40 Hour (AM -PM) - Kunzman INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION I INTERSECTION: NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE (NS) and SANTA BARBARA DRIVE (EW) COUNT DATE: 01 -01 -04 LAND USE: EXISTING + APPROVED PROJECTS + CUMULATIVE PROJECTS + PROJECT GEOMETRICS: Existing MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE VOLUME (AM) (PM) ADDED VOLUME (AM) (PM) TOTAL VOLUME (AM) (PM) VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO (AM) (PM) Northbound Left 1 1600 73 135 2 6 75 141 0.047' 0.088` Northbound Through 2 3200 138 94 0 0 138 94 0.043 0.029 Northbound Right 1 1600 8 36 0 0 8 36 0.005 0.023 Southho" Left 1 1600 9 47 0 0 9 47 0.006 0.029 Southho" Through 2 3200 69 182 0 0 69 182 0.022' 0.057' Southho" Right 1 1600 46 94 1 2 47 96 0.029 0.060 Eastho" Left 1 1600 41 43 3 2 44 45 0.028 0.028 Eastho" Through 2 3200 33 115 2 1 35 116 0.056' 0.076* Eastbound Right 0 0 136 123 9 4 145 127 0.000 0.000 Westboud Left 0 0 3 29 0 0 3 29 0.000' 0.000' Westboud Through 2 3200 6 82 0 1. 6 83 0.003 0.043 Westbound Right 0 0 1 25 0 0 1 25 0.000 0.000 Northbound Right Turn Adjustment None of right turns (RT) are assumed to occur on 0.000' 0.000' Southbound Right Turn Adjustment red light when there is separate RT lane 8 when1 0.000' 0.000' Eastbound Right Turn Adjustment movement is permitted. 0.000' 0.000' Westboud Right Turn Adjustment 0.000' 0.000' Clearance Interval 0.000* 0.000' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sum of Components with ') > 0.13 0.22 LEVEL OF SERVICE (A= .000 -.6 ICU; 8= .601 -.7; C= .701 -.8; 0= .801.9; E= .901 -1.0; F= 1.001+) A A PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES 47 - 96 0 [ 4,400] I I 308 - 489 [ 4,3841 69 • 182 North North V (2 Way Vol uses) 9 - 47 A I 183 - 164 1 1,9091 125 - 325 1 2,4751 I1.1 2 0 1. 2.0 0 WR V SRJ IT LSL .D- 1 - 25 128 - 320 [ 2,4641 10 - 137 [ 8091 WT -2 -D- 6 - 83 -> -> 2.0 = Lanes F-0. 0- 3 - 29 WL 224 - 288 [ 2,8161 52 - 199 [ 1,3811 352 - 608 1 5,2801 62 - 336 1 2,1891 (2 Way Volumes) (2 Way Volumes) [ 5,3001 [ 2,2001 EL A - 44 45 -1. MT 217 - 338 1 3,0531 I 221 - 271 [ 2,706] I V 35 116 - 2.0 --ET NL R LEGEND: A 145 - 127 -0.01 2.0 I.0 AM -PM Peak Hour [Daily] 438 - 609 [ 5,7591 Daily = (AM+PM)' 5.5 V (2 Way Volumes) ER 8 • 36 Leg: North South East West [ 5,800] 0 1 8 - 94 % Entering (AM -PM) 41 - 66 50 - 44 16 - 41 64 - 47 LEGEND: AM -PM Peak Hour % of Daily in Peak 7 - 11 8 - 11 3 - 15 7 - 12 [Estimated 2 -Way Daily] I - 141 Hour (AM-PM) Kurtzman Associ I INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION I I 11 I 1 I I I F Ii I A I INTERSECTION: NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE (NS) and COAST HIGHWAY (EW) COUNT DATE: 01 -01 -04 LIVID USE: EXISTING + APPROVED PROJECTS + CUNULATIVE PROJECTS + PROJECT GEONETRICS: Existing MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE VOLUME (AM) (PM) ADDED VOLUME (AM) (PM) TOTAL VOLUME (AM) (PM) VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO (AM) (PM) Northbound Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 Northbound Through 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000' 0.000' Northbound Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 Southbound Left 2 3200 37 300 5 5 42 305 0.013' 0.095' Southbound Through 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 Southbound Right Free 1 1600 78 496 11 33 89 529 0.056 0.331 Eastbound Left 2 3200 315 352 6 15 321 367 0.100' 0.115' Eastbound Through 3 4800, 1428 1714 195 562 1623 2276 0.338 0.474 Eastbound Right - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 Westbound Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 Westbound Through 3 4800 1194 1774 512 374 1706 2148 0.355' 0.448' Westbound Right Free 1 1600 158 161 2 10 160 171 0.100 0.107 Northbound Right Turn Adjustment None of right turns (RT) are assumed to occur en 0.000' 0.000' Southbound Right Turn Adjustment red light when there is separate RT lane 8 when 0.000' 0.000' Eastbound Right Turn Adjustment movement is permitted. 0.000' 0.000' Westbound Right Turn Adjustment 0.000' 0.000' Clearance Interval 0.000' 0.000' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sun of Components with ') > 0.47 0.66 LEVEL OF SERVICE (A= .000 -.6 ICU; 6= .601 -.7; C= .701 -.8; D= .801 -.9; E= .901 -1.0; F= 1.001+) A B PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES 89 - 529 A 0 [10,900) A A 1 612 -1372 [10,912) Way Vol 0 - 0 North North V (2 ones) 42 - 305 A 131 - 834 [ 5,3081 I 481 - 538 [ 5,6051 1 1.I 0.0 2 I.0 .0 � I V SR_j SRJ 1.0- 160 - 171 1795 -2677 [24,596) 1866 -2319 [23,018) ST WT -3.D- 1706 -2148 2.0 = Lanes FO. 0- 0 - 0 WL 1944 -2643 [25,229) 1665 -2581 [23,353) < -> < -> 3739 -5320 [49,825) 3531 -4900 [46,371) (2 Way Volumes) (2 Way Volumes) [49,800) o- [46,400) EL A 321 - 367 -2.OJ NT 0- 0 03 I 0- 0 03 I V 1623 -2276 - 3.0-ET NL LEGEND: A 0 - 0 -0.0� R I�-NR 0.0 0.0 . Daily Peak Hour [Daily] 0 - 0 [ 01 Deity = UM+PM)- S.5 V (2 Way Volumes) [ 03 o O - 0 0.- 0 Leg: North South East West X Entering (AM -PM) 21 - 61 0 - 0 53 - 47 52 - 50 LEGEND: AM -PM Peak Hour X of Daily in Peak 6 - 13 0 - 0 8 - 11 8 - 11 [Estimated 2 -Way Daily) I 0 - 0 Hour (AM -PM) I- Kunzman Associ 11 INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES. AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION INTERSECTION: SANTA ROSA DRIVE /BIG CANTON DRIVE (NS) and SAN JOAQUIN HILLS RDA COUNT DATE: 01 -01 -04 LAND USE: EXISTING + APPROVED PROJECTS + CUMULATIVE PROJECTS + PROJECT GEONETRICS: Existing MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE VOLUME (AN) (PM) ADDED VOLUME (AN) (PM) TOTAL VOLUME (AN) (PM) VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO (AM) (PM) Northbound Left 1 1600 36 203 9 6 45 209 0.028 0.131 Northbound Through 1 1600 7 37 0 - 0 7 37 0.004 0.023 Northbound Right 1 1600 59 401 18 70 77 471 0.048' 0.294* Southbound Left 1 1600 75 57 0 0 75 57 0.047* 0.036' Southbound Through 1 1600 10 10 0 0 10 10 0.006 0.006 Southbound Right 1 1600 35 29 0 0 35 29 0.022 0.018 Eastbound Left 1 1600 47 22 1 0 48 22 0.030 0.014 Eastbound Through 3 4800 389 433 53 77 442 510 0.116* 0.131* Eastbound Right 0 0 107 109 6 8 113 117 0.000 0.000 Westbound Left 2 3200 443 214 55 65 498 279 0.156* 0.087* Westbound Through 3 4800 510 256 77 73 587 329 0.136 0.079 westbound Right 0 0 67 48 0 0 67 48 0.000 0.000 Northbound Right Turn Adjustment None of right turns (RT) are assumed to occur on 0.000' 0.000' Southbound Right Turn Adjustment red light when there is separate RT lane 8 when 0.000* 0.000* Eastbound Right Turn Adjustment movement is permitted. 0.000* 0.000' Westbound Right Turn Adjustment 0.000* 0.000* Clearance Interval 0.000* 0.000* INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION. ICU (Sum of Components with > 0.37 0.55 LEVEL OF SERVICE (0.000 -.6 ICU: B= .601 -.7: C= .701 -.8: D= .801 -.9: E= .901 -1.0: F= 1.001 +) A A PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES 35 - 29 0 [ 2.400] I I I 242 - 203 [ 2.4481 10 - 10 North V (2 way Volumes) North 75 - 57 wR A 120 - 96 1 1.1881 V I 122 - 107 [ 1.2601 gR_ J `SL .0- 67 - 48 667 - 567 1 6.7871 1152 - 656 1 9.9441 <- <- ST wT -3.0- 587 - 329 498 - 279 -> -> 603 - 649 1 6.8861 594 -1038 1 8.9761 2.0 = Lanes F-2.0- wL < -> < -> 1270 -1216 [13.673] 1746 -1694 [18.920] (2 way Volumes) (2 way Volumes) [13.700] [18.900] EL 48 - 22 -1.OJ NT A 621 - 406 [ 5.649] I 129 - 717 1 4.6531 V 442 - 510 - 3.0-fT NL LEGEND: A 113 - 117 �- 0-�I ER I�--MR 1.0 1.0 II 77 - 471 Daily Peak Hour [Daily] I- 750 -1123 [10.302] y = (AM+PM)' 5.5 V (2 way Volumes) Leg: North South East west [10.300] 0 LEGEND: AM -PM Peak Hour 7 - 37 % Entering (All -PM) 50 - 47 17 - 64 66 - 39 47 - 53 % of Daily in Peak 10 8 7 - 11 9 - 9 9 - 9 (Estimated 2 -way Daily] I 5 - 209 Hour (All -PM) - Klntman I I I I i I I 1 - I J 1 I .1 I I i INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD (NS) and FORD ROAD (Ew) COUNT DATE: 01.01-04 LAND USE: EXISTING • APPROVED PROJECTS • CUMULATIVE PROJECTS • PROJECT GEOMETRICS: Existing MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE VOLUME (AM) (PM) ADDED VOLUME (AM) (PM) TOTAL VOLUME (AM) (PM) VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO (AM) (PM) Northbound Left 2 3200 74 0 1 2 75 2 0.023 0.001 Northbound Through 4 6400 2296 2468 122 103 2418 2571 0.378' 0.402' Northbound Right free 1 1600 121 161 83 100 204 261 0.128 0.163 Southbound Left 2 3200 373 517 27 80 400 597 0.125• 0.187' Southbound Through 4 6400 2210 1686 52 157 2262 1843 0.353 0.288 Southbound Right Free 1 1600 4 21 0 1 4 22 0.003 0.014 Eastbound Left 2 3200 43 31 1 0 44 31 0.014 0.010 Eastbound Through 2 3200 178 197 52 147 230 344 0.072' 0.108' Eastbound Right 1 1600 79 64 2 1 81 65 0.051 0.041 westbound Left 2 3200 687 257 77 90 764 347 0.239• 0.108' Westbound Through 2 3200 376 229 145 91 521 320 0.163 0.100 Westbound Right Free 1 1600 1268 749 74 43 1342 792 0.839 0.495 Northbound Right Turn Adjustment None of right turns (RT) are assueed to occur on 0.000' 0.000• un Southbod Right Turn Adjustment red light when there is separate RT lane 8 w8en 0.000' 0.000' Eastbound Right Turn Adjustment movement is permitted. 0.000' 0.000' Westbound Right Turn Adjustment 0.000' 0.000' Clearance Interval 0.000' 0.000' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sum of Components with ') > 0.81 0.81 LEVEL OF SERVICE (A= .000 -.6 ICU; 8= .601 -.7; C= .701 -.8; 0= .801 -_9; E= .901 -1.0; F= 1.001+) 0 0 PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES 4 - 22 I [67,800) I I 6470 -5856 (67,793) 2262 -1843 North North V (2 way Volumes) 4I00 - 597 A 2666 -2462 [28,204) I 1 3804 -3394 [39,589) 1_ 4 2 .0 WR L1_0- V I0 SR� LSl 1342 - 792 600 - 344 1 5,192) 2627 -1459 [22,4731 ST WT-2.0- 521 - 320 -> - -> 2.0 = Lanes r2.0- 764 - 347 wL 355 - 440 ( 4,3731 834 -1202 [11,1981 < -> < -> 955 - 784 1 9,565) 3461 -2661 [33,6711 (2 way Volutes) (2 way Volumes) [ 9,600) [33,700) EL 44 - 31 -2. NT A 3107 -2255 [29,4911 1 2697 -2834 [30,4211 V 230 - 344 - 2.0-ET NL I R LEGEND: A - 65 -1.01 ER 21 4.0 7.0 I 204 - 261 ) PM Peak Hour (Daily) 5804 -5089 [59,91281 y = (AM+PM)' S.5 V (2 way Volus) Daily te Leg: North South East west [59,900) 0 LEGEND: AM -PM Peak Hour 2418 -2571 % Entering (AM -PM) 41 - 42 46 - 56 76 - 55 37 - 56 % of Daily in Peak 10 - 9 10 - 8 10 - 8 10 - 8 [Estimated 2 -May Oai lyl I - 2 Hour (AM -PM) - Kunzman INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION 1 INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARO (NS) and SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD (EW) COUNT OATE: 01 -01-04 LANO USE: EXISTING + APPROVEO PROJECTS + CUMULATIVE PROJECTS + PROJECT GEOMETRICS: Existing MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE VOLUME (AN) (PM) ADOEO VOLUME (AM) (PM) TOTAL VOLUME (AM) (PM) VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO (AM) (PM) Northbourd Left 2 3200 70 46 5 6 75 52 0.023 0.016 Northbourd Through 3 4800 1526 1645 121 92 1647 1737 6.343• 0.362• Northbourd Right 1 1600 6 15 45 153 51 168 0.032 0.105 Southbourd Left 2 3200 428 599 27 71 455 670 0.142• 0.209• Southbourd Through 3 4800 1491 1269 58 121 1549 1390 0.323 0.290 Southbourd Right Free 1 1600 1036 231 31 64 1067 275 0.667 0.172 Eastbound Left 2 3200 107 588 38 61 145 649 0.045• 0.203• Eastbound Through 2 3200 199 403 34 94 233 497 0.087 0.195 Eastbound Right 0 0 45 128 0 0 45 128 0.000 0.000 Westbound Left 1 1600 19 27 105 116 124 143 0.078 0.089 Westbound Through 2 3200 464 285 92 67 556 352 0.174• 0.110• Westbound Right Free 1 1600 705 395 46 46 751 441 0.469 0.276 Northbourd Right Turn Adjustment None of right turns (RT) are assumed to occur on None 0.000• 0.000• Southbound Right Turn Adjustment light when there is separate RT lane 8 when 0.000• 0.000• Eastbound Right Turn Adjustment movement is permitted. 0.000• 0.000• Westbound Right Turn Adjustment 0.000• 0.000• Clearance Interval 0.000• O.ODO- INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sum of Components with •) > 0.70 0.88 LEVEL OF SERVICE (A= .000 -.6 ICU; B= .601 -.7; C= .701 -.8; 0 =.801•.9; E =.901 -1.0; F= 1.001 +) B 0 PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES ANO LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES 1067 - 275 A 0 [59,300] A A ! J 5614 -5162 [59,268] 1549 -1390 North V (2 Way volumes) North A 455 - 670 3071 -2335 [29,733] 1 2543 -2827 [29,535] 1. 3i0 WR I� Y I2.0 SR Lg( `1.0- 751 - 441 1698 - 679 [13` 074] 14` 31 - 936 [13,019] ST WT -2.0- 556 - 352 1.0- 124 • 143 " 423 •1274 1 9,3341 739 •1335 111,4071 2.0 = Lanes F WL < -> < -> 2121 •1953 [22,407] 2170 -2271 [24,426] " (2 Way Volumes) (2 Way Volumes) [22,400] [24,400] EL :--2.0-J 145 - 649 NT A 1718 -1661 [18,585] 1 1773 •1957 [20,515] Y 233 - 497 - 2.0 -�T NL I R LEGENO: A 45 - 128 -0.01 ER 21 3.0 II.0 $1 • 168 AM -PM Peak .Hour [ Oaily] .1 3491 -3618 [39,100] Oaily = (AM +PMy 5.5 V (2 Way Volumes) Leg: North South East West [39,100] 0 LEGEND: AM -PM Peak Hour 1 7 •1737 % Entering (AM -PM) 55 - 45 51 54 66 - 41 20 65 % of Oaily in Peak 9 9 9 9 9 - 9 9 - 9 [Estimated 2 -Way Oailyl - 52 Hour (AM -PM) Kunzman PJ I W I L..J I I I i `L I LI I General Plan Buildout Without Project 1 F I 11 1 1 INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION , INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD (NS) and EASTBLUFF ORIVE /FORO ROAD (EW) COUNT GATE: 01-01-04 LANO USE: GENERAL PLAN BUILOOUT WITHOUT PROJECT GEOMETRICS: Existing MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE VOLUME (AM) (PM) AOOEO VOLUME (AM) (PM) TOTAL VOLUME (AM) (PM) VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO (AN) (PM) Northbound Left 2 3200 390 390 0 0 390 390 0.122* 0.122' Northbound Through 3 4800 1740 2010 0 0 1740 2010 0.400 0.490 Northbound Right 0 0 180 340 0 0 180 340 0.000 0.000 Southbound Left 1 1600 60 70 0 0 60 70 0.038 0.044 Southbound Through 3 4800 1650 2090 0 0 1650 2090 0.344* 0.435' Southbound Right 1 1600 70 110 0 0 70 110 0.044 0.069 Eastbound Left 1 1600 180 60 0 0 180 60 0.113 0.038 Eastbound Through 1 1600 190 120 0 0 190 120 0.119' 0.075' Eastbound Right Free 1 1600 420 320 0 0 420 320 0.262 0.200 Westboud Left 0 0 270 180 0 0 270 180 0.000 0.000 Westboud Through 3 4800 490 140 0 0 490 140 0.158' 0.067* Westboud Right 1 1600 90 30 0 0 90 30 0.056 0.019 Northbound Right Turn Adjustment None of right turns (RT) are assumed to occur on 0.000' 0.000' Southboud Right Turn Adjustment red light when there is separate RT lane 8 whm� 0.000* 0.000* Eastbod Right Turn Adjustment movement is permitted. u 0.000* 0.000' Westboud Right Turn Adjustment 0.000' 0.000' Clearance Interval 0.000' 0.000' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sup of Components with ') > 0.74 0.70 LEVEL OF SERVICE (A= .000 -.6 ICU; 8= .601 -.7; C= .701 -.8; 0= .801 -.9; E =.901 -1.0; F= 1.001 +) C B PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES ANO LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES 70 - 110 A o [44,900) I A A I 3790 -4370 [44,8801 1650 -2090 North V (2 Way Volumes) North - 70 A 1780 -2270 [22,275] 1 2010 •2100 [22,605] I60 1. 3.0 .0 1 WR L1.0- V I SR� `SL I 90 30 950 - 640 1 8,7451 850 - 350 1 6,6001 490 - 140 n --0.0- 270 - 180 -> -> 790 - 500 1 7,0951 430 - 530 1 5,2801 2.0 - Lanes IWL 1740 -1140 [15,8401 1280 • 880 [11,8801 (2 Way Volume e s) (2 Way Volums) [15,800] [11,9001 EL 180 - 60 -1. NT A 2340 •2590 [27,115] 1 2310 -2740 [27,775] V j 190 - 120 - 1.0 -ET ML �I-NR LEGEND: A 420 - 320 1. 0--I. ER 3.0 0.0 340 AM' PM Peak Hour [Daily] 4650 -5330 [54,8901 y = (AM +PM)' 5.5 V (2 Way Volumes) Leg: North South East West 154,9001 o LEGEND: AM -PM Peak Hour 17101102010 % Entering (AM -PM) 47 - 52 50 - 51 66 40 45 44 % of Oaily in Peak 8 - 10 8 - 10 11 7 11 7 [Estimated 2 -Way Oailyl I 3 0 - 390 Hour (AM -PM) - Kmzmann I I � I I I I I LJ I I I I I I 1� I i INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD (NS) and SAM JOAOUIN MILLS ROAD (EW) COUNT DATE: 01 -01-04 LAND USE: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT GEOMETRICS: Existing MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE VOLUME (AM) (PM) ADDED VOLUME (AM) (PM) TOTAL VOLUME (AM) (PM) VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO (AM) (PM) Northbound Left 1 1600 30 80 0 0 30 80 0.019 0.050 Northbound Through 3 4800 1370 1770 0 0 1370 1770 0.285' 0.369• Northbound Right Free 1 1600 90 190 0 0 90 190 0.056 0.119 Southbound Left 2 3200 750 550 0 0 750 550 0.234' 0.172' Southbound Through 3 4800 1410 2070 0 0 1410 2070 0.294 0.431 Southbound Right Free 1 1600 40 200 0 0 40 200 0.025 0.125 Eastbound Left 0 0 280 90 0 0 280 90 0.000 0.000 Eastbound Through 3 4800 40 30 0 0 40 30 0.067' 0.025• Eastbound Right Free 1 1600 60 40 0 0 60 40 0.038 0.025 Westbound Left 0 0 100 250 0 0 100 250 0.000 0.000 Westbound Through 3 4800 10 50 0 0 10 50 0.023' 0.063' Westbound Right 1 1600 450 810 0 0 450 810 0.281 0.506 Northbound Right Turn Adjustment None of right turns (RT) are assumed to occur on 0.000" 0.000' Southbound Right Turn Adjustment red light when there is separate RT lane 8 when 0.000' 0.000' Eastbound Right Turn Adjustment movement is permitted. 0.000' 0.000' Westbound Right Turn Adjustment 0.000' 0.000' Clearance Interval 0.000' 0.000' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sun of Components with ') > 0.61 0.63 LEVEL OF SERVICE (A= .000 -.6 ICU; B= .601 -.7; C =.701 -.8; D= .801 -.9; E= .901 -1.0; F= 1.001+) B B PLOT OF PEAK YOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES 40 - 200 I [53,800] 1 I 1 4300 -5490 [53,845] 1410 -2070 North North V (2 Way Volumes) 7150 • 550 A 2200 -2820 [27,610] I 1 2100 •2670 [26,235] SRJ LSL IT � L1.O_ 450 - 810 V 80 - 330 [ 2,2551 560.1110 1 9,1851 <- <- WT-3.0- 10 - 50 0- 100 • 250 -> -> 380 - 160 1 2,9701 880 - 770 1 9,0753 2I0 = Lanes IF-0 WL <--_> < -> 460 - 490 1 5,2251 1440 -1880 [18,260] (2 Way Vol unes) (2 Way Volumes) [ 5,2001 [18,300] L 280 - 90 -0. 0� NT A 1570 -23 V 60 [21,615] I 1 1490 -2040 [19,415] 40 - 30 - 3.0-ET NL I R LEGEND: A "1,030] 60 - 40 -1.01 IEll 3.0 .0 '-1770 AM -PM Peak Hour [Daily] 3060 -4400 [4 Daily = (AM+PM)' 5.5 V (2 Way Volumes) 0 - 190 Leg: North South East West [41,000] 0 1310. % Entering (AM -PM) 51 - 51 49 46 39 - 59 83 - 33 LEGEND: AM -PM Peak Hour % of Daily in Peak 8 - 10 7 - 11 8 - 10 9 - 9 [Estimated 2-Way Daily] I 0 - 80 Hour (AM -PM) - Kmzman Associ INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD (NS) arid SANTA BARBARA DRIVE (EW) COUNT DATE: 01 -01 -04 LAND USE: GENERAL PLAN BUILOOUT WITHOUT PROJECT GEOMETRICS: Existing MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE ADDED TOTAL VOLUME TO VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME CAPACITY RATIO (AM) (PM) (AM) (PM) (AM) (PM) (AM) (PM) Northbound Left 1 1600 10 10 0 0 10 10 0.006 0.006 Northbound Through 3 4800 1530 1730 0 0 1530 1730 0.319' 0.360' Northbound Right 1 1600 250 100 0 0 250 100 0.156 0.063 Southbound Left 2 3200 390 270 0 0 390 270 0.122• 0.084• Southbound Through 3 4800 1080 1820 0 0 1080 1820 0.225 0.379 Southbound Right 1 1600 10 30 0 0 10 30 O.OD6 0.019 Eastbound Left 1 1600 60 20 0 0 60 20 0.038• 0.013 Eastbound Through 1 1600 10 10 0 0 10 10 0.025 0.019' Eastbound Right 0 0 30 ZO 0 0 30 20 0.000 0.000 Westbound Left 0 0 90 520 0 0 90 520 0.000 0.000 Westbound Through 2 3200 10 20 0 0 10 20 0.031• 0.169• Westbound Right 1 1600 6 0 370 0 0 60 370 0.038 0.231 Northbound Right Turn Adjustment one of right turns (RT) are assumed to occur onn 0.000* 0.000* Southbound Right Turn Adjuutment ed light when there is separate RT lane F.Nr 8 a*hm 0.000• 0.000• Eastbound Right Turn Adjustment ovement is permitted. 0.000• 0.000• Westbound Right Turn Adjustment 0.007* 0.062• Clearance Interval 0.000* 0.000• INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sup of Comporw:nts with *1 > 0.52 0.69 LEVEL OF SERVICE (A= .000 -.6 ICU; 8= .601•.7; C= .701 -.8; 0= .801 -.9; E= .901.1.0; F= 1.001 *1 A B PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES 0 10 • 30 [40,5001 3130 -4240 [40,5351 I I V (2 Way Volumes) 1080 •1820 North North A 3190 • 270 1480 •2120 119,8007 1650 •2120 120,7351 WR V 1 i. 3.0 .0 Z L1 I LSL .D- 60 - 370 30 • 60 I 4951 160 - 910 1 5,8851 SR IT <-- <- WT -2.D_ 10 . 20 -> -> 0- 90 520 100 • 50 I 8257 650 - 380 1 5,6657 2.0 = Lanes WL <_> < -> 130 - 110 1 1,3201 (2 Way Volumes) 810 -1290 [11,5501 (2 Way Vol uses) [ 1,3007 [11,6007 EL A 60 - 20 -1.0-J NT 1200 -2360 [19,5807 1 1790 -1840 [19,9657 V 10 10 - 1.0-ET 30 20 -0. ML I R 3.0 LEGEND: AM�PM Peak Hour [Oaily) Daily = (AM•P!U* 5.5 A 2990 •4200 [39,5457 V (2 Way Volumes) ER II.0 1 250 - 100 Leg: North South East West [39,5007 o 1530 -1730 % Entering (AM -PM) 47 - 50 60 - 44 20 - 71 77 - 45 LEGEND: AM -PM Peak Hour % of Daily in Peak 8 - TO 8 - TT 7 - TT TO - 8 [Estimated 2 -Way Daily? 0 - 10 Hour (AM-PM) - Kinsman h lJ l.J L I I L 1 I I I �J I I I INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION INTERSECTION% JAMBOREE ROAD (NS) and COAST HIGHWAY (EW) COUNT DATE: 01-01-04 LAND USE: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT GEOMETRICS: Existing MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE VOLUME (AM) (PM) ADDED VOLUME (AM) (PM) TOTAL VOLUME (AM) (PM) VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO (AM) (PM) Northbound Left 1 1600 40 30 0 0 40 30 0.025 0.019 Northbound Through 2 3200 540 300 0 0 540 300 01209• 0.122• Northbound Right 0 0 130 90 0 0 130 90 0.000 0.000 Southbound Left 1 1600 200 250 0 0 200 250 0.125• 0.156* Southbound Through 2 3200 260 700 0 0 260 700 0.081 0.219 Southbound Right Free 1 1600 760 2030 0 0 760 2030 0.475 1.269 Eastbound Left 3 4800 1300 850 0 0 1300 850 0.271• OAM Eastbound Through 4 6400 2300 1830 0 0 2300 1830 0.363 0.292 Eastbound Right 0 0 20 40 0 0 20 40 0.000 0.000 Westbound Left 2 3200 120 310 0 0 120 310 0.038 0.097 Westbound Through 4 6400 1490 2650 0 0 1490 2650 0.233• 0.414• Westbound Right Free 1 1600 130 170 0 0 130 170 0.061 0.106 Northbound Right Turn Adjustment I More of right turns (RT) are assumed to occur onn 0.000• 0.000• Southbound Right Turn Adjustment light when there is separate RT lane 8 when 0.000• 0.000• IIL Eastbound Right Turn Adjustment movement is permitted. 0.000• 0.000' -red Westbound Right Turn Adjustment 0.000• 0.000• Clearance Interval 0.000• 0.000• INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sum of Components with •) > 0.84 0.87 LEVEL OF SERVICE (A= .000 -.6 ICU; B= .601 -.7; C= .701 -.8; D= .801 -.9; E= .901 -1.0; F= 1.001+) 0 D PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES 760 -2030 o [41,200] I I 1 3190 •4300 [41;195] 260 - 700 North North V (2 Way Volumes) - 250 2I.0 A 1220 -2980 [23,100] 1 1970 -1320 [18,095] 1 1. 2.0 7 .0 I� V SRJ `00 1.0' 130 - 170 2290 -4710 [38,500] 1740 -3130 [26,785] ST WT--4.0- 1490 -2650 .0- 120 - 310 -> -> 3620 -2720 [34,870] 2630 -2170 [26,400] 2.0 = Lanes F-2 WL < -> < -> 5910 -7430 [75,370] 4370 -5300 [53,185] (2 Way Volumes) (2 Way Volumes) [73,400] [53,200] EL A 1300 - 850 -3- NT 400 -1050 1 7,9751 710 - 420 1 6,2151 V 2300 •1830 -- 4.0-ET NL I R LEGEND: A 20 - 40 �.6-�I ER 2.0 .0 1 130 - 90 AM -PM Peak Hour [Daily] I 1110 -1470 [14,190] Daily = (AM +PM)• 5.5 V (2 Way Volumes) Leg: North South East West [14,200] 0 540 - 300 % Entering (AM -PM) 38 69 64 - 29 40 - 59 61 - 37 LEGEND: AM -PM Peak Hour % of Daily in Peak 8 - 10 8 - 10 8 - 10 B - 10 [Estimated 2 -Way Daily] I 0 - 30 Hour (AM -PM) - Kunzman Assoc INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION ' INTERSECTION: SANTA CRUZ DRIVE (NS) and SAN JOAOUIN HILLS ROAD (EW) COUNT DATE: 01 -01 -04 LAND USE: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT GEOMETRICS: Existing MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE ADDED TOTAL VOLUME TO VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME CAPACITY RATIO (AM) (PM) (AM) (PM) (AM) (PM) (AM) (PM) Northbound Left 1 1600 90 470 0 0 90 470 .0.056• 0.294• Northbound Through 2 3200 10 10 0 0 10 10 0.016 0.063 Northbound Right 0 0 40 190 0 0 40 190 0.000 0.000 Southbound Left 1 1600 20 10 0 0 20 10 0.013 0.006 Southbound Through 2 3200 10 10 0 0 10 10 0.025• 0.022• Southbound Right 0 0 70 60 0 0 70 60 0.000 0.000 Eastbound Left 1 1600 60 110 0 0 60 110 0.038 0.069" Eastbound Through 3 4800 450 430 0 0 450 430 0.154• 0.138 Eastbound Right 0 0 290 230 0 0 290 230 0.000 0.000 Westbound Left 1 1600 230 30 0 0 230 30 0.144• 0.019 Westbound Through 3 4800 360 550 0 0 360 550 0.081 0.121• Westbound Right 0 0 30 30 0 0 30 30 0.000 0.000 Northbound Right Turn Adjustment None of right turns (RT) are assumed to occur on Southbound Right Turn Adjustment red light when there is separate RT lane 8 when 0.000• 0.000• 0.000• 0.000• Eastbound Right Turn Adjustment movement is permitted. 0.000• 0.000• Westbound Right Turn Adjustment 0.000• 0.000• Clearance Interval 0.000• 0.000• INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sun of Components with •) > 0.38 0.51 LEVEL OF SERVICE (A= .000 -.6 ICU; 8= .601 -.7; C= .701 -.8; D= .801 -.9; E =.901 -1.0; F= 1.001 +) A A PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES A A A 70 - 60 o [ 2,400) 200 - 230 [ 2,3651 I I V (2 Way Volumes) 10 - 10 North North A 20 • 10 100 • 80 [ 9901 I 100 - 150 [ 1,3751 WR V I LSL . D--- 30 - 30 520 -1080 [ 8,8001 620 • 610 [ 6,7651 SR- IT <- <- WT -3 -D-- 360 - 550 -> _> r1.D- 230 - 30 800 - 770 1 8,6351 510 - 630 1 6,2701 2.0 = Lanes WL 1320 •1850 [17,435) (2 way Vol ones) 1130 (2 -1240 [13,035)' way Volumes) [17,400) [13,DO0) EL A 530 - 270 1 4,4001 140 - 670 1 4,4551 60 110 -I.OJ NT V I 450 • 430 - 3.0-ET NL ( R LEGEND: A AM -PM Peak.Hour [Daily] 670 - 940 [ 8,8551 290 -'230 -0.0- 11 2.0 I.0' Daily = fAM +PM)• 5.5 V (2 way Volumes) ER d0 - 190 Leg: North South East west [ 8,9001 0 0 - 10 % Entering (AM•PM) 50 - 35 21 - 71 55 - 49 61 - 42 LEGEND: AM -PM Peak Hour % of Daily in Peak 8 - 10 8 - 11 9 - 10 8 - 11 [Estimated 2 -way Daily) I - 470 Hour (AM -PM) 1 I I I I I I I Kunzman Associates I I 1 11 i I I I I INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION INTERSECTION: NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE (NS) and COAST HIGHWAY (EW) COUNT DATE: 01.01-04 LAND USE: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT GEOMETRICS: Existing MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE VOLUME (AM) (PM) ADDED VOLUME (AM) (PM) TOTAL VOLUME (AM) (PM) VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO (AM) (PM) Northbound Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 " 0.000 0.000 Northbound Through 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000• 0.000• Northbound Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 Southbound Left 2 3200 20 270 0 0 20 270 0.006• 0.084• Southbound Through 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 Southbound Right Free 1 1600 90 860 0 0 90 860 0.056 0.538 Eastbound Left 2 3200 630 370 0 0 630 370 0.197• 0.116• Eastbound Through 3 4800 1930 1790 0 0 1930 1790 0.402 0.373 Eastbound Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 Westbound Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 Westbound Through 3 4800 1480 2010 0 0 1480 2010 0.308• 0.419• Westbound Right Free 1 1600 180 150 0 0 180 150 0.113 0.094 Northbound Right Turn Adjustment of right turns (RT) are assuned to occur onn 0.000• 0.000• Southbound Right Turn Adjustment ed light when there is separate RT lane d when [None 0.000• 0.000• Eastboud Right Turn Adjustment ovement is permitted. 0.000- 0.000• Westbound Right Turn Adjustment 0.000• 0.000• Clearance Interval 0.000• 0.000' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sun of Components with •) > 0.51 0.62 LEVEL OF SERVICE (A= .000 -.6 ICU; 8= .601-.7; C= .701 -.8; 0= .801 -.9; E= .901 -1.0; F= 1.001+) A 8 PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES 90 - 860 A o [14,100) I A A I 920 -1650 [14,135) 0 - 0 North V (2 Way Volumes) North 2I 0 - 270 A 110 -1130 1 6,8201 I 810 - 520 1 7,3151 1.I 0.0 2.0 IWP V SR LgL ` 1'0- 180 - 150 1570 -2870 [24,420) 1660 -2160 [21,010) ST WT -3.0- 1480 -2010 2I0 = Lanes 0- 0 - 0 WL 2560 -2160 [25,960) 1950 -2060 [22,055) < -> < -> 4130 -5030 [50,380) 3610 -4220 [43,065) (2 Way volumes) (2 Way volumes) [50,400) [43,100) L 630 - 370 -2. NT I A 0- 0 03 I 0- 0 01 V 1930 -1790 - 3.0 -ET NL I R LEGEND: A 0 - 0 -0.0� IER 0.j`0 ,.0 AN -PM Peak Hour [Onily) 0 - 0 [ 01 Oaily = (AM.PM)• 5.5 V (2 Way Volumes) 0 - 0 Leg: North South East West [ 03 o I 0 - 0 % Entering (AM -PM) 12 - 68 0 - 0 46 - 51 62 - 43 LEGENO: AM -PM Peak Hour % of Daily in Peak 7 - 12 0 - 0 8 - 10 8 - 10 [Estimated 2 -Way Oaily) I 0 - 0 Hour CAM-PM) I- Kuizman Associ I INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION INTERSECTION: SANTA ROSA DRIVE /BIG CANTON DRIVE (NS) and SAN J0AOUIN HILLS RDA COUNT DATE: 01-01 -04 LAND USE: GENERAL PLAN BUILOOUT WITHOUT PROJECT GEOMETRICS: Existing MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE VOLUME (AM) (PM) ADDED VOLUME (AM) (PM) TOTAL VOLUME (AM) (PM) VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO (AM) (PM) Northbound Left 1 1600 40 180 0 0 40 180 0.025 0.113• Northbound Through 1 1600 10 20 0 0 10 20 0.006• 0.013 Northbound Right 1 1600 170 660 0 0 170 660 0.106 0.413 Southbound Left 1 1600 90 100 0 0 90 100 0.056* 0.063 Southbound Through 1 1600 20 10 0 0 20 10 0.013 0.006* Southbound Right 1 1600 40 60 0 0 40 60 0.025 0.038 Eastbound Left 1 1600 40 50 0 0 40 50 0.025 0.031 Eastbound Through 3 4800 320 590 0 0 320 590 0.081* 0.150* Eastbound Right 0 0 70 130 0 0 70 130 0.000 0.000 Westbound Left 2 3200 640 520 0 0 640 520 0.200* 0.1.63* Westbound Through 3 4800 550 250 0 0. 550 250 0.138 0.071 Westbound Right 0 0 110 90 0 0 110 90 0.000 0.000 Northbound Right Turn Adjustment of right turns (RT) are assumed to occur on� 0.000* 0.226* Cone Southbound Right Turn Adjustment red light when there is separate RT lane 8 when 0.000* 0.000* Eastbound Right Turn Adjustment movement is permitted. 0.000* 0.000* Westbound Right Turn Adjustment 0.000* 0.000* Clearance Interval 0.000* 0.000* INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sm of Components with *) > 0.34 0.66 LEVEL OF SERVICE (A= .000 -.6 ICU; 8= .601 -.7; C= .701 -.8; D =.801 -.9; E= .901-1.0; F= 1.001 +) A B PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES 40 - 60 [ 3,500) I ( 310 - 330 [ 3,5201 20 - 10 North V (2 Way Volunes) North 90 - 100 A 150 - 170 1 1,7603 160 160 - 160 1 1,7601 1. 1.0 0 WR y SR-+ IT LSL .0- 110 - 90 630 - 490 1 6,1601 1300 - 860 [11,880) < < WT -3.0- 550 - 250 2.0 = Lanes F2.0- 640 - 520 WL 430 - 770 1 6,6001 580 -1350 [10,615) < -> < -> 1060 -1260 [12,760) 1880 -2210 [22,495) (2 Way Volumes) (2 Way Volumes) [12,800) [22,500) EL A 40 - 50 -I.DJ NT 730 - 660 1 7,6451 I 220 - 860 1 5,9401 V 320 - 590 - 3.0 --- ET NL R LEGEND: A 70 - 130 -0. ER 1.0 I.0 40 - 660 AM -PM Peak Hour [Daily) 950 -1520 [13,585) Daily = (AM +PM) 5.5 V (2 Way Vol ones) Leg: North South East West [13,600) 0 0 - 20 % Entering (AM -PM) 48 - 52 23 - 57 69 - 39 41 - 61 LEGEND: AN-PM Peak Hour % of Daily in Peak 9 - 9 7 - 11 8 - 10 8 - 10 [Estimated 2 -Way Ooily) I 0 - 180 Hour (AM -PM) Kmzman Associ LJ I� 1 I I i I j 11 E i I 1 INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD (NS) and FORD ROAD (EW) COUNT DATE: 01-01-04 LAND USE: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT GEOMETRICS: Existing MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE VOLUME (AM) (PM) ADDED VOLUME (AM) (PM) TOTAL VOLUME (AM) (PM) VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO (AM) (PM) Northbound Left 2 3200 140 80 0 0 140 80 0.044 0.025 Northbound Through 4 6400 1910 2230 0 0 1910 2230 0.298` 0.348• Northbound Right Free 1 1600 120 480 0 0 120 480 0.075 0.300 Southbound Left 2 3200 600 1390 0 0 600 1390 0.188• 0.434• Southbound Through 4 6400 2470 2300 0 0 2470 2300 0.366 0.359 Southbound Right Free 1 1600 10 60 0 0 10 60 0.006 0.038 Eastbound Left 2 3200 30 10 0 0 30 10 0.009 0.003 Eastbound Through 2 3200 320 540 0 0 320 540 0.100• 0.169• Eastbound Right 1 1600 90 120 0 0 90 120 0.056 0.075 Westbound Left 2 3200 570 390 0 0 570 390 0.178• 0.122• Westbound Through 2 3200 630 280 0 0 630 280 0.197 0.088 Westbound Right Free 1 1600 1690 760 0 0 1690 7601l 1.056 0.475 [[1i- --- Northbound Right Turn Adjustment I None of right turns (RT) are assumed to occur on l 0.000• 0.000• Southbound Right Turn Adjustment red light when there is separate RT lane i when 0.000• 0.000• Eastbound Right Turn Adjustment movement is pennnitted. 0.000• 0.000• Westbound Right Turn Adjustment 0.000• 0.000• Clearance Interval 0.000• 0.000• INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sun of Components with •) > 0.76 1.07 LEVEL OF SERVICE (A= .000 -.6 ICU; 6= .601•.7; C= .701 -.8; D= .801 -.9; E =.901 -1.0; F= 1.001 *) C F PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES 10 - 60 o [74,000) I I 6710 -6750 [74,030) 2470 •2300 North North V (2 Way Volumes) 6I00 -1390 A 3080 •3750 [37,565) 1 3630 -3000 [36,465) 1. LIO 2.0 .0 I� V SR-1 `1.0- 1690 - 760 780 - 420 1 6,6001 2890 -1430 [23,760) ST WT -2.0- 630 • 280 2.0 = Lenes 0- 570 - 390 WL 440 • 670 1 6,1051 1040 -2410 [18,975) < -> < -> 1220 -1090 [12,705) 3930 -3840 [42,735) (2 Way Volumes) (2 Way Vol uines) [12,700) [42,700) L 30 • 10 -2 . NT A 3130 •2810 [32,670] 1 2170 -2790 [27,280] y 320 540 - 2.0-ET NL I R LEGEND: A 90 120 -1. ER 21 4.0 I.0 120 - 480 AM -PM Peak Hour [Daily) 5300 •5600 [59,950) Daily = (AM+PM)• 5.5 V (2 Way Volunes) Leg: North South East West [60,000) 0 LEGEND: AN-PM Peak Hour 19 0.•2230 % Entering (AM -PM) 46 56 41 50 74 - 37 36 - 61 % of Daily in Peak 9 - 9 9 9 9 9 10 9 [Estimated 2 -Way Daily) I 1 0 - 80 Hour (AM -PM) - Kunzman INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION , INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARO (NS) and SAM JOAQUIN MILLS ROAD (EW) COUNT GATE: 01 -01.04 LAND USE: GENERAL PLAN BUILOOUT WITHOUT PROJECT GEOMETRICS: Existing MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE VOLUME (AM) (PM) ADOEO VOLUME (AM) (PM) TOTAL VOLUME (AM) (PM) VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO (AM) (PM) Northbound keft 2 3200 70 30 0 0 70 30 0.022 0.009 Northbound Through 3 4800 1530 1800 0 0 1530 1800 0.319• 0.375' Northbound Right 1 1600 10 20 0 0 10 20 0.006 0.013 Southbound Left 2 3200 550 770 0 0 550 770 0.172' 0.241' Southbound Through 3 4800 1550 1840 0 0 1550 1840 0.323 0.383 Southbound Right Free 1 1600 1030 600 0 0 1030 600 0.644 0.375 Eastbound Left 2 3200 150 860 0 0 150 860 0.047' 0.269' Eastbound Through 2 3200 310 670 0 0 310 670 0.113 0.241 Eastbound Right 0 0 50 100 0 0 50 100 0.000 0.000 Westbound Left 1 1600 20 20 0 0 20 20 0.013 0.013 Westbound Through 2 3200 550 250 0 0 550 250 0.172' 0.078' Westbound Right Free 1 1600 880 450 0 0 880. 450 0.550 0.281 Northbound Right Turn Adjustment of right turns (RT) are assured to occur on 0.000' 0.000' Cone Southbound Right Turn Adjustment red light when there is separate RT lane 8 when 0.000' 0.000' Eastbound Right Turn Adustment movement is peravitted. 0.000' 0.000' Westbound Right Turn Adjustment 0.000' 0.000' Clearance Interval, 0.000' 0.000• INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sun of Ccnponents with ') > 0.71 0.96 LEVEL OF SERVICE (A= .000 -.6 ICU; 8= .601-.7; C= .701 -.8; 0= .801•.9; E= .901.1.0; F= 1.001•) C E PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUTES ANO LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES 1030 - 600 0 [66,100] I I I 5690 •6320 [66,055] 1550 -1840 North North V (2 Way Volumes) 50 - 770 5I A 3130 -3210 [34,870] 1 2560 -3110 [31,185] 1. 3i0 I2.0 SR `SL � I� `�1.0- 880 - 450 V 1650 - 880 [13,915] 1450 720 [11,935] ST WT -2.0- 550 250 2.0 = Lanes f-1.0- 20 - 20 WL 510 •1630 [11,770] 870 -1460 [12,815] <-> < -> 2160 -2510 [25,685] 2320 -2180 [24,750] (2 Way Vol ones) (2 Way Vol uses) [25,700] [24,800] El 150 -860 -2. NT A 1620 -1960 [19,690] 1 1610 -1850 [19,030] V 310 - 670 - 2.0-ET NL R LEGEND: A 50 - 100 -0. D 3.0 II.0 AM -PM Peak Hour Naily] I 3230 -3810 [38,720] Oaily = (AM+PM)' 5.5 V (2 Way Vol ones) ER [38,700] o 10 - 20 101510 -1800 Leg: North South East West % Entering (AM -PM) 55 - 51 50 - 49 63 - 33 24 - 65 LEGENO: AM-PM Peak Hour % of Oaily in Peak 9 10 8 - 10 9 - 9 8 - 10 [Estimated 2 -Way Oaily] I - 30 Hour (AM -PM) - Kunzman As j r I I LJ 1 I 1 I u VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD (NS) and SAM MIGUEL DRIVE (EW) COUNT DATE: 01 -01 -04 LAND USE: GENERAL PLAN BUILOOUT WITHOUT PROJECT GEOMETRICS: Existing MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE VOLUME (AM) (PM) ADDED VOLUME (AM) (PM) TOTAL VOLUME (AM) (PM) VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO (AM) (PM) Northbound Left 2 3200 140 160 0 0 140 160 0.044 0.050* Northbound Through 3 4800 1530 970 0 0 1530 970 0.319* 0.202 Northbound Right 1 1600 310 470 0 0 310 470 0.194 0.294 Southbound Left 2 3200 10 10 0 0 10 10 0.003* 0.003 Southbound Through 3 4800 1040 1420 0 0 1040 1420 0.217 0.2 %* Southbound Right 1 1600 600 530 0 0 600 530 0.375 0.331 Eastbound Left 2 3200 70 890 0 0 70 890 0.022* 0.278* Eastbound Through 2 3200 100 510 0 0 100 510 0.031 0.159 Eastbound Right 1 1600 60 150 0 0 60 150 0.038 0.094 Westbound Left 2 3200 340 320 0 0 340 320 0.106 0.100 Westbound Through 2 3200 410 250 0 0 410 250 0.134* 0.091* Westbound Right 0 0 20 40 0 0 20 4-07 0.000 0.000 Northbound Right Turn AdJ ustment I Hone of right turns (RT) are assumed to occur an I 0.000* 0.000* Southbound Right Turn Adjustment light when there is separate RT lane 8 when) 0.097* 0.000* IIL Eastbound Right Turn Adjustment movement is permitted. 0.000* 0.000* —red Westbound Right Turn Adjustment 0.000* 0.000* Clearance Interval 0.000* 0.000* INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sum of Components with *) > 0.58 0.72 LEVEL OF SERVICE (0- 000- -6 ICU; 8 =- 601 -.7; C= .701 -.8; 0 =.801-.9; E= .901 -1.0; F= 1.001+) A C PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES 600 - 530 0 [39,200] 1 3270 - 3860 [39,2157 1040 -1420 North V (2 Way Volumes) North - 10 A 1650 -1960 [19,855] I 1 1620 -1900 [ 19,3601 110 SR � IT �SL �". 0— 20 - 40 V 1150 - 940 [11,4951 770 - 610 1 7,5901 WT -2.0— 410 - 250 r2.0— 340 - 320 —> >> 230 -1550 1 9,7901 420 - 990 1 7,7551 2.0 = Lanes WL < >> < —> 1380 -2490 [21,2851 1190 -1600 [15,3451 (2 Way Volumes) (2 Way Volumes) [21,3007 115,3001 EL 70 - 890 —2-0j NT ilk 1440 -1890 [18,315] 1 1980 -1600 [19,6901 V 100 - 510 — 2.0 --ET NL R LEGEND: A 60 - 150 — 1.0–�I ER 21 3.0 I.0 310 - 470 AM -PM Peak Hour [Daily] 3420 -3,90 [38,0051 Daily = (AM.PM)• 5.5 V (2 Way Volumes) Leg: North South East West [38,0001 0 LEGEND: AM -PM Peak Hour 11510 - 970 T Entering (AM -PM) 50 - 51 58 - 46 65 - 38 17 - 62 % of Daily in Peak 8 - 10 9 - 9 8 - 10 6 - 12 [Estimated 2 -Way Daily? 1 0 - 160 Hour (AM -PM) — Kunzman INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD (NS) and COAST HIGHWAY (EW) COUNT DATE: 01-01 -04 LAND USE: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT GEOMETRICS: Existing MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE VOLUME (AM) (PM) ADDED VOLUME (AM) (PM) TOTAL VOLUME (AM) (PM) VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO (AM) (PM) Northbound Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 Northbound Through 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000' 0.000' Northbound Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 Southbound Left 2 3200 520 800 0 0 520 800 0.163' 0.250' Southbound Through 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 Southbound Right Free 1 1600 420 760 0 0 420 760 0.262 0.475 Eastbound Left 2 3200 810 680 0 0 810 680 0.253' 0.213' Eastbound Through 3 4800 1050 1600 0 0 1050 1600 0.219 0.333 Eastbound Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 Westbound Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 Westbound Through 3 4800 1450 1670 0 0 1450 1670 0.302' 0.348' Westbound Right Free 1 1600 900 610 0 0 900 610 0.563 0.381 Northbound Right Turn Adjustment None of right turns (RT) are assumed to occur on 0.000' 0.000' Southbound Right Turn Adjustment red light when there is separate RT lane 8 when 0.000' 0.000' Eastbound Right Turn Adjustment movement is permitted. 0.000' 0.000' Westbound Right Turn Adjustment 0.000' 0.000' Clearance Interval 0.000' 0.000' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sun of Components with ') > 0.72 0.81 LEVEL OF SERVICE (A= .000 -.6 ICU; B= .601 -.7; C =.701 -.8; D= .801 -.9; E= .901 -1.0; F =1 -001+) C 0 PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES 420 - 760 A o [30,300] 1 A A 1 1 2650 -2850 [30,250] 0 - 0 North V (2 Way Volumes) North 520 - 800 A 940 -1560 [13,750] 1 1710 -1290 [16,500] 1. 0 -0 LO WR L1.0- V SR -1 LSL 900 - 610 1870 -2430 [23,650] 2350 -2280 [25,465] T WT -3.0- 1450 -1670 0- 0 - 0 -> �> 1860 -2280 [22,770] 1570 -2400 [21,835] 2.0 = Lanes WL c -> < -> 3730 -4710 [46,420] 3920 -4680 [47,300] (2 Way Volunes) (2 Way Volumes) [46,400] [47,300] EL A 810 - 680 -2. NT 0- O[ O] I 0- O[ O] V 1050 -1600 - 3.0 ----ET NL I R LEGEND: A 0 - 0 --O.O� 0.0 AN -PM Peak Hour [Oailyl 0 - 0 [ 01 Daily = (AM +PN)' 5.5 V (2 Way Volumes) ER I.0 I 0 - 0 Leg: North South East West [ O] o 0 - 0 % Entering (AM -PM) 35 - 55 0 - 0 60 - 49 50 - 48 LEGEND: AM -PM Peak Hour % of Daily in Peak 9 - 9 0 - 0 8 - 10 8 - 10 [Estimated 2 -Way Daily] I 0 - 0 Hour (AM -PM) Kunzman Assoc I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 General Plan Buildout With Project VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD (NS) and EASTBLUFF DRIVE /FORD ROAD (EW) COUNT DATE: 01-01 -04 LAND USE: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT GEOMETRICS: Existing MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE YOLIME (AM) (PM) ADDED VOLUME (AM) (PM) TOTAL VOLUME (AM) (PM) VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO (AM) (PM) Northbound Left 2 3200 390 390 0 0 390 390 0.122• 0.122• Northbound Through 3 4800 1740 2010 10 7 1750 2017 0.403 0.492 Northbound Right 0 0 180 340 4 3 184 343 0.000 0.000 Southboud Left 1 1600 60 70 0 0 60 70 0.038 0.044 Southbound Through 3 4800 1650 2D90 3 9 1653 2099 0.344• 0.437' Southbound Right 1 1600 70 110 0 0 70 110 0.044 0.069 Eastbound Left 1 1600 180 60 0 0 180 60 0.113 0.038 Eastbound Through 1 1600 190 120 0 0 190 120 0.119• 0.075• Eastbound Right Free 1 1600 420 320 0 0 420 320 0.262 0.200 Westbound Left 0 0 270 180 1 4 271 184 0.000 0.000 Westbound Through 3 4800 490 14D 0 0 490 140 0.159• 0.068• Westbound Right 1 1600 90 30 0 0 90 0.056 0.019 -30 Northbound Right Turn Adjustment of rights turns (RT) are assumed to occur on 1 0.000• 0.000• Cone Southbound Right Turn Adjustment red light when there is separate RT lane 8 when 0.000• 0.000• Eastbound Right Turn Adjustment movement is permitted. 0.000• 0.000• Westbound Right Turn Adjustment 0.000• 0.000• Clearance Interval 0.000• 0.000• INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sun of Components with •) > 0.74 0.70 LEVEL OF SERVICE (A= .000 -.6 ICU; 8= .601 -.7; C= .701-.8; D- .801 -.9; E= .901 -1.0; F= 1.001•) C B PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES 70 - 110 A a [45,000] I A A I 3803 -4386 [45,040] 1653 -2099 North V (2 Way Vol uses) North 6I0 - 70 A 1783 -2279 [22.341] I 1 2020 -2107 [22,699] 1. 3.0 .0 1 � L1.0- V SR- I LSL 90 - 30 950 - 640 1 8,7451 851 - 354 1 6,6281 T WT -3.0- 490 - 140 0- 271 - 184 -> -> 790 - 500 1 7,0951 434 - 533 1 5,3191 2.0 = Lanes F WL 1740, -1140 [15,840] 1285 - 867 [11,946] (2 Way Vol uses) (2 Way Volumes) [15,800] [11,900] EL 180 - 60 -1. OJ NT A 2344 -2603 [27,209] 1 2324 -2750 [27,907] V j 190 - 120 - 1.0 -ET NL �I-NR LEGEND: A 420 - 320 -1. R 3.0 0.0 164 - 343 Daily Peak Hour [Daily] 4668 -5353 [55,116] y = (AM+PM)• 5.5 V (2 Way Volumes) Leg: North South East West [55,100] a LEGEND: AM -PM Peak Hour 1 0 -2017 % Entering (AM -PM) 47 - 52 50 - 51 66 - 40 45 - 44 % of Daily in Peak 8 - 10 8 - 10 11 - 7 11 - 7 [Estimated 2-Way Daily] I 3 - 390 Hour (AM -PM) Kunzman r I I I i 1 1 �J INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD (NS) and SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD (EW) COUNT DATE: 01-01.04 LAND USE: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT GEOMETRICS: Existing MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE VOLUME (AN) (PM) ADDED VOLUME (AM) (PM) TOTAL VOLUME (AN) (PM) VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO (AN) (PM) Northbound Left 1 1600 30 80 0 0 30 80 0.019 0.050 Northbound Through 3 4800 1370 1770 14 10 1384 1780 0.288• 0.371* Northbound Right Free 1 1600 90 190 0 0 90 190 0.056 0.119 Southbourd Left 2 3200 750 550 0 0 750 550 0.234* 0.172* Southbound Through 3 4800 1410 2070 5 13 1415 2083 0.295 0.434 Southbound Right Free 1 1600 40 200 0 0 40 200 0.025 0.125 Eastbound Left 0 0 280 90 0 0 280 90 0.000 0.000 Eastbound Through 3 4800 40 30 0 0 40 30 0.067* 0.025* Eastbound Right Free 1 1600 60 40 0 0 60 40 0.038 0.025 Westbound Left 0 0 100 250 0 0 100 250 0.000 0.000 Westbound Through 3 4800 10 50 0 0 10 50 0.023* 0.063* Westbound Right 1 1600 450 810 0 0 450 810 0.281 0.506 Northbound Right Turn Adjustment one of right turns (RT) are assumed to occur on 0.000* 0.000* Southbound Right Turn Adjustment red light when there is separate RT lane 8 when 0.000* 0.000* Eastbound Right Turn Adjustment movement is permitted. 0.000* 0.000* Westbound Right Turn Adjustment 0.000* 0.000* Clearance Interval 0.000* 0.000* INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sun of Conponents with *) > 0.61 0.63 LEVEL OF SERVICE (A= .000 -.6 ICU; 8= .601 -.7; C= .701 -.8; D= .801 -.9; E= .901.1.0; F =1.001 +) 8 B PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES 40 - 2DO A o [54,100] I A A I 4319 •5513 [54,076] 1415 -2083 North V (2 way Vol uses) North 75I0 - 550 A 2205 -2833 [27,709] I 1 2114 -2660 [26,367] 1. 3.0 1.0 WR L1.0- V SR-+ I LS[ 450 810 80 - 330 [ 2,2551 <560 -1110 [ 9,1851 ST WT -3.D- 10 - 50 2.0 = Lanes 0- 100 - 250 WL 380 - 160 1 2,9701 880 - 770 1 9,0751 < -> < -> 460 - 490 1 5,2251 1440 -1860 [18,2601 (2 way Vol uses) (2 way Volumes) [ 5,2001 [18,300] EL 280 - 90 -0.4j N7 A 1575 -2375 [21,7147 1 1504 -2050 [19,5477 V 40 - 30 - 3.0-E1 NL R LEGEND: A 60 - 40 -1. ER 3.0 II.0 I 40 - 190 AM -PM Peak Hour [Daily] 3079 -4423 [41,2611 Daily = (AM +PM)* 5.5 V (2 way Vol uses) Leg: North South East west [41,3001 0 LEGEND: AM -PM Peak Hour 1384.-1780 % Entering (AM -PM) 51 - 51 49 - 46 39 - 59 83 - 33 % of Daily in Peak 8 - 10 7 - 11 8 - 10 9 - 9 [Estimated 2 -way Daily] ( 0 - 80 Hour (AM•PM) - Kunzman INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD (NS) and SANTA BARBARA DRIVE (EW) COUNT DATE: 01 -01 -04 LAND USE: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT GEOMETRICS: Existing MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE VOLUME (AM) (PM) ADDED VOLUME (AM) (PM) TOTAL VOLUME (AM) (PM) VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO (AM) (PM) Northbound Left 1 1600 10 10 0 0 10 10 0.006 0.006 Northbound Through 3 4800 1530 7730 0 0 1530 1730 0.319* 0.360* Northbound Right 1 1600 250 100 3 7 253 107 0.158 0.067 Southbound Left 2 3200 390 270 5 13 395 283 0.123* 0.088* Southbound Through 3 4800 1080 1820 0 0 1080 1820 0.225 0.379 Southbound Right 1 1600 10 30 0 0 10 30 0.006 0.019 Eastbound Left 1 1600 60 20 0 0 60 20 0.038* 0.013 Eastbound Through 1 1600 10 10 0 0 10 10 0.025 0.019* Eastbound Right 0 0 30 20 0 0 30 20 0.000 0.000 Westbound Left 0 0 90 520 8 6 98 526 0.000 0.000 Westbound Through 2 3200 10 20 0 0 10 20 0.034* 0.171* Westbound Right 1 1600 60 370 14 10 74 380 0.046 0.238 Northbound Right Turn Adjustment of right turns (RT) are assumed to occur on 0.000* 0.000* Cone Southbound Right Turn Adjustment rad light when there is separate RT lane 8 when 0.000* 0.000* Eastbound Right Turn Adj ustmmt movement is permitted. 0.000* 0.000* Westbound Right Turn Adjustment 0.012* 0.067* Clearance Interval 0.000* 0.000* INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sun of Components with *) > 0.53 0.71 LEVEL OF SERVICE (A= .000 -.6 ICU; 8= .601•.7; C= .701•.8; D= .801 -.9; E= .901 -1.0; F= 1.001+) A C PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES 10 - 30 A 0 [40,800) I A A I 3149 -4263 [40,766) 1080 -1820 North V (2 Way Votumes) North 3195 • 283 1485 -2133 [19,899) I 1 1664 •2130 [20,867) 1. 3.0 1.0 R V SR-J LSL `-1.0- 74 - 380 30 60 [ < 4951 <182 - 926 [ 6,0941 ST WT -2.0- 10 - 20 2.0 = Lanes F-0. 0- 98 - 526 WL 100 - 50 [ 8251 658 - 400 [ 5,8191 < -> < -> 130 - 110 1 1,3201 840 -1326 [11,913) (2 Way Vol uses) (2 Way Volumes) [ 1,3001 [11,900] EL A 60 1208 -2366 [19,657) 1 1793 •1847 [20,020) • 20 -1. OJ NT V 10 - 10 - 1.0-ET ML R LEGEND: A 30 20 �.Ol 11 3.0 I.0 AM -PM Peak Hour (Daily) 3001 •4213 [39,677) Daity = (AM.PM)* 5.5 V (2 Way Volunes) ER 213 - 107 Leg: North South East West [39,700) 0 15 0 -1730 X Entering (AM -PM) 47 - 50 60 44 22 70 77 45 LEGEND: AM -PM Peak Hour X of Daily in Peak 8 - 10 8 - 11 7 - 11 10 - 8 (Estimated 2 -Way Daily) I 0 • 10 Hour (AM -PM) - Kmzman Associ I 1 I I L. J 1 I 1 1 I I IF I 1 1 INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD (NS) and COAST HIGHWAY (EW) COUNT DATE: 01 -01 -04 LAND USE: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT GEOMETRICS: Existing MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE VOLUME (AM) (PM) ADDED VOLUME (AM) (PM) TOTAL VOLUME (AM) (PM) VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO (AM) (PM) Northbound Left 1 1600 40 30 0 0 40 30 0.025 0.019 Northbound Through 2 3200 540 300 0 0 540 300 0.209• 0.122• Northbound Right 0 0 130 90 0 0 130 90 0.000 0.000 Southbound Left 1 1600 200 250 0 0 200 250 0.125• 0.156• Southbound Through 2 3200 260 700 D 0 260 700 0.081 0.219 Southbound Right Free 1 1600 760 203D 8 6 768 2036 0.480 1.273 Eastbound Left 3 4800 1300 850 3 7 1303 857 0.271• 0.179' Eastbound Through 4 6400 2300 1830 0 0 2300 1830 0.363 0.292 Eastbound Right 0 0 20 40 0 0 20 40 0.000 0.000 Westbound Left 2 3200 120 310 0 0 120 310 0.038 0.097 Westbound Through 4 6400 1490 2650 0 0 1490 2650 0.233• 0.414• Westbound Right Free 1 1600 130 170 0 0 130 170 0.081 0.106 Northbound Right Turn Adjustment of right turns (RT) are assumed to occur on 0.000• 0.000' FNone Southbound Right Turn Adjustment {igFnt riven there is separate RT lane B Tien 0.000• 0.000• Eastboud Right Turn Adjustment ovement is permitted. 0.000• O.OGO• -ed Westbound Right Turn.Ad)__..t 0.000• O.OGO• Clearance Interval 0.000• 0.000• INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sum of Components with ') > 0.84 0.87 LEVEL OF SERVICE (0.000-.6 ICU; B= .601 -.7; C= .701 -.8; 0= .801•.9; E= .901 -1.0; F=1.0010 0 0 PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES 768 •2036 0 [41,300) I I 3201 -4313 (41,327) 260 - 700 North North Y (2 Way Volumes) 2I00 - 250 A 1228 -2986 [23,177] I 1 1973 -1327 (18,150) 1. 2.0 1.0 SRJ LSL WR L1.0- 130 - 170 V 2298 -4716 (38,577] 1740 -3130 [26,785) T WT -1..0- 1490 -2650 .0- 120 • 310 -> -> 3623 -2727 [34,925] 2630 -2170 (26,400] 2.0 = Lanes F-2 WL < -> < -> 5921 -7443 [73,502] 4370 -5300 (53,185) (2 Way Volumes) (2 Way Volumes) (73,500) (53,2001 L 1303 - 857 -3. NT A 400 -1050 [ 7,975] 1 710 • 420 [ 6,215) V 2300 -1830 - 4.0-ET NL I R LEGEND: A 20 - 40 -0. � 2.0 0.0 I Daily Peak Hour (Daily) j 1110 •1470 (14,190) y = (AM.PM)• 5.5 V (2 Way Volumes) R (14,200) 0 130 - 90 5 0 - 300 Leg: North South East West % Entering (AM -PM) 38 - 69 64 29 40 - 59 61 - 37 LEGEND: AM -PM Peak Hour % of Daily in Peak 8 10 8 - 10 8 - 10 B 10 (Estimated 2 -Way Daily) 0 - 30 Hour (AN -PH) Kuri Associ INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION INTERSECTION: SANTA CRUZ DRIVE (NS) and SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD (EW) COUNT DATE: 01 -01.04 LAND USE: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT GEOMETRICS: Existing MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE ADDED TOTAL VOLUME TO VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME CAPACITY RATIO (AM) (PM) (AM) (PM) (AM) (PM) (AM) (PM) Northbound Left 1 1600 90 470 0 0 90 470 .0.056• 0.294• Northbound Through 2 3200 10 10 0 0 10 10 0.016 0.063 Northbound Right 0 0 40 190 2 1 42 191 0.000 0.000 Southbound Left 1 1600 20 10 0 0 20 10 0.013 0.006 Southbound Through 2 3200 10 10 0 0 10 10 0.025• 0.022• Southbound Right 0 0 70 60 0 0 70 60 0.000 0.000 Eastbound Left 1 1600 60 110 0 0 60 110 0.038 0.069• Eastbound Through 3 4800 450 430 0 0 450 430 0.154• 0.138 Eastbound Right 0 0 290 230 0 0 290 230 0.000 0.000 Westbound Left 1 1600 230 30 1 2 231 32 0.144• 0.020 Westbound Through 3 4800 360 550 0 0 360 550 0.081 0.121• Westbound Right 0 0 30 30 0 0 30 30 0.000 0.000 Northbound Right Turn Adjustment Southbound Right Turn Adjustment None of right turns (RT) are assumed to occur 0 red light when there is separate RT lane 8 when 0 0.000• 0.000• 0.000• 0.000• Eastbound Right Turn Adjustment movement is permitted. 0.000• 0.000• Westbound Right Turn Adjustment 0.000• 0.000• Clearance Interval 0.000• 0.000• INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sum of Components with *) > 0.38 0.51 LEVEL OF SERVICE (A= .000 -.6 ICU; 8= .601 -.7; C= .701 -.8; D= .801 -.9; E= .901-1.0; F= 1.001 +) A A PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES o 70 - 60 [ 2,4001 I 1 200 - 230 [ 2,3651 1 V (2 Way Volumes) - 10 North North I10 20 - 10 100 - 80 1 9901 I 100 150 [ 1,3751 uR V I 0. 2.0 0 I LSL .0- 30 - 30 520 -1080 1 8,8001 621 - 612 1 6,7821 SRJ ! <- <- WT -3.0- 360 - 550 ST F1.0- 231 - 32 800 - 770 1 8,6351 512 - 631 1 6,2871 2.0 = Lanes WL < -> < -> 1320 -1850 [17,435] (2 Way Volumes) 1133 (2 -1243 [13,0681 Way Volumes) [17,400] [13,100] EL A 531 - 272 1 4,4171 142 - 671 1 4,4721 60 - 110 -1.0-1 NT V I 450 430 - 3.0-ET NL 1 I R LEGEND: AM -PM Peak Hour [Daily] A I 673 - 943 [ 8,8881 290 - 230 - 0.0-�I 2.0 I.0 Daily = (AM +PM)' 5.5 V (2 Way Volumes) ER I 42 - 191 Leg: North South East West [ 8,900] 0 0 - 10 % Entering (AM -PM) 50 - 35 21 - 71 55 - 49 61 - 42 LEGEND: AM -PM Peak Hour % of Daily in Peak 8 - 10 8 - 11 9 - 10 8 - 11 [Estimated 2 -Way Daily] I 0 - 470 Hour (AM -PM) - Kunzman i 1 I j t LJ INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION INTERSECTION: NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE (NS) and COAST HIGHWAY (EW) COUNT DATE: 01.01 -04 LAND USE: GENERAL PLAN RUILDOUT WITH PROJECT GEOMETRICS: Existing MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE VOLUME (AM) (PM) ADDED VOLUME (AM) (PM) TOTAL VOLUME (AM) (PM) VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO (AN) (PM) Northbound Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 Northbound Through 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000' 0.000* Northbound Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 Southbound Left 2 3200 20 270 6 4 26 274 0.008' 0.086* Southbound Through 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 Southbound Right Free 1 1600 90 860 0 0 90 860 0.056 0.538 Eastbound Left 2 3200 630 370 0 0 630 370 0.197' 0.116* Eastbound Through 3 4800 1930 1790 0 0 1930 1790 0.402 0.373 Eastbound Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 Westbound Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 Westbound Through 3 4800 1480 2010 0 0 1480 2010 0.308' 0.419* Westbound Right Free 1 1600 180 150 2 6 182 156 0.114 0.098 Northbovd Right Turn Adjustment one of right turns (RT) are assumed to occur en 0.000' 0.000' Southbound Right Turn Adjustment red light when there is separate RT lane 5 when 0.000' 0.000' Eastbound Right Turn Adjustment movement is permitted. 0.000' 0.000* Westbovd Right Turn Adjustment 0.000' 0.000' Clearance Interval 0.000' 0.000' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sun of Components with *) > 0.51 0.62 LEVEL OF SERVICE (A =.000•.6 ICU; 8= .601 -.7; C= .701 -.8; D= .801•.9; E =.901.1.0; F= 1.001♦) A B PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES 90 - 860 A 0 (14,200] I A A I 928 -1660 (14,234] 0 • 0 North V (2 Way Vol uses) North I26 - 274 A 116 -1134 ( 6,875] I I 812 - 526 ( 7,3591 1.I 0 0 2.0 R V SRJ LSL `1.0- 182 • 156 1570 •2870 (2`,420] 1662 -2166 (21,054] ST WT -3.D- 1480 -2010 -> -> 2 0 = Lanes D- 0 - 0 WL 2560 -2160 (25,960] 1956 -2064 (22,110] < -> < -> 4130 -5030 (50,380] 3618 •4230 (43,164] (2 Way Volumes) (2 Way Volumes) (50,400] (43,200] EL 630 - 370 -2.0-1 A 0 - 0 ( O] { 0 - 0 ( 0] V 1930 -1790 - 3.0 -ET INT NL 1 LEGEND: A 0 - 0 -0.0� I�-11A 0.0 11.0 IO Daily Peak Hour (Daily] 0 - 0 ( O] Daily = (AMtPM)' 5.5 V (2 Way Volumes) R ( O] 0 - 0 I 0 - 0 Leg: North South East West % Entering (AM -PM) 13 - 68 0 - 0 46 - 51 62 - 43 LEGEND: AM-PM Peak Hour % of Daily in Peak 7 - 12 0 - 0 8 - 10 8 - 10 (Estimated 2 -way Daily] I 0 - 0 Hour (AM -PM) Kumzman Associ INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION INTERSECTION: SANTA ROSA ORIVE /BIG CANYON ORIVE (NS) and SAN JOAQUIN MILLS RDA COUNT DATE: 01 -01-04 LAND USE: GENERAL PLAN BUILOOUT WITH PROJECT GEOMETRICS: Existing MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE VOLUME (AM) (PM) ADDED VOLUME (AM) (PM) TOTAL VOLUME (AM) (PM) VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO (AM) (PM) Northbound Left 1 1600 40 180 0 0 40 180 0.025 0.113• Northbound Through 1 1600 10 20 0 0 10 20 0.006• 0.013 Northbound Right 1 1600 170 660 4 3 174 663 0.109 0.414 Southbound Left 1 1600 90 100 0 0 90 100 0.056* 0.063 Southbound Through 1 1600 20 10 0 0 20 10 0.013 0.006• Southbound Right 1 1600 40 60 0 0 40 60 0.025 0.038 Eastbound Left 1 1600 40 50 0 0 40 50 0.025 0.031 Eastbound Through 3 4800 320 590 2 1 322 591 0.082• 0.150• Eastbound Right 0 0 70 130 0 0 70 130 0.000 0.000 Westbound Left 2 3200 640 520 1 4 641 524 0.200• 0.164• Westbound Through 3 4800 550 250 1 2. 551 252 0.138 0.671 Westbound Right 0 0 110 90 0 0 110 90 0.000 0.000 Northbound Right Turn Adjustment None of right turns (RT) are assumed to occur on 0.000• 0.227• Southbound Right Turn Adjustment red light rfim there is separate RT lane 8 whm 0.000• 0.000• Eastbound Right Turn Adjustment movement is permitted. 0.000* 0.000* Westbound Right Turn Adjustment 0.000* 0.000• Clearance Interval 0.000• 0.000• INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sus of Components with •) > 0.34 0.66 LEVEL OF SERVICE (A= .000 -.6 ICU; 8= .601 -.7; C =.701 -.8; 0= .801 -.9; E= .901.1.0; F= 1.001+) A B PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES 40 - 60 A 0 [ 3,500] I A A I 310 - 330 [ 3,5201 20 • 10 North V (2 Way Vol uses) North 90 - 100 A 150 - 170 l 1,760] I I 160 160 1 1,7601 1. 1.0 0 SR-1 I `SL WR .0- 110 - 90 v 631 - 492 1 6,1771 1302 - 866 [11,924] <- <- $ WT -3.0- 551 - 252 2.0 = Lanes j �2.0- 641 - 524 WL 432 - 771 1 6,617) 586 -1354 [10,670] < -> < -> 1063 -1263 [12,793] 1888 -2220 [22,594] (2 Way Volumes) (2 Way Volumes) [12,800] [22,600] € - D-II 40 50 -1. L NT 731 A V 664 [ 7,673] I 224 - 863 [ 5,9791 322 591 - 3.0-ET NL R LEGEND: A 70 - 130 �.0-T ER 1.0 .0 44 • 663 AN -PM Peak Hour [Daily] 955 -1527 [13,651] Daily = (AIHPM)* 5.5 V (2 Way Volumes) Leg: North South East West [13,700] 0 LEGEND: AM -PM Peak Hour 0 • 20 % Entering (AN-PH) 48 - 52 23 - S7 69 - 39 41 - 61 % of Daily in Peak 9 - 9 7 11 8 10 8 - 10 [Estimated 2-Way Daily] I 0 - 180 Hour (AM -PM) - Kunzman i 1 i 1 L; i N L� 1 INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION INTERSECTION: MACARTHLR( BOULEVARO (NS) and FORO ROAO (EW) COUNT GATE: 01 -01-04 LAND USE: GENERAL PLAN BUILOOUT WITH PROJECT GEOMETRICS: Existing MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE VOLUME (AM) (PM) ADOEO VOLUME (AM) (PM) TOTAL VOLUME (AM) (PM) VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO (AM) (PM) Northbound Left 2 3200 140 80 0 0 140 80 0.044 0.025 Northbound Through 4 6400 1910 2230 2 1 1912 2231 0.299* 0.349* Northbound Right Free 1 1600 120 480 2 1 122 481 0.076 0.301 Southbound Left 2 3200 600 1390 0 0 600 1390 0.188* 0.434* Southbound Through 4 6400 2470 2300 1 2 2471 2302 0.386 0.360 Southbound Right Free 1 1600 10 60 0 0 10 60 0.006 0.038 Eastbound Left 2 3200 30 10 0 0 30 10 0.009 0.003 Eastbound Through 2 3200 320 540 4 3 324 543 0.101* 0.170* Eastbound Right 1 1600 90 120 0 0 90 120 0.056 0.075 Westbound Left 2 3200 570 390 1 2 571 392 0.178* 0.123* Westbound Through 2 3200 630 280 1 4 631 284 0.197 0.089 Westbound Right Free 1 1600 1690 760 0 0 1690 760 1.056 0.475 Northbound Right Turn Adjustment None of right turns (RT) are assuned to occur on 0.000* 0.000* Southbound Right Turn Adjustment red light when there is separate RT lane 8 When 0.000* 0.000* Eastbound Right Turn Adjustment movement is permitted. 0.000* 0.000* Westbound Right Turn Adjustment 0.000* 0.000* Clearance Interval 0.000* 0.000* INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sum of Components with *) > 0.77 1.08 LEVEL OF SERVICE (A= .000 -.6 ICU; B= .601•.7; C= .701 -.8; 0 =. 801 -.9; E= .901 -1.0; F= 1.001+) C F PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES ANO LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES 10 - 60 A o [74,100] 1 A A I V 6712 - 6753 174,0631 2471 -2302 North North 00 -1390 6I A 3081 -3752 [37,582] I 1 3632 -3001 [36,482] 1. 4.0 2.0 I� V SR,. LSL IT ` 1.0- 1690 - 760 781 - 424 1 6,6281 2892 -1436 [23,804] W7-2.0- 631 - 284 -> -> 2.0 = Lanes 1-2.0- 571 - 392 WL 444 - 673 1 6,1441 1046 -2414 [19,030] < -> < -> 1225 -1097 [12,771] 3938 -3850 (42,834] (2 Way Volumes) (2 Way Vol ones) [12,800] [42,800] EL A 30 - 10 -2.0-1 NT 3132 -2814 [32,703] 1 2174 -2792 [27,313] V 324 - 543 - 2.0 --ET NL R LEGEND: A 90 - 120 -1. ER 4.0 .0 112 • 481 AM -PM Peak Hour [Daily] 5306 -5606 [60,016] Oaily = (AM +PM)* 5.5 V (2 Way Volumes) Leg: North South East West [60,000] 0 1972. -2231 X Entering (AM -PM) 46 - 56 41 - 50 73 - 37 36 61 LEGENO: AM -PM Peak Hour X of Oaily in Peak 9 - 9 9 9 9 - 9 10 - 9 [Estimated 2 -Way Oailyl I 1 0 - 80 Hour (AM -PM) - Kunzman Associ INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION INTERSECTION: MACAR7HUR BOULEVARD (NS) and SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD (EW) COUNT DATE: 01 -01 -04 LAND USE: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOU7 WITH PROJECT GEUME7RICS: Existing MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE VOLUME (AM) (M) ADDED VOLUME (AM) (M) TOTAL VOLUME (AM) (M) VOLUME 70 CAPACITY RATIO (AM) (PM) Northbound Left 2 3200 70 30 0 0 70 30 0.022 O.DO9 Northbound Through 3 4800 1530 1800 0 0 1530 1800 0.319* 0.375* Northbound Right 1 1600 10 20 0 0 10 20 0.006 0.013 Sorthboud Left 2 3200 550 770 0 0 550 770 0.172* 0.241* Southbound Through 3 4800 1550 1840 0 0 1550 1840 0 -323 0.383 Southbound Right Free 1 1600 1030 600 1 4 1031 604 0.644 0.378 Eastbound Left 2 3200 150 860 4 3 154 863 0.048* 0.270* Eastbound Through 2 3200 310 670 2 1 312 671 0.113 0.241 Eastbound Right 0 0 50 100 0 0 50 100 0.000 0.000 Westbound Left 1 1600 20 20 0 0 20 20 0.013 0.013 Westbound Through 2 3200 550 250 1 2 551 252 0.172* 0.079* Westbound Right Free 1 1600 880 450 0 0 880 450 0.550 0.281 Northbound Right Turn Adjustment None of right turns (R7) are assumed to occur on 1 9 0.000* 0.000* Southbound Right Turn Adjustment red tight when there is separate R7 tane & when 0.000* 0.000* Eastbound Right Turn Adjustment movement is permitted. 0.000* 0.000* Westbound Right Turn Adjustment 0.000* 0.000* Clearance Interval 0.000* 0.000* INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sun of Components with *) > 0.71 0.97 LEVEL OF SERVICE (A= .000•.6 ICU; 8 =.601 -.7; C= .701 -.8; D= .801 -.9; E= .901 -1.0; F= 1.001 +) C E PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES 1031 - 604 A 0 166,100) I A A 5695 -6327 166,121) 1550 -1840 North V (2 Nay Volumes) North 550 - 770 A 3131 -3214 (34,898) 2564 -3713 131,224) 1. 3i0 2.0 SRJ LSL WR L1.0- 880 - 450 V 1652 - 886 (13,959) 1451 - 722 (11,952) ST W7 -2.0- 551 - 252 -> -> 2.0 = Lanes F-1.0- 20 - 20 WL 516 -1634 (11,825) 872 -1461 112,832) < -> < -> 2168 -2520 (25,784) 2323 -2183 (24,783) (2 Way Volumes) (2 Way Volumes) (25,800) 124,800) EL A 154 - 863 -2.OJ N7 1620 -1960 119,690) 1 1610 -1850 (19,030) V 312 - 671 - 2- 0---ET NL I LEGEND: A 50 - 100 -0. �R Ir--MR 3.0 1.0 10 - 20 Daily = (AM+ M) *[5.51y) � 3 (2 Way lVoluxes) Leg: North South East West 138,7001 0 11510 -1800 % Entering (AM -PM) 55 - 51 50 - 49 62 - 33 24 - 65 LEGEND: AM -PM Peak Hour % of Daily in Peak 9 - 10 8 - 10 9 - 9 8 - 10 (Estimated 2 -Way Daily) I 0 - 30 Hour (AM -PM) Kunzman Associ 1 I I 1 n 1 I I I 1 I I INTERSECTION VOLUMES. LANES. AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION INTERSECTION: HACARTHUR BOULEVARD (NS) and SAN HIGUEL DRIVE (EW) COUNT DATE: 01.01.04 LAND USE: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT GEDMETRICS: Existing MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE VOLUME (AN) (PM) ADDED VOLUME (AN) (PH) TOTAL VOLUME (AN) (PH) VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO (AN) (PH) Northbound Left 2 3200 140 160 0 0 14D 160 0.044 0.050' Northbound Through 3 4800 1530 970 0 0 1530 970 0.319• 0.202 Northbound Right 1 1600 310 470 0 0 310 470 0.194 0.294 Southbound Left 2 3200 10 10 0 0 10 10 0.003• 0.003 Southbound Through 3 4800 1040 1420 0 0 1040 1420 0.217 0.296' Southbound Right 1 1600 600 530 0 0 600 530 0.375 0.331 Eastbound Left 2 3200 70 890 0 0 70 890 0.022' 0.276' Eastbound Through 2 3200 100 510 2 1 102 511 0.032 0.160 Eastbound Right 1 1600 60 150 0 0 60 150 0.038 0.694 Westbound Left 2 3200 340 320 0 0 340 320 0.106 0.100 Westbound Through 2 3200 410 250 1 2 411 252 0.135' 0.091' Westbound Right 0 0 20 40 0 0 20 40 0.000 0.000 Northbound Right Turn Adjustment None of right turns (RT) are assured to occur on 0.000' O.00D' Southbound Right Turn Adjustmw:nt red light when there is separate RT lane d when D.097' D.D00' Eastbou d Right Turn Adjustment movement is permitted. J 0.000' O.00D• Westbound Right Turn Adjustment 0.000' 0.000' Clearance Interval 0.000' D.00D- INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sun of Coq�onents with ') > 0.58 0.72 LEVEL OF SERVICE (A= .000 -.6 ICU; B =.601 -.7; C =.701 -.8; D= .BO1 -.9; E= .901 -1.0; F= 1.001 +) A C PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES 600 - 530 0 [39,200] I I 3270 -3860 [39,215] 1040 -1420 No `nth North V (2 Way Volumes) 10 - 10 A 1650 -1960 [19,855] I j 1620 -1900 [19,360] Wit V SR-J LSL IT .0- 20 - 40 1151 - 942 [11,512] 771 - 612 1 7,6071 �- <- WT-2.0- 411 - 252 _> >> 2.0 - Lanes 1-2.0- 340 - 320 WL 232 -1551 1 9,8071 422 - 991 1 7,7721 < -> < -> 1383 -2493 [21,318] 1193 -1603 [15,378] (2 Way Volumes) (2 Way Volumes) [21,300] [15,400] EL A 70 - 890 -2.OJ IT 1440 -1890 [18,315] 1 1960 -1600 [19,690] V 4 102 - 511 - 2.0-ET NL I R LEGEND:. A 60 - 150 -1.01 3.0 AN -PH Peak Hour [Daily] 3420 -3490 [38,005] Daily = (AM+PM)' 5.5 V (2 Way Vol ores) ER {.0 310 - 470 Leg: North South East West [38,000] 0 15 0 - 970 % Entering (AM -PM) 50 - 51 56 - 46 65 - 38 17 - 62 LEGEND: AM -PM Peak Hour % of Daily in Peak 8 - 10 9 - 9 8 - 10 6 - 12 [Estimated 2 -Way Daily] I 1 0 - 160 Hour (AM -PM) --- Kunxman Assoc VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION INTERSECTION: MACARTNUR BOULEVARD (NS) and COAST HIGHWAY (EW) COUNT DATE: 01.01.04 I LAND USE: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOU7 WITH PROJECT GEOME7RICS: Existing MOVEMENT LANES I CAPACITY (AM) (AM (AM) I (AOLL04E ) I (AM)ACOT(PM) Northbound Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 Northbound Through 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000' 0.000' Northbound Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 Southbound Left 2 3200 520 800 0 0 520 800 0.163' 0.250' Southbound Through 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 Southbound Right Free 1 1600 420 760 0 0 420 760 0.262 0.475 Eastbound Left 2 3200 810 680 0 0 810 680 0.253' 0.213' Eastbound Through 3 4800 1050 1600 6 4 1056 1604 0.220 0.334 Eastbound Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 Westbound Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 Westbound Through 3 4800 1450 1670 2 6 1452 1676 0.303' 0.349' Westbound Right Free 1 1600 900 610 0 0 1 900 610 0.563 0.381 Northbound Right Turn Adjustment None of right turns (R7) are assumed to occur On 0.000' 0.000' Southbound Right Turn Adjustment red light when there is separate R7 lane d when 0.000' 0.000' Eastboud Right Turn Adjustment movement is permitted. 0.000' 0.000' Westboud Right Turn Adjustment 0,000' 0,000' Clearance interval 0.000' 0.000• IINTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sum of Components with ') > 1 0.72 0.81 LEVEL OF SERVICE (A= .000 -.6 ICU; 8= .601-.7; C =.701•.8; D= .801 -,9; E= .901 -1.0; F= 1.001 +) C D PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES A 420 - 760 0 [30,300] 0 - 0 I North 520 - 800 1, 0,0 2 0 SRJ ISL L 7 2.0 = Lanes I [46,500] EL 810 • 680 -2.0-) 1056 •1604 - 3.0 ---E7 0 - 0 --O.O� ER [ 0] o LEGEND: AM -PM Peak Hour [Estimated 2-Way Daily] - Ku zman WR L1.D_ 900 - 610 WT -3.D- 1452 -1676 I1-0. D- 0 - 0 WL [47,4001 N7 NL �-NR 0.0 0.0 I 0 - O - 0 1fl 0 0 - 0 PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES A A 2650 •2850 [30,250] V (2 Way Volumes) North A 940 -1560 [13,750] 1 1710 -1290 [16,500] V 1872 -2436 [23,694] 2352 •2286 [25,509] 1866 -2284 [22,825] 1576 -2404 [21,890] 3738 -4720 [46,519] 3928 -4690 [47,3991 (2 Way Volumes) (2 Way Vol uses) A 0- 0 O] 1+ j 0 0 O] LEGEND: AI AN -PM Peak Hour [Daily] 1 0 0 [ 01 Daily = (AM +PM)' 5.5 V (2 Way Volumes) Leg: North South East West % Entering (AM-PM) 35 - 55 0 0 60 - 49 50 - 48 % of Daily in Peak 9 - 9 0 - 0 8 - 10 8 - 10 Hour (AM -PM) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ATTACHMENT "G" SEE FILE 68 FOR PROJECT PLANS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Santa Barbara Condominiums (PA2004 -169) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of Lennar Homes for General Plan Amendment No. 2004-005, Local Coastal Plan Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2005-001, Planned Community Development Plan No. 2005 -003, Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005 -014, Tentative Tract Map No. 2004 -004 (16774), Traffic Study No. 2005 -002, and Coastal Residential Development No. 2005 -004 on property located at 900 Newport Center Drive. The property is located in the Administrative, Professional & Financial Commercial zone. Lennar Homes proposes to construct 79 residential condominiums on a 4.25 acre site presently developed with tennis courts operated by the adjacent Newport Beach Marriott Hotel. The applicant proposes to construct three buildings that are approximately 65 feet in height. The requested applications would change the General Plan and Local Coastal Land Use Plan land use designations from commercial to Multiple Family Residential. The existing APF zoning is also proposed to be changed to PC (Planned Community) and a Planned Community Development Plan text that would establish use and development regulations is proposed. Implementation of the project also requires a Traffic Study pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, Tentative Parcel and Tract Maps for subdivision purposes, and a Coastal Residential Development Permit regarding the provision of affordable housing in accordance with the Zoning Code and Housing Element of the General Plan. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that a Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application noted above. The Negative Declaration states that, the subject development will not result in a significant effect on the environment. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Negative Declaration and supporting documents. This is not to be construed as either approval or denial by the City of the subject application. Copies of the Negative Declaration and supporting documents were available for public review and inspection during a 30-day review period from July 15 through August 15, 2005 at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92658- 8915, (949) 6443225. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on November 22, 2005, at the hour of 7700 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. For information call (949) 6443200. 6WAW to Dt l Ti 14- II��i(bS lo� �� - Ii1 ;� _ it q os fr0ow (ii q. Nei ce, Wbl-Lf& Ag-hXS ` 1114 b< LaVonne M. Harkless, City Clerk City of Newport Beach NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Santa Barbara Condominiums (PA2004 -169) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of Lennar Homes for General Plan Amendment No. 2004 -005, Local Coastal Plan Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2005 -001, Planned Community Development Plan No. 2005 -003, Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005 -014, Tentative Tract Map No. 2004 -004 (16774), Traffic Study No. 2005 -002, and Coastal Residential Development No. 2005 -004 on property located at 900 Newport Center Drive. The property is located in the Administrative, Professional & Financial Commercial zone. Lennar Homes proposes to construct 79 residential condominiums on a 4.25 acre site presently developed with tennis courts operated by the adjacent Newport Beach Marriott Hotel. The applicant proposes to construct three buildings that are approximately 65 feet in height. The requested applications would change the General Plan and Local Coastal Land Use Plan land use designations from commercial to Multiple Family Residential. The existing APF zoning is also proposed to be changed to PC (Planned Community) and a Planned Community Development Plan text that would establish use and development regulations is proposed. Implementation of the project also requires a Traffic Study pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, Tentative Parcel and Tract Maps for subdivision purposes, and a Coastal Residential Development Permit regarding the provision of affordable housing in accordance with the Zoning Code and Housing Element of the General Plan. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that a Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application noted above. The Negative Declaration states that, the subject development will not result in a significant effect on the environment. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Negative Declaration and supporting documents. This is not to be construed as either approval or denial by the City of the subject application. Copies of the Negative Declaration and supporting documents were available for public review and inspection during a 30-day review period from July 15 through August 15, 2005 at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92658- 8915, (949) 6443225. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on November 22. 2005, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. For information call (949) 6443200. oedt;,"' M - A"h' LaVonne M. Harkless, City Clerk City of Newport Beach NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Santa Barbara Condominiums (PA2004 -169) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of Lennar Homes for General Plan Amendment No. 2004005, Local Coastal Plan Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2005 -001, Planned Community Development Plan No. 2005 -003, Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005 -014, Tentative Tract Map No. 2004004 (16774), Traffic Study No. 2005 -002, and Coastal Residential Development No. 2005 -004 on property located at 900 Newport Center Drive. The property is located in the Administrative, Professional & Financial Commercial zone. Lennar Homes proposes to construct 79 residential condominiums on a 4.25 acre site presently developed with tennis courts operated by the adjacent Newport Beach Marriott Hotel. The applicant proposes to construct three buildings that are approximately 65 feet in height. The requested applications would change the General Plan and Local Coastal Land Use Plan land use designations from commercial to Multiple Family Residential. The existing APF zoning is also proposed to be changed to PC (Planned Community) and a Planned Community Development Plan text that would establish use and development regulations is proposed. Implementation of the project also requires a Traffic Study pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, Tentative Parcel and Tract Maps for subdivision purposes, and a Coastal Residential Development Permit regarding the provision of affordable housing in accordance with the Zoning Code and Housing Element of the General Plan. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that a Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application noted above. The Negative Declaration states that, the subject development will not result in a significant effect on the environment. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Negative Declaration and supporting documents. This is not to be construed as either approval or denial by the City of the subject application. Copies of the Negative Declaration and supporting documents were available for public review and inspection during a 30 -day review period from July 15 through August 15, 2005 at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92658- 8915, (949) 6443225. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on November 22. 2005, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. For information call (949) 6443200. Y 6t� - in A4� LaVonne M. Harkless, City Clerk City of Newport Beach Jam Free Printing Use AveryO TEMPLATE 51600 www.avery.com AVERY® swO 1140040 AVERY -?C(.3 442 - 262 -03 442 - 262 -09 State Teachers Retirement Syste Irvine Apartment Communities PO Box 15275 C 550 Newport Center Dr 3 Sacramento, CA 95851 -0275 Newport Beach, CA 92660- 442 - 011 -52 O Hill 1 Upper Newport Plz Newport Beach, CA 92660 -2630 442 - 011-41 Hmh Properties 1 Marriott Dr Dept 938 1 Washington, DC 20058 -0001 Fashion Island Merchants Assoc. Fashion Island Management 401 Newport center Dr. A 150 Newport Beach, CA 92660 vAzuu4- -i 69 Tor ur2uu4-uu5 900 Newport Center Drive DATE OF MEETING: - 909&5 ®AHMV a AU3AV-09I ooXranwMMM — wxu� � eats 31yww3i ekeAd asn GuwW awa tuaf S _ November 22, 2005 Mayor Heffernan & Members of the Newport Beach City Council 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 RE: Request for Continuance Lennar Homes - Public Hearing #13 Santa Barbara Condominiums Dear City Council: As the representative for Lennar Homes, we respectfully-request a continuance on their scheduled public hearing tonight to your next meeting on December 13, 2005. We are requesting this continuance based on a request we received today from the Newport Beach Country Club. While we've had on -going positive discussions with them on the interface between the golf course and the new residential community, we have been unable at this time to finalize those discussions in a mutually satisfactory manner. Based on a discussion we had late today with the Country Club, we agreed to request a two -week continuance to your December meeting. We are hopeful your hearing calendar can accommodate this request. Sincerely, Coralee Newman Principal Government Solutions, Inc. cc: David Wooten CEO Newport Beach Country Club 230 Newport Center Drive, Suite 210 • Newport Beach, CA 92660 • 949 - 717 -7943 main • 949 - 717 -7942 fax • www.govsol.com Authorized to Publish Advertisements of all kinds including Public notices by Decree of the Superior Court of 0muge County, California_ Number A -6214, September 29, 1961, and A -24831 June 11, 1963. PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ) ss. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the below entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the NEWPORT BEACH - COSTA MESA DAILY PILOT, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange, State of California, and that attached Notice is a true and complete copy as was printed and published on the following dates: NOVEMBER 12,2005 I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on NOVEMBER 12,2005 at Costa Mesa, California. Signiture '05 NOV 21 `', 0 :3 0 OF FICI n " ?T'i Jai k .. smiog lbua '. (WAIN[ m p62W169) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the Ci,y of Newport BeacA will boltl a public heenny on the application of Lennar Amendment No. ZODG 005, Local Coastal Pla Land Use Plan Amend ment No. 20057001 Planned Communit No. 1002. and Coastal, Resk review and inspection ! dential Development No. during a 30 -day review 2005 =004 on property period from July 15 located at 900 Newport through August 15, 2005 Center Drive. The prop- at the Planning Depart. I erty is located in the ment, City of Newport Administrative, - Profes- Beach, 3300 Newport sional g Financial Boulevard, Newport Commercial zone. Beach, California, 92658 - Lennar Hpmes pro- 8915,(949)644 -3225. poses to construct 79 NOTICE IS HEREBY residential condomini- FURTHER GIVEN that- ums on a 4.25 acre site said public hearing will presently developed with be held on November tennis courts operated, 22, 2005, at the hour by the adjacent Newport of 7:00 P.M. in the Beach Marriott Hotel. Council Chambers of the fire applicant proposes Newport Beach City Hall, to construct three 3300 Newport Boule- buildings that are, ap- vard, Newport Beach, proximately 65 feet in California, at which time height. -The requested and place any and all applications would persons interested may change the General Plan appear and 'be heard .end Local Coastal Land thereon. If you challenge -and Plan land use thisproject-in court, you designations from com- may be limited to raising 'merciat to Multiple only those issues you or Family Residential. The someone, else raised at' 'existing APF zoning is the public hearing also proposed to be described in this notice 'changed to PC (Planned or in written corre- Community)'and a spondence delivered to 'Planned Community the City at, or prior to, Development Plan text the public hearing. For that would establish use information call (949)' and development regu- 644 -3200. lations is proposed. LaVonne M. Harkless; Implementation of the City Clerk prurect also requires a City of Newport Beach 'rratfic Study pursuant Published Newport to the Traffic Phasing Beach /Costa Mesa Daily. Ordinance, Tentative Pilot November.12, 2005 Parcel' and Tract Maps ' Sa937' for subdivision purposes; and a Coastal Residen- tial Development Permit regarding the provision of affordable housing in accordance with the Zoning Code and Hous- ing,. I'lement of the General Plan. NOTICE - IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that a Negative Declaration. has :'.been prepared by the ?;City of Newport Beach 's in connection with the 'aPplica tion noted above. The Negative Declaration states that, the subject development will not result in a significant effect on the environ- ment. It is the present Intention of the City to accept the Negative Declaration ' and .sup- porting, documents. This) is not to be construed as either approval or denial by the.City of the subject, application. Copies of 'the :.Negative - Declaration and sup- . porting documents were available for public