Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutIS013_HARBOR POINT TPO 13013 1 ' VOLUME I FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION ' HARBOR POINT SUBDIVISION SAN MIGUEL DRIVE EXTENSION (TENTATIVE TRACT 10625) ' NEWPORT BEACH, CA ' PREPARED BY: PLANNING DEPARTMENT LARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING CONSULTANTS 3300 W. NEWPORT BOULEVARD 500 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 (714) 640-2197 (714) 640-6363 1 JUNE 1979 Table of Contents ' Notice of Determination - May 17, 1979 Negative Declaration - February 9, 1979 ' City Council Minutes Meeting May 14, 1979 Planning Commission Minutes Meetings ' February 22, 1979 April 5, 1979 March 22, 1979 City Council Staff Reports May 14, 1979 (Supplemental Information) May 14, 1979 (Supplemental Information Report) May 14, 1979 April 23,. 1979 Planning Commission Staff Reports ' April 5, 1979 March 22, 1979 (Supplemental Information Report) March 22, 1979 February 22, 1979 Attachment to the Initial Study - January 16, 1979 ' Initial Study - January 31 , 1979 Traffic Reports M.P.A. - -May 10,, 1979 M.P.A. - May 4, 1979 M.P.A. - March 16, 1979 ' Correspondence ' Letter Dan Rogers - April 5, 1979 Letter The Irvine Company - April 4, 1979 Letter Robert S. Rosenburg M.D. - March 26, 1979 Letter Robert S. Rosenburg M.D. - February 27, 1979 ' Letter Roger's Gardens - February 22, 1979 NOTICE OF DETERMINATION iSanta cretary for Resources FROM: 00 Tenth Street cramento, CA 95814 Community Development Department City of Newport Beach erk of the Board of Supervisors 3300 Newport Boulevard unty of Orange- Box 687 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Ana, CA 92702 SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. PROJECT TITLE: Harbor Point - Tentative Tract 10625 PROJECT LOCATION: 1401 San Mitqul Drive, between,Mac%rthpr Bolevard and the proposed extension o an Mi uel Drive m t e Cit o rNg or Bga�h PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A request to subdivide 12.97 acres into 21 numbered lots for single-family residential development, one lettered lot for private street purposes, and lettered lot for landscape open space. Said request also includes the extension of San Miguel Drive. ' CONTACT PERSON: Fred Talarico TELEPHONE N0.(714) 640-2197 STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER N/A .� This is to advise that the City of Newport Beach has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: 1 . The project has been approved by the City of Newport Beach. disapproved 2. The project ❑ 'Will have a significant effect on the environment. rx1 will not ' 3. ❑ An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant :to the provisions of CEQA. A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the ' provisions of CEQA. A copy of the Negative Declaration is attached. DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: ��� � �. .... ..� _. . Fred Talarico _ _Fnvironmental Coordixlator—_ Date May 17,_1979_ ATTACHMENT #9 NEGA'rlvE_DECLARAr.I0N[ ' TO: 10 Secretary for Resources FROM: Community Development Dept. �J 1416 Ninth Street, Room 1311 City of Newport Beach Sacramento, California 95814 3300 Newport Boulevard ' aClerk of the Board of Supervisors Newport Beach, Calif. 92663 P. 0. Box 687 ' 5anta Ana, California 92702 ' NAME OF PROJECT: Harbor Point Subdivision -. San Miguel Drive extension (Tentative Tract 10625) PROJECT LOCATION: Near the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road in the City of Newport Beach. PROJECT DESCkIPTION: 21 residential lots will be created on 6.86 acres and the ' extension of San Miguql Drive approximately 1500 feet to the west. ' 1 FINDING: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council Policy K-3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the ' proposed project and determined that the proposed project will;not have a significant effect on the environment. ' MITIGATION MEASURES: 1 • Attached - ' INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY: The City of Newport Beach ' INITIAL STUDY AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT: 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: Fred Talarico Environmental Coordinator Date: February 9, 1979 Mitigation Measures for Harbor Point Subdivision and San Miguel Extension• ' 1 . All mitigation measures incorporated in the attached Initial - ' _ Study will be implemented. - - 2. Concerning Lot No. 21 as shown on Tentative Map No. 10625, any use other than as a neighborhood park or open space should be ' subject to additional site plan review by the City. 3. Appropriate deed restriction(s) should be placed on Lot No. 21 as shown on Tentative Map No. 10625 to inform any potential purchaser ' • of the high noise levels effecting this site. 4. A written agreement from the property owner should be submitted ' indicating: A) That the existing desiltation basin will be retained, and; ' B) Should any development of the desiltation basin site occur, a basin of equal or greater capacity will be provided until a permanent basin capable of accommodating all runoff ' resulting from development in the vicinity is installed. 1 • ilb . G�o u-c r, ZZ. _ *�, n � Gary - - 53 ce LAAAC&tx Cut _ Ile, Iola - f-- - ---- 50 - - ��-- 5/ I City Council Minutes t CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH I COUNCILMEN MINUTES �y\y 'P O sa's s9 TyFGN mod+ ROLL CALL �d 9 INDEX Mayor t2ycko[f made a motion to sustain the derision of the Planning Cormnission inrludmg the i new wording in Condition No. 2 to read as follows: ' I "That the grading plans and retaining wall plans shall be in accordance with the requirements of the Grading Engineer and the Public Works Department. The slopes shown on the approved plan are accepted i with the following condition: The rut slope exposes ' I only cemented sandstone materials. Other mates ials will require installation of retaining structures and/or reduction of slope ratio to two horizontal to one vertical." Councilman Strauss asked that a modification to Condition No. 5 be included to limit the length of time the use permit would be in effect to two years at which time it should came bark to Council for review, which condition was accepted by the maker of the motion. Ayes x x x x� x x A vote was taken an Mayor Ryckoff's motion,which Abstain x motion carried. 2. Mayor Ryckoff opened the public hearing regarding Resub 624 Resubdivision No. 624, a request of Virginia Day to (3245) create one parcel of land to permit the conversion ' of an existing triplex into a three—unit residential condominium complex,located at I I I Via Lido Nord on Lido Isle; referred to the City Council by the Planning Commission with no recommendations. ' I A report was presented from the Community Devel- opment Department. Sohn Dryden, representing the applicant Virginia Dey, addressed the Council requesting that the ' Council approve Resubdivision No. 624 subject to the conditions set forth by the staff in their report of April 5,1979 which was submitted to the Planning Commission. ' Motion x The hearing wat continued to August 13, 1979,which All Ayes was.Lgrecable to the applicant. 3ohn Dryden addressed the Council stating that the ' applicant was in full compliance with all known ordinances requiring the number of garage spaces per dwelling unit. 3. Mayor Ryckoff opened the public hearing regarding Family/ ' Ordinance No. 1804,being, Dwelling Unit 0-1804 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEW- (685) PORT BEACH AMENDING SECTION ' I 20.87.14o OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE TO REDEFINE THE 1 TERM "DWELLING UNIT" AND AMENDING I SECTION 20.87.180 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE TO REDEFINE ' THE TERM"FAMILY," Volume 33- Page 113 ' I i CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCILMEN MINUTES �L y �O G+�9f9$ 9 O 5�G 2'J KOLL CALL\ �N'� Psu' r INDEX IN Planning Commission Amendment No. 525,a request initiated by the City of Newport Beach to consider ' an amendment to Chapter 20.87 of the Newport beach Municipal Code as it applies to the definitions of the terms"Dwelling Unit"and"Family." A report was presented from the Community Devel- opment Department. A letter from Lawrence H. Rouillard, Episcopal apiam to UCI opposing the ordinance was pr nted. ' The folio Ing people addressed the Council opposing a change the number of people limited to a "family": Step nle Smith, Director of the Municl- pal Lobby and rep enting the Associated Students, UCI; Cas Champion; ve Carter; Don MacDougall, a staff member of t Orange County Renters Association; Ronald Kenne of the Corona del Mar Civic Association and Sid Soff ' Motion x Miss Smith was granted one and one's f additional Ayes x x x x x minutes for her presentation. Noes x x Community Development Director, Richard Ho gave a staff report on"Dwelling.Units." Motion x The hearing was closed after it was determined that All Ayes no one else desired to be heard. ' Motion x Ordinance No. 1804 was adopted. Ayes x x x x Noes x x x ...-..-.«........ 4. Mayor Ryckoff opened the public hearing regarding Tract 10625 a request of The Irvine Company,Newport Beach,to consider a Traffic Study for a proposed subdivision, Harbor Point, containing twenty-one single-family ' residential lots AND Tentative Map of Tract 10625, a request to subdivide 12.97 acres into twenty-one numbered lots for single-family residential develop- ment, one lettered lot for private street purposes, ' and one lettered lot for landscape open space. Said request also includes the extension of San Miguel Drive and the consideration of an Environmental Document; on property located at 1401 San Miguel Drive, between MacArthur Boulevard and the pro- ' posed extension of San Miguel Drive, southwesterly of Roger's Gardens;zoned R—A,R-1-B,and P—C. A report and supplemental report on the Traffic Study were presented from the Community Develop- ' i ment Department. I ' I Volume 33-Page 114 i ' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCILMEN MINUTES 11r\y\\''L g�t'o '.�V,p�� \\'9�N�\t^,pd's�iP INDEX kOLL CALL Keith Greer, representing The Irvine Company, addressed the Council and requested ten minutes for I I i i his presentation. li Muti)n ( x I Mr. Greer was granted ten minutes for his presenta- 111 1yes I I , tion. i i I The following people addressed the Council in favor I of Tract 10625 and the proposed extension of San Miguel Drive; E. P. Benson; Dan Rogers; and Rill Lillis. The following people addressed the Council opposing the extension of San Miguel Drive: Dr. Robert Rosenberg; Philip Arst, President of the Broadmoor Hills Community Association,who presented a letter to Council; Ted Carpenter, President of the Harbor View-Broadmoor Cumnnmily Av-nrutUnn; led" Mo,ris, Vive President of the Harbor View Hotne- owners Association; Bob Iltse, representing the Newport Hills Community Association, who urged The Irvine Company to work for the passage and approval of the San Joaquin Hills Corridor. Motion x Mr. Arst was granted two more minutes for his All Ayes presentation. Keith Greer addressed the Council and stated that the extension of San Miguel Drive was based on the ' need which will be created by future projects that will come before the City in the next three or four I years;and that landscape projects have been planned to reduce the noise factor. ' bbH�on x The hearing was closed after it was determined that All Ayes no one else desired to be heard. Motion x The Environmental Document was accepted; and ' Ayes x x x x x Tract No. 10625 was approved, subject to the Noes x x following findings and conditions recommended by 'the Planning Commission as modified by Council: FINDINGS FOR TI IE TRAFFIC STUDY: ' I 1. That d Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the peak hour traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the ' Newport Beach Municipal Code. 2. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project-generated traffic will be greater than one percent of existing traffic during the 2.5 I hour peak period on any leg of the intersection 1 of San Joaquin Hills Road and MacArthur I Boulevard, I i � Volume 33-Page 115 I ' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCILMEN MINUTES \\\q 1� GN7'iROLL CALL in INDEX 3. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project-generated traffic will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on any "major," "primary- ' modified"or"primary"street. FINDINGS FOR TRACT NO. 10625; 1. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific plans,and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 2. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the type ' of development proposed. 4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. 5. That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and that their contents have been considered in the ' decisions on this project. 6. That based on the information contained in the Negative Declaration, the project incorporatos m1fficient mitigation ineason•s to redurc ' potentially-significant environmental effects, and that the protect will not result in signif- icant environmental impacts. 7. That the design of the subdivision or the ' proposed improvements will not substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. ' S. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. 9. That the design of the subdivision or the ' proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements,acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. ' 10. That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision will not result in or add to any violation of existing requirements prescribed by a California Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Division 7 (com- mencing with Section 1300)of the Water Code. Volume 33- Page 116 ' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCILMEN MINUTES G�yP`iG1'�9�PpG22 ROLL CAL M. 14. Iq7q INDEX ' It. The project is defined as the subdivision of 12.97 acres into numbered lots for single family residential developments, one lettered lot for private street purposes;one lettered lot for landscape open space. 12. The proposed site has very poor traffic ingress/egress capabilities due to the design of the surrounding road system. The proposed single family residential development is the highest density usage which this site can accommodate. ' CONDITIONS: I. That a tract map be filed. ' 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That Section 19.16.030 of the Subdivision ' Ordinance be waived provided that drawings of the tract map at a scale of 1" = 100' are provided to the Public Works Department. 4. That vehicular access to Lot 21 be limited to one driveway approach on San Miguel Drive. This driveway approach shall be limited to right-turn in and out only. The location of the driveway approach shall be subject to further ' study and approval of the Public Works and Community Development Departments prior to filing of the tract map. The driveway approach location shall be located as far away from MacArthur Boulevard as possible. 5. That all vehicular access rights to MacArthur Boulevard, except at the public street intersec- tion,be released and relinquished to the City. ' 6. That the remaining street improvements along the easterly side of MacArthur Boulevard frontage adjacent to the tract be completed including a ten-foot-wide sidewalk-bike trail. ' 7. Developer is to bond for the completion of San Miguel at such time as the City Council declares it is needed. Alternatively,developers bonding obligation may be waived if developer ' applies the same amount of funding to more critically needed projects as defined by the Council. 3. That all vehicular access rights to San Miguel t Drive, except for two private drive openings and the public street intersection, be released f and relinquished to the City. Volume 33-Page 117 I 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCILMEN MINUTES \yG\y\.A�\y9u'�sip ROLL CALL` �u'� 9 INDEX 9. That the noise impact from MacArthur Boule- vard and San Miguel Drive be considered and that the dwelling units be designed to provide 1 for sound attenuation in accordance with the requirements of law and the recommendation of a qualified acoustical engineer. Specifical- ly, that acoustical attenuation devices be ' included in final project design as described in Mitigation Measure 11 of the Initial Study and that a higher barrier be erected, if requested unanimously by the residents of Lots 3,4 and 5. 1 10. That the design of the private streets conform with the City's private street policy. 11. That the structural section of the private 1 streets and drives be designed in accordance with standard civil engineering practice. The design will be approved and the construction inspected by the Public Works Department. The standard plan check and Inspection fee 1 shall be paid. 12. That the private streets shall have a street light system approved by the Public Works 1 Department. 13. That the California Vehicle Code be enforced on the private streets. 1 14. That a traffic control plan shall be submitted and approved by the City's Traffic Engineer. 15. That if it is desired to have a control gate on the entrance off San Miguel Drive, a turn— around shall be provided prior to the gate. The design of the controlled entrance shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works and Community Development Departments. 1 16. That a ten-foot-wide sidewalk-bike trail be provided on the northerly side of San Miguel Drive. 1 17. San Miguel Drive may be extended only from its present terminus to the entrance of Harbor Point as shown on Tentative Tract Map No. 10625. The width of this extension is to be sufficient to provide for two lanes of 1 traffic and a bicycle lane but is to be no greater than 30 feet. No median strip Is to be added at the present time. 1 18. That the water capital improvement acreage fees be paid. I I I � 1 Volume 33- Page 118 i � I i • 1 • ' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCILMEN MINUTES F 9 Tye s emu+ ROLL CALL y'j P N INDEX 19. That storage capacity in San Joaquin Reser- voir equal to one maximum day's demand be dedicated to the City. , ' 20. That easements for ingress, egress and public utility purposes on Lot "A" be dedicated to the City. 21. That three-foot-wide easements for public utility purposes adjacent to Lot "A" be dedicated to the City. ' 22. That a subdivision agreement and accompany- ing surety be provided if it is desired to record the final tract map prior to com- pletion of the public improvements. ' 23. That all work within the MacArthur Boule- vard right-of-way be done under an encroach- ment permit issued by the California Department of Transportation. ' 24. That sight distance for the bike trail along the westerly side of San Miguel Drive be provided for the future driveway approach for Roger's Gardens. ' 25. That on-site fire hydrants be provided as required by the Public Works.Department and the Fire Department. ' 26. That Fire Department access shall be approved by the Fire Department. 27. A landscape and irrigation plan for all com- ' men areas shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. Said plan shall include a maintenance program which controls the use of organphosphates and pesticides. 28. That the landscape plan shall place heavy emphasis on the use of drought-resistant vegetation. 29. That planting be done on any exposed slopes as soon as possible to reduce erosion potential. Prior to the occupancy of any dwelling unit, the licensed landscape archi- tect shall certify to the Department of ' Community Development that the land- scaping has been installed in accordance with the proposed plan. 30. Development of the site will be subject to a ' grading permit to be approved by the Depart- ment of Community Development. Surface and subsurface drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Community Develop- ment Department and the Public Works ' Department. i Volume 33- Page 119 I ' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCILMEN MINUTES yG\S\P.c yF`��` C�(i� �v 0,,,'L WJLL CALLI y`Pm N May l4, 1979 INDEX ' 30. Development of the site will be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Depart- ment of Community Development. Surface I and subsurface drainage shalt be provided to ' I the satisfaction of the Community Development Department and the Publir Workb Department. 31. An erosion and dust control plan shall be ' submitted with the grading permit appli- cation and be subject to the approval of the Community Development Department. 32. That drainage along MacArthur Boulevard ' adjacent to the tract be improved in conjunc- tion with tract grading; if grading and drainage are to be accomplished as a precise plan, this should be accomplished prior to finalization of the grading plan. 33. That a lined brow ditch(es) be provided on off-site areas where cuts are proposed on the tract, and in accordance with the precise ' grading plan to be approved by the Com- munity Development Department. 34. That a detailed geotechnical report be prepared prior to approval of the final tract ' map and before finalization of a grading plan, subject to the approval of the Public Works Department and Community Development Department. ' 35. That an erosion and siltation control plan be approved by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board-Santa Ana Region, and that the plan be submitted to said Board ' ten days prior to any construction activities. 36. That the applicant provide for street sweep- ing services for all non-dedicated streets equal to that service provided by the City for ' residential area streets. 37. That in order to retain the physical integrity of midden deposits during grading activities, ' that Mitigation Measures 4, 5 and 6 as described In the Initial Study be observed during construction of the project. 38. That prior to the issuance of building permits ' it be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director that energy conservation measures described as Mitigation Measures 13, 14 and 15 in the-Initial Study have been considered in project design. ' I Volume 33-Page 120 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCILMEN MINUTES "SG y '$i�.c'S�d''��n '�3�(�r''f'9'�9G'22 6` 'fl ROLL CALL ��T 9 INDEX ' I 39. That appropriate deed restriction(s) subject to the approval of the City Attorney and Director of Community Development be ' placed on Lot 21 as shown on Tentative Tract No. 10625 to inform any potential purchaser(,) of high noise levels and access restrictions on this site. ' 40. That the applicant provide assurance in a manner acceptable to the City Attorney and Director of Community Development that the off-site desilting basin will be retained or should any development of the desilting basin site occur, a basin of equal or greater capacity will be provided. 41. That all pad elevations shall be depicted on ' the subdivision map or lower. 42. That the height of all landscape materials shall not exceed a height of twenty-nine feet ' (291) above pad elevation or the ridge of the dwelling,whichever is lower. 43. That prior to the recordation of the Final Map the applicant shall deposit with the City ' an In-Lieu Park Fee in an amount as determined by the City Council in accordance with Section 19.50.070 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. ' 44. That additional traffic phasing studies be made between the Planning Commission meeting of April 5, 1979 and the City Council meeting of April 9, 1979, by the applicant, concurrent with continued work on this appli- cation. 45. That a pedestrian gate be added to the proposed wall for pedestrians and children to ' get from Salt Air Circle onto San Miguel Drive,to be placed at the end of Island View Drive. 46. That Lot 21 be designated as not a buildable ' lot. 47. That a five foot textured block wall be constructed in Lot C of Tract No. 6385 ' parallel to Salt Air Drive for the entire distance between Lots 15 and 49 of Tract No. 6385. Said textured block wall shall connect i I to the eight foot barrier adjacent to Lot 49, Tract No.6385,and shall connect to the rear ' wall on Lot 15,Tract No,6385. The base of the five foot textured block wall shall be con- structed at grade with the top of curb on Salt Air Drive adjacent to Lot C of Tract No.6385. � Volume 33- Page 121 i I ' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCILMEN MINUTES �• 93 TyF s�i� ROLL CALL d' INDEX ' 48. That a street lighting plan for San Miguel Drive be submitted to the Broadmoor Hills Community Association Board of Directors ' I for review and comment and to the Director of Community Development for the City of Newport Beach for approval prior to the issuance of building permits for residential dwellings within Tentative Tract No. 10625. Said streets lighting plan shall include con- sideration of provisions for minimizing the intrusion of peripheral street lighting into the existing homes easterly of Tentative Tract ' No. 10625. 49. That the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions recorded for Tentative Tract No. 10625 shall require the pruning of trees on t individual Lots 1-21 to limit the growth of said trees to the height of the building ridge line for each residential dwelling. 50. No construction shall be permitted on Lot 21 ' without the approval of the Broadmoor Hills Community Association as to view plane preservation and related impacts. ' Mayor 'Pro Tom Williams made the following state- ment. "What this does, in effect, is to ask the Council to approve the homes and necessary access to those homes via San Miguel Drive and delay at this time the proposal to extend San Miguel across MacArthur to Avocado and yet provides the funds to be made available at such time as needed or for other projects that are needed sooner if that can be accomplished." _ 5. Mayor Ryckoff opened the public hearing and City Use Permit ..-._ Council review of Use Permit No. 1053,a request of 1053 k Yves Ilriee and Yvan Humbert, Newport Beach, to Resub 623 amend a previously approved use permit permitting (3247) the establishment of a restaurant facility with on- sale alcoholic beverages on site. The proposed development includes live entertainment and the exritpansion of the dining areas within the existing Le Biarz restaurant, on property located at 414 ' N,North Newporth Boulevard, on the northeasterly ' Tner of Nort Newport Boulevard and Westminster v ue, zoned C-1. AND Resubdi 'on No. 623, a request of Yves Briee and ' Yvan Hu art, Newport Beach, to establish one building site a eliminate an interior lot line where two lots now e ' t to permit the expansion of the existing Leniarritz staurant facility. i Volume 33- Page 122 ' I it 1 ' Planning Commission Minutes 1 1 CqMMISSIONERS • • MINUTES City of Newport Beach February 22, 1979 ROLL CALL INDEX ' Req st to create three parcels of land, two parcel Item #7 for t Irvine Coast Country Club and related off- street rking lot and a residual parcel for a use RESUB- to be Net mined and the acceptance of an Environ- DIVISION mental Docu nt. NO. 116 ' Location: rtions of Blocks 55 and 93 , Ir- CONTINUED vin ' s Subdivision , located at 1600 TO MARCH ' East oast Highway on the northerly 8, 1979 side o East Coast Highway, between Jamboree oad and Newport Center Drive. ' Zones : 0-S , P-C, and classified Applicant: The Irvine Company, ewport Beach Owner: Same as Applicant Engineer: • Robert Bein , William Frost Assoc- ' .. iates , Newport Beach ' The Planning Commission continued this item to the meeting of March 8, 1979. ' Request to consider a Traffic Study for a proposed Item #8 subdivision containing 21 single family residential lots TRAFFIC STUDY ' Location: A portion of Block 93 , Irvine ' s Sub- division , located at 1401 San Miguel CONT. TO Drive , between MacArthur Boulevard MARCH ' and the proposed extension of San 22 , 1979 Miguel Drive , southwesterly of Roger s Gardens . Zones: R-A, R-1-B, and P-C. Applicant: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach ' Owner: Same as Applicant ' Engineer: Simpson-Steppat, Newport Beach ' -27- 'r COMMISSIONERS • • MINUTES City of Newport Beach �-y February 22 , 1979 INDEX ROLL CALL ' The Planning Commission continued this item to the meeting of March 22, 1979 . Tentative Map Tract No. 10625. Item #9 ' Location : A portion of Block 93, Irvine ' s Sub-TENTATIVE division , located at 1401 San MigueIM P TR CT ' Drive, between MacArthur Boulevard 40 . 10625 and the proposed extension of San Miguel Drive, southwesterly of Ro- .. CONT. TO ger' s Gardens . 4ARCH 22 , ' Zones : R-A, R-1-B , and P-C . 1979 ' Applicant: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach 0 er: Same as Applicant ' En in er:. Simpson-Steppat, Newport Beach ' The Planni g Commission continued this item to the meeting of rch 22, 1979. Request to permit th construction of a three-story Item #10 ' residential condomini project in the C-1-H Dis- trict , and the acceptan of an Environmental Do- USE PER- cument. A modification t the Zoning Code is also MIT NO. requested , since a portion f the residential park- 1901 ing spaces are occupied in t dem (where the Ordi- nance provides that all requi d parking spaces CONT. TO shall be accessible and usable) . The proposed de- MARCH 8, ' velopment also includes an office nd offstreet 1979 parking spaces for the Lido Sailin Club facility on the property. ' AND Request to establish one parcel of land whe a two Item #11 lots now exist so as to permit residential c do- minium development and the Lido Sailing Club ci- RESUB- lity on the property , and the acceptance of an - DIVYSION ' vironmental Document. NO. 118 t -28 , ATTACHMENT 1 1•LONIh1)SSIONERS MINUTES City of Ne,Wuno rt Beach DRAFT F yC�} yu` 0�02c�Gy April 5 , 1979 oZ ROLL CALL INDEX ' Commissioner Agee then stated his oppos o the motion due to his feeling that the s no substan tial or critical• need for thi oject. Commissioner Cokas ed his feeling that the pro - I would n fect the present situation . ' Com loner Beek suggested that the Planning Com- ssion , rather than the Community Development Dir, ector, review the project in 18 months . Ats x x x x x Motion was then voted on, which MOTION CARRIED . N x Request to consider a Traffic Study for a proposed Item #3 subdivision containing 21 single family residential lots TRAFFIC STUDY ' AND APPROVE Request to subdivide 12.97 acres into 21 numbered ONDI- lots for single family residential development , TIONALL one lettered lot for private street purposes , and one lettered lot for landscape open space. Said Item #4 request also includes the extension of San Miguel ' Drive , and the consideration of an Environmental TENTA- Document. TI'VE MA OF TRAC ' Location : X portion of Block 93, Irvine ' s Sub- N0 . 062 division , located at 1401 San Miguel Drive, between MacArthur Boulevard APPROVE ' and the proposed extension of San 'CO NDI- Miguel 'Drive , southwesterly of Ro- TIONALL ger' s Gardens . ' Zones : R-A , R-1-B , and P-C Applicant : The Irvine Company , Newport Beach ' Owner: Same as Applicant ' Engineer: Simpson-Steppat, Newport Beach ( Items No. 3 and 4 were heard concurrently because of their relationship . ) 7 ,COMMISSIONERS MINUTES 000 Spy City of Newport Beach April.. 5 , 1979 oZ .. ROLL CALL INDEX ' The Planning Commission recessed at 9 : 00 p.m. and reconvened at 9 : 10 p.m. Fred Talarico , Environmental Coordinator, appeared before the Planning Commission to answer several questions made by Commissioner Haidinger. Initial - ly, he stated that there is no specific Condition of Approval to restrict development of Lot 21 . Ad- ditionally , Richard Hogan , Community Development Department Director, stated that the in-lieu park fees are used for park purposes and are segregated ' from the parking lot fees. He further explained that Condition of Approval. No . 21 is a require- ment of the Public Works Department placed on all subdivisions , as payment of an acreage fee estab- lished by an ordinance some time ago required of each development to pay back the cost of the de- velopment of that reservoir. Fred Talarico ex- plained Condition of Approval No . 11 as a sugges- tion that the 5 ' barrier be put in place unless it was determined that a higher one be required and the mitigation measure in this case would be cover- ed as was the detailed noise analysis and the in- tent is to mitigate the impact on those lots . He further stated the cost of the initial study as approximately $10 ,000 for 21 lots. Larry Seeman, City' s Consultant on the pro- ject, 16 Lakeside , Irvine , appeared before the Plan ning Commission to answer a question by Commissione Haidinger, stating that lots 5 , 6 and 20 were sele- cted as prototypical Tots and that Lot 5 exceeded : the 65 CNEL (the City' s criterion for external nois in residential areas)criterion and that Lots 3 and 4 (average for 24 hour period) weren't specifically analyzed , but topographical relationships indicated that they would be equally exposed . In response to a question by Commissioner McLaughlin , he stated that with respect to the mitigation measure , a 5 ' wall would be inadequate , but that a specific analy - sis as to the exact height of that wall was not made. John Parnell , 5959 W. Century Blvd . , L .A. , Physical ' Engineer, working on the project for the Consultant appeared before the Planning Commission and stated -8- OMMISSIONFERS MINUTES Cott' of Natvport Beach P 2 April 5 , 1979 2 R L CALL INpEX that the peak hour, using the same type analysis procedure would be the energy mean for that one hou period as opposed to a 24 hour period and the value would necessarily be lower than the 65 CNEL level and any activities occuring during the evening and night hours are weighted disproportionately (one is a 24 hour average and one is a one hour average , de ' ri.ved from the total traffic volume during that one hour period , divided by the number of seconds in that hour. ) In response to a question by Commissioner Beek , Mr. Parnell stated that these figures also take into consideration the effect of climbing a grade , or a ' 3-4% grade climbed by a poorly mufflered vehicle would add about 2 dB' s and that there are no cor- responding reduction figures for vehicles going down-grade on the other 'side. ' In response to a com- ment from Commissioner Agee, he added that raising the wall approximately 2. 5% could bring the noise level within the City ' s standards . Commissioner McLaughlin inquired about the southerly bike trail , to which Mr. Webb responded that there would be a sidewalk constructed on the southerly side., and tha the 10 ' wide northerly bike trail would be 2-direc- tional . ' Commissioner Agee expressed his observation that the one in greatest violation to the acceptable level is San Miguel Cul -de-Sac (C6B) and Avocado split -from MacArthur to the- ocean side of San Joaquin Hills Rd. , or projected ICU ' s with or without San J'oa,quin .Hills Corridor of 1. 72 and 1 . 56 at San Joaquin Hills Road and MacArthur Boulevard , or substantially over 0. 90 ' to the fourth decimal . He also expressed his under- standing that the purpose of the initial study is to identify the environmental impact of the project and enable the applicant and lead agency to modify the project and correct adverse impacts if at all pos- � sible , and in this case the initial study was used to provide a written determination of whether a Neg- ative Declaration or EIR should be prepared or not. The California Environmental Quality Act states that here a project is revised in response to the initia study so that potential environmental effects re mitigated to a point where there are no signifi- ant environmental effects that would occur from the ' project, a Negative Declaration shall be issued ra- ther than an EIR. The Environmental Affairs Commit- tee of the City reviewed this project and felt that -9- 'CO9U MISSIOAIERS MINUTES City of Newport Beach � '9��'S• FS O�'P'ZC 9C a y Apri 1 ;5, 1979 z A cnu llaa>:x � ' those conditions were met and accepted the docu- ment. 1 The public hearing was opened regarding this item and Keith Greer, Irvine Company, appeared before the Planning Commission to make a brief presenta- tion on the Harbor Point Community: 1) 21 single family homes 2) Lot sizes 10 ,400 sq. ft: in size 3) Slope banks 9,000 sq. ft. net 4) 21 homes as private community and potential fo private controlled access entry 5) $300 ,000 price range of homes ' 6) The Irvine Company retains control over archi - tecture 7) Reduction in land use from original garden-of- fice 'concept, to provide for reductions in traffic and noise impacts 8) Proposing, construction . of a link in the circu- lation •system for Newport Beach I 9 ) Construction of four-lane road with landscaped median . 0) Traffic. signal at MacArthur and San Miguel 1) Traffic signal at San Miguel and Avocado 2) Cost of project - $500 ,000 3) The Irvine Company accepts responsibility of L those costs in conjunction with the developmen of Harbor Point 4) • Improvements to San Miguel are consistent with the City' s General Plan Circulation Element .. 5) Consistent with Planning Commission and Traffi Advisory Committee ' s recent recommendation to City Council ' 6) Lot 21 will be a segregated lot, below San Mi - guel Drive , with a wall and berm constructed at a combined height of 8' ' Mr. Greer then concluded with a brief -review of the seven additional conditions prepared in response to concerns expressed to The Irvine Company by a rep- resentative of the Community Association , and to ex- press his concern regarding two of the Staff' s sug- gested conditions . With regard to Condition No . 45 , Mr. Greer commented that the land value is being questioned and reviewed with the City ' s appraisal o comparable park land and the $112 ,987 . 42 figure is very deceptive and the reference to said figure ' should be deleted and require instead park fees to be paid in the amount as established by the City Council in accordance with Section 19 . 50 . 070 of the ' Newport Beach Municipal Code. He further expressed �o COWAISSiONERS MINUTEST ' �v.o City of ewpayt Beech om�o'Z�C O'd c oZ .Z April •5 , 1979 L CALL INDEX his second area of concern regarding the City Coun- ' cil ' s recently adopted Policy S-1 on the Traffic Phasing Ordinance , adopting new administrative pro- cedures after their original proposal was postponed with a four week continuance to gain everyone ' s im- put, and the resultant penalty placed on them due to the postponement .and that therefore they will no now come under control of the Traffic Phasing Ordi - nance , and he suggested a continuance to deal with the new administrative procedures . He further req- uested that. the Staff evaluate the Traffic Impact under the new procedures and report .the findings to the City Council with the results of that analysis to return to the Planning Commission only in the event that they do not .meet the requirements of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance under the new procedures . Robert Rosenberg , Corona del Mar, appeared before 1 the Planning Commission to state his basic approval of the building of Harbor Point and to express his concern regarding San Miguel Drive . -He further stated his understanding that there is a difference in the present project loads with and without San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor and his fur-ther understanding that without the Corridor the ICU ' s do not exceed 0. 90. He additionally stated his understanding that the Citizen ' s Committee has not approved San Miguel Drive , and to express his feeling that the extension of San Miguel Drive at this time is premature , is not desirable for the City or for the adjoining neighborhood communities at this time and better alternatives are' available, (right turn lane at San Miguel Dr. , off the exist- ing MacArthur or off the Avocado couplet will re- lieve the -through traffic on San Joaquin Hills Rd . • hich later turns in at Santa Rosa and facilitate the exit from Newport Center by extending San Nicho- las to San Joaquin Hills Road for a right turn) , that this project should require an EIR , due to the upper limits of acceptable noise standards , and that ' the development of Harbor Point does not depend upon he extension of San Miguel Drive . He concluded by ' requesting a separation of the consideration of the arbor Point project from the consideration of the San Miguel extension . ary Lou Furness , 2501 Bluewater Lane , Corona del ' ar, appeared before the Planning Commission to ex- -11- CO&OAISSJONERS M114UTF-SQ City of Newvport Beach �Z April 5 , 1979, 02 I ROIL CALL INDEX � ' press her delight with the Harbor Point project and to state that she had no objection to San Miguel Cul -de-Sac feeding Harbor Point. She then requeste that the Planning Commission delete the extension o San Miguel Drive from the Master Plan and include Dr. Rosenberg ' s suggested traffic flow, for several reasons , including her feeling that the widening of MacArthur Boulevard and Avocado Avenue would be pre- ferable and safer, and the undesirable aspects of routing commercial traffic for Corporate Plaza and ' Newport Center to a residential area would be avoid ed . She then stated her objection to the noise and pollution extending San Miguel Drive would bring , and her further impression that adding traffic ligh s ' to MacArthur Blvd'. and .Avocado Ave . would increase the traffic accident rate. Brian Smith appeared before the Planning Commission to question some of the aspects of the project , in- cluding his belief in the necessity of an EIR, due ' to his feeling that a four-lane highway close to a residential home area is a significant impact on the environment and his further -feeling that the exten- sion of San Miguel Drive is not necessary to the Harbor Point project, and he stated that he would like to see other alternatives . ' Phillip Arst then appeared before the Planning Com- mission to state his approval of the development of the Harbor Point homes and to express his concern regarding the extension of a major arterial highway • alongside a residential neighborhood. He conveyed his feeling that San Miguel would have a major dele- terious impact upon the local environment and to convey his further feeling that the initial study does not adequately examine the impact upon their existing residences . He additionally ,relayed his. understanding that the figure of 60 ,500 ADT' s a day is in substantial disagreement with the 48,700 ADT ' s figure used in the Newport Center Study , and the ad- ditional disagreement of the 23,219 figure relating '. to the Traffic Study issued by the Department of Public Works on March 26 , 1979 . In response to a question by Commissioner Agee , Don ebb , Public Works Department Subdivision Engineer, ' assured him that the ICU figures for the peak hours re accurate figures . 'COMMISSIONERS MINUTES City of Nail port Beach � 9�fS� 9u, O��a2C 7C April• 5, 1979 02 A CALL Ted Carpenter, President of the Harbor View Broadmoor Com- INDEX munity Association, appeared before the Planning Commission to express his appreciation to Keith Greer and the Irvine Company for their cooperation and to state his support of Harbor Point and the development of property as single fam- ily residential property. He further expressed his strong opposal to the San Miguel extension for the reasons previous ly stated. Mr. Greer again appeared before the Planning Commission to explain that the plan for the Irvine Coastal area to which ' Phil Arst-was referring was based on original population projections of. 50,000 people and the present plan as now being considered by the County and the. Coastal Commission ' is 38,000 people, accounting for the difference. He further stated, in response to people's concern of projections as far advanced as •1998, that the need is much more immediate, or 2-3 years• hence, and he asked for a verification from the '. City's Traffic Engineer, to which Don Webb, Department of Public Works Subdivision Engineer, responded that increase of traffic on MacArthur Boulevard and Avocado Avenue is 7-9% a year, and at that rate, the intersection of San Joaquin Hills Road• and MacArthur Boulevard will reach the 0.90 level in 1981-1982, in which case the construction of San Miguel Drive would allow traffic to be shifted from that intersec- tion and allow the intersection to work at below 0.90 ICUs. A There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Beek then stated that he felt that Lot 21 shoul 1 not be allowed to be developed. R. Henry Mohle, Traffic Consultant on the project, stated that two intersections (as shown on page 9 of the Staff Re- ; port) indicate that the intersections of MacArthur Boulevard San Joaquin Hills Road/San Miguel Drive are over 1%. Moon X Motion was made that the Planning Commission make the follow- ing findings: 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the peak hour tra - fic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 2. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project-gener- ated traffic will be greater than one percent of exist- ing traffic during the 2.5 hour peak period on any leg of the intersection of San Joaquin Hills Road and Mac- Arthur Boulevard. 13 'COWAISSIONERS MINUTES rt Beach City of Newpo April 5 , 1979 2 • R LCALL 3. That the Traffic Study indicates that the pro INDEX ' ject-generated traffic will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on any 'major' , ' primary-modified' or ' primary ' street. 4. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all or- dinances of the City, all applicable general or specific plans , and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. ' 5. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. 6. That the site is -physically suitable for the type of development proposed. ' 7. That the site is physically suitable for % the proposed density of development. I 8. That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the Cal - ifornia Environmental Quality Act, and that their contents have been considered in the de- cisions on this project. 9. That based on the information contained in the Negative Declaration , the project incorporates sufficient mitigation measures to reduce poten - tially-significant environmental effects , and that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts . 10. That the design of the subdivision or the pro- posed improvement will not substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their ha- bitat. i. That the design of the subdivision or the pro- posed improvements are not likely to cause ser - ious public health problems . 2. That the design of the subdivision or the pro- posed improvements will not conflict with any easements , acquired by the public at large , fo access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision . 3. That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision will not result in or add to any violation of existing requirements prescribed pv COM1M ISSIONERS MINUTES rl City of Newpor Beach m 9`'s� vs om�a2c vc I April 5, 1979 Rca CALL by a California Regional Water Quality Contro INDEX Board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 1300) of the Water Code. and approve the Traffic Study and the Tentative I Map of Tract No . 10625 , subject to the following conditions : 1. That a tract map be filed. 2. That all improvements• be constructed as requit - ed by ordinance and the Public Works Departme t. 3. That Section 19.. 16.030 of the Subdivision Or- dinance be waived provided that drawings of the tract map at ' a scale of 1"=100 ' are provi- ded to the Public Works Department. 4. That vehicular access to Lot 21 be limited to one driveway approach on San Miguel Drive. This driveway approach shall be limited. to ' righ.t turn in and out only. The location of the - driveway approach shall be subject to fur- ther study and approval of the Public Works . and Community Development Departments prior t filing of the tract map. The driveway approach location shall be located as far away from Mac - Arthur Boulevard as possible. ' 5. That all vehicular access rights to MacArthur Boulevard, except at the public street inter- section , be released and relinquished to the-- City. 6. That the remaining street improvements along , the easterly side of MacArthur Boulevard fron- tage adjacent to the tract be completed includ - ing a 10-foot-wide sidewalk-bike trail . ' 7. That the minimum right-of-way width of San Mi - guel Drive between Avocado Avenue and MacArthu Boulevard be 114 feet. 8. That all vehicular access rights to San Miguel Drive , except for two private drive openings and the public street intersection , be release and relinquished to the City . ' 9 . That San Miguel Drive be improved to its ultimate sec- tion from Avocado Avenue to San Joaquin Hills Road, in- cluding modification of the existing traffic signal at ' the intersection of San Joaquin Hills Road with San Mi- guel Drive. COMMISSIONERS MINUTES City of Newwpo t 'Beach � `Cs� 9s�o��o-Zc9c • o F� o -y April 5 , 1979 Z L CALL INDEX 10. That traffic signals be installed by the deve- loper at the intersections of San Miguel Drive with MacArthur Boulevard and Avocado Avenue . The implementation of this requirement at the intersection of San Miguel . Drive with Avocado Avenue shall be subject to verification by the City of signal warrants , and a separate agree- ment and surety- may be provided for this work . If the traffic signal warrants are not met wit - in a five-year period after acceptance by the Council of the public improvements for the tract, the developer shall be relieved from this portion of the condition of approval . ' 11. That the noise impact from MacArthur Boulevard and San Miguel Drive be considered and that the dwelling units be designed to provide for sound attenuation in accordance with the re- quirements of law and the recommendation of a qualified acoustical engineer. Specifically , ' that acoustical attenuation devices be includ- ed in final project design as described in mi - tigation measure 11 of the Initial Study and that a higher barrier be erected , if requested unanimously by the residents of Lots 3, 4 and 5. ' 12. That the design of the• private streets conform with the City' s private street policy. 13. That the structural section of the private streets and drives be designed in accordance with standard civil engineering practice. The ' design will be approved and the construction in- spected by the Public Works Department. The standard plan check and inspection fee shall . be paid. ' 14. That the private streets shall have 'a street light system approved by the Public Works De- partment. 15 . That the California Vehicle Cade be enforced on the private streets . 6 . That a traffic control plan shall be submitted and approved by the City ' s Traffic Engineer. -16- 'CQMM1 SSIONERS MINUTES City of N'import Beach o�oma 1�-y April 5 , 1979 2 R L CALL INDEX ' 17. That if it is desired to have a control gate o the entrance off San Miguel Drive , a turna- round shall be provided prior to the gate. Th design of the controlled entrance shall be re- viewed and approved by the Public Works and Community Development Departments . 19. That a 10-foot-wide sidewalk-bike trail be pro vided on the northerly side of San Miguel Driv . ' 19. That the median in San Miguel Drive be improve with an -irrigation system, landscaping , and cobblestone pavement. The plans shall be ap- proved by the Parks , ' Beaches and Recreation .Department and the Public -Works Department. 20. That the water capital improvement acreage fee ' be paid. 21. That storage capacity in San Joaquin Reservoir ' equal -to one maximum day' s demand be dedicated to the City. ' 22. That easements for ingress , egress and public utility purposes on Lot "A" be dedicated to the City. 23. That 3-foot-w1de easements for public utility purposes adjacent to Lot "A" be dedicated to the City. 24. That a subdivision agreement and accompanying surety be provided if it is desired to record the final tract map prior to completion of the public improvements . 25 . That all work within the MacArthur Boulevard' ' right-of-way be done under an encroachment per- mit issued by the 'California Department of Transportation . 26 . That sight distance for the bike trail along the westerly side of San Miguel Drive be pro-. ' vided for the future driveway approach for Roger ' s Gardens . ' 27. That on-site fire hydrants be provided as re- quired by the Public Works Department and the Fire Department. COMMISSIONERS MINUTES Ia City of NeVvport Beach April 5 , 1979 2 R L CALL INDEX 28. That Fire Department access shall be approved by the Fire Department. 29. A landscape and irrigation plan for all common areas shall be prepared by a licensed landscap architect. Said plan shall include a mainten- ance program which controls the use of organo- ' phosphates and pesticides . 30. That the landscape plan shall place heavy em- phasis on the use of drought-resistant or ornamental vegetation. 31. That planting be done on any exposed slopes as soon as possible to reduce erosion potential . Prior to the occupancy of any dwelling unit th licensed landscape architect shall certify to ' the Department of Community Development that the landscaping has been installed -in accordan e with the prepared plan . ' 32. Development of the site will be subject to a grading permit to be approved by 'the Depart- ment of Community Development. Surface and subsurface drainage shall be provided to the . satisfaction of the Community Development De- partment and the Public Works Department . 1 33. An erosion and dust control plan shall be sub- mitted with the grading permit application and be subject to the approval of the Community De- velopment Department. 34. That drainage along RacArthur Boulevard adjac- ent to the tract be improved in conjunction with Tract grading ; if grading and drainage ' are to be accomplished as a precise plan , this should be accomplished prior to finalizaiton o the grading plan . 35 . That a lined brow ditch (es ) be provided on of site areas where cuts are proposed on the tract , and in accordance with the precise grading plan to be approved by the Community Development De- partment. ' 36. That a detailed geotechnical report be prepared prior to approval of the final tract map and before finalization of a grading plan , subject Imo- -- - -- • U0,3VIMISSIONE iS MMUTES City of Newport Beach April 5 , 1979 y R l CALL INDEX ' to the approval of the Public Works Department and Community Development Department. - ' 37 . That an erosion and siltation control plan be approved by the Califronia Regional Water Qual - ity Control Board - Santa Ana Region , and that the plan be submitted to said Board ten days prior to any construction activities . 38. That the applicant provide for street sweeping services for all non-dedicated streets equal to that service provided by the City for resi - dential area streets . 39. That in order -to retain the physical integrity of midden deposits during grading activities , that mitigation measures 4,. 5 and 6 as descri - bed in the Initial Study be observed during construction of the project. 40. That prior to the issuance of building permits it be' demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director that energy con- servation measures described as mitigation mea- sures 13, 14 and 15 in the Initial Study have been considered in project design. 41. That appropriate deed restriction• (s) subject lo the approval of the City Attorney and Director of Community Development be placed on Lot 21-- as shown on Tentative Tract No . 10625 to inforn any potential purchaser (s) of high noise le- vels and access restrictions on this site. 42. That the applicant provide assurance in a man*- ner acceptable to the City Attorney and Direc- tor of Community Development that the off-site desalting basin will be retained or should any development of the desalting basin site occur , a basin of equal or greater capacity will be. provided. 43. That all pad elevations shall be as depicted ' on the subdivision map or lower. 44. That the height of all landscape materials shall ' not exceed a height of twenty-nine feet (29 feet) above pad elevation or the ridge of the dwelling , whichever is lower. '•�:O;VM4SSIOPIERS WHUTE O'- laity of Nuuvport Beach •' � 9��} 9U\ Q�pOZCC G�' °soma �-y April 5 , 1979 2 ' R L CALL INDEX 45. That prior to the recordation of the Final Map the applicant shall deposit with the City an In-lieu Park Fee in an amount as determined by the City Council in accordance with Section 19. 50. 070 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 46. That additional traffic phasing studies be made between the Planning Commission meeting of April 5 , -1979 and the City Council meeting of April 9 , 1979 , by the applicant concurrent with continued work on this application. 47. That a pedestrian gate be added to the propose ' wall for pedestrians and children to get from Salt- Air Circle onto San Miguel Drive , to be placed at the end of Island View Drive. ' 48. That Lot 21 be designated as not a buildable lot. 49. That a textured block wall and berm of a com- bined height of 8' be constructed. on Lot 21 of Tentative Tract No . 10625 parallel to San Mi - guel Drive and MacArthur Boulevard . The com- bined wall and berm shall connect at the inter- section of San Miguel Drive and MacArthur Boul - vard and extend easterly a distance of 250 ' on San Miguel Drive from the intersection of San Miguel Drive and MacArthur Boulevard and south- erly a distance of 300 ' on MacArthur Boulevard from the intersection of San Miguel. Drive and MacArthur Boulevard. The textured block wall located within Lot 21 parallel to San Miguel Drive shall connect to the 8' barrier adjacent to Lot 49 , Tract No . 6385 as specified below in Condition Number 2. The developer shall be re- sponsible for the planting of trees and ground cover on the berms specified in this condition of approval . ' 50. That an 8 ' barrier be constructed " in the .right- of-way of San Miguel Drive adjacent to Lot 49 of Tract No . 6385 . 1 . That a 5' textured block wall be constructed in Lot C of Tract No . 6385 parallel to Salt Air Drive for the entire distance between Lots 15 and 49 of Tract No . 6385. Said textured block wall shall connect to the 8' barrier adjacent to Lot 49 , Tract No. 6385 and shall connect to EOb9misSIONERS MINUTES ,le,) 9c� @FM°o��pm�. City of NeAukiport Beach o c' April 5 , 1979 2 R L GALL INDEX the rear wall on Lot 15 , Tract No. 6385 . The base of the 5 ' • textured block wall shall be constructed at grade with the top of curb on Salt Air Drive adjacent to Lot C of Tract No . 6385. ; This condition of approval shall be applicable ' only in the event that the Broadmoor Hills Com- munity Association and the owners of Lots 15 and 49 of Tract No. 9385 consent to the const- ruction of said 5 ' textured block wall within ' 60 days of receipt of the developer' s request for approval of the construction of said wall . The developer shall be responsible for the re- . placement , repair ' or modification to plantings and irrigation systems which result from the construction of said wall-. ' 52 . That a street lighting plan for San Miguel Drive be submitted to the Broadmoor Hills Com- munity Association Board of Directors for re- ' view• and comment and to the Director of Com- munity Development for the City of Newport Beach for approval prior to the issuance of building permits for residential dwellings with- in Tentative Tract No. 10625 . Said street lighting plan shall include consideration of provisions for minimizing the intrusion of peripheral street lighting into the existing homes easterly of' Tentative Tract No. 10625 . ' 53. That the Covenants , Conditions , and Restric- tions recorded for Tentative Tract No . 10625 shall require the pruning of trees on indivi - . ' dual Lots 1-21 so. as to limit the growth of said trees to the height of the building ridge line for each residential dwelling . 54. That the elevation• of the building ridge line- and the maximum height of trees on Lot 21 Tentative Tract No . 10625 shall be limited to a height of 227 ' above sea level . ' 55 . That an analysis of the estimated noise level at the residences located on Lots 15 and 49 of Tract No. 6385 shall be performed by a qual- ified acoustical engineer selected by the Dir- ector of Community Development for the City of -21- CCIPAMJSSIONERS MINUTES City of Newport Beach 09 April 5, 1979 2 ' R L CALL INDEX Newport Beach . For the purpose of this acous- tical analysis , the acoustical engineer shall measure the noise levels as artificially in- creased to reflect the anticipated noise im- pacts resulting from the vehicular traffic on San Miguel Drive as measured in the year 1995 . Based on the conclusions of this analysis , the developer shall ° be required .to construct sound attenuation measures if any are required in ac- cordance with the requirements of state law and the.. recommendation of the acoustical en- gineer. The construction of such sound atten- uation measures shall only be required in the event � that. the individual owners of Lots 15 an 49 of Tract No . 6385 consent to the construc- tion of said sound attenuation measures . 56. An additional Traffic Study be prepared in accordance with City Policy S-1 for review by the City Council in ' conjunction with their consideration of this project. Commissioner McLaughlin stated that she would not support the four-lane extension of San Miguel Drive as she felt that it was premature to the need, and she further stated her understanding that the Plan- ning Commission could yet consider alternates to the San Miguel Drive extension and modify the trans- portation element. ' Commissioner Beek ' expressed his feeling that a lot of work is yet to be done relating to the study of the circulation element, including alternates to _ ' consider such as couplets , back-bay bypasses and Sa Miguel and University Drives and the completion of the report .by the consultant preparing the traffic ' model . Commissioner Agee then 'expressed his understanding ' that for the interim the transportation element is complete. Commissioner Balalis stated that the letter from Robert Wynn , City Manager, to Richard Hogan , Commun ity Development Director, concerning the City Council meeting of March 26 , 1979 stating that all recommen- dations of the Planning Commission will be intact. and acceptable to the City Council except those in disagreement with the Transportation Advisory Commit - tee Memorandum, and he expressed his understanding that the Planning Commission recommended the San Mi - guel Extension and is part of the Circulation Eleme t. I -22- lCOM;SRSSIONERS MINUTES �� 1 . 9c� ��� °o���M�� City of Pie"Awpo t Beach M y�s1, yu` tn,A'2c TC April 5 , 1979 2 ' M11LL CALL INDEX ion x An Amendment to the Motion was made that the consi - Ayes x x deration of extending San Miguel Drive (Agenda Item N s x x x x No. 3) be separated from the consideration of the A ent x Harbor Point Development (Agenda Item No . 4) , which MOTION FAILED . Is x x x x Original Motion was then voted on , which MOTION CAR oes x x RIED. Agent x Commissioner Balalis stated his support of the mo- tion and asked that the record show that the reason for his support is due to his feeling that the in- formation shown to the Planning Commission shows th need for San Miguel Drive by 1982', and he further stated that if any other additional data becomes ' available that he is not aware of and if that need was not shown at this point in time , he would not be as supportive as he is . ' Commissioner Beek stated that he was opposing the motion because of his feeling that an EIR is re- quired on . a proposal to put a stoplight on a major highway climbing a grade next to a residential de- velopment, which he feels is a major environmental impact, and his further feeling that concern for th traffic load of the intersections could be alleviat- ed by sealing off San Joaquin Hills Road at the Cit boundary so that no traffic comes in from down coast , ' and by sealing off San Miguel Drive and Ford Road at the City boundary so no traffic comes in from Bonita Canyon . - I ion x Motion was then made that the Planning Commission Is x x x x recommend to the City Council that the 25% of the o s x x in-lieu park fee , generated by the project, be creme ent x dited to The Irvine Company for the non-development of Lot 21 and that the other 75% be put into the park fund. Request to consider an amendment to Chapter 20. 87 AMEND- of the Newport Beach Municipal Code as it applies MENT N the definition of the terms "Dwelling Unit" and ' 525 "Fame ' and the acceptance of an Environmental Do- ' current. "`^�� APPROVE ' Initiated By :: The Ci f Newport Beach -23- , ' ATTACHMENT #6 tI 6) Supplemental Traffic Data - Mohle , Perry and Associates - ' March 16, 1979 (See Attachment #5 - pages 4 through 29 ) t 1 1 "`coAMISSIONERS MINUTES City of Newport Beach Regular Planning Commission Meeting Place : City Council Chambers Z Time: 7; 30 P .M. z Date: March 22 , 1979 INDEX ROLL CALL Present x Y x x Absent x x x ' EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS R. V . Hogan , Community Development Director Hugh Coffin , Assistant City Attorney ' Bill Dye, Public Works Subdivision Engineer STAFF MEMBERS ' James D. Hewicker, Assistant Director-Planning Glenna Gipe , Secretary ' Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission Meetings of February 22, 1979 and March 8, 1979 was continued to the meeting of April 5 , 1979 . ' Motion x Motion was made that Items 1 and 8 be removed from Ayes x x x the calendar, and that Items 2 , 3, 4 and 5 be con- Absent x x x tinued to the- meeting of April 5 , 1979 . Request to create one parcel of land so as to per- Item #1 mit the conversion of existing residential units ' into a residential condominium complex. RESUB- DIVISION Location : Lot 1 , .Tract No . 5425 , located at N 14 851-869 Domingo Drive , on the south- easterly side of Domingo Drive , be- REMOVED tween Amigos Way and Mar Vista Drive FROM THE adjacent to the Bluffs residential C LE DAR development.. ' Zone : R-3-B, P. R. D . ' Applicant: Hall & Foreman , Inc . , Santa Ana Owner: Daon Corporation , Newport Beach ' Engineer: Same as Applicant -i- 1 COMMISSIONERS MINbTEV City of Newport Beach y March 22, 1979 ROLL CALL The Planning Commission removed Item No. 1 from •the INDEX ' calendar, as per the owner' s request. , Request to consider an amendment to Chapter 20.87 Item #2 ' of the Newport Beach Municipal Code as it applies to the definition of the terms "Dwelling Unit AMEND- and "Family" and the acceptance of an Environmental WENT NO. Document. 525 Initiated By: The City of Newport Beach CONTIN- UTD T O The Planning Commission continued Item No. 2 to the 1P ,ILL5_, regular Planning Commission Meeting of April 5, 1979 as per the staff' s suggestion , due to the fact ' that three Planning Commissioners, were absent from the meeting of March 22 , 1979. Request to consider a Traffic Study for a proposed Item #3 subdivision containing 21 single family residential lots . TRAFFIC, ' STUDY AND CONTIN- , Request to subdivide 12.97 acres into 21 numbered UE—D TO lots for ,single family residential development, one APRIL 50 lettered tot for private street purposes , and one M-9 lettered lot for landscape open space. Said re- quest also includes the extension of San Miguel Item #4 Drive, and the consideration of an Environmental Document, TENTA- TIVE MAIN Location: A portion of Block 93, Irvine' s Sub- OF TRACT division, located at 1401 San Mi-guel 1-0625 Drive, between MacArthur Boulevard and the proposed extension of San CONTI-N- Miguel Drive , southwesterly of UED TO Roger' s Gardens . P�5 1979� Zones : R-A, R-1-13 , and P-C. Applicant: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach ' Owner: Same as Applicant .. Engineer: Simpson-Steppat, Newport Beach ' -2- ' ' COMMISSIONERS MINUTES City of Newport Beach a March 22 , 1979 2 ROLL CALL INDEX ' The Planning Commission continued Items 3 and 4 to the regular Planning Commission Meeting of April 5 , 1979 . Request to create three parcels of land , two par- Item #5 cels for the Irvine Coast Country Club and related ' offstreet parking lot and a residual parcel for a RESUB- use to be determined and the acceptance of an En- DIVISION vironmental Document. N0. 616 Location : Portions of Blocks 55 and 93, Ir- CONTIN- vine ' s Subdivision , located at 1600 UED TO East Coast Highway on the northerly APRIL 5 , ' side of East Coast Highway , between 1T79— Jamboree Road and Newport Center Drive. ' Zones : 0-S , P-C , and Unclassified Applicant: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach ' W Owner: Same as Applicant ' Engineer: Robert Bein, William Frost & Asso- ciates , Newport Beach The Planning Commission continued Item 5 to the ' regular Planning Commission Meeting of April 5 , 1979 as per the applicant ' s request , so as to pro- vide additional time to review and consider the ' changes which have been requested by the Depart- ment of Public Works . ' Request to create one parcel of land so as to per- Item #6 mit the construction of a two unit residential con ' dominium complex on the site. RESUB-, DIVISION Location : Lot 5, Block 439 , Canal Section , to NW.-221 cated at 408 40th Street, on the ' southeasterly corner of 40th Street DENIED and Channel Place on Newport Island ' Zone : R-2 w ' -3- COMMISSIONERS MIgulre City of Newport Beach March 22, 1979 2 ROLL CALL Applicant: Paul Shapiro , Newport Beach INDEX Owner: Phyllis Kerwin Estate, Newport Beach ' Engineer: Duca-McCoy, Corona del Mar ' Commissioner Beek requested an explanation regard- ing the legal aspects of the maps , to which Hugh ' Coffin , Assistant City Attorney, responded that ac- cording to the State Subdivision Map Act, when a parcel of land is used fo.r a condominium develop- ' ment, it constitutes a "subdivision" and as such needs a subdivision map , or a parcel map if fewer than 5 parcels . He further stated that the map submitted by the applicant to the Commission was a tentative map and that a final parcel map would be prepared, should the tentative map be approved by the Planning Commission. He also explained that to ' the case of an airspace condominium, the map would, not show how the airspace is divided, and would sho only a map for condominium purposes , further stat- ing that the land is owned in common ,further the ,owners of the condominium and each owner owns fee in the airspace of the condominium, as defined in a document called Condominium Plan , prepared and , submitted to the Real Estate Commissioner. He con- cluded by stating that there Would be a set of Cov- enants , Conditions and Restrictions that would be prepared and would set forth the rights , responsi - bilities and duties of each condominium owner re- garding upkeep, repairs , maintenance and management Bill Dye, Department of Public Works Subdivision ' Engineer, added that a requirement of the Subdivi - sion Code is that there be a purpose statement on the Final Parcel Map recorded with the County Re- ' corder, and that regarding Resubdivision No. 621, the purpose statement would indicate a creation of one parcel from one existing tot for the purpose of ' a two-unit residential condominium complex. The public hearing was opened regarding this item, and Paul Shapiro, Applicant, 3804 River Avenue, ' appeared before the Planning Commission to state his concurrence with the findings and conditions as set forth in the Staff Report. ' 1 ' 'COMMISSIONERS MINUTES City of Newport Beach March 22 , 1979 o y INDEX ROLL CALL James Edwards , 3906 Channel Place , appeare7before the Planning Commission and stated his ownof 11z lots within a 300 foot radius of thcant' s property. He additionally stated hstanding that a granting of the applicant'regarding this item would perhaps be grant right very few on the island could acquire . He also stated. his understanding that there are, 110 or more lots on the island, a majority of which are 30 ' x 901 , leaving approximately 700 sq . ft. f developable living space on the ground floor, 1 ,600 - 1,700 sq . ft. on the second floor, with a maximum of 2 ,400 sq . ft. of buildable space. He further expressed his feeling that approval of this request would set a precedent for the future, with ' a possible future of 110 dual family condominiums n the island , and an extreme density and downgrad- ing of the island. ' Margaret Wymer, 23905 Marcus Avenue , appeared be- fore the Planning Commission to express her concern regarding the parking density, including her feel - ing that the addition of two units would add six cars , and that approval of this request would set precedent for the future. She posed a question ' f the Staff concerning the difference between a ondominium and a duplex, to which Richard Hogan , ommunity Development Director, responded that each nit of a condominium is a fee title to the air- ;pace so that each unit of a condominium is owned y one person ; whereas , regarding a duplex, both hits are owned by one person , further stating that ' 11 parcels on Newport Island are zoned R-2 and can e developed with two units , and that it would make o difference in the design or appearance of the uilding as to whether those two units are develop- , d under one ownership or under condominium regula- tions which would allow two ownerships . ' Charles Vanderpool , 400 40th Street, appeared be- fore the Planning Commission to express 'hi-s con- cern regarding the parking problems on Newport Is- land and his feeling that building condominiums ' would only intensify the parking problem. Alan Miller, 404 40th Street, appeared before the ' Planning Commission to ask for a clarification regarding Finding No. 3 of the Staff .Report, to which Bill Dye , Department of Public Works Subdivi - sion Engineer, responded that this corner cutoff ' would be an arc with a radius of 15' and would be ' -5 COMMISSIONERS MINbTEW- City of Newport Beach March 22, 1979 ROLL CALL INDEX ' dedicated to the public for street and highway pur poses . Mr. Miller concluded by expressing his con cern regarding the parking problem. Moreen Vanderpool , 400 40th Street, appeared be- ' fore the Planning Commission to express her feel - ing that the building of a condominium would pre- ' sent an additional parking problem and detract from the aesthetics of the island. ' Paul Shapiro again appeared before the Planning ' Commission to state his definite intention to build a building on the lot and to state his feel- ing that a duplex would be more deleterious to the ' area than a two-fafiiTy residential condominium com plex. Richard Hogan, Director of Community Development, , expressed his understanding that the concern with the project was not whether the building was a du- plex or a condominium, but what the zoning is . , Moreen Vanderpool again appeared before the Plan- ning Commission to express her concern regarding the future possibility of' two-unit residential ' condominium complexes on the island as a result of the precedent that would be set subsequent to the approval of this request, and her definite prefer- , ence for an R-1 zoning of the area. Charles Vanderpool again appeared before the Plan- ning Commission to express his desire to take the ' initial steps toward changing the zoning of the island to an R-1 zone. Commissioner Beek suggested to Mr. Vanderpool that ' he discuss the zone change with the Newport Island Community Association Board of Directors and ini- tiate a petition. He also suggested that Mr. Van- derpool talk with the Corona del Mar Civic Associa- tion which is currently preparing a survey in Cor- ona del Mar concerning tightening 'buiTding stan- dards . Margaret Wymer again appeared before the Planning Commission to suggest subterranean parking under- neath the public park on the island. t -6- ' COMMISSIONERS MINUTES City of Newport Beach March 22, 1979 ROLL CALL INDEX ' Paul Shapiro again appeared before the Planning Commission to comment that the lot under discus- sion is about twice as large as the average lot on Newport Island and can easily accommodate two ' units . James Edwards again appeared before the Planning Commission to state his understanding that approxi - mately 2/3 to 3/4 of the houses surrounding the ap- plicant' s lot are single family residences , and to further express his feeling that there would not ' be many duplexes built on Newport Island because they are not economically feasible. There being no others desiring to appear and be ' heard, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Agee commented on the existing R-2 zon- ing and suggested that now may be the time to re-ex- amine the zoning on Newport Island and change it from R-2 to R-1. ' M yion x Motion was made to deny Resubdivision No. 621. Richard Hogan , Director of Community Development, ' advised the Commission that his recollection of the City ' s Subd-ivision Code a) doesn ' t set forth , spec- ifically, provisions for denial b) does set forth provisions for disapproval of the map , in which cas ' the subdivider has the right to resubmit the map if it is in conformity with the requirements of the code. ' Hugh Coffin , Assistant City Attorney , then advised that pursuant to our local ordinance supplementing the Subdivision Map Act , there is a provision for ' disapproval of a map with four or fewer lots and the Commission would have- to determine that the map is not in conformity with the requirements of ' this title (the Subdivision Ordinance) and all ordinances of the City relating to the subject, and that it is not satisfied with the planned subdivi - sion . He further stated that the City has not adopted an ordinance to deal with the regulation of new condominiums and that the State Map Act dele- gates to the City the authority in adopting an ordi- nance to regulate the division of land for the crea- tion of condominium projects as well -as condominium �- conversions . COMMISSIONERS MINLTE� City of Newport Beach ' s `i March 22, 1979 ROLL CALL INDEX , In response to a question from Commissioner ' McLaughlin regarding the General Plan, Mr. 'Hogan responded that the General Plan does not deal with the subject of condominiums , but does deal with the subject of intensity of development on Newport ' Island , and that this request is consistent with the General Plan in that regard. Mr. Coffin further stated that this resubdivision ' does not constitute a division of the property, which will remain with its existing boundaries ; the division is the division of the airspace above ' the property as defined by the Condominium Plan that will be submitted to the Department of Real Estate. Said plan will be a three-dimensional ' description of that part which is owned by owner "A" and that part which is owned by owner "B" , but the parcel itself will still remain a single par- cel and will be held in common by the two owners , (one owner "A" and one owner "B" of each condo- minium unit. Mr. Hogan then stated that should the Commission ' deny the application consistent with the motion , the applicant has a right to appeal that decision to the City Council for determination. ' Mr. Coffin advised the Commission that in the sec- tion dealing with disapproval of a map , it indi - ' , Cates that the Commission shall in writing advise the subdivider of such disapproval and of the rea- son or reasons for such disapproval , and he fur- ther suggested that the ordinance requires at leas one finding as to why the proposed subdivision is being disapproved. Ayes x x x Motion to deny Resubdi•vision No . 621 ,was then vote , Noes x on, with the finding that based on the testimony Absent x x x at the public hearing , it seems that the quality of life on deteriorated and the island would be that this request would establish a precedent for , converting property to residential condominium units , which MOTION CARRIED . ' Request to create one parcel of land so as to Item # permit the conversion of two existing dwelling -' RESUB- DIVISI NO. 62 -8- ' ' COMMISSIONERS MINUTES City of Newport Beach ° p c March 22 , 1979 1 2 ROLL CALL INDEX units on the site into a two unit residential ' condominium complex. CONTIN- UED TO Location : Lot 20 , Block 543 , Corona del Mar , APRIL 5 , located at 518-5182 Poinsettia Ave- 1979 nue, on the southeasterly side of Poinsettia Avenue between Second Avenue and Third Avenue , in Corona del Mar. Zone : R-2 ' Applicant: William J . McGee, Newport Beach Owner: Clodomiro J . and Betty Rodriquez , ' Whittier Engineer: Same as Applicant The public hearing was opened regarding this item and William McGee, 613 West Balboa Boulevard, Ap- ' plicant , ,appeared before the Planning Commission to present to them a copy of the Subdivision Map Act, January 1, 1979 , and the Condominium Plan Parcel ' Map #79710 and to state his concurrence with the findings and conditions as set forth in the Staff Report. ' Commissioner Frederickson then relayed his conver- sation on said property with Mr. Elledoudt who spoke in opposition to the proposal , due to one of ' his concerns regarding maintenance of common fences Alex Glasser, 514 Poinsettia Avenue , appeared be- fore the Planning Commission to voice his concern regarding condominium conversions , but indi,cated that more owners may take better care of the land- scaping . ' There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed'. ' Commissioner Beek stated that the garages as well as the units would be divided and that the front unit would use the south garage and the back unit ' would use the north garage. V COMMISSIONERS MINUTES , City of Newport Beach ' b ti March 22, 1979 ' 2 ROLL CALL INDEX Motion x Motion was made that the Planning Commission ap- prove Resubdivision No. 622, subject to the find- ings and conditions as set forth in the Staff Report. ' Commissioner McLaughlin stated that until City Council has adopted a Condominium Ordinance, she ' would necessarily vote "no" on a condominium con- ' version. Ayes x x Motion was then voted on , which MOTION FAILED. ' Noes x x Absent x x x Motion x Motion was then made that the public hearing be re- ' Ayes x x x opened and that Resubdivision No. 622 be continued Noes x to the regular Planning Commission Meeting of April Absent x x x 5 , 1979 , which MOTION CARRIED. Request for the approval of a Phasing Plan for the Item #8 remaining development in the Civic Plaza Planned Community. PHASIN PLAN, Location : Property bounded by Santa Barbara UVIC Drive, San Clemente Drive, Santa PLAZA Cruz Drive , San Joaquin Hills Road, PLANNEA and Jamboree Road , adjacent to New- COMMUN- port Center. ITY—' Applicant: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach 'REMOVED FROM T The Planning Commission removed Item No. 8 from the CALEND calendar as per the applicant' s rgquest, to allow the applicant time to provide the additional in- ' formation required by the City Council . Request to amend a previously approved use permit Item # that permitted the establishment of a restaurant facility with on-sale alcoholic beverages on the USE PE13. site. The proposed development includes live en- MST N� tertainment and the expansion of the dining areas 1 within the existing Le Biarritz restaurant use. A TWND- modi,ficati.on to the Zoning Code is also requested, Elf}—' since a portion of the expanded structure, a 'trash enclosure, and a portion of the proposed on-site CONTIN- UED TO APRIL 7 -10- , ' .0-60MMISSIONERS MINUTES City of Newport Beach o � ' y March 22 , 1979 ROLL CALL INDEX ' parking spaces encroach into the required 15 foot setback along the Westminster Avenue frontage of the property. Further request to waive a portion of the required offstreet parking spaces , and to accept an offsite parking agreement for a portion of said, required parking spaces . ' AND Request to establish one building site and elimi - Item #10 ' nate an interior lot line where two lots now exist so as to permit the expansion of the existing Le RESUB- Biarritz Restaurant facility on the property. DT�ISION NO . 623 Location : Lots 25 and 26 , Block 8, Tract No . 27 , located at 414 North Newport CONTIN- Boulevard , on the northeasterly FED—TO ' corner of North Newport Boulevard APRIL 19 and Westminster Avenue , adjacent to 1979 Newport Heights . ' Zone: C-1 Applicants : Yves Briee and Yvan Humbert , Newport ' Beach Owners : Same as Applicants ' Items 9 and 10 will be heard concurrently because of their relationship. ' The public hearing was opened regarding this item and Brion Jeannette , Architect, 504 North Newport ' Boulevard , Newport Beach., appeared before the Plan- ning Commission to concur that they are in the pro- cess of developing further imput regarding parking , and further requested a continuation to April 19 , ' 1979 . LeeAnn Baker, 413 Holmwood Drive , appeared before the Planning Commission to inquire as to whether the entertainment noise level would carry outside the building , to which Mr. Hogan , -Director of Com- munity Development, stated that a condition of approval includes that the entertainment not be heard outside the building. She then voiced anothe -11- COMMISSIONERS MINUI°E ' City of Newport Beach ' y March 22 , 1979 ROIL CALL INDEX ' concern with this proposal regarding the need for ' additional parking and the further congestion and additional impact this would have on the R-1 resi- dential area only one street away. Donald E. Cots , 416 Westminster Avenue, appeared ' before the Planning Commission to state his con- cern relevant to the present parking problem. He ' stated that at the lunch hour many cars park in front and on one side of his property , presenting a high noise level for an R-1 District, and he further suggested a change i•n the proposed park- ' ing facilities . Motion x Motion was made that Use Permit No. 1053 (Amended) ' Ayes x x x x and Resubdivision No. 623 be continued to the re- Absent x x x gular Planning Commission Meeting of April 19 , 1979 , which MOTION C'ARRI'ED. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS•: ADDITIOtl AT BUSI Commissioner Beek requested that the subject of ESl1-S "Skate Rental ' Establishments" be included on the ' next Study Session Agenda. Bill Dye, Department of Public Works Engineer, in- ' formed the Planning• Commission that on March 8, 1979, he submitted his resignation to the Depart- ' ment of Public Works Director and that he had ac- cepted a position as Chief Engineer with the Santa Marguerita Water District, and that since that time the Department of Public Works Director has re- ' organized and Don Webb has been appointed Assistant City Engineer, representing the Department of Pub- lic Works at future meetings . ' There being no further business , the Planning Com- mission adjourned the meeting at 9 : 22 P.M. V GEOR E COKAS, Secretary Planning Commission City of Newport Beach -12- City Council Staff Reports t ' — City Council Meeting May 14, 1979 ' Agenda Item No. D-4 ' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 10 , 1979 TO : City Council ' FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Supplemental Information Agenda Item No . D-4 Harbor Point. Project. ' The Department of Community Development has requested additional work by the City' s Consultants in regards to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance ' and Policy S-1 , based on information just received from the Public Works Department pertaining to 1979 traffic counts at the intersection of San Joaquin Hills Road/MacArthur Boulevard . This information will be transmitted to the City Council under separate cover Friday ,. ' May 11 , 1979. Respectfully submitted, ' DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V . HOGAN , IR TOR ' BY Frecr Ta arico Environmental Coordinator ' FT/dt 1 1 ' City Council Meeting May 14 , 1979 ' Agenda Item No . D-4 ' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ' May 10, 1979 TO: City Council FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Supplemental Information Report Traffic Study for proposed subdivision , Harbor Point, and Tentative Map of Tract No . 10625 ' The Department of Community Development requested additional work ' by the City ' s consultants in regard to the Traffic Phasing Ordin- ance and Policy S-1 , based on information received from the Public Works Department pertaining to 1979 traffic counts at the inter- section of San Joaquin Hills Road/MacArthur Boulevard . A copy of the Traffic Study prepared by the City ' s consultant is attached . Traffic Study ' The new Traffic Study determined that one year after completion of the project, the project will generate one percent or more of the projected traffic volumes for certain legs of the intersection of ' San Joaquin Hills Road/San Miguel Drive and San Joaquin Hills Road/ MacArthur Boulevard during the 2. 5 hour peak period. ' An ICU analysis was performed for each intersection with San Miguel Drive extended and with it cul -de-sac ' d . The following chart sum- marizes this analysis : ' San Miguel Drive San Miguel Drive Cul-de-sac Extended ' 1982 1982 Intersection 1978 1979 1982 w/project 1978 1979 1982 w/project San Joaquin Hills -- -- Road & San Miguel 0.41 0.4137 0.4149 0.5060 0.5238 0.5272 Drive ' MacArthur Boulevard & San Joaquin Hills Road -- 0.7664 0.8637 0.8660 -- 0.6873 0.7640 0.7720 1 TO ' City Council - 2 . The information contained i-n the Traffic Study indicates that the ' additional traffic generated by the project, based on the projected street system and projected traffic volumes one year after completion of the project, will ne-ither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory ' level of traffic service on any "major, " "primary-modified, " or "primary" street. Respectfully submitted, ' DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ' R. V . HO AN, 90riktar by AL CO ' Environmental Coordinator FT/kk , Attachment for City Council Only: ' 1 ) Supplement to S-1 Analysis - May 10 , 1979 ' 1 . 1 1 AW ' MOHLE, PERRY&ASSOCIATES Communa, (In Developmrnt ! Dept ' 1 May 10, 1979 MAY10 197tis.. ,_�, CITY OF tIEWPORT BLt. H 'CALIF. ' Mr. Bert Ashland Project Manager Larry Seeman & Associates 500 Newport Center Drive Suite 525 Newport Beach, CA 92660 ' Subject: Supplement to S-1 Analysis Harbor Point Subdivision MPA Report Dated May 4, 1979 ' Dear Bert: In accordance with the directions from City staff, the following is a supplement to the "S-111 report for the subject project. This supplement involves an updating of the May 4 , 1979 analyses for the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin ' Hills Road using the most currently available traffic count data for the intersection. Specifically, 1979 data replaces the older 1978 data contained in our May 4, 1979 report. ' All other given data shown in the May 4, 1979 report remain unchanged. ' The following tables 1 and 2 are updates of the same tables con- tained on pages 2 and 3, respectively, of the May 4, 1979 report. 1 1 1 MUNICIPAL AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS 2565 E.Chapman Ave Sulte,124,Fullerton,CA 92631 • (714)738-3471 ' Offices In Orange,Los Angeles ana San Dlego Couniles Mr. Bert Ashland ' Larry Seeman & Associates Supplement to S-1 Analysis May 10, 1979 Page 2 , TABLE 1 1% ANALYSTS RESULTS ' During P .M. 2' -hour peak period , does project generated traffic exceed 1% existing volume? San Miguel Drive San Miguel Drive ' Intersection Cul-de-Saced Extended 1. MacArthur Boulevard & , San Joaquin Hills Road Yes Yes 2. San Joaquin Hills Road ' & San Miguel Drive Yes Yes 3. San Joaquin Hills Road & Santa Rosa Drive No No , 4. Pacific Coast Highway & MacArthur Boulevard No No ' 5. MacArthur Boulevard & Ford Road No No ' 6. San Joaquin Hills Road & Jamboree Road No No 7. Pacific Coast Highway , & Marguerite Avenue No No 6. MacArthur Boulevard & ' Jamboree Road No No ' Mr. Bert Ashland Larry Seeman & Associates Supplement to S-1 Analysis May 10, 1979 ' Page 3 TABLE 2 I.C.U. ANALYSIS RESULTS ' San Miguel Drive San Miguel Drive Cul-de-Saced Extended 1982 Intersection 1978 1979 1982 project 1978 1979 1982 w/project ' San Joaquin Hills Road & San Miguel Drive 0.41 -- 0.4137 0.4199 0.5060 -- 0.5238 0.5272 ' MacArthur Boulevard -- -- & San Joaquin Hills Road 0.7664 0.8637 0.8660 0.6873 0.7640 0.7720 1 Table 2 shows that in 1982, considering approved projects, ' regional growth and project generated traffic, the most+ critical intersection in the area, MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road will have an I.C.U. of 0. 8660 with ' San Miguel Drive cul-de-saced or an I .C.U. of 0.7720 if San Miguel Drive is extended. Respectfully submitted, ' MOHLE, PERRY & ASSOCIATES R. Henry%Mle Senior Vice President ' RHM:vps w' �{�RFolt ia'ofMT }IGMieS � ' *AN A410LA&L DIIIVE CAL-`b&1Jk^c6D 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MAGARTHQ — 3ANJOAQu114 14ILLS ' (Existing Traffic Vo umes based on Average Winter Spring 1974) 'Approdch 1 Existing Peak 21s Hour Approved Projected 1t of Projected Project Gireconn ; Peak 24 Hour Regional Projects Peak 24 Hour Peak 24 Hour Peek 24 Hourl 1 Volume Growth Peak 2y Hour Yolune Voluee OWN , Volune Vol" , Northbound I 1775 1h 1013 1897 iq Ip I+L w. 1 ' southbound' j �J4'�I'Z 17 5ra 0 7 `I'0 Z Eas tbaund —• j-qo 0 Z88 34 70 3$! 1Z estbound it $D O 76 I Z16 13 13 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected , Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume © Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ' Peak 2)1 Hour Traffic Volumen. intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 DATE: SP-10-7q ' PROJECT: HAP1e�01Z- ho1NT 'Hcwas FORM I ' ill ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS DY. ' intersection JUAcAR uR- SANJOAQuInI RILLS Jam'AN MIroll�L (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average inter pring 1979) Ibvement EXISTING PROPOSED EXIST EXIST REGIONAL COMMITTED PROJECTED PROJECT PROJECT ' Lanes Cap Lanes Cap PK MR V/C GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ratio VOILWW V/C Ratio Vol. Ratio VOL. VOL. w/o Protect Vol. NL -I-I"o 85 •0531 3 • vgyo* •oy5o �` NT 13, • zn 3 - .xlzg NR I-a8 0 5 SL 2--3200 2.82 •oEEI 93 110q to •1141 ' ST x-32.00 qlq •297z 41 185 3478x •3418 SR N•s. S87 - 31 EL z-zwo sit 4564 86 s8o3 it - .2803 ' ET 3-4800 4g11 laT4 81 • ►50o b .1813 ER 163 J 7 _ ' WL I- 1(o0o q5 •05% 0 '09+t q. •061q WT 3-4800 165 of* Iq •obef, " 4 .o82 it ' WR 184 Iq 7 YELLOHTINE :10 ' EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION •7"4 •(� (a EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL 6ROi1TN W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.0 .8637 EXISTING PLUS CONNITTEO PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 0.g6�C ' XQ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 [] Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' [] Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvements will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' Description of system improvement: ., ------- --------- -- --------------- DATE: 5-l0 ' PROJECT: H/*Re,a(Z -P<>wr wc)m s FORM II 1��•�a1s PbINIT .�oMEf 9AW M1GA&6 DRIVE VAT&Ak*&p 1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis , lntersectionMACAtR2THl1R SANJOA¢IUIN HILLS ' (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1979) 'Approach Existing Peak 2y Hour Approved Projected 12 of Projected Project igire4tfon Peak 2% Hour Regional Projects Peak 2y Hour Peak 21t Hour Peak 2y Hour' I Volume Growth Peak 2% Hour Volume Volume Volume um Vole Volume Northbound 1 2+10 20 1O8 2538 % 30 1 37Rh Iq 5>g 4F,g3 44 4-0 '�odtnbaund_ ; Eastbound 3o3g- o �88 33z2. 33 14 estbpund 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ' Peak 2)s Hour Traffic Volume 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ' Peak 2.� Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. t DATE: 5-10-74 PROJECT: HARBOR P010T HOMES ' CORM I INIFRSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS San MrgaeI D. IntersectionMAGARTHUR— S^N,JgA&U W 14ILLS EKfend�d (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average inter Spring 1979 ' Ibr�rnt EXISTING PROPOSED EXIST FX157 REGIONK COIMIi7ED PROJECTED PROJECT ►ROJECI Lucas Cap ta"s Cep ►K HR Y/C GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ratio Volusw. Y/C Ratio Vol. R.No VOL. VOL. Wo Project Vol. ' NL (-1600 42 •0163 1 -t •0306 HT 2-32,0o qbo 1.3wo 10 5f t '� ►11 •3z25 " NR SL 2-3:tJD0 282 -091 , 93 • 11C '� to I 1 ' ST a-3:L00 loll •3341 to 185 •3g5(p 10 •3g85 SR H.S. Too — 31 ' EL z-a2,00 ++8 L-1410, 86 ET 3-48o0 432 • Im 51 4 • 2W ' ER Ito y 7 r 4 WL 1- 1(060 MT 11 5-4800 too i Iq •o6til * 5 •0 8S " ' WR 3il l84 tq t YELLOWTIIE •10 •10 EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION •/3 •10 EXISTING PLUS CONITTED PLUS REGIONAL GWM WPIOPOSED INPIN)VEENTS I.C.11 •7440 ' EXISTINR PLUS CO NITTO ►►US MIOIML ON" ►LMI PNORECT I.C.D. •712.0 ® Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 [� Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvements will be less than or equal to 0.90 Description of system improvement: NOTE . exlSrw& VbLuMES Altrc TND60 RbMAIA)'fJGr AFTER SM&Tr-A'.cr1N6r VPYUMa`5 DrVER rbn r0 5Ae1 MIGjaat. pR ve. DATE : 5-10'74T ' PROJECI : HA Fz-&,OFZ POIti1T _NcMES FORM 11 T r I City Council Meeting May 14, 1979 Agenda Item No. D-4 ' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 9 , 1979 ' TO: City Council ' FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Request to consider a Traffic Study for a proposed subdivisio,cc containing twenty-one single-family ' residential lots ; AND Tentative Map of Tract No . 10625 Request to subdivide 12. 97 acres into twenty-one numbered lots for single-family residential develop- ment, one lettered lot for private street purposes , and one lettered lot for landscape open .space . Said request also includes the extension of San Miguel Drive , and the consideration of an Environ- mental Document. LOCATION: A portion of Block 93, Irvine ' s Subdivision , ' located at 1401 San Miguel Drive, between MacArthur Boulevard and the proposed extension of San Miguel Drive , southwesterly of Roger' s Gardens . ' ZONES : R-A, R-1 -B, and P-C APPLICANT: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach ' OWNER: Same as Applicant ENGINEER: Simpson-Steppat, Newport Beach Application ' The proposed project is the subdivision of 12 . 97 acres into twenty- one numbered lots for single-family residential development; one lettered lot for private street purposes , and one lettered lot for ' landscape open space. Additionally, the project involves the extension of San Miguel Drive from its present terminus to Avocado Avenue . In order to accomplish their objectives , the applicant is requesting the ' approval of Tentative Tract 10625 , a Traffic Study and the acceptance of an environmental document. Tentative Map procedures are set forth under Chapter 19 . 12 of the Municipal Code . The Traffic Phasing Ordin- ance is set forth under Chapter 15 .40 of the Code . i TO : City Council - 2 . The proposed project is located generally southerly of Roger' s Gardens ' Nursery , between MacArthur Boulevard and the extension of San Miguel Drive . One lot (Lot 21 ) is located southerly of San Miguel Drive extended. The Tract Map additionally covers the extension of San Miguel Drive from its proposed intersection of MacArthur Boulevard ' to Avocado Avenue . The density of the project per net buildable 3 acre is 20 units 3.43 and for 21 units .05 . Suggested Action Hold hearing ; close hearing; if desired, sustain , modify or overrule the decision of the Planning Commission . ' Planning Commission Recommendation At the April 5, 1979 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commis- sion approved the Traffic Study, accepted the environmental document and approved the Tentative Map of Tract 10625 with the following find- ings and conditions (4 Ayes , 2 Noes , 1 Absent) : Traffic Study FINDINGS: 1 . That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the peak hour traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15 .40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 2. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project-generated traffic will be greater than one percent of existing traffic during the 2 . 5 hour peak period on any leg of the inter- section of San Joaquin Hills Road and MacArthur Boulevard. 3. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project-generated traffic will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory ' level of traffic service on any "major, " "primary-modified" or "primary" street. Tentative Map of Tract 10625 FINDINGS : ' 1 . That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific plans , and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision . 2 . That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. ' 3. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed . ' 4 . That the site is physically suitable for -the proposed density of development. TO : City Council - 3. 5 . That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared i.n compliance with the California Environmental' Quality Act, and that their contents have been considered in the decisions on this project. 6 . That based on the information contained in the Negative Declaration , the project incorporates sufficient mitigation measures to reduce potentially-significant environmental effects , and that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts . 7. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improve- ment will not substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. ' 8. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improve- ments are not likely to cause serious public health problems . 9 . That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improve- ments will not conflict with any easements , acquired by the public at large , for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision . 10 . That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision will not result in or add to any violation of existing re- quirements prescribed by a California Regional Water Quality ' Control Board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 1300) of the Water Code . CONDITIONS: 1 . That a tract map be filed . 2 . ' That all improvements be constructed as required by ordin- ance and the Public Works 'Department. ' 3. That Section 19 .16 .030 of the Subdivision Ordinance be waived provided that drawings of the tract map at a scale of 1 " = 100 ' are provided to the Public Works Department. 4 . That vehicular access to Lot 21 be limited to one driveway approach on San Miguel Drive . This driveway approach shall be limited to right-turn in and out only . The location of the driveway approach shall be subject to further study and approval of the Public Works and Community Development _ Departments prior to filing of the tract map . The driveway approach location shall be located as far away from Mac- Arthur Boulevard as possible . 5 . That all vehicular access rights to MacArthur Boulevard, ' except at the public street intersection, be released and relinquished to the City . 6. That the remaining street improvements along the easterly side of MacArthur Boulevard frontage adjacent to the tract • TO : City Council - 4 . ' be completed including a ten-foot-wide sidewalk-bike trail . 7 . That the minimum right-of-way width of San Miguel Drive between Avocado Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard be 114 feet. ' 8. That all vehicular access rights to San Miguel Drive , except for two private drive openings and the public street intersection, be released and relinquished to the City. 9 . That San Miguel Drive be improved to its ultimate section from Avocado Avenue to San Joaquin Hills Road, including modification of the existing traffic signal at the inter- section of San Joaquin Hills Road with San Miguel Drive . 10. That traffic signals be installed by the developer at the intersections of San Miguel Drive with MacArthur Boulevard and Avocado Avenue . The implementation of this requirement at the intersection of San Miguel Drive with Avocado Avenue ' shall be subject to verification by the City of signal warrants , and a separate agreement and surety may be provided for this work . If the traffic signal warrants are not met within a five-year period after acceptance by the Council of the public improvements for the tract, the developer shall be relieved from this portion of the conditions of approval . ' 11 . That the noise impact from MacArthur Boulevard and San Miguel Drive be considered and that the dwelling units be designed ' to provide for sound attenuation in accordance with the re- quirements of law and the recommendation of a qualified acoustical engineer. Specifically, that acoustical attenua- tion devices be included in final project design as described in Mitigation Measure 11 of the Initial Study and that a higher barrier be erected, if requested unanimously by the residents of Lots 3, 4 , and 5 . ' 12. That the design of the private streets conform with the City ' s private street policy. 13. That the structural section of the private streets and drives be designed in accordance with standard civil engineering practice . The design will be approved and the construction ' inspected by the Public Works Department. The standard plan check and inspection fee shall be paid. 14 . That the private streets shall have a street light system approved by the Public Works Department. 15 . That the California Vehicle Code be enforced on the private ' streets . 16 . That a traffic control plan shall be submitted and approved by the City ' s Traffic Engineer . TO: City Council - 5 . 17 . That if it is desired to have a control gate on the entrance off San Miguel Drive , a turn-around shall be provided prior to the gate . The design of the controlled entrance shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works and Community Development Departments . 18 . That a ten-foot-wide sidewalk-bike trail be provided on the northerly side of San Miguel Drive . ' 19 . That the median in San Miguel Drive be improved with an irrigation system, landscaping, and cobblestone pavement. The plans shall be approved by the Parks , Beaches and Recre- ation Department and the Public Works Department. 20 . That the water capital improvement acreage fees be paid . ' 21 . That storage capacity in San Joaquin Reservoir equal to one maximum day ' s demand be dedicated to the City . 22. That easements for ingress , egress and public utility purposes on Lot "A" be dedicated to the City . 23. That three-foot-wide easements for public utility purposes adjacent to Lot "A" be dedicated to the City . 24. That a subdivision agreement and accompanying surety be pro- vided if it is desired to record the final tract map prior to completion of the public improvements . 25 . That all work within the MacArthur Boulevard right-of-way be done under an encroachment permit issued by the California Department of Transportation. 26 . That sight distance for the bike trail along the westerly side of San Miguel Drive be provided for the future driveway approach for Roger ' s Gardens . ' 27 . That on-site fire hydrants be provided as required by the Public Works Department and the Fire Department. ' 28 . That Fire Department access shall be approved by the Fire Department. ' 29 . A landscape and irrigation plan for all common areas shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. Said plan shall include a maintenance program which controls the use of organophosphates and pesticides . 30 . That the landscape plan shall place heavy emphasis on the use of drought-resistant or ornamental vegetation . 31 . That planting be done on any exposed slopes as soon as possible to reduce erosion potential . Prior to the occupancy of any dwelling unit, the licensed landscape architect shall certify ' TO: City Council - 6 . to the Department of Community Development that the land- scaping has been installed in accordance with the prepared plan . 32 . Development of the site will be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Department of Community Development. Surface and subsurface drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department and the Public Works Department. 33. An erosion and dust control plan shall be submitted with the grading permit application and be subject to the approval of the Community Development Department. 34. That drainage along MacArthur Boulevard adjacent to the tract be improved in conjunction with tract grading; if grading and drainage are to be accomplished as a precise plan , this should be accomplished prior to finalization of the grading plan . ' 35 . That a lined brow ditch (es ) be provided on off-site areas where cuts are proposed on the tract, and in accordance with the precise grading plan to be approved by the Community Development Department. 36 . That a detailed geotechnical report be prepared prior to ' approval of the final tract map and before finalization of a grading plan, subject to the approval of the Public Works Department and Community Development Department. 37. That an erosion and siltation control plan be approved by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Santa Ana Region, and that the plan be submitted to said Board ten days prior to any construction activities . 38. That the applicant provide for street sweeping services for all non-dedicated streets equal to that service provided by the City for residential area streets . 39 . That in order to retain the physical integrity of midden ' deposits during grading activities , that Mitigation Measures 4, 5 and 6 as described in the Initial Study be observed during construction of the project. ' 40 . That prior to the issuance of building permits it be demon- strated to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director that energy conservation measures described as Mitigation Measures 13, 14 an•d 15 in the Initial Study have been considered in project design . ' 41 . That appropriate deed restriction(s ) subject to the approval of the City Attorney and Director of Community Development be placed on Lot 21 as shown on Tentative Tract No. 10625 to inform any potential purchaser(s) of high noise levels and access restrictions on this site . ' TO: City Council - 7 . 42 . That the applicant provide assurance in a manner acceptable ' to the City Attorney and Director of Community Development that the off-site desilting basin will be retained or should any development of the desilting basin site occur, a basin of equal or greater capacity will be provided. 43. That all pad elevations shall be as depicted on the subdivision map or lower. 44 . That the height of all landscape materials shall not exceed a height of twenty-nine feet (29 ' ) above pad elevation or the ridge of the dwelling, whichever is lower. ' 45 . That prior to the recordation of the Final Map the applicant shall deposit with the City an In-Lieu Park Fee in an amount ' as determined by the City Council in accordance with Section 19 .50 .070 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code . 46 . That additional traffic phasing studies be made between the Planning Commission meeting of April 5 , 1979 and the City Council meeting of April 9 , 1979, by the applicant, concur- rent with continued work on this application . ' 47. That a pedestrian gate be added to the proposed wall, for pedestrians and children to get from Salt Air Circle onto San Miguel Drive , to be placed at the end of Island View Drive . 48 . That Lot 21 be designated as not a buildable lot. 49 . That a textured block wall and berm of a combined height of eight feet be constructed on Lot 21 of Tentative Tract No . 10625 parallel to San Miguel Drive and MacArthur Boulevard. The combined wall and berm shall connect at the i-ntersection of San Miguel Drive and MacArthur Boulevard and extend east- erly a distance of 250 feet on San Miguel Drive from the intersection of San Miguel Drive and MacArthur Boulevard ' and southerly a distance of 300 feet on MacArthur Boulevard from the intersection of San Miguel Drive and MacArthur Boulevard. The textured block wall located within Lot 21 parallel to San Miguel Drive shall connect to the eight foot ' barrier adjacent to Lot 49, Tract No . 6385, as specified below in Condition No . 2 . The developer shall be respon- sible for the planting of trees and groundcover on the berms specified in this condition of approval . 50 . That an eight foot barrier be constructed in the right-of- way of San Miguel Drive adjacent to Lot 49 of Tract No .6385 . 51 . That a five foot textured block wall be constructed in Lot C of Tract No . 6385 parallel to Salt Air Drive for the entire ' distance between Lots 15 and 49 of Tract No . 6385 . Said textured block wall shall connect to the eight foot barrier adjacent to Lot 49 , Tract No . 6385, and shall connect to the rear wall on Lot 15, Tract No . 6385 . The base of the five foot textured block wall shall be constructed at grade with the top of curb on Salt Air Drive adjacent to Lot C of Tract No . 6385 . TO: City Council - 8. ' 52. That a street lighting plan for San Miguel Drive be submitted to the Broadmoor Hills Community Association Board of Direc- tors for review and comment and to the Director of Community Development for the City of Newport Beach for approval prior to the issuance of building permits for residential dwellings ' within Tentative Tract No . 10625 . Said street lighting plan shall include consideration of provisions for minimizing the intrusion of peripheral street lighting into the existing homes easterly of Tentative Tract No . 10625 . 53. That the Covenants , Conditions , and Restrictions recorded for Tentative Tract No . 10625 shall require the pruning of trees on individual Lots 1 - 21 so as to limit the growth of said trees to the height of the building ridge line for each resi- dential dwelling . ' 54. That the elevation of the building ridge line and the maximum height of trees on Lot 21, Tentative Tract No . 10625, shall be limited to a height of 227 feet above sea level . ' 55 . That an analysis of the estimated noise level at the residences located on Lots 15 and 49 of Tract No . 6385 shall be performed by a qualified acoustical engineer selected by the Director of Community Development for the City of Newport Beach . for the purpose of this acoustical analysis , the acoustical engineer shall measure the noise levels as artificially increased to ' reflect the anticipated noise impacts resulting from the vehicular traffic on San Miguel Drive as measured in the year 1995 . Based on the conclusions of this analysis , the ' developer shall be required to construct sound attenuation measures if any are required in accordance with the requirements of State law and the recommendation of the acoustical engineer. The construction of such sound attenuation measures shall only be required in the event that the individual owners of Lots 15 and 49 of Tract No . 6385 consent to the construction of said sound attenuation measures . ' 56 . An additional Traffic Study be prepared in accordance with City Policy S-1 for review by the City Council in conjunction with their consideration of this project . ' Environmental Significance ' An initial study was prepared on the project in accordance with City Policy K-3 and the California Environmental Quality Act. The purpose of the initial study was to identify environmental impacts , allow the applicant an opportunity to modify his project in response to concerns raised, and to facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of the project. The California Environmental Quality Act requires that a Negative Declaration be issued when no signifi - cant effect would occur. The Act states : "Where a project is revised in response to an Initial Study so that potential adverse effects are mitigated to a point where no significant environmental effects would occur, a ' TO: City Council - 9 . " Negative Declaration shall be prepared instead of an EIR. If the project would still result in one or more signifi - cant effects on the environment after mitigation measures are added to the project, an EIR shall be prepared . " Based on the information contained in the Initial Study, the City ' s Environmental Affairs Committee determined that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A Negative Declaration ' for the project was issued on February 9 , 1979 . Copies of the Initial Study and Negative Declaration are attached . General Plan The project site is designated for Low-Density Residential development between MacArthur Boulevard and San Miguel Drive (extended) and Admin- istrative , Professional and Financial Commercial use west of Mac- Arthur Boulevard . The proposed project is consistent with these designations . The project' s proposed extension of San Miguel Drive is consistent with the Circulation Element of the City ' s General Plan ' and County ' s Master Plan of Arterial Highways . A detailed discussion of the Elements of the General Plan as they apply to this project is provided on Pages 19 through 21 of the Initial Study . Zoning The proposed project site is zoned R-A, R-1 -B and P-C . The portion ' of the project site zoned P-C includes only that property westerly of MacArthur Boulevard . A comparison of project and zoning is as follows : Development Standards T.T. No. 10625 R_ -B Building Site Area 6,825 sq.ft. min. 6,000 sq.ft. 6,000 sq.ft. Lot Width Avg. 60 ft. + 60 ft. 60 ft. Lot Length Avg. 80 ft. + 80 ft. 80 ft. ' Rear Yard N/A 6 ft. 20 % depth Side Yard N/A 6 ft. 10 % width Maximum Coverage N/A 60% 40 % ' Permitted/Proposed Use SFR* SFR* SFR* Front Yard N/A 20 ft. min., 35 ft. max. 20 ft. min. Floor Area Limit N/A 2 x buildable -- ' * Single-Family Residential N/A= Not Applicable to Tract Map ' Traffic Study The applicant has requested acceptance of a Traffic Report and approval ' of the project based on the data contained therein for the purpose of issuance of building and grading permits . The Traffic Study was pre- pared in accordance with the City ' s Traffic Phasing Ordinance (Chapter ' 15 .40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code) and as a part of the Initial ' TO : City Council - 10 . Study . The Initial Study in addition to reviewing those intersections required by the City ' s Traffic Phasing Ordinance ( Items 1 through 5 below) reviewed several additional intersections for potential impact ( Items 6 through 8 below) . ' 1 . Coast Highway/MacArthur Boulevard 2. Coast Highway/Marguerite Avenue 3. MacArthur Boulevard/San Joaquin Hills Road 4 . MacArthur Boulevard/ Ford Road 5 . MacArthur Boulevard/Jamboree Road 6 . San Joaquin Hills Road/Santa Rosa (Big Canyon) ' 7 . San Joaquin Hills Road/San Miguel Drive 8 . MacArthur Boulevard/ Ford Road The analysis was performed with and without the extension of San Miguel ' Drive (cul -de-sac ' d) . San Joaquin Hills Road/San Miguel Drive exceeded 1 % existing volume under both conditions , and MacArthur Boulevard/ San Joaquin Hills Road exceeded 1 % of existing volume if San Miguel Drive were to be cul -de-sac ' d. The following indicates ICU analysis for the respective intersections . The detailed work sheet is included within the Initial Study. FUTURE ICU SAN MIGUEL DRIVE IS: ' Existing Cul-de- Mitigation Intersection ICU Extended Sac'd Required? San Joaquin Hills Road land San Miguel Drive 0.41 0.4068 0.4071 No ' MacArthur Boulevard & San Joaquin Hills Road 0.72 0.7200 0.7267 No Supplemental Traffic Report ' The Public Works Department, subsequent to the Planning Commission meet- ing of February 22 , 1979 , requested additional information from the City ' s consultants . The information requested is set forth in the attached report (Attachment 6 ) which contains the following: ' 1 . Existing ICU ' s based on winter and spring traffic counts made in 1978. 2 . ICU calculations based on traffic volumes generated from the Newport Center Study as modified to reflect the December 1978 General Plan Amendment, and assuming that the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor would be in operation . 3. ICU ' s based on the above condition with the exception that the assumption is made that the San Joaquin Hills Trans- portation Corridor would not be available . II ' TO : City Council The ICU analysis is summarized on the diagrams following the cover ' letter from the Traffic Consultant. The City' s consultant analyzed the conditions above for two alternative circulation concepts , both with and without the extension of San Miguel Drive . The Public Works Department has reviewed the report as to accuracy . The new traffic data , based on the Newport Center Traffic Study , Phase II , with 1978 General Plan Amendments , indicates that without the ex- tension of San Miguel Drive and with the San Joaquin Hills Transpor- tation Corridor, that intersections in the vicinity of the project will not operate at an acceptable level ( .9000 or less ) . The data further indicates that with the extension of San Miguel Drive and with the San ' Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, all intersections in the vicinity of the project will be operating at acceptable levels except for the intersection of San Joaquin Hills Road and MacArthur Boulevard. This ' intersection would operate at . 91 (Alternative C-4A) or 1 . 36 (Alterna- tive C-6A) . Policy S-1 ' As a condition of approval of Tentative Tract 10625, the Planning Com- mission required the applicant to prepare a new Traffic Study for the ' proposed project using the "Administrative Procedures for Implementing the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (Policy S-1 ) . The original Traffic Study was prepared before the adoption of Policy S-1 and action could have been taken on said if the applicant had not continued the item at the request of the adjacent homeowners ' associations . A copy of the new Traffic Study is attached (Attachment 12) . ' The new Traffic Study determined that one year after completion of the project, the project will generate one percent or more of the projected traffic volumes for certain legs of the intersection of San Joaquin Hills Road/San Miguel Drive and San Joaquin Hills Road/MacArthur Boule- vard during the 2 .5 hour peak period. An ICU analysis was performed for each intersection with San Miguel ' Drive extended and with it cul -de-sac ' d . The following chart summarizes this analysis : ' San Mi uel Drive Cul-de-Sac San Mi uel Drive Extended w/o project w/project w/o project w/project Intersection 1978 1 1982 1982 1978 1982 1982 San Joaquin Hills/San Miguel .41 .4137 .4149 .5060 .5238 .5272 San Joaquin Hills/MacArthur .72 .8072 .8095 .6559. .7320 ' .7400 The information contained in the Traffic Study indicates that the additional traffic generated by the project, based on the projected street system and projected traffic volumes one year after completion of the project, will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on any "major, " "primary-modified, " and "primary"street. 1 TO : City Counc it - 12 . Park Dedication ' Chapter 19 . 50 ( "Park Dedication" ) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that a subdivider of land as a condition of approval of a final subdivision map shall dedicate land or pay a fee in-lieu thereof, or both , at the option of City for park and recreational purposes . The applicant desires to pay appropriate in-lieu fees in accordance with the "Park Dedication Ordinance" and as outlined below: ' - Number of lots 21 Park land dedication formula factor 0 .0188 - Required park land dedication . 3948 acres 1 _ Estimated cost per acre $162,221 .00 Estimated in-lieu fees 64,044 .85 - Estimated cost per unit 3,049 . 76 1 At the April 5 , 1979 meeting, the Planning Commission approved a motion recommending to the City Council that twenty-five percent of the in- lieu park fee, generated .by the project, be credited to The Irvine Company for the nondevelopment of Lot 21 and that the other seventy- five percent be put into the park fund. 1 Respectfully submitted, ' DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V .4,AJN6,1&!ff10ffff19 N , ' re for by •� TALARIC Environmental Coordinator FT/kk Attachments for City Council Only: ' 1 ) Planning Commission Minutes - April 5 , 1979 2) Staff Report - April 5, 1979 3) Planning Commission Minutes - March 22, 1979 ' 4) Staff Report - March 22, 1979 5) Supplemental Information Report - March 22, 1979 6) Supplemental Traffic Data - Mohle , Perry and Associates - March 16, 1979 7) Planning Commission Minutes - February 22, 1979 8) Staff Report - February 22 , 1979 9) Negative Declaration 10) Initial Study and Attachment ' 11 ) Tentative Tract No . 10625 12) Supplemental Traffic Data - Mohle , Perry and Associates - May 1979 13) Correspondence Received. 1 ' City Council Meeting April 23, 1979 Agenda Item No . H-9(b) tCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH April 18, 1979 ' TO: City Council FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Request to consider a Traffic Study fora proposed subdivision containing twenty-one single-family residential lots . ' AND ' Tentative Map of Tract 10625 Request to subdivide 12.97 acres into twenty-one numbered lots for single-family residential develop- ment, one lettered lot for private street purposes , and one lettered lot for landscape open space . Said request also includes the extension of ' San Miguel Drive , and the consideration of a'n Environmental Document. LOCATION : A portion of Block 93, Irvine ' s Subdivision , located ' at 1401 San Miguel Drive, between MacArthur Boule- vard and the proposed extension of San Miguel Drive , southwesterly of Roger' s Gardens . ' ZONES : R-A, R-1 -B, and P-C APPLICANT: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach ' OWNER: Same as Applicant tENGINEER: Simpson-Steppat, Newport Beach Application ' This application requests approval of a tentative map so as to sub- divide 12 . 97 acres into twenty-one numbered lots for single-family ' residential development, one lettered lot for private street purposes , and one lettered lot for landscape open space . Said request also includes the extension of San Miguel Drive , the consideration of an Environmental Document and the approval of a Traffic Study . 1 TO : City Council - 2 . I In accordance with Section 66426 of the State Subdivision Map Act, ' a tentative and final map shall be required for all subdivisions creating five or more residential lots . Tentative map procedures are outlined in Chapter 19 . 12 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code . Traffic Study procedures are outlined in Chapter 15 .40 •of the Newport ' Beach Municipal Code . Suggested Action If desired, set for public hearing on May 14, 1979 . ' Planning Commission Recommendation ' At its meeting of April 5, 1979 , the Planning Commission voted (4 Ayes, 2 Noes , 1 Absent) to recommend the approval of the Tentative Map of ' Tract No . • 10625, the acceptance of the Env-ironmental Document and the approval of the Traffic Study to the City Council . Copies of the ten- tative map, the Environmental Document, the Traffic Study, staff 'report and an excerpt from the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting will , be forwarded to the City Council at the time of the hearing. Respectfully submitted, ' DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ' R. V . HOGAN, Director by ' J 0. 4,0,4�' MES . HE WICKER A sistD antDirector - Planning JDH/kk ' Attachment: Vicinity Map t —. P ft ttV.3,,.,—:� C ` • > G t / 'Y S•r !<SB BL B9 H H w (/ Lt / t /e [ANKH p 1 Is Is I�< u n 1< P- e: NPrvaeer Hear DT/tsf 6ASV I ' 71 Ir A f fs 7r f )< n u J P-c » )+t BIG CA senw V RFSV$ O •tH. aii R,3 _ iNv.�" � rerte+l. vnuw S P-C AN 4 fpr r.r� Q�OG I i RC teBua T cou 3 R•d Q Q , -RR- / Pats p•f s ' ro qti NICDGAS ORO " O ' coH R.T2G `� '{kt• O 8 b '/ flPiy. S b• PLC � !P t7 /B ry •Io� � B � 't � OK 9 Po.40 f� \\ /.+ t J p+ /f �l4vrC f r N0.\\I/ luv H/CUEG N< r<e 8{4 WI r'FCrReCJT < N �9 °L tGyN knyg e>f If v u m p C n} u• fe YYu 4" fp Bt W E �v,< sal is t Q n a £A H, i 4 Gt u ca a 3 q lB R-D C-0-H If4 a `t s + ua u sv`Ar)n x ss 0� F g S� 1. V1tt10f V£..r aD J � n � i 1 DRIVE 1 A G t If 11 }It p aN gk s * r :a m t Is o+ tt hn ff ss 4 ; Hn •i tt 'rc RCPBYit spy �LOI" tt ?I0 •pnn '�•}sro .Y f o� oR- 0.°,r� Q iFp i L [ S n H es t0 5� P ✓ 11 n e f+ r.4 /�� 4t�N to L es i+t •.,to �t. p tr. <f Ie a <a tr u n sf D .ra' y tf i- It }r1N :n ') n <a PERRiE. •ro. ORIVE t+V P'C R 1 #+N q 6 {I •a 1+ n ,Y 9FTTlND SUN tre.c wu of / < Z t yy off i x ro ro ro I OIY I.OFAY.G lrt.nn � v it tl 4� q+0 N N rt N tl 10 irl 8 it q M R r<el N -tp• DRIVE P-C t � m Ytrc Kin >fs Io,ip• pEW < ( I > t r A, n aP D j i t •B.N r * r t �R00` R- f w, tt .ro• N n B60. f -a ' R_3 i R-3 B (prn xq � III P-C o Planning Commission Staff Reports 1 1 .. ' Planning Commission Meeting April 5 , 1979 Agenda Item Nos . 3 and 4 ' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ' March 28 , 1979 . TO : Planning Commission ' FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT : Request to consider a Traffic Study for a proposed ' subdivision containing 21 single family residential lots Continued Public Hearing ' AND Tentative Map of Tract No. 10625 ( Continued Public ' Hearing Request to subdivide 12. 97 acres into 21 numbered lots for single family residential development, ' one lettered lot for private street purposes , and one lettered lot for landscape open space . Said request also includes the extension of San Miguel ' Drive , and the consideration of an Environmental Document. ' LOCATION : A portion of Block 93 , Irvine ' s Subdivision , loca- ted at 1401 San Miguel Drive , between MacArthur Boulevard and the proposed extension of San Miguel Drive , southwesterly of Roger' s Gardens . ' ZONES : R-A , R-1-B , and P-C ' APPLICANT: The Irvine Company , Newport Beach OWNER: Same as Applicant ' ENGINEER: Simpson-Steppat, Newport Beach ' These items were continued from the Planning Commission Meeting of March 22 , 1979 . The Staff Report for the March 22 , 1979 meeting which included the February 22 , 1979 Staff Report, the Tentative Map , the Ini - tial Study and the Negative Declaration were distributed to ' the Planning Commission on March 16 , 1979 . Additional traffic information was distributed on March 19 , 1979 . The staff does not have any additional information to distribute TO : Planning Commission - 2 ' at this time . If any of the Planning Commissioners are missing any of the information previously distributed , please contact the staff. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V . HOGAN , DIRECTOR ' BY Fred Ta7arico Environmental Coordinator ' FT/gg 1 1 ' Planning Commission Meeting March 22 , 1979 Agenda Item Nos . 3 and 4 ' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ' March 19 , 1979 T0: Planning Commission ' FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Supplemental Information Report - Harbor Point tProject Re nest to consider a Traffic Stud for a ro osed subdivision ' containin 21 single famil residential lots Continued Public Hearin LOCATION: A portion of Block 93, Irvine' s Subdivision , ' located at 1401 San Miguel Drive , between MacArthur Boulevard and the proposed extension of San Miguel Drive , southwesterly of Roger' s ' Gardens . ZONES: R-A, R-1-B, and P-C . ' APPLICANT: The Irvine Company , Newport Beach OWNER: Same as Applicant tENGINEER: Simpson-Steppat , Newport Beach AND ' Tentative Map of Tract No. 10625 (Continued Public Hearing) ' Request to subdivide 12 . 97 acres into 21 numbered lots for single family residential development , one lettered lot for private street purposes , and one lettered lot for landscape open space . Said request also includes the extension of San Miguel Drive , and the consideration of an Environmental Docu- ment. LOCATION : A portion of Block 93, Irvine ' s Subdivision , located at 1401 San Miguel Drive , between MacArthur Boulevard and the proposed extension of San Miguel Drive , southwesterly of Roger ' s ' Gardens . ZONES : R-A, R-1-B, and P-C. APPLICANT: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach OWNER : Same as Applicant ' ENGINEER: Simpson-Steppat , Newport Beach TO: Planning Commission - 2 ' ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC DATA ' As previously indicated (Staff Report - March 16, 1979) the , Public Works Department, subsequent to the Planning Commission Meeting of February 22, 1979 , requested additional information from the City' s consultants . The information requested is set forth in the attached report which contains the following: , 1. Existing ICU ' s based on winter and spring traffic counts made in 1978. 2. ICU calculations based on traffic volumes generated from the Newport Center Study as modified to reflect the December 1978 General Plan Amendment, and assuming that ' the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor would be in operation. 3. ICU' s based on the above condition with the exception , that the assumption is made that the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor would not be available. The ICU analysis is summarized on the diagrams following the ' cover letter from the Traffic Consultant. The City' s Con- sultant analyzed the conditions above for two alternative circulation concepts , both with and without the extension of San Miguel Drive. The Public Works Department has reviewed the report as to accuracy. The new traffic data , based on the Newport Center Traffic Study, Phase II with 1978 General Plan Amendments , indicates that without the extension of San Miguel Drive and with the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor that intersections ' in the vicinity of the project will not operate at an accept- able level ( . 9000 or less ) . The data further indicates that with the extension of San Miguel Drive and with the San Joa- quin Hills Transportation Corridor, all intersections in the vicinity of the project will be operating at acceptable levels except for the intersection of San Joaquin Hills Road and ' MacArthur Boulevard. This intersection would operate at .91 (Alternative C-4A) or 1 .36 (Alternative C-6A) . REQUEST FROM DR. ROSENBERG Subsequent to distribution of the initial Staff Report, the City received a letter from Dr. Robert S . Rosenberg suggesting ' three alternative designs for traffic flow in the vicinity of the project. A copy of this letter is attached. The Public ' TO : Planning Commission - 3 1 Works Department will be prepared to respond to these sug- gestions at the Planning Commission Meeting . 1 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V . HOGAN , DIRECTOR 1 By Fre`kTalarico Environmental Coordinator ' FT/gg Attachments : 1) Supplemental Traffic Data - Mohle, Perry & Assoc. 2) Letter From Dr. Robert Rosenberg 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 �I MR\ MORE, PERRY&ASSOCIATES March 16, 1979 Mr. Bert Ashland ' Project Manager Larry Seeman Associates 560 Newport Center Drive , Suite 525 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Bert: Pursuant to our written proposal to you and as modified by meetings with the Community Development and Public Works Departments on March 15, 1979, ' the attached diagram shows intersection capacity utilizations (ICU) for different traffic volume conditions and assumed street network layouts for the area in the vicinity of the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road. The purpose of this work has been to provide quantitative information in the form of ICU calculations to show the effect on ICU's with and without , a proposed connection of the link of San Miguel Drive between MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road. In accordance with the March 15 meetings, the diagram shows study street alternates C-4 and C-6 with and without San Miguel being cul-de-sacced on the easterly side of MacArthur Boulevard, The ICU values shown in the circles on the diagram are for three conditions which are: o existing ICU's based on winter and spring traffic counts made in 1978. , o ICU calculations based on traffic volumes generated from the Newport Center Study as modified to reflect the December 1978 General Plan Amendment, and assuming that the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor would be in operation. o ICU's based on the above condition with the exception that the ' assumption is made that the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor would not be available. MUNICIPAL AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS 2565 E.Chapman Ave Suite 124,Fullerton,CA 92631 • (714)138-3471 OtBoes In Orange,Los Angeles ano San Diego Counties ' ' bh. Bert Ashland lorry Seeman Associates San Miguel Drive March 16, 1979 ' Page 2 The traffic volumes utilized in the calculation of these ICU's have been ' developed as a cooperative effort between our firm and the City's Traffic Engineer, Mr. Rich Edmonton.- ' Also attached to this letter are the respective ICU calculation sheets utilized in preparing the diagram. Respectfully submitted, ' MOHLEE,, PERRY & ASSOCIATES R. Henry Mo Senior Vice President RI S:vp ' attachments t 1 J 0.72 0.72 0.4! a , CAN JOAQUIN mtk5 5AN JLNQuUd p1LL5 RO, 4INN 6197d)�W/N1ER' i � a a .yS+ 9ti 6A9 5A9 Armf 7RT CPMER ixwr-SRIOY, I C-6 8 W/7H I G6 A W/INIX>! Pff4w jr WITN CW..M6 6W- 1 CLfL�jL'eAgC I CUC�'t7�`SAC SAL a4V AHEMMEMMVIMo/? 7FlE 5AN✓OAQUIN N1LL5 R4� 7RM5f77RTA710N CORWA7R. NBVMRT CFN7ER 7C4°flyyG-57UL'1 MA6EfIAWIN 1970CWrI{l / 5AN JOA4UlN MIUS F= 0.41 7RW5PCRTAT/OAI CORRIDOR �6 kl OAQU/NANJJAQUIN plttF3 5AN HI(� ul (� 44 2 q5 VD ' �/ y 99 bti z � ICU ANALYS/5 G48 ►rinr Sew a 3 G4 A 1v1790UT NO SCALE GUL•VOSAAC CUI'OESAC INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection San Joaquin Hills Rd/San Miguel Dr. (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) ' Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C — Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio NL 1 1600 24 .02 ' NT 1 1600 8 .01* NR 1 1600 10 .01 SL 1 1600 116 .07* ST_ 2 3200 5 .05 SR 141 EL 2 3200 446 •14* ET 3 4800 N48 .13 ' ER WIC 1 1600 .03 1 WT 3 4800 .09* WR 1 Yellow Time .10 Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. .41 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) ' N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left nExisting Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 f-1 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to ' L Existing Conditions I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 -� Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will 'be greater than existing I .C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 ' I Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures ' INTERSECTION San Joaquin Hills Rd/San Miguel Dr. - - --- •— -- - -- --.— ----•----FORM I I i ' PROJECT: I I Z 3 �y, •nP1.7 .. �'� INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection MacArthur Boulevard/San Joaquin Hills Road ' (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter Spring 1978) Move- Lanes Cap-a-- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ' ment city I Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio NL 1 1600 63 .04 NT 2 3200 361 .15* ' NR 129 SL 2 3200 412 .13* ST 2 3200 746 .23 SR N.S. - 250 - ' EL 2 3200 772 .24* ET 3 4800 648 1 .15 ER 80 , WL 1 1600 70 .04 WT 3 4800 285 .10* WR 178 Yellow Time .10 Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.G.U. .72 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. , ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westhoond, T=Through, R=Right, ' L=Left Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. wi11 be less than or equal to 0.90 nExisting Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. ' F-1 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' C—i Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will, be greater than existing J I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 nFurther analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INIFRSECTION MacArthur Boulevard/San Joaquin Hills Road —FORM 11 i PROJECT: ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS wl H rG j Intersection A4c_AfZ-rHu2 —_,A" Allc=uFEL A (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter Spring 197_) ' Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio NL I 1b00 0 ' NT '3 14soo g 72 •5 $ NR ' SL _ ST SR — ' EL ET 2. 3200 14V 0 25 0 ' ER •- WL ' WT a 32cb 150 •o� WR ' Yellow Time Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. ' Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) ' N=Northbound, S-Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures ,INTERSECTION — FORM II IROJECT: INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS i0 Intersection /ti(nCA12TNUiZ— .5AA' At 'GuEL (Existing Traffic Volumes base on Average inter pring 197_) C.� $ Move- Lanes Capa Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ' ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio NL O NT 3 ¢SDO �^B 3 • 598 5 ' NR — SL ST SR EL Ob tom a5oe 9E ET '- ER -^ ' WL WT WR -- Yellow Time #94�'f Existin Intersection Ca acit Utilization I.C.U.Existin Plus Project Intersection Ca acit Utilization I.C.U. , ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by-asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Sorthbound, E=Ea'stbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will *be less than or equal to 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. , Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. Will be greater than existing , I .C.U. that is currently greater than 0,90 El Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigatioh measures ' INTERSECTION FORM II PROJECT: INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' tt Intersectionf+fAr'Ag't,1pe. 44ijyir&L (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 197_) C 6 A ' Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio ' NL 0 ' NT - 3 a 7,3 NR r ' SL M ST SR ' EL 2- ET 2 320o p� ./2SD ER WL ' WT WR ' Yellow Time Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. ' Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. '8235 ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*)• ' N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to ' Existing Conditions I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 El Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures ' INTERSECTION FORM II PROJECT: INTERSECTION CAPACITY 'UTILIZATION ANALYSIS �y Intersection AlAG Ag-rHug —G'/alb' I"IIG;Irt... (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winterispring 197_) 4.- R, Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project , ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio NL Nr 3 0o y� 3 • S 8 5 �'� , NR SL ST SR ' EL $oD IzooJ. -"�94,165 ETER WLWTWR Yellow TimeExistin Intersection Ca acit Utilization I.C.U.Existin Plus Project Intersection Ca acit Utilization ' ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound-, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ; Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing ' I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION FORM II PROJECT: ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS W/5 T H 7-C. IntersectiokSAN SoAoLyrq } ju_j5 - SApi MICtiuEL G A (Existing Traffic Volumes Baste verage Winter Spring 197_) A Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio NL 16oc) to o • 06 2-S ' NT 2- 3.2-00 Q75 •3c>47 NR ' SL 1 1600 ISO o �$ ST 2- 3z00 75 • 07-34 SR EL 2- 3"0 z00 ' 0625 ET 3 $00 14 • 30 ' ER WL I 1600 157 WT 149 pp 4,:t-7 i 31 WR Yellow Time Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. 'g $ 5 ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) ' N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to ' Existing Conditions I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 ' o Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION FORM II 'PROJECT: INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS w/SJHTc 1`I ' Intersection MAc_Al2THU&—k5ANT0^( U1h) HiLL5 k'n. CIA ' (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 197_) Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio , NL I2.6 • o7R.? NT 4 6 o •2-q 72- NR SL — ST — SR EL 2 3zoo 1517. • 47=5 CFR40 ET 3 ? oU i& 3 35. ER WL — Wi 3 0 0 9 1 3 I , WR Yellow Time • �o ' Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. Existing Plus Pro ect Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N-Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L-Left Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. -will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I".C.U. ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing t I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.9.0 El Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures ' INTERSECTION ' FORM II PROJECT: ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS W/�- vkf-rc- �r� Intersection A4&.a /6,P-Fm_iP, — .5^N Sa+Giuipj NI-Ls RL. G4'P;v (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 197_) Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio NL 1b00 I7-(o • Me ' NT 4 6 o0 ��eq 7 (Ib A- NR ' SL ^ ST SR EL 2 32-00 I9Iti ET 3 dr800 �4 • 3 �5 �` ER WL ' WT 00 12- y3 WR ' Yellow Time Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. ' Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. �' bdoZ ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) ' N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L■Left ' M Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to ' Existing Conditions I.C.U. EJ Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 ' El Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures ITNTERSECTION FORM II �'ROJECT:T INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS W/ySN1G 4 , ICv Intersection_ ANJOA4UIN �14444 9,b-4VO4APo (Existing Traffic Volumes B� of Average nter/Spring 197_) Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Exist. Project ' ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V%C VIC Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio ' NL --- NT NR --- SL I l On <F��A • s(, b'�' ST SR I I�ro • ;aBB (�ic( 11 ' EL ET 6 00 9 31 , 4Z6 * , ER OC Q WL /00 ,alozsc WT 34 Re-no 670 • f 3 q WR r_ Yellow Time. • lo , Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. •89 9a ' ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk N N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, ' L=Left Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 , Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. , Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.IJ. will be greater than existing , I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION FORM II PROJECT: {d cl�2 3, ' ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS 17 Intersection JOA41):11 H1"0 0 — AVrcAV0 G� (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average inter pring 197_) ' Move- Lanes Capa- 1 Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city I Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio NL ` ' NT NR ' SL 1 I pGC 410 • 2(^ 9 ST 4 ttvico lqg3 o SR 1 q4 • 3 0 B 9 crvo) EL ET cn -2 2 zb7 ' ER I Ibre WL b[0 Zao . 125D ' WT &7 0 WR r Yellow Time Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. ' Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. •96/5 ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) ' N-Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to ' Existing Conditions I.C.U. ' D Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing El I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 ElFurther analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures 'NTERSECTION FORM II �ROJECT-- --- -- ( 42 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS WY 5 rN'(G Intersection hL q-ryye_6,6n �l'©r4,4`V-PI Hu.Lb Pt>. GLyA , (Existing Traffic Volumes Bated on Average winter spring 197_) Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio , NL NT 14 ( 00 2972 ,4644. 4 ' NR SL Z 32.00 • '0 (3 ST 1-$00 2 7 • ti' 60 SR EL 2 30600 fglz • �.9}� �E ET 5 48,00 1219 . 2S4o ' ER WL 2• 00 •0313 WT s440092 • �93 i� ' WR Yellow Time • bra �E , Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. ExistingPlus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) l-364Q ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, ' L=Left Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I.'C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. , Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing , I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 El Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures ' INTERSECTION FORM II PROJECT: ' w� 55N 1�• INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' �y Intersection /c(Ac �\W.TNUF -- .4°AN roAa UiN NIL-5 RP. G(c (Existing Traffic Volumes Based— on Average Winter/Spring 197_) ' Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio NL 160a I ;,('p •o �3A ' NT 6 c0 .%?9 • 6/67 NR SL 3200 �}3uo • 15 ST 34800 7 . 51 bo SR ' EL 2 3xoo lily- 0472J ' ET 00 /Z/9 .215 C' ' ER WL a 3aoa 7.57 . 0 03 ' WT 3 00 //07 •2348 #t WR ' Yellow Time Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. tExisting Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk N ' N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left ' Existing Plus Project Traffic •I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to ' Existing Conditions I.C.U. ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' F Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures 'INTERSECTION FORM II 'PROJECT: INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection MJ J%1cQUiA1 Hl"g — AVn�N>c ' (Existing Traffic Volumes ase om verage W nter Spring 197_) Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ' ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Wr, Volume Ratio Ratio NL NT NR SL I I p 30 • x666 ST 6 D 10 �484f3 SR I 600 •3c8 $ Nlr&) , ! EL '^ ET G 00 2 65 .4455 ER WL I p /00' WT WR Yellow Time • �A ' Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, Wight, , LuLeft Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. ' . Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 El Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing ' I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to d0termine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION FORM II PROJECT: -- --- ` I �Lf -f 23, ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS wh H1'c- Intersection64N CaA&UllA HILLS AVOCADO G j (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average inter Spring 197_) ' Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C ' Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio NL ' NT NR SL I 6 a x•6 g 8 ST +Q 0 '4,g48 ' SR 1 41 308 8 .NCOA) EL ET 6400 28 Z7 4463S ER 1600 0 WL I .1600 2a0 .1250 ' WT 3 WR ' Yellow Time ` gyp Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Intersection -Capacity Utilization I.C.U. /I MT-3 ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) t N■Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through; R=Right, L=Left ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 ' Further analysis required to 'determine applicable ,mitigation measures 'INTERSECTION — FORM II tROJECT: INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS w� ZZ Intersection/NAcAYZTHuK -�5n T_oAQuio On.Ls PP- C 4 A (Existing Traffic Volumes Bad on Average Winter Spring 197_) I Move- Lanes Capa- • Existing Project 'Existing Exist. Project , ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project VIC VIC Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio ' NL 0788 NT OCR 3 2 NR T SL ST SR " EL 2- 32-00 1512- . 4725' (r-K0A) ' ET 3 loo I !0 8 1"- ER WL ` WT 3 igoo 04 218 , WR S Yellow Time Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. 1• 057 ' ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N-Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, , L=Left ❑ Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than �or equal to 0.90 ' ❑ Existing Plus Project Traffic I.G.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U.. Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 , Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 ❑ Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures , INTERSECTION FORM II PROJECT: I ILs of %-?s ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' 23 IntersectionMAG/��TNUr, —,. AAI ,rDAQuiN HILL$ -'D. SIC 5J'HT� (Existing Traffic Volumes Base on Average Winter Spring 197_) G 4 g ' Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio NL 1( ob I16 . ala ' NT 4 61.00 74 Z • -41-7 NR r SL _ • ST SR — EL m ZOb la 12 • 47x 5 at--) ET 3 00 1 ER WL ' WT 3 Roo 121 Z5 S WR , Yellow Time 'Io Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) ' N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to ' Existing Conditions I.C.U. ' D Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' El Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 ' F Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION FORM II ROJECT: 117 0� y3 • �o S.TkTG INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ` ' C(�p Z4 Intersection MACAa TNUp — 6Atj 5�Qu,nl HILLS ' (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter Spring 197_) Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project , ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak HrVolume Ratio Ratio NL I On . 0798 , NT ✓� Z NR SL ST 8 00 SR EL : 3700 IS M 'ET 7 3 4doo ' . 2790 ER S ' WL z 3zao / 00 .o 13 WT 3 1900 /047 •2/B , WR Yellow Time .10 * ' Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. "67 ' ICU is sum critical movements, denoted ,by asterisk (*) N=Northbound•, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, , L=Left Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. Will be greater than existing , I.C.U. that is currently greater than 6.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures ' INTERSECTION , FORM II PROJECT: INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS SSHT-c IntersectionAAr- ARZHUI, — 6M SO ui ) HILLS (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average inter Spring 197_) Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C ' Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio NL Iboo Iz(v ' eggg ' NT 4 6 0 0 4- NR ' SL 2 3200 30 • 1344 ` ST 3 goo 59 •749�f ' SR EL Z 30.00 ET 3 4900 1339 o2794) ER WL a 3-400 Zack �aG2$ ' WT 00 12-447 •2S9S WR ' Yellow Time • Ic Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. ' Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. (' 7/d/ ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) ' N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to ' Existing Conditions I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' Existing' Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 ' Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures 'INTERSECTION FORM II 'PROJECT: INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS zc� Intersection /Floc Ai 'ur— .5�w,'1/'17°'e1 C 4 .4 , (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average nter' pring 197_) Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Ex st. Project , ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio NL NT 3 Wet, 3673 NR SL ST — SR EL 2. 3200 Sao ET 2 3200 4on n./2So jE ER — ' WL — WT 2 3200 DSO C,44W 9 , WR Yellow Time O' �O Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U.' Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. 0•990 2 ' , ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, RtRight, , L=Left Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 , Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing , I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 El Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures ' INTESRSECTION FORM II i PROJECT: ' �/o SJrfTc INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' 7' Intersection — (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average WinteMpring 197_) ' Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio ' NL / /6 Gl�) O ' NT 3 49ec 73' e"7A 2 � NR ' SL ST ' SR EL 4800 /200 o.25no ac- ET ' ER WL WT WR ' Yellow Time Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. ' Existinq Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. 411-42 ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) NwNorthbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to ' Existing Conditions I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' D Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 ' F Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION FORM II 'PROJECT: — -_ 121 WE 3 - s INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ►l/ sJHTc2 3 Intersection /��G'I7/ 7�fltii ��/�inu.^� C 6 6 , (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average nter ping 197_) Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ' ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio ' NL v NT 4Pon 341 76S ' NR SL 'ST SR EL 3 48U, ET ER ' WL WT , WR Yellow Time /0 , Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.,C.U. Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization T.C.U. ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N-Northbound, S-Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, Wight, ' L=Left Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. , Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' DExisting Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I:C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures ' INTERSECTION ' FORM II PROJECT: I ZZ oi^2 , ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS WI., SJHTG ' Intersection,6AN �I'OAQ yiN• Hi41-5 —.SRN M iC UE L C t A &, (Existing Traffic Volumesmes eased on Average Wintert5pring 197_) `&A ' Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio NL I 1600 'l o o •0�' z 5 NT NR ' SL I Iboo I So 0q ST 2- 3'-.00 75 2-311 ' SR EL 2- 3200 2ee) • 062 ET 3 goo 156q 4 ' ER � WL I 1600 157 R ' WT 3 00 a4 2 WR ' Yellow Time Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. p•q%$� ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, Wight, L■Left ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to ' Existing Conditions I.C.U. ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently, greater than 0.90 ' Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures 'INTERSECTION FORM II 'PROJECT: . . ji DONALD J. DRAKE, JR., M.D., INC. 36 1 ROBFR'I• S. ROSENBERG, M.D., INC. DON A. UDALL, M.D., INC. 1 Diplomates of the American Board of Urology Nay,P011 Cenlel Medal 0ud,f ng No 2 1 $401 A,oado Avenue • 8uae 602 Newport Beach,Cahlolmn 92660 644-8722 1 March 13, 1979 1 1 Mr . James D. Hewicker 1 Assistant Director of Planni.ng Community Development Department City of 'Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard 1 Newport Beach, California 92663 Dear Mr. Hewicker: 1 I am enclosing three sketches for the proposed traffic flow at the MacArthur, Avocado , San Joaquin Hills and San Miguel Road_ extension, drawn first as though MacArthur were follow- 1 ing its current configuration and second with a couplet that meets just before San Joaquin Hills Road; the third is a possible conception in case the couplet continues beyond 1 San Joaquin Hills Road. I trust the Traffic Department can analyze these approaches and consider them as alternatives to the existing plans . 1 Si cerely, 1-1 Robert S. Rosenberg, M. e. RSR: jyh Enclosures op 1 • �`� S,QOUP� �> S4nl J,,04QUIN , (4141-5 FZo , 4 G 2 � to r Q ti ' SAN 1, 4 i M 1)GL� r S � 3 - — PAC,r , 4o,'ks T I � .� 32.s 1 ' 1 ' 1 1 yet � 1 1 1 � 1 1 13� � SIN - OA6+ iti D; � 1 1 A�, 1 i 1 - ' Planning Commission Meeting March 22 , 1979 Agenda Item Nos. 3 & 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ' March 16 , 1979 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development ' SUBJECT: Request to' consider a Traffic Study for a proposed subdivision containin 21 sin 1e famil residential lots. Continued Public Hearin ' AND. Tentative Map of Tract -10625 (Continued Public Hearing) ' Request to subdivide 12. 97 acres into 21 numbered lots for single family residential development, one lettered lot for private street purposes , and one t lettered lot for landscape open space. Said request also includes the extension of San Miguel Drive, and the consideration of an Environmental Document. ' LOCATION: A portion of Block 93, Irvine' s Subdivision , located at 1401 San Miguel Drive , between MacArthur Boulevard and the proposed extension of San Miguel Drive, - ' southwesterly of Roger' s Gardens. ZONES: R-A, R-1 -B, and P-C. ' APPLICANT: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as Applicant ' ENGINEER: Simpson-Steppat, Newport Beach ' ' Background At the February 22 , 1979 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission approved a request of .the applicant to continue the above- items to the meeting of March 22, 1979 . Subsequent to the meeting. of February 22, 1979 , additional information has been developed „ by staff and is the subject of this report. ' Park Dedication Chapter 19. 50 ("Park Dedication" ) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that a subdivider of land as a condition of approval of a final subdivision map shall dedicate land or pay a fee in-lieu thereof, 1 TO Planning Commission - 2. or both, at the option of City for park and recreational purposes. the applicant desires to pay appropriate in-lieu fee in accordance ' with the "Park Dedication Ordinance" and as outlined below: -Number of lots 21 ' -Park land dedication formula factor 0 .0188 -Require park land dedication 3948 acres -Estimated cost per acre $286,189•= -Estimated in-lieu fees $112 ,987.42 -Estimated cost per unit 5, 380. 35 Policy S-1 114% , Since the last Planning Commission meeting on this project, the City Council has adopted a new Policy S-1 , "Administrative Procedures for Implementing the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. " The Traffic ' Study for the Harbor Point proj-ect was not performed under these hew procedures. If the Planning Commission should so direct, the Traffic Study could be continued for the preparation of a report using the new procedures . ' The applicant has indicated his desire to proceed with the project using the Traffic Study prepared under the previous guidelines. ' Ile has indicated that the project will not have a significant impact on traffic. The Traffic Report indicates the following I .C.U. 's: San Miguel San Miguel ' Existing Extended Cul -de-Sacs -San Joaquin Hills/ 0. 41 0.4068 0.4071 , San Miguel -San Hills/ 0.72 0. 7200(< 1%) 0. 7267 Traffic Data Subsequent to the Pl-anning Commission meeting of February 22, 1979, the Public Works Department requested additional traffic data from the t City ' s consultant. This information deals with existing and future I . C.U. ' s with and without San Miguel Drive extended and with and without the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. This infor- mation fs currently being prepared and will be transmitted to the Planning Commission under separate cover prior to the March 22 , 1979 meeting. Tentative Tract No. 10625 �u If the Planning Commission desires to approve Tentative Tract No. 10625 , staff has suggested 10 findings and 42 conditions of approval ' (attached staff report dated February 26 , 1979) . In addition to the aforementioned, staff would suggest the following three 'additional con- ditions of approval for Planning Commission consideration: ' 43. That all pad elevations shall be as depicted on the subdivision map or lower. TO : Planning Commission - 3. i 44 . That the height of all landscape materials shall not exceed a height, of twenty-nine feet (29 feet) above pad elevation or the ridge of the dwelling, whichever is lower. 45 . That prior to the recordation of the Final Map,' the applicant shall deposit with the City an In-lieu Park Fee in the amount of $112 ,987. 42 or such other amount as may be subsequently ' determined by the City Council in accordance with Section 19. 50. 070 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code . Respectfully submitted, ' DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, DIRECTOR r ' By 7 �Al.0 sD p ' Fred Talarico Environmental Coordinator FT/dt ' Attachments : 1 . Staff Report - February 22, 1.979 2 . Negative Declaration 3. Initial Study ' 4. Tentative Tract No. 1.0625 5. Letter •from Roger' s Gardens 1 t • Planning Commission (•1sating February 22=1749 `I ' Agenda Item No. 8 and 9 - CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH , F February 16, 1979 , TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development ' SUBJECT: Request to_ consider a_ Traffic Study for a proposed sub- division contaiAn 21 single famil residential lots ' Public Hearin . LOCATION: A portion of Block 93, Irvine's Subdivision, located at 1401 San Miguel Drive, between MacArthur Boulevard and ' the proposed extension of San Miguel Drive, southwesterly of Roger's Gardens. ZONES: R-A, R-1-B, and P-C. ' APPLICANT: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as Applicant ' ENGINEER: Simpson-Steppat, Newport Beach SUBJECT: Tentative Map Tract No. 10625 (Public Hearing. LOCATION: A portion of Block 93, Irvine's Subdivision, located at 1401 ' San Miguel Drive, between MacArthur Boulevard and the pro- posed extension of San Miguel Drive, southwesterly of Roger's ' Gardens. ZONES: R-A, R-1-B, and P-C. APPLICANT: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach , OWNER- Same as Applicant ' ENGINEER: Simpson-Steppat, Newport Beach Application: ' The proposed project is the subdivision of 12.97 acres into 21 number lots for single family residential development; one lettered lot for private street ' purposes, and one lettered lot for landscape open space. Additionally, the project involves the extension of San Miguel Drive Irom its present terminus to Avocado Avenue. In order to accomplish their objectives, the applicant is requesting the approval of Tentative Tract 10625, a Traffic Study and the ac- , Planning Commission - 2 ' ceptance of an environmental document. Tentative Pap procedures are set Forth under Chapter 19.12 of the Municipal Code-. I i The proposed project is located generally southerly of Roger's Garden's Nursery, between MacArthur Boulevard and the extension of San Miguel Drive. One lot (Lot 21T is located southerly of San Miguel Drive extended. The Tract Map additionally covers the extension of San Miguel Drive from its proposed intersection of MacArthur Boulevard to Avocado Avenue. Environmental Significance An initial study was prepared on the project in accordance with City Policy K-3 and the California Environmental Quality Act. Based'on the information contained in the initial study, the City's Environmental ' Affairs Committee determined that the project will not have a significant effect on the environmental". A Negative Declaration for the project was issued on February 9, 1979. A copy of the Initial Study and Negative ' Declaration are attached. General Plan ' I The project site is designated for low density residential development between MacArthur Boulevard and San Miguel Drive (extended) and -Adminis- trative, Professional and Financial Commercial use west of MacArthur Boulevard. The proposed project is consistent with these designations. The projects proposed extension of San Miguel Drive is consistent with the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan and County's Master Plan of Arterial Highways. A detailed discussion of the Elements of the General Plan as they apply to this project is provided on pages 19 through 21 of the Initial Study. Zoning i The proposed project site is zoned R-A, R-1-B and P-C. The portion of the I project site zoned P-C includes only that property westerly of MacArthur Boulevard. A comparison of project and zoning is as follows: Development Standards T T #10625 R-i-B RA Building Site Area 6,825 sq. ft. min. 6,000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft. Lot Width avg. 60 ft. + 60 ft. 60 ft. Lot Length avg. 80 ft. + 80 ft. 80 ft. ' Rear Yard N/A 6 ft. 20% depth • Side Yard N/A 6 ft. 10%•width Maxium Coverage N/A 60" 40% Permitted/Proposed Use SFR* SFR* SFR* Front Yard N/A 20 ft. min. , 35• ft. max. 20-ft. min. Floor Area Limit N/A 2 X buildable *Single Family Residential N/A = Not Applicable to Tract Map 10: Planning Commission - 3 Traffic Stuff , fhe applicant has requested acceptance of a Traffic Report and approval of the project based on the data contained therein for the purpose of issuance of building and grading permits. The Traffic Study was prepared in accordance with the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance (chapter 15.40' of the Newport Beach Municipal Code) and as a part of the Initial Study. The Initial Study in addition to reviewing those intersections required by the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance (Items 1 through 5 below) reviewed several additional inter- sections for potential impact (items 6 through 8 below). 1. Coast Hwy./MacArthur Blvd. , 2. Coast Hwy./Marguerite Ave. i 3. MacArthur Blvd./San Jaaquin Hills Road 4. MacArthur Blvd./Ford Road ' 5. MacArthur Blvd./Jamboree Road 6. San Joaquin Hills Rd./Senta Rosa (Big Canyon) 7. San Joaquin Hills Rd:/San Miguel Dr. ' 8'. MacArthur Blvd./ Ford Road I The analysis was performed with and without the extension of San Miguel Dr. (Cul-de-Saced). San Joaquin Hills Rd/San Miguel Dr. exceeded 1% existing ' volume under both conditions and MacArthur Blvd./San Joaquin Hills Rd. eexceed 1% of existing volume if San Miguel Drive were to be cul-de-sated. The following indicates ICU analysis for the respective intersections. The ' detailed work sheet is included within the Initial Study. Future I.C.U. ' San Miguel Drive is: Intersection Existing (2)Cul-de- Mitigation I.C.U. (1)Extended S— ate— Required? ' San Joaquin Hills Road & San Miguel Drive 0.41 0.4068 0.4071 No 1 MacArthur Boulevard & ' San Joaquin Hills Road 0.72 0.7200 0.7267 No Based on the information contained in the Traffic Study, the proposed pro- ' ject will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of service on ahy 'major' , 'primary-modified' or 'primary' street. Staff Analysis The proposed project includes both the extension of San Miguel Drive and ' the subdivision of the property into 21 lots for residential development. The following major issues were raised by the project and discussed in the Initial Study: i ' f0: Planning Co::riisslon - 4 7 Extension San Miquel Drive fhe extension of San Miguel Drive from its present terminus to Avocado Avenue is consistent with the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan and the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways. The I consultant has 'concluded that without the extension of San Miguel Drive ` the I.C.U. for the San Joaquin Hills Road/MacArthur Blvd. would be beyond II an acceptable level , if Newport Center is developed to intensities per- mitted by the most recent amendment to the General Plan. (Refer to Page 7 of the Addendum to the Traffic Impact Analysis dated January 10, 1979). ' Traffic Phasing Ordinance Based on the information contained in the Traffic Study the proposed pro- ject will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of service on any 'major' , 'primary-modified' or 'primary' street. This statement is valid if San Miguel Drive is extended or if it were to be cul-de-sated. ' Water Quality The proposed project wil•1 not have a significant effect on water quality if the mitigation measures suggested in the Initial Study and on the Nega- tive Declaration are enforced as conditions of approval of the Final Map. The applicant has met with Staff and agreed to maintain the off-site de- silting basin until such time as the off-site property developes and further ' to provide a facility with a capacity equal to ,or greater than the existing facility at such time as the site is developed. Noise ' The proposed residential development will be impacted by noise from Mac- Arthur Blvd. and the extension of San Miguel Drive. The extension of San Miguel Drive will also create new traffic noise exposures for existing homes along Salt Air Drive. The potential adverse effects of increased noise levels can be mitigated as is indicated on page 36 of the Initial Study and as is recommended as a condition of approval of this project. ' Status Lot 21 ' The applicant has described a variety of alternative uses for Lot 21, including custom home development, greenbelt uses, recreational , and natural open space. Any of the proposed uses are consistent with'the Newport Beach General Plan. The proposed lot (No. 21) has problems from an access standpoint and noise impacts. Staff has recommended that any future residential development of Lot 21 be subject to further study and approval by the Public Works and Community Development Departments. Suggested Action There are several actions to be taken on the proposed project. It -is ' recommended that each action be considered in the order• presented in the . Staff Report and listed below: f0: Planning Commission - 5 A. TRAFFIC STUDY Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make the following findings in regard to the Traffic Study: 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the peak hour traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. ' 2. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project-generated traffic will be greater than one percent of existing. traffic during the 2.5 hour peak period on any leg of the intersection , of San Joaquin Hills Rd. and MacArthur Blvd. 3. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project-generated ' traffic will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on any 'major' , 'primary-modified' or 'primary' street. Tentative Tract 7410625 ' Section 19.12.020 (D) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that in order to approve a subdivision, the Commission shall determine that it is ' satisfied with the plan of subdivision, that the map is in conformity with the requirements of Title 19, all ordinances of the city, and all ap- plicable general or specific plans. ' Staff recommends the approval of Tentative Tract 7410626 and the acceptance of the Environmental documents with the findings and subject to the con- ditions as follows: ' A. FINDINGS: 1. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport , Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific plans, and the Planning Commission is satis- fied with the plan of subdivision. , 2. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. ' 3. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed. 4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. 5. That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been pre- , pared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and that their contents have been considered in the decisions on this project, rO: Planning Commission - 6 ' 6. That based on the information contained in the Negative Declar- ation, the project incorporates sufficient mitigation medsures to reduce potentially-significant environmental effects, and that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts. 7'. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvement will not substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 8. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements ' are not likely to cause serious public health problems. 9. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements, acquired by the public at ' large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. ' 10. That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision will not result in or add to any violation of existing requirements pre- scribed by a California Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 1300) of the ' Water Code. B. CONDITIONS: ' 1. That a tract map be filed. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That Section 19.16.030 of the Subdivision Ordinance be waived provided that drawings of the tract map at a scale of 1" = 100' ' are provided. to the Public Works Department. 4. That vehicular access to Lot 21 be limited 'to one driveway ap- proach on San Miguel Drive. This driveway approach shall be limited to right turn in and out only. The location of the driveway approach shall be subject to further study and approval of the Public Works and Community Development Departments prior ' to filing of the tract map. The driveway approach location shall be located as far away from MacArthur Boulevard as possible. 5. That all vehicular access rights to MacArthur Boulevard, except at the public street intersection, be 'released and relinquished to the City. 6. That the remaining street improvements along the easterly side of MacArthur Boulevard frontage adjacent to the tract be completed including a 10-foot-wide sidewalk-bike trail . ' 7. That the minimum right-of-way width of San Miguel Drive between Avocado Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard be 114 feet. ' 8. That all vehicular access rights to San Miguel Drive, except for ' IG '10: Planning Cowmission - 7 ' two private drive openings and the public street intersection, be , released and relinquished to the City. 9. That San Miguel Drive be improved to its ultimate section from Avocado Avenue to San Joaquin Hills Road, including modification of the existing traffic signal at the intersection of San Joaquin Hills Road with San Miguel Drive. 10. That traFfic signals be installed by the developer at the inter- sections of San Miguel Drive with MacArthur Boulevard and Avocado Avenue. The implementation of this requirement at the inter- ' section of San Miguel Drive with Avocado Avenue shall be subject to verification by the City of signal warrants, and a separate agreement and surety may be provided for this work. If the traffic , signal warrants are not met within a five-year period after ac- ceptance by the Council of the public improvements for the tract, the developer shall be relieved from this portion of the condition of approval. 11. That the noise impact from MacArthur Boulevard and San Miguel ' Drive be considered and that the dwelling units be designed to ' provide for sound attenuation in accordance with the requirements of law and the recommendations of a qualified acoustical engineer. Specifically, that acoustical attenuation devices be included in final project design as described in mitigation measures 11 A 12 , of the Initial Study (Lots 3, 4 and 5 of TT #10625 and Lot 49 of Tract 6385) and that they be subject to the 'review and approval of the Community Development Director. 12. That the design of the private streets conform with the City's , private-street policy. 13. That the structural section of the private streets and drives ' be designed in accordance with standard civil engineering practice. The design will be approved and the construction inspected by the Public Works Department. The standard plan check and inspection , fee shall be paid. . 14. That the private streets shall have a street light system approved ' by the Public Works Department. 15. That the California Vehicle Code be enforced on the private streets. 16. That a traffic control plan shall be submitted and approved by ' the City's Traffic Engineer. o- 17. That if it is desired to have a control gate on the entrance off ' San Miguel Drive, a turn-around shall be provided prior to the gate. The design of the controlled entrance shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works and Community Development Depart- ' ments. t Planning Commission - 8 ' 18. That a 10-foot-wide sidewalk-bike trail be provided on the northerly side of San Miguel Drive. ' 19. That the median in San Miguel Drive be improved with an irri- gation system, landscaping, and cobblestone pavement. The plans shall'•be approved by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department and the Public Works Department. 20. That the water capital improvement acreage fees-be paid. ' 21. That storage capacity in San Joaquin Reservoir equal to one maximum day's demand be dedicated to the City. 22. That easements for ingress, egress and public utility purposes ' on Lot "A" be dedicated to the City. 23. That 3-foot-wide easements for public •utility .purposes adjacent to Lot "A" be dedicated to the City. 24. That a subdivision agreement and accompanying surety be provided if it is desired to record the final tract map prior to completion of the public improvements. 25. That all work within the MacArthur Boulevard right-of-way be done under an encroachment permit issued by the California Department of Transportation. 26. That sight distance for the bike trail along the westerly side ' of San Miguel Drive be provided for the future driveway approach for Roger's Gardens. 27. That on-site fire hydrants be provided as required by the Public ' Works Department and the Fire Department. 28. That Fire Department access shall be approved by the Fire Depart-• .. ' ment. 29. A landscape and irrigation plan for all common areas shall be pre- pared by a licensed landscape architect. Said plan shall in- clude a maintenance program which controls the use of organo-phos- phates and pesticides. " 30. That the landscape plan shall place heavy emphasis on the use of drought-resistant or ornamental vegetation. 31. That planting be done on any exposed slopes as soon as possible ' to reduce erosion potential . Prior to the occupancy of any dwelling unit the licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Dept. of Community Development that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with the prepared plan. ' 32. Development of the site will be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Department of Community Development. Surface and ' subsurface drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department and the Public Works Department. 10: Planning Commission - 9 12- ' 33. An erosion and dust control plan shall be submitted with the ' grading permit application and be subject to the approval of the Community Development Department. 34. That drainage along MacArthur Blvd. adjacent to the tract be im- proved- in conjunction with Tract grading; if grading and drainage ± are to be accomplished as a precise plan this should be ac- complished prior to finalization of the grading plan. 35. That a lined brow ditch (es) be provided on off-site areas where cuts are proposed on the tract, and in accordance with the pre- ' cise grading plan to be approved by the Community Development Department. 36. That a detailed geotechnical report -be prepared prior to approval of the final tract map and before finalization of a grading plan, ' subject to the approval of the Public Works Department and Com- munity Development Department. ' 37. That an erosion and siltation control plan be approved by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Santa Ana Region, and that the plan be submitted to said Board ten days prior to any construction activities. 38. That the applicant provide for street sweeping services for t all non-dedicated streets equal to that service provided by the City for residential area streets. 39. That in order to retain the physical integrity of midden deposits , during grading activities, that mitigation measures 4, 5, and 6 as described in. the Initial Study be observed during construction of the project. ' 40. That prior to the issuance of building permits, it be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director that energy conservation measures described as mitigation measures 13, 1.4, and �B�n the Initial Study have been considered in pro- ' ject design. ) 41. That appropriate deed restriction (s) subject to the approval , of the City Attorney and Director of Community Development be placed on Lot 21 as shown on Tentative Tract No. 10625 to inform any po- tential purchaser (s) of high noise levels and access restrictions , on this site. v 42. That the applicant provide assurance in a manner acceptable to the City Attorney and Director of Community Development -that the off- ' site desilting basin will be retained or should any development of the desilting basin site occur, a basin of equal or greater capacity will be provided. ' 1 To: Manning Commission - 10 ' DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, DIRECTOR Fred Talarico Environmental Co-ordinator FT/gg ' Attachments: Negative Declaration Initial Study Tentative Tract No. 10625 w III NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO: QSecretary For Resources FROM: Community Development Dept. 1416 Ninth Street, Room 1311 City of Newport Beach ' Sacramento, California 95814 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Calif. 92663 FClerk of the Board of Supervisors P. 0. Box 687 Santa Ana, Californi'a 92702 1 NAME OF PROJECT: Harbor Point Subdivision - San Miguel Drive extension (Tentative ' Tract 10625) PROJECT LOCATION: Near the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin ' Hills Road in the City of Newport Beach. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: .21 residential lots will be created on 6.86 acres and the ' extension of San Migugl Drive approximately 1500 feet to the west. FINDING: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council Policy K-3 pertaining to ' procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project will,not ' have a significant effect on the environment. MITIGATION MEASURES: ' Attached INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY: The City of Newport Beach ' INITIAL STUDY AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT: 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 DATE RECEIVED FOR, FILING: ' Fred Talarico ' Environmental Coordinator Date: February 9, T979 ' Mitigation Measures for Harbor Point Subdivision and San Miguel Extension 1 . All mitigation measures incorporated in the attached Initial Study will be implemented. 2. Concerning Lot No. 21 as shown on Tentative Map No. 10625, any use other than as a neighborhood park or open space should be subject to additional site plan review by the City. ' 3. Appropriate deed restriction(s) should be placed on Lot No. 21 as shown on Tentative Map No. 10625 to inform any potential purchaser of the high noise levels effecting this site. ' 4. A written agreement from the property owner 'should be submitted indicating: ' A) That the existing desiltation basin will be retained, and; B) Should any development of the desiltation basin site occur, a basin of equal or greater capacity will be provided until ' a permanent basin capable of accommodating all runoff resulting from development in the vicinity is installed. 1 I� February 22, 1979 Mr. William Agee Chairman, Planning Commission CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 Dear Chairman Agee and members of the Planning Commission: I would like to express my concerns, for your consideration, regard- ing street traffic circulation, as it relates to the existing Roger's Garden's operation and the Irvine Company's proposed residential project to the south. With regards to the extension of San Miguel to MacArthur Blvd. and the proposed continuation of Avocado Ave; we recognize the value of this segment to the total traffic plan and unquestionably support its future. With regard to the traffic circulation surrounding the triangle of land under discussion; we request the Planning commission con- sider the traffic routes our customers must use to and from the Gardens. Specifically that 73% of our customers will want to leave going north on MacArthur, north on San Miguel or west on San Joaquin Hills Rd. I believe you should review the data on the following page and consider the following implications. ly lc�)5, 2301 San Joaquin Hills Rd„Corona del Mar,Ca. 92625-640.5800 ' ' Letter to Mr. William Agee ! y� February 22, 1979 Page 2 of 2 i ' The current proposal would require our customers desiring to return home north on MacArthur to choose one of the following routes: I ' 1. South on San Miguel, north on MacArthur Blvd. or 2. Exit the San Joaquin, driveway (right turn only) cutting across 3 lanes of 55/mph traffic, and making an illegal U-turn to San Joaquin west, to MacArthur north. ' it would require customers desiring to return home north on San Miguel to choose one these routes: ' 1. South on San Miguel, north on MacArthur; east on San Joaquin then north on San Miquel. or 2. Exit the San Joaquin driveway (right turn only) cutting across 3 lanes of 55/mph traffic to make a left turn on ' San Miguel north. In order to go west on San Joaquin Hills Rd. , our customers would have to choose one of the following routes: 1. South on San Miguel, north on MacArthur, west on San Joaquin Hills Rd. ' or 2. Exit the San Joaquin driveway (right turn only) cutting across 3 lanes of 55/mph traffic to make an illegal U-Turn to San Joaquin west. ' As I have discussed my concern with the Department of Traffic Engineering, I rely on their expertise to advise you on the available alternatives to these matters. ' Sincerely, a S^e Jeffrey B. D'Eliscu General Manager ' JBD/dh enclosures ' cc: Keith Greer, Irvine Company Richard Edmondston, Traffic Engineer Dick Hogan, Dept. Community Development 1 L Ig ROGER'S GARDENS NEWPORT CENTER Customer Traffic Data ' Daily Existing and Projected Traffic Volumes: AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC ' Forecasted Forecasted Period Existing Increase Total Winter - Midweek 500 250 750 Winter.- Weekend 1,300 700 2,000 ' Summer - Midweek 850 450 1,300 Summer - Weekend 1,650 900 2,550 ' 1 Customer Residence Survey: PERCENTAGE OF .TRAFFIC Customer's Direction Existing Long Term (proposed) A) North on MacArthur Blvd. 60.9% 50.0% ' B) West on San Joaquin Hills Rd. 10.5% 8.0% C) North on San Miguel Dr. 5.0% 15.0% ' D) East on San Joaquin Hills Rd. 6.5% 10.0% E) South on MacArthur Blvd. 17.1% 15.0% ' F) South on San Miguel Dr. -0- 2.0% ' b• e c t ' Planning Co-omission j'. .Ling Februa � 22, 1949 _ Agenda Item ilo. 8 and 9 _ CITY OF NE!dPORT BEACH February 16, 1979 TO: Planning Commission ' FROM: Department of Cormunity Developi;ent SUBJECT: Request to consider a Traffic Study for a ro osed sub- division containing 21 single family residential lots ' Public Hearing t LOCATION: A portion of Block 93, Irvine's Subdivision, located at 1401 San Miguel Drive, betW'een MacArthur Boulevard and the proposed extension of San Miguel Drive, southwesterly ' of Roger's Gardens. ZONES: R-A, P,-1-B, and P-C. ' APPLICANT: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as Applicant ' ENGINEER: Simpson-Steppat, Newport Beach SUBJECT: Tentative Map Tract No. 10625 (Public Hearing. ' LOCATION: A portion of Block 93, Irvine's Subdivision, located 'at 1401- San Miguel Drive, between MacArthur Boulevard and the pro- ' posed extension of San Miguel Drive, Southwesterly of Roger's ' Gardens. ; ZONES: R-A, R-1-B, and P-C. APPLICANT: The Irvine Company, Newport. Beach OWNER: Same as Applicant ENGINEER: Simpson-SteppaL•, Newport Beach ' Application: The proposed project is the subdivision of 12.97 acres into 21 numbEr lots ' for single family residential development; one lettered lot for private street purposes, and one lettered lot for landscape open spa--e. Additionally, the project involves the extension of San Miguel Drive from its present terminus ' to Avocado Avenue. In order to accomplish their o ;acLiveS, the applicant is requesting the approval of Tentative Tract 10525, a Traffic Study :,(I the ac- ' Planning Corrrnission r-ating Februar,/ 22, 1949 _ ' Agenda Item No. 8 and 9 CITY OF' NEWPORT BEACH February 16, 1979 - ' TO: Planning Commission ' FP.O,M: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Request to consider a Traffic Study for a proposed sub- division containing_21 sinqle family residential 'Lots t _ Public Hearinq . LOCATION: A portion of Block 93, Irvine's Subdivision, located at 1401 San Miguel Drive, between `MacArthur Boulevard and the proposed extension of San Miguel Drive, southwesterly of Roger's Gardens. ' ZONES: R-A, R-1-B, and P-C. ' APPLICANT: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as Applicant ' ' ENGINEER: Simpson-Steppat, Newport Beach SUBJECT: Tentative Map Tract No. 10626 (Public Hearinq. LOCATION: A portion of Block 93, Irvine' s Subdivision, located at 1401•:. San Miguel Drive, between MacArthur Boulevard and the pro- posed extension of San Miguel Drive, southwesterly of Roger's Gardens. ' ZONES: R-A, R-1-B, and P-C. ' APPLICANT: The Irvine Company, Newport Be.:ch OWNER: Same as Applicant ' ENGINEER: Simpson-S•teppat, Ne-.rport Beach implication: ' The proposed project is the subdivision of 1: into 21 number lots for single family residential developient; or = ' ! lot for private street ' -e. Additionally, the purposes, and one lettered lot for landsc:ap-� '•� ,/> project involves the extension of S::n (iiqul I tsr fra:� its present terminus to Avocado Avenue. In order to accoc,plisii if " c'}'='dives , the applicant is ' requesting the approval of Tentative Tract lr ' It'!°fit Study and the ac- ' T0: Planning Commission - 2 ' ceptance of an environmental document. Tentative Pap procedures are set forth under Chapter 19.12 of the Municipal Code. ' The proposed project is located generally south-irly of Roger's Garden's Ndrsery, between MacArthur Boulevard and the extension of San Miguel Drive. ' One lot (Lot 21T is located southerly of San Miguel Drive extended. The Tract Map additionally covers the extension of San [Miguel Drive From its proposed intersection of MacArthur Boulevard to Avocado Avenue. ' Environmental Significance An initial study was prepared on the' project in accordance with City Policy K-3 and the California Environmental Quality Act. Based on the information contained in the initial study, the City's Environmental Affairs Committee determined that the project will not have a significant ' effect on the environmental . A Negative Declaration for the project was issued on February 9, 1979. A copy of the Initial Study and Negative Declaration are attached. ' General Plan ' The project site is designated for loft density residential development between MacArthur Boulevard and San Miguel Drive (extended) and Adminis- trative, Professional and Financial Commercial use west of MacArthur Boulevard. The proposed project is consistent with these designations.The projects proposed extension of. San Miguel Drive is consistent with the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan and County's Master Plan of Arterial Highways. A detailed discussion of the Elements of the ' General Plan as they apply to this project is provided on pages 19 through 21 of the Initial Study. ' Zoning The proposed project site is zoned R-A, R-1-B and P-C. The portion of the--... project site zoned P-C includes only that property westerly of MacArthur - Boulevard. A comparison of project and zoning is as follows: Development Standards T T n10625 P.-1-B RA Building Site Area 6,825 sq. ft. min. 6,000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. f ' Lot Width avg. 60 ft. + 60 ft.'., '60 ft. Lot Length avg. 80 ft. + 80 ft. 80 ft. Rear Yard N/A 6 ft. 20% depth Side Yard N/A 6 ft. 107.width ' Maxium Coverage N/A 6OV 4021 Permitted/Proposed Use SFRk SFP.* SFR*. ', Front Yard N/A 20 ft. min. , 35'ft.' max. 20 ft. min. ' Floor Area Limit H/A 2 Y. buildable -- *Single Family Residential ' PI/A = Not Applicable to Tract Map TC: Planning Commission - 2 ceptance of an environmental document. Tentative Pap procedures are set forth tinder Chapter 19.12 of the Municipal Code. The proposed project is located generally southerly of Roger's Garden's Nursery, between MacArthur Boulevard and the extension of San Miguel Drive. One lot (Lot 21T is located southerly of San Miguel Drive extended. The Tract Map additionally covers the extension of San i•liguel Drive from its proposed intersection of MacArthur Boulevard to Avocado Avenue. Environmental Significance An initial study was prepared on the project in accordance with City Policy K-3 and the California Environmental Quality Act. Based on the information contained in the initial study, the City's Environmental Affairs Committee determined that the project will not have a significant ^ effect on the environmental . A Negative Declaration for the project was issued on February 9, 1979. A copy of the Initial Study and Negative Declaration are attached. General Plan The project site is designated -for lo,.l density residential development between MacArthur Boulevard and San Miguel Drive (extended) and Adminis- trative, Professional and Financial Commercial use west of MacArthur Boulevard. The proposed project is consistent with these designations. The projects proposed extension of. San Miguel Drive is consistent with the • Circulation Element of the City's General Plan and County's Master Plan of Arterial Highways. A detailed discussion of the Elements of the General Plan as they apply to this project is provided on pages 19 through 21 of the Initial Study. Zoning The proposed project site is zoned R-A, P,-1-D and P-C. The portion of the-L.. project site zoned P-C includes only that property westerly of MacArthur Boulevard. A comparison of project and zoning is as follows: Development Standards T T 010625 P.-1-B RA Building Site Area 6,825 sq. ft. min. 6,000 sq. ft. •6,000 sq. ft Lot Width avg. 60 ft. + 60 ft. - 60 ft. Lot Length avg. 80 ft. + 80 ft. 80 ft. Rear Yard N/A 6 ft. 20% depth Side Yard N/A 6 ft. 10%-width Maxium Coverage H/A • 60`,; 40% - Permitted/Proposed Use SFR* SFR* SFR*. ' Front Yard N/A - 20 ft. min. , 35'ft.• max. 20-ft. min. Floor Area Limit H/A 2 Y, buildable *Single Family Residential. N/A = Not Applicable to Tract Map 1 • TO: Planning Commission - 3 ' Tra Ffic Stud ' The applicant has requested acceptance of a Traffic Report and approval of the project based on the data contained therein for the purpose of issuance of ' building and grading permits. the Traffic Study ,,,as prepared in accordance with the Ciity's Traffic Phasing Ordinance (chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code) and as a part of the Initial Study. The Initial Study in addition to reviewing those intersections• required, by the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance (Items 1 ,through 5 below) reviewed several additional inter- sections for potential impact (items 6-through 8 below). 1. Coast Hwy./MacArthur Blvd. 2. Coast Hwy./Marguerite Ave. 3. MacArthur Blvd./San Jaoquin Hills Road ' 4. MacArthur Blvd./Ford Road 5. MacArthur Blvd./Jamboree Road 6. San Joaquin Hills Rd./Santa Rosa (Big Canyon) ' 7. San Joaquin Hills Rd./San Miguel Dr. 8. MacArthur Blvd./ Ford Road The analysis was performed with and without the extension of San Miguel Dr. ' (Cul-de-Saced). San Joaquin Hills Rd/San Miguel Dr. exceeded 1% existing volume under both conditions and MacArthur Blvd./San, Joaquin Hills Rd. eexceed 1% of existing volume if San iiiguel Drive were to be cul-de-saced. ' The following indicates ICU analysis for the respective intersections. The detailed work sheet is included within the Initial Study. tFuture I.C.U. San Miguel Drive is: ' Intersection Existing (2)Cul-de- Mitigation I.C.U. (1)Extended Saced Required? San Joaquin Hills Road & San Miguel Drive 0.41 0.4068 0.4071 No MacArthur Boulevard & San Joaquin Hills Road 0.72 0.7200 0.7267 mo ' Based on the information contained in the Traffic Study, the proposed pro- ject will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of service on any 'major' , 'primary-modified' or 'primary' street. Staff Analy ' The proposed project includes both the extension of San Miguel Drive and the subdivision of the property into 21 lots for residential development. The following major issues were raised by the project and discussed in the Initial Study: TO: Planning Commission - 3 Traffic Stud, ' The applicant has requested acceptance of a Traffic Report and approval of the project based on the data contained therein for the purpose of issuance of ' building and grading permits. The Traffic Study -s prepared in accordance with the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance (chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code) and as a part of the Initial Study. The Initial Study -in. ' addition to revie:•ting those intersections required by the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance (Items 1 through 5 balold) reviFwed several additional inter- sections for potential impact (items 6 through 8 below). 1. Coast Hwy./MacArthur Blvd. 2. Coast Hwy./Marguerite Ave. 3. MacArthur Blvd./San Jaoquin Hills Road ' 4. MacArthur Blvd./Ford Road 5. MacArthur Blvd./Jamboree Road 6. San Joaquin Hills Rd./Santa Rosa (Big Canyon) ' 7. San Joaquin Hills Rd./San Miguel Dr. 8. MacArthur Blvd./ Ford Road ' The analysis was performed with and without the extension of San Miguel Dr. ' (Cul-de-Saced). San Joaquin Hills Rd/San Miguel Dr. exceeded 1% existing volume under both conditions and MacArthur Blvd./San Joaquin Hills Rd. eexceed 1% of existing volume if San Miguel Drive were to be cul-de-saced. The following indicates ICU analysis for the respective intersections. The detailed work sheet is included within the Initial Study. ' Future T.C.U. San Miguel Drive is: Intersection Existinq (2)Cul-de- Mitigation I.C.U. (1)Extended Saced Required? ' San Joaquin Hills Road & _ _ San Miguel Drive 0.41 0.4068 0.4071 No MacArthur Boulevard & San Joaquin Hills Road 0.72 0.7200 0.7267 No ' Based on the information contained in the Traffic Study, 'the proposed pro- ject will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of service on any 'major' , 'primary-modified' or 'prir.nary' street. Staff Analysis ; ' The proposed project includes both the extension of San Miguel Drive and the subdivision of the property into 21 lots for residential development. The following major issues were raised by the project and discussed in the Initial Study: ' . TO: Planning Comm i•;gift, •- :; ' Extension San Miquv:'I Driv: ' The extension of San Eli, ;..1 J•,;ur-;:do Avenue is consistent trio; t'r.•. ; c Iseach General Plan and the crar• c 1 C,. _ The consultant has •concludr:r! „ ., , Drive the I.C.U. for the San ,)oa;trl:: ! ! be beyond an acceptable level , if ;I..;; •; _ tins per- mitted by the most recent ` , : ,f :r• to Page 7 of the Addendum to .••f :Hoary 10, 1979). ' Traffic Phasing Ordinance Based on the in-forma ticn cer.;;s• ie proposed pro- ject will neither cause r:or •,,tr an i = ;t :_; level of service ' on any 'major' , 'primary-„ •�i;; :.M cry 'p: . .:�� ' ;;n;e:. This statement is valid if San Miguel Drive is v�.t,:• :r•: or i f ; _ t rrttohe cul-de-saced. ' Water Quality The proposed project trill nut ha; o si.;,Ific-::t effsct on water quality ' if the mitigation measure:, s;,:;,ea d in tic i-Iitiat Stue1y and on -the Nega- tive Declaration are enforced as cor:ditions or ,, proval of the. Final Map. The applicant has r:et with Star: ani agreed to rain:tain the off-site de- silting basin until such tire as t:x off-site property developes and further to provide a facility t,itit a ca;mcity e:i:.•:1 to or greater than the existing facility at such tir..,:: as the site is developed. ' Noise The proposed residential revelor e„t twill be i,:a=.clad by noise from Mao- ' Arthur Blvd. and the extension of San Miguel Drive. The extension of San Miguel Drive will also create newt tt•affic noise exposures for existing homes along Salt Air Drive. The potential adverse effects of increased - '' noise levels can be mitigated as is indicated on page 36 of the Initial Study and as is recot:-..ended as a condition or approval of this project. Status Lot 21 ' The applicant has described a variety of alternative uses for Lot 21, ' including custom horse development, greenbelt uses, recreational , and natural open space. Any of the proposed uses are consistent with the Newport Beach General Plan. The proposed lot (No. 21) has problems from an access ' standpoint and noise impacts. Staff has recommended that any future residential development of Lot 21 be subject to feather study and approval by the Public 4iorks and Con•munity Development Departi-ents. ' Su_g�Cested Action •there are several actions to be taken on the proposed project. It is ' recommended that each action be considered in the cr.er presented in the Staff Report and listed belo:i: ' • T0: Planning Commission - h ' Extension San Higuel Drive ' The extension of San Miguel Drive from its present terminus to Avocado Avenue is consistent with the Circulation Elemnent of the 44e;•rport Beach General Plan and the Orange County 4'>_ster Plan of lrterial Highways. The ' consultant has 'concluded that without the extension of San Miguel Drive the I.C.U. For the San Joaquin Pills P.oad/i•;--cA•rthur Blvd. would be beyond an acceptable level , if Newport Center is developed to intensities per- ' witted by the most recent amendment to the General Plan. (Refer to Page 7 of the Addendum to the Traffic Impact Analysis dated January 10, 1979). ' Traffic Phasing Ordinance Based on the in-Formation contained in the Traffic Study the proposed pro- ject will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of service on any 'major' , 'primary-modified' or 'primary' street. This statement is valid if San Miguel Drive is extended or if it were to be cul-de-sated. ' Water Quality The proposed project will not have a significant effect on water quality ' if the mitigation measures suggested in the Initial Study and on the Nega- tive Declaration are enforced as conditions of approval of the Final Map. The applicant has met with Staff and agreed to maintain the off-site de- silting basin until such time as the off-site property developes and further to provide a -Facility with a capacity equal to or greater than the existing facility at such time as the site is developed. ' Noise ' The proposed residential development trill be impacted by noise from Mac- Arthur Blvd. and the extension of San Miguel Drive. The extension of San Miguel Drive will also create new traffic noise exposures for existing ' homes along Salt Air Drive. The potential adverse effects of increased noise levels can be mitigated as is indicated on page 36 of the Initial Study and as is recommended as a condition of approval of this project. ' Status Lot 21 The applicant has described a variety of alternative uses for Lot 21, ' including custom home development, greenbelt uses, recreational , and natural open space. Any of the proposed uses are consistent with the Newport Beach General Plan. The proposed lot (1-4o. 21) has problems from an access ' standpoint and noise impacts. Staff has reco-^ended that any future residential development of Lot 21 be subject to further study and approval by the Public Works and Community Development Depa•rt.ents. ' S Bested Action There are several actions to be taken on the proposed project. It is ' recommended that each action be considered in the order presented in the Staff Report and listed below: 1 ' T0: Planning Commission - 5 ' A. TRAFFIC STUDY Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make the follo:iing findings ' in regard 'to the Traffic Study: 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact I ' of the proposed project on the peak hour traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Neriport Beach Municipal Code. ' 2. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project-generated traffic will be greater than one percent of existing traffic ' during the 2.5 hour peak period on any leg of the intersection of San Joaquin Hills Rd. and MacArthur Blvd. ' 3. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project-generated traffic will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on any 'major' , 'primary-modified' or 'primary' street. Tentative Tract n10625 ' Section 19. 12.020 (D) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that in order to approve a subdivision, the Commission shall determine that it is satisfied with the plan of subdivision, that the map is in conformity with the requirements of Title 19, all ordinances of the City, and all ap- plicable general or specific plans. ' Staff recommends the approval of Tentative Tract 7-1,10625 and the acceptance of the Environmental documents with the findings and subject to the con- ditions as follows: _ A. FINDINGS: - ' 1. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific plans, and the Planning Commission is satis-- fied with the plan of subdivision. ' 2. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. ' 3. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed. ' 4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. ' 5. That an Initial Study and negative Declaration have been pre- pared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and that their contents have been considered in the decisions ' on this project. ' TO: Planning Commission - 5 ' A. TRAFFIC STUDY Staff recommends that the Planning Coy mission make the following findings ' in regard -to tho Traffic Study: 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared :•;hick analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the peak hour traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 2. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project-generated traffic will be greater than one percent of existing traffic ' during the 2.5 hour peak period on any leg of the intersection of San Joaquin Hills Rd. and MacArthur Blvd. ' 3. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project-generated traffic Vlill neither cause nor mare worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on any 'major' , 'primary-modified' or ' 'primary' street. Tentative Tract 7#'10625 Section 19.12.020 (D) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that in ' order to approve a subdivision, the Co�,.mission shall determine that it -is satisfied with the plan of subdivision, that the map is in conformity with the requirements of Title 19, all ordinances of the City, and all ap- plicable general or specific plans. Staff recommends the approval of Tentative Tract :10625 and the acceptance of the Environmental documents with the findings and subject to the con- ditions as follows: A. FINDINGS: - 1. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific plans, and the Planning Commission is satis •Pied with the plan of subdivision. ' 2. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. ' 3. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed. 4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. ' 5. That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been pre- pared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality ' Act, and that their contents have been considered in the decisions on this project. TO: Planning Commission - 6 ' 6. That based on the information contained in the Negative Declar- ation, -the project incorporates sufficient mitigation measures to reduce potentially-significant environmental effects, and that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts. ' 7. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvement will not substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 8. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. ' 9. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not conflict with any ease^ents, acquired by the public at ' large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. 10. That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision will not result in or add to any violation of existing requirements pre- scribed by a. California Regional Hater Quality Control Board ' pursuantto Division 7 (commencing with Section 1300) of the Water Code. B. CONDITIONS: 1. That a tract map be filed. ' 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works 'Department. ' 3. That Section 19.16.030 of the Subdivision Ordinance be waived provided -that drawings of the tract map at a scale of 1" = 100' are provided to the Public Works Department. ' 4. That vehicular access to Lot 21 be limited to one driveway ap- proach on San Miguel Drive. This driveway approach shall be ' limited to right turn in and out only. The location of the driveway approach shall be subject to further study and approval of the Public Works and Community Development Departments.prior to filing of the tract map. The drive,.-lay approach location shall ' be located as far away from NacArthur Boulevard as possible. 5. That all vehicular access rights to 1.1acArthur Boulevard, except ' at the public street intersection, be released and relinquished to the City. ' 6. That the remaining street 'improv_- .ents along the easterly side of MacArthur Boulevard frontage adjacent to the tract be completed including a 10--foot-wide sideaal -bike trail . 7. That the minimum right-of-:•gay width of Sar. Miguel Drive between Avocado Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard be 114 feet. ' 8. That all vehicular access rights to San "iguel Drive, except for TO: Planning Commission - 6 6. That based on -the information contained it the Negative Declar- ation, the project incorporates sufficient mitigation measures 'to reduce potentially-significant ern iranse. al effects, and that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts. ' 7. That the design of the subdivision or the Droposed improvement will not substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their ' habitat. 8. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. 9. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements, acquired by the public at ' large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. 10. That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision will not result in 'or add to any violation of existing requirements pre- scribed by a California Regional Water Osality Control Board ' pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 1300) of the Water Code. ' B. CONDITIOt•!S: 1. That a tract map be filed. ' 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works 'Department. 3. That Section 19.16.030 of the Subdivision Ordinance be waived provided that drawings of the tract map at a scale of 1" = 100' are provided to the Public Works Department. _ ' 4. That vehicular access to Lot 21 be limited to one driveway ap- proach on San Miguel Drive. This driveway approach shall be limited to right turn in and out only. The location of the driveway approach shall be subject to further study and approval of the Public Works and Community Development Departments.prior ' to filing of the tract map. The drivewa;/ approach location shall be located as far away from i•lacArthur Boulevard as possible. 5. That all vehicular access rights to MacArthur Boulevard, except ' at the public street intersection, be released and relinquished to the City. ' 6. That the remaining street improvements along the easterly side of MacArthur Boulevard frontage adjacent to the tract be completed including a 10-foot-wide side;•talk-bike trail . 7. That the minimum right-o-N.,ay width of San i•iiguel Drive between Avocado Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard be 114 feet. 8. That all vehicular access rights to San ?'.iguel Drive, except -for TO: Planning Comanission - 7 two private drive openings and the Dublic street intersection, be ' released and relinquished to the City. 9. That San Miguel Drive be improved to its ultimate section from t Avocado Avenue to San Joaquin Hills ?cad, including modification of the existing traffic signal at the intersection of San Joaquin Hills Road with San Miguel Drive. ' 10. That traffic signals be installed by the developer at the -inter- sections of San Miguel Drive with l4acArthur Boulevard and Avocado Avenue. The implementation of this requirement at the inter- section of San Miguel Drive with Avocado Avenue shall be subject to verification by the City of signal warrants, and a separate agreement and surety may be provided for this stork. If the traffic signal warrants are not met within a five-year period after ac- ceptance by the Council of.the public improvements for the tract, the developer shall be relieved from this portion of the condition ' of approval. 11. That the noise impact from MacArthur Boulevard and San Miguel ' Drive be considered and that the dwelling units be designed to provide for sound attenuation in accordance with the requirements of law and the recommendations of a qualified acoustical engineer. ' Specifically, that acoustical attenuation devices be included in final project design as described in mitigation measures 11 & 12 of the Initial Study (Lots 3, 4 and 5 of TT 10625 and Lot 49 of Tract 6385) and that they be subject to the review and approval ' of the Community Development Director. 12. That the design of the private streets conform with the City's ' private street policy. 13. That the structural section of the private streets and drives _ ' be designed in accordance with standard civil engineering practice: The design will be approved and the construction inspected by 'the Public Works Department. The standard plan check and inspection fee shall be paid. 14. That the private streets shall have a street light system approved ' by the Public Works Department. 15. That the California Vehicle Code be enforced on 'the private streets. ' 16. That a traffic control plan shall be sub-mitted and approved by the City's Traffic Engineer. ' 17. " That if it is desired to have a control cite on the entrance off San Miguel Drive, a turn-around shall be provided prior to the gate. The design of the controlled entrance shall be reviewed and approved by the Public 14or'r.s and Coy,-unity Development Depart— i ments. ' T0: Planning Commission - 7 ' two private drive openings and the Dublic street intersection, be- released and relinquished to the City. 9. That San Miguel Drive be improved to its ultimate section from ' Avocado Avenue to San Joaquin Hills Road, including modification of the existing traffic signal at the intersection of San Joaquin Hills Road with San Miguel Drive. ' 10. That traffic signals be installed by the developer at the Inter- sections of San Miguel Drive with MacArthur Boulevard and Avocado Avenue. The implementation of this requirement at the inter- section of San Miguel Drive with Avocado Avenue shall be subject to verification by the City of signal warrants, and a separate ' agreement and surety may be provided for this work. If the traffic signal warrants are not met within a five-year period after ac- ceptance by the Council of.the public improvements for the tract, ' the developer shall be relieved from this portion of the condition of approval. 11. That the noise impact from MacArthur Boulevard and San Miguel ' Drive be considered and that the dwellina units be designed to provide for sound attenuation in accordance with the requirements of law and the recommendations of a qualified acoustical engineer. ' Specifically, that acoustical attenuation, devices be included in final project design as described in mitigation measures 11 & 12 of the Initial Study (Lots 3, 4 and 5 of TT F"10625 and Lot 49 ' of Tract 6385) and that they be subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director. 12. That the design of the private streets conform with the City' s private street policy. 13. That the structural section of the private streets and drives be designed in accordance with standard civil engineering practice. The design will be approved and the construction inspected by the Public Works Department. The standard plan check and inspection ' fee shall be paid. 14. That the private streets shall have a street light system approved ' by the Public Works Department. 15. That the California Vehicle Code be enforced on the private streets. ' 16. That a traffic control plan shall be sub-itted and approved by the City's Traffic Engineer. ' 17. That if it is desired to have a control gate on the entrance off San Miguel Drive, a turn-a"round, shall be provided prior to the ' gate. The design of the controlled entrance shall be reviewed and approved by the Public 4for'rs and Co-r.+.:nity Development Depart•• ments. 1 ; TO: Planning Commission - 8 ' 18. That a 10-foot-wide sidewalk-bike trail be provided on the northerly side of San I'li gue i Drive. ' 19. That the median in San Miguel Drive be improved with an irri- gation system, landscaping, and cobblestone pavement. The plans ' shall%be approved by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department and the Public Works Departnent. ' 20. That the hater capital "improvement acreage fees be paid. 21. That storage capacity in San Joaquin Reservoir equal to one maximum day's demand be dedicated to the City. ' 22. That easements for ingress, egress and public utility purposes on Lot "A" be dedicated to the City. 23. That 3-foot-wide easements for public utility purposes adjacent to Lot "A" be dedicated to the City. ' 24. That a subdivision agreement and accompanying surety be provided if it is desired to record the final tract map prior to completion of the public improvements. 25. That all work, within the MacArthur Boulevard right-of-way be done under an encroachment permit issued by the California Department ' of Transportation. 26. That sight distance for the bike trail along the westerly side of San Miguel Drive be• provided for the future driveway approach for Roger's Gardens. 27. That on-site fire hydrants be provided as required by the Public Works Department and the Fire Department. ' 28. That Fire Department access shall be approved by the Fire Depart-- - .. ment. ' 29. A landscape and irrigation plan for all common areas shall. be pre- pared by a licensed landscape architect. Said plan shall in- clude a maintenance program which controls the use of organo-phos- ' phates and pesticides. 30. That the landscape plan shall place heavy emphasis on the use of drought-resistant or ornamental vegetation. 31. That planting be. done on any exposed slopes as soon as possible to reduce erosion potential . Prior to the occupancy of any dvielling' ' unit the licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Dept. of Community Development that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with the prepared plan. ' 32. Development of the site will be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Department of Coin.^..unity Development. Surface and ' Subsurface drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Community Development Depart,-.ant and the PU5liC Works Department. TO: Planning Commission - 8 18. That a 10-foot-wide sidewal'r,-bike trail be provided on the ' northerly side of San Miguel Drive. 19. That the median in San Miguel Drive be inproved with an irri- gation system, landscaping, and cobblestone pavement. The plans shall%be approved by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department and the Public Works Department. ' 20. That the water capital improvement acreage fees be paid. 21. That storage capacity in San Joaquin Reservoir equal to one maximum day's demand be dedicated to the City. 22. That easements for ingress, egress and public utility purposes ' on Lot "A" be dedicated to the City. 23. That 3-foot-wide easements for public utility purposes adjacent to Lot "A" be dedicated to the City. 24. That a subdivision agreement and accompanying surety be provided ' if it is desired to record the final tract map prior to completion of the public improvements. 25. That all work within the MacArthur Boulevard right-of-way be done under an encroachment permit issued by the California Department of Transportation. 26. That sight distance 'for the bike trail along the westerly side of San Miguel Drive be provided for the future driveway approach for Roger's Gardens. ' 27. That on-site fire hydrants be provided as required by the Public Works Department and the Fire Department. _ 28. That Fire Department access shall be approved by the Fire Depart- ment. ' 29. A landscape and irrigation plan for all common areas shall be pre- pared by a licensed landscape architect. Said plan shall in- elude a maintenance program which controls the use of organo-phos- phates and pesticides. 30. That the landscape plan shall place heavy emphasis on the use of drought-resistant or ornamental vegetation. 31. That planting be done on any exposed slopes as soon as possible ' to reduce erosion potential . Prior to the occupancy of- any dwelling unit the licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Dept. of Community Development that the landscaping has been installed ' in accordance with the prepared plan. 32. Development of the site will be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Department of Community Development. Surface and subsurface drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department and the Public Works Department. TO: Planning Commission - 9 ' 33. An erosion and dust control plan shall be submitted with the ' grading permit application and be subject to the approval of the Community Development Department. 34. That drainage along MacArthur Blvd_ adjacent to the tract be im- ' proved. in conjunction with Tract grading; if grading and drainage are to be accomplished as a precise plan, this should be ac- complished prior to finalization of the grading plan. ' 35. That a lined brows ditch (es' ) -be provided on off-site areas where cuts are proposed on the tract, and in accordance with the pre- cise grading plan to be approved by the Community Development ' Department. ' 36, That a detailed geo•technical report be prepared prior to approval of the final tract map and before finalization of a grading plan, subject to the approval of the Public 44'or'rs Department and Com- munity Development Department. 37. That an erosion and siltation control plan be approved by, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Santa Ana ' Region, and that the plan be submitted to said Board ten days prior to any construction activities. ' 38. That the applicant provide for street sweeping services for all non-dedicated streets equal to that service provided by the City for residential area streets. 39. That in order to retain the physical -int g•rity of midden deposits during grading activities, that mitigation measures 4, 5, and 6 ' as described in the Initial Study be observed during construction of the project. ' 40. That prior to the issuance of building permits, it be demonstrated._ to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director that energy conservation measures described as mitigation measures 13, 14, and 10 in the Initial Study have been considered in pro- ject design. 41. That appropriate deed restriction (s) subject to the approval ' of the City Attorney and Director of Community Development be placed on Lot 21 as shown on Tentative Tract No. 10525 to inform any po- tential purchaser (s) of high noise levels and access restrictions ' on this site. 42. That the applicant provide assurance in a manner acceptable to the ' City Attorney and Director of Comninunity Development that the off- site desilting basin will be retained or should any development of the desilting basin site occur, a basin or equal or greater ' capacity will be provided. 'f0: Planning Commission - 9 33. An erosion and dust control plan shall be submitted with the ' grading permit application and be subject. to the approval of the Community Development Department. 34. That drainage along MacArthur Blvd. adjacent to the -tract be im- ' proved- in conjunction with Tract grading; if grading and drainage are to be accomplished as a precise plan this should be ac- complished prior to finalization of the grading plan. ' 35. That a lined bran ditch (es) 'be provided on off-site areas where ' cuts are proposed on the tract, and in accordance with the pre- cise grading plan to be approved by the Cort.muni•ty Development Department. 36. That a detailed geotechnical repar^ be prepared prior to approval of the final tract map and before finalization of a grading plan, subject to the approval of the Public Works Department and Com- munity Development Department. 37. That an erosion and siltation control plan be approved by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Santa Ana Region, and that the plan be submitted to said Board ten days prior to any construction activities. ' 38. That the applicant provide for street sweeping services for all non-dedicated streets equal to that service provided by the ' City for residential area streets. 39. That in order to retain the physical -integrity of midden .deposits during grading activities, that mitigation measures 4, 5, and 6 as described in the Initial Study be observes( during construction of the project. ' = 40. That prior to the issuance of building permits, it be demons•trated•. to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director that energy conservation measures described as mitigation measures ' 13, 14, and 10 in the Initial Study have been considered in pro- ject design. 41. That appropriate deed restriction (s) subject to the approval of the City Attorney and Director of Community' Development be placed on Lot 21 as shown on Tentative Tract No. 10625 to inform any po- tential purchaser (s) of high noise levels and access restrictions on this site. 42. That the applicant provide assurance in a manner acceptable to the ' City Attorney and Director of Community Development that the off- site desilting basin will be retained or should any development of the desilting basin site occur, a basin of equal or greater ' capacity will be provided. TO: Planning Commission - 10 DEPARTMENT OF MMiMUNITY DEVELORMENT ' R. V. HOGAN, DIRECTOR ' r BX Fred Talarico Environmental Co-ordinator ' FT/gg ' Attachments: Negative Declaration Initial Study Tentative Tract No. 10025 1 . TO: Planning Commission - 10 DEPARTMENT OF CUMMUNITY DEVELOPi,iENT ' R. V. HOGAN, DIRECTOR By Fred Talarico ' Environmental Co-ordinator FT/gg ' Attachments: Negative Declaration Initial Study Tentative Tract No. 10025 NEGATIVE DECLA. TI0;1 TO: DSecretary for Resources MD.M: Community Development Dept. 1416 Ninth Street, Room 1311 City of Newport Beach Sacramento, California 9581" 3300 Ne:+port Boulevard Newport Beach, Calif. 92663 Clerk of the Board of Supervisors . P. 0. Box 687 tSanta Ana, Californi'a 92702 ' NAME OF PROJECT: Harbor Point Subdivision - San Aliguel Drive extension (Tentative Tract 10625) PROJECT LOCATION: Near the intersection of Mac .rthur Boulevard and San Joaquin ' Hills Road in the City of Newport Beach. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 21 residential lots will be created on 6.86 acres and the extension of San Migugl Drive approximately 1500 feet to the'west. FINDING: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council Policy K-3 pertaining to procedures and.guidelines to implement the California Environmental ' Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project will .not have a significant effect on the environment. ' MITIGATION MEASURES: Attached - - INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY: The City- of N&wport Beach INITIAL STUDY AVAILABLE FOR REVIE:•1 AT: 33M Nn"1port Boulevard Newport Beach, Cali Fornia 92663 DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: 11111�y"Ili Fred Talarico Ernironr:-ental Coordinator ' NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO: Secretary for Resources FRO?i: Community Development Dept. 1416 Ninth Street, Room 1311 City of Newport Beach Sacramento, California 95814 3300 Ne,:rport Boulevard ' DNewport Beach, Calif. 92663 Clerk the Board of Supervisors P. 0. Box 687 Santa Ana, California 92702 NAME OF PROJECT: Harbor Point Subdivision - San Niguel Drive extension (Tentative Tract 10625) ' PROJECT LOCATION: Near the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road in the City of Newport Beach. ' PROJECT DESChDTION:­21 residential lots will be created on 6.86 acres and the extension of San Miguql Drive approximately 1500 feet to the'crest. ' FINDING: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council Policy K-3 pertaining to procedures and.guidelines to implement the California Environmental ' Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project will not. have a significant effect on the environment. ' MITIGATION MEASURES: Attached - INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY: The City of Newport Peach INITIAL STUDY AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT: 3300 16e:•rport Boulevard ' Newport Beach, California 92663 DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: Fred 7alarico F.nvironrrental Coordinator ' Mitigation Measures -For Harbor Point Subdivision and San Miguel Extension 1 . All mitigation measures incorporated in the attached Initial Study will be implemented, 2. Concerning Lot No. 21 as shown on Tentative Map No. 10625, any ' . use other than as a neighborhood park or open space should be subject to additional site plan revievi by the City. ' 3. Appropriate deed restriction(s) shouldbe placed on Lot No. 21 as shown on Tentative Map No. 10625 to inform any potential purchaser of the high noise levels effecting this site. ' 4. A written agreement from the property owner should be submitted indicating: ' A) That the existing desiltation basin will be retained, and; B) Should ahy development of the desiltation basin site occur, ' a basin of equal or greater capacity will be provided until a permanent basin capable of acco.-m odating all runoff resulting from development in the vicinity is installed. ' Mitigation Measures for Harbor Point Subdivision and San Miguel Extension 1 . All mitigation measures incorporated in the attached Initial Study will be implemented. 2. Concerning Lot No. 21 as shown on Tentative Map No. 10625, any ' use other than as a neighborhood parr, or open space should be subject to additional site plan review by the City. ' 3. Appropriate deed restriction(s) should be placed on Lot No. 21 as shown on Tentative Map No. 10625 to inform any potential purchaser of the high noise levels effecting this site. ' 4. A written agreement from the property o�dner •should be submitted indicating: ' A) That the existing desiltation basin will be retained, and; B) Should ahy development of the desiltation basin site occur, ' a basin of equal or greater capacity will be provided until a permanent basin capable of accor ;odating all runoff resulting from development in the vicinity is installed. III 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' Attachment to the Initial Study - January 16, 1979 I I ' January 16 , 1979 ' ATTACHMENT TO THE INITIAL STUDY ' HARBOR POINT - SAN MIGUEL TRIANGLE ' A public review period for the scope of services to be provided in the Initial Study on the Harbor Point - San ' Miguel Triangle development proposal was established by the City from December 5 , 1978 to December 22 , 1978. ' State Clearinghouse No . 78122581 ' The Initial Study has been reviewed by the City' s Environmental Affairs Committee . ' z ' Correspondence with the State Clearhouse, Notice of Nonstatutory Advisement , and Notification list. i 1 t 3 oState of Galifarnin GOVERNOR'S OFFICE �' '•a, OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH ' 1400 TENTH STREET SACRAMENTO 9SS14 EDMUND G. BROWN JR. ' Gov"NOR December 19, 1978 TO: Comma nting Agencies FROM: Ron Bass ' SUBJECT: Harbor Point-San Miguel Triangle--SCH r78122581 ' The City of Newport Beach is preparing an Initial Study for the proposed Harbor Point-San Miguel Triangle project and would like your agency's assistance. It has attached a response form for your convenience. Please ' respond to: Department of Community Development City of Newport Beach ' 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 t This is not a notice of preparation. If you have any questions, please let me know. Attachments 1 - 1 t- cl 'v G OrC�1. 1./! H Harbor Point-San Miguel Triangle ' December 19, 1978 Nonstatutory Advisement sent to: ' William Lockett Air Resources Board 1131 S Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Kenneth Buell ' Environmental Health Services Department of Health 714 P Street, Room 430 Sacramento, CA 95814 John Huddleson State Water Resources Control Board " ' 2125 19th Street Sacramento, CA 95814 ' R. Montgomery Department of Fish and Game Region 5 350 Golden Shore . ' Long Beach, CA 90802 K. E. Mc Kenn ' Department of Transportation District 7 120 S. Spring Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 State Geologist Division of Mines and Geology ' Department of Conservation 1416 Ninth Street, Room 1341 Sacramento, CA 95814 ' Land Resource Protection Unit Department of Conservation ' 1416 Ninth Street, 13th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 Nick Del Cioppo ' Office of Historic Preservation Department of Parks and Recreation 1220 K Street Mall , Third Floor ' Sacramento, CA 95814 dc: Department of Community, Development Y City of Newport Beach ' 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 NONSTATL'TORY ADUISENENT ' File No. To: From: { Department of Community Dev. 78-079 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 ' PLEASE RETURN THIS NOTICE WITH YOUR COMMENTS BY December 22, 1978-5:00 p.m. ' PROJECT TITLE: Harbor Point-San Miguel Triangle PROJECT LOCATION: The triangular area southwesterly of Roger's Gardens nursery r• bounded by MacArthur Boulevard and the extension of San Miguel Drive to i MacArthur Boulevard. Project will include review of San Miguel extension to a DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND t•IAJDR LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES o ' 5 The development of proposal includes a residential development of approximately 25 single-family detached residences plus the extension of San Miguel Road through to Avocado Drive. A copy of the scope of work for the Initial Study is attached. 1 I v en DESCRIBE SPECIFIC PERMIT AUTHORITY OF YOUR AGENCY RELATED TO THIS PROJECT ' nwt N•OU T A LIST SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: (USE ADYMONAL PAGES AS NECESSARY): u 9 C a a,t ' W G � 00� m Ew�N o rnw.- ' O U, N•r-•� W Oa C N z r-v, •�v, CONTACT PERSON TITLE PHONE ' DESCRIBE SPECIFIC AREA OF EXPERTISE/INTEREST: ' LIST SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS (USE ADOITIONAL PAGES AS NECESSARY): - N - C 6 0 ' W ` K CONTACT PERSON TITLE PHONE ' DATE MAILED BY DATE RECEIVED BY RESPON- DATE RECEIVED BY DATE RESPOfISL LEAD AGENCY SIBLE AGENCY WHERE APPLICABLE INTERESTED.PARTY RECEIVED BY THE LEAD AGENCY December 4, 1978 1 1 G ❑ 500 newport center drive, suite 525 newport beach, california 92660 1 phone (714) 640-6363 ❑ 1050 northgate drive, suite 554 san rafael, california 94903 1 LAR hone (415) 479-3370, F�Y SEEMAN ASSOCIAT'�S p ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING CONSULTANTS 1 September 6, 1978 \ q� First Revision November 2, 1978 9 Second Revision November 8, 1978 RECEIVED S community Development Dept Mr. Fred Tal ari co 141978 lO Environmental Coordinator cnv OF: City of Newport Beach NEyPOR SFACH, 3300 Newport Boulevard 4, CAL-IF. Newport Beach, CA 92663 .r SUBJECT: SAN MIGUEL TRIANGLE PROPOSED ADDENDUM Dear Fred: As per your request, we have revised our scope of services to reflect the recent changes in the applicant's project description. Using input received from you and your staff, together with our understanding of the project elements, we have developed a revised scope of services and cost/ scheduling summary. GENERAL We understand that the scope of the development proposal includes a residential development of approximately 25 single-family detached residences plus the extension of San Miguel Road through to Avocado Drive. SCOPE OF SERVICES The outline provides an overview of the types of analyses to be incorporated in the Initial Study. Issues to be addressed include the utility of extending San Miguel from its easterly terminus to con- nect with Avocado, and whether realignment of the extension will lessen adverse impacts to adjacent existing residential areas south of the ex- tension. Another issue which will be discussed is what will become of excess property (approximately .5-1 acre) south of the proposed inter- section of MacArthur and San Miguel (see attached exhibit). 1 GeologX/Soils. 'Summarize existing data from previous technical analysis, with particular emphasis on soils stability and soils engi- neering characteristics. ' Hydrology. No additional tasks. ' 7 Mr. Fred Talarico November 8, 1978 Page 2 ' LARW SEEMAN ASSOCIATES ' Biotic Resources. Field survey and species list, identifying rare or endangered ora or fauna present or likely to frequent the study area. The assessment will be prepared by Karlin Marsh, a local ecolo- gist familiar with the San Miguel Triangle area. Archaeological Resources. Summarization of an archaeologic survey and records search prepared Archaeological -Planning Collaborative ' (APC) of Newport Beach. APC will conduct a field reconnaissance of the expanded portion of the study area. If resources are discovered, the impact of the project will be identified and feasible mitigation measures will be provided, Land Use. No additional tasks. ' Traffic/Circulation. To be addressed by summarizing a traffic anal- ysis prepared by Mofile,Perry and Associates, consulting traffic engi- neers. The scope of their analysis will be consistent with City staff ' direction. Specifically, the study will emphasize the required format as outlined in the Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance, incorporat- ing input from a previous study prepared by Cromnelin, Pringle and Asso- ciates. Issues pertinent to the San Miguel extension include the redis- tribution of traffic and a comparison of various alignments. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis will be computed for various inter- sections specified by City staff; included in this analysis will be 1) ' San Joaquin Hills Road at Avocado, 2) San Joaquin Hills Road at MacArthur,, 3) San Joaquin Hills Road at Santa Rosa, 4) San Joaquin Hills Road at San Miguel , and 5) Avocado at San Miguel. Air Quality. Issues to be addressed include local and regional air quality impacts resulting from the extension of San Miguel and the re- sultant redistribution of traffic flows. This analysis will also util- ize a' comparison of the various alignments, identifying advantages and disadvantages of each. Air pollutant effects will be calculated by means of a graphic solution to the CALINE 2 CO diffusion model . Noise. Noise levels for each alignment will be evaluated 'through ' the use of the National Highway Research Board Noise Model. The results will be compared to applicable criteria outlined in the City's noise ele- ment. ' Community Services and Utilities. No additional tasks. ' Visual . No additional tasks. �Y• n hills t .rt ,•� l 1 ' EXHIBIT 1 ' ! G10 newport center drive,suite645 newport beach,california 92660 phone(714)640-6363 ' f-I 1050 northgate drive,suite 554 san rafael,california 94903 ' LARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATC--S phone(415)479.3370 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING CONSULTANTS ' September 6, 1978 Ms Beverly Wood Environmental Coordinator City of Newport Beach ' 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 ' SUBJECT: SAN MIGUEL TRIANGLE INITIAL STUDY Dear Beverly: ' We are pleased to submit this proposal for professional services in conjunction with preparation of an Initial Study for the proposed San Miguel Triangle development. It is our understanding that the scope ' of the development proposal includes residential development of the triangle and extension of San Miguel Road through to Avocado. The following paragraphs provide an outline of' the approach we feel is ' most appropriate, in view of our discussion of the issues on September 5. Scheduling personnel , and cost information follows the Scope of Services discussion. ' SCOPE OF SERVICES ' General . We propose to prepare an Initial Study that focuses on several— ssues determined to be of special importance-to the development of the site. They are: 1) traffic, 2) interface with adjacent residential uses (eg. view, noise, air quality) , 3) drainage affects downstream of ' the site, 4) vegetation (eg, rare or endangered species) , and 5) archaeology. The Initial Study will focus on these issues but will address other ' issues routinely included in environmental documents-as well . These other issues will be addressed based upon existing published information available for the site and its vicinity. Key documents are either already i'n our reference library or are readily obtainable through local sources. ' The Initial Sttidy will will be organized in a manner that will facilitate- expansion into an EIR, should an EIR subsequently be required 6y the ' Environmental Affairs Committee. Geology/Soils/Seismicity. 'To be addressed by summarizing pertinent data from publlshed sources. 1 ID Ms Beverly Wood September 6, 1978 Page 2 ' LARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES ' H-ydrology/Water Quality. Drainage effects, especially the potentially' deleterious effects of non-point pollution sources such as urban runoff from parking areas and. sedimentation are of special concern in areas, near sensitive receiving waters. The long term, cumulative effects of polluted ' runoff are currently the focus of areawide concern in the "208" programs. We will focus on identifying problems associated with this site and the development program proposed and will identify a range of mitigating measures ' to avoid or lessen runoff water quality problems. In performing this task • we will draw on our firm's research work in the field as well as the recent studies of NIWA performed in conjunction with the 208 planning studies. ' Biotic Resources. The project site in within this range of the Orange County Turkish Rugging (Chorizanthe Staticoides, Chrycanthae), a small annual floral species that is listed on the unofficial rare and endangered species list of the CNPS. We therefore propose to conduct a vegetative reconnaissance to identify whether suitable habitat for this species occurs on-site and whether there is any evidence that the plants themselves occur on the site. This aspect of our work will be conducted with the assistance ' of Carlin Marsh, a local botanist with experience in surveying for Turkish Rugging. ' Archaeol6gy. An archaeological reconnaissance and record check will be conducted to determine if archaeological resources are present on the site. Land Use. To be addressed by providing a big analysis that summarizes ' the co -t-TO ity of the General Plan. The results will be presented in tabular form with policy conflicts, if any noted. ' Traffic. To be addressed by summarizing from a traffic analysis to be provided by Mohle, Perry and Associates, Transportation Engineers under separate contract to the city. ' Air Qualm. Air pollutant effects of traffic on San Miguel extention on adjacent residences will be compiled by means of a graphic solution of the Caline 2 CO diffusion model . Calculated pollutant centers at various " ' distances from the proposed roadway will be compared with state and federal standards. Noise. Noise levels produced by traffic on San Miguel extension will be identified through use of the National Highway Research Board Noise Model . Results will be compared against applicable city noise criteria as they ' apply to existing nearby residential uses. Community Services and Utilities. To be addressed by verbal discussions with the various pertinent service agencies including but not limited to ' water, waste water, gas, electricity, fire, police, refuse collection and schools. ' Ms Beverly Wood September 6, 1978 Page 3 ' IARW S@eMAN ASSOCIATES ' Visual.. The potential effect of the proposed residential uses'on existing views of the nearby residences (east of San Miguel ) is an important consideration. The potential effects will be addressed by means of a sight- line• analysis that identifies potential conflicts with the proposed use plan. • •-a Vt wit • e ' � � , >630s . of Eng-11 Airport Commission Harbor District e fit:, Room 1216 Airport Administrative Office 1901 Bayside Drive co, CA 94111 18741 Airport Way Newport Beach, CA 92660 Santa Ana, CA .927Q7 Resources Agency-State Friends of Upper Newport Bay house Costa Mesa Sanitation District' P. 0. Box 2001 leour 9 77 Fair Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 400 loth Street Costa Mesa, CA, 92626 (acramento, CA 95814 U.N.B.E.R.T.A.C. Lange County Environmental Irvine Ranch. Water District Dept. of Fish & Game Management Agency 4201 Campus Drive c/o Preston- Johns (nvironmental Services Div. Irvine, CA 92714 1158 Miramar. Drive 0. Box 4108 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 anta Ana, CA 92702 �S C.A.G. N:I:W:A: ' �i00 S. Commonwealth Avenue 610 Newport Center- Drive Irvine Unified School District Los Angeles, CA 90005 Newport Beach, CA 92660 2941 Alton Avenue ' Irvine, CA 92714 C.A.Q.M.D. City of Costa Mesa- Newport-Mesa Unified School Dis 420 Telstar Avenue 77 Fair Drive 1857 Placentia Avenue 1 Monte, CA 91731 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Costa Mesa, CA 92627 k.A.R.W.Q.C.B. City of Irvine Coast Community College Dist. f833 Indiana Avenue, S-2 P. 0. Box 14575 1370 Adams Avenue iverside, CA 92506 Irvine, CA . 92713 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 'California Coastal Commission City of Huntington Beach Southern Calif. Gas Co. '631 Howard Street 2000 Main Street P. 0. Box 3334 III �an Francisco, CA . 94105 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Anaheim, CA 92803 III lerk of the Board of SPON c/o Jean Watt Southern Calif. Edison Co. upervisors 1151 Dove Strreet 7333 Bolsa Avenue P. 0. Box 687 Newport Beacn, CA 9266Q Westminster, CA 92683 �anta Ana, CA 92702 ounty Sanitation Districts L E.A F. Telepromp'ter - 0. Box 8127 Ed Siebel, AttorneyNewport W. 1Bea6th Street fountain Valley, CA 92708 Newport Beach, CA 92663 302 A Marine Avenue Balboa Island, CA 92662 Airport Land Use Commission Chamber of Commerce United States Coast Guard 8741 N. Airport Way 1470 Jamboree Road anta Ana, CA 92702 Newport Beach, CA 92660 ' Newport Center Association Dave Dmohowski 3 Mr. Richard McFarland Advance Planning 170 Newport Center Drive 3300 Newport Blvd. Suite 120 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92660 ' Rich Edmonston Traffic Engineer ' Harbor View Hills Homeowners' 3300 Newport Blvd. Association Newport Beach, CA 92663 Mr. William Collinson, Pres. 887 Sandcastle Drive ' Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Irwin Miller Public Works Dept. 3300 Newport Blvd. ' Newport Beach, CA 92663 HNN U NX NXXXX 6Nmmx AXXOX. NXXXXXXxXAXAXXXRXAg. RXXOXXXOXXORI Glen Weldon ' RAXAXXX961XWXXXXEAXXRXKEM Marine Safety ' Harbor Hills Community Assoc. Mrs. Jean Morris, Pres. Ron Whitley 1032 Sea Lane Parks, Beach, and Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Recreation ' 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Jasmine Creek Comm. Assoc. r ' Mr. Cork Schriber, Pres. c/o Village Management P. 0. Box 4708 ' Irvine, CA 92716 Harbor View Comm. Assoc. ' Mr. Bob Scott, Pres. 1955 Port Province, Newport Beach, CA 92660 ' Canyon Island Comm. Assoc. Mr. William Helm, Pres. ' Devine Prop. ; Inc. 2865 E. Coast Highway P. 0. Box 687 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Broadmoor Hills Comm. Assoc. ' Mr. Phils Arst, Pres. P. 0. Box 651 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 1 Comments received during the Public Review Period . 1 " `� STATE OF CALIFORNIA—RESOURCES AGENCY n EDMUND G.BROWN JR.,Governor ' STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOAR P.O.BOX 100,SACRAMENTO,CALI FOR NIA95801 }1HCEVVEU �r Goa.uu^crt 10 JAN 8 1919 rL j\ NEWP R OF a,_A. r In Reply Refer to: 420:SH ' Department of Community Development City of Newport Beach ' 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 REQUEST FOR RESPONSE TO INITIAL STUDY FOR THE HARBOR POINT-SAN MIGUEL TRIANGLE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.. ORANGE COUNTY The City of Newport Beach's request for early consultation on the ' project has been coordinated by telephone with the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board . The requirements and concerns of the State and Regional Boards ' concerning the project are as follows : 1 . An erosion/siltation control plan should be submitted to the ' . Regional Board 120 days prior to the commencement of construction activity. 2. The project site is located near Upper Newport Bay and has the potential for adversely affecting the water quality of this area . Thus, the City should require specific mitigation measures to protect the Bay waters from project-related erosion and subsequent ' sedimentation. The Southern California Association of Governments is presently preparing a plan for control of pollutants from nonpoint sources as required by Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended . Any mitigation measures required by the City to control erosion from this project should be compatible with the "208 Plan" . If the Initial Study shows that specific means of mitigation- for such impacts can be accomplished, and no additional significant impacts are determined, the State Board will have no objection to` the preparation of a Negative Declaration for this. project by the Lead Agency. i(r -2- JAN 81979 De,vax•twcnt of Community Development If you have any questions concerning our comments, please contact ' Steve Hayes at (916) 322-9873. ' Thomas E. Bailey Assistant Chief ' cc: California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region 6833 Indiana Avenue, Suite 1 ' Riverside, CA 92506 t STATE OF CALIFORNIA—RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 350 Golden Shore Long Beach, CA 90802 (213) 590-511-3 ' January 111 1979 ' City of Newport Beach Department of Community Development 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Gentlemen: ' We have reviewed the ,Scope of Services+, submitted to your agency by Larry Seeman Associates for the San Miguel Triangle Initial Study and find it and its proposed addendum very comprehensive in covering the essential elements required for such ' an environmental assessment. However, to make it more complete we recommend that the potential effects of urban pollutants and sedimentation upon the marine environment within the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve originating from this project be specific— ally addressed in the study. ' Additionallyl any alteration within the high water mark of any streambed will require notification to the Department of Fish and Game pursuant to Section 1603 of the Fish and Game Code. This notification and subsequent agreement must be accomplished prior to commencement of the project. ' Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have any questionst please contact Jack L. Spruill or Dwayne C. Maxwell of our ' Environmental Services staff. The telephone number is 213-590•-5137• Sincerely, v Fred A. Worthley Regional Manager Region 5 /`y R E`u w `` ' pwel PD' 9p- po 9 �Pc1�5191 [y�; aTn°F�.ct�r tw STATE O' CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN 1R;Governor DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION DIVISION OF MINES AND GEOLOGY ' LOS ANGELES DISTRICT OFFICE 107 SOUTH BROADWAY, ROOM 1065 LOS ANGELES. CA 90012 (Phone 213-6203560) ' From: Santa Ana Office 28 Civic Center Plaza Room 642 Santa Ana, CA. 92701 Tele: (714) 558-4187 ATSS 657-4187 ' January 8, 1979 ' Department of Community Development City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, California 92663 Subject: SCH No. 78122581, Harbor Point - -San Miguel Triangle, ' Initial Study, Nonstatutory Advisement. Reference: Letter by Office of Planning and Research (Ron Bass) , * dated December 19, 1978 tDear Sirs: ' The State Office of Planning and Research requested our review of the Initial Study of the proposed San Miguel Triangle. ' in preparing the geologic reports of the subject site, the guide- lines as stated in the California Division of Mines and Geology Note Nos. 37, 44, 46 and 48 are suggested. Some of these CDMG Notes are guidelines adopted by the State Board of Registration ' for Geologists and Geophysisists as its policy statement on the adequacy of professional geological work. ' Sincerely, ' Siang S. Tan, Geologist CEG 975 APPROVED: L. U i .•''1E ' James F. Davis, State Geologist JAI.yQ lJ17< 91 RG 3468 1 NPL,.Ctrs�„ � • ' SST:JFD:bb HG�F- Icy cc: P. Y. Amimoto, CDMG, Sacramento 1 =�. �� C. H. Gray, Jr. , CDMG, Los Angeles Ron Bass, OPR, Sacramento iOT X- ctat& of California Business and Transportation Agency iMemorandum To JIM BORDE?11 DEPUTY DIVISION CH Date. January 3, 1979 Department k-95 Coordinator ' \. .1 1120 N Street File A-95 REVIEW Sacramento# California 9581 N Attention: Mr. A. C. Lich OkAy 12 XEIIH E. MoKEAN - District 07 From DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ;� co Subject: Project Review Comments SCH Nl]MBER 78122581 Harbor Point San Miguel Triangle Caltrans views itself as a Responsible Agency' on this project due to the permit required from us in the extension of San Miguel Drive. As Responsible Agency we will want to approve the environmental document prepared. The document will need to address all matters required by C134A. Our main concerns are transportation/circulation related. If- you b&ve any questions, please call Ms. Sue McCullough at (213) 620-3758. Cxigi,nal Bigaed By Y�. E. MaKead ap WTFkijTal •sTgned by K. D. Steele Fe K31"7rl E. Me)=, Chief Environmental Planning Branch Transportation District 07 Clearinghouse Coordinator For information, contact Jim Danley (A7,ss) 640-5567 or (213) 620-5567 Attachment 'i ZSTATE OF CALIFORNIA—RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN 1R., Governor 1 CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD- SANTA ANA REGION 1 6833 INDIANA AVENUE, SUITE 1 RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92306 PHONE, (714) 684-9330 1 January 3, 1979 Mr. Fred Talarico 1 Department of Community Development City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard 1 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Gentlemen: 1 Initial Study Harbor Point - San Miguel Triangle City of Newport Beach 1 The Board's staff has reviewed this document and feels that water quality impacts likely to result from this project will be addressed in the draft 'EIR. We assume that the context of ' the verbal discussion, to be held with the responsible water and waste water service agencies, will be included in the draft EIR. 1 Sincerely, 1 Francisco E. Velez Staff Engineer 1 FEV:ng 1 C F_7r ' L7 - • NEkvp tip. C:.LJ7c /r NONSTATUTORY ADUISEMENT tt File No. To: From: Department of Community Dev. { 78-079 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 PLEASE RETURN THIS NOTICE WITH YOUR CO"MENTS BY December 22, 1970-5:00 p.m. PROJECT TITLE: ' Harbor Point-San Miguel Triangle PROJECT LOCATION: The triangular area southwesterly of Roger's Gardens nursery ' bounded by MacArthur Boulevard and the extension of San Miguel Drive to z MacArthur Boulevard. Project will include review of San Miguel extension to Avocaou or. a DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND MAJOR LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES The development of proposal includes a residential development of approximately 25 single-family detached residences plus the extension of San,Miguel Road through to Avocado Drive. A copy of the scope of work for the Initial Study is attached. ' M DESCRIBE SPECIFIC PERMIT AUTHORITY OF YOJR AGENCY RELATED TO THIS PROJECT � C Y aw LIST SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: (USE AU rMffALPAGES AS NECESSARY): mu w "' usro J 6Cr-t0 N U N - C z f-� •.-v� CONTACT PERSON TITLE PHONE ' DESCRIBE SPECIFIC AREA OF EXPERTISE/INTEREST: Orange County Airport Land Use Commission LIST SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS (USEADUT110NAL PAGES AS NECESSARY): W 1. Site is not within the 60165 CNEL noise _ ' contour for Orange County Airport. 2. Site is not under the imaginary surfaces for Orange County Airport. NO INTEREST z CONTACT PERSON TITLE P 0 S. Reithard Sup. Planner -1505 DATE MAILED BY DATE RECEIVED BY RESPON- DATE RECEIVED BY DATE RESPONSE LEAD AGENCY SIBLE AGENCY WHERE APPLICABLE JNTERESTED.PARTY RECEIVED BY THE LEAD AGENCY December 4, 1978 ' 1�'CC�'TVED DEC n 1978 ' A%#QKF L.. _' Ido ^ - S'Y\R r.. /ter l.i , •t'•.. c ❑ 500 newport center drive, suite 525 u"r,t, newport beach, California 92660 7f DEC:i 197a 1> phone (714) 640-6363 CITY Ir, N`W"r"" ACIA. 0 1050 northgate drive, suite 554 cAL11% f san rafael, California 94903 phone (415) 479-3370 \` \1 RRY SErEMAN ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING CONSULTANTS ' September 6, 1978 r` 0 First Revision November 2, 1978 `9 Second Revision November 8, 1978 RECEIVED 9 S community Deveeloppment De Mr. Fred Talarico t, NOV 14 Environmental Coordinator CITY of City of Newport Beach NEwFDRTBEAQH, 7! 3300 Newport Boulevard CALIF. Newport Beach, CA 92663 ,u a SUBJECT: SAN MIGUEL TRIANGLE PROPOSED ADDENDUM Dear Fred: As per your request, we have revised our scope of services to reflect the recent changes in the applicant's project description. Using input received from you and your staff, together with our understanding of the project elements, we have developed a revised scope of services and cost/ scheduling summary. GENERAL We understand that the scope of the development proposal includes a residential development of approximately 25•single-family detached •res""idences pTus••the"exten's1on of San Miguel Road through to Avocado Drive. SCOPE OF SERVICES The outline provides an overview of the types of analyses to be incorporated in the Initial Study. Issues to be addressed include , the utility of extending San Miguel from its easterly terminus to con- nect with Avocado, and whether realignment of the extension will lessen adverse impacts to adjacent existing residential areas south of the ex- tension. Another issue which will be discussed is what will become of excess property (approximately .5-1 acre) south of the proposed inter- section of MacArthur and San Miguel (see attached exhibit). ' Geology/Soils. Summarize existing data from previous technical analysis, with particular emphasis on soils stability and soils engi- neering characteristics. Hydrology. No additional tasks. NONSTATUTORY ADUISENENT File No. To: From: Department of Conmunity Dev. 7-3S City of Newport Beach ' 78-079 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA ,9 663- q k,4 Ifl i PLEASE: RETURN THIS NOTICE WITH YOUR COMMENTS BY December 22, 1978:00 p.m. + I PROJECT TITLE: r. :.: Harbor Point-San Miguel Triangle PROJECT LOCATION: The triangular area southwester) of Roger's Gard 'd%'Al evY.1 !.NT,/ r ,r, bounded by MacArthur Boulevard and the extension of San Miguel Drive to z MacArthur Boulevard. Project will include review of San Miguel extension to a DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND MAJOR LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES a The development of proposal includes a residential development of approximately 25 single-family detached residences plus the extension of San Miguel Road through to Avocado Drive. A copy of the scope of work for the Initial Study is attached. DESCRIBE SPECIFIC PERMIT AUTHORITY OF Y06R AGENCY RELATED TO THIS PROJECT N'O U T m LIST SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: (USE ADDITIONAL PAGES AS NECESSARY): c� a �! ' I W 'O CL,. • co w o 0 J 4Cr-m z w'-0 5 n CONTACT PERSON TITLE PHONE DESCRIBE SPECIFIC AREA OF EXPERTISE/INTEREST: ' LIST SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS (USE ADDITIONAL PAGES AS NECESSARY): +n W d O W N W K W z CONTACT PERSON TITLE PHONE i DATE NAILED BY DATE RECEIVED BY RESPON- DATE RECEIVED BY DATE RESPONSC _ ' LEAD AGENCY SIBLE AGENCY WHERE APPLICABLE 1tliERESTEO PARTY RECEIVED BY THE LEAD AGENCY December 4, 1978 yt �/ ��•• •,• 0�°' t0 p 500 newport center drive, suite 525 newport beach, California 92660 b OFG o phone (714) M-6363 p 1050 northgate drive, suite 554 san rafael, California 94903 RRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES phone (415) 479-3370 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING CONSULTANTS September 6, 1978 q� First Revision November 2, 1978 9 Second Revision November 8, 1978 RECEIVED 9 S Community DavePm ont Mr. Fred Talarico b 14pv1419780 Environmental Coordinator CI>Y of City of Newport Beach NEwpoRreEACH, 1/ 3300 Newport Boulevard 4. CALIF. Newport Beach, CA 92663 1 SUBJECT: SAN MIGUEL TRIANGLE PROPOSED ADDENDUM Dear Fred: As per your request, we have revised our scope of services to reflect the recent changes in the applicant's project description. Using input received from you and your staff, together with our understanding of the project elements, we have developed a revised scope of services and cost/ scheduling summary. GENERAL We understand that the scope of the development proposal includes a residential development of approximately 25 single-family detached - residences plus the extension of San Miguel Road through to Avocado Drive. SCOPE OF SERVICES s - . The outline provides an overview of the types of analyses to be incorporated in the Initial Study. Issues to be addressed include the utility of extending San Miguel from its easterly terminus to con- nect with Avocado, and whether realignment of the extension will lessen adverse impacts to adjacent existing residential areas south of the ex- tension. Another issue which will be discussed is what will become of excess property (approximately .5-1 acre) south of the proposed inter- section of MacArthur and San Miguel (see attached exhibit). ' Geology/Soils. Summarize existing data from previous technical analysis, with particular emphasis on soils stability and soils engi- neering characteristics. ' Hydrology. No additional tasks. ' Response to Comments CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ira^ January 16 , 1979 Thomas E. Bailey c/o State Water Resources Control Board P.O. Box 100 Sacramento, California 95801 SUBJECT: Initial Study - "Harbor Point-San Miguel Triangle Residential Development" , Newport Beach State Clearinghouse No . 78122581 Mr. Bailey: The City of Newport Beach has received your comments on the scope of investigation of the "Initial Study - "Harbor Point-San Miguel Triangle Residential Development" , Newport Beach , State Clearing- house No. 78122581. Your comments will be forwarded to the City' s Environmental Affairs Committee and Planning Commission for their consideration . . Thank you for your cooperation . Sincerely , ' DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, DIRECTOR By _a/ ) Fred Talarico - Environmental Coordinator ' FT/bjm City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 � '21 PoRTr� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH `•�44I00 m ' ' January 16, 1979 Mr . Fred A . Worthley ' c/o Department of Fish and Game 350 Golden Shore Long Beach, California 90802 ' SUBJECT: Initial Study - "Harbor Point-San Miguel Triangle Residential Development" , Newport Beach State Clearinghouse No . 78122581 ' Mr. Worthley: The City of Newport Beach has received your comments on the scope of investigation of the Initial Study - "Harbor Point-San Miguel Triangle Residential Development" , Newport Beach , State Clear•ing7 house No . 78122581. Your comments will be forwarded to the City s ' Environmental Affairs Committee and Planning Commission for their consideration . ' Thank you for your cooperation . Sincerely , DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V . HOGAN, DIRECTOR ' BY Fre kTalarco ' Environmental Coordinator FT/bjm City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 I ♦ .. ICI ' Jyvavvh�. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH I . January 16 , 1979 Mr. Siang S . Tan c/o Division of Mines and Geology Los Angeles District Office ' 107 So. Broadway, Suite 1065 Los Angeles , California 90012 SUBJECT: Initial Study - "Harbor Point-San Miguel Triangle Residential Development" , Newport Beach State Clearinghouse No. 78122581 +I Mr. Siang S . Tan: 1i The City of Newport Beach has received your comments on the scope of investigation of the Initial Study - "Harbor Point-San Miguel Triangle Residential Development" , Newport Beach , State Clearing- house No. 78122581. Your comments will be forwarded to the City ' s 'I Environmental Affairs Committee and Planning Commission for their consideration . Thank you for your cooperation . Sincerely, ' DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, DIRECTOR By Fre Ta ar 4c �' Environmental Coordinator FT/bjm I . i . I City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 it rl ri 1 - �' . .,• R� ' V0_. Ey,. 'gym kr - ��i, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH C„t41 �OIL % .,•' i 1 January 16 , 1979 Ms . Sue McCullough c/o CALTRANS 120 South Spring Street 1 Los Angeles , California 90012 SUBJECT: Initial Study - "Harbor Point-San Miguel Triangle Residential Development" , Newport Beach, 1 State Clearinghouse No . 78122581 Ms . McCullough: 1 The City of Newport Beach has received your comments on the scope of investigation of the Initial Study - "Harbor Point-San Miguel Triangle Residential Development" , Newport Beach , State Clearing— ' 1 house No . 78122581 . Your comments will be forwarded to the City' s Environmental Affairs Committee and Planning Commission for their consideration . 1 Thank you for your cooperation . 1 Sincerely, DEPARTMENT OF .COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, DIRECTOR - 1 By Zy co -� Fr ala Environmental Coordinator 1 FT/bjm 1 1 City Hall 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 ' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH c9tIFOP.N�4' .jI . January 16, 1979 Francisco E . Velez c/o California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Santa Ana Region 6833 Indiana Avenue, Suite 1 Riverside, California 92506 ;I SUBJECT: Initial Study - "Harbor Point-San Miguel Triangle Residential Development" , Newport Beach State Clearinghouse No. 78122581 ,I Dear Mr. Velez: The City of Newport Beach has received your comments on the scope of investigation of the Initial Study - "Harbor Point-San Miguel Triangle Residential Development" , Newport Beach , State Clearing- house No . 78122581. Your comments will be forwarded to the City ' s 'I Environmental Affairs Committee and Planning Commission for their consideration . Thank you for your cooperation . Sincerely, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, DIRECTOR By ;I FA a arico Environmental Coordinator FT/bjm I . I . I City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACIT �4/FORN • cuw+ January 16, 1979 S. Reithard c/o Orange County Airport Land Use Commission 18741 N. Airport Way Santa Ana , California 92702 SUBJECT: Initial Study - "Harbor Point-San Miguel Triangle Residential Development" , Newport Beach State Clearinghouse No . 78122581 Dear Mr. Reithard: The City of Newport Beach has received your comments on the scope of investigation of the Initial Study - "Harbor Point-San Miguel !' Triangle Residential Development" , Newport Beach , State Clearing- house No. 78122581. Your comments will be forwarded to the City ' s Environmental Affairs Committee and Planning Commission for their consideration . Thank you for your cooperation . ' Sincerely, II, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, DIRECTOR - By_ r - Fr ` a a o III Environmental Coordinator FT/bjm ' City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 1 Initial Study - January 31 , 1979 t ' 1 1 1 1 VOLUME II ' FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION HARBOR POINT SUBDIVISION ' SAN MIGUEL DRIVE EXTENSION (TENTATIVE TRACT 10625) ' NEWPORT BEACH, CA 1 1 1 PREPARED BY: PLANNING DEPARTMENT LARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING CONSULTANTS 3300 W. NEWPORT•BOULEVARD 500 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 (714) 640-2197 (714) 640-6363 JUNE 1979 dRCC so ij � � Ocv O Pi a Y p\F'�?Cp�\F• I � l i I I I I I ❑ 500 newport center drive, suite 525 newport beach, california 92660 I phone (714) 640-6363 ❑ 1050 northgate drive, suite 554 san rafael, california 94903 i LARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES phone (415) 479-3370 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING CONSULTANTS i i J l ❑ 500 newport center drive, suite 525 newport beach, caiifornia 92660 phone (714) 640-6363 ❑ 1050 northyate drive, suite 554 san rafael, caiifornia 94903 LARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES phone (415) 479-3370 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING CONSULTANTS INITIAL STUDY HARBOR POINT SUBDIVISION SAN MIGUEL DRIVE EXTENSION TENTATIVE TRACT 10625 NEWPORT BEACH, CA PREPARED BY LARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. 500 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 525 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 (714) 640-6363 JANUARY 31 , 1979 TARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 Purpose 1 Project Sponsor and Contact Person 1 Objectives 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2 Location 2 ' Residential Development 2 San Miguel Drive Extension 2 Open-Space, Recreational , and Park Uses B Offsite Improvements 8 Phasing and Development Schedule B ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 9 Geology and Landforms 9 Hydrology/Water Quality 10 Biotic Resources 13 15 Archaeological Resources Existing Land Use 17 1� Surrounding Land Uses 19 Relevant Planning 21 Circulation Air Quality Analysis 25 Noise Environment 31 Community Services and Utilities 40 Energy Conservation 42 Visual/Aesthetic Conditions 44 BIBLIOGRAPHY 48 APPENDICES Appendix A - Plant Species List Appendix B - Archaeological Records Search and Reconnaissance Survey Appendix C - Traffic Analysis Appendix p - Air Quality Assessment Appendix E - Correspondence Appendix F - City of Newport Beach Responses to Harbor Point Non-Statutory Advisement LARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES FIGURES Figure 1 - Location Map, Regional Context 3 Figure 2 - Location Map, Local Context 4 Figure 3 - Tentative Tract 10625 5 Figure 4 - Conceptual Landscape Plan 7 Figure 5 - Traffic Noise Exposure, MacArthur - Current 33 and Ultimate Figure 6 - Current CNEL Noise Contours on the Harbor Point Site 34 Figure 7 - Traffic Noise Exposure, San Miguel - Ultimate 35 Figure 8 - Ultimate CNEL Noise Contours, Harbor Point Site 36 37 Figure 9 - San Miguel Drive Noise Sections Figure 10 - MacArthur Boulevard Noise Sections 38 Figure 11A - View Orientation 46 Figure 11B - View Orientation 47 ' TABLES Table A - Statistical Summary 6 Table B - Projected Pollutant Loading for Paved Surfaces 12 Table C - 1976-77 Orange County Emissions Inventory 27 (Average Summer Weekday) Table D - Air Quality Summary - Newport Beach Area 29 r Table E - Computed L10 and CNEL Values, MacArthur and San Miguel 32 Table F - Exterior Traffic Noise Exposures for Specific Harbor Point Lots Assuming 5-Foot Masonry Barrier at Lot Edge 39 Table G - Exterior Noise Exposures of Existing Residences LEast of San Miguel , Ultimate ADT 41 1 . TARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES INTRODUCTION PURPOSE This Initial Study provides environmental data on the effects of the proposed Harbor Point residential subdivision and the extension of San Miguel Drive. The format for this document is consistent with the City of Newport Beach guidelines for implementing the California Environ- mental Quality Act. The intent of'this Initial Study is to provide detailed information to enable decision-makers to determine whether there are potentially significant adverse environmental impacts associated with the project which are not mitigated by specified design features built into the pro- ject proposal . If this project is found to address the various impli- cations inherent in the development, the applicant has requested that a i Negative Declaration be issued based upon a determination of "no signif- icant effect," as provided by the State of California Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA. ' PROJECT SPONSOR AND CONTACT PERSON The applicant (project sponsor) for this project is The Irvine Com- pany, Newport Beach, CA. The project sponsor's representative for this project is Mr. Keith Greer, Director, Residential Division, The Irvine 1 Company, 610 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA, (714) 644-3132. OBJECTIVES The objective of the project sponsor is to develop 21 residential lots, 20 of which are suitable for construction of custom-designed, sin- gle-family detached housing. The remaining Lot 21 is available for a variety of alternative uses, including custom home development, greenbelt uses, recreational , and natural open space. In addition to the residen- tial uses, the project sponsor proposes to extend San Miguel Drive from its present terminus near San Joaquin Hills Drive west to intersect with Avocado Drive on the southeasterly edge of Newport Center. The alignment of this extension will require constructing an intersection with MacArthur Boulevard. In order to develop these uses, City of Newport Beach approvals are required in the form of a subdivision map, grading permits, and building permits. The extension of San Miguel Drive will require the approval of CalTrans (State of California). 1 2 ' TARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 LOCATION The proposed Harbor Point (Tract 10625)/San Miguel Drive Extension is located near the southeast intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road in the City of Newport Beach, CA. For reference, the proposed project site is shown on a regional-context map (Figure 1 ) and on a USGS topographic map for a local context (Figure 2). More spe- cifically, the site includes portions of Block 93 of Irvine's subdivision MRM 1/88 in the City of Newport Beach. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Twenty-one residential lots will be created on about 6.86 net acres, as depicted on the tentative tract map (Figure 3). The net lot size is 9,000 square feet, which will result in a density of 3.6 du/ac. The max- imum lot size (Lot 21 ) is 1 .02 acres, while the minimum lot size (Lot 17) is 6,825 square feet. Project statistics are presented in Table A. Lot 21 is located southeast of- the proposed intersection of MacArthur and San Miguel Drive. Several uses have been discussed for this lot, including custom residential, greenbelt uses, recreational , and natural open space. More will be said about its usage elsewhere in this report. Plans currently being evaluated by the project sponsor suggest two alternative implementation strategies: 1 ) a private residential community with custom home construction, and 2) a private community constructed by a merchant builder or private residential development company. Prelim- inary estimates of the new home sales prices for this development are $300,000 to $350,000. SAN MIGUEL DRIVE EXTENSION In addition to the residential development discussed above, the project sponsor proposes the extension of San Miguel Drive (an arterial on the City's Master Plan of Arterial Highways) from its present termi- nus near San Joaquin Hills Road to intersect with Avocado Drive approx- imately 1 ,500 feet to the west. This extension will. require an inter- section with MacArthur Boulevard, and the construction of an earthen embankment crossing of the arroyo west of MacArthur. The exact align- ment for the extension is shown on the tentative map (Figure 3). San FIGURE 1 3 LOCATION MAP REGIONAL CONTEXT ' LARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES LEGEND ' �. -- P w .... _, yr. t {t.. .. ....r. •�,� . � `, v:'�e wm,n.. .-..�� �. I• ; E IT > '.Newport Beach A• f I. F ��.���� .•y /-�i -ZA r` J ,� Project Site .p '•`gipp•• �• ! 4 ETTW"710N -_ �< ':,SF" i. l i r;o--•„"� - - MASTER PLAN OF . ARTERIAL HiG`rlWAYS -- , rn awftT-'W'nf', (MV00 ' A m•v,-unnrnn fvnerer� ,. L nftntNiK MNY(kAENT lCi1LY FIGURE 2 4 rLOCATION MAP LOCAL CONTEXT TARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES ' I"1�'. ,1�,•�:' r, •:.. 701 �-.::..- �� _ 'Ras^idoi_�' n p5'• •1�� Gt\ .^� '✓'I e'• "i�. '\Qa� BMRi`��- :_-� / .yfP:'/''` r �.`V -. Vi' N"�. 'F P \O , /.•,I; .� .- �\w"_0"' �,-\\; 4,.`:�ti^.YOTTTh Re`/ .' r sn a ' r�¢n Jodr�tr Avil t N-1 \a�'rItLU�t'•n�G\� ��..�P O/�• M1\.`� Il '. (J •1 � \ r; s,� �-'`•``Reset+�tv}r / � F`t.8�, t• ;� ��� `;= •� ,. �,, ,��r ,J��.�-i' 1.1 ( 3 Ltncol�, 1 `l�' I t�`i^Y"�i\vC �•``\�a` 1` �1/�I`~. r `•�+ .�20�.•a�0•. B<h.� ,I r, �'IMauso � _ 1 Substation - ' ___:. _�.=:i -"_-,• _ � �j �/, ,> tO r ' G73 �.f(\ %27].:'%v;.._/`^ p0`"`_-ti�� Lb�,__ .� \�� � •v, �...�.�i,`, NO �•t 0 �•._ -. ,F __ _ere k::�,�,;, _ ..�_ ._,r::�-,•- - :,_ 7[arborlVield•I( :5 ; �.-'�-'��� � a i--- � 0 � ,'4'.��Seh' v��"9'� t✓'ll� s�. '.:-���— x9h / --;=Fq,•`"�- '• ,� • � is' � �-_ \ • .. � �` __' -_. c( L °/ '`,;" : 7~ .'Coro \0=_'L'.:`a 4iia del Mar, if '•Arch Rocho Source: USGS 7.51 Laguna Beach Quadrangle Map. FIGURE 3 5 TENTATIVE TRACT 106251 LARRY'SEEMAN ASSOCIATES iZ4- TENTATIVE MAP NO.10625 Source: Simpson-Steppat Engineers. III lFull-size copies of the tentative map are on file and available for pub- lic review by contacting Mr. Fred Talarico, 714-640-2197. i TABLE A 6 STATISTICAL SUMMARY TARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES I Amount mount tRESIDENTIAL (LOTS 1-21 ) Maximum lot size (gross) 45,738 sq. ft. Minimum lot size (gross) 6,825 sq. ft. Average lot size (gross) 10,400 sq. ft. DEDICATED ACREAGE Slope easement 8,712 sq, ft. Arterial roadway 1 ,598,652 sq. ft. (3.67 acres) PARKING DATA On-street 22 spaces Off-street 84 spaces 1 Source: Provided by project engineer. 1 FIGURE 4 CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN ILARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES 'b� • i=1 1 \19 1 'c h} � dO �O - LDO� /�aM j r ahymreaupfta adn partners,inc. g Source: Corbin-Yamafuji and Partners,- Inc. s ILARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES Miguel Drive extension is designed as a major arterial , with a 104-foot easement, four-lane divided with pedestrian pathways (5 feet). OPEN-SPACE, RECREATIONAL, AND PARK USES The project does not include provisions for dedicated parkland or recreational areas. It is possible, however, that Lot 21 , the residen- tial lot southeast of the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and San Miguel Drive, may be available for park uses. Due to the site's adverse access constraints, residential usage of the area may not be possible, in which case the lot would become available for less intensive open space/ park uses. ' Open space is provided in slope easements within the Harbor Point subdivision. The total size of this area is approximately 8,700 sq. ft. and is shown on the tentative map as Lot B. OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS There are no offsite improvements that will be required to implement the project, aside from making connections to existing utility lines within MacArthur, San Joaquin Hills Road, and San Miguel Drive (and, of course, the extension of San Miguel proposed as a part of the project). The grading concept for the project will require export of 81 ,000 cubic yards of fill material . The exact location of the receiving land- fill site has not been determined. Likely receiving sites include Sea Island subdivision, the County landfill in Bonita Canyon, or other pro- ject sites within a 5-mile radius of the study area. PHASING AND DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE Ultimate construction and build-out of the proposed roadway exten- sion and residential subdivision, while not part of this application, will require approximately 1 .5 years. The phasing of construction is proposed to proceed in the sequence indicated below. Phase 1 - Rough grading of site improvements - Phase 2 - In-filling of area west of MacArthur Boulevard Phase 3 - Finish grading Phase 4 - Construction Phase 5 - Landscaping 1 i 9 ITARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT GEOLOGY AND LANDFORMS The following discussion regarding landforms/geology/soils/seismicity was compiled from existing data sources prepared for surrounding develop- ments. The conclusions of this discussion, therefore., should be viewed as general conclusions, subject to verification by an engineering geol- ogist/soils engineer at the time a "preliminary" geotechnical report is prepared. Of particular interest is the geotechnical analysis prepared for the application of Tract 6385 by Moore and Taber (1967) . _Settingg. In general , the site is located in gently rolling, grass- covere�Tand. Elevations range from 226 feet above mean sea level (MSL) at the southwest corner to 274 feet MSL near the southeast corner of the site. The study area is underlain by clay shales, clay siltstones, and sandstones of the Miocene Age, Monterey Formation. The Monterey Forma- tion is exposed south of the project site and in the cut for San Joaquin Hills Road to the east. Overlying the Monterey Formation are Pleisto- cene sediments of weakly cemented to loose sands and silty sands. The ' upper 1 to 2 feet of this material have weathered to form a clayey soil which is moderately expansive. Borings indicate that, on a regional basis, the Monterey Formation has an east-to-northeast dip, or inclination into the ground. .Adverse dips requiring buttressing of slopes may be exposed during grading. Laboratory tests indicate that moderately expansive clayey sands occur in the upper 1 to 2 feet of the present ground surface. The clay shales of the Monterey Formation also indicate expansion potential , although to a lesser degree. Inspection of the site indicates that portions of it are covered by fill , possibly placed there as a disposal site for excess material resulting from the construction of MacArthur and San Miguel . The extent _ and properties of these fill materials are not known. The contact between the Monterey Formation and the overlying sedi- ments is typically horizontal , allowing for erosional features (gullies, ravines, stream channels) which developed before the overlying sediments were deposited. The Monterey shale has also been extensively folded, fractured, and faulted prior to the deposition of overlying sediments, as these deposits do not themselves reflect such activity. 10 ' 1 LARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES ' The project site is located approximately 4 miles northeast of the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone. This is the fault which was associated with the Long Beach earthquake of 1933. The epicenter for that quake lies approximately 5 miles southwest of the site. This fault zone is responsible for recurring activity which produces earthquakes with mag- nitude ranges of 4.0 to 4.5 Richter. The closest mapped fault is the ' Pelican Hill Fault, which is believed to run adjacent to the site. There is some question as to whether the Pelican Hill Fault is a branch of the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone. However, since the Pelican Hill Fault is considered inactive in historical time and movement has occurred on the L Newport-Inglewood Fault (Long Beach earthquake, 1933), the Pelican Hill Fault is generally considered separate and inactive. ' Impacts. Adversely dipping beds may be encountered during grading if the Monterey Formation is exposed. Loose or unsatisfactory topsoil will also be encountered during grading. Sandy deposits overlying the Monterey Formation were consistently below optimum moisture. For earth- moving estimates, it is believed that the Monterey Formation will prob- ably have a swell factor of approximately 5 percent (based on findings of geotechnical testing performed in adjacent areas). Grading onsite will result in 109,000 cubic yards of cut and 28,000 cubic yards of fill . This inequality between cut and fill will require 1 offsite disposal of 81 ,000 cubic yards of fill material . At present (January, 1979), a disposal site has not been identified. Miti ation Measures. The following measures are included as a part of the proposa or are otherwise required to offset potential adverse effects. 1. A detailed geotechnicaZ report will be prepared prior to approval of the final tract map and before finaZi- zation of a grading plan. The report will be adequate to meet the requirements for such reports of the Sub- division Map Act and of the City Directors of Commun- ity Development and Public Works. The report will ' focus on foundation criteria for the residential area, - pavement design criteria for the roadway extension, and seismic considerations for the design-of the im- provements. HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY c Setting. The project site is situated within the watershed of Lower Newport Bay. Site runoff is by surface sheet flow to a catch ' 11 LARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES ' basin and subsurface culvert on the east side of MacArthur Boulevard, adjacent to the proposed intersection with San Miguel Drive. The cul- vert transmits this runoff beneath MacArthur Boulevard, emptying into a 5-acre d'esilting basin located in the arroyo between MacArthur and Avocado Drive. From the desilting basin, the water is carried west, eventually passing under the Pacific Coast Highway and discharging into I the lower Newport Bay near the Bahia/Corinthian Yacht Club. Existing soil conditions are conducive to percolation of surface runoff. The project site does not presently exhibit problems with shallow groundwater. Previously documented geotechnical data for sur- rounding developments indicate the distance to groundwater' to be in ex- cess of 100 feet. ' Impact. Implementation of the proposed project will result in re- structuring the existing surface drainage system. Surface runoff from ' the residential development will be diverted into two storm drains and will feed into an existing 21" RCP which was previously installed to assist with the drainage from the adjacent Harbor View Hills development. Surface runoff from the extended portion of San Miguel Drive will drain into a storm drain to be located on the northeast side of the MacArthur/ San Miguel intersection. The proposed grading plan will result in a southwest surface drain- age pattern. Because of the relatively small size of total project area, the proportion of increase relative to total existing flows into ' Newport Bay will be quite small . Impacts to water quality are of two types -- short-term effects resulting from construction activities, and long-term effects associated with conversion of the land use from vacant to urban and use of the ex- tended San Miguel Drive. Short-term effects would include increased sedimentation and siltation resulting from grading operations on the I site. ' Over the lifetime of the project, pollutants 'will be generated which would accumulate on roadways and parking •areas, eventually drain- ing into storm drains and flowing to the Lower Newport Bay. Table B shows the pollutant loading expected to occur from project implemen- tation. Implementation of the project will also result in a gross reduc- tion in the area of permeable surface within the site boundaries. This will in turn cause a direct reduction in the percolation potential attributed to the undeveloped area prior to development. The catch 1 1 • TABLE B 12 1 PROJECTED POLLUTANT LOADING OR PAVED SURFACES 1 LARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES ' Average Pollutant Loading Factorl Loading for Pollutant (Lbs/1000 Sq Ft. ) Project Area (Lbs)2 BOD5 0.20 90.4 1 COD 0.98 442.96 PO4 0.112 50.62 1 NO3 0.0042 1 .89 N 0.026 11 .75 Solids 16.0 7,232.0 ' Cd 0.000032 .0144 Ni 0.00064 •289 1 Pb 0.00074 .334 Zn 0.012 5.42 Cu 0.0023 1 .039 Cr 0.0013 .587 ' Hg 0.00032 .144 1 1Factors developed by EPA, 1972. 2Assume 80 percent impervious surface coverage of the overall project area. 1 1 . 13 1 TARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES basin east of MacArthur and the Desilting basin west of MacArthur will not be disrupted and will enable both of these pollutant control meas- ures to continue. It is possible that the desil•ting basin west of Mac- Arthur Boulevard may be removed as further development of Newport Center occurs. If this does not take place, appropriate sedimentation and de- silting measures will be designed to offset the removal of the existing basin as part of the Newport Center expansion project. Mitigation Measures. The following measures are included as part of this project or are required to offset potentially adverse effects. 2. The grading plan estabZished by the project engineer (Simpson-Steppat) is in compZiance with the Newport Beach, and the proposed but not yet adopted NIWA model grading ordinance, and wouZd be subject to approval by the City of Newport Beach and the Santa Ana Regional Water QuaZity ControZ Board. 1 3. Streetsweeping of aZZ non-dedicated streets will be performed at regular intervals under contract to the I homeowners association. The frequency of sweeping will be equaZ to that provided by the City for resi- dentiaZ area streets. BIOTIC RESOURCES Settin . On September 25, 1978, approximately 3 hours were spent in the field with Karlin Marsh, botanist, examining the biota contained within the 18 acres affected by the proposed road extension and develop- ment project. The following paragraphs describe the biotic qualities of the affected area. Detailed species lists are contained in Appendix A. Acrea a East Of MacArthur Boulevard. The bulk of the affected acreage lies east of MacArt ur Bou evar This area has been extensive- ly altered. The San Miguel Drive right-of-way has already been graded, apparently some time ago. It appears that much of the fill removed from the right-of-way may have been deposited upon a slope to the west, creating a steep-sided bluff. The existing right-of-way also acts as a - regional drainage system and presently supports an assortment of weedy, marsh-edge grasses and forbs. Most of the upland portions of this acreage are regularly disked. Because of this periodic disruption, only Slender Wild Oats (Avena bar- bata) and Black Mustard (Brassica nigra) have gained an extensive foot- hod in the disked area. Interior undisked portions near Roger's Gardens are vegetated by a thick growth of Black Mustard, Tall Horseweed (Conyza canadensis) , Fascicled Tarweed (Hemizonia fasciculatum) , Russian Thistle Salsola iberica), and numerous other species. 1 14 LARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES The only naturally occurring plant community on this portion of the right-of-way environs is a remnant of coastal sage scrub on the bank ad- joining MacArthur Boulevard. Scattered specimens -of California Sage- brush (Artemisia californica), Coastal Goldenbush (Haplopappus venetus), Gum Plant Grindelia robusta), Glandular Cudweed (Corethrogyne filagini- folia), and one Toyon Heteromeles arbutifolia) are admixed with Slender I Wild Oats and planted Sea Fig Carpobrothus aequilaterus). The only other important vegetative association noted is a man- created one east of the San Miguel right-of-way, where community green- belt plantings consist of Golden Wattles (Acacia longifolia), Myoporum 1 (M. laetum) , Olive (Olea europea) , Oleander (Nerium oleander) , etc. The wildlife value of the eastern portion of the subject acreage is minimal . Audubon's Cottontail Rabbits utilize the undisked portion of the upland field adjacent to Roger's Gardens. A California Harvest Mouse was observed in the San Miguel right-of-way. The only birds observed, Mockingbirds and House Finches, were utilizing the shrubbery of the ad- jacent irrigated greenbelt as habitat. Orange County Turkish Rugging (Chorizanthe staticoides ssp. , chry- sacantha) has been found in the vicinity A7of the subject acreage, primar- ily on east or south-facing sandy or gravelly barrens. This area does ' contain barrens, especially on the bluff-top west of the right-of-way. These barrens, however, appear to be highly alkaline, containing sub- stantial growth of Lettle Ice Plant (Mesembr anthemum nodiflorum) and Australian Salt Bush (Atriplex semibaccata . This would preclude the occurrence of Orange County Turkish Rugging. 1 Acreage West of MacArthur Boulevard. In contrast to the pre-viously described lands, the subject acreage between MacArthur Boulevard and Newport Center contains well developed vegetative associations and is, considering its proximity to urbanization, a fairly good animal hab- itat. With the exception of a narrow disked firebreak, the land has not been disturbed for some time. The primary feature of this portion of the acreage is a deep ravine or arroyo paralleling MacArthur. The ravine has an east and a west-facing slope, and contains a flowing stream at its bottom. The east-facing slope is vegetated primarily by large weedy forbs such as Tocalote (Centaurea melitensis) , Black Mustard, Russian Thistle, and Red Brome (Bromus rubens . The small stream is edged by a thick growth of Coastal Goldenbush, Mexican Tea (Chenopodium ambrosioides) , Common Sunflower (Helianthus annuus), Aster exilis, and Rabbit's Foot Grass (Polypogon monospeliensis . One specimen of the uncommon Coul- 15 ' LARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES ter's Horseweed (Con za coulteri) and one large shrub specimen of Coyote Bush (Baccharis pilularis ssp. , consanquinea) were also noted. (Mulefat, Baccharis glutinosa, occurs upstream from the proposed right-of-way.) The west-facing arroyo slope supports a well developed coastal sage scrub community dominated by California Sagebrush and also including Cal- ifornia Encelia (Encelia californica) and Bladderpod (Isomeris arborea) , with understory species such as Rattlesnake Weed (Daucus pusillus and California Cudweed (Gnaphalium californica). Toward the upper edge of this arroyo slope are grassy openings dominated by native grasses such as Purple Needlegrass (Stipa up lchra) admixed with Glandular Cudweed, Deerweed (Lotus sco ap rius), and Fascicled Tarweed. Adjoining MacArthur Boulevard is a thick growth of introduced Sea Fig. ' Evidence of the wildlife value of the western portion of the San Miguel right-of-way lands can be seen from the numerous mammal tracks ' (mostly raccoon) in the streamside mud and avian use of the adjacent coastal sage scrub. Several sandy barrens were observed on the east-facing slope of the arroyo. These were carefully examined to establish the presence or ab- sence of Orange County Turkish Rugging; none was found. ' Impacts. Implementation of the project proposal will result in dis- ruption of the biotic environment east of MacArthur Boulevard, Grading operations will remove most, if not all , of the existing floral species and will force the relocation of any wildlife that occupies the site. Grading for the extension of San Miguel west of MacArthur Boulevard will similarly result in a loss of habitat and disruption of foraging area within the arroyo. No rare or endangered species of plants or wildlife ' will be affected by the project. Mitigation Measures. No measures are proposed. ' ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ' Setting. An archaeological survey and records search were conducted - as part of this Initial Study by Archaeological Planning Collaborative (APC) in September and December, 1978. The findings of the survey are summarized in the following paragraphs. The full text of the report is included here as Appendix B. The records search indicated that the study area was within a much ' larger regional study area previously investigated by the Pacific Coast 16 . LARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES Archaeological Society (PCAS) . Within the vicinity of the project, three sites were identified by PCAS: Ora-199, Ora-200, and Ora-201 . Each of these was recorded as having been destroyed by the Harbor View ' Homes development south of San Miguel Drive. A fourth site, Ora-167, was reported in the area between MacArthur Boulevard and Avocado, south of the proposed extension of San Miguel Drive. ' The survey conducted by APC did reveal the presence of a midden de- posit located westerly of MacArthur and south of the San Miguel exten- sion, just outside the study area. The deposit is believed to be a part ' of the Ora-167 site surveyed by PCAS. The undisturbed midden area rep- resents a valuable cultural resource. ' Two California Historical Landmarks, Old Landing and McFadden's Wharf, are located in Newport Bay about 1 mile southwest of the study area. ' Impacts. The proposed residential development of Tentative Tract .10625 will not impact any known archaeological sites. Extension of San Miguel Drive west of MacArthur may, however, result in some disturbance ' to the midden deposits associated with Ora-167, depending on construc- tion procedures employed during grading for the extension. While the location of the deposit lies outside the limits of the property boun- daries, the possibility for some offsite activities during the grading phases of the roadway extension should not be ignored. Mitigation Measures. In order to retain the physical integrity of the midden deposits during grading activities, the following mitigation measures will be observed during construction of the project. ' 4. A 10-meter buffer zone will be established around ,the periphery of archaeological site Ora-167, and all areas within the zone will be excluded from any phy- sicaZ disturbance. To ensure that disturbances do not occur, a temporary barrier (e.g., chain Zink fence) will be erected to prevent accidental intru- sion. - 5. Due to the close physical proximity of Ora-167 to the roadway extension, an archaeological observer should be present during roadway extension pregrad- ing meetings, and at the time of initial site clear- ance and grading. Additionally, the archaeological ' observer should have the authority to temporarily interrupt or halt grading if new or currently unknown resources are unearthed. RONALD D.DOUGLAS , PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR CULTURAL RESOURCES 'a ❑500 nowport tenter tltiva,aulia 525 newpprl Iwoch,CaSfomla 0P050 phono(714)0a40383 sa C M,nawoury alrool, .It. c barkaloy,ca0fomla 94703 UflflY 9EEMAN ASaOCgTE9,INQ Phona(415)Sgt•p0gp , 1 17 ' LARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES ' 6. if for some reason Ora-167 must be disturbed in order to complete the extension of San MigueZ, a test-ZeveZ investigation by a quaZified archaeoZogist wiZZ be conducted in order to further define the site's sig- nificance and to salvage it. EXISTING LAND USE ' Setting. At present, both the proposed Harbor Point development site and San Miguel extension are essentially vacant lots. Portions ' of the eastern end of the Harbor Point site, however, are used for ma- terials storage by the Roger's Gardens nursery. The proposed Harbor Point site (+10.0 acres) is subject to periodic disking to control weed growth, and to limit potential outbreak of grassland fires. To the ' west of MacArthur Boulevard, the study area is relatively undisturbed, except for evidence of limited stockpiling of unconsolidated fill mater- ial (probably discarded during construction of MacArthur Boulevard). A ' corrugated steel drainage pipe extends from Avocado Drive into the arroyo in the vicinity of the western project boundary. Impacts. The existing open-space uses will be completely disrupted if the proposed subdivision is approved. The materials storage area used by Roger's Gardens will need to be relocated to a site within the nursery's own maintenance storage area. ' Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures are proposed. SURROUNDING LAND USES Setting. The extension of San Miguel Drive and the development of 1 20 residential dwelling units within the Harbor Point area may result in impacts to some surrounding residential , commercial , and open-space land uses. The following paragraphs provide an overview of the various land uses surrounding Tentative Tract 10625. Harbor View Hills. Harbor View Hills is a residential subdi- vision of single-family detached homes located adjacent to the southern boundary of Tentative Tract 10625. Homes within this portion of Harbor - View are part of Tract 6385. Salt Air Drive, a residential collector within Tract 6385, extends parallel to the study area boundary. Several homes are situated along the southern side. of this street. One, Lot 49, is located contiguous to the study area boundary, adjacent to the align- ment of San Miguel Drive. la LARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES ' Roger's Gardens Nursery. Roger's Gardens occupies a 7.5-acre parcel located at the southwest corner of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road. Activities within the nursery are generally retail sales of nursery stock, including periodic landscape design and imple- mentation seminars. Due to the nursery's esteemed reputation, numerous tourist groups visit the gardens. In the past, some concern has been voiced regarding the parking arrangements provided these tourist groups and their buses. Evidently, the neighboring residences are experiencing acoustical and air quality disturbances resulting from the frequent bus traffic. 1 Current planning by Roger's Gardens includes a proposed expansion of facilities. Included in the expansion is a redistribution of parking ' areas and control features to minimize the impacts of tourist bus activ- ities. ' Newport Ce��ter/Fashion Island. The Newport Center business and and financial center and Fashion Island retail commercial area are lo- cated west of MacArthur Boulevard approximately 1/4 mile from the study area. This large regional business and commercial center includes 2.23 ' million square feet of business office space and approximately 1 .2 mil- lion square feet of retail commercial and specialty shops. 1 Impacts. The development of Harbor Point, Tract 10625, will result in impacts to homes along Salt Air Drive south of San Miguel Drive and to Newport Center. Extension of San Miguel Drive will result in short ' and long-term impacts to Salt Air Drive residents from fugitive dust and noise impacts associated with grading and paving activities. Long-term use of the roadway will result in acoustic impacts to several homes (see Noise Environment section) . Impacts to Newport Center are positive, and relate principally to improved access to the Center's internal circula- tion system afforded by the San Miguel extension. ' Mitigation Measures. The following measures are proposed to offset adverse environmental impacts of the project. 7. AcousticaZ attenuation devices wiZZ be incZuded in the - finaZ project design to diminish noise impacts to af- fected homes aZong Salt Air Drive. AmpZification of this mitigation strategy is provided in the Noise ' Environment section of this report. 8. Fugitive dust and construction noise controZ wiZZ be ' implemented consistent with city ordinances and guide- lines which provide for wetting down construction sites and limiting hours of equipment operation. 19 LARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES ' RELEVANT PLANNING Setting. The study area is located within the incorporated City of ' Newport Beach, and is thus subject to the land use policies and ordi- nances established by the City Council and Planning Commission. The- following discussion identifies those policies which influence or affect the land use proposal for the Harbor Point area. Zoning Ordinance. The project site encompasses three differ- ently zoned areas. The portion of the site located east of MacArthur ' Boulevard is zoned R1-(B) and RA. These zoning districts permit single- family detached residential dwelling units on large lots (6,000 sq. ft. minimum) with specifications requiring two-car garages. To the west of ' MacArthur Boulevard, the site is zoned P.C. , with uses subject to a use permit granted by the City of Newport Beach. ' Traffic Phasing Ordinance. This ordinance is an attempt by the City of Newport Beach to recognize and deal with transportation and circulation problems resulting from residential and commercial/industrial growth within the City's sphere of influence. Guidelines set forth in the ordinance establish criteria from which incremental traffic impacts are evaluated for each development proposal which comes before the Plan- ning Commission. Specific elements of the required evaluation assess ' specified critical intersections which may be impacted by development, their respective capacity, and the percentage of capacity utilized before and after project implementation. Additionally, each project is consid- ered relative to its contribution to peak a.m. and p.m. traffic volumes. An example of the required traffic phasing analysis may be found in Ap- pendix C, which analyzes the traffic impacts of the Harbor Point subdiv- ision. ' General Plan Land Use Element. The LUE shows two different land use designations for the project site. The triangular parcel be- tween MacArthur and San Miguel (extended) is designated low-density, single-family detached residential , and the area west of MacArthur is designated office p ,ofessional/financial commercial . ' Uses within these designated areas are regulated by provisions stated - in the LUE. It should be noted, however, that the Land Use Element is only an expression of public policy, and does not signify the actual us- age of the land. Rather, the LUE is a statement of long-range interest implementable via the City zoning ordinance. The California Admini- strative Code, Section 65480, requires that the General Plan land uses ' be consistent with adopted zoning. 20 ' ' LARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES ' General Plan Circulation Element and Master Plan of Arterial Highways MPAH) . The Circulation Elemen—F-a-n-d the MPAH form the founda- tion for local circulation and transportation planning. Together with ' the Land Use Element, they establish the framework for implementing a comprehensive land use plan. ' The existing MPAH shows San Miguel Drive extending through to Avo- cado Drive within Newport Center. At present, considerable discussion has been occurring before the Planning Commission and City Council rela- tive to possible changes in the MPAH in the vicinity of the study area. Amplification of these discussions is provided in the traffic analysis in Appendix D. ' General Plan Housing Element. The Housing Element is a policy statement intended to establish criteria and to lend guidance to public and private sector interests to achieve a residential land use configura- ' tion which encourages the development of new housing opportunities for all present and future residents of the City, regardless of their respec- tive income levels, thus accommodating a diversity of housing types. The element also establishes the preliminary guidelines for community amen- ities such as adequate landscaping, open space, parks, and recreation areas within all new residential areas. ' General Plan Recreation and Open Space Element. This element provides policy guidelines for the preservation of and provisions for ,open space, parks, and recreation areas within the City of Newport Beach. ' In establishing new open space and parkland areas, the City has estab- lished criteria for accommodating new facilities. The City requires that new developments provide dedicated park acreage at a rate of 5.0 acres per 1 ,000 population, with the minimum dedicated acreage being 2.0 t acres. Alternately, an option is available to project sponsors to pay fees in lieu of dedicating acreage. ' Existing open space and parkland areas near the proposed Harbor Point subdivision include: ' 1 ) San Joaquin Hills Park (4.0 acres) , located near the - corner of San Joaquin Hills Road and Crown Drive North. Facilities include tennis, lawn bowling, and picnic areas. ' 2) Harbor View Nature Park, located between San Miguel Drive and MacArthur north of San Joaquin Hills. This park provides recreation and natural areas to attract a diversity of wildlife and to promote nature study. ' 21 TARRY S6WAN ASSOCIATES ' 3) Harbor View Hills Greenbelt. This greenbelt area shown on the City Open Space Plan is considered a good example of privately owned and maintained green- belt areas. The Harbor View Hills greenbelt is located contiguous to the southern property boundary of the project site. ' Impacts. The project proposal is consistent with the intent and purpose of the City of Newport Beach General Plan and the land uses pro- posed are consistent with applicable zoning districts. No impacts to adopted land use management policies are therefore evident. Compliance ' with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance is addressed completely in the circu- lation assessment in the following section. Mitigation Measures. None are proposed. CIRCULATION The following discussion is summarized from two traffic studies prepared for the project by Mohle-Perry and Associates (MPA) , consulting ' traffic engineers. The texts of both MPA reports are included in Appen- dix C of this report. ' Setting. The study area is located westerly of the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road. MacArthur Boulevard is a designated State Highway (No. 73) . San Joaquin Hills Road is desig- nated a major arterial roadway. ' Average daily traffic volumes for MacArthur Boulevard north of San Joaquin Hills Road is -29,000 VPD, and 20,000 VPD south of San Joaquin ' Hills Road. San Joaquin Hills Road is a 6-lane roadway with average daily traffic volumes east of MacArthur about 16,000 VPD. Other major streets in the area include Jamboree Road, Pacific Coast Highway, and Ford Road. Jamboree Road is a major north-south arterial which carries about 44,000 vehicles per day north of San Joaquin Hills Road and about 30,000 vehicles per day south of San Joaquin Hills Road. III ' Pacific Coast Highway is a major east-west regional highway. It carries - from 33,000 vehicles per day near the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard to about 47,000 vehicles per day just west of Jamboree Road. Ford Road ' is a designated primary arterial which runs east-west and connects Mac- Arthur Boulevard with Jamboree Road. The current traffic volume is about 8,000 vehicles per day. San Miguel Drive, which is situated easterly of the subject property, is also a designated north-south major arterial . It presently carries less than 10,000 vehicles per day and about 300 vehicles per hour in the evening peak hour, 22 . ' LARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES ' The critical intersections that have been identified by the City of Newport Beach in the area include the following: MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road San Joaquin Hills Road and San Miguel Drive MacArthur Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills Road Pacific Coast Highway and Marguerite Avenue MacArthur Boulevard and Ford Road These intersections are subjected to the "One Percent Analysis" and "ICU Analysis" established by the City Council in 1978.1 The intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road is controlled by a multi-phase traffic signal with all left-turn move- ments protected by left-turn phasing. The existing intersection ICU ' is .72 in the evening peak-hour period. The predominant traffic move- ments at this intersection in the evening peak hour are southbound left turn and straight through, eastbound left turn and straight through. The southbound approach of MacArthur Boulevard is striped for two left- turn lanes and two through lanes plus one right-turn lane. For the northbound approach, there is one left-turn lane and two through traffic lanes. Curb parking is not permitted along MacArthur Boulevard. The eastbound and westbound approaches of San Joaquin Hills Road have the following geometrics. The eastbound approach has two left-turn lanes and three through traffic lanes with no parking. The westbound approach has one left-turn lane, three through traffic lanes, and no parking. The intersection of San Joaquin Hills Road and San Miguel Drive has an ICU of .41 during the evening peak hour. The predominant traffic movenents at this intersection are eastbound left turn and through during the evening peak hour. San Joaquin Hills Road eastbound and westbound approaches to the intersection have the following geometrics. The eastbound approach has two left-turn lanes and three through traffic lanes without parking. The westbound approach has one left-turn lane, three through traffic lanes, and no parking. East and westbound left- turn movements are protected by left-turn arrows. On San Miguel Drive, - the southbound approach has one left-turn lane without separate left- turn phasing. The northbound approach is now constructed to serve Roger's Gardens, It has one left-turn lane without separate left-turn phasing and two northbound through traffic lanes. 1ICU (Intersection Capacity Utilization) is usually expressed as a per- cent, and is the proportion of an hour required to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate all intersection traffic if all approaches op- erate at capacity. ' 23 LARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES The intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard has an ICU of .77 during the evening peak hour. The predominant traf- fic movements at this intersection are eastbound straight through and westbound straight through, as well as southbound left turn to go east on Pacific Coast Highway. MacArthur Boulevard has two lanes southbound left turn at the intersection with one lane southbound right turn. On Pacific Coast Highway there are two straight through lanes eastbound and one eastbound left-turn lane plus two westbound through traffic lanes. The intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Ford Road has an exist- ing ICU of 1 .01 . The predominant traffic movements at this intersection are southbound straight and left turn and northbound through traffic. On MacArthur Boulevard, the southbound approach to the intersection is striped for two lanes through, one lane left turn, and one lane right turn. The northbound approach is striped for two lanes through and one lane left turn. The east and west approaches on Ford Road are striped for one lane through traffic, one lane left turn, and one lane right turn in both eastbound and westbound directions. The intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Marguerite Avenue has an existing ICU of .68 in the evening peak hour. The predominant traffic movements at this intersection are eastbound through and west- bound through. The geometries at this intersection are as follows. The eastbound approach on Pacific Coast Highway is striped for two lanes through, one lane left turn, and one lane right turn. The west- bound approach has two through lanes and one left-turn lane. The north and southbound approaches on Marguerite Avenue are striped for one lane through and one lane left turn. The intersection of Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills Road has an existing evening peak-hour ICU of .64. The predominant traffic movements at this intersection during the evening peak-hour period are the north and southbound through movements, the southbound left turn, southbound right-turn movement, and the westbound right-turn movement. On Jamboree Road, the north and south approaches are striped as follows. The northbound approach has two through lanes, one left-turn lane, and - one right-turn lane. The southbound approach has two through lanes, two left-turn lanes, and one right-turn lane. On San Joaquin Hills Road, the eastbound approach has two through lanes and one left-turn lane. The westbound approach has two through lanes and one left-turn lane also. Impacts. The effects of the proposed subdivision and arterial j' roadway extension were analyzed according to City policy as stated in 24 LARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The following discussion identifies the impacts as discussed in the MPA report. Implementation of Tract 10625 will not adversely impact any of the critical intersections adjacent to the study area. The evaluation of the 1 percent analysis indicates that only two intersections -- MacArthur at San Joaquin Hills Road and San Joaquin Hills Road at San Miguel -- would experience a greater than 1 percent increase during peak-hour traffic volumes as a result of project-generated traffic. The ICU analysis found that future ICUs would either remain the same or increase less than 1 percent, therefore the criteria of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance would not be excluded. Comparison of two alignments for San Miguel (i .e. , the proposed San . Miguel extension and an alternate San Miguel cul-de-sac) found the incre- mental traffic loads generated by the proposed project would have negli- gible differential impact on intersections in the area. . With regard to the project's impact upon the local circulation sys- tem and its existing and future flows of traffic, it was found that completion of the San Miguel extension provides for improved'access to Newport Center and generally improves the flow of traffic in the imme- diate area. Residential areas along San Miguel and Ford Road east of the project site would utilize this route as a bypass to San Joaquin Hills Road for access to Newport Center. Without the extension of San Miguel , future ICUs for the intersection of San Joaquin Hills Road and MacArthur Boulevard will reach .90 or higher. The extension of San �r Miguel is in accordance with the City's adopted Master Plan of Arterial Highways and is consistent with each MPAH amendment alternative. This extension of San Miguel therefore can be viewed as an important element of the subregional arterial roadway systam. Mitigation Measures. The following measures are included in the project proposal or are required to offset significant adverse impacts. 9. A signal wiZZ be required at the intersection of MacArthur BouZevard and San Miguel Drive. 10. Required signaZ phasing studies for the above-noted _ intersection wiZl be completed prior to final recor- dation of the tract map. AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS The following section provides a summary of an air quality analysis prepared for this project by Mr. Hans Giroux, a consulting associate 25 TARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES specializing in meteorology and air quality. The text of the technical assessment may be found in Appendix D. Setting. The climate of Southern California in general and Newport j Beach in particular is controlled by a subtropical high-pressure system over the Pacific Ocean. It is responsible for the position of the mid- latitude storm track, the predominant land/sea breeze circulation, and the temperature inversions which play a major role in determining reg- ional air quality. The proximity of the ocean provides a moderating effect on local climatic conditions, by heating and cooling slower than the surrounding land masses. The Pacific Ocean is also responsible for the small fluctuation in the average annual temperature, and the comfort- able relative humidity which prevents the coastal basin from becoming like the desert found 100 miles inland. Typical winds around Newport Beach are usually favorable in main- taining excellent air quality. The average windspeed and direction of surface flow prevent stagnation of pollutants, while early morning on- shore breezes carry accumulated pollutants inland. Newport Beach air quality can be degraded by the effects of two types of temperature inversions which play a major role in coastal basin air pollution. The first type occurs when the sinking subtropical high- pressure system warms the lower air by compression. This sinking air is undercut by a shallow layer of cool marine air forming what is called a marine/subsidence inversion. This type of inversion is strongest in summer, causing basinwide ozone problems. A second inversion forms when air near the cold ground is cooled on clear, calm nights, creating a radiation inversion. This inversion holds pollutants near low-level sources, creating "hot spots" (i .e. , near freeways or parking facilities) . The net result for Newport Beach is that pollutants are carried toward the ocean without any appreciable dispersion. Analysis of air quality impact to a proposed development must be related to the applicable Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS). These standards were established by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 to protect public health and welfare from any known or potential adverse effects of air pollutants. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has set standards for 6 pollutant species while allowing individual states - the latitude for setting their own standards, with certain restrictions. Some diversity exists between California standards and those of the Fed- eral Government due to California's unique climatological conditions and the fact that California's standards predate Federal ones. r y 26 LARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES Orange County emissions are almost completely dominated by vehicu- lar or mobile sources. With the exception of sulfur dioxide, automobile sources comprise over half of the Countywide pollutant load, with over 99 percent of the CO, 83 percent of the NOx, 67 percent of the reactive hydrocarbons, and 52 percent of the particulates related to vehicular operation (Table,.C). Improving vehicular exhaust emissions will then improve downwind air quality. This will bring a reduction in CO levels, but unfortunately NOx and reactive hydrocarbon (RHC) levels will remain relatively constant as a result of continued County growth. Im- provement of Orange County air quality, as discussed in the recently released draft Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) , relies heavily on stationary source control in upwind areas (i .e. , Los Angeles) for pollu- tion reduction. This is a result of the lack of control over automobile emissions on the part of the local agencies. However, since Orange County emissions are almost completely controlled by mobile sources, the attainment of all AAQS by the mandated 1987 deadline may require addi- tional control measures specifically addressing control or reduction of mobile source emissions. The nearest AQMD monitoring stations to the site are located at Costa Mesa and Laguna Beach. Both represent the general regional conditions found near Newport Beach. Available data indicate that AAQS for all pol- lutant species except sulfur dioxide may sometimes be exceeded in the area. The project site location exhibits the expected intermediate air quality levels extrapolated from the two monitoring stations. The study area may experience a range of pollution levels from well below to almost double the standard (Table D). If the AQMP tactics are adopted and, in turn, adverse impacts result-, oxidant levels will be reduced while par- ,_ ticulate concentrations will continue at their present level . Impacts. Insofar as the proposed development involves only 20 single- family homes, the impact will be extremely small when compared to develop- ments involving hundreds or thousands of units (e.g. , the County's 1974 housing units totaled some 632,030). Of greater concern is the impact to future residents from existing and planned roadway traffic on Mac- Arthur Boulevard and' San Miguel Drive. A current volume of 20,000 ve- hicles per day passing the site may reach 50,000 per day, with an asso- ciated diffusion of automobile emissions toward the proposed development. Air quality impacts from the proposed project will result from fug- itive dust generated during construction and project-related vehicular exhaust emissions from construction vehicles and project-related traffic. Regional air quality degradation will result from a small increase in demand for electrical energy at the Huntington Beach Generating Station as a function of an increased consumption of fossil fuel . TABLE C 27 1976-77 ORANGE COUNTY EMISSIONS INVENTORY AVERAGE SUMMER WEEKDAY) LARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES Emissions Source Tons/Da Stationary On-Road Off-Road Pollutant Species Man-Made Natural Mobile Vehicles Total Total hydrocarbons (THC) 91 .7 250.2 187.1 17.7 546.7 Reactive hydrocarbons (RHC) 69.3 24.6 170.8 16.2 280.9 Carbon monoxide (CO) 9.1 1451 ..5 99.5 1560.1 Oxides of nitrogen (NOx) 32.7 135.5 24.3 192.5 Sulfur dioxide (S02) 22.8 - 7.1 6.2 36.1 Total particulates 20.7 - 18.3 4.5 43.5 TABLE D 28 AIR QUALITY SUMMARY - NEWPORT BEACH AREA IARRY•SEEMAN ASSOCIATES Costa Mesa Laguna Beach ' 1975 1976 1977 1975 1976 1977 Oxidant 19 days 17 days 38 days - - ^ 08 ppm - 1 hr. 0.18 ppm 0.16 ppm 0.18 ppm Oxidant 11 days 10 days 31 days - - - 10 ppm - 1 hr. 0.18 ppm 0.15 ppm 0.18 ppm Nitrogen Dioxide 3 days 8 days 0 days 2 days .25 ppm - 1 hr. 0.35 ppm 0,34 ppm 0,23 ppm 0.35 ppm - Carbon Monoxide 0 days 0 days 0 days 0 days 0 days 0 days. 35 ppm - 1 hr. 31 ppm 27 ppm 18 ppm 16 ppm 20 ppm 13 ppm L Carbon Monoxide 40 days 57 days 20 days 4 days 4 days 0, days 9 ppm - 8 hrs. 23 ppm 10 ppm Carbon Monoxide 31 days 24 days 5 days 2 days 0 days 0 days 10 ppm - 12 hrs. 20.ppm 10 ppm Sulfur Dioxide' - not 1, 3, 24, annual - exceed Total Suspended Part. 37% 28% 21% 15% 27% 10 yg/0-24 hrs.' 177 pg/m3 - 202 yg/m3 164 Ng/0 . - 159 ,ug/m3 Total Suspended Part. ' 60 pg/m3-AGM 74 Pg/m3 73 Ng/m3 - 73 pg/m3 74 Ng/m3 - - Data not observed or reported in relevant summaries. III 29 I LARRY SEWAN ASSOCIATES Fugitive dust sufficiently fine to be carried downwind will be gen- erated during site preparation (clearing, grading, etc. ). Much of the dust generated will settle back down near the site, possibly causing a temporary nuisance on adjacent residential properties to the east of San Miguel . Regular watering in compliance with fugitive dust control measures (AQMD Rule 403) can reduce the uncontrolled dust levels by 50 percent. The project itself will generate approximately 2,400 daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT) . Automobile emissions will be related both to actual driving and associated operations (idling in traffic, cold starts, etc. ) . In order to predict the CO exposure levels for future project res- idents from adjacent traffic flow, computer models were used to simulate worst-case traffic and meteorological conditions. Carbon monoxide lev- els were taken at locations corresponding to the closest and lowest pro- posed lots (Tract 6385, Lot 49) , with respect to MacArthur Boulevard. It was found that, unless the CO background levels in Newport Beach be- come appreciably higher, the proximity of these lots to MacArthur Boule- vard alone will not create adverse air quality at those sites (e.g. , ex- ceedances of AAQS) . One purpose of the Harbor Point impact analysis was also to differ- entiate between two alternate treatments of San Miguel Drive: an exten- sion to MacArthur or a cul-de-sac design. Calculations show that, under worst-case conditions for the roadway extension, air quality adjacent to the new roadway segment would not be adversely affected. In fact, the San Miguel connection would result in improved traffic flow with a cor- responding reduction in overall pollutant levels. Increased utilization of utilities, resulting from implementation of the proposed project, may create minor additional amounts of pollut- ants. Expected emission totals from these additional sources will also contribute a minimal impact. Mitigation Measures. With only nominal air pollutant emissions, little potential for mitigation is available. The project site itself - has several inherently positive characteristics over other locations in terms of minimizing air quality impact. These include: 1 ) proximity to Fashion Island and local shopping facilities, 2) proximity to employment centers, ' 30 LARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES 3) proximity to schools, 4) proximity to public transportation routes, 5) proximity to the ocean for a source of steady, relatively clean air. In light of these characteristics, no mitigation measures are proposed. NOISE ENVIRONMENT Setting. The prevailing noise environment in the Harbor Paint area is produced by traffic on MacArthur Boulevard. The noise from motor vehicle traffic may be described either in terms of maximum or peak sound levels or as a long-term cumulative energy average. This latter descriptor is widely used for roadway noise analysis in the City of New- port Beach and is expressed as a Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) value. Both descriptors are useful in assessing the existing and poten- tial effects of roadway noise on human activities .i.n_.the area.: _ The existing noise exposure at the Harbor Point site produced by traffic on MacArthur varies with distance from the roadway. Table E and Figure 5 (lower curve) show the noise levels produced on the site at various distances from the roadway, disregarding the effects of site elevation differences. Figure 6 shows the approximate 65 and 60 CNEL lines for current traffic, unadjusted for terrain or barrier conditions. At present, San Miguel ends at the northerly limit of the project site, therefore traffic on this street is presently minimal and' produces no noise effects at the site. The Harbor Point site is near, but not within, the 60 CNEL noise exposure corridor of the MCAS Tustin Palisades helicopter route. Impact. The proposed project at Harbor Point would be subject to noise exposures from traffic along both MacArthur and San Miguel , which would be extended to connect with'MacArthur and Avocado as a part of the project. Figures 5 and 7 show the noise exposures produced from these - roadways, assuming their ultimate traffic volumes at various distances from the roadway. Figure 8 shows the approximate 60 and 65 CNEL expos- ures on the property for ultimate traffic levels, unadjusted for terrain or barrier conditions. To determine precise noise exposures for specific exterior condi- tions within Harbor Point along both MacArthur and San Miguel , a series of cross-sections has been drawn and barrier• effects computed. The i TABLE E 31 COMPUTED Llp AND CNEL VALUES 5 - MACARTHUR AND SAN MIGUEL _LARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES Combined Auto/Truck Distance (Feet) L10 CNEL MACARTHUR CURRENTI '200 68.8 65.0 100 72.9 69.5 60 76.6 73.1 40 78.5 75.0 MACARTHUR ULTIMATE2,4 ' 200 100 77.1 70.6 60 80.2 73.7 40 83.1 76.6 SAN MIGUEL ULTIMATE3,4 200 62.4 55.9 100 66.6 60.1 60 70.5 64.0 40 72,5 66.0 116,000 ADT; 10% peak hour; 3.5% heavy-duty trucks; 55 mph speed; 3.5% grade. 2Same. as Footnote 1 except 47,000 ADT. 316,500 ADT; 10% peak hour; less than 1% heavy-duty trucks; 40 mph speed; 4% grade. There is no "current" condition on San Miguel as it is not now a through street. 4Ultimate CNEL values include a 3-unit credit for vehicular noise reduc- tions mandated by law in the -future. - 5Disregarding terrain effects which are variable at this site. FIGURE 5 32 TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURE MACARTHUR - CURRENT AND ULTIMATE TARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES 85 ' Ii4j{ ' l� ` I�jl ! il!�.ij! ill i.�! �, IhI Ii!il!g�tl'� : Iltl � ;!jI� Y� !I�i !�Illljli�!i;4.. + l! ' �IyIII IIIIIiWr Its 1pI I[ r I!! !..�1 I�(1 ij,l I!! Ili I �r !�jI!' ;I�i^�• 1; j r.�;II!I(I r!! j I I I j I ' ��. . cl � 1 1 �I�jlil'!! I �' I I�• lltt _ I I I I �, �"'i�� r . �i r Illlll.l!Iil• Illi!I'il6 Ik .�!';I:j!,i!I;!:i l ! i�I' 80 T,m 7 IiI.1 ;r lv 1 ! .iiry - r • !'I'I''lll,�l4 t ! I !'il - I Ifl!•!I!�!'!I'I'� !'I�!jli'�'� I 75 C ,r �Itj'I il9 ' I!! II'i _ !' 1k1I Pil IIII III!Ili ' III i�p,T' LT_ FL ` 70 J — r 1!I!I tiii !!!!!rl•ipY F 'I � !+ I!I i! iiil I,f Ili�, z y n 1r11 PRSENT- {{ !!l • 65 j (I I' � lj • I,' tn rilllii;�� �II !,^r.P. ,� ! !II!i�'I I:I ! !ll. !�I' I ` ,.;I:II i(•'�l Illllill l' 60 !i I 'llilli! . IIIIII�IIii- �� Ili�lji�iil' 'II IIII ill!I? .•� - tt ! �Ijl: iH I • 1 Ilijil^ r II'r,• f it 'jlI - }1`}( IIf III!I•III;' !;•'.111. IIII 55 ! i lij"; I . -� :_ 4'4 !1!!jl ' ,!II! (!ilill� I' �iT !I, I r°r ikf l j !�Il l!i IIII 50 20, 30 50 10.0 200 300 500 FEET? 1 Does not take into account barrier effects which are con- ,sidered elsewhere. Assumptions: Current ADT = 16,000; future ADT = 47,000; 3.5% grade; 3.5% heavy-duty trucks; 55 mph speed. Ultimate takes into account 3 d6A unit credit for legally'mandated automotive noise reduction. 2Distances are from mid-point of near traffic lane. i FIGURE 6 33 CURRENT CNEL NOISE CONTOURS N THE HARBOR POINT SITE LARRY S£EMAN ASSOCIATES CNE i 70 NEL _ 65 _ •� .�CfdEL I V CNEL9- ' ~;a¢= TENTATIVE MAP NO.10625 i . i • a �� � I p ' I � �II . , III = il � i _., _ .. i FIGURE. 8 35 ULTIMATE CNEL NOISE CONTOURS HARBOR POINT SITE LARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES I 75 CNEL '' r4 i l.CN O 65 ^y o Y CNEL 60 O� ''CNEL 60 CNEL \ NE a e n� - -.a 6PII: t 'PENTA TIVE MAP 60 NO.10625 CNEL �� .M 36 LARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES cross-sections are shown in Figures 9 and 10. Cross-sections are num- bered to match lot numbers on the tentative map. Table F presents the results of the barrier effect calculation for a person standing outdoors 20 feet from the lot walls. Inspection of Table F reveals that, with the proposed barrier, all lots achieve acceptable exterior noise expos- ures except Lot 5 along MacArthur, where a 67 CNEL would occur, 2 CNEL units over the normally accepted 65 CNEL. This means that unless a higher barrier is provided for Lots 3, 4, and 5, unacceptable noise exposures would occur. I The extension of San Miguel will also create new traffic noise ex- posures for existing houses along Salt Air Drive just east of San Miguel . Figure 10 presents cross-sections showing the relationship between Lot ' 49 (Tract 6385) and San Miguel . Table G presents a summary of the noise exposures for these units from ultimate traffic levels on San Miguel for the proposed roadway alignment as well as three alternate alignments. Inspection of Table G reveals that Lot 49 would be exposed to noise lev- els of 66 CNEL, or 1 over the normally accepted standard, while all of the other houses would be exposed to 60 CNEL, within standards. In the case of all of the alternative roadway alignments, CNEL exposures are below the 65 CNEL criterion. Alternately, for Lot 49, if an 8-foot mason- ry wall were constructed at the property line, the projected 66 CNEL ex- posure could be reduced 1 .5 units to 64.5; if the wall were 10 feet high, the 66 CNEL exposure could be reduced 6 units to 60. Mitigation Measures. The following measures are included as a part of the project to offset potential adverse effects. 11. The proposed development would be surrounded by a 5- foot masonry wall which would effectively produce acceptable exterior noise ZeveZs except for Lots 3, 4, and 5. A higher wall (on the order of 7 or 8 feet) would be required for these lots to produce acceptable levels here. 12. The extension of San Miguel will produce unacceptable noise levels at Lot 49 east of the roadway. A mini- mum 8-foot waZZ•shouZd be provided opposite this - house to produce acceptable noise levels. AZter- nateZy, the roadway could be realigned away from this house. COMMUNITY SERVICES AND UTILITIES Utilities and public services in the vicinity of the project site are provided by the following public, quasi-public, or private com- I� 1 ' FIGURE 9 37 SAN MIGUEL DRIVE NOISE SECTIONS TARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES .}.....'jj^'L{.L _^-���..1_:'_2t ` rit_t:' ' lam,-+L��,:Ly.LL2y��1.- ^` : "r� - ,.:1 -•;._..cc1�: yxy 1A:.t..C I`�L`LL r tt_ •= Ti'Fr L^' _ =t �'4`J', _Ll'._.F +1' L __.11L1, ..-Y.__::f'`•=L{=L_1"- '_C"T' 1' {._3-f.-1 :.__.l_.� '---_L�._�J..L��.__♦ _ _ L� i" ...jam YY 't Y `L— it ii—Y .��1_ 4 :L�__ �� -� ;� h•- f ,.1�_J-. L• Lt}` At - l • �4•. .' '-�" LY•-1-{`y .` '�L!iYt{ ..-.rr-; L-r��• �J{L..A_ 1� .:_r.....tL�. Lam_ At - .•:.- -- :tt I 'I-^'1__Ti::.-l.`t ':L I-, 'ft•.s��-. iiT`F.F . _y+��.r _ ' �i�--: y ' � ��± l.`r .�...:� _' ..-F_.� =t :t_' r•�_1 L_�,.L''ri�l '�_"i '�. y`._j�. I_": f :_{'fi< tit.,. '-r'7 'S. lf".,.C-iZJC',��.•r •' ' '�'` __ fl-Il. '^y,�� +. l L L _L, 1.HT._C..}._. a. •i.�. /-•,+.F- :T� ; 13,4. k;�ii'y�L'�L.y, t' 'µy' r.'_'' .�--�-"�, '_. �_i��_i;�•7N.=.r-r.._.r. L[�k :. `- �•'Y {{r( 1J11. JJ 1 l_l ,-1. H }y a: «..11 Ley r.j.� ��) .'1•rvl l�il+ l.tlwl f_..� J..1}{•`f Vl 1.1__1_ FIGURE 10 38 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD NOISE SECTIONS LARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES f. rL.Lt.��•...-. .r u a.` 1 i .. FL•-r .I+iL gig r' LL LL L _ { -- 14 _ t_L� - ,- +T h+ _,'.r .'k�T.'C�Ta_.• ,T-j'1 �14'==r•'r.'-" .Ft "+�L t� r - .1 t�..L -I-• y� h —f 1.-'T. i C Fr _�+.L-'I 1' 'L 7- tF�-r � L ' T II.'�'i r++�_''y_'_ _ 7T,...�'+, 'i+�'r Tf.-_.•Fi- ' �r-r�:: Y � -�_-� !�'n� i�� ;.. � �J •� TL� }1',.{ Ili _Li�f—.H L���'.'�:i-• ti_ j_1F•-� T}'T'-I��" i Ti- :T'S:": ,. i y. {. Crfi ,.,Ff_._t.,..1-111-V 2. +i �i}-}_`' •�' '' �!-�r..L }�= '"1T-;-�������,/J-Iy-r T • - :•!af ..•1".�''__ t- _. ..r;_T Tr.t .} ._ :.1.-L-r tT iJ:' "!'r.'„.,r..•"•-tr. ,: _ I - - �j- '• - F`.1. +{' - 44 i,-L�.i-I?- rF FF; I- �•_.: FFF yf'- •L i _ fe"+ - '.1.- _..'.---+.•- '--•--•-�r'f�,� �;.-r.7�; i 1-rtr--�-`--F1.'.�-•ij'"_f.-..,�,—rr +-r� C - f" .. -'•-C Tr:.Cr' T-1'T I- =*-' I-r T � r •f',{ k:;ti_r�.�.,U,,:.��I-,��... ��'- _-_ "`� -+i_ r � '-r I•f r•-L F1t -t !- `a�� sv...t-x� x �n,A•.. ^� ~ 1t'1 �_ -t �.+_.,1�-L: l �'L•:+-r'I _ r TABLE F EXTERIOR TRAFFIC NOISE 39 EXPOSURES FOR SPECIFIC HARBOR POINT LOTS ASSUMING 5-FOOT MASONRY BARRIER AT LOT EDGEI LARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES Noise Exposure Noise Exposure Without 5' Wall With 5' Wall Section/Lot (CNEL) (CNEL) MacArthur Lot 5 74 67 Lot 6 74 62 Lot 20 74 61 ' San Miguel Lot 1 63 55 Lot 10 63 58 Lot 13 63 55 lAssumes observer height of 5 feet located 20 feet behind barrier. 'Assumes solid masonry wall . if the wall were 1 foot higher, an addition- al 2 dBA attenuation would be achieved, IL_ ' TABLE G 1 40 EXTERIOR NOISE EXPOSURES OF EXISTING RESIDENCES EAST OF SAN MIGUEL — ULTIMATE ADT LARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES �'. __"n'i_f_:.*' ':.u.. '._` •=t-+�+ -i% 1Distance to _ Ultimate Exterior at House Existing Proposed Alternate Alternate Alternate Propose Alternate Alternate Alternate Residence Alignment A B C Alignment A 8 C House 1 43 89 106 126 662 61.5 60.5 59.6 House 2 107 149 156 162 60.5 55.5 55 54.5 ' House 3 120 161 161 161 60 55 55 55 lFrom center of near traffic lane in feet. 2A 10-foot wall at the tract boundary would provide approximately 6-7 dBA of-attenuation at a location 5 feet above ground level on the house wall facing the roadway. An 8400t wall at the same location would provide 1.5-2 dBA of attenuation at the same observer point. 1 1 1 i � 1 1 . 41 LARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES panies: electricity (Southern California Edison Company, Huntington Beach) , telephone (Pacific-Telephone Company, Newport Beach) , natural gas (Southern California Gas Company, Anaheim) , potable water (Newport Beach) , and schools (Newport-Mesa Unified School District, Costa Mesa) . Fire and police protection are provided by the City of Newport Beach. Fire stations serving the project site community are located at 410 Marigold, Corona del Mar, and at 868 Santa Barbara Drive, Newport Center. The two stations have the following equipment and personnel to serve the site: 2 engines, 1 ladder truck, 1 paramedic unit, and a bat- talion chief. The response time for the units to the project site is 2-3 minutes. Police services are provided from the City of Newport Beach police station on Santa Barbara Drive in Newport Center. Response time to the study area is expected to be less than 5 minutes. Schools serving the project site include Harbor Tiew Elementary, Lincoln Middle, and Corona del Mar High School . Impacts. All services are available to the study area. Utility connections are available from existing facilities located within the Ieasements for San Joaquin Hills Road and San Miguel Drive. The added demand for service is well within the design capacity of ' all community-based service agencies, including schools (Appendix E) . As a result, the implementation of Tract T0625 will not adversely impact local services or utilities. Mitigation Measures. None are proposed. ENERGY CONSERVATION Setting. Due to the undeveloped nature of the site, consumption of limited or non-renewable energy sources does not occur. ' The project site and Newport Beach in general experience a moderate, Mediterranean-type climate which is greatly influenced by the coastal marine air fluctuations. As a result, the Newport Beach area is not subject to excessive space heating or coding requirements. According- to - climate design criteria outlined in standards adopted by the State of California Energy Commission, Newport Beach experiences approximately 2,350 annual heating degree days.? This compares with San Francisco 1A heating degree day is a measure of the heating requirements dictated ' by climatic considerations. Heating degree days are calculated by sum- ming temperature variations relative to a 650F. ambient temperature. For example, on a day when the air temperature reaches 750F. , the num- ber of heating degree days is 75 - 65 = 10. Annual degree days are the sum of daily variations. 42 ' LARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES ' (3,080) , San Jose (2,656) , and Palmdale (3,088) . By comparison to much of the United States, Newport Beach's heating and cooling requirements are minimal . Impact. The evaluation of impacts resulting from recordation of Tentative Map 10625 and the subsequent construction of 20 residential dwelling units, and the extension of San Miguel Drive, necessitate con- sideration of several different factors: 1 ) initial energy requirements needed for site and roadway preparation and construction, 2) energy re- quirements of long-term occupancy of structures and use of the extended ' arterial roadway, and 3) long-term energy impacts for maintenance and operation of streets and assorted other urban infrastructure utilities and services. The short-term construction-related impacts on energy resources for the development of Tentative Tract 10625 is directly correlated to the amount of earthwork required to complete site preparation. In conclusion, the location of a site in relation to transportation systems, community support facilities, and employment centers can make a 1 difference in terms of energy used for travel . The project site's cen- trally located position near the major employment centers of south-central Orange County, and the improvement in traffic flow realized by the exten- sion of San Miguel Drive, effectively reduce energy usage resulting from long work-oriented commutes and inefficient traffic distribution. . Mitigation Measures. The following measures are proposed or other- wise required to offset potential adverse effects. 13. Builders (whether the project sponsor or others) will be required to comply with recently developed State energy conservation standards as stated in the California Administrative Code, Title 24, Part 6, Division T-20, Chapter 2. These standards pre- scribe requirements for insulation, gZazing, and other related practices. 14. Energy conservation literature published by the - gas and electric companies is automatically made available to new homeowners upon connection of service. 15. The project sponsor will request that lot purchasers and their architects consider use of appliances, 43 ' LARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES Lighting, and space heating methods that could re- duce internal toad factors. Similarly, Lot pur- chasers and their architects will be encouraged ' to take into account the following factors in their building designs: a. Consider building orientation within the lot that allows tong sides of units to face south insofar as possible. Southerly orientation maximizes winter solar heat gain and reduces requirements t for space heating. b. Orient opening windows so as to take advantage 'Of prevailing southwesterly sea breezes as a 1 means of natural ventilation and reducing the need for air conditioning. c. Provide air conditioning in units as an option rather than as a standard appliance, d. Consider use of tight exterior colors on buildings that are predominantly oriented with their tong sides to the west. ' e. Consider orienting Large windows toward the south to maximize winter solar heat ,gain. Minimize west and north-facing glass. f. Consider shading south, southeast, and east- facing windows with deciduous Landscaping or roof overhangs designed with heat gain control in mind. VISUAL/AESTHETIC CONDITIONS Setting. The Harbor Point site is situated on a bluff at the west- ern edge of a marine terrace, overlooking Newport Harbor and the Pacific Ocean. The most prominent aspect of the site is its view orientation to - the west. This provides for vast panoramas of the Pacific coastal areas and beautiful sunsets in the evening hours. From offsite, the Harbor Point area is visible from MacArthur Boulevard and most prominently from homes built along Sea Air Drive in Tract 6385 to the east of the Harbor Point subdivision. Homes in this area overlook the project site, which is situated somewhat to the north of their prevailing view orientation. 1 1. 1 44 LARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES Impacts. Grading for this project will result in elevation changes (prima—rely lowering) that will alter the appearance of the site. The tentative map (Figure 4) presents a grading concept which will situate the buildings and roadways so that they interface well with the surround- ing residential land uses. Figures 11A and 116 provide a graphic representation of the view i orientation of homes along Salt Air Drive. As is evident from these figures, the development of Tract 10625 will result in alteration of the existing views from Salt Air Drive homes. The alteration, however, will not result in disruption or blockage of these views. Mitigation Measures. The following measure is included as part of the project to offset potential adverse impacts. 16. The proposed site plan grading concept and acoustical attenuation barriers are designed to avoid visuaZ eonfUct with surrounding residentiaZ uses. 1 i i 1 - i FIGURE 11A 45 ' VIEW ORIENTATION ' TARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES . S Ilk ' �L j p p 0R O—ON �� Corbin architecture -uji and partners,inc. �('�f� D �'��J��v � architecture•planning l I CEO i1pQC�1 .RMH FIGURE 11B 46 ' VIEW ORIENTATION TARRY SEENIAN ASSOCIATES � >m 1p n= a � B m C C I � R fa 4Y .0 I I ra � frc O F F rN _l_r5_�'______I •& no rs vc• a :z n� C`� d ro' m' Ird Gtl ' 47 ' LARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES ' BIBLIOGRAPHY ' Archaeological Planning Collaborative, 1978. Archaeological Records Search and Reconnaissance Survey, San Miguel Triangle, Newport Beach, CA. ' Archaeological Planning Collaborative, 1978. Addendum, Archaeological Records Search and Reconnaissance Survey, San Miguel Triangle, New- port Beach, CA. ' City of Newport Beach, General Plan, Newport Beach, CA. ' Corbin-Yamafuji & Partners, Inc. , 1978. Conceptual Site Plan, Harbor Point Homes, Newport Beach, CA. Corbin-Yamafuji & Partners, Inc. , 1978. View Analysis, Harbor Point ' Homes, Newport Beach, CA. Corbin-Yamafuji & Partners, Inc. , 1978. Preliminary Landscape Plan, ' Harbor Point Homes, Newport Beach, CA. Evans, Goffman & McCormick, 1976. Report of Biotechnical Investiga- ' tion, Proposed Apartment Site II, Harbor View Hills, Newport Beach, CA. Haworth and Anderson, Inc. , 1978. Draft Initial Study. Proposed Amend- ment to Use Permit #1683 (Roger'& Gardens , Newport Beach, CA. Larry Seeman Associates, Inc. , 1979. Harbor Point Air Quality Impact ' Evaluation, Newport Beach, CA. Larry Seeman Associates, Inc. , 1977. Energy Conservation Opportunities for New Developments of The Irvine Company, Newport Beach, CA. Larry Seeman Associates, Inc. , 1977. Water Conservation Opportunities for New Developments of The Irvine Company, Newport Beach, CA. ' Marsh, Karlin, 1978. Biological Resources Inventory San Miguel Triangle, Newport Beach, CA. ' Mohle, Perry & Associates, 1978. Traffic Impact Analysis, Harbor Point Homes, San Miguel Triangle, Newport Beach, CA. 48 II ' LARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES Mohle, Perry & Associates, 1978. Traffic Impact Analysis Addendum, Har- bor Point Homes, Newport Beach, CA. Moore and Taber, 1967. Geologic and Preliminary Soils Evaluation, Tract 6385, Harbor View Homes, Newport Beach, Fullerton, CA. Moore and Taber, 1965. Geologic and Preliminary Soils Investigation, Center View Tract, Newport Beach, Fullerton, CA. Munz, P. A. , 1974. Flora of Southern California, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Munz, P. A. and D. D. Kerk, 1959. California Flora, University of Cali- fornia Press, Berkeley, CA. Simpson-Steppat, 1978. Tentative Tract 10625, Map, Newport Beach, CA. ' Soil Conservation Service, 1976. Soil Survey of Orange and Western Part of Riverside Counties, California, Interim Report, Tustin, CA. 1 1 LARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES APPENDIX A PLANT SPECIES LIST 1 1 1 1 LARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES 1 APPENDIX A PLANT SPECIES LIST 1 Family/Species Localityl Comments 1 Aizoaceae Ca.rpobrotus aeguilaterus, E, W Planted along MacArthur 1 Sea Fig Mesembryanthemum nodiflorum E Common in Alkaline soil , bluff adjacent to San 1 Miguel R.O.W.. Apiaceae 1 • Daucus pusillus, W Understory, coastal sage Rattlesnake Weed scrub, west facing slope of arroyo. 1 Foeniculum vu,gare, E, W Fennel 1 Apocynaceae Nerium oleander, E Planted, east side of ' Oleander San Miguel R.O.W. Asteraceae 1 Artemisia californica, E, W Dominant, west facing California Sagebrush slope of arroyo west of MacArthur. 1 lCode: E = East of MacArthur Boulevard (bulk of acreage) 1 W = West of MacArthur Boulevard (Right-of-Way corridor only) i 1 1 • 2 ' LARRY SGeMAN ASSOCIATES Family/Species Locality Comments Aster exilis E, W Damp areas, along irri- gation runoff in San Miguel R.O.W. east; along stream at bottom of arroyo, west. Baccharis emor 1 , E Small •specimen of this Emory's Baccharis shrub at mouth of drain ' pipe draining into San Miguel R.O.W. Baccharis pilularis ssp. , W One very large speci- consanquinea, men (shrub) in arroyo Coyote Bush bottom. Centaurea melitensis, E, W Dominant on east fac- Tocalote ing slope of arroyo west of MacArthur. Con za bonariensis, E Scattered, undisked South American Horseweed area, near Roger's Gardens. Co_nyza canadensis, E, W Very common in above T— all Horseweed locality, also any- where there is some soil moisture. Conyza cou lterl , W One specimen near CoulterT s Horseweed stream, arroyo bottom. Corethrogyne filaginifolia, E, W East with Cal . Sage- Glandular Cudweed brush along MacArthur. West on west-facing slope of arroyo 1 C nara cardunculus, E, W East side: common on Cardoon dry slope south. West ' side: on disturbed arroyo slope. 3 ' LARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES 1 • Family/Species Locality. Comments. Encelia californica, W Occasional , both arroyo California Encelia slopes. Gnaphalium californicum, W Coastal sage scrub California Cudweed understory, west-facing slope of arroyo. Grindelia robusta, E Common on bank east of Gum Plant MacArthur. Haplopappus venetus, E, W East, along bank bound Coastal Goldenbush ing MacArthur; west, dom- inant at stream edge. Helianthus annuus, E, W Common 'along stream Common Sunflower edge, west. Hemizonia fasciculata, E, W Very common, especially Fascicled Tarweed on arroyo slopes west. Heterotheca grandiflora E, W eelegraph Weed Oteospermum fruticosum, E Horticultural escape Trailing African Daisy near Roger's Gardens. Sanchus asper, E Dominant at southern Prickly Sow Thistle terminus of bluff, •ad- jacent to San Miguel R.O.W. Sonchus oleraceus, E Common Sow Thistle Stephaomeria virgata, E, W Tall Stephenomeria Xanthium strumar.um, E Damp area, San Miguel iCommon Coc lebur R.O.W. i 4 LARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES Family/Species Locality Comments Brassicaceae Brassica nigra, E, W Dominant alleopathic Black Mustard forb on disturbed ground, throughout. Lobularia maritima, E Horticultural escape. Sweet Al ssum Cactaceae 0ppu�n�t__iia�a occidentalis, W West-facing slope of r�ickCly eaT arroyo. Capparidaceae Cleome isomeric, W West-facing slope of adderpod arroyo. Caryophyllaceae S er ularia sp. , E Damp area, San Miguel Sana Spurrey R.O.W. Chenopodiaceae Atri lex semibaccata, E, W East, very common in Australian Saltbush alkaline soil , bluff west of- San Miguel R.O.W. Bassia h sso ifolia•, E Alkaline soil , San ri�ve-hooked Bassia Miguel R.O.W. and ad- jacent bluff. Beta vulgaris, E Sugar Beet Chenopodium album, W Near stream. ' Lambs Quarter r . 5 TARRY SEE MAN ASSOCIATES Family/Species Locality Comments Chenopodium ambrosioides, W Common near stream. Mexican Tea Chenopodium murale, E Nettle-leaved Goosefoot Salsola iberica, E, W Very common in dry dis- Russian Thistle turbed ground. Convolvulaceae Convolvulus arvensis, E Bendweed Cucurbitaceae Cucurbita foetidissima, E On grassy slope, south. Coyote Melon Euphorbiaceae Eremocarpus setigerus, W Upper portion of West- Doveweed facing arroyo slope. Fabaceae Acacia longifolia, E Planted, east side of Golden Wattle San Miguel R.O.W. Lotus scoparius, W West-facing slope of Deerweed arroyo. Medicaa his ida, E Very common in San Bur Clover Miguel R.O.W. Melilotus albus, E, W Moist areas, throughout. Mite Sweetclover r 6 TARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES Family/Species Locality Comments Geraniaceae Erodium botrys, E San Miguel R.O.W. Broad-lobed Filaree Erodium cicutarium, E San Miguel R.O.W. Red-stemmed Filaree ' Myoporaceae To orum. laetum, E Planted on east side yoporum of San Miguel R.O.W. , also established as an escape ih undisked interior portions of acreage. Oleaceae Olea europea, E Planted, east side of Olive San Miguel R.O.W. Papaveraceae Eschscholzia californica, E Planted, east. side of California Poppy San Miguel R.O.W. Poaceae Avena barbata, E Dominant grass species, Slender Wild Oats throughout acreage. Bromus mollis, E, W Soft C Fess 1 Bromus rubens, E, W Very common, dry open Red Brome areas. Bromus willdenovil , E Damp area, bottom of Rescue Grass San Miguel R.O.W. 7 LARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES Family/Species Locality Comments Cortaderia atacamensis, E Damp area, bottom of Pampas Grass San Miguel R.O.W. Cynodon dactylon, E Very common in San Bermuda Grass Miguel R,O X rEchinochloa crusgalli , E Damp areas , bottom of Barnyard Grass San Miguel R.O.W. Lolium erp enne, E Italian Rye Grass Polypogon monospeliensis E, W Adjacent to standing or Rabbit's-foot Grass flowing-,water. Polypogon, sp. E Adjacent to standing or flowing water. Stipa pulchra, W Upper portion of west- Purple Teed egrass facing arroyo slope. Polygonaceae Polygon um aviculare, E Knotweed Rumex cris us, E Curly Dock Rhamnaceae Ceanothus, sp. , E Planted, east side of California Lilac San Miguel R.O.IJ. Rosaceae Heteromeles arbutifolia, E One specimen on bank royo"n adjacent to MacArthur • Boulevard. 8 TARRY SeCMAN ASSOCIATES Family/Species Locality Comments Solanaceae Solanum nodiflorum, W Near Stream. Mock Black Nightshade 1 . i TARRY SeeMAW ASSOMTES APPENDIX B 1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORDS SEARCH AND RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY SAN MIGUEL TRIANGLE NEWPORT BEACH, CA ❑ 500 newport center drive, suite 525 newport beach, california 92660 phone (714) 640-6743 C7 1050 northgate drive, suite 554 sari rafael, california 94903 J•1f• cKAEmoG?cAL PLANmmt cmI-AsmATnye phone (415) 479-3370 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH AND REPORTING i ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORDS SEARCH AND RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY SAN MIGUEL TRIANGLE NEWPORT BEACH, CA PREPARED BY ARCHAEOLOGICAL PLANNING COLLABORATIVE 500 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 525 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 (714) 640-6743 SEPTEMBER 28, 1978 ARCHAEOLOGICAL.PLANNING COLLABORATIVE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORDS SEARCH AND 1 RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY SAN MIGUEL TRIANGLE NEWPORT BEACH, CA INTRODUCTION We are pleased to submit the following report in response to your request for an archaeological resources 'records search and reconnais- sance survey for the ±18-acre San'Miguel Triangle parcel located adjac- ent' to Roger's Gardens at the confluence of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road in Newport 'Beach, CA (Figure 1). These tasks were performed pursuant to your letter of authorization of September 20, 1978. RECORDS SEARCH A records search was conducted by Archaeological Planning Collabor- ative at the regional clearinghouse of the Society for California Arch- aeology. The records search revealed that the parcel -is part of a larg- er region that has been surveyed in the past by Pacific Coast Archaeo- logical Society (PCAS) . Although no sites are recorued for the San Miguel Triangle, three sites (Ora: 199, Ora-200, and Ora-201) are re- corded as having been destroyed by the housing development which abuts the San Miguel Triangle. A fourth .site (Ora-167) is reported in the region south of the proposed extension of San Miguel Road on the western side of MacArthur Boulevard. PCAS reported that this site was badly ' damaged, with at least two-thirds of the site destroyed. RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY ' To determine whether unrecorded sites. exist, a systematic recon- naissance survey of the parcel and an area west of MacArthur Boulevard - where San Miguel is proposed to extend was made, The survey was con- ducted by Theo Mabry, Principal Investigator. Site Conditions - Triangle Area, In addition to grading along the 1 southern boundary, the northeastern one-fourth of the parcel exhibits disturbance from the activities 'of the adjoining Roger Is Gardens nur- sery. Dark, humus material and other debris has been discarded in sev- eral areas flanking the storage and parking areas associated with the nursery, and observation of the original surface was either impossible or difficult. The remainder of the site had been recently disked for weed control purposes and visibility was good. 1 ' ' FIGURE 1 2 PROJECT LOCATION ARCHAEOLOGICAL pLANNING'COILAWRAnVE 1 LAGUNA BEACH QUADRANGLE UNITED STATES CALIFORNIA—ORANGE CO. .DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 7.5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC) GEOLOGICAL SURVEY cos ANGEcss' '52\rrf''3v�r•0♦ry�"`:7`: ,•^`1••<}':_x._..�i.-�..���:_.:;�,�.I�/.•"^•"-/r.///•'a•LC./,•.-.I•:•J`t�♦•,:r a•:'/�/•g,�.:t�.1' -.•.Z�B1•2�lMa-_ii/_.-"�-_l J—;?a�\�(:\:�•ti, ^pT.`":-y-x'rrv•aa_-c��-Tyi/ra1'��.+-�;-S:R i_e"i'`s„•.e-''r�vi ol:i':i!f._� \'ti4i':^Ro=.1-._`.+._r'-"=.f�y`.�-a\..4..T2•2 _N,�AY:, .t.�.`,.._,,i.'.•,�:•"�-�hr•-`c 5 0' 9 V \ ELEX/71'_., 17' spur 7 - / i, ' - `ti• „I i a •:.1:-il. _ O (' �`t�� ri♦4\.1J, rl t o R s7z n /.Surc,Joarycin -l �rf� 0 / 1 ♦ ., '/\\\�\♦ / \ \r i r /'lij ` t-i t LL: •r't:C�t2L5 2 !/'•'. 1. y. ; 'l �: iJi�F\'`��' ,rl fy..- �``�,♦ �.if•1/ �♦•��t' .I!''.'\9'•',' - `•qw •: '' •�'��i L �•j• � .�`•�%�'J� :, t•I .lam-..:^� ! Vg`*' � 7'� v7 i\zz_7 . �`•i�l�.c 3;i�: N }�� v. /: LLLr: ! • i ,tay t w'% r \ay l 9� � `>' / li .<^'•••a',r, llr •. .,I PROJECT AREA ; n � ,p i%'/�4,+\, �` "t is �.r :; •, z=•• : ' %'' ♦/ 1\!�'3r� �'F!f-yR7Yrrf(�F; P/^O •'IyF§ �.`. ..\ , { u .i i�t, (�,•\ `i; ' Q'11f q`� I, "' �ReS '0'F7'\r `✓ >�t4k; S%` t, 7�,;6 ��j- `.\:••`';', I`-,:` I i \K!,i C� (\ 1 �ZJL, •� \.'• �� i\ /�"; �,�;'�''��.4.�lrt�I !� � � t��V��. .a'j=-� � � i •/ Y `-� co Q'/''� /` •%.. ', �Ct..S_:1 `t. ll llt'i.{ '\ titer=����•�.., r;(�i ♦ SubSWtion _ u � rJ// f 3 ti n�;3;i.f"C / - �=��r�/,.%,gam/:` �?•�-:=� � --^'�`�� Z j7 c•' ;_ •�{' `rn !-I• r,`-�..�:J , f alri C.. � .It�L ,:`♦�- Y� Jw�_� / . ��:= L��..�,!r ` l'-''?• ��(jl t�\/ �."•., :IJIl I_L>�•,��•" \`. -2_gicy�c. �`_�Y'•�2;��l'\�-6:'•'�';m'.li.�C'?�'..• '` i'�•=_�;,°S 5 .,\-. • �.�i �'�t�/%�//`���;!� �\`,\` I . f1i� ram., „!vg: tati' U G'�" -✓HubaaPew+ '\rECEV?G0.1` y� � ���':,. \� Q /Gonna. ar Spin,I'r•J�y 1�\'�l�'\ tG \ (.��i.: �, •(tr//.-� ♦" • n\ '`��1 Bpj•�.+�` ♦�.r`j T N//E� ��P�'Pti_'i'aBEP�.CFI�}o/•°i •���•.1 �':� C;; .;-<�_>;:`:;. �.. : ,.�`� ..; O�Q ��q/• `o `�2r�e�n\ � ♦\/a�i°`ti..�:i 'fir.:-\:� ill. } �' `'.'T.�\v�� `• `{��: r CO 1 ill .�c /r\,` t♦r 13.r'�i f•:r '`-ly:.J ` y,. ,/'`"%t,•;•' \\ /'; �f___;::_`_ ' i:._- '`; _, 3 ]"'\�-r% �'Li•`t /\ /^j. \i^\ �+t•:♦Li?/ n'i'=i/3� _ ����4�. '�\.:.; �t♦� �`'t ♦ ;\ � ``\ 1 / f 4'/. G. x.V� / Lf. i,i\•.��e'\ :(`Ui 1 '•� ,. ^ice: :.% rsA-r, c�i g ARCHAEOLOG'ICA.PLANNING COLLASORA'nvc Site Conditions San Miguel Extension Area. In addition, that ' area between MacArthur Boulevard and Avocado 'Street which will be modi- fied by the extension of San Miguel Drive from San Joaquin Road to Avo- cado Avenue was visually surveyed. The' swasihamperedd by had heavy growths of coastal sage brush and weedy plants. dumped along the tops of both ridges flanking the wash that runs paral- lel to MacArthur. An occasional shell was observed, but no definite ' indications of archaeological deposits were noted. Survey Method. The area was walked in 10-meter swaths with par- ticular attention paid.to area: where darker soil indicated possible midden, to areas that exhibiteG shell , and to cuts or grades that .per� mitted observation of vertical profiles of the soil . FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the records search and reconnaissance survey, no archaeo- I logical resources appear to be present either on the San Miguel Triangle or in the area of the proposed extension of San Miguel Road, However, in view of the archaeological sensitivity of the general area surround- ing the site, as evidenced by the PCAS survey, it is possible that as the area is modified through grading or through removal of brush or fill material , archaeological sites could be unearthed. If this occurs, grading or related activities should be halted within a 20-meter radius of the discovery, and a qualified archaeologist called in to assess the finds and make appropriate mitigation recommendations. I . ' C) 500 newport center drive, suite 525 newport beach, california 92660 phone (714) 640-6743 rl 1050 northgate drive, suite 554 san rafael, california 94903 ' ARCHAECWGKAL PLANT NIING COLLASCRATIV`E Phone (415) 479-3370 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH AND REPORTING ' ADDENDUM ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORDS SEARCH AND RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY SAN MIGUEL TRIANGLE NEWPORT BEACH, CA PREPARED BY ' THEO N. MABRY, M.A. PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL PLANNING COLLABORATIVE 500 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 525 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 (714) 640-6743 ' DECEMBER 13, 1978 ' 0 500 newport center drive, suite 525 newport beach, california 92650 phone (714) 640-6743 ' ❑ 1050 northgate drive, suite 554 san rafnel, california 94903 AICH4ECLQG3CAL PLAPINING C OIL,ABORATfVC- phone (415) 479-3370 ' ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH AND REPORTING ' December 13, 1978 Mr. 'Bert Ashland ' Project Director Larry Seeman Associates, Inc. 500 Newport Center Drive . Suite 525 Newport Beach, CA 92660 ' SUBJECT: ADDENDUM TO ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORT ON THE SAN MIGUEL TRIANGLE Dear Bert: Attached is an addendum to our report on the San Miguel Triangle, submitted September 28, 1978. ' I will be happy to answer any further questions on either the orig- inal report or this addendum. Sincerely, , ' Theo N. Mabry, M.A. Principal Investigator TNM:mab ' Attachment i • 1 ' ARCHAEOLCG•CCAL PLANNING COLLABORAnvc ' ADDENDUM ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORDS SEARCH AND RECONPlAISSANCE SURVEY I MIGUEL TRIANGLE NENPORT BEACH, CA INTRODUCTION In September, 1978, Archaeological Planning Collaborative performed ' a records search and reconnaissance survey on the +18-acre San Miguel Triangle parcel and the San Miguel Drive extension in Newport Beach, CA. A report indicating that no sites were located within the area surveyed was submitted on September 28, 1978. . We were recently advised that grading and filling operations for the extension of San Miguel Drive might extend outside of the areas originally surveyed and that a midden deposit was located-under uncompacted fill in the area south of the San Miguel Drive extension and west of MacArthur Boulevard. Accordingly, an additional reconnaissance survey was under- taken by Theo Mabry, Principal Investigator, to determine the relation- ship of the road extension to the nearby midden material (Figure 1 ). FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A midden deposit does exist in the area south of San Miguel Drive and west of MacArthur Boulevard. Uncompacted fill obscures the eastern and much of the southern portion of the site; however, midden can be seen underlying the fill to the south, and a large portion of undis- turbed midden exists to the east (Figure 2) . In addition, a small midden deposit is located on a small shelf on the other side of the drainage that runs parallel to MacArthur Boulevard. ' A review of the literature indicates that the midden is part of Ora- 167, an already recorded site. In an archaeological survey of the San Joaquin Hills area, Pacific Coast Archaeological Society described Ora-. 167 as being located on a small knoll 75 feet west of MacArthur Boulevard and just north of a ravine that cuts across MacArthur Boulevard. A small incipient canyon was, according to PCAS, located on the northwest side of the knoll . At least two-thirds of the site was destroyed during con- ' struction of an office building. The small deposit located on the western slope of the drainage or ' small incipient canyon appears to be a redeposited remnant of the west- ern, destroyed portion of Ora-167. However, a large portion of the site ' FIGURE 2 3 ORA-167 LOCATION MAP ' ARCHAE=GWAL PLANNING COLLASMATIVE , �,, - if ,. ,,. / -/ � !a •/�j� - ;ii,'�R.J•: 21 Z'/ I/%zi It /o/ • I, ,(( �\�" // � . , :y°ice ' ( �' • r ■ r / f/ l• if, LOGES , w 206.7 `Z/ / r . Sr f ' ' FIGURE 1 2 PROJECT AREA LOCATION MAP • AM14AEOLWzAL PLANNING COLLABORATIVE ' UNITED STATES LAGUNA BEACH QUADRANGLE ' DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR CALIFORNIA-ORANGE CO. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 7.5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC) r LOS!..`:G4LE5 R,L, • 50' ' °52'30" R.109/. R;9 W .qp , s�ztTa Az:» 9:.r%. — 2l E. ;<2Z '•�.;'ti. .y - ��.c.. C~-s-�(Y r�=-.'s__,�l_-'aa 'y J r•._ � 4`, cOir \, , . - (p'�".- . r ''• t� ^'�r--�J...n�ij; - - -t=-Reservoir(�' 'z o:�'`7'• `�; 'i t �� :�� i •h[•.'- ��,�-_' :':� ::.'-• r.s=> -'..'\.:r _ %��`- (.,cam. \•:., _. .- '> \ slur 2�rc% ,1�\ y� •:I t '�:.;'�.: •! p / . �:,�\�` d :.i.-•: r^I Bae,(;�\,' '•i �' l J 'n or - i259�\ '�• b:�:::=-�'_.r :'��•.`(-�;,?yay Rzs/l J;; ` ! ".jj 512 .,11.:iy r�..,',•S(L)6;�OU,((t16�� "il �} t pya Y.::I' . �`` �, m r'� �, c\ \>o-.rJ• J1 w l .f( w' Zeso ner ;;, •: >> c N. . iv \•,//'�;,I, i ,/- t" C.'-�•\,�-�.,�J:.\�z',' ,- �'i) .�jr`t�\•t_ �.\° =R � C \:�'z ": •> , r •rJ7, :'%!6 >.. �,� r' vJ r l'= ' i- ,,,r� -•.; \� 7 0 eoo::�� �<..:'.~'M:•t 10 • ., ,�' 'r'• }•- ) e\%A� �l?�• �\�,t•• �%:i v~`;f 3dir'l .-`� _'jt u1 ,�. ;%i. ,=�'L"��l`; ;• er,: ri ta; PROJECT AREA i � `� s/ !`\'t:, !''`•.;1:% I r \o':,.sue:,r` \ l•.. .;,c `. Ci .� f J w� •i •�`\ .rn'sp, r� Q• .:..�-�',\•,;>+''1 , F\\, t`i; .y'�~:• •; t � ��' � \� n '/ '�� "� �Pi2�27:�/Y`' !y o-. O . bF•e^ �t�n:;=�y��t�_` ICJ,�. .! ,�. \\�l �� �'•,1 esez'vnF�"' ��� 4}°0', . )l- ' ORA-767 . � I\ J\ r / /.�✓t •t ` �"- `- � .� �\ @� `�� Linco{n II' . K (/J • �'a'• prpt`!)q. �nj :__��'��: OS�j�''.�\`�\ /,Sc1i:a.Y�� � i;1, � n�Maosa)•zJiA�..'•y. :::11J\• ,i\a :;,$ ��1 Z WC ' �'r 7a\,� ;�.�o" � �.y'�7�-'1` �L"L,��'a�� �� 6��•����,y'..,� � i 4d 1 \$i •�� •r;�L SO$— // ion` = '� ;•�� \:�^�' (�`x7�l rJ W 73 Y :1 ��:a• �..•, ((\f' mo rt.!` •f'`'`-'i''- :. ! :,�':\ .,1'.•oi2 .�(1.yI3l_• �'^ x;:i�?t."+•i`�`'Y' !`' ':`� [t(\ :,i'-:. '=-��- .' e\.l"�'i.�•r:�. � �. .7� • . .171'��/',' f � �:'Q%-"r�'r . =-r..,'-a'a�e-*3Ses`(.- •.� ':; .SOD � .J'p W1`, . . b �r'•.�'j\:, � IiuSnr•t7nf. ` y('� SC•�;tr G' 1 \�• \l v\ ti6i-�� \ �7 /J_',�'. �lV`''I��.^}3I✓ii •4` 7 .l i, �•� :�\' �\J'N-r -\Fia;�cn' .� �,� jr,.;•. u�.'.hl���•. n , ••1..+'1,,.C.:;� a^\: :� ks �•n b J r i7,`, y ) V;ti ,ri y // r' i\`r 1 i \�:`�. i, .,/1 ` \, I: NO.3 �. �/f eM ^`` . V�eG A- ' ( p / l'l' \ ti r'•n �'-�:v'f'• '` +1`.-1".\,.: •1\1 E 3'�%W' c•. � �\'r � ..Air.n. _ ,-�`,•,•,.. .`\ 't _ ' :/.••c,+.�.] l ' WG92 d �/� /y�,{���9, / � '\_• .ems .i/�y - ` t�\. � I\, •,.,.,,-`b• ,�r--) lco ., l// \ \/ � R /'\✓� �. i�� !'�r{l,. it -. ..\, -'�p� 'I'S•', ^-+.�!L°�?z. 1• ' S. `';iN /' r^' �/' t�'% .: � .! •��.r.Pellc�j_ �o0 .<Ihij•r VL�. .. r� .g tu���t,�-�-`7 . r11 :{�.' ��-1���� 1.=, ;" �; tiilfi ;ui;; •.,:r.a 0.,fG\ `/J I\i'' ` , S ..�zl'• _ _ r ne:.._.. Corona � /�� � \ ,t *• p;j �c+ b ar=�•:c;�l;•r,, '\��y j. ;1�� — _ '�ar+.le'<c$r•• - a i , 4 ARCHA'EoLCGrAL PLANNING COLLA8CRATIVE ' still exists between the drainage and MacArthur Boulevard. Although part of this portion is now covered with uncompacted fill , a large portion is exposed and appears to be undisturbed. Ora-167 is one of many sites that are located on knolls or terraces overlooking Newport Bay and the Pacific Ocean. Unfortunately, many of the sites have been destroyed without adequate archaeological investiga- tion. The undisturbed portion of Ora-167 represents a valuable cultural resource and, since it is near enough to the proposed project that it might be affected, the following recommendations are made: ' ' 1. The midden deposits and a 10-meter buffer zone should be Zeft undisturbed. ' 2. To ensure that disturbance does not occur, a temporary fence should be installed to prevent accidental intrus- ion into the midden area during construction of the San Miguel Drive extension. 3. If the site area is to be left undisturbed, more definite plans for permanent preservation will be required as the surrounding area is developed. .his could occur now, or could be deferred until the area where the site is ' located is developed. 4. If for some reason the site must be disturbed to con- struct the extension of San MigueZ Drive, it is recom- mended that a test-level investigation be undertaken to determine the ultimate disposition of Ora-167. ' 5. Because of the proximity of Ora-167 to the Son Miguel Drive' dxtension, and because heavy vegetation obscures portions of that area, it is recommended that an arch- aeologist be present at pre-grad';ng meetings and dur- ing initial site clearance and grading operations. The archaeologist should have the authority to temporarily halt grading activities within 10 meters of any newly discovered midden deposit until appropriate mitigation measures can be accompZished. ' LARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES ' APPENDIX C TRAFFIC ANALYSIS TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS HARBOR POINT HOMES SAN MIGUEL TRIANGLE NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA DECEMBER 12, 1978 REVISED FEBRUARY 6, 1979 prepared by ' MOHLE, PERRY & ASSOCIATES 2565 East Chapman Avenue, Suite 124 ' Fullerton, CaZifornia 92631 ' TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS ' HARBOR POINT HOMES SAN MIGUEL TRIANGLE NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA DECEMBER 12, 1978 ' REVISED FEBRUARY 6, 1979, t prepared by ' MOHLE, PERRY & ASSOCIATES 2565 East Chapman Avenue, Suite 124 Fullerton, California 92631 TABLE OF CONTENTS PACE INTRODUCTION 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 ' TRAFFIC GENERATION 4 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT 4 ANALYSIS OF CRITICAL INTERSECTIONS 5 9Z ANALYSIS" 9 ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (I .C.U.) ANALYSIS 10 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 11 1995 TRAFFIC AND SAN MIGUEL DRIVE 12 ' APPENDIX A - W ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS AND I .C.U. ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS ' TABLE 1 - Estimation of Vehicle Trips Generated 4 ' FIGURE 1 - Location Map 2 Figure 2 - Site Plan 3 Figure 3 - Trip Distribution 6 Figure 4 - Trip .Assignment (San Miguel Drive Extended) 7 Figure 5 - Trip Assignment (San Miguel Drive Cul-de-Saced) 8 ' Figure 6 - Preliminary Estimation of Daily Traffic Volumes 14 1 1 INTRODUCTION This report presents the summary of a traffic impact analysis for an 18-acre residential development consisting .of twenty-one single family homes located in the City of Newport Beach, California. The impact. analysis described in this report conforms with the pro- cedure adopted by the City of Newport Beach; namely, the "1% Analysis" and "I .C.U. (Intersection Capacity Utilization) Analysis." A comparative analysis was made for two alternative plans for San Miguel Drive. The first alternative assumes that San Miguel Drive would be extended from its present terminus south of San Joaquin Hills Road to the planned Avocado ` Avenue. The second alternative assumes that San Miguel Drive would be cul-de-saced at a point easterly of MacArthur Boulevard. The outline of this report is structured to conform with the City's rsuggested outline for traffic phasing reports. ' PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed development is located on the east side of MacArthur Boulevard southerly of San Joaquin Hills Road at the northeast quadrant of the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and the proposed extension of San Miguel Drive in the City of Newport Beach. Figure 1 shows the location map of the subject property. Twenty-one single family houses will be constructed on this 18-acre site. The proposed development is known as Harbor Point Homes. Figure 2 shows r the site plan. The only access point to the site will be located on San Miguel Drive. There will be a median left turn pocket to accommodate ingress traffic (northeastbound on San Miguel Drive and turning north 1 r ^tx �,f,�, iY�t�'t�P`c F:y`+"` .:,�R�'` `�lqJ'- ' :•4.. OR` lY \\\1\, �'r/• �^ Al` .� �• 'AYE r � ; �0.15f $,�i�"'�.'^w,A`",,'•," P�ROR0.E ,': Ap'.. ea/boa wg P20JE.CT LOCATIQt�f � �fi :�'• Ncit/��E FIGURE 1 . LOCATION MAP - HARBOR POINT HOMES 2 r ■r r a� so mo ass awi as to w maw ma am ram r Ei ; L I.r � J1 .���� � , Y �' •��,��•_- ter_-- -�- ' __r-��---a-•�, TENTATIVE MAP NO.10625 - i into the driveway) . The median break will permit egress left turn move- ment from the driveway. TRAFFIC GENERATION Traffic generation rates used for these single family homes were taken from the Institute of Transportation Engineers publication entitled, "Information Report 1976 - Trip Generation." The rates used in this study were discussed with the City Traffic Engineer. and approved for use in this traffic analysis. The trip generation rates and number of trips generated are sum- marized as follows: TABLE 1 . ESTIMATION OF VEHICLE TRIPS GENERATED No. of Trip, Generatioh Rate Dwelling in Trips per• Dwelling Unit Trips -Generated 'Units 24-Hour P.M.' 'Peak Hour 24-Hour P X Peak Hour P.M. Peak (22 Hours) . 21 12 2.0 252 42 84 (1 .2 In, .8 Out) (25 In, 17 Out) (50 In,:.34 Out) The above shows that the proposed 21 single family homes would generate 252 vehicle trips per day and 84 vehicle trips during the evening peak 22-hour period. The evening peak 21-2-hour traffic volume is assumed to be two times the evening peak hour volume. TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT The project generated traffic volumes were distributed according to the anticipated travel orientation, site access pattern and probable usage of alternate routes in the vicinity of the subject property. It was estimated that the generated traffic would be distributed 40 percent northerly on MacArthur Boulevard, 25 percent southerly on MacArthur 4 Boulevard, 26 percent westerly on San Joaquin Hills Road, 6 percent easterly on San Joaquin Hills Road and 3 percent northeasterly on San Miguel Drive. Figure 3 shows the directional distribution of traffic to adjacent streets and highways in the area. These estimates have been approved by the City Traffic Engineer. The directionally distributed traffic volumes were then assigned or allocated to the streets and highways. The estimated turning move- ments at critical intersections in the immediate area of the project site are shown in Figures 4 and 5. Figure 4 shows the incremental pro- ject volumes (expressed .in percentages of generated traffic) if San Miguel Drive is extended to Avocado Avenue. Figure 5 shows the incre- mental traffic if San Miguel Drive is cul-de-sated easterly of MacArthur Boulevard. ANALYSIS OF CRITICAL INTERSECTIONS It is anticipated that five critical intersections will be impacted by the proposed development. The following intersections were analyzed: 1. MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road 2. San Joaquin Hills Road and San Miguel Drive 3. Pacific Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard 4. MacArthur Boulevard and Ford Road 5. San Joaquin Hills Road and Jamboree Road 6. Pacific Coast Highway and Marguerite Avenue 7. MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road 8. San Joaquin Hills Road and Santa Rosa Drive The intersections of Avocado Avenue at San Miguel Drive and Avocado Avenue and San Joaquin Hills Road are not included in the analysis since they are not signalized intersections and no existing traffic data or method of analysis has been established' by the City in its "Traffic Phasing Ordinance" for unsignalized intersections. 5 13 0 9� 3� a� j0% poi 40/ `Aa jlw IVb�� 5an JaoH r((f a . � a-s r 0 i f �a5% 5y, 0 Pj Sao Flau n$ +Of!; .b FOR 7R1P ASSI6mmeor O� s� yr9S� y Ho aa.la FIGURE 3. TRIP DISTRIBUTION 6 �fn AO�I 41 ° _•�.Z68�� �o �' hN r • V!^HIc4E TRIPS INBouNP �jp -- -"�!' . NpSrala FIGURE 4. TRIP ASSIGNMENT (San Miguel Drive Extended r 7 k °t i ryb% s � �1 Stf" K E� b00% � l�•�° � c PM. MAY, :2.-HeOpt V�H�cc.� 'f1x�t�s �N$®va�aea 50 ••.� •`Na SCaI� FIGURE 5. TRIP ASSIGNMENT San Miguel Drive Cu - e- ace 8 The "1% Analysis" was made for each of the intersections for the evening peak 22-hour (3:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.) period. If the esti- mated jncremental traffic volume exceeded 1% of existing traffic volume, then an "I.C.U. (Intersection Capacity Utilization) Analysis" was made for that intersection per City of Newport Beach adopted procedure. The results of the "1% Analysis" and "I.C.U. Analysis" are summarized in the following •sections. 111% ANALYSIS" The generated traffic volumes used in the "1% Analysis" were obtained by multiplying the total ingress and egress volumes for the 2z-hour peak period (as shown in Table 1) and the percentage values shown in Figures 3, 4 and 5. Worksheets can be found• in Appendix A. The results of the "1% Analysis" are as follows: During P.M. 22-hour peak period, does project generated traffic exceed 1% existing volume? San Miguel Drive San Miguel Drive Intersection Extended Cul-de-Saced t 1 . MacArthur Boulevard & San Joaquin Hills Road No Yes 2. San Joaquin Hills Road & San Miguel Drive Yes Yes . 3. Pacific Coast Highway & MacArthur Boulevard No No 4. MacArthur Boulevard & Ford Road No No 5. San Joaquin Hills Road & Jamboree Road No No 6. Pacific Coast Highway & Marguerite Avenue No No 7. MacArthur Boulevard & Jamboree Road No No 1 8. San Joaquin Hills Road & Santa Rosa Drive No No 9 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION For the intersections at which the projected future traffic volumes exceed 1% of existing volumes, the "I.C.U. Analyses" were made. The calculations were carried out to the fourth decimal place as required by the City Planning Department. The results are summarized as follows: Future I.C.U. San Miguel Drive is: Existing (2)Cul-de- Mitigation Intersection I.C.U.• �l�Extended Saced Required? San Joaquin Hills Road & San Miguel Drive 0.41 0.4068 0.4071 No MacArthur Boulevard & San Joaquin Hills Road 0.72 0.7200 0.7267 No 10 SOMMARY OF FINDINGS Based upon the foregoing estimation of future traffic volumes and capacity analysis, it was found that none of the critical intersections adjacent to the proposed development would be adversely impacted. Specifically, the project generated traffic volumes during the evening peak Vj-hour period would exceed 1 percent of existing volumes at only two intersections; namely, San Joaquin Hills Road at San Miguel Drive and MacArthur Boulevard at San Joaquin Hills Road. However, the I .C.U. Analysis found that future intersection I.C.U. would be either the same or slightly higher, thus mitigation measures would not be warranted. ( The comparative analysis made for the two alternative plans for San Miguel Drive found that the incremental traffic loads generated by the proposed project would have negligible differential impact on the critical intersections in the area. The foremost reason is that the 21 dwelling unit project would generate a small increment of peak hour traffic volume. The estimated evening peak hour volume generation is only 42 vehicle trips. Therefore, the advantages and disadvantages of San Miguel Drive extension or cul-de-sacing should be reviewed with respect to the possible usage by through traffic; namely, trips which have either origins and/or destinations outside the immediate area of the subject site. The future volume of traffic using San Miguel Drive extension will be dependent upon land developments in the Newport Center and in the areas easterly of MacArthur Boulevard. A review and discussion of future traffic volume projections and probable impact of San Miguel Drive exten- sion is, therefore, included in the following section of this report. 1995 TRAFFIC AND SAN MICUEL DRIVE The impact of the subject development on critical intersections in the area was earlier found to be insignificant regardless of plans to either extend or cul-de-sac San Miguel Drive. However, the extension of 'San Miguel Drive to Avocado Avenue as is shown in the Master- Plan Circu- lation Element would cause a rerouting of traffic patterns in the area. Specifically, it would be used by some motorists as an alternate access route to Newport Center from areas easterly of MacArthur Boulevard. Diversion of traffic from San Joaquin Hills Road would occur. If the extension of San Miguel Drive between Avocado Avenue operates #' as a one-way eastbound facility, then it would only serve as an alternate exit or outbound route from Newport Center. Its potential impact on the travel pattern would be lesser than if it were two-way. -The most ' impacted intersection would be San Joaquin Hills Road and MacArthur Boulevard, primarily because of its geographical proximity and the important function of both intersecting streets serving as primary access routes to Newport Center. The existing I.C.U. at this intersection is 0.72 during the evening peak hour. By 1995, owing to higher traffic volumes, the I.C.U. is projected to be 0.99 according to the preliminary estimate made by Mr. Herman Basmaciyan. If San Miguel Drive extension is constructed, the 1995 I.C.U. at that intersection would be between 0.86 and 0.95 instead. 1 His projections were based or traffic volume forecasts made by Crommelin- Pringle and Associates, Inc. in the report entitled "Newport Center Study, Phase II ." If San Miguel Drive extension operates as a one-way eastbound route, the projected 1995 p.m. peak hour volume is 2,530 vehicles westerly of MacArthur Boulevard. The projected p.m. peak hour volume is 3,290 if two-way. Easterly of MacArthur Boulevard, the p.m. peak hour volume would increase from the existing 92 vehicles per hour to 1 ,020 vehicles 12 per hour by 1995. The p.m. peak hour volumes are approximately 9 percent to 12 percent of 24-hour traffic volumes. The completion of San Miguel Drive extension would provide faster and more direct and convenient access to Newport Center from the residential 1 areas situated adjacent to San Miguel Drive and northerly of San•Joaquin Hills Road. It would actually function as a bypass to San Joaquin Hills Road for access to Newport Center by local residents. The accuracy of future traffic volume forecasts is dependent upon reliable data of trip origins and destinations, forecasts of land use changes and many other factors. An areawide traffic forecast computer modelling effort by Herman Kimmel and Associates has been in progress and is scheduled for completion in the near future. Until then, the pre- liminary estimates of projected daily volumes compiled from various sources are as shown in Figure 6. 13 i o� SQM ` O ✓pQ84iq Hj�' Cb (�� `�ioOOJ �90 Mho , �,eywooA hp^RTMEA/TS of yp* a° b� �gOR pa�T Nynes o00 aON GC C►b�gv°� 00 COO) . ob p b XXx TP-^lLPM (XXK ) lomtr WITH ZATiiZNStON OF 5�►N .tn�c�u&,4 aa.. No�aln . FIGURE 6. PRELIMINARY ESTIMATION OF DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES 14 1 APPENDIX A 1% ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS iI. C. U. ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS 1 1 t 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE ROAD/MacARTHUR BLVD. r (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Existing 11, of Existing Project PSouthbound oach Peak 2z Hour Peak 2Z Hour Peak 2 Hour ;7 ction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volt hbound 1681 17 �: 2814 28 Eastbound 2923 29 Westbound 3037 30 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing ' Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing 7 Peak 2i Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I .C.U.) Analysis is required. (1) MacArthur Blvd. is assumed north and south $ INTERSECTION JAMBOREE ROAD/MacARTHUR BLVD. FORM I �4ROJECT: t N •.t 1� 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coact Hyg�y�a�AVM110r•�t0, Avenue (Existing Traffic Volumes based on AveYage Winter/Spring 1978) Existing 1% of Existing Project F.� Approach Peak 2: Hour Peak 2; Hour Peak 2k Hour Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volum Northbound Southbound 0 2 Eastbound 3 � 8 .s estbound 2401 1 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak•2k Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project'Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing 't Peak 2- Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. ti. t 3 INTERSECTION Coast Highway/Marguerite Avenue FORM I I� PROJECT: HA9—a0'1a- ?r=NT 'HGN� Ct%) M r&eJ we 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection San Joaquin Hills Road/Santa Rosa-Big •Canyon (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 978) Existing 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 2 z Hour Peak 2 z Hour Peak 2 z Hour Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Northbound 2200 22 ' Southbound 333 3 Eastbound 1545 15 A' estbound 1461 15 © Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. INTERSECTION San Joaquin Hills Road/Santa Rosa-Big Canyon FORM I PROJECT: �IQR.P�R Po1NT �-)«4Et ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection San Joaquin Hills Road/Santa Rosa-Qig Canyon (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 978) Existing 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volum Northbound 2200 22 5 1 outhbound 333 3 O Eastbound 1545 15 t3 estbound 1461 15 9 Project Traffic is estimated to be-less than' l% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. I • TION - San Joaquin Hills Road/Santa Rosa-Dig Canyon FORM I M1GclEt. DRuvE �jc T'�N aEra 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MacArthur Boulevard/San Joaquin Hills Road (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Existing 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour ' Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volum Northbound 1484 15 5 1 Southbound 3065 31 Eastbound 3140 31 $ Westbound 1451 1 15 7 ' © Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ' ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 1 1 ITERSECTION MacArthur Boulevard/San Joaquin Hills Road -- FORM I 10JECT: ' t��sw M►Gv�� DR�vE. 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection San Joaquin Hills Rpd/1$an Miguel_ Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Wintpring, 1978) 1 Existing 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volum Northbound 120 ' 1 11 Southbound 684 7 Z Eastbound • 2133 1 21 _ 17 Westbound 11196 12 7J Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ' © Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization ' (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. i • INTERSECTION San Joaquin Hills Road/San Miguel Drive FORM I PROJECT: (i ) 4oNMIGUE6- INTERSECTION CAPACIV UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ax TEN Dr-_D Intersection San Joaquin Hills Rd/San Mii uel Dr. (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) ' Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio 1 NLv 1 1600 24 3' % C .02 NT 1 1600 8 .Ol* 0'9 PiR 1 1600 10 ;'-76 .01 � I SL 1 1600 116 0 116-00 .07* o�2y ST_ 2 3200 5 0 '5 •00 .05 04-9 P 5 I SR 141 2- 4-1 . '71, EL 2 3200 446 0 4-k . 00 .14* 1 ET 3 4800 609 D 6pq . 00 ER q2- 2 9 WIC 1 1600 43 ►- 014- A-4-- +4- .03 • 02778 ' WT 3 4800 348 6 34'9 - 00 .09* • oz S� '� WR 1 82 9 Yam- 00 ' I Yellow Time .10 ' 10 Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I .C.U. .41 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization {I .C.U. ICU is sum critical movements,, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 (� Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be less t0an or equal to Existing Conditions' I.C.U. ❑ Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 (� Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing l I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures NiERSECTION San Joaquin Hills Rd/San Miguel Dr. -- - - --••- -•--• -•--- - •—• ----•--- --- '._—.--�____---•--- FORM II i 'RBJECT 1% Traffic Volume Analysis i Intersection Coact Hinh_Twa;/M�r.Arfihtlr R (Existing Traffic Vol�mes based on Average Winter pang 1978) Existing 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour s Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic VolumE Northbound - !� Southbound 1 2258 238 Eastbound 3204 32 7 Westbound 3432 34 xaProject Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. eo INTERSECTION Coast Highway/MacArthur ,Boulevard �� FORM I PROJECT: r1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Jamboree Road/San Joaquin H 1i 1s Road (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 197 8) r Existing ' 1% of Existing Project pproach Peak 2 2 Hour Peak 2 z Hour Peak 21,2 Hour Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volum Northbound 2581 26 Southbound 4 34 4 Eastbound 385 �. testbound 2533 25 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing ' X Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume ' ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 21z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. :tiT ISEGT I ON Jamboree Road/San Joaquin Hills Road FORM I ` 'JO CT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MacArthur Boulevard/Ford Road (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Existing 1% of Existing Project ' rWestbound Peak 2: Hour Peak 22 Hour Peak 2i Hour Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volum 3657 37 4032 40 1584 16. 1007 10 i © Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak• 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing 1 Peak 21, Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. :NTERSECTION ^ MacArthur Boulevard/Ford Road FORM I �9n.�rcT • �f• IzgoF �v'r1 T }!e'�f= 1% Traffic Volume Analysis 1 Intersection MacArthur Boulevard/San Joaquin Hills Road (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 197a) Existing 1% of Existing Project ' Approach Peak 23� Hour Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volum Northbound 1484 15 Southbound 3065 c 31 f Eastbound 3140 31 Westbound 1451 15 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 23, Hour Traffic Volume a Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing ' Peak 21z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 NTERSECTION MacArthur' Boulevard/San Joaquin Hills Road FORM I PROJECT;_ INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS JCAC C-p Intersection MacArthur Boulevard/San Joaquin Hills Road (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter Spring 1978) Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. -Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio NL 1 1600 63 1) .04 NT 2 3200 361 D 7 61 .15* 1547 ' NR 129 )34 SL 2 3200 412 I o q z 2 .13* ST 2 3200 746 O 7A (o .23 • .3 ' SR N.S. - 250 7-50. - J 3200 772 c '772 .24*4800 648 (c 654 15 • 15 80 O $0 1600 70 '74 .04 •05 4800 285 14 a8�1 .10* 178 7 Ji 8 5 Yellow Time .10 ' ' (O, 'k Existing Intersection Ca ac ity Utilization I .C.U. .72 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) ' ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left rvi Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 L_I Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I .C.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.O. will be greater than 0.90 ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing El I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures �INTERSECTION�- MacArthur Boulevard/San Joaquin [tills Road FORM II I ej ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection San Joaquin Hills Road/San Miguel Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Existing 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour ' Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volum Northbound 120 1 h Southbound 684 7 v ' Eastbound 2133 21 } Westbound 1196 12 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. 'INTERSECTION San Joaquin Hills Road/San Miguel Drive FORM I PROJECT: '7�An,M16,U bL DR. INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS 4M '-P?5- 9A4aD 1 Intersection San Joaquin Hills Rd San Miguel Dr. (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio ' NL 1 1600 24 S .02 ' NT 1 1600 8 f 1 .Ol* • oo5fr� NR 1 1600 10 Z .01 ' SL 1 1600 116 .07* ST _ 2 3200 5 i • .05 ^ 017 SR 141 0 1 lr i EL 2 3200 446 0 4 4^h .14* •I ' ET 3 4800 609 D !moo 13 I ER a3 WL 1 1600 43 3 41�1 .03 • 03 ' WT 3 4800 348 3'q? .09* WR 82 0 F-" Yellow Time .10 �D . Existing Intersection .Ca acit Utilization I .C.U. .41 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) '440 7( ' ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, Wight, L=Left 11 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than.or equal to 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. ' M Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 f� Existing Plus Project Traffic I:C.II. will be greater than existing I I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 ElFurther analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures NTERSECTION San Joaquin Hills Rd/San Miguel Dr. -- FORM I I i PROJECT : ' (=) Wit•, ,;I-�«�i .�V. ��,_d�'_G.��.�L fiFx 1% Traffic Volume Analysis .� Intersection (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter pa ng 1978) Existing 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 22 Hour Peak 2 Ho r Peak 22 Hour Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Vol me Traffic WWII Northbound - Southbound 2258 Eastbound 3204 3 7 LAX estbound 3432 34 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing LAJ Peak 2;� Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 21-,. Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. i ' f' E' t r.' INTERSECTION Coast Highway/MacArthur Boulevard FORM I PROJECT: i TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS ADDENDUM ' HARBOR POINT HOMES SAN MIGUEL TRIANGLE NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA ' JANUARY 10, 1979 PREPARED BY ' MOHLE, PERRY & ASSOCIATES 2565 East Chapman Avenue, Suite 124 Fullerton, CaZifornia 92631 1 r SAN MIGUEL DRIVE EXTENSION 1 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to provide a discussion of the traffic impacts and advantages of extending San Miguel Drive to Newport Center. The most recently amended Master Plan of Streets and Highways for the City of Newport Beach calls for the extension of San Miguel Drive from ' Newport Center to Bonita Canyon Road. San Miguel Drive' is designated as a Primary Road which would have a four-lane divided roadway. The alignment ' of San Miguel Drive is generally parallel to MacArthur Boulevard. It is anticipated that its primary function would be to provide a direct access ' route to Newport Center from the residential area situated northerly of San Joaquin Hills Road and easterly of MacArthur Boulevard, and thus provide ' some relief for MacArthur Boulevard which is projected to carry 47,000 vehicles per day in 1995. ' TRAFFIC IMPACT OF HARBOR POINT HOMES ' The impact of the Harbor Point Homes development on critical inter- sections in the area was earlier found to be insignificant regardless of ' plans to either extend or cul-de-sac San Miguel Drive. However, the extension of San Miguel Drive to Avocado Avenue as is shown in the Master Plan Circulation Element would cause a rerouting of traffic patterns in ' the area. Specifically, it would be used by some motorists as an alternate access route to Newport Center from areas easterly of MacArthur Boulevard. Diversion of traffic from San Joaquin Hills Road would occur. ' FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES The extension of San Miguel Drive is expected to induce through traffic ' to and from Newport Center and the areas northerly of the Harbor Point Homes. -The Newport Center has an existing floor area of 2.25 million square feet ' of medical and office use, and 1.19 million square feet of commercial use. The City Council on December 20, 1978, approved an additional 1.49 million square feet of office and medical use and 0.58 million square feet of r 1 1 commercial use. This represents a 37.6 percent future increase of building area in Newport Center. 1 If San Miguel Drive extension operates as a one-way eastbound route, the projected 1995 p.m. peak hour volume is 2,530 vehicles westerly of 1 MacArthur Boulevard. , The projected p.m. peak hour volume is 3,290 if two- way. Easterly of MacArthur Boulevard, the p.m. peak hour volume would 1 increase from the existing 92 vehicles per hour to 1,020 vehicles per hour by 1995. The p.m. peak hour volumes are approximately 9 percent to 12 1 percent of 24-hour traffic volumes. CONCEPTUAL CIRCULATION PLANS 1 In anticipation of a significant future increase in traffic volumes 1 to be generated by the Newport Center development, several alternative con- ceptual plans for streets and highways have been proposed. One of the alternatives shows the extension of San Miguel Drive to Newport Center and 1 Avocado Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard as a one-way. couplet southerly of San Joaquin Hills Road. San Miguel Drive is shown as a one-way eastbound 1 street. The projected 1995 traffic volumes for this alternative are pre- sented in Figure -l. A refined traffic volume projection would become 1 available when the computer modeling task is completed in late January, 1979, by Herman Kimmel & Associates. 1 Other conceptual alternatives are shown in Figures 2 and 3. 1 FUTURE TRAFFIC IMPACT If the extension of San Miguel Drive between Avocado Avenue operates 1 as a one-way eastbound facility, then it mould only serve as an alternate exit or outbound route from Newport Center. Its potential impact on the travel pattern would be smaller than if it were two-way. The most severely 1 impacted intersection would be San Joaquin Hills Road and MacArthur Boulevard, primarily because of its geographical proximity and the important 1 function of both intersecting streets serving as primary access routes to Newport Center. The existing I.C.U. at this intersection is 0.72 during the evening peak hour. By 1995, owing to higher traffic volumes, the I.C.U. is 1 1 2 I� r . No�T�y. ar o� unn�DQP�t:y �.b\'D "o.I /90 tit, °O l�4'/WOOD ApARTMEAITS �t r yp� b� IIAR®DR poltiT Hemet 000 AoNa 1b If o°) rl8�oJ�[0 ('itq nnn) 1 �0 \emu r xxx EXt4TtNG D.&.mj TP-o4Ftc (XXX ) 1'4'1ri P^.lLy TFtkFPtc WtTN irxTjCastoN of Sw+�! MtCtu�1. DfL. No Sca it FIGURE I. PRELIMINARY ESTIMATION OF DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES r 3 fMGLG r/ + tan loeq uln hill. rtl, � 1,1 b ten jeequln hilly rd, � � a f l Y F Y Jyi • i � � A fethlon A t•thl•n Itl•ne a Itlend / 1 i Ik R1 A � � :• � P • o i y •s • p • u u > e teen hi•Fwey C-5 a tee•r FigFwoy • C-6 NUNN OR" jeequln Flu. N. �i J. 1 bY• I tee jpegein hill. rd.IF / • !mot ` a /erhbn bland Inhlen blend �, Ra 9 N 'e • P i O O 9 t 9 > e a E > e s p v E T it c mu1 hlvhway C-7 3 c teary highway C-8 FIGURE 2. CIRCULATION CONCEPTS MacART•HUR --AVOCADO --SAN JOAQUIN HILLS C 4 Gi Jt s.n jeaq uin hal rd. I son looquin hill. rd. • n � G �►: E � F fashion hshion Island a Island j R jt 11 R b a � F e • ` F V . 4 3 it • C-2 i epsr h1*hw.y c ea.s/ highway un j.ygain hill rd. J t 1s • j ' n Ds, son jooquln hill rd. C � f i Island flood d� Rq' Rlix s o i e y • e F ° e .J ° e • e a n 0° a o n E \\\\ f d < s.tul h'ghwny C_g .�'C-4 � •Doss highway 1 FIGURE 3. CIRCULATION CONCEPTS ` Mac ARTHUR —AVOCADO — SAN JOAQUIN HILLS- C 5 i projected to be 0.99 according to the preliminary estimate made by Mr. Herman Basmaciyan. If San Miguel Drive extension is constructed, the 1995 I.C.U. at that intersection would be between 0.86 and 0.95 instead. His projections were based on traffic volume forecasts made by Crommelin- Pringle and Associates, Inc. , in the report entitled "Newport Center Study, Phase II." COMPATIBILITY WITH MASTER PLAN The extension of San Miguel Drive from San Joaquin Hills Road to Newport Center Drive is an integral element of the adopted Master Plan of Streets and Highways as published by Community Development Department, p dated December, 1978. The plan shows this extension as a four-lane divided road. AREAWIDE TRAFFIC SERVICE San Miguel Drive will function in the future as a relief route for San Joaquin Hills Road in serving Newport Center for traffic originating along the proposed San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. RELATIONSHIP OF COMPUTER TRAFFIC ESTIMATION MODEL Based on discussion with the City Traffic Engineer on January 10, 1979, the results of estimated future traffic folumes from the Citywide Traffic Model will be available on or about January 17, 1979. When this very impor- tant information is available the specific estimated future volumes on San Miguel Drive will be quantified based on an overall review of areawide land development. Estimation of future San Miguel Drive volumes without the benefit of this model are speculative. Regardless of the specific results of the traffic model it is concluded that San Miguel Drive must be developed in accordance with the Master Plan to insure an acceptable level of service on the arterial street system in the area. 6 REVIEW OF REVISED NEWPORT CENTER PLAN A review of the latest report prepared for the City by Weston Pringle and Associates concerning the effect that •the revised allowable building areas, as approved by the Council on December 30, 1978, for Newport Center, will have on I.C.U. 's at the critical intersections in the area is pertinent to this discussion, This report assumes that San Miguel Drive will be constructed in accordance with the Master Plan and as shown on all of the eight alternatives for the section of the December 15, 1978, Community Development staff report concerned with Circulation Concepts -- MacArthur- Avocado-San Joaquin Hills. The Pringle report indicates, for instance, that the p.m. I.C.U. for the intersection of MacArthur and San Joaquin Hill Road for Alternative C-4 of the staff report is 0.90 which is at the critical level . The Pringle report also shows an I.C.U. of 0.92 for this same intersection for Alternate C-5. Without the extension of San Miguel Drive these I .C.U. 's would be beyond an acceptable level . CONCLUSION The completion of San Miguel Drive extension would provide faster and more direct and convenient access to Newport Center from the residential areas situated adjacent to San Miguel Drive and northerly of San Joaquin Hills Road. It would actually function as a bypass to San Joaquin Hills Road for access to Newport Center by local residents. A •traffic signal would be required at the intersection with MacArthur Boulevard. Regardless of alternative conceptual plans for streets in the area, the extension of San Miguel Drive is a needed bypass to San Joaquin Hills Road for direct access to Newport Center. Without it the estimated I.C.U. (Intersection Capacity Utilization) would reach 0.90 or higher. San Miguel Drive extension, in accordance with the Master Plan, is an essential element in the overall circulation system for this area of the City. 7 LARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES APPENDIX D AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT II LARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES HARBOR POINT AIR QUALITY IMPACT EVALUATION NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA PREPARED BY HANS D. GIROUX CONSULTING ASSOCIATE LARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. 500 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 525 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 PHONE (714) 640-6363 JANUARY 23, 1979 r LARRY SGGMAN ASSOCIAT65 r INTRODUCTION This report presents an Air quality impact Analysts for construc- tion and occupancy of 20 single-family dwellings on a triangular section of land known as the Harbor Point area, near the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road in the City of Newport Beach, Since air quality impact from residential developments is usually directly proportional to the number of dwelling units, the impact of the proposed Harbor Point Homes on ambient air quality is small , Of greater air quality concern is the emissions from traffic on MacArthur Boulevard that may degrade- ambient air quality for project residents, This report analyzes the impact of the project on ambient air quality as well as predicting the effects of existing and future traffic on adjacent project residents. METEOROLOGY/CLIMATOLOGY The climate of Newport Beach, as with all of Southern California, is controlled by the position and strength of the subtropical high- pressure center over the Pacific .Ocean. It controls the position of the �r mid-latitude storm track, drives the predominant land/sea breeze circu- lation, and creates the temperature inversions that lead to degraded regional air quality. A thin layer of cool marine air in the warm, sinking air mass of the high-pressure cell moderates temperatures, maintains a comfortable relative humidity, and keeps the area from becoming more arid as is typical of more inland areas. The average annual temperature of 61OF is dominated by the oceanic marine air influence with only 14 degrees temperature difference between the coldest month (January - 540F) and the warmest month (August - 680F), Temperatures in most years do not exceed 100OF or drop below freezing. It Winds around Newport-Beach, which control both the initial rate of ' dilution from poll'utant sources and the ultimate regional (redistribution), are usually favorable in maintaining excellent air quality in Southern California coastal environs. Figure 1 shows that two dominant wind regimes, one parallel to the coastline from the SE-S and a second onshore component perpendicular to the coast from the SW-W, bring clean ocean air into Newport Beach and carry away any locally generated pollutants, The average windspded of 6.1 mph usually prevents any stagnation of pol- lutants. Winds become light at night and may blow offshore in bringing air from more polluted inland areas toward the coast, but the sea breeze usually sets in early every day and again carries these emissions inland. FIGURE 1 IRVINE COASTAL AREA WIND 2 DIRECTION FREQUENCY NEAR THE NORTHWEST SIDE OF THE PEFELOPMENT AREA • lAftRY SEEMAN A550CIA7F5 , LOCATION: NEWPORT BEACH (1900 Bayside Drive) August 1954 to December 1974 N ?�y••,�.• NE NW •'' l' y I 1 SE Sw l MEAN SPEED = 5.2 mph Source: "Winds in California," 1978. 3 " LARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES Although the onshore component weakens inland and allows for downwind pollution buildup, the ocean breezes keep Newport Beach extremely "clean." In addition to weaker winds inland, two types of temperature inver- sions form in Southern California that contribute to any potential air quality problems. When the warm sinking air in the offshore high-pres- sure center is undercut by a shallow layer of marine air; a marine/ subsidence inversion is formed. These inversions are strongest and most persistent in summer when they cause basinwide ozone problems at all inland locations. A second inversion forms when air near the ground is cabled by contact with the cold ground on clear, calm nights, These radiation inversions lead to localized pollution "hot spots" near low- level sources such as freeways or parking facilities. When combined with very light offshore winds during cool winter evenings radiation inver- sions can lead to somewhat degraded air quality in Newport Beach as vehicular emissions from populated areas of Orange County are carried toward the ocean without any appreciable dispersion. . AIR QUALITY Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS). In assessing the air quality impact of a proposed development, that impact, together with the existing baseline air quality levels,. must be related" to the applicable" AAQS. '•These standards, an outgrowth of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970, were establi-shed to protect the public health (primary standards) and the public welfare (secondary standards) from any known or potential adverse effects of air pollutants. The Environmental Protection.Agency (EPA) promulgated standards for six pollutant species with individual states retaining the option to establish their own standards as long as the most stringent standard for any pollutant over any averaging time was enforced. Since California had standards already in existence before the Federal action, and has certain unique quality problems introduced by the extremely high inversion frequency, some diversity between Federal and State standards exists. Table A summarizes AAQS currently applic- able in California. Pollutant Emissions Inventory. In gauging the impact of a proposed development, it is instructive to compare project related emissions with existing and future regional emission levels. Since it is usually implicitly assumed that downwind regional air quality is proportional to upwind pollutant source strength, a comparison of the relative increase due to the project yields a general estimate of the corresponding ambient air quality impact. TABLE A 4• AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS APPLICABLE IN CALIFORNIA LARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES - California Averaging Standards Federal Standards Pollutant Time Concentration _Primary Secondary Photochemical Same as Oxidants _ 1 Hour o.1Dppm 160ug/m3 Primary (Measured as Ozone) (200 ug!m3) (0.08 ppm) Standard � Carbon Monoxide 12 Hours to ppm •,• ill Mg/m3) Same as 8 Hours 10 mg/m3 Primary (9 ppm) t flour 40 ppm 40 mg!m3 Standard (46 mg/m3) (35 ppm) Nitrogen Dioxide Annual Average ••• 100 ug/m3 Same as (0.05 ppm) Primary Standard •1 Hour 0.25 ppm __• ,•• • (470 ug/m3) Sulfur Dioxide Annual Average ••, 80(0.03 ppm _ ppm) 24 Hours .05 ppm in comb.w/ 365 ug/m3 .10 ppm Ox or (0.14 ppm) 100 ug/m3 TSP TOO 3Hours ••. T 1pp(0.6 ) 0.5 ppm) , 1 Hour 0.5 ppm _•_ •„ • 11310 ug/m3) , Suspended Particulate Annual Co.G 60 ug/m3 j 75 ag/m3 60 ug!m3 Matter metric ivlean 24 Hours 100 ug!m3 j 260 ug/m3 150 t rm�l Lead(Particulate) 30•Day 1.5 rrg/m3 •_• e' Averag Hydrogen Sulfide 1 Hour 0.03 ppm ••• •_ (42 ug:m3) Hydrocarbons Same as_ (Corrected for Methane) 3 Hours 160 ug/m3 Primary (6.9 a.m.) (0.24 ppm) Standard Ethylene 8 Hour 0.1 ppm , ... ••- 1 Hour 0.5 ppm _r ••• _ -•- VisibilityRedueing (observation Insufficient Particles amount to reduce the prevailing visibility to 10 ... miles when the relative humidity, is less than 70^/ Sulfate (particulates) 24 Hours 25,ug/m3 � ppm•Parts per million pptm•Parts per ten million pphm•Parts per hundred million og/m3•Micrograms per cubic meter 5 �i LARRY S£EMAN ASSOCIATES Table B shows that Orange County emissions are almost completely dominated by vehicular sources. Except for sulfur dioxide, module sources comprise over half of the County pollutant burden with over 99 percent of the CO, 83 percent of the NOx, 67 percent of the reactive hydro- carbons, and 52 percent of the particulates related to vehicular operation: Any furture reductions in County pollutants, and by inference down- wind air quality, therefore rests with improving vehicluar emission characteristics. Future automobile emission levels for carbon monoxide will drop sharply such that CO levels should decrease in most areas of the' County. Continued County growth, however, will offset slower reduc- tions in vehicular NOx and RHC which will cause those pollutant levels to remain relatively constant in the next few decades. The current draft Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for achieving all AAQS, as required by law in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, concentrates heavily on stationary source controls for pollutant reduction. Since automobile emission control is beyond the authority of local agencies improvement of Orange County air quality is dependent on stationary source air quality control in upwind areas of Los Angeles County. There is little possiblity of additional residential development such as the proposed project of generating any significant air pollutant miti- gation because of this inability to control transportation-related pollutants short of land use plans to completely prohibit future growth, Unless the air quality management process develops additional tactics that can further reduce transportation_related pollutants, the attainment of AAQS by the mandated 1987 deadline may be difficult to achieve. ' Newport Beach Ambient Air Quality. No long-term air quality measure- ments have been made near the proposed project site. The nearest Air Quality Management District (AQMD) monitoring stations are at Costa Mesa (near Harbor Boulevard on Fairview State Hospital grounds) and in Laguna Beach (several blocks from Pacific Coast Highway). Although neither station is necessarily identical to the local ambient air quality cond- itions near MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road, they are both representative of the general regional conditions found near Newport Beach. Table C, a three-year summary of available data, indicates that AAQS for all pollutant species except sulfur dioxide may sometimes be exceeded in the area. Laguna Beach air quality is somewhat better than in Costa Mesa because of a lower traffic density further south along the coast, but still not completely immune from degraded air quality. Given the location of the project site somewhat intermediate between the Laguna Beach and Costa Mesa locations, one would expect similarly intermed- iate air quality levels. Although air quality near the project site is among the "cleanest" in the County, it may on occasion experience TABLE B 6 1,975-76 ORANGE COUNTY EMISSIONS INVENTORY AVERAGE SUMMER WEEKDAY) LARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES Emissions Source Tons/Day) Stationary On-Road Off-Road Pollutant Species Man-Made Natural Mobile Vehicles Total Total hydrocarbons (THC) 91 .7 250.2 187.1 17.7 546.7 Reactive hydrocarbons (RHC) 69.3 24.6 170.8 16.2 280.9 Carbon monoxide (CO) 9.1 - 1451 .5 99.5 1560.1 Oxides of nitrogen (NOx) 32.7 - 135.5 24.3 192.5 Sulfur dioxide (S02) 22.8 - 7.1 6.2 36.1 Total particulates 20.7 - 18.3 4.5 43.5 1 TABLE C 7 AIR QUALITY SUP4MARY - NEWPORT BEACH AREA TARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES Costa Mesa Laguna Beach 1975 1976 1977 1975 1976 1977 Oxidant 19 days 17 days 38 days - - - 08 ppm - i hr. 0.18 ppm 0.16 ppm 0.18 ppm - - - Oxidant 11 days 10 days 31 days 10 ppm - 1 hr. 0.18 ppm 0.15 ppm 0.18 ppm - - - ', Nitrogen Dioxide 3 days 8 days 0 days 2 days - - .25 ppm - 1 hr. 0.35 ppm 0.34 ppm 0.23 ppm 0.35 ppm - - Carbon Monoxide 0 days 0 days 0 days 0 days 0 days 0 days 35 ppm - 1 hr. 31 ppm 27 ppm 18 ppm 16 ppm 20 ppm 13 ppm I Carbon Monoxide 40 days 57 days 20 days 4 days 4 days 0 days 9 ppm - 8 hrs. 23 ppm 10 ppm Carbon Monoxide 31 days 24 days 5 days 2 days 0 days 0 days 10 ppm - 12 hrs. 20 ppm - - 10 ppm - r Sulfur Dioxide - not - 1, 3, 24, annual - exceed - - ^ i Total Suspended Part. 37% 28% 21% 15% 27% 10 ug/m3-24 hrs. 177 ug/m3 - 202 ,ug/m3 164 Ng/m3 - 159 ,ug/m3 Total Suspended Part. - - 60 pg/m3-AGM 74 pg/m3 73 yrg/m3 73 yig/m3 74 yag/m3 - Data not observed or reported in relevant summaries B LARRY S£EMAN ASSOCIATES ' oxidant and particulate levels of almost twice the standard; NO2 and CO levels very close to the standards, and S02 well below standards. Based on current air pollution contols, the exceedances of the oxidant and particulate standards will continue well into the future. If the AQMP tactics are adopted and successful , then oxidant levels are forecast to drop to below standards while particulates, partly due to natural sources, will continue at their present levels. AIR QUALITY IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED HARBOR POINT DEVELOPMENT Because Harbor Point involves only 20 single-family homes, the impact will be extremely small compared to the impact from hundreds of thousands of Orange County residential , commercial ; industrial , institutional , rec- reational , and agricultural facilities. Of greater concern is the impact of existing roadway traffic on residents of these homes because of the promimity of MacArthur Boulevard and San Miguel Drive to these homes. With an existing traffic volume of 20,000 vehicles per day passing the project site that may ultim- ately reach 50,000 per day, the microscale diffusion of automobile 1 emissions toward these houses is a concern for project development. Air quality impact from the project will result from fugitive dust generated during construction, from vehicular exhaust from project- related traffic, and from power plant emissions to generate electricity for Harbor Point residents. Although each of these impacts is indeed small , it constitutes an incremental degradation of air quality that, when combined with countless similar County sources, leads to the characteristic regional air quality problems of Southern California. Construction Impacts. Fugitive dust sufficiently small to be en- trained into the local airstream and carried downwind will be generated during site clearing, grading, and vehicular travel on unpaved portions of the site during construction. Much of this dust will settle back down near the site and may cause a temporary nuisance at adjacent properties such as Roger's Gardens as it settles out on plant foliage or parked cars. EPA suggests an emission factor of 1 .2 tons/acre/month of construction activity. Regular watering in accordance with AQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) can reduce the uncontrolled dust levels by 50 percent. The fugitive dust generated by the project, based on average project lengths of 6 months for residential lots and 11 months for street construction, is calculated as follows : 9 ' LARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES ' Public Streets 3.67 a x 11 mos x 0.6 tns/a/mos = 24.22 tns Private Streets 2.22 a x 11 mos x 0.6 tns/a/mos = 14.65 tns Lots 1-20 5.83 a x 6 mos x 0.6 tns/a/mos = 20.99 tns Undeveloped 1 .25 a x Total 12.97 acres 59.86 tons Of the 60 tons generated during project construction, a portion will again I settle within the:project area, some will settle on nearby downwind loca- tions such as Roger's Gardens and the Baywood apartment complex, and the smallest dust particles will be dispersed in the regional airstream through- out Southern California. Mobile Source Impacts. The project itself will generate 240 average daily trips ADT at an average trip length (ATL) of about 10 miles. The daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is thus about 2,400 miles. By applying the automobile emission factors based on the current automotive emission compliance schedules, the total project pollutant burden is shown in ' Table D. Calculations in Table D are structured to show the contri- bution from "VMT-related" emissions from actual driving and from "ADT- related" emissions from starting a vehicle after sitting for a time, from idling emissions, from breathing losses after the engine stops, etc. , although the relative impact of Harbor Point is exceedingly small , In order to predict the level of carbon monoxide exposure for Harbor Point residents, the Caltrans line source dispersion model called CALINE 2 was merged with the emission factor generation computer model EMFAC5 under worst-case traffic and meteorological conditions. Vehicle speed assumptions for traffic slowing as it approaches the MacArthur/San Joaquin Hills intersection and eventually the MacArthur/San Miguel intersection during rush hour were also incorporated to yield a conservative (high) predicted exposure level . Calculations were performed near Lot 20 with a 20-foot elevation difference between the home and the roadway and near Lot 3 where the elevation difference is 35 feet. 1 The results in Table E indicate that CO concentrations of 12-15 ppm will ultimately occur at lots closest and lowest with respect to MacArthur, and that hourly concentrations near the proposed San Miguel Drive inter- section will range from 4 to 6 ppm. These values compare to the Federal AAQS of 35 ppm. Since neither the rush-hour traffic nor the restrictive meteorological conditions of Pasquill "F" stability class and 2-mph wind parallel to MacArthur will last over 8-12 hours. The longer-term CO standard will similarly not be threatened by MacArthur traffic alone. 1 TABLE D HARBOR POINT HOMES 10 PROJECT-RELATED AIR ' POLLUTANT EMISSIONS LARRY SEWAN ASSOCIATES i Pollutant Species (VMT-related) (ADT-related) Total Percent of _ tons/,year tons/year (tons/year) Basin Emissionsl 1980 Project Completion Hydrocarbons 2.17 1.72 3.89 0.0007% Carbon Monoxide 19.07 11.42 30.49 010011% Oxides of Nitrogen 3.14 3.14 0.0006% ! 1985 Project Completion Hydrocarbons 1.21 0.84 2,05 0.0004% Carbon Monoxide 12.08 7,79 19,87 0.0007% Oxides of Nitrogen 2.31 2.31 0.0004% r 1Emissions in the South Coast AQMD - Los Angeles Times, June 25, 1978 i r r t • t t 11 • LARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES ' If regional background"CO levels become.appreciably higher in the Newport Beach area, then the proximity of the roadway to the houses could be a decided influence on microscale air quality, but the proximity of Lots 3-6 and Lot 20 to MacArthur alone will not create adverse air quality at those sites. While MacArthur traffic alone will not significantly degrade air quality at lots adjacent to the roadway, the purpose of the Harbor Point impact analysis was also to differentiate between the extension of San Miguel Drive to MacArthur Boulevard or the alternative cul-de-sac design on San Miguel Drive. The traffic analysis had indicated that by 1995 an additional 1 ,020 cars per hour might use San Miguel Drive if the street were extended. The impact of those vehicles, many of which might be queuing at the traffic signal , needs to be superimposed on the worst- case analysis presented in Table E in order to examine the difference between the two roadway alignment alternatives. ' The maximum (worst-case) impact from a given roadway results from winds parallel to the road, thus allowing for localized pollution buildup, In the case of the San Miguel Drive/MacArthur Boulevard intersection, winds ' parallel to MacArthur with its higher traffic volumes generally result in highest ambient CO concentrations. When winds are parallel to MacArthur Boulevard, however, the air quality effects of San Miguel Drive traffic are minimized. If one isolates the greatest San Miguel Drive contri- bution to air quality degradation by winds parallel to the new roadway extension, the impact of MacArthur Boulevard is correspondingly mini- mized. Results from CALINE 2 for combined MacArthur/San Miguel traffic are shown in Table F. With winds perpendicular to MacArthur, the through traffic increases CO concentrations by 2.16 ppm, but since the MacArthur contribution is small , the corner lot is calculated to experience a CO concentration of 3.21 ppm, or less than 10 percent of the hourly stand- ard. With maximum MacArthur impact, the San Miguel traffic raises CO levels along the street by only 0.26 ppm such that the corner lot CO level goes from 5.47 ppm to 5.73 ppm, again well below the 35 ppm hourly standard. Both sets of calculations show that the San Miguel extension would not adversely affect air quality adjacent to the new roadway segment. In fact, given the fact that the San Miguel connection tends to improve traffic flow throughout the Newport Center area, the reduction in overall pollutant levels represents a potential air quality improvement rather than an adverse air quality impact. Stationary Source Impacts. Generation of electricity, combustion of natural gas for cooking, heating, and hot water, and wood-burning fireplaces t TABLE E 12 WORST-CASE CARBON MONIXIDE CONCENTRATION EXPOSURES TO HARBOR POINT HOMES RESIDENTS TARRY 5EEMAN ASSOCIATES 1 , Carbon Monoxide Concentrations (ppm) Near Lot 20 Near Lot 3 (midway between (near intersection San Joaquin Hills Rd. of San Miguel Dr. and San Miguel Dr. ) and MacArthur Blvd.) ' 1978 1995 1978 1995 Distance from 1 Roadway (feet) 0 17.4 25.5 8.3 12.7 25 14.8 21 .7 7.1 10.8 ' 50 13.0 19.1 6.2 9.5 75 11 .1 Lot #6 16.3 5.3 8.1 100 _9 4- Lot #20 13_8- 4.5 6.9 125 7.8 11 .5 3.7_ Lot #4 5.7 150 6.3 9.2 3.0 Lot #3 -4.6 200 3.6 5.4 1 .7 2.7 300 1 .2 1 .8 0.6 0.9 400 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 800 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 r TABLE F 13 CO CONCENTRATION INCREASE AT OTS ADJACENT TO THE PROPOSED TAN MIGUEL DRIVE EXTENSION TARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES CO Concentrations (ppm) San San Increase due Lot Number Miguel Miguel to through Through cul-de-sac traffic Winds Parallel to MacArthur #3 5.73 5.47 #2 2.55 2.29 +0.26 ppm #1 1 .28 1 .02 Winds Parallel to San Miguel ' #3 3.21 1 .05 #2 3.11 0.95 +2.16 ppm #1 3.07 0.91 • 14 TARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES may create minor additional amounts of pollutants. . Based on energy .con- sumption factors of 15,000 kwh of electricity, 120,000 cu. ft. of natural . gas, and 0.5 cord of firewood, the resulting emissions are shown in Table G using "standard" fuel combustion emission factors. The total emissions of less than 3 tons of pollutants compares to the 25-30 tons that project- related traffic will generate. With such small emissions, any ambient air quality impact will also be minimal . MITIGATION With only nominal air pollutant emissions, little potential for mitigation is available. The project itself offers several benefits over other locations in terms of minimizing air quality impact. These include: 1 .) proximity to Fashion Island and Harbor View Hills shopping facilities, 2.) proximity to Newport Center for employment oppor- tunities, 3. ) proximity to schools for minimizing school-related trip lengths, 4.) proximity to public transportation routes of transit services, 5.) proximity to the ocean to provide a steady influx of relatively clean, unpolluted air. While any further incremental degradation of regional air quality is obvi- ously an adverse impact, the development of Harbor Point represents less of an impact than many other potential residential development sites in Orange County. i • TABLE G 15 STATIONARY SOURCE EMISSIONS ' FROM HARBOR POINT HOMES LARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES Electrical Natural Gas Fireplace Total Generation Combustion Emissions Emissions ' Total Suspended Particulates 0.103 0.012 0.198 0.313 Sulfur Dioxide 0.552 0.001 neg. 0.553 1 Carbon ' Monoxide 0.125 0.024 1 .188 1 .337 Total Hydrocarbons neg. neg. 0.050 0.050 Oxides of Nitrogen 0.369 0.120 0.010 0.499. 1 . 1 I 1 LARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES APPENDIX E CORRESPONDENCE i ' NEWPO., T-. ESA Unified School District _- post office box 1368 � newpo�•t beach, california 92663 a (714) 556-3200 ' = JOHN W.NICOLL,Superintendent January 22 , 1979 Bert Ashland Project Director 1 Larry Seeman Associates 500 Newport Center Drive , Suite 525 Newport Beach , CA 92660 ' Subject : Tract No. 10625 As per phone conversation with Carole Bailey , the ' following is information you requested. Tentative Tract 10625 , located behind Rogers ' Gardens In the southeast corner of the intersection of MacArthur and San Joaquin Hills Road , lies within the Harbor View Elementary , Lincoln Middle and Corona del Mar schools attendance areas . Transportation is provided for pupils residing one mile or more from elementary school grades k-3; one ' and one-fourth miles from elementary school grades 4-6; one and one-half miles or more from middle/junior high school grades 6-8 and no district transportation is provided for grades 9-12 . Where transportation is provided , it is at district expense. I mond R. Schnierer siness Manager RRS : sm r �gW PORT o; @ NEWPORT BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENT r i 475 32nd Street Newport Beach,California 92663 0 ^+T_ (714) 644-3603 LEO H. LOVE ' cN[/Fo nN�p Fire Chief January 19, 1979 ' Burt Ashland Project Director Larry Seeman Associates 500 Newport Center Dr. , Suite 525 Newport Beach Cal. 92660 re: Tentative Tract 10625 The present facilities serving this location are Station 5, ,410 Marigold, Corona Del Mar and Station 3, 868 Santa Barbara Dr. Newport Center. These stations service your area with 2 Engines, 1 Ladder Truck, 1 Paramedic Unit and a Battalion Chief. The response time from both of these stations,:under normal conditions, is 2 to 3 minutes. rThe Newport Beach Fire Department'is a full paid department with 411% stations, manned on a 24 hour basis. ' The fire equipment used is modern and can climb any grade within the city limits. If your plans call for something more difficult, further ' discussion on'this topic will be needed. The extension of San Miguel into MacArthur Blvd. will greatly help in the response times to your development. ill r As of this time your plans for this area will not make any significant impact on the level of service by this department. However, future ' growth projects in this area of Newport Beach may require.expansion of the fire department. Should you need any further information please contact us. A. J. Wagner, Fire Marshal 1 1 r I TARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES APPENDIX F CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RESPONSES TO HARBOR POINT NON-STATUTORY ADVISEMENT January 16 , 1979 'ATTACHMENT TO THE INITIAL STUDY HARBOR POINT - SAN MIGUEL TRIANGLE 1 A public review period for the scope of services to be provided in the Initial Study on the Harbor Point - San Miguel Triangle development proposal was established by ' the City from December 5 , 1978 to December 22 , 1978. ' State Clearinghouse No . 78122581 The Initial Study has been reviewed by the City' s Environmental Affairs Committee . 2 ' Correspondence with the State Clearhouse, Notice of Nonstatutory Advisement , and Notification list. i i 1 1 t V • 1 3 kaft 0f &1ifarnin GOVERNOR'S OFFICE e3 OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH e"s 1400 TENTH STREET SACRAMENTO 95814 EDMUND G. BROWN JR. OOVENNOR 1 December 19, 1978 i 1 TO: Coml nting Agencies FROM: Ron Bass 1 SUBJECT: Harbor Point-San Miguel Triangle--SCH n78122581 1 The City of Newport Beach is preparing an Initial Study for the proposed Harbor Point-San Miguel Triangle project and would like your agency's assistance. It has attached a response form for your convenience. Please respond to: 1 Department of Community Development City of Newport Beach 1 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 1 This is not a notice of preparation. If you have any questions, please let me know. RB/ln 1 Attachments 03 1 1 'J RsCE 1� -16 o LU 1 CiSY Of rCH. l 1 Harbor Point-San Miguel Triangle December 19, 1978 Nonstatutory Advisement sent to: ' William Lockett Air Resources Board 1131 S Street ' Sacramento, CA 95814 Kenneth Buell ' Environmental Health Services Department of Health 714 P Street, Room 430 ' Sacramento, CA 95814 John Huddleson State Water Resources Control Board ' 2125 19th Street Sacramento, CA 95814 R. Montgomery Department of Fish and Game Region 5 350 Golden Shore ' Long Beach, CA 90802 K. E. Mc Kenn Department of Transportation District 7 120 S. Spring Street ' Los Angeles, CA 90012 State Geologist Division of Mines and Geology Department of Conservation 1416 Ninth Street, Room 1341 Sacramento, CA 95814 Land Resource Protection Unit Department of Conservation 1416 Ninth Street, 13th Floor ' Sacramento, CA 95814 Nick Del Cioppo ' Office of Historic Preservation Department of Parks and Recreation 1220 K Street Mall , Third Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 ' . cc: Department of Community Development City of Newport Beach r 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 ' NONSTATUTORY ADUISEMENNTT —^-� t File No. To: From: ' Department of Cormunity Dev. 1 78 079 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 '• PLEASE RETURN THIS NOTICE WITH YOUR COMMENTS BY December 22, 1978-5:00 p.m. ( PROJECT TITLE: Harbor Point-San Miguel Triangle PROJECT LOCATION: The triangular area southwesterly of Roger's Gardens nursery bounded by MacArthur Boulevard and the extension of San Miguel Drive to �+ MacArthur Boulevard. Project will include review of San Miguel extension to Avocado W. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND MAJOR LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES o ' The development of proposal includes a residential development of approximately 25 single-family detached residences plus the extension of San Miguel Road through to Avocado Drive. A copy of the scope of work, for the Initial Study is attached. w DESCRIBE SPECIFIC PERMIT AUTHORITY OF YOQR AGENCY RELATED TO THIS PROJECT pc•� a 6GIL �9 U T a e LIST SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: (USE AOOffMNIAL PAGES AS NECESSARY): co a o 0 W � UcrO m E ac^ 2 o rn w N U IO r— C 6 Fr•F-N z F-� •.-v� CONTACT PERSON TITLE PHONE DESCRIBE SPECIFIC AREA OF EXPERTISE/INTEREST: LIST SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS (USE ADDITIONAL PAGES AS NECESSARY): VI ' H S W V, ' W C W z CONTACT PERSON TITLE PHONE DATE MAILED BY DATE RECEIVED BY RESPON- DATE RECEIVED BY DATE RESPO?ISE LEAD AGENCY SIBLE AGENCY WHERE APPLICABLE It1TERESTED PARTY RECEIVED BY THEE ' LEAD AGENCY December 4, 1978 i4 ❑ 500 newport center drive, suite 525 newport beach, California 92660 phone (714) 640-6363 ❑ 1050 northgate drive, suite 554 san rafael, california 94903 ' LARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES phone (415) 479-3370 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING CONSULTANTS September 6, 1978 r cb First Revision November 2, 1978 9 Second Revision November 8, 1978 RECEIVED 9 S De ComD ptY mle t Mr. Fred Tal ari co ti NOV 141978� Environmental Coordinator CIV or City of Newport Beach Nt�wPORrBEA ow, J 3300 Newport Boulevard ti OAL1F. Newport Beach, CA 92663 SUBJECT: SAN MIGUEL TRIANGLE PROPOSED ADDENDUM Dear Fred: As per your request, we have revised our scope of services to reflect the recent changes in the applicant's project description. Using, input received from you and your staff, together with opr understanding of the project elements, we have developed a revised scope of services and cost/ scheduling summary. GENERAL We understand that the scope of the development proposal includes a residential development of approximately 25 single-family detached residences plus the extension of San Miguel Road through to Avocado Drive, SCOPE OF SERVICES s The outline provides an overview of the types of analyses to be incorporated in the Initial Study. Issues to be addressed include the utility of extending San Miguel from its easterly terminus to con- nect with Avocado, and whether realignment of the extension will lessen adverse impacts to adjacent existing residential areas south of the ex- tension. Another issue which will be discussed is what will become of excess property (approximately .5-1 acre) south of the proposed inter- section of MacArthur and San Miguel (see attached exhibit). Geology/Soils. Summarize existing data from previous technical analysis, with particular emphasis on soils stability and soils engi- neering characteristics. Hydrology. No additional tasks. ' 7 Mr. Fred Talarico November 8, 1978 Page 2 LARW.SeWAN ASSMIAT65 Biotic Resources. Field survey and species list, identifying. rare or endangered ora or fauna present or likely to frequent the study area. The assessment will be prepared by Karlin Marsh, a local ecolo- gist familiar with the San Miguel Triangle area. Archaeological Resources. Summarization of an archaeologic survey and records search prepared by Archaeological •Planning Collaborative ' (APC) of Newport Beach. APC will conduct a field reconnaissance of the expanded portion of the study area. If resources are discovered, the impact of the project will be identified and feasible mitigation measures ' will be provided. Land Use. No additional tasks. Traffic/Circulation. To be addressed by summarizing a traffic anal- ysis prepare y Moir, Perry and Associates, consulting traffic engi- neers. The scope of their analysis will be consistent with City staff direction. ' Specifically, the study will emphasize the required format as outlined in the Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance, incorporat- ing input from a previous study prepared by Crommelin, Pringle and Asso- ciates. Issues pertinent to the San Miguel extension include the redis- tribution of traffic and a comparison of various alignments. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis will be computed for various inter- sections specified by City staff; included in this analysis will be 1) ' San Joaquin Hills Road at Avocado, 2) San Joaquin Hills Road at MacArthur, 3) San Joaquin Hills Road at Santa Rosa, 4) San Joaquin Hills Road at San Miguel , and 5) Avocado at San Miguel. ' Air Quality. Issues to be addressed include local"and regional air quality impacts resulting from the extension of San Miguel and the re- sultant redistribution of traffic flows. This analysis will also util- ize a' comparison of the various alignments, identifying advantages and disadvantages of each. Air pollutant effects will be calculated by means of a graphic solution to the CALINE 2 CO diffusion model. Noise. Noise levels for each alignment will be evaluated through ' the use of the National Highway Research Board Noise Model. The results will be compared to applicable criteria outlined in the City's noise ele- ment. Community Services and Utilities. No additional tasks. Visual. No additional tasks. 1 rtg � • . ... ... . ._.ems. . san ' n hills :.Y J •Y. ....jJ• 1 r , i 1 EXHIBIT i ■ . Y • /" /-7* ! 010 newport center drive,suite 645 newport beach,california 92660 phone(714)640.6363 1_I 1050 northgate drive,suite 554 san rafael,california 94903 LARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES phone(415)479-3370 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING CONSULTANTS September 6, 1978 MMs Beverly Wood Environmental Coordinator City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 SUBJECT: SAN MIGUEL TRIANGLE INITIAL STUDY Dear Beverly: We are pleased to submit this proposal for professional services in conjunction with preparation of an Initial Study for the proposed San Miguel Triangle development. It is our understanding that the scope of the development proposal includes residential development of the triangle and extension of San Miguel Road through to Avocado. The following paragraphs provide an outline of the approach we feel is most appropriate, in view of our discussion of the issues on September 5. Scheduling personnel , and cost information follows the Scope of Services discussion. l SCOPE OF SERVICES General . . We propose to prepare an Initial Study that focuses on several issues determined to be of special importance to the development of the site. They are: 1) traffic, 2) interface with adjacent residential uses (eq. view, noise, air quality) , 3) drainage affects downstrea:,. of the site, 4) vegetation (eg. rare or endangered species) , and 5) archaeology. The Initial Study will focus on these issues but will address other issues routinely included in environmental documents as well . These other issues will be addressed based upon existing published information available for the site and its vicinity. Key documents are either already in our reference library or are readily obtainable through local sources. The Initial Study will will be organized in a manner that will facilitate • expansion into an EIR, should an EIR subsequently be required by the Environmental Affairs Committee. Geology/Soils/Seismicity. To be addressed by summarizing pertinent data from published sources. ID ' Ms Beverly Wood September 6, 1978 Page 2 TARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES Hydrology/Water Quality. Drainage effects, especially the potentially deleterious effects of non-point pollution sources such as urban runoff from parking areas and sedimentation are of special concern in areas near sensitive receiving waters. The long term, cumulative effects of polluted runoff are currently the focus of areawide concern in the "208" programs. We will focus on identifying problems associated with this site and the development program proposed and will identify a range of mitigating measures to avoid or lessen runoff water quality problems. - In performing this task we will draw on our firm's research work in the field as- well as the recent studies of NIWA performed in conjunction with the 208 planning studies. Biotic Resources. The project site in within this range of the Orange County Turkish Rugging (Chorizanthe Staticoides, Chrycanthae) , a small annual floral species that is listed on the unofficial rare and endangered species list of the CNPS. We therefore propose to conduct a vegetative reconnaissance to identify whether suitable habitat for this species occurs on-site and whether there is any evidence that the plants themselves occur on the site. This aspect of our work will be conducted with the assistance of Carlin Marsh, a local botanist with experience in surveying for Turkish Rugging. Archaeology. An archaeological reconnaissance and record check will be conducted to determine if archaeological resources are present on the site. Land Use. To be addressed by providing a big analysis that summarizes the compatibility of the General Plan. The results will be presented in tabular form with policy conflicts, if any noted. Traffic. To be addressed by summarizing from a traffic analysis to be proviaed'by Mohle, Perry and Associates, Transportation Engineers under separate contract to the city. Air Qualm. Air pollutant effects of traffic on San Miguel extention on adjacent residences will be compiled by means of a graphic solution of the Caline 2 CO diffusion model . Calculated pollutant centers at various distances from the proposed roadway will be compared with state and federal standards. Noise. Noise levels produced by traffic on San Miguel extension will be identified through use of the National Highway Research Board Noise Model . Results will be compared against applicable city noise criteria as they apply to existing nearby residential uses. Community Services and Utilities. To be addressed by verbal discussions with the various pertinent service agencies including but not limited to water, waste water, gas, electricity, fire, police, refuse collection and schools. C Ms Beverly Wood September 6, 1978 Page 3 TARRY S£EMAN ASSOCIATES Visual . The potential effect of the proposed residential uses on existing views of the nearby residences (east of San Miguel ) is an important consideration. The potential effects will be addressed by means of a sight- line analysis that identifies potential conflicts with the proposed use plan. j i Newport Center Association Dave Dmohowski Mr. Richard McFarland Advance Planning 170 Newport Center Drive 3300 Newport Blvd. Suite 120 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Rich Edmonston Traffic Engineer Harbor View Hills Homeowners' 3300 Newport Blvd. Association Newport Beach, CA 92663 Mr. William Collinson, Pres. 887 Sandcastle Drive Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Irwin Miller Public Works Dept. 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 RKSKA UR HXXXX RNUX AMUM. MRXXRMXXXARXXXXRKNX. RXX®XXBNXX6'&X Glen Weldon 9898NXXNNIXidUXXAAXX9868N Marine Safety Harbor Hills Community Assoc. Mrs. Jean Morris, Pres. Ron Whitley 1032 Sea Lane Parks, Beach, and Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Recreation 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Jasmine Creek Comm. Assoc. Mr. Cork Schriber, Pres. c/o Village Management P. 0. Box 4708 Irvine, CA 92716 Harbor View Comm. Assoc. Mr. Bob Scott, Pres. 1955 Port Province, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Canyon Island Comm. Assoc. Mr. William Helm, Pres. Devine Prop. ; Inc. 2865 E. Coast Highway P. 0. Box 687 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Broadmoor Hills Comm. Assoc. Mr. Phils Arst, Pres. P. 0. Box 651 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 N 1't , Comments received during the Public Review Period . C -2- �� JAN 8 1919 L_ ;,art , ,Fnt o," Community Development e contact I? you have any questions concerning our comment.., ple as., Steve Hayes at (916) 322-9873• Thomas E. Bailey Assistant Chief cc : California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region 6833 Indiana Avenue, Suite 1 Riverside, CA 92506 STATE Of CAUIORNIA—RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Govornor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 350 Golden Shore s, ' Long Beach, CA 90502 (213) 590-5113 January 11, 1979 City of Newport Beach Department of Community Development 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Gentlemen: We have reviewed the "Scope of Services" submitted to your agency by Larry Seeman Associates for the San Miguel Triangle Initial Study and find it and its proposed addendum very comprehensive in covering the essential elements required for such an environmental assessment. However, to make it more complete we recommend that the potential effects of urban pollutants and sedimentation upon the marine environment within the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve originating from this project be specific- ally addressed in the study. Additionally, any alteration within the high water mark of any streambed will require notification to the Department of Fish and Game pursuant to Section 1603 of the Fish and Game Code. This notification and subsequent agreement must be accomplished prior to commencement of the project. rThank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have any questions, please contact Jack L. Spruill or Dwayne C. Maxwell of our Environmental Services staff. The telephone number is 213-5904-5137. Sincerely �'t- Fred A. Worthley Regional Manager Region 5 ' rn 9 �pp11519 ;�IC� ccc't opt II �l p STATE C,_ CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN JR,Governm DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION DIVISION OF MINES AND GEOLOGY 1 LOS ANGELES DISTRICT OFFICE C* 107 SOUTH BROADWAY, ROOM 1065 LOS ANGELES, CA 90012 (Phone 213-620.3560) From: Santa Ana Office 28 Civic Center Plaza Room 642 Santa Ana, CA. 92701 •Tele: (714) 558-4187 ATSS 657-4187 January 8, 1979 Department of Community Development City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, California 92663 Subject: SCH No. 78122581, Harbor Point - San Miguel Triangle, Initial Study, Nonstatutory Advisement. Reference: Letter by Office of Planning and Research (Ron Bass) , dated December 19, 1978 Dear Sirs: The State Office of Planning and Research requested our review of the Initial Study of the proposed San Miguel Triangle. In preparing the geologic reports of the subject site, the guide- lines as stated in the California Division of Mines and Geology Note Nos. 37, 44, 46 and 48 are suggested. Some of these CDMG; Notes are guidelines adopted by the State Board of Registration for Geologists and Geophysisists as its policy statement on the adequacy of professional geological work. Sincerely, Siang S. Tan, Geologist CEG 975 APPROVED: / 14) S? M James F. Davis, State Geologist d o ql RG 3468 SST:JFD:Ijb lcc: P. Y. Amimoto, CDMG, Sacramento C. If. Gray, Jr. , CDMG, Los Angeles Ron Bass, OPR, Sacramento =.y; fie>V ` 1' i ai � f.. :, :` .i!'pr1..J.:.Y' *{'ii.'b,:L`:.:.•- 1.. •• it y f Wl��• • .. ..a I, ..r.. .n. -. .. ..+'• °. y .. � ..jiJ.:Y• ^ ;,.. '-� ,ry 1l':e�L..1LNiY\K.in.—Yvywl.�.•W2'. y 1+ • \i•' f—" r• .•✓tl�:'i.-i{i�\'✓.1.%r'}, ..yhl'r•'22�w1u•uL•._••.••.Ka�...�. "•L• .� y��+,���1'.—) - ♦ .�nr.•e\fry nl•�•u•Ori...JA.1IuwuJJrvr.<w.raJnnw.i W_<`�_+/.FIW� State of California Business and Transportation Agency ?+ TO JIi{I BORDEN, DEPLi7 DIVISION CHIr.F� __ p Date: January 3, 1979 Department A-95 Coordinator 1120 N Street :;c, 4 File : A-95 REVIEW �I Sacramento, California 9581 O M1 <u•i U Attention: Mr. A. C. Lie 12 Gy YJ i.`!y KF.1TR E. MCKEAN District 07 � e u From : DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION = \� Subject: project Review Co=ents SCH NObIBER 78122581 Harbor Point - San Miguel Triangle • r Caltrans views itself as a Responsible Agency on this project due to the permit required from us in the extension of San Miguel Drive, ; As Responsible Agency we will want to approve the environmental ' document prepared. The document will need to address all matters rah required by CEQA. Our main concerns are transportation/circulation related. If you have any questions, please call Ms, Sue McCullough at (213) 620-3758. z Ori final Signed By 1$- E. McKesA V ^` Original signed by K. D. Steele IC..cl E. McIMAN Chief Environmental Planning Branch Transportation District 07 ' Clearinghouse Coordinator For information, contact Jim Danley X (A75s) 64o-5567 or (213) 620-5567 a A:taciunent t- ZaSTATE OF CALIFORNIA—RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUNb G. BROWN 1R., Gor�rnor t CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD- SANTA ANA REGION " .� 6833 INDIANA AVENUE, SUITE 1 RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92506 PHONEi (71d) 634-9330 January 3, 1979 Mr. Fred Talarico Department of Community Development City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Gentlemen: Initial Study Harbor Point - San Miguel Triangle . City of Newport Beach 1 The Board's staff has reviewed this document and feels that water quality impacts likely to result from this project will be addressed in the draft EIR. We assume that the context of the verbal discussion, to be held with the responsible water and waste water service agencies, will be included in the draft EIR. Sincerely, Francisco E. Velez Staff Engineer FEV:ng ' Devi,•. °;''1'I 'sue 1 NELt p,;,tr ,. y� / NONSTATUTORY ADUISEMENT File No. To: From: i Department of Community Dev. 78.079 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. ( Newport Beach, CA 92663 PLEASE RETURN THIS NOTICE WITH YOUR COMMENTS BY December 22, 1978-5:00 p.m. PROJECT TITLE: Harbor Point-San Miguel Triangle PROJECT LOCATION: The triangular area southwesterly of Roger's Gardens nursery r bounded by MacArthur Boulevard and the extension of San Miguel Drive to ' z MacArthur Boulevard. Project will include review of San Miguel extension to DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND MAJOR LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES a The development of proposal includes a residential development of approximately 25 single-family detached residences plus the extension of San Miguel Road through to Avocado Drive. A copy of the scope of work for the Initial Study is attached. Zo m DESCRIBE SPECIFIC PERMIT AUTHORITY OF YOUR AGENCY RELATED TO THIS PROJECT . v o.vt v19 GJ ` LIST SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS:� a (USE ADDTTIOPFALPAGES AS NECESSARY): w •oc 1 co w o 0 w °1uvo m E a - o rn u'- �n �' n r NTACT PERSON TITLE PHONE DESCRIBE SPECIFIC AREA OF EXPERTISE/INTEREST: Orange County Airport Land Use Commission LIST SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS (USE ADDITIDNAL PAGES AS NECESSARY): w 1. Site is not within the 60165 CNEL noise L contour for Orange County Airport. 2. Site is not under the imaginary surfaces for Orange County Airport. W NO INTEREST i CONTACT PERSON TITLE P�' �3_1505 S. Reithard Sup. Planner 1 - DATE MAILED BY DATE RECEIVED BY RESPON- DATE RECEIVED BY n LEAD AGENCY SIDLE AGENCY WHERE APPLICABLE INTERESTED.PARTY December 4, 1978 RECV'IVED ' DEC Fi 1978 A'R4c3K4 �.. 1 hSSF OQAAYMd511.. Z r ❑ 500 newport center drive, suite 525 I- n � newport beach, California 92660 DE . ,I 19/6a- phone (714) 640-6363 r�Fti nay' ❑ 1050 northgate drive, suite 554 san rafaei, California 94903 SEEMAN ASSOCIATES phone (415) 479-3370 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING CONSULTANTS ' September 6, 1978 1` First Revision November 2, 1978 9 Second Revision November 8, 1978 RECEIVED 9 un Devol pment Dept Mr. Fred Tal ari co ti NOV 141975�" t0 Environmental Coordinator City of Newport Beach NEwpORTBEACH, 3300 Newport Boulevard CALIF. Newport Beach, CA 92663 SUBJECT: SAN MIGUEL TRIANGLE PROPOSED ADDENDUM Dear Fred: As per your request, we have revised our scope of services to reflect the recent ch,�.nges in the applicant's project description. Using input received from you and your staff, together with our understanding of the project elements, we have developed a revised scope of services and cost/ scheduling summary. GENERAL We understand that the scope of the development proposal includes a residential development of approximately 25,single-family detached regidences plus-ttie"exten'sion of San Miguel Road through to Avocado Drive. SCOPE OF SERVICES The outline provides an overview of the types of analyses to be incorporated in the Initial Study. Issues to be addressed include the utility of extending San Miguel from its easterly terminus to con- nect with Avocado, and whether realignment of the extension will lessen adverse impacts to adjacent existing residential areas south of the ex- tension. Another issue which will be discussed is what will become of ' excess property (approximately .5-1 acre) south of the proposed inter- section of MacArthur and San Miguel (see attached exhibit). Geology/Soils. Summarize existing data from -previous technical analysis, with particular emphasis on soils stability and soils engi- neering characteristics. Hydrology. No additional tasks. tNONSTATUTORY ADUISENENT , File No. To: From: j 1 Dopartmcnt of Community Dev. ' I 75-0%9 City of Newport Beach } 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA .92663 PLFASC RETURN THIS NOTICE WITH YOUR COMMENTS BY December 22, 1978-li: 0 p.m. 1 t PROJECT TITLE: , i Harbor Point-San Miguel Triangle 1 PROJECT LOCATION: The triangular area southwesterly of Roger's Gard M%'A'On er[,j!) !NT♦; i bounded by MacArthur Boulevard and the extension of San Miguel Drive to r MacArthur Boulevard. Project will include review of San Miguel extension to a DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND MAJOR LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES - The development of proposal includes a residential development of approximately 25 single-family detached residences plus the extension of San Miguel Road through to Avocado Drive. A copy of the scope of work for the Initial Study is attached. ' DESCRIBE SPECIFIC PERMIT AUTHORITY OF Y06R AGENCY RELATED TO THIS PROJECT 1 C Y �V U LIST SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: (USE ADDIITOMAL PAGES AS NECESSARY): 1 W 9 C r- Q W E m 0 o+al^ h u m♦— c w o c m CONTACT PERSON TITLE PHONE DESCRIBE SPECIFIC AREA OF EXPERTISE/INTEREST: ' LIST SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS (USE ADDIITDMAL PAGES AS NECESSARY): w t6 G1 W f- N ' W K W z CONTACT PERSON TITLE PHONE DATE MAILED BY DATE RECEIVED BY RESPON- DATE RECEIVED BY DATE RESPONSE LEAD AGENCY SIBLE AGENCY WHERE APPLICABLE INTERESTED PARTY RECEIVED BY THE LEAD AGENCY December A, 1978 1 N s �• `�(o' `O ❑ 500 newport center drive, suite 525 Z�l newport beach, california 92660 C phone (714) 640-6363 ❑ 1050 northgate drive, suite 554 san rafael, california 94903 RRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES phone (415) 479-3370 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING CONSULTANTS September 6, 1978 r First Revision November 2, 1978 9 Second Revision November 8, 1978 RECEIVED 0 S Community D0vQIOpment Dept. Mr. Fred Tal ari co b NOV 141978P" Environmental Coordinator cyry City of Newport Beach PoR Or. 3300 Newport Boulevard ti N FCALIF. Newport Beach, CA 92663 SUBJECT: SAN MIGUEL TRIANGLE PROPOSED ADDENDUM Dear Fred: As per your request, we have revised our scope of services to reflect the recent changes in the applicant's project description. Using input received from you and your staff, together with our understanding of the project elements, we have developed a revised scope of services and cost/ scheduling summary. GENERAL We understand that the scope of the development proposal includes a residential development of approximately 25 single-family detached residences plus the extension of San Miguel Road through to Avocado Drive. SCOPE OF SERVICES The outline provides an overview of the types of analyses to be incorporated in the Initial' Study. Issues to be addressed include the utility of extending San Miguel from its easterly terminus to con- nect with Avocado, and whether realignment of the extension will lessen adverse impacts to adjacent existing residential areas south of the ex- tension. Another issue which will be discussed is what will become of excess property (approximately .5-1 acre) south of the proposed inter- section of MacArthur and San Miguel (see attached exhibit). Geology/Soils. Summarize existing data from previous technical analysis, with particular emphasis on soils stability and soils engi- neering characteristics. Hydrology. No additional tasks. 7.5 IResponse to Comments 1 A"I- \� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH U F, v.�:yY 41FOR.�w,.- . amp•' January 16 , 1979 Thomas E . Bailey c/o State Water Resources Control Board P .O. Box 100 Sacramento, California 95801 SUBJECT: Initial Study - "Harbor Point-San Miguel Triangle Residential Development" , Newport Beach State Clearinghouse No . 78122581 Mr . Bailey : The City of Newport Beach has received your comments on- the scope of investigation of the " Initial Study - "Harbor Point-San Miguel ' Triangle Residential Development" , Newport Beach, State Clearing- house No . 78122581 . Your comments will be forwarded to the City ' s Environmental Affairs Committee and Planning Commission for their consideration . . Thank you for your cooperation . ' Sincerely , DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R . V. HOGAN, DIRECTOR By� • *d—Trico Environmental' Coordinator FT/bjm 1 • ' City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 s ' � t 0 IN 0. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH .0 . , 3: ' January 16, 1979 1 Mr . Fred A . Worthley ' c/o Department of Fish and Game 350 Golden Shore Long Beach, California 90802 SUBJECT: Initial Study - "Harbor Point-San Miguel Triangle Residential Development" , Newport Beach State Clearinghouse No . 78122581 I , Mr. Worthley: f , The City of Newport Beach has received your comments on the scope of investigation of the Initial Study - "Harbor Point-San Miguel Triangle Residential Development" , Newport Beach , State Clearing- house No . 78122581. Your comments will be forwarded to the City ' s Environmental Affairs Committee and Planning Commission for their consideration . ' Thank you for your cooperation . Sincerely, _ i' DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V . HOGAN , DIRECTOR By ' Fre Talar co Environmental Coordinator FT/bjm ', ' City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 V1 • � CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH •�trfioys�':, January 16 , 1979 Mr. Siang S . Tan c/o Division of Mines and Geology Los Angeles District Office 107 So . Broadway, Suite 1065 Los Angeles , California 90012 SUBJECT: Initial Study - "Harbor Point-San Miguel Triangle Residential Development" , Newport Beach State Clearinghouse No . 78122581 ' Mr. Siang S . Tan: The City of Newport Beach has received your comments on the scope ' of investigation of the Initial Study - "Harbor Point-San Miguel Triangle Residential Development" , Newport Beach , State Clearing- house No. 78122581 . Your comments will be forwarded to the City 's, ' Environmental Affairs Committee and Planning Commission for their consideration . Thank you for your cooperation . Sincerely, 1 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R . V. HOGAN ,, DIRECTOR By.. F4eT /c�o ' ' Environmental Coordinator FT/bjm City Mall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 j' MI V � • )Ij H CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH u rx „ <f cpR' January 16 , 1979 Ms . Sue McCullough c/o CALTRANS 120 South Spring Street Los Angeles , California 90012 SUBJECT: Initial Study - "Harbor Point-San Miguel Triangle Residential Development" , Newport Beach, State Clearinghouse No . 78122581 Ms . McCullough: ' The City of Newport Beach has received your comments on the scope of investigation of the Initial Study - "Harbor Point-San Miguel �1 Triangle Residential Development" , Newport Beach , State Clearing- house No . 78122581 . Your comments will be forwarded to the City' s Environmental Affairs Committee and Planning Commission for their consideration . Thank you for your cooperation . ' Sincerely, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN , DIRECTOR 1 By Fr aIa co Environmental Coordinator 1 FT/bjm 1 City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 SEW�RT� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH '4c'IGIFORN�� ' January 16, 1979 Francisco E . Velez c/o California Regional Water Quality ' Control Board - Santa Ana Region 6833 Indiana Avenue, Suite 1 Riverside, California 92506 ' SUBJECT: Initial Study - "Harbor Point-San Miguel Triangle Residential Development" , Newport Beach State Clearinghouse No . 78122581 Dear Mr . Velez: ' The City of Newport Beach has received your comments on the scope of investigation of the Initial Study - "Harbor Point-San Miguel Triangle Residential Development" , Newport Beach , State Clearing- house No . 78122581. Your comments will be forwarded to the City ' s ' Environmental Affairs Committee and Planning Commission for• their consideration . ' Thank you for your cooperation . Sincerely, ' DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R . V. HOGAN, DIRECTOR By Fre a arico Environmental Coordinator FT/bjm 1 City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Neirport Bcach, California 92663 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACI-1 01 arou., January 16, 1979 S. Reithard c/o Orange County Airport Land Use Commission 18741 N . Airport Way Santa Ana , California 92702 SUBJECT: Initial Study - "Harbor Point-San Miguel Triangle Residential Development" , Newport Beach State Clearinghouse No . 78122581 Dear Mr . Reithard: The City of Newport Beach has received your comments on the scope of investigation of the Initial Study - "Harbor Point-San Miguel Triangle Residential Development" , Newport Beach , State Clearing- house No. 78122581. Your comments will be forwarded to the City ' s Environmental Affairs Committee and Planning Commission for their consideration. Thank you for your cooperation . Sincerely, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R . V . H06AN , DIRECTOR BY_ Fr a aV*oa� Environmental Coordinator ' FT/bjm 1 • City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 1 iTraffic Reports � 3 r MOHLE, PERRY&ASSOCIATES 1W 'oomrPru�u� b8Vooprnr, 1Z beol, ' May 10, 1979 MAY1018?8r.. t 9 R6`lW,�i�7�x CeaGM, r0Ah9r. t.l ' Mr. Bert Ashland Project Manager Larry Seeman & Associates 500 Newport Center Drive Suite 525 Newport Beach, CA 92660 ' Subject: Supplement to S-1 Analysis Harbor Point Subdivision MPA Report Dated May 4, 1979 Dear Bert: In accordance with the directions from City staff, the following is a supplement to the "S-l" report for the subject project. This supplement involves an updating of the May 4, 1979 analyses ' for the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road using the most currently available traffic count data for the intersection. Specifically, 1979 data replaces the older 1978 data contained in our May 4, 1979 report. All other given data shown in the May 41 1979 report remain unchanged. The following tables 1 and 2 are updates of the same tables con- tained on pages 2 and 3, respectively, of the May 4, 1979 report. 1 ' MUNICIPAL AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS 2565 E.Chapman Ave.Suite 124,Fullerton,CA 92631 • (714)738.3471 Offices In Orange,Los Angeles ana San Diego Counties Mr. Bert Ashland Larry Seeman & Associates Supplement to S-1 Analysis May 10, 1979 Page 2 i TABLE 1 ' 1% ANALYSIS RESULTS ' During P.M. 2k-hour peak period does project generated traffic exceed 18 existing volume? ' San Miguel Drive San Miguel Drive Intersection Cul-de-Saced Extended 1. MacArthur Boulevard & San Joaquin Hills Road Yes Yes t 2. San Joaquin Hills Road & San Miguel Drive Yes Yes ' 3. San Joaquin Hills Road & Santa Rosa Drive No No ' 4. Pacific Coast Highway & MacArthur Boulevard No No 5. MacArthur Boulevard & ' Ford Road No No 6. San Joaquin' Hills Road ' & Jamboree Road No No 7. Pacific Coast Highway ' & Marguerite Avenue No No 8. MacArthur Boulevard & Jamboree Road No No Mr. Bert Ashland ' Larry Seeman & Associates Supplement to S-1 Analysis May 10, 1979, ' Page 3 ' TABLE 2 ' Z.C.U. ANALYSIS RESULTS ' San Miguel Drive San Miguel Drive Cul-de-Saced Extended 1982 1982 Intersection 1978 1979 1982 w/project 1978 1979 1982 w/project ' San Joaquin Hills Road & San Miguel Drive 0.41 -- 0.4137 0.4149 0.5060 -- 0.5238 0.5272 ' MacArthur Boulevard -- -- & San Joaquin Hills Road 0.7664 0.8637 0.8660 0.6873 0.7640 0.7720 t Table 2 shows that in 1982, considering approved projects, regional growth and project generated traffic, the most critical intersection in the area, MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road will have an I .C.U. of 0. 8660 with ' San Miguel Drive cul-de-saced or an I .C.U. of 0. 7720 if San Miguel Drive is extended. ' Respectfully submitted, MOHLE, PERRY & ASSOCIATES R. Henry M le Senior Vice President RHM:vps 1 N�Ri•CaR P`O,MT H CM i$ ' SHIN A11101AEL Dltwt c.aa.-b&- S^C&D 1% Traffic Volume Analysis I' ' Intersection MAGARTHU&- SAM JO^&UiN RILLS (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1974) (Approach 1 Existing Peak 2k Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction I Peak 2k Hour Regional Projects Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 24 Houri I Volume Growth Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume volume Vo1Wne Volume ! Northbound 1775 lk 14D2) IM7 jq isouthbound 344a 17 578 41037 40 z0 'Eastbound 310 O 289 3+18 ' Westbound 1180 0 Wo WK L 13 30 ' 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volume ' © Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. PROJECT: HAF,5opx rc�WT ROME.S DATE: 5-10-7q FORM I INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Dr• Intersection MP,cAR UR- SaNJoA0.uln, HILLS 5aN Miausi.c�l.de.sakd ' (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average inter prTng 979 Movement EXISTING PROPOSED EXIST EXIST REGIONAL COMMITTED PROJECTED PROJECT PROJECT Lanes Cap Lanes Cap PK MR V/C GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ratio Volum V/C Ratio ' Vol. Ratio VOL. VOL. W/o Project Vol. NL (-11600 85 •0531 3 0550* = 0�50 NT z-3xoo 4qo - V- SR NR �8 SL 2.-320Q SL82 bill ••3zI4l1o11q83 t-o iST 2.00 qlq •2lG 7 s ••.8ial4tlxfl8g — -- EL :.-3z00 81I Z534 86 1$03 - .2$03 It ' ET 3-4800 4q4 51 • 1500 6 .1513 ER J 165 7 _ ' WL I- lf000 q5 •65B4 1 0 •05g4 4 •o6lq WT 3-4800 1165 0.6121* Iq .o8b63` 4 ).ygaq It ' WR 1184 1 Iq 7 VELLOWTIME •10 EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION' .7"4 •10 •10 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL 6RpiTN N/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS t.G.0 . gb31 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GRONTN PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. Q Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvements will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' Description of system improvement: DATE_5-10-7q PROJECT: Ha.IzesoR•, fk>inlT H MDML°S FORM I I ► 0641.000 NawT MIoMEf ' >-w M14Ul&-. b1WVE CATENptA ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection MAcAP-Tt4UP,—.SANJOA(aUIN Huts (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1979) (Approach j Existing T Peak 2y Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction IPeak A Hour Regional Projects Peak 2> Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2% Hour' 1 Volume Growth Peak 2y Hour Volume Volune Volume I Volume Volune i (Northbound ' �9-IO 20 (pia Z53S �7 30 ' I I S o—uthbound --�37g6 IGI 918 43g3 44 *0 ; � 'Eastbound 303q' 0 2-88 33zA. 33 1.(f0" estbound '1155 74 103q. l0 114 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volume ' Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2)1 Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. ' PROJECT: HAIP e)og. POnJT HOMFS DATE: 5-10-7q FORM I ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Satin MrguN/l D1 IntersectionMAcARTHUR- SANj AQUW HILLS ex4e1+ded (Existing Traffic Volumes Based-on leverage winter Spring 1919_ ' Movement EXISTING PROPOSED EXIST EXIST REGIONRL COMMITTED PROJECTEO PROJECT PROJECT Lanes Cap lanes Cap PX NR V/C GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ratio Volume V/C Ratio Vol. Ratio VOL. VOL. w/o Protect Vol. NL (-t600 4z -043 S •041 -t •0306 NT x--3zoo %0o 3100 10 51 1 -.3141 11 1 •3zz5 ' NR J •" SL 2--3 2-82 •0111 -13 •I10 ar Io All-0 ' ST 1-32-04 toll •341 10 185 •3454 10 a3g88 SR "'S. zoo — 31 ' EL z-axoo 4+8 0 86 •16(01 it — •IM ET 3-4600 43Z • is 51 4 ' ER 110 r y r 4 WL 1- IGOo WT 3-4800 100 0 0*11Iq •o6ti1 5 .0 85 " ' WR 31 1184 ►9 z ' YELLOWING to •(o EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY WrILIZAT10N 73 'lo mem EXISTING PLUS COIMITTEO PLUS RERIONK GNM W"APOSED IMROYRM I.C.O •7G40 ' EXISTING PLUS CONNITTD PLOE WI ML ORONIN PIJG PROJECT I.C.O. .7 72.0 ' ® Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 �] Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvements will be less than or equal to 0.90 t - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' Description of system improvement: ' NoT& . Ex1.5frNG VoLuME5 AKfc 1WO60 96MA1Al/fJG /tFTEIc Sub77tacTTNG VOL-UMR�S D/VER.'i"6D '(O g,MJ MIyuEL- �IZIVB. , ' -- - - -- --. _ . . .- - -----..�- - - -- DATE : J-I0-7Q PROJECT : H.o.R E-L-ofZ f cbiroT HOMES FORM 11 1 MOHLE, PERRY&ASSOCIATES ' May 4, 1979 ' Mr. Bert Ashland Project Manager Larry Seeman & Associates 500 Newport Center Drive Suite 525 ' Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject: Policy S-1 Analysis for Harbor ' Point Subdivision Dear Bert: ' In accordance with our previous conversations and our proposal we have completed the analysis of the subject project in con- formance with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance Administrative ' Procedure S-1. This work is supplementary to the traffic analysis contained ' in the initial study prepared by your firm dated January 31, 1979. TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT ' In order to comply with the Policy S-1 it was necessary to reanalyze the directional distribution of traffic in order to ' provide the analyses for both the situation where San Miguel would be cul-de-saced, and San Miguel extended. The basis of the directional assignment was the "Newport Center Report" wherein percentage directional traffic assignments were shown ' for the various components of the Newport Center projects. Simply stated, the analysis in this supplementary report is based upon the assumption that the subdivision will be com- pleted in 1981 and therefore the traffic analysis will be made for the year 1982. MUNICIPAL AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS 2565 E.Chapman Ave.Suite 124,Fullerton,CA 92631 • (714)738.3471 Offices In Orange,Los Angeles ana San Diego Counties 1 ' ' Mr. Bert Ashland Larry Seeman & Associates Harbor Point Subdivision May 4, 1979 ' Page 2 II ' ANALYSIS RESULTS The analys&s as documented by the information as shown in the Appendix attached to this report indicate that, as in the ' original initial study, the intersections of MacArthur Boule- vard and San Joaquin Hills Road and San Joaquin Hills Road and San Miguel Drive both exceeded the "1% Analysis" and therefore ' were analyzed under the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) procedure. The following tabulation shows the results of the 1% Analysis. TABLE 1 ' 1% ANALYSIS RESULTS San Miguel Drive San Miguel Drive ' Intersection Cul-de-Saced Extended 1. MacArthur Boulevard & ' San Joaquin Hills Road Yes No 2. San Joaquin Hills Road & San Miguel Drive Yes Yes ' 3. San Joaquin Hills Road & Santa Rosa Drive No No ' 4. Pacific Coast Highway & MacArthur Boulevard No No ' 5. MacArthur Boulevard & Ford Road No No ' 6. San Joaquin Hills Road & Jamboree Road No No ' 7. Pacific Coast Highway & Marguerite Avenue No No 8. MacArthur Boulevard & ' Jamboree Road No No Mr. Bert Ashland Larry Seeman & Associates Harbor Point Subdivision May 4, 1979 Page 3 ICU analysis indicated that the two intersections would be ' influenced as shown on the following table. ' TABLE 2 San Miguel Drive San Miguel Drive Cul-de-Saced Extended 1982 1982 Intersection 1978 1982 w/project 1978 1982 w/project ' San Joaquin Hills Road & San Migue.� Drive 0.41 0.4137 0.4149 0.5060 0.5238 0.5272 MacArthur Boulevard & San Joaquin Hills Road 0.72 0.8072 0.8095 0.6559 0.7320 0.7400 t This table indicates that, considering approved projects, ' regional growth and the project generated traffic, in 1982 the most critical intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road will have an ICU of 0. 8095 with San ' Miguel Drive cul-de-saced or an ICU of 0. 7400 if San Miguel Drive is extended. Please give me a call if you need additional information on this report. Respectfully submitted, ' MOHLE, PERRY & ASSOCIATES XJ R. Henry M hle Senior Vice President ' RHM:vps attachment 1 APPENDIX 1 1 1 VJoaw a.&cw% %OWT N cawnE f (1) 'JaaW M14NE�. nR1VE E1tjENpED 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection MAc A P-TH U R— SAQ J OAQ U IN H ILLi (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1973) 1Approach I Existing-7 Peak 2h Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project 1 0irection I Peak 2y Hour Regional Projects Peak 24 Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 24 Hour' ' I Vol we Growth Peak 211 Hour Volume Volume Volume _ Volume Volume Northbound 1476 12• 1.08 1.596 16 15 �Sauthbound 2$ 1(p 19- 578 3408 3¢ 20 11 (Eastbound 2OS2. =88 =S70 �'4' 8 I ' - 78.1 8 7 esibound 702 7q © Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h'Hour Traffic Volume ' ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 231 Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1 DATE: 5-S- 7q ' PROJECT: HA.RLJ5o11L PONT Hc>MEs FARM I PROJECT: NRBorz- fbINT R(f>mES 1 SAN M14uEL ExT 4zrwb 1 INTERSECTION: /&gF RT UR- SPrN JOAkuw HILLS DATE: -30-7'H 1 RM•P H• MOVEMENT 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1 "` NT II 1 NR SL I p ' ST I o 1 SR EL _ 1 ET 4 ER Q 1 WL _ 1 WT 5 WR 2 1 1 PROPOSED SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS YEAR 1 1 1 1 _ 1 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS meael Dr Intersection ,AR'fN1J R —6km S6A0011M MILS Exttwdeal ' (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average winter//Spring 1978 Noveawnt EXISTING PROPOSED EXIST EXIST REGIONAL COMMITTED PROJECTED PROJECT PROJECT Lanes Cap Lanes Cap PK MR V/C GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ratio Volume Y/C Ratio Vol. Ratio VOL. VOL. w/o Protect Vol. ' NL i-1(oo0 31 •0194 3 •0215 4 • 0258 NT 2-3zoD 101 _ * 8 51 . 2394 11 7 .2428 ' NR Iis -- SL s- soo 12 g 73 I .t.b 10 • 1547 ' ST -3zoo 86 •21b 8 L85 I-q 10 •3350 SR ct'. Iy 31 EL 2-3sm 426 • 331 86 • 1600 " — • 1600 ET 3 -4800 561 51 . 4oz 4 ER 54. 7 4 ' WL (�lb00 -- — — — WT 3- 00 173 •o I q o$ l o'� 5 .e z WR 17$ y 19 Z VELLOWTITE '1� • O ' I EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION �+G96 •�G EXISTING PLUS CLMMITTEO PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C,U .7 5 zP EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. .7+00 1 []X Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal ' to 0.90 [] Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 [] Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvements will be less than or equal to 0.90 Description of system improvement: NOT r= . 0xi s-rlNG VO/.uMES AKB 1WO66 R*mA1N/tJG ' AFrER fi6Ub'(K ,4-a7.1MC,T VPI-UM66 .Dl✓E9-10D 'r0 3AN MiGru�L 9R1V�. DATE: 5-1- 7q PROJECT: H.4.2E3otZ ffbit1T ROMEs FORM II L ' NArR♦OA. POItJT HOMIss • CZ) SAt4 MI064AEL. DItIVL° C-91--DE- 4+ACE0 1% Traffic Volume Analysis IntersectionAAA -ARTHUR—S,AN TOAQUiN N LLS (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) (Approach Existing Peak 2h Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction i Peak 2y Hour Regional Projects Peak 21* Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 24 Hour' I Volume Growth Peak 211 Hour Volume Volume Volume , I_ Volume Vol umr Northbound ��l �� 2 �,O$ 1&04 I(0 10 i5outhbound ,I oGs 15 578 565$• 37 20 i Ea:tbound 31.9-d o 2$$ 3,428 3 Q- 12 i estbound 1451 0 76 1527 15 30 i I0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 231 Hour Traffic Volume 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2)1 Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. NARBo�i /NT HOM1c.5 DATE: PROJECT: FORM I '• PROJECT: N?cRBo►2 Po1NT 4c, a-y ' OAJV MlcsuEL 646-PX-6ACE0 ' INTERSECTION: /Vi&;Az'(F1m K— SAN Soma,A 011.L5 DATE: -30-79 ' PMPH MOVEMENT 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 NL _ NT NR 5 SL Jp ' ST SR _ EL _ ET 6 ER _. ' WL q WT q ' WR 7 PROPOSED SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS YEAR ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS H..K001% rc,lar ' Intersection MAcARTNa—sRN ,S dWW Hies 5a"n+r9Ms1 Pr- (Existing(Existing Traffic Volume —on Average inter pring 978) I Moyenent EXISTING PROPOSED EXIST EXIST REGIONAL COMMITTED PROJECTED PROJECT PROJECT Lanes Cap Lanes Cap PK HR V/C GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ratio Volume V/C Ratio Yol. Ratio VOL. VOL. w/o Project Vol. NL 1- 14.00 to3 -Olt 3 •os}13* - •0413 NT a-32oo 3L.1 .i 6 5 I • 190. - 41-125 ' NR I.Zf o1 SL a.-5=0 12 •13* 75 11 1.4 to • S4 ST 2.- 5zoo 744 •z3 g .i$5 ! zl 3+* — •2.93¢ SR t4 .5. X60 — 31 K 00 — fst) EL 2—3;= 772 1 •24 86 •s681 - •1661 * . ' ET 3-4800 44S 2.15 51 4,3 6 0 ER so ' WL 1- 1600 o 10 • 04450 . 0463 WT - 9 285 • 1 4 ' WR 51 1 11-18I q • 04 * 7 •1 a67 YELLOWnME . •10 ' EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 2 • lap •1t) EXISTING PLUS COMITTED PLUS REGION. GROM W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.0 . 8g72, EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. .gog5 Q Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 rl Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvements will be less than or equal to 0.90 Description of system improvement: DATE: 4—So-7-1 PROJECT: H.•RT3oR, PCW4T 14C?Ma$ FORM II ' Hn►.�s,o1s Pb�NT MoMEf ' (l) bMl M1411E4. l;tMVIE. �TENPED 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection SAM 104 U tAI HiLLS - SAN /M ODEL (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1971) ' Approach Existing Peak 24 Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 21s Hour Regional Projects Peak 24 Hour Peak 211 Hour Peak 26 Hour' i Volume Growth Peak 24 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volu= Volume Northbound S5 a 5 5 0 (o )2— i Isouthbound j 570 S 578 6 2— Eastbound 7( 1gB.Z ZO ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume Q Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 231 Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1 DATE: ' PROJECT: PAK.80R Qo1rJT HOMES FORM I ' PROJECT: HmkbtR %INT Homy-s ' 5nN mt6uEL�ic�+a�E� INIERSECTION:,SMLQAAaUIN HILLS — SM MI uEL DATE: t-30-79 ' PMP MOVEMENT 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 ' NL �. NT NR f SL ._ ST — ' SR EL ' ET _ ER g ' WL Z WT WR ' PROPOSED SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS YEAR INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS PAWOL ro"61 Intersection A1JAGIrq LS- SAN141GUEL �) SANM1iYEL�k ' (Existing Traffic M ens Based on Average Winter/Spring 19 6xT41IDN&A ' Movement EXISTING PROPOSED EXIST EXIST REGIONAL COMMITTED PROJECTED PROJECT PROJECT Lana, Cap Lanes Cap PK HR V/C GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ratio Volma V/C Ratio Vol. Ratio VOL. VOL. w/o Project Vol. ' NL 1-1600 24 •015 0 90150 • o175 NT 1- 1600 47 •o2g4 -0 7-q4 1 • 0300 ' NR 1— 1600 zoo •12-75 • 1:05" I • 1zp 1 SL 1-1600 I1(. •07: , 07ygx' •072. ST s.-32o0 55 •05a ,0541 •0544 ' SR 114 4 ' EL •1341 15 •1381 •lad 1 ET 8-48co 5sz .081 15 ►h 60 ER z 5S ' WL 1-11000 195 •1og4 • I oq 2 • I106 WT %63 •elr `1 073 S ,0 38 WR $2 YELLOWI'INE •10 � ' ' EXISTING INTERSECTION WACITY UTILIZATION •5o6D • 1� •((� EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W%PROPOSED INPROVENENTS I-C.0 .IS;,;$ EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. nX Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal ' to 0.90 ' Projected plus project traffic I•.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' [] Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvements will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' -Description of system improvement: DATE: 5—I-74 ' PROJECT: HAR.SoP- PolaT Hones FORM II ,. ok EI�RI►ol� POI�fT }1CMib ' C's) $MI MimAEL DoLivi taAL-1�IE— SAC6;D 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection S M -TOAAUIN HILLS — SM MIOUEL (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) IAPProach Existing Peak 211 Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project ' toirection I Peak 2y Hour Regional Projects Peak 211 Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour 1 Volume Growth Peak 24 Hour Volume Volume Volume , Volume Volue I Northbound - isouthbound ,Eastbound 2133 — 96 �2p9 2Z $2 estbound I I q6 — I S I �14 1 2 6 � Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume © Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. ' H/-2sot2 }�oln1T H<:,ma-5 DATE: `�-30-74 PROJECT: FARM I PROJECT: HAlza0 K {'O!N? Ramey I INTERSECTION: 5AN_JOAQU(N HILLS - 5Atn A&IIaL DATE: 4-30- 7g PM•PH• MOVEMENT 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 ' NL NT NR 2 SL - ' ST 1 SR -• EL ' ET - ER ' WL 3 WT WR PROPOSED SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS YEAR ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS MOAR K "M ' Intersection-5mJaggwN Naxs- $AN N11611EL (s) Smmapso (Existing Traffic Volumes Based-on Average inter pr ng 97S) C"-DE=SACK ' Nov~t EXISTING PROPOSED EXIST EXIST REGIONAL CGINITTED PROJECTED PROJECT PROJECT Lanai Cap Lanes Cap PK HR V/C GROWTH PROJECT Y/C Ratio Volume V/C Ratio Vol. Ratio VOL. VOL. w/o Project Vol. ' NL 1-1(000 2.j -02. •�150 �.� •000 NT I- f600 S •01 • 005o I •0056 ' NR 1—Ih00 to •0 •0063 2 •0075 SL I-16co I lo •0 • o s •O s5 ' ST 7 2-32.oa 5 .05 . o i a SR 141 EL 2- 3ao 44to •1 13 -1 3 •146 ' ET 3 00 (Ooq 1!3 1300 . 1W ER 2 21 ' WL 1- 1600 'F3 •03 •os88 WT 3- So as •0 15 •0 1 VELLOWTINE -I O •Im ' ' EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 171 74 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W%PROPOSED IIIPRDYENENTS I.C.U: EXISTING PLUS CONITTED PLUS-REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 14Q © Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' 0 Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. Will be greater than 0.90 ' [] Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvements will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' Description of system improvement: DATE: `-W- 79 ' PROJECT: )4-4v -04s- VPO)n1T Nory11=5 FORM II 1 4D44 Pb�aT Ef 1 (I) S.w A41"E6 bwVE EXTEwolo ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' IntersectionSPHU ing,uim HILLS— 5AN1A ROSA (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) IApproach Existing Peak 2y Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Girectton IPeak 2y Hour Regional Projects Peak 21g Hour Peak 21s Hour Peak 211 Hour' I volume Growth Peak 21% Hour Volume Volune Volume I _ Val ume Volune Northbound ? 8 �6 1454 15 I ' ISouthbound (Eastbound 1545 16 l estbound qz-7 ' X❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 21� Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 231 Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. ' DATE: 5— I — 71 PROJECT: HAfte✓OR- POWT HOMES FORM I PROJECT: HAKIF-0K P01N FAD �5 -,AN M14ub1. far(6NDED INIEkSFI.T ION: SAN SOA(zlUl LL` —_§A&TA_ 5A DATE: PM• P.N• MOVEMENT 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 NIL - NT - NR - SL _ ST SR _ EL _ ' ET $ ER _ WL ' WT 5 • WR PROPOSED SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS YEAR HAtiR�oe� POIMT HCMi4 �s) 1r�(d MICIAEL �ItwL` �1--D�— SAcED ' It Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection SAMSOAGIUIN HILLS —SAA)TA 90SAI5I6CANy0N (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1979) (Approach I Existing Peak 2h hour Approved Pro acted 1% of Projected Project Direction I Peak 2h hour Regional Projects Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h hour rut th Hour' I Volute! Growth Peak 2h Hour Values YO'use Volume , � Yo = Volume - - Northbound S 200 :20 1 . ' Isouthbound i 333 — 2 335 3 O astbound 1545 — — 1545 15 9 I t _ 1 Wes l 461 76 15 3 7 15 10 I ' X❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 216 Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 21s Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. GATE: 4-30� PROJECT: fiAKPOR. PONT NOMES FORM i PROJECT: _i AK0,61t POINL NOMC-S I 5M/M14yE1. crlL-DE-•SACbD ' INIEkSE (.T ION: SR!V�ORQUIN_N)1L5- Bi�NT�B05f�________ DATE: 30� 7� I PM-P.N• MOVEMENT 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 INIL NT - INR 3 SL - ST - SR - EL _ ET q ER _ WL 2. ' WT 3 WR I PROPOSED SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS YEAR 1 . 1 I . 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection CohBT HIGHWAY —MACARTHUK. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) IkPProach Existing Peak 2't Hour. Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project ' Direction ; Peak 2% Hour Regional Projects Peak 2k Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2k Hour' i Yoluet Growth Peak 2% Hour Volume VOW" Volute � Volume Y lu e Northbound ! iSouthbound j �'Z•5� —f"1-�1' 2,�t1"Q �' �' ' astbound 32404 57 1lf6r$ 5+19 �4 8 I stbound 5452 e(.577 f 37 — 1 ' © Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ' Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. GATE: PROJECT: I-^Ribor— f OWT loam -g FORM I �. PROJECT: rHAK6'Ort POINT HDl4C-5 ' SArY MIGy6L C44-D��3AGED INTERSECTION: 4eA6f lydWAY- MAeA►2ntur2 DATE: ' PM•P.N• MOVEMENT 1979 1980 1981 J 1982 1983 1984 ' NL NT NR -- SL 2 ' ST SR EL q ' ET _ ER _ ' WL WT ' WR ' PROPOSED SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS YEAR 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection AC RT U Q — FOKI> (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average W nter/Spring 197d) 1IApproach Existing Peak 24 Hour Approved Projected It of Projected Project ` (Direction I Peak 2% Hour Regional Projects Peak 211 Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2% Hourl I Volume Growth Peak 21s Hour Volume Volume Volume , I� Volume Volume Northbound 365_7 187 1 ISouthbound 403� Zo 4�,¢ 4$.S6 45 I S ' Eastbound 1584 = 4 158& t 1 6 — :tbound I oo' :2 `(p 1 Oa,5 ! 0 4 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ' Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Voiumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization 1 (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. ' DATE: 4—30— 7-f PROJECT: H. %FLfW z- F1=03T }-I Aie'y FARM T ,. PROJECT: IllklZ60t2 PoIN-r Moles INILRSECTION: MACA ,p DATE: 9�30- 7q ' PM• P.N• MOVEMENT 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 NL -- NT 6 ' NR SL -- ST 9 ' SR = EL ' ET ER _ WL Z WT WR "' ' PROPOSED SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS YEAR 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMbbKC-t, JDAQW14 N4.16 (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1976) Approach Existing Peak 2h Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project + Direction Peak 2h Hour Regional Projects Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hourl ' 1 Volume Growth Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Voluse C Q Volume Volume Northbound �'/S 5 504 3090 3 2 �sauthbdund 4134 8 3 4 45 3 4'5 S 'Eastbound d3 85 (, 3q I q- o estbound 2,533 1 50 2683 2-7 6 ' ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2-11 Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization 1 (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 DATE: 4-30— 9'9 ' PROJECT: HP4rRLS0R— POINT HaMES FARM I ' PROJECT: 1 AK133,0K POm-r HOMES r '1 INILkSECTION: JAMf7a&C-_-- SPrN O/�QUl 111LL5 DATE: PM-P,H. MOVEMENT 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 NL — NT NR SL 4 ST — SR _ EL — ET — ER ' WL WT WR 2 PROPOSED SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS YEAR 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection COAbT HIGHWAY - 11AAI26UERlTE (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) IApproach Existing Peak 2y Hour Approved Protected I% of Projected Project Direct ton I Peak 2% Hour Regional Projects Peak 2N Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 24 Hour' I Volume Volute Volk 24 Hour Volume Volume volume I— f ume !0(3 — — 6 Northbound & ' outhbound g-50 55o b 6 ,stbound 313z 80 10 3S 2 z 35 — ' westbound ' Q Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume ' ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I ' PROJECT: HAKOQ► I925)/NT fiOME5 ' 9AN MIyuEL Gut.-y�Sgca:D INfEkSECTtON: NU)Ay- /14ARGljaRITE DATE:_-•-: 0 74 ' RM-P.N• MOVEMENT 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 ' NL NT ' NR - SL 3 ' ST SR _ EL ET _ ER _ ' WL _ WT - WR q ' PROPOSED SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS YEAR ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis IntersectionAAcAjz. i4uR— TA gs2sp-a (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19/0) ' Approach Existing Peak 2y Hour Approved Protected 1% of Protected Protect Direction Peak 2h Hour Regional Protects Peak 2y Hour Peak Zy Hour Peak 2y Hour' I Volume Growth Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume _ Volume Volume t ' r�hbo4at►1aR Ib_S I iQ- 562 �257 23 1 z 'Noorthbound ; �1 IIII � i5outhbound ; 'L$ 14 ��l' 14.4 �7� '.30 1� ' EJAbo�dl��. '1.q Zb 6 , 'S estbound $OS7 ICJ -Al�0, ✓`$t S 33 — 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ' Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization ' (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. ' DATE: PROJECT: {-}^MeOX rc>IM T )}dMEy FORM I � PROJECT: HAK0,0K PO/A+L_NOMC-S 1 IfaIEkSFLTION: M.4GARTA�d(Z� DATE:_ • ' PM•19 N• MOVEMENT 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 NT NR SL _ ST 9 SR EL _ ET _ ER WL _ WT WR 1 PROPOSED SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS YEAR 1 1 1 1 1 1 AW MOHLE, PERRY&ASSOCIATES ' March 16, 1979 I ' Mr. Bert Ashland Project Manager Larry Seeman Associates ' 500 Newport Center Drive Suite 525 Newport Beach, CA 92660 ' Dear Bert: Pursuant to our written proposal to you and as modified by meetings with ' the Community Development and Public Works Departments on March 15, 1979, the attached diagram shows intersection capacity utilizations (ICU) for different traffic volume conditions and assumed street network layouts ' for the area in the vicinity of the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road. ' The purpose of this work has been to provide quantitative information in the form of ICU calculations to show the effect on ICU's with and without a proposed connection of the link of San Miguel Drive between MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road. In accordance with the March 15 meetings, the diagram shows study street alternates C-4 and C-6 with and without San Miguel being cul-de-sacced ' on the easterly side of MacArthur Boulevard. The ICU values shown in the circles on the diagram are for three conditions which are: ' o existing ICU's based on winter and spring traffic counts made in 1978. ' o ICU calculations based on traffic volumes generated from the Newport Center Study as modified to reflect the December 1978 General Plan Amendment, and assuming that the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor would be in operation. o ICU's based on the above condition with the exception that the assumption is made that the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor would not be available. t MUNICIPAL AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS 2565 E.Chapman Ave.Suite 124,Fullerton,CA 92631 (714) 738.3471 OfFloes In Orange,Los Angeles and San Diego Counties ' Mr. Bert Ashland ' Larry Seeman Associates San Miguel Drive March 16, 1979 Page 2 ' The traffic volumes utilized in the calculation of these ICU's have been ' developed as a cooperative effort between our firm and the City's Traffic Engineer, Mr. Rich Edmonston. Also attached to this letter are the respective ICU calculation sheets utilized in preparing the diagram. Respectfully submitted, MOHLE, PERRY $ ASSOCIATES R. Henry hb ' Senior Vice President RHM:vp attachments 1 t 0 72 0,72 s , 5AN JOAQUIN HELLS RD 5AN Jg4QUlN sl'J' Ne 11MY CuINTEK- // Pz IR VAN .. �Q 5� � / ' D EW137 C 68 MY � C-6A NAW7' N Xr WVIER'TXM`,CMPY CGL-t7E-9AG CGl SAC E" MAMwIM pouf ME 5AN✓OA4uIN PUS MAP 7fiWSM9 AflOAI COMMA ivsvmRT cam 77WHC 57UOy, MOEZ W/W CW,NZO JyEN- ERAL field AMfA MENTCNIw / 5A41 JOAMMAt MUS A= 0.4! 7XM/SPOATAT/ON cowlvR yyw JOAqu/N N/Cu56AfLjf JOAQUIN H�LIy \0 AN5/ICU AL Y 5 5AN G4 P WIN CG4 A NIVIOUT NO SCALE CUL-pE-r.�►C � CUL-OE-9AC 1 �r /� L/�t' ' (7 6-- INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS G 4� A Intersection San Joaquin 1Q,1s Rd/San Miguel Dr. (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Aage Winter/Spring 1978) Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio NL 1 1600 24 .02 ' NT 1 1 1600 8 .01* NR 1 1600 10 .01 SL 1 1600 116 .07* ST 2 3200 5 .05 ' SR 141 EL 2 3200 446 .14* ET 3 4800 609 .13 ' ER WL 1 1600 43 .03 WT 3 4800 348 .09* WR 82 Yellow Time .10 Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. .41 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left 1 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to IExisting Conditions I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures ,INTERSECTION San Joaquin Hills Rd/San Miguel Dr. FORM II i 1PROJECT: INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection MacArthur Boulevard San Joaquin Hills Road I (Existing Traffic Volumes Basec on Average inter Spring 1978) Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio NL 1 1600 63 .04 ' NT 2 3200 361 .15* NR 129 SL 2 3200 412 .13* ST 2 3200 746 .23 1 SR N.S. - 250 EL 2 3200 772 .24* ET 13 4800 648 .15 ER 80 WL 1 1600 70 .04 IWT 3 4800 285 .10* WR .178 Yellow Time .10 Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. .72 Existing Plus Project Intersection Ca acit Utilization I.C.U. ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left IExisting Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 ❑ Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION MacArthur Boulevard/San Joaquin Hills Road --•-- — i FORM II PROJECT: I Zo �17 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' Intersection /1i�A,;A�rdtJG'. /(1fe-,Us �~ � (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter Spring 197_) ,A Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio NL kno 0 ' NT 7 A A,*A -) NR SL ST SR EL 2 zoo ET boo 00 ' a G ER WL �. WT WR J Yellow Time Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. ' Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, Wight, L=Left Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. , Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures LERSECTION FORM II tOJECT: INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS W.• 4 W44 i H Ta., M ' Intersection AA Ap--'HLl -AAA/ /NhSUSL. "/� (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 197_) l Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio INL l6O0 p ' NT 3 &0 NR 1 SL ST SR EL -'r ET tER WL -- WT WR — ' Yellow Time ' 140 Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. 'Exi'sting Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. 1"015 z' ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be Tess than or equal to 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures tTERSECTION FORM II OJECT: °� 7 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS H1'G Intersection BAN Tl3A�QUW P ILLS ' (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter Spring 197_) ?!�� Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio NL I I OD 'aw • V&r-F NT S2.00 ©o • I 5v NR SL 1600 ri • DQ3� � ST 3:.00 .02-3 SR ' EL a. 5%00 D • D 5 ET -is 00 I:7-1q ER WL i I�pa �.� •s ?S I �F WT 3 boa �! • I ?� I WR Yellow Time Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left 11 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures LERSECTION FORM II OJECT. I 5 or 17 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection A46APT140a— Ph/ ' -NOWA) 14 ILL 4 P-P, A (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 197_) 1 Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio ' NL ' 0799 ' NT co 3 � NR SL ST SR ' EL 2 19:000 5 ��- •-�725 err :) ET 3 0 • -5 A C� # ER �— ■ WL WT WR S Yellow Time Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. Og ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N-Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left QExisting Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. 1 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures ;NTERSECTION FORM II I• IROJECT: INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' Intersection 44,6e Ag;nj we,— gym ow }IILL� (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter Spring 197_) Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio NL I 16Co I-.I.L . 079 k NT 74 &+'Val 4b 56 2�5 NR SL .ST 1 SR EL �• 1912 7: ��RE� ET ER WL• 9 0*0 WR Yellow Time ' I� Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. 10�8�� ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION FORM II OJECT: ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS w/yrG ' Intersection 4AyV J0AAUW� ILbS (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average inter Spring 197_) Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio NL NT NR SL I 11,00 ST b 00 I�83 •30 $ ' SR I lava • �aBB f�re��) ' EL ET .¢ (, cc 3I • 4z6 7' ER WL I ta0 D ' WT 3 . .GAO aqd • (i�,90 WR ' Yellow Time Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. Existing Plus -Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. 3 b 5 ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to ' Existing Conditions I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION FORM II IROJECT: 18 CIF 17 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS WJ1��, H T, ' Intersection JAAI J©AAWN H 16 O 9P • AVee.A )o (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 197_) Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio NL NT NR SL t 1 Leo 430 • 2�8 ST 4 cn 8 3 • . a SR 3 0 8 8 Coo-) ' EL ET to 2 2I ER t Iboo WL G'+00 a57 • I c� ' ' wT 7 800 0 • I=a l WR Yellow Time Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization 'I.C.U. ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to ' Existing Conditions I.G.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 Further analysis required 'to determine applicable mitigation measures LERSECTION - FORM II tOJECT: 19 �� 17 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' Intersection 1'vl�rAr<'frl���'.�.�h? . � �?J •V �..0 lZti• "A (Existing Traffic Volumes Bated—on Average inter Spring 197_) Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio NL 12/0 . 07$ d ' NT 6 OD 3 5 2 NR SL 2 3200 30 I3•f ST 800 7 1 SR El. 2 3s00 ET800 a 31 Pl D ' ER WV WT ? ' OD b D �3= WR Yellow Time ' 1� Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. �`d ? ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound,'W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will. be less than or equal to 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures TERSECTION FORM II OJECT: I10 o-c, 17 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Aa-s'NUR. — 44N 1'y, 0WJ HILO' R.V. 4 6 F7 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average inter/Spring 197_) ' Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio NL I Ilona I z6 ' NT 7275 NR SL 2. 37ee 450 • I'w4 ?F ST 3 +900 1 • 5160 SR ' EL 2 5200 15112. -A- ET DD gal •Jo D ER WL z 32va �5� • oRa7 ' WT 7 ,5 RDA 870 ! B 3 WR S Yellow Time Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. 1- 6157 - ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk N ' N=Northbound, S=Sorthbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left •' Existing Plus Project Traffic •I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to ' Existing Conditions I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 ' Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures LERSECTION FORM II LOJECT: i 11 f 17. INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection 5AN 10AAL lA) H ILL S= AVO,-Apo G'�A (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 197_) ' Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio ' NL ' NT NR SL I 6 00 3a • �l� BB ST b o 3 m 1y • 5 I -�3 iF SR .1 1600 +q4 ' EL ET 4 fa AD �32� •3l�z7 ' ER I 1600 0 WL lboo 0 ' WT 34900 WR Yellow Time Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. ' Existinq Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. "q77 0 ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left Existing Plus Project Traffic T.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to ' Existing Conditions I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures LERSECTION FORM II tOJECT: - - — - -- — — -- --- - - - i 2 a-C17 tINTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Wlv 5 5l4i" Intersection :5A. V�A&UTA) HILLS -• AVocA-vo G J (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 197_) ' Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio ' NL .� NT NR SL I to a • d6 93 $ ST 4 6400 :. • SI�h3 SR I • Sod 8 � 6f~) ' EL "'- ET 0 -3"•-I • s6z ER ► 1600 a WL 1600 'A57 0Ilvo� ' WT 3 00 �7 0 . I�.� WR -- Yel l ow Time Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to ' Existing Conditions I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently. greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures tTERSECTION - FORM II LOJECT: 113 r�^T 1 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection IGe-AeT'Fl/jr.— .SAN �rQA4111AJ I}IG49 Q;P. GSA (Existing Traffic Volumes Base on Average Winter/spring 197_) 1 Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio 1 NL i 16" 1.%6 . 01 U 1 NT 00 Q y . oo$ At, NR 1 SL ST SR 1 EL 32co l5 1z • 47=5 (FReB) ET 3 So0 03! 2 �i q 1 ER WL _ 1 WT 3 $00 I o0 WR 1 Yellow Time ' f° • Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. 1 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) 1 N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left 1 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 1 Existing Conditions L.C.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 ' F7 further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION FORM II OJECT:. INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' Intersection bib ARguR. 5= m �OAauw HILLS IZD. (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 197_) ' Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio NL I !( 04c Iz( • 0789 ' NT 4 0 756 I. 1gIR • NR SL —' ST ' SR EL Z 320o S 102- • 4 a C>=geb) ET S 60 D /D • W7 ER WL -. ' WT 3 0o Io i WR Yellow Time Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. �' ` 17 7 ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to ' Existing Conditions I.C.U. ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U: will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION FORM II ROJECT: I I e �17 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection M,4cAgTNuI_ — j9-m 5A°Quu7 41L.Ls Cl"� (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter Spring 197_) ' Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio ' NL I I O I3�o • 0 $g ' NT 4 55 I• ao$(� NR SL a 3200 30 134 ST 3 800 II I • 1�566 ' SR . EL m 3%00 I512 if 2 ET 73 4800 %z $3� ER WL Z 32.00 2-57 03 ' WT 3 d 0 WR ' Yellow Time •I`� A- Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. ' Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) ' N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION FORM II OJECT: ^ , -SsHre- INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' Intersection AlAo_A>~rrIUR — SA4 SpAL�u, Hl-LS (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Minter/Spring 197_) ' Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C ' Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio NL ( I60o 0788 ' NT 6400 6'a r,5 1.071 NR ' SL Z. 3100 3 0 13 4 ST 3 $00 I 1 1 • 85 61 ' SR EL 2 3200 1511— • `17y5 ET 314900 2. 3 ' -ER WL 1 32.00 459 • l9 �$ ' ' WT 3 00 5 0 • Izy$ WR ' Yellow Time Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S-Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 ' Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION FORM II ROJECT: i 1 ? 0 T 17 J ' Correspondence 1 ' I a CEIVEitU Commy 3' .,meat J �� Aavolo, i UaPt. 1979�- +� CITY OF 1 tt EWPOn j 1 5 April 1979 Mr. William Agee, Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission City of Newport Beach ' 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 ' Dear Chairman Agee & Members of the Commission: Inasmuch as I am unable to attend the meeting on Thursday, April 5, 1979 because of a previous ' commitment, I am choosing this method of communi- cation in order to add my support for the Irvine Company' s proposed development of Harbor Point. ' The project looks very good to me and I will welcome another way to get to. Fashion Island via ' San Miguel Road which will eventually- connect. I would like to see a pedestrian gate added to the proposed wall in the list of conditions, for pedestrians and children from our association to - get from Salt Air Circle onto San Miguel, and I suggest it be placed at the end of Island View Drive as a central location. ' I urge your support of the proposal, with the necessary conditions. ' Sinc /ely, Dan S. RogVe 2500 Lightane Corona del , a. 92625 DSR/rs 1 610 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92663 ' (714) 644-3011 RECEfVED ComunApril 4, 1979 + 7 D elopm t e Qs Dept. APR5 1979m 9) CITY OF a NEWPOORRTT BEACP,CR a Mr. Fred Talarico �z- ' City of Newport Beach ^ya�A - f 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92660 ' Subject: Harbor Point Tentative Tract 10625 Dear Fred: ' The conditions of approval for Tentative Tract 10625 as summarized on the attachment were prepared in response to the concerns expressed by the homeowners ' adjacent to the subject property. In response to a request by Phil Arst, President of the Broadmoor Hills Community ' Association, I have provided a copy of these proposed conditions of approval to him and Ted Carpenter. Based on our meetings with the homeowners, the proposed conditions of approval meet the concerns expressed during our meetings with the homeowners. However, the conditions of approval are subject to discussion and ' additional comment by the homeowners involved. Please call me at (714) 644-3132 should you wish to discuss these conditions of 1 approval in greater detail. In the meantime, I look forward to meeting with you during the Planning Commission hearing on April 5, 1979. Sincerely, ' C.. Keith Greer �' t Director Community Development Division CKG:jct Attachment 1 1 1 [LLlIA11141;JItACI'_ 100?!, t The following conditions of approval are proposed for Tentative Tract 10625 in recorinition ofconcerns expressed by homeowners adjacent to Tentative Tract 10625. The proposed conditions of approval are recommended for consideration by the City of 'lienport Beach ' only in conjunction with Tentative Tract 10625 as Filed with thr, City of Newport [teach and should not be considered as acceptable for any revision or- nodificatinn to the Tentative Tract Map as filed including the deletion of San Miguel Drive froin the Tentative Tract Map: ' 1. That a textured block wall and berm of a combined height of 8' be constructed on Lot 21 of Tentative Tract 10625 parallel to San Miguel Drive and MacArthur Boulevard. The combined wall and berm shall connect at the intersection of San Miguel Drive and MacArthur Boulevard and extend easterly a distance of ' 250' on San Miguel Drive from the intersection of San Miguel Drive and MacArthur Boulevard and southerly a distance of 300' on MacArthur Boulevard from the intersection of San Miguel Drive and MacArthur Boulevard. The textured block wall located within Lot 21 parallel to San Miguel Drive shall connect to the 8' barrier adjacent to Lot 49, Tract 6385 as specified below in condition ' Number 2. The developer shall be responsible for the planting of trees and ground cover on the berms specified in this condition of approval. 2. That an 8' barrier be constructed in the right of way of San Miguel Drive ' adjacent to Lot 49 of Tract 6385. 3. That a V textured block wall be constructed in Lot C of Tract 6385 parallel to Salt Air Drive for the entire distance between Lots 15 and 49 of Tract 6385. Said textured block wall shall connect to the 8' barrier adjacent to Lot 49, Tract 6385 and shall connect to the rear wall on Lot 15, Tract 6385. The base of the 5' textured block wall shall be constructed at grade with the top of curb on Salt Air Drive adjacent to Lot C of Tract 6385. ' This condition of approval shall be applicable only in the event that the Broad- moor Hills Community Association and the owners of Lots 15 and 49 of Tract 6385 consent to the construction of said 5' textured block wall within 60 days of receipt of the developer's request for approval of the construction of said wall. ' The developer shall be responsible for the replacement, repair or modification to plantings and irrigation systems which result from the construction of said wall. 4. That a street bighting plan for San Miguel Drive be submitted to the Broadmoor ' Hills Community Association Board of Directors for review and comment and to the Director of Community Development for the City of Newport Beach for approval , prior to the issuance of building permits for residential dwellings within Tentative Tract 10625. Said street lighting plan shall include consideration of provisions for minimizing the'intrusion of peripheral street lighting into the ' existing homes easterly of Tentative Tract 10625. 5. That the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions recorded for Tentative Tract 10625 shall require the pruning of trees on individual Lots 1-21 so as to limit, ' the growth of said trees to the height of the building ridge line for each residential dwelling. 6. That the elevation of the building ridge line and the maximum height of trees on . Lot 21 Tentative Tract 10625 shall be limited to a height of 227' above sea level. ' 7. That an analysis of the estimated noise level at the residences located on Lots 15 and 49 of Tract 6385 shall be performed by a qualified acoustical engineer selected by the Director of Community Development for the City of Newport Beach. For the ' purpose of this acoustical analysis, the acoustical engineer shall measure the noise levels as artifically increased to reflect the anticipated noise impacts resulting from the vehicular traffic on Son Miguel Drive as measured in the year 1995. Based on the conclusions of this analysis, the developer shall be required to construct sound attentuation measures if any are required ,in accordance with ' the requirements of stato law and the recommendation of the acoustical engineer. The construction of such sound attentuation measures shall only be required in the event that the individual owners of Loos 15 and 49 of Tract 6385 consent to the construction of said sound attentuation measures. —U— R oCnIVcDX/- :� � 4nr I P. ✓.. CAL-• ' DONALD J. DRAKE, JR., M.D., INC. ROBERTS. ROSENBERG, M.D., INC. DON A. UDALL, M.D., INC. Diplomates of the American Board of Urology Newport Center Medical Building No.2 ' 1401 Avocado Avenue • Swte 602 Newport Beach,Caldornia 92660 644-8722 1 9, March 26 , 1979 w �' •°'` to APR2 1979�- 41 Department of Community Development Newport Beach City Hall ' Newport Beach , California .� ATTENTION : Mr. Fred Talarico ' Environmental Coordinator Dear Mr. Talarico : ' I have a copy of your letter of March 19 , 1979 to the Planning Commission from the Department of Community Development with supplemental information reports on ' Harbor Point Project. I note with interest your drawing of C6B with a cul -de-sac of San Miguel Drive . The C6B also includes San Miguel from MacArthur to Avocado when they are existing as a couplet . I have redrawn this map in terms of my suggestion for the same couplet concept with an elimination of the cross street at MacArthur and Avocado . I have therefore eliminated San Miguel at this ' point . Because of the closeness of Avocado to the buildings fronting it, a left turn off of San Miguel onto the access road, Avocado , would be less desirable than ' using San Nicolas as the exit road. I think this is con- forming with the plan on C6 but I ' m not exactly certain. The concept here is to avoid the intersections caused by ' San Miguel being extended over to MacArthur. I look forward to discussing this concept with you or any- one from the City to see if indeed this does re-traffic in a manner consistent with the needs of Newport Center with- out imposing additional intersections . ' Sincerely , -'. t� o ert S . Rosenberg , M. D RSR: jyh ccs : Mr. Burt Ashland Mr. James Eweker Mr . William Agee } .4 rFI i � r�7j i 1 ! I f -1 DONALD J. DRAKE, JR., M.D., INC. ' ROBERT S. ROSENBERG, M.D., INC. DON A. UDALL, M.D., INC. Diplomates of the American Board of Urology Newport Center Medical Building No.2 ' 1401 Awcdo Awnuo • Suite 602 Newport Beach,California 92660 614.9n2 February 27 , 1979 ' Mr. William Agee ' Post Office Box 612 Corona del Mar, California 92625 'Dear Bill : I have taken the liberty of enclosing naps which are very similar. They refer to the intersection at San Joachim ' kills Road, MacArthur Boulevard, and Avocado Avenue. The one assumes that there is a couplet and 'that the couplet' ' intersects just south of San Joachim Hills Road. • The' oth'er ' one assumes an enlarged MacArthur, similar to the MacArthur that we have at this time and a frontage road which goes in ' two directions in the roadlbed of Avocado . As you notice , we have a minimum of stop lights . The inter- change at MacArthur and San Joachim Hills Road, or MacArthur ' and Avocado and San Joachim Hills Road is essentially as its configuration is at this time. ' In addition , however, there is a new entrance to Fashion Island which does not entail a stop light, the intersection at San Miguel and Avocado , or the frontage road probably ' could suffice with a stop sign . Notice the free flow of traffic .in and out of Fashion Island with this configuration. ' I do believe this is the ' simplest of the proposed plans _ that the traffic department has arrived at to date and the elimination of an intersection at San Miguel , MacArthur, and Avocado simplifies the problem and avoids two major traffic lights . S i n�1� ' Robert S . Rosenberg , M.D. ' RSR/mm Enc . t i 1 -VAN TO QvfN f � - i i 1 i i 1 r , rr ' •1 1 - e _ _...:--- � i i %I ;,�` �/.-lei✓ .�.A—�v r �l �-�c:.cj i v 1 lz I v DC-i41DD - -1.i. »f,� �5.�•, AYH - i�i— ar ,,I i(4`'t'/A�.� C• '!' "$'�`,:��•a,,,:t•. . F`i .57: �'-� ' *:. c•. ::�• 1 • ' February 22, 1979 Mr. William Agee ' Chairman, Planning Commission CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Blvd. ' Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 Dear Chairman Agee and members of the Planning Commission: I would like to express my concerns, for your consideration, regard- ing street traffic circulation, as it relates to the existing Roger's Garden' s operation and the Irvine Company' s proposed residential ' project to the south. With regards to the extension of San Miguel to MacArthur Blvd. and ' ' the proposed continuation of Avocado Ave; we recognize the value of this segment to the total traffic plan and unquestionably support its future. ' With regard to the traffic circulation surrounding the triangle of land under discussion; we request the Planning commission con- sider the traffic routes our customers must use to and from the ' Gardens. Specifically that 73% of our customers will want to leave going north on MacArthur, north on San Miguel or west on San Joaquin Hills Rd. _ ' I believe you should review the data on the following page and consider the following implications . N co 0.00o0p�19�9� 10 ' U, b F o<cj,�BFA JJ O o N r ' 2301 San Joaquin Hills Rd., Corona del Mar, Ca. 92625-640.5800 Letter to Mr. William Agee February 22, 1979 Page '2 of 2 The current proposal would require our customers desiring to return 1 home north on MacArthur to choose one of the following routes : 1. South on San Miguel, north on MacArthur Blvd. 1 or 1 2. Exit the San Joaquin driveway (right turn only) cutting across 3 lanes of 55/mph traffic, and making an illegal U-turn to San Joaquin west, to MacArthur north. 1 It would require customers desiring to return home north on San Miguel to choose one these routes : 1 1. South on San Miguel; north on MacArthur, 'east on, San Joaquin then north on San Miquel. or 1 2. Exit the San Joaquin driveway (right turn only) cutting across 3 lanes of 55/mph traffic to make a left turn on 1 San Miguel north. In order to go west on San Joaquin Hills Rd. , our customers would 1 have to choose one of the following routes: 1. South on San Miguel, north on MacArthur, west on San Joaquin Hills Rd. 1 or 1 2. Exit the San Joaquin driveway (right turn only) cutting across 3 lanes of 55/mph traffic to make an illegal U-Turn to San Joaquin west. 1 As I have discussed my concern with the Department-of Traffic Engineering, I rely on their expertise to advise you on the available 1 alternatives to these matters. Sincerely, 1 Jeffrey B. D'Eliscu General Manager 1 JBD/dh enclosures 1 cc: Keith Greer, Irvine Company Richard Edmondston, Traffic Engineer Dick Hogan, Dept. Community Development 1 ' ROGER'S GARDENS NEWPORT CENTER Customer Traffic Data ' Daily Existing and Projected Traffic Volumes: ' AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC Forecasted Forecasted Period Existing Increase Total ' Winter - Midweek 500 250 750 Winter - Weekend 1,300 700 -2, 000 Summer - Midweek 850 450 1, 300- ' Summer - Weekend 1,650 900 2,550 ' Customer Residence Survey: PERCENTAGE OF' _TRAFFIC Customer's Direction Existing Long Term,' (proposed) ' A) North on MacArthur Blvd. 60.9% 50. 0% ' B) West on San Joaquin Hills Rd. 10. 5% . 8 .0% C) North oxi San Miguel Dr. 5. 0% 15. 0% ' D) East on San Joaquin Hills Rd. 6.5% 10. 0% , E) South on MacArthur Blvd. 17 .1% 15.0% _ ' F) South on San Miguel Dr. . -0- 2. 0% . 1 - see -- - -- - ------ - - t III THE IRVINE QOMPAW � 550 Newport Center Drive, P.O. Box I v Newport Beach, California 92660-9959 (714)720-2000 August 16, 1982 Mr. Fred Talarico City of Newport Beach City Hall 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92663-3884 Dear Fred: Enclosed is a copy of Vince Mestre's letter on Harbor Point Lot 21 noise wall. If you have any questions, please call. Sincerely, Bern. Maniscalco Manager of Community Development BAM/dl Enclosure 9 � � S 9ECr-11 ,VE0 ' 9 n "•1Ei7t AUG181982D-- Ct7r�: 1 j CAE,F. ti MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ENGINEERS August 12,1982 Bernard Maniscalco THE IRVINE COMPANY 550 Newport Center Drive P.O. Box I Newport Beach, Ca 92660 SUBJECT: LENGTH OF NOISE BARRIER FOR LOT 21 ALONG MACARTHUR Dear Bernard, At your request I have reviewed the design of the noise barrier for lot 21. The length of this wall is not critical for protection of the home to be located on this lot. The home is located a large distance from the terminus of the wall and therefore would not be affected by a 20 foot reduction in length. This reduction in length does not affect the noise study prepared for the project. � If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call . Yours Very Truly, MESTRE GREVE ASSO IATES Vincent Mestre, P.E. 200 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 213 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 (7141 760.0891 AUG 1 1982 t "'T77(--t .w 1+ w AUGLT --? i< CAL1F ' v 3003 83,03 ' i6 6 ` Mr. Fred Talarico City of Newport Beach City Hall 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92663-3884 QTHE IRVINE CDMR4NY 550 Newport Center Drive, P.O. Box I Newport Beach,California 92660.9959 COMMISSIONERS A MINUTES -city of Newport ach F 9`'s� �° ��•oZCFGs June 7 , 1979 ROLL CALL INDEX Motion x Motion -was made that the Planning Com -isleon make Ayes x x x * x x the following findings : , Abstain 1. That a Traffic Study fort.,the proposed project , has been prepared in accordance with Chapter 15 . 40 of the Newportl each Municipal Code and City Policy S-hd ; that based on the Traf- fic Study , love 2. The truly projected one year after project com�p.l°etion during any 2. 5 hour peak traffic period on each leg of each critical intersec- �,,�"tion will be increased less than 1% by traffic generated from the project during that 2. 5 hou period. and approve the Traffic Study for the proposed 13,000 sq . ft. expansion of the Hughes Aircraft Com pany facilities . - Request to consider a Traffic 'Study for a proposed Item #1 office building containing 19 ,264 'sq . ft. TRAFFIC Location : Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 104/37 , loca- STUDY ted at 3701 Birch Street, at the mos northerly corner of Birch Street and APPROVE Bristol -Street North , near the Orang County Airport. Zone : M-1-A Applicant : The 3701 Birch Company Owner: Irvine Industrial Complex Richard Hogan , Community Development Director, sta- ted that the discrepencies as they exist between A- genda Item No . 10 and 11 would , if reconciled, not - make any difference in the findings . Commissioner Beek asked regarding the I . C .U . of Mac- Arthur Boulevard and Campus Drive , to which Fred Talarico , Environmental Coordinator, replied that the I . C. U . , Winter-Spring 1978, is . 94, to which Commissioner Beek expressed his concern that this project will put 18 additional cars through said intersection . -25- r-(IMMISSIONERS MINUTES 'cm 9� �omn0� Am 9 City of New port Ach June 7 , 1979 °�sma c 2 'ROIL CALL INDEX The Public Hearing was opened regarding this item and Ray Pickens , Newport Beach , appeared before the Planning Commission to state his concurrence with the conditions as set forth in the Staff Report. Motion x Motion was made that the Planning Commission make Ayes x x x x x the following findings : Noes x x 1. That a Traffic Study on the proposed project has been prepared in accordance with Chapter 15. 40 of the Municipal Code and City Policy S-1 , and; 2. That based on that Traffic Study , the proposed project will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on any "major" , "primary-modified" ,- or "primary" street. and approve the Traffic Study for a proposed office building containing 19 ,264 sq . ft. °rr Request to consider a Traffic Study for a proposed Item #11 �> office building containing 72 ,000 sq. ft. TRAFFIC k Location: Lots 8, 9 and 10 of Tract 5169 , loca STUDY ted at 4401 , 4423 and 4443 Birch Street, on the westerly side of Birc APPROVE a, Street approximately 700 feet' nor-:' therly of Dove Street, near the Orange County Airport. Zone : M-1-A Applicant: National Education Company Owner: Ir the Industrial Company The Public Hearing was o ned regarding this item and Bob Craft , Langden & Wial�son Architects , appear- ed before the Planning Commis on to state his con- currence with the conditions as. et forth in the Staff Report. Commissioner Beek expressed his concer regarding the addition of 40 cars at the corner of acArth,ur -26- Planning Commission Meeting June 7 , 1979 Agenda Item No. 10 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH June 4 , 1979 T0 : Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Request to consider a Traffic Study for a proposed office building con-taininq 19 ,264 sq . ft. (Public Kear nnq LOCATION: Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 104/37, located at 3701 Birch Street, at the most northerly corner of Birch Street and Bristol Street North , near the Orange County Airport. ZONE: M-i-A APPLICANT: The 3701 Birch Company OWNER: Irvine Industrial Complex The applicants have requested the Planning Commission ' s approval of a Traffic Study for the proposed construction of a 19,264 sq . ft. office building to be located at 3701 Birch Street in the New- port Place area . The Traffic Study for the proposed office build- ing has been prepared in accordance with Chapter 15. 40 of the New- port Beach Municipal Code ( "Traffic Phasing Ordinance" ) and City Policy S-1 ( "Administrative Procedures for Implementing the Traf- fic Phasing Ordinance" ) . A copy of the Traffic Study prepared for the City by William Kunzman and Associates is attached for Plan- ning Commission review. Proposed Project The proposed project consists of a 19 ,264 sq . ft. office building to be constructed in 1980 and located on the northeast corner of Birch Street and Bristol Street North in the Newport Place area. The proposed site plan calls for the subterranean parking and ve- hicle access from one driveway on Birch Street and one driveway on Bristol Street North. A Resubdivision will be required to adjust the lot line between the proposed building site and the existing building to the north . Ad- ditionally, in order to meet the office parking requirements for the M-1-A District , the applicants may have to reduce the size of the project by approximately 8,000 sq. ft. � a TP: Planning Commission - 2 Traffic Study The City Traffic Engineer has determined that the following eight intersections will be affected by the proposed project based on its size and geographic location: 11 Bristol Street/Birch Street 2. Bristol Street/Campus Drive 3. Bristol Street/Jamboree Road 4. Bristol Street North/Birch Street 5. Bristol Street North/Campus Drive 6. Bristol Street North/Jamboree Road 7. Jamboree Road/Campus Drive 8. MacArthur Boulevard/Campus Drive The Traffic Study determined that the project will generate, one year after its projected completion date (1981) , more than one per- cent of the projected 2h hour volume on any leg of the above cri- tical intersections , only at Bristol Street North/Birch Street and Bristol Street/Birch Street. In accordance with City Policy S-1 , Intersection Capacity U-tiliza= tion Analysis was made for projected traffic volumes (summation of existing peak hour volumes , regional growth volumes and committed project volumes) and projected traffic volumes plus project traf- fic volumes . The ICU calculations at both intersections indicated that projected volumes plus project traffic volumes ICU will be less than 0. 90 and that further analysis will not be required under City 'Policy S-1. The existing + regional + committed + project ICU ' s were calculated to be as follows : Bristol Street/Birch Street = 0. 3980 Bristol Street North/Birch Street = 0.8617 Staff Analysis City Policy S-1 provides that an analysis be done to determine if one year after completion of the project, or portions of the pro- ject for which the traffic analysis is being performed, the pro- ject will generate one percent or more of the projected traffic volume for each leg of each impact intersection during the 2.5 hour peak period. The policy also provides that when one year after the completion of the project, the project may generate one percent or more of projected traffic volume on one or more Pegs of any impacted intersection , then an ICU analysis will be perform- ed in accordance with S-1. Thi's analysis has been performed on the Bristol Street North/Birch Street and Bristol Street/B.irch Street intersections . The projected ICU with the project at these inter- sections are 0. 8617 and 0. 3980 respectively. The policy provides that the ICU must be less than 0. 90 to make Finding No. 2, listed TO: Planning Commission - 3 below. No trip generation reduction measures were required to achieve these ICU ' s at the impacted intersections . Suggested Action If desired, approve the Traffic Study, making the following find- ings : 1 . That a Traffic Study on the proposed project has been prepar- ed in accordance with Chapter 15. 40 of the Municipal Code and City Policy S-1 , and; 2. That based on that Traffic Study, the proposed project will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traf- fic service on any "major" , "primary-modified" , or "primary" street. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V . HOGAN, DIRECTOR By 7.0 Fred Talarico Environmental Coordinator FT/gg Attachments : Traffic Study, dated+ May 9 , 1979 Report of Findings from City Traffic Engineer REPORT OF FINDINGS t1 PROJECT NAME: 3701 BIRCH OFFICE BUILDING �t PROJECT LOCATION: Northwest corner of Birch Strout and urictol Street North FINDINGS Phase I Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume. XX Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Fx x] Peak 21-a Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Phase II XX Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90. Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. El Existing Plus 'Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90. Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than exist- ing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90. Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures. -------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------ Phase III ElExisting Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. with mitigation measure(s) will be less than or equal to 0.90. 0 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. with mitigation measures(s) will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. REMARKS: Richar Edmonston Traffic Engineer ♦ f • • ,/�'f`t�`'fi'kr, 'rr�'r�•��'• �ti't i^}'�I�{�'�ft �' '1^�,����`�f IJ4fti�J1 `� r C rl ( i(/ J,✓rrrl �. .r ti�Xy fc `) -(�• �Ir!'. r r.r{r ';};:' f.•T"i' r .1 j;•tl. t^�,,t l.1Y /''1J?jyiJ •'Y � ,�' n i;!�� J?:yS',•r,�fr>t{'{��?r r�✓r.!'.�tj��•�{7��:�.�tf.r'j,�+� lt� •Y�jl�",�''1r i �� 1 . � f.Y�-G' {t") f, F:t�V�� rr��.+.4F%1•.r Jr�`"ljr�( J f 'ty' �•''Ia r J! ,4?�!i.�Y"�!f��vr�:� +:•�:rf+.. � •�•'�J`r ,1 �'rr� fir ' �': ��,�rf�,ly}.r, ��:r,r ,t•S'rG•�,f,it,' ^J f.•9 �i'"• off�J'-t r.•Sr y-Mf��•�t }t ;4r J �,. �,r,nr r•, r r�}�•f,�i)�"�r'"✓n9�j.< r��J�'ti� .r:,l'Jf�'�,�:/ r l � f {'J?t"r° • >f��f�� '�•' ♦��.( ;its.'?��,,�JA;��.« t,� 7rr,.fj� rt ,. ' ,r(i('clF rr••�r!`jI! I{� .,r�'ey'� r rlr• ��t"�:. �,,,i� p`., � ,7'��. F �`��/' �t r�'r f,�'r jr/�! fir` yri�r/'�S1 } ✓,fr•fr'�f .��! r�G!'f4//;q'1 Gfi( )'1 rf r1< },. ,;' ���, {�{/��J,_`tR�'l`r•' rx+��yff )�f,/,,r{1 ij f]J1•. r � �,Jff�• �i�, ��t♦;/+!{;).!' • l IfJ a,,, `ri` !•i , ,,f+,�',, r, j), , f `�f'��j'`: � Ef(, k.!)�,/, 'f.!?��Ir;:/ r Trr�yl'rfi�!'��%t'�/f'�r�{�fi�F�' :'�� ��r,�• F,r r�'(%�rly' n. a '�/')� /'j.���)� 1 ,�✓Jf r1r�`,17,r( 1•t"V'//.f.;fit�l I i.�,r^( fJ(y,.'�f ;'jr• 4}.F•�f•f�' y/� K����(y'I '✓ti�i� r t V'l� %���'•�`/i%,.1"-r. ! �Y� rnj '4�,Jf�✓,� �r F.� ��:• ft •V i`/��; ��.1 F�{�',• �/j��-(r3f�J� ;%f,F•A�{.{'��V•f• �•,`r�f�f,'I�;1' ,r'��f•'. J�.,�� 'j. i .tf`rrl''�}t�fr',/r,���J(r••�'^rl t�l,�lf�,�lfY�r��i'f/,�r l,/��1�r•�•1•�t� •'.C�'I if?f'���ltr, J/ , 3701 Birch Office Building Traffic Impact Analysis j ,r4! s� .f i Prepared for City of Newport Beach y. Y 7r,/•L�J .,,' }� 'f}} )1�T ' J' 'j >!�./��j�jrr' {�:t•.rYj1 W ,l�,( �V�f •t�S��J�•q r� '/J� �1�P! �'h IJ;C; �J7!. fF:, ����� �t 15�✓�p'� ,I (lr+�(rt' �'rF, r� �:ti+ vr•�?��1'', �r!�G r1�J l�, ,},r�.,..+ .f,r •JJ,�, t•, , r!4• (/p.r,•!1!�k��-1T. !f. • r•'/.r 'fnt ' ` ,,j,"�,�/J` )11 ., �3',✓! rlS ' >�,�,,1,);�,, �rf•.y..t.l•�'� , E y,C .rah r��;r •,, ,�. t• CWopiam ` 6h3maa and l,J4ssociates T E I� Transportation Planning*Traffic Engineering l ;17••f � fj� 'i� •F/,.Fed" r/tom• 't'"�t!'''� I',/;tJ��ar'i' �r�,;�') '/ �I 11�[ ?". / '�� 1�'N 1lr r'�jr}r� ,�4,' � ! !tir>•fj„ r r.nJ�`r�7:'`. .I.t/J;•*�f . f'%,%!• 'r'f�'r'`l�}r,�l�`�1�1,����/1�';�y�;.r�`;Y'•��;^�j;.j:%?'�Z(� �'F4^.v'r , �'J';�''� fr •/ ''�j• ,�"/Jhir�/'1'L{•y:7�,1;♦tJ•�'•I,.1�'r��l'itil�;L�r' :,.r..r��a1J�� t•�.'��'��i •` 4 ' `? r'+. 1, mot' I qA) CW Q&[VA OGR5Mah and uAggcetafes Transportation Planning *Traffic Engineering May 21, 1979 Mr. Fred Talarico Community Development Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. Talarico: We are pleased to present this traffic impact analysis of the proposed office building at 3701 Birch Street. The analysis is in accordance with the requirements of the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance. This report contains the (1) One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis and (2) ICU Analysis. We trust that the findings will be of immediate as well as continuing value to the City of Newport Beach. It has been a pleasure to serve your needs on this project. Should you have any questions, or if we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, �W"ILLIAM KUNZ7MAAN AND ASSOCIATES vl/i1/�lytY✓� _�C.ttirK,�r"pr^' William Kunzman, P.E. 17742 Irvine Blvd„Sue. 201 ■ Tustin, CA S26BO ■ (7141 731-OBS5 1 f . • F �•/ �� ;rJ�'(``(r,C'l,j�: r1Y }�trf+jtj, ft • r1,t 1/ r.�f�f' • �. `r � , �trfv �l IP r 17 rr �, r, �r`l��ri/f.�;�!' C•;. �r^'�tT. o r •J/�I�J �u'l7:ys";j� 'i�ri+ m l i•�;"S ' �J'rrlfF/��Y�,���4�+�'''9f,����.�17�J't\��yr ,/{ ' �r!'v �Jr'(1�•�'1�'� ' �r�Rr���./r ir�r ''�%ti�J�ir r•(X �f�F.�'��'('(FIFk•r1t..� �!�f �1Y,�r •�(�,� ' cr h /SfY��r��v+ 1�{ ;it � r,�+l��t/yy,J,�t•.��r`f��,�fjrf 3.�1� • r�r �J F/ff�/��Z.�����tjt�}'!° ''�r�•.a4 �, j,JJ: j /�'�`'J��'(�:sl)`df�/'�^•JE'i t1i•`+• ,r!' 7�l ��,�'f(+<4��R`/'� '���, '!J'�� )J c�;,✓JIj.?rti�>,r/��ftj /�.ti�t,!•.')'��,�;�(( f r i 1,it• ^�rl�,< "Wr';r/TKA� r�.}i;)i1('f t �i ly�,•r �• i'V •% !!",/i�•j•r�i.�/ t.� .)' .+�`�f ,t' '� �,F�l(�' t;,t r. S�i �f ,�•�'�S//a! }1J/jTT 4�yj{,.• d Jj• �r((r(� r' r �,��' � \•',(j •��LL}}J~ .�} � t , l„ FrJ. I ,(� (rJ! .''7i '' ff ( � J•r,'��4�; ' �•\'+'+ ,+fJ . ;t�'.?1��1;/(t�.}}J'•Y,� iir,� �,�filrf�:��,' C;?,�f!r'. .?,t'f .��'. �t�ff � ..�Jf 37M Birch Office Building Traffic kT*mt Analysis r f .r' Prepared for City of Newport Beach V j� ✓�� + ')t . ,•,,I.f'V �+' / 1�1 '` :J� � !►• !1Y11'c>r f �"`j,Y Y /}tJ``�4A ,�C,�• •cif •��i�,W. ryt , N rS ' /� , l ft' J � Stij/✓ J ) •:,��/`��(''(I� ! f'C`I'i.: F�'���1 ��17 r�• �'F�r'y�'fl,�.t�, •y; �!'�'j�I!,. 1f rx r v r,W•� i�i s� ri(,.,(1 ��,�r..�l.j' ''�'!/i, H , �' , • �IY ,. ram, �t �Y I 15 j�r'r? ,r� ;1' },�, !/�1 Irp uy t hl(�' ,6�J l" ACC{ �'rlr�eatf}�y, .f�'�nf�y�;� •� {! �.l� ! ��•f�if,;f ;�.�i�+�l' i�I.'ty" ••�� r�,;r�J sr�'�� "`t�r'I,��� t! �t + C ,.i•`l• Fp1C�� ,J t/yY Wi?i?iam 0un3man and LAgsociafes �� j ( UE Transportation Planning*Traffic Engineering f 'A�^•' `�t'�; rYJf` �'1/ff�'<,�J�I�f'��r$(�.�'Y�f f' J��� V'�'� ��l� �r:J, i;�'Y,�{yf�}/1+!�,1/� ����>,E: J��tdr..%�rrjJ�y}L�F`;r`'i'lr'':C:'Si%%;�f•"./�rfl.;�',' :!i C-If!. J(-�,J� •�'(" }'J, {J��.�`�(,�f'�'`{�rrrl�r'l'�'}r hJ;�`�i'•LYf'lf�ir� >�.'r(+1'j rF^��:r•'i.r!`'r"Sr<�+� ',(- �•�;Jr,�i j'1!��'�1,y�j �f.l ryJ,{1,rf��r f•�.t�/`�ryl.���.lfjir^,j.�1 ly '•�T�,•J' �.1�„Jf J Il(e ,/ '�•(t l'JJ�Y i'�7�1 y•y'.1�7�,t (rtJ'`r�.�f'r�,� . t y.r� •�l '��nf%;� . P `1' rY. O I Table of Contents Title Page No. Project. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . 1 Traffic Generation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Traffic Distribution... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Critical Intersections Analyzed. . . . . . 2 Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a . . . . . . . . . . 4 Appendix A - One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis Work Sheets Appendix B - ICU Analysis Work Sheets � I I 3701 Birch Office Building Traffic Impact Analysis PROJECT The project is a 19,264 square foot office building to be construc- ted in 1980 and located on the northwest corner of Birch Street and Bristol Street North. Figure 1 shows the project location, and Figure 2 contains the site plan. The plan calls for subter- ranean parking and vehicle access from two driveways on Birch and one driveway on Bristol Street North. Office buildings from a traffic viewpoint generally have pronounced traffic peaks in both the morning and evening when employees arrive and depart, and a minor mid-day peak at noon. During the rest of the work day, there is minor volumes of traffic coming to and leaving an office building. TRAFFIC GENERATION The traffic generated by a site is determined by multiplying an ' appropriate trip generation rate by the quantity of land usage. Trip generation rates are expressed- in terms of trip ends ,per person, trip ends per employee, trip ends per acre; trip ends per dwelling, or trip ends per thousand square feet of floor area. In the case of an office building trip generation is best expressed in terms of trips per employee if the number of employees is known, and otherwise it is best expressed in terms of trips per 1,000 square feet of floor area. Significant research efforts have been made by CalTrans, the Institute of Transportation Engineers, ourselves, the City of New- port Beach, and others to establish the correlation between trips 1 • i p fr Ilw,�ta +CL.i 111/ �t r . Ott^; � �r �k,•. ,� ■• yl�� r fYl �,r� �S4aiaiiiiii r 'A .fir' y' v 1 Y• t °i yet ��i.`•. .t � s J �y�y�y���/�"ail C,_. �Y. ✓�' 1 Figure 2 SITE PLAN a co :i 31 q 19• �� d_�.. � • IJ� i S I e W.c i � II•I•�— a it �Lr•• � A -A lY.l ,es J .a Jv �Fi Ai �O M • ' i ,e+r J.n . ,mi n�,ar A .•� i ,wt Q,UIQQIam `603man and Associates 0 �Z and land use. From this body of information, trip generation rates have been estimated and agreed to by City staff. Trip generation rates are predicated on the assumption that energy costs, the avail- ability of roadway capacity, 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, peak hour inbound and outbound traffic, and 2.5 peak hour inbound and outbound traffic. By multiplying the traffic generation rates times the land usage quantities, the traffic volumes are calculated as shown in Table 1. TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION Traffic distribution is based on determining the directional orienta- tion of traffic, and then assigning that traffic to specific road usage. It is based on the geographical location of residential concentrations, along with commercial, business, and recreational opportunities. Figure 3 exhibits the inbound and outbound traffic distribution. Inbound is not precisely opposite outbound because . of the Bristol Street/Bristol Street North one-way couplet. The traffic distribution shows project traffic being primarily oriented to the access routes to the Industrial Complex; namely, MacArthur, Jamboree, and Bristol receive most of the project traffic. These facilities, , in turn, connect to the freeway system. CRITICAL INTERSECTIONS ANALYZED Eight critical intersections were analyzed as requested by, City staff. Table 2 exhibits the eight intersections, as well as a summary of the One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis. Appendix A contains the work sheets. It can be seen that two intersections exceed the one percent limit, and that ICU Analysis is required under the provisions of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The two intersections are as follows: (1) Bristol Street/Birch Street and (2) Bristol Street North/Birch Street. The purpose of the One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis is to establish whether the project adds a volume that is greater than one percent of a critical intersection' s approach volume. If less than one percent is added to all approaches of all critical intersections, the project is allowed without further analysis. As part of the one percent analysis, regional growth and committed .pro- jects are included. Volume projections are made to a point in time one year after the project completion. This projectes completion date is 1980, and traffic volumes are projected to 1981. Regional traffic has been forecasted in accordance with City procedures, and committed pro- ject traffic includes those' projects listed in Table 3. 2 L 13 Table 1 PROJECT TRAFFIC GENERATION Time Period Trip Generation Trips Generated per 1000 Square (19 , 264 Square Feet) Feet of Floor* Evening Peak Hour Inbound 0.6 12 Outbound 1.7 33 Total 2. 3 45 Peak 2.5 Hours Inbound 1.2 24 Outbound 3. 4 66 Total 4.6 60 Daily Two-Way Total 13 250 * Source: City of Newport Beach Traffic Engineer. 0 y1 Figure 3 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION bl 15% am us 5% % Birch 5% 20% Jamboree 40% Bristol(North) Bristol sx lox sx OUTBOUND t 15 25% 10% Birch 35X 5X Jamboree • 20% Bristol(North) x 40% Bristol I x sx 0 INBOUND �LUiQQiam `J(an�man and vlssoctat¢s I 15 Table 2 ONE PERCENT TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS SUMMARY Project Adds on Critical Intersections Maximum Approach 1. Bristol Street/Birch Street 1. 38%* 2. Bristol Street/Campus Drive 0.26% 3. Bristol Street/Jamboree Road 0.44% 4. Bristol Street North/Birch Street 1.00%* 5. Bristol Street North/Campus Drive 0.70% 6. Bristol Street North/Jamboree Road 0 .09% 7. Jamboree Road/Campus Drive 0.16% 8. MacArthur Boulevard/Campus Drive 0-94% * Intersections equalling or exceeding one percent limit. i Table 3 COMMITTED PROJECTS Project Analysis Date 1. Backbay Office 4- 6-79 2. Orchard Office 4- 6-79 3. North Ford, 30% 4-10-79 4•. Corporate Plaza, Existing plus 30% 4-16-79 5. Newport Place 4-16-79 6. Koll Center Newport, UC plus 30% 4-17-79 7. Aeronutronic Ford, 30% 4-18-79 8. Civic Plaza, 30% 4-18,•79 9. Pacific Mutual Plaza 4-26-79 a INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) ANALYSIS if a project is not allowed under the One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis, the next step required by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance is an UCU Analysis for all critical intersections which received project traffic Volumes greater than one percent of any one approach' s volume in the peak 2.5 hours. The ICU Analysis for the two intersections results in the following ICUs: (1) Bristol Street/Birch Street: ICU = 0.3980, and (2) Bristol Street North/ Birch Street: ICU = 0.8617. ICU is essentially a measure of the proportion of an intersection's total capacity being utilized by the traffic volumes. 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 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. For example, if for north-south traffic the northbound traffic is 1600 vehicles per hour, and the capacity of either direction is 3200 vehicles per hour, then the northbound traffic is critical and requires 1600/3200 or 50 percent of the signal time. If for the east-west traffic 30 percent of the signal time is required, then it can be seen that the ICU is 50 plus 30, or 80 percent. When left turn phases exist, they are incorporated into the analysis. The critical movements are usually the heavy left turn movements and the opposing through movements. 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 1700 vehicles per hour, with nearly all locations showing a capacity greater than 1600 vehicles per hour per lane. This finding is published in the August, 1978 issue of ITE Journal in the article entitled, "Another Look at Signalized Intersect n Capacity" by William Kunzman. For this study, a capacity of 1600 vehicles per . hour per lane is assumed for both through and left turn lanes. 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 less than 10 percent of a cycle, and during peak hour traffic operation the yellow times are nearly completely used. If there are no left turn phases, the left turn vehicles completely use the yellow time. If there are left 3 I I • � ` 1 1� turn phases, the through traffic continues to enter the intersection on the yellow until just a split second before the red. In this study a conservative 0. 10 yellow penalty will be applied. CONCLUSIONS The One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis shows that the project will generate a traffic volume on at least one critical intersection approach that is greater than one percent of the approach' s volume during the peak 2.5 hour period. Thus, an ICU Analysis is required. The following intersections exceeded the one percent limit: (1) Bristol Street/Birch Street and (2) Bristol Street North/Birch Street. The ICU Analysis of the two intersections exceeding the one percent limit indicates that the existing, committed, regional growth, and project traffic volumes cause neither intersection to have an ICU greater than 0.90, and thus the project is allowed under the terms of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The ICU of the two intersections are as follows: (1) Bristol Street/Birch Street: ICU = 0. 3980 and - (2) Bristol Street North/Birch Street: ICU = 0.8617. 4 'V Appendix A one Percent Traffic Volume Analysis Work Sheets s . • 1LI 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Bristol Street/Birch Street (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Approach Existing Peak 2h Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project ' Peak 2y Hour Regional Projects Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Growth Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volu Volume hbound —_ _223 -- 36 259 3 -- southbound 943 -- 74 1017 10 14* Eastbound_[:::2656 35 334 3025 30 10 -- -- -- -- 'es[boundEl -- -- ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2, Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2)1 Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. i DATE: 5/21/79 1' PROJECT: 3701 Birch Office FORM I ZO Analysis Volume Anal 1% Traffic Y Intersection Bristol Street Irvine Avenue-Campus Drive (Existing Traffic Vo umes based on AverageWinter/Spring 1978) Approach Existing Peak 2ti hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 24 Hour Regional Projects Peak 24_Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2y Hour Vole Growth Peak 2k Hour VeluM Voltm Volume Volume Volume Northbound _ _16_0_6 -- 310 1916 19 2 Southbound — 3164 -- 136 3300 33 4 Eastbound 3027 40 834 3901 39 10 esenound -- -- -- -- — Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 24 Hour Traffic Volume Proj Proected Peakect 2h Hourfic is Trafficstimated Volumen.to be greater than 1%Intersection CapacityfUtilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 4 DATE: 5121/79 PROJECT: 3701 Birch office FORM I Z� 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Bristol Street/Jamboree Road (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter/Spring 1978) Approach Existing Peak 21s Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 21, Hour Regional Projects Peek 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Growth Peak 24 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 4996 18 956 597.0 6o 2 , Southbound 2359 9 274 2642 26 -- Eastbound 2778 37 1 392 1 3207 32 14 'es tbound -- — 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater. .than. l% of.Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic 'Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. , { DATE: 5/21/79 PROJECT: 3701 Birch office FORM I • • Y Y 1 ZZ 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Bristol Street North/Birch Street (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Approach 'Existing Peak 21s Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Regional Projects Peak 24 Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2y Hour 1 Volume Growwth Volume4 Hour Volume Volume Volume volrwRorthbound 552 466 1018 10 10* southbound 2120 3220 32 20 Eastbound -- estnound 3053 41 1164 4258 43 •4 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of 'Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: 5/21/79 PROJECT: 3701 Birch Office FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Bristol Street North/Campus Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter Spring 1979) Approach Existing Peak 24 Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 24 Hour Regional Projects Peak 211 Hour Peak 211 Hour Pea 2's Hour Volume Growth Peak 211 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Vol uae Northbound _ 1504 -- 232 1736 17 -- 5outhbaund 3705 -- 168 3873 39 -- Eastbound -- -- •esthound 4790 64 1718 6572 66 46 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Lai Peak 23-2 Hour Traffic Volume Proj Projected O Peake2k Hour.-TrafficsVolumen.ct Trafic is etimated toIntersection.-Capacity..be reater han 1% -Utilization-__ (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: . 5/21/79 PROJECT: 3701 Birch Office FORM I Zy 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Bristol Street North/Jamboree Road (Existing Traffic Volumes base on verage Winter/Spring 1978) Approach Existing Peak.2h Hour Approved Projected it of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Regional Protects Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2$a Hour Volune Growth Peak 24 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volans Volume xorthb0und 5153 19, 1774 6946 69 6 Southbound 2811 10 348 3169 32 2 Eastbound -- -- -- -- •escbound 1162 15 240 1417 14 2 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h, Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of,Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic 'VolumQn. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is, required. , DATE: 5 21/79 . PROJECT: 3701 Birch office FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Jamboree Road/Campus Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Approach Existing Peak 2y Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peek 24 Hour Regional Projects Peak 21S Hour Peek 2is Hour Peek 2y Hour Volume Growth Peak 21s Hour Volume Volume Volume Vol" .Volume i Northbound _345_2 13 1116 4581 46 6 Southbound 3417 13 536 3966 40 4 Eastbound 2042 -- 498 2540 25 ' 4 I -- 9g - 1735 17 -- :estbound 1637 —' i ,. ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2)-2 Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1%-of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1, 1� r I t DATE: 5/21/79 PROJECT: 3701 Birch office FORM I z4 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MacArthur Boulevard/Campus Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter/Spring 1978), Approach Existing Peak 2y Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 24 Hour Regional Projects Peak 24 Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak Zh Hour Volume Growth Peak 2yHour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ' Northbound - 2888 4 1526 4418 44 4 southbound 3129 5 622 3756 38 6 Eastbound f 1693 1 -- 218 1911 19 18 -eschound 2004 -- 376 2380 24 -- Qx Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: 5/21/79 PROJECT: 3701 Birch office FORM 1 Z1 Appendix B ICU Analysis Work Sheets INTERPION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANAL Z,S Intersection Bristol Street/Birch Street (Existing Traffic VOIU�mesBased on Average Winter/spring 8 Movement EXISTING PROPOSED EXIST EXIST REGIONAL COMMITTED PROJECTED PROJECT PROJECT Lanes Cep Lanes Cap PK MR V/C GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ratio VOILM V/C Ratio Vol. Ratio VOL. VOL. w/o Project Vol. NL NT (1) 1600 30 .023 14 .0350 ' 0 .0350 NR 8 4 0 SL (1) 1600 - 66 .0413 1 .0410 7 .0463 ST (2) 3200 285 .089 36 . 1003* 0 . 1003 SR EL 173 82 5 ET (4) 6400 863 169*4 11 85 . 1969* 0 . 1977 1. ER 46 0 WL WT WR YELLNWTIME .1000 . 1000 . 10'0 0 EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .35821 3582 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWN WPRDPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.0 , 39 72 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWN PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 1 . 3980 Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 [� Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvements will be less than or equal to 0.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Description of system improvement: DATE: PROJECT: 3701 Birch office FORM II 1, � ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Z� Intersection Bristol Street North/Birch Street (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on AverageWinter/Spring 978 Movement EXISTING PROPOSED EXIST EXIST REGIONAL COM ITTED PROJECTED PROJECT PROJECT Lanes Cep Lanes Cap PK HR V/C GRONIN PROJECT V/C Ratio Volume VIC Ratio Vol. Ratio VOL. VOL. w/o Protect Vol. NL (1) 1600 36 .022 .0225* 3 .0244* NT (2) 3200 203 .0634 233 . 1363 2 . 1369 NR SL ST (2) 3200 285 .267 53 . 4394* 7 4425* SR 571 497 3 I' EL ' ET ER WL 461 31 WT (4) 6400 1205 20tl 16 550 . 2945* 2 1. 2948* WR 36 1 YELLO4IHE .100 . 1000 1000 EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ,59 1 EXISTING PLUS COlMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH N/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.0 . 8564 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GRONTN PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. . 8617 [] Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 D Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Q Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvements will be less than or equal to 0.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Description of system improvement: DATE: Sp117a _ PROJECT: 3701 Birch Office FORM II ' • r dry; y> �ft'f` JI r� 1, Jj�� / �,r� • �J�f /' rp�f �' 1 . '��`�)J { �:•T-)IJ•���.,�j�!'}r y��f rI•t•�.Y,{�G,�,v �,�r�' �:/a�.Y�j�rf � ,�/ •��t�� 'r �'�''�irf' :rlTtjLfC� ��f' rlf� '^'{ ltt�j{�' }"Iti (}, 1zt � � �• a' t 1 jy t;• q+' ,r l�i(!iC i �rfl6ri{, � Irpri�,f�a ,�'�, ) , 1Yr r��� 'j�yf,f 'tie Nr �� ,1.SX zeJ��• `i�,,t h�)r• �: xi r i,30 i y 9--},� i 1a��y �?^l �C�t�����J1r�i�r'����j�/'r�•i�,�rf��f,!{Ifi'!'rf �t�r`�J i�y�� 1+�`ff lf��",�1�~. � ,r�,�+brl,���', v��r;c 7,��•I,: y�lJJ�, ��;J� I{' J'r���.Jd'f�/7 r J' ��'�t��- T��� ', i i Yr'!yYYr l�".a�� r �'� • ' t � i�' fs '�r l•� r .t,'G „•.�;'�}}�S:�jr�,`•t�����}f�,� •',r/r;,f�J'/frs�•{(�. fl,�tt;� )t°'1fj•�, ( , `•'•Sl - , S rt��✓� � %} r'<`rir�t•�!f}il'lI•"�,,�'r�l��r�I�r�l�}r�f����J/;, 'O' .�r t�'��5 } 3M Birch Office Binding ; Traffic IffImct Analysis sJ i •( Prepared for City of Newport Beach �•• '•j� , tr''Ct '� ' �'"�,firr./"' 'j f+''{• '• y F �` r�v f,�fk�J,� �f� J f �tL,Tr�,fUi. •Y3�1 ,��:/,�Z'T�,SIa/��',,�'� 'Ef ,yr�' t,�iity��t r/�i!r�J• t r �'4Sti/�r/�Y+;) � v �( 'tr Gf; ✓r'r�?!`:`f'Y'r• , �tr i�/.'',�'rj tf': •F•1 y)�tl -r�,� "�'�' �yI�}'. r �r ,w �' �i`/rJr ,�iY7rtlr �i•�'� /,�.r�rt`'(�„d , iy �5tr1; �'�f� rf���f'� J •/J.i ".rY� r✓• (rJt! A{� r ,'ti `}� ?{ J: '4'��'J;�S•ly?��,�},��,n�•+,j��;.r�f•�/r�;c�Y,�1r"• ��,,,,.�;r1'�4;y,�}f Y .�,. .,,�:,►���,�5� .p.y?+ ,t�t,�.••��r�,Irl��lr,�� �. ,��f'lrj �� +,v �� lr r'��+�f' � '?` {r,' t ✓:i` '.��r ,+, � • a. !,�r � r ��, c','•"�JI��,J'!' r''�,r;';�.�. S '� S J�,Cr'. '���' 'man �lUtQpiam "Nun and �Aggoctateg r"2, , DUI r J Transportation Planning*Traffic Engineering t lJE •� l �•i •^ Y,/> %'' •i`.i�rQj!" `rl�r•!�''���j�"�� v',(•`F'( �J`•�'+y�',tJl '�!''+�''',yf.. f �rL� f •�/!jlY ����(,�JJ�l•�, ��`%(�`��`Fj�r j�r%•/�Jw;�i}`lf+J�/.�';,1�;7•(�JI'l rFR!!-'1'7%`�',il�'i'� .�'�� • ,l,,,ry� J!/! �1�y1 �(� •�! ,Yf,J�'�Pt�,''r�+�,J.tY•'�,�)`��I/•��i"F��4����}?Jr�,J Sr/r�,,, ,�S�,,J. !:(} •� ��x•S '�,Jh��{� rylt.Yr•JJ7.r/ •r/'7:•1�•'.�,�1"t,(I,�,��� t .�•r•^,�� r��, '4t'f/•..f.'�a-� '� � �� A '�,� �1�U �1iUiQ�iam CJ<aamao and (Associates Transportation Planning *Traffic Engineering May 21, 1979 Mr. Fred Talarico Community Development Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. Talarico: We are pleased to present this traffic impact analysis of the proposed office building at 3701 Birch Street. The analysis is in accordance with the requirements of the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance. This report contains the (1) One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis and (2) ICU Analysis. We trust that the findings will be of immediate as well as continuing value to the City of Newport Beach. It has been a pleasure to serve your needs on this project. Should you have any questions, or if we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, �W^ILLIAM KUNZMAN AND ASSOCIATES William Kunzman, P.E. 17742 Irvine Blvd., Sue. 201 ■ Tustin, CA 92680 (714) 731-OBB5 �����{ ""�l�}���1�•ry'yf�?'�,f�•'�+7�G�'�•• ��r{'raYi`lJ'./��;Y�t�1 �'' � •� ����� ,��,,lh�`,�'�,� f•� !t`xf�1.{//{'r (./�'l;r/rrf: �!1f};7,+11``�•.�'')f'�/. •,/r ' lj�.,� ��Fi�j F•'f�•alr f '! /`•ff,,� ` ,rJaJ;�1 ri + E {r' �t <.:% lf��• '. tf(f•�a^ � tfs ��•1�. r f�US( ir�Y(,ff f�4rl;'tJ{ljrJ t�'{t'9� �I�.7 r�}� r1��,•���/f,, g;( �i�'Y �r� f�ft f'tf:i, r' ""NJ• ?.� n.Y1�� 3' / �'L.','/S,,�ry• '`rt(�'./r l ��♦�'.�;rlr/�,f� •�I ,���rf �i{} !p. ••• �.�' ! f"J(" (/ f /,�'!/� r y f.rFS f�r��;�.� ", , rr•r•�, ' •�,�.1,�, '' .fir �' Syr ;.yf�,^�, , t�•riS it rltj`1 )`tYn( It,•9 r t/ 7,! 'tiFir�`�� Y �(V,: IN 1 •!rI( 1 ,f � !•[! rr .,r 7 ' / ,r1'•'f .�, �'�•. ✓! � '�tf '',,7 f' nlfr yf it! ,•, . ,, ,,•, •l�-( (/J•'A , YTS �.r✓a'),S�y�' �''• iTI•�I�71{' rt�j�'� J•S,".�1'j',2 �•. . l E •it:�,'�l`�i { •f�l'��i����r 1('t>w!•,�l/`i�•�,l'•I{�„x�f r' '�t, ,� yy��• � r(� ,. 'S� ') : �! �� t ,;�fj.•�r�`yr)'dI�sk JV7flf,t'.lyl ;} 'y ("�^( t'f f}J.� �jl� •(F//t t'•// r� y1 •��1;•Y! rK';rf•�:r'I`�.'+', j�j�('r�ir � •�fr/ f f�! 4 )?� ,7s.t " r`yr�r•'+�$f' f +. ! �� I r^ �}f �j����f�li�.{�I{'�,/�.?�•��i(�� ,�' 1 tj�� r rr `h f!/• "�.i/l:!"�?7 �1 r%( is :•#°f,'!f •4 �tajr��rl�!, �I�,r��;/(tfjlfl-Y.c ry �t!- �rlfrr, I�'��r i . ,,,r•;•?� •�' ,a .' :. r. Sak 7}j+ 3M Birch Office Building+: .r Traffic Impact Analysis f i Prepared for City.of Newport Beach ' 0, 6 + i�rtrjf,7��'H `t'1"C" }i.Yt•t`" .Y,1 .,f �l��f` ore l I r '/ ���� yyr f'r ✓a � r�; :f• 7.) f jtaC w rp{"•`t. t } I. 1�1 .. . , n t ,,r• ��`'rr��+!•�r�).•.`� •j(,�r���� ri+�^� ,�<' . �''y:�1� h�!'f�••;�(' �`�� r','�lf�f?,�` :�' �•���J' ��•/�,••/��i�l�r�'if-!�/ l''• ',�.�,ItY ; 1� t:i '•�( r �" ' �. ,r .' t � +"f,l, r�'rr s�C,,{ ,7: s C t,� �r qUippiam 06n3man and cssoi fates � t j Transportation Planning*Traffic Engineering , h�•, `��� r/• . ..�,i//�!/'�'t')�r f ��r(`�'Y f �}1'�r� l'� t'J . ''iJ7 '`�Y�f�77���1 y .() ' ,,���./f�� t F.� �.�';'•iJr��,'a 1�:�' d�( l,r,�r, '� � � , f�,"j� • tr J J v /rJ., 1rjfrf r{,.rtr !s r.jr•>(�^ rFn 'fc^ +yc�/1 j �•t', t,/ ,��f ri r�r< '•,+`t{ � j�� '. r�j' 1. r• f ,.�, �•f.,1�;1J �•.• �� �' , �1/�J,{�f• , �. .z�`�iLf.�• i r•;i I!/'�J�.r rrr1r �'✓ r�,r r ,f ''/�� ,-/ 7 1•r t►•fJ��lrrf':j'' 'r�1.1/•, r N L1, Y.1.4� ��� �'�I��•t•'' •' '�� ,?�.' I Table of Contents Title Page No. Project. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Traffic Generation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Traffic Distribution. . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Critical Intersections Analyzed. . . . . . 2 Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Appendix A -. One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis Work Sheets Appendix B - ICU Analysis Work Sheets 3701 Birch Office Building Traffic Impact Analysis PROJECT The project is a 19,264 square foot office building to be construc- ted in 1980- and located on the northwest corner of Birch Street and Bristol Street North. Figure 1 shows the project location, and Figure 2 contains the site plan. The plan calls for subter- ranean parking and vehicle access from two driveways on Birch and one driveway on Bristol Street North. Office buildings from a traffic viewpoint generally have pronounced traffic peaks in both the morning and evening when employees arrive and depart, and a minor mid-day peak at noon. During the rest of the work day, there -is minor volumes of traffic coming to and leaving an office building. TRAFFIC GENERATION The traffic generated by a site is determined by multiplying an appropriate trip generation rate by the quantity of land usage. Trip generation rates are expressed in terms of trip ends per person, trip ends per employee, trip ends per acre, trip ends per dwelling, or trip ends per thousand square feet of floor area. In the case of an office building trip generation is best expressed in terms of trips per employee if the number of employees_ is known, and otherwise it is best expressed in terms of trips per 1,000 square feet of floor area. Significant research efforts have been made by CalTrans, the Institute of Transportation Engineers, ourselves, the City of New- port Beach7 -and-others-to establish the- correlation- between—tr-ips - -- 1 Figure 1 VICINITY MAP t t • a 4 � 1 n � y'S OSIF" • -may + r J%/J � n}t. ° :k •►J 14QPIC �J/'a *Project Site F• g , �IUtQQtanl ` ahbtnan and vtssocmtos Figure 2 SITE PLAN f o.CO) ql 4N J •{: •�.• a l@}' �+ of s.mo ��.� 't • ,, 1p 41 ono A u.•• fN 1j - - � I`'•' i53� = I a e fly° • � 'R� 1 ' •� � W•t+ O I , �° , 1 1 i •°, a T� !L F+ ,ai ,n 1 Ft !� <TYle ae 7O nnl0 .4V .5 I . .rE �UItQQmm `3Cungman and �.Aseoetates and land use. From this body of information, trip generation rates have been estimated and agreed to by City staff. Trip generation rates are predicated on the assumption that energy costs, the avail- ability of roadway capacity, 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, peak hour inbound and outbound traffic, and 2.5 peak hour inbound and outbound traffic. By multiplying the traffic generation rates times the land usage quantities, the traffic volumes are calculated as shown in Table 1. TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION Traffic distribution is based on determining the directional orienta- tion of traffic, and then assigning that traffic to specific road usage. It is based on the geographical location of residential concentrations, along with commercial, business, and recreational opportunities. Figure- 3 exhibits the inbound and outbound traffic distribution. Inbound is not precisely opposite outbound because - of the Bristol Street/Bristol Street North one-way couplet. The traffic distribution shows project traffic being primarily oriented to the access routes to the Industrial Complex; namely, MacArthur, Jamboree, and Bristol receive most of the project traffic. These facilities, in turn, connect to the freeway system. CRITICAL INTERSECTIONS ANALYZED Eight critical intersections were analyzed as requested by City staff. Table 2 exhibits the eight intersections, as well as a summary of the One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis. Appendix A contains the work sheets. It can be seen that two intersections exceed the one percent limit, and that ICU Analysis is required under the provisions of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The two intersections are as follows: (1) Bristol Street/Birch Street and (2) Bristol Street North/Birch Street. The purpose of the- One- Percent Traffic -Volume _AnaLysis_ is to establish whether the project adds a volume that is greater than one percent of a critical intersection ' s approach volume. If less than one percent is added-to all approaches of all critical intersections, the project is allowed without further analysis. As part- of the one percent analysis, regional growth and committed pro- jects are included. Volume projections are made to a point in time one year after the project -completion.-. This pr-o-ject_s- completion-date—is 1980, and traffic volumes are projected to 1981. Regional traffic has been--forecasted--in accordance with-City -pr-ocedurees-f -and committed --pro- ject traffic includes those projects listed in Table 3. 2 1 • • Table 1 PROJECT TRAFFIC GENERATION Time Period Trip Generation Trips Generated per 1000 Square (19, 264 Square Feet) Feet of Floor* Evening Peak Hour Inbound 0. 6 12 Outbound 1. 7 33 Total 2. 3 45 Peak 2.5 Hours Inbound 1.2 24 Outbound 3. 4 66 Total 4. 6 60 Daily Two-Way Total 13 250 *, Source: City of Newport Beach Traffic Engineer. Figure 3 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION 25% 15% Cam us 5% 5% Birch 5e 5% 20% 10% Jamboree 40% Bristol(North) Bristol 5% 10% 5% OUTBOUND - 15% 25% 10% Birch 3'5% " - °9rr 5% Jamboree h r 20% Bristol(North) - 0 Bri.s-t•oI - 5% I 10% INBOUND �UiQQfam c3(anaman and Lksouates Table 2 ONE PERCENT TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS SUMMARY Project Adds on Critical Intersections Maximum Approach 1. Bristol Street/Birch Street 1. 38%* 2. Bristol Street/Campus Drive 0 . 26% 3. Bristol Street/Jamboree Road 0 .44% 4. Bristol Street North/Birch Street 1.00%* 5. Bristol Street North/Campus Drive 0 . 70% 6. Bristol Street North/Jamboree Road 0 .09% 7. Jamboree Road/Campus Drive 0 .16% 8. MacArthur Boulevard/Campus Drive 0 .94% * Intersections equalling or exceeding one percent limit. Table 3 COMMITTED PROJECTS Project Analysis Date 1. Backbay Office 4- 6-79 2. Orchard Office 4- 6-79 3. North Ford, 30% 4-10-79 4. Corporate Plaza, Existing plus 30% 4-16-79 5. Newport Place 4-16-79 6. Koll Center Newport, UC plus 30% 4-17-79 7. Aeronutronic Ford, 30% 4-18-79 8. Civic Plaza, 30% 4-18,•79 9. Pacific Mutual Plaza 4-26-79 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) ANALYSIS If a project is not allowed under the One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis, the next step required by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance is an UCU Analysis for all critical intersections which received project traffic volumes greater than one percent of any one approach' s volume in the peak 2. 5 hours. The ICU Analysis for the two intersections results in the following ICUs: (1) Bristol Street/Birch Street: ICU = 0 . 3980, and (2) Bristol Street North/ Birch Street: ICU = 0. 8617. ICU is essentially a measure of the proportion of an intersection' s total capacity being utilized by the traffic volumes. 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 analysis consists of (a) determining the proportion of signal time needed to serve each conflicting movement of traffics (b) summing the times for the movements, and (c) comparing the total time required to the total time available. For example, if for north-south traffic the northbound traffic is 1600 vehicles per hour, and the capacity of either direction is 3200 vehicles per hour, then the northbound traffic is critical and requires 1600/3200 or 50 percent of the signal time. If for the east-west traffic 30 percent of the signal time is required, then it can be seen that the ICU is 50 plus 30 , or 80 percent. When left turn phases exist, they are incorporated into the analysis. The critical movements are usually the heavy left turn movements and the opposing through movements. 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 1700 vehicles per hour, with nearly all locations showing a capacity greater than 1600 vehicles per hour per lane. 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. For this study, a capacity of 1600 vehicles per . hour per lane is assumed. for_both .through -and_ left turn lanes. 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 less than 10 percent of a cycle, and during peak hour traffic operation the yellow times are nearly completely used. If there are no left turn phases, the left turn vehicles completely use the yellow time. If there are left 3 turn phases, the through traffic continues to enter the intersection on the yellow until just a split second before the red. In this study a conservative 0 . 10 yellow penalty will be applied. CONCLUSIONS The One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis shows that the project will generate a traffic volume on at least one critical intersection approach that is greater than one percent of the approach' s volume during the peak 2. 5 hour period. Thus, an ICU Analysis is required. The following intersections exceeded the one percent limit: (1) Bristol Street/Birch Street and (2) Bristol Street North/Birch Street. The ICU Analysis of the two intersections exceeding the one percent limit indicates that the existing, committed, regional growth, and project traffic volumes cause neither-tntersecti:on-to have an ICU greater than 0.90, and thus the project is allowed under the terms of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The ICU of the two intersections are as follows: (1) Bristol Street/Birch Street: -ICU = 0. 3980 and (2) Bristol Street North/Birch Street: ICU = 0.8617. 4 Appendix A One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis Work Sheets • • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Bristol Street/Birch Street (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Approach Existing - Peak 2h Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Regional Projects Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Growth Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 223 -- 36 259 3 -- 5orthbound 943 -- 74 1017 10 14* Eastbound 2656 35 334 3025 30 10 estbound — -- -- -- -- -- -- Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Q Project Traffic is estimated to be.greater than 1%.of_Projected__ . Peak-22 Hour' Traff_i.c_Volumen. --Intersection- Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE• 5/21/79 PROJECT: 3701 Birch Office FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Bristol Street/Irvine Avenue-Campus Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Approach Existing Peak 2$ Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 24 Hour Regional Projects Peak 2y Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2% Hour Volume Growth Peak 24 Hour Volume Volume Volume —_ Volume Volume Northbound 1606 -- 310 1916 19 2 southbound 3164 ' ' -- -13 6 3300- 33 ' ' 4 Eastbound 3027 40 834 3901 39 10 estbound -- -- -- -- -- '-- Q Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than. l% of Projected Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volumen:--Intersection-Capacity Utilization-- (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE- 5121/79 PROJECT: 3701 Birch Office FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Bristol Street/Jamboree Road (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) A roach Existing Peak 2y Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project PP Girection Peak 211 Hour Regional Projects Peak 2y Hour Peak 211 Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Growth Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 4996 18 956 5970 60 2 southbound 2359 9 274 2642 26 -- Eastbound 2778 37 392 3207 32 14 es tbound -- --- Q Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ❑ - Project Traffic is estimated to-be greater_than.l%--of- Rrojected-- - Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE- 5/21/79 PROJECT: 3701 Birch Office _ FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Bristol Street North/Birch Street (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Approach Existing Peak 2�-Hour — Approved- Projected- -- 1% of Projected - Project Direction Peak 211 Hour Regional Projects Peak 24 Hour Peak 2)s Hour Peak 2� Hour Volume Growth Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 552 -- 466 1018 10 10* 5outhbound 2120 -- 1100 3220 32 20 Eastbound -- -- -- estbound 3053 41 1164- - 4258 43 4 - Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume l Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than. 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: 5/21/79 PROJECT: 3701 Birch Office FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Bristol Street North/campus Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1979) Approach Existing Peak 2h Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Regional Projects - Peak 24 Hour --Peak 2h Hour — - Peak 2h Hour - Volume Growth Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 1504 -- 232 1736 17' -- 5outhbound 3705 -- 168 3873 39 -- Eastbound -- -- -' -- estbound 4790 64 1718 6572 66 46 Q Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2Z Hour Traffic Volume 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 21 Hour Traffic. Volumen_ _-Intersection Capacity—Utilizati-on_ _. (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. - DATE: 5/21/79 PROJECT: 3701 Birch Office FORM I i 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Bristol Street North/Jamboree Road (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Approach Existing Peak 2� Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 211 Hour Regional Projects Peak 2k Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Growth Volume Volume Volume. Volume Volume Northbound 5153 19 1774 6946 69 6 southbound 2811 10 348 3169 32 2 Eastbound -- -- -- -- estbound - 1162- - - 15 - -240 --. 1417- - 14 - 2 Q Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project.-Traffic is .estimated_to_be_greater-than,l% of. Projected____ Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: 5/21/79 PROJECT: 3701 Birch Office ice FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Jamboree Road/Campus Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Approach Existing Peak 231 Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Regional Projects Peak 2y Hour Peak 2+i Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Growth Peak 2$ Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 3452 13 1116 4581 46 6 Southbound 3417 13 536 3966 40 4 Eastbound 2042 -- 498 2540 25 ' 4 estbound •1637 - -- 98 — 1735- 17 -- - ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volumeh. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: 5/21/79 PROJECT: 3701 Birch Office FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MacArthur Boulevard/Campus Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Approach Existing Peak 2k Hour Approved r3756 jected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Regional Projects - k 2+1 Hour Peak 2$ Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Growth Peak 2K Hour ume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 2888 4 1526 4418 44 4 southbound 3129 5 622 38 6 Eastbound 1693 -- 218 1911 19 18 •estbound 2004 -- 376 2380 24 -- - x Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project, Traffic is estimated to be greater than. l% of Projected Peak 24. Hour_Traffi.c Volumen._ .Intersection:_Capaci_ty Utilizati.on__ (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE• 5/21/79 PROJECT: 3701 Birch Office FORM I INTERSEC& CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYO- intersection Bristol Street/Birch Street (Existing Traffic Volumes Base on Average inter Spring 1971 Movement EXISTING PROPOSED EXIST EXIST REGIONAL COMMITTED PROJECTED PROJECT PROJECT Lanes Cap Lanes Cap PK MR V/C GROWTH PROJECT VIC Ratio VolL" V/C Ratio Vol. Ratio VOL. VOL. w/o Project Vol. NL NT (1) 1600 30 .10238114 tt.. 0350 0 .0350 NR 8 4 0 SL (1) 1600 66 .0413 1 .0419 7 . 0463 ST (2) 3200 285 .089 36 . 1003* 0 . 1003 ' SR EL 173 82 5 ET (4) 6400 863 85 . 1969* 0 1977) ER 46 0 WL WT WR YELLOWTIME . .1000 . 1000 . 1000 EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.35821 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.0 . 3 9 7 2 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.L.U. [� Projected plus-project traffic I.C.U. will be less-than or equal to 0.90 El Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 �] Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvements will be less than or equal to 0.90 Description of system improvement: DATE.: S/11 /7Q _ PROJECT: 3701 Birch office FORM II INTERSECO CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYS• Intersection Bristol Street North/Birch Street (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average inter Spring 1978 Movement EXISTING PROPOSED EXIST EXIST REGIONAL COMMITTED PROJECTED PROJECT PROJECT Lanes Cap Lanes Cap PK MR V/C GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ratio Volume V/C Ratio Vol. Ratio VOL. VOL. w/o Project Vol. J NL (1) 1600 36 .0225 .0225* 3 . 0244* NT (2) 3200 203 .0634 233 . 1363 2 . 1369 NR SL ST (2) 3200 285 .267 53 . 4394* 7 4425* ;I SR 571 497 3 EL ET ER ` WL 46 31 ` WT (4) 6400 1205 2011 16 550 . 2945* 2 2948* WR 36 1 YELLOwTIME .100 . 1000 10 0 0 I EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ,59 1 1 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W%PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.0 . 8 5 6 4 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.L.U. ' f 0 Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Projected pl-us project traffic I.C.U. with-systems- improvements will be less than or equal to 0.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Description .of system improvement: DATE: 5/71 /7e PROJECT: 3701 Birch Office FORM II CITY CF 70 MEWPOV or I , UtMam "Nungman and uAssomfes Transportation Planning*Traffic Engineering Y / d >e F EXI5TI 1-1r) y < � 4 N TOT>any ,+ L D ° 0 i m A ` FFFFIII 5 W - - 41 c Ra Cl i sn�. - t• 4f.Ta. 7 na 9L pa 2 11=o z28 2 11-> ' v ab fn i'ouii>K w az.cz 4vay � 4e6) :- � •}L'C zz.— sf' sz ____ ems: le z .[es-9-Sa z e .: a �.-p• ;-e+ -E-' ' 4 abL � 11S,�C.�O.�aJa�F '�'✓� �^r' V A s? � 4 so 2BI C P�,..�e. -- �i- L,u��-'r•r __ � _ S'.._ x P_;�. FIR 2z' 14 5t RvRf�.'/ r i 2 9 _ _ _ ___ � N=RTH 6RI fTpL STRi tT 4 4 Y9o[ d- t 1Y ELEJ- LE:+-1 u.W R4/5% SSp4•-.y.2/bU i�hw vGS BUILDING SITE PLAN A DATA � [a♦ !TY ea Ucy�.a.aT HSwcN.CSLf R. F.AaI- i\-4-tb PRRy1aiY Z-Al P'r l-A CCNST 3-2 SIZE T10-E62-828a 'aL'0. 2s/c4y- ls2.<s.r _Svcs>:ee_sw"........e.>i�s2�z•x• THE EM COMPANY P.D.S'.M 92 Sre¢'I FRn�N �•� V-Pg. 14-754 -D fP 5di:9itul sa[rt TGleptpn[)14J9<{•:R • REPORT OF FINDINGS • PROJECT NAME: 3701 Birch Street Building PROJECT LOCATION: 3701 Birch Street FINDINGS Phase I Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 21-, Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Phase II ❑ Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90. Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. El Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90. Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than exist- ing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90. ® Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7--------------- Phase III ❑ Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. with mitigation measure(s) will be less than or equal to 0.90. Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. with mitigation measures(s) will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. REMARKS: %�a�c� ��/o�• ?7-79 Richard Edmonston Traffic Engineer IIIIIIIBERRYMAN & STEPHENSON INC. 1360 S.ANAHEIM BOULEVARD;ANAHEIM,CALIFORNIA 92805•TELEPHONE(714)956-4770 CONSULTANTS TO GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES February 20, 1979 _ CV a RcommunttY DavDept, 1� City of Newport Beach It FEB 261979 Community Development Department OOOF Be ATTN: Mr. Fred Talarico ctY, � Environmental Coordinator 3300 W. Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 REFERENCE: Traffic Impact Analysis 3701 Birch Street Building Phase III Report-Project Impact Mitigation Analysis Gentlemen: In response to your request, we have continued the traffic impact analysis for the 3701 Birch Street Building into Phase III to investigate whether or not there might be measures that would mitigate the potential traffic impacts from the project. As determined from our 1% Traffic Volume and Intersection Capacity Utilization analyses submitted 1/29/79 and 2/5/79 respectively, the following two intersections require this further evaluation: Bristol Street North/Campus Dr. MacArthur Blvd. /Campus Dr. BRISTOL ST, NORTH/CAMPUS DR. Expanded Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Pursuant to your direction, we have expanded upon our original Intersection Capacity Utilization analysis for the Bristol St . North/Campus Dr . intersection. Our new analysis is based upon your updated traffic counts dated 1/11/79 and 1/16/79 . We have also considered traffic volumes from projects to which the City is already committed, and have in-terj-ected the results for similar studies performed for the "Back Bay Office Park" and "Pacific Mutual Plaza" . A summary of the utilization factors derived is presented in Table I . Details of the calculations are included in Analyses A through H (Form II) appended hereto . It should be noted that the intersection configuration has changed from 1978 to 1979 conditions by the addition of a right-turn lane to the southbound approach. TABLE I . SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION FACTORS - BRISTOL ST. NORTH/CAMPUS DRIVE INTERSECTION 3701 BIRCH STREET BUILDING PROJECT Critical Original Project Conditions Movements ICU ICU Analysis A: 1978 Traffic Volumes and Lane Configuration NL,ST,WT 1 . 0016 1. 0052 Analysis B : 1978 Traffic Volumes with 1979 Lane Configuration NL,ST,WT 0 . 8025 0 . 8061 Analysis C: 1/11/79 Traffic Volumes SR,WL 1 .0132 1 . 0144 Analysis D: 1/16/79 Traffic Volumes NL,ST,WL 0 . 9900 0 . 9913 Analysis E: 1/11/79 Plus Committed Traffic Volumes SR,14T 1. 0850 1. 0886 Analysis F : 1/16/79 Plus Committed Traffic Volumes NL,ST,WL 1.0316 1. 0328 Analysis G : 1/11/79 Plus Committed with "Back Bay Office Park" and "Pacific Mutual Plaza" SR,WT 1 . 1280 1 . 1316 Analysis H: 1/16/79 Plus Committed with "Back Bay Office Park" and "Pacific Mutual Plaza" NL,ST,WL 1 . 0641 1 . 0654 City of Newport Beach February 20 , 1979 Page 2 By comparing Analysis A with Analysis B it can be seen that, under 1978 traffic conditions , the addition of the right-turn lane for the southbound approach lowered both "original" and "project" capacity utilization factors to acceptable levels , and consequently, further mitigation measures would not be required. However, if the new traffic counts from either 1/11 or 1/16/79 are used (Analyses C and D) , the utilization factors are all above the 0 ,9000 acceptable upper limit . The primary differences between using the 1/11 and 1/16/79 data are in the critical movements involved, and in the lower utilization factors derived from the 1/16/79 information. The inclusion into the analyses of traffic volumes for committed and anticipated projects indicates that there would be additional adverse impact on the utilization factors (Analyses E through H) . In each case , and using either 1/11 or 1/16/79 traffic volumes , the utilization factors are above the 1 . 0000 theoretical saturation point . There is also a tendency for the through movements to become the more critical ones . Project Impact Mitigation Analysis As stated before, if either the 1/11 or 1/16/79 traffic volumes are used as the data base for analysis of the Bristol Street North/Campus Drive intersection, both the "original" and "project" Intersection Capacity Utilization factors exceed acceptable levels as defined by the City. Therefore , further analysis was undertaken to examf'ne four possible mitigation measures falling within the City's definition of "Traffic System Improvements". In addition, the results of previous mitigation analyses for the "Back Bay Office Park" and the "Pacific Mutual Plaza" were reviewed. The four Traffic System Improvements analyzed for mitigation effect are as follows : (1) Convert the No . 1 westbound through lane to an optional through/left-turn lane . (2) Convert the No . 2 southbound through lane to an optional through/right-turn lane . (3) A combination of the first two . (4) A combination of the first two plus elimination of the northbound left-turn movement and lane , and the addition of a new No , 1 southbound through lane . City of Newport Beach February 20 , 1979 Page 3 The results of these analyses are summarized in Table II . Details of the calculations and movements involved are included in Analyses C11 through H' 4 (Form III) attached to this report. Note that the letter designators for the mitigation analyses (C11 , F' 4 , etc.) correspond to the designators for the capacity utilization analyses (C,F , etc. ) . The review of previous studies indicated that none of the first three mitigation measures analyzed would have a positive effect upon the utilization factors derived from 1/11/79 base data. Analyses C11 , C' 2 , and C' 3 bear this out . It was also indicated by the previous analyses that, of the first three mitigation measures , the first one would have the least negative effect using 1/11/79 data, and might even have a positive effect using 1/16/79 data. This was confirmed in Analyses C11 , C12 , C' 3 , and D' l . Adding in the traffic volumes from committed projects , and continuing to use the less critical 1/16/79 data, the first mitigation measure continues to produce positive effect as shown in Analysis F11 However , including the anticipated traffic volumes from the "Back Bay Office Park" and "Pacific Mutual Plaza" reverses the effect from positive to negative as shown in Analysis H' This reversal with increasing traffic volumes occurs as the Through lane capacity becomes more critical .. It will be noted that, irregardless of traffic volume loading, none of the first three mitigation measures discussed above produce Intersection Capacity Utilization factors below the acceptable 0 . 9000 upper limit . Therefore , a fourth and more radical Traffic System Improvement was analyzed. As shown in Analyses C ' 4 , this fourth mitigation measure produces both a positive effect and an Intersection Capacity Utilization factor below the acceptable upper limit of 0 . 9000 even under 1/11/79 traffic volume conditions . Analyses F ' 4 and H' 4 indicate that the positive effect will hold true for all currently committed and anticipated traffic volumes , but that the utilization factor will rise above the acceptable 0 .9000 upper limit if volumes from the "Back Bay Office Park" and "Pacific Mutual Plaza" are included. In the analysis of the fourth mitigation measure , the traffic volume from the northbound left-turn movement was included with the northbound through movement. This is in fact a simplification, but does not compromise the results of the analyses involved because the northbound movements are not critical with or without the extra volume. TABLE II . SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES BRISTOL STREET NORTH/CAMPUS DRIVE INTERSECTION - 3701 BIRCH STREET BUILDING PROTECT Mitigation Measures Critical Original Project and Conditions Movements ICU(a) ICU(b) Analysis C' 1/11/79 Traffic Volumes (1) Conver #1 WT to (WT + WL) SR, WT 1 . 0132 1 .0459 Analysis C ' 2 : 1/11/79 Traffic Volumes (2) Convert #2 ST to (ST + SR) NL, ST, WL 1 . 0132 1. 1277 Analysis C' 3 : 1/11/79 Traffic Volumes (3) Combination of (1) and (2) above NL, ST, WT 1 .0132 1 .1592 Analysis C ' 4 : 1/11/79 Traffic Volumes (4) Combination of (1) and (2) above plus Eliminate NL and Add New #1 ST SR, WT 1 . 0132 0 . 8746 Analysis D' 1 : 1/16/79 Traffic Volumes See (1) above NL, ST, WT 0 . 9900 0 .9026 Analysis F ' l : 1/16/79 Plus Committed Traffic Volumes See (1) above NL, ST, WT 1 . 0316 1 . 0185 Analysis F' 4 : 1/16/79 Plus Committed Traffic Volumes See (4) above ST, WT 1. 0316 0 . 8891 Analysis H11 : 1/16/79 Plus Committed with "Back Bay Office Park" and "Pacific Mutual Plaza" See (1) above NL , ST, WT 1 . 0641 1 . 0770 Analysis H' 4 : 1/16/79 Plus Committed with "Back Bay Office Park" and "Pacific Mutual Plaza" See (1) above ST , WT 1 . 0641 0 . 9397 (a) without mitigation or project traffic (b) with mitigation City of Newport Beach February 20 , 1979 Page 4 Conclusions 1 . Using the 1978 traffic volume data base with the existing 1979 lane configurations , the "original" and "project" Intersection Capacity Utilization factors for Bristol Street North/Campus Drive are below the 0 . 9000 acceptable upper limit (see Analyse-B) , -' • Consequently, mitigation measures would not be required. 2 . Using either of the 1/11 or 1/16/79 data bases with or without traffic volumes from the committed or anticipated projects , the Intersection Capacity Utilization factors are well above the 0 . 9000 acceptable upper limit, and are near or above the ] 0000 theoretical saturation point (see Analyses C through H) . Therefore , Traffic System Improvements or other mitigation measures would be required. 3 . Considering the 1/11 and 1/16/79 data bases , and looking at the first three Traffic System Improvements , only the first one showed any possible mitigation benefit , but in no case were the Intersection Capacity Utilization factors reduced to an acceptable level (see Analyses C'1 , C' 2 , C ' 3 , D' I , and F' l) : The ,positive effect of the first mitigation measure is lost as traffic volumes are increased (see Analysis H11) . 4 . As shown in Analyses C' 4 , F' 4 , and H' 4 the fourth Traffic System Improvement provides positive benefit in all cases , and acceptable Intersection Capacity Utilization factors below 0 . 9000 in all but the most severe case. However , the elimination of the northbound left-turn movement as required to accomplish this measure should be analyzed in greater depth before any decision regarding implementation is reached. S . Based on the 1/11 and 1/16/79 traffic counts , the intersection appears to be operating at or near its theoretical saturation point. Even with the most radical mitigation measure of those analyzed, the Intersection Capacity Utilization factor will continue to be above the acceptable upper limit if all committed and anticipated projects are allowed to develop as proposed, City of Newport Beach February 20 , 1979 Page 5 MACAR`IHUR BLVD/CAMPUS DRIVE Project Impact Mitigation Analysis This project impact mitigation analysis for the MacArthur Boulevard/Campus Drive intersection is based entirely upon the 1978 traffic volume data originally developed by the City and revised 10/2/78 . As determined from our 2/5/79 analysis , the Intersection Capacity Utilization factors are 0 . 9259 for the existing condition and 0 .9319 with the impact from the 3701 Birch Street Building project. Both are above the acceptable 0 . 9000 upper limit . Details of these capacity utilization calculations are set forth in Analysis X (Form II) appended hereto. Previous studies and reports to the Planning Commission discussed two alternate Traffic System Improvements as mitigation measures for this intersection. Pursuant to your request , we have considered these alternates in our analyses . The alternates may be summarized as follows : (1) Restripe MacArthur Boulevard to add a third through lane in each direction. This alternate would eliminate the exclusive right-turn only lane for southbound traffic, and might require the construction of curbing along the east side of MacArthur Boulevard south of the intersection. (2) Widen and restripe MacArthur Boulevard to add a third through lane , a second left-turn lane , and right-turn lanes, all in each direction. This alternate is part of a California Department of Transportation Federal Aid Urban project scheduled for completion in the Spring of 1980 . This Caltrans project also includes coordination of traffic signals along MacArthur Boulevard. Either of the alternate mitigation measures described above will provide acceptable Intersection Capacity Utilization factors below the 0 . 9000 upper limit. The factor for Alternate (1) is 0 . 8666 . For Alternate (2) it is 0 . 7900 . Details of the calculations and movements involved are included in Analyses X11 and X' 2 (Form III) attached to this report. City of Newport Beach February 20 , 1979 Page 6 Conclusions The traffic impact at the MacArthur Boulevard/Campus Drive intersection from the 3701 Birch Street Building project can be mitigated by either of the Traffic System Improvements analyzed. The first alternate should be considered only if the building project in question is to be occupied prior to completion of improvements planned under the second alternate . SUMMARY The traffic impact from the 3701 Birch Street Building can be mitigated by Traffic System Improvements at the MacArthur Boulevard/Campus Drive intersection. However, the situation is somewhat different for the Bristol Street North/Campus Drive intersection if updated traffic counts are considered. Inasmuch as this intersection has already been improved to its ultimate capacity without additional street widening or the elimination of left-turns , only the most radical mitigation measures will lower the Intersection Capacity Utilization factors to an acceptable level . Such measures would need to be carefully analyzed in light of other possible transportation system improvements such as the effect of improved transit service, continued improvement of alternate arterial routes , and the probable changes in surface street traffic flow patterns to be experienced upon the anticipated completion of the proposed Corona del Mar Freeway. In light of the above , there are four possible options as follows : a) The original 1978 traffic volume data base can be accepted as valid, in which case the Planning Commission may find that the proposed project, including traffic mitigation measures , will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on any "major" , "primary-modified" , or "primary" street (see Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter and Section 15 . 40 . 030 (A) (i) ) . b) If the 1/11/79 traffic volume data base is accepted as valid for the Bristol Street North/Campus Drive intersection, the Planning Commission cannot find as in (a) above unless the relatively radical fourth mitigation measure is approved for that intersection. City of Newport Beach February 20 , 1979 Page 7 c) If the radical fourth mitigation measure is not approved under condition (b) above , the Planning Commission would need to find that the benefits of the project outweigh the anticipated negative impact on the Bristol Street North/ Campus Drive intersection (see Code 15 . 40 . 030 (D) (iii) ) . This would also be true if the traffic volumes from committed and/or anticipated projects are included with the 1/11/79 data base. d) If the 1/16/79 traffic volume data base is accepted as valid for the Bristol Street North/Campus Drive intersection, the Planning Commission may find as in (a) above if either the first or fourth mitigation measures are approved. However, the first mitigation measure will not provide an acceptable capacity utilization factor . The positive effect of the first mitigation measure would remain valid through the addition of committed project traffic volumes , but would reverse itself upon inclusion of other anticipated volumes . The positive effect of the fourth mitigation measure would remain valid for all of the committed and anticipated traffic loads described. Please let us know if we may answer any questions regarding this analysis , or be of assistance in any other way. Respectfully submitted, BERRYMAN AND STEPHENSON, INC. David Pd. K,echas Traffic Engineer DMP:dw attach. INACTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Bristol Street North/Campus Drive 1)NAcys15 A % /978 7;e4FF1C VOLUMES AVr) COND�7110A15 Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio /978 /1778 ` NL 1 1600 81 0 81 . oso6 x , Osob* i NT 2 3200 587 0 587 . 1834 . 1834 NR - - - - - - - SL - ST 2 3200 1241 0 1241 . 5869 ,586,7* SR 637 O 637 EL - - - - - _ ET ER - _ - WL 1 1600 2 323 .2006 20/9 WT 14 6400 /690 23 / 7!3 264 I * ,2677 WR Yellow Time . 1000* , 1000f` Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization (I .C.U. ) /• 00/6 Exist.ing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization ( I .C.U. /, o0 52 +,00 36 ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S-Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 nExisting Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be greater h L_ J g e than 0.90 (vl Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.O. will be greater than existing lI��JI I .C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 nFurther analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION Bristol Street North/Campus Drive PROJECT: zI� $7o/ a19CH ST,eeET oull-�inlc,, FORM 11 ,D�� INTEROTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANAMIS Intersection Bristol Street North/Campus Drive ANA1_y515 B /978 TRAFFIC VO[.UMFs WIT14 ZSA14UAPY 1977 LANE C0NF1CvVR.4T/0.0 Move- Lanes apa- Existing Project Existing Exist. 'Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio / 78 / 78 iNL 1 1600 81 0 81 .0506* .0506 NT 2 3200 587 0 587 1834 •1834 NR - - - - - - IL - - - - - - - I f ST 2 3200 /z41 O 1241 3878 3678 •✓ 1111 SR , / /600 637 O 637 . 398/ . 3981 EL - - - - - - ET - - - - - - ER - - - - - - �� WL 1 1600 321 2 323 Z006 .'20/9 WT 4 6400 /690 2-6 /7/ 3 1 .2641 . 2677 WR Yellow Time . /000* 1/000* Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. O. 802 5 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization (I .C.U. 0.806! ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R-Right, L=Left aExisting Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to 0:90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. n Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 f`l Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing LJ I .C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 l l Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION Bristol Street North/Campus Drive FORM II 2/zo/79 i PROJECT: 370/ F1)ZC14 STREET 'RUIG7>/1V6 j� INTE PRCTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANOSIS Intersection Bristol Street North/Campus Drive AgAzy515 C % / // TiPAFF/G V040,WES AM> COA1D/7-/0A15 Move- Lanes apa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio IL 1 1600 /08 0 /08 . 0675 0675 iNT 2 3200 637 O 637 /99/ , 1991 NR - - - - - _ - SL - - - ��� ST 2 3200 l343 0 /343 . 4197 .4197 SR ! 1600 822. 0 822 5138 , 5138 EL - - - - - - - ET., ER - - - - WL 1 1600 639 2 64) .3994 'Y ,4606 WT 4 6400 2397 23 2420 01 .3745 . 3781 1� WR Yellow Time . /000 , /000* Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I .C.U. Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization (I .C.U. ) 1.0144 +.001z ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N*Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, LvLeft Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. n Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 2� Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.I1. will be greater than existing ��``�� I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 nFurther analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION Bristol Street North/Campus Drive FORM II PROJECT: 3701 S1P,04 55794SE7- 5011-'AlNC-7 ��Zp/ INTEATION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANAOIS Intersection Bristol Street North/Campus Drive ,4NALY515 D : / /6 79 7"RAFF/C ✓0L UM65 AND COND/7/0AJ5 Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr - Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio / /679 ii679 NL 1 1600 /oz 0 /02 . 0638 ,0638'� NT . 2 3200 601 0 60/ le78 1976 NR - - - - - - - SL • - - - - Jlf ST 2 3200 /03¢ o /03¢ 3Z31 , 3231 SR l /600 607 0 607 .3794 . 3794 EL - - - - - - - ET - - - - - - ER . WL 1 1600 9305 2 907 . 5031 . 5044 WT 4 6400 Z305 23 2328 13602 13636 ►� WR 3 Yellow Time IDoO /000 Existing_g Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. 0, 9900 0,99/3 ExistingPlus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization ( I .C.U. +10013 ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N■Northbound, S-Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. nExisting Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.O. will be greater than existing I .C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION Bristol Street North/Campus Drive FORM II II PROJECT: 370/ 81)Z04 5772EBr BU/LWNC3 2120/79 INTFOCTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION A&SIS Intersection__ Bristol Street North/Campus Drive fWALYS15 E i ii 7 T1 '4,=Flc v04U'WE5 AND co jniT/o j5 P/-U5 c0/lM17*IED FIRO: Ec7, go4uMa,5 Move- Lanes Capa- 1 Existing Project Existing Exist.— Project ment city I Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio F7/ //779 e0MM/TTED CO R. 1 NL 1 1600 /O o /08 . 0675 OG75 NT 3200 6 37 O 637 , i 99/ , 191 NR - - 2 9 - - - - ST 2 3200, 1360 O /360 4Z50 , 4Z50 SR I 1600 822. 0 822 5138* , 5138 EL - - - - - - - ET - - - _ ER - - - _ .�.- WL 1 1600 697 2 6917 . 4356 4169 WT 14 6400 go/6 23 3039 1 47/2* . 4748* !� WR•. Yellow Time . /000'" , /000* Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I .C.U. Existing Plus Project Intersection Ca acit Utilization ( I .C.U. ) a 0036 ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N*Northbound, S-Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R-Right, L-Left QExisting Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 C '1 Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. n Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1'/ae o�hrr� ExistingAPlus Project Traffic I.C.I). will be greater than existing I .C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION Bristol Street North/Campus Drive FORM II PROJECT: 3701 131R04 s-MaEr gur4.-PiN6, Z/z% INT#CTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION AOSIS Intersection Bristol Street North/Campus Drive AN44YSIS F / /6 7 TRAFF/C V01-0M6-5 *VP COND/7-/0N5 P4US eOMMiTTED PROTECT ✓OLUMCS Move- Lanes apa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project meat city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio / /6 79 f CONAWTED Comm. � II NT 2 3200 601 o Gaz oi878 878 NR - — - _ - ST 2 3200 /05/ 0 /05/ 3264 , 3284* SR I /boo 607 0 667 .3794 . 3794 EL - - - - - - - ET - - ER - - - _ WL 1 1600 863 2 865 .5394 . 5406 WT 14 6400 2924 23 2947 . 4569 .4605 WR Yellow Time 11000 1000 Exi I stinq Intersection Capa.city Utilization I .C.U, l. 0 31/0 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I .C.U. l,0328 d (_�_ ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) + ,oaz N*Northbound, S-Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I .C.U. l J Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 flus.�=r ExistingAPlus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I .C.U. that -is currently greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION Bristol Street North/Campus Drive FORM II PROJECT: 370/ PIRW STREET BUKa/NG/ 2/ZO/79 I �,-'-.'-" „+-•-_ - ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY Ul ILIZATION ANA�IS , Intersection Bristol Street North/Campus Drive ANALY515 G p/U5 60Mna7-7 �TTBI7VyROTECT✓940/"46S ND ONS PLUS "BACK 3AV oFFic6 PARK"AND "PACIFIC MUTUAL 'PLAZA" Move- anes Capa- Existing Project Existing Ex st. Project meht city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume I Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio i ii 79 1 t ABOVE �ABoVE NL 1 1600 !zo o /20 0750 .0760 I Nl. 2 3200 655 0 655 .2047 .2o47 NA - - - - - - - � �� SL - - - - NM ST 2 3200 1366 0SR 1 /600 B22 OEL - - - -ET -ER -WL 1 1600 734 2 736 ,4589 4600 WT 4 6400 3291 23 5514 . 5/42 .5178 WR ' Yellow Time 11000* , /000* Existing intersection Capacity Utilization I .C.U. /. 12 SO 1. 1316 A - ExistingPlus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I .C.U. + .0036 ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N•Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R-Right, L*Left El Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions T .C.U. n Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 uJ ExistingAPlus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be greater than existing L I .C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 MV LEI Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION Bristol Street North/Campus Drive FORM II 2/z0/79 I PROJECT: W0/ AMnI sMerT ew1-D/NCB �yptf� INTEOCTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION AASIS Intersection Bristol Street North/Campus Drive ANAtY515 // : ICO 7 7RAF-FIC vozl)ME-5 AA)D Co0Dlrl0Ns P4u5 COMMIMT D PROXCICr VOLUMES PLUS "[BACK aAy OFFICE P K" AND "PACIFIC MVTVRL P44zA' Mode- Lanes apa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project merit city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio 1G/79 t ABOVE ABovs NL 1 1600 114 0 114 0713 . 07f3 NT 2 3200 619 0 619 f934 .1934 NR - - - - - - - SL - - - - ST 2 3200 /057 O /057 3303-)( ,3303 X 1111 SR / 1600 607 O 607 .3794 .3794 EL - - - - - - - ET - - - - - - - ER - - - - - - - k, _ 4 " 1 1600 L700 2 902 .5625 * .5638 'k "�— WT 4 6400 3199 23 3Z22 1 ,41798 .5034 WR Yellow Time 1000�f 1000 A Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I .C.U. 1, o641 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization Q .C.U. ) t.0o13 ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 n Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I .C.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 f/Ns o)%or �5t7 ExistinghPlus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing �� I .C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 I^I Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION Bristol Street North/Campus Drive z/2v/79 FORM II i PROJECT; �70/ $/,C'CEl 57R6- -r BWGD/A)C7 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection MacArthur B1v4. Cam us Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes Based Average ,ntLr75pring 1978) ANAIW515 X Revised October 2, 1978 Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. * Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio NL 1 1600 111 0 111 . 0694* . 0694 NT 2 3200 1044 0 1044 . 3491 . 3491 NR 73 0 73 SL 1 1600 56 0 56 . 0350 . 0350 ST 2 3200 1026 3 1029 3206* . 3216 SR 1 1600 _ 201 0 201 . 1256 . 12S6 EL 1 1600 285 8 293 . 1781* . 1831 ET 2 3200 421 2 423 . 1481 . 1488 ER 53 0 53 WL 1 1600 100 0 100 . 0625 . 0625 WT 2 3200 825 0 825 . 2578* . 2S78 WR I N . S . 54 0 54 N . S . N . S . Yellow Time . 10 . 1000 ExistingIntersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. 9259 Existing Plus -Project intersection Capacity Utilization T .C.U. 9319 ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N-Northbound, S-Southbound, E-Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R■Right, L-Left Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I .C.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I .C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 L I Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION MacArthur Blvd./Cameus_Drive -- . . _ . _ _.-.- --_--. _-___. - FORM 1I PROJECT: 370/ 8lRCN 5TIe66-T 60/1-D/.i/4 PROJECT MITIGATION MEASUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION NALYSIS Intersection 8R/3TOL 5T AIoeTg1'C.4 fPUS ANALYS/s Ci I1I1177 TRAFFIC YOLUMES Move- anes Capa- xisting Project xisting xist, roject ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C ** Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio 1NI 1 /600 /OB 0 /08 - . 0675 liNT z 3zo0 637 0 637 • /9q/ NR - - - - y'T z 3z0O /343 0 1343 407 SR /600 8zz 0 8zz 5138 ET ER - - - - - - - WL /.5 2400 639 2 641 . Z671 .�-- WT 3.5 5600 Z397 2.3 24zO . 43z1 f� WR Yellow Time . 1000 Existin Intersection Capacity Utilization I .( .U. /•O/32 Existin Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. 0459 ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N*Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound. T=Through, R=Right, LaLeft +* With Mitigation Measures Project Mitigation Measure Analysis Brief Description: (1) CONVERT '0/ WT TO WT t WL OPT 0A),4z., TURAI LANE, Existing Plus Project Traffic T .C.U. with mitigation measure(s) will ❑ be less than or equal to 0.90 ❑ Exi sting Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. with mitigation measure(s) will 9 be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I .C.U. NO SEUEFIT INTERSECTION: $R/STOL ST. A/0RTfl1 CAMPUS Pg. FORM III z/zo/79 PROJECT: 3701 8/RC14 STREET SU/Gv/A/G PROJECT MITIGATION MEASUR (2) INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection 8R/sTO4. ST. /✓02T/ cAmPus vR. ANALY5/5 C" /////7`7 TegFF/G VOLUME5 ove- anes Capa- xisting Project xisting Exist Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C ** Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio / // 79 9t tNL /08 O /08 0675 IT 2 SZGb 637 O 637 • l99/ NR JI ST 1.5 2400 /343 O 1343 5596 / SR /• 5 2400 822 O 8Z2 .3425 EL - - - - - - ET - - - - - - ER - - - - - - - �_ WL l /600 637 2. 641 . 4006' -- WT 4 6400 2397 23 z420 / ' WR Yellow Time . 1000 Existinj Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. /•0l3 2 Existin Plus Project intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. /'/277 ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) Nallorthbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left *+� With Mitigation Measures Project Mitigation Measure Analysis Brief Description: CON✓ERT 111Z ST TO S-r * 5R oPT/ONAC TURN CANE, Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. .with mitigation measure(s) will be less than or equal to 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. with mitigation measure(s) will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. NO aEAIERT INTERSECTION: $,e13TO1- ST. NoRTiI1 GAMPU5 Dle. FORM III Z/20/79 PROJECT: . 37oi 8iJecfl STREET SU/Gv/n/4 ,6 PROJECT MITIGATION MEASUf (3) INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection 8R15T01- ST. NORTq /C.4,MPV5 2>)e. ANALYS/s C3: //11/79 7R4FCic von umEs ove- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing x�st, roject ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C ** Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio • / N7 � // �9 NLl 1600 /08 0 /08 , 067S 2 3200 637 0 637 /991 NR - - - - - - - ST /, 5 2400 /343 0 1343 .5596 SR /. 5 24o0 8z2 0 ezz . 34z5 EL - - - - - - - ET - - - - - - ER - WL l.5 2400 639 2 641 . 267/ --+-- WT 3.5 5600 2397 23 24zo . 432/ W, Yellow Time /000 Existing Intersection Ca acit Utilization I .C.U. /•0/32 Existin,q Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. 1.1592 ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) Nallorthbound, S-Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, LWLeft ** With Mitigation Measures Project Mitigation Measure Analysis Brief Description: (3) CONV69T #/ WT TO WT + WL OPTION/}/- TURN CANE. CONVaer #2 $T 7-0 sr + 5F_ Existing Plus Project Traffic T .C.U. with mitigation measure(s) will be less than or equal to 0.90 0 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. with mitigation measure(s) will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. N6 $ENEF/T INTERSECTION: Fe/STOL S7 NoRT/! CAMPUS DR. / FORM III z/i0/w PROJECT: 3701 Z/AeCN STREET 2Fu/4P/W , ,�,yp PROJECT MITIGATION MEASURi9 (4) INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection FRIST01- 57 NpRT/I /e'q'WPUS DR. .401- 5/5 Cq /////79 T&RFF/C ✓o/ V wa—s Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project -Existing Exist. Project Ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C ** Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio i s 9 i u 7 NL NT 2 5ZOO 745 0 745 - 2328 Nit IL - - - - - - - St Z.5 4000 /343 0 /345 3358 SR 1.5 240o gzz o a22 3475* EL - - - ER - ,f�._ WL /. 5 2400 639 Z. 641 Z671 �-- Wf 3, 5 5600 z3 97 2 3 2420 4321 R WR Yellow Time /00O Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization T .C.U. 0/32 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity- Utilization I.C.U.. 0, 3746 ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) Nallorthbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, LpLeft ** With Mitigation Measures Project Mitigation Measure Analysis Brief Description: CONVERT �l WT TO WT + WL OPnVA/41- TURN LANE. CONVERT 6XiST. -`* 2 ST TO 5T% SR . ELfM/NRTE NL . ADD New it l 57: r� Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. with mitigation measure(s) will L^J be less than or- equal to 0.90 (� Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. with mitigation measure(s) will L r be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I .C.U. INTERSECTION: Fe/STOL ST. , VOR7WI CAMPUS D/e. FORM III 'L/2O/79 PROJECT: 3701 31eC14 STREET 80/4Pin/47 ,B/,� PROJECT MITIGATION MEASU$ (i) INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS intersection BR/sTo,L $T. n/ORT/V l eomPu5 X�z. ANALYS/S V1 = /1/6179 7-RAFF/G VOLUMES ove- anes Capa- xisting Project xisting xist, roject ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C ** Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio i i6 79 i �6 79 iNL 1 1600 /02 0 /02 D638 2 3700 60l 0 601 - 1878 NR - - - ST Z 32oo /034 0 /034 .3231 SR 1 1600 607 0 607 _ .3794 EL - - - - ET - - - - - - - ER - - ,+�. WL l•5 2400 805 2 907 .3363 WT 3.5 5600 2305 7- 3 2329 , 4157 WR Yellow Time . 1000 Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization C .C.U. 0. 9900 Existin Plus Pro ect Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. 0.90z 6 ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) Nallorthbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, LaLeft ** With Mitigation Measures Project Mitigation Measure Analysis brief Description: �1� CONVcRT #1 WT TO WT t WL OPT/ON/K TweA) LANE. Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. with mitigation measure(s) will be less than or equal to 0.90 L^1 Existing Plus Project Traffic T.C.U. with mitigation measure(s) will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions T .C.U. INTERSECTION: Fc/STOL ST. N0R7,#1 CAMPUS DR. FORM II z/zo/79 PROJECT: 370/ 8/RCN STREET 80/43>/N6 AIVO PROJECT MITIGATION MEASURip (1) INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection $RisTOG. 5T. NORTN 1 cAn1PV5 Pie. ANALY515 F2 1/16/79 7-94AC/4 11OLVIWIF5 PLU$ CD/11/YI/TTED PROSECT VOGtJMES ove- Lanes Capa- Existing Project xisting xist, roject ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C ** Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio 1114.7717 / /G79 NL ova Ofo36 1E O oa I 2 3200 60/ 6 60/ 1878 NR - - - - - - 1 ST .Z::] 3200 1051 0 1051 1 SR 1 1600 607 0 60 3794 EL - - - - - ET - - ER - - - - - Y�` WL l.5 2400 S63 2 865 3"604 WT 3.5 5600 2924 23 2 947 . 5263 WR Yellow Time 1000 Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. /•03/6 Existin Plus Project Intersection Capacily Utilization T.C.U. ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) Nallorthbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L•Left ** With Mitigation Measures Project Mitigation Measure Analysis Brief Description: C(� totiveaT # 1 wT TO WT t WL oPT10AJA1_ T(/RM LAA/E, Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. with mitigation measure(s) will be less than or equal to 0.90 -Plue 046r ExistingAPlus Project Traffic T.C.U. with mitigation measure(s) will be less than or equal to ExistingY onddihtfons I .C.U. INTERSECTION: gel57-01- 5T. MORT1/1 CAMPU5 DR• FORM III 2/zo/79 PROJECT: 5701 VIRCAI STREET 23014D/N4 he PROJECT MITIGATION MEASURip(4) INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection 89l57-01- 57 AlO r/d /C'4'WPV5 DR. f/N/KYS/s F� : ll66179 T,eAFF/c ✓oLAW6.5 4 p4u5 co)"mii-rep PRoTEc7' Vo4uw6E; ove- anes Capa- Existing Project Existing xist. roaect ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C ** Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio NL NT 2 3200 703 O 703 Z/97 i NR - - - - - ✓� t f SL _ $T 5 400 _ 2. 0 /05/ O 1,05/ • 26Z8 '� SR 1. 5 2400 607 0 60 7 25 2 9 EL - - - - - ET - - - - - ER - - - - - - - WL 1. 5 2400 863 2 B65 . 3Go4 WT 3. 5 5600 2924 23 2947 5263 ✓�/ Yellow Time 1000 Existin Intersection Capacity Utilization I .C.U. 0316 Existin Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization T.C.U. 0. 08V ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) Nallorthbound, S-Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left ** With Mitigation Measures Project Mitigation Measure Analysis Brief Description: (4 ) CONVERT 0/ WT To WT i-WL OP770AJ64 TUJ2N LAAIC-. C6MV&-eT ExlST 2 5T Tn 57-+SR . 6-41MIA147S N1— A'DP AIEW F/us 4ll+v-" M Existino Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. with mitigation measure(s) will U�J be less than or equal to 0.90 f--1 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. with mitigation measure(s) will LJ be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I .C.U. INTERSECTION: Fel5TOL 5T. NOR7,41 CAMP05 DR. FORM III 2/20/79 PROJECT: 370/ 8/RCN STREET 80/47>/A1 ,, A PROJECT MITIGATION MEASIO (1) INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection 8K1s7'0L. ST. IORThy /cAmP05 vie. ANs?tPsis Nt: P/0S7co�graD AeO=Z7 VOCOM65 PLUS -9ACK SAY OFF/CE pAgK" AND "PgclFt6 14U7U41_ PLAZA " ove- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing xist, -Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C ** Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio i !G 79 -A A�✓E - ovu 1fi o ii4 o7r 3 „ 2 3zDD 6/9 0 6/9 /93Q SL ST - - - - - - 2 3200 /057 0 /057 3303 SR 1 /600 607 O 607 .3794 EL - - - - ET - - - - - - - ER - - - - - - - _ WL 1.5 Z400 '700 2 902 37513 WT 3.5 5600 3/99 23 3Z22 .5754 WR Yellow Time ExistingIntersection Ca acit Utilization I .C.U. /•o641 Existin Plus Project Intersection Ca acit Utilization I.C.U. 10770 ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) Nallorthbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, LnLeft ** With Mitigation Measures Project Mitigation Measure Analysis Brief Description: (1) LONVERT 'a / WT To wr+wl- OPT1oA)A4 TURN LANE- Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. with mitigation measure(s) will be less than or equal to 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. with mitigation measure(s) will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I .C.U. NO SEUEFrT INTERSECTION: $eISTOL ST. 1V0R7-#1 CAMPUS DR. FORM III z/Zo/79 PROJECT: .970/ 8/RC14 STREET 8V1,4TVA14 AWO PROJECT MITIGATION MEASU (4) INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION Intersection 8915Toz- :sr AIORTff /e'4MPV5 9R. A/JAZYs15 144 : 1116177 TRAFFIC VOcuMes PLUS e-owmi7reD PAe07a-CT voZuAies P4u5 "04CW SAY OFFICE PAW"AW'o "'CXC/F/C N07V/ok PZ'# " -move- anes Capa- Existing Project xisting Exist, roject ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C ** Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio +A900F IL ABOVE 320a 733 O 733 2291 NR - - - - - - 5L - - - - - - - S1 2.5 4000 /057 0 /057 . 2643* SR 1. s 2400 607 0 607 2sz9 EL - - - - ET - - ER - - - - - - - 2s-. WL 1. 5 2400 900 2 170z 3758 r WT 3.5 5600 31,79 23 3ZZ2 . 5754 WR Yellow Time . /000 Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I .C.U. 064� Existin Plus Project Intersection Cap"- Utilization i.C.U. D.9397 ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*} NoNorthbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, LmLeft ** With Mitigation Measures Project Mitigation Measure Analysis Brief Description: (Q) CON✓E7eT #/ WT To WT-h wl- OPrZOn),lG Tv e ou camy&'nr exfsT. # 2 5T r0 sr* SR. E[I MiNATE NG - ADD M0 # / ST. n Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. with mitigation measure(s) will LJ be less than or equal to 0.90 Plus aNalr fvl Existin,g0lus Project Traffic I .C.U. with mitigation measure(s) will X be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I .C.U. INTERSECTION: 8je15T04 5T. N0RT#1 CFMPu5 Pg. FORM III z/Zo/79 PROJECT: ?70/ V/,RCN STREET 8ul�vinrC ,Blt� PROJECT MITIGATION MEASUR Ii�'t'ERSECTION CAPACITY UTILYZATION NALYSIS Intersection MAc AeWOR SZ, /cAMPus D,2. ANA6V/5/5 X1 ' FIR$7- 4CM)WLITE , Move- anes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Pius Project V/C V/C ** Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio } 1 /600 1// 0 /// o6q 4 # I ` 3 4600, //17 0 /J/7 z3z7 NR ST 3 4800 /227 3 /230 zr2 SR 1 EL I moo z85 S 293 /83/ FR z 3200 474 2 476 /08 1 1600 /00 0 /00 , DGZ5 z 3zoo 8z5 0 8z5 1 /6Oo 54 0 54 . 0338 i Yellow Time /000' Existin Intersection Capacity Utilization I .C.U. D. 92 5 9 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I .C.U. 0, 56G6 ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) Nallorthbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left ** With Mitigation Measures Project Mitigation Measure Analysis Brief Description: �l� DELETE S1Z AVD 5T+ 52 h/JD NT+ NR. oxExisting Plus Project Traffic T .C.U. with mitigation measure(s) will n be less than or equal to 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic T.C.U. with mitigation measure(s) will be less than or equal .to Existing Conditions I .C.U. INTERSECTION: MAc 4k'rAuP_ oz. / cmnPoS DIP. FORM III 2/20/79 PROJECT: 3701 81Rc14 STi?B'ET 9VILD/u0; AND e 41 PROJECT MITIGATION MEASUR 9ERSECTION CAPACITY UTTLTZATIOT7 ANALYSIS Intersection N,4c 4e77f0k OZ. C'#NA)5 D•e. AA1,04 /5/9 XZ % 56COAJD 447'LEWAJ,47'=% Move- anes Capa- Existing Project xisting Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C ** Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio 2 3Zoo /// o 111 o347 1111T� t 3 4500 lo44 0 /044 2j75 NR 1 1600 73 0 73 o456) IL 2 3200 56 0 56 . 0175 ST 3 4600 Ioz6 3 /009 z144* SR l /600 7-01 0 20/ IZ56 EL 1600 Z85 8 z93 1831 A - ET 2 3200 474 z 476 l488 Ek k- WL 1 /6co ia0 0 /00 OGzS -+- -- WT Z 3200 8Z5 0 8Z5 Z578 wo / 1600 54 0 54 (. 0338 Yellow Time I000 Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. 0. 9259 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. 0.7900 ICU is sum critical movements , denoted by asterisk (*) ONorthbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left ** With Mitigation Measures Project Mitigation Measure Analysis grief Description: �ZJ Avv 't 3 ST AUD °&3 /JT , ADD *Z 51- A,VD rb Z M1 . AIDD NR 2Existing Plus Project Traffic T .C.U. with mitigation measure(s) will be less than or equal to 0.90 Existing. Plus Project Traffic T.C.U. with mitigation measure(s) will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I .C.U, INTERSECTION: µAc A,eTWvr, 6L• / CA^01)5 De. FORM III z/ZD/79 PROJECT: 370/ 81RC14 5MGGAr Qu/cD1AlC� IIIIIBERRYMAN & STEPHENSON INC. 1360 S.ANAHEIM BOULEVARD,ANAHEIM,CALIFORNIA 92805•TELEPHONE(714)956-4770 CONSULTANTS TO GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES CO$' RECEIVED January 29, 1979 J )EVE nmem 9 Dept JAN3I1979.• t0 NEWppIRl BEACH CALIF, J l Mr . Fred Talarico V, , Environmental Coordinator City of Newport Beach 3300 W. Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92660 SUBJECT: Traffic Impact Analysis The 3701 Birch Street Building Dear Fred: Transmitted herewith are three copies of the subject analysis revised as discussed with Mr. Edmonston last Friday. We trust that this will satisfactorily complete this phase of the study. Very truly yours , BERRYMAN AND STEPHENSON, INC. A/, David M. Plechas Traffic Engineer DMP :dw enc. IIIIIIBERRYMAN & STEPHENSON INC. 1360 S.ANAHEIM BOULEVARD,ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 92805•TELEPHONE(714)956-4770 CONSULTANTS TO GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES February 5, 1979 !� RECEIVED COfORI merit 3 DeVDept Ot FEB 5 1979� '- Mr. Fred Telarico 4 CITY OF Environmental Coordinator Fj NEWPORT BEACH, City of Newport Beach CALIF. S 3300 W. Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92660 SUBJECT: Traffic Impact Analysis and Intersection Capacity Utilization - The 3701 Birch Street Building Dear Mr. Telarico: Transmitted herewith are three copies of the subject analysis revised to include the Intersection Capacity Utilization calculations. Further consideration is indicated for two intersections to determine whether unacceptable traffic impact can be mitigated. Please let us know if you want us to proceed with the additional study. Very truly yours , BER �Y��MAAN/�jAND STEPPHENSON, INC. AA&14�7�y'�= % S David M. Plechas Traffic Engineer DMP: dw enc . ti � RgCE�n YD 3 ! Comm ment TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS DevpePt. THE NEWPORT BIRCH BEACH, CALIFORNIABUILDING Ol 4 WEBS 1979� JANUARY 1979 c�nO8 ACN 6 NPCA41F• S INTRODUCTION ti This report presents the results of a traffic impact analysis for a proposed office building at 3701 Birch Street in the City of Newport Beach, California. The project site is at the north- west corner of Birch Street at Bristol Street North (see Exhibit 1, Vicinity Map) . Vehicular access to the site would be provided by two driveways on Birch Street and one on Bristol Street North (see Exhibit 2 , Site Plan) . TRAFFIC GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION The gross floor area of the proposed office building is 19 ,264 square feet . The predicted increases in traffic volumes attributable to an office building of this size were determined using the generation factors specified by the City of Newport Beach. These increases are summarized for the afternoon peak hour, the afternoon peak 2Z hours , and an average 24 hours in Exhibit 3, Traffic Generation. Regional access to the site is provided by the Newport and San Diego Freeways , and by several major streets . In addition, this analysis assumes completion of the Corona del Mar Freeway west of Campus Drive- Irvine Avenue . The probable regional derivation and assignment to routes for the predicted increases in traffic are as shown in Exhibit 4 , Traffic Distribution. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS The seven intersections identified by the City of Newport Beach for traffic impact analysis are as follows : Bristol Street North at Jamboree Bristol Street North at Birch Street Bristol Street at Birch Street Bristol Street North at Campus Drive- Irvine Avenue Bristol Street at Campus Drive- Irvine Avenue, MacArthur Boulevard at Campus Drive Jamboree Boulevard at Campus Drive -1- The predicted increases in traffic volumes for the proposed building were compared to base data for each approach to these intersections to determine if there would be more than a one- percent impact. The details of these comparisons are shown on the Form I sheets appended to this report. The analysis indicates that the increase in traffic would exceed one-percent of the existing volume at the following intersections : Bristol St North/Birch St Bristol St/Birch St Bristol St North/Campus Dr- Irvine Ave MacArthur Bl/Campus Dr INTBRSBCTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS An Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis was performed for each of the four intersections noted above. The details of these analyses are tabulated in the Form II sheets appended hereto . The ICU' s for existing plus project generated peak-hour traffic volumes will exceed existing ICU' s that are already greater than 0. 90 at the following intersections : Bristol St North/Campus Dr- Irvine Ave MacArthur B1/Campus Dr CONCLUSIONS The proposed project will have an unacceptable impact on traffic conditions at the two intersections noted above . Therefore , further analysis is required to determine whether there might be applicable mitigation measures . -2- 7 :.: } IS!/I tl .r._;1,�.: Ir,';••.�c : � °r 4Aj"In' ♦R4 w� uor �' = i 'Sv ��w'.. Iw lunrltlY/IN •r• �' �YL •"It t? • i, ' •:`�,„ _ nw.n.r�� ,1V' �tL r i cote M a+ram f1 ;,[r •, ."nt•' '' vrlr I �'a In q'�t N. ral .•♦.0 !••r Y CIYV OI COSTA M[!A NAN °+i i S • wl .•n i)�1n7{�fl l'1Tn •fir d wxu r.x � +f r �b p)AV[ mwir ,.�w.•�n.�'• u . r 1 ''�� IPAVGSLw'.elr� ww ii�•{.'rrrW r [ y •wln {l .'•..n..m Ivor w� ' y♦,� � a S 1��L�, �� (f�;>•M1M1 r1lrl ll..r".T' `^:.Ire. CIfpCIC Y r1 E :I . ro rA ...min Ta• �i A >fr /I',yr H �Yr i•.T ��il 1 { ;i y• 'il - MIlAh°• .• R� YM w r " [q111ttt e C .�w.0�•,, •I.g-i u iY 'y wa�wl•'1 n„ ..{I�l l w!j = o .�r •-u urllll a• . � `•i ' : i orr 7dl' 3 : •C+ •E. PAYw F ^r, / OR NGAV I kO4AN A: YL ,w+ • • , YIf[ION .. OPC a� .Q .r nu. ^^,e°IX, •1 O(, uin'ninirix; wrr u .41Y[w II ,f f.w111.' • rL I ' r tl[• [1•M.IY ` X. .rl,♦' J 1 t ♦I[ + � ' y dCaG� 's ' : : ., •. ri 33 Y cov MrrN' tl I[`li irlluldo.°.•e �g,, }T F'\' ' • i i t♦Ao A•tt •ay nt ��Ri r•{wx rmu nxnXr� mvie:x13111 f111R11 R�- q r Ilu ` / �' + ♦ , I • • x �T IIwNx :1 � )� ' M{.�K� � \ . i''r" i I/ . dy w APIINAIOM "n 1 NY 1 /I 4 1• T• _. .i v rl'1�'• I rl , ' 11 \.�1r�\ ;\ f AYRY • •ia�. ,JIN � 1NANd CdMY GNONxaMI I" Of IM•111 }L.' rlo Yuxrl�:xnpintIT{Y NAI M4, ' ' •.[ '�..I d' // r' %' F 4' WJT• ! •°" ! CAMI"Ae ew '°r ,�i �yyV1i y0 �0 ^5 nn wU«nr• i X • I . �,,, . ,f. Sl x� iiir I d��, �l},�' OtO♦•"O♦�M1 `�.�Iot r•urml n.n ` AI ' ; 18,Fri 1 1 iii= i[II e,,. (I O . YI rtP I/,� t\ �•11" / ' .3,N � r , ,.Ew V�•w t^14�'t h.,�i l,M1l n Pd `M^ I' ♦r T « u , a S •°,..•� ' •rwuM�'° to �• •fir y 4 /w , trr ♦ ♦ ��� rT . wy+f I AMC IU uOMi'•� -. L+ !♦A' `t1 r< 4.';a7�.'�t'ITy 1 O 'V/ 1 � 9 . .°.•ny Ax ` [ • ,•w + o t� � oyf'ii t0♦ I � Vy{. : t t`Y A'I' g .` . + , ♦ /,ICJ .. u�a•.. ' r•, rP AAI•\ w [` • \ 5k ' �` ( ..• .�i 'r'S ''^ fA11ie4 r � y4 i ♦Tt !r \ / f10ST ME A ., ,.,r;;r ��,• •� ', . x n ' ' ' • MAI Sm�«'•• +'A ♦ •LJ+t1 r,,^I ��hp � 4 S..e � ('f ' i, r «.,;n ♦♦ , 1•r. t �♦ '• 4 b o. y r=n_� /.o�:�l I)Ifdl�. "1" 1 � ♦ ,: ♦ y y I.•,tr •♦6+ WK FtIYfOYt YT KOLOaKAt XntAY \ y , 1 1 ua 'xn U � O Il t 1 u A+I�♦••` ttt(y a Y✓�•` ' r urrr�e ='NEWPORt' s i ilt, T i BEACH r Ien '6• •+t? •r4 er [�♦:�.•t '� NFWPOAT •r'4n = d �. • 't � • �y1N;;;� °+� JT• AAY A' • •'i:;�)'•e• . Tr l i � uXlr mrrd ,• r ,Yr TI ',. ; I' w1y :' •� •,� _ .w ��•� g 1 [AINOYIIA 11Y (♦ ,•I•'' ^Ni+I r .', F yut f M1• wq,♦<ri�, •.fy rt l,p y I I�+Itlf r/tI, I.I . •''•:�v •tf/ ' w... ':. • y�• ° ' J it + ♦ ♦ �'" 11 i'••°yw �ttil�n [, �,.f��l"w�t^`•Cr •ror•A♦e ' �«•,. rir„r' \ + f ♦k ♦ ••'+ I L(• � t 1,. � ��,''' ,, 1 • • AID I r r1 tt A •• °.'°♦♦♦•"� � '/ 1' •�J�I ;'. rr.r.: �U _ \ems /: n?%r0 ail •,�i•.✓'yL;CL�,.(.. , woa,° � r)a t I ••ran�� VICINITY MAP EXH/8/T / • i f i c EXL5TT QC4 4 f a F ' 1 Y Y n..{•-.ute ..r. i.Y o q 1 0 ' u TFFFFI�Pl m T r 41G 3 J , 2l 1� f.Yf I _ a • ! f14 1 1 L<a ATa .-- J to ces s D:d 2 n- 146 2 11'^ V N aa.rr. 2'cY{ .a "av aS.rC $fei r4tlbi' f+r�.o-o' L .. __ e(�•ri ._ `4 `je'+1 siCiJb LA � YG - ea u s c"' le�!•n•7X<a •. u•-� .ca'.r.• _ 1 i� 12- ` .-. 1 1 YS] 15.{I 4•. L 1 1 I I I I 1 � 12:Z• _ _y � I Tr ' yJcp Wa i zi T+_r •Y,. -rt ... . .. . wtaW�T �� • - i'� •. T... . �L_ 'fAd3TL T -<G 1•V 4t� Tt PI AUYII{L lYi•S r.rY4 l3TOlYr ` ark I E k)( `• 11! fi 7.4' = I 4 •,�` ����+]111 c(T11 fRT IV" STR LfT � � � SGwt=_- NDNE misT..sc 1Y ' EL E`I• N a LL4w f Y•It:f14/5f 4TY►F-j 2�bG II4ww•Acts EUILDINf SITE FLAN i DATA �EN7 TRgGT Ye.aiiGt $294 2 rA.L- n-n-7b PRv�atlT iadL ly.(.A GJf2 II•E L'[T or NW.•.+nT D�.<Y.Cr.I{s. T/a-SaY•2fa --"' •arFmb wcc�• 11 w� at si.-.tnsr=5.1n•.r.wtf. d. THE P.O.S COMPANY u -"" A✓a1a¢• 1td IOgft t PA.Ifs aL-+g r'a t TRAFFIC GENERATION The 3701 Birch Street Building 19, 264 Square Foot Office Building PM Peak Hour PM Peak 2h Hours 24 Hour Inbound Outbound Total 'Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound Total Generation • r Factorl 0. 6 1. 7 1 . 2 3.4 6 . 5 6 . 5 i Trips/1000sf2 Generated Vehicle 12 33 45 23 66 89 125 125 250 Trips i lSource: City of Newport Beach, Traffic Engineering Department 2Trips per 1000 square feet of gross building area. 9 a January 1979 tyj ; y Cu T ?o Pop /5 - P ,. SITE 6 o 30 !0 2 3 5 I� our P d� 81 0oM 41 LEGEND y r P.M. PK.HR.IRIw -A- 2%2 R,e. a w % QEQ/ONF7L O/BTQ/BUT/ON l5 79 TRAFFIC O/STR/BUT/ON � THE 370/ B/RCf,� 37REET BU/LO/Nsd JANUARY 1979 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS THE 3701 BIRCH STREET BUILDING 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL STREET NORTH/JAMBOREE ROAD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter Spring 1978) Existing 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 2k Hour Peak 23� Hour Peak 23� Hour Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Voluim Northbound 5153 52 6 Southbound 2811 281 Eastbound -- Westbound 1162 121 © Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization I .C.U. ) Analysis is required. INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET NORTH/JAMBOREE ROAD • ,_ FORM I PROJECT: JANUARY 1979 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS THE 3701 BIRCH STREET BUILDING 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Bristol Street North/Birch Street (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Exist in 1% of Existing-7— Project I 9 Approach Peak 2;j Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume I Traffic Volunx Northbound 552 6 10 Southbound 2120 21 20 Eastbound -- Westbound 3053 31 S Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume ® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I .C.U. ) Analysis is required. INTERSECTION Bristol Street North/Birch Street FORM I PROJECT: JANUARY 1979 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS THE 3701 BIRCH STREET BUILDING 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Bristol Street/Birch Str (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Existing 1% of Existing Project pproach Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour [Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic VolumE Northbound 223 3 nominal Southbound 943 10 13 Eastbound 2656 27 10 Westbound QProject Traffic is gstimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume 0Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. A INTERSECTION Bra to FORM I PROJECT: JANUARY 1979 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS THE 3701 BIRCH STREET BUILDING 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection E - I(%VINE AVE. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on verage inter/Spring-f97_) Existing 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2� Hour Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volunx Northbound 1504 15 nominal Southbound 3705 37 nominal Eastbound -- - - Westbound 4790 48 50 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing X Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET NORTH/CAMPUS DRIVE - IRVINE AVE. — -- FORM I PROJECT: JANUARY 1979 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS THE 3701 BIRCH STREET BUILDING 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL STREET/CAMLIls DRIVE - _IRVINE AVE. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978 ) Existing 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 21-, Hour Peak 22 Hour Peak 2k Hour Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Northbound 1606 16 1 Southbound 3164 32 3 Eastbound 3027 30 9 Westbound -- -- Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET/CAMPUS DRIVE - IRVINE AVE. FORM I PROJECT: JANUARY 1979 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS THE 3701 BIRCH STREET BUILDING 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MacARTHUR BLVQ/�ANIPUS ORIVE_ (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1971,) Existing 1% of Existing Project [Northbound roach Peak 2k Hour Peak 23k Hour Peak 2� Hour ection Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volumc 2888 29 nominal Southbound 3129 31 6 Eastbound 1693 17 20 Westbound 2004 20 nominal Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume aProject Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. INTERSECTION MacARTHUR BLVD/'CAMPUS DRIVE FORM I PROJECT: JANUARY 1979 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS THE 3701 BIRCH STREET BUILDING 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE BLVD,/CAMPUS DRIVE (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Existing 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 2� Hour Peak 22 Hour Peak 2; Hour Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volumc Northbound 3452 35 7 Southbound 3417 34 4 Eastbound Pn42 9n 3 Westbound nominal Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 23� Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I .C.U. ) Analysis is required. INTERSECTION JAMBOREE BLVD./CAMPUS DRIVE FORM I PROJECT: INACTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION AMSIS Intersection Bristol Street North/Campus Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter Spring 1978) i Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project men city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio NL 1 1600 81 0 81 . 0506* . 0506 NT 2 3200 587 0 587 .1834 . 1834 NR - - - - _ - SL - - - - _ _ ST 2 3200 1241 0 1241 . 5869* . 5869 SR 637 0 6.37 EL - - - - ET - ER WL 1 1600 321 2 323 . 2006 . 2019 WT 4 6400 1660 13 1673 . 2641 . 2677 WR 30 10 40 Yellow Time 1000 . 1000 Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. 1 . 0016 ExistingPlus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I .C.U. E17052 ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S-Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 E Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.11. will be greater than existing I .C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 ® Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION Bristol Street North/Campus Drive _ — — FORM II PROJECT: INTERSPION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection MacArthur Blvd. Cam us Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes Base on verage inter prang 1978) Revised October 2, 1978 JMove- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak -Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio NL 1. 1600 111 0 ill . 0694* . 0694 NT 2 3200 1044' 0 1044 . 3491 . 3491 NR 73 0 73 SL 1 1600 56 0 56 . 0350 . 0350 ST _ 2 3200 1026 3 1029 . 3206* . 3216 SR 1 1600 201 0 201 . 1256 .1256 EL 1 1600 285 8 293 . 1781* . 1831 ET 2 3200 421 2 423 1 . 1481 .1488 ER 53 0 53 WL 1 1600 100 0 100 . 062.5 . 0625 WT 2 3200 825 0 825 . 2578* . 2578 WR 1 N.S . 54 0 54 N. S. N.S. Yellow Time . 10 .1000 Existing Intersection-.Capacity Utilization I.C.U. . 9259 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. . 9319 ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N■Northbound, S=Southbound, E-Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R■Right, L■Left Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 EExisting Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I .C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 DX- Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION_ _ MacArthur Blvd./Campus Drive JFORM II PROJECT: INTEOCTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANARIS Intersection Bristol Street North/Birch Street (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average inter Spring 1978) Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio NL 1 1660 36 3 39 •02* . 0244 NT 2 3200 203 2 205 .06 . 0641 NR - - - - - - - SL - - - - - - - ST_ 2 3200 285 7 292 27* . 2706 SR 571 3 574 EL - - - - ET - - - - - - - ER - - - - - - WL 46 0 46 WT 4 6400 1205 2 1207 .20* . 2014 WR 36 0 36 Yellow Time .10 .1000 Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. 59 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) . 5964 ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left RX Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 EL � Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I .C.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 f—1 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing l_1 I .C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 r1Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION Bristol Street North/Birch Street i PROM CT: INACTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANOSIS Intersection Bristol Street/Birch Street (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Win et Spring 197_) Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio NL - - - - - - NT 1 1600 30 0 30 .02 . 0238 NR 8 0 8 SL 1 1600 66 7 73 .04 . 0456 ST 2 3200 285 0 285 .09* . 0891 SR - - - - - - - EL 173 5 178 ET 4 6400 863 0 863 17* . 1698 ER - - 46 0 46 WL - - - - - - - WT - - - - - - - WR - - - - - - - Yellow Time .10 . 1000 Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I .C.U. .36 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization (I .C.U. ) . 3589 ICU is sum critical moverRents, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left I Al Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I .C.U. El Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 C� Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION Bristol Street/Birch Street - _ _ — --- --- - ------- FORM I I r PROJECT: (I II I) BERRYMAN & STEPHENSON INC. 1360 S.ANAHEIM BOULEVARD,ANAHEIM,CALIFORNIA 92805•TELEPHONE(714)956.4770 CONSULTANTS TO GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES January 12 , 1979 a7 co RECEIVED Community 9 � Devotuflmant City of Newport Beach t ATTN: Mr. Fred Talarico JAN1151979Ph Environmental Coordinator 5;1 CITYGF l� 3300 W. Newport Boulevard %. nsvpczaarG1� Newport Beach, CA 92660 �� p SUBJECT: Traffic Impact Analysis The 3701 Birch Street Building Gentlemen: Transmitted herewith are three copies of the "1% Traffic Volume Analysis" for the proposed office building at 3701 Birch Street. As you will note from the conclusions , Intersection Capacity Utilization Analyses are indicated at four locations . Please advise if you wish for us to proceed with these analyses . Very truly yours , BERRYMAN/SAND STEPHENSON, INC. L�o 4Z4� David M. Plechas Traffic Engineer DMP: dw enc. cc. R. Edmonston i� W RECEIVED Dunity OMO pmenMen t DsUt. r�l TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS JAN1t 1979Z>- `-- THE 3701 BIRCH STREET BUILDING MY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA AIEwFDRT . fir' ACH, JANUARY 1979 a i INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of a traffic impact analysis for a proposed office building at 3701 Birch Street in the City of Newport Beach, California. The project site is at the north- west corner of Birch Street at Bristol Street North (see Exhibit 1, Vicinity Map) . Vehicular access to the site would be provided by two driveways on Birch Street and one on Bristol Street North (see Exhibit 2 , Site Plan) . TRAFFIC GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION The gross floor area of the proposed office building is 19 ,264 square feet . The predicted increases in traffic volumes attributable to an office building of this size were determined using the generation factors specified by the City of Newport Beach . These increases are summarized for the afternoon peak hour, the afternoon peak Z,. hours , and an average 24 hours in Exhibit 3 , Traffic Generation. Regional access to the site is provided by the Newport and San Diego Freeways , and by several major streets . In addition, this analysis assumes completion of the Corona del Mar Freeway west of Campus Drive- Irvine Avenue . The probable regional derivation and assignment to routes for the predicted increases in traffic are as shown in Exhibit 4, Traffic Distribution. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS The seven intersections identified by the City of Newport Beach for traffic impact analysis are as follows : Bristol Street North at Jamboree Bristol Street North at Birch Street Bristol Street at Birch Street Bristol Street North at Campus Drive-Irvine Avenue Bristol Street at Campus Drive- Irvine Avenue MacArthur Boulevard at Campus Drive Jamboree Boulevard at Campus Drive -1- The predicted increases in traffic volumes for the proposed building were compared to base data for each approach to these intersections to determine if there would be more than a one- percent impact. The details of these comparisons are shown on the Form I-1% Traffic Volume Analysis sheets appended to this report. CONCLUSIONS The traffic impact analysis indicates that the increase in traffic attributable to the proposed building would exceed one-percent of the existing volume on the intersection approaches noted below. Therefore, an Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis is required at these locations : EXISTING 1% OF GENERATED 2, HOUR EXISTING PROJECT INTERSECTION APPROACH VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME Bristol St North/Birch St N/bd 552 6 10 . 4 Bristol St/Birch St S/bd 943 10 13 . 2 Bristol St North/Campus W/bd 4790 48 49 . 5 Dr- Irvine Ave MacArthur B1/Campus Dr E/bd 1693 17 19 . 8 - 2- e ruu i nA •0 L' .1 ,:r�•x.' 1,°�� t I- ,y �' ••IrF 4+FA d•nnxu 7• ��.^.: 'pp �'• '��fl�� � Gr.�Y�G � A yy+ + S is i i .F*. w SURILENLR nn � ^ °'°• , �,•i.: 11�.,uuM1"t o°••'mw°..'i���� •f�•,rrr'•Dui ca•rI N S ' I °y nn r t n �"• � r i.r•wS•, 2 x�CI.T�YwOT COSTA Mfll .AM'll i •' .1x pn.N�71✓•f 1 ITr fi wNrr nN !! .," u . • 1 f�'•••��•- tRAViRSr-'t Olf— ` }Otl °7•y,°� .:I't u.nM r� Y [ :, ' .xnt {t "'.....�.�. Ir sruxcmx .oR el r• ./ kw .C:7I'7,• ,,,Il t t:S e° !.J'} •q ru.nt...•. "ro»T�.•. annoro mRronr 7 r, urP P r' `♦ ' �. �1 •' _"ni t t F rA un�� y. Mi iih"••.auun o. .." �� A /a r rr 'Y. • ��` r . w•• b '1.1 t I .Lf c . oxim / � p� '•1 r� '.r r t n,�.".L.e : , G^a. � L :•1 .Jr r; �n5rr rlin• / `'� a•t. ��u' ..��' [ �•�+ �°F F RApll C I .,•y I/ OR N0 I d I N [ N:tl•Ar[ iY: +'F 3 4• K: r aI '�r rwr.••ni"•x �/ • t_��. '.I Lott' t �o r I '' !r •uw.wnurr / • flfilON .OR i G u mi.. x .nrx•' C.T lun / tLCAl OR JJ rrP.� • / r rx f i 0 r RT 1 ` r xMx lx Y +w• f^r ' ; rr f y .Mx rr f .A+p f♦ • �� � � oou ry y� I �' mu•xru ,1 l.pf- K r nir � / X • > + akl M•RN rrNn rwlrnr� Nr f ;i7 r .�1� rmtn mli I°°t���7 r \ • 1� Ir •, • .• ;I `C fl�l�.'. ARIrM+ION vn 1 M 1 'j � '• .��I�I , \ �\ �'A/RY 4R7 �•'rr..., . ^� • " .JIN I I,AMOI fdMY IANONNRMI L4' ' V ♦ V� YIWINANO // +° • ° t RI•- [tIIT IN . i 1 I• N d rM•Aq / °�• (dry t AD • + 1Y -!Iml• . n u At[lu Ou.,'J __ +4 . a ++O j• V„Y�o• •�,• e , ,[y `. �. +r•• h 'r °fir` y , •>b t > •+ °I VV � 00 . @ 't t4 �' l •i,i♦+r5 � f`I '1,r• 'T\ry+M1 °>•,' IR 1 •,` K fAST ME A �, ;; :�•r• P:• r/ •. 1 'a N. ° . IRu j'.'•Gn�n":' '°• � ~i:• f•♦fi.�' ' r ��a•+'�� ,./lo+>� Illttl° -f 1 r `4 � a .xxr +•��+ .. i1r •+' UIIt Ntw101n MT ICK"HAL RO[M' upppo"R PUNT :r I Newrorsr BEACH r 1 rdl[ ,,y jv ' ' n ••, `� � 1 �,I /. , %'1+' r Z ++A, �•a. .� an r� •i>[ ly. .w ruu n 1 I +� • ll� 'ag `J7 RAY i• 9 1 IAwr tuna �•• N '•4• •� / ,• wh' rri "i•,,'I" •�+ •M.r• ; fA1NOrNlA lfl I rr+rf[ .• r. ,:i;,J�•LY'��r7 , %':' �.. dr.... •'Y•�• �•,: •,, � 1>ti / '°I+ + '+•'• r'• '. .i C•S r+F :�s '�' �: 3 . S err x \ A+ ii + •'�, '� n r, Sp'7r,r e o f..��:: �.i-'Pf °e. nw+ °u•° � �„'rrr .\I r *° ++ + ''r ar �.aP o+.i P�` ��: ' r, ��,j n^ •. �.(^{��kn L ''Cf;;' r.. rr,.ran.,_ 1 ryi V f fie' +°.�': , °ref+• Orl •�L.:✓�,�..1.'C'•.� v.u. °m.w.n � � + VICINITY MAP EXHIBIT / L • lY - d - 1 • S .r G T - EXI9TT 0(34 Ycr ct sir....,> ♦G-,{>� i O r IZ. i r T+•L a_ at•l•Let. Y• GY•-`f � � ° � a • _ J 0 ' � fO r FFFFPr:lFFF+F44:LL - ir js* � � �1ew¢f •• -ti- l'y 1 >.� i I J - r LaG•.L a__ IN � ' 1•iJ' /j o' !G � as m� 5•yd 2 ,1= r°O 2 � FT 1ro � - "-L 4tti ♦.1eb)-a u. L•f• •— l/ { � L' In Stet•,-L•ll YO \L� }ILG'•4� •~. � Y+•• .- o' /\ I Yl-(•� rLL.Irl-r : _ •W�LR VIr•Y -L_� . ^�_� 'T" - •\ � ,I ' � 50OJ TC fl //.\ �t-<G Y.Y Ct� •fYPI }vY^,LIL RT�<I\IYG t3T Sao ` 1 J + 111— � r- '�R- :T? �' .:a�1� i_. � .��. � y. tom- , T-- � s♦..L a � C L• ve A 2S' 3d T 2 v oRTM ■F,tY.I SrR{sT 1` SCALe - NONE •ELtY. eaL.G�•134 lY N a Lr.4 L( LLY'ft4/tt 4 •ufLetYO SITE PLAN i DATA TFI.CT YO.YiiO1 -�� �4nI G ITV o} r1c-L.0 uT Br.•.G.L C}LVT. •rlN.- 1\-114b pRvjltLT T•,Nt lq.(.A Gopt II•G T,PS<i•3264 e+..e.+c:AS•<cs--z>faer• »LG�sr. ,iCa ).L - sescv_-sv\r•••.l aeY .. :(ME'6QI�ji COMPANY V t I.:Y IYI\L FX.y A<wnr-t3e:0 1ftu d 92714 I( TRAFFIC GENERATION The 3701 Birch Street Building 19 , 264 Square Foot Office Building PM Peak Hour PM Peak 22 Hours 24 Hour Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound Total Generation • Factorl 0 . 6 . 1 . 7 1 . 2 3 . 4 6 . 5 6 . 5 Trips/1000sf2 Generated Vehicle 12 33 45 23 66 89 125 125 250 Trigs 1Source: City of Newport Beach, Traffic Engineering Department 2Trips per 1000 square feet of gross building area. • January 1979 x Z y cu F �il•� y�V o��� 4 zo oP 0 3 u � .o �� \\\a .AQ 34• tea• �o y�� 1 00 s.a//sa 30 1ti �3 P /0 37.s our (�19 1� 3 43 '�• a ' p{�• 5 a� r.2 2p h o c P J� QS cpM y p e- 5P eQsrt Z/H/ LEGEND PK. 2%2 HR. O �w w•�" RED/ON.9L D/BTR/BUT/ON ;WA,o F/C O/STR/BL/T/ON THE 990/ B/RCH d7REET BU/LO/N�i' • JANUARY 1979 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS THE 3701 BIRCH STREET BUILDING 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL STREET NORTH/JAMBOREE ROAD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/spring 1978) Existing 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 2J1 Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2� Hour Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Northbound 5153 52 5 . 6 Southboun 28 0 . 6 Eastbound -- -- estbound 11r9 191 . 2 t"v1 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing LJ Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing El Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. / fF INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET NORTH/JAMBOREE ROAD FORM I PROJECT: JANUARY 1979 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS THE 3701 BIRCH STREET BUILDING 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Bristol Street North/Birch Stre (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1976) :Existin:g 1% of Existing Project ea Direction Trroach afe Traffic Volume Traffic Voluffw Northbound 552 6 10 . 4 Southbound 2120 21 •19 . 8 Eastbound "" estbound 3053 31 1 4 . 6 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume ® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. INTERSECTION Bristol Street North/Birch Street FORM I PROJECT: JANUARY 1979 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS THE 3701 BIRCH STREET BUILDING 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Bristol Street Birch Street (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter Spring 1978) Existing 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volunm Northbound 223 3 nominal Southbound 943 10 13 . 2 Eastbound 2656 27 10 .4 Westbound -- Project Traffic is gstimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume 1:nProject Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing 1 Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. F tf INTERSECTION Bristol -Street/Birch tol -.-- FORM I PROJECT: JANUARY 1979 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS THE 3701 BIRCH STREET BUILDING 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection VE - II%VINE AVE. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on verage inter/Spring-197_) Existing 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 2k Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volumc Northbound 1504 15 nominal Southbound 3705 37 nominal Eastbound - estbound 4790 48 49 . 5 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing X Peak 2�2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. .a INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET NORTH/CAMPUS DRIVE - IRVINE AVE. y-- FORM I PROJECT: JANUARY 1979 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS THE 3701 BIRCH STREET BUILDING 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL STREETlCAMPUS DRIVE - IRVINE AVE. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 197$ ) Existing 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Northbound 1606 16 1 . 2 Southbound 3164 32 3 . 3 Eastbound 3027 30 9 . 2 estbound -- -- aProject Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET/CAMPUS DRIVE - IRVINE AVE. FORM I PROJECT: 0 JANUARY 1979 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS THE 3701 BIRCH STREET BUILDING 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection (Existing Traffic Volumes based on verage Winter/Spring 19k) Existing 1% of Existing Project pproach Peak 2; Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2k Hour Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volumc Northbound 2888 29 nominal Southbound 3129 31 S 8 Eastbound 1693 17 19 . 8 estbound 1 2004 20 nominal Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 2;j Hour Traffic Volume 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 2�1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. e F` INTERSECTION MacARTHUR BLVD/'CAMPUS DRIVE FORM I PROJECT: JANUARY 1979 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS THE 3701 BIRCH STREET BUILDING 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE BLVD./CAMPUS DRIVE (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 197B) Existing 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volu Northbound 3452 35 6 . 6 Southbound 3417 34 3 . 5 Eastbound 2042 9n . 3 Westbound nominal Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. INTERSECTION JAMBOREE BLVD./CAMPUS DRIVE �..___. FORM I PROJECT: I� August. 16, 1979 I.\':VOVUIVE M S1 [ TA:A7S w 1\'C0RPUFZ.FITED / y Mr. William Laycock Department of Community Deve opm nt �? . City of Newport Beach 11 3300 Newport Boulevard `III Newport Beach,.` California 9 Dear Mr. Laycock. This letter is in confirmati8j our discussion earlier this month regarding the developine� the northwest corner of the intersection of Birch and BrIllin the city of Newport Beach (the 3701 Birch Company develo4pm}o t) . By way of review, the propertzrquestion includes Lot 58 of Tract .3201 °and a strip- of prgpest approximately 20 .feet wide, which was included with Lot 58iIn made a part of the entire parcel by a parcel map procec rel' lR.S.T. 8512 Resubdivision No. 548,' Book 104 , Page. 37 "o ,p4�� el Maps of Orange County) , The parcel map was prepared in' 3aly of '1977 and results in 'a combining of a portion of Lot'1S9 pi h Lot 58 of Tract 3201. The resulting .parcel is 119. 994e t wide and 250. 02 `feet deep. At this time, _there is an offsiNe parking agreement between. the *3701 Birch 'Companyand th �d ers of Lot 57, Tract 3201 , the parcel immediately ad}ace(n1 and contiguous. to the north of the property which w�� e developed by the._ 3701 Birch Company, The existing �af_4rIte parking agreement pro- vides,that the owners of Lot �5.7 ,��ract 3201 will have access to 28 parking spaces on Lot 5A1 �ad further., that prior to. the expiration of the parking easdment, the parties will negotiate and enter into "a lord t rm offsite parking agree- ment based upon a site .plan �ppro ed by the City of Newport Beach for the .development of heyproperty owned by the 3701 Birch Company: 374 0 camlx c_ drire neupoi r heoch, r.!iforniu .).?;60 - (714.) 979 3282 (213) 72 4.0234 I Mr. 'William Laycock Department of Community Development City of ,Newport Beach N" August 16 , 1979 Page Two In the action taken by the Glib of Newport Beach at their Planning Commission on June ; 'i 79, the Staff Report pre- pared by Mr.- Fred Talarico, Env onmental Coordinator, indicated that a resubdivision-j*ould be required to adjust : the lot line between Parcel !`2fl J�,S.T. 8512 Resubdivision No. 548 , Book 104, Page '37) and Lo 57 of Tract 3201. Apparently, Mr. Talarico:'s conhlusion tharesubdivision would be required was based upon correspq dence and documentation in the City of Newport Bea 'I indicating that it was the intent of the parties to lease t:e land currently owned by the 3701 Birch Company, whichiw old be used for parking to: the current owners of Lot. 57,I T �ct 3201r As you will recall, during I iscussion we explored the alternative means of satisf i- he -City's requirements and providing the required parking ppaces for Lot 57. As you will recall, you discussed tk}e m$tter with Mr. Hewicker, and it was determined that if they la d were .to be leased that a resubdivision of Parcel 2 w ulc le required. HoweVer�.rl if the use of the 'land or,: in fa t . the parking spaces, were. ;to be leased, as is the intent h,� a resubdivision would not be required. I Please be advised that it ikJ,h- intent of the owners of the 3701 Birch Company to ken ego ia, e the existing interim 'off- street parking agreement su6h'Ith t the 28. parking spaces are provided: and those parking es would be leased on a long- term basis by the owners of I L tj57 , Tract 3201. The structure of the offsite. parking agreem2rit)would be set up in such` a manner that the agreement .s r" d:' changes in ownership of either parcel such that the�dL would have adequate assur- ances that the additional 2� pa king 'spaces for Lot 57, . Tract. :3201 continued to be p�p�: ed, as it is believed this is the purpose and intent O PM'&City of Newport Beach with d U Mr. William Laycock Department of Community Development City of Newport Beach August 16, 1979 Page Three �Jj regard to insuring that the parking requirements for Lot :571 Tract: 3201 are adequately prlov'ed for in the future. As . I indicated to you during bu� Telephone conversation on August :16 , 1979, I am confir in /the above discussion and our intended approach 'so that. al� p ties can proceed accordingly. In accordance with your regde' t,, �I have asked Mr. John Wells of John E. We1.ls. and Associrtt if I.A. to alter their site" plan to include the 19.99 :fe�e� 'PIA the parking spaces, which, will be provided fof Lot s57, Ir c1t. .3201 '(the property at 3723 Birch Street) . Il �L After you have had an opportu ' ty to review- this correspondence, should you find anything i:nco s !s" ent with our telephone 'con versation or should you see 'y ifficulties in the manner in which we are: proceeding, pled-a e �crntact' me -'at your earliest convenience:' I 'have. enclosed a) 'carbon copy of this letter so that you can review :the matte -With the plan checker and pro- vide him a copy of the corr�s o, dence so that when the revised plot plan is :submitted he Will e aware of the manner in 'which we are proceeding and that a ^ e ubdivision of the 'property will not be-required because the. useof the land (parking spaces) will be 'leased, and the lessee ` of the master lease from .The Irvine :Company will remain th ' ame and in the name ;of the 3701 Birch Company. Thank you for your cooperati,on as d I trust .that this satis factorily takes 'care of thelp rK'ihzg requirements as far as the resubdivision of the property. V. i i Very truly yours, J rr � INNOVATIVE CONSULTANTS INC LPd,ATED Robert C. Thomas j RCT:sm Enclosure nr cc: Mr. John E. Well's, A.I.A.` cc: Mr. Ray Pickens � i ® CLAYTON, CLAYTON & CO. 2909 S. HALLADAY, SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92705 • 714 545.9461 �CP,1 Naming Oppollu010p May 25, 1979 Paul L. Balalis, Secretary Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach,' California 92663 Dear Mr. Balalis & Planning Commission: Clayton, Clayton & Company are owners of the building directly West of the proposed office building at 3701 Birch Street. We would like to inform you that we are in favor of development of this site and feel that the new office building would not create any burden on existing streets in the area, primarily due to its proximity to the Corona del Mar Freeway. We feel the city should look favorably on the develop- ment request in that it would eliminate an eyesore; create new jobs; increase city revenues; and be an asset to the community. Yours truly, Nick E. Clayton Vice Presiden nec/att ,� � C R=C a, JUiI-"�• •11S19��"0 ��i\� CAUF. ��� REPORT OF FINDINGS , PROJECT NAME: 3701 BIRCH OFFICE BUILDING PROJECT LOCATION: Northwest corner of Birch Street and Bristol Street North FINDINGS Phase I Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Fx-x Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Phase II XX Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90. Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. ❑ Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90. Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than exist- ing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90. Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7--------------- Phase III Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. with mitigation measure(s) El will be less than or equal to 0.90. Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. with mitigation measures(s) will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. REMARKS: Richar Edmonston Traffic Engineer CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW REQUEST Date May 22, 1979 Lt-IiADVA/NICE PLANNING DIVISION PgPLANS ATTACHED ( PLEASE RETURN) OPUB C WORKS DEP ARTMENT PARTMENT &f�"FFIC ENGINEER []PLANS ON FILE IN ZONING AND []FIRE DEPARTMENT ORDINANCE ADMINISTRATION QPLAN REVIEW DIVISION DIVISION CIPARKS & RECREATION ❑POLICE DEPARTMENT [] MARINE SAFETY ❑GENERAL SERVICES APPLICATION OF The 3701 Birch Company FOR A []VARIANCE []USE PERMIT ❑RESUBDIVISION ) 'N7<!.1(gTX X Traffic Study ON A REQUEST TO consider a Traffic Study for a proposed office building containing 19,264_sq.ft. prepared in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code (Traffic Phasing Ordinance) and City Policy S-1 (Administrative Procedures- for Implementing the Traffic Phasing Ordinance) . ON LOT BLOCK TRACT ADDRESS 3701 Birch Street, Newport Beach REPORT REQUESTED BY 5/25/79 COMMISSION REVIEW 6/7/79 COMMENTS SIGNATURE DATE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW REQUEST Date 141A � l 1j 1 LIADVANCE PLANNING DIVISION PLANS ATTACHED ( PLEASE RETURN) (PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 1-�.TRAFFIC ENGINEER (j,� �-4 I , QpLANS ON FILE IN ZONING AND 13FIRE DEPARTMENT ORDINANCE ADMINISTRATION []PLAN REVIEW DIVISION DIVISION [[]PARKS & RECREATION ❑POLICE DEPARTMENT [] MARINE SAFETY ❑GENERAL SERVICES APPLICATION OF ` &c 370� )Z\cc�n Cbr"ttfa FOR A []VARIANCE []USE PERMIT❑ [] RESUBDIVISION o (. r—hoz \fgFplC 5:TVA4n ON A REQUEST TO [au��dcr c� `Crctp �ic 5 Fob Pr co uar oICL N 13ui�r��,^ Cy�%W%t. , l9 2b� �a �rcv�ar rA . N t�GtorC�Awlcc, w� n —1--^ C.S��wrcc' 15 �0 o.F t�•,c C,.t;., aF oc'r '6c� �tivi«�� Ga�� �rr�t=t-cc, I V�s�ticy�r��wGnrc 1 C1lrq �O��W S � � �1'PM�N�sTCC/TwL ,PrO6ccS.wcs �( �Mp�G MCWS'�N�.• �+..0�fG FFIC p{�Qytl r�-,, OfC�.IN0. ON LOT O U BLOCK --TRACT ADDRESS :1701 Gtc L, REPORT REQUESTED BY COMMISSION REVIEW COMMENTS SIGNATURE DATE' CITY OF NEIdPORT BEACH DEPA EDIT OF CO3%;;�UitITY DcVELOPi:EP1T PLAN REVIEtI REQUEST �h Da to February 27, 1979 1 7jzeq ]ADVAiICE PLANNING DIVISIONI ]x PLANS ATTACHED (PLEASE' RETUP;P ' ]PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT I STRAFFIC ENGINEER, ]PLANS .ON FILE IN ZONING AND ] FIP,E DEPARTMENT ORDINANCE ADMINISTRATION CfPLAN REVIEW DIVISION DIVISION EIPARKS & RECREATION OPOLICE DEPARTMENT ❑ MARINE SAFETY ]GENERAL SERVICES APPLICATION OF The 37bl Birch Company f FOR A ]VARIANCE OUSE PEP.tdIT ❑PESUBDIVISIO.N []T* wX% Traffic -Study ON A REQUEST TO ''consider a Traffic Study for a proposed office 'building• containing 19;264 square feet prepared in accordance with Chapter 15..40 of.the City%of 'Newport Beach. Municipal Code (Traffic Phasing Ordinance) .. . ON LOT BLOCK TRACT ADDRESS 3701 Birch Street, Newport Beach P.EPO'RT REQUESTED BY 3/8/79 COMMISSION REVIEW 3/22/79 COMMENTS SIGNATURE DATE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW REQUEST Date May 22, 1979 [,ADVANCE PLANNING DIVISION OPLANS ATTACHED (PLEASE RETURN) ❑PUB C WORKS DEPA MENT AFFIC ENGINEER �J ,; []PLANS ON FILE IN ZONING AND ❑ FIRE DEPARTMENT FF ORDINANCE ADMINISTRATION []PLAN REVIEW DIVISION DIVISION EIPARKS & RECREATION ❑POLICE DEPARTMENT [] MARINE SAFETY 0-GENERAL SERVICES APPLICATION OF The 3701 Birch Company FOR A []VARIANCE []USE PERMIT ❑RESUBDIVISION X gTX7M( N Traffic Study ON A REQUEST TO consider a Traffic Study for a proposed office building containing 19,264 sq.ft. prepared in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the City' of Newport Beach Municipal Code (Traffic Phasing Ordinance) and City Policy S-1 (Administrative Procedures for Implementing the Traffic Phasing Ordinance) . ON LOT BLOCK TRACT ADDRESS 3701 Birch Street, Newport Beach REPORT REQUESTED BY 5/25/79 COMMISSION REVIEW 6/7/79 COMMENTS r� Rec��vu 0r o.J:Lo�vt w' 19 1 M p1tY�gEpCN, 4 SIGNATURE DATE ,\� S CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW REQUEST Date May 22, 1979 UADVANCE PLANNING DIVISION jnPLANS ATTACHED ( PLEASE RETURN) QPUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ❑TRAFFIC ENGINEER QpLANS ON FILE IN ZONING AND [] FIRE DEPARTMENT ORDINANCE ADMINISTRATION (JPLAN REVIEW DIVISION DIVISION QPARKS & RECREATION ❑ POLICE DEPARTMENT [] MARINE SAFETY D GENERAL SERVICES APPLICATION OF The 3701 Birch Company FOR A QVARIANCE []USE PERMIT ❑RESUBDIVISION X (q(gTx* dg Traffic Study ON A REQUEST TO consider a Traffic Study for a proposed office building containing 19,264 sq.ft. prepared in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code (Traffic Phasing Ordinance) and City Policy S-1 (Administrative Procedures for Implementing the Traffic Phasing Ordinance). ON LOT BLOCK TRACT ADDRESS 3701 Birch Street, Newport Beach REPORT REQUESTED BY 5/25/79 COMMISSION REVIEW 6/7/79 COMMENTS SIGNATURE DATE TY OF NEWPORT BEACH • DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW REQUEST T-A Date February 27, 1979- 1:1 ka IA _ LIADVANCE PLANNING DIVISION @PLANS ATTACHED (PLEASE RETUP Al • CIPUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT nl, ®TRAFFIC ENGINEER QPLArfS .ON FILE IN ZONING AND [] FIRE DEPARTMENT ORDINANCE ADMINISTRATION QPLAN REVIEW DIVISION DIVISION QPARKS & RECREATION [(POLICE, DEPARTMENT ❑ MARINE SAFETY DGENERAL SERVICES APPLICATION OF , The 37bl Birch Company FOR A [[VARIANCE CjUSE PEP.MIT QRESUBDIVISION ®-ffift XXAP 'Traffic -Study ' ON A REQUEST TO -consider a Traffic Study for a proposed office building• containing 19;264 square feet prepared in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of.the City%of Newport Beach. Municipal ' Code (Traffic Phasing Ordinance) .. Ott LOT " BLOCK TRACT ADDRESS 3701 Birch Street, Newport Beach P,EPU'RT REQUESTED BY 3/8/79 COMMISSION REVIEW 3/22/79 COMMENTS SIGHATUP.E DATE rye 0 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice .is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of The 3701 Birch Company for a ❑ variance ❑ Use Permit ❑ Resubdivision ❑X Traffic Study on property located .at 3701 Bi'rch •Street, Newport Beach to {:a4=ma=t consider a Traffic" Study for a proposed office building containing 19,264 sq.ft. prepared in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code (Traffic Phasing Ordinance) and City Policy S-1 (Administrative Procedures for Implementing the Traffic Phasing Ordinance) . 'Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the 7th day of June 19 79 at the hour ' 70 of4W P .M. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall , at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon . PAUL L . BALALIS , Secretary Planning Commission City of Newport Beach PUBLICATION DATE : Peceived for Pub . By Note : The expense of this notice is paid from a filing fee collected_ from the applicant . et • • NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of The 3701 Birch Company for a ❑ variance ❑ Use Permit ❑ Resubdivision © � 6X► (Xl1CX�d(ff Traffic Stud_y on property located at 3701 Birch Street, Newport Beach to putt consider a Traffic Study for a proposed office building containing 19,264 square feet prepared in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code (Traffic Phasing OrdinancefD. . Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the 22nd day of March 19 79 , at the hour of 7 : 30 P .M. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall , at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon . Georqe Cokas, Secretary Planning Commission City of Newport Beach PUBLICATION DATE : Received for Pub . By Note : The expense of this notice is paid from a filing fee collected from the applicant. 4 r~ 4 1 : { Robert Milum ?, 4320 Campus Drive r - Newport Beach, CA 92660 R & S Company a/o 101 E. Balboa Blvd. Balboa, CA 92661 Elmer Whisler P. 0. Box 462 El Toro, CA 92630 M. J. Hogan Cabinet Co. 2551 Skyline Drive Sal Lake City, Utah Campus Investors (PT) ' P. 0. Box 484 :i =p! Huntington Beach, CA 92648 trru, „ Earl Clayton 2909 S. Halladay Street Santa Ana, CA 92705 Air California 3636 Birch Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 Meyers Office Park c/o Hackett & Tucker 250 Newport Ctr. Dr. S-305 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Place Investment Co. P. 0. Box 2590 ';r., Newport Beach, CA 92663 Names of Owners of Property within 300 feet of 3701 Birch Company Building Project Parcel Number Owner 427-151-01 State of California, Division of Highways 427-151-03 Irvine Industrial Complex, Acutal Milum, Robert B, A/0 lein 4320 Campus Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660 427-151-04 Irvine Industrial Complex, Actual R&S Co, A/O lein 101 E. Balboa Blvd. Balboa, 92661 4370 Campus Drive, Newport Beach 427-151-05 Irvine Industrial Complex, Actual Whisler, Elmer H (MM) , A/O lein P.O . Box 462 E1 Toro , CA 92630 3760 Campus Drive, Newport Beach 427-151-10 Irvine Industrial Complex, Actual M. J. Hogan Cabinet Company, A/0 lein 2551 Skyline Drive, Salt Lake City, Utah 3767 Birch Street , Newport Beach 427-151-11 Irvine Industrial Complex, Actual R&S Company, A/O lein 101 E . Balboa Blvd. Balboa, California 92661 3737 Birch Street Newport Beach 427-151-12 Irvine Industrial Complex, Actual Campus Investors (PT) A/O lein P .O. Box 484 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 3723 Birch Street, Newport Beach 427-151-14 Irvine Industrial Complex, (CR) Actual Clayton, Earl E. tr et al (MV) , A/0 lein 2909 S. Halladay Street, Santa Ana CA 92705 427-231-04 Air California (CR) , Actual 427-231-05 3636 Birch Street, Newport Beach, CA 92660 427-231-06 427-231-07 Meyers Office Park (PT) , Actual C/O Hackett and Tucker, 250 Newport Center Drive, Suite 305 , Newport Beach 92660 427-231-11 Newport Place Investment Company (PT) , Actual P .O . Box 2590 Newport Beach 92663 1401 Quail Street, Newport Beach Names of Owners of Property within 300 feet of 3701 Birch Company Building Project Parcel Number Owner 427-151-01 State of California, Division of Highways 427-151-93 Irvine Industrial Complex, Acutal Milum, Robert B, A/0 lein 4320 Campus Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660 427-151-04 Irvine Industrial Complex, Actual R&S Co, A/0 lein 101 E. Balboa Blvd. Balboa, 92661 4370 Campus Drive , Newport Beach 427-151-05 Irvine Industrial Complex, Actual Whisler, Elmer H (MM) , A/0 lein P .O. Box 462 E1 Toro , CA 92630 3760 Campus Drive, Newport Beach 427-151-10 Irvine Industrial Complex, Actual M. J. Hogan Cabinet Company, A/0 lein 2551 Skyline Drive, Salt Lake City, Utah 3767 Birch Street, Newport Beach 427-151-11 Irvine Industrial Complex, Actual R&S Company, A/0 lein 101 E , Balboa Blvd. Balboa, California 92661 3737 Birch Street Newport Beach 427-151-12 Irvine Industrial Complex, Actual Campus Investors (PT) A/0 lein P.O. Box 484 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 3723 Birch Street, Newport Beach 427-151-14 Irvine Industrial Complex, (CR) Actual Clayton, Earl E . tr et a1 (MV) , A/0 lein 2909 S. Halladay Street , Santa Ana CA 92705 427-231-04 1 Air California (CR) , Actual 427-231-05 J( 3636 Birch Street, Newport Beach, CA 92660 427-231-06 427-231-07 Meyers Office Park (PT) , Actual C/O Hackett and Tucker, 250 Newport Center Drive, Suite 305, Newport Beach 92660 427-231-11 Newport Place Investment Company (PT) , Actual P .O. Box 2590 Newport Beach 92663 1401 Quail Street, Newport Beach Po O CITY HALL u �F R�P' 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 �rJdAMUPI,TY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMFNII M j, Hogan Cabinet Co. 2551 Skyline Drive Sal Lake City, Utah Q SEW PORT O i CITY HALL �41ppAN�P 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 :,OMMUNIrf DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMMI Elmer 4lhi sl er p, 0. Box 462 E1 Toro, CA 9263Q `t SEW PORT O CITY HALL C'9</FO AN�P 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 :OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMEM R & S Company a/o 101 E. Balboa Blvd. Balboa, CA 92661 F SEW PORT CITY HALL u - r eM C'9<lFOAN�P' 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 -OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMEM 1 Air California 3636 Birch Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 �gWPORT �O s CITY HALL C741FOFt 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 COMMUNITY, MYELOPMENT DEPARTMMU " I Earl Clayton Street - 2909 S. Ha11Cada9 S27t5 Santa Ana, A POR 6 CITY HALL 0 G41;; 19% 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 -OMMUNITY DzVELOPMENT DEPARTMMr Campus Investors (PT) p, 0. Box 484 92648 Huntington Beach, CA a 0RT i CITY HALL �<,FOVL 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 ,QMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Robert MilUm ewportmBeach,i ve N CA 92660 ewp Q SEW PART 0 4 z CITY HALL 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 ;,OMMUNITY' DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMM Newport O rt BOY,Place50 nvestment Co. P. CA 92663 Newport Beach, O��EWPpR u — x CITY HALL c9� op�r 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 ;AMMUNITY D"aVELOPM W DEPARTMEW McYerS Office Tucker 305 c/o Hackett Ctr. Dr. S- 250 Newport g2663 Newport Beach, CA AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into on this 9th of March , 1979 , by and between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH , a municipal corporation , hereinafter referred to as "CITY" , and Berryman and Stephenson , Incorporated , hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT . " W I T N E S S E T H WHEREAS , City desires to have the CONSULTANT prepare a Phase III Traffic Study for a proposed office building on Birch Street (19264 sq . ft . ) in the City of Newport Beach . WHEREAS , CONSULTANT desires to prepare said Traffic Study. NOW, THEREFORE , in consideration of the foregoing , the parties hereto agree as follows : 1 . GENERAL CONSULTANT agrees to prepare a Traffic Study on the proposed office building on Birch Street in the City of Newport Beach in accordance with the requirements set forth in Paragraph 3 of this Agreement in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in this document. 2 . SCOPE OF WORK The subject Traffic Study will be prepared in accordance with the requirements of the City Traffic Engineer for the preparation of such studies and in accordance with Chapter 15. 40 of the Municipal Code of the City. 3. BILLING AND PAYMENT CONSULTANT shall be paid under this Agreement on a time and material basis . In no event shall the maximum amount of this Agreement exceed Seven Hundred and Fifty Dollars ( $750 . 00) . Partial payments shall be made by CITY to CONSULTANT upon CONSULTANT' s presentation of statements verifying the time and material costs incurred by it in connection with this Agreement . - 1 - 4. FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE CONSULTANT shall use diligent efforts to complete the provisions within thirty ( 30) days after execution of this Agreement. The subject Traffic Study must meet the approval of the Environmental Coordinator and Traffic Engineer of the City. 5. TERMINATION This Agreement is subject to termination by the City at any time upon serving written notice to CONSULTANT . The CITY shall be thereafter liable to CONSULTANT only for fees and costs incurred as of the date CONSULTANT receives such notice of termination . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have entered into this Agreement as of the date and year first above written. 4si FORM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH By r Attorney rector Communi De elopment Department CITY BERRYMAN AND STEPHENSON , INC . By CONSULTANT 2 - • • AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into on this 26th day of April , 1979 , by and between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH , a municipal corporation , hereinafter referred to as "CITY" , and William Kunzman and Associates , hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT" . W I T N E S S E T H WHEREAS , City desires to have the CONSULTANT prepare a Traffic Study for a proposed office building on Birch Street (19264 sq . ft. ) in the City of Newport Beach . WHEREAS, CONSULTANT desires to prepare said Traffic Study. NOW, THEREFORE , in consideration of the foregoing , the parties hereby agree as follows : 1 . GENERAL CONSULTANT agrees to prepare a Traffic Study on the proposed office building on Birch Street in the City of Newport Beach in accordance with the requirements set forth in Paragraph 3 of this Agreement in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in this document. 2. SCOPE OF WORK The subject Traffic Study will be prepared in accordance with the requirements of the City Traffic Engineer for the pre- paration of such studies , in accordance with Chapter 15 . 40 of the Municipal Code of the City and City Council Policy S-1 . 3. BILLING AND PAYMENT CONSULTANT shall be paid under this Agreement on a time and material basis . In no event shall the maximum amount of this Agreement exceed One Thousand Four Hundred Dollars , ($1 ,400 . 00) . Partial payments shall be made by CITY to CONSULTANT upon CONSULTANT ' S presentation of statements verifying the time and material costs incurred by it in connection with this Agreement. - 1 - 4. FAITHFUL *FORMANCE • CONSULTANT shall use diligent efforts to complete the provisions within thirty ( 30 ) days after execution of this Agreement . The subject Traffic Study must meet the approval of the Environmental Coordinator and Traffic Engineer of the City. 5 . TERMINATION This Agreement is subject to termination by the City at any time upon serving written notice to CONSULTANT. The CITY shall be thereafter liab.le to CONSULTANT only for fees and costs incurred as of the date CONSULTANT receives such notice of termination . IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties hereto have entered into this Agreement as of the date and year first above written . APPROVED AS TO FORM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH B Ass ' taut City torney Dir or Community Development Department City WILLIAM 'KUNZMAN & ASSOCIATES By fd� CONSULTANT r k • • AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into on this 31st day of January, 1979 , Y b and between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a municipal corporation , hereinafter referred to as "CITY" , and Berryman and Stephenson , Incorporated, hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT. " W I T N E S S E T H WHEREAS , City desires to have the CONSULTANT prepare a Traffic Study for a proposed office building on Birch Street ( 19264 sq . ft. ) in the City of Newport Beach . WHEREAS , CONSULTANT desires to prepare said Traffic Study . NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing , the parties hereto agree as follows : 1 . GENERAL CONSULTANT agrees to prepare a Traffic Study on the proposed office building on Birch Street in the City of Newport p 9 Beach- in accordance with the requirements set forth in Paragraph 3 of this Agreement in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in this document. 2. 'SCOPE OF WORK The subject Traffic Study will be prepared in accordance with the requirements of the City Traffic Engineer for the prepara- tion of such studies and in accordance with Chapter 15 . 40 of the Municipal Code of the City. 3. BILLING AND PAYMENT CONSULTANT shall be paid under this Agreement on a time and material basis . In no event shall the maximum amount of this Agreement exceed Four Hundred and No Dollars ($400 . - ) . Partial payments shall be made by CITY to CONSULTANT upon CONSULTANT' s presentation of statements verifying the time and material costs incurred by it in connection with this Agreement. -1- 4. FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE CONSULTANT shall use diligent efforts to complete the provisions within thirty (30) days after execution of this Agreement. The subject Traffic Study must meet the approval of the Environmental Coordinator and Traffic Engineer of the City. 5 . TERMINATION This Agreement is subject to termination by the City at any time upon serving written notice to CONSULTANT. The CITY shall- be ' thereafter liable to CONSULTANT only for fees and costs incurred as of the date CONSULTANT receives such notice of termination . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have entered into this Agreement as of the date and year first above written . APPROVED AS TO FORM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 01 J By Assistant City At rney Dire r C - munity Development Department CITY BERRYMAN and STEPHENSON, INC . K B /-7 C CONSULTANT -2- �NOtl33��y0 .- u =5 y � •�o �� dtlunu • a 'i - � �EWPpR� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECEIPT 9 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92663 No. 03570 w' �<fFOPN�PJV4,,l19 /y� //�� DATE �J yi RECEIVED FROM ��/y/�J/C1_1 ` A AA s j FOR- ; ACCO/UNT NO AF6�N'+�ueli� `�•,jL/ n� n DEPARTMENT 1 Fs -DSO _ BY .�..,...�..�. .j�.raw. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. ..« .�..�..�..�..�..�..�.— �.— ------------.�..�. + 94'w CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECEIPT 84330 NEWPORT BEACH,CA41FORNIA 92663 NoApv,511 n/� DATE RECEIVED FROM /!J� �t-(��(1 FOR: 00 1� i ACCOUNT NO. AMOUNT DEPARTMENT �,ewPogT w -Y~ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECEIPT NEW PORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92663 No. 01221 � C}��<IiOPN�P i 9 '79 DATE / r' RECEIVED FROM d701 •`Q N 400 •J t FOR: n �, i ;Zc—qc UNT NO �ACCOUNT NCO—� DEPARTMENT •A/ v BY --4 laa * �w��+�..wry. .. ... .+ .. .. .. ....... .--.rw.------— -------.�.r.�.r E-- �aEWPpR ---- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH �� RECEIPT -----; 1 p 9m NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92663 No. 02073 1 {i1 DATE QQ G 1 0 RECEIVED FROM FOR: 1 1 ( � e�ACCOUNT NO ACCOUNT ! r DZ'7I 1�d • O'a DEPARTMENT r 1 1 y BY�Y/A J 50,0/y ',___ .. ..... _____________________.___ 1 J AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into on this 8th day of December, 1978, by and between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH , a municipal corporation , hereinafter referred to as "CITY" , and STEPµENSON OF�eT) Berryman and „ , Incorporated , hereinafter referred to as "'CONSULTANT. " W I T N E S S E T H WHEREAS , City desires to have the CONSULTANT: prepare a Traffic Study for a proposed office building on Birch Street (19264 sq . ft. ) in the City of Newport Beach . - WHEREAS , CONSULTANT desires to prepare said Traffic Study. NOW, THEREFORE , in consideration of the foregoing , the parties hereto agree as follows : 1 . GENERAL CONSULTANT agrees to prepare a Traffic Study on the proposed office building on Birch Street in the City of Newport Beach in accordance with the requirements set forth in Paragraph 3 of this Agreement in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in this document. 2 . SCOPE OF WORK The subject Traffic Study will be prepared in accordance with the requirements of the City Traffic Engineer for the preparation of such studies and in accordance with Chapter 15 . 40 of the Municipal Code of the City. 3 . BILLING AND PAYMENT CONSULTANT shall be paid under this Agreement on a time and material basis . In no event shall the maximum amount of this Agreement exceed Sewen Hundred and Fifty Doll.a-rs ($750 . ) .. - - Partial payments shall made by CITY to CONSULTANT upon CONSULTANT ' s presentation of statements verifying the time and material costs incurred by it in connection with this Agreement. - 1 - 4. FAITHFUR'ERFORMANCE 4( CONSULTANT shall use diligent efforts to complete the provisions within thirty ( 30 ) days after execution of this Agreement. The subject Traffic Study must meet the approval of the Environmental Coordinator and Traffic Engineer of the City. 5 . TERMINATION This Agreement is subject to termination by the City , at any time upon serving written notice to CONSULTANT. The CITY shall be thereafter liable to CONSULTANT only for fees and costs incurred as of the date CONSULTANT reveives such notice of termination . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have entered into this Agreement as of the date and year first above written . APPROVED AS TO FORM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ' BY ssi an ty tt rney D1rector Comm.u-m ty De lopment Department CITY ST6/14C-A)S0A1 BERRYMAN and SiF�, IN.CORPORATED Byn CONSULTANT me'�v �a pit,E ,�ccav�r ` ,4P�acicir�►y': _ oN N�� y 999 - --- ------- t/its A3c ►,»N.v CilwrC. ,Dl7aus/rt ry /ICl'3 - Op y 0 TRAFFIC STUDY APPLICATION CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT APPLICANT THE 3701 BIRCH COMPf PHONE 754-6505 MAILING ADDRESS P. 0. BOX 4629 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92716 PROPERTY OWNER THE ABOVE BY LEASEHOLD (Ron Henry) PHONE 979-6666 MAILING ADDRESS Same as above ADDRESS OR LOCATION OF PROJECT Same as above — 3701 Birch Street BAN GARAGE. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OFFICE BUILDING, TWO STORY WITH SUBTERRAN BUILDING SIZE 43' X 224T * 19,2641 total floor area. Maintenance area 12764' 1�y 5g PARKING SPACES '. 5o'plus auxiliary parking and storage. Do Not Complete Application Below This Line Date Filed Fee Paid Receipt No. City Traffic Engineer Approval Date E.A.C. Action Date C.E.Q.A.C. Action Date Planning Commission Action Date City Council Action Date P1awu�u�Ln.►N�stwa �eee�ge` ._____ (/S� CWaCt TTCMf 00. • - - - -- ��'—' -I C`�G41.1_�5�c:IS�L CC�J•,�+�G 5Cc"C� 'ChG—_P\aNN�N Gpt.�.t.��SS1uN J - --- _ — o.��cs?ya\_ dF _,o. 1�a��ac._._5�. mac- 't�zT�r_o�os�c�eo�•ss�eveztc�� _ - -- Q�-- b - - ��Iy_z2�o�5Q•FT. O F�`t\L-�u����NC1`tO �G tcxa14 ss, "C - — �_cea"�� 1J _��`�c� S-\ l �lnnW�4S�6Cx`rlU� - __ - - — -�.d�1J�tJC� `��4 (_��c��y---O�—� \cal\r---��C•, �X� -- — - - - -- �ocaTc�,, 0�.1 -cQ.c. tiloCtct-��isc_cocND2 d� Q3�cc�-,�'C. - yo cw-d,-v�G`n-C _ _oc-t"S -- ---r4-�esu�Ld.u00.N_.aJpt�1G-_.Ro�utMC�w - -- — � r • �u w aseeT _ _ OFt4C—p�Stc.t i' '_- u��cn�e3- 1wr-a b�sr«c,r _ c. _ - - - - - - dwx sts�' aeffi�r".. 0 0 c L r ! - ��-_-�t'ccw�en��eeAK_� �Q't30__5p•T_T_z-------- -- - - 3 pcar�ct I�c��cc� and PCs S�z� /�.tvso 3,_�►e�a_ret_sc. .rAr.4i_e�ec a!d►• aw o �- - — --�•—�c.�._.1—'ram'' C�'�—�t3�caea�r ate,_-- — gCN<rcaTy- u - .��t�r aF��r__�rP�sz �co^^��cT,ur� G�arcct8�- -- G�'L--ycTts�_ "�"'�P�P�C.� - ---- -- �-t`_SC�.��..u�c��QNS - GTcf(A aN ,I d' _. .�....5��\��U��c�` S"-�tXOV\c�.cs•��-�aT p1J_MN aL��51S � �O1JL TO CJ�GTGCM�N -!• l�ONE l.4GCl�: 0.Frl?�.._GCt-M•p�4Z'_�-.__OG T�+G �c0)•ccC'� b2 �1ocTw1JS �_DF�c.�(Jccar_cc.i�o(__S.N��c� -�^-e. •CcaGrlC. �Na��S�.s is �•c�N�____,_. �GtpC',Mc��•t�C.'—�cosccC ���� �vtNeca'rG" oar �ccccta•r o� _0.cti� 1�.•c. co��.�t4�.SZF' �•c�_�rosc-ct;..�`.�o1S�c� MP.c� _ �c.NCc_a•TC.Ouv pccccr.�•c ��..,_�oL�=, o<- Pcosc��cd. 't'c�aF�IC• ' • C)O_�<.l_m�_G_N d1�G p2.._.{-�acG `c-�-S o�,�1_t�_�sNcc�SccTle tit �_�,I ST.7-�vrcwc-rn� Q�c ._... `��-sue_ ST-. •�_��,.«�, S�•_�NTccscc..-�tJs .��,e�r�co�'ccY� a t TC(}k w i,�. z��co3�c�c��_ �t��_NS4�Sc �O?� l=IWlA)G AJOk��"'�� �No_�-cc� .,_ cNcca OtJ c�n�-s�lcC- s C am'_ 2S:QL1lC J�{ 1il UL _r"'GE 3 T•�,,1�� A 44Na J,l� 1�cN pce�occ� �a \0.�uA�G�auc e,_ w t°�CV\O t5+� ------- 12 jj ^ �• will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on any "major", "primary-modified", or "primary" IF streetp *a ; F ______7