The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutIS0060 Isooso REPORT OF FINDINGS PROJECT NAME : Amendment No . 505 PROJECT LOCATION : Koll Center Newport e/o MacArthur Boulevard Rptween Campus Drive and Birch Street DESCRIPTION : The project consists of the addition. of approximately 1 . 6 acres to the Koll Cente•r• P-C, and an increase in the allowable office area in Block C by 33, 600 square feet . FINDINGS : A traffic analysis was prepared in compliance with Council Policy. S- 1 and the proposed addition of Chapter 15.40 to the Newport Beach Municipal . Code : Ref. 15 .40 .030 Traffic Impact Limitation (d) Exceptions . According to the analysis of the proposed project, based on the assumptions and data contained therein , the following finding can be made : The traffic during the designated 2 . 5 hour peak period , on X each street which will have an unsatisfactory level of traffic service prior to, ' or as a result of , the project , will be• increased by less than 1 % by the traffic generated from the proposed.. projecT during that 2 .5 hour period . The traffic during the designated 2 .5 hour peak period , on ; each street which will have an unsatisfactory level of traffic service prior to., or as a result of, the project , will be increased by more than 1 % by the traffic generated • from the proposed project during that 2 . 5 hour period . REMARKS : Bill E . Darnell Traffic Engineer f THE IRVINE C MPAW 610 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92663 (714) 644-3011 DATE: June 22 TO: Beverly Wood , 1978 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd SUBJECT: CAMPUS & MAC ARTHUR Newport Beach,, Ca 92660 Gentlemen: We are forwarding to you cc MAIL X 9 ENCLOSURE X RED mt�6D of Sltv ` ",eoti Dege'4 aq SEPARATE COVER De?t• �. BLUEPRINTER ' t7� °pfi 8�' 1I • NcnvF' '� OTHER THE FOLLOWING: DEPOSIT CHECK # 95439 IN THE AMOUNT OF $10.00 FOR TRAFFIC STUDY AT CAMPUS AND MAC ARTHUR. Approved as noted To be corrected as noted To be re-submitted For your approval As requested by you For your files & Information _ Yours very truly, CC: By PAUL THAKUR PROJECT N E FORM 240.3230•9.77 399892 CITY OFAkEWPORT BEACH 95439 095439 CO M� IN VbICE NUMBER INV DATE INVOICE AMOU DISCOUNT NET AMOUNT 2010 U828 0614.78 DEPOSIT FOR TRAF 2010 U828 061478, IC STUDY AT' CAMP , 2010 U828 061478 US & .MACARTHUR - 2010 U828 061478 AMEND NO- 505 2010 U828 061478 04a03619 2010 U828 061478. 04803619 2010 U828 061478 04803619 04803619 10 00 10 00 **** THE IRVINE COMPANY TOTALS 10 00 10 00 orPsoWeal K �PVM& Ad A40f TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING April 6, 1978 Ms. Beverly Wood Community Development Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard _ Newport Beach, California 92660 A 'A Dear Ms. Wood: We are pleased to submit our traffic and parking analysis of the Koll Center Site C Planned Community Amendment. Site C is bounded by MacArthur Boulevard, Campus Drive, Birch Street, and Von Karmen Avenue. The amendment will change the professional and business office usage from 346,200 square feet of build- I{ ing to 379,800 square feet of building, for a difference of 33,600 square .feet. The traffic analysis will focus on the intersection of Campus and MacArthur:, 4 identified by the City of Newport Beach to be the critical intersection in the '�rs vicinity of the project, and the parking analysis will examine whether the pro- posed 1688 parking spaces are adequate. This report contains the following sections: 1. Findings " 2. Existing Traffic Conditions - Surrounding Streets - Existing Traffic Volumes - Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization 6 3. Project Traffic Traffic Generation ,Traffic Distribution and Assignment 4. Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions - Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes - Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization 5. Parking 2651 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE • SUITE 110 • FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92631 • (714) 871-2931 -2- 1. Findings This traffic analysis has resulted in the following findings: 1. The intersection of MacArthur and Campus can accommodate the addi- tional traffic which will be added by Site C. (Discussed in Section 4 of this report.) 2. If the 379,800 square feet of building floor area allowed in the proposed P.C. is constructed, versus the 346,200 square feet which is allowed in the existing P.C., the intersection capacity utilization of MacArthur and Campus will increase a maximum of one percent in the morning or evening peak hour, whether existing or ultimate intersection geometries are assumed. (Discussed in Section 4 of this report.) 3. The 1688 parking spaces required in the proposed P.C. will accommo- date the expected peak parking demand. (Discussed in Section 5 of this report.) 2. Existing Traffic Conditions The traffic conditions as they exist today are discussed below. Surrounding Streets. The Planned Community Amendment involves the parcel of land on the southeast corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Campus Drive, and its primary traffic impact will be on the intersection of these - two streets. MacArthur Boulevard is a north-south street connecting from Coast Highway to the Newport and San Diego Freeways and beyond. IL is classified as a Major highway on the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial highways, and will eventually be a six lane divided roadway. Today it is a four lane divided roadway in many places with some sections constructed to ultimate cross-section. In the vicinity of the site, it is constructed to ultimate cross-section except adjacent the subject site, where it is not yet fully improved. • • -3- Campus Drive runs east-west adjacent the site, and extends from Bristol to Culver Drive. It is classified Secondary Highway on the Master Plan f c. of Arterial Highways, and is a'lfour-lane divided roadway adjacent the site ' today. Existing Traffic Volumes. The existing morning and evening peak hour traffic volumes were obtained from the City of Irvine. The intersections turning movement volumes were manually counted by City of Irvine staff on April 4, 1978. The existing turning movement volumes are shown in Figure 1. Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization. The intersection capacity utilization (ICU) of MacArthur and Campus is calculated for existing volumes , and existing geometrics in Appendix A. An explanation of ICU analysis is con- tained in Appendix B. The existing ICU is 94 percent in the morning peak hour, and 83 percent in the evening peak hour. 3. Project Traffic The traffic volumes generated by the existing allowed land use and proposed land use are discussed below. Projecting traffic volumes is a three step process. First, the traffic volumes from a project are determined. Second,, those traffic volumes are geographically distributed to major trip destina- tions. Third, the trips are assigned to specific roadways, and the project traffic volumes determined on each roadway and through each intersection. 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 1000 square feet of floor area. If a particular land use generates six inbound trip ends per acre in the morning peak hour, then six vehicles are expected to arrive in the morning peak hour for each acre of development. FIGURE 1 PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES MacArthur Boulevard and Campus Drive Legend: A = Existing Volumes B = Existing Plus Traffic PC C 6 Pa 0 6 Pa 0 from 346,200 sq. ft. C = Existing Plus Traffic from 379,800 sq. .ft. o0 000 000 i� O NN 0a% a% r♦ i-1 r-I Tj r-I C4 H N r, N -It 07 11 0) -w M to n n M co $4 rl ra .-I Campus Drive M PM PM 40 _0- AM — 0 210 0 B 380 260 340 20 C 380 260 — A I 570 430 350 740 C B 580 450 80 0 1 A C 580 450 100 90 B _A 30 70 i 100 90 C B 30 70 C 30 70 i Oo0 000 000 rnrnrn 00r4M 1, 0000 r+ ra ,yy 000 000 000 N It It ✓1 � n N N N C4 .-I r♦ 6 PC U C, W 0 6 P', O WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES • -4- Significant research efforts have been made by CalTrans, the Institute of, Transportation Engineers, ourselves, and others to establish the correlation between trips and land use. From this body of information, trip generation rates can be estimated with reasonable accuracy for various land uses. Trip generation rates are predicated on the assumption that energy costs, the availability 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 might affect trip generation rates. The trip generation rates were determined for daily, AM peak hour inbound, 'AM outbound, FM inbound, and PM outbound. In this study, AM peak hour is 7:30 to 8:30 AM and PM peak hour is 4:30 to 5:30 PM. By multiplying the trip genera- tion rates by the land usage quantities, the daily, AM in, AM out, PM in and PM out volumes are calculated as shown in Table 1. Table 1 TRAFFIC GENERATION Time Trip Ends Trip Ends Generated Per a 00 Square Fee e Existing PC Proposed PC t (346,200 sq. ft.) (379,800 sq. ft.) Daily (Two-Way) 2 7270 7980 AM In 2.0 690 760 Out 0.3 110 120 Total -2.3 800 880 . PM In � 4 0.3 , 110 120 Out 1.7 a .& 620 680 Total / ? 2.1 730 800 / JtA , -�� ,�,�• p � _ and Assignment. The traffic from Site C has been Traffic Distribution n geographically distributed and assigned to the street system as shown in Figure 2. This traffic assignment is based upon consideration of where the trips, from the site are likely to go, and what the most likely route will be to reach their destination. The primary factor is location of employees' homes, and secondary factors are locations of commercial and business attractions. 4 Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions The existing traffic plus project traffic volumes and intersection capacity utilization have been determined. Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes. The project traffic volumes through the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Campus Drive have been determined for two conditions as follows: , 1. Project traffic which would be generated by the existing P.C. land use, i.e. 346,200 square feet of floor. 2, Project traffic which would be generated by the proposed P.C. land use, i.e. 379,800 square feet of floor. To the project traffic volumes, the existing traffic volumes have been added as shown in Table 2. Existing Plus Project Traffic Intersection Capacity Utilization. Inter- section capacity utilization (ICU) calculations have been made for existing traffic volumes and existing plus project traffic volumes for existing and ul- timate intersection geometries at MacArthur and Campus. The calculations are contained in Appendix A, and the results are summarized in Table 3. It can be seen that the intersection capacity utilizations increase about 1 percent if Site' C has 379,800 square feet of building as proposed, versus the 346,200 square feet of building allowed in the existing P.C. I I l • FIGURE 2 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT Outbound Traffic Displayed; Inbound is Reverse 55% 2% Campus Drive 2'r� v o 3% 3T% f . 20% 2/ 3%` S et 100% 10° �lil 3% 40% 3% 30° L---V,. 10% 5% Birch Street WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES a e EXISTING PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES MacArthur Boulevard and Campus Drive (A) (B) (C) Movement Existing Volumes Traffic if Traffic if Proposed (A) + (B) (A) + (C) Existing PC Constructed PC Constructed • AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Northbound Through 1220 980 20 130 20 150 1240 1110 1240 1130 Northbound Right 50 70 20 10 20 10 70 80. 70 80 Northbound Left 60 90 60 90 60 90 Southbound Through 1570 1100 150 20 170 20 1720 1120 1740 1120 Southbound Right 320 170 320 170 320 170 Southbound Left 180 60 190 30 210 30 370 90 390 90 Eastbound Through 570 430 10 20 10 20 580 450 580 450 Eastbound Right 30 70 30 70 30 70 Eastbound Left 380 260 380 260 380 260 • Westbound Through 340 720 10 20 10 20 550 740 350 740 Westbound Right 40 40 30 170 30 190 70 210 70 230 Westbound Left 80 90 20 10 20 10 100 90 k00 90 -6- Table 3 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION MacArthur Boulevard and Campus Drive Traffic Condition Existing Geometries Ultimate Geometries AM PM AM PM Existing Traffic Volumes 94 83 78 72 Existing Traffic Volumes 99 84 81 72 Plus Traffic Generated by 346,200 Square Feet of Building Existing Traffic Volumes 99 84 81 73 Plus Traffic Generated by 379,800 Square Feet of Building 7, Parking For the proposed 379,800 square feet of building, a total of 1688 parking spaces is required by the planned community text. This results in one space for each 225 square feet of building area, or 4.44 parking spaces for each 1000 square feet of building area, [Gross leasable building area is usually 85 percent of total building area, and the ratios are 191 square feet of leasable building area per-parking space, or 5.23 parking spaces for each 1000 square feet of leasable building area. These parking ratios are satisfactory. The most common recommended ratio is 4 spaces per 1000 gross square feet of building. 'Thus 11 percent additional spaces have been provided than would be utilized. • -7- It has been a pleasure to prepare this traffic analysis for you. If there are any questions, or if we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call us. Respectfully submitted, WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES Weston S. Pringle, P.E. WSP:WK:wg #8210 it Appendix A INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATIONS d INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION MACARTHUR BOULEVARD AND CAMPUS DRIVE Existing Traffic Volumes Movement Volume Capacity Volume/Capacity • Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Geometrics Geometrics Geometrics Geometrics Lanes Vehicles Lanes Vehicles AEI PM per hour per hour Atli K11 AM Pi Northbound Through 1220 980 2 3200 3 4800 38 31 25 20 Northbound Right 50 70 1 1600 1 1600 10 10 10 10 Northbound Left 60 90 1 1600 2 3200 10* 10* 10* 10* Southbound Through 1570 1100 2 3200 3 4800 49* 34* 33* 23-', Southbound Right 320 170 1 1600 1 1600 20 11 20 11 Southbound Left 180 60 1 1600 2 3200 11 10 10 10 Eastbound Through 570 430 2 3200 2 3200 19 16 18 13 Eastbound Right 30� 70� 0 0 1 1600 10 10 10 10 f Eastbound Left 380 260 1 1600 1 1600 24* 16* 24* 16* Westbound Through 40 720 2 3200 2 3200 11* 23* ll* 23* Westbound Right 340 40 1 1600 1 1600 10 10 10 10 Westbound Left 80 90 1 1600 1 1600 10 10 10 10 Intersection Capacity Utilization 94 83 78 72 = Critical Movement Included in Total to Determine Intersection Capacity Utilization INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION MACARTHUR. BOULEVARD AND CAMPUS DRIVE Existing Traffic Volumes Plus Traffic Generated by 346,200 Square Feet of Building Movement Volume Capacity Volume/Capacity Existing —Proposed —Existing —Proposed Geometrics Geometrics Geometrics Geometrics Lanes Vehicles Lanes Vehicles AM PM per hour per hour AM PM AM PM Northbound Through 1240 1110 2 3200- 3 4800 39 35 26 23 Northbound Right 70 80 1 1600 1 1600 10 10 10 10 Northbound Left 60 go 1 1600 2 3200 10', lok 10* lo* Southbound Through 1720 1120 2 3200 3 4800 54* 35* 36* 23', Southbound Right 320 170 1 1600 1 1600 20 11 20 11 Southbound Left 370 90 1 1600 2 3200 23 10 12 10 Eastbound Through 580 450 2 3200 2 3200 19 16 18 14 Eastbound Right 30) 70) 0 1 1600 10 10 10 10 Eastbound Left 380 260 1 1600 1 1600 24* 16* 24* l6j1- Westbound Through 350 740 2 3200 2 3200 11' 23* ll* 23' Westbound Right 70 210 1 1600 1 1600 10 13 10 13 Westbound. Left 100 90 1 1600 1 1600 10 10 10 10 Intersection Capacity Utilization 99 84 81 72 Critical Movement Included in Total to Determine Intersection Capacity Utilization h INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION MACARTHUR BOULEVARD AND CAMPUS DRIVE Existing Traffic Volumes Plus Traffic Generated by 379,800 Square Feet of Building Movement Volume Capacity Volume/Capacity Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Geometries Geometrics Geometrics Geometrics Lanes Vehicles Lanes Vehicles API P11 per hour per hour AM Phi AM PM Northbound Through 1240 1130 2 3200 3 4800 39 35 26 24* Northbound Right 70 80 1 1600 1 1600 10 10 10 10 Northbound Left 60 90 1 1600 2 3200 10 10 10* 10 Southbound Through 1740 1120 2 3200 3 4800 54* 35* 361; 23 Southbound Right 320 ' 170 1 1600 1 1600 20 11 20 11 Southbound Left 390 90 1 1600 2 3200 24 10 12 10* Eastbound Through 580 450 2 3200 2 3200 19 16 18 14 • Eastbound Right 30) 70 0 0 1 1600 10 10 10 10 Eastbound Left 380 260 1 1600 1 1600 24* 16>'< 24* 16* Westbound Through 350 740 2 3200 2 3200 ll* 23* ll* 23* Westbound Right 70 230 1 1600 1 1600 10 14 10 14 Westbound Left 100 90 1 1 1600 1 1600 10 10 10 10 Intersection Capacity Utilization 99 84 81 73 = Critical Movement Included in Total to Determine Intersection Capacity Utilization Appendix B EXPLANATION OF THE INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION METHODOLOGY � , . . • Explanation of Intersection Capacity Utilization The capacity of a street is nearly always greater between intersections, and less at intersections. The reason for this is that the traffic flows continu- ously between intersections and only part of the time at intersections. To study intersection capacity, a technique known as Intersection Capacity Utiliza- tion (ICU) has been developed. ICU analysis consists of (a) determining the proportion of signal time needed to serve each conflicting movement, (b) summing 1 the times for the movements, and (c) comparing the total time required to the time available. For example, if for north-south traffic the northbound traffic is 1,000 vehicles per hour, the southbound traffic is 800 vehicles per hour, and the capacity of either approach is 2,000 vehicles per hour of green, then the north- bound traffic is critical and requires 1,000/2,000 or 50 percent of the signal time. If for the east-west traffic, 40 percent of the signal time is required, then it can be seen that the ICU is 50 plus 40, or 90 percent. When left-turn phases exist, they are incorporated into the analysis., As ICUs approach 100 percent, the quality of traffic service approaches Level of Service E, as defined in the Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 87, Highway Research Board, 1965. Level of Service is used to describe quality of traffic flow. Levels of Service A to C operate quite well. Level of Service D is typically the Level of Service for which an urban street is designed. Level of Service E is the maximum volume a facility can accommodate and will result in possible stoppages of momentary duration. Level of Service F occurs when a facility is overloaded and is char- acterized by stop-and-go traffic with stoppages of long duration. A description of the various levels of service appears on the following page. _ The ICU calculations assume that an intersection is signalized and that the signal is ideally timed. Although calculating ICU for an unsignalized inter- section is not valid, the presumption is that a signal can be installed and the calculation shows whether the geometries are capable of accommodating the ex- pected volume. It is possible to have an ICU well below 1.0, yet have severe traffic congestion. This would occur because one or more movements is not getting enough time to satisfy its demand with excess time existing on other moves. Capacity is often defined in terms of roadway width. However, standard lanes have approximately the same capacity whether they are 1.1 foot or 14 foot lanes. Our data indicates a typical lane, whether a through lane or left-turn lane has a cpaacity of approximately 1600 vehicles per lane per hour of green time. The Highway Capacity Manual found capacity to be about 1500 vehicles per lane per hour of green for through lanes and 1200 vehicles per lane per hour of green for left-turn lanes. However, the capacity manual is based on pre-1965 data, and recent studies and observations show higher capacities in the southern California area. For this study a capacity of 1600 vehicles per lane has been assumed for through traffic, and 1600 vehicles per lane for turning lanes. d� r THE IRVIIVE CM ROW 610 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92663 (714) 644-3011 Beverly Wood TO: City of Newport Beach DATE: April 18, 1978 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, Ca 92660 SUBJECT: TRAFFIC REPORT FOR CAMPUS/MAC ARTHUR SITE i i i Gentlemen: We are forwarding to you via: MAIL X ENCLOSURE X I ' SEPARATE COVER BLUEPRINTER OTHER THE FOLLOWING: 9 Check No. P 506835 in the- amount of $1125.00 for RECEIVED 9 Traffic Report. Estimated cost and administration fee. 9 Community Deveiopment Dept. tr APR1919780 CITY OF I.I NEWpORT BEACK CALIF Approved as noted To be corrected as noted To be re-submitted For your approval As requested by you For your files & Information Yours very truly, CC: By PAUL THAKUR Project manager ' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH,', CALIFORNIA March 29, 1978 Douglas P. Schnorr Director, Design/Construction Commercial Division The Irvine Company 610 Newport Center Drive . Newport Beach, California, 92663 Subject: Traffic Analysis for Amendment No. 505 Amendment to Koll Center Planned Community Dear Mr. Schnorr, We have received a proposal from Wes Pringle to perform thw required traffic analysis, of the proposed project at Koll Center, This traffic analysis along with an Environmental Checklist to be evaluated by this Department will ,consti - tute an Initial Study of ,the project. Please review the scope of work as contained in the pro- posal and, let me know 1f .you have any comments. It is also presently being reviewed by our staff for adequacy. Once the scope of work is finalized, we will negotiate with Wes Pringle to determine a final bid, at which time you will be ,asked to deposit the full. amount of the contract plus an . -administrative fee. Sincerely, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, DIRECTOR By ever Environmental o mentalCoordina*to.r BDW/sh rs , THE IRVINE C MPAW 610 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92663 (714) 644-3011 March 29, 1978 Beverly Wood City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, Ca 92660 Dear Beverly: AMENDMENT TO KOLL CENTER NEWPORT P.C. The proposal from Weston Pringle & Assoc. , Traffic Engineers for a traffic study of the intersection of Campus Drive and MacArthur Blvd. in connection with Amendment No. 505 to the Koll Center Newport P.C. is acceptable to the Irvine Company. The fee for this work is to be $1000 plus an administrative fee to the City of $125.00 for a total of $1125.00. Yours very truly, Doug1 s P. Schn Director, Desig onstruction Commercial/Industrial Division DPS:dw OD Eo 9 �OGeo4e 91�� 1� N AGREEMENT, THIS AGREEMENT is made and: entered into on this 4th day of April , 1978 , by and between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH , a Municipal Corporation , hereinafter referred to as "CITY , " and WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES , hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT. " W I T N E S S E T H WHEREAS , the CITY has determined that a limited traffic study of the proposed Koll Center Planned Community Amendment, No . 505 , is necessary ; and WHEREAS , CONSULTANT has submitted to CITY a proposal to perform a limited traffic study of the proposed increase in office space in Block C of Koll Center Newport; and WHEREAS , CITY desires to accept said proposal . NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing , the parties hereto agree as follows : 1 . GENERAL CONSULTANT agrees to perform said limited traffic study In, accordance with the requirements set forth in Paragraph 2 of this Agreement. CITY agrees to remit to CONSULTANT the amounts 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 performed in accordance with the CONSULTANT ' S proposal dated March 24 , 1978 ; which is attached to this Agreement marked as Exhibit "A" and by this reference incorporated herein at this point as if fully set forth . 3 . BILLING AND PAYMENT CONSULTANT shall be paid under this Agre-ement on a time and material basis . In no event shall .the maximum amount of this Agreement exceed One Thousand and no/100 Dollars ($1 ,000 . 00) . 4 . FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE CONSULTANT shall use diligent efforts to complete the provisions By April 7 , 1978. The subject Report must meet the approval of the Traffic Engi-neer', 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 . APP OVED AS TO ORM CITY OF ORT BEACH By % r s�,�tjCfty Vttorney IGilr Eor .- Comm uni DeV�e-Topment Department CITY WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES By CONSULTANT J� RECEIVED Community Ca Development Dept. APR 3 1978sk- 10 CITY OF 4, NEWPORTB J J ti L W -F d1h • :/ P A WWW P"h aga Abo l TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING `. RECEIVED March 24 1978 y C0`��i ncnt g � , DavCart. a £'.-\ Cily OF ORT BEACH, Ms. Beverly Wood � N>='�'�PCA�I'r. ' Community Development Department ;` �l City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 Dear Ms. Wood: We are pleased to submit this proposal to provide professional traffic engineer- ing services to the City of Newport Beach relative to the proposed Koll Center PC Amendment. This proposal is based upon our meeting of March 21, 1978, and our understanding of the requirements of the study. In general, the work would consist of analyzing the traffic impacts associated with the proposed increase in office space in Block C of Koll Center Newport. A review would also be made of parking requirements. Our findings anc conclusions would be summarized in a letter report. -We would envision the following specific tasks to be required for this analysis: TASK 1 - DATA ASSEMBLY We would assemble all available data pertinent to the analysis. This would include existing and proposed land use data, street and inter- section improvement plans, existing traffic volumes and similar -data. It is understood that peak hour turning movement traffic volume data will be provided by the City. We will discuss the proposal with the City Traffic Engineer to obtain his comments and concerns. , 2651 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE • SUITE 110 • FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92631 • V14) 871-2931 r ' -2- TASK 2 - TRIP GENERATION AND ASSIGNMENT Estimates will be made of daily and peak hour traffic volumes that would be generated by the existing and proposed plan. A geographic distribution of traffic will be developed based upon information from previous studies and analyses in the area. The estimated traffic from the project will then be assigned to the street system in confor- mance with this distribution. TASK 3 - TRAFFIC ANALYSIS The major emphasis of the traffic analysis will be the impact on the MacArthur/Campus intersection. Projected traffic volumes from the site will be combined with existing volumes to represent conditions with and without the proposed amendment. Volume/capacity comparisons will be made with both sets of volumes and with the existing and im- proved intersection conditions. The results of this comparison will be utilized to evaluate the impact of the proposed amendment. TASK 4 - PARKING ANALYSIS A review will be made of the parking provisions included in the exist- ing PC and the proposed amendment. The adequacy of the parking proyi- sions will be evaluated based upon previous studies of similar land uses. TASK 5 REPORT AND MEETINGS A report will be prepared summarizing our findings and conclusions. The report will contain the required supportive data for review by the City. We will meet with members of the City Staff and others as required to complete the study. Attendance at Planning Commission or City Council meetings is not included as a part of this proposal. -3- We are prepared to begin work on this study upon receipt of authorization. It is understood that the report must be completed by April 7, 1978. Our fee for completing the work outlined in this proposal shall be based upon personnel charges plus 'direct expenses as indicated in our Standard Rate Schedule, a copy of which is attached and made a part hereto. In no case will the total fee exceed $1,000.00 without prior authorization from you or your representative. Since it is not possible at this time to estimate the time re- quired for additional meetings and/or presentations concerning this project not mentioned in this proposal, our staff will be available.with the fee based upon -- our Rate Schedule in addition to the previously stated maximum. The additional work shall be conducted -when requested -by you or your representative. Respectfully submitted, WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES Ag, Weston S. Pringle, P.E. WSP:wg 'i 1 . • , PI A t� wW Pam& ,lea iTRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING STANDARD RATE SCHEDULE Effective October 1, 1976 Professional Staff y :Hourly Rates Firm Principal $ 45.00 . Senior Engineer 30.00 Associate Engineer 25.00. Assistant Engineer -20'.00 Support Staff Engineering Draftsman $ 15.00 Field Supervisor 12.00 Secretary 10.00 Clerical, Field Enumerator 8.00 General 1. Travel, reproduction, telephone, supplies, and other non-wage direct costs are billed at cost plus ten (10) percent. 2. Hourly rates apply to travel in addition to working time. 3. For presentations or appearances at formal hearings, depositions, or court testimony, the following rates apply. Travel time is included in the number of hours indicated. Preparation time is charged at normal hourly rates. Over 5 hours 5 hours or less Firm Principal $500.00 $300.00 Senior Engineer 350.00 200.00 4,. St•aLouuuts will bo submi ttod montlOy ror work ,in progress or upon com- pi.•Lion of work. Statements are payable within 30 days of receipt. Any invoice unpaid after 60 days shall have service charges added at a rate of 1.5 percent per month on the unpaid balance. Compensation for services performed will not be contingent upon the necessity of client to receive payment from other parties. 5. Those rates art. based upon prucedures and methods outlined ill the American Society or Civil i?ni;inerrs' Nanuul on F.nt;ineering Practice Number 45. 2651 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE • SUITE 110 FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92631 714 871-2931