HomeMy WebLinkAboutTPO008 COMIMOSS.IONERS *r u a ry 19 , 1981
�L w
y 1 City of Newport Beach
ROLL CALL INDEX-
res odd to the Commission ' s concerns , including
those e'ScP�essed by Commissioner Beek .
Commissioner XA 1,en suggested that this item be
set as the first age da item for the March 19th
tl meeting.
Motion Y Motion was made to initiate t roposed General
All Ayes X X X Plan Amendment No. 80-3 and set republic hearin
Absent * as the first item on the Agenda for fta-rch 19 ,
1981 at 7: 30 p.m. , which MOTION CARRIED
Request to consider a Traffic Study for a pro- Item #3
posed 18,104 sq . ft. t office building.
LOCATION: A portion of Lot 78 , and a portion TRAFFIC
of Lot 79, Tract No. 706, located at STUDY
3500-3510 Irvine Avenue ; on the
southeasterly side of Irvine Avenue Withdrawn
between Bristol Street and Orchard by the
Drive , southerly of the John Wayne Applicant
Airport.
ZONE: C-1 -H and A-P-H
APPLICANT: Richard H. Dodd and Associates ,
Newport Beach
OWNER: David Magilavy, Newport Beach
Planning Director Hewicker stated that the appli -
cant has requested that this item be withdrawn.
Planning Director Hewicker referred to the infor-
mation submitted by the City Traffic Engineer
and stated that the evidence indicates that the
ICU in the morning is substantially greater than
the ICU in the evening . However, he stated that
the peak hour is substantially shorter in the
morning than in the evening . He stated that
copies of the Traffic Engineering Assumptions
and the City Traffic Phasing Ordinance have been
attached to the report.
- COMMISSIONERS �ruary 19 , 1981 MINUTES
City of Newport Beach
ROLL CALL INDEX
Planning Director Hewicker stated that a direc-
tion from the City Council would be needed in
order to change these procedures . He- also stated
that a change in these procedures would be- diffi -
cult to implement because all of the committed
projects evaluated to date , have utilized the
p.m. peak hours . He stated that in the • majority
of the cases , the p .m. hour is the critical peak
hour.
Commissioner Thomas stated that MacArthur Boule-
vard is becoming a potential problem during the
morning peak hours .
Commissioner Beek asked if it would be possible
for the City Traffic Engineer to log the traffic
in the a.m. and the p.m. hours when the routine '
traffic inventory is taken at -the intersections .
Mr. Don Webb , Assistant City Engineer, stated
that the ICU calculations •are taken. by hand. He
stated that the machines take the 24-hour counts
which would be difficult to separate into the
a.m. and p.m. hours and also does not take into ,
account any of the turning movements .
k �
Req'u.est to' permita modification to the Newport Item #4
Plac$ Development Plan so as to reduce the on-
site � king requirement from one parking space MODIFICA-
per 225sq. ft. of net floor area to one parking .TION NO.
space per 50 sq . ft. of 'net floor area , and to 2663
permit the se of compact car parking spaces. in
West -
conjunction with the expansion of the Far West
Savings and Loa Office complex on the property. APPROVED
LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 62-37 CONDI-
(Resubdi ision• No . 458) , located TIONALLY
at 4001 MacArthur Boulevard on the
northwesterNy corner of MacArthur
Boulevard and"Bowsprit Drive , in the
Newport Place Planned Community.
ZONE: P-C
APPLICANT: Far West Savings an Loan, Association
Newport Beach
OWNER : Same as applicant
-9-
COMMISSIONERS F*u a ry 5 , 1981 MINUTES
In N City of Newport Beach
ROLL CALL INDEX
ytions that such units will be initially
ofl~ee,r,�ed to the general public or terms more
favoPable to the tenant.
CONDITIONS:
1 . That a parcel m ;p` be filed.
2. That all improvement3 be constructed as re-
quired by ordinance an the Public Works
Department.
3. That an encroachment permit be obtained for
any wall in the Grand Canal publiclright-of-
way.
Request to consider a Traffic Study for a pro- Item #5
posed 18,104 sq. ft. f office building.
LOCATION: A portion of Lot 78, and a portion TRAFFIC
of Lot 79 , Tract No . 706, located STUDY
at 3500-3510 Irvine Avenue, on the
southeasterly side of Irvine Avenue, Continued
between Bristol Street and Orchard to Febru-
Drive , southerly of the John Wayne ary 19 ,
Airport. 1981 .
ZONE: C-1 -H and A-P-H
APPLICANT: Richard H . Dodd and Associates ,
Newport Beach
OWNER: David Magilavy, Newport Beach
Chairman Haidinger asked staff if the ICU of
.8748 on Bristol Street and Irvine Avenue, in-
cludes the addition of the Corona del Mar Freeway
Planning Director Hewicker stated that the ICU
does not include the addition of the Corona del
Mar .Freeway. Mr. Don Webb , Assistant City Engine r,
stated that this calculation is for Bristol Stree
South , with the proposed improvements . Chairman
Haidinger stated that he is also concerned with
Bristol Street North .
-9-
v
COMMISSIONERS [S u a ry 5, 1981 MINUTES
F ! I City of Newport Beach
ROLL CALL INDEX
Mr. Webb stated that the peak hour calculations
were performed in the evening for the southerly
portion of Bristol Street and Irvine Avenue . He
stated that these calculations do not include
Bristol Street North . Chairman Haidinger stated
that the morning peak hours are a problem on
these streets and need to be considered. Plannin
Director Hewicker stated that the Traffic Phasing
Ordinance requires that the P .M. peak hours be
analyzed .
Commissioner Balalis asked if this is the same
logic used in the calculations for General Plan
Amendment No. 80-3. Mr. Webb stated that the
analysis utilized in .General Plan amendments are
also evening peak hours . Chairman Haidi.nger
suggested that staff consider the Commission ' s
concerns when preparing General Plan Amendment
No. 80-3.
In response to a question posed by Commissioner
Balalis , Mr. Webb stated that the intersection
improvements at Bristol Street North and Campus
Drive do take into consideration the addition of
the right turn lane and obtaining the right-of-wa
from the County Board of Supervisors .
The public hearing opened in connection with
this item and Mr. Bill Otey, architect for
Richard Dodd and Associates , representing the
applicant, appeared before the Commission. Mr.
Otey clarified that he does not represent any
of the developers who are required to make the
improvements under discussion . He stated that
they are willing to concur with the staff re-
commendation that the traffic study be approved
with or without the condition of the circulation
system improvement. However, he stated that they
are requesting approval of the traffic study
without the condition imposed. He stated that
the size of the project and the traffic which
will be generated is insignificant compared to
the other committed projects which will impact
the intersection .
Mr. Otey stated that as an additional condition'
for the development, his client will be granting
-10-
` COMMISSIONERS Fe.aary 5 , 1981 • MINUTES
City of Newport Beach
ROLL CALL INDEX
to the City of Newport Beach , a 20 foot strip of
land for the ultimate purpose of widening Irvine
Avenue on the -east side. He stated that this
constitutes a significant contribution, along
with making the improvements for the widening of
Irvine Avenue as well . He requested that this
project not be conditioned upon the obligations
of other developers , over whom they have no
control .
Mr. Otey added that currently, his client has the
option of developing the parcels with two buildings,
without needing approval of a traffic study. How-
ever, he stated that his client is desirous of
constructing a single building on the two parcels .
In response to a question posed by Commissioner
Balalis , Mr. Webb explained the nature of the
improvements for the ultimate widening of Irvine
Avenue . Commissioner Balalis stated that if the
developers are not required to make these im-
provements , then perhaps they should be required
to donate "V number of dollars to ensure that
the improvements will be made. Mr. Webb stated
that this can be required as a condition, of the
building permit. Commissioner Balalis stated
that this would be a positive benefit to all
parties concerned.
Commissioner Allen asked if Condition of Approval
No. 1 , for improvements to the circulation system
to be completed prior to occupancy, can be
waived under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance . Mr.
Burnham, Assistant City Attorney, stated that
this condition could be waived in this case.
Planning Director Hewicker stated that in this
particular case , this condition was added only
because of the Commission ' s practice in the past
with respect to tying .building occupancy to
circulation system improvements for the area .
In response to a question posed by Commissioner
Allen , Planning Director Hewicker stated that
the applicant could develop two buildings on-
the parcels for a total of approximately 22,000
sq . ft. , whereas the applicant is proposing to
1 one building on the 2 parcels of
develop only g
approximately 18,000 sq . ft. Commissioner Balali
-11 -
m
' COMMISSIONERS F*uary 5 , 1981 • MINUTES
' a � x N� � � i�
1 City of Newport Beach
7ROLLCALL INDEX
stated that the development of one building on
two lots , has a more positive aspect than the
development of two buildings on two lots .
X Motion was made to approve the Traffic Study
with the findings of Exhibit "A" of the staff
report, deleting Condition No. 1 , and adding a
new Condition No . 1 as follows : 1 ) That "X"
number of dollars in cash , as calculated by the
City Traffic Department, be contributed to a
fund, plus the dedication, to do the improvements
to Irvine Avenue across their frontage.
SubstitutE Substitute motion was made to continue this item
Motion X until a revised traffic analysis can be made that
Ayes X X X recognizes that the morning hours are the problem
Noes X X at Bristol Street South and Irvine Avenue, which
Absent * MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Webb stated that this action will require
that a new traffic count be conducted at the
intersection , to be funded either by the applicant
of the City. Mr. Otey stated that they would not
be agreeable in funding another traffic study.
Motion K Motion was made to continue this item to March
19 , 1981 , to allow more time to obtain the accurate
information from either the applicant or from the
staff in cooperation with the applicant.
Commissioner Allen stated that a denial of the
traffic study may result in the construction of
a development that is not desirable . Commissione
Thomas stated that , the current traffic study is
not necessarily inadequate, but that the infor-
mation therein is inaccurate. -He stated that the
item should be continued until the accurate in-
formation is obtained.
Commissioner Balalis stated that the applicant
has paid for and conducted the traffic study ,
which was required and directed by the City
Traffic Engineer. He stated that now there are
certain additional traffic counts being requested
He stated that the City should take the initiativ '
to provide these additional traffic counts , inas-
much as the applicant has already complied w.ith
the City Traffic Engineer' s criteria.
-12-
— TCOMMiSSIONERS Aruary 5, 1981 •
MINUTES
� r;a Q .0 co
.5 Cn x N City of Newport Beach
'ROLL CALL V I INDEX
Mr. Otey stated that the traffic report was pre-
pared under, th•e same guidelines as all other
traffic reports have been prepared . He stated
that it would be unfair to single out this one
traffic study, to find fault with the City' s
own criteria . He also stated that they would be
withdrawing this item, i.f the Commission did not
vote upon it, or. if they were required to do
another traffic study.
Amendment X Amendment was made to "Commissioner Beek's motion
that this item be continued to the meeti"ng of
February 19 , 1981 , in order to obtain the re-
quested information from either the applicant,
or from the staff in cooperation with the
,applicant.
Commissioner Balalis asked Mr. Webb if this in-
formation could be obtained in two weeks- Mr.
Webb stated that an ICU count can be conducted
for' the morning hours at this intersection with
no problem. He stated that the difficulty will
be in readjustments for the committed development!,
which were analyzed in the evening peak hours . H
stated that he can report back to the Commission
in two weeks , as to when this information can be
made available.
Commissioner Beek su.ggested that Mr. Webb report,
_ back to the Commission with the information as
to whether the ICU is higher or lower at the A.M.
or the P.M. hours at these intersections . Mr.
Webb stated that this information can be obtained
in two weeks . Chairman Haidinger concurred.
ceptance x Commissioner Beek accepted the amendment to his
I' ll Ayes X * X XX X X ,motion by Commissioner Balalis . Amended motion
was now voted on , which AMENDED MOTION CARRIED.
Requue t permit the construction of a 17,006 Item #6
•sq. ft. of�% dditional office space with associ -
ated parking , l,agdscaping , and other facilities NEWPORT
in conjunction thercewith . Said application also PLACE
includes the acceptant* of an Environmental TRAFFIC
Document. PHASING
PLAN
LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Par cel heap 63-27, AMENDMENT
(Resubdivision No. 458�1"ocated NO. 2
�'pw
T • Planning Commission Meeting 19 , 1981
Agenda Item No . 3
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT: Traffic Study (Continued Public Hearing)
Request to consider a Traffic Study for a proposed
18,104 sq .ft.± office building .
LOCATION: A portion of ' Lot 78, and a portion of Lot 79 , Tract No .
706 , located at 3500-3510 Irvine Avenue, on the south-
easterly side of Irvine Avenue between Bristol Street
and Orchard Drive , southerly of the John Wayne Airport.
ZONE: C-1 -H and A-P-H
APPLICANT: Richard H . Dodd and Associates , Newport Beach
OWNER: David Magilavy, Newport Beach
Background
This item was continued from the February 5 , 1981 Planning Commission
meeting , at which time the staff was directed to review the Traffic
Study and prepare an additional analysis to determine if the "Peak
Hour" occurred during the morning or afternoon at the intersection of
Bristol Street and Campus Drive and Irvine Avenue . Subsequently the
applicant has requested that the Traffic Study be withdrawn from
further considerations . In the meantime the staff has proceeded with
the requested analysis and a report from the City Traffic Engineer is
attached .
Both the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) and the City Council Policy
S-1 which sets forth the administrative procedures for implementing
the Traffic Phasing Ordinances require that a "Peak Hour" analysis
be performed.
In 1978, which was the first year the City compiled data for use in the
TPO studies both a .m. and p.m. intersection counts were made at that
time it was determined that in almost all cases the "Peak Hour" occurred
in the p.m. On August 28, 1978 a report containing a compilation of the
various documents related to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance was presented
to the City Council . This report among other documents included a list
of eight traffic engineering assumptions to be used in making the re-
quired analysis among their assumptions were :
-1 -
TO : 0Planni,ng Commission -2. _
2h hour peak traffic volumes occur from 3:30 p .m.
to 6:00 p .m.
Critical peak hour occurs during the p .m. - 2k
hour peak period.
The report was subsequently adopted by the City Council on August 28,
1978 and, with the exception of the update of the base data , has served
as the ba-sis for the preparation of all traffic studies since that time.
Respectfully submitted,
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
J•". -
nulo
D. Hew cker, Director
k
Attachments : Staff Report Dated February 5 , 1981
Letter of Withdrawl
Traffic Engineering Assumptions
Traffic Phasing Ordinance
Council Policy S-1
Report from City Traffic Engineer
Planning Commission Meeting_ February 5 , 1981
Agenda Items No.. 5
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT: Traffic Study (Continued Public Hearing)
Request to consider a Traffic Study for a proposed
18,104 sq . ft.± office building.
LOCATION : A portion of Lot 78, and a portion of Lot 79 , Tract
No . 706, located at 3500-3510 Irvine Avenue , on the
southeasterly side of Irvine Avenue, between Bristol
Street and Orchard Drive, southerly of the John Wayne
Airport.
ZONE: C-1 -H and A-P-H
APPLICANT: Richard H . Dodd and Associates , Newport Beach
OWNER: David Magilavy, Newport Beach
The above subject item was continued by- the Planning Commission from
its meeting of January 22, 1981 . Subsequent to this meeting the
applicant has provided additional information related to land uses
on the subject property (le•tter attached) . The letter indicates
that there are approximately 2000± sq. ft. of development existing
on site if the Planning Commission approves this project the applicant
would be permitted to construct 18,104 sq . ft. of new construction
plus replace the existing on-site development of 2000± sq . ft. for
a total of 20,104 sq . ft. The applicant has indicated, though, that
is his intention to only build a 18,104 sq . ft. building. The traffic
' consultant has indicated that giving credit for the 2000 sq . ft. of
existing development would not significantly change the findings of
the Traffic Study.
Respectfully yours ,
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
JAMES D. HEWICKER , DIRECTOR
By�
Fred Ta arico
Environmental Coordinator
FT/tk
Attachment : Letter from Richard Dodd and Associates - January 26, 81
Original Staff Report
(714) 673-0990
RICHARD H DODO a ASSOCIATES
201 SHIPYARD WAY BERTH A CABIN F NEWPORT•BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92663
January 26, 1981
Mr. Fred T'alarico
Enviromental Coordinator
Planning Department
artment
City of Newport Beach
$300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Dear Fred:
In regard to the traffic study for our project at 3500-3510
Irvine Ave , it has co
me to my attention that we were not given
credit for 2000 sq,., ft. (1000 sq. ft. on each of the two adjacent
lots) of office space existing on the site which will be replaced
b building.
y our
Through conversations with you and y with Bill Dickson of
Herman
and Associates , it ism understa Kimmel
add Y understanding that we would be allowed to
this 2000 s . ft. to the q project.
Alternatively, we would be allowed
to build 9 ,999 sq, ft. plus replace
the existing 1,000 sq. ft. for a total of 10 ,999 sq• ft. on each of
the existing adjacent parcels w'J P without a traffic phasing stud
P ff Y•
We regret that this information was not reported in the traffic study
or findings , but we hope that you will bring this to the attention of
the planning commission.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely yours ,
RICHARD H'. DODD & ASSOCIATES
t �
.,.a
D. William Otey Recek�o v
:bg �/Q Rry lv \2
s
I9
ro orr 81�*
cc: David r 1 Magilavy 'g EwpoR of
ro
c e�
n o
• A W
FEa. 5,
Planning Commission Meeting ftMMT v—pp 1981
Agenda Item No. g $
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
January 16, 1981
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT: Traffic Study (Public Hearing)
Request to consider a Traffic Study for a proposed
18, 104 sq . ft. + Office building.
LOCATION: A portion of Lot 78, and a portion of Lot 79, Tract
No. 706, located at 3500-3510 Irvine Avenue, on the
southeasterly side of Irvine Avenue between Bristol
Street and Orchard Drive , southerly of the John Wayne
Airport.
ZONE : C-1 -H and A-P-H
APPLICANT: Richard H. Dodd and Associates , Newport Beach
OWNER: David Magilavy, Newport Beach
The applicants have requested the Planning Commission 's approval of a
Traffic Study for the purposes of issuance of building and grading per-
mits in conjunction with the construction of a two-story office building
( 18, 104 sq. ft. ) to be located at 3500 and 3510 Irvine Avenue in the Santa
Ana Heights area . The Traffic Study for the proposed office building has
been prepared in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Muni-
cipal Code ( "Traffic Phasing Ordinance") . A copy of the Traffic Study
prepared for the City by Herman Kimmel and Associates is attached for
Planni-ng Commission review.
Traffic Study
The City Traffic Engineer has determined that the following intersections
will be affected by the proposed project based upon it 's size and geo-
graphic location :
I . Bristol St. (N)/Jamboree Rd.
2. Bristol st. (N)/Birch St.
3. Bristol St. (N)/Campus Dr.
4. Jamboree Rd./Bristol St.
S. Irvine Ave./Bristol St.
6. Irvine Ave./Mesa Dr.
7. Irvine Ave./University Dr.
8. MacArthur Blvd./Campus Dr.
•_ . P
TO: Planning Commission - 2
The traffic analysis indicated that all of the above intersections, ex-
cept Bristol St./Irvine Ave. , will have traffic volume increases of less
than 1% as a result of the proposed project deve-lopment. In accordance
with City Policy S-1 an I .C.U . analysis was made , The I .C.U. analysis
of the Bristol St./Irvine Ave .
Existing + Committed + Regional 1 .0105
Existing + Committed + Regional + Project 1 .0128
Existing + Committed + Regional + Committed' Improvements 0.8748
Existing + Committed + Regional + Committed Imputs & Project 0.8790
No trip generation mitigation measures were required to achieve the I .C.U 's
at the intersections .
Based on this analysis the Planning Commission can make the required find-
ing that the proposed project will neither cause nor make worse an unsatis-
factory level of traffic service on any "major", "primary-modifi-e.d" , or "pri-
ma-ry" street (Finding No, 2 - Exhibit "A" ) in which case the applicant could
build the project without an obligation to construct any circulation system
improvements . However, in this particular case committed improvemehts in-
clude an additional southbound lane on Irvine Ave. at the Bristol Street fin-
tersection. While this improvement is currently the obligation of others ,
it could be said that is is related to this project and should be the obli-
gation of this project in which case Condition No. 1 - Exhibit "A" could be
added .
The applicant has indicated to st&ff that such' a condition would not be ac-
ceptable the two which
adjacenteparcels and option
remaining building
exemptp to from9the9requirements
of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. However, the staff feels that a single
building containing less space with combined parking and access would be
superior to .the two building alternative.
Suggested Action
If desired, approve the Traffic Study with the Findings and with or without
the Condition as indicated in Exhibit
Respectfully submitted ,
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director
By
ae :F&—arico
Environmental Coordinator
FT:nma
Attachments : Exhibit "A"
1 . Traffic Study - December 18, 1980
EXHIBIT "A"
FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AS
RECOMMENDED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
JANUARY 22, 1981
FINDINGS
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.
CONDITIONS
1 . • That prior to the occupancy of the 18, 104 sq . ft. building .at 3500
and 3510 Irvine Avenue the circulation system improvement depicted
on Exhibit . 2 of the Traffic Report dated December 18, 1960, shall
have been constructed (unless subsequent project approval requires
modification thereto) . The circulation system improvement shall
be subj'ect to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer.
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
Kerman CONSULTANTS
immel and Associates, Inc.
PRINCIPALS: 4242 CAMPUS DRIVE,SUITE E•6 NEWPORT BEACH,CALIF.92660
HERMAN KIMMEL l71<) 546.9814
H.WILLIAM DICKSON
December 18, 1980
City of Newport Beach ^•r�
Community Service Department RCr lvc� �Ci�
3300 Newport Boulevard
cnt
Newport Beach, Calif. 92663' S 198�a• ' 2
a 3PN5 _
Attention Fred Talarico 3
Irvine Avenue Office Project 1., CHLI
"Anchor Plaza", Traffic Analysis
City of Newport Beach 0) w
Gentlemen:
The office project proposed at 3500-3510 Irvine Avenue has been
analyzed in accordance with the City's "Traffic Phasing Ordinance" .
The intersections covered by the analysis are those identified by
Richard M. Edmonston, Newport Beach Traffic Engineer.
Project Description
The proposed project is an 18,104 square foot office building.
It is to be located on the east side of Irvine Avenue, south of
Bristol Street. Present land uses, adjacent to the project site,
consist of an office building and a small commercial convenience
facility. The site is opposite the Orange County operated public
golf course. Present plans project that the proposed project's
offices would be occupied in 1983 .
Traffic Generation & Distribution
Traffic generation rates, for the type of facility proposed, as
established by the City of Newport Beach Traffic Engineering
Departtnet, are as follow:
�- Page 2
Dec. 18, 1980
Newport Beach
Average Daily Traffic Generation Rate = 13 T.E./1000 Sq. Ft.
Project Average Daily Traffic Volume = 13 x 18.104 = 235 T.E.*
Total 2.5 Hour Generation Rate = 4.6 T.E./1000 Sq. Ft.
Total 2.5 Hour Volume (Project) = 4.6 x 18.104 = 83 T.E.
Inbound 2.5 Hour Generation Rate = 1.2 T.E./1000 Sq. Ft.
Inbound 2.5 Hour Volume (Project) = 1.2 x. 18 .104 = 22 T.E.
Outbound 2.5 Hour Generation Rate = 3.4 T.E./1000 Sq. Ft.
Outbound 2.5 Hour Volume (Project) = 3.4 x 18.104, = 61 T.E.
*T.E. = Trip End. A trip end is the arrival or
departure of a vehicle at the project site.
Exhibit 1 shows both the directional 2.5 hour site traffic distri-
bution and direction desire percentages in the analysis area.
Intersection Analysis 1% Test
The "critical" intersections identified by the City Traffic Engineer
for a 18 analysis are:
1. Bristol Street North @ Jamboree Road
2. Bristol Street North @ Birch Street
3. Bristol Street North @ Campus Drive
4. Jamboree Road @ Bristol Street
S. Irvine Avenue @ Bristol Street
6 . Irvine Avenue @ Mesa Drive
7 . Irvine Avenue @ University Drive
8. MacArthur Boulevard @ Campus Drive
Existing and projected 2.5 hour traffic volumes, for each -inter-
section, are shown on attached forms.
The analysis indicates that all of the intersections identified by
the City Traffic Engineer, except Bristol Street at Irvine Avenue/
Campus Drive, will have traffic volume increases of less than 18 as
a result of the proposed project •development. •
I.C.U. Phase II Test
An intersection capacity utilization test, with traffic projected
for regional growth, committed project, and project volumes, indi-
cates that the intersection of Bristol Street at Irvine Avenue/
Campus Drive would exceed a Volume/Capacity of 0.90% with or with-
out the project. our calculations indicate that the proposed
project would increase the V/C ratio by only 0.0023% . The calcu-
lations are attached.
b Page 3
Dec. 18, 1980
Newport Beach
Mitigation I.C.U. Phase III Test
The City Traffic Engineer, Mr. Richard Edmonston, has indicated
that previously committed projects will be providing an additional
southbound lane on Irvine Avenue at the intersection. Calculation
of the I.C.U. with this improvement shows that the I.C.U. will be
reduced below 0.90, without traffic from this project.
Additional .traffic from the Irvine Avenue Office Project will not
cause the I..C.U. to increase beyond 0.90. Attached is a copy of
I.C.U. calculation sheets and Exhibit 2, which illustrates the
improvement that will be implemented by other committed projects.
Conclusions
Although the Irvine Avenue office Project will not meet Phase I
and II traffic phasing ordinance tests, it will meet Phase III
test with the committed improvement of the additional southbound
lane on Irvine Avenue at Bristol Street South.
If you have any questions, please contact our office.
Respectfully submitted,
HERMAN KIMMEL & ASSOC. , INC.
9l*14Y4*--CtV1;40-�
H. William Dickson, P.E.
RCE No. 19417
RTR No. 39
20°6
f
Alk
e
io%
L�j 00%0 9�RGEAIf DI�Sf i?l$lY( ICKJ •
3 Y _00 yfyNOm V12wlomAl.Viclf'21i3 nom
�n�nrwrc [wew[[mr+o VWJEC 'r .A?FIC
"`� IQVINE AVENUE OFFICE
s4,�,alto
�QWI:
lQylpE p (� •
VICINIfY MAP
man co.�w�r.wrs
and Aaaoc4eaa.�nc.
lRtihIJE AV5MUJE
�'•'F!o OFF,G� ,
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection Bristol St. Cam r _
(Existing Traffic Vo umes ased on verage nter/ pring 1980)
approach ' Wstin ►
Vrtctlon Pest 2i9,our I RpfoniI Approved roJeetW is o1 ►roJeetN Project
i YC`,re Growth ►eik 2y Hour VOW* Values
(lour Pak 2y Hour Peak 2%Hour'
Ii— i Yet Volt ,�se Yolw Volw 7
Northbound 9 3;pw ?ii�'IT z1 I
sputhbpw w 2808 23 204 31035
30 10
EasebounA 6581 ��f'o�0 81?45 9
l
"stb*und
• i
[] Project Traffic is estimated to be less than I% of Projected
Peak 2;% Hour Traffic Volume
® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 21i Hour Traffic Volume, Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
r
r
3►500-3�[��Y1NB •DVS`tj�_ah"'f=it`d �•
PROJECT: -` '
1 % Traffic Volume Analysis
•Intersection Irvine Avenue/university Drive
(Existing Traffic Vo umes ase on Average nter pr ng 198.9)
�Ippraach Eststte/ ►aat Annvee h►rayl�aetM ft ftwoctN, =4ct' raCtlM hat 7ti WK aa�toa 11tftor ofa "KU Mt 2y Wow Iwt ty Ww ftN 21�Mawr'
Vol, WaRh /w! A Ww wiw hiw Velma s
thbourml
wAW4 1 1951 9 365 6 23 t
2
1 4348 21 202 45#71 46 6
aaceoune 735 34 769 1 8 0 i
stboane 133 240 47,3 $ 0
[� Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume
❑ Project Traffi j c is estimated to be
greater than I% of Pro
jected
Peak 23% Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection
Capacity
Utilization(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
3500 - 35k0 2rVI;7Q i4Van4f (?Ffice DATE! !? t2 80
PROJECT
FORM I
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
intersection Irvine Avenue/Mesa Drive
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average nter pr n9 19 89
1OtAPPieerottse E+itt1M reek re Now RpyrovW ►rojectel t!of"ectod Iroject
t i wry ttwr o= th 1 troJects heR ty Meer took tY Mew Veen th tkrr
IeeR tti tkrr Voles Volvo Yelur
twoome 1212 . 9 352 ?/93 22 2 !
hwthewea 2149 10 20Z 9361 24 9
833 - "_ 833
eeeewiw $ I i
,tbwne 127 427 4 0
oo,
g 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 21% Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
3500 — 3510 .rrvl;w A4 ml74AZ 0 t 0ica ' QATF. 12-12-60
PROJECT
FORM I
0
az
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection Bristol St./Jamboree Road
(Existing Traffic Vo umes ase on verage Inter Spring 1980)
IAoOroach Esi:;ing Peak 2y Mour eon --`
01receton leek 2% Hour j, Reglonat Projects Peak h Hour Peakt2y�Hour Pak 2% Hour*
roue Grath feat 2%Ik+ur VolumeVol Yotwee Volume
'Northbound I 5614 $ 2064 7j%1 78
i I
�southbound 2063 ( 338 AVOW 24
Eastbound 4862 21 964 5,907 se rZ
escbound
i
[v� Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2►s Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to 'be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2-11 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.
3500 - 3510 Irvin¢ 4vtanua 4FiPke DATE: 12-12-80
PROJECT:
'FORM I
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
intersection Bristol St. (N)/Jamboree Road
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19"80)
lApproach fws:mq Peak 2%'Hour Approved YProjected 1% of Projected Project
Gtrectlon oel. 2y dour Regional Projects Peak 2q Hour Peak 2%Hour Peea g Hour'
rot ae Growth Peak 2y Hour Volume Volute Volute
I Yoi Vol
r �
Nortnoound 6131 7 /02 8�5$ 83 15 i
1
,Southbound 3003 565 5#72 _% 5 }
jEaateduM
!..etbcund 1 ? 401 20
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 Volume. . Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
3500- 3510 TI vh7¢ 4Vanua OfF1C¢ oA7 • l2-l2-80
PROJECT:
FOPM I
N
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
:nTraffic Vn Bristol gt. fN�Br
(Existing Traffic Volumes ba—se`d"o'n"Average Inter/Spring 1980)
!Otraction , Peak 2%9dour ! Ptak nalH�r Projects
Projected is of>'rolected project
.o!ae Grw.tr. holeete ►eek 2k Hour Peek h Hour ink 2y Hour`
h
Vol�nt Peak
y,Hour WOW* Yolsnt Velma
Northbound 904 212 1!6 ll
Isouthbound 532 61 t
2729 3
3
iEestbound i
i!
ii+estoound' i 7220 131
46 9797 9$
[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 Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C-U.) Analysis is required.
3600- 3510 INi/!¢ .4vr?nt�1z Off'ic¢ oat I -f AWN
FORK PROJECT:
FORS' I
I7 �
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
intersection Bristol St. (N)/Campus Drive
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter%Spring 1980)
lgirectlon EXI T.I g 1 Peak 2% Hour Approved •Projected M of Projected Project
•e:k 2y Hour Regional Projects Peak 2% Hour Peak 21%Hour Peak 211 Hour•V.:74 Growth Peak 2% Hour Volume Volure Ydlume
I. Volume Volume
'Northbound 264.3 I 13
440 3P97 31 30
sdYInbound 3552 30 590 4772 48 Z
,Eastbound
�estbound 9636 I 41 79 //9:5 IZD 8
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 21,, Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utiliiation
(I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.
3500- - 3510 IN/i7¢ '•i0V¢/7U¢ (D6PP,Ca DATE• I Z- l 2-8C"
PROJECT:
FORM I
ik
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection MacArthur Blvd !Campus Orive
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1980)
JOppro.ch ' :alitirg ' peek 2+ hour Approved Iro ected
Direction , ; rest 25 Hour Mal ►ro ecti• is or Projected Pro
YoluR YWarth ►e k 2y Hour Peek 2%Hour ►eek 2y Hour Peek h Hour'
Y ume Volume Volume Velure
'Northbound 2921 I 539 446l 45------------
Fj 1
,southbbund 2738 ( ,369 33
i
�EeuoOund 2043 23 (� j
`reMound__ 2469 21 3'18
[� Project Traffic is estimated to be
less than, 1% Of
Peak 2�, Hour Traffic Volume Protected
❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2-, Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization(I.C.U. ) Analysis n
Y s is required. ,
3500 - 3510 Irvin¢ AV/71l¢ 01f/C42
y
PROJECT:
FOP14 I
INTERSION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS pllph�
I Intersection Bristol St.%Campus Dr -Irvine Ave
( Existing Traffic Volumes Oases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1980)
YArM't+[ E%IS'i%; ►5: EXIST. EAST. REGi O•dd COMIT TCO NOJCCICO
WAS Go. U•et CA,,. PR•xR• r/C GROITK PROJECT r/C Ratio rRWict IRWEct
Val. Ratio roles roles �/o ►roject rotes r/C Ratio
Val"
NL
NT 3200 7 109 ZC�61 15 .2128
NR 1600 186 .1163 2 ?3 ' 116031 I I I'fOp
SL 1600 100 .0625 I ?J OG51 0 GYo31
ST 3200 1184 .3700* 220 102 .4080* 5 ,4103 SR
EL 1600 340 .2125 2 149 .5 0
ET 6400 2023 .3948* IC) (o4-1 � at+ 0 1
ER 504 3 3Z 5
WL
WT
WR
YELLOWTIME .1000* �• .I(�00% ' P
� P .1OC70
EXISTLNS'1NTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATIONEW/PROPOSE()
8648
EXISTING PLUS CO"ITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH INPRO'IEMENT_S I,C.U.XISTNS PLUS CO"ITTEO PLUS REGIONAL GRO'dTHS PROJECT I.C.U. I,CI�g i
1.0128
❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90
® Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90
❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be
less than or equal to 0.90
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Description of system improvement:
vsr�n.�,T=,In Ttavl► tt w�/I<: L1 r�F1[ E DATE:
IIITATION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANA
�$ LYSIS PIdASI%TT. .
Intersection Bristol St.%Campus Dr.-Irvine Ave
( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1980)
r),t,*Jc EXIS11s; ►;::,;.•. LEST, Exist. REGIONAL t6wI I'TED r MICCUO
Units Cap. U.ta C�;. WNW. V/C GR74 M . iRGitct Y/t Rabe /tWECT r•:JE[t
Vq. 14t1• VOW* Valtam, 4,1I project VOW* Y/t Ratio
NL Y•lao
MT 3200 7 109, .Z061 15
NR 1600 186 ,l63 2 I3 iCo31 1 i 21
St. 1600 100 .0625 1 1100
ST 3200 - m 0
SR 1184 .3700* : 22• 102 .2,725 5 .29s✓6
EL 1600 340 .2125 2 149
ET 6400 2023 .3948* tO (ps13 5023� 0ER
rJO314r
504 3 32 5
WT
WR
YELIQ'dTIME .1000*
EXISTING 1HTERSECT(03 C;DACITY UTILIZATION .8648 E a
EXISTING PLUS COMHITTEO PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROYEHENT_5 i.C.U.E , � E
EXISTING PLUS, COMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U.
❑ Projected 'plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90
❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0,90
® Projected plus project traffic I:C.U. with s
less thansystems improvement
or equal to 0.90 P nL will be
- -
Description of system improvement:
GOMM ITTE b PeoJPCiTo' Wli.i,
ADD ON6 A UDITI01�lAL.
5ocxl'u13ou�.lb LAND 1Nce�a�IN CA i G PIaG ITS( 1=20
M
pz0 TO 4600 V.P. N. (4syeiPi txweIT 2).
. Tty ��— DATE: IZ-
� r
BRISTOL STREET
/ R t
/ t ,
/ I I
I I
/ jiL I
lB*QMMOL.. -+ STREET
(sours-1�
y
.i
t t P
/ CGif�.Y!/TTEO AC�.2/ECTS
GYi¢ s�,d Thrgc�h Lan¢
IRVINE A► J�IUE
•R�• - EXHIBIT 2
COM M ITTEO 1Po=UF-CTS
IMPROVEMEAITS
�_o
r C714) 673-0990
FRICHARD H DODD & ASSOCIATES
201 SHIPYARD WAY BERTH A CABIN F NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92663
February 12 , 1981
Mr. Fred Talarico
y
Environmental Coordinator
Planning Department
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Dear Fred:
We are hereby requesting that the traffic study
for our project at 3S00 and 3510 Irvine Avenue be with-
drawn from consideration by the Planning Commission
and that no further action be taken.
While we regret this turn of events , we want to thank
you for all the work and support that you and the
rest of the city staff have provided in our behalf.
Sincerely yours ,
RICHARD H. DODD $ ASSOC.
a .
D. William Otey
:bg ,
Vic'•' '; I�J I� 9
ChC/�"41Ch,
l
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING ASSUMPTIONS
1• BASE CONDITIONS ARE 1978 WINTER S/ PRING
2 22 HOUR PEAK TRAFFIC VOLUMES OCCUR FROM 3:30 P.M. to•6:00 p.m.
3. CRITICAL PEAK HOUR DCCURS DURING THE p.m. 22 HOUR PEAK PERIOD
4. TRIP GENERATION RATES WILL BE APPROVED BY THE CITY TRAFFIC
ENGINEER,
5• TRIP DISTRIBUTION WILL BE- APPROVED BY THE,TRAPFIC ENGINEER
6• LANE CAPACITY IS 1600 VEHICLES PER HOUR PER LANE. UNLESS
OTHERWISE NOTED ON I.C.U, FORMS.
7• A YELLOW TIME OF 0.10 WILL BE USED FOR ALL I,C,U. ANALYSIS.
FURTHER REFINEMENT OF THIS 'VALUE WILL BE NECESSARY TO REFLECT
ACTUAL LOSS TIME AT EACH INTERSECTION.
8. EXCLUSIVE FREE RIGHT TURN LANES WILL NOT BE INCLUDED IN I.C.U.
ANALYSIS.
zZ
APPROVAL IN CONCEPT PERMIT 15.35.070-15.37.020
15.35,070 Penalties. (a) Anyone in violation of the provisions of this
f ''Chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall
be,%Runishable as provided by the provisions of Section 1.04.010' of the
NewPgrt Beach Municipal Code.
(b)'No sale or exchange of residential property shall be invalidated
solely because of the failure of any person to comply with any provisions of
this Chaptirligless such failure is an act or omission which would be a valid
ground for resci§a(on of such sale or exchange in the absence of this Chapter.
(Ord. 1462 § 1 (pazb), 1972).
y
'..,Chapter 15.37
APPROVAL'''IN CONCEPT PERMIT :
Sections: ;
15.37.010 Intent.
15.31.020 Approval in Concept Penhit.
15.37.010 Intent. In order to comply with thq provisions of Division 18
of the California Public Resources Code, entitled`�1 alifornia Coastal Zone
Conservation Commission," and the' South Coast onal Commission's
operating regulations, it is necessary for the City of ewport Beach to
approve in concept all projects in the Coastal Zone Permit)a ea prior to any
action by the South Coast Regional Commission. (Ord. 16 § 1 (part),
1976: Ord. 1621 § 1 (part), 1975).
15.37.020 Approval in Concept Permit. A fee of Twenty-Five D ars
($25.00) is hereby established for the issuance of an Approval in Colice t
Permit. However, a fee of Ten Dollars ($10.00) will be charged for minor
applications, such as signs, swimming pools and jacuzzis, patios, decks,
fences and any similar applications for projects which would not increase the
floor area or intensity of use. Said fee may be modified in the future to
reflect changes in the economy or cost of living indices by Resolution of the
City Council. (Ord. 1680 § 1 (part), 1976: Ord. 1621 § 1 (part), 1975).
Chapter 15.40
TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE
Sections:
15.40.010 Finding.
15.40.020 Purpose.
15.40.030 Traffic Impact Limitation.
15.40.040 Definitions.
15.40.050 Procedure.
15AU60 Fees,
344-15 (Newport Beach 4.15.99)
15.40.010-15.40.030 BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION
15.40.070 Appeal.
15.40.080 Severability.
15.40.010 Finding. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach
finds that congestion of streets and intersections, traffic accidents,
interference with emergency vehicles, and general overcrowding of existing
neighborhoods have resulted, or will soon result,from inadequate phasing of
commercial, industrial and residential growth, in relation to traffic capacity,
which is harmful to the public health,'safety and general.welfare.(Ord. 1787
§ 1 (part), 1979: Ord. 1765 § 1 (part), 1978).
15.40.020 Purpose. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach
declares that aggravation of these conditions can be avoided, eliminated or
alleviated by enacting the following, designed to permit major development
only in those areas of the City of Newport Beach where adequate
transportation facilities exist, are being implemented, or will be installed in
conjunction with the development which will accommodate the traffic
generated by such development, or where other trip generation reductions
are adopted which will alleviate traffic impacts.(Ord. 1787 § 1 (part), 1979:
Ord. 1765 § I (part), 1978).
15.40.030 Traffic Impact Limitation. (A) Limitation. No building or
grading permit shall be issued, and no construction shall be commenced,for
any project not exempt from this Chapter until the Planning Commission of
the City of Newport Beach shall make a written finding that the proposed
project:
(i) will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level'of traffic
service on any "major,'' "primary-modified"or"primary"street;or
(ii) shall be excepted pursuant to subsection (D) of this section;
provided, however, that such finding shall state the exception granted and
the facts which justify the exception.
(B) Hearing. The Planning Commission shall hold,a public.hearing,
noticed in the manner provided in Section 20.80.050(B) of the Newport
Beach Municipal Code, and shall make its written findings supported by the
weight of the evidence.
(C) Exemption. Any commercial or industrial project which has a gross
floor area equal to.or less than 10,000 square feet,or any residential project
of 10 dwelling units or less shall be exempt from the requirements of this
Chapter,
(D) Exceptions. The Planning Commission shall except any project
from the requirements of this Chapter:
W if it shall find that the City has issued a building or grading permit
for the project prior to the effective date of this Chapter and that the person
to whom such permii was issued has in good faith and in reliance upon such /
permit diligently'commenced construction and performed and incurred l
substantial liabilities for work and materials necessary therefor. No change
(Newport Beach 4-15-79) 344-16
i L!
I
TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE 15.40.040
' causing a substantial increase in traffic volumes may be made i&such project,
( except in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter;
00 if it shall find that traffic during any 2.5 hour peak traffic period
on each leg of each critical intersection will be increased by less than 1%by i
traffic generated from the project during that 2.5 hour period;
(iii)if, by a vote of four-fifths (4/5ths)of the members eligible to vote,
it shall make a decision, supported by a written finding setting forth its
reasons therefor, that the benefits of the project, including trip generation
reductions, outweigh the project's anticipated negative impact on
transportation facilities. The City Council shall not grant the exception
under this subsection (iii) on appeal or review until it shall have first made
the findings required by this subsection supported by an affirmative vote of
four-fifths,(4/5ths)of its members eligible,to vote.
n.
on a(pro ect,owhicheis not exempt from on for any thisdChapte, shall be apding or otherproved,
I
conditionally approved or denied within ohe year from the date on which
said application has been received and accepted as complete by the City.
Any appeal to the City Council from an action by the Planning Comrission
on an application or a determination by the City Council to renew an
application, shall be made within the time Periods set out in Sections
20.80.070 and 20.80.075 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. In the
event action is not taken on an application within the time limits hereof,
( such failure shall be deemed approval of the project which otherwise Is
consistent with the ordinances and General Plan of the City of Newport
Beach. (Ord. 1787 § I (part), 1979: Ord. 1777 § 1, 1978; Ord. 1765 § 1
(part), 1978).
15.40.040 Definitions. The following terms used in this Chapter shall
have the meanings indicated below:
UNSATISFACTORY LEVEL OF TRAFFIC SERVICE means peak ;
period traffic service,which is worse than Level of Service `D' for one hour !
determined,according to standard traffic engineering practices.
PROJECT shall be determined by reference to the California
Environmental Quality Act [California Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq.] and the administrative guidelines established thereunder.
LEVEL OF SERVICE `D' shall mean that level of traffic service set
forth as "Level of Service `D'" in the Highway Capacity Manual (1965) or ;
any subsequent edition thereof, provided,however,that such level of service
shall not exceed the most appropriate of the following criteria,as applicable:
(i) intersection capacity utilization of 0.90;
00 other criteria selected by the City Traffic Engineer which are
consistent with subsection (i), and which have been reviewed and approved
by the Planning Commission.
CRITICAL INTERSECTION shall mean any intersection operating at
an unsatisfactory level of traffic service, either prior to or as a result of a i Project, on any "major," "primary-modified,"or"primary"street.
; I
344-17 (Newport Beach 44s-79)
i
1
IS.40.050-15.40.080 BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION
"MAJOR," "PRIMARY-MODIFIED" or "PRIMARY" street shall be I
defined by the .General Plan of the City of Newport Beach, Circulation
Element.
ELIGIBLE TO VOTE shall mean all members lawfully holding office
except those disqualified from voting due to a conflict of interest. (Ord.
1787 § 1 (part), 1979: Ord. 1777 § 2, 1978: Ord. 1765 § 1 (part), 1978).
15.40.050 Procedure. Subject to review by the Planning Commission,
the City-Traffic Engineer,exercising professional discretion,shall:
(A) Determine traffic ons which will be
significantly streets
aff ct d by the p oposedpr ject,taking into)account he type. 1
character and location of the proposed project, as well as the character of
the streets which will serve the project;
(B) Determine if the project, when complete,will cause or make worse
an unsatisfactory level of traffic services at any such street or intersection;
(C)1. Establish standard trip generation figures of project;
2. Establish criteria for calculating trip generation reductions which
may result from specific measures proposed by the applicant. The Planning
Commission shall specifically find that any such measures can be adequately .
quantified and guaranteed to assure the long-term validity of such reductions
prior to their inclusion in the traffic analysis;
3. Establish the bases for performing the traffic analysis at project
1 completion;
(D) Transmit these determinations to the Planning Commission with
recommendations. (Ord. 1787 § 1 (part), 1979: Ord. 1765 § 1 (part), 1978).
15.40.060 Fees. The application shall be accompanied by a fee as
established by resolution of the City Council to defray the expense of
administering this Chapter. (Ord. 1787
(part), 1978). § 1 (Part), 1979: Ord. 1765 § 1
15.40.070 Appeal. (A) Any determination of the Planning Commission I
shall be final unless there shall be an appeal by the applicant or any other
person pursuant to the procedure set forth in Section 20.80.070 of the
Newport Beach Municipal Code. Such appeal shall'be limited to evidence
presented before, and the findings of, the Planning Commission.
(B) The City Council shall have a Right of Review as set forth in
Section 20.80.075 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, as limited,above.
(C) The City Council shall make its written finding in the same manner
as set forth in Section 15.40.030 of this Chapter. (Ord. 1787 § 1 (part),
1979: Ord. 1765 § 1 (part), 1978).
15.40,080 Severability, if any section or portion of this Chapter is
declared invalid, the remaining sections or portions are to be considered
valid. (Ord. 1787 § 1 (part), 1979: Ord. 1765 § 1 (part), 1978). C
(Newport Beach 4-15.79) 344-18
S-1
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING 2/26/79
THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE
I. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES
A. General:
I
These procedures apply to all commercial or industrial projects which
have a gross floor area greater than 10,000 sq. ft. , and all residen-
tial projects of more than ten dwelling units.
B. Evaluating Projects:
1. The applicant files a request for consideration of the entire project,
under the provisions of the Ordinance, with the Community Develop-
ment' Department. The request must be accompanied by a project
description, project phasing schedule, site plan, and fees as set
by the City Council.
2. A traffic analysis shall then be prepared by a qualified traffic
engineer according to the methodology approved by the zity Council.
d. Staff Recommendation:
1. The City's Traffic Engineer will review the report prepared by the
consultant and transmit the findings and worksheet to the Community
Development Department for presentation to the Planning Commission.
D. Planning Commission Review and Findings:
The Planning Commission shall review the determination and recommenda-
tions of the Traffic Engineer and the Community Development Department,
at a duly-noticed public hearing, and make one of the following findings:
1. The City has issued a building or grading permit for the project
prior to May 8, 1978, and that the person to whom ,such permit was
• issued has in good faith and in reliance upon such permit diligently
commenced construction and performed and incurred substantial lia-
bilities for work and materials necessary
therefore. No change
causing a substantial increase in traffic volumes has been made in
such project, except in accordance with the
provisions of the Traffic
PhasingOrdinance;nc or
2. The traffic projected one year after project completion during any
2.5 hour peak traffic period on each leg of each critical inter-
section will be increased less than 1% by traffic generated from
the project duringthat 2.5 hour period;
p , or
3. A traffic analysis has been performed and accepted. The traffic
analysis was based on the projected street system and projected
traffic volumes one year after completion of the project or portion
of the project for which the traffic analysis was performed. The
traffic analysis has shown that at th
at time the additional traffic
generated by the project,P j . or portion
n of the project, including
an approved
y trip generation reduction measures:
17
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE - Page 2 S-1
2/26/79
a. will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of
( traffic service on any "major", "primary-modified", or "primary"
street; or
b. may cause or make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic
service on one or more "major", "primary-modified", or "primar
y"
streets; or
c. may cause or make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic ser-
,vice on one or more "major", "primary-modified", or "primary"
streets; however, the benefits outweigh the anticipated nega-
tive impact on transportation facilities, for the following
reasons: (specify)
E. Approval of Applications:
A simple majority vote by the Planning Commission, subject to City
Council review or appeal, is required for finding D.1, D.2, D.3.a., or
D.3.b. A four-fifths majority vote by the Planning Commission (or by
the City Council on appeal or review) is required for finding D.3.c.
F. Appeals:
1. The determination of the Planning Commission may be appealed to
the City Council pursuant to the procedure set forth in Section
20.80.070 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code:
2. The City'Council shall have a Right of Review as set forth in
Section 20.80.075 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
II. OUTLINE OF METHODOLOGY FOR TRAFFIC ANALYSES
A. Designation of Impacted Intersections and Determination of Project
Impact for 2.5 Hour Peak Period:
1. The Traffic Engineer will determine which intersections will be
affected by the proposed project according to its size and geographic
location.
2. An analysis will be done whereby it will be determined if one year
after completion of the project, or portions of the project for which
the traffic analysis is being performed, the project (including
portions for which traffic analyses have been previously
approved) will generate one percent or more of the projected traffic
volumes for each leg of each impacted intersection during that 2.5 hour peak period. If less than a one percent increase is demonstrated
for each leg, then the analysis is concluded, and finding I.D.2.
may be made.
B. If the initial Traffic Study indicated the project, or portion of the
project, for which the traffic analysis is being performed, one year
after completion may generate one percent or more of projected traffic
volumes on one or more legs of any impacted intersection, then the
Traffic Engineer or a qualified consultant will analyze the intersection
capacity utilization for the impacted intersection(s) :
T T
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE - Page 3 S-1
2/26/?9
The report will, indicate the following:
1. Existing traffic.
2. Projected
j d increases in regional traffic.
3. Projected traffic from committed projects that will be completed
before one year after the completion date of the project or portion
of the for which t project he traffic analysis is bean performed.
8 P rm d.
4. Traffic generated by the proposed project, or portion of the project,
without trip ,generation reduction measures.
5. Traffic generated by the proposed project, or portion of the project,
with approved trip generation reduction measures.
C. Where a full traffic analysis is performed under Section IIB, the
following I.C.U. calculations shall be performed for each impacted
intersection:
1. The existing I.C.U.
2. The I.C.U., with traffic system improvements that will be installed
before one year after project completion. This I.C.U. calculation
shall be, based on all projected traffic sources except the proposed
project.
3. The I.C.U., with traffic system improvements that will be installed
before one year after project completion, based on all sources of
traffic, including traffic generated by the proposed project, with
approved trip generation reduction measures. This I.C.U. must be
0.90 or less to make finding I.D.3.a.
III. DEFINITIONS AND ANALYSIS RESTRAINTS
A. Traffic System Improvements
Traffic system improvements may be included in the traffic analysis
for a proposed project, provided that:
1. The improvement will be completed no more than one year after com-
pletion of the project or project phase for which the traffic
analysis is being performed; and
2. The improvement is included in the Circulation Element of the General
Plan, and is defined sufficiently therein to permit an I.C.U. analysis
to be performed; or
3. The improvement design has been approved by the City Council, and
is defined sufficiently to permit an I.C.U. analysis to be performed.
B. Projected Capacity Increases from Traffic System Improvements
'ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE - Page 4 S-1
2/26/79
For purposes of the traffic analysis, 70% of the incremental increase
/ in intersection capacity (based on a capacity of 1600 vehicles per hour
l of green time for each full traffic lane) shall be utilized. Upon
completion of the improvement, traffic volume counts shall be updated,
and any additional available capacity may then be utilized in future
traffic analyses.
C. Traffic Volumes
1. Traffic volumes shall be based on up-to-date estimates of traffic
volumes expected to exist one year after completion of' the project,
or portion of the project, for which the traffic analysis is being
performed. Such estimates shall include existing traffic as deter-
mined by annual field counts plus traffic generated by previously
approved projects or portions of projects expected to exist in the j
same time period plus estimated increases in regional traffic.
If the intersection configuration being analyzed is the ultimate
configuration consistent with the Circulation Element or otherwise
approved by the City Council, then the traffic volumes used in the
analysis shall include total traffic expected to be generated from
all previously approved projects even if they will not be completed
at the time the subject project is completed.
2. The incremental regional traffic for the time period between the
date of existing counts and one year after ,project completion will
be estimated based on the rate projected by the traffic model or on
a growth projection developed by the Traffic Engineer and approved
by the Planning Commission.
3. For making the 1% test of II.A.2. , traffic volumes shall not be
used which exceed the capacity of the circulation system specified
in the General Plan.
D. Trip Generation
Trip generation estimates for the project shall be based on standard
trip generation values established by the City Traffic Engineer with
the approval of the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal or
review. These trip generation figures may be modified only when the
applicant proposes specific, permanent measures that will reduce traffic
generated by the project, provided that:
1. The applicant describes in writing, in advance of the traffic analysis,
the proposed measure, the estimated reduction in trip generation
that will result, and the basis for the- estimate. The estimate
must be approved by the Planning Commission or City Council on
appeal or review before the trip generation figures may be reduced.
2. The applicant provides the Planning Commission with a written
assurance that the proposed trip generation reduction measure will
be permanently implemented, and agrees to make said permanent
implementation a condition for project approval.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE - Page 5 S-1
2/26/79
E. Traffic Distribution
Traffic distribution shall be based on the traffic network expected
to exist one year after project completion including those portions of
the network associated with previously approved projects or portions
of projects expected to exist at that time.
F. Improvements or Modifications to the Circulation System
If the applicant wishes to propose quantifiable improvements or changes
to the circulation system, which may not appear to be strictly consis-
tent with the Circulation Element, or special assumptions as a basis
for the traffic analysis, he shall provide a description of such pro-
posals in writing to the Planning Commission, along with supporting
data justifying their use, in advance of the traffic analysis. Such
proposals may then be used in the traffic analysis if they are a by the Planning Commission and the City Council. pproved
IV. ISSUANCE OF PERMITS
Permits may be issued for all or a portion of a project after an appropriate
finding under I.D. has been made.
A. Grading Permits
Grading permits may be issued prior to performance of the traffic analy-
sis if vesting rights associated with grading are waived by applicant.
B. Building Permits
Where traffic system improvements have been included in the traffic
analysis, building permits may be issued only after traffic system
improvement timing has been confirmed as follows:
I. It has been budgeted and committed for development by the City; or
2. The State or County or other governmental agency making the improve-
ment has accepted bids; or
3. The improvement is to be installed or guaranteed by the applicant
in conjunction with the development project and is approved by the
appropriate governmental jurisdictions.
Adopted - February 26, 1979
February 13, 1981
TO: PLANNING DIRECTOR
FROM: Traffic Engineer
SUBJECT: PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC COUNTS FOR THE TRAFFIC PHASING
ORDINANCE
At the request of Fred Talarico, morning and afternoon counts
were taken at the intersection of Bristol Street and Campus
Drive/Irvine Avenue for comparison purposes. Copies of the
2'h hour peak counts and peak hour ICU's are attached.
A review of these counts reveals that while there are approx-
imately six percent more vehicles using the intersection in
the morning, the ICU is twenty-eight percent higher. This is due
to a very high volume using the intersection during the 8:30
to 8 :45 period. The traffic demand for this short period is
over 75 percent higher than the average demand in the peak
period.
One conclusion that can be made based on these counts, is
that the morning peak at this intersection is higher, but of
a shorter duration than the afternoon peak. An analysis of
the V/C ratios on the ICU sheets points up what has repeatedly
been said about the need for the extension of the Corona del
Mar Freeway to relieve the congestion in this area.
Richard M. Edmonston
Traffic Engineer
RME:tkd
III
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection 8e/S7bL T GA'�AMPUS&ZT,eViNE Av
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19B1)
AM 10844<
Approach Existing Peak 2y Hour A roved
Direction p PP Projected 1S of Projected Project
j Peak 2y.Hour Regional Projects Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour Peek 2y Hour,
Yolume Growth Peak g Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volune
!Northbound 258!
ISouthbound 65 i
p I
Eastbound 9110.
estbound —'
[] 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 2; Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
PROJECT:
AM PEaK INTER CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYS
Intersection &SM/- S7-& Wp.J P�Z.L2y/NE4v
( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1981)
EXISTING PROPOSED EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COMMITTED PROJECTED
Movement Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. PK.HR. V/C GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ratio
tiect Volume V/CJECT JEC Ratio
Vol. Ratio Volume Volume Volume
NL
NT 3200 3 .27Z8
NR /&00 3 . 2 44
SL /1000 .0269
ST 9200 .034
SR
EL 7 4,979 .6830
ET
ER I62 1013
WL --
WT
WR
YELLOWTIME 1000 jf
1
EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION /.0833
EXISTING PLUS C"ITTEO PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1
EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U.
❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90
❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90
❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be
less than or equal to 0.90
Description of system improvement:
DATE:
PROJECT FORM II
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection&sra Sr. CJC'AMPGSJ &IT,evwc Al
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1M)
Approach Existing Peak 2y Hour Approved Projected 4% of Protected Project
Direction j Peak 2hi.Hour Regional Projects Peak 2y Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2y Hour'{ Volume PM Growth Peak 2Y Hour Yolume Volume Volume i
Yolune Volume
'Northbound /767 i
ISouthbound 6G�
i
Eastbound
,stbound
[] Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 24 Hour Traffic Volume
❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.
f+)JECT:
INTERSOON CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALY•
3S
PM PEAK Intersection &ISToL S & 6"A RVS [),e��j VVIA16 fV
( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1961)
Movement EXISTING PROPOSED EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COMMITTED PROJECTED
pK.NR. Y/L GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ratio PROJECT PROJECT
Lanes LaD• Lanes Cap. Vol. Ratio Volume Volume W/o Project Volume V/C Ratio
Volume
NL —
NT 3200 5 ,1644
NR to 210 11313
SL 0
109,00
ST 2oo O O 3406 ,
SR
EL 2.567 .4010
ET
ER (00 (o17
WL
WT
WR
YELLOWTIME I Q00* 1
-
t �
EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATIONf o $q/6 i
EXISTING PLUS C"ITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROYEMENTS I.C.U. i
EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U.
❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90
❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90
❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be
less than or equal to 0.90
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Description of system improvement:
------- - ------- -- DATE_ —
PROJECT FORM II
Planning Commission Meeting February 5 , 1981
Agenda Items No . 5
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT: Traffic Study (Continued Public Hearing)
Request to consider a Traffic Study for a proposed
18,104 sq . ft.± office building.
LOCATION : A portion of Lot 78, and a portion of Lot 79 , Tract
No . 706 , located at 3500-3510 Irvine Avenue , on the
southeasterly side of Irvine Avenue , between Bristol
Street and Orchard Drive, southerly of the John Wayne
Airport.'
ZONE: C-1 -H and A-P-H
APPLICANT: Richard H . Dodd and Associates , Newport Beach
OWNER : David Magilavy , Newport Beach
The above subject item was continued by the Planning Commission from
its meeting of January 22, 1981 . Subsequent to this meeting the
applicant has. provided additional information related to land uses
on the subject property (letter attached) . The letter indicates
that there are approximately 2000± sq . ft . of development existing
on site if the Planning Commission approves this project the applicant
would be permitted to construct 18,104 sq . ft. of new construction
plus replace the existing on-site development of 2000± sq . ft. for
a total of 20,104 sq . ft. The applicant has indicated, though , that
is his intention, to only build a 18,104 sq . ft. building. The traffic
consultant has indicated that giving credit for the 2000 sq . ft. of
existing development would not significantly change the findings of
the Traffic Study.
Respectfully yours ,
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
JAMES D . HEWICKER , DIRECTOR
a
By
Fred Talarico
Environmental Coordinator
FT/tk
Attachment : Letter from Richard Dodd and Associates - January 26 , 81 1
Original Staff Report
{ [714) 673-0990
s
RICHARD H DDDD a ASSOCIATES
201 SHIPYARD WAY BERTH A CABIN F NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92663
January 26 , 1981•
Mr. Fred Talarico v
Enviromental Coordinator
Planning Department
City P of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Dear Fred:
In regard to the traffic study for our project at 3500-3510
Irvine Ave. , it has come to my attention that we were not given
credit for 2000 sq., ft. (100,0 sq. ft. on each of the two adjacent
lots) of office space existing on the site which will be replaced
by our building.
Through conversations with you and with Bill Dickson of Herman Kimmel
and Associates , it is my understanding that we would be allowed to
add this 2000 sq. ft. to the project.
Alternatively, we would be allowed to build 9 ,999 sq. ft. plus replace
the existing 1,000 sq. ft. for a total of 10 ,999 sq, ft. on each of
the existing adjacent parcels without a traffic phasing study.
We
regret that this information was not reported in the traffic study
or findings , but we hope that you will bring this to the attention of
the planning commission.
P g
Thank you for your attention to his e y y r t matter.
Sincerely yours ,
RICHARD H. DODD $ ASSOCIATES
6� v ,
r�
fPM V
William 0 e �p
D. 11 t y �ANNI
" eFPAR7' NG
:bg JAN2 6 7-
ciry
981a.
cc: David Magilavy 9 NEwPeRTaE
cAGIF. �eN,
.444
III
r r • • r�D. S� i
Planning Commission Meeting ft"yn-ry—'P£, 1981
Agenda Item No . -8- 5 _
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
January 16, 1981
TO : Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Department °
SUBJECT: Traffic Study (Public Hearing)
Request to consider a Traffic Study for a proposed
18, 104 sq . ft. + office building .
LOCATION: A portion of Lot 78, and a portion of Lot 79, Tract
No. 706 , located at 3500-3510 Irvine Avenue, on the
southeasterly side of Irvine Avenue between Bristol
Street and Orchard Drive , southerly of the John Wayne
Airport. .
ZONE : C-1 -H and A-P-H
APPLICANT: Richard H . Dodd and Associates , Newport Beach
OWNER: David Magilavy, Newport Beach
The applicants have requested the Planning Commission ' s approval of a
Traffic Study for the purposes of issuance of building and grading per-
mits in conjunction with the construction of a two-story office building
( 18, 104 sq . ft. ) to be located at 3500 and 3510 Irvine Avenue in the Santa
Ana Heights area . The Traffic Study for the proposed office building has
been prepared in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Muni-
cipal Code ( "Traffic Phasing Ordinance") . A copy of the Traffic Study
prepared for the City by Herman Kimmel and Associates is attached for
Planning Commission review.
Traffic Study
The City Traffic Engineer has determined that the following intersections
will be affected by the proposed project based upon it 's size and geo-
graphic location :
1 . Bristol St. (N)/Jamboree Rd.
2. Bristol st. (N)/Birch St.
3. Bristol St. (N)/Campus Dr.
4. Jamboree Rd./Bristol St.
5. Irvine Ave./Bristol St.
6. Irvine Ave ./Mesa Dr.
7. Irvine Ave./University Dr.
8. MacArthur Blvd./Campus Dr.
TO: • Planning Commission - 2
The traffic analysis indicated that all of the above intersections-, ex-
cept Bristol St./Irvine Ave. , will have traffic volume increases of less
than l% as a result of the proposed project development. In accordance
with City Policy S-1 an I .C.U . analysis was made . The I .C. U. analysis
of the Bristol St./Irvine Ave.
Existing + Committed + Regional 1 .0105
Existing + Committed + Re9tonal + Project 1 .0128
Existing + Committed + Regional + Committed Improvements 0.8748
Existi-ng + Committed + Regional + Committed Imputs & Project 0.8790
No trip generation mitigation measures were required to achieve the I .C .U 's'
at the intersections .
Based on this analysis the Planning Commission can make the required find-
ing that the proposed project will neither cause nor make worse an unsatis-
factory level of traffic service on any "major", "primary-modified" , or "pri-
mary" street (Finding No. 2 - Exhibit "A" ) in which case the applicant could
build the project without an obligation to construct any circulation system
improvements . However, in this particular case committed improvemehts in-
elude an additional southbound lane on Irvine Ave. at the Bristol Street lin-
tersection. While this improvement is currentlythe i
obligation of others ,
it could be said that is is related to this project and should be the obli-
gation of this project in which case Condition No. 1 - Exhibit "A" could be
added.
The applicant has indicated to staff that such a condition would not be ac-
ceptable in which case he has an option of building up to 9,999 sq .ft. on
each of the two adjacent� parcels and remaining exempt from the requirements
of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. However, the staff feels that a single
building containing less space with combined parking and access would be
superior to the two building alternative.
Suggested Action
If desired, approve the Traffic Study with the Findings and with or without
the Condition as indicated in Exhibit "A" .
Respectfully submitted,
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director
By
A
a ar co
Environmental Coordi-nator
FT:nma
Attachments : Exhibit "A"
1 . Traffic Study - Decembe.ri l8, 1980
n I
I�
EXHIBIT "A"
FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AS.
RECOMMENDED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
JANUARY 22 , 1981
FINDINGS
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.
A
CONDITIONS
1 . That prior to the occupancy of the 18,104 sq .ft. building at 3500
and 3510 Irvine Avenue the circulation system improvement depicted
on Exhibit 2 of the Traffic Report dated December 18, 1980, shall
have been constructed ( unless subsequent project approval requires
modification thereto) . The circulation system improvement shall
be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer.
A
rr�cl�,nr,.T No . I
Iq TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
® erman CONSULTANTS
Kimmel and Associates, Inc.
PRINCIPALS: 4242 CAMPUS DRIVE,SUITE E-6 NEWPORT BEACH,CALIF 92660 (714) 646.9814
HERMAN KIMMEL
H.WILLIAM DICKSON December 18, 1980
City of Newport Beach vL"') � �
Community Service Department g6r } �'
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, Calif. 92663 1961s _'
Attention Fred Talarico 8 -'t' �, ;C I• ,�
�4��NP pptl�• ~
Irvine Avenue Office Project 1 / Q
"Anchor Plaza", Traffic Analysis
City Newport of Ne ort Beach
Gentlemen:
The office project proposed at 3500-3510 Irvine Avenue has been
analyzed in accordance with the City's "Traffic Phasing Ordinance" .
The intersections covered by the analysis are those identified by
Richard M. Edmonston, Newport Beach Traffic Engineer.
Project Description
The proposed project is an 18,104 square foot office building.
It is to be located on the east side of Irvine Avenue, south of
Bristol Street. Present land uses, adjacent to the project site,
consist of an office building and a small commercial convenience
facility. The site is opposite the Orange County operated public
golf course. Present plans project that the proposed project's
offices would be occupied in 1983.
Traffic Generation 5 Distribution
Traffic generation rates, for the type of facility proposed, as
established by the City of Newport Beach Traffic Engineering
Deparmtnet., are as follow:
Page 2 •
Dec . 18, 1980
Newport Beach
Average Daily Traffic Generation Rate = 13 T.E./1000 Sq. Ft.
Project Average Daily Traffic Volume- = 13 x 18 .104 = 235 T.E.*
Total 2.5 Hour Generation Rate = 4.6 T.E./1000 Sq. Ft.
Total 2.5 Hour Volume (Project) = 4.6 x 18.104 = 83 T.E.
Inbound 2.5 Hour Generation Rate = 1.2 T.E./1000 Sq. Ft.
Inbound 2.5 Hour Volume (Project) = 1.2 x 18 .104 = 22 T.E.
Outbound 2.5 Hour Generation Rate = 3.4 T.E./1000 Sq. Ft.
Outbound 2.5 Hour Volume (Project) = 3 .4 x 18.104 = 61 T.E.
*T.E. = Trip End. A trip end is the arrival or
departure of a vehicle at the project site.
Exhibit 1 shows both the directional 2.5 hour site traffic distri-
bution and direction desire percentages in the analysis area,.
Intersection Analysis 1% Test
The 'critical" intersections identified by the City Traffic Engineer
for a 1% analysis are:
1. Bristol Street North @ Jamboree Road
2. Bristol Street North @ Birch Street
3 . Bristol Street North @ Campus Drive
4 . Jamboree Road @ Bristol Street
5 . Irvine Avenue @ Bristol Street
6 . Irvine Avenue @ Mesa Drive
7. Irvine Avenue @ University Drive
8. MacArthur Boulevard @ Campus Drive
Existing and projected 2.5 hour traffic volumes, for each -inter-
section, are shown on attached forms .
The analysis indicates that all of the intersections identified by
the City Traffic Engineer, except Bristol Street at Irvine Avenue/
Campus Drive, will have traffic volume increases of less than 1% as
a result of the proposed project development.
I.C.U. Phase II Test
An intersection capacity utilization test, with traffic projected
for regional growth, committed project, and project volumes, indi-
cates that the intersection of Bristol Street at Irvine Avenue/
Campus Drive would exceed a Volume/Capacity of 0 .90% with or with-
out the project. Our calculations indicate that the proposed
project would increase the V/C ratio by only 0.0023% . The calcu-
lations are attached.
b Page 3 •
Dec. 18, 1980
Newport Beach
Mitigation I.C.U. Phase III Test
The City Traffic Engineer, Mr. Richard Edmonston, has indicated
that previously committed projects will be providing an additional
southbound lane on Irvine Avenue at the intersection. Calculation
of the T.C.U. with this improvement shows that the I.C.U. will be
reduced below 0.90, without traffic from this project.
Additional traffic from the Irvine Avenue Office Project will not
cause the I.C.U. to increase beyond 0 .90. Attached is a copy of
I.C.U. calculation sheets and Exhibit 2, which illustrates the
improvement that will be implemented by other committed projects.
Conclusions
Although the Irvine Avenue Office Project will not meet Phase I
and II traffic phasing ordinance tests, it will meet Phase III
test with the committed improvement of the additional southbound
lane on Irvine Avenue at Bristol Street South.
If you have any questions, please contact our office.
Respectfully submitted,
HER/MAN KIMMEL & ASSOC. , INC.
H. William Dickson, P.E.
RCE No. 19417
RTR No. 39
2U°,6
f
rf
G f
GC� h1 f�'' 00% �RGF.t�►t 1�1�f218�1'iCxs •
10°6
ti 00 ZI AMOM Vl2WlOMAL VlcJTVIPSUtlON
3
• C2ITICAL, Iui' U9 GTION
ej tw SOW 1131T 1
5°6 9WJ eC:r -(QAPrIG
mt�f�Mn�rnune u.aacum 1Oo�
®ii��r klenrnN and wLTANTS soclatH.W4. -� �ISIU113LI
VV4—;On le-VINE AVENUE OFFICE
S
r+ '
I�IIV6 p 4y
8�
rnnrnc ewawcenv.o Y lClNl*fY MAP F
®l�rman coww�*wwrs
klmrn�l antl AwoclMos.hc.
)WINE AVENUE
•90 OFF:G6
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection Bris l St. Cam urar - v
asedo(Existing, Traffc Volumes
ge
Winter/Spring
1980)
1APProach ' Existing ' Peak 25 Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project
Direction Pett 2-1 #four ! Regional Projects Peak 25 Hour Peak 25 Hour Peak 25 Hour-
we! Growth Peak 25 Hour Yd1ueM YotUT* Volume
Yolune Volume
Northbound 1774 I 9 01
1,Southbound 2808 pm ZOW
3;035 30 10 }
¢astbound ° 6581 86 9 ?
1:estbound i
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 21f Hour Traffic Volume
® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 21s Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.
3a500-�1��Y1�1� ��w1L1�S?F�►G� --- - __�=7:.�12-12:8.Q_
PROJECT:
f • • 4 J
1 % Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection Irvine Avenue/University Drive
(Existing Traffic Vo umes based on Avverage nter pr ng 1980)
lipprdach E W%tles Peak rs'Nw, Appro"d acted is of Projected ►roJact
�Otnego" i hat t.2 Near sas 1 "ects Peak 2%Now` Peak 2y New Peak zh Now
I VOTUM Growth Peak Ey New Vales Voles voles
volume V9109
1951 9 365 6 23.
ka,thkouM j 4348 21 202 4671 46 6
astbound 735 34 769 8 O i
i
stbwnd 133 �— 24C 4#73 5 O
(� 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 Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
SSW - 35kO . fW' 742 Avant u OMIja¢ DATE: /2- 12-80
PROJECT FORM I
1 '
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection Irvine Avenue/Mesa Drive
(Existing Traffic Vo umes ase on verage Winter prang 1989
�kproaeh Existing peak ty Heur rpprorad Project" is of Projected Project
Dtnction i Peak 2%Hour Regional ►%facts Peak A-Hour Peak A Moor Peak 2h Hour.
i Volute Growth Hour VOW* Yalu" Volume0l
ume
�Hbrthbound 1832 9 352 4193 22 2
Isoethbound 2149 10 202 a361 24 9
(Eastbound 833 — 853 8
1 i
stbound 4"27 4Z'7 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 2)S Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
3500 — 3510 -ZNVh7Z AZZ/74fe 060 C2 DATE: 12-12-80
PROJECT
FORM I
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection Bristol St./Jamboree Road
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Avenge inter Spring 1980)
(Approach Eaistinq I Peak 2y Hour Approved $roytcted 1% of Projected Project
Gtreetfon oeY• 2S Hour I Reglond Pro�eets PeakA Hour Peek 21%Hour Peak 21* Hour-
I j tolrt Grath Peak 24 Hour volume volume volume t
I volvae voluM
i
'Northbound I 5614 3 2064 7.881 78 Z 1 ,
Isouthbauna i 2063 1 338 2402 24 9
I astbound 4862 21 964
i
estbound — }
[vr 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 Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
3500 — 3510 IN/%7¢ .4y ,041Q OWN= DATE: 12-/2-80
PROJECT:
FORt9 I
I.j
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
intersection Bristol St. (N)/Jamboree Road
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1980)
jApproaCh iv-.sting Peak 2y Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project ;
•Gsrettion ;N. 21s dour Regional Projects Peak 24 Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 213 Hour'
ro: Growth Peak 24 Hour Volume Maine Volume
Volume Volume
Northbound
6131 7 2IO2 8�58 83 15
.Southbound 3003 565 3LSP74E 36 5 f
jEastoound —
4
' 0 1
'7 4 ZOOS 20 I
'.estoound 16
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peal: 23-2 Hour Traffic Volume
[] Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 24 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
3500- 36(O Irvir!¢ Ava tla 0106m DATE.• 12-12-80
PROJECT: FORM I
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
:ntersection_ Brisol . ch t
(Existing Traffic Volumes bsd ( Age in ter/Spring 1980)
�Appro ch -E.tsting Peak 2y Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project
Direction Peek 2% dour Regional Projetts Peek 2q Hour Peek 2y Hour Peak 25 Hour'
I 'Val, a Grwtr. Peak 2%Hour Ohm Volume VOW*
volane Yolwt
Northbound 904 212 L.116 11
oUthbound 2729 539 3 61 33 Qf
i
�Eastbdund
ettboend i 7220 1'� 1 '12946 979? 98 f�
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 2, Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
e
3600— 3510 l voa .4vt zle Oflflica DATE: 12-M!80
PROJECT: FOR14 I
15
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
intersection Bristol St. (N)/Campus Drive
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1980)
,Approach ' £x:tti,g j Peak 2% Hour Approved •Projected 1% of Projected Project
Direction. Peak 2y Hour Regional Projects Peak 21% Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 24 Hour'
i Yc'.u're Grath Peak 2y Hour Volume Volure Volume ,
Vor=thh2 Volwe �/�
'Northbound 26�� I �7 440 _Vw 3► 30
ISouthbound 3552 3O 590 4770 48 2
1
±Eastbound
"bound 9636 I 41 +�'79 //,956 ►oo s {
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 21-2 Hour Traffic Volume
❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 21s Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.
3500- 3510 Irvina 4yalwa OTf'fIC¢ DATE:
PROJECT: FORt1 I
0,a
Ib
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection MacArthur Blvd./Campus Drive
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1980)
iApproach Existing Peak 2� Hour Approved Pr*Jeete8d 4% of ProJected Project
Direr Non Peak h Hour Regional ►rojects Peak 2h Hour Peek 2y Ho r Pak 2y Hour,
lfoluee Growth Teak 2% Hour Yoluee VolUne i Velure t
Vol uer Volwt
�lrthoaund 2921 LS39 4461 45
, thboynd 2738 1 _ 569 V08 33
F
`Eastdound I 2043 107 228 23 (, I
' oound 2419 21 3`78 29 1
�esc
[� 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 2-2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
35 O - 3510 Irvin¢ AR2n11¢ Of pica DAT • /Z-/Z-90
PROJECT:
FOR14 I
s INTERSAN CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYO P1.1�jr-,
17 Intersection Bristol St./Campus Dr.-Irvine Ave.
Existing Traffic t'olurles Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1980)
EXIST, EXIST. REGIONAL CO AIITEO NOJECTED
Etli:T\I D:E•'�.;} r/o project Yolu+e Y/C Ratio /RWECT pR:JECT
Pa+r.e�t Lanes Cap. La•ea Ce Val. u Y/C GROYTM PROJECT>. Y/C Ratio Val. Ratio YotV Vol" Yolw*
NL
NT 3200 550 .1719 109 .2081 15 2128
NR 1 1600 186 .1163 1 '73 . 1lc31 I I I"IOD
SL 1600 100 .0625 i 0 .06251 0 -Oo31
ST 3200 1184 .3700* 229 10Z .4080* 5 AlCe
SR
EL 1600 340 .2125 2 149 .3Or0 0 .�
ET 6400 2023 .3948* 10 4p43 .502.1piF 0 5051+'
ER 504 3 32 5
WL
WT
WR
YELLOWTIME .1000* 100�" ► i •1
EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .8648 i a
1 a
EXISTING PLUS C"RTEO PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED iNPROVEMENTS I.C.U.1 1.0IQg i I
EXISTING PLUS C04MITTEO PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 1.0128
❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90
® Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90
❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be
less than or equal to 0.90
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Description of system improvement:
� )- 1� '1'2VIt� , DV -►ll!!� D�F1GE _ __ DATE: i2•L2�__
INTERS#ON CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANAL PWA 0-=
Ix' Intersection Bristol St.%Campus Dr.-Irvine Ave.
( Existing Traffic Volumes Oases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1980)
ra.re+t a ► "t:. r4N2 Eslsr. REGMNAL co"ITT ED /MECTED
Unal cr. Ls.r Y/C GROAM ►RQICCT Y/C Ratio ►RWieT rR`JECT
Val. Ratio Yolw Yolw-V w/o ►rolect volt v M/C Rat%
Yolvu
NL
NT 3200. 7 109 .zc& 15 ZI
NR 1600 186 .1163 2 't3 I4a31 it 1 1pp
SL 1600 100 .0625 1 0 ,06031 0 -C*eP1"
ST 3200
1184 .3700 22s l02 .2925'
5 .2'136
SR
EL 1600 340 .2125 0 Aq -?OGic) 0 .50oq
ET 6400 2023 .3948* 10 "5 T,�023's 0 -50311*
'ER 504
WL
WT
WR
YELLOWTIME 1000* i •l000*i i .l
EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZAT108 .8648
EXISTING PLUS CON.`IITTED PLUS 'REG10'1AL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. '(s{
EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 0190
❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90
❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90
® Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be
less than or equal to 0.90 '
Description of system improvement:
COMMIT-MO P20JmGi5 WILL, ADD owo, AUD1Ttd�1CS.�
eou-r 5ouP.Lb Lt"e, INceI✓as1146i CAPAG►?`( room
aZOO 70 4Q,00 V.P. N. 1%XL11$IT
Wl - 5510 -MMIKI evP.M1 Ne, �1�1�� _ ._.. DATE: IZ-rt-Ao _
I� j
BRISTOL 5TQEET �ivo�ra�
Ott
/ f I
• I I
1
BRISTOL -+ STQEET (Sour -4)
�N►
7
i I t t P
/ CClt1"177E*U Fx=tl/EGTS
/�P.t�l/E.l9E.1/T -.4tc,7E�
/ I I 017a S/B Th..,zw */i Lan¢
/
IRVINE AVE.l�1l�E
EX14151T 2
Tw.CONSULTANTS
N!TS
CdV3ULTANT3 ��rN
and AMOOClitaa'bv. COMM tTTEO P;aD1EGT5
(MPROVEMEtJTS
y • Planning Commission Sting January 22, 1981
Agenda Item No . 8
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
January 16 , 1981
TO : Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT: Traffic Study (Public Hearing )
Request to consider a Traffic Study fora proposed
18, 104 sq . ft. ± office building .
LOCATION: A portion of Lot 78 , and a portion of Lot 79, Tract
No . 706 , located at 3500-3510 Irvine Avenue, on the
southeasterly side of Irvine Avenue between Bristol
Street and Orchard Drive , southerly of the John Wayne
Airport.
ZONE : C-1 -H and A-P-H
APPLICANT: Richard H . Dodd and Associates , Newport Beach
OWNER : David Magilavy , Newport Beach
The applicants have requested the Planning Commission ' s approval of a
Traffic Study for the purposes of issuance of building and grading per-
mits in conjunction with the construction of a two-story office building
( 18, 104 sq . ft. ) to be located at 3500 a'nd 3510 Irvine Avenue in the Santa
Ana Heights area . The Traffic Study for the proposed office building has
Peen prepared in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Muni-
cipal Code ( "Traffic Phasing Ordinance" ) . A copy of the Traffic Study
prepared for the City by Herman Kimmel and Associates is attached for
Planning, Commission review.
Traffic Study
The City -Traffic Engineer has determined that the following intersections
will be affected by the proposed project based upon it ' s size and geo-
graphic location :
1 . Bristol St. (N)/Jamboree Rd.
2. Bristol st. (N)/Birch St.
3. Bristol St. (N)/Campus Dr .
4. Jamboree Rd../Bristol St .
5. Irvine Ave. /Bristol St.
6 . Irvine Ave./Mesa Dr.
7. Irvine Ave ./University Dr.
8. MacArthur Blvd ./Campus Dr.
TO: • Planning Commission - 20
The traffic analysis indicated that all of the above intersections , ex-
cept Bristol St./Irvine Ave. , will have traffic volume increases of less
than 1% as a result of the proposed project development. In accordance
with City Policy S-1 an I .C.U . analysis was made . The I .C. U . analysis
of the Bristol St./Irvine Ave.
Existing + Committed + Regional 1 .0105
Existing + Committed + Regional + Project 1 .0128
Existing + Committed + Regional + Committed Improvements 0.8748
Existing + Committed + Regional + Committed Imputs & Project 0.8790
No trip generation mitigation measures were required to achieve the I .C.U 's
at the intersections .
Based on this analysis the Planning Commission can make the required find-
ing that the proposed project will neither cause nor mace worse an unsatis-
factory level of traffic service on any "major", "primary-modified" , or "pri-
mary" street (Finding No . 2 - Exhibit "A" ) i.n which case the applicant could
build the project without an obligation to construct any circulation system
improvements . However, in this particular case committed improvements in-
clude an additional southbound lane on Irvine Ave, at the Bristol Street hn-
tersection. While this improvement is currently the obligation of others ,
it .could be said that is is related to this project and should be the obli-
gation of this project in which case Condition No. 1 - Exhibit "A" could be
added.
The applicant has indicated to stiff that such a condition would not be ac-
cep.table in which case he has an option of building up to 9,999 sq .ft. on
each of the two adjacent parcels and remaining exempt from the requirements
of th-e Traffic Phasing Ordinance. However, the staff feels that a single
building containing less space with combined parking and access would be
superior to the two building alternative.
Suggested Action
If desired, approve the Traffi-c Study with the Findings and with or without
the Condition as' indicated in Exhibit "'A" .
Respectfully submitted ,
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
JAMES D. HEWI,CKER, Director
J 14z,
By
Fred a arico
Environmental Coordinator
FT:nma
Attachments : Exhibit "A"
1 . Traffic Study - December 18, 1980
EXHIBIT "A"
FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AS
RECOMMENDED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
JANUARY 22 , 1981
FINDINGS
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.
CONDITIONS
1 . That p.rior to the occupancy of the 18, 104 sq . ft. building at 3500
and 3510 Irvine Avenue the circulation system improvement depicted
on Exhibit 2 of the Traffic Report dated Docember 18 , 1980 , shall
have been constructed (unless subsequent project approval requires
modification thereto) . The circulation system improvement shall
be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer.
. • >T T"mr wr No , 1
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
® erman CONSULTANTS
Kimmel and Associates , Inc.
PRINCIPALS: 4242 CAMPUS DRIVE,SUITE E-6 NEWPORT BEACH,CALIF.'92660 (714) 546.9814'
HERMAN KIMMEL
H.WILLIAM DICKSON December 18, 1980
City of Community Servicport e Department ��Ern �•ach v,.i,
3300 Newport Boulevard 6 t
Newport Beach, Calif. 92663
Attention Fred Talarico g �,;�, ,:A • 3
WF.\t^r cHLtt• \
Irvine Avenue Office Project Li Q
"Anchor Plaza", Traffic Analysis m
City of Newport Beach
Gentlemen:
The office project proposed at 3500-3510 Irvine Avenue has been
analyzed in accordance with the City's "Traffic Phasing Ordinance" .
The intersections covered by the analysis are those identified by
Richard M. Edmonston, Newport Beach Traffic Engineer.
Project Description
The proposed project is an 18,104 square foot office building.
It is to be located on the east side of Irvine Avenue, south of
Bristol Street. Present land uses, adjacent to the project site,
consist of an office building and a small commercial convenience'
facility. The site is opposite the Orange County operated public
golf course. Present plans project that the proposed project's
offices would be occupied in 1983 .
Traffic Generation & Distribution
Traffic generation rates, for the type of facility proposed, as
established by the City of Newport Beach Traffic Engineering
Deparmtnet, are as follow:
Page 2 • •
Dec. 18, 1980
Newport Beach
Average Daily Traffic Generation Rate = 13 T.E./1000 Sq. Ft.
Project Average Daily Traffic Volume = 13 x 18 .104 = 235 T.E.*
Total 2.5 Hour Generation Rate = 4.6 T.E./1000 Sq. Ft.
Total 2.5 Hour Volume (Project) = 4 .6 x 18 .104 = 83 T.E.
Inbound 2.5 Hour Generation Rate = 1.2 T.E./1000 Sq. 'Ft.
Inbound 2.5 Hour Volume (Project) = 1.2 x 18 .104 = 22 T.E.
Outbound 2.5 Hour•Generation Rate = 3 .4 T.E./1000 Sq. Ft.
Outbound 2 .5 Hour Volume (Project) = 3 .4 x 18 .104 = 61 T.E.
*T.E. = Trip End. A trip end is -the arrival or
departure of a vehicle at the project site.
Exhibit 1 shows both. the directional 2.5 hour site traffic distri-
bution and direction desire percentages in the analysis area.
Intersection Analysis 1% Test
The "critical" intersections identified by the City Traffic Engineer
for a 1% analysis are:
1 . Bristol Street North @ Jamboree Road
2. Bristol Street North @ Birch Street.
3 . Bristol Street North @ •:Campus Drive
4 . Jamboree Road @ Bristol Street
5 . Irvine Avenue @ Bristol Street
6 . Irvine Avenue @ Mesa Drive
7 . Irvine Avenue @ University Drive
8 . MacArthur Boulevard @ Campus Drive
Existing and projected 2.5 hour traffic volumes, for each -inter-
section, are shown on attached forms .
The analysis indicates that all of the intersections identified by
the City Traffic Engineer, except Bristol Street at Irvine Avenue/
Campus Drive, will have traffic• volume increases of less than 1% as
a result of the proposed project development.
I.C.U. Phase' II Test
An intersection capacity utilization test, ••with traffic projected
for regional growth, committed project, and project volumes, indi-
cates that the intersection of Bristol Street at Irvine Avenue/
Campus Drive,would exceed a Volume/Capacity of 0 .90% with or with-
out the project. •Our calculations indicate that the proposed
project would increase the V/C ratio by only 0 .0023% . The calcu-
lations are attached.
Page 3 • .
Dec. 18, 1980
Newport Beach
Mitigation I.C.U. Phase III Test
The City Traffic Engineer, Mr. Richard Edmonston, has indicated
that previously committed projects will be providing an additional
southbound lane on Irvine Avenue at the intersection. Calculation
of the I.C.U. with this improvement shows that the I.C.U. will be
reduced below 0.90, without traffic from this project.
Additional traffic from the Irvine Avenue Office Project will not
cause the I.C.U. to increase beyond 0 .90. Attached is a copy of
I.C.U. calculation sheets and Exhibit 2, which illustrates the
improvement that will be implemented by other committed projects.
Conclusions
Although the Irvine Avenue Office Project will not meet Phase I
and II traffic phasing ordinance tests, it will meet Phase III
test with the committed improvement of the additional southbound
lane on Irvine Avenue at Bristol Street South.
If you have any questions, please contact our office.
Respectfully submitted,
HERMAN KIMMEL & ASSOC. , INC.
H. William Dickson, P.E.
RCE No. 19417
RTR No. 39
2M
f
gD�O nn � %3
4y 3�
ti ..00 21/2NUUi2 UIR�Cf10NA�'Dl�si°21t3U'fIDN
3
Li ciariGAt, tt.ht' uc*z—f1UN
�j tN 1✓XU IT31�f
0
r CONSULTANTS
rmwmm rw IQo�
and Aaoci.as.IM. 9D ISM113L"loW
IWINE AVENUE OFFICE
SqN D1��+0
•
SITE �
i
G �
L
i
TRAffK E.MiNEEItiNO • Y ICINI f J MW f
® �fl CON3UCT1�NT5 rk=and ASSOCt OS.Wc.
IRVI&M AVENUE _
O FF.G6 i
I
1
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection Bristol St./Campus Dr__Irvine Ave.
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1980)
jApproach ' Existing ' Peak 2y Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project
Direction Pees 2J Mour ( Regional Projects Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour'
'Wire Growth Peak 2%Hour Volume Volume Volume ,
MUM Volume
`Northbound 1774 1 9 5eM A 1141 01 FjZ i
;sorthbound 2808 Z3 W4 ,
31035 30 tO
Eastbound ` 6581 �0�4 83 9
i _ !
S'estbaund
[� Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 21f Hour Traffic Volume
® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 21i Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.
PROJECT:
Ih
I % Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection Irvine Avenue/University Drive
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Avverage Winter-7FpFng 198g
l roach Eatsttnj Peak A four Approved Projected 9% at'Pro�actN "act
�o raction I Peak 2y lour Regional projects ha 2%lour Peak 2y lour Peak 2y Roar•
VolumM Growth Peak our V4101 Volume Vol uft
j
INorthhoune I 1951 9 365 ZrV6 23 2 :.
southbouna r 43,48 2I 202 4571 46 6
• astbound 735 34 '769 8 0 i
stbocnd 133 2404�3 5 _ O
[� 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 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
SSM — 3510 IrWh4Z 14MM a C5fWIC¢ DATE: 12-I2-80
PROJECT FORM I
% Traffic Volume Analy
sis
sis y
Intersection Irvine Avenue/Mesa Drive
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 89
Approach Ectstfng Peak A Hour Approved Projected ri of Projected Project
Ot rectlon j Peak 2% Hour Regfonal Projects Peak 2y Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2y Hour:
j Yoluar VOILA"
Peak Hour Value* Voluae VOILA" ;
4brthbound 1 a 3 2 9 35Z 4193 22 2
Southbound j 2149 to 2' Z 4361 24 9
�aA;Zd S 3 3
stbound 427 427 4 O .
Project Traffic-is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2;1 Hour Traffic Volume
❑ Project Traffic is estimated to. be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.
3500 - 5510 rN//712 AOM/74te CAPIC2 DATE: IZ-12-80
PROJECT
i FORM I
• • L F l
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection Bristol St./Jamboree Road
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on AVer-age Winter Spring 1980)
Approach ! Existing j Peak 2% Hour Approved Projected 1% of Protected Project
Oirection oenk 211 Hour Regional Projects Peak 24,Hour Peak 21% Hour Peak 2k Hour"
I Vol=e Growth Peak 211 Hour Volume Volume Volume
I Volume Volume l pp��
(Northbound 5'614 I 3 2 7,v01 78 Z
s � -!
isouthbound 2063 ( 338 4, (02 24 9
,Eastbound 4862 21 964 5847 58 22
}
westbound
v� Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected,
Peak 21� Hour Traffic Volume
0 Project Traffic is estimated to *be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.
3500 - 3510 1- VIr7a 4VIZ/74/42 , %'Wic¢ DATE: IZ-/Z-80
PROJECT: FORM I
1
13
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
intersection Bristol St. (N)/Jamboree Road
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring lg'80)
Approach c.esting Peak 2y Hour Approved WProjected 1% of Projected Project I
:Direction aea. 2� dour ( Regional Projects Peak 2y Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak Zi Hour'
1 ra:.:re Growth Peak 2y Hour Volume volume Volume i
I_ Volume Volume
I j
Northbound 6131 7 1 8�58 83 15
I
outhbound 3003 565 4517Z 36 5 f
4
�Eastoound — 1
astbound 1600
401 ZOOS 20 I
8101, Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2-1-2 HourTraffic Volume
❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
3500- 35(O Irvin¢ Ay an4l6 0-Mice DATE: l2-IZ-80 _
PROJECT: FORM I
11. Traffic Volume,Analysis
:ntersection_ Bristol St. (N)/Brich St.
(Existing Traffic Volumes based an Average inter/Spring 19BO)
Iappro+ch Et7stlnp Peak 24 Hour Approved Protected if of Protected Protect
Gfrectlon ; Peek 24 dour Heytonai Protects Peak 24.Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 24 Hour'
I :o'.ume Growtn Peak 24 Hour Volume Volume Volume
Volume Volume
t
Northbound 904 2(2 116 11 or �
Southbound 2729 532 3261 33
Eastbound
�+estbound ; 7220 131 1,946 9791 98
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume
❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I:C.U.) Analysis is required.
ssoo - 3510 Irvina 4vwzle OAPIl ¢ DATE: 12-12-8Q
PROJECT: FORM I
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
intersection Bristol St. (N)/Campus Drive
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1980)
,Approach ' Existing ' Peak 2S Hour Approved •Projected 10 of Projected Project
Direction reel. 2y Hour Regional Projects Peak 2h Hour Peak 2tj Hour Peak 2y Hour'
Growth Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume
Volume Volume
l(Northbound 26- 1 440 3PW 31 30
sou hbound 3552 30 590 47772 48 9
t
Eastbound
'Weltbouhd j 9636 41 `79 14956 120 8
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2= Hour Traffic Volume
❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.
3500 - 3510 Irvin¢ .4VQnUd Of of tCa DATE- I Z- 12-80
PROJECT:
FORM I
Q IL
I�
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection MacArthur Blvd./Campus Drive
(Existing Traffic Vo umes based on Average Winter/Spring 1980)
jApproach Existing Peak 2y Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project
Otrectton Peek 2% Hour Regional Projects PeW24 Hour Peek h Hour Peak 24 Hour*
Volume Growth Peak 2y Hour Volu.e Volume Volu.e e
VOW* Volume
'Northbound 2921 L639 446/ 45 Ar
ISouthbound ' 2738 I %9 33 i
Eastbound , 2043 (0
Westbound 2469 21 378 29
• Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume
❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of projected
Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.
350p - 3510 XI-ViIX iQV1 nVe 44-6:Q DATE: 12-12'80
PROJECT: FOP14 I
INTERSE9&N CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANAL10 puQFj� I[
17 Intersection Bristol St.%Campus Dr.-Irvine Ave.
( Existing Traffic Volur;es Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1980)
EXIST, EXIST. REGIO,,AL CO`:tiITTED PPOJECTED
EXIST[%; PS::8 ; Y/C Ratio PRCJECT PROJECT
ra+reoc Lanes G Vol. Ratio Wes Ca_ ► l.. MtiV/C ORD7M PROJECT w/o Project Yolu+e V/C Ratio
o Yolu�t Vol" Vol"
NL
NT 3200 $50 .1719 7, 109 +20131 15 •21ze
NR 1 1600 186 1 .1163 2 73 1Ilo31 11 . 1100
SL 1600 100 .0625 I 0 0631 0 .0"1
ST 3200 1184 .3700* 220 102 .4082* 5 Ace
SR
EL 1600 340 .2125 Z 149 .SC&q 0 .30t.2o
ET 6400 2023 .3948* 10 (A3 .50Zj* 0 50r31*'
ER 504 3 32 5
WL
WT
WR
YELLOWTIME 1000* -1000* j 41 .1000
� e
EXISTING INTERSECTIOV CAPACITY UTILIZATION .8648 j
EXISTING PLUS C0`•:`IITTED -LUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. .005 i
EXISTING PLUS C"ITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. I.O�ZS
❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. 'will be less than or equal to 0.90
® Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90
❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be
less than or equal to 0.90
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Description of system improvement:
arfgicQ�2--
INTEP.SECJW CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALY�
Intersection Bristol St./Campus Dr.-Irvine Ave.
( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1980)
a. EXIST. [XIS[. pEGIWAL CG•VNITTED ►AWECTEG
Lan5TICa Q✓artsE; Y/C Ratio 'PROJECT ►o:JECT
Ya+r�eot ►R.l. V/CRatio
GR:'[[t FRGJEC[
Lanes Cap. La•sa Ce;. Vol. MtloVoluna Yotuiy w/ou►ro�ett Yofu+a Y/C Mt1a
Yo1vn
NL
NT 3200 7 109 .2A::)& 15 alao
NR 1600 186 .1163 2 '(3 . 1(011 1 t 1.1100
SL 1600 100 .0625 1 10 .O(ovk 0 1 .0651pt
ST 3200 1184 .3700* ZZa 102 .2125 5 .2'Is✓�
SR
EL 1600 340 .2125 Z 144) •SO(vQ 0
ET 6400 2023 ,3948* 10 loq-3 .5ozv 0 •5031*
ER 504 3 3Z 5
WL
WT
WR
YELlOW7IME .1000* •1000*1 1 .1
� a
EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .8648
EXISTING PLUS 'CON?1I1TED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSE,D.INPROYENENTS 'I.C.U. '1i{
EXISTING PLUS CaMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. i31�10
❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90
❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90
® Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be
less than or equal to0.90- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Description of system improvement:
COMMITIMD Feoimcis WILALA ADO oN6 AWITIONIAL10
eOUI-1450LIt4V I.1 *4PP,j INCM SING CAPbe M,( MOM
,%rsnn- 3sin '-mytrai; km&6� Orya1r-P, - -- DATE. (Zo1-1-8.0
r y ` •
VI _/
BRISTOL 6T'2EET �ivoar��
i art
I �
1 1 L I
81215TOL. -+ STREET (Sou-rm)
? t P
/ car�,rvirrE.o �/ECTs
I I /�L1P.�liE.li1E.1/T -Ac,�h'
/ On¢ S/•B Through Lana
/ � I
I•RVINE AVE.PJUE
EXl4151T 2
CON TRA NCERMIO
CONSUULTLT ANTS
aid ~'OGaies.b O' COMMITTED • QWeCTS
IM V12OVE MENTS
• TRAFFIC ENGINEERIMIG
® erman CONSULTANTS
Kimmel and Associates , Inc.
PRINCIPALS: 4242 CAMPUS DRIVE,SUITE E•6 NEWPORT BEACH,CALIF.92660 (714) 546.9814
HERMAN KIMMEL
H.WILLIAM DICKSON December 12, 1980
!` RECE9VE
Planni 3
DEC12198 O® 4
City of Newport Beach Nav C/7T OF
Community Service Department 6 CALIF.SEA
Cl S
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, Calif . 92663 lS?/
Attention Fred Talarico
Irvine Avenue Office Project
"Anchor Plaza", 1% Traffic Analysis
City of Newport Beach
Gentlemen:
The office project proposed at 3500-3510 Irvine Avenue has been
analyzed in accordance with the City's "Traffic Phasing Ordinance" .
The following outlines the analysis for a maximum 1% traffic vol-
ume increase during a 2 .5 hour peak interval. The intersections
covered by the analysis are those identified by Richard M.
Edmonston, Newport Beach Traffic Engineer.
Project Description
The proposed project is an 18,104 square foot office building.
it is to be located on the east side of Irvine Avenue, south of
Bristol Street. Present land uses, adjacent to the project site,
consist of an office building and a small commercial convenience
facility. The site is opposite the Orange County operated public
golf course . Present plans project that the proposed project's
offices would be occupied in 1983 .
Traffic Generation & Distribution
Traffic generation rates, for the type of facility proposed, as
established by the City of Newport Beach Traffic Engineerin DO
Department, are as follow: c
9 RECEIVED
Panning
ant
5 DEC311980ty- tt
Ci rY OF
NEWPORT BEACH,
\/ CALIF. Y�
N
Page 2
14% Dec . 12, 1980 • •
Newport Beach
Average Daily Traffic Generation Rate = 13 T.E./1000 Sq. Ft.
Project Average Daily Traffic Volume = 13 x 18.104 = 235 T.E.*
Total 2 .5 Hour Generation Rate = 4. 6 T.E./1000 Sq. Ft.
Total 2 .5 Hour Volume (Project) = 4 .6 x 18 .104 = 83 T.E.
Inbound 2 .5 Hour Generation Rate = 1.2 T.E./1000 Sq. Ft.
Inbound 2.5 Hour Volume (Project) = 1.2 x 18 .104 = 22 T.E.
Outbound 2 .5 Hour Generation Rate = 3 .4 T.E./1000 Sq. Ft.
Outbound 2 .5 Hour Volume (Project) = 3.4 x 18 .104 = 61 T.E.
*T.E. = Trip End. A trip end is the arrival or
departure of a vehicle at the project site.
Exhibit 1 shows both the' directional 2 .5 hour site traffic distri-
bution and direction desire percentages in the analysis area.
Intersection Analysis
The "critical" intersections identified by the City Traffic Engineer
for a 1% analysis are:
1. Bristol Street North @ Jamboree Road
2. Bristol Street North @ Birch Street
3. Bristol Street North @ Campus Drive
4 . Jamboree Road @ Bristol Street
5 . Irvine Avenue @ Bristol Street
6 . Irvine Avenue @ Mesa Drive
7 . Irvine Avenue @ University Drive
8 . MacArthur Boulevard @ Campus Drive
Existing and projected 2 .5 hour traffic volumes, for each inter-
section, are shown on attached forms .
Conclusions
The analysis indicates that all of the intersections identified by
the City Traffic Engineer, except Bristol Street at Irvine Avenue/
Campus Drive, will have traffic volume increases of less than 1% as
a result of the proposed project development.
An intersection capacity utilization test, with traffic projected
for regional growth, committed project, and project volumes, indi-
cates that the intersection of Bristol Street at Irvine Avenue/
Campus Drive would exceed a Volume/Capacity of 0 .90% with or with-
out the project. Our calculations indicate that the proposed
project would increase the V/C ratio by only 0 .0023% . The calcu-
lations are attached.
Page 3 • •
Dec . 12, 1980
Newport Beach
In other words, by totally eliminating the proposed project, the
V/C ratio would still exceed a 0 .90% ratio. There would not be a
substantial deterioration of traffic conditions following develop-
ment of committed projects and allowance for regional growth with
or without the proposed project.
Should you have any questions relative to our analysis and calcu-
lations, please contact us .
Respectfully submitted,
HERMAN KIMMEL & ASSOC. , INC.
H. William Dickson
RCE No. 19417
RTR No. 39
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection Bristol St./Campus Dr.-Irvine Ave.
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1980)
aPProach ' 2<dsting ' Peak 2y Hour Approved Projected Pe of Projected Protect
Direction Pena 2i Hour ! Regional Projects Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour'
I ac'�rr Growth Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume
_ I Volume Volume
Northbound 17741 I 9 ?J04 911411 ZI FjZ
1
,
ISoutfibound 2808 23 W4 51055 30 10
Eastbound ` 6581 ),�P�4 60?*5 83 9 !
I,estbound
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 211 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.
3500-aaio x'2VINE 4.Vf✓Kius Qr�r1ng; GATE: i2-t?-go
PROJECT:
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS FwQFjg� I[
Intersecon Bristol St./Campus Dr.-Ir& Ave.
( Existing Traffic t'olurres Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1980)
E%{ST. EaIST. REGIONAL COMITTEO • PPO]ECTFO
Ex IS'1%1 PC:•'�•r:• VIC Ratio PRWECT PROJECT
PJrene+t Lanes CaP. La-es Cap. PR.RR. V/C GRUTH PROJECT w/o Project Volu+e V/C Ratio
Vol. Ratio VOlwne Vol acne Volsrne
NL
NT 3200 55 7 109 •2081 15 -31ze
NR 1600 1 186 .1163 2 -73 . 1l051 11 . 1100
SL 1600 100 .0625 i 0 Ora31 0 -O 31
ST 3200 1184 .3700* 22• 100 .4080* , 5 r4103
SR
EL 1600 340 .2125 f,. 149 .SOV' 0
ET 6400 2023 .3948* 10 ro43 50?,91' 0 nc) 1'*
ER 504 3 32 5
WL
WT
WR
YELLOWTIME 1000* •1000 1 .1000
EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .8648 T i
1 � a
EXISTING PLUS C"ITTED 'PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED •INPROVEMENTS I.C.U: 1.0105 i
EXISTIti; PLUS CO`4#1ITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. I.0128
❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90
® Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90
❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be
less than or equal to 0.90
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Description of system improvement:
�g�-a5r51� '('r'scti/1t.►� dV L1S D1=F1G0 __ DATE:
Page
Dec. 12, 1980
• •
• Newport Beach
Average Daily Traffic Generation Rate = 13 T.E./1000 Sq. Ft.
Project• Average Daily Traffic Volume = 13 x 18 .104 = 235 T.E.*
Total 2.5 Hour Generation Rate = 4 .6 T.E./1000 Sq. Ft.
Total 2 .5 Hour Volume (Project) = 4 .6 x 18 .104 = 83 T.E.
Inbound 2.5 Hour Generation Rate = 1.2 T.E./1000 Sq. Ft.
Inbound 2.5 Hour Volume (Project) = 1 .2 x 18 .104 = 22 T.E.
Outbound 2 .5 Hour Generation Rate = 3 .4 T.E./1000 Sq. Ft.
Outbound 2.5 Hour Volume (Project) = 3.4 x 18 .104 = 61 T.E.
*T.E. = Trip End. A trip end is the arrival or
departure of a vehicle at the project site.
Exhibit 1 shows both the directional 2 .5 hour site traffic distri-
bution and direction desire percentages in the analysis area.
Intersection Analysis
The "critical" intersections identified by the City Traffic Engineer
for a 1% analysis are:
1. Bristol Street North @ Jamboree Road
2 . Bristol Street North @ Birch Street
3 . Bristol Street North @ Campus Drive
4 . Jamboree Road @ Bristol Street
5. Irvine Avenue @ Bristol Street
6 . Irvine Avenue @ Mesa Drive
7 . Irvine Avenue @ University Drive
8 . MacArthur Boulevard @ Campus Drive
Existing and projected 2.5 hour traffic volumes, for each inter-
section, are shown on attached forms .
Conclusions
The analysis indicates that all of the intersections identified by
the City Traffic Engineer, except Bristol Street at Irvine Avenue/
Campus Drive, will have traffic volume increases of less than 1% as
a result of the proposed project development.
An intersection capacity utilization test, with traffic projected
for regional growth, committed project, and project volumes, indi-
cates that the intersection of Bristol Street at Irvine Avenue/
Campus Drive would exceed a Volume/Capacity of 0 .90% with or with-
out the project. Our calculations indicate that the proposed
project would increase the V/C ratio by only 0 .0023% . The calcu-
lations are attached.
Page 2 • •
yDec. 12, .1980
Newport Beach
Average Daily Traffic Generation Rate = 13 T.E./1000 Sq. Ft.
Project Average Daily Traffic Volume = 13 x 18 .104 = 235 T.E.*
Total 2.5 Hour Generation Rate = 4 .6 T.E./1000 Sq. Ft.
Total 2.5 Hour Volume (Project) = 4.6 x 18 .104 = 83 T.E.
Inbound 2.5 Hour Generation Rate = 1.2 T.E./1000 Sq. Ft.
Inbound 2 .5 Hour Volume (Project) = 1.2 x 18 .104 = 22 T.E.
Outbound 2 .5 Hour Generation Rate = 3 .4 T.E./1000 Sq. Ft.
Outbound 2 .5 Hour Volume (Project) = 3.4 x 18 .104 = 61 T.E.
*T.E. = Trip End. A trip end is the arrival or
departure of a vehicle at the project site .
Exhibit 1 shows both the directional 2.5 hour site traffic distri-
bution and direction desire percentages in the analysis area.
Intersection Analysis
The "critical" intersections identified by the City Traffic Engineer
for a 1% analysis are:
1 . Bristol Street North @ Jamboree Road
2. Bristol Street North @ Birch Street
3 . Bristol Street North @ Campus Drive
4 . Jamboree Road @ Bristol Street
5 . Irvine Avenue @ 'Bristol Street
6 . Irvine Avenue @ Mesa Drive
7 . Irvine Avenue @ University Drive
8 . MacArthur Boulevard @ Campus Drive
Existing and projected 2 .5 hour traffic Volumes, for each inter-
section, are shown on attached forms .
Conclusions
The analysis indicates that all of the intersections identified by
the City Traffic Engineer, except Bristol Street at Irvine Avenue/
Campus Drive, will have traffic volume increases of less than 1% as
a result of the proposed project development.
An intersection capacity utilization test, with traffic projected
for regional growth, committed project, and project volumes, indi-
cates that the intersection of Bristol Street at Irvine Avenue/
Campus Drive would exceed a Volume/Capacity of 0 .90% with or with-
out the project. Our calculations indicate thaoposed
project would increase the V/C ratio by only 0 . V
The calcu-
lations are attached.
r
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
® erman CONSULTANTS
Kimmel and Associates , Inc.
PRINCIPALS: 4242 CAMPUS DRIVE,SUITE E-6 NEWPORT BEACH,CALIF. 92660 (7141 546.9814
HERMAN KIMMEL
H.WILLIAM DICKSON December 18, 1980
�w
8 RECEIVED
Pleroiina
Denr•tment
City of Newport Beach DEC 191980*-
1
Community Services Department CITYth,
3300 Newport Boulevard 9 NEWPCALIF•�,CW Z�
Newport Beach, Calif . 92663
�
Attention Fred Talarico A
Irvine Avenue Office Project
"Anchor Plaza", Phase III Traffic Analysis
City of Newport Beach
Gentlemen:
Phase III traffic analysis of the Irvine Avenue Office Project
and capacity of the intersection of Bristol Street & Irvine
Avenue/Campus Drive has been completed.
The City Traffic Engineer, Mr. Richard Edmonston, has indicated
that previously committed projects will be providing an additional
southbound lane on Irvine Avenue at the intersection. Calculation
of the ICU with this improvement shows that the ICU will be re-
duced below 0 .90, without traffic from this project.
Additional traffic from the Irvine Avenue Office Project will not
cause the ICU to increase beyond 0 .90 .
Attached, for your review, is a copy of ICU calculation sheets
and Exhibit 2, which illustrates the improvement that will be
implemented by other committed projects .
If you have any questions , please contact our office.
Respectfully submitted,
HERMAN KIMMEL & ASSOC. , INC.
H. William Dickson, P.E.
RCE No. 19417
RTR No. 39
sA-&''Dja
FR'WY
112v11u�
V Aykr'
TRA"r NLrRI� VICINITY M W
® fman CONSULTANTS
k�mrr»I and Ama"WOs.inc.
1RVINE AVEJJUE
.� OFFIGE
I
5°h
2U°h
f
Gtii /~ 12VIN6, Ate• �'< 5 /o
DO
r •
�'' OU% �pGQG�,N1''D16'f'218U'1"IUt1
00 21/2NUUIZ VlZaMAL.•Dlcf RIP-5U'flON
3
CRITICAL, IMi' UCACflUN
611 to SW INIT 1
Mir TRSAC C FNO (O/OINFF111NO °
nd VQOJ Wr TQAfflc
k{mm�l a TAWS
3USOMIMes.lnc. vl5�rei�u-nou
DEC.'80 IeVINE AVENUE OFFICE
' _ TRAFFIC STUDY APPLICATION J IJE Sr NAur S'uOY
Nai E : FLicASE A5?WLESS ru'wke fr-ePAReD 6T REgmw
�p(t(tcSppuOcNG` -rv : CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH V<IH "E-L $, A55�e_ IF
��C y}pR0 tl. 1�DD ASS • p�55i &LE
Zot _-44i"R0 wA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
gear 4 Pr, e-ASIM -F N. 6'*3-0990
N Pr. L3c14.
APPLICANT ��� ii� /�G1 L A�1 `� PHONE lo�F O •os J2
MAILING ADDRESS SAQ M 1C,uI,L. X� SQI;e—,
PROPERTY OWNER S Js t-ti i= A S A g a I= PHONE
MAILING ADDRESS
ADDRESS OR LOCATION OF PROJECT Soo - 3 St O 1 FZy I N f—::'
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Lor,�sT 2V LI 'Z S i c72Y Ot=r=iLi= Bt_�, .
o f I S I I o sc t r 14 f 4,fe-1 10 Fo 2
-72 cP 2s
DEVELOPMENT PHASING:
Beginning Construction Completion Project Initial Occupancy Total Occupancy
JuuJE lc-t81 J%jNE I�1 8 Z 5cPi• 19 g 2 S.EPT'• Ia► 0 3
Month/Year Month/Year Month/Year Month/Year
MITIGATION MEASURES:
Do Not Complete Application Below This Line
Date Filed Fee Paid Receipt No.
City Traffic Engineer Approval Date
Planning Commission-Action Date
City Council Action Date
y
p _1
-07 _ t . ". to�wl
_ _ ^>. Kv` .-'rr E 'vP• i. .V:�itil .Q.
" T7T
t
L ,
!A4 .t
�
L L
- T rip
AN, I'(111H Hit
MINA
.. 1:� �'.P�I��.i�r�, •'���•Y'A_X.ti t i ••J\` sI �µ• _"-'il^ �iC 4 .
.RING' i.. �.i�•-`L.' t I '
5124�iE
=• -2^RLL�iC- 11.4409P --- � � � •
- tE6c axrzF w•�Y�6aY�`KN---- - -- -- • ;r� _ � —= I f'
-• 18 v}11-/d0ti—. � fi 1 CHARD
M !1
F1116, : _.., .• . .--1 0 ._ �1riIl�JL�-� - -A 1s Q 1301313-:o 1
Y���-
y�■imnnur �.� — � ��Y.
SECTION A
OEM onsm
MIMI-
I
nm
7��
MIND �
�. G�c•ssa�('if t taeao avuei4v«ram a.c. - _
A '—
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport BeacN-wil"l
hold a public hearing on the application of
David Magilavy for the approval of a -
for a(n) ❑ Variance Use Permit' • "
❑ Resubdivision " ' ❑ Tentative Map Tract
❑ Amendment 0 Other Traffic Study
on property located at _- 3500 and 3510 Irvine Avenue
to permit the issuance of Building and Grading permits for"• a two-story,
office building of 18,104 square feet + prepared i.n accord'ance- with'
_Chapter 15. 40 of the Newport Beach Municipal �COAe �( "Traffi'c Phasing
Ordinance" ) and City Polity S-1 ("Administ:rativ'e "Gui del ines for Implel
menting the Traffic Phasing Ordinance" ) .
❑ This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically
exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Qualities Act. .,
❑ NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that a Negative Declaration has been prepared by the
City of Newport Beach in connection with the application noted above. It is the
present intention of the City to accept the Negative Declaration and supporting
documents. The City encourages members of the general public to re*+ ew and comment
on this documentation. - Copies of the Negative Declaration and supporting documents
are available for public review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of
Newport Beach, 3300 West Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92663,
(714) 640-2216. •
❑ NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared
in connection with the .application noted above. It is the present -intention of the
City to accept the Environmental Impact Report and supporting documents. The City
encourages members of the, general public to review and comment on this documentation.
Copies of the Environmental. Impact Report and supporting documents are available for
public review and inspection at the 'Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300
West Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92663 •% (714) 640-2197
Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the
22 day of _ January 19 87 , 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. George Cokas, Secretary
PUBLICATION DATE: Planning Commission
Received for Publication City of Newport Beach
By
NOTE: The expense of this notice is paid from a filing fee collected from the
applicant.
PO
CITY HALLus Od
C'9< pµd�P 3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663 V• QZ
ro?r
StN o
OFq
PLANNING DEPARTMENTCO
O
o �s OP
%NN 119-234JBEACOH3
P. OCHARLEBNEWPORT92663
t
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
David Magilavy for the approval of a
for a(n) ❑ Variance Use Permit' '
❑ Resubdivision Tentative Map Tract
❑ Amendment FXJ Other Traffic Study
on property located at 3500 and 3510 Irvine Avenue
to permit the issuance of Building and Grading permits fora two-story t
office building of 18, 104 square feet + prepared in accordance with
Chapter 15 . 40 of the Newport Beach Municipal ,-C&de �( "Traffic Phasing
Ordinance" ) and City Policy S-1 ( "Administrativd "Guidelihes for Imple'
menting the Traffic Phasing Ordinance" ) .
❑ This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically
exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Qualities Act. ,
❑ NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that a Negative Declaration has been prepared by the
City of Newport Beach in connection with the application noted above. It is the
present intention of the City to accept the Negative Declaration and supporting
documents. The City encourages members of the general public to rev4ew and comment
on this documentation. Copies of the Negative Declaration and supporting documents
are available for public review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of
Newport Beach, 3300 West Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California., 92663,
- (714) 640-2216.
❑ NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared
in connection with the application noted above. It is the present intention of the
City to accept the Environmental Impact Report and supporting documents. The City
encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this documentation.
Copies of the Environmental Impact Report and supporting documents are available for
public review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300
West Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92663 (714) 640-2197
Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the
22 day of January 19 81 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. George Cokas, Secretary
PUBLICATION DATE: Planning Commission
Received for Publication City of Newport Beach
By
NOTE: The expense of this notice is paid from a filing fee collected from the
applicant.
/rtYrrvr. cu SHOWN Li' Llh L..L:> u�"••" ` " '
I" goo' •I
i
! 20 i
`2
a R ,
I Q ' _rJ�aG. IR IDS LJiZ3 (p�I(JiJI�I) II iI?. l�l ^ 71 �� 7OP40 Car Al y N
to
___ Hf .4T D II GO LOePSi .n ulf: 3 G
6
I 8 ACACIA STREET °o !4r/.c'w Sri=R AVENUE g -h uuans
_ wun�o .� S .r y - $
On LL_C-�y2
L3 l(I)@ 4 (1o?) n I a -
s ,c;
M . ��r•J�e I I Fs 99- nq co n/a•o laro N 1
1 .` � • 3 ' o cG ez ?3L} vH-J9-J -
>� Gaa GD i •r4'. inoi •G•DG - x1 cc 3 i/90 NT- DG
SG 91 4
y R6 FD a N
/rL0 fCJ, sG I s I T I No
r E v
yyy-...
r. �7, 25 �cu�(L4,��23 Q ® �; .-.
f I 1c% t24)
' i�. " rel ca• JJ I I I I I ��} � /47- i
i BIRCH L?.. 1 a �� _as I '3 IO
STREET
24
s ,
1
MAP,CH 1951 TR. NO. 706 M A!. 21- 25 NOTE - ASSESSOR'S BLOCKS A$SF.SS p!' S H•iP
PARCEL NUMBERS BOOKI19 PAC•f"23
SHOWN IN CIRCLES COUNTY OF ORANGE C
� I
I
:1 i
�. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING• 7`/+-��(
r
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will
hold a public hearing on the application of
David Magilavy for the approval of a
for a(n) ❑ Variance Use Permit" '
❑ Resubdivision H Tentative Map Tract
❑ Amendment n Other Traffic Study
on property located at 3500 and 3510 Irvine Avenue
to Permit the issuance of Building and Grading permits fora two-story r
_office building of 18, 104 square feet + prepared in acdoid'ance' with•
Chapter 15. 40 of the Newport Beach Municipal '-COxte %( "Traffi'c Phasing
Ordinance" ) and City Policy S-1 ( "Administrativ) `Guideline's -for Imple`
menting the Traffic Phasing Ordinance" ) .
❑ This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that .it is categorically
exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Qualities Act. ..
_ ❑ NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that a Negative Declaration has been prepared by the
City of Newport Beach in .connection with the application noted above. It is the
present intention of the City to accept the Negative Declaration and supporting
documents. The City encourages members of the general public to rewrew and comment
on this documentation. Copies of the Negative Declaration and supporting documents
are available for public review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of
Newport Beach, 3300 West Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92663,
(714) 640-2216.
❑ NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared
in connection with the application noted above. It is the present intention of the
City to accept the Environmental Impact Report and supporting documents. The City
encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this documentation.
Copies of the Environmental Impact Report and supporting documents are available for
public review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300
West Newport Boulevard, -Newport Beach, California, 92663 '- (714) 640-2197
Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the
22 day of January 19 81 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. George CGkas, Secretary
PUBLICATION DATE: Planning Commission
Received for Publication City of Newport Beach
By
NOTE: The expense of this notice is paid from a filing fee collected from the
applicant.
CITY HALL a JA4
C'9</FO0.N�P 3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663 hE-&
PLANNING DEPARTMENT R O Q�Fo�
I/%? q
RECci" " 119-2
LIP Pr lent
HBACK
/JAN 1219811 P. 0. J 2271
c
NEWPORT EACH, CA 92663
" '
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING •
T
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will
hold a public hearing on the application of
David Magilavy for- the approval of a
for a(n) ❑ Variance Use Permit
❑ Resubdivision " ' H Tentative Map Tract
❑ Amendment E Other . Traffi-c Study
on property located at 3500 and 3510 Irvine Avenue
to permit_ the issuance of Building and Grading permits fora two-story r
office building of 18, 104 square feet + prepared in accordance With' -'
_Chapter 15 . 40 of the Newport Beach Municipal --CO)±e �( "Traffi'c Phasing
Ordinance" ) and City Policy S-1 ("Administratiy'd-•Guidelines for Imple`
menting the Traffic Pha`sing Ordinance" ) .
❑ This .project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically .
exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Qualities Act.
❑ NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that a Negative Declaration has been prepared by the
City of Newport Beach in connection with the application noted above. It is the
present intention of the City to accept the Negative Declaration and supporting
documents. The City encourages members of the general public to re*+ew and comment
on this documentation. Copies of the Negative Declaration and supporting documents
are available for public review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of
Newport Beach, 3300 West Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92663,
(714) 640-2216.
❑ NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared
in connection with the application noted above. It is the present intention of the
City to accept the Environmental Impact Report and supporting documents. The City
encourages members of the• general public to review and comment on this documentation.
Copies of the Environmental Impact Report and supporting documents are available for
public review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300
West Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92663 (714) 640-2197
Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the
22 day of January 19 81 , 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. George COkas, Secretary
PUBLICATION DATE: Planning Commission
Received for Publication City of Newport Beach
' gy
NOTE: The expense of this notice is paid from a filing fee collected from the
applicant.
SEW Pp�, _ r
CITY HALL i�I--
a
C'941,OVL 3300 Newport Boulevard J 1090sc1 aP
Newport Beach, California 92663 0�� .l3
f3] ( x
Dl-
PLANNING DEPARTMENT E ro F-gliYl��,q� l !
tj
119-234-07
BRAEMAR DEVELOPMENT CO. ti
3848 CAMPUS DR,- #232
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
I
David Magilavy
369 Sari" Miguel=Dr-i ve #145
Newport Beach,_CA '
119-234-06
CHARLES J. FISHBACK P. 0. BOX 2271
NEWPORT. BEACH, .CA 92663
.119-234-07 118-234=47 157
BRAEMAR DEVELOPMENT CO. EXXON CORP.
3848 CAMPUS DR, #212 P. O. BOX 53
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 HOUSTON, TEXAS 77001
119-234-09 119-234-48 & 49 '
THOMAS W. DOAN ;WILLIAM J.• CAGNEY
1501 WESTCLIFF DR, 6777 HOLLYWOOD BLVD:
NEWPORT BEACH, CA- 92660 " ;LOS ANGELES, , CA 90028": ;
119-234-20 - ' .119=234-50 :_
_ -
LAND •EVOLUTION •INC. _PHILLIP A.- STEVENS
2082 SE BRISTOL' STREET 32138 VIA BVENA
" SANT4, ANA,' CA ' 92707 `SAN jUAN CAPISTRANO, CA $2675
119-234-21 119-234-51 '
JAWS W. CRAMER ATLANTIC RICHFIELD CO. _
20071 SW BIRCH P. 0.. BOX 2679-TERM ANNEX
SANTA ANA, CA 92707 CA 90051
119-234-22 i --219=234-54 - - -
JACK W.-_MULLAN :":. . CELESTIA C._LYNCH -_
3400-IRVINE AVE, #101 20062, SW'BIRCH STREET -
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 -SANTA ANA;- CA 92707 -
119-234-34 _ 119-234-60= -- -
CHARLES J. FISHBACK W. J- CAGNEY, JR. &/or R.E.J0
3400 IRVINE AVE, #101 6777 HOLLYWOOD BLVD., #501
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 LOS ANGELES, CA 90028
119-234-35 ;
CHARLES J. FISHBACK
P. 0. BOX 2271
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663
II 119-234-40 --- .. .• . •• - .. - '•
JAMES W. READ
P. 0. BOX 715
BALBOA, CA 92661 _
.�++w-..�.+�I.....�-._.Y. .-....... �.-.-. -. .-- ........ ......
1
ffI !
i
�3WO --35/� Z•w/NU tl UG
ail /ccaur l��c,�,�� 1� �� ? /svc • 6 73-o99d
Il•
Ij
P
ij
I�
i
(i
{I
(I�
i�
I�,
------------------- -------- _ _.__._..__._._.._.__.---
��WPORr CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECEIPT
.. @ NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92663 No. 14243•
iDATE
REICE14ED FROM,4�a j�f/ 7�14 G'
i ( �— ray �✓�
I Al Aor_7L ) -
i !
iACCOUNT NO ACCOUNT NO
MQ a -11 7 . 00 DEPARTMENT
i 0 ate;/0�y-�0 ' oo
.�j.---.«--- ------------- �6v .._.._.._.,_..«._.--._.._.--._.._.._.g,
_
{ --+~------~ CITY O F N E W�P O RT BEACH -- RECEIPT �� � -
j
jOF pm NEW PORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92663 /j("� No. 14460
/1/
(� DATE D�
' RECEIVED FROM
FOR:
I � /a
ACCOUNT NO ACCOUNT NO
�� ���• 6a DEPARTMEN 4
1 d - 7n5!-6666 3S_ 06 i
BV I
��
J11
J0
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into on this 4th day of
December, 11980, by and between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH , a municipal
corporation , hereinafter referred to as "CITY" , and Herman Kimmel and
Associates , 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 to be located at 3500 and 3510
Irvine Avenue in the City of Newport Beach .
WHEREAS , CONSULTANT desires to prepare sand Traffic Study .
NOW, THEREFORE , in consideration of the foregoing , the parties
hereto agree as fdlPows :
1 . GENERAL
CONSULTANT agrees to prepare a Traffic Study on the proposed
Office building in accordance with the requirements set forth in para-
graph 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 , 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 Six Hundred and 'Fifty Dollars , ($650,.100) . 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 the 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 FO CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
B - P.1
istant City Attorney Di ec or '
P1 nni g Department
CITY
By
Herman Kimmel and Associates
Incorporated
CONSULTANT