Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTPO009 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 1 yy1,� r . .•y atiA10 JUL 2 g 1 ' lii JP P JULY 15, 1981 a TO: PLANNING DIRECTOR FROM: Traffic Engineer SUBJECT: TRAFFIC STUDY FOR 1511-1525 SUPERIOR AVENUE The applicant for the proposed medical office building questioned the generation rate and distribution as used in the report prepared by JEF Engineering. It was agreed that a study would be made of a similar medical facility in the Newport Beach area. The report by JEF Engineering used a peak hour generation rate of 6.1 trips per 1000 square feet exiting the project and a daily generation rate of 75 trips per 1000 square feet. These values came from a nation- ally recognized report by the Institute of Transportation Engineers and were based on a limited number of studies conducted in various parts of the country. The daily rates ranged between 38 and 99 trips per 1000 square feet. The medical building at the northwest corner of Hospital Road and Placentia Avenue was selected as being a comparable facility. This building has 35,119 square feet of gross floor area. My office con- ducted daily counts and determined that the generation rate was 3b trips per day per 1000 square feet. A traffic counting firm was sel- ected by the city and retained by- the applicant to conduct an afternoon turning count. This resulted in generation rates of 2.4 trips exiting and 1.9 trips entering per 1000 square feet (Exhibit 1) during the peak hour and 45 trips exiting and 2.4 trips entering during the 22 hour peak (Exhibit 2). 1 7/15/81 -2- The traffic counting firm also recorded the turning movements of the traffic leaving the medical complex as it reached the intersection of Hospital and' Superior. This was done to determine the distribution of this traffic to the extent possible. As can be seen in Exhibits 1 & 2 there was quite a discrepancy in distribution of this intersection between the peak hour data and the 2h hour data. For purposes of analyzing the proposed project, the 2k hour distribution- was rounded off to the nearest 5% as shown in Exhibit 3. When the 2; hour generation rates were applied to the proposed building it was determined that the project would add less than 1% to any PP approach of a critical intersection, except Superior-Placentia. The ICU at the Superior-Placentia intersection would be below 0.90. It should also be noted that the peak hour of the medical facility (3:00 to 4:00 p.m.) occurs considerably before the peak traffic hour on the nearby arterial highways.gh ys. Richard M. Edmonston, Traffic Engineer I l [ rt • 3 EXISTING MEDICAL BUILDING w Q a ' z w v a J 28.9% P� a�. 22 HR. DISTRIBUTION ti 21 3:30 to 6:00 PM JQ TOTAL TRIPS = 245 46 OUTBOUND = 159 h' / 37 30 INBOUND = 86 / 31 45 s HOSPITAL RD. �22 13 z2 51.6%- BUILDING AREA = 35,119 SQUARE FEET GENERATION RATES DAILY = 30 TE/1000 SQUARE FEET 22 HOUR IN = 2.4 " 2 z HOUR OUT = 4.5 " EXHIBIT 1 EXISTING MEDICAL v m H G 30.9% �pQ 12 PEAK HOUR DISTRIBUTION 3:00 to 4:00 PM 26 TOTAL TRIPS = 151 OUTBOUND = 84 27 28 INBOUND = 67 5 26 CV 2 HOSPITAL RD. 6 19 63,1%� GENERATION RATES DAILY = 30 TE/1000 SQUARE FEET PEAK HOUR IN = 1.9 " PEAK HOUR OUT = 2.4 EXHIBIT 2 PROPOSED MEDICAL BUILDING • 2 z HR. VOLUME v KEY m z DISTRIBUTION H a a 16TH Ln U, 4~ 1 o J/ cz Lu w J C O O] O W J, cr g ti HOSPITAL ROAD ' do �tio� Q� �J h� COAST HIGHWAY PEAK 22 HOUR GENERATION 25,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING OUTBOUND 4.5 X 25 = 112 MINUS EXISTING USE - 5 NET OUTBOUND INCREASE 107 EXHIBIT 3 Newport laf '�ic Studies N I N TURNING COUNT TIME. 3 :00-4:00 PM O tz 5-7=81 w N a Q Y n. 5 co G pth C- 3rd tgc qnd 5 12 J 26 5 6 6 6 " Cp a Qi� N w .n oa �J 5 26 Hour total 7 m 4 6 1st 15 min. 0 11 2nd L 1 3 3rd 0 6 4u- 3 0 0 0 3 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 9 3 3 4 1 9 1st 2nd_ 3-rd- , 4th 1sl 2nd 3rd 4th 1L 1 4 Hospital Rd -- . NTS W 1 TURNING COUNT TIME: 4:00-5:00 PM O o rt 5-7-81 --'' w roN c C qth CL_ J 316 Is% qn 3 5 v 3 Q, 12 1 3 2 N 3 � � w o• Q) (4 w 0 o- 19 23 i w N d s 5 7 1st Qo . 7 5 2nd 1 6 3rd 6 5 4 tt. 2 2 1 1 6 ' 2 5 isl 2nd 3rd 4th fat 2nd 3rd ._ 4th ` $ 1 2 4 tat 2nd 3rd 4111 1 *t Hospital- Rd s NIS N 1 TURNING COUNT J N ': -0 TIME. 5:00-6:00 PM „ o 5-7-81 o w a o s c 316 T 1st qod 2 � 8 2 5 3 6 Q„ 0 O Q) a 0 �J 11 13 s o 6 5 1st 3 3 Znd 2 1 3rd 0 4 4 u. 1 1 1 0 3 �T� 1st Znd 3rd 41h 0 1 1 Q I 2 1st Znd 3-rd. 4th isl Znd 3 nI 4th 0 0 0 0 0 Hospital Rd Planning Commission Meeting July 23, 1981 Agenda Item Nos. 1 , 2, & 3 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO : Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Traffic Study (Continued Publ'ic Hearing) Request to consider a traffic study for a proposed 25,000 sq. ft.± medical office condominium building. AND Use Permit No . 1988 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to permit the construction of a 32 foot high medical office condominium complex and related off- street parking spaces in the Unclassified District, and the acceptance of an Environmental Document. A modification to the Zoning Code is also requested in- asmuch as a portion of the required parking spaces are compact spaces . AND Resubdivision No .684 ( Public Hearing) Request' to create one parcel of land for medical office condominium purposes . LOCATION: A portion of Lot 715, First Addition to the Newport Mesa Tract, located, at 1511 and 1525 Superior Avenue , on the northwesterly side of Superior Avenue between 15th Street and 16th Street in the West Newport Triangle. ZONE: Unclassified APPLICANTS : W. Ross Mollard and William R. Wood , Irvine OWNER : Same as applicants ENGINEER: Raab Engineering, Westminster At the July 9, 1981 , Planning Commission meeting the Commission continued the above subject items to the meeting of July 23, 1981 , in order to allow staff time to prepare additional backup information related to the Traffic Study. Supplemental information has been prepared by the City Traffic Engineer and is attached for Commission review. TO.: Planning Commission -2 . PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D . HEWICKE Dir ector rector By 401-4/ Fred Tala 'co , Environmental Coordinator ` FT: tn Attachments: 1 . City Traffic Engineers Report IE 2 . Staff Report July 9 , 1981 - AtCAc�n��1h- Nc. L. 3 iv&Y 2a, 148 Planning Commission Meeting , 4 -984 Agenda Item Nos . if;i-3;fi+#• CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJEC:7: Traffic Study (Public Hearing) Request to consider a Traffic Study for a proposed 25,000 'sq. ft.t medical office building. AND Use Permit No . 1988 (Public Hearing) Request to permit the construction of a 32 foot high medical office condominium complex and related off- street parking spaces in the Unclassified District and the acceptance of an Environmental Document. A modifi- cation to the Zoning Code is also requested to permit a portion of the required parking spaces to be compact spaces . AND Resubdivision No . 684 (Public Hearing) Request to create one parcel of land for medical office condominium purposes . LOCATION : A portion of Lot 715, First Addition to the Newport Mesa Tract, located at 1511 and 1525 Superior Avenue, on the northwesterly side of Superior Avenue between 15th Street and 16th Street in the West Newport Triangle. ZONE: Unclassified APPLICANTS: W. Ross Mollard and William R. Wood, Irvine OWNERS: Same as applicant ENGINEER: Raab Engineering , Westminster Application The applicants are requesting approval of a Use Permit to construct an office condominium complex in an Unclassified District. In accord- ance with Section 20 . 53.020 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code , any use not otherwise prohibited by law may be permitted in the Un- classified District, subject to the securing of a use permit in each case . Use Permit procedures are outlined in Section 20 .80 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code . A modification to the Zoning Code is also requested so as to permit a .portion of the required parking TO: �. Planning Commission • spaces to be compact spaces . Modification procedure's are setforth in Section 20,81 of the Municipal Code. A resubdivision for condominium purposes is also required for the proposed office condo- minium complex. Resubdivison •Procedures are outlined in Section 19. 12 .040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. This application also requests the approval of a Traffic Study in conjunction with the proposed development, Traffi-c Study requirements are outlined in Chapter 15.40 of the Municipal Code. Environmental Significance After an initial study, it has been determined that this project not have any significant environmental impact, and a Negative will Declar- ation with appropriate mitigation measures has been prepared. This document is attached for Commission review. Conformance with the General Plan The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for "Retail and Service Commercial " uses . The proposed medical office development is consistent with this designation. Subject Property and Surrounding Land Use A partially demolished single story office structure exists on the withethepproposed development. ToWthe northmoadjacent onto utheisubject Property is the Harbor Mobile Home Park; to the east, across Superior Avenue, is the Hughes Aircraft Corporation complex; to the south., is an abandoned single family residence and related detached structures ; and to the west, are light industrial uses . Analysis The following outline reflects the major characteristics of the pro- posed development: LOT SIZE: 50,695 sq. ft. 1*.16 acres WILDING: Gross Net First Floor: Second Floor: 13,600 tsq., ft . 13,124 tsq . ft. i TOTALS: 11 80 tsq• ft. 1.1 3�00 i_sq Tf tsq . #t. 24,424 fsg fit: BUILDABLE AREA: (25,4091 sq .ft + 50,695 sq. ft. )= .50 x buildable area PARKING: Required: 1 space per 250 sq.ft. of ,gross floor area included within exterior walls of the strUctre (24,700tsq.ft + 260 sq.ft. = 99 spaces . Provided: , 93 Standard 7 Compact 10 Total Spaces SETBACKS u Re ired Front: q0 Proposed Sides: 0 12 (min . ) 10 ' north side) Rear: 0 10' } mint) side) s _ TO: Planning Commission -3 . BUILDING HEIGHT: Maximum Permitted: 32 ' Proposed: 321 The proposed development meets or exceeds all applicable zoning re- quirements for a structure of this nature, except that six of the required parking spaces are compact spaces . Staff has no objections with the proposed number of compact spaces , inasmuch as only 16 . 5% of the required parking spaces are designed for compact automobiles . The Commission has approved up to 25% of the required number of parking spaces for compact spaces on similar office projects in the past. Traffic Study The applicants have requested approval of a Traffic Study to permit the issuance of building and grading permits for the construction of the proposed project. The Traffic Study for the proposed project has been prepared in accordance with Chapter 15 .40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code ( "Traffic Phasing Ordinance" ) and City Policy S-1 ( "Administrative Procedures for Implementing the Traffic Phasing Ordinance" ) . The Traffic Study was prepared for the City by JEF Engineering (attached) . The City Traffic Engineer, subsequesnt to the preparation of the Traffic Study, took supplemental traffic counts on May 7, 1981 , at the medical offices located on the northwesterly corner of Hospital Road and Placentia Avenue . Revised generation rates and distributions were determined from these counts and were applied to the proposed project. - Based upon this new data the City Traffic Engineer has deter- mined that the proposed project will add less than 1 % to the approach to. any of the potentially critical intersection (Memorandum from Traffic Engineer attached) . City Policy S-1 provides that when an analysis has determined that one year after the completion of the project, or portions of the project for which the traffic analysis is being performed , the project will generate less than a one percent increase for each . leg of a critical intersection , the analysis is concluded and the findings provided in Exhibit "A" may be made. Specific Findings and Recommendation Section 19 . 12 . 020 (D) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that in order to approve a resubdivision , the Commission shall determine that it is satsified with the plan of subdivision, that the map is in conformity with the requirements of Title 19 , all ordinances of the City and all applicable genera-1 or specific plans . Section 20 . 80 . 060 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that in order to grant any Use Permit, the Planning Commission shall find that the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use or build- ing applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular case be detrimental to the health , safety, peace, morals , comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. ! 0 TO: Planning Commission -4. Staff t f recommends approval of Resubdivision No 1988, and the Traffic Stud conjunction with Use Permit No. ese requests , and the acceptancepofp the dNegatvDeclaration, thShould the Planning Commisson desire to approve these requests , the findings and conditions of approval .as set forth in Exhibit "A" are recommended. PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES HEWICKER, Director By Chris Gusti Associate Planner CG: tk ATTACHMENTS Exhibit "All Vicinity Map Negative Declaration Traffi-c Study Memo- Traffic Engineer -June 9, 1981 Plot Plan, Floor Plan , and Elevations Tentative Parcel Map EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TRAFFIC STUDY USE PERMIT NO . 1988 ' RESUBDIVISION NO. 684 FINDINGS : Traffic Study 1 . That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed pro- ject on the peak hour traffic and circu- lation system in accordance with Chapter 15 .40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Policy S-1 . 2 . That the Traffic Study indicates that the project-generated traffid will not be greater than one percent of existing traffic during the 2. 6 hour peak period on any leg of the intersection. 3. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project-generated traffic will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic on any' major' , ' primary- modified' , or ' primary ' street. FINDINGS: Use Permit No. 1998 1 . That the proposed use is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses . 2 . That an Initial Study and Negative Declara- tion have been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act , and that their contents have been considered in the decisions on this project . 3 . That based on the i'nformation contained in the Negative Declaration, the project incorporates sufficient mitigation measures to reduce potentially-significant environmental effects , and that the project will not result in sign- ificant environmental impacts . 4 . The Police Department has indicated that they do not contemplate any problems . s 0 - FINDINGS: Use Permit No . 1988 5 . The approval of Use Permit No. 1988 will not Under the circumstances of this case be detrimental to the health , safety, peace, morals , comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood g od or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighbor- hood or general welfare of the City. 6 . That to permit six of the required parking q P 9 spaces to be designed as compact parking spaces will not, under the circumstances of the particular case , be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that j proposed modification for compact spaces is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. CONDITIONS: 1'. That the development s'ha1 p 1 be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan , floor plans and elevations . 2. That a minimum of one parking space for each 250 sq . ft. of gross floor area within the exterior walls of the structure shall be provided on the ect subject property. � 3. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from adjoining property and from Superior Avenue. 4. Handicap and compact parking spaces shall be clearly marked b method approved y a by the City Traffic Engineer. 5. Driveway widths shall be a minimum of 28 feet. 6. The following disclosure statement of the City of Newport Beach' s policy regarding the John Wayne Airport shall be included in all leases or sub-leases for space in the project and shall be included in any Covenants , Cond- itions , and Restrictions which may be recorded against the property. Disclosure Statement The Lessee herein , his heirs , successors and assigns acknowlddge that: a) The John Wayne Airport may not be able to provide adequate air service for business establishments which rely on such services ; b) When an alternate air facility is available , a complete phase out of jet service may occur at the John Wayne Airport. c) The City of Newport Beach may continue to oppose additional commercial air service expansions at the John Wayne Airport; d) Lessee , his heirs , successors and assigns will not actively oppose any action taken by the City of Newport Beach to phase out or . limit jet air service at the John Wayne Air- port. 7. The project be designed to conform to Title 24 Paragraph G , Division T-20, Chapter 2, Sub- chapter 4. 8. Should any resources be uncovered during con- struction, that a qualified archaeologist or palenotologist evaluate the site prior to completion of construction activities , and in accordance with City Policies K-6 & K-7. 9 . Final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation of water-saving devices for project lavatories and other water-using facilities . 10. The final design of the project shall provide for the sorting of recyclable material from other solid waste . 11 . The applicants shall provide for weekly vacuum sweeping of all paved parking areasand drives . 12. A landscape and irrigation plan for the. project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape archi- tect. 13. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review of the Parks , Beaches , and Recreation Department and approval of the Planning Department. Further- more, said landscape plans adjacent to the drive entrance shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department for sight distance . FINDINGS: Con ' t. Use Permit No.. 1988 14. The landscape plan shall include a mainten- ance program which controls the use of fertilizers and pesticides. 15 . The landscape plan shall place heavy emphasis on the use of drought-resistant native veg- etation and be irrigated via a system design- ed to avoid surface runoff and over-watering. 16. Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Build- ing and Planning Departments . 17. That a grading plan, if required, shall in- clude a complete plan for temporary and ,per- manent drainage facilities , to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris , and other water pollutants . 18. The grading permit shall include , if required, a description of haul routes, access points to the site and a watering and sweeping pro- gram designed to minimize impacts of hard operations . 19. An erosion and dust control plan , if required, shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department. 20. That an erosion and siltation control plan, if required, shall be approved by the Calif- ornia Regional Water Quality Control Board - Santa Ana Region, and the plan be submitted to said Board ten days prior to any construc- tion activities . 21 . The project shall be so desingdd to eliminate light and on glare spillage adjacent uses 9J 22, That all conditions of approval of Resub division No. 684 shal'1 be met. RESUBDIVISON NO. 684 FINDINGS: 1 , That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable General or Specific 'Plans and .the Planning Commission is s,atisfied with the plan of subdivision. 2. That the proposed resubdivison presents no problems from a planning standpoint. RESUBDIVISION NO. 684 Findings Con ' t. 3. That the proposed development is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses . CONDITIONS: 1 . That a- Parcel Map be filed. 2. That all improvements be constructed as re- quired by ordinances and the Public Works Department. 3. That additional right-of-way for street and highway purposes be dedicated to the Public , as needed along the Superior Avenue frontage of the site to establish 50 feet of street right-of-way from the center line of street to property line across the entire Superior Avenue frontage. 4. That the remaining street improvements along Superior Avenue frontage be completed. These improvements shall include the construction of curb,gutter, full width sidewalk; street lights , and pavement section, and the reconstruction of any displaced curb. The street improvement plans shall be prepared .by a licensed Civil Engineer. 5. That existing parkway trees shall be removed or root pruned as required by the Parks , Beaches , and Recreation Department. 6. That a subdivision agreement and accompanying surety shall be provided if it is desired to obtain a building permit or record a parcel map prior to completion of the public improve- ments . 7. That the vehicular and pedestrian circulation plan be subject to further review and approval of the Public Works Department. 8. That the water service be installed as required by the Costa Mesa Consolidated Water District. 9. That the sewer connections be constructed as required by the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. •err o. r RZ ` +�• �/ � C_2 a /Q � r a ' a A-P CA (� anlP op '. ' + R•3 t c o c� R 3 A-P 15 0 !L3 0 A•P P A-P-H ,. ' R N/lN/�.tL 3 A•P I P � A•P•H 4. i . �� ' ASP Su NAP 16'22•A DISTRICTING MAP w1 w lI. ,•Mw,.hw_IP.w / Y'P,Iww A�I.t " " ' " " ""' ^ �• N . ./ NEW PORT BEACH CALIFORNIA <M= IH h/,•I w IN/.M.IIM M1 MM"I N.,�,/,y'YN// „AMMGILMAL II[MOOITYA, WATFU iNfRmm 1bS, pry 't.,^i:!•+fig//Nv/r,�r� "*A FAMILY ttMO wmL Lmw Qokv4trAmft _ AAAAA N WrL[lt 1NW[MTIAL @DO" o L'2M ! e /e• /� Aw R,,"*MUL7 AAA lwsn1olAL AWQacrL o ORC oomem"I ol{TACTI WQASW u �c �cn.m �r JUa, l9 g8 AN D ZC'S (4abiutsiow G3/Vo, . 6 Y TO: Secretary for Resources FRCt1: Planning Department a 1400 Tenth Street City -of m-wport Beach Sacramento, CA 95314 3300 Ge-�-;rart Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 X Clerk of the Board of Supervisors P. 0. Box 687 Sint Sinta Ana Q 7 7, rp AME OF PROJECT: Use Permit 1998 ROJECT LOCATION: 1511 and 1525 Superior Avenue, Newport Beach ROJECT DESCRIPTION: The constructcort of a 32' foot high office condominium complex and related offstreet parking spaces. The proposal also requests the creation of one parcel of land for office condominium purposes where a portion of one lot tow exists, and the consideration of a traffic study for the proposed 25,000 sq.ft_t office building. FINDING: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council Policy K-3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. MITIGATION MEASURES: SEE ATTACHED LIST INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY: INITIAL STUDY AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT: 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: � �� Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator Date: June 1 , 1981 i )'r' � � i 1'FII Il:.•'si�C.� '•',^�-�ail.?=.'. � ( •' y �, 1 . The following disclosure statement aF the City of ihwpo•r. leach's policy regarding the Orange County Airport skauld be ircludea in all leases or sL5-7easas for space in the project and shall be incl';.d ` ' ir. any Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions which may be recordad against the property. Disclosure Statement The Lessee herein, his heirs, sucCessaas and assigns acknceole that: a) The Orange County AirportvW cent be able to provide adequate•air service for business establishments whrieb rely an such services; %b) When an alternate air facil ity is sw.iTahle, a eaapTate phase, out of Set service occur at the�y Airport. Orange Coamgr c) The City of Newport. Beach mey eaattnae to oppose additional coamercial air service expansions at the Orasye County Airport; d) Lessee, his heirs, successors adNassigns will not actively oppose any action taken by the City of Newport leech ba phase out or limit jet air service at the Orange County Airport. _ 2. The on-site parking will be provided to accordance with te Newport Beach Municipal Code. 3. The project be designed to coalortrtoi Title 24, Paragrapb G. Division T-20, Chapter 2, Subchapter 4. 4. Should any resources be uncovered during construction, that a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist evaluats the site prior to completion of construction activities and in accordance with City Policies K-6 3 K-7. S. Final design of the project gnshould o provide for the inc ttorr of water- saving saving devices for project lavatories and other water-using facilities. 6. The final design of the project'should provide for the sorting of recyclable. material from other solid waste. 7. The applicants should provide for weekly vacuum sweeping of all paved parking areas and drives. 8. Any, construction an the site should be dine in accordance with the height: restriction regulations of the City. The restrictions of said should apply to any landscape materials, signs, flags, etc., as well as structures. 9. 'A landscape and irrigation plan for the project; shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. 10. The landscape plan should be subject to the 'review of the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department and approval of the Planning Department_ 11 . The landscape plan should include a maintenance program which controls the use of fertilizers and, pesticides. 12. The landscape ;a,= Si w:Tr; pTac-e heayy ecp�asi; cn t-. :se of drough`- r2siscar,: nay� v�- Zfai and be irrigated vid a sys:�z designed to avoid surface aver-wat_ring. 13. Development of tbasttL- Should be subject to a grading p--rarit to be approved by the Buildirs aw:t P?amrtng Depa-o`ments. 14. That a grading tUx•'si` regafred should include a cernTati- plan for temporary and permanent 6-4t•,aga lfltcilities, to minimize any pocaa al impacts from silt, debris, M9 6thw Water pollutants. _ f 16. The grading permit shorn 1=7ude, if required, a descriptfcn of haul routes, access points tm the site'and a watering and sweeping program designed to minimize impacts d irsai operations. lb. An erosion and dast =trcl plan, if required, should be- szd'smitted and be ' subject to. the apt off the Building Department. 17. That an erosion ayd s-riitation control plan, if required, €se approved by the California Aeg'=I Water Quality Control Board - •Swta Ana Region, and the plan be s0wittal. is said Board ten days prior to any construction activities. 18. The project shOMU be sa designed to eliminate 'light and glare spillage on adjacent uses. TRAFFIC STUDY FOR PROPOSED MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING AT 1511-1525 SUPERIOR AVENUE FOR TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE IN NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA April 1981 Revised May 2, 1981 Prepared by JEF Engineering 601 Sandlewood Avenue La Habra, California (714) 738-7139 °17 • • J E F engineering Traffic & Transportation Consulting 601 Sandlewood Avenue Le Habra, CA 90631 (714) 738-7139 April 8, 1981 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Attention: Mr. Fred Talarico Dear Fred: Subject : Proposed Medical Office Building at 1511-1525 Superior Avenue JEF Engineering is pleased to submit our traffic study completed in compliance with the guidelines outlined in the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance for the proposed 25,000 square foot medical office building at 1511 and 1525 Superior Avenue. I find the project will increase traffic one year after completion by more than one percent at two intersections and at one of these locations the ICU which already exceeds 0. 90 will further increase unless mitigated. The one intersection requiring mitigation is Coast Highway at Superior Avenue/Balboa Boulevard. The second intersection, Superior Avenue at Placentia Avenue has a projected plus project traffic ICU at less than 0. 90. I wish to express my appreciation for being selected to perform this study and acknowledge the cooperation and assistance provided by yourself and Mr. Rich Edmunston which enabled us to complete the work quickly and easily. Sincerely, Joe E.40u*a California Reg. No. C-20258/T-854 PROJECT Mr. Ross Mollard owner of the property at 1511-1525 Superior Avenue is proposing to construct a 25,000 square foot condominium medical office building at that location. 'Phis new building would replace an existing 22800 square foot dance studio and a single family detached residential unit which presently occupy the site. Construction is planned to begin and end in 1981 with initial occupancy in 1981 and full occupancy in 1982. The building would be located on Superior Avenue near the City's northern boundary. Consequently, approximately two- thirds of the traffic that enters and exits the medical building would not impact critical intersections in the City of Newport Beach. A Location Map is shown in Figure 1 and a Site Plan of .the project is presented in Figure 2. TRAFFIC GENERATION The primary source utilized for determination of trip rates was Trip Generation, An ITE Informational Report pub- lished in 1976 and revised in 1979. This reference indicates that medical office buildings typically produce 75.0 trips per day per 1000 square feet of gross floor area with an exiting peak hour volume (occurring about 4 :OOP.M. ) of 6.4 trips per 1000 square feet of space. Since the corresponding volume 1 :F OL E C raE N�NIA'a. mJ any �o+r < OAK cur , INOLfLL FL sVAT r mm o �"w1•` 3(! ST ulRfA EYEFM ST iiQ .fi'y �tl�.da'IM�AftLt�?j,t�•�!�\� N0.NO0DI ST ST i mat VRR }l 70o C • / w ! EST CEN ff i� YEIt iTxSTs irtulif Clt S r WE OR MffA' y} • y DTI i lRY�OlR . Ola.. s. ';•Ic;LC ! earua SONRT'OIC — ARK 4 J L SAME CY MAR R �ul Tc'r�'. " �•""`ow wr YGNuuy ♦ F, f� k aj v I'm nat°Riuriw`ei� ' 17TM S7 4J Ail +Y� TC V.=TI all ,•• i ,' I• FAM ST<2 ,�•� ��/ o Gj 46 ' ! ME)OIICTNIN f •� � SITS° +.�, y OAS ' I � • t �« �`; n � ' � ?e4 �wF�asr ? W j Ngo MOVE N I Lo�, • •. �, � Cp4s ,,��l!�. R� • � a�r I Y fit•'' i • 4'+° • � urc w �f! .�'r SITE LOCATION MAP 2 Figure 1 of entering traffic during the peak hour is not presented in the ITE Report, an estimate was developed utilizing typical entering and exiting ,travel patterns of general office uses. Typically, 85 to 90 percent of the P.M. peak hour total trips are are exiting, whereas, only 10 to 15 percent enter. Using this basis, it is estimated that a peak hour entering rate of 0.95 trips per 1000 square feet would be generated by the project in addition to the exiting traffic. Since the property is presently occupied by a dance studio and a house, a credit for the traffic thus generated is appropriate. A trip generation rate of 10.0 trips per day per single family dwelling unit was utilized. However, .the ITE Report did not indicate a generation rate for dance studios. Consequently, an estimate of 30.0 trips per day per 1000 square feet, with a, 10 percent peak hour factor based on a "speciality shop" type use was utilized and verified by an actual peak hour traffic count. For purposes of estimating future traffic growth, a 12 percent thru trip factor was utilized for travel on Coast Highway and an annual growth rate of 2.4 percent: All critical intersection utilized 1980 traffic counts with the base year for analysis taken as 1982. This required projecting two years' growth at all the Coast Highway inter- sections. 4 5 5 . • TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION The directional distribution of traffic generated to and from the new medical office building was assumed to resemble that which presently exists. Traffic counts of traffic entering and exiting driveways along Superior Avenue in the vicinity of the site were taken to provide an indication of the directional orientation of travel patterns. Past studies had indicated that 60 to 70 percent of travel from this area is oriented to and from the north. An actual peak hour count indicated 65 percent had a northerly orientation. Consequently, a two-thirds north, one-third south directional distribution was assumed for the future trip generation of the new medical office building. The results .of trip generation distribution and assignment for the critical 241 hour peak period (which includes a credit for the existing use) is shown in Figure 3. The project produces 302 exiting and 48 entering vehicles during the peak 2-k hour period. Of this volume, two-thirds utilizes Superior Avenue to the north of the City of Newport Beach and does not impact any critical intersections. The critical traffic utilizes Superior Avenue southerly of the site and amounts to 100 vehicles southbound and 16 vehicles northbound during the peak 23g hour period. The distribution and assignment of this traffic is depicted in Figure 3. 5 • J V Trip Generation Data Land Use APT Rate Pk Hr Rate med office 75.0 6.4 exit --- - -e 0.95 enter s - ---=- xistin studio g 16th � Site (cueo*) 36 (est) 3.0 (10%) house 10 1.0 r 0H �y 15thr+ - _J1 $o �y o North Hospital Rd 4 'r04 a 1 4-1 ro w y ; '4 o -- 4 > 0 IL, a' � y it F" 3 Coast. Hwv 0 4- 4 3 6 • d Legend �bo� 80 .q._ veh/2h hr �1D critical intersections JE F englneering 'DRIP DISTRIBUTION TrAft A TnnporUtlon conulllnp 6 Figure 3 CRITICAL INTERSECTIONS ANALYZED The project site lies within Area 16 and a total of 7 critical intersections were examined. These 7 are: 1. Superior Avenue at Placentia Avenue 2. Hospital Road at Newport Boulevard 3• Coast Highway at Superior Ave./ Balboa Boulevard 4. Coast Highway at Prospect Street 5. Coast Highway at Orange Street 6. Coast Highway at Riverside Drive 7. Coast Highway at Dover Drive The one percent (1%) analysis revealed 'two intersections exceeded the limit. These are: 1. Superior Avenue at Placentia 2. Coast Highway at Superior Avenue/Balboa Boulevard The intersection of Superior Avenue and Placentia Avenue will have one approach substantially exceeding the one percent limit (southbound) and one approach only slightly above the one percent test. The intersection of Coast Highway with Superior Avenue/ Balboa Boulevard experiences one approach (southbound) exceeding the one percent test. The predicted traffic volumes on the individual approaches 7 2-4- to the remaining five critical intersections were substantially below the one percent limit. The intersection at Hospital Road and Newport Boulevard is sensitive to the traffic distribution and could have exceeded the one percent limit had a much heavier southbound left turn movemment been assigned to Superior Ave. at Placentia Ave. Even so, it is expected that Hoag Hospital will be the destination of several trips originating at the medical offices (doctors visitingpatients, p ents et c. ) . Conseq uently, it a ears PP ,un likel that Y eastbound Hospital Road will experience sufficiently heavy traffic generated by the medical offices to exceed the one percent test. INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION - ANALYSIS The intersection of Superior Avenue and Placentia Avenue has a prujected plus project traffic ICU of 0.5782 indicating an acceptable level of service- after the project is completed. However, the intersection of Coast Highway with Superior Avenue/ Balboa Boulevard already has an ICU with committed projects exceeding 0. 90. This ICU' will be further increased by the medical office building. Consequently, some mitigation will be required. INTERSECTION CAPACITY. UTILIZATION - MITIGATION ANALYSIS The one location requiring mitigation, Coast Highway at Superior Avenue/Balboa Boulevard, is undergoing improvement by the City of Newport Beach. Reference is made to the 8 Superior Avenue Improvement Project Report, AHFP Submittal dated December 1979 and . the Traffic Study for Superior Avenue prepared by Basmaciyan-Darnell, Inc. dated November 1979. The project is broken down into two phases, interim and ultimate, with the interim improvement scheduled for construction in 1982. However, this interim improvement will have to be supplemented by measures producing additional intersection capacity such as restriping of southbound Superior Avenue to provide two right turn lanes, two thru lanes, and a left turn lane. In addition, a third westbound lane needs to be provided to reduce the high green time requirement of this approach. Given this mitigation, the project V/C ratio will be less than 0.90. CONCLUSION One intersection, Coast Highway at Superior Avenue/ Balboa Boulevard will require mitigation as a result of the construction of a 25,000 sq.ft. medical office building at 1511-1525 Superior Avenue. Although the traffic generated by the project itself will have a relatively minor impact on the critical movements in the intersection, nevertheless, existing plus committed traffic will cause the ICU to be above 0. 90 (actual ICU = 1.0279 ) even when the completion of the City's planned improvement of this intersection is included in 9 the analysis. Consequently$ some mitigation of the intersection will be required of this or any other project which exceeds the one percent test and superimposes additional traffic on the critical movements within the intersection. 10 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection P1a<,,entla p e. (Existing Traffic Volumes basee 'o verage Mnter Spring i98U) ; (Approach 1 Existing Peak 21 Hour Approved Projected '1t of Projected• Project Mirection Peak 2h Hour Regional Projects Peak 24 Hour Peak 2g Hour Peak 2y Hoar1' I volume Growth Peak 2y Hour volume volume volume Voli (Northbound I 732 34 766 8 13 i ISputhbound 1 678 10 688 7 90 �Eastbound 1202 6 1208 12 0 estbound 798 0 798 8 2 (] Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1525 Superior Ave. Med Office Bldg. April 1981 - DAT PROJECT: A-1 FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Newport Boulevard/ Hospital Road (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Inter Spring 1980) IApproach Existing Peak 2k Hour Approved P%iected 1% of Prglected Project Girection Peak 2k Hour Regional Pro�acts Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour' Volume Growth Peek 2k Hour Volume Voluae Volume Volume Voluft i Northbound 4055 60 4115 41 1 ISouthbound 1 4 ' i ,Eastbound 1645 140 10 I Westbound 1448 ] X[J Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1525 Superior Ave. Med. Office Building OATp A ril 1981 PROJECT: A_2 FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection B age nter oast Hwv. (Existing Traffic Vo umes base on ver Spring 1980). Approach Existing Peak 24 Hour 6pprored Prolsc1W •1%of Projected Project oirection Peak 2%Hour Regional Protects Pak 24 Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 211 Hours volume Growth NAk 21 Hour Volume volume VolumeVolvo ; 1221 7 8 1236 12 3 I Northbound 1 ' I 2271 13 i6 2300 23 80 15outhhound ; Eastbound 2857 16 410 3283 33 3 stbound 3335 19 962 4316 43 7 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume © Project Traffic is estimated to, be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1525 Superior Ave. Med. Office Building April 1981 DATE: PROJECT: A-3 FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Hwy./ and Orange St. (Existing Traffic Vo umes based on verage inter/Spring ig80) Approach Existing Peak 2y Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Protect Direction Peak A Hour I Regional Protects Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour' Volune Growth Peak 2y Hour Yoluae Yol une Volume Volume voluee IHorthbound50 2 0 252 3 0 southboune 132 1 0 1 i i 3 3 1 p 'Eastbound 2605 15 410 3030 31 7 estbound 4304 24 962 g 40 © 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 2J. Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1525 Superior Ave. Med. Office Building A ril 1 81 DAT p 9 PROJECT: A-4 FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Hi eet (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage nter Spring 1986) 0 proach Existing Peak 2k Hour ADDrorad Projected 1% of Projected Project 0lrection Peek 2k Hour Regional Projedts Peak 28 Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 24 Hour' I Vol,we Growth Peak 21%Hour Volme Voloee Volw* i Volume Volute INorthbound mo— 275 2 0 277 3 0 {{{� Southbound I I Eastboupd 2270 13 410 2693 1 97 7 It stbound 4266 1 25 962 5253 1 53 40 ® 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 Volumen. Intersection Capacity 'Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1525 Superior Ave. Med. Office Building DATEAPril 1981 PROJECT: A_5 FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast.,Hi hwa Riverside A (Existing Traffic Vo Lames base on verage nter Spring 1980) Approach Existing Peak 2� Hour Approved Protected 1% of Protected Protect Of rection Peak 2h Hour Regional Projects Peak 24 Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 24 Hourl I Volta Growth Peak 2)1 Hour Volume Volume Volume Vol Lane Volume Northbound I fSouthbound j 1106 6 76 1188 12 �? astbmund 4401 25 512 1 4938 5o 2 estbound 4082 1 24 4 ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1525 Superior Ave. Med. Office Building DATE•April 1981 PROJECT: A-6 FORM I A 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast w (Existing Traffic Vo umes base on verage nter Spring 19863 IADDroech Existing Peak 2h Hour ,pprored Projected 1% of Projected Project glrection I Peek 25 Hour Regional Projects Puk 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour' Vo1uu Growth Peolim ak 2y Hour Yolur volume volume f pe Northbound �77 2 4 279 3 0 t 15outhbound2487 14 44 254,5 26 0 'i Eastbound 4172 24 442 4638 47 20 Westbound 5251 30 1008 6289 63 4 ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1525 Superior Ave. Med. Office Building DATE: April 1981 PROJECT: A-7 FORM I 35 INTENICTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALOIS Intersection Superior Ave. and Placentia Ave. ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic •Winter/Spring 193o) EXIST. EXIST. REGIOR+LL COMMITTED PROJECTED Lanes Ca PROPOSEDV/C VIC Ratio PROJECT PROJECT Norament PRatio Volume PROJECT w/o Project YolW4 Y/C Ratio Lama Cap. Lows Cap. Vol.Yol. Ratio YOlune Volume Vol Line NL 15 NT 3200 216 0. 1613* 17 o.1666 ..1688 NR 285 SL 1600 29 0. 0181* 0. 0181* 5 . 0213 ST 1600 277 0.1731 5 0.1763 4 • .2013'it SR 1600 33 0. 0206 0. 0206 0 . 0206 EL 1 00 40 0. 0250 0.0250 0.0250 ET 3200 556 .1753* 3 0.1763* 0.1763 ER 5 WL 1600 161 .1006* 0.1006* 0.1006 WT 3200 226 . 0744 0. 0744 •0747• 12 1 YELLOYTIIN 1000* ;0.1000* 0.100 EXISTING INTERSECTION CMACITY UTILIZATION .5553 EXISTING PLUS CONNITTED PLUS NEGIONXL "WH WPRDPOSED INPROUENENTS I-C-U4-0. 5616I EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGImK GRDMTH 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: 1525 Superior Ave. Med. Office Bldg. April 1981 DATE: PROJECT A-8 FORM II �fr ....*vr.vn wvnr.arr rilat.ilrttiNll J . 1 D Intersection Coast Highway at Superior Ave./Balboa, Blvd. ( Existing Traffic volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Hinter/Spring 193o) E11STING ►XDPOSED EXIST. EXIST. AEGIUK CMITTED PeOJECTED Ibreinant Lanes Cap. Lanes Cep, M•Nno Vic VW" PIgJECT Y/C A&HO iI WEOT PDDJECT Val. Matto Velma Yelur rYet/o uiehaleet Yolw Y/C Mtio NL 308 NT 4800 4800 3.73 .1002 * 1 4 ,1146* 2 .1150# NR NS 64 SL j 3200 1600 133 . 0831 .0831 10 .0894 ST 4800 300 .1353* 2 8 .1781* 10 ,1844* SR 545 20 EL 3200 218 . o681* .0681* ,0694* ET 3200 66o .2063 4 205 .2716 .2716 ER 1600 270 .1688 .1688 .1688 WL, 1600 69 . 0431 .0431 .0431 WT 3200 3200 1301 .4066* 7 481 WR 1 00 .5591* •559i 3 . 0519 .0519 2 -'0531 YELLONTIla .1000* J .1000* 1.1000* EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 102 I i i EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROMTH WPNMD INPNOMEIENTS I.C.0 i ' EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROMTN PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 1.02 ❑ 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 o.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Description of system improvement: Committed: City improvement project with no additional mitigation (For mitigated ICU see attached sheet) 1525 Superior Ave. Med. Offi. DATE:Building April 1981 •__.__ PROJECT A_9 FORM II +� INTERSSION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYS, * Intersection Coast Highway and Superior Avd/ Bniboa Blvd. ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily 'Traffic Hinter/Spring 19&a) EXIST. EXIST. REMOVAL COMMITTED PROJECTED EkISTIRG /ROPOSED PX.HR. Y/C GROWN PROJECT Y/C Ratio PROJECT PROJECT Ro.renc Lary Cap. Luws Cep• /o Project Yoltme Y/C Ratio Vol.Yol Reno Yotvne Volume Yolw* NL 308 N7 4800 4800 173 . 1002* 1 4 .1146* 1150* NR N.S. 64 J 1 1:4 1 SL 1600 133 . 0831 10 o894 ST 3200 3200 300 F63* 2 8 10 .1000 SR 3200 545 .1781* 20 .1766* EL 3200 218 .0681* 4 . 0694* ET 3200 66o 4 205 .2716 . 2716 ER 1600 270 .1688 .1688 ,WL 160o . 69 .04 1 o4WT 3200 4800 1301 7 481 .5591* .3904* WR 1600 83 .0519 2 VELLWTINE '.1000* 6 .1000 EXISTING INTERSECTION_CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1. 81 02 1 1 EXISTING PLUS Ca iTTED PLUS REGIONAL GRWTH M/PROPOSED INPRDYEIENTS I.C.0 1,0199 EXISTING PLUS COWTTED PLUS REGIONAL OR" PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 51 ❑ 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: Committed: Reconstruct intersection per current City plans Project Related: Add 3rd W/B Thru Lane Restripe S/B Superior, 2RTL, 2 Thru, 1LTL 1525 Superior Ave. , Med Office Bldg, DATE: April 1981 PROJECT FORM II A-10 ice_ JUNE 99 1981 TO: FRED TALARICO, ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR FROM: Richard M. Edmonston, Traffic Engineer SUBJECT: TRAFFIC STUDY REVISION FOR PROPOSED MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING AT 1511 - 1525 SUPERIOR AVENUE. Supplemental traffic counts taken on May 7, 1981, at the medical offices located on the northwest corner of Hospital Road and Placentia Avenue have been completed. Revised generation rates and distributions were determined from these counts and have been applied to the proposed project. Based upon this new data, the proposed project Would add less than 1% to the traffic on any approach to any of the potentially critical intersections. Thus this project complies with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Richard M. Edmonston, Traffic Engineer RME/jp yp • _ 2 _ • xowport crest HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION 201 Intrepid Street Newport Beach,California 92663 Q�P�7 J714) 631.0460 residential, for all the "quality of life" reasons and attractiveness of the city, would it be possible to hold to the 32' height? TJe understand Hughes is building at .6 to 1. Does that include the existing building and could they not later come in with additional expansion at 50' or even 42' if that height is granted now? For both the Hughes expansion and the Medical Office Building, vie earnestly request that you require no equipment be placed atop the buildings'! We feel this is important for both visual attractiveness and noise control. We hope, too, that both of these projects will be required to contribute toward the acquisition of the Right of liay from Caltrans for the realign- ment of Superior Avenue. Finally, we'd like to request the Planning Commission to upgrade the Screening Ordinances and Codes. We would liIce to take this opportunity to welcome the two new commissioners and look forward to your responsiveness. Cordially, BOARD OF DIRT:A't0113 Carl A. Cheadle, Vice President i Iouise S. Greeley./Secretary X wport Latest �) HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION 201 Intrepid Street Newport Beach,California 92663 �V14) 631.0460 July 2, 1981 Newport Beach Planning Commission 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 gear Planning Commissioners, Ile have carefully perused the Staff Reports for Items 1, 24 and 3, as well as D and 5-for the upcoming Planning Commission Hearings and would like to Fa-re with you some of our concerns. Regarding the Traffic Study for the proposed 25,000 sq ft office building, we are extremely concerned about the two conflicting conclusions - that of J,E.F. Engineering and the later Traffic Study Revision. There are six or seven different entrances and exits that could be used for the medical office building located on the northwest corner of Hospital Road and Placentia, while there will be many fewer for the proposed building, so are the two locations comparable? The second report doesn't seem to have any substantiation for the conclusion that the project complies with the Traffic Phasing ordinance. Additionally, if the critical intersections are close to exceeding 0.90 the cumulative effects of other projects should be carefully considered. We wish to alert you that a serious traffic situation is already existing in this area of Newport Beach. Pertaining to the statement on page 8 of the Staff Report, "Consequently, some mitigation will be required." lie would like to know what mitigation is being required? Staff was unable to answer our questions regarding the number of proposed offices, the number of personnel that might be required and the possible natient load .for the Medical Office Building. We think this information might affect the amount of traffic generated. We wonder also about the reliability of the 9/3rds figure mentioned on page 16, paragraph 2 of the Staff Report. In view of the present critical oituation with some of the sewer systems in Newport Beach, we are certain you will consider carefully the adequacy of the setters and drainage for both of these projects. Should these two projects bring the sewer system to capacity, who trill be responsible for additional sewer capacity? As for the Hughes expansion, we are very concerned about exceeding the 321 height limit. We feel it would set a precedent for the Superior Avenue/ County Triangle area. Since this is an area of mixed land use, including June 25, 1981 Planning Commission. City of Newport Beach Newport Beach, California re: 1511 & 1525 Superior Ave 500 Superior Ave Gentlemen: I am a Real Estate Broker and live at 412 Bolero Way, Newport Beach. ' I face Superior Avenue just a few doors up from Placentia. As you are aware the traffic on Superior and coming down from Placentia has increased tremendously, going to and from the beach, plus all the medical facilities surrounding the area, We have had numerous traffic accidents and fatalities. I speak as a real estate broker and resident. I personally am and have been for growth as a broker dealing a great deal in land and development myself but as a resident seeing several deaths plus the numerous accidents at the corner of Placentia and Superior never mind discussing the noise leaves me to the conclusion that we have enough building etc, , around this area, without increasing building thereby increasing the traffic situation. Unfortunately, my reaction is a negative to the above applications primarily because of the traffic, J plan to be at the July 9, 1981 hearing. Sincerely yours, i Vi Clark 412 Bolero Way /✓;' „ ,« ;, Newport Beach, Calif 92663 714 - 646-7332 • a;l:7f • y , T'RAFFIc STUDY� d.f. i988, 'RESOv. G8l- ! T[n- NOS, 1. 2. AND3 Res uh4 TRAFFIC STUDY FOR PROPOSED MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING AT 1511-1525 SUPERIOR AVENUE FOR' TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE IN NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA April 1981 Prepared by JEF Engineering 601 Sandlewood Avenue La Habra, California (714) 738-7139 J E F engineering Traffic & Transportation Consulting 601 Sandlewood Avenue _ La Habra, CA 90631 (714) 738.7139 April 8, 1981 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Attention: Mr. Fred Talarico Dear Fred: Subject : Proposed Medical Office Building at 1511-1525 Superior Avenue JEF Engineering is pleased to submit our traffic study completed in compliance with the guidelines outlined in the City' s Traffic Phasing Ordinance for the proposed 25,000 square foot medical office building at 1511 and 1525 Superior Avenue. I find the project will increase traffic one year after completion by more than one percent at two intersections and at one of these locations the ICU which already exceeds 0. 90 will further increase unless mitigated. The one intersection requiring mitigation is Coast Highway at Superior Avenue/Balboa Boulevard. The second intersection, Superior Avenue at Placentia Avenue has a projected plus project traffic ICU at less than 0. 90. I wish to express my appreciation for being selected to perform this study and acknowledge the cooperation and assistance provided by yourself and Mr. Rich Edmunston which enabled us to complete the work quickly and easily. Sincerely, w Joe Foust C ifornia Reg. No. C-20258/T-854 PROJECT . Mr. Ross Mollard owner of the property at 1511-1525 Superior Avenue is proposing to construct a 25,000 square foot condominium medical office building at that location. This new building would replace an existing 2,800 square foot dance studio and a single family detached residential unit which presently occupy the site. Construction is planned to begin and end in 1981 with initial occupancy in 1981 and full occupancy in 1982. The building would be located on Superior Avenue near the City' s northern boundary. Consequently, approximately two- thirds of the traffic that enters and exits the medical building would not impact critical intersections in the City of Newport Beach. A Location Map is shown in Figure 1 and a Site Plan of the project is presented in Figure 2. TRAFFIC GENERATION The primary source utilized for determination of trip rates was Trip Generation, An ITE Informational Report pub- lished in 1976 and revised in 1979. This reference indicates that medical office buildings typically produce 75. 0 trips per day per 1000 square feet of gross floor area with an exiting peak hour volume (occurring about 4 :OOP.M. ) of 6. 4 trips per 1000 square feet of space. Since the corresponding volume I�.j•r'•!' 1`�'* S•."�t• �?'^} •/•• ,na � ; it i �' • �,�E j „ M FL �CY ! IU HANINOVEL 2 ITON m n .- � I •m _ b ear sr K eAr _ � " it— :,,t„ 'F:•y,. say i EVERGREEN °ROW St Q I arty !�'y•.t � E� v o x e E \NI [YNiIPOW �u Q SURF St BERHARO '� .1� 4 r E VY. �i EEOAR � t EACH ST TA pt Pam" RTMNE St wE. OR < alTA, 1 M ABOVrCK AaunaaLAEar •! _ lSieT+/ _ S. P i en ae i iwo cf SUNSET MFr --t7 JIM4 sl ALMpR ' R 3i A' •V A UESTCT . -• s• tIYINSyrAI 9.AWTWta M M HWMCF V / ST MSEAIIWCr 17TM T%i.TxAM'�ftmm Ci 1L LATIIUOER U.Sma'a aR "•'•E I '+. _ FAM ST'z ry'eya, ?t�� �' ? sr 4y } (^ I• ails WY a Qp 9F " 4 Vowwo Tao 'a o ,ey f J�o ''t /NEc •I j i PRODIICi10N � A• •fAgy � ` d'/.;� � t t •F ,q, " r rAL St i awuwrTr _ t J t� a y rQo .1+ �.,4 a 4 . SI T �O `M ?e r'�,�, ` v'`�y*•"�' a �ibt't`7' p � � ai e 0 �y�� yt s '°t�a' �� `�' ♦�, p �j' mr lu .�,.• �`yl'' ,tr - C rr @ d�a •4t. '% 'JT 4 s� ' '.ilr . OAS ' I � �i�. \� �< . a � • r�� � �+ tk� `�t' < 4 yPty,~� 'It t ' � i :_,. �i.�i•�Np��Eips ,I�'Z�.J@' dr � et•�f4ti 'd•'/r �ip '�ti * !'R!E ra NfWPolT NMla �' Ir to J1 y1v b `•P �Y•A,{ j M/CM SCNOAa .. _ O,^F�1 � �r i �• -:o' W � a� e� oq•V •S� •Y �p . •. .Y •t �YE3 5 ' �^ I aa,�� �� �..�•�5� s(* s i n nl � � S Si a .• T 9�'��: 4,`c� � � � !*�'?/�°/ % SITE LOCATION MAP 1 2 Figure 1 of entering traffic during the peak hour is not presented in the ITE Report, an estimate was developed utilizing typical entering and exiting travel patterns of general office uses . Typically, 85 to 90 percent of the P.M. peak hour total trips are are exiting, whereas, only 10 to 15 percent enter. Using this basis, it is estimated that a peak hour entering rate of 0. 95 trips per 1000 square feet would be generated by the project in addition to the exiting traffic . Since the property is presently occupied by a dance studio and a house, a credit for the traffic thus generated is appropriate . A trip generation rate of 10. 0 trips per day per single family dwelling unit was utilized. However, .the ITE Report did not indicate a generation rate for dance studios . Consequently, an estimate of 30. 0 trips per day per 1000 square feet, with a 10 percent peak hour factor based on a "speciality shop" type use was utilized and verified by an actual peak hour traffic count . For purposes of estimating future traffic growth, a 12 percent thru trip factor was utilized for travel on Coast Highway and an annual growth rate of 2. 4 percent . All critical intersection utilized 1980 traffic counts with the base year for analysis taken as 1982 . This required projecting two years ' growth at all the Coast Highway inter- sections . 4 r , t TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION The directional distribution of traffic generated to and from the new medical office building was assumed to resemble that which presently exists . Traffic counts of traffic entering and exiting driveways along Superior Avenue in the vicinity of the site were taken to provide an indication of the directional orientation of travel patterns . Past studies had indicated that 60 to 70 percent of travel from this area is oriented to and from the north. An actual peak hour count indicated 65 percent had a northerly orientation. Consequently, a two-thirds north, one-third south directional distribution was assumed for the future trip generation of the new medical office building. The results .of trip generation distribution and assignment for the critical 2',1 hour peak period (which includes a credit for the existing use) is shown in Figure 3. The project produces 300 exiting and 48 entering vehicles during the peak 2k hour period. Of this volume, two-thirds utilizes Superior Avenue to the north of the City of Newport Beach and does not impact any critical intersections . The critical traffic utilizes Superior Avenue southerly of the site and amounts to 100 vehicles southbound and 16 vehicles northbound during the peak 241 hour period. The distribution and assignment of this traffic is depicted in Figure 3. 5 Trip Generation Data Land Use ADT Rate Pk Hr Rate med office 75. 0 6.4 enter (zsoeo *) 0.95 exit ------------ISxisting------------- Site 16th studio 30 (est) 3 . 0 (10%) loome rh��s house 10 1.0 a �d m oCd 15theo 2 North 0 Rd � RosPita 01 2 o Ao �2 Coast Hwy �a1 Legend boa so.q-- veh/231 hr �Lp ❑ critical intersections Fengineering TRIP DISTRIBUTION Traffic•Transportation Consulting 6 Figure 3 CRITICAL INTERSECTIONS ANALYZED The project site lies within Area 16 and a total of 7 critical intersections were examined. These 7 are. 1. Superior Avenue at Placentia Avenue 2. Hospital Road at Newport Boulevard 3. Coast Highway at Superior Ave./ Balboa Boulevard 4 . Coast Highway at Prospect Street 5. Coast Highway at Orange Street 6. Coast Highway at Riverside Drive 7. Coast Highway at Dover Drive The one percent (1%) analysis revealed two intersections exceeded the limit. These are : 1. Superior Avenue at Placentia 2. Coast Highway at Superior Avenue/Balboa Boulevard The intersection of Superior Avenue and Placentia Avenue will have one approach substantially exceeding the one percent limit (southbound) and one approach only slightly above the one percent test. The intersection of Coast Highway with Superior Avenue/ Balboa Boulevard experiences one approach (southbound) exceeding the one percent test. The predicted traffic volumes on the individual approaches 7 to the remaining five critical intersections were substantially below the one percent limi.t. The intersection at Hospital Road and Newport Boulevard is sensitive to the traffic distribution and could have exceeded the one percent limit had a much heavier southbound left turn movemment been-assigned to Superior Ave. at Placentia Ave. Even so, it is expected that Hoag Hospital • will be the destination of several trips originating at the medical offices (doctors visiting patients, etc . ) . Consequently, it appears ;unlikely that eastbound Hospital Road will experience sufficiently heavy traffic generated by the medical offices to exceed the one percent test . INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION - ANALYSIS The intersection of Superior Avenue and Placentia Avenue has a prujected plus project traffic ICU of 0. 6032 indicating an acceptable level of service after the project is completed. However, the intersection of Coast Highway with Superior Avenue/ Balboa Boulevard already has an ICU with committed projects exceeding 0. 90. This ICU will be further increased by the medical office building. Consequently, some mitigation will be required. INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION - MITIGATION ANALYSIS The one location requiring mitigation, Coast Highway at Superior Avenue/Balboa Boulevard, is undergoing improvement by the City of Newport Beach. Reference is made to the 8 Superior Avenue Improvement Project Report, AHFP Submittal dated December 1979 and . the Traffic Study for Superior Avenue prepared by Basmaciyan-Darnell, Inc . dated November 1979• The project is broken down into two phases, interim and ultimate, with the interim improvement scheduled for construction in 1982. However, this interim improvement will have to be supplemented by measures producing Additional 'intersection capacity such as restriping of southbound Superior Avenue to provide two right turn lanes, two thru lanes, and a left turn lane. In addition, a third westbound lane needs to be provided to reduce the high green time requirement of this approach. Given this mitigation, the project V/C ratio will be less than 0 . 90. CONCLUSION One intersection, Coast Highway at Superior Avenue/ Balboa Boulevard will require mitigation as a result of the construction of a 25,000 sq.ft. medical office building at 1511-1525 Superior Avenue. Although the traffic generated by the project itself. will have a relatively minor impact on the critical movements in the intersection, nevertheless, existing plus committed traffic will cause the ICU to be above 0. 90 (actual ICU = 1. 019•() even when the completion o.f the City' s planned improvement of this intersection is included in 9 the analysis. Consequently, some mitigation of the intersection will be required of this or any other project which exceeds the one percent test and superimposes additional traffic on the critical movements within the intersection. 10 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Placentia Ave./Superior Ave. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19bu.7 Approach Existing Peak 2k Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Protect INrection Peak 2h Hour Regional Projects Peak 2h Hour Peak 211 Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Growth Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume i Volume Volume i Northbound ' 732 34 766 8 10 i 30 �Southbound 678 1-0688 7 f Eastbound 1202 6 1208 12 1 estbound 798 0 798 8 5 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2.1-2 Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1525 Superior Ave. Med Office Bldg. DATEApril 1981 PROJECT: A_1 FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Newport Boulevard/ Hospital Road (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1980) Approach Existing Peak 2ss Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak Ds Hour Regional Projects Peak 2k Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 24 Hours Volume Growth Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume ,Volume Volume } Northbound 4055 60 4115 41 2 i5outhbound 11 4 (Eastbound 1645 140 1789 18 10 Westbound 144$ Q 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 2h Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1525 Superior Ave. Med. office Building DATE:April 1981 - PROJECT: A-2 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Balboa Ave /Slrior Ava_ (a1 roast Hwv. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1980); Approach Existing Peak 2§ Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2$ Hour Regional Projects Peak 2)1 Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hourl Volume Grwth Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Gr 1221 7 8 1236 12 3 I Northbound I 2271 13 16 -2300 23 8o iSouthbcund 2857 16 410 3283 33 2 (Eastbound Mestbound 3335 19 962 4316 43 5 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume © Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2= Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1525 Superior Ave. Med. Office Building April 1981 DATE: PROJECT: t 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Hwy./ and Orange St. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1980) Approach Existing Peak 2k Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project ^ Direction Peak 2y Hour Regional Projects Peak 24 Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2k Hour I Volume Growth Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ' Northbound 250 2 0 252 3' 0 I ISouthbound j 132 1 0 133 1 0 lEastbound 2605 15 410 3030 31 5 estbound 4304 24 962 53 40 © 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 Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1525 Superior Ave. Med. Office Building DATE.:April 1981 PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Hi�hwav /Prospect Street (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1986) Approach Existing Peak 2h Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project ^ Direction Peak 211 Hour Regional Projects Peak 24 Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2y Hourl I Volume Growth Peak 21s Hour Volume Volume Volume ' Volume Volume f I Northbound I 15outhbeund 275 2 0 277 3 0 lEastbound 2270 13 410 2693 27 5 estbound 4266 25 962 5253 53 40 ® 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 24 Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1525 Superior Ave. Med. Office Building DATEApril 1981 _._ DRfL1FCT• - 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast.,Highwav/Riverside Ave. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 198'0) (Approach Existing Peak 21s Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Regional Projects Peak 2� Hour Peak 21g Hour Peak 2h Hour' I Volume Growth Peak 21g Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ' i Northbound I isouthbound j 1106 6 76 1188 12 (? astbound 4 4 O l 25 512 4 $ 0 20 westbound 4 0 8 2 2 4 1 0 4 ® 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 Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1525 Superior Ave. Med. Office Bililding DATE:April 1981 PROJECT: FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Hwv./Dover Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1986j Approach Existing Peak 2h Haur Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project 07rection Peak 2h Hour Regional Projects Peak 2y Hour Peak 21a Hour Peak 24 Hour' I Volume Growth Peak 24 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume 277 2 4 279 3 0 I Northbound I Southhound 2487 14 44 -2545 26 0 I � - Ii 'Eastbound 4172 24 442 4638 47 20 esthound 5251 30 1008 6289 63 2 , ® 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 2k Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1525 Superior Ave. Med. Office Building DATE: April 1981 �__ ___PROJECT: INTERSE9V CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYS16 Intersection Superior Ave, and Placentia Ave. ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Hinter/Spring 198o) .EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COMMITTED PROJECTED Novamcnt EXISTING PROPOSED pK.NR. Y/C GROWTH PROJECT Y/C Ratio PROJECT PROJECT Lanes CAP. Lanes AP. W/ Vol. Ratio Volume Yoivaa o Project Volusie V/C Ratio Y01 WA NL 15 NT 3200 216 0. 1613* 17 0.1666* 10 0. 1697 NR 285 SL 1600 29 0. 0181* 0. 0181* 10 1 . 0244 ST 1600 277 0. 1731 5 0 . 1763 80 . 226 * SR 1600 33 0. 0206 0 . 0206 0 10. 02o6 EL 1600 40 0. 0250 0. 0250 10 . 0250 ET 3200 556 •.1753* 3 0. 1763* 0 .1763 ER 5 WL I 1600 161 .1006* o. loo6* 0.1006 WT 113200 226 D. 0744 0 . o744 1 1 0. 0759 WR 12 YELLOWTINE . 1000* 60 .1"2-61! EXISTING INTERSECTION CMACITY UTILIZATION 555 5 3 i EXISTING PLUS cowiTTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH Y/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I•C.U. 0. 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: 1525 Superior Ave. Med. Office Bldg. DATE: April 1981 PROJECT FORM II A-8 : INTERSEC& CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSI• Intersection Coast Highway at Superior Ave./Balboa Blvd. ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily T.raffic 'Winter/Spring 1930) Ratio EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COMMITTED PROJECTED - Hovament EXISTING PROPOSED P%,HR. V/C - GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ratio PROJECT PROJECT Lanu Cap. Lams Cap. Vol. Ratio Volune Yolu w/o Project Volume V/C Rat ne Yoluma NL 308 NT 4800 4800 . 173- • . 100e 1 4 .1146* 3 . 1152* NR NS 64 SL 3200 1600 133 . 0831 20 . 0956 ST - 4800 300 .1353* 2 8 . 1781* 20 . 1906* SR _ . 545 . 4o EL 3200 218 o681* o681* 5 o697* ET 3200 66o . 2o63 4 205 1 .2716 1 . 2716 ER 1600 270 .1688 . 1688 1 .1688 WL 1600 69 . 0431 o431 o431 WT 3200 3200 1301 . 4o66* 7 481 . 5588* . 5588* WR 1600 83 . 0519 . 0519 2 . 0531 YELLOWTIME .1000* : .1000* j 1 .1000* I W i EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .8102 I I ; EXISTING PLUS COMITTED PLUS REGIONAL 6RDNITH 41PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1. 971 EXISTING PLUS CONlN1TTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 0 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ® Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Description of system improvement: Committed: City improvement project with no additional mitigation (For mitigated ICU see attached sheet) 1525 Superior Ave. Med. Office Building DATE: April 1981 PROJECT FORM II A-9 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS IntersecAn Coast Highway and Super A * / Ralboa Blvd. ' ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Minter/Spring. 19au) EXIST. EXIST, REGIONAL COMMITTED PROJECTED M ovementEXISTING PROPOSED PX.HR. V/C GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ratio PROJECT PROJECT Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. Vol. Ratio Volume Volume w/o Project Vol woe V/C Ratio Volume 308 4800 4800 173 .1002* 1 4 .1146* 1 *' N.S. 64 1600 133 0831 20 . 0 6 3200 3200 300 . 1353* 2 8 20 . 1031 3200 545 . 1781* 40 .1828* EL 3200 218 o681* o681* 5 . 0697* ET 3200 660 . 2063 4 205 . 2716 . 2716 ER 1600 270 .1688 . 1688 .1688, WL 16o0 1 - 69 . o4 1 . 0431 o4 1 WT 3200 4800 1301 .4o66* 7 481 . 5588* . 3904* WR 1600 83 . 0519 . 0519 2 YELLOWTIME . 1000* .1000* 1 1 .1000* EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 8102 EXISTING PLUS CONNITTEO PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVENENTS I.C.0 V)1 9 EXISTING PLUS CONNITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 1. 8 5 8 1 ❑ 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: Committed: Reconstruct intersection per current City plans Project Related : Add 3rd W/B Thru Lane Restripe S/B Superior, 2RTL, 2 Thru, 1LTL 1525 Superior Ave. , Med office Bldg. DATE: PROJECT FORM 11 A-10 tl �� T• 1� J AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into on this 1st day of April , 1981 , by and between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH , a municipal corporation , hereinafter referred to as "CITY" , and JEF ENGINEERING, 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 twenty-five thousand square foot office building project in the City of Newport Beach . WHEREAS , CONSULTANT desires to prepare said Traffic Study. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing , the parties hereto agree as follows : 1 . GENERAL CONSULTANT agrees to prepare a Traffic Study on the proposed project in the City of Newport Beach in accordance with the requirements setforth in paragraph 3 of this Agreement in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in this document. 2. SCOPE OF WORK The subject Traffic Study will be prepared in accordance with the requirements of the City Traffic Engineer for the preparation of such studies , 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 Agree- ment exceed Four Hundred and Twenty-five Dollars , ( $425 . 00) . Partial payments shall be made by the CITY to CONSULTANT upon CONSULTANT ' S presentation of statements verifying the time and material costs incurred by it in connection with this Agreement. -1 - i e : „ 4. FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE CONSULTANT shall Use diligent efforts to complete t'he provisions within thirty (30) days after execution of this Agreement. Thissubject 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 noti ce of termination. IN WITNESS WHEREOF , the parties hereto have entered into this Agreement as of the date and year first above written . APPROVED AS TO FORM 'CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH B Assistant Ci y Attorney D r ctor, PU ing Department CITY By JEF, ngine ring CONSULTANT �1 t - 0 2081 Business Center Drive, Suite 245, Irvine, California 92715 714/953-1880 April 1 , 1981 City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, California Attn: Mr. Fred Talarico Dear Sirs, Re: 1511 & 1525 Superior Avenue We enclose our check to the City of Newport Beach for your fee and traffic study in the amount of $550:00 in referen-ce to -the above named p roj ect. Thank you for your assistance. Very Truly Yours, UNITED DOMINION CAPITAL W. ROSS MOLLARD ,igned by o na Brizzi WRM:j b COANO Enclosure QJ �'LONEf vEID DEPAR lif APB q 19g� tt NE4yClR>eE cACI� ASH, - -Y ��pWPD7 ----- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECEIPT - R6 NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92663 No. 17438 ! �4fONN�P Ise/ / ! ! DATE —, Oy{7y} `F REC$I tED FROM h Ohl i1IO h /7/ s ! FO d'S/ c J7Z 11 � � J� f«•- 7- PD . /.j'i� - ism s ! i ! ACCOUNT NO ACCOl1NT NO D� • ! DEPARTMENT .r ____ __ _______________ ',i -- ap,WPORA ����� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH -- RECEIPT ���� j dr_ NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92663 NO, 17197 I' ttt000 s `34j �9 ' � ' I/ Je,(� 1, ,t DATERECEIVED FROMM uio 1ftN�U E FOIE: i 4 1ACCOUNT NO ACCOUNT NO p� �L DEPARTMENT BY J 02 - 219 - 64 PROJECT: 1511 and 1525 Superior Ave. APPLICANT: Ross Mollard (714) 955-1833 CONSULTANT: Joe Faust DATE DEPOSIT I FEE PMT - i - s � ryas. Sias. I