Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTPO020_CIVIC PLAZA TRAFFIC VESTING TP0020 SEW Pp�T CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Department 640-2197 Cq41 FO RN`P April 28, 1980 Larry Seeman Associates 500 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 SUBJECT: Library Information Dear Larry: In accordance with your request, please find enclosed copies of the following information: 1 . . Notice of Determination - "Civic Plaza Traffic Phasing Plan" 2. Draft EIR - G.P.A. 79-2 I am sorry but I am unable at this time to make a copy of the Final EIR on the Aeronutronic-Ford project available for your review. All copies are being used. Copies of the Newport Dunes Draft EIR (Revised 1980) are available from the County E.M.A. Mr. Al Armijo. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, DIRECTOR By Z, Fred Ta arico Environmental Coordinator FT/dt Enclosure City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 / r y OTICE OF DETERMINATION T0: ❑ Secretary for Resources FROM: 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Community Development Department City of Newport Beach I Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 3300 Newport Boulevard County of Orange- Box 687 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Santa Ana, CA 92702 SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. PROJECT TITLE: Civic Plaza Traffic Phasing Plan Property generally bounded by San Joaquin Hills Road, Santa Cruz Drive, PROJECT LOCATION: San Clemente Drive, Santa Barbara Drive and Jamboree Road in Newport Center, Mport beacn PROJECT DESCRIPTION:' The proposed project consists of the Traffic Phasing Plan for the remaining development in the Civic Plaza Planned Community District including office, museum, theatre, and appurtenant.•oses. CONTACT PERSON: Fred Talarico TELEPHONE NO. (714) '640-2197 STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER N/A This is to advise that the City of Newport Beach has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: 1 . The project has been ® approved by the City of Newport Beach. ❑ disapproved 2. The project ❑ will have a significant effect on the environment, will not 3. ❑ An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: Fred rico Environmental Coordinator Date April 28, 1980 ' 0NOTICE OF DETERMINATION T0: [ � Secretary for Resources FROM: 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Community Development Department City of Newport Beach ® Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 3300 Newport Boulevard County of Orange- Box 687 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Santa Ana, CA 92702 SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. PROJECT TITLE: Civic Plaza Bounded y San Joaquin Hills Road, Santa Cruz Drive, San Clemente PROJECT LOCATION: Drive, and Santa Barbara Drive, in Newport Center, Newport Beach PROJECT DESCRIPTION: See Attached - CONTACT PERSON: Fred Talarico TELEPHONE NO. (714) 640-2197 STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER N/A This is to advise that the City of Newport Beach has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: 1 . The project has been ® approved by the City of Newport Beach. ❑ disapproved 2. The project ❑ will have a significant effect on the environment. ❑X will not 3. ❑ An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. ® A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. A copy of the Negative Declaration is attached. DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: ���� Fred Talarico Environmental Coordinator Date February 12, 1980 L i i 0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Civic Plaza is located within the Newport Centerarhea at the southwest corner of San Joaquin Hills Road and Santa Cruz Drive. Vehicular access will be provided to San Joaquin Hills Road, Santa Cruz Drive, San Clemente Drive, and Santa Barbara Drive. The San Joaquin Hills Road access is limited to right turns only. Proposed development includes office and restaurant uses in addition to the existing art museum and library that is under construction, A total of 234,706 square feet of office use is planned along with an 8,000 square foot restaurant. The library will include 14,000 square feet and a 10,000 square foot expansion of the museum is planned. A theater is also proposed at some future date. Since this would have a negligible traffic impact critical hours, it is not included in the analysis. The project is planned for completion in 1981 . f W F�U U� d Deportment of Corawwiq ®evelopyned DATE : February 8, 1980 TO: James D. Hewicker, Director FROM: Fred Talarico , Environmental Coordinator SUBJECT:` Civic Plaza Traffic Phasing Plan - Intersection Bristol Street (N)/Birch Street I. have been investigating possible improvements to the circulation system at the above subject intersection in an effort to further reduce the I . C . U . for the Civic Plaza Traffic Phasing Plan . The existing plus committed plus regional growth plus project I . C .U . is 0. 9751 . ' Based on conversations with the Public Works Department , the addition of a westbound left turn lane on Bristol Street (N ) would reduce the I . C. U .' to 0. 9246 . This improvement would require an encroachment permit from CALTRANS , construction of the system improvement and possible relocation of the signal /street pole. I have .discussed this improvement with the applicants consultant and he indicated that he would contact the applicant and review this possible improvement. FreT Ta arico FT/dt ATTACHMENT NO. 6 NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO: Secretary for Resources FROM: Community Development Department 1400 Tenth Street City of Newport Beach • ';acramento, CA 95814 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 11. 0. Box 687 Santa Ann- CA 97702 NAME OF PROJECT: ,1a arm PROJECT LOCATION: �•� PROJECT DESCRIPTION: \1\c- gccfj'%cAmc,r_ of a -C �<b ,.cf3( as\ , FOR- r%AC- V-1a,MOM\N\� OpP\LC--� I•�U-SCyM I�.,d�,CUTCr uses e«.�\i��, ;,� �-�. e,��� P���• �- e. p.ST���r. • FINDING: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council Policy K-3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality l 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: 4 INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY: l L� ��, F '•�� ,�� ' • INITIAL STUDY AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT: 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: Environmental Coordinator Date MITIGATION MEASURES i . 'fhe following disclosure statement of the City of Newport Beach's policy regarding the Orange County Airport should be included in all leases or sub-leases for space in the project and shall be included in any • Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions which may be recorded against the property. Disclosure Statement The Lessee herein, his heirs, successors and assigns acknowledge that: a) The Orange County Airport may not be able to provide adequate air service for business establishments which rely on such service; b) When an alternate air facility is available, a complete phase out of jet service may occur at the Orange County Airport; c) The City of Newport Beach may continue to oppose additional commercial air service expansions at the Orange County 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 are service at the Orange County Airport. 2. The on-site parking will be provided in accordance with the Newport Beach • Municipal Code. 3. The project be designed to conform to Title 24, Paragraph G, Division T-20, Chapter 2, Subchapter 4. 4. Should any resources be uncovered during construction, that a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist evaluate* the site prior to completion of construction activities, and in accordance with City Policies K-6 E K-7. 5. Final design of the project should provide for the incorporation of water-saving devices for project lavatories and other water-using facilities. 6. The final design of the project scaula provide Tor ;e scrci.; of recyciabi� material from other solid waste. • 7. The development on the site should be in accordance with City policies on traffic. Regular Planning Commiss ' Meeting«, COMMISSIONERSMINI.Jl ES Place : City Council Cha s Time: 7 : 30 P.M . Date : December 20 , 1979 0 o a c) W 3 = W W w p1 D City of Newport Beach ci 7 =i ai . N 7 ROLL INDEX Present xx x x x > X EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS Hugh Coffin, City Attorney STAFF .MEMBERS James Hewicker, Pilanning• Director Fred Talaricor, nvironmental Coordinator Don Webb , A istant City Engineer Glenna G ' pe , Secretary ter ' inutes Written ;:y: Glenna Gipe 000 Motion ""> Motion was made to approve the minutes of the re- Ayes ' x x K x gular Planning Commission meeting of December 6, Abstai0 x x 1979 , with the addition of an added condition on Page 11 . Request to consider a Phasing Plan for the remain- Item #1 ing development in the Civic Plaza Planned Commu- nity District, and -the acceptance of an Environ- PHASING mental Document. PLAN LOCATION: The Planned Community of Civic APPROVED Plaza , generally bounded by San CONDI- Joaquin Hills Road , Santa Cruz TIONALLY Drive, San Clemente Drive , Santa Barbara Drive , and Jamboree Road, in Newport Center. ZONE: P-C APPLICANT: The Irvine Company , Newport Beach OWNER: Same as Applicant Don Webb , Assistant City Engineer, commented that the ICU analysis indicates that if a left turn lane were added on Jamboree Road in both direc- tions , the ICU at .Jamboree Road and MacArthur - 1- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES %December 20 , 1979 96 0 2 w a C7 OJ 3 _ S W 9 D City of Newport Beach _ N 7 W X M 7 ROLL CALL INDEX .n—•m^iee�n_±5'*"�,r++rc.,•.n-mn.-.e,�^"^ o•,�.."'^�ux:rts� , Boulevard could be reduced to . 5725 . Commissioner Haidinger posed a question , to which r. Webb replied that they are in the process of ttempting to implement several of these minor circulation systems improvements . In response to a question posed by Commissioner Cokas , Mr. Webb replied that a restriping job would range from $2,000 to $5 ,000 and that the most expensive aspect of it is the sandblasting and traffic control during the period of time in which they are trying to implement the project. Commissioner Balalis stated his understanding that one year ago wl:en the traffic phasing analysis was begun , they found. it to be the case. universally that a 'developer ,would come before the •Planni.ng Commission with a project and an additional right turn only lane was on Campus Drive and Bristol Street and it reduced traffic immensely and it was suggested that the City undergo those projects themselves . Mr. Webb commented that Pacific Mutual is the first to attempt to implement some of these improvements relative to minor widening projects , and that they have been waiting for the developer to come up with the money , rather than doing it with the City ' s public funds . Commissioner Beek suggested a highway action team to find the problems and enact changes . Mr. Webb responded that most of the improvements mentioned are presently in the process of trying to be implemented , but that the City does not have the finances to finance the project and col - lect it from the developer later . Commissioner Blalais suggested that these inter- sections ,be analyzed. Mr. Webb commented that they have been working with the MacArthur Place• Development for The Ir- vine Company in the preparation and processing of plans , which company has already applied for an -2- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES ecember 20 , 1979 o 5 o Oo wm D N N X N M City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX encroachment permit for the additional widening of Campus Drive and MacArthur Boulevard , and a signal modification project has to be implemented , which is Cal Trans ' responsibility. In response to a comment from Commissioner Haidin- ger, Mr. Webb replied that various different traffic studies over the last few months have been analyzed and for the necessary improvements , more is required than merely changing the striping . He further commented that the ICU analyses put together were for the 1979 year with no recommen- dation as to what additional traffic wou1 : be added for the various different areas in the up- coming year. Commissioner- Thomas suggested a list of 10 inter- sections with a task list and budget for each . In response to a question posed by Commissioner Thomas , Fred Talarico , Environmental Coordinator , responded that under the Ford-Aeronutronic Traf- fic Phasing Plan and overall environmental pack- age , they were required to maintain certain levels of carpooling and an investigation of other items . Commissioner Thomas suggested that one of the ele- ments of the Phasing Plan includes the beginning of construction of the Park-n-.Ride on Jamboree Road and 'MacArthur Boulevard or acquisition o•f another right-of-way lane in Newport Center so that future problems would be mitigated . Commissioner Beek replied that the City Council in interpreting the Traffic Phasing Ordinance• has- specified that only verifiable improvements could be counted as mitigation measures . Commissioner Balalis stated his preference that the improvements come to the street and inter- section locations until they are taken care of., _ -3- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES% December 20 , 1979 0 N a C7 [D M ° ' o w D`° City of Newport Beach N N T N 7 ROLL CALL - INDEX and then if there is no intersection improvement because of an external force such as regional traffic , then future projects should consider other means , other than fiscal improvements . Commissioner Thomas commented that in order to undergo a large project of a transit type facility , it will require the co-operation of all jurisdic- tions , and provisions should be made for future implementation over and above short-term striping , then a problem will be solved. Commissioner Balalis stated his understanding that there was a requirement of Corporate Plaza I and II of an OCTD facility. Th•e Publi-c' Hearing was opened. regarding this item and Ron Hendrickson , Irvine Company , appeared be- fore the Planning Commission and stated that the shuttle service was a condition of approval for Corporate Plaza and an additional requirement that _ they provide $300,000 to fund the shuttle system and donate the 3 acre site for the terminal faci - lities , said system of which would not be imple- mented until approximately 1984, predicated on a density increase of Newport Center. Commissioner Thomas expressed his feeling that OCTD has been less than aggressive in certain area and that their bus strategy is based on high-de-n-- sity priority population , such as the elderly -and handicapped, and he stated his desire that they be - come more aggressive by providing right-of-way land and perhaps funding for construction. Mr. Hendrickson stated that there is another site which The Irvine Company has agreed to donate which is north of the Santa Ana Freeway, north of the golden triangle Irvine Center area . Commissioner Thomas stated his understanding that the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor will be funded in part by transit capabilities and as it becomes a major transit corridor, the location adjacent to The Irvine Industrial Complex -4- J COMMISSIONERS ` MINUTES December 20 , 1979 3 ° CLU W w � w X y. D City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL � INDEX •-w-ueufl.va�v�^Y .R � �p'���r W✓ is excellent , and he expressed his feeling that efforts should be concentrated in that area and linking high employment centers to that area . Mr. Hendrickson again appeared before the Planning Commission and explained that the City Council action on General Plan Amendment 79-1 has left Civic Plaza as a part of Newport Center square footage to the degree that they have noted that the 234,706 sq. ft. could be built in Civic Plaza and the fact that this was done with a Negative Declaration is indicative of a lack of concern that there isn ' t a serious traffic problem by virtue of this project. He then described the characteristics and aesthetics of the proposed project, -stating that, :the.re' were 16 intersections , which needed to be analyzed , the results of which verified that there is only one intersection with which the impact of the 70% , would .go beyond . 90 ICU , and that they have proposed mitigation mea- sures at that intersection which would bring the ICU down below the . 90 ICU. He explained that these figures do not include the other 30%, so that in fact these intersections are being im- proved beyond the reduction in ICU that is shown in the traffic report and that the intent of the test of reasonableness is that for those review- ing the project, it is a judgement call . In response to a questi.on posed by Commissioner Haadinger, Weston Pringle , The Irvine Company , replied that they concerned themselves only with the intersections above . 90 ICU . In response to a question posed by Commissioner Thomas regarding distribution , Mr. Pringle replied that the distribution for this project was based upon SCAAG population -distributions for Orange County and that this distribution is similar to the Plaza, distribution. In response to a question posed by Commissioner ' Hiadinger, Mr. Webb replied that a second left turn lane was added in each direction and The Irvine Company had not considered it because they felt that there was not sufficient right-oi -way COMMISSIONERS 40 MINUTES g December 6 , 1979 0x °rCLU W w = ' M X w > City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX now and that it might require moving a curb and gutter over 10 feet and possibly a median loca- tion . In response to a question posed by Commissioner Balalis , Mr. Webb replied that some of the inter- sections have gone beyond . 90 since their latest studies in July , so that they were not aware of the serious problem until this summer , so that they have not yet implemented any changes . In response to a question posed by Commissioner Beek , Mr. Pringle replied that the information indicated that there was some concern regarding adequate right-of-way on the Irvine side of the intersection , which was why they had not incorpor- ated it. . Commissioner Beek stated his understanding that if there are any intersections left with an ICU of more than . 90 , that technically the project is susceptible of being rejected because the criteria established by the Planning Commission and City Council state that an intersection must be below . 90 if their traffic increases by 2% or more . Commissioner Haidinger stated his understanding that the Traffic Phasing Ordinance does not apply to this project and what does apply is the test of reasonableness and that the Planning Commission has discretion . Mr. Pringle responded to Commissioner Beek ' s com- ment, stating that if they have an intersection above . 90 , they make the best effort they can to reduce it. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Balalis , ' Mr. Pringle replied that the eventual extension of the freeway will mitigate the pro- blem and expressed his feeling that it would not be practical to go into a major reconstruction , because it would not solve the problem which would be solved eventually by the freeway extension . -6- COMMISSIONERS to MINUTES December 20 , 1979 -I � m 0 l a n Co s X W � City of Newport Beach W -i N 7C y 7 BULL CALL �INDE�XCEO ^� In response to a question posed by Commissioner Balalis , Mr. Webb replied that there might be room to put a left-turn lane , though that would not bring the ICU down below . 90 , but would bring it down from . 97 to . 92 , that the state would not agree to approve this improvement at this time , as this area is projected as a 1981-1982 area , and that the extension will probably be completed in 4 years . Commissioner Balalis suggested a triple right turn lane , to which Mr. Webb expressed his doubt that it could be implemented so that it would function and that right now there is back-up on Bristol Street at the red light , as the inter- sections are very close and traffic. ha•s difficulty merging into the right turn lane to get onto the freeway, so that Birch Street has become more im- pacted. _ Commissioner Allen posed a question , to which Mr. Webb replied that there are two through lanes southbound on Jamboree Road and is designated a major arterial which would have 3 lanes in each direction , so that there would bg an additional through lane added to Jamboree Road when the Master Plan is built out , which is the same situa- tion at San Joaquin Hills Road . He further ex- plained that northerly of San Joaquin Hills Road the pavement section is completed and southerly of San Joaquin Hills Road , Jamboree Road will be widened to Coast Highway to add the third lane . In response 'to a question posed by Commissioner Thomas , Mr. Webb replied that there are numerous , road-widening projects around the City and $17 ,000,000- 20 ,000,000 would be necessary to complete these master plan road sections . Motion x Motion was made that the Planning Commission make the findings as indicated in Exhibit "A" of the. Staff Report and approve the Phasing Plan for the remaining development i.n the Civic Plaza Planned 'Community, subject to the conditions -as indicated in Exhibit "A" of the Staff Report , with the im- provement that a left turn lane be added on Jam- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES %December 20 , 1979 40 -I w 3 N o. n to0 o W w D N City of Newport Beach ROLL CALLB--- -� M�INDEX _...M boree Road in both directions with figures in- dicating what this would entail . Commissioner Allen suggested that the option be left open that the company can come back to the Planning Commission before the next meeting if there is a problem. Commissioner Allen expressed her feeling that this is a very major project and suggested an added condition . Motion x Amendment to the Motion was made that a condition be added that this project to mitigate the traffic that it cannot mitigate at the intersection which requires the building of the Corona del Mar Free- way that it include the improvement to the right hand turn lane at the San Joaquin Hills Road/ Jamboree Road intersection. Mr. Hendrickson again appeared before the Planning Commission and reminded them that The Irvine Com- pany provided the land for that free right turn lane with the condition that the City would build the free right turn lane , and that regarding the previous discussion of the Jamboree Road/MacArthur Boulevard intersection , there is a possibility that the cost of doing what they want to do there due to the signalization changes may run as much as $200 ,000 , and he expressed his feeling that the payment of the free right turn lane at Jam- boree Road isn ' t going to improve traffic where it needs to be improved. Motion x Amendment to the Motion was made the,t the City reimbursement funds received be put toward a transit fund. Mr. Webb stated that the funds that would be uti - lized for constructing this project would be 50% City gas tax funds and 50% HFP funds , so that if the County .funds were not used., they would not come to the City. Commissioner Thomas stated his understanding that if it is a reimbursement , the gas tax funds would be spent for the purposes intended or the reim- bursement be considered a donation to the transit -8- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES g %December 20 , 1979 0 = � p ii m W ° City of Newport Beach W ¢�� �� ..•gym...+,m.......----�,,..»..w•r.�•�y, _..=.. ._._ �. ROLL CALL tl INDEX :ems x9 �- -�.4 fund for The Irvine Company ' s best interest. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Haidinger, Mr. Webb replied that the estimates for the project were between $160 ,000 and $190,000 for the right turn lane on Jamboree Road. Commissioner Allen commented that her Amendment was made as a suggested tradeoff for the fact that they still have an intersection that is over . 90 about which they can do nothing and about which nothing will be done until the com- pletion of the Corona del Mar Freeway . In response to a question posed by Commissioner McLaughlin regarding the Amendment, Commissioner Allen further commented that the project .is just adjacent . to the intersection, making it prac- tically an on-site road improvement and that according to "Table 3" , most of the peak hour traffic that it generates goes through that Intersection and she suggested that they solve the problem before they have one, since they cannot solve a problem they already have in any reasonable fashion . Commissioner Balalis expressed his opposition to the Amendment, stating regarding the inter- section that cannot be made to go below . 90, that as the figures show that as of the present time , in 1981 without the project the ICU will go up to 1 . 21 and with the project the ICU goes up to 1. 22, but with the mitigation that is being done , the ICU goes back down to . 97 and that, as he stated his understanding ac- cording to the "Test of Reasonableness " , if a project does not make worse , but improves an intersection , this should be taken into con- sideration .', , Commissioner Allen drew attention to " Item 1" that states that no project-related improve- -9- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES 9: `December 20 , 1979 -I r N 3 - . ( 0W W City of Newport Bach ROl L CALL � INDEX ments are considered in the calculation when it gets to 1 . 2186 ; however, that intersection , because of where it is located that 1 . 2186 would presume no project at all that impact that intersection will do any improvement to that intersection . Ayes x x x Commissioner Allen ' s Amendment to the Motion Noes K x x K was then voted on , which MOTION FAILED. Ayes x x Yx Commissioner Thomas ' Amendment to the Motion Noes Yx x was then voted on , which MOTION CARRIED . Commissioner Balalis stated his understanding that the intent of Commissioner Thomas ' Amend- ment was that The Irvine Company will pay the City ' s share of the funds for improving the right turn lane on Jamboree Road , and those funds will be placed in a City Transit Fund. Commissioner Balalis stated his understanding that if a transit system is not set up , The Ir ,,ine Company would not be required to pay the funds , to which Commissioner Thomas agreed . Mr. Webb expressed his concern that if The Ir- vine Company reimburses the City, there is a question about the ability for us to maintain the same gas tax funds , and suggested that The Irvine Company deposit the fund directly into a transit fund. -10- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES ra %December 20 , 109 40 0 2 o , a o W w D N N x N :3 City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX ^� Mr. Webb suggested identifying the meaning of a "Transit Fund" and determining what uses to which a "Transit Fund" could be put. Motion x Motion was made to reconsider the Amendment . Ayes x x x x x Noes Y Amendment to the Motion was made that The Irvine Motion x Company contribute an amount equal to what would Ayes K x xx x be the City' s share of the cost of the free right Noes x x turn lane on Jamboree Road behind the Texaco sta- tion to a "Transit Fund" to be used at the dis- cretion of the City for transit purposes in the Newport Center area , to be introduced as a con- dition . Commissioner Beek stated his opposition to the Motion , expressing his feeling that the City Coun- cil had established 12 years ago that the City was not going to continue with major developments if the City 'did not have an adequate circulation system to support them. Commissioner Thomas stated that he shared Com- missioner Beek ' s sentiments ; however, that the City is taking a positive step toward establish- ing solutions in the form of transit. Ayes xx x x K x Motion was then voted on , which MOTION CARRIED . Noes x Request to consider revocation of Use Permit No . Item #2 288 that permits the operation of a restaurant and cocktail lounge in the C-1 District , located USE PER- at 3444 East Coast Highway in Corona del Mar . MIT NO . � %, The purpose of the hearing will determine if said 288 pert should be revoked for failure to obtain the ne�ckw sary approvals for live entertainment REVOCA- now existei-V in the restaurant facility known as TION the Jazz Po . PROCEED- INGS INITIATE6 BY : The of Newport Beach TERMI- NATED Hugh Coffin , City Attorney , com ted regarding this item, stating that the Plannin ommission had received a letter concerning the Ja Pot , . REPORT OF FINDINGS Project Name: CIVIC PLAZA Project Location: Santa Cruz Drive and San Clemente Drive The analysis of this project was performed in accordance with Resolution 9472 and the "test of reasonableness" with the following findings: FINDINGS I. Project traffic is estimated to be greater than 2% of the 1983 traffic on at least one leg for 15 out of the 17 intersections analyzed. II. At the 30% development level with no project related traffic improvements three intersections are expected to have ICU values exceeding 0 .9a. III. With full project development and related improvements? two intersections are anticipated to exceed an ICU value of 0.90 . Previously approved projects and regional growth will cause these two intersections (Bristol N/ Birch & Uamboree/MacArthur) to have ICU values over 0.90 with or without this project. Richard M. Edmonston Traffic Engineer December l3f 1979 RME:ma 9 0 9 10ao� � J PNc1Ti r�EpcN. 11 COY. r COMMISSIONERS ' MI �� K December 6 , 1979 -1 0 n � l�n O ' a y � y ' City of Newport Beac r- - r x�a ROLL CALLr IaNDEX Motion K Motion 3vas" ad to continue Items 1 , 2 and 3 to Ayes x x x x the egular Planning Commission meeting on Jan- Absent * ,»'Gary 10 , 1980 , to allow the City Council an op- portunity to act upon Planning Commission recom- mendations on- General Plan Amendment 79-1. .Request to consider a Phasing Plan for the remain Item #4 ing development in the Civic Plaza Planned Com- munity District , and the acceptance of an Environ PHASING mental Document. PLAN LOCATION: The Planned Community of Civic CONTIN- Plaza, generally bounded by San UED TO Joaquin Hills Road , Santa Cruz DECEMBER' Drive , San Clemente Drive , Santa 20 , 1979 Barbara Drive and Jamboree Road in Newport Center. ZONE: P-C APPLICANT: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as Applicant Motion x Motion was made to continue Item No . 4 to the re- Ayes - x Yx x x x gular Planning Commission meeting of December 20 , Absent * 1979 , to allow the City Council an opportunity to act upon Planning Commission recommendations on General Plan Amendment 79-1 .., "' =: Request to permit the construction of a two story' Item #5 - ` office building exceeding 5 ,000 sq . ft. of floor "_area in a Specific Plan Area where a specific USE PER- p"I"a,n,,has not been adopted, and the acceptance of MIT N0 . an Envifronmental Document. The proposed develop- 1920 ment also inQ],udes the temporary use of a modular building for oY +G development during the con- APPROVED .. struction stage of he„,,permanent structure . A CONDI= modification to the Mu0ei.pal Code is also re- TIONALLY " quested, since a portion of-Ah required offstree -3- I . Planning Commission Meetog December 20 , 1979 Agenda Item No . 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH December 13, 1979 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Request to consider a Phasing Plan for the remaining development in the Civic Plaza Planned Community District and the acce tance of an Environmental Document Continued Discussion LOCATION : The Planned Community of Civic Plaza , generally bounded by San Joaquin Hills Road, Santa Cruz Drive , San Clemente Drive , Santa Barbara Drive, and Jamboree Road, in Newport Center. ZONE : P-C APPLICANT : The Irvine Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as Applicant Background The proposed project was originally before the Planning Commission in August, 1979 . Since that time , the project has been continued at the request of the applicant and Planning Commission. The following information has been previously submitted to the P1'anning Commission for their consideration in review of this project: 1 . Planning Commission Minutes - August 9 , 1979 2 . Planning Commission Minutes - September 20, 1979 3. Planning Commission Minutes - October 4 ,, 1979 4 . Planning Commission Minutes - October 18 , 1979 5 . Staff Report - August 9 , 1979 a ) Resolution No . 9517 b) City Council Minutes - March 12 , 1979 -"Civic Plaza" c ) City Council Minutes- March 12 , 1979 -"Test of Reasonabiness" d ) Letter - The Irvine Company , July 10 , 1979 e ) Narrative on Planning Commission -"Test of Reasonableness`- July, 1979 f) Traffic Report prepared by Weston Pringle and Associates , dated July 5 , 1979 , for the applicants g ) Negative Declaratioh 6. Staff Report - August 16 , 1979 a ) Corrections to Traffic Report-Weston Pringle & Associates- August 14 , 1979 - 1 - TO: Pl,an0g Commission - 2 . 7. Staff Report - September 20, 1979 ( recycled August 9 , 1979 , report) 8 . Staff Report - October 4, 1979 a) Staff Report - August 16 , 1979 9 . Staff Report - October 18, 1979 10. Letter from The Irvine Company - October 18, 1979 11 . Staff Report - December 6, 1979 Should any member of the Planning Commission require an additional copy of the above listed information, please contact the Planning Department at (714) 640-2197. General Plan Amendment (79-1) At the October 18, 1,979 Planning Commission meeting , the. Planning Commission at the request of The Irvine Company, continued discussion of this item to its Decembe-r 6 , 1979 meeting . Tfie purpose of this continuance was to allow information generated by the City Council ' s review of Newport Center in the General Plan Amendment (G. P .A.- 79-1 ) to be used by the Planning Commission in their consideration of the Civic Plaza Traffic Phasing Plan . At the November 26 , 1979 City Council meeting , the City Council continued all items related to Newport Center to its meeting of December 10, 1979. Based on that continuance, the project was continued from the :December R ; 1979 meeting to the Planning Commission meeting of December 20', 1979 . The following summarized City Council actions on General Plan, Amendment 79-1 as they 'relate to Civic Plaza and the total allowed office development in Newport Center: , "Future Allowable D'evelo ment" "Previous "Existing General General Plan" Proposed 1 • Remaining "Area" UAe Plan" G. .P.A. 79-1 Project Development T.A.T. 64 'Block 800 Retail 18,000 sq.ft. 18,000 sq.ft. 8,000 sq.ft. 10,000 sq.ft. Theatre 1 ,350 seats 11350 seats 1 ,350 seats (20,000 sq.ft. ) (20,000 sq.ft, ) (20,000 sq.ft. ) -0- Civic/ Cultural 10,000 sq.ft. 100000 sq.ft. 10,000 sq.ft. -0- Residential 245 DU's 245 DU's - 245 DU's Office Civic Plaza 234,706 sq.ft. 234,706 sq.ft. 234,706 sq.ft. -0- •Pacific Mutual 350,000 sq.ft. 245,000 sq.ft. - 245,000 sq.ft. 'Block 700 Office *Pacific Mutual 9,404 sq.ft. 9,404 sq.ft. - 9,404 sq.ft. TO: Planning (6ission 3. • "Future Allo able Development" "Previous 'Existing General 'General Plan Proposed 1 Remaining "Area" Use Plan" G.P.A. 79-1 Project Development Total T.A.Z. 64 Office 594,110 sq.ft. 489,110 234,706 sq.ft. 254,404 sq.ft. Total Newport Center - Office 11 ,447,019 686,518 sq.ft. 234,706 sq.ft. 451 ,812 sq.ft. With respect to office use within Newport Center, the property• owner has the option of utilizing the maximum square footage for each T.A. Z. However, total office development in Newport Center may not exceed 686 ,518 sq . ft .. 1 Traffic Analysis 'also included the 14,000 sq. ft. library. Revised Traffic Report/Phasing Plan The Civic Plaza Traffic Phasing Plan was submitted to the City for its consideration on July 10 , 1979 . The project has been continued at the request of the applicant and Planning Commission for five (5) months (December 6 , 1979 ) . The original Traffic Report on the Civic Plaza Traffic Phasing Plan was developed and based upon Winter/Spring 78 Traffic Volumes . A revised Traffic Report based on Winter/Spring 79 Traffic Volumes is attached . This report was required of The Irvine Company so as to provi-de the Planning Commission with the most current data upon which to base their decisions . A copy of the revised Traffic Report is atta.ched (Weston Pringle & As-sociates - November 30 , 1979) . The new report - is summarized on the following page : TO : Plann*g Commission - 4. 0 ~ T'I :I, 4 ICU SUEMARY CIVIC PLAZA I'••1;;:5;;CtAi li::1S'!'1?fl: ta:. •l'Ii;t; d•(i) I•�:f:;1'li:�., ,y,i1) li}:l5'f ;,:?: •F(`) RI:(:EMA1, + REGIONAL 9• !::CCt,I<I:' ,1. + 0I101IT11.0 co".'M ITT V.i„ C.N.i;I . 30i: PROJECT PRO.l%, d;ris'•ol. 'St. N. & Campus Dr. 0.9262 0.8950 0.8950 0.89 '. Brl„tol St. & Ca::,pus Dr. 0.7650 0,6669 0.6694 0.67CI Co:-st Highway h Dover Dr. 0.9510 0.6788 0.6854 0.X 17 Cow%t Highway & Bayside Dr, 0.8540 0.7753 0. 7820 0.79t2 Cost Highway & JIICIboree 1(d, •0.911#0 0.8337 0.11301 0. 0�' ,i CoasL Iligllway'& lfargarite Ave. 0.7957 0.8531 0.R 572 0.1161..11 J-_. `:orae Rd. & Santa Barbara Dr. 0.574,5 0.63141 0.6i')1 0.6")10 Jamboree Rd. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. 0.7375 0.6966 0.6981 0.7042 Jamboree Rd. & Ford Rd. 0.9128 0.7877 0.7971 0.8191 Jamboree Rd. & Bristol St. 0.6381 0.7446 0.7547 0.7792 Jntboree Rd. & Bristol St. N. 0.8781 0.8298 0.8378 0.8563 Jamboree Rd. & Mac Arthur Blvd. 0.9934 1.1051 1.1095 1.0003 - Mac Arthur Blvd. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. 0.7664 0.8333 0.8457 0.8757 Mac Arthur Blvd. & Ford Rd. 1.1631 0.8947 0.9047 0.8103 Bristol St. N. & Birch St. 0.8569 1.2186 1 .2257 0.9751 - (l') No Project Related Improvements are Considered in Calculatiuns:. (2) Project Related Improvements are Included. The Traffic Report found .that Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 2% of projected 2 1/2 hour traffic volume only at the intersections of: 1 ) Coast Highway/Newport Center Drive, and 2) Coast Highway/MacArthur Boulevard. Therefore, ICU calculations were made for the remaining 15 intersections as noted above. The applicant' s consultant has indicated that only two inter- sections , Bristol Street North/Birch Street and Jamboree Road/MacArthur Boulevard will be operating upon completion of the project at 0.9000 or greater. ' TO: tanning Commission - 5 . • A summary of the applicants traffic consultants comments on the two intersections that will be operating upon completion of the project at 0 . 9000 or greater is given below: "Bristol Street North and Birch Street. Review of Table 4 and the related streets in Appendices B and C indicates that the recommended project related improvements would reduce the ICU value at this intersection from 1 . 2199 to 0. 9751 in 1982. It also indicates that the ICU value in 1981 would be 1 . 2186 : The project and its related improvements would improve the operation of this intersection although it would exceed 0. 90. " "Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard . The ICU values at this intersection increase 0. 0044 in 1981 as a result of this project. This increase would not be perceptable to drivers utilizing the intersection . Improvement of the intersection by the addition of a third southbound through lane has been proposed in order to reduce these ICU values . This improvement results in an ICU value of 1 . 0003 with the full project in 1982 . While this value is greater than 0. 90, it is less than the I.CU value of 1 . 1095 that would occur without this project related improvement. This indicates that conditions would improve with the proposed improvements and project. " Alternative Courses of Action If the Planning Commission desires to approve or modify and approve the project, staff would suggest that the Planning Commission accept the Negative Declaration and approve or modify and approve the Phasing Plan with the findings and subject to the conditions set forth i'n .Exhibit "A . " OR If the Planning Commission desires to deny the Phasing Plan , findings for denial are suggested in Exhibit '"B" for consid'eration . • PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D . HEWICKER•, DIRECTOR By -d'.1 /.z.�4 e� red Talarico Environmental Coordinator FT/dt Attachments : Exhibits "•A" and "B" Traffic Report - November 20, 1979 t EXHIBIT A Recommended Findings and Conditions of Approval Approval FINDINGS.: 1 . That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration has been prepa-red in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and City Policy K-3, and that their contents have been considered in the decision on this project. 2. That based on, the information contained in the Initial Study and Negative Declaration , the project will not result in significant environmental impacts. 3. That the Phasing Plan is consistent with the Newport Beach General Plan and the Planned Community ,Development Plan for Civic Plaza . 4. That based on the Phasing Plan and supporting information sub- mitted therewith, there is a reasonable correlation between projected traffic at time of completion and the capacity of affected intersections. 5. That the applicant has taken into consideration in the preparation of hi,s plan characteristics in the design of his development which either reduce traffic generation or guide traffic onto less impact arterials or through intersections in the least congested direction. CONDITIONS: 1 . That prior to the occupancy of any buildings on the site beyond the existing development and 95 ,812 sq. ft. 'of new construction , the circulation system improvements contained in the Traffic Report, dated November 20, 1979, Table 5 , Pages 7 through 9, shall have been constructed , (unless subsequent project approval require modification thereto . The circulation systems improvements shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer) . 2. That prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicants shall indicate to ,the Director of Planning Department in writing that they understand and agree to condition 1 above. 3. The following disclosure statement of the 'City of Newport Beach ' s policy regarding the Orange County Airport should be included in all leases or sub-leases for space in the project and shall be included in any Covenants, Conditions , and Restrictions Which may be recorded against the property. Disclosure Statement The Lessee herein , his heirs , successors and assigns acknowledge that: a ) The Orange County Airport may not be able to provide adequate air service for business establishments which rely on such service; b) When an alternatVair facility is available* complete phase out of jet service may occur at th.e Orange County Airport; c ) The City of Newport Beach may continue to oppose additional commercial are service expansions at the Orange County Airport; 4) 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 service at the Orange County Airport. 4. The on-site parking will be provided in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 5 . -Final design of the project 'shall provide for the incorporation of water-saving devices for project lavatories and 'other water- using facilities . 6 . The final design of the project shall ' provide for the "sorting of recyclable material from other solid waste. EXHIBIT 'B Recommended Findings and ,Conditions of Denial FINDINGS: 1 . - That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and, City Policy K-3, and that their contents have been considered in the decision on this project. 2. That based on the information contained in the Initial Study and Negative Declaration , the project will not result in significant environmental impacts . 3. That the Phasing Plan is consistent with the Newport Beach General Plan and the Planned Community Development Plan for Civic Plaza . 4. That based on the Phasing Plan and supporting information submitted therewith, there is not a reasonable correlation between projected traffic at time of completion and the capacity of the intersections of Bristol Street North/Birch Street, and Jamboree Road/MacArthur Boulevard. COMMISSIONERS Regular Planning Commission Meeting MINUTES Place : City Council Chars N' Time : 7: 30 P:M. w Date : October 18, 1979 City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL /' INDEX Present x x x x Absent * EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS Hugh Coffin , Acting City Attorney STAFF MEMBERS James Hewicker, Acting Director Don 'Webb , Assistant City En h'neer Glenna Gipe, Secretary * * Minutes Wri ttten _By: Glenna Gipe Approval off he minutes of. the regular Planning Commission-/meeting of September 27 , 1979 and October � , 1979 and of. the special Adjourned Planning Commission meeting of October 4, 1979 was postponed to the regular Planning Commission meng- of November 8, 1979 . 7e,M . Motion X / ' Motion was made to excuse Commissioner Cokas from Ayes x X x the regular Planning Commission meeting for this Absent evening and from the regular Planning Commission meeting on November 8, 1979 . if Motion r' Motion was made to continue Agenda Item No . 1 to Ayes ifK x x Yx, the regular Planning Commission meeting of Decem- Absent * ber 6, 1979 and to withdraw Agenda Item No . 6 , as per the applicants ' requests . Request to consider a Phasing Plan for the re- Item #1 maining development in the Civic Plaza Planned Community District, and the acceptance of an En- PHA"S.ING vironmental Document. P `AN'\ LOCATION: The Planned Community of Civic COINT NUED Plaza , generally bounded by San T LDECEM- Joaquin Hills Road, Santa Cruz BER-8, 1979 -1- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES October 18, 1979 • N H City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Drive , San Clemente Drive, Santa Barbara Drive, and Jamboree Road, in Newport Center. ZONE: P-C ' APPLICANT: The Irvine Company , Newport Beach OWNER: Same as Applicant Motion x Motion was made to continue this item to the re- Ayes x x x x x x gular Planning Commission meeting on December 6 , Absent 1979 , as per the applicant' s request. Request to allow front yard setbacks between 10 Item #2 feet and , 15 feet, measured from back of sidewalk , for garages on various custom single family resi - MODIFI- dential lots in Harbor Ridge (where the P-C text CATION provides that garage spaces facing an access N0 . 2457 1`1k street shall observe a 5 foot setback or a mini - z:j mum setback of 20 feet, measured from back of DENIED ",sidewalk) . LOCA`TI.ON: Lot Nos . 1 , 2, 3, 5, 6 , 7, 9 , 15 , 23, 24, 25 , 27 , 28 and 29 , Tract No. 9860 , located northerly of . E1 Capitan Drive and easterly of Spyglass Hill Road in Harbor Ridge ZONE: P�, APPLICANT: The Irvi ea,,Pacific Development Company, Nellport Beach OWNER: The Irvine Compa�!y, Newport Beach, p The Public Hearing was opened regardin this item and Dave Dmohowski , The Irvine Compa y ap- peared before the Planning Commission. and ex ain ed that the lots in question have a problem in complying with the setback requirements establish ed by the P-C District Regulations because of their shape and the general topography of the site and that this particular problem will not re occur in any other phase of the Harbor Ridge De- TW IRVINE MMPAW 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach,California 92663 Robert H.Shelton Vice President,Government Relations October 13, 1978 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, California 92660 Subject: CIVIC PLAZA Dear Mr. Chairman and Commission Members: The Irvine Company respectfully requests that you hold a public hearing to determine whether or not the Civic Plaza Planned Community should be "excepted" in accord with the Traffic Phas- ing Ordinance, Newport Beach Municipal Code, Section 15.40.030 (D) (1)• The Irvine Company has completed research on the issue and has prepared the enclosed information document. This data, .in our judgement, is sufficient to support an affirmative determination of excepted status for Civic Plaza. Very truly yours, Robert H. Shelton Vice President Government Relations RS:blm cc: City At Director, Community Development Department COMMISSIONERS MINI.I-TE5� s w 10 October 4, 1979 City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Motion x Motion was ma4e-- o continue the remainder of the All Ayes items to the'`regular Planning Commission meeting on Novembpr*18, 1979. . Motion ,��'` lea x Motion was made to cancel the regular Planning Ayes ,x= 'k Yx x N Commis-sion meeting on November 22 , 1979 , due' to Noes x the Thanksgiving- holidays . Request to consider a Phasing Plan for the remain Item, #9 ing development in the Civic 'Plaza Planned Com- munity District, and the acceptance of an Environ PHA AS•ING mental Document. P,LLAN LOCATION: The Planned Community of Civic CON U UED Plaza, generally bounded by San TO OCTOBE Joaquin Hills Road, Santa Cruz 18, 1979 Drive, San Clemente Drive , Santa Barbara Drive, and Jamboree Road, in Newport Center. ZONE: ' P-C APPLICANT: The Irvine Company, Newport. Beach OWNER: Same as Applicant Motion Y Motion was made to continue this item to the re- All Ayes gular Planning Commission meeting of October 18 , 1979 . ^® „� Request to allow front yard setbacks between 10 Item #10 feet and 15 feet, measured from back of sidewalk, for garages on various custom single family resi - MODIFI- *"deZ�tial lots in Harbor Ridge (where the P-C text CATION NO . pro%71-des that garage spaces facing an access 2457 street s*a.I,l observe a 5 foot setback or a mini - mum setback 0 feet , measured .from back of CONTINUED; sidewalk) . TO OCTO- BER 18, LOCATION: Lot Nos . 1 , 3, 5 , 6 , 7 , 9 , 15, 1979 23, 24, 25 , 27 , and 29 , Tract No . 9860, located nZrr herly of __ I I I r I I 1 -17- 1`\�_j ' COMMISSIONERS • MINUTES October 4, 1979 Sr � � � City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Beek then suggested a Condi9zon No . 39' to read , The project shall be approved by the Orange County Health Planning Council . " , to which Mr. Stevens expressed their agrreement. Motion x Motion was made to approve the addition of the Ayes x x > x x aforementfoned 'Condition No. 39 . Noes x Abstain x Motion was made that the aforementioned addition- Motion x a.l 'sentence be added to Cond on No. 13. Ayes x x x x Noes x Motion- was made to add the ords , "existing as Abstain x well as new" after the fo rth word in new Con- Motion x dition No. 22. Ayes x x x x Noes x Motion was made to delete Condition No . 36 . Abstain Motion x Motion was. made tha the Planning Commission make Ayes x x the findings recorded in Exhibit A of the Staff Noes x x Report and approv.e the EIR, the Traffic Study and Abstain Y Use Permit No. 1421-C, subject to the aforementio - Motion x ed revised condiition as recorded in Exhibit A of Ayes x x x x the Staff Report, and recommend same to the City Noes x Council . Abstain The Plarpi ng Commission recessed at 9 :00 p.m. and reconv ,ned at 9 : 10 p.m. a Request to amend the Planned Community Developmen Item #6 Tan for Harbor View Hills so as to permit the ex pansion Area No . 8 (Baywood Apartments) of the AMEND- Planned Community for additional multi -family re- i�1ENTrNO. sidential units , and the acceptance of an Envir•on' 3�6 mental Document. CONTIN- IOCATION: Parcel No. 1 , Parcel Map 45-10 UE— DST (Resubdivision No. 311)•, and a NN EMBER portion of Blocks 92 and 93, Ir- $1 � vine' s Subdivision , located at 1601 San Miguel Drive , on the northeasterly side of San Joaquin Hills Road , between MacArthur Boulevard and San Miguel Drive in Harbor View Hills (Baywood Apart- ments) . COMMISSIONERS • MINUTES ' October 4, 1979 0s City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX ZONE : P-C APPLICANT: The Irvine Company, /ewport Beach OWNER: Same as Applican AND Request to combine oDe parcel and' a portion of Item #7 Blocks 92 and 93 ofr°I.rvine ' s Subdivision into one building site so ,.as to permit the expansion of RESUBDI- the Baywood Apa tment complex on the property. VISION NO . 637 LOCATION: Parcel No. 1 , Parcel Map 45-10 (Resubdivision No. 311) , and a por CONTINUED tion of Blocks 92 and 93 , Irvine ' s TO NOVEM- Subdivision located at 1601 'San BER 8� Miguel Drive , on the northeasterly 1 79 side of San Joaquin Hills Road , be, tween MacArthur Boulevard and San - Miguel Drive in Harbor View Hills (Baywood Apartments ) . ,✓ ZONE: P-C APPLICANT: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as Applicant y ENGINEER: Robert Bein , William Frost, & Associates , Newport Beach AND Request to consider a Phasing Plan for the re- Item #8 maining development in the Civic Plaza Planned Community District, and the acceptance of an En- PHASING vironmental Document. — LOCATION : The Planned Community of Civic CONTINUED Plaza , generally bounded by San TO NOVEM- Joaquin Hills Road , Santa Cruz TER 8, Drive, San Clemente Drive , Santa 1979 Ba:rb•ara Drive , and Jamboree Road , in Newport Center. -12- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES V51" October 4 , 1979 City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL J INDEX ZONE: P-C APPLICANT: The Irvine Company OWNER: Same. as Applicant In response to 'a question posed by Commissioner McLaughlin , Richard Hogan , Community Development Director, replied that at the present time , 140 units is the maximum number allowable in the Bay- wood expansion . Keith Greer, The Irvine Company, appeared before the Planning Commission and made a presentation of the plan , stating that this project represents an opportunity for the City and the company to provide for housing that will encourage and permi residents to both live and work in Newport Beach , using as the basis the existing statistics on the 320 units that are there, 41 adult residents of which live and work in Newport Beach , and that it also provides for affordable housi.ng. Mr. Hogan relayed the three alternatives the Plan ning Commission has : 1) determine that the plan is reasonable and should be approved, in which case it would be appropriate to reconsider the - action taken in the General Plan Amendment ; 2) approve the proposal in general with the residen- tial development, but with only 70 units as com- pared to the 140 units ; 3) deny the project. e Motion x Motion was made to Table the Baywood Expansion until the General Plan Amendment is heard by the City Council . In response to a question posed by Commissioner Haidinger regarding affordable housing , Mr. Greer replied that they are based on the County of drange standards for moderate income , that they refer to the guidelines established by the County and updated " periodically, based on a medium incom average for the County of Orange , and that the rental range would be $400 to 500. -13- COMMISSIONERS • MINUTES � October 4, 1979 _ y y City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Hugh Coffin , Acting City Attorney , stated that there is no time limit on taking action on the Traffic Phasing Ordinance , but that action must be taken on the Subdivision Map during a 50 day period, plus a time extension not to exceed 90 days , and that. under Section 20 .51. 045 of the Code , the Planning Commission is required to act on an application for an amendment not later than 45 days from the first notice of the . Planning Commission hearing ,- unless such time limit is ex- tended upon mutual agreement of the parties ., Motion x Motion was revised to table the items that can be tabled , i . e. , the Parcel Map and Amendment, and to hear the item that it is necessary to hear immediately, i . e. , the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Commissioner Thomas stated his intent that it is not proper to be dealing with this proposal in light- of the fact that the General Plan Amendment has just- been submitted to the City Council . Ayes x x, x Y Motion was then voted on , which MOTION CARRIED . Noes x Y x Motion x Motion was made to allow a 9-minute presentation Ayes x x INX x Y by The Irvine Company regarding the Baywood Ex- Noes x pansion. Joe Sarnecky, The Irvine Company, appeared before the Planning Commission to briefly describe the proposed addition to the Baywood Apartment Com- munity, stating- that it had at one time been vo- luntarily held in reserve by The Irvine Company as part of a freeway reservation of future align- ment of the Corona del Mar Freeway, but that now the freeway is no longer planned to be built in this location. He then drew to the Planning Commission ' s attention the colored site plan , showing the relationship of the project to the existing community. He stated that the proposal is to build 140 apartment units on roughly 102 acres and will be an extension of the existing apartments in terms of layout, architecture and landscape design , thus preserving' the theme .and character of the existing community. He added that a Traffic Study was prepared consistent with COMMISSIONERS + . MINUTES October 4 , 197� -I w ff � � � City of Newport Beach � ROLL CALL INDEX the guidelines established with the Traffic Phas- ing Ordinance as an NFIS-1 Policy , that 6 criti- dal intersections were identified for evaluation and that 3 out of the 6 are required to have ICU calculations perforined , but that none of these intersections exceeded .9 intersection capacity utilization, sa that none of the intersections would be adversely affected by the proposed de- velopment. He additionally stated that this pro- ject will provide a low-profile , high-amenity residential environment which is in walking dis- tance of Newport Center, and that - it is consisten with the- General Plan , complementing and complet- ing the Baywood community. In conclusion , he re- quested that the Planning Commission reconsider its previous action -on Baywood. Mr. O' Mara , 'resident of Baywood, appeared before the Planning Commission and described a flaw as he viewed it in the Baywood Expansion plan , that all the vehicular traffic that will be generated by . the addition will be channelled along the left fork of Baywood Drive, the only entrance and exit to all the Baywood Apartments , suggesting future traffic congestion. Mr. -Greer replied that they are constrained along MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road as far as access , - but that the intersection of San Miguel -Drive and entrance into Baywood will have . traffic signal potential improvements and interio improvements , and that based on the analysis they have seen , the left fork is adequate to serve those parking needs . Jim Stevenson., resident of Baywood Apartments , commented that the previous resident had made an excellent presentation of the problem and that it should be considered. Motion x Motion was made to deny without prejudice Amend- ment No. 536 and Resubdivision No. 637. In response to a question posed by Commissioner McLaughlin , Hugh Coffin replied that the Parcel Map would have been approved by the Planning COMMISSIONERS • • MINUTES l October 4 , 1949 0x zi City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Commission and would become final unless the City Council were to call it up , or it were appealed , but that the amendment would necessarily have to go to the City Council for approval , as it re- quires- City- Council action , and that if there is to be an approval , - the Traffic Phasing item would have to be taken from the table and considered prior to approval of either item. Dave Dmohowski , The Irvine Company, appeared be- fore the Planning Commission and stated the spe- cifics of Amendment No. 536 , including an amend- ment to the P-C map and P-C text, involving de- leting the freeway designation on MacArthur Boule vard, filling in Area 8 to indicate development u to the right-of-way line from MacArthur Boulevard a revision of the statistical table to reflect the addition of 140 dwelling units , and an in- crease in the population estimate , school popu- lation projections amendment and an amendment to the fences and hedges . Ayes x x K Motion was then voted on , which MOTION FAILED. Noes x x Motion x Motion was made that Amendment No . 536 , Resubdi- vision No .- 637 and the Phasing Plan be continued to •November 8, 1979. Commissioner Thomas stated his opposition to the motion. Mr. Hogan stated that staff would provide materia illustrating the previous amendment to the pro- posed changes related to Amendment No . 536 , •as pe Commissioner Beek' s request. Mr. Coffin stated that continuing '.it for a month would put it well past 45 days after the first published notice of this hearing and he strongly suggested that they obtain permission from The Irvine Company before continuing it . Ayes x x x x Motion was then voted on , which MOTION CARRIED. Noes x x -16- COMMISSIONERS • MINUTES w n October 4, 1979 N y City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Motion x Motion was made to continue the remainder of the All Ayes items to the regular Planning Commission meeting on November 8, 1979. Motion x Motion was made to cancel the regular Planning Ayes x x YX x Y Commission meeting on November 22, 1979, due' to Noes x the Thanksgiving holidays . Request to consider a Phasing Plan for the remain Item #9 ing development in the Civic Plaza Planned Com- munity District, and the acceptance of an Environ PHASING mental Document. PLAN LOCATION: The Planned' Community of Civic CONTINUED Plaza, generally bounded by San TO OC OOBER Joaquin Hills Road , Santa Cruz 18, 1979 Drive, San Clemente Drive, Santa Barbara Drive , and Jamboree Road , in Newport Center. ZONE: ' P-C APPLICANT: The Irvine Company, Newport. Beach OWNER: Same as Applicant Motion Y Motion was made to continue this item to the re- All Ayes gular Planning Commission meeting of October 18, 1979 . Request to allow front yard setbacks between 10 Item #10 feet and 1.5 feet, measured from back of sidewalk , for garages on various custom single family resi - MODIFI- dential lots in Harbor Ridge (where the P-C text CATION NO . provides that garage spaces facing an access 2457 street shall observe a 5 foot setback or a mini- mum setback of 20 feet, measured .from back of CONTINUED: sidewalk) . TO OCTO- BER 18, LOCATION: Lot Nos . 1 , 2, 3, 5 , 6, 7 , 9 , 15 , 1979- 23, 24, 25 , 27 , 28 and 29 , Tract No. 9860, located northerly of -17- COMMISSIONERS 0 MINUTd-� September 20 , 1979 City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL ,/ INDEX Hill's (Baywood Apartments) . ZONE: APPLICANT The Irvine Company , Newport Beach OWNp,R. Same as Applicant a E GINEER: Robert Bein , William Frost, & As- sociates , Newport Beach Motion "'x Motion was made to continue this item to the re- Ayes x x x x gul,ar Planning Commission meeting on October 4, A ent * 1919, due to -the lateness of the hour. Request to consider a Phasing Plan for the remain- Item #9 ing development in the Civic Plaza Planned Com- munity District, and the acceptance of an Environ- 'PHASING mental Document. P Y= LOCATION: The Planned Community of Civic CONTINUED Plaza , generally bounded by San TO OC OBE Joaquin Hills Road , Santa Cruz Drive , San Clemente Drive , Santa Barbara Drive, and Jamboree Road , in Newport Center. ZONE: P-C APPLICANT: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as Applicant Motion x Motion was made to continue this item to the re- Ayes x x K x x gular Planning Commission meeting on October 4, Absent * * 19.79 , due to the lateness of the hour. Request to allow front yard setbacks between 10 Item #lA feet and 15 feet, measured from back of sidewalk, i'ov-rgarages on various custom single family resi- MODIFICCAA- dentia'1w-1 is in Harbor Ridge ('where the P-C text _ COMMISSIONERS MINUTES ? September 20 , 1979 i F 17 WK 11 City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Motion x 'Motion was made to continue this item to the e- Ayes x x x x gular Planning Commission meeting on Octobe 4, Absent * 1979 , due to the lateness of the hour.. Request to amend the Planned Community Development Item #7 Plan for Harbor View Hills so as to permit the expansion Area No . 8 (Baywood Apart ents) of the .AMENDMENT Planned Community for additional tt�� lti-family NO. 536 residential units , and the accep fince of an 'Environmental Document. CONTINUED TOBER LOCATION: Parcel No. 1 , Parcel Map 45-10 4, 1979 (Resubdivisio No. 311) , and a por- tion of Blocks 92 and 93, Irvine ' s Subdivisior located at 160,1 San Miguel DrY e; on the 'northeasterly side of San Joaquin Hills Road, between/MacArthur Boulevard and San Mi uel Drive in Harbor View Hills Baywood Apartments) . ZONE: P- APPLICA/to he Irvine Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as Applicant Motion x Motion to continue this item to the re- Ayes x x x x gular PICommission meeting on October 4, Absent * * 1979 , e lateness of the hour. Re uest to combine one parcel and a portion of ltem #8 B ocks 92 and 93 of Irvine ' s Subdivi'sion into one i uilding site so as to permit the expansion of RESUBDI- the Baywood Apartment complex on the property. VT—Sluff— W.--6"37 LOCAThON: Parcel No. 1 , Parcel Map 45-10 (Resubdivision No. 311) , and a por- CONTINUED tion of Blocks 92 and 93 , Irvine' s TO OCTOBER r Subdivision , located at 1601 San Miguel Drive, on the northeasterly side of San Joaquin Hills Road , between MacArthur Boulevard, and San Miguel Drive in Harbor View -19- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES lopeci'al Adjourned Meeting August 16 , 1979 RE 1 City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX 4 o the Supreme Court , building permit/ae ded or vesting and that he would suggest a finding , rather than a condition . " • E " In response to another question posedis- Toner McLaughlin , Mr. Hendrickson re' at hey would be required to provide qX the neces- ary erosion control measures to f(sure that there ould not be further degradatito the back bay. ommissioners Haidinger and Bt, alis expressed thei upport of the Motion . ommi'ssioner Allen stated that she would not sup- ort the Motion , due to er feeling that the City as in its General Pl,,��n the intent always specifie that industrial development was to be permitted ithin the City to,Gdf�`rovide a tax base and therefor o enhance the rep idential character of the City ; n light of thVeibconomic study , industrial does of provide the tax base that does low-density r•e- idential ; a648 therefore , this is not consistent ith the/Geral Plan. ommiss.),6ner Thomas stated that he .would not sup- ort ttie Motion , due to his feeling that also in he General Plan is that of minimizing alterations fffand form and protection of the Upper Bay and fh'at the project is in close proximity to the Up- er Bay and there is , therefore, the possibility / I f increased siltation . i ommissioner Beek stated that he could not support he Motion due to his feeling that the General Pla tates that we should maintain a high-quality re- ;% idential community and that there is already too uch commercial and industrial within the City. Ayes x x x x ubstitute Motion was then voted on , which MOTION ' Noes x x ARRIED . equest to consider a Phasing Plan for the remain- Item 96 ng development in the Civic Plaza Planned Co'mmun- ty District, and the acceptance of an Environmen- . PHASING al Document. PE V OCATION : The Planned Community of Civic ICONTIN- Plaza , generally bounded by 'San FEDTOI79 -55- COMMISSIONERS MINU DES�- *ecial Adjourned Meeting August 16, 1979 City of Newport 'Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Joaquin Hills Road, Santa Cruz Drive , San Clemente Drive , Santa Barbara Drive, and Jamboree .Road, in Newport Center. ZONE: P-C PPLICANT: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach OWNER:. Same as Applicant Motion x Motion was made to continue Agenda Item No. 6, Phasing Plan , to 'the regular Planning Commission eeting of August 23 , 1979. Motion x 3ubstituteMotion was made that the regular Plan- Ayes XK x ling Commission meeting of August 23 , 1979 be can- Noes x x x x elled, due to the fact that three Commissioners ould not, be in attendance at that meeting. Ayes x x riginal Motion was then voted on , which MOTION Noes x x Y x x AILED . Motion x otion was then made to continue Agenda Item No . Ayes x xx x , Phasing Plan , to the regular Planning Commissio Noes x neeting of September 20 , 1979 . Abstain x x equest to create two parcels of land for develop- Item #7 ent in Koll Center 'Newport. RESUB- OCATION: Parcel No. 2 , Parcel Map 11'4-19 DI ISION (Resubdivision No. 567) located at 6 4600 MacArthur Boulevard on propert bounded by MacArthur Boulevard , CONTINUED Birch Street, and Von Karman Avenue TO SEPT- in Koll Center Newport. EMBER 65 1979 ONE: P-C PPLICANT: Aetna Life Insurance Co . , c/o The Koll Company , Newport Beach WNER: Same as Applicant NGINEER: Robert Bein , William Frost & Assoc- iatet , Newport Beach -56- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES �pecial Adjourned Meeting August 16 , 1979 City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Agenda Item No . 7 , Resubdivision No. 635 , was con- tinued to the regular Planning Commission meeting of September 6 , 1979 , as per the applicant' s re- quest. Request to permit the expansion of an existing com Item #7 ercial building on a lot in a Specific Plan Area here a specific plan has not been adopted , and SITE PLAN the acceptance of an Environmental Document. A REVIEW NO , .` modification to the Zoning Code is also req.uested , P3 since a tandem parking space is proposed (where the Ordinance provides that all required parking APPROVED. % spaces shall be accessible and usable) . C NDI- T-17611AL L Y OCATION: A portion of Lot 4 , Tract No : 27 , located at 470 North Newport Boule- t vard , on the ,easterly side of North Newport Boulevard , between Bolsa Avenue and Westminster Avenue , ad- jacent to Newport Heights : ONE : C-1 PPLICANT: Brion S. Jeannette , Beach OWNERS : B' con and Bonnie Jeannette , Newport Bea• The Public Hearing\waspened regarding this item nd Brion Jeannette , Applicant , 4.00 Santa Ana venUe , appeared before thh Planning Commission to state his concurrence with a conditions as state in the Staff Report. n response to a question posed by Commissioner cLaughlin , Mr. Jeannette repliedAkthat some of the arking will be satisfied by some Xf the over paces at Le Biarritz Restaurant abN t three lots own , because the parking structure t\,Iestaurant , ore than the required parking for thhich puts them up by three parking sMotion x otion was made that the Planning ComAll Ayes he following findings : L. The proposed development is consthe General Plan and will not precluete -57- COMMISSIONERS . MINAs — ' peci.al Adjourned Meeting August 16 , 1979 City of New ort Beach ROLL CALL INDEX attainment of the General Plan objectives and policies . 2. The proposed development is a high-quali proposal and will not adversely affect e benefits of occupancy a•nd use of exiZer 'ing properties within the area. 3. The proposed development does not a sely affect the public benefits derived,,«+ rom ex- penditures of public funds for im 'rovement and beautification of street and. ublic fa- cilities within the area. The proposed development promq es the mainten ance of superior site locatioii characteristic adjoining major tharoughfar S of City-wide importance . 5. The project will not hav any significant en vironmental impact. S . Adequate parking s ace.4 and related vehicular q P 9 P circulation will be provided in conjunction with the proposed dgf4e1opment. 7. That the establistI��fient of one tandem parking P s ace will not urfider the circumstances of the articular case be detrimental to the health., safety,/fpeace, comfort and general welfare of perf§ons residing or working in the neighborhood �Of such proposed use or be detri - mental or injurious to property and improve- ments in thh' neighborhood or the general wel- fare of the" City and further that the propose modificaVion is consistent with the legisla- tive int1�nt of Title 20 of this Code. and approve ySite Plan Review No. 23 , subject to he follo That w,y�develoment shall Png conditions : 1. Y 11 be in substantial con- formance with the approved plot plan , floor p,l,an , elevation , and signs . ;?that a minimum of one parking space for each 250 sq . ft. of net floor area shall be pro- vided on the subject property. COMMISSIONERS 16 • MINUTES August 9 , 1979 1 City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Request to subdivide 77 ± acres t4i o ten lots for Item #7 industrial/office development 4d two lots for public streets in the North ord Planned Commun- TENTA- ity , and the acceptance of an Environmental Docu- TIVE MAP ent. OF TRACT NO. 1001 LOCATION : A po iron of Lots 224 , 442 and 444, B1q�V'k 57 of Irvine ' s Subdivision , CONTIN- e,004 bscated on property bounded by -the UED TO xtension of Bison Avenue , Camel - ADJOURN- back Street, Jamboree Road , the D�E7- extension of Eastbluff -Drive , and ING AUG- MacArthur Boulevard in the Plan- UST 160 ned Community of North Ford . 1979 BONE : P-C PPLICANT: The Irvine •Company, Newport Beach WNER: Same as Applicant Motion x 4otion was made to continue Agenda Item No . 7 to. All Ayes;' special Adjourned Planning Commission meeting on ugust 16 , 1979 at 6 : 30 p .m. Request to consider a Phasing Plan for the remain- Item #8 'ng development in the Civic Plaza Planned Com- unity District , and the acceptance of an Environ- PHASING ental Document. PLL ITN_ OCATION: The Planned Community of Civic CONTIN- Plaza , generally bounded by San Ulr`�fD O Joaquin Hills Road , Santa Cruz Drive , San Clemente Drive , Santa UD Barbara Drive , and Jamboree TNff1_AUG,- Road , in Newport Center. UST16 , S— ONE : P-C PPLICANT: The Irvine Company , Newport Beach -18- COMMISSIONERS . it MINUTES � x s D August 9 , 1979 N y I City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Beek responded that he believes th applicants effort to be sincere , but that the City of Newport Beach did not have its judge nts made on this issue . Mr. Morrissey volunteered to work with th City Attorney's office to draft an acceptable agree- ment. Chairman Balalis noted it could be a ondition of approval and they could vote on it this time. Commissioner Cokas discussed admi stration . Commissioner Thomas commented t at they need to establish the criteria and mec anics of the proposal . Commissioner Beek suggeste4 that Mr. Morrissey prepare a draft agreement or review. Commissioner Thomas com ented he would like to see a priority clause , or' employees . Motion X Motion was made by mmissioner Haidinger to Ayes X X X XX X continue this. matt , to the meeting of August 16, Noes 1979 . ALL AYES - TION CARRIED . Abstain * * * . Set for publi hearing on September 6 , 1979 , pro- Item #6 posed amendm nts to the Land Use , Residential Growth , Ope Space and Circulation Elements of GENERAL the Gener Plan . ,PLAN AMEND- INITIAT BY: The City of Newport Beach MENT NO . 79-1 Motion x Moti -n was made to set for public hearing for SET FOR Ayes x x x x Sep-tember 6 , 1979 , Agenda Item No. 6, General pu� Noes x P)Kin Amendment 79-1. NEARING * * * T'997T _ l -17- C,UMMISSIONERSth MINUTES August 9 , 1979 City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX OWNER: Same as Applicant Motion Motion was made to continue Agenda Item No . 8 to All Ayes a special Adjourned Planning Commission meeting on August 16 , 1979 at 6 : 30 p .m. Request to create two parcels of land for develop- Item #9 ent in Koll Center Newport. RESUB- LOCATION : Parcel No . 2 , Parcel Map 114-19 D-IVISION (Resubdivision No . 567) located at NO. 63:5 , 4600 MacArthur Boulevard , on pro- perty bounded by MacArthur Boul 'e- CONTIN- vard , Birch Street and Von Karman UED TO Avenue in Koll Center Newport. ADJOURN, ED MEET- ZONE : P-C ING AUG- UST 16 , PPLICANT: Aetna Life Insurance Co. , c/o The - 1979 `w Koll Company , Newport Beach WNERk. Same as Applicant '4., NGINEEf , Robert Bein , William Frost & Asso- ciates , Newport Beach Motion x 4otion was made`o�,t� o continue Agenda Item No . 9 to All Ayes special Adjouff ed Planning Commission meeting on' ugust 16 , 1979 al%,6 : 30 p .m. equest to permit the expansion of an existing com Item #10 ercial building on a lot i,n a Specific Plan Area here a specific plan has not been adopted , and SITE PLA he acceptance of an Environmek�tal Document. A REVIEW odifi•cation to the Zoning Code also requested , NO . 23 ince a tandem parking space is p'j�oposed (where th rdinance provides that all require parking space CONTIN- hall be accessible and usable ) . UED TO ADJOURN- ED MEET- ING AUG- UST 16 , 1 79 -19- . _4 COMMISSIONERS . MINUTES August 9 , 1979 City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX LOCATION : A portion of Lot 4 , Tract No . 27 , located at 470 North Newport Both e- vard , on the easterly side of rth Newport Boulevard , between Bo , a Avenue and Westminster Avenu , ad- jacent to Newport Heights . ZONE : C-1 APPLICANT: Brion S. Jeannette , Ne or t Beach OWNERS : Brion and Bonni/nda n44//ette, Newport Beach Motion Motion was made to continue Agtem No. 10 to All Ayes a special Adjourned Planning Gommission meeting on ugust 16 , 1979 at 6 : 30 p..m� Request to amend a prevjoously approved use permit Item #11 that allowed the constAuction of a restaurant with on-sale alcoholic bev9'rages so as to permit an USE PER- additional freestanc1;g identification sign on the' Its T NO. site . rF 1671 OCATION: P, -rcel 1 of Parcel Map 60-30 (Re- CONTIN- ubdivision No . 425) located at UED TO P3300 West Coast Highway , on the ADJOURN-, (' northerly side of West Coast High- ED ME'ET- /' way, east of Newport Boulevard ING AUG- on Mariner' s Mile . UST 16 , r�ONE: Specific Plan Area No. 5 1979 PPLIfi!(NT: Allyn Cano , dba . Cha Cha ' s Mexican Food , Newport Beach WP' R; Byco , Inc . , Newport Beach Motion x lotion was made to continue Agenda Item No . 11 to All Ayes a special Adjourned Planning Commission meeting on• ugust 16 , 1979 at 6 : 30 p .m. -20- City Council Meeting December 11 , 1978 Agenda Item No . D-1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH De.cember 7, 1978 TO: City Council FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Public Hearing and City Council Review of Planning Commission s Action of November 9 , 1978 , approving a request for exception from the requirements of Chapter 15 .40 of the Newport Beach Munici al Code Traffic Phasing Ordinance for the proposed develop- ment in compliance with the approved Planned Community Development Plan for Civic Plaza . LOCATION : Bounded by San Joaquin Hills Road , Santa Cruz Drive , San Clemente Drive , and Santa Barbara Drive , in Newport Center. ZONE: P-C APPLICANT: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as Applicant Request This application requests that a determination be made as to whether or not the Civic Plaza Planned Community sho.uld be "excepted" in accord- ance with Section 15 . 40 .030( D) ( i ) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code ( Traffic Phasing Ordinance ) . Required procedures and findings are set forth under Section 15 . 40 .030 of the Code . Suggested Action Hold hearing; close hearing; if desired, sustain , modify or overrule the decision of the Planning Commission . Planning Commission Action At its meeting of November 9 , 1978, the Planning Commission voted (5 Ayes - 2 Noes ) to concur with The Irvine Company ' s position paper regarding the "exception " of the Civic Plaza Planned Community and made the following finding regarding the applicant ' s request: 1 . The City issued a building or grading permit for the project prior to the effective date of Chapter 15 . 40 TO: Ci ty Counc o i l - 2 . of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and that the person to whom such permit was issued has in good faith and in reliance upon such permit diligently commenced construc- tion and substantial liabilities for work and materials necessary therefor. No change causing a substantial increase in traffic volumes may be made in such project, except in accordance with the provision of Chapter 15 .40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code . Attached for the information and review of the 'City Council is a copy of the Planning Commission Staff Report, an excerpt from the draft of the Commission ' s minutes and other documents used by the Planning Commission in making its decision . Prior Actions by the City Council The City Council at its meeting of June 12, 1978, determined that Civic Plaza was not excepted and therefore would be subject to the provisions of Council Policy S-1 , and repeated that decision in find- ing that Civic Plaza would be subject to the requirements of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance at its meeting of July 11 , 1978 . If it fs again determined that Civic Plaza should be required to comply With the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, and that The Irvine Company ' s application for exception under the provisions of Section 15 . 40 .030 ('a (ii ) (D) (i ) should be denied, the following findings are suggested for the Council ' s consideration: 1 . It was the intent of the Council in enacting the exception clause of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance to protect the rights of a private investor who had obtained building or grading permits prior to the enactment of the ordin- ance and made substantial investments for construction in reliance upon such permits . Although the Art Museum and Library are in the Planned Community , neither of these is a private development from which a private investor could expect a return on his investment. 2. Contributions to either the Art Museum or the Library cannot be used as substitutes for the requirement of a building or grading permit and construction of private development. 3. The Planned Community of Civic P1'aza was approved by the City Council on December 22 , 1975 and became effective on January 21 , 1976 . 4 . The completion date for each of the surrounding roads Was as follows : a ) San Joaquin Hills Road - 1967 b) Santa Cruz Drive - 1967 c) Santa Barbara Drive - 1975 d) San Clemente Drive - 1975 TO: City Council - 3. All of the above streets were completed prior to the effective date of the Civic Plaza Planned Community and therefore were not constructed as a part of the Planned Community nor in reliance on a building or grading permit issued in compliance with the Planned Community . 5. No utilities have been constructed within that portion of the project to be used for private development. The infrastructure , including sewerage , water, gas , power and telephone lines , was all installed along with the street system prior to the approval of the Planned Community, with the single exception of the water lines installed at the time of construction of the Art Museum and Library and stubbed out at the boundary of the area to be used for private development. 6. The Newport Beach Fire and Police facilities ' building , the automobile dealership , and the service station are not a part of the Civic Plaza Planned Community . 7. The Irvine Company has not diligently pursued develop- ment of the Planned Community in that no application for a grading permit or building permit has been sub- mitted, and no construction has occurred in the section of the Planned Community to be used for private develop- ment since the approval of the Planned Community Text in December of 1975 . 8. A detailed plan , including streets , driveways and build- ing locations , has not been submitted for the development of that section of the Planned Community to be used for private purposes , and it is clear that San Clemente Drive was not a part of the Planned Community since no plans were made at the time of construction for access points to the street, and new curb cuts had to be provided even for the Art Museum and the Library . 9 . The project does not qualify for an exception in that no construction within the area of the project intended for private development was done prior to the enactment of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance in reliance upon a building or grading permit issued by the City . Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUU TY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN , Director by Q ( JAIJES D. HEW CKER Ass 'stant Director - Planning JDH/kk TO: City Council - 4. Attachments for City Council only: 1 ) Planning Commission Staff Report with attachments 2 ) Excerpt from draft of Commission ' s minu,te.s 3) Outline of Irvine Company ' s position on Civic Plaza (NOTE: Original Position Paper has already been distributed to the City Council by The Irvine Company) 4) City Attorney' s report to Planning Commission 5 ) Correspondence between the Newport Harbor Art Museum and The Irvine Company regarding costs for grading and utilities 6) Agreement between The Irvine Company and the City of Newport Beach for the purchase of the Library site C RCQ61mmm,ft /\"\ T?e+welwvuY 9 JUL 3 ©197'9;,- V: ii OF NEW,"vvo udACK (� CALL-. APPENDIX If p 1 r w [late Filed July 26, 1979 Environmental Information Form (To be completed by applicant) CENERAL INFORMATION 1. Name and address of developer or project sponsor: The Irvine Company, 550 Newport Cet;ter. Drive NeWprtrr R , .A--9L246-3------ 2. Address of project: Civic Pla a N 0,1g94•- Assessor's Block and Lot Number 3. Name, address, and telephone Hendrickson,of person50 t t be cCentontact ed concerning this project: Ron Newport ,Bpayh, 4 . Indicate number of the permit application for the project to which this form pertains: Traffic Phasing plan-• ( 5-. 1:1EE EFC1 any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, including those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies. Building permit only 6. Existing zoning district: Planned Community Di•� rimer 7rhasinge of Plan fore (Project for commerc al/offic`eich this de� form isfiled) : TdiR icpg J PROJECT 8. Site size. 26 acres 9. Squarc rootage . 306,706 sq. ft. allowed 1�• :-:•.iber of floors or con,;tr•ucLion. 1-5 allowed or ofl•-streeL parking prwvJdu(I - Not available Attach pla110 . See Traffic Phasing Plan & P.C. text lt . Proposed schedullltf,• 30% for occupancy 1980; 70% in 1981 111 , Associated project-,-- . None 15. Anticipated Incremental deve3opmrnt . 30% to begin within 3 months, 70% to be under construction during 1980. 1 A H 16. if residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and- type of household elze expected. 17. 'If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading facilities. See Civic Plaza P.C. Text 18. If industrial; indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities. 19. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift,, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project. 20. If the project involves a variance, conditional use or rezoning application, state this and indicate clearly why the application is required. Are the following items. applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary) . YES N0 X 21. Change in existing features of any bays, tidelands, — beaches, lakes or hills, -or substantial alteration of ground contours. X 22 . Change in scenic views or vistas from existing, residential areas or public lands or roads. ,X 23 . Change in pattern, scale or character .of general area of project . X 24 . significant amounts of solid waste or litter. 25. Change- in dust, ash, smoke, t'umes or odors In vicinity. X 26. Change in ocean, bay, lake, nLroam or ground water "— '-'— quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns . X 217, . 6ubnLantlal change in exist.lnp, nulsc or vibraLlon levels An the vicinity . 28. .Site on filled land or. on slots'.: of 10 percent. or more. i_ X 29. Use of disposal of potentially 11a ardollJ materials, such as toxic substances, flammablcs or explosives . x3 YE_" No X _;o• Substantial change in demand 1'or• municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc. )•. X •31 . Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption -- (electricity, oil, natural gas, eLe . ) . X 32 • Relationship to a larger project or series of — ,projects. ENVIRONrSNTAL SETTING 33• Describe the project site as It exists before the project, Including information on topography, soil stabiliLy, plants and animals, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe te, and se of Attach photo an graphs the be accepted. Project is application for approval of Traffic Phasing Plan. 34 . Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and typeany of landuuse, historical or scenic (residential, commercial, aspects . Indicate the type ets . ) , intensity of land use (one-family apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc . ) , and scale of AttachevelopphotoLrapnstof the frontage, set-back, rear yard, etc . ) . vicinity. Snapshots or polaroid photos will be accepted. Project is application for approval of Traffic Phasing Plan CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished s prescl,t; or- matlona required efor tthis dinitial tevaluation tto the he a'besd f t or my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Date July 26 1979 Ft­_4TIgna ure The Irvine• Cpmpany__.• ___ _ �I ( APPENDIX I FNVIRONMENTAL CHECFLIST FORM Environmental Checklist Form (To Be Completed By Lead Agency) I. Background 1. Name of Proponent S•r�t9 /Y f 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent 3. Date of Checklist Submission pp 7V30/71 4. Agency Requiring Checklist S. Name of Proposal, if applicablec II. Environmental Impacts (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) YES MAYBE NO 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? _ b. Disruptions, displacements, com- paction or overcovering of the soil? _ c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? _ •d. The destruction, covering or modi- fication of any unique geologic or ✓_ physical features? _ e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? 73 1 YES MAYBE NO r� g. Exposure of people or property to , geological hazards such as earth- quakes, landslides, mudslides, ground t/ failure, or similar hazards? _ 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deteri- oration of ambient air quality? / b. The creation of objectionable odors? V c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? _ 9. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either l� marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates., drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? — c. Alterations to the course of flow of flood waters? — d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? — e. Discharge into surface waters or in !I any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or . turbj.dity? T— f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? _ g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct addi- tions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as L/ flooding or tidal waves? 74 i a - PPE-2A:22 • � G I i r YES MAYBE NO l 4. Plant Life. will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any 'species of plants /. (including trees, shrubs, grass, 1/ crops, and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? a t d. Reduction in acreage of any iagricultural crop? -- 1 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, ✓ or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, / rare or endangered species of animals? l/ c. Introduction of new species of ani- mals into an area, or result in a V barrier to the migration or movement of animals? --- d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? --- 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: / a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? -- - 7. L�ht and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? • 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a V substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? t 75 YES NAYRF P10 ( 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any 1/ natural resources? _ b. Substantial depletion of any non— renewable natural resource? 10. Risk of Lrpset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? _ .11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth V rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand V for additional housing? — 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Ceneration of substantial additional vehicular movement? y b. Ef"ects on existing parking facilities, / or demand for new parking? (� — c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of / circulation or movement of people and/or goods? _ e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? i f. Increase in traffic hazardous to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effzct upon, or result in a need for new or altared governmental services in any of the folicwing areas: -- -- 76 PPE-2A:24 a YES MAYBE ' NO a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? _ e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? / f. Other governmental services? J 15. Energy Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or / energy? v b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require / the development of new sources of I/ energy? 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? C. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? - 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 77 q YES MAYBE NO l 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity 1 of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Archeological/Historical. Will thf! proposal result in an alteration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object or building? 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the• project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal'community, reduce the pumber or restrict the range of a tare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 1 � t I b. Does the 'project have the potential to ^ { achieve short-term, to the disadvantage f of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief definitive period of time while long- term impacts will endure well into the future.) c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumu- latively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) _ d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? _ III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation TV. Determination (So be. completed by the Lead Agency) � 13� --�► ` � �3A ) \313 � 78 ?Vna4k� P cIJJ , O 15 _40 zcc� r'� PP8-2A:Yb Ib On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect ll be prepared. on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION wi I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant-effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. • ED I find the nt environment,pandoand project MAY have a ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT RF.PORTfisarequired effect on the */)7 I . Date signature For i (Note: This is only a suggested form. Public agenc es are free to devise I IItheir own format for initial studies.) I i i 'r i 79 / DEPAOCITY OF NEUPORT BEACH , .1ENT OF C01•; U,'IITY DEVELOMI.ENT PLAN REVIEII REQUEST LSD Da to February 23, 1979• L4<DVANCE PLANNING DIVISION J]cPLANS ATTACHED (PLEASE RE7UPP1 []PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT • []TRAFFIC ENGINEER, ['PLANS ON FILE IN ZOi1ING AND [ FIP,E DEPARTMENT OP,DINANCE ADMINISTRATION QPLA?4 REVIEW DIVISION DIVISION EIPAP,KS 8 RECREATION ❑POLICE DEPARTMENT [] MARINE SAFETY GGE.NERAL SERVICES APPLICATION OF The Irvine Company M FOP. A QVAP,IAPICE [JUSE PERMIT QPESUBDIVISION 0•)*XVVXNWbTraffic Phasing Plan ON .A REQUEST W • for a Traffic Phasing Plan for the C-ivic Plaza Planned• Community •' • in accordance with City Council Resolution No. .9472. .- ON LOT BLOCK TRACT ADDRESS The Civic Plaza Planned. Community District is located in Newport Center, near the intersectiort of Jamboree Road .and San Joaquin Hills' Road. REPORT REQUESTED BY 3/7/79 COMMISSION REVIEW 3/22/79 COMMEPITS CAk As.4 An Q S I GNATUP,E DATE— CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DEPARTMENT OF COM(UNITY DEVELOPf:ENT PLAN REVIEW REQUEST d Date February 23, 1979 U-9t)VANCE PLAPlNING DIVISION @c PLANS ATTACHED {PLEASE RETUPI 1ABLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT " Q FFIC ENGINEER QpLANS .ON FILE LN ZONING AND [] FIRE DEPARTMENT ORDINANCE ADMINISTRATION EfPLAN REVIEW DIVISION DIVISION v' QPARKS & RECREATION ❑POLICE DEPARTMENT ❑ MARINE SAFETY [[[GENERAL SERVICES APPLICATION OF The Irvine Company FOR A EIVARIANCE J]USE PERMIT QRESUBDIVISION Traffic Phasing Plan ON A REQUEST ! for a Traffic 'PYiasing Plan for the Givic Plaza Planned- Community in accordance with City Council Resolution No. .9472. •' • K ON LOT BLOCK TRACT ' ADDRESS The Civic Plaza Planned. Community District is located in Newport Center, near the j intersecti.orf of Jamboree Road .and San Joaquin Hills' Road. P.EPO•RT REQUESTED BY 3/7/79 COMMISSION REVIEW 3/22/79 COMMENTS SIGNATURE DATE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DEPARTMENT OF C011 MUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW REQUEST Date -4zzL q 9ADVANCE PLANNING DIVISION j(PLANS ATTACHED (PLEASE RETUP.ri '•PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT J,TRAFFIC ENGINEER QpLArlS .Or! FILE IN ZONING ArID i ❑ FIRE DEPARTMENT ORDINANCE ADMINISTRATION QPLAN REVIEW DIVISION DIVISION EIPARKS 8 RECREATION ❑POLICE DEPARTMENT ❑ 1•14RINE SAFETY QGENERAL SERVICES APPLICATION OF_ ' lcB Tz.ulNc. �Da+►pAN�/ ' FOR A QVARIANCE []USE PERMIT QRSSUBDIVISION ON A REQUEST 1*r-dr A, `T'siacc:c tiaa' 1�1aN roc -t�tL �!! towtoo cdniiMAUt"C�) 64,a^c [)C&kklcf, WIT l.ttN t�O itJc�' coE �tJ A122 ON LOT BLOCK TRACT ADDRESS_ REPORT REQUESTED BY__�P.—.�_�_� COMMISSION REVIEW COMMENTS SIGNATUP.E DATE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DEPAWrMENT OF COAt;iUNITY DEVELMi':ENT PLAN REVIEW REQUEST --��---"" Date February 23, 1979 � w Y` . (ADVANCE PLANNING DIVISION EPLANS ATTACHED (PLEASE RETURN ' [IPUBLIC WOP.KS DEPARTMENT 0--I`RAFFIC ENGINEER, []PLANS ON FILE IN ZONING AND j] FIP,E DEPARTMENT ORDINANCE ADMINISTRATION LIPLAN REVIEI4 DIVISION DIVISION LIPARKS 8 RECP,EATION OPOLICE DEPARTMENT ❑ MARINE SAFETY E[GENERAL SERVICES APPLICATION OF The Irvine Company FOP, A QVARIANCE J]USE PERMIT QPE.SUBDIVISION G-ffiXtY�X&bTraffic Phasing Plan ON A REQUEST fo.r a Traffic Phasing Plan for the Civic Plaza PIanYied: Community in accordance with City Council Resolution No. .9472. •' ON LOT BLOCK TRACT ADDRESS The Civic Plaza Planned. Community District is located in Newport Center, near the . intersecti.orl of Jamboree Road •and San Joaquin Hills' Road. REPORT REQUESTED BY 3/7/79 COMMISSION REVIEW 3/22/79 COMMENTS • gy`:aT o� 9> S I GNA UP.E DATE March 5, 1979 TRAFFIC PHASING PLAN CIVIC PLAZA COMMENTS 1 . I find no mention of Civic Plaza in my copy of Resolution 9472. 2. Pg. 4, first line of last paragraph -- should read "Res. 9472". 3. Report gives no timetable for development. 4. Report does not appear to include traffic from other projects as was requested in our meeting with the consultant on February 1 , 1979. 5. Report indicates no development beyond 30% may occur until completion of the bridge. This is not well documented. 6. Report uses old data for Bristol Street North/Campus Drive intersection. �rc�iKvxa�v�- Richard M. Edmonston Traffic Engineer RME:dcc _t_._ _ _ _.__._._._._..__._.._--- _ __ __..__._.._.r-- .r:��_���M� i1 -------- RECEIPT �EWPORA CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1 NEW PORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92663 No. 13272 E 19 '(���r_` MFOR: 3 • ` SC.G ACCOUNT NO AC20UNT NO,}+, y� ��� 'V ✓Y/f'1 DEPARTME T + +--___________--___---__— -� 4 -- CITY OF NEW PORT BEACH RECEIPT SEW PART p NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92663 No. 13271 i t000 M P `� 19 �O RECEIVED FRO i FOR: ACCOUNT NO ACCOUNT NO n © DEPARTME i _ DATE TO: ❑ MAYOR ❑ GEN. SERVICES ❑ COUNCIL ❑ LIBRARY ❑ MANAGER ❑ MARINE ❑ ADM IN. ASST. ❑ PARKS& REC. ❑ ATTORNEY ❑ PERSONNEL ❑ CITY CLERK ❑ POLICE Q,*u,06 COMM. DEV. ❑ PUBLIC WORKS ❑ DATA PROC. ❑ PURCHASING ❑ FINANCE ❑ TRAFFIC ❑ FIRE ❑ UTILITIES FOR: ❑ ACTION & DISPOSITION ❑ FILE ❑ INFORMATION ❑ REVIEW&COMM SD y F REMARKS: � '. COT 3 _ FROM• THE IRVINE COMPMY 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92663 (714) 644-3011 TO: Chris Gustin DATE:. October 1 , 1980 Planning Department City of Newport Beach SUBJECT: Civic Plaza - Condition of Approval 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Gentlemen: We are forwarding to you via: MAIL ENCLOSURE X SEPARATE COVER BLUEPRINTER OTHER THE FOLLOWING: Letter of agreement to James Hewicker, Director of Planning. Check #P516484 deposit for the construction of a wall on the westerly side of Jamboree Ro ad between Eastbluff and Ford Road - $44,530.00 Check 0516485 - contribution to Circulation and Transit Fund - $90,000.00 Approved as noted 'To be corrected as noted To be re-submitted For your approval As requested by you For your files & information Yours very truly, cc: BY� Thomas T. Brull Project Manager THE IRVINE CWPAW � 550 Newport Center Drive, P.O. Box I Newport Beach,California 92663 (714) 644-3011 September 26, 1980 Mr. James Hewicker Director of Planning City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 RE: CIVIC PLAZA - CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Dear Mr. Hewicker: By this letter, The Irvine Company acknowledges receipt of the Civic Plaza conditions of approval as adopted by the City of Newport Beach City Council on February 11 , 1980 (copy attached) . These conditions are hereby understood and agreed to as follows: Condition Number 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, & 8 The Irvine Company understands and agrees. 1 & 2 The Irvine Company understands that prior to occupancy of any development beyond the existing development and the 95,812 sq.ft. of new development, as set forth in condi- tion number 1 , the required circulation improvements listed in the Traffic Report, within The Irvine Company's reasonable ability to implement, will be constructed. If it is not possible to obtain-.all juris- dictional approvals for these required cir- culation improvements prior to occupancy, The Irvine Company will meet these require- ments through bonding or some other means acceptable to the City and The Irvine Company. 4. 1 September 26, 1980 Mr. James Hewicker Page 2 We acknowledge the Phasing Schedule as set forth by the City Council and modified as follows: Existing Development Art Museum 20,000 sq.ft. * Library 14,000 sq.ft. 1981 Occupancy Restaurant 8,000 sq.ft. *Offices 81 ,812 sq.ft. Offices 152,894 sq.ft. Occupancy after 1981 *Art Museum 10,000 sq.ft. *Theater 20,000 sq.ft. *Indicates change in anticipated occupancy. Sincerely, THE IRV C AN f Rich d M. Cannon Vice President Commercial/Industrial Division Civic Plaza - Conditions of Approval (1 through 8 City Council 2-11-80) 1 . That prior to the occupancy of •any buildings on the site beyond the existing development and 95,812 sq.ft. of new construction, the circulation system improvements contained in the Traffic Report, dated November 20, 1979, Table 5, Pages 7 through 9, and Planning Commission Minutes of December 20, 1979, shall have been constructed, (unless subsequent project• approval require modification thereto. The circulation systems' improvements shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer). That prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicants shall indicate to the Director of Planning Department, in writing, that they understand and agree to Condition no. 1 above. The following disclosure statement of the City of Newport Beach's policy regarding the Orange County Airport should be included in all leases or sub-leases for space in the- project and shall be included in any Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions which may be recorded against the property. Disclosure Statement The Lessee herein, his hei,rs,. successors and assigns acknowledge that: a) The Orange County Airport may not be able to provide adequate air service for business establishments which rely'on such service; b) When an alternate air facility is available, a complete phase-out of jet service mayoccur:at the Orange County Airport; c) The City of Newport Beach may continue to oppose additional commercial air service expansions at the Orange County 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 service at the Orange County Airport. _ 4. The on=site• parking will be-provided in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 5. Final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation of water- saving devices for project lavatories and other water-using facilities. . 6. The final design of the project shall provide for the sorting of recyclable material from other solid waste. The applicant shall contribute an amount equal to what would be the City's,* share of the cost of the free right-turn lane on Jamboree Road behind the Texaco Station ($90,000.00) to a Circulation and Transit Fund to be used at the discretion of the City for circulation and transit purposes in the Newport Center area. 8. That prior to the issuance of any building permit authorized by the approval of this Traffic PhasingPlan, the appljcapt_sha1J_deposit w3 th_the_Cj ky_Einance_Di_r_ector jA,.5.30I.b0.�o_bee u�-for the cons ruction of wall on the westerly side of-Jamboree Road between Eastbluff Drive. and Ford Road. Resubdivision 501 01-20-75) 1 . That a parcel map be filed. 2. That all public improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That sidewalk be constructed and street trees be planted in the northerly parkway of San Clemente Drive. 4. That access to the perimeter public streets be taken as shown on the site plan contained in the Civic Plaza Planned Community District Regulations being considered under Amendment No. 455; and that vehicular access rights be dedicated to the City of Newport Beach as follows: a. All vehicular access rights to San Joaquin Hills Road, except for one location at approximately the midpoint of the frontage; b. All vehicular access rights to Santa Cruz Drive; C. A11•.vehicular access rights to Santa Barbara 'Drive, except at the existing private' drive adjacent to the Fire Station. 'The actual dedication of the vehicular access rights may be deferred until a parcel map is. filed for the further subdivision of Parcel 3. 5. That all public utility easements to be dedicated to the City of Newport Beach have a minimum width of ten feet, with greater widths provided where required by the Public Works Department. 6. That the water capital improvement acreage fees be paid. 7. That storage capadity- in San Joaquin Reservoi-r equal to one maxiinum. day's demand be -dedicated to the City of Newport Beach. 8. That standard subdivision agreements with accompanying security be provided to guarantee completion of public improvements if it is desired to have building permits issued or the parcel map recorded prior to the completion of. the required public improvements. - 9. . Onsite fire hydrant locations shal•1 be approved by the Newport Beach Public Works and Fire Departments. 10. Fire Department equipment access shall - be approved by the Fire Department. 11 . Building addressing shall conform to the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code - Section 13.12.020. 12. That cross easements be established where necessary to ensure adequate circulation within the parking areas. 13. That the grading plan shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants• and shall be approved by the Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. - 2 - wig - r F PHASING SCHEDULE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT Art Museum 20,000 sq.ft. 1980 OCCUPANCY Library 14,000 sq.ft. Offices 81 ,812 sq.ft. 1981 OCCUPANCY Art Museum 10,000 sq.ft. Restaurant 8,000 sq.ft. Offices 152,894 sq.ft. Theatre• 20,000 sq.ft. �- A. 2< r _COMMISSIONERS MINUTES City of Newport Beach DRAFTo �� c o Z t November 9, 1978 ROLL CALL INDEX Item #12 Request for exception from the requirements of EXCEPTION Chapter 15 .40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code RE UEST (Traffic Phasing Ordinance) for the proposed devel - FROM opment in compliance with the approved Planned REQUIRE- Community Development Plan for Civic Plaza . MENTS F . B.M. C. Location : Bounded. by San Joaquin Hills Road, Santa Cruz Drive , San Clemente Drive, EXCEPTION and Santa Barbara Drive, in Newport GRANTED Center. Zone : P-C Applicant: The Irvine Company , Newport Beach Owner: Same as Applicant The staff presented additional information related to questions received from the Planning Commission during the study session on this item. The Irvine Company was asked to provide additional factual data to support their request, and staff made further investigations , as follows : 1 ) Purchase price to the City of the Library site from The Irvine Company was $279, 000. There are 1 .97 acres , 85 ,813 sq . ft. , so the City paid $3 . 2571 per sq . ft. . It was appraised in 1975 at $4.25 per sq . ft. . The City purchased the site a year later, so the discount amounted to approximate ly 25%. 2) Assuming that the museum site had approxi- mately the same value, approximately 2 acres at the $4 . 25 appraised value, the value of that site would be $370, 260 , which it is understood was donated by The Irvine Company to the Newport Harbor Art Museum. 3) In answer to questions as to who obtained the permits , the permits for grading of the museum site were issued to Robb Carley of Raub, Bein , and Frost, the project engineers . The grading was paid -30- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES City of Newport Beach oFs mp 02, November 9, 1978 ROLL CALL INDEk for by both the art museum and The Irvine Company . The Irvine Company subsequently reimbursed the art museum for their share of the cost. There was subsequent fine grading of the Library site , which the City paid for, of $1 ,200. This was required because the design of the library would not fit the configuration of the original grading. Motion X Motion was made that the Planning Commission declin Ayes X X to hear this item and direct the applicant to the Noes X X X X X City Council . It was the opinion of the maker of the motion that the City Council had accepted the procedure of deciding whether or not a project wa-s vested, prior to any application for building or grading permits . He considered this request before the Planning Commission a change in procedure which should be submitted to the City Council . Motion failed . 'Mr. Coff to was asked to explain the Planning Commis sion ' s options in this matter. He noted that, in regards to the legal options and responsibilities of the Planning Commission , the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, as it is presently constituted, puts the burden on the Planning Commission at the first stag to determine whether or not a project shool,d be excepted from the ordinance, It was his opinion that the earlier procedures referred to do not change the ordinance . It was pointed out that, in the past, at least one application for exemption from the p-rovisions of the Traffic Phasing Ordinanc had been considered by the Planning Commission and granted-. His opinion was based on Section 15 .40 .03 Subdivision D of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (Traffic Phasing Ordinance) , which states that the Planning Commission shall except any project from the requirements of this Chapter, Subdivision I , if it finds "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 permit was issued has , in good faith and in relianc upon such permit, diligently commenced construction sand performed and incurred substantial liabilities for work and materials necessary therefor. No change causing a substantial increase in traffic volume may be made in such project except in accord- ance with the provisions of this Chapter . " The -31 - } COMMISSIONERS • • MINUTES City of Newport Beach m v��1 9U am�oyc�`c O'Fs m,P f Z November 9 , 1978 ROU CALL INDEX ordinance does not necessarily require that the request for exception appear as an application for a building or grading permit, just that someone comes to the Commission at first stage requesting a project be excepted from the ordinance . Robert Shelton of The Irvine Company remarked that they understood , after a consultation with the City Attorney, based upon the past experience of the Ford Aeronutronic application , that they are doing exactly what both the ordinance requires and what has been done previously, and that is why they are before the Planning Commission and not before the City Council . John Butler, representing the Central Newport Beach Homeowners Association , asked for a defini- tion of vested property rights and was asked to wait until the public hearing was opened for an answer to questions such as this . The public hearing was opened in connection with this item and Robert Shelton of The Irvine Company appeared before the Planning Commission . He said that documents prepared by Latham & Watkins had been submitted to the Planning Commission to give the reasons why The Irvine Company feels exception status from the requirements of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance should be granted . He wanted to make clear that they are only dealing with the question of exception status , as distinguished from common law vesting. It was their opinion that this request meets the test which is established in the ordinance, and they believe, in fairness and in comparison to others that have achieved exception status , that this project should be accorded the same accomodation . Robert Break of Latham and Watkins appeared before the Planning Commission to comment on the legal aspects cts of their P request. He detail ed led their con- tention that Civic Plaza meets the exception requirements of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance : 1 ) Lt is a Planned Community and is a project -32- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES 1.0m City of Newport Beach °Z November 9, 1978 ROIL CALL INDE* by CEQA definition, legislative history of the ordinance indicating that any Planned Community is a project, and application of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance to other Planned Communities . 2) Building and grading permits were issued on the project prior to the effective date of the ordinance . Building and grading permits for Civic Plaza, specifically the Newport Harbor Art Museum, were issued in October, 1976, the grading permit for the library site was issued in October, 1976, and the building permit for the library site was issued i'n May, '1978, all prior to the effective date of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. 3) Substantial liabilities have been incurred on the project in reliance upon those permits . The Irvine Company has made a gift of the land to the art museum amounting to $370,0001 has graded the library site for the City at a cost of $11 ,000 , installed on-site master plan utilities at a cost -of $22 ,000, and made a donation of aquarter of the value of the land to the Library in the amount of $90,000 . Adding to that the cost to the City and Newport Harbor Art Museum in constructing their building and engaging in that development, the total amount of liabilities that have been i-ncurred towards the completion of the Civic P'laza project is in excess of $2 ,000,000. He gave the Planning Commission copies of the documents reflecting pay- ment of $11 ,000 on the grading, $22 ,000 in master plan utilities , and the agreement for purchase and sale between The Irvine Company and the City for the library site. In answer to a question from the Planning Commissio regarding his interpretation of "substantial " , Mr. Break cited a case in which the court had ruled that $40,000 was an undeniable quantum of prejudice or undebatable item, and in this case the liabili- ties were many times that. Regarding the fact that part of the $2 ,000,000 claimed as liability was the City ' s money, he answered that the question is whether or not a particular project is vested, and whether liability towards the completion of the project has been substantial . The expenditures of all participants in that project towards the com- pletion of the project would be considered . If the -33- COMMISSIONERS • MINUTES °sm v� smmco� pm v, 3� City of Newport Beach S�2 1 November 9, 1978 ROLL CALL INDEX liabilities incurred by the City and the Newport Harbor Art Museum are not included, there are still liabilities incurred by The Irvine Company of an excess of $470,000 . Mr. Break was asked for any expenditures made by The Irvine Company in reliance upon a permit issued to The Irvine Company . Mr. Break explained that no permits have been issued in the name of The Irvine Company, but rather to contractors acting on their behalf. Staff remarked that it is required that a permit be taken out by a licensed contractor, except in the case of an owner who is going to do the work himself . Mr . Break also pointed out that the focus of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance is on projects , not on individuals in the project, as demonstrated by Koll and Emkay who work on projects with several different owners , none of whom have taken out building permits . He also said that, based on the estoppel legal con- cept, or preclusion , if the City acts in such a way in giving its final approval towards the project in the form of a building or grading permit, and is aware that somebody is acting upon that final authorization of the project, the City cannot then allow that person to undertake that reliance and incur those liabilities , and then remove that approval . Mr. Shelton added the fact that $230,000 was spent by The Irvine Company to build San Clemente Drive specifically to serve this project. Although it is not within the project boundary, it was done in reliance upon the needs of the project. He also mentioned the art museum is awaiting some form of approval so that their parking problem can be resolved. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard on this item, the public hearing was closed . Motion X Motion was made that the Planning Commission Ayes X X request that the City Council engage an outside Noes X X X X X attorney for the purpose of furnishing additional unbiased legal opinion regarding the vesting of Civic Plaza . It was the opinion of other members that it was not appropriate for the Planning Com- mission to request this action, that it should come from the City Council or the City Attorney ' s office -34- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES City of Newport Beach v�s� 9a mP yc v�o November 9, 1978 ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Shelton added that their request w7forexcep-tion from the requireme nts of the TrafOrdinance, not a matter concerned with Motion failed . Motion X Motion was made that the Planning Commission con- Ayes X X X X X, curs with The Irvine Company' s position paper Noes X X regarding the "exception" of the Civic Plaza Plan- ned Community, and makes the following finding: 1 . The City issued a building or grading permit for the project prior to the effective date of Chapter 15 .40 of the Newport Beach Munici- pal Code and that the person to whom such per- mit was issued has in good faith and in reli- ance upon such permit diligerntly commenced construction and substantial liabilities for work and materials necessary therefor. No change causing a substantial increase in traffic volumes may be made in such project, except in accordance with the provision of Chapter 15 .40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The Planning Commission discussed the possibility of other findings that would set forth in detail - its position in support of this one major finding. Fol-lowing discussion the 'PI'anning Commission deter- mined that no additional findings would be neces- sary. Y Motion was made to set a public hearing on this item for December 7, 1978. The intention of the Planning Commission is to treat this project the same as any other excepted projects . R-1025 ADDITIONAL BUSINESS Motion X Planning Commission. adopted Resolution No . 1026, All Ayes setting a public hearing for December 7, 1978, on Proposed Amendments to the Grading Ordinance. R-1026 Plan ' Commission adopted Resolution No. 1027 setting a lic hearing for December 7, 1978 on -35- / o —u • Planning Commission Meting November 9 , 1978 A'ge"nda Item No . 12 -- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH November 4, 1978 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Reqt or eexce tion from the re uirementsTf apter o Ne ort unici lCo cf Beach M e af Phasing Ordinance for the proposed evelopment in compliance with the approved Planned Community Development Plan for Civic Plaza . LOCATION: Bounded by San Joaquin Hills Road, Santa Cruz Drive , San Clemente Drive , and Santa Barbara Drive , in Newport Center. ZONE : P-C APPLICANT: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as Applicant Request: The Irvine Company has requested that the Planning Commissi-on hold a public hearing to determine whether or not Civic Plaza Planned Community should be "excepted" in accordance with Section 15 .40. 030 (D) ( i ) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (Traffi'c Phasing Ordinance) . Required procedures and findings are set forth under Section 15 . 40 . 030 of the Code . Background At the July 11 , 1978 City Council meeting , the City Council adopted the following motion and findings in regard to the vesting of the Civic Plaza IPlanned Community : i !f " It was determined that insufficient data exists at this time to establish vesting for Civic Plaza , including the following findings : VJ~ G �Z (a ) That the Civic Plaza Planned Community contains t� 26 . 12 acres . � fr & (b) That approximately 89% of the land within the /, fe planned community boundaries has not been developed. (c ) That the only development in existence on the �N Civic Plaza site related to public and quasi- public facilities which is distinguishable f o other planned communities in Newport Bea h . 1tem No . �1 12 TO: Planning Commission - 2. (d) That all improvements on the site other than the Art Museum and Library were installed prior to the approval of the Civic Plaza Planned Community Text. (e) That the streets were planned for the use of the over-all development as opposed to the Civic Plaza site . " Subsequent to the City Councils ' action of July 11 , 1978, The Irvine Company has prepared a position paper dated, October 13 , 1978, which they feel should provide the Commission with sufficient information to reach a decision , A copy of the "position paper" is attached. Additionally, The Irvine Company has applied fora determination in regards to the compliance of the Civic •Plaza Planned Community with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance . In doing so , they h8•ve 4tated: "By this request, The Irvine Company is not and does not waive its claim that Civic Plaza is a vested project nor any other claim of right to proceed with the development of that project nor is it waiving any potential challenges to the validity and enforceability of the Traffic Phasing Ordiannce itself. However, we believe it is in our mutual interests to proceed expeditiously with the requested determination and, if required, traffic study analysis . " The City, on September 14 , 1978, retained a consultant for preparation of the required Traffic Study. Suggested Courses of 'Action If the Planning Commission condurs with The Irvine Company' s position paper regarding the "exception" of the Civic Plaza Planned Community, it should make the following finding: 1 . The City issued a building or grading permit for the project prior to the effective date of Chapter 15 .40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and that the person to whom such permit was issued has in good faith and in reliance upon such permit diligently commenced construction and substantial liabilities for work and materials necessary therefor. No change causing a substantial increase in traffic volumes may be made in such project, accept in accordance with the provision of Chapter 15 . 40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code . If the Planning Commission does not concur with The Irvine Company position •paper, it should make the following findings : ( 1 ) . That the Civic Plaza Planned Community contains 26. 12 acres . (2) . That approximately 89% of the land within the planned community boundaries has not been developed. (3) . That the only development in existence on the Civic Plaza site relates to public and quasi -public facilities which is distinguishable from other planned communities in Newport Beach. -_J TO : Planning Commission - 3. (4) . That all improvements on the site other than the Art Museum and Library were installed prior to the approval of the Civic Plaza Planned Community Text. (5 ) Thathet the over-alleets were developmentaased for opposedhtouse of the Civic Plaza site . Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF CNMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V . HOGAN , DIRECTOR By Fred Ta arico Environmental Coordinator FT/dt Attachments : 1 . Position Paper with regard to question of vesting of Civic Plaza under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance , The Irvine Company, October 13, 1978. 2 . City Council Minutes of July 11 , 1978. 3. City Council Staff Report of July 11 , 1978. 4. Letter from The Irvine Company dated August 3 , 1978. COY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCILMEN MINUTES L4 3!r ADJOURNED COUNCIL MEETING Place: Council Chambers Time: 7:30 P.M. � ❑ate: July 11, 1978 INDEX ROLL Present x x x x x x x Roll Call. The reading of the Minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of Motion x June 16 and the Regular Meeting of June 26, 1978 was Ayes x x x x x x x waived, and said Minutes were approved as written and ordered filed. Motion x The reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions Ayes x x x x x x'x under consideration was waived and the City Clerk was ordered to read by titles only. HEARINGS: 1. Mayor Ryckof£ opened the continued public heating Newport regarding Planning Commission Amendment No. 506. Center a request of The Irvine Company to amend the Corporate Planned Community Development Plan for Corporate Plaza Plaza to permit general changes in the Land Use (2091) Nap and Text on property bounded by Newport Center Drive, Farallon Drive, Avocado Avanue and East Coast Highway in the Planned Community of Corporate Plaza; zoned P-C. A report was presented from the Community Develop- went Department. Jean Morris, President of Harbor View Hills ICI Community Association, and Debra Allen addressed the Council and asked that the hearing be con- tinued to July 24, David Neiah, representing The Irvine Company, addressed the Council., Motion x The tearing was cloned after it was determined Ayes x x x x x x x that no one else desired to be heard. Resolution No. 9396, approving amendments to the R-9396 Planned Community bevelopmenf plan foi Corporate Plaza to permit general changes in the land use Motion x map and text (Amendment No. 506), was adopted, Ayes x x x x x x x with the understanding that there will be no change in heights from those originally approved. 2. Mayor Ryckoff opened the continued public hearing Alley Re- regarding the proposed realignment of alleys in aligmt Block 50 East Newport (in City block bounded by E Npt Balboa Boulevard, Eighth Street, West Bay Avenue Bl 5 and Seventh Street). (2947) A report was presented from the Public Works Department. Motion x The hearing was closed after it was determined Ayes 'x x x x x x x that no one desired to be heard. Rdsolution No. 9397, authorizing the Mayor and R-9397 City Clerk to execute an agreement with the Motion x Newport Harbor Yacht Club, guaranteeing completion Ayes x x x x x x X of public improvements in Block 5, East Newport Volume 32 - Page 168 5 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCILMEN MINUTES ROLL CALL �d'� 9 s July 11, 1978 INDEX Tract_ accepting,the_dedication of an alley across Lot 16 in said Block 5; and ordering the vacation, closing up and abandonment of two parcels of the most westerly alley"in said Block 5, reserving public utility easements therein, was adopted. 3. Mayor Ryckoff opened the public hearing regarding Newport Planning Commission Amendment No. 510, a request Place of Emkay Development and Realty Company to amend Planned the P-C Development,Plan for Newport Place to Community increase the allowable number of stories In the (1275) planned community on property bounded by MacArthur Boulevard, Jamboree Road, Bristol Street North and Birch Street; zoned P-C. A report was presented from the Community Develop- ment Department. Kevin Hansen, representing Emkay Development and Realty Company, addressed the Council and stated he was present to answer any questions. Motion x The hearing was closed after it was determined Ayes x x x x x x x that no one else desired to be heard. Resolution No. 9398,jidopting an amendment to the R-9398 planned community,deyelopment ataadaiTi.€gr Motion x Newport Place' to increase the allowable number Ayes x x x x x x x of stories in the professional and business office Bites (Amendment NO. 510), was adopted. 4. Mayor Ryckoff opened the public hearing on Gilita, Inc. Councils own motion regarding Use Permit.No. Appeal 1871, a request of Gilita, Inc., to conatruct.a (2994) three-story, single-family dwelling that exceeds the basic height,limit within the 24{28 Toot Height Limitation District; located on the southerly side of Seashore Drive between Colton Street and Lugonia Street in West Newport; zoned R-2. A report was presented from the Community Develop- ment Department. Wally Semeniuk and Allan Beek addressed the Council and opposed the construction. Gil Ferguson, applicant, addressed the Council. Motion x The hearing was closed after it was determined Ayes x x x x x x x that no one else desired to be heard. Motion x The decision of the Plannipg. Commission was Ayes x x x x sustainsoy and Use Permit No. 1871 was approved. Noes x x x CONTINUED BUSINESS: 1. A report was presented from the Community Develop- Newport ment Department regarding the vested rqghts Center status of Civic Plaza, a 26.12 acre Planned Civic Community located in Newport Center. Plaza (2285) Volume 32 - Page 169 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH (, COUNCILMEN MINUTES ILI! MOLL 3'f'� 9�s July 11, 1978 INDEX The following people addressed the Council in favor of finding that the Civic Plaza's rights have vested: Tom Santiey, President of the Newport Center Association; Daniel Emory; John Martin Shea, Chairman of the Board of Directors of Newport Harbor Art Museum; Tom Peckenpaugh, attorney in behalf of The Irvine Company; and Jody Barlow for the Newport Harbor Area Chamber of Commerce. Motion x Hr. Peckenpaugh was granted ten minutes for his Ayes x x x x x x x presentation. Motion x Mr. Peckenpaugh was granted an additional five Ayes x x x x x x minutes for his presentation. Noes x Motion x It was determined that insufficient data exists at Ayes x x x x x this time to establish vesting for Civic Plaza, Noes x x including the following findings: (a) That the Civic Plaza Planned Community con- tains 26.12 acres. (b) That approximately 89% of the land within the planned community boundaries has not been developed. (c) That the only development in existence on the Civic Plaza site relates to public and quasi-public facilities which is distinguish- able from other planned communities in Newport Beach. (d) That all improvements on the site other than the Art Museum and Library were installed prior to the approval of the Civic Plaza Planned Community text. (a) That the streets were planned for the use of the over-all development as opposed to the Civic Plaza site. 2. A report was presented from the Community Develop- Annex 86 ment Department regarding proposed Annexptign No. 86 - Transfer from the City of Costa Mesa, a request of Welton and Company for the annexation of Tract 9291, located northeasterly of Tract 7989 (Newport Terrace) on an extension of Sundance Drive. A resolution of the Local Agency Formation Com- mission approving the annexation was presented. Motion x Annexa on No. 86 vas postponed to July 24. Ayes x x x x x x x 3. A report dated June 26, 1978 was presented from Traffic the Community ➢evelopment Department regarding Phasing Planning Commission recommendations regarding (3006) "Procedureo and Traffic Analysis for Implementa- tion of Council Policy S-1 and/or Traffic Phasing Ordinance." Volume 32 - Page 17D •CITY OF NEWPORT BEACP •7 MINUTES COUNCILMEN 3�;o Ol'Y9GZyi to 9 ROLL CALL C 'n P `I' July 11, 1978 INDEX Motion x Councilman Hummel made a motion to approve the administrative PtRcedures and metligc-orogy for conducting traffic analyses as recommended by the Planning commies on and amended to add the words "or any leg of an intersection at the end o£'Paragea0fi7.• (B) 'of-Exhibi£'"B." Motion x Councilman Heather made a substitute motion Ayes x x to postpone consideration of the methodology Noes x x x x x to July 24 with a report from staff at that time regarding the new terminology, whi motion failed. Ayes x x x x x A vote was taken on Councilman Hummel's Noes x x motion, which motion carried. 4. Propoaed Ordinance No. 1764, being, District Map 35 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT 0-1764 BEACH AMENDING_A PORTION OF THE DISTRICTING (2942) 'MAP NO. 35 T_0 RECLASSIFY LAND FROM THE UNCLASSl£IE3LAT"STk19T--��TK?„p•1' • DISTRICT AND AMENDING THE PLANNED COMMUNITY D3NBy0PMENT FUR,.KQLL CENTS NEWPORT TO PERMIT THE INCREASE IN THE BUILDING SITE AND ALLOWABLE BUILDING AREA OF OFFICE SITE C (Property located on the easterly side of MacArthur Boulevard, between Campus Drive and Birch Street, in and adjoining Kell Center Newport), planning-Commission Amendment No. 505, a request of The Irvine Company to permit the increase in the building site and allowable building area of Office Site C in Kell Center Newport and its conformance with Council Policy S-1, was presented. The City Manager informed the Council that the traffic analysis that was done on this project did not analyze the "legs," it analyzed the average of the intersection. He stated that the Assistant Traffic Engineer was working with it to see if this could be determined, and asked if Council could proceed to another item to give a little more time to calculate the percentage of impact upon the "legs." It was the consensus of the Council to-Proceed to the next item w t13 rh_Undrr=ndiag-tliat consideration of_this item would be_resumed thereafter. 5. A report dated June 26, 1978 was presented Bayside Sq from the Community Development Department (2982) regarding Planning Commission recommendations_. Westcliff on traffic analysee_„prepared for Bayside Grove Square;Westcliff Grove and Bank of Nenoxt• (2589) Bank of Newport (2173) Volune 32 - I'ane 173 TITY OF NEWPORT BEACH r COUNCILMEN MINUTES H y y G�'3 ROLL CALL �� P� duly 11, 1978 INDEX Wally Geer, President of Inovative Development Concepts, developer of Baynide Square, addressed the Council and asked that the item not be continued. Motion x Mayor Pro Tem Williams made a motion to consider that the Bayside Square project has met the criteria of the ordinance despite the one discrepancy. The following people addressed the Council: Daniel Emory regarding the necessity for changing bases for analysis; Dennis Harwood, representing Bank of Newport, opposed postponement of the item; Allan Beek suggested use of the "critical movement summation method"; and Xeith Greer, representing The Irvine Company, asked that Weateliff Grove he excepted. Mayor Pro Tom Williams withdrew his motion. Motion x The Council agreed to reconsider Agenda Item P-3 Ayes x x x x x x x regarding the Planning commission recommendations in connection with "pioced'area and Traffic'-�' Anal,,yys�is. for.I�lementation of Council Policy S-1 and/e=Traffic Phasing Ordinance." The traffic analysis pattern and procedures for impfementaticri of douncil Policy S-1 and)oti the Motion x T'rdP£ic-Ping-' r nnance were approve3'an Ayes x x x x x x x recommended by thn Planning Cmmissiogy.and the staff was directed to coma back with,a study of the #p9Ar, of amend}ng„ohe,procedu;ge AIldS:Fa£fic analysis by_Yequir consideration of each segment,j n. 4. Proposed Ordinance.No.,,,1764, being, District Map 35 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Q-1764 AMENDING A PORTION OF THE DISTRICTIVP MAP (2942) 1 35 TO�RP&& sjgT .LAND FROM THE..UN- CLASSIFIED DISTRICT TO THE_"P-C" DISTRICT gtHNT FOA XOLL CBNTER-NORT T PERMIT THE INCREASE IN T11E BUILDING SITE AND ALLOWABLE BUILDING AM'OP OFFICE SITE C (Property located on the easterly side of MacArthur Boulevard, between Campua Drive and Birch Street, in and adjoining Roll Center Newport), Planning Commission Amendment No. 505, a request of The Irvine Company to permit the increase in the building site and allowable building area of Office Site C in Kell Center Newport and its conformance with Council Policy S-1 was now considered. The traffic analysis and findings of the Planping Motion x Commission were accepted,_and Ordinance No. Ayes x x x x x x x 1764 yes adopted as recommended by the Planning Commission. Volume 32 - Page 172 • CITY OF NEWPORT BEAR `I COUNCILMEN MINUTES y y y(PA 0929G22i ROLL CALL ?'d S July 11, 1978 INDEX 5. Consideration of the Yl g.__mannin Comission Bayside Sq recomme (2982) for on traffic analyses prepared Weatcliff for Bayside Square, Weetcl.iff Grove end Grove Bank of Newport was resumed. rove (2589) The Planning Commission's findings and Bank of Motion x recommendations on traffic analyses,pre pared Newport 2173) Ayes x x x x x x x for Bayside Square, Weatcliff Grove and Bank of Newport were approved,.,--" - 6. It was the concensus of the Council that the method to be used� in selecting the appointees to the various Boards and Commissions would again be by use of the voting lights, assigning one color to each candidate in each instance. Mayor Ryckoff asked the City Clerk to assign the Board, & lights to the respective candidates for the Comsn Appts Planning Commission appointments. Allan Beek and William Morris were considered to fill the unexpired term of Jacqueline Heather ending June 30, 1979. The City Clerk assigned the green light to Allan Beek and the white light to William Morris. Motion x Councilman Heather made a motion to change the term of this appointment to end June 30, 1978 instead of 19799 therefore making the current appointment for a four-year term ending June 30, 1982 to be consistent with a report which had gone to Council from the City Attorney regarding possible nonconformance with the Charter because there was no Planning Commissioner's term expiring in 1978. Councilman McInnis stated that the Charter stated t require that a term expire every year that one of the Freeholders who had helped to write the Charter was in the audience and could address the matter of the intention of the Board when writing Section 702. The Mayor questioned the City Attorney as to the procedure for declaring Councilman McInnis out of order, and was advised that the Council would have to vote on such a declaration. Motion x Mayor Ryckoff made a motion to declare Councilman Ayes x x x McInnis out of order and asked the Council to vote Noes x x x x on the declaration, which motion failed. Les Steffenson, as Chairman of the Board of Free- holders, addressed the Council and stated that it had been the Board's intent for members of the commissions to serve their appointed terms and appointees to fill unexpired terms, but not necessarily that there be an appointment every year. Volume 32 - Page 173 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Io COUNCILMEN MINUTES Sp'i' 3� C�C�9�'L9 yyi 9 ROLL CALL ,p'n�P July 11, 1978 INDEX Ayes x x x A vote was taken on Councilman Heather's motion, Noes x x x x which motion failed. A vote was taken to determine whether Allan Beek Ping or William Morris would be appointed as a member Cowen Green x x x x of the Planning Commission to fill the unexpired White x x x term of Jacqueline Heather ending June 30t 1979s and AjjpB Beek was appointed. David Shores and Helen McLaughlin were considered Ping to fill the unexpired term of Paul L. Hummel Coman ending June-30,_1980. Green x x The City Clerk assigned the green light to David White x x x x x Shores and the white light to Helen McLaughlin, and Helen McLaughlin wos_nppointed. David Henley and Lou Dunning were considered to Bd of fill the expired term of Thomas P. Morgan on the Library Board of Library Trustees. True tees Green x x x x x x The green light was assigned to David Henley and White x the white light to Lou Dunning, and David Henley was appointed. Patricia Gibbs and Gloria Shoemaker were considered City Arts to fill the expired term of Bill Tappan on the Cowen City Arta Commission. Green x x The green light was assigned to Patricia Gibbs and White x x x 'ix x the white light to Gloria Shoemaker, and Gloria Shoemaker was appointed. Madeline Rose and Carol Lynn Smith were considered City Arts to fill the expired term of Thomas Garver on the Comes City Arta Commission. Green x x x x x x x The green light was assigned to Madeline Rose and White the white light to Carol Lynn Smith, and Madeline Rose was appointed. Michael Mitchell and Alexander Bowie were con- Civil sidered to fill the expired term of Julian Ertx on Service the Civil Service Board. Board Green x x x x x The green light was assigned to Michael Mitchell White x x and the white light to Alexander Bowie, and Michael Mitchell wan appointed. Stanford Green and Walter Ziglar were considered PBSR to-fill the expired term of James Wood on the Comen Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission. Green x x x x The green light was assigned to Stanford Green and White x x x the white light to Walter Ziglar, and Stanford Green was appointed. Brenda Ross and Richard Handy were considered to PBGR fill the expired term of Brenda Rose on the Parks, Cowen Beaches and Recreation Commission. Green x x x x x x x The green light was assigned to Brenda Roes and White the white light to Richard Handy, and Brenda Roes was reappointed. Volume 32 - Page 174 I� •LP CITY OF NEWPORT BEAR COUNCILMEN MINUTES Oy i ROLL CALL 9�d'TF�SS July 11, 1978 INDEX 7. The Council Appointments Committees nominations City Arts of candidates for consideration to fill the Comsn unexpired term of Jacqueline Kilbourne ending (120F) Motion x June 30, 1979 on the City Arts Commission was Ayes x x x x x x x postponed to August 14. 8. (District 6) Councilman Hummel's appointment of a Bicycle member to the Bicycle Trails Citizens Advisory Trails Committee to fill the unexpired term of Thomas L. CAC Motion x Schulman ending December 31, 1978 was postponed to (205F) Ayes x x x x x x x July 24. Motion x 9. Consideration of Council Policy J-1 "City Ayes x x x x x x x Employees Salaries," was tabled. CURRENT BUSINESS: 1. A report was presented from the Community Develop- Tract 10274 ment Department regarding the Final Map of Tract No. 10274, a request of the Bank of Newport to approve the Final Map of Tract No. 10274 sub- dividing 5.507 acres into one lot for multiple family residential condominium development and one jot for commercial development; located at 2101 and 2121 East Coast Big hway and 777 Avocado Avenue, Kewamee Drive and Zahma Drive, adjacent to Irvine Terrace; zoned C-1 and R-3. Dennis Harwood, attorney representing the Bank of Newport, addressed the Council and stated that the developer was willing to pay 100% of the City' share of the traffic signal. Barry Allen addressed the Council and opposed the development. Motion x The Final Map of Tract No. 10274 was approved, Ayes x x x x x x x incorporating by re£,eience tlie'condltions recommended_ by.the Planning Commission, and Resolution No. 9399, authorizing the Mayor and R-9399 City.Clerk to execute a subdivision agreement between the City of Newport Beach and Che'Bank of Newport in connection with Tract No. 10274, was adopted, with the condition that funding of the City's one-third of the coat of the traffic signal would be borne by the developer. 2. The City Clerk's Certificate of Sufficiency Bluff regarding the initiative ordinance requiring Preservation dedication of streets f'n eulidivislons Zi1__Uluf£s Initiative adjoining Newport Hay ender Pacific Ocean was (2831) presented with a copy of a proposed ordinance, being, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADDING CHAPTER 20.90 ENTITLED, "STREET DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS ON BLUFFS ADJOINING NEWPORT BAY AND/OR PACIFIC OCEAN," TO TITLE 20 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL.CODE. Volume 32 - Page 175 �TY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCILMEN MINUTES 17 tiG t P�ti�N��c 33A��°.J,9j,�y�2y C 9'3 TyN.pN iN ROLL CALL N luly 11', 1978' INDEX Dr. Gene Atherton, originator of the initiative petition, addressed the Council and urged adoption of the ordinance. Keith Greer, representing The Irvine Company, and Bill Picker addressed the Council and opposed adoption of the ordinance. Motion x Mayor Pro Tem Williams made a motion to accept the dij Clerk's Certificate of Sufficiency and [^'postpone any action segatding an election to August 14, 1978. Mayor Pro I= Williams made the following state- ment for the record: "I am very concerned that an individual has gone out and collected sufficient signatures for an initiative without having been involved with the give-and-take of discussions with officials and staff of the City that is to be affected by it. I believe the ongoing efforts of this City and The Irvine Company to avoid bluff problems of the past and provide public access to and use of bluff tope are mote than adequate and provide more flexible planning opportunities than the initiative." Mayor Ryckoff asked that the motion be amended to also direct the staff to prepare a policy, -and ordinance if needed, and General Plan change as required, to implement the basic principles of Dr. Atherton's ordinance, which amendment was accepted by the maker of the motion. Councilman Heather stated for the record her concern that an initiative adopted by the people would be exempted from the requirements of the California Environmental quality Act, which would be inappropriate since it would require a roadway at the bluff's edge. Ayes x x x x x x x A vote was taken on Mayor Pro Tom_Williams' nation, which motion carried. - 3. A report was presented from the Public Works, Council Department regarding an amendment to Council Policy Policy F-3 pertaining to the establishment of a (490F) City sewer use fee. Motion x The amendment to Council Policy F-3, "$ewer System Ayes x x�x x A x Funding" was approved. Noce x 4. A report was presented from the Public Works Water 6 Department regarding Water and Sewer Main Replace- Sewer Main ment across Grand Canal, Balboa Island, Contract Replcmnt No. 1959. Grand Canal BI Motion x The work on the water main crossing was accepted; (2881) Ayes x x x x x x x the staff was authorized to make payment of dhe tan percent retention in 35•days; and deferral of the sewer main crossing construction until after Labor Day was approved. Volume 32 - Page 176 • CITY OF NEWPORT BEAR �3 MINUTES COUNCILMEN S, t'c+ 33'AA��'.j.'Pl.P9G22 c^ 7�Tyca ss�if� MOLL CALL ��T P July 11, 1978 INDEX 5. A letter from Roger Vandegrift, 112 Amethyst, re- BI Circu- questing reconsideration of the Balboa Island lation traffic plan was presented. Plan (2955) Motion x Mayor Ryckoff made a motion to postpone to September 25, 1978. The following people addressed the Council and opposed the traffic plan: Lewis Akerman, Jack Reeder, Charles Lehman and Bob Yardley. Motion x Councilman McInnis made a substitute motion to Ayes x x x x x x receive the letter and order it filed, which Noes x motion carried. CONSENT CALENDAR: Motion x The following actions were approved by one motion Ayes x x x x x x x affairming the actions on the Consent Calendar: 1. There were no ordinances for introduction. 2. The following resolutions were adopted: (a) Resolution No. 9400. authorizing the Mayor Insurance and City Clerk to execute an Amendment to Agreement between the City of Newport Beach (390F) and R. L. Kautz 6 Co. in connection with self-insurance administration services. (A report from the City Attorney) (b) Removed from the Consent Calendar. (c) Removed from the Consent Calendar. (d) Resolution No. 9401 authorizing the Mayor Traffic and City Clerk to execute a Cooperative Signals Financing Agreement between the City of Irvine Av Newport Beach and the County of Orange in R-9401 connection with the modification of the (2997) traffic signals on Irvine Avenue at the intersections of Mesa Drive and University Drive-Del Mar Avenue (C-2040). (A report from the Public Works Department) 3. The following communications were -referred as indicated: (a) To Mayor for preparation of proclamation, a Proclamation letter from Newport-Balboa Rotary Club (20) asking that the City be made a "Four Way Test City." (Copies mailed to Council) (b) To staff for reply, a letter from Ralph Admin Bonds regarding City administration pro- Procedures cedures. (Copies mailed to Council) (20) (c) ' To staff for reply, a letter from Mrs. Roy Animal Woolsey suggesting a possible means for Control enforcement of the dog litter ordinance. (862) (Copies mailed to Council) Volume 32 - Page 177 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • COUNCILMEN MINUTES 39 �GS1.9.��7G22 ROLL CALL �Nm P July 11, 1978 INDEX (d) To staff for report back, a letter from the Skateboards Balboa Island Business Association requesting (2330) an ordinance controlling skateboarders and skaters on,the Island. (Copies mailed to Council) (a) To staff for reply and inclusion in ongoing Balboa Pier study, a letter from Ronald E. Coll expressing Concession his interest in acquiring the concession (726) rights to the Balboa Pier. (Copies mailed to Council) (f) To staff for reply, a letter from Theodore E. Complaints Dahl regarding the towing and impounding of (600) his vehicle. (Copies mailed to Council) (g) To staff fox reply and inclusion In_oo$oing NIWA "208" sT,9�y�-n letter from the Environm'mnenl utility (355) Citizens Advisory,Co®ittee=egard;li the NIWA T'2U8"+lensing process. (Copies mailed to Council (h) To staff for reply, a letter from American Bus Stop Shelter Company proposing a program of ban Benches shelters and their maintenance and asking (2764) for the opportunity to present their program at a future Council meeting. (Copies mailed to Council) (i) To staff for inclusion in ongoing study, a County Pees letter from the orange County Division of the (20) League of California Cities regarding proposed County increases in certain fees. (Copies mailed to Council) 4. The following communications were referred to the City Clerk for filing and inclusion in the records: (a) A letter from the West Newport Beach Improve- ment Association approving the closing of Seashore Drive on July 4. (Attached) (300) (b) A letter to Mayor Ryckoff from the Department of Housing and Urban Development regarding the housing development at 2900 Pacific View (1272) Drive. (Attached) (c) Announcement by the Orange County Health Planning Council regarding its final hearing on health systems plan component. (Copies (789) mailed to Council) (d) A letter to Mayor Ryckoff from Leo T. McCarthy] Speaker of the Assembly urging a communication with Senators Cranston and Hayakawa and local representatives in Congress asking that steps be taken to preserve approximately 76.000 C.E.T.A. jobs. (20) (Attached) Volume 32 - Page 178 15 • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES COUNCILMEN G?'g91 � �i?�q�•PgG2y ROLL CALL d' P Jul 11 19 8 INDEX (e) Removed from the Consent Calendar. (f) A copy of a letter sent to the Marine Director by William H. Tappan with suggested surfing regulations. (Copies mailed to (281) Council) (g) A letter from Al Lizanetz commenting on world affairs. (Copies mailed to Council) (20) (h) Agenda of the Board of Supervisors meetings of June 27 and 28, 1978. (20) 5. The following claims were denied and the City Claims Clerk's referral to the insurance carrier was confirmed: (a) Claim of John A. Howell for property damage Howell and reimbursement for plumbing cost incurred (2998) on May 31, 1978 when a "Yu joint in a City drain allegedly clogged up and caused flooding. (b) Claim of Sheldon N. Chase for property damage Chase to his automobile when it was parked and (2999) unattended on Agate Street, where it was allegedly struck by a City vehicle on April 21, 1978. (c) Claim of Michael W. Abdalla, M.D. for Abdalla property damage to his step eon's pickup on (3000) June 15, 1978 when it was allegedly damaged by a City employee while double parked on 28th Street just off Ocean Avenue. (d) Claim of Robert R. DeSola for property damage DeSola (3001) to his automobile on June 20, 1978 when a chat which was holding the rear doors of a City truck broke, allowing the rear door to swing open and damage Mr. DeSola's car which was parked on Pacific Coast Highway. (e) Claim of Dean Brazell for property damage to Brazell the tire of his automobile and for rein- (3002) bursement of a citation received in connection with the incident on June 9, 1978 at the intersection of Balboa Boulevard and 18th Street, allegedly involving an unmarked ditch. (The insurance company was advised thin the City contractor was Pacific Tennis Courts) t (f) Claim of Robert J. Shaw for personal injuries Shaw sustained on March 28, 1978 at the beach on (3003) Washington Street and en route to the police station, alleging assault by a Police Officer. (g) Claim of Ralph W. Stansbury for property Stansbury damage at Irvine Avenue and 15th Street on (3004) June 14, 1978 when a City vehicle allegedly sideswiped the left side of his truck. Volume 32 - Page 179 f CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • 14 COUNCILMEN MINUTES c 0�('C�29y ,� +2�sROLL CIAS 0 P July 11, 1978 INDEX 6. The City Clerk's referral of the following Summons 6 Summons and Complaints to the insurance carrier was Complaints confirmed: (a) Summons and Complaint of Randy Duane Glad, Glad D.C., for damages, false imprisonment, (2940) assault and battery, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, slander, and for punitive and exemplary damages, Case No. 292757 in Orange County Superior Court. The original claim involved Mr. Glad's arrest for disorderly conduct and being intoxicated in a public place. (b) Summons and Complaint of Herbert William Kenna gamic, Jr., for damages, assault and battery, (2839) false imprisonment, negligence, and trespassing, Case No. 28-96-51 in the Orange County Superior Court. The original claim was for personal injuries. 7. The following request to fill personnel vacancies was approved: (A report from the City Manager) (1203F) (a) One Secretary in the General Services Depart- ment to fill a position to become vacant. -(b) One Laborer in the General Services Department to fill a position new vacant. (c) One Refuse Landman in the General Services Department to fill a position now vacant. (d) One General Services Director to fill a position now vacant. (a) One Legal Secretary in the City Attorney's office to fill a position now vacant. 8. There were no staff reports. 9. There were no public hearings scheduled. 10. The following budget amendments were approved: (18F) BA-1, $500.00 increase in Budget Appropriations and increase in Revenue Estimates for purchase of piano for Newport Theatre/Arta Center with dona- tion from Newport Harbor Business and Professional Women's Club, from Unappropriated Surplus and Donations and Contributions to P.B.6R.- Administrative, Furniture and Fixtures, Park and Recreation Fund. (A report from the Parka, Beaches and Recreation Director) BA-2, $35,000.00 increase in Badger Appropria- tions and increase in Revenue Estimates for traffic signal construction on Irvine Avenue at the intersections of Mesa Drive and University Drive-Del Her Avenue, contribution from County ,of Orange, from Unappropriated Surplus and Donations and Contributions, Contributions Fund. Volume 32 - Page 180 %7 • CITY OF NEWPORT BEA MINUTES COUNCILMEN ?i�P C�ooyfyyG22/ 9�TFPN s ROLL CALLS d' s July 11, 1978 INDEX ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. A report was presented from the City Manager Inter-City regarding establishment of additional duties and Relations responsibilities for the Inter-City Relations Cmte Committee. (566) Motion x A proposed resolution was postponed to July 24. Ayes x x x x x x x 2. A resolution of the City of Garden Grove was League of presented recommending an amendment to the California League of California Cities Bylaws pertaining to Cities voting rights. (2529) Motion x The resolution was referred to the City Clerk for Ayes x x x x x x x filing and inclusion in the records, and the City's delegate to the League of Cities was directed to oppose the proposed amendment of the City of Garden Grove to the League's Bylaws pertaining to voting rights. 3. A report was presented from the Public Works Stop Signs Department regarding designated intersections at (8F) which vehicles are required to stop (Antigua Circle, Antigua Way, Santiago Drive and Tradewinds Lane). Seth Oberg, a director of the Dover Shores Community Association. addressed the Council regarding the stop sign at Nottingham Road. Motion x Resolution No. 9402, designating intersections at R-9402 Ayes x x x x x x x which vehicles are required to stop and directing the Traffic Engineer to erect necessary stop signs (Antigua Circle, Antigua Way, Santiago Drive and Tradewinds Lane), was adopted. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: Motion x 1. The staff was directed to bring back to the meeting Council Ayes x x x x on July 24 for consideration, an amendment to Policy Noes x x x Council Policy A-10 which would change the order of (430F) business and place the Consent Calendar as Item 6 on the order of business on the Agenda. Motion x 2. The Planning Commission was directed to have_a Height & Ayes x x x x x loik'at possible reductions in allowable densities Density Noes x x o eve lopment.on the major commercial, Begs industrial and residential planned community sites. (1279) Mayor Ryckoff declared the meeting adjourned at midnight. Volume 32 - Page 181 City Council Meeting• July 11. 1978 18 K Agenda Item No. F-1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 5, 1978 TO: City Council FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Vested Rights of Civic Plaza Background During the City Council meeting of June 12, 1978, the Council requested additionalinformation re ardin Improvements to Civic Plaza beyond g gY the building and grading permits issued for the museum and 1-ibrary sites. The improvements are summarized as follows: A. Surrounding Streets and Highways 1. San Joaquin Hilts Road San Joaquin Hills Road is a major, six lane divided highway, 145 ft. in width. This highway was completed in 1967 with the initial phase of Newport Center and Was paid for entirely by the developer. 2. Santa Cruz Drive Santa Cruz Drive is a primary six lane undivided highway, 101 ft. in width, This highway Was completed in 1967 with the initial phase of Newport Center and was paid for entirely by the developer. 3. Santa Barbara Drive Santa Barbara Drive is a six lane updi.vided highway, 101 ft. in width. The initial phase of this road Was constructed to provide access to the Newport Center Fire Station. The second phase was completed in the spring of 1975. Both phases of this highway were paid for by The Irvine Company. 4. San Clemente Drive San Clemente Drive is a four lane undivided highway, 77 ft. in width. This highway was completed in 1975 and provides direct access to the Newport Harbor Art Museum and Library sites. The improvements were paid for entirely by The Irvine Company. B. Utilities 1. Sewer The site is serviced by existing eight inch sewer lines and laterals in San Joaquin Hills Road, Santa Cruz Drive, San Clemente Drive and Santa Barbara Drive. 1q TO: City Council - 2. 2. Water The site is serviced by existing water lines and laterals as follows: a. San Joaquin Hills Road - 16 inch b. Santa Cruz Drive - 16 inch c. San Clemente Drive - 12 inch d. Santa Barbara Drive - 12 inch 3. Gas and Electrical In addition to the sewer and water lines noted above, the site is also serviced by gas lines and underground electrical service, paid for entirely by the developer. C. On-Site Utility Extensions 1 . Water An easement has been provided and an eight inch water line has been constructed from San Clemente Drive across the museum site to the undeveloped portion of the site. 2. Electrical An easement has been provided from San Clemente Drive across the library site to service future development. D. Grading A review of the City's Grading Permits did not reveal any additional grading activity on the site. Summary The Planned Community Development Plan for Civic Plaza was adopted by the City Council on December 22, 1975 and became effective on January 21 , 1976. The only improvement constructed since that time, other than for the museum and library, is the eight inch sewer tine noted under Item C.1 . above. Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, Director By 6t, Q JUAnS D. HEWICKER ss stant Director - Planning Attachments for City Council Only: Vicinity Map 2,1) Staff Report dated June 6, 1978 THE IRVINE =PAW 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach,California 92663 (714)644.3611 August 3, 1978 Mr. Richard Hogan Director of Community Development Department of Community Development City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 Dear Mr. Hogan: CIVIC PLAZA P.C. - COMPLIANCE WITH TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE Please accept this application for a determination if the above project has the potential to cause or make worse an unsatisfac- tory level of traffic service, and if necessary, initiate a traffic study analysis to determine whether the Civic Plaza Planned Community (adopted December 1975) can be considered an "exception" in accord with Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 1 , Chapter 15.40, paragraph 15.40.030(D)(ii ), Ordinance No. 1965. By this.request, The Irvine Company is not and does not waive its claim that Civic Plaza is a vested project nor any other claim of right to proceed with the development of that project nor is it waiving any potential challenges to the validity and enforceability of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance itself. However, we believe it is in our mutual interests to proceed expeditiously with the requested determination and, if required, traffic study analysis. Upon your notification, we will forward necessary fee. Yours very truly, on ld W. Hendrickson Project Manager Commercial/Industrial Division PAL„L RWH:dw a . * ITY OF NEWPORT OEACH COUNCILMEN G MINUTES y y �i�cti �l1'C� I t<`9�/p9 22 p INDEX ROLL CALL June 12 1978 Motion x --' Resolution No. 9363., authorizing the Mayor and Ayes x x x x x x x City C rel ci4o-exeoute an agreement between the City of Newport Beach Ond-Ths_lrvi_ne Company for the Sea Island Resubdivision Park De_R-cation, _was adopted. - ^� 4. A status report was presented from the Community Building Development Department regarding the development Moratorium of Bayside Square, Westcliff Grove, Bank of (2589) Newport and Civic Plaza rp oiects. A report was presented from the City Attorney regarding vesting. A letter was presented from the Bank of Newport stating they have a vested right to proceed with their development. The following people addressed the Council in connection with the projects they represent: Wally Geer for Bayside Square who presented the Council with the findings of an independent traffic consultant; Dennis Harwood, attorney for the Bank of Newport; and David Neish of The Irvine Company regarding Westcliff Grove presented the Council with a traffic survey. Motion x David Neish was granted an additional five minutes Ayes x x x x x x x for his presentation. Motion x David Neish was granted an additional minute for Ayes x x x x x x x his presentation. Motion x It was' determined that Bayside Square, Westcliff Ayes x x x x x Grove and the Bank of Newport do not have vested Noes x x rights. Motion , x Mayor Ryckoff made a motion that the rights of Civic Plaza were not vested with these findings: a) Civic Plaza Planned Community contains 26.12 acres. b) Approximately 85 per cent of the land within the planned community boundaries has not been developed. c) The only development in existence on the Plaza site relates to public and quasi- public facilities which are distinguishable from other planned communities in Newport Beach. d) All improvements on the site other than the Art Museum and the library were installed prior to the Civic Plaza Planned Community text. Motion x poyncilman Sx.raus_s,Alad_e�.ubsti=te-motion_to.._- postpone the matter of Ci_v_ic Plaza's vesting to, Julyy 10, Peter Kremer addressed the Council and advised that The Irvine Company had accomplished the rough mass grading of the entire site and had paid for all of the roads surrounding the project. .t Ayes x x x x A vote was taken on Councilman Strauss',substitute Noes x x x motion, which motes ion carried. Volume 32 - Page 132 • City Counp Meeting June 12, 1978 Agenda Item No . F-4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH June 6, 1978 TO: City Council FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Requests to Except Projects from Council Policy S-1 and Proposed Traffic Phasing Ordinance Recommended Action If so desired, the Council may find that the Civic Plaza Planned Com- munity meets the criteria for vesting as an on-going project and there- fore shall be excepted from the policy. The remaining projects , along with the appropriate traffic analyses, can be referred to the Planning j Commission for their consideration of the matter as directed by Council Policy S-1 . Introduction At the Council Study Session on May 22 , 1978, requests were made for further consideration of the following projects in relation to Council Policy S-1 and the proposed Traffic Phasing Ordinance : 1 ) Civic Plaza 2 Westcliff Grove 3) Bayside Square The Bank of Newport project on Coast Highway has been added to the list because of its similar circumstances in the permit review process . This report is intended to outline the major characteristics , prior approvals , and the current status of each of these projects . Analysis 1 . Civic Plaza ( • A. Major Characteristics : Planned Community - Site Size - 26. 12 acres Permitted Uses Office Park 320 ,000 sq.ft. Art Museums 30 ,000 sq . ft. Library 30,000 sq .ft. Theater 20 ,000 sq. ft. (650 seats) Restaurant 8,000 sq. ft. B . Prior Approvals : Amendment 455 and EIR Approved by Planning Commission 11/20/75 Approved by City Council 12/22/75 Resubdivision 501 Approved by Planning Commission 11/20/75 Approved by City Council 12/22/75 Recorded 6/10/76 Grading Permits ( Museum - Issued 10/14/76 ; Finaled 4/22/77 Library - Issued 10/20/76 Building Permits Museum - Issued 10/14/76 Library - Issued 5/11/78 TO: City Council - 2 . C. Current Status : The property is subdivided into three lots . Construction has commenced on the library and the museum. According to City Council Resolu- tion No . 9009 which set limits on development of Newport Center, the following permitted uses are yet to be constructed in this Planned Community Development: Office Park 320,000 sq.ft. Theater 650 seats Restaurant 8,000 sq. ft. 2. Westcliff Grove n A. Major Characteristics : Construction of 29 Single-Family Dwelling Units B. Prior Approvals : Amendment No. 476 • Approved by Planning Commission 1/20/77 Approved by City Council 3/14/77 Tentative Map 9620 Approved by Planning Commission 1/20/77 Approved by City Council 3/14/77 Final Map 9620 Approved by Planning Commission 3/2/78 Approved by City Council 3/27/78 Approval in Concept #386-77 4/4/77 Coastal Permit - Received 6/3/77 C. Current Status : No building or grading permits have been issued. Department Application artmentofoCommunity permitr grading with Development. 3. Bayside Square Office Buildings A. Major Characteristics : Construction of office buildings totaling � • 37,500 sq.ft. at the corner of Bayside and Marine Avenues . B. • Prior Approvals : Site Plans Approved by Planning Commission 10/6/77• Approved by City Council 11/14/77 (on appeal ) Resubdivision 561 Approved by Planning Commission 10/6/77 Resubdivision 569 Approved by Planning Commission 1 /5/78 C. Current Status : No building permits or grading permits have been issued. TO: City Council - 3. 4. Bank of Newport • CA. Major Characteristics: The demolition of an existing' motel , the construction of a bank headquarters ' building (45,000 sq . ft. ) , and the conversion of exist- ing apartments to forty-two condominium units . B . Prior Approvals : ,Use Permit •No. 1857 Approved by Planning Commission 3/2/78 Amendment No . 503 Approved by Planning Commission 3/2/78 Approved by City Council 3/27/78 Tentative Tract No . 10274 Approved by Planning Commission 3/2/78 Approved by City Council 3/27/78 Final Map 1,0274 Approved by Planning Commission 6/15/78 Approval in Concept #380-78 4/18/78 C. Current Status : No building permits or grading permits have been issued. Summary Of the four projects , only Civic Plaza has been issued building and grading permits for partial development of the site. The construction sites in the Planned Community comprise 3.97 acres of the 26.12 acre site. The commencement of construction on a portion of the project may qualify the entire project for exception status, under the admin- istrative interpretation of the policy, as a vested project provided there are no substantial changes which would result in a significant impact on traffic. The remaining three projects on the list are in various stages of permit processes with Westcliff Grove requiring only building and grading permits, and the other two projects requiring Coastal Commission action prior to the issuance of grading or building permits . Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V . HOGAN, Director By A OdMZ=== EnvirpAmental Coordinator BW/kk ---77 7r- - � 1 I • 1 • • ( , CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Office of CITY ATTORNEY June 12, 1978 To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council F-4 From: City Attorney Subject: Vested Rights When a property owner or developer desires to construct a project in the City of Newport Beach, he must first obtain a building permit which is issued upon a showing that the pro- posed development will be in conformity with the local zoning ; regulations and applicable structural standards. Unless a property owner has acquired a "vested right" to use his property in a certain manner, the property is not exempt from the operation of a subsequently enacted amendment of the zoning ordinance, despite the fact that the owner has an application pending for, or has previously obtained, a building permit. On the other hand, if the property owner has acquired a vested right, the permit cannot later be revoked or modified, and the owner will have a right to construct the project in accordance with the land use regulations existing at the time of his application. Unfortunately, there is no hard-and-fast rule by which to deter- mine when rights vest. The judicial decisions relative to the "vested rights" issue 'have not always been consistent, resulting in considerable confusion in this area of the law. Generally, the rulings of the courts rely on a balancing of the equities under the particular facts and circumstances in each case. Perhaps the leading case in California on the subject of vesting is Avco Community Developments, Inc. v. South Coast Regional Commission decided by the Supreme Court in 1976, 17 Cal. 3d 785. T e Court in Avco held that, if a property owner has performed substantial work and incurred substantial liabilities in good faith reliance upon a permit issued by the government, he- acquires a vested right to complete construction in accordance with the terms of the permit. However, under the Avco rule of C June 12 , 1978 Page Two Vested Rights vesting, a developer cannot secure a vested right as against subsequent zoning regulations, no matter how great his expen- ditures, unless he has obtained a building permit before the effective date of the subsequent regulation. In contrast to Avco, there are a line of cases which accept the matter of timing of building permit issuance as the pri- mary consideration relative to the issue of vesting, but also take into consideration other factors as well. The other criteria include good faith of the city, good faith of the owner/developer, and expenditures and liabilities incurred by the property owner in good faith reliance upon the permit being issued. In other words, a court could still find that a property owner' s rights have vested even before issuance of a building permit, if the evidence showed that the city Is zoning action was taken for the primary purpose to block a specific l project, or if the owner incurs "substantial" expenditures and liabilities in good faith reliance upon the final approval allowing construction. When confronted with making a decision on whether property rights have vested, the Council must look at the facts and consider whether substantial construction has commenced and, if not, has the property owner or developer in good faith incurred material expenses, obligations and liabilities in reliance on the City's representation that the final permits would be approved. Based on the above statement of .the law on vested rights and after a review of the facts as set forth in the report from the Community Development Department, it would be the opinion of this office that vesting has not occurred in the Westcliff Grove, Bayside Square and Bank of Newport projects because neither grading or building permits have been issued. Assuming the definition of "project" as being the whole of an action is used, then it would appear from the facts that a strong argument could be made that rights in the Civic Plaza project have vested This is because substantial development has occurred in part of the Civic Plaza planned community. June 12 , 1978 ( Page Three Vested Rights It is important to keep in mind that "vesting" for purposes of interpreting the Traffic Phasing Ordinance includes the issuance of either a building or grading permit, with commence- ment of work under the permit or incurrence of substantial liability for work or materials. Also, under the proposed Ordinance a project can' still qualify for an exception if it can satisfy the traffic impact formula regardless of the question of vesting. l d*000-.000. DENNIS D. O NEIL , City Attorney DDO/kb I • City Council sting July 11 , 1978 �a Agenda Item No . F-1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 5, 1978 TO: City Council FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Vested Rights of Civic Plaza Background During the City Council meeting of June 12 , 1978, the Council requested additional information regarding improvements to Civic Plaza beyond the building and grading permits issued for the museum and library sites . The improvements are summarized as follows : A. Surrounding Streets and Highways 1 . San Joaquin Hills Road San Joaquin Hills Road is a major six lane divided highway, 145 ft. in width . This highway was completed in 1967 with the initial phase of Newport Center and was paid for entirely by the developer. 2 . Santa Cruz Drive Santa Cruz Drive is a primary six lane undivided highway, 101 ft. in width . This highway was completed in 1967 with the initial phase of Newport Center and was paid for entirely by the developer. 3 . Santa Barbara Drive Santa Barbara Drive is a six lane undivided highway , initial 101 ft. in width . The phase of this road was constructed to provide access to the Newport Center Fire Station . The second phase was completed in the spring of 1975 . Both phases of this highway were paid for by The Irvine Company. 4. San Clemente Drive San Clemente Drive is a four lane undivided highway, 77 ft. in width . This highway was completed in 1975 and provides direct access to the Newport Harbor Art Museum and Library sites . The improvements were paid for entirely by The Irvine Company. B . Utilities 1 . Sewer The site is serviced by existing eight inch sewer lines and laterals in San Joaquin Hills Road, Santa Cruz Drive , San Clemente Drive and Santa Barbara Drive . TO : City Council - 2. 2 . Water The site is serviced by existing water lines and laterals as follows : a . San Joaquin Hills Road - 16 inch b . Santa Cruz Drive - 16 inch c. San Clemente Drive - 12 inch d. Santa Barbara Drive - 12 inch 3. Gas and Electrical In addition to the sewer and water lines noted above , the site is also serviced by gas lines and underground electrical service, paid for entirely by the developer. C. On-Site Utility Extensions 1 . Water An easement has been provided and an eight inch water line has been constructed from San Clemente Drive across the museum site to the undeveloped portion of the site . 2 . Electrical An easement has been provided from San Clemente Drive across the library site to service future development. D. Grading A review of the City ' s Grading Permits did not reveal any additional grading activity- on the site. Summary The Planned Community Development Plan for Civic Plaza was adopted by the City Council on December 22, 1-975 and became effective on January 21 , 1976 . The only improvement constructed since that time , other than for the museum and library, is the eight inch —s� line noted under Item C . l . above . WATER Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V . HOGAN,(DDiirector BY 't•J A S D . HEWICKER ss stant Director• - Planning Attachments for City Council Only : 1 Vicinity Map 2� Staff Report dated June 6 , 1978 THE IRVINE QOMPAW 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92663 (714) 644-3011 August 3, 1978 Mr. Richard Hogan Director of Community Development Department of Community Development City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 Dear Mr. Hogan: CIVIC PLAZA P.C. - COMPLIANCE WITH TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE Please accept this application for a determination if the above project has the potential to cause or make worse an unsatisfac- tory level of traffic service, and if necessary, initiate a traffic study analysis to determine whether the Civic Plaza Planned Community (adopted December 1975) can be considered an "exception" in accord with Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 1 , Chapter 15.40, paragraph 15.40.030(D)(ii) , Ordinance No. 1965. By this request, The Irvine Company is not and does not waive its claim that Civic Plaza is a vested project nor any other claim of right to proceed with the development of that project nor is it waiving any potential challenges to the validity and enforceability of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance itself. However, we believe it is in our mutual interests to proceed expeditiously with the requested determination and, if required, traffic study analysis. Upon your notification, we will forward necessary fee. Yours very truly, on ld W. Hendrickson Project Manager m Commercial/Industrial Division —�•((� RWH:dw L I - - - U/�S �Lr.tJtrtiE Ate►?;-.39_-�� ��7/�� - --- � -- - - - __.�---------j _T �_ ` - '� -- - � - - ---- ----r------- i -- -- -----r- - '�_ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECEIPT t���`w�°r�" o NEW PORT BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92865 No. 83090 DATE RECEIVED FROM FOR. I/I 1 = OU `Np-� SMOUNT - i DEPARTMENT t1 ' w 1 F0RM 245.3230.9-77 204455 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 104138 104138 COMP INVOICE'NUMBER INV. DATE INVOICE AMOUNT DISCOUNT NET AMOUNT 2010 U902 090178 PAYMENT FOR 1% 2010 U902 090178 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS i2010 U902 090178 BY CITY OF NEWPO 2010 U902 090178 RT TRAFFI'C 2010 AJ902 090178 04800333 2010 U902 090178 04800333 2010 U902 090178 04800333 04800333 925 00 925 00 Irk## THE IRVINE COMPANY TOTALS 925100 925 00 rZating � ^�`r��%�.="�;t►' ;�+,- ,,L- -- -.�r�_.___-____�.T�_- --r.�-.,may., -- Council Duff V `, egalsl 58- a e The unanimous action of the c am P 4 could now ask for changes in the voted two weeks ago for five un- m a legal firm, council officially"excepted"the Planned Community documents developed areas of the city. e possibility 26.12-acre section of Newport governing Civic Plaza.After vot- These restrictions reduced de- ity Council Center from the Traffic Phasing ing to uphold the Planning Com, velopment to 30 percent of that 3ted itself this week and Ordinance. mission's action vesting Civic approved in the Planning Com- agrgbd with the Planning Com- But the council acted only after Plaza, the council voted to ask the mission documents, with the re- uv sitm that controversial Civic Yt was assured by City Manager commission to apply to the tract mainfng 70 percent of the devel- is, indeed, vested. Robert Wynn that councilmen _severe restrictierrb similar to those_ opment passible only if the city's f, street and highway system can //''►► i,�w' Q handle additional traffic gener- �►sO11I1C�.�u� L " a Sint ^ , ated. ! Civic Plaza is the key tract in j (Continued from page 1) um, library, police and fire facili- Newport Center which now con- could and can and will reduce ties.It compared Civic Plaza with, tains the Newport Harbor Art Mu- the density of this project, and other city projects already vested. seum, the Newport Center branch can apply the 30-70 approach we But the crux of the position.pa- ( library and the police headquar- voted for other PCs,I would be per, obviously the foundation or a ters facility. prepared to vote differently." possible lawsuit,was found in Last July 11, the City Council While this discussions was go- Sections V,and VI, voted that Civic Plaza was not ing on, a stenotype court reporter Section V was titled"Failyre of vested, and was subject to the sat directly in front of the council the Newport Beach City Council Traffic Phasing Ordinance, be- recording every comment. to vest Civic Plaza is a denial of cause the buildings already con- Councilwoman'Jaclde Heather due process and equal protection structed were public or quasi- moved to sustain the action of the of the law." public buildings. Planning Commission, and one by And Section VI was titled"The_ Robert Shelton,representing one the council members fell in' city is equitably estopped from The Irvine Company, told the behind her, although usually with subjecting Civic Plaza to the T%af- council that the company believ. { a comment about"reducing the fic Phasing Ordinance." ed the city acted with insufficient i magnitude of the project" or, un- "Equitable estoppel;' the paper evidence when it denied vesting i related expressions like Council- read,"is a doctrine'applied by , to Civic Plaza last July. He pre- man Paul Hummel's: "sometimes the courts to prevent the perpe-- seated the legal"position paper' x things are legal that are not tration of injustice on innocent j and introduced Robert Drake, of M moral." parties by both private and gov the legal firm of Latham and Wat- z The position paper traced the ernment action' The paper cite kins,who authored the paper. ro E history of Civic Plaza back to a number of legal cases that 1 ' "I have no to add, but am -o 1967, when The Irvine Company, might bear on any Civic Plaza lit- prepared to answer any ques- � � at its own expense, graded the igation. lions, Drake said. There were —t entire Newport Center area, and "Estop" is a legal team of art :; i none. w m made"substantial and costly in- from Old French which means"to Councilman Don Strauss sum- z frastructure investments,includ- stop, bar or impede."Its Old marized the councils dilemma En mg sewage, water, gas,.power French form meant a bung or cork. ! when he said he thought the � c> and telephone lines." The threatened legal action ob Civic Plaza issue was about as z M, Then it described the interde- viously drove# bung into the close to a 50-50 issue as he had pendent nature of the projects al- council's efforts to deny vesting to '! known. ready completed—the art muse- Civic Plaza. 'T was one of those who oppos- ed vesting,"he said."Whether we (Continued on page 4) _ h DAILY PILOT - 1/8/80 R ` THE HtVINE COMPANY'S CIVIC PLAZA; apart ofr% Newport Center,will be the subject of a City Council hear• 6 ing on Feb.U, The office development's traffic phasing plan was ap- proved last month by planning commissioners in a 6.1 vote, but Monday night Mayor Paul Ryckoff said he wants ; ithe council to review that decision. The reason given by the mayor was that the traffic plan document—nearly an inch thick—is complex and it should be thoroughly reviewed before it goes into effect. A traffic phasing plan must be approved before the company can complete the project. Company spokesman Bob Shelton objected,saying the project has been delayed too much as it is,but only council members Don McInnis and Jackie Heather voted against the February review of the plan. THE NEWPORT ENSIGN - 1 /9/80 Civic Plaza Is Called tip By a 5 to 2 vote', the City, Council decided this week to call up for review and public hearing the long-debated Civic Plaza project, approved last month by the Planning Commis- sibn on a 6 to 1 vote. Mayor Paul Ryckoff asked that the project be called up for council review. It was set for a I Feb. 11 public hearing. J Robert Shelton, vice president of the Irvine Co., said he was sorry to see the project post- poned again. Civic Plaza is a group of low density business buildings in Newport Center, built around--a { sculpture garden behind the Newport Harbor Art Museum. THE IRVINE C MPAW 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92663 (714) 644-3011 September 7, 1978 Beverly Wood Department of Community Development City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Ca 92660 Dear Bev: CIVIC PLAZA, NEWPORT CENTER - 1% TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Enclosed is a check in the amount of $925.00 to cover the 1% Traffic Analysis requested by our letter of August 3, 1978. Yours very truly, 1� ..OA 9—/,0 onald W. Hendrickson Project Manager Commercial/Industrial Division RWH:dw Encl . rn 4� O C SOS neo �1 co .l090 9 Oz�'OeP� Y9��I S�Q G OB�,pN l2 Nye0 ! I AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into on this 14th day of September, 1978 , by and between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH , a municipal corporation , hereinafter referred to as "CITY ," and WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES , hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT. " W I T N E S S E T H WHEREAS, the CITY has determined that a Traffic Study is necessary in conjunction with an application of The Irvine Company for approval of the Civic Plaza Planned Community, in the City of Newport Beach , County of Orange, State of California ; and WHEREAS, CONSULTANT has submitted to CITY a proposal to prepare said Traffic Study; and WHEREAS , CITY desires to accept said proposal . NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing , the parties hereto agree as follows : 1 . GENERAL CONSULTANT agrees to prepare the subject Traffic Study in accordance with the requirements set forth in Paragraph 2 of this Agreement. CITY agrees to remit to CONSULTANT the amounts set forth in paragraph 3 of this Agreement in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in this document. 2. 'SCOPE OF 'WORK The subject Initial Study will be prepared in accordance with the CONSULTANT ' S proposal dated August 24, 1978, which is attached to this Agreement marked as Exhibit "A" and by reference incorporated herein at this point as if fully set forth . . 3. BILLING AND PAYMENT CONSULTANT shall be paid under this Agreement on a time and material basis and in no event shall the maximum amount of this Agreement exceed eight Hundred Dollars ($800. 00) . Partial payments shall be made by CITY to CONSULTANT upon CONSULTANT ' S presentation of -1 - statements verifying the time and material costs incurred by it in connection with this Agreement. 4. FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE CONSULTANT shall use diligent efforts to complete this contract within fourteen (14) days after execution of this Agreement. The subject Traffic Study must meet the approval of the City ' s Traffic' Engineer and Community Development Director. In the event additional work is required due to input during the public hearings , said additional work shall be subject to a separate contract. 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 M CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BY Ass is nt ty to y irecto Com < ty D opment. Departmen CITY WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES By CONSULTANT -2- W + A P A �6bf01� P►tcugQe lt4ll� ©6aCiAO TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 9 August 24, 1978 9 VZEGEt`,yC 9 Comm sent De'j pe�.Y. V pUG Ms Beverly Wood NEUJP,B�CH, Community Development Department 1I CALIF. City of Newport Beach � 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 Dear Ms Wood: We are pleased to submit this proposal to provide professional engineering service relative to an analysis of Civic Plaza with respect to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. This proposal is based upon our discussion of August 23, 1978, and our understanding of the study needs. In general, the work would consist of conducting a one percent analysis at the intersection identified by the City Traffic Engineer. This analysis would conform to City procedures and utilize data and forms provided by the City. A report would be prepared summarizing our findings and con- clusions. We would envision the following specific tasks to be required for this study, TASK 1 - DATA ASSEMBLY We would assemble all available data pertinent to the study. This would include site development plans, existing traffic data, previous reports and similar data. Current volume data for the intersection to be analyzed would be provided by the City along with forms to be utilized. We would discuss the study with City Staff and The Irvine Company representatives as required to obtain any additional information. 2651 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE • SUITE 110 • FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92631 • (714) 871-2931 • • -2- TASK 2 - ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS Estimates would be made of traffic to be generated by the project. These would be based upon trip generation rates acceptable to the City. A trip distribution model would be developed to: include all intersections to be analyzed. This would be based upon our-1pre- vious analyses of this site. Project traffic would be determined at each intersection, by approach„far the 2.5 peak hour period. Utilizing the City forms, each intersection would be examined with respect to the one percent criteria. A tabulation would be prepared summarizing these results and identifying those intersections re- quiring further analysis. TASK 3 - REPORT AND MEETINGS A report would be prepared summarizing our findings and conclusions. The report would conform to the outline prepared by the City Traffic Engineer. We would meet with City and The Irvine Company represen- tati.ves,as required to complete the study. A final meeting would be held to review the study results and examine additional analysis needs. We would be prepared to begin work on 'this project upon receipt of auth- orization. It is anticipated that thereport would be completed within two (2) weeks. Our fee for the work outlined in this proposal shall be based upon personnel charges plus direct expenses as indicated in our Standard Rate Schedule, a copy of which is attached and made a part hereto. In no case would the total fee exceed $800.00 without prior approval from you or your representative. Since it is not possible at this time to estimate the time required for-add- itional meetings and/or presentations-concerning this project not mentioned in this proposal, our staff would be available with the fee based upon our Rate Schedule in addition to the previously stated maximum. The additional work shall be conducted when requested by you or your representative. • ! -3- Res ectfull submitted P Y � WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES Weston S. Pring e, P.E. WSP:cd dft,o Meftb- A TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING STANDARD RATE SCHEDULE Effective October 1, 1976 Professional Staff Hourly Rates Firm Principal $ 45.00 Senior Engineer 30.00 "Associate Engineer 25.00 Assistant Engineer 20.00 Support Staff Engineering Draftsman $ 15.00 Field Supervisor 12.00 Secretary 10.00 Clerical, Field Enumerator 8.00 General 1. Travel, reproduction, telephone, supplies, and other non-wage direct costs are billed at cost plus ten (10) percent. 2,. Hourly rates• apply to travel in addition to working time. 3. For presentations.or appearances at formal hearings, depositions, or court testimony, the following rates apply. Travel time is included in the number of hours indicated. Preparation time is charged at normal hourly rates. Over 5 hours 5 hours or less Firm Principal $500.00 $300.00 Senior Engineer 350,00 200.00 4. Statements will be submitted monthly for work in progress or upon com- pletion of work. Statements are payable within 30 days of receipt. Any invoice unpaid after 60 days shall have service charges added at a rate of 1.5 percent per month on the unpaid balance. Compensation for services performed will not be contingent upon the necessity of client to receive payment from other parties. 5. These rates are based upon procedures and methods outlined in the American Society of Civil Engineers' Manual on Engineering Practice Number 45. 2651 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE SUITE 110 • FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92631 (714) 871-2931 AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into on this 14th day of September, 1978, by and between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH , a municipal corporation , hereinafter referred to as "CITY , " and WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES, hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT. " W I T N E S S E T H WHEREAS , the CITY has determined that a Traffic Study is necessary in conjunction with an application of The Irvine Company for approval of the Civic Plaza Planned Community, in the City of Newport Beach , County of Orange , State of California ; and WHEREAS , CONSULTANT has submitted to CITY a proposal to prepare said Traffic Study ; and WHEREAS , CITY desires to accept said proposal . NOW, THEREFORE , in consideration of the foregoing, the parties hereto agree as follows : 1 . GENERAL CONSULTANT agrees to prepare the subject Traffic Study in accordance with the requirements set forth in Paragraph 2 of this Agreement. CITY agrees to remit to CONSULTANT the amounts set forth in paragraph 3 of this Agreement in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in this document. 2 . 'SCOPE 'OF "WORK The subject Initial Study will be prepared in accordance with the CONSULTANT' S proposal dated August 24 , 1978, which is attached to this Agreement marked as Exhibit "A" and by reference incorporated herein at this point as if fully set forth . 3. BILLING AND PAYMENT CONSULTANT shall be paid under this Agreement on a time and material basis and in no event shall the maximum amount of this Agreement exceed eight Hundred Dollars ($800 . 00) . Partial payments shall be made by CITY to CONSULTANT upon CONSULTANT ' S presentation of statements verifying the time and material costs incurred by it in connection with this Agreement. 4. FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE CONSULTANT shall use diligent efforts to complete this contract within fourteen (14) days after execution of this Agreement. The subject Traffic Study must meet the approval of the City ' s Traffic Engineer and Community Development Director. In the event additional work is required due to input during the public hearings , said additional work shall be subject to a separate contract. 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 M CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH f By ssis nt ty to lrecto Com , ty D opment. Departmen CITY WESTON PRI•NGLE AND ASSOCIATES By � Z CONSULTANT -2- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH c9Qjpo � October 19, 1978 Mr. Keith Greer c/o The Irvine Company 610 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject: Traffic Study - Civic Plaza Dear Mr. Greer: I have enclosed a copy of the proposal prepared by Wes Pringle and Associates, for the preparation of Civic Plaza Traffic Study. Subsequent to your review of the proposal , please contact me so that we might meet with Wes Pringle. I look forward to working with you on this project. Sincerely, DEPARTMMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, DIRECTOR By. Fred Tala7rico Senior Planner FT/dt Attachment: Letter proposal Wes Pringle & Associates City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 W •{ 6,91 .p dco P A Weo P fs ad Awdain TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING October 16, 1978 Mr. Fred Talarico 1, G� 11 Community Development Department vela . City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 % v1 Dear Mr. Talarico: lie are pleased to submit this proposal to provide professional engineering services relative to an ICU analysis of the Civic Plaza project in Newport Center. This study would conform to the Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordin- ance. The proposal is based upon our meeting with City Staff and The Irvine Company representatives on October 11, 1978, and our understanding of the needs of the study. In general, the work would consist of analyzing the peak hour ICUs at the critical intersections at the completion of this project. The analysis would include existing project traffic plus all projects which have been excepted from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Intersections with ICU values greater than 0.90 would be further examined to determine mitigating iheasures and ICU's cal- culated for the revised conditions. It is envisioned that only those intersec- tions identified as critical for the subject project would be analyzed. We would envision the following specific tasks to be required for the study: TASK 1 - DATA ASSEMBLY We would assemble all available data pertinent to the study. This would include previous studies, current traffic volumes and specific planning data for the excepted projects. Discussions would be held with City Staff to clarify exact planning data for the excepted 2651 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE • SUITE 110 • FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92631 • (714) 871-2931 . . -2 projects and street improvement assumptions. It is not anticipated that field data collection would be required for this study. TASK 2 - TRIP GENERATION AND ASSIGNMENT PM peak hour traffic volumes would be estimated for each project included in the study. Where previous reports have been completed, the available data would be utilized. Estimates would be based upon trip generation rates acceptable to the City Traffic Engineer. A trip distribution model would be developed for each project where prior distributions had not been established. These would be based upon previous studies and modified to reflect conditions upon com- pletion of the project. Projected traffic from each project would then be assigned to the road system. The assignment would include turning movements at the critical intersections identified by the City Traffic Engineer for the Civic Plaza project. These data would be tabulated so that they could be utilized in future studies. TASK 3 - ANALYSIS An ICU analysis would be completed for each of the critical inter- sections. These would be based upon the City's existing conditions ICU analyses and the product of Task 2. Those intersections with an ICU value greater than 0.90 would be analyzed further to identify potential mitigation measures. These analyses would consider planned street improvements and any mitigation measures required by the sub- ject projects. A summary would be prepared of the findings and miti- gation measures. TASK 4 - REPORT AND MEETINGS A report would be prepared summarizing our findings and conclusions. The report would contain the required supportive data and conform to the requirements of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. We would meet with City Staff and others as required during the course of the study. Attendance at one Planning Commission and one City Council meeting are envisioned to be a part of this study. m • • -3- We would be prepared to begin work on this study upon receipt of authorization. It is anticipated. that approximately eight (8) weeks would be required to com- plete the report. This schedule assumes no delays in obtaining detailed ex- cepted project data from the City. Our fee for the work outlined in this proposal shall be based upon personnel charges plus direct expenses as indicated in our Standard Rate Schedule, a copy of which is attached and made a part hereto. In no case would the total fee exceed $ 10,500.00 without prior approval from you or your representative. Since it is not possible at this time to estimate the .time required for addi- tional meetings and/or presentations concerning this project not mentioned in this proposal, our staff would be available with the fee based upon our Rate Schedule in addition to the previously stated maximum. The additional work shall be conducted when requested by you or your representative. Respectfully submitted, WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES Weston S. Pringle, P.E. WSP:cd IP jAA Wea ? te ad AaaodMa TRAFFIC 8 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING STANDARD RATE SCHEDULE Effective October 1, 1976 Professional Staff- Hourly Rates Firm Principal $ 45.00 Senior Engineer 30.00 Associate Engineer 25.00 Assistant Engineer 20.00 Support Staff Engineering Draftsman $ 15.00 Field Supervisor 1$.00 Secretary 10.00 Clerical, Field Enumerator 8.00 General 1. Travel, reproduction, telephone, supplies, and other non-wage direct costs are billed at cost plus ten (10) percent. 2. Hourly rates apply to travel in addition to working time. 3. For presentations.or appearances at formal. hearings, depositions, or court testimony, the following rates apply. Travel time is included in the number of hours indicated. Preparation time is charged at normal hourly rates. Over 5 hours 5 hours or less Firm Principal $500.00 $300.00 Senior Engineer 350.00 200.00 4. Statements will be submiLtad monthly for work in progress or upon com- pletion of work. Statements are payable within 30 days of receipt. Any invoice unpaid after 60 days shall have service charges added at a rate of 1.5 percent per month on the unpaid balance. Compensation for services performed will not be contingent upon the necessity of client to receive payment from other parties. 5. These rates are based upon procedures and methods outlined in the American Society of Civil Engineers' Manual on Engineering Practice Number 45. 2651 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE • SUITE 110 • FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92631 (714) 871-2931 W + IC5;b TRAFFIC g TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING October 17, 1978 Mr. Fred Talarico Community Development Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Dear Mr. Talarico: We are pleased to submit this proposal to provide professional engineering ser- vices .relative to an ICU analysis for the Civic Plaza development. This would be a study to provide analyses required by the Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The proposal is based upon our meeting with City. Staff and The Irvine Company representatives on October 11, 1978, and our understanding of the needs of the study. In general, the work would consist of analyzing the peak hour ICU's upon com- pletion of the proposed project. Intersections with ICU's greater than 0.90 would be further analyzed to determine potential mitigating measures and ICU's calculated for the revised conditions. For this analysis, four alternative conditions would be considered. The alternatives are: 1. Existing plus project traffic. 2. Existing plus Pacific Mutual and project traffic 3. Existing plus Pacific Plaza and "project traffic 4. Existing plus Pacific Mutual, Pacific Plaza and project traffic. We would envision the following specific tasks to be required for this study. TASK 1 - DATA ASSEMBLY We would assemble all available data pertinent to the study. This would include previous reports, project development plans, current 2651 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE • SUITE 110 9 FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92631 9 (714) 871-2931 critical intersection traffic data and similar data. Discussions would be held with City Staff to determine the street improvements to be assumed as existing for the analysis. It is not anticipated that field data collection would be required for this study. TASK 2 - TRIP GENERATION AND ASSIGNMENT Estimates would be made of PM peak hour trips to be generated .by the various projects included in the study. Where previous estimates have been developed, these would be utilized. Estimates would be based upon trip generation rates applicable to. the land uses and acceptable to the City Traffic Engineer. A trip distribution model would be developed for each project where prior distributions had not been established. These would be based upon previous studies and modified to reflect conditions upon completion of the project. Projected traffic from each project would then be assigned to the road system. The assignment would include turning movements at the critical intersections indentified by the 'City Traffic.Engineer. TASK 3 - ANALYSIS An ICU analysis would be completed for each of the critical inter- sections for each alternative condition. These would be based upon the City's existing condition ICU analyses and the products of Task 2. Those intersections with an ICU value. greater than 0.90 would be analyzed further to identify potential mitigation measures. These analyses would consider planned street improvements and any mitigation measures required by the subject projects. A summary would be prepared of the findings of these various analyses. TASK 4 - REPORT AND MEETINGS A report would be prepared summarizing our findings and conclusions. The report would contain the required supportive data and conform to the requirements of the Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance. We would meet with City Staff and others as required during the course of the study. Attendance at one Planning Commission and one City Council me ting are. anticipated to be a part of the study. l 0 -3 We would be prepared to begin work on this study upon receipt of authorization.' It is anticipated that approximately four (4) weeks would be required to com- plete the study. This assumes no delays in obtaining data from the City relative to the projects. Our fee for the work outlined in this proposal shall be based upon personnel charges plus direct expenses as indicated in our Standard Rate Schedule, a copy of which is attached and made a part hereto. In no case would the total fee exceed $ 5,000 without prior approval from you or your representative. Since it is not possible at this time to estimate the time required for addi- tional meetings and/or presentations concerning this project not mentioned in this proposal, our staff would be available with the fee based upon our Rate Schedule in addition to the previously stated maximum, The additional work - shall be conducted when requested by you or your representative. Respectfully submitted, WEESSSTONN PPRI�NGLE AND ASSOCIATES Weston S. Pringle, P.E. WSP:cd W + d;b TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING STANDARD RATE SCHEDULE Effective October 1, 1976 Professional Staff Hourly Rates Firm Principal $ 45.00 Senior Engineer 30.00 Associate Engineer 25.00 Assistant Engineer 20.00 Support Staff Engineering Draftsman $ 15.00 Field Supervisor 12.00 Secretary 10.00 Clerical, Field Enumerator 8.00 General 1. Travel, reproduction, telephone, supplies, and other non-wage direct costs are billed at cost plus ten (10) percent. • 2. Hourly rates apply to travel in addition to working time. 3. For presentations or appearances at formal hearings, depositions, or court testimony, the following rates apply. Travel time is included in the number of hours indicated . Preparation time is charged at normal hourly rates. Over 5 hours 5 hours or less Firm'Principal $500.00 $300.00 Senior Engineer 350.00 200.00 4. Statements will be submitted monthly for work in progress or upon com- pletion of work. Statements are payable within 30 clays of receipt. Any invoice unpaid after 60 clays shall have service charges added at a rate of 1..5 percent- per month on ehc unpaid balance. Compensation for services performed will not be contingent upon the necessity of client to receive payment from other parties. 5. These rates are based upon procedures and methods outlined in the American Society of Civil Engineers' manual on Engineering Practice Number 45. 2651 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE • SUITE 110 • FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92631 • (714) 871-2931 J �!`�EWPpR7 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH u z' Cq tpp N� October 19, 1978 Mr. Keith Greer c/o The Irvine Company 610 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject: Traffic Study - Civic Plaza Dear Mr. Greer: I have enclosed a copy of the proposal prepared by Wes Pringle and Associates, for the preparation of Civic Plaza Traffic Study. Subsequent to your review of the proposal , please contact me so that we might meet with Wes Pringle. I look forward to working with you on this project. Sincerely, DEPARTMMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, DIRECTOR By Fred alarico Senior Planner FT/dt Attachment: Letter proposal Wes Pringle & Associates 3300 N City Hall • Newport w Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 p ew W -� � • • , P A U3 Pdqte ad AwdaW TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING J October 16, 1978 \ \4 � Mr. Fred Talarico Community Development Department p G� t Xr- City of Newport Beach �Ey4 G�� J 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Dear Mr. Talarico: We are pleased to submit this proposal to provide professional engineering services relative to an ICU analysis of the Civic Plaza project in Newport Center. This study would conform to the Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordin- ance. The proposal is based upon our meeting with City Staff and The Irvine Company representatives on October 11, 1978, and our understanding of the needs of the study. In general, the work would consist of analyzing the peak hour ICU's at the critical intersections at the completion of this project. The analysis would include existing project traffic plus all projects which have been excepted from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Intersections with ICU values greater than 0.90 would be further examined to determine mitigating measures and ICU's cal- culated for the revised conditions. It is .envisioned that only those intersec- tions identified as critical for the subject project would be analyzed. We would envision the following specific tasks to be required for the study: TASK 1 - DATA ASSEMBLY We would assemble all available data pertinent to the study. This would include previous studies, current traffic volumes and specific planning data for the excepted projects. Discussions would be held Staff to clarify exact planning data for the excepted with City y p g P 2651 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE • SUITE 110 • FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92631 (714) 871-2931 • ^2- projects and street improvement assumptions. It is not anticipated that field data collection would be required for this study'. TASK 2 - TRIP GENERATION AND ASSIGNMENT PM peak hour traffic volumes would be estimated for each project included in the study. Where previous reports have been completed,, the available data would be utilized. Estimates would' be based upon trip generation rates acceptable to the City Traffic Engineer. A trip distribution model would be developed for each project where prior distributions had not been established. These would be based upon previous studies and modified to reflect conditions upon com- pletion of the project. Projected traffic from each project would then be assigned to the road system. The assignment would include turning movements at the critical intersections identified by the City Traffic Engineer for the Civic Plaza project. These data would be tabulated so that they could be utilized in future studies. TASK 3 - ANALYSIS An ICU analysis would be completed for each of the critical inter- sections. These would be based upon the City's existing conditions ICU analyses and the product of Task'2. Those intersections with an ICU value greater than 0.90 would be analyzed further to identify potential mitigation measures. These analyses would consider planned street improvements and any mitigation measures required by the sub- ject projects. A summary would be prepared of the findings and miti- gation measures. TASK 4 - REPORT AND MEETINGS A report would be prepared summarizing our findings and conclusions. The report would contain the required supportive data and conform to the requirements of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. We would meet with City Staff and others as required during the course of the study. Attendance at one Planning Commission and one City Council meeting are envisioned to be a part- of this study. -3- • We would be prepared to begin work on this study upon receipt of authorization. It is anticipated. that approximately eight (8) weeks would be required to com- plete the report. This schedule assumes no delays in obtaining detailed ex- cepted project data from the City. Our fee for the work outlined in this proposal shall be based upon personnel charges plus direct expenses as indicated in our Standard Rate Schedule, a copy of which is attached and made a part hereto. , In no case would the total fee exceed $ 10,500.00 without prior approval from you or your representative. Since it is not possible at this time to estimate the :time required for addi- tional meetings and/or presentations concerning this project not mentioned in this proposal, our staff would be available with the fee based upon our Rate Schedule in addition to the previously stated maximum. The additional, work shall be conducted when requested by you or your representative. Respectfully submitted, WESTON PPRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES Weston Weston S. Pringle, P.E. WSP:cd IowoMotu NMEe curd /��oacioW dta TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING STANDARD RATE SCHEDULE Effective October 1, 1976 Professional Staff Hourly Rates Firm Principal $ 45.00 Senior Engineer 30.00 Associate Engineer 25.00 Assistant Engineer 20.00 Support Staff Engineering Draftsman $ 15.00 Field Supervisor 12.00 Secretary 10.00 Clerical, Field Enumerator 8.00 General 1. Travel, reproduction, telephone, supplies, and other non-wage direct costs are billed at cost plus ten (10) percent. 2. Hourly rates apply to travel in addition to working time. 3. For presentations or appearances at formal hearings, depositions, or court testimony, the following rates apply. Travel time is included in the number of hours indicated. Preparation time is charged at normal hourly rates. Over 5 hours 5 hours or less Firm Principal $500.00 $300.00 Senior Engineer 350.00 200.00 4. Statements will be submitted monthly for work in progress or upon com- pletion of work. Statements are payabLe within 30 days of receipt. Any invoice unpaid after 60 clays shall have service charges added at a rate of 1.5 percent per month on the unpaid balance. Compensation for services performed will not be contingent upon the necessity of client to receive payment from other parties. 5. These rates are based upon procedures and methods outlined in the American Society of Civil Engineers' Manual on Engineering Practice Number 45. 2651 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE • SUITE 110 • FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92631 • (714) 871-2931 P A Wea Ngfe Aso . TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING October 17, 1978 Mr. Fred Talarico Community Development Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Dear Mr. Talarico: We are pleased to submit this proposal to provide professional engineering ser- vices relative to an ICU analysis for the Civic Plaza development. This would be a study to provide analyses required by the Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The proposal is based upon our meeting with City Staff and The Irvine Company representatives on October 11, 1978, and our understanding of the needs of the study. In general, the work would consist of analyzing the peak hour ICU's upon com- pletion of the proposed project. Intersections with ICU's greater than 0.90 would be further analyzed to determine potential mitigating measures and ICU's calculated for the revised conditions. For this analysis, four alternative conditions would be considered. The alternatives are: 1. Existing plus project traffic. 2. Existing plus Pacific Mutual and project traffic 3. Existing plus Pacific Plaza and 'project traffic 4. Existing plus Pacific Mutual, Pacific Plaza and project traffic. We would envision the following specific tasks to be required for this study. TASK 1 - DATA ASSEMBLY We would assemble all available data pertinent to the study. This would include previous reports, project development plans, current 2651 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE • SUITE 1'10 • FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92631 • (714) 871-2931 • • -2- critical intersection traffic data and similar data. Discussions would be held with City Staff to determine the street improvements to be assumed as existing for the analysis. 'It is not anticipated that field data collection would be required for this study. TASK 2 - TRIP GENERATION AND ASSIGNMENT Estimates would be made of PM peak hour itrips to be generated by the various projects included in the study. Where previous estimates have been developed, these would be utilized. Estimates would be based upon trip generation rates applicable to the land uses and acceptable to the City Traffic Engineer. A trip distribution model would be developed for each project where prior distributions had not been. established. These would be based upon previous studies and modified to reflect conditions upon completion of the project. Projected traffic from each project would then be assigned to the road system. The assignment would include turning movements at the critical intersections indentified by the City Traffic Engineer. TASK 31- ANALYSIS An ICU analysis would be completed for each of th=_ critical inter- sections for each alternative condition. These would be based upon the City's existing condition ICU analyses and the products of Task 2. Those intersections with an ICU value greater than 0.90 would be analyzed further to identify potential mitigation measures. These analyses would consider planned street improvements and any mitigation measures required by the subject projects. A summary would be prepared of the findings of these various analyses. TASK 4 - REPORT AND MEETINGS A report would be prepared summarizing our findings and conclusions. The report would contain the required supportive data and conform to the requirements of the Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance. We would meet with City Staff and others as required during the course of the study. Attendance at one Planning Commission and one City Council me ting are anticipated to be a part of the study. • -3- We would be prepared to begin work on this study upon receipt of authorization. It is anticipated that approximately four (4) weeks would be required to com- plete the study. This assumes no delays in obtaining data from the City relative to the projects. Our fee for the work outlined in this proposal shall be based upon personnel charges plus direct expenses as indicated in our Standard Rate Schedule, a copy of which is attached and made a part hereto. In no case would the total fee exceed $ 5,000 without prior approval from you or your representative. Since it is not possible at this time to estimate the. time required for addi- tional meetings and/or presentations concerning this project not mentioned in this proposal, our staff would be available with the fee based upon our Rate Schedule in addition to the previously stated maximum, The additional work shall be conducted when requested by you or your representative. Respectfully submitted, WESTON PRINNGGLE AND ASSOCIATES A -J 4/c Weston S. Pringle, P.E. . WSP:cd W + 6b ft TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING STANDARD RATE SCHEDULE Effective October 1, 1976 Professional Staff Hourly Rates Firm Principal $ 45.00 Senior Engineer 30.00 Associate Engineer 25.00 Assistant Engineer 20.00 Support Staff Engineering Draftsman $ 15.00 Field Supervisor 12.00 Secretary 10.00 Clerical, Field Enumerator 8.00 General 1. Travel, reproduction, telephone, supplies, and other non-wage direct costs are billed at cost plus ten (10) percent. . 2. Hourly rates apply to travel in addition to working time. 3. For presentations or appearances at formal hearings, depositions, 6r - court testimony, the following rates apply. Travel time is included in the number of hours indicated . Preparation time is charged at normal hourly rates. Over 5 hours 5 hours or less Firm Principal $500.00 $300.00 Senior Engineer 350.00 200.00 4. Statements will. be submitted monthly for work in progress or upon com- pletion of work. Statements are payable within 30 days of receipt. Any invoice unpaid after 60 clays shall have service charges added at a rate of 1.5 percent per month on Lhe unpaid balance. Compensation for services performed will not be contingent upon the necessity of client to receive payment from other parties. 5. These rates are based upon procedures and methods outlined in the American Society of Civil Engineers' Manual on Engineering Practice . Number 45. 2651 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE • SUITE 110 • FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92631 • (714) 871-2931 J i AP P A Webb! ��6l k Ad AaaedAW TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING August 24, 1978 Ity Del•.'...r. W Ms Beverly Wood �j✓ ) Community Development Department NsNN POR�6EF.CH. 7! City of Newport Beach CAL:F. 3300 Newport Boulevard 2 Newport Beach, California 92660 Dear Ms Wood: We are pleased to submit this proposal to provide professional engineering service relative to an analysis of Civic Plaza with respect to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. This proposal is based upon our discussion of August 23, 1978, and our understanding of the study needs. In general, the work would consist of conducting a one percent analysis at the intersection identified by the City Traffic Engineer. This analysis would conform to City procedures and utilize data and forms provided by the City. A report would be prepared summarizing our findings and con- clusions. We would envision the following specific tasks to be required for this study, TASK 1 - DATA ASSEMBLY We would assemble all available data pertinent to the study. This would include site development plans, existing traffic data, previous reports and similar data. Current volume data for the intersection to be analyzed would be provided by the City along with forms to be utilized. We would discuss the study with City Staff and The Irvine Company representatives as required to obtain any additional information. 2651 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE • SUITE 110 • FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92631 • (714) 871-2931 i 0 -2- TASK 2 - ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS Estimates would be made of traffic to be generated by the project. These would be based upon trip generation rates acceptable to the - City. A trip distribution model would be developed to- include all intersections to be analyzed. This would be based upon our pre- vious analyses of this site. Project traffic would be determined at each intersection, by approach„for the 2.5 peak hour period. Utilizing the City forms, each intersection would be examined with respect to the one percent criteria. A tabulation would be prepared summarizing these results and identifying those intersections re- quiring further analysis. TASK 3 - REPORT AND MEETINGS A report would be prepared summarizing our findings and conclusions. The report would conform to -the outline prepared by the City Traffic Engineer. We would meet with City and The Irvine Company represen- tatives.as required to complete the study. A final meeting would be held to review the study results and examine additional analysis needs. We would be prepared to begin work on 'this project upon receipt of auth- orization. It is anticipated that thereport would be completed within two (2) weeks. Our fee for the work outlined in this proposal shall be based upon personnel charges plus direct expenses as indicated in our Standard Rate Schedule, a copy of which is attached and made a part hereto. In no case would the total fee exceed $800.00 without prior approval from you or your representative. Since it is not possible at this time to estimate the time required for-add- itional meetings and/or presentations-concerning this project not mentioned in this proposal, our staff would be available with the fee based upon our Rate Schedule in addition to the previously stated maximum. The additional work shall be conducted when requested by you or your representative. THE IRVINE C MPAWY 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92663 (714) 644-3011 August 3, 1978 Mr. Richard Hogan Director of Community Development Department of Community Development City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 Dear Mr. Hogan: CIVIC PLAZA P.C. - COMPLIANCE WITH TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE Please accept this application for a determination if the above project has the potential to cause or make worse an unsatisfac- tory level of traffic service, and if necessary, initiate a traffic study analysis to determine whether the Civic Plaza Planned Community (adopted December 1975) can be considered an "exception" in accord with Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 1 , Chapter 15.40, paragraph 15.40.030(D)(ii ) , Ordinance No. 1965. By this request, The Irvine Company is not and does not waive its claim that Civic Plaza is a vested project nor any. other claim of right to proceed with the development of that project nor is it waiving any potential challenges to the validity and enforceability of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance itself. However, we believe it is in our mutual interests to proceed expeditiously with the requested determination and, if required, traffic study analysis. Upon your notification, we will forward necessary fee. Yours very truly, on ld W. Hendrickson Project Manager Commercial/Industrial Division L�v RWH:dw 9 e�OC) 00 ':;:::•�-. ....,, w.` .% . e'er•;..:✓.�:iy'.".•s. ' ... ... ,% AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALT, UNDE"R THREAT OF liMINENT DOMAIN THIS AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF LAND made as of this �Z�zI, clay of L.,��� 1 1976 , by and between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as • "Buyer" , and THE IRVINE. COMPANY, a West Virginia Corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Seller" : RECITALS Seller is the owner of certain real property as described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference . Buyer wishes to acquire said property as a site for a library facility, and to this end has adopted a resolution authorizing the exercise of .the power of eminent- domain for its acquisition. The parties hereto mutually desire to provide for the purchase and sale of said property upon mutually acceptable terms to avoid necessity of an action in eminent domain. AGREEMENT 1 . Sel•ler hereby agrees to sell Lo Buyer, and Buyer hereby agrees to buy from Seller, that certain parcel of real property located .in the State of California, County of Orange, City of Newport Beach, more particularly described in the attached legal description marked Exhibit "A" and- incorporated herein by this reference , and as delineated on Exhibit "B", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference . 2 . Buyer and Seller agree to open an escrow with Safeco Title Insurance Company for the purpose of conveying the property, the terms of which will be cbnsist-ent with the terms stated herein. 3 . A• Prelimi'nary Title Report has been prepared and delivered to the Buyer by Seller for approval, which approval or disapproval. shall. be delivered in writing to escrow. Disapproval. shall. cancel the escrow. 4 . Seiler shall convey subject property to Buyer by Corporation Grant Deed in the form attached hereto as Exhibit "C". 5 . The purchase price for the subject property shall , be TWO HUNDRED SEVENTY NINE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($279,500. 00) payable by Buyer to Seller through escrow as follows : (a) Pursuant to Article 16, Section 18 of the California Constitution, a •special account shall be set aside by Buyer during the current fiscal period in an amount sufficient to pay the total purchase price and out of which all payments will be made to Seller as follows : (i) Within ten (10) days after the opening-of escrow, a sum equal to One-Fifth (1/5th) of the total purchase price or FIFTY-FIVE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($55 , 900. 00) , shall 'be deposited in escrow and credited as part of the purchase price; and (ii) On or before the close bf escrow, Buyer shall deliver to escrow a fully executed Promissory Note for the balauce ,of the purchase price , said note to be paid in ten equal installments , plus interest at the rate of 6z% per annum until paid, at the time and in the manner as set forth in the form of Promissory Note set forth in Exhibit "D"• attached hereto. (iii) It is mutually agreed by the parties hereto that if Buyer shall not pay any said installment upon the due date thereof-, Seller shall have the right to enforce payment of the balance out, of the funds remaining in the special account referred to hereinabove in subparagraph 5 (a)• (b) The obligation of the City under this Agreement to pay Seller the purchase price of said property shall not be a lien, charge • or encumbrance, legal or equitable, on any City property, or upon any of• the income, receipts or other revenues of the City, other than those specific revenues allocated to the special account as hereinabove described . 6 . Seller agrees to provide a standard CLT'A owner' s Title Insurance Policy insuring the City as Grantee for the amount of sale. Conveyance shall be subject to the following: -2- (a) The printed exceptions of said policy -`10 of title insurance; (b) Current real property taxes and assessments ; . (c) Covenants , conditions , restrictions , rights , rights of way, easements of record 'or apparent as of the date of said Deed ; (d) Other matters set forth on the Deed attached hereto as Exhibit "C", or as approved by the City, or as agreed to herein. 7 . - All parties to escrow agree to. cooperate to whatever extent possible ' to enable Safeco Title Insurance Company to close escrow on or before June ' 30, 1976 , which date may be extended by mutual written agreement signed by both Buyer and Seller. Prior to• close of escrow, Seller shall deliver to Escrow an executed Corporation Grant Deed in the form set forth in � Exhibit "C" and the Buyer shall deliver to Escrow the executed Promissory Note in the form set forth in Exhibit "D". The parties hereto jointly instruct Safeco Title Insurance Company to record the documents when it is in .a position- to issue the Policy of Title Insurance set forth in paragraph 6 above, and the requirements of escrow have been met. 8. All closing costs shall be charged to Buyer and Seller in accordance with standard real estate practices, and the escrow fees shall be paid one-half by Buyer and one-half by Seller. 9 . 'faxes on the subject property shall be prorated as of the date of conveyance. In the event that Seller shall have prepaid taxes on the subject property, Buyer shall immediately reimburse Seller for said .advance taxes , and shall be solely responsible for obtaining any refund of taxes under Revenue Code Section •5096 . 7 , or any other applicable section. Buyer shall -3- 49 take all necessary action pursuant to the Revenue and Taxation Code to cause the subject property to be removed from the property tax roll's ;. 10. It is mutually agreed that, upon payment of the sums , plus interest , as required in Exhibit "D", the obligation of Buyer under Paragraph 5 shall be terminated . 11 . Buyer and Seller hereby agree to grant one to ' each otIler •reciprocal cross easements over Buyer' s property and the remainder of the property located in this Block owned by Seller for pedestrian and vehicular access and parking purposes at such time •as Seller improves a part of or the entire remainder of said Block of property. 12 . At such time as Seller improves a portion of or the remainder of the Block owned by Seller, Buyer and Seller agree to enter into 'an Agreement providing for the maintenance of all common area landscaping and parking on Buyer' s property and Seller' s property within said -Block. Said Common Area Maintenance Agreement shall be subject to the approval of both Buyer and Seller. 13 . ' Any notices required under this Agreement shall be sent• by first class• mail, postage prepaid , addressed to the parties as follows : To Irvine: THE IRVINE COMPANY 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92663 Attn: Commercial Division To City : City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 Attn: City Clerk 14. All of the provisions of this Agreement that have not 'been performed by close of escrow shall survive the close of escrow and shall be binding upon the parties hereto. -4- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement- as of the day and year first above written. THE IRVI E t PANY _ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH � u By V, "e �r si en Mayor By ATTEST: A s s '�s Clqnt Secret ry Cit C errk APPROV D AS TO FORM, City Attorney ' -5- EXHIBIT "A" 'to AGREEMENT' FOR SALE AND PURCHASE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH - LIBRARY SITS All that 'certain land located in the City of Newport Beach , County of Orange , . Statc of California , described as follows : Parcel •1 of Parcel Map filed in Book 81. , Page 9 of Parcel ' Maps in •the Office of the County Recorder" oC said County . SUB.IIiCT TO covenants , conditions , reservations , , restrictions and rights and • rights of way and easements oC record or apparent . APPRO«D AS TO DESCRIPTION S� 81 q SIIEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS RESUSDIVISION NO. 501 /n` �{ RST 7603 25.26E 5 26EACRES. 130PARCELS ,PARCEL MA P SIMPSON• STEPPAT ' DONALD C. SIMPSON, R.C.E. 10595 IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, MARCH, 1976 COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. JUN 10156 I4325 y 1M nJn. ,.nr 9 � nr rfo�fa ar mown swum. a mut umric col+rnr rimor4 $7.00 SGE 511EHT 1 FOR BA94•S OF 1'SEARING9 � MONUMENT N014�S. a�= lu like to 11 L-c I.MK lml 1n11.1.1 WIC v1V t MH 1D>/Nu HD. U t".K fa n F•IO 0111n tiNlln,.A _ .Or u\wryRl lYC4 1 1.NT n64 C5 RE .try 1]>l iD•ll r4` - JAMBOREE � �I ROAD ]l1•SO]1W /10^S (1))n5•':r lr cnl;MH tntp.gyp) I 1` ���__•__• �rD_<a-_- _ - -. 5]�d __ _ -_• I. \I n'S56lY Q_4olc o•a L•t1%.St'- 1 � _ . e<o er ..�` ]ne.e> —� _��-/iC.l� 1j• ; ( wnno os fnw\,n1414.wn nnl"yrn.11-- l.o iol,,:c.... to o•w m r cnw tee o m,nw n• t•o�w rm iw W•SDi � * I \ s co's.isH:vyrs ad \ 9 6 F tf,a 4II'r<>5-•�� I YY-- ro 2•�w0 'u Y A �l�'T• \Q //'��'C�•iiif w`i/+t-� 1.'„n• u" a ,°,�eo•o '<<\•�c vej•ao nrc. �'�o r •,.�sOpt.rc cY 1 Z it � ^1 �. 92P 02' •�'� �el,r,4 l,n\n" px c4u1 r ^� it..{11 • 1 �J N ? " 1• 1 Q' •(s'•P l q,"' a\'15 Mnnn sslt0 . I � " I .w+,,Inky nS �r�,.ti i(//'16y "-�<Kr' L.3D�'K' `uot iou4.loH S)/Y •� � � •-I\\il lOw1]l/°on `{ b t• fl\1� .r .O` ..11 1 h >..• s 21.29 AcRE9 0 /ttt\ Qst r.5•,D. i. Oyy csrn v¢tlmv 56'• tc3r'tl'.1. 1 �b'.' O rt \ / >l 1.97 ACRES P A p tD` l /� nt / Ir C ecf D'VT w.ot qy�,i:Yr 4� Lor" ys. iL/` to MM! oO1 WiH 14 ° •) O�)f0 +'� 7•(l'l 2\ � �.I l ool}Wtu nt,,4\ , A r Ir 11,D iD rc.pl ) X, p nif0• ` $ r ySt�r„ '/'/\Cnf 2.00 AcRE9 �. AIV• to Mon.0 t» C°R---- •3. 111. 71 Y\71 r)c oozy S n =e ,s 0/F\RC (�off\'.\ Jv °'w'nn••.��, 1 A ] t' n t.• 15 i1•i\\ f y mM hn\4tw W!KyRrvwY a y>j'•.•ar." Q•; \ C nMeHewr oa v.ovnso Al F Ed. t(•.�P 1 K.n>u i•1:3 �T 2Es-Ar -b• 1�y`�,a hPNY w /\.�4 MY nyre1w� eneCll'a loa-- lam" �\'. \Is c\. LixII1111 .1 tt131t 10 AGRI'l-NI NT FOR SAL : AND PURCHASE CITY 01' NEWIPORT BEACH LIBRARY , did'\., ,J11,:.,•a�Jy.;:�� ..ti ''.J%= �\.ti'•�• ' + ,.4�,�. �l;�:i An:'r A^. .,iI..4.,.:'7�,:� �.,. 7r\.{• •-rt:`..�../'._.�'-w_.- /i+.c:+'�,,,�,�• Y. �43h'SINy..p, r •:M.r,l f> .✓ro n+e';;.,4' ..,,. C„ Nti An a''"K.a;=`'•r:e�i+.l�,"r? i.+ cr N:;e;`' r.•� .:.l�u�:"•I�u.'/f^..vit•'Cr.:.•N•:-Y,?'r1A..y-iti:4•`�.:T�'.J•M..). . JJ/.e`,jl�-+ti,Y{':r�::. �riti:�buv .r.� .V:'�,a'.dai, .J•rf�..r't^'^�:`7.••"'i'r•1." Y' *� It ��- ' -L..eeo..a,+r.neou[aim e♦ sI.1 1 795F6 244 .L*P1/Rr nl:uu 432 ; 1. lacn.a.lu Jr . ;.,rsr of 17 . • EY.F !�CI T SUIEC9 THE Ir; Co ' C 1 ry omgs vrro+r; 08 .uo+•rv.mc•o.o u•..•o pwu•K Couarr. Gpr- 1 .._,'CITY OF \I'}I,0RT,FI'tCll - ew.. JIN, 1 1,376 1 33,:0 Sr\;or 8• rJ Lrtfta GStrt[.C�.••r rK1Ja i \r•part Beach, Calif h, Calif-•rn ie � 1 J , r•., 9'bUU I s,wce A.,r nne hwe rqw nSepnorn S Uve . ) l._.,...m„ .....r., b. r 307.45 �•_• F] ...I .n I'M „I,. .d ...... 1,•..n. ...1..,r / r r.-... ,T 13 E1I.NPT ❑ `...,,p..l.•1..,.1.41 ..l.,.rn.. ,rs__b.''ll.h.l_... .. J Pm Irvl ur CuJ par:). S/:U ^��fJ v 4.. �..1.NL...... .., O I...........,,1..1,.-I rEr,n.I :Icxpor[ EeJcn f CANCELLED ; Ill'j101'i1I1(111 Iil'i111I Ijf'l'II JUL i I8 a +' �'•+'r' IOh 1 \ME V16E r0\:IOFII\7In\....nq+ .1.A-h .• 1—"• J.l,,..,,I-11,1. LA Al- ell_it •- 7 ' TIIE IRCIVE IO:IP,t91', i 1 .........: •n ..-mnni.n.l..Ih.L...d Ih.4,o-A brSr VIRGISII, I h.rc{y r.Rl\T.s. 1., CITY OF NCPPIIRT MACH, A MIVIICIPAL CORPOR.ITIOV ; rhr rJl..,.r.L.nMi mipnq.nv.n lhr CLT1 OF NEWPORT BEACH OR.3\GE .rr.d C:lilomi.: J yr 'v:�:!"\ •' - l SEE ATTACIIEP EXHIBIT •'A" CONSISTING[STr\G OF TWO (2) P.1GES 1 rxti:3 rr �p(t :l a•.1._.r' nn xr)4 n, :v >r 4-- �1 - k,\ •,• 1,_ Ibml June 280976._ ._ .. _- Til C. rn\n .n Ordr�Je I - Ar yiR. 1 I7 Jbne :L. 1976 ..1.... .. .. . • ...J Albert J. Auer -- -•• - _ roe,.orAnr scA.on srww I J ' . P A..`• '' • I i {'.Y •,' la.u YICe I..._4u .•! ._ -.. r"tr�°tom''i"Y'�/•;•ctJ. jr=� Rotert C. Warren O • yy.l';1,!N� p�,.\,c,.rt l•.:M PSSISLnt ...M.r............... .._...1�1� ......................... .. . Orruu,(4 i • 17 ICJ „ ••• .. .. .: ,1 h1 •.u� r.J n.n..r rns As of4mico .uwe � 1 1 f r1f(IMY/.v T. �-aMy .. ar• _.,.1,:_a•., ...{rn�`w..•... �.. rr.r.•.4•.•. r••F•Iw ...•._. . .•i • .- !%.._.o nn .. .n.v M.y...�.,♦ ..u.... ... .w -.. .. u. i Y / , J - _ - -. - ' _ '�..4`�i-ram. ==-Y• �.J, _ r^• r f ,4\t I•'�.)<=',r. / h , t �nr i'; p b•. `1 .A' .'k••1-..,,:4 v.,.y.M,nt r, S (ft.Pj :til-(,lad i : 1•.:Y't L• ,•.rJ'.+ LJ:�,1.. t•.;^. 4.:..> I.c. ,5,• w,' ,, o:• �A1++. !,r >�.}.J.�nl�.._rf'41 a.,x'ul.:i".,Ia^yW>w>�f"••'•••.l�:Si�.,� a:i^.'1•'�1\•.�...+.t nWiy.�'•�1, t J f`,y.-Wit,• i• •s'.:;\'y.1f 1+i . , R•M•4 1 r Y{ a ^:n• ,t. 1\ J1'.. .,;.iu`.T,S ..a?l".Jti4_� - .. —.r:.iM::.:3•iM glv�a4•w•-w+eCVY-.r:>':•w+1•i•►.'Y.�:,.��r,Y i•.'. �- f r• 'A^ To.r,pAlrt oEEU CI 1 _ .I of 1 CI I of IE•IP11AI UEAC•1 ' i in3t certain I'10 lnrat"'I in N'e.Cl tv of lleofor[ F^ah, County of 9n r.n•_ ;'It- of ( i U 1lfprnia, d••t\r ibM as Lil i•.rc + r i raleel 1 of PAIc-I 'I•p fi ie•f L1 Go•rL 111, rl le n of Parcel :'ar—, ,+ hR illficr oftin• CPu.lty P"crd^r of ;0,1 Ccnty•........ants. 'un-UNI.t•PPot, of V.ly .1^I nl•,e-miss •it rnrw4 r anMror•,nr:E PVI V; to firm.lnr. its -"C^rt turS an.l •I;I inos; ail nil,gas, rinerals, nim.,•1 1 ull'ts, ul•w 11 •n; rI.1h;. vu1 on,nr hf'•rn• 1—: -I•- 1st.m.et i,, •nd ...1•er Sal.) leil p••'rcrt,. •1'.1 tF•• rt IIC S1-c. IrgellaIli th all r••i ;cvy a,nl con„•..h•n! n drveler..Pl rdure Ard e.Ir':t a'rl tare lhq t1 ':. svbj^:! to the ^+p'=-- that a,y an•1 all nper,l trout f•:r the e•plu.at Inn, 13,^.I vi•^"nr„ nr•.d,-: •-n:'hn :,all b^ nr•r iq•1 on at Ie,^I: ' '•t 'le *: and t.Itlr•3 tf arl) If S•1id 5:^st 1"" I ,-:';� ¢le *: of flve hundred (:'Cd) feel r,.,n !F., ••,fate of t3,•1 [tnd by r•'1^s nr_._._g la^?, 3M and.'nr oL>er equifz•nt lion Sur fxe lec.1[lons on sdjoininy or roc I•c ,•n fore nin re,-,,1 •'r ;hall In �•qR„��,••>%;�( tuh]r[t further to tll^ xrpress lini[at inn Lhl[ t 7 7 , +r1, „vw a .••;: 5,,,1 ro way be interpreted to include. "'y right of entry in and aeon [t^^s,Tr3te of L^e '• ' • 'y fond hrrc inabove dcunbc 1. It is u,dcrs toed b/ twe plrt,es thlt a 36'ue stated " reservati,•n is p+pl es;ly subj•3ct to all restrictions and mlr^•al;, p^tr•rin•; aa; - r/'.ro- ttp dril71nr, !rr and PIe,Ulr ti,;n of oil, ')l:• ,t Chlr:er or tee ^:r-t•pal dirarees cal IV, 531Ktd:cvS. whluh are M•It1i11^_d in the City , of t,e C'Iq of t:,,,ro,t Death. SU"CCT TO covenants, tend Rims and restrictions, as 1. General and special tates and assessn:nts for the ciurre-: °coal tax year: ' 2. Covenants, conditions, restrictions. reserva Cl ens, rights. r•i gtTs o way , _. ',I r;N%j'P(V;h•:>{1,vy'•!•f�i.� i�tli j`xl) and easeren is of record or apparent; the dale ✓=;•'•:'. 7., The condition tFa[ Poe a period of t-enolio Ii•f ice en3n /x3�. ` .tcv ^ts v s hereof, the property shall be sut•Jxut to the follpwi ng coven ins• cr- ±nro,c,,a_tle ' s^•all aeply to anA Mnd Fro^tcp,'its succes tors a^d assigns a^d s and by G,an.:ar, its successors and assigns. Failure If Gr inter, i!s ;• t^5 Asians. td enforce tFe rollrutnq covenants it a-/ ti-e sh111 rot ` •mod -• waive- of such rlg'1t with res;eCt to future viol3tipr5 trereo^. If at any ti••e within [wen[ fire (25) years iron :r _'z cr the peed. Grantee 1,11311 propose to vulunranl/ ;^II p^ le•;•• ;rI,T portien o: the Subject Fro;erty. Grantor s`311 n3.e ter� r_ ,n 3: refasal to purchase rie property to be Sol, pr lease.. + acres basis in the went of a sale or 113se Of nil" -I".' y, Fy( ,. .[ �•• Sut3ect Property. Grantee shall give Grantor uratten not•. r "; intent to sell or lease. specifically describig the parcel or -a•ce's :a :' sold '"• 6":^ •`�'•%S'?^ .",.' } or leased, and Grantor shall have thirty (31) days In of fi Czn = ^o:;• l x ' • Gran:re in wn[ing if it wishes to eiercisa its right of ri•zt All notices pFovld^d !p, herein shall br 1_• ed to ha,•: `ee•r n ;•'+en __ F ,f and when d••po;ited in in,' UnItVd Sbttef,-u11, Pr`Jce•la s:f`p'3o 3no ded,-Sskd to the party for .hur, intended 3t e party'; .... address, or open del E,ered personally to S-cn^party. its successors and 3i.1 "i. for a Per'JJ -•° :+en:;-Ei.t (h) Grantor, the ri n: t. ,:prole tat (25) ye4es fr.,o the Wt if the deeJ ah311 n,fe I , cnli tJ be Jn.InK[pJ .." 11 PA[L'f lOr dc51•)n of all In.hn,,, � ut ., „ � `a:, _. ..r , Erder•e G,antee Cu1.ecr•cs ..n>im,tl...I of ,•, '' to Grantor to,' Its Jllv nLyl t.wl (=) Sc" Jl 1.hyAJt li or >: .non teJ'7 nh. .a� •�,, `•r;,: ..'.•.,• dude. but not be ILutted ID, eatery.... e1:.3[tans, (IOJf �: ;.•, s+[r clan>. \ u•• ' "tilt,.:*}:. �' I irautct _ �rl) 3 �y3y , ?y;),,f• ,r,•;.ten'Aa,'• and ra serial and Golur pJlct[e. then 3fttr Schw.u[iC ep:ro•.at u•a .•ti„r w y;•,r} L, - shall deliver [o Grantor for its epv.ov31 three (J) ie-S ud . r6, ipn nl3ui +•'••• •'1 and spe,.1f,tat,unt fer the ester l Jr of >JIJ impiu,bltnt;. -�_,,.Ifap b. 3 to, I r.J of uu : '•�I:ed �iIS- r > ,. 1 .-_w......__ .. .. .... ..... licensed architer[ or licensed enquvicer, 1• pat •,J tiJ ln• m r - inq plans and elevdtlen5. ,L..f vl n.t ttrl Jl> mJ ) EI,IIGIT "A' - PAGE 1 of 2 '�a1M•tv..^.... >. .r.w....—•r... ._ ....�..r... .. .^'. ., . .w. ... .... .. . ...w. _. tell .•. .,..�._,.. -,. .... .. .. •..... . . . .. . •i • { {7 ' - ;.N,^J,p= .i• • •\•%' , M1't.•;.e �', •. r 'up .. ., ' r" .� ' . . ..•a• •. •.s r:. , .• r... ,.-•.,,4•:::, 'N.,••^h.... �4^d,r':4J ...,.i:! , . .. i �:/:.•'..-: �iv Sr"f.r• '' i.( ?ir•Jl • �a s.,,;�-•!'LY� ri:�z�- ".'c^i�t 4` •,.�ry��. � .-+'••,,' It..d.S''f3 •s+...nl`:" N., fn- �.'�h�,�:.. ans..k;:n,o.. !' F>^'7^i•L` +r. r;AC'... K4 ..�.v+�,`;J'ey+�r. � Y^. �^ti ::h: .e .:ice';t;r:.�w_'.'K r st ,t� rY,v..t• +.r„� i r^ •�.^::'r'-...i+:�y ta.:: x� ...•:: ..:.5.- ..i'�ide... :.;e�.-YF.. .s^'.:_r.,'•^f61C��"•.,;F: w :Y4•.- •YL...a• _, _ �.. '• .. -__ -.. .or^' .. . -.'.Af'...L`iaTjrr"'Pms;t'�'•:Cy.-r/... w�^s..f•• -.��..._rr.—._f sS 11756f6 2445 ' :y • f � tit - -- --- and dra inag,: plans and soils ro-rrt, a pint i'lan s`•:.irT th! Vropnsld !)location of said lop n:vcr.:n L. all uN e- lltie; and srite "ennretla,ns, all places of Ingress 3-d ec-es: to c..:l is streets :mod road$, and plans fur outdoor signs, li;htirg a-! lm,J-r.33ir.1. If a:roved, such appro,al Shall be endorsed by frantpr vim•^n sail :13.5, sped nw!ions and olnt i plan within thirty (1^ rt-+) days ` - •tha >+- -lot Lhe w-f, t-e (1) set of Y which shall he retainet 1•y it; :w id•'% :'it if Gr 3^ar•1 J; neither -` aDoroved or disaprrov-d sae! -tie; as: ;-.-i ficat re; within said thirty e- (10) day ierlod, the sJ-c si'all ty d:•-el v^pi e.,•f. if trim,, di$al,li,o'3e$ such plans and specific,tic^.;. 1ranto- sill withl: 146rty (30) Jays frnr the receipt thereof notify irin!-e rf its reas••e; fur r-t a:;rnving said plans and Specifications. Gr3ntea $'all wi;-i^ thirty (::: dnvs of sbth notice of 1y disapproval sutmit to G-inecr ; s;crifiral,••s -edified to co-ply with the reasons spe:ifnad tr r •ntnr-fr its die..:ro,a 1. A,>pro'val of t •o: said plans and soecifica Ucn; s-ell n:: :r: um cdal-t(rr, wtrhheina iln- conpl plans of said i•lcat,cc^a ••d v::qn ulo dad; for•-. tj,eith final in- spection by the local n,,,lci;3ls;J, all I xf;capu,g :rD;,,sed with the approved construction plans :,ist be cc<pieted. ,i. •- ,� •,,r ,;,,,,,; nG„>i (c) During said twenty-.'ic US) )ear period, m structure or other .'7V.'.!�[, ,i=•i;`. ,• t,y,•.+,a„.t.: i�•:'s,• yS ImPmve-ent. the plans. speecifteations and proposed locaticn of which have • - not first received the written• Ap.roval of Grantor ;r .hich does not cnsply • - -- with such plans, specificatl:*,s and ioci:icns, sh311 ;e constructed and main- tained on the land. bo -otervi aJd,t,-c� to 04 al-.-.'r3:ipn of any building or structure erected on tYe p-e-ise5 s-a;i t'J con••-:ed u less and until Plans and Specifications coreri-•i the e,.!rior of t-e Dr6,osed additicn or alteration shall has! :etn .'ors[ sv:^i;led to and erfr,ved by ;rontor in the manner above provide-J. Tee appro,31 by Grantor -�f a•f plans and splci- fications refers only to the :f such µle^s and soecifications to the general architectw.al plan fcr the e%,,SCS and :`e rei;hboring lands; ' Grantor by-approving such plans and specifications a;s-r es no liability or responsibility therefor or for,3ay defect in any stn.cturr constructed from v3, such plans and specifi6tions- 1 - (d) prior to eorvenct"ctee of any s: ises.nl work of construction t on the - Improvpments to be eonstrvcte± cn the pr9•u ses, Grantee sn311 supply [o Grantor verification by a licensed ciril engineer or land sr.eyor that the work of improvements is on Lwe cc-rest -,arcel of I)cd and is I--cated on the prenises in accordance with plans as ;.•^svicusly a •:ved by 0rar.tor. Ucon.co,^ple:ion of the work of constn.e Nen cf the i.^pn,rc^ts on ; presses, Grande shall supply to Groner eerttr;z3tncn by i•ritee's a -,test that the work which was designed .y tee arc-'tect has tean co-ple;e: in aaordince wlth the plans and 5peeificaticns ;^enonla a:croved by ;nn;or. Cpon completion of the I;ondscapmg upc, the prerises. Gr:otee shall .;ly to Grantor certi- fication by Grantee's arspitect ar lanes:3:e architect - the laidscap 7ng has been coepleted in A® .ta.•+ce with plans and specifications previously t , • fa• - - 1 approved by Grantor- I + :�, w w.,a•`r s•Pj'A,..�IA � 'pal�•Gi 4t. v;,✓: Y,r w%��'�'r'ra ray F:•- .111 rj e,.''1 •�.•�;, �; -sIt •,,f; ail.' '��N.',J.vfti •1�Nr yi�w,�fJ:1,}''a A'•; ' - , •I b. •iw,t'. ' Y •r'r < D _ E[O:DTT 'A' - PAGE 2 of 2 - r'1 • � to . -lot .:Y'.�e•' •fy}� iF� - `i."'•'�of-1''rr s-'�-rr fr•• ".?^'-u EXCERPT FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING , NOVEMBER9_, 1978 RELATING TO ITEM #12 : Request for exception from the requirements of Chapter 15. 40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (Traffic Phasing Ordinance) for the proposed develop- ment in compliance with the approved Planned Community Devel- .opment Plan for Civic Plaza . Agee We will continue on and hear Item #12. Mr. Hogan , do you have anything you want to add over and above the- Hogan Yes , Mr. Chairman , I do. Related to some of the questions I received from the Planning Commission this afternoon during the period of the study session , I have made some additional investigations . I have contacted the Irvine Co . and talked with them about the provision of factbal data that the Com- mission might desire in support of some of the information that has been included in their data previously . I ' ve also made investigations myself, at the time that I had , of infor- mation that was in existence . . . of the city . The purchase price to the City of the library site from the Irvine Cq. was $279 , 500. There are, if I am correct and I asked at the Irvine Co . determined this by map approximately 2 acres . I ' ve got 2 . 1 acres (discussion ) -- 1 . 97 acres , and if you ' ll give me just a second I ' ll compute that on a square foot basis . That' s 800---85 ,813 sq . ft. , and at $279 ,500, that is $3.26 per sq . ft. , carried out to 4 places it' s $3 . 2571 per sq . ft. . We had an appraisal made of the property in 1975 , it probably actually was purchased in 1976 . The appraisal of the property at that time was $4. 25 per sq . ft. , this was $3. 26 , as it converted to dollars and cents , so that there was , and this was purchased a year later, so that there was a discount of some kind, approximately 25%, give or take, to the City at the time it purchased the library site. Assuming that the museum site had approximately the same value , that, size of the museum site was what, 2 acres , and at the $4. 25 appraised value that we got that would be $185 , 130 for the value of that particular site, which was , as I understand, donated by the Irvine Co. to the art museum. . . . oh , I did, so it would be double that value . You ' re absolutely correct. $370,260. There was also some questions asked as to whom the permits , who obtained the permits . The City-- the permits fo'r grading were issued to Robb Carley of R B & f, of Raub , Bein and Frost, this was the project engineer, and the original grading, the rough grading, was paid for for both sides by the art museum,, and it ' s my understanding that the Irvine Co . then reimbursed the art museum for that cost. There was some subsequent fine grading of the library site which the City paid for of $1200 . That was after the design of the library was made and it wouldn ' t fit the configuration of -2- the original grading, so some regrading had to done. That is all the information I was able to get within the time limits , Mr. Chairman , after the study session meeting . Agee Thank you . I guess it ' s your turn , Mr. Shelton . . . . When it gets past 11 : 30 I get forgetful . Beek Well , I ' m not going to take more than half an hour to read this . The Traffic Phasing Ordinance provides that, before a build- ing or grading permit may be approved , Planning Commission must make certain findings , one of which may be that the project is vested . When the ordinance was passed , several persons sought to have the City Council find that certain projects were vested, prior to any application for a building or grading permit. The City Council accepted this procedure and made several findings of vesting or non-vesting . In doing this it clearly establish- ed the procedure that such applications were vesting , in the absence of any permit applications , are to be handled by the City Council . The applicant in this case accepted this• pro- cedure and submitted this case directly to the City Council . The applicant now wishes ,to change the procedure which he a•nd the City Council have both accepted . His request for a change in procedure should be submitted to the City Council . We should take up cases that are already in the hands of the City Council only, when the Council directs us to do so . Further- more , the material submitted to us is a legal brief. It pur- ports to be a presentation of new facts . It contains no sig- nificant information not known to the Council at the time it dealt with this matter. This material is obviously the open- ing salvo in a legal fight, and the appropriate body to respond is the City Council , advised by legal staff. We are laymen , not .lawyers , and we may do irrepardble damage if we intervene in a legal battle. It would be malfeasance in off ice for us to tie the hands of the City Attorney by making legal blunders which prejudice the City' s position . The Council has accepted cognizance of this matter and it should stay at the Council level . I move that we decline to hear this item and direct the applicant to the City Council . Agee I would like to ask the City Attorney to spell out the options that we have here . Coffin Mr . Chairman , in regards to the legal options and responsibil - ities of the Commission , it appears to our office that the Traffic Phasing Ordinance as it is presently constituted puts . the burden on the Planning Commission at the first stage to determine whether• a project should be excepted from the ordi - nance or not, and that was the application made by the Irvine Co . for the Civic Plaza development before the Commission tonight. The earlier procedures , I don ' t think , change the ordinance . It came under a hybrid kind of procedure . It didn ' t establish a precedent in regard to how they should be -3- handled, because the precedent would be contrary to the ordinance . The Commission has , on at least one other occasion , considered an application , Aeroneutronics Ford I believe , for their site and found it accepted under the provisions of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance . It appears to us that the burden is on the Commission in the first stage of a procedure like this to make a finding regarding whether the project should or should not be accepted under the ordinance . Agee Thank you, Mr. Coffin . Did you make a motion? Beek I did make a motion , and I believe Mr. Coffin ' s response is not appropriate because the ordinance does not speak to the vesting of projects . It speaks only to what happens when people apply for a building or grading permit. Agee Well , I think we should take a vote on Mr. Beek ' s motion . Any discussion? Frederick. Procedure , Mr. Chairman . Is a motion at a public hearing-- Agee It' s not a public hearing . Coffin Yes , it is . Frederick. Is a motion before the ,public hearing in order? I • think not . .Agee Well , a motion to send it on , possibly . I don ' t know, is-- Coffin I think that motion can be considered by the Commission. We feel the burden is on the Commission . The Commission might feel an alternate procedure is more appropriate . I think that motion is appropriate now . . . before the hearing, maybe you want to take something from someone in the audience, I don ' t know , regarding this particular legal issue . . . . an evidenciary hearing on Civic Plaza it3elf. It' s a procedural step that should probably be handled prior to -- Agee Opening the hearing . Thank you. I think what we ' re trying to do here is achieve fairness to -- Balalis . . . take testimony from the audience on this particular item, I ' d like to know what sections our City Attorney is referring to , so that we know what he has based his opinion on . Coffin Mr. Chairman , .that is found in Section 15. 40.030 , subdivision, D. Balalis Could you read it please. I don ' t have my copy . Coffin Oh , I ' m sorry . That the Planning Commission shall except any project from the requirements of this Chapter, Subdivision I . -4- Under that is shall find 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 permit was issued has , in good faith and in reliance upon such permit, has diligently commenced contruction and performed and incur- red substantial liabilities for work and materials necessary therefor. No change causing a substantial increase in traffic volume may be made in such project except in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. Yes , that' s the application before the Commission tonight, not dealing with the unsatisfactory level of service during the 2. 5, during the peak period , or the 4/5ths . vote for some other extraordinary public purpose . The ordinance doesn ' t necessarily require it appear as an application for a' building or grading permit, just that someone comes to the Commission at first stage requesting a project be excepted from the ordinance . Agee O. K. We have a procedural question here prior to opening this public hearing , and I see-- Is there anyone who would like to comment before we take a vote? Shelton Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission , Robert Shelton with the Irvine Co. Simply like to emphasize that we under- stood, after a conversation , consultation , with the City Attorney, and based upon the past experience of the Ford Aeroneutronic application, that we were doing exactly what both the ordinance requires and what has been done previously , and that' s why we are here and not before the Council . Thank you . Agee Anyone else wish to speak on the issue that' s being raised by this motion? Butler I ' m John Butler. I represent the Central Newport Beach Home- owners Association and my only question would be, without having made a finding as to whether or not the property rights have vested , can it be said that the construction has been maintained, or there has been substantial liabilities for work incurred, before property rights have vested , in the project itself. What is the definition of vested property rights? Agee Let me think . I don ' t know if that is related to Mr. Beek ' s statement, or Mr . Beek ' s motion . Am I' -- Butler It seems to be all tied in . I ' m a little confused myself. Agee It' s really a question right now, I think , _ Mr. Butler, of procedure, and Mr. Beek feels , made his motion I believe , feeling that this item should just simply go to the City Council to be determined, and we ' re trying to--there ' s a -5- motion before us to check that out before we get--if that motion fails , we will then open the public hearing and I think possibly get into some of the questions that you have . Butler Thank you . Agee O. K. Anyone else on the procedural idea we ' re discussing? O. K. Register your votes please . Lord The motion failed, with the exception of Commissioners Beek and McLaughlin who voted yes . Agee Bill , did you change your vote? Yes , but they' ve got to register it. Lord Got everything,? Agee There we go . Alright, now we will --are we ready to open the public hearing? I will open the public hearing. Shelton Mr. Chairman , members of the Commission , Robert Shelton for the Irvine Co . I appreciate your taking up this matter at this late hour, and we' ll try to be brief. I think you under- stand from your staff report and the history of this matter why it is before you . We, for the record , it is a .request for exception from the requirements of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance for further development in compliance with the approved Planned Community plan for Civic Plaza . -You have been supplied, about a week ago , with a rather lengthy • • statement of the reasons why the applicant feels that this exception status should be granted , and we regret its length and tried to supply you with a shorter version of it earlier today, a four page summary which we hope emphasizes the key points that we wish to make . Both of these documents , the 56 page version and the four page version were prepared by Latham and Watkins , not specifically as legal briefs , but as an effort to be a thorough going effort to document the point of view we have in this matter. We want to make very clear that we are dealing only with the question of exception status under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance as distinguished from common law vesting , which is quite a separate subject. We think that the essence of what is before you is• whether or not this project meets the three-way test which is establish- ed in the ordinance : is it a project, has a building or grading permit been issued, has there been construction , has it been diligently pursued , and has there been substantial liability incurred. I think the answer, of course , to these questions is yes in every case . We are concerned, as well , with what we think is a basic element of fairness . When the facts are scrutinized,, with respect to this project, in comparison to others that have achieved exception status , we • -6- • simply believe that the facts speak for themselves and that this project should be accorded the same accommodation. I think at the time Council heard this the facts were not as well documented as they are now in the documents before you . I ' d like to state that we recognize that the future of Civic Plaza may be affected in terms of its status as a Planned Community project in the sense that other PC' s have been modified or proposed to ' be modified by this Commission , and we ' re aware of that but feel that if that becomes an issue at some point i•t will be dealt with as a separate issue , and not as a part of this one . This evening I have with me Mr. Robert Brake of Latham and Watkins who is prepared to comment very briefly on what we view is the legal basis for your action and the basis for the findings are appropriate , we think , and Mr. Ron Hendrickson who can comment on any factual questions that you may have of the type that have been raised earlier, I understand, concerning the nature of what has been done on the site and its cost. At this time , Mr. Chair- man , I ' ll ask Mr. Brake to step forward and summarize our application from his point of view. Brake Mr. Chairman , members of the Commission , from the papers that have been previously submitted I think it' s our-the claim of the Irvine Co. is very well documented and presented . The test of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance is a relatively simple one . The first phase of that test it to determine whether or not the proposed development is a project. The Traffic Phasing Ordinance adopts CEQAC definitions of project , legislative history of the ordinance indicates that any plan- ned community is a project, the application of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance to other planned communities indicates that each planned community is a single project. Civic Plaza is a planned community and is a project and meets .the first prong of the exception test in the Traffic Phasing Ordinance . The second part of the test is whether a building or grading permit had been issued on the project prior to the effective date of the ordinance . Building and grading permits for Civic Plaza , specifically the Newport Harbor Art Museum, were issued in October of 1976 , the grading fill permit for the library site was issued the same month , a week later, and the building permit for the library site was issued in May of 1978, all prior to the effective date of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance . The final prong of the test is whether or not substantial liabilities were incurred in the project in reliance upon those permits . To briefly summarize the liabilities that have been incurred on that project, the Irvine Co. has made a gift of the land to the art museum in excess of $350 ,000, actually $370,000 as we computed it tonight , - has graded the library site for the City, the Irvine Co. agreed to transfer the property to the City in a graded con- dition , and on that basis contracted with the art museum and • -7- the Koll Company to pay for that cost, at a cost of $11400, also installed on-site master plan utilities at a cost of $22,000 and 'made a donation of a quarter of the value of the land to the library in the amount of $90,000 . Since the question under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance is whether or not a. project has been accepted, it is proper to add into that equation the cost to the City and Newpoat Harbor Art Museum in constructing their building and engaging in that development, which brings the total amount to in excess of two million dollars that have--of liabilities that have been incurred towards the completion of the Civic Plaza project. I have with me, to document the expenditure of $11 ,000 on the grading and the $22 ,000 in master plan utilities , docu- ments reflecting payment of that amount to Koll and what that was for, to present to the Commission at this time. I also have copies for the Commission of the agreement for purchase and sale between the Irvine Co . and the City for the library site and reflects the size of the site as 1 . 97 acres and also reflects the total purchase price paid by the City for that site . I think that roughly summarizes the claim of the Irvine Co. I would invite any questions that the Commission might have . 'Agee I just have one question , Mr. Brake . It' s with regard to your .position on the interpretation of substantial . Brake What is the question? substantial liabilities Brake What constitutes substantial ? There is a case that we have cited in the position paper. It is not --the factual situation is not identical to this one . The fact situation in that case was whether or not a particular project was •subject to CEQAC , and in the process of determining whether or not that was the case , the defense or one of the claims made by the developer was that the people had delayed too long in making the CEQAC claims , and that they were therefore stopped from piioceeding that way, with their claim. To -make that statement the developer had to establish that he had acted in reliance upon some activity on the government' s part , and that reliance involved substantial liability, substantial liability , that' s the same one as- you have implied here . In that case the total liabilities were $40, 000 . The court held that $40 ,000 was an undeniable quantum of prejudice, or undebatable item. I could give you the exact quote if you ' d like . In this case the total liabilities in- curred towards the completion of Civic Plaza are in excess of 2 million dollars , or 50 times more what one court has already recognized as being an undebatable undeniable quantum of prejudice. Agee Thank you. Any further questions at this time for Mr. Brake? Balalis There' s only one question that I had is that part of that $2 ,000,000 happens to be the City' s money. Brake That' s correct. The question is whether or not a particular project is vested. Therefore , and whether liability in that project., towards the -completion of the project, have been substantial . In that equation you would consider the expendi - tures of all participants in that project towards the comple- tion of the project. The completion of the library is as much a part of the project as the Newport Harbor Art Museum and the Irvine Co. If you take out the expense-the liabilities incur- red by the City and by the Newport Harbor Art Museum you still have expenditures or liabilities incurred by the Irvine Co . of an excess of $4700000 I believe . Balalis That' s the donation and the other two items , the grading and-- Brake the donation , the grading, the master plan utilities , and the discount on the land to the City. ' Agee Do you have a question? Beek Yes . I hold my own theory of the interpretation of the ordinance ,• and you may not concur with that theory, and ' I ' m not going to ask you to comment on it, pro or con , but I will ask you to try to comprehend it so you can answer a factual question , which would depend , which would be a key question if that theory is to fact correct. The ordinance says that the permit- the decision depends -on whether or not somebody has obtained a permit for building or grading, and that the person to whom such permit was issued has incurred substantial liabilities and diligently proceeded and so on. Now , can you give us any expenditures made by the Irvine Co . in reliance upon a permit issued to the Irvine Co. ? Brake Well , the question is somewhat loaded, I think, for a variety of reasons . ' I ' ll try to answer you directly , and then add my interpretation , if you would appreciate that. The Irvine Co. contracted or agreed to convey the library site to the City in a graded condition . To accomplish that, the person who does the grading is generally a contractor, and not the owner of the property. That contractor was acting on behalf of the Irvine Co. . The Irvine Co. contracted to pay 'the grad- ing costs incurred in that regard . In that sense I would con- sider that a liability on the part of the Irvine Co. incurred in reliance upon a permit that was issued at least to someone acting on its behalf directly . The reason I believe the question is loaded, I .think there ' re three problems with it. The focus seems to be in that question the language that the person to whom the permit had been issued incurred the liabil - • -9- ities . The focus of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance , however, is on projects , it is not upon individuals in the project, it is not buildings in the project, it' s upon projects . In that respect, any one building in that project is undertaken with liabilities incurred by whoever was undertaking construction' of that building , the project itself is vested . I think that that is well demonstrated by Koll and Emkay . Both of those projects have been excepted from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance . There is land in those projects owned by individuals who have not obtained grading and building permits and have not expended monies in reliance upon any such permits . Nonetheless , their land , the entire project is excepted and they may go ahead according to the approved PC, which is what we' re talking about. Finally, the focus or the reason for that provision , any provision of substantial liabilities being incurred , is one of estoppel legal concept and I apoligize for using the term, it basically means preclusion , that if the City acts in such a way in giving its final approval towards the project in the form of a building or grading permit , and is aware that somebody is acting upon that final authorization of the pro- ject, sanction , whatever, the City cannot then allow that person to undertake that reliance, and incur those liabilities and then remove that approval . In this particular case Civic Plaza was conceived and approved with the City ' s full knowledge that the Irvine Co. was going to be donating land to the art museum and with knowledge that the Irvine Co . was going to be transferring lands to the City at a discount. With tha.t knowledge the City, by approving the PC, issuing the permit, all of which were primary to the Irvine Co . ' s reliance, by . giving, granting the land, the City is stopped. The theories are there. What you' re talking about is a reliance estoppel basis, the reliance on to whom the permit is issued. From that stand- point I believe Koll did the grading. Koll has no interest in the property and they were the ones the permit was issued to. Are they the only ones that have a vested interest in Civic Plaza? Does-n ' t make any sense. Beek Well , I did not ask for an explanation of legal theory . I asked for a factual point, but I followed your explanation of the doctrine of estoppel and of vesting , and it appears to me that is the doctrine of what the City Attorney has referred to as the common law doctrine of vesting. As I understand it your application is based not on the common law doctrine of vesting but very narrowly on the specific words of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, as distinguished from common law. The phasing ordinance says the person to whom the permit was issued, that is why I asked the question . Brake I understand , Commissioner, and I- Beek , and I take it that your answer to the question is that the -10- Irvine Co. itself has not expended any funds in reliance upon a permit issued to it. Hogan Mr. Chairman , let me interrupt for just a moment here , and that is , the building permit, or permit issued by the building divi- sion of Community Development Department are , in nearly every case , issued to contractors , so the permits are taken out by the contractor, and in only a few cases is the permit issued directly to the owner of the property, that normally occurs .only in an individual home when the owner of the property is himself going to do the work, but otherwise we require that a licensed contractor be the person who takes out the permit, and consequently he is the one who signs the permit applica- tion and is required to comply with the requirements of the permit. So normally they are not issued to property owners , although the property owner or the developer, whatever the case may be, usually is the one who pays the bill . Thank you . Very' briefly, Commission Beek , I was speaking toward common Brake law vesting - theories that I think are adaptable , and is the closest example we have , if not directly on point , to the operation of an ordinance such as the Traffic .Phasing Ordinance. I was also speaking by , to the manner in which the ordinance has been applied in the examples of Koll and Emkay, in which lands owned by people who have never obtained building permits and have not expended funds on the basis of those, their lands are nevertheless . exempted, or excepted rather, because they 'are in the project. Beek I recognize there will be a great deal of legal argument but underlying that will be the facts that that argument is about, and I was trying to clarify the fact, and have you res- ponded to the fact, have you given me an answer to my question.? . Brake I believe I did respond initially, at least with respect to the $11 ,000 I think that the argument exists , if the question is , was '.a building or grading permit issued to the Irvine Co . specifically, the answer is no . Beek Thank you. Agee O. K. , is there any other question at this time for Mr. Brake? If not, thank you, Mr. Brake, temporarily. Brake - Thank you. Agee Anyone else in the audience wish to speak to this item? Is that it? Shelton Mr. Chairman , Robert Shelton again . This is probably , does not fit anybody ' s theory of exception or vesting, but I ' d like to mention that there were $230, 000 spent by the Irvine Co . to build San Clemente Drive , specifically, to serve this project. It' s not on --its not within the project boundary but it was done in reliance upon the needs of the project, and those of you who may have attended the Council hearing on this matter would recall the statement by the spokesman for the art museum of their great regret that their reliance upon the completion of the project and the additional parking that was to be provided was awaiting some form of approval so that their parking problem could be resolved . Tire re are many people , in other words , and many dollars have been spent directly and indirectly in reliance upon the opportunity to complete the project. Thank you. Agee Thankyou , Mr. Shelton . Shelton We would obviously conclude with the hope that you would take the action indicated in the staff report on page 2 , the first suggestion in which if you make the finding , that exception status has • occurred, that you adopt the language therein. Thank you. Agee O. K. , finally before I close this public hearing, anyone else? Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing . What does the Commission wish to do? McLaughlin Mr. (hairman , I ' d like to make a comment and .a motion. City Council found insufficient data to deem whether the Irvine Co. is vested or not vested, and the Irvine Co . now has presented us with some very good data . I personally would appreciate a - a opinion from an outside attorney , and therefore move that the Planning Commission request that the City Council engage an outside attorney for the purpose of furnishing additional unbiased legal opinion regarding the vesting of Civic Plaza, Agee There's a motionthat the Planning Commission ask the City Council to get outside attorney to make a " unbiased" report on the contentions of the applicant. Any discussion on this? Beek Yes , Mr. Chairman , I would like to comment on that. I think that we are facing a really badly snarled legal question . Apparently what we have here is a case where A is claiming vesting because B spent money, and if we construe the ordi - nance very narrowly , that may not be permitted. In any event it' s a difficult legal problem. I think we do require outside assistance and certainly a good deal or time to think about it. Haidinger Mr. Chairman , I ' d like to comment on Ms . McLaughlin ' s motion . I think that if the City ends up having legal recourse • -12- . . . by the applicant we have to defend our actions . I think we should have absolutely the very finest counsel we can get and use our own in-house skills , as well as probably some outsiders . My concern is whether or not the Planning Com- mission is the vehicle to secure that, that outside assist- ance . It seems to me that probably it' s not, and that the City Council should be the body that requests outside help , so while I 'm sympathetic to Commissioner McLaughlin ' s intent , I • think perhaps it' s premature for us to be doing it at this time , and I will oppose the motion for that reason . Mr. Chairman , I ' m inclined to agree with that, but on further Frederick . analysis of it I believe that what Tim has said has validity, at the same time I also feel that if the City Attorney feels he needs outside assistance and counsel , it ' s up to him to ask for such , so I would add that to your argument , even though I was at first inclined to ' endorse the idea . At the present time I really feel that that should either come from the City Council or the City Attorney himself saying I think we would like some outside counsel . Agee Any other discussion before we vote on this item? Shelton Mr. Chairman , for clarification before the vote is taken , Commissioner McLaughlin , I think , referred, I ' m not sure , to the word vesting, and I ' m not su-re she referred to Tnaffic Phasing Ordinance . We want to make clear once again that the application here is to achieve exception status under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance . Period . We ' re not talking about vesting and we' re not talking about anything other than the Traffic Phasing Ordinance . So I thought if that was the motion it should be clear, if it isn ' t that should be clear also. BalaTis Mr. Chairman , the only comment I ' d like to make is that we .are strictly an advisory body and in a case like this the final - decision can be made by the City Council , and •I for one would hate to see us start a precedent where we have a difficult problem of asking for outside help . I think we do have a City Attorney , we ' ve asked him the questions we ' ve needed to find out. I ' m not sure that you couldn ' t go out and get 4 or 5 different opinions and they all may vary. I think we have to make the decision on the basis that ' s presented before us . There' s some questions that we all have to answer. Should the permit be given to the individual that asks for the exemption? What is substantial amount of dollars? I think we faced those questions before , we can do that again . Agee Any further discussion before we vote on this motion? If not, register your vote on Commissioner McLaughlin ' s motion . There it is . Lord The motion failed. Commissioners Beek and McLaughlin voted yes . • - 13- Agee O. K. Is there another motion to •be offered? Fredrick . Mr. Chairman , I should like to make a motion on Item #12 . The motion would be to accept the suggested course of action on page 2, just as stated , first paragraph under Planning Commission concurs , and I ' m moving to concur with the staff report. Agee That is , just for clarification , that the Planning Com- mission concurs with the Irvine Co. ' s position paper regard- ing the exception of Civic Plaza and make the following finding, number one . That' s the motion to concur with their position except that finding. Frederick . That is correct. Agee Any discussion? If there ' s no discussion-- Balalis Mr. Chairman , before we vote on this item, I ' m wondering if maybe this wouldn ' t be in order to make an amended motion and find it the way the original motion is , but to also , and maybe this isn ' t the time. • Maybe it should be a follow- up motion to this , but this P. C. come back to us again and be considered at the next meeting for review, as we did with the other P . C. Agee If this motion passes I think that' s appropriate . . . I would not want to combine this . Hogan Mr. Chairman, it may be that the Commission would want to consider making some additional findings . The City Attorney and I have been talking about this a little bit. If it wants to make such' a motion , and I think those findings should maybe set forth in detail the Commission ' s position in support• of this one major finding, and I suggest for your consideration one , that a grading permit has been issued for both the Newport Harbor Art Museum and the cith library, that building permits have been issued for both the Newport Harbor Art Museum and the city library , that construction of the art museum has been completed and construction of the library is well under way , that the permits for the grading and buildings were both substantially, have been substantially pursued in reliance on the approval of the project that was granted by the City , that both of these are part of the Civic Plaza Planned Community District, and the Civic Plaza P . C . is a project as defined in the ordinance . If you wanted to make further findings that the Irvine Co. as a major owner in the project has made -14- substantial financial contribution to the project, includ- ing donation of the land for the Art Museum, a reduction in the price of the lan.d for the Library , plus the addi - tion of certain physical facilities necessary for the development of those two sites . You might also include those additional detail findings . I think it would . clarify the discussion that. has been had if those details were added, for the Council , as your reasons for making this motion, in addition to the one motion that was sug- gested in the staff report. Balalis Mr . Chairman , as • the maker of the motion , I would be happy to include that, -but I want to ask if not one more that we should make , and that is to state about the actual cash outlay for the grading. Hogan If you want to include those figures I think it would be perfectly appropriate. Balalis I would like to add that. Agee Well , just let me ask a question . I think I can understand what your attempt is to do to is to- Beek Yea, to ham string the City Attorney . Agee I ' ll let you have a shot at it, Allan . What you' re intent is to do is to just go into more detail . Basically that one finding does imply all these things , the concurrence with all the things you ' re detailing , is that correct? Hogan That' s correct. Agee And there are more things that possibly could even be de- tailed? Hogan The only reason for doing that is , when the motion is made which assessed that building• or grading permits have been issued, I think that it would help to say what building and grading permits you' re talking about, and what the partic- ipation has been as far as the information that you ' ve gathered as part of this hearing and a part of the informa- tion that' s been furnished you to justify at least that the t has had some participation in this and , owner of the project p P i P has !done something in reliance on the permits that have been issued . I appreciate what you' re saying ; however,I did hear the Agee applicant request that we hear-- if we do agree with them that they requested that we take the action as suggested with the one single finding, that was the original motion , and I think what I would like to do is , at this point, I concur with that position , and I see really no further reason , except for clarification , ' to--and I think the record will show the discussion , whatever that clarifica- tion may be . I would simply suggest 'to the maker of the ' motion that I ' m willing to support the original motion , and that' s all the applicant who has brought this before us is really asking, and I feel nothing further, I mean we could continue to add a number of additional clarifications . I ' m comfortable with letting the record stand . Agee Yes , that' s right. There were some additional things men- tioned like the road, and . . . the discussion in the meeting has done that , and I would prefer to see it, if we concur with what the applicant is saying , that we simply , I ' m.: willing to live with the staff suggestion with the one general finding, and that ' s it. Balalis Would you include the rest of them as reasons for our decision rather than as findings? Agee I don ' t really see any difference . I would prefer to do it .the way I ' ve just stated . Balalis Well I was going to say that some of the findings that the City Council stated here are also true . and they ' re not in conflict. Coffin Mr. Chairman , to confuse it perhaps more I think we would recommend that should the m mmission vote , I ' m getting' tired, it's late in the day. Should the Commission chose to vote on the motion of Commissioner Frederickson , I think that item #1 on page 2 of the staff report could be deemed an ultimate finding . I think it would be appropriate if the Commission deems to go that way, to have these other find- ings , as outlined by Dick Hogan , as fact findings that support the ultimate finding . That would be consistent , I think, with the 2 or 3 cases that have been decided regarding quasi -judicial proceedings , which this fits more like a quasi -judicial proceeding than a legislative proceeding , like a subdivision map or like a variance . Siting the Topanga case and the Woodland Hills case, I wrote a memo to the Commission back in 1975 , I don ' t know if there are any Commissioners here now that received that, regarding specific findings on quasi -judicial pro- ceedings , but I think making these intermediate factual findings will support the untimate finding and probably give better direction to the Council , as to why the Commission made the decision it made . • -16- Agee Are you saying that' s the way it should be done? Coffin I would recommend that, Mr. Chairman . Agee I always like-- Frederick- I see another reason for it, Mr. Chairman . In addition to son the attorney ' s recommendation , that is the reason they apparently sent it to us is that they couldn ' t find -quote the facts , and these are . the facts that have been developed , so this really complies with their recom--their request of us to look into it. I would be happy to call it facts , if you will , is that what you want to call it, based on-- Coffin It would be basically factual findings and to use the lan- guage of the Supreme Court, that bridge the analytical gap between the raw evidence and the ultimate findings . O. K. Could they be included , not so much as findings , in Agee the' same degree that the general finding is , but could they be transmitted along as - Coffin based on these facts? Agee that the reason the general finding was supported , if it is , that these were the facts that, what were discovered , I don ' t know, I love these 12: 30 changes , in some way that differen- tiates in value between the - Coffin I think that would be naturally inferred , Mr. Chairman . The finding numbered one in the middle of page 2 is the ultimate finding. Agee I just find nothing naturally inferred about anything we do. Coffin and the other items as outlined by Mr. Hogan are to be the evidentiary findings that support and substantiate the ultimate finding . . . . . list them as A, B, C , and D under number one to make Beek sure that they . . . Frederick. I would suggest we do it like we normally do , any other item on the agenda . I don ' t know why we ' re dancing around this particular one , I think whatever you want to call them, just call them. These are things we ' ve concluded . I don ' t see why this particular decision is that special . Balalis Mr. Chairman, if we ' re going to do that, then I think that there are some other findings that are also true, and that is that item, whatever it - where we left off, that the Civic Plaza Planned Community contains 26 . 12 acres , that approximately 89% of the land within the planned community . -17- . . . . has not been developed , I think that was also findings , you can take item 3 that you have recommended , I mean , as it states here , which says that . . .you all see it here , that all improvements on the site other than the art museum and the library were installed prior to the approval of Civic Plaza Planned Community text, with the exception of the, I think the items of $22 ,000 that was pointed out. I don ' t think we should add that to this paragraph here, and that, the streets were planned for use of the overall development as opposed to the Civic Plaza site, and we might with the exception of San Clemente Drive. Frederick. Mr. Chairman , on the last one, Paul , I find it very .hard to believe that the street improvements were for the overall development as opposed to the Civic Plaza site . I would submit that that as opposed would read much better and more logically , as "as well as" , to the Plaza site . Balalis That' s fine . I think that when you look at the Civic Plaza area you see that a couple of the streets are part of the whole , with the exception of one of them, and that one street is San Clemente Drive, which obviously is to serve this district, this particular planned community district'. . . . . . . (background) Balalis O. K. I ' m not going to argue that' point. I just think that some of these other findings here are as important to include as the ones that you stated. Agee Now, . just so we can get cleared up. as to what we ' re conclud- ing here, are you including all those findings you just dis- cussed and are you accepting the change of words that what ' s his name here , Hogan , thank you . O. K. does anyone else have any findings they would like to add at this time? The day is almost over so we ' re going to have to hurry. we ' re going to have to take a break here (tape over) O. K. We ' re back on . Live on camera . Beek Mr. Chairman , it' s extremely distressing to me to find the staff and the Commission working so ' hard on building a detail - ed and meticulous legal case for the Irvine Co. I' do not believe it is our business to prejudice the City ' s position if it is faced with an eventual law suit. In fact it seems to me to go to such great effort to under cut City ' s position smacks of criminal malfeasance in office . -18- Mr. Chairman , I want to make clear the sta.ff ' s position on Hogan this . If the Commission--because I don ' t like being accused of criminal malfeasance in office . I want to make it clear that the only issue as far as the staff is concerned is to help the Commission , if it wishes to make the decision , and that this particular project does qualify for exception ,from . the ordinance , and so the only suggestions -that we have made have nothing to do with whether the Irvine Co. should be helped or whether the Irvine Co . should not be helped , but. we do feel it is our obligation to carry out the responsibil - ittes of our office to t•ry our best to help the Commission in carrying out its duties and - its desires , and this is the only motive that we have for suggesting the detail findings is to support the Commission ' s decision . Agee O. K. , we have a motion on the floor. I have one •comment to make prior to the vote , and that is that I ' m--I don ' t accept Mr. Beek ' s statement but I ' m going to vote against the motion for my original contention that the applicant has asked . us if we concur with this position , to accept what was originally written in the staff report, and I want the record to show that I ' m opposing this motion for that reason alone . It' s not that I disagree with that, I support that contention , but I feel that the add-ons , at this point in time , I would just as soon have them as part of the record and part of the discussion . So-- Balalis Mr. Chairman , may I make an amended motion , and the amended motion_ is that we approve the exception and, use the one finding in the staff report. Agee Well , let ' s see now, we ' ve got, I believe , •your motion , Commissioner Frederickson, that takes the entire gamut, so that this--Well , I ' m just trying to think : This is a sub- stitute motion , is it not, or -is it a legal. substitute motion , because it does encompass part of the--I guess it would be more of an amendment to-- it ' s an amendment , really isn ' t it? Coffin At this hour of the morning I think it' s an amendment. Agee That' s what I was thinking , even as clouded as my thinking is at this point, but I think that would be an amendment to the motion to only except the first portion , the one find- ing that was suggested, if we concur- with that position. I will support the amendment because that' s basically the way I ' m willing to go . Haidinger Wait a minute . I want to know from the City Attorney what our down side is if we do that. Now •you said that would be , that we would be better advised to have the various findings . Are we any more than just better advised? _ 19- Coffin That' s what I said earlier, Commission Haidinger. I believe that if the Commission wants to make a decision consistent with Commissioner Frederickson ' s motion , it would be appro- priate in a quasi -judicial proceeding to make a sufficient set of factual findings that can support the ultimate decision. Haidinger If we don ' t do what you feel is appropri.ate, what' s our risk? Coffin Basically you' re making a recommendation to the Council anyway, so there ' s probably not much risk as far as that . goes , because the matter will be heard by the Council and they' ll make their own set of findings , whatever they may be , but I would recommend--the decision , as , Mr . Hogan is pointing out, as a matter of law in the ordinance , the decision is final here unless it is appealed to the Council and the Council chooses to take it up . I ' m also operating under the assumption that it will be appealed, or it will be taken up by the Council . I would recommend that the additional findings be made so it' s clear to the 'Council , and it ' s clear on the record, why the decision was made . If the Commission doesn ' t want to make that decision , they don' t have to. It' s just riskier in a sense if the major- ity vote is in favor of Commissioner Frederickson ' s motion or now it would be Commissioner Balalis ' amendment, you don ' t have a lot -of factual evidence on the record being found by the Commission . Agee But there is the evidence of our discussion , is there not? Coffin Yes , there ' s evidence of the discussion on the record , but there ' s no clear showing as to what parts of it are being adopted by the Commission , and facts that they were relying on to make their- decision . That is why we were recommend- ing those in the first place . It' s probably a bit of a staff oversight that some of the smaller findings should have been suggested at an earlier time in the staff report. Agee Well , I still will support the amendment, but I appreciate your explanation . Balalis I will too . It just sounds like it' s a lot cleaner. Agee No further discussion on the amendment? Beek I have a question . Did I hear Commissioner Balalis say he was going to support the amendment too? Agee He ' s supporting his own amendment. Balalis I decided to support my own amendment- Beek O. K. , that' s a great relief to me . -z0- Agee O. K. , let' s vote on the amendment please. Lord The motion is carried . "No" votes were cast by Commissioners Cokas and Frederickson . Agee I believe with that amendment, that takes care of the other motion , because it' s basically--- (discussion ) Oh , that right. Now we ' re voting on the main motion , yes , that ' s correct. Thank you , parliamentarians , I knew we could. . . Frederick . What is the main motion now? Agee The main motion is now really to sanctify what we ' ve done with the amendment, in a sense , but it' s really to do it in the form of a main motion . All those voting. Lord The motion is carried. 'Commissioners Beek and McLaughlin voted no. Agee O. K. At this time I would like .to have someone entertain a motion that-- Frederick. I ' ll move , Mr. Chairman , that the Civic Plaza project be treated as the other excepted projects from the phasing ordinance, with relation to the rate of building. Hogan What you need to do, Mr. Chairman , is to move to _set a hearing. Frederick. Oh, is that right? Hogan Yes , for December 7th , I would suggest. Frederick. 7th is fine. Agee • O. K. There' s been a motion to hear this on December 7th . voice • What is it we' re hearing? Agee What we' re hearing--what the intention of the motion is to treat this project the same as the other excepted• pro- jects . There is a gap now if this prevails , that they will be a sort of a atypical case . Is that clear to every- one? Is there any discussion on- that? Cast your votes please. Haidinger Mr. Chairman , I would like to compliment you on your excel - lent effort in pushing as many things through , not push- ing, but facilitating as many things through as we got accomplished tonight. I think we did a great deal of work w 't • -21- and a compliment is due you for keeping the show on the road and getting us there and I would like to move we adjourn. Hogan No , Mr. Chairman , please. We have two additional public hearings that need to be set for December 7th , I ' m sorry, Commissioner. Lord I need to record the vote too. It was unanimous . Agee Please record his comments as part of the record . (background) Lord The motion carried unanimously . • �► MOTION: Deny the application of The Irvine Company for an exception from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance under the provisions of Section 15. 40. 030(A) (ii ) (D) (1 ) with the following findings : 1 . It was the intent of the Council in enacting the exception clause of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance to protect the rights of a private investor who had obtained building or grading permits prior to the enactment of the ordinance and made substantial investments for construction in reliance upon such ,permits . 2. Although the Art Museum and Library are in the P-C, neither of these is a private development from which a private investor could expect a return on his investment. 3. Contributions to either the Art Museum or the Library cannot be used as substitutes for the requirement of a building or grading permit and construction of private development. 4. The P-C of Civic Plaza was approved by the City Council on December 22, 1975 and became effective on January 21 , 1976. 5 . San Joaquin Hills Road, Santa Cruz Drive, Santa Barbara Drive, and San Clemente Drive, the surrounding streets , were completed or were under construction prior to the effective date of the P-C and, therefore , were not constructed in reliance upon the P-C. -6. Utilities have been extended to the boundaries of the area to be used for private development, but none have been constructed within that portion of the project. 7. The project does not qualify for an exception in that no construction was done prior to the enactment of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance in reliance upon a building or grading permit issued by the City. 12/4/78 RVH/kk 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW REQUEST ✓ Date October 25 , 1978 City Attorney k1,ADVANCE PLANNING DIVISION OPLANS ATTACHED (PLEASE RETURN _ m.rl�BLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Position Paper [iyPT2AFFIC ENGINEER [3flAtD5 ON FILE IN ZONING AND ❑FIRE DEPARTMENT ORDINANCE ADMINISTRATION QPLAN REVIEW DIVISION DIVISION QPARKS & RECREATION ❑POLICE DEPARTMENT ❑ MARINE SAFETY EI GENERAL SERVICES APPLICATION- OF The Irvine Company FOR A QVARIANCE []USE PERMIT ❑RESUBDIVISION []TRACT MAP ON A REQUEST TO consider a position paper with regard to question of vesting of Civic Plaza Planned Community District under the .City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance . i ON LOT BLOCK TRACT l ADDRESS 'Civic Plaza Planned Community District, Block 600 Newport Center. REPORT REQUESTED BY 10/30/78 COMMISSION REVIEW 11 /9/78 COMMENTS SIGNATURE DATE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DEPARTMENT OF COM14UP11TY DE-VELOPNENT PLAN REVIEW REQUEST y Attorney Date October 25 , 1978 ADVANCE PLANNING DIVISION OPUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT PLANS ATTACHED (PLEASE RETURN D TRAFFIC ENGINEER Position Paper (9?BLS ON FILE IN ZONING AND ❑FIRE DEPARTMENT Q PLAN REVIEW DIVISION ORDINANCE ADMINISTRATION ' QPARKS & RECREATION DIVISION ❑POLICE DEPARTMENT ❑ MARINE SAFETY G GENERAL SERVICES APPLICATION: OF The Irvine Company FOR A UVARIANCE jJUSE PERMIT ❑RESUBDIVISION [!TRACT MAP ON A REQU.EST*TO consider a position paper with. regard to question of vesting of Civic Plaza Planned Community District under the City of Newport Beach. Traffic Phasing Ordinance . ON LOT BLOCK TRACT ADDRESS 'Civic Plaza Planned Community District, Block 60Q Newport Center. REPORT REQUESTED BY 10/30/78 COMMISSION REVIEW 11 /9/78 COMMENTS +/(/� moo_ �'1�.— �SIt/el I✓1Vyl • i ' I SIGNATURE O E 1 CITY OF KWP0R7 BEACH DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - PLAN REVIEW REQUEST Date October 25 , 1978 City Attorney . Q ADVANCE PLANNING DIVISION [�PLANS ATTACHED (PLEASE RE7URP ❑PV BLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ..Position Paper LIFIRFFIC ENGINEER . Q#�#,�1M OP! FILE IN ZONING AND ❑ FIRE DEPARTMENT O QPLAN REVIEIJ DIVISION RDINANCE ADMINISTRATION CIPARKS 8 RECREATION DIVISION QPOLICE DEPARTMENT ❑ MARINE SAFETY Q GENERAL SERVICES APPLICATION' OF The ' Irvine Company FOR A QVARIANCE [JUSE PERMIT ❑RESUBDIVISION ❑TRACT MAP ON A REQUEST "TO consider a- position paper with regard to question of vesting Of Civic Plaza Planned Community District under the .City of Newport Beach. Traffic Phasing Ordinance . ON LOT BLOCK TRACT ADDRESS Civic Plaza Planned Community District, Block 606 Newport Center. REPORT REQUESTED BY 10/30/78 COMMISSION REVIEW 11 /9/78 COMMENTS taEG fin• o G2 P SIGNATURE DATE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW REQUEST Date October 2S, 1978 City Attorney : R2VANCE PLANNING DIVISION 1O PLANS ATTACHED (PLEASE RETURN UBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Position Paper ❑TRAFFIC ENGINEER '# J�S ON FILE IN ZONING AND ❑FIRE DEPARTMENT Q IIPLAN REVIEW DIVISION ORDINANCE ADMINISTRATION CIPARKS 8 RECREATION DIVISION U'POLICE DEPARTMENT (] MARINE SAFETY D GENERAL SERVICES APPLICATION- OF The Irvine Company FOR A (QVARIANCE []USE PERMIT ❑RESUBDIVISION []TRACT MAP ON A REQUEST TO consider a position paper with regard to question of vesting of Civic Plaza Planned Community District under the .City of Newport Beach Traffic. Phasing Ordinance . ON LOT BLOCK TRACT ADDRESS Civic Plaza Planned Community District, Block 600. Newport Center. REPORT REQUESTED BY 10/30/78 COMMISSION REVIEW 11 /9/78 COMMENTS 10 1J OGN pI G ' •V �l 1 SI J TURE DATE 0 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on a request of The Irvine Company to determine whether or not the Civic Plaza Planned Community should. be "excepted" in accordance with Section 15 . 40 . 030 (D) (i ) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (Traffic Phasing Ordinance) . The Civic Plaza Planned Community is located in Newport Center and is bounded by San Joaquin Hills Road , Santa Cruz Drive, San Clemente Drive , and Santa Barbara Drive. Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the 9th day of November 19 78 ,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 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach PUBLICATION DATE : Received for Pub . By Note : The expense of this notice is paid from a filing fee collected from the applicant. Newport Center Association Mr. Richard McFarland 170 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach,, CA 92660 °• ine Co. i Irvine Co. c/o Irvine Coast Country Club c/o exaco Inc. : Chevron U.S.A. Inc. 1600 E. Coast Hwy 3350 lshire Blvd. P.O. Bx 31 Newport Beach, Cal. 92660 Los Ange s, Cal. 0010 : Long Beach, Cal. 90801 442-011-36 442-180-02 442-261-o2 • Irvine C ne Co. c/o Newport Chamber of Commerce ; 550 N ort Center 5 Newport Center Dr. 1470 Jamboree Rd. Ne rt Beach, Cal. 60 Ne ort Beach, Cal. 9 60 Newport Beach, Cal. 92660 4 _180-03 : 442- 61-03 442-011-37 7 Rudolph C. Baldoni City of Newport Be ch N t Harbor Area Chamber of Com. ; 1470 Jamboree Rd. 1 Rue Chateau Royal 3300 Ne ort Blvd Newport Beach, Cal. 92660 Newport Beach, Cal. 92660 Newport ch, C 9266o 442-011-39 442-i81-42 . 442-261-07 ,n t<t<<<cc<<r<<t<<<r<c<a.. Irvi Co. Maria Quinard-Fuentes et al City of Ne Beach 550 Ne Center : 2 Rue Chateau Royal 3300 Newpo Bl d. Newport Bead a1. 92660 Newport Beach, Cal. 92660 : Newport ch, C 1. 92660 442-032- 442-181-43 442-261- <<<c<r<<tc<...<<<<<<.<a..ac... y..... ......................I.......I...........,:ra..<<„ Iry Building Four Victor Qninard - Fuentes TR City f Newport Beac 550 Ne wp Cente 21 Rue Fontainebleau : 330 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach ? Newport Beach, Cal. 92660 Ne Beach, Cal. 92 60 442-101- 442-181-52 4 2-261261-09 : ....................uu....uu.u.au..au.......aaa.<<<t<<u ine Building Four Allan S. Tingey Irvine Co. 55 Newport Center Dr. 19 Rue Fontainebleau c/o Leroy Carver Newp Beach Cal. 266o : Newport Beach, Cal. 92660 1514 Jamborree e Rd. . 442-10 to 442-181-53 Newport Beach, Cal. 92660 442-261-10 : Irvine Co. Robert L. Keeland : Irvine Co. 550 Ne rt Cen r Dr. 17 Rue Fontainebleau 1 c/o Leroy C. Carver Newpo Beach, C 9266o : Newport Beach, Cal. 9266o 1540 Jamboree Rd. 44 01-11 442-181-54 : Newport Beach, Cal. 92660 : 442-261-11 Irvine Co. Dorothy S. Metcalf Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co. 550 Newport Center Dr. 14 Rue Marseille Real Estate Dept REO #2 Newport Beach 266o Newport Beach, Cal. 9266o 700 Newport Center Dr. p , Cal. 9 Newport Beach, Cal. 92660 442-101=12 442-182-17 442-262-01 Big Canyon Community Assn. Jerome H. Thompson IT a Co. 550 Newport Center Dr. P. 0. Box 4096 1 550 Newp C r Dr. Newport Beach, Cal. 92660 Riverside, Cal. 90514 : Newport e _, 92660 442-171-64 442-182-27 442- -02 '. >442- -ol c/o Texaco Inc. Ce Dr. 3350 Wilshire Blvd. : , 92660 Los Angeles, Cal. 90005 442-18o-ol THE IRVINE ( MPAW 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach,California 92663 (714) 644-3011 October 19, 1978 Mr. Jim Hewicker Community Development Dept. City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, Ca 92660 Dear Jim: CIVIC PLAZA - 10-13-78 LETTER OF REQUEST TO PLANNING COMMISSION Enclosed per your request are five (5) additional copies of the Civic Plaza position paper (10 were sent on October 13) and a listing of names of property owners within 300 feet of the Civic Plaza site, prepared by Title Insurance Company. Yours very truly, Ronald W. Hendrickson Project Manager Commercial/Industrial Division RWH:dw encls. Irvine Co. Irvine Co. Irvine Co. c/o Irvine Coast Country Club c/o Texaco Inc. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. 1600 E. coast Hwy P.0- Bx 31 Newport Beach, Cal. 92660 3350Wilshire Blvd. 442-011-36 Los Anngelegeles, Cal. 90010 Long Beach., Cal. 90801 442-180-02 442-261-02 ,Irvine Co. Irvine Co. Irvine Co. ,c/o Newport Chamber of Commerce 550 Newport Center Dr. 55Q Newport Center Dr. 1470 Jamboree Rd. Newport Beach, Cal. 92660 Newport Beach, Cal. 92660 Newport Beach, Cal. 9266o 442-18o-03 442-261-03 442-011-37 Irvine Co. Rudolph C. Baldoni City of Newport Beach Npt Harbor Area Chamber of Com. 1 Rue Chateau Royal 3300 Newport Blvd. 1470 Jamboree Rd. Newport Beach, cal. 9266o Newport Beach,•cai. 9266o Newport Beach, Cal. 92660 442-181-42 442-261-o7 442-011-39 Irvine Co. Maria Quinard-Fuentes et al City of Newport Beach 550 Newport Center Dr. 2 Rue Chateau Royal 33QO Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Cal. 92660 Newport Beach, cal. 92660 Newport Beach, Cal. 92660 442-o32-68 442-181-43 442-26a-o8 Irvine Building Four Victor Quinard - Fuentes TR City of Newport Beach 550 Newport Center Dr. 21 Rue Fontainebleau 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Cal. 92660 Newport Beach, Cal. 9266o Newport Beach, cal. 9266o 442-lot-09 442-181-52 442-261-o9 ,Irvine Building Four Allan S. Tingey Irvine Co. 550 Newport Center Dr. 19 Rue Fontainebleau c a Leroy C. carver Newport Beach, Cal. 92660 Newport Beach, Cal. 92660 1 14 Jamboree Rd. 442-101-10 442-181-53 Newport Beachr Cal. 92660 442-261-10 Irvine Co. Robert L. Yeeland Irvine Co. 550 Newport Center Dr. 17 Rue Fontainebleau c/o Leroy C. Carver Newport Beach, Cal. 92660 Newport Beach, Cal. 92660 1540 Jamboree Rd. 442-101-11 442-3.81-54 Newport Beach,, Cal. 92660 442-261-11 Irvine Co. Dorothy S. Metcalf Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co,• '550 Newport Center Dr. 14 Rue Marseille Real Estate Dept RED r2 Newport Beach, cal. 92660 Newport Beach, cal. 92660 New Newport Center Dr. '442-iol{12 442-182-17 442 262-olach, cal. 92660 Big Canyon Community Assn. Jerome H. Thompson Irvine Co. 550 Ne!�ort Center Dr. P. o. Box 4096 550 Newport Center Dr. Aewport Beach.. Cal. 9266o Riverside, Cal. 90514 Newport Beach, cal. 9266o 442-17/1,64 442-182-27 442-262-02 I ine Coa Irvine Co. c7oo;Texacb Inc. 550 Newport Center Dr. ;335b Wilshire Blvd. Newport Beach, Cal. 9266o t, s_ Angeles, Cal- 90005 442-261-01 10 1542 12-741 Please note carefu the Liability Exclusions and Limitation the specific assurances afforded by this gu�tee. If you wish additional liability, or urances other than as con- tained herein,please contact the Company for further information as to the availabilityand cost. Plant Service Information Guarantee P 5965 TITLE INSURANCE ANDTRUST Title Insurance and Trust Company ATICOR COMPANY 100 r 00 Liability$ Fee$ BILLED UNDER ORDER 140. 589800 a California corporation,does hereby guarantee Ref. VARIANCE REPORT Irvine Company 550 Newport Center Drive 4th Floor Newport Beach, California 92660 Attn: Ron Hendrickson who, by requesting this limited guarantee agrees that the liability of the company hereunder shall not exceed the liability herein stated and shall be limited to actual loss if less than said amount,that,as appears from an examination of its lot books or property indices, information as to the matters herein specified per- taining to land herein described is as follows: NAMES OF OWNERS; ADDRESSES AND ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. OF PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN A 300 FOOT RADIUS OF ASSESSOR'S PARCEL no. 442-261-04, 05 A o6 ARE ATTACHED. SEE MAPS ATTACHED .^.No T��yytlt,y No guA?ffptb is glade-a!MtbetA idity, legal effect or priority of any matter above shown, and if the infor- matiSn,.a?as u 'gttgsi; 6' p"efgzL AD a street address, no guarantee is made that said land is the same as said."aildrCss; n '';i`I, 'i :78 I Date as.af -- 8 7:30 A.M. Title Insurance and Trust Company by PRESIDENT Attett: / SECRETARY 442 - 0 1 03 P.M. 69-24132 :r C z 37 Z 39 v sPN Da E col R h / .. Q \* I"�=-600' n ti/ VINE SA N NICO R rtl 0 R.3.64-1co tO • O r V' of t $ 0 ( ( o M. 75.34 PAR �_ 38 O 13.791AC `'� �� 5o' R e r P.M37--49 eolso !23/AC O I O .o 'ea'{'4 <t OI A - a• a VJ yr. ]4e�3� `F - S�J' _ `` 1RviNE COAST COUNTRY CLUB OD _ a c9 014 to BLK. 55 a , 47 a OR ii R S. 64-23 CO o • /22J3AC. P.M 10-20 i 20.08A ii5' 1 ISAC P�pLL 31.24AC. ORS 8Z-38,39,40,4/ F - y 1C „y.1 J . PAR. 3 �" ^35 �l PAR ` 2-40 y$� SUB o 45 4 SPAR I �KE� 43 �`�� �-, ` 2S 88-34 o NOTE- 4 CDR/E 1.409AC. 3 � 3./064C - RpRaoRV�EN ASSESSOR'S BLOCK B m zea• R ura.m• � � .F/. - /3:#`` O 93 °' °RrvE PARCEL NUMBERS aq SHOWN /N C/ROLES, ` T BLK zc i zs• crr>,. - -� 46 10..74 AC is 27 •• ' 94 _.. ' MARCY /967 5� � l298AC. `s`:+ enAc HicHWgy ASSESSOft'S MAP yP.M./2.-CoA D 5�_`L7 50- 28 50-2 DRIVC 50-36 v BOOK442 PAGE 01 OQN O s_ E - 60N1E < PARCEL' MAP PM 75-33- 92=13 r COUNTY OF ORANGE 'S0=26 'TRACT An 60/5(,STREETSJ' . M.M. 239-Fd704/ _ YRVIAtf fUff, - M: M� _/- 88 � -r. 1 ram: Y 458-14 442 - 03 458-36 15>O -8 EDIS ENG.STA, 233.20 Mp,ARrNDR aLVD��� Sbe�/ BIG CANYON COUNTRr CLUB ENG,STA. 2284/4,50 / 5B 252,°a. 360.15— CORONA OEL MAR i- 64-22 ° BL'6'` �1e ` '52.23 AC. K. 92 9a x• \ ae \ 511.6a 032 / R.S. =jeQ `r 138.22, -� di R6 �Z&12 ,' /RG//VE � 0�,`� 'moo V4 { >3 /IB261• 63 �d a�9a \\ 4.600 ° \ R.S. 69-/6 / " 14 a 13 ih BLK. 57 r m `�., / \ O � / R.S 96-.',9190 zn3a1• � DIAL,E 'n R R // :n \\?�F v rho �2 53 80 el" 11c �. a \\ / 'ac �° / s>a ye .per ne.a fit. n aaii. t or / \ O /! 15 i "a /0.567 2\ A(i'.((i) � 21 Q „ 24 h 54 ,�°,Y m.2a� BLK. 92 y so.n \� 200.03 AC. �y�VJe e x.h• >3.z you ' yn a 22 0�< / "r 9 `9- was, e5.,a. 1 B 3 {f�{r+.>% 0` e ^` 3. 12 rN •„ m ,p ^ hx'a a N L 9l1'Ao o e j \ J� W. Y' '4' ,a�' •°„ o C N GQ ti,o�' 1 -O+'.� °°q' 1°"d 4 y X ey9 o u• GpJ�{ !9 :',, s,,9p R / �?``Pp C/ " 56 4� v e ° t -\ r�x� �l�iyr e� y q J 37 ,A RQ N `\ BLK./ a V 1�6 ° TRAO1 AO../CLJ LJ t R.S. 64-/5 // '� \G 22 .," `� N - »zv Pd JO / •e 61.41 } we. 20 G\p / '-Y a 9a Jy 440-05 o9FF \\ / u 9 40 440-03 / [] 1 1 79.14AC. 6 �� / $ 0 59 mNo 19 y a .� `+;,.aa._a 6.06. S \ ;� ;36.75AC.� .� a :.-� x�$�'°:a^" 032 s �Q L5.033 L5 440-02 'e' ' as o P " �'�: ° <5 m a; / AC.(c) /aS5 ^ !i \�� \ 1 maV a Q69 vGNDEztR je`t s4 L°�~ use V./BLK. �O 440-01 a 25 'M1 ° m 'EE A L ,c, '_, 51 e ' SD�Jff ga ,•d'�m A3 �M1: 17 o.9ivE, QP 6OO a,q, 17 / \ `4rG. BO.BF' P 9 a 699A4.'.w0' Nh P° 1661VGQ ��G 9C'}7 A GAO P n MARCH /970 /RV/NE SUB. M.M. / - 88 7223 TRACTTE - ASSESSOR'S BLOCK 8 ASSESSOR'S MAP NO. M.M. 274-7 TO I8 (STREET ONLY) O TRACT NO. 7800 M.M. 304-35,36,37(STREET oNLr) PARCEL NUMBERS BOOK 442PAGE 03 PARCEL MAP 4/-40 SHOWN 1N CIRCLES COUNTY OF ORANGE i 442 - 7 03 15 `. � s,. 37 9 425sif' 43JL.s. 44 O97 , e O ' 39 a ` {�A r s `0 41 45 47 r�, _ t<J `!/ a:r•- .•w t 0.664AC. s (.� • a.q _ t. ._: • e 46 �` O - 4! 2 'a<•i. a7+e' O ` `'ram - T II : !!' Ste'! :' .• + ,..� :Y UE O 9 s 4 aar O "��- :: t' 47 _ t. /.e.c!- ar G`': - - '>Jr• +r3- _ s` R O x!- b - _ 16 ; TRUE LOr B - a;La [655AC 'err 48 + ,rpJ 10 k /6 s r L..,• f s� O s - _ t i � t�l.� i •� 34 1ta; .32� � r L£xr' ! � •Q `` 61 r ,r4,f: ��.34 =-�• 61' LOT O o .� 28 rr• O a S/ a. TRACT �� O Kii J a O Y +O w `�`? a i YR){' J ' N.S• O � G./ � � \ 'S31 �- CP •/c•JJ/• B R " '... IB .3 !.'!f 28 — 3t) _ `� ��J. i:i O' 'r�iy �q +`++- d �i 51 53 •Ifi _ _ - -3l L J rJ fl/ 9v —f a /8 Sy .a 1 .o. us,.•/.r / �ql 52 > .f 8 D _ rt7 LCT �r O " - j2' at3a �y f-_ aia /-� ' ♦' •rJ . V O }� �19 i9 O 32 _5 ' ' l VALBoN e z ' !59 59' z•s 932 AC s� gtYA L4BBAG 20 R _? i •, _ _ i� 39J •a ems' S9 ei ti 57.r.i 56 - 55 "• GQ _ .• cn „ 4 ,33 •e LCT C L ' 6 O 1Ri. ��� '� o a_ ••!: ' i25 _ 1 �4� +• x�1 ' r 55 . 4 r1 iy t 54 21 s•1z /O HIT. /•v+ 54 E•`*' n. c G1 h �.sa .� C .zraa' 2/ y 23 r 24� •z ' - O !PRIVATE S7jpEFTJ sus ry'' 65N 202 25 tzi in3Ac 0.009 AC 01 4 � tam � 43 `v • = - // ' 64 0.3/8 AC - s-`=� NO 7519 • \\/y47F •Y7l�aeETJ _- �/ ,�?i_ ' !_OT K 0276 AC e3 RoAD - - SAN jo cm m -MARCH /972 14CTf •ASSESSOR'S BLOCK-b. ASSESSOR'S MAP MARCH /976 ." - PARCE: NUMBERS 800K442 PAGE. 17 TRACT NO. 7519 M..AN. 294.-/Y04/NC. •Ht wn IN CIRCLES COUNTY OF ORANGE 9 '6 OS O g 3 � 3s �J. w 3 d Nry 9 0 p\� 0 q4(/J[� in _A 2 94 q� 1 �g �> s, EEr \ PRI VOTE STR � QC iL U qa-131; N / ON 33t tv4,55'i S' Saz pb �J9p4 55POR COT F L7�3> ATE A T� 's STR�E ti° Bo1 u •xas ? �> u t-\ / G 2 /6 v ,;,0 33 d / BIG o,� T 9 m a 1 0 9 14� 1 n _ 6 \1\�3\J d �4 z2,6 a ,rM1 Sr, n SOT V017 pG 3z � 1 Z 13 °, _ 17 6L 5 � O1 Qo aY a b9 ?,W aoa Oyu 3 r y O D RIVE ��` b�b0 d O p "s t-a �' 6 ,5 s /,•(1 e ,�,y /� '� /e/ \ e .� - c m 6.�• _ / aS M:Nr ) 6b 50 7 5 B t nor s 9� J' ti 3/ 49 G2 ^B ze >> ti na al I I raa O B� 73- O Q1{{�� a i1�t °+ d wn 9 �59j ..,t,, �\ Z i•R' A \ tae v 77 orb o 84 '2>~ 49 V'n v G O 74 76 O V RIUE , • �/ 1 6 X i 301 Fr "s m. r _ m z 5x — m o M1 z ,^ ev 21 F 20 m NO 77B8' R0{ (.0 M0N1 ^ S y vt g1, -• J O °/ S m O m \1 9 Y J 92 B3 SSJ CN Bs tO at� ..+ .n 24 r 23 s /iat 4• NE6E TAI 25 6 : F0N r () 6 1t, w 1. ^, _ 1S /4AI \ \ Y 1/J ( U o a 27 % P 0 26 v 2 3 AG P'EM A n 31 0 9 DA m ° Q e°b 5'� v x m a r a^ � � Ss.i ., \iA v v' � .r ' 's SB ,� s^ � 's y r c S3 /e /ga S N�e'!33 D p sn SS> s b 6y m o 2 p�,t?zNPEE'SE40y1p pUl O 9 •�1 ' o °.� j n Ja 5 \ 0 P N?D pP A. Dp 5 P N > 76 o. A(,�o` s's� LLB » ti3 — �ti gg '' SA/v FONT a c e" a a p� s° '� p "✓ -4pU/N BB�0 .°< ,5 /NEBLE4 pop RpP U `1 SLL t ip9 MEN 10 l8© �IL�S /Y1 M. 301 /0 ro l4/Nc ASSESSOR 5 MAP BOOK442 PA IF 182 ' �pP� COUPJTr OF ORANGE R \ _ P J •\ sai e O �� � 1 ` eD n 4 ry gIG CANYON RIVE �P t sr) CRUZ SANTA o s 1 I r` 2 S 0 d t 2 IA t i PP 9/q PC •., Z dr R P O q 3` 10 6 v C �� � � , � .e_„ ran �qr>• $9 N00 t PG V w1O ,^ P . �9l PJ _� 1�J 1��� 1`� 1Y'P 334YO9GVVP - P✓AM,QOREE - ROAD ( INDIVIDUAL LETTERS SENT TO EACH COUCILPERSON TO THERE HOME ADDRESS) PLUS -- Doris George (City Clerk) D. O'Neil (City attorney) and Bob Wynn , City M na IRVINE CMPIAW 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach,California 92663 Robert H.Shelton e.. Vice President,Government Relations i •. :.« ' s ;•.:. Ind•}.,� i4T�istt"sPt; November 30, 1978 '``�~ 1� Hon. Evelyn R. Hart Councilman, City of Newport Beach 435 Redlands Newport Beach, CA 92663 =s 1 :,••' Dear Evelyn: At the City Council meeting of December 11 , 1978, the question of whether or not Civic Plaza qualifies for exception ��"�"—' from the provisions of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance will be considered by the Council . Enclosed is a copy of The Irvine Company's position 1 paper which results from extensive research of the question. �. 'Y d N•�R.f a�,Tv. In view of the sensitivity and seriousness of the `""'" question, we are sending this document well in advance of the : ;,•s,-.,;:. tr, y. hearing with the hope that you will have the opportunity to read it in full . Sincerely, Robert Shelton cc' City Manager City Attorney f - City Clerk 'ram '111.i'f 'i'•t:".L' ._1.. •.Y.. •`4S^7 1'r:•. .� •f. •, • • NOVEMBER 17, 1978 • • • POSITION PAPER WITH REGARD TO QUESTION OF EXCEPTION OF • CIVIC PLAZA UNDER THE- TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE • • THE IRVINE COMPANY • i A TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY OF CIVIC PLAZA 3 III. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND APPLICATION OF THE VESTING PROVISION OF THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE ° 12 A. History of Traffic Phasing Ordinance 14 B. Other Development Projects and Vesting Under the Ordinance 18 1. Koll Center Newport 19 2. Emkay-Newport Place 21 3 . Ford Aeroneutronics 228 4. Summary IV. CIVIC PLAZA IS A VESTED PROJECT UNDER THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE 29 A. • Civic Plaza Is One Project 30 B. Grading and Building Permits Have Been Issued for Civic Plaza 32 • C. Construction Involving Substantial Liabilities Has Been Diligently Commenced in Civic Plaza 35 D. The Findings of The City Council Regarding The Vesting of Civic Plaza Are Inapposite and Do Not Support Its Decision 37 V. FAILURE OF THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL TO VEST CIVIC PLAZA IS A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS 41 VI . THE CITY IS EQUITABLY ESTOPPED FROM SUBJECTING CIVIC PLAZA TO THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE 45 J ' r VII. THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE IS INVALID AS APPLIED TO CIVIC PLAZA BECAUSE IT ' WOULD IN EFFECT REQUIRE SUBMISSION OF A SECOND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT IN • CONTRAVENTION OF STATE LAW 50 VIII. CONCLUSION 56 7 r s • • iI. INTRODUCTION This memorandum addresses the question of whether ' The Irvine Company has a legal and equitable right to complete construction of Civic Plaza despite City Council Policy S-1 and the subsequent Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The question ' is one of fairness, and we believe that in fairness the development of Civic Plaza cannot be halted at this late date. As discussed below, Civic Plaza is a vested project under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. It is, as a matter of ' law, one, interdependent project which has received all final discretionary approvals , for which grading and building permits have been issued, and on which substantial liabilities ' have been incurred in good faith reliance upon such permits . The Civic Plaza should therefore be excepted from the Traffic ' Phasing Ordinance. ' Civic Plaza is the only Planned Community District where construction occurred prior to adoption of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance that has not been found to be vested. Such a result cannot be supported given the history and otherwise consistent application'of the Traffic Phasing ' Ordinance. Rather, the failure of the City to find Civic Plaza vested under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance constitutes a denial of The Irvine Company' s Constitutional right to ' substantive due process and equal protection of the laws. It is ironic that the City has attempted to halt full development of the commercial office uses in Civic ' Plaza, while at the same time it has accepted and encouraged the public and quasi-public uses either completed or- under • ' construction. As discussed below, under applicable law the City of Newport Beach in encouraging and accepting the public and quasi-public uses is legally precluded from denying to The Irvine Company the right to complete the ' entire project. Finally, The Traffic Phasing Ordinance, in essence, is an attempt. to resubject Civic Plaza to yet another envi- ronmental impact study. However, the California Environ- mental Quality Act flatly prohibits such an attempt. The Irvine Company respectfully submits that, for ' all of these reasons as more fully developed below, Civic Plaza must be permitted to proceed. t 2 - II. DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY OF CIVIC PLAZA Civic Plaza is a 26. 12 acre Planned Community ' District in Newport Center bounded by San Joaquin Hills Road, Santa Cruz Drive, San Clemente Drive, Santa Barbara Drive, the Newport Beach Fire and Police Facility buildings ,* ' an automobile dealership , and a service station. While the present, approved design for Civic Plaza had its genesis in ' 1975, the developmental history for that property dates back to the beginning phases of Newport Center. Ground was first broken on the Civic Plaza site in ' 1967, when that site was rough graded as a part of the grading of the whole of Newport Center. At the same time substantial and costly infrastructure investment, including ' sewage, water,. gas, power and telephone lines , was made by The Irvine Company for the Civic Plaza site. The Civic Plaza property was originally zoned CO-H-UL. This was prior to the adoption of Planned Community ' District zoning for commercial projects in Newport Beach;, however, this zoning permitted general retail, service com- mercial, and multi-family residential uses, thus permitting development potentials now recognized in Planned Community Districts . The Irvine Company conveyed the land for the Fire Station and Police Facility to the City of Newport Beach in 1970 and 1973, respectively. t , 3 Early in 1975 , The Irvine Company was approached by a group of citizens interested in establishing an art ' museum in the City who were seeking a donation of land for that purpose. A repertory theatre group, which was considering a relocation of its facilities in Newport Beach, also approached ' The Irvine Company for the same purpose. At about the same time, The Irvine Company was presented with a third similar ' request by the City of Newport Beach then considering a location for a new library building within Newport Center. The logical site for these buildings was what is now known as Civic Plaza. Public uses were already being made of land adjacent to the Civic Plaza site, with the Newport Beach Police facility having been built in 1973 and ' the adjacent fire station in 1970. Moreover, the location of this property was suitable for public and quasi-public 1 uses, as well as commercial development. To help persuade The Irvine Company to consider dedicating part of this land ' for civic uses, an archit6ct involved in both the Museum and Theatre groups submitted a schematic development plan envisioning a viable combination of both commercial and the above civic uses in one integrated development project. For its part, The Irvine Company, desiring to ' involve Newport Center in Newport Beach civic and cultural activities, listened to these requests and was intrigued by I � 4 - J ithe submitted development plan. The concept presented an ' appealing design for future commercial projects by incorpo- rating a campus-like scheme. The Irvine Company therefore presented and designed Civic Plaza as a Planned Community in a manner that would insure that all of its planned uses , namely office buildings, an art museum, a library, a theater ' and a restaurant, were fully compatible, integrated and interdependent. The costs of this endeavor were not insubstantial. ' A local architectural firm, Ladd, Kelsey and Woodard, was commissioned by The Irvine Company to provide a detailed land planning schematic consistent with such a planned community setting at a cost of approximately $15 , 000. The ' plans for Civic Plaza, embodied in the Planned Community District Regulations discussed below, reflect a campus-like setting of low-rise buildings, as well as shared parking ' among the various structures , including the Library and the Art Museum, and an inner vehicular access system to enable movement to each building within Civic Plaza without the ' necessity of exiting onto any surface streets. While developing these plans for Civic Plaza, as a ' necessary first step in processing the Planned Community ("PC") application by the City of Newport Beach, The Irvine Company constructed San Clemente Drive and also invested in � 1 �II � 5 iadditional infrastructure for Civic Plaza at its own expense. San Clemente Drive, an undivided, four lane, public arterial, was completed in 1975 at a cost of approximately $230, 000. It is readily apparent that San Clemente Drive was con- structed with the future needs of Civic Plaza foremost in mind. Among other things , San Clemente Drive now serves as ' a frontage road to both the Art Museum and the Library as well as providing necessary access to the rest of Civic Plaza as planned. In addition to architectural fees and the cost of ' San Clemente Drive, The Irvine Company also incurred approx- imately $21, 000 in engineering fees and preparation costs for an Environmental Impact Report in readying Civic Plaza for developmental approval. On November 20, 1975 , after an ' in-depth public hearing, the Newport Beach Planning Commis- sion unanimously approved The Irvine Company' s application ' for a resubdivision of Civic Plaza and its PC zoning appli- cation. A hearing was held on December 22, 1975 , at which time the Newport Beach City Council enacted P. C. Ordinance 1149 and approved Resubdivision Map #501. The integrity of- the whole concept of Civic Plaza was made explicit, and the ' City' s approval of Civic Plaza was in recognition of the project' s interdependence in public and commercial uses . 6 iP.C. Ordinance 1649 established the Civic Plaza ' Planned Community District ("Civic Plaza PC") which was expressly stated to be "a part of the Newport Center Devel- opment in conformance with the Newport Beach General Plan . . . adopted in December 1973 . " The Civic Plaza PC includes a ' site plan showing the number, location,* and footprints of 0 all buildings within Civic Plaza, precise height limitations ' on all buildings ,** allocation of the net acreage between building sites, parking areas and landscaping, and a divi- sion of square -footages among the various uses approved for ' Civic Plaza.*** After adoption of the Civic Plaza PC in December, 1975, the City formally issued its "Approval In Concept" for * The PC provides that "all buildings shall be 1 located in substantial conformance with the site plan. " ** The PC Provides that "all buildings and appurte- nant structures shall be limited to a maximum height of sixty-five (65) feet. " *** The Civic Plaza PC specification of uses are: "Office Park 320, 000 Sq. Ft. Art Museum 30, 000 Sq. Ft. Library 30, 000 Sq. Ft'. Theatre 20, 000 S Ft. Restaurant 88000 Sq. Ft. " 7 1 ithe project as a whole on 'January 16, 1976 .* Ten days later, The Irvine Company filed an application for develop- ment of Civic Plaza with the California Coastal Commission in the South Coast Region.** After a public hearing on March 29 , 1976, the Coastal Commission approved permits for ' the Art Museum, approved the resubdivision, and "approved in • ' concept" the entire Civic Plaza development, including office buildings, a restaurant and theatre, expressly recog- nizing that The Irvine Company was committed to development of the public use buildings only in conjunction with the entire development project. After gaining these approvals from both the City of Newport Beach and the Coastal Commission, The Irvine Com- pany proceeded diligently and in good faith to bring Civic ' * The City' s final approval of 320, 000 sq. ft. of commer- cial office development in Civic Plaza was conditioned ' only upon a final review of a traffic study for all of Newport Center. The City determined that no building permits should be issued on the commercial sites until that review was complete, although the City' s approval of the commercial development in concept would not permit any material departure from the approved site plan. On February 28, 1977, the City completed that traffic review, established a reduced density figure for Newport Center as a whole, and in so doing accepted and approved the full 320,000 square feet of commercial ' office usage in Civic Plaza. ** At that time, but not now, the Civic Plaza site was designated as lying within the coastal zone. 8 Plaza to completion. First, it agreed to convey to the City ' of Newport Beach the land in Civic Plaza (consisting of approximately 1. 97 acres) designated for the Library. On June 29, 1976, The Irvine Company sold the land to the City for $279, 500, which was a discount of $90 , 000 or about 24% ' of the fair market value. This donation to the City of almost one-fourth of the then fair market value of the Library site was made with the integration of the Library facility with the rest of Civic Plaza foremost in mind. The documents of conveyance reflect the interde- pendence of the City Library to the rest of Civic Plaza, and the City' s acceptance and approval of the whole project. "Reciprocal cross easements" were established between The Irvine Company and the City "for pedestrian and vehicular access and parking purposes" as designed for Civic Plaza. rIn addition, the City agreed to enter a Common Area Mainte- nance Agreement to share in the cost of common area land- scaping and parking in Civic Plaza. Because of its interest in coordinating the use of the Library site with the rest of Civic Plaza, The Irvine Company also obtained a covenant from the City in the Grant Deed that if the Library site was ' proposed to be sold or leased within 25 years then The Irvine Company would have a right of first refusal. The 9 Irvine Company also reserved the right to approve any and ' all exterior design improvements on the Library site. On October 14, 1976, grading and building permits were issued for the Newport Harbor Art Museum. Work there- after commenced in reliance upon these permits . Both sites were graded, with The Irvine Company itself incurring the costs of grading the Library site, amounting to $11, 000. The Irvine Company made a gift of the two acre Library site to the Newport Harbor Art Museum on February 21, 1977, the ' gift amounting to $350, 000. That building has been completed to the extent possible without the commercial development. Six days later a grading permit was issued for the Library. The Library building today is nearly complete. r tAs with the Library, the interdependence of the ' Art Museum to the rest of Civic Plaza is amply demonstrated by the conveyancing documents ; similar "reciprocal cross ' easements" were arranged between The Irvine Company and Newport Harbor Art Museum "for pedestrian and vehicular access for parking purposes" and an agreement to share in common area landscaping and parking costs was also contem- plated; in addition, for a period of 25 years , The Irvine ' Company reserved in the Grant Deed the right to approve all exterior design improvements on the site of the Museum. Finally, the Art Museum was planned to have a sculpture garden running 10 through the commercial site, and the design of that building and of the rest of Civic Plaza was conceived with that goal in mind. In summary, from its inception Civic Plaza has been conceived as a planned, integrated and interdependent ' development project. In concept, in design, and in the r processing of plans and approvals , the project has always ' been considered by everyone concerned--The Irvine Company, the City and the Coastal Commission--as a unified and inter- dependent whole. The liabilities incurred by The Irvine ' Company and other entities , including the City, on Civic Plaza have been substantial. It is a project in which development has proceeded diligently and in good faith. ' As evident from the history of Civic Plaza, the concept of interdependence inherent in Civic Plaza was cer- tainly shared by the City of Newport Beach, at least until enactment of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance on June 12, 1978 ' by the City Council. Shortly thereafter, and pursuant to the procedures outlined in the ordinance, The Irvine Company applied for a finding by the City that Civic Plaza was a vested project for purposes of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. On July 11, 1978, despite favorable recommendations from7the City Attorney and the Department of Community Development, and contrary to its findings with respect to other applica- 11 . tions of developers for project vesting, the City Council, by a vote of 5 to 2, found that "insufficient" facts had been presented to conclude that Civic Plaza was a vested project. Development has been arrested in mid-stream. This "finding" reflects an abrupt reversal of rposition by the City that Civic Plaza is no longer to be i ' considered an integral project. Not only was this finding surprising in view of the content and precedents of the ordinance itself, but, for reasons discussed more fully I below, now that the Art Museum is constructed and in opera- tion, and the Library is well on its way to completion, the City Council cannot maintain that these structures should be viewed in isolation, separate and apart from the rest of Civic Plaza. III. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND APPLICATION OF THE VESTING ' PROVISION OF THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE On June 12, 1978, the Newport Beach City Council adopted Ordinance No, 1711, better known as the Traffic Phasing Ordinance and now codified as Chapter 15. 40 of the INewport Beach Municipal Code. The declared purpose of the Ordinance is "to coordinate development of certain projects with transportation facilities in Newport Beach. " In other if12 . . iwords, it seeks to halt development pending construction and ' up-grading of streets, something that may or may not occur. The Traffic Phasing Ordinance does , however, contain a "grandfather clause" which identifies certain development projects as "vested. " This clause is now sec- tion 15. 40. 030(D) (i) of the Municipal Code, which provides : ' "The Planning Commission shall except any project from the requirements of this Chapter: (i) 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 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 neces- sary therefor. No change causing a ' substantial increase in traffic volumes may be made in such project, except in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter; " When this provision is examined, it is clear that the Traffic Phasing Ordinance sets forth a three-part general test , for determining whether a particular development project is vested: (i) is it a "project"? (ii) has a building or grading permit been issued for the project? and (iii) has construction involving substantial liabilities been dili- gently commenced? 13 iEven if these questions are considered in a ' vacuum, a certain amount of interpretation is required before this vesting provision can be meaningfully applied. Fortunately, the Traffic Phasing Ordinance does not exist in a vacuum. There is significant legislative ' history behind the ordinance. Moreover, since a number of ' projects have been found to be vested under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, they serve as useful precedents for its application. As shown below, these two sources, the history of the ordinance and the precedents for its application, ' establish a consistent, clearly defined test for vesting--a test that establishes that Civic Plaza is vested. A. History of Traffic Phasing Ordinance ' In early 1978, an initiative petition was under consideration in the City of Newport Beach for a proposed ordinance to phase development in the City to the ability of traffic systems to handle any significant increased traffic from that development. At the same time the initiative was being pursued, its proponents supported a slate of candidates for the City Council. That slate was elected and began to carry out the objectives of the proponent group. As one of the first measures in that effort, newly elected Mayor Paul Rykoff requested the Newport Beach City Attorney to draft a policy statement that would accomplish 14 ithe purposes behind the initiative petition. On May 8, ' 1978, the City Attorney forwarded a draft of that policy to the City Council. This policy statement became City Council Policy S-1 ("S-1") , the "Traffic Phasing of Development Policy, " adopted on May 9, 1978. S-1 essentially provided that no building or grading permits would be issued for any commercial, indus- trial or residential projects of a certain minimum size unless the measured traffic impact of the project were less than a specified general standard or unless "the benefits of ' the project to the City of Newport Beach" were found by a super majority vote to "outweigh the project' s anticipated negative impact. " Because of the lack of detail in S-1, that policy concluded with the statement: "If ambiguity exists in the administration of this Policy, the Planning Commission and/or City Council is to be consulted to provide the proper interpretation. " ' Following adoption of S-1 the City proceeded with drafting an ordinance to put that policy into effect. The Department of Community Development was the lead department working on implementing S-1 and on coming up with a workable draft for a traffic phasing ordinance. In conjunction with ' that effort, on May 17, 1978, that department forwarded to the City Council a staff report outlining various ambiguities 15 1 � iexisting in S-1 which required some clarification before ' adoption of any implementing ordinance. First, the Department of Community Development pointed out that the term "project" as used in S-1 was not defined. That department advised the City Council that it was interpreting the term "project" under the definitions contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) . In so doing, the Department of Community Develop- ment stated the following: "In using this definition, the staff has interpreted 'project' in the broadest meaning, i. e. an entire planned community district would be a project and each individual building would be a part of that project. Therefore, the policy would apply to the entire development as a whole-. Simi- larly, the development of one lot in a subdivision containing ten lots or more would be part of the larger 'project' - the development of the entire tract. " The City Council was requested to concur in this definition ' and interpretation. The Department of Community Development also pointed out that S-1 did not contain any provision for excepting projects already at the development stage, pro- jects that would be vested. The department advised the City ' Council that it would look to the initiative as well as CEQA for guidance in making a determination of whether a project was vested under S-1. 16 J 1 i "Using the definition from CEQA and the Adminis- trative Guidelines as noted above [for defining 1 project] this would mean that if a grading or building permit had been issued in a Planned Community District, for instance, then the entire project, and all parts thereof, would be excepted from the policy. The same would be true of residential developments where grading or con- struction has begun. Individual building permits 1 for that tract would also be excepted under the provision. " The Department of Community Development concluded its staff 1 report by requesting the City Council' s concurrence in its interpretation of City Council Policy S-1. That request for concurrence took the form of a proposal for language to be 1 inserted in the text of the policy, as well as in the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. under study, which would exempt projects under way, provided: 1 "That the City has issued a building or grading permit for the project prior to May 8, 1978, and that the person to whom this permit was 1 issued has in good faith and in reliance upon such permit diligently commenced construction and per- formed and incurred substantial liabilities for 1 work and for material. No change causing a sub- stantial increase in traffic volumes may be made in such project except in accordance with the pro- visions of this policy. " Refinements and modifications of a draft Traffic Phasing Ordinance continued into June, 1978. The Department 1 of Community Development and the City Attorney' s office worked with the sponsors of the initiative measure as well as representatives of the developers and with the City �II 17 1 iCouncil in arriving at the final wording for the Traffic ' Phasing Ordinance. On June 12, 1978, the final draft of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance was adopted as Ordinance No. 1765 . The recommendations of the Department of Community Develop- ment concerning the definition of the term "project" and the ' basis for a finding of vesting discussed above were incorporated in the enacted ordinance. 1 It is clear from the legislative history reviewed above that a Planned Community District ("PC") is but one "project" for purposes of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. 1 Issuance of a grading or building permit with respect to any part of that project, and performance of work in reliance upon the issuance of -that permit, would vest the entire PC. 1 This interpretation was unequivocally presented to the City Council by the Department of Community Development and was 1 endorsed by the City Council when it adopted the language 1 suggested by the Department. B. Other Development Projects and Vesting Under the Ordinance. Even if this legislative history were the only basis upon which to apply the Traffic Phasing Ordinance to ' Civic Plaza, the proper interpretation and application of the vesting exception contained in the Traffic Phasing Ordinance would be clear. However, at least ten projects 18 ihave been found to be vested under the Traffic Phasing ' Ordinance, and the facts upon which three of the PC' s (Koll Center Newport, Emkay-Newport Place, and Ford Aeroneutronics) were found. to be vested are particularly instructive. 1. Koll Center Newport. The PC Development Standards for Koll Center Newport were adopted more than six years ago in May, 1972. ' The Development Standards for Koll Center Newport are gen- eral and do not consist of any specific site plan for the project. Instead, the standards merely constitute a parcel- ' ization of the whole project into "sites" of defined permis- sible uses and densities . A maximum permissible height for all buildings. is set forth and allowable building pad sizes are scaled to the various permissible heights up to that maximum. Significantly, building locations are not indi- cated in the Koll Center Newport PC. ' The text of the Koll Center Newport PC has been amended at least nine times since its adoption by the City in 1972. The amendments have reflected some major revisions in the development possibilities and plans for the project. For example, in 1974, the text was twice amended, ' in order to create new office site boundaries , to provide for three additional restaurant sites,' to create a "floating location" for a retail and service center site, to enlarge 19 i one service station site and eliminate another, and to add 1 to the permissible uses of the office retail and service center sites . Similarly, in 1976, the text of the Koll Center Newport PC was amended to permit individual commer- cial lot sizes of less than 30, 000 square feet. The PC 1 Development Standards have been amended twice more during • ' this year. As reflected by these numerous PC amendlents , development in Koll Center Newport has proceeded in phases . 1 Building permits have been requested and issued on an "indi- vidualized" basis . Today, approximately 45 percent of the Koll project remains undeveloped despite the passage of more than six years from the adoption of the PC.* Of the undevel- oped land, the Koll Company, the developer of the Planned Community, owns two "sites" and The Irvine Company a third "site. " Although Koll Center Newport is a PC, there is no 1 intrinsic interdependence in the project. The established buildings are not as functionally, aesthetically, or even financially linked to the successful completion of the entire project as is the case with Civic Plaza. 1 * The percent of development figures for Koll Center Newport and for other projects are taken from figures prepared by the Department of Community Development, and are based upon allowable floor area of development . 1 20 In short, in finding Koll Center Newport to ' be a vested project, the City Council quite clearly followed the recommendations and interpretations of the Department of Community Development concerning the definition of a "pro- ject. " The determinative factor for the City Council and 0 for the Department of Community Development was that Koll Center Newport is a PC. As such, the entire property was considered to be one project. It was not relevant that. development in Koll Center Newport has proceeded on each ' building site independently and in phases. It was not relevant that the property in Koll Center Newport is owned by. various individuals. It was not relevant that the Koll Center Newport PC Development Standards have been changed repeatedly by amendment in the past. The critical, determinative ' facts were that Koll Center Newport is a PC and that substantial ' development has been undertaken in that project pursuant to a grading or building permit. 2. Emkay-Newport Place. In its development history with respect to the vesting issue, the Emkay-Newport Place project is quite ' similar to Koll Center Newport. The PC Development Stan- dards for Emkay-Newport Place were adopted even earlier than II � for Koll Center Newport. They too have undergone numerous 1 21 amendments reflecting substantial changes from the project ' as originally conceived and approved by the City. Develop- ment at Emkay-Newport Place has proceeded sporadically and in phases , and various building permits have been issued on a piecemeal basis. Despite the passage of eight years , approximately 30% of Emkay-Newport Place still remains unde- veloped. There are three different owners of the three undeveloped sites remaining at Emkay-Newport Center, of which Emkay owns one. As with Koll Center Newport, there is less intrinsic interdependence between or among the various phases of that project, completed or otherwise, as in the case of Civic Plaza. Nonetheless , the whole of Emkay-Newport Center, like Koll Center Newport, was found to be vested as ' one project by the City Council. 3. Ford Aeroneutronics . In the cases of Koll Center •Newport and ' Emkay-Newport Center, there were adopted PC Development Standards, although no site plan, and no discretionary approvals remained to be obtained for completion of those projects .* Without more, it might be assumed that such * This is true only if no resubdivision is to take place. However, as the Planning Commission is aware, resubdi- vision is proposed in the Emkay-Newport Place PC. 22 standards are essential to a finding of vesting under the ' Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The vesting of the Ford Aero- neutronics property, however, establishes that even the absence of PC Development Standards and a need for further discretionary approvals will not prevent a project from ' being vested if it can be characterized as a PC and develop- ment has occurred on the PC property. ' Development on the Ford Aeroneutronics prop- erty began in 1958 following the approval of a use permit allowing general industrial development on a portion of that ' property. In 1959, a second use permit allowing construc- tion of a four-story administration building with a utility superstructure was approved by the Newport Beach Planning ' Commission, with construction subsequently proceeding under that use permit. Significantly, the two use permits , and in 1 particular the 1959 use permit, set forth on the sketch plan ' that sites other than those begun or completed by 1959 would be reserved for "future development. " On January 14, 1974, the City Council rezoned the Ford Aeroneutronics property from "Unclassified" to "P-C" without any additional submissions of detailed plans ' by the developer. In effect, the 15 year old use permits on that property were made to serve as a substitute for a required PC text. 1 . 23 1 The staff report from the Department of Community Development to the City Council on this action, dated January 14, 1974, states the following: "It was the feeling of the Commission that this rezoning is necessary to bring City Zoning into compliance with the General Plan as required 1 by State law. It should be mentioned that the proposed rezoning will have no effect on the existing Philco-Ford Plant on the site. However, 1 a 'Development Plan' will have to be prepared prior to any major modifications or improvements on the subject property. " In short, with the rezoning of the Ford Aeroneutronics prop- erty, the City staff determined that while a use permit 1 could be considered the interim PC text for the project, any future development on the property would be subject to the discretionary. approval required of a specific development ' plan. This conclusion was reaffirmed on February 9, t1976, when the City Council amended the Newport Beach General 1 Plan to provide that the undeveloped portions of the Ford Aeroneutronics site may be developed for residential use. That amendment added the following language to the Land Use element of the Newport Beach General Plan: "In view of the potential adverse traffic impacts which may result from development in the 1 areas designated, the [Ford Aeroneutronics] P-C District development application will be required to incorporate a development phasing approach, and other use, intensity, design, and operational measures as required to assure that traffic 1 24 generated by the development will. not cause an adverse impact. Any proposal for development shall include an environmental impact report which shall cover, in addition to other requirements , a marketing analysis, a cost-revenue analysis , an analysis of the relationship of jobs in the area to the living location of the employees and the effect of air traffic. " The Staff Report from the Department of Community Develo- pment to the Planning Commission on December 4, 1975 on this proposed General Plan amendment is even more revealing concerning the extent of discretionary approval required for any further development of the Ford Aeroneutronics property. "Since the property is currently zoned P-C, ' a P-C ordinance and an overall Development Plan must be submitted and approved by the Planning Commission and City Council prior to issuance of any building permits . In addition, it is likely that a full E. I.R. will be required. This de- tailed information could provide the basis for decisions on development intensity, phasing of ' development and the street system improvements required in conjunction with the development. " 1 As this staff report makes clear, the use permit "PC" on the ' property was simply not sufficient to permit further develop- ment. Instead, a development plan was envisioned, with such basic questions as the development intensity and the projected traffic demands needing to be determined. on November 22, 1976, the City Council amended ' the Residential Growth Element of the General Plan to provide that residential development could take place on the Ford Aeroneutronics property "with specific density limits and development standards to be determined at such time as the I ' 25 I I, property owner submits development plans for City ap- proval. " ' This activity was followed by the approval of a third use permit on the property by the Planning Commis- sion on April 21, 1977. That use permit permitted the ' installation of approximately 60, 000 square feet of temporary • office space on the site. In requesting this use permit, Ford Aeroneutronics advised the Planning Commission by a letter dated March 23, 1977, that "we plan to complete our Community Planning effort on our total site." On October 20, 1977, Ford Aeroneutronics again received from the Planning Commission approval of a specific development project on its �. property. That approval took the form of an amendment to ' the original use permit for the property issued in 1958. In essence, that amendment permitted construction of a two- story engineering building containing approximately 120, 000 square feet, with the addition of temporary structures until, the permanent building was completed. On the basis of the foregoing facts , Ford Aeroneutronics requested consideration of its property as a vested project under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance by ' letter dated June 20, 1978. Ford Aeroneutronics advised the Planning Commission that it had been "developing this property in incremental phases since 1958. . . . " On July 20, 1978, the 26 i Planning Commission found the Ford Aeroneutronics property to be vested, despite the fact that no specific density lim- its nor PC development plan had been approved for the prop- erty. The minutes of the meeting finding Ford Aeroneutron- ics vested include the following: 1 "It was noted by the Planning Commission that any changes which would effect land use in this area would be approved as part of an amendment to 1 the P-C Plan and Text. The amendment would not be reviewed in the context of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, unless the traffic information that is developed for the proposed amendment indicates that there would be an increase in the traffic over and above the existing development plan for which the exception is approved. 1 In making this finding, the Planning Commission accepted as a development intensity allowance the previously unapproved 1 development intensity projections presented by Ford Aero- neutronics . 1 I The designation of the Ford Aeroneutronics development as a "project" demonstrates an extremely broad 1 application of the vesting test under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The Ford Aeroneutronics development consists of land zoned P-C, but without any P-C Development Standards ever having been approved. It is a development for which further discretionary approvals will be required before any 1 future development may proceed. It is a project for which there has never been any approved development intensity � 1 27 L 1 ibeyond a use permit sketch master plan. Of the approxi- mately one million square feet of permanent structures cur- rently in place or under construction, less than thirteen percent has been constructed since the rezoning of the property as a PC. Of the approximately '2. 2 million square ' feet of 'structures permitted on the development as a result of a finding of vesting, only six percent has been developed ' since the rezoning. Development has proceeded by a succession of independent use permits instead of by a set of clearly articulated PC standards . Nonetheless , the entire Ford ' Aeroneutronics development was found to be a vested "pro- ject" by the City simply because it comprised an area zoned PC and because some development had already taken place on ' that property. 4. Summary. ' Examination of these and other developments ' reveals that the test under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, of whether a particular development is vested is relatively clear and simple: (1) Is the development equatable to a planned community? If so, the entire development scheme is one project for purposes of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, ' and (2) Has any construction taken place on the property pursuant to a grading or building permit? If so , then the entire project is vested. .� 28 iThe specificity of the development plan is irrelevant. The fact that construction in the project has proceeded in phases or sporadically, is irrelevant. The fact that the development phases in the PC are not inter- dependent in any sense except perhaps financially is irrele- vant. The fact that all discretionary approvals have not ' been obtained, as in the case of Ford Aeroneutronics, is irrelevant. And, finally, the fact that any future devel- opment is contingent on study of potential traffic problems, ' as in the case of Ford Aeroneutronics , will not prevent developments from being excepted from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Within this framework and based on these estab- lished precedents, Civic Plaza is clearly a vested project. IV. CIVIC PLAZA IS A VESTED PROJECT UNDER THE TRAFFIC 1 PHASING ORDINANCE ' In view of the facts concerning Civic Plaza set forth above, tested by the consistent interpretation and application of the vesting exception of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, the vote of the City Council on July 11, 1978 that insufficient data had been presented "to establish 1 vesting for Civic Plaza" simply cannot be upheld. Civic Plaza is "excepted" under the grandfather clause of the 29 iTraffic Phasing Ordinance. Accordingly, the Traffic Phasing Ordinance may not legally be applied to Civic Plaza. A. Civic Plaza Is One Project The starting point in considering whether Civic Plaza is within the scope of the grandfather clause of the ' Traffic Phasing Ordinance is to determine if it is one "project" . As noted above, the term "project" is defined in ' the ordinance by express reference to CEQA and the adminis- trative guidelines established thereunder. The CEQA statute defines the term "project" in broad terms : ' " 'Project' means the following: " (a) Activities directly undertaken by any public agency. " (c) Activities involving the issuance to a person of a lease, permit, license, certifi- cate, or other entitlement for use by one or more public agencies . " Public Resources Code §21065 ' This definition has been clarified by administrative guide- lines promulgated under CEQA: " (a) Project means the whole of an action which has a potential for resulting in a physical change in the environment, directly or ulti- mately. . . . 1 30 1 i " (c) The term 'project' refers to the activity which is being approved and which may be 1 subject to several discretionary approvals by governmental agencies. The term 'project' does not mean each separate governmental approval. " 14 California Administrative Code §15037. 1 The history of Civic Plaza establishes that it is one project fully encompassed by these statutory and admin- istrative definitions. The Environmental Impact Report required by CEQA on Civic Plaza was approved for the project as a whole. Since the Traffic Phasing Ordinance incorpo- rates CEQA definitions of the "project, " and since Civic Plaza was but one project for CEQA purposes , then it must be one project for purposes of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. For the City' s part, it zoned the entire Civic Plaza project 1 as a single Planned Community District; there was not sepa- rate zoning for each proposed building, for the very purpose of the PC designation is to allow a highly integrated but multi-faceted development to be planned as a whole. The final map and site plan for Civic Plaza were approved for that project as a whole. Throughout the processing of Civic Plaza by the City of Newport Beach, it has been treated as one integrated project. Moreover, the City has consistently 1 found that any PC is but one project, and the City Council by P. C. Ordinancd #1649, itself designated the entire devel- opment of Civic Plaza as a PC. 1 31 i iB. Grading and Building Permits Have Been Issued for Civic Plaza. Once it is determined that a particular development scheme is a project, the second question is whether a building or grading permit was issued prior to the effective date of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Civic Plaza meets this criteria. A rough grading permit was issued by the City of Newport Beach in 1965 for Civic Plaza, along with all other property in the Newport Center. More importantly, ' grading and building permits were issued for an integral and important part of the project, namely, the Newport Harbor Art Museum, on October 14, 1976. Six days later a grading permit was issued on a second building in the project, the Library, with a building permit subsequently issued on May ' 11, 1978. The work authorized by these permits promptly followed their issuance. While grading and building permits for other portions of Civic Plaza have not yet been applied for or issued, because of the interdependence of the Newport Harbor Art Museum and Library to the rest of Civic Plaza these buildings cannot be considered as isolated units. Rather, ' they are an integral part of Civic Plaza as a review of the history of Civic Plaza makes amply clear. Due to this I 32 I ipervasive interdependence, the permits issued for these ' buildings vest the entire Civic Plaza project. An example 'of the interdependent project doctrine I � is found in Sierra Club v. California Coastal Zone Conserva- tion Commission, 58 Cal.App. 3d 149, rhg. denied (1976) . In ' that case, the developer was contructing a "commercial hotel Iand golf and recreational structures . " Id. at 157. The Developer had installed the infrastructure for the golf course, including several tees , had laid foundations for the ' pro shop and part of the hotel complex, and had paved the main road into the project, prior to the effective date of Coastal Zone Conservation Act. The Coastal Zone Conserva- tion Commission excepted not only those phases of the pro- ject on which construction had begun from the required per- mit, but also excepted the whole of the project on the ground that the development was an interdependent project. ' Because the concept of vesting pertains to the project as a whole, the developer was permitted by the Commission, and by the District Court of Appeal reviewing the Commission' s decision, to complete the hotel complex, including guest houses, a tennis shop, tennis courts and swimming pool, all ' of which was part of the planned community but not yet under construction. Id. 33 1 iCivic Plaza is an interdependent project under all 1 accepted criteria. Civic Plaza was conceived and approved as one "development" comprising an integrated and interde- pendent mix of cultural, recreational and commercial uses in a low rise campus-like setting. The Newport Harbor Art Museum was planned to have a sculpture garden running through • 1 the center of the commercial site, and the design of that building was conceived with that goal in mind. The parking configuration and physical placement of the Art Museum and 1 Library were determined with the whole project in mind, as the City was aware when the project was approved. Finally, the project is financially interdependent in a variety of respects, from the fact that the costs so far expended have ' been made with Civic Plaza as a goal to the fact that opera- tional success of the existing buildings depends in large part upon completion of the project. 1 This same high degree of interdependence among the various buildings and uses of Civic Plaza is less apparent in Koll Center Newport, Emkay-Newport Center and Ford Aero- neutronics. The buildings either existing or under construc- tion on these sites could aesthetically and functionally 1 exist without any future development of the PC' s . Other than architectural compatibility, there is no plan for those projects which uniquely integrates the existing and future 1 _ i 34 uses. Moreover, in each of these PC` s , not only has develop- ment occurred in phases , but the undeveloped portions in each of these projects have remained undeveloped for lengthy 1 periods of time of not less than six years after adoption of the PC. In summary, Civic Plaza is but one project, and, 1 with the issuance of grading and building permits for the Art Museum and Library buildings , meets the first two criteria for vesting. C. Construction Involving Substantial Liabilities Has Been Diligently Commenced In Civic Plaza. iThe third criteria for a finding of vesting is that construction involving substantial liabilties shall ' have taken place. Again, Civic Plaza meets this test. Final grading was completed for both the Art Museum and Library by the beginning of 1977 . The Art Museum building is completed, and the Library is now under construction. And the work completed was diligently begun upon issuance of and in reliance upon the permits . The liabilities incurred so far on Civic Plaza are substantial. Since adoption of the PC for Civic Plaza, the Irvine Company has itself incurred liabilities of approxi- mately $473, 000. Since the issuance of the first grading and building permits, The Irvine Company has incurred Zia- 35 '1 bilities of approximately $383, 000, consisting of a gift of the Art Museum site at a fair market valuation of $350, 000, grading on the Library site at a cost of $11, 000, and the installation of utilities for the entire project at a cost of $22, 000. Since the ultimate question is whether a project ' is vested rather than who is involved in the project, the • ' liabilities incurred by the Newport Harbor Art Museum and the City on the Library also must be included, amounting to an additional $1, 700, 000.* In all, since adoption of the Civic Plaza PC, more than $2, 173, 000 has been invested on Civic Plaza.** Such investment is substantial as a matter of law. Cf. People v. Department of Housing and Community Development, 45 Cal.App. 3d 185, 197 (1975) , [expenditure of ' only $40, 000 by developer in reliance on permit found to represent "an undebatable quantum of prejudice. "] I , * The liabilities incurred by the Newport Harbor Art Museum and the City of Newport Beach on Civic Plaza are to be considered in the vesting equation for at least two reasons . First, as noted in the main text of this memo, the question is whether a project is vested. As such, all amounts spent on construction in that project in reliance upon a permit are to be considered, as ill opposed to segregating amounts among various partici- pants in the project. Second, the three present prop- erty owners in Civic Plaza are in effect joint ventur- ers in the completion of the Civic Plaza project as the design of the project and reciprocal agreements establish. * � That figure does not include liabilities incurred in terms of anticipatory installation of infrastructure and design costs , which would bring the total to approx- imately $3 , 000, 000. 36 L The Department of Community Development recognized the fact that Civic Plaza was vested in its staff report to the City Council for the June 12, 1978, public hearing: 1 " (Of] the four projects under discussion this evening, only Civic Plaza has been issued building ' and grading permits for partial development of the site. The commencement of construction of a portion of the project may qualify the entire • project for exception status under the administra- tive interpretation of the Policy as a vested project". This same conclusion was reached by the Newport Beach City Attorney in his memo on vested rights dated June 12 , 1%78 : ' "Assuming the definition of 'project' as being the whole of an action is used, then it would appear from the facts that a strong argument could be made that rights in the Civic Plaza project have vested. This is because substantial development has occurred in part of the Civic Plaza planned tcommunity. " D. The Findings of The City Council Are Inapposite and Do Not Support Its Decision. Despite the indisputable conclusion that Civic Plaza is a vested project and thus legally excepted from the ' Traffic Phasing Ordinance, the Newport Beach City Council found that it could not be determined that Civic Plaza was vested as a result of the following findings : " (a) That the Civic Plaza Planned Community con- tains 26. 12 acres . " (b) That approximately 89% of the land within the planned community boundaries has not been developed. 37 1 " (c) That the only development in existence on the Civic Plaza site relates to public and quasi- public facilities which is distinguishable from other planned communities in Newport Beach. " (d) That all improvements on the site other than the Art Museum and Library were installed ' prior to the approval of the Civic Plaza Planned Community text. " (e) That the streets were planned for the use of the over-all development as opposed to the Civic Plaza site. " These findings are either irrelevant to the question of whether Civic Plaza is vested, or-, notwithstanding the City ' Council' s contrary conclusion, support a determination that Civic Plaza is vested. •' First, the City Council looked to the size and ' percent of development on Civic Plaza. Civic Plaza, how- ever, smaller in total acreage than Koll Center Newport, '1 Emkay-Newport Place, or Ford Aeroneutronics , is more easily viewed as being one project. Moreover, the percentage of ' development is certainly not a relevant consideration under the plain language of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, nor has it apparently been a consideration in the case of any other PC, as witnessed, for example, by the Ford Aeroneutronics development project. ' The question is not whether the project is substan- tially completed, but whether the liabilities incurred on 38 1 the project have been substantial. As noted above, the tliabilities incurred to date on Civic Plaza in reliance upon grading and building permits are substantial as a matter of law. 1 Second, the City Council observed that the improve- ments in Civic Plaza either under construction or completed • 1 are public or quasi-public. But the Traffic Phasing Ordi- nance does not differentiate between public and private uses . It prohibits the issuance of building and grading 1 permits for all construction if the traffic impact is sig- nificant. It excepts projects , not uses, when they are vested. If anything, the fact that the buildings in place or under construction are the public and quasi-public parts 1 of Civic Plaza argues for vesting, since the land for those ' buildings was donated or conveyed at a substantial discount by The Irvine Company in reliance upon the City ' s approvals 1 of Civic Plaza. (See discussion infra at 43-48 regarding equitable estoppel) Third, the City Council noted that the street improvements and certain other infrastructure improvements pre-dated approval of the PC. This finding, of course, 1 ignores the substantial liabilities incurred since the time of that approval. Moreover, as in the case of Ford Aero- I' , neutronics, the timing of improvements , i. e. , whether they 39 i ioccur before or after PC zoning designation, is not a ' relevant factor. In fact, the contrary has been true. Despite the fact that 94% of the permanent improvements in the Ford Aeroneutronics project pre-dated the PC zoning of that property, the full amount of that construction was weighed in finding that project vested.* Finally, the • ' finding ignores the reality of the situation. For example, the street improvements for San Clemente Drive, a four lane road, were constructed in 1975 as a first step to develop- ment of Civic Plaza, as the City is well aware. ** Those improvements are as much a part of Civic Plaza as other improvements, being necessary to completion of the project. In conclusion, The Irvine Company respectfully ' submits that on the facts Civic Plaza is a vested project. The facts allow for no other result. ' * As discussed supra at 22-24, the Ford Aeroneutronics project proceeded for many years without PC zoning: from 1958 to January, 1974, development proceeded at Ford Aeroneutronics on the basis of conditional use permits only. ** The main purpose and use of San Clemente Drive, as noted supra at 5-6, is to provide direct access to the Newport Harbor Art Museum and Library in Civic Plaza, as well as to Civic Plaza as a whole project. t ' 40 V. FAILURE OF THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL TO VEST CIVIC PLAZA IS A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL ' PROTECTION OF THE LAWS It has previously been demonstrated that Civic Plaza has been treated quite differently by Newport Beach ' than other PC' s in the City, specifically Koll Newport Center, 'Emkay-Newport Place, and Ford Aeroneutronics . The latter three PC' s have been found to be excepted from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, even though the relevant facts for those PC' s are, less apparent on the issue of vesting as ' are the facts with respect to Civic Plaza. This unequal, arbitrary application of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance to defeat Civic Plaza, the only PC where development has occurred but which has not been excepted, is a denial of equal protection that is forbidden by both the federal and istate Constitutions. ' A developer of private property, no less than any other individual or entity, is entitled to due process pro- tections against arbitrary, capricious and discriminatory action by a municipality. See, e•g• , Friedman v. City of Los Angeles , 52 Ca1.App. 3d 317 (1975) [City liable to devel- oper in damages for deprivation of due process rights] . Even without an exhaustive citation of authority, it is fundamental that a city cannot apply different vesting Stan- ' 41 idards with respect to similarly situated developments with- out infringing upon constitutionally protected rights and bearing liability for its actions . The case of G & D Holland Construction Co. v. City of Marysville, 12 Ca1.App . 3d 989 (1970) , is on point in ' demonstrating a city' s constitutionally imposed obligations to act in a fair, consistent and nondiscriminatory manner ' toward all developers. That case concerned a square block of real estate on which the petitioner intended to construct apartments. The property was zoned "R-4" (general apartment ' ' district) on January 5, 1970, when the petitioner presented the City with building plans and an application for a build- ing permit. The building plans conformed to the R-4 zone. ' However, at the next meeting of the planning commission, a group of citizens appeared and objected to the proposal. ' The next day the city engineer issued a public statement ' declaring that storm drainage had overloaded the City' s sewerage system. The following day, the city council held a ispecial hearing and received a petition from numerous citi- zens objecting to the proposed project because of concern for neighborhood property values . The council directed the City' s building official to temporarily withhold the build- ing permit. It subsequently down-zoned the property to R-3 ' 42 I iin the interests of "the public health, safety and welfare. " (Id. at 993, fn. 1. ) The petitioner in the Holland case sued for a writ mandating issuance of the building permit. The trial court entered summary judgment for the City, and the petitioner ' appealed. In reversing the trial court, the Court of Appeal • found: "The principal limiting judicial inquiry into the II � legislative body' s police power objectives, does not bar scrutiny of a quite different issue, that of discrimination against a particular parcel of ' property. 'A city cannot unfairly discriminate against a particular parcel of land, and the' courts may properly inquire as to whether the scheme of classification has been applied fairly II � and impartially in each instance. t " Id. at 994. On retrial, the trial court found the petitioner' s project ' had been discriminated against, and mandated issuance of the I � building permit. The Traffic Phasing Ordinance, on its face, is not ' directed at a specific project. However, the application of that ordinance to projects under development prior to its adoption has not been fair and equal. Rather, the City Council has subjected Civic Plaza to a standard not autho- rized by the language of the ordinance and discriminatory ' when compared to other vested PCs . The City Council noted that Civic Plaza was dif- ferent from other PCs because of its inclusion of public 43 i uses , and cited that as a basis for declining to find that ' project vested. The ordinance, however, does not differen- tiate between uses . Moreover, the fact that only Civic Plaza' s public sites have been permitted to be developed argues for vesting, not against it. The City Council also noted that certain improvements in Civic Plaza were con- structed prior to adoption of the PC. However, not only does that ignore the fact that those improvements were necessary only to Civic Plaza, but anticipatory development has been credited in the vesting equation for other PCs , as for Ford Aeroneutronics . Civic Plaza has an approved site plan; the three other PCs compared above do not. Civic Plaza has already been closely scrutinized for its traffic ' impact and approved; the others have not to any comparable degree. Civic Plaza has proceeded to completion at a rea- sonable pace; construction in the three other compared PC' s ' has been more leisurely. Yet, Civic Plaza was denied vested status . Such unequal application is impermissible under the law. The simple fact is that, given a fair and uniform application of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance to Civic Plaza, ' the refusal by the Newport Beach City Council to find Civic Plaza vested, despite the contrary advice of its City ' Attorney and Department of Community Development, is consti- tutionally impermissible. 44 i ' VI. THE CITY IS EQUITABLY ESTOPPED* FROM SUBJECTING ' CIVIC PLAZA TO THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE The City Council, as previously noted, declined to find that Civic Plaza was a vested project in part because the two buildings substantially completed are public or ' quasi-public. This finding, rather than supporting the • decision of the City Council not to vest Civic Plaza, instead provides yet another basis for concluding that Civic Plaza cannot be subjected to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance or any other attempt to block that project: namely, equitable estoppel. Equitable estoppel is a doctrine applied by the courts to prevent the perpetration of injustice on innocent ' parties by both private and governmental action. This 1 doctrine, as applied to municipal governments , was closely examined and clarified by the California Supreme Court in ' City of Long Beach v. Mansell, 3 Cal. 3d 462 (1970) : "As we pointed out in the recent case of Driscoll v. CitZ of Los Angeles (1967) 67 Cal. 2d 297, at p. al. Rptr. 661, 431 P. 2d 2451 , ' Generally speaking, four elements must be present in order to apply the doctrine of equitable "Estop" is a legal term of art from Old French which means "to stop, bar, or impede. " Its Old French form meant a bung or cork, and its current form has been used by lawyers to signify the legal doctrine analysed in the text since the sixteenth century. ' 45 1 estoppel: (1) the party to be estopped must be apprised of the facts ; (2) he must intend that his ' conduct shall be acted upon, or must so act that the party asserting the estoppel had a right to believe it was so intended; (3) the other party must be ignorant of the true state of facts ; and (4) he must rely upon the conduct to his injury. ' Keeping in mind the admitted generality of this formulation and the flexibility which is necessary ' to its 'proper concrete application within the broad equitable framework we have expressed, it may be said that the elements here stated are basic to the general doctrine of equitable estop- pel as it exists in this and other jurisdictions . (See generall 3 Pomeroy, Equity Jurisprudence (5th ed. 1941f § 805 , pp. 190-198 ; 28 Am. Jur. 2d, Estoppel and Waiver § 35 , pp. 640-642; 31 C.J. S. , Estoppel § 67, 00. 402-415 . )" (Id. at 489) "After a thorough review of the many Califor- nia decisions in this area, as well as a consider- ation of various out-of-state decisions, we have concluded that the proper rule governing equitable estoppel against the government is the following: The government may be bound by an equitable estop- pel in the same manner as a private party when the elements requisite to such an estoppel against a ' private party are present and, in the considered view of a court of equity, the injustice which would result from a failure to uphold an estoppel ' is of sufficient dimension to justify any effect upon public interest or policy which would result from the raising of an estoppel. " (Id. at 496- 497) A case with notable parallels to Civic Plaza is Berkeley Lawn Bowling Club v. City of Berkeley, 42 Cal. App . 3d 280 (1974) . • The plaintiff in that case had agreed to pay for the construction of a lawn bowling clubhouse by the City over a •period of years, and to manage two lawn bowling ' 46 igreens . The clubhouse and bowling greens were on public ' land, and the City paid for maintenance of the greens . Nine years after construction of the clubhouse, the City announced its intention to convert one of the bowling greens into a needed "minipark" and to designate the second green as a ' public facility. The trial court enjoined the City' s action, • 1 and the appellate court affirmed, partly on estoppel grounds . "Here, the basis of the trial court' s ruling was the Club' s induced ignorance of the City' s inten- tion to retain the power to destroy the lawn bowling greens when it saw fit. This ignorance was induced by the City' s action in executing the i � clubhouse agreement without informing the Club of its intention as to the greens while maintaining its previous role with regard to the greens . " lilt (Id. at 289) The. case of Civic Plaza is substantially similar, ' and all of the identified elements for an estoppel exist. Was the City fully apprised of the facts concerning Civic ' Plaza, including its traffic impacts? Yes . The City stud- ied both the environmental impact report and a subsequent voluntary traffic study before finally approving Civic Plaza. It approved a specific site plan for the project, and even participated in shaping the concept of Civic Plaza through its solicitation and acquisition of the library ' site. Did The Irvine Company have a right to rely upon the City' s actions? Yes . The City not only approved the PC 47 Development Standards and site plan for Civic Plaza, but ' also purchased the planned Library site, issued building and grading permits, and approved the commercial density of the project after exhaustive scrutiny of the project ' s traffic impact. That approval was made with full knowledge of the ' condition of the City' s traffic systems . Was The Irvine Company informed prior to expending ' funds and incurring liabilities that Civic Plaza would be halted pending yet another traffic study? No. The Civic Plaza PC was approved in concept subject to completion of a ' traffic study on all of Newport Center. That study was completed, reviewed by the City, and the proposed density for Civic Plaza finally approved in 1977 . This was done in ' the framework bf a General Plan that identifies many poten- tially affected intersections as purposefully deficient. 1 With that final approval, The Irvine Company had no basis to believe that yet further obstacles in terms of traffic studies would remain. Finally, did The Irvine Company rely upon the City' s conduct? Again, yes , as the prior sections have established. The Irvine Company has donated land to quasi- public uses, has sold land to the City at substantial dis- count, and has incurred substantial liabilities in grading, ' 48 i I ' designing, planning, and installing infrastructure for Civic Plaza. This is adequate grounds for estoppel. This situation is in essence parallel to the ' Berkeley Lawn Bowling Club case. The Irvine Company was induced to donate or discount land in Civic Plaza for public uses, as was the Berkeley Lawn Bowling Club. Newport Beach � a ' acquired the library site, executed several reciprocal agreements, and went ahead with the construction of the Library, while all the time not informing The Irvine Company that construction of the commercial sites in Civic Plaza would not be permitted. The equitable result, as in the Berkeley Lawn Bowling Club case, is that Newport Beach should be estopped from applying the Traffic Phasing Ordi- nance to Civic Plaza. Since estoppel is grounded in the concept of fair- ness, the history of Civic Plaza presents a particularly ' compelling case for application of the doctrine. Develop- ment in Civic Plaza has thus far encompassed only the public uses . The land for the Museum and Library uses was either donated or ,conveyed at a discount, with the anticipation that the interdependence of the commerical sites to these ' public uses would justify that investment. The City was fully aware of that anticipation. However, now that the principal public uses are either completed or near comple- 49 1 i tion, the City has decided to, in essence, reap the benefits ' of The Irvine Company' s generosity while denying to The Irvine Company what was a primary factor of that decision. The City has taken this action not on the basis of any new facts or changed conditions . Instead, the City was fully ' aware of the relevant facts , and had even planned traffic deficiencies , as it approved Civic Plaza and encouraged its public uses. That is the type of unfairness that resulted in a finding of estoppel in the Berkeley Lawn Bowling Club case, ' and is' sufficient to estop Newport Beach from denying The Irvine Company the right to complete Civic Plaza. ' VII. THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE IS INVALID AS APPLIED TO CIVIC PLAZA BECAUSE IT WOULD .IN EFFECT REQUIRE SUBMISSION OF A SECOND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ' IN CONTRAVENTION OF STATE LAW The Civic Plaza Planned Community was approved by the Newport Beach Planning Commission on November 20, 1975 , and by the City Council on December 22, 1975. In approving the Civic Plaza Planned Community, the City of Newport Beach ' was, of course, required to comply with CEQA. The City com- missioned a Los Angeles firm, Environmental Feasibility Studies, to prepare the required environmental impact report (or "EIR") . 50 i EIR' s must include a "detailed statement" of both ' the long-range and short-range environmental effects of a proposed project, whether avoidable or not, alternatives to the proposed project, mitigation measures, and the "growth- inducing impact of the proposed project. " Public Resources • Code § 21100. If the environmental impact report identifies ' any significant environmental effects from the project, then the project cannot be approved unless specific findings are made that those effects can be mitigated by some change in ' the proposal, or 'that the social or economic benefits of the proposed project outweigh the environmental consequences of proceeding with development. Public Resources Code §21081. The• EIR prepared for Civic Plaza by Environmental ' Feasibility Studies was exhaustive in its analysis of traffic impact. Its traffic circulation analysis was prepared by Crommelin-Pringle & Associates. The full 15 page analysis ' made by Crommelin-Pringle & Associates was appended to the report. That analysis contained a comprehensive measure of the Intersection Capacity Utilization ("ICU") for nine key intersections affected by the proposed project, expressed in terms of Level of Service for each intersection. The ' analysis resulted in the following conclusions : "From the ICU analysis it can be seen that all intersections operate freely and far below full utilization except Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills Road, which will be utilized at ' about the 0. 98 level. i 51 1 "This, however, is not critical for two reasons. One, it [sic] will operate satisfacto- rily at the 0. 98 utilization level. Secondly, with the opening of New MacArthur Boulevard and the construction of the Corona del Mar Freeway, substantial traffic volumes will divert from Jamboree Road to New and Old MacArthur Boulevard. "This traffic diversion will significant ' [sic] reduce the utilization of the intersection of Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills Road. ' "Although the construction of New MacArthur Boulevard, the Corona del Mar Freeway to as far south as it is now under construction, plus con- struction of a connection between Old MacArthur Boulevard and the terminus of the Corona del Mar ' Freeway are not necessary for the street system to accommodate the project traffic, the construction of these projects would improve the traffic circu- lation. " The. EIR for Civic Plaza was approved by the City, ' but not without special consideration being given to the traffic impact of the project. In the staff report to the Planning Commission on Civic Plaza, dated November 14, 1975 , ' the following conclusions and recommendations were made: "The traffic consultant has concluded that this project will not have a significant impact at this time because: "A. The traffic 'volumes from the pro- j.ect, when added to the existing traffic volumes, will not exceed the capacity of the streets . ' "B. Access to the site is adequate. "C. No signalization or geometric modi- fications are needed for the adjacent intersectiops . 1 52 i "The Irvine Company is preparing a comprehen- sive study of peak hour flows and intersection ' capacities for the ultimate build-out of Newport Center, and the staff feels that this study should be reviewed prior to the final approval of the entire 320, 000 sq. ft. of offices proposed for this project. Therefore, the staff recommends that language be added to the P-C text to ensure adequate review of all available traffic data ' prior to final approval and issuance of buildinff permits for the office portion of this project. ' tThe Planning Commission followed this suggestion, and on February 28, 1977 , the Newport Beach City Council, after reviewing a "more detailed traffic analysis" on Newport Center, approved 320, 000 sq. ft. of office development for ' Civic Plaza with Resolution No. 9009. In summary, Civic Plaza has already been subjected to a comprehensive analysis for its traffic generating ' potential over and even beyond the normal requirements of CEQA. That analysis anticipated and duplicated the analysis now required by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance: i.e. , that ' the project will not adversely affect traffic service systems using a Level of Service measure, or, alternatively, that the project' s benefits outweigh any projected negative traffic impacts. The end result of the above environmental analysis was approval of Civic Plaza. ' Once a municipality has subjected a project to environmental analysis , it is prevented by CEQA from resub- ajecting the same project to a second environmental impact 1 53 ireport. The controlling statute is Public Resources Code §21166, which provides : "When an environmental impact report has been prepared for a project pursuant to this division, no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report shall be required by the lead agency or by any ' responsible agency, unless one or more of the following events occurs : (a) Substantial changes are proposed in the ' project which will require major revisions of the environmental impact report. (b) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revi- sions in the environmental impact report. (c) New information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the environ- mental impact report was certified as complete, becomes available. " ' Therefore, the Traffic Phasing Ordinances cannot be applied to Civic Plaza if in fact it imposes a "supplemental envi- ronmental impact report" requirement on Civic Plaza and there has been no substantial change in the project, no substantial change in the surrounding circumstances of the project, and no discovery of previously unavailable infor- mation. Does the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, if applied to Civic Plaza, call for a "supplemental environmental impact report?" The answer is clearly yes for several reasons . First, the Ordinance draws upon CEQA for the determination 54 i iof what is a "project. " See discussion supra at 30-31 and Municipal Code §15.40. 040. Second, the traffic analysis to determine which projects are subject to the ordinance is the identical traffic analysis imposed by the City in the EIR already prepared for Civic Plaza. The analysis under the ordinance, • ' as with state mandated EIR' s, calls for consideration of mitigation measures, and permits approval of projects having a substantial traffic impact only upon a finding of over- riding benefits . See Municipal Code §15 . 040. 030(ii) and (iii) . In substance, if not in form, if the Traffic Phasing Ordinance is applied to Civic Plaza it will require ' that that project be subjected to a "supplemental environ- mental impact report" on traffic impact, a requirement which is legally permissible only in limited circumstances . ' Third, none of the three conditions specified by CEQA for permitting imposition of a supplemental environ- mental impact report exists for Civic Plaza. No changes adversely affecting traffic have been proposed for the project. Since final approval of the commercial density of ' the project in 1977 -- approval which was previously with- held pending a further traffic review -- there have been no substantial adverse changes in the surrounding circumstances i ' 55 of Civic Plaza. If anything, the street systems have been ' improved. No new and previously unavailable information concerning Civic Plaza and its potential traffic impact has been discovered. ' In summary, Public Resources Code §21166 prohibits a city from subjecting a project to more than one environ- mental analysis except in special circumstances . Those cir- cumstances do not exist for Civic Plaza. Civic Plaza was approved only after careful scrutiny for environmental impacts, particularly traffic impacts , under CEQA. That review was not concluded until 1977 , when 320, 000 square feet of commercial development was finally approved for Civic Plaza. . Since that time, no changes in Civic Plaza or ' its surrounding circumstances have occurred, and no new ' information has been developed. To utilize the Traffic Phasing Ordinance as an attempt to resubject Civic Plaza to ' a second environmental impact study of traffic effects , is in contravention of state law and thus invalid. VIII. CONCLUSION The City Council has declined to find Civic Plaza an excepted project under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, justifying its actions on the ground that insufficient facts had been presented on that issue. A review of the facts ' 56 ipresented above, however, demonstrates beyond any doubt that ' Civic Plaza is a vested project when tested under the grand- father clause of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The Irvine Company' s right to complete that project cannot be legally withdrawn given the interdependence of the project, the 1 City' s prior approvals of the project, and The Irvine Com- pany T s detrimental reliance upon those approvals . For the City not to recognize this fact is an unconstitutional denial of substantive due process and equal protection of the laws. The City has encouraged and accepted the public and quasi-public aspects of Civic Plaza. In fact, the City itself accepted a donation of part of the value of the ' library site in the form of a substantial price discount. Civic Plaza was presented to and approved by the City as a 1 whole. The City cannot now retain what it likes to the exclusion of the rest. It is equitably estopped from denying to The Irvine Company the right to complete the project. Finally, the City, by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance is attempting to resubject Civic Plaza to yet another envi- ronmental impact study. That attempt is prohibited by the California Environmental Quality Act. I ' 57 iThe Irvine Company respectfully submits that ' sufficient facts are presented for a finding that Civic Plaza is excepted from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, and thus should be permitted to proceed, '1 58 1W IFMNE MMPXWY 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach,California 92663 Robert H.Shelton Vice President,Government Relations October 13, 1978 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, California 92660 Subject: CIVIC PLAZA Dear Mr. Chairman and Commission Members: The Irvine Company respectfully requests that you hold a public hearing to determine whether or not the Civic Plaza Planned Community should be "excepted" in accord with the Traffic Phas- ing Ordinance, Newport Beach Municipal Code, Section 15.40.030 (D) (1)• The Irvine Company has completed research on the issue and has prepared the enclosed information document. This data, in our judgement, is sufficient to support an affirmative determination of excepted status for Civic Plaza. Very truly yours, Robert H. Shelton Vice President Government Relations RS:blm cc: City Attorney Director, Community Development Department FILE COPY DO'NOT REMOVE OCTOBER 13, 1978 POSITION PAPER WITH REGARD TO QUESTION OF VESTING OF CIVIC PLAZA UNDER THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE r • THE IRVINE COMPANY • FILE COPY • DO'NOT REMOVE • • TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY OF CIVIC PLAZA 3 III. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND APPLICATION OF THE VESTING PROVISION OF THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE 12 A. History of Traffic Phasing Ordinance 14 B. Other Development Projects and Vesting Under the Ordinance 18 • 1. Koll Center Newport 19 2. Emkay-Newport Place 21 3. Ford Aeroneutronics 22 4. Summary 26 IV. CIVIC PLAZA IS A VESTED PROJECT UNDER THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE 27 A. Civic Plaza Is One Project 28 B. Grading and Building Permits Have Been Issued for Civic Plaza 30 • C. Construction Involving Substantial Liabilities Has Been Diligently Commenced in Civic Plaza 33 D. The Findings of The City Council • Regarding The Vesting of Civic Plaza Are Inapposite and Do Not Support Its Decision 35 V. FAILURE OF THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL TO VEST CIVIC PLAZA IS A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS 39 VI. THE CITY IS EQUITABLY ESTOPPED FROM SUBJECTING CIVIC PLAZA TO THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE 43 • • • VII. THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE IS INVALID AS APPLIED TO CIVIC PLAZA BECAUSE IT ' WOULD IN EFFECT REQUIRE SUBMISSION OF A SECOND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT IN CONTRAVENTION OF STATE LAW 48 • VIII. CONCLUSION 54 • • • • • • ii • • • I. INTRODUCTION This memorandum addresses the question of whether The Irvine Company has a legal and equitable right to complete • construction of Civic Plaza despite City Council Policy S-1 and the subsequent Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The question is one of fairness , and we believe that in fairness the • development of Civic Plaza cannot be halted at this late date. As discussed below, Civic Plaza is a vested project • under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. It is, as a matter of law, one, interdependent project which has received all final discretionary approvals , for which grading and building • permits have been issued, and on which substantial liabilities have been incurred in good faith reliance upon such permits . The Civic Plaza should therefore be excepted from the Traffic • Phasing Ordinance. Civic Plaza is the only Planned Community District where construction occurred prior to adoption of the Traffic • Phasing Ordinance that has not been found to be vested. Such a result cannot be supported given the history and otherwise consistent application of the Traffic Phasing • Ordinance. Rather, the failure of the City to find Civic Plaza vested under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance constitutes • a denial of The Irvine Company' s Constitutional right to substantive due process and equal protection of the laws . It is ironic that the City has attempted to halt • full development of the commercial office uses in Civic Plaza, while at the same time it has accepted and encouraged the public and quasi-public uses either completed or under • construction. As discussed below, under applicable law the City of Newport Beach in encouraging and accepting the public and quasi-public uses is legally precluded from • denying to The Irvine Company the right to complete the entire project. ' Finally, The Traffic Phasing Ordinance, in essence, • is an attempt to resubject Civic Plaza to yet another envi- ronmental impact study. However, the California Environ- mental Quality Act flatly prohibits such an attempt. • The Irvine Company respectfully submits that, for all of these reasons 'as more fully developed below, Civic Plaza must be permitted to proceed. • • 2 • • • II. DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY OF CIVIC PLAZA Civic Plaza is a 26. 12 acre Planned Community District in Newport Center bounded by San Joaquin Hills • Road, Santa Cruz Drive, San Clemente Drive, Santa Barbara Drive, the Newport Beach Fire and Police Facility buildings ,* an automobile dealership, and a service station. While the present, approved design for Civic Plaza had its genesis in 1975, the developmental history for that property dates back to the beginning phases of Newport Center. • Ground was first broken on the Civic Plaza site in 1967, when that site was rough graded as a part of the grading of the whole of Newport Center. At the same time substantial and costly infrastructure investment, including sewage, water, gas, power and telephone lines , was made by The Irvine Company for the Civic Plaza site. • The Civic Plaza property was originally zoned CO-H-UL. This was prior to the adoption of Planned Community District zoning for commercial projects in Newport Beach; • however, this zoning permitted general retail, service com- mercial, and multi-family residential uses , thus permitting development potentials now recognized in Planned Community • Districts. The Irvine Company conveyed the land for the Fire Station and Police Facility to the City of Newport • Beach in 1970 and 1973, respectively. 3 • • • Early in 1975, The Irvine Company was approached by a group of citizens interested in establishing an art museum in the City who were seeking a donation of land for • that purpose. A repertory theatre group , which was considering a relocation of its facilities in Newport Beach, also approached The Irvine Company for the same purpose. At about the same time, The Irvine Company was presented with a third similar request by the City of Newport Beach then considering a location for a new library building within Newport Center. • The logical site for these buildings was what is now known as Civic Plaza. Public uses were already being made of land adjacent to the Civic Plaza site, with the • Newport Beach Police facility having been built in 1973 and the adjacent fire station in 1970. Moreover, the location of this property was suitable for public and quasi-public• • uses, as well as commercial development. To help persuade The Irvine Company to consider dedicating part of this land for civic uses , an architect involved in both the Museum and • Theatre groups submitted a schematic development plan envisioning a viable combination of both commercial and the above civic uses in one integrated development project. For its part, The Irvine Company, desiring to involve Newport Center in Newport Beach civic and cultural activities, listened to these requests and was intrigued by 4 • • the submitted development plan. The concept presented an appealing design for future commercial projects by incorpo- rating a campus-like scheme. The Irvine Company therefore • presented and designed Civic Plaza as a Planned Community in a manner that would insure that all of its planned uses , namely office buildings , an art museum, a library, a theater • and a restaurant, were fully compatible, integrated and interdependent. The costs of this endeavor were not insubstantial. • A local architectural firm, Ladd, Kelsey and Woodard, was commissioned by The Irvine Company to provide a detailed land planning schematic consistent with such a planned • community setting at a cost of approximately $15 , 000. The plans for Civic Plaza, embodied in the Planned Community District Regulations discussed below, reflect a campus-like • setting of low-rise buildings , as well as shared parking among the various structures , including the Library and the Art Museum, and an inner vehicular access system to enable • movement to each building within Civic Plaza without the necessity of exiting onto any surface streets . While developing these plans for Civic Plaza, as a • necessary first step in processing the Planned Community ("PC") application by the City of Newport Beach, The Irvine Company constructed San Clemente Drive and also invested in 5 • • • additional infrastructure for Civic Plaza at its own expense. San Clemente Drive, an undivided, four lane, public arterial, was completed in 1975 at a cost of approximately $230, 000. • It is readily apparent that San Clemente Drive was con- structed with the future needs of Civic Plaza foremost in mind. Among other things, San Clemente Drive now serves as • a frontage road to both the Art Museum and the Library as well as providing necessary access to the rest of Civic Plaza as planned. • In addition to architectural fees and the cost of San Clemente Drive, The Irvine Company also incurred approx- imately $21, 000 in engineering fees and preparation costs • for an Environmental Impact Report in readying Civic Plaza for developmental approval. On November 20, 1975 , after an in-depth public hearing, the Newport Beach Planning Commis- sion unanimously approved The Irvine Company' s application for a resubdivision of Civic Plaza and its PC zoning appli- cation. A hearing was held on December 22, 1975, at which • time the Newport Beach City Council enacted P .C. Ordinance 1649 and approved Resubdivision Map #501. The integrity of the whole concept of Civic Plaza was made explicit, and the • City' s approval of Civic Plaza was in recognition of the project' s interdependence in public and commercial uses . • 6 • • P.C . Ordinance 1649 established the Civic Plaza Planned Community District ("Civic Plaza PC") which was expressly stated to be "a part of the Newport Center Devel- opment in conformance with the Newport Beach General Plan . . . adopted in December 1973 . " The Civic Plaza PC includes a site plan showing the number, location,* and footprints of • all buildings within Civic Plaza, precise height limitations on all buildings ,** allocation of the net acreage between building sites, parking areas and landscaping, and a divi- sion of square footages among the various uses approved for Civic Plaza.*** After adoption of the Civic Plaza PC in December, • 1975, the City formally issued its "Approval In Concept" for * The PC provides that "all buildings shall be • located in substantial conformance with the site plan. " ** The PC Provides that "all buildings and appurte- nant structures shall be limited to a maximum height of sixty-five (65) feet. " • *** The Civic Plaza PC specification of uses are: "Office Park 320, 000 Sq . Ft. Art Museum 30, 000 Sq. Ft. Library 30, 000 Sq. Ft. Theatre 20, 000 S Ft. • Restaurant 8 , 000 Sq . Ft. " • 7 • r the project as a whole on January 16, 1976 .* Ten days later, The Irvine Company filed an application for develop- ment of Civic Plaza with the California Coastal Commission • in the South Coast Region.** After a public hearing on March 29, 1976, the Coastal Commission approved permits for the Art Museum, approved the resubdivision, and "approved in • concept" the entire Civic Plaza development, including office buildings , a restaurant and theatre, expressly recog- nizing that The Irvine Company was committed to development • of the public use buildings only in conjunction with the entire development project. After gaining these approvals from both the City of Newport Beach and the Coastal Commission, The Irvine Com- pany proceeded diligently and in good faith to bring Civic + �c The City' s final approval of 320,000 sq. ft. of commer- cial office development in Civic Plaza was conditioned only upon a final review of a traffic study for all of Newport Center. The City determined that no building permits should be issued on the commercial sites until • that review was complete, although the City' s approval of the commercial development in concept would not permit any material departure from the approved site plan. On February 28 , 1977 , the City completed that traffic review, established a reduced density figure for Newport Center as a whole, and in so doing accepted • and approved the full 320, 000 square feet of commercial office usage in Civic Plaza. ** At that time, but not now, the Civic Plaza site was designated as lying within the coastal zone. • 8 • Plaza to completion. First, it agreed to convey to the City of Newport Beach the land in Civic Plaza (consisting of approximately 1. 97 acres) designated for the Library. On June 29, 1976, The Irvine Company sold the land to the City for $279, 500, which was a discount of $90, 000 or about 24% of the fair market value. This donation to the City of almost one-fourth of the then fair market value of the Library site was made with the integration of the Library facility with the rest of Civic Plaza foremost in mind. The documents of conveyance reflect the interde- pendence of the City Library to the rest of Civic Plaza, and the City' s acceptance and approval of the whole project. • "Reciprocal cross easements" were established between The Irvine Company and the City "for pedestrian and vehicular access and parking purposes" as designed for Civic Plaza. • In addition, the City agreed to enter a Common Area Mainte- nance Agreement to share in the cost of common area land- scaping and parking in Civic Plaza. Because of its interest • in coordinating the use of the Library site with the rest of Civic Plaza, The Irvine Company also obtained a covenant from the City in the Grant Deed that if the Library site was ! proposed to be sold or leased within 25 years then The Irvine Company would have a right of first refusal . The 9 • II • I Irvine Company also reserved the right to approve any and all exterior design improvements on the Library site. On October 14, 1976, grading and building permits • were issued for the Newport Harbor Art Museum. Work there- after commenced in reliance upon these permits . Both sites were graded, with The Irvine Company itself incurring the • costs of grading the Library site, amounting to $11, 000. The Irvine Company made a gift of the two acre Library site to the Newport Harbor Art Museum on February 21, 1977, the • gift amounting to $350, 000. That building has been completed to the extent possible without the commercial development. Six days later a grading permit was issued for the Library. • The Library building today is nearly complete. As with the Library, the interdependence of the Art Museum to the rest of Civic Plaza is amply demonstrated • by the conveyancing documents ; similar "reciprocal cross easements" were arranged between The Irvine Company and Newport Harbor Art Museum "for pedestrian and vehicular • access for parking purposes" and an agreement to share in common area landscaping and parking costs was also contem- plated; in addition, for a period of 25 years, The Irvine • Company reserved in the Grant Deed the right to approve all exterior design improvements on the site of the Museum. Finally, the Art Museum was' planned to have a sculpture garden running 10 • • through the commercial site, and the design of that building and of the rest of Civic Plaza was conceived with that goal in mind. • In summary, from its inception Civic Plaza has been conceived as a planned, integrated and interdependent development project. In concept, in design, and in the • processing of plans and approvals , the project has always been considered by everyone concerned--The Irvine Company, the City and the Coastal Commission--as a unified and inter- dependent whole. The liabilities incurred by The Irvine Company and other entities , including the City, on Civic Plaza have been substantial. It is a project in which • development has proceeded diligently and in good faith. As evident from the history of Civic Plaza, the concept of interdependence inherent in Civic Plaza was cer- tainly shared by the City of Newport Beach, at least until enactment of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance on June 12, 1978 by the City Council. Shortly thereafter, and pursuant to the procedures outlined in the ordinance, The Irvine Company applied for a finding by the City that Civic Plaza was a vested project for purposes of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. • On July 11, 1978, despite favorable recommendations from the City Attorney and the Department of Community Development , and contrary to its findings with respect to other applica- 11 • • tions of developers for project vesting, the City Council, by a vote of 5 to 2, found that "insufficient" facts had been presented to conclude that Civic Plaza was a vested • project. Development has been arrested in mid-stream. This "finding" reflects an abrupt reversal of position by the City that Civic Plaza is no longer to be • considered an integral project. Not only was this finding surprising in view of the content and precedents of the ordinance itself, but, for reasons discussed more fully • below, now that the Art Museum is constructed and in opera- tion, and the Library is well on its way to completion, the City Council cannot maintain that these structures should be • viewed in isolation, separate and apart from the rest of Civic Plaza. • III. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND APPLICATION OF THE VESTING PROVISION OF THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE • On June 12, 1978, the Newport Beach City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1765, better known as the Traffic Phasing Ordinance and now codified as Chapter 15. 40 of the • Newport Beach Municipal Code. The declared purpose of the Ordinance is "to coordinate development of certain projects with transportation facilities in Newport Beach. " In other 12 • words, it seeks to halt development pending construction and up-grading of streets , something that may or may not occur. The Traffic Phasing Ordinance does, however, contain a "grandfather clause" which identifies certain development projects as 'bested. " This clause is now sec- tion 15. 40. 030(D) (i) of the Municipal Code, which provides : • "The Planning Commission shall except any project from the requirements of this Chapter: (i) 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 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 neces- sary therefor. No change causing a substantial increase in traffic volumes may be made in such project, except in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter; " • When this provision is examined, it is clear that the Traffic Phasing Ordinance sets forth a three-part general test for determining whether a particular development project is • vested: (i) is it a "project"? (ii) has a building or grading permit been issued for the project? and (iii) has construction involving substantial liabilities been dili- gently commenced? 13 • • Even if these questions are considered in a vacuum, a certain amount of interpretation is required before this vesting provision can be meaningfully applied. • Fortunately, the Traffic Phasing Ordinance does not exist in a vacuum. There is significant legislative history behind the ordinance. Moreover, since a number of • projects have been found to be vested under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, they serve as useful precedents for its application. As shown below, these two sources , the history • of the ordinance and the precedents for its application, establish a consistent, clearly defined test for vesting--a test that establishes that Civic Plaza is vested. • A. History of Traffic Phasing Ordinance In early 1978, an initiative petition was under consideration in the City of Newport Beach for a proposed • ordinance to phase development in the City to the ability of traffic systems to handle any significant increased traffic from that development. At the same time the initiative was • being pursued, its proponents supported a slate of candidates for the City Council. That slate was elected and began to carry out the objectives of the proponent group. • As one of the first measures in that effort, newly elected Mayor Paul Rykoff requested the Newport Beach City Attorney to draft 'a policy statement that would accomplish I • 14 • • the purposes behind the initiative petition. On May 8, 1978, the City Attorney forwarded a draft of that policy to the City Council. This policy statement became City Council • Policy S-1 ("S-1") , the "Traffic Phasing of Development Policy, " adopted on May 9, 1978. S-1 essentially provided that no building or • grading permits would be issued for any commercial, indus- trial or residential projects of a certain minimum size unless the measured traffic impact of the project were less I' • than a specified general standard or unless "the benefits of the project to the City of Newport Beach" were found by a super majority vote to "outweigh the project' s anticipated negative impact. " Because of the lack of detail in S-1, that policy concluded with the statement: "If ambiguity exists in the administration of I'I • this Policy, the Planning Commission and/or City Council is to be consulted to provide the proper interpretation. " Following adoption of S-1 the City proceeded with I', • drafting an ordinance to put that policy into effect. The Department of Community Development was the lead department working on implementing S-1 and on coming up with a workable ' • draft for a traffic phasing ordinance. In conjunction with that effort, on May 17, 1978, that department forwarded to the City Council a staff report outlining various ambiguities 15 I • • existing in S-1 which required some clarification before adoption of any implementing ordinance. First, the Department of Community Development • pointed out that the term "project" as used in S-1 was not defined. That department advised the City Council that it was interpreting the term "project" under the definitions • contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) . In so doing, the Department of Community Develop- ment stated the following: • "In using this definition, the staff has interpreted 'project' in the broadest meaning, i. e. an entire planned community district would be a project and each individual building would be a part of that project. Therefore, the policy would • apply to the entire development as a whole. Simi- larly, the development of one lot in a subdivision containing ten lots or more would be part of the larger 'project' - the development of the entire tract. " • The City Council was requested to concur in this definition and interpretation. The Department of Community Development also • pointed out that S-1 did not contain any provision for excepting projects already at the development stage, pro- jects that would be vested. The department advised the City • Council that it would look to the initiative as well as CEQA for guidance in making a determination of whether a project was vested under S-1. 16 • • • "Using the definition from CEQA and the Adminis- trative Guidelines as noted above [for defining project] this would mean that if a grading or building permit had been issued in a Planned Community District, for instance, then the entire Ii ♦ project, and all parts thereof, would be excepted from the policy. The same would be true of residential developments where grading or con- struction has begun. Individual building permits for that tract would also be excepted under the provision. " • The Department of Community Development concluded its staff report by requesting the City Council' s concurrence in its interpretation of City Council Policy S-1. That request for • concurrence took the form of a proposal for language to be inserted in the text of the policy, as well as in the Traffic Phasing Ordinance under study, which would exempt projects • under way, provided: "That the City has issued a building or grading permit for the project prior to May 8, 1978, and that the person to whom this permit was • issued has in good faith and in reliance upon such permit diligently commenced construction and per- formed and incurred substantial liabilities for work and for material. No change causing a sub- stantial increase in traffic volumes may be made in such project except in accordance with the pro- visions of this policy. " Refinements and modifications of a draft Traffic Phasing Ordinance continued into June, 1978. The Department A of Community Development and the City Attorney' s office worked with the sponsors of the initiative measure as well as representatives of the developers and with the City 17 • Council in arriving at the final wording for the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. On June 12, 1978, the final draft of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance was adopted as Ordinance No. 1765 . The recommendations of the Department of Community Develop- ment concerning the definition of the term "project" and the basis for a finding of vesting discussed above were incorporated • in the enacted ordinance. It is clear from the legislative history reviewed above that a Planned Community District ("PC") is but one • "project" for purposes of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Issuance of a grading or building permit with respect to any part of that project, and performance of work in reliance • upon the issuance of that permit, would vest the entire PC. This interpretation was unequivocally presented to the City Council by the Department of Community Development and was • endorsed by the City Council when it adopted the language suggested by the Department . B. Other Development Projects and Vesting Under the • Ordinance. Even if this legislative history were the only basis upon which to apply the Traffic Phasing Ordinance to Civic Plaza, the proper interpretation and application of the vesting exception contained in the Traffic Phasing Ordinance would be: clear. However, at least ten projects 18 • • • have been found to be vested under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, and the facts upon which three of the PC' s (Koll Center Newport, Emkay-Newport Place, and Ford Aeroneutronics) were found to be vested are particularly instructive. 1. Koll Center Newport. The PC Development Standards for Koll Center • Newport were adopted more than six years ago in May, 1972. The Development Standards for Koll Center Newport are gen- eral and do not consist of any specific site plan for the • project. Instead, the standards merely constitute a parcel- ization of the whole project into "sites" of defined permis- sible uses and densities . A maximum permissible height for • all buildings is set forth and allowable building pad sizes are scaled to the various permissible heights up to that maximum. Significantly, building locations are not indi- cated in the Koll Center Newport PC. The text of the Koll Center Newport PC has been amended at least nine times since its adoption by the • City in 1972. The amendments have reflected some major revisions in the development possibilities and plans for the project. For example, in 1974, the text was twice amended, • in order to create new office site boundaries, to provide for three additional restaurant sites , to create a "floating location" for a retail and service center site, to enlarge 19 II• • • one service station site and eliminate another, and to add to the permissible uses of the office retail and service center sites . Similarly, in 1976, the text of the Koll • Center Newport PC was amended to permit individual commer- cial lot sizes of less than 30, 000 square feet. The PC Development Standards have been amended twice more during this year. As reflected by these numerous PC amendments , development in Koll Center Newport has proceeded in phases . • Building permits have been requested and issued on an "indi- vidualized" basis. Today, approximately 45 percent of the Koll project remains undeveloped despite the passage of more • than six years from the adoption of the PC.* Of the undevel- oped land, the Koll Company, the developer of the Planned Community, owns two "sites" and The Irvine Company a third • "site. " Although Koll Center Newport is a PC, there is no intrinsic interdependence in the project. The established buildings are not as functionally, aesthetically, or even • financially linked to the successful completion of the entire project as is the case with Civic Plaza. • The percent of development figures for Koll Center Newport and for other projects are taken from figures prepared by the Department of Community Development , and are based upon allowable floor area of development. 20 • • • In short, in finding Koll Center Newport to be a vested project, the City Council quite clearly followed • the recommendations and interpretations of the Department of Community Development concerning the definition of a "pro- ject. " The determinative factor for the City Council and • for the Department of Community Development was that Koll Center Newport is a PC. As such, the entire property was considered to be one project. It was not relevant that • development in Koll Center Newport has proceeded on each building site independently and in phases . It was not relevant that the property in Koll Center Newport is owned • by various individuals. It was not relevant that the Koll Center Newport PC Development Standards have been changed repeatedly by amendment in the past. The critical, determinative • facts were that Koll Center Newport is a PC and that substantial development has been undertaken in that project pursuant to a grading or building permit. • 2. Emkay-Newport Place. In its development history with respect to the vesting issue, the Emkay-Newport Place project is quite • similar to Koll Center Newport. The PC Development Stan- dards for Emkay-Newport Place were adopted even earlier than for Koll Center Newport. They too have undergone numerous 21 • • • amendments reflecting substantial changes from the project as originally conceived and approved by the City. Develop- ment at Emkay-Newport Place has proceeded sporadically and in phases, and various building permits have been issued on a piecemeal basis. Despite the passage of eight years , • approximately 30% of Emkay-Newport Place still remains unde- veloped. There are three different owners of the three undeveloped sites remaining at Emkay-Newport Center, of • which Emkay owns one. As with Koll Center Newport, there is less intrinsic interdependence between or among the various phases of that project, completed or otherwise, as in the case • of Civic Plaza. Nonetheless , the whole of Emkay-Newport Center, like Koll Center Newport, was found to be vested as one project by the City Council. • 3. Ford Aeroneutronics . in the cases of Koll Center Newport and Emkay-Newport Center, there were adopted PC Development • Standards, although no site plan, and no discretionary approvals remained to be obtained for completion of those projects .* Without more, it might be assumed that such • * This is true only if no resubdivision is to take place. However, as the Planning Commission is aware, resubdi- vision is proposed in the Emkay-Newport Place PC. i 22 • • • standards are essential to a finding of vesting under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The vesting of the Ford Aero- neutronics property, however, establishes that even the • absence of PC Development Standards and a need for further discretionary approvals will not prevent a project from being vested if it can be characterized as a PC and develop- ment has occurred on the PC property. Development on the Ford Aeroneutronics prop- erty began in 1958 following the approval of a use permit • allowing general industrial development on a portion of that property. In 1959, a second use permit allowing construc- tion of a four-story administration building with a utility • superstructure was approved by the Newport Beach Planning Commission, with construction subsequently proceeding under that use permit. Significantly, the two use permits, and in • particular the 1959 use permit, set forth on the sketch plan that sites other than those begun or completed by 1959 would be reserved for "future development . " • On January 14, 1974, the City Council rezoned the Ford Aeroneutronics property from "Unclassified" to "P-C" without any additional submissions of detailed plans • by the developer. In effect, the 15 year old use permits on that property were made to serve as a substitute for a required PC text. • 23 • • • The staff report from the Department of Community Development to the City Council on this action, dated January 14, 1974, states the following: • "It was the feeling of the Commission that this rezoning is necessary to bring City Zoning into compliance with the General Plan as required by State law. It should be mentioned that the proposed rezoning will have no effect on the existing Philco-Ford Plant on the site. However, a 'Development Plan' will have to be prepared prior to any major modifications or improvements on the subject property. " In short, with the rezoning of the Ford Aeroneutronics prop- 0 erty, the City staff determined that while a use permit could be considered the interim PC text for the project, any future development on the property would be subject to the • discretionary approval required of a specific development plan. This conclusion was reaffirmed on February 9, • 1976, when the City Council amended the Newport Beach General Plan to provide that the undeveloped portions of the Ford Aeroneutronics site may be developed for residential use. • That amendment added the following language to the Land Use element of the Newport Beach General Plan: "In view of the potential adverse traffic I • impacts which may result from development in the areas designated, the [Ford Aeroneutronics] P-C District development application will be required to incorporate a development phasing approach, and other use, intensity, design, and operational i measures as required to assure that traffic I • 24 • • • generated by the development will not cause an adverse impact. Any proposal for development shall include an environmental impact report which shall cover, in addition to other requirements, a marketing analysis , a cost-revenue analysis , an analysis of the relationship of jobs in the area • to the living location of the employees and the effect of air traffic. " The Staff Report from the Department of Community Develo- pment to the Planning Commission on December 4, 1975 on this • proposed General Plan amendment is even more revealing concerning the extent of discretionary approval required for any further development of the Ford Aeroneutronics property. • "Since the property is currently zoned P-C, a P-C ordinance and an overall Development Plan must be submitted and approved by the Planning Commission and City Council prior to issuance of any building permits . In addition, it is likely • that a full E. I.R. will be required. This de- tailed information could provide the basis for decisions on development intensity, phasing of development and the street system improvements required in conjunction with the development. " • As this staff report makes clear, the use permit "PC" on the property was simply not sufficient to permit further develop- ment. Instead, a development plan was envisioned, with such • basic questions as the development intensity and the projected traffic demands needing to be determined. On November 22, 1976, the City Council amended • the Residential Growth Element of the General Plan to provide that residential development could take place on the Ford Aeroneutronics property "with specific density limits and • development standards to be determined at such time as the 25 • beyond a use permit sketch master plan. Of the approxi- mately one million square feet of permanent structures cur- rently in place or under construction, less than thirteen percent has been constructed since the rezoning of the property as a PC. Of the approximately 2. 2 million square feet of structures permitted on the development as a result of a finding of vesting, only six percent has been developed since the rezoning. Development has proceeded by a succession of independent use permits instead of by a set of clearly articulated PC standards . Nonetheless , the entire Ford Aeroneutronics development was found to be a vested "pro- ject" by the City simply because it comprised an area zoned PC and because some development had already taken place on that property. 4. Summary. • Examination of these and other developments reveals that the test under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, of whether a particular development is vested is relatively clear and simple: (1) Is the development equatable to a planned community? If so, the entire development scheme is one project for purposes of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, and (2) Has any construction taken place on the property pursuant to a grading or building permit? If so, then the entire project is vested. I' 26 • t The specificity of the development plan is irrelevant. The fact that construction in the project has proceeded in phases or sporadically, is irrelevant. The • fact that the development phases in the PC are not inter- dependent in any sense except perhaps financially is irrele- vant. The fact that all discretionary approvals have not • been obtained, as in the case of Ford Aeroneutronics , is irrelevant. And, finally, the fact that any future devel- opment is contingent on study of potential traffic problems, • as in the case of Ford Aeroneutronics , will not prevent developments from being excepted from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Within this framework and based on these estab- lished precedents, Civic Plaza is clearly a vested project. IV.- CIVIC PLAZA IS A VESTED PROJECT UNDER THE TRAFFIC • PHASING ORDINANCE In view of the facts concerning Civic Plaza set forth above, tested by the consistent interpretation and • application of the vesting exception of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, the vote of the City Council on July 11, 1978 that insufficient data had been presented "to establish • vesting for Civic Plaza" simply cannot be upheld. Civic Plaza is "excepted" under the grandfather clause of the 27 • • • Traffic PhasingOrdinance. Accordingly, the Traffic Phasing Ordinance may not legally be applied to Civic Plaza. A. Civic Plaza Is One Project • The starting point in considering whether Civic Plaza is within the scope of the grandfather clause of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance is to determine if it is one • "project" . As noted above, the term "project" is defined in the ordinance by express reference to CEQA and the adminis- trative guidelines established thereunder. The CEQA statute • defines the term "project" in broad terms : " 'Project' means the following: " (a) Activities directly undertaken by any public • agency. " (c) Activities involving the issuance to a person of a lease, permit, license, certifi- cate, or other entitlement for use by one or more public agencies . " Public Resources Code §21065 This definition has been clarified by administrative guide- lines promulgated under CEQA: " (a) Project means the whole of an action which has a potential for resulting in a physical change in the environment, directly or ulti- mately. . . . • 28 • • • " (c) The term 'project' refers to the activity which is being approved and which may be subject to several discretionary approvals by governmental agencies . The term 'project' does not mean each separate governmental • approval. " 14 California Administrative Code §15037. The history of Civic Plaza establishes that it is one project fully encompassed by these statutory and admin- istrative definitions . The Environmental Impact Report required by CEQA on Civic Plaza was approved for the project as a whole. Since the Traffic Phasing Ordinance incorpo- rates CEQA definitions of the "project, " and since Civic Plaza was but one project for CEQA purposes, then it must be • one project for purposes of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. For the City' s part, it zoned the entire Civic Plaza project as a single Planned Community District; there was not sepa- rate zoning for each proposed building, for the very purpose of the PC designation is to allow a highly integrated but multi-faceted development to be planned as a whole. The • final map and site plan for Civic Plaza were approved for that project as a whole. Throughout the processing of Civic Plaza by the City of Newport Beach, it has been treated as • one integrated project. Moreover, the City has consistently found that any PC is but one project, and the City Council by P. C. Ordinance #1649, itself designated the entire devel- opment of. Civic Plaza as a PC. 29 • • B. Grading and Building Permits Have Been Issued for Civic Plaza. ` Once it is determined that a particular development • scheme is a project, the second question is whether a building or grading permit was issued prior to the effective date of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Civic Plaza meets this criteria. A rough grading permit was issued by the City of Newport Beach in 1965 for Civic Plaza, along with all other property in the Newport Center. More importantly, • grading and building permits were issued for an integral and important part of the project, namely, the Newport Harbor Art Museum, on October 14, 1976. Six days later a grading • permit was issued on a second building in the project, the Library, with a building permit subsequently issued on May 11, 1978. The work authorized by these permits promptly followed their issuance. While grading and building permits for other portions of Civic Plaza have not yet been applied for or • issued, because of the interdependence of the Newport Harbor Art Museum and Library to the rest of Civic Plaza these buildings cannot be considered as isolated units. Rather, • they are an integral part of Civic Plaza as a review of the history of Civic Plaza makes amply clear. Due to this 30 • • • pervasive interdependence, the permits issued for these buildings vest the entire Civic Plaza project. An example of the interdependent project doctrine • is found in Sierra Club v. California Coastal Zone Conserva- tion Commission, 58 Cal.App . 3d 149, rhg. denied (1976) . In that case, the developer was contructing a "commercial hotel • and golf and recreational structures . " Id. at 157. The Developer had installed the infrastructure for the golf course, including several tees , had laid foundations for the • pro shop and part of the hotel complex, and had paved the main road into the project, prior to the effective date of Coastal Zone Conservation Act. The Coastal Zone Conserva- tion Commission excepted not only those phases of the pro- ject on which construction had begun from the required per- mit, but also excepted the whole of the project on the • ground that the development was an interdependent project. Because the concept of vesting pertains to the project as a whole, the developer was permitted by the Commission, and by the District Court of Appeal reviewing the Commission' s decision, to complete the hotel complex, including guest houses , a tennis shop, tennis courts and swimming pool, all • of which was part of the planned community but not yet under construction. Id. 31 Civic Plaza is an interdependent project under all accepted criteria. Civic Plaza was conceived and approved as one "development" comprising an integrated and interde- pendent mix of cultural, recreational and commercial uses in a low rise campus-like setting. The Newport Harbor Art Museum was planned to have a sculpture garden running through • the center of the commercial site, and the design of that building was conceived with that goal in mind. The parking configuration and physical placement of the Art Museum and • Library were determined with the whole project in mind, as the City was aware when the project was approved. Finally, the project is financially interdependent in a variety of • respects, from the fact that the costs so far expended have been made with Civic Plaza as a goal to the fact that opera- tional success of the existing buildings depends in large • part upon completion of the project. This same high degree of interdependence among the various buildings and uses of Civic Plaza is less apparent • in Koll Center Newport, Bmkay-Newport Center and Ford Aero- neutronics. The buildings either existing or under construc- tion on these sites could aesthetically and functionally • exist without any future development of the PC' s . Other than architectural compatibility, there is no plan for those projects which uniquely integrates the existing and future 32 • • • uses . Moreover, in each of these PC' s , not only has develop- ment occurred in phases, but the undeveloped portions in each of these projects have remained undeveloped for lengthy • periods of time of not less than six years after adoption of the PC. In summary, Civic Plaza is but one project, and, with the issuance of grading and building permits for the Art Museum and Library buildings , meets the first two criteria for vesting. • C. Construction Involving Substantial Liabilities Has Been Diligently Commenced In Civic Plaza. The third criteria for a finding of vesting is • that construction involving substantial liabilties shall have taken place. Again, Civic Plaza meets this test. Final grading was completed for both the Art Museum and • Library by the beginning of 1977. The Art Museum building is completed, and the Library is now under construction. And the work completed was diligently begun upon issuance of • and in reliance upon the permits . The liabilities incurred so far on Civic Plaza are substantial. Since adoption of the PC for Civic Plaza, the Irvine Company has itself incurred liabilities of approxi- mately $473, 000. Since the issuance of the first grading and building permits , The Irvine Company has incurred lia- 33 • • • bilities of approximately $383, 000, consisting of a gift of the Art Museum site at a fair market valuation of $350, 000, grading on the Library site at a cost of $11, 000, and the • installation of utilities for the entire project at a cost of $22, 000. Since the ultimate question is whether a project is vested rather than who is involved in the project, the liabilities incurred by the Newport Harbor Art Museum and the City on the Library also must be included, amounting to an additional $1, 700, 000. * In all, since adoption of the • Civic Plaza PC, more than $2, 173 , 000 has been invested on Civic Plaza.'* Such investment is substantial as a matter of law. Cf. People v. Department of Housing and Community • Development, 45 Cal.App. 3d 185, 197 (1975) , [expenditure of only $40, 000 by developer in reliance on permit found to represent "an undebatable quantum of prejudice. "] * The liabilities incurred by the Newport Harbor Art Museum and the City of Newport Beach on Civic Plaza are to be considered in the vesting equation for at least • two reasons . First, as noted in the main text of this memo, the question is whether a project is vested. As such, all amounts spent on construction in that project in reliance upon a permit are to be considered, as opposed to segregating amounts among various partici- pants in the project. Second, the three present prop- erty owners in Civic Plaza are in effect joint ventur- ers in the completion of the Civic Plaza project as the design of the project and reciprocal agreements establish. That figure does not include liabilities incurred in terms of anticipatory installation of infrastructure • and design costs , which would bring the total to approx- imately 000, 000. 34 • • • The Department of Community Development recognized the fact that Civic Plaza was vested in its staff report to the City Council for the June 12, 1978, public hearing: • " [Of] the four projects under discussion this evening, only Civic Plaza has been issued building and grading permits for partial development of the site. . . .The commencement of construction of a portion of the project may qualify the entire project for exception status under the administra- tive interpretation of the Policy as a vested project". This same conclusion was reached by the Newport Beach City Attorney in his memo on vested rights dated June 12, 1978 : "Assuming the definition of 'project' as being the whole of an action is used, then it would appear from the facts that a strong argument could be made that rights in the Civic Plaza project have • vested. This is because substantial development has occurred in part of the Civic Plaza planned community. " D. The Findings of The City Council Are Inapposite - and Do Not Support Its Decision. Despite the indisputable conclusion that Civic Plaza is a vested project and thus legally excepted from the • Traffic Phasing Ordinance, the Newport Beach City Council found that it could not be determined that Civic Plaza was vested as a result of the following findings : • " (a) That the Civic Plaza Planned Community con- tains 26. 12 acres . " (b) That approximately 89% of the land within the planned community boundaries has not been developed. 35 • • • " (c) That the only development in existence on the i Civic Plaza site relates to public and quasi- public facilities which is distinguishable from other planned communities in Newport Beach. • " (d) That all improvements on the site other than the Art Museum and Library were installed prior to the approval of the Civic Plaza Planned Community text. • " (e) That the streets were planned for the use of the over-all development as opposed to the Civic Plaza site. " These findings are either irrelevant to the question of • whether Civic Plaza is vested, or, notwithstanding the City Council' s contrary conclusion, support a determination that Civic Plaza is vested. • First, the City Council looked to the size and percent of development on Civic Plaza. Civic Plaza, how- ever, smaller in total acreage than Koll Center Newport, • Emkay-Newport Place, or Ford Aeroneutronics , is more easily viewed as being one project. Moreover, the percentage of development is certainly not a relevant consideration under • the plain language of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, nor has it apparently been a consideration in the case of any other PC, as witnessed, for example, by the Ford Aeroneutronics • development project. The question is not whether the project is substan- tially completed, but whether the liabilities incurred on 36 • • • the project have been substantial. As noted above, the liabilities incurred to date on Civic Plaza in reliance upon grading and building permits are substantial as a matter of • law. Second, the City Council observed that the improve- ments in Civic Plaza either under construction or completed • are public or quasi-public. But the Traffic Phasing Ordi- nance does not differentiate between public and private uses . It prohibits the issuance of building and grading permits for all construction if the traffic impact is sig- nificant. It excepts projects , not uses , when they are vested. If anything, the fact that the buildings in place • or under construction are the public and quasi-public parts of Civic Plaza argues for vesting, since the land for those buildings was donated or conveyed at a substantial discount • by The Irvine Company in reliance upon the City' s approvals of Civic Plaza. (See discussion infra at 43-48 regarding equitable estoppel) • Third, the City Council noted that the street improvements and certain other infrastructure improvements pre-dated approval of the PC. This finding, of course, I+ ignores the substantial liabilities incurred since the time of that approval. Moreover, as in the case of Ford Aero- I• neutronics , the timing of improvements , i. e. , whether they 37 • occur before or after PC zoning designation, is not a relevant factor. In fact, the contrary has been true. Despite the fact that 94% of the permanent improvements in • the Ford Aeroneutronics project pre-dated the PC zoning of that property, the full amount of that construction was weighed in finding that project vested.* Finally, the • finding ignores the reality of the situation. For example, the street improvements for San Clemente Drive, a four lane road, were constructed in 1975 as a first step to develop- ment of Civic Plaza, as the City is well aware. ** Those improvements are as much a part of Civic Plaza as other improvements, being necessary to completion of the project. • In conclusion, The Irvine Company respectfully submits that on the facts Civic Plaza is a vested project. The facts allow for no other result. • As discussed supra at 22-24, the Ford Aeroneutronics project proceeded for many years without PC zoning: from 1958 to January, 1974, development proceeded at • Ford Aeroneutronics on the basis of conditional use permits only. ** The main purpose and use of San Clemente Drive, as noted supra at 5-6, is to provide direct access to the Newport Harbor Art Museum and Library in Civic Plaza, • as well as to Civic Plaza as a whole project. r 38 • • • V. FAILURE OF THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL TO VEST CIVIC PLAZA IS A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS • It has previously been demonstrated that Civic Plaza has been treated quite differently by Newport Beach than other PC' s in the City, specifically Koll Newport Center, Emkay-Newport Place, and Ford Aeroneutronics . The latter three PC' s have been found to be excepted from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, even though the relevant facts • for those PC' s are less apparent on the issue of vesting as are the facts with respect to Civic Plaza. This unequal, arbitrary application of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance to • defeat Civic Plaza, the only PC where development has occurred but which has not been excepted, is a denial of equal protection that is forbidden by both the federal and • state Constitutions. A developer of private property, no less than any other individual or entity, is entitled to due process pro- tections against arbitrary, capricious and discriminatory action by a municipality. See, e•g• , Friedman v. City of Los Angeles , 52 Cal.App . 3d 317 (1975) [City liable to devel- oper in damages for deprivation of due process rights] . Even without an exhaustive citation of authority, it is fundamental that a city cannot apply different vesting stan- 39 • • dards with respect to similarly situated developments with- out infringing upon constitutionally protected rights and bearing liability for its actions. • The case of G & D Holland Construction Co. v. City of Marysville, 12 Cal.App.3d 989 (1970) , is on point in demonstrating a city' s constitutionally imposed obligations to act in a fair, consistent and nondiscriminatory manner toward all developers. That case concerned a square block of real estate on which the petitioner intended to construct • apartments . The property was zoned "R-4" (general apartment district) on January 5, 1970, when the petitioner presented the City with building plans and an application for a build- ing permit. The building plans conformed to the R-4 zone. However, at the next meeting of the planning commission, a group of citizens appeared and objected to the proposal. The next day the city engineer issued a public statement declaring that storm drainage had overloaded the City' s sewerage system. The following day, the city council held a special hearing and received a petition from numerous citi- zens objecting to the proposed project because of concern for neighborhood property values . The council directed the » City' s building official to temporarily withhold the build- ing permit. It subsequently down-zoned the property to R-3 40 in the interests of "the public health, safety and welfare. " (Id. at 993, fn. 1. ) The petitioner in the Holland case sued for a writ mandating issuance of the building permit. The trial court entered summary judgment for the City, and the petitioner appealed. In reversing the trial court, the Court of Appeal found: "The principal limiting judicial inquiry into the legislative body' s police power objectives , does not bar scrutiny of a quite different issue, that • of discrimination against a particular parcel of property. 'A city cannot unfairly discriminate against a particular parcel of land, and the courts may properly inquire as to whether the scheme of classification has been applied fairly and impartially in each instance. '" Id. at 994. • On retrial, the trial court found the petitioner' s project had been discriminated against, and mandated issuance of the building permit. • The Traffic Phasing Ordinance, on its face, is not directed at a specific project. However, the application of that ordinance to projects under development prior to its • adoption has not been fair and equal. Rather, the City Council has subjected Civic Plaza to a standard not autho- rized by the language of the ordinance and discriminatory • when compared to other vested PCs . The City Council noted that Civic Plaza was dif- ferent from other PCs because of its inclusion of public 41 • • • uses, and cited that as a basis for declining to find that project vested. The ordinance, however, does not differen- tiate between uses. Moreover, the fact that only Civic , Plaza' s public sites have been permitted to be developed argues for vesting, not against it. The City Council also noted that certain improvements in Civic Plaza were con- structed prior to adoption of the PC. However, not only does that ignore the fact that those improvements were necessary only to Civic Plaza, but anticipatory development • has been credited in the vesting equation for other PCs , as for Ford Aeroneutronics. Civic Plaza has an approved site plan; the three other PCs compared above do not. Civic • Plaza has already been closely scrutinized for its traffic impact and approved; the others have not to any comparable degree. Civic Plaza has proceeded to completion at a rea- sonable pace; construction in the three other compared PC' s has been more leisurely. Yet, Civic Plaza was denied vested status . Such unequal application is impermissible under the • law. The simple fact is that, given a fair and uniform application of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance to Civic Plaza, • the refusal by the Newport Beach City Council to find Civic Plaza vested, despite the contrary advice of its City Attorney and Department of Community Development, is consti- tutionally impermissible. 42 • • VI. THE CITY IS EQUITABLY ESTOPPED* FROM SUBJECTING CIVIC PLAZA TO THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE The City Council, as previously noted, declined to • find that Civic Plaza was a vested project in part because the two buildings substantially completed are public or quasi-public. This finding, rather than supporting the decision of the City Council not to vest Civic Plaza, instead provides yet another basis for concluding that Civic Plaza cannot be subjected to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance or • any other attempt to block that project: namely, equitable estoppel. Equitable estoppel is a doctrine applied by the courts to prevent the perpetration of injustice on innocent parties by both private and governmental action. This doctrine, as applied to municipal governments , was closely • examined and clarified by the California Supreme Court in City of Long Beach v. Mansell, 3 Cal. 3d 462 (1970) : "As we pointed out in the recent case of • Driscoll v. CitZ of Los Angeles (1967) 67 Cal. 2d 7, at p . 3ub Lbi Gal. Rptr. bbl, 431 P. 2d 245] , ' Generally speaking, four elements must be present in order to apply the doctrine of equitable • * "Estop" is a legal term of art from Old French which means "to stop, bar, or impede. " Its Old French form meant a bung or cork, and its current form has been used by lawyers to signify the legal doctrine analysed in the text since the sixteenth century. • 43 • • estoppel: (1) the party to be estopped must be apprised of the facts; (2) he must intend that his conduct shall be acted upon, or must so act that the party asserting the estoppel had a right to believe it was so intended; (3) the other party must be ignorant of the true state of facts; and (4) he must rely upon the conduct to his injury. ' Keeping in mind the admitted generality of this formulation and the flexibility which is necessary to its proper concrete application within the broad equitable framework we have expressed, it may be said that the elements here stated are basic to the general doctrine of equitable estop- pel as it exists in this and other jurisdictions. (See generally 3 Pomeroy, Equity Jurisprudence (5th ed. 1941) § 805 , pp . 190-198; 28 Am. Jur. 2d, Estoppel and Waiver § 35 , pp. 640-642; 31 C.J. S . , • Estoppel § 67, 00. 402-415. ) " (Id. at 489) 9c :'c do "After a thorough review of the many Califor- nia decisions in this area, as well as a consider- ation of various out-of-state decisions , we have concluded that the proper rule governing equitable estoppel against the government is the following: The government may be bound by an equitable estop- pel in the same manner as a private party when the elements requisite to such an estoppel against a • private party are present and, in the considered view of a court of equity, the injustice which would result from a failure to uphold an estoppel is of sufficient dimension to justify any effect upon public interest or policy which would result from the raising of an estoppel. " (Id. at 496- • 497) A case with notable parallels to Civic Plaza is Berkeley Lawn Bowling Club v. City of Berkeley, 42 Cal. App. 3d • 280 (1974) . The plaintiff in that case had agreed to pay for the construction of a lawn bowling clubhouse by the City over a period of years , and to manage two lawn bowling 44 • • • greens . The clubhouse and bowling greens were on public land, and the City paid for maintenance of the greens . Nine years after construction of the clubhouse, the City announced • its intention to convert one of the bowling greens into a needed "minipark" and to designate the second green as a public facility. The trial court enjoined the City' s action, and the appellate court affirmed, partly on estoppel grounds . "Here, the basis of the trial court' s ruling was the Club' s induced ignorance of the City' s inten- tion to retain the power to destroy the lawn • bowling greens when it saw fit. This ignorance was induced by the City' s action in executing the clubhouse agreement without informing the Club of its intention as to the greens while maintaining its previous role with regard to the greens . " (Id. at 289) The case of Civic Plaza is substantially similar, and all of the identified elements for an estoppel exist. Was the City fully apprised of the facts concerning Civic • Plaza, including its traffic impacts? Yes . The City stud- ied both the environmental impact report and a subsequent voluntary traffic study before finally approving Civic • Plaza. It approved a specific site plan for the project, and even participated in shaping the concept of Civic Plaza through its solicitation and acquisition of the library • site. Did The Irvine Company have a right to rely upon the City' s actions? Yes . The City not only approved the PC 45 • Development Standards and site plan for Civic Plaza, but also purchased the planned Library site, issued building and grading permits, and approved the commercial density of the • project after exhaustive scrutiny of the project ' s traffic impact. That approval was made with full knowledge of the condition of the City' s traffic systems . • Was The Irvine Company informed prior to expending funds and incurring liabilities that Civic Plaza would be halted pending yet another traffic study? No . The Civic • Plaza PC was approved in concept subject to completion of a traffic study on all of Newport Center. That study was completed, reviewed by the City, and the proposed density • for Civic Plaza finally approved in 1977. This was done in the framework of a General Plan that identifies many poten- tially affected intersections as purposefully deficient. • With that final approval, The Irvine Company had no basis to believe that yet further obstacles in terms of traffic studies would remain. • Finally, did The Irvine Company rely upon the City' s conduct? Again, yes , as the prior sections have established. The Irvine Company has donated land to quasi- public uses, has sold land to the City at substantial dis- count, and has incurred substantial liabilities in grading, 46 • designing, planning, and installing infrastructure for Civic Plaza. This is adequate grounds for estoppel. This situation is in essence parallel to the • Berkeley Lawn Bowling Club case. The Irvine Company was induced to donate or discount land in Civic Plaza for public uses, as was the Berkeley Lawn Bowling Club. Newport Beach i acquired the library site, executed several reciprocal agreements , and went ahead with the construction of the Library, while all the time not informing The Irvine Company • that construction of the commercial sites in Civic Plaza would not be permitted. The equitable result, as in the Berkeley Lawn Bowling Club case, is that Newport Beach • should be estopped from applying the Traffic Phasing Ordi- nance to Civic Plaza. Since estoppel is grounded in the concept of fair- ness, the history of Civic Plaza presents a particularly compelling case for application of the doctrine. Develop- ment in Civic Plaza has thus far encompassed only the public • uses . The land for the Museum and Library uses was either donated or conveyed at a discount , with the anticipation that the interdependence of the commerical sites to these • public uses would justify that investment. The City was fully aware of that anticipation. However, now that the principal public uses are either completed or near comple- 47 • I • tion, the City has decided to, in essence, reap the benefits of The Irvine Company' s generosity while denying to The Irvine Company what was a primary factor of that decision. • The City has taken this action not on the basis of any new facts or changed conditions . Instead, the City was fully aware of the relevant facts , and had even planned traffic • deficiencies, as it approved Civic Plaza and encouraged its public uses . That is the type of unfairness that resulted in a • finding of estoppel in the Berkeley Lawn Bowling Club case, and is sufficient to estop Newport Beach from denying The Irvine Company the right to complete Civic Plaza. • VII. THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE IS INVALID AS APPLIED TO CIVIC PLAZA BECAUSE IT WOULD IN EFFECT REQUIRE SUBMISSION OF A SECOND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT IN CONTRAVENTION OF STATE LAW The Civic Plaza Planned Community was approved by • the Newport Beach Planning Commission on November 20, 1975 , and by the City Council on December 22, 1975 . In approving the Civic Plaza Planned Community, the City of Newport Beach • was, of course, required to comply with CEQA. The City com- missioned a Los Angeles firm, Environmental Feasibility Studies, to prepare the required environmental impact I• report (or "EIR") . 48 • • • EIR' s must include a "detailed statement" of both the long-range and short-range environmental effects of a proposed project, whether avoidable or not, alternatives to • the proposed project, mitigation measures , and the "growth- inducing impact of the proposed project. " Public Resources Code § 21100. If the environmental impact report identifies any significant environmental effects from the project, then the project cannot be approved unless specific findings are made that those effects can be mitigated by some change in the proposal, or that the social or economic benefits of the proposed project outweigh the environmental consequences of proceeding with development. Public Resources Code §21081. • The EIR prepared for Civic Plaza by Environmental Feasibility Studies was exhaustive in its analysis of traffic • impact. Its traffic circulation analysis was prepared by Crommelin-Pringle & Associates . The full 15 page analysis made by Crommelin-Pringle & Associates was appended to the report. That analysis contained a comprehensive measure of • the Intersection Capacity Utilization ("ICU") for nine key intersections affected by the proposed project, expressed in terms of Level of Service for each intersection. The • analysis resulted in the following conclusions : "From the ICU analysis it can be seen that all intersections operate freely and far below full utilization except Jamboree Road and San • Joaquin Hills Road, which will be utilized at about the 0. 98 level. 49 • • • "This, however, is not critical for two reasons. One, it [sic] will operate satisfacto- rily at the 0. 98 utilization level. Secondly, with the opening of New MacArthur Boulevard and the construction of the Corona del Mar Freeway, substantial traffic volumes will divert from Jamboree Road to New and Old MacArthur Boulevard. "This traffic diversion will significant [sic] reduce the utilization of the intersection of Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills Road. "Although the construction of New MacArthur Boulevard, the Corona del Mar Freeway to as far south as it is now under construction, plus con- struction of a connection between Old MacArthur Boulevard and the terminus of the Corona del Mar Freeway are not necessary for the street system to accommodate the project traffic, the construction of these projects would improve the traffic circu- lation. " • The EIR for Civic Plaza was approved by the City, but not without special consideration being given to the traffic impact of the project. In the staff report to the • Planning Commission on Civic Plaza, dated November 14, 1975 , the following conclusions and recommendations were made: "The traffic consultant has concluded that • this project will not have a significant impact at this time because: "A. The traffic volumes from the pro- ject, when added to the existing traffic volumes , will not exceed the capacity of the • streets . "B. Access to the site is adequate. "C. No signalization or geometric modi- fications are needed for the adjacent intersections . • x �Y �c 50 II • • • "The Irvine Company is preparing a comprehen- sive study of peak hour flows and intersection capacities for the ultimate build-out of Newport Center, and the staff feels that this study should be reviewed prior to the final approval of the • entire 320, 000 sq. ft. of offices proposed for this project. Therefore, the staff recommends that language be added to the P-C text to ensure adequate review of all available traffic data prior to final approval and issuance of building permits for the office portion of this project. " • The Planning Commission followed this suggestion, and on February 28, 1977, the Newport Beach City Council, after reviewing a "more detailed traffic analysis" on Newport • Center, approved 320, 000 sq. ft. of office development for Civic Plaza with Resolution No. 9009. In summary, Civic Plaza has already been subjected • to a comprehensive analysis for its traffic generating potential over and even beyond the normal requirements of CEQA. That analysis anticipated and duplicated the analysis • now required by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance: i. e. , that the project will not adversely affect traffic service systems using a Level of Service measure, or, alternatively, that • the project' s benefits outweigh any projected negative traffic impacts . The end result of the above environmental analysis was approval of Civic Plaza. • Once a municipality has subjected a project to environmental analysis, it is prevented by CEQA from resub- jecting the same project to a second environmental impact 51 �I • • report. The controlling statute is Public Resources Code §21166, which provides : "When an environmental impact report has been • prepared for a project pursuant to this division, no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report shall be •required by the lead agency or by any responsible agency, unless one or more of the following events occurs : (a) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the environmental impact report. (b) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revi- sions in the environmental impact report. (c) New information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the environ- mental impact report was certified as complete, • becomes available. " Therefore, the Traffic Phasing Ordinances cannot be applied to Civic Plaza if in fact it imposes a "supplemental envi- ronmental impact report" requirement on Civic Plaza and there has been no substantial change in the project, no substantial change in the surrounding circumstances of the project, and no discovery of previously unavailable infor- mation. Does the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, if applied to • Civic Plaza, call for a "supplemental environmental impact report?" The answer is clearly yes for several reasons . First, the ordinance draws upon CEQA for the determination • 52 i • of what is a "project. " See discussion supra at 30-31 and Municipal Code §15. 40. 040. Second, the traffic analysis to determine which • projects are subject to the ordinance is the identical traffic analysis imposed by the City in the EIR already prepared for Civic Plaza. The analysis under the ordinance, • as with state mandated EIR' s, calls for consideration of mitigation measures , and permits approval of projects having a substantial traffic impact only upon a finding of over- riding benefits. See Municipal Code §15 . 040. 030(ii) and (iii) . In substance, if not in form, if the Traffic Phasing Ordinance is applied to Civic Plaza it will require that that project be subjected to a "supplemental environ- mental impact report" on traffic impact, a requirement which • is legally permissible only in limited circumstances . Third, none of the three conditions specified by CEQA for permitting imposition of a supplemental environ- mental impact report exists for Civic Plaza. No changes adversely affecting traffic have been proposed for the project. Since final approval of the commercial density of I� • the project in 1977 -- approval which was previously with- held pending a further traffic review -- there have been no substantial adverse changes in the surrounding circumstances • 53 • • of Civic Plaza. If anything, the street systems have been improved. No new and previously unavailable information concerning Civic Plaza and its potential traffic impact has • been discovered. In summary, Public Resources Code §21166 prohibits a city from subjecting a project to more than one environ- mental analysis except in special circumstances . Those cir- cumstances do not exist for Civic Plaza. Civic Plaza was approved only after careful scrutiny for environmental • impacts, particularly traffic impacts, under CEQA. That review was not concluded until 1977 , when 320, 000 square feet of commercial development was finally approved for • Civic Plaza. Since that time, no changes in Civic Plaza or its surrounding circumstances have occurred, and no new information has been developed. To utilize the Traffic • Phasing Ordinance as an attempt to resubject Civic Plaza to a second environmental impact study of traffic effects , is in contravention of state law and thus invalid. • VIII. CONCLUSION The City Council has declined to find Civic Plaza • an excepted project under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, justifying its actions on the ground that insufficient facts had been presented on that issue. A review of the facts I • I� • 54 • • presented above, however, demonstrates beyond any doubt that Civic Plaza is a vested project,when tested under the grand- father clause of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The Irvine • Company' s right to complete that project cannot be legally withdrawn given the interdependence of the project, the City' s prior approvals of the project, and The Irvine Com- pany' s detrimental reliance upon those approvals . For the City not to recognize this fact is an unconstitutional denial of substantive due process and equal protection of • the laws. The City has encouraged and accepted the public and quasi-public aspects of Civic Plaza. In fact, the City • itself accepted a donation of part of the value of the library site in the form of a substantial price discount. Civic Plaza was presented to and approved by the City as a • whole. The City cannot now retain what it likes to the exclusion of the rest. It is equitably estopped from denying to The Irvine Company the right to complete the project. • Finally, the City, by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance is attempting to resubject Civic Plaza to yet another envi- ronmental impact study. That attempt is prohibited by the • California Environmental Quality Act. • 55 • • The Irvine Company respectfully submits that sufficient facts are presented for a finding that Civic Plaza is excepted from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, and • thus should be permitted to proceed. • • • • • • • 56 ' VOLUME I ' CIVIC PLAZA - PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT TRAFFIC PHASING PLAN ' APRIL, 1980 ' TABLE OF CONTENTS ' City Council Minutes February 11 , 1980 January 7, 1980 ' March 12, 1979 ' Planning Commission Minutes December 20, 1979 ' March 22, 1979 ' City Council Staff Reports February 11 , 1980 ' March 12, 1979 Planning Commission Staff Reports December 20, 1979 ' December 6, 1979 October 18, 1979 ' October 4, 1979 ' September 20, 1979 - August 16, 1979 ' August 9, 1979 ' Traffic Reports - Weston Pringle & Associates November 30, 1979 (approved plan) ' November 20, 1979 1 . September 15,' 1979 1 • ' August 14, 1979 ' July 5, 1979 February 12, 1979 January 17, 1979 1 . File Copy Only Table of Contents - 2. i Letters from The Irvine Company ' October 18, 1979 July 10, 1979 February 21 , 1979 ' January 25, 1979 Civic Plaza Traffic Phasing Plan ' Position Paper - "Vesting" 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH _ COUNCILMEN MINUTES q � n REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING Place.: Council Chambers ?� 4.t�pd'� c1' Time : 7 : 30 P .M. ROLL CALL Date: February 11 1980 INDEX ' Present x x x x x x x A. Roll Call. ' Motion x B. The reading of the Minutes of the Adjourned Ayes x x x x x x Meeting of January 21, 1980 was waived, and the Abstain x Minutes were approved as written and ordered filed. ' Motion x C. The reading in full of all ordinances and resolu- All Ayes tions under consideration was waived, and the City Clerk was directed to read by titles only. ' D. HEARINGS: ' 1. Mayor Ryckoff opened the public hearing and City Newport Council review regarding a request of The Irvine Center Company, Newport Beach, to consider a Phasing Civic Plaza Plan for the remaining development in the Civic (94) ' Plaza Plannned Community District, and the acceptance of an Environmental Document. Property generally bounded by San Joaquin Hills Road, Santa ' Cruz Drive, San Clemente Drive, Santa Barbara Drive, and Jamboree Road in Newport Center; zoned P-C. A report was presented from the Planning Department Dick Cannon, representing The Irvine Company, ' addressed the Council and asked for approval and that the Planning Commission be sustained. Motion x The public hearing was closed after it Was deter- All Ayes mined that no one else desired to be heard. Motion x Councilman Strauss made a motion to accept the ' Environmental Document, to approve the Traffic Phasing Plan subject to the five findings and the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission and to add Condition No. 8 as ' recommended by staff, as follows: "That prior to•the issuance of any building permit authorized by the approval of this Traffic Phasing Plan, the applicant shall deposit with the City Finance Director $44,530.00 to be used for the construc- tion of a wall on the westerly side of Jamboree Road between Eastbluff Drive and Ford Road." ' Mayor Ryckoff asked that the motion be amended to change Condition No. 7 to read as follows: "The applicant shall contribute an amount equal to what would be the City's share of the cost of the free right-turn lane on Jamboree Road behind the Texaco Station ($90,000.00) to a Circulation and Transit Fund to be used at the discretion of the City for circulation and transit purposes .in the Newport Center area," which amendment was accepted by the maker of the motion. ' A vote was taken on Councilman Strauss' motion, All Ayes ' which motion carried, and the Traffic Phasing Plan was approved as amended. i Volume 34 - Page 30 i � CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCILMEN MINUTES �SG y �. AJ.��c''F v�9G2y ROLL CALLS �sT 9 February 11, 1980 INDEX 2. Mayor Ryckoff opened the public hearing regarding: Harbor Vw , Hills P-C. (a) A request of The Irvine Company, Newport District ' Beach, to consider a Traffic Study for the (94) proposed construction of sixty-eight apartment units on 10.6 gross acres; located at 1601 San Miguel Drive, on the northeasterly side ' of San Joaquin Hills Road, between MacArthur Boulevard and San Miguel Drive in Harbor View Hills (Baywood Apartments); zoned P-C. ' AND (b) Planning Commission Amendment No. 536, a ' request of The Irvine Company, Newport Beach, to amend the Planned Community Develop- ment Plan for Harbor View Hills to permit the ' expansion of Area No. 8 (Haywood Apartments) of the Planned Community for additional multi- family residential units, and the acceptance of an Environmental Document. Property ' located at 1601 San Miguel Drive. AND � li (c) Resubdivision'No. 637, a request of The Irvine Company, Newport Beach, to combine one parcel and a portion of Blocks 92 and 93 of Irvine's subdivision into one building site to permit the expansion of the Baywood Apartment complex on the property located at 1601 San ' Miguel Drive, on the northeasterly side of San Joaquin Hills Road, between MacArthur Boulevard and San Miguel Drive in Harbor View Hills (Baywood Apartments); zoned P-C. ' A report was presented from the Planning Department. ' Joe Sarnecky of The Irvine Company addressed the Council. Motion x The hearing Was closed after it was determined that , All Ayes no one else desired to be heard. Motion x The recommended actions of the Planning Commission ' All Ayes were sustained and the Traffic Study for the proposed construction of sixty-eight apartment units on 10.6 gross acres was approved; Resolution R-9721 No. 9721, amending the Planned Community Develop- ment Plan for Harbor View Hills to permit the expansion of Area No. 8 (Haywood Apartments) of ' the Planned Community for additional multi-family residential units, and the acceptance of an Environmental Document, was adopted; and Resub- division No. 637 was approved. 3. Mayor Ryckoff opened the public hearing regarding Condemnation, - —the-condemenatirnrof-w vacant--lvr-on-Tustitr Av ustin opposite Avon Street to gain access to a City Vacant Lot t;, parking lot. (73) Volume 34 - Page 31 i T ' COUNCILME CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH N MINUTES ROLL CALL 9 s February 11, 1980 INDEX A report was presented from the City Manager. The City Manager presented a letter from Charles A. McKenna, Jr. , attorney for Mrs. Oser, regard- ing the potential impact on Lot 39, and stating ' their understanding that the complaint in the eminent domain proceeding in connection with Lot 12 would not be filed for three weeks. ' Vin Jorgenson and Susan Cuse addressed the Council in favor of the condemnation. t Dick Clucas addressed the Council regarding the elimination of parking on Coast Highway that would be made possible by the proposed parking lot. tMotion x The hearing was closed after it was determined that All Ayes no one else desired to be heard. ' Motion x Resolution No. 9722, declaring the necessity of R-9722 All Ayes condemnation, requiring the taking of the fee interest of the property hereinafter described ' to provide access to City-owned property, as authorized pursuant to the Charter of the City of Newport Beach in Section 37350.5 of the California Government Code, finding that the ' public interest and necessity require the project, that the project is planned and located in the manner that will be most compatible with the ' greatest public good and least private injury, that the property described in the resolution is necessary for the proposed project, authorizing the City Attorney to institute condemnation pro- ceedings and authorizing the Finance Director to make a deposit in court for possession of the subject property prior to judgment (access to ' City parking lot - Avon Street), was adopted. E. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION: 1. Ordinance No. 1835, being, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Election AMENDING SECTION 1.25.020 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH Campaign MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING SUBSECTION (D) Statements THERETO DEFINING POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE 0-1835 AND ADDING SECTIONS 1.25.065 THROUGH 1.25.069 (39) ' REGARDING THE DISQUALIFICATION OF CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM VOTING ON MATTERS AFFECTING MAJOR CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTORS AND MAKING TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING CHANGES IN CONFORMANCE THEREWITH, was presented for second reading. ' Motion x! Mayor Ryckoff made a motion to adopt Ordinance No. 1835, and to direct the staff to prepare an Volume 34 - Page 32 i i , l CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCILMEN MINUTES ROLL CALL �d' February 11, 1980 INDEX amendment to the ordinance indicating that the provisions are not to be retroactive beyond this ' campaign. David Shores addressed the Council and asked that Mayor Ryckoff and Mayor Pro Tem Williams refrain from voting on the ordinance. Mayor Pro Tem Williams read the following state- ' ment for the record: "Although our existing campaign contribution limitation ordinance sets limits at $200.00 contributor per candidate, in reality we are finding that it's quite possible for one person to contribute $200.00 to each of several PAC's which are not under control of the candidate, yet support him. ' The intent of the proposed ordinance, as I see it, is to cause contributors to operate within the spirit of the existing ordinance - beginning with ' the present election." Councilman Heather stated that she would not support the motion, and made the following state- ment for the record: "I feel that this is a self-serving ordinance for incumbent Councilmen, and that it deals only with financial interests ' rather than special interests, which sometimes seem to weigh more heavily upon Council decisions than purely financial interests." ' Ayes A vote was taken on Mayor Ryckoff's motion, which Noes x x x x motion carried. x x x ' 2. Ordinance No. 1836, being, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Residential' REPEALING SECTION 15.04,040, AMENDING Dwellings SECTION 15.06.090 AND REPEALING CHAPTER 15.21 0-1836 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE TO (26) ELIMINATE THE 600 SQUARE FEET MINIMUM FLOOR ' AREA FOR RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS WITHIN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, was presented for second reading. ' Motion x Ordinance No. 1836 was adopted. All Ayes ' 3. Ordinance No. 1837, being, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Weed ' ADDING SECTION 10.48.170 TO THE NEWPORT Abatement BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING MOWING AND Procedures DISKING OF WEEDS IN THE NEWPORT BAY 0-1837 ' WATERSHED, (41) { was -presented,for zecond-reading,- - O: i Volume 34 - Page 33 i i ' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCILMEN MINUTES \Gy\��y�s��� �3� kOLL CALL �d'� February II _ 1980 s INDEX The City Attorney recommended that this ordinance be postponed to March 10 to allow for the ' preparation of a negative declaration. Motion x Ordinance No. 1837 was postponed to March 10, All Ayes 1980. F. CONTINUED BUSINESS: ' 1. A report from the Ad Hoc Old Corona del Mar CdM Residen- Residential standards Study Committee was tail Dev presented. Standards (94) Bob Stoessel, Chairman of the Committee, addressed the Council regarding the report and stated that he was available to answer questions. ' Motion x The Residential Development Standards for Old All Ayes Corona del Mar were referred to the Planning ' Commission for preparation of an appropriate ordinance (zoning amendment) which would include R-3 and slope lots. ' 2. A report was presented from the Parks, Beaches Encroachment and Recreation Director regarding the request of Pub Prop Dr. K. J. Smallwood to encroach into the public Ocean Blvd ' property on Ocean Boulevard with brickwork and (65) landscape improvements. A letter from James W. Obrien was presented ' approving the improvements made by Dr. Smallwood. Dr. Smallwood addressed the Council regarding his ' encroachment request. The following people addressed the Council and opposed the encroachment: Mary Burton, Florence ' Stoddard and Al Jobe. Motion x Councilman Hummel made a motion to direct that ' the improvements in front of this property be realigned to that which was approved in 1971, a twenty-foot curb cut and a twenty-foot paved area; that other improvements that are needed will be ' the responsibility of the City; that as much of the public use of that area be provided as possible; that whatever safety devices as are needed will become the obligation of the City; and that a height be specified for the tree in question. Councilman Hart asked that the motion be amended to indicate that the sidewalk that had a permit be approved, and the twelve-inch planter retaining- type wall adjacent to the sidewalk remain, which ' amendment was accepted by the maker of the motion. I i I I Volume 34 - Page 34 i I i i I CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCILMEN MINUTES times '�•�'�.ti���;� T s ROLL CALL �d'� February 11, 1980 INDEX Ayes x x x A vote was taken on Councilman Hummel's amended Noes x x x x motion, which motion failed. Motion x Mayor Ryckoff made a motion to sustain the action of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission and approve the request. t Councilman Hummel asked that the motion be amended to stipulate that the height of the tree, or any other shrubs on public property, be ' approved by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission, which amendment was accepted by the maker of the motion. Ayes x x x x x A vote was taken on Mayor Ryckoff's amended motion, Noes x x which motion carried. 1 3. A report was presented from the City Manager Tracts 1 regarding a request of the Bluffs Homeowners 5463 & Community Association to amend the Declaration of 5480 Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions as recorded , on March 16, 1964. Resolution No. 9723, authorizing the Mayor and ' Motion x R-9723 All Ayes City Clerk to consent to the declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Tract 5463 and Tract 5480 in the Bluffs limiting the increases in the annual assessments, was , adopted. 4. A report dated January 21, 1980 was presented Harbor from the Marine Department regarding Harbor Permit ' Permit Application No. 1011-097 of the Balboa (51) Coves Community Association regarding the extension of their existing float. ' ' Marine Director David Harshbarger gave a brief staff report in answer to questions regarding ' the size of the coves. The following people addressed the Council regard- ' ing the application: Tom Orlando, President of the Balboa Coves Community Association, and Sandy Wilford, who presented diagrams of the floats to Council. Motion x Mr. Wilford was granted two additional minutes for ea All AY his presentation. Motion x Harbor Permit Application No. 1011 097 was 1 All Ayes approved. 5. Appointments and reappointments to the Citizens ' Advisory Committees for a one-year term expiring December 31, 1980, or continuation of appoint- ments as indicated: ' 1 i Volume 34 - Page 35 i � r ' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCILMEN MINUTES ROLL CALL �(P � s February 11, 1980 INDEX ' Motion x (a) The following actions regarding the Bicycle Bicycle All Ayes Trails Citizens Advisory Committee were Trails ' confirmed: CAC 1) District 6, Councilman Hummel's (24) continuation of appointment of a member to replace William Pope. ' 2) District 7, Mayor Pro Tem Williams' reappointment of Jim Dodds and con- tinuation of appointment of a member to replace Robert L. Newcomb. Motion x (b) District 7, Mayor Pro Tem Williams' CEQAC All Ayes appointment of Ron Kennedy as a member of (24) the Environmental Quality Citizens Advisory Committee to replace Jean Wegener was con- firmed. Motion x (c) The following actions regarding the Litter Litter All Ayes Control Citizens Advisory Committee were Control confirmed: CAC (24) 1) District 4, Councilman Heather's ' continuation of appointment of a member to replace Rae Cohen. 2) District 7, Mayor Pro Tem Williams' ' reappointment of Cindy Houston and Elaine Linhoff. ' Motion x (d) District 7,' Mayor Pro Tem Williams' reappoint Transportation All Ayes ment of Calvin McLaughlin to the Transports- Plan tion Plan Citizens Advisory Committee was CAC confirmed. (24) G. CURRENT BUSINESS: t 1. A letter from Rolly Pulaski and Associates Curb Cut was presented requesting Council consideration 1600 E for a curb cut permit for the Snyder resi- Balboa Blvd ' dence at 1600 E. Balboa Boulevard which had (65) been denied by the Public Works Department. ' A report was presented from the Public Works Department. The action of the staff was reversed, and the ' Motion x request for a curb cut at 1600 E. Balboa All Ayes Boulevard was approved. ' 2. A letter from The Irvine Company was presented Tract 10019 regarding their North Ford site, Tract No. 10019, and requesting Council reconsideration of the Tentative Tract Map. ' A report was presented from the City Attorney. i Volume 34 - Page 36 ■ i i CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCILMEN MINUTES ROLL CALL �(P N February 11, 1980 INDEX Robert Shelton, representing The Irvine Company, addressed the Council. Motion x The Council assumed original jurisdiction of ' All Ayes the Tentative Subdivision Map No. 10019, and set a public hearing for February 25, 1980, ' and continued the request of The Irvine Company until the settlement agreement is reviewed and approved by the City Council. 3. A report was presented from the Planning Grading, ' Department regarding action taken by the Filling, Planning Commission at its meeting of Janu- Excavation ' ary 24, 1980, to recommend to the City Council (26) that bonds be required pursuant to Chapter 70 of the Building Code (Excavation and Grading) for the remaining work on the Sea Island ' Project and the Ford Road/MacArthur Boulevard Road Widening and Intersection Improvement Project. Motion x Mayor Ryckoff made a motion to sustain the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Motion x Councilman Hart made a substitute motion to ' Ayes x x x file the recommendation of the Planning Noes x, x x x Commission, which motion failed. Ayes x x x x x A vote was taken on Mayor Ryckoff's motion, Noes x x which motion carried. 4. A report was presented from the Traffic Parking Affairs Committee regarding proposed parking Prohibitions'. restrictions in the 300 block of Crystal (64) ' Avenue. A letter from Colonel Herring, S. Franklin requesting the matter be postponed to February 25, 1980 in order that he may appear Was presented. Motion x The proposed parking restriction on Crystal All Ayes Avenue was postponed to March 24, 1980. 5. A report was presented from the Local Coastal Local , Planning Advisory Committee regarding the Carl Ping absence of a member from three consecutive CAC meetings of the Committee. (24) Motion x District 7, Mayor Pro Tem Williams' appointment All Ayes of Barry Allen was reaffirmed. 6. A letter from Virginia B. Goodenough, President of Peninsula ' the Balboa Citizens Committee, Mel Fuchs, Park President of the Balboa Improvement Association (62) and Philo R. Tozer, Owner and Manager of the Balboa Pavilion requesting Council's permission to appear and state their objections to the removal of the Balboa Bicentennial Bandstand, and enclosing a like petition bearing 792 signatures. i a Volume 34 - Page 37 i CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCILMEN MINUTES ROLL CALL �J February 11 1980 INDEX ' A letter from the Central Newport Beach Community Association was presented expressing its opposi- tion to the removal of the bandstand. A report was presented from the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Director. A letter received after the agenda was printed from James and Georgia Mahoney was presented ' supporting the previous Council action to remove the gazebo. Councilman Strauss stated that the people opposing the removal of the gazebo/bandstand had requested that this item be postponed. Motion x The item was postponed to February 25, 1980. All Ayes H. CONSENT CALENDAR: ' Motion x The following actions were taken as indicated except All Ayes for those'items removed: 1. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION - Introduce and ' pass to second reading on February 25, 1980: (a) Proposed Ordinance No. 1838, being, AN Parking ' ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Prohibitions AMENDING SECTION 12.40.055 OF THE 0-1838 NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE ENTITLED (64) ' "PARKING OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS PROHIBITED." (A report from the Traffic Affairs Committee) 2. RESOLUTIONS FOR ADOPTION: (a) Resolution No. 9724 amending the list of Disclosure positions designated by the Conflict of of Assets Interest Code as those which require the R-9724 filing of an annual income/asset (66) disclosure statement. (A report from the City Clerk) (b) Removed from the Consent Calendar. ' (c) Resolution No. 9725 awarding a contract Harbor Isl to John T. Malloy in connection with the Water & Harbor Island Water and Sewer Main Sewer Main Replacement (C-2112) . (A report from R-9725 the Public Works Department) (38) ' (d) Resolution No. 9726 authorizing the St Impry Mayor and the City Clerk to execute an SJH Rd/ Arterial Highway Financing Program Jamboree Project Administration Agreement for R-9726 ' street improvements for San Joaquin (38) Hills Road and Jamboree Road, free right turn lane. (A report from the Public Works Department) I " Volume 34 - Page 38 i I i I CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCILMEN MINUTES yG� �i9�2FS� 1� (9�o�ti - y�22� ROLL CALL( 3� s February 11, 1980 INDEX (e) Resolution No. 9727 authorizingthe Mayor Y St Impry and City Clerk to execute a Right-of-Way SJH Rd/ , Certification for street improvements for Jamboree San Joaquin Hills Road and Jamboree Road, R-9727 free right turn lane. (See report with (38) H-2(d)) ' (f) Resolution No. 9728 authorizing the Mayor St Impry and City Clerk to execute an Arterial W Cst Hwy Highway Financing Program Project Administra- AHPP tion Agreement for street improvements R-9728 for West Coast Highway south side, 57th (38) Street to Balboa Boulevard. (A report ' from the Public Works Department) (g) Resolution No. 9729 authorizing the Mayor St Impry and City Clerk to execute a Right-of-Way W Cst Hwy ' Certification for street improvements for R-9729 West Coast Highway south side, 57th (38) Street to Balboa Boulevard. (See report with H-2(f)) (h) Resolution No. 9730 authorizing the Mayor Off-site and City Clerk to execute an Off-Site Parking ' Parking and Reciprocal Access Agreement Bryant/ between the City of Newport Beach and Hooten David R. Bryant and John P. Hooten, Newport Beach, for required' parking spaces in conjunction with a proposed conversion of an existing machine shop to retail space in an existing structure t located at 2902 West Coast Highway on Mariner's Mile; zoned SP-5. (A report from the Planning Department) 3. COMFRiNICATIONS - For referral as indicated: (a) Removed from the Consent Calendar. (b) To staff for report back, a letter from Sphere of the Local Coastal Planning Advisory Com- Influence III mittee regarding the Beeco property and (21) their request to have the property included in the Newport Beach Sphere of Influence. (Attached) ' (c) To staff for report back on February 25, a Stop Signs letter from the Corona Highlands Property (81) ' Owner's Association requesting stop signs on Seaward Road. (Attached) (d) To staff for action, a letter from L. S. Building ' Ondrasik regarding the alleged code (26) violations under construction at 203 Coral Avenue, Balboa Island. (Attached) I ` Volume 34 - Page 39 i i I i ' COUNCILMEN CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES N2�i F� N OLL CALL �U s February 11, 1980 INDEX (e) To staff for attendance, a letter from the Annexations Local Agency Formation Commission of Orange (21) County regarding the public hearing on proposed Annexation No. 87 - designated the County Triangle, on February 13, 1980. (Attached) (f) To staff for reply, a letter from 0. L. Police Dept. Jones, Jr. requesting the return of a .38 (70) caliber gun which was not returned to him ' by the Police Department after the charges were dropped. (Attached) ' 4. COMMUNICATIONS - For referral to the City Clerk for inclusion in the records: (a) A copy of a letter to the Orange County Orange Board of Supervisors from Dennis D. County O'Neil requesting the County to evaluate Airport the VTN Terminal Location Analysis. (58) ' (Attached) (b) A copy of a letter to the Newport Beach ' Finance Department from Candace Kay Evans regarding the helpful assistance she received as well as her high opinion of the City's budget document. (Attached) ' (c) A letter from Mrs. W. Lee Spencer expressing appreciation for the fine efforts of the Newport Beach Police force. (Attached) (d) A letter of appreciation from Don Culver who was greatly assisted by Newport Beach ' Fireman Mike Miller following a fire at the Park Newport Apartments in September, 1978. (Attached) (a) A postcard from Emily R. Phillips stating that she is in favor of price marking in markets. (Attached) (f) A letter to the City Clerk from James H. Lyons, attorney for Airport Service, Incorporated regarding an application t before the California Public Utilities Commission for an increase in rates. (g) A copy of a letter to the Orange County ' Transportation Commission from the Corona del Mar Chamber of Commerce opposing any ' widening or additional parking restrictions on Pacific Coast Highway. (Attached) (h) Two letters received January 23 and 30, 1980 from Al King Alfonso Lizanetz. i i i j Volume 34 - Page 40 i i CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ' COUNCILMEN MINUTES ROLL CALL 3v'� February 11 1980 INDEX (i) Preliminary Agenda of the Local Agency Formation Commission of Orange County for ' February 13, 1980. (j) Annual Report of the California State ' Board of Equalization for 1979. (On file in the City Clerk's office) (k) Notice of hearing before the Public ' Utilities Commission of Southern California Edison Company for a rate increase. (1) Agenda of the Board of Supervisors Meetings ' of January 22, 23, 29, 30, February 5 and 6, 1980. (m) A letter from the Corona del Mar Chamber ' of Commerce changing the dates for their "Clean-Up Drive" to Saturday, July 19 and , Saturday July 26, and stating that it has been confirmed by George Pappas and Wade Beyeler. (Attached) (n) A letter from Rae A. Cohen to Councilman ' Heather stating that she would no longer be able to serve on the Litter Control , Citizens Advisory Committee. (Attached) 5. CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES - For denial and confirmation Claims 'of the City Clerk's referral of claims to the (36) ' insurance carrier: (a) Claim of Elly S. R. E. Leck for personal Lack injuries which were caused when she ' tripped over a protruding sprinkler on Vista del Oro on October 25, 1979, allegedly the fault of the City. ' (b) Claim of Louisiana Pacific Corporation Louisiana for property damage to a delivery truck Pacific on November 16, 1979 when a City tree Corporation, branch which extended into the street area hit the truck. The location of the accident was 1820 Balboa Boulevard. , (c) Claim of Terry Proud for personal injuries Proud sustained when he tripped over a wire on November 20 or 21, 1979 at 315 Santa Ana ' Avenue where some City workmen were allegedly repairing the sidewalk. (d) Claim of Mrs. Pamela Jayson, 112 Via Jayson ' Palermo, Newport Beach, for property damage to her electrical garage door ' opener allegedly due to a power failure caused by City construction in the area. Volume 34 - Page 41 J i i CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCILMEN MINUTES t^ •9 OT y� J' �S ROLL CALL` ��� S Februar 11 1980 INDEX (e) Claim of Nancy L. Chapman for personal Chapman ' injuries on October 13, 1979 when she was involved in a traffic accident at the intersection of Balboa and 8th Street, allegedly due to faulty maintenance of ' palm trees in the center divider which obstructed the view. ' (f) Claim of Henry W. Buckingham for property Buckingham damage to his home at 1902 E. Balboa Boulevard when the sewer was being relined and the workmen neglected to tie his line into the sewer which resulted in damage to the carpeting. 6. SUMMONS AND COMPLAINTS - For confirmation of the City Cleric's referral to the insurance carrier: (a) Summons and Cross Complaint of James Pope Pope; guardian for Thomas Pope, Case No. 31-07-17 in the Orange County Superior ' Court in connection with an accident occurring on a State Highway that was allegedly the responsibility of the City to maintain. ' (b) Summons and Complaint of John Palmer for Palmer personal damages allegedly caused by t Newport Beach Police Officers; Case No. 327993 in the Orange County Superior Court. The original claim was for false arrest and imprisonment. 7. REQUEST TO FILL PERSONNEL VACANCIES - For Personnel approval: (A report from the City Manager) Vacancies (66) ' (a•) One Laborer, Field Maintenance Division, to fill a vacant position. ' (b) One Maintenance Man II, Field Maintenance Division, to fill a vacant position. ' (c) One Library Clerk II, Library Services Department, to fill a vacant position. (d) One Building Maintenance Man I, Parks, ' Beaches and Recreation Department to fill a vacant position/ CETA transition slot to regular.. ' (e) Three Groundsman-Gardener II's, Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department to fill vacant positons. ' (f) One Refuse Crewman, Refuse Division, to fill a vacant position. Volume 34 - Page 42 i I i � 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCILMEN MINUTES 9 � � ROLL CALL �u'� February 11, 1980 INDEX (g) One Payroll Clerk I, Finance Department, to fill a vacant position. ' (h) Four Police Officers, Police Department, to fill vacant positions. (i) Three Police Clerk I's Police , De artment P to fill vacant positions. (j) One Building Inspector I, Building Depart- ' ment, to fill a vacant position. (k) One Secretary, Building Department, to fill a vacant position. , (1) One Senior Planner, Planning Department, ' to fill a vacant position. 8. REPORTS - For Council information and filing: (a) A report from the City Manager regarding Unemploymel the financing of Unemployment Insurance. Insurance (Attached) (47) ' (b) A report from the Planning Department Planning regarding action taken by the Planning Commission' Commission at its meeting of January 24, (57) 1980 concerning amendments to Planning Commission Rules of Procedures as they make reference to the "Community Develop- ' ment Director" and pertaining to partici- pation of individual members in appeals to the City Council. (Attached) , (c) A report from the City Librarian regarding Newport the dedication ceremony for Newport Center Center Branch Library. (Attached) Library , 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS - None. (50) - 10. STREET IMPROVEMENTS SOUTHERLY SIDE OF EAST St Impry ' COAST HIGHWAY BETWEEN JAMBOREE ROAD AND Coast Hwy AVOCADO AVENUE, (C-1990)- Acceptance of work (38) on subject project; authorization to the City ' Clerkto file a Notice of Completion and to release the bonds 35 days after Notice of Completion has been filed. (A report from the , Public Works Department) 11. MAINTENANCE DREDGING HARBOR PERMITS - Approval Harbor of the following maintenance dredging harbor Permits ' permits, subject to the conditions of approval (51) listed in the 'general permit issued to the i Volume 34 - Page 43 i i I ' COUNCILMEN CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES �<<iC 9'��9G22 t GT yF lt+ ROLL CALL 3s February 11, 1980 INDEX City by the Corns of Engineers: (A report from the Marine Department) ' 174-103 Donald McAnlis, 103 Via Lido Soud 120-2212 South Coast Ship Yard, 2270 Newport ' Blvd. 108-3130 Wilfred Vonderahe, 2130 E. Balboa Blvd. 175-128 L. C. Smull, 128 Via Lido Nord 171-929 William Lyon, 929 Via Lido Soud 12. HARBOR PERMITS - Approval of Harbor Permit Harbor ' Applications No. 104-2015 by Ms. W. Rhodes and Permits Mr. and Mrs. E. F. Smith, 2015-21 Bayside (51) Drive and 104-2027 by Mr. L. Vincent and Mr. R. Smith at 2027-33 Bayside Drive to adjust permit areas and to build two residential floats that do not conform to standard harbor designs; subject to the conditions of approval listed in the staff reports. (A report from ' the Marine Department) 13. BUDGET AMENDMENTS - For approval: (a) A report from the Finance Director regarding the following mid-year budget adjustments: (Attached) ' BA-42, $3,340,814.59 increase in Fund Balance, a net increase in Budget Appropri- ations of $144,033.04, and an increase in Revenue Estimates of $3,484,847.63, General Fund. BA-43, $184,972.17 increase in Fund Balance, a net decrease in Budget Appropri- ations of $65,162.17 and an increase in Revenue Estimates of $119,810.00 Park & Recreation-Fund. BA-44, $41,115.00 decrease in Fund Balance, a net decrease in Budget Appropriations of. $16,395.00 and a decrease in Revenue Estimates of $57,510.00, Library Fund. ' BA-45, $100,000.00 decrease in Fund Balance, and an increase in Budget Appropri- ations of $100,000.00, Retirement Fund. BA-46, $32,500.00 decrease in Fund Balance and in Revenue Estimates, State Gas Tax ' Fund, Section 2107. BA-47, $5,760 decrease in Fund Balance, 1 an increase in Budget Appropriations of $535.00 and a decrease in Revenue Estimates of $5,225.00 State Gas Tax Fund, Section 2106. I Volume 34 - Page 44 i i CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCILMEN MINUTES ' tiG y �� yO`n.�r'C' �3�< moo y9G22� 1_ '>y F N ROLL CALL �d' ��s February 11, 1980 INDEX BA-48, $7,000 increase in Fund Balance and a decrease in Budget Appropriations ' of $7,000, Arterial Highway Financing Fund. BA-49, $120,000.00 increase in Fund ' Balance, and in Revenue Estimates, Traffic Safety Fund. BA-50, $59,000.00 increase in Fund Balance, ' and in Revenue Estimates, Parking Meter Fund. BA-51, $32,525.00 increase in Fund Balance ' and in Revenue Estimates Tide and Submerged rg d Lands Fund. BA-52, $150,160.00 increase in Fund ' Balance, an increase in Budget Appropria- tions and an increase in Revenue Estimates, ' Building Excise Tax Fund. BA-53, $270,243.68 increase in Fund ' Balance, and increase in Budget Appropria- tions of $48,451.32 and an increase in Revenue Estimates of $318,695.00, Water Fund. , BA-54, $1,810.53 increase in Fund Balance, an increase in Budget Appropriations of , $764.47, and an increase in Revenue Estimates of $2,575.00, Marinapark Fund. BA-55, $13,286.79 return to Fund Balance ' Unexpended Appropriations of Prior Years Capital Improvement Completed, Various Funds. ' BA-56, $5,578,566.00 transfer from Unappropri- ated Surplus to Appropriations Reserve, General Fund. ' BA-57, $296,340.00 transfer from Unappropria- ted Surplus to Appropriations Reserve, , Park and Recreation Fund. BA-58, $7,632.00 transfer from Unappropiriated Surplus to Appropriations Reser, Library ' Fund. BA-59, $$6,084.00 transfer from Unappropria- ted Surplus to Appropriations Reserve,, State Gas Tax Fund. BA-60, $103,946.00 transfer from Unappropri- ated Surplus to Appropriations Reserve, i State Gas Tax Fund. Volume 34 - Page 45 f CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ' COUNCILMEN MINUTES F � ROLL CALL stop s February 11, 1980 INDEX BA-61, $23,093.00, transfer from Unappropriat d ated Surplus to Appropriations Reserve, Arterial Highway Financing Fund. t BA-62, $123,128.00 transfer from Unappropri- ated Surplus to Appropriations Reserve, Contributions Fund. ' BA-63, $43,245.46 transfer from Unappropri- ated Surplus to Appropriations Reserve, Capital Improvement Fund. ' BA-64, $366,737.00 transfer from Unappropri- ated Surplus to Appropriations Reserve, Building Excise Tax Fund. BA-65, $1,380,500.00 transfer from Unappro- priated Surplus to Appropriations Reserve, ' Future Water Sources Fund. BA-066, $7,703.80 transfer from Unappropri- ated Surplus to Appropriations Reserve, Water System Development Fund. BA-067, $1,600,115.00 transfer from Unappropriated Surplus to Appropriations Reserve, Water Fund. (b) Current year Budget Amendments: ' BA-38, $48,000.00 for sewer line replacement on Harbor Island from Unappropriated ' Surplus to Sewer Main Replacement Program, General Fund. BA-39, $5,320.00 increase in Budget ' Appropriations for emergency items for Newport Center Branch Library, from Unappropriated Surplus, Building Excise Tax Fund. BA-040, $5,540.00 increase in Budget Appropriations for purchase of Weather ' Measuring Equipment, from Unappropriated Surplus to Marine, Equipment, N.O.C. , General Fund. ' BA-41, $4,295.00 increase and transfer of Budget Appropriations and increase in Revenue Estimates ($3,700.00) for purchase ' of Police Solo Motorcycle to replace motorcycle that was wrecked, insurance company to reimburse, from Unappropriated Surplus $3,70.00 and from UCR $595.00 to Police Traffic, Rolling Equipment, General Fund. Volume 34 - Page 46 1 i i � CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCILMEN MINUTES yG y.4a�pc y�s�'tio O y � F � ROLL CALL SOT y�QP February it 1980 INDEX BA-68, $56,340.00 increase in Budget ' Appropriations and increase in Revenue ' Estimates for final contribution by Bank of Newport for installation of traffic signal at intersection of East Coast Highway and Avocado from Unappropriated ' Surplus and Donations and Contributions to Traffic Signal - Coast Hwy/Avocado, Contribution Fund. ' BA-69, $40,000.00 increase in Budget , Appropriations and increase in Revenue Estimates for County's share of modification ' of traffic signals at the intersections of Irvine Avenue and University Drive/Del Mar Avenue and Irvine Avenue at Mesa Drive, from Unappropriated Surplus and ' Donations and Contributions to Traffic Signal - Irvine/Mesa/University, Contribution Fund. ' I. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. A report was presented from the Finance Director One Bank, recommending renewal of the City's banking One Account' services agreement with Security Pacific National (38) for a five-year period from April 1, 1980 ' through March 31, 1985. Motion x Resolution No. 9731, authorizing the Mayor and R-9731 All Ayes City Clerk to execute an agreement between the , City of Newport Beach and Security Pacific National Bank in connection with the City's banking services, was adopted. ' 2. A letter addressed to Mayor Ryckoff from the CHAD Orange County Combined Health Agencies Drive was (61) presented regarding their request for employee ' solicitation of funds for the CHAD campaign. Tom Haywood, Field Director, California State ' Combined Health Agencies Drive (CHAD), addressed the Council and asked that the City's employees be given the choice to support CHAD as well as, or instead of, United Way. ' Motion x The item was postponed to March 10, 1980. All Ayes J. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: ' L. A letter was presented from the City of Tiburon Request/ regarding litigation involving that City (Agins City of ' v. City of Tiburon) wherein the United States Tiburon Supreme Court is to review the decision of the (76) California Supreme Court in which the court struck down the remedy of awarding monetary j damages against public entities to property j owners claiming that land use regulations deprived them of the use of their property and ruled that, i` in such claims, the appropriate-remedy was Volume 34 - Page 47 i CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCILMEN MINUTES yG'L F � ROLL CALL �d'� February 11 1980 INDEX invalidation of the regulation being attacked. ' The City of Tiburon asked for support in this litigation, and also stated that it would need funding assistance. ' Motion x The staff was directed to advise the City of A11•A3•es Tiburon of our support, and up to $1,000.00 in financial support was authorized at the discretion ' of the City Attorney and the City Manager. 2. A letter from the Corona del Mar Chamber CdM Specific of Commerce was presented requesting that the Area Plan ' Council direct the Planning Commission to (94) review the Corona del Mar Specific Area Plan, and particularly the portion which pertains to the commercial and contiguous residential property, and to review each proposed development in this area until such time as the review of the Specific Area Plan has been completed. Motion x The Planning Commission was directed to conduct All Ayes a study and hold hearings on the local commercial ' services and the types of uses permitted in the Corona del Mar area. 3. Modification Application No. 2502 of Ernest Mod 2502 ' George, a request to permit exterior face lift, (94) alteration to an existing building non-conforming in the following: a) encroaches into the ' required ten-foot rear yard alley setback, and b) a residential unit on the second floor, which Motion x was approved by the Modifications Committee on All Ayes February 5, 1980, was called up and referred to ' the Planning Commission. The Mayor adjourned the meeting at 10:47 p.m. it 1 Volume 34 - Page 48 1 i iI t ' 1. j♦ . CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCILMEN SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Place: Council Chambers 3�Aj�i�o9ygG22� Time: 4: 00 P.M. Date: February 15, 1980 ROLL CALL INDEX Present x x x x x x A. ROLL CALL. Absent x ' Mayor Ryckoff adjourned the meeting to Executive Session. ' Councilman Strauss arrived and joined the Council in Executive Session. Mayor Ryckoff declared the meeting adjourned at ' 4:35 p.m. i Volume 34 - Page 49 I a CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCILMEN MINUTES OLL CALL s January 7 1980 INDEX The following people addressed the Council and opposed the ordinance as proposed: Richard H. Spooner, Ninfa Jarvis, David Shores and Farel 1 Walker. Motion x The following ordinance was introduced and passed All Ayes t cond reading on February 11, 1980: Ordinance c� 1835, being, AN ORDINANCE OF 0-1835 THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING SECTION 1.25.020 THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE BY DING SECTION (D) THERETO DEFINING "P ICAL ACTION COMMITTEE" AND ADDING SECINS 1*25.065 THROUGH 1.25.069 REGARDII THE DISQUALIFICATION OF CITY COUNCIL MENiBERS FROM VOTING ON MATTERS AFFECTING MAJO CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTORS AND MAKING TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING CHANGES IN CONFORMANCE THEREWITH. 1 J. ADDITIONAL• BUSINESS: Motion x 1. The Traffic Phasing Plan for Civic Plaza was set,for Npt Center ' Ayes x x x x x public hearing on February I It-1980. Civic Plaza Noes x x (68) Motion x 2. Mayor Ryckoff made a motion to set General Plan G—e ' Amendment No. •80-1 for public hearing on-- + Ian February 25, 1980. '(45) ' Motion x Councilman Hart made a substit motion to set' Ayes x x x x General Plan Amendment ' 80-1 for public Noes x x x hearing on March 10, 19809 filch motion carried. ' The Mayor declared the eting adjourned at 10:45 P.M. to 7:30 p.m. on Januar 1, 1980. r • j Volume 34 - Page 17 i I ti CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ATTACHMENT No. 3 SUN ILIVEN MINUTES t: CALL March 12, 1979 INDEX k)_X4XjZation proposed needs to indicate degree of ' permanence •. rel meet the test. The regular order of the Agena was resumed. ' 3. Mayor Ryckoff opened the public hearing regarding Newport Plannin Commission_AmendmeLUr 9,_.5.27, a request Center initiated by the City of Newport Beach to consider Civic ' an amendment to the Civic Plaza Planned Community Plaza Development Plan to require the preparation of a (2285) traffic phasing plan and reduction in allowable intensity of development and the acceptance of an Environmental Document on property bounded by San Joaquin Hills Road, Santa Cruz Drive, San Clemente Drive, and Santa BarbaraDrive in Newport Center; ' zoned P-C. A report was presented from the Community Develop- ment Department. Ron Hendrickson of The Irvine Company addressed the Council and stated that Council had voted to make Civic Plaza an excepted project, and asked that the revised P-C Plan be approved, and that the project be considered on a 30%/70% approach. lotion x The hearing was closed after it was determined A11 Ayes that no one else desired to be heard. �otion x I Councilman Hummel made a motion that the test of reasonableness be applied to 100% of the Civic Plaza project. ' Councilman Heather made a statement for the record, as follows: I feel that this project which was accepted and has had its zone changed and reduced, and is now being further impinged by 100% development review instead of 30%, I think that it is beyond the scope of this Council to ' I make that kind - I, personally feel, legally, that we do not have the right to further discrim- inate against this project." �totion xI Councilman Hart made a substitute motion to continue the item to March 26. t�totion x Councilman McInnis made a tu substite substitute yes I x� x x x motion to_adoEt Resolution~No. 9517.amending the R-9517 Noes x ix x Planned Communityel Devopment Plan for Civic Plaza ' I revising the allowable development plan, and accepting an n environmental iocument; which motion carr`3ed. _ ' P. CONTINUED BUSINESS: 1. Previously considered. A report was presented from the Community Develop- Newport Pla Bent. Department regarding Planning Commission Planned action with regard to a request of Emkay Develop- Community {I ment and Te.'ty Company for the approval of a I (1275) I I Volume 33 - Page 6 1 M E ATTACHMENT NO. 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ' COUNCILMEN P 'MINUTES . C, y�0\A 9G 22i F s .1 1 CALL March 12, 1979 INDEX ' available for potential office building. Addition ally, The Irvine Company requests that 4,156 sq. ft. of space be reallocated from Pacific Coast ' Highway East and West, and 1,511' sq. ft. of space from either Block 500 or Block 700, at their optio , be reallocated to Block 800 in Newport Center to t allow for the construction of a 10,000 sq. ft. restaurant which would contain a maximum of 5,667 sq. ft. of net public area. ' A report was presented from the Community Develop- ment Department. ' Harry Bubb, President, and Steven Gavin, Vice President Corporate Relation Officer, of Pacific Mutual Life Insurance addressed the Council. Mr. Gavin stated .that they were reducing the elevation ' by three floors and would be willing to continue Nor not more than six weeks, if necessary; that t y would be willing to eliminate the high-rise ' con miniums, but that they would continue to be comma ted to all mitigation required for the two ten-st y buildings, traffic and otherwise, and. all othe conditions. Robert Shel n, of The Irvine Company, addressed the Council a stated that. the condominiums were ' included in the environmental' Impact Report because of a pre ous direction of the Council. ' Donald Gralneck, rep senting Pacific Mutual Insurance, addressed a Council and asked if the ordinance were changed delete reference to the residential development, that would require a revision to the ordinance n t time to come back for reintroduction, or if it ould be enacted at that time. ' The City Attorney stated that the ction would lower the density of the project an could be considered on April 23, if continued o that date, ' without reintroduction. Gary Schamberg, President of Eastbluff Ho owners ' Association, addressed the Council regardin the necessity for developers to institute sound a en- uation factors along Jamboree Road, and was ask d to submit a letter with suggestions proposed by Association. Motion I x The public hearing was continued t9 April 23. with AU. Ayes the applicant stipulating concurrence to continuation. The Council unanimously agreed to take Agenda Item F-1 out of order and consider it at�this time A report was presented from the Community Development Department regarding the Planning-Commission's recom- mendations concerning the definition of the term "reasonableness" as applied to a traffic phasing plan 1 for "excepted" Planned Community Districts. Volume 33 - Page 58 r yam „ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCILME-N� � MINUTES \Zc C, \\ >�\\\G Z J'\�s CALL d March 12, 1979 INDEX Gordon West, President of the Newport Harbor Area t Chamber of Commerce, and Michael C. Gering addressed the Council, but were ruled out of order by the Mayor for not addressing the subject under consideration. ' I The information to be submitted by the developer, as recommended by the Planning Commission in connectfn with the test of-reasonableness'or applicali�le pinned communities, was modified to"chanpethe -percentage ition x of increase in item 3 from 5%' to 2%, to revise item 2 Ayes x x x x and tc add items 7' and-T.-__The list^wa`s apliroved as �es x x x follows: (a) Each project subject to the phasing requirement ' of Council Resolution No. 9472 shall be examined as to the extent of existing development and the amount of development remaining to be completed. ' (b) Information shall be submitted indicating the amount of traffic being generated by existing development, that projected for remaining ' development, and traffic that will exist after completion of the project. (c) An examination shall be made of the circulation ' system in the vicinity of the project to determin what improvements remain to be completed, with particular consideration being given to those ' improvements which will directly aid in moving traffic generated by the project. The area to be. examined shall extend to those intersections where traffic generated from the project increase ' the traffic for any leg of the intersection durin the peak two and one-half hour period by 2% or more. ' (d) Existing traffic at those intersections shall be shown prior to making any projections. ' (e) The developer may include in his proposed traffic phasing plan completion of or contribu- tion to completion of needed improvements con- sistent with the level of traffic generation and a reasonable proportion of the cost of these improvements. ' (f) The developer is also to take into consideration in the preparation of his plan characteristics in the design of his development which either ' reduce traffic generation or guide traffic onto less impacted arterials or through intersections in the least congested direction. ' (g) Upon receipt of the plan and information, the Commission will determine whether there is a reasonable correlation between projected traffic at time of project completion and capacity of affected intersections in considering the project for approval. I Volume 33 - Page 59 I i li � i � CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCILMEN r MINUTES '17�O�ti\s2Zi N(�L CALL• J' March 12, 1979 INDEX (h) Mitigation proposed needs to indicate degree of permanence in order to meet the- test. , The regular order of the Agena was resumed. tI 3. Mayor Ryckoff opened the public hearing regarding Newport Planning Commission Amendme11L_Np,_5_27, a request Center ' initiated by the City of Newport Beach to consider Civic an amendment to the Civic Plaza Planned Community Plaza Development Plan to' require the preparation of a (2285) traffic phasing plan and reduction in allowable ' intensity of development and the acceptance of an Environmental Document on property bounded by San Joaquin Hills Road, Santa Cruz Drive, San Clemente Drive, and Santa Barbara Drive in Newport Center; ' zoned P-C. A report was presented from the Community Develop- ment Department. Ron Hendrickson of The Irvine Company addressed the Council and stated that Council had voted to ' make Civic Plaza an excepted project, and asked that the revised P-C Plan be approved, and that the project be considered on a 30%/70% approach. ttion I x The hearing was closed after it was determined A11 Ayes that no one else desired to be heard. I �tion x I Councilman Hummel made a motion that the test of • reasonableness be applied to 100% of the Civic Plaza project. ' Councilman Heather made a statement for the record, as follows: "I feel that this project which was accepted and has had its zone changed and reduced, and is now being further impinged by 100% development review instead of 30%, I think that it is beyond the scope of this Council to � ' I make that kind - I, personally feel, legally, II that we do not have the right to further discrim- • inate against this project." 'otion x ) Councilman Hart made a substitute motion to continue the item to March 26. otion I i I x Councilman McInnis made a substitute _substitute yes I x� x x x motion to adopt Resollution Now 9517 amending the R-9517 Noes Ix ix x I Planned Community Development Plan for Civic Plaza revising the allowable development plan, and ' acceptin—g an environmental document; which motion carried". "" i ' I I P. CONTINUED BUSINESS: ' 1. Previously considered. 2. A report was presented fin a Community Develop- Newport Place meat Department gang Planning Commission Planned action w eeard to a ,recgnest of ESnkax_Develop- Community n Jrd.Realty Company for the approval of a (1275) I Volume 33 - Page 60 i i Regular Planning Commission Meeting ' I COMMISSIONERS Place: City Council Chambers MINUTES Time: 7: 30 P.M. ' a d Date: December 20 , 1979 pTCP�N'hteNT �a' o � 5o03 y _ W W � N I City of Newport Beach L0jR()I t. CAL L INDEX esent xx x x x x ' EX- ICIO MEMBERS Hugh Co ' n , City Attorney ' STAFF MEMBER James Hewicker, anning Director ' Fred Talarico, Env onmental Coordinator Don Webb, Assistant 'ty Engineer Glenna Gipe, Secretary Minutes Written By: GlennXGip Motion Motion was made to approve the minutes ),F the re- Ayes x x K x gular Planning Commission meeting of Dece er 6, Abstain x x 1979 , with the addition of an added conditid'n, on Page 11 . '--- . ..W---M.,wr...in.r�....samv�.m.o...o...mM.e.....a..�u..o..a... Request to consider a Phasing Plan for the remain- Item #1 ' ing development in the Civic Plaza Planned Commu- nity District, and the acceptance of an Environ- PHASING mental Document. PLAN ' LOCATION: The Planned Community of Civic APPROVED Plaza, generally bounded by San CONDI- Joaquin Hills Road, Santa Cruz TIONALLY Drive, San Clemente Drive, Santa ' Barbara Drive , and Jamboree Road, in Newport Center. ' ZONE: P-C APPLICANT: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach ' OWNER: Same as Applicant Don Webb, Assistant City Engineer, commented that the ICU analysis indicates that if a left turn lane were added on Jamboree Road in both direc- tions , the ICU at Jamboree Road and MacArthur t -1- Ff COMMISSIONERS MINUTES December 20, 1979 0x 3 w � City of Newport Beach RUI L ('A[L INDEX oulevard could be reduced to .8725. ' ommissioner Haidinger posed a question, to which r. Webb replied that they are in the process of ' attempting to implement several of these minor irculation systems improvements . In response to a question posed by Commissioner ' Cokas , Mr. Webb replied that a restriping job would range from $2,000 to $5,000 and that the most expensive aspect of it is the sandblasting and traffic control during the period of time . in ' which they are trying to implement the project. Commissioner Balalis stated his understanding that one year ago when the traffic phasing analysis was ' begun, they found it to be the case universally that a developer would come before the Planning Commission with a project and an additional- right ' turn only lane was on Campus Drive and Bristol Street and it reduced traffic immensely and it was suggested that the City undergo those projects themselves . Mr. Webb commented that Pacific Mutual is the firs to attempt to implement some of these improvements relative to minor widening projects , and that they ' have been waiting for the developer to come up with the money , rather than doing it with the City ' s public funds . ' Commissioner Beek suggested a highway action team to find the problems and enact changes . ' Mr. Webb responded that most of the improvements mentioned are presently in the process of trying to be implemented, but that the City does not have the finances to finance the project and col - lect it from the developer later. ' Commissioner Balalis suggested that these inter- sections be analyzed. Mr. Webb commented that they have been working with the MacArthur Place Development for The Ir- vine Company in the preparation and processing of plans , which company has already applied for an -2- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES December 20 , 1979 3 ? R d x = M City of Newport Beach RUI L CALL INDEX encroachment permit for the additional widening of Campus Drive and MacArthur Boulevard, and a signal modification project has to be implemented, ' which is CalTrans ' responsibility. In response to a comment from Commissioner Haidin- ' ger, Mr. Webb replied that various different traffic studies over the last few months have been analyzed and for the necessary improvements , more is required than merely changing the striping. ' He further commented that the ICU analyses put together were for the 1979 year with no recommen- dation as to what additional traffic would be added for the various different areas in the up- coming year. Commissioner Thomas suggested a list of 10 inter- sections with a task list and budget for each . ' In response to a question posed by Commissioner Thomas , Fred Talarico , Environmental Coordinator, responded that under the Ford-Aeronutronic Traf- fic Phasing Plan and overall environmental pack- age, they were required to maintain certain levels of carpooling and an investigation of other items . ' Commissioner Thomas suggested that one of the ele- ments of the Phasing Plan includes the beginning . of construction of the Park-n-Ride on Jamboree ' Road and MacArthur Boulevard or acquisition of another right-of-way lane in Newport Center so • that future problems would be mitigated. ' Commissioner Beek replied that the City Council in interpreting the Traffic Phasing Ordinance has specified that only verifiable improvements could ' be counted as mitigation measures . Commissioner Balalis stated his preference that the improvements come to the street and inter- section locations until they are taken care of, -3- ' } COMMISSIONERS \ December 20 , 1979 MINUTES i 0 n= City of Newport Beach KOLL CALL INDEX and then if there is no intersection improvement ' because of an external force such as regi.onal traffic, then future projects should consider other means , other than fiscal improvements . ' Commissioner Thomas commented that in order to undergo a large project of a transit type facility , it will require the co-operation of all Jurisdic- tions , and provisions should be made for future implementation over and above short-term striping , then a problem will be solved. ' Commissioner Balalis stated his understanding that there was a requirement of Corporate Plaza I and; II of an OCTD facility. The Public Hearing was opened regarding this item and Ron Hendrickson , Irvine Company, appeared be- fore the Planning Commission and stated that the ' shuttle service was a condition of approval• for Corporate Plaza and an additional requirement that they provide $300,000 to fund the shuttle system and donate the 3 acre site for the terminal faci- lities , said system of which would not be imple- mented until approximately 1984, predicated on a density increase of Newport Center. ' Commissioner Thomas expressed his feeling that- OCTD has been less than aggressive in certain area and that their bus strategy is based on high-den- sity priority population , such as the elderly and handicapped, and he stated his desire that they be - come more aggressive by providing right-of-way land and perhaps funding for construction. Mr. Hendrickson stated that .there is another site which The Irvine Company has agreed to donate which is north of the Santa Ana Freeway, north of thegolden triangle Irvine Center area. Commissioner Thomas stated his understanding that the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor will be funded in part by transit capabilities and as it becomes a major transit corridor, the location adjacent to The Irvine Industrial Complex ' -4- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES _ December 20, 1979 � s � S ai � � City of Newport Beach KOII. CALL INDEX is excellent, and he expressed his feeling that efforts should be concentrated in that area and linking high employment centers to that area. ' Mr. Hendrickson again appeared before the Planning Commission and explained that the City Council action on General Plan Amendment 79-1 has left ' Civic Plaza as a part of Newport Center square footage to the degree that they have noted that the 234,706 sq. ft. could be built in Civic Plaza ' and the fact that this was done with a Negative Declaration is indicative of a lack of concern that there isn ' t a serious traffic problem by virtue of this project. He then described the ' characteristics and aesthetics of the proposed project, stating that there were 16 intersections which needed to be analyzed, the results of which verified that there is only one intersection with ' which the impact of the 70% would go beyond . 90 ICU, and that they have proposed mitigation mea- sures at that intersection which would bring the ICU down below the . 90 ICU. He explained that these figures do not include the other 30%, so that in fact these intersections are being im- proved beyond the' reduction in ICU that is shown ' in the traffic report and that the intent of the test of reasonableness is that for those review- ing the project, it is a judgement call . ' In response to a question posed by Commissioner Haidinger, Weston Pringle , The Irvine Company, replied that they concerned themselves only with the intersections above .90 ICU . ' In response to a question posed by Commissioner Thomas regarding distribution, Mr. Pringle replied that the distribution for this project was based upon SCAAG population distributions for Orange County and that this distribution is similar to the Plaza distribution. In response to a question posed by -Commissioner Hiadinger, Mr. Webb replied- that a second left turn: lane was added in each direction and The Irvine Company had not considered it because they felt that there was not sufficient right-of-way ' -5- r C.UMMISSIUNtKS MINU 1 1:5 x December 6 , 1979 sCa0 co N City of Newport Beach ROIL (:ALL INDEX now and that it might require moving a curb and ' gutter over 10 feet and possibly a median loca- tion. ' In response to a question posed by Commissioner Balalis , Mr. Webb replied that some of the inter- sections have gone beyond . 90 since their latest studies in July, so that they were not aware of ' the serious problem until this summer, so that they have not yet implemented any changes . In response to a question posed by Commissioner ' Beek , Mr. Pringle replied that the information indicated that there -was some concern regarding adequate night-of-way on the Irvine side of the ' intersection, which was why they had not incorpor- ated it. Commissioner Beek stated his understanding that, if there are any intersections left with an ICU ' of more than .90, that technically the project is susceptible of being rejected because the criteria ' established by the Planning Commission and City Council state that an intersection must be below .90 if their traffic increases by 2% or more. ' Commissioner Haidinger stated his understanding that the Traffic Phasing Ordinance does not apply to this project and what does apply is the test of reasonableness and that the Planning Commission ' has discretion. Mr. Pringle responded to Commissioner Beek ' s com- ment, stating that if they have an intersection ' above . 90, they make the best effort they can to reduce it. ' In response to a question posed by Commissioner Balalis , Mr. Pringle replied that the eventual extension of the freeway will mitigate the' pro- blem and expressed his feeling that it would not ' be practical to go into a major reconstruction, because it would not solve the problem which would be solved eventually by the freeway extension. COMMISSIONERS MINUTES December 20 , 1979 r m ouS 5 o W iu D 0 5 A 0 N City of Newport Beach ROI L CALL INDEX ' In response to a question posed by Commissioner Balalis , Mr. Webb replied that there might be room to put a left-turn lane, though that would ' not bring the ICU down below .90, but would bring it down from . 97 to . 92, that the state would not agree to approve this improvement at this time, as this area is projected as a 1981-1982 area, ' and that the extension will probably be completed in 4 years . Commissioner Balalis suggested a triple right turn lane , to which Mr. Webb expressed his doubt that it could be implemented so that it would function and that right now there is back-up ' on Bristol Street at the red light, as the inter- sections are very close and traffic has difficult merging into the right turn lane to get onto the freeway, so that Birch Street has become more im- pacted. Commissioner Allen posed a question , to which Mr. Webb replied that there are two through lanes southbound on Jamboree Road and is designated a major arterial which would have 3 lanes in each . direction, so that there would be an additional ' through lane added to Jamboree Road when the Master Plan is built out, which is the same situa- tion at San Joaquin Hills Road. He further ex- plained that northerly of San Joaquin Hills Road the pavement section is completed, and southerly of San •Joaquin Hills Road , Jamboree Road will be widened to Coast Highway to add the third lane. ' In response to a question posed by Commissioner Thomas , Mr. Webb replied that there are numerous road-widening projects around the City and ' $17 ,000,000- 20,000,000 would be necessary to complete these master plan road sections . Motion x Motion was made that the Planning Commission make ' the findings as indicated in Exhibit "A" of the Staff Report and approve Vie Phasing Plan for the remaining development in the Civic Plaza Planned Community, subject to the conditions as indicated in Exhibit "A" of the Staff Report, with the im- provement that a left turn lane be added on Jam- , • ' -7- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES December 20, 1979 ' s C a � City of Newport Beach ROIL CALL INDEX boree Road in both directions with figures in- dicating what this would entail . Commissioner Allen suggested that the option be ' left open that the company can come back to the Planning Commission before the next meeting if there is a problem. ' Commissioner Allen expressed her feeling that this is a very major project and suggested an added condition. ' Motion x Amendment to the Motion was made that a condition be added that this project to mitigate the traffic •that it cannot mitigate at the intersection which ' requires the building of the Corona del Mar Free- way that it include the improvement to the right hand turn lane at the San Joaquin Hills Road/ Jamboree Road intersection. II' ' Mr. Hendrickson again appeared before the Planning Commission and reminded them that The Irvine Com- pany provided the land for that free right turn lane with the condition that the City would build the free right turn lane, and that regarding the previous discussion of the Jamboree Rdad/MacArthu ' Boulevard intersection , there is a possibility that the cost of doing what they want to do there due to the signalization changes may run as much as $200,0'00, and he expressed his ,feeling that ' the payment of the free right turn lane at Jam boree Road isn' t going to improve traffic where it needs to be improved. ' Motion x Amendment to the Motion was made that the 'City reimbursement funds received be put toward a transit fund. ' Mr. Webb stated that the funds that would be uti- lized for constructing this project would be 50% City gas tax funds and 50% HFP funds , so that ' if the County funds were not used, they would not come to the City. Commissioner Thomas stated his understanding that if it is a reimbursement, the gas tax funds would be spent for the purposes intended or the reim- bursement be considered a donation to the transit -8- I' COMMISSIONERS MINUTES g December 20, 1979 3 5 City of Newport 'Beach UI L CALL INDEX fund for The Irvine Company' s best interest. ' In response to a question posed by Commissioner Haidinger, Mr. Webb replied that. the estimates ' for the project were between $160,000 and 430� " $190,000 for the right turn lane on Jamboree Road. Commissioner Allen commented that her Amendment was made as a suggested tradeoff for the fact that they still have an intersection that is over .90 about which they can do nothing and ' about which nothing will be done until the com- pletion of the Corona del Mar Freeway. t In response to a question posed by Commissioner McLaughlin regarding the Amendment, Commissioner Allen further commented that the project is just adjacent to the intersection, making it prac- ie tically an on-site road improvement and that according to "Table 3" , most of the peak hour traffic that it generates goes through that intersection and she suggested that they solve ' the problem before they have one, since they cannot solve a problem they already have in any reasonable fashion. ' Commissioner Balalis expressed his opposition to the Amendment, stating regarding the inter- section that cannot be made to go below .90 , ' that as the figures show that as of the present time , in 1981 without the project the ICU will go up to 1.21 and with the project the ICU goes up to 1. 22, but with the mitigation that ' is being done, the ICU goes back down to . 97 and that, as he stated his understanding ac- cording to the "Test of Reasonableness" , if a ' project does not make worse , but improves an intersection, this should be taken into con- sideration. Commissioner Allen drew attention to "Item 1" that states that no project-related improve- -9- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES December 20 , 1979 I W w 3 F ' y City of Newport Beach Ins ROI L CALL INULX ' ments are considered in the calculation when it gets to 1.2186; however, that intersection, because of where it is located that 1. 2186 would presume no project at all that impact that intersection will do any improvement to that intersection. ' Ayes x x x Commissioner Allen ' s Amendment to the Motion Noes K x x K was then voted on, which MOTION FAILED. ' Ayes x x >x Commissioner Thomas ' Amendment to the Motion Noes x x was then voted on, which MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Balalis stated his understanding ' that the intent of Commissioner Thomas ' Amend- ment was that The Irvine Company will pay the City ' s share of the funds for improving the right turn lane on Jamboree Road, and those ' funds will be placed in a City Transit -Fund. Commissioner Balalis stated his understanding that if a transit system is not set up , The Irvine Company would not be required to pay the funds , to which Commissioner Thomas agreed. ' Mr. Webb expressed his concern that if The Ir- vine Company reimburses the City, there is a ' question about the ability for us to maintain the same gas tax funds , and suggested that The Irvine Company deposit the fund directly into a transit fund. t ' -10- i . 0 <' 1� 0 ,0 M? ;SS 10N;_19$ / MINUTES %� City of Newport rgea?­ch T �� 1. v 00lo March 22 , 1979' � ILL CALL INDEX �tion x Motionm.,was made that the Planning Commission ap- prove Re con No . 622 , subject to the find- ings and colrc(itions as set forth in the Staff ' Report. `�.• Commissioner McLaug{�lin stated that until City Council has adopted ado`dominium Ordinance , she ' would necessarily vote "noll a condominium con- version . es x x Motion was then voted on , which M0`T­ ON FAILED . es x x sent x x x ltion x Motion was then made t arihat the public he g be re- es x x x opened and that Resubdivision No . 622 be cont-gued es x to the regular Planning Commission Meeting of Ap'il ' Absent x x x 5 , 1979 , which MOTION CARRIED . Request for the approval of a Phasing Plan for the Item remaining- development in the Civic Plaza Planned Community. PHASIN ' t=C PLAN , Location: Property bounded by Santa Barbara Drive , San Clemente Drive ., Santa NrATA ' Cruz Drive , San Joaquin Hills Road , T'T ME and Jamboree Road , adjacent to New- C01TlUN port Center. ' Applicant : The Irvine Company ,- Newport Beach REMOVE FROM T The Planning Commission removed Item No. 8 from the CALEND ' calendar as per the applicant' s request , to allow the applicant time to provide the additional in- formation required by the City Council . ' Request to amend a previously approved use permit Item u c. that permitted the establishment of a restaurant `',__facility with on-sale alcoholic beverages on the USE PEF site The proposed development includes live en- P4IT NO . ' terta nhlent and the expansion of the dining areas 1M within the exis ting Le Biarritz restaurant use. A AM D modification to the Zoning Code is also requested , EDP since a portion of the--expanded structure , a trash enclosure , and a portion o`f-th, e proposed on-site CONTIN w, UED TO ' APRIL 1979 City Council Meeting February 11 , 1980 ' Agenda Item No . D-1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1 February 6, 1480 ' TO : City Council FROM: Planning Department ' SUBJECT: Public hearing and City Council review regarding a request of The Irvine Company, Newport Beach , to consider a Phasing Plan for the remaining development ' in the Civic Plaza Planned Community District, and the acceptance of an Environmental Document. ' LOCATION: The Planned Community of Civic Plaza , generally bounded by San Joaquin Hills Road, Santa Cruz Drive , San Clemente Drive , Santa Barbara Drive , and Jamboree Road, in Newport Center ' ZONE : P-C ' Suggested Action ' Hold hearing ; close hearing; if desired, accept the Environmental Docu- ment and sustain, modify or overrule the decision of the Planning Com- mission . ' Request The Irvine Company has requested approval of a Phasing Plan to comply ' with Resolution No . 9517 of the Newport Beach City Council , and Amend- ment No. 527 as they pertain to the Planned Community Development Plan for Civic Plaza. Additionally , they have requested the acceptance of ' an Environmental Document. Planning Commission Recommendation ' At the December 20, 1979 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Com- mission accepted the Environmental Document and approved the Phasing Plan (6 Ayes , 1 No) with the Finding and subject to the Conditions ' indicated in Exhibit "A" attached. Conformance with the General Plan ' The Newport Beach General Plan permits 234 , 706 sq . ft. of development in Civic Plaza so long as the total expansion of office development in Newport Center does not exceed 686 ,518 sq . ft. ITO : City Council - 2. ' Environmental Significance ' The City of Newport Beach Environmental Affairs Committee has re- viewed the project and determined that it will not have significant environmental effect.. A copy of the Negative Declaration is attached. Phasing. Plan The applicants have indicated that development in the Civic Plaza Plan- ned Community, if the Phasing Plah is approved, would occur as follows : PHASING •SCHEDULE ,• EXISTING DEVELOPMENT Art Museum 20 ,000 sq . ft. ' 1980', OCCUPANCY Library 14,000 sq .ft. Offices 81 ,812 sq . ft. 1981 OCCUPANCY Art Museum 10 ,00L sq . ft. Restaurant 8,000 sq . ft. ' Offices 152,894 sq.ft. Theater 20 ,000 sq .ft. ' Resolution No . 9517 Attached for the City Council ' s consideration is a copy of the appli- cants ' response to the guidelines for reviewing the Phasing Plan., Additionally,- a copy of Resolution No . 9517 and the City Council minutes for March 12 , 1979 are attached. ' Traffic Report A Traffic Report was prepared for the applicant by Weston Pringle ' and Associates . The Traffic Report examined the seventeen inter- sections identified for'.analysis in the �Traffic Phasing Ordinance . It is summarized on the following page: t TO : City Council - 3. ' Table 4 ICU SUMMARY CIVIC PLAZA EXISTING EXISTING +(I) EXISTING+(I) EXISTING+(2) ' REGIONAL + REGIONAL+ REGIONAL+ COMMITTED COMMITTED+ COMMITTED+ 30% PROJECT PROJECT INTERSECTION 1981 1981 1982 _ ' Bristol St.N. & Campus Dr. 0.9262 0.8950 0.8950 0.8968 Bristol St. & Campus Dr. 0.7650 0.6669 0.6694 0.6781 ' Coast Highway & Dover Dr. 0.9510 0.6788 0.6854 0.7017 Coast Highway & Bayside Dr. 0.8540 0.7753 0.7820 0.7982 ' Coast Highway & Jamboree Rd. 0.9140 0.8337 0.8381 0.8497 Coast Highway & Marguerite Ave. 0.7957 0.8531 0.8572 0.8691 Jamboree Rd. & Santa Barbara Dr. 0.5745 0.6341 0.6404 0.6543 Jamboree Rd. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. 0.7375 0.6966 0.6981 0.7012 Jamboree Rd. & Ford Rd. 0.9128 0.7877 0.7971 0.8191 ' Jamboree Rd. & Bristol St. 0.6381 0.7446 0.7547 0.7792 Jamboree Rd. & Bristol St.N. 0.8781 0.8298 0.8378 0.8563 ' Jamboree Rd. & MacArthur Blvd. 0.9934 1 .1051 1.1095 1 .0003 MacArthur Blvd. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. 0.7664 0.8333 0.8457 0.8757 ' MacArthur Blvd. & Ford Rd. 1 .1631 0.8947 0.9047 0.8103 Bristol St.N. & Birch St. 0.8569 1 .2186 1.2257 0.9751 ' (1) No Project Related Improvements are Considered in Calculations (2) Project Related Improvements are Included ' The Traffic Report found that Project Traffic is entimated to be less than 2% of projected two and one-half hour traffic volume only at the inter- sections of: 1 ) Coast Highway/Newport Center Drive , and 2) Coast High- way/MacArthur Boulevard . Therefore, ICU calculations were made for the ' remaining fifteen intersections as noted above. The applicant's consul - tant has indicated that only two intersections , Bristol Street North/ Birch Street and Jamboree Road/MacArthur Boulevard, will be operating ' upon completion of the project at 0 .9000 or greater. TO: City Council - 4. ' At the December 20, 1979 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission conditioned the approval of the Phasing Plan so as to ' require improvements beyond those suggested by the applicant at the intersection of Jamboree Road/MacArthur Boulevard (see Exhibit "'A" ) The effect of these improvements would be to reduce the ICU at this intersection to below .90. ' A summary of the applicant' s Traffic Consultant' s comments on the intersection that will be operating upon completion of the project at 0. 9000 or greater is given below: "Bristol Street North and Birch Street. Review of Table 4 and the related streets in Appendices B and C indicates that the recommended project related improvements would reduce the ICU value at this intersection from 1 .2199 to 0 .9751 in 1982. It also indicates that the ICU value in 1981 would be 1 .2186 . ' The project and its related improvements would improve the operation of this intersection although it would exceed 0 .90 . " Noise Attenuation on Jamboree Road ' It has been the policy of the City on previous project approvals which would add traffic to Jamboree Road to require a deposit to be posted with the City Finance Director for the future construction of a wall along the westerly side of Jamboree Road, which would serve to reduce the impact of highway associated noise from existing homes between Eastbluff Drive and Ford Road. To date Pacific Mutual has committed ' $13,000 and the Daon Corporation has agreed to a deposit of $27,993. Based upon the remaining traffic that would be added to Jamboree Road by the Civic Plaza Project, The Irvine Company' s deposit in this case ' would be $44 ,530. Subject to concurrence by the City Council , the staff would suggest the following condition be added to the approval of this project: ' 8. That prior to the issuance of any building permit authorized by the approval of this Traffic Phasing Plan, the applicant shall deposit with the City ' Finance Director, $44,530.00 to be used for the construction of a wall on the westerly side of Jamboree Road between Eastbluff Drive and Ford Road. ' Respectfully submitted, ' PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D . H WIC ER Director ' by FRED T L I Environmental Coordinator FT/kk ' TO: City Council - 5 . ' Attachments for City Council only: Exhibits "A" and "B" ' 1 ) Planning Commission Minutes - December 20, 1979 2) Resolution No . 9517 3) City Council Minutes - March 12, 1979 - "Civic Plaza" ' 4) City Council Minutes - March 12 , 1979 - "Test of Reasonableness" 5) Narrative on Planning Commission - "Test of Reasonableness " t July, 1979 6 ) Negative Declaration 7) Report Planning Department - "Contributions for Jamboree Road ' Noise Attenuation Wall " 8) Traffic Report - November 20 , 1979 ' Additional Information The proposed project was -originally before the Planning Commission in August, 1979 . Since that time the project has been continued at the request of the applicant and Planning Commission. The following infor- mation was submitted to the Planning Commission for its consideration in review of this project but has not been forwarded to the City Council as it is not reflective of the present project. ' 1 ) Planning Commission Minutes - August 9 , 1979 2) Planning Commission Minutes - September 20, 1979 3) Planning Commission Minutes - October 4, 1979 ' 4) Planning Commission Minutes - October 18, 1979 5) Staff Report - August 9, 1979 a) Letter - The Irvine Company, July 10, 1979 b Traffic Report prepared by Weston Pringle and Associates dated July 5, 1979 , for the applicants 6) Staff Report - August 16 , 1979 a) Corrections to Traffic Report - Weston Pringle & ' Associates - August 14 , 1979 ' Should any member of the City Council wish a copy of any of the above information , please contact the Planning Department at 640-2197. All ' of the above information and all attachments to this report are avail - able for public review and inspection at the City of Newport Beach , Planning Department, 3300 West Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach , California 92663 EXHIBIT "A" Findings and Conditions of Approval as Recommended by the Planning Commission - December 20, 1979 ' Approval FINDINGS : 1 . That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and ' City Policy K-3, and that their contents have been considered in the decision on this project. 2 . That based on the information contained in the Initial Study ' and Negative Declaration , the project will not result in significant environmental impacts . 3. That the Phasing Plan is consistent with the Newport Beach ' General Plan and the Planned Community Development Plan for Civic Plaza . ' 4 . That based on the Phasing Plan and supporting information sub- mitted therewith , there is a reasonable correlation between projected traffic at time of completion and the capacity of affected intersections . ' 5 . That the applicant has taken into consideration in the prepara- tion of his plan characteristics in the design of his develop- ment which either reduce traffic generation or guide traffic onto less impacted arterials or through intersections in the least congested direction . CONDITIONS : ' 1 . That prior to the occupancy of any buildings on the site beyond the existing development and 95,812 sq . ft. of new construction , the circulation system improvements contained in the Traffic Report, dated November 20, 1979 , Table 5 , Pages 7 through 9 , ' and Planning Commission Minutes of December 20, 1979 , shall have been constructed, ( unless subsequent project approval require modification thereto . The circulation systems ' improvements ' shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer) . 2. That prior to the issuance of any building permits , the appli - cants shall indicate to the Director of the Planning Department, ' in writing, that they understand and agree to Condition 1 above . 3. The following disclosure statement of the City of Newport Beach ' s policy regarding the Orange County Airport should be included in all leases or sub-leases for space in the project and shall be included in any Covenants , Conditions , and Restrictions which may be recorded against the property . - 2 - Disclosure Statement ' The Lessee herein , his heirs , successors and assigns acknow- ledge that: ' a ) The Orange County Airport may not be able to provide adequate air service for business establishments which rely on such service ; ' b) When an alternate air facility is available , a complete phase-out of jet service may occur at the Orange County Airport; ' c) The City of Newport Beach may continue to oppose additional commercial air service expansions at the Orange County 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 service ' at the Orange County Airport. 4. The on-site parking will be provided im accordance with the ' Newport Beach Municipal Code . 5 . Final design of the project shall provide for the incorpora- tion of water-saving devices for project lavatories and other ' water-using facilities . 6 . The final design of the project shall provide for the sorting ' of recyclable material from other solid waste . 7. The applicant shall contribute an amount equal to what would be the City ' s share of the cost of the free right-turn lane ' on Jamboree Road behind the Texaco Station to a "Transit Fund" to be used at the discretion of the City for transit purposes in the Newport Center area . EXHIBIT "B" Recommended Findings and Conditions of Denial FINDINGS . ' 1 . That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration has been pre- pared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and City Policy K-3, and that their contents have been ' considered in the decision on this project. 2 . That based on the information contained in the Initial Study ' and Negative Declaration, the project will not result in significant environmental impacts . 3. That the Phasing Plan is consistent with the Newport Beach General Plan and the Planned Community Development Plan for Civic Plaza. ' 4. That based on the Phasing Plan and supporting information submitted therewith , there is not a reasonable correlation between projected traffic at time of completion and the capacity of the intersection of Bristol Street North/Birch Street. 1 1 1 �I , I COMMISSIONERS Regular Planning Commission Meeting 'MINUTES Place: City Council Chambers Time: 7 : 30 P .M. � s p��NErJT11o. � ' 101 d Date: December 20 , 1979 A00 W jF City of Newport Beach J , fly M fN J ' ROII. CALL I I I I INDEX Present x x x x x ' EX- ICIO MEMBERS Hugh Co ' n , City Attorney ' STAFF MEMBER James Hewicker, anning Director ' Fred Talarico, Env onmental Coordinator Don Webb, Assistant ty Engineer Glenna Gipe , Secretary Minutes Written By: Glenna Gip Motion Motion was made to approve -the minutes the re- Ayes x x < x gular Planning Commission meeting of Dece er 6, Abstain x x 1979 , with the addition of an added conditih, on Page 11 . ' LLOiWNt04r O a¢tWpi4MMW.,YLYJ..y.ad.v6u ` Request to consider a Phasing Plan for the remain- .Item #1 ' ing development in the Civic Plaza Planned Commu- nity District, and the acceptance of an Environ- PHASING mental Document. PLAN ' LOCATION: The Planned Community of Civic APPROVED Plaza , generally bounded by San CONDI- Joaquin Hills Road, Santa Cruz TIONALLY Drive, San Clemente Drive, Santa ' Barbara Drive , and Jamboree Road, in Newport Center. ' ZONE: P-C APPLICANT: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach ' OWNER: Same as Applicant III ' Don Webb , Assistant City Engineer, commented that the ICU analysis indicates that if a left turn lane were added on Jamboree Road in both direc- tions , the ICU at Jamboree Road and MacArthur -I- 1 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES = December 20 , 1979 3 City of Newport Beach ' ROIL ('ALL INDEX oulevard could be reduced to .8725 . ' ommissioner Haidinger posed a question , to which r. Webb replied that they are in the process of ' attempting to implement several of these minor irculation systems improvements . In response to a question posed by Commissioner ' Cokas , Mr. Webb replied that a restriping job would range from $2,000 to $5,000 and that the most expensive aspect of it is the sandblasting and traffic control during the period of time . in ' which they are trying to implement the project. Commissioner Balalis stated his understanding that one year ago when the traffic phasing analysis was ' begun , they found it to be the case universally that a developer would come before ,the Planning Commission with a project and an additional right ' turn only lane was on Campus Drive and Bristol Street and it reduced traffic immensely and it was suggested that the City undergo those projects themselves . ' Mr. Webb commented that Pacific Mutual is the firs to attempt to implement some of these improvements relative to minor widening projects , and that they ' have been waiting for the developer to come up with the money, rather than doing it with the City' s public funds . ' Commissioner Beek suggested a highway action team to find the problems and enact changes. ' Mr. Webb responded that most of the improvements mentioned are presently in the process of trying to be implemented, but that the City does not ' have the finances to finance the project and col - lect it from the developer later. Commissioner Balalis suggested that these inter- sections be analyzed. Mr. Webb commented that they have been working with the MacArthur Place Development for The Ir- vine Company in the preparation and processing of plans , which company has already applied for an -2- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES K December 20 , 1979 n = w2 R i6City of Newport Beach ROIL CALL INDEX encroachment permit for the additional widening of Campus Drive and MacArthur Boulevard, and a signal modification project has to be implemented, which is CalTrans ' responsibility. In response to a comment from Commissioner Haidin- • ger, Mr. Webb replied that various different traffic studies over the last few months have been analyzed and for the necessary improvements , more is required than merely changing the striping. ' He further commented that the ICU analyses put together were for the 1979 year with no recommen- dation as to what additional traffic would be added for the various different areas in the up- coming year. Commissioner Thomas suggested a list of 10 inter- sections with a task list and budget for each . In response to a question posed by Commissioner Thomas , Fred Talarico , Environmental Coordinator, responded that under the Ford-Aeronutronic Traf- fic Phasing Plan and overall environmental pack- age , they were required to maintain certain levels of carpooling and an investigation of other items. ' Commissioner Thomas suggested that one of the ele- ments of the Phasing Plan includes the beginning . of construction of the Park-n-Ride on Jamboree ' Road and MacArthur Boulevard or acquisition of another right-of-way lane in Newport Center so that future problems would be mitigated. ' Commissioner Beek replied that the City Council in interpreting the Traffic Phasing Ordinance has specified that only verifiable improvements could ' be counted as mitigation measures . Commissioner Balalis stated his preference that ' the improvements come to the street and inter- section locations until they are taken care of, ' -3- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES g December 20 , 1979 x 3 ? 0 aCity of Newport Beach ' ROLL CALL INDEX ' and then if there is no intersection improvement because of an external force such as regional traffic, then future projects should consider other means , other than fiscal improvements . ' Commissioner Thomas commented that in order to undergo a large project of a transit type facility , it will require the co-operation of all jurisdic- tions , and provisions should be made for future implementation over and above short-term striping, then a problem will be solved. ' Commissioner Balalis stated his understanding that there was a requirement of Corporate Plaza I and; II of an OCTD facility. ' The Public Hearing was opened regarding this item and Ron Hendrickson , Irvine Company, appeared be- fore the Planning Commission and stated that the ' shuttle service was a condition of approval for Corporate Plaza and an additional requirement that they provide $300,000 to fund the shuttle system t and donate the 3 acre site for the terminal faci - lities , said system of which would not be imple- mented until approximately 1984, predicated on a density increase of Newport Center. ' Commissioner Thomas expressed his feeling that- OCTD has been less than aggressive in certain area and that their bus strategy is based on high-den- sity priority population, such as the elderly and handicapped, and he stated his desire that they be - come more aggressive by providing right-of-way ' land and perhaps funding for construction. Mr. Hendrickson stated that .there is another site which The Irvine Company has agreed to donate ' which is north of the Santa Ana Freeway, north of thegolden triangle Irvine Center area . Commissioner Thomas stated his understanding that the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor will be funded in part by transit capabilities and as it becomes a major transit corridor, the ' location adjacent to The Irvine Industrial Complex ' -4 ' 1 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES December 20, 1979 r m l City of Newport Beach ' ROII. (;ALL INDEX ' is excellent, and he expressed his feeling that efforts should be concentrated in that area and linking high employment centers to that area. ' Mr. Hendrickson again appeared before the Planning Commission and explained that the City Council action on General Plan Amendment 79-1 has left ' Civic Plaza as a part of Newport Center square footage to the degree that they have noted that the 234,706 sq. ft. could be built in Civic Plaza and the fact that ' this was done with a Negative ' Declaration is indicative of a lack of concern that there isn ' t a serious traffic problem by virtue of this project. He then described the ' characteristics and aesthetics of the proposed project, stating that there were 16 intersections which needed to be analyzed, the results of which verified that there is only one intersection with ' which the impact of the 70% would go beyond . 90 ICU, and that they have proposed mitigation mea- sures at that intersection which would bring the ' ICU down below the . 90 ICU. He explained that these figures do not include the other 30%, so that in fact these intersections are being im- proved beyond the reduction in ICU that is shown ' in the traffic report and that the intent of the test of reasonableness is that for those review- ing the project, it is a judgement call . ' In response to a question posed by Commissioner Haidinger, Weston Pringle., The Irvine Company, replied that they concerned themselves only with ' the intersections above .90 ICU . In response to a question posed by Commissioner Thomas regarding distribution, Mr. Pringle replied ' that the distribution fo'r this project was based upon SCAAG population distributions for Orange County and that this distribution is similar to the Plaza distribution. In response to a question posed by -Commissioner Hiadinger, Mr. Webb replied that a second left ' turn: lane was added in each direction and The Irvine Company had not considered it because they felt that there was not sufficient right-of-way -5- ' C.UMMISSIUNEKS MINU I ES � x December 6, 1979 ' 0 w a � � N � City of Newport Beach ' KUI L CALL INDEX now and that it might require moving a curb and gutter over 10 feet and possibly a median loca- tion. ' In response to a question posed by Commissioner Balalis , Mr. Webb replied that some of the inter- sections have gone beyond . 90 since their latest studies in July, so that they were not aware of the serious problem until this summer, so that they have not yet implemented any changes. In response to a question posed by Commissioner ' Beek, Mr. Pringle replied that the information indicated that there was some concern regarding adequate night-of-way on the Irvine side of the ' intersection, which was why they had not incorpor- ated it. Commissioner Beek stated his understanding that. ' if there are any intersections left with an ICU ' of more than 90, that technically the project is susceptible of being rejected because the criteria established by the Planning Commission and City ' Council state that an intersection must be below .90 if their traffic increases by 2% or more. ' Commissioner Haidinger stated his understanding that the Traffic Phasing Ordinance does not apply to this project and what does apply is the test of reasonableness and that the Plann.ing Commission ' has discretion. Mr. Pringle responded to Commissioner Beek' s com- ment, stating that if they have an intersection ' above . 90, they make the best effort they can to reduce it. ' In response to a question posed by Commissioner Balalis, Mr. Pringle replied that the eventual extension of the freeway will mitigate• the' pro- blem and expressed his feeling that it would not ' be practical to go into a major reconstruction, because it would not solve the problem which would be solved eventually by the freeway extension. COMMISSIONERS MINUTES December 20 , 1979 3 coCit of Newport Beach ' ROLL CALL INDEX ' In response to a question posed by Commissioner Balalis , Mr. Webb replied that there might be room to put a left-turn lane , though that would ' not bring the ICU down below .90, but would bring it down from . 97 to .92, that the state would not agree to approve this improvement at this time, as this area is projected as a 1981-1982 area, ' and that the extension will probably be completed in 4 years . ' Commissioner Balalis suggested a triple right turn lane, to which Mr. Webb expressed his doubt that it could be implemented so that it would function and that right now there is back-up on Bristol Street at the red light, as the inter- sections are very close and traffic has difficult merging into the right turn lane to get onto the freeway, so that Birch Street has become more im- pacted. Commissioner Allen posed a question, to which Mr. ' Webb replied that there are two through lanes southbound on Jamboree Road and is designated a major arterial which would have 3 lanes in each direction, so that there would be an additional ' through lane added to Jamboree Road when the Master Plan is built out, which is the same situa- tion at San Joaquin Hills Road. He further ex- plained that northerly of San Joaquin Hills Road ' the pavement section is completed. and southerly of San Joaquin Hills Road, Jamboree Road will be widened to Coast Highway to add the third lane. ' In response to a question posed by Commissioner Thomas , Mr. Webb replied that there are numerous road-widening projects around the City and $17,000 ,000- 20,000,000 would be necessary to complete these master plan road sections'. Motion x Motion was made that the Planning Commission make the findings as indicated in Exhibit "A" of the Staff Report and approve the Phasing Plan for the remaining development in the Civic Plaza Planned ' Community, subject to the conditions as indicated in Exhibit "A" of the Staff Report, with the im- provement that a left turn lane be added on Jam- -7- ' \a COMMISSIONERS MINUTES December 20, 1979 J ° a0 0 X w L. City of Newport Beach ' ROIL CALL INDEX boree Road in both directions with figures in- dicating what this would entail . Commissioner Allen suggested that the option be left open that the company can come back to the Planning Commission before the next meeting if there is a problem. ' Commissioner Allen expressed her feeling that this is a very major project and suggested an added condition . ' Motion x Amendment to the Motion was made that a condition be added that this project to mitigate the traffic -that it cannot mitigate at the intersection which ' requires the building of the Corona del Mar Free- way that it include the improvement to the right hand turn lane at the San Joaquin Hills Road/ Jamboree Road intersection. ' Mr. Hendrickson again appeared before the Planning Commission and reminded them that The Irvine Com- pany provided the land for that free right turn ' lane with the condition that the City would build the free right turn lane, and that regarding the previous discussion of the Jamboree Road/MacArthur ' Boulevard intersection , there is a possibility that the cost of doing what they want to do there due to the signalization changes may run as much as $200,000, and he expressed his feeling that ' the payment of the free right turn lane at Jam- boree Road isn' t going to improve traffic where it needs to be improved. ' Motion x Amendment to the Motion was made that the City reimbursement funds received be put toward a transit fund. Mr. Webb stated that the funds that would be uti- lized for constructing this project would be 50% City gas tax funds and 50% HFP funds , so that ' if the County funds were not used, they would not come to the City. Commissioner Thomas stated his understanding that if it is a reimbursement, the gas tax funds would be spent for the purposes intended or the reim- bursement be considered a donation to the transit 1 -8- 1 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES December 20, 1979 ' -ism 0 s0 City of Newport Beach ' ROI L CALL INDEX 1 fund for The Irvine Company 's best interest. ' In response to a question posed by Commissioner Haidinger, Mr. Webb replied that. the estimates for the project were between $160,000 and ' $190,000 for the right turn lane on Jamboree Road. Commissioner Allen commented that her Amendment was made as a suggested tradeoff for the fact that they still have an intersection that is over . 90 about which they can do nothing and ' about which nothing will be done until the com- pletion of the Corona del Mar Freeway. ' In response to a question posed by Commissioner McLaughlin regarding the Amendment, Commissioner Allen further commented that the project is just adjacent to the intersection, making it prac- tically an on-site road improvement and that according to "Table 3" , most of the peak hour 'traffic that it generates goes through that intersection and she suggested that they solve ' the problem before they have one , since they cannot solve a problem they already have in any reasonable fashion . ' Commissioner Balalis- expressed his opposition to the Amendment, stating regarding the inter- section that cannot be made to go below .90, ' that as the figures show that as of the present time, in 1981 without the project the ICU will go up to 1. 21 and with the project the ICU goes up to 1. 22, but with the mitigation that ' is being done, the ICU goes back down to .97 and that, as he stated his understanding ac- cording to the "Test of Reasonableness" , if a ' project does not make worse, but improves an interseation, this should be taken into con- sideration. ' Commissioner Allen drew attention to "Item 1" that states that no project-related improve- -9- 1 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES g December 20, 1979 C a n QI d 5 W X (P = City of Newport Beach ' ROI L CALL INDEX ' ments are considered in the calculation .when it gets to 1. 2186; however, that intersection, because of where it is located that 1.2186 ' would presume no project at all that impact that intersection will do any improvement to that intersection. ' Ayes x x x Commissioner Allen ' s Amendment to the Motion Noes K x x K was then voted on , which MOTION FAILED. ' Ayes x x x Commissioner Thomas ' Amendment to the Motion Noes x x was then voted on , which MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Balalis stated his understanding ' that the intent of Commissioner Thomas ' Amend- ment was that The Irvine Company will pay the City' s share of the funds for improving the. right turn lane on Jamboree Road, and those ' funds will be placed in a City Transit -Fund . Commissioner Balalis stated his understanding ' that if a transit system is not set up , The Irvine Company would not be required to pay the funds , to which Commissioner Thomas agreed. ' Mr. Webb expressed his concern that if The Ir- vine Company reimburses the City, there is a ' question about the ability for us to maintain the same gas tax funds , and suggested that The Irvine Company deposit the fund directly into a transit fund. ' -10- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES g December 20 , 1979 ' 0 0 w ='R City of Newport Beach KOI L CALL INDEX Mr. Webb suggested identifying the meaning of a ' "Transit Fund" and determining what uses to which a "Transit Fund" could be put. ' Motion x Motion was made to reconsider the Amendment. Ayes x x x x x Noes X Amendment to the Motion was made that The Irvine Motion x Company contribute an amount equal to what would ' Ayes x x xK x be the City' s share of the cost of the free right Noes x x turn lane on Jamboree Road behind the Texaco sta- tion to a "Transit Fund" to be used at the dis- cretion of the City for transit purposes in the Newport Center area , to be introduced as a con- dition . ' Commissioner Beek stated his opposition to the Motion, expressing his feeling that the City Coun- cil had established 1h years ago that the City was not going to continue with major developments ' if the City 'did not have an adequate circulation system to support them. ' Commissioner Thomas stated that he shared Com- missioner Beek's sentiments ; however, that the City is taking a positive step toward establish- ing solutions in the form of transit. ' Ayes xx x x K x Motion was then voted on , which .MOTION CARRIED. mow• - ' Reque to consider revocation of Use Permit No. Item #2 288 tha ermits the operation of a •restaurant ' and cockt ' 1 lounge in the C-1 District, located USE PER- at 3444 Eas Coast Highway in Corona del Mar. M T N . The purpose o the hearing will determine if said , L'�8 permit should be evoked for failure to obtain ' the necessary appr als for live entertainment REVOCA- now existing in the staurant facility known as TION the Jazz Pot. PROCEED- INGS INITIATED BY: The City of ewport Beach ' TERMI- NATED Hugh Coffin , City Attorney, comme)-,ted regarding this item, stating that the Plannin +�C�ommission had received a letter concerning the jazz Pot, t ' -1� ATTKtAI�ENr o I.ESOLUTION NO. ' A RI'SOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCII. OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACII AMESDT_`IG THE PLI"VNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR CIVIC PLAZA REVISING THE ALLOiVl3LE DEVELOPMENT ESTABLISHING ' A PHASING OF DEVELO?DIENT PLA?:, AND ACCEPTING AN ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUb_-NT (AMENDRZNT NO. 527) ' WHEREAS, Section 20.51.045 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that amendments to a Planned Community ' Development Plan shall be approved by a resolution of the City Council setting forth full particulars of the amendments; and ' WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on February 3, 1979, at which time it considered amend- ments to the Planned Community Development Plan for Civic Plaza; and ' WHEREAS, at said public hearing the Planning Commission adopted its Resolution No. 1032 recommending to the City Council ' that certain amendments to the Planned Community Development Plan for Civic Plaza be adopted as follows: 1. The allowed development for the Office Park area ' is reduced by 85,294 square feet, and the Civic Cultural by 16,000 square feet as indicated in the following table: ' Total A:lowable Lard Us (_:•:_:`__ - —_�_1_1 I•)-,.- office Park 320, s�. ft. 234,706 Art Museum 30,5;'0 sc. _ 30,000 Library 30,000 sq. zc. 14,000 Theater 20,000 sq, _t. 20,000 ' Restaurant. 8,000 sq. ft. 8,000 408,000 sq. ft. 306,706 2. A Phasi.ng of Development Plan for, Civic Plaza ho ' adopted to read as follows: "PHASING OF DEV3LO?NE.`IT 3A;000 sq. ft. of development was existing or under construction as of January 1, 3979. Tiee additional allowable development in the total approved development plan is 272,706 sq. ft. Any further development subsequent to Januar 1, 1979, ' in excess of 30% of the additional allowable i development, being 81,812 sq. ft., shall be approved only after it can be demonstrated that adequate traffic facilities will be available to handle that traffic generated by the project at the time of occupancy of the buildings involved. Such demonstration may be made by the presentation i of a phasing plan consistent with the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. In the review of this phasing plan, a test of reasonableness should be applied, rather than the criteria of the f Traffic Phasing Ordinance." 3. The Revised Site Plan, attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof, be adopted; and ' WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that said amendments to the Planned community Development Plan for ' Civic Plaza as set forth above are desirable and necessary; and WHEREAS, the City Council has conducted a public hearing on said proposed amendments in accordance with all provisions of law, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT_ RESOLVED that the City Council ' of the City Of Newport Beach hereby approves the proposed amendments to the Planned Community Development Plan for Civic ' Plaza as set forth hereinabove. ' BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the environmental document ' is thereby accepted. ADOPTED this 12th day of March ,, 1979. ' AT Mayor City CLerk DDO/kb ' 3/8/79 -2- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ATTACHMENT NO. 3 C01IN(.11 MEN MINUTES e, �vp�C�\�Fy�\•2 ' ��•r�9 O�•Y GN 7iiP vJ�\ " p lipl; CALI. � \ � March 12, 1979 INDEX nLion proposrd needs Lo Indlcalr' drgrve of I I permanence meter.[ lho t�� � The regular order of the Agena was resumed. ' I 3. Mayor Ryckoff opened the public bearing regarding Newport Planninz Commission AmgpdTAgpt,_Xo.. 527, a request Center initiated by the City of Newport Beach to consider Civic an amendment_ to the Civic Plaza Planned Community Plaza ' Development Plan to require the preparation of a (2285) traffic—PhafTiW plan and reduction in allowable intensity of development and the acceptance of an Environmental Document on property bounded by San ' Joaquin Hills Road, Santa Cruz Drive, San Clemente " Drive, and Santa Barbara Drive in Newport Center; zoned P-C. A report was presented from the Community Develop- ment Department. Ron Hendrickson of The Irvine Company addressed the Council and stated that Council had voted to make Civic Plaza an excepted project, and asked ' that the revised P-C Plan be approved, and that the project be considered on a 30%/70% approach. Motion 'x The hearing was closed after it was determined All Ayos that no one else desired to be heard. Motion x Councilman Hummel made a motion that the test of reasonableness be applied to 100% of the Civic Plaza project. Councilman Heather made a statemenL for the record, as follows: "I feel that this project which was accepted and has had its zone changed and reduced, and is now being further impinged by ' 100% development review instead of 30%, I think ; that it is beyond the scope of this Council to make that kind - I, personally feel, legally, that we do not have the right to further discrim- ' inate against this project." Motion d Councilman Hart made a substitute motion to continue the item to March 26. Motion I x Councilman McInnis made a.substitute•substituto Ayes xI x x x motion to adopt Resolution No. 9517 amending the R-9517 Noes x {Ix x Planned Comunity Development Plan for•Civic Plaza revising"tile allowable•development "plan, and ' acEeptt ng`en d'vi—oEmen[al"document, which motion i car- cieif:••• P. CONTINUED BUSINESS: 1. Previously considered. .,2, A report was presented from the Community Develop- Newport Plac ,••-alent Department regarding Planning Commission Planned act�io�wi�th__regnrd to a re"quest of Emkay Develop- Community • ment and'1l ty Company for the approval of a (1275) j Volume 33 - Page i i ' ATTACHMENT NO. 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH C'SOUNC•kH MEN\P\r MINUTES h�H I CAI I Match 12, 1979 INDEX ' I I available for potential office building. Addition I I ally, The Irvine Company requests that 4,156 sq. ft. of space be reallocated from Pacific Coast ' I Highway East and West, and 1,511'sq. ft. of space from either Block 500 or Block 700, at their optio , be reallocated to Block 800 in Newport Center to allow for the construction of a 10,000 sq. ft. restaurant which would contain a maximum of 5,667 sq. ft. of net public area. , A report was presented from the Community Develop- ment Department.. ' Harry Bubb, President, and Steven Gavin, Vice President Corporate Relation Officer, of Pacific Mutual Life Insurance addressed the Council. Mr. Gavin stated that they were reducing the elevation ' by three floors and would be willing to continue or not more than six weeks, if necessary; that t y would be willing to eliminate the high-rise con miniums, but that they would continue to be co__ ted to all mitigation required for the two ' ten-st y r buildings, traffic and otherwise, and all othe conditions. Robert Shel I of The Irvine Company, addressed the Council a stated that the condominiums were included in the nvironmental Impact Report because of a pre one direction of the Council. Donald Gralneck, rep senting Pacific Mutual ' I Insurance, addressed a Council and asked if the 1 ordinance were changed delete reference to the residential development; that would require a revision to the ordinance n t time to come back for reintroduction, or i£ it ould be enacted at ' that time. The City Attorney stated that the ction would lower the density of the project an cool&be ' considered on April 23, if continued o that date, without reintroduction. Gary Schamberg, President of Eastbiuff No owners Association, addressed the Council regardin the ' necessity for developers to institute sound a an- uation factors along Jamboree Road, and was ask d to submit a letter with suggestions proposed by Association. ' Nnt inn x I The public hearing was continued to April 23 with. Al1 Ayes the applicant _stipulating concurrence to continuation. ' The Council unanimously agreed to take Agenda_ Item F-1 out of nr_dur and consider it pt tliie Cime. A report was presented from the Communtty Development Department regarding the Planning*Commission's rccom- mendations concerning the definition of the term "reasonableness" as applied to a traffic phasing plan I for "excepted" Planned Community Districts. I � I I 1 Volume 33 - Page 58 I t . 1 1 (:I I Y Ur NEWPORT BEACH COtIN(:ILMEN MINUTES 'S••y\�yiOI\yVp�\c\ 1 ... '•�� �O�'L\G\itp III ICALL 9'p�wNP • March 12, 1979 INDEX Cordon West, President of the Newport Harbor Area 1 I Chamber of Commerce, and Michael C. Coring addressed the Council, but were ruled out of order by the Mayor I for not addressing the subject under consideration. The information to be submitted by the developer, as ; recommended by"the Planning Commission in'conneCti.on with trig test of ceasonab�_'eness fo`r`upp13"cabre planned communities_was modified to chsnge the percentage ,lotion x of increase in�item 3-from'5% to 2%, to revise item 2 1 Ayes x x x x and to add items 7 and'8:.: 'The list was approved as Noes x x x follows. (a) Each project subject to the phasing requirement , 1 of Council Resolution No. 9472 shall be examined as to the extent of existing development and the amount of development remaining to be completed. (b) Information shall be submitted indicating the 1 amount of traffic being generated by existing development, that projected for remaining development, and traffic that will exist after completion of the project. 1 (c) An examination shall be made of the circulation system in the vicinity of the project to determin what improvements remain to be completed, with particular consideration being given to those 1 improvements which will directly aid in moving traffic generated by the project. The area to be examined shall extend to those intersections where traffic generated from the project increase 1 the traffic for any leg of the intersection durin the peak two and one-half hour period by 2% or more. (d) Existing traffic at those intersections shall be 1 shown prior to making any projections. (a) The developer may include in his proposed traffic phasing plan completion of or contribu- tion to completion of needed improvements con- 1 I sistent with the level of traffic generation and a reasonable proportion of the cost of these improvements. i (f) The developer is also to take into consideration 1 in the preparation of his plan characteristics in the design of his development which either I I reduce traffic generation or guide traffic onto less impacted arterials or through intersections 1 I in the least congested direction. (g) Upon receipt of the plan and information, the Commission will determine whether there is a reasonable correlation between projected traffic at time of project completion and capacity of 1 I affected intersections in considering the project for approval. 1 I � � I I 1 i I Volume 33 - Page 59 1 . 1 . CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH f.OUNLII.Mf N MINUTES f+Pl L CAL L ` \e' March 12, 1979 INDEX I (h) Mitigation proposed needs to indicate degree of permanence in order to meet the teSL. i The regular order of the Agena ties resumed. I i 3. Mayor Ryckoff opened the public hearing regarding Newport Planning Commission A0eTL4venS..Ho.. 527, a request Center initiated by the City of Newport Beach to consider Civic an amendment to the Civic Plaza Planned Community Plaza ' Development Plan to require the preparation of a (2285) traffic phasing plan and reduction in allowable intensity of development and the acceptance of an Environmental Document on property bounded by San Joaquin Hills Road, Santa Cruz Drive, San Clemente ' Drive, and Santa Barbara Drive in Newport Center; zoned P-C. A report was presented from the Community Develop- ment Department. Ron Hendrickson of The Irvine Company addressed the Council and stated that Council had voted to make Civic Plaza an excepted project, and asked ' that the revised P-C Plan be approved, and that the project be considered on a 30Z/70% approach. Motion I x The hearing was closed after it was determined All Ayes that no one else desired to be heard. ' I Plo Lion x � Councilman Hummel made a motion that the test of reasonableness be applied to 100% of the Civic Plaza project. ' ' Councilman (leather made a statement for the record, as follows: "I feel that this project which was accepted and has had its zone changed and reduced, and is now being further impinged by ' 1007 development review instead, of 30%, I think ; that it is beyond the scope of this Council to make that kind - I, personally feel, legally, that we do not have the right to further discrim I i inate against this project." ' Nor ion xl Councilman Hart made a substitute motion to I continue the item to March 26. Nol.Con x Councilman McInnis made a•substitute substitute Ayes I x� Ix x x motion to adopt Resolution No. 9517 amending the R-9517 Noes Ix x x ! Planned Community Development Plan-for-Civic Plaza j revising Che Ufowable development pla , and _ ! accepting-ad envi'r6nmenEal7�document, which motion ' i � I caz"rich:. .. .. ...w......,.�......,..,,...... F. CONTINUED BUSINESS: iI 1. Previously considered. J 2. A report was presented f r'tlio Ca mnunity Develop- Newport Place ment Department ing Planning Commission Planned I action.w Bard to a request_ o£ Finkay Develop- Community I I aJFnt nd Realty Company for the approval of a (1275) I I . ' I Volume 33 - Page 60 t II i I I i • 5b0 Nuviporl Center Drive '•• New-port Beach, California 92663 ' (714) 644-3011 RECEIVED '\, Community ,. 1'(.tnning Commission (•'.r-r Devolopment 0(ty of Nowport Hoacl' I`:� JUL101979 �- ' .II00 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 6� CITY OP r' 92663 NEWPOCALIRT /`� ' SUIS,IIiC'1': Civic Plana 'traffic Phasing flan Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission: ' In order to proceed with full development of the Civic Plaza site in accordance with f the CiLy's P.C. district regulations, we are submitting attached Traffic Phasing Plan for your approval. City Council Resolution No. 9472 sets forth guidelines for the "test of reasonableness" to be used in evaluating such projects. It• is our belief that the attached Traffic Phasing Plan has been prepared in compliance with all applicable City regu-lations and, in fact,meets the criteria established for the test ' of reasonableness. Tilt- TralYlc Phasing Plan was prepared assuming that developnu•nL .c•urrently in process under the :307. exception rulo would be fully occupiod in 1980. The additional 70% of future allowed development, aevording to our 'Traffic Phasing Plan, is scheduled Lo be developed and occupied in 1961. The attached Lraffic study and responses 1dontify the Lraffic infpacLs associated with the proposed development. ' Our proposed site development phasing plan is summarized as follows: 1960 - Occupancy of existing plus development in process under the 30% rifle. ' ('Phis includes 34,000 sq. ft. for. the art museum and library, plus approximately 81,000 sq. ft-. addit-ional) . 1961 - Occupancy of remainder of allowed development, subject to the 70% phasing requirement. (This includes approximately 190,000 sgwuro Feet consistinl; of office/restauranihheater uses, and an addition Lo the art museum.) Withiu tltr tral•fic limiting; paramc•Lers, it is' highly desirable from our point. of view Lu complete Lhe Civic Plaza development. at the earliest fc,tsiblo date. 'Ibis would minim(ze aosLheLic impacts clue to,grading and construction, and would allow the most effective implenuvtatio❑ of erosion control measures. Rcspunsos Lo the City's guidelines for Traffic Phasing approval are attached. t t W�• 'm{��• IhnL th unp, with till nI L:u•hod Trarri<• Pian will answer v,nn' quest low, and VoIlCer11': ralaLc•d Lo trill ftc imparLs clue to the develop_ nn•nl uI' the Civic 1'1azn P.C. Should you have any additional questions or roiaiaonLs, please fuel ft'eo to contact -me. or our 'Traffic Consultant. t Yours very truly, \ Ituuald W. Ilcndrickson I' Director, Ucsijn/Construe Cion t t Commerical/Industrial Division I:WII:lk I' encIs. ' CIVIC PLAZA TRAFFIC PHASING PLAN Item 1 ' Each project subject to the phasing requirement of Council Resolution No. 9472 shall be examined as to the extent of existing development and'the amount of development remaining to be completed. ' The Civic Plaza Planned Community provides for five separate land uses on the site. Upon completion of the entire project, the PC provides for the following identified land use developments: ' Art museum 30,000 sf Library 14,000 sf ' Restaurant 8,000 sf Offices 234,706 sf Theater 20,000 sf' ' The only presently developed land use on the site is the Newport Beach Art Museum with 20,000 square feet. Additional land uses for the site which for traffic analysis purposes are under construction or in the process of development are the ' City of Newport Beach Library and 81,812 square feet of offices under the 30% rule. Those portions of the planned community which would remain to be developed upon approval of the Traffic Phasing Plan are the restaurant, 152,894 square feet of offices, the 650 seat theater, and 10,000 additional square feet for the museum. Item 2 Information shall be submitted indicating the amount of traffic being generated ' by existing development, that projected for remaining development, and traffic that will exist after completion of the project. ' Based on the appropriate traffic generation rates as identified in the Newport Center Phase II Traffic Study, the total traffic to be generated by the site is as follows. ' July 1979 p.m. I'vak Hour ADT 1e Out Existi.nq - Occupied ' Art museum - 20,000 sf 840 20 20 ' Iinder Development - 1980 Occupancy Library - 14,000 sf 588 10 10 offices - 81,812 sf 1,064 49 140 Sub-total 1,652 59 150 Future Development - 1981 Occupancy Art museum - 10,000 sf 420 10 10 t Restaurant 400 40 20 offices - 152,894 sf 1,988 91 260 Theater 975 n/a n/a ' Sub-total 3,783 141 290 Total PC 6,275 220 460 ' The amount of traffic to be generated by the completion of all remaining develop- ment- in the peak hour is shown on Table 2 of the attached report. The existing portion of the art museum was not included in that analysis as it was an existing ' land use and included in existing traffic volume data. Item 3 ' An examination shall be made of the circulation system in the vicinity of the project to determine what improvements remain to be completed, with particular consideration being given to those improvements which will directly aid in moving ' traffic generated by the project. The area to• be examined shall extend to those intersections where traffic generated from the project increases the traffic for any leg of the intersection during the peak 23:1 hour period by 2% or- more! ' Table 3 of the attached report summarizes the analysis for critical intersection identification, with the backup calculation sheets included in Appendix A. Identifying critical intersections was based on the intersections to be examined ' by the procedures of tho•Traffic Phasing Ordinance for the area in which Civic Plaza is identified, and further examination is included for any intersection for which the project would increase traffic by 2% or more during the 2§ hour period, The site is hounded by San Joaquin Hills Road, Santa Cruz Drive, San Clemente Drive, and Santa Barbara Drive. All roadway improvements adjacent to the site ' have been previously improved and completed by the owner. -2- L ' l:xLsting traffic at those intersections shall be shown prior to making any iprojections. Existing traffic volumes for all identified critical intersections are shown ' . Appendix B, Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis. in ' Item 5 The developer may include in his proposed Traffic Phasing Plan completion of or contribution to completion of needed improvements consistent with the level of ' traffic generation and a reasonable proportion of the cost of these improvements. As previously identified, the landowner has already made the identified ultimate General Plan improvements on the roadways adjacent to the site. Due to this ' previous contribution by the landowner to completion of the roadway system, no deficiencies on the existing circulation have been identified adjacent to the site. Table 5 identifies a summary of circulation system improvements included in future period ICU calculations. All of these improvements are required as a part of approved projects or are planned as'government projects. of the ' projects identified, the landowner has committed over $152,000 in the improve- ment of the Ford/MacArthur intersection'. Item 6 The developer is also to take into consideration in the preparation of his plan characteristics in the design of his development which either reduce traffic ' generation or guide traffic onto less impacted arterials or through intersec- tions in the least congested direction. The proposed land use plan reflects a reduction in traffic generated over the ' original approved PC for the site. The proposed land use plan reflects a 26.6% reduction in office use of that initially approved with the existing PC being amended in April 1979. The current PC also includes a mix of land uses which have beneficial traffic generation impacts in the peak hours, such as 'the proposed theater, library and museum. Although of a higher generation rate, a restaurant at this site will ' potentially serve to divert some trips from the surrounding area in the peak hours. -3- t i' it. :❑ 0 (conl.inucd) Full Icuta;!; to Lhe ::itu is to be taken from S,:n Clemente and Santa Rosa, with a restricted right turn only--access from San Joaquin Hills Road. San Clemente nnri Santa Rosa were identified ir. the Newport Center Traffic Study as roadways I' with a less degree of utilization than other roadways in the vicinity of the site. The internal circulation system of the site is oriented towards encour- aging vehicles to utilize these roadways for ingress/egress from the Civic Plaza site and Newport Center area. The orientation of traffic to Santa Rosa ' and San Joaquin Hills Road intersection and Santa Barbara/Jamboree intersection i are intended to encourage traffic to divert to non-critical movements at the San Joaquin FIills Road and Jamboree intersection. ' Item 7 i ' Upon receipt of the plan and information, the Commission will determine whether there is a reasonable correlation between projected traffic at the time of ! project completion and capacity of affected intersections in considering the project for approval. The attached traffic study had identified two intersections that will have ICU's that exceed .90 in 1982 after full project completion; these are the intersec- tions of Bristol Street North and Campus Drive, .and the intersection of Jamboree ' Road and MacArthur Boulevard, with projected ICU's of .9279 and .9496, respectively. For the Bristol Street North and Campus intersection, with or without approval of the project, the intersection has a projected ICU value of •.9279. This is due to the project generated traffic being added to a non-critical movement through the intersection. Thus, approval or denial of the project will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of service at this intersection. ' For the Jamboree and MacArthur intersection, the project increases the ICU analysis value by .0227 in 1982. The traffic consultant has indicated in his report that drivers utilizing this intersection would not perceive this increase, ' and in his opinion, the intersection would operate satisfactorily. He has also identified that the construction of the Corona del Mar Freeway would also result in improved conditions at this intersection.' ' Item 8 Mitigation proposed needs to indicate degree of permanence in order to meet the t test. The land use reductions made in the April 1979 PC amendment reflect a perman- ent reduction in land usu intensity and traffic generation for this site. Tho roadway iugrrovom,:ntn identified as necessary for the approval of other ' projects are considered as permanent fixed facility improvements although additional modifications such as re-stripping, construction to ultimate (where ,. appropriate) and signal operations modifications, may also occur in the future. -4- 1 ATTACHMENT NO. 6 NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO: Secretary for Resources FROM: Community Development Department 1400 Tenth Street City of Newport Beach Sacramento, CA 95814 330.0 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Clerk of the Board of Supervisors P. 0. Box 687 Santa Ana, CA 92702 NAME OF PROJECT: ' G •my co l ^14" PROJECT LOCATION: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Fog rHl-. KCrw��N � OPP�<.C--� t�V.Se�IM hw;( curc( 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. i' MITIGATION MEASURES: tt Ilk i INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY: !i INITIAL STUDY AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT: 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA • ' DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: ' Environmental Coordinator Date: I MITIGATION MEASURES 1 I . The following disclosure statement of the City of Newport Beach's policy regarding the Orange County Airport should be included in all leases 1 or sub-leases for space in the project and shall be included in any Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions which may be recorded against the property. 1 Disclosure Statement The Lessee herein, his heirs, successors and assigns acknowledge that: 1 a) The Orange County Airport may not be able to provide adequate air service for business establishments which rely on such service; 1 b) When an alternate air facility is available, a complete phase out of jet service may occur at the Orange County Airport; 1 c) The City of Newport Beach may continue to oppose additional commercial air service expansions at the Orange County Airport; 1 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 are service at the Orange County Airport. 1 2. The on-site parking will be provided in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 1 3. The project be designed to conform to Title 24, Paragraph G, Division T-20, Chapter 2, Subchapter 4. 1 4. Should any resources be uncovered during construction, that a qualified 1 archaeologist or paleontologist evaluate' the site prior to completion of construction activities, and in accordance with City Policies K-6 & K-7. 1 5. Final design of the project should provide for the incorporation of water-saving devices for project lavatories and other water-using facilities. 1 6. The final design of the project snVu14 provide Tor „e sci :i:; cf :'eQIC7i:b:e material from other solid waste. 1 7. The development on the site should be in accordance with City policies 1 on traffic. 1 1 1 City Council Meeting March 12 , 1979 ' Agenda Item No . F-1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 6 , 1979 ' TO: City Council FROM: Department of Community Development 1 SUBJECT: Definition of the term "reasonableness " as applied to a traffic phasing plan for "excepted" Planned Community Districts ' Suggested Action If desired, approve or modify, and approve the test of reasonableness for applicable planned communities . ' Background At its meeting of November 27, 1978, the City Council adopted Reso- lution No . 9472 amending Planned Community Development Standards of the Corporate Plaza, North Ford , Emkay Development, Koll Center Newport, and Aeronutronic-Ford P-C Districts to require preparation of phasing plans consistent with the Circulation Element of the General Plan . ' A copy of the Resolution is attached. Each of the enumerated P-C Districts previously had- been found by the ' Council to be exempt from the requirements of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance . In addition to approving Resolution No . 9472, the Council directed the Planning Commission to provide a definition of the "test of reason- ableness" which the Planning Commission had indicated it would use in making determinations regarding the acceptability of proposed traffic phasing plans . On January 8, 1979 , the Council considered a report from the Planning Commission concerning the application of the "test of reasonableness" but postponed consideration of the item with direction to the staff to prepare examples and amplify the proposed definition . The report of the Planning Commission and the minutes of the Planning Commission ' meeting of December 21 , 1979 , approving the definition of the term " reasonableness ", are attached. ' The Planning Commission required that the developer, in submitting the traffic phasing plan , include the following information : III e TO: City Council - 2 . 1 ) Each project subject to the phasing requirement of Council Resolution No . 9472 shall be examined as to the extent of ' existing development and the amount of development remain- ing to be completed. 2) Information shall be submitted indicating the amount of ' traffic being generated by existing development and that projected for remaining development. 3) An examination shall be made of the circulation system ' in the vicinity of the project to determine what improve- ments remain to be completed, with particular consider- ' ation being given to those improvements which will directly aid in moving traffic generated by the project. The area to be examined shall extend to those intersections where traffic generated from the project increases the traffic t for any leg of the intersection during the peak two and one- half hour period by 5% or more. 4) Existing traffic at those intersections shall be shown ' prior to making any projections . 5) The developer may include in his proposed traffic phasing , plan completion of or contribution to completion of needed improvements consistent with the level of traffic generation and a reasonable proportion of the cost of these improvements . ' 6) The developer is also to take into consideration in the preparation of his plan characteristics in the design ' of his development which either reduce traffic generation or guide traffic onto less impacted arterials or through Intersections in the least congested direction. Upon receiving the plan and the information, the Commission decided ' that it will use the data to "determine whether, in its collective judgment and considering the rights of owners to use and develop ' their property, the application should be approved. " Emkay has submitted a traffic phasing plan which was approved by the Planning Commission at its meeting of February 8, 1979. The proposed plan will be considered by the Council as a later item on this agenda . It presents a clear demonstration of the results of guidelines estab- lished by the Planning Commission in its report on the test of reason- ' ableness . From this example the Council will be able to judge the results and determine whether changes requiring additional information are necessary . ' Respectfully submitted, DEP E T OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ' R. V. N, ector RVH/kk ' A chments : 1 ) Resolution No . 9472 ' 2) Staff report and minutes of Planning Commission Meeting 12/21/78 '` f• 3 �! Comma a ! gevo�unmoy 0( C,ot' nt NOV3p •1g78a. _— ' 9 6 NEWPp�gr OF SE Q RESOLUTION NO. 9 4? anup�'CH, � S • A RESOLUTION•OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT_STANDARDS O£ THE CORPORATE.PLAZA, ' NORTH_FORD, SMKAY DEVELOPMENT, KOLL CEH_TER NEWPORT, AND AERONOTRONIC-FORD PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICTS TO REQUIRE PREPARATION OF PHASING P�L1NS-•CDNSISTENT"WITH'THt; C RCULA- 1_4 TION ELEMENT��OF THE• GENERAL•PLAN (AMENDMEtJ ' WHEREAS, Section 20.51.045 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that amendments to a Planned Community Development Plan shall be approved by a resolution of the ' City Council setting forth full particulars of the amendments; and ' WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on October 5, 1978, at which time it considered amend- ments to the Planned Community Development Plans for Corporate Plaza, North Ford, Emkay-Newport Place, Ko11.Center Newport, ' and Aeronutronic-Ford; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing the Planning ' Commission adopted its Resolution No. 1018, recommending to the City Council that certain amendments to the Planned Community Development Plans for Corporate Plaza, North Ford, ' Emkay-Newport Place, Koll Center Newport, and Aeronutronic- Ford be adopted as follows: ' A. CORPORATE PLAZA Section 1, Statistical Analysis, paragraph 6, at page 2: 116. PHASING OF DEVELOPMENT. 142,644 sq. ft. of development was existing or under construction as of October 1, 1978. The additional allowable development in the total approved development plan is 287,356 sq. ft. tAny fdrther development subsequent to October. 1, 1978, in excess of 30% of the additional allowable development, ' *being 86,206 sq. ft. , shall be approved oniv after it can be demonstrated that adequate traffic facilities will be available to handle that traffic generated by the project at the time of occupancy of the buildings involved. Such demonstration may be made by the pre- sentation of a phasing plan consistent with the Circu- lation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan." ' B. NORTH FORD Section 1, Statistical Analysis, at page• 2, ' by adding paragraph entitled "Phasing of Development": "PHASING OF DEVELOPMENT. 129,260 sq. ft. of , development was existing or under construction as of October 1, 1978. The additional allowable development ' in the total approved development plan is 770,740 sq. ft. Any further development subsequent to October 1, 1978, in excess of 30% of the additional allowable development, being 231,222 sq. ft., shall be approved only after it can be demonstrated that adequate traffic , facilities will be available to handle that traffic generated by the project at the time of occupancy of the ' buildings involved. Such demonstration may be made by the presentation of a phasing plan consistent with the t Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan." C. EMKAY-NEWPOAT PLACE ' Amending General Notes at page 1, by adding paragraph 7, to read: "7. PHASING OF DEVELOPMENT. 1,799,941 sq. ft. ' of development was existing or under construction as of October 1, 1978. The additional allowable development in the total approved development plan is 566,423 sq, ft. -2- ' Any further development subsequent to October 1, 1978, in excess of 30% of the additional allowable development, being 169,927 sq. ft., shall be approved only after it can be demonstrated that adequate traffic facilities ' will be available to handle that traffic generated by the project at the time of occupancy of the buildings involved. Such demonstration may be made by the pre- sentation of a phasing plan consistent with the Circu- lation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan." ' D. ROLL CENTER NEWPORT Amending Development Considerations, at page 4, ' by adding paragraph 6, to read: "6. PHASING OF DEVELOPMENT. 1,651,757 sq. ft. ' of development was existing or under construction as of October 1, 1978. The additional allowable development in the total approved development plan is 1,058,863 sq. ft. Any further development subsequent to October 1, 1978, in excess of 30% of.the additional allowable development, ' being 317,658 sq. -ft. , shall be approved only after it can be demonstrated that adequate traffic facilities will be available to handle that traffic generated by the project'at the time of occupancy of the buildings ' involved. Such demonstration may be made by the presen- tation of'a phasing plan consistent with the Circulation ' Element of the Newport Beach General Plan." E. AERONUTRONIC-FORD Use Permit No. 419 and subsequent approvals ' adopted prior to May 8, 1978, which Use Permits constitute the development plan for the Aeronutronic-Ford Planned Community are amended by adding the following language: "PHASING OF DEVELOPMENT. 962,400 sq. ft. of ' development was existing or under construction as of ' -3 ' October 10 1978. The additional allowable development ' in the total approved development plan is 1,691,000 sq. ft. Any further development subsequent to October 1, ' 1977, in excess of 30% of the additional allowable development, being 507,300 sq. ft. , shall be approved ' only after it can be demonstrated that adequate traffic facilities will be available to handle that traffic generated by the project at the time of occupancy of ' the buildings involved. Such demonstration may be made by the presentation of a phasing plan consistent with the t Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan"; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that ' said amendments to the Planned Community Development Plans for Corporate Plaza, North Ford, Emkay-Newport Place, Xoll Center ' Newport, and Aeronutronic-Ford as set forth above are desirable and necessary; and WHEREAS, the City Council has conducted a public hearing on said proposed amendments in accordance with all provisions of law, ' • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council 'hereby approves the proposed amendments to the Planned Community ' Development Plans for Corporate Plaza, North $ord, Emkay-Newport Place, Roll Center Newport, and Aeronutronic-Ford as set forth ' hereinabove. ADOPTED this o1"1 ` day of KoVeVhber 1978. ' Mayor ' ATTEST: city Clerk HRC/kb ' 11/13/78 -4- c r7 Planning Commission Study Session December 21 , 1978 Study Session Item No. ' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ' December 13, 1978 TO : Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT : Definition of "Reasonableness" ' The Planning Commission, at its last meeting (December 7, 1978) , ' considered the criteria to be used in applying the "test of reasonable- ness" and suggested some changes which should be made in the informa- tion required of a developer in submitting his traffic phasing plan . ' We have amended the list of information to be prepared by the devel - oper in accordance with the comments of the Commission as follows : ' 1 ) Each project subject to the 'p.hasing requirement of Council Resolution No . 9472 shall be examined as to the extent of existing development and the amount of development remain- ing to be completed. 2 ) Information shall be submitted indicating the amount of ' traffic being generated by existing development and that projected for remaining development. ' 3) An examination shall be made of the circulation system in the vicinity of the project to determine what improve- ments remain to be completed, with particular consider- ation being given to those improvements which will directly ' aid in moving traffic generated by the project. The area to be examined shall extend to those intersections where traffic generated from the project increases the traffic ' at the intersection during the peak two and one-half hour period by 5% or more . 4) Existing traffic at those intersections shall be shown prior to making any projections . 5 ) The developer may include in his proposed traffic phasing ' plan completion of or contribution to completion of needed improvements consistent with the level of traffic generation and a reasonable proportion of the cost of ' these improvements . TO: Planning Commission - 2 . ' 6) The developer is also to take into consideration in the preparation of his plan characteristics in the ' design of his development which either reduce traffic generation or guide traffic onto less impacted arterials or through intersections in the least ' conjested direction . DEPARTMENT Of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT , 2400 1 1 n. . N , ector 'RVH/kk ' , COMMISSIONERS MINUTES 0��°���p�a� City of Newport Beach 9s o�A�L+ c December 21 , 1978 - • INDEX �011 CALL 3. Prior to the issuance of building permits , the ' applicant shall indicate to the Director of Community Development in writing that he under stands and agrees to conditions nos . 1 and 2 above. There was more discussion between the Commissioners egarding the question of occupancy. It was their ling that another condition should be applied. ' Mr. eek asked permission to include the following remar in the record: ' "Commi Toner Beek indicated that in voting for the mote he did not wish to set a precedent of making me of occupancy a condition of approval . T ' is an unsatisfactory condition ' which should no generally be used and is only justified by the ique circumstances of this case . He also indicated that h as voting in favor of the motion because he fo d by analyzing the traffic report that 70% o the extra capac- ity created by the proposed str t improvement is sufficient to enable the projec to pass the .90 ICU test. ' He also . indica.ted that -he was voting in or of the motion because the best traffic figu s available from the County concerning the inte ' section of Irvine Avenue and Mesa Drive show that the project will pass the .90 ICU test at 'that intersection. " ADDITIONAL BUSINESS ADDI- TIONAL The Planning Commission discussed the definition of BUSIN SS ' " reasonableness" and suggested changes in wor3i—ng� Copies of a proposed closing statement were dis- tributed and also discussed. ' Concerns of the Commissioners covered the following: 1 . • balancing the inconvenience to the property ' owner if an application is rejected against the 1D COMMISSIONERS MINUTES City of Newport Beach S °2 2 December 21 , 1978 INDEX ROLL CALL , inconvenience to the City if it is approved; 2. approving phasing plans for entire projects ' rather than individual buildings . Staff stated that in cases of large developments , this would involve finding out the plans of owners of parcels ' of undeveloped property as well as the plans for expansion of buildings already developed. Motion X Motion was made to approve the staff report on the de ' Ayes X X X X finition of "reasonableness" with modifications , Absent X X to read as follows: The Planning Commission at its last meeting (Decem- ber 21 , 1978) considered the information needed to apply the "test of reasonableness" and suggested some changes which should be made in the inform ' required of a developer in- submitting his phasing plan for a Planned Community or project. We have amended the list of information to be pre- pared by the developer in accordance with the com- ments of the Commission as follows: 1 ) Each project subject to the phasing require- ' ment of Council Resolution No. 9472 shall be examined as to the extent of existing develop- ment and the amount of development remaining ' to be completed. 2) Information shall be submitted indicating the amount of traffic being generated by existing ' development and that projected for remaining development. 3) An examination shall be made of the circulatio ' system in the vicinity of the project to deter mine wha-t improvements remain to be completed, with particular consideration being given to those improvements which will directly aid in ' moving traffic generated by the project. The area to be• examined shall extend to those inte - sections where traffic generated from the proj- ect increases the traffic at the intersection during the peak two and one-half hour period by 5% or more. , -8- ' COMMISSIONERS MINUTES City of Newport. Beach s December 21 , 1978 '�,,. •. INDEX ROLL CALL 4) Existing traffic at those intersections shall be shown prior to making any projections . 5) The developer may include in his proposed traffic phasing plan completion of or contribu ' tion to completion of needed improvements con- sistent with the level of traffic generation and a reasonable proportion of the cost of these improvements . ' 6) The developer is also to take into considera- tion in the preparation of his plan character- , istics in the design of his development which . either reduce traffic generation or guide traf fic onto less impacted arterials or through intersections in the least conjested direction ' The 'Commission will use the above data to determine whether, in its collective judgment and considering the rights of owners to use and develop their prop- erty, the application should be approved. Motion X An amendment was moved that the figure "5%" in ' Ayes paragraph (3) be changed to "1%" so that the same Noes X X X X data will be available to the Commission as is Absent X X available in making analyses under the Traffic Phas- ing Ordinance. The Commission will be able to dis- regard this data if it chooses, but should -have the information before it. ' Motion failed. Motion X Planning Commission re-adopted Resolution No . 1025 025 Ayes X X XK X setting a public hearing for January 18, 1979, Absent X X the purpose of amending the Civic Plaza P. 0 ' •require a Traffic Phasing Plan as had n done for other P .C. Developments which had n excepted fro the Traffic Phasing Ordinanc �tion X Motion was made excuse Mr. Cokas from the meetin Ayes X X X X of January 1979. Absent X X -9- Planning Commission Meeting December 20, 1979 Agenda Item No . 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH December 13, 1979 ' TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Request to consider a Phasing Plan for the remaining ' development in the Civic Plaza Planned Community District, and the acce tance of an Environmental Document Continued Discussion ' LOCATION : The Planned Community of Civic Plaza , generally bounded by San Joaquin Hills Road, Santa Cruz Drive , t San Clemente Drive , Santa Barbara Drive, and Jamboree Road, in Newport Center. ZONE: P-C ' APPLICANT : The Irvine Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as Applicant Background The proposed project .was originally before the Planning Commission in August, 1979 . Since that time , the project has been continued ' at the request of the applicant and Planning Commission . The following information has been previously submitted to the Planning Commission for their consideration in review of this project: ' 1 . Planning Commission Minutes _ August 9 , 1979 2 . Planning Commission Minutes September 20, 1979 ' 3. Planning Commission Minutes - October 4 , 1979 4 . Planning Commission Minutes October 18 , 1979 5 . Staff Report August 9 , 1979 ' a ) Resolution No . 9517 b) City Council Minutes - March 12 , 1979 -"Civic Plaza" c ) City Council Minutes- March - 12 , 1979 -"Test of Reasonabiness" d ) Letter - The Irvine Company, July 10 ,. 1979 ' e ) Narrative on Planning Commission -"Test of Reasonableness"- July, 1979 f) Traffic Report prepared by Weston Pringle and Associates , ' dated July 5 , 1979 , for the applicants g ) Negative Declaration 6. Staff Report - August 16 , 1979 a ) Corrections to Traffic Report-Weston Pringle & Associates- August 14, 1979 TO: Planning Commission - 2 . 7 . Staff Report = September 20, 1979 (recycled August 9 , 1979 , reporIm 8. Staff Report —October 4, 1979 a) Staff Report - August 16, 1979 9 . Staff Report - October 18, 1979 10. Letter from The Irvine Company - October 18, 1979 11 . Staff Report - December 6 , 1979 Should any member of the planning Commission require an additional copy ' of the above listed information , please contact the Planning Department at (714) 640-2197. General Plan Amendment (79-1 ) ' At the October 18, 1,979 Planning Commission,meeting, the. Planning Commission at the request of The Irvine Company, continued discussion of this item to its December 6, 1979 meeting. The purpose of ' this continuance was to allow information generated by the City Council ' s review of Newport Center in the General Plan Amendment (G.P .A. 79-1 ) to be used by the Planning Commission ' in their consideration of the Civic Plaza Traffic Phasing ,Plan. At the November 26, 1979 City Council meeting, the City Council continued , all items related to Newport Center to its meeting of December 10, 1979. Based on that continuance, the project Was continued from the :December E, 1979 meeting to the Planning Commission meeting of December 20, 1979 . The following summarized City Council actions on General Plan Amendment 79-1 as they relate to Civic Plaza and the total allowed office development in Newport Center: ' "Future Allowable Develo ment" _ "Previous "Existing General General Plan" Proposed 1 ' Remaining "Area" UU5e Plan" G. .P.A. 79-1' Project Development T.A.Z. 64 'Block 800' Retail 18,000 sq.ft. 18,000 sq.ft. 8,000 sq.ft. 10,000 sq.ft. ' Theatre 1 ,350 seats 1 ,350 seats 1 ,350 seats ' Civic/ (20j000 sq.ft.) ' (20,000 sq.ft.) (20,000 sq.ft.) -0- Cultural 10,000 sq.ft. 10,000 sq.ft. 10,000 sq.ft. -0- Residential 245 DU's 245 DU's - 245 DU's Office *Civic Plaza 234,706 sq.ft. 234,706 sq.ft. 234,706 sq.ft. -0- ,. •Pacific Mutual 350,000 sq.ft. 245,000 sq.ft. - 245,000 sq.ft. 'Block 700 ' Office -Pacific Mutual 9,404 sq.ft. 9,404 sq.ft. - 9,404 sq.ft' 1 ' T0 : Plann.ing Commission - 4. ' T•s':1•• 4 ' iCD Sit-;XARY CIVIC PLAZA 'L`•l'>:;(5r.CiAI• . 8 1ST1Na: EY; '-T1NG a.(i) 1:D:15'rINi7.: •+•tl) Dx.1511r1t 4 ; R;CLONAL + RECt XA1. I ' C(I*VM 1.11;:9 COI'.kil,TT;ii^s 30i; 11IcO.IGCI' ----- -3 9S 1 - - - 1981_. - - ]CI E? -----•- 'I;ris'•ol St. N. & Campus Dr. 0.9262 0.8950 0.8950 - 0.L'9t• Br1.,tol St. & Car.,pus Dr. 0.7650 0.6669 0.6694 0.6791 Co,--st Iligtr�ay c, Rover Dr. 0.9510 0.6788 0.6854 0. 7(�17 'Coant Highway & Bayside Dr, 0.8540 0. 7753 0. 7820 0. 7532 'Con.st Highway & Jam'boree Rd. .0.9140 0.8337 0. 8381 0.F•<:',7 CoasL Highway & I.largatite Ave. 0.7957 0.8531 0. .'572 0.8691 J :, ,oren Rd. & Santa Barbara Dr. 0.5745 0.6341 0.64.34 - 0.6510 ' ,Jamboree Rd. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. 0.7375 0.6906 0.6981 0.70;� Jamhorce Rd. & Ford Rd. 0.9128 0.7877 0.797.1 0.81.41 'Jamboree FA & Bristol St. 0.6381 0.7446 0.7547 0.7792 Jatr.borea Rd. & Bristol St. N. 0.8781 0.8298 0.8378 0.8563 Jamboree Rd. & Mac Arthur Blvd. 0.9934 1.1051 1. 1095 1.0003 - Lac Arthur Blvd. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. 0.7664 0.8333 0.8457 0.8757 Mac Arthur Blvd. & Ford Rd. 1.1631 0.8947 0.9047 0.810.3 'Bristol St. N. & Birch St. 0.8569 1.2186 1 .2257 0.9751 - ,(1) No Project Related Improvements are Considered in CaciculaLionv. (2) Project Related Improvements are Included. The Traffic Report fouhd .that Project Traffic is estimated to be less than ' 2% of projected 2 1 /2 hour traffic volume only at the intersections of: 1 ) Coast Highway/Newport Center Drive , and 2) Coast Highway/MacArthur Boulevard. Therefore , ICU calculations were made for the remaining 15 intersections as noted above. The applicant ' s consultant has indicated that only two inter- sections , Bristol Street North/Birch Street and Jamboree Road/MacArthur Boulevard will be operating upon completion of the project at 0. 9000 or greater . T04 Planning Commission 3. ' "Future Allo able Development" "Previous Existing General General Plan Proposed 1 . Remaining "Area" Use Plan" G.P.A. 79-1 Project Development Total T.A.Z. 64 Office 594,110 sq.ft. 489,110 234,706 sq.ft., 254,404 sq. Total Newport ' Center Office 1 ,447,019 986,518 sq.ft. 234,706 sq.ft. 451 ,912 sq.ft. With respect to office use within Newport Center, the property owner has the option of utilizing the maximum square footage for each T.A. Z. However, total office development in Newport Center may not exceed 686 ,518 sq. ft. ' 1 . Traffic Analysis 'also included the 14 ,000 sq. ft. library. , Revised Traffic Report/Phasing Plan ' The Civic Plaza Traffic Phasing Plan was submitted to the City for its consideration on July 10, 1979 . The project has been continued at the requesp of the applicant and Planning Commission for five (5) months (December 6, 1979) . The original Traffic Report on the Civic Plaza Traffic Phasing Plan was developed and based upon Wi,n•ter/Spring 78 Traffic Volumes . A revised Traffic Report based on Winter/Spring 79 Traffic Volumes is attached . This report was required of The Irvine Company so as to provide the ' Planning 'Commission with the most current data upon which to base their decisions . A copy of the revised Traffic Report is attached (Weston Pringle & As-sociates - November 30, 1979) . The new report is summarized on ' the following page: 1, .TO: Planning Commission - 5 . 1 A summary of the applicants traffic consultants comments on the two intersections that will be operating upon completion of the project at 0 . 9000 or greater is given below: 1 "'Bristol Street North and Birch Street. Review of Table 4 and the related streets in Appendices B and C indicates that the recommended project related improvements would reduce the ICU value at this 1 intersection from 1 . 2199 to 0. 9751 in 1982. It also indicates 'that the ICU value in 1981 would be 1 . 2186 . The project and its related 1 improvements would improve the operation of this intersection although it would exceed 0. 90. " "Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard . The ICU values at this 1 intersection increase U. U044 in 1981 as ' a result of this project. This increase would not be perceptable to drivers utilizing t'he intersection . Improvement of the intersection by the addition of a third southbound 1 through lane has been proposed in order to reduce these ICU values . This improvement results in an ICU value of 1 . 0003 with the full project in 1982 . While this value is greater than• 0. 90, it is , less than the ICU value of 1 . 1095 that would occur without this, project 1 related improvement. This indicates that conditions would improve with the proposed improvements ' and project. " 1 Alternative Courses of Action If the Planning Commission desires to approve or modify and approve the 1 project, staff would suggest that the Planning Commission accept the Negative Declaration and approve or modify and approve the Phasing Plan With the findings and subject to the conditions set forth in .Exhibit "A. " 1 OR If the Planning Commission desires to deny the Phasing Plan , findings 1 for denial are suggested in Exhibit -"B" for con'siderati•on. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1 JAMES D. HEWICKER , DIRECTOR 1 By -4-.—,� /4 z..I I i red Talarico Environmental Coordinator 1 FT/dt Attachments : • Exhibits "A" and "B" 1 Traffic Report - November 20, lg79' 1 1 1 � F EXHIBIT A Recommended Findings and Conditions of Approval ' Approval ' FINDINGS: 1 . That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration has been prepared ' in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and City Policy K-3, and that their contents have been considered ' in the decision on this project. 2. That based on. the information contained in the Initial Study and Negative Declaration , the project will not result in significant , environmental impacts. 3. That the Phasing Plan is consistent with the Newport Beach ' General Plan and the Planned Community Development Plan for Civic Plaza. 4. That based on the Phasing Plan and supporting information sub- ' mitted therewith, there is a reasonable correlation between projected traffic at time of completion and the capacity of affected intersections. ' 5. That the applicant has taken into cohsi.deration in the preparation of his 'plan characteristics in the design of his development which ' either reduce traffic generation or guide traffic onto less impact arterials or through intersections in the least congested direction. CONDITIONS: ' 1 . That prior to the occupancy of any buildings on the site beyond the existing development and 95 ,812 sq. ft. of new construction , the ' circulation system improvements contained in the Traffic Repoet, dated November 20, 1979, table 5 ,, Pages 7 through 9, shall have been constructed , (unless subsequent project approval require ' modification thereto . The circulation systems improvements shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer) . 2. That prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicants ' shall indicate to the Director of Planning Department in writing that they understand and agree to condition 1 above. 3. The following disclosure statement of the City of Newport Beach ' s policy regarding the Orange County Airport should be included in ' all leases or sub-leases for space in the project and shall be included in any Covenants , Conditions , and Restrictions which may be recorded against the property. Disclosure Statement ' The Lessee herein, his heirs , successors and assigns acknowledge that: ' a ) The Orange County Airport may not be able to provide adequate air service for business establishments which rely on such service; EXHIBIT B ' Recommended Findings and Conditions of Denial FINDINGS : 1 . That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration has been ' prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and City Policy K-3, and that their contents have •been considered in the decision on this project. ' 2 . That based on the information contained in the Initial• Study and Negative Declaration , the project will not result in significant environmental impacts . ' 3. That the Phasing Plan is consistent with the Newport Beach General Plan and the Planned Community Development Plan for 'Civic Plaza . 1 4. That based on the Phasing Plan and supporting information submitted therewith, there is not a reasonable correlation between ,projected traffic at time of completion and• the capacity of the intersections ' of Bristol Street North/Birch Street, and Jamboree Road/MacArthur Boulevard. 1 " I_ • 7 b) When an alternate air facility is available, a complete phase ouf z, of jet service may occur at tp.e Orange County Airport; c) The City of Newport Beach may continue to oppose additional ' commercial are service expansions at the Orange County 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 service at the Orange County Airport. ' 4. The on-site parking will be provided in accordance with •the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 5. Final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation , of water-saving devices. for project lavatories and other water- using facilities . 6. The fi-nal design of the project shall provide for the sorting of recyclable material from other solid waste. 1 Planning Commission Meeting December 6 , 1979 Agenda Item No. 4 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1 November 29 , 1979 TO : Planning Commission 1 FROM: Department of Community Development 1 SUBJECT : Request to consider a Phasing Plan for the remaining development in the Civic Plaza Planned Community District, and the acce lance of an Environmental Document Continued Discussion . 1 LOCATION : The Planned Community of Civic Plaza , generally bounded by San Joaquin Hills Road , Santa Cruz Drive , 1 San Clemente Drive, Santa Barbara Drive and Jam- boree Road in Newport Center. 1 ZONE: P-C APPLICANT: The Irvine Company , Newport Beach 1 OWNER: Same as Applicant 1 At the October 18, 1979 Planning Commission meeting , the Planning Commission at the request of The Irvine Company continued discus- sion of this item to its December 6 , 1979 meeting . The purpose of 1 that continuance was to allow information generated by the City Council ' s review of GPA 79-1 to be used by the Planning Commission in its .consideration of this item. Final City Council action related 1 to GPA 79-1 is now anticipated for December 10 , 1979. Further, - staff has requested additional traffic analysis to be accomplished ; therefore, the staff requests this item be continued to the December 20 , 1979 Planning Commission meeting. 1 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT JAMES HEWICKER, DIRECTOR 1 1 d.14 By Fred Talarico Environmental Coordinator 1 FT/gg 1 1 Planning Ccemmission Meeting October 18, 1979 ' Agenda Item -No. 1 ' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH October 12, 1979 ' TO : Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Request to consider a Phasing Plan for the remaining development in the Civic Plaza Planned Community District, and the acce Lance of an Environmental Document EontMH Discussion ' LOCATION: The Planned Community of Civic Plaza , generally bounded by San Joaquin Hills Road, Santa Cruz ' Drive, San Clemente Drive , Santa Barbara Drive , and Jamboree Road, in Newport Center. ZONE: P-C APPLICANT: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach ' OWNER: Same as Applicant ' The agenda materials for this item was initially distributed to the Planning Commission for the meeting of August 9 , 1979 and redistributed for the meeting off September 20, 1979. Please bring these materials ' with you for the meeting on October 18th . DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - tR . V . HOGAN, DIRECTOR By James D . Hewicker Q' ' Assistant Director-Planning JDH/dlt t 1 ' Planning Commission Meeting October 4 , 1979 ' Agenda Item No . 9 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ' September 27 , 1979 ' TO: Planning Commission ' FRO11 : Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Request to consider a Phasing Plan for the remainincd ' development in the Civic Plaza Planned Communi District, and the acce tance of an Environmental Document Continued Discussion ) . ' LOCATION : The Planned Community of Civic Plaza , generally bounded by San Joaquin Hills Road, Santa Cruz Drive , San Clemente Drive, Santa Barbara Drive , and ' Jamboree Road, in Newport Center . ZONE : P-C ' APPLICANT: The Irvine Company , Newport Beach OWNER: Same as Applicant Attached for Planning Commissidn •review is a copy of the ' "Supplemental Information Report" for the Planning Commission meeting of August 16 , 1979 . This report contains corrections to the staff report of August 9, 1979 which was recycled for the ' meeting of September 20 , 1979 . ' DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V . HOGAN , DIRECTOR BY. Fred ,lalarico ' Environmental Coordinator FT/dt Attachments : Staff Report dated August 16 , 1979 1 t ' SeprerAbec 2-01 M11 Planning Commission Meeting A tt 4 u 5 t , Agenda Item No. �1 ' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ' August 1 , 1979 TO: Planning Commission ' FROM: Department of Community Development ' SUBJECT: Request to consider a Phasing Plan for the remain- ing development in the Civic Plaza Planned Commun- it District, and the acce tance of an Environmen- tal Document. Discussion ' LOCATION: The Planned Community of Civic Plaza , generally bounded by San Joaquin Hills Road , Santa Cruz Drive, ' San Clemente Drive , Santa Barbara Drive , and Jam- boree Road, in Newport Center. ZONE: P-C APPLICANT: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach ' OWNER: Same as 'Applicant . Background Information ' The Irvine Company has requested approval of a Phasing Plan to comply with Resolution No. 9742 of the Newport Beach City Council and Amendment No. 514 as it pertains to the Planned Community Development Plan for Civic Plaza. Attached for the Planning Com- mission ' s consideration in regard to this request are : ' a) Resolution No. 9517 b) City Council Minutes-March 12 , 1979-"Civic Plaza" c) City Courecil Minutes-March 12 , 1979-"Test of Reason- ableness" ' d) Letter-The Irvine Company-July 10 , 1979 e) Narrative on Planning Commission-"Test of Reasonable- ness"-July 1979 ' f) Traffic Report prepared by Weston Pringle and Assoc-. iates , dated July 5 , 1979 , for the applicants g) Negative Declaration ' Environmental Significance The City of Newport Beach Environmental Affairs Committee has re- viewed the project and determined that it will not have signifi- cant environmental effect. A copy of the Negative Declaration is attached . Y � ' TO : Planning Commission - 2 ' Phasing Plan ' The applicants have indic4ted that development in the Civic Plaza Planned Community, if the Phasing Plan is approved, would occur as follows : ' PHASING SCHEDULE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT , Art Museum 20 ,000 sq . ft. 1980 OCCUPANCY ' Library 14,000 sq. ft. ' Offices 81 ,812 sq. ft. 1981 OCCUPANCY Art Museum 10,000 sq . ft. ' Restaurant 8,000 sq. ft. Offices 152,894 sq. ft. ' Theater 20,000 sq. ft. Resolution No. 9517 Attached for the Planning Commission ' s consideration is a copy of ' the applicant' s response to the Planning Commission guidelines for reviewing the Phasing Plan „ as modified by the City Council ' (Attachment "E" ) . Additionally, a copy of Resolution 'No. 9517 and the City Council Minutes for March 12 , 1979 are attached. Traffic Report ' A Traffic Report was prepared for the applicant by Weston Pringle and Associates . The Traffic Report examined the 16 intersections ' identified for analysis in the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. It is summarized on the following page : ' TO: Planning Commission - 3 TCU Str*i tAP.Y ' Civic 1'la•r.a • (1) (1) (1) INTERSECTION EXISTING EXISTING + EXISTING + EXISTING + IUtGIONAL + REGIONAL + REGIONAL + COMMITTED COMMITTED+ COMMITTED+ 30% PROJECT PROJECT ' 1981 1981 1982 Bristol St. N. & Campus•Dr. 0.9898 0.9256 0.9256 0.9279 Bristol St. & Campus Dr. 0172 0.6467 0.6498 0.6613 coast Highway & Dover Dr. 0.99 0.6556 0.6623 0.6788 coast Highway & Bayside or, 0.89 0.8051 0.8118 0.8282 ' GOASt Highway & Jamboree Rd. 0.83 0,7644 0.7644 0.7650 Coast highway & Marguerite Ave. 0.68 0.7425 0,7466 0.7560 ' Jamboree Rd. & Santa Barbara Dr. 0.53 0.6171 0.6233 0.6373 Jamboree Rd. & San Joaquin .11ills Rd. 0.64 0,6473 0.6487 0.6522 ' Jamboree Rd. & Ford Rd. 0.83 0.7449 0.7517 0.7739 Jamboree Rd. & Bristol St. 0.54 0,7944 0.8032 0.8247 Jamboree Rd. & Bristol St. N. 0.72 0,8219 0.8298 0.8489 ' Jamboree Rd. & Mac Arthur Blvd, 0.85 0.9269 0.9338 0.9496 Mac Arthur Blvd. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. 0.72 0.7945 0,8070 0.8368 ' Mac Arthur Blvd. & Ford Rd. 1.01 0,8653 0.8753 0.8997 (1) No Project Related Improvements are Considered in Calculations. ' The Traffic Report found that. Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 2% of projected 22 hour traffic volume only at the inter- sections of: 1 ) Coast Hwy. /Newport Center Dr. , and 2) Coast Hwy. / MacArthur Blvd. Therefore , ICU calculations were made for the re- maining 14 intersections as noted above. The applicant' s consul - tant has indicated that two intersections , Bristol Street North/ ' Campus Drive and Jamboree Road/MacArthur Blvd. , will be operating upon completion of the project at 0. 9000 or greater. 1 , TO: Planning Commission - 4 ' ALTERNATIVE COURSES OF ACTION ' Suggested Action If desired, accept the Negative Declaration and approve the Phas- ing Plan with the findings and subject to the conditions , as fol- lows : FINDINGS: , 1. That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration has been pre- pared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality ' Act and City Policy K-3, and that their contents have been III considered in the decision on this project. 2. That based on the information contained in the Initial Study ' and Negative Declaration, the project will not result in sig- nificant environmental impacts . 3. That the Phasing Plan is consistent with the Newport Beach ' General Plan and the Planned Community Development Plan for Civic Plaza. ' 4. That based on the Phasing Plan and supporting information submitted therewith , there is a reasonable correlation be- tween projected traffic at time of completion and the capa- city of affected intersections . 5 . That the applicant has taken into consideration in the prepar- ation of his plan characteristics in the design of his devel - opment which either reduce traffic generation or guide traf- fic onto less impact arterials or through intersections in the least congested direction. ' CONDITIONS: 1. That prior to the occupancy of any buildings on the site be- ' yond the existing development and 95 ,812 sq . ft. of new con- struction that the circulation system improvements contained in the Traffic Report in Table 5, Pages 7 through 9, and ' listed below shall have been constructed. INTERSECTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS A. Bristol Street North/ Add southbound through lane Campus Drive B. Bristol Street/Campus Drive Add southbound through lane ' C. Coast Highway/Dover Add southbound left turn lane Drive Add southbound right turn lane ' Add eastbound left turn lane 1 ' TO : Planning Commission 5 ' Add eastbound optional through or right turn lane Add westbound right turn lane D. Coast Highway/Bayside Drive Add eastbound through lane Add westbound optional through or right turn lane ' E. Coast Highway/Jamboree Road Add westbound through and west- bound left turn lanes ' F. Jamboree Road/Santa Barbara Add northbound through lane Drive Add southbound left turn lane Add westbound lane ' G. Jamboree Road/San Joaquin Add northbound through lane Hills Road and convert right turn lane to optional through or right Convert westbound left turn lane to optional through plus left. H. Jamboree Road/Eastbluff Drive- Convert northbound and south- Ford Road bound right turn lanes to op- tional through plus right Add eastbound through lane Convert westbound through lane to left turn lane e I . Bristol Street/Jamboree Road Convert northbound through lane to northbound left turn lane J . Bristol Street North/Jamboree Convert northbound through Road lane to northbound left turn ' lane K. Jamboree Road/MacArthur Add northbound right turn ' Boulevard lane Convert eastbound right turn lane to optional through or right. ' L. MacArthur Boulevard/Ford Add northbound left and right Road turn lanes , southbound left turn lane and eastbound left ' turn lane 2 . That no further development beyond that allowed by the Phasing Plan shall be allowed on this site. 1 TO : Planning Commission - 6 1 3. That prior to the issuance of any building permits , the ap- plicants shall indicate to the Director of Community De- 1 velopment in writing that they understand and agree to con- ditions 1 and 2 above. OR 1 If the Planning Commission desires to deny the Phasing Plan , the following findings are suggested for consideration : 1 FINDINGS : 1. That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration has been pre- 1 pared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and City Policy K-3, and that their contents have been considered in the decision on this project. 1 2. That based on the information contained in the Initial Study and Negative Declaration , the project will not result in sig- nificant environmental impacts . 3. That the Phasing Plan is consistent with the Newport Beach General Plan and the Planned Community Development Plan for 1 Koll Center Newport. 4. That based on the Phasing Plan and supporting information 1 submitted therewith , there is not a reasonable correlation between projected traffic at time of completion and the capa- city of the intersections of Bristol Street North/ Campus Dr. and Jamboree Road/MacArthur Boulevard. 1 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V . HOGAN, DIRECTO 1 By 1 Fre Talarico Environmental Coordinator FT/gg 1 Attachments : 1. Negative Declaration 2. Letter-The Irvine Company-July 10 , 1979 1 3. Response to "Test of Reasonableness Guide- lines"-July 1979 4. Traffic Report-July 5, 1979 1 5. Resolution No. 9517 6. City Council Minutes 1 1 i ftTCNC.}F MENT r � \ [, J' ',, S.Y. •`•,,•9�/` RESOLUTION NO. t A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING THE PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR CIVIC PLAZA REVISING THE ALLOWABLE DEVELOPMENT ESTABLISHING ' A PHASING OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND ACCEPTING AN ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT (AMENDMENT NO. 527) ' WHEREAS, Section 20.51.045 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that amendments to a Planned Community ' Development Plan shall be approved by a resolution of the City Council setting forth full particulars of the amendments; ' and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public ' hearing on February 8, 1979, at which time it considered amend- ments to the Planned Community Development Plan for Civic Plaza; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing the Planning Commission adopted its Resolution No. 1032 recommending to the City Council ' that certain amendments to the Planned Community Development Plan for Civic Plaza be adopted as follows: ' 1. The allowed development for the Office Park area is reduced by 85,294 square feet, and the Civic Cultural by ' 16,000 square feet as indicated in the following table: Total Allowable ' Land Use (Existing P_C) Revisud Total Office Park 320,000 sq. ft. 234,706 Art Museum 30,000 sq. ft. 30,000 ' Library 30,000 sq. ft. 14,000 Theater 20,000 sq. ft. 20,000 Restaurant 8,000 sq. £t. 8,000 408,000 sq. ft. 306,706 ' 2. A Phasing of Development Plan for Civic Plaza be adopted to read as follows: "PRASING OF DEVELOPMENT 34,000 sq. ft. of development was existing or under construction as of January 1, 1979. The additional allowable development in the total approved development plan is 272,706 sq. ft. Any ' further development subsequent to Januar 1, 1979, in excess of 30% of the additional allowable development, being 81,812 sq. ft., shall be approved only after it can be demonstrated that ' adequate traffic facilities will be available to handle that traffic generated by the project at the time of occupancy of the buildings involved. Such demonstration may be made by the presentation of a phasing plan consistent with the Circulation ' Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. In the review of this phasing plan, a test of reasonableness should be applied, rather than the criteria of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance." , 3. The Revised Site Plan, attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof, be adopted; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that ' said amendments to the Planned Community Development Plan for Civic Plaza as set forth above are desirable and necessary; and ' WHEREAS, the City Council has conducted a public hearing on said proposed amendments in accordance with all ' provisions of law, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council ' of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves the proposed amendments to the Planned Community Development Plan for Civic ' Plaza as set forth hereinabove. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the environmental document ' is hereby accepted. ADOPTED this 12th day of March ,, 1979. ' Mayor , ATTEST: City Clerk ' DDO/kb 3/8/79 -2- ' ' / 'S P'tTACHr►EMi ' C3" GiTY OF NFWPORT BEACH ' ' COUNCILMI-N MINUTES 1'3 pi.\<\•y�\G\ ' MOLL CALL, \1P � March 12, 1979 INDEX hj---0titl,PPn�ttion proposed needs to indicate degree of permanence ltn or to meet the test- ' I The regular order of the Age resumed. i 3. Mayor Ryckof£ opened the public hearing regarding Newport I Planning Commission Amendment No. 527, a request Center ' initiated by the City of Newport Desch to consider Civic an amendment to the Civic Plaza Planned Community Plaza Development Plan to require the preparation ora (2285) traffic phasing plan and reduction in allowable intensity of development and the acceptance of an ' Environmental Document on property bounded by San Joaquin Hills Road, Santa Cruz Drive, San Clemente Drive, and Santa Barbara Drive in Newport Center; zoned P-C. A report was presented from the Community Develop- ment Department. Ron Hendrickson of The Irvine Company addressed ' the Council and stated that Council had voted to make Civic Plaza an excepted project, and asked that the revised P-C Plan be approved, and'that the project be considered on a 30%/70% approach. Motion x The hearing was closed after it was determined All Ayes that no one else desired to be heard. Motion x Councilman Hummel made a motion that the test of reasonableness be applied to 100% of the Civic , Plaza project. t Councilman Heather made a statement for the record, as follows: "I feel that this project ' which was accepted and has had its zone changed and reduced, and is now being further impinged by 100% development review instead of 30%, I think that it is beyond' the scope of this Council to make that kind - I, personally feel, legally, that we do not have the right to further discrim- inate against this project." Motion x Councilman Hart made a substitute motion to continue the item to March 26. Motion I x Councilman made a substitute substitute Ayes xI x x x motion to adopt Resolution, No. 9517 amending the R-9517 ' Noes x Ix x Plann tm ed Conunity Development Plan for Civic Plaza revioing the allowable development plan, and-' accepting do environmental documentt,_which motion carriedT -' - ' I P. CONTINUED BUSINESS: 1. Previously considered. 2. A report was presented from the Community Develop- Newport Place ' ment Department regarding,Pladning Commission Planned action with regard Xo-aterequest of Emkay Develop- Community mant Realty-Company for the approval of a (1275) I Volume 33 - Page 60 7. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH .nYt II Mf N MINUTE o P (larch It, 1919 INDEX 1 I I avnilnble for potential office bu Clding. Addition a13Y, The Irvine Company requests that 4,156 nq. I I ft. of apace be reallocated from Pacific Coast 1 I 1 i i gighvay Eaoa and Nest, and 1.511 sq, ft. of apace , ` Crom either ➢lock 500 or Block 700, at their optio , be reallocated to ➢lock 800 In Newport Center to allow for the construction of a 10,000 sq• ft. restauront uhich would contain a maximum of , ,667 eq. Lt. of net public area. r A port was presented from the Community Develop- men Department. Barry ubb, President, and Steven Gavin. Vice ' Presid t Corporate Relation Officer, of Pacific Mutual L to Insurance addressed the Council. Mr. Cowin eta ad that they were reducing the elevation by three earn and would be willing to continue ' for not we than six weeks, if necessary; that they would b willing to eliminate the high-rise condominiums, ut that they would continue to be camnletod to a mitigation required for the two ten-story build gs, traLfie and otherwibn, and ' all other Condit no. Robert Shelton,of a Irvine Company, addressed the Council and otot d chat the condominiums were Included in the Envir mental Impact Report , because of a previous rection of the Council. Donald Oralneck, repress ing Pacific Mutual Insurance, addressed the until and asked 1£ the ordinancd were changed to late reference to the ' residential development, if hat would require a 1 revision to the ordinance n¢x time to dome back for reintroduction, or if it v uld be enacted at that time. The City Attorney stated that the ction would lover the density of the project a could be considered on April 23, if continue to that date, without reintroduction. Cary 5chamberg, President of Eastbluff omaowners Association, addressed the Council regar ing the I i necessity for developers to institute sou d atten- nation factors along Jamboree Road, and wn asked 1 to submit a letter with suggestions propose by th ' Association. Ix I The public hearing_as continued to April 23, th %II Ave, , I the applicant stipulating concurrence to conttnuution, t I i The Council unanimously agreed to take Agenda Item P-I I alit nE order and onn¢ider ie it-oto time. i A preportartme was presented from thePlanning Community Development teem- ' Department regarding the Planning Commission's rccom- mrulations concerning the definitlon of the term "reasonableness" as applied to a 'trnf fjr phnaing plan I • ' far "exceptod'f Planned Community nfstrlcts, t l ' Volume 33 - Page 58 ' I i ' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINA rES nl •, Man•h 12, 1'I/9 INDEX Corduu 6e•,I, President of the Nowport llm bor At va i (:hambr� or Commerce, and Michael C. Cerine addressed i the Courr Ll, but were ruled nut of order by the Mayor ' Ior nor addressing the nubjeet under consideration. The Snfo nnatinn to be submitted by the developer, as I recommel�ded by the Manning Commission in connection I wLtli the-vest o reeaonaGl-eness-for applicable Planned I communities, was modified_to change the Percentage I 1 x of increase in item 3 From 5S to 2%, to revise item 2 ,1r•• I x I z x x and Lo add items 7 ands:-"-The list was approved-as x x x follows: ' I (a) Each project subject to the phasing requirement i of Council Resolution No. 9472 shall be examined as to the extent of existing development and the i amount of development remaining to he completed. ' I (b) Information shall be submitted indicating the amount of traffic being generated by existing development, that projected for remaining development, and traffic that will exist after completion of the project. ' I i (c) An examination shall be made of the circulation system in the vicinity of the project to determin what improvements remain to be completed, with particular consideration being given to those ' I improvements which will directly aid in moving traffic generated by the project. The area to be examined shall extend to those intersections where traffic generated from the project increase the traffic for any leg of the intersection durin the peak two and one-half hour period by 2% or more. (d) Existing traffic at those intersections shall be shown prior to making any projections. ' I (e) The developer may include in his proposed I I traffic phasing plan completion of or contribu- tion to completion of needed improvements can- I I I sistent with the level of traffic generation and a reasonable proportion of the cost of these improvements. I (f) The developer is also to take into consideration In the preparation of his plan characteristics ' in the design of his development which either reduce traffic generation or guide traffic onto less impacted arterials or through intersections in the least congested direction. ! I (g) Upon recelpr of rho plan aad infornlrion, the I Commission will determine whether there is t 1 I reasonable correlation between projected traffic I I i at time of project completion and capacity of affected intersections in considering the project { I I for approval. i I Volume 33 - Page 59 Ii � I I1 � t CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH a MI N MINUTES ' Pl,'ti'FoiL\e \v I7.+ •A; I N March I!. 1777 INDEX ' (h) Mtrtgaei¢n proposed needs to L:dicntn degree of i f I i permanence in order to meet the tent. the regular order of the Agmm Has resumed. ' 1. Mayor Ryckoff opened clue public hearing tegarding Newport , Planning, CommissionAmen(Im¢nf,.Ho. 527, a request Center Initiated by the City of Newport teach to consider Civic an amendment to the Civic Plaza Planned Community Plaza ' Develo ens Plan to•requite the preparat;on of�a (2285) Ern is phasing plan and reduction in allowable I intensity of development and the acceptance of an Environmental Document on property bounded by San Joaquin Hills Road, Santa Cruz Drive, San Clemente , Drive, and Santa BarbaraDrive in Newport Center; zoned P-C. A report was presented from the Community Develop- ment Department, , Ron Hendrickson of The Irvine Company addressed the Council and stated that Council had voted to make Civic Plaza an excepted project, and asked that the revised P-C Plan be approved, and that ' the project be considered on a 30f/70S approach. Motion x The hearing was closed after it use determined All Ayes that no one else desired to be heard, Motion x� Councilman Hummel made a motion that the teat of ' reasonableness be applied to 100% of the Civic Plaza project. Councilman Heather mad¢ a statement for the ' record, as follows: "I feel that this project which was accepted and has bad its zone changed and reduced, and is now being further impinged by 1DOI development review instead of 30X1 I think ' that it is beyond the scope of this Council to make that kind - I, personally feel, legally, that we do not have the ri;ht to further discrim- Imes against this project." M"t ion xl Councilman hart made a substitute motion to ' continue the item to March 26. `1,q Inn I I x Councilman McInnis =de a substitutq_spbptitute Avv" 1 x1 x x x motion to adopt,Resolution No. 9517 emending the R-9517 Y,vs In x x I Planned Community ➢evalopmenC Plan for Civic Plaza ' ' re`v3e ng t c sfjovable development plan, and ' accept ng an environmental documen0, uhiX'motion • i I carrAd:' I P. CONTINUED BUSINESS: , ( II � 1. Previously considered. 7, A report was presented from the Community Develop- Newport Pincc ment Department regarding Planning Conostsnion Planned nn wi ' i I I nctloth regard, to n req ¢aq u of�Piekny 6avelop- Community i mant and.Realty Company fur the approval of n (1275) ' I � � ' - -•'• Volume 73 - Page GO , 1 i t I I I 1 �_ IRVINE COMPANY —550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92663 (714) 644-3011 t . July 10, 1979 <��=f�1-u..ll RECEIVED Z Community PLanning Commission 0 Development Dept City of Newport Beach JUL1 pt Newport 9�- Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California CITY or• 92663 EWFORT EACH, CALIF. ' SUBJECT: Civic Plaza Traffic Phasing Plan S V C) Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission: In order to proceed with full development of the Civic Plaza site in accordance with the City's P.C. district regulations, we are submitting attached Traffic Phasing Plan for your approval. City Council Resolution No. 9472 sets forth guidelines for the "test of reasonableness" to be used in evaluating such projects. It is our- belief that the attached Traffic Phasing Plan has been prepared in compliance with all ' applicable City regulations and, in fact,meets the criteria established for the test of reasonableness. The Traffic Phasing Plan was prepared assuming that development .currently in process under the 30% exception rule would be fully occupied in 1980. The additional 70% of future allowed development, according to our Traffic Phasing Plan, is scheduled to be developed and occupied in 1981. The attached traffic study and responses ' identify the traffic impacts associated with the proposed development. Our proposed site development phasing plan is 'summarized as follows: 1980 - Occupancy of existing plus development in urocess.under the 30% rule. (This includes 34,000 sq. ft. for, the art museum and library, plus approximately 81,000 sq. ft-. additional) . ' 1981 - Occupancy of remainder of allowed development, subject to the 70% phasing requirement. (This includes approximately 190,000 square feel consistfng of office/restaurant/theater uses, and an addition ' to tite art museum.) tJit-hill tho traffic Limiting parameters, iL is highly desirable from our point of view to complete the Civic Plaza development at the earliest feasible date. This would minimize aesthetic impacts due to,grading and construction, and would allow the most effective implementation of erosion control measures. ' Responses to the City's guidelines for Traffic Phasing approval are attached. July 9, 1979 )4 , Pal>e We hope that this lettor, along with Lhe aLLachad TrarrLe Plan will answer , your questions and concerns related Lo traffic impacL-s due to the develop— ment of the Civic Plaza P.C. Should you have any additional questions or ' comments, please feel free to contact me or our 'Traffic Consultant. Yours very truly, Ronald W. Hendrickson ' Director, Design/Construction Commerical/Industrial Division RWH:lk , encls. NMc-NC V�a, �5 CIVIC PLAZA TRAFFIC PHASING PLAN 1 Item 1 Each project subject to the phasing requirement of Council Resolution No. 9472 shall be examined as to the extent of existing development and'the amount of ' development remaining to be completed. The Civic Plaza Planned Community provides for five separate land uses on the site. Upon completion of the entire project, the PC provides for the following ' identified land use developments: Art museum 30,000 sf ' Library 14,000 sf Restaurant 8,000 sf Offices 234,706 sf Theater 20,000 sf' The only presently developed land use on the site is the Newport Beach Art Museum with 20,000 square feet. Additional land uses for the site which for traffic ' analysis purposes are under construction or in the process of development are the City of Newport Beach Library and 81,812 square feet of offices under the 30% rule. Those portions of the planned community which would remain to be developed upon approval of the Traffic Phasing Plan are the restaurant, 152,894 square feet ' of offices, the 650 seat theater, and 10,000 additional square feet for the museum. Item 2 Information shall be submitted indicating the amount of traffic being generated by existing development, that projected for remaining development, and traffic that will exist after completion of the project. ' Based on the appropriate traffic generation rates as identified in the Newport Center Phase II Traffic Study, the total traffic. to be generated by the site is tas follows. ' July 1979 p.m. Peak Hour +� , ADT In out Existing - occupied ' Art museum - 20,000 sf 840 20 20 Under Development - 1980 occupancy ' Library - 14,000 sf 588 10 10 ' offices - 81,812 s£ 1,064 49 140 Sub-total 1,652 59 150 Future Development - 1981 Occupancy ' Art museum - 10,000 sf 420 10 10 ' Restaurant 400 40 20 offices - 152,894 sf 1,988 91 260 Theater 975 n/a n/a Sub-total 3,783 141 290 , Total PC 6,275 220 460 ' The amount of traffic to be' generated by the completion of all remaining develop- ment in the peak hour is shown on Table 2 of the attached report. The existing portion of the art museum was not included in that analysis as it was an existing ' land use and included in existing traffic volume data. Item 3 ' An examination shall be made of the circulation system in the vicinity of the project to determine what improvements remain to be completed, with particular consideration being given to those improvements which will directly aid in moving ' traffic generated by the project. The area to• be examined shall extend to those intersections where traffic generated from the. project increases the traffic for any leg of the intersection during the peak 2� hour period by 2% or-more. ' Table 3 of the attached report summarizes the analysis for critical intersection identification, with the backup calculation sheets included in Appendix A. Identifying critical intersections was based on the intersections to be examined ' by the procedures of the'Traffic Phasing Ordinance for the area in which Civic Plaza is identified, and further examination is included for any intersection for which the project would increase traffic by 2% or more during the 2§ hour ' period. The site is bounded by San Joaquin Hills Road, Santa Cruz Drive, San Clemente Drive, and Santa Barbara Drive. All roadway improvements adjacent to the site ' have been previously improved and completed by the owner. -2- ' Item 4 ' Existing traffic at those intersections shall be shown prior to making any projections. ' Existing traffic volumes for all identified critical intersections are shown in Appendix B, Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis. ' Item 5 The developer may include in his proposed Traffic Phasing Plan completion of or contribution to completion of needed improvements consistent with the level of ' traffic generation and a reasonable proportion of the cost of these improvements. As previously identified, the landowner has already made the identified ultimate General Plan improvements on the roadways adjacent to the site. Due to this previous contribution by the landowner to completion of the roadway system, no deficiencies on the existing circulation have been identified adjacent to the site. ' Table 5 identifies a summary of circulation system improvements included in future period ICU calculations. All of these improvements are required as a ' part of approved projects or are planned as• government projects. of the projects identified, the landowner has committed over $152,000 in the improve- ment of the Ford/MacArthur intersection'. ' Item 6 The developer is also to take into consideration in the preparation of his plan characteristics in the design of his development which either reduce traffic generation or guide traffic onto less impacted arterials or through intersec- tions in the least congested direction. ' The proposed land use plan reflects a reduction in traffic generated over the original approved PC for the site. The proposed 14Lnd use plan reflects a 26.6% reduction in office use of that initially approved with the existing PC being ' amended in April 1979. ; The current PC also includes a mix of land uses which have beneficial traffic generation impacts in tPie peak hours, such as 'the proposed theater, library and ' museum. Although of a higher generation rate, a restaurant at this site will potentially serve to divert some trips from the surrounding area in the peak hours. -3- 7b:m 0 (continued) Full access to the site is to be taken from San Clemente and Santa Rosa, with , a restricted right turn only access from San Joaquin Hills Road. San Clemente and Santa Rosa were identified in the Newport Center ''Traffic Study as roadways _ with a less degree of utilization than other roadways in the vicinity of the , site. The internal circulation system of the site is oriented towards encour- aging vehicles to utilize these roadways for ingress/egress from the Civic _ Plaza site and Newport Center area. The orientation of traffic to Santa Rosa and San Joaquin Hills Road intersection and Santa Barbara/Jamboree intersection ' are intended to encourage traffic to divert to non-critical movements at the San Joaquin Hills Road and Jamboree intersection. Item 7 ' Upon receipt of the plan and information, the Commission will determine whether there is a reasonable correlation between projected traffic at the time of ' project completion and capacity of affected intersections in considering the project for approval. The attached traffic study had identified two intersections that will have ICU's ' that exceed .90 in 1982 after full project completion; these are the intersec- tions of Bristol Street North and Campus Drive, .and the intersection of Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard, with projected ICU's of .9279 and .9496, respectively. ' For the Bristol Street North and Campus intersection, with or without approval of the project, the intersection has a projected ICU value of .9279. This is ' due to the project generated traffic being added to a non-critical movement through the intersection. Thus, approval or denial of the project will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of service at this intersection. For the Jamboree and MacArthur intersection, the project increases the ICU analysis value by .0227 in 1982. The traffic consultant has indicated in his - report that drivers utilizing this intersection would not perceive this increase, ' and in his opinion, the intersection would operate satisfactorily. He has also identified that the construction of the Corona del Mar Freeway would also result in improved conditions at this intersection.' Item 8 Mitigation proposed needs to indicate degree of permanence in order to meet the ' test. 'rho land use reductions made in the April 1979 PC amendment reflect a perman- ent reduction in land use intensity and traffic generation for this site. , The roadway improvements identified as necessary for the approval of other projects are considered as permanent fixed facility improvements although ' additional modifications such as re-stripping, construction to ultimate (where appropriate) and signal operations modifications) may also occur in the future. -4 ;AI I + - 4 1 ►� E,� Wow P► "fe and A000c�iafa ---- 1 TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 1 luly 5, 1971) 1 ,.It . Ron Ilundrickson Commercial/ fnduslrPal Dfvisfon I'Lc Irvine Company 1 �i'iO Newporl (:I'11tt•l. Drive . Ntwport. go!acli, California 92643 pear mr. Hendrickson: 1 "ibis letter suminarizes our analysis oP the trarlic requirement's of. L'hc devel- opment or Civic Plaza with respect 'to circulation improvement phasing. The study 1 was conducted to evaluate the circulation needs in response to the Newport Beach Citv Council Resolution Number 9472 requiring an improvement phasing plan for 1 this project. The study was based upon current planning for Civic Plaza and previous traffic 1 studies related to ,this project:. Previous studies include the following: 1 1, Newport Center Traffic Study, Phase II, Crominelin-Pringle and Assoc- iates, Tnc. 1976. . 1 2. Civic Plaza Ell, 'Traffic Analysis, Cronuuelin-Pringle and Associates, Inc. 1975. 1 in addition, current traffic volume data, regional traffic growth data, and committed projects were provided by Lho City. 1 PROJEXT DESCRIPTTON 1 t:ivie• Plaza is located wiLhin Iliu Newport contc•I area aL Hit, southwest coriler of San Aoagoin Ilills 1toad nod Santa Cruz: Drivr. Vchicul:n• acco:.tS will he provided lu 1 Sim Joaquin iillls Road, tiruua Ctuz Utivt•, Yan Clt•monl& Drive and Sauta Barbara Drive. I'be Sail .loaquill lulls Road access is limited Lo righL lurtis only. 1 Proposed development includos orfic and restaurant uses in addition to the existing art museum and library that is undur construction. A total of 234,706 1 1 1111 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE SUITE 110 • FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92631 • (714) 871-2931 -2; square feet of office use is planned along with an 8,000 square foot restaurant. ' Till- library will include 14,000 square feet and a 10,000 square foot expansion of 'the museum is planned. A theater is also proposed at some future date. Since this would have a neCligiblo traffic impact during critical hours, it is not included in the ' analysis, 'GRIP CENRRATCON For this analysis, estimates wire made of Phi peak hour volumes and the 2.5 hour peak period. Generation rates and estimated volumes for each use and time period ; are listed in Tables 1 and 2, The existing art museum building was not included as it is included in existing traffic volume data. Those generation rates are those utilized in precious studies of this site. ' TRTP ❑TSTRIBUTION AND ASSTCNNP:NT ' The geographic distribution or traffic gonorated by this development has been dev- eloped in the referenced previous studies. Figure 1 illustrates the traffic dis- tribution that has been utilized for this study. This distribution is for out- bound traffic from the site. Tnbound traffic would be the same percentage in the opposite direction. . By applying, the distribution percentages to the trip genera- tion data in Tables 1 and 2, estimates can be made of traffic volumes from the project at various locations. The distribution in Figure l is for outbound traffic , Which must be reversed for inbound traffic: CRTTTCAL INTERSECTION TM ENTTFTCATTON The next step in the analysis was to identify those intersections that could be ' impacted by the project. As a starting point, the W intersections identificated for analysis under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance for this area were examined. For Lhis examination, the "17. 'rrarric Volume Analysis" forms from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance were utilized. Appendix A contains the data For the individual inter- ' sections and the results are sumoarized in Tnblo 1. The basis for comparison in_ eluded existing traffic, regional growth traffic and approved project traffic. The criteria established by the City Council indicates that any intersection where the project Lraffic during Lhe 2.5 hour peak exceeds two percent of the existing plus regional growth plus approved project traffic must be analyzed in detail. ' -3- ' Table 1 ' 2.5 HOUR TRIP GENERATION Civic Plaza LAND USE: RATE VOLUME IN OUT TN OUT ' Office (234,706 SF) 1 .2 3.4 280 800 Restaurant ( 8,000 SF) L1.3 7.7 90 60 ' Library (14,000 SF) 1.0 1.0 10 10 Museum (10,000 SF) 1.0 1.0 10 10 Totals 300 820 Table 2 IN PEAK NOUR MY GI{NERATCON ' Civic Plaza LAND USE, RATE. VOLUME ' IN OUT IN OUT Office (234,706 SF) 0.6 1.7 140 400, ' Restaurant (8,000 SF) 5.0 3.0 40 20 Library (14,000 SF) 1 .0 1 .0 10 1.0 ' Museum (10,000 SF) 1 .0 1 .0 10 _10 Totals 160 420 FIGURE I TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION /O toz 35 i na, eQisror. BR,Sro L O 20'Io \JF'ah` • d� s a a 257• o. `� 35% FORS R hu 5•/ ZO SAkr� S O p &4R8gR 351 4'JJOAQUI,v/{ICCSMo. 5% w 25y 5yOL 5% 25 � pPL��`G COAST HIGHWAY 10 z WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES ' -4 Table 3 CItTTICAL INIT',RSECTTON JUF,N'I'TFTCA,rTON ' Civic Plaza ' LO(:A'1'TON 2.5 110(I11 PERCRNTACI:S 1983 NB LB NB WB ' Bristol St. N. & Campus Dr. - - - 4.6 Bristol St. & Campus Dr. 3.5 Coast Highway & Dover Dr. - - 2.6 3.6 ' Coast Highway & Bayside Dr. - - 1.9 4.8 Coast Highway & .Jamboree Rd. - 6.2 2.1 - ' Coast Ilighway & Newport Center Dr. - 1.4 - 0.7 Coast Highway & Mac Arthur Blvd. 1.6 1.3 1.1 ' Coast Highway & Marguerite Ave. - - 2�4 1.5 Jamboree Rd: & Santa Barbara Dr, • 4.7 1.4 6.8 Jamboree Rd. & San Joaquin hills Rd. 0.6 3.0 - 13.4 Jamboree Rd. & Ford Rd. . 5.4 3.8 - - Jamboree Rd. & Bristol St. 4.7 1.4 4.1 - ,Jamboree Rd. & Bristol St. N. 4.4 1.2 - - Jamboree Rd. & Mac Arthur Blvd. 2.0 1.2 .2.6 1.1 ' Mac Arthur Blvd. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. 1 .3 2.6 9.1 •1.3 Mac Arthur Blvd. & Ford Rd. 5.5 2.1 Review of 'fable 3 indicates that 14 of tile' 16 intersections exceed Ole mnaimum 24 ' two percent on at least orle approach and must be considered critical. ANALYSIS The 14 Intersections identifled in the previous section were further examined to ' determine potential impacts. Utilizing "Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis" forms from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance procedure, ICU values were determined , and include regional growth and approved projects volumes, The ICU's also include improvements required by previously approved projects. 'these improvements are discussed in the next sttetton. The individual analysis sheets are contained in , Appendix B and summarized in Table 4. Review of Table 4 indicates that two inter- sections 'are projected to exceed 0.90: Bristol Street North and Campus Drive, and ' Jamboree Road and Mac Arthur Boulevard. All other intersections are below the 0.90 level. ' Since City Council Resolution Number 9422 alluws 30 percent of development without , improvement phasing, the 14 critical iT1LorseeL'iens were analyzed with existing plus 30 percent of the remaining development. These data are included in Appendix C and summarized in Table 4. The ICU's for the two intersections of Bristol Street North and Campus Drive, and ,Jamboree Road and Mac Arthur Boulevard still exceed the 0.90 level under these conditions. ' As indicated in the previous paragraphs, two intersections have ICU's that exceed 0.90 whether they are analyzed with 30 porc•enr of the livojoct development or with , full develonment. it should also be noted Lbat both of these intersections have ICU values greater than 0.90 without development of Civic Plaza. ''These two inter- , sections are discussed in the following paragraphs. Bristol Street North and Campus Drive , Review of i:ohle 4 :iod till- rel,'iLod ShVVL'r in Appondlcos I: and C indital,•s , that Lhe projoel would h.ivr nu inip:lt•L upon the WO v"luc•s at Lhis Intersect it'll. Since project volumes are added ra non-c•jitital movements, the ICU values are equivalent for both cases with and without the projuct. ' Jamboree Road and Mac Arthur Boulevard 'the ICU values at this inrersection increase 0.0069 in 1981 and 0.0227 in 1982 as a result of Lhe project. Tht•;u• increases would not be percollLible ' to drivers u W izi.ng Lhe intersection. In addition, with observed driver -6 ' Table 4 ' ICU SUMMARY ' civic Plaza III(1) (1) (1) IN'L'hI:5E(Y1'I0N EXISTING EXISTING + EXISTING + EXISTING + ' RE'GIONAL + REGIONAL + REGIONAL + COMMITTED COMMITTED+ COMMITTED+ 30% PROJECT PROJECT 1981 1981 1982 ' Bristol St. N. & Campus'Dr. 0.9858 0.9256 0.9256 0.9279 Bristol St. & Campus Dr. 0.72 0.6467 0.6498 0.6613 ' Coast Ilighway & Dover Dr. 0.99 0.6556 0.6623 0.6788 Coast Highway & Bayside Dr. 0.89 0.8051 0.8118 0.8282 ' Coast Ilighway & Jamboree Rd. 0.83 0,7644 0.7644 0.7650 Coast Highway & Marguerite Ave. 0.68 0,7425 0.7466 0.7560 Jamboree Rd. & Santa Barbara Dr. 0.53 0.6171 0.6233 0.6373 ' ' Jamboree Rd. & San Joaquin •Ilills Rd. 0.64 0,6473 0.6487 0.6522 Jamboree Rd. & Ford Rd. 0.83 0.7449 0.7517 0.7739 ' Jamboree Rd. & Bristol St. 0.54 0,7944 0.8032 0.8247 Jamboree Rd. & Bristol St, N. 0.72 0,8219 0,8298 0.8489 ' Jamboree Rd. & Mac Arthur Blvd. 0.85 0.9269 0.9338 0.9496 Mac Arthur Blvd. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. 0.72 0.7945 0,8070 0.8368 ' Mac Arthur Blvd. & Ford Iid. 1.01 0,8653 0.8753 0.8997 (1) No Project Related Improvements are. Considered in Calculations. -7- ' Z� t' nracteristics in the area, the intersection would operate satisfactorily. Observations have indicated that, as intersections near capacity, the capacity ' is increased and yellow or lost time decreased. Construction of the Corona Del Mar Freeway and San Joaquin corridor would also result in improved conditions. ' CIRCULATION I11PwVE'WNT NEEDS ' The ICU analyses for the project included some circulation system improvements. All of these improvements are currently required as part of approved projects or ' planned as governmental projects. The lmpruvemouts are summarized in Table 5 and illustrated in Figures 2 through 13. Table 5 ' SUPNIARY OF RECOMM"INDED SYSTEM IMPROVE3M1iNTS Civic Plaza ' INTERSECTION 51'S1,XM DIPROVE'MEMTS Bristol Street North/ Add southbound through lane. Re- ' Campus Drive quired by previously approved pro- ject. See Figure 2. ' Bristol Street/Campus Drive Add southbound through lane. See Figure 3. Required by previously ' approved project. Coast Ilighway/Dover Drive Add southbound left turn lane. ' Add southbound right turn lane. Add eastbound left turn lane. ' Add eastbound optional through or right'turn lane. Add west- bound right turn lane. City/Call cans Project . See Figure 4. ' Coast Ilighway/Bayside Drive Add eastbound through lane. ' Add Westbound optional through or right turn lane. , ?� (:alTrans Project. See Figure 5. ' Coast Ilighway/Jamboree Road Add westbound through and west- bound left turn lanes. Required by previously approved project. See Figure 6. Jamboree Road/Santa Barbara Drive Add northbound through lane. ' Add southbound left turn lane. Add westbound lane. Required by ' previously approved project. See Jigiire 7. ' Jamboree Road/San.ioaquin Add northbound through lane and Hills Road convert right turn lane to opt- ional through or right. Convert westbound left turn lane to ' optional through plus left. Required by previously approved project. ' See Figure 8. ' Jamboree Road/Bastbluff Drive- Convert northbound and south- Ford Road bound right turn lanes to optional through plus right. Add eastbound through lane, k:onvvr( wesrbour.J t::ro i ' 1 ,11.• :0 I:•i: turn lmt:•. Iw- quirf•d by p1'rvi0IISIV approved See Figure 9. ' Bristol Strect/Jamboree Road Convert northbound through lane to northbound left turn lane. ' Required by previously approved project. See Figure 10. -9- ' Bristol Street North/Jamboree Road Convert northbound through lane ' to northbound left turn lane. Required by previously approved , project. Sea Figure 11. , Jamboree Road/Mac Arthur Boulevard Add northbound right turn lane. ' Convert eastbound right turn lane to optional through or righL. Required by previously ' approved projceL. See Figure 12. ' Mac Arthur Boulevard/Ford Road Add northbound left and right turn lanes, southbound left turn ' lane and eastbound left turn lane. City of Newport Beach project to ' be constructed 1979-80. See Figure 13. SUMMARY ' The potential impact of the proposed Civic Plaza site has been analyzed at 30 percent ' of development and at full development. in 1982. Both analyses have indicated that two intersections would have ICU's greater; Chan 0.90. For one irltersectioli, the analysis indicates that with the project and. improvements from approved projects, ' the ICU would be less than the existing !I'll. it would a1�,o be equal tc the 1981 and 1982 ICU without the prOit•Cl:. 1.J11vc16alY, Cof Lhe 0.'W, li.ai tdl .,J r LhQ indicates thaL the 1%V Ti:U would bo Mork- than Lilo ra i:.l rill; ICU; lo,wevvr, Llw• o.;L.- mated 1982 ICU without the project, is only slightly lvs5 (0.0'127) L•han with the ' project and is still over 0.90. An optional improvement which would reduce tha tCU value at. Jamboree and Plac Arthur to ]css than 0.90 WAS also examined. Since this , improvement ra uld not be requi.rcd far ultimata conditions, iL ao uld be an interim soLlt ion, 1 -10 We trust that• this analysis will be of assistance to you and the City of Newport 1 Beach. If ,you have any questions or require additional information, please con- tact us. Respectfully submitted, 1 WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES Weston S. Pringle, P.E. i WSP:RS:cd #5452 1 . 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 i . 1 1 ADD THROUGH LANE --- . > I I 1 NOT TO SCALE 1 BRISTOL 1 } { ` STREET NORTH 1 a RECOMMENDED I-ANE CONFIGURATION Af INTERSECTION OI- 1 BRISTOL STREET NORfH / CAMPUS DRIVE . 1 1 . 2 1 WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE 1 1 . W I, 1 H a BRISTOL STREET NORTH y l ' I I 1 ADD THROUGH LANE NOT TO SCALE 1 � � BRISTOL STREET 1 ' 1 ADD THROUGH LANE — 1 . 1 RE'COMMMUED CONFIGURATION AT 'INTERSECTION OR CAMPUS DRIVE-IRVINE AVENUE/BRISTOL ST. 1 1 WESTON PRINGLE RND RSSOCIRTES FIGURE 3 1 32 ' w ADD LEFT TURN � LANE I ' 0 ADD RIGHT TURN I ADD RIGHT TURN ' LANE I I LANE COAST 1 I HIGHWAY ADD LEFT TURN I ' LANE ADD THROUGH LANE I I W > NOT TO SCALE ' RECOMMENDED LANE CONFIGURATION , AT INTERSECTION OF COAST HIGHWAY / DOVER DRIVE ' WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES . FIGURE 4 ' 1 ADD THROUGH LANE WITH BRIDGE ' WIDENING ' I ADD THROUGH LANE COAST -� I HIGHWAY 1 ADD THROUGH LANE O� �G ' NOT TOSCQLE RECOMMENDEDA_ _ LANE CONFIGUR ICiN -AT INTERSECTION. OF COAST HIGHWAY / BAYSOE DRIVE ' WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE 5 I I I ,I I I � I I i ADD THROUGH LAND. ADD THROUGH LANK I I COAST HIGHWAY J 1 i ADD LEFT TURN LANE I I ' Tp SCALE I ' �pZ I I I I ,I • I . • I RECOMMENDED CONRT0111WHON AT fNPIMSECTION OR ' COAST HIGHWAY/J' MBOR1iE ROAD WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE 6 ' ADD LEFT TURN ' LANE ADD RIGHT TURN LANE �r- fADD THROUGH LANE BARBARA DRIVE Q w T w � � w I • I •o NOT TO SCALE m ' RECOMMENDED LANE .CONFIGURATION AT INTERSECTION OF JAMBOREE ROAD / S.ANTA BARBARA DRIVE ' WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES . FIGURE 7 • �A tiF 5CP ,SO ,• a 'CONVERT T,E1'C TURN LANE w I TO OPTIONAL THROUGH AND o LEFT TURN LANK? ti SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD - Ir CONVERT' RIGHT TURN LANE ' TO OPTIONAL THROUGH AND RIGHT h'IiRN T.ANE ' ADD THROUGH LANE t RECOMMENDED CONFIGURA'CTON Al' TN ERSNC'I'lON OR , 1Ah11SORI{li ROAD/SAN .Tt1AQUIN IITLI,S ROAD . 1 WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE 8 ' CONVERT FIGHT TURN frlNls TO OPTIONAL THROUGH AND RIGHT TURN LANE V ' I / CONVERT THROUGH LANE TO LEFT TURN LANE ' EASTBLUFF DRIVE I I FORD ROAD ADD THROUGH LANE 'ONVR9' RGII TURN LANE AAND . IT OPTIONAL I1ROUGH C P TURN LANE ti ' NOT TO SCALIi ' Rl-'(:0,Ml-'ND1SD CONFfMIRATJON Al' INTERSECTION OF ,iR IAORI:R. ROAD/isAS'Im.m.,F DRIVE-1'ORU ROAU WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FiGuRE 9 •I I I • I 3� I I I I I BRISTOL STREET NORTH , CONVERT THROUGH ' N� p I I LANE TO LEFT TURN a I LANE ' w I I I • II NOT TO SCALE E2I ' ti I I 1 BRISTOL STREET , CONVERT THROUGH LANE TO. I S FT •URN LANE ' RECOPiT MED CONFIGURATION AT INTERSECTION OF 3 MBOR1411 ROAD AND BRTSTOL STREET WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES . FIGURE 10 ' . I � •I I BRISTOL STREET NORTH � I 1 CONVERT TIIROUGH LANE TO LEFT TURN LAMS w I NOT TO SCALE0 BRISTOL STREET 1 TT Y j RECOMMENDED CONFIGURATION AT INTERSECTION OF ' JAMBOREE ROAD AND BRISTOL 'STREET NORTH ' WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE II . 1 q0 n NOT TO SCAB 1 / 1 ADD RIGHT 1 TURN LANE 1 a \ RECOMMENDED LANE CONFIGURATION 1 AT INTERSECTION OF JAMBOREE ROAD /MAC ARTHUR BOULEVARD 1 1 FIGURE 121 WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES 1 1 l�l 1 o ADD LEFT TURN 1 LANE °D NOT TO SCALE 1 FORD ROAD 1 1 cr D = I . ADD RIGHT ADD LEFT a TURN LANE 1 TURN LANE----a 1 NOTE: ALL IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDED IN CITY PROJECT 1 RECOMMENDED LANE CONFIGURATION AT •INTERSECT ION_OF 1 MAC ARTHUR_ BOULEVARD/FORD ROAD 1 WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE 13 1 • 1 42 , 1 APPEWDIR A 1 2.5 pCUR INTEIISECT10N ANALYSES 1 . 1 1 ' 1 . 1 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 1 ' 2d Ir•affic VoIuiae Analysis ' ;tit ersecCiOn fir istoI Strk!1't ILrtil/Sunµu __lllivu - llvino Avv, (Existing Traffic Voluines based on Averaiio Winter/Suring 1�478.1 Avl L,AJ. t 1,q 1N1, • ANC I AYPr...... I •1 a 1,V LPd I �I• of In,I, . .•� ;1, , •rta t:+' 1 ,. 'ua, ,cap,u•e„ I Pro lvI,h •nl '�r In'm Pre4 Y; ' od 1' ..., I,nnv' ,.r u:.lh i foal .'. Dmw hdulov , 'lo hmu' 1: 1504 J() YartncWonJ ... . . f ' SpuV�tuu,o _,---• - 3705 /30 - I /�� Y003 (go. ' S(o llF.`6' ir .. .. _..._- � k % Project Traffic is estimated to be letis thdn I%I of Projected Peak 21, Hour Traffic Volume Z_ ' © Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1'w of Projected Peak 21, Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I .C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 YHVUC ZX Traffic Volume Analysis 1 mLersection Bristol tiU'(•aL-/f:auqul nr,iv�• - Crvxni Avo. 1 (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average WintcrNprrinq 1978) •Wul• ! •AI.1`�ru•I `• .h'•IrJ 71. I Piup• :P1 •r ;.�I 1 .1., .. .y1 4pgb n•1 I try 1.It,1, nl . •lu•,• PIA :• .r. '•.1. . . I've Ill-A laur .. Imur 1,1W4• Iu•ur{•' 1 o,,em Y1 Iou.' ou ,U•C^:eonJ I :�.,:r•a•.0 3164 /// i /36 ' /3�G wi✓i ,•.•., $0:17 5y j %Gd r/Oa s°/o T J Project traffic i, estimated Lo be lass than 1'• of PrOjrt.trd 1 Peat. 21; Hour Traffic Volume © Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than I. of Projected Peak 21; Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity LltiliLv ion 1 (1 ,C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 1 . 1 . . 1 ' 1 ' 1 1 ' ZX' Traffic Volume Analysis ' .nto+ '.rCt ion Const I11r.11w,{v/ally. I I{, iv,- . in,; Traffic Vul ume.s bawd on Avvl-ogt IJintrr!5{nine {.{r81 :vdl •yUl' :-A,- ...... . Ic pup i ..e . .. . unl 1'rn1 hmr }pldnU• rU:one' .. .un . .. 1 m. i.•hmu 242 a Yy J ?lnu 30 �/3•0 i 1/2 I S/�? /� 34 �3 '/3 9�0 �.G plc• 348 5?79 37 h00 Yl 5% Co : i . .�.�9. .. .._ a/G.. 3 ro ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than IY, of Pl-OJOcted Peak 212 liour•Traffic Volume z ' © Project Traffic is estimated to be greater tnan X"� of ProJet:cO'j Peak 21, Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity titili-la'."on ( I .C.U. I Analysis is required. 1 J.r. Z1 ;ratfic Volume Analy,is ' !W,cv`.K,tiun ( mist Ili��harsly?lirlys�dr. Pdvv . _ . . ' (EAi<,t,i,y ;ra! fic Volunle5 tiaSed on Averauv 'nintu/5i�rinq 11i8) • 1 ire• r' •,nlf -' .lpprnvrJ ' ` '• I lc:l � X` 1'1� 1 ,. ' I .•. . .;l.•n. I'r'1,•1 I4 1•d,': , nn.0 1 .p •� ,q.p dtmih N'.0 , •4,.1 Y LI�Ip• YulamP. . .Wi. .eI pLl %olis . i into 1 484.7 J�/ i /��t i so 33 /o/ 96, / 9 % 3d6n a77.. c.v.:L-:-•�o3d.: : yS/ / .. A .c0... y.s% , Project Traffic is estimated to be lens than i:: of Projected ' Peak 210 flour Traffic Volume- Project Traff is is w;timated to he grrater titan /f" of PrOlet U'd Peak 21_ lieu, Trafli<, Volume". Intersoct.ion Collai.ii,y :Iticiiati,w t ( I .C.(I. } Ana IY% i'1 i'. required. 1 1 affic Volume Anal,y i . 1 .nIxI ..t•Ctllgl I:yn.s Ilil',hlodv/.I:ILIIh.Ir,• I:,.Id (L�1 'I.inc•1 IrdYliC Volumes bdSell on Averd.lU wl1 ny 1 'IrJ' wmr • ' nl�l•n r�.l � gyp..l.,n � Zf a ;. ;,..'w .�, •' _ Ih',ur•�, I Pr a 1r.1•, t}n4 Lul,r• Ih•JI l• '..r •d• �.nm• aruwln I'en4 VOW rUlume i liil Vine ... 5ya 3so1 70 a i& lo.a .J;r....... 4764 1 .3185 J- �5-0 i�`��o7 ! 70 1 Y't'UjL?ct I I•. estimated to bo le'.', than t' of Prn,lellod Peak 21, Hour Traffil. VolulnO z 1 ® ProjeCt irafi is is 1'itillidted to be tdl oatel' ttrdil /1'': of 1'1'UJQL!P;i Peak 2': Hour traffic Volunlen. Inter•.ection Capacity 1101 nation (1 .C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 1 j1 Tratfic Volume Attalymis ' .utt•1".r'Ctlnr L'nn:,t _Iltr;hWpy/Nrt.'pnrt fF�isLirnl Tr iric V( lunies based on Averdqu WiIILQUStWinyl !LU8.1 I..,I. rr(lW' ' Av....vr.i •.. . hm . .. .� n Vr•. ' • Ih'n,r.is r.•At ere• P.•nl ..nl .a. IrnM h �'.'ll • 'Lbu' vlll l•AN• • .1.1 ow. 5u1.An1• . r . ' i 330 0/ 78 lay 5'Y 0 TO J�YiI•�.11llr .. . • 18�IA 1 r ; • .• _ .• 1,': 31 ? r7 a Sao/ � y Yla_ . . . /oy •a7/6,o Sy a0 0. 7% ' 15hh z © Project Traffic is estimated to be less than xt, of Pro?octer ' Peak 21, Holm Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be iu•eater than 'I'.. of Projected ' Peal. 210 Hour fraftie Vnlonu>n. lntprsectioo Capacit.y ItLilirati.m ( 1 .C,U. ) Andly w, h reyuirrd. 1 _ 1 NV` Z X Traffic Volume Analysis tnte rSCGL1l;I1 ;.oast Ili;,'llw_;y-frla�• �\gl�f u!• L'.'S11CY;1Yd � ffic UnPumes based on Average 4!inter/Spriny t9/8) ..ltm I'rl. :' •your I AI'I•t 'vrA Pi u.o�lNJ 1 A: 01 1 e, .' L ❑I, .t Piup•.I•. '•at i firer ' I•ral ''d• ' nnnu I'r,J tlmt vnlunn. j Y.'hnu,.' •mm . i -".o nut I I ' �8 _ .. I yiy d�OcO Sy yy i 6 �o 3.11r�, �s ��8 _ j��_qo ' ❑ Project traffic is estimated to be lass than fet of Pro•ircted Peak 21, Hour Traffic Volume ' ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than l„ of Frojectad Peak. 21, Hour Traffic Volumerr. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I .C.U. ) Analysis is required. 50 lraffir, Vuluma Mlair'.is .ntcrw�Liun CuAst IIiZIIwa�/PIA'•gw'ritl' .\v�•gus•. ' (Ef.i .ting 1 raff,c• Vu•l,imes based oil Average Winter/Sprill'I . r IM.11 M1tll' ' Alyri,Y.J n.Ip11PJ I 1(• UI 1'Ir UY i. ' • . I ' .. .. r u...l..Pm. ( pro Im 1.• 1.nt , ,h•nr Prd4 .. . 1. . y. .r u.r n. 14•nA bnT Iv;.Nl• 5ub,mu . .n. 430 j /�0 J�Sa :I... 3132 78 1 o310El Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1'L of Protected ' Peak 'L', Hour Traffic Volume' • z ® Project lraffis is estimated to be cgl,o er than 4 � of Projectei ' PeaR 2'; Iluur Traffic Volumes. Intersection C,Ipacity ill ' Iwal 'till ,I .C.Li. ) Arlaiy:,il, is required. ' Zjr traffic Volume Analysis ' ,ntel "ecLiUu ,lamborve Loud/SaI1La Bar a bar • riyr ([iisLin(I IroffiC. V01 umes based on 'Averago Winter/S Uprinu 19.8 } ' <. .... rr irar tlbuY I Apia uvraf i;"Iry it'J W: n.r'rvn•t! . r r .p Lr,t rr.r' Prnlnr i. nl Burp 11'nA •lour• r rnl !.ar,• uvlh I'rnf Innn t hom. oalomr t„nnnr• .r Jrnio• i Vo l nin ' ' I895 2657 I I f1•...�r.f r . 7•,I,t, � •�aia r a,si� � so �7a G.a %. ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 111• of Projtrtod Peak 21, Hour, Traffic Volume. L ® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater thin X,; of Projected ' Peak 2'2 Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection LapaLity Utilization (I .C.U. ) Analysis is required. 6Z t Traffic Volume Analysis :ntersectiou Jamboret, ks,irU5an ,y+xgvW, LLUIa.lk,ad ' (E�tstil;y Tra•tftc Volumes based on Averaliu Winter/Sprinq x . .. h-A. . 'll.11l'• I^�I'Pl l.vd .. .r. ••p. IYII ... • 1 N p hl•.r l.. ,' I•nllrl l'. ,'.dt. . I'1•p, I•a11 . •Vu•' ..I. •.,nr „Owi•. I Iwd :•. un„r ..d mlV. I 4clunN•. .•..nl :ol mx lulanh• .. 1 00 JO a (n a �O �•G �Jo ' I' '4•�i� . JOI • 4134 g { 3 6.7 f IM-0y 90 /03 y 3.0 70 tj Project Traffic is estimated to he less than 1'.. of Pro,W ted ' Peak 21; Hour traffic Volume- . Z ® Project traffic is estimated to be greater than d; of Protected ' Peak 224flour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity utilization {I .C,U. ) Analysis is required. r J ' 2 �l' Traffic: Volume Analysis . ' intersection: .f3mburer I:u_i 111: t;U1 tL1_llrivir_r_Fo rd Road (fft<,ting 1'r.iffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spriny 1018g1 ' 1. il•Ar gllllr ly /Il.lq uvr.l I 'Pl.ln h:: rf• IIl il' ilp ' . U ' . J laud q I III o11Y( ✓.14 i. 1119d 1 dl i I• n. •.I nxll. I I'ral um ...Loot ' �xLnnr Lr rl>in 9 �j %y � ssr/ I // / Ooa ass / 90 9 y3 ' Project Traffic il, estimated to be less than 1'S of Projr•c1.ed Peak 2'. Hour Traffic Volume . • z ' ® Project -Traffic is estimated to be: greater than XS of Projected Peak 211 HOW, Traffic Volumen. Intcl>section Capacity Ufili[alinn (i .C.U• 1 Analysis is required. 1 5`f ' t 'Traffic Volume Analysis .ntel •,e(.Lion Ilristo'l Sti'rgt/Japlhnr4.r Ittt.i<i _ __ ' (Cfisticy Traffic VolLmes based onAWv a e Winter/Spring 11)78) ,t.. i IPA) lluur ! flgnl0•.1 , 1141'l fuo I /1• of 11'.•n:•a •:. rr f 1 ' .,. . „ gP•tlrn• ! L1'•110•!Y 1•nt :'. Illnl P141t rl, rabid •a nwib Prat . , qunp lelpinr Volume .. ."" . . •.Y. w em :wu�a 4946 io ✓,J.t s ` i�J 304? y %' le4, 1 El Project Traffic it, estimated to be lass than i'„ of Projected ' Peak 21, Hour -Traffic Volume 2 Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than ; of Projected Peak 21, Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization ' (I .C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 • Traffic Vnluurr Anali',iti ,1111•I `wc 1.1 )11 I4rj_st oI roo_ I No, rfl/Jawhoroe R-ld (tn l' tnnJ Traffic Vul woes lased on Average WinterjSpr•i ny t�+1;3 ; IVO `IU111' Al.;1uwd ���,44,CU p. JI it <.h•., :c : •, „n L1`q 1.na, 1 Pr yv. lv 11.d :11 urp1 Pro i. •'o.n •1d. : . W P• 'n IMI 11 1'Ynl, J, "OW, ' 1 f111111C I Wlwe 1v .1pP . , ; 1 s1s's io !<058 ; �'8S� , 137 1 30,7 1 6932811 i 1 i 1162 1 Project traffic is estimated to he less than 1'", of Projected Peak 2', Hour -Traffic Voluml L ® 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. Zj{ T-affic Volume Alldlytiis ' IIII,erSic.L1oil lambqY • •. 1t 1jilik iv V> btu_BILd (1) ' (LAI-Ai,Wl Traffic Vulumes based on Average Winter/Spring hl/s) .,•IIn 1oa1 iLL1u1' hl'i'rvYrd �1•U`%U•d 171, OI fUq..'.a .. ... .• r ur.lun e. I'r ulr•It n•a1 :', Ilnm Pray : •u„ r . ' , 1,�, ..r uNlr. 14d1 " u.or nJmnp Yu boil✓ ., nn•r ,u1.Ne tbLmu I 1 I ,•• •..,.,,w lots 1 � yid , .Rio � � �� ��a ,� �� r� ...•'•:• .ou .... 2814 3,;1 3 0 i ✓ 8 /a /o 2923 S�� 3s'os" ; 70 �o 3037 �5' - J/&_ I 3370 i (F�... �._ / � '!o , Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ' Peak 21z Hour Traffic Volume' z� Project traffic is estimated to be greater than ,. of Projected Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volumen• Intersection Capacity Utilization ' ( I ,C.U. ) Analysis, Is required. (1) ;lac Arthur Aoulvvard i.4 assuuu•d ilnrLh and 84111111 ' 15r Z Traffic Volume Analysis illtel'section - Mar _AL'L)I111'- I}Oill)`V.l l'd/tiyli7,, 1lic�¢a,ll 11113s �itYl) (Ex lstiny irr)ffic. Volumeshased on Averatic Winter/Spring ;I)18' I rnd/ Iluw •:_� n'•N mrd ih pPV II•d � � ul`• ' ., :.. . , d M1•;: I' up•• l'. li.0 14nn ".Il Inl. •• , n411 I'r,rl . . nlnu uiunir lolwpr .. ..:., . v'•7 u ) l.:l ono I �y +s.t•:c.�. 1484 �a f /Oy . ..� /600 /O 3065 t,•; •,.-� 3t.40 J t/� I G JOY 9, / �D 1451 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than Im of Projected Peak 21, Hour Traffic Volume' z ® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than dt of Projected Peak 21, Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I .C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 1 ' 1 • Iralfic Volume Analv`,is ' .nterSet.tinll Mac Arthur Rqulcv.u•d/Pard Road , (Lci t1ng Trtiffic Voltilnes based"oii llverayr Wiuter%bpiinr, tSr;�i) ,.' .., •uq i'r,u uvur• I +Aiga r.r..l . ' fta;ri ttd u, . I,..., ... 1'r.Rw.1, l ral twor i V,W •duslh Ibo, dwo aJlnmv Yolun.p ...un.'• vd nn \Id.n. t I :4011 dO 86 i YlPVO % I• :{n i ��8 i /8�2 3 1 a � /D33 _a� ing7 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 14. of Prujccted ' Peak 21, Hour Traffic Volume 2 ® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than of Pr0,1ected Peak. 21, Hour Traffic Volumen. intersection Capacity Utilization ' (I.C.II. ) Analysis is required. 5`t ' APPENDIX B ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSES ' 14xisting + Regional + CommiVtcd -1 Project (1982) 1 1 (r,;,,If• f14t1 kii5fd�5 % ("v) :?' �4.n�yS ' (Existing Iratltr volarnes FS—CTon llverage W,nter/Spring 191� ; i6 l`� (AO +x11T 1h0 M.h. -!•. •1I:1 1%I1T NIGIONAI COIM1111.0 MWICTLO PAWECI MAIM , r..... rants Cal, r.' •t• •r I+M i/C LNOH111 PFWICI Y/f Rntto Volw�e VIt +aUr —. . .. ,Si,l ' NnEto VOL, V01. k!n Project Vol, , NL_ / o ...... NT oo --- �» ./81g 1a �� as/a d•ad/a , NR �— SL Si h(Z) 32ao 3(4g00 : CSi� .;13/� 36 0,0304 01 2 't � SR o,4094 0.404¢ ET E R U WL /6� _.. _ lEaai yc3( �5"Gd6 2s"zpF wT U yc,o _.. t lr oil �I / _ 0 WR Yn.ttnn:eE A/ati p•iour✓ ,/ooU EtISIML :h7t<EMON•CAPTCIIt 'J0 1 1141 1011 ,gB9B Et:S'i+.0 ;--V3 CfOMI1TE0 PIGS Nrr,1074' mikMIM H/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS LC,U e;,9279 C[;S'IN: Sq JE :OMMtTifO P, :„MI U411 :,+^oHtll 1'10', PROJFCT I.C.1% —^•• O•YZ7 ' Projected phis tn•rlf-cl traffic I .C.U. wi 11, Ur hiss than or equal to 0.90 NJProjectCd I il,', +irolvi L I.t ,llfic I .,C,U. wi•11 k, ttt'edtt'r P.r'ujecLed pity, m11f--I 1 ",:1fic I .( Al. wi1•Il ',;',lolll•. UDpt,ovellIvIll• will be IL.,. • ' !,r, rq,1,11 10 1).'JO . P1P' I•" .. ,' i� ^ nn;.i hvt'ult!I11 : ' I. Add soLA bound o?+ibtilal 4hra.,,9h or 6 k+ I(Ane •(o) P• ;%' , .,`��' - 7 t'�Q�''JJ�G; � r�•yc- -�F ��iV1L� l (Existing Tr,tiF(f: Vcltlmes n verage Winte4(Spring 197P '`-v1 �•>(,•u'•�•' --•'--'�:;i EXIST REGIONAL COMMED PROJECTED PROJECT PR0.tECi tI511NG Mo.o'a.'nt large; Cap i.anr r. I. "r fIH Y/C GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ratio Volun YiC katm Vol Ratio VOL. VOL. w/o Project f ' �� N� -----�— q NT M_ � ' I O/7o O•/o./EB/ NR ST 3 (�� 333 0.3333 � y800 i ��).: • . SR ' ET o.z/I �� (7 o z zgQ ER WL WT WR — - YCLL01.91wc 10 D./OOP Ai Q,/OOP EXISTING :t �:RSECTIOM CAPACITY b':EIlAl1UN 2 E1;;i iI,G itw COMIITTEO PI II; Rl 410NAL GROWTH N/PHOPOSEO [MPROVEMFNTS I.C.Ujal- so E%t SI14G PLO5 COMITTCD P111', RIGIO;IAI 6PONfll PIP'. PROJECT I.C.II. ' Projected ill„' t'I'lli•','t Lratfic I .C.U. will br less than or equal Lo 0.90 ' Projected p1u', pru ucL l.r�lffic I .C.U.'•will be graaLer than 0.90 © Projected l hr. ;Itu•i':r•L Irafl il. I .C.U. wi.Lll ',y',L('uls implovenu:nt� ';rill be lt' It(,nl tr '•(11(01 Lo 0.90 I rllrt I„ a,l.r ,wrincnl 1. Add scu4 bound +hmujti lao(2- (0) ifi+" R`,l ioN uAI'ACHY U111.11N1lll:t ,ltVl,L t�tl ' r1t+.e1". •,aeon (G•ASISM,��_,.�.�'1 i1 1�P 8 (.v' (Existing Ira, f,e Voluules Base n ve a e TTiter S rih 19/ 1 2 ' ;ants ,'�,n a',, , I !TI51 ILIST NCf 10NAL CWM111 CD PI1MlCTLD PRMECT PkMICI Ho.trS,d lanes Cop tam• , •u I •� Ilk . Y/C GROWTH PRMLCT v/L Redo volume V/C kol,o i Ynt. NatlO VOL, VOL. W/o Project ' 1 t Vol, NR O SL aAa0o ST t 1 1ko, n) 16p��� . I v.ay9y p.ay9// SR EL ((_p L� _ O;d'3 _ .d3r/ ET ER WIL 1) boo WT W "c", _E1! g (� e^�S I d• SSyO >I log O.3765� ' WR (I) I c m d f 6 �j ra r/BV d v/s/ LXI,1140 :1T_��ECTION CAP.1C1tt tI:LTNSI ION E/iS1 ilW Iwi r"11TED PLUS WAONAL UIOWTII W/PROPOSED 1NPROVEHENTS LL.0 r' _ ' IrISTING PLUS :OW11TTE0 PIUS Rlr.Iu7pl r,uovm PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 0.671�P� Projected i.lue: 010II'Lt t.ratfic d .C,U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 0 Projected T11w, uru,jrl t tr,lffic 1 ..C.U. will br (.ircater than U.90 © Projected ulu, I1•,Itfic 1 C.II., wlLb y ,InnP, iI'lProvenualt•. , will be 'IM'. th, n n, , quaff 1.0 0,90 ' I Add 5oa4hbound le- f -+Ltrw lave . (v) Z. Add sou{-hboumd 1- Leh t 4urvl lane• (o) ' 9. Add eas� bouhd •furvt (ane• Co) 4. Add eas+ bound -through /ane. (o) S. Add wvs,+ bound r-ig h} -fury, lane. (o) ' CAPACITY UIILI!AIION ANALYSIS (Existing Iral + ic. VolUR s based ol1 ver• g / wiry er/Spr 191g EXISTING r,,,011•1 rAgl I.XIST REGIONAL COtMITTED PROJECTED PROJECT PROJI CT Ho.ergnt Lanes Cap :m.r. •.•I� i PI' IR I tyC GRM11 PROJECT V/C Ratio Volume VA tiatlo ' Vol. I Ratlo VOL. VOL. w/o ProJnct I Vol. ' NL ) a0r Nl 11 SL I Ov ! I D I O.00EB oo� .SR Et I 1 �rC? —__ n• o3l Zu � o_o3/G ' ET (,Dqecv I�p�� I 7z5' 3yZf 4-7 ER I I O A 1 l ' �_ o.a�d o rws6 w'T 3�`/60o j 313 D•3979 1(E91 !0/1 wR 52 . 4 ' 10 p./env Et 1511hG !NT:-SECTION CAPACIIf 4r:t l:.'13N ' Et:5Tif.b 40 CCVMITTED PINS RII,[(Ml GROWTH N/PROPOSED INPROVIHINIS I.C.0 n.9pS U:SIING ILJS :OIMITTEO Ntl1 :.a•N41 utRllll PIIK PROJECT I.C.O. Projected Iv•. I.rot' cl ti-Of fiC 'I .C-0- wi l l be less than or eouo l to 0.90 ' Projected VIw. is1. 1^.t1t ! Pattie I .•C.U. will ItL' !)rl•'atPl' than 0.90 ® ProjectLd pkv, �•. " 1'': iY,;l lT(, l .t..tl, l•l: til .I 1`III`. II:I;)t'UVQIIIt`711 ', ' will be 1w , t ',, ni -I-,,,, ICI 0.90 ' 1. Add eas4 6outtd +h rou'q A lane. (0) Z. Add wesk bound +hrobi_3h 101C. (o) „ . , ••, f,+:. . , •'n;• IIY UI ;! ;nt� ;lll ''r,nl , rt r , • Ili r•1'• I lil'i.t.fr'L�1 �1 L'1� ..1Pf�J4't L.---- (Fxisti"y rn ° iIt•t•11.1+• . Based I, i vertg wn"ter/Spring 197a' lx ' cwmo vi.amiito P1.1111i hROJta I�_`t ..'..,•s CnV 1 ° 1 ,l OPPHr” rVi, Val h, f \',.lm� i ,,•1• I of I;0 VIA VIII .NL I 1 en (olboo i 7A tj �.r 3 1_ ._ 37?-7 ap. le,,37Y-4 ft E -_ -� 1 WL II I Op ` z�3zra.. .,1 �_ _.5J_._ r._o%6G� ..... c.o7- _ A( _ ' WT nuU:.•e (r;^i',. .,.; :.A•4,lip n,l Nt'.i' li•• '.UIId11' M/IWd'OSCO IMPROVIMCNIti I C.0 �1;•.';•d t, '}YlITiC:. i I` .{t,!"•ut d"IAIII li❑ PItOJCIa 1.C.11 t?�,'f,`J� •Ir,jecter Ix 10I tl ,lifiU 1 .1 .11, will hr 11"", ; h.ul Ilt rnpla " ' 1.90 [� ; rc ectita 1''++'. . ; r , tl 1.ralfic. r .C.l:, idlli l,r +ii'Pa llt till" ® f','L,,IC'Ct(:,! •''•. , a I II fit' I .I .ti, ,, I (JI .} tl"RS tl",II'pVI`Illr•Ir' X . i be it. a' to 0.90 ' I Adcl wes46ouIIII IcI I 'furvl lace' (0) 1. Add wes" bound 44)rou9 L i ((Ri t.Ai'AL.11T UI II I!1(1 11' , , 14"1 1 1 , ' (f� (—f.xi—st—l—nor--i r a , f t( !(T l uDlt•s Base r- Tv+r agfe Wiryter Spring 197�� • r AI51 IUG 1 1'up,,r; , ' .;•,I 1 Itl}i HCf10NN C(1M111IID�1'(IJI Cl(D PHQffCI P'tlUlli Mu.,r.t•nl Lanes CeV + '."•''• I• •" bk l ,/C GR11U111 PROMCI V# Hnt IJ Volume }rl FdU^ _---. •- lnl Lil lJ VOL. Yal�— Vol Pt•J•1,'tL '—� Yol. l a'oo a.09Cv h R — ST SR +A6 — EL E 4. . .. .__.. it . '� — l oZ,4 ET C)o ER I Oct O. O/✓6 O,GS'38 A i I WT -- /�" 4� 9 wR h _ ' YCL(rn Ll°C _ . 10 Lt15T7}G 'hIC=:CCTIONC Tll1 L.tl l;A`I(IN - ' �.i: COMITTCU PLW} Ra.;ONAL OrrOl(I111(/PRPO}LD INPROYCMCNIS I.r..0 •f/9r 101109.}I •,I,O'will bill,, PROJECT I.C.U. ,7f&0 © Projected ill•r.. :'rni' ( t b-dffic • 1 C.U. (vi ! I lu• less thlin or e(!u.tl to 0.90 ' Projected i,h1; In •. ;m(.t tralfic I _C.U. i}'ill Ge t!reator than 0.90 ' i ' u,ILlctrJ :•I.I .' '"'„ I il .l' l il.—! l..l'. tall•il .• '.II•ur. n'qu•uvrnu'n! . be IL' . (!.• r'pl., l Lu 0.')0 Inrr•r , 'Ltlnn �flarn, c7n Ile ce Glr (Existing lralfir lnILRAI7, —se on Average Wititerj5pring 19/y Md„n„nl 'AI51IhO I'�•,,.I ID •71'.) 11111 NEr.IDRAL LOIMIIILD PDOJILILD PRUACI IRm.111'I Lanes Cep I LVq'. 1 q, 1 1•A IIII :/C ORO11111 I'AQIICI V/t Ratio volume V/, )tall.. I Vol Hallo VOL, Vol . W/o Project Vol. ' Nl ' Ni co j(s) Yeo° iv _ I 0 o.isr/ ' NR I r^ ( S 0 SS 2 38z9 0 9 SL I (z)3zc'0 sT on _ _ f Ln SR ET { ' ER WL -- _ _ 13� WT (Qge(D0 3p 0•/P6 WR 3 t 4 /EUOWIVE UISTIS6 :'::,SECTION CAPANIT UI II IrA]IOM ' Uli,V.r+ '.k% C"ITTED PUIS Rrr.:DNAL 9PL(Ill W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.0 Et:Nlhu PC JS :"iTTED L.U: A1681PlA1 1.1,4011 PIUS PROJECT I.G.U. [� Projectea ;jile, Io't;irt.E. traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal , to 0.90 Projected plu, :•I•'ll,-A traffic I .Q.U. aril) bo Ilrl-aLPr than U.`III ' ® rulecteLl plu . 1'. u,l•': 1 traffic. I .C.11. ar1th '.}ei.1om-, nnPl'ovuuuvlt" ' ;: 11 be le,.i. 't.,,4 01 l,qu,11 to 0,90 '.n•,r rlpt i+r . • , I ' I :.,u ,,;rmtail.; ' 1. Add vlor4bouvld 4-hr6ugh lane . (o) Z• Add sou+h bound 1eE4 4uro /ane. (o) , 3. Add ,we.S+ bound lane. (o) I it''Ir:ra.^cttont1 YJO�Fe I ' liS �OvJ (Existing ira`r„ ValuiVs t3' ased on Avera;e inter ring 19/t "- - -- - a�.r�nnrt `XIS11NG W ,i.`d ' tYISI I MST ItLGIONAI C"11ILD PIIOJICIEO PROJECI PRJI rI lours CaP :P'.•. 9' 1 la w, ( t/C GROWTII E'ROJECT V/L Ratfn Ynlume V" Ra Ua ..il in VDL. — VUE. -- u/n IYu,ir�t. --_ `— Yal. ' N? 14)6yoo I c2 O 9�U / NR ° -- _l.l ..Q l - ---- 10 ST CO I a I ( 36i9 YI a 38/ --1 ' SR IbOn I ET WL 11 71 00 °2�-� WT WR �qa — 15-1 ' YMNI:rt ------'-' =A p•ioar� p.iaoo LxI ST I'... : ._S-ECIION CARSrrI L:aIIt II On ' Er'S7il„ i.i: r.3"TTED PLWI RUM""I ",;PONPI W/PPOPOSEO IMPROVEMENTS I.C.0 a. 61176 / E l;Rry 4: 4_Jc COWITTCD PILS GEn:DtIRI UOWrM PIUS PROJECT I.C.U. 06S�ZZ ' Projected ills. I'rowkl Il ,lll'ic • I .C.11. will hr lo`,`, than or rllual to 0.90 ' Projected plu , 1't i ;"t,;, IrolfiC I ,C.II, IVI II tw 11reater than 0.90 ' Projected ;,i '. .,' +,1: + 11',I iC I .C.11- w.ir'it `,:;:• I,clrt> iNlprovemenf., 11 be le,.s• �I..1 , r,r /.raw, • to 0.90 ' �1. ,:L1Ii: I`p, �.' •.. I I.4 11111•� /.VI'91(`li( /. covlverf horFhbourul rIS11-1 -fury) lane Io opjlof,al -IhrauSA plus h30. (u) Z' Add horA bcund 4-hl-ou6h lane . (0) • S. Converf we.sAbotvrd !ems 4urvl Ian¢ 40 optlovlal khrough plus le- . (o) • .,IWA1,111 1 111 't I, ry ...�, ,,.,•.. ' Itir; .. .,•t 1••11� ( t� 41�1�SJ lnt 4(;1� i— i r (E,cisttnr; ir•a, +''' Vni.11•1fi • [lase on vera�e Winter/Spring 19/�/ — — PROJECT PROJI1.1 1x:,f Inc �, „�l ^:'+I lC-ti H401URM1l moot f1E0 Pi, PaRU 4tnr: Cen j •'� ' r'H I( .'C LHOUIII moot Ct �V/o Naar vol", Vn Hntw +ul. ! RA 10 VOL. VolOt. w/o ('ruJncf Vnl. 01603 1. / 03 0 6 I o.40� _ � e� 3 •4- 3 G-6 s)Y il3 - NL NT oc7 _� - -- -� I i� CaS3/ Oot�/ � S1 D.3o a _ I 0 SR --- _.— _-xl,bog ElTER / D.c6/Z O6 LWL0WT66o fWR 02 . O.bbsO 0,06ro YEI IOI:?': Ltt1114u -R::a TCTION C11P11r Ili UI.111-1 TOM U:','i',•� 1.Ci C"11Yn 1411', RIOUNnly 61111NIH 11/1'11n1'0S I IHINtOV4H1111ti I l..0 D` I is St lN,l P;J` .RWIIIIU I'IU'. 1.1 U'9d1 041WIll PI 11' 010•I111d llrojecteo plo°—:,rltir•CI ll'affic I .C.II. will bu less than or equal , to 0.90 Projected hlu .'I'•.1:1t.1 1ltlitic I ,C.II, i/ill ha grtsater than 0-90 ' Projected ;rlu'. I•r1I•1"t I : r,I Ili(: I .C.Ii. with font. tlnpruvonit'llt'. ' will be It h, It n• r•,pl„I lu 0.'J(1 , ':1' 1 milt ••. / •. � Ind 1 •1vDnH•nl.: � ' /. Covlverk' nor+h bourd.i-igli4 -lurti lave 4v laptipwa'I f-hrouSt plus rip+. Co) 2, 60nvert SOU411bouhd rishf +urh lavle -to ap-finial +hroaj<i pLLts ri5ki- (0) t 3, Covlve.r+ e'as+bound r;gh+ -}urn lane 'ho opttfohaI +hrogk plus risk+' CO) 4. Add e_as4boand Optlunadl -f+hY-oLjli plus ri3h f• !ol ' 5. Convert wes•l`tbund -fhrouy6l lane �f•a le.�(f �1«rn la>-�e. <e) . - 1 t11'N IIWAL.I I I Ul it i//1t l'I;t Z`t�LuIL �' --E- I (Existing iradr Aluwt's Based uri hvera,e Winter/Spring 1`)/5) r:,4+<r�t `AIST tNt' 14•+•"Y., ' ir:v S IYIST REGIOI M111k0 1'^•WiCIEO PROJECT PNt•,I:;1 :dnP3 Cat, I •vt' P i '� I'M 4 %C GROHTPRO Y/L' Ratlo volume 4/, hatin •. -. - -. t'ul Aatlo VOL. ^- - w!n PruJcet -- i Vol. D (3) CL21996 0 •321 N7 iCZ_)3Z—O 11U 5' NR — SL S i t _ rt _ O• ZS�BS O.Z6Z)� SR -4 !-� ' 37 ER 1 q ! I -IN ZOO � A I = Lt;:T!'d, ::�E-CECT IOR CAP!•f 11r b1:,1:6'ION , [;:•-;'„ COtMiT7ED PLI'S k.•.10-b11. +Na7R B/PROPOSCL` IMPROVEMCNiS LC.0 `j —9,f-(0 !r:4!ta! P:JS CLWI r7TC P4U, 11 r4•aA, 1,VOw1!1 III O; PROJECT I.C.U. DBZ•Y�� ' El Projected plu.. Ilrui• t.t nalric' I .c.11. will by Im hall or rtµ,al to 0.90 I Projecthd Ill;r• nc,;+-•ta LraffiC I.C.U. Qjll to araater than 0.90 ' © Prujecled 1.11 ;n t';^I.1 Iral ( i, I ( .0 wi;.n , • '•Ita% nmpromm,"k. ' Aill he li•'. . '1 . I•q"al to 0.90 ' , 1':It: ;n � •u, In ;�� �tvl•huvll /. Ccmver+ one nor4hbound 4hrougl, lane 4V hor?ln 60umlcl Icf4 -I•urn lane• (o) bar (Existing "to, F+r Vr luilif ttase on ,verage Wintev pring 197 t51 �Q ' �L_._ ...._. . PROACI Plel•I11 ING ,• • i1tIV RCliIUtUU CU`t1111f0 PRIUIGI(D ' ,.Iles Cap ,Ill•. '� +u I .;, GROWTHPR(AILC7 VIf Nat to Volume M 4aUu ,.0 R,00 VOL, M. WA) Pr0l.ct • .. _. _ - ' Vol. ' Ill a '/31 y�r u y 0 l - Sd — - 99 , N T t(2� 32oa �t�� t3.� � O•�15�7Pa - O• /9 NR 5l ST — ��� ) �S 2)'2 x — Z. E' ER WR _ ik ' 41ISTih6 +N::>!LCTION CAPAM, 1, 1lal IUN p Sat11T'ED of U. MCI0NP1 ,RONitl W/PROPOSED lMP0.0VEMf.N15 L4.0 0 BZZ7 p f f:ST145 NIL,! '"ITTCC P,1. 4t'1•_U 5°ONfll PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. D Bw/ ' ,injected Irlo, ',,-Wot trrlffic I.C.U. will 1W less than or equrll ' to 0.90 rrojected pllr• nr::.t• ''L I.rattic 1 .C.U. wi11 Lit! (Il•iatrr than 0.911 ' ® Projected pl,v .: I! ' I Ir.11l is I .C.U. +rit11 'ry.LvRr; uupr'ovellntnC ,till be if-s'. , el r +rilaT 1.0 U.90 riw I. Coiluerf one nol4 bound +krm h (lane .}.) .hor4-� bound le 4 -I•tfrw lane. (0) ' I. wl I WitI (,'N _k.APAC1 tY lit 11 ILAI ION�ANAI Y.W, _/ (() inrn r' '' :;inn _�` ll E'E' �> '�` -"Pring T-Uc (Existing irair`c loluMe -Base on verage winteT ,i( CAI5T ING I+'iu 0'+ 1 tAlm 1 Iii SI REGIONAL COMITILD PIIOJrCTtO PROJECI MIJ1(I M`•°"'e1'I Lanes Cap i • ' r• ' u 1 '•r I'll I ,vL' GROWTH PROACT VA Ratio Volume VIC Ratio Vol. I RA10 VOL. VOL. N!u Project Vol. NL I I Iaz 4- O. 0/88 o.oi88 NT �2_)3200 1�j21 3 �� .� f1.20BP> 20 1 _ Gev� I ' O•/3B/ pCl 0.�5" Z ' �_ . I — NR IF 1 SL b oaq ST_ sJ_/6oc a I { 3 0,192 10 0. 1971 SR Et ET (t/)64o- O.- � ; c1 I fJ /7Zo oZo� O./7fs' Nl I __ !ram. 5r D•3/%�/ O.3zoc ' wt ( L _I I ��2 0• ZoS6 o.zo77 rtrLRnhTlrE Et ISI1 NG :h7 vviECIIOX CAPACITY UI:I I;•P IUN • ' CA; PIU.- RIr TOV•E •-T.'Jdlll UrPROPOSLD IMPROVIMINIS L.C.0 •C�'„� r,/ Er1S+ING P-WS ,,:/044ITTED I'LL•'- ;`C/'A^NAI 9bVdrll 1'1 W. PROJECT I.C.O. ' �1� /�JGC r1i/AuY /! iJo�/�+/.you/��• , Projected olus Lrotfic l .C.11. will be less Ulan nr equal to 0.90 ® Projected plus ;-eA )i'(,L Lroffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.91, i'rojecteo Ulu'• ;I' 111 I llnliir. l .f .11. wilh ,.; ',IruP, iuglruvonu'nl '. ' will-be lo'. . ':I„u :+ '•gu,11 to O.90 Add nor4bouvid r'4+ -lu,rn lane. (o) z Conver-4 easy-boun(j hg14 -Iuril lane -lo o•pf arlul +mush Plus right. to) • ttt•, ,.AVAC11Y 1111L1/Allbel ANAIY51`, ' M u ll �r 4%it;'i.� n'Cfzrl ;:.,••: • •.tT(;1' 1�1�L� I. �Ysa h7�'fiyd�l. (Existing ir'rTlltr Voluuios Ilased on kv(tl•a(le klnteri. prT g 19/EI 1Z ' 1(51IhU —tt�1•- t ••••Yl71sr ( 11 NT HLOi(IHAI (OM,1111DT l%W(LnD PRUJ!(I 1111.1 1,1 n .,+ant tones Cap •a•,• (• HR 4 ,,C IMI111, PR0.IICT VA Ratio Volume l,. Hal•.• + Y'll. Nat 10 VOL. VOt. ,r!n Project ' 1 I Vol nt I d = . �S� G I COr/•a0 ' Its 2..c.0z n; _�,i�L` I ?p./log NR _ sL-- o -- EQ sr oo I�4>! 18r�5. ..4:2�zz'` 5R I C SC' _. _ tao - E7 ER I WL I I I 0 -� O.ar/3B O.or/36 l.R _.__� as t E(1.04:'S • ' Lti5T1',. ' .-:LCTlOR CAPJtI1, 1.1:,10t1ION CWITTCO Pins RI.17YA1 'A0,1111 M/PROVOSLO IMPROVENFNIS I.C.0 7 y8 , Pl.'!: '0"ITTCO P,J~E:.:iant •�PO'4111 Pi 11$ PROJECT 1:C.U. Q63o © t'rojected Wx— .•' (,'• 1 traffic 1 ,C,U. will be lass than or equal ' to 0.90 I'I`:�eCt!'d t,7 , ur•• 1 t1 •'! IiC I .f..11. ri111 Iv' gro,ltor idol: 11,0j1 1�i t13QC te4 l•t.r•• ,tt �� d•t j 1 [',1111( I .C .11, l'll ill '.y It-1111. IP111rI1V(`II(('hj ' .,i1'l be I(•• ( ....11,11 1.0 0.9O ' rl�r, ,r , i •h 911(•b1 . 1 It '/t• I Y 11' .1 . I A' ,'• IANA I f ,I '. 1 h (�(Existanq IrII I ,- Vt,l ,i,ies ase on—lworatlr WinLer/Sn u;riny l9' ItI'!INc f t' :• I I I,r! RtrlURrd l(CMinl U� U� PRLIJM •'- "" IanPs tau 7 n'�� I •'I Idl 1 I,( ORONIN I'140 C: v; Oaf In volume l , 1 • ,I v I lu VOL. Vol b,.• Iq r�t I .._— "L--- n ))C _ O n. aizf f °,oi � 13 :tt_- - a-`i�7e log Nu_^ J _ In, �be� a 0..03/9 O.o3/9 ---- F--• - ----r--- SL 11 ) ICz�izoo 3tJ o� f 0.�266 0./266 1 ?r_`'__ _a��11.j.��. .. . '�?�'_l:J.� --• �B--Ld.oI3G-•-� ---------1-�•=OI3B I c Illi �>�(z� 3zoo '�� - - l a//_0 4 0./1o3 '1 F-_--- O. /V3/ .Ms/ _ 60U ' ')� 1 WL 1 [goo - r�� I -- °moo/r9 O.o/r9 WT 1 1600 Wk 600 I� I+ l01 �oZ . O. /26Pi 0.rz62 • io o/oo� n,,000 It SaION tWBtfl, :,I!I I;<!IUN 1 !,• ',_`,•,,', ['IMIt I(i' rt W. If,+•:,rnU . Wilt N/1.119POSIU IMPROVTMINrt I !..0 Q• 777 I I Y:••I I4o 1t.Is •,.rPiiiri: r,��. :u .,wnl -._Dula r•n•. rn(t,li tt I.t.u,-_�------ _ D�'f 9J 1 oro?eele c: :,;,I, !•r I i I.' I I I is 1 .C.11• w l ) l bo hall or a)(111-0 tc 0.90 1 ProjOcLP11 PIlr ,•I . 1 .(,. 1. W.. !h II'l`d I or Iliml I). , 1 ® Pr(I ect('11 , I;;. ;)I II•; I 11. 11 1 1!, I .C.11• • 1:11 111 •.; I t'tll•, IIL'j v'(1VVIIIrII' 1 ;Y: l l be it•'. • ih, 't r•pl.11 In 11.Ot1 1 I„• I'tfl) •. I.!.II b1"II1'IIlI . I add hor4 bound le P • knrvi la he. (a) 1 2- Adel hor4hbotwd Yigh+ Turn lane. (o) 3. Add sough bound le-Ff -turn lane. (o) 1 4. Add e4z,S Lou)'Id /eF4- -lurk lame. <a) 1 1 INTI:I:SLCTION CAPACITY UTILIMIoN ANALYSES ' U iSlinl; i• 30 Percent- of ProjrcL * Rogionnl + Committed ' (mml) ' I;,II Wit I ! I(IN CAPACt ! Y UI II. I/AI rom ANAI Y„''.11", ` fnn�rsrit. ionGJi:S�o�J7' �N) ,a"_��'-r,,!JvS (Exist inli Tr+li f +r Volumes O5se3 on ICverl9e WTnter/!Spring 1-971i M sKnt :AISTING . 'FP'u',�'I ' ;7151 LUST REGIONAL COMMITICD PROJLCTED PRQIECI PN0.11U ' ;Ines Ca , r"•- I•p I'1 hN V/C GROWTH PROJECT- V/C Ratio - Volume V/C Ratio tol Ratlo VOL. VOL. w/o ProJect Vol. o _ _',1G.Z_. udlG _ ZI _ 0.03��k 0.07(o� ' Irl oo i -- _—j fzo/ ,/8� /S 95 0. 0.2222 NR ' _ --- I-- — _— -- -T SL ` ST _ Z) 3Zoo 3 4600 : c5s__ 31� 31, _3G 3.228/ 0 22e1 4l' ' SR Q) o _`— •379 48 I o,4049 0.4049 E'- E — _ ET — ER — ' Wl /6� __-- �"> So3/ 28 6•SZA� 0.S246 ' WT d qao' — T�cl' olf9 a9 Soo S9 4s WR ' rnLo.nr.L -- --• /ae C7.lCX�D�k O•ICOO qk 1 rI5T l'IG !NTLLECTION CAPA:IIY till' IlAIION CLM1I'il0 pith NI f.I UNa. G11O11111 W/PRGPOSf.O IHPROYfMENTS I.C.U.0, 2 If1',:I-,d P'.' :UhP'.UM PI:•. Ill WNAI 'J•ONllf poll. PROJICT 1.( 11. 1 Projected plus onliocl Lraffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' © Projected !'lu: !.rf!)e( t Lraffic I-.C.U. will Ltc greater than 0.90 a'rojeCled lI!+I•, nlui'•+ 1 Li-ollic I .C.U. wil.h illlprovenu'nl.•, ' YI! 11 be i '.• h'a' I'nu'II l0 0.(10 ' rII,' . , , •, I .'i l"d "wruuvlL: 1. Add sough bound 'thro .yh ighe. II{II ':11I I it'it U0,11t,I t t lip' 1..11M 1Vn n.VLL 1 .1. 1 ' • l llt 1'r',e'..t•I f}II� �— f ��qq��••yy����_"l�a.'..i'_!J.Y�_._l (Existing lralf•r. Volumes�n veragc'Wlnnte-F�SP ;ing 19/ M4.roknl EXISTING PPOI 0111 '•N tX!SI I X I ST REGIONAL, COMIITTED PRWLCILD PROJECT PRWIC.I LeneS CaP Laer, frP or fib I V/C GROIITII PRWLCT V/C Ratio Volume V/C RAW I Sul 1 Pltlo VOL. VOL. a/o Project NL NT 1_ L1 (v �3 0.1 0 o 0 ' NR —� ' ( rO 0.l6 I 0./foss SL 1 o.oS7Z 0.05 ' ST (3 4 3640.3300 0.3333 5 REL 1 I 0 j a/0E51 0./081 ET 6 —� lr 1 i a 3/5 ZI(o7Jk 20 0.2148 ER 5 WWT L — WR EXISTM !NTE•'.ECTION CAPACIIT WILI/A!ION EXIlTIRG %tCi CCAMITTED PIUS RL!•101{AL OPOWIN W/PROPOSEU IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 0. (041(g, ' CXISIIMG PLO! tOMITTCD Pt J` IM I•:VAI IIPOWIII PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 0.6y9 Projected ;Iles ur'ot"rt Lraffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal ' to 0.90 Projected uluc, 111•t1.lt'It. tI•,,ffic 1 .( .U. will b1, (II'VA U,r than Q.khI © Projected 111u:. ;1.'nioct Iraffir. I.C.11, wills 1,y.lums improvements. ' :till be It-., LIi• •I r1' .•;Iw11 to 0.90 '•r. .1 rlio is It ..1 v 'ray III�iV nVf'IIIPI11.: ' I Add sou+� bound •+hroul11 lane . (o) (Existing -1ra volumes Base n vP age Winter Spring 191k 'ti511NG '� 1'• i t �litii E lal%r REGIONAL C"111ER fNWLLTLO PHWECI PRO.I(I Hu,wvnt lanes Cop 'a'^' • I' '•r IIN 1 VIC GROWN PROJI,CI V/L Rat to Volume NA Data :nl Rat'o VOL. Vol W/o I'rgl PCl Vol. f Cl O•a13) 0.0131 f�2 .06 U � NR l o ' SL a DO C3)4$00��, 1 r s o.r 4 �k o•r429 ST I 1 (IM000_-�'_ g I _- a.•o449 .O 494 SR CQ llop_o _tl� O.O?9 O. Et K0 i (z)32co �.!ID_f(.: 0.03 * 040344 ET J C3)Q�Dpt� l43l I 61 ra 14 0 a ' E P ' WT W'R Cr)/boo �' 6 58 . o. 4731 O'4731 ' Vllll�.•TI°1 —_____-� � a•/aoo � o.raoo >� LX15T I56 :NTERCECTION CAPACI Tr I:I II IIAI ION CCIMIITEO P,N'_R:CIONAI_`ROwl,, W/PR01'OSEO IMPROVEMLNiS I.C.0 0. 6 JJ E(!;I!NG F;•J' :CMITTEO PIOS 41Gitl4Al G:11•411 PIUS PROJECT I.C.O. :.Z2- ' Projected ;'Iir o ,1 1LL t.r.Itfic I .C'•tl. will L'e losc, than Or equal to 0.90 ' Irojected phv. „rnl'• I I I ,!' I il. I .G.U. w•111 Ito qroator Lhan I1•,nl ' © frojected olir., t 'n•1:, 1 I r,11 f is 1 .( .U. with .y .1anh lilt)rovenlefIU, rill be ll •° 'hrn t,i -iiwl !.o 0.90 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' crept 1. Add svu-l•h bound le4 4 -lure, lane . (0) . ' 2. Add souA bound h'9hf- +urvl Ia•oe. (o) 3. Add east' bouPTd lef'f- 4uri,I lane. (u) ' 4. Add eas+ bound 4-hrouyh lane. (o) 5• Add west- bound righ� +r1.rh la ne• (o) Ili If Wit i tION I.APACIIY 0111I/AI ION ANAIY.)IS 1 • .1 lli 1,rc.•'�.t Illll�� 'Ir '1 t• � (Existing iratfic volumes Base o ver cue Wl er Spring 191y) �$ 1 mVnl is(STING W.;OVn 0151 1 L%IST REGIONAL C"I1TLO MOJECTLO PROJECT PNOJTCT Lanes Cep La,P. •u i Ile I.R TIC GROWTII PkOJLCI VIC Ratio Volume VIC Rat", Vol. HAtlo VOL. VOL, w/o ProJect 1 t Vol. NL I or _ � (� 13 L).,z 4 lt3 Nl aI.AA ?0.()I8e1 NR 1 SL 1 Oo I 0 1 0.0088 0. ST I ..}� . Q� �` 88 SR El 1 r r�U .. �_ 0.0312 0,0312. k 1 ET 5Oq_ 2 14 0.330 1 ER I � p $Qp L _ 3125' 0.312� Wl I ( _. 0. 5 WT �¢@oo i I 8 11 313 73 32 WR I 2 YELILna:ME • 10 0. 1000 de 0.1000 k 1 LYISTIN. :NI'__ECTIO4 CAPACIIV W1111VION .89 U15:lla, ..CS CCM1117ED Plub PLGIONAI 4HOWIN W/PROPOSED IMPROVLMINJS 1.C,1) CCS111u PLJE :fkV IMD PIP', u1P 111011 9POWIII PIIIS PROJECT I.C.U. O.6Ils Projected pi-v. I.tt11t•1I 11•nific f .C.11, will bu lo"t, Lhan trr Ivual 1 to 0.90 Projected Otis, ;tl,.,wct Lvolfic I .C.II. t; iil fill greater than O.00 1 ® 1'rujecteo plw, �•I'llY I tr',:l Iic I .G.11, with '.Y .I.01111, IIIIIWOV0110111 ', •.r .t_rl ptl ,,.1••Rwnl : •I Add eas+ bound 4hrou9h lake. f�) Z. Add was+ bouvld +hroU.yh (ane. W 1 . 1 1 l,iri.RS1 ;;fION LAPACIIY 1)111.1l.{111011 ANAL T >I� InrerSh•:t inn �11 (Existing TraffTr Volumes i vel- g W nter Spring 197 EzIST 1NG 1 PNui llti'.a ' iz:51 l Cz15i REGIONAL fowl I[ED PROJICTED PROJECT PROJI Cl "Lae"t Lanes Cap I ..are" 1 N 1 Pr 40 1 V/C GROWTH PRO4CT V/C Ratio Volume VlC Natlu ' VW. ; R-1tio VOL. Vnl . M/o Project + 11{11 Vol. ' NL (,) I boo __. 'b2_ O� ( 0.025b* 0OZ56 NT z ' NR 3— ^� SL I o.o !9 D.o719 ST _ DO � `_ I 29 U;IF3 I 0.183 �` ' SR I I o --- Z41 _ 0,48�. 32 0-5�19 -:� � � '14 0. I EL W I �3 ' � 83 0_2/ ' ET a 139 (n IZ 0• J >If ER- A - 4t:,-C34.f�99 oU Cz)32cc�_ •I}()_ .:�� _ 3_.__ 0 07 66 4e 0.07 ' WT � NS.__. U. 21WRS . 2 ' VELLOWTIVE — ID O•IUOD D•/OOo '�`' EXISTING :hTE-'ECTION CAPACITY LIIL,/Allm COMITTIO PLUS PIOIU4AI 6P0H1H W/P4UPOSED IMPROVIMINIS -C.0 o,76 y Er!ST140 PLJS LO`MITTEO P-US RIf,IGNRI o;,Odril PIUS PROJECT I.C.11. 0 701 Projected plus :,Wo-1.'ct traffic I .C.II. vJ11 bo less than or enual to 0.90 ' Projected plu; 11ru•11'L:t, lrlllfic 1 .(:.I1, iY) II ho yreaLe.r• than 0.90 ' {'fojecteu 1'IEIJ ,'1'l•;:1'C 1, lr•,' fic 1 .( Al. 1. 101 + :''iOM" IIPUrovelliellt`• © will be l 1.--% '.1,, . „1 1!+µ,a l Lo 0.90 I Acid toed bouncj 164 4UrP1 IQv e (0) ' Add wesf bouvltl +hr0u9h Igne • ( c. I t TI,n �g //jam-•-*97 ' t (Ex_isting 1ralflr Volumes [Based bIT ve. a e w § ter/SprTrig 9]�} h:...+•rnt `,x 'r WA M ING (""10 . 1 ' � EXIST REGIONAL COMMED PROJECTED PROJECT PROJECT Laces Cap .ant'.-(. p j or I,R wC GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ratio Volume Y/E Nat", Vol. Aotlo VOL. VOL. w/o ProJect -� — Vol. I NL _ _!�'3_t•as 0.0519* o.osl9 NT _ i�Q_ 0.0 U O ) DO NR _ ��o SL _ 1 rS2 O.O ST l I I t ._ :0 6d o.loob4 O.Ioo6 4C SR 1 EL E _ .. ..n --- o.o?� 0 9 ET oo I.� as i 53 O, lP 13 D. 5�3 ER Il o0. t_.(2g C 2 O.O 3 wL wT wR +atoa:PE IQ 0./000 * o.l000 IA WINE, ION CAPACnr r,l:11141 ION i..d: :JMTTT(O P1.111: RibmNAI (,,,0Q111 W/PPOPOSED 10PROVENENTS I.C.0 �••7(�,p/J"' E+:St IN,', PLUS -'"ITTEC Pt 4'id'rAl OpOdiR PIU:. PROJECT (.C.U. o•-746,6 Q Projected pllir. .no•' . I Iralljc I .C.O, Y7111 hr Ir"". Than ur 1"111.1i tU 0.90 Projected I.1u5 : rr.•tt`LL Lvat tic ISM. .0.11 bh greator than 0.110 truiecte- 1.1v.. 1"71•",1 II'.7Tf7C I .(..ti• k'i hh •y'.LhIIIS IIIIB)1'C1VL`ml'lI1S , be lei.' '.t., r Ilk I.rlllal Lo 0.90 7:11 . 1 . l•Ip' ..1.. .. n•. r Harrill.. . 1 ' 1 i ;,Ill AL,I I T u I 1 I.1 t/t I I UH HI•lnL 111.T t l n(1 .'J( i gt' iV {�O���V`. (Existing Traffic{{ Vol u s ase on vera e T ter Sprtn 19711 tilSi lAG PI I1'0,'11 I 11 S1 LIST REGIONAL COMA LIED PROJI C fEO PROJECT PROJI CI Movin«nt Lanes Cap Lme•. r-P I 1% MR V/C GROWTH PROJLCT Y/L Ratio Volume V/L' Rat", Soi Ratio VOL. VOL. w/oProtect I Vol.401 • NL _ ' NT 00 C3��_ 0. 1 ' 3 - 0fa . 550 NR I FO '55 0.0769 ' SL _ (1) 32tO 165 6.0909 0.0909 Si bC) Il� 2 37 0.3 I 7 0,3463 ELER — ' WL ' WT C4 46 .!_ n _I v.r73o�k v,177o WR a31 424 LASTING :STE-UECTION CAPACIIY Df!;I/AIION ' E7:i-lhG ;.0 COMMITTED PLUS RFGIONAI GFe;etM•W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.11 0.6I 1 E(!SI!SG PLUS 'WITTED PLUS RF GIUNAI GPO9111 PLIIS PROJECT I.C.U. O.6Z3� ' Projected plu`t nruieLt Lratfic 1 ;C.II, will be less than ar equal to 0.90 ' Projected plu< pruj, ,t t.rafiic I .C.U. wi•Il be Iroator than 0.90 ' Prujected plu•, pron'; I Iratllt. I .0 II. Ynt.h ',•y'.Irur. uupruvouu`nl ' will be It ! li,m u1 „rpla 1 I.0 0.90 ' L• i T'Ip dd htlr,, r• m'•I ;'y01tn1•: �. AM 4rou9k Iane . CO) ,odd svu�h bound le- 4- 4tLyvl tom. (o) 3. Add uj s� bound tune. Co) [nrr.rc•,.tion�E' � C r, OQCI j fig CcJ UC?�4i (Existing Traff:•: W s Base on Avercige Winter/ ring 19/01 'AIS1lhC vu.u'U:"- 'y)AI'.i I F+ISt HEGIONAi tIHMITr CO PHQII CTED PROUrCI Putum Ha.rgnt genes Cel' I ' ,^I•, t ,p I I4 hN I 1/C GNONTII PRU)LCI Y/C Ratio Ynlwie 1rt Rollo i I log p.Llo VOL. VOI. w/o ProjOdt , YnL — NL f _i..11�' 19 O.v83e k p.o83f3 N7 0 n�6QQo NR I o T1�3 -_A - -r. -- 7 Zo Qj1 q , �SL - -- 4�5 � 0.1. ST 09 1 0.3816df 0.351 !a SR I a33 a_)4� 14s6 , P. 11 00 _ 0.o3264e O ' ET cc _ ER I_ _ - 1 . . A l Oo N4 7 o.oso8 ' Wr o $11 WR EttG��:wE — O !moo o.Iwo 'k ' II ISTI I„ !%::iSECTIDN CAPArl if CHI IYAI ION ^ COt"11TED PHIS RIG:h:611 dPO4111 N!PNDI'OSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.0 o•6(�, 3 n ' E W.11 N} PLUS ."ITTED Ott, h14:114AI (,PDHTII PLUl. PROJECT I.C.U.El Q•�a•YB7 I)rojected I,iue t'rtli '[ 1 "0ffic ,I .C.ti will br Irti', than nr rquol , I' Lo 0.90 Projecthd 11111 rr,);t't.l Ir. '• tie I .l .11, t4i11 I•v tivvaLrl' than 0.90 ' © Ilrojected ('I,) . l '' ,:e h•f. h4i'lic I .(,.N• wan '•;i` Lhlllti 11111)l'0Y0Il:111.% ' ti11 be lms Ow,1 nr "Ipla1 to 0.90 ' ,•,r-rtP' �"' I•' I••h In•.. nvonrc'nl.: I Convel-F rlorfhbound rt9, l 4um lane 4o opi.iorla) through plus z. Add m)rAbound +hi oujh lane-<(j) ' 3. Cotiverf toes4ound lea•+ +ctrw laT7e -lo' op+;0>10I 4hroujh PIUS lef4. <6> �IIN L.APACIIY UI IL.IZA11ON ANAL Y;,)J _ r-� ' r lncrrs :''.tiorl f-() �L( ram__ ior' KOQU� (ExistYrin Ira f i VoluMi .s Base on verage Winter Spring 19/g� f AlSI INC T-'R:"�"' irlSi ' MST COIMITICD PRWICTLD PROJECT PRIULI'I Canes Cap { I, '4 .^• �• } �•,. RH V,IL' GROW11 PROJLCT V/C Ratio Volume 4/C Ha Uo w/o ' ,1, filll10 VOL. V01,-- —_ Vol Project --- .----- I . ---; ��`S' 14g b_l 0. 1603 NT_ )3aoO 13 3j 0.4099 45 NR I1� 00 � I� 23 4. _�----•+�� f (8 D.oS31 531 a` ST rl ) 00 3�¢gpo�ll�U 2 269 0 20 3 0 '03 --- Et ET ER wE I 2) 3wo _ 23 0_0�12 0.o Iz WT Q� _ — O.0619 * 0.0619 WR 1 lboo T72 . 0.0605D O.ObSO ' — O•IOW JoDo fELIOF^IRL LXISTING :11M.ECTION CAPACM Ulll 11.LION ' El:'.:7lro .,':S CCMIITTED PIL, PC f,„04AI '.'•OHlll N/PNOPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.0 �•'74, C� �y EXISTING R9 :OWITTCO Pill', 1.1 •10NA1 fJ'JWTll PHIS PROJECT I.C.U. D.7SI / arojected ;'lu• : In1 1I 1 , ,111ic 'I -C•ll. wiII la' II'. , Lhlul or rlpi,ll to 0.90 ' Projected plu ,,r r;. I.r,lftic I :C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' X Cr'ojectPd ;,III', IWIIJI•1I Lr„lfic 1 C.II. wllh '.q•.Ll'D1' naprovcRRnt will he lr'.'• Ilion it, )v„ I Lo 0.()0 1. Corverl nor+k boLIV d rngHf iurvl lane fo optional ihrouSb 'pbA5 rig.hf• Co) t 2. convert sou+hbouhd righ+ Porn la>7e kJ aptirn+al +hrou917 p(us rl�rtifi• °) 3• Convert ecl-S�houYIJ y-i9h4 -lurh lane -fo optional +hrc)lk Plus rlgh+. Co) ' 4. Add eas+bound optional +ky-olk pta ri`�hi• (o) 5 . Convert was.4-bound 4kyrough lavle 1-0 iurvl lave. (o) I tII 16t • 4Iilri UWAUI I I UI II.La It lla. ntvu , .. . ' i LIT orr,1`t:tiorl � T C d n (Existing 1ra: fl( Voluioes Base on vera9e ; , nter Spring 197 PJ ' t tlS(INC Ir'•n`+•! II:SI I4XVI'CST IONAL COMIITIED PSOJECTEO PROJECT PRtulci lanes CeP ' t r t•. •P Pr PRWTH PROJECT V/C Ratio Volume VA HaUu vol. i. . VOL. w/o Protect Vol. , I 431 0. 299 5' 32 0.3060 NL 0 c3)g.t3co 1�Q5 Nr Ca) 3�IDS / 24► 9 1 o. �F NR _ 131 _ ST �.���_ a ►41 o.258s I, 1�.2 SR EL ET _ ... _1�t4.� ') ✓r 3-7 c>1400 6 O�l ER y 182 O. .SO$ I 0.2'7 A _ ( WT WR rrtLW!PE O./L)co* I>•l000 ' LtIST146 !NI.-'SECTION CAPACIIr L•1lllCnl ION EI:STV-4 ::i: COMITTTO PUR Rir.;MAt '1POAIII W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMTNIS t•C.0 0,79 y , ;c!STING I•LJT :OMITTEC PHIS 441ONAI r4wrN PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. Projected plu , nrowt'l. t.la(fic I .C.U. will bt• less thatl ar oyudl ' to 0.90 ,O Projected p'ua al•1•.;••t•l traffic I .C.U. 011 Ito greater than 1.1.911 ® ('rejected o I I rrn t'', I 11•.11 F i c-I i; li, With 1 rnp. n111WOVou1t it; ' ,',ill be )v%% '' ! IiI rgual Lo 0.90 , ' .,yrr'll'' 't . .' •II, IIUI.1•nV(:IUt311U I. Convet-+ ore llor kbourid --hrouyti lane +o no4ti bounce lef4 4(Ayti 1 1 i n r r s, t I tnl �1_ 7 VOi (Existing !raif+c VoltJnleS Base on-Average Wlnte°, ring 197 1�7 fAlsI ING r ''"���'u"J : t+ SI ! 1XISI RLGIORIU COPMII EEO PIW ICTEO PROJECT PAWL C1, &.,tn�ent LaneS Cap innr "r tJ' 1 V/C GROWTH PRWLCI V/L Ratio Volume V/t. RA Uu 1 -- ;nl. I Re C10 VOL. VOL. w/oVvI Project 1 i I Vul. 1 NL a C3)4 Q0 (005 1'- ' I 525 0. 3i9od: 32 0.325� NT N 49m C2 3-z00 ! -q j,L 4 2 319 0• _7 14- a462 N R SL ST d 00 1l0'r� �� I r�5 o.25Z 6 v.zs4o 1 S R )(I" Uo 1�•. : — — 4 0.1388 _ — 0.13M 1 ETER Wl --- 1 Wt WR Et IS:ISv ::,':�7ECTION CApvilV LItLIMIOn PLJJ.-RI/IORAI ,ROWill W/PkOPOSEO INPROVE"Ts I.C.0 0 ' E r;S•IY,'. c_,;5 •,\44ITTEL PTO'- p•aat -l'OWEW Pill! PROJECT I.E.O. 1El Projected I'lut. nru, ';.(. tratfic -1 _C.11. will by less than or egoai to 0.90 1 I'rE+jectt° l Itllt : • ; '' I. I rttt I ir. I .C.II, will I,1' 'Irl'.Ill'r than ():'u, 1 ® !'ro•jeCteL' ,);W dII i! Ilc I .C.II. vit.h '.v'.11uP, unln'o�ouu'nl be It- . ,��•, Lt1 J.711 1 I Corver� one liot4kbouvld +kl-ou9 l larle -19 Ylorfllboand le44 4uvh IQ17e . Cv) 1 ' 1 1 1 I, •"11 1It11I UAP)li.I I UI ILd/!VI IU.t MAIM I Vla 1 rt.r ra.., !7f111 v� Fif~ . "-xi::l ;, E � ! jr (-Existing half ', Un1uAr-t ase on-)�vara9e Winter prtng 191"d! �p 1 cl yI LNG ! J„•,P•, I •,I'•I I"Sf REGIONAL COMIIIILD PAWItTLO PRWE[l PNWl11 ' lanes Cap I I r1, r %IX GRORf11 PRWLCT VJC Ratio Volume V.[ hatla , , Cn1. 1 141LIo VOL. VOL.+1 to Project 'AYolol. ' 0.01381 ' rt' ) C2)3200 111.' 3 NR -'� /6 1 1 ! 60 0. 13 6 0-14-19 SL _ ► 13 G o. 6e ac6 AST 3 4sob_,.7� •a I 143 0.1860 3 0.1856 SR 13q y 62 — 3 EC l I ) rI M_ .�; �: � 17 0,32,B4 ET IER Itis. Wl t//���� 3 a.q1,13Wr WR kt I511 SG !N]F%iECTION CAPACI If III II V.'Ion Ut:: ;,I:; C"ITtfO P:D, PkCIOVAi 1W4111 NIPPOPOSD IMPROVEMINIS I.C.O O 269 f e:STIhG PLJE :OM4I TTEL P C 7f1,,^441 ;rry:101 I'I14 PROJECT I.C.U. . 338 (1) MacAy4hur is noY {in /$oufh . ' Projected ; l,r• ; ' nj,•ct traffic I ,C.I), wi11 bo 10sa than or t•Iqual to 0.90 OProjected 1,I.e. I• •,II, 1 11 .111 le 1 .4-11, 'w*kH III- vIro1119' Own 0.111, Pr:1•I CCII'I i I.• i I Il .tl l II 1 .I .II• t'!11'!1 '.'.'"I PIII'. Illlj 1111V1`IIN'lII ' ' • , Y`IGi 1 •, ' � IUD 4 •VI'IIII•'II � ' Add v!or4hbound r;ghl -I•faYn lane. <o) 2. (fwive4 eastbound vi h> 'urn lAne •lo op+io)lal 4-hroujh plus 1^iyhf. (o) , ' l!tli !15t ' I ILI'= tAPACI I III ILi/PLI IU7L 111\nL.I3 I." 'Inrc`r , k,tion /C' i(B. r 1 ''-�'� r (Existing ball +c Vt,lunie.. [lase on very erkTnte pri 9 117 XISI 1NO �I'H!R O'd ITISI !XISI NLGIUNN COMMIIILD PRWLLIID I'HLUI CI PI:1JIII Mi�.�avnt t,viri CAV Ism• P ' MIN Y,C !iHf1WT11 1'NO.)I CI lV/C Ratio Volume VA Hat,u ` Vnl IN't to VOL. VLII . w/o Pn,-Io�t Vol. 1 _ ----- --•--`. �.-U --- --�--- 0.0400* 3 0,0419 � NL I 0 ___+.._.4 NY 0.14,9 ' NR _ sL o _��12 • 1 �3 o.rs16 0.l 1� ST oo _ _s 3 185 0.zQr9* 0•2919 SR — - - tLrp -- ZO — EL 3a ? 5S * 32 o.268 ' ET ---- S 5 0./ 0.14-2 ER WL I r ---_ M O.O 38 0.0438 WT !�wIR 20 ' r I o./000 r.LDWt!rE LXIStIRV :`•TCRCECTION CAPACIIY I:IILIIAIION - 7 ' i,'t-,'.. ,�•� COMMITTED PIUS Rlfilq!1.11 LNOMIH W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.0 6.7945- . eI:S'iv0 I'- akMltiCO 1'.ilti Rt,•'J•Inl .:,41WId [,III'. PROJECT I C.U. ' © Projected plus : Io.i"cr. traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' Projected plur, ;nv,IQ( t I.raffic I .C.U. 1`nli bo 9reater than 0.90 ' El Projected clot, pruil`cl. 11-, fic I .C.II. with ;y`,toM15 improvemont� 'ill be lev• Own I,` L`guul to 0.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - t ' I rl!II �� f�l • 'I' IIIQ`I L`/1`HII`II! . 1 - ill lial ' nIN I,ttt'ht.l I I UI rt Ii lu lvI t\Ntll I .+ • , l.n, or, .,,I 1pn �'/ -� AIL *11/d.. '..�111i' - ctc (Existing Ira ` 1 Ifol•lmE's Based on veraoe WTnCer�SprTng 197S) '4.it INI. { _ r '•' 1 lXISl NIfIONN UW+I IIIn I'Rq'i111n I'NWIC1 M n.rr�( I,eevs CaP " 1'6 i Ll, 6kowril P114,11 t'I� VJt tldlW Volume H. +•I,, { .ul PJ'•o VOL. Vtll. w/o—.... Pnl.irtt i ' ' '.• Vol.Yul 320�?. /0 I D.o125 O.OIZS (2)3200«i r'^ _112. 0.457LQ 32 r NR I 2 0.0319 O.o319 %) Ihl�v �_. SL I ! i (2)32.00 ;- _35 oa266 O;J266 ' 51 ll^l� rr �,.�. _ ._ _►4����� .S 241 o.s18 I _o.5z281 E: III ( 1(2)3200 { Q.1103� D.11o3 CT ;) b o.1431 OJ431 CR _— ff W1600 13 6R {) __.._._ �. Ia d 2 0.12 8 0,12 -10 Lti:':Nt. "i ECTION 'FP.'•ry I" t L:d ILN 1. ) I r;•,•••„ - ;7MR-1', t•tt• NIaYr,M '.Pfml Il M/PPOPOSLD INPROYIMINIS L.C.0 f:"W. '•RWITIEi. P: air—p.m '•'•odw P:I:1 PROJECT I.C.O. I0875" Projected ,Ilrt . II- • I I Ir.tllic I .I .II, IOIII hr II",'r Ihrul nl' I'I;u,ll ' tl• ;1.90 Pr(jected rill' 'to —, I ti••Ittie 1 .C.I1. Y;ill In' t1roatol, than 0. ,' © P'IlUjecta:: "Il. . Ir: . I 1 ' •• III. i .( +1 il•III'r I:olll )\'19111•'I• /. Add vlor4-1 bound le,N+ 41Am lc(-he- Acid horkh bound ri9hf- 4u•rvl 1017e. Cu) 3. Add souAbotmd ('cif 4t1rP1 luvle. �0),- 4. Add eastbound leaf +(Arm 1'AV)e• Cu) ' i NEGATIVE DECLARATION ' TO: Secretary for Resources FROM: Community Development Department 1400 Tenth Street City of Newport Beach Sacramento, CA 95814 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 "Clerk of the Board of ' Supervisors P. 0. Box 687 Santa Ana, CA (0702 NAME OF PROJECT: • • .r arc �. ' PROJECT LOCATION: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: c gccep�aNcc of P � �c\a �mcrsC a S �'\° N ' FOfL Ck�L �ZCma�N.� OPF�c.G--� M.�ASG�.IM /a,,,d�eucCf ' 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: INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY: v F ' INITIAL STUDY AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT: 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: ' Environmental Coordinator Date: r MITIGATION MEASURES 1 . The following disclosure statement of the City of Newport Beach's policy regarding the Orange County Airport should be included in all leases or sub-leases for space in the project and shall be included in any ' Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions which may be recorded against ' the property. - Disclosure Statement ' The Lessee herein, his heirs, successors and assigns acknowledge that: a) The Orange County Airport may not be able to provide adequate ' air service for business establishments which rely on such service; b) When an alternate air facility is available, a complete phase out ' of jet service may occur at the Orange County Airport; c) The City of Newport Beach may continue to oppose additional commercial air service expansions at the Orange County 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 are service at,the Orange County Airport. 2. The on-site parking will be provided in accordance with the Newport Beach ' Municipal Code. 3. The project be designed to conform to Title 24, Paragraph G, Division ' T-20, Chapter 2, Subchapter 4. , 4. Should any resources be uncovered during construction, that a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist evaluate the site prior to completion ' of construction activities, and in accordance with City Policies K-6 u K-7. 5. Final design of the project should provide for the incorporation of water-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. ' 17. The development on the site should be in accordance with City policies , on traffic. Planning Commission Meeting August 16 , __1979 ' Agenda Item No . 6 ' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH �. August 15 , '1979 ' TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of -Community Development ' SUBJECT: "SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT" Request to consider a Phasing Plan for the remaining development in the Civic Plaza Planned ' 'Comm—unity'Comm—unity District, and the acce tance ' of an Env.ironmental Document. Discussion ' LOCATION: The Planned Community of Civic Plaza , generally bounded by San Joaquin Hills Road, Santa- Cruz Drive , San Clemente Drive , Santa Barbara Drive, and Jamboree ' Road , in Newport Center. ZONE : P-C - ' APPLICANT:The Irvine Company, Newport Beach OWNER : Same as Applicant ' Subsequent to the August 9 , 1979 Planning Commission, the ' applicant' s consultant provided the City with revised information ,pertaining to the Traffic Report. Based upon the new information and discussions with the applicant' s , staff suggests the following changes to conditions of approval as listed in the August 9 , 1979 staff report (itali,cs indicate change) . Conditions 1 . That prior to the occupancy of any buildings on the site beyond the existing development and 95 ,812 sq . ft . of new ' construction , the circulation system improvements contained in the Traffic Report in Table. 5 , Pages 7 through 9, and listed below shall have been constructed, uhless subsequent project ' a'pprova2s. require- modification 'thereto. The. circulation systems improvements shall be subject' to the approval of the .City Traffic Engineer. INTERSECTION : G . Jamboree Road/San Joaquin Add northbound through lane ' Hills Road and-eenvert-r+qht-turn-4ane te-ept4enal-through-er-r4gh-t Convert westbound through ' 4e€t-tu-rn lane to optional through plus left. TO : Planning Commission - 2 . K. Jamboree Road/MacArthur Add southbound through lane Boulevard Add northbound optional through ' right turn lane Geevert-east- beend-r�gHt-td�n-}ane-�s-eq��ena� tMweagh-ew-w}gh�: ' DEPARTMENT .OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R . V . HOGAN, DIRECTOR BY . ' red' Talarico Environmental Coordinator ' FT/dt Attachments: Corrections to Traffic Report ' Weston Pringle & Associates - August 14, 1979 1 1 1 W + P. A Weat" P► qfz and J4ned0a ft oft' TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING August 14, 1979 ' Mr. Ron Jonas The Irvine Company ' 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, California. 92663 Dear Mr. Jonas: ' Enclosed are revised pages for the Civic Plaza Traffic Phasing. Study. The revisions cover the intersections of Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills Road ' and Jamboree .Road and Mac Arthur Boulevard. In both cases, improvements were indicated by others that are not required by the project and are now not re- quired by others. These improvements were related to the Prudential project which was not approved by the City. ' At Jamboree and San Joaquin Hills Road, the northbound right turn lane is not recommended to be converted to an optional through or right turn lane. -This change had no effect upon the ICU'calculation. At Jamboree and Mac Arthur, the eastbound right turn- lane is not recommended to be converted to an optional ' through or right turn lane. The conversion of the northbound right turn lane to an optional through or right turn is recommended. These changes resulted in ' a lowering of the ICU value at this intersection. tThese revised pages can be inserted into our July 5, 1979 report. If you have any questions, please contact me. Respectfully submitted, ' WESTON PRINGLE AND.ASSOCIATES ' Weston S. Pr ngle, P.E. WSP:js ' #5452 2651 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE • SUITE 110 • FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92631 • (714) 671-2931 ' Review of Table 3 indicates that 14 of the 16 intersections exceed the maximum two percent on at least one approach and must be considered critical. ' ANALYSIS The 14 intersections identified in the previous section were further examined to determine potential impacts. Utilizing "Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis" forms from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance procedure, ICU values were determined ' and include-,regional growth and approved projects volumes. The ICUs also include Improvements required by previously approved projects. 'These improvements• are discussed in the next section. The individual analysis sheets are contained in Appendix B and summarized in Table 4. Review of Table 4 indicates that two inter- sections are projected to exceed 0.90: Bristol Street North and Campus Drive, and Jamboree Road and Mac Arthur Boulevard. All other intersections are below 'the 0.90 i level. Since City Council Resolution Number 9422 allows 30 percent of development without ' improvement phasing, the 14 critical intersections were analyzed witt existing plus 30 percent of the remaining development. rhese data are. included in Appendix C ' and summarized in Table 4. The ICU's for the two intersections of BristoL Street North and Campus Drive, and Jamboree Road and Mac Arthur Boulevard still exceed the 0.90 level under these conditions. As indicated in the nrevious paragraphs, two intersections have ICU's that exceed ' 0,90 whether they are analyzed with 30' percent of the project development or with full develonment. It should also be noted tjid't both of these intersections have ICU values greater than 0.90 without development of Civic Plaza. These two inter- , , sections are discussed in the following paragraphs. ' Ilristol street North and Camlits Drive . t Review of 'table 4 and the related Sheets in Appendices B and C indicates that the project would have no impact upon the ICII values at this intersection. Ili , Since project volumes are added to non-critical 'movements, the ICU values are equivalent for both cases with and without the project. ' Jamboree Road and Mac Arthur. Boulevard The ICU values at this intersection increase 0.0052 in 1981 as a result of the project. This increase would not be perceptible to drivers utilizing the intersection. In addition, with observed driver ' -6- t Table 4 ICU SUMMARY Civic Plaza (1) (1) (2) INTERSECTION EXISTING EXISTING + EXISTING + EXISTING + REGIONAL + REGIONAL + REGIONAL + COMMITTED COMMITTED+ COMMITTED+ 30% PROJECT PROJECT _ 1981 1981 1982• ristol St. N. & Campus Dr. 0.9898• 0.9256 0.9256 0.9279 ristol St. & Campus Dr. 0.72 0.6467 0.6498 0.6613 oast Highway & Dover Dr. 0.99 0,6556 0.6623 0.6788 oast Highway & Bayside Dr. 0.89 0.8051 0.8118 0.8282 oast Highway & Jamboree Rd. 0.83 0.7644 0.7644 0.7650 Coast Highway & Marguerite Ave. 0.68 0,7425 0,7466 0.7566 `V , ,amboree Rd. & Santa Barbara Dr. 0.53 0.6171 0.6233 0.6373 Z, Jamboree Rd. & San Joaquin Hills itd. 0.64 0,6473 0.6487 0.6522 amboree Rd'. & Ford Rd. 0.83 0.7449 0,7517 0.7739 ' amboree Rd. & Bristol St. 0.54 0,7944 0.8032 0.8247 amboree Rd. & Bristol St. N. 0.72 0,8219 0,8298 0.8489 amboree Rd. & Mac Arthur Blvd. 0.85 0.9326 0.9378 0.9284 lac Arthur Blvd. & 'San Joaquin Hills Rd. 0.,72 0.7945 0,8070 0.8368 ac Arthur Blvd. & Ford Rd. 1.01 0,8653 0.8753 0.6997 (1) No Project Related Improvements are Considered in Calculations. '2) Project. Related Improvements are Included. ' -7- 1 ' characteristics in the area, the intersection would operate satisfactorily. Observations have indicated that,' as intersections near capacity, the capacity ' is increased and yellow or lost time decreased. Construction of the Corona Del Mar Freeway and San Joaquin corridor would also result in improved conditions. ' CIRCULATION IMPROVEWNT NEEDS The ICU analyses for the project included some circulation system improvements. All ' of these i Jill)rovments iu•o c•urrentlY roquirod .,is part of approved projects or pdannvd as governmental projects . The i.mproveuwnts are summarized in Table 5 and illustrated ' in Figures 2 through 13. ' Table 5 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS ' Civic Plaza INTERSECTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS ' Bristol Street North/ Add southbound through lane. Re- Campus Drive quired by previously 'approved pro- ject. See Figure 2. Bristol Street/Campus Drive Add southbound through lane. See ' Figure 3. Required by previously approved project. t . Coast 'Highway/Dover Drive Add southbound left turn lane. Add southbound right turn lane. I,I ' Add eastbound left- turn lane. Add eastbound optional through ' or right turn 'lane. Add westbound right turn lane. C!Ly/Cal.Trans Project . ' See Figure 4. Coast Highway/Bayside Drive Add eastbound through lane. ' Add westbound optional through or right turn lane. ' - 8 - CalTrans Project. ' See Figure 5. Coast Ilighway/Jamboree Road Add westbound through and west- bound Left turn lanes. Required by previously approved project. ' See Figure 6. .Jamboree Road/Santa Barbara Drive Add northbound through lane. 1 Add southbound left turn lane. Add westbound lane. Required by ' previously approved project: See Figure .7. ' Jamboree Road/San Joaquin Add northbound through lane. Hills Road Convert westbound through lane ' to optional through plus left. Required by .previously approved' • I ' project. See Figure 8. ' Jamboree Road/Bastbluff Drive- Convert northbound and south- Ford Road bound right turn lanes to ' optional through plus right. Add eastbound through lane. ' Convert westbound through lane to left turn lane. Re- ' (juirod by previously approved project. See Figure 9. ' Bristol Street/Jamboree Road Convert northbound through lane [o northbound left turn lane. Required by previously approved project. See Figure 10. ' - 9 - ' Bristol Street North/Jamboree Road Convert northbound through lane to northbound left turn lane. ' Roquired by pt7vviously approved pru it-ci . See Figure 11. ' Jamboree Road/Mac Arthur Boulevard Add northbound right turn Pane. Required by previously approved project. Convert northbound right turn Lane ; to optional. through or right and ' add southbound' through lane'. Estimated Cost: '$2,000.00 ' See Figure 12. ' Mac Arthur• Boulevard/Ford Road Add northbound left and right turn lanes, southbound left turn lane and eastbound left turn lane. City of Newport Beach project to be constructed 1979-80, See Figure 13. ' SUMMARY The ootential. impact of the proposed Civic Plaza site has been analyzed at 30 percent ' of development and at full development in 1982. Both analyses have indicated that two intersections would have ICU.'s greater than 0.90. For, one intersection, the analysis indicates that with the project• and tmprovemunts I'rum approved projects, the ICU would be less than the existing; ICU. It would also be equal to the 1981 and ' 1982 TCU without the project•. Conversely, for the other intersection, the analysis indicates that the 4982 ICU would be more than the ICU without the project although ' : would still bu greater than 0.90. 1 1 � . 1 S°� NoS �o 1 � CONVERT THROUGH LANE w ( TO OPTIONAL THROUGH AND LEFT TURN LANE 1 ti 1 SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD 1 I � 1 I ADD THROUGH LANE 1 1 RECOMMENDED CON ICURATION AT INTERSECTION OF 1 JAM13OItl?1?. IkOAD/SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAI1 i 1 1 WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE 8 i �1 NOT TO SCA ADD TIIROUGII LANE Meo / \ ADD TIIROUGH' OR \ RIGIIT TURN LANE ' RECOMMENDED LANE CONFIGURATION AT INTERSECTION OF JAMBOREE ROAD /MAC ARTHUR BOULEVARD ' FIGURE 12 ' WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES I0 , '.M ILL t I I ..i �. r. ... ..... ....... . lr,rr.rsnction �jGith 'JCJ/y2 (Existing Trdf+'lc Volu �s Base on verage Winter/ ring 1vt EX IST INC VPbI.4Sr,i I "ISr E EXIST REGIONAL COtMITTED PROJECTED PROJECT PROJECT Mo.erknt lanes Cap ` Imo, : :P ; PI HR I VIC GROWTH PROJECT Y/C Ratio Volume Y!C halio I Lnl. Iratlo VOL. Vol. w!o Project Vol. I NL __i.11� 1 ' p 0.06 6 O.OBfB ' l'�) y800 11 /'-_ a 23/7 Nl ' NR O _ ( I 3 7 O. af15 �C� _� b-7 o./7td ST ' SR - lbooa33 iy oivs� EL II co _._ I 03 0.6,5 2,r ' ET .p 27 027 ER v o_Y�% �2 a.*Ilyo WT 0 I 0 i hR _-_�qa — — 15-1 LELlO1d1 IY.E _� �,/OOU� ip,/aoo � CtIS11Nu _ CTION CAPACII} UTSLI/AI ION / CL+MIT;Ep P.IIS REG:ONAL GROWTH W(PROPOSED 1HPROVEMENT5 I.C.0 ErISTINS PLJS COMIITTEO PM RbllONAL GROWTH PI ITS PROJECT J.O.U. ' Projected plug ;rr•njt-Cl, tr•dtfiC 1 -C.11.' will be less than or equal ' to 0.90 ' Projected plu , to I,;r trr: Ffic I .C.U. will be greater than O.90 Projected piu., Ir'n)ect Lrntfic I .C.I1. with systems improvements Will be less th.;n nr t.qurll to 0.`)0 ' Ir•',Grl(1:.•Irdr Ir! . Irh' Iltllrl'IrVCtIIIPII t.I _ _ .. _ _ _ _ ._ _ _ .. - • A&I vlorA bcumd 4,hrau9h lane . (o) Z Coviver+ wes+bOW4, fhra y�i lava 40 orpt,atilal +hi'ough plus (o) I1i11 Wit • i ION LAPACI iY tll I1.I1101uN 11 M Y>IJ In l �yfh (Ar W4 (1) I OL' ' (Existing Ira P,c Volume ase on verage winter pring 197_ t E%1ST INC rMG,(rv1l EXIST 1%I GT REGIONAL COM4TTED PROJECTED PROJECT PROJECI ' M°acrkrt LaneS Cap I . ,re: •0 1 Of HR 1'/C GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ratio Volume V/C Ratio I Vol. Ratio VOL. VOL. w/o Project ( Vol. 1 � � l 0. 0/ 8 O.O/88 B ' Nl y8� c 0� ' 30.I zOBs 20 a, e NR r- -- 1� I o•/3B60 SL ----- '• ^ • O. oBy U.ogy ?R 3/ /fiov-;"� 'o( I � 0,Z77s4 IQ 0, /87/ EL �f�b' 'a� O3ZB1 l O.3YZ5 '� ET --NADD - --- Iu c1 1 3 v. ZZSo 0202 02z96 ER wT ' I 1 �a 0• Z0Z y 0.Z07 6R -- rE::rw:rrE E%IST14G :hTEV_<ECTi OH CAPAGI IY UT(t ltal TOM U:S-N'.3 PLUS CCAMIT;ED PI11: RT0104A: 'd+UAlil R/PFOPOSED IMPROVE MENIS LC.0 , 930U p E%:SIING PLUS CO ITTE0 PoUl RI,IPNAI 4ROUTli PIUS PROJECT I.C.U. G9agy Projected Iglus prn,jrct traffic I .C.U. will be Mess than or equal to 0.90 Projected plus prnlect traffic I .C.IJ. will be greater than 0.90 ' 111-cjected plu.. prui (.t Ir.11fic I .C.11. with r.;; ,t_(an•, ilnpr'ov(!Dielit", will be lt•tib ( h.r( ++:• rqu,il l.0 0.90 . - - - - • - - - - - I .�. 1.rIpL;,�,. �,( + .. :n lu•:•l .,v(lluunt.: / Add h0r4bouvid r/iiu&q/i p/I'r Ili l't'i2St11.IIIIN CAPACITY IITI[-17.AIION ANAIY%IJ Y30 �V, r�o°`Vf ' (Existing Traffic Volu� Base on verage (linter/>zyrring 197 Movtr�en[ EXISTING PROPOSED I EXIST EXIST REGIONAL CIXMITTED PROJECTED PROJECT PR0.1EC1' ' lanes Cap l la•�r, VIC GROWTH PROJECT VIC Ratio Volwa VIC Ratio Ra Lio VOL. VOL. w/o Project Vol. i Nl I LIB p 19 0.D838* 0.o838 NT_ l i l'l800 l 217 0,ZZB/2 013/Z 1; a3 Q9 0. 0B36 3 90 SL 7 2v O.Ibo ST SR i a33 . o. 1466 b ET cc E R ' A l oo C�2 4>��! 2 6 � k � o.osag � WT O ' WR 0 /000 0.1000 �k 1ELLOW1IME _ EXISIING INTEoSECT10N CAPACITY E•TIIIlAT10N EXIbi1So iLUS C@M/TTED PINS RIGIMAI GRON111 W!PROPOSED (MPROYEMENiS LC.0 D, EXISIIN. PLUS iOMITTED PLUS Id GIONld UROWTII PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. p�e y87 ' Projected plur uro•jrct traffic I .C.U. will be less than .or equal to 0.90 Projected plu.. In•(X•),•t.t traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 11.90 I ' ® 'Projected plus ilro,iect. traffic I,.C,tJ, with s•yst,enls improvements will-be less tliali or equal to 0.90 - _ - 1 u: . r lk•N, i.nixtivemtnt: 1 - /. Add Y16r4bouVld 'l'hrotk�tI lane. (D) 1 z . Conner+ wes+bound fh�o��5h . lane -6 op+iovlal d-hrou�h pIUS left. co) � ,c '• '. 1. � r '?rtr •I tl1Ti LIWINUI IT Ul ll_1Lrlt lv�� ivvu. •'••' rn .r rsar:tinn ,1 vr,hnve (� HQ V ;Exist.inq lfatf'r Voluilte8 ttase on verage Winter prin9 l97 -- tAUIIRu l �•t�.It".t 1A1S1 117IST REGIONAL C"II1tD :CRat TLO PRWFCI I'N0.�11.i n��.lrar.t Lenes CaP ' an.•. 'r { !9, HIi t'/C GROWTH PRWLCI lo YotunK Y/l katlu Vol. I Itat.io VOL. VOL. glect 4 1 01 C)/SB r 3 14G 6--108x .Z106 NR lW ho 60 0. 1351 0.1 4-19 ' St— --•-;�3 o. 08 44Ala 9L_0 'R ' ST 3 9800j1 143 6.18540 3 0.1856 SR -17 0.3281 7 0.33 --- � 2 ►93 zz5o'c 7 o.ZZE ER ' Wr -• . �x IN 57 0.3 4'c Q� L07_ p.WT L — WR 10v YtI LNt IME ' LUSTING INT54SECTION CAPACIIT UTII Ila 10N fA157I'd :.L: CtMn11ED PI.tIS RECIo"L 6Ro'dlll W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS LC.0 a 3Z f t15f ING PLJS COMMITTED Pit-, QF&ICNAI .ROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 379 '(1) Mac-Ay{kut- is noyk� Sou+l . Projected ;sltit. 1,11ul0ct. traffic I ,C.II. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' Q Projected illty. nt'n,{rc t Irtlffic I .C.1l. .wi11 he grvatvr than 0.911 ' Projected Ills . ;n'1,,h':.t Irallic l .C.11. with ••,y'.Lvnr, iugnuvvuu•nt.'. will be Iv'.• Iitrr l ur a11101 to 0.90 t rllrl I 'rr �•� I lu Iil{ll ,rVl!IIIt1111 - - - - _ - •• _ _ _ , ' 1 Add mr4hbound ri`gtlk 1 Planning Commission Meeting August 9 , 1979 Agenda Item No. B ' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ' August 1 , 1979 TO: Planning Commission ' FROM: Department of Community Development ' SUBJECT: Request to consider a Phasing Plan for the remain- ing development in the Civic Plaza Planned Commun- ity District, and the acce tance of an Environmen- tal Document. Discussion ' LOCATION: The Planned Community of Civic Plaza, generally bounded by San Joaquin Hills Road , Santa Cruz Drive , San Clemente Drive , Santa Barbara Drive , and Jam- boree Road, in Newport Center. ZONE: P-C ' APPLICANT: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach ' OWNER: Same as Applicant Background Information ' The Irvine Company has requested approval of a Phasing Plan to comply with Resolution No. 9742 of the Newport Beach City Council ' and Amendment No. 514 as it pertains to the Planned Community Development Plan for Civic Plaza. Attached for the Planning Com- mission ' s consideration in 'regard to this request are : ' a) Resolution No . 9517 b) City Council Minutes-March 12 , 1979-"Civic Plaza" c) City Council Minutes-March 12 , 1979-"Test of Reason- ableness" ' d) Letter-The Irvine Company-July 10 , 1979 e) Narrative on Planning Commission-"Test of Reasonable- ness"-July 1979 ' f) Traffic Report prepared by Weston Pringle and Assoc- iates , dated July 5 , 1979 , for the applicants g) Negative Declaration ' Environmental Significance The City of Newport Beach Environmental Affairs Committee has re- viewed the project and determined that it will not have signifi - cant environmental effect. A copy of the Negative Declaration is attached. TO: Planning Commission - 2 Phasing Plan ' The applicants have indicated that development in the Civic Plaza Planned Community, if the Phasing Plan is approved, would occur as follows : ' PHASING SCHEDULE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT ' Art Museum 20,000 sq. ft. 1980 OCCUPANCY ' Library 14,000 sq. ft. ' Offices 81 ,812 sq, ft. 1981 OCCUPANCY Art Museum 10 ,000 sq . ft. ' Restaurant 8,000 sq. ft. Offices 152 ,894 sq. ft. ' Theater 20 ,000 sq . ft. Resolution No. 9517 Attached for the Planning Commission' s consideration is a copy of ' the applicant' s response to the Planning Commission guidelines for reviewing the Phasing Plan , as modified by the City Council ' (Attachment "E" ) . Additionally, a copy of Resolution No. 9517 and the City Council Minutes for March 12 , 1979 are attached. Traffic Report ' A Traffic Report was prepared for the applicant by Weston Pringle and Associates. The Traffic Report examined the 16 intersections ' identified for analysis in the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. It is summarized on the following page: ' TO? Planning Commission - 3 _ Icu simti+lnry civic 111a%a (1) (1) (1) ' INTERSECTION EXISTING EXISTING + EXISTING + EXISTING + REGIONAL + KEGIONAL + REGIONAL + COMMITTED COMMITTED+ COMMITTED+ 30% PROJECT PROJECT ' 1981 1981 1982 Bristol & Campus Dr, 0.9898 0.9256 0.9256 0.9279 ' Bristol St. & Campus Dr. 0.72 0.6467 0.6498 0.6613 Coast Highway & Dover Dr. 0.99 0.6556 0.6623 0.6788 Coast Highway & Bayside Dr, 0.89 0.8051 0.8118 0.8282 ' Coast Flighway & Jamboree Rd. 0.83 0,7644 0.7644 0.7650 Coast Highway & Marguerite Ave. 0.68 0,7425 0,7466 0.7560 ' Jamboree Rd. & Santa Barbara Dr. 0.53 0.6171 0.6233 0.6373 Jamboree Rd. & San Joaquin •11ills Rd. 0.64 0,6473 0.6487 0.6522 ' Jamboree Rd. & Ford Rd. 0.83 0.7449 0,7517 0.7739 Jamboree Rd. & Bristol St. 0.54 0,7944 0.8032 0.8247 Jamboree Rd. & Bristol St, N. 0.72 0,8219 0,8298 0.8489 ' Jamboree Rd. & Mac Arthur Blvd. 0.85 0.9269 0.9338 0.9496 Mac Arthur Blvd, & San Joaquin Hills Rd. 0.72 0.7945 0,8070 0.8368 Mac Arthur Blvd. & Ford Rd. 1.01 0,8653 0.8753 0.8997 ' (1) No Project Related Improvements are Considered in Calculations. ' The Traffic Report found that Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 2% of projected 21 hour traffic volume only at the inter- sections of: 1) Coast Hwy./Newport Center Dr. , and 2) Coast Hwy./ MacArthur Blvd. Therefore, ICU calculations were made for the re- maining 14 intersections as noted above . The applicant' s consul - tant has indicated that two intersections , Bristol Street North/ ' Campus Drive and Jamboree Road/MacArthur Blvd. , will be operating upon completion of the project at 0 . 9000 or greater. TO: Planning Commission - 4 ALTERNATIVE COURSES OF ACTION Suggested Action If desired, accept the Negative Declaration and approve the Phas- ing Plan with the findings and subject to the conditions , as fol - lows : FINDINGS: ' 1. That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration has been pre- p&red in compliance with the California Environmental Quality , Act and City Policy K-3 , and that their contents have been considered in the decision on this project. 2. That based on the information contained in the Initial Study ' and Negative Declaration, the project will not result in sig- nificant environmental impacts . 3. That the Phasing Plan is consistent with the Newport Beach ' General Plan and the Planned Community Development Plan for Civic Plaza. ' 4. That based on the Phasing Plan and supporting information submitted therewith , there is a reasonable correlation be- tween projected traffic at time of completion and the cdpa- ' city of affected intersections . 5 . That the applicant has taken into consideration in the prepar- ation of his plan characteristics in the design of his devel- opment which either reduce traffic generation or guide traf- fic onto less impact arterials or through intersections in the least congested direction. ' CONDITIONS : 1 . That prior to the occupancy of any buildings on the site be- ' yond the existing development and 95,812 sq. ft. of new con- struction that the circulation system improvements contained in the Traffic Report in Table 5, Pages 7 through 9 , and listed below shall have been constructed. , INTERSECTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS ' A. Bristol Street North/ Add southbound through lane Campus Drive g. Bristol Street/Campus Drive Add southbound through lane , C. Coast Highway/Dover Drive Add southbound left turn lane , Add southbound right turn lane Add eastbound left turn lane TO: Planning Commission - 5 ' Add eastbound optional through or right turn lane Add westbound right turn lane D. Coast Highway/Bayside Drive Add eastbound through lane Add westbound optional through or right turn lane ' E. Coast Highway/Jamboree Road Add westbound through and west- bound left turn lanes ' F. Jamboree Road/Santa Barbara Add northbound through lane Drive Add southbound left turn lane Add westbound lane ' G. Jamboree Road/San Joaquin Add northbound through lane Hills Road and convert right turn lane ' to optional through or right Convert westbound left turn lane to optional through plus left. H. Jamboree Road/Eastbluff Drive- Convert northbound and south- Ford Road bound right turn lanes to op- tional through plus right ' Add eastbound through lane Convert westbound through lane to left turn lane ' I . Bristol Street/Jamboree Road Convert northbound through lane to northbound left turn lane J . Bristol Street North/Jamboree Convert northbound through Road lane to northbound left turn lane K. Jamboree Road/MacArthur Add northbound right turn Boulevard lane Convert eastbound right ' turn lane to optional through or right. ' L. MacArthur Boulevard/Ford Add northbound left and right Road turn lanes , southbound left turn lane and eastbound left turn lane 2 . That no further development beyond that allowed by the Phasing Plan shall be allowed on this site. TO: Planning Commission - 6 a , 3. That prior to the issuance of any building permits , the ap- plicahts shall indicate to the Director of Community De- ' velopment in writing that they understand and agree to con- ditions 1 and 2 above. OR ' If the Planning Commission desires to deny the Phasing Plan , the following findings are suggested for consideration : ' FINDINGS : 1. That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration has been pre- ' pared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and City Policy K-3 , and that their contents have been considered in the decision on this project. 2. That based on the information contained in the Initial Study and Negative Declaration , the project will not result in sig- nificant environmental impacts . 3. That the Phasing Plan is consistent with the Newport Beach General Plan and the Planned Community Development Plan for ' Koll Center Newport. 4. That based on the Phasing Plan and supporting information ' submitted therewith , there is not a reasonable correlation between projected traffic at time of completion and the capa- city of the intersections of Bristol Street North/ Campus Dr. and Jamboree Road/MacArthur Boulevard. ' DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R.LF HOGAN, DIRECTO ' By re Ta.larico Environmental Coordinator FT/gg ' Attachments : 1. Negative Declaration 2. Letter-The Irvine Company-July 10 , 1979 , 3. Response to "Test of Reasonableness Guide- lines"-July 1979 4. Traffic Report-July 5, 1979 ' 5 . Resolution No. 951y 6 . City Council Minutes 1 �'• 1� ATCNCA NEE 1JT FESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING THE PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR CIVIC PLAZA REVISING THE ALLOWABLE DEVELOPMENT ESTABLISHING ' A PHASING OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND ACCEPTING AN ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT (AMENDMENT NO. 527) ' WHEREAS, Section 20.51.045 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that amendments to a Planned Community ' Development Plan shall be approved by a resolution of the City Council setting forth full particulars- of the amendments; ' and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public ' hearing on February 8, 1979, at which time it considered amend- ments to the Planned Community Development Plan for Civic Plaza; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing the Planning Commission 'adopted its Resolution No. 1032 recommending to the City Council '. that certain amendments to the Planned Community Development Plan for Civic Plaza be adopted as follows: 1. The allowed development for the Office Park area is reduced by 85,294 square feet, and the Civic Cultural by 16,000 square feet as indicated in the following table: Total Allowable ' Land Use (Existing P-C) Revisud Zotal Office Park 320,000 sq. ft. 234,706 Art Museum 30,000 sq. ft. 30,000 Library 30,000 sq. ft. 14,000 Theater 20,000 sq. ft. 20,000 Restaurant 8,000 sq. ft. 8,000 408,000 sq. ft. 306,706 ' 2. A Phasing of Development Plan for Civic Plaza be adopted to read as follows: 1 y j , "PHASING OF DEVELOPMENT T , 34,000 sq. ft. of development was existing or under construction as of January 1, 1979. The additional allowable development in the total approved development plan is 272,706 sq. ft, Any , further development subsequent to Januar 1, 1979, in excess of 30% of the additional allowable development, being 81,812 sq. ft., shall be approved only after it can be demonstrated that adequate traffic facilities will be available to ' handle that traffic generated by the project at the time of occupancy of the buildings involved. Such demonstration may be made by the presentation of a phasing plan consistent with the Circulation , Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. In the review of this phasing plan, a test of reasonableness should be applied, rather than the criteria of the Traffic Phasing ordinance." ' 3. The Revised Site Plan, attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof, be adopted; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that said amendments to the Planned Community Development Plan for Civic Plaza as set forth above are desirable and necessary; and ' WHEREAS, the city Council has conducted a public hearing on said proposed amendments in accordance with all provisions of law, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council ' of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves the proposed amendments to the Planned Community Development Plan for Civic ' Plaza as set forth hereinabove. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the environmental document is hereby accepted. ADOPTED this 12th day of March ,, 1979. ' Mayor ' ATTEST: City Clerk ' DDO/kb 3/8/79 I L P'TTA,("AS I • 161 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ( (:DIINCII.MI.N MINUTES �\•vj. yo\ti s . ' 120E L CAL L• �`p March 12, 1979 INDEX (itigp�tiion proposed needs to indicate degree of permanence-'in-or o meet the test. t I I The regular order of the Agana was resumed. 3. Mayor Ryckoff opened the public hearing regarding Newport Planning Commission Amendment No. 527, a request Center initiated by the City of Newport Beach to consider Civic an amendment to the Civic Plaza Planned Community Plaza Development Plan to require the preparation of (2285) traffic phasing plan and reduction in allowable intensity of development and the acceptance of an ' Environmental Document on property bounded by San Joaquin Hills Road, Santa Cruz Drive, San Clemente Drive, and Santa Barbara Drive in Newport Center; zoned P-C. A report was presented from the Community Develop- ment Department. Ron Hendrickson of The Irvine Company addressed ' the Council and stated that Council had voted to make Civic Plaza an excepted project, and asked that the revised P-C Plan be approved, and'that the project be considered on a 30%/70% approach. ' Motion x The hearing was closed after it was determined ' All Ay(•s that no one else desired to be heard. Motion x Councilman Hummel made a motion that the test of reasonableness be applied to 100% of the Civic Plaza project. t Councilman Heather made a statement for the record, as follows: "I feel that this project ' which was accepted and has had its zone changed and reduced, and is now being further impinged by 100% development review instead of 30%, I think that it is beyond the scope of this Council to make that kind - I, personally feel, legally, that we do not have the right to further discrim- inate against this project." Motion x) Councilman Hart made a substitute motion to ' continue the item to March 26. Motion I x Councilman McInnis made a substitute substitute Ayes xl x x x motion ad Co ojlt Resolution No. 9517 amending the R-9517 Noes x x x Planned Community Development Plan for Civic Plaza ' I revising the allowable,development plane and accepting an.environmental document( which motion F. CONTINUED BUSINESS. _ —•_•. 1. Previously considered. �. 2. A report was presented from the-Commmunity Develop- Newport Place ' ment Department regarding_Plahning Commission Planned action with regard,to-'a request of Emkay Develop- Community ment an�lty-6mpany for the approval of a (1275) I I . �I Volume 33 - Page 60 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 11 MINUTES t• ti 4`,p�1�Pw,�\ e'Ir iN �• P rt.i r.•h_ II, 1919 INDEX i i_t I I J- available for potential office building. Addition ally, The Irvine Company requests that 4,156 sq. { It. of space be reallocated from Pacific Coast ' i Iltghway EaoC and Nest, anti 1,511 sq. ft. of space Cram either Block 500 or Niack 700, at their optin , • ' be reallocated to Black 800 in Newport Center to ' I allow for the construction of a 10,000 sq. ft. restaurant uhlch would contain a maximum of i' ,667 .q. Ct. oC net public area. A port was presented from the Community Develop- men Department. I Harry ubb, President, And Steven Gavin, Vice ' 1 Preaid t Corporate Relation Officer, of Pacific Mutual L fa Insurance addressed the Council. Mr. Gavin ata ad that they were reducing the elevation by three oars and would be willing to continue for not mor than six weeks, if necessary; that they would b willing to eliminate the high-rise condominiums, ut that they would continue to be committed to a mitigation required for the two ten-story build so' traffic and otherwise, and , all other cc di AD. Robert Sbaltoro of a Irvine company, addressed the Council and stet d that the condominiums Vera included in the Envir ental Impact Report ' because of a previous rection of the Council. Donald Cralneck, repteae ing Pacific Mutual Insurance, addressed the until And asked if the ordinance were changed to late reference to the residential development, if hat would require a revision eo the ordinance nex time to tome back for reintroduction, or if it w uld be enacted at that time. The City Attorney stated that the ction would lower the density of the project u could be , considered an April 23, if continue to that date, without reintroduction. Cary Schamberg, President of $aotbluff omeowners , Association, addressed the Council rega ing the ' necessity for developers to institute sou d atteq� i untion factors along Jamboree Road, and wa asked to submit a letter with suggestions propose by the ' I I Association. Ix I The public-caring vas con*—,-- -, Apr11 23, th the applicant atipulatiA& concurrence to ' con-on ' i 'Cho Council unanimously agreed to take Agenda Item F-1 a{,I t_nf order ant ronaider ie at-this time. jA report was presented from the Community Development 1 ( Department regarding the Planning Commission's recom- mendations concerning the definition of the term r "reasunnbleness" no applied La n rraf flc phaAinO plan I I I I for "okceptad"Planned Community Districts. ' I 'j Volume 77 - Page 50 ' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH I I MINUTES y L' .,� �, �, ;•,,y, P Mm rh 1:, 19/9 _ .___.__._—.- INDEX Curdnu h, tl, President of the Ntwport ilarber Area Chamber of Commerce, and Michne! C. Cer!ng addressed the Court Li, bit were ruled out of order by the Mayor ' lar noL addressing the subjeeL under consideration. 'fhe Lnfnnnation to be submitted by the developer, as �' j recommended by the Planning Commnission in connection I wlfh etie [esE oY'ressa�a"6lenes's for applicable planned i communities, was modified,Co change the percentage 'lot �„„ � �x of increase in item 3 from 5% to 2%, to revise item 2 A,,.., x l I x x x andJto'add items'7 and-V_"'Thb list was approveil'ns •..rv. I x x x fallows: 1 ' (a) Each project subject to the phasing requirement of Council Resolution No. 9472 shall be examined as to the extent of existing development and the amount of development remaining to be completed. ' 1 1 (b) Information shall be submitted indicating the amount of traffic being generated by existing development, that projected for remaining development, and traffic that will exist after completion of the project. i (c) An examination shall be made of the circulation system in the vicinity of the project to determin what improvements remain to be completed, with particular consideration being given to those improvements which will directly aid in moving ! traffic generated by the project. The area to be examined shall extend to those intersections where traffic generated from the project increase the traffic for any leg of the intersection durin the peak two and one-half hour period by 2% or more. • I I (d) Existing traffic at those intersections shall be shown prior to making any projections. ' (e) The developer may include in his proposed I I traffic phasing plan completion of or contribu- tion to completion of needed improvements con- sistent with the level of traffic generation and ' I I a reasonable proportion of the cost of these i improvements. (l') The developer is also to Cake into consideration j in the preparation of his plan characteristics ' in the design of his development which either reduce traffic generation or guide traffic onto leas impacted arterials or through intersections i in the least congested direction. t i I (g) Upon receipt of the plan and inforr.,t Lon, the Commission will determine whether there is reasonable correlation between projected traffic at time of project completion and capacity of affected intersections in considering the project I I for approval. i Volume 33 - Page 59 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES "At It !Larch 11. 1979 INDEX ( , , , (It) M[clgatlan propgned needs to Indicate degree of , ipermanence An order to meet the tent. the regular order of the ARena was resumed. ' j 1. Mayor Ryckoff opened the public hearing regarding Newport i Plannine Coomieadon•Ameq(Iment-Ro. 527, a request Center Initiated by, the City of Newport Beach to consider Civic an amendment to the Civic Plaza Planned Co mLity Plaza ! Dev_alopmene—Plop to rcq Cheuira preparation of a (2285) tea i�� c phasing plan and reduction in allowable Intensity of development and the acceptance of no Environmental Document on property bounded by San ' Joaquin Hills Road, Santa Cruz Drive, San Clemente Drive, and Santa BarbaraDrive in Newport Center; zoned P-C. A report was presented from the Community Develop- ment Department. ' Ron Hendrickson of The Irvine Company addressed the Council and stated that Council had voted to make Civic Plata an excepted project, and asked that the revised P-C Plan be approved, and that ' the project be considered an a 30%/70% approach. Matinn x The hearing was closed after it was determined 611 Ayes that no one also desired to be beard. I ' t6.r ion xl Councilman Rommel made a notion that the test of reasonableness be applied to 100% of rho Civic Plata project. Councilman Heather made a statement for the ' record, as follows: "i feel that this project which was accepted and has had its zone changed and reduced, and Is now being further impinged by 10OX development review instead of 30%, I think that it is beyond the scope of this Council to ' sake that kind - I, parsomlly fool, legally, ' that we do not have the right to further discrim- inate against this project." tha inn xl Councilman Hart made a substitute notion to ' continue the Item to March 26. Port ton j I x Councilman McInnis made a eubatltutq ppbptituto Aveq I xl x x x motion to edopt.Resolution No. 9517. intending the R-9517 Rees Ix x x I Planned Community Development,Plan for Ctvie Plata ' re6ls�he R1tWmVfi development plan, -and accep�ngin envT'ronmdntal document, which motion I fr carrrli ' I ' I F. CONTINUED BUSINESS: � I 1, Previously considered. 1 ` ' I 2. A report was presented From tho Community Develop- Newport Place I I I I meat Daperement regarding Planningg FomaLsalon Planned n wi actioth regard to A requeoq oP $ekny Develop- Community went and Realty Company for the approval of n 11175) i Volume 13 - Page 60 , r - - - ----;_ - --_ -_ THE IRVINE COMPANY ? 550 NNewport Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92663 ' (714) 644-3011 July 10, 1979 RECEIVED Z Community Planning Commission -1 Development ' City of Newport Beach -4 JUL EWP Dept 01979�- �3 3300 Newport Boulevard 6 Newport Beach, California cfTv BEACH, 92663 CALIF. S ' SUBJECT: Civic Plaza 'Traffic Phasing Plan 14r. Chairman and Members of the Commission: In order to proceed with full development of the Civic Plaza site in accordance with the City's P.C. district regulations, we are submitting attached Traffic Phasing Plan for your approval. City Council Resolution No. 9472 sets forth guidelines for the "test of reasonableness" to be used in evaluating sucli projects. It is our belief that the attached Traffic Phasing Plan has been prepared in compliance with all applicable City regulations and, in fact,meets the criteria established for the test of reasonableness. The Traffic Phasing Plan was prepared assuming that development .currently in process under the 30% exception rule would be fully occupied in 1980. The additional 70% of future allowed development, according to our Traffic Phasing Plan, is scheduled to be developed and occupied in 1981. The attached traffic study and responses identl[y the traffic impacts associated with the proposed development. Our proposed site development phasing plan is summarized as follows: ' 1980 - Occupancy of existing plus development in process.under the 30% rule. (This LnClUdes 34,000 sq. ft. for, the art museum and library, plus approximately 81,000 sq. ft% additional) . ' 1981 - Occupancy of remainder of allowed development, subject' to the 70% phasing requirement. (This includes approximately 190,000 square feet consisting of office/restaurane/theater uses, and an addition ' to the art museum.) WiLhin the traffic ILmLting parameters, it is highly desLrable from our poLnt of viow to complete the Civic Plaza development of the earliest feasible date. This would minimize aesthetic impacts due to.grading and construction, and would allow the most effective implementation of erosion control measures. ' Responses to the City's guidelines for Traffic Phasing approval are attached. July 9, 1979 14 , Page 2 Wo hopo rhat this leth•r, along; With the nt.tachcd Trarflc Plan will answer , your uostions and concern:; related to >q traffic impacCs due to the develop— meat of the Civie P1azn P.C. Should you have an y ny additional questions or comments, please feel free to contact me. or out Traffic Consultant. ' Yours very truly, R4��d- Ronald 14. liendric%son Director, Design/Construction Commerical/Industrial Division RIM:lIt ' encls. �5 ' CIVIC PLAZA TRAFFIC PHASING PLAN Item 1 ' Each project subject to the phasing requirement of Council Resolution No. 9472 shall be examined as to the extent of existing development and•the amount of development remaining to be completed. The Civic Plaza Planned Community provides for five separate land uses on the site. Upon completion of the entire project, the PC provides for the following ' identified land use developments: Art museum 30,000 sf Library 14,000 sf Restaurant 8,000 sf Offices 234,706 sf Theater 20,000 sf' ' The only presently developed land use on .the site is the Newport Beach Art Museum with 20,000 square feet. Additional land uses for the site which 'for traffic ' analysis purposes are under construction or in the process of development are the City of Newport Beach Library and 81,812 square feet of offices under the 30% rule. Those portions of the planned community which would remain to be developed upon approval of the Traffic Phasing Plan are the restaurant, 152,894 square feet ' of offices, the 650 seat theater, and 10,000 additional square feet for the museum. Item 2 ' Information shall be submitted indicating the amount of traffic being generated by existing development, that projected for remaining development, and traffic that will exist after completion of the project. ' Based on the appropriate traffic generation rates as identified in the Newport Center Phase II Traffic Study, the total traffic- to be generated by the site is ' as follows. ' July 1979 p.m. Peak Hour AUT In Out Existing - Occupied ' Art museum - 20,000 sf 840 20 20 Under Development - 1980 Occupancy ' Library - 14,000 sf 588 10 10 ' Offices - 81,812 sf 1,06,4 49 140 Sub-total 1,652 59 150 Future Development - 1981 Occupancy ' Art museum - 10,000 sf 420 10 10 Restaurant 400 40 20 ' Offices - 152,894 sf 1,988 91 260 Theater 975 n/a n/a Sub-total 3,783 141 290 , Total PC 6,275 220 460 ' The amount of traffic to be' generated by the completion of all remaining develop- ment in the peak hour is shown on Table 2 of the attached report. The existing portion of the art museum was not included in that analysis as it was an existing ' land use and included in existing traffic volume data. Item 3 , An examination shall be made of the circulation system in the vicinity of the project to determine what improvements remain to be completed, with particular consideration being given to those improvements which will directly aid in moving ' traffic generated by the project. The area to• be examined shall extend to those intersections where traffic generated from the. project increases the traffic for any leg of the intersection during the peak 2� hour period by 2% or• more. , Table 3 of the attached report summarizes the analysis for critical intersection identification, with the backup calculation sheets included in Appendix A. Identifying critical intersections was based on the intersections to be examined ' by the procedures of the•Traffic Phasing Ordinance for the area in which Civic Plaza is identified, and further examination is included for any intersection for which the project would increase traffic by 2% or more during the 21 hour , period. The site is bounded by San Joaquin Hills Road, Santa Cruz Drive, San Clemente Drive, and Santa Barbara Drive. All roadway improvements adjacent to the site have been previously improved and completed by the owner. -2 ' Item 4 ' Existing traffic at those intersections shall be shown prior to making any projections. Existing traffic volumes for all identified critical intersections are shown in Appendix B, Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis. ' Item 5 The developer may include in his proposed Traffic Phasing Plan completion of or contribution to completion of needed improvements consistent with the level of traffic generation and a reasonable proportion of the cost of these improvements. As previously identified, the landowner has already made the identified ultimate ' General Plan improvements on the roadways adjacent to the site. Due to this previous contribution by the landowner to completion of the roadway system, no deficiencies on the existing circulation have been identified adjacent to the site. ' Table 5 identifies a summary of circulation system improvements included in future period ICU calculations. All of these improvements are required as a ' part of approved projects or are planned as- government projects. of the projects identified, the landowner has committed over $152,000 in the improve- ment of the Ford/MacArthur intersection'. ' Item 6 The developer is also to take into consideration in the preparation of his plan ' characteristics in the design of his development which either reduce traffic generation or guide traffic onto less impacted arterials or through intersec- tions in the least congested direction. ' The proposed land use plan reflects a reduction in traffic generated over the original approved PC for the site. The proposed land use plan reflects a 26.6% reduction in office use of that initially approved with the existing PC being ' amended in April 1979. ; The current PC also includes a mix of land uses which have beneficial traffic generation impacts in tYie peak hours, such as the proposed theater, library and ' museum. Although of a higher generation rate, a restaurant at this site will potentially serve to divert some trips from the surrounding area in the peak hours. -3- Itum 6 (continued) I� Full access to the site is to be taken from San Clemente and Santa Rosa, with ' a restricted right turn only access from San Joaquin Hills Road. San Clemente and Santa Rosa were identified ir, the Newport Center Traffic Study as roadways with a less degree of utilization than other roadways in the vicinity of the , site. The internal circulation system of the site is oriented towards encour- aging vehicles to utilize these roadways for ingress/egress from the Civic Plaza site and Newport Center area. The orientation of traffic to Santa Rosa and San Joaquin Hills Road intersection and Santa Barbara/Jamboree intersection , are intended to encourage traffic to divert to non-critical movements at the San Joaquin Hills Road and Jamboree intersection. Item 7 Upon receipt of the plan and information, the Commission will determine whether there is a reasonable correlation between projected traffic at the time of ' project completion and capacity of affected intersections in considering the project for approval. The attached traffic study had identified two intersections that will have ICU's ' that exceed .90 in 1982 after full project completion; these are the intersec- tions of Bristol Street North and Campus Drive, .and the intersection of Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard, with projected ICU's of .9279 and .9496, respectively. ' For the Bristol Street North and Campus intersection, with or without approval of the project, the intersection has a projected ICU value of .9279. This is ' due to the project generated traffic being added to a non-critical movement through the intersection. Thus, approval or denial of the project will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of service at this intersection. For the Jamboree and MacArthur intersection, the project increases the ICU ' analysis value by .0227 in 1982. The traffic consultant has indicated in his report that drivers utilizing this intersection would not perceive this increase, , and in his opinion, the intersection would operate satisfactorily. He has also identified that the construction of the Corona del Mar Freeway would also result in improved conditions at this intersection.' Item 8 ' Mitigation proposed needs to indicate degree of permanence in order to meet the ' test. The land use reductions made in the April 1979 PC amendment reflect a perman- ent reduction in land use intensity and traffic generation for this site. ' The roadway improvements identified as necessary for the approval of other projects are considered as permanent fixed facility improvements although ' additional modifications such as re-stripping, construction to ultimate (where appropriate) and signal operations modifications, may also occur in the future. -4- GUeo.fou Paiugee and Aoaaci W • TRAFFIC 8 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING Iu1V 5, 1979 'Ir. !tun Hendrickson Counnc•rcial/ fncJusl.rfal Division 11.E. Irvine Company I �i cif) ^;o�.tpot'I C�•nter hrive II Itcwport Crack, Califoruia 92663 pear Mr, Ilundrickson: . This letter' sumivarizes our analysis of° Llio traffic requi.rumrents oi' dIt' drvel.- opmunl Of Civic plaza with respect to circulation improvement phasing. The study was conducted to evaluate the circulation needs in response to the Newport Beach City Council Resolution Number 9472 requiring an improvement phasing plan for this project. The study was based upon current planning for Civic Plaza and previous traffic Studies related to .this project. Previous studies include the following: 1. Newport Center Traffic Study, Phase II, Crommelin-Pringle and Assoc- iates, Tnv. 1976. . 2. Civic Plaza ELI' 'Traffic Analysis, Crommulin-Ptingle •and Associates, Inc. 197`i. Tn addition, current traffic volume data, regional traffic growth data, and committed projects were provided by Cho City. PROJECT DF.SCRTPTTON civic Plaza is loc'atod within the Newpor( Center area at. tho suui.hwvst cornrr of :+an Joaquin hills Coad mud :;+pit ,a (:rir,: pl'i VI•. Vohi(-ulru ncces,a will he provided io Sall Joaquin Dills Road, Snnla Cruz Drive, San Clruu•nte Drive and Santa Barbara Drive. The Sall Joagtih) hills IWad ac•ccss is limited Lo righL turns only. Proposed development includes offic and restaurant uses in addition to the exis( ing art museum and library that is Iulder construction. A total of 234,706 1 1611 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE • SUITE 110 • FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92631 • (714) 871.2931 -2- ' square feet of office une is p honed Along with an 8,000 square* foot restaurant• ' Tht• library will include 14,000 square feet and a 10,000 square foot expansion of the museum is planned. A theater is aisd proposed at some future date. Since this would have a negligible traffic impact during critical hours, it is not included in the , analysis. 'rhl P CF.NERAT CON ' For this analysis, estimates were made of PM peak hour volumes and the 2.5 hour peak period, veneration rates and estimated volumes for each use and time period , are listed in Tables 1 and 2. The existing art museum building was not included as it is included in existing traffic volume data. These generation rates are those utilized in precious studies of this site. ' TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSiCNMHNT ' The geographic distribution of traffic generated by this developmunL has been dev- eloped in the referenced previous studies. Figure I illustrates the traffic dis- tribution that has been utilized for this study. This distribution is for out- bound traffic from the site. Inbound traffic would be the same percentage in the ' opposite direction. . By applying the distribution percentages to the trip genera- tion data in Tables 1 and 2, estimates can be made of traffic volumes from the project at vnrious locations. The distribution in Figure 1 is for outbound traffic ' which must be reversed for inbound traffic: CRITICAL INTCRSECTTON INDEN' IPICATION ' The next step in the Analysis was to identify those intersections that could be, impacL•ed by the project. As a starting point, the 16 intersections identificated for analysis under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance for this area were examined. For ' this examination, the "17. Traffic Volume Analysis" forms from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance were utilized. Appendix A contains Cho data for the individual inter- , sections and the results nrl' stumlari'll•d in Tab Pc 1. The basis for comparison in- cluded existing traffic, regional growth traffic and approved project traffic. The criteria established by the City Council 'indicates that any intersection where ' the project traffic during Lhe 2.5 hour peak exceeds two percent of the existing ' plus regional growth plus approved project traffic must be analyzed in detail. r -3- Table 1 2.5 HOUR TRIP GENERATION Civic Plaza ' LAND US I. RA'1'li VOLlIM17 IN WIT 1N OUT ' OCftrr (234,706 SF) L.2 3.4 280 800 Restaurant ( 8,000 SI7) 11.3 7.7 90 60 ' Library (14,000 Sr) 1 .0 1.0 10 10 Museum (10,000 SC) 1.0 1.0 10 10 Totals 300 820 ' Table 2 PM VK'AK 11OUR TRIP CIiNN'RATION ' Civic Plaza LAND USE RATE VOLUME ' TN OUT IN OUT Office (234,706 SIB) 0.6 1.7 140 400• ' Restaurant (8,000 SF) 5.0 3.0 40 20 Library (14,000 SI7) 1A 1 .0 1Q 10 Museum (10,000 SR) 1 .0 1.0 10 10 Tota1S 160 420 t • FIGURE 'I TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION /0% 1 0 ;jr . . N• BQlsro� • p 2 0% /o o� m 1 d� 26% o �oV.V R . . 1 vQ V 5•/ 25 % NT� 20 1 a a SA 6gR8gR 3$ry• SgAjj04 �uNil LS QG 5% w ro 25ry• 5% 8 'is ti . pPL���C u COAST HIGHWAY /O% w '7 WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES -4^ Table 3 1 CKTTICAI. INTHIKSECTTON (DI{NTTFTCATION Civic Plaza T.0(:A'I'TON 2.5 110(I11 PIiR(IENTAGES 1983 NB SB PB ldB ' Bristol St. N. & Campus Dr. = - 4.6 Bristol St. & Campus Dr. 3.5 Coast Highway & Dover Dr. - - 2.6 3.6 ' Coast highway & Bayside Dr. - - 1.9 4.8 Coast Ilighway & .Jamboree Rd. - 6.2 2.1 - ' Coast highway & Newport Center Dr. - 1.,4 - 0.7 Coast Highway & Mac Arthur Blvd. 1.6 1.3 1.1 t Coast Ilighway & Marguerite Ave. - - 2.4 1.5 Jamboree Rd. & Santa Barbara Dr. . 4.7 1.4 6.8 Jamboree Rd. & San Joaquin hills Rd. 0.6 3.0 - 13.4 ' Jamboree Rd. & Ford Rd'. 5.4 3.8 - - Jamboree Rd. & Bristol St. 4.7 1.4 4.1 t .Jamboree Rd. & Bristol St. N. 4.4 1.2 - - Jamboree Rd. & Mac Arthur Blvd. 2.0 1.2 .2.6 1. 1 ' Mac Arthur Blvd. & San Joaquin hills Rd. 1 .3 2.6 9.1 •1 .3 Mac Arthur Blvd. & Ford Rd. 5.5 2.1 1 1 Review of 'labia 3 indicates Vital. 14 ul' Hiv Ib intcrsect[uns exceed Lhc maximum 7-4 ' Lwo percent on aL 1+:3sL one approach and must be considered critical. Ah'ALYS IS •1'11e 14 intersections identified in the previous section were further examined to ' determine potential impacts. Utilizing "InLersection Capacity Utilization Analysis" forms from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance procedure, ICU values were determined ' and include regional growth and approved projects volumes. The ICU's also include improvements required by previously appruvod projects. These improvements are ' discussed in the nexL seeLlun. The individual analysis sheets arc contained in Appendix B and summarized in Table 4. Review of Table 4 indicates that two inter- sections are projected to exceed 6.90. Bristol Street North and Campus Drive, and ' Jamboree Road and Mac Arthur Boulevard. All other intersections are below the 0.90 level. ' Since City Council Resolution Number 9422 alluws 30 percent of developnmttL without ' improvement phasing, the •14 critical intersections were analyzed with existing plus 30 percent of the remaining development. These data are included in Appendix C and summarized in Table 4. The ICU's for the two intersections of Bristol Street ' North and Campus Drive, and Jamboree Road and Mac Arthur Boulevard still exceed the 0.90 level tinder those cundiLions. ' As indicated in the oreviuus paragraphs, Lwu Lntersec•Lions have ICl1's that exceed 0.90 whether they are analyzed with 30 perccnr of the project development or with ' full development. It should also be noted Lhat both Or those intersections have ICU values greater than 0.90 without development of Civic Plaza. •'i•hese two inter- ' sections are discussed in the following paragraphs. Bristol Street North and Campu's Drive ' Review of lable 4 ;lilt] lilt, rclnit,d Sheets in Appendices U and G indicates ' that Lilt, jerl would h.ivv 11.1 inipat,( uptm lilt, I(:11 values rtL this inl crsrct ion. Since projeeL volunu•s are .tdded ro nou-cl•itical nnwt,stt,nts, Lilo ICD valuus are equivalem for boLlt cases with and wiLlouil t ho pre•jet•t. ' .iamboree Road and Mac Al-thus Boulevard The ICC values at this intersection increase 0.0069 in 1981 and O'0227 in ' 1982 as a result or Lhe project. Thu a iucrr•ases wunld ❑oL be pereopLible ' to drivers uLil.izing Llio inLersection. In addition, with observed driver -6- ' Table 4 tICU SUmmARY Civic Plaza IN'L'IiI:SEC'l'ION' EXISTING EXISTING + EXISTING + EXISTING + ' R1iCI0NAL + IEGIONAL + REGIONAL + COMMITTED COMMITTED+ COMMITTED+ 30% PROJECT PROJECT 1981 1981 1982 ' Bristol St. N. & Campus Dr. 0.9898 0.9256 0.9256 0.9279 Bristol St. & Campus Dr. 0.72 0.6467 0.6498 0.6613 ' Coast Ilighway & Dover Dr. 0.99 0.6556 0.6623 0.6788 Coast 1!ighway & Bayside Dr. 0.89 0.8051 0.8118 0.8282 ' Coast Iligbwav & Jamboree Rd. 0.83 0.7644 0,7644 0.7650 Coast Ilighway & Marguerite Ave. 0.68 0,7425 0.7466 0.7560 Jamboree Rd. & Santa Barbara Dr, 0.53 0.6171 0.6233 0,6373 ' Jamboree Rd. & San Joaquin .11ills Rd. 0.64 0,6473 0.6487 0.6522 .Jamboree Rd. & Ford Rd. 0.83 0.7449 0,7517 0.7739 ' Jamboree Rd. & Bristol St, 0.54 0,7944 0,8032 0,8247 Jamboree Rd. & Bristol St. N. 0.72 0,8219 0,8298 0.8489 ' Inmborec Rd. & Mac Arthur Blvd, 0.85 0,9?69 0.9338 0.9496 Mac Arthur Blvd, & San Joaquin Hills Rd. 0.72 0.7945 0,8070 0.8368 Mac Arthur Blvd. & Ford Rd. 1.01 0,8653 0.8753 0.8997 ' (1) No Project Related JmprovemenL-s are. Considered in Calculations. 1 -7- tLaracteristies in the area, the intersection would opuratc satisfactorily. observations have indicated that, as intersections near capacity, the capacity ' is increased and yellow or lost time decreased. Construction of the Corona Del Mar freeway and San Joaquin corridor would also result in improved conditions. ' CIRCUI:ATION IMpiMVI-Z NT NEEDS ' The ICU analyses for the project included some circulation system improvements. All of these improvements are cuI'Contly rt.geired as part of approved projects or ' planned as governmental prolocls• The lmprovrments are summarized in Table 5 and illustrated, in Figures 2 through 13. Table 5 ' SUPMAlly OP RECOMPBiNDED SYSTEM IMPROVEI•BiNTS Civic Plaza ' INTFR51i('TT0N S1'STP•.M IMPROVEMENTS Bristol Street North/ Add southbound through lane. Re-_ , Campus Drive quired by previously approved pro ject. See Figure 2. Bristol S tree /Campus Drive Add southbound through lane. See t• Figure 3. Required by previously approved project. Coast Ilighway/Dover Drive Add southbound left turn lane. ' Add southbound right turn lane. Add eastbo[aid left turn lane. ' Add eastbound optional through or right•turn lane. Add west- ' bound right turn lane. City/CaiTrans Project . See Figure 4. ' Coast Dighway/Bayside, Drive Add eastbound through lane. ' Add westbound optional through or right turn lane. ' ii r ' 21 CaITrans project. See Figure 5. Coast Ilighway/Jamboree Road Add westbound through and west- bound left turn lanes. Required by previously approved project. See Figure 6. ' Jamboree [toad/Santa Barbara Drive Add northbound through lane. ' Add southbound left turn lane. Add westbound lane. Required by previously approved project. See Figure 7. ' Jamboree Road/San.loaquin Add northbound through lane and Hills Road convert right turn lane to opt- ional through or right. Convert westbound left turn lane to optional through plus left. Required by previously approved pru,jcct. ' Sec Figure 8. ' Jamboree Road/1astbluff Drive- Convert* northbound and south- Ford Road bound right turn lanes to optional through plus right. Add eastbound through lane, c:ororrt westboul:J Laro eL ' I illy ; a 1. i'= L o ra 1 all:, i v' fill i n•d by prry ionsly approved ' pro joc t. See Figure 9. ' Bristol StrecL/Jamboree Road Convert northbound through lane to northbound left turn lane. ' Required by previously approved project. ' See Figure 10. -9- Bristol SLreot North/,Jamboree Road Convert northbound through lane ' to northbound left turn lane. Required by previously approved ' project. See Figure 11. ' Jamboree Rodd/Mac Arthur. Boulevard Add northbound right turn lane. ' Convert eastbound right turn lane to optional through or right. Required by previously ' approved project. See Figure 12. , Mac Arthur Boulevard/Ford Road Add northbound left and right turn lanes, southbound left turn ' lane and eastbound left turn lane. City of Newport Beach project to ' be constructed 1979-80. See Figure 13. SUMMARY ' The potential impact of the proposed Civic Plaza site has been analyzed at 30 percent , of development and at full development, in 1982. Both analyses have indicated that two intersections would have ICU's greater; than 0.90. For one ir;tersection, the analysis indicates that with the project and improvements from approved projects, ' the ICU would be less than the existing RT. It would Lle.o be equal to tLe 1981 and 1932 TCU without the pro je it.. GOltVvi'bely, int the 0 'W, il'.Lt i o�u ;•'n, Ule ..u.11 . • :. , indicates that the 198:' TCII would be mart- than , :w r:.i:.l o�, 11:J; Lowevvr. l,w r.;l.- mated 1982 ICU without tim pro jecL is only :.1 ight ly less (0.0'_'27) than with the ' project and is still over 0.90. An optional impruvemant which would reduce tlra tCU value at Jamburee and Mac Arthur to loss than 0.90 was also examined. Since this improvement woold not be required For ulri,mate conditions, it uo uld be an interim ' solution. We trust that this analysis will be of assistance to you and the City or Newpurt ' Beac•h. If •you have any questions or require additional information, please con- Lnet us. 1 Respectfully submitted, ' WESTON PRINGU AND ASSOCIATES Weston S. Pringle, P.E. t USP:RS:cd ' YA5452 1 . 1 1 ADD THROUGH LANE -- w I 1 o NOT TO SCALE 1 BRISTOL J \ STREET NORTH 1 r ---....._- 1 • 1 cn 1 RECOMMENDED I-ANE CONFIGURATION Af INTERSECTION OF 1 BRISTOL STREET NORTH / CAMPUS DRIVE . 1 . 1 • . 2 1 WESTON PRINGLE FIND ASSOCIATES F��uRe 1 i . H A , 7 BRISTOL STREET NORTH � • Te' 1 ADD THROUGH LANE NOT TO SCALE BRISTOL STREET 1 . 1 1 I I f i ADD THROUGH LANE -- 1 1 1 RECOMMENDED CONFIGURATION AT -INTERSECTION OF CMIPUS DRIVE-IRVINE AVENUE/BRISTOL ST. i 1 WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE 3 1 . w ADD LEFT TURN > LANE 0 ADD RIGHT TURN I ADD RIGHT TURN ' LANE I I LANE COAST 1 ` I HIGHWAY ' ADD LEFT TURN LANE ADD THROUGH LANE ' I w r . I ' NOT TO SCALE , RECOMMENDED LANE CONFIGURATION ' AT INTERSECTION OF COAST HIGHWAY / DOVER DRIVE ' WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES . FIGURE 4 1 - ' ADD THROUGH LANE WITH BRIDGE ' WIDENING ' ADD THROUGH LANE COAST —� I HIGHWAY 1 � O ' (Ant THROUGH LANE 9� s� \ O� �G ' NOT TO SCALE ' RECOMMENDED LANE- CONFIGURA IOC! AT- , INTERSECTION_ OF COAST HIGHWAY / BAYS_ 0E DRIVE ' WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE 5 I � o I I I ' w I i ra I J i i AnD TUHOUGn IANE I I ADD THROUGH LANK COAST HIGHWAY 1 f 1 I \� ADD Lr T TURN LANE I I ' I I I ' t ox x0 Sr i I I '. I • I . • I RRCOMMENDRD CONI,70,II9AIJON AT [NTERRECTION OR ' COAST HIGHWAY/U•AMBOREIi ROAD ' WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES • FIGURE 6 ' ADD LEFT TURN ' LANE ADD RIGHT TURN LANE } ' SANTA BARBARA DRIVE a II r ' 0o ADD THROUGH LANE w w o: o NOT TO SCALE m ' RECOMMENDED LANE .CONFIGURATION ' AT INTERSECTION OF JAMBOREE ROAD / S.ANTA BARBARA DRIVE ' WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES . FIGURE 7 SGPy� o I ' � CONVERT T.ECC TURN LANE w TO OPTIONAL THROUGH AND o LL•'1"f TURN LANE ti SAN JOAQUIN IIILLS ROAD r 1 I CONVERT RIGHT TURN LANE ' TO OPTIONAL THROUGH AND RIGHT ;TURN LANE ' ADD THFOUCH LAND M/N RECOMMENDED CONRIGURATTON AT TNTRRSFCTION OR ' JAMBORIIE, ROAD/SAN .10/+011IN HELLS ROAD WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE 8 1 . CONVERT RIGHT TURN LANE-- TO OPTIONAL THROUGH AND I V RIGHT TURN LANE V CONVIiRT THROUGH LANE ' PO LEFT TURN LANE 17ASTBLUFF DRIVE I I ` FORD ROAD ADD THROUGH LANE CONVERT RT0111' TURN LANE TO OPTIONAL TimoUGt1 rd AND RTGIIT TURN LANE w o as h ' NOT TO SCALE ' RECOMMI:NURD CONFIGURATION Al' 1N'I'ERSI•;(:'1'T0N OF .IAMBOREIS ROAD/F.ASTI;P.UI'1' DRPVi;-l'ORU ROAD ' WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE 9 i II II BRCSTOL STREET NORTH ' s ' II - LANE U TO LEFT , TURN ' w I LANE , W NOT TO SCALE I I, ' y 1 I I I I BRISTOL STREET , • , 1 1 • CONVERT THROUGH LANE TO LEFT ' � . ) TURN LANE RECOMMENDED CONFIGURATION AT INTERSECTION OF ' JANBOREE ROAD AND BRYSTOL STREET WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES . FFOURE 10 ' •�� • I I I I I � � I 1 � BRISTOL STREET NOItTI� _L ' I I 1 � � • - CONVERT T11ROUGII LANE TO LEFT TURN LANE w I o NOT TO SCALE w I I I I � I BRISTOL STREET 1 ' RECOMMENDED CONFIGURATION AT INTERSECTION OF JAMBOREE ROAD AND BRISTOL 'STREIiT NORTH ' WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE II 1 �}0 c+ NOT TO SCAL / / :ADD RIGHT 1 TURN LANE 1 G \ 1 O \ . 1 RECOMMENDED LANE CONFIGURATION 1 AT INTERSECTION OF JAMBOREE ROAD MAC ARTHUR BOULEVARD 1 . 1 FIGURE 121 WESTON PRINGLE AND RSSOCIRTES 1 1 1 ��I ADD LEFT TURN J 1 LANE _ m NOT TO SCALE 1 FORD ROAD 1 w lT _ --ADD RIGHT ADD LEFT a TURN LANE 1 TURN LANE-----.: U Q 1 NOTE: ALL IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDED IN CITY PROJECT 1 . 1 RECOMMENDED LANE CONFIGURATION AT_••INTERSECTION_OF 1 MAC ARTHUR_ BOULEVARD/FORD ROAD 1 1 WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE 13 1 • o u� 1 1 APPIiNDIX A 1 2.5 HOLM INMISLCPION ANALYSIS . 1 1 .1 1 . 1 1 1 . 1 . 1 • 1 . 1 1 . 1 • 1 1 L'•J ' Zd Ir•affic Volmw Analysis ' i11tel'SeCtiO11 lirisLal SU-g�.L �;LrtLt/.S tupu:;_.11riirc - Irvine Ave. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1:+78.1 1 _ lour _— �'nuvwl I nuk.l rd "I PYnp IIt 1 :r,U I II r (•ry�[;:n :r'. •row 4rq xo•�a. I Pr vat Ml . . le.m I 1'ral l; nJ •.5. •..x Iwnr' �nuelh 1'PnL ;'x Pwr /nlWN. nilunlP r.' nee. I Sit ; VJrInWunJ --. 1504 JO :3705 1,3o 8o ; ' ' I CJS:L4VIbi .^__. ' •e,t:wrJ Q 4790 'y�a °10 ' El Project Traffic is estimated to be less than l'd. of Projected Peak 21, Hour Traffic Volume L © Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than Yw of Projectod Peak 21, Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I .C.U. ) Analysis is required. 'LJ Traffic Volume Analysis , Intersection Bristol Strovf/(;am1,tl--; '7 Vt• JLvine Aw. , (Existing Traffic Volumes^Based oli Avera9r. WinLer/Sprriny 1978) �::• i.r rt•,,, .• •i,m• I nl•r,vwI I ..W.Wtl I jt. of r,I,F a•, r .-0 ' . t.urv• ahiNtl Po,11 ,m,P .. 1wh h lu IL 11r 1606 3a '� /C 0/0 9 3164 /3 r.•,c�:f 30p7 Project Iraffic it, estimated to be lcc,s than 1'• of PrOjrILted Peak 212 hour Traffic Volume , © Project Traffic is estimated to be greater th I an -,, of Projected ' Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity tltilila-itut (1 .C.t1. ) Analysis is required. 1 li5 Z Traffic Volume Analysis ,Iltl'r`,I'Ct it'll (•o�e:l IIfP.11wav�ntw I nl ivr (tT, i`.t III { Iraff 1C Vuiumes basod oil AVVV,l9(1 n{ lit; r . yf ,our rn wv l P. .. . . In"I• hn •dlt 'I•,II u .. . •e1 I'Pnl Irur' loldlllt' rUlplllp n. u a . f m. ir•lunu • 1 242 a I a vy s rG )100 ; JO q2 / 1�0 �G �3 i r/3 9(0 �.G 34Rt1 , 1. 5279 37 6670 i 3-9J& ,i //9 -2 3 Project traffic i1, estimated to be Iess ' tllan I", of Pro octed Peak 212 Hour-Traffic Volume z © Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than Z of Projectod Peak 21, Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Ut,ilizet on ( 1 .C.b. ) Analysis iq required. 1 1 1 1 1 ' 1 Zl raffle Volume Ana IY-JS , ;ntel^•1'cOun ( oast IIljjI, ;l%,jiiny::idrprl�'[ ' (Eli%ting irct) f-,C: Vuluuies '(ia§ed o" Averau ,r 'n'intuI,/bjlring 1•118) •[ irt. . •Juf I«Algn'uw ' •. .. 11!;i rl u•. ' : u[ ,mp• uw11, Vogl m.i �. OxIW+ �ulumo -uu• .al xbl � \4I u�,.• � � . 141 tl.:•114...1 j � f p 1 U t 14U 1 4an7 so33 [ /o/ 96 / � % Project Traffic is estimated to be lets than lk of Projected ' Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volume' 2. © Pru.ject lra(•fic 1s w;timaLed to he groater than /!" of Pra,iactu6 Peal, 21, lion• Traffic Volume". intersocl.ion fapac.it.Y IIIiliniti,Ill , U. ) Ana IY,, I'• requirod. tP} 1 . . 1.-affi(: Volume Analy',i', it'll Cllesl_ Ili Oway/.Inl bol rl• I".1d (Li.l ,tiny h•al f is Volumes"based on Av(!rr).ft, W111te0bJ)r iIN !"hi) 1 n•u, q.ur . AI'V„yr i r Imq m• i I Pn,Im It ''�nA nm... raV ..up• alnwV: N."S, POLY ' rJ lum,• t„I u�00 .. .. ru I•,n.r l 'Vohnnr 11015 1959 3.5-0/ 70 .2 % 130 I ' sq ado J4i9a 70 1El Project Ir', is I'• estimated to bo le'.', Lh,ul 1" of I'r(t,lvl ted Peak 2', Hour Traffic Volunuo Z ® Project lydfllc is P'itimated to be tpl`ilter tball /r'.. Ul. {'1'lJ,l tail Jil 1 Peak 21, Hour Traffic Volullien. {nterl•('ef.ion Capacity lllili[a! ion (1 .C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 . 1 1 . i 1 1 "I Traffic Volume Am(ly&is ' �nlcr•.rCLlul Cunnl _Ilil,hw_iy-/No}rp„rl l' •11�J" pff('L' , f,1 0na Traffic Vc-I oil ies based on Averatle Winter/�llrirnl ! Iry� _ i ra. IIIIJN I �I'• ,•r.'1 'd •.IOd p. .d •h p ' ' .. ,: d• Ih••.• r I'l l'.C.I♦ I,•At dr.N Ifni .nd .n. To •.•1•..p' •I unlb1 I'vll Ihpu' YIIIbPIp• I (VIpPV' , •Il+� • 1 • - 814 8 ; IP : 3laa J7 a Sa. o/ Gy - .. 5cc, I Ylo_ . '.. /oy 9716o Sy ao 0.. 7 Tq I: © Project Traffic is estimated to be less tharix'' of Pro?octeo ' Peak 21; Hours Trdffic Volume ❑ Project Trdffic is estimated to be ilrcdter t1lan •1.• of Prodectea ' Peal. 2', lluur !snit Vniumon. lntoi•'( aion Capacil:; Utilit.lfi:m ( [ .CAI. ) AmHyw, is r'equn•rd. t 1 z. ,Y rrafflr. Vrlume Analysis ' ,nterSnL ti nn .oast Ili.;,'hw_IyJNag Archon•.. JiL+SthiYa d ;Lirrtin iraffic Volumes based on Average 4!inter•/SPri'I lass) . '•Un.r I'rar 'roof- I nl'I•rr J,•d Ih dq•`Idd 1 A dl•r .v.'ra ' .r. ' .r.,,t r.•ru Lr dlua Prop•.I•, rrnl tlnur I'r'a1 •1..e ,a• ' r ndp r I'r•.J r6up J.dunp.r �oluny npm 1 _r_ �..1 un, r ,rl•rmr i r old , 2258 ' ❑ Project traffic is estimated to be less than of Projected Peak 2'; Hour Traffic MOW ' ❑ Project rraffic is estimated to be greater than I' LI Peak. 2'= Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization ( I .C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 Iraffic Volume Analw,is .utcrtiuc(.i,n, CY,ast Iligh',vey/i•lar;;u,•t•ito ting Traffic• Vol,autes based on Avt:ra,ge 1Jin Let /Springy 1-';8•: 'r•.0 epl' �rprowd i i•i,ri lPd l UI h,.ry•,h • , ' •. ., u,.q,.,... Pru ir,i., „naln, Peak , ILup• Yry apu YUt WnP• • nx 01 t 430 /a 0 313*2 78 I o310 � 33ao 19 a.y70 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1'a of Projected ' Peak 212 dour Traffic Volume' • z Project lr-affic is estimated to be groater than T of Projectc•J ' Peas: 21, riour Traffic Volunlen. intersrtaitm rap<tcitY UI \ i�:`atiun (1 .C.U. ) Analy:, is it, required. • 1 i rraffic Volume Analysis ' ;ntei•SeCtihn Jamboree Road IS anL.l Iiarhrlril nrivo ny Traffic Volumes based on Averayr Wintci%tiji (EAi',Li rinu !l)!81 ' n � •n ''^d' •InuY I AI'DruvrJ ! 'n•uv ll'd � �: nl •rn nv:r. .. . .p J Lpyl nd' PtO UV Iv 'inl JUW Ityq � dPiu rel . :.uln nvl 1, � 19•n{ In,w r :un,r 4elnmr1 v'unnr• • 1ul one• � Vu Lnnl � , 2653 s yyy Jioa Ga vy y % 1299 ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than I": of Projocted Peak 21, Hour Traffic Volume- ProjectTraffic is estimated to be greater than XG of Projected Peak 21, Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utllizatinn (I .C.U. 1 Analysis is required. t 1 t z/f traffic Volume Analysis ' ;nterSeCtirn: .Jamburev Ry,;11Shn JoAqviu. Ulls.Alad ' (E,il.tir.g ,Ivor, Vululnes based on Avercige Winter,/Shrine; '`,+g) . . n i nJ. , 'bHu'••��I'pl.a rd I •''p•p. tNa I A• ci !i �•.•. ' •. 91• a I•mp.. .' 1'ngP•I•. .S.p, Pr•,. P.•d1 . .n• •n. •„np •nMt'• fret. . nnur a4mu• VY 111011• . .•.. •nl nm lolmur t 41 u, i 3 lQa ys'oy 9D /03/ 3,070 % Project Traffic is estimated to bI! 1CSS than 1%. of Projocted ' Peak 2', Hour Traffic Volume 2 ® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than d"> of Prn3rcted Peak 2', Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity l:tili"M ion ' (1,C.U. ) Analysis is required. J 2 �Y Traffic: Vuluule 1l11a1ytiis niter SK0011 Jambarer I;�.ii111•; t;U16111_ULit,, -J nrd !load (Lfl ,tlrl, i'r,flir. Volumes based on Average Winter/Spriny 1i118., • .. rrar unur . i✓ Anl•I nvr,l , .i i.M II �•.o , .• t• •. d •r,• I V,npv I. �•al :, lu•e. ' �.dl : i• , nu •d aell• � 1'rdl anal . •lanm ' lnlump •i.,n 4574 I I el iy ss�i ; // l Oaa s v lye) ' '. 957 s ry �s� i 7� ��y .�. � % ( 00981 a� 753 : -/'go ..9 y3- ' project Traffic f•, estimated tU bo less than Pi of, Projocl.ed El Peak 21; Hour Traffic: Volume Z ® Project traffic is estimated to be greater than XS of frodect.ea Peak 2'; Hour Traffic V010111CO3 llltCl'SeCtiOO Capacity lltili""on ( i .C.U. , Analysis is required. t c 'traffic Volume Analplis in Lei `,ec.Lioil Bri5Lo1 5Lrt-OUJanIII(IN't.' RoOd ' !C�,i tirg fraffic VoCumes based on ilveri e Wfnter!Spring 1978? Il 1' IPAI 9PIIf fp,n l'MPJ .'1" {L'll i �. .1111'.•vt:r, •. •,1 . . • 1. n• nV•1'••• ( fIJPY 11 ' .L i} III yr i VO Iti •ply •.t In.IL' , 1'n.11 :. 'IOuI• 1•.rlliti4 , YtlrUmc r. •"e . . . 1d:nr i VrLnl•r , � ,. 41,()6 io i o7 74.ep-Sr ! J"O 35 1. ie m/C • 1 i Project Traffic i,. estimated to be less than L;• of Prudected ' Peak 212 Hour -Traffic Volume 2 Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than Xb of Projected Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization ' ;I .C.U. ) Analysis is required. ' ? Traffic Vnluuu, Anali',iti ,IJI rSvc Llun ISrts_t of Si rrrI Not ll/.I;unUnr,•v K"W"I (L'nr'•tiny D'UffiC Volumes based oil Aver•dgti WintFr%Slirinu l i/ S; c.r 'u•a Irnl •ImiC .'..Al.;I tl unµv len al rnt.ire •:v,: 6rqu p,. I Pr le,f. Ind :im'ei CPni ^J,tl ,.0 uwin 19aJ :, unur p•+Imlir I �,a ml0. lv:uu`. 515:1 io 30 llos8 lt�s'/ �� � 2811 /Y J/ (9 I . 63 `3 8 116 ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1'.' of Protected Peak 21, Hour—Traffic Volume Z. ' ® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 4 of Projected Peak 2'z Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I .C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 • 5� ' I T-affic Volume Anal"is , !:I l,e l",l C.Li Un ,ianlburi't•, Ia�.l}1[Lt.re A�;.4�lIS_li�ud C1) ' 1,6inq Traffic VuIumes based on Aver-ago 4flltter/Spring iw/8) .r•Iu 1•`.0 nuuP Apl.rr'vrI I •'re•ry lyd 171. 011'1'v u'.•:.: .. , . ,' '• n Ipnp d: I `rl'r 11Y 1'. r1•dl '�� ILw IY'AI •ur. .. •n . •'1•n• ..r••hll. I'P.,{ .' rlJll IblUtlq• � LIII IIInP ,.•pu.r• • ..J.r•, 1 \,4 nnu I 7 1 1681 y✓8 1�07 y� va �� ��ra :. ... .1814 (p 3a 30 i �o S �8 2923 (o _ { SJ� 3s'oS ; 7o ?O Z(, �o 3037 El Project traffic is estimated to be less than 1%, of Projected ' Peak 2l2 Hour Traffic Volume' z� [� Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than X',: of Prujected Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volumen. intersection Capacity Utilization ' O .C.U. ) Anolysis IS requirrd. (1) Mae Arthur Boulovard is asspuu'd north and anluth ' Traffic Volume Analysis lni.e1'SRct1Un Mac AI'llnll'_ 13011l t`Vdl'llti,,lil, .S?�1QSl J,Tl IHIIs Road (l �l ,tiny Traffic VoILwies Leased on Avertiyo Winter/Spring ;t1i81 ' I..dl Ilunl ' AIgnub.l I'I eJlq ll'd VI` t n L• . d '.I n 1'uUr t.. n• ', Ilnul u•a{ I' I . . nwV., 1'rnl now .nhinm lulmpr .. .., 1484 /a /o/ . . /� 00 i 3 o7 a0 3 70 3065 �(o ' la :,•:.,..^a 3140 ' ' d0Qt �3 '/� i 67 JoJ �o 1451 7Y ; �sa5 � .31 ao ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1'•, of Pro,lectod Peak 21, Hour Traffic Volume. Z. 'Project Traffic is estimated• to be greater than 1% of PT'ojzcted Peak 21, Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization ( I ,C•U. ) Analysis -is required. Ir,U tic Vulumr Au r.i alYs nt�'rSec,tlu❑ Mae Arthur RwILOV.II•d/Ih,rd• Ruud ' 'I (Cfi• tinq Tr,,ffic Volumes based oil N%erdgo Winter'%5prin, lSl;g) , .• ., •vq 1'Pnr u'NY• ( ^Ai'lu i.w,i :,u•1•,hJ I � „1 1, •,.: ' r rt .bn. Inn ... ( I•r.'pl'.1•• ie.4 . tlUur ,• r,.r' •n nwt 1, IY'nI '(w., +o Ilaw. Y,rlunw .•'.a^+ ..•I n, � Val nr. 1 3057 /B ' a Y8 1 39�3 78 �/G -6— 1007 a ' io33 0?0 ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ' Peak 21j Hour Traffic Volume 2 ® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than tzo of Projected Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization ' (I.C .I(, ) Analysis is required. APPrNDIx E ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSES ' lixi.sling + Regional + Committed + Project• (1982) 1 1 Irrt•I tInn —_--- (Existinu frailt' WiT+rnes Vase( rI Av racje Winter Spring 19/� �-i6 19PROJEC Cpa tl enlSeii Ca P 'nrvt"u"":-t'•._P -' t ia I NIOIOIIN CORIIIi(O t pl,tUif1 e..... I•w -/C GCMIII PfiWICt Y/C Ralh, Volmm VIt %fa[Ir 'ml t Will) VOL. Vol. w o 1'I0JPCC ! t Vol. ' NL ! d ',______t1G _t!'61G (f�� 0 16 e,o74 NT— oo --__� C.. ./es �a Is as/a a.aaia ' NR SL — _ -- ST �Z) 32oo 3�4g00 ' _CSf.;13/� �� 36 0.2304 SR 0,4099 0.409¢ ' E L ET -- — ERF ' Wt a WR - r 'vtuDi.'IIMt s.ccv p,ivuv ,/ooU CX(SY744 llil*5:ECIDN CFP.ICIIT Ut!liY•n ION .989 ' CX:S'ih'i iL('S CCM7111C0 PU7i Pi f.11l!la' fNONiN W/PROPOSED IMPROYCMENIS i.C..0 n, 9279 rt Ft:S'lN� P:US :pWITi(p Mdu'�duVn7�4t'DWUI IYII'. PNO.i(C7 I.C.N. 0•72%9 Projected l+lus orni-cl traffic I.C.U. will lie Iess than or equal ' to 0.90 ® Projected i ilt', '1/'t'`rr I. IA -IffiC I ..C.I!. hill lto nletlter thrill O.t1+' ' ProjectLd lint'. Intt ("'.I il'dllll' I ( .il, wll•II '.'�'.11'III'. IlMlll'UVL411e111' ' will be Ic",'• '4r; a rtl.lel IU ().1)0 t I'1171 1.'• •• ,•,(, ^ lui;.I nVl'llll!nl ' �. "d SOuA bouv(d opiiM' Laf 4hrcgW ov- 6 'kf )ane .(o) � F� � - �VviV�>° Avc • iraff°,I ,alnlly�� Fl I (Existing' iraif•,. Volumes Base on vera9e WTnte Spring 197 / 1 I , �pp,�,;� I —� :,,:;1 EXIST REGIONAL COlN11 TEO PROJECTED PROJECT PIIOIFCI ftIS71NG N�.rncnt Lane; CaP Lm.e (.•P ' I'V NR f V/C GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ratio Volume ViC Hat�u Y,A Ratio VOL. VOL. W/o Project Vol_—_ I i NT 1 o.aS7Z ST 3jyb00 1 0.3333 SR EL _ 1 ( 0 _. .... ET 6 t7 � 316 0.2/% �� (7 0.z ER WL — — WR - --_ — v >nLDYSIr.E D•/dov�j D.iaou I LUSTING ::.TE',ECT10N CAPAC17Y LIMA 11UN 1 SD ilb iLi:: CO`MITTEO Pt II; Rl GIOt1AL GROWTH W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.L. — FY15tiNG PLUS C"ITTC0 PI:,, I;If.I(I:IAI 6uOWlll Pill'. PROJECT I.C.11. •6H/.j projected Illu rlli 'I't t.rajfic I .C.IJ. will be less than or e(Iu,, l Lo 0.90 Projected plug W'uj(:cL l.raffic I .C.U.••will be greaLer than 0,90 ' © Projected plu', lnn,ira:t, ( "OH ic I .C.U. 'wi,f.h •,Y%I, Lids improvenlFalts ' •11111 -be lcti ;,In Ir. I-(11101 to 0.90 - - - ' 'u rr11) Ilrl . f I, IILI.r,l vl'lll1:!I 1. Add sou+kbound hmugk Ia vie. lo) 1 ili:' Wii ' I;dr t.AfrACI f Y III 11.11AI Itltl MM I,l, 1 r (Existing 'Iral Ic VEilulnes Based bn AAvetr'ayge Winter S H ng 197$7 Z ArI—T- rAu,v'., . 1';JISI— MIT ktG10NAL C"If1ED PftWtCTLD PAWECI PkNICI 1 I:I Co lanes P Ianr r •p vV OH v/C GROWTH PRQILCT VA AetlO Yoltme V!C Nauu 1 Y01, a R,100 VOL, VOL. w/o Project 1 i Vol. HL P(01�m NT t21 0 aZfO p:p foNRjk SL (3) YBo� t itS D.!//29 0,Nzy51 (1) fb°u_ . � r7.0y9// U.ayfJ� SR E: al ET (3-31 J L^� 0.3023 �W O.3/23 1 ER 51 _ WT (7 SI O•SI-ty l09 O.3763 V WR (IJJarn � 6 -- - �. 0 �1l3/ YELLOW*Mt EM11% :VTrR:ECTlOH CAPACIr1 LIM011011 E1i:'i1ro �W! SWIITTED PLUS K41ONAL GNOHIiI W!PROPOSED IMPRDYEMENIS p 1 EtWING PEUS C"ITTEo NUS RE61V'IAI GkoWrM PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 067A0 Projected 1,11P� :Ir-oint.t. traffic I .C.U. will be less than or Pyual 1 to 0.90 Projected plur. in'u,ll't I traffic t'01 br W'uat" than U'.90 1 © Projected p l u•, projrt.l l rd t f i c. 1 .C.11. WWI ' y .l vnv' improvellivi&, All be los% Uu—,i to rgttal Lo 0.90 i r• .r I't pt Ilri. ..I .: .:r , i;r•n•r•�I•uu•Ili : •' i 1 Add scia4bound Ic>=41 •+u'rh 10"O. o) Z. Add 50A-hbound > ;SO 4tkrvl lane. (0) 1 3. Add eas+bound le-4 +tnrvl lavie. Cc)) 4. Add easy bound 4lrough la me. Co) 5. Add Wes,,+ bounrd r(9hf -lurPt la vie. (0) 1 1 ' ;:1r :•.}: II11N LAPACITY WILILAIION ANALYSIS ' (Existing Irat +' L. Volumes Based oI� ver• g / WTry er/Spring 197s� Ho.tr�Ont ` LLT Lanes Ca ia1P0:`.1 pr S1 I,EIST REDI@ILL PRWECC"ITTED PROJECILDtio PROJECT ,PR 66t ' lanes Cap Im:r. •.•n } PI' 1-R tyC VOL. I VOL. V/C Ratio Volume V'/l Iat1u Vul. kn L10 VOL. VOL. rr/0 ProJnc[ Vol. ' NL_ ao __— � 8�'11 13 p 2y� 4 l` NT �1 __—_• I o� - _ — fLE82- ao/BS NR SL ST MI I -_ _1 - p o •g V O.o3E° . SR E L t 1 v. 031 Z N o_03 2 ET (j�4 `4 —p-L ER I I O I �Cbi.::11_ ' WL I I - - 9 . a.a�sd pvos6 WT 3f3 d•3B79 IDg !oy WR 2 . ' YELLOWr4E _.. I(� p./000 v iaaa El IST IhD !hT:%SECTION CAPACI(t h[:11.'rr ION ' CFISiJm ILLG CO6MITTED PIUS RIIll(j4AI tROwTII W/PROPOSED iMPROVCMFNTS I C.0 „bps G:S11VG (!JS :OPHITTED PICA 41:.:NIAI nNoWlll PllK PROJECT I.C..11• Q.gZ(yZ Projected ;)IIr 1rollL:l Ir'aific 'l .C.U. will be less than or enudi to 0.90 El Projected 11IIr, ov(,•;cct. Ir,,ltic I .•c.U. wiH be greater than 0.90 ® trojected IIIU'. IY•II IIL. l .l,.tl. w101 '.V •I ('111` 1111111.11V41111'ill •• ' will be lC"•�- to 0.110 Lr1pl Ii Add ect:54bound +hrougdi lane. (o) Z• Add west bound +Pirobi.3h lane. (o) . ,,"A:,.!! ' YU' is !IA' :'+ . •l',r11 r rl ' ,` Il:..r, r lllri_wrd.uS i'I� � f�1( (FxisUng ivn ° 'lr.l Irl" . f3ase� i Avergi knnter/Spring r�� 1,•,nns �,~ r,1 Nlrto:w uuwluln rr•a'rt;lo PROJUI 1,10 ( r. a•r,.l •s,..s can I r •.} RRnNr' rlan: wn"at I., I olwwr I1 •I I I.o Vol Vill . ! w 1 PLl f 1v.1. I / 1 11 LAY/ 1 -. - P. 1111ILQ0 ' t?T__ I� � Or•'t.....— �.`�'1.�,'_~ 2 9 �o. /B3/��_ _,o./B3_/� E t 1 tz C�1 ' �� _ _.___ _ 3 _.•``/y// s�B c,zz2Y :1139 ! ..3 �_ /Z. o. a ?,7 j ER N_l_ �ITI Ob WT co 3)(fgoo _jLsl ZL //B_ Z --2/6 r d. z/_ 6S • ' ' WR _ ro, ' l i:i'IV�. �:rCT10M (prl,'tlf i .• If T'pM ; • t '. gdil N/PRPI'OSI II IMPROV[N lll� I C.0 / (P�"!P r r;',':Y-, 1, 'JM';11it:. i I• .;'."`\:1 J,•Whl P,11 PIIO,Irr'7 I.C.II 11 ujectr:rl ! I' ' .1 I l l J I ( Il ! .( .II• ,4'I { l hP :I••.•. 1 hrUl ul• rnpnl � ' '7.90 :'m ecteri I';I+'. 'rrr. ' i t '.I''\lfic ! .C,1:, i,`I11 l't' gr'Palrl than It.vu ® ('Yi�,jCCLC'r '''•1' is • •. 1 It 11(' ! .! .Ii. 1. 1 (h •,i tl"b', I "WOV1,111 1! I. Add weAmitd 101 •lum lone, (u) 2. Add wes-I' bound �hrouy ti IQtTe Co) ' • !:� " 'I',I llIN /•.Ai'AI.I I (I II II(r I; I /It, lt: , U/ •,f�' I•;: . r f l(,n.SS/9 yt1• t-..i!i ZL.��.e.� ur ' h t (Existing ir ,t , t' r `hilunle;; i asedd tt-dDr Ave a�e wi'.77ter/Spring 197�� 'I'•I Ik1%T REGIONAI COH111110� IVYWIL110 PROJFC1 P4OMI Mu.rrgnt Ones Cep I �.�w• P "' 1•R ( :/C GROH cI VIII PROM Qd110 Volme 4n I•nU^ n1, : 1,i1.10 VOL. vot -- Vol�ru.l -- Yul, 1 p Nr pO9� NR SL_ I I 00 _ . C.C5'//// ST _t Et ( 4 s v �0269 [1702A 2-3 ER I ) 00 _.._ oy3B O,vy38 WL _ v_c�yBe oyBB wT wR 10 1 rEt lOwl WL _ ___ LA ISTING IN.."-ECTION CAPA(IIY L•It 111'ION I r;;;;!,. ;- : CCM7ITTT.O P06 R7 u;ONAL fpOt{III N/1IMPOSLO IMPROVI'MEM LC.0 7 5/ h' I,r;571ti} i'LtlS :IIM"IITTCO P,.; . IO110•I•,1 •J'Ou111 pl O', PROJECT I.C.U. © Projected pl•I:. .'roir ( t 1rdifiC • I •C.tl. a7iII I'e Mass thin or equal to 0.90 Projected I,Iu: lw-, ;tcct trolfic I .C.U. be tlrr_ater than 0.90 . i''•u,lerted :.III "r" I I1'd' 11L I l-0. IVI I•n .,'.I1'IO-• IPIIu'UVellu'n1 . 'a'ill_be 0.90 - I .� .'.r'I11.'. �t,,. i . . I:^•rt' IVC'lIR•111.: • 1 1 ' i . 1 InCr•r:,^L.t inn �n ir., •meer-: ti'f (Existing lraifir `lnluliWs Based�on'Average WiAtte'T Spring 19/Ly H.n,npnp ,AWING ,+in tl',IA .11•.I I NISI REGIONAL LOW111LO MWILI'L0 PROJFCI 14aLA 11 Lanes Cap I Imw. + y I PL nu ./L' ANOWTII PRNI CI VA Ratio MOAN` V/, NALIn 1•nl IaLLlo VEIL. .V01 , W/o Ploject Vol ' I Nl —� - -- --I --� NI CO (3) YeoO f c' _ o D./S// NR I _ 15 o SSL7,agpo 38 9 SL I (z)3zoo'; I a j U.009 ' ST Q3Zbo 10 _ 3 3lw 2 tog SR ff ER�_ Wl _ 13� WR LXIStl%b :NtL.aCCTIOM CAPAEIIY Ull,IIAIIOµ C+;S•iNG •.�. CCLMITTEO PLUS ArC:I)NAL Spurn W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS 1.C.0 0,6/7 CRSt iN'a P.15 tWITTEO P.b• RLA1,tliAl 40W111 PINS PROJECT I.C.U. Projected ally. I,1-0iot.E traffic L.C.U. will be loss than or equal ' to 0.90 Projected plu• :,rnit•,.I I.vafllC I .C.U. Will la' w-t•ator thall 0.011 ' •'ru,lected ;+l u , ;t. tt,;ot l Lr.t l f it. l .( .11. Y:i l h •.;;•.I rdP, uRllrumiloill." ' vA l l be 1(t•.:. t I,vtl nI r,qu,ll to I).90 ••t•',( rip11+,, 1. Add Aor+kboiAKd -Through Jane . la) Z• Add 5ou4-h bound Ie4 -lurvl lame. (o) , 3• Add wes+ bound- lane. (0) iI (!T. r• .ti(it, p0 Fer)rp(tC.l (Existing Trit " volu� s Base 6ii Average inter ring 1�9%t ' rxl;llMl•. I "P'u,i.'J :7I51 ! ITISf NEGIONAL LWMIIiLO rR(Ul CIFO PROJECT PROW rI `:o,\mn•nl leers Cal, :a'^'• 'I` f rr tillf t/C GROWTH PROJECT V/L Retln Volume V'+, ball., ,nl In VOL. ._ Vol . -- ,./o rl ulr\.t --_ Vnl. NR °. _�.I ..I? — �— - --- - 10 — 6-7 ST 2 Co I _ a I ( ,Se/9 CiBl ' SR IN I EL i I oo ET I 0 z7 oz2 ul �) o� r..(3)YBcnil.31 ' Wi ------1 -� — — _ WR �0102 ISM /OOU 0./ao0 UI;TI'd+ : .'-:rCTION CAPAEII/ LI!EIA1I19N CWITTEO PLUS NELIDUAL CPOHPI R•+PPOPOSEO IMPROVEMINTS I.C.0 p "77 // ET.STI4J PtJS -OMIIT?EO Pi LS rd n:ON6, CrO.IrM PHIS PROJECT I.C.U. QO�ZZ ' Projected plu- I'ru1' I I Ilnl l-ic I .C.II. wi ll lu' II t.hnn ur "11111 to 0.90 ' Projectcd plu . to l rr: f is L.C.U. '0i l l be 11reater than 0.90 ' PrujectFu iTij', Irot(ic I .C.H. With SjbtC'1111 improvellicilts Ni 11 be nr "^wl ' to 0.90 (. Convert nor+hhound r'IS1 1 4urn lane to opiirnTal -Ihrou9h p(us r-y6T4• (o) ' Z• Acid vlorAbcwnd -�hrmu h lane . ("o) 3. Conv¢r+ wes4bowl IeFF 4UYVI lama -lo op+,'crAai -through pies 1 • • 1i.j71,r. ,,•I I:•rr n �rt`.�� 4�r' I I:,�J��-�u - r�OCIC.'{ (Ecistlncl lr,T, r vnl,q.,fi'• (lased onvrra�e Winter Spring 197gi �� r a!A Ili r� p �`•••• Ihl 7IW,i NLGIONAL COM11 i ICD PROJI I:TLO PROJECI VN0.11..i , w... r..t ' , •r I'llI C GNOwrn PROdi cl m patio Volwle Vn Rnitu tairc; Cap 1 e„1 R.,00 VOL. Vol. wlu VruJecl NI- 1 — -- �".I y o. /603 a&0 NT 00 3)gbco I13'N L- �' �{6 0.4096 )57 0.4410 YR 1100 - 185 _ 1� — SL sl 3aoo s�y�a�ll.�. •� '� o.�ay '� 6�- 0.31� E7 ER WL ► z>32oo `1 C.a6LZ_ a.o6/Z WT 0" (1)Ibvo } D•oE/ D•od/9 ' KR , 1 {bQn � 02,. O.O6SU 0.06fa rutaw:rL -.71, .—.,___ LIISI1 'y:=u 5CTI ON CAV — .tr I—I( P1•,i l•• ION71! . ,.Oi COMII:fn PLUS RI, 47tN1 t,frpprll MAIWIPOSLI) INRIIOvfNI NTS 1 1 11 �•�f/�/ ' ItimiI., P:a• uwiTrlu rnr. ,,I I."Int ,.nouNl rur ruo.nt.i i.cyil 7"13�) 'rojectea pl,r• :7t ,Iit•cl Irnl'fic I.C.IJ, will he llss than or e"ttal ' to 0.90 Projected plu ,•7 ,: t.l Irani(, I .C.U. •iJiII bL' yraa.thr than O,%I11 ' - - - - vI•• un 7ruvl;mrnt;. ' 1 1 i Ill ., .d.l I I • I •,lu . ,r171••t1 Ir,.. l ir, 1 .1.. i. VJ I'r•u.iectl.t 1 ,: , + n I , t„I to J• )Q h, Ill b1. 1L^.• h� n I r. Corverl nor }L1 bouncl•r)gh4 -lurw11(ahc fc> optinval fhrougt, plus (o) 2. Corl riShf +ti 10VIP is apticlilal +} \rou9h •Pitts riSht' (4) ' 3• (fo'vilver-t e0-S •bouwci r;gh-1 Iuvh 14)Ie f'0 opticlilal +hrogh plus righf• !°) d. Add eas4bound aptla>1a1 -4-hroL jk rptus S. Convert wes-s-baulld fhrouc�6l 141�e 1"a lFff farl� lat•le• (o) I%I W.I I T 11111.1/Ni 111:4 n,v\I , „ , tl (Q-A r (Existing 'Ir,,: t 11r,luolP liaseonveraca WinLerprTng 19/5 !AISTINB IA''•hS�b ir:`•1 S I115T REGIONAL CORIITIIo I'"•C Ratio PROJECT pREJ;Ci Y.pV•aRr't SpfPS cap I •a',• V ,i I'P I "IC GROWTH PROJECT Y/L' Ratio Volume V/\ ka Uu ' . .. .. Vnl ROCIo VOL. Vol. w1oProject. -- Vol.Yul 1 Nt 0 �3) d6rav J1�Q5(_ _� o.z 996 1061 063z! NT I(Z)37oo��U�2aJi 'a �_ a O r//9 • 4 0.y1 a rL-I_ sL r �•� d zs'8S I o. zbz Si — --- Sk _ 1 E: II I • ` O. as Sv O•ofs'O > L ac Ek _ O..z90 l,'R . 10 CAPACITY �.L•l l;a'IOn COtM1TTEO PUK Rrd09AL '_I'Oaal W/PROPOSCo IMPROVEMENTS I.C.0 p.•JS :OMITTrC PLO` dlyd 'b1, GpOWid 1'11Y. PROJECT I.C.U. ,7sz- , ' Projected I,lu.. nrul Cl II ,Itfic61 .C.1l. will l:1' 105`, than or ellu,ll to 0.96 ' Projected 111W, nI„'••LL tr,lffic 1 C.[I. iqj I l:\, Ilreater than 0.90 ' © Projected 11 , . ;n•11'1^0 Ira! fTc I XAJ wittl . .trur, n111WOWnR'nL , 1 ? he 11• . . ' I . pl,I? Lo 0,90 /. Cower+ one rlor- h bouvld - Ptrotlgli lalle- -/-o hor, 6ourmd /cf+ hrvl I4vie. (d) 1 ;n;rrS ••.tlon I.�i OL.s12�?I. lt' �.{�VC�� 1 (Existing 'Ira, f+c Yrluulf• [—aced on ,verdge Winterf prTng 197 -70 —r- - ( illtil ucclu;uu IwrinlEn P+aAlI61lD PKOJICI Pi„l-i, I M..U'out I •� ,a 1 ,,� GROWTH PRNILCI Y/L Rdt10 VDIwe 5A Adl+u Lanes Cap �•+,•• .,J1 NnlO VOL. .1qt, xA) Project NL 1 31 yB '12_' Sd .o.3�92 �/0'6 a.3Y�Z ry;— 1(2) 3zor fJL L ( O.N3�7� ` 6 o•`17/9 1 SL sT ET — ER +ELLf+•1 r: _ __ o,/000 O./000 Lx VI INC 'M :<CTION CAPAf IIi 41::IIAt ION pp LA.iTiF� %LC: C"11TC0 0011 KC10AI SQlwltf W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENIS I.C.0 O. BZ27 p E r:;TlN,i PLsS ^k4!I TTEC P.J• 4I• 1,_1t r•••OWni PI U$ PROJECT I.C.U. O BBB/ 1 Projected i•ifir •+rwol.• Lrdf'Pic I .C.U. Will be less than or equal 1 Us 0.90 �] FrajectL;d i,lv. nr:,.•• + L IXIffic I.C.U. will be (Jreatt'r than 0-90 1 ® Projected pi•v .: 1/ Ir,tflic 1 C.11, rliLll ',y.Lfm+, nnprOV011 1L 1 will be lrs•. :, rfiud Co U.90 •, ,Lrinl, I �:•• , •J,aurnl : I 1 1 I. Comer- mie 110Y-)•Y1bowid •+'hrou h lane 40 l)o'r1A bound le 4 4uro 14u. �o) J 1 - 1 1 r-- (rll wit l WN (.APACi FY Ul 11 I/Al ION ANAI 1JY�/11N 4 r ' (Existing Irve?/o/o inikpleg Based on verage hinter prTng 19T 1l IA1511NC� ✓"•0 , fx151 I IYIST REGIONAL COMMIT1L0 PRCUECTLO PROJECI PINARtI canes Cap j •• •P I '•r PR VIE GROWTH PROJLC1 V/t Ratjo Volume V/C Rath l Vnl. Rado VOL. VOL. w/o Project Vol. H' !Z�3zoo 1 1 3 I� a.zoas � zo o.ziSv NR k(f I600�I�qJ o•/3B/ al O./S' Z Y 0. 084 v.og_� i ST SR 00 )�/6ov— 9 EL — -- E7Zo ER Wl I . ' Sr 2,3/y7 a.3zoc WT ( ? JL I0Q_ 0• zo5-6y o.W WR Lx IS11NG :hT'=S ECf ION CAPACI IY UI'I 1lA'I(IN ' CA:'1T inG FX! CCMMI T-EO PI II_ RI CI ONd1:•LJWPI WIPROPOSIO IMP ROVEMINIS I.C.U. EQSIING PLUS..,,:OMIITiEO PLL', ,EOE^NAI 1;1�0.Jidnl INII'. PROJECT I.C.U. El Projected plus :'tnjl•ct. Lrtltfic 1 .C.U. (vlll be less than or equal to 0.90 ' ® Projected plus 1-njocL l.l.iific 1 .C.11. wi11 he greater than 0.90 ' El ProjectLoulu•, ;1,,tW'• I II ,Itlit: I l' .11. milk ,,. ,Irur, inllrovonu•nl '. ' will be 11". . ' nL,II <,• 1'11'I,I I (O 0.90 ' .,� l.rTn:.u„, ,., 1 Ih.•.t wenRalt: Add YioY+hbouvld 663g + -IuYn lane. Co) ' 2 Comet easy bouvld t;9lj+ -fuYll lane -lo o,p+ onul Amuyh It", a.AIIACITY III ILI/Al IO"I ANAI Y,)I`I , ,I,,.•:• ..etar MPl� ll" �� : hydi1 F. �.� rt�rczr� (Existing Ira, ( r VolLRnt-� (lase on verant kutter? prt 9 19/g7 �Z ' �t:51 ING 1 It'—I �•••'MY I :tIST RLMORN CUk11110 1'61U1 L110 PROJI(I H ..e.•nt tapes Cap +•r i• IIR ` 1,C 9NOW11, PROM C1 V/( Ratio Volume 1,, Na1•r • V•)l. Itat to VOL. v01. w!n )Iru,leut ' I1 Vol. NY O./hn c _.._ ST o p I {: I _. f 85_ •�;2�2L -- - IC'292Z f SR E: 3a + E7 — /6/Z ER WL WT ,E.:Dare __ • I �/oov � o/� L7 B II S+ • ..-:ECT ION CAPnt I + l•t:. 11111 OR C"ITTED PIt,% Rtrl'mM A0,1111 N/PRUIIOstO IHPROVLHENIS I.C.0 •� (/$ pp ' :,:'.•Iti; Na' '."ITTED P. PIUS PROJECT I.G.U. © 11rojecteu ll:.J" .• n'• t traffic I.C.U. will be ltns than or equal ' I.1'7J eC t('tJ hi .I u,r I I1 .•' I IL I .I .II, 11i I I 'ht• Ilrva Ior 0-31, Il."It t l}'Ojeeted I "10 1•t 1 1 V.II ( It I .l .II, t•11 :41 ••.i I t'IIII. IIIII11,011011p.l.l ' n'll be h• I '• „'dull Lo 11.90 t rtP1 �I . ' •n•Du I.I . • 1 • „ %- I Y II i1 ., A' .': . ACli,l I':I r 3 + (Existinq Ira ! " Vnt Ic'; ased on wrrTiTi W FL(w/.Spring l9•' C�[I`,?InG f�' .•. .'I11 ,1.1 RLGIO MIld Mf N40I111O I"..0t !n� VROUCCI •' ' I •'"+r( la,mt Cnp 1 ,u" I -' n1, I 1 '( GROIl R0.'1 C7 V! RJIW I Volume, I•,•:. . 0 R I to VOL. Vol I W. V, •.W.I 1 7 V _ o.oizs i Q)izco__13t n �__ _ Imo. ' o-1 79 I n8 I y9i '� kR -- Frl� 16o� _t_I o� _0.G319 O•o3/9 ' SL_ I11 I(z) 3zoo %370I'a O•/266 O./266 � =`�_. ._ tti 11.��sz. `. '�::%�•�-I:L� -- �8_._1..0.0�31�---� ---'-- `.��al3B 1 tEr uL 1 oa i In I _ o.orr9 o.orr9 ' wT_ 1 1600 -'- - Ili_ _. 1 _O?/Z O.o7/Z °l WR 00 _ _ Ir 11 l01 �� . O• /Zee o.rz88 I rIGI;'iS CTION LWPra li :..:I I;'1'lUN ' li: .ii__ .,'. C6!Mliill: Pll,., I6GOVI'll 'It1I11110IMPOSI0 IMPIIOV!MI I r:',I IY,. ILIS 'J4MI77G I'."' •0: .,,Nn1 ',.g141111'(II'• Plloji LI L.L.11, ' n oro,jecteC' ;•i,l' ocil U Iltic t .C.11, will bo 10 ,, Lhall or o(Ilblt tc U.9U ' il'l`�f CtPa 1'III• I't . „ ! t','II IL I .G.U. hlli !4 II'P,II I't' tlldll ' ® t'rIt !cC Led i:: . ,n r, ; •: ! I11111(. I .t. .lt. I:'llll r➢ . llI!t•I'0v01lo'11I10� 11 be I Add hoY4 bound Ie �4 fuYvi lane (U) Z. Add hoy4h botbnd Yighl- -lure lane. (o) S. Add souA bound le-F+ burn lane. (o) 4. Add ew&- bound lef-l- -luYtl lane. (o) '7q ' APPVN01\ C ' Iu' ERMICTLoN CAPACITY UTILI%Kl'tt1N ANALYSES ' Existing + 30 Pvvc•cnl' of ProjccL + Regional + Conunittod ' (1�1:11) • ' I,I! R`,I ' IION CAAPACIIIY ill il_I/•A11lION ANAIY',1', •(n;rrS;•ct ibn IJiiS�o/J7' ` NJ <%'` �4•'T v.S (Existin ) 'fra;f + Vnlulnes 6ase�on Average WT to er Spring 191� / %6' 7� rxi ST ING f .+'1•P,�'t',, ' •'ISI Lt IST REGIONAL C"l T1fD PNOJLCTED PROJECT PRWLCT Lanes Cap ' +'^• !••p ! 17 hR V/C GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ratio Volume VAC Hauu Nallo VOL. VOL. v 1 Vw/ool Protect Vol. _ / o `` __ _iJF.<_ o6iG _ 2I — Qo3� 0.0769 ' N1 U•222Z -- SL -- -•r ST _vz� 3?,vo 3 4800 .;Iil� RJ— _3G o.228/ * 0 2281 SR K/) o _T-- s� 379 48 100._4049 0,4049 El- ET_ — — ER ' A _Z8 o.SZiyo e 0•S2o6 ' WT U yip _-- --jcL� Of+/ '� / SRO 6'R _ • + ' VI I LO'1 fill N_. 14W C�.IOUO k D.I D00 � 1TISTIN(I 'NItt:ECT10N CNPA I,Y ❑,I' 11,;InIN •W9 I+ _Im_,«] COIMITTtO Pill" NI f,IUNn. GNoW111 W/PROPOSED INPROVPMTNIS 1 r;'„14d {".` lWY1Ti1D VI;' NI' I,,YM ol•OWIII PIN'. PRDJICT I.C.R. Projected I,ILJS urnj"Cl I,raffic- I .C.II. will be lass than or equal to 0.90 © Projected I'lu: Ilr 'It>tL Lraffic I.C.LI. wJ11 L,Q theater than 0.90 t'rojecLed pl,r, nl „ i' + I Lrallic l .C'.11. wil.h ;'•Lrnr, iuglrnvanL+nt•, ' W i 1 1 hT' i t•`.' ' II,1'. rIm 11 n 0.1)O �. AJJ sou.+h bouvid '�hro i9h lane. I f11 1 It"t , I It'll Wit'lit, I II I u' t..11 rub-•'-%M 1 11M � .7•I ,I O r 1 tld on v -'Y_1 r it Y�� I�t/•� t�` i�t l/�• (Ex,istinq lrnlf�r- Volumes IS ase on Verage Winte Spring 197 1 Np.l•nKnl Ex IST ING 1,110 U:' p-� f,:SI 1 LEIST REGIONAL C"ITTED PROJLCTLD PROJECT PRDJICT �4 Lanes Cap Ufw. r. er W V/C GROWTH PROJLCT Y/C. Ratio Volume V/C Nadu W, ' Fillip VOL. VOL. w/o Project t i Vol. NL NT --i l 69 23 0.1 00 0 1 sL 1 --4� 1 0.0572 0.05 1 ST (3 ¢ ) 3ln 67 0.3300 0.3.333 'k SR EL X 1) (6() _ ' _ 31 0./001 O. 08/ ET 6 _—C2� t 'I Ia 315 1(07* z•o o•al98 t� nQ s ER 1 WL ---- Wt WR — I— YEuo.Trvl 0,1600'k 0,1000 * 1 EAISTISG :NTCa:SCTION CAPACIlt 1,111.114110 2 EX:%T,ING PLCS CD"ITTCO P(JIS RU,104AI. bDOWfil W/PROPOSEU IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 0. 6 / Y 1 C415rIN6 PLUS Cvt9'IITTCU Pt.- RIJl.JYAt GoOWTN PUIS PROJECT LC.U. O.Fi 9 Projected plus oroi"ct traffic I.C.U. Yrill be less than or equal 1 to 0.90 0 ' n• n• ( TAL1, - thall 0.911 1 u t u is rtt ir,tffic. I .C.Il. hill 1 . I c. •T Projected ! 1 1 .t ❑ J X frojec-teu low. ,wowrt traffic I .C.U. With -,Y,tellls improvenit.Tlt... Will be Ir'.'. U.. n n• I'qu,11 Lo 0.90 ''1••., rlhf :r it ..1 1• •� n' iil.i•t uV(glll'll t.: 1 J Add sou4k bound +hrough (ane . (0) • 1 (Existing 'Ica , fic• vc,luines Based bn AvAat Winter Spring 191R} ' l ,t1:11NG =„ ,-. , i :t;%I my kEG1GNAL COro11Tl E0 PRNILILD PRUJECI PRO.I(I Mo.,na•nt IaMs C80 VIC GROWTH PROJI CT YA Rat to V01ume V4 11a01 :ul U•:VO VOL. VIA . W/o l""Jet.l ' YRI. NL 11D600 __ _; .al _� rl v.o131 0.0131 N T— O -----j� o NR ' SL a oo (-94$001-01 1 i5 o.r4 0•1429 ST i I (1) 049 -0-0494 ' SR (I la/v I _• f_L 0.O?9 0.0 EL I l 0•03 �" o.o 344 ET ' EP --- wl II If000 -- ••--i _. I— p_o15b v.U156 WT C3)j8.9Dj1 -39 251 0. 35.931 32 o.3600 WR 601600 ! 6 s8 o. 4731 0.4731 ' YELLOWTM. --_--� (� 0.l000 O•/000 1.415TINU :NTE:9EC'T108 CAPAMV U111I6V1 ION C.WITTED MUS RIC 0101—SItOWT❑ W/PR01'01E1 1111ROVEMLNTS I.C-U O (05.:Y- Ery S 114. P_JS %"ITTED Pit'% ;141O4A1 r,;-Ut11 PIUS PROJECT 1.0 U. D,Y,Z3 ' Projected ;,eu' 'r,slt'EL Lr,ItFic I .C.U. will k Ivss than or equal to 0.90 ' 1'rojected {Ills', I:rl:,n r Is ,: lllc I .t;.11. will bo tiroaLor than I1.t1U ' © 1'rojecteEl ont, n'u•Ir, 1 Irollicul C.11. wllh .Y'.lanr, unprgvclnE'nL', be lr.° '!I, n t,t -;n,ll !.a 0.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - • - I >4dd sou4bound leP -lurPI lUne . (c)) ' 2. Add SOUR bound hghf 4uI-h (ahe. (o) 3. Add easy bouPid lei'+- 4urP1 lane. (a) ' 4. Add eask bound 4-hrottSh lene. (o) 5. Add west bound rlyh� -kwh lame- CO) .1 I!1111+',t t , 1t1N LAPACITY U111.1/AI ION ANAI YSIS ' .tTSi prr.n�t lrin �'� � _ �• 1It. Lt � � � - (Existing Ira fic VaIum sed o� ver/itje WTr' er Spring 19'/� r 7S ' IW.tnant to ISIINC WI OYJ ;7IS, LAIST REGIONAL COMI1TE0 PROJECTEO PROJECT PROJECT Lanes Cap 141 r. •P i 1•,: lit VC � GROMTII PROJECT VIC Ratio Volume VIC ka Uo T Vni, 111 Ratio VOL. VOL, W/o Project ' 1 { Vol. 1 �f NL a0r �' ISCL 13 0247 'k 02416 ' NI _ ?0 olea — NR I SL 1 t7c� —� I 0 1 0.0088 0. , ST SR E: IM1600 _....._ I .r2U__: 0.0312 f�U312 k ET 03 501I_47 /7 0.339N ' ER I 1 • p SQL. 3125 0. 12E I _ 00 G1.005 ' wT 3�4A�I 8 313 IV 32 0. o WR 1 2 YEUM:V! • 10 0. 1000 i< 0•11000 ' Etl5114G :hTE�-":CTION CAPACITf I LL1:41 IOh D;',-'IA4 •.O1 CTi1MITTEO PINS WIWI 9pJAIll 14/PRf1POSC0 IMPROVEMItils 1 C.04 0, 0 ' C CSTINO PLJE '01MITTCO PIP, nH IuNAI WON{ll Pills PROJECT I.C.U. 0.8118 Projected piv'. I,tulr-, I, Ir,iffic I .C.H. will be 1r55 than ar t+lluol ' to 0,90 Projected plus ;,I„•Irt:1 Iralt•ic I .C.U. Ttiil br ilreater than 0.00 ' ® Projectea olwU r•1opt 1 11',:Illc I .t:,11, wilh '.Y -Wlrl% IIIIPT'OVCI110111} ,ill be lo'., :.t . „ nl "(W.,, I:a 0.90 ' r .r.rl pl i,o. T t, •, :,N.,I .,,J••Illt'ill : •1 Add ea.s+ bound 4hl-ou9h lane. C�) 2. Add tues4 bound +hrou3h I ION CAPACI I L111I_ILA11MI IINITLTSI ) I n te.rs A 't i 0n (p_qC� ` (Existing Tr,tlrir_ Volumes Based El ver g W nter S ran 197 Si ING i,�tbl ltv;, I CA:51 1 C%I S7 REGIONAL LOMITTED PROJICTED PROJECT PRLIJI L1 [xI ' Mo'irwnt Lanes Cap ;a^r: 1 V 1 Pr ,Ip 1 Vic OROHTII PROJIC•T V/C Ratio Volume V/C Ratiu r Vol. i N.ttlo VOL. V01.. w/o Project Vol. ' oz NLD. Sb* D•oZSb NT __�, ' _ 2 2- d.I I S1 JAI R 3 l - j I CE- _- _1 6.0719 0.0719 ST _ 00 T4) W83 ' SR I I 0 I� 241 _ 0.48�• 32 v 5�19 EL ?�D3 ' I 83 O. 21 14 O. I ' ET a II39 6 iz 0. .- Wl I Od (Z)3ZUQ ) I� __ ,5_•_ O;o'766* D•o7 ' WT Q7 (3)4S0O _j.L?'^CSZ 1I ^ . .1�f3_-. S. �lS WR 5 . _ 2 ' Y[UNTINE IO D•/UOD D•IOOO '* L%I ST I4O :h:E°_ECTION CAPACITY 61111/.,ION - ' COWITTID NUS N16IO4/_.I 4POWIII W/P'+OPOSEO INPROVIMI'NU I.C.0 EYIST14; PLJS COMhITTEO P'US R1010'0t PIUS PROJECT I:C.11. d rf lOUy Projected plus ::r0•I•--ct traffic I .C.U. Twill bra less than or equal to 0.90 Projected plus nro• t'1.1, l l'ol f iL l .l..u. will In+ grraLvr f.han ' Projected iduJ .�1'l.'i�'C.1. 11'.�' fiC I .L..LI•. T, Ith .iP,lt1 III+I)rOVClltt+tii © will be lee--- '.1..••• d' gifl.dl Lo 0.90 1 Add we.J bound lc- j 11AYVl I(lhe • 1cI> Add west bound hrou9tl 14ne . (o) 1 (;.xisting lydlf(r Voluii1cs�0ased mri ve a e W ( ter Spring 197{�} !+;STING ("'a•OS` ' I-Wl EXIST REGIOIIAL COMIITIED PROJECTED PROJECT PROJICI Lanes Cau i ane: ,. D 1 h) I,R ./C GROWTH PROJECT VA Ratio Wine V/i Rauh t Vol. Ratlo VOL. VOL. w/o ProjeCt t Vol. ' ?it _ _!l�3_� 05" 0.0519f, o.os19 N T _ f��_ VIE48 0.0900 NR `` SL I r�7.. ST _I I �._.... _ 7� O.I o06 k 0.1006 k SR 1 � 1 EL _ .lino.o Q 9 ET 00 }� O. la I3 0,4453 ER I OD 1 E7 :. 0.0 3 WT WR +nto.I:ME _ . 10 10 0.1000 O:l000 ' L+ISTiH4•ER;ER:ECTIOn CAPACIIr LT71/4110N Cu"17.0 PLt, R(4)6NAI I,uoW111 W/PPOPOSED IMPROVEMENTS LC.0 ; • ati' E t:SI I`in FLU$ UMITTEC Pt S +.r, 7P'IAt GROWIII PHIS PROJECT I.C.U. 0 Projected JiltI,. .n'nt• t 1, lydl l"ic l .C.11, Will IW Ir'.ti than ur 0111111 ' to 0.9U El Projected Jill,+, : rl,lt`t_L Lr,llfic l ;C.11. '011 bE` greatvir than 0.90 , Trujecte-i :-lu., I' ,1 D`t,l IrdrF1C 1 .L.11. 1C1 h1` .l''.tl'IOS UNprGVC01p111 '. t i i i be It (.t„ ;• ur 7,rIUd 1 LO 0.90 II41 ''"Al AL,I I I ui 1I.I Lit ,1�-IU;I I kill %LL 1PIJ � oJ1 1[lrer...' L.L1nIlA1© ,( W R N/ �V`. r (Existing Traffii•pp Volu s ase on verage i ter Spring 19q) '�1 wnt LXIST IhG 1"010'.1'1 i I7IS1 LXIST REGIONAL COIMI RED PROJI CTED PROJECT PRO.II Cl Lanes Cep lino•. 'P I °E MR V/C GROWTH PROJLCT V/L Ratio Volume V/L' Ratio �� ,''ol. Ratio VOL. VOL. w/o Project ' I Vol. ' NT 00'C3) 13oD io _ I 20 o. I 3 .t550 NR I —i S 00700 It 0.0769 ' SL _ 1 Y1 czZ32oo i I85 6.0909 0.09(^)9 ST bq j;t� z 37 o.-3441 7 0.343 EL E R -- A — il — VELLOU'TIPE f32 _ 7-6 ' NT _ C4)WooI_C) lv,1770 w'R a347U ' ^_ ' l b.r000 o'tL� LXISTISu :',-EiFECT10N CAPACIIV 01!t l/AI ION ' C1:i-ih6 E..LS CWITTE0 PLUS RrGIONAI GRCJIM•N/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS LC.0 o71 r EX!ST!SG PLUS ''WITTED PLUS REGIDIIAI G11Od111 PtUS PROJECT LL.iI• o•6Z33J ' Projected pll ut•ujOLL Lralfic I .C.U. will be less than or eyUal to 0.90 Projected hlu� +)J .I I.1'affic I .C.U. wi'I1 be ,il'rator than 0,90 ' 1'ra,jected p l u�. In +l U'r i I r,t l I i t. I L .II, w l 111 '.•y'.11'N!'. uupl uvt'ulrl!1 ', ' will be le-o. ! h, u nt ,•iptal Ln 0-90 l• Add nor-Fhbound 4vh ou9k lane . (o) ' 2. Add SOU4 bound lek+ -lure (ane. (o) S. AcId u1es� boomd lurl¢. Co) lnr(;T S V10 oItl �C° �ot�t (Existing lrtTfi:.- Vnlu s Base on verage Tnter rTn9 197 tzIST IhG vk+u'UV , i Iz151 1 itIST REGIDNAI C(MITICD PRWI CTLD PRWEGI PIR41(f.t Mn..*Rnl tenet Cali 'a^+•. ip 11't RN I i/C GRDWW PRWLCI V/t Ratio YnlwM In Fn Uo 1 1u1, h,410 VOL. VDI. Vw/ool rru,lrct ' Ynl. NL I _i (15 !U 19 O.v836 k 0,0838 NT_ NR Sl y _ 0. ST CO I_IQ l I S 38 I 0. 1 Hdf 0.381 !o SR oZ33 0.f 156 , ElI 1 00 D - - — - 0 0.0325-k .O E7 _ r� •0 G.0 27 t ER WL I 00 C _4S�!�. _l._. 26 d "1 0.0508 4- WT 0 l,R VULKIM u� 0,/000 O.I000 ' E115TINZ, :;ZECTloh CAPArt It C1II11AHON 74 U:S:i'u >.4: C;a`MITiED PI US RI67bNA1 dPDWI{I W,'PRDPDSED IMPROV14ENTS 1.C.0 0,6¢ E/:5114G PLUS :"ITTED PIL 4I1NAi r•PDWTD Pltl:' PROJECT I.C.U. p.uY87 Q Projected riue rroiWt I1'01fic .1 -C.11, will h(' It,y, than or rqual ' to 0.90 Projected plu , c,r,) n•(.t ttYstic I .C.11, 'tviII w, ilt'E•ah,r thon 0-90 ' © Projected ;,a.I , (.' + .1'".t. lWallic I .C.IJ'. wtl.n ',,; U,uN unpruvo1101I .', ' be l t—, 01."1 fit- "qt,a l to 0.90 ' .• •f rl(t� ,('i L' t t•'h 1 4„ +t Vl'glVllL: ' I CvnJe4 northbound rigid' 4uro lone ao opl;orlpi Fhrough plus xigk4- (0) 2. Add vlor+hbouvld +hrovjb lace- 6.9 , 3. Converf Loes+bound le4 }tiro lane 4o' optlo>1nl �hroujh {plus 1ef4, (0) - ;t'N L.APACIIY U111.11AII0II ANALYNIJ r n I n) ofS .1"A ierl O (�� _;fnr' (Existing )rarf:c uoluii.s Base on vera9e Winter Spring 191�) ' FhJ rxI511NG —"k irlSi ' MST REGIONAL COM•II i1CD fROJt CTL0 pl(WECI PROACI M v�aYA[ V/C' Lane; Can 1 t r••• ) •,.Vol ,%tI GROWTH PROJECT — w/o Paolo — Volume V/C• RAW 1 RaLfo VOL.YOL. Vol. w/o Project {i Yol. NI` two 1 .. 4g 0.1(00:�R` O. Ibo3 NT- ) O(? 32-4Soo i13 U-L 45 ip.418�''� ' NR_ 11( 00 1� 2-3 SL _ (I S1 _rl )3aoo 3Z4�o_o�lt�i ' z 269 04 aD .3p 0 ' SR_ I boo _— �-..--- . •--� o.Oloo O.OIDO El -- ' ET WL 1 2) 3zoo . __23 o_orol2 O. Iz 13. ._1L wT 0 o•o6f9 * 0.0619 WR 72 O•D(o5a 0•D6GD YELLOKr:YL O•IOw ./DOO LXISTING 'NTE'.-ECTION CAPAfllf Ull, llk)ION ' Eli':16u ILUL C:PMITTEO PIUS PLC OHAI Gt•ON111 A/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.0 o. 4 9 EXISTING FL05 :OPIMITTED PIP• LI lnnAI i.RJVTFF PIUti PROJECT I.C.U. - o--m / :rojected pIlr :,ttrI TI tlatlis I .(..11. wiII Ur It-Y, Lhtln or rt{li,lI to 0.90 ' Projected plu• .n v ;Flt LI'dffic I .-C.U. Mxbe greater than 0.`k) Q rrojected ;,hv, 1.1•41JI-t i :x,:i f is I .C.U. Ynl'h ',q .Lour, nnprovelliont'• ' will be 1i.-v. Ilion 11, ,(I-iol to 0.')0 ' ••• t'Ipl �n ' �'1 Lulu nVF 911t')II : Cor)er+ Yior-{-h bouhd ngk4 •furs lane -b optfo>lal fhrou3b plus rigl~f• 60) ' 2. Convert sm4bowid r(gh+ +urn larle 'Ia api 014al +Krou5ki p(us )rigkf• la) 3. Co>lverf eaSfbound Y-iC lh+ 4ur„ lane -fb optional +hrougH Plus rtgh+. Co) ' 4. Add eas+Liound optional +k nj9 'plus riX�hf. (ol 5. Coyivert we-S4-bound -HhrouSk lane +6 le�+ turn lame• (6) }•/it 1(til � I llliV l.l\1'I\Ul I I Ur LL1l Hr rVrr nivu . .� ' (n tor °.el:tlorl��ICTo( ,�;/52C-FT ! $rg n hor t\'onc� (Existing 1ra: fiI: volumes B— ase3-on jAv�era�gemin ring 19/�1 MG�m1nt Isi$I INC FI':r4•.1 I Ii:SI IXIST REGIONAL COMMI TIED PRWECIEO PRWECI I'Rh4Cl lanes Cap Ie"'•. i•V ( Pd PR V/C GRONTII PROJECT Y/C Ratio Volume Y/I 4atJo YnI��Ratlo VOL. VOL. lo,-I'ro,lect -- ' l I 431 o. 299Y 32 0.30GO Nr C2) 320o r S a i 7,41 419 W o• -9b 4 NR Sl - ST �.l�a a 141 o.2sss 6 o.a SR El I -.......... ET 37 ER 182 O. ,5'0$—14, 0.27 9 Y Wl - t - WT WR' - (_ E115t M, :N.TU!rCTION CAPACIIT '111,11AMIN EI:1171W ::C: C"ITTED PLUS M6101AL 6p0f1111 W/PROPOSED impRovEmmis t.C.0 0, q y ' E I:STI45 PLJS COeWITTEC PI u} RIGIONA1 4POWTH PI04 PROJECT t.C.U. Projected plu . nrol"rL L1 ,11fiC I .C.U. will In• lllbb Lhall or equal ' to 0.90 Projected p''us 'ru,;••ct trriffic I.C.U. i'lill be 11roater than 0.111, ® ('rejected ill l :W11.10a1 inlffic I .C.U. wil'h •r '•Irnl', nnl+l•ovenR'nl'. .,ill be loti'• ' r . 1 nl r•rlu.11 to 0.90 , ' r•',cr'lll' 'r . .' •u, nrsi•rnvEaueslL: I. Convert- Une, vl-or hbound 4-hrouyl7 (ane 4o boeA bound le4 -kern Iando) 1 l,{1�lcl-f 111 l{ Irr\�i7i\tn1, 'non-rnL\�� ..• 1 iniif •�.t iuiiill.).1�,s ,rho_�..�J�° 1_IYLM 11��� P. Y (Existing ira} f,c Vnluines Base on Average WTnte ring 197 f tISI ING ,I„vll•,d 1,:51 t IUSI RLGIONAI L"lI fED PRDJt CTED PROJECT PA0.1I LI 1 w•.\nient lanes Cap I.1, I Y/C GROWTH PRDACT v/C Ratio volume M kaLlo t ---. — .,ill ! Ro t!o VOL. VOL. w/orroJecc i 1 J Vol.vul '1 I 525 C). 3190k 32 U•325ln 'k NL a C3,Z4-$Qo �����' tNT (z) Z 319 0. _212 14 OAZ _N R SL - - ST �i�� ��Moo ' SR 1(l) r<sru- E' -- ' ET - ER - i ' WL-'-E WR U I::ISS :S%-'.ECTION CAPAr!TY Ll.t I 1011 ' EI;'.:U.: _iS `I•`MITTC9 PLOiRI i.!ONAL $RDNIW W/PRUFOSED !MPROYCMfHiS f.C.0 ICI p .W."I ?f;5'Iv:• .jF ' ITM P:W. ,1, I.•4.11 I,OW O`.fll PT PROJECT I.C.U.I.C.U. 0,8a9�+ ' Projected phi. Iru., `; r. traffic I .C.U. will he less than or, equal to 0.90 ' Vrojected I,III 4: .1Ir11 11'Jltic } .I•.II, W1,11 Irt` Ilt' "Hor Own 0:1)11 ' ® P.1'UjeCt4l� I,ia' , il'd111C 1 (,.II, l/ll,h '�Y'.1l•IIP. IPIItI'(7�C`IIl('lll'. I CoYlver4one hor4kbound +kmuP lane 49 >1orflibouvid 1e4 -FuYn lai7e . (o) I0N (.APAL I I Y U I I I.I/!U 111.4 AMIL I ,i l.) • �, t T(TIt ���( P'E' f�K+C/1+.!ML 'iL!LL1-� (Existing Ira E '/niuni•t ase on�vt!rage Winter/Spring 19T 3(p 1 'dI.11NG 1 � '•.C'• , •r:',1 11lISI REGIONAL CObNII1t) PI(WUILD PNWECI PNO.OII " , I I,M t,'L GROWTH PRWLCI Y/L Ratio Volume Y.l 6a Un Lanes Cap 1+'�' sol Irntlo VOL. VOL. MPo Pro,icct ( � - Vol. 1 0.0188 1 r;r- � c2)32�,�; .� �` 3• _ .._-[9.5 o.2o�i.8.'* b .2!ob � t 6 ryR _1CI,)1600 _'_I� 60 0. 13 0-419 sl _ _ •G 0. 66 O•� Si �800_,.� 'a 1 143 O./850 3 0.1856 SR f 0.3281i 7 0.33 Et Z 193 0.l 2 I ER N1 — ' _. 1 C`p�'�' �57 314A3 O. I63 wi I �[)�._ I' � ' [} !OZ kR ( — 1 et:((wl(PL 6./00o k O•IOOD �` Lt ISTAG !N:i 7iECi 10R LAPd(11Y Ll tl!:CIItN li (r;5;;•.., ;.C: CWI-.4E0 P•11•, Ptf IL'Y,1( "•udlll NIPPOPOSED INPROYEHINIS I.C.0 ,6 26 1 E,:S71NG P14 'L WiTTCC P '• 14fl."NAI .v%JIII P(tl;, PROJECT I.C.U. 338 (1) MacAy4hur IS noy+k /Soufh . 1 Projected ;•I' ,. ni'•tt troffic I .C.U. will ba less than 01• Nimil trr 0.90 Q Projected will I`r grl',tl+'t' than 11,`I't 1:r^.,,ICC(r, t,( . . . f It ,tllir I .1 .11 wll•h •.•,•.lrnr. nGl,ltryruu'nl — will be :r• nv,t , U1 (L90 _ 1 , T'1Ir; r ,•. ., , ID• rt •VgUlt^li 1 ( Add vl r4hbound r�gV4 IuYn ►avle. (c,) r,verF fbourld Vi ki - +UYn lAvl¢ 'Io v -Fiona/ +hrou h plus r'ghf, Co) eas z. Co P 9 1 9 1 • 1 I r� !!<fi1151 ' Iltl» ;.APACIIY UIILi/AIIUa IutnL.I�IrI _/ (Existing lr•a; f Ic Vrlunlc-. Based on Aver; gelWTlTte Pry 1 d7 I xI Si ING 1101 J'., , IT.ISI t!ISI NtGnNoU COMHILO PRU111.111) PROXCI PROM t.i M�„�arnt tears Cnu �an�• I` NN ti,C &NUMIII I'RO.IF CI V/l Rat to Volume VA Rat. V„l NaI Io VOL. Vol. w/o Pro,lrtt Vol. Nt I d U I o.0400 3 0.0419 NT NR st o _._.��1� • I -73 sT o 3 Ig5 0� 1 aK 0.29/9 EL 3a ;` •� J - 55 * 32 _ o.268 ' ' ET ---- 5 S o./ 7 �0.14-z2 A38 0.0438 ' WT _-_ 1-7 0. /D 2ar 3 - WR — 20 ' YC:LO> . I D.11�00 k D•1000 ,'i IPE LAISTISb "QEi:ECTION CAPAC11Y UIILI/4110N ' COMMITTED PLUS 11If16UM _ROUIN w/PROPOSED IMPROVCMFNIS I.C.0 'U.794-6- (1:S'iV; I'.. • 'LWI tICU P:In Nt, WIM .:141N 11111111', PNOJLCT I.C.U. ' Q Projected plus :1'•o.i^cr. traffic-I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' Projected plus ;,ro,wrt traffic I ,C.U. w] I1 be greator than 0.90 Projected ula:, Irl'oll'Ct ;ra! fic I .C.U. with ',y',tvuls iulpruvemrnt" .e: ll be leti'. tlltiu . l' t'TlUul to 0.90 _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' rll,l W 1114'I ,.v01110111 I�— tL1 R,%I ' 1+'k Lill'/%I.111 t1i 1t.1/1%11 U., I r • ).nTI`f1 .,,I Ifall ��U.jf�I�,�.�L 11�(�r, 1�)11'�_� — (Exist)nri irit Ii VIll.nnE•5 based on veraoe Winter Spring 197�� , '�,it lAl• ` i _ _,' t« ".1 � 1kW Nlf10NN LUH+I f11 1•vlgllllD PROJII'1 r'4l •11 ' n•''""•''! Ivw.' Carr , r ' 1'k L CROWIII 1'N,1,O(1� V/1 Rntlu vJ:u 1'UL, VOI. _.._ �Vul Pn+,lrtl w1j 1 ' ! A. I .�.r . ... ) t .li.... � .. /D I a•0125 O.OIZS N, ) _I (Z) 3Zon. 1 N: _1M 6.457a4 3z 0.4 7Q 2, 0.0319 0.0319 Sl_ ) ! 1 CZ) zoo ; I _35 0. 26b iE o;1266 J3- 5� _241 o.slB 1 _0.52�8 SR 16 !�b t'— I ) � ' �� 18 0`0933 Eo,It03�K 0,1103 �k ET {fit b ! I i o•1431 0,1431 r._ ..i� /� _32 0_0794 0.0194 ' ER 11,11U2�.; r I -- - f r o.0119 WL _ 0.0 l9 , ` wT _ I Iwo __f.il.3_ _ o:o71z4e — o. ta. WR I) Irz d2w 6 .12 8 0.12 1 G,loon 4 O. 1000,'k Lfl:.ar "i_ MION 'FR;t IN ' i 1`:-;ION I, 1 !�,•••••,; 1;^t•, nit• vl'.;'a�+l 'J•gA1N W/11ROPOSLO INYROVIMMIS I.C.0 O.&.15 '{ r"i'r, t '•x4n Tti: ; '^"�11.•l•,61 '•'•raw Pl Iv, PROJECT I U. •_ _ 755 ' rojectrd ,•in . :s I trill I is l .C,u, wi I I Ill. tt".•, Illrnl I'l• rl;n.11 ' tI• •).90 11r'Ejecte+' t'i:r ')rf+.ator than 0, •' © I'kvjected 1 .1 X. l. l ; +I ll'lli', I:n1n •)\'ollll^1" rill i^bo I, I Add vi o\r-rvl bound le W I IG{n e • (u) z . Add horkh bound r;30- -burn 3. Add souAbotmd lcff +urn lame' 4. add easy bound le44 +u rRT lane, (0) , NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO: Secretary for Resources FROM: Community Development Department 1400 Tenth Street City of Newport Beach Sacramento, CA 95814 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Clerk of the Board of ' Supervisors P. 0. Box 687 Santa Ana, CA q2702 ' NAME OF PROJECT: Tta1CIN AaN ' PROJECT LOCATION: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: c gccepcaNc c of P ���cla pry crr� '�,as� PAN ' F'O(Z- r"o (LCMo t OPF/n\�C--� NM SCyM /.a,,,& c4TC( t 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: INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY: ' INITIAL STUDY AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT: 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: ' Environmental Coordinator Date: MITIGATION MEASURES 1 . 'The following disclosure statement of the City of Newport Beach's policy regarding the Orange County Airport should be included in all leases, or sub-leases for space in the project and shall be included in any , Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions which may be recorded against the property. Disclosure Statement , The Lessee herein, his heirs, successors and assigns acknowledge that: a) The Orange County Airport may not be able to provide adequate ' air service for business establishments which rely on such service; b) When an alternate air facility is available, a complete phase out , of jet service may occur at the Orange County Airport; c) The City of Newport Beach may continue to oppose additional ' commercial air service expansions at the Orange County 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 are service at the Orange County Airport. 2. 'The on-site parking will be provided in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 3. The project be designed to conform to Title 24, paragraph G, Division ' T-20, Chapter 2, Subchapter 4. ' 4. Should any resources be uncovered during construction, that a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist evaluate' the site prior to completion ' of construction activities, and in accordance with City Policies K-6 & K-7. 5. Final design of the project should provide for the incorporation of , water-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. , 17. The development on the site should be in accordance with City policies ' on traffic. t 1 1 VOLUME II ' CIVIC PLAZA PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT ' TRAFFIC PHASING PLAN ' APRIL, 1980 1 We6l" Pn qte aid Anedate TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING ' November 30, 1979 A la" 11 aj Q. s ,,.•'}'a. gel � , ?Ir. Ron Hendrickson t Commercial/Industrial Division 01 G11G�6PG�' _i The Irvine Company c 550 Newport Gentler Drive ' Newport Beach, California 92663 r t5` Dear Mr. Hendrickson: ' This letter summarizes our analysis of the traffic requirements of the devel- opment of Civic Plaza with respect to circulation improvement. phasing. Tile study ' was conducted to evaluate the circulation needs in response to the Newport Beach Citv Council Resolution Number 9472 requiring; an improvement phasing plan for ' this project. The study was based upon current planning for Civic Plaza and previous traffic ' studies related to this project. Previous studies include thu following: 1. Newport Center Traffic Study, Phase 11, Croulmelin-Pringle and Assoc- iates, Inc. 1976. ' 2, Civic EI!t Traffic Analysis, Crommelin-Pringle and Associates., Inc. 1975. ' to addition, current (1979) traffic volume data, regional traffic growth data, .and committed projects were provided by the City. PIt03!:C'I' 0I?SCI:1PTl0N ' Civic Plaza is located within the Newport Center area at the southwest corner of San Joaquin dills Road and Santa Cruz. Drive. Vehicular access will he provided Lu ' San Joaquin -'ills (toad, Santa Cruz Drive, San Clemente. Drive and Santa Barbaea hrive. The San .Joaquin 1!ills Road access is limited to right turns only. ' Proposed development includes offic and rt-staerant uses in addition to the existing art museum and library that is under construction. A total of 234,706• , I' ' 2651 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE • SUITE 110 • FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92631 • (714) 671-2931 1 � L ' square feet of office use is planned along with an 8,000 sgttare foot rvsLaurant. The library will include 14,000 square feet and a 10,000 square foot expansion of the ' susrunl is planned. A theater is also proposed at some future date. Since this would hnvr a negligible traffic impact during critical hours, it is nor included it' tho ' analysis. The project is planned for completion in 1981. TRIP GENERATION ' For this analysis, estimates were made of PM peak hour volumes and tite 2.5 hour peak period. Generation rates and estimated volumes for each use and time period ' are listed in Tables 1. and 2. The existing art museum building was not included as it is included in existing traffic volume data. These generation rates are those ' utilized in previous studies of this site. TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT ' The geographic distribution of traffic gunernted by Lhis dovelopuumt has huen dev-eloped in the referenced previous studies. Figurn 1 illustrates the traffic dis- tribution that has been utilized for this study. This distribution is for out- bound traffic from tite site. inbound traffic would be the same percentage in the ' opposite direction. By applying the distribution percentages to the trip genera- tion data in Tables 1 and 2, estimates can be made of traffic volumes front the ' nroject at various locations. The distribution in Figure 1 is for outbound traffic which mast be reversed for inbound traffic. ' CRITICAT. TNTBItSRC'I'ION INIti:N'I'TFICATIt1N ' 'i•ho next step in the analySIS wa$ to idontll'y those inLersoctit'll$ that could be Iun,neLed by the project . As a st•arl.ing point., Litt, 16 Inter suctions identilieaLod ' for annlysis under the 'Traffic I'hnsing Ordinance for this area wore examined. At the request of the CiLy 'traffic Engineer the Bristol N./Birch Intersection was added. For this examination, the "1% Traffic Volume Analysis" forms from Lhe ' Traffic Phasing Orditance were utilized. Appendix A contains the dnLa for Uto indi- vidual intersections and the results are suuunari,zed In Table 3. The basis for com- parison included existing traffic, regional growth traffic and approved project traffic. ' The criteria established by Lhu City Couneil, indicates Lhat any .inLersectiun where the project traffic during the 2.5 hour peak exceeds two percent of the existing plus ' regional grwoth plus approved project traffic must be analyzed in detail . Table 3 ' CRITICAL INTERSECTION IDENTIFICATION ' Civic Plaza LOCATTON 2.5 1101111 PERCENTAGES ' NB SB 1983F_11 WB Bristol St. N. & Campus Dr. - - - 4.2 ' Bristol St. & Campus Dr. - - 3.5 - Coast Highway & Dover Dr. - - 2.5 3.3 ' Coast Highway & Bayside Dr. - - 1.9 4�9 Coast Highway & Jamburce Rd. 0.6 2.3 ' Coast highway & Newport Center I1r. - 1.4 - 0.8• Coast Highway & Mac Arthur Blvd, 1.9 1.2 1.5 Coast Highway & Marguerite Ave. - - 2.1 1.3 ' Jamboree Rd. & Santa Barbara Dr. 4.2 1.3 - 14.2 Jamboree Rd. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. 0.5 3.0 - 13.4 Jamboree Rd. & Ford Rd. 4,6 3.8 - - Jamboree Rd. & Bristol St. 5.0 1.4 4.0 ' Jamboree Rd. & Bristol St. N. 4.5 1 .0 - - ,iamboreo Rd. & Mac Arthur Blvd. 3.5 1 .0 2.9 1 .0 ' Mac Arthur Illvd. & San Joaquin Illlls Rd. 1 . 1 2.5 9.4 1 .6 Mac Arthur Blvd. & Ford Rd. 5.4 2.2 Bristol St. N. & Birch SLreet - - - 4. 7 1 1 ' Table 1 2.5 HOUR TRIP GENERATION ' Civic Plaza ' LAND USE RATE VOLUW' IN OUT IN OUT ' Office (234,706 SF) 1.2 3.4 280 800 Restaurant ( 8,000 SF) 11.3 7.7 90 60 Library (14,000 SF) 1.0 1.0 10 10 ' Museum (10,000 SF) 1.0 1.0 10 10 Totals 300 820 ' Tablu 2 PM PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION Clvlc• Plaza LAND USI•; RATP, VOLUME* ' IN OUT 1N 0111• office (234,706 SF) 0.6 1.7 140 400 ' Restaurant (8,000 SF) 5.0 3.0 40 20 Library (14,000 SF) 1 .0 1.0 10 to ' Museum (10,000 SF) 1.0 1.0 10 10 Totals 160 420 1 FIGURE I 1 1 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION 1 1 40 lO 9. �$ v 1 N sets,t c 10)a 5 /. a J� 257. Ro, 357. Foao 1 1 10 O toSAUT e4R8gR 3s% SAS J�auru kr♦ Cs Ro 1 w y 25% 1 25 1 QPG�F�G COAST 11IGHWA-( H /0% 1 WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES 1 ' 1 -5- ' Review of Table 3 indicates that 15 of the 17 intersections exceed the maximum two percent on at least one approach and must be considered critical. ANALYSIS ' The 15 intersections identified in the previous section were further examined to determine potential impacts. Utilizing "Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis" ' forms from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance procedure, ICU values were determined including traffic increases due to regional growth and previously approved projects. The ICU calculations also considered circulation system improvements required' ' of previously approved projects and improvements recommended to be accomplished by the subject project. These improvements are discussed in the next section of the ' report. The individual analysis sheets are contained in Appendix B and summarized in Table 4. Review of Table 4 indicates that two intersections are projected to ' exceed the 0.90 ECU value in 1982. These are Bristol Street North and Birch Street and 'Jamboree Road and Mac Arthur Boulevard. All other intersections are below ' the 0.90 level. Since City Council ResolutLon Number 9422 allows 30 percent of development without improvement phasing, the 14 critical intersections were also analyzed with '10 percent of the remaining development. These data are included in Appendix C and ' summarized in Table 4. No project related improvements were considered in these analyses. For these conditions, three intersections would have 1CU values greater ' than 0.90: Bristol Street North and Birch Street Jamboree Road, and Mac Arthur Boulevard, and Mac Arthur Boulevard and Ford Road. ' As indicated in the precceding paragraphs, two intersections have ICU values greater than 0.90 at full development and three at 30 percent development. It ' should be noted that these intersections have excessive ICU values without the project and that the project related improvements reduce all three ICU values. ' The three intersections arc discussed in the following paragraphs. Bristol Street North and Birch Street. Review of Table 4 and Lhe. related ' streets in'Appendices B and C indicates that the recommended project related improvements would reduce the ICU value at this intersection from 3 .2199 ' to 0.9751 in 3.982. 11 also indicates that the ICU value in 1.981 would be 1.2186. The project and its related improvements would improve the operation of this intersection although it would exceed 0.90. ■ _fi_, Table 4 ' ICU SUMMARY CIVIC PLAZA INTERSECTION EXISTING: EXLSTIN(1 + ExisCLNC + RXIS'CIN( +(2) ' RECLONAL + RECLONAL + RFCIONAL + COMMITTED C0P11I171-'.D+ COMMITTED+ 30% PROJECT PROJECT 1981 _ 1981 1982 ' Bristol St. N. & Campus Dr. 0.9262 0.8950 _ 0.8950^ 0.8968 Bristol St. & Campus .Dr. 0.7650 0.6669 0.6694 0.6781 ' Coast Highway & Dover Dr. 0.9510 0.6788 0.6854 0.7017 Coast Highway & Bayside Dr, 0.8540 0.7753 0.7820 0.7982 ' Coast Highway & Jamboree Rd. •0.9140 0.8337 0.8381 0.8497 Coast Highway & Margarite Ave. 0.7957 0.8531 0.8572 0.869.1 ' Jamboree Rd. & Santa Barbara Dr. 0.5745 0.6341 0.6404 0.6543 Jamboree Rd. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. 0. 7375 0.6966 0.6981 .0.7012 Jamboree Rd. & Ford Rd. 0.9128 0.7877 0.7971 0.8191 ' Jamboree Rd. & Bristol St. 0.6381 0.7446 0.7547 0.7792 Jamboree Rd. & Bristol St. N. 0.8781 0.8298 0.8378 0.8563 ' Jamboree Rd. & Mac Arthur Blvd. 0.9934 1.1051 1.1095 1.0003 Mac Arthur Blvd.' & San Joaquin Hills Rd. 0.7664 0.8333 0.8457 0.'8757 ' Mac Arthur Blvd. & Ford Rd. 1. 1631 0.8947 0.9047 0.8103 Bristol St . N. & Birch St. 0.8569 1.2186 1 .2257 0.9751 ' (1) No Project Related Improvements are Considered in Calculations. (2) Project Related Improvements are Included. 1 a -7- ' Jamboree Road and Mac Arthur Boulevard The ICU values at this intersection increase 0.0044 in 1981 as a result of the project. This increase would not be perceptible to drivers utilizing the ' intersection. Improvement of the intersection by the addition of a third south- bound through lane has been proposed in order to reduce these ICU values. tThis improvement results in an ICU value of 1.0003 with the full project in 1982. While this value is greater than 0.90, it is less than the ICU value of ' 1.1095 that would occur without this project related improvement. This indicatess that conditons would improve with the proposed improvements and project. ' Mac Arthur Boulevard and Ford Road The current ICU value at this intersection is 1.1631 which will be reduced by ' the construction now underway. In 1981, without the subject project,. the ICU value would be 0.8947. This would increase to 0.9047 with 30 percent'of the project. The conversation of the northbound right turn Lane to an optional ' through- or right turn lane will reduce the ICU level Lo 0.8103 with the full ' project. This project related -improvement would result in a future ICU value which is both less than 0.90 and below the current level. ' CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENT NEEDS The ICU analyses for the project included some circulation system improvements. ' Some of these improvements are currently required as part of approved projects or planned as governmental projects, while others would be required of 'this project. ' The improvements are summarized in Table 5 and illustrated in Figures 2 through 73. In accordance with City Policy, only 70 percent of the increased capacity ' due to project related improvements has been utilized in the analysis. ' TABLE 5 SUIMIARY OR RECOMMENDED SYSTEM DIPROVEMI•:NTS Civic Plaza ' INTERSECTION SYSTEM CMIIROVIiMENT; Bristol SLreuL North/ Add suulhbuund righL turn ].Inc. ' Campus Drive Required by previously approved pro- ject. See Figure 2. ' Bristol Street/Campus Drive Add southbound through lane. See Figure 3. Required by previously ' approved project. Coast Highway/8aysidu Drive Add rnstbound Lhrough lnne. 1 Add wesl.hound through lauu. 1 Callrans Project. See Figure 5. 1 Coast Highway/Jamboree Road Add westbound Lhrough and west- bound lerL turn lanes. Required 1 by previously approved pro jeCL. lice Figure 6. 1 Jamboree Road/Santa Barbara Drive Add northbound through lane. Add southbound left turn lane. 1 Add westbound lane. Required by previously approved', pro•ject. See Figure 7. 1 Jamboree Road/San Joaquin Add northbound through lane. 1 Hills Road Convert westbound through -lane to optional through plus left. Required by previously approved 1 project. See Figure 8. 1 Jamboree Road/LastblufF Drive- Convert northbound and south- Ford Road bound right turn lanes to optional rhroui;h plus right. 1 Add eastbound throey.h lane. Convert westbound through lane Lo ]ill'( Lure lanr. Re- fQuirad by previously appnrved 1)rojacL . 1 See Figure 9. 1 1 1 ;o -9- 1 1 Coast Highway/Dover Drive Add southbound lent Luru l.uiv. Add southbound right turn lane. Add eastbound left' lanc. Add eastbound through lane. Add westbound ril;ht turn 'lame. 1 Ci.Ly/Cal'1'rans IIrojacL. See Figure 4. 1 Bristol Street North/Jamboree Road Convert northbound through lane 1 to northbound left turn lane. Required by previously approved 1 project. See Figure 10. 1 Jamboree Road/Mac Arthur Boulevard Add northbound right turn lane. Required by previously approved 1 project. Add southbound through lane Convert northbound right turn lane 1 to optional. through or r.i};hL turn and add southbound through Pane. 1 Estimated Cost: $4000.00 See Figure 11. 1 Mac Arthur Boulevard/Ford Road Add northbound left •and right turn lanes, southbound left. turn lane 1 and eastbound left turn lane. City of Newport Beach project 1 under construction. Convert northbound right. turn Lino 1 to optional through or right turn lane Estimated Cost: $ 12,000.00 1 See Figure 12. Bristol Street North/Birch Street Add southbound right turn lane. 1 Estimated cost: $1,000 See Figure 3.3. 1 . -10- SUMMARY The potential traffic impacts of the proposed' Civic Plaza project have been analyzed t at 30 percent of development and at full. development. Both analyses have indicated that intersections would have ICU values greater 01mi 0.90. Recommended improve- ' menu aL the BristoL SLreet North/Birch SLreeL , Jamboree Road/Mac ArLhUi' Boulevard and Mac Arthur Boulevard/Ford Road intersections result in reduced ICU values with ' the project. Although the Jamboree/Mac Arthur and Bristol Street North/Birch Street intersections would be over 0.90, they would be below the' ICU level without the project related improvements. The Mac Arthur/Ford intersection would be below the 0.90 level. It can be concluded that the project and associated improvements would not make worse any intersections and would .improve three intersection's. ' We trust that this analysis will be of assistance to you and the City of Newport ' Beach. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact US. Respectfully submitted, ' WESTON PRINL:L.E AND ASSOCIATES Weston S. Pringle, P.E. WSP:RS:cd ' #5452 t 1 1 II I I1 ADD RIGHT TURN LANE 1 1> II NOT TO SCALE 1 BRISTOL ` STREET NORTH 1 cn a 1 1 RECOMMENDED LANE CONFIGURATION AT INTERSECTION OF 1 BRISTOL STREET NORTH/CAMPUS DRIVE � 1 WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE 2 1 n :J cn 1 , tI Itl:IS'f01. S'I RI':I{'1 NOR 11 1 y � tt 1 G N� ADD THROUGH LANs 1 I I NoT To SCALE, BRISTOL STREET i 1 _ 1 ADD THROUGH LANE 7 1 1 1 RECOMMENDED LANE CONFIGURATION INTERSECTION OF 1 C91PUS DRIVE-IRVINE AVENUE/BRISTOL STREET 1 1 WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE 3 1 � ADD LEFT TURN I I 1 j LANE Ft c ADD RIGHT TURN ADD RIGHT TURN 1 LANE LANE 1 COAST 1 ! t I HIGHWAY 1 ADD LEFT TURN I 1 TT LANE 1 ADD* THROUGH LANE I I w I w 1 > I I 0 1 1 NOT TO SCALE 1 RECOMMENDED_LANE CONFIGURATION AT INTERSECTION OF 1 COAST HIGHWAY / DOVER DRIVE 1 . 1 WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE 4 1 1 I 1 ADD THROUGH LANE WITH BRIDGE WIDENING 1 1 I ADD THROUGH LANE ' COAST I HIGHWAY 1 ADD THROUGH LANE \ O� 1 � o 1 \ NOT TO scALE 1 1 _RECOMMENDED LANE CONFIGURATION_ AT INTERSECTION OF 1 COAST_ HIGHWAY / BAYSIDE DRI VE 1 1 WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE ' 5 1 . 1 I G I I o i I I 1 I I ADD 'I'HRnUGiI LANs. f I i 1 AhD THROUGH LANE I I coAF9' IMMINAY s r- 1 i ADD LEFT TURN LANL•' 1 I I i 1 �ypZ 'to SGP I 1 I I I 1 RECOMMENDED LANE CONFIGURATION INTERSECTION OF 1 COAST HIGHWAY/JAMBOREE ROAD 1 1 WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE 6 1 1 � . 1 ADD LEFT TURN LANE 1 ADD RIGHT TURN LANE 1 } 1 f ANTA BARBARA DRIVE D THROUGH LANE w � � a O 1 NOT TO SCALE m Q 1 1 RECOMMENDED LANE CONFIGURATION 1 AT INTERSECTION OF JAMBOREE ROAD / SANTA BARBARA DRIVE 1 1 WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE 7 i . 1 1 � cr .t0 0� r CONVERT TIIROLI(;H LANr 1 w I TO OP1'TONAT, 'I'IIROUGkI ANll ao Llil'I' 'I'111iN T.:\NF. a' I jw TIT-- TO IIT R 1 MIX II � ADD 1;{II:O1TII T,ANF. 1 1 RECOMMENDED LANE CONFIGURATION 1 INTERSECTION OF JAMBOREE ROAD/SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD 1 . 1 1 ' 1 WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE 8 CONVERT RIGHT TURN TAKE- / TO OPTTONAL TIMOUGH AM) 1 RIGHT TURN LAM: 1 I I (aIN:'I:R'f THROUGH LANE 10 LEFT TURN LANE 1 EASTBLUFF DRIVI.- I I ` Form ItOAl) J AN THROHGII' T,AMi 1 aW II I I CONVP (I IiCIlI' ' 1tN LANE TO OPTIONAL THROUGH TURN LANE o I 1 49::-O-N� 1 NOT TO SCALE 1 1 RECOMkNDED LANE CONFIGURATION INTERSECTION OF 1 JAMBOREE ROAD/EASTBLUFF DRIVE-FORD ROAD 1 1 1 WESTON PRINGCE AND 'ASSOCIATES FIGURE 9 ! I I BRISTOI. S I'RRIti I'. NORTH 1 LNG � I I � • . CONVERT THROUGH LANE 1 I I I TO LEFT TURN LANE NOT TO SCALE 1 � � 1 I I ! I BRISTOL STREET 1 I I ( ! f 1 1' 1 1 • RECOMMENDED LANE CONFIGURATION 1 INTERSECTION OF 1 JAMBOREE ROAD/BRISTOL STREET NORTH 1 WESTON PRINGLE RND ASSOCIATES 1 FIGURE 10 v� NO SCALE ADD THROUGH ' LANE ADD THROUGH OR RIGHT / ��► \ \ \ TURN LANE i 0 v RECOMMENDED LANE CONFIGURATION ' AT INTERSECTION OF JAMBOREE ROAD/ MAC ARTHUR BOULEVARD WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE 11 1 ' AE3 I I I I WIDEN TO P LANE TO 2 TRANSITIO I LANE ADD EFT NOT TO SCALE ADD RIGHT LANE FORD ROAD a CONVERT RIGHT TURN LANE TO THROUGH ADD LEFT TURN LANE PLUS. RIGHT I ADD LEFT TURN. ' W I a a I I ' RECOMMENDED LANE CONFIGURATION AY INTERSECTION OF ' •MACARTHUR BOULEVARD / FORD ROAD ' WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE 12 1 ADD RIGHT TURN LANK I 1 � � 1 1 �. ( RlZ IS'fOL S'CRii1;T NOR'f H f�Nr W K 1 F N NOT TO SCAT.13 U H 1 � I 1 ' i . 1 1 RECOMMENDED LANE CONFIGURATION AT INTERSECTION OF 1 BRISTOL STREET NORTH/BIRCH STREET 1 1 FIOUR' E 13 1 WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES W + A r P A WeaW �►uq k Aid AnedaW TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 1 August 14, 1979 ' Mr. Ron Jonas The Irvine Company 550 Newport Center Drive ' Newport Beach, California 92663 Dear Mr. Jonas: ' Enclosed are revised pages for the Civic Plaza Traffic Phasing Study. The revisions cover the intersections of Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills Road ' and Jamboree Road and Mac Arthur Boulevard. In both cases, improvements were indicated by others that are not required by the project and are now not re- quired by others. These improvements were related to the Prudential project which was not approved by the City. ' At Jamboree and San Joaquin Hills Road, the northbound right turn lane is not recommended to be converted to an optional through or right turn lane. This change had no effect upon the ICU calculation. At Jamboree and Mac Arthur, the eastbound right turn lane is not recommended to be converted to an optional ' through or right turn lane. The conversion of the northbound right turn lane to an optional through or right turn is recommended. These changes resulted in ' a lowering of the ICU value at this intersection. ' These revised pages can be inserted into our July 5, 1979 report. If you have any questions, please contact me. ' Respectfully submitted, ' WESTON PRINGLE AND SOCIATES Wes�SPren'gle, P.E. ' WSP:js #5452 2651 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE • SUITE 110 • FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92631 • (714) 871-2931 ' -5- I ' Review of Table 3 indicates that 14 of the 16 intersections exceed the maximum ' two percent on at least one approach and must be considered critical. ' ANALYSIS The 14 intersections identified in the previous section were further examined to ' determine potential impacts. Utilizing "Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis" forms from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance procedure, ICU values were determined ' and include regional growth and approved projects volumes. The ICU's also include improvements required by previously approved projects. 'These. improvements are discussed in the next section. The individual analysis sheets are contained in tAppendix B and summarized in Table 4. Review of Table 4 indicates that two inter- sections are projected to exceed 0.90: Bristol Street North and Campus Drive, and ' Jamboree Road and Mac Arthur Boulevard. All other intersections are below the 0.90 level. ' Since City Council Resolution Number 9422 allows 30 percent of development without ' improvement phasing, the 14 critical intersections were analyzed with existing plus 30 percent of the remaining development-. These data are included in Appendix C and summarized in Table 4. The LCU's for the two intersections or Bristol Street ' North and Campus Drive, and Jamboree Road and Mac Arthur Boulevard still exceed the 0.90 level under these conditions. As indicated in the nrevious paragraphs, two intersections have ICU's that exceed ' 0.90 whether they are analyzed with 30' percent of the project development or with full development. It should also be noted that both of these intersections have ICU values greater than 0.90 without development of Civic Plaza. These two inter- sections are discussed in the following paragraphs. ' Bristol 4trvet North and Campus 0rive . 1:eview of Table 4 and the related Sheets in Appendices B and C indicates that the project would have no impact upon the ICU values at this intersection. Since project volumes are added to non-critical movements, the ICU values are equivalent for both cases with and without the project. Jamboree Road and Mac Arthur Boulevard The ICU values at this intersection increase 0.0052 in 1981 as a result of ' the project. This increase would not be perceptible to drivers utilizing the intersection. In addition, with observed driver ' -6- Table 4 ' ICU SUMMARY Civic Plaza (1) (1) (2) INTERSECTION EXISTING EXISTING + EXISTING + EXISTING + ' REGIONAL + REGIONAL + REGIONAL + COMMITTED COMMITTED+ COMMITTED+ 30% PROJECT PROJECT 1981 1981 1982, Bristol St. N. & Campus Dr. 0.9898 0.9256 0.9256 0.9279 Bristol St. & Campus Dr. 0.72 0.6467 0.6498 0.6613 'Coast Highway & Dover Dr. 0.99 0.6556 0.6623 0.6788 Coast Highway & Bayside Dr. 0.89 0.8051 0.8118 0.8282 toast Highway & Jamboree Rd. 0.83 0,7644 0.7644 0.7650 Coast Highway & Marguerite Ave. 0.68 0,7425 0.7466 0.756d Jamboree Rd. & Santa Barbara Dr. 0.53 0.6171 0.6233 0.6373 �amboree Rd. & San Joaquin Hills 'Rd. 0.64 0,6473 0.6487 0.6522 Jamboree Rd. & Ford Rd. 0.83 0.7449 0,7517 0.7739 'Jamboree Rd. & Bristol St. 0.54 0,7944 0.8032 0.8247 Jamboree Rd. & Bristol St. N. 0.72 0,8219 0.8298 0.8489 �amboree Rd. & Mac Arthur Blvd. 0.85 0.9326 0.9378 0.9284 Mac Arthur Blvd. & *San Joaquin Hills Rd. 0..72 0.7945 0,8070 0.8368 rac Arthur Blvd. & Ford Rd. 1.01 0,8653 0.8753 0.8997 1(1) No Project Related Improvements are Considered in Calculations. '(2) Project Related Improvements are Included. ' characteristics in the area, the intersection would operate satisfactorily. ' Observations have indicated that, as intersections near capacity, the capacity is increased and yellow or lost time decreased. Construction of the Corona Del Mar Freeway and San Joaquin corridor would also result in improved conditions. ' CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENT NEEDS The ICU analyses for the project included some circulation system improvements. All of these improvments are currently rvquirud as par,, of approved projects or planned as governmental projects. The improvemenLs are summarized in Table 5 and Illustrated in Figures 2 through 13. Table 5 ' SUM1iARY OF RECOMMENDED SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS Civic Plaza ' INTERSECTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS Bristol Street North/ Add southbound through lane. Re- Campus Drive quired by previously approved pro- ject. See Figure 2. ' Bristol Street/Campus Drive Add southbound through lane. See Figure 3. Required by previously ' approved project. Coast Highway/Dover Drive Add southbound left turn lane. ' Add southbound right turn lane. Add eastbound left turn lane. ' Add eastbound optional through or right turn 'lane. Add westbound right turn lane. City/CalTrans Project . ' Sec Figure 4. Coast Highway/Bayside Drive Add eastbound through lane. Add westbound optional through or right turn lane. 1 ' - 8 - CalTrans Project. ' See Figure 5. Coast Highway/Jamboree Road Add westbound through and west- bound left turn lanes. Required by previously approved project. See Figure 6. ' Jamboree Road/Santa Barbara Drive Add northbound through lane. Add southbound left turn lane. Add westbound lane. Required by previously approved project, ' See Figure 7. Jamboree Road/San Joaquin Add northbound through lane. ' llills Road Convert westbound through lane to optional through plus left•. ' Required by previously approved project. ' See Figure S. ' Jamboree Road/EastbluEf Drive- Convert northbound and south- Ford Road bound right turn lanes to optional through plus right. ' Add eastbound through lane. Convert westbound through ' lane to left turn lane. Re- Quired by previously approved ' prujeeL. See Figure 9. ' Bristol Street/Jamboree Road Convert northbound through lane to northbound left turn lane. ' Required by previously approved project. ' See Figure 10. - 9 - ' Bristol Street North/Jamboree Road Convert northbound through lane to northbound left turn lane. ' Required by previously approved 1)ro it'ci . See Figure 11. Jamboree Road/Mac Arthur Boulevard Add northbound right turn lane. Required by previously approved project. ' Convert northbound right turn lane to optional through or right and ' add southbound through lane. Estimated Cost: $2,000.00 See Figure 12. Mac Arthur• Boulevard/Ford Road Add northbound left and right turn lanes, southbound left turn lane and eastbound left turn lane. City' City of Newport Beach project to be constructed 1979-80. See Figure 13. ' SUMMARY The ootential- impact of the proposed Civic Plaza site has been analyzed at 30 percent ' of development and at full development in 1982. . Both analyses have indicated that two intersections would have ICU's greater titan 0.90. For one intersection, the ' analysis indicates that with the project and improvements from approved projects, the ICU would be less than the existing ICU. It would also be equal to the 1981 and 1987 ICU without the project-. Conversely, for the other intersection, the analysis ' indicates that the 1982 ICU would be more than the ICU without the project although , e would still be ,greater than 0.90. 1 1 1 � so�ti� 1 .�o o 1 � CONVERT THROUGH LANE w I TO OPTIONAL THROUGH AND Wx p LEFT TURN LANE ff II SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD ~- r 1 f 1 I � t11 � r 1 ADD THROUGH LANE 1 1 1 RECOMMI;NUhD CONRICURATION AT INTERSECTION OF JAMBmEE ROAD/SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD 1 ' 1 1 1 WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE 8 1 1 \ \ \ NOT TO SCC ADD THROUGH LANE 1 ADD THROUGH OR / \ RIGUT TURN LANE 1 1 . 1 RECOMMENDED LANE CONFIGURATION AT INTERSECTION OF 1 JAMBOREE ROAD /MAC ARTHUR BOULEVARD 1 1 FIGURE 12 WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES 1 vlt .' I I ON CAPACITY UTILUATION ANALYSIS [r:t,r.rsnction �Gi['h �D/2�e1�OGlc� � M it�aM_ I , r.us �OCA, (Existing Traffic Voluggs Based on Average 17i ter ring 19/. MovcvRnt EEI STING Ca PPGNGSSd f EXIST f EXIST REGIONAL COM PROJECTED PROJECTEDV/CRatio PROJECT PROV/C ka7 Lanes Cal) banes C:P I PA HR II lyC GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ratio Volume V/C katl�r Vol, ItaLIo VOL. VOL. W/o Pro,lect NL __i-U I' I D.OB P d.o6j8 ' NT i 3�yBoo /1- NR foo— ST IIa3 — o. alga 10 0. 69/ SL I 36i9I n.3B! SR a33 c. iysd Z94 , EL i 030 7S' ' 0.032 ' ,l //�� 27 OZ7. ER _ _I�. O — Wl I 00 _ (3)SBa�II_ 1 . —_ _°2G !>Gl'L�/�` a9s'yo — I I T-4\ O �qa ._- ' YELLO6TIME __— d./bbo E%ISTISG 11-'EQSECTION CAPACITf UTIC17AMN ' EY ST11.6 FLU: CCMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GRONPI M,rPROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS LC.0 d•6S/'� E/:STINS PLJS COfMITTEO PI LS RE610NAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. tProjected I lue ;�r•oja'ct t.nlific I .C.I1. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' Projected plu., proJec.t trr:ffic I;C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Projected Pius pt•nject. Lratfic I .C.U. with systems improvements will be less than nr equal to 0.90 ' rr".Lr1I11, Iru: U' 'i 1 :'ri` lllipr'UNCIIIC'IrL: /. Ada hoyA bound 4-hr,vu h lane . (o) Z Co>lvea + wea+bowr>J fhro�y�i lava � 0 ap+(arla► �hrou�h p(Lts le�+. (o) a/l/J,�Nniy R INIERSt '' 110N CAPACITY 11111.I1AHON ANALYSIS Inrers.ection �V ><h (AY�VC'1 (Existing Traffic Volurile% Based on AverayL Winter prTng 197_ EXISTING Pvt.,OSEJ EXIST EXIST REGIONAL COMMITTED PROJECTED PROJECT PROJECT Moveent Lanes Cap .,ne: rro pT: HR Y/C GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ratio Volume Y/C Ratio Yol. tt Ratio VOL. VOL. w/o Protect I Vol —•t---I /' NL I ko ' NT y8cr� c I ' 3 0.7,059 ZO NR • _ _ I�T60 o•/3B/ 1 SL SR 3)VL?VP- a I �3 0.2775-' 10 O. /B71 L _ _ _— i t Le- aB 6i 0.32B/ 9 E 0.3Y25 * ' ET --- I _ 02 3 . v. zzSo o2a l0.zz96 ER 5 . ! 19 _ Wl 1 ____ 5 D 3i�q a•3zoo ' WT I I OQ- D• ZoS(�` o.Zo7 11` WR 10 _ — YEu�•nr.E O•/ow � ��/tlo,� �. EXISTING :hTEoSECTIOM CAPACITY UTil 1;AT ION ' E1ISTi4G PLUS COMITTED PI US REGIONALa'AUdlll W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. Et;STING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS 1i161OHAL S/N�OWTH PIUS PROJECT I.C.U. G.92S ill ' (1� I✓IGC �Ji/Auv if nn��/•�oui i• Projected plus projrct Lraffic I .C.II. will be less than or equal ' to 0.90 ® Projected plus protect traffic I:C.I1. will be greater than 0.90 ' Projected nlu:. p'•u,i"O 11"ItfiC I .C.U. with .y .LaDti improvemvilt.", will be less ttwo n:• rqudl to 0.90 :r• f.rit)I•liu UI r .. 41 III':•I ,iVE?III(?MIL: Add noe4bouvid -,,41pou'7 1 1 , C.'iItIN CAPACITY UTILIZA1ION ANALYSIS ?m:or section a V4 (I) (Existing Iralf+r• Voltinie% Based on Average Winter pring lv/ I XI STING—r ` IAIST REGIONAL- COIMMILO PROJII ILO PROJECT DRltnY/l Ratio Mn.trar•t Lanes Cap • ,nc•, •„ { +h; HR V/C GROWTH PRWLCT Y/C Ratio Volume Vnl. Ratio VOL. VOL. Yal Project NL kOI ' NT i.�3 � 3 NR I6 lboo • I 60 O. 13 6 0.1 SL -- -- r13 p o. oa It' o.� ST 3 480o i- 'a 1 14-3 0.1850 3 0.185b SR W + 62 ' E I -1-70.3281 7 q.33 - --__.__' �-- 2 193 ZzSo�` 7 o. z26 ET ER •5 . i _� NL -t-�-- --,� 57 0.3144 3 O. -L ' ' WT — --f, po, 102 D. 3 0.20 3 b'R — o.l000�k o•loon � YE LLOWT IME 10 LXISTI4G INTERSECTION CAPACITY UT II I;tT IOn —177 ' WST i•,G i:LS COMMITTED PI LIS RECIO4AL GROWTH W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.0 0 3 Z Fr:STI4G PLJS COMMITTED PLUS RFGI^NAI GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. B7P7 ' (1) MacAr4kur is noykl sou+41 . Projected p1W. nro,j,+ct. traffic I .C.U. will he less than or equal ' to 0.90 0 Projected 1Tlu', lu•nji.cL t.ratfic 1 .C.11. will he greater than 0.9k) ' ProjecLed M11 . I'V0.1+-0. traffic I .C,II. with •.y••LrnP, iulpruvenu,nL,• will be Ie,.� t.!iol, or e•gual Lo 0.90 ' +,. rrlult^+� �,! , i ••In un:n „vCuu;nl :- - ' I. Add mr4hbound ngti+ turn lane. �o) offRSF T I(1N CAPACITY UTILIIZATION/ ANALYSIS ' Intersection no phI M �10AQk_IJQ' I;%u J Fof�� (Existing Traffic Voollu—'f ss Base oon. verage WTnter ring 197� EXISTING rPRUPOSEU I EXIST 1 EXIST REGIONAL C"ITTED PROJECTED PROJECT PRWECI Movcrrcnt Lanes Cap 0,es Cap 1 PK HR V/C GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ratio Volume V/C Ratio ' I Vol. lwI10 VOL. VOL. w/o Project Vol. NL I (115 D_Z 19 0.0838* 0.9836 ' NT_ 13J`leov / 217 0•0312 O.Zj/Z NR t) 1a3 4- 0. Ml 3 ' SL —� _ 6. 15 7 Zv 0.I609 STpa) 00 _ �_( l I81 O.38f6ak D. I (o ' SR - °�33 b. IQSb b EL0O•D325-k D•O 'ET ER {- 3 WL I 00 _4Roo[ 1 26 0 * -7 0.0569 WT p {{190 •l� WR 9 a — 1ELLOWTIME 6•1000 0.1000 EXISTI4G INTERSEM ON CAPACITY UTILIZATION ' f.X 15T i:w ;LUS COMITTED PLUS RLGIONAI_GROWTH W,/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS 17 O.6 . EX!SIINS NUS EOMIITTED PIU5 RfGl11NAi GpOWTH Pi U!. PROECT I.C.U. p ' Projected plus uroject traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal ' to 0.90 El Projected plu_, wl•u,)(!Lt traffic I•.C.U. will be greater than U.9(1 ' © Projected P1uS 1)v'OJQC1 l,l•atfic I .C.U. with s•yStelnS improvements will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' ',�-.Cripl, ir�': I,! •. r• ttrm i;ni,ruvenlent:- - - - - - - - - Add vior4bouvid +hrovjh lane. 6)) ' � . COMIQr+ We-& l bound fh, 'v lake -6 op+io>7ct1 4hroujh plus lef4. Co) W + 6b 1 ' P A Weo�o�,�c P► MC# and .boo daW TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 1 August 14, 1979 1 Mr. Ron Jonas The Irvine Company 550 Newport Center Drive 1 Newport Beach, California 92663 Dear Mr. Jonas: 1 Enclosed are revised pages for the Civic Plaza Traffic Phasing Study. The revisions cover the intersections of Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills Road 1 and Jamboree Road and Mac Arthur Boulevard. In both cases, improvements were indicated by others that are not required by the project and are now not re- quired by others. These improvements were related to the Prudential project which was not approved by the City. 1 At Jamboree and San Joaquin Hills Road, the northbound right turn lane is not recommended to be converted to an optional through or right turn lane. This 1 change had no effect upon the ICU calculation. At Jamboree and Mac Arthur, the eastbound right turn lane is not recommended to be converted to an optional 1 through or right turn lane. The conversion of the northbound right turn lane to an optional through or right turn is recommended. These changes resulted in 1 a lowering of the ICU value at this intersection. 1 These revised pages can be inserted into our July 5, 1979 report. If you have any questions, please contact me. 1 Respectfully submitted, 1 �W1ESSTON PRINNGLE AND ASSOCIATES 1 Weston S. Pr ngle, P.E. WSP: js #5452 1 1 1 2651 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE • SUITE 110 • FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92631 • (714) 671-2931 ' -5- L Review of Table 3 indicates that 14 of the 16 intersections exceed the maximum ' two percent on at least one approach and must- be considered critical. ' ANALYSIS The 14 intersections identified in the previous section were further examined to ' determine potential impacts. Utilizing "Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis" forms from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance procedure, ICU values were determined and include regional growth and approved projects volumes. The ICU's also include improvements required by previously approved projects. These improvement's are discussed in the next section. The individual analysis sheets are contained in ' Appendix B and summarized in Table 4. Review of 'Cable 4 indicates that two inter- sections are projected to exceed 0.90: Bristol Street North and Campus Drive, and Jamboree Road and Mac Arthur Boulevard. All other intersections are below the 0.90 level. Since City Council Resolution Number 9422 allows 30 percent of development without ' improvement phasing, the 14 critical intersections were analyzed with existing plus 30 percent of the remaining, development. These data are included in Appendix C and summarized in 'fable 4. The CCU's for the two intersections or Bristol Street North and Campus Drive, and Jamboree Road and Mac Arthur Boulevard still exceed the 0.90 level under these conditions. As indicated in the nrevious paragraphs, two intersections have ICU's that exceed ' 0.90 whether they are analyzed with 30 percent of the project development or with full develonment. It should also be noted thdt* both of these intersections have ICU values greater than 0.90 without development of Civic Plaza. These two inter- sections are discussed in the following; paragraphs. ' ISristol Strecl North and (M is .)rive Review of Table 4 and the related Sheets in Appendices U and C indicates ' that the: project would have no impact upon the ICI. values at this intersection. Since project volumes are added to non-critical movements, the ICU values are ' equivalent for both cases with and without the project. Jamboree Road and Mac Arthur Boulevard The ICU values at this intersection increase 0.0052 in 1981 as a result of the project. This increase would be perceptible to drivers utilizing the 1 not ' intersection. In addition, with observed driver ' -6- Table 4 ' ICU SUMMARY Civic Plaza (1) (1) (2) INTERSECTION EXISTING EXISTING + EXISTING + EXISTING + REGIONAL + REGIONAL + REGIONAL + COMMITTED COMMITTED+ COMMITTED+ 30% PROJECT PROJECT 1981 1981 1982• Bristol St. N. & Campus Dr. 0.9898 0,9256 0.9256 0.9279 Bristol St. & Campus Dr. 0.72 0.6467 0.6498 0.6613 ,Coast Highway & Dover Dr. 0.99 0.6556 0.6623 0.6788 Coast Highway & Bayside Dr. 0.89 0.8051 0.8118 0.8282 oast Highway & Jamboree Rd, 0.83 0.7644 0.7644 0.7650 Coast Highway & Marguerite Ave. 0.68 0.7425 0,7466 0.7566 amboree Rd. & Santa Barbara Dr. 0.53 0.6171 0.6233 0.6373 jamboree Rd. & San Joaquin ]Hills Rd. 0.64 0,6473 0.6487 0.6522 tamboree Rd. & Ford Rd. 0.83 0.7449 0,7517 0.7739 amboree Rd. & Bristol St, 0.54 0,7944 0.8032 0.8247 Jamboree Rd. & Bristol St, N. 0.72 0,8219 0,8298 0.8489 ,Jamboree Rd. & Mac Arthur Blvd, 0:85 0. 9326 0.9378 0.9284 Mac Arthur Blvd. & 'San Joaquin Hills Rd. 0..72 0.7945 0,8070 0.8368 tac Arthur Blvd. & Ford Rd. 1.01 0,8653 0,8753 0.8997 '(1) No Project Related Improvements are Considered in Calculations. �(2) Project Related Improvements are Included. 1 ' characteristics in the area, the intersection would operate satisfactorily. ' Observations have indicated that, as intersections near capacity, the capacity is increased and yellow or lost time decreased. Construction of the Corona Del Mar Freeway and San Joaquin corridor would also result in improved conditions. ' CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENT NEEDS The ICU analyses for the project included some circulation system improvements. All of these improvuunits are curr en, l}• required .is pare of approved projects or planned as governmental projects. 'flee improvements are summarized in 'Cable 5 and illustrated in Figures 2 through 13. Table 5 ' SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS Civic Plaza INTERSECTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS Bristol Street North/ Add southbound through lane. Re- Campus Drive quired by previously approved pro- ject. See Figure 2. Bristol Street/Campus Drive Add southbound through lane. See Figure 3. Required by previously approved project. Coast Highway/Dover Drive Add southbound left turn lane. Add southbound right turn lane. Add eastbound left turn lane. ' Add eastbound optional through or right turn lane. Add westbound right- turn lane. CiLy/CalTrans Project. 1 See Figure 4. Coast Highway/Bayside Drive Add eastbound through lane. Add westbound optional through or right turn lane. 1 - 8 CalTrans Project. See Figure 5. Coast Highway/Jamboree Road Add westbound through and west- bound left turn lanes. Required by previously approved project. ' See Figure 6. Jamboree Road/Santa Barbara Drive Add northbound through lane. ' Add southbound left turn lane. Add westbound lane. Required by previously approved project, ' See Figure 7. ' Jamboree Road/San Joaquin Add northbound through lane. Bills Road Convert westbound through lane to optional through plus left-. Required by previously approved project. See Figure 8. Jamboree Road/Gastbluff Drive- Convert- northbound and south- Ford Road bound right turn lanes to ' optional through plus right. Add eastbound through lane. Convert westbound through ' lane to left turn lane. Re- Quirvd by previously approved ' project. See Figure 9. ' Bristol Street/.jamboree Road' Convert• northbound through lane. ' to northbound left turn lane. Required by previously approved project. ' See Figure 10. - 9 - ' Bristol Street North/Jamboree Road Convert northbound through lane to northbound left turn lane. ' Required by previously approved prujccl . See Figure 11. Jamboree Road/Ma6 Arthur Boulevard Add northbound right turn lane. Required by previously approved project. Convert northbound right turn lane to optional through or right and ' add southbound through lane. Estimated Cost: $2,000.00 See Figure 12. 1 Mac Arthur- Boulevard/Ford Road Add northbound left and right turn lanes, southbound left turn lane and eastbound left turn lane. ' City of Newport Beach project to be constructed 1979-80. See Figure 13. SUMMARY The potential- impact of the proposed Civic Plaza site has been analyzed at 30 percent of development and at full development in 1982. Both analyses have indicated that two intersections would have ICU's greater than 0.90. For one intersection, the analysis indicates Thal with the project and buprovements lrom approved projects, ' the ICU would be less than the existing ICU. It would also be equal to the 1981 and 1989 TO without the project-. Conversely, for the other intersection, the analysis ' indicates that the 1982 ICU would be more than the ICU without the project although e would still be greater than 0.90. 1 4 1 1 � . ��S q 6 1 CONVERT THROUGH LAND: w I TO OPTIONAL THROUGH AND k o LEFT TURN LANE SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAR Kt I � 1 I ADD THROUGH LANE, 1 1 RECOMMPNDEU CONEICURATION AT IN'MRSECTTON OF JAMBOREE ROAD/SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD 1 . 1 1 1 WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE 8 1 i 1 \ \ \ NOT TO SCP ADD THROUGH LANE 1 GPM / / 1 100, / 't 1 / ADD TUROUGH OR / \ RIGIIT TURN LANE 1 . RECOMMENDED LANE CONFIGURATION AT INTERSECTION OF 1 JAMBOREE ROAD /MAC ARTHUR BOULEVARD 1 1 FIGURE 12 WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES ;':1 ; •;ST ' il(r'i CAPACITY UTILI7ATI0"1 ANALYSIS ' lntersnction )OVA l6o/P2"P60-Gd_ ' ' M �IOI�Q�I i .5 r-�LCxl 1 (Existing Traffic Volu gs Based on verage winter ring 191 EXISi1NG PVGNUSEli I EX � EXIST REGIONAL COEM[TTED PROJECTED PROJECT PROJECT Movement Lanes Cal I Lanes CIP j Pl: HIT VIC GROWTH PROJECT VIC Ratio Volume VIC Ratio voI. Hatio VOL. Vol. ,+7o Project NL 1 __. o I a.od e� 0.0�38 NR_ n I 3 f o. oFS; 10 O, a9/ SL _ 6-7 # ST Uo I 36/9l o. 3B/ sR II a33 a/yW/ oivs� EL k l 00 ET _ t7 77 .ozz Wl ' WT p { l) WR ,qa — _ ' YELLO4YIYE p,/,POO Q./000 EXISTISG :N7r"ECTION CAPACITY Ul IL17AIION E/;S.il,G ;.U: COWITTEO PLUS REGI(NAL GROH!H WIPROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.0 O•Fl 7 Jb EIISTING vLUS COMMITTED PLUS PEG!ONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. D•i�SZZ Projected plur proj(-ct tr,Itfic I .C.M. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Projected plu : Ur"Jjet.t tl•i!f•fic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' Projected Pius !r•uiect Lratfic I .C.U. with sysLenls improvements will be less. then nr equal to 0.90 ' '.n• CrTCtL l,pl u! .•! Ir!I� INIp I'UHCHIC'n t: Add h orA bcund 4-h rau j h la,,. (o) ZComerf wes.+bOW4 74A,,ty{� laves aptmEal � hr�uyh pis i��+. (o) liM RSt'A ION CAPACITY 11111.I1.AI ION ANAL YSIS Inrersertionased on 0 �) (Existing irafflc '/olun9e��BBaseaa on verage Winter prTng 197_ MovKer•t EXISTING Ca P✓ne5 -,-, EXIST EXIST REGIONAL PR NETTED PROJECTED PROJECT PROJECT Lanes Cap � i.Jne: •.0 1 G HR l/C GROWTII PROJECT V/C Ratio Yolune V/L Ratio o r Vol. !! Ratio VOL. VOL. w/o Project Vol. NL ' NT yam c 3 I 0,ZoBg 20 a. a NR . — I�I SL t* ST 3)d8ov— a I 4-3 O,Z77s-y 10 0•/871 ot ,. ER ---t3,. ,, . a� O.321�1 l a3yZ5 � ET — � }� _ a 13 v. zzsa �02 o.Z-96 ER Wl Oe O.3ZwT I I I �a O• ZoS6y o,&7 WRQ ' 1ELLOWl'IME _ D./Opfl D /poll LtISTIYG :N',E�ECTION CAPACITY UT111747 1ON I. i CAST i4G PLUS COMMITTED PIUS RMMINALYr_ROdlll W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS L.C.0 , 9- OG EQSTING PLUS C"ITTEO PLUS RIGIONAI RNOrini PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. ' (1) Iewc ,t .7c-�%/Isu�'/• Projected plus {,rojoct Lraffic I .C.U. will ba ICSS than or equal ' to 0.90 ® Projected plus project traffic I:C.l1. will be greater than 0.90 ' Projected tilu:, pru_trCL Irdtric I .C.II, with .y..Lem', improvellwill. • will be 1p5s Ilion n:• equal to 0.90 :r. r,rlptir,r• u� � . . �•i iu•:•r.rocnW:Iit.: - - ' Add n10r+hboumd 7;1",7Li /v/us 1 n� ' 1':.'iION LAPACITY UIILIZAIION ANALYSIS In •r rsaction la 1-4 6ofle� s (Existing } TaiP c Volume Basedon Average Winter JJI I 19T t Xl silNG T 1^LL�r OtilJ i EXl`�I ! LXIST REGIONAL COMIIIItD PRWIL D PRWECT 1'1!!Ag61 Mn.L'aart Lanes Cap ; .ane< . o { ••R HR , V/C GROWTH PRWECT Y/L' Ratio Volume Y/t Ratln 1 Vol. I ItaL10 VOL. VOL. Vol.Project — Vol. NL I? _t_.cX�2 n 4 0. of O.o1SB NT C2)3zoo��� 3 NR • •LI 1600 . I 60 D. 13 6 D.I SL -------�3 .p o. os o.� ST 3 980o i• a 1 14-3 o.i85o 3 o.185b ER uEi _ - - rl, J' a� 17 0.3281 7 0.33 ET _ ` Z 193 zz5o'` 7 0. zzb ER WL 57 6.3144'( 3 O. /63 WT —_-- --i2 . � foe D. 3 O.Zo 63 WR 10 ' VELLOWTIP.E 6.1000 O1� ' 111ITl IG !,j ERSECT10M CAPACIIr U11111MION Ef EST i'.S ',.OS COlMITTED PLUS RECI04AL GROWTH W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS 1." 6, 95 Ft:STEYG P:JS C"ITTED Pt US REr,TCNAI ;ROWTIE PIUS PROJECT I.C.U. 37PJ ' (1) MacAv4hul- is yloY41 /sou+h . Projected olu�. nl•gj„ct. traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal ' to 0.90 © Projected plug, nrnjl:rt L,•affic 1-C.tl. will be tlr•eater than 0.9(l Projected pll im!:,IrE.1 Irlliic I .C.II. wil.h '•y"U'lli , iulpr•ovenH•nl.'. will be le'.c, r.han ,!: otival Lo 0.90 t � • ( rlr�l I•u� rol i I •nl IU�;,1 uV1:IUI;III .- - - - - - _ - - •- _ .. _ mr4hbound riy -knrh lane. Cu) ' 1NTF;6tf,f10N CAPACITY UTiLIZA110NANALYSIfS YJ Intersection nnkhOl2� KOG1d I q-11K (Existing Traffic Vo—lu-i s Based on Average winter/ ring 197 Movtnent CX lST 1NG PROPOSED I EXIST 1 EXIST REGIONAL COMMITTED PROJECTED PROJECT PROJECT lanes Cap Lanes Cap T PR MR i V/C GROMTII PROJECT V/C Ratio Volume V/C katlo ' I Vol. + katio VOL. VOL. w/o Protect Vol. ' NL I __ r 15 0 19 0.o836* O•o836 HR 13)y800 1 / 2f7 0.23/2 O•Z3/Z a _ la3 4- 0, 095X 3 9,0675r ' — r T 0, 7 Zv 0.1bo lL Co `lam / /SI o•38/(0d� 0.381 I -- a33 b_i4 6 EL I 00 Ja 0.0325-k D•o ' # ' ET ER 3 WL i 00 -42 26 * -7 o.C609 k WT Roo I K0 -C WR OIa — 5 )ELLWIME (5 000 EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTIL17AIlON E;;STi!,. FLVS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROVTM W!PROPOSFD IMPROVEMENTS I.C.0 o.6 3 EX:SIIN: PLUS COMMITTED PLUS Rf GIONA1 GROVTM PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. ' Projected plus urojtect traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' Projected Plu_. ProJi?.Lt trOff,C I'-C-U. will be greater than 0.90 ' © Projected plus p+'o,iect t.ratfic I .C.U. wiLh systems filProvements will be less than or oqudl to 0.90 ' - - - ',r.,crtlit,lr,l: c,l Li-u- iDq,rnvemenL. ,odd vlor4bouvld 4-hrot,Ljh lgne• (o) ' 4 , Co)lvQv + Wes+bound fh,o S h We 4D op+imal �hroug,h plus lef4. Cc)) �aJ 1 -H"dm �; A Mai" ? Qe acid Amiaw Cleo TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 7uly 5, 1979 ' Mr. Ron Hendrickson Commercial/Industrial Division 7he •Irvine Company ' 550 Newport Center Drivu NewporL Beach, California 92063 ' Dear 11r. Hendrickson: This letter simunarizes our analysis of� the traffic requirements of Lliv devel-opment of Civic Plaza with respect •ep circulation Lmprovement phasing. The study was conducted to evaluate the circulation needs in response to the Newport Beach City Council Resolution Number 9472 requiring an improvement phasing plan for ' this project. The study was based upon current planning for Civic Plaza and previous traffic studies related to •this project:. Previous studies include the following: ' 1. Newport Center Traffic Study, Phase II, Crommelin-Pringle and Assoc- iates, Inc. 1976. ' 2. Civic Plaza ELR Traffic Analysis, Cronunelin-Pringle•and Associates, Inc. 1975. ' In addition, current traffic -volume data, regional traffic growth data, and committed ' projecLs were provided by the City. ' PROJECT DESCRIPTION Civic Plaza is located within thu. Newport (:enter area aL the southwest corner of ' San Joaquin Hills Road and Santa Crus: Uri V(I. Vuliicul:u• accr•SS will br provided to San Joaquin hills Road, SanLa Cruz Drive, San Ciament.6 Drive and SauLa Barbara Drive. ' The San Joaquin hills Road access is li.mri.ted to rit,I,L turns only. Proposed development includes offic and restaurant uses in addition to the existing art museum and library that is under construction. A total of 234,706 ' 2651 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE • SUITE 110 • FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92631 • (714) 871-2931 -2- square feet of office use is planned along with an 8,000 square' foot restaurant- The library will include 14,000 square feet and a 10,000 square foot expansion of the museum is planned. A theater is alsd proposed at some future date. Since this would t have• a negligible traffic impact during critical hours, it is not included in the analysis. ' TRTP GENERATION For this analysis, estimates were •made of PM peak hour volumes and the 2.5 hour ' peak period. Generation rates and estimated volumes for each use and time period are listed in Tables 1 and 2. The existing art museum building was not included as it is included in existing traffic volume data. These generation rates are those ' utilized in precious studies of this site. TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT The geographic distribution of traffic generated by this development has been dev- eloped in the referenced previous studies. Figure 1 illustrates the traffic dis- tribution that has been utilized for this study. This distribution is for out- bound traffic from the site. Inbound traffic would be 'thc same percentage in the opposite direction. . By applying the distribution percentages to the trip genera= ' tion data in Tables 1 and 2, estimates can be made of traffic volumes from the project at various locations. The distribution in Figure 1 is for outbound traffic which must be reversed for inbound traffic: CRITICAL INTERSECTION INDENTTFTCATION The next step in the analysis was to identify those intersections that could be ' impacted by the project. As a starting point-, the 16 intersections identificated for analysis under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance for this area were examined. For this examination, the 111% Traffic Volume Analysis" forms from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance were utilized. Appondix A contains the data for the individual inter- sections and the results arc summarized in Table 7. The basis for comparison in- cluded existing traffic, regional growth traffic and approved pru•ject traffic. The criteria established by the City Council 'Indicates that any intersection where the project traffic during the 2.6 hour peak exceeds two percent of the existing ' plus regional growth plus approved project traffic must- be analyzed in detail. -3- x Table 1 2.5 HOUR TRIP GENERATION Civic Plaza LAND USE RATE VOLUME ' IN OUT TN OUT Offica (234,706 SF) 1.2 3.4 280 800 Restaurant• ( 8,000 SF) 11.3 7.7 90 60 ' Library (14,000 SF) 1.0 1.0 10 10 Museum (10,000 SF) 1.0 1.0 10 10 Totals 300 820 ' Table 2 PM PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATTON Civic Plaza ' LAND USE RATE VOLUME IN. OUT IN OUT ' Office (234,706 SF) 0.6 1.7 140 400. Restaurant (8,000 SF) 5.0 3.0 40 20 ' Library (14,000 SF) 1 .0 1.0 10 10 Museum (10,000 Sr) 1 .0 1.0 10 10 ' Totals 160 420 x FIGURE I TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION 10 ' N. BRtsra� • BRrs•T-Q .�-( 9�• L 2 O o/ 6010 d °L �d m � ' Q 25'/• Ro 3.5 Fo¢o N V ' 5% 20 25 % SAu-r s ' o 0 6gR8aR 3s�' 4N JOAOUIu Hr�LS RD 1 Lo O Q 25y 5•� of s��. O 0o • Jt •/ • QPG�F�G COAST HIGHWAY{ ag /O 3 7 WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES -4 y • x , ' Table 3 CRITICAL INTERSECTION IDENTIFICATION Civic Plaza ' LOCATION 2.5 HOUR PERCENTAGES 1983 ' NB SB NB NB Bristol St. N. & Campus Dr. 4.6 Bristol St. & Campus Dr. 3.5 - Coast Highway & Dover Dr. = 2.6 3.6 Coast Highway & Bayside Dr. 1.9 4.8 ' Coast Highway & Jamboree Rd. - 6.2 2�1 - Coast Highway & Newport Center Dr. 1.4 0.7 ' Coast Highway & Mac Arthur Blvd. 1.6 1.3 1.1 Coast Highway, & Marguerite Ave. 2.4 1.5 Jamboree Rd. & Santa Barbara Dr. 4.7 1.4 - 6.8 ' Jamboree Rd. & San Joaquin hills Rd. 0.6 3.0 - 13.4 Jamboree Rd. & Ford Rd. . 5.4 3.8 - - ' Jamboree Rd, & Bristol St. 4.7 1.4 4�1 Jamboree Rd. & Bristol St. N. 4.4 1.2 ' Jamboree Rd. & Mac Arthur Blvd. 2.0 1.2 .2.6 1.1 Mac Arthur Blvd. & San Joaquin ]tills Rd. 1.3 2.6 9:1 •1.3 ' Mac Arthur Blvd. & Ford Rd. 5.5 2.1 - - x , Review of Table 3 indicates that 14 of the 16 intersections exceed the maximum two percent on at least one approach and must be considered critical. ANALYSIS The 14 intersections identified in the previous section were further examined to determine potential impacts. Utilizing "Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis" forms from the Traff:ic 'Phasing Ordinance procedure, ICU values were determined and include regional growth and approved projects volumes. The ICU's also include improvements required by previously approved projects. These improvements are discussed in the next section. The individual analysis sheets are contained in Appendix B and summarized in' Table 4. •Review of Table-4 indicates that two inter- sections are projected to exceed 0,90: Bristol Street North and Campus Drive, and Jamboree Road and Mac Arthur Boulevard. All other intersections are below the 0.90 level. Since City Council Resolution Number 9422 allows 30 percent of development without improvement phasing, the '14 critical intersections were analyzed with existing plus 30 percent of the remaining development.' These data are included in Appendix C and summarized in Table 4, The ICU's for the two intersections of Bristol Street North and Campus Drive, and Jamboree Road and Mac Arthur Boulevard still exceed the 0.90 level under these conditions. As indicated in the previous paragraphs, two intersections have ICU's that exceed 0.90 whether they are analyzed with 30 percent: of the project development or with full development. It should also be noted that both of these intersections have ICU values greater than 0.90 without development of Civic Plaza. These two inter- sections are discussed in the following paragraphs. Bristol Street North and Campus Drive Review of 'Cable 4 and Cho related Sheets in Appanclicos IS and C indila(L•s that L•hv project would have no inipacL upuu Lilt' ICII values at Lhis inlorsccriun. Since project- volumes are added to nou-cl'itical muvemants, Lhc• ICII values are equivalent for both cases with and without thO project. Jamboree Road and Mac Arthur Boulevard IThe ICU values at this intersection increase 0.0069 in 1981 and 0.0227 in 1982 as a result of the project. Those• increases would not be perceptible to drivers utilizing the intersection. In addition, with observed driver -6- k ' 1 Table 4 ' ICU SUMMARY Civic Plaza (1) (1) (1) 'INTERSECTION EXISTING EXISTING + EXISTING + EXISTING + REGIONAL + REGIONAL + REGIONAL + COMMITTED COMMITTED+ COMMITTED+ 30% PROJECT PROJECT 1981 1981 1982 Bristol St. N. & Campus'Dr. 0.9898 0,9256 0.9256 0.9279 Bristol St. & Campus Dr. 0.72 0,6467 0,6498 0.6613 'Coast Highway & Dover Dr. 0.99 0.6556 0.6623 O�.6788 Coast Highway & Bayside Dr. 0.89 0.8051 0.8118 0.8282 ,Coast Highway & Jamboree Rd. 0.83 0,7644 0,7644 0.7650 Coast Highway & Marguerite Ave. 0.68 0,7425 0,7466 0.7560 'Jamboree Rd. & Santa Barbara Dr. 0.53 0.6171 0:6233 0.6373 Jamboree Rd. & San Joaquin .Hills •Rd. 0.64 0,6473 0.6487 0.6522 ,Jamboree Rd. & Ford Rd. 0.83 0.7449 0.7517 0.7739 Jamboree Rd. & Bristol St. 0.54 0,7944 0,8032 0.8247 'Jamboree Rd. & Bristol St. N. 0.72 0,8219 0,8298 0.8489 Jamboree Rd. & Mac Arthur Blvd. 0.85 0.9269 0.9338 0.9496 fac Arthur Blvd. & San Joaquin Hills lid. '0.72 0.7945 0,8070 '0.8368 lee Arthur Blvd. & Ford Rd. , 1.01 0,8653 0.8753 0.8997 (1) No Project Related Improvements are Considered in Calculations. ' characteristics in the area, the intersection would operate satisfactorily. observations have indicated that, as intersections near capacity, the capacity is increased and yellow or lost time decreased. Construction of the Corona Del Mar Freeway and San Joaquin corridor would also result in 'improved conditions. ' CIRCUTATION IMPROVEMENT NEEDS The ICU analyses for the project- included some circulation system improvements. ' All of these improvement's are currently required as part of approved projects or planned as governmental projects. The luq>ruvemcrrl•s are suauuarized in Table 5 and ' illustrated in Figures 2 through 13. ' Table 5 ' SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDBD SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS Civic Plaza ' INTERSECTION SyS9'F,M IMPROVEM3NTS Bristol Street North/ Add southbound through lane. Re- Campus Drive quired by previously approved pro- ject. See Figure 2. ' Bristol Street/Campus Drive Add southbound through lane. See Figure 3. Required by previously ' approved project. Coast Highway/Dover Drive Add southbound left turn lane. Add southbound right turn lane. Add eastbound left turn lane. ' Add eastbound optional through or right turn lane. Add west- bound right turn lane. City/CalTrans Project. ' See Figure 4. Coast llighway/Bayside Drive Add eastbound through lane. Add westbound optional through or right turn lane. I ' ' CalTrans Project. See Figure 5. . ' Coast Highway/Jamboree Road Add westbound through and west- bound left turn lanes. Required by previously approved project. See Figure 6. Jamboree Road/Santa Barbara Drive Add northbound through lane. Add southbound' left turn lane. Add westbound lane. Required by ' previously approved project. - See Figure 7. ' Jamboree Road/SanJoaquin Add northbound through lane and ' Hills Road convert right turn lane to opt- ional through or right. Convert westbound left turn lane to optional through plus left. Required by previously approved ' project. Sec Figure 8. ' Jamboree Road/Eastbluff Drive- Convert northbound and south- Ford Road bound right turn lanes to optional through plus right. ' Add eas.tbound through lane. Convert westbound through ' hate to left turn lane.. Re- quircd by previously approved project. See Figure 9, Bristol Street/Jamboree Road Convert northbound through lane to northbound left turn lane. ' Required by previously approved project. See Figure 10. -9- Y � Bristol Street North/Jamboree Road Convert northbound through lane to northbound left turn lane. Required by previously approved project. See Figure 11. Jamboree Road/Mac Arthur. Boulevard Add northbound right turn lane. Convert eastbound right turn lane to optional through or right. Required by previously ' approved project. ' See Figure 12. ' Mac Arthur Boulevard/Ford Road Add northbound left and right turn lanes, southbound left turn lane and eastbound left turn lane. City of Newport •Beach project to be constructed 1979-80. See ' Figure 13. SUMMARY The potential impact of the proposed -Civic Plaza site has been analyzed at 30 percent of development and at full development• in 19.82. Both analyses have indicated that ' two intersections would have ICU's greater, than 0.90. For one intersection, the analysis indicates that with the project and-improvements from approved projects, ' the IOU would be less than the existing ICU. It would also be equal to the 1981 and 1982 ICU without the project. Conversely, for the other intersection, the analysis indicates that the 1982 ICU would be more titan Lilt, exis Ling iCU; however, Lhe Csti- mated 1982 ICU without the project is only slightly less (0.O'227) than with the ' project and is still over 0.90. An optional improvement which would reduce the ICU value at Jamboree and Mae Arthur to less than 0,90 was also examined. Since this improvement wA uld not be required for ultimate conditions, it ao uld be an interim solution. -10- We trust that this analysis will be of assistance to you and the City of Newport Beach. If you have any questions or require additional information, please con- tact us. Respectfully submitted, WGSTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES Weston S, Pringle, WSP:RS:cd #5452 Y ' ' 1 ADD THROUGH LANE 1 I ` NOT TO SCALE 1 BRISTOL STREET-NORTH 1 QI 1 1 RECOMMENDFD LANE CONFIGURATION . A-f INTERSECTION OF BRISTOL STREET NORTH / CAMPUS DRIVE 1 FIGURE 2 1 WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES a H A BRISTOL STREET NORTH 1 f ' yl •. If • ) N ADD THROUGH LANE NOT TO SCALE • { I I ' BRISTOL STREET t t ' ADD THROUGH LANE �i I il ' RECOMMENDED CONFIGURATION AT 'INTERSECTION OF CAMPUS DRIVE-IRVINE AVENUE/BRISTOL ST. ' WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES. FIGURE 3 ADD LEFT TURN I w LANE 1 a 0 ' ADD RIGHT TURN I ADD RIGHT TURN LANE i I LANE ' COAST ` I HIGHWAY ' ADD LEFT Y TURN I t LANE ADD THROU GH LANE ' NOT TO SCALE RECOMMENDED LANE CONFIGURATION AT INTERSECTION OF COAST HIGHWAY / DOVER DRIVE 1 WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE 4 s 1 ADD THROUGH LANE WITH BRIDGE WIDENING JA �, ADD THROUGH LANE COAST I HIGHWAY w ADD THROUGH LANE ' 1 \ O F 1 NOT TO SCALE 1 RECOMMENDED LANE CONFIGURATION 1 AT INTERSECTION OF COAST HIGHWAY / BAYSEDE DRIVE 1 . WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE 5 1 . wood A � I I I � I I Ann THROUGH LANE I ADD THROUGH -LANE I I ' COAST HIGHWAY ADD LEFT TURN LANE zo Sr I I I ' RECOMMENDR) CONFI(:URATtON AT INTIMSI:CTION OF COAST HIGHWAY/SAMBOREE ROAD ' WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE 6 ADD LEFT TURN ' LANE ADD RIGHT TURN LANE I I I r SANTA BARBARA DRIVE oDAD THROUGH LANE ' NOT TO SCALE m � l . ' RECOMMENDED LANE .CONFIGURATION AT INTERSECTION OF JAMBOREE ROAD / S.ANTA BARBARA DRIVE WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES . FIC3URE 7 Solt, ' o � CONVERT LEFT TURN LANE w ( TO OPTIONAL THROUGI{ AND LEFT TURN LANE h ' SAN JOAQUIN IlI•LLS ROAD • 1 111 6 L �- � I CONVERT RIGHT TURN LANE ' I TO OPTIONAL 'THROUGH AND RIGHT T[IRN LANE ADD THROUGH LANE RECOMMENDED CONFIGURATION AT' INTERSECTION OF ' JAMBOREE ROAD/SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD ' WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE 8 CONVERT RIGHT TURN LANE- I I i TO OPTIONAL THROUGH AND RIGHT TURN LANE CONVERT THROUGH LANE, ' TO LEFT TURN LANE EASTBLUFF DRIVE I I ` FORD ROAD T l f t ADD THROUGH LANE I . o I I I CONVERT RIGl1T TURN LANE ' I TO OPTIONAL THROUGH w I AND RIGHT TURN LANE z o N � � I • NOT TO SCALE RECOMMENDED CONFWNIRATION Xr INTERSEC'PTON OE ' JAMBOREE ROAD/EAST BLU 17 F DRIVE-FORD ROAD ' WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE • 9 1 . 1 J I I I I I BRISTOL STREET NORTH 1 � CONVERT THROUGH 1 `N . o I I LANE. TO LEFT TURN x ( LANK w a 1 NOT TO SCALE � m I I I I BRISTOL STREET 1 • J ' I 1 Y 1 CONVERT THROUGH LANE TO LEFT ( . I TURN LANE 1 RECOMMENDED CONFIGURATION AT INTERSECTION OF JAMBOREE ROAD AND BRISTOL STREET 1 . 1 WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE 10 BRISTOL STREET NORTH 1 1 I I CONVERT THROUGH LANE TO LEFT TURN LANE w w 1 NOT TO SCALE 1 � J f I BRISTOL STREET 1 II 1 RECOMMENDED CONFIGURATION AT INTERSECTION OF JAMBOREE ROAD AND BRISTOL STREET NORTH 1 WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE II 1 4 4 ' 1 • . R NOT TO SCAL AD.D RIGHT TURN LANE 1 1 RECOMMENDED LANE CONFIGURATION 1 AT INTERSECTION OF JAMBOREE ROAD /MAC ARTHUR BOULEVARD 1 i FIGURE IZ 1 WESTON, PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES 1 ADD LEFT TURN 1 LANE 1 I NOT TO SCALE 1 FORD ROAD w 1 = ADD RIGHT CADD LEFT TURN LANE TURN LANE----Q- 1 NOTE; 1 ALL IMPROVEMENTS' INCLUDED IN CITY PROJECT 1 RECOMMENDED LANE CONFIGURATION �- AT._INTERSECTION_OF MAC A_RTHUR- BOULEVARD/FORD ROAD WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE 13 -- I APPrNDIX A ' 2.5 HOUR INTERSECTION ANALYSES ' Zd, traffic Volume Analysis intersection Bristol Strey[ ys,rtl1L;M11}11:;-_.D ixt; - 11'vigo Ave. (Existing, Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring :978-1 'hpFrx,e[a E•t .nry PROJ•, •lour - I ApprnvrJ 1 r:ol/'r A'a I Til: of Pru,p•,' n: gin,,•,' i5rht:n. cos r. :x •Inw ke9lnnd I !'rU,1pC(1 'edA •1S Ilrnr 1'•'1A Y•, xnad at '.d t01 mne 1,rowt1: Pnet :4 four /alum¢ 1 'lal unit. x Volunu• Yulunn• I x 1 '9.+rtntaund 1504 I JO I ;��.� I � 7 �P �p : 035- 90 •soutnuound 3705 / .30 i •EaStWund I .... .estuox•nd 4790 S(O i ��J�� ��a `_ ��/ 3oa 7.�0 /O Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1;d of Projected Peak 21, •Hour Traffic Volume ,. Z.© Project Traffic is estimated to be greater 'than of Projected Peak 2)i Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization ' (I .C.U. ) Analysis is required. ZX ' Traffic Volume Analysis ' iltter'S@CCiUn 13riste,l Strert/Caiupils_Uriy • - Irvine Ave. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Averago Winter/Spring 1978) Ap;r der __. ' LEI tIMI 1•odf -lour I —nppn.vd � ulr,tell ! /.� Jf Prnp :v[I Vrele'l ,,"•I rrC t<[ On,;. ([ •4vtl I. 17Cq IJna• P V t uwf l♦ I 1.dt .''. IIUp• ,A •I...P. `.•d• ,'. o . 11,00 I.rowlh Ih'.1A .'. dour VOIV N'OIII(• �ulumr I Vi•I mnr •;c•rt•IJIi4f1[J IfiU6 �a ' ' Sc,tnbw..aa 3164 /3(L t w �dSt04u:d 3027 /oa h �Da 7Co 13 y S%o i ' Project Traffic is estimated to be lc's's than 1"' of Projecteu Peak 212 Hour -Traffic Volume ' © Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak '21z Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization ' ( I .C.II. ) Analysis is required. i'b:vJEc I . Y , t ' Traffic Volume Analysis ' ,ntersection Coils( 111glw?11'/Dov,-1 nrivr .. "ink;(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter;5!my !`1%8) • c-' .. ,rval "Uw' •^I—AI'p, ,vn1 •• of ,•..,.i . }n •p,. not 4 n,.o d. PPupa L., rnl ) Oow "t'M J. r,L , •I,rur Ynl dnu' ; fa 1 unlr ,n1�w•• i V Iuun• 242 a a vy i S 2100 j 00 ! a/30 I i 3-1489 5279 37 i lP o�� I ,I j 3 to ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1'ti. of Projocteo Peak 21z Hour-Traffic Volume ' z © Project Traffic is estimated to be greater tnan X`.'s of Projeccou Peak 21, Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization ' ( I .C.U. ) Analysis is required. 2'1 % 'Iraffic Volume Analysis Intersection cy,asr Ili�llaay�li;tygi ` (Existing Traffic.Voliniles based on Average Winter/Spring 19M ) :,,• ,tl•'i F,+a. •Jur I Approved in%wc tea I �•. of er iin.•, ' • non• !'er,tJn.ii I I'rupv(S 7.d1 tlom ICdI d, • •.,k I •. All. •wnwth I Peak :`. di Iv I Iniwlw Yul ume Ad unm 101 uwr ,. i y.5 37 \trin:WuoJ i 180 4847 ' .J y 96 % 3860 � . a7 L---600 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1;; of Projected Peak 21z flour. Traffic Volume- Z. . © Project 1'r•affac is estimated to be greater than of Projected Peal. 21: flour Traffic Volume". intersection Copacity lltiliz( I. i ( l .C.U. ) Analysi't i', required. 1 z;l^" Traffic Volumo Anal,ysi's .ntNrbOct inn Cuxst_ Ili ghwayv/ambort-v Itt.IJ (Existing Traffic; Volcunes` bescd oli Averaga Winter/S1lriny !"/8) PC0 . 'I'mr:. ' Aplat veI 'pep•:Intl I of rr:4•, w •n,,p•,• •�,,,t. ✓r� ;w PrG i urn; Pruim is J%.6 :'. m... iral. wmw- •d, •n . '„na•, ..rowlh PtvA 11nur ro lumt' �'olumr ^n•. I 'ru I•nm• t Jol min• I ; ••tcr:raw•.nc. -_• 1015 .y ; 2.959 70 02 ��p w.a �o 94P ca>u•t,m,d 4264 �j t a•.•,.,.rr ._.. 3185 s/ j aso J41?07 /0 I Project Iraf fic I, estimated to bt lc .", than 1" of Prn,jot t ed Peak 2c= Hour Traffic Volumes z ® Project Traffic is estimated to be of ProjacLio Peak 21, Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity lltilitaLiun (I .C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 1 ' 1 1 ' 1 • 7: GJrT . z �i Traffic Volume Analysis intersect i ml _ cpatay IligliwayjNy•}.•in, "IlAisting Traffic Vnlumes based on Average Winter/Spr•in(i 19/8) ' .r;,•, Nra, . dour• ,-6PNr:v.•d ..` ••'a'r:[eJ � 'tjC: Jt ,'n;v.•r: (','U ir, h n•d1 � •lour � PPT{ : nin aar .,. ' -- ...1onp •iruHin ( N-6 hour Vn lUnn• loi Uwe .uiC'e Lt. uu.v 1ul Umv t 2848 3.3.0 '3142s� a .3.27� � y :. .' zscr sy ao Z© Project Traffic is estimated to be less than •:/�', of Protectea Peak 2': Hour. Traffic Volume ' ❑ Project Traffic fs estimated to be greater than 'IS„ of Projocted Peak 21, Ilour Traffic Volumen. imtorsection Capacity UtiIizut.ion ('1 .C.U. ) Ancil•y,, r, is r•equhVd. ' z - X Traffic Volume Analysis ' intersection Coast_Ili hwayf�ldc, rlrthilg...DQUILYa d (Exirltiny 1'1,affic Volumes based on AvLrage Winter/Spring 197 8) __ ZZ n�[uu1 Pea. N 'lour AI'In'nvrq I`Inm�teJ �• d: of iro le,•al 'I-•r�• irl'1n.^ I I.dA r Pl•'.•f •rdl •Inlll Lr fl Ir lel7 PI a II4 11 .1 ' 0,ow' ru m.111 1`I'al Iluel ' Vnlmul• i VI'Iune• 4n.e•• Ye loll, I lul•nnr r i 1 ' I I r;r 1^bm➢tJ I I i I 2258 °y— 3204 5-8 (eS8 '73. ' Q Project Traffic is estimated to be less than IfN of Projected Peak 21, Hour Traffic Volume I ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 'ls of Projected Peak• 2'2 Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization ' ( I .C.U. ) Analysis is required. r • 1 L d`• Iraffic Volume Analv,is. illtet"Se..Cti Un CuaSL IliZht+'uZ/did r;,•u�`t;i Ly` iwrntl�_ (E. isti'ng -1raffic' Vol ome- based on Average Winter/Spring 1.1, N'dI I ILu I' i—Alq,roved i IIo e(tvd ! ttl 1'1r;roJ, ' n•p 1' n. •r o lots •ert� 'w nwni F."A :'r hour .'u i ;nin I 4alumc .. .n. inl.nnr volmio 1, ' tier ro:`o„no h 1'! 1 1 430 /a 0 313^_ �g It 0/0 70 e --- ` -1401 ('2 0 f �62 i as3-1 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than l..., of Projected Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volume' . 2 . ® Project Traffic is estimated to be gr.?dter thin of Projected Peak 21_ Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Cdi)rlcity lltilizdtio,t • (I .C.U. ) Analysis is . requir•ed. 1 1 . 1 1 ' Traffic Volume Analysis ' ,iitersection jamboree Iwad/Sant.) Barbara Drive ([xi,,ting Traffic. Vcllunies based on Average Winterf5princ,l 19/8 Pell Pro ut uvrq i or It loll a: Of I'r-lm�:ru rr a••r. l ' •i�.0 IGnI ll.p.l: I`YII IOr I v r r IIUOI IY41r % •Ilya •."it .. ' .+Lnn rn uwlll I R•nA Ihnp 1. lunmr Vo I vali r• launnn Yul unu• t Yo I's 4 r t 2653 3 "1 /� �/• a vy iv % .. ,,. ,.. 1299 El Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 01, of Projoc ted Peak 212. Hour Traffic Volume. z ® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than X:4 of Projected Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization ( I .C.U. ) Analysis is required. Emma � — Traffic Volume Analysis ' ;Ittel"section Jamboree Rswt .Sml_ Jogsviii-11iUs-Road (EAi-stin,y Traffic Volumes based. on Avercige Winter/Spring _�1i8.) ;nCI f.; :uy i'rd' 'IOUI' •- Al- fit: of Prt -0. ;..�: ••C: �1':' r°Ur Imgrrrr 11 j Prnpv l•. I' d4 I4'.r 1`rt4 a '•nin .dI . . .' .. Lm.• ' r uwt•r r 1`I-A IhIDr ; ,..lumr 4I,Iunlo Idr..nr Vo lunar -.. •.o,,.ra :1 S 81 7 i 5 0� �o 0.6 385 2533 • •i .�s s' � sa ' El Project Traffic is estimated to he less than I"., of Projected Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volume' ' Z ® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than R"S of Pro,jec;ed Peak 21, Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I .C.U. ) Analysis is required. F Traffic Volume Analysis ' intersection 1amboreG Ito_aylL; tb1 t1L_lltitcc _- lord Road (Efi;ting Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter%Spring irr/g } ' /. i'IMI rwuY I AIIIq :RYf - I'Pu.ly ll'.1 I d• 01yi1'•IY.:I'•I ' "r.'.,. ' r.Id Ir•rll.•: I 1'lup•,1•. I .al :' IUnd Itdl :4 •r,i• ...I •., ' . : Nn• f •roe ui f 1•ra4 �', INnu � u•Imi,r I V„Imno ii.,.,• ul mu } l'n I•mn a57 + 9 %y s s � �� 00a ,.Y:,, I•la I c :nb oa 2937 5^ ! I 35 / i ! 1CF 981 00 i /o// ao '•.,.r•a 753 190 + 9 <13 i l9 ' Y Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1'+. of Projected Peak 21, Hour Traffic VolumLi • z ® Project 'Traffic is estimated to be greater than .YG of Projected Peak 2'2 Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Cdpdci•t,y Utilization ' (i.C.U. ) Analysis is required. t l Z�. Traffic Volume Analysis ntersection Bristol SLrcct/Jambort:q Road (E�isting Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter%Spring 1978) 1,em (lour AI:;"vv.-d irtr IM tt'tl •rr.' •1.,, •___ .' t. ^ Iu. Req rwr..' I Pr)Iv,1% I'paA ir. nntd' pert - ••0. Pral :4 Oil" 1 VU Iwov VnhmlU nirar• Nrt.aw• t Vrl umr ' 4 )96 1 M"tntruana _ t ' ulr•ht.rd '359 �� ! ,a� y 1 a7�e(a✓r: �/-� � aJ 6 ,(l-yO°l I a•.:rwnU .- ?77R ; so Y�W J 28 [� � ; /�y 7•� %O I Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1Z, of Projected Peak 212 Hour -Traffic Volume 2 Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than ,Y{6 of Projected Peak 21i Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization ( I .C.U. ) Analysis is required. i 1 • 1 Z d` Traffic Volume Analy<,is 1 ,nLoi's tic tI tit l Iirl_elllI ::I I'vet Nul_tll/.IaI'll)U1'l•p Rand (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Sprin(I 19/8 ) r.n.r [a-Cu+V Ieal rluue I Alynw-d rn11e11eU p. "r rrrU.IrJ ;r.:•lr�t '•r.p••♦� "r.9. Pr)re(fy 1'r )I 1r, Ilnl,l Peal. ? -C-I Ord. I' :-. Ir 4r4wih VraO .', IIOpr r Y.aume I 4cl Wne• La:unP in Lni•• � Yol,.nie 1 1 5153 1 r 1 i5:•.:n_o_•w_._. _ 2811 • l� �b ! J/ & ; r 1 Project• lr•affic is estimated to be less than 1 of Projected Peak 21, Hour �Traffic Volume 1 ® z Project Traffic is estimated to be greater thanXA of Projected Peak 21z Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization 1 (I .C.U. ) Analysis is required'. 1 . 1 . 1 • Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection -_Jambor<ee Lt -ad1Ptac_Ai_5.bur_1SJYd. (1) (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) ' ,• q • .1•(IIW- {�h11 . �IVVI I M U•Yf lEd 171:^V�I•YU IV_:�. i'r.. ....I . •.� •. +rn+ :' d•op ILvlu°,,: I'n'1`'` ly `ra4 : . Ilom I'rn6 .' •our , • i ' LAvr' on,wlb IY4 :'. How r.'I"aw ! Vnhnnr , \C Im•v 'rn Lrn, i �nlnno• I ' I 1 1681 � y/B � .•410 7 d 0 7o ' • hrtnaoo'�I t 1 ' Swul:•a..ma 2814 j l�// a 3 I 1 /qq`Z 0/0 - 2923 _' J�P i 3�/O� ji 0 3037 �� I .3/&.._1_. 3370 i (e / �lB /• / Project Traffic is estimated to be' 'less than 1 of Projected Peak 2>2 Hour Traffic Volume z� Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than / J of Projected Peak 2', Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization ( I .C.U. ) Analysis is required. (1) Mac Arthur' Boulevard is assumed north and srluih tZj1 Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection maSL Artl it r•-Itpul}warl[ti,an, :lygLtyn hills Ron (Existing Traffic. Volumes based on Aveiay4 Winter/Spring 1918) t. � : . 'm•, r.ndt ❑um •:_f-APpr ov•J ' r'r u,pp lrJ I �• ul` 'r .. , r„r nrv;ir u. I 14 rr p. l•. Ir,6 Ilnu. N.It •• era• ' nrr r. uwl r r I'rdA renu uri unu•r fulmar .." .o.• . lu L.rnr i lolenu• i .` 1484 3065 r /� .J.J�O I ��O o��0 I / ✓� %cG a.G % ' J - ! aoa 3140 i3 �/�2 i � 7 goy 2i % 1451 / 7 I ��o7Ji� -1 .01 .3 of ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than I"i of Projected Peak 21,, Hour Traffic Volume. z® Project Traffic is estimatedto be greater than 11 of Projected Peak 2!z Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I .C.U. ) Analysis is required. I 2jf . 1raffic VOIUme Analysis IntC•`r SNCtiorl Mac Arthur_ 6oultward/Ford Road '. (Efisting Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter%Sprillc, 1y1— - ---- A, 2..' _.. . ..d., !.1 tllq Poo (lour !lido uv,' I I':o;ar lOd I �'• UI :L.. ' duvr I,prlloua. Pro;rr I', 1,v.0 'le IIPur IoM :11W'' bnA d .-1 m.r .a '.H i VeO How La 1wm i Val Wnp .alum:• lnhpe: 4ul.nn: I I y�7 I 7 8 �� S.6— O sc,s� 10 /S I a 39a3 � do 93 1584 1007 '.'JtnSuend I + tJ5 and ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 12, of Projected Peak 21; Hour Traffic Volume ® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than Aa of Projected Peak 21,-Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I .C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 ' ' APPENDIX B ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSES ' Exist'ing + Regional + Committed + Project (1982) 1 1 ' 1 ; R5I • HON CAPACITY Ui it.IZAI ION ANAL l t, Inro.r�?tction e";S4 (/v� (Existing T r a I f Volumes Ba-se3 on verage Winter'TSpring 19% /-/6• 19 rEIST ING VROI O'.l ' FXISI EXIST RC61ONAL COM111CD PROJECTED PROJECT PIWICI hot ment L111S Cap Ire,•. i:p 4 1•11 V/C GROWTH PRWT CT Y/C Ratio Ypl ume Y/l' Watlo Vol, r Watlo VOL VOI-— V Project t I Vol o1. NL e �lyoz (.d6fG 0��96 0,076 ' NT ---=j moo/ NR St. �1 _ ST ) 3200 -6X 4800 ' O5 313/ 3CD 36 0.2304r 0,2304 v' ' SR ) --- - j �- 79 0.409¢ 0.4094 ' — -- -w— � ET ER ' ly A /6� _,_•_,L6 . - _ O.5 Zo6 n.5"zo6 WT el oc:' • Ii23rr .olf9 WR — YELLNTIME Alan/ �./OUl7 ,/,Poo ' EXISTING !NTEt ECTION CAPACITY Ufa NATION __�9 EXIS!?,G P--L'5 CCIMITTED PLUS RECIONA! GROW111 W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENIS I.C.0 n. 9279 MSTING PLUS COK41TTED NUti R11WINAI S1,0Wrl1 PIN`,• PROJECT I.C.11• a.YZ79� Projected plus urnl`Tct Lraffic •I .C.U. will he less than or equal ' to 0.90 ' ® Projected rlu; rimiec,t. Lraffic-I-C.U. vli.11 Ito greater than 0.t1:1 ' Projected piles urr.J,i '.i.l Lralfic IJAI. wil:li "•q`.Irn1'. unprovenlcvlL" will be 1eS`• !Awii :,I ogiml Io 0.90 ' :tr .irlpltu:r , .y•.I � u. unl,luvrnlenl_: � , I• ,odd sou.+k bouvLd optim, Lai 4hrm3k or 6 k+ June .(o) 1111'c•RSCC11t1N CAPACITY UIILIZA110N .'ANALYSIS l inP^rsect•iotly f I e on+v1-= j `77Gf4 j YI'Vc - lYVIVIe pVC • • (Existin�g--Traff•�: Volumes Base on verage Winte - Spring 197 , EXISTING I 1'PP}0'•1'1 V.1 EA!SI 1 EXIST REGIONAL COMMITTED PROJECTEO PROJECT PROJECT Moven¢nt Lanes Cap I,Jre. C-P 11: HH J Y/C GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ratio Volume V/C Ratio i Vol. j Ratio VOL. VOL. W/o Project 't NL NT NR —�� I O•/68/ o•/6B/ SL _ �tL O. OS7Z o.aS7Z -2 f ST 13 (3 Igoe i �ef S-' 67 . 333 0.3333 ' SR — --- — *-- — �_—' ' E7 6 4-7I ' 1 I 31S 0.zZ7 '� o,z ER WL WT _ WR ' - YELLOWTIME Q,/b OU 91 Q,/ODU EXISTING !NTE?SECTIOH CAPACITY U1I1.I7A110H 2 ' EAWING PLUS COMMITTED PIUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.0 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PI'J', RCGIUAAI GROWTH PIIC, PROJECT I.C.11. ' Projected Plus. projoct traffic J .C.U. will be less than or equal ' to 0.90 • Projected plus projoct traffic I .C.U. will be groater than 6.90 ' © Projected plus pro,1,!ct traffic I .C.U. wit), systems improvements .,fill be less thin or ,Jqual to 0.90 '�b r•rlpt.iui r' .•r.' rH ,n�1,r„vrwenl._- - - - - - - - - � - - - l. Add S0LA bound -I hrmt3ti Ia1ie• (L t i14T IR I if ON CAPACIT'YI Ur11LIZA1ION ANALYSIS 'riverc.cction (p ,� YRGih IaIGLAA /� ly;l�P l�r�ri 1/'L ' (Existing traffic Volumes Based Winter Spring 197&) EXISTING PHUrOSt.. t EXIST EXIST REGIONAL COhTtITTCD PROJECTED PROJECT PR0,IFC1 °Eit1C"t Lanes Cap ianr: C•p 1 PX NH V/C GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ratio Volume Y/C Ratio ' t 'Vol. t Ratio VOL. VOL. . Vw/ool Protect ' Vol. NL NT ) %oo , =L E. (� •0 ozf0 o.oZfv ' NR ( O ---1 a a SL a oo (3) Ye00 ' ST ! I (1) (600 0,0Y9� SR (i71600 07W v,079I EL I i (2/ S20.0. r1LQ_ :LL ' ET (37 '(6 #� Pl— ER (✓1 o.3oz3 �W o.3/z3 _ - ' WL0600 -- -- .C) WT (3)_S(Bba' -��2 0 oZS I O.3S�10 l09 O.3765 WR o) I1.�o 6 `�� . 0. 1173/ . YELLOVrNE l7 0./OOV < ' EXISTING :N,ER£ECTION CAPACITY UTTLI,AT.ION EXISTING :LUS C"ITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS LC.0 r " EYISTING PLUS C"ITTED PLUS REGIONAL, GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I:C.U. Q,(j7�3Pj Projected plug orriect traffic J .C.U. will be less than or equal ' to 0.90 ' Projected plus i)r'uJccL lrr.Iffic I ..C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Projected plus pro7.0ct Lratiic I .C.U. Willi ;y ;tcm; improvement', will be less Uion or l.0 0.90 'n rr11)l i IP v o1m:I II ' �• Add sou4hbound Ie-44 •-I-urh Ia�e . Co) Z. Add sou4-hbound t' 9h+ -lurvl lane, (o) ' S. Add easy bound le-N- 4uYvl lavle. (o) 4. Add easy bound •4r6ugh (a rl a Co) ' s. Add ri9hf -fowl lane. (0) ilili• i:Sil"1 HIN CAPACITY UTILIZAI ION ANALYSIS ir-,n 1t ' 7 / c- (Existing iraff5c Volumes Eased on lkver,age Wiryter Spring 197g Movement r•X IST ING Pkr•)'OS` I ' EaiST tt EXIST REGIONAL COMIITTED PROJECTED PROJECT PROJECT ' Lanes Cap Janet L•e } PK MR 1 VJC GROWN PROJECT V/C Ratio Volume V/( Ratio Vnl. 1 Ratio VOL. VOL. w/o Project 6 Vol. ly NL ao —_ flan I ' I o• 0/Il a•z�/78 NI ! aolO.o/B adlBB ' NR ^r SL _ 1 c7c� __ I 0 I o•ooBB doh ST SR 4- _ 10 EL E W 16cio - - - --- o' 031 ' ET (3 y� -ILo. 35 Z 3' 9.1yLf ER 1 O S00( j_ d.3/Z5' .3/ZS WL 9 r WT 79 WR 2 YELLW 14 .! ' EXISTING !',TESECTION CAPACIEf UM111,IION , EX:STII,G PLUS COMITTED THIS RIGIONAI GROWTII W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.c.0 . G'- 8d,t E E:STING PLUS COMIITTCD PIU1 lAG;oNAI Miowrll P10 PROJECT Projected plus nto,lLt:t traffic •1 .C.U. will be less than or euual ' ' to 0.90 ' Projected plus. pioject Lrar"fic 1 .•C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' ® Projected plus ; , I, i:., .i Ii'alfic I ,C.U. wif'h "y"I'emS improvennvll !, will be iholl nl rfpl„' Lo 0.90 im,cripti ,l, of I , nui,l v• uurnt ' 1. Add eas4 bound +h rou'3 h lane. (o) 2. Add weS� bound +hrDLLSh We. (o) ' Diali lE�i _. • I Gar, :.n.'AC1 rY'�'� III ION ANA1 YSIS t v ` :15T1•C:.,..t i•Clrl-�Q.g l" 4 t 't�C)5:'l —_.. (Existing ; ra^ ' Jolnl• es base c ver gT,`Wtter Spring 197 CCCC -> �Nuuropul 1r.1511hJ i I•I;�• iV,'.• ,,,`•; , ,-,I',I NEGIOYJLL COPWiUFO I•R,Vi(iEO PNOJECI VRI1 Lari2T Lap ,P•. . ! r 'P I �;t. GROWT!1 PPO•II.i Y/i Pat lu 1'nlumP L• heEn. � lul ' ,'�1Iu VOL, Vol . rr;n Pi o,ir�l , ..---.....- ._ NT _ NR^ - - -- -, IG - 3 ' SL l) OCR �T— r Ci(. .._.__ rSR �: - -- - - -- -{ ozz9yl ET a ' �i38-' =3 --8Z - 0 3?9� _ o.37y31 Wl WT Q7. 3�rf8ob -05- WR YCLEo6Twc ' k%G'1 tii, `.r:ECTION CFO1(III LC; I/LI ION--.-- __ I ;;,MITT!O Plrt; Ptf,I(ryal. S,KJ'dIP W/PROPOSF'O IMPROVE MCN Iti 1 C.0 �� Er;sr.v; r_,5 :WgTTEo r 1: cu.nr,rn n tYdlll NO. PNOJC('.T I,C.O. ' ❑ t'1'fJjeCte(�` ,,hr . 1.1, ( t. ( I'dl ( 1l. I .t..II, WIi1 ILL' !1^,`, illrlll UI' "111dl 0.90 i•rojected p!w. prr: l,n.t fr,lffic. ! .C'I:, idili be lireatel than 0.:Iu ' pI'Qjected 't',1 U•v,t I Ii'•' iic I .( A;. IJ, i•tl '.0 .tl'!h`, I m!orovoill ,I�! . ,Jill be It-, ; ' " -ol-l' w 0.90 Add west LIound Jeff °6y-o lame, (o) ' 2. ,add wes+ boultd 4-h rou9 ne.(o) II • ;I • IhN 'kAPACI•IY Ill1;.I//A" WN ANAI Y`r'Ic) y� ' ir.i.(`rs' cticn A d�111 ��e J7 (Exit sting llraJic Ynlunfes Base n ve a e W�' ter Spring Me Ez IST ING ' IKL�P',, l ' I1.1 !i11T NEGIONAI CUM1111E0�1'lUf CTf0 PROJECT fQWI C.i Mwm:ent Lanes Cap lane•. : I) ? "1 bR /t GROWrif PRO1110 V/f Ratio Volume VA ha Nu Vol. ; RaLlo VOL. Vol. w/o Proj"Lt 1 Yol. 00 Nr _ i I( ' c o0 0.o9av N R — - �- ' SL SR17 EL ET - --� _{ ='3Lq ER 1 I -� D. O/�B O.v�138 WT ^_ 16 o a 9 WR ' YELLOW HE _.. • I 0 �./r»G N O./OOV 1111114G 11:..._ECTION CAPACITY ;S L-�(11J1110Nl= � . . CJ.:iTilw l : CGTWITTED PL US Rf i.:MAL f!ON ill W/PROPOSED IMPROVE MFNIS 1.C.0 U!S1INd PWS :OMITTED PLt'S RNA0111 GPOWIII 010 PROJLCT L6.U. ,7J"lo0 ' Projected plus In'o,it•< t t.roffic • [ .C.11. will he less than or etlual © to 0.90 Projected 1,11ll, I,mject tral`fic I .C-U. i%,Jll be Treater than 0.90 ' ❑ 1,'''CI�eC tell i��il ,• ':�)i': I 11'0! 1 IL I .L.P. W111: .V'•1 f'lll'. 11911!'(1VCIIII'�l -will be le,. I!I, ' nl ,`,illol Lu 0.90 ' �:,.�.%Y'lllr �f�„ ' � I .'.:•; f:::',r'•,`JCIIII:IIL. _ _ LAPACITY UIILIZA110N ANALYSIS Cprersection I�lxlfo�� (�Ve ' (Existing Traffic! Voluli�tds Basedon verage T ter Spring 197� M,rccnknt LX IST IhG PL'ul 0140 ( ,J1SI EXIST NEGIONAL COhMITTEO PROJICTED PROJECT PNIJITI Lanes Cap ue•. C.,p PK Ilk V/C GROWN PRCJLCT V/E Ratio Volume V/( I:atw —^ Vul. uaUo VOL. V01 . Vol. oJect Vol. 1 NL N-1 00 I r3) YBoo, j d ' 02 O O.IS . NR t—� S D 5y o 38 9 ' SL I (2-3Zoo Q I 05r0� Ae2io9 ST 3 zt_0 I LC) _ 3;z aa tog ' SR --- EL ET ER A — -- - 13� WT (9)6Yoo ' WR YELLOWIXE ' EXI511NG :10E4-MllM CAPACITY.Ul IL17ATIOII .S EA::•i ,G P.L: C"ITTED PLUS Rm IONAL GPOIRN N/PROPOSED 1MPROYEMCNiS LC.0 O,6/7 E ATSTING PLdS '"ITTED Pt,US RLC,IONAI GPOIlfil PIUS PROJECT I.C.U. 73 r M Projected plu,', wrcjoc c traffic I..C.U. will be less than or equal ' to 0.90 ' M Projected plus ;Tru,wf.f Lraffic I-4-ll. wil i he yr•ratrr ti)an 0,90 projected plu, ;!ro,lE':.f. traffic I .C..LI. wl LIT •.yt.Lmly, nuprUV&II('nLti ;•rll be less '.ball of Elqual to 0.90 ' !I'ST.rl pi.l4!; t ' � ! �••• 1:11i�1'U l'i?Illl'llt: _ _ .. _ _ _ _ - - _ - - _ _ • /+dd v1or4bouvLd +hr6u3h la))e . �o) Z Add $ou4+ bound le4 -6r0 lane. (o) 1 3. Add we&+ bound lane. (o) 1'Ji :`.,UIDIN CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSISS. / 1 r �. ✓yM �jri �C� r� _) [nrr,rs^ction Lo e- G ' (Existing lr•aff;` WAYS S Base on verage Inter I ring 197s EXISTING r PAtnv}tJ r I%I51 1 EX15T REGIONAL C"IITED PRQ!UTED PROJECT PNOJICI venient lanes Cal Lanvi C:p 1 P,: HR V/C GROWTH PROJECT V/L Ratio Volumt VIC Aa Ltu d t'ul, 1w 1,to VOL. VOL. w!o Project 1 Vol. ' NL 0 D.oB P O.odJ6 NT (0000 1 C2_ 0 9fU / NR o �..__ ._ ! Q3 - / - --- 10 ST _ C� I o2 I 3&/91 G 3B/ ' SR Ion 61 EL 1 I) %00 ' ET ,Oz7 ER _ _ ~�U2 _, WL 00 2 W yBa� i_3 i . _: __ _aG WT 0 �12 :� w'R ��a -- - _ 15 _. YELLOI.'tlrE 10 EXISTING :N?E>SECTION CAPACIT( Ul!LIAV ION ' ERI5T il+ri l.V! C"IT7.E0 PLUS REGIONAL SPOW111 WIPP.OP05E0 IMPROVEMENTS I.C.0 a GW7,,(l. EXIS1141 PLUS COK41TTEL PLUS 9b;!ONAI GRO.4TH PIGS PROJECT I.C.U. Q.6�QZ ' Projected Ill u . t r'o I+`L L 1.r 11 F i C • I .C.U. will [It' I0!,', than or oqua l to 0.90 Projected plu + t r l lrt t traffic I ;C.(J. 'Ni l l he +treater than 0.90 Projected Nius li"OJ^%r traffic IX.U. wil•.i) sysLellls Improvements gill be less lhrrq n erluul to 0.90 CoTlver+ norAbownd 690 -Porn IGne db op'+im' lul Arcush plus 1 iyl1�. (v) -2. Add 'horA bcund 4-hrou9h lavle . (6) 3. �o�ver+ wes�bocl�/ lei( 4urvl 10ma 40 opflavlal Arough �,bLs /2�f (0) .APACI'iY UTILILA110N ANAIYSIS _� ,��� - -a'C.t'�r�OQCI 1_Qx�1 -�u , 1 (Existing Ira f t: Voiu( �s Eiase on vera9e Winter Spring 19i&} EX IST INC Pi'••n'!d i+:Sl 1 IXIS[ REGIONAL COLMITTED PROJECTED PROJECT' PRL1)LCt Kw,( nt Lanes cop j I,+'�. i I, NR r!C GROHTII PROJECI VA Ratio Volume VIC Ratio 1 ( 'h+l. Ha Llo VOL. VOL. w/u PruJect _-- Vol. NT 007 3)tie_ov ii33 k If I6 01 IS/ 0-4410 1 L2 NR 1100 SL ST _rl 00 3)vsoo � (1 G1 O.3oy 6 o.31s Hbw EL — �l �E7 _ _ 1 !_0/oa C•o/oo 1 ET Z)3ZavL i �i�9 E R 1 A ( z-73?o0 _alT>a_ ' c2S 0.,96/7— _,a06/ WTI6vo 1 WR 1I boo E O. ObsU 4 YELLO'.::+'E 1 EXISTING LVS CECTiDN CAP11('I If Ulli 1.11�' oW ____.—_-�-- I Xis:i4u FLC'G LQ^MIIT ED PI IIS R(GI ONAI bRUHi❑ H/1'11f11'OSLU INVIIUV[MI Nft I.G.0 �, '1 t XISIING PLJ` COlVITTCO 1'I1ti Idl IVNAI (WOW111 PIII:. PROM i L.L U. -Y—` -- ,]73�) 1 Projected plus: ;,r•njaCL t.raffic .l.C.U. will be less than or equal 1 to 0.90 1 0 Projected plus tll'o;ect. I.rafric I ,C.U: will be yreater than 0.�10 1 Projected plw: prnjl+L.l. Lr,lt ( ic I .C.U. wTLll , ,,ttur, i till)rovenN'llL•. will be l es,, I h,•n o' I•Lluo l Lo 0.90 ;I• .Lript wruu:iiL: Comver+ nor+{ bound•rigH+ iurw lalele �a optional +hrou36, PLUS rig61f• (o) 2. 60nverf sou+11bound ngbtf+urvl la>le -fo 6pl'icti4al +hrou9l, pLLts ri3k� - fO) 1 3• Cohuert easy bouTAd nigh+ -turn lane +'0 optio),al +hrolk plus risk+' Co) 4. A!d eaS4bound o•pticmal +kTDLJk +plus rtShi- (0) 1 5'. Convert wes- houvld +kr'otlp lave. +0 IEj-f Fury la��e. (6) (.APACIIY III ILIM ION ANAI Y�lS ��r G r 1nn. 11�r . .`. E�yY��pfQ� 1�0� r (Existing irarhr 11r,,lunTes Rased—on'�lver ire �J.Tnter/Spring 19/5 EElST INC> Iw, mul f rr ISI EXIST REGIONAL COWHILD I'RWCCIED PROJECT PRCJ:CT MOubsnC tares Cap +.a0r• +„p I "r; HP # {/C GRON711 PROJEC7 V/C Ratio Volume 1,/, Ratio Vn1 t Ratio YOL. V01 . VrUJcOt Vol.al •r . NL D !(3�yFJCYJ_I.J�Q$( 0.2 996 106 2. SZ1 NT �(Z) 3zoo NR'SL _ _ ST r _ t0 qI J.Z-� _I 9. 71-8S I 0..267- SR — _ _r • ; r p• OS S'V D.otS'O h WL_ _ wT ' WR rELLOWUME I Q/OGO p,/O�V ' C[lST!'w :li-zcCTl OH CAPACITY 7L•LIrArION E::S:i'. FL,:; COWITTED PLUf. Rrfd0:iAL •,ROwTH w!PROPOSEC, IMPROVEMENTS I.C.0 9S(o P!US N"ITTEE PLUS Rlf,!MAI GROwnI PIU> PROJECT I.C.U. Q.p ZHrr Projected plu:`. nrui"I:t t.l ,ltfic• I .C.U. will be less than or equal ' to 0.90 Projected f,iu; ;ne ;rct traffic I.C.U. L;i11 he yredter than 0.90 © -Projected 1,l iwo'i-0 tn, ! fic I ..C.U. with ^•t1'nr, uuprovtanrnt`, -%-l l he lc . . ! I+• :• r,r f'llual to 0.90 rh ' r.!'7f1! iri ( � • •'II, i;L;n �WI'llll`II t.: Co>1viW+ one n6e+hb0' uvld 4r"h lane -Fo YIorJ ti 60tkmd /e- + -611' lane. (o) 1 1 i 04 l.,WA 11 T (Il 11.1:11,11 t "���N.rftt 1 .11 '� IITr.IiS-�I-tion _`��I O� _f Nt)I �� �' CUC�i . (Existing '(ra f c unlnme.. Based on Overage W1ntett ring 197 ' EXISTING — PRO,U`J :>I'•'—t t%1%1 REGIONAL C.MllI IED PRDALIED PROJECT PkWiI Mavt'n�ent Lanes Cap �• lanr. - 't IP f V/L GROWTH PR0.1LCT V/C Rat to. Volume V/t RaUu HiLlo VOL. VOL. win Project NL aoo ' 3)ySoo _i1005 ' S 0.3i9Z ' NT !(Z) 32_o_v O•y5"76 4-6 O•y7/9 t _ NR SL — ST 00 .z ' •- ' ET . — ER ' WE -- ---� --- �9-- ---- WT _._ SI._ 10 �L 1-- �� /B� /fp WR — ' tELLP.I IY.E LUSTING '.NT ;E ECTION CAPACITY UI!tlAI TUN EX:STIf.C' LCS COMMITTED PLUS PECIUNAI LHOWTH B/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.UtBZZ � p Ef:5TINC P-US _OMMITTEC PJJS RP IW;AE GrOWTM PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. O•B�B/ ' Projected flu, ',roio,-. traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal ' to 0.90 Projected pliv, penjet.L traffic I .C.U. Will be greater than 0.90 ® Projected pim. ;; I:a.L trtlEfic I .C.IJ. Elith ',ystun, unproveuuant will be lest ' ' tn to 0.90 ' �t' .�-r l�tl. ; i.t" i •M'1111•Ilk :_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - .. ' '• 6)11UeYr 0Y1e, 11orAbound �hrotL9 lane -fv •hoi,4A bound le 4 4-urvt IGhe. Co) ' lK1116t , I10N I.APACIIY 111It_l1AIION ANN PSIS (') 1nEnr5>r:tTnnnap P �!/ lJ�� (Existing lra:frc voluCie ase on verage kinter prTng 19T V Movcreot EXISTING I vvO"os! EXIST I IVST REGIONAL COMIITTEO PROJCCTlO PROJECT, PROJICI ' LaneS Lap I .,,ne, •U ! ° NHITV/L' GROWTH PROJECT Y/ Ratio Volume Y/f Natla Vul. Ratio VOL.YOL.o VOL. w/o Protect 1 i Vol. NT (z)5zo� 1 3 i a.zoe� � 20 o•zlso ' NR l� b0c, , T o.,3a i al a.,s- z ' ST 0 0 3)dBoo w{ a I I(-3 o,lase 10 o. IVI SR ' EL ET (v) O.3ZB/ 0:3Y25� 6vo� 1 lg ER WT —jI 100- 0. 75- y O.Zo7 kR U - YELLOWIME p,/oov O /nov A� ' EXISTING ;NTEOSECTION CAPACITY UT(I Ill iION CA:STIPAG ::US COPMITTEO PI U.S RLM(INA; '•RUWIFI W/PROPOSED IMPROVIMI HIS I.C.0 EraTING PLUS :"ITTEO PLUS REf,IONAL�iY.0011 PIUs PROJECT I.C.U. G7Y 76 ❑ Projected ulus projilct. Lraffic I .C.U. will be Tess than or equal ' to 0.90 ' ® Projected plus pro,lect traffic I .C.U. w.i.11 be greater than 0.90 ' ❑ P'! ojecteo plu', tr u•II ,.I Ir,Ilfic I ,C.II. with ^,Lrur, improvonu'nl.', will be loss I.tl,ln m, rquo I to 0.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - lr:•_l.rTptin ,,I , ., • � im:rr ,venlent: . /. Add nor4bouvld righ'+ 4uYvr lane . Co) ' Z Convey+ eai�bound h'51i� -Earn lane 4o o•p+;avlal -FAl-auyh Plus ` ION CAPACITY LIT ILI/AT ION �(ANAL YSIS , / + 1•Tr•r•.(•:tinr �i': I2 .:LY 'V� 1�� /i.SrI�UC1C[ ' (Existing fra ;f1 • 'l( lunies Rase on verac!e Wlnt.el� pri 19/ � M'vvL+M.•nC r;I$I INO PL'u,I)"; I E)IS, I IXhT RLGiONAI COMA i ICD PRO.'.L GILD PROJI CI P4:1d 11 Lanes Cal) f ,.a••e. p 1 HR 1,C 9NOW1R PROJECT V/C Ratio Volume Vn Ratio Vol. RaI I VOL. VOL. w/o 11roJect l ! Vol. NL NT l�L' 3 LI O./7ov O./7cn ' NR SL O ST oo - _.; 4{^ _s�3. __ J'S.S D_Z9z2'� . -- -+o•z9zZ SR E: 3a _ - - j,- f j �.li � Off �..?gzz ' ET - S . U•/6/Z o./7oy ER 8 a� WT WR a 0 . YELL01MVE &,2 D/ ' LAISTINU :5TE43ECTION CANACIIY UI;..I1a110N EW,71-,: FLI; COMIITTEO PLUS RL6I0:01. SROWIII W/PROPOSLD IMPROVEMENTS I.C.0 -12. y8 ulSr14s PLUS :OMRTTED PIUS-:EC;ONAL 'oOWtll PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. �Fj'•;6c� © Projected Glu•' :,rni,;ct Lraffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal ' to 0.90 ' r)I•ojectud I,l,o !:!'I,•;'•• I Ir.,I I i c IJ-11• LVIII he 11r(,a tor L11a11 li,`II1 ' 0 f,.1.0jected V'IL,•, III%) lrtl lI'd ifir- I .C.II, wi !I1 •.y It•ur. unprnvrNllv,; wall be +L•• 1 ; 0,1 ,•(;11,11 1,0 0.90 ..tl'1A'.I :Y III I i t,W 1'Pi ANAL Y`'t l; ' (Existing ira " ! /r,T;l;•;ps ase on—versgrr Winter SprTny }9'u� ,SISI INGP j V" I } ILKT RC I ONAL COMII IILO PR(,,IC1'0 I PROJCCI r i 1 k+t,ntlr.I Ianes Co 1 �n. ';I :r IIN 4 1JC GPOH(il ('RO!I L•T' YA Ratio I Vol , L,r!to ' 11 +;,l 11.,I la VOL. Vol.. H:a I•t'�,Inf f ' I itL W 16co Z •3zao tt�-I.�i 0. 0/Zf O•o/Z) Q ! J� O. / 7`Z— D. �f • NT _ I ` CZ�izco t�3• • � B_ log � z19/ t,R I(1) (6ev � a O; 031 10.03/9 SL 1 ) koo1( -) 3z,�,O -_=33�0 I a `i O:/Z66 10,1244 1 ! mot i/o3 'I ET ms/ ER 1 I ! r��` �'Q �J7� 0.07t' ID I WT 11 1600 _ �i)I 0 7/Z O.o7/z 4, WR —�.f lr If Ica- Q . O. a6e 0.1Z,6 tELLN ;KE ' 10 p,/oov p,i000 ' ' trIST:Yu :PTE�.ECTION C.IPACIIt 4r 11 tlG!tUN • Oi.T i'•. ;.,S CCN11TiL0 fill'. I61,11MAI IJ"Still W/IPOPOSIO IMPROVEMPNIS I L.0 f tISI INL EL.IE CWMITTCI. AO•, 1t C.;ONM LI101,1111110% PIlOUCCT I.C.II• DB99, arojected ;:irlt nrli L` ,lltic I .C.11. 1V111 br ieti5 than or equ.0 to 0.90 ' Projected 111w. pi . ( Iodic I .(,.II. W111 I'% Ilvalor thall 11. •II' , ' Projected I lu , I!Il,•I'•11 Ir.Ilf is I .l:.11, wi111 II'111% Im1•rovellwill , 111 be it' ! i:, o n• rquo I Ln 0.90 •1i+S t,rll'1 i`r'• r I:1;1I vonwi1',: Add 'nor4boamd le'(-f' '•kyvi lane. (0) 2• Add hor4h bowlld Yigh+ :Furs lane. (o) ' S. Add soaA bound lefF -FuYn lane. (e)) 4. Add P44� Louvld We 4ui-1i Dine. (U) ' nrrr:No n c �i INTL•'RSECTION CAPACITY UTILI7.ATION ANALYSES ' Existing'+ 30 Percent- of Project + Regional + Conmitted (1981 ) ' lit 1iWo ( IION CAPACITY L1111.1/AI10M ANAIY`r1% (n .r.rsectioniiS�o�Jt 7 CN) ' (Existing 'fraific VoluFFmes—Based on Average Winter Spring 197� / /6 7`� 4X ISTING PRO.OSr0 ; :YIS1 EXIST REGIONAL COMITIED PROJECTED PROJECI PROJECT MiOP ieOt Lanes CaD I I-e, CaP I Of, NP V/C GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ratio Volume V/C katw : Vol katlo VOL. VOL. w/o ProJect j ; Vol. ' NL / 1A oo �1.G;'_ OR4 O.o7lo9 *• NT oo --_ i_�o/ ./B7B /� 9s O. �a�2 Co.2222 NR SL _ — ' ST ) 3200 3 4800 ;1p5f1 .3t5r ��� 3� 0.2281 * 0,2161 41' SR r o _ ! •}79 �8 I_0,40�9 014049 E' ' ET E R — ' Wi /6� _ _. _�"> io3/ 28 6•SZQ� 0.5206 ' Wr a y� --— . .o1r9 a9 Boo 89 4s WR I ' YELLOKIIME s/arr C�.ICX�O O.10oo ' LXISTING Wc:CEC'TION CAPACITY UII11/i.TION •�9 Ea(STIRG ;LU" CCMIITTEO PIUS RICIONA; GROWIII W/PROPOSED 1MPROVTMENTS I.C.0 0.9 2 F t(Sllh.i Pf JS :LMIT11D PILS PI+ IMA1 611014111 "IM, PROJI.CT 1.6.111, Projected plus uroToCt. l.raffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal ' to 0.90 ' © Projected r'lus project Lraff.ic I.C.U. w.il1 be greater than 0.9L;• ' Projected phi; ul o'i('E.t Lr111 f is I .C.U. wil.h '•Y',trurv, improvenu'nLti will be l E . • ' h,ll: . I 0n11,11 I.n 0.90 .'I•'.Lril1' •• r , ,• I „1 Ihll I �)Vf'IIIt111t: • 1. Add s0iJk bound '7h,--0• gh /LW2C J',. T: 1NTiRSI-CTI(IN CAPACITY UiH.IZATION ANAL Y.,1;) ' lntrrsectian nLS� _ice �J � YU'IVt� �NC • (Existing lraffTc Volumes based on verage WT' 'nte4 Spring 19/ _ ' Moven,ent EXISTING' PRO!•USEJ I EX!51 I EXIST REGIONAL COMITTED PROJECTED PROJECT PROJECT Lanes Cap Lane, rep Y^ hR V/C GROWTH PROJECT Y/C Ratio Volume Y/C Ratio I ' Vol. Ratio VOL. VOL. w/o Protect Vol. NL NT 'J' L,l !v �3 0.1 0 0 0 NR ! �YJ f 2 0.1681 0-l1081 ' SL ) I 0.0572 0.05 ST (3 4 i 3!v 67 O.3300.* 0.3333 ' SR EL 1 0 ( 31 0./o01 O./081 ET 6 _ � t ') I a 3/5 n. 2167* 20 0.2148 ER —.. .... LDS s WL _ - -- - -� -- - ---- - _ — WT — - _ --- WR ' YELLOY.TIME —' 01/0001k A/OOO EXISTING :NTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIM ION 2 ' EXIST HAG PL0 [OMITTED PI US RLGIOAAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED IMPROVEkMTS I.C.U.,O. 6 6�1 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED Pl'JS REr ICNAL r,ROWT11 PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 0.6 y9 [, Projected plus nroject traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal ' to 0.90 Projected plus proje(.L Lraffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' © Projecteu 'plus ;Jroji:cl, traffic, I .C.II. with tyst.enis improvements will be le , , thole or 1�qual. Lo 0.90 ' :'� .crlliti�,n „f �• ,,,�� uh;.rnvrane!11.! _ _ .. _ _ _ .. - - /. •Add sou4 bouKd +krou3l? lane . (0) 1 ION- CAPACITY' 11111.17ATION ANALYSIS (Existing 'Ira fTc Vc,Iumes Based n AVerage W)nter Spring 1975? Mo+taen[ Lanes STING I'...t..- L i1I SI � t1I5T REGIONAL PROJECTED PRNLCTio PROJECT PNIIUCT Lanes Cap � iam••. , •p � io. ❑H Y/C GROWTH PROJECT V!L Ratio Volume Y/C Na U+• Val. It,Wo VOL. VOL. w/o Project Yol. ' NL (I 6 __. ..caj-L—�'O _ O o131 0.0131 NT O NR 1 O z x� SL a Do 0./4 * b•14Z9 ST 1 I (1) /WC) .o ' SR (1) 16v0 7 EL C2) 3 p_ : _ OO..Oo319 * 0O.. o #1 ' ET b 1 ra. 14 D a ER _- �)- - WL 11 (boo—T.- 1 0. 0156 o.or56 WT C3) ov _Z S I o. 3 533 32 v.360 0 ' WR CI)/bOo 6 5B D. 4731 0.4731 YE LLO'n'T 14E (� b./UE�U D•Io00 .+(� E1I1TING :NTE4SECTION CAPACITY 11111AI IION ' E115:ING ::US C"ITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.0 D. 6Se to Er!SI1NG PLdS :"ITTED PIU, Ak GIUNAI LPOWTII PLUS PROJECT I.L.U. ' Projected PILL,; !',r0if1CL Lraffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Projected p I I I nrn•I ; I IraIIiT.- I .C.U. will be Ire,+Ll'r LIIan 0.90 ' © Projected plus, pro,l:''I.I, l.r•allic I .C.U. wilh '.•y"I'em', ililt)rovenuerILs will be les(. Uioii or „dual I.o '0.90 .)I;Grlptinl: ITT l ,lr.n L'•:,"•rvrI!H:I'I :- - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ .. • Add souA bound le-4 -1urPT 10)Ie . (°) 2. Add souA bound hgh� +urm (avle. (o) ' 3. Add ea&+ bouvld le, -+ -I-umi lane. <a) 4• Add eas-F bound '4-hroujh lane. Co) ' S. Add west• bound' righ4- 4-torh la vle. Co) r"l•J CtT ' 110fRStl:ItON CAPACITY UlI1.1/AI'10N ANALYSIS intersection reylaS �t LWQ 11C� (Existing Traffic Volumes Base o ver ge wT er Spring 19/ 8. MovK,ent EXISTING PROPMI) i EXIST EXIST REGIONAL COMMITTED PROJECTED PROJECT PROJEL,T Lanes Cap Late, Lip PC III � VIC GROWTH PROJECT VIC Ratio Volume VIC katio Vol. ff Ratio VOL. VOL. w/oProject — - -- qEq � — -•— Vol.Vnt -76 NT , —i UI 8 NR i SL I W I I 0 1 0.0088 0.0088 ST ' SR EL 1Jr�Q_ 0.0312 .0312 ' ET j (3) co iHbl_ 7(o 0. 9-3 17 14 0.33�//n ER I i • 0 fi��p 0. 3125 0.3126 wT 32 6R I Z YELLOWT.r!E o0o• 0.1 000 EXISTING !NTE_ECTION CAPACITY UM110I0N EXISTING F.US C"ITTED PIUS P.EGIONAI GROWTII WIPROPOSED IMPROVEMINTS I.C.D E(;ST14G PLUE CO!YIITTED PLUS PKIONAL GPOWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 0.81fb' Projected plus nr•o1c,0, troffic I .C.II. will be lass than or enudl to 0.90 ' Projected plus 1,r,,ject traffic I .C.U. v(iiI he greater than 0.90 ' ® Projected plus 1.rojr-; I. Lr,iffic I .C.U. with sp,Lams improvements w'lll be 1P5 t.h: ; nl ,.r1u„ ' to 0.90 �ISCr7pLlun c'I � I � 'I. IIHW �W(!Illl!IIL: • 1. Acid eas+ bound Ahmh lane. 60 Z. Add west bound •I-hr0[L3h Lanz. [0) I, — MT RSIC'I [ON LAPACIIY UIILIZA1ION ANALYSIS •Interse,:tion ' (Existing Trai•fi! 1lolulnes Based W e.pgje(W nter Spring 191 EAISTIN Y,101'OSE19 1 FAI`SI l EXIST REGIONAL COMMED PROJECTED PROJECT PROJECT Movement Lanes Ca D I lanes Cep 1 PK 11N I V/C GROWTH PROJECT Y/C Ratio Volume V/C Ratio I I Vol, i Ru Clo VOL. Vol.. : w/o Project I Vol. I ' NL (I I O I O,o2s�* O.0256 NT I 22 6./ I NR �703 ET I— 3 SL 1 boo 0 1 0.0 19 0.0719 2 9 0.18 1 K 0.183 4` SR I I p ! Z41 0.48�, 32 O.S�19 EL83 O. 2-1 /4 0• 1 a 13$ In 12 ' ER WL I Oa l2)32cb _ _ _I_ 5 0.076(o4e 0.07 WT C C3K3o0 _ S -�— • •1� -- 0, 2 _ �> � ' WR YELLO`TIr.E ID O./DOD a/000 EXIST19G !NTctiECTION CAPACITY UI11.1(_IIOR E/ISMiY YW: COMIITTED PLUS PEGIONAI GPOWTII W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.0 0, EfiST1NG PLUS COM!11TE0 P:US REGIONAL GPOWIM 11,1 PROJECT I.C.u. Projected plus proj_,ct traffic- I .C.U. will bo less than or equal ' to 0.90 Projected plus pro.wct Lroltic I .C.-H. iYlIl 110 grraler t:hail 0.110 ' © Projected plus pru,TaCt, tra'fic I .C.U. l.•ith ,;;stems i11!urovemonts will be less Lhoo Ilr equal to 0.90 'u ',.:rlplll I. , . , •n: rntn•: v�`hlt`I�I Add wes�.bound 4uyvl lavle. (o) ' 2. Add Lien- bound 4'hrougk lane . C0) 1 li li RSt ' i 1:0i CAPACI IY Ul ILIZATION ANALYSIS II • Intersl Cticn roagt � e / Y J197 ' 1 (Existing lrafflc Volumes Rase n ve a e W er Spring 197�� EXISTING P'+01.OY..1 I EuI l EXIST REGIONAL COMIITTED PROJFCTFO PROJECT PROJLCI Mo�tr,ent Lanes Cap Lanes Eep j Or HR VIC GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ratlo Volume V/C Ratio 1 i Vol- H.,t10 VOL. VOL. w/oProject 1 L Vol.Yol 1 NL — ly 3 ' D5 0.OS19 D.OSI9 4 NT 0,0 00 t O 00 NR. 1 SL 1 I� ST 1 SR � 2 EL ET pp -- . _j 3 as I53 O la 13 0. 5 1 ER I 00 — 38 ' {- o Olga �k WT - -80 6 1 WR YELLUT1M! • IQ O./DOO +k 0.lo00 1 EXISTING INT=-?SECTION CAPACITY Gflll/Al ION - E;:STDC, ;.L. C"ITTED PLUS REGIONAL f,POWill W/PPOPOSED IMPROVEMENTS LC.0 [(!STING PLU: CLWITTED PUPS Rfr IONA1 r,I?O'AfH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. Q,'74L_^r0 i © Projected Phil, iu•oi^Lt Irllfic I .C.U. will br 10"', Own or ('4111,11 1 to 0.90 1 Projected plus i.rl,Ject tl•dffiC I ..C.U. ti'ill be greater than 0.�10 '. Projected plus prl: rocl, Iraffic I -C.U. Wit•i) "yctolfls improvenH'nt", 'mil be lesr. 'l-wr t+r (equal to 0.90 1 ''i• , -Y'lll�, i11" +'' , ',�'i ID�'.1'• J+'II!I'ill,. - 1 - 1 !li'• i:tSFc 'iION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Inter ectionCA 1 (Existing Traffic VolurWs Based on Average Tamer Spring I tiovpnrnt EXISTING PIIUPOsiD 0157 EXIST REGIONAL COMIITTED PROJECTED PROJECT 'PROJECI Lanes tap Lapps C'p � PR HR VIC GROWTH PRGJLCT VIC Ratio Volume VIC Ratio 1 Vol, Ratfo VOL. VOL. w/oProtect- '— -- + Vol.Yol NL ' NT 00 C3 60 Of -M ZO a 1 ' 4 3 .I550 NR j 6- •0 SS D.o70o (' ao70 1 SL _ 1 C2�32Qo- Q l85 6,C)909 0•09C)9 ST pq D 2 37 0,34414 7 0.3463 1 SR - --- — EL • _ ET 1 ER -- __ - 1 WL - � �_ 1 32 -- 26 WT C4) 6¢0o n l D.r 73o*k v.1770 WR a31 4--74 1, YELLOTIY.E Lai t.100o't D.l� 1 EXISTING :YTESSECT ION CAPACITY UTILIM ION EX::i iNG P.LS CO"MITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS "I' 0•6171 EXISTING PLUS '"ITTED PLUS REGIONAI GPOWTII PLIIS PROJECT I.C.U. 0.6233� to Projected plus. urujecl traffic I :C.II. will be less than or equal 1 to 0.90 1 Projected plua _>rujo_t traffic-I .C.U. will be groator than 0.90 1 Projected plu•, prnjo• .i, traf l is I .C.11. wildl •',y'.IrNP, impruvtmlL'nl.', will be It ui,in nr ,quol La 0.90 ' Ir^.crlpt7r, . r, . .: r•' � iurnl�,.'nittrft: - - - - - - - - - - ' �• Add m4h bound hrou9k lane (0) 2. Add sou+h bound le-4� -ktyvl lake. (D) 1 3. Add ura�bouhd lure. fo) 1 1kTF;6HJl0N CAPACITY UTILIIA110N ANALYSIS � � • 1 �1CS K���I ' Traffic tion _�_(Existing Tra7flc Voluk, s Base Average vera9e Hinter r7ng 197 T I Movun�ent EEISTICa PARPOSri i I%IST EXIST REGIONAL PROJECTED PROJECTED Volume VIL kat Lanes Cap ( Lanes f,P 1 PA HH � lyP GROWTH PROJECT V/C ftaLlo Volume V/L 6atlo ' I Vol. , Rnllo VOL. VOL. w/o Project E t Vol. ' NL I �i11�� ' 0 19 0.0836+ 0.0836 NT (�6, ! • 7 217 D. 58 0I 53 NR I o _ r If�3 ' SL -- -T .� — 0. 1 7 2v. O.lbo ST CX> / ISI 0.W1&* 0.38E ' SR a33 6. 14-S6 , 1456 FL II 00 0 0.0325-k 0.03 ET p G.o2 2-7 ER ' A (01600 (3) -7 WT Q JT 1 O WR ' 0.! O.lDo0 rcuol.'I:r.E 000_ EXISTING INTERSECTION 6APACIri UTILIZATION •E7:5:iNG ;LUS COMMITTED PLUS RTGIONAL :;POHIN WJPROPOSEO IMPROVEMENTS I-C-U 0•�(j, 3 E/:STING PLUS :OMIITTED PILLS AFGIONAL GPOWnI PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. p.lc YB7 Projected I,iu• rr•oj,,r,.t Lratfic I .C.11• will• bl' le"ti than or equal ' to 0.90 ' Projected plu.. ; rn•; aL.t tt ,'f'r is 1-C-ll: 'will he groaLer than 0.90 © Projected Plu; ; J ,,r. r. Lratfic I .C.U. w1Lh 53's LonlS iMIPrOVORICn LS will be less 08-1 or equal to 0.90 ' '.�•�.criP:. la" 1:: . r LJ'u' I-III,,•�,veJnanL: - - - - - - - - - - - - 1. ronuerl- norAbound ri.ghf 4urvl lane -la 00,civlal -1hroush plus Hi k . (o) 2. Add 110r4bouvld Arovill lgne. 6") ' 3. Convey-+ Wea+bound lei- -I-ul-vl Igoe 4-o- op+io>7a1 hroujh plus le-f4. <o) ll'rIE:?Stt I LI'N CAPACITY U1ILIZAI ION ANALYSIS n ' lnrersr�ctiou 1=gu 1[�=_ foY KOQe4 (Existing lraff:c volucl .s [lase on Average Winter Spring 19Tg) M•inn,er.t EX IS LNG EYISI EXIST REGIONAL COMMITTED PROJECTED PROJECT PROJECT Lanes CaD I La•u•. L'!• ) I'k MR V/C GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ratio Volu'me V/C kat,o t Vol. Ratio VOL. VOL. - W/o Project 1 Vol. ' N L -— --i.S�i. 4g 0.160 L /603 NT i 00 3Z4800—��3— 4 a 4i6 0.4099 45 0.4188* NR 1 100 I 1 I� 0 ' SL (I1 _ - -i b (8 _ 0.0S31 531 ST t( 3a0o Z4�po i II SU • 2 269 o 20 3090 SR EL (I I ib _ i �� ao10o 0.0100 ' ET ER — ' WL IN I kn ; 3aq_o A73 .:A[K 23 o-oG 2___o.061Z WT 0' CI lb0o _+ _ 0.0619 * 0.0619 4� WR I boo I Sz -72 6.D&SU aob50 YELLOWTINL I 0./ 004 ./000 EXISTING :NTE%SECTION CAPACITr UT II.LlAiION , EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS RECIONAI. OPOWIH W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.0 o•74. C� ry EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PIUS LT+:IONA 'MOWTH PI EIS PROJECT I.C.U. 0.75 / ' Projected lllu,: t11•,1wi 1. Iral f is I .C•11. will b(N ICY, OWL' Ut' rrlwll ' to 0.90. ' Projected plus uru ;Eect traffic I .•C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' © Projected pliv. pi',) r•L.I :.ralfiC I .C.11. with ,y,•1.em,, improvement,, will be lei , I h.m 11• 1 (iu.T l Lo 0.90 '•�• .LrIpLi1, • ' . �• li•L'I uuurnvr�NuvlL: '• (, (orverl- Ylor+k bound nigh+ iurm (avle -b Opt OWLI throuSli plus right. (0) 2. Convert scsu+llboumd ri9hf +Urh 161rt2 -Io opiioi4al +KroujA -plus right• (0) ' 3. Co,6vert eo_s�bouKd yigh+ -{urn Icne tc) optiwial throlk plus right• Co) 4. Add eas+Liound o?flnol +Iwou5k rplas rigtit• Co) ' S. Comerf wes4-boulld -f hrogk ILI1ie -la lef+ ittrv, Invie, (6) I ((IN CAPACITY U1ILI7.ATION ANALYSIS lraffsectTou A e�� (Existing lr•air�c Volumes Base on veragerL, nter Spring 147 EXISTING PPGPOS'U i EXT57 EXIST REGIONAL COIMITIED PROJECTED PROJECT PAOJtCI ' Movement Lanes Cap ( i.a^c•. Cep 114 PR 1'/C GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ratio Volume VA katiu Vol. Ratio VOL. VOL. w/o Project l Vol. ' NL - 'QDO 163)�8�i,�QS� 1 4-31 o. 2,99 Y 32 0.3060 NT C2) 3zw i 0 S a / 241 9 i4- eD.4,va ' NR _ 3 SL ST (Oqz •Z3` a 141 0•Zbes 6 0.2598 ' SR El QK ET �0. 6- 3-7 6 D.14- l ER _ (� /82 ' o. SO* I 0.27 7 Y WL WT WR — YELLNT IME 0-/00 * D, /000 EXISTING :.STER5ECT10N CAPACITY L'T:LITAI ION EX:STiNG iLCS CWITTEO PLUS REGIONAL t,ROdTN W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMFHTS I.C.0 D q y EXI ST I4G PLU5 COMRITTEC PLUS RmirmAI GPOWrn PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. ' Projected plus nroiecl, traffic •I .C.U. will be le55 Own or equal to 0.90 ' Projected plus :lro,,cect LraffiC I .C.U. it'ill be cheater than 0.90 ' ® Projected1110 nrojo�t. Ir•alfic I .C.U, wit:h ',t" Itim, tnglrovenu'nl.'. will be l es,, ' I , li nr t•rlu,l l to 0.90 'wscrlo'.ir, a ' 10111 i IM II,[)venleI)L: 1. •Convey+ o»e Y)or 4-h bound I hrouy b- (an e +o )104PI bound le4 -Iurvl• l ie-(o) fllij?;F'LjION CAPACITY UIILIZAIION ANALYSIS Traffic VoIn _ T��LT4 Z975 LVC�{ t (Existing 'lralfic Volumes E3ase on verage WTnte ring 197 MovenKPt EtIS11NG Fp,OPO`'!d t!':51 t IEtSC REGIONAL COMIITTEO PIiWCCTED PRWELI PktAli tt ' Lanes Cap lane^ -P I'! tIR I Y/C GRONTH PRWELI V/C Ratio Volume VIC kattn f Ynt. Ratio VOL. VOL. w/o Project 1 k � Vol. ' NL a C����jDO i SZv� 0. 3190* 32 0.325(0 NT 49op C2 3 00 j 4 2 1 319 0. "7 14 OAZ31 ' NRSL — ST OD _ _ (1l7_ • 1 1(o5 6.252 * 6 0,2540 ' SR _ ET — ER Wr 7 119, 6R _ YtutsrlrE o_loCoge o.lboo ' EFISTING :N 7;'ECTION CAPACITY OIIL IlAiION E 1.:S711 =tUi CG`NIT iEO PLUS Rf i,IOPAL GRONTII N/PROPOSED IHPROYCMF.HTS LC.0 19 Et!STIN'a PLUS :OKMITTCV NW, +!IAO-Ml W)OWTH PIi1S PROJECT I.C.U. D.Sa4S — Projected �: lu`.' I'ru,lect. traffic 'I .C.U. will be less than or equdi tto 0.90 ' Projected plu•. Il ,, irt.l. .l.l itfic I .C.11. will LW yr0a101' 1'.han ' ® Projected p;tt, I' y.;'' . 1 Iroflic I .C.Ij. with t,y•,tenv, improvemunl•. •J11 be, less 1 ', n u^ 1•rJUd1 to 0.90 .i..., I•IDI .i: ' 1 •D i.:., i ivi'llll•Ill t (. COYlvBr� o),le hor-�kbouv(d +hroU3l lane 4) Yl'or� hbouhd le44 4Uyh lane . (0) is n It:,r :.l 10N UAPACITY Ul iLlLAI TON ANALYSIS �l K� (� n�. vc (1) C: lY�i�'r�lrr•.t T(1TI 1�1'��1:_. r / iw ' (Existing ira: fle Volif ase on verage Winter Spring 191' SXISTING 1— "fr e`r 1 —ialll I LUST REGIONAL Mill TTCD PROAC'TLO PROJECT P110,110 Me LT.vr.t I I Lanes Cap I +rya' '•Y 1 °r: HR tt YJC GROWTH PROJECT Y/L' Ratio VolumeV/C Ratio. Vol. 1 RaLJo VOL. VOL. w/o Project NL I l rkoo 1 rN I ;l2)3zoo— ��D NR 4L 1600—rl�l 60 0. 13 6 D.l SL I - 11.3 G 0. 08 � 0.08 ' ST 3 4BO0 i a _ �3 l43 0.)850 3 0.r85b SR _ � qq 62 3 EL I —�t�-�-aF� -77 0.32081 k 7 0.33 ' ET 4)�4�_' 1 ( 2 141 0-�72 7 0.1 ER _..---- p. _�_._ 1 f L , — i' 1,��o-b 57 0.3144 WT .r1f1111I1f1111 l_I: WR __.• 1� — — ' Y1IL06rfIFE — L10 6.Iwo-k 0.ICo0 ' EtISTISG 1NTE=SECTION CAPACIff Lf11114_ION - Ed1STih3 :.L'S CC+"J',.EO PJUK R1.004AL S(Ndlll W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMLNIS I.C.O O. 2G9 MUM PL.JS COWIITTED P.D•. RE6Ie4A1 SPOdTII PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 338 (1) MacAY4kut- is noy+k /Sou+h Projected I:lur% n'•ojf•ct traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal ' to 0.90 Projected 1rl;r', I' 'rl! ', t Inlffic- I A..II, wi•1I Iw groatrr than tl.`)" Ii ,llIiC, 1 .t .11, lyifh ,';'.Irlu•. im;nuvl`nu'nt will be 11•• • ' il. i, (,Aural to l -90 •'�' ( rllrtl in �•I ,' . �.� III�,U •Nl!IIII;!I( _ _ .. _ _ • ' I. Acid Y)or4hbound 2. (fol7vev-f e04�bound rj3h� 'urn Igvle 4c) opfi0rlal 4-hroujh plus Yighf. �o� llil'El1StT:! lfll CAPACITY UTILI•/ATION ANALYSIS � , •InrerS,•�Ction-��� r�Z��raL�.t-a�'I�,OL�G� ' (Existing Tralfic Volumes (3ase on veragelWTnte Pri g 197e EXI5I ING I PR:II•U`dd 4 tr.I51 llt•(%IYI REGIONAL COnfI IIfO I`RUJICCfU PRUJCCI 19:0.71 L( •1 Mm•cmen[ Lanes Cap • an illille. ! +" fill' I V/C f;ROHTH PROJECT V/C Ratio Volume V/i RALlu Vul, f 11,W0 VOL. Vol . w/o Project Vol. ' NL 0,04(9 NT 3 I a 5! 0.1 G9' -ROX70D NR SL oo �ta ST qac o - - -'' 3_ 186 0- i k o.29!9 , . SR —'��� 20 14 - — EL �oC T 7 •03 55 * 32 ' ET S 5 0./ 0•I642 ER _ 1 ' WL ! 0 O.D 38 O.o4r38 WT 1' o. /0 2* 3 0.10481* WR 20 . ' O./000 k O.1D00 YELLO�T IME ' EXISTING iNT-RTECTION CAPACITY UIIL11411ON it15 COMMITTED PLUS Rk G10NA1 GRONrII W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.0 C'J -794_15- CCS�1vG 1•LaS :CMMITTCO P;0 Ri12ONM11 JRONI111'IIC, PROJECT I.C.U. 0•00'70 © Projected plus !Tro•ject Lraffic - I .C.U. will be less than or equal ' to 0.90 Projected plur, ;,l-oject traffic I ,C.U: wi 'I'l be greater than 0.90 ' Projected nlus pro.iec.l, Lra! fic I .C.U. with `;y`•tel"C' iI'lprovenleut5 will be leS1, than u`• oqu,ll to 0.90 ,rrTllL �•• ni WN, unl'r1,Veluenl . - . i i l rT i1: c. I I tIN (.A'rAC 1'I Y LIT I I.I 7A 110N ANAI.YS IS I.nr( r•c..,,{ ion '/1Y-t Vrl{L• �. :. 1�� GL _ (Existinq Trclific Volumes E3ase-3`cm „verace Winter Spring 197S� 1A(iT INC. t.•u,m"1 ' 1?•9 (LIST kill, UNMI:I(D I`I;f1,7111f0 I'NOJktI P4U.%'Ci Mot Mkr't Lanes Lay t u"'• �• 1 "• ilk 1 1;L 6ROHTII PNUJI.CI Y/C Netiu Yolume Yn na Liv 1 w/o 141Lto VOL. AN ' Val Prole<t-- ( Vol. r ' N; /0 _I D 0125 0.0125 ■ NT i (z)32� i _. r I12 0.457a-� 32 0.4676? -e 1— - 2 6.o319 0.0319 r5T .L i ! 1 C2)32o0 ' 35 0.1266 0;126b � t1" i 1- �4 1 J� 241 o.S"I 1 I�.SZa$; a 1 I b 1 _13 - !� IS v`o9�3 0. 938 E:. Ill (2)32o0. - - -- o^Iro3 K O.lfo3 # ET �;' b 1Lt I c�.1431 0.1431 0.0-794 ER i 1 _' r- - - - + ' WE 1 ('1 --- ---- -o,oi19 0.0 19 W> 00 �� _L _ WR - ----- ' I l _F 1 G.ID00 0.. 1000�'k YELIn„T lYE • E>;ISTI4G�'t.E°:EC110N r 01W i il' M. ION OL •^^ E):;•:'L % IT'Gi, at 1,' k141UNAl. 'J10aT0 VI/PNOPOSED [MPROYFMFNiS LC.0 O.eGs ' E r:SRN; ::k4q TT v i':j" •tf f.I1JIM gbOLlDI PI U:. PROJECT I.L.U. 10875,3 ' 1'rojecte(I ,lill. nl' ' •tI ( r .11Iic I .C.H. wiII by h. ,', i.h,ul ur tt;u,tl tt' J.90 ' f)rojected I)ius ;'r'u '".c (' f.r,); Hc 1 .C-U. Wi11 be greator than ' © Pr'ojeCted 'du . UI1 i I ' '' f It (�I .(..('. )••111•I tt911`, 1111111 •11 1 1 be 111 f,, 1 {t• it , 1'l lli,l i tQ tJ."(I 1 ' ';(••.i.Y•lli 1, � r• .. r';1' .:cliff••I' .• Add hor4-H bound le-N+ -lum ' 2• 'Add hor+h bound ri 9 h l- 41A rn Jay) C. C°} Add souAboumd left 4urvi lane. (0)•- 4. Add eas+ bouv(d le�-f -,Ltlrvi lane. Co) ' VOLUME III CIVIC PLAZA - PLANNED COMMUNITY ' DISTRICT TRAFFIC PHASING PLAN APRIL, 1980 1 P A �Q4f4N, ��� ltNd �40aCtA�P.O TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING ' February 12, 1979 ' Mr. Ron Hendrickson Commercial/Industrial Division -The Irvine Company 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92663 ' Dear Mr. Hendrickson: This letter summarizes our analysis of the traffic requirements of the devel- opment of Civic Plaza with respect to circulation improvement phasing. The study was conducted to evaluate the circulation needs in response to the Newport Beach City Council Resolution Number 9472 requiring an improvement phasing plan for this project. ' The study was based upon current planning for Civic Plaza and previous traffic studies related to this project. Previous studies include the following: 1. Newport- Center Traffic Study, Phase II, Crommelin - Pringle and ' Associates, Inc. 1976. 2. Civic Plaza EIR Traffic Analysis, •Crommelin - Pringle and Assoc- iates, Inc. 1975. 3. Traffic Phasine Ordinance Traffic Analysis, Weston Pringle and ' Associates, 1978:, ' In addition current traffic volume data compiled by the City for the Traffic Phasing Ordinance was utilized. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ' Civic Plaza is located within the Newport Center area at the southwest corner of San Joaquin Hills Road and Santa Cruz Drive. Vehicular access will be ' provided to San Joaquin Hills. Road, Santa Cruz Drive, San Clemente Drive and ' 2651 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE • SUITE 110 • 'FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92631 • (714) 871-2931 ' . • -z ' Santa Barbara Drive. The San Joaquin Hills Road access is limited to right turns only. ' Proposed development includes office and restaurant uses in addition to the existing art museum and library that is under construction. A total of 234,706 square feet of office use is planned along with an 8,000 square foot restaurant. The library will include 14,000 square feet. A theater is also tproposed at some future date. Since this would have a negligible traffic im- pact during critical hours, it is not included in the analysis. ' TRIP GENERATION tFor this analysis, estimates were made of PM peak hour volumes and the 2.5 hour peak period. Generation rates and estimated volumes for each use and ' time period are listed in Tables 1 and 2. The art museum was not included as it is existing and included in existing traffic volume data. These gener- ation rates are those utilized in previous studies of this site. ' TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT The geographic distribution of traffic generated by this development has been ' developed in the referenced previous studies. Figure 1 illustrates the traffic distribution that has been utilized for this study. This distribution is for outbound traffic from the site. Inbound traffic would be the same percentage in the opposite direction. By applying the distribution percentages to the ' trip generation data in Tables 1 and 2, estimates can be made of traffic volumes ' from the project at various locations. The distribution in Figure 1 is for outbound traffic which must be reversed for inbound traffic. ' CRITICAL INTERSECTION IDENTIFICATION ' The next step in the analysis was to identify those intersections that could be impacted by the project. As a starting point, the 16 intersections ident- ified for analysis under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance for this area were exam- ined. For this examination, the "1 % Traffic Volume Analysis" form from 'the t Traffic Phasing Ordinance was utilized. Apendix A contains the data for the individual intersections and the results are summarized in Table 3. 1 Table 1 ' 2,5 HOUR TRIP GENERATION Civic Plaza 1 )SAND USE RATE VOLUME IN OUT IN OUT 1 office (234,706 SF) 1.2 ' 3.4 280 .•800. Restaurant ( 8,000 SF) 11.3 7:7 90 60 ' Library (14,000 SF) 1.0 1.0 10 10 Totals 290 810 Table 2 PM PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION ' Civic Plaza ' LAND USE RATE VOLUME IN OUT IN OUT Office (234,706 SF) 0.6 1.7 140 400 ' Restaurant (8,000 SF) 5.0 3.0 40 20 Library (14,000 SF) 1.0 1..0 10 10 ' Totals 150 410 t 1 AL FIGURE 1 ' TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION o� /Oz IO N' BQISTpL d� w ti J hu 5•/' 20 26 % SAnrro ,� s H O WO 6gQ F84 3sf AN J�aV/A/ �CLS Rp ' > a 25% to 25 � ' QPL�F%G COAST HIGHWAY H 1O% 7 ' WESTON PRINGI.E AND ASSOCIATES t -4- ' Those intersections which would have increases of five percent or greater on any approach were identified as critical and for additional analyses. The ' five percent level was based upon a report to the Newport Beach City Council from the Department of Community Development dated January 8, 1979. Of the ' 16 intersections 11 were found to be critical by this test. ' ANALYSIS The 11 intersections identified in the previous section were further examined ' to determine potential impacts. Utilizing "Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis" forms from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance procedure, ICU values were determined. The individual analyses sheets are contained in Appendix B and ' summarized in Table 3. For this analysis, the existing plus total project PM peak hour volumes were utilized. This resulted in three intersections ' with ICU values of 0.90 or greater - Coast Highway and Bayside Drive, Bristol North and Campus Drive and MacArthur Boulevard and Ford Road. All other inter- sections are well below the 0.90 level. The Coast.Highway/Jamboree Road ICU analysis requires additional explanation. Review of the analysis sheet in Appendix B would seem to indicate that the ' southbound right turn was a critical movement. Since a right turn arrow is displayed for this movement during the eastbound left turn movement, the left turn ratio can be deducted to reduce the right turn ratio to 0.1953. While '• the combined southbound right and northbound left ratios are greater than indicated northbound through and southbound left, these (NL & SR) are not ' conflicting movements so that the southbound right would control. Since the reduced southbound right value is 0.1953 and the combined northbound through ' and southbound left value is 0.2074, the analysis is correct. ' Since City Council Resolution Number 9422 allows 30 percent of development without improvement phasing, the three critical intersections were analyzed with existing plus 30 percent- of the remaining development. These data are ' included in Appendix C and summarized in Table 3. The three intersections exceed the 0.90 level under these conditions. '' , 1 r Table 3 INTERSECTION ANALYSES SUMMARY Civic Plaza ICU ICU ICU . Exist Exist + Exist + 2.5 HOUR PERCENTAGES Exist + 30% Total Project INTERSECTION NB SB EB WB Project Project With Improvements Bristol N. & Campus 0 0 - 5.9 1.00 1.0238 1.0083 0.8350 (With Southbound Right Turn Lane) Bristol & Campus 0 0 3.3 - Coast & Dover 0 0 2.1 3.9 Coast & Bayside 0 0 1.5 5.3 .89 0.9260 0.9035 0.7553 (With Bridge Widening) Coast & Jamboree 0 6.9 1.7 0 .83 0.8305 Coast & Newport Center - 1.4 0 0.6 Coast & MacArthur - 1.8 1.3 0.9 ----- Coast & Marguerite 0 0 2.6 1.3 Jamboree & Santa Barbara 3.1 1.6 - 12.5 .53 0.5599 Jamboree & SJHR 0.6 2.5 0 12.8 .64 0.6720 Jamboree & Ford 6.2 3.5 0 0 .83 0.8424 Bristol & Jamboree 5.7 1.3 2.6 - .54 0.5778 Bristol N. & Jamboree 5.5 1.1 - 6.7 .72 0.7995 Jamboree & MacArthur 4.9 1.1 2.8 1.0 .85 0.8736 MacArthur & Ford 5.5 1.8 0 0 1.01 1.0443 1.0218 0.8415 (With City Project) MacArthur & SJHR 1.0 2.4 9.0 1.0 .72 0.7534 ' CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENT NEEDS ' From the analysis section, it was indicated that some circulation system im- provements would be required with any development in excess of 30 percent. Projects are currently programmed at two of the intersections - Coast/Bayside ' MacArthur/Ford. ' The reconstruction of Coast Highway between Dover and Bayside with the bridge construction, will provide three through lanes in each direction at Bayside Drive. This improvement will reduce the existing plus project. ICU to 0.7553 as indicated in Appendix D. ' A City project for improvement of the MacArthur/Ford intersection is scheduled to go, to bid, in June or July, 1979, The improvements planned include double left turn lanes on the north, south and west approaches and two through plus right turn lanes on MacArthur Boulevard. These improvements will result in ta ICU of 0.8415 with existing plus project traffic. ' A southbound right turn lane can be provided on Campus Drive at Bristol North within the existing pavement width. The addition of this lane would reduce the ICU value to 0.8350 (See Appendix D.) Illustrations of the recommended improvements are provided in Figures 2,3 and 4. SUMMARY Our analysis of the circulation needs related to the full development of Civic Plaza has indicated that three intersections would require modification. These ' three intersections are Coast Highway and Bayside Drive, Bristol North and Campus Drive and MacArthur Boulevard and Ford Road. A City project, scheduled ' to go to bid in June or July, 1979, would provide the required improvements at MacArthur Boulevard and Ford Road. The Coast lli.ghway bridge project would pro- vide the required lanes on Coast Highway at Bayside Drive. Restriping of Campus Drive at Bristol North within the existing street width can provide the addit- ional lane required at .this location. The analysis has also indicated that im- provement of these three intersections. ' We trust that this analysis will be of assistance to you and the City of ' Newport Beach. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact us. ' Respectfully submitted, ' WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES Weston S. Pringle, P.E. '-7 WSP:cd ' #5452 t 1 1 w ` ADD RIGHT ' TURN LANE NOT TO SCALE 1 BRISTOL } I STREET NORTH 1 Ile- RECOMMENDED LANE CONFIGURATION AT INTERSECTION OF 1 BRISTOL STREET NORTH/ CAMPUS DRIVE 1 '1 WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE 1 1 I 1 ADD THROUGH LANE WITH BRIDGE 1 WIDENING 1 I ADD THROUGH LANE COAST I HIGHWAY 1 1 NOT TO SCALE 1 1 RECOMMENDED LANE CONFIGURATION AT INTERSECTION OF 1 COAST HIGHWAY / BAYSIDE DRIVE 1 1 WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE 2 1 > ADD LEFT TURN ' LANE �D f� II NOT TO SCALE lit ' FORD ROAD IT, = I - I ADD RIGHT ' ( All .LEFT � TURN LANE TURN LANE---,a t U ' NOTE; ' ALL IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDED IN CITY PROJECT ' RECOMMENDED LANE CONFIGURATION ' AT INTERSECTION OF MAC ARTHUR BOULEVARD/FORD ROAD ' WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE 3 I ' APPENDIX A 2.5 HOUR INTERSECTION ANALYSES li t 1 : : 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection VE - I(%VINE AVE. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on verage inter/Spring -I97_) ' Existing 1% of Existing Project "Approach Peak 2h Hour Peak 2; Hour Peak 211 Hour Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volutm ' Northbound 1504 15 outhbound 3705 37 ' Eastbound -- Westbound 4790 48 282 5.970 ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume ' Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing ® Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I .C.U. ) Analysis is required. I'ERSECTION BRISTOL STREET 'NORTH/CAMPUS DRIVE - IRVINE AVE. -,--- FORM I pIJECT: C/V/G P4A2'4 ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection BRISTOL STREET/CAMPUS nRIVE - IRVINE AVE. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978 ) ' Existing . . 1% ofP32 _9 Project Approach Peak 2h Hour PeakPeak 2 Hour Direction Traffic Volume TraffTraffic Voluaw ' Northbound 1606 a outhbound 3164 O ' stbound' 3027 30 !O/ 3.570 Ea ' Westbound -- -- ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volume ' ® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing 'Peak 2'2 Hour 'Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I .C.U.) Analysis is required. 9TERSECTION BRISTOL STREET/CAMPUS DRIVE - IRVINE AVE. FORM I 'I IOJECT: GIVIG AL. AZA 1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Hi hwa Dover Drive 1 (Existing Traffic Volumes ased on Average Winter/Spring 1978) 1 Existing . 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 211 Hour Peak 211 Hour Peak 2k Direction Tr r Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volu '1Northbound 242 2 O Southbound 2100 21, 0 1 2' 76 Eastbound 3489 35 73 1 estbound 5279 53 203 3. 9% 1 J7 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 2�2 Hour Traffic Volume 1 r;C[[(( Project Traffic is estimated to be -greater than 1% of Existing Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I .C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 1 .. 1 IJERSECTION Coast Highway/Dover Drive FORM I PFJECT: CIVIC PLAZA '. 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection u;gnway�gycidP Drive_ (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Existing 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 2; Hpur Peak 2; Hour Peak 22 Hour Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic VoluniE ' Northbound 18ig 18 O Lestbound ound 8 O ' und 4847 73 /.5 %U ' 3860 39 20 3 $•3 9 Q, Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing ' Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ' ® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 2k Hour Traffic-Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 ' ITERSECTION Coast Highway/Qayside Drive FORM I �OJECT: CIVIC PLAZA 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection 1 (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) ' Existing 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 2k Hour Peak 22 Hour Peak•2k Hour Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volu O Northbound 20 6.9� ' 3 ' outhbound 2Qq9 '73 4770 Eastbound t4964 1 � 0 estbound Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ' ® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I .C.U.) Analysis is required. ItERSECTION Coast Highway/Jamboree Road FORM I ItJECT: : 1 1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Highway/Newport CP^ter iv Dre 1 % (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) 1 Existing 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 2Z Hour Peak 2;1 Hour Peak 22 Hour Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Vo.lu 1Northbound -' �- ¢� 1 outhbound 2848 28 4/ Eastbound 3142 31 � 1 /5 estbound 2566 26 O. �o 1 Q Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 2;j Hour Traffic Volume 1 Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 1 . `1 INTERSECTION Coast Highway/Newport Center Drive FORM I (PROJECT: CWC PL.Ai� � 1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection (Existing Traffic' Volumes based on Average Win er Spring 1978) 1 Existing 1% of Existing Project pproach Peak 2k Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2k Hour Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volurm 1Northbound -- -- outhbound 2258 ¢ 8 % 1 Eastbound 3204 41 !3 1 estbound 3432 30 0. 9 7 . 1 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 231 Hour Traffic -Volume 1 Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 23� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 tTERSECTION Coast Highway/MacArthur Boulevard FORM I �OJECT: CIVIC PLA ZA 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection ' (Existing Traffic Volumes based on ye age Winter Spring 1978) ' Existing 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 2� Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak C Hour ' Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volu Northbound' ' outhbound Eastbound 313282 2.1v ' Westbound 30 3� Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing ' � , Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume ' Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 2? Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 UERSECTION Coast Highway/Marguerite Avenue FORM I tOJECT: CIVIC PGA Z-A 1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis 1 Intersection Jamboree Road/Santa Barbara Drive (Existing Traffic Vo u based on mesAverage Winter/Spring 1978 ) 1 Existing 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 2k Hour Peak 23� Hour Peak 2,� Hour Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Voluaw 1 Northbound 1895 19 58 3_/ Southboun 2653 27 4/ iEastbound -- 1 estbound 13 162 Project Traffic is, estimated. to be-less than 1% of Existing 1 Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume 1 ® Project Traffic is estimated to 'be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 1 . 1 t!RSECTION Jamboree Road/Santa Barbara Drive FORM I I JECT: CIVIC PGAOA 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection Jamboree Road/San Joaquin Hills Road (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average W nter/Spring 1978) ' Existing 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 22 Hour Peak 2 Hour Peak 2x Hour Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volu mE ' 26 Q, (o Northbound 2581 outhbound 4134 41 ' /02 25� 1 4 Eastbound 385 8 estbound 2533 25 325 /2,• ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing � • Peak 2�2 Hour Traffic Volume �( Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing ld Peak 2Z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I .C.U. ) Analysis is required. 9TERSECTION 'Jamboree Road/San Joaquin Hills Road FORM I FOJECT: GIXIIC PLAZA 1 • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Jamboree Road/Eastbluf_f_Drive-Ford Rd. 1 (Existing Traffic Volumes based on verage W nter/Spring 1978) Existing 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 2k•Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volunw Northbound 4574 46 284 Et hbound 2937 29bound 981 10bound 753 8 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 2'k Hour Traffic Volume 1 ® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 21� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I .C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 1 INTERSECT ION Jamboree Road/Eastbluff Drive-Ford Road FORM I ItROJECT: C I V/C PLA zA '. 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 197-8) ' Existing 1% of Existing Project pproach Peak 2; Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour irection Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic VolumE ' Northbound 4996 50 2 8 4 ' ��7% Southbound 2359 24 30 3 ' Eastbound 2778 28 72 2.6 Y estbound - - ' Q Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume ' ® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 2;� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I .C.U. ) Analysis is required. FTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET/JAMBOREE ROAD FORM I �OJECT: CIVIC, PLAEA 1 1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL STREET NORTH/JAMBOREE ROAD 1 (Existing Traffic Volumes •based on, Average Winter/Spring 1978 ) 1 Existing 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volu 1 Northbound 5153 52 -2 84- 5• 5 Sout boun 2811 30 /. /7 1 Eastbound -- ' esttiound 1162 12 80 Ca, 7� Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume rqJ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization 1, (I .C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 , 1 • • I ERSECTION BRISTOL STREET NORTH/JAMBOREE ROAD FORM I PIJECT: CIVIC ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis (1 ) ' Intersection • JAMBOREE ROAD/MacARTHUR BLVD. .(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter/Spring 1978) ' Existing 1% of Existing Project pproach Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 our Peak 22 Hour Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volunx orthbound 1681 17 outhbound 2814 28 3O �� / ' E70 astbound 2923 29 2 8 ' estbound 3037 30 50 /. O ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing ® . Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. ' (1 ) MacArthur Blvd. is assumed north and south ITERSECTION JAMBOREE ROAD/MacARTHUR BLVD. FORM I IOJECT: CIVIC PLAz.4 1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection MacArthur Boulevard F rd Road (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Existing 1% of Existing Project [Direction roach Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Volume ' Northbound 3657 37 outhbound 4032 40 Eastbound 1584 16 ' tbound. 1007 es 10 ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing 'Peak• 2; Hour Traffic.Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing � Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. INTERSECTION MacArthur Boulevard/Ford Road ._� FORM T IROJECT: CIVIC 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MacArthur Boulevard/San Joaquin Hills Road. ,(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) '. Existing 1% of Existing Project pproach Peak 22 Hour ' Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour irection Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volu /, O g ' outhbound 1484 15 73 2,470 ' outhbound 3065 31 Eastbound 3140 31 2 84 9 0 7 ' , estbound 1451 , .' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume 1<71 Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I .C.U. ) Analysis is•.required. F' INTERSECTION MacArthur Boulevard/San Joaquin Hills Road FORM I PROJECT: CIVIC Pl Az A 1 1 1 • 1 APPENDIX B 1 • INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSES 1 1 i 1 i • 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 INTOECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION AJOYSIS Intersection Bristol Street North/Can1pus Drive ' (Existing Traffic Volumes Base on Average WinterTring 1978) Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio NL 1 1600 81 O 8/ .05* O, 0500 NT 2 3200 587 O 587 .18 0,7834 ' NR - SL - - — - ' ST 2 3200 1241 0 %878 .59* 0,5869 SR 637 0 EL - - — - ET ' ER - - — - — WL 1 1600 321 .20 O,ZOo(o WT 4 6400 1660 /42 /832 26* 0,2563 ' WR 30 Yellow Time .10 0,/00 0 ' Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. 1 .00 ' Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ). /.02 I ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, ' L=Left ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 n Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions. I.C.U. ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C,II.• will be greater than oxi,'Ling l-1 I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 ' Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures ,ITERSECTION Bristol Street North/Campus Drive -- - --- ------- --- -------_.--__----- -- — ----FORM 11 �O,IECT: i 1 INOSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WYSIS Intersection oast Highway/'ayside Drive ' (Existing Traffic Volumes Base on Average Winter Spring 197$) ' Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio ' NL 2 3200 780 10 / 80 •24* 0. ?IV S NT 1 1600 23 •O O 02 0.0/8.8 ' NR 7 0 SL 1 1600 13 0 /3 .01 O.006) ' ST 1 1600 - 8 0 (y a 04* b 0388 � SR 54 p _ ' EL 1 1600 50 O .1,-0 •03* 0.03/� ET 2 3200 1509 j Jr5/7 •47 O.11,831 ER 1 1600 500 O _3 00 .31 0.3/.75 ' WL 1 1600 9 0 9 •01 D. 0056 WT 2 3200 1531 / 0 J /(p J 9 .48* p,3"/tea ' WR 5 0 1 Yellow Time •10 0./000 * ' Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. .89 ' Existin g Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. D•g0G 0 ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) ' N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=left ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 (� Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to ' I Existing Conditions I .C.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be greater than O.qO f�I Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.O. will be greater than existing L_1 I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable ,mitigation measures INTERSECTION`Coast HighwayjBside Drive --_._— FORM II PROJECT: INTIRECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION AODYSIS ' Intersection Coast Highway/Jamboree Road (Existing Traffic Volumes Base on Average Win—' ter/Spring 1978) ' Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio ' NL 1600 40 0 y 0 .03 0. Day 0 ' NT 2 3200 333 O �/� !0 14* 0./�lva NR 103 O ' SL 1 1600 114 O / /. .07* 0.0'77i.? ST 2 3200 545 O Sys " .17 0.1700 SR 1 1600 530 / 013 �.' .33 0.3 . ' EL •2 3200 603 8 �O y/ 19 0• a003 ET y 3299 1138 37* 0• t1 l ' ER 56 O WE 1 1600 240 O y 0 .15* p, /5'OD ' WT 2 3200 905 O O 28 WR N.S. - 88 0 . g8 .10 ' Yellow Time 83 Q /000 4 Existin Intersection Ca acit Utilization I.C.U. D 800 ' ExistingPlus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization ( I.C.U. ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) tN=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound,, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to ' •Existing Conditions I.C.U. ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.II. will be greater than 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures ' INTERSECTION Coast Highway Hi hwa /Jamboree Road __._.•__. FORM II _ 'PROJECT : INTE#TION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANAOIS Intersection Jamboree Road/Santa Barbara Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes Base on Average Winter Spring 1978) Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ' ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio ' NL NT 2 3200 720 8 7 J 8 .22 O.Ja 7S ' NR 1 1600 57 30. 81 .04 . 0.06W _SL 1 1600 106 O l Q 67 •07 O. OGO� ' ST_ 2 3200 ' 1062 02 / l 0 p a3 3P 0.,,33 8Y iK SR — EL ' ET — — — ' ER — — WL 270 a WT 3 • 4800 0 O ' WR 231 0 — Yellow Time .10 O. / 000 ' Existing Intersection Ca acit Utilization I.C.U. 53 ' Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I .C.U. O' ra'99 ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) ' N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left ' M Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will' be 'less than or equal to 0.90 E Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to ' Existing Conditions - I .C.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will btu greater than 0.140 -� Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.O. will be greater than exisLing I .C.U. that is currently greater than 0,90 (� L I Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures 1I RSECTION Jamboree Road/Santa Barbara Drive — ,.. - —�_._.--•- -]FORM I I PIECT: I 1 INTIOCTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANJ#SIS Intersection Jamboree Road/San Joaquin Hills Road (Existing Traffic Volumes Baseed on Average Winter Spring 1978) Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio ' NL 1 1600 115 0 •07 0.0 W9 NT 2 3200 892 0 g 9a .28* 0.a788 ' NR 1 1600 123 8 / / .08- 0. Og/q SL 2 3200 495 5� .15* 0. 1713E ' ST 2 3200 • 1039 0 10,39 8 ' 0.3? /7 SR 1 1600 233 0 c� �.� .15 0. /yJ5_6o EL 1 1600 52 0 3a .03' '5' ' ET 2 3200 40 0 g :03* 0. Davy �F ER 46 0 ' WL 1 1600 131 a / J�a .08* Q.0 950 -�K WT 2 3200 80 0 80 .02 D. O a5 -0 ' WR N.S. 921 / S/ S/ /0 &5 - Yellow Time •10 /ODo 3 ' Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. 64 ,- Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. D. G-�ao ICU is' sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) ' N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left tExisting Plus -Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 t___I Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to ' �- I Existing Conditions I.C.U. L] Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.11. will be greater than 0.90 ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. •will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 ' Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures ,TERSECT.ION Jamboree Road/San Joaquin Hills Road 'FORM I ,OJEC7 : IN#ECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION P&YSIS Intersection Jamboree Road/Eastbluff Drive-Ford Road ' (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter pring 1978) Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio NL 2 3200 465 0 z,/ 611- .15* 0./9✓1-3 f NT 2 3200 1339 / q1 /elg.3 •42 01 q&ov 4E NR 1 1600 185 O / SS .12. 0• // 5(0 SL 1 1600 67 0 6 `7 .04 0.0y/9 ' ST 2 3200 1150 '.'36*' O.03259 SR 1 1600 42 0 </a •03 0.0J6a ' EL 1 1600 16 0 / !O •01 0 0/ad ET 1 3200r 4 rO_ 03(a a .11* 0• //0/ ' ER 8 _ WL 1 1600-;- 3 0/O&/ WT 2 32009 9 .03 0. 0309 WR 1 1600 32 a .02 0.0a00 ' Yellow Time .10 O. /000 Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. 83 ' Existin Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) ' N=Northbound, S-Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left ' M Existing Plug Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 E Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to ' Existing Conditions I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0,90 ' 0 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U.• will be greater than existing I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures LTERSECTION Jamboree Road/Eastbluff Drive Ford Road _.. _._--_�_.- •- ._-- .___—. ._ — ------._ -------_._.._. . ___ FOR 11I I i FOJECT: i i INT#ECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Bristol Street/Jambore*oad (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on verage inter pring 1978) Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project -Existing Exist. Project ' ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio ' NL 2 3200 1005 /Ca / / 0 '7 .31* O:3y59 NT 3 4800 1065 O• .23 0,.25_83 NR 31 b r ' ' SL - - L - - — ST 3 48dO 1092 /(p / 0 $ .23, O. 23 O 8 ' SR - - - — — - — EL 1 1600 79 p 1/ q .05 O.Oy9y ' ET 2 3200 406 /,& a a .13* ER 2 3200 689 377 107 (p .22 0.. WT - - WR Yellow Time 10 O. /000 ' Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. )__ .54 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. 0. 5�778 ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.I1. will be greater than existing I .C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 ' Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures tERSECTI0N Bristol Street/Jamboree Road _ __ - •—!FORM II t JECT : ; INTER&TION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANAGIS CI) Intersection Jamboree Road/MacArthur Blvd. ' (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Move-- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist.- Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio ' NL 1 1600 26 021 # 7 .02 0.0.2 9y NT 2 3200 520 a/ 170 a •21* 0. Vt?f -44; ' NR 161 —" SL 1 1600 135 Q / l c3 •OS* 0. 08 9f ' ST 2 3200 744 _ `� ,5`a .23 0..�35'� SR N.S. 399 0 C3 9 9 EL 1 1600 448 .0 'y 8 .28 0.;28 00 ET 3 4800 885 •18* 0. /8&0 ER N.S. 3 g / / _ WL 1 1600 446 0 S/q(o .28* O•a768 WT 3 4800 881 a / 9 o a .18 0. /8 1?q ' WR N.S. 10 0? / o3/ - - Yellow Time •10 G:/CbO 1 Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I .C.U. 85 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I .C.U. 53� ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) ' N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, Wight, L=Left ' R Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 FExisting Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. 4-1suYVI ed north end 04Ou4h. ' E-1 Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 r Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.I1. will be greater than oxisLinq `•I I .C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 ElFurther analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures ARSECTION JAmtore Road MacArthur Blvd. _. ..._ -- -•--_._.__.___..-_.. .__.__ ..- -IFORM II 'R('ECT i INO ECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION A*YSIS Intersection MacArthur Bouleva�Ford Road ' (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on. Average Winter/Spring 1978) ' Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio NL 1 1600 30 0 00 .02 0.O/88 NT 2 3200 1346 10.9 / q 8 .44* ' NR 49 O SL 1 1600 370 O 70 .23* ' ST 2 3200 1413 03 8 / y dam/ 44 D• � SR 1 1600 132 0 /0a .08 0.080 ' EL 1 1600 279 O 9 79 .17* O./"7 ET 1 1600 228 O a -i 8 . .14 6. ' ER 1 1600 88 0 88 .06 WL 1 1600 19 O 19 .01 0.0//9 WT 1 1600 113 O / .07* e9.0706 ` ' WR • 1 1600 194 O 9 .12 0. /O/a ' Yellow Time .10 O• /DOv Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. 1 .01 ' Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) ' N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 L_I Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to ' Existing Conditions I .C.U. L� Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.I1. will be greater than 0.90 ' f—1 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.11.• will be greater than existing LJ I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 nFurther analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures ITERSECTION MacArthur Boulevard/Ford Road - --- _. .—IFORM II IOJECT: INIVECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION P*YSIS Intersection MacArthur BoulevarlSan Joaquin Hills Road (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) ' Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio• Ratio NL 1 1600 63 8 7 / .04 D, 0ywv NT 2 3200 361 NR 129 O SL 2 3200 412 el a .13* O•/a 88 ' ST 2 ' 3200 746 O ~/ {/& -23 0.a V3/ SR N.S. - 250 03 8 a 8 $ EL 2 3200 772 8 r/al— .24* ET 13 4800 648 a / 7 70 .15 0./ &OV ER 80 c9/ WL 1 1600 70 0 70 .04 0 Oy38 WT 3 4800 285 9? 4/ 17 10* a 69 8/ I' WR 178 O — Yellow Time .10 /DOOr Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. 72 ' Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. 0. 7�w3y ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left Existing Plus• Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I .C.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.I1. will be greater than 0.90 (—j Existing Plus Project Traffic' I.C.U.• will be greater than existing u I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures LTERSECTION MacArthur Boulevard/San Joaquin Hills Road —IFORM II i 1 1 1 APPENDIX C 1 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSES .. Exist + 30 Percent• of Project• 1 • 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 • 1 INTf&ECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION AOYSIS Intersection Bristol Street North/Campus Drive (Existing Traffic. Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) _ Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project $0% Existing Exist. Project ' ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio NL 1 1600 81 O 81 _05* O.O506 NT 2 3200 1 587 0 :567 •18 O,1034. ' NR SL - ' ST 2 3200 1241 0 1878 59* d.5869 SR 637 0 ' EL - — - -- --- - ---- -- —- ET _ _ ER - - - WL 1 1600 321 •20 o,Zoo( WT 4 6400 1660 43 /733 1 •26* 0, 2708 WR 30 Yellow Time .10 011000 . Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.�_, 1 .00 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization ( I .C.U. ) _ P 0083 ICU is sum critical movements , denoted' by asterisk (*) ' N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to ' Existing Conditions I.C.U. --- - ' l 1 Existinq Plus Project Traffic 1 .C.11. will be greater than 0.110 ' Existing Plus Project traffic I.C.II., will be greater than (,xi,,l ink.] �-� I .C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 C� Further analysis required to -determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION Bristol Street North/Campus Drive ---;FORM 11 �OJECT : INT&ECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION AOYSIS Intersection Coa�i-11itAwiy[Bayside Drive ' (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter%Spring 1978) ' Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project 363 Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio NL 2 3200 780 0 -780 .24* d. z438- 4= NT 1 1600 23 0 30 .02 O,0/88 NR 7 O — SL 1 1600 13 D /3 .01 0.06W ST 1 1600 8 0 62 •04* 0.03f36 SR 54 (9 ' EL 1 1600 50 O 5_0 •03* 0.03/2 +ET23200 1509 // • /52U .47 0.47501600 500 0 $- 31 0,3/25 1600 9 O q .Ol 0,0056 3200 1531 3/ /5lv7 48* 0.48970- 5 0 — — Yellow Time .10 a,/000 ' Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I .C.U. .89 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. 0 903 ICU is sum critical movements , denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be- less than or equal to 0.90 EL � Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I .C.U. ' l 1 Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.11. will be greater than O.qO ' Existing Plus Project Traffic, I .C.I1, will be greater than exi ring I .C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures II'ERSECTION Coast Highway Bayside Drive —__�___—____ -•___,_ _ --. —IFORM II PtECT: f OTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATIOANALYSIS Intersection MacArthur Boulevard/Ford Road ' (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) 34070 Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project 307. Existing Exist. Project ' ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio NL 1 1600 30 O 30 .02 6,0/88 ' NT 2 3200 1346 3/ /426 44* 0.445(0 NR 49 0 SL 1 1600 370 O 370 .23* 0,Z3/2 ST _• 2 3200 1413 !/ /¢04 .44 O 445o SR - 1 1600 132 0 /32 .08 0108Z5 ' EL 1 1600 279 a 27 9 .17* 0.174¢ ET 1 1600 228 0 ZZS .14 0,/425 ' ER 1 1600 88 0 88 .06 O,OS,So WL 1 1600 19 O WT 1 1600 113 O //3 .07* 0.070l0 WR 1 1600 194 ' Yellow Time 10 p,/000 Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. 1 .01 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) ' N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 (� Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to ' t—I Existing Conditions I.C.U. ' r Existinq Plus Project Traffic I .0 II. will be greater than 0.90 Existinq Pluv, Project Traffic I .C.II, will be greater than rxi,,(.inq t I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 ' l Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION MacArthur Boulevard/Ford Road !FORM 11 ----- - — - -- - -- - �- -. tOJECr : ' APPENDIX D ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSES ' With Improvements ; t PROJECT MITIGATION MEASURE • ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Bristol Street North/Campus Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 197_ ) ' Move- Lanes Cap a- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C ** Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio ' NL 1 1600 81 0 8/ .05* 0.05-06, A ' P!T 2 3200 587 O - - 587 .18 0,183¢ NR SL -- --- — -- - - _.. ST 2 3200 • 1241 0 1241 .59>, 0,5878 SR 1600 637 0 Co37 - 0 398/ EL — ET - ' ER - - -- — WL 1 ' 1600 321 0 301 .20 0,200ID ' WT 4 6400 1660 /4Z ' /832 .26* 6,Z61o3 WR 30 D .10* O:1000 �c ' Yellow Time ExistingIntersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. 1.00 ' Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I .C.U. a'So ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left ' **With Mitigation Measures Project Mitigation Measure Analysis ' Brief Description: 1 Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. wit.h mitigation measurr(O will _i be less than or, equal to 0.90 ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.O. with mitigation measure(s) will ' be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I .C.U. I ERSECTION Bristol Street North/Campus Drive FORM III PIJECT: 57 PROJECT MITIGATION MEASURE • INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION *LYSIS ' Intersection Coast highway/Ba side Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 197_) ' Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C ** Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio ' NL 2 3200 780 O 780 .24* 0,24S8 NT 1 1600 23 d .02 O.D188 NR 7 O SL 1 1600 13 O /3 01 ' ST 1 1600 8 0 &2 04e 0,0385 A SR 54 ' EL 1 1600 50 0 50 .03* 0,0312 ET 3 4800 1509 138' /547 .47 0. 3223 ' ER 1 1600 . 500 O .31 0•3/ZS WL 1 1600 9 0 9 .01 0.CeS6 WT 3 4800 1531 103 • IC039 .48* 0. 3415 ' WR Yellow Time 10 ' Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I .C.U. .89 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. 0.7553 ' ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) ' N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left ' ** With Mitigation Measures Project Mitigation Measure Analysis ' Brief Description: ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. with mitigation measure(~) will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. with mitigation measure(s) will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I .C.U. I#RSECTION Coast Highway/Bayside Drive —_ _ FORM III .n PiJECT: PROJECT MITIGATION MEASURE . INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' Intersection Mac Arthur Boulevard/Ford Road (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter%Spring 197. ) ' Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak 'Hr Plus Project V/C V/C ** Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio ' NL 2 3200 30 O 30 .02 0,00Q61 NT 2 3200 1346 lo.3 /4 J8 .44* 0.4Yo8) � NR 1 1600 49 O ' SL 2 3200 370 O 370 .23* 0,116lo , ST 2 3200 1413 38 l¢Sl .44 O S3 SR 1 1600 1 132 0 /3Z .08 0•0825 ' EL 2 3200 279 0 079 .17* 0. 0,572 ET 1 1600 228 0 Z28. .14 O,14Z5 ' ER 1 1600 88 0 88 .06 0.0558 WL 1 1600 19 0 19 .01 0,0119 WT 1 1600 113 O 113 07* p_Q7Bly_ � WR 1 1600 194 0 /94 .12 0,1213 p;/DOD 3It ' Yellow Time .10 Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. 1.01 ' Ex.istin Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I .C.U. ICU is sum critical movements , denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left ' ** With Mitigation Measures Project Mitigation Measure Analysis Brief Description: ' Ixi.ting Plus Pro,ject 'Tr•,+ffic I .C.ij. with miLigai.ion nua .urr( , ) will be less U+an ur equal Lo 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. with mitigation measure(s) will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I .C.U. INTERSECTION Mac Arthur Boulevard/Ford Road FORM III P JJECT: I r t P A �Ueof�ut P gee ad Anniala TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING I• ' January 17, 1979 Mr. Ron Hendrickson Commercial/Industrial Division The Irvine Company 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92663 Dear Mr. Hendrickson: This letter summarizes our analysis of the traffic requirements of the devel- opment of Civic Plaza with respect to circulation improvement phasing. The study was conducted to evaluate the circulation needs in response to the, Newport Beach City Council Resolution Number 9472 requiring an improvement phasing plan for this project. ' The study was based upon current planning for Civic Plaza and previous traffic studies related to this project. Previous studies include the following: 1. Newport Center Traffic Study, Phase II, Crommelin - Pringle and ,I Associates, Inc. 1976. 2. Civic Plaza EIR Traffic Analysis„ Crommelin - Pringle and Assoc- iates, Inc. 1975. 3. Traffic Phasing Ordinance Traffic Analysis, Weston Pringle and Associates., 1978. In addition current traCfic volume data compiled by the City for the Traffic Phasing Ordinance was utilized. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Civic Plaza is located within the Newport Center area at the southwest corner ill ! of San Joaquin Hills Road and Santa Cruz Drive. .Vehicular access will be provided to San Joaquin Hills Road, Santa Cruz Drive, San Clemente Drive and 1 2651 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE • SUITE 110 FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92631 • (714) 871-2931 ' ' c ^2 .y Santa Barbara Drive. The San joaquin Hills Road access is limited to right ' turns only. Proposed development includes office and restaurant uses in addition to the ' existing art museum and library that is under construction. A total of 251,000 square feet of office use is planned along with an 8,000 square foot ' restaurant. The library will include 30,000 square feet. I tfi ' TRIP GENERATION For this analysis, estimates were made of PM peak hour volumes and the 2.5 ' hour peak period. Generation rates and estimated volumes for each use and time period are listed in Tables I and 2. The art museum was not included as it is existing and included in existing traffic volume data. These genera- tion rates are those utilized in previous studies of this site. TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT ' The geographic distribution of traffic generated by this development has been (_ y developed in the referenced previous studies. Figure 1 illustrates the traffic V distribution that has been utilized for this study. By applying the distribu- tion percentages to the trip generation data in Tables 1 and 2, estimates can be made of traffic volumes from the project at various locations. The' distri- ' button in Figure 1 is for outbound traffic which must be reversed for inbound traffic. CRITICAL INTERSECTION IDENTIFICATION ' The next step in the analysis was- to identify those intersections that could be impacted by the project. As a starting point, the 16 intersections iden- tified for analysis under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance for this area were examined. For this examination, the "1 %*Traffic Volume Analysis" form from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance was utilized. Appendix A contains the data for ' the individual intersections and the results are summarized in Table 3. ' Those intersections which would have increases of five percent or greater on any approach were identified as critical and for additional analyses. The v -3- y � ' Table 1 III ' 2.5 HOUR TRIP GENERATION Civic Plaza LAND USE RATE VOLUME IN OUT IN OUT ' Office (251,000 SF) 1.8 2.8' 450 700 Restaurant Z 8,000 SF) 11.3 7.7 90 60 ' Library (30,000 SF), 1.0 1.0 30 30 Totals 570 790 ' Table 2 PM PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION Civic Plaza LAND USE RATE VOLUME ' IN OUT IN OUT Office (251,000 SF) 0.6 1.7 150 430 ' Restaurant (8,000 SF) 5.0 _ 3.0 40 20 Library ( 30,000 SF) 1.0 110 30 30 ' Totals 220 480 1 III ; ':;ram � • ' FIGURE 01 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION III 40 20% v �• BQISTpL ' BRrsrO� d � � 2 c ' o d� W o J� ' 35/ tia Hu 25 % zo O SAMTj 9gRegRSaAjJOAQUTAIHICLSRU ' SY. w25% 54/. ci 5% 25 F ' QPC�F`G COAST HIGHWAY( �Ht w �J WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES 't y � -4- y five percent level was based upon a report to the Newport Beach City Council ' �rY from the Department of Community Development dated January 8, 1979. Of the III 16 intersections, 10 were found to be critical by this test. ' ANALYSIS ' The 10 intersections identified in the previous section were further examined to determine potential impacts.' Utilizing "Intersection Capacity Utilization ' Analysis" forms from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance procedure, ICU values were determined. The individual analyses sheets are contained in Appendix B and summarized in Table 3. For this analysis, the existing plus total project ' PM peak hour volumes were utilized. This resulted in three intersections with ICU values of 0.90 or greater - Coast Highway and Byaside Drive, Jamboree Road ' and Mac Arhtur Boulevard and Mac Arthur Boulevard and Ford Road. All other intersections are well below the 0.90 level. ' Since City Council Resolution Number 9422 allows 30 percent of development ' without improvement phasing, the three critical intersections were analyzed f� with existing plus 30 percent of the office. These data are included in ' Appendix C and summarized in Table 3. Both Coast Highway and Bayside Drive and Mac Arthur Bouldvard and Ford Road exceed the 0.90 level under these con- ditions. CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENT NEEDS ' From the analysis section, it was indicated that some circulation system im- provements would be required with any development in excess of 30 percent. ' . Projects are currently programmed at two of the intersections - Coast/Bayside and Mac Arthur/Ford. ' The reconstruction of Coast Highway between Dover and Bayside with the bridge ' construction, will provide three through lanes In each direction al• Bayside Drive. This improvement will reduce: the existing plus project• ICU to 0.7454 ' as indicated in Appendix D. III i r Table 3 INTERSECTION ANALYSES SUMMARY Civic Plaza ICU ICU ICU Exist Exist + Exist + 2. 5 HOUR PERCENTAGES Exist + 30% Total Project INTERSECTION SB SB EB WB Project Project With Improvements _ Bristol N. & Campus 0 0 3.3 Bristol & Campus 0 0 3.8 - Coast & Dover 0 0 4.1 3.7 Coast & Bayside 0 0 2.9 5.1 6.89 _0.9110Y. 0.9038 0.7454 (With Bridge Widening) - Coast & Jamboree 0 6.7 3.3 0 0.83 0.8305 Coast & Newport Center - 1.4 0 1.1 Coast & Mac Arthur - 1.7 1.2 1.7 Coast &- Marguerite 0 0 2.5 2.4 Jamboree & Santa Barbara 7.5 1.5 - 12.1 0.53 0.5563 Jamboree *& SJHR 1.1 4.8 0 12.5 0.64 0.6814 Jamboree & Ford 6.0 6.8 0 0 0.83 0.8499 Bristol & Jamboree 5.5 3.6 4.1 - 0.54 0.5710 Bristol N. & Jamboree 5.4 3.0 _ 0 0.72 0.7929 Jamboree & :iac Arthur 11.7 0 4.0 7.5 0.85 0.9129 0.8745 0.8269 (With Separate NR) Mae Arthur & Ford 5.4 3.5 0 0 1.01 1.0496 1.0221 0.8315 (With City Project) :iac Arthur & SJHR 1.9 4.6 8.8 2.0 0.72 0.7595 u ' -6 A City project for improvement of the Mac Arthur/Ford intersection is scheduled ' to go to bid in June or July, 1979. The improvements planned include double left turn lanes on the north, south and west approaches and two through plus ' right turn lanes on Mac Arthur Boulevard. These improvements will result in a ICU of 0.8315 with existing plus project traffic. Thr provision of an additional lane for northbound traffic on Mac Arthur Boule- vard at Jamboree Road would reduce the ICU with the total project 'to 0.8269. (See Appendix D and Table 3. ) Field measurements indicate that 48 feet are available between the raised median and the curb on this approach. This twidth would allow for a 12 foot left- turn lane; two 11 foot through lanes; and a 14 foot right turn lane with restriping. Many vehicles are utilizing ' this unmarked right turn lane at present. SUMMARY Our analysis of the circulation needs related to the full development of Civic ' Plaza has indicated that three intersections would require modification. These three intersections are Coast Highway and Bayside Drive, Jamboree Road and Mac Arthur Boulevard and Mac Arthur Boulevard and Ford Road. A City project, scheduled to go to bid in June or July, 1979, would provide the required improve- ments at Mac Arthur Boulevard and Ford Road. The Coast Highway bridge project ' would provide the required lanes on Coast Highway at Bayside Drive. Restrip- ing of Mac Arthur Boulevard at Jamboree Road within the existing street width ' can provide the additional lane required at this location. ' The analysis has also indicated that the Coast Highway and Bayside 'Drive and Mac Arthur Boulevard and Ford Road improvements would be required at the 30 percent development level. While the Mac Arthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road intersection would not require improvement until the 30 percent level is ex- ceeded, it is recommended that this minor improvement be comploted as soon ' a; possible. We trust that this analysis will be of assistance to you and the City of it ' Newport Beach. If you have any questions or require additional information, ' please contact us. Respectfully submitted, WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES ' Weston S. Pringle, P.R. ' 15452 1 . I tip' ' APPENDIX A 1 ' 2.5 HOUR INTERSECTION ANALYSES r' 1 1 .. 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection VE - If%VINE AVE. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter/Spring-T97_) ' Existing 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 22 our Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic VOIUME Northbound 1504 15 ' Southbound 3705 37 Eastbound -- " Westbound 4790 ::J::::48 ElProject Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ' ® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 2;z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization ' (I .C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET NORTH/CAMPUS. DRIVE - IRVINE AVE. FORM I ' PROJECT: GIVIG PLA-ZA 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection BRISTOL STREET/CAM2US DRIVE - IRVINE AVE. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19/8 ) ' Existing. 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour ' Direction FTraffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volum Northbound 1606 16 O ' Southbound 3164 32 O Eastbound 3027 1 30 114 3.8 estbound I ---- Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ' © Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization ' (I .C.U. ) Analysis is required. t III ! INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET/CAMPUS DRIVE - IRVINE AVE. FORM I ' PROJECT: G1V(G PLA-tA ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection Coast Highwav/Dover Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average winter/Spring 1978) Existing 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volum Northbound 242 2 O ' Southbound 2100 21 O Eastbound 3489 35 /42- 4•�°�° ' estbound 5279 53 198 3.7°jo ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume © Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 21z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I .C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 'INTERSECTION Coast Highway/Dover Drive FORM I 'PROJECT: CIVIC- PLAF-A r ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection C Hjhway/BayS�de Drie (Existing Traffic Volumesoat basedy on Average Winvter/Spring 1978) ' Existing 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic VolumE Northbound 18ig ig O ' outhbound 180 2 O Eastbound 4847 48 /42 2..9°Io ' Westbound A 3860 39 19�i S. 110 oProject Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I .C.U.) Analysis is required. III : INTERSECTION Coast Highway/Bayside Drive FORM I rROJECT: G6V(G PLAZA t 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersectio t Hiahway/Iamboree Road (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) ' Existing 1% of Existing Project pproach Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour ' Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volum Northbound Inir, In 0 ' Southbound 198 Eastbound 4264 43 14Z 3. 307o estbound ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume © Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization ' (I .C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 III • RTCRSFCTION Coast Highway/Jamboree Road FORM I tOJECT: CIVIC. PL A-a A 1% Traffic Volume Analysis tIntersection Coast Hiahwav/Newport Center Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) ' Existing ' 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 2; Hour Peak 2; Hour Peak 2 Hour ' Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic IME Northbound -- ' Southbound 2848 28 39 /4 7o Eastbound 3142 31 estbound 2566 26 1.1070 ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ' ; ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing X Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 III : INTERSECTION Coast Highway/Newport Center Drive FORM I ' PROJECT: C I VI C PLAZA; I ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection (Existing Traffic Volumes based lan Ivaerage Winter pring 1978) ' Existing 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 2 z Hour Peak 2 2 Hour Peak 2 2 Hour Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volum Northbound -- ' outhbound 2258 23 39 1.707o Eastbound 3204 32 1 r.Z ,70 Westbound 1 3432 34I . 57 1.7% ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing ' Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I .C.U. ) Analysis is required. III; ' Coast Hi hwa INTERSECTION 9 Y/MacArthur Boulevard FORM I ' PROJECT: CIVIL PLAZA ' r- 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection Cat nhwAv/M�"q,,ari*= Avenue (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average-Winter/Spring 1978) ' Existing 1% of Existing Project ' Approach Peak 22 Hour Peak 2; Hour Peak 2; Hour Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Votum Northbound ' outhbound 430 Eastbound 1 3132 1 11 179 2,`j°7o ' Westbound F 2401 1 24 1 57 Z• 4°lo ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume ® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. ' INTERSECTION Coast Highway/Marguerite Avenue FORM I PROJECT: CIVIC PLAZA ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection Jamboree Road/Santa Barbara Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978 ) Existing • 1% of Existing Project pproach Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour Direction Traffic Volume I Traffic Volume Traffic Volum Northbound 1895 19 142. 7.510 ' Southbound 2653 27 39 1. 5170 Eastbound -- Westbound 1 1299 1 13 /5$ 12,1010 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ' ® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing, Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I .C.U. ) Analysis is required. ill ! 'INTERSECTION Jamboree Road/Santa Barbara Drive FORM I III 'PROJECT: GIVIG PLAZA 1 r- 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection Jamboree Road/San Joaquin Hills Road (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Existing . 1% of Existing Project Fire proach Peak 2z Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2-1-2 Hour ' ction i Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volum Northbound 2581 26 28 outhboUnd 4134 41 zoo 4 B`�o Eastbound 385 4 O ' estbound 2533 1 25 316 12.5°Io t DProject Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume ' ® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 2z Hour. Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. III ' INTERSECTION Jamboree Road/San Joaquin Hills Road FORM I ' PROJECT: CIVIC PLAF-A ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection Jamboree Road/Eastbluff Drive-Ford Rd. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) ' Existing 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 2h Hour Peak 2; Hour Peak 2k Hour ' Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volunw Northbound 4574 46 276 (o.0 7o ' Southbound 2937 29 2-00 .6070 Eastbound 1 981 1 10 1 O ' Westbound 1 753 1 8 O Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume t ® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I .C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 III ' INTERSECTION Jamboree Road/Eastbluff Drive-Ford Road FORM I ' PROJECT: GIVIC PLAEA : i 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection BRTSTOL STREET IAMRnPFF ROAD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 197.8) ' Existing. 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 2z Hour Peak 21, Hour Peak 2� Hour ' Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volum Northbound 4996 50 276 S.5% tSouthbound 2359 24 8' 3'6 Eastbound 2778 28 /1¢ Q•1°ro ' estbound -- Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. ' INTE.RSECTION BRISTOL STREET/JAMBOREE ROAD FORM I ,PROJECT: CNIG PLA-2'A i t , I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection BRISTOL STREET NORTH/JAMBOREE ROAD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Existing , 1% of Existing Project pproach Peak 2; Hour Peak 2 z Hour Peak 212 Hour ' Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volum Northbound 5153 52 216 5,¢% ' Southbound 2811 86 3.007o Eastbound -- [Westbound ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume © Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET NORTH/JAMBOREE ROAD FORM I 'PROJECT: CIVIC PLAZA 1 ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis (1 ) ' Intersection JAMBOREE ROAD/MacARTHUR BLVD. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1976) ' Existing 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour 1 Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volu Northbound 1681 17 196 I1.7`�Io ' Southbound 2814 28 D Eastbound 2923 29 /18 4.o°7a estbound 30337 30 228 7 `' % ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ' . ® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I .C.U. ) Analysis is required. (1 ) MacArthur Blvd. is assumed north and south ' INTERSECTION JAMBOREE ROAD/MacARTHUR BLVD. FORM I ' PROJECT: CIVIC- PLA�-A 1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ! Intersection MacArthur Boulevard/Ford Road (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) 1 Existing . 1% of Existing Project pproach Peak 232 Hour Peak 2 i Hour Peak 2� Hour 1 Direction I Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic VolumE Northbound 3657 37 /98 5.4% 1 outhbound 4032 40 /42— 3.5°la Eastbound 1584 16 0 1Westbound 1007 l0 ! Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume 1 Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing © Peak 2'1 Hour.Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I .C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 INTERSECTION MacArthur Boulevard/Ford Road FORM I (PROJECT: CIVIC FLA�EA 1 ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection MacArthur Boulevard/San Joaquin Hills Road (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) ' Existing . 1% of Existing Project _ Approach Peak 2, Hour Peak 2 2 Hour Peak 2 Z Hour ' Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volum Northbound 1484 15 Z8 ' Southbound 3065 31 /4.2 4 6°l0 Eastbound 3140 31 216 ' Westbound 1451 15 Z8 ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing ' Peak 21-2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 ' INTERSECTION MacArthur Boulevard/San Joaquin Hills Road FORM I 'PROJECT: C N I C PLA-ZA i ' APPENDIX B ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSES III : INTERSECT10N CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS lntcrsrction Co_dst Highway/Jamboree Road (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter%Suring 1978) ' Move- Lanes Capa Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio NL _ 1 1600 40 O 40 .03 0.0250 t NT _ 2 3200 333 _ O —�4 3 o _ 14* 0. 1362_ NR 103 — SL 1 1600 _ 114 0 . _--11 4--- ---•-• —_ .07* O.-o7)2,•_ 'it ' ST 2 3200 545 _O 5¢5._—, „17 SR 1 1600 530 120 650 •33 O. 062 ' ff 3200 603 SS 658 •19 0.2056 3299 1138 0 1194 .37 0.3731 56 O WL 1 1600 240 0 2¢o .15* o.15oo WT 2 1 3200 905 0 905 .28 o.28z8 ' WR N.S. 1 - 88 O $8 .10 p,l000 Yellow Time .83 Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. ' Existin Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I .C.U. O 8305 ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 f—1 Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to ' L l Existing Conditions I .C.U. ' Existing Plus Project Traffic. L.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' I i Existing Plu, ProjacL 'Traffic I .C.II. will be greater than exi•,Linq `—J I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.1)0 ' - —•- --• --.. .. . _. --•--•--------•---- ----•---- •-• ---- • _ III n Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures ' INTERSECTION Coast Highway/Jamboree Road _.._ .. _. ._..- .. _. __. !FORM I [ ' PROJLr ( . ':~•' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' Intersection Jamboree Road/Santa Barbara Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter Spring 1978) ' Move--- Lanes Capa- Existing Project -Exstiiic� ' I°xtst. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio ' NL NIT 2 3200 720 It 7 31 .22 0.Z28 NR 1 1600 57 44 101 .04 0.0631 SL 1 1600 106 p /O6 .07 0.066Z ' ST_ 2 3200 1062 O /06Z __- .33* 0.3319 SR _ ' EL ' ET ' ER WIL 270 96 IT 3 4800 0 0 597 .10* 0.1244- ' WR 4 � 231 1 0 _ Yellow Time .10 0.1000 tExisting Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. 53 ' Existinq Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. 0. 5563 ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) ' N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 (� Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I .C.U. t1 Existing Plu•, Project Traffic I .C.U. will he greater than O.9P ' Existinq Plug, Vr•oject Ir'affiC I .C.II, wrll hr gr•oater than exi"Ling -� I .C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures I ,INTERSECTION Jamboree Road/Santa Barbara Drive — --- - --- — --- -- - -- ------ --- - —IFORM I I 'PROJECT : I ,,: . INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS t Intersection Jamboree Road/San Joaquin Hills Road (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter Spring 1978) Rove- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio NL 1 1600 115 O d(5 .07 o.0719 NT 2 3200 892 O 819 .28* 0.2768 - ' . NR 1 1600 123 11 134 .08 0.0838 SL 2 3200 495 7'7 572— .15* 0.1788 ' ST — 2 3200 1039 O /039 .32 0.3247 SR 1 1600 233 O 233 .15 o.1456 EL 1 1600 52 O 52. .03 0.0325 ET 2 3200 40 O 8 6 .03* 0.0269 ' ER 46 O — WL 1 1600 131 Z /56 .08* 0.0 69 + WT 2 3200 80 O 80 •02 0.02.60 ' WR N.S. 921 /68 /089 • - — Yellow Time .10 0.1000 �k ' I Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization (I .C.U. ) .64 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. 0.6814 ICU is sum critical movements , denoted by asterisk (*) ' N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I-1 Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to L—' Existing Conditions I .C.U.. ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.9.0 f Existing Plu; Project Traffic I.C.II. will be greater than existing l—� I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures III` INTERSECTION Jamboree Road/San Joaquin Hills Road .- .-'FORM II 'PROJECT : 'w o INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' Intersection Coast Highway/Bayside Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) ' Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio NL 2 3200 780 O 780 .24* 0.2438, ' NT 1 1600 23 0 30 .02 p.Ol9g v� NR 7 O S 1 1600 13 O Y3 .01 v.ovB I ST 1 1600 8, 0 62 04* D•0388 A�.,_�/ SR 54'. O' 03 EL 1 1600 50 O 50 * O•p312 �_ �, ET 2 3200 1509 120 /629 47 O 5D91 ' ER 1. 1600 500 O SOU .31 O••3125 WL 1 1600 9 O 9 •01 0. 13056 WT 2 3200 1531 55 I1591 48* D.49 72t WR 5 O J _ .10 0. 1000 - Yellow Time Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization (I .C.U. ) .89 ' Existin •Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. D•9110 f3' ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) ' N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, Wight, L=Left ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 n Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to ' L I Existing Conditions I.C.U. �. Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' ( Existing Pluc, Project Traffic I .C.II. will be greater than oxiIting I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 ' rr Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures ' INTERSECTION __•, —_ Coast HighwAy[B.2,yside Drive ___�__—__•—_._—__.— __FORM II ' PROJECT: U5 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' Intersection Jamboree Road/Eastbluff Drive-Ford Road (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) ' Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio ' NL 2 3200 465 0 465 .15* 0.1453 ' NT 2 1 3200 1339 / /507 .42 0.4709 NR 1 1600 185 0 / S •12 0.1156 SI; 1 1600 _-67 —_ 0 67 .Oa _— 0.0419 ' ST - 2 3200... _.. 1150— ..7-7 l227-- - .. 36* SR 1 1600 42 _ O 42 _.----•- -•-03— 0.0262 tEL 1 1600 16 O _ /b__• •01 0.0100 ET 1 3200 114 O 114 •11* 0. )131 � ' ER 248 O 248 — WL 1 1600 173 O 1-7 .11* 0. 1081 WT 2 3200 99 O 99 .03 0.0309 WR 1 1600 32 O 32 .02 0.OZoo Yellow Time .10 10.1000 'k Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I .C.U. •83 ' Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization ( I.C.U.)" ICU is sum critical movements , denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, ' L=Left Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to ' - Existing Conditions I.C.U. 1 L� Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' f—1 Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.II. will be greater than existing LJ I .C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures ' Il: 1 ' INTERSECTION -- — Jamboree Road/Eastbluff Drive Ford Road i —;FORM 11 ' PROJE(1 : INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' Intersection Bristol Street/Jamboree Road (Existing Traffic Volumes (lased on Flverai�e WinterjSpring 191g) Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio ' NL 2 3200 1005 96 II 01 •31* o•3444! 1 NT 3 4800 1065 7Z 1168 .23 D.2433 NR 31 .O 1 SL - - _ _ ST 3 4800 1092 33 IIZS 23 . •0. 2344 SR '. _ - - - — — 1 EL 1 1600 79 O •79 .05 o.O4•94 ET 2 3200 406 O 406 •13* 0. 1269 1 ER 2 3200 689 44. 733 -22 O.2291 W4 WT - -WR Yellow Time •10 0./000 ` 1 f .54 -Existing Intersection Ca acit Utilization I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Intersection Ca acit Utilization I .C.U. 0.57/0 1 ICU is sum critical movements , denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, 1 L=Left 1 Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will -be less than or equal to 0.90 (� Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 1 t—I Existing Conditions I .C.U. 1 Existing Plus Project Traffic [ .(..II. will be greater than 0.90 1 f-1 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing lJ I.L.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 nFurther analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures 1 INTERSECTION Bristol Street/Jamboree Road 1 PROJECT: INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILI7.ATION ANALYSIS ' Intersection Bristol Street North/Jamboree Blvd. (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio ' 2 3200 1005 !1 O 1 •31* 0•3441 NL 9� NT 3 4800 1144 72 12l6 .24 0.2533 NR - - ' SL - - - - - ST 3 4800 1047 33 7080 •22* 0.2250 SR 1 1600 218 0 ZIg .14 0.1362 ' EL - - - - - - ET - - - - ' ER - - - - • WL 15 p ! S WT 3 4800 571 1 p 571 09* 0.1238 WR 8 O 8 ' k Yellow Time •10 0.I000- Existing Intersection Ca acit Utilization I .C.U. .72 ' Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I .C.U. 0 7929 ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) ' N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.9.0 „ EExisting Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I .C.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.II. will be greater than 0.90 ' f �l Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.II, will be greater than exi5tino l J I .C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 ffl : nfurther analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures 'INTERSECTION Bristol Street North/Jamboree Road —'� _ _ ----_--- -•• -- . _ _ .. _ --. 7ill 'PROJECT; .._.�... - -- - •-- - -• I INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' Intersection Jamboree Road/MacArthur Blvd. (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) ' Aov -- Lanes Capa- Existing- Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume_ Volume Peak_Hr Volume_ Ratio Ratio ' NL 1 1600 26 0 Z6 — .02 0.0I62 ' NT 2 3200 _ 520 O Sol .21* 0.26O3 NR 161 120 SL 1 1600 135 O 135 .08* O.o844 ST 2 3200 744 O 744 .23 0.2325 SR N.S. 399 0 �39 - ' EL 1 1600 448 O 448 .28 0,2goo ET 3 4800 885 72 957 .18* 0.1994 ER N.S. 3 O — - — WL 1 1600 446 0 446 •28* O.2788 ' WT 3 4800 881 33 1 .18 a i 90¢ WR N.S. 10 O Yellow Time •10 0.1000 Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization 1L.C.U. ) -85 ' Existing Plus Pro•ect Intersection Capacity Utilization ( I .C.U. ) 0 9129 ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) ' N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be •less than or equal to 0.9.0 n Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal • to ' L I Existing .Conditions I .C.U. ' C Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90. ( Existing Plu; Project Traffic I .C.I1, will be greater than existing I .C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 L I Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures ill , IN TERSECTIO N __ , -•, _Jamboree Roa�MacArthur Blvd. �•--,_- ,-,__ _ _•-•__, _-.,__-_ _-_• —IFORP1 11 'NOJECT ; ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' Intersection MacArthur Boulevard/Ford Road (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 19/8) ' Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio NL_ 1 1600 30 O 30 .02 0. 0188 ' NT 2 3200 1346 120 /S I b .44* 0.4.754 -31F NR 49 O SL 1 1600 370 0 3-70 .23* 0.2312 ST_ 2 3200 1413 SS I4b8 .44 0.4588 SR 1 1600 132 0 132 .08 O.DJ3245 ' EL 1 1600 279 0 279 .17* 0.1-7 44.— k ET 1 1600 228 O 22 .14 0.14a5 ' ER 1 1600 88 O .06 0.05TO WL 1 1600 19 O 19 .01 0.0119 WT 1 1600 113 0 113 .07* 0.0706 1� ' WR 1 1600 194 O 194. .12 0.1212 Yellow Time .10 C).1000 Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I .C.U. 1 .,01 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization ( I .C.U. L 1.0496 ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) ' N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' n Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to L ' Existing Conditions I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' f -I Existinq Plu; Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than e&,H nq I.C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures III' II, ' INTERSECTION MacArthur Boulevard/Ford Road - - --- ---- -- - - ---- -- - - - - --- ---. . .- -IFORM II ' PROJECT: tV i' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' Intersection MacArthur. Boulevard San Jooaa uin Hills Road es B (Existing Traffic Vol umxsed on Average Winter/Spring 1978) ' Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city I Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio ' NL 1 1600 63 11 74 .04 0.0462 NT 2 3200 361 O 490 1 .15* 0.1531 + NR 129 b SL 2 3200 412 O .412. .13* 0.12,85 # ST 2 3200 746 p 746 .23 0.2331 ' SR N.S. - 250 55 305 - ' EL 2 3200 772 120 892 .24* 0.2788 ET 3 4800 648 Z 4 7 7 6 .15 0.1617 ' ER 80 24 — WL 1 1600 70 O 70 .04 0.o438 WT 3 4800 285 11 474 10* 0.0988 WR 0 1 — ' Yellow Time .10 0.1000 Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. .72 ' Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. O 7595 ICU is sum critical movements , denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' n Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to —I Existing Conditions I.C.U. i - � Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 f Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be greater than existing LJ I .L.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION MacArthur Boulevard/San Joaquin Hills Road ._ i . ' ' - - - -- - ---------._._ --.-._- ---• -•-------.._•.— _ ._. .. -.. --------- --- - FORM 11 �ROJECT : 1 1 APPENDIX C INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSES Exist + 30 Percent of Project 1 1 ill t .. I INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' Intersection _Coast_HiUhWay B,1y�de Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average WinterTring 1978) 30 070 ' - Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project 3p9.Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr P1u 1tProject V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio ' NL 2 3200 780 O 760 .24* O.2¢38 4 ' NT 1 1600 23 0 30 — .02 O. 0188 NR 7 O _ SL 1 1600 13 _O _ I3 .01 O.00$/ ' ST-- 1 1600 — 8 O — 62 04* O•o388 SR 54 0� - EL 1 1600 50 O SO •03* 0•0312 '� ET 2 3200 1509 /t /SZO •47 0.4750 ' ER 1 1600 500 0 500 •31 10. 3125 WL 1 1600 9 0 9 •01 0.0066 WT 2 3200 1531 32 /568 48* 0.49OO 'lE ' WR R 5 0 -- .10 O.1oo0 ' Yellow Time Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. .89 ' Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. Of}O 3 S ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 f—I Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to L—� Existing Conditions I .C.U. ' 1 Existinn Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will by greater than 0:110 ' f J Exist.inq Plu•: Project. traffic I .C.I1. will be greater than oxi•,Llnct l I .C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 ' Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures- — - INTERSECTION � • __ Coast Highw.�ylB.�y,side Drive —!FORM II ' PROJECT: INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' Intersection Jamboree Road/MacArLhur• Blvd. (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average 4linter /Spring 1978 ) ---- - Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project 30°l. Existing Exist. Pro i ect ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr P1�Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio ' NL 1 1600 26 O 26 .02 aol62 ' NT 2 3200 520 O 713 .21* 0.2228 NR 161 32 ' ' SL 1 1600 135 _ O )35 0* O•0544 'k ST_ 2 3200 744 0 744__- 23 0.2325• ' SR N.S. 399 0 EL 1 1600 448 0 448 •28 O.2800 ET 3 4800 885 20 905 .18* 0. 1885 ' ER N.S. 3 0 — _ - WL 1 1600 446 O 446 •28* 0.2'788 WT 3 4800 881 -7 888 .18 0. )8 O WR N.S. 10 O .10 0. /000 a0 ' Yellow Time Exist in Intersection Ca acit Utilization I .C.U. 85 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization ( I .C.U. O'87 45 ICU is sum critical movements , denoted by asterisk (*) ' W=Westbound T=Through, R=Right, N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, L=Left — ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 EExisting Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I .C.U. C Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.I1. will be greater than 0.110 ' Existing Plug Project Traffic I .C.II. will br greaLor than exisLing �•-� I .C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 III ' ElFurther analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION —Jpmborge RoadjMa_q rthur Blvd_ _ - .. __._. ---;FORM I I 'ROJECT : INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection MacArthur Boulevard/Ford Road (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter%Spring 1978) 30 % _ _ ' Move- Lanes Ca pa- Existing Project 3o�,Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr PlustiProject V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio ' NL 1 1600 30 O 30 __ .02 0.0188 ' NT 2 3200 1346 32 /427 1 .44* 0. t 469 �r NR 49 O SL-___ 1 1600 370 O 370 .23* 0.2312 ' ST :_ 2 3200 1413 11 1424 .44 0.4450 SR 1 1600 132 O 132 .08 0.0 25 ' EL 1 1600 279 O 279 .17* 0. 1744_ ET 1 1600 228 O 228 .14 0. 1425 ' ER 1 1600 88 O .06 0.055 WL 1 1600 19 O 19 .01 0. 0119 WT 1 1600 113 O /13 .07* 0.0706 WR" 1 1600 194 O 194 .12 0. 1212 Yellow Time .10 0./000 Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) 1 .01 ' Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. /•0221 ICU is sum critical movements , denoted by asterisk (*) ' N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left ' Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to ' t I Existing Conditions I .C.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.u. will he greater than 0.90 Exi,t.inq Plus Project ir•affic I .C.II. will ho greater than oKisliny J I .C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 nFurther analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures INTERSECTION MacArthur Boulevard/Ford Road i _!FORM II ' PRO.1ECT : 9 t APPENDIX D ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSES ' With Improvements t II1: at „ INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' Intersection oast Iii_9hwav/8ride Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) W ITN I MPIZOVEMEAITS ' Move- lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio ' NL 2 3200 780 O 780 24* 0.24.38 NT 1 1600 23 O 30 02 0.0188 NR 7 O. — — SL 1 1600 13 0 13 .01 0.008/ ' sT 1 1600 8 O 6Z '04* 0.0388 SR 54 O ' EL 1 1600 50 O SO •03* 0.0312 -11 ET 3 14600 1509 12-0 /(c29 .47 0.3394- ' ER 1 1600 500 O 6D0 .31 o. 3125 , WL 1 1600 9 0 9 .01 0.00 56 WT 3 4800 1531 55 l59/ •48* 0.33lb ' WR 5 b 10 0•J000 it ' Yellow Time Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization I .C.U. .89 ' Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. 0•7¢5¢ ICU is sum critical movements, denoted by asterisk N ' N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left Existing P1'us Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' ElExisting Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. �...J Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will he qreater than 0.90 Existinq Plu,, Project Traffic I .C.U. will be greater than oxi,,Llnq I —1 I .C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 ElFurther analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures 'INTERSECTION Coast Highwy/Bays.ide Drive _• ORM II 'PROJECT: .. INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' Intersection Jamboree Road/MacArthur Blvd. (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter%Spring 1978) W ITN IMPR.OVeMeMT Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume _Volume Peak Hr Volume-- Ratio Ratio ' NL 1 1600 26 O 2Co .02 o.o162 'k ' NT 2 3200 520 O 52,0 •21* o•I62S NR I /(o00 161 12o- 28/ d.17 6 SL 1 1600 135 O 135 •08* 0.0844- ' ST_Y 2 3200 744 O 744 •23 0.Z32$ SR - 3 N.S. 399 O 9_ - EL 1' 1600 448 O 4 8 •28 0.2800_ ET 3 4800 885 72 957 •18* 0• 1994 ER N.S. 3 O 3 - — WL 1 1600 446 O 44-6 •28* 0.2788 # ' WT 3 4800 881 33 914 — .18 ' 0.1904 WR N.S. 10 O Yellow Time 10 6• IoOo �t Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization ( I .C.U.) 85 ' Existin Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. 0.8269 ICU is sum critical movements , denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=left ' M Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to ' Existing Conditions I.C.U. Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1 Existing Plu,, Project Traffic I .C.II. will t)o oro.iter than exi,,0nq ' —I I .C.U. that i; currently greater than 0.90 -�� Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures tTERSECTION Jambonte thurBlvd.r --!FORM II �OJE(i : INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' Intersection MacArthur. Boule_vai�_F.ord. Road (Existing Traffic Volumes Dase�on_ er Avage Winter%Spring 1978) W ITN I MPP-0V M61.1T5 Move- Lanes Capa- Existing Project Existing Exist. Project ' ment city Peak Hr Peak Hr Plus Project V/C V/C Volume Volume Peak Hr Volume Ratio Ratio ' NL 2 3Z0o 30 O 30 .02 0.0044• ' NT 2 3200 1 1346 12-0 /4-C� .44* o.4581 '1< NR 1 /600 49 0 49 0.0306 SL Z 3200 370 O 370 .23* o.1156 ' ST 2 3200 1413 SS 14(oS .44 CI. 58d- SR 1 1600 132 O 13Z .08 0.0825 ' EL 2 3200 279 O 79 .17* 0.0872 'k ET 1 1600 228 0 2Z8 .14 0. 14.ZS ER 1 1600 88 _ O 88 _ .06 0.0550 WL 1 1600 — 19 O — 19 .01 0. O 19 ' WT 1 1600 113 O 113 .07* 0.0706 1` WR 1 . 1600 194 O .12 O.IZIZ Yellow Time .10 0.1000 rlr Existino Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. 1 .01 ' Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization I .C.U. 0 8 315 ICU is sum critical movements , denoted by asterisk (*') ' N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, T=Through, R=Right, L=Left Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Existing Plus Project Traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to Existing Conditions I.C.U. -- - ' ( Existing Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' Existinq Plus Project Traffic I .C.U. will be greater than misting I .C.U. that is currently greater than 0.90 ' n Further analysis required to determine applicable mitigation measures illy INTERSECTION MacArthur Boulevard/Ford Road -.. _ --:FORM I1 ' PROJECT : -H-E IRVINE CQiVIPAW 550 Newport Center Drive, P.O. Box I Newport Beach,California 92663 (714) 644-3011 I ' October 18, 1979 ' Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 RE: Civic Plaza Phasing Plan ' Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission: t The Irvine Company respectfully requests that your consideration of our proposed Phasing Plan for Civic Plaza be continued to the Plann- ing Commission meeting of December 6, 1979. ' As you are aware, the City Council is scheduled to hold public hearings on General Plan Amendment 79-1 beginning October 23, 1979, which may affect Civic Plaza. This continuance would allow information generated by the City Council's review of Newport Center in the General Plan Amendment to be used in the Planning Commission's consideration of the Civic Plaza Phasing Plan. ' Your consent to this request would be appreciated. ' Sincerely, - - 4 � . ' David Dmohowski Manager ' Government Relations r -W IRVINE CMPAW 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92663 ' (714) 644-3011 July 10, 1979 RECEIVED PlanningCommission Community �( Development ' City of Newport Beach Dept -3 3300 Newport Boulevard JUL 101979?-�- Newport Beach, California 6 CITY Ur 92663 i NEWPORT BEACH, 4 ' SUBJECT: Civic Plaza Traffic Phasing Plan s V C) ' Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission: In order to proceed with full development of the Civic Plaza site in accordance with ' the City's P.C. district regulations, we are submitting attached Traffic Phasing Plan for your approval. City Council Resolution No. 9472 sets forth guidelines for the "test of reasonableness" to be used in evaluating such projects. It is our belief that the attached Traffic Phasing Plan has been prepared in compliance with all t applicable City regulations and, in fact,meets the criteria established for the test of reasonableness. ' The Traffic Phasing Plan was prepared assuming that development .currently in process under the 30% exception rule would be fully occupied in .1980. The additional 70% of future allowed development, according to our Traffic Phasing Plan, is scheduled ' to be developed and occupied in 1981. The attached traffic study and responses identify the traffic impacts associated with the proposed development. Our proposed site development phasing plan is summarized as follows: ' 1980 - Occupancy of existing plus development in process under the 30% rule. (This includes 34,000 sq. ft. fort he art museum and library, plus ' approximately 81,000 sq. ft-. additional) . 1981 - Occupancy of remainder of allowed development, subject to the 70% ' phasing requirement. (This includes approximately 190,000 square feet consisting of office/restaurant/theater uses, and an addition to the art museum.) Within the traffic limiting parameters, it is highly desirable from our point of view to complete the Civic Plaza development at the earliest feasible date. This would minimize aesthetic impacts due to•grading and construction, and would allow ' the most effective implementation of erosion control measures. Responses to the City's guidelines for_ Traffic Phasing approval are attached. 1 S July 9, 1979 page 2 ' We hope that this letter, along with the attached Traffic Plan will answer your questions and concerns related to traffic impacts due to the develop- ment of the Civic Plaza P.C. Should you have any additional questions or ' comments, please feel free to contact me, or our Traffic Consultant. Yours very truly, ' Ronald W. Hendrickson Director, Design/Construction Commerical/Industrial Division ' RWH:lk encls. 1 . 1 1 ICI 1 1 ' THE IRVINE CDMPAW 550 Newport Center Drive,P.O. Box I Newport Beach,California 92663 ' (714) 644-3011 February 21 , 1979 Rco m�u 9nt o er eDep �J Mr. Richard Hogan FEB�i or- City of Newport Beach Npcav� 3300 Newport Blvd O� ' Newport Beach, Ca 92660 (0 Dear Mr. Hogan: ' CIVIC PLAZA - NEWPORT CENTER REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PHASING PLAN (REVISED) ' Transmitted herewith, in accord with City Council� Resolution No. 9472, is a phasing plan for Civic Plaza, an excepted P.C. under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. ' Accompanying the Phasing Plan is response to six questions posed by the Planning Commission and a Weston Pringle Traffic Analysis, dated February 12, 1979. ' We request that this phasing plan be submitted to the Plann- ing Commission at their meeting of March 8, 1979. ' Yours very truly, Rondld W. Hendrickson ' Project Manager Commercial/Industrial Division ' RWH:dw encl . 1 '1 RWH:dw 2-20-79 CIVIC PLAZA, NEWPORT CENTER 1 PHASING PLAN 1 Included herein is the phasing plan for Civic Plaza, an excepted P.C. 1 under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. 1 In addition, the following information is included: Data Requested from Developer by Planning Commission 1 (approved 12,21-78) six items. 1 Weston Pringle and Associates Traffic Analysis dated February 12, 1979 BACKGROUND 1 1 . The Civic Plaza Planned Community Text approved by the City Council in December 1975 included the following uses: 1 Office 320,000 s.f. Restaurant 8,000 s.f. 1 Art Museum 30,000 s.f. 1 Library 30,000 s.f. Theater 20,000 s.f. 1 2. On December 11 , 1978, the City Council sustained the decision of 1 Planning Commission excepting the Civic Plaza PC from the require- ments of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. 1 3. On February 8, 1979, The Planning Commission revised the Qivic Plaza 1 PC to be consistent with General Plan Amendment 78-2 by deleting 1 85,294 s.f. of office park and 16,000 s.f. of Civic Cultural . In addition, a traffic phasing plan is required for any development in 1 excess of 30% of the additional allowable development. A revised ' site plan reflecting the reduction in development was part of the approval . PHASING PLAN ' Phase Sq. Feet Start Complete I 30% of 234,706 s.f. _ • 70,412 s.f. Fall 1980 Spring 1981 ' 35% of 234,706 s.f. = 82,147 s.f. 152,559 s.f. ' II Restaurant 8,000 s.f. Spring 1981 ' 35% of 234,706 s.f. = 82,147 s.f. Spring 1981 Fall 1981 i ' DATA REQUESTED FROM DEVELOPER BY PLANNING COMMISSION ( APPROVED 12-21-78 1 . "Each project subject to the phasing requirements of Council ' Resolution No. 9472 shall be examined as to the extent of existing development and the amount of development remaining to ' be completed." ' Existing development in the Civic Plaza P.C. consists of the 20,000 s.f. Newport Harbor Art Museum and the (nearly complete) ' 16,000 s.f. Newport Center Library. ' Development to be completed consists of 234,706 s.f. of office ' development, a 20,000 s.f. theater, an 8,000 s.f. restaurant, • and a 10,000 s.f. addition to the Art Museum. ' 2. "Information shall be submitted indicating the amount of traffic ' being generated by existing development and that projected for ' remaining development". , ' Trip generation rates and estimated volumes for each use and time period are listed in Tables 1 and 2. The existing Art ' Museum was not included since it is already a part of the ' existing traffic volume data." continued . . . . ' TABL•'E 1 2.5 HOUR TRIP GENERATION ' CIVIC PLAZA ' RATE RATE Land :Use IN OUT IN OUT Office 234,706 s.f. ) 1 .2 3.4 280 800 Restaurant (8,000 s.f. ) 11 .3 7.7 90 60 ' Library (14,000 s.f. ) 1 .0 1 .0 10 10 ' 290 810 1 ' ' TABLE 2 ' PM PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION ' Land Use RATE VOLUME IN OUT IN OUT ' Office (234,706 s.f. ) 0.6 1 .7 140 400 ' Restaurant (8,000 s.f. ) 5.0 3.0 40 20 - Library (14,000 s.f. ) 1 .0 1 .0 10 10 ' Totals 150 140 ' 3. "An examination shall be made of the circulation system in the ' vicinity of the project to determine what improvements remain to be completed, with particular consideration being given to ' those improvements which will directly aid in moving traffic generated by the project. The area to be examined shall extend ' to those intersections where traffic generated from the project ' increased the traffic at the intersection during the peak two and continued . ' one-half hour preriod by 5% or more . " The 16 intersections identified for analysis under the Traffic ' Phasing Ordinance were examined. Eleven intersections were ' identified as having increases of 5% or greater on any approach during the peak two and one-half hour period. They are summarized ' in attached Table 3. The eleven intersections were further• analyzed utilizing the existing ' plus total project PM peak hour volumes. This resulted in three tintersections with ICU values of 0.90 or greater. These inter- sections and anticipated improvements are as follows: ' Coast .Hwy and Bayside Drive ' The reconstruction of Coast Hwy between Dove Dr. and Bayside Dr. with the new bridge will provide three lanes in each direction at Bayside Dr. This improvement will reduce the existing plus project ICU to 0.7553 based on the current Caltrans schedule the bridge ' project should be complete by January 1982. These improvements will ' reduce the existing plus Project ICU to 0.7553. MacArthur Blvd and ford Rd The improvements for this intersection, which are scheduled for bid ding, in June or July 1979, include double left turn lanes on the north, south and west approaches and two through plus right turn lanes on MacArthur ' Blvd, These improvements will reduce the existing plus project ICU ' to 0.8415. continued . Table 3 INTERSECTION ANALYSES SUMMARY Civic Plaza ICU ICU ICU Exist Exist + Exist + ^ 2.5 HOUR PERCENTAGES Exist + 30% Total Project INTERSECTION vB SB LB LIB Project Project f•:ith Imnrovements Bristol N. & Campus 0 0 - 5.9 1.00 1.0238 1.0083 0.8350 (With Southbound Right Turn Lane Bristol & Campus 0 0 3.3 - Coast & Dover 0 0 2.1 3.9 Coast & Bayside 0 0 1.5 5.3 .89 0.9260 0.9035 0.7553 (With Bridge Widening) Coast & Jamboree 0 6.9 1.7 0 .83 0.8305 Coast & Newport .Center - .1.4 0 0.6 Coast & MacArthur 1.8' 1.3 0.9 Coast & Marguerite 0 0 2.6 .1.3 Jamboree & Santa Barbara 3.1 1.6 - 12.5 .53 0.5599 Jamboree & SJHR 0.6 2.5 0 12.8 .64 0.6720 Jamboree & Ford 6.2 3.5 0 0 .83 0.8424 Bristol & Jamboree 5.7 1.3 2'.6 - .54 0.5778 Bristol N. & Jamboree 5.5 1.1 - 6.7 .72 0.7995 Jamboree & MacArthur 4.9 1.1 2.8 1.0 .85 0.8736 MacArthur & Ford 5.5 1.8 0 0 1,01 1.0443 1.0218 0.8415 (With City Project) MacArthur & SJHR 1.0 2.4 9.0 1.0 .72 0.7534 1 ' Campus Dr. and Bristol St. North J' A southbound right turn lane can be added within the existing pavement ' width (has been accomplished). The addition of this lane would account for a reduction in ICU value to 0.8350. This improvement may divert ' additional traffic from other locations to the intersection, but should represent an overall increase in the level of service in the airport area. ' 4. "Existing traffic at those intersections shall be shown prior to making ' any projections." This 'information is shown in-Table No. 3, and reflects the most currently ' available traffic volumes for all critical intersections, citywide. 5. "The. developer may include in his proposed traffic phasing plan completion of or contribution to completion of needed improvements consistent with ' the level of traffic generation and a reasonable proportion of the cost of these improvements. " The Irvine Company is at present, under agreement with the City to ' participate in the intersection improvement identified at the Ford/MacArthur intersection. ' "The proposed Developers' Traffic Improvement Funding program if imple- mented by the City Council can provide additional traffic improvements— 6. "The developer is also to take into.consideration in the preparation of ' his plan characteristics in the design of his development which either reduce traffic generation or guide traffic onto less impacted arterials. or through intersections in the least conjested direction. " ' ' The site plan design 'for Civic Plaza permits ingress/egress on all arterials surrounding the project. An on-site peripheral circulation ' system Will permit selection of the least traffic impacted arterial when leaving the project a peak traffic periods. The streets within Newport Center have been constructed by the Irvine Company to their ' full widths and therefore function well even at peak periods. THE IRVINE COMPANY ' 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92663 (714) 644-3011 O R, January 25, 1979 RECEIVED 1 6 community Dev loPment Dept Mr. Fred Talorico g 5 1979�' ' City of Newport Beach �AN2 2 Newport3300 wport BeachBlvd Ca 92660 Z NEW p-,E:-_ N, 3 ' Dear Fred: P u, CIVIC PLAZA - NEWPORT CENTER - REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PHASING PLAN In accord with City Council Resolution No. 9472, we submit the ' following phasing plan for Civic Plaza along with the enclosed Weston Pringle Traffic Analysis dated January 17, 1979. The traffic analysis identifies three intersections which ' would have ICU values of .90 or greater when utilizing PM peak hour volumes. Following are the impacted intersections and when corrective measures to reduce the ICU below .90 are ' anticipated. Mac Arthur/Jamboree - an additional northbound lane on MacArthur is required and could be accomplished by restriping. Could be ' accomplished by end of '79. Ford/MacArthur - a city project for improvement to this inter- se ction is scheduled for bidding in June or July 1979. These improvements would reduce the ICU to below .90. ' Bayside/PCH - The new back bay bridge which is schedule to have bids accepted in March 1980 will reduce the ICU at this inter- section to below .90. ' Phasing Plan Based on an office development of 251 ,300 s.f. (reduced from ' 320,000 s.f. allowed by P.C. and also theater is deleted) . Proposed development plan (see attached) has 7 low rise office buildings. ' continued . . . . � i � 1 ' CIVIC PLAZA Page 2 1-25-79 1 ' Phase I - Buildings 1 ,2,3 & 4 - Occupancy scheduled for Mid 1980 30% allowance 75,390 s.f. ' 45% additional 113,000 s.f. ' Phase II. - Buildings 5,6 & 7 scheduled for mid 1981 25% 62,910 s.f. . ' Total 251 ,300 s.f. ' We would be pleased to discuss any questions you may have. Yours very truly, Ronald W. Hendrickson Project Manager Commercial/Industrial Division ' RWH:dw encls. t r I is � , •- K ,` L - .yam ��5� �_-- \ .�`�,��J •� U my SITE PLAN I'Illg; , JANUARY, 1979 " THE IRVINE COMPANY ' CIVIC PLAZA TRAFFIC PHASING PLAN ' Item 1 Each project subject to the phasing requirement of Council Resolution No. 9472 shall be examined as to the extent of existing development and the amount of tdevelopment remaining to be completed. The Civic Plaza Planned Community provides for five separate land uses on the ' site. Upon completion of the entire project, the PC provides for the following identified land use developments: Art museum 30,000 sf ' Library 14,000 sf Restaurant 6,000 sf Offices 234,706 sf ' Theater 20,000 sf The only presently developed land use on the site is the Newport Beach Art Museum ' with 20,000 square feet. Additional land uses for the site which for traffic analysis purposes are under construction or in the process of development are the City of Newport Beach Library and 81,812 square feet of offices under the 30% rule. Those portions of the planned community which would remain to be developed ' upon approval of the Traffic Phasing Plan are the restaurant, 152,894 square feet of offices, the 650 seat theater, and 10,000 additional square feet for the museum. ' Item 2 Information shall be submitted indicating the amount of traffic being generated ' by existing development, that projected for remaining development, and traffic that will exist after completion of the projeot. t Based on the appropriate traffic generation rates as identified in the Newport Center Phase II Traffic Study, the total traffic- to be generated by the site is as follows. 1 July 1979 1 ' p.m. Peak Hour ADT In Out ' Existing - Occupied Art museum - 20,000 sf 840 20 20 Under Development - 1980 Occupancy ' Library - 14,000 sf 588 10 10 Offices - 81,812 sf 1,064 49 140 ' Sub-total 1,652 59 150 Future Development - 1981 Occupancy ' Art museum - 10,000 sf_ 420 10 10 Restaurant 400 40 20 Offices - 15.2,894 sf 1,988 91 260 ' Theater 975 n/a n/a Sub-total 3,783 141 290 ' Total PC 6,275 220 460 The amount of traffic to be generated by the completion of all remaining develop- ment in the peak hour is shown on Table 2 of the attached report. The existing portion of the art museum was not included in that analysis as it was an existing land use and included in existing traffic volume data. ' Item 3 ' An examination shall be made of the circulation system in the vicinity of the project to determine what improvements remain to be completed, with particular consideration being given to those improvements which will directly aid in moving traffic generated by the project. The area to• be examined shall extend to those ' intersections where traffic generated from the- project increases the traffic for any leg of the intersection during the peak 232 hour period by 2% or- more'. ' Table 3 of the attached report 'summarizes .the analysis for critical intersection identification, with the backup calculation sheets included in Appendix A. Identifying critical intersections was based on the intersections to be examined ' by the procedures of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance for the area in which Civic Plaza is identified, and further examination is included for any intersection for which the project would increase traffic by 20 or more during the 2' hour period. The site is bounded by San Joaquin Hills Road, Santa Cruz Drive, San Clemente Drive, and Santa Barbara Drive. All roadway improvements adjacent to the site ' have been previously improved and completed by the owner. Item 4 ' Existing traffic at those intersections shall 'be shown prior to making any projections. ' Existing traffic volumes for all identified critical intersections are shown in Appendix B, Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis. ' Item 5 The developer may include in his proposed Traffic Phasing Plan completion of or ' contribution to completion of needed improvements consistent with the level of traffic generation and a reasonable proportion of the cost of these improvements. As previously identified, the landowner has already made the identified ultimate ' General Plan improvements on the roadways adjacent to the site. Due to this previous contribution by the landowner to completion of the roadway system, no deficiencies on the existing circulation have been identified adjacent to the ' site. Table 5 identifies a summary of circulation system improvements included ,in future period ICU calculations. All of these improvements are required as a part of approved projects or are planned as' government projects. of the projects identified, the landowner has committed over $152,000 in the improve- ment of the Ford/MacArthur intersection. ' Item 6 The developer is also to take into consideration in the preparation of his plan characteristics in the design of his development which either reduce traffic generation or guide traffic onto less impacted arterials or through intersec- tions in the least congested direction. The proposed land use plan reflects a reduction in traffic generated over the original approved PC for the site. The proposed land use plan reflects' a 26.6% reduction in office use of that initially approved with the existing PC being amended in April 1979. ' The current PC also includes a mix of land uses which have beneficial traffic generation impacts in tkie peak hours, such as the proposed theater, library and museum. Although of a higher generation rate, a restaurant at this site will ' potentially serve to .divert some trips from the surrounding area in the peak hours. 1 -3- Item 6 (continued) ' Full access to the site is to be taken from San Clemente and Santa Rosa, with a restricted right turn only access from San Joaquin Hills Road. San Clemente and Santa Rosa were identified in the Newport Center Traffic Study as roadways ' with a less degree of utilization than other roadways in the vicinity of the site. The internal circulation system of the site is oriented towards encour- aging vehicles to utilize these roadways for ingress/egress from the Civic Plaza site and Newport Center area. The orientation of traffic to Santa Rosa and San Joaquin Hills Road intersection and Santa Barbara/Jamboree intersection are intended to encourage traffic to divert to non-critical movements at the San Joaquin Hills Road and Jamboree intersection. ' Item 7 ' Upon receipt of the plan and information, the Commission will determine whether there is a reasonable correlation between projected traffic at the time of project completion and capacity of affected intersections in considering the ' project for approval. The attached traffic study had identified two intersections that will have ICU's that exceed .96 in 1982 after full project completion; these are the intersec- tions of Bristol Street North and Campus Drive, .and the intersection of Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard, with projected ICU's of .9279 .and .9496, respectively. ' For the Bristol Street North and Campus intersection, with or without approval of the project, the intersection has a projected ICU value of .9279. This is due to the project generated traffic being added to a non-critical movement t through the intersection. Thus, approval or denial of the project will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of service at this intersection. For the Jamboree and MacArthur intersection, the project increases the ICU ' analysis value by .0227 in 1982. The traffic consultant has indicated in his report that drivers utilizing this intersection would not perceive this increase, and in his opinion, the intersection would operate satisfactorily. He has also ' identified that the construction of the Corona del Mar Freeway would also result in improved conditions at this intersection.' ' Item 8 Mitigation proposed needs to indicate degree of permanence in order to meet the test. ' The land use reductions made in the April 1979 PC-amendment reflect a perman- ent reduction in land use intensity and traffic generation for this site. ' The roadway improvements identified as necessary for the approval of other projects are considered as permanent fixed facility improvements although ' additional modifications such as re-stripping, construction to ultimate (where appropriate) and signal operations modifications, may also occur in the future. -4 OCTOBER 13, 1978 • ' POSITION PAPER WITH REGARD TO QUESTION OF VESTING OF CIVIC PLAZA UNDER THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE I • ' THE IRVINE COMPANY 1 I TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ' I . INTRODUCTION 1 II. DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY OF CIVIC PLAZA 3 III. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND APPLICATION OF THE VESTING PROVISION OF THE TRAFFIC ' PHASING ORDINANCE 12 • A. History of Traffic Phasing Ordinance 14 ' B. Other Development Projects and Vesting Under the Ordinance 18 1. Koll Center Newport 19 2. Emkay-Newport Place 21 3 . Ford Aeroneutronics 22 ' 4. Summary 26 IV. CIVIC PLAZA IS A VESTED PROJECT UNDER THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE 27 A. • Civic Plaza Is One Project 28 ' B. Grading and Building Permits Have Been Issued for Civic Plaza 30 C. Construction Involving Substantial Liabilities Has Been Diligently Commenced in Civic Plaza 33 ' D. The Findings of The City Council Regarding The Vesting of Civic Plaza •' Are Inapposite and Do Not Support Its Decision 35 V. FAILURE OF THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL TO VEST CIVIC PLAZA IS A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS 39 • ' VI. THE CITY IS EQUITABLY ESTOPPED FROM SUBJECTING CIVIC PLAZA TO THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE 43 i VII. THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE IS INVALID AS APPLIED TO CIVIC PLAZA BECAUSE IT ' ' WOULD IN EFFECT REQUIRE SUBMISSION OF A SECOND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT IN CONTRAVENTION OF STATE LAW 48 VIII. CONCLUSION 54 1 I. INTRODUCTION ' This memorandum addresses the question of whether The Irvine Company has a legal and equitable right to complete construction of Civic Plaza despite City Council Policy S-1 and the subsequent Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The question ' is one of fairness, and we believe that in fairness the • ' development of Civic Plaza cannot be halted at this late date. As discussed below, Civic Plaza is a vested project under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. It is, as a matter of ' law, one, interdependent project which has received all final discretionary approvals , for which grading and building permits have been issued, and on which substantial liabilities ' have been incurred in good faith reliance upon such permits . The Civic Plaza should therefore be excepted from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Civic Plaza is the only Planned Community District where construction occurred prior to adoption of the Traffic •' Phasing Ordinance that has not been found to be vested. Such a result cannot be supported given the history and ' otherwise consistent application of the Traffic Phasing • Ordinance. Rather, the failure of the City to find Civic ' Plaza vested under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance constitutes a denial of The Irvine Company' s Constitutional right to ' substantive due process and equal protection of the laws . It is ironic that the City has attempted to halt full development of the commercial office uses in Civic Plaza, while at the same time it has accepted and encouraged 1 the public and quasi-public uses either completed or under • ' construction. As discussed below, under applicable law the City of Newport Beach in encouraging and accepting the public and quasi-public uses is legally precluded from denying to The Irvine Company the right to complete the ' entire project. Finally, The Traffic Phasing Ordinance, in essence, is an attempt. to resubject Civic Plaza to yet another envi- ronmental impact study. However, the California Environ- mental Quality Act flatly prohibits such an attempt. The Irvine Company respectfully submits that, for ' all of these reasons 'as more fully developed below, Civic Plaza must be permitted to proceed. 1 II � 2 it II. DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY OF CIVIC PLAZA Civic Plaza is a 26. 12 acre Planned Community ' District in Newport Center bounded by San Joaquin Hills Road, Santa Cruz Drive, San Clemente Drive, Santa Barbara Drive, the Newport Beach Fire and Police Facility buildings ,* an automobile dealership , and a service station. While the present, approved design for Civic Plaza had its genesis in ' 1975, the developmental history for that property dates back to the beginning phases of Newport Center. Ground was first broken on the Civic Plaza site in ' 1967, when that site was rough graded as a part of the grading of the whole of Newport Center. At the same time substantial and costly infrastructure investment, including sewage, water, gas, power and telephone lines , was made by ' The Irvine Company for the Civic Plaza site. The Civic Plaza property was originally zoned CO-H-UL. This was prior to the adoption of Planned Community ' District zoning for commercial projects in Newport Beach; however, this zoning permitted general retail, service com- mercial, and multi-family residential uses, thus permitting development potentials now recognized in Planned Community Districts. The Irvine Company conveyed the land for the Fire Station and Police Facility to the City of Newport Beach in 1970 and 1973, respectively. 1 3 I � _ J 1 Early in 1975 , The Irvine Company was approached by a group of citizens interested in establishing an art ' museum in the City who were seeking a donation of land for that purpose. A repertory theatre group, which was considering a relocation of its facilities in Newport Beach, also approached ' The Irvine Company for the same purpose. At about the same • time, The Irvine Company was presented with a third similar ' request by the City of Newport Beach then considering a location for a new library building within Newport Center. The logical site for these buildings was what is ' now known as Civic Plaza. Public uses were already being made of land adjacent to the Civic Plaza site, with the Newport Beach Police facility having been built in 1973 and the adjacent fire station in 1970. Moreover, the location 1 of this property was suitable for public and quasi-public uses, as well as commercial development. To help persuade The Irvine Company to consider dedicating part of this land ' for civic uses, an architect involved in both the Museum and • Theatre groups submitted a schematic development plan ' envisioning a viable combination of both commercial and the ' above civic uses in one integrated development project. • For its part, The Irvine Company, desiring to ' involve Newport Center in Newport Beach civic and cultural activities, listened to these requests and was intrigued by 4 0 i 1 the submitted development plan. The concept presented an ' appealing design for future commercial projects by incorpo- rating a campus-like scheme. The Irvine Company therefore presented and designed Civic Plaza as a Planned Community in a manner that would insure that all of its planned uses , ' namely office buildings , an art museum, a library, a theater • ' and a restaurant, were fully compatible, integrated and interdependent. The costs of this endeavor were not insubstantial. A local architectural firm, Ladd, Kelsey and Woodard, was ' commissioned by The Irvine Company to provide a detailed land planning schematic consistent with such a planned community setting at a cost of approximately $15, 000. The ' plans for Civic Plaza, embodied in the Planned Community District Regulations discussed below, reflect a campus-like setting of low-rise buildings, as well as shared parking ' among the various structures, including the Library and the Art Museum, and an inner vehicular access system to enable movement to each building within Civic Plaza without the necessity of exiting onto any surface streets . tWhile developing these plans for Civic Plaza, as a • ' necessary first step in processing the Planned Community ("PC") application by the City of Newport Beach, The Irvine Company constructed San Clemente Drive and also invested in 5 J 1 1 additional infrastructure for Civic Plaza at its own expense. ' San Clemente Drive, an undivided, four lane, public arterial, was completed in 1975 at a cost of approximately $230, 000. It is readily apparent that San Clemente Drive was con- structed with the future needs of Civic Plaza foremost in ' mind. Among other things , San Clemente Drive now serves as • ' a frontage road to both the Art Museum and the Library as well as providing necessary access to the rest of Civic Plaza as planned. In addition to architectural fees and the cost of ' San Clemente Drive, The Irvine Company also incurred approx- imately $21, 000 in engineering fees and preparation costs for an Environmental Impact Report in readying Civic Plaza ' for developmental approval. On November 20, 1975 , after an in-depth public hearing, the Newport Beach Planning Commis- sion unanimously approved The Irvine Company' s application ' for a resubdivision of Civic Plaza and its PC zoning appli- cation. A hearing was held on December 22, 1975 , at which •' time the Newport Beach City Council enacted P . C. Ordinance 1649 and approved Resubdivision Map #501. The integrity of ' the whole concept of Civic Plaza was made explicit, and the • ' City' s approval of Civic Plaza was in recognition of the project' s interdependence in public and commercial uses . 6 1 I P. C. Ordinance 1649 established the Civic Plaza ' Planned Community District ("Civic Plaza PC") which was expressly stated to be "a part of the Newport Center Devel- opment in conformance with the Newport Beach General Plan . . . adopted in December 1973. " The Civic Plaza PC includes a ' site plan showing the number, location,* and footprints of • ' all buildings within Civic Plaza, precise height limitations on all buildings ,** allocation of the net acreage between building sites, parking areas and landscaping, and a divi- sion of square footages among the various uses approved for Civic Plaza.*** After adoption of the Civic Plaza PC in December, 1975 , the City formally issued its "Approval In Concept" for ' * The PC provides that "all buildings shall be located in substantial conformance with the site plan. " ** The PC Provides that "all buildings and appurte- nant structures shall be limited to a maximum height of sixty-five (65) feet. " • *** The Civic Plaza PC specification of uses are: ' "Office Park 320, 000 Sq . Ft. Art Museum 30, 000 Sq. Ft. ' Library 30, 000 Sq. Ft. Theatre 20, 000 Sq. Ft. • Restaurant 8, 000 Sq . Ft. " •' 7 the project as a whole on January 16, 1976 .* Ten days ' later, The Irvine Company filed an application for develop- ment of Civic Plaza with the California Coastal Commission in the South Coast Region.** After a public hearing on March 29 , 1976, the Coastal Commission approved permits for the Art Museum, approved the resubdivision, and "approved in • ' concept" the entire Civic Plaza development, including office buildings , a restaurant and theatre, expressly recog- nizing that The Irvine Company was committed to development of the public use buildings only in conjunction with the ' entire development project. After gaining these approvals from both the City of Newport Beach and the Coastal Commission, The Irvine Com- pany proceeded diligently and in good faith to bring Civic % The City' s final approval of 320, 000 sq. ft. of commer- cial office development in Civic Plaza was conditioned only upon a final review of a traffic study for all of Newport Center. The City determined that no building permits should be issued on the commercial sites until • that review was complete, although the City' s approval of the commercial development in concept would not permit any material departure from the approved site plan. On February 28, 1977 , the City completed that traffic review, established a reduced density figure for Newport Center as a whole, and in so doing accepted • and approved the full 320, 000 square feet of commercial ' office usage in Civic Plaza. ** At that time, but not now, the Civic Plaza site was designated as lying within the coastal zone. I � 8 i iPlaza to completion. First, it agreed to convey to the City ' of Newport Beach the land in Civic Plaza (consisting of approximately 1. 97 acres) designated for the Library. On June 29, 1976, The Irvine Company sold the land to the City for $279, 500, which was a discount of $90, 000 or about 24% ' of the fair market value. This donation to the City of • ' almost one-fourth of the then fair market value of the Library site was made with the integration of the Library facility with the rest of Civic Plaza foremost in mind. The documents of conveyance reflect the interde- pendence of the City Library to the rest of Civic Plaza, and the City' s acceptance and approval of the whole project. "Reciprocal cross easements" were established between The tIrvine Company and the City "for pedestrian and vehicular access and parking purposes" as designed for Civic Plaza. In addition, the City agreed to enter a Common Area Mainte- nance Agreement to share in the cost of common area land- scaping and parking in Civic Plaza. Because of its interest in coordinating the use of the Library site with the rest of Civic Plaza, The Irvine Company also obtained a covenant ' from the City in the Grant Deed that if the Library site was • ' proposed to be sold or leased within 25 years then The Irvine Company would have a right of first refusal. The 9 1 ' Irvine Company also reserved the right to approve any and ' all exterior design improvements on the Library site. On October 14, 1976 , grading and building permits were issued for the Newport Harbor Art Museum. Work there- after commenced in •reliance upon these permits . Both sites ' were graded, with The Irvine Company itself incurring the ' costs of grading the Library site, amounting to $11, 000. The Irvine Company made a gift of the two acre Library site to the Newport Harbor Art Museum on February 21, 1977, the gift amounting to $350, 000. That building has been completed ' to the extent possible without the commercial development. Six days later a grading permit was issued for the Library. The Library building today is nearly complete. ' As with the Library, the interdependence of the Art Museum to the rest of Civic Plaza is amply demonstrated by the conveyancing documents ; similar "reciprocal cross ' easements" were arranged between The Irvine Company and Newport Harbor Art Museum "for pedestrian and vehicular access for parking purposes" and an agreement to share in common area landscaping and parking costs was also contem- plated; in addition, for a period of 25 years , The Irvine • ' Company reserved in the Grant Deed the right to approve all exterior design improvements on the site of the Museum. Finally, the Art Museum was planned to have a sculpture garden running 10 �I through the commercial site, and the design of that building and of the rest of Civic Plaza was conceived with that goal ' in mind. In summary, from its inception Civic Plaza has been conceived as a planned, integrated and interdependent ' development project. In concept, in design, and in the • processing of plans and approvals , the project has always ' been considered by everyone concerned--The Irvine Company, the City and the Coastal Commission--as a unified and inter- dependent whole. The liabilities incurred by The Irvine ' Company and other entities , including the City; on Civic Plaza have been substantial. It is a project in which development has proceeded diligently and in good faith. As evident from the history of Civic Plaza, the concept of interdependence inherent in Civic Plaza was cer- tainly shared by the City of Newport Beach, at least until enactment of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance on June 12, 1978 ' by the City Council. Shortly thereafter, and pursuant to the procedures outlined in the ordinance, The Irvine Company applied for a finding by the City that Civic Plaza was a vested project for purposes of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. •' On July 11, 1978, despite favorable recommendations from the ' City Attorney and the Department of Community Development, and contrary to its findings with respect to other applica- 11 tions of developers for project vesting, the City Council, ' by a vote of 5 to 2, found that "insufficient" facts had been presented to conclude that Civic Plaza was a vested project. Development has been arrested in mid-stream. This "finding" reflects an abrupt reversal of ' position by the City that Civic Plaza is no longer to be • ' considered an integral project. Not only was this finding surprising in view of the content and precedents of the ordinance itself, but, for reasons discussed more fully below, now that the Art Museum is constructed and in opera- tion, and the Library is well on its way to completion, the City Council cannot maintain that these structures should be viewed in isolation, separate and apart from the rest of Civic Plaza. III. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND APPLICATION OF THE VESTING tPROVISION OF THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE 1 On June 12, 1978, the Newport Beach City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1765, better known as the Traffic ' Phasing Ordinance and now codified as Chapter 15. 40 of the • ' Newport Beach Municipal Code. The declared purpose of the Ordinance is "to coordinate development of certain projects with transportation facilities in Newport Beach. " In other 12 words, it seeks to halt development pending construction and ' up-grading of streets, something that may or may not occur. The Traffic Phasing Ordinance does , however, contain a "grandfather clause" which identifies certain development projects as "vested. " This clause is now sec- tion 15 . 40. 030(D) (i) of the Municipal Code, which provides : ' "The Planning Commission shall except any project from the requirements of this Chapter: (i) 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 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 neces- sary therefor. No change causing a ' substantial increase in traffic volumes may be made in such project, except in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter; " ' When this provision is examined, it is clear that the Traffic ' Phasing Ordinance sets forth a three-part general test for determining whether a particular development project is •' vested: (i) is it a "project"? (ii) has a building or grading permit been issued for the project? and (iii) has ' construction involving substantial liabilities been dili- gently commenced? 13 I � 1 Even if these questions are considered in a vacuum, a certain amount of interpretation is required before this vesting provision can be meaningfully applied. Fortunately, the Traffic Phasing Ordinance does not exist in a vacuum. There is significant legislative thistory behind the ordinance. Moreover, since a number of • ' projects have been found to be vested under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, they serve as useful precedents for its application. As shown below, these two sources , the history of the ordinance and. the precedents for its application, ' establish a consistent, clearly defined test for vesting--a test that establishes that Civic Plaza is vested. A. History of Traffic Phasing Ordinance ' In early 1978, an initiative petition was under consideration in the City of Newport Beach for a proposed ordinance to phase development in the City to the ability of ' traffic systems to handle any significant increased traffic from that development. At the same time the initiative was being pursued, its proponents supported a slate of candidates for the City Council. That slate was elected and began to carry out the objectives of the proponent group. ' As one of the first measures in that effort, newly elected Mayor Paul Rykoff requested the Newport Beach City Attorney to draft a policy statement that would accomplish 14 1 the purposes behind the initiative petition. On May 8, 1978, the City Attorney forwarded a draft of that policy to the City Council. This policy statement became City Council Policy S-1 ("S-1") , the "Traffic Phasing of Development Policy, " adopted on May 9 , 1978 . ' S-1 essentially provided that no building or • ' grading permits would be issued for any commercial, indus- trial or residential projects of a certain minimum size unless the measured traffic impact of the project were less than a specified general standard or unless "the benefits of ' the project to the City of Newport Beach" were found by a super majority vote to "outweigh the project' s anticipated negative impact. " Because of the lack of detail in S-1, that policy concluded with the statement: "If ambiguity exists in the administration of this Policy, the Planning Commission and/or City Council is to be consulted to provide the proper interpretation. " tFollowing adoption of S-1 the City proceeded with drafting an ordinance to put that policy into effect. The Department of Community Development was the lead department working on implementing S-1 and on coming up with a workable draft for a traffic phasing ordinance. In conjunction with ' that effort, on May 17, 1978, that department forwarded to the City Council a staff report outlining various ambiguities 1 15 J existing in S-1 which required some clarification before ' adoption of any implementing ordinance. First, the Department of Community Development pointed out that the term "project" as used in S-1 was not defined. That department advised the City Council that it twas interpreting the term "project" under the definitions • tcontained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) . In so doing, the Department of Community Develop- ment stated the following: "In using this definition, the staff has ' interpreted 'project' in the broadest meaning, i. e. an entire planned community district would be a project and each individual building would be a part of that project. Therefore, the policy would apply to the entire development as a whole. Simi- larly, the development of one lot in a subdivision containing ten lots or more would be part of the ' larger 'project' - the development of the entire tract. " The City Council was requested to concur in this definition ' and interpretation. The Department of Community Development also •' pointed out that S-1 did not contain any provision for excepting projects already at the development stage, pro- jects that would be vested. The department advised the City • Council that it would look to the initiative as well as CEQA for guidance in making a determination of whether a project was vested under S-1. 16 i i "Using the definition from CEQA and the Adminis- trative Guidelines as noted above [for defining ' project] this would mean that if a grading or building permit had been issued in a Planned Community District, for instance„ then the entire project, and all parts thereof, would be excepted from the policy. The same would be true of residential developments where grading or con- struction has begun. Individual building permits ' for that tract would also be excepted under the provision. " • ' The Department of Community Development concluded its staff report by requesting the City Council' s concurrence in its interpretation of City Council Policy S-1. That request for concurrence took the form of a proposal for language to be ' inserted in the text of the policy, as well as in the Traffic Phasing Ordinance under study, which would exempt projects under way, provided: "That the City has issued a building or grading permit for the project prior to May 8, 1978, and that the person to whom this permit was issued has in good faith and in reliance upon such permit diligently commenced construction and per- formed and incurred substantial liabilities for ' work and for material. No change causing a sub- stantial increase in traffic volumes may be made in such project except in accordance with the pro- visions of this policy. " ' Refinements and modifications of a draft Traffic Phasing Ordinance continued into June, 1978. The Department • of Community Development and the City Attorneys office worked with the sponsors of the initiative measure as well as representatives of the developers and with the City 17 Council in arriving at the final wording for the Traffic ' Phasing Ordinance. On June 12, 1978, the final draft of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance was adopted as Ordinance No . 1765 . The recommendations of the Department of Community Develop- ment concerning the definition of the term "project" and the basis for a finding of vesting discussed above were incorporated • ' in the enacted ordinance. It is clear from the legislative history reviewed above that a Planned Community District ("PC") is but one "project" for purposes of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. ' Issuance of a grading or building permit with respect to any part of that project, and performance of work in reliance upon the issuance of that permit, would vest the e-Ztire PC. ' This interpretation was unequivocally presented to the City Council by the Department of Community Development and was endorsed by the City Council when it adopted the language ' suggested by the Department. B. Other Development Projects and Vesting Under the •' Ordinance. Even if this legislative history were the only ' basis upon which to apply the Traffic Phasing Ordinance to • ' Civic Plaza, the proper interpretation and application of the vesting exception contained in the Traffic Phasing JOrdinance would be clear. However, at least ten projects 18 t have been found to be vested under the Traffic Phasing ' Ordinance, and the facts upon which three of the PC' s (Koll Center Newport, Emkay-Newport Place, and Ford Aeroneutronics) were found to be vested are particularly instructive. 1. Koll Center Newport. ' The PC Development Standards for Koll Center • ' Newport were adopted more than six years ago in May, 1972 . The Development Standards for Koll Center Newport are gen- eral and do not consist of any specific site plan for the project. Instead, the standards merely constitute a parcel- ' ization of the whole project into "sites" of defined permis- sible uses and densities . A maximum permissible height for all buildings. is set forth and allowable building pad sizes ' are scaled to the various permissible heights up to that maximum. Significantly, building locations are not indi- cated in the Koll Center Newport PC. ' The text of the Koll Center Newport PC has been amended at least nine times since its adoption by the City in 1972. The amendments have reflected some major revisions in the development possibilities and plans for the ' project. For example, in 1974, the text was twice amended, • ' in order to create new office site boundaries , to provide for three additional restaurant sites , to create a "floating location" for a retail and service center site, to enlarge 19 1 one service station site and eliminate another, and to add ' to the permissible uses of the office retail and service center sites . Similarly, in 1976 , the text of the Koll Center Newport PC was amended to permit individual commer- cial lot sizes of less than 30, 000 square feet. The PC Development Standards have been amended twice more during • ' this year. As reflected by these numerous PC amendments , development in Koll Center Newport has proceeded in phases . Building permits have been requested and issued on an "indi- vidualized" basis . Today, approximately 45 percent of the Koll project remains undeveloped despite the passage of more than six years from the adoption of the PC.* Of the undevel- oped land, the Koll Company, the developer of the Planned Community, owns two "sites" and The Irvine Company a third ' "site. " Although Koll Center Newport is a PC, there is no ' intrinsic interdependence in the project. The established buildings are not as functionally, aesthetically, or even financially linked to the successful completion of the entire project as is the case with Civic Plaza. 1 • ' * The percent of development figures for Koll Center Newport and for other projects are taken from figures prepared by the Department of Community Development, and are based upon allowable floor area of development . 20 1 1 1 In short, in finding Koll Center Newport to be a vested project, the City Council quite clearly followed the recommendations and interpretations of the Department of Community Development concerning the definition of a "pro- ject. " The determinative factor for the City Council and • for the Department of Community Development was that Koll 1 Center Newport is a PC. As such, the entire property was considered to be one project. It was not relevant that development in Koll Center Newport has proceeded on each 1 building site independently and in phases. It was not relevant that the property in Koll Center Newport is owned by various individuals . It was not relevant that the Koll 1 Center Newport PC Development Standards have been changed repeatedly by amendment in the past. The critical, determinative 7 facts were that Koll Center Newport is a PC and that substantial development has been undertaken in that project pursuant to 1 a grading or building permit. 2. Emkay-Newport Place. In its development history with respect to j 1 the vesting issue, the Emkay-Newport Place project is quite • similar to Koll Center Newport. The PC Development Stan- dards for Emkay-Newport Place were adopted even earlier than I � for Koll Center Newport. They too have undergone numerous 1 21 1 amendments reflecting substantial changes from the project ' as originally conceived and approved by the City. Develop- ment at Emkay-Newport Place has proceeded sporadically and in phases, and various building permits have been issued on ' a piecemeal basis . Despite the passage of eight years , approximately 30% of Emkay-Newport Place still remains unde- veloped. There are three different owners of the three undeveloped sites remaining at Emkay-Newport Center, of which Emkay owns one. As with Koll Center Newport, there is ' less intrinsic interdependence between or among the various phases of that project, completed or otherwise, as in the case of Civic Plaza. Nonetheless , the whole of Emkay-Newport Center, like Koll Center Newport, was found to be vested as ' one project by the City Council. 3. Ford Aeroneutronics . 7 In the cases of Koll Center Newport and ' Emkay-Newport Center, there were adopted PC Development Standards, although no site plan, and no discretionary ' approvals remained to be obtained for completion of those projects.* Without more, it might be assumed that such * This is true only if no resubdivision is to take place. However, as the Planning Commission is aware, resubdi- vision is proposed in the Emkay-Newport Place PC. ' 22 standards are essential to a finding of vesting under the ' Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The vesting of the Ford Aero- neutronics property, however, establishes that even the absence of PC Development Standards and a need for further discretionary approvals will not prevent a project from ' being vested if it can be characterized as a PC and develop- ment has occurred on the PC property. Development on the Ford Aeroneutronics prop- erty began in 1958 following the approval of a use permit allowing general industrial development on a portion of that tproperty. In 1959, a second use permit allowing construc- tion of a four-story administration building with a utility superstructure was approved by the Newport Beach Planning tCommission, with construction subsequently proceeding under that use permit. Significantly, the two use permits , and in particular the 1959 use permit, set forth on the sketch plan ' that sites other than those begun or completed by 1959 would be reserved for "future development. " •' On January 14, 1974, the City Council rezoned the Ford Aeroneutronics property from "Unclassified" to ' "P-C" without any additional submissions of detailed plans • ' by the developer. In effect, the 15 year old use permits on that property were made to serve as a substitute for a required PC text. 23 1 The staff report from the Department of ' Community Development to the City Council on this action, dated January 14, 1974, states the following: "It was the feeling of the Commission that this rezoning is necessary to bring City Zoning into compliance with the General Plan as required ' by State law. It should be mentioned that the proposed rezoning will have no effect on the existing Philco-Ford Plant on the site. However, t a 'Development Plan' will have to be prepared prior to any major modifications or improvements on the subject property. " In short, with the rezoning of the Ford Aeroneutronics prop- erty, the City staff determined that while a use permit could be considered the interim PC text for the project, any future development on the property would be subject to the discretionary. approval required of a specific development ' plan. This conclusion was reaffirmed on February 9, ' 1976, when the City Council amended the Newport Beach General Plan to provide that the undeveloped portions of the Ford Aeroneutronics site may be developed for residential use. That amendment added the following language to the Land Use element of the Newport Beach General Plan: "In view of the potential adverse traffic impacts which may result from development in the ' areas designated, the [Ford Aeroneutronics] P-C District development application will be required to incorporate a development phasing approach, and other use, intensity, design, and operational measures as required to assure that traffic 24 J 1 generated by the development will not cause an adverse impact. Any proposal for development shall include an environmental impact report which ' shall cover, in addition to other requirements , a marketing analysis, a cost-revenue analysis , an analysis of the relationship of jobs in the area to the living location of the employees and the effect of air traffic. " The Staff Report from the Department of Community Develo- pment to the Planning Commission on December 4, 1975 on this • ' proposed General Plan amendment is even more revealing concerning the extent of discretionary approval required for any further development of the Ford Aeroneutronics property. "Since the property is currently zoned P-C, ' a P-C ordinance and an overall Development Plan must be submitted and approved by the Planning Commission and City Council prior to issuance of any building permits . In addition, it is likely that a full E. I.R. will be required. This de- tailed information could provide the basis for ' decisions on development intensity, phasing of development and the street system improvements required in conjunction with the development. " As this staff report makes clear, the use permit "PC" on the ' property was simply not sufficient to permit further develop- ment. Instead, a development plan was envisioned, with such basic questions as the development intensity and the projected traffic demands needing to be determined. ' On November 22, 1976, the City Council amended • the Residential Growth Element of the General Plan to provide ' that residential development could take place on the Ford JAeroneutronics property "with specific density limits and development standards to be determined at such time as the 25 beyond a use permit sketch master plan. Of the approxi- mately one million square feet of permanent structures cur- rently in place or under construction, less than thirteen percent has been constructed since the rezoning of the property as a PC. Of the approximately 2. 2 million square ' feet of structures permitted on the development as a result • ' of a finding of vesting, only six percent has been developed since the rezoning. Development has proceeded by a succession of independent use permits instead of by a set of clearly articulated PC standards . Nonetheless, the entire Ford ' Aeroneutronics development was found to be a vested "pro- ject" by the City simply because it comprised an area zoned PC and because some development had already taken place on ' that property. 4. Summary. ' Examination of these and other developments ' reveals that the test under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, of whether a particular development is vested is relatively •' clear and simple: (1) Is the development equatable to a planned community? If so, the entire development scheme is ' one project for purposes of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, • ' and (2) Has any construction taken place on the property pursuant to a grading or building permit? If so, then the entire project is vested. 26 1 The specificity of the development plan is ' irrelevant. The fact that construction in the project has proceeded in phases or sporadically, is irrelevant. The fact that the development phases in the PC are not inter- dependent in any sense except perhaps financially is irrele- vant. The fact that all discretionary approvals have not • ' been obtained, as in the case of Ford Aeroneutronics, is irrelevant. And, finally, the fact that any future devel- opment is contingent on study of potential traffic problems , as in the case of Ford Aeroneutronics , will not prevent developments from being excepted from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Within this framework and based on these estab- lished precedents , Civic Plaza is clearly a vested project. IV. CIVIC PLAZA IS A VESTED PROJECT UNDER THE TRAFFIC ' PHASING ORDINANCE ' In view of the facts concerning Civic Plaza set forth above, tested by the consistent interpretation and application of the vesting exception of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, the vote of the City Council on July 11, 1978 ' that insufficient data had been presented "to establish • ' vesting for Civic Plaza" simply cannot be upheld. Civic, Plaza is "excepted" under the grandfather clause of the 27 1 Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Accordingly, the Traffic Phasing ' Ordinance may not legally be applied to Civic Plaza. A. Civic Plaza Is One Project The starting point in considering whether Civic Plaza is within the scope of the grandfather clause of the ' Traffic Phasing Ordinance is to determine if it is one • "project" . As noted above, the term "project" is defined in the ordinance by express reference to CEQA and the adminis- trative guidelines established thereunder. The CEQA statute defines the term "project" in broad terms : t ' Project' means the following: " (a) Activities directly undertaken by any public agency. ' " (c) Activities involving the issuance to a person of a lease, permit, license, certifi- cate, or other entitlement for use by one or more public agencies . " Public Resources Code §21065 ' This definition has been clarified by administrative guide- lines promulgated under CEQA: ' " (a) Project means the whole of an action which has a potential for resulting in a physical ' change in the environment, directly or ulti- mately. . . . • I 1 28 J 1 " (c) The term 'project' refers to the activity which is being approved and which may be 1 subject to several discretionary approvals by governmental agencies . The term project does not mean each separate governmental approval. " 14 California Administrative Code §15037. 1 The history of Civic Plaza establishes that it is one project fully encompassed by these statutory and admin- istrative definitions . The Environmental Impact Report I � required by CEQA on Civic Plaza was approved for the project as a whole. Since the Traffic Phasing Ordinance incorpo- rates CEQA definitions of the "project," and since Civic Plaza was but one project for CEQA purposes , then it must be one project for purposes of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. For the City' s part, it zoned the entire Civic Plaza project 1 as a single Planned Community District; there was not sepa- rate zoning for each proposed building, for the very purpose of the PC designation is to allow a highly integrated but 1 multi-faceted development to be planned as a whole. The final map and site plan for Civic Plaza were approved for that project as a whole. Throughout the processing of Civic 1 Plaza by the City of Newport Beach, it has been treated as one integrated project. Moreover, the City has consistently 1 found that any PC is but one project, and the City Council by P. C. Ordinance #1649, itself designated the entire devel- opment of, Civic Plaza as a PC. 1 29 J B. Grading and Building Permits Have Been Issued for ' Civic Plaza. Once it is determined that a particular development yscheme is a project, the second question is whether a building or grading permit was issued prior to the effective ' date of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Civic Plaza meets • this criteria. A rough grading permit was issued by the City of Newport Beach in 1965 for Civic Plaza, along with all other property in the Newport Center. More importantly, grading and building permits were issued for an integral and ' important part of the project, namely, the Newport Harbor Art Museum, on October 14, 1976. Six days later a grading permit was issued on a second building in the project, the ' Library, with a building permit subsequently issued on May 11, 1978. The work authorized by these permits promptly ' followed their issuance. ' While grading and building permits for other portions of Civic Plaza have not yet been applied for or •' issued, because of the interdependence of the Newport Harbor Art Museum and Library to the rest of Civic Plaza these ' buildings cannot be considered as isolated units. Rather, ' they are an integral part of Civic Plaza as a review of the history of Civic Plaza makes amply clear. Due to this ' J 30 J 1 pervasive interdependence, the permits issued for these 1 buildings vest the entire Civic Plaza project. An example of the interdependent project doctrine is found in Sierra Club v. California Coastal Zone Conserva- tion Commission, 58 Cal.App . 3d 149, rhg.. denied (1976) . In 1 that case, the developer was contructing a "commercial hotel • 1 and golf and recreational structures . " Id. at 157. The Developer had installed the infrastructure for the golf course, including several tees , had laid foundations for the pro shop and part of the hotel complex, and had paved the 1 main road into the project, prior to the effective date of Coastal Zone Conservation Act. The Coastal Zone Conserva- tion Commission excepted not only those phases of the pro- ject on which construction had begun from the required per- mit, but also excepted the whole of the project on the ' ground that the development was an interdependent project. 1 Because the concept of vesting pertains to the project as a whole, the developer was permitted by the Commission, and by •1 the District Court of Appeal reviewing the Commission' s decision, to complete the hotel complex, including guest 1 houses, a tennis shop , tennis courts and swimming pool, all • 1 of which was part of the planned community but not yet under construction. Id. J 1 31 1 Civic Plaza is an interdependent project under all 1 accepted criteria. Civic Plaza was conceived and approved as one "development" comprising an integrated and interde- pendent mix of cultural, recreational and commercial uses in a low rise campus-like setting. The Newport Harbor Art 1 Museum was planned to have a sculpture garden running through • 1 the center of the commercial site, and the design of that building was conceived with that goal in mind. The parking configuration and physical placement of the Art Museum and Library were determined with the whole project in mind, as 1 the City was aware when the project was approved. Finally, the project is financially interdependent in a variety of respects, from the fact that the costs so far expended have 1 been made with Civic Plaza as a goal to the fact that opera- tional success of the existing buildings depends in large ' part upon completion of the project. 1 This same high degree of interdependence among the various buildings and uses of Civic Plaza is less apparent .1 in Ko11 Center Newport, Emkay-Newport Center and Ford Aero- neutronics. The buildings either existing or under construc- tion on these sites could aesthetically and functionally • 1 exist without any future development of the PC' s . Other than architectural compatibility, there is no plan for those projects which uniquely integrates the existing and future 1 I � 32 IL uses. Moreover, in each of these PC' s , not only has develop- ment occurred in phases, but the undeveloped portions in each of these projects have remained undeveloped for lengthy periods of time of not less than six years after adoption of the PC. In summary, Civic Plaza is but one project, and, • ' with the issuance of grading and building permits for the Art Museum and Library buildings , meets the first two criteria for vesting. C. Construction Involving Substantial Liabilities ' Has Been Diligently Commenced In Civic Plaza. The third criteria for a finding of vesting is that construction involving substantial liabilties shall ' have taken place. Again, Civic Plaza meets this test. Final grading was completed for both the Art Museum and Library by the beginning of 1977 . The Art Museum building ' is completed, and the Library is now under construction. And the work completed was diligently begun upon issuance of • and in reliance upon the permits . The liabilities incurred so far on Civic Plaza are substantial. Since adoption of the PC for Civic Plaza, the ' Irvine Company has itself incurred liabilities of approxi- mately $473, 000. Since the issuance of the first grading and building permits , The Irvine Company has incurred lia- 33 J bilities of approximately $383, 000, consisting of a gift of ' the Art Museum site at a fair market valuation of $350, 000, grading on the Library site at a cost of $11, 000, and the installation of utilities for the entire project at a cost ' of $22, 000. Since the ultimate question is whether a project is vested rather than who is involved in the project, the • ' liabilities incurred by the Newport Harbor Art Museum and the City on the Library also must be included, amounting to an additional $1, 700, 000.* In all, since adoption of the Civic Plaza PC, more than $2, 173, 000 has been invested on 1 Civic Plaza.** Such investment is substantial as a matter of law. Cf. People v Department of Housing and Community Development, 45 Cal.App . 3d 185 , 197 (1975) , [experiditure of ' only $40, 000 by developer in reliance on permit found to represent "an undebatable quantum 'of prejudice. "] The liabilities incurred by the Newport Harbor Art Museum and the City of Newport Beach on Civic Plaza are to be considered in the vesting equation for at least two reasons . First, as noted in the main text of this memo, the question is whether a project is vested. As such, all amounts spent on construction in that project in reliance upon a permit are to be considered, as ' opposed to segregating amounts among various partici- pants in the project. Second, the three present prop- 0 erty owners in Civic Plaza are in effect joint ventur- ers in the completion of the Civic Plaza project as the design of the project and reciprocal agreements establish. That figure does not include liabilities incurred in terms of anticipatory installation of infrastructure and desi n costs, which would bring the total to approx- imately 000, 000. 1 41 34 J 1 The Department of Community Development recognized 1 the fact that Civic Plaza was vested in its staff report to the City Council for the June 12, 1978, public hearing: " [Of] the four projects under discussion this evening, only Civic Plaza has been issued building and grading permits for partial development of the 1 site. . . .The commencement of construction of a portion of the project may qualify the entire project for exception status under the administra- tive interpretation of the Policy as a vested project". This same conclusion was reached by the Newport Beach City Attorney in his memo on vested rights dated June 12, 1978 : 1 "Assuming the definition of 'project' as being the whole of an action is used, then it would appear from the facts that a strong argument could be made that rights in the Civic Plaza project have vested. This is because substantial development has occurred in part of the Civic Plaza planned 1 community. " D. The Findings of The City Council Are Inapposite 1 and Do Not Support Its Decision. Despite the indisputable conclusion that Civic 1 Plaza is a vested project and thus legally excepted from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, the Newport Beach City Council found that it could not be determined that Civic Plaza was 1 vested as a result of the following findings : " (a) That the Civic Plaza Planned Community con- tains 26. 12 acres. " (b) That approximately 89% of the land within the planned community boundaries has not been developed. 35 " (c) That the only development in existence on the Civic Plaza site relates to public and quasi- public facilities which is distinguishable from other planned communities in Newport Beach. " (d) That all improvements on the site other than the Art Museum and Library were installed prior to the approval of the Civic Plaza ' Planned Community text. " (e) That the streets were planned for the use of ' the over-all development as opposed to the Civic Plaza site. " These findings are either irrelevant to the question of 1 whether Civic Plaza is vested, or, notwithstanding the City ' Council' s contrary conclusion, support a determination that Civic Plaza is vested. First, the City Council looked to the size and percent of development on Civic Plaza. Civic Plaza, how- ever, smaller in total acreage than Koll Center Newport, 7 Emkay-Newport Place, or Ford Aeroneutronics , is more easily viewed as being one project. Moreover, the percentage of ' development is certainly not a relevant consideration under the plain language of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, nor has it apparently been a consideration in the case of any other ' PC, as witnessed, for example, by the Ford Aeroneutronics development project. ' The question is not whether the project is substan- tially completed,, but whether the liabilities incurred on 36 1 the project have been substantial. As noted above, the 1 liabilities incurred to date on Civic Plaza in reliance upon grading and building permits are substantial as a matter of law. ' Second, the City Council observed that the improve- ments in Civic Plaza either under construction or completed • 1 are public or quasi-public. But the Traffic Phasing Ordi- nance does not differentiate between public and private uses . It prohibits the issuance of building and grading permits for all construction if the traffic impact is sig- nificant. It excepts projects , not uses, when they are vested. If anything, the fact that the buildings in place or under construction are the public and quasi-public parts 1 of Civic Plaza argues for vesting, since the land for those buildings was donated or conveyed at a substantial discount ' by The Irvine Company in reliance upon the City' s approvals 1 of Civic Plaza. (See discussion infra at 43-48 regarding equitable estoppel) Third, the City Council noted that the street improvements and certain other infrastructure improvements 1 pre-dated approval of the PC. This finding, of course, • 1 ignores the substantial liabilities incurred since the time of that approval. Moreover, as in the case of Ford Aero- neutronics, the timing of improvements , i. e. , whether they 1 37 occur before or after PC zoning designation, is not a ' relevant factor. In fact, the contrary has been true. Despite the fact that 94% of the permanent improvements in the Ford Aeroneutronics project pre-dated the PC zoning of ' that property, the full amount of that construction was weighed in finding that project vested.* Finally, the • ' finding ignores the reality of the situation. For example, the street improvements for San Clemente Drive, a four lane road, were constructed in 1975 as a first step to develop- ment of Civic Plaza, as the City is well aware.** Those ' improvements are as much a part of Civic Plaza as other improvements, being necessary to completion of the project. In conclusion, The Irvine Company respectfully ' submits that on the facts Civic Plaza is a vested project. The facts allow for no other result. As discussed supra at 22-24, the Ford Aeroneutronics project proceeded for many years without PC zoning: from 1958 to January, 1974, development proceeded at •' Ford Aeroneutronics on the basis of conditional use permits only. The main purpose and use of San Clemente Drive, as noted supra at 5-6, is to provide direct access to the Newport Harbor Art Museum and Library in Civic Plaza, • as well as to Civic Plaza as a whole project. t 38 V. FAILURE OF THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL TO VEST ' CIVIC PLAZA IS A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS It has previously been demonstrated that Civic Plaza has been treated quite differently by Newport Beach than other PC' s in the City, specifically Koll Newport Center, Emkay-Newport Place, and Ford Aeroneutronics . The latter three PC' s have been found to be excepted from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, even though the relevant facts for those PC' s are less apparent on the issue of vesting as ' are the facts with respect to Civic Plaza. This unequal, arbitrary application of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance to defeat Civic Plaza, the only PC where development has ' occurred but which has not been excepted, is a denial of equal protection that is forbidden by both the federal and state Constitutions. A developer of private property, no less than any ' other individual or entity, is entitled to due process pro- tections against arbitrary, capricious and discriminatory action by a municipality. See, e.g. , Friedman v. City of ' Los Angeles , 52 Cal.App. 3d 317 (1975) [City liable to devel- oper in damages for deprivation of due process rights] . ' Even without an exhaustive citation of authority, it is fundamental that a. city cannot apply different vesting Stan- ' 39 dards with respect to similarly situated developments with- out infringing upon constitutionally protected rights and bearing liability for its actions. The case of G & D Holland Construction Co . v. City of Marysville, 12 Cal.App . 3d 989 (1970) , is on point in ' demonstrating a city' s constitutionally imposed obligations • ' to act in a fair, consistent and nondiscriminatory manner toward all developers. That case concerned a square block of real estate on which the petitioner intended to construct apartments . The property was zoned "R-4" (general apartment ' district) on January 5 , 1970, when the petitioner presented the City with building plans and an application for a build- ing permit. The building plans conformed to the R-4 zone. ' However, at the next meeting of the planning commission, a group of citizens appeared and objected to the proposal. ' The next day the city engineer issued a public statement ' declaring that storm drainage had overloaded the City' s sewerage system. The following day, the city council held a •' special hearing and received a petition from numerous citi- zens objecting to the proposed project because of concern ' for neighborhood property values . The council directed the • City' s building official to temporarily withhold the build- ing permit. It subsequently down-zoned the property to R-3 J 40 I' � in the interests of "the public health, safety and welfare. " ' (Id. at 993, fn. 1. ) The petitioner in the Holland case sued for a writ mandating issuance of the building permit. The trial court entered summary judgment for the City, and the petitioner appealed. In reversing the trial court, the Court of Appeal • found: 'The principal limiting judicial inquiry into the legislative body' s police power objectives , does not bar scrutiny of a quite different issue, that of discrimination against a particular parcel of property. 'A city cannot unfairly discriminate ' against a particular parcel of land, and the courts may properly inquire as to whether the scheme of classification has been applied fairly and impartially in each instance. '" Id. at 994. On retrial, the trial court found the petitioner' s project ' had been discriminated against, and mandated issuance of the building permit. ' The Traffic Phasing Ordinance, on its face, is not ' directed at a specific project. However, the application of that ordinance to projects under development prior to its •' adoption has not been fair and equal. Rather, the City Council has subjected Civic Plaza to a standard not autho- rized by the language of the ordinance and discriminatory • ' when compared to other vested PCs . The City Council noted that Civic Plaza was dif- ferent from other PCs because of its inclusion of public 41 1 uses, and cited that as a basis for declining to find that ' project vested. The ordinance, however, does not differen- tiate between uses. Moreover, the fact that only Civic Plaza' s public sites have been permitted to be developed argues for vesting, not against it. The City Council also noted that certain improvements in Civic Plaza were con- structed prior to adoption of the PC. However, not only does that ignore the fact that those improvements were necessary only to Civic Plaza, but anticipatory development has been credited in the vesting equation for other PCs , as ' for Ford Aeroneutronics. Civic Plaza has an approved site plan; the three other PCs compared above do not. Civic Plaza has already been closely scrutinized for its traffic ' impact and approved; the others have not to any comparable degree. Civic Plaza has proceeded to completion at a rea- sonable pace; construction in the three other compared PC' s ' has been more leisurely. Yet, Civic Plaza was denied vested status . Such unequal application is impermissible under the • ' law. The simple fact is that, given a fair and uniform application of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance to Civic Plaza, ' the refusal by the Newport Beach City Council to find Civic Plaza vested, despite the contrary advice of its City Attorney and Department of Community Development, is consti- tutionally impermissible. 42 VI. THE CITY IS EQUITABLY ESTOPPED* FROM SUBJECTING ' CIVIC PLAZA TO THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE The City Council, as previously noted, declined to find that Civic Plaza was a vested project in part because ' the two buildings substantially completed are public or quasi-public. This finding, rather than supporting the • decision of the City Council not to vest Civic Plaza, instead provides yet another basis for concluding that Civic Plaza cannot be subjected to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance or any other attempt to block that project: namely, equitable ' estoppel. Equitable estoppel is a doctrine applied by the courts to prevent the perpetration of injustice on innocent ' parties by both private and governmental action. This doctrine, as applied to municipal governments , was closely ' examined and clarified by the California Supreme Court in ' City of Long Beach v. Mansell, 3 Cal. 3d 462 (1970) : "As we pointed out in the recent case of •, Driscoll v. Cit of Los Angeles (1967) 67 Cal. 2d 297, at p . a ptr. 661, 431 P. 2d 2451 , ' Generally speaking, four elements must be present in order to apply the doctrine of equitable "Estop" is a legal term of art from Old French which means "to stop, bar, or impede. " Its Old French form meant a bung or cork, and its current form has been used by lawyers to signify the legal doctrine analysed Jin the text since the sixteenth century. 43 1 estoppel : (1) the party to be estopped must be apprised of the facts ; (2) he must intend that his ' conduct shall be acted upon, or must so act that the party asserting the estoppel had a right to believe it was so intended; (3) the other party must be ignorant of the true state of facts ; and (4) he must rely upon the conduct to his injury. ' Keeping in mind the admitted generality of this formulation and the flexibility which is necessary ' to its proper concrete application within the broad equitable framework we have expressed, it may be said that the elements here stated are ' basic to the general doctrine of equitable estop- pel as it exists in this and other jurisdictions . (See generall 3 Pomeroy, Equity Jurisprudence (5th ed. 194ff § 805 , pp. 190-198; 28 Am. Jur. 2d, Estoppel and Waiver § 35 , pp. 640-642; 31 C.J. S. , Estoppel § 67 , 00. 402-415. ) " (Id. at 489) "After a thorough review of the many Califor- nia decisions in this area, as well as a consider- ation of various out-of-state decisions, we have concluded that the proper rule governing equitable ' estoppel against the government is the following: The government may be bound by an equitable estop- pel in the same manner as a private party when the elements requisite to such an estoppel against a private party are present and, in the considered view of a court of equity, the injustice which would result from a failure to uphold an estoppel ' is of sufficient dimension to justify any effect upon public interest or policy which would result from the raising of an estoppel. " (Id. at 496- 497) A case with notable parallels to Civic Plaza is Berkeley Lawn Bowling Club v. City of Berkeley, 42 Cal. App . 3d ' 280 (1974) . The plaintiff in that case had agreed to pay for the construction of a lawn bowling clubhouse by the City over a period of years, and to manage two lawn bowling 44 greens . The clubhouse and bowling greens were on public land, and the City paid for maintenance of the greens. Nine years after construction •of the clubhouse, the City announced its intention to convert one of the bowling greens into a needed "minipark" and to designate the second green as a ' public facility. The trial court enjoined the City' s action, • ' and the appellate court affirmed, partly on estoppel grounds . "Here, the basis of the trial court' s ruling was the Club' s induced ignorance of the City' s inten- tion to retain the power to destroy the lawn bowling greens when it saw fit. This ignorance was induced by the City' s action in executing the ' clubhouse agreement without informing the Club of its intention as to the greens while maintaining its previous role with regard to the greens . " (Id. at 289) The case of Civic Plaza is substantially similar, ' and all of the identified elements for an estoppel exist. Was the City fully apprised of the facts concerning Civic Plaza, including its traffic impacts? Yes . The City stud- led both the environmental impact report and a subsequent voluntary traffic study before finally approving Civic • ' Plaza. It approved a specific site plan for the project, and even participated in shaping the concept of Civic Plaza through its solicitation and acquisition of the library ' site. Did The Irvine Company have a right to rely upon the City' s actions'? Yes . The City not only approved the PC 1 45 1 Development Standards and site plan for Civic Plaza, but ' also purchased the planned Library site, issued building and grading permits, and approved the commercial density of the project after exhaustive scrutiny of the project' s traffic impact. That approval was made with full knowledge of the ' condition of the City' s traffic systems . • ' Was The Irvine Company informed prior to expending funds and incurring liabilities that Civic Plaza would be halted pending yet another traffic study? No . The Civic Plaza PC was approved in concept subject to completion of a ' traffic study on all of Newport Center. That study was completed, reviewed by the City, and the proposed density for Civic Plaza finally approved in 1977. This was done in ' the framework of a General Plan that identifies many poten- tially affected intersections as purposefully deficient. With that final approval, The Irvine Company had no basis to t believe that yet further obstacles in terms of traffic studies would remain. Finally, did The Irvine Company rely upon the City' s conduct? Again, yes , as the prior sections have ' established. The Irvine Company has donated land to quasi- public uses, has sold land to the City at substantial dis- count, and has incurred substantial liabilities in grading, 46 J 1 designing, planning, and installing infrastructure for Civic 1 Plaza. This is adequate grounds for estoppel. This situation is in essence parallel to the yBerkeley Lawn Bowling Club case. The Irvine Company was induced to donate or discount land in Civic Plaza for public 1 uses, as was the Berkeley Lawn Bowling Club. Newport Beach • 1 acquired the library site, executed several reciprocal agreements , and went ahead with the construction of the Library, while all the time not informing The Irvine Company that construction of the commercial sites in Civic Plaza 1 would not be permitted. The equitable result, as in the Berkeley Lawn Bowling Club case, is that Newport Beach should be estopped from applying the Traffic Phasing Ordi- nance to Civic Plaza. Since estoppel is grounded in the concept of fair- ness, the history of Civic Plaza presents a particularly 1 compelling case for application of the doctrine. Develop- ment in Civic Plaza has thus far encompassed only the public uses . The land for the Museum and Library uses was either donated or conveyed at a discount, with the anticipation 1 that the interdependence of the commerical sites to these • 1 public uses would justify that investment . The City was fully aware of that anticipation. However, now that the principal public uses are either completed or near comple- i 47 1 tion, the City has decided to, in essence, reap the benefits ' of The Irvine Company' s generosity while denying to The Irvine Company what was a primary factor of that decision. The City has taken this action not on the basis of any new ' facts or changed conditions. Instead, the City was fully aware of the relevant facts, and had even planned traffic • ' deficiencies, as it approved Civic Plaza and encouraged its public uses . That is the type of unfairness that resulted in a finding of estoppel in the Berkeley Lawn Bowling Club case, ' and is sufficient to estop Newport Beach from denying The Irvine Company the right to complete Civic Plaza. ' VII. THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE IS INVALID AS APPLIED TO CIVIC PLAZA BECAUSE IT WOULD .IN EFFECT REQUIRE SUBMISSION OF A SECOND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ' IN CONTRAVENTION OF STATE LAW The Civic Plaza Planned Community was approved by the Newport Beach Planning Commission on November 20, 1975 , and by the City Council on December 22, 1975 . In approving ' the Civic Plaza Planned Community, the City of Newport Beach ' was, of course, required to comply with CEQA. The City com- missioned a Los Angeles firm, Environmental Feasibility Studies , to prepare the required environmental impact report (or "EIR") . 1 ', � 48 EIR' s must include a "detailed statement" of both ' the long-range and short-range environmental effects of a proposed project, whether avoidable or not, alternatives to the proposed project, mitigation measures, and the "growth- inducing impact of the proposed project. " Public Resources • Code § 21100. If the environmental impact report identifies ' any significant environmental effects from the project, then the project cannot be approved unless specific findings are made that those effects can be mitigated by some change in ' the proposal, or that the social or economic benefits of the proposed project outweigh the environmental consequences of proceeding with development. Public Resources Code §21081. The EIR prepared for Civic Plaza by Environmental ' Feasibility Studies was exhaustive in its analysis of traffic impact. Its traffic circulation analysis was prepared by Crommelin-Pringle & Associates . The full 15 page analysis ' made by Crommelin-Pringle & Associates was appended to the report. That analysis contained a comprehensive measure of the Intersection Capacity Utilization ("ICU") for nine key ' intersections affected by the proposed project, expressed in terms of Level of Service for each intersection. The • ' analysis resulted in the following conclusions : "From the ICU analysis it can be seen that all intersections operate freely and far below full utilization except Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills Road, which will be utilized at ' about the 0. 98 level. 49 "This, however, is not critical for two reasons . One, it [sic] will operate satisfacto- rily at the 0. 98 utilization level. Secondly, with the opening of New MacArthur Boulevard and the construction of the Corona del Mar Freeway, substantial traffic volumes will divert from Jamboree Road to New and Old MacArthur Boulevard. "This traffic diversion will significant ' [sic] reduce the utilization of the intersection of Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills Road. 4c x �4 ' "Although the construction of New MacArthur Boulevard, the Corona del Mar Freeway to as far south as it is now under construction, plus con- struction of a connection between Old MacArthur Boulevard and the terminus of the Corona del Mar ' Freeway are not necessary for the street system to accommodate the project traffic, the construction of these projects would improve the traffic circu- lation. " The EIR for Civic Plaza was approved by the City, ' but not without special consideration being given to the traffic impact of the project. In the staff report to the ' Planning Commission on Civic Plaza, dated November 14, 1975 , the following conclusions and recommendations were made: "The traffic consultant has concluded that this project will not have a significant impact at this time because: "A. The traffic volumes from the pro- ject, when added to the existing traffic volumes , will not exceed the capacity of the streets . ' "B. Access to the site is adequate. "C. No signalization or geometric modi- fications are needed for the adjacent intersections . 50 "The Irvine Company is preparing a comprehen- sive study of peak hour flows and intersection ' capacities for the ultimate build-out of Newport Center, and the staff feels that this study should be reviewed prior to the final approval of the entire 320, 000 sq. ft. of offices proposed for this project. Therefore, the staff recommends that language be added to the P-C text to ensure adequate review of all available traffic data prior to final approval and issuance of building permits for the office portion of this project. " The Planning Commission followed this suggestion, and on February 28, 1977, the Newport Beach City Council, after reviewing a "more detailed traffic analysis" on Newport Center, approved 320, 000 sq. ft. of office development for ' Civic Plaza with Resolution No. 9009. In summary, Civic Plaza has already been subjected to a comprehensive analysis for its traffic generating ' potential over and even beyond the normal requirements of CEQA. That analysis anticipated and duplicated the analysis ' now required by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance: i. e. , that ' the project will not adversely affect traffic service systems using a Level of Service measure, or, alternatively, that the project' s benefits outweigh any projected negative traffic impacts. The end result of the above environmental ' analysis was approval of Civic Plaza. Once a municipality has subjected a project to 1 environmental analysis , it is prevented by CEQA from resub- jecting the same project to a second environmental impact 51 J i report. The controlling statute is Public Resources Code 1 §21166, which provides : "When an environmental impact report has been prepared for a project pursuant to this division, no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report shall be •required by the lead agency or by any responsible agency, unless one or more of the 1 following events occurs : (a) Substantial changes are proposed in the 1 project which will require major revisions of the environmental impact report. (b) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revi- sions in the environmental impact report. 1 (c) New information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the environ- mental impact report was certified as complete, becomes available. " Therefore, the Traffic Phasing Ordinances cannot be applied 1 to Civic Plaza if in fact it imposes a "supplemental envi- ronmental impact report" requirement on Civic Plaza and there has been no substantial change in the project, no 1 substantial change in the surrounding circumstances of the project, and no discovery of previously unavailable infor- mation. 1 Does the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, if applied to Civic Plaza, call for a "supplemental environmental impact 1 report?" The answer is clearly yes for several reasons . First, the ordinance draws upon CEQA for the determination I' J . 1 52 1 iof what is a "project. " See discussion supra at 30-31 and 1 Municipal Code §15. 40. 040. Second, the traffic analysis to determine which projects are subject to the ordinance is the identical traffic analysis imposed by the City in the EIR already 1 prepared for Civic Plaza. The analysis under the ordinance, as with state mandated EIR' s , calls for consideration of 1 mitigation measures , and permits approval of projects having a substantial traffic impact only upon a finding of over- riding benefits. See Municipal Code §15 . 040. 030(ii) and 1 (iii) . In substance, if not in form, if the Traffic Phasing Ordinance is applied to Civic Plaza it will require 1 that that project be subjected to a "supplemental environ- mental impact report" on traffic impact, a requirement which is legally permissible only in limited circumstances . 1 Third, none of the three conditions specified by CEQA for permitting imposition of a supplemental environ- mental impact report exists for Civic Plaza. No changes adversely, affecting traffic have been proposed for the 1 project. Since final approval of the commercial density of the project in 1977 -- approval which was previously with- held pending a further traffic review -- there have been no substantial adverse changes in the surrounding circumstances 1 53 of Civic Plaza. If anything, the street systems have been ' improved. No new and previously unavailable information concerning Civic Plaza and its potential traffic impact has been discovered. In summary, Public Resources Code §21166 prohibits ' a city from subjecting a project to more than one environ- mental analysis except in special circumstances . Those cir- cumstances do not exist for Civic Plaza. Civic Plaza was approved only after careful scrutiny for environmental impacts, particularly traffic impacts , under CEQA. That ' review was not concluded until 1977 , when 320, 000 square feet of commercial development was finally approved for Civic Plaza. Since that time, no changes in Civic Plaza or ' its surrounding circumstances have occurred, and no new information has been developed. To utilize the Traffic Phasing Ordinance as an attempt to resubject Civic Plaza to ' a second environmental impact study of traffic effects , is in contravention of state law and thus invalid. VIII. CONCLUSION ' The City Council has declined to find Civic Plaza • an excepted project under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, justifying its actions on the ground that insufficient facts had been presented on that issue. A review of the facts 54 I presented above, however, demonstrates beyond any doubt that ' Civic Plaza is a vested project,when tested under the grand- father clause of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The Irvine Company' s right to complete that project cannot be legally withdrawn given the interdependence of the project, the ' City' s prior approvals of the project, and The Irvine Com- pany' s detrimental reliance upon those approvals . For the ' City not to recognize this fact is an unconstitutional denial of substantive due process and equal protection of the laws . ' The City has encouraged and accepted the public and quasi-public aspects of Civic Plaza. In fact , the City itself accepted a donation of part of the value of the ' library site in the form of a substantial price discount. Civic Plaza was presented to and approved by the City as a whole. The City cannot now retain what it likes to the ' exclusion of the rest. It is equitably estopped from denying to The Irvine Company the right to complete the project. Finally, the City, by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance is attempting to resubject Civic Plaza to yet another envi- ronmental impact study. That attempt is prohibited by the California Environmental Quality Act. 4 1 I � 55 The Irvine Company respectfully submits that ' sufficient facts are presented for a finding that Civic Plaza is excepted from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, and thus should be permitted to proceed. 1 • 1 1 • 1 56