Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTPO021_CORPORATE PLAZA TP0021 'i 1 C MISSIONERS1 RE&R PLANNING COMMISSION MF.EQ4G MINUTES Place: City Council Chambers x Time: 7: 30 p.m. a > Date: July 10, 1980 �( N � City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL I I I I I I I INDEX Present * x x x x *Commissioner McLaughlin arrived at 7:45 p.m. Absent x x EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT James D. Hewicker, Planning Director Robert Burnham, Assistant City Attorney STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT William R. Laycock, Current Planning Administrato Rich Edmonston, Traffic Engineer Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator W. William Ward, Senior Planner Joanne Bader; Secretary to the Mayor/Administra- tion Motion x The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting Approval of Ayes x x xof May 22, 1980 were approved with the omission minutes of Abstain x of the first paragraph of' the discussion of 5/22/80 $' ent x x x Amendment No. 535 on Page 7. Commissioner Haidin- \ - ger abstained as he was absent from the May 22, 1980 meeting. Staff advised that the minutes of the Planning Continua- Commission meeting of June 19, 1980 have not yet Lion of been completed. Therefore, approval of the sub- minutes of ject minutes was continued to the Planning Com- 6/19/80 mission meeting of July 24, 1980. * * * The Chair announced that Commissioner McLaughlin had indicated that she desired to be present for the consideration of Agenda Items 1 through 3. Since Commissioner McLaughlin had not yet Motion x arrived at the meeting, a motion was made to Ayes x x x x amend the agenda to commence with Agenda Item No. Absent x x x 4 until Commissioner McLaughlin arrived, which motion carried. (Note: Agenda Item No. 4 was then considered by the Planning Commission. Since Commissioner McLaughlin arrived at the meeting during the consideration of Agenda Item No. 4, the remaining agenda items were considered in their original agenda order. ) See Page 13 for the discussion on Agenda Item No. 4. C -1- COMMISSIONERS Jul*O, 1980 MINUTES � a In N N City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Item #1 i 'Request to consider a Traffic Phasing Plan for TRAFFIC the remaining development of the Corporate Plaza PHASING Planned Community, and the acceptance of an PLAN Environmental Document. (CORPORATE PIAZA) LOCATION: Property bounded by East Coast High- way, Newport Center Drive, Farallon APPROVED Drive, and Avocado Avenue in Newport CONDI- Center.. TIONWZY ZONE: P-C APPLICANT: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as Applicant Planning Director Hewicker advised that this item was continued from the Planning Commission meeting of June 19, 1980 to allow the Applicant and Staff time to reevaluate suggested Condition of Approval No. 26. Planning Director Hewicker further advised that the subject condition has been revised to the satisfaction of both the Public Works Department and the Applicant. The revised language is contained in the staff repot and is being submitted at this time for Planning Commission consideration. Traffic Engineer Edmonston clarified that the original Condition of Approval No. 26 was an unconditioned right-of-way dedication. The revised condition provides that the area to be dedicated may continue to be occupied and used by the present lessees until notification by the City that the right-of-way is needed and that the City shall be responsible for relocation and/or reconstruction of existing improvements such as pump islands, curbs, sidewalks, etc. The Continued Public Hearing resumed in connec- tion with this item and Ron Hendrickson, of , The Irvine Company, appeared before the Planning Commission and expressed concurrence with Condition of Approval No. 26 as currently pro- posed. Mr. Hendrickson also advised that The Irvine Company has no concerns with the remaining conditions as proposed by Staff. -2- I COMMISSIONERS Jug 10, 1980 MINUTES City .of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX For the benefit of the persons residing in the Nunn homes situated above the subject buildings Commissioner Balalis questioned whether the proposed roof-top mechanical devices could either be: 1) screened in such a way that it would be in pace with the building; or 2) situated in the basement of the structure rather than on the roof. Mr. Hendrickson responded that The Irvine Company would make a concerted effort to insure that the equipment enclosure be made attractive. Mr. Hendrickson then commented on the fact that it would be more expensive to locate the equipment devices in the basement and further commented on the possibility of the roof being designed so as to provide wells in which the mechanical devices could be dropped. During the course of discussion, Commissioner C Allen indicated her preference that landscaping of the project be made consistent with the P-C Text for Corporate Plaza, rather than consistent with the existing landscape program for Corporate Plaza. Specifically, the P-C Text provides that "Areas used for parking shall be screened, from view or have the view interrupted by landscaping and/or fencing from access streets and adjacent properties. " Commissioner Allen felt that the P-C Text provision implies a more- horizontal, hedge type of landscaping, rather than the tree/open space/tree type of landscaping currently existing in Corporate Plaza. Mr. Hendrickson advised that The Irvine Company would have no objections to Condition of Approval No. 14 being modified to require that land- scaping be provided in compliance with the P-C Text. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard on this item, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Beek requested that his following statement be included in the minutes of this Cmeeting: -3- COMMISSIONERS Juloko, 1980 MINUTES M T 2 City of Newport Beach ROIL CALL INDEX "The City has embarked on a program of making all desirable intersection improvements. The City can add lanes and paint stripes without any financial help from this project. The Traffic Phasing Plan is incorrect in stating that the project will improve intersection conditions. At least two intersections which are now giving unsatisfactory service will continue to do so. The project will contrib- ute traffic to these intersections and, there- fore, will make the unsatisfactory condition worse. Therefore, there is not a reasonable correlation between projected traffic and the capacity of affected intersections." Motion x Motion was made that the Planning Commission Ayes x x x x accept the environmental document certifying it Noes x as complete and approve the Traffic Phasing Plan Absent x x with the following findings and conditions: FINDINGS: 1. That an Initial Study and Negative Declara- tion has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and City Policy K-3, and that their concerns 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 envi- ronmental impacts. 3. That the Phasing Plan is consistent with the Newport Beach General Plan and the Planned Community Development Plan for Corporate Plaza. 4. That based on the Phasing Plan and surrounding information, submitted therewith, there is a reasonable correlation between projected traffic at time of completion and the capaci- ty of affected intersections. C -4- COMMISSIONERS su1010, 1980 MINUTES N N City of Newport Beach ROIL CALL INDEX 5. That the applicant has taken into considera- tion in the preparation of his plan charac- teristics 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. CONDITIONS: 1. That prior to the occupancy of any buildings on the site beyond the existing development completed or under construction and 39,026 square feet for a total of 248,850 square feet, the Circulation Systems Improvements contained in the Traffic Report, dated March 3, 1980, Table 4, Page 8, shall have been constructed (unless subsequent project approvals require modification thereto) . The Circulation Systems Improvements shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic C Engineer. 2. That prior to the occupancy of any buildings on the site beyond the existing development completed or under construction• and 39,026 square feet for a total of 248,850 square feet, the Circulation Systems Improvements required of committed 'projects listed on Pages 2 and 3 of the Traffic Report dated March 3, 1980, shall also have been constructed, (unless subsequent project approvals require modifi- cations thereto) . The Circulation Systems Improvements shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 3. That prior to the occupancy of any buildings on the site beyond the existing development completed or under construction and 39,026 square feet for a total of 248,850 square feet, San Miguel Drive shall be improved from Avocado Avenue to MacArthur Boulevard in a manner acceptable to the Directors of the Planning and Public Works Departments, unless subsequent changes are made to the Circulation System. C -5- COMMISSIONERS Jul^, 1980 MINUTES In5. In (D N City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX 4. That prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicants shall indicate to the Director of the Planning Department, in writing, that they understand and agree to Conditions 11 2, and 3 above. 5. The following disclosure statement of the City of Newport Beach's policy regarding the Orange County Airport shall be included in all leases or sub-leases for space in the project and shall be included in any Cove- nants, 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 Lrport may not be able to provide adequate air' service for business establishments which rely on such services; b) When an alternate air facility is availa- ble, 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. 6. Final design of the project should provide for the incorporation of water-saving devices for project lavatories and other water-using facilities. 7. The final design of the project should pro- vide for the sorting of recyclable material from other solid waste. S. The applicants shall provide for weekly vacuum sweeping of all paved parking areas and drives. -6- COMMISSIONERS sA lot 1980 MINUTES � x City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX 9. That the architectural character established within the existing project shall be main- tained in the proposed project. 10. A landscape and irrigation plan for•the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. The landscape plan shall integrate and phase the installation of landscaping with the proposed construc- tion schedule. (Prior to occupancy, the licensed architect shall certify to the Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with the prepared plan) . 11. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review of the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department and approval of the Planning Department. 12, The landscape plan ,shall include a main— tenance program which controls the use of fertilizers and pesticides. 13. The landscape plan shall place heavy emphasis on the use of drought-resistant native vegetation and be irrigated via a system designed to avoid surface runoff and overwatering. 14. That landscaping be provided in accordance with the Corporate Plaza P-C Text, to wit: "That parking lots shall be screened from view or have the view interrupted by landscaping and/or fencing from access streets and adjacent properties. " The proposed landscape plan of the Corporate Plaza complex shall be reviewed by a licensed landscape architect. The existing landscape program should also be modified to include the concerns of Conditions 12 and 13 to the maximum extent practicable that can maintain the character of the pro- posed landscape program. Any change(s) in the existing program as a result of this review should be phased and incorporated % as a portion of the proposed revised land- scape plan and maintenance program. -7- COMMISSIONERS su*10, 1980 MINUTES O I LI City of Newport, Beach ROLL CALL INDEX 15. Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. 16. That a grading plan, if required, shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 17. The grading permit shall include, if required, a description of haul routes, access points to the site and a watering and sweeping pro- gram designed to minimize impacts of haul operation. 18. An erosion and dust control plan, if required, shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department. 19. That an erosion and siltation control plan, if required, be approved by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Santa Ana Region, and the plan be submitted to ,said Board ten days prior to any construction activities. 20. Prior to the issuance of any .building permits for the site, the applicants shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and the Planning Department that adequate sewer facilities will be available for the project. Such demonstration shall include verification from Orange County Sani- tation District No. 5. 21. That prior to the occupancy of any building, the applicant shall provide written verifi- cation from Orange County Sanitation District No. 5 that adequate sewer capacity is availa- ble to serve the project. 22. That the conditions of Resubdivision No. 465 be completed and that bond amounts deposited for the East Coast Highway and Avocado Avenue improvements be increased to reflect current prices. -8- COMMISSIONERS Julio, 1980 MINUTES =r y F I N O M � � City of Newport Beach ROIL CALL INDEX 23. That Avocado Avenue improvements between San Miguel Drive and East Coast Highway be completed to the width determined to be necessary to handle the two-way traffic projected from the development, plus other approved projects. This shall provide width necessary for turning lanes and pockets . 24. That -a traffic signal be installed at San Miguel Drive and MacArthur Boulevard. 25. That a radius corner cutoff be dedicated at the northwesterly corner of Newport Center Drive and Coast Highway in accordance with the requirements of the Public Works Depart- ment. 26. That the applicant shall execute an agreement providing for dedication to the City, at no cost, of the right-of-way needed across the C two service station sites for ultimate widening of the northerly side of Coast Highway at Jamboree Road. The agreement shall provide that the area to be dedicated may continue to be occupied and used by the present lessees until notification by the City that the right-of-way is needed; and that the City shall be responsible for relo- cation and/or reconstruction of existing improvements such as pump islands, curbs, sidewalks, etc. 27. That the sum of $54, 000 be provided for circulation and traffic improvements to intersections as specified on Page 4, Table 2 of the Traffic Report dated March 20, 1980? as shown on the City's Master Plan of Circu- lation consistent with the General Plan, with priority given to improvements within the vicinity of the project, if feasible. C -9- . Planning Commission Meet i• July 10 , 1980 Agenda Item No . 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH June 30 , 1980 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Request to consider a• Traffic Pha"si'n "Plan for fhe remaining 'dev'e"o]�'mentf 'nf `t' e� 'Gorpora'te•'P1`aza 'P1'ahned 'Communi't ' 'an`d�`tfie `a`cc�e`'t`an'ce `of` a'n 'En`vi"ro`nmen`ta1 Document ` 'Con'ti`n'ue`d'Plrb`�i'c"Hea`rTrig LOCATION : Property bounded by East Coast Highway, Newport Center Drive, Farallon Drive , and Avocado Avenue in Newport Center. ZONE: P—C APPLICANT: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as Applicant At the June 19 , 1980 Planning Commission meeting , the above subject item was continued to the meeting of July 10 , 1980 to allow the applicant and staff time to reevaluate suggested condition of approval no . 26 . Revised Findings and conditions of approval are attached for Planning Commission consideration" - Exhibit "A" (Amended ) . The revised Exhibit "A" incorporates language for condition no . 26 acceptable to the Public Works Department and the applicant . Suggested Action If the Planning Commission desires to approve or modify and approve the project , staff would suggest that the Planning Commission accept the environmental document certifying it as complete and approve or modify and approve the Phasing Plan with the findings and subject to the conditions as set forth in Exhibit "A" (Revised) . PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKE , 19 IRECTOR By Fred a co Attachments : Exhibit "A" Environmental Coordinator (Revised) Staff Report dated 6/12/80 FT/dt Negative Declaration g EXHIBIT "A" ( REVISED) Findings and Conditions of approval as Recommended to the Planning Commission - July 10 , 1980 Approval FINDINGS: 1 . That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the Californi-a Environmental Quality Act and City Policy K-3 , and that their concerns 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 Corporate Plaza. 4. That based on the Phasing Plan and surrounding information submitted therewith, there is a reasonable correlation between projected traffic at time of completion and the capacity of affected intersec- tions . 5 . That the applicant has taken 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 . CONDITIONS : 1 . That prior to the occupancy of any buildings on the site beyond the existing development completed or under construction and 39 ,026 square feet for a total of 248,850 square feet, the Circulation Systems Improvements contained in the Traffic Report , dated March 3, 1980 , Table 4, Page 8 , shall have been constructed (unless subsequent project approvals require modification thereto) . The Circulation Systems Improvements shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 2. That prior to the occupancy of any buildings on the site beyond the existing development completed or under construction and 39,026 square feet for a total of 248,450 square feet, the Circulation Systems Improvements required of committed projects listed on Pages ,2 and 3 of the Traffic Report dated March 3, 1980 , shall also have been constructed , (unless subsequent project approvals require modifications thereto) . The Circulation Systems Improvements shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 3. That prior to the occupancy of any buildings on the site beyond the existing development completed or under construction and 39 ,026 square feet for a total of 248,850 square feet , San Miguel Drive shall be improved from Avocado Avenue to MacArthur Boulevard in a manner acceptable to the Director' s of Planning and Public Works Departments , unless subsequent changes are made to the Circulation System. 4. That prior to the issuance of any building permits , the applicants shall indicate to the Director of the Planning Department , in writing, that they understand and agree to Conditions 1 , 2 , and 3 above. 5. The following disclosure statement of the City of Newport Beach ' s policy regarding the Orange County Airport shall 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 services ; 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. 6. Final design of the project should provide for the incorporation of water-saving devices for project lavatories 'and other water- using facilities . 7. The final design of the project should provide for the sorting of" recyclable material from other solid waste. 8. The applicants shall provide for weekly vacuum sweeping of all paved parking areas and drives . 9 . That the architectural character and landscape design established within the existing project shall be maintained in the proposed project. 1,0 . A landscape and irrigation plan for the project, shall be Prepared by a licensed landscape architect. The landscape plan shall integrate and phase the installation of landscaping with the proposed construction schedule. (Prior to occupancy , the licensed architect shall certify to the Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with the prepared plan) . 11 . The landscape plan shall be subject to the review of the Parks , Beaches , and Recreation Department and approval of the Planning Department. 12. The landscape plan shall include a maintenance program which controls the -use of fertilizers and pesticides . 13. The landscape plan shall place heavy emphasis on the use of drought-resistant native vegetation and be irrigated via a system designed to avoid surface runoff and over-watering. 14. The landscape plan of the existing Corporate Plaza complex shall be reviewed by a licensed landscape architect. The existing landscape program should be modified to include the concerns of conditions 12 and 13 above to the maximum extent practicable that can maintain the character of the existing landscape program. Any change (s) in the existing program as a result of this review should be phase and incorporated as a portion of existing landscape maintenance. 15. Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments . 16. That a grading plan if required shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities , to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants . 17. The grading permit shall include, if required , a description of haul routes , access points to the site and a watering and sweeping program designed to minimize impacts of haul ` -operation. 18. An erosion and dust control plan , if required, .shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Departmen.t. 19. That an erosion and siltation control plan , if required, be approved by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board- Santa Ana Region , and the plan be submitted to said Board ten days prior to any construction activities. 20. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for the site, the applicants shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Publfc Works Department and the Planning Department that adequate sewer facilities will be available for the project. Such demonstration shall include verification from Orange County Sanitation District No . 5 . E • 0 21 . That prior to the occupancy of any building , the applicant shall provide written verification from Orange County Sanitation District No . 5 that adequate sewer capacity is available to serve the project . 22 . That the conditions of Resubdivision No . 465 be completed and that bond amounts deposited for the East Coast Highway and Avocado Avenue improvements be increased to reflect current prices . 23 . That Avocado Avenue improvements between San Miguel Drive and East Coast Highway be completed to the width determined to be necessary to handle the two-way traffic projected from the development, plus other approved projects . This shall provide width necessary for turning lanes and pockets . 24. That a traffic signal be installed at San Miguel Drive and MacArthur Boulevard . 25. That a radius corner cutoff be dedicated at the northwesterly corner of Newport Center Drive and Coast Highway . in accordance with the requirements of the Public Works Department . 26 . That the applicant shall execute an agreement providing for dedication to the City, at no cost, of the right-of-way needed across the two service station sites for ultimate widening of' the northerly si.de of Coast Highway at Jamboree Road . The agreement shall provide that the area to be dedicated may continue to be occupied and used by the present lessees until notification by the City that the right-of-way is needed ; and that the City shall be responsible for relocation and/or reconstruction of existing improvements such as pump islands , curbs , sidewalks , etc . 27. That the sum of $54 ,000 be provided for circulation and traffic imrpovements to intersections as specified on Page 4 , Table 2 of the Traffic Report dated March 20 , 1980, as shown on the City' s Master Plan of Circulation consistent with the General Plan , with priority given to improvements within the vicinity of the project , if feasible . *Planning Commission Meetino_ June 19 , 1980 Agenda Item No . 3 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH June 12 , 1980 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT : Request to consider a_ Traffic Phasing Plan for the remaining development of the Corporate Plaza Planned Communit and the acce tance of an Environmental Document (Public Hearin LOCATION: Property bounded by East Coast Highway, Newport Center Drive , Farallon Drive , and Avocado Avenue in Newport Center. APPLICANT: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as Applicant Request The Irvine Company has requested approval of a Phasing Plan to comply with Resolution No. 9472 of the Newport Beach City Council and Amendment No. 514 as it pertains to the Planned Community De- velopment Plan for Corporate Plaza . Environmental Significance The City of Newport Beach Environmental Affairs Committee has re- viewed the project and determined that it will not have a signifi - cant environmental effect. A copy of the Negative Declaration is attached. General Plan The proposed Corporate Plaza Traffic Phasing Plan is consistent with the Newport Beach General Plan . A total of 163,582 sq . ft. of additional office development is permitted in Corporate Plaza The property owner has the option of utilizingthe maxium square footage f T f 'or each Traffic Analysis 9Y Zone . However, total office development in Newport Center may not - 1 - TO: Planning Commission - 2 exceed 441,518 sq . ft. A total of 234 ,706 sq . ft. was approved for Civic Plaza . If this project is approved , a total of 66 ,636 sq . ft. of office development would remain to be approved in New- port Center. Phasing Plan The Irvine Company has indicated that i-t is their 'desire to phase the remai.ning development in Corporate Plaza as follows : Occupancy 1981 Existing Development Prior to 6/ 1/79 85,000 sq . ft. Development 6/1/79 to 3/80 124 824 Subtotal , sq. ft. Additional Development 39 026 so . ft. Total Occupied 1981 24 . Occupancy 1982 Additional Development 101, 150 sq . ft. Total Occupancy 350,000 sq,. ft. Traffic Report The Corporate Plaza Traffic Phasing Plan was submitted to the City on March 27 , 1980 , (attached) . Additional information was request- ed from the applicant related to the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard/San Joaquin Hills Road and this was submitted to the City in April , 1980, The consideration of the Traffic Phasing Plan was originally scheduled for the Planning Commission meeting of May 22 , 1980 , and was continued to the hearing of June 19 , 1980 at Staff' s request. The 16 intersections identified for analysis under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance for the area and the intersection of Bristol Street (North )/Birch Street were examined. This analysis indicated that seven. of the 17 intersections analyzed exceeded the maxium allowed two percent on at least one approach . An I . C. U. analysis was therefore performed for these intersections . The Traffic Report is summarized on the following two pages : • TO : Planning Commission - 3 Table 2 CRITICAL INTERSECTION IDENTIFICATION CORPORATE PLAZA LOCATION 1983 - 2.5 HOUR PERCENTAGES NB SB EB WB Bristol St. N. & Campus Dr. - - - 1.1 Bristol St. N. & Birch St. - - - 1.4 Bristol St. N. & Jamboree Rd. 1.1 0.3 - 3.6 Bristol St. & Campus Dr. - - 0.9 - Bristol St. & Jamboree Rd. 1.2 0.4 1.0 - Jamboree Rd. & Mac Arthur Blvd. 1.6 0.5 1.2 0.5 Jamboree Rd. & Eastbluff Dr - Ford Rd. 1 .2 0.8 - - Jamboree Rd & San Joaquin Hills Rd. 2.2 0.6 - - Jamboree Rd & Santa Barbara Dr. - 0.9 - 3.1 Coast Highway & Jamboree Rd. - - 0.7 1.9 Mac Arthur Blvd. & Ford Rd. 2. 7 0.8 - - Mac Arthur Blvd. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. 6.0 1.0 - 0.4 Coast Highway & Mac Arthur Blvd. - 1 .9 4.3 0. 3 Coast Highway & Dover Dr. - - 0.8 1.2 Coast Highway & Bayside - - 0.6 1.8 Coast Highway & Newport Center Dr. - - 0.7 ' 3.4 Coast Highway & Marguerite - - 0.8 0.3 ICU SUMMARY ` INTERSECTION EXISTING EXISTING(') EXISTING(') EXISTING(') EXISTING(2) EXISTING(3) REGIONAL REGIONAL REGIONAL REGIONAL REGIONAL REC16M C0124ITTED COMMITTED COMMITTED COMMITTED COMMITTED COMMITTED �, 1982 30%PROJECT 302PROJECT PROJECT PROJECT 1982 1983 1983 1983 Bristol St. N. 6 Jamboree Rd. 0.8781 0.8477 0.8686 0.9471 0.9340 0.9338 Jamboree Rd. 3 San Joaquin Hills 0.7375 0.6716 0.6797 0.6962 0.7009 Rd. Jamboree Rd. 6 Santa Barbara Dr. 0.5745 0.6239 0.6356 0.6486 0.6549 Mac Arthur Blvd. a Ford Rd. 1.1631 0.7642 0.7851 0.8219 0.8281 Mac Arthur Blvd. S San Joaquin 0.7664 0.8679 0.8991 0.9163• 0.9350 0.9350 Hills Rd c Optional 0.8745 0.8745 o Coast Highway & Mac Arthur Blvd. 0.7100 0.7722 0.7816 0.8247 0.8294 r Coast Highway 5 Newport Center 0.7584 0-7794 0.8028 0.8027 0.8163 E Drive o U m � (1) No Project related improvements are considered is calculations. c (2) Project related improvements are included and 100 percent of Campus/Mac Arthur project. r° o_ (3) Project related improvements are included and 30 percent of Campus/Mac Arthur project. o TO : Planning Commission - 5 The intersection of Bristol Street ( North )/Jamboree Road will be operating upon completion of the project at 0 . 9000 or greater . A summary of the Traffic Consultant' s comments on this intersec- tion is given below: "Bristol Street North and Jamboree Road . The projected 1983 I . C . U . value for this intersection without this project is 0 . 9471 , With the recommended project improvement, this I . C . U . value is reduced to 0 . 9340. While this value is greater than 0 . 90 , the project related improvement does result in a reduction of the I . C. U . value. On this basis , the project would not "make worse" traffic operations at this intersection . " The intersection of MacArthur Boulevard/San Joaquin Hills Road without project related improvement would be operating at 0 . 9350 . Two improvements were analyzed by the Traffic Consultant. The first improvement (March 3 , 1980-Traffic Report) is the addition of a through lane , both northbound and southbound . This would reduce the I . C. U. to 0 . 8745 . The second improvement (March 20 , 1980-Traffic Report) is with San Miguel Drive improved from Avocado Avenue, to San Joaquin Hills Road. This would reduce the I . C .U. to 0.8138. The improvement of San Miguel Drive from San Joaquin Hills Road to Avocado Avenue was considered as a portion of Tentative Tract No. 10625 (Harbor Point) . That project was approved subject to the follow-ing condition related to the improvement of San Miguel Drive : "17 . San Miguel Drive may be extended only from its present terminus to the entrance of Harbor Point, as shown on Tentative Tract Map No . 10625 . The width of this exten- sion is to be sufficient to provide for two lanes of traffic and a bicycle lane , but is to be no greater than 30 feet. No median strip is to be added at the present time . " A copy of the City Council minutes of May 14 , 1979 are attached for Planning Commission review . The Consultant ' s Traffic Engineer has indicated to Staff that if San Miguel Drive were extended only to MacArthur Boulevard, the I . C :U. at San Joaquin Hills Road/MacArthur Boulevard would be reduced below 0. 9gOO . As of this writing , Staff has not reviewed his information . Intersection Over 0 . 9000 In conjunction with the approval of the Traffic Phasing Plans for Civic Plaza' P-C and Block C of Koll Center Newport P-C, the TO: Planning Commission - 6 approvals were conditioned as follows : Civic Plaza P-C "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 Cir- culation and Transit Fund to be used at the discretion of the City for circulation and transit purposes in the Newport Center area. " Block C - Koll Center Newport P-C "That the sum of $90 ,000 'be provided for circulation and traffic improvements to intersections as specified in Volume 2 , Page 7 of the addendum to the Environmental Impact Report as shown on the City' s Master Plan of Circulation consistent with the General Plan , with priority given to improvements within the vicinity of the project, if feasible. " Staff has provided a condition of approval (Number 28) similar to .the above in conjunction with this request for Pl.anni.ng Com- mission consideration. Suggested Action If the Planning Commission desires to approve or modify and ap- prove the project, Staff would suggest that the Planning Commis- sion accept the environmental document certifying it as complete and approve or modify and approve the Phasing Plan with the Fi,nd- Jogs and subject to the Conditions as set forth in Exhibit "A PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES ,D . HEWICKER, DIRECTOR -00 By _ .. _ re ar c Environmental Coordinator FT/gs Attachments ! (For Planning Commission only) 1. Resolution No . 9472 2. Amendment No. 514 3. City Council Minutes - March 12 , 1979 "Test of Reasonableness" 4. Negative Declaration T0: Planning Commission - 7 1 5. City Council Minutes - May 14 , 1979 - "Harbor Point" TT 10625 6. Letter from The Irvine Company - May 1 , 1980 7. Narrative on Planning Comnission - "Test of Reasonableness " - May 1980 8. Traffic Report Prepared By Weston Pringle and Associates , Dated March 20 , 1980 , For the Applicants B Weston Pri•n le and affic .Re ort Prepared y 9 9. Tr p P Associates , Dated March 3 , 1980 , For the Ap- plicants Copies of the above information and the environmental documentation Planning available for public review and inspection in the 1 g are ava Department, City of Newport Beach , 3300 W. Newport Boulevard , Newport Beach , CA 92663 EXHIBIT "A" • Findings and Conditions of Approval as Recommended by the Planning Commission - June 19 , 1980 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 concerns have, been considered in the decision on this project. 2. That based on the information contained in the Initial Study a.nd 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 Corporate Plaza. 4 . That based on the Phasing Plan and surrounding information submitted 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 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. CONDITIONS: 1 . That prior to the occupancy of any buildings on the site beyond the existing development completed or under construction and 39,026 square feet for a total of 248,850 square feet, the Circulation Systems Improvements con-tained in the Traffic Report, dated March 3, 1980, Table 5 , Page 8 , shall have been constructed (unless subsequent project approvals require modification thereto) . The Circulation Systems Improvements shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 2 . That prior to the occupancy of any buildings on the site beyond the existing development completed or under construction and 39,026 square feet for a total of 248,850 square feet, the Circulation Systems Improvements required of committed projects listed on Pages 2 and 3 of the Traffic Report dated March '3, 1970 , shall also have been constructed . (unles5 subsequent project approvals require modifications thereto) , The Circulation Systems Improvements shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 3. That prior to the occupancy of any buibdings on the site beyond the existing development completed or under construction and 39 ,026 square feet for a total of 248,850 square feet, San Miguel Drive shall be improved from Avocado Avenue to MacArthur Boulevard in a manner acceptable to the Director' s of Planning and Public Works Departments , unless subsequent changes are made to the Circulation System. 4. That prior to the issuance of any building permits , the applicants shall indicate to the Director of the Planning Department , in writing , that they understand and agree to Conditions 1 , 2 , and 3 above . 5 . The following disclosure statement of the City of Newport Beach ' s policy regarding the Orange County Airport shall 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 adeq•ua.te air service for business establishments which rely on such services ; b ) When an alternate air facility is available , a complete phase out of jet service may occur at the 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 . 6 . Final design of the project should provide for the incorporation of water-saving devices for project lavatories and other water- using facilities . 7. The final design of the project should provide for the sorting of recyclable material from other solid waste . 8. The applicants shall provide for weekly vacuum sweeping of all paved parking areas and drives . 9 . That the architectural character and landscape design established within the existing project shall be maintained in the proposed project. 1 f � 10 . A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect . The landscape plan shall integrate and phase the installation of landscaping with the proposed construction schedule . (Prior to occupancy , the licensed architect shall certify to the Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with the prepared plan) . 11 . The landscape plan shall be subject to the review of the Parks , Beaches , and Recreation Department and approval of the Planning Department. 12 . . The landscape plan shall include a maintenance program which controls the ,use of fertilizers and pesticides . 13. The landscape plan shall place heavy emphasis on the use of drought-resistant native vegetation and be irrigated via a system designed to avoid surface runoff and over-watering . 14. The landscape plan of the existing Corporate Plaza complex shall be reviewed by a licensed landscape architect. The existing landscape program should be modified to include the concerns of conditions 12 and 13 above to the maximum extent practicable that can maintain the character of the existing landscape program. Any change (s ) in the existing program as a result of this review should be phase and incorporated as a portion of existing landscape maintenance. 154 Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments . 16 . That a grading plan it required shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities , to minimize any potential impacts from silt , debris , and other water pollutants . 17 . The grading permit shall include , if required , a description of haul routes , access points to the site and a watering and sweeping program designed to minimize impacts of haul operation . 18 . An erosion and dust control plan , if required , shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department. 19 . That an erosion and siltation control plan•, if required, be approved by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board- Santa Ana Region , and the plan be submitted to said Board ten days prior to any construction activities . 20. Prior to the issuance of any bui-lding permits for the site , the applicants shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and the Planning Department that adequate sewer facilities will be available for the project. Such demonstration shall include verification from Orange County Sanitation District No . 5 . 21 . That prior to the occupancy of any building , the applicant shall provide written verification from Orange County Sanitation District No . 5 that adequate sewer capacity is available to serve the project . 22 . That the conditions of Resubdivision No . 465 be completed and that bond amounts deposited for the East Coast Highway and Avocado Avenue improvements be increased to reflect current prices . 23. That Avocado Avenue improvements between San Miguel Drive and East Coast Highway be completed to the width determined to be ne- cessary to handle the two-way traffic projected from the de- velopment, plus other approved projects . This shall provide width necessary for turning lanes and pockets . 24 . That a traffic signal be installed at S-an Miguel Drive and MacArthur Boulevard.• 25. That a 100 ' radius corner cutoff be dedicated at the north- westerly corner of Newport Center Drive and Coast Highway. 26 . That the ultimate right-of-way for the widening of the northerly side of Coast Highway at Jamboree Road be dedicated to the City across the two service station sites . 27. That the sum of $54,000 be provided for circulation and traffic improvements to intersections as specified on Page 4, Table 2 of the Traffic Report dated March 20 , 1980 , as shown on the City' s Master Plan of Circulation consistent with the General Plan, with ,priority given to improvements within the vicinity of the project, if feasible . • NEGATIVE DECLARATIOPI TO: Secretary for Resources FROM: Planning Department 1400 Tenth Street City of Newport Beach Sacramento, CA 95814 3300 Newport 'Boulevard Clerk of the Board of Newport Beach, CA 92663 Supervisors P. 0. Box 687 Santa Ana. CA v NAME OF PROJECT: Traffic Phasing Plan - *Cowporate Plaza PROJECT LOCATION: Corporate Plaza, Newport Beach, CA 92660 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project consists of 'a Traffic Phasing Plan for the remaining development in the Corporate Plaza Planned Community. FINDING: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council Policy K-3 pertaining to - Actethees and Environmentalnes to AffairsmCommittee the hasCalifornia evaluatedEthe pro osed projecntal t and determined' that the proposed project will not have a significant effecton the environment. MITIGATION MEASURES: See attached INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY: City of Newport Beach INITIAL STUDY AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT: 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: William R. La ycoc�// Current Planning Administrator Date: May 5 , 1980 MITIGATIOY MEASURES 1 . The following disclosure statement of the City of Newport Beach's policy regarding the Orange Count Airport should be included in all leases 9a 9 9 Y P • 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 may occur at the Orange County Airport; of Set service y occ 9 kY ,I e) The City of Newport Beach may continue to oppose additional eammercUl 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 I 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. S. Final design of the-project should provide for the incorporation of water-saving devices for project lavatories and otter water-using facilities. : � 1e ...- :�: •.:�:a sor•�inc cf rep c?= 6. The final design of the project should ;.rc� _ y -'��- � material from other solid waste. i 17. The development on the site should be in accordance with City policies on traffic. - 1 - r 8. The applicants should provide for weekly vacuum sweeping of all paved parking areas and drives. 9. Any construction on the site should be done in accordance with the height restriction regulations of the City. The restrictions of said should apply to any landscape materials, signs, flags, etc. , as well as structures. 10. That the architectural character and landscape design established within the existing project shall be maintained in the proposed project. 11 . A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. The landscape plan shall integrate and phase the installation of landscaping with the proposed construction schedule. (Prior to occupancy, the licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Planning 0apartment that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with the prepared plan). 12. The landscape plan should be subject to the review of the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department and approval of the Planning Department. 13. The landscape plan should include a maintenance program which controls the use of fertilizers and pesticides. 14. The landscape plan should place heavy emphasis on the use of drought- resistant native vegetation and be irrigated via a system designed to avoid surface runoff and over watering. 15. The landscape plan of the existing Corporate Plaza complex shall be reviewed by a licensed landscape architect. The existing landscape program i should be modified to include the concerns of mitigation measures 13 and 14 above to the maximum extent practicable that can maintain'-,the character of the existing landscape program. Any change (s) in the existing, program as a result of this review should be phase and incorporated as a portion of existing landscape maintenance. 16. That erosion measures shall be done on any exposed slopes within thirty days after grading or as approved by the Grading Engineer so as to reduce erosion potential . 17. Development of the site should be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. 18. That a grading plan if required should include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from siit, •debris, and other water pollutants. 19. The grading permit shall include, if required, a description of haul routes, access points to the site and a watering and sweeping program designed to minimize impacts of haul operation. 20. An erosion and dust control plan, if required, should be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department. 21 . That an erosion and siltation control plan, if required, be approved by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Santa Ana Region, and the plan, be submitted to said Board ten days prior to any construction activities. _ 2 - sl S 22. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for the site, the applicants shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and the Planning Department that adequate sewer facilities will be available for the project. Such demonstration shall include verification from Orange County Sanitation District No. 5. 23. That prior to the occupancy of any building, the applicant shall provide. written verification from Orange County Sanitation District No. 5 that adequate sewer capacity is available to serve the project. f - 3 - COMMISSIONERS MINUTES ' June 19 , 1980 1. r City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX y 9 . That an offsite parking agreement shall be approved by the City Council guaranteeing that a minimum of 42 parking spaces shall be provided on Parcel No . 1 of this appli- cation , for the duration of the restaurant use on Parcel No. 2 . 10. That there be a document recorded satis- ;actory to the City Attorney and the Plannin D %rector providing for the common access bet�V�een Parcel Nos. 1 and 2 of this appli - cati��;n , and to East Coast Highway and Avocal'o° Avenue . 11 . Vacuum N,eeping of all paved parking areas and drives\ shall be provided on the subject property on a weekly basis . 12. The proposed b .nk structure shall provide for the sorting ,� f recyclable material from other solid\astes . Motion x A second Substitute Mowas made by Commission Ayes x x er Beek that this item be continued to the regula Nos xx x Planning Commission Meeting of July 10, 1980, Absent x which Motion failed. Ayes x x x The previous Substitute Motion wa �then voted on , Nos which MOTION CARRIED. Absent x The Planning Commission recessed at 9 : 45N m. , and reconvened at 9 :'55 p.m. *. Rom"* Request to consider a Traffic Phasing Plan for Item #3 the remaining development of the Corporate Plaza Planned Community , and the acceptance of Traffic an Environmental Document (Continued Public Phasing Hearing), Plan Corporate P az1 a -10- Continued -to 71080 COMMISSIONERS . MINUTES June 19 , 1980 IT 11 City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL' INDEX The offsite parking lot and the adjoining restaurant site will be maintained under the same ownership . CONDITI` NS : 1 . That a parcel map be filed. i 2. That a 1 improvements be constr cted as required by ordinance and the public Works Department. 3. That all t e applicable coo/itions of Use Permit No . 1�857 and Tra/ght-of-way t No. 10214 be fulfilled. 4. That two (2) �et of riq shall be dedicated for p'6destrj�an purposes along East Coast Highway, whhere tree wells exist, so that an 8 foof,\9,"ear sidewalk can be constructed. The locations and configuration of the dedication,/'hall be approved by the Public Works Dep.irtme'nt. 5. That approximately 10 'feet of deteriorated curb and 20 feet of det6.riorated sidewalk and gutter`b,e reconstruct\ on Avocado Avenue. 6. That thedisplaced sidewalk, along East Coast Highway be replaced adjacent to Parcel/No. 2 , with locations to be .approved by th '' Public Works 'Department'.. 7. Tha all work within the East Coast Hil way right-of-way be done under an encroachment permit issued by the "Cali- A rnia Department of Transportations, 8 That a standard agreement with accompanying surety be provided to guarantee the satis- factory completion of the improvements `'i,f it is desired to record the parcel map before completing the public improvements:,, -9- COMMISSIONERS • June 19 , 1980 • MINUTES 3 City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX LOCATION: Property bounded by East Coast Highway, Newport Center Drive , Farallon Drive and Avocado Avenue in Newport Center. ZONE: P-C APPLICANT: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as Applicant Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator, opened the discussions with a correction to Exhibit "A" Findings and Conditions . He indicated that Table #5 should be corrected to read Table #4, March 3 , 1980 in Condition No. 1 . Condition No . 25 should be changed to -read "Thai a radius corner cut-off be dedicated at the northwesterly corner of Newport Center Drive and Coast" Highway in accord- ance with the requirements of the Public Works Department. " The Public Hearing was opened regarding. this item, and Mr. Ron Hender.icksom, The Irvine Company , stated that said corner had already been developed and landscaped and asked why a new radius was required. This question was to be further researched by the Public Works Depart- ment. Commissioner Beek posed a question to which Mr. Henderickson replied that the Irvine Company was willing to cooperate with the Public Works Department to provide the land for the radius corner cut-off. In response to a. question posed by Commissioner Balalis , in conjuction with improvements on Avocado Avenue, Rich Edmonston , Traffic Engineer, replied that this street would eventually be part of a one-way couplet with MacArthur Boulevard,which would be three lanes plus turning lanes all in a southerly direction . He added that at this time it was not feasible to imple- ment the couplet; therefore , _that__ortion of Avocado A_ venue_'would _have to act as a two-way faci 1 i ty. unti 1 the co upl_e�t. was _coin I eted.,__ -11 - COMMISSIONERS June 19, 1980 MINUTEST IN City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Fred Talarico , Environmental Coordinator, then explained that with the approval of the Corporate •Plaza Project, there were certain improvements to be made on Avocado Avenue from San Nicolas southerly to Farralon , and that the intent was to continue those improvements from Farralon down to Coast Highway, including any improvements neces- sitated above that point for Farralon. He con- cluded that at such time as the development of the Newport Village property occurred, the remainder of the street wound be improved. Commissioner Balalis expressed his concern that only half a street system would be created at this time. Ron' Henderickson , The Irvine Company, stated that the Corporate Plaza development as proposed was 350,000 square feet, and that this development was an existing P-C. He explained that the re- maining .undeveloped portion was 101 ,150 square -feet, the phasing for which they were now request- ing permission to disclose. He further explained that there would be two intersections of the sixteen or, so analyzed that woul-d be affected by this project.; that is , Bristol North and Jamboree, and MacArthur and San Joaquin Hills Road. In the case of the Bristol -Jamboree intersection , they concurred with the recommendations in the Staff Report. In the case of the latter, they believed allowing southbound traffic on MacArthur to make a right turn into Newport Center would relieve the traffic situation at peak hours . Although Mr. Henderickson expressed concurrence with most of the conditions in the Staff Report, he did express concern regardin Condition #26, stating that this intersection ?I .e. Coast Highway and Jamboree) was not one affected by the project. He expressed the feeling that The Irvine Company should not be required to mitigate this inter- section as the cost of doing so would be tetween one-half and three-quarters of a .million dollars . Mr. Edmonston then stated that this would include the additional widening on the north side of Coast ' Highway and the Staff had discussed the matter with The Irvine Company. Preliminary indications were that such dedication might be postponed until ' -12- COMMISSIONERS • . MINUTES June 19 , 1980 City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX such time as the leases on two service station sites expired , so that there was no difficulty between The Irvine Company and the people leasing the sites . Commissioner Balalis posed a question to which Mr. Edmonston replied that an additional thirty foot right-of-way would be required all along the inland side of Coast Highway to widen it to the ultimate six lane configuration. The City was in the process of selecting a consultant to do the EIR for that project. The hope was that in approximately two years , they might be in the construction stage for the first portion from MacArthur Boulevard through to the Jamboree Road area•. He also concluded that the acquisitio of these sites does not appear to be possible during this time period from any other means . Mr. Henderickson pointed out that what was being asked by the City ( i .e . 300 feet of dedication easterly of the intersection , and 200 feet west- erly of Jamboree) didn ' t really affect the intersection. He was of the opinion that there was no problem in the City' s acquisition of the right-of-way, and also , he felt that the conditio of approval should not be tied to this project. Mr. Burnham, Assistant City Attorney, stated that this question had come up before , and that he did not believe that there was a readily available legal answer, as the traffic phasing plan did not exist in any other city. Therefore , there had not been any litigation concerning the legality of both the plan and any contributions , etc. , that may be required by a municipality. To his knowledge, The Irvine Company had not pre- sented any indication of having such material at either his office or the Commission. He explaine that they were dealing with a special ordinance to the City unrelated to subdivisions , as well as a situation that impacts on this intersection by virtue of this development. If the Commission wishes , it may be time for the City Attorney' s office and The Irvine Company ' s legal staff to study which conditions were valid. Since this traffic phasing ordinance was valid , he believed that the requirements were also valid. -13- COMMISSIONERS * . MINUTES* ' June 19 , 1980 City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Chairman Balalis then stated that he would rather continue this item for a few weeks to explore why the understanding reached earlier by both parties was now being misunderstood. Mr. Henderickson stated he had just received a copy of the Staff Report, and that his staff had discussed it with Rich Edmonston. However, the commitment of land in this aggregate amount dollarwise required higher approval within The Irvine Company. He further stated that he be- leived that the City would have no problems acquiring the land, but 'he did feel it was a matter of equity. He stated that The Irvine Company had agreed to provide funds for the city' s transportation fund, and for remote improvements on new projects . Therefore, he did not feel that the request was in agreement with past actions of the Planning Commission. Chairman Balalis then pointed out that a traffic problem existed in the City, and that we were trying to solve it together, a point to which Mr. Henderickson agreed. Chairman Balalis then reiterated his feeling that a continuance was in order since there seemed to be an impasse. Commissioner Haidinger agreed , and added that he didn' t feel the Commission should get lost in a lot of technicalities and bypass the real issue. Chairman Balalis responded that although he agreed, he felt the issues were related since there was enough traffic generated on Coast Highway that would impact this intersection, and which is one of the reasons for the proposed widening of the highway. Commissioner Beek also concurred that The Irvine Company developments impact very heavily on this intersection, and he felt it was appropriate that this project contribute to widening Coast Highway. He also pointed out to Mr. Henderickson , that although a higher level of approval in their company was required, he and other members of the Commission had been reading in the newspapers that the president of The Irvine Company had offered -14- COMMISSIONERS • June 19 , 1980 • MINUTES S City P of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX $17 ,000,000 to improve circulation systems in the City of Newport Beach . He continued by saying that the City was not asking for cash , but rather a piece of land at an intersection that was .being impacted by The Irvine Company development. Mr. Hendrickson then reiterated that he did not believe the improvement of the Jamboree/Coast Highway intersection was the issue. He also stated that they had two long term leases on each of the aforementioned- ' parcels and he did not belive the lease terms were up until 1983; therefore, he wanted to be sure that they were in the clear before any agreement was made to give the land to the City. He also protested the -continuance, since there ad already been one continuance . Chairman B.alalis commented that there l s a problem existing , that of a major condition whit The Irvine Company does not accept. His feeling was that the Commission needed a recommendation from the Staff prior to voting,, and therefore, there was no alternative but to ask for a two week continuance. Motion X A motion was then made by Commissioner McLaughlin Ayes x x x x for continuance of this item to the regular, Abstain x Planning Commission meeting of 7-1.0-80. i Absent x MOTION WAS CARRIED. equest to change the operational characteristic Item #4 o the existing Coco ' s Restaurant facility in U.T. Coro e�d el Mar to include the service of 'beer No.1942 and wine ' XpproveU on U i T ion LOCATION : �tt 1 , Block A, Tract No . 470 , ally lots ed at 2305 East Coast Highway, on the outheasterly corner of East Coas Highway and Acacia Avenue in Co - na del Mar. ZONE: C-1 APPLICANT: Far West Services , Inc. , Newport Beach OWNER: Martin A. Mangold, Corona del Ma -15- COMMISSIONERS • June 19 , 1980 • MINUTES` i t� � � City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL IN X The issue of additional parking spaces was 'raised by Commissioner McLaughlin, and it was plained by William Laycock, Current Planning A tninistrator, that Mr. Mangold, the owner of a he restaurant site also owned the parking lot\across Acacia Avenue from Coco' s Restaur nt. He further stated that if the Planning Comm sion desire to require the parking spaces acro the I ' street bre his use permit application fo the on-sale and wine, that an off-site arking agreemenould be approved. Clarific tion was made thaould the off-site parking paces be approved, th owner would not be ab to use 12 of said parkin spaces along the s therly boundary of theparking area , inas ch as the Ii subject parking paces were under separate owner- ship and not avail' ble to the r taurant facility. In response to a/ae by Com ssioner McLaughlin, Mr. Laycock statunder anding was that the parking lot owneMa gold was being used by most of the commiio es in the area, and that he did not ha kind of leasing arrange- ment the applica f r�that particular lot. In response to aon of�ommissioner Haidinge.r as to aff was atisfied with only 23 parking spaceCoco' s Re taurant when all standards indicare were ne essary, Mr. Laycock explthat this wa�ss all of the existing parkin paceavailable f&� the restau- rant use, and the past, the Planking Commis- sion had appr ved on-sale beer and wU6 for restaurants n similar situations . /ninadequate io r Beek stated that he recogniz` d that m ssion would be approving this ermit s than the necessary parking spaces " of the existing conditions , and he Ad ction to doing so. However, he did note further the extent of the "grandfatherik " adequate use of it. He felt that since Area Plan for Corona del Mar was notpared, but was due soon , that the -16- Planning Commission Meetog J.une 19 , 1980 Agenda Item No . 3 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH June 12 , 1980 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planni'ng Department SUBJECT : Request to consider a Traffic Phasing Plan for the remaining development of the Corporate Plaza Planned Community, and the acceptance of a'n En.vironmental Document Public Hearin LOCATION : Property bounded by East Coast Highway, Newport Center Drive , Farallon Drive , and Avocado Avenue in Newport Center. APPLICANT: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as Applicant Request The Irvine Company has requested approval of a Phasing Plan to comply with Resolution No. 9472 of the Newport Beach City Council and Amendment No . 514 as it pertains to the Planned Community De- velopment Plan for Corporate Plaza . Environmental Significance The City of Newport Beach Environmental Affairs Committee has re- viewed the project and determined that it will not have a signifi - cant environmental effect. A copy of the Negative Declaration is attached. General Plan The proposed Corporate Plaza Traffic Phasing Plan is consistent .with the Newport Beach General Plan . A total of 163, 582 sq . ft. of additional office development is permitted in- Corporate Plaza . The property owner has the option of utilizing the maxium square footage for each Traffic Analysis Zone. However, total office development in Newport Center may not - 1 - r TO: Planning Commission - 2 exceed 441 ,518 sq . ft. A total of 234 ,706 sq . ft. was approved for Civic Plaza . If this project is approved , a total of 66 ,636 sq . ft. of office development would remain to be approved in New- port Center. Phasing Plan The Irvine Company has indicated that it is their desire to phase the remaining development in Corporate Plaza as follows : Occupancy 1981 Existing Development Prior to 6/ 1/79 85 ,000 sq . ft. Development 6/1/79 to 3/80 Subtotal 20 124,829 ,8244 sq sq .. ft.ft. Additional Development 39 ,026 sq . ft. Total Occupied 1981 248,850 sq . ft. Occupancy 1982 Additional Development 101 , 150 sq . ft. Total Occupancy 350 ,000 sq . ft. Traffic Report The Corporate Plaza Traffic Phasing Plan was submitted to the City on March 27, 1980, (attached) . Additional information was request- ed from the applicant related to the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard/San Joaquin Hills Road and this was submitted to the City in April , . 1980. The consideration of the Traffic Phasing Plan was originally scheduled for the Planning Commission meeting of May 22 , 1980 , and was continued to the hearing of June 19 , 1980 at Staff' s request. The 16 intersections identified for analysis under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance for the area and the intersection of Bristol Street (North)/Birch Street were examined. This analysis indicated that seven of the 17 intersections analyzed exceeded the maxium allowed two percent on at least one approach . An I . C . U . analysis was therefore performed for these intersections . The Traffic Report is summarized on the following two pages : i TO: Planning Commission - 3 Table 2 CRITICAL INTERSECTION IDENTIFICATION CORPORATE PLAZA LOCATION 1983 - 2.5 HOUR PERCENTAGES 1 NB SB EB WE Bristol St. N. & Campus Dr. - - - 1.1 Bristol St. N. & Birch St. - - - 1.4 Bristol St. N. & Jamboree Rd. 1.1 0.3 - 3.6 Bristol St. & Campus Dr. - - 0.9 - Bristol St. & Jamboree Rd. 1.2 0.4 1.0 - Jamboree Rd. & Mac Arthur Blvd. 1.6 0.5 1.2 0.5 Jamboree Rd. & Eastbluff Dr - Ford Rd. 1;2 0.8 - - Jamboree Rd & San Joaquin Hills Rd. 2.2 0.6 - Jamboree Rd & Santa Barbara Dr. - 0.9 - 3.1 Coast Highway & Jamboree Rd. - - 0.7 1.9 Mac Arthur Blvd. & Ford Rd. 2. 7 0.8 - - Mae Arthur Blvd. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. 6.0 1.0 - 0.4 Coast Highway & Mac Arthur 'Blvd. - 1.9 4.3 0. 3 Coast highway & Dover Dr. - - 0.8 1.2 Coast Highway & Bayside - - 0.6 1.8 Coast Highway & Newport Center Dr. - - 0.7_' 3.4 Coast Highway & Marguerite - - 0.8 0.3 ICU SUMMARY ' INTERSECTION EXISTING EXISTING(1) EXISTING(l) EXISTING(l) EXISTING(2) EXISTING(3) REGIONAL REGIONAL REGIONAL REGIONAL REGIONAL REGIONAL COMMITTED COMMITTED COMMITTED COMMITTED C=MITTED COMMITTED 1982 30%PROJECT 30`/.PROJECT PROJECT PROJECT 1982 1983 1983 1983 Bristol St. N. & Jamboree Rd. 0.8781 0.8477 0.8686 0.9471 0.9340 0.9338 Jamboree Rd. 6 San Joaquin Hills 0.7375 0.6716 0.6797 0.6962 0.7009 Rd. Jamboree Rd. 5 Santa Barbara Dr. 0.5745 0.6239 0.6356 0.6486 0.6549 Mac Arthur Blvd. 6 Ford Rd. 1.1631 0.7642 0.7851 0.8219 0.8281 Mac Arthur Blvd, S San Joaquin 0.7664 0.8679 0.8991 0.9163' 0.9350 0-.9350 Hills Rd Optional 0.8745 0.8745 Coast Highway E Mac Arthur Blvd. 0.7100 0.7722 0.7816 0.8247 0.8294 N Coast Highway & Newport Center 0.7584 0.7794 0.8028 0.8027 0.8163 o Drive U m •r (1) No Project related improvements are considered in calculations. C � (2) Project related improvements are included and 100 percent of Campus Mac Arthur project. m a (3) Project related improvements are included and 30 percent of Campus/Mac Arthur project. o t TO: Planning Commission - 5 The intersection of Bristol Street (North)/Jamboree Road will be operating upon completion of the project at 0 . 9000 or greater . A summary of the Traffic Consultant' s comments on this intersec- tion is given below: "Bristol Street North and Jamboree Road. The projected 1983 I . C . U. value for this intersection without this project is 0. 9471. With the recommended project improvement, this I . C . U. value is reduced to 0 . 9340. While this value is greater than 0 . 90 , the project related improvement does result in a reduction of the I . C.U . value. On this basis , the project would not "make worse" traffic operations at this intersection . " The intersection of MacArthur Boulevard/San Joaquin Hills Road without project related improvement would be operating at 0 . 9350 . Two improvements were analyzed by the Traffic Consultant. The first improvement (March 3, 1980-Traffic Report) is the addition of a through lane , both northbound and southbound. This would reduce the I . C. U . to 0 . 8745 . The second improvement (March 20 , 1980-Traffic Report) is with San Miguel Drive improved from Avocado Avenue, to San Joaquin Hills Road . This would reduce the I . C .U. to 0.8138. The improvement of San Miguel Drive from San Joaquin Hills Road to Avocado Avenue was considered as a portion of Tentative Tract No . 10625 (Harbor Point) . That project was approved subject to the following condition related to the improvement of San Miguel Drive : " 17 . San Miguel Drive may be extended only from its present terminus to the entrance of Harbor Point, as shown on Tentative Tract Map No . 10625 . The width of this exten- sion is to be sufficient to provide for two lanes of traffic and a bicycle lane, but is to be no greater than 30 feet. No median strip is to be added at the present time . " A copy of the City Council minutes of May 14 , 1979 are attached for Planning Commission review. The Consultant' s Traffic Engineer has indicated to Staff that i.f San Miguel Drive were extended only to MacArthur Boulevard , the I . C. U. at San Joaquin Hills Road/MacArthur Boulevard would be reduced below 0 . 9000 . As of this writing , Staff has not reviewed his information . Intersection Over 0 . 9000 In conjunction with the approval of the Traffic Phasing Plans for Civic Plaza P-C and Block C of Koll Center Newport P-C, the TO: Planning Commission - 6 approvals were conditioned as follows : Civic Plaza P-C "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 Cir- culation and Transit Fund to be used at the discretion of the City for circulation and transit purposes in the Newport Center area . 11 Block C - Koll Center Newport P-C "That the sum of $90,000 be provided for circulation and traffic improvements to intersections as specified in Volume 2 , Page 7 of the addendum to the Environmental Impact Report as shown on the City' s Master Plan of Circulation consistent with the General Plan , with priority given to improvements within the vicinity of the project, if feasible . " Staff has provided a condition of approval (Number 28) similar to the above in conjunction with this request for Planning Com- mission consideration . Suggested Action If the Planning Commission desires to approve or modify and ap- prove the project, Staff would suggest that the Planning Commis- sion accept the environmental document certifying it as complete and approve or modify and approve the Phasing Plan with the Find- ings and subject to the Conditions as set forth in Exhibit "A" . PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D . HEWICKER, DIRECTOR By F r e MIMI arico Environmental Coordinator FT/gs Attachments : (For Planning Commission only) 1 . Resolution No . 9472 2 . Amendment No . 514 3. City Council Minutes - March 12 , 1979 "Test of Reasonableness " 4. Negative Declaration TO : Planning Commission - 7 5. City Council Minutes - May 14, 1979 - "Harbor Point" TT 10625 6. Letter from The Irvine Company - May 1 , 1980 7. Narrative on Planning Commission - "Test of Reasonableness " - May 1980 8. Traffic Report Prepared By Weston Pringle and Associates , Dated March 20 , 1980 , For the Applicants 9 . Traffic Report Prepared By Weston Pringle and Associates , Dated March 3 , 1980 , For the Ap- plicants Copies of the above information and the environmental documentation are available for public review and inspection in the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach , 3300 W. Newport Boulevard , Newport Beach , CA 92663 D • EXHIBIT "A" Findings and Conditions of Approval as Recommended by the Planning Commission - June 19 , 1980 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 concerns 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 Corporate Plaza. 4. That based on the Phasing Plan and surrounding information submitted 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 pre.paretion 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. CONDITIONS : 1 . That prior to the occupancy of any buildings on the site beyond ' the existing development completed or under construction and 39,026 square feet for a total of 248 ,850 square fleet, the, Circulation Systems Improvements contained in the Traffic Report, dated March 3, 1980 , Table 5 , Page 8, shall have been construct-ed (unless subsequent project approvals require modification thereto) . The Circulation Systems Improvements shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 2. That prior to the occupancy of any buildings on the site beyond the existing development completed or under construction and 39 ,026 square feet for a total of 248,850 square feet , the Circulation Systems Improvements required of committed projects listed on Pages 2 and 3 of the Traffic Report dated, March 3, 1970, shall also have been constructed , (unless subsequent project approvals require modifications thereto) . The Circulation Systems Improvements shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 0 3. That prior to the occupancy of any buildings on the site beyond the existing development completed or under construction and 39 ,026 square feet+ for a total of 248 ,850 square feet, San Miguel Drive shall be improved from Avocado Avenue to MacArthur Boulevard in a manner acceptable to the Director' s of Planning and Public Works Departments , unless subsequent changes are made to the Circulation System. 4. That prior to the issuance of any building permits , the applicants shall indicate to the Director of the Planning Department , in writing , that they understand and agree to Conditions 1 , 2 , and 3 above. 5 . The following disclosure statement of' the City of Newport Beach ' s policy regarding the Orange County Airport shall 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 services ; 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. 6. Final design of the project should provide for the incorporation of water-saving devices for project lavatories and other water- using facilities . 7. The final design of the project should provide for the sorting of recyclable material from other solid waste . 8. The applicants shall provide for weekly vacuum sweeping of all paved parking areas and drives . 9 . That the architectural character and landscape design established within the existing project shall be maintained in the proposed project. ¢ 0 10 . A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. The landscape plan shall integrate and phase the installation of landscaping with the proposed construction schedule . (Prior to occupancy , the licensed architect shall certify to the Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with the prepared plan) . 11 . The landscape plan shall be subject to the review of the Parks , Beaches , and Recreation Department and approval of the Planning Department. 12 . The landscape plan shall include a maintenance program which controls the �use of fertilizers and pesticides . 13 . The landscape plan shall place heavy emphasis on the use of drought-resistant native vegetation and be irrigated via a system designed to avoid surface runoff and over-watering . 14 . The landscape plan of the existing Corporate Plaza complex shall be reviewed b a licensed landscape architect. The existing landscape program should be modified to include the concerns of conditions 12 and 13 above to the maximum extent practicable that can maintain the character of the existing landscape program. Any change ( s ) in the existing program as a result of this review should be phase and incorporated as a portion of existing landscape maintenance . 15 . Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and' Planning Departments . 16 . That a grading plan it required shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities , to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris , and other water pollutants . 17 . The grading permit shall include, if required , a description of haul routes , access points to the site and a watering and sweeping program designed to minimize impacts of haul operation . 18 andebesion and subject tostheontrol apprrovalaof therequird , shall be Building submitted Department. 19 . That an erosion and siltation control plan , if required, be apprd`Ved by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board- Santa Ana Region , and the plan be submitted to said Board ten days prior to any construction activities . 20 . Prior to the issuance of any building permits for the site , the applicants shall demonstrate to satisfaction of the O Public Works Department and the Planning Department that adequate sewer facilities will be available for the project. Such demonstration shall include verification from Orange County Sanitation District No . 5 . O 0 O 21 . That prior to the occupancy of any building , the applicant shall provide written verification from Orange County Sanitation District No . 5 that adequate sewer capacity is available to serve the project. 22 . That the conditions of Resubdivision No . 465 be completed and that bond amounts deposited for the East Coast Highway and Avocado Avenue improvements be increased to reflect current prices . 23. That Avocado Avenue improvements between San Miguel Drive and East Coast Highway be completed to the width determined to be ne- cessary to handle the two-way traffic projected from the de- velopment, plus other approved projects . This shall provide width necessary for turning lanes and pockets . 24. That a traffic signal be installed at San Miguel Drive and MacArthur Boulevard . 25 . That a 100 ' radius corner cutoff be dedicated at the north- westerly corner of Newport Center Drive and Coast Highway. 26. That the ultimate right-of-way for the widening of the northerly side of Coast Highway at Jamboree Road be dedicated to the City across the two service station sites . 27 . That the sum of $54,000 be provided for circulation and traffic improvements to intersections as specified on Page 4, Table 2 of the Traffic Report dated March 20 , 1980 , as shown on the City' s Master Plan of Circulation consistent with the General Plan , with priority given to improvements within the vicinity of the project, if feasible . D rei"onion � 'S D` Deot C.. _ NOV30 1978► - RESOLUTION No. 9472 6 He'FOR;eF C GU BEACH. � s v a, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING PLANNED CO;MUNITY DEVEIgPKEIIT STANDARDS OF THE CORPORATE PLAZA, - NORTH FORD, EMKAY DEVELOPMENT,, ROLL CENTER NEWPORT, AND AERONUTRONIC—FORD PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICTS TO REQUIRE PREPARATION OF PHASING PLANS CONSISTENT WITH THE CIRCULA— TION ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN (AMENDMENT a NO. 614) 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 i . 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, Roll 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, Kell Center Newport, and Aeronutronic- Ford be adopted as follows: A. CORPORATE PLAZA Section 1, Statistical Analysis, paragraph 6, at page 2: "6. PHASING OF DEVELOPMENT. 162,644 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. Any further development subsequent to October 1, 1978,, in v rt excess of 30% of the additional allowable development, being 86,206 sq. ft., shall be a?,roved 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." 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. Tho additional allowable development in the total approved development plan is 770,740 sq. ft. Any further development subsequent to October 1, 1978, 1n 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 Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan.'! C. EMKAY-NEWPORT PLACE Amending General Notes at page 1, by adding paragraph 7, to read: "7. PHASING OF DEVELOP:•C:iT. 3,799,941 sq. fl. of development was existing or under construction an of October 1, 1978. The additional allowable development in the total approved development plan is 566,423 sq. £t. v -2- • Any further development subsequent to October 1, 1978, in excess of 30% 0£ 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. EOLL 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 subseque nt to October 1, 1978, in excess of 301 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. AERONUTAONIC-FORD Use Permit No. 419 and subsequent approvals adopted prior to May 8, 1978, which Use Permits constitute the development plan for the Aeronutrocic-Ford •Planned P Community are amended by adding the following langdage: "PHASING OF DEVELOPMENT. 962,400 sq. ft. of development was existing or under construction as of f -3- �D October 1, 1978. The additional allowable development , in the total approved development plan is 1,691,000 sq. Et. 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 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, Koll 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 Ford, Emkay-Newport Place, Koll Center Newport, and Aeronutronic-Ford as set forth hereinabove. 1 ADOPTED this ccj-144` day of K1 JeyY16e✓ , i978. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk HRC/kb 11/13/70 1 City Council Meeting November 21, 1970 Agenda I ten, No. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH I November 21, 1978 � I TO: City Council FROM. Department ent of Community Development ment li SUBJECT Conti Public Hearin regarding Planning Commi n s ued on mendment No. 5 4 A proposed amendment to the Planned Community Districts, initiated by the City of Newport Beach, to require the preparation of a phasing plan .consistent with the Circulation Element of the General Plan for the following P-C District areas: 1 . Corporate Plaza 2. North Ford 3. Emkay Newport Place 4. Koll center Newport 5. Aeronutronic-Ford Suggested Action Hold hearing; close hearing; if desired, approve Negative Declaration and adopt Resolution No. amending Planned Community Develop- ment Standards of the Corporate Plaza , North Ford, Emkay Newport Place, Koll Center Newport, and Aeronutronic-Ford P-C Districts to require preparation of phasing plans consistent with the Circulation Element of the General Plan. Background On November 13, 1978, the City Council initiated a public hearing on Amendment No. 514, and continued this item to the meeting of November 27. The City Council requested additional information regarding the basis of the Planning Commission' s recommendation. This memo provides a further explanation of the Planning Commission ' s recommendation and is intended to supplement the previous staff report attached. Explanation of ,Planninq_.Corrmission Recommendation the Planning Couunission' s recommendation on Amendment. No . 514 is Lhet wording be added to the adopted P-C development plans requiring a pf,aeing plan for the areas listed above, as follows : "PHASING Of DEVELOPMENT --_ sq. ft. of development was existing or r� 1, IO. Ci Ly Counr. 11 2 . )Z "under construction as of OctObrr i , 1978. The additi0ud1 allowable development in Lice LoLaI approved development plan is sq. ft. Any further development subsequent to October 1 , 19/3 in excess of 30% of the additional allowable development , being sq. ft. shall be ap- proved only after it can be deconstrdted that adequate. traffic facilities will be available to handle that traffic generated by the project at the time of occupancy of the buildings in- volved. Such demonstration may be made by the presentation of a phasing plan consistent with the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. " The effect of this amendment, if adopted, would be to require the preparation of a development phasing plan to assure that adequate road capacity exists at the time of occupancy of a project. This phasing plan would apply to any development in excess of 30% of the additional allowable development as of October 1 , 1978, in each of the P-C districts. In other words, the final 70% of the additional allowable development could not be built without first demonstrating that ade- qute roadway capacity would be available. A maximum of 30% of the additional allowable development could be built without any phasing requirement. 1 In recommending this 30%/70% ratio with respect to the phasing require- ment, the Planning Commission intended to arrive at an approach that would be 'both reasonable -and effective in addressing traffic problems associated with approved development. It was thought that these per- , centdges would dllow approved projects currently in process to continue , while assuring that a substantial portion (70%) of future development in these P-C s would be subject to the approval of a phasing plan by the City. This phasing requirement applies as follows : 30% of 70% of Additional Total Additional Allowable Subject Additional Allowable to Phasing Plan_ Allowable 1 ) Curpordte Plaza 86, 206 201 , 150 287,356 C) NorLh Ford 231 ,222 539 ,518 770,740 1) Li„Ldy Newport Pldce 169,927 386 ,496 556,423 1 ) Kull Center Newpo.rt 317,658 741 ,205 1 ,058,863 Arronutrnnic ford 507 , 300 1 , 183 ,700 1 ,691 ,OUL TOTALS 1 , 312 ,313 3,052 ,069 4 ,364 , 382 1�J to City Council - 3. ,(((% Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT It . V . NOGAN , BY -�D�VID J. DMoNOWSKI ,' DJD/kk Attachments for City Council Only: 1 ) Previous staff report 2) Planning Commission Minutes 3) Negative Declaration l f CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ' •�.n MI N MINUTES nl•� 4 piw 1'r. � ' 1• }I,,:e 1, I/. .. I I available for potential (Ifivv building. Addition- ally, The Irvine Company requests that 1,156 sq. • 1 I I fr, of space he reallocama from Pacific Coast I I I lligwa hy Eant and Vest, and 1,511 sq. ft, of spare Crom either RJoek 500 or Nlack 700. at their optic . Fn renlloen ted to Block 800 In Newport Center to al I low far the constructian of a 10,000 sq. ft. restaurant which would contain a maximum of 1 i I ,667 aq. ft. of net public area. A port was prevented from the Community Develop- s i ( men Department. I , IlnrrY Tubb, Yrenident, nnJ gn•vrn CnvLi, Vice Prenid t Cnrporate gelation Officer, of Pectfic i Mutual L fa Insurance addressed the Council, Mr. Cowin eta ad that they were reducing the elevation by three cars 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, or that they would continue to be committed to a mitigation required for the two ten-story build e, traffic and otherwise, and all other eondle ns. Robert Shelton of a Irvine Company, addressed the Council and stet d that the condominiums were included in the Envir ental impact Report because of a previous traction of the Council. Donald Cralneck, represe ing Pacific Mutual 1 Insurance, addressed the unc11 and asked if the ordinance were changed to late reference to the residential development, if hat would require a i I revision to the ordinance sex time to come back I for reintroduction, or if it w old be enacted at that time. The City Attorney stated that the ctlon would lower the density of the project a could be considered on April 23, if continue to that date, without reintroduction. Cary Schonberg, President of Eaatbluff announces 1Association, addressed the Council Tells Ing the I I necessity for developers to Institute sou d'ntccn- o factors pion Jamboree Road, and wa• asked to[1 n c 6 to submit a letter with suggest long propose by the Association. �I,•r,.•„ , Ixi , The public hearing vas toot inued [o APrt 1_23, th ill ,lys , I the npplicnnt atipulating concurrence to coniZnu_d'tion. 1 I { I I 'fbt^Council u,animoully agreed to take Agendn Item F-1 nut of order and consider it nt••tb is time. A report was presented from the Co+sun l[y Ucvclopmen[ • I Department regarding the Planning Cornlssion's recom- i I I mand.,tions concerning the definition of the term "reasonahlunesp" an applied to a tra•`flc phoning plan for '•excepted" planned Community Districts. 1 i I 1 1 Volume 3) - P U;< t0 ' , s I I • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • PAIM;I r .e ;I• I,.nl•n1 n, Ihr+n'••nt u. tl ,I IIn11., fi• i I hnnln•, tn' CurnrYrr. and .!I.I.."m.rt nnI a .uW......•I r ' I I tb,• Cnm r I1, bet v.•ro nQ J nut of nrda•r by for rid Yor In, um addressing the avbp,, .Ide, J inn. 'I hr intnmaaClnn to be sub=a!r: bf tbv as hrocon_vamdeJ by the Plenaint ce-mi,%ion in convert tun I I I I with the'tca[ of•reasotiabicnr++ for appl ienblr PlnnneJ I I I ummunitle;. van modi(iatf'tn rbinge tilt• perrentagc 1 n['incnta.e In from !'iron SS to 7%, to revise item 2 x %I x anif•to add it .. 7 mid'8.�' The List• von apptnvhd an �• x I follows: Z I I (a) Fact, project subject to the phaa Lng requirement ' I of Council Resolution t:a. 9472 shall be examined I i as to the extent of existing development and the amount of developoene remaining to be completed. I 1 I (b) Information shall be a,b,Ltted indicating the I I amount of traffic being generated by existing I i development, that projected for remaining development, and traffic that will exist after completion of the project, I (e) An exam inn t shall be of the circulation system in thehe vicinity of the the project to datetmifn what improvements rennin to be completed, with partitular caneideration Laing given to thorn i lnprovemante which will directly 0141 in moving I I i treffle gennrated by the project. The area to Ina examined shall extend t0 those lntoresctians where traffic generated from the project iterateth . traffic intersection rin the peak two and one-halt hour period by2S or more. I � (J) Existhowning prioro those intersections shall be any projections. i I I (e) The developer may include in his proposed traffic phasing plat completion of or contribu- I I tion to completion of needed improvements con- jsiatent with the level of traffic generation on a reasonable proportion of the cost of these improvements. I � (1) The developer is also to coke Inca connldara item I 1 I In the preparation of I'll; plan chaructarintics In the Design of his development which either 1 reduce trafffr• generatlon r through int rranetion or guide traffic t leaa impacted arterials 000s I 1 i i I I in the Icant cmgrsted dlrection. ' I red.. : b., .::wawa p: .•c;t9 .rd_tv. l u :tn, :? pc Z, Cr•p..;u.r. a: Cella. • n[Lec:�J tots-=ece:r.• .a eon;uivcny the prof acre inc approval ' I , I I I 1 I I I I 1 I 1 � t'oi u-•• ll _ paf-a 55 i I I I i I ' • I CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ��,, l i.. 4 n Ml h t• r MINUTES ,r rm Y,tn... n I "p\� ,I Hn•r 1. 1'', 1979 IN OEY I I I (I,) Hit,gntlon ympn neJ nw.I•. it ,.ol:•a!r 0v,;rrr o! I 1 permanence. in order to r,,•r: :br trot. I tvµo lar order of the Agin,, vr9 n•numed. I Ihr I I I 1. llnynr RyckofP opened for public Waring n•gm Jotµ Nrvyoct I I Planning Comminsion Amendment-,No. 527, a request Center initiated by the City or Newport Beach to consider Civic I I I an amendment to the Civic Plaza Planned Community Plaza Development•Plan to require Chc preps rot Son of a (2285) 1 I GAME phasing plan and reduction in allowable } I I I intensity of development and the acceptance of an ' Environmental Document on property bounded by San Joaquin Kill, Road, Santa Cruz Drive, San Clemente Drive, and Santa Barbara Drive in Newport Centert 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 302/70% approach. Motion x The hearing was closed after it was determined All Ayva 1 that no one else desired to be heard. - I !an tun xI Councilman Nuvsnel made a motion that the lase of rexecrableness be applied to 100% of the Civic i 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 200% development review instead of 30%, I think 1 that it is beyond the scope of this Council to make that kind - T, personally foal, legally, that w do not have ehs right to further discrim- inate against this project." `I.,t lnn x) Councilman Hart made a substitute motion to continue the Item to March 26. I 'La ton � I x Councilmen Ncinnin made a substitute substitute .tvvs I xl x x x motion to ads Pt•Resolution No. 9517 amending the R-9517 W.,.r Ix, x x I Planned Community Development Plan for Civic Plaza j I TAR [Ile ,llotiable development plan, and accept ng—an env3•ronmental document, wbic _motlnn i carried:* � I I I i 1 F. CONTINUED BUSINESS: 1 II I I I 1. Previously considered. A report vna prnnont aJ from thr Couunun lty llrvrlap- Nrupnrt 1'l nor mtntc DrpArtmrnl regarding I'l,annlun Comnlxnlon planned i I I I net lull with regnrd to a rr•quvat,ot ):okay Ihwvlop- Comment l I ment and- Realty Company fur the approval or a 1 (1275) I � 1 1 1 I I Volume 37 - Pig, 60 d^ 7 z Z • NEGATIVE DECLAP,ATION TO: Secretary for Resources FR01.1: Planning Department 1400 Tenth Street City of Newport Beach Sacramento, CA 95814 3300 Newport Boulevard Clerk of the Board of Newport Beach, CA 92663 Supervisors P. 0. Box 687 Santa Ana. CA -92702 NAME OF PROJECT: Traffic Phasing Plan -Corporate Plaza PROJECT LOCATION: Corporate Plaza, Newport Beach, CA 92660 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project consists of a Traffic Phasing Plan for the remaining development in the Corporate Plaza Planned Community. FINDING: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council Policy K-3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined" that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. MITIGATION MEASURES: See attached INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY: City of Newport Beach INITIAL STUDY AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT: 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: William R. Laycoc Current Planning mi'nistrator Date: May 5 , 1980 1 MITIGATION NEASURES 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 I 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; - i 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 20 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. s S. 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 _ .e scr-cins of recycla�!_e material from other solid waste. 17. The development on the site should be in accordance with City policies on traffic. -2- � 8. The applicants should provide for weekly vacuum sweeping of all paved parking areas and drives. 9. Any construction on the site should be done in accordance with the height restriction regulations of the City. The restricti.ons of said should apply to any landscape materials, signs, flags, etc. , as well as structures. 10. That the architectural character and landscape design established within the existing project shall be maintained in the proposed project. 11 . A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. The landscape plan shall integrate and phase the installation of landscaping with the proposed construction schedule. (Prior to occupancy, the licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Planning ,Department that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with the prepared plan). 12. The landscape plan should be subject to the review of the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department and approval of the Planning Department. 13. The landscape plan should include a maintenance program which controls the use of fertilizers and pesticides. 14. The landscape plan should place heavy emphasis on the use of drought- resistant native vegetation and be irrigated via a system designed to avoid surface runoff and over watering. 15. The landscape plan of the existing Corporate Plaza complex shall be reviewed by a licensed landscape architect. The existing landscape program should be modified to include the concerns of mitigation measures 13 and 14 above to the maximum extent practicable that can maintain';the character df the existing landscape program. Any change (s) in the existing program as a result of this review should be phase and incorporated as a portion of existing landscape maintenance. 16. That erosion measures shall be done on any exposed slopes within thirty days after grading or as approved by the Grading Engineer so as to reduce erosion potential . ` 17. Development of the site should be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. 18. That a grading plan if required should include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 19. The grading permit shall include, if required, a description of haul routes, access points to the site and a watering and sweeping program designed to minimize impacts of haul operation. 20. An erosion and dust control plan, if required, should be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department. 21 . That an erosion and siltation control plan, if required, be approved by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Santa Ana Region, and the plan be submitted to said Board ten days prior to any construction activities. - 2 - 22. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for the site, the applicants shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and the Planning Department that adequate sewer facilities will be available for the project. Such demonstration shall include verification from Orange County Sanitation District No. 5. 23. That prior to the occupancy of any building, the applicant shall provide written verification from Orange County Sanitation District No. 5 that adequate sewer capacity is available to serve the project. - 3 - Vi yr 1VCvxr'vrn i GCNvn CUUNCILMLN �UTES \yG\i\ c ^��9`p`n� I MOLL CALL 'n INDEX planning Commission Amendment No. 525,a request initiated by the City of Newport Beach to consider an amendment to Chapter 20.87 of the Newport ' Beach Municipal Code as it applies to the definitions of the terms"Dwelling Unit"and"Family." A report was presented from the Community Devel- opment Department. Xm Lawrence H. Rouillard, Episcopal UCI opposing the ordinance was people addressed the Council opposinthe number of people limited to e "family"r Ste le Smith, Director of the Munici- pal Lobby and re coring the Associated Students, UCI; Cas Champlon; ve Carters Don MacDougall, a staff member of t Orange County Renters Association; Ronald Kenne of the Corona del Mar Civic Association and Sid Sof Motion x Miss Smith was granted one and on If additional _ Ayes x x x x x minutes for her presentation. Noes x x Community Development Director, Richard Ho gave a staff report on"Dwelling Units:' Motion x The hearing was closed after it was determined that All Ayes no one else desired to be heard. Motion x Ordinance No.1804 was adopted. Ayes x x x x Noes x x , 4. Mayor Ryckoff opened the public hearing regarding Tract I0625 a request of The Irvine Company,Newport Beach,to consider a Traffic Study for a proposed subdivision, Harbor Point, containing twenty-one single-family residential lots AND Tentative Map of Tract 10623, a request to subdivide 12.97 acres into twenty-one numbered lots for single-family residential develop- ment, one lettered lot for private street purposes, and one lettered lot for landscape open space. Sold request also includes the extension of San Miguel Drive and the consideration of an Environmental Document; on property located at 1401 Son Miguel Drive, between MacArthur Boulevard and the pro- posed extension of San Miguel Drive,southwesterly of Roger's Gardens;zoned R-A,R-1-B,and P-C. A report and supplemental report on the Traffic Study were presented from the Community Develop- ment nepartment, i ii Volume 31-Page 114 ' OY OF NEWPORT BEACH 0 COUNCILMEN MINUTES S•\CL\'�i\per\y\�+f fsC+ ROLL CALL •s\ May 14. 1979 INDEX �I Krub Greer, representing; The Irvine Company, addressed the Council and requested ten minutes for 1 I ! ! his pr•sentation. IWO on ix I I Mr.Greer was granted ten minutes for his presenta- Nil \yes 1 I I I tion. t I i I The following people addressed the Council in favor of Tract 10625 and the proposed extension of San Miguel Drive•, E. P. Benson; pan Rogers; and Bill Lillis. ' The following people addressed the Council opposing the extension of San Miguel Drive. Dr. Robert Rosenberg; Philip Arst, President of the Broadmoor hills Canmlmfty AsHxration,who presented a letter to Courw•ih Ted(:agwmter, President of tlw• Harbor ' View-linxnknewr Cewmuelnlly Av.,w hition; Ivan 1 Marrn, Vhe• Prrsirk•nl of Ilw• Itarlwr View liuuev- I owners A s Iation; Bob Bise, representing the I Newport Hills Community Assoclatlon, who urged The Irvine Company to work for the passage and _ approval of the San Joaquin Hills Corridor. Mutiat ! x Mr. Arst was granted two more minutes for his All Ayes i presentation. I ( Keith Greer addressed the Council and stated that the extension of San Miguel Drive was based on the I need which will be created by future projects that ` will come !afore the City in the next three or four I yeah;and that landscape projects have been planned to reduce the noise factor. Mndwe x The hearing was closed after it was determined that All Ayes no one else desired to be heard. Motion x The Environmental Document was accepted; and Ayes x x x x x Tract No. 10625 was approved, subject to the Noes x x following findings and conditions recommended by IN Planning Commission as modified by Council? ! FINDIWN FOR TIiC TRAFFIC STUDYt ' { I. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which I ! I analyzes the Impact of the proposed project on x , ! the peak four traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. ' 2. That the Traffic Study indicates that the i project-generated traffic will be greater than I ! one percent of existing traffic during the 2.5 I 1 hour peak period on any leg of the Intersection ! of San .Joaquin Hills Road and MacArthur ! I I Boulevard. I i I ' iVolume 33-Page 115 i l 1 , ,t C# OF NEWPORT BEACH • COUNCII,MCN MINUTES bC ROLL CALL ��� N INDEX j 3. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project-generated traffic will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on any "major," "primary- modified"or"primary"street. FINDINGS FOR TRACT NO. 10625: 1. That the map meets the requirements of Title ' 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code,all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific plans,and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 2. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed. 4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. I 5. That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and that their contents have been considered in the decisions on this project. 6. That based on the information contained in the Negative Declaration, the project incorporates +nlficlent mitigation medwret to redme I potentially-significant enviromnentdl effects, - and thtt the project will not result in slgnlf- lcant environmental impacts. 7. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not substantially 1 and avoidably Injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 8. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed Improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. 9. That the design of the subdivision or the I proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements,acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. I 10. That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision will not result In or add to any violation of existing requirements prescribed by a California Regional Water Quality i Control Board pursuant to Division 7 (com- mencing with Section 1300)of the Water Code. I i � I Volume 33-Page 116 i i I 1 C`Y OF NEWPORT BEACH . COUNCILMEN MINUTES ROLL CALL �d'T�9lb INDEX 11. The project is defined as the subdivision of 12.97 acres into numbered lots for single family residential developments, one lettered 1 lot for private street purposes;one lettered lot for landscape open space. 12. The proposed site has very poor traffic ingress/egress capabilities due to the design of the surrounding road system. The proposed single family residential development Is the highest density usage which this site can accommodate. , CONDITIONS: I. That a tract map be filed. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That Section 19.16.030 of the Subdivision - Ordinance be waived provided that drawings of _ the tract map at a scale of 1" - 100' are provided to the Public Works Department. 4. That vehicular access to Lot 21 be limited to one driveway approach on San Miguel Drive. This driveway approach shall be limited to right-turn in and out only. The location of the driveway approach shall be subject to further study and approval of the Public Works and Community Development Departments prior to filing of the tract map. The driveway approach location shall be located as far away from MacArthur(Boulevard as possible. 5. That .ill vehicular dccass rights to MacArthur Boulevard,except at the public streetintersec- tion,be released and relinquished to the City. 6. That the remaining street Improvements along the easterly side of MacArthur Boulevard frontage adjacent to the tract be completed including a ten-foot-wlde sidewalk-bike trail. 7. Developer is to bond for the completion of San Miguel at such time as the City Council declares It is needed. Alternatively,developers bonding obligation may be waived if developer applies the same amount of funding to, more critically needed projects as defined by the Council. S. Tiat all vehicular access rights to San Miguel, i Drive, except for two private drive openings and the public street intersection, be released I i and relinquished to the-Ctty. IIVolume 33-Page 117 �ARA�... , '4�arrae.t,"^mmt"tnvsrra*•c.m-R-��-.w+..•�...-..----._—�__. I OTY OF NEWPORT BEACH • COUNCILMEN *�n\ MINUTES TG�y� ROLL. CALL• 9�0'^�9\��N INDEX ! I 9. That the noise impact from MacArthur Boule- yard and San Miguel Drive be considered and that the dwelling units be designed to provide for sound attenuation in accordance with the requirements of law and the recommendation of a qualified acoustical engineer. Specifical- ly, that acoustical attenuation devices be - included in final project design as described in Mitigation Measure it of the Initial Study and that a higher barrier be erected, if requested unanimously by the residents of Lots 3,4 and 5. • 10. That the design of the private streets - conform with the City's private street policy. 11. That the structural section of the private streets and drives be designed in accordance , with standard civil engineering practice. The design will be approved and the construction inspected by the Public Works Department. •• The standard plan check and Inspection fee _ shall be paid. 12. That the private streets shall have a street light system approved by the Public Works Department. 13. That the California Vehicle Code be enforced on the private streets. ' 14. That a traffic control plan shall be submitted and approved by the City's Traffic Engineer. 15. That if it Is desired to have a control gate on ' the entrance off San Miguel Drive, a turn- aroutd shall be provided prior to the gate. reviewedn of ahpproved byd erance shale the Public Wolrks and Community Development Departments. I 16. That a ten-foot-wide sidewalk-bike trail be provided on the northerly side of San Miguel Drive. I 17. San Miguel Drive may be extended only from its present terminus to the entrance of Harbor Point as shown on Tentative Tract Map No. 10625. The width of this extension is to be sufficient to provide for two lanes of i traffic and a bicycle lane but is to be no greater than 30 feet. No median strip Is to be added at the present time. Is. That the water capital improvement acreage ` I fees be paid. I I � I I Volume 33-Page 118 I OY OF NEWPORT BEACH • COUNCILMEN MINUTES ? \��p(:��9�9G2y ROLL CALL 7,;on 1-1 �N INDEX 19. That storage capacity in San Joaquin Reser- voir equal to one maximum day's demand be dedicated to the City. i I 20. That easements for ingress,egress and public utility purposes on Lot "A" be dedicated to the City. 21. That three-toot-wide easements for public utility purposes adjacent to Lot "A" be dedicated to the City. t I 22. That a subdivision agreement and accompany- ing surety be provided if it Is desired to record the final tract map prior to com- pletion of the public improvements. 23. That all work within the MacArthur Boule- vard right-of-way be done under an encroach- ment permit issued by the California Department of Transportation. ' 24. That sight distance for the bike trail along the westerly side of San Miguel Drive be provided for the future driveway approach for Roger's Gardens. 25. That on-site fire hydrants be provided as required by the Public Works Department and the Fire Department. ' I 26. That Fire Department access shall be approved by the Fire Department. 27. A landscape and irrigation plan for all com- I man areas shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. Said plan shall include a maintenance program which controls the use of organphosphates and pesticides. 28. That the landscape plan shall place heavy emphasis on the use of drought-resistant vegetation. 29. That planting be done on any exposed slopes as soon as possible to reduce erosion potential. Prior to the occupancy of any dwelling unit, the licensed landscape archi- tect shall certify to the Department of ;• '} Community Development that the land- 9 scaping has been installed in accordance with the proposed plan. 30. Development of the site will be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Depart. meet of Community Development. Surface and subsurface drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Community Develop- ment Department and the Public Works i Department. Volume 33-Page 119 � I i CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CD4NCII.MEN MINUTES 2 \�G\9\��nyta9 9 ci 1� �7'�'s`9\�'S•9Gyyi HULL CALLS Ma 14, 1979 INDEX 30. Development of the site will be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Depart- ment of Community Development. Surface and subsurface drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Community i Ilevelnpomnt Department .aid Ills WorksPublic Dclwrunt•n6 • 31. An erosion and dust control plan shalt be submitted with the grading permit appli- cation and be subject to the approval of the Community Development Department. 32. That drainage along MacArthur Boulevard • adjacent to the tract be improved in conjunc- tion with tract grading; if grading and drainage are to be accomplished as a precise plan, this should be accomplished prior to finalization of the grading plan. 33. That a lined brow ditch(es) be provided on off-site areas where cuts are proposed on the _ tract, and in accordance with the precise grading plan to be approved by the Com- munity Development Department. 34. That a detailed t geotechnical report be i ' prepared prior to approval of the final tract map and before finalization of a grading plan, subject to the approval of the Public Works Department and Community Development fepartment. I 35. That an erosion and siltation control plan be approved by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board-Santa Ana Region, and that the plan be submitted to said Board ten days prior to any construction activities. 36. That the applicant provide for street sweep- ing services for all non-dedicated streets equal to that service provided by the City for residential area streets. 37. That In order to retain the physical Integrity of midden deposits during grading activities, ' that Mitigation Measures 4, 5 and 6 as described In the Initial Study be observed during construction of the project. 39. That prior to the Issuance of building permits it be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director that energy conservation measures described as Mitigation Measures 13,14 and 15 in the Initial Study have been considered In project design. I I Volume 33-Page 120 J ' CRY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCILMEN MINUTES \4•\g. 4\� 5 d�,3 33 ROLL CAII 4�d'T INDE% I 39. That appropriate deed restriction(s) subject i to the approval of the City Attorney and i Director of Community Development be placed on Lot 21 as shown on Tentative Tract No. 10625 to inform any potential purchaser(s) of high noise levels and access restrictions on this site. 40. 'That the applicant provide assurance In a manner acceptable to the City Attorney and Director of Community Development that the off-site desalting basin will be retained or should any development of the desalting basin site occur, a basin of equal or greater capacity will be provided. 41. That all pad elevations shall be depicted on the subdivision map or lower. 42. That the height of all landscape materials shall not exceed a height of twenty-nine feet (291 above pad elevation or the ridge of the dwelling,whichever Is lower. 43. That prior to the recordation of the Final Map the applicant shall deposit with the City an in-Lieu Park Fee in an amount as determined by the City Council In accordance with Section 19.50.070 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 44. That additional traffic phasing studies be made between the Planning Commission meeting of April 5, 1979 and the City Council meeting of April9, 1979, by the applicant, concurrent with continued work on this appli- cation. 43. That a pedestrian gate be added to the proposed wall for pedestrlans and children to get from Salt Air Circle onto San Miguel Drive,to be placed at the end of island View Drive. 46. That Lot 21 be designated as not a buildable lot. 47. That a five foot textured block wall be ' construrted In Lot C of Trdrt No. 6385 parallel to Salt Air Drive for the entire distance between Lots 13 and 49 of Tract No. 6383. Said textured block wall shall connect i to the eight foot barrier adjacent to Lot 49, Tract No.6385,and shall connect to the rear , wall on Lot IS,Tract No.6385. The beta of i the five foot textured block wall shall be con- structed at grade with the top of curb on Salt I I Air Drive adjacent to Lot C of Tract No.6385. j Volume 33- Page 121 I j i C*( OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCILMEN fI N UTES I V CC " 919$ , 07�C's Z�iP ROLL CALL INDEX. I I I I 49. That a street lighting plan for San Miguel t Drive be submitted to the Broadmoor Hills Community Association Board of Directors I for review and comment and to the Director I ! of Community Development for the City of " Newport Beach for approval prior to the issuance of building permits for residential dwellings within Tentative Tract No. 10625. I Said streets lighting plan shall include con- sideration of provisions for minimizing the intrusion of peripheral street lighting into the existing homes easterly of Tentative Tract No. 10623. 49. That the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions recorded for Tentative Tract No. 10625 shall require the pruning of trees on I individual Lots 1-21 to limit the growth of said trees to the height of the building ridge line for each residential dwelling. 50. No construction shall be permitted on Lot 21 without the approval of the Broadmoor Hills - '• Community Association as to view plane .preservation and related impacts. Mayor Pro Tern Williams made the following State- ' mmtr "What this does, in effect, is to ask the CouncU to approve the homes and necessary access to those homes via San Miguel Drive and delay at this time the proposal to extend San Miguel across i ' MacArthur to Avocado and yet provides the funds to be made available at such time as needed or for other projects that are needed sooner If that can be accomplished." _..... I 3. Mayor Ryckoff opened the public hearing and City Use Permit Council review of Use Permit No. 1053,a request of 1053& Yves Briee and Yvan Humbert, Newport (teach, to Resub 623 amend a previously approved use permit permitting (3247) the establishment of a restaurant facility with on- sale alcoholic beverages on site. The proposed development includes live entertainment and the expansion of the dining areas within the existing Le Biarritz res[alrant, on property located at 414 li4&rth Newport Boulevard, on the northeasterly ner Nees; Newport Boulevard and Westminster 'Av ,zoned C-1. AND Resubdi 'on No. 623, a to of Yves Briee and III a Yvan H rt, Newport Beach, to establish one ■■ building site eliminate an Interior lot line where two lots now e ' t to permit the expansion of the existing Leniarritz staurant facility. i Volume 33-Page 122 1 M COMMISSIONERS • MINUTES May 22, 1980 m W W ch = 6 City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Z be filed ' to create the par thereby providing a mechanism for them to s 1 at some time in the future. Commissioner •Al�ler� expressed her feeling that the are condoning a ' ery serious -traffic hazard. Commission,pr Beek stated his preference that this applicav on include a condition that the teller facility be removed in the next year or two . C,,ppmmissioner Allen stated her preference that they have a development plan that includes the . removal of the teller facility , farid••'shecrequestdd 00, that some kind of preliminary timetable be provid 000 ed as to its removal . Motion r'x Motion was made to continue this item to the re- Ayes x x x x gular Planning Commission meeting of June 19 , Absen * * 1980, to allow additional time for the applicant to review alternate possibilities . Request -to consider a Traffic Phasing Plan for thE Item #2 remaining development of the Corporate Plaza Plan- ned Community, and the acceptance of an Environ- TRAFFIC mental Document. THASING' P ATN LOCATION: Property bounded by East Coast Highway, Newport Center Drive, CONTIN- Farallon Drive and Avocado Avenue UED TO in 'Newport Center. DUNE 19 , 1980 ZONE: P-C r APPLICANT: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as Applicant Motion x Motion was made that this item be continued to the Ayes X x x x regular Planning Commission meeting of June 19 , Absent * * 1980 , as per the Staff' s recommendation , pehding additional review of the traffic information sub- mitted by the Irvine Company. " . 0 NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO: Secretary for Resources FRO14: Planning Department 1400 Tenth Street City of Newport Beach Sacramento, CA 95814 3300 Newport Boulevard Clerk of the Board of Newport Beach, CA 92663 Supervisors P. 0. Box 687 Santa ana. CA 92702 NAME OF PROJECT: Traffic Phasing Plan -Corporate Plaza PROJECT LOCATION: Corporate Plaza, Newport Beach, CA 92660 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project consists of 'a Traffic Phasing Plan for the remaining development in the Corporate Plaza Planned Community. 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 sig nificant effect on the environment. MITIGATION MEASURES: See attached INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY: City of Newport Beach INITIAL STUDY AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT: 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: William R. Laycoc 'Current Planning A6ministrator Date: May 5 , 1980 MITIGATION MEASURES I . 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 _hE sorting of recyclable. material from other solid waste. 17. The development on the site should be in accordance with City policies on traffic. - 1 - 0 8. The applicants should provide for weekly vacuum sweeping of all paved parking areas and drives. 9. Any construction on the site should be done in accordance with the height restriction regulations of the City. The restrictions of said should apply to any landscape materials, signs, flags, etc. , as well as structures. 10. That the architectural character and landscape design established within the existing project shall be maintained in the proposed project. 11 . A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. The landscape plan shall integrate and phase the installation of landscaping with the proposed construction schedule. (Prior to occupancy, the licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with the prepared plan). 12. The landscape plan should be subject to the review of the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department and approval of the Planning Department. 13. The landscape plan should include a maintenance program which controls the use of fertilizers and pesticides. 14. The landscape plan should place heavy emphasis on the use of drought- resistant native vegetation and be irrigated via a system designed to avoid surface runoff and over watering. 15. The landscape plan of the existing Corporate Plaza complex shall be reviewed by a licensed landscape architect. The existing landscape program should be modified to include the concerns of mitigation measures 13 and 14 above to the maximum extent practicable that can maintairr';the:character 6f the existing landscape program. Any change (s) in the existing program as a result of this review should be phase and incorporated as a portion of existing landscape maintenance. 16. That erosion measures shall be done on any exposed slopes within thirty days after grading or as approved by the Grading Engineer so as to reduce erosion potential . 17. Development of the site should be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. 18: That a grading plan if required should include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 19. The grading permit shall include, if required, a description of haul routes, access points to the site and a watering and sweeping program designed to minimize impacts of haul operation. 20. An erosion and dust control plan, if required, should be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department. 21 . That an erosion and siltation control plan, if required, be approved by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Santa Ana Region, and the plan be submitted to said Board ten days prior to any construction activities. - 2 - 22. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for the site, the applicants shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and the Planning Department that adequate sewer facilities will be available for the project. Such demonstration shall include verification from Orange County Sanitation District No. 5. 23. That prior to the occupancy of any building, the applicant shall provide written verification from Orange County Sanitation District No. 5 that adequate sewer capacity is available to serve the project. - 3 - P Weofaw P►c qk ad kwiaW _ TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING August 22, 1980 Mr. Ray Moe The Irvine Company 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. Moe: This letter summarizes our examination of the traffic factors related to the extension of San Miguel Drive from Mac Arthur Boulevard to San Joaquin Hills Road in the City of Newport Beach. This analysis was based upon data provided by the City of Newport Beach, previous studies and field studies of the existing intersections. Of specific concern were the intersections on Mac Arthur Boulevard at San Miguel Drive and San Joaquin Hills Road and the San Joaquin Hills Road/ San Miguel Drive intersection. 'This study included the analysis of the three intersections with existing and two future road configurations. Analyses were completed for the configuration with San Miguel Drive extended to Mac Arthur Bouievard and to San Joaquin H1lls Road. In order to complete the analyses, several assumptions were required. These are: 1. Evaluation was completed for 1983. 2. The Mac Arthur/Avocado couplet was not completed. 3. Avocado would exist from San Joaquin Road to Coast Highway and be one-way southbound from San Joaquin Hills Road to San Nicolas Drive. 4. No improvements to the Mac Arthur/San Joaquin Hills Road or San Miguel/ San Joaquin Hills Road intersections. In addition to exiting traffic volumes, regional growth and committed project traffic were included in the analyses. This was to conform to the precedures of the Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance. 2651 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE • SUITE 110 • FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92631 (714) 871-2931 -2- TRIP DISTR111UT1ON AND Ati31CNMF.NT Prior to analyzing the impact upon the intersections, it was necessary to re-assign existing traffic and committed project traffic to the two road configurations. For existing projects, trip generation and distribution data were obtained from the "Newport Center Traffic Study , Phase II" report prepared in 1976 by Crommelin- Pringle and Associates, Inc. The existing projects which would have trips diverted by the project are listed in Table 1. Committed project traffic utilized in the study that would have modified traffic patterns are also listed in Tabel 1. Other committed project traffic was included in the analysis with no change in assignment. The distributions contained in the "Newport Center Traffic Study, Phase II" were utilized to develop peak hour volumes at the three intersections for the two road configurations. In addition, existing traffic at Mac Arthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road was re-assigned to reflect the connection of San Miguel to San Joaquin Hills Road. These included northbound right turns and westbound left turns. Appendix A contains ICU Analysis calculations for the various conditions. Also indicated are the changes in traffic volumes, by movement, due to the re-assignment of traffic. These data are indicated in the Project Volume column. ANALYSIS _ ICU calculations were completed for the three intersections for the various condit- ions and are contained in Appendix A. The resulting ICU values are summarized in Table 2. Review of Table 2 indicates that the Mac -Arthur/San Miguel and San Joaquin Hills Road/San Miguel intersections are not significantly affected by the project. Both intersections are projected to have acceptable ICU values for all conditions. The Mac Arthur/San Joaquin Hills Road intersection would be :affected by the project. An ICU value of 0.9431 is projected for this intersection for 1983 with no project. This value is decreased to 0.9283 with the extension of San Miguel to Mac Arthur and 0.8848 with the extension to San Joaquin Hills Road. The project does result in a acceptable condition in 1983. In addition to the related impacts at the three intersections, some benefits to traffic flow in the area would occur as a result of the project. The extension of San Miguel provides a new gateway or access to Newport Center. This will result • -3- Table 1. PROJECTS WITH TRAFFIC DIVERSION EXISTING COMMITTIO) Gateway Plaza Seaview Lutheran Plaza Fashion Island Corporate Plaza Design Plaza Baywood Apartments Block 300 Office Rogers Gardens Block 300 Theater Harbor Point Homes Block 400 Office Block 400 Medical Marriott Hotel Granville Apartments Table 2 ICU SUMMARY ZAIE'iCSFG'IZU;t _ 1C11 VALUES EXISTING 1983 ALTERNATE l(I)ALTERNATE 2(2) (1980) NO PROJECT Mac Arthur /San Joaquin 0.7921 0.9431 0.9283 0.8848 Hills Road / San Joaquin Hills Road/ 0.3809 0.4338 0.4338 0.4336 San Miguel• Mac Arthur/San Miguel - - 0. 7572 0.7731 (1) San Miguel Drive extended to Mac Arthur Boulevard (2) San Miguel Drive extended to San Joaquin Hills Road -4- in improved traffic operations at the Santa Rosa/San Joaquin Hills Road intersection and along San Joaquin Hills Road in general. Trips originating in the area served by San Joaquin Hills Road could reach Coast Highway or Newport Center without utilizing the Mac Arthur or Santa Rosa LiLersecLluua. While the AM peak hour has not been analyzed in detail, benefits would be anticipated during this period. The northbound left turn volume at San Joaquin Hills Road on Mac Arthur Boulevard would be reduced due to the new access at San Miguel. Westbound traffic on San Joaquin Hills Road would be able to divert to San Miguel to reach Newport Center or Coast Highway. These would both result in improved traffic operations along San Joaquin Hills Road. SU.T4ARY The study has examined the three intersections that would be most directly impacted by the extension of San Miguel Drive to Mac Arthur Boulevard and to San Joaquin Hills Road. Traffic from existing and committed projects has been re-assigned to simulate traffic conditions with these road modifications. ICU analyses have indicated a reduction in ICU values to an acceptable level at the Mac Arthur/San Joaquin H1118 Road intersection with the extension to San Joaquin Hills Road. The other two intersections are projected to operate satisfactorily in any case. * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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, WWEEESSSTTOyNP'RINNGLE AND AASSSSO�CIATES Weston S. Pringle, P.E. WSP:cd V044O APPENDIX A INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSES INT.ERSEAN CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYO PM PEAK IntersectionMA.-,,4rznwlz 1�e �5an1 .)oa6t���lrJrcLs [?Q AL- I ( Existing Traffic Volumes (lases on Average Daly Traffic Winter/Spring 19?_O� PPIS M r, EXISIIhG PROPOSED EXIST. EXIST. REGl"AL COYHI IIEU . y/C Nano PogJECt P7pJECT M°s'e'' Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. PX.RR. RatV/Cio VogGROl* PROJECT w,,e w/o Project Y;'uie Y/: Patio Vol. Ratfo Yol�sr Yoltme Volume NL .0361 x II 0.04i no lo.o2.94 N7 Z 3200 474 1541 3 3 0.277 NR I z / / 5 44 SL 3zoo 3 •IZ4 / 68 0./453 D, l¢5s ST 3Z 00 / a Z 9 . 3 z / ¢ 2 8 o•4-159 * f160 a,4659 SR A/A. 190 53 —l60 — EL 3200 309 •2520 //8 0.Z89 74' —ZZS 0.2194* ET Boo S 8 / 11 s8 3 S3 0. —� ER 1 7 23 —50 WL /Ga0 116, . 0725 Z4 6.0 440 0. 1125 WT 4800 Z4 4 •o�9� z9 0. -4ct c,cF4� WR ELLOWTIME — Iva _—T 0. IODOX; 0,Iwo* t EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIIATIUN .7 9 Z I EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROYEMENTS I.C.U. o, Y t EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 0 9ZS 3 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ® Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 [�] Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 Description of system improvement: DATE: PROJECT FORM II pM PEAK Inters•ion Ac. L 4urL man! �cs 1� � sJt. . _g ALT, 2 ( Existing Traffic Volume ; Gases on Avrratle Daly Traffic Winter/Sprin(l lV. .0) -- _— .._.T_ IAIY1. . , IKISI RIWI YA[ IU>Wl,iIt, ul,n«. Puupuelu rxl.utl rrouu 14,�a ant PK.11A. V/C GII III I'ItUlklf v/ xal,,, 1, I Ones G?• Ones Cap. Vol. Ratio Yoluw Volume w/o ProJr,t Y: r I VI: RMtl, Yolu NL /600 G/ 10361 It 0.04-se -2S 0,0294* NT 3Z0o 474 •1841 ZS3 0,277 4232 0,336(v NR / / 5 44- -44 SL 3zoo 3 •IZ4 / 68 0. 141S3 -la 10,1323 ST 37o0 1 . 5z1(1 4- ' 2 8 0.4/5`1,* 4170 0,4(,91'� NSR . / )0 SZL of /s/3 0. . i -// 00,2,— 12196135" T B!OO SS / 1 S -180 R 7 2-3 -50 4 -Z4 P,o72L / 00 0)z5 2-4 a.0 ►fi 4300 ZQ 4 .079(. 29 0, 2 -130 ,0(vlo911 WR YELLONTIME l . 10v04- �0.1000>"i I6./000-t � t EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .79Z I EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GRONIII H/PROPOSED INPROYEMENIS I.C.0 J0.9431 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I•C.U. Bf 4b ® Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Description of system improvement: DATE: PROJECT FORM II PM,I'EA1� Woe. INTERWON CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANAAS Intersection-SAKI JOAQ01IJ UILLs_RD. SAd M1010EL- AL-r, 2. ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Avera a Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 19ed Ell.1 EXIST. REJi^ 4 ct":ryT} PROOECTEO Ao.r v7 LAITT;;,,: PROPOSE[ PM PX.HR. Y/C GROVT^ PROJitT V/C kit), PAW::, Uno% CAP. L1nN CAP. Vol. Ratio Vol ur Yalu W/o ProJeit Vol w.e WC 441:11) Volu.e NL /(coo 38 010238 30 0.0¢2c5- —/S 0.0331 NT 32oo /2 ,00772 * * 4G4 0,0-7¢1 �` 4IR // 4/50 SL /boo 94 0,0588 0,6w* ST /600 2 0,0013 O.'o13' 44(a o,0300 SR boo /s/ O.o944 24 o.1094 -4io ,000co EL 32CO 429 0,1341 -�' 3 o. /4-50* -G4- OxL6-o ET 4800 524 0,1099) 8 0.1-% /S0 0,1013 ER .3 J -20 WL /600 49 a o3o(o o. 0306 +/l0 0.099 4'* wt 4bo0 3/(o 0,0808 3Z o.o —/lo 0.c.4G wR ?2 YELLOMTIME F. I 0-6 ak :p,/000-fe 1 0.A)00)k t , , EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.3e0 9 EXISTING PLUS COPMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROYEMENTS I.C.U. 0. i iTIST14G PLU5 COIMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 0, 33Ca © Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. with systems improvement will De less than or equal to 0.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Description of system improvement: DATE : -- -- ----•-- •- •-- - - - . . . .. _._ _.. .--PROJECT FORM FORM II INTERSPION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' PM PEAK Intersection AG 4k1NU9 6L✓9• ISAIJ M/c,dFL _ ALT / ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Avera a Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 198 EXMT. EXIST. REGINAL COMMUTED PROJECTEO A4.0 en, EXI ST.IIG PROPOSE- Pr..HR, V/C GROVTo PRQIECT V/C Rstlr, PROJE:' a�"JEC' Lanes CAP. Lanes CAP• Vol. Ratio Vol ur Volu a w/o Project Vol Wne V/C Rath Vol ur NL 3200 (2) 425' 0,60-78 NT 3206 &570 0,203/* 3 30b 0,3003 -/636' 0,2425 NR SL ST 3200 1324 0,4138* 4 345 0,52281 O.S62 SR /&00 (1) +2G5 011(05G EL 3200(z) 4470 0, 1469 ET ER /600 6) +5-0 0,0313 WL WT ' WR YELLOWTIME 0,Inn 0 ; 0,/om k 0,/000* i 1 i EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 0. �x(STING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 75 7 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to -0.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Description of system improvement: DATE : PROJECT FORM II INTERSERION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Tim QEQK Intersection* A1,46 R77/14Z GL✓D• SAW M1 Ucl- �AL-r 2 ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Avera a Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1986 [AISf EXIST. REOIrv,d, COPCI:ITED- PRO.IECTIO EC Y/C Ratio, PROJC EXISTN4 PROPOS fin',JCC' Lam Cap. Lines tap. PR,RR, Y/C GRW PROJECT w/o Project Volume Y/C Ratio Vol. Ratio Volur Vormne V01 Me , NL 3200 (z) 425' 0,007b* NT 3000 650 0,26317 3 308 0,3X3 * -26 NR 1160010 fl9 0,0119 SL /600 !I> +16 010063 ST 5-zoo I324 0,4130' 4 3¢s 6,s2291 -?9 0,490 SR /Goo (1) t21 S 0,1344 EL 3200 (z) 4385 e-,12-r3" ET /600(r) ' d205 0,1281 ER /600 (1) +S0 0,03/3 WL moo (1) 414 ' 0.0088 WT 3200 (z) *150 0.0¢69 4-7 10,0044 rEIIOWTtME O,(�o ; 0f/000 ; O,/OOo I , , EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0,7 1(09 1 i EXISTING PLUS CO►MITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS i.C.U. 0,9 3 1 i 01ST. 14G PLUS C"ITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 0.7 31 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 Description of system improvement: DATE :_ _ PROJECT ` ' FORM II 4 - T THE IRVINIE COMPANY 550 Newport Center Drive, P.O. Box I )� Newport Beach, California 92663 (714) 644-3011 May 1, 1980 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject: Corporate Plaza Traffic Phasing Plan Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission: In order, to proceed with full development of the Corporate Plaza site in accor- dance with the City's P. C. district regulations , we are submitting attached Traffic Phasing Plan for your approval . City Council Resolution No . 9472 bets 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 occupied in 1981 . The completion of future allowed development, according to our Traffic Phasing Plan, is sched- uled to be developed and occupied in 1982. 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: 1981 - Occupancy of existing plus development in process under the 30% rule. - (This includes 39,026 sf of additional office use beyond that currently approved) . 1982 - Occupancy of remainder of the proposed development for the site, subject to phasing. (This includes 101 ,150 sf of office use) . Responses to the City's guidelines for Traffic Phasing approval are attached . We hope this letter, along with the attached Traffic Plan will answer your questions and concerns related to traffic impacts due to the additional develop- ment Plaza PC. Should you havg any questions or comments, ment of the Corporate please feel free to contact me or our Traffic Consultant. Yours very truly, f,. enal�dW. Hendrickson Director, Design/Construction Attachments: Commercial/Industrial Division I. Test of Reasonableness Reponse II. MacArthur/San Joaquin Traffic Supp. Enclosures III. Traffic Analysis L PG1.5al • ATTACHMENT' 1 . • r r I May, 1980 CORPORATE PLAZA 1 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. 1. Single Land Use Corporate Plaza is a project which has for several years been in the process of construction and development in the Newport Center area. When completed, Corporate Plaza will comprise 350,000 square feet of business and office use as permitted in the Planned Community Text. As portions of the project are currently under construction, square footage values cited do vary in time but reflect current changes in the General Plan and other applicable ordinances. The currently existing site consists of 209,824 square feet. As of June 1, 1979, when 1979 traffic volume counts were taken approximately 85,000 square feet of that total was occupied, and traffic generated"by the site was included in those counts. Under the 30% rule a total of 248,850 square feet, or an additional 39,026 beyond the existing site may be constructed. Thus, the remaining portion of the project subject to a traffic phasing plan is 101,160 square feet. 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. f Y Based on the traffic generation rates identified in the Newport C _ jer Phase II Traffic Study, the total traffic to be generated by the site is as follows: PM Peak Hr. ADT In Out Occupancy - 1981 Existing occupied prior to June 1, 1979 85,OOO, sf 1105 50 145 Existing under construction & occupied since June 1, 1979 1249824 sf 1620 75 210 Subtotal existing 3/80 209,824 2725 125 360 Additional in the process of development under the 30% rule-1981 occupancy 39,026 510 25 65 Subtotal Occupancy - 1981 248,850 3235 150 425 Occupancy - 1982 Remaining development for occupancy in 1982 101,1.50 1315 60 170 TOTAL SITE 350,000 4550 210 595 The amount of traffic to be generated by the completion of the remaining develop- ment in the peak hour is also shown in Table 1 of the attached traffic .report. The portion of the site which was occupied in June, 1979, was not included in that analysis as it was an existing land use and included in existing traffic volume data. No attempt has been made to adjust for construction traffic to and from the site which is included in existing traffic volume data but would not exist upon completion of the site. 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 -2- G to those intersections where traffic generated from the project iccr,ases the J traffic for .any leg of the intersection during the peak two and one-half hour period by' 2% or more. Table 2 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 Newport Center area and further examination is included for any intersection for which the project would increase traffic by 2% or more during the two and one-half hour period. The site is generally bounded by East Coast I:ighway, Newport Center Drive, Farallon Drive and future Avocado. Newport Center Drive and Farallon Drive have already been fully improved and constructed by the owner in conjunction with the development of Phase I of Corporate Plaza and other surrounding development. East Coast Highway is an existing arterial adjacent to the southern boundary of the site. The owner has already dedicated to the City of Newport Beach right-of- way sufficient for the construction of the full ultimate roadway improvements of East Coast Highway. In conjunction with the development of Phase I of Corporate Plaza, the owner has provided for interim roadway improvements and parkway landscaping sufficient to provide for current needs, and portions of these improvements also compatible with ultimate roadway needs. In addition, the owner has also bonded with the City to construct the ultimate roadway improve= ments on East Coast Highway adjacent to the site when necessary and feasible. The full ultimate improvement of East Coast Highway is currently a funded Federal-Aid-Urban (FAU) roadway project, and will construct roadway improvements from MacArthur Boulevard to Bayside Drive. The construction of the full ultimate improvements adjacent to the site is presently anticipated to occur in conjunction . -3- with the FAD project, with the related improvement costs serving as a local share portion of that project. e The alignment of future Avocado Avenue is adjacent to the easterly boundary of the site. In conjunction with the development of Phase I of Corporate Plaza, the owner has already dedicated to the City of Newport Beach, right-of-way sufficient for the construction of the full ultimate roadway improvements of Avocado Avenue. The owner has also bonded with the City to construct a half width portion of Avocado Avenue adjacent to the site. 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 complete of needed improvements consistent with the level of traffic generation and a reasonable proportion of the cost of these improvements. As previously identified, the land owner has already constructed ultimate roadway improvements adjacent to the site on Newport Center Drive and Farallon Drive. In conjunction with the development of Phase I, the owner has also constructed interim improvements on East Coast Highway. Contiguous roadway improvement costs associated with the construction of Phase I of the project totalled $56,000 in 1977 costs. Due to these and other previous -4- • • r contributions by the landowner to the completion of the roadway system, no deficiencies on the existing circulation system adjacent to the site have been identified. The landowner has also bonded for future improvements on East Coast Highway and Avocado Avenue. In 1977, the construction costs for the improvements on East Coast Highway was estimated to be $26,000, and the construction costs for the improvements on Avocado Avenue was estimated to be $154,000. Due to continuing increases in the unit price costs for construction projects, construction of these roadway improvement projects today or in the future when they are identified as needed and feasible, are anticipated to substantially exceed the estimated 1977 costs. Table 4 identifies a summary of circulation system improvements included in future period ICU calculations. An additional $2,000 in roadway improvement costs have been identified, in addition to the need for the other improvements required as a part of approved projects or planned as government projects. 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 intersections in the least congested direction. The proposed land use plan reflects a reduction in traffic generated from the site over the zoning plan as initially approved. The proposed land use plan reflects a reduction of 22.2% in land use and includes a voluntary planning reduction from General Plan Amendment 78-2 and an additional reduction in land use due to General Plan Amendment 79-1, completed in December, 1979. . _5- Upon ultimate construction of the surrounding circulation system, access to the site will be- taken from all adjacent arterials. Site access will consist of two driveways from Farallon Drive, and single driveways from Newport Center Drive, Avocado and East Coast Highway. Conceptually, the site is designed to provide any individual site within Corporate Plaza, the ability to directly access any adjacent arterial. This ability, inherent within the site plan, reduces the addition of traffic volumes into "forced" movements at adjacent intersections, and provides vehicles the opportunity to travel the most efficient path of ingress and egress to adjacent arterials. Given the opportunity, drivers will typically select routes with the least congestion or impact to adjacent roadways. Item 7 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. In the attached traffic study, two intersections have been identified as exceed— ing ICU values of .90 in 1983, with or without the completion of the project. These intersections are Bristol Street North and Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road. At the intersection of Bristol Street North and Jamboree Road, the attached traffic study has identified that an additional improvement is feasible. Although the project related improvement does not reduce the ICU for the inter— section below .90, it does improve the operation of the intersection to below what it would operate at if no project related improvements were considered. An ICU value of .90 is not, however, the sole evaluation criteria as other inter- -6— sections have exceeded .90 in the approval of other traffic phasing plans. A reasonable correlation between projected traffic and capacity will exist at the time .of project completion at this intersection. At the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road, the need for an additional roadway improvement has been identified. It is feasible to reduce the ICU for the intersection below .90 by implementing the City's circula- tion element. As an Eli' is currently being prepared by the City to evaluate this intersection, no improvements related to this project has been recommended at this time. Item 8 Mitigation proposed needs to indicate degree of performance in order to meet the test. The land use reductions made in the October, 1979, GP amendments and incorporated into this Phasing Plan reflect a permanent reduction in land use intensity and traffic generation from this site. The roadway improvements identified are considered as permanent facility improve- ments although additional modifications such as re-striping, construction to ultimate (where appropriate) and signal operations modifications, may also occur in the future. -7- Uleo PVgPz aid A55n•sat o _ TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING • �Lrd`jLI�EIS? March 20, 1980 r 1980 d, 14. 1IU roftijW Mr. Ron Jonas The Irvine Company Y4i 550 Newport Center Drive Newport (leach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. Jonas: In response to your request, we have analyzed Lhe Mac Arthur/San Joaquin hills Road intersection with San Miguel Drive extended to San Joaquin Hills Road for the Corporate Plaza project. This letter summarizes our findings. The first step in this analysis was to reassil;n traffic from existing develop- ments within Newport Ccntcr. Our NewpurC Ccnlcr ;!_raffle Study,SL ( 1y74) ,_-and -- Newlwrl Center Y.rpfflc udy, I'h artr wr 1I . ( 1976) , rr ( h+• b.u:l:: I,.r ( hf:o wutic. Th t ,•vl ;oil volumes at +• 1ndlcaLod on Lho + uclu r+l IntotnrrLiou Gap•u f ( y Utilization Analysis Sheet. CommlLLed project voliuuas were also modi,l'iCtl Lo rL•I lecL 'Lite chanl',+•d road nysLcut. An ICU analysis was then completed for the Mac Arthur Boulevard/S.in Joaquin Hills Road intersection. For Lhis analysis, 1983 was utilized which represenLs conditions dne year after completion of Corpora Lc Plaza. •rhe calculation is shown on the attached ICU analysis sheet and indicates an ICU value of 0.8138. This value wets obtalned wlLh tw uuxllIit-aLfoil to Lht• rxl:.( ful, It)lt•r:tCclio❑ guu- metrics or signal oporaLfou. the 'Traffic I'haaing Aualy:<.Is for Lhis projoCL indicated an ICU value of 0.9350 for 'the inl.ersecLion in 1983 wiLh no improve- ments. In summary, Lite analysis has indicated LhnL an uceeptablu ICU value (0.8138) could be achieved al. Lite Mac Arthur Boulevard/Sao Joaquin (tills Road inf.crsucf.ion in 1983 with Lite extension of San Miguel Drive Lo San Ju,tgttin hills Road. 2651 EAST CFIAPMAN AVENUE • SUIIE 110 FULLERTON. CALIFORNIA 92631 (71.1) 871.2931 ' T r We trust that this addJLlonol vi::ly::l:: wlll bo nl: OSSi.;tnnri• to yuu. 11 You have any quest.luns ur require addlLlunal lnlurmaliun, please CUiLaCL me. Respectfully submitted, WW/EESSTfTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES Weston S.. Pringle, P.E. WSP:cd #01G0 ' INTERSEC&N CAPACITY 11f111/AIION MALYtt Intrr,rl lion M,nAr•lnur IllvllX11111 ,'natplir, 111II', Rood I I II W till rr/',l r nlll r ( LinlJ Irallil. Vulnl,u• , It,r.l••, un Aw•tn•n• ILIIIY I I Rbv . II, .1111..., .I V , Ipll�.� 1� p I• • ,'•Iln�, I'lllrl'l l'.11• I', III .. �. 11,�.p.I /Ly0�� lln.. I� 0, ,.9 I.uu ,I• ...1 I'J',., b,lro . L. ..1.� YJ p f 1900 /o/v -44H Nlt I f,(Jq -O'4 t1t UO... SL 3200 _ 282 -0881 — — ,T 3200 //99 —_-- — ...._ S 3 2P 4-+1 .-z".r.Z4* EL 3200 S// . 07) ET 4800 zgy 4" 79 7.3 ER � — dL 1600 v "4' 9594 0�2 WT 4800 7 * 7-1 WR 1000* i Q./DOD " YELLOWTIME + + E%I STING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION �{64 EXISTING PLUS C0{•9'IITTEO PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOStO INPROVEMEHTS I .C.tI. C :I•'�a PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAI. f,NOWTIi PLUS PROJECT I .0 U. (] Projected plus proj(!LI. I•I',rffic 1 .C.t1• will b,, Ir"." Ih,rll nr r.qu,tl In ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be greater ttlan 0.90 • Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. with systems improvement wil e less than or equal to 0.90 •I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .:" - - - - . 7 . l ' Description of ,ysLvIll improvement: /LL✓ ��UA� • ,t'9N ��/6a._cL r"Xr�=�v0'Ev ro s�Jr✓ ✓c�A?�/n/ // . 1: I IIAII ' I uRla I I �iJ,�Ir ;• , ali "' F' A eo ?tdq& d AoaaeWa -- _. a+ TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING t March 3, 1980 Mr. Paul Thakur Commercial/Industrial Division 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. Thakur: Our analysis of the traffic requirements of the development of Corporate Plaza with respect to circulation improvement phasing is summarized in this letter. The study was conducted to evaluate the circulation needs is response to the Newport Beach City Council Resolution Number 9472 requiring an improvement phasing plan for :his project. The study is based upon current phasing for the project and previous studies in the Newport Center area. In addition, current (1979) traffic volume data, regional traffic l;rowth factors and committed project data were provided by the City of Newport Beach. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project is located within Newport Center and is bounded by Coast Highway, Newport Center Drive,Farallon Drive and future Avocado Avenue. Vehicular access will be provided to all boundary streets. As of June, 1979, 265,000 square feet of office use remained for the completion of this project. Of this total, 163,850 square feet would be considered 30 percent and 101,150 square feet would be the remaining. Phase I is planned for completion in 1981 and Phase II is planned for 1982. TRIP GENERATION ' Estimates have been made of PM peak hour and the 2.5 peak period traffic to be generated by this project. Generation rates and estimated volumes for the project for each time period are listed in Table 1. These' generation rates have been uL.Llized In previous studies in NcwporL Center. 2651-'EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE • SUITE 110 • FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92631 (714) 871-2931 Table L TRIP GENERA'l'TON TIME PERIOD RATES VOLUME'S _ IN 0_U11' PIIASK 1 PHASE I -- '� IN OUT IN OUT 2.5 }lour Peak 1.2 3.4 ' 200 560 120 340 PM Peak }tour 0.6 1.7 100 280 60 170 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT A geographic distribution of traffic generated by this project was developed in the "Newport Center Traffic Study - Phase II" prepared by Crommelin - Pringle and Associates, Inc. in 1976. Since this distribution was based upon the ulLimate planned road system, it was modified to reflect current conditions. Figure 1 illustrates the distribution that has been utilized in this study. The distri- bution represents outbound traffic from the site. Inbound traffic would be the same percentages in the opposite direction. By applying the distribution per- centages to tha trip P,cneraLLon data to Tablc 1 , estiniaLcs can be made of Lralfic volumes from the project- at various locations. 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 identified for the analysis under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance for this area plus the North Bristol and Birch intersection were examined. For this examination, the "1% Traffic Volume Analysis" forms from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance were utilized. Appendix A contains the data for the individual intersections and the results are summarized in Table 2. The basis for comparison included exi,4LLng Lraffic, regional growth and approved project traffic. For this study, the following projects were included as committed: Aeronutronic Ford Koll Center Newport (Under Const. + 30%) Backbay Office Civic Plaza Orchard Office Pacific Mutual Plaza Corporate. Plaza (30%) North Ford I� FIGURE I • 10°/b > 10% m DR. a ST. � r o U _p J pe 10% 30%DRIST02- Q) CZ)ST No. BRISTOL sr. epN1j4 CYN. RD. r J y � r U LJ RD FOR D 25 35% 5PN JOQQNIN tu W y�<<S RD. 5% 2 ° COAS PACIFIC y� r 10% DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES • . -3- Newport Place National Education Sea Island Baywood Apartments Bayside Square Seaview Lutheran Plaza Bank of Newport 3701 Birch Office Campus/Mac Arthur (30% and 100%) Since the Campus/Mac Arthur project is currently being considered by the City, it required special consideration. For the critical intersection test, only Phase I (30 percent) of the Campus/Mac Arthur project was included as this represents a worst case condition. Since Phase I (30 percent) of Corporate Plaza could be developed without a Phasing Plan, this was considered as committed and the remain- ing development traffic utilized as project traffic. The criteria established by the City Council indicated that any intersection where the project traffic during the 2.5 hour peak exceeds two percent of existing plus regional growth plus approved project traffic must be analyzed in detail. Review of Table 2 indicates that seven of the 17 UiterseeLluns cxceod Lho maxhnwn Lwu percent on at leapt one, approach and must be considered critical. ANALYSIS The seven intersections identified in the previous section were further analyzed to determine •potential impacts. Utilizing "Intorsectlou Capacity ULIII;.atlou Analysis" forms from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance procedure, ICU values were determined including traffic increases due to regional growth and previously approved projects. For these analyses, the Campus/Mac Arthur project was assumed at full development to represent a worst case condition. The ICU analysis 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 this report. The individual analysis sheets are contained in Appendix B and summarized in Table 3. Review of Table 3 indicates that two intersections are projected to have ICU values greater than 0.90 in 1983. These are Bristol Street North and Jamboree Road and Mac Arthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road. The other locations would all have ICU values below the 0.90 level. Since City C01I11CH RosuluLtnn Number 9677. allows '10 pt'ceonL of dovt•lupm •nL wlLhuuL Improvement phasing, the seven intersections were also analyzed at 30 percent of • • -4- Table 2 CRITICAL INTERSECTION IDENTIFICATION CORPORATE PLAZA LOCATION 1983 - 2.5 HOUR PERCENTAGES NB SB EB 14B Bristol St. N. & Campus Dr. - - - 1.1 Bristol St. N. & Birch St. - - - 1.4 Bristol St. N. & Jamboree Rd. 1.1. 0.3 - 3.6 Bristol St. & Campus Dr. - - 0.9 - Bristol St. & Jamboree Rd. 1.2 0.4 1.0 - Jamboree Rd. & Mac Arthur Blvd. 1.6 0.5 1.2 0.5 Jamboree Rd. & Eastbluff Dr - Ford Rd. - 1:2 0.8 - - Jamboree Rd & San Joaquin Hills Rd. 2.2 0.6 - - Jamboree Rd & Santa Barbara Dr. - 0.9 - 3.1 Coast Highway & Jamboree Rd. - - 0.7 1.9 Mac Arthur Blvd. & Ford Rd. 2.7 0.8 - - Mac Arthur Blvd. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. 6.0 1.0 - 0.4 Coast Highway & Mac Arthur Blvd. - 1 .9 4.3 0. 3 Coast Highway & Dover Dr. - - 0.8 1.2 Coast Highway & Bayside - - 0.6 1.8 Coast Highway & Newport Center Dr. - - 0.7 3.4 Coast Highway & Marguerite - - 0.8 0.3 Table 3 ICU SUMMARY INTERSECTION EXISTING EXISTING(1) EXISTING(l) EXISTING(l) EXISTING(2) EXISTING(3) + + + + + REGIONAL REGIONAL REGIONAL REGIONAL REGIONAL REGIONAL + + . + + + + COMMITTED COMMITTED COMMITTED COMMITTED COMMITTED COMMITTED + + + + + 1982 30%PROJECT 30%PROJECT PROJECT PROJECT 1982 1983 1983 1983 _ Bristol St. N. & Jamboree Rd. 0.8781 0.8477 0.8686 0.9471 0.9340 0.9338 Jamboree Rd. & San Joaquin Hills 0.7375 _ 0.6716 0.6797 0.6962 0.7009 Rd. Jamboree Rd. & Santa Barbara Dr. 0.5745 0.6239 0.6356 0.6486 0.6549 Mac Arthur Blvd. & Ford Rd. 1.1631 0.7642 0.7851 0.8219 0.8281 Mac Arthur Blvd, & San Joaquin 0.7664 0.8679 0.8991 0.9163 0.9350 0.9350 Hills Rd Optional 0.8745 0.8745 Coast Highway & Mac Arthur Blvd. 0.7100 0.7722 0.7816 0.8247 0.8294 Coast Highway & Newport Center 0.7584 0.7794 0.8028 0.8027 0.8163 • Drive (1) No Project related improvements are considered in calculations. (2) Project related improvements are included and 100 percent of Campus/Mac Arthur project. i (3) Project related improvements are included and 30 percent of Campus/Mac Arthur project. •� t Lq i • • -ti- the remaining development. These data are included in Appendix C and also summar- ized in Table 3. No project related improvements are considered in these analyses. For these conditions, nll Intersections would have (CU values 'losx than 0.90. As was stated previously, the preceeding 1983 analyses were completed utilizing. full development of the Campus/Mac Arthur proJucL. The five intersections with ICU values less than 0.90 would also have acceptable ICU values with only 30 perctent of Campus/Mac Arthur. For the two intersections with ICU values greater than 0.90, analyses were completed with Campus/Mac Arthur at 30 percent. These are contained in Appendix D. The results are also indicated in Table 3. This condition has a negligible effect upon the two intersections with Bristol Street North/Jamboree Road reduced by 0.0002 and Mac Arthur Boulevard/San Joaquin Hills Road not changed. The two intersections with ICU values exceeding 0.90 are discussed in the following paragraphs: Bristol Street North and Jamboree Road. The projected 1983 ICU value for this intersection without this project is 0. 9471. With the recommended project improvement, this ICU value is reduced to 0.9340. While this value is greater than 0.90, the project related improvement does result in a reduction of the ICU value. On this basis the project would not "make worse" traffic operations at this intersection. Mac Arthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road. In 1983, the projected ICU for this intersection is 0.9350 with no modification to the intersection. The addition of a through lane, both northbound and southbound, would reduce the ICU value to a 0.8745. This improvement is shown as an option as the ultimate configuration of this intersection has not been resolved at this time. An EIR is currently being prepared by the City to evaluate the Mac Arthur/Avocado couplet and this intersection. The optional improvement is recommended only if it would be compatible with the. findings of the EIR analysis. In either case, the ultimate intersection configuration would result in an acceptable ICU value. -7 , CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENT NEEDS The ICU analyses for the project have included circulation system improvements. Some of these are required as apart of previously approved projects. In addition, some improvements are recommended as a part of this project. The improvements are summarized in Table 4 and illustrated in Figures 2 through 6. Tn accordance with City Policy, only 70 percent of the increased capacity due to project related improvements has been utilized in the analyses. SUMMARY THe potential traffic impacts of the proposed Corporate Plaza project• have been analysed at 30 percent of development and at full development. At the 30 percent level, all intersections would have ICU values less than 0.90. In 1983, at full development, two intersections would have ICU values in exceed of 0. 90. Recommended improvements at- Bristol Street North and Jamboree Road would reduce the ICU value but not below the 0.90 level. An optional improvement has been recommended for the Mac Arthur Boulevard/San Joaquin Hills Roao intersection which would result In an ICU value below 0.90. This improvement- is recommended only if it is compatible with ultimate intersect ton plans. It can be concluded thaL Lite projecL and related improvements would not make worse any intersection and would improve two critical intersections. We trust that this analysis will be of assistance to you and the City of Newport Beach. If you have any questions, please contact us. Respectfully submitted, WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES Weston S. Pringle, P.E. cc: Ron Jonas WSP:cd #0160 Table 4 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS Corporate Plaza INTERSECTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMPNTS Bristol. Street North/ Convert northbound Lhrough lane to north- Jamboree Road bound left turn lane. Required by pre- vioudly approved project. Add westbound through lane. See Figure 2. Estimated Cost: $2,000 Jamboree Road/San Add northbound through lane. Convert Joaquin Hills •Road westbound through lane to optional through or left-. Required by previously approved project. See Figure 3. Jamboree Road/SanLn Add northbound Ihrough I:ino, routhbouul Barbara DrIvu left Lure lane and wesLbound Lino. Rcqutrvd by Previously approved projecL. See Figure 4. Mac Arthur Boulevard/ Add northbound, southbound, and eastbound Ford Road left turn lanes. Convert northbound right turn lane to optional through or right. Add eastbound and westbound through lanes. Existing and required by previously approved project. See figure 5. Mac Arthur Boulevard/ Recommended improvement dependent upon San Joaquin Hills Road - results of current EIR study. Optional improvement of additional through north- bound and southbound lanes. Estimated cost: $5,000 Sue Figure G. ' � j � I I BRISTOL STREET NORTH r } ADD THROUGH LANE _.� CONVERT THROUGH LANE TO LEFT TURN LANE w I a NOT TO SCALE I , I I I BI: [S'I'OI. S'I•Itl•;I?'I' l 1 _ f ( ► f ' Y RECOMMENDED LANE CONFIGURATION INTERSECTION OF JAMBOREE ROAD/BRISTOL STREET NORTH WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE 2 Q I it � I a � I ��� • m ( I • I d I I I . SAN JOAQUIN f I I HILLS ROAD I `� CONVERT THROUGH LANE TO OPTIONAL THROUGH OR LEFT ADD THROUGH LANE RECOMMENDED LANE CONFIGURATION AT INTERSECTION OF JAMBOREE- ROAD a SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE 3 ADD LEFT TURN LANE ADD RIGHT TURN LANE SANTA BARBARA DRIVE a l t tV, ADD THROUGH LANE w Of NOT TO SCALE m a RECOMMENDED LANE CONFIGURATION AT INTERSECTION OF JAMBOREE ROAD / SANTA BARBARA DRIVE WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE 4 r • I J I i I I f WIDEN TO PROVIDE 3 LANE TO 2 LANE TRANSITION / I I LANE ADD EFT TURN I I I NOT TO SCALE ADD RIGHT TURN I I LANE FORA 71 fl � NVERT RIGHT TURN R NE TO THROUGH ADD LEFT TURN LANE US RIGHT D LEFT TURN Wa a RECOMMENDED LANE CONFIGURATION AY INTERSECTION OF MACARTHUR BOULEVARD / FORD ROAD WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE 5 J I I LAN UGH LANE NOT TO\SCALE J UIN �tu HILLS ROAD r p tA � i ADD THROUGH LANE s a RECOMMENDED LANE CONFIGURATION AT INTERSECTION OF MAC ARTHUR BOULEVARD/SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD FIGURE 6 APPENDIX A 2.5 HOUR INTERSECTION ANALYSIS 5 Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Bristol Street NorLJl/Campus. Dr•ive (Cxisting Traffic Volumes based- on Average Winter/Spring 1'1/9 ) Approacn -- ••'.•Existing._•' ' -Peak 21e Hour Approved i Projected - �,Y:of Projected ! Project I Peak 26 Hour Peak 211 Hour Prak 25 Hour lor,•�tion Peak 2S Hour Regional ProjectsHour Volume Volume Volume Volume Growth IHP,Ehoound 1597 Suuuiuunnd 3286 /61 /68 _ _3&15, --.--- .-- •--- n�oand6012 we. We © Project Traffic is estimated to be less than ZX% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume C] Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than IT. of Projected Peak 21# Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. _. . . _ � .._. ..: . DAL ; I'F'UJI.(.I . IOIth, 1 y'.• Iraffic. Volume Analysis Intersection 1r..ildd Street_North/lfireh. Str•eet (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Sprinq 1413 ) yy111�oo0� IAppruach -- �—Existing .- I Peak 21, Hour Approved i Peakaur Peak 2 ectelofProjected � PeaitCt 2S Hour Nrectlon Peak 2S Hour ! Regional Protects 1, Hour Volume' Growth Peak 2t, flour Volume Volume Volume Volumu Yolume iRorthuound 733 - -. _. _---- �Z 1235_ ZS_-- ----•-- 'southhound 1972 112� 369 ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than d% of Projected Peak 24 Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 215 Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. --DAM --- --- - - PRUJCCT: FORM I 1'Y Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection ,.aristol._5treet.Nor thL.lautboree, Road (Cxistinq lraffic V01u1,105 haWd on Averaoe Wintor/Spring 101 `� ,APProach '•I ,Caistinq Peak 24 Hour Approved I Projected I xT of Projected PR)Jelt tlkrection Peak 2S Hour ` pegtonai I Projects I Peak 2S Hour Peak 2y hour i Peak :5 Hout Volume growth Peak 2b Hour I, Volume ; Volume i Volume Volume Volume _—_----.--_ ;Northbound orthhouno 5477 — — (Soutebuuna / 3SB 38/3 o•3 3445 976 A/0 1746 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than /u of Projected Peak 21z Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than A% of Projected Peak 215 Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I .C.II. ) Analysis is required. DAM; PROJECT : FORM i T III . Z70 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Bristol Street/Campus Drive (Existing Tr•dffiC Volumes based on 1lveraye Winterj5priny 19fi ) . 1 Existing i Peak 2h Hour Approved Projected Zyf. of Projected I- Project (Approach n9 Regional Projects Peak 26 Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2t; Hour p t•t'ita Peak 2, Hour 9 peak 2y Hour Volume Volume I Volume , Volume Growth Volume - 1587 9(� 312 19'43_ 39 14orthuound .... .;-._ . _.. .. —___... bnutnoound 3548 I— /7C�_ JAY) 3_86z 41 1.596 I Mel Wound i _ — — --- - •'__-� 1 z Project Traffic is estimated to be less than if% of Projected Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume C] Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 21y Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. VAIL: PROJECT : r M FORM I z : Traffic volume Analysis Intersection Bristol Street/Jamboree Road (Existing Traffic Volumes hased 'oi Average Winter'/Spring 19!`1) App.udO, 'y L+nt inq I•cek Y'; flour — APP'n�"d I PeakProjt2alloor I Peakd A '2S flour 1Ilol 1'eaku:, flour to n.linn Peak 7`. Ilom Regional Projects Volume brow[h ' Peak 2t, Hour Volume I Volume 1 Volume r Yalu qt 185- northbound 5178 3Sz �soutnhuuna 2391 7- ----- -- -•- ----........ .- _ -•---•---- - - iEunround _.� 2987 _—_-- 39/B —_-- _—_• • I I Z M Project Traffic is estimated to be less than /1% of Projected Peak 23, Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection capacity Utilization (I.c.U. ) Analysis is required. PROJECT:— FORM I • s 2 Al. Irait'it. Vulcline Analy'is Ili ters,ection Jajuboreo lilvd./MatArthur Blvd. ( 1 ) (EJcisting Traffic Volumes IASN oil average Winterjtipring 11)/ )) Gppruach •' Existing --• ' Peak 21,t Hour Ii Approved 1 PrnJected I It of Projected ^roJect r,our Lr rrL o. Peak 2, dour Regional _ 1 Projects Peak 2, Hour Peak 2, Hour Peak Volume Growth Peak 2S Hour Volume Volume Yolume Yolume Volume 1943 :Nor thoound , 1_ S6� 38�9 74,9 ;routddmund 3306 i �.._.—•-- --- ....- _ .__ _ __ -- —•_-- _- � S p• b it attonund - -2826 ' 'wetir,.ound •--. . .-3502 T .Z ' Z ® Project Traffic is estimated to be Tess than X' of Projected Peak 2l, Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 215 Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I .C.U. ) Analysis is required. (1 ) MacArthur Blvd. is North/South _ . , _.._. _._ . . . ONL; PkOJECI : 1'0144 i :47 ^. (rallit: Vultnir' Ana IV .i Intor ',ocI.itlri Jruubot-ov Road/'aanlu Rarh.11-a Ilrivo (GxisLiniJ Irali' it Vnlutnes ba ,td oil Average Wiutrr/`.apruul ---eoJR f Projected ' Pro;e,t Approach ' Existing Peak 2S hour Approved peaKP"ll cted pti torertinn peak 2b Han, Nngaonal Pro sects Peak 7S Hnur' Mono 2S Hour Yolu :S Itnm' ' Vpl umc Velum: Volume -,r uwih Pnnk Pa Ilnur � Ynlumr � . V urnc - Volu V i .- r y _ Z�ay y8 ''rortnbound 2152 Isoutnboune 2834 th --;— — - — -- �-- - --— - - — - i Eastbound I'Nestbound � 1548 _ Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1'% of Projected Peak 2Li Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater thati �% of Projected Peak 21k Hour Traffic Volumen. - Intersection capacity Utilization (I .C.U. ) Analysis is required.. PROJECI : FORM I a y; "If% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection__-,lamhoreffA [-Sian loarin llil-1s,Road (existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/SPr1119 1979). 1 Existing Peak 2S Hour AVproveA 1 Projected I li of Protected I Protect approach - Peak 2S {our Peak 2S Hour Pent 21, Hour Hlroc;ton Peak 2, Hour Regional I PeaAo2k, Hour I Volume Volume 1 Yol un,e i Volume frowth . ..—.... . i Volume 320 3938 79 Northbound � 3608 ISouthhound 1 4112 �Z— y7B _._ — — — ---•---'i jEastoaund�_ ! V3 — r SestHound Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume 2 Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than A of Projected Peak 211, Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. PROJECT: - FORM I 'J1 , 2 �I:• Traffic: Ulu me Analy,,is luterr,ecl.illn Jamborvo Road/[:a',L61uff Dr. - lord Road (LxisLIIIU It'dffIC Volum" 1)0%it' on Avcrucµ WinLor/',1lrinq I'1/f ) pin ua..h ' Czi;Gtnq =' ' Peak 2'; uour I ..APProvuE ! Projected, 1 1: of Projected Project Iu Peak 2S nour Regional Projects Peak 2b hour I Peak 2k hour ' P.•ak ?S nnur m",-Jon Peak 2S Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume l,rowlh - -.•_•- volumu, - ' ; /zzY ' 678/ - ' /3•� ! �°•�__. �ate/ nornmound ,5551 i-- _�6 •_--- ---- - •-- - - ' ----.._. _.. �11V isouthbouna— 3010_ . (Eastbound _ _t Q]5_. desnuuod 899 _� __- _=--_-_•—_-�=_-7- Project Traffic is estimated to be less than /!% of Projected Peak 2), Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 21, Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity lltilizat•ion (I .C.U. ) Anal•ysi% is required. UA1L: PROJECT: - -- FORM I Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Hwy./Jamboree Road (Cxistiny Traffic Volumes based orl-Average Winter/tiprll Approach Existing ct Peak 2, Hour' Approved I Projected I Peak it urt�d Peak ?u Hour plea line Peak 2S flour Regional � Projects volume Growth I Peak 2S Hour volume I Volume Volume 1411 ! SZ /y63 Z9 2817 _per - �9d 36Z/ 7Z 15outhbound ' .-- — -- 't'astbnund 3937 3�� y3/z.. .__8 7 ___ 3D. p• 7°� — 1 4230 /07 /9�-- 41, S3 9/ BS� /. %b Westlonvid Project Traffic is estimated to be less than of Projected Peak 2�1 Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1'% of Projected Peak 21z Hour Traffic Volumen. intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. 11RUJIcl : f'UI rS 1 t Traffic Vnlume Analysis Intor' et t,jclrl MacArthur Blvd./I nrd Road (Existing Traffic Volumes-- olumes biased on Average' 'Wintttr•/Spring t of Projected Project Approeui -•I Fxistuiy.••- Peak 2', Hour AVprovnd Projected ' Peak 2S hour Peak 25 Now' ' Yeak 7; Nour Hf n:ctlun Peak a Hour RegiGrowth ProjPeekccts 2, nour Volume Volume i Volume , Volume Crowth Volume Volume --- -!Northbound . . ,• 3720 .26 •---•- _ 7OL __.�yyB- ---��-•(�--•- �__/20 Z 7 b I • - I Z7 Pew yBS� 97 7 Isoutnoound 3865 — -- —, 71 iEastbound _ 1 1508 7Z 3a /3Z/ ZEl � Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 21; Hour Traffic Volume ?— Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than X1 of Projected Peak 213 Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. PROJECT: FORM 1 I� Y, fraffic Volumc Analysis Intersection MACArogr_lilyd./Srin Joaquin Hills Road (I.xist.ing Traffic Volumes based rin Avalalo Wiitwr•/Sitinq 1'1/ 9) ^— Peak 2S Hour Approved- i 1'roJnctea I �L of Projected ! ProJe�t ;APP oach Existing I Peak 2S Hour Peak 2S Hour r'eat :S Hour Ihn rt mn Peak 2S Hour Regional �Pro)ects volume Volume Volume Growth I Peak 2S Hour I volume volume volume 1775 ;Nor lldwund 3442 ISuutnbuund -----��7 3190 �� �' r iEas Wound � 71 wesu,ound ! 1180_J �✓� _�___ _�--a Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2y- Hour Traffic Volume ?- rvi Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than ,3� of Projected Peak 21y Hour Traffic Volumen. intersection Capacity Utilization Ana1,Y%i', is requlrod. J _._ ...VAI`. PROJECT: Form I fl ". Iraf'flc Volumo Ailaly•J!; Intersection Coast: Iiwy./MacArthur Blvd. (t•Ristinq Traffic. Volumes bdsad on Averdgo Winl.er/SIn my IjP1 } IVP•uach ' Existing -— Peak 2', Hour I ApprovN •--- I Pr jec ted % n! ProJecteu Pro,7e�t Hrrnet trm Peak 2b Hour Regional Projects 1 Peak 2S Hour Peak 2rs Hour Peak .S Nn„r Volume Growth Peak 21, Hour I Volume Volume Volume Volume —Volume____— 'horthouund r 50 V, �louthhuund 1995 IEastbound 3431 �6Z Ne',tbound L 2609 _�_91 Z a 13 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 21i Hour Traffic Volume ® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than37Z of Projected Peak 21i Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Andlysis is required. -JAI L;. PkUJECT: FOkM i zY' Iraffic Volume Analysis Intersection GnasLllwyjDover.Ur. .-;Bilys.hore.Dr. (L•xisting Traffic VoluMes bawd on Averagt• WinEer/Sprin(1 lull)) ,ppprunth .• '—Extstiny Peak 21, four lY Approved ' —1 peake2Sel our Proof Prlinurted P,,)W,t leer p:r.•, tl an Peak 2S it peg zonal Pro�rcta Volume Lrowth Peak 2S flour Volume I Yol urtx• Vaiume hortriWund 181 s..wuwand 2379 i ZZ Z`/O/ ___.. �Z — — ---- _ _ B — — IEastbound` 3695 /�/ 39/3 _ 7S _ r3o _ �•gO/ b 6003 *es wound Project Traffic is estimated to be less than of Projected Peak 2�2 Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2J, Hour Traffic Volumen. intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. UAIL: PROJECT:M FORM 1 i . z �i '• lraIFfic Voluble Ana IYtiiti I Lor',et,l.itlll Coast tlwy./8aysido (I.Ai"Otlq Iral l it. Voluliios ha .otl ilri-Avorago Winl.rr /Sllriny I'I/'I) . •.; i - Peak 2's Hour Approved. Projected I N of Projected project ,Appnmch Existing Peak 2S Hour Peak 2S Hour I Peal 2S Hour Hlrrr.tion Peak 26 Hour ' tle9lo^al —�PeakProje2S5Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume browth 1887 •horlhtwund Z i /t3 3 5nulnhuund 161 - -- _ - ' • Flo _ 2_ 6 6 ' !Eawinund OR 3817 — I —�, —'----- --7SB eentlwund ------- 2 M Project Traffic is estimated to be less than ft of Projected Peak 21, Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 21, Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I .C.U. ) Analysis is required. PkUJk_r.T : NMI 1 V".t Irrrl'1it. VuluHit, AiialY•, i•. Inter'.a�.tiull Coast Iiwy./Newpor•1 Contor Ih ivo (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Averayr Winter/5{tr my l )rl ) �lphnmJr - - ' Exi SL inq----- _' Peal 2b Hour I Approved i peake2Sed. I Yeuof2Projected Prour oject eci Lour hrnr tlnn Peak 24 Haur Regional I I'roJCCts Volume Growth Pedk 2S Hour Volume Volume I volume Volume Volume .__. _. ____- . _ _ ____ . + T ,Horthbouna �;outhbound 2847 7(//0 i[atthounA ---.i_ 3863.•_.__ _9�_ --- 016 Acb Umund 1 2287_—. i— 3-6____- Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected El Peak 21, Hour Traffic Volume _ Z Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than X% of Projected Peak 215 Flour Traffic Volume". Intersection Cripacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Andlysis is required. _____.__... .. . ...__ .. UA I L PROJEI.I : I'ORM I x'h 4Y.. Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection coat. yy-i rguerite_;_ (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1ct79) •Approach ' Existing f Peak 2b Hour. Approveq Projected In of Projected .Protect �pn•ecl ton - Peak 26 Hour ! Regional Projects I Peak 2S flour Peak Volume [lour i Peak 2S Hour Volume Growth Peak 2S Hour I Volume ` Volume,_Volume _. -- - i- — i y77 /o 477 i tsoutnhound 707 . ...._ . -' 3791 .. /33 3So �127y BS' 3� 0,8 JEAstoound !uewund I 97 /QB su 307� 6l d� �6 t_woun _.1---_2775 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 'X, of Projected Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project; Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U, ) Analysis is required. MIL: PRU.IECl . _ I'OR14 1 APPENDIX B INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSES EXISTING + REGIONAL + COMMITTED + PROJECT (1983) Inters or, Bristol Street North/jamborrr Road — ( fxit.r.ing Traffic; Volull!!5 8•Ises -.n Average Daily Traffic*nter/Sprin9 1979,) . Ix .1 RU k)Nni „tlMMl,lIU V/C l' Wa. ; "01 +R..a. r St IN.. YRJrrn 1.),RV. V/t GR11WI , 'RJ,ll l W/o Ih•u' yt Yol,,n¢ v,t uat" ••• .a. Ld,., tdVUS V..1. Ratio Wluun vuhw. Vulumv NL 32 0 3 f!Bc» 1518 .474• 0.y63/� 7.5 y�R3" NT ...1800 L 700 — lOh't 2219 NR ST ARnn 1061 .221 ; D•ZfI6 y 5 D•Zd° SR 1600 543 . 3394 311Z5� L L --ET ER WL 2 / WT 4800 y)s9� 386 1).0827* S O•/Z�/�/ Z� D.mv WR 9 YELLOWTIME 30^,x I p./ooc it' rov _ 1 EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION g .8781 EXISTING PLUS CO:01ITTED FLU'; REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEME14TS I.C.U. S�7 ?IST:NO PLUS COMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWIII PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. ❑ Projected plus project traffic I . -,.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.9,.' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 Description of system improvement: lz) /1�✓/1.a�/��u�� Iy/rovf'ry /�� �f�� DATE: PROJECT FORM I ; INTERSEC&N CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSI� Intersection_-_ , xi"rea Road/San. Juaquill tLi-I1&iW--.. ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average OkIily lrafFic Winter/Spring 1979) I'Itll.11l II b I RI'.1 1X111i 141.10.4. IIIr4MI:Il i1 yA Ilel lu 1'u•1 .. ' I•I'i111• l : .I II0. 1'lllll'U1111 , 1•I.IIIf V/1 ('1101411 191U II. f w .1 I'nl ua I VI.I Mor....1 I.wos L.IV IAtw% Cnp• Vnl, 11,0 Iu V"k Velum' Vnhnor NL 1600 165 .1031 N7 3200 Z31tlgeo 1101 .3441* NR 1600 180 .1125 Z i °.izBB SL 3200 569 .1778* Rio D. o Z9 b•ZozB ST 3200 1034 .3231 / 3767-SR 1600 203 .1269 d.l Z6 9 °•rz EL 1600 99 .0619 D•d6/9 �` b O6/ } ET 3200 72 .0225* D-°Zzf D.ozzf ER 1600 37 .0231 WL 1600 (3 Y&o 149 .0931* 50 Y ofto WT 3200 65 .0203 WR 1600 / .S 891 .5569 XELLOWTIME 1000* p.l000 'p.i000 EXISTING INTERSECTION CAP CITY UTILIZATION .7375 EXISTING PLUS COMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0.7ca iY1 L2 PIUS CO,%AITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - )Description of system improvement: 1 /Z l l � lOilG!°rT Lc�Fl �nf �I /Ro 7� O�>/Onc�V"rrof�J Ov e-VJ DAM - _.. . .... ... . . .. IORM II PROJCrT . INTERSECTON CAPACITY U7ILILATION ANALYSI`P Intersection _ . Jamboree Road/Sant,+ 8arbal,, rive . _.. ( Existing Traffic Volunu:S Bas(-. on Avl'raav Ilaily lraffic Winter/Spring 1979) runJLL n o LsISTING PROPOSED E%ISL, LxISI. HLGIONnI WO it .7 b VIC Ratio rNi,Ji• • PHOJis' Mn+e mnt Lams LaP• Lanes Lap., PK.HR. V/C GROMTII PHOJIiT W/o Project Vol"". 4'- Vnl, Hatw Yolunu• Vuhini'' 'Volume NL NT 3200 �I ee 721 .2253* f �59 _ O/62Y O•/6Z3� NR 1600 136 .0850 e./y3 SL 1600 178 .1113* a. D9 ST 3200 999 3122 /o 0.3yy elfY SR .-. EL ET ER — WL 2400 331 .1379* Z/B Y D•7 oZ WR 2400 407 .1696 3 y0 1 YELLOWT[ME '1000 i O•/ODa� � � D./OOo'r EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UIILILATIONN EXISTING PLUS M,"MTTEO PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I .C.U. tXISTING PLUS CaKM1TTE0 PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 'Dry ® Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Description of system improvement: [ME: PROJECT IORM 11 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATIONIANALYSIS Interss on MacArthur Blvd./ford Rd. • /L,Ik ( •[xt•,ting Traffic Vu1um1••. Hn'.1••• tin Avl•rallo UdIIY Irallit lJullrr/`111run) rIm 111 it it 1%1'•• 1%111, RIWIhl; IIWI:I I111 1'rI IIaUo {'hI,' •ct.11l Murr r,t "%••I M. I•RUI'U•d It Ih„Itlt V/1 1{I(IIHI., IROA,I N,p IhvimI Va1J111 ✓Ines Lail. Lunen tap. YaI Rat In Vulum Yullnnr Vnlumr NL 1600 2 ,3 a 48 .0300 >' 7vZu NT 3200 y 1504 .4831 NR 42 __ _--•_ SL 1600 z731a o 409 .2556* 35' 0 , 0, 59,q ST 3200 1276 .3988 y ///Z 20 SR 1600 104 .0650 o.v9; EL 1600 339 .2119* ZIP //ZZ. ET 1600 3zmo 269 .1681 ER 1600 90 .0563 WL 1600 43 .0269 Z p.ozB/ l7.oz�/ WT 1600 z)3zeo 180 .1125* / O.o �66 a•vJ66 WR 1600 303 .1894 /Z 0,/96 9 G./96y 1 YELLOWTIME 1000* ; G,i000 i I p.idov EXISTING INTERSECTION CAP., CITY UTILIZATION 11 . 1631 EXISTING PLUS CO,%IITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. i iYIST:NG PLUS CO� IITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. D. Z Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - �Description of system improvement: C7i/ revd''410,4C /�/EJ 110� --'J/'h1'T e;�2/ �,�� /��d FGJ/flOanp' Lin O tUP/T�Cv.�l�" •7n'mvf�J �o�teJ loJ DA I I 111MIII CI 10101 11 INTERSEINON CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALY51' Intersection MacArthur Blvd,/San 011atluin Tlill� Road (X/ ( Existing Traffic Volwlus lSase', on Avora'3L' Uaily lrai'I'il Winter/Spring 19/9) 1'R0,1101 i. FXISI EXIST RLGIONAI WIMMII If I. V/C Ratio 1.6�idt,• ,KWLLI LAI STING PROPOSLU, 1'G.HR V/I' GROWip PRO 11�1 Hp, P,OIV.I Vulu^^ M9rrna'°t lam-5 Cap. lane• (al'• Ynl. P.M., Vulune Vulm"' Vul unu• Nl. 1 ti00 2t!t 11!i3I " NT 3200 4%) 1531 NR 1600 12B .0800 SL 1600 282 .0881 z 0,2L69 ST 3200 919 .2872* 3 Z Zv G 33LL SR 387 N.S. d.Z902�` EL 3200 811 .2534* 290 ET 4800 499O,/ / ER Z3 WL 1600 95 .0594 / D.066Z 62 D7 WT 4800 165 .0727* Z/ WR 184 YELLOWTIME 1000* iO/ate � O,i�o EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 7664 1 EXISTING PLUS CO>:11TTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 93JO tXI;TING PLUS Cot-"1ITTED PLU5 REGIONAI. GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C,U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 Description of system improvement: DA]1 _,.. ._. _ . IORM ll PROR C7 INTERSIWN (AI'ACIIY III'i117ATION ANAIYb1. por/orysJL /ri>/�'oE�Jc"l1T I ratty ••rt ( lull Mat Art hln R I L•11 i'"nl .41•nlu ul II I I I , Itu.ul ( ( Lx1111.uu) Iral Ht vululq,•'. 8•r"c" Mi Avrl arp• 14111y II •II I It Winter !',pr nnl I'r "0 I Al'.1 IYr'.r Illlrl,r'•rt tIrDU•:;,'li 1'%I V.11 r.• II• • Mr,�r•ntrd ' WAIM PROMISLI) 19 JOr V/t OI1owI I'1111J1. 1 wo1'nnryl V. , r• •" • In'., (nl' laur•. Ial'. Yul Val IP Yw I...v. .. Lr.0 Y•Jwnr NI 1600 135 0531 ev _•- 006po - 49D 1531 NT i900 / 7 �- -- ----- --- - �.. .._... ..� Nit 0800 SL 3200 282 .0881 g 9. 0. 2269 ST 3200 919 .2872* ' 3 Z8/ O. 3/�� ?�^ 6• �E3/ SR N.S. 3t17_ 53 Pk EL 3200 811 .2534" ET 4800 499 .1379 O• D•i�i ER Z A 1600 95 .0594 // /J Q6 /C 0.072� WT 4800 165 .0727* Z/ C0!/ ' • DB WR 184 ZS YELLOWTIMF 1000A t.%ISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UIILILAIION .7664 I ' D•D//3 LXlST1NG Pt US C0.M11TTE0 PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED 1NPROYLMF'NTS I .C.U. Icl`;T!VQ PtIIS COhYc4ITTED PLUS RFf,IONAI GROWTH MILS PROJICT I.C.U. ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be le-,% Ihan or' equal to 0.110 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. with systems improvement will by less than or equal to 0.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Description of system improvement: DAII I urrl I I I'I�rlrJl f.l INTERSECjjQN CAPACITY UTILIZATION 4NALYSI Intersection Toast Ilwy./Mar.Arthur Blvd. ( Existing Traffic: Voluw0s Bases on Average Daily traffic Winter/Spring 1919 ) rl;n,n 1 n o I XI'•I I%1'rl. It{hI11NN r11MMll llp y/r ILll rrr I'Itu h, ' :W'1 ' Murr:nd 1'!U INb I'NO1' (.% I'I.Ills V/1 IrINlWllr V,,I.... l wrn Ih rUr•II Vi...r •1rlr l duv, 1,.1p• IA01"• I.IN' Vul. IGlln Vlrtulpp VU lunu NL NT NR -- _ NL38� SL 3200 701 * Z O.Z98 ST — SR 1600 179 .1119 EL 1600 223 .1394 / O o. ZZod D o.Zby �t ET 3200 1251 •3909* 6 9 ER — - WL — WT 119Z WR — YELLOWTIME 1000* ILL/�co* i 0•i^oo LXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION7100 LXISTING PLUS CO?EMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROKMENTS I.C.U. Z Z Ix14T:NC PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.J. ® Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be •IeSS than or equal LO 030 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Descript ion of system improvement: DATE : IORM II PUOr1LLI INTLRSL('*0N CAPACII'Y U[ ILI/AIION ANAM,1k, Intersection._ �t._tiwY.-LNrsvuDxs .Ccuter G['ivL. ( Existing Traffic Volumes (vases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 19/9 rxn.0 r n Ixr,l zr,l nonxlni nlnwnnll y/, x.11 IT 1, L.,;•,• .I I:,L I'lllll'11411' I'l.Ilit V/1 6x11N111 1'ItUJll1 w/ lyylvil Vni • "It ' Lim's CAP. LdIIUS Lail. Vul. 1611 io Vulu; Vu lum'• V. Imnr NL - NT Nk - -- --- SL 360 .1125* ST _ --- SR N.S. 741 EL 1600 485 .3031* 0.303� D.3ejo ET 3200 1107 .3459 ER WL — — WT 3200 777 .2428* 9,3 ,27�0 �1S b.Z89 WR / NI,J YELLOWTIME 1000* gip,/opp 0,2vv EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILI7.ATION 7�iE14 I EXISTING PLUS CG:aITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PIIOPOSFU INPROVCMINTS I.C_ll. IWI`ITING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS RLGIONAL GROWTH PLIIS IIROJICT I.C.U. [� Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Description of system improvement: DATL : I URM 1 I PROJfI:T C c l APPENDIX C INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSES EXISTING + REGIONAL + COMMITTED + 30 PERCENT PROJECT (1982) lnterstt•on I:ristol SLre(JL North/Jdmborllr Road - - ,,,,If fit Isli.l•>r•. '.n Avrrintr Daily lydl I i< nlrr•/'rprinq 11t/9) dl Ll Jtell .IIMM:1 111 yyl H.•. oi'1 . R . I AI. LIlIIHI.1 i 1i11.1111 Ih u' •.1 Ya Lnnr ./• •Ill. ..,:Ih, Yv.:. •.1 I•r.Ill: Y/l VoI ... (,n,•. lanC•. ..gl. y, i, It to Volunu. :alum° Volmic til _ 3'L00 3.yBoa _ 1518 _ /la 67,ya/o� 45 p,4/2 NL aaoo CZ)3?vo l06" •221`3 i73 0_ 7�_ 3o G.3966 - ip - - - N ---- - _ - -- -- SF- 1061 .221 -� /35- oZy91 SR 1600 543 . 3394 S p, �(Z G•3�Z)` 1 t • - LL ET ER - - - — - wt. 2 WT 4800 386 ' .032 7* 3 66 - wR 9 1 YELLOWTIME .130" i O,le"po, �•��� r I ' EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 87tJ1 I NTS I.C.U. ' ED INPRUVEFiE D LXISTING PLUS C0;�IITTED PLU'i REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOS —� , rr 'N� PLUS CGITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT _I.C.U. Projected plus project traffic 1 . :.U. wi11 ba less thdn or equal to 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.9'' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. with systems improvement will be less`than or-equal-to 0.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Description of system improvement: o%/�(A9J / `/ [)AT t PRoJtr.r ' II ___ INTERSE100N CAPACITY I111LILATION ANALYS16 Intersection--.._Jaillbor..ec.Etoasl/San ,lnasluin-Hi1liBd---- ( Existing Traffic: VOluIIICs Base, on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 197.9) 1'11IM t.nl' 1u'rl• . IXI'•1 IXI'.I Ill blllh;t I11MMI:IIb VI( I1.1 lu 1'I• °' • 114., I'Intl'll`•1: Idp1111. IVu.O' 1 n I'nnr.l Vni . "I eu oe••. LII• I•uu••. I,nl' Yu1 Ildl lu Vulu Vole"" luiunir I6!) 1031 NI —1600 NT 3200 (3 y OU 1101 _3441* 15-- NN 1600 180 .1126 SL 3200 569 .1778* 80 Zo Z o•ZO 09 ST 3200 1034 .3231 / 90 / 2S SR 203 .1269 Vo,eoP 1600 EL 1600 99 .0619 72 0225* fET 3200 ER 1600 37 .0231 WL 1600 ( /ffloo149 .0931* WT 3200 65 .0203 WR 1600 N.S. 891 .5569 M 5. 1 .1000* ip,/000E :p./aav YELLOWTIME EXTS7ING IN7ERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .7375 I EXISTING PLUS COMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED -CVEMENTS f.C.U. 67 1 ', i%1STINC PLUS COt'{'fITTEO PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLIIS PROJECTT I .C.U. ® Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 J ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 Description of system improvement: �z� [®i1aPr� /✓F19�ov.rd /ii'o�f �n F 7� o�/'ldna�9��%� DATI 1'IiOJI r:I . I - INTERSECON CAPACITY UTILIZATION 4NALY�)I Intersection.___• Ja_mbor.(,,r Road/5ant<T Barbara Drive__,__ I/' ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Trarric Winter/Spring 1979) PROJECIED fXl:.l. L%itil. ItLG1UM1M �UMH rII(;t V/C Ratio PRO t• ' FR0j'u 7.11- 1. OMING PkUPOSED PY.HR V/(. f,ROHAI (•RU•�It l w/o Prox'cl Vol.,ru :/: R,rt to t.nm•, Up. tanr� Cap. Vol, Rat i„ Vnhmo WIon1P Vn l nnm NL _ NT 3200 3 so 721 .2253* NR 1600 136 .0850 SL 1600 (z7 3zov 178 .1113* /6 / ST 3200 999 .3122 S v N iv,33.09 SR 7d EL — ET _ ER - — WL 2400 331 .1379* Z/g WT 0 WR 2400 407 .16 66 Z 7S .1000* ' YELLOWTIME �Q./mops O Bomb 5 45 1 l EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY Ui1LIZATION P 1 LXISTING PLUS C0;4NITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. Z 63fG i XICI M, PLUS COMITTED PLUS RFGIONAI GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I .C.IJ.. pl us 1us project traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 [�J J ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 J❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' Description of system improvement: Cz) 9�✓ro /�lr� �iA /GdP lm/, �f) 9�/✓it�Jf'OVTd l DATE : I URM 1 I I'HUJLC I INTERSEWN CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSA' w Intersection _ MlicArthur_Blvd J1-0r}t Existing Traffic Volul,'Pti fuses on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1919) PRo.11 i'L! I xl'.' LX 1M �tL,iur,•. u!MMt I!!!' V/! lo!ul !''• ' • .'I em 'r( M. 1111UPW1, 19' 114 VIC GIt04'!. FRo.1h I H.0 1'.t. t . ❑o". Lar• IOne-. Up. Vol HaIm V,0 unp V.4 o'^' �.,lonir oi NI IbUU (_Z)3zoo _4P; o. O_ NiJ 3200 (3 yeb° 1504 4831 0 36 Z /OD PIP. 42 SL 1600 2)3W 409 .2556* ST 3200 1276 .3988 3 25 ygo 3S SR 1600 104 .0650 0 5o 06to EL 1600 z')3Loa 339 .2119* ET 1600 tic 269 .168144,O /JO ER 1600 90 .0563 A&' a o 6 m 1600 43 .0269 Z.. D-oz l •o1600 2)3zo 180 .1125*1600 303 .1894 /Z YELLOWTIME 1000* I O./OvO� /ood c I 0. EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY U11LIZA11ON 1 . 1631 EXISTING PLUS COPl4ITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPRONEMENTS I.C.U. 1Y15T:Ni PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal t.o U.clO ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Description of system improvement: ', �•%� ��R' E7N/7%wn C'� `� aC'll�G.r���o�f� �iy�J l0� DAII 1 ORI4 11 11,n,li r I II INTERS*ON CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSJ6 Intersection.,_MacAr_thur_Blvd./San.Joaguin_Hills Road , ( Existing Traffic volulaes Base-. on Average Daily lr•affic Winter/Spring 1979) ruall n t u I%1'�I. lilblp;rd UIMMi iIIU Vfl 12dtr11Mi v6 PIIUI'USLII VI,IINV/t 6NOWL• 1•Nll.11l l Nor I....W. V..{rnr'r.lap I•mr. Inl'• l'nl V"I.... VrJmnr V..h"Eib U631 . _ _ ao6ob 0 — 490 . 1131 Z y�, c�./��3�` IOC) 0./97r�O^ __ _ IZI3 0HIM � 0.0,90 282 .0881 42t'L269'4 a7,269 0 919 .2872*387 3 EL 3200 811 .2534* /B �•29b3''� b.2yo3� ET 4800 499 .1379 ER 16323 WL 1600 95 .0594 06 5 U.G663 VYELLOWTIME 4800 165 .0727* Z d O O 184 3t/ 1000*NTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .7664IUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPRPLUS C0.'��11TTED PLUS REGIONAI GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I .C.U. _— Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal Lo 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 Description of system improvement: DATI IORM II PItUlJLC1 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION;ANALYSIS II1ttit"Ai011 Coast Ilwy,/MavArthlrr Blvd.• - . . . Wilting lraf'fii. Volulm•', Ha'.P'. on Avr`ralµ: Ually Iralfit Wu1Ler/'Iprul,i In/'S ) • rrn.0 l I I n I EI'.I IXV,I H[LI11hhI IUCVIi IIIU VA Rat", 19h1'I �RU.d': 1 "lill;h. 1'HVI'1/`.I it Iq qR V/I f.HflWlu PRll.11,l w'a l`,u P"+ V^I "' .r• ^•J+ IM..a Irma•. InP lane. /al.. Vd Nat IP Valun" V..I mm• NIL NT NR * SL 3200 701 3 •Z)7' ST _ SR 1600 179 .1119 7 �0 223 . ZO i ' I S 1394 ZZS EL 1600 66 ET 3200 1251 .3909* U 30 �!Z ER WL - WT i WR i I YELLOWTIME 1000* 1 1 ' EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION EXISTING PLUS rn`AITTM PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. IXIST'.NG PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. • Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. with systems improvement will be less-than or-equal_to 0.90- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ Description of system improvement: DATI : I (MM I I PROM U INTERSEWN CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSI16 Intersection.__Cnatt --- ( Existing Traffic Volullu's Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 19/9 w;udn'nI' wl, Lxi'.I L%ISI. RLGI UaAt WlVII 11It' VA nano I'P�' ' ' .1lnf PROPOSLt' VI.IIP V/f. GROWTH PRO,ltrI wlo PrnU'it V...... u: =aU•. ..•• laor., GaP. Lauri Law• Vnl. ILII to Volta' Vohn"" Ynlu��u• NT - — — Nit �— _ — SL 360 .1125* 33 # ST _ SR N.S. 741 ' 485 .3031* o 0.305 EL 1600 25 ET 3200 1107 .3459 O ER — — - WL — WT 3200 777 .2428* Z3 010�171 WRN,S 1661 t YELLOWTIME .1000* p,/Hob p.ioov EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .7584 I I EXISTING PLUS Ca�I1TTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. OZ IYIST'.NG PLUS CO:VITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.L10 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 Description of system improvement: I'(1RM 11 I'POJIT.i p • Y APPENDIX D INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSES EXISTING + REGIONAL + COMMITTED + PROJECT (1983) Inters Ior, 8l•istol Street North/Jamborer Road ( I.xi,,rAng Traffic Volul' fS.lsc , `:n Average Daily TraffiWnter/Spring 1979) ruu.n I n: Ial•. ul`,I xuaurlal .annl,ul' vI n.,. , ;Iba, s •Ru,al. 1111u Vwb' „ It,-1Y VA GROW ,•ilU,II, I will lh•u•..., Volunp ..: Crt,.. ' ,. •. Lob. •`ma, •q,. y„l, Ru Uo Volume Vulume Volume i10�,_ +74 N I 4800 2 ��b. 10GI, _. Sv s-- --- 1061 .221;— ~� 164 SR 1600 543 . 3394 . 3yZS� LL ET - - ER - _ WL 2 WT 4800 (�"Zo 386 _ '.Od27* S l5 - D 0./oSk7 WR 9 YELLOWTIME . 1)0 EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILI7.ATION .8781 l LXISTING PLUS COMIITTED PLUi RED GIONAL GROWTrI d/PROPOSkD INPROVEMLNIS I .C.U. D 9 , Y1I; 'VG PLUS COx.MITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.f..U. ❑ Projected plus project traffic ; . ;.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be greater than '0.9: Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 ! Description of system improvement: d WOvy' /'PP 7,11 h'eA11MW d /11Y`44 (�J�4Gf�i7� /lD� Ouil ce) 'All MTV' : ___..._. -. . . . ._.. _.. ._ FORM I : PROJECT II� INTERSE•ON CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSJO + ' Intersection MacArthur Illvd,/San Joaquin Hills R.odd ( Lxisting Traffic Volulno, liasc', on Avolagt' Daily lral'I'ic Winter/Spwinq 1'.119) PRaR Nil. n Ft xlca, t%IST. RLGIONAI LOW;11111 V/C Ratio I'h.,it'I PROZLtI c :Sl lhS PROPOSED GROWIII PRU,q II PK.IIR V/C .10 Ihroiect V'A"Al. NC Rat u N Ca, Lane, CAP. Vol IlAw Vtrlunu Valo10i•--------------- 1600 85 .0531 490 .1531 3 943?00 NI( 1600 - 118 ~OtIUU� C> x SL 3200 282 .0881 81 O. 2ZO ST 3200 919 .2872* 3 236 SR N.S. 387 S3 903 k 811 .2534* EL 3200 ET 4800 499 .1379 41 ER 163Z3 WL 1600 95 .0594 10 WIT 1 4800 165 .0727* 2/ 0.08P�1 WR 184 3S — * 1 p,/voD YELLOWTIME 1000 i EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .7664 t t%iSTING PLUS C0:�94ITTED PLUS kCGIONAi. GfiOWTti W/PROPOSFp INPROYFMENTS I .C.U. _—I %IS1:4G PLUS CONNITTED PLUS RF'GIONAI GROWTH PINS PRO11M I .C.0 9 �C. �- ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be le:>s then or- equal to 0.110 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 (�— Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 Description of system improvement: DATI IURM I hNI71)Lf I W1 , i - Weofa.�c P► *fe aid A666 afa D at «. p --- — --- - ^^ TRAFFIC 8 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 0 March 3, 1980 8 PQNN,��O �� FILE cepr OBP NG s L MAR2 98p�, I Do'Nor REL10VC Mr. Paul Thakur N�WpoRr©F Commercial/Industrial Division of OAC/�fiAOH, e' 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. Thakur: Our analysis of the traffic requirements of the development of Corporate Plaza with respect to circulation improvement phasing is summarized in this letter. The study was conducted to evaluate the circulation needs is response to the Newport Beach City Council Resolution Number 9472 requiring an improvement phasing plan for this project. The study is based upon current phasing for the project and previous studies in the Newport Center area. in addi.tion, Current (1979) Lralllc volume data, regional traffic growth factors and committed project data were provided by the City of Newport Beach. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project is located within Newport Center and is bounded by Coast Highway, Newport Center Drive,Farallon Drive and future Avocado Avenue. Vehicular access will be provided to all boundary streets. As of June, 1979, 265,000 square feet of office use remained for the completion of this project. Of this total, 163,850 square feet would be considered 30 percent and 101,150 square feet would be the remaining. Phase I is planned for completion 1.n 1981 and Phase II is planned for 1982. TRIP GENERATION ' Estimates have been made of PM peak hour and the 2.5 peak period traffic to be generated by this project. Generation rates and estimated voLumcs for the project for each time period are listed in Table 1. These generation rates have been utilized in previous studies in NewporL Center. 265T"EA"ST CHAPMAN AVENUE • SUITE 110 • FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92631 • (714) 871-2931 III Table I , Till GRNPIRATION TIME PERIOD RATES _VOLUMES_ _ IN OUT PIIASP: I PHASE 11 - - --- - IN Ull'I' IN OUf 2.5 Hour Peak 1.2 3.4 200 560 120 340 PM Peak Hour 0.6 1.7 100 280 60 170 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT A geographic distribution of traffic generated by this project was developed in the "Newport Center Traffic Study - Phase II" prepared by Crommelin - Pringle and Associates, Inc. in 1976. Since this distribution was based upon the ultimate planned road system, it was modified to reflect current conditions. Figure 1 illustrates the distribution that has been utilized in this study. The distri- bution represents outbound traffic from the site. Inbound traffic would be the same percentages In the opposttc dirorl: lon. 1Sy applying the distrlhnPi.on per- centages to Lhe Lrip genuraLl.un data in Table I , esLbIwLes can be made of traffic volumes from the project at various locations. 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 identified for the analysis under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance for this area plus the North Bristol and Birch intersection were examined. For this examination, the "1% Traffic Volume Analysis" forms from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance were utilized. Appendix A contains the data for the individual intersections and the results are summarized in Table 2. The basis for comparison included existing traffic, regional growth and approved project traffic. For this study, the following projects were included as committed: Aeronutronic Ford Koll Center Newport- (Under Const. + 30%) Backbay Office Civic Plaza Orchard Office PaciIIv Mul till l Pi:v.a CurporaLc Plaza (30'Z) Nurlh Kurd FIGURE I 10% > 10% J m DR. i ST. U r pQ' 10% 30%BRISTOL mST NO BRISTOL sr. Q BONIrA CYN, RD. p �k 7 J = o~c ti� a v, v w RD FOR D 25 35% SPN QU//V W y�<48 RD. m 5% a 25 /° COAS 1 P4c1F is r 10% DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES • -3- Newport Place National Education Sea Island Baywood Apartments ' Bayside Square Seaview Lutheran Plaza Bank of Newpor.L 370.1 BLrrh Offiev Campus/Mnc Arthur (307. and IOO .) Since the Campus/Mac Arthur project Is currently bcing considered by Lhe Clty, LL required special consideration. For the critical intersection test, only Phase I (30 percent) of the Campus/Mac Arthur project was included as this represents a, worst case condition. Since Phase I (30 percent) of Corporate Plaza could be developed without a Phasing Plan, this was considered as committed and the remain- ing development traffic utilized as project traffic. The criteria established by the City Council indicated that any intersection where the project traffic during the 2.5 hour peak exceeds two percent of -existing plus regional growth plus approved project .traffi•c must be analyzed in detail. Review of Table 2 indicates that seven of the 17 intersections exceed the maximum two percent on at least one approach and must be considered critical. ANALYSIS The seven intersections identified in the previous section were further analyzed to•determine potential impacts. Utilizing "Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis" fors from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance procedure, ICU values were determined including traffic increases due to regional growth and previously approved projects. For these analyses, the Campus/Mac Arthur project was assumed at full development to represent a worst case condition. The ICU analysis 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 this report. The individual analysis sheets are contained in Appendix B and summarized in Table 3. Review of Table 3 indicates that two intersections are projected to have ICU values greater than 0.90 in 1983. These are Bristol. Strect North and Jamboree Road and Mac Arthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Bills Road. The other locations would all have ICU values below Llw 0. 90 level . Since City Council Resolution Number 9472 allows 30 percent of developnent without improvement phasing, the seven intersections were also anaLyzed aL 30 percent of -4- t - Table 2 CRITICAL INTERSECTION IDENTIFICATION CORPORATE PLAZA LOCATION 1983 - 2.5 HOUR PERCENTAGES NB SB EB WB Bristol St. N. & Campus Dr. 1.1 Bristol St. N. & Birch St. - - - 1.4 Bristol St. N. & Jamboree Rd. 1.1 0.3 - 3.6 Bristol St. & Campus Dr. - - 0. 9 - Bristol St. & Jamboree Rd. 1.2 0.4 1.0 - Jamboree Rd. & Mac Arthur Blvd. 1.6 0.5 1.2 0.5 Jamboree Rd. & Eastbluff Dr - Ford Rd. 1.2 0.8 - - Jamboree Rd & San Joaquin Hills Rd. 2.2 0.6 - - Jamboree Rd & Santa Barbara Dr. - 0.9 - 3.1 Coast Highway & Jamboree Rd. - - 0.7 1.9 Mac Arthur Blvd. & Ford Rd. 2. 7 0.8 - - Mac Arthur Blvd. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. 6.0 1.0 - 0.4 Coast Highway & Mac Arthur Blvd. - 1 .9 4.3 0.3 Coast Highway & Dover Dr. - - 0.8 1.2 Coast Highway & Bayside - - 0.6 1.8 Coast Highway & Newport Center Dr. - - 0.7 3.4 Coast Highway & Marguerite - - 0.8 0.3 Table 3 t ICU SUMMARY INTERSECTION EXISTING EXISTING(1) EXISTING(1) EXISTING(1) EXISTING(2) EXISTING(3) REGIONAL REGIONAL REGIONAL REGIONAL REGIONAL REGIONAL COMMITTED COMMITTED COMITTED' COMMITTED COMMITTED COMMITTED 1982 30%PROJECT 30%PROJECT PROJECT PROJECT 1982 1983 1983 1983 Bristol St. N. & Jamboree Rd. 0.8181 0.8477 0.8686 0.9471 0.9340 0.9338 Jamboree Rd. & San Joaquin Hills 0.7375 0.6716 0.6197 0.6962 0.7009 Rd. Jamboree Rd. & Santa Barbara Dr. 0.5745 0.6239 0.6356 0.6486 0.6549 Mac Arthur Blvd. & Ford Rd. 1.1631 0.7642 0.7851 0.8219 0.8281 Mac Arthur Blvd. & San Joaquin 0.7664 0.8679 0.8991 0. 9163 0.9350 0.9350 Hills Rd Optional 0.8745 0.8745 Coast Highway & Mac Arthur Blvd. 0.7100 0.7722 0.7816 0.8247 0.8294 Coast Highway & Newport Center 0.7584 0.7794 0.8028 0.8027 0.8163 Drive (1) No Project related improvements are considered in calculations. (2) Project related improvements are included and 100 percent of Campus/Mac Arthur project. (3) Project related improvements are included and 30 percent of Campus/Mac Arthur project. -6- a the remaining develo•pmcnL. These data are included in Appendix C and also sunmmr- ized In Table 3. No project, related Ingarova•uwnts aro run:aldorod In Ihv:;o analy:;a•". For Lhese rondLLlous, III III LerNU:LIons would have ICU WIIUVS lu::s thou 0.90. As was stated previously, the preceeding 1983 analyses were completed utilizing full development of the Campus/Mac Arthur project. The five intersections with ICU values less than 0.90 would also have acceptable ICU values with only 30 perctent of Campus/Mac Arthur. For the two intersections with ICU values greater than 0.90, analyses were completed with Campus/Mac Arthur at 30 percent. These are contained in Appendix D. The results are also indicated in Table 3. This condition has a negligible effect upon the two intersections with Bristol Street North/Jamboree Road reduced by 0.0002 and Mac Arthur Boulevard/San Joaquin Hills Road not changed. The two intersections with ICU values exceeding 0.90 are discussed in the 'following paragraphs: Bristol Street North and Jamboree Road. The projected 1983 ICU value for this intersection without this project is 0.9471. With the recommended project improvement-, this ICU value is reduced to 0.9340. While this value is greater than 0.90, the project related improvement does result in a reduction of the ICU value. On this basis the project would not "matte worse" traffic operations at this intersection. Mac Arthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road. In 1983, the projected ICU for this intersection is 0. 9350 with no modification to the intersection. The addition of a through lane, both northbound and southbound, would reduce the ICU value to a 0.8745. This improvement is shown as an option as the ultimate configuration of this intersection has not been resolved at this time. An EIR is currently being prepared by the City to evaluate the Mac Arthur/Avocado couplet and this intersection. The optional improvement is recommended only if it would be compatible with the findings of the EIR analysis. In either case, the ultimate intersection configuration would result in an acceptable ICU value. ' • -7- CIRCULAT10N IMPROVLMLNT NEEDS The ICU analyses for the project have included circulation system improvements. Some of these are required as a part 01' prev10u51y approved projocLs. Ln addition, some improvements are recommended as a part of this project. The improvements are summarized in Table 4 and illustrated in Figures 2 through 6. In accordance with City Policy, only 70 percent of the increased capacity die to project related improvements has been utilized in the analyses. SUMMARY THe potential traffic impacts of the proposed Corporate Plaza project have been analysed at 30 percent of development and at full development. At the 30 percent level, all intersections would have ICU values less than 0.90. In 1983, at full development, two intersections would have ICU values in exceed of 0. 90. Recommended improvements at Bristol Street- North and Jamboree Road would reduce the ICU value but not below the 0. 90 level. An optional improvement has been recommended for the Mac Arthur Boulevard/San Joaquin Hills Road intersection which would result in an ICU value below 0.90. This improvement is recommended only if it is compatible with ultimate intersection plans. It can be concluded that the project and related lmprovemenLs would not make worse any intersecLlou and WoUlA improve two critical intersections. We trust that this analysis will be of assistance to you and the City of Newport Beach. If you have any questions, please contact us. Respectfully submitted, WESSTON PRINGLE ANDASSOCIATES ell- Weston S. Pringle, P.E. cc: Ron Jonas WSP: d c #0160 Table 4 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED IMPROVDIENTS Corporate Plaza INTERSECTION SYSTEM LMPROVENENTS Bristol Street North/ Convert norLllbound through lane to north- Jamboree Road bound left turn lane. Required by pre- viously approved project. Add westbound through lane. See Figure 2. Estimated Cost: $2,000 Jamboree Road/San Add northbound through lane. Convert Joaquin Hills Road westbound through lane to optional through or left. Required by previously approved projecL. See Figure 3. Jamboree Road/Santa Add northbound through lane, southbound Barbara Drive left turn lane and westbound lane. Required by previously approved project. See Figure 4. Mac Arthur Boulevard/ Add northbound„ southbound, and eastbound Ford Road left turn lanes. Convert northbound right turn lane to optional through or right. Add eastbound and westbound through lanes. Existing and required by previously approved project. See Figure 5. Mac Arthur Boulevard/ Recommended improvement dependent upon San Joaquin •Hills Road results of current EIR study. Optional improvement of additional through north- bound zinc[ southbound lanes. EstLmalud eusL: $5,000 tioo Flp,arc• b. l l I gltTS'I'UL STREET NORTH 11 f T X � i r-• 7' ► 1 t t ADD THROUGH LANE LN N �p ► I _ CONVERT TIIROUGII LANE TO LEFT TURN LANE w a NOT TO SCALE m I ( I Illt IS'I'(nl S'I'I:IfI:'I' 1 I I I I r RECOMMENDED LANE CONFIGURATION INTERSECTION OF JAMBOREE ROAD/BRISTOL STREET NORTH WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE 2 O I , W O I ► I a II SAN JOAQUIN I I HILLS ROAD `� t CONVERT THROUGH 1/ LANE TO OPTIONAL THROUGH OR LEFT ADD THROUGH LANE RECOMMENDED LANE CONFIGURATION AT INTERSECTION OF JAMBOREE ROAD a SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE 3 t ADD LEFT TURN LANE ADD RIGHT TURN LANE SANTA BARBARA DRIVE o I f f r Q ADD THROUGH LANE w � � O NOT TO SCALE m Q RECOMMENDED LANE CONFIGURATION AT INTERSECTION OF JAMBOREE ROAD / SANTA BARBARA DRIVE WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE 4 • m WIDEN TO PROVIDE .i LANE TO 2 LANE I TRANSITION ADD LEFT TURN I I I NOT TO SCALE LANE ADD RIGHT TURN I I LANE I / FORD. CONVERT RIGHT TURN I ANE TO THROUGH I --PLUS RIGHT ADD LEFT TURN LANE I -ADD LEFT TURN w I W • X /I I � I I Q Q � I I I I RECOMMENDED LANE.CONFIGURATION AT INTERSECTION OF MACARTHUR BOULEVARD / FORD ROAD WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE 5 J ' Cl I ADD THROUGH LANE NOT TO SCALE J 1 l � L SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD ---ADD THROUGH LANE a RECOMMENDED LANE CONFIGURATION AT INTERSECTION OF MAC ARTHUR BOULEVARD/SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD FIGURE 6 APPENDIX A 2. 5 HOUR INTERSECTION ANALYSIS � "Traffic Volume Analysis Ill l.or•'.vt ti nn Bristol Street. North/C�ampu', Dr•i Vh (Cxistiny IYdl f is volumes based coil-Averdyt: Winlor/Stir nul I'l!9 ) ,1•PPruaen ' kxisting Peak 21, Hour Approved Projected }:of YroJected I Pruaect ;.irmtion Peak 2S Hour Regional Projects Peak 2S Hour Peak 24 Hour ! Peak 2S Hour Volume i Growth Peak 26 Hour Volume Volume Volume Vol uinc 1597 78 Z32 i907 !hot thnound ___. buuu,w�„d 3286 !Eastbound _-- •----- ..- --- ------- -- /7J we•.n�nu„d 6012 !sue Z.513C7 _ %/> /ov © Project Traffic is estimated to be less thanzX% of Projected Peak 24 Hour Traffic Volume ❑ ' Project, Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak .212 Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I .C.U. ) Analysis is required. l'lvn.l I : rorlc Z% . Traffic Volume Analysis intersection _.,(3cj5tnl_�iLreLt-L�orLtV.Birch_SLreet (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1929 ) iApproach Existing - 1 Peak 21, Hour Approved Projected - Z ya of Projected Project Pirection Peak 25 Hour Regional Projects Peak 24 Hour Peak 21, Hour Peak 25 Hour' I Volume Growth Peak 2S Hour Volume Volume Volume , I I Volume Volume Borthbound• ,. _ __•733 _ _ ------:— Z_ I 2-35' ;Southbound I 1972 1 Izz a9 62 Ihe-.tbnund I �"�' /:.'6 7ZW /-1/S m Project Traffic is estimated to be less than zA% of Projected Peak 21z Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 21s Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (1 .C.U. ) Analysis is required. VAIL, PROJUT : FORM I It, Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection aric -o1_5treet.RorthL,1ambQMe-Road (Existing Trdf'fiC Volumes based on Average Winter/Sprinq Iq7 9) .•_ •EafttlnH•• • ' -Vrdk'2�� Maur— APyrdvrd Projected I Xt of Pro,ietted Proletl ,AyPruaCh ".'CC. I Pcak 24 Hour I Peak ?5 hour I Peak :5 HOur HlrrCtidn Peak 2b IIouY Peatonal Volume I.rowth Peak 2S hour Volume Vol ume i Volume . .. volumeVolume •Northbound 5477 ; . /S --• .I Cozo --- -7.S1-- ... - _/J�'--.-t-- ••---- 38/3 76 /o o•3 southbound-- —. 3445 — ---- ---- Eaftbound•_—._ 976 - ZS yDD 1 /5/0/ ^1 Z8 .So 3.6� z 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than i1% of Projected Peak 2;j Hour Traffic Volume ® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than/!% of Projected Peak 2-Z Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I .C.U. ) Analysis is required. UAIL; PROJECT : FORM I II Zee I Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Bristol Street/Campus Drive (L'x is ting Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter%Spring jApproach Existing 1 Peak 2S Hour Approved Projected Seaour .Z Peakfl4rHourteO I peakProjeCS Hour o ,.c•ion Peak 2} Hour He71una1 PeakProje2' 5Hour I Volume Volume Volume , Volume Growth Volume ------ I" 1587 — -- 3548 Suu Lhbound'I'ksthnund 3135 79 ^ ' - - - --'-_ ..es Lpound Project Traffic is estimated to be less than /f% of Projected Peak 21s Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 21j Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. _.. . . . ... . . . . . UAIL: PROJECT : - - FORM I 0 z I�,. Irdt l lc VoIume Ana Iy`,1s Inter•secLion Bristol Street/Jamboree Road (Existing Traffic Vol UIW based'on Average Winter/51]rinq 190) peak Z'. Hour APPr Ovid I I`ro lec Ced dt of {'rnJected -- r'rgiekl Projects nppr oath ' Enatog . Peak 2S Hour I peak 2S Ilour Peak 2S Hour brrry tton Peak 2S Hour Regional Volume browth Peak 2S Hour Volume I Volume Volume Volume-._—. . .}._ —_.—_ _. _ ___ __.___—_-_ jhorthbouno 5178 ..._ — . -- -•--._..- ---------'----- -------- --•--•— _ .__ -i- -- --.. 0• �soutntiound 2391 ; _ __-_✓TSz _ _ Z750 _ _ S5� /O . l°6 (Eastbound 2987 Mesumund I -- G ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than ,i% of Projected Peak 2�j Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of- Projected Peak 21-. Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. PROJECT : FORM I I� Z A;.., Iratfic Volume Analysis Intersection Jamboree Blvd./MacArthur Blvd. (1 ) ,Existing Traffic Volumes based on Avorallr 'Winl,cr/Blaring ail/9) hpproach ' txi s t ing peak 21, Hour Approved I Projected I l4 of Projected a Project Mrrtl Ion Peak 2'c Hour Regional Projects I Peak 2S Hour Peak 2S Hour Peak 2S pour Volume Growth Peak 1% Hour Volume Volume I Volume Yolume Volume ` �y 6e'B ZS6f •57/ hortnlwund 1943 i _.._..._. . . . __ ---•--• .�• , ' 3B79 7B zo p. S� Icoulhhound _ 3306_ _ I- 7 •- - -.- .--- ---�.- -"- •- --� it a%Lbound f ._ 2826 Iwesn.uuind•�_1---3502_._ I ZS =_ 3�.e..z 3909 - -_1 zo "L ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than Y of Projected Peak 21i Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I .C.U. ) Analysis is required. ( I ) MacArthur Blvd. is North/SuuLh PROJECT : FORM 1 Irdt11(. VoItano Annlv'. is Intersectioil Jamboreo Road/1.ast[Mlff Dr. - I ord Road (Lxistin(J lr•dific volumes bused un Avel"lue Winter/.taring Nfi ) if •-= _L><L•ting Peak 24 Hour-- Approved I Projected ^ l: of Projected i project pyruauh Hour ❑i,ert inn Peak 2S volume Hour Regional Protects Peak 2S Hour Peak 2S Hour S Volume Lrowth Peak 2S Hour I Volume Volume I Volume. . Volume %/ !hurtnoound ,5551 ,._ .�6 __ ....._ _._ ... _. . .. .. _ -._ .--•— ,,� Isauthhuund_ ; 3010„ I _ �. ....._.}. fS0 3768 7S -_ -- I a Zz __ 1 1 CatlLound L 899 aet tlmund Project Traffic is estimated to be less than /I% of Projected Peak 21i Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 21s Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. UA1L: PROJECT : FORM .1 ly L2rt Traffic Volume Analysis InterSecliull •._lalllb➢rE,E- -RoadZSall Jn acwis lliAIs. Road (Existing Traffic Volumes -rise- on Averdge winter/Spring 1979) 1• 'Approach• ' E+tsling Peak 211 Hour Approved Projected red li of Protected Project ts Peak 25 Hour Peak 2S Hour I Palk 211 Hour :Approach peek a tlour Growth Peak 2. Hour volume Volume Vulume , Volume ' volute 1 ° -- i Volume- ---- --------- - ------ '6 Nortnuound 3f)08 —..— _ .��._—_ __320 _ 039 _ --79 _ 8�_I Z• Z 97- !Southbound --"— Eastbound 473 -- — — tieftbound i ? Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2i; Hour Traffic Volume z Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than k% of Projected Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. PROJECT —� FORM I IrallI(: VoItluu' Ana IV'. i'• Inl.l'r'.oi.Llnn Jaillborov Rand/',anla liar'har,l Ilrivv (Cxistiny Iratfit Voluules based on AVerallo Wint,lv'/SIn•nly i Peak 2'.. Hour•- AUpruv"o -••� Pro-leuted I m of Projected Proitld Approd Ex ISUn4 proPeak 7S Hour Peak 1S Hour Pedk :S Hom• rect ton Peak YS dnm Nnq�nnal PnakP24SHour volume Volume 1'ulun�e Volume 6ruwth t - --Vo - Vnlume _ -.._� lume - - t. _ .-.. I. / !Surtnoound - - - 2152 b _ _ Z b _ ._ _.- - ------�- - —•---• d 9 1Southoound 2834 I 1�00,_ 3Zf�z �� J ✓?p.. ._— ' IC✓fS06und i .__.. _._.—�.___ ------ .Vo 1wpund j 1548 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected El Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume z Project Traffic is estimated to be greater tharl t% of Projected Peak 215 Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.c.U. ) Analysis is required. UAIL: PROJECT : r FORM I 2 � X°. traffic: Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Hwy./Jamboree Road ([Aisting Traffic Volumes' based'on Averagit Will Gar/Slninl till ) Apr,r, aach Existing Peak 2b Hour Approved I Projected I /Pe of Projected Project p,n¢;wu Peak ?y Hour ' Regional Projects Peak 21, Hour Peak 25 Hour Peak 2S haur Volume P,rowth i Peak 2%, Hour Volume Yalu me Vol umie , aim• _ _ _ Yolmne _ F ........ ... _ — ..— __...._.._ 1411 ✓Z AW 3 z9 j 2817 ! B 7�� 36Z/ 7Z , Suuthbuund 1.. _.... __-.-_ iL'astbnw,d 1 3937 30 39_-- 36� y3yz -^87 4230 pe.tl,. d ... _.-----•------ -----� Project. Traffic is estimated to be less than �Y% of Projected Peak 2li Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I .C.U. ) Analysis is required. UAIL; I,1(UJ1.0 I tl f , Vo I tune Ana I y'.i', InLor',ot,l.ioll• MacArthur Blvd./Inrd Road (WksLing Traffic Volumes lased on Average Winl.rr/,ln'ing NO ) I Approach I Eelst fnq Peak 2S hour Approved Ih np'c Led I Zi of Projected 1 Protect Illµ,Uon Peak 21, Hour Regional Protects Peak 2S Hour Peak tS hour ; Peak :S Hour Volume Growth Pedk 2S dour Volume Volume ! Volume • i,• Volume --__� V_01ume_..._._ _... ..._hortnlwunda 1 .3720 26 •_-- 7o z y/�B '9 izo Z b Isouthoound 3865 r6� _ _yB'fb 97 �__...___ •D' 6 - - 7 Z Eastbound _ I 1504 _ I ---. . . .--- -•_ 72___ /S7�--- --•�•z-- --•-- , westl,ound _ 1291 3b /3z/ Z�--�_ Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 21, Hour Traffic Volume 'L Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than X% of Projected Peak 213 Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DAIL; PROJECT: FORM I �•I• IraII it Vultilllr Anil ly-,i,, Intersection MuLrQyUr•L�lyd./San Joaquin hills Road (Lxistlny irdffic MOMS based on Average Winter/Sln my 1'i/ 9) ''49 of Pro •Approach ' Existing Peak 2b Your Approved Pr jecteo Projected Project i ake 5 Hour 01 r.tt mn Peak 2S Hour Regional Projects I Peak 2S hour Peak 2S Hour � Volume Growth Peak 2S Hour Volume Volume Volume _ Volume Vol umc _ _•. _..__— . --._ 1.775 IHo,lntwund ZZS3 r _ . ._.—ll.—__. . _. 3442 . Suu inbound Eastbound 3190 ��7 ✓��57 �� I— .wes U,nund El Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 21i Hour Traffic Volume . Z rvi Project Traffic, is estimated to be greater than �Y/ of Projected Peak 21r Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. UAIL; PI(OJel.l : FORM i t Iraffic Volume Anal•ytiis Intersection Coast ilw.y./MacArthur Blvd. (L isl ln9 iraffit Vulwries based onAvcra9e Winter•/SJn illy I'1A9 nypruach ' Existing Peak 2', Hour Approved 1 k Projected ecte � �a A 2S Hour Volume growth Pea rrojecttd ' Peak ect Hour flirt-,t lon olA 2S Projects 2S Hour - ' Hegtonat I Hour Pea Volume Volume Volume V hurthuound - I lSouthhoun0 Z Z- 6/Z Z�Z9 53 5v 9°a 1995 � —— ' da%tbuund ' 3431 _ .. -. y6Z .—....---- ---•---- ------- i z etthound 2609 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 21, Hour Traffic Volume ® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater thdn 1% of Projected Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I :c.U. ) Analysis is required. PROJECT: FORM i Irall'ic Voluult• Ana ly'. 0, Intersection CaaSLJ.iwy./.Davcr.Dr. - Udyshore Dr. (L•xisLinq Tra-ffic Volumes based on Average -Win(er/Sprinii IQ I ()) Approach Existing --_-- ' PeaA 1'; Hour Approved PeaProk Hour I ZYZ I nA 11Sr11ourteJ i PeA1 k, Boor 'pi,,,r tin„ Peat 2S Hour browtnel ProPeake2SSHour Volume 1 Vo Iume• , Vol unie Volume l-Volume lume Vol um -'- —•—. horintwund 181 1 „ •._... ____ Z _. /B3- 2379 i -ZZ - -- -- 10 3695 /Z /S6 3913._. 7B- _130 O B 4 lEastbound ...._. -----•�_. ' tnnund 6003 ,J 9 7/� 6778 __a /Z^� ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than of Projected Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 21�, Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.c.U. ) Analysis is required. UAIL; likUJECT:. . .--_._--•---- -- --- --- ----- fOkFi 1 7 � �i^• lraffic Volume Analysis uitor ,ectinll Coast HKy./flaysidc - Q Sting Iraffic Vululiies li<i>ed on-Aver•dge WiuW/.,pr'inq 141") ,Approach Existing Peak 2S Hour Approved j Peakectedour I Peakr2SProjected I PeaProk Hour Ilirect ion Peak 2S Hour Heg tonal 1IIr PeakProje2S5Hour Volume Volume i Volume Volume I.rowth I 1887 z6 /9i3 •horthbuund - �-- -- - - _---- --•-•-- z 3 iSnulhboand •161 i Z7s1 Sao/ /off 3p a•6°a Eastbound 49.Zii__. .._y9 --- — - .... ._. ..._-..__ ... ... wes U�uund ' 381 7 3� I. M Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1'X, of Projected Peak 21; Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1'% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Vnlumen. Intersoc.t.ion Capacity utilization (I .C.U. ) Analysis is required. PkUJU,T : FORM 1 2 Traffic Volume Analysis Intcr',ci Liull Coast Hwy./Newport. Center Drive (,Existing Traffic Volumes-based on Average WinLer/Spring N/9) •RPpruakp — ' Lxi i Unl Peal 2', Hour I APVrovod I Projected I F+ of Projekled I PiuJeLt Peak 2S Hour H„q'unul II 1`rolerti I Peak 2S Hnur Peak 7S Hour i Pank 2S Hour Penk 2S Hour j Volume Volume Ydlume , Volume 'irowtn j -Not thouund • � Ynlmne _ ,_ Yulume .. _ .i ._.__. i I / O S I I5autnbound_-_ 2847--__ b _ z9 ' � yo/Z B_O ! �(a lEastnound----� 3863---•_ 7_17___ .'c,wound j 2287 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 21, Hour Traffic Volume 7- Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than AG of Projected Peak 21s Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. UAL; PROJECT: FORM I t Traffic Volume ,AnaIp, Intersection 0a_&t,_HWy_Mar uer.ite— r, 'r" • t,,(fgisting Traffic. Vfi umes based,on veragc.W'mter•/Sprnlg 1n79) ' (4^+;.' ' •' ,.'•jAppruach ��' Existing 1 Peak 2S Hour Approved I Projected ZYY of Projected Project ` y' ,,Oigctlon; 'Peak 2y Hour ' Reg tonal Projects Peak 2S Heur,' Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour` ' -Volume Growth . Peak 2y Hour Volume Volwne I Volume ;b,t ••f'o Volume Volume —.�.._.—_..— ,. 477 Northbound ..:.Isouthbound ' ., •• -'.'• - — __•• ---- ---•-- , fl� "If 3791 2776 97 westbound I .� �' ..ham ,. ..• - , 'f' p( Project Traffic is estimated to be•Iess' than AN of Projected Peak 23- Hour Traffic Volume •�i �,�,Afr�flM,' .i:a'„ .i �. {. •. 1, Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization • . (I.C;U. ) Analysis is required. •� , I ;:;• '. PROJECT: �~ IOItM• I. k tug• , APPENDIX B •' •.{Hsi. - INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSES EXISTING + REGIONAL + COMMITTED + PROJECT (1983) 1w • ' r ' Inters ion• 81'is•tol Street North/Jambo Road :("'i'xiscing Traffic Volumes 8%1sPs f,h Average Daily Traffic inter/Spring 1979) r Y I%t)t• I.Xhl. HI uIUMt .UMMIIIIU 01.1 V/o ar:<: A(1JfiT f'HUJut.S �Yt'_ .nt r•. (.np, lams+�+•'np• I•Y.IIP, V/f. GHUHP+ vPUJIt 1 w/0 Prole( VOlum+• Y/C RLLt4 V„I. RaI to Volumf• VO1Lmp Volume ° 'I:r ,•. NL• 3200 1518 .474- ` NT"`' 4800 2 zoo 1065 .2219 / D•�300 / ` O•�3�17 --y- NR - SL ,9 s� . ;'1 ST AAQn 1061 .221; O•zrw 5` O,Z640 :. "�.'.. SR 1600 543 . 3394 ' p. 3yZS O.3s�lS` :<x LL ET a ;"" ER WL 2 / WT 4800 9)S9zo 386 _ '.0827* WR 9 . ,, YELLOMTIME ' ID-/000 � ; ,: io•/cov� ^ INTERSECTION " EXISTING CAPACITY UTILIZATION 8781 i •1,'s ti * -�' LXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLU'i REGIONAL GROWTH 'W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. iXIST:NO PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. d 3y� '��'��dJl^ •i .�,� "ICI: . .. ,.I , r . ' :>` ❑;.I,';'a'Projected plus project traffic .I...U. _will be less than or equal- to 0-90 Pro ected plus project t'ra,ffic I.C.U. will be greater than O.K. ' '.�: ., ❑ , .`Projected plus project traffic •I.C.U. with .systems improvement will be than, or equal to 0.90 Yj• ! .Description of,system improvement: •• -- 7 /at /4 rlor /oval E rJ �.rc - ;Aoe f lJ Ad[' lP> FORM 11 `„ PROJECT : . INTERSE•ON CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSI• ' '.t)� •,. Intersection--lambilrac. ROad5an_ DA4uin._HillsRd Existing Traffic: Volumes Bases on Averalle Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1979) 1'1111.111 11 It 'qNL­ Idl',I 1a111 III .I❑hat IIIIMII IuII 1% lilt, V/1 1.1o191u I'IUIIII i VhnPIVul, HnI b1 Valam. Vol.uu" VIIIu1600 165 .1031 G /c NT 3200 /3 y ao 1101 .3441* Z 7 �/D o.z NR' T600 180 .1125 D.le " "+`• SL ' 3200 569 .1778* 8o D,70z8 b•ZozB ST 3200 1034 3231 / 3797 'c /� D. o 'I ; • ' ;. 's SR 1600 203 .1269 O./269 a•rZ EL 1600 99 .0619 D•o6/ O.ab/ ET 3200 . 72 .0225* D-oZ O•oz2r •n 'ii" '=,R' ER 1600 37 .0231 b.oz3/ l�.oz3 + 'r.'; 149 0931* 5p ' Y, o f0 r:, WL 1600 l3 0 Il WT 3200 65 .0203 ritia °�4tr,, - — il,;; alr WR 1600 / .S. 891' 5569 /6S + 9, «'' 1 , YELLOWTIME .1000 i � i • �p.i0004 • EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 7375 I 1 1 ., �•L',.'.'.' EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSE U.1 7,79.477 1 � tXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. rojected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 :." Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0_90 J.,`f,.yAi;:r ''+:�� ' ' ,Ise• � • Q Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be ., . �+ ', •;I,. --.less than or equal, to 0.90 Description! of system improvemont: ' ,. r7��v,.ld �/vcrrs�I �GqP �a� ''c - •...... O N 7� P 0 •n� �Gl to Gpr L La �� 1 _ . . _.. . . ..DATE: FORM 11 OJ 1 R 1 'I i ''C L INTERSEOON CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYST Intersection Jamboree Ruad/Santa 0arbdrd Drive l� ;• " ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1979) ' :••7;'' - PROJECTED ' •''` EAI STI ND PROPOSED EXIST. EXIST. GROWTH COMMFIIF.0 V/C Ratio PROJI eI PROJECT PK.IIR. Y/C OROHLI PRO,IIfi w/o Project Volunn 41C Ratio Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. Vol, Nana Volunn' Vol ame Volume NL NT '3200' yen 721 .2253* O./6Zf O•/lL3� NR ' 1600 136 .0850 ,/y3 O• s�3 SL 1600 03zoc 178 .1113* / 9 /S 1,9./V ST' ' 3200 999 .3122 /p O, °/ * O•ly ' EL ET ER - ' — ^, ++„r WL 2400 331 .1379* 2/8 14 qj WT Cy)6yeb 0.2 02 ,WR 1 2400 'A 407 .16961000* YELLOWTIME77(771 %-' EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILILATION E 7,�i'•',;;;; EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. i , , TTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. F%iST k y ; *Nr- PLUS COMMI " `' "'�'�,. .,°•:Projected plus project ,traffic I.C.U. will be less, than or equal to 0.90 Projected',plus project traffic I,,C.U. will be greater than 0.90 '' ii4.�0 ••'r`'^ P rojected•plus project traffic I .C.U. with systems' improvement will be, ' `"', ; ' ,less ,thant or, equal to 0,90 Description. of system improvement: (Z) II�O ' JOv/X/0Vtd DA IT I'ORM 11 PROJECT.� INTER ION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYO' e. ^' Intersection '• MacArthur [ilvrl./Inrd Rd. 60. , • ( -W%tAnil 'Iraffii Vuluim", Ita•,1•', fill Avrnnil' DoilY Irall'il WIiIl01'/`.1n•ual I'i/91 •,; -•r'.w'S Ixr•I [xl•,I. ,<lollmn koWl 11 rlL Rdtlu 'I.A ISI INL I'1101'WLN Y/0 lt'oje {'NII h.. VRO,IUI ,Vv,.NR. V/L GRUBUI Volo I •r �m,es Cap, lanes LaV• Vol. Ratio Volumr YohuM, VoI Vruject Nulu�p Y/C Ratio *^` 7 NL 1600 z 3. 0 48 .0300 3U vz//3 .Dz// '• � 4:f�'i`.' NT 3200 -' ( 1504 v » , NR 42 SL ' 1600 z 37av 409 .2556* 3S 0.1.w O./3BB ST 3200 1276 .3988 y y/Z0, ' SR 1600 104 .0650 /15 v. 3 EL ' 1600 7)32ov 339 .2119* Za / 7- ET' 1600 z)3zmD 269 .1681 ER 1600 90 .0563 /S E 6 0 o6S6 ?` ` + WL 1600 43 .0269 Z D.0ao v.oz& WT 1600 z)gzmo 180 . 1125* 0/96 WR 1600 303 .1894 /Z o./969 y: •'i-,'�'';�'*,'� YELLOWTIME .1000* EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1 .1631 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I .C.U.1 a. 7711 "` ••> iYISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT, I.C.U. v. Z ^JS •'' n. Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 '' ❑ . . Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑'yy:`Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be ',,.• -less .than or, equal to 0.90 a ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - -. - - - - - - Description of��system /[improvement; / • , ., ', �/J 9n/�I/!vim/A/OIii�Cai JOv/A,�/O/vit(/��/�/�001�n C�" /�I����I l6/4PJ �v� - . ';, ' "• l.�j d�C' e�Y�G�y G/n d!!iP/1'CCvAC�' �^'oaf/J �G?GJ �b� , DA I I 1'1(o,l c r i ultrt I I INTERS'ION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYS' Intersection KWArthtir Blvd./Smi. Joaquin 11iIII;• Rgdd, Existing Traffic: Volumes Basra, on Avrv (igo Daily lral'He Winter/Spring 19•79) EXIST• E%ISI. REGIONAL LOMMI MIJ I'NOJILIEo ' Mo+went EXISTING PROPOSED V/o Rato PROJUI VIC Pat Lm,ca Cap.. Lanes Cap. Vol. V/C OROWL! PROJICt VoI Protect Volmm• 'dG Aadp .,��.,.�,;;1`�+• Vol. Rnl m Vnlumr VOlumv Vnlunu NL 1600 85 .0531* %a, .• NT 3200 ' 490 .1531 O.Z//!7 ` !'R' NR 128 .0800 4/ SO SL ' '3200 282 .0881 zagZ269 SIT 3200 919 .2872* 3 Zv 3812 SR N.S. 387 "'''N ''' EL 3200 811 .2534* 90 ET 4800 499 379 95 .0594 '''},, ;;• ;tr WT 4800 165 .0727* L O WR 184 3� • ' °.a'. a YELLOWTIME 1000* glveo"F i o✓cr�o EXISTING INTERSEL7ION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .7664 I LXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. i 1'L'e"' i"••' 1 %I ,TING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAI. GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. ected plus project,.trdffic L.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 .';:, ,. ,�".r• Proje, ed 'plus project traffic. I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ",. ❑ .'.. 1,Projectedlplus project traffic. I.C.U. with systems improvement will be _ ( less than .or equal to 0.90 e Description of, system improvement: NAIL: ', PROJECT.. CORM I t' " INTERafION CAPACITY UI'll I/IAI10N-ANALY O/°7ory�L /M DE�I�h!7 � �' • In(or•,ry Liun DI,uArthut lilVtl./;.an Jt!tltPrm III I I'• Ru,ltl . ( Lx0;L9 Irdffili VuluuP•', ISd'•r', oil Avt•rnp' DoIIy II I I I t IJlnity"/'`prlml . ruudltvo ' L41Si INU YNUPUSEU �'1.%l:.l. 1k111. I114111M111 tUM411it I. Y/C Hall" I%MLIy' Pridati "' i MoreiiGop, PK.NH, Y/C GIIUHI!I PROM 11 rr•a I'miect Yul wu, Itnio Lanni CAP, Inncl Cap. Vol. It..I It. Ynllm. Yuluno• NL 1600 85 .05:31" / e�G&v Oo600 NT '' .1200 (3)y3Zo 490 .1531 NI( 1600 ' 128 08(lU- Z O• D9S"D O D•/q/Z r ' SL 3200' 282 .0881 U91 D.22a "ST' 3200 919 .2872* ZB D• 3759 Zv 6• l83/ EL 3200 1311 .2534* //9 •2903 o•z9o3 ET 4800 499 379 `// O•/ /3 ER WL 1600 95 .0594 // Al /D D•07Z� WT 4800 165 .0727* Z L8 D8 WR 184 Z f YELLOWTIME 100O* i z' "e0o , ,`' +• :1';' EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILILATION .7664 US COMIITTEO PLU S REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED 1NPROVEMENTS I.C.0 EXISTING PLUS . 3 o r IS PR 1FCT I.C.U. 8 I %I ,T,qG PLUS COMMITTED PLUS RFGIONAI GROWTH Pl.l. 0. Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. wi I I be it ,y Lhdn ur• allual Lu 0-90 , t ❑ ' , • , Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 P roi ected plus project traffic I .C.U. with systems improvement will be less than, or, equal. to 0.90 ':i' - ' • - -• - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - t -Description of system improvement: . I IIAAI 1:4p, INTERS ON CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSI� °•''liy '. .;. ,•;•„•, •• Intersection Coast Hwy./MacArthur Blvd. " •;c;? "'( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 19799 �'ti1", " 1%1111Nb 1'NIII'11;1•II I%1'•I• t%I'•I NILIIIN,11 .IlMlal 111 lr l;•I halm Plhtgil . I'NUJIII MUrrnVUl' laNP`, Lap, Iall,,% I'q' I'I.Illl V/I IiIlOMh1 I'llp.11li M4, Ihup•,I Vobr•n !/f bal Ur .Aw Vul Ilal lu Vul.... Vulmnr V•'l anu• w e,.a$ NL NT ' NR - ;. SL� * / 0.29B 29Bf 7 l 3200 ST -• ' - S;c�M, SR 1600 179 .1119 46' 2/ Z - - ';"• EL 1600 223 .1394 / O o. zzo6 O o.ZbY ET 3200 1251 .3909* d WL -- :f �sqz " WT 141111 12 D,i7'B wtl YELLOWTIME .1000* /L/oao D/eoo EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION I ' n ; � . gg i, mats: EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. ?; txIST?NG PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. Projected, plus' project traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 t`.? 2• 13 Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 K. Projected •plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be equal ' to 0.90 ;��, , °•;„ .' ' ,less than'or eq , of system improvement: Description P IJ P Y ` DATI ; - fhltM II INTERS ON CAPACITY UIII,I/,AIION ANNY1,10 Intersection`ct,ast (' Existing Traffic Volumes (lases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1!/q ) .' rulell n l n .i.1❑m PNUPUSIP LXISI. EXIST. RLGIONAL EOMMI IIIH V/L Ratio PRIM! oROJttl R,�•;n t,;. u PY..HR. V/L GROWTH PROJLuI w/o Project Voim r/0 will, t Lanes LaP• Lanes Lai,. Vol. Ratio Vo l unit, Valiant, Vn1vmP NL ,1 .N NT NR a ,t =YF t SL ' 360 .1125* S ./Z 4 I` ST _ SR N.S. 741 % 4 •, EL 1 b00 485 .3031* G 3038 0 3o3B ET 32b0 1107 .3459 /3 b•36ZP ER WL — r WT 3200 777 .2428* �d 93 .97 yS b.Z89 ' WR 1 S' YELLOWTIME .1000* �,joad ; p,iovv ..�•y^y ✓ ' EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ,7584 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROYEMENTS I.L.U. IxISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. u pro ect traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Projected plus, P j ;,fir;r,4•r :"d; l;� "�' ,. ' .. - '•; �` �,,',, Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 !'• ;;;' ' v,",Projected plus project traffic:I.C.U. with systems improvement will be, -49 �' .less•thanior •equal to 0.90 Description of system improvement: Y' roRM II PROJECT^ :....r i APPENDIX C INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSES 1 EXISTING + REGIONAL + COMMITTED + 30 PERCENT PROJECT (1982) ti rry + r + inters�i'on DI'istol Street North/tlaudn ` Road t e '• •1 \1+.1,111',I il'dffll YIIIIIdU", 1111•el". ''•II Av1`I'aell' Itai1.Y lr•al r Jine,ori`�pr•inq I••„e« v,''� k. ", ---•* ".----"— •_•.�,—^ a l,n.n e ,e, 1 • ''M,'i,} 14i'. . IAISI Illbluhne elHMl eel❑ V/1 Ha 'uedlef e'Kt131te ••vl r14' '."J Ih�, P'I,:r"•' I•r.:Ilf•• V/I hlttlNl � rltU.11 e,l WN Pru ,,,I Vu hope• Ih HnUo • p,,x. '4 v,.,•'A n. Ul.� LAfiv. e.,p. Idrt eo Vla unir Volume• Y,elumP . 5Y1'�1 lvl. 320� 3_yeo0 1518474_' z1O n` .2119 .ST 1061 221 ' � /37 O.Z4l�M 1,A. SR 1600 543 . 339a =;Ok ET ER ;t ' WL Al+ � WT 4800 386 _ �.0827* 3 66 3 ,5i WR 9 ' YELLOWTIME '• •I;"'w!1 EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .8781 r ' y,zy LXISTING PLUS COMMITTEO PLUi REGIONAL GROWTH 'd/PROPOSED INPROYEMENTS I.C.U. PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. �•:":� ' ® Projected plus project traffic 1 . >.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90, - f • ti °fir :,,Projected plus plus project traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.9( 'r;, ? r' ; ❑,' `; ' Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems 'improvement will be, "r ;" '•, "'_less than or equal to 0..90 IV ` ? 1r"•''' "1' ; Description of system improvement: PROJECT• INTERSIDION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYS0 Intersection---__�suaboree. Ro%Ld1n ,iu%�gLLin-ttilisltd --- ( Cxisting Traffic' Volwnes (lases on Averagc Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1979) r,mda u w O' r •I•,II!•:.. PNOI'l15(Ir tXPI, [%I'd. III bIUNAt I,UMMII ILu V" Ra"o YNgq•T RROJUT , NY..111{ V/f GROW.. PROM I W%O RrghvI VI,I gym.• Y;( RAO '-5 Laru.S CaP. IAr11.5 CAP- l Rat I,, Volunir Va Ln,u• Vn - m , Vuluv Nl `1600 IGb '.1031 /05 It J NT ` 3200 (3 r/ O 1101 .3441* 3 a Z 75 Nk ' 1600 180 .1125 Z i B O•/ -SL'`• 3200 569 .1778* O .Zo 0,20 ST ' 1034 .3231 It90 / 2S SR 1600 203 .1269 . n lzO./26 "' •, EL 1600 99 .0619 .06/ ET 3200 72 .0225* D.o2zi ozzs ER 1600 - 37 - .0231 ,o o•oz3 :.T.. `.' WL 1600 < 800 149 0931* SO o,0 0'Y O,O>So� WT ' 3200 • 65 .0203 ;•:: WR . ' 1600 N.S. 891 .5569 /ds _ 1 Ik YELLONTIME .1000*Jimi p,/coo# gip,/000 E%ISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTI1I2AT10N 7375 :• , i EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED IMOVEMENTS I-C-U-1,0. 6716 , oil MT!NG PLUS COM ITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. ` ,`•,r" ,•.; ;r',a r;,,.:'• Projected, pl•us project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 r ' ❑ '•_` Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ?' ; ,;, : ❑'.';-?Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be ' ;.less than or equal to 0.90 Description of system improvement: l ` 407<rJAG/ 6rrl' DAii ,• .- I rIkP1 1 1 PROJLCI' INTERSE•ON CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYST* ' '''' • ItltCryl?(;L1lItI .Idlllh( rve Mwd/San Ld Hd,rb,ini Drive• • „ Existing Traffic Volumes Haws un Averagu Ually lr•dl (il. WHILor/Spring 1979) ' PROJECTED L+ISTING PROPOSED E%{51, L%1SY. NEGION4t CUMMIIlEO V/C Ratio PRGJfiT PROJECT '• MG+r.•rcut tagns EdP• Lanes tap. PY„RR. V/C f,RONTR PRU,IECT w/o ProJeCt Vol"., Y/C Ratio „' Vol. Ral to Volumr VPlum° Volume NL NT 3200 Mcc, 721 .2253* Nk ' ' 1600 136 .0850 3 0.//1 0•lel SL ' 1600 273zoa 178 .1113* 6 / 215 a,•:`,;• ST 3200 999 .3122 5 a 0.3309 SR EL ET -~ ER WL 2400 331 .1379* Z/g WT - o '� WR 2400 407 .1696 Z 7S • ;•' YELLOWTIME .1000* iO•/moo�F ; ' ;a Dap p EXISTING INTERSECT-ION CAPACITY UIILI"CATION 5145 t EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPRO TENTS I.C-U-1 O. AZ IYI°JING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAI GROWTH PLUS PROICCT I.C.U. 63SL projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or, equal to 0.90 ;.. ,,,,1 ❑ ;' s. Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ °,,` Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than•or equal to ,0.90 . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - Description of system •improvement: DA1r: _• I ORM I i ' k i INTERS ' ION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALY-So f , Intersection MacArthur Blvd./Ford Rd. ( ,Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1979) I AS'd 1VIC I 610N•V WNMII ILb u^.I W. PIIUI'USI I. V/t Ilet u, iv.,,:f,+ •?43uI P:.,rr•••a{, ' I'Y,Illt. ,,I ❑NI1Wp1 I•Rq.11• I W., Nu P.t Voiu^r .,' RaUG I dnC'• Len. LanrS I.IP' \•,d, Ral v. Voh,mr Vnlonu• J \'nlunu• NI IuOU _4tt ll.iltll __ __, Q.Q/£U-• _ 0,0/�0M N I 3200 !3 eo 1504 NI( 42 SL 1600 Z)3zoo 1 409 .2556* 35 ' / 'l D•/ N ' SY i 4',• '' 3200 1 1276 .3988 3 2:57 ey�b 35 SR '' 1600 104 .0650 D O o fo EL 1600 Z)32oo 339 .2119* D. ET 1600 0 269 .1681 ER 1600 90 .0563 WL 1600 43 .0269 Z D,OZ l WT 1600 Z)3zsav 180 .1125* WR 1600 303 .1894 1 i'% YELLOWTIME 1000* EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1 .1631 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS 1.C.U.1 Ii ' fy1VING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I .C.U. . Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 t,Q ;.. Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be -,,' Iless than ,or equal to 0.90 Description of system improvement: / A64 ��•' � I�4 �kf �rf"�Y 7� o�/rQ�c�/�/1�naf'�J dL il`'�iT lo� , DA l l ; I'k 1,11,1•I I ORM 11. a INTER ION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALY MacArthur Blvd./San Joaquin Hills Road Intersection___•_. _ g,_ � �� Existing Traffic Volwues [lase, on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1979) •:`': Mo.4p t,t1E l dtll'� Cd1' •Iola`^. f,Al'' L%_IS.I._,.. �_._ " __ FRalt 0151. HIMINA1 LUMMI I1Fb PRl,�IJEoAI 0P.R0UJ6LLoI LISTING VRUIUSCU Pn.Hit. V/6 4ROHTR PRUJfT Vniumo V/f Rat1n Val 1a Vnhme Vt,lm°r Ni. 1600 Ub,tl04, Nr) 49 .1531 •200 oi97 NV 1600 128 .0800 .O® # ' !s O95,0 SL 3200 282 .0881 O.Zz69 O,2z69 ST 3200 919 .2872* Z // b,3z 3V 3S 33-f` SR N.S. EL 3200 all .2534* /B �•Z903 b•Z9o3'r ET 4800 499 .1379 ER WU 1600 95 .0594 �3 06 5 G,G6G3 i''•.� ,:':, WT` 4800 165 .0727* Z d OO WR- 184 I� YELLOWTIME .1000* j d/OtX' i D•��E"� •a,; i":. EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 7664 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSEP INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 IxISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. • projected plus, project traffic I-C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90"" . Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' ,,Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be ..less than or equal to 0.90 ., - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .: Desc,ription of.system improvement:' . Y t� iw '. y • •4 H... . . ....•.. .... .-. IUIM Ii III `.. • \ INTERSVION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYS* Intersection Coast Hwy./MacArthur Blvd, ' ( 'Existing Traffic Volumes Oases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1979 ) ••ti+ "'�." 1•Yr`I",�� 4r I11'IN6 ' I'NUPNyI II I%1',I !%I. NIGI1M1N1 LUMIIILI, w/q. NIqau lrtill r 4 0 I,RO II I'I Y/1 fNOHIII Ix 7/1' 11nl I n y, 1,1„4I I,Vu`C,1 aN.• LVIr', I:AN' Vul IIAI Iu Vulumr Vulw01 Vn hinn' NL NT N It SL' 3200 701 * 3 5 9Z ZS ST . .a _ -0SR ' � 160 179 . 9 i EL 1b00 223 .1394 ZO ,/ ' I� .T,ZZIA ET 3200 1251 '.3909* 66 b •r: ;h? WT Z� O yd YELLOWTIME 1000* i EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ';.lSp ;? ''• LXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMCNTS I.C.U. 'E qqJ' ,,/ IFISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. ^1'iu'�ali��^1,\�l' .�,`Y 1�N4�a ,•"•,•��I/ r •. 1 �• • '' Sari i,r�t 1,("',. 1' n;iv�.- .;Id."','. `„•;., ,,,•, • , '•� •'• � ' �y( Projected plus project-traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 • :,•;. :'[] :• ::•, Projected plus,project traffic I.G.U. will be greater than 0.90 ,•: ,,.�, ,Projected plus project traffic I .C.U.: with systems improvement will be r , " IesS. than or equal to 0.90 Description of system improvement: DAT I' . 1 I01tM 11 PIt,UJLGI , INTERSESON CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSI40 ` .. Intersection ___GnnsL:1.Iw,Y•/.Ncwpur.L .i:E!nLar, UL'ive ... .. (' Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Uaily Traffic Winter/Spring 19/9 ) PROJECILU uif,TC+G PNOPOSEU CKI51. EXIST. REGIONAL C'OIMII I;IU V/C Rauo PkShc ". DNG4t1 .,1 •",C,'1 t ,L,mu4 NG Lanes CaP• PK.HW, V/C GROWTH DRO�IL'Cl W/o DroJect Voiu=�+• 'NC Natty Vt.] Rat to Volunu, Vol unu> Yalumr ~'n i1L NT NR — SL 360 .1125*- 3) ST SR N.S. 741 - ;;• EL 1600 485 .3031* ET 3200 1107 .3459 O 25 WR WT 3200 777 .2428* ` WR it Of I F YELLOWTIME .1000* E%ISIING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 7584 ' EXISTING PLUS COMIITTED PLUS'REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROYEMENTS I,C.U, „ ,. IYIST!NG PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. rojected ,plus project traffiC .I .C.U. will be less'than or equal to 0,90 D '[] ' Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 >a , Projected plus project traffic I.C-.U. with systems improvement will be , less than or equal to 0..90 .. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' " Description of system improvement: DATE.:. 4:' • APPENDIX D INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSES EXISTING + REGIONAL + COMMITTED + PROJECT �^"� (1983) Inters�Ion Bristol Street North/Jambor r Road Nxisting Traffic Volumes fl.tses `;n Average Daily Traffic nter/Spring 1979) q PPm,hl'*11 LV/( GOWi Hlo'll illb V/u Plol' Ifl nw. VRUJtIi' , J5 " 1,•"!,,( t ,i IM1.. VPdr`„ 1 GNONI�I 'r110,11 14 ; Pntlu •~ .J,n. Lni•• Wnu♦ nl • IA�' P.Itlo Volume• V01,11 V.l unµ.l,l••el Vnlumv. 806 l'i1tl .474 �S OY , a�'• . vi ,: ,IJUU 45...,._. U_• 3 I rut - - ST - 1061~ .221 ; /64 15 a,2s s" " SR, 1600 543 .3394 392t" LL :ar4 1 ET — — ;o' �;n E WL •,,,: ,h�.,.. D D, O WT 4800 (��9Z0 386 _ '.Oii27* S l5¢ " WR 9 + ` YELLOWTIME 100;* ;D Gb0 "^"'YN'� FXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .8781 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLU'i REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. rr• • - � •�;� X15TI9G PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. ` ' �`"' ❑ ''.;'' Projected plus project traffic I . :.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ;.i .,,,�•y;yw.. ❑cY; Projected plus pro,;ect traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.9i N . traffic ..C.U. with systems improvement will be Projected plus project Y o J less than' or equal to 0.90 •4 .k" " Description of system improvement: 04Gpr� //Di Ovi/ x. PROJECT FORM 1 : K,;l; •'.� INTERSOON CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYS� 'Intersection MacArthur ill va.JSIlp Joaquin Hills Roadr ( Existing Traffic Volumes (lases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 197 - " PRWECTHI ' ,Er1�T STING PROPOSED EXIST. EXIST. HLGIONAL LOMMIITLU V/C Ratio PROA0 VROACi Mo.e eF,c; PK.HR. V/C GROWTH PRO.ILC.T win Project Volume '//C Ratio Lane} Cap. Lanes Cal). •vol. RaI Io Valumr Vo lwme ^. Yolunm Li NL 1600 ti5 0531* `:•,�, ,�ti NT - 3200 ' 490 ' .1531 3 94- 160 a.233'!� .'�,?' • NR'•' 1600 128 .0800 + •. SL 3200 282 .0881 8 p. 2269 ST 3200 919 .2872* 3 Zj(� V91 SR N.S 387 �t �'` L"•'' EL 3200 811 .2534* 41 a ER 4800 499 379 23 WL ' 1600 95 . .0594 10 165 .0727 2/ WR 184 35 YELLOWTIME 1000* I A /000 EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILI'LATION .7664 I 1 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROYEMENTS I.C.U. , 9 SO ',•. ' EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. ,.i �r',❑ >,.'Projected_ plus project traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to U.L)U ; ; K,; ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0..90 Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less. .than 'or. equal to 0.90 - .- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Description of system improvement: _ . . DATL.:.. d ORM l i • NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING • Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of The Irvine Company r� for a(n) ❑ Variance L_i Use Permit _ ❑ Resubdivision ❑� Tentative Map 'Tract ❑ Amendment I^J Other Traffic Phasing Plan on property :j :at bounded by East Coast Highway, Newport Center Drive, Farallon_ Drive and Avocado Avenue in Newport Center. to p3mzri:; consider a Phasing Plan for the remaining development of the Corporate Plaza Planned Community, and the acceptance of an Environmental Document. ❑ This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Qualities Act. OX NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that a Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application noted above. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Negative Declaration and supporting documents. The City encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this documentation. Copies of the Negative Declaration and supporting documents are available for public review -and inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 West Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92663, (714) 640-2216. _ ❑ NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared in connection with the application noted above. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Environmental Impact Report and supporting documents. The City encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this documentation. Copies of the Environmental Impact Report and supporting documents are available for public review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 West Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92663 -,(714) 640-2197 Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the 22nd day of May 19 80 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. Debra Allen Secretary PUBQCATDATE: Planning Commission Recr ub ation City of Newport Beach Re NOTE: The expense of this notice is paid from a filing fee collected from the applicant. • NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING . Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of The Irvine Company for a(n) ❑ Variance Use Permit ❑ Resubdivision Tentative Map Tract_ ❑ Amendment ❑ Other Traffic Phasing Plan on property :l kit bounded by East Coast Highway, Newport Center Drive, Farallon_ Drive and Avocado Avenue in Newport Center. to perzz# consider a Phasing Plan for the remaining development of the Corporate Plaza Planned Community, and the acceptance of an Environmental Document. ❑ This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Qualities Act. ❑ NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that a Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application noted above. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Negative Declaration and supporting documents. The City encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this documentation. Copies of the Negative Declaration and supporting documents are available for public review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 West Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92663, (714) 640-2216. ❑ NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared in connection with the application noted above. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Environmental Impact Report and supporting documents. The City encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this documentation. Copies of the Environmental Impact Report and supporting documents are available for public review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 West Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92663 (714) 640-2197 Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the 22nd day of May 19 80 , 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. Debra Allen Secretary PUBLICATION DATE: Planning Commission Received for Publication City of Newport Beach By. NOTE: The expense of this notice is paid from a filing fee collected from the applicant. .Sy Authorized to Publish Advertisements of all kinds, This Space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp including public notices by Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County, California, Number A-6214, dated 29 September, 1961,and A-24831,dated 11 June, 1963. STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of Orange Public Notice AdvertisinI., covered by this affidavit is set e point with 10 pica colum wltlth. I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the below entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the Orange proof of Publication of Coast DAILY PILOT, with which is combined the NEWS-PRESS, a newspaper of general circulation, y`" ,/PUBLIC NOTICE , printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa, NOTICE OF �I County of Orange, State of California, and that a PUBLICHEARING 6 NOTICE,1S HEREBY GIVEN lhat Notieeof Public Hearing' the Planning Commission of Me City of ewport Beach will hold a public hepr-- CITY OF NE11PORT BEACH ing on the application of The Irnhel 'Company's Traffic Phasing Plan on7 'property bounded-by East Ccasll Highway, Newport Center Drive,' Feral Ion Drive and Avocado Avenue in i of which copy attached hereto is a true and complete Newport Center,to consider a Phasing) Plan for.the remaining developillant of.� copy, was printed and published in the Costa Mesa, the corporate Plaza Planned Com Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, mNorni and the acceptante of an En. vironmental Document NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER Irvine, the South Coast communities and Laguna )GIVEN that a Negative Declaration has been Prepared by the City of 1B�openTacchh�����i�}}ssuesaauuoff��lsrra��id}}��newspa}}p11,,e>>r for nit a Newport Beach In connection with the aX7C.YR&:X x,*V_AAx"xt X application rested above.It is the pt e 1SSlle ) Of tent intention la the Clay to accept the Negation Declaration and supporting documents.rsofthe The City encourages mom• Caen of the general pdocti to review lCandop comment on that documentation. and s0 of the Negabhe Dee a atlob and SUppMting,tlocumegls'are evalla• May 1 n 198 q ble for public review and Inspection at the Planning Department, City 61 Newport Beach, 3300 West Newport Boulevard. Newport Beach, 198—^ GNoticeaIs hhereby 1 urthheer gtiven that Sold public hearing will be held on the i 22nd day of May,1980,at the hour of 1f30 p.m mrs In the Council Chabe of , 198— the Newport Beach City Hall•at which Illme and place any antl all persons In- 4erosaed may appear and be heard _ thereon. Debra Allen,secretary 9 . 198— I� Planing Commisson CIIyofNew=1ach ,{ j Published Orange Coast Daily Pilot 198— Maylo,l980 - _ xlx9ao I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on N t n 198-0 at Costa Mesa, California. "o ' S>, Signature PROOF OF PUBLICATION Q r 6 PR � r ? (O Authorized to Publish Advertisements of all kinds, This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp including public notices by Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County, California, Number A-6214, dated 29 September,1961,and A-24831,dated 11 June, 1963. STATE OF CALI FORNIA County of Orange Public Notice Advertising covered by this affidavit is set In 6 point With 10 pica column wdth. I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the below entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the Orange proof of Publication of Coast DAILY PILOT, with which is combined the NEWS-PRESS, a newspaper of general circulation, PUBLIC NOTICE printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa, NOTICEOF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN the County of Orange, State of California, and that a the Planning commission of the city Public Hearing ' ! ewport Beach Will hold a public hoar. Notice of fad on the application of The Irvine CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH company's Traffic Phasing Plan on property bounded by East coast H lghway, NOWpart Confer Drive, Farallon Drive and Avocado Avenue in of which copy attached hereto is a true and complete Newport Center,to consltlera PhaSfng Plan IOr tIre remaining developmo�l of copy, was printed and published in the Costa Mesa, the Corporate Plaza Planned m, the co am the acceptance a an En, P Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, vi Document NOTICE tat E IS HEREBY FURTHER f NOTIC(GIVEN that a Negative Declaration, Irvine, the South Coast communities and Laguna has been prepared by the City of ,6Newport eeacn in cormctlon with,the Beach issues of said newspaper for one application noted above.It it the pre• ant lnfention of the City to accept-he�! ti, 1SSUe Of Negative Declaration and support(np :RgMA% kVAX9 VkfcxtItXtJtiAX]H� �f) documents.The City encourages me;n•i bers of the general while to review, And comment on this documentation.' Copies of the Negative Declaration' ii and supporting documents am aValla• I bie for public ye,hiW and Inspection at May 1 0 he Planning Department, city of , 198 P Newport Beach, 3300 West Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California,92663,(711)640-2216 1 Notice said d Pybllc hearing will De held ony he iven that 198— 22nd day of May,1990.at the pour of 7:30 p.m.in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall,at which time and Place any and all parsons In. , 198- forested may dPpder and Qbe r thereon. heard Debra Allen,Secretary PI6nn1ng C0mmis510n 198— Cityvf Newport Beach Published Orange Coast Daily Pilot Mav tg•t9eg---�2is46.g1 198— I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on mag 1 0 198-0 r7 at Costa Mesa, California. i p ry 3 /i A04 I.d,V'I"14 Signature 6 PROOF OF PUBLICATION ;s This s#ls for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp THE NEWPORT ENSIGN PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2015.5 C.C.P.) A STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Notice ss. County of Orange, proof of publication of The Irvine Company - Traffic I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the )Phasing Plan County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years,and not a party to or interested in the above-entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of the Newport Harbor _ Ensign newspaper of general circulation,printed and pub- PUBucaotict ING lished weeklym the city of Newport Beach, County of Or- NO1 binmbOaldcxh t the y wp Nollce L b.reon glof the,the y o anger and which newspaper has been adjudged a news- nl w commWfon n the alb of Nawpod Hoaeh will bald a public hear• paper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the Ing on the appllcallod of the Into CC.....VOW Ph"Ihg Plan bound' County of Orange, State of California, under the date of d by Ted Cool Highway, Newport May 14 1951 CASE NUMBER A-20178 that the notice of Canter Drive, l New Ddw and Cent edo Avenue In tiro, aCenter to which the annexed is a printed copy(set in type not smaller &colder a Ph"tng Plan for the to. malning deval6➢menl of the Corporate than nonpareil).has been published in each regular and en- Plaaa,Punnw C.mmunty,end the ace C.Pnrc@ of an Environmental Dxv tire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement meal. NEE thereof on the following dates to-wit: NOTICE Snt a Nw.0.Dorla w°°Ins been prepared by the City of Newport B.ech In ccnnectloa with the&➢ABCs• lion noted above. II b the Dnmt In• Published May 14 1p80 Lotion of the city to Accept the ................................... ...........t...... 9. ............... Negall,. Declantlon and avPPoding ducum.a.. Th. City eacovragN • ,•View and common general rthla dognm n• !neon.Cop"of the Negative Declare• ................... .............................. .. .. ....... ....... Bon and supporting d0ram.nte are available for publlo review and i-Peg- 2on at the Planning Department, City f Newport B.aoh,3300 W"l Newport Boulevard,Newport Beach,Calllorne, 92663.(71a)640.2216. Notice h hereby further given that .aid pubBC boating Will he held on the 22nd day of May.1960,at the hour of 7:30 P.m.m the Conan"Chemben of th.Newport Beech City hall.l which ft.and place any and All pen"ln• that the I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury ,•reeled may appear and be heard th D.on. for7Signature correct. Dated at Newport Beach, a.b:. Allen, s.o.0 r, Planning day Of C.mmWlon,City Cl Newpodaeach. CalY May 19 8 VAHah: May 14, 1980 lnN�e i N_owPCrlEwign _ r .. ......... 6.r of f ", �� 1 MAY19 �980a. ' THE N NPORT ENSIGN -�,. '';1 ;;' /- s FiCN J�3 92025 Corona del Mar, California . �\ 2721 E. Coast Hwy., PROOF OF PUBLICATION I ' APPENDIX H Date Filed -Ma v 2--UM- Environmental Information Form (To be completed by applicant) GENERAL 'ldFORMATION 1. Name and address of developer or project sponsor: The Irvine Company, 550 Newport Center Drive.. NewjZO��Bach_R2563 2, Address of project: - 7 Assessor's Block and Lot Number 3, Name address, and telephone number of person to be contacted concernin,g this project: Paul Thakur (Protect Manaeer, or David Dmohowski Gover - -1182 4. Indicate number of the permit application for the project to which this form pertains: Traffic asine 'Plan No. — s an escr a any o her 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: Corporate Pla?a punned ommunjry Proposed use of site (Project for which this form is filed) : 7 Appro_ v_ e_ of Traffic Phasing. Plan for�ffir.e_cltelcnm�nr See Attached Exhibit I PROJECT DESCRIPTION 8. Site size. g•. Square footage. 1(I. ::-:nber of floors of construction. tt ;, •�.1.�t of oft'-street parking )r•ovj4cd. 17, At•tach plans. 15. Proposed scheduling. 1h . Associated project-- i'„ Anticipat.ed. lncrenental development. 16. if residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and type of household size expected. -17. If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading facilities. 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 NO 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. 23. Change in pattern; scale or character of general area of project. _ X 24. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. X 25. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. _ 26. Change in ocean, bay, lake, stream or ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns. X 27. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. X_ 28. Site on filled land or on slope of 10 percent or, more. , X 29. Use of disposal of potentially hazardous materials, -" such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives. 113 • :, No I 30. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.) . X 31 . Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption -- (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc. ) . X 32. Relationship to a larger project or series of protects. (Refer to Corporate'Plaza EIR) ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 33. Describe the project site as it: exists stbeforeythe project, Including information on topography, soil ants and animals, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe an exsting te, and Attachi photographs tofe the nsite.the �iSnapshots horu polaroid se of e structures. photos will be accepted. 34. Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, cts.), intensity of land use (one-family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.) , and scale of development (height, frontage, sSnapshotsrorrpolaroldtphotosAwillhbehacc epted.raphs of the vicinity. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished s present mationarequiredefortthisdinitialtevaluationtto he dthea and f ^ best of my ion aabiity, and that rel ltrue and correct etoathe� best statofemysknowledgeo and an t presented belie.�t Date May 2. 195 gn'a urea David Dmohowski For _Th-e Jrvjne_C=pany _.___._ APPENDIX I FNVIRONMENTAL CNECFLIST FORM Environmental Checklist Form (To Be Completed By Lead Agency) I. Background 1. ,Name of Proponent The Irvine Company. 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent 550 Newport Center Drive Neu-port Beach C 3. Date of Checklist Submission 4. Agency Requiring Checklist 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable 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 / Like? ' -- • 73 YES MAYBE NO y y. Er.pu:.nre of people or prop-.1ty to .geological hazards such as earth- • quaAPs, landslides, mudslides , ground tai tnrc, or -similar hazard,:? 'l.. Air. Will the proposal result in: ,i a. -Substantial air emissions or deteri- oration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? : 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 /. marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates,, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount o.f surface runoff? — C. Alterations to the course of flow of f ( flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? • e. Discharge into surface waters or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? -- 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? -- - V— i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as / flooding or tidal waves? —✓ 74 • f pF'E-2A:22 • • YES MAYBE 1�(> 4. Plant Life. will the proposal result in: 1 a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, icrops, 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? t d. Reduction in acreage of any ✓ iagricultural crop? 1 5, Animal Li fe. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles,1 fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, ✓/ or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of ani- mals into an area, or result in a 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? V b, Exposure of people to severe noise / levels? —✓ 7. Lipht and Clare. will the proposal produce / new light or glare? ✓ A. Land lNe, Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? — 75 ..t / YFS MAYRF NO 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of, any natural resources? b. Substantial depletion of any non- / renewable natural resource? ,✓ • 10. Risk of Ltpset. Does the proposal involve. a risk of an explosion or the releaae 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 r rate of the human population of an:area? 12. Rousing. Will the proposal affect. existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional / vehicular movement? _✓ b. Ff`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? M e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? ✓ t f. Increase in traffic hazardous to notor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? .4 14. Public Srrvicc<. Will the proposal have an eff^_rt upon, or result in a need for new or alvered governmental services in any of the ✓ foliew;t" a.'cas : -- -- 76 • YES MAYBE NO a. Fire protection? j b. Police protection? ✓/ ✓C. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? ✓ li e. Maintenance of public facilities, ✓ including roads? f. other governmental services? 15. Ener Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? —' b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources- of ✓ 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? —V 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? -- 15. 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? 9 YES MAYBE NO ( 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity / of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Archeological/Historical. Will th,• proposal result in an alteration of a•_ . - - significant archeological or historical site, structure, object or building? — 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. t a. Does tbe• 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 number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of i California history or prehistory,? t , b. Does the project have the potential to ( achieve short—term, to the disadvantage i 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? _ lit. niscussion of Environmental Evaluation TV. Dptermination (To be completed by the Lead Agency) i. 78 ., • YPe-'tai'Lb ' On the basis of this initial evaluation: [ J I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant !effects on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Q I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in ibis sheetchavease bbeensadded to the tthetproje measures ct. A NECATIVEe DECLARATIONd on an will' be prepared. I find the nt environment,pandoand project -MAY have a ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT RF.PORTfisarequi edt on the O s� Signature Date For (Note: This is only a auggeated form. Public IaZiea are free to devise �I their own format for initial studies.) •79 / EXHIBIT I: ' PROJECT DESCRIPTION Phasing Plan This application requests approval of a Traffic Phasing Plan for future allowable development for Corporate Plaza pursuant to Planning Commission Amendment No. 514, adopted November 27, 1978. Pertinent language for Corporate Plaza from Amendment No. 514 reads as follows: "PHASING OF DEVELOPMENT 162,644 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 2$7,356 sq. ft. Any further development subsequent to October 1, 1978 in excess of 30% of the additional allowable development, being 86,206 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 con- sistent with the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan." Square Footage of Development Existing/under construction . 209,824 sq. ft. Additional committed under 30% rule: 39,026 sq. ft. Development Subject to Traffic Phasing Plan: 101,150 sq. ft. TOTAL FOR PLANNED COMMUNITY: 350,000 sq. ft. Site Size Refer to Planned Community text. Number of Floors of Construction Refer to Planned Community text. Offstreet Parking Refer to Planned Community text. Proposed Scheduling Of the 101,150 sq. ft. of office development subject to the Traffic Phasing Plan, the total amount is scheduled for occupancy in 1982. EXHIBIT II: PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES The following is a tabulation of previously approved mitigation measures for the Corporate Plaza Planned Community: Corporate Plaza EIR Refer to Environmental Impact Report for Corporate Plaza prepared pursuant to original project approval. Planned Community Regulations The P-C text for Corporate Plaza incorporates maximum limits on square footage of office development allowed. (page 2) The P-C text contains a phasing requirement keyed to construction of the Upper Bay Bridge as follows: "4. Occupied floor area will be limited to 75 percent (112,500 square feet) by January 1, 1979 and 75 percent ,(337,500 square feet) by January 1, 1981 or sooner, based on completion of the bay bridge. Amendment No. 514 further establishes a phasing plan requirement for ultimate development of Corporate Plaza, which is the subject of this application. Coastal Permit Conditions Refer to coastal permit attached STATE G, CALIFORNIA _ EDMUND G.BROWN JR.,Governor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION ,540 MARKET STREET,2nd FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA 94102 1�i,F•'1 ?HONE., (415)557.1001 March 25, 1977 The Irvine Company 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Gentlemen: Re: Permit A-260-75 On May 19, 1976, by a vote of 10 in favor, none opposed, the California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission granted your application for a permit for the development described in the attached Staff Recommendation. The Commission's decision required that you comply with five conditions prior to the issuance of a permit and that furthermore you are to comply with five additional conditions (Conditions 6-10) prior to the recordation of your final subdivision map. AfterL }, reviewing materials titled "Document Submittal for Wndltions for Approval to Permit No. A-260-75" dated March 25, 1977 and a landscaping concept plan titled "Site Characteristics, Corporate Plaza," I have determined that you have met the requirements of Conditions 1-5 of the enclosed Staff Recommendation. Pursuant to the authority vested in the State Coastal Commission under Public Resources Code Section 30331, I am hereby issuing a permit for the development described in the attached Staff Recommendation. This permit is subject to the terms and conditions contained therein. This permit will be in effect for two years from the date of issuance. If construction has not been commenced by that date, application for any extensions must be made before expiration of the permit. Please return to this office and to the South Coast Regional Commission office copies of this statement with your signature acknowledging that you have received it and understood its contents. Very truly yours, JOSEPH E. BOLOVITZ Executive Director Attachment By .9 cc: South Coast Regional Commission WILLIAM M. LUYD � Orange Co. Assessor's Office Staff Counsel The undersigned permittee acknowledges receipt of the Califorri.a Coastal Zone Conservation Commission Permit No. A-260-75, and fully understands its contents, including all conditions imposed. / Z ate Perini.ttee CALIFOf qCOASTAL ZONE CONSERVATION *MISSION 1 Market Street, San Francisco 94102—(415) 5 001 STAFF RECCH491DATION APPEAL N0. 260-75 (Corporate Plaza) DECISION OF 60th Day: Waived to 5A9/7t REGIONAL COMMISSION: Permit approved with conditions by the South Coast Regional Commission PERMIT APPLICANT: The Irvine Company DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: Northeast corner of the intersection of Newport Center Drive and Coast Highway (Route 1), Newport Beach, Orange County (Exhibits 1 and 2 DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION: Subdivision of a vacant 40.4-arse site into 23 parcels and construr.- tion of streets, utilities, landscaping, and parking areas to accomic- date 1,565 cars (Exhibits 3 and 4Y APPELLANT: SPON (Stop Polluting Our Newport) and the Central Newport Beach Community Association PUBLIC iWLRINGs January 7, 1976, in San Francisco STAFF_ P.r•Z01.8•1ENDATION: The staff recommends that the Commission adopt the follow- ing resolution: I. .ADproval The Commission hereby aD r_ p over a permit for the proposed development, subject to the conditions in ,Section II below, on the grounds that, as conditioned, the development will not have any substantial adverse environmental or ecological effects and wiU be consistent with the findings, declarations and objectives of the California Coastal Zone Conservation Act of 1972• II. Conditions The permit is subject to the following conditions : •A. Prior to the issuance of the permit, the applicant shall submit the fol- lowing to the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission for his review and approval: 1. An agreement between the Orange County Transit District (OCTD) and the applicant providing for a site for a central transit station facility within the Newport Center. The site shall be available to OCTD for at least 25 years. The agreement shall provide for one alternative site acceptable to OCTD in the event that governmental approvals cannot be obtained for use of the first site and shall provide for a temporary interim transit transfer area to be used while governmental reviews and necessary construction are in progress for the permanent site. 2. An agreement between OCTD and the appocant to undertake a ,joint "Transit Plan Study. " The study shall be completed by June 1, 1977, and shall provide the OCTD's recommendations regarding the designation of transit routes necessary to serve Newport Center's current and projected levels of development, designation of shuttle routes within the Center, levels of service needed, the amount of financing required to service these levels of development, and the respective roles of public agencies and lessees of Newport Center in financing the required levels of public transit. The Commission shall review this study and either, approve or reject within 45 days of submission of OCTD. 3'. The applicant's commitment to implement a mini-bus shuttle service within Newport Center, acceptable to OCTD, connecting the transit center with the remainder of Newport Center. This. shuttle.service may be operated either by OCTD or by the applicant and applicant shall assure that the level of service wil.libe acceptable to OCTD for a service time totalling 6 bus-years. For this purpose a bus-year shall be considered 1 bus, operating for 52 weeks of full-time service. The applicant's funding responsbility shall not exceed $300,000 and shall not extend beyond 5 years' from the commencement of service. 4. -Assurances .that a system of validating bus fares for users and employees of Newport Center facilities acceptable to -OCTD will be in effect for at least 25 years, or�'he--lifetime of the transit station, whichever is the shorter period. 5• Landscape plans including sight line analyses from selected points along Pacific Coast Highway demonstrating that office buildings and parking areas are adequately screened from the v-ew of motorists traveling on State Route 1. B. Prior to the recordation of the final subdivision map, applicant shall submit the following to the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission for his review and approval: 6. A grant of an open space agreement free and clear of all prior liens to the Coastal Commission and the State Dept. of Transportation over that portion of the site shown on, Exhibit 2. 7. Evidence that Conditions 1-5 and Conditions 7 (a) and (b) set forth immediately below have been recorded as Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions with no prior liens, other than tax liens, running with the land for the benefit of the State Coastal Commission and the State Dept. of Transportation: (a) On-site parking for the Corporate Plaza project shall be limited to a ma.cimum of 1,250 spaces with specific provisions for setting aside at least lqf of the parking spaces located nearest proposed structures for car pools. (b) Occupancy of the proposed Corporate Plaza buildings shall be limited to 50;o of the permitted floor space until construction has commenced on the proposed Coast Highway bridge over Newport Bay. if by January 11 1980, construction of the Coast Highway bridge has not commenced, the Commission, in consultation with the State. Dept. of Transportation, shall review and determine within 60 days of that date whether this condition shall remain in effect or whether alternative conditions relating to transit improvements or improvements in the Coast Highway transportation corridor will alleviate the adverse impact on recreational access of additional traffic generated by new development along the corridor in the Newport 'area. r -3- 8. All r•?c:orded conditions shall state �t the; are to be implemented by the Commission, its successor, if any, or in the evert that there is no successor the conditions are to be implemented by the State Dept. of Transportation. . - 9. gas•ed on the approval granted by the City of Newport Beach, the applicant shall comply with the City's conditions requiring right turn and left turn lanes into the project from Route 1 and shall provide a physical structure to prevent left turns from the project onto PCH eastbound. 10. The applicant shall comply with the conditions required by the • South Coast Regional Commission regarding the protection of the water quality of Newport Bay (Exhibit 10). III. Findings and Declarations_ A. Surruna y. This appeal involves the subdivision and improvement of a vacant 40—acre parcel located on the periphery of Newport Center, adjacent to. State Route 1 in Newport Beach (Exhibits 1 and 2). The Corporate Plaza is the first of several projects in or near the Newport Center complex that will be before the Com— mission in connection with the buildout of the Ne"rport Center (see Exhibit 5) Newport Beach is one of the most popular recreation destinations in the State:, largely because of its excellent beaches and the 'Day, but also because its loca— tion is ideal to serve the-recreation—deficient Los Angeles metropolitan area. The same amenities that attract recreat•ionists, however, also attract new residents and substantial commercial industrial development. As a result, the City of Newport Beach is facing many of the same resource management problems that exist izr Marina del Rey and the Alamitos Bay area of Long Leach. Key coastal access routes are presently badly congested during peak commute and recreation periods, thus degrading coastal air quality and ilrmeding public access to the shoreline. Also, the quality of coastal waters, both as habitat and for recreational use, is currently being degraded by upland development that results in an increase in the flow into the Bay of untreate poor-quality surface runoff. 'a7zile recognising the above problems, the Commission also considered the subject development from a subregional coastal perspective. Newport Center already has urban services, including public transit. It is near other commercial and employment centers, and close to axistirg population concentrations. In the regional context, the siting of new large-scale commercial development within the Center is clearly preferable to allowing such uses to move into Southern Orange Colxnty where the problems associated with sprawling, haphazard development would be severe—loro distance commutes, the need for new roads, air quality decline, increased ener,-✓ consumption, loss of open space. The key issue posed by this commercial office appeal, therefore, involves the need to protect coastal resources and preserve public access opportunities while providing for intensified development within an area already having urban services. 'While this appeal is of course subject only to .findings that it is consistent with the Coastal Act, it is interesting to note that the Coastal Plan concentrating development language clearly cited the need to minimize travel conflicts between coastal visitors and area residents and the policy also required that mass transit capable of servicing intensified development already exist, or be planned and funded, as a precondition of approval of additional intense development. The Corporate Plaza site is located along n critical section of Coast Highway where travel conflicts already are severe. Therefore, the Commission finds that approval of the proposed development at this time even as conditioned is consistent with the objectives of the Coastal Act on1,A. because the public transit improvements would substantially benefit both the immediate and long-term traffic circulation situation in the area. t -4- The Commission's conditional approval deals with0his need for improved public transit by incorporating two kcy ingredients necessary for the implementa— tion of a transit system that would effectively serve Newport Center. First, as a result of earlier discussions initiated by Commission staff, a transit station site mutually acceptable to the applicant and the Orange County Transit District would be leased by the District. Second, an internal shuttle system would be implemented to' link all parts of the Center with the new transit station. Together, these two ingredients, missing until now, would provide substantial incentives to both Newport Center employees-and customers to use the rapidly improving bus: system rather than driving to the Center along Coast Highway. As conditioned, this, approval -- - also would provide-arr'atdditional transit incentive, a bus—fare validation program within Newport Center. These public transit improvements would directly benefit the already congested Coast Highway (Route 1) by.contributing to a substantial long—term reduction in the number of daily trips generated by Newport Center on Coast Highway. The reduced trip generation- character of the Center in turn would contribute to diminished congestion on Coast Highway and improved public access to the shoreline and coastal air quality. The Commission finds, therefore, that the conditional approval of this proposal would be consistent with the findings, declarations, and objectives of the Art, pap-ticularly Section 27302 (c) which directs the "orderlr, balanced utilization - and preservation, consistent with sound conservation principles, of all living and nonliving coastal zone resources, " and Section 27302 (d) which calls for the "avoidance of irreversible and irretrievable commitments of coastal zone resources. " B. Traffic CixcLation and Public Access to the Coast. It is becoming increasingly difficult for the public to get to shoreline recreation facilities in the City of Newport Beach. Current trends to intensify development within the City, in combination ;-rich the City' s continued popularity as a recreation destine— ti.on, have overburdened key coastal access routes, particularly Coast Highway between Corona del Mar and•the Upper Bay Bridge. City staff indicate t"at the summer weeks-, "peak lour" on this stretch of Coast Highway now extends from 11:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m• because of the combined Lipact of increasing commuter, recreation, end general traffic along this corridor. According to a recent newspaper a_^ticle (Fxhibit 7), the inter— section of Coast Highway at Dover Drive near the Upper Bay Bridge is operating ". . . below what is considered a functional level. " The same article cites motorist com— plaints of long waits' on the Upper Bay Bridge and the adverse impacts on adjacent neighborhoods resulting from the spillover of Coast Highway traffic onto alternate routes through residential areas. These problems currently exist during both summer weekday and weekend peak traffic periods. Existing congestion on Coast Highway is of special concern to the Commission because of the potential impact on Route 1 of the huildout of Newport Center and other projects, including the nearby Irvine Company projects (Exhibit 5). For instance, the floor space of the partially completed Newport Center is planned to increase from the existing 2.5 million square feet to over 6 million square feet, more than doubling of what is already a major financial center. According to the applicant's consultant, a completed Newport Center will generate about 126,000 vehicle trips on an average day, and 28f of these trips will rely on Coast Highway. This means that Newport Cente alone will soon generate nearly 35,000 average daily trips on Coast Highway. This projected- traffic load approaches the current capacity of the highway and even when proposed improvements to Coast Highway are completed, buildout of Newport Center could overload Coast Highway and preclude its funetion 'as a useful coastal access route unless some approach can be found to reduce'the number of daily vehicular trips• carried by Route 1. • r One promising approach to reducing the nwrber of trips on Coast Highway involves a greater emphasis on public transit. The Orange County Transit District (OCTD) expects Newport Center to become ". . .one of the major anchors of the future public transit service in the County." The Dist. cites the ultimate size of the Center, ,proximity to existing employment centers, and the emergence -of the nearby Irvine Coastal Property as the home for 30,000 to 50,000 persons as reasons for this expecta- tion. Current CCTD plans •eall for the number of busses stopping in Newport Center to increase from the current level of 13 busses/peak hour to a 1990 level of 104 -busses/peak hour (Exhibit 8). Even with the projected improvements in the bus system serving Ne p.ort Center, however, the sheer size of this burgeoning office and retail complex will discourage bus usage by persons traveling within the Center. -Cities such as Toronto have found . .that transit is not successful unless a total service system is provided. As con- ditioned, therefore, this project attempts to provide "door to door" service within the Center. As a result of discussions initiated by Comi:1ission staff, the applicant and OCTD are proceeding with a 25-year lease for a 2-5-acre transit station site within Newport Center that would cost CCTD only $1.00/year plus taxes (E.thibit 9), and this approval requires the implementation of an internal shuttle system linking the future station with all parts of the Center. In the event that CCTD cannot immediately commence needed shuttle service when the transit -station is operational , the applicant would be responsible for the costs cf operation of the shuttle system up to a cost of $300,000 and a total of 6 bus-years. A bus-fare validation program is also to be imnlemented when the shuttle system becomes operational.' These shuttle and fare validation proerams would provide a significant incentive to both Center clientele and employees to use public transit and contribute to a substantial reduc- tion in the nuunber of trips generated on Coast Highway by Newport Center. In addi- tion to these transit improvements, however, this approval also is conditioned to relate development to transportation in the following manner: (1) occupancy of the proposed buildings on the Corporate Plaza site would be phased to correspond with the expected completion of improvements to Coast High;•iay, including the construction of a new Upper Bay Bridge. Finally, this approval is conditioned by the completion by June 1, 1977, of'a "Transit Plan Study " for Newport Center that would designate future transit rights-of-way needed within the Center, establish levels of future transit service, and recommend future financing roles. Based on these conditions, the Commission finds that approval of the subject development proposal would be consistent with the findings and declarations of the Act, particularly Section 27302 (c) which directs the "orderly, balanced utilization and preservation, consistent with sound conservation principles, of all living and nonliving coastal zone resources. " C. Water Quality of Neemort Bay. Surface runoff from the subject 40-acre parcel would be collected on-site and piped into Lower Newport Bay near the Corinthial. Yacht Club facilities,. In response to appellants' concerns regarding the potential adverse impact of such surface runoff waters on the .,ater quality of the Bay, the Regional Commission conditioned its approval of the subject project to require the installation of a sump system. and the systematic maintenance of all asphalted areas on the site to minimize the amount of debris and particulate matter washed into the Bay (Exhibit 10). In response to continuing appellants' concerns regarding the effectiveness of the Regional Commission conditions in protecting bay water quality, the Commission circulated copies of the proposed mitigation system and maintenance program to affected agencies for review and comment. The following agencies have reviewed and approved the proposed sump system and maintenance procedures: Regional Water'Quality Control Board, State Dept. of Fish and Came, U.S. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, and the Orange County Environmental Management Agency. D. On-Site Oking. The Regional Comma.ssio pproval included 1,565 on- site parking spaces for the Corporate Plaza project. s a result, almost 40% of the project site was committed to surface parking. In response to Commission con- cerns related to,the potential' adverse visual and water quality impacts (increased impervious surface area) resulting from this amount of surface parking, the appli- cant reduced the surface parking to 11250 stalls, a 20'1A reduction. Any form of structural .parking that would reduce surface parking was judged to be- unnecessary and economically infeasible by the applicant. The Commission finds that approval of the subject development proposal, as conditioned, would be consistent with the findings and declarations of the Act, specifically Section 27302 (c ). E. Project Design. The subject proposal -does not involve the construction of any of the future buildings proposed for this site. The design, height, and size of future buildings>on this site shall be reviewed individually by the Commission in succeeding applications. This appeal, however, will determine building siting on the 40-acre site and setbacks from Coast Highway will be established by this approval. . The closest buildings to Coast Highway would probably be 1 to 2 stories in height and be set back about 5C-60 feet from the street ; the applicant has stated it is unable to increase this setback to provide visual , relief from the proximity of - — - the buildings to Coast Highway. In addition, since about- 32-350 of the site would be committed to parking according to the revised plan now before the Commission, a landscaping plan and sight-line analysis from Coast Highway toward the parking areas must be approved by the Executive Director p:.ior to issuance of the permit to assure adequate visual buffering from Coast Highway (State Route 1). As conditioned, the Commission finds t!iat approval of the subject proposal would be consistent with the findings and declarations of the Act, particularly Section 27302 (a) which directs the "maintenance, restoration, and enhancement of the overall quality of the coastal zone envirormient, including, but not limited to, its amenities and esthetic values. " .J w(Ae 12, CORPORATE PLAZA PHASE II Proposed conditions to the approval of the Traffic Phasing Plan 1 . That the conditions of Resub 465 be completed and that bond amounts deposited for Coast Highway and Avocado improvements be increased to reflect current prices. 2. That Avocado Avenuetbe>tween San Miguel Drive and Coast Highway be completed to the width determined to be necessary to handle the two-way traffic projected from' the development, plus other approved projects. This shall provide width necessary for turning lanes and pockets. 3. That San Miguel Drive .between MacArthur Boulevard and Avocado be constructed. 4. That a traffic signal be installed at San Miguel Drive and :MacAr,thur Boulevard 5. That a 100' radius corner cuttoff be dedicated at the northwesterly corner of Newport Center Drive and Coast Highway. 6. That the ultimate right-of-way for the w.ideni.ng of the northerly side of Coast Highway at Jamboree Road be dedicated to the City.across .the two service station sites. Planning Commission Me ' a.ng May 22 , 1980 Agenda Item No. 2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 14 , 1980 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Request to consider a Traffic Phasin4 Plan for the remainin.2 ' development of_ the Corporate Plaza Planned Communit , and "the acceptance of an Environmental Document Public Hearin LOCATION : Property bounded by East Coast- Highway, Newport Center Drive, Farallon Drive, and Avocado Avenue in Newport Center. ZONE: P-C APPLICANTi The Irvine Company, •Newport Beach OWNER: Same as Applicant Recommendation Staff recommends that this matter be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of June 19, 1980, pending additional review of the traffic information submitted by The Irvi"ne Company. The* . applicant has no objections with staff' s request. PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, DIRECTOR By `�✓'' G William R. Laycoc Current Planning Administrator WRL/dlt