The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTPO032_FORD AERONUTRONIC SITE TP0032 COMMISSIONERS 21 , 1961 MINUTES 5.10 X W City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Request to consider the approval of Amendment Item #1 No . 1 to the Traffic Phasing Plan for the re- . maining development in the research and devel- opment areas of the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community. TRAFFIC PHASING LOCATION: A portion of Block 56, Irvine ' s PLAN Subdivision, bounded by Bison Avenue, Jamboree Road, Ford Road and MacArthur Boul-evard, in the APPROVED Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community. CONDI- TIONALLY ZONE : P-C APPLICANT: Ford Aerospace and Communications Corporation , Aeronutronics Division , Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant. The discussion opened in connection with this item and Mr. Thomas Morrissey, representing Ford Aerospace and Communications Corporation , appeared before the Commission . Mr. Morrissey stated that this proposal will result in less traffic than that of the approved Traffic Phasing Plan . He added that they are in concurrence with the recommendation of the staff report. Motion X Motion was made for approval of Amendment No. 1 to the Aeronutronic Ford Traffic Phasing Plan , s•uhiect to the findings and condition as indicated in Exhibit "A" . mendment Commissioner Beek recommended the following amend- ment to the motion : " If measurements by the City Traffic Engineer indicate that more traffic is being created than that of the originally approved Plan , the applicant will agree to install portable traffic meters , of the one car per green type . " Commissioner McLaughlin stated that she would not accept this amendment to her motion. -2- COMMISSIONERS OGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION TING MINUTESp`* ace : City Council Chamber _ Time : 7: 30 p.m. n Date : May 21 , 1981 I I U City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX X X X X ( X \EX-OmFiICIO ssioner Balalis was present at 8:25 p.m. ) * * * MEMBERS PRESENT: James \DHewicker, Planning Director Robertam, Assistant City Attorney * * * STAFF MEMBERS; PRESENT: William R. Layc,�ock, Current Planning Administrato Robert Lenard, dvance Planning Administrator Fred Talarico , vironmental Coordinator Donald Webb, Assistant City Engineer Pamela Woods , Secr tary * APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES APPROVAL � OF THE Motion X Motion was made to approve the Minutes of the MINUTES All Ayes X X X X * X Regular Planning Commiss gQn Meeting of April 9, 1981 , as written, which MPON CARRIED. Motion X Motion was made to approve be Mimutes of the All Ayes X X X X * X Regular Planning Commission Meeting of April 23, 1981 , as written, which MOTIOA CARRIED. * * * Staff advised that the applicant ,ppr Item No . 13- Resubdivision No. 686 , has requestAd that this item be continued to the meeting of�June 4, 1981 . Staff also advised that the applicanlfor Item No . 6 - Use Permit No. 1966, has requ ,sted that this item be withdrawn . Motion X Motion was made to continue Item No. 13 Resub- All Ayes X X X * division No. 686 to the Planning Commissi'an Meeting of June 4, 1981 , and to withdraw I'em No. 6 - Use Permit No . 1966 , which MOTION CARRIED. 1 COMMISSIONERS1 May 21 , 1981 MINUTES y N 3 City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Don Webb, Assistant City Engineer, stated that the ramp metering device may create problems with the operation of the main signal. Commis- sioner Beek stated that traffic could be metered out of the gates and onto Bison Avenue. He stated that Bison Avenue could accommodate itself to the public signals . Mr. Webb stated that there will be three signalled access points to the development. Amendment Ayes K Amendment by Commissioner Beek was now voted on , Noes X X X X X which AMENDMENT FAILED. Absent Commissioner McLaughlin ' s motion for approval of All Ayes X X X XX X Amendment No . 1 to the Aeronutronic Ford Traffic Phasing Plan , subject to the following findings and condition , was now voted on , which MOTION CARRIED: FINDINGS : 1 . That the proposed use is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses . 2. The project will not have any significant environmental impact and. that it is in sub- stantial conformance with the Aeronutronic Ford Certified Environmental Impact Report. 3. That based on the Phasing Plan and supporting information submitted therewith , there is a reasonable correlation between projected traffic at time of completion and the capa- city of affected intersections . 4. That the applicant has -taken into consider- ation in the preparation of his plan charac- teristics in the design of his development which either reduce traffic generation or guide traffic onto less impact arterials or through intersections in the lease congested direction . CONDITION : 1 . That all conditions of the original Traffic Phasing Plan shall be fulfilled. * * * -3- COMMISSIONERS 46Y 21 , 1981 1 MINUTES 15. 11 r h City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX \APPLICANT: rmit a retail newspaper home Item #2 business an property located in rict. A portion of Lot 2, Block U of USE PERMIT Tract No . 323 located at 3516 NO. 1990 East Coast Highway on the northerly side of East Coast Highway between Narcissus Avenue and Orchid Avenue, in Corona del Mar. REMOVED FROM THE C-1 CALENDAR ncy J . Fulton, Corona del Mar OWNER: Noce Trust, Corona del Mar Commissioner All\paricipation ted that she would be abstaining from in this item, due to her involvemethe case . Planning Director Hewicker presented background information on this ite)k He stated that based on the information submi ted, staff is of the opinion that the existinland use of the subject property is a legal noncon,forming use and there- fore, is able to continue its operation . He stated that there is no necd sity for the Plannin Commission to become involve i J n this item. Chairman Haidinger asked if t Planning Commis- sion has jurisdiction in this muter. Mr. Bob Burnham, Assistant City Attorney,stated that the Planning Commission has no ju isdiction in this matter, and should not hear t e item further. Motion X Motion was made to remove Use Permit 1990 Ayes X X X from the calendar, which MOTION CARRIED Abstain X Absent -4- Planning Commission Meeting -Itay-�;i98�• Agenda Item No. 4- / I G'ITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Traffic Phasing Plam (Discussion) Request to consider the approval of Amendment No.- I to the Traffic Phasing Plan for the remaining development in the research and de.velopme'nt areas of the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community. LOCATION: A portion of Block 56 , Irvine' s Subdivision, bounded by Bison Avenue, Jamboree Road, Ford Road and MacArthur Boule- vard, in' the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community. ZONE: P-C APPLICANT: Ford Aerospace and Communications Corporation, ' Aeronutroni•cs Division, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant. Application The applicant has requested the approval of an amendment to .the Ford Aeronutronic Traffic Phasing Plan An compliance with Resolu.t.ion No. 9472 of the Newport Beach City Council , .the- Planned Community' Development Plan and Standards for the Aeronutronic .Ford P-C., the- City Council ' s actions in approving the- Ford Aeronutronic Traffic Phasing Plan and the City' s definition of the term ."reasonableness'" . The amendment, if approved, will permit the expansion'. of existing plant' facilities by 300,1000 sq . ft. in 1982. General Plan The proposed amendment is consistent with the 'Newport Beach General Plan. Environmental Significance An Environmental Impact Report was certified by the City i'n conjunc-tion with the original• approval• of this project. The project is. in'- substantial conformance with the Certified EIR .and based upon the Traffic Study submitted, it was determined that no further environmental analysis is required at this time. r TO : Planning Commission -2. Phasing Plan The applicant is requesting an amendment to the existing Traffic Phasing Plan to allow the development of a 300,000 sq .ft, expansion of existing facilities in 1982 (letters attached) . ' The' existing' and amended Traffic Phasing Plan allowed development as indicated below: PosoO TrafficpPhavin 'Plan ' Building Area Traffic Phatin Plan Or' of ear of onstruction Building Area Construction 1 All existing buildings, except 773,000 sq.,ft. Existing 911,000 sq.ft. Exis;ing temporary buildings (2) Materials Building Expansion 1.5,000 1980 (3) New Engineering/Manufacturing 123,000 1979 Building (4) New Engineering/Manufacturing 60,000 1980 Building (5) New Engineering/Manufacturing 64,000 1981 300,000 1982 Building (6) New Engineering/Manufacturing 123,000 1983 Building (7) New Engineering/Manufacturing 123,000 1986 70,000 1986 Building (8) Engineering Building Expansion 25,000 1990 25,000 1990 (9) Engineering Building Expansion 25,000 1992 250000 1992 Total Industrial Buildings 1 ,331 ,000 sq.ft 11331,000 sq.ft.E� 1 . On April 9, 1981 , the Planning Commissin approved Use Permit No . 1979 to permit the temporary use of relocatable buildings as office space (39,840 sq . ft. ) for a three year period. Traffic Study A Traffic Report was prepared for th.e applicant by Weston Pringle and Associates and is attached. The Traffic Report analyzed the 16 intersections identified for analysis under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance of 'the City of Newport Beach . Eleven of the sixteen intersections analyzed exceed the two percent on at least one approach and were further analyzed to deter- mine potential traffic impacts. The Approved and Proposed Project I .C.U. ' s are summarized as follows: A TO: Planning Commission 23.. ` ICU SUMMARY INTERSECTION APPROVED PROJECT PROPOSED PROJECT Bristol Street N. & Campus Drive 1 .4963 1 .4694 Bristol Street N. & Birch Street 1 .1086 1 .0844 Bristol Street N. & Jamboree' Road 1 .0071 0.9731 Bristol St. & Jamboree Road 0.8247 0.8013 Jamboree Road & Campus Drive 0.9532 . 0.9490 Jamboree Road & MacArhtur Boulevard 0.7788• 0.7603 Jamboree Road & Eastbluff N. - (1) • 0.8877 MacArthur Boulevard & Campus Drive 0•.9621 0.9472 MacArthur Boulevard & Ford Road 0.7844 0.7656 MacArthur Boulevard & San Joaquin- Hills Rd.' 0.8952. 0.8763 MacArthur Boulevard & Coast Highway 0.8990 .08828 (1 ) Not Calculated - Proposed project ICU is less .than 0:90' ' which is an acceptable condition.- Staff Analysis The traffic report indicates that the I .C'.U. ' s at all intersections analyzed would be less than could be anticipated under 'th'e -approved Traffic Phasing Plan . The lower I . C . U. values are the result of .a• r.ed'Uctlon' in the number of employees that are anticipated to be•, added to the • facil•ity. . The original approved Traffic Phasing Plan estimated a total' increase of 1 ,4.50 employees by 1983 , and the amended plan estimates• an, increase of only' 700 by 1982. This difference is dUe to the fact that ' previously it 'was anticipated that the new space would be developed As engineering facilities and now this area is to be devoted to manufacturing uses . Recommended Action Staff recommends approval of Amendment No. 1 to the Aeronutronic' Ford Traffic Phasing Plan with the Findings• and subject to ' the Condition indicated in Exhibit "A" . PLANNING DEPARTMENT Attachments : 1 . Leiter-Ford. Aerospace & JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director Communications Corp. 1 dated April 20, 1981 2. .Letter-fiord Aerospace & ,,/ Communi-cations 'Corp. BYr� Ll/ Q`,1�(, dated. ApriT 7, .1981 Fred Talaricb 3'. .Traffic Report - - Environmental Coordinator Wes'ton Pringle & Assoc. FT• TK dated April 20 , 1981 . EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND CONDITION OF APPROVAL AMENDMENT NO. 1 - FORD AERONUTRONIC TRAFFIC PHASING PLAN FINDINGS : 1 . That the proposed use is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses . 2. The project will not have any signficiant environmental impact and that it is in sub- stantial conformance with the Aeronutronic Ford Certified Environmental Impact Report. 3. That based on the Phasing Plan and supporting information submitted therewith, there is a reasonable correlation between projected traffic at time of completion and the capa- city of affected intersections . 4. That the applicant has taken into consider- ation in the pr, eparatio.n of his plan charater- istics in the des.ign of his development which either reduce traffic generation or guide traffic onto Tess impact arterials .or through intersections in the lease congested direction . CONDITION 1 . That all conditions of the original Traffic Phasing Plan shall. be fullfilled. Ford Aerospace & Communications Corporation, Aeronutronic Division Ford Road April 20, 1981 Newport Beach, California 92660 , " Mr. Fred Talarico Community Development Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach,, CA 9266,3 Dear Mr. Talarico: Attached are two copies of an updated traffic report•prepared by Weston'Pringle and Associates describing the impact of our proposed_ adjustments to the Aeronutronic. Ford Traffic Phasing Plan. I will be pleased to meet with you or members -of the Planning Staff to discuss , this proposal . Very truly ours, , 4- 14 T. F. Morrisse Di'r`ector Industrial Relat ns Attachments cc: J. Hewicker • � r+� r='ti ; ;ice -I APR2Q 19$1 h 1 caO� �l 1•� PQ :IL Ford Aerospace & I �/ rwi �N Communications Corporation Aoronulronic Division Ford Road April 7, 1981 Newport Beach,California 92660 Newport Beach Planning Commission 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Gentlemen: This letter is intended to serve as the request of Ford Aerospace & Communications Corporation for an amendment to the Aeronutronic Ford Site Traffic Phasing Plan approved by the City Council on August 27, 1979. Pursuant to the plan, Ford Aerospace was allowed to expand its research and development facilities by 60,000 square feet in 1980, but elected not to undertake this new construction that year. In addition, Ford has the right to develop 64,000 square feet in 1981 , and can expand the industrial square footage by 1239000 square feet in 1983, and. an additional 123,000 square feet in 1986. Ford Aerospace & Communications Corporation is proposing to expand its plant facilities by 300,000 sgdare feet in 1982'. The net result is a delay of the 1980-1981 development by an additional one year, a several- month acceleration orf the 1983 development rights and the movement of 53,000 square feet of the 1986 allotment to mid-1982. It is estimated that the 300,000 square feet expansion will result in approximately 700 additional new employes. Ford Aerospace has retained Weston Pringle and Associates, traffic and transportation engineers, to evaluate the traffic circulation requirements of the proposed expansion pursuant. to Resolution 9472.. The initial indication is that advancing the construction schedule as proposed will not significantly impact existing or projected traffic circulation conditions in the City of Newport Beach. Mr. Pringle's analysis will be made available to the Planning Staff and `the Planning Commission when it is completed. We would like this matter to be considered by the Planning Commission at their regularly scheduled meeting to be held on May 7, 1981 . Very truly yours, T. F. Morris Director Industrial Rela ons !7 �1'► t��rnc1 r; lb,� W + :.4 cft two P A Used" P► *te and Aboadaw TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING O1 April 20, 1,981 r APRz4' � r t2 Mr. Thomas F. MorrisseyFBCy ) Ford Aerospace & Communications Corporation P0 Box A Newport Beach, California 92660 Dear Mr: Morrissey. This letter summarizes our analysis of the traffic requirements .of the proposed changes for the Aeronutronic'Ford development with respect t' circulation improvement phasing. The study was conducted to evaluate circulation needs in response io the Newport Beach City Council Resolut- ion Number 9472•requiring an improvement phasing plan for this project. The study .was based upon current planning for the Aeronutronic Ford site and the improvement'phasing plan dated May 4, 1979, prepared by our firm. In addition, current (1980) traffic volume data, regional traffic volume data, and committed project data were prbvided•by the City of Newport_ Beach. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ' , Aeronutronic Ford 'is bounded by Jamboree Road., Bison Avenue, MacArthur. Boulevard, and Ford Road. The phasing' approved by the City in 1979 allows the Aeronutronic Ford' faciliiy to e'xpand'by 60,000 square feet in 1980, 64,000 square feet in I981, 123,000 square feet in 1983,. and 123,000 square feet in 1986,. 'Aeronutronic, Ford •has not undertaken .the' 1980 or 1981 approved construction. The-project is a proposal to slight- ly advance the time' schedule. It is proposed that up ,to a 300;000 square foot building be' constructed in 1982, which would be occupied by the end- of 19,82. Thus, 124,000 square feet would be' constructed •one to two years later than allowed, 123,000 square feet would be constructed about •6 ' 2651 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE • SUITE 110 • FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA•92631 • (714) 871-2931 i months earlier than allowed, and 50,000 square feet would be constructed about 3 years early. The 300,000 square feet would result in the addition of 700 employees. As was discussed in the prior EIR traffic analysis and traffic phasing study, employment was utilized as the basis for estimating trip gener- ation. The previous traffic phasing plan estimated a total increase of 1,450 employees by 1983 while the current plan is for an-increase of 700 by the end of 1982. This difference is due to the type of facilities being constructed. Manufacturing type facilities are being constructed in place of the previously planned engineering facilities. TRIP GENERATION Estimates have been made of PM peak hour and the 2.5 hour peak period traffic to be generated by this project. Generation rates and estimat- ed volumes for each .time period are shown in Table 1 . These generation rates have been utilized in previous studies of this site. TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT The geographic distribution of traffic generated by this development was determined In the Traffic Analysis for tho EIR. Flguru 1 illustrates the traffic distribution that has been utilized for this study. This dis- tribution is for outbound traffic from the site.. Unless shown otherwise, the inbound traffic distribution would be the same percentage in the opposite direction. By applying, the distribution percentages to the trip generation data in Table 1, estimates can be made of traffic vol- umes from the project at various locations. CRITICAL INTERSECTION 1DENTIFICATION ' The next step in the analysis was to identify those intersections that could be impacted 'by the project. As a starting point, the '16 intersections ident-' ified for the analysis under the Traffic -Phasing Ordinance for this area were Table 1 TRIP GENERATION TIME PERIOD RATES W TRIP ENDS In Out, In Out 2.5 Hour Peak 0.08 0.94 60 660 (700 employees) PM Peak Hour 0.04 0.47 '30 330 .(700 employees)' (1) Tripends s per employee n • 4 1: FIGURE "I 15 % 15 % DR. Jy 45 % �o BRIS-TOL Sr m BRISTOL S- oRrH 5 ONI TA CYtN•Ro J' D • m� 1' yG a �RD. FOR A �4 p Sp�1 J04QU�N 4W y�<4 S RO. O m 5°/ a COAST HWY. PACIFIC 15% WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES i ' • -4 . examined. For this examination, the ".1% Traffic Volume Analysis" forms from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance 46re utilized. Since the project is scheduled to be ,completed in 1982, the traffic analysis. was made for 1983. Appendix A contains the data for the,individual intersections and the re- sults are summarized in Table 2. The basis for comparison included exist- ing traffic, regional growth traffic and approved project traffic.. For this study, the following projects were included as committed: Aeronutronic Ford Sea Island Backbay Office Bayside Square Orchard Office ' Bank•of'Newport Corporate Plaza National Lducation MacArthur Palace Baywood Apartments Koll Center Newport Seaview Lutheran Plaza Civic Plaza 3701 Birch- Office Pacific Mutual'Plaza Cal Canadian.Bank- " North Ford Harbor Point Newport Place Rogers Gardens The 1980 volumes were not available from the City for the intersection of Jamboree Road and Eastbluff North. As directed by the City, the 1979 vol- umes were increased by two and one half percent to estimate 1980 volumes at that intersection. The criteria established by the City. Council indicated that any inter- section where the project traffic during the 2.5 hour peak excee'd'i two percent of existing plus regional growth plus approved project traffic must be analyzed in detail' Review of Table 2 indicates that eleven of the 16 intersections exceed the maximum two percent 'on at least one ap- proach and must be consid6red critical. ANALYSIS The eleven intersections idcattfled in' thc previous section were further analyzed to determine potential traffic impacts. . Utilizing "I.nteraection Capaeity Utilization Analysis" forms from the-TrafficPhasing Ordinance Procedure, ICU values were determined..,' These ICU calculations included T a b l e 2 CRITICAL INTERSECTION IDENTIFICATION LOCATION 2.5 HOUR PERCENTAGES NB SB EB WB Bristol Street North & Campus Drive - - - 2.6 Bristol Street North & Birch Street - - - 3.4 Bristol Street North & Jamboree Road 4.3 0.3 - 3.6 Bristol Street & Campus Drive. - Irvine Avenue - - 0.4 - Bristol Street & Birch Street - - 0.5 - Bristol Street & Jamboree Road 4.7 0.4 0.5 - Jamboree Road & Campus Drive 2.6 0.3 - - MacArthur Blvd. & Jamboree Road 5.6 0.3 4.0 0.3 Jamboree Road & Eastbluff Drive (N.) 5.5 0.4 - - Jamboree Road & Eastbluff Drive - Ford Road - 0.7 - - Jamboree Road .& San Joaquin Hills Road - 0.6 Jamboree Road & Coast Highway - 0.7 _ MacArthur Blvd. & Campus Drive 2.2 0.3 - - MacArthur Blvd. & Ford Road 0.3 2.5 - MacArthur Blvd. & San Joaquin Hills Road 0.4 2.4 - - MacArthur Blvd. & Coast Highway - 3.5 - 0.3 traffic increases due to regional traffic growth and previously approved projects. The ICU calculations also considered circulation system im- provements required by previously approved projects. .' Individual ICU analysis sheets are continued in Appendix B and summarized in Table 3. ICU calculations were, also made for 1983 based upon the previously app- roved Aeronutronic Ford development and other approved projects. The ICU calculation sheets are contained in Appendix C. and summarized in Table 3. Review of Table 3 indicates that ICU values with the currently proposed project would be reduced at all eleven intersections when compared to the approved development plan. These results are due to the reduction in the number of employees to be added to the facility even though the building program is accelerated as compared to the previously approved plan. The ICU calculations for both conditions assumed the same inter- section geometries, regional traffic growth factors and committed pro- ject traffic. SUMMARY This study has examined the traffic factors related to a revised devel- opment plan for the Aeronutronic Ford Facility. ,The current',proposal would increase •tba amount of building area to be completed by the end of 1982; however, due to a change in building usage the number of em- ployees would be reduced: Comparison of ICU values indicates that the proposed development would have a reduced traffic impact with ICU values reduced at all critical intersections. On the basis o£ this result, no. circulation improvements have been recommended. ILI T a b l e 3 ICU SUMMARY INTERSECTION 1983 ICU VALUE APPROVED PROJECT PROPOSED PROJECT Bristol Street N. & Campus Drive 1.4963 1.4694 Bristol Street N. & Birch Street 1.1086 1.0844 Bristol Street N. & Jamboree Road 1.0071 0.9731 Bristol St. & Jamboree Road 0.8247 0.8013 Jamboree Road & Campus Drive 0.9532 0.9490 Jamboree Road & MacArthur Boulevard 0.7788 0.7603 Jamboree Road & East6luff N. - (1) 0.8877 MacArthur Boulevard & Campus Drive 0.9621 0.9472 MacArthur Boulevard & Ford Road Q.7844 0.7656 MacArthur Boulevard & San Joaquin Hills Rd.� 0.8952 0.8763 MacArthur Boulevard & CMIMt Highway 0.8990 0.8828 (1) Not Calculated - Proposed project ICU is less than 0.90 which is an acceptable condition. We trust that this analysis will be.of assistance to you and the City of Newport Beach. I•f you have.any questions of require• additional information, please contact us. Respectfully submitted, WESTON PRINGLE 9& ASSOCIATES Weston S. Pringle, P.E. Registered Professional Engineer State of California Numbers C16828. & TR565 WSP/lu #5268 ' • i F APPENDIX A 2 .5 HOUR INTERSECTION ANALYSIS 1983 Z�Traffic Volume Anal y is Intersection E. $ , ogF, _ A (Existing 'Traffic Volumes based on, ve ge M ter/Spring 194b) :Approach Existing Peak h Hour A►prored ho,1KLe0 Z of ►gJKtN Project-Direction Peak 211 Sour Regional ►rojKts ha 24 Sour ►fak Vi Nour Peak 2% Hour- valued growth Peak 2% "r valued volued volume Illorthbound z sa 65 v9Z• 330! 66 1 ,so,6bwae i 3 6 5 Z 157 762 440 1 . 88 i �EastGound i _ ' i estbound 9636 /Zl 233 /&q6 11653 , •30o [j Project Traffic is-estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2$ Hour Traffic Volume ® Project Traffic• is estimated 'to be greater than 2)4 of Projected .Peak 2$ Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 2�. � Traffic Volume Analyst / Intersection�� u ST (Existing Traffic Vo umeT s based on v r nter/ $ring 1991d ibonucn Eatttliy ►odl 24 our ApgrovN ►rolectdd of ►rolatN ►roIKS Olroctlon ►edk 2y Nour Ogfon+l ► Peak Grort� hit A Neap Ydlu 'Nwr Yalrr Yolua Hour Ye1W4lburj values neboww , 9 4' Y 2.80 l //84• Z �Swtwicum Z 7 Z 9 '670 ; 3399_ bg .itbaune � ; 1 Wstbwed 7Z2,.0 91 /¢ZZ 6733 /75" 1 300 1 3.¢Td (] Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume 2°l. Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than X of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE- 1'l Traffic Volume Analysis' Intersection .1 go (Existing Traffic volumes base on Average winter/spring 1980) �Apprweh Esfsti4 peak 2%Nowr ApprorM Project" of ►rej Led project. i rottlon , Ptak 2%Nwr Rwplanol helots poo 2%Noun pNk 2y Nour Peak 2y Neur Yolhoe Growth • Peak 2%,Nwr Yolre Yelue volume row—ne— 1,13 153 _ . 330 4. 399c, uthke Wv.e 3003 4 '568 3675 72 /O i o 3% estoound ttbeund /`00 Zo' • 3/0 193O 39 -70, 3. 6% Project Traffic is estimated to be less •than 1% .of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume ® Project, Traffic is estimated to 'be greater than A of Projected , Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volumen: Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: • 7 20 . Z / J11r Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection aimikrs>rt a sr�wsr . ilviue, �ele (Existing Traffic volumes ase , on verage nter Spring .199e) — ll$•79 i ;MProech ! tsisti" Peak 24 Near AMrov4 ►►rro��ettel of Pro Project Direction , ►at 2y Nor Regional h' ocu Pak ra HMO- Pak ty NPer Pa� Zh Neer• Yelw Yrw4A Peak ty Nrvr Yelw Yetw Y01w ,nerth0owe /77¢ ZS 34-0 Z/39 4.3 i I�southeoww Z$�$ 69 /8z 3O5q 6 / estnld G 5 S f a3 /07Z 7736 /S5, 30 i O.¢°1. stewm ® _ Project Traffic is estimated to be less than)% of Projected Peak 2k 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. I 1%.Traffi.c Volume Analysis Intersection�_q�sro� sT/Q14" ST. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Aperage Winter/Spring 191g)' — -- eee��++yyyLL ►Z-�9-�9 ;Aporcach 1 Existing Peak 2% Noun Approved Projected loof Projected Project Direction ; Peak 2y Hour Regional Projects Peek 2�a Hour eak 2% Hwr Peak 2y Hour Volume Growth Peak 2'a Hour Voluele voles Voluer volume Vol iris 1 ;Northbound Z 0 .5 66 269 S i �southbound � o9g /6Z 126d, 2S Kas=bons$ Q' 69 - - 896 6469 /Z9 30 O.5% i rstbound S07. 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 2; Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.. OATS; nnn 1CrT. zz • . M1 i Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection_ba.isrec, sT/� t�6pgEG3t RD (Existing Traffic Volumes based oh Aver—age Yi nter spring 1$b) IWpruch fanny ►.0 2%Maur I of . eon ►ett 2 M.urpent AroroNtt Phee]ktM% wZPokfi►hrof]ettN ►►ro]tet Ye1 25 fkur ue. Grath h.k 2y Hour Yde.e Yef"Valum Yeiw •-707O 141 330 14:77. koewowne z o t� 3 3 350 Z416 48 /D 0.¢°Je aeboww 4 f 6 2. 61 934, 5857 117 30 0.GI& ' 13 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2►s Hour Traffic Volume Z97. ® Project Traffic 1s estimated to be greater than 1-% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: 2% - ,YX Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection_- 1�n.�eaat= V%C-( came, (Existing Traffic Vo umes based on Average Winter/Spring 194!5) lAocrach Existing oak 2%Nour Approved ►/roro.J1KtN 12060f Projected ►roJKt Direction ; ►ak 2y Nour Regional ►roJKtg ►ak 2y Hee► k 2%hour hsk 2y Nour' Yolw Growth Peak 4 Home Velma Yolw Yolw Yol Val e lN°rthbound Z944 /D 9/8 . 3872 77 /OO 1 Z.6*1a k�uthbond z773 /0 546 33z9 67 sstDound j L015 _ 49 4-30 t Z494 So i � stnound ` IBOZ 44 82 1928 39 [] Project Traffic 'is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume Z'1. Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than yX of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis 'is required. -- nAT Z% • ,li{ Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection !rt at eR. bc./-�4wterellles�. Qe (Existing Traffic Volumes base on v rage inter/Spring 19b Approach 1 Witfat teak 1%Hour Am►rowd ►ro ettOd Zkof ►rolottod ►rolect Glreetion ►eat 2%Hour Ae91oM1 ►relottt ►Ni 2ti lour teak 2%Hour ►let 2b Iour• Volume Grath tut 2ydour Values Volume Volw vl10 'INorthbound i tS 9 4' 534 1797 36 /00 k..thbb nd i r Y Y 7 4 -1-2 4 36/S 72 /e /ttbwnd z'S 4.0 3 432 2775 s"6 l/0 t:bound__ ' Z75 1 /D 5-06 3267 65- /O o• T. Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 21� Hour Traffic Volume 2% ® Project Traffic is, estimated to be greater than )9 of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. nATFs Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Jamboree Road/Eastbluff Drive (N) (Lxistlnq traffic Vo1wlNis ba5lal on AVera<µ WinteV. '/Spring' 191) ) Approach _ ' Existing Peak 2S Hour Approved 1T�Projected �j'L of Projected Project ••mc;im Peak A Hour Regional I Projects 1 Peak 2y Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2y Hour Vol une Growth Peak a Hour I Voluse Volume volume , Vol :Northbound 4•�}7 7 lI BZ 6024 — /Z0 330 S S% 'southbound 4839,414D 896 GD4-2- /01 20 586 Z30 S Project Traffic is estimated to.be less than 1% of Projected Peak 21} Hour Traffic Volume ® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 2-Xl.of Projected Peak 21, Hour-Traffic Volumen. Intersection. Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. PROJECT: I ORt4 I t i 2(o 2°70 • yl Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection : • ✓t�., .e&SM p0 (ExistingTraffic Yo times based on venter S rin 19 9 / P 9 Apprach bishop Peak Vs Nwr Ap►revN f�r�ectM of Iro,�eetN ►rolett Direction Peak ft Nour pplonet frojects Mk�I Neur ►eak 2y hour PNk A/bur I volume irwtA ►eak A Hour Whir VON" Was tMoww 0 a io 6 /3/g '59.60 119 35444�, S 808 4369 87 ' 3.0 0.7"1e ,emtmw m 1109 8 1117 Z 2 . mtnwna 7 62 5 8/4 !I(,2 2�1, • ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than of Projected Peak 21s Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utflization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. , DATE, PRmirrT ,N Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection J^nn d ICA �O (Existing Traffic Vo umes based on verage Winter/Spring 19p ,A Proach Existing ►eak 24 Hour Approved ►rglaetN Z of ►rodacted ' project 'Direction Put 2%Hour Mg/onal "Octs Mk h NW. reak 216 Hour Peak 2y Hour, Volume. Growth Peak 2%Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume !IbrthDdund zbbl 9- '990 3665- 73 !w�thea,ne 4•y06 6 . 75Z7 5/6/ •103 3o 0.6°7a astbound 34Z. . 0 362- 7 . 1 sthound ' Z b/6 436 309Z 61 ® Project Traffic is estimated to be-less than Z�d of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated' to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE* 2 T. X Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection J Ahn e (Existing Traffic Vo umes base on ` T li— a Averagenter Spring 19)b) jwvracn ERtsting Peek 2S Hour PApprovrdrojects Protected Z of jected or, t Direction Peek 2S Hour Regional Projects PNk 2S Nour ►eek 2S 1Wur ►yk 2S Hour• Volume Growth Peek 2S Hour volume Volwre Voloer VOW" Vol r , ('Northbound I o 97 52 k.Wthoound 3532_ 5 79$ 4335 67 3o ; a.'7?. jtettbound 4 ¢9 2-3 480 I S/5Z /03 4oe6 51 I �eftbound 308 89 , ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than V of Projected Peak ,2h Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. nnnicrr. ,q + • Z*7o 13' Traffic Volume Ana-Tysis Intersection (Existing Traffic Vo umes based on rage inter/Spring 198b) 1Approack E+cl itfey ►wk 2ti Nour Approved ►rsjeeted 2 or Projected Project Direction Pnk 2h Hour Reglaeel Projects Mk 2y Nour sk ih Hour Peak 2y Hour- j voles Grortk ► 0 2y Hour, Yalum voles volume voluse rekboueld j Z 9t 1 T 6 / 2� 4S7 7 % 1 loo I 9.2 To 1 2738 4- 708 3¢S'O 69 /O ; 0. 31. +sebound j 20¢3 Sa H172267 4Sabp �a 7. 60 2803 i .__ 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour-Traffic Volume ® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than kf of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. I� 2% 0 Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection FA rvu >s;c,� QQ e e (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Merage Winter pr ng 191o) i �WDroste 1 fsistial Peak 2% Moir PprorN M ett" of Project" ►roloet Olroetton teak 2% fear Oglonol Fro,loetf M 1 I Vellolo Own Peak 2%hour Vol""•wor Yalu Moor Ve ww Hour• reMouM : 'SOD5 1I 836 3852 77 .. /O 1 0.3% �eY 3 oZ 11 960 ¢000 eo /oo �eteovno I//(o 72 /2-36 25 i ►even_— 3 /8 9s'4 19 i Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume 471 m Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than ZA of Projected Peak 2y Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 31 XX Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection of ac�SA,u� �,,� �uc�,g RD. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on verage Winter Spring 19 ) :Approach Ealstln9 Peak 4 Hour . Approved ►rojected of ►rolected ;Direction Peak Hour Growth Regional Project$ Teak Hour k �KL Pak 2%Hour Volume volume Hour Peat 2k Hour Vol Volume ' ii;zo q 636 - '"°r"'°ound 226s' 45 thbeww , 38s9 iz 838 423g es roo .2.4�0 astbound 3 3 5 376 35// 70• estbound /z89 /42 /431 2. 9 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2-� Hour Traffic Volume ® Project Traffic is estimated to' be Zia greater than }x of Projected Peak 2)� Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. nnn r�r. Z cve Traffic Volume Analys s Intersection ,( 0 uK 3auo (Existing Traffic Vo umes base on ver ge nter Spring 19Pei s,=Ga1'o LxlttIM ►nk A Mdyr Ap►nwd 2 Otrsceten hst p/Nour AMloeel ►ro is heloetee Xt o1 /roJoctwt ►roloct ' k 2 ►Mk ri Msur /Mk 2y Mur Ptak 2% Nwr- Yolusr Grorth ►�At 2y Nwr YOU" Yolw �----� Yeiw r rthbkwA i 1 uehewfw t/S G 12 6 2 2$b0 57 /00 A.tkernd ( 3G6fe 46 1760 4412 88 i 3173 96 332 3561 7/ /0 [] Protect Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2y Hour Traffic Volume ® Protect Traffic is estimated to be greater than 19 of Projected Peak 2� Flour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required 33 ' APPENDIX B PROPOSED PROJECT ICU ANALYSES 1983 '+ t INTEMWTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALY� Intersection ehn1 • 1 p.3f 1tJ��1 ,,M is Ate ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average DailyTTraffic Winter/Spring 198V 6-4-lD UtIST::.O /RGPOSEG EXIST. EXIST. PESIGtttl Co1NITTFS PAWECTED :b.t.tn: Ltnat Cap Lana Coo. PAMR. V/C GA 14 DI,IDJECT Y/C Ihtin PAW— 0 jC— vot. RRtlo YAw Yalune W/o ProJRtt Yolunt Y/C Ratto Vol on NL J600 zt:J: . IiL3 21 0.179 a179¢ � NT 37.00 695 .Z109 17 215" 0.3022 0.302 NR r... SL _ ST 4boo <z.s 1:90 . 3oGS 1? 48 0.1888 6./888 SR Us 2 �81 333 a.4b4-2-#1 a4.6¢2 EL �-- ET ER WL Iboo 491 .3069 150 . 0-3581 0.3381 WT 6400 35113 - 66S 44 B90 0.70 /50 WR 40 8 t YELL MT .0 INE .1 DDO EXISTING INTERSECTION t [ t CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.1 L O $ i t EXISTING PLUS.COMNITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROYEMENTS I.C.U. L>'ISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 1. Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal q 1 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: . GATE: PROJECT 'FORM 11 INTER*ION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANAL•Y* Intersection A.Le .04 S� ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Traffic winter/Spring EtISM4 PROPOSED EXIST. EXIST. RESIMAL COIPI:TTR) PROJECTED Lanes Cap, Lanes Cap. PK.HR. V/C Own PROJECT V/C Ratin PRWEC" c,,;J•C• 'Vol. Ratio Volme Volur w/o Project Voluwe VA R4t14 Volw IJL /fie o g/ .o�oL 3 0.0525* O.oS NT 3zoo Z70 . oS-44. / 37 0•/272 0.127 NR SL ST /(Pod ¢6/ .zS81 36 0.3119 � SR /600 (432oo 633 .39.6.GX Z97 0.2906 0. 29 EL ET ER WL 736 wT G¢oo z95t .4�9793 - 76 ¢ 0.59WR YELLOMTIME I a .IOOd gip./000'Kj i0./DOD EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROYEMENTS I.C.U. ,O _x7s- -, PLUS C"ITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to tl.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement wil'1 be a less than or equal to 0.90 Description of system improvement: —� OATE PROJECT FORM 11 T 1 . ♦n,L1\J L1.�t VAI brill VIlLILA'1 l Vlt AIIALrJ1J• IntersectioTiE%Rls-rnr_ �.fAn,t?6,I a- = @(*) ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1986, sf.9m /a-r,- g . E11511 G PROPOSED EXIST EXIST. RESi9YXL COIMITTfD PRWECTEO „o•` °•' Lanes Cap. lanes Cap. PX.RR. V/C QW14 PRWECT V/C Rath PAWL:- Val. Ratio Volume Volume w/o ProJeot Mom V/C Ratia Volume NL 3zoo (3 /(,oSX 1501116, 4 s 0. 4375 US" 0.4416- NT 42&0 (2 71 z 4 .234G 2- z54- 0.4319 SU '0. ? NR SL ST 49oo C2. $a) .7=s8 1 113 0.Z66 5 Q.267g, SR /boo G.5 2 4zq 2G61 1/ 0. 27.50 O. 2S0 EL ET ER WL, /y WT 4900 C4 6 705 •T.5 9 154 0.1 * 55' 0.l wR YELLOMTIME -�_ .I000 0./000 10./000' lk EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION •93 93 i ' ' EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWN M/PROPOSED IM►RDYEMENTS I.C.4,MM7771I LXIS71NG PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGI&W GROMTN PLUS PROJECT 1,.C.U. 0 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 Ll Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be t less than or equal to O.90 Description of system improvement: DATE: PROJECT FORM 1I INTERSEVON CAPACITY UTILIZAT ON.,ANALYSI* 37 Intersection c. ,ewe_ a. ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average 6aily Traffic Winter/Spring 19 D snarEa Z../l-79 EIlST i::. PROPOSE. EXJST, EXIST. RE"O'.1t COIMITTfO PROJECTED �•� ^= PR.nR. V/C 111004 PRDJECT Y/C Ratio PPGJZ" oe'a'C• Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. Yot. Ratio Vol= MEE w/o PmlOct YoiwK Y/C Rstlo Voliene YOIuRa NL NT z o¢ .3073 3 720 0.3 /65 0.41 NR 5 4- 4 SL ST 48ov / 006P .Z096 1 175- 6.2 3 5 0. 2¢73 SR _ EL /(Poo 140 .097S 44 O.11 O / O ET 3 Zoe 7 b 5 . 2391 •/D /Z4 6.Z809 S 0.2 CE ER 32.00 / 1 3 4 299 0. /.0 0. SO WL WT WR YELLOWTIME . I000 Q,/OGb*i 10,/00 EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ,761 j 1 EXISTING PLUS COhMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U.16,177.711 LXISTI4G PLUS COMIITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 0. 013 ❑ 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: (A) Since the Northbound Through (NT) volumes are greater than the Southbound Through (ST) .volumes, the Eastbound -Right turr s '(ISR) can move when there is no "ST" traffic. Then, the difference 1ivtween the "Ni'" and "ST" V/C Ratios c;in be sUbtracLed .from the "EL" V/C Ratio. (b) The "ER" V/C Ratio is reduced so that "ET" is greater and becomes critical. _ DATE: . PROJECT FORM I'I 38 10 T Intersection ja ,„l&0a_0�,, e,,c_ s 00 ( existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Dail Traffic Winter/Spring 198o1 Ei1STI.Z PROPOSED EXIsT• PEX RESINAL Yf!1'TTF4 Y/CRIt10 PRIiJE" ECTED Lanes Cap. Lanai CG MAR, GWt PROJECT P' Val. Ratio Yo11 Yo1mr W/o r ,sect Voluns V/C Ratio NL + too 3 c 0.0097 0.00 NT 63 13al S- 411 0.357 .50 6.3 NR (/ / 00 It03 48 0.100 0./0(0 SL 1too0 (2 3200 zr(6O, 0.0STmoo 698 2 23/ 0. Z S 0.2sR 1fg 4ZEL L400 o /80ET Z-400 o , . 12- 3 S 0.2288 0. 288 ER 1600 $ -oSl O.OSI 0.0519 WL 1600 /o .0661 16 0.078/ 0-6781 WT 1.3ZOO (2 320 3oz �1ar9 �` • 25' 0./o o./ # WR (l)'/600 o 0./750 l SO YELLOWTINE .1000 � 0./00&; 16•/0001l EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION -96 5 EXISTING PLUS C"ITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 0, EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. O. ❑ 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 030 [] 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 INItHA UN CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYS16 IntersectionA" ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average D ily Traffic 'Winter/Spring 192D Ea IS ING PROPOSE. EXIST ExISI. RE:IOtUI co"Itlrb PROJECTED No.*.en: lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. Pa.RR. V/C GROWTd PROJEtt Y/C Rahn PRDJEE' • , E' Vol. Ratio Volume Volume Wo Protect Volumes V/C RatIJ MUM NL J 1&00 55 .034d ZS 0.0T00 O.o500 NT k4too 343 . I 172 0. 35 0.155 NR /09 7p lS SL /`oo Z . 1-3 O. 1369 O./3 69 ST 01 3L O0 rsktaco I 68 7 .z Q I 25 7 o.1969 S o. 1979 5R /60 0 62Z 13 0•¢S50 O, EL /(6oc) L)32 00 :547 ZZ9¢ 7 6.1515+ lS o,/ ET 4%00 GQ .135z 90 O. /S'¢2 35 0.16/ ER p G .00 /D O. OIOo O.OIO wL lboo (2)32IS . 144d 67- o.o l6 0.0 WT 4 o 0 a 170 3 /9l -o.2ll + S o.2 23 WR 1(000 -01,31 O.0631 YELLOWTIME .1000 O•Iowa ; EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .74 I I EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. E ExISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT•I.C.U, a O ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90, ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 Description of system improvement: —_ DATE: _ PROJECT FORM II 1 7 yp INIIMl l I ION' M,AcI IY Hill I/AI ION ANAI YI11'. Intersection _. Jamboree-Road/Eastbluff Drive ) ( Watvul Traffic Vulumw. Ra',to, on Averatle Daily lraffiL Winter/Spring 1979) I AI'•1 11:'•1 PI Id N4r11 nMYlA 114 1'Inl1Ul1.' �•+ „ •4'.:14u P4d!'p•.Ip p, 11p• Y:1 9.119141.1 1•RU II,t Y-1 N,t11n 1'tln 11.1 1,-t II n•1•Y .xp. IOIIL'S LdP' Vol. Rol Io w/o 1'IT.1"t Y•d'N"'• +lt It.11 to Yu1 nx YuIwY• Vol" 4L 1600 .40 41 0.0256 11T 3200 C3)¢a0_0 , ' y- � 0.575 NK (Z)1600 SL CI /6oU S o.03 0.0 ST 3200 (3)¢800 44WZb 1 2 B93 16.3565 /O 0-3S851 SR 1600 3343� 0. I 213 EL 3200 (3)3200 ,a229 ET ER 1600 -2.2 .0011 0, 0011 0.0011 WE --(/)/Aoo WT _. I)/ ' — (1 J 0 - - s 0,O # 0.0719 YELLOWTIME 1000* 0./000-°16 :0. /000 t t EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION' .83861-84 9 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVE14ENTS I,C,U. 0. 1 MSTM PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. t10-8 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be -less than 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: DROJECT r 1'ORM II INTERSECTIN CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection�,IAc,QQtl.Eve_gG 6E?yz.�'�-S, .tv.�__ , Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Dai y Traffic Winter/Spring. 19� EXIST. EXIST. RE.IOYaL eowmrj PROJECTED PCHEE15•IN,: PROPOSE. EXIST. Ratio PRUE., V Ratio elu Lanes Cep. Lines Cep. Y/C ahn PROJECT Wo Pro,Iect Volume V/C Ratla Vol.ol. a4 Yolune Yolune NL 14,00 (2)3200 1/0 .0(ea88 0.0688 0.6686 NT 3zoo C4 (, less .3391 Z 7 0.2981 Sb NR l(0oo J So .0313 3 SL 1600 Z) Zoo 88 . 055 10 0.0306* 0.030(0 ST 3Loo (3)4-8qj793 a 2478 1 _ ob 0.2292 S 0..230.z SR 1(000 26 / dt,,31 /8 0.17 -0. 1-744 EL 1 fi0o 31 5 I 69 7 0. 22 0.-ZU3 P° ET 3 2 o o 44 A- .18 34• 11 490.20 1 0.2031 ER Z 1 3 WL )boo 109 #0GA1 30 0.0 0 9 W7 3Zoo 3 ZO 67 0. WR I 00&V 0.1256 1 0.12 YELLOWTIME 0 �6./0001 ; 66. 1000 CTI 1k EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .9 Z j 1 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U.M.9771i 01ST M PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U.. ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project'traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Description of system improvement: _ DATE: PROJECT FORM 11 K � r articn•i lull Unrnt.11T UI IL14AI IUN ANALY y< Intersection ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on, Average Dai y Traffic Wi.nter/Spring 19921 :Y.•e tn: EEi STI:.S PROPOSED EIUSL E%1ST, RE',IMAL COME!TTED PAWECTE0 Unrm Cap. Lanes Cap. iR.MR. V/C CROfRd PROJECT V/C Ratio ►RNEC' ;•EC' Vat. PAM VOW" Volume w/o project VOIW4 V/C Ratia Volume NL JZOO57 .o/ f. 30 0.0 O.OZ09 NT 3zoo C3 Cb 155 .QZZ$ S 381 .37! 5 0.372! NR 40 SL 3Z O 76 19 0.l 0.1547 5T / 3791 4 351 o. 900 So 0.Sb36 5R .0 S O.IZ��,, 0.1256 EL Z O340 110& go b. UZ ET 3Z00L&S .05 1 D.D '(9 0.051 ER Jt000 Z O.O 0. wL moo .o, 4 a.ao D.DIDb � WT WR /600 YELLONTIME IOG D.1000*�. �0./ODo ak EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIUFION . b0 E I i . EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIOMJIL GROWTH N/PROPOSED INPROYEMENTS G.C.U. D, p0 I Ply-NG aLUS C"ITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.6.u. ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will, be ,less than or equal to 0.90 ❑ Projected PLUS-project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with- systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 Description of system improvement: -•_--- DATE PROJECT FORM II a , �n•�n.r�.�un Vnr nai l US eLaLnl AUn ,wtNLiJ� '/3 Intersection MAC,artr"vri AC /!S" Joi16t T„J �bf I It Cs ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average D�Iraffic Winter/Spring 193�0) EXISTING PROPOSED EXIST. EXIST. REGIDRAL CO�MITTEO PROJECTED movement Lanes Cap. Lanes Cep. PAM. V/C Man PROJECT - V/C Ratio PROJECT PROJECT Vol. Ratio Volume Volume w/o PrgiKt Volume V/C Ratio Volume NL /600 36 eWA o361 `A O•o290 0,0294 NT 3200 699 . 1� ,184 3 463 o. 3138 P:: 4. 3/53 ' NR o -H-3 39 SL 3z.00 3 rrz41. ST 3200 43 0. 4-82* so 0./¢44 SR A/A 3o g 52 EL 32c)o .2528 118 ETr4"300 1�$ �. - I S'g 3 57 ' 0.1271 6.127/ ER IZ9 23 WL o � . 0725 ZU O.o S O•D 2 WT rr¢ .0741d 25 • 0.063/ O.Ob WR / 3 8 26 YELIOWTIME - . 1 O00 Io./Ooo �l i a EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .7921 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED. INPROYEMENTS J.C.U. O,er567 i EXISTING PLUS CUPWITTED 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) San Miguel extended from Avocuclo to San Joaquin Ilills Road. (0) D.IE: PROJECT FORM II In Ito LIIUN't,AYA6LIY UIILILAIIUN MAW) Intersectionco.ysrffwY'/�► 4C.4R.rtiu2 Pc. ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 198bj LUST:OL 1140POSED E715T. EXIST. REGIONAL COR Mto P ECTEQ i4'•` F`' Lanes ca lanes c. RR.MR. Y/C ~to PROJECT WC RAtlo IRQ1E(" °.;di(' D. D' Yot. Ratio Valuer VolWN via Project Yalu" Y/C Ratio Valuft NL -- NT — NR — SL 3Zoo 89Z .t�a8 S 195 0. l3 Sca. 0.356 * I'' ST _., SR /roco /93 •Ito6 90 1769 0.1769 EL /boo / 91! It D S 2o4- o.2S13* 0.251 ET 32oo C3)Moo t3s$ .4zs 17. 46 0. 3163 0.3163 ER WL WT 4900 772 .16ag / 52 0. 17 6,1746k WR /t000 4Z7 9 7 109 0.339 S 0.3 S YELLOWTIME . 10�0 0./ODO'� 10. /OO ' E%!STING 1MTERSE TI P 1 C ON CA ACITT UTILILlTION .'80Z2 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROiITH W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C,U. D. 7 ! EYIST k PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.O. p,g ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. wilt 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 'r equal to 0.90 Description of system improvement: DATE:_ PROJECT FORM II T � • APPENDIX C EXISTING PROJECT ICU ANALYSES 1983 _...�VI-V.. .rI.. 1•V.II V11L1 LI.Y.V/1 lN1/1�-V Y �/"� lnitr•sectioll.t.,�y,r5Trr4 5�, GJt� ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Dai Traffic Winter/Spring 19Bd1 EATS%*4 PRGOSE: EXISTFE11ST. REi!N411 COONME � PROTECTED '10.t kSt PK.MR. W., PROJELl VIC R+tm P6,Ji_'L+nes G,: lanes C1D• Vol. Vohae Val" kl/o Project VolW4 V/C Pat,. VOlwa NL Iboo twL0. 1NT 3zob L95 7 Q? Q.3022 NR SL .�. ST 4boo (V90 SR EL ET ER — WL ITroO 491 Wr lfo400 3511 . 5552 44 WR 40 YEILOWTIME .1 DDO EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ),IZso i 1 1 EXISTING PLUS C"ITTEO PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 kYTST!NS PLUS COMMITTEO 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 IX.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 Description of system improvement: DATE-: PROJECT FORM II r + q� Intersection�Rec � �2�_�t S� ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average iafiy Traffic Winter/Spring 19pI(c.r�� EXISTN4. PRGPGSEC EXIST EXIST. RE;:7AL COMM!", PROJECTED .k•` ;•• Lanes Cap. Lanes Cep. PX,RR. V/C GRNTn PROJECT Y/C Retin MR., . . Vol. Ratio Volume Volume W/o Project Volume YK Natw Volume NL /Gao 8/ • 030 3 0.05 ' NT 3ZOo 7-70 • o644 13 Z O.IL 2 NR SL ¢ ST /goo b/ Tzeal .�8 Q. 3119 -k SR /bpp (223200 433 •39Slo EL ET ER WL .7(o WT G400 Z95Z •4797 31 0. WR YELLOWTINE . IOOC? _ ;C),/Oco r EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION $3 U$7,59 EXISTING PLUS C"ITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 086 EYTSTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT J.C.U. ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 Description of system improvement: DATE: . PROJECT FORM I1 4 . i- 1NItK0 1UN LANAGIIY U11L1LA11UM ANALY Intersection EsRlsrne. sTGu� �.lArY,+ �1= en ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 198t) sr,9M is-e.-Yq Ea1STMG PROPOSED `.IIST, MST, misszopal COMRTTFO FAWECTEDVic Win PPWE:' Lane$ GP. Laaat Cap. Pa,I A. Y/C illOYfd PIIQIECT r/o /rolace Yotuna 4/C MtW Yal. title Yalar Your Yoluae NL 3zoo s)yBen 1409 .Sol(6 NT 41" x)sxoo NR SL ST ¢goo &Ir)" 59Z .11156 03 D.t6lip SR /boa <a!)a/on 4"z9 .LGdI / O.L2S0 EL ET £R WL /G / WT 4800 (� 9cv 905 •►519 q ZZS" WR s YELLOWTIME .1 do o* 1 O./oov EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1910 93 EXISTING PLUS COMII•TTEO PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROYEMENTS I.C.U. /.Gib 7 a LYIS"!NG PLUS COPMITTEO PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. Q Projected plus project traffic I.C.U.' will be less than or equal to 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C:U. wi11 be greater than 0.90 U 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 I1 R " 4.11 Ln AVIV Vni-lH"Xii UTALLLHA VIt nunLI �y • Intersection_&y�SZpc. ►►. tZ¢GE R_� ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average aily Traffic Winter/Spring 1 1 srarC;\ L•/i-79 1 E A:S1I•w, PRUPUSLC EXISt. EXIST. RE�'^Cai CCT:rT!'' C RatPADJUTio Y/ o PFIiJi.' �.'..'U•. a1 JECt M/o ►roJRet votuOe v/,C Raclo Lanet CAP. Lmnmt Cap. PX.RR, V/C GPCW:,I PRC Vol. Ratio Vol uae Volume Yolumr NL NT Z o¢ "3073 3 NR 5 4 SL sT SR _ EL 1(000 140 . o 7S ET 37.00 765 . z3c) /U ¢J>c ER 3zoo / / 3 4 0 (, WL uT WR YELLOWTIME a 11 EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .76 J j t EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 0, t LYISTINC PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 16.8931 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ❑ Projected 'pius 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: (A) 51AlCE THE Eq;f 13pclun 21 <-AM MOVE t'oAr(. L)ZP-EAI7E Y W I-rH THE , NOETHBOUAtrJ L t.F r A"1- $rIS"r0L sr. ALITNE_ FA,rAoU�ln 'rrl�nuc r1 I• <•R1WAr . DATE:, PROJECT FORM II SO Int•ection �A,P")bOFLCQ_Ps� ��A►ttpv.1._.DR— (' 'Existing Treffic Volumes Base-, on Avorage U'ail Traffic. Winter/SprinU 11190) EX:STAe: PROPOSED EXIST EXIST. RE:J^'+Xt Zc":TTP4 PROJECTED Lane$ Cap. Lines Cap. PX.RR. V/C V;1.7n PROJECT V/C RatinProject Volt" _ e L/C A.tla Vol. Net I VoLr Vole "/aVol me NL SZ-vo 3I .0097 ' 1 0. o097 NT a 3 I';so•1 [.17,00 6.3 23* NR L302SL 1ro0 3 L$fo 78 OOb'aST 08 2 a33 ^'6.Z273 14 SR I I P) ya EL Z400 -409 az12.f 0 6.2 ET t 40o ZZ88 ER 1 b00 WL MOO /o .0�sr 0781 WT 3ZOo Z 2 30-L d817 K �l 02 0, 1044- WR C/ E 00 O O.l7 YELLOWTIME .1000 EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZ TION EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. n.. s•: 7 i kXIST!NC PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will• be less than or equal to 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 Description of system improvement: DATE: PROJECT FORM II 1 , 11., .... _..�. .... ..... ...... . ... ... ..... nr.10 5.� . Intersection ..ffiscAR7>•ht" —SA►»�3c��...lz-!�__. ( Existing Traffic Volumes da'ses on Average D ily Traffic Winter/Spring 19-IEP E{ISTP.G PRDPUSEL EXIT EXIST. RE"ID•:at CCK4:TTF5 PROJECTED 'U.. e•: V/C Rahn PRC.IE:' c. lanes Cap. Unet GP' PVal. Ratio Volume VoUM lme Wo Project Volume V/C Ra:v Volume NL l4oO 55 034d 3S O.C1 ,i NR 09 O SL /000 Z /4 . 133 0./ ST 3L 00 C3 43Z0 G$7 .7- 4 2 0.2222 SR /bd 0 &ZZ .390S p. I EL /boo v 3(o ZZ9¢ . 0. /6/9* ET 4%00 GQ ./35Z• ( 1,60 0./4,68 ER / 0 6 00 !O 0.0/06) WL 1(ovo ca auo Z3/ . 1444 0.0931 WT ¢ O 0 $ZD' . 17 0 6 0.2/Z.3 WR 0.I!> .Ora3l YELLOWTIME 'Q./000�IW . � EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILiZAT10N .-7 i ` EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 0-17,69 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. ❑ Projected plus 'project traffic I.C.U. will be less 'than or equal to 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 . ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will -be less than or equal to 0.90 Description of System improvement: DATE PROJECT FORM 11 51 ' Intersection_A :A 7- the ,oc us y ! Existing Traffic Volumes Oases on Average Dad y Traffic Winter/Spring 19$Ul I E;15T. EXIST. at,IDueL COS",TTC7 PROJECTED pF:jEC' Lanes '.. LanesSE" pt,NR. V/C GROVTn Piwict Lanes Ga. icon Cep. Vol. Ratio Vol we Votu,e w/o Project Volune V/C eat'a Volw* NL I b 0 a Cz 2 //0 0%88 0.06 8 NT 3Loa (�}E4c /085 .:53all NR 1boo 5o .0315 3 SL 1(000 a)32( ^ 88 . 055 A 1-5'— IT 3Z00 793 e247g 1 334a 54- SR 1600 2 A9 6.1-144 EL !`00 3 1 5 . 19(09 ET pUoo 46to X .1954 Il 20 ER 2 l WL 1J:oo I0 ' e06 30 0.0 WT 3Zoo 3 Za (0 WR I600 DO(o 0 O: 2 YEIIOMTINE 000 /066)�; EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .94 Z EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.c.U. 96 J i crIST!RS PLUS COJMITTEO PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ❑ Projected ,plus project traffic .I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 Description of system improvement: —_ - -----'---- ----DATE: FROJECT FORM III 4 C • .,r.-.. Vr.. ..V. . . .. .L•Lr.rlVr• rrl•I•Lr� -• 5j. Inter•stction4&W,ltTFlJ/r2 P,•,C rc-A! ra Ft n Fxltting Traffic Vnl.wnr•. Oa .r . nn Avrvagv Daffy Irdtf1(. Wintt•r/Sprillo 11 1 EXIST EXIST. RESIA07eE C01":TT0 PROJECTED EinesCu Lines Ca V/C Ratio � .PAJJC,• Lines Cap Lines Cap Px.RR. Y/f 6RP.Tn PROJECT w/o Project Volume V/C Repo Yoi. Ream Valiant Volume Volume NL 13ZOO 57 .oll L s NT ZOO C Oo 1355 • 4ZZ$ S o37 NR 40 .OL5o .17 IL 32 O 47to .146 a.! 7 ITe)ln /Z 1 .3791 Q- / Q-524124 5R O O EL 3Zoo 10& ET 3Z00 5 , .051& 19 ER /bOD 17,Z . 076 /.S� O.D 5'. WL 1000 WT WR 1600 $Z 5 5 /bDU YELLOWTIME •/GO to./000*i t, EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION . 80 i X EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMEMTS I.C.U. 3 8 t E'IS'!VG PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U.- Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or.equal to 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I,C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 Description of• system improvement: ----- -- ---• ��_--- DATE.: _ PROJECT FORM II ........�aVit enrn�►1 i UIlL1LnI4 WY /Vi1 , NL 5�l IntersectionmiecQlarµuT2 ofcl5anl ,ln4a IAJ 4ILLS LZ0. ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Iraff'ic Winter/Spring 19ro) EXISTMA PROPOSED EXIST. EXIST. REOIML COMMITTED PMECTED Wraaent Lents Cap. Lanes Cap. PAM. Y/C SAWN PROJECT VIC Ratio /ROJECT PROJECT Yol. Ratlp Yo1�s�e Yolute Yolune Iect Yotone Y/C Ratlo NL 03BJ X / A. O ' HT zoo ¢74 .J 841 3 ZBo ' NR p f >RfJ SL 3zoo 392 •Jz4J 01Mzz ST 3Z00 3zJ� SR MA, ro /rIO 63 EL 32c)o set' 2528 OJz ET Boo tw, , J S$ 3 yW ER Z9 23 WL /600 D /ffo , o1ZS WT �8oa /f/ 244 .0794 Z9 OJo633X MR � �3 8 YELLOWTIME . I000* EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .7921 1 t EXISTING PLUS COMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROYENENTS LC:U. �r � EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U: ❑ Projected plus project traffic I:C.U'. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 �j Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 Description of system improvement:' 7 / f ✓. 4 FX�dr/C�" OM, �vola av pr r1l•`v�rl /1J:J .fli^4c>: GATE: PROJECT FORM II 'f " 11Y1 U11111Y L/1eHL11 Y UIILI(AI IUN 1111A I.1 , Inter,riLiunr.oF>,}Text"01 1,1ceiAfp0 ,,:. r. r: ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 19 61 •Wa t LA: .. tA,S III;^Al PROUICTI LanSs Cap. Y/C Rtt In PRLJ.L.n p• fnv I9U1.1 ,' • r/U Pro,art VOW* V/CHAR N3 Vol. Aa 10 VolAe Volu"e Volume NL -- NT — NR SL 3zvo 09Z .z762, 5 0� }.372 ST SR /fooO / 93 •Izo(o �,./yam/ EL /boo /98 /Z 3 8 ET 13200 Q) /355 t4z3 410. /7 ER WL WT 14,goo 77Z .I40$ /t; S 0. WR /(oo0 42-7 .Z4&9 7 0. 6 YELLOWTIME . /00071 i 0./GYY. EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1 EXISTING PLUS COPMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS J.C.U. Q. G) eY15'!4; ?lU5 COPINITTEO PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 Description of system improvement: DATE: PROJECT FORM 1I Ford Aerospace & Communications Corporation Aeronutronic Division Ford Road Newport Beach, California 92660 _ April 20, 1981 Mr. Fred Talarico Community Development Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. Talarico: Attached are two copies of an updated traffic report prepared by Weston Pringle and Associates describing the impact of our proposed adjustments to the Aeronutronic Ford Traffic Phasing Plan. I will be pleased fo meet with you or members of the Planning Staff. to discuss this proposal . very truly ours, T. F. Morrisse Director Industrial Relat ns Attachments cc: 0. Hewicker RECEIVED Planning Department APR20 19810-, t CITY OF NEWP09T BEACH, CALIF. 2 A