HomeMy WebLinkAboutTPO050_VILLA POINT TPO050
O Y OF NEWPORT BOACH
COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES
ADJOURNED/REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
�Gy ��G Pp �f 9y 9G PLACE: Council Chambers
ZF TIME: 6:00 P.M.
ROLL CALL Fy yF y DATE: September 26, 1988 INDEX
\IHEARINGS;
ox presented a Proclamation to Linda L.
, South Region Campaign Chairperson,
at that the month of October, 1988 is
adWay Month.
Present x x x x x x xOIL CALL.
Motion x ding of Minutes of Meeting of
All Ayes p ember 12, 1988, was waived, approved
itten, and ordered filed.
Motion x Read in full of all ordinances and
All Ayes solut ons under consideration was
ived, nd City Clerk was directed to
ad by t tlea only.
ARINGS:yor Cox ope ad the public hearing Ord 88-34
regarding prop sed ORDINANCE NO. 88-34, PCA 668
being, 16 Harbor Is
Drive/Zong
AN ORDINANC OF THE CITY 'COUNCIL OF (94)
THE CITY OF �WPORT BEACH AMENDING
A PORTION OF D STRICTING
MAP NO. 23 TO SIGNATE A BAYSIDE
FRONT YARD SETB CK ACROSS LOT 16,
TRACT NO. 802, L CATED AT N0. 16
HARBOR ISLAND DRI I WHICH WILL BE
MAINTAINED AS A RE UIRED FRONT YARD
[PLANNING COMMISSIO\aen
DMENT NO. 668)
was presented for secondng with
report from the Planningtment.
The City Clerk advised tter the
agenda was printed, a le s
receiving from the HarbonCommunity Association stth y hadno objection to the proprdi ance.A map was displayed depitheexisting and proposed ses for esubject site.
Hearing no one wishing tess the
Council, the public hearing was closed.
Motion x Motion was made to adopt Ordinance No.
All Ayes 88-34, amending a portion of Districting
Map No.23. '
2. Mayor Cox opened the public hearing Tract 11937
e uest of REGIS O
regarding r CONTRACTORS q _ ,_••,�w,�,,,,,,,„,,,, (R)/Tfc Stdy
INC. Ne 6rt Beach for -
wp I150/CRDP1f9A
Volume 42 - Page 357
`�TY OF NEWPORT AACH
COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES
aG
ZZ G� Yp� .rt 9 y�9Gy i
F
ROLL CALLZ Z September 26, 1988 INDEX
A. TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 50 Tract 11937
Request to approve a 'traffic study
so as to permit the construction of
a 138 unit residential condominium
development on nro ertyp located at
�.+�ww.��S+us... .ne
2200rEast Coast H�hway, in the ,
Villa Point Planned Community;
AND
B. •VESTING TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO.
11937 Rev ae
Request to revise a previously
approved Tentative Map of Tract No.
11937 which permitted the subdi-
vision of 26.9 acres of land into
two lots for residential
i condominium development and a
residual parcel not for
development. The proposed revision
to the tentative map includes a
request to approve the subdivision
as a Vesting Tentative Map, delete
Lot 2 from the proposed 'subdivision
and reduce the number of dwelling
units from 154 to 138;
AND
C. COASTAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
PERM T N0. 9 (Amende )
Request to amend a previously
approved residential coastal
development permit which
established the affordable housing
requirements for the Villa Point
Residential Condominium
Development. The proposed
amendment involves a .request to
amend the conditions for affordable
housing within the subject project.
Report from the Planning Department, was
presented.
The City Manager outlined the proposed
project as set forth in the staff
report.
Dave Dmohowski of The Irvine Company,
addressed the Council and stated that
they are in agreement with the
conditions of approval recommended by
the Planning Commission, except for one
condition dealing with affordable
housing. He stated the Commission
recommended that 20% of the 138 dwelling
Volume 42 - Page 358
s
OTY OF NEWPORT E#ACH
COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES
Gy2
ROLL CALLy Z� Fy September 26, 1988 INDEX
units be affordable to low income Tract 11937
households for a period of 20 years.
They felt that this requirement is far
more stringent than any previous
conditions imposgd •on their company, and
as an alternative,• they are proposing
that 20% of the units,be affordable to
low-and moderate-income households for a
period of 15 years as follows:
"That 20% of the total number of
units be made available to low-and
moderate-income families for a
period of 15 years. 10% of the
total number of units shall be made
available to 'low=incomeffamilies
(80% of County median income), and
may be provided off-site at the
Baywood Apartments at the
developer's option. 10% of the
total number of units shall be made
available to moderate income
families (100% of County median
income) , and 'be provided on-site."
Mr. Dmohowski explained the reasons for
their proposing the above alternate, as
enumerated in their letter to the City
Council dated September 20, 1988.
Council Member Strauss spoke in support
of the 20 year affordable period, and
indicated he would not favor decreasing
the term to 15 years as requested.
Council Member Maurer stated that he
generally prefers the longer period of
affordability; however, in this
particular instance, he favors 15 years
rather than 20 years as recommended by
the Planning Commission.
In response to Mayor Pro Tem Hart, Mr.
Dmohowski stated that it is their intent
to develop and manage this project as a
rental project indefinitely. If they
desired to change the project to a
condominium conversion,.City Council
approval is needed.
Referring to the affordable housing
issue, Council Member. Turner•pointed out
that in this particular project, the
City is not granting any density bonus
to the developer, and he felt it was not
equitable to place such a large burden
on the property owner. He felt that the
affordable• period of 15 years was a
reasonable request, inasmuch as all the
subsidy is directly coming from the
Volume 42 - Page 359
ATY OF NEWPORT B*1CH
COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES
'A
ROLL CALL ;0� yF September 26, 1988 INDEX
property owner, and emphasized that no Tract 11937
city, county, federal or state funds are
being contributed to this project.
In response to Council Member Plummer,
the City Manager reviewed the procedure
for monitoring affordable housing
tenants.
Sid Soffer, 900 Arbor Street, Costa
Mesa, addressed the Council and
indicated his support of The.Irvine
Company to change the affordable period
to 15 years.
Hearing no others wishing 'to address the
Council, the public hearing was closed.
Motion x Motion was made to straw-vote the
Ayes x x x x affordable housing issue, and approve
Noes x x ten percent (10%) of the units to be
provided at the Baywood Apartments, and
ten percent (10%) on-site.
Motion x Motion was made to straw-vote that all
All Ayes of the affordable housing for this
project (low and medium) be switched to
the Baywood Apartments for an affordable
period of twenty (20) years.
Motion x Motion was made to approve Traffic Study
All Ayes No.�50,Vesting Tentative Map of Tract ,
No. 11937� (Revised)-,' and' Coast
Residential Development Permit.Np, 9
(Amended) , subject to the Findings and
Conditions of Approval as reco_mmend_ ed by
the Planning CommissiI on, 1with the
exception that the affordable-housing
condition be changed to reflect *that all
twenty-eight (28)'affordible"units will
be• relocaEed to the'Baywood'Apartments
for a peifod'of twenty (20) year's.
Mayor Cox opened the public hearing Resub 880
regarding VESTING RESUBDIVISION NO. 880, (84)
a request of THE IRVINE COMPANY, Newport
ach, to approve a vesting
re bdivision so as to create six
numb ed parcels for office development
and pa ing, and one lettered parcel for
off-stre t parking and circulation
purposes, ere eight parcels currently
exist on pro erty located at 6 thru 11,
19 and 20 Cor rate Plaza, in the
CORPORATE PLAZA LANNED COMMUNITY.
Report from the Pla ing Department, was
presented.
Volume 42 - Page 360
4 %aC40 .
w -� 6b
W �' WeaW T'► hqk and /400 daW -
dto +a A
TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTAT ^ GINEERING
August 28, 1987 \
;S7 nFc
' Fla
r
Ms. Pat Temple 1198J iD
Environmental Coordinator �' . N Crrs.=„ �►
City of Newport Beach' f•' CAr
P.O. Box 1768trFH.
Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 r,
Dear Ms. Temple:
This letter summarizes our analysis of traffic factors related to the proposed
Villa Point development in the City of Newport Beach. The study has been
conducted to satisfy the requirements of the City's Traffic Phasing
Ordinance. This study is based upon information provided by City Staff and
previous studies. "
The project is located on the northerly side of Coast Highway between Jamboree
Road and Newport Center Drive. A total of 138 apartment type dwelling units
with 310 off-street parking spaces are proposed for the site. All vehicular
access will be provided vria an extension of Back Bay Drive easterly from
Jamboree Road. An emergency access is also proposed to the east.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Jamboree Road is a r.orth-south arterial extending from Balboa Island through
the City of Irvine. It generally provides three lanes of travel in each
direction with separate turning lanes at intersections; however, some sections
are only improved to provide two lanes in one direction of travel. Coast
Highway is a major east-west arterial that is currently being improved
adjacent to the site to provide three lanes of travel in each direction.
Principal intersections on both streets are signalized. The interseciton of
Jamboree Road and Back Bay Drive is currently being signalized.
Existing daily traffic volumes and 1987 ICU vaules at major intersections are
illustrated on Figure 1. These data were provided by the City of Newport
Beach.
i
4-�
- 9Fs+ FART rHAPMAN AVENUE • SUITE110 -• FULL-ERTON, CALIFORNIA 92631 • (714) 871-2931 ��
37 0.62/0.72
36
0.64/0.70
OR. 14
0.62/0.95 aJ Sr
0.95/0.98 a u > Q '
m 0.60/0.61
BRiS7oL ST
NORTH 0.62/0.83
BRiSTOL ST vN��
LEGEND I .00/0.87�
29 48
56 = DAILY TRAFFIC 1.08/0.59 f
VOLUME IN THOUSANDS 0.87/072 56
o,87/ 0.72 = AM/PM ICU 0.66/0.50 , :�H-�
o� 54 n
50 D
.—•0.97/0.84
m �
J' I- 61 yG
c 39 �RD.
c" 0.83/0.84
0.76/0.66 FORO 6�
�O
0.62/0.74 50 22 j0 51
Q N ' AQv/
a a H ,2 N 17 0.90/0.83
n F w a w ij 0.52/0.77 w 8 <S RD.
U
� Q p 0.71/0.87
X 29 z m > f 28 Cl a
a 54 40 64 cr a 74 37< 47 43 Q� w a
0 60 COPS? HWy 52 Q a a
iw PACIFIC
� � �v� o � � � j 43
CC) � �O e } 0 O� $ p\ o p
o o cD m R' p `° `°
t° °J o.
ti
w 0 0 0 8 0
0
EXISTING DAILY VOLUMES AND
ICU VALUES
_2_
TRIP GENERATION •
In order to evaluate the potential ' traffic impact of the project, it is
necessary to estimate the number of trips that would be generated. Trip
generation rates , for various land uses. -including apartments have been
established by the City Traffic Engineer. Their rates are summarized in Table
1. By applying these rates to the planned land use,, estimates of-Project. trip
generation were obtained and are also• listed in Table 1. As indicated 'in
Table 1, the project is estimated to generate 115 trip ends during the A.M.
2.5 hour peak period and 165 trip ends during the P.M. 9.5 hour peak. A.M.
peak hour trip generation is ,estimated to be 55 •trip ends and the P.M. peak
hour is estimated to be 85 trip ends. "
TRIP ASSIGNMENT
In order to assign project trips to the street system, it is necessary to
develop a trip distribution pattern. A pattern for this site was developed in
a, previous study completed in 1984 and approved by the City Traffic Engineer.
That distribution pattern has been modified to reflect all access via Back Bay
Drive and Jamboree Road and is illustrated on Figure 2. The estimated trips
from Table 1 were then assigned to the street system in conformance with these
distribution patterns.
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
The traffic analysis has been completed to conform to the criteria of the City
of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance. A total of 19 intersections were
identified by the City,Traffic Engineer for inclusion in the analysis. The
first required analysis is the "One Percent" test. An intersection is defined
as critical by the Ordinance when 'the project traffic exceeds one percent of
existing plus committed project plus regional growth traffic on any approach
to an intersection during the AM or PM 2.5 hour peak period. A list of
committed projects was provided by the City for inclusion in this study and
these projects are listed in Table 2. Since the project is scheduled for
completion in 1989, the analyses were completed for 1990 as required by the
Ordinance.
Appendix A contains the "One Percent" analysis sheets for the 19 intersections
analyzed and the results are summarized in Table 3. Review of Table 3
i
a
-3-
Table ,1
TRIP GENERATION
Vista Point
RATE(') TRIP_GENERATION
TIME AK PM AM PM
2.5 Hour Peak
In •- _
0.2 - 6.8 30 110
. Out
0.6 0.4 85 55
Peak Hour
In
0.1 0.4 15 55
Out
0.3 0.2 40 30
(1) Trip ends per dwelling unit.
(2) Based upon 138 dwelling units.
G•
m
0
/o 10 0/o
30% FREEWAY DR'
10% SURFACE eJ ST
^n r o
`f V0 U Cr J Qom.
BRISrOI m g.
Sr
NOR7
SRISTOLs T
80NITA CYN
3
o v
o c p
s y
9
F
FORD 6
60°/O
a 5% SPN JOA���N
a
a W 5% y'<cs Ro.
10
a o y w w w Q w
M
50/ a z $ 15% 9 w
�nPPST HW OQ D
w PACIFIC
°9 2 1% SITE
in
Flop
DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION
WESTON PRINCLE-IMP ASSOCIATES FIGURE 2
- r�
-4-
Table• 2
COMMITTED PROJECTS
Villa Point
Hoag Hospital ; -Corona Del Mar Homes
Aeronuospitatronit Ford gig Canyon Villa Apts.
1400 Dove Street
Civic Plaza
Corporate Plaza 1100 Quail Street
Mac Arthur Court Heltzer Medical Office
Koll Center TPP Amend. 4A
Newport Place
S Villa Point
Sea Island
Harbor Point, Homes Rosan's Development
Martha's Vineyard Block 500, NPT. Ctr. Project
Newport Aquatics Center
Valdez
2600
Coast Business Center E. Coast Hwy.
Jasmine
Koll Center NPT No. 1 asmine Park
Ross Mollard Mac Arthur Associates
Banning/Newport Ranch Newporter Inn Expansion
Bann
Bann Street Arts Newport Lido Med Center
Heritage Bank Pacesetter Homes
Big Canyon 10 Fashion Island Renaissance
Fun Zone Crown House
Marriott Hotel CDM Senior Project
YMCA Point Del Mar
Allred Condos 20th St. Bed/Breakfast Inn
Four Seasons Hotel Amendment No. 1 Ford Aero
Amendment No. 1 North Ford
Block Seasons
Medical
Sharaton Expansion Newport Dunes
Amendment No. 1 Mac Arthur Court Bayview
National Education City of Irvine Development
Carver Granville Office North Ford
Riverside Retail Building
Shokrian
Amendment No. 2 Ford Aero Edwards Newport Center
3600 Campus Dr. Seaside Apts.Station
3760 Campus Dr. Victoria S
Fidelity National Title
Newport Imports
Newport Place Tower Mariners Mile Marine Ctr.
ci
Table 3
CRITICAL INTERSECTION IDENTIFICATION
Villa Point
LOCATION• 2.5• HOUR PERCENTAGES WB
NB S8 E8
AM PM AM PM AM PM • AM PM
Bristol t & Campus Dr. - Irvine Ave. 0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0 0.1/0.1 0.0/0.0 ,
Bristol St. & Birch St. 0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0 0.1/0.2 0.0/0.0 t
Bristol St. & Jamboree Rd. 0.7/0.5 0.310.6 0.2/.0.6 0.0/0.0
Bristol St. N. & Campus - Irvine Ave. 0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0 0.2/0.1 0.0/0.0
Bristol St. N. & Birch St. 0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0 0.3/0.1
0.6/0.4 0.2/0.4 0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0
Bristol St. N. & Jamboree Rd.
Coast Hwy. & Dover Dr. 0.0/0.0 0.1/0.2 0.1/0.2 0.2/0.1
Cost Hwy. & gayside Dr. 0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0 0.1/0.2 0.3/0.1
LZ
Coast Hwy. & Jamboree Rd.
0.0/0.0 0.9/0.3 0.1/0.2 0.1/0.3
Coast Hwy. & Newport Center 0.0/0.0 0.O/O.0 0.3/0.2 0.1/0.4
Coast Hwy. & Avocado Ave. 0.0/0.0 0.-0/0.0 0.5/0.1 0.1/0.4
Coast Hwy. & Mac Arthur Blvd. 0.0/0.0 0.O/O.0 0.4/0.1 0.1/0.3
Coast Hwy.
& Goldenrod Ave. 0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0 0.4/0.1 0.1/0.3
0.0/0.0 0.4/0.1 0.1/0.3
Coast Hwy. & Marguerite Ave. 0.0/0.0
Jamboree Rd. & Santa Barbara Ave. 1.2/1.0 0.4/1.2 0.0/0.0 .4/0.
Jamboree Rd. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. 1.3/0.7 0.3/0.9 0.0/0.0 0 0.0/00
.0
Jamboree Rd. & Eastbluff - Ford 0.8/0.4 0.4/1.1 0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0
Jamboree Rd. & Bison Ave. 0.9/0.5 0.4/1.3 0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0
Jamboree Rd. & Eastbluff - University 0.9/0.5 0.3/0.9 0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0
indicates that all intersections passed the "One Percent" test except Jamboree
Road/Santa Barbara Drive, Jamboree Road/San Joaquin Hills Road, Jamboree
Road/Eastbluff-Ford and Jamboree Road/Bison Avenue. ,
In conformance with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, ICU analyses were completed
for the four -intersections for those periods that were ' found to be critical .
in Appendix' B and included existing, existing .
These analyses are contained
plus regional growth plus, committed project and existing plus regional growth
plus committed project ' plus project traffic conditions. The results of these
analyses are summarized in Table 4. Review of Table 4 indicates that all
intersections are projected to have ICU values of less than 0.90 for the
critical periods except Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara Avenue during the P.M..
peak hour. The project would increase the -P.M. peak hour ICU value from 0.96
to 0.98.
Additional review of the ICU analysis for the Jamboree Road/Santa Barbara
Drive intersection has indicated potential improvements to provide acceptable
conditions. The addition of a southbound through lane on Jamboree Road
results in an ICU value, of 0.79 as indicated in Table 4: (The ICU analysis
sheet is contained in Appendix C. ) Discussion with the City Traffic Engineer
indicated that this improvement may also be required for the Fashion Island
expansion plan currently being reviewed. The proposed improvement is
illustrated in Figure 3.
This project also is a modification in the treatment of' Back Bay Drive.
Previous plans have indicated the construction of Back Bay Drive from Jamboree
Road to Coast Highway while the current plan does not include a connection to
Coast Highway. This does change project trip assignments which has been
considered in this analysis. Previous studies had proposed the Back Bay Drive
connection as a means of improving traffic operations at Coast Highway and
Jamboree Road. Current plans include a triple left turn lane on Coast Highway
which eliminates the need for the Back Bay Drive extention to serve area
traffic needs.
PARKING
As a part of the previous study of this project, parking requirements and the
adequacy of the proposed parking supply were examined. Field studies were
t
Table 4
ICU SUMMARY
villa Point
INTERSECTION
PERIOD ICU VALUE
Existing Existing Existing Existing
(1987) + + . •- . +
Regional Regional Regional
+ +
Committed Committed Committed
(1990) +
Project Project
1990 W Im rov.
Jamboree Rd/Santa Barbara Ave. AM Peak
0.52 0.66 0.68-
PM Peak 0.77 0-.96 0.98 0.79
Jamboree Rd/San Joaquin Hills Rd. AM Peak
0.62 0.79 . 0.80
Jamboree Rd/Eastbiuff - Ford PM Peak 0.66
0.84 0.84
0.53 0.76 0.7-7
Jamboree Rd/Bison- Ave.
PM Peak
t
• I
t
V i
I
ADD THROUGH I.
LANE
. I I •
me-
}
SANTA BARBARA DRIVE
0 1 1 1 r
a
0
� II
W
W
NOT TO SCALE m
RECOMMENDED LANE CONFIGURATION
AT" INTERSECTION OF
JAMBOREE ROAD / SANTA BARBARA DRIVE
FIGURE
WI;STON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES 3 !, :
-8- ,
conducted at Promontory Point and Baywood in Newport Beach and Turtle Rock in .
Irvine to determine parking 'demands , for similar developments. Studies were
conducted to include visitor vehicles and early, morning to include resident
vehi'cles. ' Table 5 summarizes the results of ;these field studies.
Review of Table 5 indicates that the maximum observed demand was 1.38 parked
vehicles per dwelling unit. ' This demand includes: vehicles parked in areas not
specifically designated for vehicle parking (illegal). The proposed project
would have - 310 parking spaces for 138 dwelling units or a ratio of 2.25
parking spaces per dwelling unit. Based upon' these field studies, the
proposed parking would be adequate for this project.
SUMMARY
This study has exmined traffic and parking factors related to the proposed
Villa Point apartments in Newport Center. Estimates were made of trips to be
generated and their potential impact evelauated as required by the" City's
Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The analysis indicated that the project would
satisfy the conditions of the Ordinance with one intersection requiring
were also evaluated and the plan was found
improvement. Parking requirements
to be adequate.
Principal findings of the study are the following: '
1. The project will generate and estimated 105 trip ends during the
A.M. 2.5 peak hour and 135 during the PM 2.5 peak hour period.
During the A.M. peak hour 55 trip ends are estimated and 75 are
estimated for the P.M. peak hour.
2. Of 19 intersections evaluated, four did not pass the "One Percent"
test required by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance.
3. Of the four critical intersections, only Jamboree Road & Santa
Barbara Drive would have ICU valuse greater than 0.90 during the
P.M. peak hour with consideration for other development and no
circulation improvements.
Table 5
APARTMENT PARKING SURVEY SUMMARY
Villa Point
DATE(') DAY TIME VEHICLES PARKED PARKED •VEHICLES
LOCATION Legal Illegal Total PER DU
Promontory Point 8/13 Saturday 8:30 PM
554 5 559 1.08
(520 D.U. ) 8/14 Sunday 6:30 AM 626 6 632 1.22
8/16 Tuesday
8:15 PM 542 5 547 1:05
8/17 Wednesday 6:00 AM
610 3 613 1.18
Baywood 8/13 Saturday
8:55 PM 346 16- 362 1.13
(320 D.U.) 8/14 Sunday 6:50 AM 420 21 441 1.38
8/16 Tuesday
8:45 PM 321 8 329 1.03
8/17 Wednesday 6:25 AM
395 13 408 1.28
1.19
Turtle Rock 8/13 Saturday
9:15 PM 293 6 299
(252 D.U. ) 7 :20 AM 320 5 325 1.29
8/14 Sunday .
t 9:05 PM 294 3 297 1.18 ,D
8/16 Tuesday '
8/17 Wednesday 6:45 AM 335 5
340' 1.35
(1) 1983
-1D-
4. With improvements, the Jamboree Road/Santa. , Barbara Drive
intersection would habe an ICU value less than 0.90.
5. Field studies •of similar projects indicated that- the ratio of 2.25
parking spaces per dwelling •unit would be adequate for this project.
MITIGATION MEASURES
The following measures are recommended to mitigate potential traffic impacts :
of the project.
1. If not completed by previously approved projects, a southbound-
through lane• on•Jamboree Raod at Santa Barbara Drive required.
2. The construction of Back Bay Drive from Jamboree Raod to the site
will be required to provide access.
We trust that this study will be of assistance to you and the City of Newport
Beach. If you have any questions• or require additional information, please
contact us.
Respectfully submitted,
WESTON PRINGLE & ASSOCIATES •
Weston S. Pringle, P.E.
Registered Professional Engineer
State of California •Numbers.C16828 & TR565
WSP:hld
#83211
APPENDIX A
ONE PERCENT ANALYSES
e 0 •
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection BRISTOL STREET/CAMPUS DRIVE—IRVINE AVENUE
(Existing Traffic Volumes ased,onAverage: Winter/Spring 19 87) AM
Peak 21s Hour Approved . '
Approach Existing •Regional Projects Projected 1 of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 21s.Hour Peak 2's Hour j Peak 24 Hour I Peak 2� Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume ! �vollume Volume
Northbound 4287 j* 4 70
southbound 1117 2- 3
I Eastbound 6913 Asa1 8 Z 6 3' S3
- T
,westbound "'1'
r Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
LJ Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
El Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.
DATE•
port irrr.
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection BRISTOL STREET/CAMPUS DRIVE—IRVINE AVENUE
(Existing Traffic Volumes basqd on Average Winter/Spring 19 8 PM '
Peak 2k Hour Approved I Project
Approach Existing Regional Projects IProjected 1".,of Projected
Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 28 Hour Peak 2y flour Peak 2� Hour i Peak 2y Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
q I
Northbound 2502• Z IZ 27� 28 0
Southbound 3028 5 3 6 27 6 a
Eastbound 5834 ! 96 ?534 I 75
westbound -- •—_— � — �
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
CCJJ Peak 2. Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 21-2 Hour Traffic.Volume. Intersection Capacity 'Utilization
('I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
�i
L DATE: 15
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection BRISTOL STREET/BIRCH STREET
(Existing Traffic Volumes Fs on verage inter Spring 19 87 AM
Peak 2h Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1V. of Projected 4 Project
Direction Peak 2� Hour I Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 24 Hour Peek 2�; Hour I Peak 25 Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume
Volume Volume
Horthbound (6 /o l I 0
891 D p
Southbound 552
U 6 I I O
dd C�
Eastbound d c`lU6 �! 3 d•1
4560
Westbound f
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
. L
DATE:
1%,Traffic Volume Analysis
•Intersection BRISTOL STREET/BIRCH STREET
(Existing Traffic Volumes based .on AVerage inter pring 9 8 PM
Peak 2k Hour Approved
IApproach Existing Regional Projects Projected l:.of Projected Project i
Direction' Peak 2y Hour Growth Peek 2y Hour Peak 2k Hour . Peak 24 Hour j Peak 2S Hour I�
Volume Volume volume Volume Volume Volume
//11 Northbound 425• ( T 6 '
Southbound 1429 �5g3 II
1
IEastbound 3754 6 QZ a 2
Westbound
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
t] Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
J
I
i
14
DATE:
•r • f� r(r • I 1 r
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection BRISTOL 'STRGET/9AMBORE A 19 8 AM
(Existing Traffic Volumes . ase .on Average inter S rin
Peak 2� Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected' 1; of Projected Project
Peak 2�S Hour
Direction Peak 21, Hour Growth Peak 25 Hour Peak 2ii Hour Fe°YolumeoUr Vol Lune
Volume Volume Volume Volume f
Northbound 6036 1217 , 7`� 3 6 -7 '4' 51 (o-.7� ,
southbound 1004 30 99 qZ 6 0.3
i
Eastbound _ 6307 /576 787-7 I
Westbound
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 21-, Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.
r
. r
OATS:
nnnirrr.
' t Y • ..
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection 13RISTQL STREET/JAMBOREE ROAD
(Existing Traffic Volumes ase •on 'Vel'ilge flillEir Spring 19 87 PM
---------------
4,Adoved
Approach Exi�tin9 ects Projected 1 of Projected Projec�Ii
Direction Peak 2h Hour2k flout,.. Peak 2�, Ildur., I Peat lume ur Peat fume Hour
;I
Volume lmce Volume
i�Northbound 5425' ( 0 6 S
Southbound 23613 3 IEastbound 5472S 7 $ 5Westbound
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
G Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
w (I.C.U.) Analysis is, required.
DATE:
PROJECT: ___
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
BRISTOL STREET (N)/CAMPUS DRIVE—IRVINE AVENUE
Intersection
(Existing Traffic Volumes ase on Average Inter prtp9 19 87 AM
Peak 21i Hour Approved
Approach [Ristin9 . Regional Projects Projected 1' of Projec[ed� Project l
Direction Puak 2i Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 'Ly Hour I PeaV0;u lour Peak lumeour
Volume Volume Volume . Vol.
_y-
Norttibound S7a _ 58
5255: —
souwheund 1180 /36 2 1.4 d
Castlwund
I1citUcund 36g9 - 1 -37 $ �•2g
3121
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2; Hour Traffic Vol.ume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C_U.) Analysis is required.
DATE:
` 1
PROJECT: MOM T
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection BRISTOL STREET (NJ/CAMPUS DRIVE—IRVTNE AVENUE
(Existing Traffic Volumes based onAverage inter pring 19 87) PM
Peak 2% Hour Approved Project
Approach Existing *Regional Projects Projected ' 1p'eak 2k Houred Peak lmgeour
Direction ' Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 24 Hour 'Peak 24 Hour yolume
volume Volume volume Volume
! Q
Northbound 3012 2 36 Zq8 32
Southbound 4598 2AO 5-7
Eastbound tS
--
Westbound 8478' Z 32f 1080Z l08
.__ —�_
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
GATE: `�
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection BRISTOL STREET M/BIRCH STREET
(Existing Traffic Volumes ase an verage 1111''.14 Spring 19 .87 AM
Peak 2� Hour Approved
•Approach Existing Regiogal Projects Projected 1`• of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2i; Hour Growth Peak 24 Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 21; Hour . Peak 25 Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
--il
Northbound 2853' 670 35Z 3
Southbound 726 I`('
I
Eastbound aQ• !. R
Westbound 42 3077 16 37
L 2653
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is -required.
DATE
(\f\(\ \frT
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection BRISTOL STREET (N)/BIRCH STREET
(Existing Traffic Volumes. based on Average inter Spring 19'•87 P .
Peak-2S,Hour, Approved Projects
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected i Project• i,
oirectfon Peak 2's Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2y flour Peak 2u Hour ; Pen Volumeour 5volume Volume voldme Volume Yolme
Horthuound • 2 30 6 �I
O
Soutnbound 3793
Eastbound _ Q ! 0
Westbound l77 � ( 2J� �2 � �4•�
L 5476
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than I,% of Projected
Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
DATE:
_ __ non trrr.
1% Traffic Volume Analysis .
Intersection DRISTOL STREET (N)JAMBOREE ROAD
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Merage WInter Spring 19�AM
Peak 21i Hour Approved
FApproach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1`: of Projected' Projecton Peak 2ti Hour Growth Peak 2s Hour Peek 2� .Hour i •Peak 2k Hour ' Peek 26 Hour
Yolune Volume Volume Yolua�e Volume' Volume
nd 76A7, Zq 13-763 : sl'uuad 1568 I zs81 4 •a
Eastbound
Westbound •I
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 21; Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 21Z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.
• DATE:
PROJECT:
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection BRISTOL STREET (N)/JAMBOREE ROAD
(Existing Traffic Volumes .based on AVerage WiriTterlapring 19 _ PM-
Poak 24 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects • Pro3�cted 1% of Projected Project
Direction Peek st Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak- ' Hour Peak ;tu Hour Peak 2y Hour 1I
Yolu6e Volume volume Volume } volume
Horihoound 7161 5 / ib ' �-� 0'4
Southbound 3751 /2
Eastbound _.
I
westoound _
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
l� Peak 21= Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
DATE:
PROJECT:
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection COAST •HIGHWAY/DOV9R DRIVE—BAYSHORE DRIVE
(Existing Traffic Volumes se on verage Inter ring 9 87 AM '
Peak 2k Hour Approved , 1�
Approach Existing Regional Projects ' Projected 1� of Projected Peak 26 Hour,
Approach
Peak 2y Haur, Growth . Peak 24 Hour Peak•2t, Hour Peat/ fume 26 Hour Volume
Volume Volume
Volume. Volume i
Northbound 312 3
/
Southbound 2250 l 2
_ / •
Eastbound 4717
s
Westbound �6 /0 `� 6/f Z 6� 3• O• Z
� 4862 _r•___
Project Traffic is estimated,to be less than 1% of Projected
lJ Peak 22 Hour Traffic 'Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is- required.
DATE
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/ROVER DRIVE—SAYSHORE DRIVE
(Existing Traffic Volumes se on verage rater pr ng 9: 87) PM
Peak 2k Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Protected 1� of Projected Protect
Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2y Hour Peek 2k Hour Peat Hour ume ' Peayo'�ur
Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 295 Q
southbound 2990 1 Z OZ (a.2
Eastbound 3683 ( 7 0 ' 2 ! 0• �q
Westbound 8270 2 3 iq ITO 10�
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 231 Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected '
., Peak 2k Hour Traffic,Volume. Intersection. Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
DATE:
1% Traffic Volume Analysis ;
Intersection COAST. HIGHWAY BAYSIDE DRIVE
(Existing Traffic Volumes basedon verage me pring 9 8 AM
Peak 24 Hour Approved
Approach : Existing Regional Projects Projected 1T, of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2% Hour Growth Peak 2§ flour Peak 2k Hour PeaVolunu ur i Pea Volumeour
Volume Volume Volume volume
Northbound 1459
it
Southbound 193 t573O
4
Eastbound 6501 5 120 y L 0•/T
Westbound 3443 /0 3 to —7 �(� 3 (o. 3 'i
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
LL�J Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 23-2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is :required.
DATE-
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
.Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/JAMBOREE ROAD
` (Existing Traffic Volumes ase bn ; verage later pring 9 _ , AM
Peak 2% Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Pro3ects Projected 1, of Projected =2PpJ�ec�t`..,.
I
Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 28 Hour Peak 26 Hour i Peak 2� Hour I volume
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume i I
I IINorthbound 1717 1 6" ---�!!
L
und 2139 27!9
und 5860und 2880 8b t3?
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
• r
i
DATE:
1% TrafficAolume Analysis
COAST HIGHWAY/BAYSIDE DRIVE
Intersection
(Existing Traffic Volumes basedon Average Winter/ pring 9 87 PM '
Peak 2k Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1� of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2h Hour I Peak 2k Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Yolume Volume i
Northbound 1135 1-75
Southbound 194 443 4
Eastbound 6'056' �8 Z q 2a -76
Westbound 6775 Z o 3 1336 0314S3 8 O I
Project Traffic is estimated. to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U. ) Analysis is-required.
DATE:
ovn.icrr• -
' 1
1%•Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection• COAST iiIGHWAY/JAMBOREE ROAD
(Existi.ng Traffic Volumes based on verage : inter pring •9 10 PM
__••_� ___•'_•.--_— Peak 211 Hour _—APProved. _-..
Approach ' Existing _ Regional Projectf Projected 18 of Projected Project
Direction. Peak•2�.Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2% Hour Peek 2y Hour ' PeaVol Hour
Volume
Volume Volume volume volume Volume '
Northbound" 1233 i'2 33 Z
iI
lei
Sou[hbound' .�
Eastbound ! y I
5911 3 f 513 777
Westbound 4000 1 Za 756 4s 4
f Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
LL11 Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Q Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U. ) Analysis is 'required.
• r
DATE: _ �
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection COAST HWY/NEWPORT CENTER
(Existing Traffic Volumes ase ' on Average Winter/Spring 19 86)AM
�— Peak 2y Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional ' Projects Projected 1. of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2y Hour• Growth.' Peak 21k Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour i Peak 2h Hour
j Volume Yolunc Volume Volume Volume- Volume
Northbound ' 0
Southbound I 512 ( 4-7 651 6
i Eastbound 3904 f 3 51 I 4 1. 7
47 o a
Westbound 338B 3 G 3 f ZZ5 ¢ 4 o.�7.
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 114 of Projected
Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
❑ Peak 2i Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.
• ,i 4,
DATE-
PROJECT:
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection COAST HWY/NEWPORT CENTER
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Inter pring IIPP
4,, Aprol,,Ldroved
Approach Existing iects Protected 1X of Protected Project
' Direction Pc6k 24 Hour. 2S Hour Pc+k 2k Hour Peek 2S Hour Peak 2S Hour
Yolumu luAe Yohhlunk VolumeYolume
Northbound O . lJ outhbound 2Q�� 2853Eastbound 3888 4� 8 3westbound32320' 9G6 •.40 ' b
L
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
tJ Peak 21, Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
r (I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
OATS:
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/AVOCADO AVENUE
(Existing Traffic Volumes asp, on verage 11inter pring 19 8 AM
Peak 24 Hour Approved 1`•: of Projected Project d
Approach ;Peak
ting Regional Projects Projected.
oirection S Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2� Hour Peavolumeour i ' Pe°Yolumeour h
Volume Volume. volume Volume
tlorthbound2
Southbound 6 J )
Eastbound 2153 Z { 3Zv 2 !' 3 •'
Westbound 3647
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.
DATE: qO
r
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/AVOCADOAVSNUE
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average .winter. pring 9 8 PM
Peak 24-Hourr
Approach Existigg Regional ected 15 of Protected Protect
Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth k Hour Peak lumeour ' Peak Hour
t'
11 ,1
Volume Volume ume
Northbound 643
Southbound 11
12
Eastbound 4642
,
Westbound 3342 pO 52 ) Ap-70
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
L'Y Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
I�..; ❑
Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
i
• l
M DATE: �'
. 1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/MACARTHUR BOULEVARD
(Existing Traffic Volumes-based on verage Inter pring 19 a AM
Peak 24 Hour Approved
F'Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project
• Peak 24 flour Growth Peak 24 Hour Peak,24 Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 24 Hour
Volume VolumeVolune Volume •Volume Volume
__1306 �2 g
Eastbound 2590 3(/ 30 3Zo 3 3 13 r°•�
Nestbound 6865 86 o.f
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
El Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.
GATE:
PROJECT:
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection COAST HIGIiWAY/MACARTHUR BOULEVARD
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on AVerage ipter pring 9 8 PM
Peak 2� Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1� of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2's Hour Peat/ lumeour P.eevolHour
'
Volume Volume Volume Volume I
Northbound Q Q
soutnbound 3508 SS 4z.63 , 43
I
Eastbound 3927 4 8v� b 2 SZ (O' 1%
�
Westbound 3803 I ZZA -7 !c,2- '4823 48 ' 1b
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 21, Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
• r
DATE• T
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/GOLDEN.ROD AVENUE,
(Existing Traffic 'Volumes qse on verage inter pring 9E7 ) AM
Peak 2 i Hour Approved '
Approach Existing, . Regional Projects Projected '1%, of rojected Project
P �l
Direction, Peak Hour Peak 21s Hour Peal 21s Hour Peek 2u Hour
k 2h Hour Growth Peak 2 .,I
-volume .Volume Volume Volume ume Vol Volume . it
Northbound 30
Southbound 24
Eastbound _ 2273 Zz 3 4g6 30 32. ! 0 3 (af9
Westbound 6703 804 1 -75 6?82 ' !e-
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak' 2k Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
,r (I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
DATE:
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/GOLDENROD AVENUE
(Existing. Traffic Volumes basedon verage inter Spring 9 8 PM
Peak 2k 116ur Approved.
Approach. Existing . Regional Projects, Projected 1% of Projected ! Project
Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peek 211 HHour Peak lameour PeaYo2u,Hour ; Peak ;umeaur
volume Volume
• ,i
3
Northbound 324 6 'tI
Southbound 6
287 0 3 !
Eastbound ' S181 I I324 7 ( Z-7 ! 7 kc%
Westbound 3602 . 72 7 6 3 48 b. 39
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 24 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.
I
DATE:
1% Traffic Volume Analysis'
Intersection c0AV HIGHWAY MARGUERITE AVENUE
(Existing Traffic Volumes ase on Average winter/Spring 19 87 AM
Peok 2$ Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 10 of Projected Project
Direction Peek 2�, Hour Growth Peak 24 Hour Peak. Hour Peak 26 Hour PeaVo,�ur
volume Volm" volume volume Volume i i
Northbound 589 6 S 6 }I
Southbound 450 38
Eastbound 2317 30,2'1 30 �0• �7, '
Westbound 5298 23 �( —7Z i 0•!$ ��
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
L1 Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
1
i
I�
1
DATE:
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
-Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/MARGUERITE .AMUE
(Existing Trafffiic--Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19
Teak 2ti Hour Approved
Approach Existing ! Regional Projects Projected 1 of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2;1 Hour Growth Peak V5 Hour Peak 211 Hour Pea ur i Peak HHoue
Volume �!
Volume Volume Volume Volume i
Northbound 1011
O loi o
�ISauthbound 919 n 18! 1
Eastbound 5417 G G 9 -6 i ?'
j I
Westbound 4240 �C1 �f TJ S� ( 6 o.I !
r-� Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
" DATE- �G{
1% Traffic Volume Analysi's
Intersection JAMBOREE R0ADISANTA BARBARA DRIVE-
(Existing Traffic 'Volumes-base on verage Winter pring 19 87,AM
• _ -- — Pa eak 2y Hour � • Approved -- -
- Re lonnl Projects Projected ' 1T of Projected Projeet
apprgach a Existing 9
Volume Volume �I
i Gireetfon Peak 2y Hour ( Growth Peat lame Peayo2,ukmHeour Peek 2�t Hour Penk tin Hour
Volume Volume
So
A
417 y �
Iwrthbdund �
southbound — 2820 85 616
Eastbound .._
Vestbound _496_ -- ' 95 Ell 6
.i _.� - -...,...
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
❑ Peak 212.Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
�( Peak 22 Hour Traffic-Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
DAl-c:
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection ' JAMBO ROAD/SANTA IIARBARA DRIVE
(Existing Traffic Volumes ba eeron7rverage tenter Spring 1g 87� rM
—-_ Peak 'tea HouTAVProvzd r--
L.roacn faistiniJ Regional ' Projects Projected 1 0. Projected Project
+ tour' Growth Peek 24 Hour Peak 2ti flour Peek 2+, Hour Peak Volume
Hour
i G+raccion leak [, 1• Yolum Volurt�e ,I
+� ; Yolunie I Volume Volume Volwne + —ll
Ilar tuWund
+i _290Q._.--- 7 g'
ir_.._...— 5557 6 i.
l :outl+oound 1 ZA 3
�_9.222._.
+� Eattgound _ +
aoound1 2261 i -- Sob Z�6 Zb - S/a•Z��' I
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
❑ Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 22 Hour Traffic,Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is-required.
fl
DATE: -
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
lntersdCtion JA"OREE ROAD/SANTA •BARBARA DRIVE
.(Existing Traffic Volumes . ase :op Average, winterlboring,19 L7)PM
_•• .•���•�-- --��u Peak 'Ly Hour • Approved !— r �•
aP=rdacn ( Existing.`j Regional Protects Projected 1;, of•Proj'ected Project
j IiVCC[lell Peak 21, Hour CrdNth Peak 2y Hour Peak Ot Hour Pea 'u�Houn Peak ; Hour
iI Volume . Volume Voluere Volume I I
:� a.,rwtuund 29DA 7 __ B
1 Zn 3 5557 6
;ouumowi�
,l Ea;thound
uustuound l 2261 _ _._ _ $OO
�L
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
❑ Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
p I Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is -required.
DATE-
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection, JAMBOREE ROAD/SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD
U.-ist.ing Traffic Volumes based on Average W1nter pring 19 87 AM
—Peak 24, Hour, Approved
-Ppproach Existing itegional Projects: Projected 1". of Projected Project
it Direction Peek 2', Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 211 Hour Peavolume21, our Pe°volume
our•
Volume Volume Volume Volume
i
uarcnoound 2852 86 t667 400S 5/ (bill
Sou
thbound 38A7 (IJr /3 JZb6 3 8 (a' 3
�L._._ - t
Eastbound 515
• ticscbound (096
1 822 —....�— --
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 21z [lour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Lf Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.
DATE:
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection JAMBOREE ROAD/SAN JOAQUIN .HILLS ROAD
(Existing Traffic Volumes Based on fterage inter pring 19 87) PM
-------------------------------
Peak 21s Hour .ApproyeQ
;++roach Existing Regional Projects Projected 4', of Projected Project .
Peak 24.Hour Peak 211 Hour Peak 2:, Hour
i Liret[fonPeak Houh
Peak V, Hour Growth
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume .
aurtncound 3831 497.3
°• undSauthbo I
5669— I ` 363$3
Estbound
o._ 1
1 331 '
Westbound
921 _
'y Project Traffic is estimated to be less talan 1% of Projected
u Peal: 212 Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
„ Peak 2; Hour Traffic. Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is' required.
t •
` - DATE: '�'
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersgction• JAMBOREE ROAD/EASTBLUFF DRIVE—FORD ROAD.
(Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage Wlnter Spr.lhg 19 7) AM
"�fI�
Approved Peak 2k Hour
Approach l Existing Regional Projects Projected of Projected Project
;!. Hour Peak 2k Hour Pee Gtrection i Peak 211 Hour Growth I Peak 24 Volumek 211 Volume
' PeaVolumeour
Volume Volume Volume Volume
— ---- i
li Northbound .$076 S 623 62 ` S� °''
Ij Southbound " SD I
�1 T
I Eastbound 1287 lj t(3 2q---Nestbound 1289 !' J 3
ram/ Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
IJ Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
U Peak 22 Hour Traffic' Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.
-DATE:
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection JAMBOREE ROAD/EASTBLUFF DRIVE—FORD ROAD
(Existing Traffic Volumes• •ase on Average Inter pring 19 87 PM
Peak 29 HourTAPProved
F«roach Existing r Regional Projects Projected 1'•; of Projected Project
Peak zq Hour PeeYol Hour
i! L•irrccion " Peak 2y Hour Growth Peek 2y Hour• 'Peak 2u, Hour Vulumc
i Volume Volume Volwoe Volupe
Lerthwund 5675 /36 7 76 G
!� Sosthbound A163-
7i Eastbound I ggg 1
westbound 798 r-_ — --
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
nn Peak 22 Hour Traffic. Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
DATE:
1% Traffic ..Volume Analysis
Intersection JAMBOREE RD/BISON ST
(Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage inter pring 86 AM
Peak 2k Hour Approved projected 1% of Projected Project
Regional Projects Peak 25 Hour I Peak 2; Hour
Approach Existing. Growth Peek 2y Hour Peak 2S Hour Volume
Oireition Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume
,Volume I
Northbound 447
lIZ 7 -57 d.
I Southbound 3669
4 5O fZ
Eastbound _ 309 _ 17 3 26 3
II Westbound I 636 1 53
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Er Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
DATE:
PROJECT: FORM I
1% Traffic Volume Analysis ,.
Intersection JAMBOREE'fiD/BISOU ST
(Existing Trofflc Volumes -based on verage nter pr. ng M PM
-Peak 21% Hour Approved
FApproach Existing Regional Projects Projected lx Peak
Projected eakj t�
cien Peek 2h,Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k•HourPeek 2h Haur j Peak 2; Hour
VolumeVolume : Volume Volume Volume � Volume
ound 4669 140 �3 S 6 ound 3574 167S p 5
Eastbound 212
Westbound
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
❑ Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
DATE: `Y
PROJECT:
FORM I
1%' Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection JAMBOREE ROAD/EASTBLUFF DRIVE—UNIVERSITY DRIVE
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on verage Winter/Spring 19 8.7 AM
Peak 2k Hour Approved
ap:,roach Existing Regional Projects Projected i of Projected: Protect
Ji Girection i Peak 211 Hour ( 'Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2�, Hour Peak 2y Hour
Volu,ne i Volume _— Volume Volume Volume
Volume
i;oethbound 4664 CM-7 56 5�
':i--•• •— S - IS u• �
Southbound 4330 3
' Eastbound i 1116
- — --1-16 F --
vestboundLo2
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
L 1 Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume
_ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
LJ Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.
• �f�r
DATE.
1% Traffic Volume• Analysis
Intersection JAMBOREE ROAD/EASTBLUFF DRIVE—UNIVERSITY' DRIVE
(Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage nter pr ng IlT PM,
Peak D; Hour Approved I
rApproach Existing — Regional Protects Projected 1: of Projected PrIte
Direction Peek 2, Ilaur.. Growth Peak 2k Hour Peek 2k Hour ' Peak 2y Hour Peat ( Hour I
Volume Volume Yalume Volume Volume
•I---- 6Z G3 33
Northbound 4965 z a5
southbound 5298 f f�
i . _.
Eastbound 679 1
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 21z Hour Traffic Volume
U 'Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
DATE:
APPENDIX B
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION
ANALYSES
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS-
INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD do SANTA BARBARA DRIVE 5310
EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED 'ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING _ 1987 AM
------------ -----------—-----------------
I EXISTING PROPOSE EXISTING EXISTING REGIONAL( COMMITTED(. PROJECTED I PROJECTI PROJECT(
( •
1 Movement) Lanes ( Lanes I PK HR I V/C ( GROWTH i PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I Ratio 1
f I Capacity( Capacity( Volume I Ratio ( Volume Volume i w/o Project1 ( I
I ( I I I I ---volume ( I
1 =----------------------------^- _r_-- `---- -=-----
( ------- ( I I I
. I I I'
NL 1 I •
1607 1 0.33 " `f g ( 4 57 - i a ��� "I_25_ 16, 4 5
1 NT 1 : 4800 1 I _ _ ________ ____ -----
( NR 1 1600 ( ( 491 ( 0:31 1 1 tZ--^-
1 ----------------- ---- --------------- q.
( SL ( 3200 1 I 502`-----------------------( 0.16 e 1 /Q�i I Q, I�-`- i
------ q
( ST 1 3200 ( 1 792 I 0,25 ( .24 ( 4 1
------------------------------
1 SR I I I I I I A --- -------- -----I
_-^-^--^--^^----_--- _--
• 1 EL I I I I I 1 0 I ----------------i
I ----
i I i I 1 ----- I --- --�-_-
---'•---------` `---------
1 ER I I 1 U-`--
--------------I
__
( WL 1 2400 ( 1 72 1 0.03 " I 8 1 0.o '44 ( _ 5 __-_0_9
---------------------------------------------—-------- -
( WT I I I I 1 1 6 1 o 1 ------I
''• ( ------------------------------=--------------`------- ------- -
1 WR 1 2400 1 1 135' I 0.06 1 1 I 0. 0-j ---
-------------------------------'-------------------�-
1 EXISTING I.C.U. I
1 EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 Q'b 6_-- I ---------------1
1EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.G.U.
-----------=----------------------------------------------`
Ii/Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than pr equal to 0.90
I _J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90
( J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvemont will• be
less than or equal to 0.90
( J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will
be less than I.C.U. without project -----------------------•
-------------------------------------------------
-------
Description of system improvement:
_ FORM TI
PROJECT
�nuu�rr�
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD & SANTA 13ARBARA DRIVE 6310
EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC• WINTER/SPRING --_ 1987 PM
~ ( EXISTING PROPOSED[ EXISTING EXISTING REGIONAL[ COMMITTEDI PROJECTED I PROJECTI PROJECII
Movementl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I Ratio
1
1 I Capacityl Capacityl Volume I Ratio I ,Volume I Volume I w/o volumProjee,
ti i Ratio
1 I ' l .1 . I I I -- I Volume
- ---------------------------(
--------------- ---------------------------------------------
1 NT I 4800
I - I 1045 0.22 1 -3--
] 1 f 1 0 /Z1 Il Z�o
L_------ -------6=3 ----J----
i 2,J1
----^---------^- -----------------------------
NR - I 160o1 I 156 I 0.10 I I 1
-------------- -----------------------------------------31---------- ---- ------ -
II 11 --- ----------.------- ------- i
---I---,
-^ --��-.1
I 2461 0.08 I I � t � 1 I L�P
SL 3200 L------------ -/--i-
----- ------- - --- =
� 1 �'.6 ----ST 3200 1653 0.52 S� I I
---S --'--------'-------------------------------- ___S1-.
R I----------
------- - -°III
EL I
------------------- ------------------------------------
---ET--I--------i--------I I I i I I
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---ER--I---^— 1 1 I I 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---WL --1 ---2400 1 1 589 1 0.25 " I 61 1 I
----------------------`----- -----p=?r------ ----D �--I
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 ----------- /
i WR 1 ' 2400 1 1 483 1 0.20 I 1 9Q __ I _O_ZV---------- - --- I
------------- - i I�z I
( EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.77 11
-- ------------
1 ------------------------------- -- -- - --------------` --------------�
ED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U.
( EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOS 1 _ n� J2 -- I I
----------------------- ---- 1! 1
( EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I:C.U. _- _ I¢,9�J I
------------------------------------------------------------
1 J Projected +:project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90
J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90
I J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems ,improvement Will be
less than or equal to 0.90
I J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will
be less than I.C.U. without project ---------------------------,
--------------7----------------------------------------
Description of system improvement:
C
ai ( ,
y FORM II
PROJECT
INTERSE�,ON CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYST l "
INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD & SAN JOAQUIN BILLS ROAD 5045
BXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES DASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1987 AM
________ r r -----_------r r --- M - M_rr
i I,EXISTINq PROPOSE D1 EXISTING(EXISTING REGIONAL COMMITTED( PROJECTED I PROJECT( PROJEC'II
( Movement[ Lanes I Lanes I EK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT ( V/C Ratio I Volumo ( Y/C I
I I Capacityl Capacity( Volisme I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Projectl I Ratio I
I I I I I I ( 1 ' volume I i I
---KL --1 ---i6001 - ------1 --- as 1 .--O.Oa 1 -"---"r1-r^0---1` _QZ - I-------�Q o2 .
r J -_ r 1
1 NT -1 4800 1 1 1494 1 0.31 " 4< I tf `3 1 Q_�Z 12S _ 116.4 1 i�
I -`--=-------------------------------------=--•---`-----^-----------
1 NR . I - 1600 1 1 . ill 1 6.071 I q 1 1 1
I =--------------------------`---------------------------`-�------Q_1�------------°�°--I
SL 1 3200 1 • . .1 741 1 0.23 " 1 --
L4.1_1-Q__28 4-11--------10-
-----------------------------------------------------
( ST 1 3200 1 1 11271 0.36 1 31 1 51? _ 1 _0_S3__ _ Q__ 5 3`1
---------`--^--------------`----------`-----
SR. ( 1600 I I 46 1 0.03 1 1 ? . 1 (LO�-I------1'0 03_1
1 =---`----------------------------`-------__------------------`-----
1 EL 11 1 189 I 1 2 1 Q.D.5�------}Q.OS_�`9
I ---`----} 4800 ------------------} 0.05 "-------------------
1 ET I 1 55 1 1 --Q------- I ------ 1 I
_______
i ER 1 N.S. i 1 62 1 l I p 1 1 1 I
-------------I-------I
1 WL [ 1 140 03. 1 1 30 Q�Q_L_ _____—11
WT I Q.Q
1 ---`•----} 4800 ------------------} 0 "--------------^
1 1 16 1 ( 1 1
1 WR 1 1600 1 1 197 ( 1 1 -
.
10 Z i -J _J_ --` I ------'.4_L9__I
I -----------------------------------------------------
1 EXISTING I.C.U. 1' 0.62 1
1EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED WIPROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U.
----^------J/-- - -----------------1
• 1EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT T.C.U. 10,60
1
-----------------------------------------------`--`----------`----------------------------`--
1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or.equal to 0.90
( J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90
l J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be
less than or equal to 0.90
IJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will
be less than I.C.U. without project
-----`-----------^---------------------`---`---------------------------
Description of system improvements
1
r
FORM II
PROJECT
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD & EASTBLUFF DRIVE/FORD ROAD 4980 -
EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1987 PM
I EXISTING PROPOSEDI EXISTING EXISTING REGIONALI COMMITTEDI PROJECTED .1 PROJEC11.PROJECII
I Movement.] Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C. 1 GROWTH ( PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume { V/C I
I Capacityl Capacityl Volume 1 Ratio ( Volume 1 Volume 1 w/o Project] I Ratio I
I I
1 -----=- I . --- Volume
NL3200 1 421 0'.13
--------------------------- =---i1------ =II-D---,--/--4
-- ----- l __ ^ /� ------ - =---II
1--- 1 7b 1 6✓� �iS�_ _ �_ 11is11-I
---�--} 4800 �--------'----139 } 0.42 �--------I---9---'
------------------ - - �/ o.oZ --- ---------------;
--- ---- ---------------------------
I sL I 1600 I 1 101 I 0.06 1 I 1 ______ _ 1 10"0z j
-- -----0 ---
I ---------------------------------------------------------------- -
ST 1 4800 1 1773 0.37 I
sR I I ---------- I 34 0.02 I
------ -------�---- �-- -------I-------_ 1-- ---i--------I-
EL I
1 1600 1 1 44 I 0.03 1 - 1 -- -- 1 — �=�
I --------------------------------------------M
ET 1 1600 1 I 174 I 0.11--------- ------- —01�1- ------
I ------------------------------------------- -
1 ER 1 ---1600 1 -------1 358 1 0.22 1 I I 1 1 Ui23 1
( --------- ------------- -------------�Q------ �' -------------------I
WL I 1 141 I 1 i t poj
I --------} asoo --------------=---} 0 ----------- -----Jnjz;!�J-�----_-- -------i
1 WT 1 1 114 I I I I -----I
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WR 1 1600 1 1
I 231 0 01 1 1 Z1bOZ1 6,0 =
---------------------- --------_-
-_ ------- --- - - = - ------1 I
1EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.66 1
1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I
( EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 n p�/- I
I --------------------------------------
_--- __-_ _____ 1 F ______________
IEXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U.— ----------------
--------------------------------------------------------
I J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90
J Projected + project traffic I C.U. will be greater than 0.90
i J Projected + project traffic:I.C.U. w/systems Improvement will be
less than or.equal to 0.90•
I J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will
be less than T.C.U. without project
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description of system improvement%
n �
� r
FORM II
PROJECT _
INTERSECTION CAPACITY Uf1LEZATION ANALYSIS "
INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD 6 BISON STREET 4870
EXLST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1986 PM
EXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTING EXISTING REGIONAL c"ITTEU PROJECTED PROJECT PROJFZr
Movement Lanes lanes P& 8R V/C GROWTH PROJECT C Ratio Volume Ratio
CapacityCapacity Volume Ratio Volume Volume w/o Project
Volume
NL I 1600 I ( 17 1 0.01 I I I Q O� I 100
NT I I :1635 I i i 1�1 Zo l2
NP } ;4800 I' I 107
SL I 3200 1 I 123 I "0.04 * I �7 l o o d I I n,oL
ST 1. 4800 I -- I 1543 I 0.32
SR I ' 1600 I 1 71 1 0.04
EL I I 12 I I I
BT , 1600 I 1 43 } 0.05 * I Z 9 I p,� 1 0,0
ER I I 23 } I I p l I
WL I 1600 I I 133 I 0.08 * I 5 I !J /z
:n W'r 1 1600 1 I 66 I 0.04 I I Z� I D 06 1 10,04
WR I 3200 I I 83 I '0.03
(EXISTING I.C.U. I 0.53 1
(EXIST t REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I 109.714 I
EXISTING + c"rrTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT L.C.U.
I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90
1_1 Projected i- project traffic L.C.U. will be greater than 0.90
I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be `
less th m or equal to 0.90
Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will
be less than I.C.U. without project
LLscriptiop of system improvement:
IIKUJlSCr
— is
i
APPENDIX C
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION
ANALYSES
WITH IMPROVEMENTS
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
/<'ERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD & SANTA BARBARA DRIVE 5310 -
'* IST TRAFFIC VOLUME$ BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1987 PM
--- - - - ---------
I I EXISTINq PROPOSED( EXISTING[ EXISTING) REGIONAL( COMMITTEDI PROJECTED I PROJE PROJECT[
1Movementl Lanes I Lanes 1 -PK HR I V/C* I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVolume� V/C
' I I Capacity[ Capacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project) ( Ratio I
1 I i I I I I I Volume , I .. I
I ------------------------------------=-----------------------------------=-----------------I
I NL . I I I I
I -----------------------------.•-------------------------------------------------------------I
1 NT 1 4800 1 1 1045 ( 0.22 I I I ( I I
1 ----------------------------------------- -----�)-------`gz -0-=�--=----'----°�1--
1 NR . 1 1600 1 -----__ --
( _ 156 1 b.10 I ( I O.�� 1 5J 1011.Z 1
-------------------------I
I ------------------ ----------=-------------- ?/^------
0.08
I SL I ---- 1 1 --- I ---- I ( upp-l-------4ZIf.P-•-- `--------
1 ST I 3200 I(�Y37A ( 1653 1 0.52 ��
I ------------------ ---^---------------------------- --- = -------^-------
---
I I I
-- ---------- I ( I
I EL i I I I I I I . I I I
I -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
1 ET I I
I ----------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------I
I FR I I I I I I I I I I
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- '
1 WL ( 2400 I -_--_-- 589 I 0.26
--_i___ !0_
�___ ,2�
I ------------------ ------------------------------- ----- -
I WT I I I I I I I I I I
i.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I
I WR 1 24001 1 4831 0.201 1 9p 1 0,c_ I. 10.Z I
I --------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------- -
1EXIST
1 -----ING I-C.U.------------------- ---- I ------ I
EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED N/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I
- a9 __�____
- --^-'--------^- -------- ------------I
1 EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH-
PROJECT I.C.U.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---
I J, Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90
I J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90
i J Projected + project traffic I.C.U, w/systems improvement will be
loss than or equal to 0.90
1 J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will
be less than I.C.U. without project •
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------•
Desccripti/o`nlof uyateemm improvemanti � /�
7ArdO''� ! SIB U �U/iE C�iY _/ O /
-,.PROJECT FORM II
02-219- 01
TRAFFIC STUDIES
0 Ytud Aezvr
APPLICANT: CONSULTANTS:
NAME: ' 31ePrvg9' /ACresC &W. V V RADPv4-4e A4127 .4SSoGrA7ES
/ 9att yt CrA� sass oleag 13d ew4y Azov.
3UTlt'd Zoo {
r— CdGarjarvzC TivauSTLYi cdtsro�tnod
9r�i�• gisysG- 3�J
-2?M �MQ.ylCoD�a.EJ�Y- .L/�
PHONE: 1,� p,� 69}3- W60
PROJECT NAME: DESCRIPTION:
ureLA A&rr
DATE DEPOSIT FEES PAYMENT REMAINING BALANCE
/6
oo 3, 300.00
Z3Avtosi / sN9, iy� z,Oro•94
a m e�arx
�eE°PDe> CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECEIPT
�..�..�.p� �� @m.�..«.«,�..�..�..�. NEWPO� EACH, CALIFORNIA 92683 No.
09490
1 �<IROAN�' W 19 V /
1 } TE QQ��
RECEIVED FROM I $
FOR:
1 ACCOUNT NO. A T 1
Ili � iw1
DEPARTMENT------ I'r/
FORM 150-3496 01 0204455 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3a0425 3 0 0`F 2 J5
VOUCHER NO.,. INVOICE NO. PURCHASE ORDER NO. INVOICE DATE AMOUNT DISCOUNT NET AMOUNT
766769 070887 7106/87 3*630.00 .00 3,630.00
VILLA POINI TRAFFIC TUDY
I
i
I
i
I
TOTAL
3,630.00 .aa 3,630.00
• CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
DEMAND FOR PAYMENT
Date November 12, 1987
Demand of Weston Pringle and Associates
Address: 2651 East Chapman Avenue - Suite 110
Fullerton, California 92631
In the amount of $ 482.50
ITEM OF EXPENDITURE BUDGET # AMOUNT
grofessional services rendered re Villa Point project 02-219-01
TOTAL 9482.50
Approved For Payment:
Department Head
Au d Approved:
•
Finance Director
W HA
TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATI N ENG[09!�ING
November 3, 1987 �.�' icy,
Ms. Pat Temple NOV4 19$],
City of Newport Beach r
P.O. Box• 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 �'••_,,. "}.,� /
REFERENCE: PROFESSIONAL TRAFFIC ENGINEERING CONSULTING SERVICES FOR
Villa Point (Newport Beach) August 15 - Sept. •1987
STATEMENT
Personnel Charges
Firm Principal 5.5 hours @ $85.00 $467.50
Secretary 1.0 hours @ $15.00 $ 15.00
Total Personnel Charges $482.50
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE THIS STATEMENT $482.50
WSP:hld
#83211
re . .. .. .. . _ ...., _..
nj
47�'rc.
P'Gnr,
2651 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE SUITE 110 • FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92631 (714) 871-2931
• CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
DEMAND FOR PAYMENT
Date August 27, 1997
Demand of: Weston Pringle and Associates
Address: 2651 East Chapman Avenue - Suite 110
Fullerton, California 92631 .
In the amount of $ 1,249.14
ITEM OF EXPENDITURE BUDGET # AMOUNT
Professional traffic engineering consulting services
for Villa Point Traffic Impact Analysis 02-219-01
7
Appro ed For Payment: TOTAL $1,249.14
e p a Ft nt ea
dited nd Approved:
Finance Director
P A Wealm P►t*k ad AwCtltEeO t0114
�t��s<?1981 i 4
TRAFFIC & TRANS TAT %EN EERI
August 24, 19876 °a�u•: " fi
Ms. Pat Temple
Environmental Coordinator
City of Newport Beach
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915
REFERENCE: PROFESSIONAL TRAFFIC ENGINEERING CONSULTING SERVICES FOR
Villa Point Traffic Impact Analysis, July - August 15, 1987.
STATEMENT
Personnel Charges
Firm Principal 8.0 hours @ $85.00 $ 680.00
Assistant Engineer 12.0 hours @ $30.00 $ 360.00
Draftsperson 3.5 hours @ $30.00 $ 105.00
Secretary 4.0 hours @ $15.00 $ 60.00
Total Personnel Charges $1,205.00
Direct Expenses
Printing $27.80
General Supplies $12.33
Subtotal $40.13
APQP, V �s % �^. . :r:•; Ifi'�TCost 10% $ 4.01
Total Direct Expenses $ 44.14
BY
• TOTAL AMOUNT DUE THIS STATEMENT $1,249.14
•.ann g Ci:cc:
• WSP:hld
#83211
2651 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE SUITE 110 FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92631 (714) 871-2931
Q�gW Pp�T
• CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
V Z P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92658-8915, _
o.
c�<rFORN�� PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-32251 U=«d
sza-,vr-
July 3 , 1987 >p✓
Jim Montgomery
Irvine Pacific
1 Park Plaza, Suite #1000 6 .zcv�ss
Irvine CA 92714 ALrvx ,�;,
SUBJECT: Villa Paint Traffic Study/TPO -
Dear Mr. Montgomery:
The City of Newport Beach has received a proposal to provide
a TPO/Traffic Impact Analysis from Weston Pringle and
Associates. The proposal contains an outline of the scope of
work required, approximate schedule of same, and estimated
budget required for the preparation of this traffic study for
the Villa Point development.
• The fee requested has been reviewed by the City and the
amount requested for the tasks required are considered
appropriate and warranted. It is, therefore, requested that
your company remit' 'remuneration to your City account and
cover the cost generated. The total compensation requested
is enumerated as follows:
Traffic Impact Analysis and
Associated Costs $3, 300. 00
City Fees (10%) 330. 00
Total Request: $3 , 630. 00
Please make out the check payable to the City of Newport
Beach. Your prompt attention in this matter is appreciated.
Very truly yours,
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director
By Zo
BR B RNARD
Associate Planner
. BBB:jm\IRV-PAC.TPO
xc: Patricia L. Temple, Environmental Coordinator
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
W +, C%
P A Wal" P► qte adAaoaciaW
T ' C & TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING
July 1, 1987
r Nec�
Ms. Pat TempleEnvi
Cityrofmental NewportoBeachator NpORr c�1 A 10.
P.O. Box 1768 CALIF f��H,
Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915
Dear Ms. Temple:
We are pleased to submit this proposal to provide professional traffic
engineering services for a traffic phasing study of the proposed Villa
Point project in Newport Beach. This proposal is based upon information
provided by you, Rich Edmonston, and our understanding of the needs of the
study.
In general , the work would consist of preparing a traffic analysis as required
• to satisfy the requirements of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO)
as well as other traffic related and parking concerns. The analysis would
include consideration of existing, committed project, regional growth and
project traffic as required by the TPO. Criteria and methodologies contained
in the TPO would be utilized to identify potential traffic impacts along
with previous studies and development plans. Mitigation measures would be
recommended as may be required. A report would be prepared summarizing our
findings and recommendations.
We would envision the following specific tasks to be required for this
study.
TASK 1 - DATA COLLECTION
We would assemble all available data pertinent to the study. This
would include development plans, existing traffic Volumes, committed
projects and traffic, regional growth factors, planned circulation
improvements, previous studies by our firm of parking demands for
•
2651 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE • SUITE 110 • FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92631 (714) 871.2931
I •
-to`
a
1 Pitt playa, Ste iooe�
�it� -•LA I CA Rai 4Y
It's hard to believe grown-uPs
do this for a living.
-2-
• similar uses, and similar data. We would discuss the project with
you and the City Traffic Engineer to ensure our understanding of the
project and the scope of study. It is understood that the City would
provide A..M. and P.M. traffic volume data for existing conditions and
for committed projects. A field review would be made to familiarize
ourselves with existing conditions.
TASK 2 - TRIP GENERATION AND ASSIGNMENT
Estimates would be made of trips to be generated by the project during
the A.M. and P.M. peak hours and 2.5 hours peak periods. These estimates
would be based upon trip generation rates applicable to the specific
uses and acceptable to the City Traffic Engineer. A geographic trip
distribution pattern would be developed for the site. This distribution
would be based upon previous studies in the area. The distribution
would be reviewed with the City Traffic Engineer. Estimated project
traffic would be assigned to the street system in conformance with the
• distribution pattern.
TASK 3 - ANALYSIS
The City Traffic Engineer has identified 18 signalized intersections
to be included in the study. The "One Percent" test would be conducted
at each of these intersections to identify potential traffic impacts
as required by the TPO. Any intersections that failed the "One Percent"
test would be further evaluated with ICU analyses. (Both the "One
Percent" and the ICU analyses would include existing, committed project
and regional growth traffic as prescribed in the TPO) . •Any intersections
with ICU values greater than 0.90 would be analyzed to identify mitigation
measures. Site access and the deletion of the extension of Back Bay
Drive to Pacific Coast Highway would be examined. The adequacy of the
proposed parking supply would be analyzed utilizing previous parking
demand studies by our firm and others. Any potential deficiencies would
be identified. Mitigation measures would be recommended as may be required.
Sketches of recommended mitigation measures would be included where
• applicable.
-3-
TASK 4 - REPORT AND MEETINGS
A, report would be prepared summarizing our findings and recommendations.
The report would contain the required supportive data and conform to
the requirements of the TPO. We would meet with you, and other City
Staff and others as may be required during the course of the study.
Attendance at two (2) public hearings is included as a part of this
proposal .
We would be prepared to begin work on this study upon receipt of authorization.
It is anticipated that approximately four (4) weeks would be required to
complete the study. This schedule assumes no delays in obtaining City.supplied
data.
Our fee for the work outlined in this proposal shall be based upon personnel
charges plus direct expenses as indicated in our Standard Rate Schedule, a
copy of which is attached and made a part hereto. In no case would the total
• fee exceed $3,300.00 without prior approval from you .or your representative.
Since it is not possible at this time to estimate the time required for addi-
tional meetings and/or presentations concerning this project not mentioned
in this proposal , our staff would be available with the fee based upon our
Rate Schedule in addition to the previously stated maximum. The additional
work shall be conducted when requested by you or your representative.
We appreciate 'hay.ing the opportunity of submitting this proposal and look
forward to serving the City. If you have any questions or require additional
information, please contact us.
Respectfully submitted,
WESTON PRINGLE & ASSOCIATES
�����
Weston S. Pringle, P...E.
• WSP:hId
YY T
h
P A filed" 'p qte adAmetWo
cft TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING
STANDARD RATE SCHEDULE
Effective January 1, 1987
Professional Staff Hourly Rates
Firm Principal $ 85.00
Senior Engineer 65.00
Associate Engineer 45.00
Assistant Engineer 30.00
Support Staff
Engineering Draftsman 30.00
Secretary = 15.00
Clerical , Field Enumerator 15.00
General
1. Travel , reproduction, telephone, supplies, and other non-wage direct
costs are billed at cost plus ten (10) percent.
L. Hourly rates apply to travel in additionito work time.
3. Statements will be submitted monthly for work in progress or upon
completion of work. Statements are payable within 30 days of receipt.
Any invoices unpaid after 45 days shall have a service charge added
at a rate of 1.5 percent per month (or maximum permitted by law) on
the unpaid balance.
4. Compensation for services performed will not be contingent upon the
necessity of client to receive payment from other parties. Any
controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this contract, or
the breach thereof, shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with
the rules of the American Arbitration Association and judgement upon
the award rendered by the arbitration may be entered in any court
having jurisdiction thereof.
5. These rates are based upon procedures and methods outlined in the
American Society of Civil Engineers' Manual on Engineering Practice
Number 45.
2651 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE • SUITE 110 • FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92631 • (714) 871-2931