Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTPO051_PARK LIDO MEDICAL OFFICE BLDG. II�IIII IIII III II I nIIIII IIIII �Vll llll111ll� TP0051 TPD�os�l r�F TRAFFIC STUDY y E h F FOR EWPORT LIDO" EDHow'o"'AL CENTER t w Y PRESENTED TO CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH k rf +2 4, w PREPARED BY BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. a5.w�:•i "��''ace,aoiaWa'.�ti�.icbca�"'''�.e""'"nii'.f'�Ju""rSit'�zuvufP.'r"'.ssnc5r,�"' 5• �,. .""�.m"'^°":•+.. n, .<<<,. ,t;c.s, •P,. x';m�'• '�: 1 \D1 BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. ' ENGINEERING AND PLANNING Transportation, Traffic, Municipal, Transit 3190 C•1 Airport Loop Drive Costa Mesa,California 92626 (714)557-5780 1 ' June 20, 1988 tMs. Patricia Temple City of Newport Beach ' Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard BDI REF. NO. : 880315 P. O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Subject: Traffic Study for Newport Lido Medical Center ' Dear Ms. Temple : Basmaciyan-Darnell is pleased to present the enclosed draft ' traffic study for the Newport Lido Medical Center. The requested revisions to the subject report have been made. If you have any questions please contact myself or Rock Miller at our office. ' Sincerely, Basmaciyan-Darnell , Inc. ' Rock Miller, P.E. Lido. Rpt/#18C 1 t ' TRAFFIC STUDY FOR NEWPORT LIDO MEDICAL CENTER Prepared for: ' City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 ' Prepared by: ' Basmaciyan-Darnell, Inc. 3190 C-1 Airport Loop Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 ' ( 714) 557-5780 Revised ' June 1988 ' 3 ' TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SECTION I - PROJECT DESCRIPTION . I-1 SECTION II - EXISTING CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . II-1 Roadway Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-1 ' Existing Peak Hourly Traffic Volumes . . . . . . . . . II-1 ' Existing Daily Traffic Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . II-1 Roadway Capacity II-5 ' SECTION III - TRIP GENERATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-1 SECTION IV - TRIP DISTRIBUTION . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1 ' SECTION V - TRAFFIC ONE PERCENT IMPACT ANALYSIS . . . V-1 SECTION VI - INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION . . . . VI-1 ' SECTION VII - MITIGATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-1 ' SECTION VIII - ON-SITE CIRCULATION AND PARKING . . . . . VIII-1 SECTION IX - SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX-1 ' LIST OF FIGURES ' Page FIGURE 1 - VICINITY MAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2 FIGURE 2 - LOCATION MAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3 ' FIGURE 3 - SITE PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4 FIGURE 4 - CONCEPTUAL DRAWING OF PROPOSED PROJECT . . . I-5 ' FIGURE 5 - EXISTING ROADWAY SYSTEM . . . . . . . . . . . II-2 FIGURE 6 - EXISTING AM/PM PEAK HOURLY TURNING MOVEMENT'• ' VOLUMES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-3 FIGURE 7 - EXISTING AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES . . . II-4 FIGURE S - PROJECT-RELATED 'DRIP DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES IV-2 FIGURE 9 - PROJECT-RELATED AM PEAK 2-1/2 HOUR TRAFFIC ' VOLUMES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-3 FIGURE 10 - PROJECT-RELATED PM PEAK 2-1/2 HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-4 FIGURE 11 - PROJECT-RELATED AM/PM TRAFFIC VOLUMES . . . . VI-2 ' FIGURE 12 - EXISTING PLUS PROJECT AM/PM TRAFFIC VOLUMES . VI-3 ' S ' LIST OF TABLES Page TABLE 1 - SUMMARY OF EXISTING ROADWAY VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY II-6 ' TABLE 2 - SUMMARY OF PROJECT-RELATED TRIP GENERATION . . III-2 TABLE 3 - ONE PERCENT TEST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1 TABLE 4 - INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION AT "ONE- PERCENT" LOCATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-4 • I ' SECTION I ' PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Newport Lido Medical Center is a proposed medical office ' building of approximately 85, 000 square feet. The building is proposed to be constructed at the intersection of Hospital Road and Placentia Avenue in West Newport Beach. This area of Newport Beach is already characterized by medical office buildings, and the proposed project is a continuation of that land use. The proposed project includes a five story medical office building and a parking structure. The project is an expansion of the ' existing Newport Lido Medical Center located adjacent to the proposed project. The project location is shown in the vicinity map, Figure 1 . A detailed map showing the project site is indicated on Figure 2. The project site plan is depicted on Figure 3. Model of the proposed project is photographed in Figure 4. ' This traffic study is intended to fully address traffic and parking considerations for the proposed project. Compliance with ' the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) is addressed, and the project impact on several intersections not currently included in the TPO analysis are also addressed. Park- ing and access are analyzed for the site plan submitted to Basmaciyan-Darnell, Inc. (BDI) , and the parking needs during construction are also addressed. ' z-1 1 q�� 9 1 9Z 1ST STREET 9 i 1 0 m 9y N 1 WARNER / AVE 1 P 1 SAro 3 QQ w 3 ¢ gLL DIEGO 1 m g P AD"AVE c 9 F 9�P l�� WAY / O i G �'flF i z 'a ¢ N A 1 ACj 191h ST. w pC' P 1 q COAST 'P�o PROJECT SITE �m A 7 N 1 ,qBqtSDq SIVD A9BQ? C y'cy N�y 1 OOFgN WAr N i 1 \ FIGURE 1 ' BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. VICINITY MAP 1 J-2 I ' fVEWPORT_AV NEWppRT$CVD IS F 1 y 0 U ' p'f1A P�pCG � a 0 6 des w 3 QP 0� 0 z FIGURE 2 BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. LOCATION MAP Id �— - - - - - - - - - -- ` —•�'.Q >s+/� `1 'V_�.G�.�'{i•---,� � ;..LL�.i.�..Ll.l.l.�.... i..l. ..I.I,i.l•i.�>I�r nr x �� -,o.., .k \,`�/,-pig. ��i I� 9� �1'••j Id I• _ _ �"._.. �_{��`� .�• t^:^,1-� ` � ' \�>,\�`d'i�•dYo-^� I•� .i�Yl'Y'I..•s.` ,� �i'�iy{ '�• � '�':_ I!• •7i 6..;+..,, I�'{,-. IU' `\!)�� '� ! .Sim-.1�1 I �%•I—�..., I _-i—_- ��+_'�' ___, y ^��>-�� y < I -- �T j?J% � � •I 'i1 :Lt 1�_L.I_1 e_ 1 � ..1._�.�..1.... ^,.i- ..{tl tl �� e �I�IO z / I . a . Y /w ``•\ a ..� � '�q9 Y„•�\—r���.�;"'V-1•.l..L�.L .I.�.�,.inl.i....:.l�l..�_:.��I _I II Q _ _ \� '<.•, 'a m.w... `` �` . .off`•`.::;�:�:,, r'''-'^d�":�:'...'..i_,. ' ; J�i' �: ` �• �.: A" : I z" i I I V.: w FIGURE 3 BASMACIYAN UANNLLL.INC SITE PLAN a _ - - -'����- __ - - `a: _' _'R_�__ __ _ '}..:r.�,;?h_�„_.".:. 2Ti=.'?•Y-L.i-s;i:�'F.',,'ti"T%i::ru-�%�'=�'.0 � ., . . � -- �'�' •)..- _ `•"`= •- _ _ ,y�:i tii^' �:=,+�.is:' .. �.1-„ �'""•;^'>• .�fiw Q.F.�`:. :�i-.`1`,"'=.av ^s+�.e> _ '� •t _ 't'. �r;V% - t-K_ai t`-J ii-'s :•-. - __ - i"TlY�`J,"Y.'�-:�:Y.},.••.. �61i LL 7: �-f..�')+' z• y'•. �J . _ _ _ - _ _ �- 'J ri�'L�i-,••_ - f.'�SEY_t: l:a'..,r�- �'-.0 i�FR"'SY ^�/ 'r^ _ - _ _;Jr: s3:'••)xta': - .:; ,3�`-ESri�.{'Sl-a>•'4�v- '•lJ�£`t_..�r, _ 'u'!;' • .lA-'>rJ 'T',!� ..L' aa�y?" .ly.�.'r'aim ,f' zL= `._ya'w:. .,',i r•"'s-.ig'•,� ,Cs^s ``p'J: - +±tJ_-.:+.� ;'�.i-` 1.+`--,•.,rc'^:jam ter;` _ "-•'Yr�`r}�.�.^�:i�-.: ri�.a�P-•ti�k't`.i�1_-S.,_::o_".L.:2• :r4sr.: _-v ,> .y„Y _.', Sc �• . • _ Y;�j: - v-i,!"; �.•+.�^" `�L.:��'.�<:.ji��•�.a._S�. - _ .^-','i�:�: .-�C� 5-- vF`�6•] .:Y•r-_v�r- - ^'�'3`�}� _ _ '! -�„S.i- �=•i^=r..'.�v _ iF,':' -G ram- '••r Y r�L�'�, W;7-�r� �r,_.'a'��.a:C:�. �•`r•,-,,y.� -. �'"<_`:.�v"+:.i:.'i:r�I` 6:.. ; f�' s �..•..-'! .yrr r_ ��•, z.:_w-i�� ,,..c :'-C'� '•ti`= i'.' �i..i�a �+r�:.>_..�)�.cL'.c.'.L�,z�__.y^ •tip,.'-. -f4,k1:'•`.`3%'�.�+4iN,y - './: -_ ":�_ ryti =y~- �ry.4.--'r,�•r.) i$"_-:v..•).y- �T��-•'.:-�-t:.;3.. ' �:3:+��.- F:.y r y� s, ..4r.c. .�:^ ++.b•=�- "'�:.}r. _ j' _ Stiw `' ^ra i`.;:"T=a" sY'- �'- �,:j_'.^,<.� 4.}t:�i-.>:y-v' 2.�.�'.::'i�. .tsr-•'-.1.,'.-::!5"_ .S`.a-?s%.`. �� '- �rt•a..y{,-_:�.a. _Ti_L,�.{-... `Y�:� •.*:-•-'� :�."-"..-•aFt_ }.i>.'Y:S� ♦���'.� )'M >_i'TY.i}+ 'L` � n-_ _ _ __ . N+ - - e.ie�. J ..er rssr;:_ .'ti._ "=S:'•-. -'c,,.,r �y�� < __- •'_>4T � a �-- iv }.tea•. .avY.,� t'�"• �.sr"�'iYI.:'-,'v': .__n_'. a'.^...d � h.tnu -�f .�.0e} .v. rt i}V� SY__ "'9'Z�i%�,K�". ,�_: .-� .�a[ti: iilill'�r.,.�h't S'1 �r•I '"�' _ C�iJ-i- tip �q•._ -itw w•.f i'•^r •y :' r.," �f_. {fir. - _�'_ o..^Y +s�Y;^.. �}^S.c�.^i.:+a. ' rd'�rr:+,. -t,J-`.•_ -`_ >;a:_:��`'-_ '-?�e_�:•�-�•_ •u4.:r{:?�+�,<.�yr..�w^�r,Y4:tY-ei:s•^ "�•'�l ;I` ') it�,.tv� '-'mow`:-_-�+�r'_,-� �i=`���•���y':u'1�'=����j:,-~ ...�}.rr+.-wt�'�^ __ •-Y _' _ 00 Alum— ON No OF go X0 vo X2 ,w i� w, 4�ti.5.;.-.ram;4*:Ya ��� Sr: �v:...� � `.•�.. �^-�'ywy� E; .,.<� - 3 � Lz• 'ar y ,;Tr---`�'.*..,`:c _ ^ "mot �� -`J s-•{'r,:''_ so fit r. FIGURE 4 BASMACIYAN U\NNLLL•INC CONCEPTUAL DRAWING OF PROPOSED PROJECT SECTION II ' EXISTING CONDITIONS Roadway Characteristics Regional access to/from the-proposed project is provided via the I-405 and SR-55 freeways about 4 miles north of the project site. Newport Boulevard provides the most direct access to these facil- ities. Hospital Road is an east/west four-lane undivided primary ' arterial highway east of Superior Avenue and a four-lane divided primary arterial highway east of Placentia Avenue forming the southern boundary of the project. Placentia Avenue is a north/ south four-lane divided roadway forming the project' s ' southeast boundary. Flagship Road is a two-lane local street running adjacent to the site on the west . Patrice Road is a north/ south two-lane undivided local roadway ending in a cul-de- sac, at the project ' s northern boundary. Superior Avenue is a north/ south four-lane divided primary arterial west of the project. Superior Avenue becomes Balboa Boulevard south of West ' Coast Highway. Balboa Boulevard is an east/west four-lane divided primary arterial. South of the project site lies West Pacific Coast Highway, which ' is a four-lane divided primary arterial. East of the project site, Newport Boulevard is a six-lane divided major arterial . South of Pacific Coast Highway, it becomes a four-lane divided primary arterial. The existing roadway system in the project vicinity and the ' number of lanes on each roadway segment are shown on Figure 5 Existing Peak Hourly Traffic Volumes ' Existing AM/PM peak hourly •turning movement volumes in Figure 6 are presented at the intersections of Hospital Road at Placentia Avenue and at Superior Avenue. BDI staff performed the morning and evening counts. The City of Newport Beach has provided existing peak hourly turning movement data for other inter- sections which might be affected by the proposed project. Traffic volumes for the other locations are in the Appendix. Existing Daily Traffic Volumes ' The existing average daily traffic volumes for roadways in the vicinity of the proposed project are presented in Figure 7. The volumes are from the December 1987 Orange County Traffic Flow Map, prepared by the County of Orange Environmental Management Agency Traffic Engineering Department. The counts were taken by Newport Beach and by Caltrans. NBwPORr A 1 �N ' NEwPORr at vo N � N:i�:�::�'Fi+i�':i'��:U':ir:r::i�ii�i::•. ..•::;:: f N J y ' o U J ' pLAOEN�IA O b r ti > w ' Q 3 w Q ❑ z 3 Q 0 J Q � ' O ❑0 w w ❑ z W W > ❑ C7 > ❑ O .iI z ❑ gv, 1. i OP x ❑ ❑ �P�� zv FIGURE 5' ' BASMACIYAN•DARNELL, INC. EXISTING ROADWAY SYSTEM ' 13 1 NEWApRT qVE 1 NEWppRT 8LVD i GSN/A. •ir�iym 166 ¢ � Rpq p•'•••• :r�iro�� RAC 119 3 9�bcl H N i O U P�ApENT1A 1 N O b $ 1 dye 0 co w s SON w NN� 3 1 w S00002°r 1 Lu 0 a > > AO! a x a a i i 1 x ; �pP P� 0 1 1 zz FIGURE 6 ' BASMACIYAN•OARNELL, INC. EXISTING AM/PM PEAK HOURLY TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES �I-3 1 _N'KWPORT q VE Q i z NEWp o � °RT BCVp � v 1 to Z : :iiiii'i :i:•i:f0iu. ` "" ::r:a W: •`•:7 • :il is:ii iii 7:i';�i:0 ROq p'`•. Q 1 N N 1 a O ` U Z P�pCENZIA CO ti M 1 c O b x W wN 3 a 1 mz J Q O y p U O Z LL 2 1 W LL w a F ta- N N i O 1 x a Z 3 co le, O JO2 1 � LLU U U u 0 a < < 0 'r m zN O ¢ rn w i 1 \\ FIGURE 7 DASMACIYAN•DARN[LL, INC. EXISTING AVERAGE DAILY 'TRAFFIC VOLUMES ' II-4 l� I Roadway Capacity Existing daily traffic volumes along the roadways in the vicinity of the project are compared to their corresponding roadway ' capacities in Table 1. The roadway capacities used in this study are based on standards published by the Orange County Environmental Management Agency (OCEMA) and represent a Level of ' Service (LOS) "E" ultimate capacity. Volume-to-capacity (V/C ratios) are given for each roadway segment in the vicinity of the project and the corresponding LOS designations have been assigned. This calculation gives a good indication of traffic ' flow conditions along roadways near the project site. Table 1 shows six roadway segments operating at better than ' Level of Service "C" . Five roadway segments are at Level of Service "D" or worse. ' II-5 r� ' TABLE 1 ' SUMMARY OF EXISTING ROADWAY VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY ' Existing Conditions Average Volume-to- Roadway Daily Capacity Roadway Segment Capacity Traffic Ratio LOS ' Superior Avenue North of West Coast Hwy 36, 000 22, 000 0. 61 B North of Placentia Avenue 36, 000 22, 000 0.61 B Placentia Avenue . North of Hospital Road 15,000 6, 000* 0.40 A ' North of Superior Avenue 36, 000 18, 000 0. 50 A Hospital Road East of Superior Avenue 24, 000 3, 000* 0. 13 A ' East of Placentia Avenue 36,000 3,000* 0. 08 A Newport Boulevard ' North of Pacific Coast Hwy 54, 000 45, 000 0. 83 D South of Pacific Coast Hwy 36, 000 51, 000 1 .42 F ' Pacific Coast Hwy West of Balboa Boulevard 36, 000 42,000 1. 17 F East of Balboa Boulevard 36, 000 33, 000 0. 92 E East of Newport Boulevard 36, 000 50, 000 1, 39 F ' Balboa Boulevard South of West Coast Hwy 36, 000 14, 000 0. 39 A *Estimated by BDI from peak hour counts. ' II-6 �� SECTION III ' TRIP GENERATION The guidelines for the Newport Beach TPO provide that the trip generation for the proposed site should be evaluated as a first step in the traffic study. The traffic generation for the Newport Lido Medical Center is ' estimated based upon traffic generation factors which have been developed by the City of Newport Beach based upon their experience with similar developments. Table 2 summarizes the ' peak hour traffic generation rates for the site. The peak hour of traffic generation for the site will be in the afternoon, and the . total two-way traffic being generated from the site during this ' peak hour is 366 trips. Table 2 also indicates that in the morning peak hour, 68 trips are estimated to be generated by the proposed site. The TPO analysis also requires an estimate and analysis for the peak 2-1/2 hours of project traffic. Appropriate 2-1/2 hour generation rates are also indicated on Table 2. These are gener- ally 200% of the highest peak hour rate. Basmaciyan-Darnell has evaluated the land use for the site and ' the traffic generation rates suggested by the City of Newport Beach. The generation rates which the City prescribes are repre- sentive for the project, so the traffic generation estimate for this site is reasonable and proper. III III-1 ' TABLE 2 ' SUMMARY OF PROJECT-RELATED TRIP GENERATION ' Trip Generation Rates Trip Ends per Thousand Square Feet ' AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use In Out in Out ' Medical Office 0.6 0. 2 1. 9 2.4 Trip Generation Trip Ends ' AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use In Out In Out ' Medical Office 51 17 162 204 (85, 000 KSF) ' Peak 2-1/2 Hours 102 34 324 408 ' KSF - Thousand Square Feet III-2 ly I i ' SECTION IV ' TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT To fully assess the traffic impacts of the development, it is ' necessary to determine the spatial distribution of the traffic generated by the site and determine which roadways this traffic would use for access to and from this site. The distrubution of ' traffic for this site has been estimated by BDI based upon traffic distributions for other traffic studies on this site, traffic distributions for nearby developments, and our knowledge of the area surrounding the Newport Lido site. Figure 8 indi- cates the proposed directional distribution of traffic to and from the site. ' The volumes of traffic experienced on the roadways leading to and from the site are estimated by consolidating the results of the trip generation with the distribution analysis to determine the ' level of traffic increase on each roadway. The AM peak 2-1/2 hour distribution is shown on Figure 9. The 'PM peak 2-1/2 hour forecast is shown on Figure 10. t ' IV-1 as O 9 fs� fs� F` m Z 55% 15% m 35% 15% Apo 25% 26% O 25% 25% < D PROJECT Co SITE S3 m m j0°I' O m 3p� 1pO y° 9 0 0% 0% O 1p�,lp°I° HOSPITAL RD m N kw4 c cn y 16% m Z H y D C m m t� 15% 15% 25% 10 15% % COAST ,� �b 15% % HIGHWAY 15% qo15% 10% 10% fg 9!� 2Ai VIA LIDO N m O 2% O m 9 m o m cm'� ��Gp 8% 8% Oy 9 G m < 2% m 2% 32nd ST 6% 6% FIGURE 8 BAWAI IY AN U.RNLLL.INC. PROJECT-RELATED TRIP DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES 90F m o a 9F m` Z 56 16 20 6 6 2 26 6 8 26 � 76 G D PROJECT m SITE m m 3p�p 16 6 O AO 00 '�;p2 b o 0 A1rr, HOSPITAL_RD m a c 6 Q m m 16 m Z � a C 6 16 < m w 6 10 m 16 4 1 13 8 15 5 COAST 6 1g 16 75 6 4 HIGHWAY 8 16 �6 6 1 2 4 10 m e D D 0 a 6 0 VIA LIDO 0 Z m o9 D m m m O�G o 9 a O m ~ m a m m 32nd ST LEGEND XX - NUMBER OF VEHICLES D\j FIGURE 9 BAWACIYAN U NBNLLL,INC PROJECT-RELATED AM PEAK 2 1/2 HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES w v i °! c 90� 2A O 9 � a 9G6` m Z t Abn" m 0 6 T"P , 82 102 PROJECT m SITE m A?a O m oa ,.' 48 62 < O A A 77 m O g2 < o P as HOSPITAL RD mm -+ $ 62 do u' y m 48 m Z a C 62 48 < m I 102 32 m 11 13 48 41 30 48 45 40 COAST g2 82 59 53 HIGHWAY $ A 6 5 40 32 w m a y m m 62 9!� 6 VIA LIDO > O 8 = O z u m 9 � m m mlGO 32 26 m m < ~ m < 8 m 6 32nd ST LEGEND 24 20 XX - NUMBER OF VEHICLES FIGURE 10 BAWMAYAN U%RNLLL.INC PROJECT-RELATED PM PEAK 2 1/2 HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES w SECTION V ' TRAFFIC ONE PERCENT IMPACT ANALYSIS The Newport Beach TPO requires that when a project ' s estimated ' traffic will increase the expected future traffic on any major through arterial in the city by one percent or more, then criti- cal intersections along the route must be fully analyzed for the project traffic impact and possible mitigation. Worksheets furn- ished by the City required for this one percent analysis are indexed in the Appendix. For the Newport Lido project, several intersections were found to expect a traffic increase of one ' percent or more. The intersections tested for the 1% analysis and the results are as follows: ' Table, 3, One Percent"-'Test 1% Exceeded ' Intersection AM PM Coast Hwy/Jamboree No No Coast Hwy/Bayside No No Coast Hwy/Dover No Yes Coast Hwy/Tustin No Yes Coast Hwy/Riverside No No ' Coast Hwy/Superior No Yes Coast Hwy/Prospect No No Coast Hwy/Orange No No ' Newport Blvd/Via Lido No No Newport Blvd/32nd No No Newport Blvd/Hospital Rd Yes Yes ' Superior Ave/Placentia Ave Yes Yes Hospital Rd/Superior Yes Yes Hospital Rd/Placentia Yes Yes ' Table 3 indicates that the triangle formed by Superior Avenue, Placentia Avenue, and Hospital Road is affected in the morning ' and in the evening. Also, Newport Boulevard at Hospital Road is affected. Intersections on Pacific Coast Highway, from Dover Drive to Superior Avenue will be affected in the evening only. ' Intersection Capacity analysis will be necessary at these locations. 1 v-1 �� ' SECTION VI ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION The City of Newport Beach maintains a data base of traffic counts ' for locations being monitored for the TPO. Also, existing capacity analysis and Levels of Service are available for these locations. The City does not maintain this information for two locations in this study, Hospital Road at Superior and Hospital Road at Placentia Avenue. BDI has calculated future intersection conditions at each location required by the l% analysis. These calculations are based on the City-furnished existing traffic levels and records of traffic impact for all previously approved, but unoccupied ' projects. The Newport Lido contribution to these forecasts is based on the distribution previously discussed. Figure 11 indicates the project-related peak hour traffic turning movements in the vicinity. Figure 12 indicates forecasted future traffic ' levels. Table 4 lists the locations together with existing capacity utilization, future conditions based on previously approved projects only, and future conditions reflecting the tproposed project. 1 VI-1 "EwaoRr A Vt } M a Afe poRr BLVD 3131 4 0--'8/24 8/24-, I M + 13141/�� 8/24 •✓tom I1 � Z`5/16 2120, IFAGS"/•:•,...•:r?;;: :;•;•;:��: ¢ Q �S •.. ::3t x 2/20— Q S� •.. . 3/31 `�7y �h1a9J3131� w Z° ,Al l o ^1 .a-1110 rl U P�pC1:NTlP w 318..r 3 318 �...36111 0. O 6 x a�S u M U U uLL LL ZI i> � 6 w a r i r� w 2 x 2 [F a x ¢ � � O 1 X ' 0P x >' s� 0P 1 m �i M 1zz � Y 1 FIGURE 11 E3A5A1ACIYAN•DARNELL, INC. PROJECT-RELATED AM/PM TRAFFIC VOLUMES VI-2 �4 i ' NEWPORT AIt ' NEW PORT BIVp �I Or O� FCA•C'3H/P•ROq D`:�? .F?n°'1+i'?�N IC-42/66 3 .9 'L3a112>� p� N y Q O U PLpOEt1T1A t co O 6 � O/b F w NN� S ��dU U <£ o ��/`�bZ`�y. b LL LL olf` "h$,-f(2 w a -,A %� Y � i ' Lu < X < a X } -A0 OP 1 zz FIGURE 12 DASMACIYAN•DARNELL, INC. EXISTING PLUS PROJECT AM/PM TRAFFIC VOLUMES a� VI-3 TABLE 4 i ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION AT "ONE-PERCENT" LOCATIONS ' Intersection/Time Existing Future With- Future Without Project Project Hospital/Placentia/AM . 28 . 29 . 30 Hospital/Placentia/PM . 34 . 36 . 43 Superior/Hospital/AM .40 .41 .41 ' Superior/Hospital/PM . 42 . 43 . 43 Superior/Placentia/AM . 57 .57 . 58 Superior/Placentia/PM . 54, . 56 . 56 Newport/Hospital/AM . 55 .59 .61 ' Newport/Hospital/PM . 76 . 82 .87 Coast Hwy/Superior/PM . 91 1.08 1 . 08 Coast Hwy/Tustin/PM . 63 . 77 . 78 Coast Hwy/Dover/PM . 75 . 90 . 90 1 ' VI-4 ' SECTION VII tMITIGATION Mitigation is required if future conditions with the project are ' forecast to be above 0. 90 and if the project increases the ICU by 0. 01 or more. Table 4 indicates that conditions are forecast at 0.90 at Pacific Coast Highway/Dover Drive, and over 1. 0 at ' Pacific Coast Highway/Superior Avenue, but the project does not increase the ICU at either location. Also, there is already a committed project to provide mitigation at the Superior Avenue ' intersection. Pacific Coast Highway is planned for widening to provide six lanes at this location in the next few years. The widening project will reduce the ICU to 0. 90 ' No mitigation measures are required by the Traffic Phasing Planning Ordinance. Other relevant City policies and ordinances will ensure that there are no unmitigated impacts for the project. 1 Ili ' VII-1 a� ' SECTION VIII ' ON-SITE CIRCULATION AND PARKING BDI reviewed the site plan submitted to us for the proposed project. The plan appears to meet Newport Beach standards for the number of parking spaces and stall-and-aisle dimensions. Structure parking is proposed, and design of the parking ' structure can affect the parking plan. It is recommended that the City be consulted while the parking structure is designed to insure that columns do not impair parking stall width. ' The City of Newport Beach has indicated their concern that park- ing for the existing Newport Lido Medical Facility would be reduced to an unacceptable level during construction of the ' proposed project. This is because the existing parking area will be removed and reconstructed to provide for the new building and the parking structure. BDI agrees that construction phasing ' could create a short-term parking impact if these concerns are overlooked. BDI recommends the following program, and considerations to pre- serve adequate parking for the existing facility. 1. Parking for construction workers should be provided in the ' construction area, and all construction employees should be required to park in this area. ' 2. Parking should be maintained for the existing facility at an appropriate ratio to meet the City' s parking requirements. A portion of this parking should be provided on-site at all times and should be reserved for handicapped customers of ' the facility and for emergencies. Approximately 25 spaces would be a reasonable target . ' 3 . The balance of the required parking could be provided off- side, provided adequate parking areas are located and trans- portation is available from off-site locations to the ' facility. Walking would be considered acceptable if parking is located within 1000 feet, however, a shuttle should be required if off-site parking is located at any greater distance. All such off-site parking should be new parking ' area, unless an ample surplus of 20% or more is confirmed in an existing parking facility, and a turnover surplus of 15% is maintained. ' 4. The provisions of any off-site parking program could be required by the issuance of a conditional use permit or similar process. ' VIIT-1 30 ' SECTION IX ' SUMMARY The Newport Lido Medical Center expansion has been analyzed and ' found to have no traffic impacts which would require traffic mitigation. The project will generate 366 trips in the PM peak hour and 68 trips in the AM peak hour. This will increase ' traffic levels on several nearby roadways by 1% or more, however, ICU' s will remain below 0. 90 at all locations except along West Pacific Coast Highway. On this facility, all ICU' s will be reduced to 0. 90 or less upon completion of the committed widening ' project . Also, the project does not have a measurable (0. 01) impact at these locations. 1 IX-1 '�/ 1 1 r ' APPENDIX A ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection HOSPITAL ROAD/PLACENTIA AVENUE (Existing Traffic Volumes based on April 1988 counts) AM ' Peak 21; dour Approved lipproach Existing I Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2�; Hour I Growth Peak 2; Hour Peak 2$ Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour Volur.e Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound ! 0 10* 144 1 0 Southhound 608 0 30 638 6 18 Eastbound t 566 _ 0 ! 30* 596 j 6 16 Westbound I • 'ice' —• 1, 206 ^0 42 1, 248 _�_ 12 56 I, I ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2f Hour Traffic Volume ' Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected x Peak 2,. Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. * Based on estimated growth increase in the project area. 1 DATF ' PROJECT: 33 cnnM r 1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection HOSPITAL ROAD/PLACENTIA AVENUE (Existing Traffic Volumes based on April 1988 counts) PM ' I Peak 2 Hour Approved Hpproach Existing Regional Projects Projected ]:; of Projected Project I Direction Peak 21p Hour Growth Peak 2k !lour Peak 2; !lour Peak 21; Hour j Peak 2 Hour It Volume I Volume Volume Volume Volume I Volume !' Northbound 198 _-- 0 15* 213 2 0 5outhbound I 734 0 62 796 8 224 I� 1 Eastbound I -� 0 i 40* 838 ' 8 48 !I ' • Westbound !I I 1 , 4R2_•--j-- 0 56 1, 538 15 178 ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2f Hour Traffic Volume ' Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ❑X Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. * Based on estimated growth increase in the project area. I ' DATE: PROJECT: 3`I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection HOSPITAL ROAD/SUPERIOR AVENUE (Existing Traffic Volumes based on April: 1988 counts) AM Peak 2%, Hour Approved II Lbound Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected I Project Peak 21f Hour Growth Peak 2; Hour Peak 2; Hour Peak 2ts Hour I Peak 211 HourVolume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume 2, 870 _ 0_ 28 2 898 29 16842 0 64 906 9 0 00I- - I :0 0 I 0 0 Westbound 118 ! i _�— •-_•-�- 42 160 2 ' 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 22 flour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DFlTE: PROJECT: �� i i 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection I1OSPITAL ROAD/SUPERIOR AVENUE (ExistincT _Traffic Volumes based on. Aoril 1988 counts) PM t Peak 2� Hour Approved I FpproachFE Regional Projects Projected 1� of Projected Project 1 Directionur ( Growth Peak 2, Hour Peak 21s Hour Peak 21; Hour Peak 2§ Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound2 0 40 2, 512 25 48 Southbound4 0 80 2, 604 26 0 Eastbound i 0 —y_ 0 0 0 I 0 0 ' ---Westbound ----- 568-- ' r. - • • ._. 0 56 624 6 62 ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% •of Projected Peak 2r 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: PROJECT: S 6 ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis dntersection SUPERIOR AVENUE/PLACENTIA AVENUE ' (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Verage Winter Spring 19 87 AM — Peak 21-, Hour Approved —� ' Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project II Direction Peak 2� Hour I Growth Peak 2, Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 224 Hour I Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume — ---i— it Northbound 683 0 43 726 7 10 11I Southbound 1179 —� 0 35 1, 214 12 6 It i Eastbound I 3058 0 49 3, 107 I 31 0 jl `I Westbound • • '." 598 :�_ 0 30 628 6 26 V �j ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than. 1% of Projected Peak 21-2 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ' • X� Peak 2x Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 ' DATE: PROJECT: ___ __ ________ —___ FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' dntersection SUPERIOR AVENUE/PLACENTIA •AVENUE (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter Spring 19 87)PM ' Peak 2h Hour Approved, 6pproach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1� of Projected Project Direction Peak 211 Hour I Growth Peak 2; Hour Peak 2; Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 211 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ' Northbound 981 I 0 53 1, 034 10 122 Southbound 1715 _ 0 43 1, 758 18 16 IEastbound 1813 _ 0 95 1, 908 i 19 . 0 ' —Westbound 2002 - 0 70 2, 072 21 82� i ' 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 ' ❑x Peak 21-2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE• PROJECT: 3� �I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis intersection NEWPORT BOULEVARD/HOSPITAL ROAD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 8 AM Peak 2s Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1R' of Projected Project ICI Direction Peak 2�, Hour I Growth Peak 21, Hour Peak 2; flour Peak 21-, Hour Peak 2h Hour f Volume i Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound I '� 4045 121 109 4, 275 43 26 I Southbound 2495 75 193 2, 763 28 i 16 Eastbound 1235 _ J 37 i '27 1, 299 ; 13 1 20 ' I westbound 895-- 5 27 i 9_ 16 h ' 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 L_J Peak 2,. Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 DATE: PROJECT: 3y rnnn� T 1 ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection NEWPORT BOULEVARD/HOSPITAL ROAD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter Spring 19 87 PM Peak 2y Hour Approved ' Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1" of Projected Project I Direction Peak 2� Hour I Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 21i Hour Peak 2+ Hour II Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume i Volume Northbound 4430 �i —__ 4 R Southbound 3896 117 � 197 4, 210 42 48 Eastbound 2016 ,__ _�• 60 i 60 2, 136 21 226 ' Westbound -----•• ' - •-•• , — — --- — 10 45 ._J 1 1 076 10 2 . 131. 21 48 i Project Traffic is estimated to be less than. 1% of Projected Peak 21-, Hour Traffic Volume roject Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected X� Peak 2- Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: L16 i 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection NEWPORT BOULEVARD/32ND STREET (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter Spring 1987 AM Y Peak 2s1 Hour Approved Approach Existing i Regional Projects Projected i°; of Projected Project Direction Peak 21f Hour ! Growth Peak 2)5 Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2�i Hour Peak 2�, Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 2591 78 54* 2 , 723 27 10 Southbound 2004 60 44 2, 108 21 4 Eastbound 963 29 20* 1, 012 I 10 i 0 Westbound ' 'r' —' ' i 326 _ 10 5 341 3 0 i ' Q Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2f2 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. ' * Based on estimaed growth increase in the project area. DATE.• ' PROJECT: FORM I DATE: PROJECT: FORM I I-0 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection NEWPORT BOULEVARD/32ND STREET (� (Existing Traffic Volumes —on Average Winter/Spring 19 87) PM ' IPeak 2; Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project II Direction Peak 2+ Hour Growth Peak 2k, Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 21; Hour j Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound I 2728 * i 82 64 2, 874 29 26 ' Sou thboundo 3849 115 172 4, 136 41 32 !I Eastbound I ' 979 _ 29 1 23* 1, 031 1 10 6 j� Westbound I — •r" — — ` "' 11 it I 565 17 10* 592 6 0 l © Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2r 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. * Based on estimated growth in the area. ' DATE: PROJECT: �v I ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection NEWPORT BOULEVARD/VIA LIDO (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter Spring 19 87 AM Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour I Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ' Northbound 3400 \ 102 South bound 3066 92 45 3 , 203 32 4 ' Eastbound 0 i 0 0 ! 0 Q Westbound 1031 31 0 12 — - ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 21-2 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. DATE: ' PROJECT: �3 _ FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection NEWPORT BOULEVARD/VIA LIDO ' (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter Spring 19 87 PM ' Peak 2> Hour Approved Fpproach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1 of Projected Project Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak V. Hour Peak 2h, Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2> Hour I Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ' Northbound 3647-- 109 178 3, 934 39 26 Southbound 5509 165 1 175 1 5, 849 58 40 ' Eastbound' 0 0 Westbound •- 1-968 :� 47 0 1, 615 16 6 i ' a 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 i5 required. DATE: ' PROJECT: FARM T 1 • ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHtgAY ORANGE STREET ' (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter Spring 19 87)AM Peak 211 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected U of Projected Project Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 2; Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 21y Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume —«— ' Northbound — 1 283 23 0 306 3 0 Southbound 183 15 0 198 2 0 Eastbound �--4697 I_ 37�6 860 5, 933 � 59 -�.. '•;: _ �6-,— Westbound 24I 32 195 I-392 3, 019 30 ! 6 ' a 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. i • —_ DATE: ' PROJECT: t� ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/ORANGE STREET ' (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter Spring 19 87)PM � Peak 2h Hour Approved II Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2; Hour Peak 211 Hour Peak 211 Hour Peak 2t; Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume I Ilo rthbound 452 36 0 468 5 0 . Southbound 205 16 ' Eastbound 3970 - 318 650 4, 938 49 -�., '-^ ^ _ -4 8: '� 6'estbound (f _ 1 6185— _ 495 860 17.1540 75 ! 62 0 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 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/PROSPECT AVENUE (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter Spring 19 87)AM ' Peak 2; Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project I , Direction Peak 211 Hour I Growth Peak 211 Hour Peak 216 Hour Peak 21; Hour Peak 2k Hour Volwne Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ' Northbound 179 14 0 193 2 i 0 ISouthbound 403 32 0 435 4 I 0 Eastbound ' Westbound — —2370 190 I 2 2, 952 30 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than• 1% of Projected X Peak 2z 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: ' PROJECT: �� ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/PROSPECT STREET (Existing Traffic Volumes based' on Average Winter Spring 19 87) PM ' Peak 2k Hour Approved Ap Existing Regional Projects proach Projected 1�, of Projected Project Direction Peak 2; Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2, Hour Peak 21f Hour Volume I Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 302 24 0 326 3 0 Sou4hbound 304 24 0 328 3 0 Eastbound - ' _ 1 3819 306 i 654 1 4, 779 1 48 . ?-;c. 48- ' Westbound I (_ 630-4 504 860 7, 667 77 62 ' ® 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. 1 ' DATE: PROJECT: � 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/BALBOA BOULEVARD—SUPERIOR AVENUE ' (Existing Traffic Volumes based on verage inter Spring 19 8 AM Peak 2; Hour Approved ' Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2� Hour I Growth Peak 2u, Hour Peak 2; Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2� Hour Volume ! Volume Volume Volume Volume i Volume II —ai ' Northbound 1877 150 10 2, 037 20 0 it Southbound 1376 110 12 1, 498 15 6 •' ' Eastbound 6397 ;! 512 i 851 7, 760 ! 78 16 Westbound 1899 152 379 2, 430 24 �' '-' - fl •� I' ' a 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: _ ' PROJECT: r ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/BALBOA BOULEVARD—SUPERIOR AVENUE ' (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter Spring 19 8 PM Peak 2; Hour Approved ' Approach Existing i Regional Projects Projected 1�, of Projected Projec�l Direction Peak 211 Hour Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak 2Y Hour Peak 21- Hour Peak 2 Hour Volume I Volume Volume Volume Volume i Volume ' Northbound 1861 j 149 44 2054 21 I 0 Southbound 3758 301 60 4119 41 62 I ' Eastbound 4794 384 _ 648 5826 58 48 Westbound 4784 383 794 5961 60 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 21-2 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. DATE: ' PROJECT: O FORM I ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/RIVERSIDE AVENUE (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter Spring 19 87) Art Peak 231 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 14; of Projected Project Direction Peak 21 Hour Growth Peak 21S Hour Peak 2+1 Hour Peak 21, Hour Peak 2� Hour II __ Volwae Flo Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume i rthbound I I I 28_ 1 34 6 3 1 0 ' I 5outhbound 89 27 1 0 978 10 0 Eastbound I 172 1019 6932 I 69 =.._• 6•: Westbound '— 3351 - 101 1 628 4080 41 16 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. ' -- DATE: PROJECT: 61 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection COAST HIGHWAY RIVERSIDE AVENUE (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter Spring 19 7) PM I� Peak "S Hour Approved it Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2; Hour Growth Peak 2; Hour Peak 2i Hour Peak 2> Hour Peak 2y Hour t ! Volume ! Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 61 ; 2 0 63 1 0 Southbound 1247 37 62 1346 13 i 0 I� Eastbound 1 , 1 5217 157 967 6341 ! '63 �.,� ••_• 6-2 Westbound i ;i _.SB36__. _ 175 1031 7042 70 48 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than •1% of Projected Peak 21-2 Flour 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 DATE: PROJECT: S� 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/TUSTIN AVENUE (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter Spring 19 87 AM ' Peak 2h, Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 211 Hour Growth Peak 2�, Hour Peak 2�, Hour Peak 2s; Hour Peak 23, Hour Volume ! Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume t H —'—S— II;orthbound 7 j 0 14 21 0 I 0 ILSouthbound ! 19 161 2 0 Eastbound 1 5134 - .._� 15�950 6238 i6238 i 62 •�., <•• :.._ • 6-:,, .._ ' �6'estbound�3105 i 93 615 3813 38 16 ' 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 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. ' —PROJECT: DATE: S3 1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/TUSTIN AVENUE (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter Spring 19 87) PM ' Peak 2> Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected if, of Projected Project Direction I Peak 21� Hour I Growth Peak 2; Hour Peak 21s Hour Peak 2> Hour Peak 211 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ' Northbound 21 1 11 33 0 I 0 ILouthbound ' IL_�305 ! 9 1 26 340 3 j 0 Eastbound 4150 125 948 5223 ? 52 n,?r•_.• 62, . ' I Westbound ' - � _•. _.--_— -- --- 1 _ 5839 i 175 1024 7038 70 ! 48 ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than- 1% of Projected Peak 2z [four Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than lq of Projected ' x0 Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: S� ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/DOVER DRIVE—BAYSHORE DRIVE (Existing Traffic Volumes based on verage inter Spring 9 87) AM ' FASouthbound F 12� Hour Approved Projects Projected 1. of Projected ProjectPeak 211 Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2, Hour ; Peak 2 Hour Volume Volume Volume I Volume II 0 321 3 0 ' 250 68 131 2449 24 0 Eastbound 4717 142 940 5799 i 60 6 LWestbound 4862 it 146 673 5681 57 if - -- ---- 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 �x Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization ' (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. • DATE: PROJECT: ' FORM I DATE: _._. ' PROJECT: 5 FORM I � 1% Traffic Volume Analysis t Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/DOVER DRIVE—BAYSHORE DRIVE (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter Spring 19 87) PM ' Peak 2; Hour Approved EA Existing Regional Projects Projected ! 1% of Projected Project Peak 21i Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 2+ Hour Peak 2; Hour Peak 2� Hour i! Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ' I 245 7 0 252 j 3 0 2990 90 85 3165 32 03683 110 948 4741 47 59 I 8270 248 1123 9641 96 ' 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 x� Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. ' DATE: PROJECT: S� �I ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/JAMBOREE ROAD (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage Inter Spring 19 8 AM Peak 2; Hour Approved ' Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected In of Projected project II Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 2> Hour Peak 2; Hour Peak 2; Hour Peak 2 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume �! ' Northbound 1717 0 Southbound 2139 64 Eastbound 5860 •� 176 1047 7083 1 5 Westbound ' 2880 ' O Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume t 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: ' PROJECT: S7 FORM T 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/JAMBOREE ROAD ' (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter Spring 19 87) pM Peak 2; Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected I Project I Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2� Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume I Volume Volume l T— Northbound 1233 37 0 1270 13 0 II Southbound 156 715 6056 61 11 ' ' Eastbound 5911 177 1090 7178 72 53 I Westbound .�,-°=• _- - ' 4000 120_ 601 4721 47 30 0 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 [l Peak 2z Hour Traffic ,Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 DATE- PROJECT: FORM 1 1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection COAST HIGHWAY WAYSIDE DRIVE (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter Spring 19 8 AM ' Peak 2; Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1` of Projected Project Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak 2; Hour Peak 213 Hour Peak 2� flour Volume Volume Volume Volume ! Volume I Volume ' Rorthbound 1459 44 8 1511 15 0 II ' Southbound 193 6 153 352 4 0 Eastbound 6501 -4— 195 1032 7734 77 6 II ' Westbound 3443 103 ' a 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 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization ' (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 DATE: PROJECT: S y 1 1 1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/BAYSIDE DRIVE 1 (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage inter Spring 19 87 PM Peak 2; Hour Approved 1 Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project �I Direction Peak 21, Hour Growth Peak 2� flour Peak 2h, Hour Peak 21� Hour Peak 21y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ' Volume 1 �i Northbound 1735 � 32 2 1789 18 5 Southbound 194 6 249 449 I 4 0 i 1 Eastbound I 6056 182_ 987 7225 72 59 bo i� Westund •.,,, }:: — j� 1 6775 _ _ _ 203 1036 8014 80 1 a Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 21-2 Hour Traffic Volume 1 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. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i1 DATE: 1 PROJECT: F(1Rfd T ' APPENDIX B ' ICU ANALYSTS WORKSHEETS 1 914POU L109 FiED11CIL CENTER :7. TR. FFIC YOtu!1 'KNALY313 ' PH '15n1 Cco+'tio;u lkFEF�ECTI.r; u .pltal f adlPl-certie Hvma ;Existing Traffic ?olus•es G aed an April ME couets3 ' aPPPCti .SST P,AK. APPRYD. tRJCT'0 .Y OF PROJECT DIRECT: ?ERH MPRRT. PERT; PkdCT'P ERy. HOUR PEA: FEAT: 2.5 ' HM'. RBW L ^.5 HOUR 21.5 HOA V+?L c 'NTH hCBR VOL lie, VOL tat JOL - - ---- ---- -- ------ ------ _ PE 134 Q i(i i44 1 lc SE idC Sl $3S b 1b cr 56s 0 3`1 5S6 6 IE ' WE 121Pr 7 i2 124E 1_ 5c Iro e=t Tra'iic is estimated to to -greater tcan It of ProJe-ted peak 2 ii2 Hour ire Tic 'falune. Int2r5—non ' is reGuirad. Capacity Utilitatio 1 C.il,l Rr.aly5iz n'p Vol prJ-t. .voluxe in the na *]eastbound dlr2rtiuns were appresieated to r2ilect estimated growth increases ' in tie pra a are,, sux:v..£iixxta.}1tiai+}•x ria}fk}1z}i}3#if§@+.afai}}i}if:'Idafti}g=}ii4}ptff#M#Cf}gf}#fR#}F+2ti3ff4 +iesf$4f•i}f#i Wdifflftf§ rc;TERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION A#ALYS15 Tlh: Hospital Rand?Placentia Avenue Tra, sc '!c? zas Eased on Apr " 193" .C:ntsi E;iistt g ProJected 1r�.'i 19?1 + PROLE.! ' a. nM Peak 4 .t, fi cn'1 Comn:t, Am- Teal Crit. Pro), RCST ia- Crl+. Lo!s 'Cap. kst. VJIC k at, t21. Vol. VIC Mvat. Vol. 'VIC N;xst. R 600 4 e.G' d G 3 M3 0 0 3.r3 0 ' SL 13 -T 5 - BG<; 16 C9 tl L;V C 1 1.1 6 O Q ,' tiA WA vy K1. EP NA RA 23 dA 0 1 l kA G 4 ttA 0 c 2 3211 217 1.39 1 iY IZ. 1.94 ai 1, 66? 4, h.U9 1 D ? Jo*9 1 4 O 14 1 'n1i 'ii:•1 :h 301 M G. 'J 15 M 3 ZE ,20 15? 0.14 J 0 3 0.19 0 0 MD 9 fLrS Catpceent =,14 Q.ii 0.11 EN Ceupo�;est: G.1B 0.15 0.19 fit "c12acnert1 0.00 0.0 4.0@ PC 't.21i 4.29 9.36 !Y a E. 1 as t a r qh } rn irW;c3 e5 free Save . c� Vt.4pc ahl_ in tr- nnrttiaastbcund directions w2r2 apprexiaatsd to reflect estlnaW grcath -f;-. -ase5. ' TRAFFIC 5T!!5Y FUR iiEUPraRT UN MEDICAL MITER I}: TRAFFIC UC+W E AIIAL ME ' PH 1441 Canditlon= !l!TERSECTI%d:: in-pital Raad!Placentia A',enui IEXlaiing fratftc Ua:jces 6as°v En rrfil '930 Coulittl ' dPPEC4. FIST f'EAa: APP4a11. PPXT'0 17, OF ?F;O;ECT L+T1i:CT. PEA! 221.5 'HCT. PEN 1`17:1'➢ P:AI' ' 2.5 H`UR P?Ah: 2.5 PEAK 2.5 20jR PO!!'L 2.5 F.OHP, 2,5 dEU6 Va_ 6f UN Had. U o- VOL VOL UOL 'VOL ------- ------ ------ ------ --;--- ------ ------ tI2 19 0 15 _10 0 5S ):4 0 6:1 796 a 224 ' ER 7K 6 ;0 635 k 46 0 5b 153E 15 i-O P1`3'E:t Traffi: is asti:=_tec to he gre_ter than 1:: of Projected pea}. 2. 1l2 Hour Treffic, Mice. Intersectian Capacity RiJ zaticr: tI.C.9.4 Analy--is i_ regLired. :ota: A;.prm prj.t. 46.dAE5 in the north+eastbourd directions are epRrui5ated to ra-lint estinted gruth aflCreaac_ ' in the prujECt area. HII,-,.i.*-,Ii ftita t,3-1411*4133111f3fSxS#4t-ftl:3ikt l iki I%tll Aiit3t}t4l fli i Ail I K I"fifiz.x:it I A I I++ I:;TCf;SECTIO.I CAPPCITI' OTIL1ZATIL'h 6i1ALYSISE ' i^0:1::El 13:1: HCs tzI Ioad!`I a,ti 2 `%Enna :..ast:a, Tra'itc '.olu az 2a5,d on Apra 15EE cau,.tsI Esietir., Projected I'M 13i1 t PR_':ECT ' ----- -- -- -- --- -- -Vol, -- --- -- ---- --- ------- -------------- - fit. PH Peal. Crt. kagn'1 Cam,ait. Pf PEEL Crit Proj, Pit FEai . Lana- Car, Pal. We Not. Vol Co:. VIC N'mt, IYT!. Vic ii:?Jt 0 0 2 11-A G :! :tA 1b60 b6 0.04 G G 41 G.vS G 0 0.05 1. 32i10 11 0A1 1 0 ? is 61 ' tl 1.5 0 2 14 5 6, 1 1l2 lE 1 _.. 11., tiA 45 NA G 0 4 tip 0 J, 2 (; ? 6 1 a 1. c i !,.5 E'( 3 .i1S G G 0,C• i. 0 G ' E. iit: NA 65 NA 1 '3 i iin 1 24 NI tIA G 7 :A G ' ^ 10 13 0 14 0.13 3 0 ).,1.4 0 L ! I,1K 36 6.05 G 0 4 C.06 0 0 0,06 4 ' IS, it Zl3 114 0 6 12 I11 6 3Y HA 0 IT 7 31-Iji1 ;g? 0.2!i 1 6 12 0.21 1 G 0,24 1 ILS Ca!pcaer.t: 0,13 0.15 i,!T Eli Cu. an2at: 1.2G 13.21 0.24 ' Ft. N'Runeitl OA4 0.W 0.00 ICL: 0.;4 6.;b 0.4: {:::S:a: i51•a:;iEGt identi`ied by a 4. righ: Turn iciiCataa ire=- ❑o4ersnt, !in - • Lt .'r�i: 361E :1ata: itr ppf:6. jr-CA. %GIL.:a5 18 the 6urth.Easth:und 4;rection- were aprlo:an-tEd to refl'eci astlnti:d gr C•nu1 IPC':75c'l ' &3 TRAFFIC STUDY FOR ANP0-! LIDO HEL'=CAL CENTER ' 17. TRAFFIC VOLUME AkALYSIS p}1 191! Gnditiors l"TERS CT1,211: Stperlcr Aviin.-IHcep:tal Road ' lE:.tatiog Trzi;!c Volu,a based on April ;SOa taunts) AFFRCr,. E%IET PEA), APFR4D. FRJCI'D 17,, EF FRD:ECT OTRECT. PEA.; 2,`, PRJCI. FEAT: PRICT'D PEhK HO`JR ;'EAK ^_,S PEAK 25 EMIR E611'L 2.5 HOUR 2.5 HGJR ':DL W11H HOUR VOL VEIL VOL VOL' --- 4DL Y N9 207tt - 0M 2pa- ---I 29 1� C'D Ult2 0 dS 406 4 0 0 0 J 0 G E0 !1$ ) ,2 160 6 Prc;act Tr;f{ic is est!aatad to be greatar than I:! Di ' P;,ojettsd peal: : 112 Heir Traffic Y:,luce. !ntersactien Cspaclfij Utilizstim) (l,C.U.) Ana!ysis ,s requird. ' �•. x t5 ix.xzi'Al.it)1il III*rl19xfltf affixviiiili•1i{i•El fiiii Ki iixxi li ilil4l liiia{li t kxi l i-HA liiili-„i+x:',•i v:i liixlztiSii !I!TEESECTIOi1 CAFACITY UTMIATITI MIMSSS TlBt Elperlor nVLnti?ill:spit-! Ti]a9 ' .Etla?iq friNlc UJ!d•:aa Barad cn n;.fll 1'i3a :ai:lia) Existing Fro7ecte 1991 19S! = PROtc T ----------------------- --------------------------------- ----------------------- E. ?:'=gill C,Dan t. 411 Peal: Cri:. P:oj, M1 Peal Ci lt. fr74 i7 t Lana C;p. 'ia. U/: HLa. Val. Vol. 511C 11V•at. Val. 1,11C Ht:t. ! tdt'0 !J O.tY i• 0 1 0.01 ' .,c. 1 !SOG :0"_ G.:3 i• 0 G.13 y E G.1? U !.! 2 1^_i'A I220 0,?? 1 G li G.-56 1 0 O..D ! ' `L 1 it•Si+ 2, G2 1 0 2 v.02 ! 0 0S2 1 0.l3 0 ' EL IIh NA G MA U G 0 ;1A 0 0 NA G 1iA ! V fl4 ! tL 1.5 htl.? 33 0.rg 1 U Ili 0.02 1 3 0,02 ; sit ! ILOi• 21 0,01 0 0 l0 0.V2 ' G.5 C44 5 4.01 t 0 0101 0 9,G7 6 IIIS CQ �oner:E1 C•.a:' 0.9s 3.4") El! Cenponant: 6.0: 0.01 ).Gl ' dt, C0131,Cientl 6 M. 0,00 0.00 ICU: „4J 0.41 0.7; .t1.a1 sic v:.22rit i'_2it if-,ad t7 - .. 'ar !trnl icr a rt;ht twr, lndicaces ;ra ca.,-.neat. TOPIFF;C ORM FOR ,EIIP?RT. LIDO Y.EDT:NL CEI:TER ]" TRAFFIC VOLUe.E 6RAL PSIS Pt•: 17r3 Conditlasr- It?ERSEM,I!: Superiar Nvanuell;osp)tal Read Hmst:n. T,ai:.t '•::IUra= h ]e� Ln Epr)1 1w68 c;unlsl 3fPRL'11. EdIET Pc?}. VPRf1 PR301) 1? GF PROTECT DIRECT. PEAK 2.; PR V. PEAK PR3:T'0 PENi'. 1.5 h?LR PE k 2.5 PEN;: 2.5 HOUR RC:'IIL 2.5 HOUR 2.5 HGUR 4GL EEkTH 80UF1 Vol- QL :fl OL --- -`--- ------- ---- - -- --- ------ ------ ------ !E 2;72 ( roU 25i2 ?5 46 c0 O G 0 Hl" rv� 1 56 GlS r"Y F:a;'act Trefi'sc :s esthat' :o ne .reazer th-n 12 of Fr232ccad peak % 112 Heur Traffic t'ohn. Interasct)or. Czrati:y ac:li.at.e. II.C.u.} final';sls ._ reyurad. r kr .ir.>ct: �rri..vr»•.re±trx 24i•±tSv!tA[±1±•t3t#R1 ea}x7±t�r}rAYi#rtrt±liA33#293FC4H34Y+ir'tr±t3±rLS i+1+?±t•'ti tr;<t±]# HTEPSECT-Ifli} CAP-I.CIT1' UTILI'_NTIVII NNNLYS:5 !; E;Err IL:, x aria Naar"ue1Ha3piW Road .L .r. ]y' Ifi'•:.- i1,14wn `tiea� a.`. April 178E al.•nte} E:i=tip:s Pralected 147: 144! { PRUdECi ----------------------- --------------------------------- ----------------------- 1 31 Cr]t. Regn'I Co i t. P:I Pea;. C:]t, Prat, PB Fear: Cri i':.F • I:nc5 Cep. M, 9:C H•.:.t. 4a1, V31. 0IC Noce. Vol, 4!L 11 t 1 IaRt 1 .00 0 0 0 .00 4 0 U0 0 I'i 1 1600 171r i.I V O 3 M1 0 14 t•.12 0 ::T 2 32CO IOE, 0.17 ! 0 17 0.34 1 0 11.34 1 1 1e00 125 0.05 1 0 5 Olt's 1 G O.0 R 0 'a NA 0 0 IIa l y, _ 3rcG 11sl 0.3L 0 0 35 0.37 0 G 'M7 0 Et @b !Id 0 iL; 0 0 O NA 0 0 }cif 0 Uii ] 5 GG "-1: :.Ot 0 :'� 0.10 1 31 0.11 1 1 ROO 55 0.4; 0 0 2 0.04 0 O 0,G4 0 T ."S 60:", 10 0.01 ) 0 1 0.01 0 C! 010i 0 Ht5 Coopanent: 6.41 0.;2 0.42 E?� Coopanant: 0.O! 0.01 0.01 ' Rt. Coapoaent: 0.v0 OlOO 0.00 ICU: 4.4 0.4; 0.;3 Yrraica: i:::eCu?at leei:?lile] t;: 3 I. a:: ia:.ei Ttr a ri32t ton ind!cates °ree oomant. II•.Y - .IJ: tf�tlSE�nle I 1 �5 ' TRAME STUDY FOR, 1-1WrMT LIDO ,EDICAL CENTER ' ly. TRAFFIC VOLUME AWALYSIS All 1931 Corrditians IMERKMO:1: Sdperior h-nuelPlaceatia Avenue iEststiq Treift.: VolumeE based on rvercge Daily hinter[Eprisg 19'611 ' APt^•RCh. EXIST PEAK APPRVD. PROCT'D 1% OF KOJECT DIRECT. PEAL 2.5 PRdCT. r'EAV. PROCT'0 PEM ' 9.5 HOUR PEAK E.5 PEA1. 2.5 H06 R RMI'L 2.5 :10U8 2.5 HCUR VGL ER)ITH HOLR VOL V0L VOL VOL VOL ' --; ''---- --- ------ -- - - ------ ------ 'z8 ' 0 43 726 7 10 sS 1'7 0 35 1214 12 6 ' E8 i08 0 49 3i07 31 0 lib 593 a 30 628 6 26 ro,ect Traffic is E.ti&ated to he grEater than 0' Ef Projected pea#. 2 1/2 tiaur Traffic VoLau. 1nters2ctieo ' Ca acity 'dtilizztiois iI.C.U.# Analysis is reguirEd. .fii:rYy1Y++:£t.i>:s�tiit4f lftfti ill it'i.'Siii tiitft l f k t f£itittrL$I if iftititi*V1 t1£ifk it*lt3 d£ltttt ktit att i tiiztiftif.iirx ' 111..ERSECTIOII CAPACITY UTILIZATI01+ ANM PSIS !hTE71SCCTi9:,: Euper:Er A:Enusiplacontia Avem.E ' +E :zt,a; fi'atitc 'dalucas 3asad on Average Daily Winter/Spring 087) Existing Projectad 1991 1991 i :RO?EC,, ----------------------- --------------------------------- ---------------------- 11o. AS PEa#: Crit. f!ega'1 Comit. All Peat Crit. Proj, All Peal: Crit, ' CnEsr,'t LacEs Cap. Vol. VIC iivat. M. :al. Vic ltaalt. Vol, VIC Siva. ;L ILA NA 8 #IA 1 0 9 NA I 0} :jam 4 ' E 'Il1 SVI1 `'i3 IIH J 1+ 5 11Ii 1: V nfl U NT ',^_v( :13 J,ii U 0 8 0.12 U ± .3.12 J St 1 ±600 3G 0.G2 0 G G 0.{2 0 0 0.02 6 S'r, 1 16J/ 317 U.iU 0 0 i0 0.20 U U ' h U 1 160U 277 0..17 1 U E 0,1E 1 7 1 0.18 160J �96 ),25 0 0 9 0.25 0 13 0.25 J Iu 16W 15 0 0 0 J Oct 0 u .00 u rf :2ipj 1±In" 0.36 1 0 10 0.37 i 0 0.37 1 ' L- ! 1600 44 0.J3 1 0 0.03 1 13 0.04 1 !ii iJ IEGJ:+ 34 .(10 0 0 G .OU U J .00 6 J.U6 0 0 13 0," 0. clitb Caspolrnt: U.17 .18 0.18 i• 4 ,4; 4.40 kt. Cosponent: 0.00 0.00 j.03 IC+i: G.57 0.57 0.58 �ic; #• _r.Ent :Het±fied ,' a 1. T24 .a:EE it.` a tiro: tm, indicates free nm,E+1eni. 06 ' TRAFFIC 9TU0'f F4P. i:EAPORT LIDO hEWAL CELTER 11 TRAFFIC VOLUME AMALY915 f'1S 199! Conditlnns ' P1TEr.5ECTIC:G 5U;U!Qr IM I'?/P13C'.rtia ArMMI iExisin. Ttrific Vo!U¢.a 5aaed er. Arcc-raga 9aay i3intai lSr:•ing 198)! ' APPFCII. EY!9T PEn1: P?F'RVD. PP.JCT'D `% OF PROICIN DIRECT. PEA:: S PR1CT, PEAT; MC-PI) PEA!: 2.5 yGJR F'EAF; 2.5 PEA{'; 2.5 ' HOU'r. R;y'L 11.5 HOUR 2.5 HOUR VOL 6R,ifH }I]UFt 90L VOL VOL Vus. VOL ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ' I 9E1 C• 53 10.4 1b 122 SE 1715 0 =3 1759 l9 16 :E .013 0 95 144E 19 0 ' h0 262 b 70 207T h project Traffic J. EA14.1ate2 to to greater than 1'.' Pralectnd paai. 2 !12 hour Traffic Hn1L:re. InterLM10n ' Capacity 1ltrlilaticn ILC.UJ Analysis is regmi:a9. t)Cit'in 'ra+ii}Y 1431•t4Vtr1}_iitl.i'lli 3#i#'Pkifjirrii fditi R#iif#td Y#)#5:3t6#ii x;#•r;ids F#+t1[x ttki hslt#f4E#f}i is•ixtir.;#r ' Ii:TERNCTM! Cr`F'ACITY UTIMATI2141 AMALMS ifiEF_uilC�t. ..pa:1Li AVa i:e$illdiert:a A'ienee g ist:r.; Tr.:!^'rc '.a!Lsaa e_a;U or, ;;erage !jail:; Ithdar;Cpring 1937) ' Esa_ti,:g __ fr=acted 199! 09'1 = FAEII____ No, - - M. Peek-- -Crit. Regn'I Conait. PH hak -- Cr it. fr of P8 pea"., 'ri:. 9iC' it16t. Vtl. 4IC 0 5 Mil 1 0 ti: 1 I, GA 'lA 6( MA l• 0 6 NA 0 ' l" ? 324•i ;11 i.12 0 f+ !6 ?.11 0 1') J.i3 i' 1 1600 1! 0.01 0 6 U 0.01 0 0.01 J ' I !6d0 463 i.29 6 0 13 4.30 tl 0 (.30 0 S 160t :5'- v.1a 1 !0 0.17 3 13.1C 1 EL i- !60(+ 2A I).I; 1 0 9 13.I4 0 0.1; 1 i. !U !I•U`0 2J s0 0 0 9 .00 0 0 AL. v 32':0 ;42 %.14 0 0 31 0.15 U 0 0.15 0 0.07 0 ti' 1F 0.$i L Tl 15 1640u 5 .00 0 0 2 .00 0 0 .00 0 s 3_(•: 76E 0._'. 1 u 23 0,'2 I U (,.2 ' 1119 Cospourit: 0.16 0.17 9.!9 Ely cmponant: 0.33 0.39 039 't. Caapenent: 9.0i) MO 0.00 ICU, 0.54 0.56 0.56 11i;tr.`nt identifiai 5y a 1. lei 1ai.e3 fci runt .Urn indicates free n04 e•3ent. !1;. - itflt App.!ta51a ' �07 ' TCAFFIC STUDY FOR. NEUPORT LIDU HEOIUL MITER ' 1% TRAFF2 MLuhE APtMMU Alt 1991 Conditiane INTERSECTION: iE, Ipnrt 6oulEvar111Hospital Road ' iExiEting Traffic 1•c:uaes booed %n Aierap Daily 4iir,ter/Sprint• 1987) APPRCH, E?113T PEAK APPnVD. PRJCT'D 11 OF PROJECT HFUT. PE4, 2.5 PRJCT, PEP. PRJCT'D PEAK :.5 HDUr. PE.gK 2.5 PEAP. 41.5 110ER f:_!:'L 2.5 HOuR 2,5 HOUR VOL SRATH 11108T! VGL VOL VOL OL ' - --- !-- Rd 4045 121 109 4275 43 2S ' S9 2495 15 !93 2763 2D 16 EE L35 37 21 1295 13 - 4 895 27 5 927 9 16 Prclect Traffic is EstiLtted to be greater than 17. of ' Projected peak 2 112 Hour Traffic Volume, Inter=_ection Capacity Utiliaation il.C.U.t Analysis iE required. ' ivtiktt-•iktlkL�t�i:,a•rra- 1i'.'sib•tea»itxiflAfeij•Y1`tlit]1Eilri it rN3Yi•�!}5nia}+YtkflifiL tf-:iatAf i+.l+'Aii+<i kt li sAtEtxlt3 aAi+i 14TERSECTIOH CAPACIT4 UTILIZATION' MAUCH :'iTERSEC'tlOi: ilenport BaulEvareiHospiral Road ' (E.:la.ing Traffic Voluaes based or, Ate:aga Daily Vinter/Spring 190 E:dsting Prn;ectEd 1991 1991 + PROJECT ----------------------- --------------------------------- ----------------------- ' Crii. Regn'1 Coanit, ANI P:af: Crit. Praj. As Peal. Crit, !atectt LcnE. Eap. Vol, VIC .It at. Val. Vol. 4'1C Hvat. 96. VIC Pivot. ' HL i IWO 220 0.1% v 7 16 0.15 1 13 0.16 1 1f HA is 113 11a 0 3 0 RA 0 0 NA 0 91 3 4290 1501 0.34 1 45 30 0,36 0 0 0.36 a ' SL ! 16U0 31 v,•:"_ 1 1 3 0,.0_ 0 SR VA NA 172 NA 0 5 3 t;a 0 D HA L 5T UK SSD 0.21 d 26 90 0.24 1 0 0.24 1 ' E_ 1 1600 149 0.11?9 1 4 2 0.10 1 3 0.10 1 U. 1 i60D 2Y- .3.10 U 9 10 0.40 C 0 0.2d 0 ET 1 1600 in 0.10 d 5 2 0.10 0 0 0.10 0 VL 1 1800 K 0.06 0 3 0 J.06 0 0 0,06 0 UA 1:14 !0 RA 0 0 U HA 0 0 UA i• 304 0.10 1 9 ? 0.10 1 6 c•.10 1 RIS Enrpount; 0.;6 0.39 0.40 E10 Coaponent: 0.14 0.20 i•.2i ' Rt, Conp•:nentt 0.)ti 0.00 0.00 Kit: 0.55 0.59 0.61 E :ti:al :!oae.:eat idant:fied by a 1. Tea lanes for a right turn. indicates free roveacot. ' Iu„ tict :ppl.tatle t � rot TRAFFIC STUDY FOR NEWPORT LIM HEDICAL CEIBTER ' 11 TRAFFIC VOLUME A,JAL1'SIS F•Il IM COndltions RITERSEM04'. S;Egort BoLlevarGflospital Road (C:(lsting Tf aff c Veil::as based or, Avarage Daily kin'.erlEprleg 14'S7) ' dPPRCH, EYIST PEAK APPRVI', P33CT'D i': OF PROJECT DIRECT. PEA.): ',.5 PBJCT, PEAS PRJCT'D PEAT; ' 215 LOUR PEAK 2,0 PEAK 2.5 Y,GUR ROW L 2.5 HOUR 2.5 HOUR VOL SMITH HOUR VOL VOL V3L p ` VDL JO:. IIO YT]O 117 82 ' sB 3896 117 197 4210 42 4P• ED 2016 60 60 2436 21 7-%6 Ull INS 1076 10 2131 21 43 . Preject Traffic is estimated to ea greater tt,ar. 1% of ' Pr,jacted peal' 2 112 Hoar Traffic Volume, 1ntvseaio•, Capacity Utiii±atien (I,C,U.) Analyses is rce5ired. iII.,{y.a:M1•it-It Ali*Iii)r.4itttfii Y)l.iY4 Rxltilf ktdl))"Jst♦Y'ilill Yi)14i1}t3i xfa t#li:SfH•5t41•£3135>yA'e111ix)2ikll.Fi it3)14 'ZEREECTIOII CAPACITY UFILIN71011 MIMESIS Lr.}-.•.'.�ill� 1,3dputt Eaela,ardtHaapital Read t L,izt:n; Traffic ';a!u.: beaad on Averaga Daily h:merfc rii3 1956) E. i5t:n9 Prnjec:ed 1991 199. _ PPOJECT ----------------------- --------------------------------- ----------------------- ' PSi Pea"... Cr:t. Ragn'1 Coc�eit. PH Peal' :Tit. Fraj. P',9 F'aal, Cric. Tic e,nt Lim as ap. Vai. V1C ii�mMt. Vol, Vol, VIC Prat. Vol. VIC That, ' !t_ 1600 M 0,14 1 7 0.16 1 41 0,19 i E I:r 1;A S$ 1IA 0 3 RA 0 0 1IA 0 3 4600 14;1 J.32 0 44 i01 0.35 0 0 i.,.,i 0 1 lti. 36 U.02 0 1 0 0.02 $ 6 0,Ci2 6 3 i.A H� 1:.6 I:A ! 5 2 NA 0 24 6A 0 ET 3 430,i 141- 0.33 1 42 92 0.36 1 0 0.76 1 1 166•l 237 .3 5 1 7 1 0.15 ! 31 01 L' , Eh ! 16i+O 424 M7 0 1; <=• 0.29 0 0 0.29 0 ET ! 1�G+i 2i5 i,.13 0 a 4 0,14 0 0 0,14 0 L ,A 1!A lie 11; 0 � V HA 0 0 i1'I %1 !: IIA HA it HA 0 0 2 114 0 0 WA 0 3M IlM 0.1; 1 8 3 0.14 1 2, O.is '. HIS Caalponeetl 0.67 0.52 0,55 EA1 Cuponeit: ,)I AN 0.30 0.32 ' Rt. L'naiponemt: 0,00 MO 6.00 ICU: 0.76 0.82 0.87 Ci itl:al &at laeetiiiad by a 1, Fe:. IJ-:aa iar a flab[ tL'rn lnJicataa frae co•ferest. ' XA - ;.ot ;pplitable 1 / C� TRAFFIC STUDY FOR i0,'POFiT LIDO MEDICAL CENTER ' 1'1. TRAFFIC VOLUME ANIAL';SIS PVr 1391 Conditions 11IT_RSECTION: Coast fluviOrange Avanaa ' !Er:Y=-ting Tra?Tiz Voluees hasF,! an Ar:raoe Daily WiateriSpriog 1987) AF'PRCH. ERIST `Mi. APPRUD. PRMT10 it DF PRO6ECT ' DIFECT. PEAIj 2,5 PRJCT. PEAK pROCi15 PE iI KUR PEAK PEAL: 2.5 HOUR RON•L 2.5 HOUR 2,5 11113l1Tt 'ILL 6RttTH WUR VOL VOL 414E VOL UJL ------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ lilt 452 ,s 0 3SB 5 0 ' 2 205 16 0 221 2 EP 39:'S 310 650 4935 49 ,8 hiD h105 490 E60 7540 7a I2 ' P'raiect Tr-Pic is eeti:ated to to less than !; of Prolected pezl. 2 112 Heir Traffic Volure, ' tvts44 its tin tAIit Ilk 4x•4.+ttz 433 ii4tattid#9sFi's+taik3M3 i4Lstit4tIt iix44tii-Rtk+l tl#i>I I a l A t€trddl4ist H 33i It is MIIt III 11TEREECTION CAPACITY UTILRATIOU MIALYSIS „- ' Cozst F.J'llOrznye Aeene? .c iz:_ng Traffic 'laiucas based an A•rerage Daily Uinter/Spring 4987) &istirg Projected 1991 1991 + F'1NECT ----------------------- --------------------------------- ----------------------- ' Ja, Py PeaV, Crit, Regn't Cncwic. Fsi Peak Cris. Praj. PH Pea'-. Crit, iltreil± Lante Cap. Val, '1/I. H1•ct. Vet, Val, 11C N'.at, Vol. CIc HVC-A. ' hL !lii Iv4 106 NA 0 O 0 HA ') 0 Rif 0 8i 1(A I!A 52 NA 9 4 ) i%A 0 U NA 0 :IT - 3Yuo l3 0105 i 1 0 0,06 1 0 0106 i ' LL i,A NA ! 0 HA 1 Sit NA AA 45 NA 0 4 0 NA I) 11 Nn 0 ST 2 32v0 3 0,02 0 0 0 0.02 0 0 C,IK 6 ' EL t 1600 50 ').03 i 4 0 0.03 i 0 0.),1 1 ER NA 41A ad SA 0 3 0 NA 0 /0 M. 0 ' ET 3 :800 2565 0.3; 0 125 '26 0.;3 U 24 0.43 U .ii 1 1600 19 0.d1 O 2 rs 0.01 0 0 0.ul 0 I:•. 1 1600 27 0,02 0 2 0 0.15 0 0 0,42 0 2 3200 2476 4,77 ! 190 432 0.97 3 31 0. 0 Y H/S Ca panant: 0.05 OA 2 06 E!V Caaponert, 0.01 Lill i.111 ' Pit, Coaponent1 0.04 0.00 0.(6 ICU: 0.86 1,06 1.07 G Aml Nesecent identified bq a 1. ' Ten !area Tat' z 110,1E torn indicates free navemEnt, l:A - :1:: rip"!Icatis 7 a TRAFFIC ETUDY FOR ' NE;PORT LIDO PIEDIM CENTER 1% TRAFFIC VOLME AHALYE:IS Ph 091 Conditions INTEHE£TI+I)!: CDa=: Ht.Ylgranga Avenue ' IE:isting Traffic hlueas based are Average Daily Vinter,3pring 1997) AF'PRCH. E'6I3T PEA): AF'PRVO. PRJCT'D i% OF F EIM ' DIRECT. PEAK 2.5 P83CT. PEAL: PRXI'D PCAb. 2.5 MUR PEAT: 2.5 PEAT: 2.5 i,guri 8511'L 2.5 h.QUR 215 Mdp. VOL 41 11 HOUR :'O. VOL VOL QL ' ------ --- --- 11D 45° 36 0 4M 5 0 SE. 2V5 16 C. 221 2 0 E3 Z M M 650 4R;8 49 48 lD FiYJ TRJ D60 M6 J 62 ' Prcject traffic is aatiaatad to be greatar than 1:. of irojtctsd pear. 2 U2 Hour Traffic Voluma. interm:tinn Capacity Utilization (LC.U.) Analysis is raquirad. ' iiza.#.,s;-#1#1A#A It'itii.i'Fa:S#dMS4I%l*i Ail##i:-Iff#t5i}:a##�l+.i fiiitii}33{#4ii:#E{!#4f1#-i rtr#iircai4�#+.a:+f 11JU'ECTIOP: CAFACITY UTIL12AT,IOIJ ARALYSIS "oast Hi91:0racge A,ance ditt F.iti;ation tEii at':Ig Traiiic '1;.l t:i'et iaaag on Average Daily lintzrYSpring 1R86) Edstirg Projectad 1991 !' 9' = FROIECT ---- __`------`--------_--______---"_ __`__"`--------_ -:'-_` t;c. Pi1 Faa:: 'rit, Ragr:'1 CDt]it. PI! Peal: Grit. Fro;. I'll Fa_. rr it, Lanz= Cap. :col. V!C ihd.t. Vol. Vol. V,C Hirt. Val 4:C 5,ct. )!A A IN fini 8 7 )A i1 0 11d i} I16 E.A °' :A 0 4 ht 320u t3 0.05 1 1 0 J,Oc• 0 Q.Cti i 6. Dn 24 HA 1 = 0 11A 1 0 JN i ! :+A 11A 45 11A V 6 IIA o It M1 0 320? 3 0.0? O 0 6 0.02 0 it ).Oc 0 4 0 0.03 1 0 6.03 1 Ci ... 1A .•5 41 0 3 U E 4e00 IM 0133 0 125 126 M21 I 24 U.4; is l9 O.UL 13 2 g 0.41 0 0 0.a1 U t R i U-00 "_i (1.01) 5 ? 0 0.02 } 0 ),03 U OT 3 4E;)O 7418 0,52 1 198 432 0.s5 1 31 ).65 WS Ccrporimt: 0.05 0.06 0.0c CY'; coa,oeen=: 0.55 0.65 0.69 Et. Cupaaert: O.Cu 0.00 c.00 { ICU U.60 0.14 0.?5 .J.CaI Iin Ve�al.t !7eazl,,hd by " 1. ..tn )?.nca for a 1 )gilt urn ind!_iC.s Erse ca,c ent. let ;}p..csb:e 7' TRAFFIC STUDY FOR NWORT L±00 IIEDICAL CMER 11 TRWric VOLUdE ANALYSIS FN 1191 Ccr.ditions ' I11TEkSECT10!i: Caast 4WY!Frn;pect Streit ?Existing Traffic Voliw.ss based on Average Daily 6interlSpring 15P) APPRCH, EXIST PEAK AFPWD, FROCT'D I:{ OF PROJECT WRECT. PEAK 2.5 PROCT, F£4 MCPO PW� " 5 HOUR PEdr 2,5 fE€:: 2.5 HUUn Rd'L 2,5 H]UR 2.5 HOUR ' VOL ORUTH HOOK VOL VOL VCL V3L VOL ------- ------ -- ------ ------ '•----- ----- 116 302 24 0 3.6 3 0 S0 344 24 0 326 3 C ED 3819 .06 65.4 4779 4R 40 110 62A 504 060 7667 77 fry ' F'reject Traffic is cEtiriated, to ba lest than 17.. of Projected peai• 2 1!2 Hour Traffic VoNcie. ' •%�hl:is+etch*1}+•r i I11 A2+li{it#ti ff slit 4ri}ir#fi•C it ti#i#iI*A44 #fi•ri f3t4#•f#s it*ii w*i»#t+}ii•#*#tit tiitfti t.91#rxi*rx#xM i:IMKECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' 10ER2ELTIOi:: Cast P...'%WrospEct StreEt atiag Traffic 'la:Leas bated on hieraga Daily 'A nter/Spring 1997) E.usting Projected 194'1 Ml .I PRBdECT -----------------=--i-- --------------------------------- --l-------------------- fk;,. PN PsaY, :.rit, ftami t Coamit. Pti Pass. brit. Pro . It Pas: Wt. H)eexit Lens=. Cap, V^_1, VIC Htut, V31. Vol. Vic Avet. VoI. Vic :Ivmt, ' 11L IIA bA 37 NA 1 3 U HA 1 0 HA 1 HR ! ±6X. 65 U.04 0 5 0 U.(A 0 0 U,04 t iU 1 160{' 10 •).0? 0 1 0 0,03 0 ') U.03 0 ' -L Sin 14A DS NA 0 7 0 UA 0 0 Np. 0 Sk NA IIA SR `!A ID 0 tiA 0 U tl.A 0 ST 1 169U 1 3.07 1 1 0 0,48 1 0 0.08 1 EL I 1602 6 A0 i 0 0 ,00 ± 0 .00 1 ' dR flA HA 7 (.A U 1 0 NA 0 0 !lA 0 E4' 3 4000 1526 0.32 0 !22 .2 0.41 0 24 0,42 0 wl ! 1606 30 0.62 0 3 b 0.03 0 0 0.03 0 ' A. HA NA 64 HA 0 5 0 NIA 0 0 HA 0 T 2 3200 2568 0,03 1 205 4-5 1,02 1 31 1.03 1 U/S c2opanant: 0.07 0.00 0.00 ' EM cocpenent: 0.83 1.Q 1.03 k, Coa,po.^.ent: ).00 O.DO +).00 ±CU: 0.51) I ±0 1.11 Critical i'ivazent identifis) by a 1. ' Ten ±anEs for a right t-jra indicates frae Rova:.Ent. Appllcible TRAFFIC STUDY FOR NENPHT LIDO AEDICAL CENTER ' 17. TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS PH 1991 Conditions INTEt''SECTIOR! Coast MY/Prgspact Street ' (Existing Traffic VLI-mes based en Average Dail; Winter/Eprin; 1S51) APPRCH. EXIST 'PEAK APPRVD. PROCT'➢ 1:; OF PRUECT ' DIRECT, PEAK 2.S PRICT, PEAK P83CT'D PEAT: 2.5 HOUR PEAK 2.5 PERK 2.5 HOLR ROH'L 2.5 HOUR 215 HOUR UOL WITH HDUR VOL VOL VOL ' - --- VOL it➢ 302 24 U 32t ? 0 ' SD :04 24 0 328 3 0 E➢ 3819 306 654 4779 43 98 HS 003 50; Sb0 7d57 77 92 FrojEct Traffic is estinte,i to be graatEf th•1. 17. of ' r"ro;Ected peas: 2 112 Hour Traffic Volnse. Inttrsectior Capacity Utilization I1.C.U.! Analysis is required, t tit•te li+ ggi1, :'MtffM1ti4Ei§411%*44111:?ilm rt},pg;.yilitr•lr NITERSECT!ON CAPACITY UTIL!YATIDI! ANALYSIS ' Ii1TELSEG Iti1d Coast HIlY7fr,apact StrEEt r,ith :ittgatigr. :E: is:inc, Trzffic Ucla,ea based an AvEregE Rally 4inter/Spring 19871 Existing Projected 19ri1 1S";1 i HaJECT --------T------------- --------------------------------- ----------------------- ' i11. Pii FEaI. Cr!t, Recn'! Ca.^ait, PB F:al, Grit. Froj, Ph Peal :rite ovE:nt L'ues Gap. Ve!, V/C N''tat. Val Vol, VIC il-n>t. Vol. UPC ' I;A Nk 37 1!A 1 3 0 LA 1 0 `.IA t Hf 1 UOU 8: OM 0 5 0 0.04 0 0 4.G4 0 Hi 1 i6:�7 10 0.03 0 1 4 0.03 0 0 O.U3 0 itA 85 AA 0 7 0 41A 0 0 i(n 9 Eii la hA 18 11A. 0 1 0 11A 0 0 UA 0 Sl 1 !01) 7 1111.01 1 1 0 0.05 i 0 0,P8 ! E_ 1 1500 .00 1 0 4 .00 1 0 ,00 1 EC 11A HA. 7 NA 0 1 a NA 0 0 I,A 1', ' T 3 4830 1121 1,3n' 0 122 326 1.41 0 24 0 42 0 ,.L ] 1:,•0 .•S ),02 t 0 0.113 0 0 U.'.•'.• u fir. { 4 L4 tip 0 5 0 HA 0 0 NA 0 ' f 48P5 e56c 6.55 1 305 425 1?.b8 31 0 69 i 9/9 Coaporlent: 0.07 O.UO O.'08 c1U C.,:.Pen.nt. 0.5- MR J,So Rt. I.oapanegt: 0.(++.1 0.00 0.00 IN: 0.L2 1),71: 0.?7 C:a:ctl I,c.Ec.art i_an't!iied by i t. ' :ar1 :a.',e_ f;.r a right Yore indtzatEs free nwEmat. .4-11 Jt!E �3 ' TRAFFIC STUDY FOR LE11PORT LID8 HEOICAL CEMER 17. TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS Pit 1S91 CCnditiona ' 111TERSECTION: Coast GAY/Superior Avenue (E:3 sting Traffic Volumes based on Aferage Daily Rinter;Sfring 1981) ' APPRCH. EXIST Hk. APPRVD. PRJCT'0 11 CF PROJECT DIRECT. F'Eai( M F'RJCT. PEAK F'RJCT'D PEAK 2,5 IIQUE( PM 2.5 PEAK 2.5 ,106„ R61I'L 2.5 HOUR 2.5 HOUE VLL ORUT'N HOUR VOL VOL VOL VOL Val, ' idD 261 149 44 2054 21 ri 80 31 B 301 69 =.119 41 62 El 4794 354 648 5C26 58 Q ' UO 4784 38M, 794 5961 6d 0 frg;sct TriM c is estimated to bi greater than !X of P'rejactad peak 2 liz Your Traffic Valune. Intar<-ection Cap=city Utilization (I.C.U.I Analysis is required. t tistti.es s e 8t2i 0tie}Rg!%3}xii 4#k%iri h ik1*414ft}}f taxi ar'}ikx4 ttk#f5 D14x'}t#ifr rf f k"fvx ' IOTEFSECTIO" CAPACITY LTILINITION BALM.' 1'.TERCECH32 Ccact HUY/8apertgr Avenue Traffic Volucee ba,ad en Araraga Daily11.interlSpring 19871 ' Eaistirg Projected 1971 1971 t PROJECT ----------------------- ----- --Erl ro T.- Prl F'aa Crit. Regn'1 'Lu7Sit. Pt; Peak Cric. Proj. PH Pea! Crit. Ngva_ Lan-5 Cep. 1101 V/C Nvrt. Val. Vol, VJC livtlt. Vol, V;C 4v¢.t. 1•rd 374 LA 0 30 16 14A Q `v NA U g; HA IAA 62 N!f 5 0 0A 0 0 N4 1) ' IIT 3 4800 338 0.16 1 21 it 0.i8 1 0 i1.10 I oL 1 1600 227 MA 1 IB 2 0.15 1 0 0.15 1 SF' 2 320u 1067 0.33 1 85 16 0.37 1 31 0.27 1 ST 320 490 0.15 0 39 13 0,17 0 0 0.17 0 EL 2 3I.00 '•E7 0.12 0 31 9 0.13 0 24 0,14 0 ' EF. 1 164V 30 0.19 0 25 11 0.1-1 u 0 0.21 0 ET 2 32d0 1301 0.43 1 li0 303 0.55 i 0 0.56 1 YL 1 1601"i 199 0.1 1 16 1 0.13 1 0 0.13 \1 l:R NA NA 112 NA 0 11 0 NA 11", 0 NE (,T 3 4000 1951 0.43 0 156 397 0.55 0 0 0.9W 0 II/S Colponent, 0.30 iO3 0.33 ' EM Co-aponent: 0156 0.70 0,70 Rt. Coopmtant: 0.05 0.05 0.05 ICJ. 0.91 l.t,fl 1.00 Critical ri.rema:,t ijeatii,ed by a 1. ' Te.i Imes Ear a right turn indicates free ao•jem nt. (n - ikt Applicable ' TRsFF1C STUDY FOR IMPORT LIM 11EDICAL CE!ST£R I% TRAFFIC Y6LU!i£ AUALYS<S Fii I991 conditions iHiEtMMO:l: Caaat Hdylifi,ersde Avenue (E%ie-tiny Treffi: Vchoes based an Average Daily hiltarl5pring 19871 ' i-HR !i. Ws P=A'f, APPRVO. PR]CT'➢ 13 OF PROJECT ➢IRECT, MAY. 2.5 PRdCT. PEAK PRdCT'O PEAT( ' 215 HOUR P£A!; 2.5 PEAK 2.5 QUR R511'L M HOUR 2.5 HOUf: VOL OF61T4 HOUR VOL VOL VOL ' VOL VOL PS 61 2 0 63 I E0 !247 37 h2 1346 I3 0 E" 1217 157 M 6341 63 62 b0 58',E 175 1031 7)42 70 45 ' Proja:t Traffit ie est!:aaied to be less than 1k ti Pr,ected peal: 2 1.12 Haar Traffic Volaae. 95'{lfft)'ff1'Sif 1'f41kil Hi[•fi•tiifiiitilii I i I(xi if IRA Sill-rililkAIttt it i fi iitliill••i All 4i>•fH11 liivli fill 141144%*k7i filiif ' ItTEESECTIUII CAPACITY UTILIZATION A'IAL'YSIS :i;Ta:.cC'.[i•E: Caaat dr.{IRiver;ide Avecus ' 1c,is'iing ,rarfic vchuues oared on Average Daily VintarlSpring 1961 E.fisting Projected 1991 199! + FP.➢dECT ----------------------- --------------------------------- ----------------------- ' ka. ph Fsat Crit. Repn'l Coarait. PA Peak irit. Praj. PN Paid: crat. yl::a,:nt Lane- Cap. Va! kfc foot. Vol. fh1. WC ?w5t. Vol. V;C ti44:t. hL :ie UI! 12 NA 1 0 t). NA' 1 ; 3;A t ' I;F i+a MA i0 MA 0 0 0 NA 0 G 114 0 ff 1 h00 2 0.02 i; 0 0 0.02 0 G hQ 0 :L hn itA 71 kil 0 2 22 AA 0 L' NA ; I ie00 439 0,27 0 13 9 0.29 G 0 0.29 ) IcOt' 3 0.05 1 0 0 O.OL l G ML ' EL 1 16d0 :12 0.20 ! 9 24 0.22 1 EF IdA i:fi 16 NA G G G 1iA 0 0 :lA EI 3200 1315 015" 0 N 452 0.73 0 31 5.74 d 4., G.G3 v 1 G 0.63 G C G,J3 u 53 G.O; 0 2 1 v,04 0 0 0.04 0 ' !f 4000 2467 0.51 1 74 510 0.64 1 24 0.64 1 HIS Co:pon.ant: 0.05 0.06 0.Or. E10 Coapor,Rnt: 0,71 0.85 ME fit, Co¢.ponent: 0.00 0.00 0.00 ' ICU: 0J5 O.9i 0.92 =r:acc[ it:rassnk Identified by a I. Ten sarea far e right turn indica-as free rm,,auknt. ' N, 9ct •,pplicable 75,- TRAFFIC STUDY FOR ' HE{PORT LIDO MEDICAL CEl1TER 1: TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS FM 1991 Conditions MERSECTidil: CozEt HUY/TuEtin Avenue Miistinq Traffic Voluees based on Average daily Winter/Spring 19271 APPRCH. EXIST PEAV A.P-PRUd. PRICT'O ',7.. OF PROJECT OIRECT. PEAT, 2.5 PRJCT. PEAK PRJCT'd PEAK 2.5 HOUR PEAK 2.3 PEAK 2.5 HOUR ROlt'L 2.5 HOUR 2.5 HOJR ' VOL GnViHOURVOL U� - 1CL- - VOL i VOLd_ VOL - HB 21 - 1 11 33 0 0 ' 2 305 9 26 340 3 t' El) 4150 125 948 5223 52 62 63 5539 t75 1024 7039 70 48 ' Project Traffic is astmW to be greater t1har. I;: of Projected Peal: 2 112 Hsur Traffic Volure. }nterse:tiza Cepacity Utilization 1I.C.U.1 Analysis is regairad. Ti Ikiifitkiei4 i Ail IC!Jit4*0 azi iyli#i}{•k{{ij-fitItk)fFi}44ii{*gififfIi+}Ft1'r.fAYi5i3!ftr24ltl{{k{9t^.t 111TERSECTIOH CAPACITY UTILIIAT}O;1 AIlALYSIS ' 1.TER E TIOi:. _oast H;IYlTu;tin A:'E;m tE::.5:ang Traffic VDhuc; tasad cu Sv?rga Rail} SlintarlSprinq 19M Existing Projactsd 1591 1991 f PROJECT - -- - - ---- ------ --------------------------------- ----------------------- Ro, FH Pea! Crit. Regc'l Cazeiit. PR Peak Cri_. Praj. P11 Peak Cr t. lu.acat Lar.Ez Czp. Vs . VIC Mvci. Vol. Vol. VIC MVst. Ual, V!C 8rat, ' r!t_ Iln 11A 5 RA 1 0 0 ila i 0 NA 1 0 d 0 IdA L! 11 1eA d UT ! !6011 3 5.01 ? 0 6 0.01 0 0 0.01 C ' r19 ;;R 7% NA 0 2 .t1 llii :id 40 41A 0 1 1 Na 0 0 HA 0 ' S7 ii;N 2 0.0E 1 0 5 0.09 1 0 0.09 1 EL 1 IWO :S 0.05 1 2 5 0.05 0 U O.US 0 £fi 11A U, 1 I;a 4 0 0 NA 0 0 ' :T 2 32(0 1104 0.53 0 51 4c! 0.69 1 31 0.70 1 dL NA HA 0 tiA C. 0 0 NA 1 0 la 1 ' 6R 1 1600 107 0.07 0 3 d 0.07 0 0 0.07 0 MO 2423 030 1 73 499 0.62 0 2, 0.63 0 1115 Component: 0.0£ 0.09 0.09 ' Elk Caaponent: 0.55 0.69 0.70 Rt. Component: MO 0.00 0.00 ICU: 0.63 0.77 0.7E Critical i'Gvailent identified by a 1. ' :ea ianas for a right turn indicates free mveoent. NA - !!et '..pplilablE ' '76 ' TRAFFIC STUDY FOR :,EHPORT LIDO MEDICAL CENTER: ' 1'1. TRAFFIC VOLUKE ANALYSIS PH 1391 Conditions it?TERSECTIOtC Coast HNYI➢e'eer Drive t (bistirg Traffic Volutes based on Average Deily Ninterl5pring 1987) APPRCH. EXIST PEAK APPRVD. PRJCT'D 11 OF PROJECT DIRECT. PEAK 2.5 PRIM PEAT: PRJCT'U PEAT( ' 2.5 HOUR PEAK 2.5 PEAR 2,5 HOUR R5?I'L 2.5 HOUR 2.5 HOUR VOL ORNTH HOUR VOL VOL VOL V-- VOL ------- - ---- - ---- ------ NO 245 7 0 252 3 0 S8 2990 90 85 3165 32 0 ' ED ?bpi I10 749 4741 47 59 V,8 MO '4W 1123 9641 96 41) Protect Traffic is estiaated to he greater than 1% of ' Projected peak 2 112 Hour Traffic Voluee. Intersection, Capacity Utilization (I,C.U,) Analysis is required. ' <r.kif#fitf#5•i}}fY#*fffYf#ik{#####i[*##i#t##f iYf###i########t#t###if*####f#f*fi###t#ff###*f#f##t*}tt#ifi###x#4####}#ti INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION AIIALI'SI5 IHIBBECTI➢1t: Coast HUY/Dover Drive ' lEXiating Traffic. Volutes based on Average Daily Ninter/Spring 1987) Existing Projected 1991 1991 # PROJECT ----------------------- -- - -------- -- ---`------------ --3-.- W----,-- ------- ' Ile. fiH Peat. Crit, Regn'1 Comoit. P11 P=ak Crit. Pro . PH Peas Crit. fleverfit Linea Cap. Vol. life fivat. Vol. Vol. V1C Mvnt. Vol. VIC Nvnl. ' IL I 1600 21 0,02 0 1 0 0,02 0 0 0,12 4 RR tip. 14A 28 NA 0 1 6 NA 0 0 NA 0 111 2 3206 44 0.02 I 1 0 0.62 1 0 0.02 1 ' SL 3 4800 1011 0.21 1 30 30 0.22 1 0 0.22 1 5R 1 1600 130 0.09 0 4 8 0,09 0 0 0.09 0 ST 1 1600 84 0.05 0 3 0 0.05 0 0 0.05 0 EL 2 3200 113 0104 1 3 13 0.04 1 0 0.04 1 ER NA NA 27 14A 0 1 2 NA 0 0 114 0 ET 3 4800 1440 0.31 0 43 452 OM0 30 0.42 0 ' 1 1600 30 0.02 0 1 0 0.02 0 0 0.02 0 NE 10 16000 1049 0.07 0 31 43 0.07 0 0 0.07 0 ' NT 3 4860 2336 0.49 1 70 513 0.61 1 23 0.61 1 his L'aiYpaoent: 0.23 0.25 0.25 EM Component; 0.52 0.65 0.65 ' at, Component: 0100 0.00 0.00 ICU: 0.75 0,90 0.90 Critical Moizaent identified by a 1. 'fee, lanes for a right turn indicates free covenant. ' NA - tint Applicable s 02-219- ni ikD1 TRAFFIC STUDIES /-MO yq;Y/N' oWPrCAl OifSLD APPLICANT: CONSULTANTS: NAME: ' NFVYna/� rr"Ol G�vTSX rg C?Y�LV- DOAv6rt�.TivC. /b•• x.2r% �'OSfq ry.ESA� r'd!•�Xus.4 9?676-3yo,3 -� 4• /CsvG .� rOSsnrgT�S_.r„� �ss�-s�Bo sS y sf C .V-ow,wr egwp'l TlytU�e PHONE: ✓✓.fvpWr JT�C46.Z?WAr4 VAA0 ��flL XgYl,1lQZ) �/t� 6rlo-9A� PROJECT NAME: DESCRIPTION: LTDD y.IXil"'rnEDtCdL LJ�p1C,E DATE DEPOSIT FEES PAYMENT REMAINING BALANCE zr,,r.I.ruv /9� 6r/�0.00 s60•00 5 6M.OD /�.rv.M- s,cz Hl� .00 Iflo •oo r !3 dirt' ry�g 3,GN�9•L5� 52�.36 .�.r.�..�..�.».r.�.«�..�..�..r.r.�.rr.�..w.w..r..�..�..�..�..�..�..w.rr.�..�..«.�.rrrrrrry � 'F RECEIPT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1 gW NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92663 ,{/�y NO, �.7140 f �Gsa PN�* j D TE I mo , ed � °° j RECEIVED FROM t} FOR: 1 ACCOUNT NO /MOUN r DEPARTMENT I BY Y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COPY • DEMAND FOR PAYMENT Date July 13, 1988 Demand of: Basmaciyan-Darnell, _Inc. ' Address: 3190 C-1 Airport Loop Drive Costa Mesa, California 92626` In the amount of $ 3,649.64 ITEM OF EXPENDITURE BUDGET # AMOUNT Professional 'services rendered re traffic and parking study for Lido Park Medical Office voice No. 860736 - Project No. 880315 02-219-01 ' TOTAL $3,649.64 Approved For Payment: Department Head Audi Uda d Approved: • Finance Director DI R��,rBASIV�A, IYAN-DARNELL, INC. ENGINEERING AND PLANNING Trensportatlon, Traffic, Municipal, Transit 3190 G1 Airport Loop b�cwa Costa Mesa,California 92626 (714).557-5780 INVOICE �v TO: ' City of Newport Beach Invoice Number : 880736 3300 Newport Boulevard' Period Ending: 06/30/88 Newport Beach, CA 92658 Invoice Date : 07/11/88 Project Number: 880315; . Attn: .Ms. Patti Temple' Services Rendered for Project : Traffic and -Parking Study for Lido Park Medical Office - PROGRESS BILLING ITEM UNITS RATE AMOUNT Professional Services of: Principal Transportation • Engineer 24. 5 Hrs. $75. 00/Hr. $ 1, 837. 50 Transportation Analyst 26. 5 Hrs. $28.00/Hr. $ 742.00 Senior Traffic Engineering/ Technician 25. 5 Hrs. $28. 00/Hr. $ 714.00 Engineering Aide 6. 5 Hrs. $18. 00/Hr. $ 117.00 Secretary/Typist 7. 75Hrs. $22. 00/Hr. $ 170. 50 Copies and Misc. $ 68. 64 TOTAL INVOICE AMOUNT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3, 649'. 64 Amount Previously, Invoiced $ 1, 362. 00 Amount This Invoice $ 3, 649. 64 Total Invoiced to Date $ 5,011. 64 Maximum Authorized $ 5, 600. 00 Newport. Inv/02D ' � �"'i :r�" T " •l 5"' l vtT C6 f �"['".,.' , . S..:.. i :gi n L...t `Y PL�,, : Flans. I CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CROPOY DEMAND FOR PAYMENT Date June 14, 198& Demand of Basmaciyan-Darnell, Inc. Address: 3190. C-1 Airport Loop Drive Costa Mesa, California 92626 In the amount of $1.362.00 ITEM OF EXPENDITURE BUDGET # AMOUNT Professional services rendered re traffic and parkin study for Lido Park Medical office 02-219-01 Invoice No. 88 Project No. 880315 TOTAL %,362.00 Approved For Payment: D p rtment Hea - Audoedan Approved: Finance Director \\BD BASMAC IYAN-DARN ELL, INC. ENGINEERING AND PLANNING Transportation,Traffic,Municipal, Transit •90 C-1 Airport Loop Drive Costa Mesa,California 92828 (714j 557-5780 INVOICE TO: City of Newport Beach Invoice Number: 88 3300 Newport Boulevard Period Ending: ; 04/30/88 Newport Beach, CA 92658 Invoice Date: 06/06/88 Project Number: 880315 Attn: Ms. Patti Temple Services Rendered for Project : Traffic and Parking Study for Lido Park Medical Office PROGRESS BILLING ITEM UNITS RATE AMOUNT Professional Services of: • Firm Principals 3. 0 Hrs. $75.00/Hr. $ 225.00 Transportation Analyst 19. 75Hrs. $28. 00/Hr. $ 553.00 Senior Traffic Engineering/ Technician • 12. 5 Hrs. $28.00/Hr. $ 350. 00 Engineering Aide 13. 0 Hrs. $18. 00/Hr. $ 234. 00 TOTAL INVOICE AMOUNT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1, 362.00 Amount Previously Invoiced $ 0.00 Amount This Invoice $ 1, 362.00 Total Invoiced to Date $ 1, 362.00 Maximum Authorized $ 5, 600. 00 Newport. Inv/#2D RE 4" APPROVIED w� OIR E C ENT t , ! v JUN131988NEWPOF -? By CALIF. �P Piann ng q OUNT CMG.: .' JUSTIN F. FARMER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS INC. S. BE BLVD. A, CALIFORNIA 92621 714) 671-0226 June 8, 1988 `4 , BECEIyEp VIC �- J>J�ggO1988 ri. City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. cr'L . Newport Beach, Ca. 92658 „ Attn: Ms . Patricia Lee Temple, Environmental Coordinator Re: Traffic and Circulation Study Medical Office Building Superior Ave. Newport Beach Our File #F571 • Dear Ms. Temple: This letter will confirm our telephone conversation regard- ing the lump sum bid and the actual cost of the above re- ferenced job. Virtually all our job lump sum estimates are based on time and expenses, and the job cost is usually within a reason- able range of that estimate . However, the above referenced lump sum budget was $3,400.00 and our actual cost was about $2,025.00. We have, therefore, deceided to split the dif- ference and invoice for only $2,712 . 50 on the attached invoice. It has been a pleasure working with you on this traffic study and we look forward to working with you in the future. S ' c ely, Justin F. Farmer, P.E. , President JFF:sf • Enclosure i agW Pp�,T @� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • U Z P.O.BOX 1768,NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 dl C7C/FO RN�P PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225 March 4, 1988 Jerry A. King, President J. A. King and Associates, Inc. 550 C Newport Center Dr. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject: Lido Park Medical Office Development Traffic and Parking Study Dear Mr. King: The City of Newport Beach has received a proposal from Basmac iyan-Darnell, Inc. , to prepare a traffic study and parking study analysis for Lido Park Medical Office Development on the northeast corner of Hospital Road and Placentia Avenue. The proposal contains an outline of the scope of work required, approximate schedule of same, and estimated budget required for the preparation. r; 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: Consultant Fees $5,600 City Fees (10%) 560 Total Request: $6,160 Please make 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 1 PATRICIA L. TkKVLE Principal Planner PLT:jm Attachment 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach 1!R v.\I•�••!•-'• 1-�.'••:�'•bNb'P•I<••?P1111'R41t}w;liUlIW9Pt11.`RtNif•41'ABBYH'C.'.yY:P.+.:•v \D1 BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. -, ENGINEERING AND PLANNING �r Transportatfon, Traffic,Munlclpal, Translt �0 C-1 Airport Loop Drive Costa MesayQa rnia 9262 (714)557.5780 o) A10 » March 2, 1988 Gay J Ms . Patti Temple Environmental Planner BDI„Ref. No. : 69-4' City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Ca 92658 Subject: Proposal to Prepare a Traffic Study and Parking Study Analysis for Lido Park Medical Office Development on the Northeast Corner of Hosptial Road and Placentia Avenue Dear Ms. Temple: • Basmaciyan-Darnell, Inc. (BDI ) is pleased to submit this proposal to prepare a traffic study and necessary parking study for the proposed Lido Park office development. As I understand, our requirements are to prepare the necessary traffic study to satisfy the City of Newport Beach traffic safety ordinance study requirements and to assess the short-term impacts of parking loss and method of accommodating parking during construction. We look forward to working on this project. The following Scope of Services, Project Schedule and Project Budget are for your consideration. SCOPE OF SERVICES 1. Meet with City of Newport Beach staff and the project applicant to discuss the study requirements and to obtain information relative to the target completion date of the project . 2. Assemble traffic data provided by the City of Newport Beach Traffic Engineer. Data to be assembled includes existing turning movement count information, critical intersections , and traffic volume data relative to various approved projects that will need to be included in the traffic analysis . The critical intersections we have identified for the study are: • Ms. Patti Temple City of Newport Beach • March 2, 29, 1988 Page Two - Hospital Road at Placentia Avenue - Hospital Road at Superior Avenue - Placentia Avenue at Superior Avenue - Newport Boulevard at Hospital Road - Newport Boulevard at 32nd Street - Newport Boulevard at Via Lido - Coast Highway at Orange Avenue - Coast Highway at Prospect Avenue - Coast Highway at Balboa Boulevard/superior Avenue - Coast Highway at Riverside Avenue - Coast Highway .at Tustin Avenue - Coast Highway at Dover Drive/Bayshore Drive - Coast Highway at Bayside Drive - Coast Highway at Jamboree Road 4. Estimate traffic generation to and from the project site and assign it to the surrounding street system. Daily, AM and PM peak hour and 2-1/2 hour peak period assignments will be made. 5. Assemble the approved projects traffic volume data. The • data will be collected from the City Traffic Engineer and summarized on the surrounding street system critical intersections . 6. Analyze the impacts of the project in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The first analysis will include the 1% analysis to determine the impact on the various critical intersections identified in Task 3. 7. At completion of the 1% analysis, those intersections that fail the 1% analysis test will be analyzed for intersection capacity with approved projects with the proposed project. 8. As needed and as appropriate, BDI will identify mitigations measures to mitigate the impact of the project at any of the critical intersections to a level consistent with the traffic phasing ordinance. 9. Review the internal circulation and access points of the proposed project and determine their adequacy. Specifi- cally, BDI will review the parking plan and identify where appropriate and recommended changes . • BD Ms. Patti Temple City of Newport Beach • March 2, 1988 Page Three 10. Review the applicants proposal to accommodate parking during construction. The analysis will evaluate the adequacy of thier parking proposal. Where appropriate, identify the suggeted changes and recommendations . 11. Prepare a report in appropriate format for processing the project through the City of Newport Beach. The report will generally include: INTRODUCTION EXISTING CONDITIONS CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC PROJECT-RELATED TRAFFIC IMPACTS CONFORMANCE TO THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS ACCESS INTERNAL CIRCULATION PARKING CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES . SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 12. Submit the preliminary report to the City of Newport Beach for their review and comments. After receipt of City' s comments, any necessary revisions to the report will be made. 13. Provide twenty (20) copies of the final traffic report. PROJECT SCHEDULE BDI can proceed within one week after authorization to proceed is given and submit a draft report to the City within five weeks after authorization to proceed is given. The five week comple- tion date assumes that the projects occupancy date and cumulative traffic information can be provided within the first two weeks after authorization is given. Revisions to the report to respond to the City of Newport Beach comments will require one week after receipt of City comments . PROJECT BUDGET BDI proposes to perform the services outlined for a not-to-exceed fee of $5,600. A copy of our standard hourly billing rate schedule is attached. • Ms. Patti Temple City of Newport Beach • March 1988 Page Four Please call me if you have any questions or need additional information. BDI looks forward to working with the City of Newport Beach. Sincerely, BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. Bill E. Darnell, P.E. LidoPark. 673/#l (K) • • 8 D\ \\ BASMACIYAN-DARN ELL, INC. ENGINEERING AND PLANNING Transportation, Traffic,Municipal, Transit 00 G1 Airport Loop Drive Costa Mesa,California 92626 (714)557.5780 SCHEDULE OF HOURLY BILLING RATES (Effective September 1, 1987) Firm Principals Project Work . . . . . . $ 90.00/hr. Public Hearings/Special Presentations (4 hours minimum) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100. 00/hr. Expert Witness Work Background Preparation. . . . . . 100. 00/hr. Court Appearance (4 hours minimum) . . . . . 125. 00/hr. Principal Transportation Engineer/Planner . . . . . . 75. 00/hr. Senior Transportation Engineer/Planner. . . . . . . . 58. 00/hr. Transportation Engineer/Planner . . . . . . . . . . . 50.00/hr. • Assistant Transportation Engineer/Planner . . . . . . 36.00/hr . Designer. 36. 00/hr . Transportation Analyst . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28. 00/hr. Senior Engineering/Planning Technician. . . . . . . . 28. 00/hr. Engineering/Planning Technician . . . . . . . . . . 25. 00/hr. Engineering/Planning Aide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.00/hr. Junior Engineering/Planning Aide. . . . . . . . . . . 12.00/hr. Secretary/Typist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.00/hr . Necessary auto travel will be charged at $0. 25 per mile. Reproduction, materials, and other non-wage costs will be invoiced at direct cost plus 10 percent administrative charge. Terms are 30 days net.. Otherwise subject to 1-1/2 percent per month interest charge. • NOTE: Billing rates are reviewed periodically and are adjusted as necessary.