Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTPO066_TACO BELL RESTAURANT Illlllllllllllllllllllllllll �lllllllllltll@IIIII '� TPO066 4 • � April 19, 1990 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES d�Y so,d �e c� c� �o � � CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX A Traffic Study No 66 (Public Hearing) Item No.6 Request to approve a traffic study so as to permit the TS No. 66 construction of a drive-in and take-out restaurant facility on property located in the Koll Center Newport Planned UP 3375 community. Approved AMID B. Use Permit No 3375 (Public Hearing) Request to permit the construction of a drive-in and take-out restaurant facility with indoor and outdoor seating areas and a request to waive a portion of the required off-street parking spaces. The proposal also includes a modification to the sign provisions of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development Regulations so as to allow a 26 square foot menu sign in addition to two permitted wall identification signs and one ground sign. LOCATION: Parcel No. 2 of Parcel Map 84-702 (Resubdivision No. 772), located at 4101 Jamboree Road, on the northwesterly side of Jamboree Road, northeasterly of MacArthur Boulevard, in Koll Center Newport. ZONE: P-C APPLICANT: Taco Bell Corporation, Irvine OWNER: The Koll Company, Newport Beach Commissioner Pers6n asked if the subject project is similar to the restaurant facility that was approved by the Planning Commission at its meeting of November 19, 1987. James Hewicker, Planning Director, responded that it is essentially the same use and floor plan; however, the architectural style has changed substantially. He explained that the project has been reduced inasmuch as the original facility proposed by the applicants was not economically feasible. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Steve Abbott appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicants wherein he concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". -13- COMMISSIONERS 41 • April 19' 1990MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Chauncy Beck, Manager of Design for Taco Bell, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Beck explained the negotiation of leases with The Koll Company regarding the subject site and the site of the Corporate Headquarters of Taco Bell in the City of Irvine, and the impact that the negotiations had on the previously approved restaurant facility. Mr. Beck stated that the architectural change consists of the materials that were originally proposed for the structure, and the kitchen layout and interior have been reduced by approximately 200 square feet. Commissioner Merrill and Mr. Beck discussed the location of the Taco Bell Corporate Headquarters in Irvine and additional restaurant sites that the applicants negotiated with The Koll Company. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to approve Traffic Study No. 66 Ayes * * * * and Use Permit No. 3375 subject to the findings and conditions Noes * * in Exhibit 'W'. MOTION CARRIED. Absent A ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT Fin in s• 1. That all significant environmental concerns for the proposed project have been addressed in a previously certified environmental document, and that the City of Newport Beach intends to use said document for the subject project, and further that there are no additional reasonable alternative or mitigation measures that should be considered in conjunction with said project. 2. That the contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. 3. That in order to reduce adverse impacts of the proposed project, all feasible mitigation measures discussed in the environmental document have been incorporated into the proposed project. 4. That the mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study have been incorporated into the proposed project and are expressed as Conditions of Approval. -14- April 19, 1990 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES ,o W CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 5. That based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, Negative Declaration and supportive materials thereto that if the mitigation measures are incorporated into the project it will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. 6. That the findings made in regard to the Environmental Document described above also apply to the action taken on Traffic Study No. 66 and Use Permit No. 3375. B. TRAFFIC STUDY Findings: 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the peak-hour traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15AO of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Policy S- 1. 2. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project-generated traffic will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic on any 'major,' 'primary-modified,' or 'primary' street. 3. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project-generated traffic will not be greater than one percent of the existing traffic during the 2.5 hour peak period on four of the five study intersections and that the ICU analysis for the fifth intersection indicates an acceptable ICU value of less than 0.90. C. USE PERMIT NO, 3375 Findings: 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. That the waiver of the take-out restaurant development standards as they relate to perimeter fencing and a portion of the required parking will be of no further detriment to adjacent properties inasmuch as the proposed drive-in and take-out restaurant is part of a larger integrated -15- • April 19, 1990MINUTES COMMISSIONERS �0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX development which is not conducive to such standards, but is designed in a way that meets the purpose and intent of such design standards; and adequate parking is being provided on-site inasmuch as many customers will walk to the site from the surrounding offices. 3. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. 4. Adequate provision for traffic circulation is being made for the drive-in and take-out restaurant facility. 5. That the proposed modification to allow a 26 square foot menu sign in addition to the two permitted wall identification signs an one ground sign, will not, under the circumstances of this case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. 6. The approval of Use Permit No. 3375 will not, under the circumstances of the case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. Conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plan and elevations except as noted below. 2. That the parking lot shall be lighted in such a manner as to prove adequate illumination to all areas of the lot without causing any light or glare to impact adjacent properties. Said lighting shall include fixtures which match the existing light fixtures currently located on the site. -16- April 19, 1990 11 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES O� ptl CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 3. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from adjoining properties and from adjoining streets. 4. That the development standards pertaining to walls and 11 of the required parking spaces shall be waived. 5. That only two wall identification signs, one monument identification sign and one drive-through menu sign shall be permitted. 6. That the proposed directional signs shall not exceed 6 sq.ft. and shall not include the restaurant name or logo. 7. That the required number of handicapped parking spaces shall be designated within the on-site parking area and shall be used solely for handicapped self-parking. One handicapped sign on a post and one handicapped sign on the pavement shall be required for each handicapped space. 8. That the service of any alcoholic beverages in the take- out restaurant facility is prohibited unless an amended use permit is approved by the City. 9. Landscaping shall be regularly maintained free of weeds and debris. All vegetation shall be regularly trimmed and kept in a healthy condition. 10. That landscape plans shall be subject to review and approval of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department and Public Works Department. 11. That 74 off-street parking spaces (including 10 spaces in the drive-up stacking lane) shall be provided. 12. That all employees shall park their vehicles on-site. 13. That the on-site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review and approval by the Traffic Engineer. 14. That trash receptacles for patrons shall be located in convenient locations inside and outside the building. -17- April 19, 1990 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES oc� �'p,,�r•dcn �P o . W CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL iINDEX such a way as to allow direct drainage into the sewer system and not into the Bay or storm drains, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department. 16. That grease interceptors shall be provided on all fixtures in the restaurant facility where grease may be introduced into the drainage systems in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Plumbing Code, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department. 17. That exhaust fans shall be designed to control smoke and odor, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department. 18. That one bathroom for each sex shall be provided and shall be made readily available to patrons of the facility during all hours of operation. 19. That a trash compactor shall be in installed and maintained. 20. That all mechanical equipment shall be sound attenuated to 55 dBA at the property lines. 21. That all conditions of approval for Resubdivision No. 849 shall be fulfilled and that the parcel map shall be recorded prior to the issuance of building permits. 22. That the light system shall be designed, directed, and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minims a light spillage and glare to the adjacent uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a Licensed Electrical Engineer; with a letter from the Engineer stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met. 23. That the County Sanitation District fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permits. 24. This use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090.A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 25. That the Planning Commission may add or modify conditions of approval to this use permit, or recommend -18- COMMISSIONERS • April 19, 1990 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX to the City Council revocation of this use permit,upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this use permit,causes injury,or is detrimental to the health, safety,peace, morals,comfort,or general welfare of the community. Use Permit No 3378 (�Piblic Hearing) Item No.7 quest to permit the establishment of a retail flower shop with UP3378 on oor display within the Via Lido Plaza Shopping Center on Approved prop ty located in the C-1-H District. LOCA N: Parcel No. 1 of Parcel Map 85-1 (Resubdivision No. 516), located at 3423 Via Lido, on the southerly side of Via Lido between Newport Boulevard and Via Oporto in Central Newport. ZONE: -1-H APPLICANT: Fri Duda Company, Orange OWNER: Same applicant The public hearing was opened . connection with this item, and Mr. Russell Hardt, Vice Preside n of the Fritz Duda Company, appeared before the Planning Co 'ssion on behalf of the applicants wherein he concurred with a findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". There being no others desiring to appe and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion Motion was made and voted on to approve Use P 't No. 3378 Ayes * * * * sub ect to the findin s and conditions in Exhibit "A MOTION Absent * J g CARRIED. Fin in 1. That the proposed development is consistent with e General Plan and the adopted Local Coastal Progr Land Use Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. -19- Planning Commission Meeting April 19. 1990 Agenda Item No. 6 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: A Traffic Study No. 66 (Public Hearing) Request to approve a traffic study so as to permit the construction of a drive-in and take-out restaurant facility on property located in the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. AND B. Use Permit No 3375 (Public Hearing) Request to permit the construction of a drive-in and take-out restaurant facility with indoor and outdoor seating areas and a request to waive a portion of the required off-street parking spaces. The proposal also includes a modification to the sign provisions of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development Regulations so as to allow a 26 square foot menu sign in addition to two permitted wall identification signs and one ground sign. LOCATION: Parcel No. 2 of Parcel Map 84-702 (Resubdivision No. 772), located at 4101 Jamboree Road, on the northwesterly side of Jamboree Road, northeasterly of MacArthur Boulevard, in Koll Center Newport. ZONE: P-C APPLICANT: Taco Bell Corporation, Irvine OWNER: The Koll Company, Newport Beach Applications The subject applications involve a request to permit the construction of a drive-in and take-out restaurant facility with indoor and outdoor seating areas in a portion of Office Site 'B" of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. The proposal also includes: a request to waive a portion of the required off-street parking spaces; the approval of a traffic study; and a modification to the sign provisions of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development Regulations so as to allow a 26 square foot menu sign • . TO: Planning Commission - 2. in addition to the two permitted wall identification signs and one ground sign. In accordance with the provisions of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community, take- out restaurants are a permitted use in Office Site "B" subject to the approval of a use permit. Use permit procedures are set forth in Chapter 20.80 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Traffic study procedures are set forth in Chapter 15.40 of the Municipal Code and modification procedures are set forth in Chapter 20.81. Conformance with the General Plan The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for "Retail and Service Commercial" uses. The proposed take-out restaurant is a permitted use within this designation. Subject Property and Surrounding Land Uses The subject property is currently developed as a parking and landscape area for the adjoining office building located northwesterly of the site. Also located northwesterly of the site is a two-level parking structure. To the northeast is the Rockwell International facility; to the southeast, across Jamboree Road, is a light industrial building and an office complex located in the City of Irvine; and to the southwest is a common landscape and parking area for the adjoining office building. Background At its meeting of November 19, 1987 the Planning Commission approved Use Permit No. 3278 and a related traffic study so as to permit the construction of the subject project. Said action also included the approval of Resubdivision No. 849 which established a new parcel for the development. The actions of the Planning Commission were taken with the findings and subject to the conditions of approval set forth in the attached excerpt of the Planning Commission minutes dated November 19, 1987. In accordance with Section 20.80.090 of the Municipal Code, Use Permits granted in accordance with Title 20 of the Municipal Code shall expire within 24 months from the effective date of their approval. Inasmuch as the applicant did not construct the project in accordance with the previous approvals, Use Permit No. 3278 and the related traffic study expired on December 10, 1989. Inasmuch as the expiration period for Resubdivisions is three years, the approval of Resubdivision No. 849 remains in effect until December 10, 1990, unless an extension is approved by the Planning Commission. Environmental Significance The Planning Commission has previously approved an environmental document in conjunction with its consideration of the above mentioned project. Inasmuch as all significant environmental concerns have been addressed in the previous certified environmental document and there are no additional reasonable alternatives or mitigation TO: Planning Commission - 3. measures that should be considered in conjunction with the proposed project, no further environmental review is required. For the Planning Commission's information, staff has attached a copy of the previously certified environmental document. Analysis The applicants are again proposing to construct a take-out and drive-through restaurant facility on the subject property. Said facility will include a 2,394± square feet building (gross) which will contain approximately 1,215± square feet of customer service and seating area. An outdoor patio seating area is also proposed which will contain approximately 1,215 square feet. The applicant has indicated that there will be approximately 12 employees on duty during peak hours of operation and that the combined indoor and outdoor seating will include 130 seats (90 seats inside and 40 seats outside). The applicant has further indicated that the hours of operation for the facility will be from 7:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight, Sunday through Thursday and from 7:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m., Friday and Saturday. Required Off-Street Parking_ The Municipal Code requires one parking space for each employee on duty during peak hours of operation and one parking space for each 50 sq. ft. of gross floor area within the take-out restaurant facility (including outdoor eating areas), unless modified or waived by the Planning Commission. Based on the proposed 2,394± sq. ft. of gross floor area and the 1,215± sq. ft. of outdoor eating area (3,609± sq. ft. total) and 12 employees, 85 parking spaces are required for the proposed take-out restaurant. Proposed Off-Street Parking_ The applicants are proposing to provide a total of 62 parking spaces for the restaurant facility plus a 10 car stacking lane in conjunction with the drive-in facility, for a total of 72 parking spaces. Said parking will include 70 standard size spaces (10 of which are located in the drive-up window stacking lane); and 2 handicapped spaces. It should also be noted that the applicant has used the old 9 foot wide parking design standard; therefore, if the parking design were changed so as to use the 8 foot 6 inch standard width, 2 additional parking could be provided, bring the total proposed parking to 74 spaces. Based on these figures, the applicant is requesting that the remainder of the required off-street parking (11 spaces) be waived. (See following discussion concerning waiver of off-street parking). It should also be noted that 18 of the proposed parking spaces in the northeasterly parking area will encroach beyond the proposed property line. Such a situation is the result of having to maintain a certain distance between the proposed property line and the adjoining parking structure. This parking arrangement will be accommodated by an easement for parking purposes which will be granted to the restaurant site. Should the Planning Commission wish to approve these applications, staff has no objections to such an arrangement. The Planning Commission should also be aware that 3,054 parking spaces are required • . u t TO: Planning Commission - 4. to serve the existing development in Office Site "B". There are currently 3,325 parking spaces available, for a surplus of 271 spaces. Inasmuch as the proposed development will occupy an area which is currently developed with 129 off-street parking spaces, the proposed restaurant development will deplete the existing parking surplus by 129 spaces. The remaining parking surplus will be 142 spaces. Drive In and Outdoor Restaurant Development Standards Chapter 20.72 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code was adopted in 1967 by the City in order to give the Planning Commission the opportunity to review any proposed: take- out restaurant through the use permit procedure. Development standards were established for take-out restaurants so as to insure that such facilities would be aesthetically compatible with adjoining properties and streets. Said development standards are set forth in Chapter 20.72 of the Municipal Code and include specific requirements for building setbacks, pat-king,+traffic circulation, walls surrounding the take- out restaurant site, landscaping, parking lot illumination, signing, underground utilities and storage. Section 20.72.130 of the Municipal Code states that the Planning Commission shall have the right to waive or modify any,of the above mentioned development standards for take- out restaurants if such modification or waiver will achieve substantially the same results and will in no way be detrimental to adjacent properties or improvements than will the strict compliance with said conditions. The proposed development fully complies with the above development standards except as discussed' in the following sections. Waiver of Required Off-Street Parking As indicated in the previous parking analysis, the applicants are requesting to waive 11 of the required off-street parking spaces for the take-out restaurant. The applicant has based this request on the fact that the parking demand for the restaurant will be somewhat lower than normal inasmuch as a large amount of the customers will be walk- in customers from the surrounding offices in Koll Center and Newport Place. Staff concurs in this opinion. Walls Surrounding the Take-out Restaurant Site Inasmuch as the proposed take-out restaurant is attempting to develop as an integrated part of the adjoining office building and parking structure, the construction of solid walls on the interior property lines of the take-out restaurant site is inappropriate. Proposed' Take-Out Restaurant Sums In accordance with the General Sign Requirements of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community, two wall identification signs are permitted on the restaurant building. Said wall signs may not exceed an area equal to one and one-half (1-1/2) square feet for each one (1) foot of lineal frontage of the building. However, in no case may a sign exceed TO: Planning Commission - 5. an area of 200 square feet. Based on the above requirements, the subject project would be permitted to have one 104± sq. ft. wall sign facing Jamboree Road and one 58 sq. ft. wall sign facing MacArthur Boulevard. The Koll Center Newport sign provisions also allow restaurants to have one ground sign not exceeding 200 square feet. As indicated on the attached plans, the applicant is proposing to install two wall mounted identification signs containing approximately 17 square feet each, a monument identification sign located adjacent to Jamboree Road containing 97 square feet and a small 26 square foot menu pole sign on the northeasterly side of the building which will be used in conjunction with the drive-through facility of the restaurant. It should be noted that the proposed signs are the same signs previously approved by the Planning Commission in conjunction with Use Permit No. 3278. The attached site plan also includes a note which identifies four directional signs; however, the size of each sign is not mentioned. In accordance with the sign provisions of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community, directional signs not exceeding 6 sq. ft. are permitted in addition to other signs on the site. Staff has no objections to the proposed directional signs provided they do not exceed 6 sq. ft. and they do not include the restaurant name or logo. Proposed Drive-In Facility As shown on the attached site plan the applicant is proposing a drive-in facility which will include a stacking lane for 10 full size cars. Said drive-in lane will surround the restaurant building and will maintain an entrance/exit from the southwesterly driveway. According to the City Traffic Engineer, said entrance/exit is located too close to the southwesterly driveway in order to allow a sufficient turning radius for exiting cars. For this reason, the driveway entrance will have to be moved to the southwest so as to remove this deficiency. Traffic Study A Traffic Study has been prepared for the proposed project in conformance with the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance and Council Policy S-1. The proposed project is expected to be completed in 1990. Analyses were, therefore, completed for 1991. The City Traffic Engineer identified five intersections which could be affected by the project at full occupancy. The first step in evaluating intersections is to conduct a 1% traffic volume analysis, taking into consideration existing traffic, regional growth and committed projects' traffic. For any intersection where, on any approach leg, project traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of the projected peak 2-1/2 hour volume in either the morning or afternoon, an Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis is required. As indicated in the attached Traffic Study, it was determined that for all but one of the five study intersec- tions, the project related traffic is expected to be less than one percent of the project a.m. and p.m. peak 2-1/2 hour traffic volumes. The intersection of Jamboree Road and Birch Street did not pass the 1% test during the p.m. 2-1/2 hour peak period on the • • . 4L TO: Planning Commission - 6. northbound approach; therefore, an Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis was performed for the p.m. peak hour. Table 5 on ,page 10 of the attached Traffic Study summarizes the results of the ICU analysis. As noted, the 'intersection would have an acceptable ICU value less than 0.90. Since four of the five identified intersections passed the 1% test and the fifth intersection passed ,the ICU test, no mitigation measures are required for the proposed project. Specific Findings Section 20.80.060 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that in order to grant any use permit, the Planning Commission shall find that the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use or building applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. Chapter 15.40 of the Municipal Code requires that the Planning Commission make certain findings in conjunction with its approval of a traffic study. Should the Planning Commission wish to approve these applications, the findings and conditions set forth in the attached Exhibit "A" are suggested. However, should the Planning Commission wish to deny these applications, the findings and conditions set forth in the attached Exhibit "B" are suggested. PLANNING DEPARTMENT James D. Hewicker, Director B J Wi iam Ward Senior Planner Attachments: Exhibit "A" Exhibit "B" Vicinity Map Excerpt of the Planning Commission Minutes dated November 19, 1987 Traffic Study Previously Certified Negative Declaration A.L.T.A. Survey, Site Plan, Floor Plan and Elevations t t • • TO: Planning Commission - 7. EXHIBIT "A!' FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 66 AND USE PERMTr NO. 3375 n ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT Findin : 1. That all significant environmental concerns for the proposed project have been addressed in a previously certified environmental document, and that the City of Newport Beach intends to use said document for ,the subject project, and further that there are no additional reasonable alternative or mitigation measures that should be considered in conjunction with said project. 2. That the contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. 3. That in order to reduce adverse impacts of the proposed project, all feasible mitigation measures discussed in the environmental document have been incorporated into the proposed project. 4. That the mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study have been incorporated into the proposed project and are expressed as Conditions of Approval. 5. That based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, Negative Declaration and supportive materials thereto that if the mitigation measures are incorporated into the project it will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. 6. That the findings made in regard to the Environmental Document described above also apply to the action taken on Traffic Study No. 66 and Use Permit No. 3375. B. TRAFFIC STUDY Findings: 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the peak-hour traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter . • 4 l TO: Planning Commission - 8. 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Policy S-1. 2. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project- generated traffic will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic on any 'major; 'primary- modified; or 'primary' street. 3. That the Traffic Study indicates 'that the project- generated traffic will not be greater than one percent of the existing traffic during the 2.5 hour peak period on four of the five study intersections and that the ICU analysis for the fifth intersection indicates an acceptable ICU value of less than 0.90. C. USE PERMIT NO 3375 Fin in 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding 'land uses. 2. That the waiver of the take-out restaurant development standards as they relate to perimeter fencing and a portion of the required parking will be of no further detriment to adjacent properties inasmuch as the proposed drive-in and take-out restaurant is part of a larger integrated development which is not conducive to such standards, but is designed in a way that meets the purpose and intent of such design standards; and adequate parking is being provided on-site inasmuch as many customers will walk to the site from the surrounding offices. 3. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. 4. Adequate provision for traffic circulation is being made for the drive-in and take-out restaurant facility. 5. That the proposed modification to allow a 26 square foot menu sign in addition to the two permitted wall identification signs an one ground sign, will not, under r . • • TO: Planning Commission - 9. the circumstances of this case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Cade. 6. The approval of Use Permit No. 3375 will not, under the circumstances of the case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. Conditions 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plan and elevations except as noted below. 2. That the parking lot shall be lighted in such a manner as to prove adequate illumination to all areas of the lot without causing any light or glare to impact adjacent properties. Said lighting shall include fixtures which match the existing light fixtures currently located on the site. 3. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from adjoining properties and from adjoining streets. 4. That the development standards pertaining to walls and 11 of the required parking spaces shall be waived. 5. That only two wall identification signs, one monument identification sign and one drive-through menu sign shall be permitted. 6. That the proposed directional signs shall not exceed 6 sq.ft. and shall not include the restaurant name or logo. 7. That the required number of handicapped parking • • w L TO: Planning Commission - 10. spaces shall be designated within the on-site parking area and shall be used solely for handicapped self- parking. One handicapped sign on a post and one handicapped sign on the pavement shall be required for each handicapped space. 8. That the service of any alcoholic beverages in the take- out restaurant facility is prohibited unless an amended use permit is approved by the City. 9. Landscaping shall be regularly maintained free of weeds and debris. All vegetation 'shall be regularly trimmed and kept in a healthy condition. 10. That landscape plans shall be subject to review and approval of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department and Public Works Department. 11. That 74 off-street parking spaces (including 10 spaces in the drive-up stacking lane) shall be provided. 12. That all employees shall park their vehicles on-site. 13. That the on-site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review and approval by the Traffic Engineer. 14. That trash receptacles for patrons shall be located in convenient locations inside and outside the building. 15. That a washout area for refuse containers be provided in such a way as to allow direct drainage into the sewer system and not into the Bay or storm drains, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department. 16. That grease interceptors shall be provided on all fixtures in the restaurant facility where grease may be introduced into the drainage systems in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Plumbing Code, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department. 17. That exhaust fans shall be designed to control smoke and odor, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department. 18. That one bathroom for each sex shall be provided and shall be made readily available to patrons of the facility TO: Planning Commission - 11. during all hours of operation. 19. That a trash compactor shall be in installed and maintained. 20. That all mechanical equipment shall be sound attenuated to 55 dBA at the property lines. 21. That all conditions of approval for Resubdivision No. 849 shall be fulfilled and that the parcel map shall be recorded prior to the issuance of building permits. 22. That the light system shall be designed, directed, and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimise light spillage and glare to the adjacent uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a Licensed Electrical Engineer; with a letter from the Engineer stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met. 23. That the County Sanitation District fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permits. 24. This use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090.A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 25. That the Planning Commission may add or modify . conditions of approval to this use permit, or recommend to the City Council revocation of this use permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this use permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. • Y TO: Planning Commission - 12. EXIRBIT 'B" FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 66, USE PERMIT NO. 3375 AND RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT A ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT 1. No action is necessary for the previously certified environmental document. 2. Make the findings listed below: Fin in 1. That the environmental document is complete and has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and City Policy. 2. That the contents of the environmental document have been considered on the various decisions on this project. 3. That the guidelines indicate that environmental documents are not required for projects that are denied. 4. The Findings made in regard to the Environmental Document described above also apply to the denial of the Traffic Study No. 66 and Use Permit No. 3375. B. TRAFFIC STUDY NO, 66 1. Take no action on the Traffic Study; and 2. Make the finding listed below: Findine: 1. That Traffic Studies are not needed for projects that are denied. C. USE PERMIT NO. 3375 1. Deny Use Permit No. 3375 with the findings listed below. , TO: Planning Commission - 13. Findines: 1. That the proposed drive-in and take-out restaurant is inconsistent with the original concept of development for the Koll Center Newport Planned Community inasmuch as the subject restaurant is a type which is largely dependent upon the high volume business associated with the exposure to a major arterial highway, rather than the low volume, conventional restaurants which have previously been approved on the interior portions of the Planned Community, and which more clearly satisfy the supportive roll originally intended for restaurants in Office Site 'B." 2. That the placement of the subject drive-in and take-out restaurant between the existing office building and Jamboree Road results in an unworkable site plan that creates an unacceptable parking design and confusing on-site circulation pattern. 3. The approval of Use Permit No. 3375 will, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood and be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood and the general welfare of the City. n L /lad : DOVE P-C o a p C oya b o¢• �,�GP sva./�cr . PC `I C LOT TRACT NO.939d. R ST �SQQ•lt V1• �[' Q 14.3z.ae. 3 i' i o Ot P-C I I `N Y P P-C z sr E ^ R 5 I'- ! L v " 7r 9>< tu HR/STOLSTRCET NORTH • 't'• 40 W b r.eil "XONA DEL �, MAR FREEWAY R I.= Y STKEET U A VI MI W CTING MAP NEWPORT BEACH - CALIFORNIA 3 AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL C-I LIGHT COMMERCIAL [ INTERMEDIATE PLANNING COMMISSION •�:• SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL C-2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL U UNCLASSIFIED DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL RESTID MULTIPLE FAMLY RESIDENTIAL M-1-A CONTROLLED MANUFACTURING 1 MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL M-1 MANUFACTURING -B-H COMBINING DISTRICTS ,f ORD.NO. f2F DATE 7-//-L0 M'w NO. GJ n... .. 60MMISSIONERS � � MINUTES a -o pr o November 19, 1987 yA0 V9 9 0 919 Gt^ Np 9i F2 < 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH r2 ROLL CALL INDEX Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Cook stated that the applicant concurs with staff's recommendations. Commissioner Merrill and Mr. Cook discussed the landscape conditions on the subject site along Jamboree Road. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion x Motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 1167, Ayes x x x K K K recommending to the City Council adoption of General Absent x Plan Amendment 87-2(B) , acceptance of an environmental document, and to adopt Resolution NO. 1168, recommending to the City Council adoption-of Amendment No. 654. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. A Traffic Study (Continued Public Hearing) Item No.7 Request to approve a traffic study in conjunction with TS the construction of a drive-in and take-out restaurant Up3278 facility with indoor and outdoor seating areas; the R849 acceptance of an environmental document. Approved AND B. Use Permit No 3278 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to permit the construction of a Taco Bell drive-in and take-out restaurant facility with indoor and outdoor seating areas; and a request to waive a portion of the required off-street parking spacesi a modification to the Koll Center Newport Planned Comm- unity Development Standards so as to allow 5 wall identification signs where said standards permit only 2 such signs; and to allow the use of compact parking spaces for a portion of the required off-street park- ing. AND C. Resubdivision No. 849 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to create one parcel of land for restaurant purposes and one parcel of land for off-street parking purposes where one parcel of land now exists. -16- �f COMMISSIONERS 0 MINUTES. A A of 0 November 19, 1987 yo c^ FooN d CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 9y ROLL CALL INDEX LOCATION: Parcel No. 7 of Parcel Map 82-713 (Resubdivision No. 731) , located at 4101 Jamboree Road, on the northwesterly side of Jamboree Road, northeasterly of MacArthur Boulevard in Koll Center Newport. ZONE: P-C APPLICANTS: Aetna Life Insurance Company, c/o The Koll Company, Newport Beach; and Taco Bell Corporation, Santa Ana OWNER: Aetna Life Insurance Company, c/o The Koll Company, Newport Beach ENGINEER: Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates, Irvine The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Mike Lewis, Vice President of Development for The Koll Company, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Lewis referred to Condition -No. 19 regarding the installation of a trash compactor. He stated that there is daily trash service on-site with the exception of Sundays. Chairman Person explained that it is a standard condition that is frequently applied to restaurants. Commissioner Koppelman expressed her concerns regarding the parking in the area. she compared the subject take-out restaurant with other take-out restaurants within the airport area, and she pointed out the inadequate parking conditions surrounding McDonald's Restaurant and' the surrounding businesses located in the City of Irvine. Mr. Lewis explained that the available parking spaces will accommodate the take-out restaurant and the adjacent office development. He stated that in the parking lots used by the office personnel there is approximately a 20 percent vacancy rate during the lunch hour, and that after business hours there would be a large vacancy rate. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Lewis explained that the number of surplus parking spaces for the adjoining office development discussed in the staff report are in accordance with the City's parking requirements, but that there will be parking spaces available to restaurant customers in the perimeter of the office parking lot outside of the gates to the office parking structure. -17- ` COMMISSIONERS MINUTES November 19, 1987 ym 0�F.F�OQA 9 09 G�n P. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ti INDEX ROLL CALL In response to a question posed by Chairman Person, Mr. Lewis replied that the applicants concur with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioners Pomeroy and Koppelman indicated their interest in the projections of the usage of the restaurant. Motion x Motion was made and voted on to reopen the public Ayes x x C Y Y hearing. MOTION CARRIED. Noes x Absent x In response to the concerns of Commissioners Pomeroy and Koppelman, Mr. Steve Olson, Region Construction Manager of Taco Bell appeared before the Planning Commission, and he addressed the number of vehicles that the applicants anticipate on-site. He explained that the subject Taco Bell take-out restaurant had been designed to accommodate approximately 20 to 25 percent more seats than the typical Taco Bell take-out restaurant, but that a larger parking area would be provided, consisting of 62 parking spaces, and 10 parking spaces in the stacking lane for a total of 72 parking spaces. The public hearing was closed at this time. Motion was made to approve the Traffic Study, Use Permit No. 3278, and Resubdivision No. 849 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". Commissioner Koppelman asked if the requested waive of 13 off-street parking spaces would be deleted, how much square footage in the building would need to be reduced? Mr. Hewicker replied that a reduction of 650 square feet of gross floor area would be required. Commissioner Koppelman stated that she would not support the motion based upon what she has seen with other take-out restaurants within the airport area. She reasoned that there is an inadequate number of parking spaces being provided for the restaurant use. Ayes x x x Motion was voted on to approve Traffic Study, Use Noes Permit No. 3278, and Resubdivision No. 849 subject to Absent x the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". MOTION CARRIED. -18- �1 COMMISSIONERS • MINUTES November 19, 1987 yd°L�9�9 p'O•o 9 9 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 9y ROLL CALL INDEX A. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT: 1. Approve the Negative Declaration and supportive materials thereto: and 2. Make the findings listed below: Findings: 1. That the environmental document is complete and has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , the State EIR Guidelines and City Policy. 2. That the contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. 3. That in order to reduce adverse impacts of the proposed project, all feasible mitigation measures discussed in the environmental document have been incorporated into the proposed project. 4. That the mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study have been incorporated into the proposed project and are expressed as Conditions of Approval. 5. That based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, Negative Declaration and supportive materials thereto that if the mitigation measures are incorporated into the project it will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. The findings made in regard to the Environmental Document described above also apply to the action taken on the Traffic Study, Use Permit No. 3278 and Resubdivision No. 849. B. TRAFFIC STUDY: Findings: • 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the peak-hour traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Policy S-1. -19- / l � " "COMMISSIONERS • • MINUTES A o I-V November 19, 1987 �P'p� t` y ` CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 2. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project-generated traffic will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic on any 'major' , 'primary-modified' , or 'primary' street. 3. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project-generated traffic will not be greater than one percent of the existing traffic during the 2.5 hour peak period on any leg of any of the critical intersections. C. USE PERMIT NO. 3278: Findings: 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. That the waiver of the take-out restaurant development standards as they relate to perimeter fencing and a portion of the required parking will be of no further detriment to adjacent properties inasmuch as the proposed drive-in and take-out restaurant is part of a larger integrated development which is not conducive to such standards, but is designed in a way that meets the purpose and intent of such design standards; and adequate parking is being provided on-site inasmuch as many customers will walk to the site from the surrounding offices. 3. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. 4. Adequate provision for traffic circulation will be made for the drive-in and take-out restaurant' facility. 5. That the use of two wall signs, one monument sign and one free standing menu sign, as well as the i use of two compact parking spaces will not, under the circumstances of this case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to -20- d -COMMISSIONERS • MINUTES O Atn�t��,ppU+p�d November 19, 1987 ' dui PNP N99,� G�F� O�i cn 1O CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH y ROLL CALL INDEX property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed modifications are consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. 6. The approval of Use Permit No. 3278 will not, under the circumstances of the case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. Conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations except as noted below. 2. That the parking lot shall be lighted in such a manner as to prove adequate illumination to all areas of the lot without causing any light or glare to impact adjacent properties. Said lighting shall include fixtures which match the existing light fixtures currently located on the site. 3. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from adjoining properties and from adjoining streets. 4. That the development standards pertaining to walls and 13 of the required parking spaces shall be waived. 5. That all signs shall conform to the General Sign Provisions of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development Standards except as approved in conjunction with this application. 6. That only two wall signs, one monument sign, and one freestanding menu sign shall be permitted. 7. That the proposed directional signs shall not exceed 6 square feet and shall not include the restaurant name or logo. -21- .. ., .. • • MINUTES COMMISSIONERS November 19, 1987 .p .o 'j' �•fit^ y s e dG;i^9 p'19i (^929''' ``y9 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2 INDEX ROLL CALL e. That the service of any alcoholic beverages in the unless take-out restaurant facility is prohibited an amended use permit is approved by the City. 9. Landscaping shall be regularly maintained free of weeds and debris. All vegetation shall be regularly trimmed and kept in a healthy condition, 10. That landscape plans shall be subject to review and approval of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department and Public Works Department. il. That the on-site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation r systems by b the Traffic ject to further review and approval Engineer. 12. The 72 off-street parking spaces (including 10 spaces in the drive-up stacking lane) shall be provided on the property in question. 13. That all employees shall park their vehicles on-site. 14. That trash receptacles for patrons shall be located in convenient locations inside and outside the building. 15. That a washout area for refuse containers be provided in such a way as to allow direct drainage into the sewer system and not into the by or the storm drains, unless otherwise approved Building Department. 16. That grease interceptors shall be provided on all grease fixtures in the restaurant facility where may be introduced into the drainage systems in accordance with the provisions of the Uni the formPlumbing Code, unless otherwise approved by Building Department. to 17. That exhaust fans shall be designed oved bytthe smoke and odor, unless otherwise approved Building Department. 18. That one bathroom for each sex shall be provided and shall be made readily available to patrons of the facility during all hours of operation. 19. That a trash compactor shall be installed and maintained. -22- n' COMMISSIONERS • MINUTES- November 19, 1987 y O At��c^�Da�NO�i9 yy�ot y C��9 y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 20. That all mechanical equipment shall be sound attenuated to 55 dBA at the property lines. 21. That all conditions of approval for Resubdivision No. 849 shall be fulfilled. 22. That the light system shall be designed, directed, and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a Licensed Electrical Engineer; with a letter from the Engineer stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met. 23. That the required number of handicapped parking spaces shall be designated solely for handicapped self parking and shall be identified in a manner acceptable to the City Traffic Engineer. Said parking spaces shall be accessible to the handicapped at all times. One handicapped sign on a post shall be required for each handicapped parking spaces. 24. This use permit shall expires unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 25. That the Planning Commission may add or modify conditions of approval to this use permit, or recommend to the City Council revocation of this use permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this use permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. D. RESUBDIVISION NO. 849 Findings: 1. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific plans and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 2. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. -23- O� COMMISSIONERS MINUTES q .0 o�a� November 19, 1987 ymo�'.- Q Oqq v 9c 9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 3. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. Conditions: 1. That a parcel map be recorded prior to issuance of Building Permits. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That the Fire Department connection for the adjacent office building shall be relocated so as not to be outside of the building footprint of the proposed drive-in and take-out restaurant. The applicant shall also provide a private easement for said Fire Department connection over Parcel No. 1 of the subject parcel map, for the benefit of Parcel No. 1 of Parcel Map 114/22-24 (office building site) . 4. That all conditions of approval for Use Permit No. 3278 shall be fulfilled. 5. That an easement for parking purposes be provided to the benefit of Parcel No. 1 over that portion of Parcel No. 2 where required parking spaces for the subject restaurant facility encroach over the proposed common parcel line. 6. That this resubdivision shall expire if the map has not been recorded within 3 years of the date of approval, unless an extension is granted by the Planning Commission. x -24- �,3 i L TRAFFIC PHASING ANALYSIS TACO BELL RESTAURANT PROJECT TACO BELL CORPORATION CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH' Herman illy Kimmel and Associates Tip pp1N!'llryp pONN{.TANTI APRK" 1990 L.n � Y ri rman mmel and Associates TRAFFIC ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS April 11, 1990 JN 700647 Ms. Patricia L. Temple Principal Planner CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768 Traffic Phasing Analysis Taco Bell Restaurant City of Newport Beach, California Dear Ms. Temple: In accordance with your written authorization, Herman Kimmel and Associates (HKA) performed a "Traffic Phasing Analysis" for the proposed Taco Bell Restaurant Project in the City of Newport Beach, California. The analysis was done to satisfy the requirements of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Project Description The planned Taco Bell restaurant is located in the northeast - corner of the intersection of Koll Center Drive and Jamboree Road, within the "Koll Center" area (see Exhibit 1-Location Map) . The restaurant is proposed to contain approximately 3, 609 square feet of building area and to provide breakfast service. Access to the site will be provided by Jamboree Road and MacArthur mmmlw� YEARS 0E - BEEYIOE A DIVISION OF 9obert'Behl,William 9%st 6&(!,9ssociates 3661 SPRUCE STREET• NEWPORT BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92660-2904 •(714)852.8616 •FAX(714)852-8857 '4� ,_ OFFICES IN IRVINE•CORONA• PALM DESERT•SAN DIEGO •TEMECULA �"' FmN0 SCALE S _ S 00 a 04 _ NEWPORT DRIVEWAY PLACE DR. GATES BOWSPRIT DR. PROJECT �'q/,Q �� SITE e4D O�Sr cc P Q LOCATION MAP GM Kimmel and Associates EXHIBIT 1 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING CC LTAN JN 700847 • • Boulevard via Koll Center Drive. The Project is expected to have occupancy in 1991. , Exhibit 2 illustrates the site plan for the proposed restaurant and the access relationship to Koll Center Drive. Trip Generation for Project Site In order to examine the potential impact of the proposed Project, it is necessary to estimate the number of vehicle trip ends that would be generated by the site. A trip end is defined as a one- way vehicular movement either entering or departing a particular land use. Each vehicle trip has two ends, one at its origin and one at its destination. - With regard to the Project site, trip generation rates were available from the City of Newport Beach for only the P.M peak hour (previous study) . Since the proposed restaurant will have breakfast service, the City Traffic Engineer requested that trip generation 'rates be established for the A.M. peak hour by using two test site restaurants. Therefore, existing two and a half hour A.M. peak hour volume trips generated by the Wiener- schnitzel (on Jamboree Road just north of Fairchild) and Carl's Junior (on Bristol Street) restaurants were collected and analyzed. Based on a discussion with the City Traffic Engineer, the Wienerschnitzel trip generation rates for both the A.M. and P.M. peak hours were used since the test site was located nearby to the Project site. In addition, it has similar design features, the same customer demand base and has close proximity to the - adjacent office complexes. The field data sheets for both test sites are contained in Appendix A of this report. Table 1 shows the two and half hour peak A.M. and P.M. volumes generated at the Wienerschnitzel restaurant. 2 [xIfT1Yl Mulll SrafV tU1t D1Ya I Cx�tTm aNIM DUYt Two) r—• I Q tivsv�.& rwo tcvtl —fit FARXIM4 SjfJLTVIt 7 , .t• V,[r[ � ��iC ie /v i s ban. • � VN tVY.•,�,•aWtY• = e Y T TRoon•tj rvote _Ta11 b • l A�C.F✓ ms+T - r•t.tww�J�� or NJ4jWnG a.[a..n 1.atK,gG - JA.necQce. BtVD• {LM. t[a bLL.w.Y M1i.a %{Ta• • . 11 t - - M1nN. utaY(o-Rl .i Wswrt ..ao n\� :f .r rtw. 1J •, Taa •u\L <� [4• �r. •n atw.+ - 1 can/ {a\{ao rva SITE PLAN � CCTION 1•lA EXHIBIT 2 ; TABLE 1 -- TRIP GENERATION DATA Land Use Time Trips In Trip Out (Wienerschnitzel) Restaurant 7:00 - 7:30 (AM) 15 3 7:30 - 8:00 (AM) 13 3 8:00 - 8:30 (AM) 16 23 8:30 - 9:00 (AM) 11 ] 6 9:00 - 9:30 (AM) 11 20 2 1/2 Hour Total 66 65 - 3:00 - 3 :30 (PM) 24 22 3:30 - 4:00 (PM) 22 27 4:00 - 4:30 (PM) 12 13 4:30 - 5:00 (PM) 20 16 5:00 - 5:30 (PM) 18 22 2 1/2 Hour Total 96 100 As indicated in Table 1, the Taco Bell restaurant is expected to generate 65 vehicles out and 66 vehicles into the site during the two and one-half A.M. peak hour and 100 vehicles out and 96 vehicles in during the two and one-half P.M. peak hour. Trip Distribution and Assignment of Site Generated Traffic The distribution and assignment of the forecast Project traffic volumes was based upon information obtained from the City Traffic Engineer. The distribution percentages were based on an earlier traffic study which was performed for the Project site. Exhibit 3 illustrates the expected geographical distribution of the Project traffic volumes, expressed as a percentage of the traffic data presented in Table 1. Exhibits 4 and 5 illustrate the Project traffic volume assignment -and distribution for the A.M. and P.M. hours, respectively, which results from using the previously mentioned geographic traffic distribution percentages. y 3 n� �. 25% 6016 NO SCALE AG �Q S 40 cc 09 Q 6% r Y 13% NEWPORT DRIVEWAY pQ PLACE DR. GATES �P 7% �► BOWSPRIT DR. PROJECT SITE - coRoti eR,sr s% o cF�Y�p<< Q LEGEND 20% 10% % = SOURCE OR DESTINATION GEOGRAPHIC TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION — Herman EXHIBIT 3 Kimmel and Associates TRAFFIC EN(iINEERINO CONSVLTAMS A .IPI 70pM7 NO SCALE q 40 f z r o o � NEWPORT N`yJ DRIVEWAY OQ� PLACE DR. GATES �P _ BOWSPRIT DR. 7 PRO ECTSITE AL r?� 9 JMDORee Rp LEGEND XX = AM-PEAK HOUR VOLUMES PROJECT TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT AM-PEAK HOUR VOLUMES Kimm em an el and Associates EXHIBIT 4 TRAFFIC EN INEERINO CONSULTANTS i M 7c 3� W FNMO SCALE `1 tr O V NEWPORT. of S DRIVEWAY pQ� PLACE DR. ?� tp GATES �P N BOWSPRIT DR. Sj� y PROJECT �a SITE �q RD. 1 � � e9�s�O�q'9,o • (�P� LEGEND 4� �--XX= PM-PEAK HOUR VOLUMES PROJECT TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT PM-PEAK HOUR VOLUMES ' Herman EXHIBIT 5 Kimmel and Associates TRAF-FIG ENCiiNEERINO CpN9VLTANT3 3y' Traffic Impact Analysis In conformance with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance of the City of Newport Beach, the City Traffic Engineer was contacted and asked to identify the critical intersections to be analyzed. The intersections which were identified for inclusion in this analysis are as follows: Jamboree Road at Campus Drive; Jamboree '} Road at Birch Street; Jamboree Road at Bristol Street; Jamboree j Road at Bristol Street North and Jamboree Road at MacArthur Boulevard. The first step in the analysis was the "One Percent" test. An intersection is defined as critical by the Ordinance when the fff Project traffic exceeds one percent of the existing plus approved (committed) Project traffic plus regional growth traffic on any approach to an intersection during the 2.5 hour peak period. A list of approved projects was provided by the City for inclusion in this analysis and is shown in Table 2. Since the Project is expected to be completed in 1991, the analyses were completed for 1992 as required by the Ordinance (2 year period) . Table 3 describes the regional traffic annual growth rates which were used to calculate the regional growth volumes for the "One Percent" test. The "One Percent" test analysis indicated that four of the five critical intersections will have Project traffic volumes below 1% of the total traffic volumes projected one year after Project completion during the A.M. and P.M. 2.5 hour peak traffic period on each leg of each critical intersection. The intersection of Jamboree Road and Birch Street did not pass the "One Percent" J test during the P.M 2.5 hour peak period , on the northbound d approach. The results of the "One Percent" test are summarized in Table 4 and the calculation sheets are contained in Appendix B of this report. Since the intersection of Jamboree Road and Birch Street did not pass the "One Percent" test an Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis was performed for the P.M. peak hour. Table 5 4 33 TABLE 2 APPROVED PROJECTS Project Approved Volume is _ Number All Projects on File Weighted by 001 Hughes Aircraft #1 100 Occupancy 002 Sunsetted 000 Occupancy 003 par West Savings and Loan 100 occupancy - 004 Superseded 000 $ Occupancy 005 Aeronutronic Ford 100 $ Occupancy 006 BAck Bay Office 100 Occupancy 007 Boyle Engineering 100 Occupancy 008 Cal Canadian Bank 100 Occupancy 009 Civic Plaza 099 Occupancy 010 Corporate Plaza 030 Occupancy 011 Koll Center Newport 100 Occupancy 012 MacArthur Court 100 Occupancy 013 Superseded 000 occupancy 014 Superseded 000 Occupancy 015 Orchard Office 100 Occupancy 016 Pacific Mutual Plaza 100 Occupancy _ 017 3701 Birch Office 100 t Occupancy 018 Newport Place 086 & Occupancy 019 Sunsetted 000 Occupancy 020 Bank of Newport 100 Occupancy 021 Bayside Square 100 $ Occupancy 022 Sea Island 100 Occupancy 023 Baywood Apartments 100 Occupancy 024 Harbor Point Homes 100 Occupancy 025 Roger's Gardens 100 Occupancy 026 Seaview Lutheran Plaza 100 Occupancy 027 Rudy Baron 100 occupancy 028 Quail Business Center 100 Occupancy 029 441 Newport Boulevard 100 Occupancy 030 Martha's Vineyard 100 occupancy 031 Valdez 000 Occupancy 032 Coast Business Center 100 occupancy 033 Koll Center Npt No. 1 TPP 000 Occupancy _ 034 See Projects 340 to 343 000 Occupancy 035 Ross Mollard 100 Occupancy 036 Sunsetted 000 Occupancy 039 Hughes Aircraft #2 100 Occupancy 040 Superseded 100 Occupancy 041 Flagship Hospital 100 Occupancy 042 Big Canyon 10 029 t Occupancy 043 Fun Zone 100 Occupancy 044 Marriot Hotel 100 Occupancy 045 St. Andrews Church 100 Occupancy 046 YMCA 000 t Occupancy 047 Allred Condos 100 Occupancy 048 Morgan Development 100 occupancy 049 Four Seasons Hotel 100 Occupancy 050 Univ Ath. Club TPP 4 Emkay 100 & Occupancy 051 Block 400 Medical 100 Occupancy _ 5 �� TABLE 2 (continued) APPROVED PROJECTS 053 See Projects 530 to 533 000 % Occupancy 054 Amend No. 1 MacArthur Court 052 % Occupancy 056 Amendment No. 2 Ford Aero. 100 % Occupancy 057 Carver Granville .Office 100 % Occupancy 058 Corona. Del Mar Homes 100 % Occupancy 059 Big Canyon Villa Apartments. 000 % Occupancy 060 1400 Dove Street 000 % Occupancy 061 1100 Quail Street 000 % Occupancy 062 Superseded 000 % Occupancy 063 Koll Center TPP Amend. 4A 000 % Occupancy 064 Sunsetted 000 % Occupancy 065 Rosan's Development 090 % occupancy 066 Block 500 Npt. Ctr. Project 100 $ Occupancy 068 Newport Aquatics Center 045 % Occupancy 069 2600 E. Coast Highway 100 % Occupancy 070 Jasmine Park '100 % Occupancy 071 Sunsetted 000 % Occupancy 072 Newporter Inn Expansion 100 % Occupancy r 073 Sunsetted 000 % Occupancy 074 Sunsetted 000 % Occupancy 075 Fashion Is Renaissance 100 % Occupancy 076 Sunsetted 000 % Occupancy 077 CDM Senior Project 100 % Occupancy 078 Point Del Mar 100 % Occupancy — 079 Pacific Club 100 % Occupancy 080 Sunsetted 000 % Occupancy 081 Newport Seacrest Apartments 100 % Occupancy 083 3800 Campus Dr. (M-Storage) 000 % Occupancy 084 Hoag Cancer Center 000 % Occupancy 085 Edwards Newport Center 000 % Occupancy 086 Seaside Apts. (Mesa II) 100 % Occupancy 087 Victoria Station (Office) 100 % Occupancy 088 3760 Campus Dr. (M-Storage) 000 % Occupancy 090 Superseded 000 % Occupancy 092 Mariners' Mile Marine Center 100 % Occupancy 093 15th Street Apartments 100 % Occupancy 094 Seaside Apartment III 100 % Occupancy 095 Npt. Bay Retirement Inn 000 % Occupancy 096 Newport Classic Inn 000 % Occupancy 097 Mariners' Church Expansion 000 % Occupancy 098 McLachlan-Newport Place 000 % Occupancy 099 1501 Superior Medical 000 % Occupancy . 100 Fashion Island #2 000 % Occupancy 101 Newporter Resort Expansion 000 % Occupancy 103 Newport Lido Medical Center 000 % Occupancy 104 Villa Point 000 % Occupancy 105 Shokrian 000 % Occupancy 106 15th Street Apartments 000 % Occupancy 107 Rockwell Expansion 000 % Occupancy 108 Andrew Restaurant 000 % Occupancy 109 Balboa/Washington 000 % Occupancy 6 3g TABLE 2 (continued) APPROVED PROJECTS 110 Newport Imports Restaurant 000 Occupancy ill 28th St. Marina Project 000 Occupancy 340 Amendment No. 1 Ford Aero 100 .% Occupancy 341 Amendment No. 1 Ford Aero 000 Occupancy 342 Amendment No. 1 Ford Aero 000 Occupancy 343 Amendment No. 1 Ford Aero 000 Occupancy 530 Amendment No. 1 North Ford 100 Occupancy _ 531 Amendment No. 1 North Ford 100 Occupancy 532 Amendment No. 1 North Ford 100 Occupancy 533 Amendment No. 1 North Ford 000 Occupancy 910 Newport Dunes 000 occupancy 920 Bayview 000 $ Occupancy 930 City of Irvine Development 000 Occupancy 7 TABLE 3 REGIONAL TRAFFIC ANNUAL GROWTH RATE COAST HIGHWAY East City limit to MacArthur Boulevard 4 T MacArthur Boulevard to Jamboree Road 2 $ Jamboree Road to Newport Boulevard 1 Newport Boulevard to West City Limit 2.5% IRVINE AVENUE .. All 1.5% JAMBOREE ROAD Coast Highway to MacArthur 1 % MACARTHUR BOULEVARD Coast Highway to Jamboree Road 5 % Jamboree Road to North City Limits 1 % NEWPORT BOULEVARD Coast Highway to North City Limits 1 % Street segments not listed have 0% regional growth. 8 3? l # # ,.� TABLE 4 ONE PERCENT TEST RESULTS ^I FOR CRITICAL INTERSECTION APPROACHES Intersection 2.5 Hour Peak Period Percentages -. 1991 .1 . NB SB EB WB III Pro-posed Project AM PM AM . PM AM PM AM PM jJamboree Road/Campus Drive 0.8 0.6 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.3 3 Jamboree. Road/Birch Street 0.8 1.0 0.4, 0.9 0.7 0.3 - - ' Jamboree Road/Bristol Street 0.2 0.3 0.7 0.6 0.1 0.1 - iu Jamboree Road/Bristol Street North 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.4 - - - - Jamboree Road/MacArthur Boulevard 0.2 0.5 - - 0.4 0.8 0.8 0.8 Note: NB = Northbound intersection approach SB = Southbound EB = Eastbound JWB = Westbound .J • IJ 9 p 3 d TABLE 5 *� INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) SUMMARY - 1991 + Existing 1989 Existing + Regional Existing + Regional + Approved Intersection ICU + Approved + Project Jamboree Road/ Birch Street 0.46 0.62 0.63 r summarizes the results of the ICU analysis for three traffic conditions. As noted, the intersection would have an acceptable ICU value less than 0.90. No ICU analyses were, required for the other four critical intersections since all of them passed the ;.� "One Percent" test. The ICU analysis sheets are contained in Appendix C of this report. Mitigation Measures 1 Since four of the five identified critical intersections passed J the "One Percent" test and the fifth intersection passed the ICU test, no mitigation measures are required for the proposed Taco Bell Restaurant Project. ] Onsite Circulation and Parking 1 A review of the proposed site plan indicates that no operational J problems are expected with the proposed design. Also, there are l adequate parking spaces to accommodate the expected peak period JI parking demand. Site Access The proposed Project was also reviewed in terms of the location and adequacy of the site access points. Based upon a review of the existing roadway systems, the proposed access designs and the projected traffic volumes, it was determined that the access l points are adequate to handle the forecasted traffic volumes. 10 39 •� Further, no operational problems are anticipated at any of the access points. Summary This traffic phasing analysis has examined the potential traffic impacts of the proposed Taco Bell Restaurant Project in the City of Newport Beach, California. The analysis was completed to conform to the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Existing plus approved projects plus regional growth traffic were considered in addition to Project traffic. Based upon these stated traffic conditions, the proposed Project will have no adverse traffic y� impacts at any of the five identified critical intersections. In conclusion, it can be stated that the proposed Taco Bell Restaurant Project can be safely implemented under existing and future traffic - conditions. Four of the five critical intersections passed the "One Percent" test while the fifth intersection passed the ICU test at an acceptable Level of Service. i Thank you for selecting Herman Kimmel and Associates to, prepare this Traffic Phasing Analysis. If you have any questions, ^l regarding our evaluation and analysis or .need further J information, please do not hesitate to contact me at (714) 852- y 8616. Very truly yours, 012,� � gwtm ',E- , QVofESS/py �QROfESS/p�A! Dennis D. Barnes, P.E. Bq e�O D. Director ��,y� y����1\90• Bg9yNFy� Transportation Studies O m i a No,1171 m i W No. C 041454 m W DDB:go *. Exp.12 3191 * * Exp, M-91 Attachments 'r�glF 50, CI IL 0���� �fglF OF CAL OF CAME ail 11 APPENDICES Vi APPENDIX A TEST SITES PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC COUNTS I APR- 6-90 FRI 11 TRAFFIC COUNTS 7144,67231 P . 02 t`t�zF.L �lt't��ss.tC °-TU reS. — � MAu o,.. 1 3 Ln o 92s r� co o d t •�N f"1'C� O� OO (- ft1 11 • YO • M1M•� t� 1V yV V•1 • J • i 'TVYv • rv � .. •r�r/ '1�..xp.`�'1c:Uh..�:' W���� �� �-�-�C'7"-.'/�.l.�:r• �• -- - �4'1'�! Y- 'J �QL) vl. vt4R to a(cy - Pp <i I &I to yr 10 Our lkj o O n « co ''7� IS � r�'•1 � U D 170 r7 Vr • � I aoc- ; i �-- 1 ! � • M , ` ..• i `j �..._. .._. . Fri- �. to ' ���� � , `�\�G•Y♦ �.__.. i U LL i .1........LL ri y Y —Fz-c:> 9 n I ' I _ Y � 1 I I APR- 10-90 TUE 14 : 33 TRAFFIC CUUNI5 a4�r rya . . . ..--- �1J1.'A.'CIOt.�.'��'i'D�,`.-�' � �� �/•.��'d-� �L��U2�COI'�'I�4'1'�'�' .qD ID lAf DO Ilk- lS Fil R PM1R-- i1 'fOQy—�')r+'�f�7TUE�..�.14�: 53I 12R11- SC l:V(U��1VJ`1^r5 f34(a^4^}b fGa1'+Lq '(�1r . .uo..-„ ........ , 7 ` 1dI�..J.'7.�"-1'�1���I Y� �+'�`^S.r�'+.1K• ��L�1`�a.-`tl.1l C• � l 11CKf.1 r to �. � t - O ,•t•,� r r,3a z A P/.R-10--90 TU ,E `,{�14 3 TRA FFICl�'r�C�OiUNTS �7/14�64{S7�251 W.y la-4 ^ /AI Od1, ppJ lr-r b r ` �•� to { $•�' a- 3 q:ao O - q:,45 q: Is �- 0 - , 00 s-ro • � t 3 i APPENDIX B ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS SHEETS r• L L W v ' Sd 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/CAMPUS DR (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter Spring 19 9 AM Peak 2� Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2, Hour Peak 2> Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume __ I Northbound 2481 50 720 3251 32 24 sorthbound 3933 79 1741 5753 1 58 1. Eastbound_ INestbound 13 306 971 0 i 4 652 32220 45 3 i 2600 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected n 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: April 11, 1990 PROJECT: Taco Bell Restaurant-, Project--. FORM I S� • . t J 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD CAMPUS DR � ('Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage inter pring 9 8� •PM Peak 2h, Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Protects Projected 1� Protected Protect Peak 2 Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2y Hour k Hour Peak 2�, Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 3916 79 1773 5768 58 36 Southbound 3897 78 776 4751 24 Eastbound 2083 42 186 _ 2311 23 i 5 Westbound 1543 31 97 1671 17 — 5 x Project Traffic is estimated' to be less than 1% of Projected • • • rim Peak 2h 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: April 11,_ 1990 PROJECT: Taco Bell Restaurant Project r7 G FORM 1 S?- 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/BIRCH sT (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pring 19 9'9_ AM Peak 211 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 21, Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2k Hour �— Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 51 683 3253 2519_ , Southbound 4595 _ 92 1969 6656 66 23 Eastbound 546 11 69 626 I 6 i 4 i 1 Westbound 10 0 0 10 0 nI Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected " Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected El Peak 23-2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization �- (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: April 11, 1990 PROJECT: Taco Bell Restaurant Project FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/BIRCH ST' (Existing Traffic Vol-u-m-e—s -Fa—Sed on, Average inter pr ng 19 _ pM Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing' Regional Projects Projected In of Protected Project Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2� Hour Peek 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume FVolume Northbound 2402 48 1642 4092 41 41 Southbound 3147 — 63 818 4028 40 34 Eastbound 1474 30 146 1650 16 i 5 Westbound 34 1 0 35 0 0 _ _ 1 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected - Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume w Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected �] Peak 23k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: April 11, 1990 PROJECT: Taco Bell Restaurant Project µ` FORM 1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/BRISTOL ST (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on Average winter/Spring iv 89 AM Peak 2h Hour Approved Existing Regional Projects Projec Peak 1% of Projected Project Approach Growth Peak 24 Hour Peak 2)1 Hour Direction Peak Hour Pk 211 Hour Peak 2k Hour 211 Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 5669 114 769 6552 65 I 13 Southbound 830 17 753 1600 16 1 11 Eastbound 6335 127 1225 7687 77 !3 Westbound — — 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.... n Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE. April 11 , 1990 PROJECT: Taco Bell Restaurant Project -- FORM I • J _ 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/BRISTOL ST (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pring 9 89 PM Peak 211 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected l0.,of Projected Project Lirection Peak 2k Nour Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2� Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume I • Northbound 5141 103 878 6122 61 19 sorthbound 48 50 714 3244 32 18 EEastbound 99 1091 6113 j 61 1 4 4923 , Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected —0 Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ' Peak 231 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization al sis is (I.C.U.) An required.y DATE: April 11, 1990 PROJECT: Taco Bell Restaurant Project — FORM I _ 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/BRISTOL ST N (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average nter pring iV L21 AM Peak 24 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1n of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2h, Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2u Hour Peak 2u Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume I Northbound 8819 177 857 9853 98 13 Southbound 808 36 874 2718 27 14 — Eastbound Westbound 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: April 11, 1990 PROJECT: Taco Bell Restaurant Project FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/BRISTOL ST N , (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on Average Winter/Spring 19 89 PM ,Peak 211 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Fft�arkol ect Direction Peak 24 Hour Growth Peak 2k,Hour Peak 2$ Hour Peak 24 Hour k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume volume ume I Northbound 6866 138 1005 8009 80 19 Southbound 4154 83 1,008 5245 52 22 Eastbound — — — — — — i Westbound Project Traffic is estimated to .be less than 1% of Projected © Peak 2;1 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. M L DATE: April 11, 1990 PROJECT Taco Bell Restaurant Project ect FORM T ��` 54 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD MACARTHUR BL (Existing Traffic Volumes based on verage Winter/Spring 19 89) AM Peak 231 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected In of Projected Project Direction Peak 2J, Hour Growth Peak 2u, Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 211 Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume -Volume Volume Volume I Northbound 2119 217 467 2803 28 I 6 southbound 896 92 900 1888 19 i 0 Eastbound 3363 68 i 1063 4494 1 45 i 16 Westbound 1746 35 693 2474 25 21 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 23-2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: April 11, 1990 PROJECT: Taco Bell Restaurant Project FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis intersection JAMBOREE RD/MA.CARTHUR BL (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage Inter pring 9 _ PM Peak 211 Hour ApprovedPro Approach Existing Regional peak 2ProjecHour Peak 2�Sts cHouh ted 1Peak 2y Projected Fftaki Direction Peak 2�S Hour Growth Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume bound 1802 18 North 4 9 9 1182 121 Southbound 3000 308 739 4047 L Eastbound 1927 _ 39 _ 827 279 28 ' Westbound 3337 67 920 4324' 43 _ 32 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ,.,. Pr oject Peak 2h 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: April 11, 1990 P Project PROJECT: 1 Restaurant Pro Taco Bell 7 FORM I 6 APPENDIX C INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS J J l J 1 �r a J' JA4308PH 0 • INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD L BIRCH STREET 4308 ______ __ ---------------- _______________________________ __-_ --------- - 1989 PH �j EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 11 .' 1 IEKI STING IPROPOSEDIEKISTINGIE%ISTINGI REGIONAL ICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI IMovementl Lanes I lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT ( V/C Ratio IVoluna I V/C I IcapacitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume Iw/o Projectl I Ratio I 1 1 I I I I I I Volume I I NL 1 1600 1 1 54 1 0.03 * I I O.0361 • S I 041 J ------------------oar ---------i---- i ---f--------- Q:--- I I 22 82 --0, 112 36 1 4101 Nr I i i NR- ------------------------ ---------------_----- ---------� i ------------I i SL 1 1600 1 1 3 1 0.00 i 1 0 1 A 0 1, 0 '-- 1;IE I------------ ---- --,---- ---------------------------------------------- --------------- I II _ 34-10.32sr i asoo I I 111z ) o.u * 22 i3830316 --------------------------------- ! : SR IH.S..S. I 1 1931 I J ; 4iI44 1 i1 0 1 ------------------------------------------------ -- -- ------- - - ---�---- EL 591 010209II -1K 3200 ---------------- 0.19i--- -- '. �7. 4 ?A .- I ET I i ----- -----I l ER I ---- i 1 139I 13 I 7----"------------------I I I... - ' 'i- 1 4 1 - 1 0 1 1 0 1 i I __ ---I I Wr 16001 I 3 0.01 * I' 0 ( O. U,V' Q 10, uR Q(o1� -- -- - --- -- I I ------) 1 1 i ) I 1 0 1 1 0 I wo 1 _-'_'----'•_--"--•--'--_- '-- '_-•---'---'-••---...'--• (EXISTING i 0.46 1------------------------------------------------------------------------ J (EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0,6z I _i1 __________________________________________________________________ _ (EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 10.631 -----------------------------------------------______________________________ ' Projected + project traffic I.C.U. Will be less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. Will be greater than 0.90 Projected + project traffic I.C.U, w/systems Inprovement will be less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will JJJ be less than I.C.U. without project ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Description of system improvement: /Qco i ea &S74y-t-anf i PROJECT FORM [2 I I ! FILED PO JUL 10 1987 CITY OF NEWPORT BEAC RY L. G L ou�N Q* u S 11.0. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658.8915 BY MUM NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO: Office of Planning and Research FROM: Planning Department El1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 City of Newport Beach Sacramento, CA 95814 P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 County Clerk of the County of Orange El P.O. Box 838 Santa Ana, CA 92702 NAME OF PROJECT: Koll Center Taco Bell __ Use 'Permit No. 3278, Resubdivision No. 849, PROJECT LOCATION: 4101 Jamboree Boulevard, Newport Beach, California PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request to permit the construction of a drive-in and take-away res- taurant facility with indoor and outdoor seating areas. FINDING: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council Policy K-3 pertaining to procedures' and guidelines to implement the California Environmental quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. MITIGATION MEASURES: Please see the attached sheets. INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY: The City of Newport Beach INITIAL STUDY AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT: 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: [:: !EnvironmPnta1 CoordinaEor L#&JL' DJuly 2, 1987 JUL 101987 RY L. G unty CkAc, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport BeachWy BERG`/5�j3 APPENDIX I ENVIRONMENTAL CHECYLIST FORM Environmental Checklist Form (To Be Completed By Lead Agency) I. Background 1. Name of Proponent Taco Bell Corporation, Western Region 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent 1950 East 17th•Street, suite #200 Santa Ana, California 92701 _ (714) 953-3820 3. Date of Checklist Submission �Iuly 2. 1987 4. Agency Requiring Checklist The City of Newport Beach S.. Name of Proposal, if applicable Koll 'Center Taco Bell II. Environmental Impacts • (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required an attached sheets.) YES MAYBE ND 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, com- paction or overcovering of the soil? _ c. Change in topography or ground ' surface relief features.? d. The destruction, covering or modi- 'figation of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands„ or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? 73 I . • YES HAYBE NO g. Exposure of people or property to geological hazards such as earth— quakes, landslides„mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deteri— oration of ambient air quality? ' b. The creation of objectionable odors? C. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 9. Water. Will the proposal •result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of pater movements, in either / ,marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates., drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? c. Alterations to the course of flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any'water body? e. Discharge into surface waters or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? I. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct addi- tions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts- or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of •water otherwise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? 74 �/ t� YES MAYBE No 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants).? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species, of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles. , fish and shellfish, benthic organisms. or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of ani— mals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? %/ _ b. Exposure of people to severe noise ' levels? 7. Liyht and Glare. Will the proposal produce / new light or glare? _ ]L� g. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? 75 �� YF.S NAYRE H0 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? b. Substantial depletion of any non- renewable natural resource? .10. Risk of Lipset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of on accident or upset conditions? 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? �L c.- Substantial impact upon existing . transportation systems? A. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? ; / e. Alteratioas to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazardous to motor vehicles, bicyclists or .pedestrians? 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the follewing areas: /y 76 �A/ r • PPE-2A:24 4 + YES NAYAE NO/ a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c: Schoold? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. maintenance of public facilities. including roads? f. Other governmental services? 15. Energy* Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. ,Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of epergy, or •require the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a w need for new systemsm or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? V b. communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: ' a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation' of an aesthetically offensive site open. to public view? 8 77 � YES MAYBE No 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quatity or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Archeological/Historical. Will thr. proposal result in an alteration of a significant archeological or historical " site, structure, object or building? 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the. project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal' community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? �• b. Does the project have the potential to. achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term. environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief definitive period of time while long— term impacts will -endure well into the future.) c. Does the project -have impacts which are individually limited, but cumu- latively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation IV. Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency) 78 On the basis of this initial evaluation: Q I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will ' be prepared. ® I find that although the proposed project could .have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation "assures described on an attsthed sheet have .been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 0 I find the proposed project MAY have a significant -effect' on the environment. and an ENVIRONNENIAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Signature ✓��� Date rot The City of Newport Beach (Note: This is only a 4u86ested form. Public agencies are free to devise I� their own format for initial studies.) /O 79 KOLL CENTER TACO BELL USE PERMIT NO. 3278; RESUBDIVISION NO. 849 ; TRAFFIC STUDY lb. The proposed project will result in some little disrup- tion, displacement, compaction, or overcovering of the soil. However, given the present nature of the site, predominantly flat and at grade, these effects will be insignificant. 2b. The proposal may result in the creation of objectionable odors during the course of construction due to the construction materials and methods. The project is small in scope and such effects shall be eliminated upon completion of the project and are, therefore, insig- nificant. 6a. Implementation of the proposal shall result in temporary increases in existing noise levels during the course of construction. The small scope of the project will require a short construction time, and the project site is not located adjacent to residential uses or other noise sensitive land uses. The effects shall be alleviated upon completion, and no significant effects are anticipated. 7. The proposed project will produce new light and glare, yet the effects shall not significantly effect neighbor- ing office • structures given the nature of their land usage and upon compliance with mitigation measures incorporated into the project. 13a. The proposal may result in the generation of additional vehicular movement. Traffic studies have estimated that the traffic generated by restaurants average 150 trips per day per 1,000 square feet of development; that retail uses generate approximately 40 trips per day per 1,000 square feet; and office usage produces about 13 trips per day per 1,000 square feet of development. In addition, these studies have also shown that each of these three types of activities have similar "peak" characteristics for both lunchtime and after work vehicular movement resulting from any conversion of office space to commercial support activities (i.e. , restaurants and retail usage) , given the location and size of the planned community, we feel the opposite (a reduction in additional vehicular movement) will occur. With the inclusion of support activities within an established office area, traffic both within and from the site will decrease due to the availability of these services within walking distance of their locale of employment. Additionally, the presence within the 7/ 0 0 x . . � planned community should not generate a significant volume of traffic from without the complex's boundaries as a new destination point, but rather to service the existing volume along Jamboree Avenue. In fact, the traffic study performed specifically for this project indicates only 96 trips in and 100 trips out will occur during peak hours with the implementation of this project. As a result, given these physical considera- tions, we expect the traffic volume not to significantly increase, rendering the effect insignificant. 13b. The proposed project will have an effect upon the existing parking facilities, and result in' a demand for new parking. Given the same considerations discussed above (please see 13a) , we , would expect parking demand not to increase significantly, rendering the effect insignificant. 16d. Implementation of the proposal may result in the need for an alteration of the existing sewer system resulting from the typical generation of waste water and grease runoff produced by restaurant operations (not inherent in office operations now surrounding) . Yet, upon compliance with mitigation measures, these effects shall be reduced to a level of insignificance. 18. The• proposal may result in the creation of an aestheti- cally offensive site open to public view. However, these effects shall be rendered insignificant upon compliance with mitigation measures. BBB:jm A2\TACOBELL.EIR, 2 9� MITIGATION MEASURES 1.7 . That the light system shall be designed, directed, and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a Licensed Electrical Engineer; with a letter from the Engineer stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met. 2.16d. Grease interceptors shall be installed on all I fixtures in any restaurant facility where grease may be introduced into the drainage systems in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Plumbing Code, unless otherwise approved by the Newport Beach Building Department. Grease inter- ceptors shall be located in such a way as to be easily accessible for routine cleaning and inspec- tion. 3 .18. That all trash enclosures shall be screened from adjacent properties. 4.18. That only one (1) wall sign and one (1) monument .sign shall be permitted. 5. 18-. That all signs shall conform to the General Sign Provision of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community Standards except as otherwise provided. BBB:jm A2\TACOBELL.EIR 3 - • . 14 POR m % CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH U } � P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659-1768 c"c,FOR PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225 February 1, 1990 Steve Abbott Area Construction Manager Southern California Zone Taco Bell Corp. 17901 Von Karman Irvine, CA 92714 Subject: Traffic Engineering Analysis, Taco Bell Restaurant Jamboree Road and Koll Center Drive Dear Mr. Abbott: The City of Newport Beach has received a proposal from Herman Kimmel and Associates, for traffic engineering services required for the preparation of a traffic phasing analysis for the Taco Bell project at Jamboree Road and Koll Center Drive. The proposal contains an outline of the scope of work required, approximate schedule of same, and estimated budget required for the preparation. 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 $ 4,950 City Fees (10%) 495 Total Request: $ 5,445 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. HEWI-C—K—E-R, Director By �Cl�li t c�r� LUI Patricia Temple Principal Planner Attachment F\JM\PLT\TACOBELL.TPO 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach r erman Kimmel and Associates TRAFFIC ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS RECEIVED BY January 31, 1990 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AM JAN 3 11990 PM "j18A1001112111213141516 City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768 Attention Ms. Patty Temple Proposal - Traffic Engineering Analysis JN 700647 Taco Bell Restaurant Jamboree Road and Koll Center Drive City of Newport Beach Dear Ms. Temple: In accordance with your request, we are submitting this letter proposal for Traffic Engineering Services which are required for the preparation of a traffic phasing analysis at the subject location. Herman Kimmel and Associates (HKA) will contact the City of Newport Beach Traffic Engineer to determine the extent of the required traffic study. A field review of the site will be conducted, and traffic volume data collected from the City for daily volumes and peak hour turning movement volumes at those locations identified by City staff. We will then determine the trip generation characteristics for the site and distribute the traffic volumes generated by the proposed restaurant to analyze the impacts of the Project on the adjacent circulation system. Any mitigation measures required as a result of the Project will be identified in accordance to the City's traffic phasing ordinance. A DIVISION OF`I bbeft DdQ,`William WRost a4ssociates 3661 SPRUCE STREET• NEWPORT BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92660 •(714)852-8616 • FAX(714)852-8857 OFFICES IN IRVINE• RANCHO CALIFORNIA• PALM DESERT•SAN DIEGO Page 2 January 31, 1990 City of Newport Beach Ms. Patty Temple The product of our work will be a written report which documents our work effort and contains the necessary graphics in the City's required format. HKA will submit five copies of the final report to the City of Newport Beach. COMPENSATION Based on the scope of services outlined above, we can perform the traffic study for a total fixed fee of $4,950. 00. This fee would not include attendance at public hearings, Planning Commission and/or City Council hearings that may be held. Such attendance, if requested, would be invoiced separately at our current rate of $170.00 per hour with a minimum charge of four hours. Revised or added tasks will be considered as extra work, and billed in accordance with our current hourly fee schedule (see attachment) . No extra work will be performed without your prior written authorization. SCHEDULE HKA is aware of the need to complete the traffic study within a reasonable time period. Based on our projected work backlog, HKA estimates it can complete the draft traffic study within twenty working days after receiving the notice to proceed. r } y Page 3 January 31, 1990 City of Newport Beach Ms. Patty Temple * * Thank you for considering Herman Kimmel and Associates to support you on this Project. We look forward to working with you. If you have any questions regarding this proposal, please contact me at (714) 852-8616. Respectfully submitted, HERMAN KIMMELc\�J`A�ND A�S77S'O.,CIAT,ES Dennis D. Barnes, P.E. irector Transportation Studies DB:blj\647.cnb v rman mmel and Associates TRAFFIC ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS RATE SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1990 (REVISED) HOURLY RATES PRINCIPAL $125 PROJECT DIRECTOR 100 PROJECT ENGINEER/SENIOR ENGINEER 80 DESIGN ENGINEER/TECH 5 70 ENGINEER/TECH 4 60 ENGINEER/TECH 3 50 TECH 2 45 SECRETARY/WORDPROCESSING 30 TECH 1 30 ADDITIONAL CHARGES (1) Rates for consultation in connection with litigation will be at the rate of $250.00 per hour. (2) Public appearance before commissions and councils will be $150. 00 per hour (FOUR HOUR MINIMUM) . (3) Other rates shall be based on the complexity of the work and will be charged as agreed upon. (4) Blueprinting, reproduction, messenger service and other direct expenses will be charged at cost. Rates subject to change without notice. Invoices are payable upon receipt. AOIVISIONOF`tbberl'Bent,` Villiam 9%st 0C,9ssociates 3661 SPRUCE STREET• NEWPORT BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92660 •(714)852-8616 • FAX(714)852-8857 OFFICES IN IRVINE• RANCHO CALIFORNIA• PALM DESERT• SAN DIEGO 66 1eo- 1 FILE C WY 1 1 TRAFFIC PHASING ANALYSIS 1 i 1 TACO BELL RESTAURANT PROJECT TACO BELL CORPORATION i 1 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1 1 em,an Kimmel and Associates 1 j�' TM wn AM, 1990 1 1 i I r rman mmel and Associates TRAFFIC ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS ' April 11, 1990 JN 700647 Ms. Patricia L. Temple Principal Planner ' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768 Traffic Phasing Analysis Taco Bell Restaurant ' City of Newport Beach. California ' Dear Ms. Temple: In accordance with your written authorization, Herman Kimmel and ' Associates (HKA) performed a "Traffic Phasing Analysis" for the proposed Taco Bell Restaurant Project in the City of Newport ' Beach, California. The analysis was done to satisfy the requirements of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Project Description ' The planned Taco Bell restaurant is located in the northeast corner of the intersection of Koll Center Drive and Jamboree ' Road, within the "Koll Center" area (see Exhibit 1-Location Map) . The restaurant is proposed to contain approximately 3,609 square ' feet of building area and to provide breakfast service. Access to the site will be provided by Jamboree Road and MacArthur data 19 a9 s 101111 YE�AS SAAV OR A DIVISION OF `Xobeft°Beill,'William '7h-ost 0c54ssociates 3661 SPRUCE STREET• NEWPORT BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92660-2904 •(714)852-8616 • FAX(714)852.8857 OFFICES IN IRVINE •CORONA• PALM DESERT•SAN DIEGO •TEMECULA ' NO SCALE �J_• C i Q�� s Qo• S 4D a �9• NEW ' a a � o PLACEORT DR. J DRIVEWAY 1 GATES BOWSPRIT DR. PROJECT ' SITE h� o°9oy eR�sT � � oho s cc 1 . r � Pao 1 ' LOCATION MAP 1 Herman EXHIBIT 1 Kimmel and Associates TRAFFIC EN INEERIN CC ULTMl JN 700647 1 ' Boulevard via Koll Center Drive. The Project is expected to have occupancy in 1991. Exhibit 2 illustrates the site plan for the proposed restaurant and the access relationship to Koll Center Drive. Trip Generation for Project Site In order to examine the potential impact of the proposed Project, ' it is necessary to estimate the number of vehicle trip ends that would be generated by the site. A trip end is defined as a one- way vehicular movement either entering or departing a particular land use. Each vehicle trip has two ends, one at its origin and one at its destination. ' With regard to the Project site, trip generation rates were available from the City of Newport Beach for only the P.M peak hour (previous study) . Since the proposed restaurant will have ' breakfast service, the City Traffic Engineer requested that trip generation 'rates,*be established for the A.M. peak hour by using two test site restaurants. Therefore, existing two and a half ' hour A.M. peak hour volume trips generated by the Wiener- schnitzel (on Jamboree Road just north of Fairchild) and Carl 's ' Junior (on Bristol Street) restaurants were collected and analyzed. Based on a discussion with the City Traffic Engineer, the Wienerschnitzel trip generation rates for both the A.M. and P.M. ' peak hours were used since the test site was located nearby to the Project site. In addition, it has similar design features, ' the same customer demand base and has close proximity to the adjacent office complexes. The field data sheets for both test ' sites are contained in Appendix A of this report. Table 1 shows the two and half hour peak A.M. and P.M. volumes generated at the Wienerschnitzel restaurant. ' 2 1 L1�4TIY4 MYLI• STOfV NYIl O1N{ ' ('� C X.4Tu4 I t {MIK 04VL TM4l �aIV11 -- Z tY1ST•N4 TYO LLVq _ l..F.•.b f4R1G44 STXJCTust 0 :x + _- {tr.' P sifi`(wm Vu,q Y/ P • 41a11 TY M Y 4NI J% a a1 a{�• !•�naeJa• �'Y S ' iIR,°cev Dc}�. •J G •� U V � � :14LM1T.W R•aN , •t 'aa—...wTL -_ .e•aa•a.:c. are _... ... ... .� ' _,^•i 3 i ' K•. KV YV `• Mt•� • � n'N.na� a + .f A.C. /4vLKlNT� rouc•,wrK wo�.N , PgeK1PIG JXmbom C 5LVC. {L04./ta/• KYNP�Na HTwa a4eTY tk- /gRMIN. fVV1OlO•T✓ 4a a1.,lG4- / r< am Nav � iwwav�w nw a.::lwv.urt wau :.• w•nKX gLa<N!o-N a.aa •ao• <nww✓Tv rt+n. tJ ./ vaea. •`d• •'a TNL wu !� raa •+ I nN!/ 4etesu N.T7 Hr a1N1.J1. L{.e•C LIGK L•N• T: SITE PLAN 6 EXHIBIT 2 TABLE 1 TRIP GENERATION DATA Land Use Time Trips In Trip Out ' (Wienerschnitzel) Restaurant ' 7:00 - 7:30 (AM) 15 3 7:30 - 8:00 (AM) 13 3 8: 00 - 8:30 (AM) 16 23 8:30 - 9:00 (AM) 11 16 9: 00 - 9:30 (AM) 11 20 2 1/2 Hour Total 66 65 ' 3:00 - 3:30 (PM) 24 22 3:30 - 4:00 (PM) 22 27 ' 4:00 - 4:30 (PM) 12 13 4:30 - 5:00 (PM) 20 16 5:00 - 5:30 (PM) 18 22 ' 2 1/2 Hour Total 96 100 ' As indicated in Table 1, the Taco Bell restaurant is expected to generate 65 vehicles out and 66 vehicles into the site during the two and one-half A.M. peak hour and 100 vehicles out and 96 vehicles in during the two and one-half P.M. peak hour. Trip Distribution and Assignment of Site Generated Traffic The distribution and assignment of the forecast Project traffic volumes was based upon information obtained from the City Traffic ' Engineer. The distribution percentages were based on an earlier traffic study which was performed for the Project site. Exhibit 3 illustrates the expected geographical distribution of ' the Project traffic volumes, expressed as a percentage of the traffic data presented in Table 1. Exhibits 4 and 5 illustrate the Project traffic volume assignment -and distribution for the ' A.M. and P.M. hours, respectively, which results from using the previously mentioned geographic traffic distribution percentages. 3 1 U , 25% 1 m s% NO P 9,hi0Gs s 1 13% 6% a U Q a � O NEWPORT DRIVEWAY PLACE DR. J OQ� 1 GATES 7% BOWSPRIT DR. PROJECT C QO� SITE y� 1 cpR tie ��� to 3% cF'L�/ro << (�P LEGEND 20% lU% % = SOURCE OR DESTINATION 1 GEOGRAPHIC TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION i 1 Herman EXHIBIT 3 Kimmel and Associates TRAFFIC ENOINEERINO CONSULTANTS M 70DO47 1 U 1 i r m NO SCALE Q C r� ilry �ipGs O F f� OIL VI 1 Q �► � ryb ' NEWPORT " PLACE DR. , N�O DRIVEWAY OQ� ' ­4 a, ' GATES BOWSPRIT DR. PROJECT r ,� SITE 1 c0 9o�e'��sv�/�h MBOREE no. ? �( R LEGEND XX = AM-PEAK HOUR VOLUMES PROJECT TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT ' AM-PEAK HOUR VOLUMES t-�erman EXHIBIT 4 ' Kimmel and Associates TRAFFIC ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS JN 700647 1 ' I �I U v m NO SCALE Q C " 9�A 1 s 40 � coo ' NEWPORT. PLACE DR. of e J DRIVEWAY OQ� GATES ,P BOWSPRIT DR. PROJECT , t ,8 SITE q ' 6 40F< LEGEND 1 9� �•-.XX= PM-PEAK HOUR VOLUMES' ' PROJECT TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT PM-PEAK HOUR'VOLUMES ' t-�erman EXHIBIT 5 Kimmel and Associates TRN"FIC EN6INEERINO CONSULTMITS JN 700647 ' Traffic Impact Analysis ' In conformance with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance of the City of Newport Beach, the City Traffic Engineer was contacted and asked to identify the critical intersections to be analyzed. The intersections which were identified for inclusion in this analysis are as follows: Jamboree Road at Campus Drive; Jamboree ' Road at Birch Street; Jamboree Road at Bristol Street; Jamboree Road at Bristol Street North and Jamboree Road at MacArthur Boulevard. The first step in the analysis was the "One Percent" test. An intersection is defined as critical by the Ordinance when the Project traffic exceeds one percent of the existing plus approved ' (committed) Project traffic plus regional growth traffic on any approach to an intersection during the 2.5 hour peak period. A ' list of approved projects was provided by the City for inclusion in this analysis and is shown in Table 2. Since the Project is ' expected to be completed in 1991, the analyses were completed for 1992 as required by the Ordinance (2 year period) . Table 3 describes the regional traffic annual growth rates which were ' used to calculate the regional growth volumes for the "One Percent" test. ' The "One Percent" test analysis indicated that four of the five ' critical intersections will have Project traffic volumes below 1% of the total traffic volumes projected one year after Project ' completion during the A.M. and P.M. 2.5 hour peak traffic period on each leg of each critical intersection. The intersection of Jamboree Road and Birch Street did not pass the "One Percent" ' test during the P.M 2.5 hour peak period - on the northbound approach. The results of the "One Percent" test are summarized ' in Table 4 and the calculation sheets are contained in Appendix B of this report. Since the intersection of Jamboree Road and Birch Street did not ' pass the "One Percent" test an Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis was performed for the P.M. peak hour. Table 5 ' 4 ' TABLE 2 APPROVED PROJECTS ' Project Approved Volume is Number All Projects on File Weighted by 001 Hughes Aircraft #1 100 % Occupancy ' 002 Sunsetted 000 % occupancy 003 Far West Savings and Loan 100 % Occupancy 004 Superseded 000 % Occupancy 005 Aeronutronic Ford 100 % Occupancy 006 Back Bay Office 100 % Occupancy 007 Boyle Engineering 100 % occupancy 008 Cal Canadian Bank 100 % Occupancy ' 009 Civic Plaza 099 % Occupancy 010 Corporate Plaza 030 % Occupancy 011 Koll Center Newport 100 % Occupancy ' 012 MacArthur Court 100 % Occupancy 013 Superseded 000 % Occupancy 014 Superseded 000 % Occupancy 015 Orchard office 100 % Occupancy ' 016 Pacific Mutual Plaza 100 % Occupancy 017 3701 Birch Office 100 % Occupancy 018 Newport Place 086 % Occupancy ' 019 Sunsetted 000 % Occupancy 020 Bank of Newport 100 % Occupancy 021 Bayside Square 100 % Occupancy 022 Sea Island 100 % Occupancy 023 Baywood Apartments 100 % Occupancy 024 Harbor Point Homes 100 % Occupancy 025 Roger's Gardens 100 %Occupancy ' 026 Seaview Lutheran Plaza 100 % Occupancy 027 Rudy Baron 100 % Occupancy 028 Quail Business Center 100 % occupancy ' 029 441 Newport Boulevard 100 % Occupancy 030 Martha's Vineyard 100 % Occupancy 031 Valdez 000 % Occupancy 032 Coast Business Center 100 % Occupancy ' 033 Koll Center Npt No. 1 TPP 000 % Occupancy 034 See Projects 340 to 343 000 % Occupancy 035 Ross Mollard 100 % Occupancy ' 036 Sunsetted 000 % Occupancy 039 Hughes Aircraft #2 100 % Occupancy 040 Superseded 100 % Occupancy 041 Flagship Hospital 100 % Occupancy ' 042 Big Canyon 10 029 % Occupancy 043 Fun Zone 100 % Occupancy 044 Marriot Hotel 100 % Occupancy ' 045 St. Andrews Church 100 % Occupancy 046 YMCA 000 % Occupancy 047 Allred Condos 100 % Occupancy 048 Morgan Development 100 % Occupancy 049 Four Seasons Hotel 100 % Occupancy 050 Univ Ath. Club TPP 4 Emkay 100 % Occupancy 051 Block 400 Medical 100 % Occupancy ' 5 TABLE 2 (continued) APPROVED PROJECTS ' 053 See Projects 530 to 533 000 % Occupancy 054 Amend No. 1 MacArthur Court 052 % Occupancy 056 Amendment No. 2 Ford Aero. 100 % Occupancy 057 Carver Granville Office 100 % Occupancy 058 Corona Del Mar Homes 100 % Occupancy 059 Big Canyon Villa Apartments 000 % Occupancy ' 060 1400 Dove Street 000 % Occupancy 061 1100 Quail Street 000 % Occupancy 062 Superseded 000 % Occupancy ' 063 Koll Center TPP Amend. 4A 000 % Occupancy 064 Sunsetted 000 % Occupancy 065 Rosan's Development 090 % Occupancy ' 066 Block 500 Npt. Ctr. Project 100 % Occupancy 068 Newport Aquatics Center 045 % Occupancy 069 2600 E. Coast Highway 100 % Occupancy 070 Jasmine Park •100 % Occupancy ' 071 Sunsetted 000 % Occupancy 072 Newporter Inn Expansion 100 % Occupancy 073 Sunsetted 000 % Occupancy ' 074 Sunsetted 000 % Occupancy 075 Fashion Is Renaissance 100 % Occupancy 076 Sunsetted 000 % Occupancy 077 CDM Senior Project 100 % Occupancy ' 078 Point Del Mar 100 % Occupancy 079 Pacific Club 100 % Occupancy 080 Sunsetted 000 % Occupancy ' 081 Newport Seacrest Apartments 100 % Occupancy 083 3800 Campus Dr. (M-Storage) 000 % Occupancy 084 Hoag Cancer Center 000 % Occupancy 085 Edwards Newport Center 000 % Occupancy 086 Seaside Apts. (Mesa II) 100 % Occupancy 087 Victoria Station (Office) 100 % Occupancy 088 3760 Campus Dr. (M-Storage) 000 % Occupancy ' 090 Superseded 000 % Occupancy 092 Mariners' Mile Marine Center 100 % Occupancy 093 15th Street Apartments 100 % Occupancy 094 Seaside Apartment III 100 % Occupancy 095 Npt. Bay Retirement Inn 000 % Occupancy 096 Newport Classic Inn 000 % Occupancy 097 Mariners' Church Expansion 000 % Occupancy ' 098 McLachlan-Newport Place 000 % Occupancy 099 1501 Superior Medical 000 % Occupancy 100 Fashion Island #2 000 % Occupancy 101 Newporter Resort Expansion 000 % Occupancy 103 Newport Lido Medical Center 000 % Occupancy 104 Villa Point 000 % Occupancy 105 Shokrian 000 % Occupancy 106 15th Street Apartments 000 % Occupancy 107 Rockwell Expansion 000 % Occupancy 108 Andrew Restaurant 000 % Occupancy ' 109 Balboa/Washington 000 % Occupancy ' 6 i i ' ICI ' TABLE 2 (continued) APPROVED PROJECTS ' 110 Newport Imports Restaurant 000 % Occupancy ill 28th 5t. Marina Project 000 % Occupancy ' 340 Amendment No. 1 Ford Aero 100 % Occupancy 341 Amendment No. 1 Ford Aero 000 % Occupancy 342 Amendment No. 1 Ford Aero 000 % Occupancy 343 Amendment No. 1 Ford Aero 000 % Occupancy ' 530 Amendment No. 1 North Ford 100 % Occupancy 531 Amendment No. 1 North Ford 100 % Occupancy 532 Amendment No. 1 North Ford 100 % Occupancy 533 Amendment No. 1 North Ford 000 % Occupancy 910 Newport Dunes 000 % Occupancy 920 Bayview 000 % Occupancy 930 City of Irvine Development 000 % Occupancy t �I 7 TABLE 3 REGIONAL TRAFFIC ANNUAL GROWTH RATE COAST HIGHWAY East City limit to MacArthur Boulevard 4 % ' MacArthur Boulevard to Jamboree Road 2 Jamboree Road to Newport Boulevard 1 ' Newport Boulevard to West City Limit 2.5% IRVINE AVENUE All 1.5% ' JAMBOREE ROAD Coast Highway to MacArthur 1 % MACARTHUR BOULEVARD ' Coast Highway to Jamboree Road 5 % Jamboree Road to North City Limits 1 % ' NEWPORT BOULEVARD Coast Highway to North City Limits 1 Street segments not listed have o% regional growth. 8 . I�� TABLE 4 ONE PERCENT TEST RESULTS ' FOR CRITICAL INTERSECTION APPROACHES ' Intersection 2 .5 Hour Peak Period Percentages -. 1991 NB SB EB WB Proposed Project AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM ' Jamboree Road/Campus Drive 0.8 0.6 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.3 Jamboree. Road/Birch Street 0.8 1. 0 0.4 0.9 0.7 0.3 - - ' Jamboree Road/Bristol Street 0.2 0.3 0.7 0.6 0.1 0.1 - - Jamboree Road/Bristol Street North 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.4 - - - - Jamboree Road/MacArthur Boulevard 0.2 0.5 - - 0.4 0.8 0.8 0.8 Note: NB = Northbound intersection approach ' SB = Southbound it " EB = Eastbound ' WB = Westbound 1 ' 9 i 1 TABLE 5 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) SUMMARY - 1991 ' + Existing 1989 Existing + Regional 1 Existing + Regional + Approved Intersection ICU + Approved + Project ' Jamboree Road/ Birch Street 0.46 0.62 0. 63 summarizes the results of the ICU analysis for three traffic conditions. As noted, the intersection would have an acceptable 1 ICU value less than 0.90. No ICU analyses were required for the other four critical intersections since all of them passed the 1 "One Percent" test. The ICU analysis sheets are contained in Appendix C of this report. 1 Mitigation Measures Since four of the five identified critical intersections passed the "One Percent" test and the fifth intersection passed the ICU ' test, no mitigation measures are required for the proposed Taco Bell Restaurant Project. 1 Onsite Circulation and Parking 1 A review of the proposed site plan indicates that no operational problems are expected with the proposed design. Also, there are 1 adequate parking spaces to accommodate the expected peak period parking demand. iSite Access The proposed Project was also reviewed in terms of the location and adequacy of the site access points. Based upon a review of the existing roadway systems, the proposed access designs and the projected traffic volumes, it was determined that the access 1 points are adequate to handle the forecasted traffic volumes. 1 10 iL ' Further, no operational problems are anticipated at any of the access points. Summary ' This traffic phasing analysis has examined the potential traffic impacts of the proposed Taco Bell Restaurant Project in the City ' of Newport Beach, California. The analysis was completed to conform to the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Existing plus ' approved projects plus regional growth traffic were considered in addition to Project traffic. Based upon these stated traffic conditions, the proposed Proiect will have no adverse traffic impacts at any of the five identified critical intersections. In conclusion, it can be stated that the proposed Taco Bell Restaurant Project can be safely implemented under existing and ' future traffic conditions. Four of the five critical intersections passed the "One Percent" test while the fifth ' intersection passed the ICU test at an acceptable Level of Service. ' Thank you for selecting Herman Kimmel and Associates to prepare this Traffic Phasing Analysis. If you have any questions, regarding our evaluation and analysis or need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me at (714) 852- ' 8616. ' Very truly yours,ID QRpfESSipy QROFESS/049 ' Dennis D. Barnes, P.E. Director Transportation Studies z ca O NA 1171 ' No. C 041454 W �• DDB:go * Exp.12-31-91 * * Exp. 8,9Q-91 Attachments rrglF 0 VILff�rFOF CAL FO��`� ' OF CAttF 11 APPENDIX C INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS 1 ' JA4308PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD & BIRCH STREET 4308 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC - WINTER/SPRING 1989 PM _ __ ____ ________________ I - - IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI ' - IMovemcntl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio lyolune I V/C I I (CapacitylCapacityl Volune I Ratio I Volume I Volume Iw/o Project) I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I----------------------------------------"------------------------------------------------- ' I NL 1 1600 I I 54 I 0.-_ 03* __-. I HT I I 1087 122 182� 1 O. g02 .3610.410I� ----- .-) 4800 '--------I--------) 0.23 ______________ -------- I -- I 0 1 0----------I iK I SL 1 1600 1 1 3 1 0.00 1 — 1 0 1 0I 0 1 0 1 - I 1 ST 1 4800 1 1 1112 1 0.23 * 2 Z 1 3 831 0.3 16 ! 34!0_32J --------------------------- - I___SR __I._.N.S._I_______-1- 1931 1 41 4.4 I 1 01 I 591 ! 1270_�09� 0 I 1 - 10:..' 3200 ----------------- 0.19 1 1 I - ET I I 0 ___o_________I I ER I H.S. 1 1 139 1 1 3 1 7--I 1 - 1 1 - ' - -------I WL 1 1 4 1 — 1 0 1 1 0 1 I i--------) ------------------) ----------------- --- -- ----------I I WT 1600 1 1 3 0.01 * 1 0 1 0, 0101 O 10.0 Ak 101 ------- ---------------------- ------ I IWR I I I I 1 0 1 1 0 -------- -------------------------- -------- ----------------------------_-_-.------------' I I 0.46 1 ' 1---------------------------------------------------------------f--0.62 1 1 IEXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED WPROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ (EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT T.C.U. I0.63 1 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ' Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 i_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be Less than or equal to 0.90 ' 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will , • be less than I.C.U. without Project ' Description of system improvement: Taco ee l/ 1>'es7�icvranf PROJECT FORM 11 APPENDICES APPENDIX A ' TEST SITES PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC COUNTS APR- 6-90 FRI 11 : 46 TRAFFIC COUNTS 7146467231 P . 02 ' �a ��Nl`t3UR.E•E.. "� . `rU�� '7?•f•Rl.! I-'G�Rk.rl(G �PxK�C� (.ETC" '7( Js ....r?'•t'v r7:� IT, 1 n V co C'j 15 © O -APR- 6'-`90 FRI 11 : 46 TRAFFIC COUNTS 71464672ZI P . @3 'i'1an 1: bc.�l A l `E I�'LSG Eti11'r �t_• �A 1�tiz :;r f DAMS.' 4- 3 -QD I �t ,J btu d cp- F k.r &fee LO-V ' �Lrr". ©Lyr IQ o or U (� Go FITO : 30 4 S f p a iL U � I �, LLI , H LL I _ I K _ d Q APR- 10-90 TUE 14 : SZ TRAFFSC COUNTS 7146457231 P . 02 -nO►.1:139 term L !C" @ (20m s4ltz• Etilrt�-� ���VL)r.��-roR.�.t;P,rW 3- -q0 `t�-FVf2S 1 1 : rJC-7- �Jr� . �7rz r yr L.IG, oU �s �µ 1 i 1 1 i ice_ APR- 10-99 TUE 14 :��3``3��TRAFFIC COUNTS 71464672ZI P - 03 CA.`C'ta�..�.'-�is'r'0�...r�,•i"�(���^...- +.�.tZ• �I..FTRL�A.�C!F.� l 1C�ltnF"�.. �52� .�1.'C�".4 r-.... . ..__... . M1 ' i ld out' 10 oli C). 10 I-P - `7 1 APR- 10-90 TUE 14 : 34 TRAFFIC COUNTS 7146467231 P . 04 1 -Ta C'pzLS UP. M W IA 15041�z7 . ��� izt v , n(G -rf v-l-.( 1 N out' Aj otn` i ►a S, _ 3 LLI 3 O i 1 1 1 . OD CfFiep, :��u rrFas LL IL a I i I 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX B 1 ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS SHEETS i 1 1 . . 1 1 ' 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis intersection JAMBOREE RD/CAMPUS DR ' (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter Spring 19 9 AM Peak 231 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2)k Hour Peak 2; Hour Peak 2� Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume I ' Northbound 2481- 50 720 3251 32 ! 24 Southbound 3933 79 1741 5753 58 16 ' Eastbound ; i 4 i g52 _ _ 13 306 971 � _�,0 Westbound i 2220 � 45 335 2600 26 _-4 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 Peak 23-2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: Aril 11 1990 A r PROJECT: Taco Bell Restaurant-,Project,: FORM I ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD CAMPUS DR (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter Spring 19 89 PM Peak 2�, Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1 of Projected Protect Direction Peak Existing Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2� Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 3916 - 79 1773 5768 58 36 Southbound 3897 -- 78 1 776 4751 24 Eastbound 2083 + 42 186 2311 � 23 5 i Westbound 1543 1 3 97 1671 17 5 i ' FX� 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 [� Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1 DATE: April 11 , 1990 PROJECT: Taco Bell Restaurant Project 7 G FORM I ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis intersection JAMBOREE RD/BIRCH ST ' (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on Average Inter Spring i9 _ AM Peak 2)I Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 10„ of Projected Project Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k, Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2> Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 2519 51 683 3253 Southbound 4595 92 1969 6656 66 23 Eastbound 546 ' 11 69 626 6 i 4 i Westbound 1 0 ' `- _ 0 _ 0 10 - I ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h 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: April 11, 1990 PROJECT: Taco Bell Restaurant Project �9 f FORM I I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/BIRCH ST ' (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter Spring 19 _) PM _ I Peak 21, Hour Approved i Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2-, Hour Peak 2k, Hour Peak 21, Hour Peak 211 Hour i Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 2402 -- 48 1642 4092 41 41 Southbound 3147 63 818 4028 40 34 ' Eastbound 1474 - 30 146 1650 ' 16 i 5 Westbound 34 I 1 -0 35 0 ' � Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected —* Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume ' Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. ' DATE: April 11, 1990 PROJECT: Taco Bell Restaurant Project µ L FORM I I ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection JAMBOREE RD/BRISTOL ST (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pang 19 89 AM Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k, Hour Growth Peak 21s Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 21, Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Yoiume I Northbound 5669 114 769 6552 65 13 Southbound 830 17 753 1600 16 i 11 Eastbound 6335 127 1225 7687 1 77 i 3 Westbound — — — — — — v 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: April 11 , 1990 PROJECT: Taco Bell Restaurant Project FORM I ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/BRISTOL ST (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter Spring 19 89 PM Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected In of Projected Project Direction Peak 2$ Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2�S Hour Peak 2� Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume � I I Northbound 5141 103 878 6122 61 19 Southbound 248 50 714 3244 32 18 Eastbound 4923 99 1091 6113 i 61 4 i ' Westbound -- Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected X 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: April 11 , 1990 ' PROJECT: Taco Bell Restaurant Project FORM I ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/BRISTOL ST N (Existing Traffic Vol—um—es—Fa—se Vol—um—es—Fa—sed on Average Winter/Spring 9 89 AM ' Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Oirection Peak 2+1 Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 8819 177 857 9853 98 13 Southbound 808 36 874 2718 27 14 Eastbound _ — — — i Westbound 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: April 11 , 1990 ' PROJECT: Taco Bell Restaurant Project FORM I ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/BRISTOL ST N . (Existing Traffic Volumes based on verage inter Spring 19 89 PM ' Peak 211 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2+1 Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 21-, Hour Peak 2� Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 6866 138 1005 8009 80 19 Southbound 4154 83 1008 5245 52 22 ' Eastbound — — — i Westbound Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected © Peak 23-,, Hour Traffic Volume D 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: April 11 , 1990 ' PROJECT: Taco Bell Restaurant Project FORM I ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD MACARTHUR BL ' (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on We ge inter Spring 19 89 AM Peak 235 Hour Approved ' Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project I Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 211 Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2s Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume -Volume Volume Volume Northbound 2119 217 467 2803' 28 6 Southbound 896 92 900 1888 19 0 Eastbound 3363 - 68 1063 4494 1 45 16 Westbound 1746 35 693 2474 25 21 ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2)-2 Hour Traffic Volume t 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. t DATE: April 11 , 1990 ' PROJECT: Taco Bell Restaurant Project FORM I ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis 4ntersection JAMBOREE RD/MACARTHUR BL ' (Existing Traffic Volu-mesbased on Average inter Spring 19 _ -pm Peak 2� Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k, Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 21, Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ' Northbound 1182_ 121 499 1802 18 9 5outhbound 3000 _ 308 739 4047 40_�0 ' Eastbound i 1927 +_ - 39 827 2793 1 i Westbound 3337 J 67 920 4324 43 32 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected 0 Peak 2h 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: April 11, 1990 PROJECT: Taco Bell Restaurant Project FORM I 2-219- �l6 TRAFFIC STUDIES APpP,L,IIC�JANT: CONSULTANTS: NAME: 7/ PHONE: PROJECT NAME: DESCRIPTION: DATE DEPOSIT FEES PAYMENT REMAINING BALANCE -- 95,oa av p � EWPa CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECEIPT pia ; RO NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92663 No. 48856 19 / V DATE {E RECEIVED FROM -- Oo 1 FOR: ' ACCOUNT NO AMOUNT -o :oo DEPARTMENT / r BV f b.r... �,cwPO,gr CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECEIPT NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92663 No. 50955 1qq�) DATE @ (In 1i RECEIVED FROM M C n Se— 1 `I �P GO`o -0 00 • FOR: a ACCOUNT NO, AMOUNT ' ! Iur —cTy 6 f �3 DEPARTMENT BY 00 4 OP y6, Ail CITY CF PO DEMAND FOR NEWPORT �, • PAYMENT BEACH �cA� oQaPz Demand of: Herman Kimmel & Assoc. Date: August 21, 1990 Address: 3661 Spruce Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 In the amount of: a ,9 s n0 Item of Expenditure Budget # Amount Total 495.00 Approved For Payment: GLUM( ((t_A2S A� Department Head Acting Audited and Approved: Finance Director • � V � // � , r Uu�� � ��' �� �� � �,� ,� ,� �- �,���� � ���� � �' • • DEMAND FOR CITY a= t��WPORT • P NEvvPORT PAYMENT BEACH U C9G�F00.��PZ Demand Of: BERMAN KIMMEL & ASSOC. Date: July 18, 1990 Address: 3661 Spruce St. Newport Beach, CA 92660 In the amount of: $4,985.00 Item of Expenditure Budget # Amount Traffic Study for Taco Bell Restaurant at Jamboree 02-219-01 $4,985.00 Road and Koll Center Dr. • Total $4,985.00 Approved For Payment: epar ent Head Audited and Approved: Finance Director • INVOICE • v rman immel and Associates • TRAFFIC ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS 3661 SPRUCE STREET-NEWPORT BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92660 DATE .t-+ri1 l7 p, 19 0 YOUR ORDER TO City of 311rewport Beach Planning Departmant. JOB NO. 7o064 7 P. O. Box. 1763 rT,cwport neach, C 92659-1768 PROGRESS BILL NO. Attention: ns. Patricia Tengle INVOICE NO. ` "INVOICE DUE WHEN RENDERED- INTEREST CHARGED ON PAST DUE ACCOUNTS PLEASE RETURN DUPLICATE COPY WITH REMITTANCE ' PROGP.BSS BITZ=G - Mrch, 1990 Professional traffic engineering services rendered to prepare a Traffic Study for the Taco Bell Restaurant at Jamboree Road and ltoll Center Drive, City of 11towport • Beach, Orange County, California. Completion to date - 900 $+4,d55.00 Previously bilicei 0.00 Additional Work Authorization 3/26/90 Completion to (date - i100; $ 530.00 Previously billed 0.00 I MIOMIT DUE $4,98 r.00 PLEASE PAY FROM THIS INVOICE- NO STATEMENT WILL BE MAILED PORT �� @� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH U yam. T P.O.BOX 1768,NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659-1768 PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225 March 2, 1990 Mr. Dennis Barnes Herman Kimmel & Associates 3661 Spruce Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Dennis, By this letter you are hereby authorized to commence work on the Taco Bell Traffic Study for which you submitted a letter proposal. Work is to be completed consistent with the scope of service submitted. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me at the above number. • Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director BY Patricia L. Temple Principal Planner PLT LTR TS66.LT1 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach Q SEW POR e ° f \ m CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • U 1t.� - T P.O.BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659-1768 Cq<lFOpN`P PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225 February 1, 1990 Steve Abbott Area Construction Manager Southern California Zone Taco Bell Corp. 17901 Von Karman Irvine, CA 92714 Subject: Traffic Engineering Analysis, Taco Bell Restaurant Jamboree Road and Koll Center Drive Dear Mr. Abbott: The City of Newport Beach has received a proposal from Herman Kimmel and Associates, for traffic engineering services required for the preparation of a traffic phasing analysis for the Taco Bell project at Jamboree Road and Koll Center Drive. The proposal contains an outline of the scope of work required, approximate schedule of same, and estimated budget required for the preparation. • 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 $ 4,950 City Fees (10%) 495 Total Request: $ 5,445 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 �.l�l Patricia Temple Principal Planner • Attachment F\JM\PLT\TACOBELL.TPO 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach • • .� Southern California Zone { Taco Bell Corp. ` 0 17901 Von Karmen Irvine, California 92714 TACO Telephone 714 863 2849 4 BELL. Steve Abbott Area Construction Manager , s 0 Z rman mmel and Associates • TRAFFIC ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS RECEIVED BY January 31, 1990 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AM JAN 3 11990 PM City of Newport Beach 718191101HI12111213141516 P.O. Box 1768 >� Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768 Attention Ms. Patty Temple Proposal - Traffic Engineering Analysis JN 700647 Taco Bell Restaurant Jamboree Road and Koll Center Drive City of Newport Beach Dear Ms. Temple: In accordance with your request, we are submitting this letter • proposal for Traffic Engineering Services which are required for the preparation of a traffic phasing analysis at the subject location. Herman Kimmel and Associates (HKA) will contact the City of Newport Beach Traffic Engineer to determine the extent of the required traffic study. A field review of the site will be conducted, and traffic volume data collected from the City for daily volumes and peak hour turning movement volumes at those locations identified by City staff. We will then determine the trip generation characteristics for the site and distribute the traffic volumes generated by the proposed restaurant to analyze the impacts of the Project on the adjacent circulation system. Any mitigation measures required as a result of the Project will be identified in accordance to the City's traffic phasing ordinance. • A DIVISION OF `lZobelt Bei.Q,`William `Fi"ost 6&c�4ssociates 3661 SPRUCE STREET• NEWPORT BEACH.CALIFORNIA 92660 •(714)852.8616 • FAX(714)852-8857 OFFICFS IN IRVINE • RANCHO CALIFORNIA • PAI M DESERT• SAN DIFGO Page 2 0 i January 31, 1990 City of Newport Beach Ms. Patty Temple • The product of our work will be a written report which documents our work effort and contains the necessary graphics in the City's required format. HKA will submit five copies of the final report to the City of Newport Beach. COMPENSATION Based on the scope of services outlined above, we can perform the traffic study for a total fixed fee of $4,950. 00. This fee would not include attendance at public hearings, Planning Commission and/or City Council hearings that may be held. Such attendance, if requested, would be invoiced separately at our current rate of $170.00 per hour with a minimum charge of four hours. Revised or added tasks will be considered as extra work, and billed in accordance with our current hourly fee schedule (see • attachment) . No extra work will be performed without your prior i written authorization. SCHEDULE HKA is aware of the need to complete the traffic study within a reasonable time period. Based on our projected work backlog, HKA estimates it can complete the draft traffic study within twenty working days after receiving the notice to proceed. • Page 3 January 31, 1990 City of Newport Beach Ms. Patty Temple Thank you for considering Herman Kimmel and Associates to support you on this Project. We look forward to working with you. If you have any questions regarding this proposal, please contact me at (714) 852-8616. Respectfully submitted, HERMAN KIMMEL AND ASSOCIATES Dennis s Barnes, P.E. Director Transportation Studies DB:blj\647.cnb • I, v rman mmel and Associates TRAFFIC ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS RATE SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1990 (REVISED) HOURLY RATES PRINCIPAL $125 PROJECT DIRECTOR 100 PROJECT ENGINEER/SENIOR ENGINEER 80 DESIGN ENGINEER/TECH 5 70 ENGINEER/TECH 4 60 ENGINEER/TECH 3 50 TECH 2 45 SECRETARY/WORDPROCESSING 30 TECH 1 30 ADDITIONAL CHARGES (1) Rates for consultation in connection with litigation will be at the rate of $250. 00 per hour. (2) Public appearance before commissions and councils will be $150. 00 per hour (FOUR HOUR MINIMUM) . (3) Other rates shall be based on the complexity of the work and will be charged as agreed upon. (4) Blueprinting, reproduction, messenger service and other direct expenses will be charged at cost. Rates subject to change without notice. Invoices are payable upon receipt. • A DIVISION OF Sobeft `Beitl,`William `Frost 6&c9ssociates 3661 SPRUCE STREET• NEWPORT BEACH.CALIFORNIA 92660 •(714)852-8616 • FAX(714)852-8857 dFFIC FF IN IRVINF • RANCHO CAI IFORNIA• PAI M DFSFRT• SAN DIFGO 02-219- Ot TRAFFIC STUDIES APPLICANT: CONSULTANTS: NAME: XAlPJWs'DAW*W4 d4o 4AWMnti 1w4vjMT zw46N; C 4e-C~ivS4 tb6`6Awwo e d4rArvf-.A (D4X Bdc4 L• G'X�Aµ�XL_ PHONE: PROJECT NAME: DESCRIPTION: .VArfN ACC 74eJ;rJG A04e DATE DEPOSIT FEES PAYMENT REMAINING BALANCE l9d 4 �,fOD. 00 i SDD. pp � Y' S o0D• oo oS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECEIPT tt O 9 NEWPORT ACH. CALIFORNIA 92663 No. 28092 i Z15 1 9-a DAT RECEIVED FROM 4111 FOR: ! ACCOUNT NO. A T �S E DEPARTMENT FORM 1503486 01 0399809 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 36655o 366550 VO CHERNO. INVOICENO. PURCHASE ORDER NO. INVOICEDATE AMOUNT DISCOUNT NETAMOUNT 180625 PACTELSITE 1/06/89 5*500.00 .00 5,500.00 ti TRAFFIC STUDY D,fwssr,. I ( deer. x!.oz-ziA of �r � .flO.pp Te7W< t s;swyPo I I I I TOTAL 5,500.09 .00 5000.00 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COPY DEMAND FOR PAYMENT Date April 5, 1989 Demand of: Weston Pringle & Associates Address: 2651 East Chapman Avenue - Suite 110 Fullerton, California 92631 In the amount of � 3,181.20 ITEM OF EXPENDITURE BUDGET # AMOUNT Professional traffic engineering consulting services for Pacific Telephone Site Traffic study Newpor Beach - February/March 1989 02-219-01 TOTAL $3,181.20 Approved For Payment: 0Imo_ '�� Actinguep drtment Head Audited and Approved: 0 Finance Director Weston Pringle & Associates TRAFFIC&TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING April 4, 1989 APPROVED FOR PAYIPIENT Ms. Pat Temple By 1E 7 7 Environmental Coordinator 7 City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Planninc,Din@ptor (Acting) Newport Beach, CA 92658-8951 ACCOUNT NO.: Qe zi'-oi REFERENCE: PROFESSIONAL TRAFFIC ENGINEERING CONSULTING SERVICES FOR Pacific Telephone Site Traffic Study (Newport Beach) Feb. - March 1989 STATEMENT Personnel Charges • Firm Principal 25.0 hours @ $90.00 $2,250.00 Assistant Engineer 17.0 hours @ $35.00 $ 595.00 Draftsperson 6.0 hours @ $35.00 $ 210.00 Secretary 5.0 hours @.$15.00 $ 75.00 Total Personnel Charges $3,130.00 Direct Expenses Travel $18.80 y g Printing $32.40 RECEIVE` Total Direct Expenses $ 51.20 ' Ce•�.•tm^.nt. �. AMOS 1989 crrrv;' TOTAL AMOUNT DUE THIS STATEMENT $3,181.20 • �! I t' �' WSP:hld #4109D 2651 East Chapman Avenue • Suite 110 • Fullerton. California 92631 • (714) 87I-2931 Y r SDCDEVELOPMENr 1601 AVOCADO NEW PORT BEACH,CA 92660 DEWPORTBEACK PO BOX 1880.92658-8924 TELEPHONE(714)644-6440 DarreIlL.Creamer FAX(714)644-0169 y January 18, 1989 Ms. Pat Temple Advanced Planning City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Re: Pac Tel Site Bison & Camelback • Newport Beach Traffic Study Dear Pat: Enclosed is a check in the amount of $5,500 which is 110% of the cost outlined in Weston Pringle's December 20th proposal to complete a traffic study for this proposed retail project. Please proceed with the study as soon as possible. Any questions please give me a call. Darrell L. Creamer DLC/lm z Enclosure cc: Dave Dmohowski Keith Eyrich Weston Pringle 0 4 , P � • Weston Pringle & Associates • December 20, 1988 TRAFFIC&TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING %oif , 9� oCE'f Ms. Pat Temple Environmental Coordinator F��I1 „t 9 City of Newport Beach ern P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8951 C4:;F fgcy N Dear Ms. Temple: We are pleased to submit this proposal to provide professional traffic engineering services for a traffic phasing study of the proposed Newport North Shopping Center 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 concerns. The analysis would include consideration of existing, committed project, regional growth and project traffic as required by the TPO. Criteria and method- ologies contained in the TPO would be utilized to identify potential traffic impacts along with previous studies and development plans. Mitigation measures would be recommeneded 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, and similar data. We would discuss . the project with you and the City Traffic Engineer to ensure our 2651 East Chapman Avenue 9 Suite iio • Fullerton, California 92631 • (714)871.2931 r 4 understanding of the project and the scope of study. It is • understood that the City would provide AM and PM 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 AM and PM peak hours and 2.5 hours peak periods. These estima tes 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 10 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. Any potential deficiencies would be identified. Site access would also be examined with respect to traffic operations and safety. This review would consider existing striping, channelization, and site access on both Camelback and Bison as well as on-site circulation. Mitigation measures would be recommended as may be required. Sketches of recommended mitigation measures would 'be included where applicable. I� -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 five (5) 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 $5,000.00 without prior approval from you or your representative.. Since it is not possible at this time to estimate the time required for additional meeting 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 represenative. We appreciate having the opportunity of submitting this proposal and look forward to serving the City. If you have any questions o1° require additional information, please contact us. Respectfully submitted, WESTON PRINGLE & ASSOCIATES �y �./ � Weston S. Pringle, P.E. it WSP:hld cc. Mr. Darrell Creamer Il rw + db . 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 addition to 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 L 1