HomeMy WebLinkAboutTPO068_ROCKWELL II INTERNATIONAL TPO068
--------- ----------- ------------------ ------- -- ---------- ---- -
r ,
-- Plc .
. A
aT
LANGDON • WILSON
ARCHITECTURE PLANNING �St N�
R�G�\;vv I kt vsPC&
June 22, 1992
Mr.James D. Hewicker
Planning Director
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92660
Reference: Rockwell International
Koll Center Newport
Dear Jim:
Per our June 22, 1992 conversation, we are faxing you the following background
correspondence.
• Letter to City of Newport Beach from Langdon Wilson dated January 22, 1991
• Letter to Rockwell International from City of Newport Beach dated March 29, 1991
The above correspondence pertains to Rockwell's request to update Traffic Study No. 56
which was prepared in conjunction with General Plan Amendment 89-1(F) (Resolution
8941) and Amendment No. 677 (Resolution 8942). The purpose of this traffic study is to
extend the anticipated occupancy of the additional 39,000 square feet approved by the
above resolutions to June 1994.
Please do not hesitate to call if there are any questions or additional information required.
Sincerely,
J. Patrick Allen,AIA
Partner
8779/bb/encls.
cc: Rockwell International
Alex Djordjevic, P.E.
\8779\w'P\Pmd\P¢I1
ERNEST C. WILSON, )R. A.I.A. ARCHITECT
4100 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD, SUITE 200, P.O. BOX 2440, NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92658.8971 (714) 833-9193
6 • ! I
a
LANGDON • WILSON
ARCHITECTURE PLANNING
January 22, 1991
Mr.James D. Hewicker
Planning Director
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92660
Reference: Rockwell International - Koll Center Newport
Dear Jim:
On June 12, 1989 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 8942 approving Planning
Commission Amendment No. 677, amending the Koll Center Newport Planned
Community District Regulations and sustaining the action of the Planning Commission
regarding Traffic Study No. 56. This action increased the entitlements for Industrial Site 1
by 39,000 square.feet to allow the construction of a 65,000 square foot facility.
At the time this action was taken, it was anticipated that this new building would be
completed in 1990. On behalf of Rockwell International,we request that a new traffic
study be prepared for a June, 1994 occupancy of the proposed structure. This date
coincides with the use permit No. 3307 extension for Rockwell's temporary modular
trailers.
Per Ms. Patricia Temple's recommendation we are enclosing three sets of background
information as follows:
• June 12, 1989 City Council Staff Report
• May 4, 1989 Planning Commission Staff Report
• March 30, 1989 Statistical Tables
• Amendment No. 21 pages from KCN P.C. Text
• Drawings depicting existing and proposed floor plans and parking.
Please send the authorization for the traffic study to:
Mr.Alex DJ'ordjevic, P.E.
Facilities manager.
Rockwell International Corporation
P.O. Box C
Newport Beach, California 92658-8902
ERNEST C. WILSON •R. A.I.A. ARCHITECT
... ... ..., . . -- ._. _ _
n
F
LANGDON a WILSON
ARCHITECTURE PLANNING
Mr.James D. Hewicker January 22, 1991
City of Newport Beach Page Two
Should you or your staff require additional information or have any questions at this time,
please give me a call.
Sincerely,
cj;Z2i
J. Patrick Allen,AIA
Partner
sg/8779-001/encs.
cc: Rockwell International
Alex Djordjevic, P.E.
wp\alien\mkt
PORT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
US P.O.BOX 1768,NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659-1768
�{ G
PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225 APR
3199,
March 29, 1991
Alex Djordjevic
Facilities Manager
Rockwell International Corporation
P. O. Box C
Newport Beach, CA 92658-8902
Dear Mr. Djordjevic:
The City of Newport Beach has received a proposal from Weston Pringle & Associates to
prepare a traffic study for the Rockwell expansion project for a budget not to exceed $2,300.
The established fee for administrative and review expenses for traffic studies is ten percent
of the consultant fee. We therefore request that Rockwell International Corporation remit
$2,530 ($2,300 + 10% = $2,530) to the City of Newport Beach.
Thank you.
Very truly yours,
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director
By
Sandra L. Genis
Principal Planner
cc: Pat Allen
s1g\cnv\mckwc11.1-1
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
LANGDON • WILSON
ARCHITECTURE PLANNING
February 5, 1992
Mr.James D. Hewicker
Planning Director
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92660
Reference: Rockwell International - Koll Center Newport
Electrical Substation
Dear Jim:
We wish to thank you and your staff for joining Mr. Rich Bluth of Rockwell and Mr. Steve
Stage and Mr. David Alden of Koll Management services and myself at the KCN 10/10
building on January 24th to discuss alternative locations for Rockwell's substation.
As a result of the options presented in your office on January 14th,your suggestion to
meet at the building was most beneficial.
We wish to confirm your suggestions and requirements`on this matter and report on
Rockwell's direction with regard to location. Rockwell has made a decision that it feels is
in the best interest of all parties concerned,to locate the substation adjacent to the
Jamboree end of the KCN 10/10 parking structure. This will minimize the impact of the
overhead transmission line, displace the least desirable parking and provide ample
opportunities for landscape screening. Per your requirements, plans and elevation will be
prepared to address and illustrate the aesthetics of the substation enclosure and
andscape screening.
Briefly,the jamboree end of the substation will be enclosed with the same masonry as
the parking structure and to the same height. Ma or landscape elements will include
Canary Island pines between the substation and the existing parking structure and ficus
trees at the jamboree end.
Please let us know if we have misunderstood or misrepresented-your requirements. If we
do not hear to the contrary,the preparation of plans will proceed as described above.
Again, on behalf of Rockwell International and Koll Center Newport, we thank you for your
time an going contributions to the quality of the Koll Center Newport community.
ClTy 0
OF�iEI�rPQRT EqrC�
AM PER j � 1992
71 s191101111121Ii2i3 2 6
ERNEST C. WILSON, JR. A.I.A ARCHITECT
4100 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD, SUITE 200, P.O. BOX 2440, NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92658-8971 (714) 833-9193
LANGDON • WILSON
ARCHITECTURE PLANNING
Mr.James D. Hewicker February 5, 1992
City of Newport Beach Page 2
Please give me a call if you have any questions or additional thoughts on this matter.
Sincerely,
4. ' •,fir. ��....r.
J. Patrick Allen,AIA
Partner
Ig/8779-002/enc.
cc: Rockwell International
Rich Bluth
Koll Management Services
Steve Stage
wp\8779
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
VT P.O.BOX 1768,NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92659-1768
e.<
c'94 FOR�,P
PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225
October 7, 1991
Mr. Wes Pringle
Weston Pringle & Associates
680 Langsdorf Drive, Suite 222
Fullerton, CA 92631
RE: Rockwell/Koll Center Newport Traffic Study
Dear Mr. Pringle,
As discussed in our telephone conversation, this letter is to confirm your authorization to
proceed with the update to your 1989 traffic study for the Rockwell project under the terms
contained in your letter of March 8, 1991. Please contact Rich Edmonton, City'Traffic
Engineer, prior to commencing work in order to obtain the current procedures and
assumptions. Also,please note that the date of occupancy should be assumed to be 1995,
not 1994 as indicated previously.
Very truly yours,
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director
By /
fin Dougla CP
Planne
cc: Rich Edmonton
R\-\ROCKWEUI 170
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
Semiconductor Products Division
Rockwell International Corporation 01%
4311 Jamboree Road Rockwell
P.O. Box C
Newport Beach, California 92658-8902 International
RECEIVE-4 by
April 4, 1991 PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
City of Newport Beach APR p 8 1991
Building and Planning Department FM
3300 Newport Blvd. 18�91101ll112111213141516
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Attn: Sandy Genis
Dear Ms. Genis:
Enclosed is the payment of $2,530.00 requested for the traffic study for
Rockwell International , Digital Communications Division, located at 4311
Jamboree Road, Newport Beach.
Aijor ev� A�
Di recto
Facilities
O�aEW PO,q
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
u
Z P.O.BOX 1768,NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92659-1768
C"9<!FORN�P
PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225
March 29, 1991
Alex Djordjevic
Facilities Manager
Rockwell International Corporation
P. O. Box C
Newport Beach, CA 92658-8902
Dear Mr. Djordjevic:
The City of Newport Beach has received a proposal from Weston Pringle & Associates to
prepare a traffic study for the Rockwell expansion project for a budget not to exceed $2,300.
The established fee for administrative and review expenses for traffic studies is ten percent
of the consultant fee. We therefore request that Rockwell International Corporation remit
$2,530 ($2,300 + 10% = $2,530) to the City of Newport Beach.
Thank you.
Very truly yours,
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director
By
Sandra L. Genis
Principal Planner
cc: Pat Allen
s1g\cnv\rockwc11.1-1
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
W
P A Weston Pringle & Associates
TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING
March 8, 1991 RECEIVEu i3Y
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT 13EACH
Ms. Sandra L. Genis AM
MAR 111991 PM
Planning Department 71839110Al21112A41516
City of Newport Beach
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768
SUBJECT: ROCKWELL SITE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
Dear Ms. Genis:
This is in response to your letter of March 1, 1991, requesting a fee and schedule for
updating our 1989 traffic study of the Rockwell expansion project. Based upon your
letter and discussion with Rich Edmonston, it is understood that the project and analysis
needs are the same with an updating of existing traffic, committed project traffic and
completion date being required.
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 $2,300.00
without prior approval from you or your representative. Since it is not possible at this
time to estimate the time required for meetings and/or presentations concerning this
project, our staff would be available with the fee based upon our Rate Schedule in
addition to the previously stated maximum. The additional work shall be conducted
when requested by you or your representative.
680 Langsdorf Drive 9 Suite 222 9 Fullerton, CA 92631 • (714) 871-2931 0 FAX:(714) 871-0389
It is PPY anticipated that approximately two (2) weeks would be required to complete the
updated study.
We appreciate having the opportunity of submitting this proposal and look forward to
serving the City. If you have any questions or require additional information, please
contact us.
Respectfully submitted,
WESTON PRINGLE & ASSOCIATES
Weston S. Pringle, P.E.
WSP:ca
Wr-T
* A Weston Pringle & Associates
TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING
STANDARD RATE SCHEDULE
Effective January 1, 1991
PROFESSIONAL STAFF HOURLY RATES
Firm Principal $100.00
Senior Engineer $ 85.00
Associate Engineer $ 60.00
Assistant Engineer $ 50.00
SUPPORT STAFF
Engineering Draftsman $ 50.00
Draftsperson $ 35.00
Secretary $ 20.00
Clerical, Field Enumerator $ 25.00
GENERAL
1. Travel, reproduction, telephone, supplies, and other non-wage direct costs are
billed at cost plus ten (10) percent.
2. ' 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 Engineer's Manual on Engineering Practice Number 45.
680 Langsdorf Drive • Suite 222 • Fullerton, CA 92631 • (714) 871-2931 • FAX:(714) 871-0389
I
LANGDON • WILSON
ARCHITECTURE PLANNING
RECEIVE.0 37 PLANNING DEI'reRUU
CITY OF NEWP()RT SE:"tCH
January 22, 1991
AM1AN 2 51991 W11
Mr.James D. Hewicker 718,9110,11,12,11213141516
Planning Director
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92660
Reference: Rockwell International - Koll Center Newport
Dear Jim:
On June 12, 1989 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 8942 approving Planning
Commission Amendment No. 677, amending the Koll Center Newport Planned
Community District Regulations and sustaining the action of the Planning Commission
regarding Traffic Study No. 56. This action increased the entitlements for Industrial Site 1
by 39,000 square feet to allow the construction of a 65,000 square foot facility.
At the time this action was taken, it was anticipated that this new building would be
completed in 1990. On behalf of Rockwell International, we request that a new traffic
study be prepared for a June, 1994 occupancy of the proposed structure. This date
coincides with the use permit No. 3307 extension for Rockwell s temporary modular
trailers.
Per Ms. Patricia Temple's recommendation we are enclosing three sets of background
information as follows:
• June 12, 1989 City Council Staff Report
• May 4, 1989 Planning Commission Staff Report
• March 30, 1989 Statistical Tables
• Amendment No. 21 pages from KCN P.C. Text
• Drawings depicting existing and proposed floor plans and parking.
Please send the authorization for the traffic study to:
Mr.Alex D'ordjevic, P.E.
Facilities Manager
Rockwell International Corporation
P.O. Box C
Newport Beach, California 92658-8902
ERNEST C. WILSON, JR. A.I.A. ARCHITECT
4100 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD, SUITE 200, P.O. BOX 2440, NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92658.8971 (714) 833-9193
LANGDON • WILSON
ARCHITECTURE PLANNING
Mr.James D. Hewicker January 22, 1991
City of Newport Beach Page Two
Should you or your staff require additional information or have any questions at this time,
please give me a call.
CSinnccerely`, 6
J. Patrick Allen,ALA
Partner
sg/8779-001/encs.
cc: Rockwell International
Alex Djordjevic, P.E.
wp\allen\ro kt
Q SEW PO,Q
n
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
UT P.O.BOX 1768,NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92659-1768
cq<�Foa��P
PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225
March 1, 1991
Weston Pringle
Weston Pringle & Associates
680 Langsdorf Dr., Ste. 222
Fullerton, CA 92631
Dear Wes:
Enclosed are the 1989 studies and other materials regarding additional development at the
Rockwell site. The project has not been constructed, and the applicant now wishes to gain
approval of the same development to be constructed and occupied in 1994. A new traffic
study is thus required.
Pursuant to our conversation, the City would like to retain Weston Pringle & Associates to
perform this study. Please advise me of the anticipated cost and time frame on this study
so that the City may inform the applicant.
Thank you.
Very truly yours,
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director
By .
Sandra L. Genis
Principal Planner
\Vo\rokwel
Enclosures
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
WA Q- •
`� Weston Pringle 8. Associates
G :)� A
TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING
March 16, 1992
An -
Mr.John H. Douglas
Principal Planner
City of Newport Beach V ton
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915
Dear Mr. Douglas:
This letter summarizes our updated analysis of our March 3, 1989 study related to the
proposed Rockwell Expansion Project in the City of Newport Beach. The study has been
conducted to satisfy the requirements of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. This study
is based upon information provided by the Rockwell Corporation, City Staff and previous
studies.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Semi-Conductor Products Division of Rockwell International is ,located on the
westerly side of Jamboree Road, southerly of Birch Street. An expansion of the facilities
is proposed which would increase the total building area by 39,000 square feet. In
addition, a 25,000 - 30,000 square foot expansion to the manufacturing area may be
required. This expansion would add a maximum of 257 employees to the site. The
employees are spread over five shifts with most employees beginning at 7:30 AM.
Vehicular access is provided at two locations on Jamboree Road and one location on
Birch Street. Figure 1 illustrates the project location.
-2931 • FAX:(714) 871-0389
680 Langsdorf Drive • Suite 222 • Fullerton, CA 92631 0 (714) 871
DR
Jy
r.
a
BRISr0L sT m °1 SITE
5
BR'STOL St NORTH
I SJHTC�
D
q
V
� W
FORD B<
LO
Jp
a SPN AQ��N
a a
~ ¢ m d Luy�<CS RD.
om w m w w m° , a
a Z o z a a
a.
o COAST Hµ,y. �_ ao
w PACIFIC a: a
m op
SITE LOCATION MAP
WESTON PMGLE'&ASSOCIATES FIGURE 1
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The streets in the area of the project are fully developed. Jamboree Road is a six lane
street with medians which extends from north of the I-405 to Coast Highway. There are
two lanes of travel in each direction on Birch Street with left turn channelization.
Parking is prohibited on both streets. The intersection of Jamboree Road and Birch
Street is signalized, as are other principal intersections in the area.
TRIP GENERATION
Since the project is an expansion of an existing project, it was possible to obtain data
specifically related to trip generation characteristics of this facility. Driveway traffic
volumes were provided by Rockwell, which were summaries of traffic counts conducted
by Newport Traffic Studies the week of September 26, 1988. These volumes are
summarized in Table 1, along with trip generation rates based upon the number of
existing employees. Rates were determined for each of the analysis periods required in
the Traffic Phasing Ordinance.
The estimated 2.5 and peak hour trip generation for the proposed expansion are listed
in Table 2. These estimates are based upon an increase in employment by 257. An
estimated 200 trips would be generated during the AM 2.5 hour peak and 180 during
the PM 2.5 hour peak. During the AM peak hour, an estimated 85 trips would be
generated and 70 during the PM peak hour.
TRIP ASSIGNMENT
In order to assign project traffic to the street system, it is necessary to develop a trip
distribution pattern. Data was provided by Rockwell indicating the home zip codes of
existing employees. These data were plotted on an area map and a distribution pattern
developed for the site. This distribution is illustrated on Figure 2. The estimated trips
to be generated by the project were assigned to the street system in conformance with
this distribution.
TABLE 1
EXISTING DRIVEWAY VOLUMES & TRIP GENERATION RATES
Rockwell International
VEHICLESO) RATE(2)
TIME PERIOD IN OUT IN OUT
6:30 - 9:00 AM 937 313 0.58 0.19
7:30 - 8:30 AM 350 176 0.22 0.11
3:30 - 6:00 PM 204 954 0.12 0.59
4:30 - 5:30 PM 50 394 0.03 0.24
(1) Average volumes for week of September 24, 1988; Newport Traffic Studies.
(2) Trip ends per employee - based upon 1,623 employees.
TABLE 2
TRIP GENERATION
Rockwell International
TRIP ENDSO)
TIME PERIOD IN OUT
AM 2.5 Hour Peak 150 50
AM Peak Hour 55 30
PM 2.5 Hour Peak 30 150
PM Peak Hour 10 60
(1) Based upon 257 employee increase.
• N DI FRWY.
5 � � 5 DR. 25/ �15
2 I5
J�
r T 15
40
BRISTO�s SITE
3j BRISTOL ST. NORTH 5 u -4��
10 10 25 5
LEGEND 10 10�
10 - DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION
PERCENTAGE Q' r
a
20 m p
A
9
N
in G�(iD.
� W
FORD �<
Q SPN JOAQcr ��N
w a R ; _o o y<<S RD.
4 00 w N m w , c >
o a oQ H a
w a
o CpAST NIyY �_ Z) a
B�9 w PACIFIC �� 0..
�Q � Q9js0C�
m O,p
PROJECT .DISTRIBUTION
WESTON PRINGLE &ASSOCIATES FlQdRE 2
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
The traffic analysis has been completed to conform to the criteria of the City of Newport
Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The 11 study intersections identified by the City
Traffic Engineer for inclusion in the analysis were updated based on the most current
available data. The first required analysis is the "One Percent" test. An intersection is
defined as critical by the Ordinance when the project traffic exceeds one percent of
existing plus committed project plus regional growth traffic on any approach to an
intersection during the AM or PM 2.5 hour peak period. A list of committed projects was
provided by the City for inclusion in this study and these projects are listed in Table 3.
Since the project is scheduled for completion in 1994, the analyses were completed for
1995 as required by the Ordinance.
Appendix A contains the "One Percent" analysis sheets for the 11 intersections analyzed
and the results are summarized in Table 4. Review of Table 4 indicates that five
intersections did not pass the "One Percent" test; Bristol Street North/Birch Street,
Jamboree Road/MacArthur Boulevard, Jamboree Road/Birch Street, Jamboree
Road/Campus Drive and MacArthur Boulevard/Birch Street.
In conformance with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, ICU analyses were completed for
the five intersections for those periods that were found to be critical. These analyses are
contained in Appendix B and include existing, existing plus regional growth plus
committed project, and existing plus regional growth plus committed project plus project
traffic conditions. The results of these analyses are summarized in Table 5. Review of
Table 5 indicates that all intersections are projected to have ICU values of less than 0.90
for the critical periods, except Bristol Street North/Birch Street during the PM peak hour
and Jamboree Road/Campus Drive during the AM peak hour. Additional analyses were
completed for these intersections and are described in the following paragraphs.
Bristol Street North/Birch Street
This intersection is projected to have an ICU value of 0.93 in 1991 without the project
and without street improvements. With the project, the ICU would increase to 0.94. A
TABLE 3
COMMITTED PROJECTS
Hoag Cancer Center Mariners Church Expansion
Civic Plaza Big Canyon Villa Apartments
Corporate Plaza 1400 Dove Street
Newport Place 1100 Quail Street
Valdez McLachlan-Newport Place
Koll Center NPT No. 1 Koll Center TPP Amendment 4A
1501 Superior Medical Villa Point
15th Street Apartments Rosan's Development
Newporter Resort Expansion Fashion Island #2
Amendment No. 1 North Ford Newport Aquatics Center
Newport Dunes Taco Bell
Bayview Newport Retirement Inn
City of Irvine Development Newport Classic Inn
Shokrian Newport Lido Medical Center
Edwards Newport Center Big Canyon 10
Newport Imports Restaurant YMCA
Calty/Toyota Expansion Amendment No. 1 Ford Aero
Our Lady Queen of Angels Amendment No. 1 MacArthur
Zonta Club Residential 3800 Campus Drive
28th Street Island 3760 Campus Drive
Andrew Restaurant Balboa/Washington
28th Street Marina Project Ambrosia Restaurant
Villa Point II Fashion Island Transfer
Pacific Bell Site
* -6-
TABLE 4
CRITICAL INTERSECTION IDENTIFICATION
Rockwell International
2.5 HOUR PERCENTAGES
NB SB EB WB
LOCATION AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
Bristol St. & Campus Dr. - Irvine Ave. 0.3 / 0.1 0.4 / 0.4 0.3 / 0.1 ----- -----
Bristol St. & Birch St. 0.0 / 0.0 0.0 / 0.0 0.7 / 0.2 ----- -----
Bristol St. &Jamboree Rd. 0.2 / 0.0 0.3 / 0.5 0.3 / 0.0 ---- -----
Bristol St. N. & Campus Dr. - Irvine Ave. 0.0 / 0.0 0.0 / 0.0 ----- ----- 0.7 / 0.9
Bristol St. N. & Birch St. 1.3 / 0.8 2.4 / 1.4 ----- ----- 0.0 / 0.6
Bristol St. N. &Jamboree Rd. 0.4 / 0.1 0.2 / 0.9 ----- ----- ----- -----
jamboree Rd. & MacArthur Blvd. 0.3 / 0.1 0.0 / 0.0 0.7 / 0.2 0.3 / 1.3
Jamboree Rd. & Birch St. 0.2 / 0.9 0.7 / 0.3 2.0 / 0.5 U / 0.0
Jamboree Rd. & Campus Dr. 0.4 / 0.8 0.7 / 0.2 0.0 / 0.0 1.4 / 0.3
MacArthur Blvd. & Birch St. 0.0 / 0.0 0.3 / 0.1 2.4 / 0.7 3.1 / 2.7
MacArthur Blvd. & Campus Dr. 0.1 / 0.2 0.2 / 0.1 0.0 / 0.0 0.0 / 0.0
--
TABLE 5
ICU SUMMARY
Rockwell International
EXISTING EXISTING
EXISTING +REGIONAL +REGIONAL
+REGIONAL +COMMITTED +CO
EXISTING +COMMITTED +PROJECT +PROJECTW
INTERSECTION PERIOD (1991) (1991) (1991) W/IMPROV.
Bristol St. N. & Birch St. AM Peak 0.55 0.67 0.67 ---
PM Peak 0.80 0.93 0.94 0.89
Jamboree Rd. & MacArthur Blvd. PM Peak 0.56 0.76 0.76 ---
Jamboree Rd. & Birch St. AM Peak 0.47 0.68 0.69 ---
Jamboree Rd. & Campus Dr. AM Peak 0.62 0.97 0.98 0.93 •
MacArthur Blvd. & Birch St. AM Peak 0.46 0.51 0.53 ---
PM Peak 0.54 0.62 0.62 ---
J i
V
• 0 -$-
previous traffic study has indicated that in the future, a second northbound left turn lane
will be added at this intersection. With this improvement, the ICU value without and
with the project is improved to 0.88 and 0.89, respectively. The project would not have
an impact upon the intersection on this basis. The ICU calculations are contained in
Appendix C.
Jamboree Road/Campus Drive
This intersection would have an ICU value of 0.97 prior to the proposed project and
prior to any mitigation. If the project traffic is added to this intersection, the ICU value
increases to 0.98. A northbound left turn lane can be added to this intersection which
would improve the post project operations to 0.93. The ICU calculations are contained
in Appendix C.
The City Traffic Engineer was contacted and it is expected that the proposed
improvement can be accomplished through restriping and possibly modification to the
signal loop detection.
SUMMARY
This study presents a review of traffic factors related to the Rockwell International
Expansion as required by the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance.
Estimates were made of trips to be generated by the project and the impact of these trips
evaluated in terms of the Ordinance. The two impacted intersections can be mitigated
through a previously identified improvement and a proposed mitigation, respectively.
Principal findings of the study are the following:
1. The project will generate 85 AM peak hour and 70 PM peak
hour trip ends over existing trip generation on the site.
2. Of the 11 intersections evaluated, five did not pass the "One
Percent" test required by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance.
i
-9-
3. Of the five critical intersections, two were found to have ICU
values greater than 0.90 with the project during one of the
peak hours (AM or PM).
4. With improvements related to another previous study, all
intersection impacts would be mitigated at Bristol Street
North/Birch Street.
5. The impacts at Jamboree Road/Campus Drive can be
mitigated by adding a northbound left turn lane.
MITIGATION MEASURES
The following measures are recommended to mitigate potential traffic impacts of the
project.
Add a northbound left turn lane on Birch Street at Bristol Street North.
(Identified by a previously completed traffic study.)
Add a northbound left turn lane on Jamboree Road at Campus Drive.
We trust that this study will be of assistance to you and the City of Newport Beach. If
you have any questions or require additional information, please contact us.
Respectfully submitted,
WESTON PRINGLE & ASSOCIATES
d"�4wlol�
Weston S. Pringle, P.E.
Registered Professional Engineer
State of California Numbers C16828 & TR565
WSP:SS
#890011
III
APPENDIX A
ONE PERCENT ANALYSES
DCIVI OT+IYC'HI'M DCMIrII + IV—L7—yl + I .Oorm + LIVrIVOC UIVIOIUIY' 0—OIIUJVJ+w c
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection BRISTOL ST/CAMPUS M—IRVINE AV
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter pring 19 AM
Peak 2h Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 3S of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 21s Hour Peak 24 Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound
4833 �� `l ' 5Z`62 53 S (0.3'��! i
Southbound 1203 ZI 5 lq-z �`� I S ��•`��� i
i
Eastbound 6614 So S 7gI5 �`} ; Z� �0•3'��j
Westbound _0— D C2 O I O
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
C] Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.
DALE:
PROJECT.
9FORM T —A
bhNI t1Y:IVL'WNUh1 OtAUM ilU—'L YyI i li.1'1!'m i Ll"Wbt u1v101V14'+ e-0IIV40010 4
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection BRISTOL ST/CAMPUS DR—IRVINE AV
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average nter pring 19 91 PM
Peak 24 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Protected 1% of Protected Project
Direction Peak 2§ Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2y Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
;I
Northbound 3280 7-
�5
Scuthbound 3264 445 3�°°I 3rl I / S ?) I�
Eastbound ` 6657 S(
Westbound —�— O p O O
(—1 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
u Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume
❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.
DATE' —
PROJECT:
II FORM I
1 l • •
' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection BRISTOL ST/BIR`CH ST
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 _ AM
Peak 231 Hour Approved 1" Projected Project
I
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected Peak
Pea
Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 211 Hour Peak 2k Hour Volumeour PeaVolumeour II
Volume Volume Volume Volume
I
Northbound 766 I (o -7 `67i
Southbound 567
Eastbound 4594 i f�1 rJsy3 s C✓ i 3`b ��• i°;�
i
Hestbound _0_
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
❑ Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
❑ Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
DATE:
PROJECT: FORM I
r
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection BRISTOL ST/EIIRCH ST
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pring 19 9 PM
Peak 2)1 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1� ak Projected Pro
Pea ject
our
Direction Peak 2-1s Hour Growth Peak 211 Hour Peak 2rs Hour Yolumeour ' Peak
Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 444 0 4 s� S ! O
Southbound 1605 �`f b�0l
,I I i
Eastbound 3738 �O-7,1 q 41 -Z--
Westbound _0_
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
❑ Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
❑ Peak 231 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
DATE:
PROJECT: FORM I
I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection BRISTOL ST/JAMBOREE RD
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 91 AM
Peak 2� Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1° of Projected Project II
Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 2y Hour ( Peak 2� Hour Peak 2� Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
i
Northbound 6160 7-So 5,17- -1 "f 3 i 5 (0'z�'))
Southbound 972
Eastbound 590.9 /Z5(o -71 (os `IZ Z3
Westbound _0_
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 21-2 Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
DATE:
PROJECT:
' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection BRISTOL ST/JAMBOREE RD
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter Spring 19 91)PM
Peak 2y Hour Approved _ I
Approach Existing Regional Projects , Projected 1 1% of Projected Project II
Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 21s Hour ( Peak 21s Hour Peak 21, Hour Peak 2u Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 6224 Z51 / 033 -757lo
Southbound
1i 1976 0 7-%
Eastbound (O0,.°5�)
5601 0�'1
Westbound
!L —0—
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 21-2 Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.
I
DATE:
PROJECT:
FORM I
' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection BRISTOL STREET NORTH/CAMPUS DRIVE
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter Spring 19 91 AM
Peak 211 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected ; Project
Direction Peak 23, Hour Growth Peak Z� Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2-, Hour Peak 24 Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume volume
Northbound 5806 /S`� �-✓�i �o (,o b
Southbound 1357 SS o
f
Eastbound _0_ O O j c7 O
Westbound 2766
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
❑ Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is' estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
❑ Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
DATE:
PROJECT:
FOR14 I
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection BRISTOL STREET NORTH/CAMPUS DRIVE
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 91 )PM
Peak 2� Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 23$ Hour Peak 23, Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 3759 -7�
Sauthbound 4552 7-5S qoo-7 S O
Eastbound _0_ O 0 � b
Westbound 6817 1333 9150 v I '�s m ��I
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
❑ Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume
❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
r
DATE:
PROJECT:
FORM I
' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection BRISTOL ST N/BIRCH ST
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pring 19 _)AM
Peak 2� Hour Approved
FFApproach Existing Regional Projects Projected 10 of Projected Project
n Peak2l Hour VGrowtholume PeaVolume Hour PeaVolumeour Peavolumeour I PeaVolumeour
� i
d 2697 30� 300 30 �$
d 827 13 01 (o 1 1 0 Z3 (Z,qq�
Eastbound _0_
D O I O
Z O
Westbound 2702 53(o ZiZ�� 3
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected.
❑ Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
❑ Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.
DATE:
PROJECT: FORM I
i
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection BRISTOL ST N/BIRCH ST
(Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage Inter pring 19 91 PM
Peak 2� Hour Approved
F[Northbodnd
ach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1� of Projected Project
tion Peak 24 Hour Growth Peak 2+a Hour Peak 2 Hour PeeVolumeour I PeaVolumeour
Volume Volume Volume Volume r
rZ� 13q-71220ound 3045
ZqS 3340 (r`�')
Eastbound _0_ � O
O p c7
4lestbound 4339 / Og - 5 4 36 54
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
❑ Peak 21-2 Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
❑ Peak 21i Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.
DATE:
PROJECT: FORM I
' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection BRISTOL ST N/JAMBOREE RD
(Existing Traffic Volumes basea on verage Winter Spring 19 91 AM
Peak 2�t Hour Approved
Regional Projects Projected 71, ofrojected Project
FApproach Existing peak 2k Hour Peak 2�S Hour y Hour PenYolumeour
Peak 2k Hour Growth Volume VolumeVoume i
Volume Volume i
lo, I?q ► PS 3 � o.�')
9162 3��— � �S'
f1514: S 3Z c4 z.q 2'�'� S . ZEastbound0— i
Westbound 6
—0—
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
❑ Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2,. Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection.Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
DATE:
PROJECT: FORM I
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection BRISTOL ST N JAMBOREE RD
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average W-inter Spring 19 2 pM
Peak 24 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project j
Direction Peak 2y Hour I Growth i Peak 211 Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 21s Hour Peak 211 Hour II
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 7039 Z�6 b I �05 5 $//3$ 0 14
southbound 3892
FEa, d
O
l�
_0_ I D O D II
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.
j
DATE:
PROJECT:
FORM I
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection �TAMBOREE RD/MA:CARTHUR BL
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 91) AM
Peak 24 Hour Approved I)
Approach Existing Regional Projects Protected 10. of Projected Protect
olfaction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 24 Hour Peak 24 Hour Peek 2y Hour Peak 2h Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume volume Volume
Northbound 2184 7- 1'} $°I L�g 1 Z9 I �0.7,%)
Southbound 832 l04 Job
Eastbound 3873 I5-7 I 1lZ1 S,IS1 SZ
Westbound 1717 1 -7) 1 Z-Iq� `6 LS ! fd (0•32� it
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.
DATE:
PROJECT:
FORM I
SENT BY:NE'APORT BEACH 011- 1-91 : 5:53PM t LICENSE DIVISION-+ 9-8710389i# 7
•
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection JAMBOREE RD/MACARTHUR BL
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on AVirage Winter/Spring PM
Peak 2h Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project
Direction Peak 24 Hour Growth Peak 24 Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 24 Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 1791 5o 5 ZSZ 1 ys Z �p �A
Scuthbound 2618 3Z°I 13 3,b 1 6 1 1 1 o
Eastbound 1974 $b oZ Z°ISIo 3 I S �O.Z", �I
Westbound 3046 12� i 5 q n6S I 53 13 %) 'l
o Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2;1 Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
❑ Peak 2s Hour Traffic Volume, Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.
DATE:
PROJECT:
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection JAMBOREE RD/BIRCH ST
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 �11_) AM
Peak 23$ Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project
Direction Peak 21, Hour Growth Peak 211 Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2k Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume
Volume Volume
—I
Northbound 2810 114 '] 3 0 3 6 5
Southbound 4045 16 bl 60 6Z
Eastbound 362 3�} 40 (
i Z,a z�
i
Westbound 52 0
S7 d
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
❑ Peak 23-2 Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
❑ Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.
DATE:
PROJECT: FORM I
II
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection JAMBOREE RD/81RCH ST
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Inter pring 19 9 PM
Peak 2k Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Protected Project
Direction Peak 2�, Hour Growth Peak 231 Hour Peak 2y Hour Pea
Volumeour Peavo�umeour
Volume Volume Volume Volume /
Northbound 2585 IO S J�s� ! 3 toy?)
Southbound 3431 13°I 86( 1Z
Eastbound 1420
I g (0 s z)
i
Westbound 54 O S O
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
❑ Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.
DATE:
PROJECT: FORM I
I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection
me
(Existing Traffic Vol us baNed' on verage Winter spring 19 91J AM
Peak 2h Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project
Direction Peak 211 Hour Growth Peak 2;s Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2y Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 2529 0 3 -76 f 3 3
southbound 3760 / 537 1 '31Z 4o
��s� �� �
t
Eastbound 608 30 ,3 co O
1lesthound 3 ZS I (o p �o ' 2'3
1361
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
❑ Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
❑ Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.
DATE:
PROJECT: FORM I
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection JAMBOREE BL/CAMPUS DR
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter Spring 19 9 PM
Peak 211 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2+ Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 21, Hour ' Peak 2h Volumeour i Pea our
Volume
Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 3627 /14-7 J -I-11 554s ss
Southbound 419 3 /7 a `d 0al S 7 Z 5 Z
Eastbound
1614 1 CIO Zoo j Zo
_
Westbound 1578 °J «_7'1
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.
f
DATE:
PROJECT: FORM I
SENT SMENPORT BEACH :10— — 1 ; 1 :38PM LICENSEy
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection MACARTHUR BL/BIRCH ST 90
(Existing Traffic Volumes basedon Average inter pring
19 AM
Peak 2h Hour Approved I'
Approach Existing . Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project ,
Direction Peak 2h Hour growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2h Hour Pea�olumeour I�
Volume Volume Volume volume Volume
Northbound 1400 -7 to 101 I II
Southbound 2118 Z b b (0 61 30-7 3 i `a (0,
Eastbound
1505
Westbound
776 .
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
❑ Peak 23, Hour Traffic Volume
❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2;fi Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
DATE
PROJECT: FORM I
r r r -,_urivvvurw 0
r r • •
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection MACARTHUR BI, BIRCH 5T
(Existing Traffic Volumes base2 on erage Winter/Spring 19 90) nM
Peak 24 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Project$ Projected Ion of Projected Project
Direction Peak 24 Hour Growth Peek 24 Hour Peak 2>s Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour
Vnlump Volume Valume Volume Volume Yoluma
Northbound 1559 Z 5 Z Z S I 0 /
Southbound 12018 1 25 3 3 845
Eastbound I 1462 11 1533 s i i (0•70') i
Westbound 1 ZS (°i°I L 29 5 3 �Z•7�°
1867
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
❑ Peak 2li 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.
DATE:
PROJECT;
FORM I
' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection MACARTHUR BL/CAMPUS DR
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average WinterISpring 19 9 AM
Peak 2� Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 231 Hour Peak 2�, Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak lu, Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 1978 Z�{$ Z-I-j ZS0 j LS 3
Southbound 2689 33�f Ion (o 7-2)
Eastbound
291 Z 30 0 1 3 v
0
Westbound 983 3 b ► O I o 0 i
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
❑ Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.
DATE:
PROJECT: FORM I
k 1 • •
' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection MACARTHUR BL/CAMPUS DR
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pring 19 91) PM
Peak 211 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 231 Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2 Hour Peak 2k Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
I �
Northbound 2918 IVO /</0,2%�
Southbound 3270 L� p �} I o°I 1 i Z ` O ��
,I
Eastbound 2512
i
Westbound 2771 � °IZ Z°Ilo j 3o O
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
❑ Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
❑ Peak 231 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.
DATE:
PROJECT:
FORM I
APPENDIX B
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEETS
• •
OR4175AM
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET NORTH 8 BIRCH STREET 4175 I
EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1991 AM
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I (EXISTING[PROPOSED I EXISTING(EXISTING IREGIONALI COMMITTED( PROJECTED (PROJECT]PROJECT(
1Movementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C ( GROWTH ( PROJECT I V/C Ratio (Volume I V/C I
I ICapacitylcapacityl Volume I Ratio ( Volume I Volume Iwo Projeetl I Ratio 1
I I I I I I I I Volume I I I
(-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
NL ;1 16001 1 151 1 0.091 1 1 0.041 1 10,01 1
i--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---I
I NT 1 3200 1 1 1247 1 0.39 * 1 15 1 O.44`1 1 q I I,q y*l
-----------------------------------------------------------------------I
i MR I I I I I I I I I I
-----------------------------------------------------------------------I
I SL I I I I I I I I I
I------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I ST 1 1600 1 1 86 1 0.05 1 1 41 1 o. 0g I 10,0% 1
I------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ------I
I SR 1 3200 1 1 204 1 0.06 1 1 7-17 1 6.0-1 1 15, 10.05 1
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
I EL I I I I I I I I I I
-----------------------------------------------------------------------I
I ET I I I I I I I I I I
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
I ER I I I I I I I I I I
------------------------------------------I
b—U
I-------------------------------- ------------------ I.
I WT 69ao I 1 881 0 1 12�S 1 o.z3 � oz3�I
48OG ------------------} B:- *------------------' -.---.
WR 1 ( 125
-- - ----------------- ---------- ------I
1 r0 (-------- _-------- -------------------- I
1EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0.(0—( 1 I
--------------------------------------------------------------------I
1EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 10, V1 I
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1_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_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be
less than or equal to 0.90
I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will
be less than I.C.U. without project
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description of system improvement:
PROJECT FORM II
BR4175AM
BR4175PH
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET NORTH & BIRCH STREET 4175 I
EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1991 PM
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I IEXI STINGIPROPOSED I EXISTING!EXISTING IREGIONALIC"ITTED I PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI
IHovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I WC I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio (Volume I V/C I
I Icapacitylcapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Votume Iw/o Projeetl I Ratio I
I I I I I I I I Volume I I I
►-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
I NL 1 1600 1 1 181 1 0.11 * I 1 0,11 u' I 1 0,11*1
I-----=-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
I NT 1 3200 1 1 302 1 0.09 1 1 657 1 0,11 1 q 1 0,I L 1
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
I MR I I I I I I I I I I
-------------------------- --------i--------i--------'---------i-------------------i--..---
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
I ST 1 1600 1 1 423 1 0.26 1 1 32 1 0,zI? I 10,z f I
I------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I SR 1 3200 1 1 1229 1 0.38 • I I i S I 0, q Z*i 1$
I -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
i EL I I I I I I I I I I
i-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
I ET I I I I I I I I I I
i -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -I
i ER I I i I I I I I I I
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
I WL laaa 1 1 237 9-* 1 1 1 1 1 1
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
I WT ekod 1 1 1720 � I - 155� I 6.40 I I Z I o0
--------0 4800 ---------i--------0 i---- --
WR 48
I------------------------------ -------— -----------------------------------------------1
(EXISTING I W I I
I---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
(EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0,11 1 I
i-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
(EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 10,q 1 I
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1_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
1_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:
PROJECT FORM II
BR4175PM
JA4275PM •
INTERSECTION CAPACITY I(UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION: JAMYORIK ROAD a MACARTHUR BOULEVARD 427E
EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 11991 PM
.............................................................................................
I IOX13TINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGI EXISTING IREGIONALI COMMITTED I PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI
IMovsmantl Lana I Lam I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I WC Ratio 1Volura I V/C I
I lCapaeitylCapacityl VoLute I Ratio I Volum I Volume 1w10 Projectl I Ratio I
I I I I I I I I Volume I I I
_ _N` 1600
...j••' .i 04 0.13
........i..-•2 .j... •+..... -'i--Zo'--I''o. Ic� J i.......i D I !
I. ..... ...... .I
..........................................................
1 MT . I - 1 326 I -o. .I
1. .... .) 4800 ..................) 0.11 .... ....... ........ .I
NR I 1 211 I 15g I I S ! I
. ......................................................... ... ........................ .I
1 SL 1 1600 1 1 1a3 1 0.11 1 1 15 1 0,1 Z 1 1 0,1 Z !
. ..........4800...................685! .i...0.14-' gL�..I•Zf2 I -o,z! --- -I 0.z�*1
I. .......................................................................................-.
I SR I N.S. 1 1 410 1 1 1 ton I I I I
. . ...i--' .i....---.i.... • ........i.. . .i..._-•.E` 32oo z0a1 o.G7 , 156I o,tl � 10.1 !4, I
. ................................................................I...................... .1
j. .ET.......4aoo l
. -•...................... z... 3. 1 25... I 1
. o; 8...................�
- ER I N.S. 1 1 35 1 1 1 $ 1 1 1 I
. ....................................•-----................- ,.............-...........
1
1 WL 1 32001 1 3291 0.101 1 6-1 I o. 1Z 1 S 10,j21
. .WT...i..`4800.i........i...1062 i...0.22.e.-43. 1351...1 0,30.�.l...5j. 10.30�
i. ....................................................................................... .1
I WA I N.S. 1 1 72 1 1 1 � c6 I I ID I . I
l...........................................................................................
1EXISTING 1 0.56 1 I
1. .......................................................................... I
(EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0,J 1p I I
I. .........................................................................................1
IEXISTIND + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 10,E b 1
.............................................................................................
1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be tees than or equal to 0.90
I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. Will be greater than 0.90
1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be
lass than or equal to 0.90
I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with pr6ja6t improvements will
be Less than I.C.U. without project
......... _--.•.-'-.,'•.-•'.•..•....•••......................•..•Description improvement:PROJECT FORMAT I
JA4275PM
JA430SAM
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD S BIRCH STREET 4308
EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING , 1991 AM
I 1EXISTING]PROPOSED(EXISTING[EXISTING[REGIONAL[COMMITTED I PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI
IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio (Volume I V/C I
I ICapacitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume 1w/o Project] I Ratio I
I I I I I I I I Volume I I I
1-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
I NL 1 1600 1 1 219 1 0.14 , 1 3 1 0,1�1 a" I Iotg4-I
.. :______ - -I
xT 1 1 1129 1 41, 1 3 I O,3Z 1 6 oL3
I--------) 4800 --- --) 0.24 --------------
I NR 1 1 7 1 1 I I I [
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
I SL 1 1600 1 1 a 1 0.01 1 1 1 v,O( I 1 I
i-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
[ ST 1 4800 1 1 1233 1 0.26 * 50 1 1 rJ-j I O,`I r1 :r 120 10,47
I-------------------------•-----------------------------------------------------------------I
I SR I H.S. 1 1 1030 1 1 1 Z°I 1 ..____....1 1. i
-----I
EL 1 i 153
] _ ._--_7_
" ET---) 3200 i""'"-i"•__--'3 0.05 i_...--"I"r3 I y p•o$'Y.1. � O,O Ic
[ 3 -------/-------------------------•-i
I ER I N.S. 1 1 271 1 1 q I I_ I I
------------------------------ •------I
I.._uL_._______.__i_ 1 8 I I i I I I I........) ----------•-----•-J -----------------------------------------------
I WT 1600 1 1 B 0.02 * I 1 p,0Z.-Y- 1 1
1 WR I 1 70 1 1 1 1 1 I
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
1EXISTING 1 0.47 1
1•--------------------------------------------------------------•------------
[EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I b 6 I I
I•------•----------------•----•-------------------------------."----------------------'----I
(EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U.
_-..-----•'•---•----------------------------------•-----'----------------------•_
1_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
1_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 r
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description of system improvement:
PROJECT FORMAT I
JA4308AM
c r • •
JA430SAM
ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION: 2, 't00c CE FCA: L a,RP.S :RIVE 4305
EXIST TRAFFIC ..10°E: .&Arric li;NTER/SPRING 1991 AM
.......................•.-_......_.................._....'.--.--......__..__..._.__..........
IE%'='• � •' • ••"""�r"" `�COMMIttCDI PROJECTED I PROJECT[PROJECT
IMovementl Lance LY. I PRCJECT I V/C Ratio IVolume I V/C I
I 1CapaC i•; ;Cci,;.(: ; � !. :—K .. .c *,C!u.K I vct� 1w/o Projectl I Ratio 1
I I I I I I i volure I I I
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------- ..---•-I
I NL I 160C I 1 99 I 0.06 * I S.5 I 0. 11 4, 1 I p--j �I
-•-------------- -- -- --------------•------•----_----_- ---I
I HT 1 I 1106 1-4-6--I Z'1 I o z4
i"------) 6400 ..................) C.19 •.' -----------
^I
I NR i I 84 I IZo I Is 1
----------------------------------•--_.-_--•----- ____..I
I St. 1 3200 1 1 al 1 0.09 1 1 1 -C>,OJ----'-----..10,01 1
C'---- tY .......
I ST 1 1 1454 1
l_...._..) tECO ..................) C.34 ...__.....__.....__. .......
SR I I ISO 1 1 7-3 1 1 1 i
..__•.-...•---------------------------------------------------------------'•-------------- I
EL 1 1 ii0 I I Its i -------
1.0..01
ET I I 177 I 11 5 I I I I
i---------------------------------------------•----------...__---------•---- 1
i ER I N.S. 1 1 8 1 1 1 1 a}- i I i I
I UL 1 160" 1 1 256 1 0.16 * I I I D.7-4 -' I /o I o,L4
I------------ ----
1 uT I 32Cc 1 1 260 1 0.08 1 1 t10 1 0,01 1 I0,01 1
I---------------------------------------------------------'------------------------------.._i
I WR 1 16C0 1 1 1.6 1 0.09 1 1 0 1 1_ 1 I'
I----_..----•-----•---------------•-------•-------•-- - •-----• I
1EXISTING 1 0.62 1 I
1-----------------------------------------------------------------•---------- I
1EXIST + REG 5R0"'7k - :OMo-;;1E: ' ,•i.0?:SE: :N.r-.,VCMENTS I.C.U. 1 0.1-1 1 1
.---•..........................•------•--------------------------------------- -
1
EXISTING + CO"".::7 E: • REC OVAL Cam..:;H - PROJECT I.C.U.
................................._...........................................................
1_1 Project + p•c,'W .:aff:c :_... ..,, be !cc, then cr equal to 0.90
1_1 Projected - .:tl be creaser than 0.90
1_I Projected - p't;c.: .:c'.! :rjct es ir.4.:r+ement will be
less than c: equal to 0.90
I_I Projected - t:L'."c :.:.:. c;cc: ..mrrcvements will
be less tF.•. I.C.U. •i:hout project
.........................................................................................
Descriptic••. .! eyttea. imprcvement:
PROJECT •— FORMAT
JA4308AM
SENT BY:NEmAPORT BEACH :10— — '' "
e • } • •
MA4295AM
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
INTERSECTIONc MACARTHUR BOULEVARD A BIRCH STREET 4295
EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BALED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1990 AN
.............................................................................................
I I EXIST INGIPROPOSEDI EXISTING[EXISTING I REGIONAL ICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED 1PROJECTI PROJECT I
IMovementl Lane! I Lenee I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio 1Volums I V/C I
I ICapscity1capsoltyl Volume I Ratio ] Volums I Volume 1w/o Projectl I Ratio I
I I I I I i I I Volume I I I
. ............ ............. ..... . . .. .................... o�............ .I. I . * . I
..........-------..------•.....---------.......--••...... •-
MT� 1-+ 4800 1..•.... 1 $25 1 0.11 I bb I I So I o,i6 i l o.i
I....................
1• -.
H.S. ......1
.....76
1 .......1........1..1.E..i...........i.......!...... I
...................................1...0... 1_......_1.........l..0.10 I ] o
. .ST.....................1....567 .........1.....i.....3Z.......� »,. 1. . . .1.0 -•
.� 0.12 *. •Ip1 'I. -SS• 6400 1........1 "216 ' 1 ... ..1..1 q:..1- L.... I ....
I........................... ----..--•---- --1 ] ..I.. ....I
EL ...-.
I........y ..................? ............. .. .... ... ._ 1
1 ET 4a0a I I ... 0.16 * ] 3� I cm-1 I I .. I .....I
i..............................—. .
. -..•........•......•......�.......... ....... ..... I
I WL 1 1600 1 1 33 I 0.02 1 1 - 1 0,03 I 10.o I
..............................
1...._..:1 257.,.. l...0.08 o o ;'.....1..1
I WT 1
1. • �j .I..I S .1 o,0
.OUR .] W.S. I....... i...-.661........1........1... ....1..... ....1..5..-, �
I....TING...........................1..•0.461..............................................
1............................................................................ 1
]EXIST + AEG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 O,
1...................................................................................1.......1
IEXISTINO + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U.
.............................................................................................
]_) Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be leas than or squaL to 0.90
Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90
1-1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems Improvement will be
Lost than or equal to 0.90
I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will
be last than I.C.U. without project
.........................................................................................
Dascriptton of system improvement:
PROJECT FORM 11
. i . O71;T00.�iii 4
MA4295PM
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD L 1IRCH STREET 4295
' EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRINO 1990 PM
...........................................:.................................................
I IEXISTINOIPROPOSEDIEXISTINO1EXISTINGIREQIONALI COMMITTED I PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI
IMovamantl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVotume I V/C I
I IcapscitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I volume 1W/o Prolectl I Ratio I
I I I I I I I I volume I 1 .1
L ................................ . .... ....................... ..........I .. ...
I .1 NT.................. .....i 493
.... .1 0.10 1
••• . 6Z^ 13—iS 1 0. 10 - I ..----1 pj 1°
1 4800
I
1. ..., .I..........................I. .....................................................1
I MR i N.S. 1 1 31 1 1 1 112;1 1 1 1 1
. .............. ...............59 . .
..... .. ..................... . . .1....�.... .,... I
. .sT.........................................�'�.... 1 . g ..•..l..... I.. ...i..o„�
........) 6400 i......__i....186 ) 0.12 i_..._'.,i...�...• ...i._... . .... 1
................................................. .j..i—1
._ .............. ..
EL 275 ]
1........3 . ..................) .................... ..........._:.:.... .......
I
i ET 4800 1 1 - 309• 0.13 * 1 2.0 i 5,1q 1 S i 0.1q If"
I. .... .) ................ .) ............----- --............. ._ .
I ER I I 32 1 I -I I
. ......................_......8..] ..... ............Z..... --01- I -----'I o,o1 I
I...........................................................................................
WT 1 3200 1 1 653 1 0.20 * 1 3% 1 0. ZZ)� 1 Z.o 10. LZ
1. .WR...1..N.S...1........1_...131.i.................i.....................i.. ..i..... .
I......................
.................0.54.1................................__......------I
EXISTING
I............................................................................ I
]EXIST + AEG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I 0.6 Z I I
1EXISTING + COMMITTED=.REGIONAL•GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U...._:.-' •.. ...
1 0.(,zJ
1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. Wilt be Leas than or equal to 0.90
1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C,U, Witt be greater than 0.90
1_1 Projected + project traffio I.C.U. W/systems improvement Witt be
Late than or equal to 0.90
1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements Witt
be less than I.C.U. without project
............................................................ . .
0eaeription of systam improvement;
PROJECT FORM 1I
iTt
1 " x • •
APPENDIX C
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSES
WITH IMPROVEMENTS
BR417SPH
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS t
INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET NORTH 8 BIRCH STREET 4175 W�?� Aj?t 6.4-Tf y�•1
EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1991 PM
------------•---------------------------------•------------------••--•-----------•-----------
I IEXISTING]PROPOSED]EXISTING IEXISTINGIREGTONALICOMMITTED I PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI
IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio (Volume I V/C I
ICapacitylCapacityl Votume I Ratio I Volume I Votume Iw/o Projectl I Ratio I
I I I I I I I I Volume I I I
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
I NL 1 1600 1 3z00 1 181 1 0.11 * I I 0,0(P4 I
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
I NT 1 3200 1 1 302 1 0.09 1 1 4,S 1 p'I I • 1 16./2 I '
i-----------------•----------------•------------------------------------- - -_____-------I
I MR I I I I I I I I I I
I---------•------------------------------------------------------•--------•-----------------I
I SL I I I I I I I I I I
i-•-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
ST 1 16001 1 423 1 0.261 1 32 1 o,2g 1 167,7-g 1
1-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
I SR 1 3200 1 1 1229 1 0.38 • I I1 S 1 o,97-'* I /V 10,�3�1
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
i EL I I I I I I I I I I
I---------------------•----------------------------------------------------------•----------I
I ET I I I I I I I I I I
I --------------------------------------------------------------•-------------------------
ER I I I I I I I I I I
I--------------•------------------------------------------------------------•--•------------I
WL t600 1 1 737 ��__1_ 1 I I
I---------------------•------ ---- ___ _ --------------- ...... -------I
I Wr 64o01 I 1720 l 1550 I o 4o d I j z l o,4 "1
1--------) 4800 i--------i--- i-------•------- I ------- jl i WR 48
1---------------------------------------4--------------------- -----------------------------I
(EXISTING 1 &.1 1 I
I- -------------------------------•-----...---------------------------------- I
(EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U.
I----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------•--I
[EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 1 6.%l 1
------------------------------------•------------------------.-------------------------------
1_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
1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be
r
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: .p2�VlOyS T2hFf'IL 57'dD`� f�°��yi-S f1' �o�>fli30d�p � 7f ^'�
LA144- WIu. 94 140010
PROJECT FORM 11
BR4175PM
� , '•''•fM1( � ... ._ Tom,�rp�.�:�. :: �-!i
A.
JA430SAM
I KTCFSC CT:ON CA.AC:TY L'TILi:ATiON ANALYSIS it
INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE RCA: S CAMPUS DRIVE 4305 WI-to rAPrlbq•t 1014
EXIST TRAFFIC VGLUMCS BACCD ON AL�RAGC GAILY TRArrIC MINTER/SPRIG 1991 AM
__________________________________________________________________
IEXISI:AC;:FOi OSCC jC:::ST:A'C E1::ET:NG FC C:CKALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED 1PROJECT[PROJECTI
IMovementl Lanes I LarLS I FN HP. :YC i GRO'.IH I PRCJECT I V/C Ratio [Volume I V/C
I lCapacitylCapecityl VcIwK I F_tic [ Vclume I'Volune lw/o Projeetl I Ratio I
I I i i I i I I VOLLEW I 1
_______________________________
NL 1 1600 1(4)32.,c l 99 1 0.06 * I 7) I b_l�
I
_____________ _____________________________ _ __--______.______I
NT I I 1106 179,Z�
.-- - ..... ..... .....' ---_-_
NR1 1 84 1 12� 1 `�-- 1._______________________________________ _ ------i
1 SL 1 32001 1 2811 0.091 1 1 0.orl I 10,011
-----••._------.•.---•••---------••-•----------------------------------I
1 ST •1 1 1454 1 61 1 `d4q ( a 53 -T I 10
--------) 4800 __________________) 0.34 •__________-.-____- . .-.._ .)
i SR I i 180 1 1 Z3 i I I I
I_-_EL_--_____-___-._____- i_______ ________i______._i___-_____1.-. . _� I.---.._1_..__. I
110
1 - "
--_) 4800 i-..._ •i' .) 0.06 --- - -
ET 1
I
17_ ________-_-___--_-_ I S _______________________�______-I
1 ER I N.S. 1 1 8 1 1 1 1 q I I I I
______________________________________________________________I
i UL 1 1600 1 1 256 1 0.16 * 1 123 1 6,Z1 4- 1 1 O I O,2q 'I
___________________________________________________________________________________________I
I WT 1 3200 1 1 260 1 0.08 1 ._ I 4 v ' I o,DI -- I - 10,09 .
►------------------•----__-._----•--------•-------------------- - -------------
l WR 1 1600 1 1 146 1 0.09 1 1 v 1 I 1 I
•----- -------
0.62
(EXISTING i I
I
I
________________________________________________________________'-__----- 1
(EXIST + REG GROWTH - COMN:TTLC '.';FFOPCSEC IMrROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0,1 L I
I
'[EXISTING + COMM:TIED - REC:ONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 10,17j
.............................................................................................
1_1 Project + prciect traffic I.C.C. gill be less than or equal to 0.90
I_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be sreater than 0.90
I_1 Projected + project trafficwlsys:en improvement will be
less than or equal to 0.90
Projected - prcjcc Lific !.C,l: .i:h, rro;cct improvements will
be less than !.C.U. without project
......................................_._.__.___-___••------• --__..__^________-___.__
Descripticr. cf system improvement: 4D0 14,1v llSuug0 9U"Z�/ 6A^t4. — P,erMAlluy /h.S�Rfold1.
A.JD Po4•-l9lryct,N k�/��Q (,00P p�TLL7�,nr�l
PROJECT FORMAT
JA4308AM
,I / �1
- - -
/�,a�v.- - -- - ---.� ti� --cam �� --- - - -
.�
- - - -- -
- -- ---
- -- - - - - - /'^'r -- - - -
- - -- -
- - -- -
�a� f (3� - - - - - - -
r �,w
W A I
`?4' Weston Pringle & Associates
0 =- A
TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING
November 6, 1991
Mr.John H. Douglas
J g
Principal Planner
City of Newport Beach
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915
Dear Mr. Douglas:
This letter summarizes our updated analysis of our March 3, 1989 study related to the
proposed Rockwell Expansion Project in the City of Newport Beach. The study has been
conducted to satisfy the requirements of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. This study
is based upon information provided by the Rockwell Corporation, City Staff and previous
studies.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Semi-Conductor Products Division of Rockwell International is located on the
westerly side of Jamboree Road, southerly of Birch Street. An expansion of the facilities
is proposed which would increase the total building area by 39,000 square feet. In
addition, a 25,000 - 30,000 square foot expansion to the manufacturing area may be
required. This expansion would add a maximum of 257 employees to the site. The
employees are spread over five shifts with most employees beginning at 7:30 AM.
Vehicular access is provided at two locations on Jamboree Road and one location on
Birch Street. Figure 1 illustrates the project location.
680 Langsdorf Drive • Suite 222 • Fullerton, CA 92631 • (714) 871-2931 • FAX:(714) 871-0389
q i
DR.
Jy
r.
r
UIr . . . -j '
BRISTp� ST m SITE
NORTH 5
BR►STOL ST,
J gJHTC�
D
ZO m p
a
9
s
� W
FORD B�
LO
Jp
y Q 5PN AQ��N
a o �ii
W N jr > fl� y�<<S RO.
A
a zm > Q w a
irLLJ o
�� o COAST HWy �? CL
a
w PACIFIC it a
�A
SITE LOCATION MAP
WMFON MMGU-a ASSOGAUS FIGURE 1
Y i
• • —2—
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The streets in the area of the project are fully developed. Jamboree Road is a six lane
street with medians which extends from north of the I-405 to Coast Highway. There are
two lanes of travel in each direction on Birch Street with left turn channelization.
Parking is prohibited on both streets. The intersection of Jamboree Road and Birch
Street is signalized, as,are other principal intersections in the area.
TRIP GENERATION
Since the project is an expansion of an existing project, it was possible to obtain data
specifically related to trip generation characteristics of this facility. Driveway traffic
volumes were provided by Rockwell, which were summaries of traffic counts conducted
by Newport Traffic Studies the week of September 26, 1988. These volumes are
summarized in Table 1, along with trip generation rates based upon the number of
existing employees. Rates were determined for each of the analysis periods required in
the Traffic Phasing Ordinance.
The estimated 2.5 and peak hour trip generation for the proposed expansion are listed
in Table 2. These estimates are based upon an increase in employment by 257. An
estimated 200 trips would be generated during the AM 2.5 hour peak and 180 during
the PM 2.5 hour peak. During the AM peak hour, an estimated 85 trips would be
generated and 70 during the PM peak hour.
TRIP ASSIGNMENT
In order to assign project traffic to the street system, it is necessary to develop a trip
distribution pattern. Data was provided by Rockwell indicating the home zip codes of
existing employees. These data were plotted on an area map and a distribution pattern
developed for the site. This distribution is illustrated on Figure 2. The estimated trips
to be generated by the project were assigned to the street system in conformance with
this distribution.
t
. • -3-
TABLE 1
EXISTING DRIVEWAY VOLUMES & TRIP GENERATION RATES
Rockwell International
VEHICLES(') RATEM
TIME PERIOD IN OUT IN OUT
6:30 - 9:00 AM 937 313 0.58 0.19
7:30 - 8:30 AM 350 176 0.22 0.11
3:30 - 6:00 PM 204 954 0.12 0.59
4:30 - 5:30 PM 50 394 0.03 0.24
(1) Average volumes for week of September 24, 1988; Newport Traffic Studies.
(2) Trip ends per employee - based upon 1,623 employees.
TABLE 2
TRIP GENERATION
Rockwell International
TRIP ENDS(')
TIME PERIOD IN OUT
AM 2.5 Hour Peak 150 50
AM Peak Hour 55 30
PM 2.5 Hour Peak 30 150
PM Peak Hour 10 60
(1) Based upon 257 employee increase.
SAN DIEGO FRyyY.
a
� I
5 � � 5 25/ �15
= pR' 15
Q 15
04
�40 U m
eRlsTOL sr SITE
BRISTOL Sr NORrH �5
10 25 5
LEGEND ,'— 10 10 10)
10 - DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION ��w�
PERCENTAGE
D
m
9
� a GIRD.
F W
FORD B�
�O
Jp
SPN A Q���
S > 8 o y�<<S RD.
a o W m � w
a Z > ui
p p C
COAST HWy. 4v`' a
mp9
w PACIFIC Q9
O ��F
PROJECT .-DISTRIBUTION
.WESTON PMGU & ASSOCIATES FIGURE 2
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
The traffic analysis has been completed to conform to the criteria of the City of Newport
Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The 11 study intersections identified by the City
Traffic Engineer for inclusion in the analysis were updated based on the most current
available data. The first required analysis is the "One Percent" test. An intersection is
defined as critical by the Ordinance when the project traffic exceeds one percent of
existing plus committed project plus regional growth traffic on any approach to an
intersection during the AM or PM 2.5 hour peak period. A list of committed projects was
provided by the City for inclusion in this study and these projects are listed in Table 3.
Since the project is scheduled for completion in 1990, the analyses were completed for
1991 as required by the Ordinance. 01'da+e of
Y
occuPanCY
Igg5 ?
Appendix A contains the "One Percent" analysis sheets liot time 11 inersections analyzed
and the results are summarized in Table 4. Review of Table 4 indicates that five
intersections did not pass the "One Percent' test; Bristol Street North/Birch Street,
Jamboree Road/MacArthur Boulevard, jamboree Road/Birch Street; Jamboree
Road/Campus Drive and MacArthur Boulevard/Birch Street.
In conformance with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, ICU analyses were completed for
the five intersections for those periods that were found to be critical. These analyses are
contained in Appendix B and include existing, existing plus regional growth ,plus
committed project, and existing plus regional growth plus committed project plus project
traffic conditions. The results of these analyses are summarized in Table 5. Review of
Table 5 indicates that all intersections are projected to have ICU values of less than 0.90
for the critical periods, except Bristol Street North/Birch Street during the PM peak hour
and Jamboree Road/Campus Drive during the AM peak hour. Additional analyses were
completed for these intersections and are described in the following paragraphs.
Bristol Street Nr
This intersection i o"ected t in 1991 without the project
s r o have an ICU value of 1.01 ut
projected p J
and without street improvements. With the project, the ICU would increase to 1.03. A
TABLE 3
COMMITTED PROJECTS
Hoag Cancer Center Mariners Church Expansion
Civic Plaza Big Canyon Villa Apartments
Corporate Plaza 1400 Dove Street
Newport Place 1100 Quail Street
Valdez McLachlan-Newport Place
Koll Center NPT No. 1 Koll Center TPP Amendment 4A
1501 Superior Medical Villa Point
15th Street Apartments Rosan's Development
Newporter Resort Expansion Fashion Island #2
Amendment No. 1 North Ford Newport Aquatics Center
Newport Dunes Taco Bell
Bayview Newport Retirement Inn
City of Irvine Development Newport Classic Inn
Shokrian Newport Lido Medical Center
Edwards Newport Center Big Canyon 10
Newport Imports Restaurant YMCA
Calty/Toyota Expansion Amendment No. 1 Ford Aero
Our Lady Queen of Angels Amendment No. 1 MacArthur
Zonta Club Residential 3800 Campus Drive
28th Street Island 3760 Campus Drive
Andrew Restaurant Balboa/Washington
28th Street Marina Project Ambrosia Restaurant
Villa Point II Fashion Island Transfer
Pacific Bell Site
a i
• -6-
TABLE 4
CRITICAL INTERSECTION IDENTIFICATION
Rockwell International
2.5 HOUR PERCENTAGES
NB SB EB WB
LOCATION AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
Bristol St. & Campus Dr. - Irvine Ave. 0.3 / 0.1 0.4 / 0.4 0.3 / 0.1 ----- -----
Bristol St. & Birch St. 0.0 / 0.0 0.0 / 0.0 0.7 / 0.2 ----- -----
Bristol St. &Jamboree Rd. 0.2 / 0.0 0.3 / 0.5 0.3 / 0.0 ----- -----
Bristol St. N. & Campus Dr. - Irvine Ave. 0.0 / 0.0 0.0 / 0.0 ----- ----- 0.7 / 0.9
Bristol St. N. & Birch St. 1.3 / 0.8 2.4 / 1.4 ----- ----- 0.0 / 0.6
Bristol St. N. &Jamboree Rd. 0.4 / 0.1 0.2 / 0.9 ----- ----- ----- -----
Jamboree Rd. & MacArthur Blvd. 0.3 / 0.1 0.0 / 0.0 0.7 / 0.2 0.3 / 1.3
Jamboree Rd. & Birch St. 0.2 / 0.9 0.7 / 0.3 2.0 / 0.5 0.0 / 0.0
Jamboree Rd. & Campus Dr. 0.4 / 0.8 0.7 / 0.2 0.0 / 0.0 1.4 / 0.3
MacArthur Blvd. & Birch St. 0.0 / 0.0 0.3 / 0.1 2.4 / 0.7 3.1 / 2.7
MacArthur Blvd. & Campus Dr. 0.1 / 0.2 0.2 / 0.1 0.0 / 0.0 0.0 / 0.0
. 1
a
t
3
TABLE 5
t
ICU SUMMARY
Rockwell International
I
EXISTING EXISTING
EXISTING +REGIONAL +REGIONAL
+REGIONAL +COMMITTED +COMIIDTIED
EXISTING +COMMITTED +PROJECT +PROJECT
INTERSECTION PERIOD 1991 (1991) (1991) W/IMPROV. I
Bristol St. N. & Birch St. AM Peak 0.60 0.71 0.71 ---
PM Peak 0.86 1.01 1.03 0.90
Jamboree Rd. & MacArthur Blvd. PM Peak 0.56 0.76 0.76 ---
Jamboree Rd. & Birch St. AM Peak 0.47 0.68 0.69 ---
Jamboree Rd. & Campus Dr. AM Peak 0.62 0.97 0.98 0:93
MacArthur Blvd. & Birch St. AM Peak 0.46 0.51 0.53 ---
PM Peak 0.54 0.62 0.62 ---
4
k
t
v fi
previously approved project has been required to add a westbound left turn lane at this
intersection. With this improvement, the ICU value with and without the project is
improved to 0.89 and 0.90, respectively. The project would not have an impact upon the
intersection on this basis. The ICU calculations are contained in Appendix C and the
improvements are illustrated on Figure 3.
Jamboree Road/Campus Drive
This intersection would have an ICU value of 0.97 prior to the proposed project and
prior to any mitigation. If the project traffic is added to this intersection, the ICU value
increases to 0.98. A northbound left turn lane can be added to this intersection which
would improve the post project operations to 0.93. The ICU calculations are contained
in Appendix C.
The City Traffic Engineer was ' contacted and it is expected that the proposed
improvement can be accomplished through restriping and possibly modification to the
signal,loop detection.
SUMMARY
This study presents a review of traffic factors related to the Rockwell International
Expansion as required by the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance.
Estimates were made of trips to be generated by the project and the impact of these trips
evaluated in terms of the Ordinance. The two impacted intersections can be mitigated
through previously conditioned improvements and a proposed mitigation, respectively.
Principal findings of the study are the following: '
1. The project will generate 85 AM peak hour and 70 PM peak
hour trip ends over existing trip generation on the site.
2. Of the 11 intersections evaluated, five did not pass the "One
Percent" test required by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance.
r
I
J
O
F—
1 m
L-1-L 1
- - - - ---- --
At
44
BIRCH ST.
J
J I
r4- /jo
14%
S
/1/•y
• VI.
ADD LEFT 0
TURN LANE Z
N
Seal* 1140' -
I ' L
IB
WESTON PRII M L ASSOCIATES FibURE; 3
3. Of the five critical intersections, two were found to have ICU
values greater than 0.90 with the project during one of the
peak hours (AM or PM).
4. With improvements related to other projects, all intersection
impacts would be mitigated at Bristol Street North/Birch
Street.
5. The impacts at Jamboree Road/Campus Drive can be
mitigated by adding a northbound left turn lane.
MITIGATION MEASURES
The following measures are recommended to mitigate potential traffic impacts of the
project.
Add a westbound left turn lane on Bristol Street North at Birch Street.
(Required by previously approved project.)
- Add a northbound left turn lane on Jamboree Road at Campus Drive.
We trust that this study will be of assistance to you and the City of Newport Beach. If
you have any questions or require additional information, please contact us.
Respectfully submitted,
WESTON PRINGLE & ASSOCIATES
Weston S. Pringle, P.E.
Registered Professional Engineer
State of California Numbers C16828 & TR565
WSP:SS
#890011
APPENDIX A
ONE PERCENT ANALYSES
atnt ,oT-irewrurtl OCAtim flu-4o-al . I1401'14 . LibclVOc UiViOLVIN" —V—eflu0U41OF
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection BRISTOL ST/CAMPUS bR—IRVINE AV
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Xverage nter pr ng 19 _ . AM
Peak 2h Hour Approved I '
Approach Existing Regional Project& Projected IS of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 29 Hour Peek 2h Hour Peak 2+y Hour Peak 2h Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume volume
Northbound 4833 4419 JZ��i 53 js (o,3%�II
i Southbaund 120 3 yj /y y' /�f I ! �p q, f.
Eastbound y
6614 So S '74f
Westbound _0_ O p O I O II
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utili2ation
(I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.
r
DAjE:
PROJECT:
StN1',t$T;NtWI+UHI tltAUM ;7u—za—ar � ;o:rm 't — `Cicieivae utvYotuiv� e—or'iuooa,w-4""" ',
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection BRISTOL ST/CAMPUS DR—IRVINE AV
(Existing Traffic Volumes ase on Average VinteF79pring 19 91 PM
Peak 2h Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Pro oats Protected 1% of Pro4actad 7J2, ,,,,,
Glrsation Peak 2§ Hour Growth Peak 24 Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 24 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 3280 7 6 S59,5S 35 3 p 1
Southbound 3264 /� 5 3'lo°I 3-1
Eastbound 6657 S/(o zZ3 "Iz I 8 0,t Z)
Westbound
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume
❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.
OATI*
PROJECT:
MOM T
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection BRISTOL ST/BIRCH ST
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pring 19 _ AM
Peak 22 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1 of Protected Protect
Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2 Nour Peak 2+ Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2$ Ho
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 766 I Ll `6 Z— `6 C>
Southbound 567 $ tV14
Eastbound 4594
West bound _0_
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
❑ Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
❑ Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
DATE:
PROJECT: MOM T
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection BRISTOL ST/tIRCH ST
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pring 19 9 PM
Peak 2$ Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected i� of Projected Proj11
ect
Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2y Hour PeaVolume
our PeaVolumeour
Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 444 o q ST S
northbound 1605 `t bs'� O
`�
Eastbound 3731 10�7 41 Z-- 1 v
Westbound _0_
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
❑ Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
❑ Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.
DATE:
PROJECT: FORM I
III Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection BRISTOL ST/JAMBOREE RD
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter Spring 19 91 AM
Peak 24 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project (I
Direction Peak 2 Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 211 Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2� Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 6160 Z.So 8gZ �730?� -73 i5 (0,2.�0)
South bound 972 To I I
Eastbound 5909 ZS� I (os -7Z
Westbound _0_
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
El Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
DATE:
PROJECT:
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection BRISTOL ST/JAMBOREE RD
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter Spring 19 91)PM
Peak 21s Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional I Projects I Projected 1. of Projected Project I
Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hcur
Volume Volume I Volume Volumes Volume Volume
i
Northbound P,0 7�
6224 Z53 ( / 033 I BSI o
uthbound 1976 g0 Ii
—75( ( 7—
b16�/ 67—
`g 0
o1
.0
5`
o
[:Esnd ilgS
o 5601
e %�
—0— O O I I
1
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 231 Hour Traffic Volume
❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than i% of Projected
Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
DATE:
PROJECT:
4 "
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection BRISTOL STREET NORTH/CAMPUS DRIVE
(Existing Traffic Volumes ase on Average Winter/Spring 19 91) AM
Peak 211 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 211 Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 211 Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 5806
Southbound 1357 SS 1 IZ �� O
Eastbound _D_ p O c7 O
Westbound 2766 s 9`� 33 fo 0
Project Traffic is estimated for be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume
a Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C:U.) Analysis is required.
DATE:
PROJECT:
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection BRISTOL STREET NORTH/CAMPUS DRIVE _
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter Spring 19 91 )PM
Peak 211 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2h Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 3759 7�
i
Southbound 4552 2-5 '
Eastbound _O_ O O b
Westbound 6817 i 33 o,q Z}!
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2i Hour Traffic Volume
❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 23-, Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C:U.) Analysis is required.
i
DATE:
PROJECT:
' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection BRISTOL ST N/BIRCH ST
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on AVerage inter pr1ng 9 —DAM
Peak 211 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 10. of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2� Hour VGrowth olume Peak 23sHour PeaVolume k lumeHour Peako2ume11 our I PeaValumeour
Volume
1
Northbound 2697
Southbound 827 3 4761 I o 7-5
i
Eastbound _Q_ D O j
Westbound 2702 53(0 3Z7 3y
(O
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
❑ Peak 23, Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
DATE:
PROJECT: FORM I
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection BRISTOL ST N/BIRCH ST
(Existing Traffic Volumes basedon Average inter pring 9 91 PM
Peak 2$ Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected i- of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 24 Hour Peak 2's Hour PeaVolumeour I Pea�olumeour
Volume Volume Volume Volume /
Northbound 1220 /Z7 ( 3q-7 t3 ! "
Southbound 3045
Z95 334o 33 i NS (1,47)
Eastbound _0_ v
westbound 4339 � �� 5� 3�
5 (o.b�)
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
❑ Peak 231 Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than• 1% of Projected
❑ Peak 21k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
DATE:
PROJECT: FORM I
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection BRISTOL ST N/JAMBOREE RD
(Existing Traffic Volumes basea on verage lnter pang 19 _ AM
Peak 211 Hour Approved
FAa,h Existing Regional Projects Projected 1 Peak
Projected Project
lume
on Peak 2$ Hour Growth Peak 211 Hour Peak 21$ Hour
PeaVolumeour PeaVolumeour II
Volume Volume Volume
und 9162 3-7 Z f�und 1514
Z442_1 Z93 i 4 2%)
Eastbound 0O
—0—
b O 0
Nestbound �
—0—
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
❑ Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection.Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
DATE:
PROJECT: FORM I
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection BRISTOL ST N JAMBOREE RD-
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter Spring 19 9�1) pM
Peak 211 Hour Approved
Approach Existing A Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project i!
Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 211 Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2.4 Hour j Peak 2y Hour
Volume Volume i Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 7039 Z`6(o i 1055 $//380 s4
[Wesouthbound 3892 IS$Eastund 0_ Otbound _0_ ( O Q ? ��
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-, Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.
DATE:
PROJECT:
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection JAMBOREE RD/MArAATHUR EL
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average nter 5pring 91) AM
Peek 2h Hour Approved
Approaeh Existing Regional Protects Projected 1% of Projected Project
olfaction Peek 2y Hour Growth, Peak 24 Hour Peak 24 Hour Peek 24 Hour Peak 2h Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 2184 7:7 4 $°I L)q 41 29 I q (o.3?) '
Southbound 832 104 Jo-7 1, ?q-3 Ig 1 o
Eastbound 3873 15-7 i I/ZI 5115-) 5Z 3 � o.-7 '2)
Westbound 1717 10 2M '6
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
❑ Peak 2;S 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.
DATE:
PROJECT:
SENT• BY:NE'APORT BEACH :11— 1-91 : 5:53PM O--LICENSE DIVISIONW FW 03891# 7
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection JAMBOREE RD/MACARTHUR BL
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average nter Pr ng PM
Peak 21s Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project
Direction Peak 24 Hour Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak 24 Hour Peek 2h Hour Peak 2y Hour
Volume Volume volume volume Volume Volume
Northbound 1791 Z2 v� 5o 5 z,Sz 1 yS i Z 0'1Z� ;I
South bound 2618 1 52 °I 13 '5161 6 31 ! o III
Eastbound
, ji
1974 oZ414,ozS11
Z° 56
Westbound 3046
53
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
❑ Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
[] P �i P Y
(I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.
DATE:
PROJECT:
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection JAMBOREE RD/BIRCH ST
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 _) AM
Peak 2h Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Protected Project
Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 21. Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2u, Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 2810 114 73cD -565q
Southbound 40 �lZ
Eastbound 36Z
I
Nestbound 5 2 O
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
❑ Peak 2i Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
❑ Peak 2j Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.
DATE:
PROJECT: FORM T
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection JAMBOREE RD/81RCH ST
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pring 19 9 PM
Peak 2$ Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1� of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 21, Hour Peak 2+ Hour PedYolumeour PeaYolumeour
Volume Volume Volume Volume
I
Northbound 2585 3 �j /����
L
3431 � 3 $C�1 � 1Z ro,1420 54 D S
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
❑ Peak 231 Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
❑ Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.
DATE:
PROJECT: FORM I
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection `
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on verage Winter pring 19 91 AM
Peak 2h Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 2529 o !j �(> ?j 3 (o.4
9)
Sauthbound 3760
Eastbound 608 30 I (o
westbound 1361
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
❑ Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected,
❑ Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.
DATE:
PROJECT: FORM I
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection, JAMBOREE BL/CAMPUS DR
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 9 PM
Peak 2h Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 231 Hour Peak 2k Hour ' Peak
VoluHour
I PeaVolumeour
Volume Volume Volume Volume me
,
Northbound 3627S545 SS ` 57 �0,
�� I1
Southbound 419 3 1 7 a $p6) S -7 Z 5 Z
Eastbound 1814 I �I D Zoo j Zo
Westbound 1578
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
❑ Peak 21 Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2-2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.
DATE:
PROJECT:
SENT'SY:NEWPORT BEACH ;10-25-91 : 1 :38PM ; LICENSE DIVISION4 9-8710389:1i 8�y
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection MACARTHUR BL/BIRCH ST
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1 90 AM
Peak 24 Hour Approved
projected 1% of Projected Project
Approach Existing Regional Projects
Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peek 2h Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 24 Hour Polk 2u Hour II
Volume Volume Volume Volume volume
Northbound 1400 I� I D I4
Southbound 1118 b Zb 6g1 307 31 °'S=)
Eastbound 1505
Westbound 77 6 `f 3 $I`} `6 2 S �3,1 "•� ��
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 Projacted
Peak 231 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capaci-ty Utilization
(I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.
DATE:
DOr,.i Gr T• - - --
SrNI, BY;NkWNUMI UhAUM ilu-2t—vi ; l ;4VM : L1UhNOM U1V101UN'+ 8-o'l IV,10U OF C fl
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection MACARTHUR BL/132RCH ST
(Existing Traffic Volumes baseR on Average Winter/spring 19 90) PM
Peak 2y Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project
Direction Peak 24 Hour Growth Peak 24 Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2h Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume V4iumS
Northbound 1559 / 9 � -7 t�(� ' z-SZ- i .Z S o
Southbound 2018 2z 3 3 e u z fo Sol 2 i Z-
Eastbound 1462 —7
Westbound 1867 1 z-S 101 -7' 29
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
❑ Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume
❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.
DATE:
PROJECT:
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection MACARTHUR BL/CAMPUS DR
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Inter pring 19 9 AM
Peak 211 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2k Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume volume
Northbound 197E Z�g � Z'1-( ZSo 25
northbound 2689 33�1 -I (0b 3"llotZ
Eastbound 2910 °f2 ?joo2- 3
Westbound 983 36 1 0101 10 O
'
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
❑ Peak 2Z Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
❑ Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.
DATE:
PROJECT: FORM T
' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection MACARTHUR BL/CAMPUS DR
(Existing Traffic Volumes basea on Average inter prin 119 91 PM
Peak 2y Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2)1 Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 2918 31010 11� Nolov y $ o,Z2)
Southbound 3270 4 I O it I'1� I}oq j Z O,I
Eastbound 2512 �v I Zs� �i 2 s i fl
Westbound 2771
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 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
DATE:
PROJECT: MOM T
APPENDIX B
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEETS
BR4175AM
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET NORTH S BIRCH STREET 4175 f
EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1991 AM
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED [PROJECT IPROJECTI
lHovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio (Volume I V/C l
ICapacitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume lw/o Projectl I Ratio [
i I I I I I I I Volume I I I
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
NL ;1 1600 I 1 151 1 0.091 1 1 0.041 '1 10,01 1
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1
I HT 1 3200 1 1 1247 1 0.39 - 1 1 s4 1 0.144 -)"'1 j q 1 O,q7
I---------------------------------------------------------------------.----------------------I
1 NR I I I I I I I I I I
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
I SL I I I I I I I I I
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ST 1 1600 1 1 86 1 0.05 I 1 141 1 0,og I 1 0,o% I
I------------------------------------------------------------------------ - --------I
1 SR 1 3200 1 1 204 1 0.06 1 1 Z 6 1 0. 0-1 1 15' 10,D% 1
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
I EL I I I I I I I I I I
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
I ET I I I I I I I I I I
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
I ER I I I I I I I I I I
--------------------------i--------i--------i ' i
-------- --------- ---------------------------
WL 1600 204 0.13
1I-..--..--_.-.--.)---------i--------i------- --------I---------I-—� --iI------Z--I—i------.----Z---I-III
WT 881 --
0.21 .. .4800 ---------- -
WR 1 1 125
1
-------------)
1-------- ..-----!_ ---- I ------------------------------ I
1EXIST + REG GROWTH + CCMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0�1 1 I
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
(EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 10,-7 I I
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be Less than or equat to 0.90
1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90
1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement wilt be
Less than or equat 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:
PROJECT FORM 11
BR417SAM
OR417SPH
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET NORTH S BIRCH STREET 4175 j
EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1991 PH
---_--•--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I IEXISTING IPROP0SE0 I EXISTING IEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMHITTED I PROJECTED (PROJECT I PROJECT
IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVo(ume I V/C I
I IcapacitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume Iw/o Projectl I Ratio I
I I I I I I I I Volume I I I
1--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------'----I
I NL 1 1600 1 1 181 1 0.11 * I 1 0,11 �" 1 1 TJ 11*1
1-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
I MT 1 3200 1 1 302 1 0.09 1 . 1 6,57 1 0,11 I q I o.1 Z. 1
I -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -I
I NR I I I I I I I I I 1
I -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
I SL I I I I I I I I I I
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
1 ST 1 1600 1 1 423 1 0.26 1 1 3v 1 0,a$ I 10,Z.$ I
I------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I SR 1 3200 1 1 1229 1 0.38 * 1 11 S 1 p. Z I is 10.47j I
I -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
I EL I I I I I I I I I I
I ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - I
I ET I I I I I I I I I I
I -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -I
I ER I I I ' I I I I I I I
1-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
I WL 1600 1 1 237 0.15 1 1 1 0,1 S 1 1 1
i -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -I
WT
) 4800 I I 1720-) 0.37 I--------'---so I .0,- a� I I I--
4WR 48 I
I -------------------------- ----------------------- -I
IEXISTING 1 0.86 1 1
1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- I
1EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C-U., I 1.0 1 1 1
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
IEXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I,D3 I
--------------------------------------------------•------------------------------------------
1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. wilt be Less than or equal to 0.90
1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90
1_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:
PROJECT FORM I1
BR4175PM
H LnI YI •LLnr Vl11 uLl'1V11 "�` r „ , Yl'1"Y•VVI'1.1 "1�"��L.VLHYL Y..w.vn •- "'•'-'Y"Y r .vvvvry Yam""'
' JA427SPH • •
INTERSECTION CAPACITY`/UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD i 14ACARiHUR BOULEVARD 4273
EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES IASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/BPRING 11991 PM
.............................................................................................
IIXIITINDIPROPOBEDIEXISTINOIEXIBTINGIREGICNALICOMMITTIDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI
IMovementl Lane$ I Lanes I PK MR I V/0 I GROWTH I PROJECT I WC Ratio IVotuma 1 V/C I
I 1CAp4citylCapecityl, Vatu" I Ratio I Volume I Volume lW/o Projoctl J Ratio I
I I I I I I I I volume I I I
I. .........................................................................................I
I NL 1 1600 1 1 204 1 0.13 e I Zo 1` 0,Wr l 1 0,1 q*I
1. ..............;..._.........__................................. .............. ...... .I
I - HT . 1 1 326 1 If 1 1 1 1$ ! . 1 ...1 0.l-7 1
I........} 4800 ..................) 0.11 ................... .......... ......1
I MR 1 1 211 1 1 5g I IS I. I
!. .........:................................................... ........................ .i
1 SL 1 1600 1 1 183 1 0.11 1 1 15 1 6,1- — I 1 0,17— 1
I.-.........................................................................................I
I IT 1 4800 1 1 685 1 0.14 a g(0 1 Zq2 1 0,z1 * I 10,zt*1
1. ....................................................................................... .
I • IR I N.S. 1 1 410 .I 1 1 ion I I I - !
i...........................................................................................i
I EL 1 3200 1 1 203 1 0.07 e 1 15(, 1 0,11 -4' 1 10. 11'"1
..
. ..................................................................................... .
8 l
I IT 1 4600 1 1 $56 1 0.12 1 73 1215 1 0.1-1 1 S ,10,j8. i
1.•...............................................................................•....... -!
I ER I N.B. 1 1 35 1 1 1 $ I I i I
. .........................................................................................
I . WL 1 3200 1 1 329 1 0.10 1 I 61 1 0, 12 1 S 1 a,IZ I
I. .........................................................................................I
1 - WT 1 4800 1 1 1062 1 0.22 e q 3 1551 1 0,3 0 * I S 10.3 of
I. ..........................................................................I...._....--- -I
WR I M.S. I I n I I I � % I I ID I i
1...........................................................................................i
IEXIITING 1 0.36 1 I
................................ ....... ...........
(EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0,1 10 1 I
1...........................................................................................1
(EXISTING + CCMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 16,1 I
1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. WILL be 1444 than or squat to 0.90
I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. WILL be Beater than 0.90
1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement WILL be
less than or squat to 0.90
1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. With pr6jsot ftrovemants wilt
be less than I.C.U. without project
.........................................................................................
Description of system Improvement:
PROJECT FORMAT I
JA4275PM
JA430SAM
i INTERSECT-ION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD & BIRCH STREET 4308
EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1991 AM
--------------•----------•----------------------------"'-------------•-----------.----------
I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTIHGIREGtONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED (PROJECT I PROJECT
IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio (Volume I V/C I
I 1Capacityl Capacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume 1w/o Projectl I Ratio I
I I I I I I I I Volume I I I
I-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------.----- 'I
I NL 1 1600 1 1 219 1 0.14 * 1 3 1 0.1q a` II O,lg4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------.--•.-_--
NT 1 1 1129 1 410 1 36Z I
I1•- --0 4800 i"'.'.-.i.-------) 0.24 . '--.--•'
-•
NR ))
7 1 1 I I I I
I---------------------------•------------------'...----------------------------•------------I
SL 1 1600 1 1 8 1 0.01 1 1 1 v,O 1 I 1 1
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
I ST 1 4800 1 1 1233 1 0.26 * 50 1 153 1 0,q-1 -Y1 20 I0,q-7 r
I__________________________________________________••_...__..._____•___--___---------__-•.__I
SR I N.S. 1 1 10301 1 1 7-1 1 1 1 I
-----------------i--------i--------•-----------••••-----------.i-- - .5_.--------•_._..._-i a
EL 153 �j o D,oi
I........1. 3200 ------------------? 0.05 *------------"""' -- -------
ET I
I------------------------------------------------------------ I
I ER I N.S. 1 1 27 1 1 1 q I I I
-----.___-•-..._-I_--...__i-----------------I------------------------------II---------------I
I........) ------------------3 -----------------------------------------------I
I WT 1600 1 1 s 0.02 * I I O,0 z.:- 1 .I fwo -y'1
I--------> ------------------� ------------------------------•-------- -------I
WR I 1 10 1 1 1 1 I 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
1EXISTING
1.....................................•......__-__--•.__.__---.._...-------_•
1EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I ei,&YJ I I
I-----..........................•.._____--._....._.___--__-•_._....___._._..._--...___..._._I
1EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1_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
1_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:
PROJECT FORMAT I
JA4308AM
JA4305AM
:h1ERSLC:C1, CA:AC::Y L�..::FT:ON ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION: WA EO-EE RCA-. S CAMPUS CRIVE 4305
EXIST TRAFFIC .UUMEt CAE:: 0K 11:i.AG: L.... :SArric ti:NTER/SPRING 1991 AM
.............................................................................................
I IEX1S'• " " '"` ^•'i "• h , COMN.I TTCDI PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI
IMovementl Lance i :cocs j F., ro j j =.':R I FRCJECT I V/C Ratio lVotume I V/C l
lcapac i:; ;Cc uc::; r,.; .K c;u;K i 1'CI LIM lw/o Projectl I Ratio I
I ' I i I I I i I volum I I I
1------------------------------------------------------------•------------------------------1
1 NL 1 1600 1 1 99 1 0.06 • 1 9> 1 0. 11 r I 10,11 Y1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
l NT 1 1 1106 1 4 s 17.'11 1 0,7-4 I S I O.t 11
1--------) 6400 ..................) 0.19 •-----------•--- - ---------
I NR 1 1 84 1 1 Zo 1 15 I
-------------••--------••------•----•----------------------------••-----
1 SL 1 3200 1 1 2El 1 0.09 1 1 1 0,01 1 10,0q i
. ---- W ._......--
ST 1 1 1454 150)
--------) 4800 .....••.......•...) G.34 •___________________
I SR I 1 180 I 1 7* I I I I
I EL I 1 110 1 112.5 040� L i_
177
0,01
1------- ...... ------------
iET I I i I 15 I I I I i--------------•--------•.__..._.....------------------------•-----------------•-----•------I
i ER I N.S. I 1 8 1 1 1 1 ° I I I I
1------•----------------------- ----------- --- -----I
l NL 1 1600 1 1 256 1 0.16 • I I z3 1 0,2.4 -- I J o I o,?-4
----•-----------------------------•------------------------------.-----I
NT 1 3200 '1 1 260 1 0.08 1 1 14 D 1, 0,O1 1 10101 1
-----------------------------------------------------
VR l 16001 1 1.'6 I 0.09 1 I o ------
L---------------- '------------- I I I I
i
I-----------------------------------------------------•-------------------------------------I
1EXISTING 1 0.62 1
I--------------------------------------------------------------------------
.--.-..-•--_---------------------------
1EXIST + REG GRC•.':h - COMY.:77 E: '.:RY4SEC :MFRCVCMENTS I.C.U. I L9,1-1 I 1
I--------------------------------`. ------
1
EXISTING + COY..".:::EC - REC:OKA: PROJECT I.C.U. 1p Iq 1
...-_-••................................................•-•_-....____....___.._._........._..
1_1 Project + p•c;cct ::c!!ic :...... ...: be tccs than cr equal to 0.90
1_1 Projected prcjctt ::•t'.!:c :tt be Sreater than 0.90
Projected - ;-:jcr, -.Lll:c :.r .c%,enent wilt be
Less than cr equat to 0.90
1_1 Projected - :.C.1'. .::! p•c;cct im,rrcvenents witt
be less th.r: L.C.U, without project
.........................................................................................
Oescriptic•: c!' eytter., imprcvement:
PROJECT Y FORMAT
JA430SAM
SENT.BY:NEWPORT BEACH _ P10-25-91 ; 1 :38PM 1 LICENSE OIVISIONy 9-8710388�# 7�1
MA429SAM
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
INTERSECTIONS MACARTHUR BOULEVARD A E1RCH STREET 4295
EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUNI$ IASID ON AVIRAOI DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1990 AM
.......................................................................................•.....
I I EXIST ING[PROPOSED 15XI STING IEXI STING 1REGIONAL ICOMMITTED I PROJECTED 1PROJECT[PROJECT I
IMovementl Lanes I Lane$ I PR MR I V/C I QRCWTH I PROJECT I VIC Ratio IVOLume I V/C I
lOspaaityleapsaityl Volume I Ratio I VOLume I Volume IWO Proleatl I Ratio I
I I I I I i I I Volume I I I
I. .. .............................
. o.oZ 10,............... ......... .... .. .. .. ....... ....................................I
..................i4800i........i....5251"'0.111. bb . iSo 'I--L2,155-* I......-I0.I10
•... ... .....................7. I.................1 .j.. ..............................I
I...........................................................................................1
9L 1 1600 1 1 160 1 0.10 I I 1 0.104_1 o I o.11*1
I. ..T....................i....... ........... �.I.....�j2`� I' d..... 1 .... .......l
.� 9.12 *. ')
........
Sa 64G0 i........`...-216 0 I .... ..I-'�� •. -• - �.....•'I ... I
I.......................•.. ................•.........•. 1 ..1.. ..1
EL
........
•ET } 4WD ..................502 ? 0.16 ....................
- - --..1 5-1 --I o,1-�'* I. IS I o,18 I
I........) ..................5 i............ .....i •................. .. ..I
...............................................................
WL 3
.... 33 o•`• -•- 0.02 I I ... .0. 1
i WT ) 3200 I I 257 1 0.08 • 11 , J 0.o q * 115 I o,o I
I..... .. ... .. 1 i
. ...
........ ..... .i........(........i.........1...... .........i.......
WR I N. 1
)EXISTING...................................................................................I
0.46 1I
- • •COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. .1.
0,5 1.•-
(EXIST + RIG GROWTH 4 I - •.--••__ I
IEXISYINO +•COMMITTED•+•REGIONAL.GROWTH + PROJECT-I.C.U. 10,5
......-. •-- -. --•-•• �3
I-I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. WILL be tees than or equal to 0.90
I-I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. Witt be greater than 0.90
1_I Projected + project %raffle I.C.U. W/ayetema 'improvement will be
tome then or equal to 0.90
1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements wilt
be less than I.C.U. without project
................................................•....•..........•........................
Description of system improvement;
PROJECT FORM tI
5hN1, bY1NhH1JUKI dhAUH ilU-2D-41 i 1 ;4v'M i L1UtIY5t U1V101U19•- V
• • I
MA4295PM
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILISATION ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION- MACARTNUR 80ULEVARD i BIRCH STREET 4295
EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1990 PM
...•••..........................^---.....•••---------.................I.....................
I I EXISTING I PROPOSED IEXISTINGIEXI STING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED ]PROJECT IPROJECTI
IMovemanti Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C i GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratie IVolume I V/C I
1Capacity10apaeityl Volume i Ratio I Volume I Volume IW/o Projactl I Ratio I
I I I I I I I I Volume I 1 .1 •
.................................•-_._.....................................................
NL 1 1600 1 1 137 1 0.09 * I 1mq'I" I 1 04001*
...........................................................................................
I
HT I 4800 1 1 493 1 . 0.10 1 b y 1 $-1 S 1 o, II ' I 1:0: i� I
I. ,..,..i,..*......................i. .............................. ............. .. .1
I • MR 1 N.S. 1 1 31 i 1 1 1?•j I I I I
.........................................................................4............:....i
I SL 1 1600 1 1 591 0.04 1 1 1 0.04 1 S 10.041
............................................... ••i' i�$..1......!...................
........3 6400 i........i....186 D.1z --- -..i. .b....� .........�.......J......I
. .EL...........i........ ....2-..,....._.i........j._i . .i I _ ,1
........? 4800 .................., 309? 0.13 *...................7— i .(5,1 q W 1 .5 - I 0.1 q
........) ................ .? .. -I
ER 1 1 32 _ 1 1 1 - I I . I
. .............. i..............B. 1 ...................Z.....I ..0—............I o.o� I
1 1600
1......................................................... .... . ...................
1 Wr 1 3200 1 1 653 1 0.20 * 13$ 1 0. zZi" 1 Zo I0.ZZ1
i. ....................................................................................... .I
i WR I N.B. 1 I 131 1 1 1 1 1 5 •1 I
I......................................................................................... .1
IEXISTING 1 0.54 1 l
I. ....................................................................:..... I .
(EXIST + AEC GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PAOPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I O.(o Z I I
I.......................o-...........................,,......................................
11XISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. . -• ..J.....I 0.6 Z.I
.........................................................................
1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. Wilt be Less than or squat to 0.90
I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. Witt be greater than 0.90
I_I Projected + project traffic, I.C.U. W/systems improvement Will be
Lose than or squat to 0.90
I_J projected + project traffic I.C.W. with project improvements Will
be Less than I.C.U. without Project
Dncripticn of system Improvement;
PROJECT FORM It
r.- •. �. .. _ �_ r i....::..':�..::.. - r .... Yee
APPENDIX C
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSES
WITH IMPROVEMENTS
BR4175PM
' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET NORTH & BIRCH STREET 4175 fi���µ Mill 6 4-1(o 4
EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1991 PM
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL(COMMITTED I PROJECTED (PROJECT I PROJECT
IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio (Volume I V/C I
ICapacitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio i Volume I Volume lw/o Projectl I Ratio I
I I I I I I I I Volume I I I
I----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I
I NL 1 1600 1 1 181 1 0.11 * I 1 0, I I'), 1 10, 11 i
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
I NT 1 3200 1 1 302 1 0.09 1 1 65- 1 p,l l • I q 1 b,l'Z I
I ---------------------------------------- ---- --------------------------------------- -I
I MR I I I I I I I I I I
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
I SL I I I I I I I I I I
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
I ST 1 1600 1 1 423 1 0.26 1 1 32- I o.zg 1 Io,Zg 1
i-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
SR 1 3200 1 1 1229 1 0.38 * I I 1 S 1 0,4Z,), 1 1,5 10.�3�1
I -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
I EL I I I I I I I I I I
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
I ET I I I I I I I I I I
I --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -I.
I ER I I I I I I I I I I
I----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -I
WL 1600 1(,) 1bbo 1 237 0.15 1 1 1 o,rS 1 1 0,15 1
I------------------------------------------------------------------ —--- ----------- I
I Wr I(q) G40o 1 1720 1 I SSo o I,)r I ►z o.3b'jl
(--------) 4800 ------------------) 0.37 ■------.____.._... ......_..._....____ __.-----I
I WR 1 1 48 I I I I 1
I --------------------------- _----------------- _ __ _------_------ _ --- -I
(EXISTING 1 0.86 1 1
I -------------------------------------------------------------------------- I
(EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I O,%.� I I
----- - -- --' - -- - -------- -------------------------------------------'
(EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 1030 1
-----------------•----------_-•.-------------------------._-•-----------------•--------------
1_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
1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement wilt 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: hDD WtS'l6oyTlo I,6,(-J 9uti-1 G+M 4, - 124-17u(440 �iY Ph6vtouS L�
n-av,zovt o P2oJ4 �y
PROJECT FORM II
BR4175PM
goo
C fc
� zG
17
Teo
{
_.11�'L2- l:eE'�_-��tl•-!�?��=_-�rs2.tY� ��-F� Mr-. GyUCc� C�nw. �xlr�iv�a�e-+-,��° f -�4-�,� .:
R.ac�wEl� 9h� .
t:
�` &fad
�� ��
1e
o�
�s
REM
60� saa
PROJECT
SITE
— Scale: 1" = 2000
FIGURE i vv
JAIVJCB ® REE ROAD
LANGDON • WILSON • MUMPER
A R C H i T E C T S
LWM Job No. 8914-000
March 30, 1989
ROCKWELL ZONING AMENDMENT DATA
TABLE 1
Existing Maximum Allowable Building Area 403,775 s.f.
Proposed Increase 39.000 s.f.
Proposed Maximum Allowable Building Area 442,775 s.f .
Existing Building Area 377,520 (� )
Proposed New Building Area 65,000
442,520
(1) In addition to the existing improvements there currently exists 12,100 S. F.
of temporary structure that will be removed upon transfer of its occupano : into
either the existing or proposed permanent structures.
TABLE 2,
Existing Mix of Uses:
501-M 501 503-1 503-2 TOTAL
Office 6,675 88,815 75,630 46,765 217,885 s . f.
Manufacture 0 0 3,375 34,440 37,815 s. f.
Warehouse 0 37,860 43,080 407880 121,820 s. f.
TOTALS 6,675 1.26,675 122,085 122,085 377,520 s. f.
Proposed (Conceptual ) Mix of Uses:
501-M 501 503-1. 503-2 New 'TOTAL
Office 6,675 88,815 81,576 82,�13 65,000 324 ;279 s . f.
Manu. 0 0 15,525 38,565 54,090 s. `.
Warehouse 0 37,860 24,984 1,307 611,151 f .
TOTALS 6,341 126,675 1222085 122,085 65,000 4,12,520 , .f.
(ROCK:M-2)
4100 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD,SUITE 200.P.O BOX 2440,NEWPORT BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92888.8971 714 833.9193
+ y
• •
LANGDON • WILSON • MUMPER
'A H C H I T E C T 9
LWM' Job No. 8914-000
March 30, 1989
ROCKWELL ZONING AMENDMENT DATA
TABLE 3
LOT # EXISTING PARKING (2)
STANDARD COMPACT VAN POOL HANDICAP REC.VEHICLES TOTALS
1 23 23
2 80 80
3 330 4 4 Motorcycle 338
27' -0"
4 12 200 212
5 92 17 109
6 517 4 2 Motorcycle 530
63' -0"
R.V. 7
TOTALS 1054 217 6 6 7 1292
PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPOSED 65,000 SQ. FT. OFFICE BUILDING:
Office: 324,279 sq. ft. = 1st 125,000 @ 1/250 = 500 spaces
remaining 199,279 @ 1/300 = 1165 required spaces
LANGDON • WILSON - MUMPER
A R C H I T E C T 3
LWM' Job No. 8914-000
March 30, 1989
PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPOSED 65,000 SQ. FT. OFFbCE BUILDING (continued)
Manufacturing: 54090 sq. ft. = 54090 @ 3/1000 = 163 spaces
Warehouse: 64151 = 1st 20,000 @ 1/1000 = 20 spaces
2nd 20,000 @ 1/2000 = 10 spaces
remaining at 24,151 @ 1/4000 = 6 spaces
36 spaces required
Total adjusted parking required:
Office = 1165 spaces
Manufacturing = 163 spaces
Warehouse = 36 spaces
1364 spaces required for 65,000 sq. ft. office addition
PROPOSED NEW PARKING ADDITIONS:
Parking required 1364 (12 to be handicap)
Existing parking 1292 (2)
72 spaces needed
New parking: (See Site Plan)
Lot #1 = 44 new standard spaces
Lot #7 = 18 new standard spaces
6 new handicap spaces
Lot #8 = 18 new standard spaces
6 new handicap spaces
Lot #3 = 2 new standard spaces (from restriping)
Lot #6 = 1 new standard space (from restriping)
Total new parking = 95
Old spaces removed = -12
83 total added spaces
(2) Existing parking based on physical on site survey conducted by Langdon Wilson
Architects and Planners on 3-7-89.
I
LANGDON •WILSON • MUMPER
A H C H I T E C T S
LWM Job No. 8914-000
March 30, 1989
SUMMARY OF TOTAL SPACES (NEW & OLD) :
Standard 1131
Compact 217 (16% of total )
Handicap 12 (Amount required under Title 24)
Van Pool 8
Recreational Vehicles 7
1375
TOTAL REQUIRED - 1364
11 Surplus
I
JA4305AM
- INTCRSECT:ON CAPAC:TY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS - '• "'--" - i
INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE RCAC S CAMPUS DRIVE 4305 WI-tJA r'll'rl 4+A-t lor•I
EXIST TRAFFIC VCLUMCS SACCD ON A'�ASE :AILY TRArrIC y:NTER/SPRIG 1991 AM
•--------•...................................................•------------••----•-----.------
IE%IST[AC�PROP•OSC:�:X:E'•:NC iCY.:CT:KG�REGICNALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED I PROJECT IPROJECTI
IMovementl Lanes I Lancs I PR HF I P/C j GRO.'TH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio [Volume I V/C
[CapacitylCapacityl Vclumc 1 Pa:ic I Vclume [-Volume Iw/o Projectl I Ratio I
1 ' I I I I I I I votum I I I
-------------------•----------•---------•--•-----------•-------I
NL 1 1600 ffZ�3Z.n01 99 1 0.06 ' I '$?j i 6.
I•----•-•-------------------------- ---------------------- --------------------------------
MY 1 1 1106 1 qS 1 y-7'd I O,z� 15 I O I
1 • --, 6400 i_.__..__i_.____..J 0.19 ..........
MR ......
I 84 1 I Z v I 16 I v I
I--------------------------------------••------------------------ ------------------------I
I SL 1 3200 I 1 281 1 0.09 1 1 1 0.001 1 1 0,01 I
I-•------------•-•-•-----•----------•••------------------------------------•------- •--- -I
ST '1 1 1454 1, 51 1 O Iq I 0 �j3 11 0 b,S�'1
........) 4800 ------------------) 0.34 --------___--------- __:..__--_-_•----- _---- '1
I SR 1 1 180 1 1 Z3 I 1 I I
I------------•-----•------••------•----------•--------•--------- -•---------•-•--- ------I
j--------) 4800 �.-------!------- } 0.06 I----------IZS- � I - °�°� I
I Er I i 177 I I 15
---------------------------------------- --------------------------I ;
l ER I - M.S. I 1 8 1 1 1 I q I 1 1 I
I--------------------------------------------------•------------•--••------ - - I
i UL 1 1600 1 1 256 1 0.16 • 1 j Z3 1 O,7-1*- I
... 1 VT I 3200 1 - - I - 260 I 0.08 I -'-' I c+0 .. I OG..." 1 - -.- - I
-------------------------•---------------------------------•------------
I UR 1 1600 I I 146 1 0.09 1 1 v 1" _ 1 1 I
---------------•---------•------------ -------- -----------------
--------------I
[EXISTING . . 1 0.62 1 1
I----•----------•------------------------------------•------ -.
(EXIST + REG GROWTH - COMM::TC? V,rA0eCSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I Qrq L I 1
------------------------------------------------•---------•----•-.....-----------I
1E%ISTING + COMM:iTED - REG:ONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 10 q�, I
-----•-----------------------------------------------------------•--------•---------•-.------
1_i Project + preject traffic I.C.U. wi L' be less than or equal to 0.90
1_1 Projected - project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90
1_1 Projected * project traffic I.C.L'. w/tystem ioprovement will be
Less than or equal to 0.90
I_1 Projected - prcje•c: trcff'.c I.C.L'. .i:h prc;ect improvements will
be less th6n I.C.U. without project
----------------------------------------------------------------••--------------•--------
Descripticn cf system improvement: 4013� r4oa-?R10v,40
R,40 P014-411+LLM +0044 I.90P O� L1/0Nl_
PROJECT FORMAT
JA430SAM
PLANNED COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Koll Center Newport
Newport Beach, California
f J • •
PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
For Koll Center Newport
Ordinance No. 1449 adopted by the
City of Newport Beach on August 14, 1972 (Amendment No. 313)
Original draft May 5, 1972
Amendment No. (1) August 14, 1972
Amendment No. (2) August 14, 1972
Amendment No. (3) August 2, 1973
Amendment No. (4) February 7, 1974
Amendment No. (5) June 10, 1974
Amendment No. (6) May 15, 1975
Amendment No. (7) September 8, 1975
Amendment No. (8) June 28, 1976
Amendment No. (9) January 10, 1977
Amendment No. (10) July 11, 1978
Amendment No. (11) August 28, 1978
Amendment No. (12) October 19, 1978
Amendment No. (13) November 10, 1980
Amendment No. (14) March 23, 1981
Amendment No. (15) October 24, 1984
Amendment No. (16) May 14, 1984
Amendment No. (17) December 9, 1985
Amendment No. (18) July 14, 1986
Amendment No. (19) March 23, 1987
Amendment No. (20) July 27, 1987
Amendment No. (21) June 12, 1989
Note: See Footnotes, Page 48 for description of amendments.
PART I. INDUSTRIAL
Section I . Statistical Analysis
A. Building Sites
Acreages shown are net buildable land area including
landscape setbacks, within property lines. (4)
Site 1: 25.043 acres . . . . . . . . . . 25.043 acres (8) (21)
B. Allowable Building Area
Site 1: 442,775 square feet . . . 10.16 acres (8) (21)
C. Parking Criteria
The following statistics are for information only.
Development may include but shall not be limited to the
following:
To allow a basis for calculation parking was assumed to
be three (3) spaces per one thousand (1000) square feet
of building and at one hundred twenty (120) cars per
acre.
Site 1: 1,328 cars . . . . . . . . .11.07 acres (8) (21)
D. Landscaped Open Space (21)
Site 1:
Area. . . . . . . . . . . .25.04 acres
Building. . .10.16 acres
14.88 acres
Parking area. . . . .11.07 acres
Net Open Space. . . 3.81 acres
-9-
B. Building Areas
Maximum building areas shall be as noted in the
Statistical Analysis, Part 1, Section I.
C. Building Height
Building heights of structure shall be limited to a
height of fifty-five (55) feet. Exception: existing
non-conforming structures. (21)
-11.1-
b. Eliminated Service Station Site No. 1 and added the land area to
Professional and Business Office Site "B".
c. Revised the parking requirement for office buildings within
Professional and Business Office sites.
(12) Planned Community Text revision (Amendment No. 514, adopted October 19,
1978) incorporating the following changes:
a. Established existing and additional allowable development as of
October 1, 1978.
b. Established the requirement and criteria for phasing plan approval of
development beyond thirty (30) percent of the additional allowable
development.
(13) Planned Community Text revision incorporating the transfer to allowable
building area from Professional and Business Office Site "D" to
Professional and Business Office Site "B" . (Amendment No. 550, adopted
November 10, 1980. )
(14) Planned Community Text revision for Retail and Service Site No. 1 which
allocates existing and permitted development. (Amendment No. 558, adopted
March 23, 1981. )
(15) Planned Community Text revision increasing the allowable building area in
Site C (MacArthur Court) . (Amendment No. 593, adopted October 24, 1983. )
(15) Planned Community Text revision incorporating the transfer of allowable
office, restaurant and retail building area from Professional and Business
Office Site "A" to Professional and Business Office Site "B". (Amendment
no. 606, adopted May 14, 1984. )
(17) Planned Community Text revision to allow up to two restaurants with a
total floor area not to exceed 3,250 square feet within "Office Site V .
(Amendment No. 626, adopted Decmber 9, 1985. )
(18) Planned Community Text revision deleting restaurant site 1 and substitut-
ing a private club with a total floor area not to exceed 30,000 square
feet within Office Site "A". (Amendment No. 635, adopted July 14, 1986. )
(19) Planned Community Text revision to allow auto detailing as a permitted
use. (Amendment No. 647, adopted March 23, 1987. )
(20) Planned Community Text revision adding support commercial uses to the per-
mitted uses under Professional and Business Office permitted uses.
(Amendment No. 649, adopted July 27, 1987. )
(21) Planned Community Text revision combining Light Industrial Site 1 and 2
into Light Industrial Site 1 and increasing the allowable building area
for the combined site. (Amendment No. 677, adopted June 12, 1989. )
-50-
AREA SUMMARY
PER RECORDED TRACT MAP NO.310.7
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL 25.043 AC
OFFICES 122.574 AC
RETAIL 6 SERVICE 5.026 AC
COURTHOUSE 7.800 AC
OFFICE c NET USABLE AREA 160.443 AC
A
leaov AceET
NOTE:
ALL AREAS ARE EXCLUSIVE OF
DEDICATED RIGHTS OF WAY
i•
GRE I
HEIM a SERVICE
5038 AC.NET
OFFCE A
OOSGP A41ET
Pa
as
SAP
1°c >
LAKE z +91173 A0.NET �
E N
m a
ry J. NORTH
� 7o AC-NEF {,]
LAND USE
LAST REVISION APRIL 7.]SIS
Te1feF,yle
SITE
' ?LIGHT INDUSTRIALn'.>�.`:;? �::.:':': . r:'r j,3'' ;:"p: OFFICE E
25.043 AC. NET >:`.?::.t::i::::::< •:::;:<,::::.: caR]Na1sE Zan T
AM]E
....... TZOACHFr KOLL CENTER NEWPORT
•;}::•i<<i..,l. •'•.`$;:..? :.� '. :. �:.;:'.::;<::::r::.Yfi? :.4.. NEWPORT BEACH.CALIFORNIA
OFFCE O OFFICE F
6317 A4 NET ]
.]&S AC i!T
LANGDON-IMLSON•MUMPER
^ _ Jamboree Blvd . . ` . ' ] ' ` ] '
—, I r AMENDMENT (21)
City Council Meeting June 12, 1989
Agenda Item No. D-2
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
TO: City Council
FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT: A. General Plan Amendment 89-1(F)
Request to amend the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach
General Plan to increase the General Plan Intensity Limit for Koll
Center Newport Industrial Sites 1 & 2 by 39,000 square feet in order
to allow the construction of a 65,000 square feet office building, and
the acceptance of an environmental document.
AND
B. Amendment No. 677
Request to amend the Koll Center Newport Planned Community
District Regulations so. as to combine Industrial Sites 1 & 2 into
Light Industrial Site 1, increase the development entitlement in Light
Industrial Site 1 by 39,000 square feet and increase the allowed
building height to 55 feet, so as to allow the construction of a 65,000
square foot office building.
AND
C. Traffic Study No. 56
Request to approve a traffic study to allow the construction of a
65,000 square foot office building on Koll Center Newport Industrial
Site 1.
AND
D. Resubdivision No. 892
Request to resubdivide two existing lots into a single parcel of land.
LOCATION: Lots 1 and 2 of Tract 7953, located at 4311 Jamboree Road, on the
westerly side of Jamboree Road between MacArthur Boulevard and
Birch Street.
ZONE: PC
M
TO: City Council - Page 2
APPLICANT: C. E. Matson for Rockwell International, Newport Beach
OWNER: Same as applicant
Applications
The applications requested will, if approved, enable the construction of a 65,000 square
foot office building on the Rockwell International site in the Koll Center Newport
Planned Community. Included in the request is an amendment to the Land Use Element
of the General Plan to increase the intensity limit for the site by 39,000 square feet;
amendments to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community District Regulations to
combine Industrial Sites 1 and 2, increase the allowable development to reflect the new
General Plan entitlement and increase the allowed building height from 35 feet to 55
feet; approve a traffic study for the project; and resubdivide the existing two parcels into
a single site. General Plan Amendment procedures are contained in City Council Policy
Q-1, Amendment procedures are in Chapter 20.84, Planned Community procedures are
in Chapter 20.51, Traffic Study procedures are in Chapter 15.40 and Resubdivision
procedures are in Chapter 19.12 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
Suggested Action
Hold hearing; close hearing; if desired,
1. Adopt Resolution No. 6g4'1 , approving General Plan Amendment 89-1(F) and
accepting the environmental document; and
2. Adopt Resolution No. 61 d Z , approving Planning Commission Amendment No.
677, amending the Koll Center Newport Planned Community Distric Regulations;
and
3. Sustain the action of the Planning Commission regarding Traffic Study No. 56 and
Resubdivision No. 892.
OR
4. Deny General Plan Amendment 89-1(F).
OR
5. Continue the public hearing to a future City Council meeting.
Planning Commission Recommendation
At its meeting of May 4, 1989, the Planning Commission voted (6 Ayes, 1 Absent) to
recommend approval of a General Plan Amendment, an amendment-to the Koll Center
TO: City Council - Page 3
Newport Planned Community District Regulations, a Traffic Study and Resubdivision for
the proposed project. The Planning Commission Resolutions, an excerpt of the Planning
Commission minutes and a copy of the staff report prepared for the Planning Commission
have been attached for the information of the City Council.
Respectfully submitted,
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director
By
Patricia L. Temple
Principal Planner
Attachments: (For City Council,only)
1. Planning Commission Resolutions
2. Excerpt of Planning Commission minutes of May,4, 1989
3. Planning Commission staff report of May 4, 1989
PLT/WP50 :.
WP50\CC\GPA89-iF.SR2 "
Planning Commission Meeting Mgy 4. 1989
Agenda Item No. 7
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT. A General Plan Amendment 89-1(F) (Public Hearing)
Request to amend the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach
General Plan to increase the General Plan Intensity Limit for Koll
Center Newport Industrial Sites 1 & 2 by 39,000 square feet in order
' to allow the construction of a 65,000 square feet office building, and
the acceptance of an environmental document.
AND
B. Amendment No 677 (Public Hearing)
Request to amend the Koll Center Newport Planned Community
District Regulations so as to combine Industrial Sites 1 & 2 into
Light Industrial Site 1, increase the development entitlement in Light
Industrial Site 1 by 39,000 square feet and increase the allowed
building height to 55 feet, so as to allow the construction of a 65,000
square foot office building.
AND
C. Traffic Stuff No 56 (Public Hearing)
Request to approve a traffic study to allow the construction of a
65,000 square foot office building on Koll Center Newport Industrial
Site 1.
AND
D. Resubdivision No 892 (Public Hearing)
Request to resubdivide two existing lots into a single parcel of land.
LOCATION: Lots 1 and 2 of Tract 7953, located at 4311 Jamboree Road, on the
westerly side of Jamboree Road between MacArthur Boulevard and
Birch Street.
TO: Plarftg Commission - 2.
ZONE: PC
APPLICANT: C. E. Matson for Rockwell International, Newport Beach
OWNER: Same as applicant
Applications
The applications requested will, if approved, enable the construction of a 65,000 square
foot office building on the Rockwell International site in the Koll Center Newport
Planned Community. Included in the request is an amendment to the Land Use Element
of the General Plan to increase the intensity limit for the site by 39,000 square feet;
amendments to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community District Regulations to
combine Industrial Sites 1 and 2, increase the allowable development to reflect the new
General Plan entitlement and increase the allowed building height from 35 feet to 55
feet; approve a traffic study for the project; and resubdivide the existing two parcels into
a single site. General Plan Amendment procedures are contained'in City Council Policy
Q-1, Amendment procedures are in Chapter 20.84, Planned Community procedures ate
in Chapter 20.51, Traffic Study procedures are in Chapter 15.40 and Resubdivision
procedures are in Chapter 19.12 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
Environmental Significance
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA
Guidelines and City Policy, an Initial Study has been prepared for the project. Based
upon the information contained in the Initial Study, it has been determined that the
project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A Negative Declaration has,
therefore, been prepared for the consideration of the Planning Commission.
Conformance with the General Plan
'The Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan designates the property for
General Industry. This category has been designed to recognize the changing character
of industrial areas in the city, and allows research and development, manufacturing,
warehousing, wholesale sales, professional service offices, service retail and restaurants.
The proposed project is consistent with the land use designation.
The plan also contains a specific floor area limit for industrial uses on the site of 403,775
square feet. A General Plan Amendment is required to increase the intensity limit for
the site by 39,000 square feet in order to approve the project.
Subiect Proper and Surrounding Land Use
The Rockwell International Site is currently developed with a manufacturing, research and
development and office facility. It is surrounded on the south, west and north by office
TO: P1arim g Commission - 3.
and commercial land uses in Koll Center Newport. To the east, across Jamboree Road
are additional office uses and support facilities associated with the University of
California, Irvine.
Statistical Summarx
Existing development 390,220 sq.ft.
Modular buildings to be removed 12,700 sq.ft.
Existing development to remain 377,520 sq.ft.
Proposed new building area 65,000 sq.ft.
Total development 442,520 sq.ft.
Existing General Plan and PC limit 403,775 sq.ft.
Proposed increase 39,000 sq.ft.
Proposed General Plan and PC limit 442,775 sq.ft.
Proposed Floor Area Ratio 0.41 FAR
Parkine
Existing parking 1,292 spaces
Existing parking removed 12 spaces
New parking spaces 95 spaces
Proposed parkingl 1,375 spaces
Required parking - Office2 1,165 spaces
Required parking - Manufacturing 163 spaces
Required parking - Warehouse 36 spaces
Total required parking 1,364 spaces
Analysis
A series of approvals is necessary to allow construction of the proposed project. Each
approval is discussed separately.
General Plan Amendment 89-1 (F). An amendment to the General Plan is necessary
to increase the entitlement for industrial development in Industrial Sites 1 and 2 of Koll
Center Newport and consolidate the sites into Industrial Site 1. The increased
development will be for office uses. The use is consistent with the existing land use
designation of General Industry, as well as with the established land use. Rockwell
International is an established research, development and manufacturing firm in the City
i includes 217 existing compact spaces, 12 handicap spaces,8 van pool spaces and 7 RV spaces.
2 0 ice parking standard uses the Koll Center Newport pool parking formula of one space for each 250 sq.ft.for the first 125,000
sqR and one space for each 300 sq.ft. for the remaining square footage.
TO: PlAng Commission - 4.
of Newport Beach. As a single user site, it has traffic advantages to the city, in that it
encourages ridesharing and carpooling, and the mix of manufacturing, warehouse and
office is less intense than a typical multi-tenant office use which otherwise would be likely
to occupy the site. As such, the proposed project will moderately intensify the use of the
site, but, to the extent that approval will allow the existing user to remain on the site, it
could still be considered an advantage to the City's traffic and circulation system.
The primary consideration relative to the intensification of planned land uses in the city
is the adequacy of the traffic and circulation system to sustain the increased traffic which
will result from implementation of the project. The following chart describes the project
impact related to the traffic projected on the surrounding arterial roadway system.
2010 BUILD-OUT VOLUMES
PROJECT
2010 % OF
BUILD-OUT FUTURE PROJECT 2010
LOCATION ADT CAPACITY ADT ADT
Jamboree Road, 46,000 58,000 15 0.039o'
n/o Eastbluff Drive
Jamboree Road, 43,000 51,000 20 0.05%
n/o Bristol Street
Jamboree Road, 47,000 51,000 25 0.051yo
n/o MacArthur Blvd.
Jamboree Road, 61,000 51,000 25 0.04%
n/o Campus Drive
Bristol Corridor, 254,000 210,000 25 0.01%
w/o Jamboree Road
Bristol Corridor, 231,000 200,000 45 0.02%
w/o Campus Drive
Campus Drive, 49,000 51,000 15 0.03%
n/o Bristol Street
MacArthur Blvd., 46,000 51,000 10 0.02%
n/o Campus Drive
i
a �7 TO: Plann i3�g Commission - 5. •
As illustrated by the chart on the preceding page, the project adds relatively little traffic
to the circulation system. The project will, however, add traffic to the Bristol Corridor
area which is anticipated to be over capacity. The actual increase in the Bristol Corridor
area is 45 average daily trips.
Amendment No. 677. It is proposed to amend the Koll Center Newport Planned
Community District Regulations to consolidate Industrial Sites 1 and 2 into Industrial
Site 1, increase the allowed development by 39,000 sq.ft. to a total of 442,775 sq.ft. and
to increase the height limit to 55 feet. These approvals would allow the construction of
a multi-level office building on the Rockwell International site.
The issues associated with the increase in allowable development is covered by the
discussion on the requested General Plan Amendment. The same increase must be made
to the Planned Community District Regulations in order to maintain consistency between
the two documents.
The increase in the permitted height limit from 35 feet to 55 feet will accommodate the
proposed three story building. The surrounding area is developed with mid and high
rise office buildings, and the proposed height limit is considered compatible with the area.
Staff has no objections to the requested height limit.
Traffic Study No. 56. 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 eleven (11) 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 21/2 hour volume in either the morning or afternoon,
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) is required.
The 1% volume analysis identified four (4) intersections where traffic exceeded the one
percent criteria, three (3) in the morning peak hour and three (3) in the afternoon peak
hour. The following chart summarizes the results of the Intersection Capacity Utilization
analysis for the project, including the ICU ratios with the suggested improvement
described later in the report.
TO: Pi-Ang Commission - 6.
ICU SUMMARY - 1991
Existing 91
Existing 91 +Committed
Existing 91 +Committed +Growth
PEAK +Committed +Growth +Project
Intersection HOUR +Growth +Project +Improvement
Bristol Street North/ AM 0.74 0.74 --
Birch Street PM 1.13 1.14 1.03
Jamboree Road/ PM 0.82 0.83 --
MacArthur Boulevard
Jamboree Road/ AM' 0.69 0.70 --
Birch Street
MacArthur Boulevard/ AM 0.55 0.56 --
Birch Street PM 0.67 0.68 In order to meet the criteria of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance, a project must be
found to neither cause nor make worse an intersection capacity utilization of 0.90 for the
year of analysis which includes all committed traffic and regional growth. As shown by
the above chart, the project worsens an ICU over 0.90 at the intersection of Bristol Street
North and Birch Street. Mitigation of the traffic impact at this intersection is required.
Addition of a westbound left turn lane at this intersection will reduce the ICU to 1.03.
With this improvement, the project will meet the criteria of the Traffic Phasing
Ordinance.
Resubdivision No. 892. The Rockwell International site is currently divided into two
parcels. As shown on the attached parcel map, the applicant intends to create a single
building site. Parcel No. 1 will 25.043 acres in size. Staff has no objections to the
proposed resubdivision.
Conclusion and Specific Findings
The expansion of the existing land use does not pose any problems from a planning
standpoint. The development will not significantly increase project traffic levels in the
area, and the maintenance of the single occupant on the site may have some circulation
system benefits to the City. The project also meets the criteria of the City's Traffic
Phasing Ordinance.
.a r •
TO: Planni�Commission - 7.
Should the Planning Commission wish to recommend approval these applications to the
City Council, the actions, findings and conditions included in the attached Exhibit "A" are
suggested. Findings are not needed to deny a General Plan Amendment, this action can
be taken by motion of the Planning Commission. If the General Plan Amendment is
denied, all other applications should also be denied with the finding that the application
is not necessary for a project which is denied.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director
By c
Patricia L. Temple
Principal Planner
Attachments:
1. Exhibit "A"
2. Draft Resolution - General Plan Amendment
3. Draft Resolution - Koll Center Newport P-C Amendment
4. Vicinity Map
5. Project Data Sheet
6. Negative Declaration
7. Traffic Study No. 56
Attached separately:
8. Draft P-C Text Amendment
9. Plans and Elevations
10. Tentative Parcel Map
PLT/WP50
WP50\PC\GPA89-1F.SR1
TO: PlAing Commission - 8. •
Attachment No. 1
EXHIBIT
ACTIONS, FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89-1 (F)
AMENDMENT NO. 677
TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 56
RESUBDIVISION NO. 892
A. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT
Findings:
1. That an Initial Study has been prepared for the project in compliance with
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA
Guidelines and City policy.
2. That based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, .the project
incorporates,sufficient mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant
environmental effect to a level of insignificance. A Negative Declaration
has, therefore, been prepared.
3. That the information contained in the environmental document has been
considered in the decision on this project.
Mitigation Measure:
1. Prior to .the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the proposed
project, the additional of a westbound left turn lane on Bristol Street North
at Birch Street shall have been constructed, unless subsequent project
approval requires modification thereto. The intersection improvement shall
be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer.
B. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89-1 (F) Adopt Resolution No. ,
recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 89-1 (F) to the City Council.
-, AMENDMENT NO. 677 Adopt Resolution No. , recommending approval
of Amendment No. 677•to the City Council.
D. TRAFFIC STUDY NO, 56
Findings:
1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the
proposed project on the circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40
of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Council Policy S-1.
L TO: Planni lCommission - 9. 0
2. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project traffic will add to an
unsatisfactory level of service at the intersection of Bristol Street North
and Birch Street which will have an Intersection Capacity Utilization of
greater than 0.90.
3. That the traffic study suggests an improvement which will improve the level
of traffic service to meet the criteria of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance.
4. That the proposed project, including the circulation system improvement,will
neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on
any arterial roadway.
Conditions:
1. Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the proposed
project, the additional of a westbound left turn lane on Bristol Street North
at Birch Street shall have been constructed, unless subsequent project
approval requires modification thereto. The intersection improvement shall
be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer.
2. The portions of the parking lot affected by the project shall be subject to
further review and approval by the City Traffic Engineer.
E RESUBDIVISION NO. 892
Finding:
1. That the design of the subdivision will not conflict with any easements
acquired by the public at large for access through or use of the property
within the proposed subdivision.
Conditions:
1. That a parcel map be recorded prior to issuance of building permits unless
otherwise approved by the Public Works and Planning Departments. That
the Parcel Map be prepared using the State Plane Coordinate System as a
basis of bearing.
2. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the
Public Works Department.
3. That the on-site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation
systems be subject to further review and approval by the City Traffic
Engineer.
4. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to the issuance of any
building permits.
TO: Planning Commission - 10.
Attachment No.2
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL AN AMENDMENT
TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE NEWPORT
BEACH GENERAL PLAN TO INCREASE THE AL-
LOWED DEVELOPMENT ON INDUSTRIAL SITES 1 & 2
IN KOLL CENTER NEWPORT (GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT 89-1 (F)]
WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the
Newport Beach General Plan the Land Use Element has been prepared; and
WHEREAS, said element of the General Plan sets forth objectives,
supporting policies and limitations for development in the City of Newport Beach; and
WHEREAS, said element of the General Plan designates the general
distribution and general location and extent of the uses of land and building intensities
in a number of ways, including residential land use categories and population projections,
commercial floor area limitations, the floor area ratio ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the Land Use and Circulation Elements are correlated as
required by California planning law; and
WHEREAS, the provisions and policies of the Land Use and Circulation
Elements are further Implemented by the traffic analysis procedures of the Traffic
Phasing Ordinance and the implementation programs of that Ordinance and the Fair
Share Traffic Contribution Fee Ordinance; and
WHEREAS,pursuant to Section 707 of the Charter of the City of Newport
Beach, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing to consider a certain
amendment to the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project is compatible with the existing land uses
In Koll Center Newport; and
WHEREAS, the circulation system will not be significantly impacted by the
proposed project; and
WHEREAS, the increased development in Koll Center Newport Industrial
Sites 1 &2 will enable the Rockwell International Corporation to continue occupancy of
the site and result in a positive benefit to the City; and
I
A
TO; *ning Commission - 11. •
WHEREAS, intersections in the vicinity of the project will function at a
similar or improved level of service when compared to the existing plan; and
WHEREAS, the project meets the criteria of the City s Traffic Phasing
Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach prepared a Negative Declaration
with supporting Initial Study for the project in compliance with the California Environ-
mental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the
information contained in the environmental document in making its decision on the
proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan.
NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of
the City of Newport Beach that an amendment to the General Plan with related
provisions and requirements as described in Exhibit 1 is recommended for approval to
the City Council.
ADOPTED this_day of 1989,by the following vote, to wit:
AYES
NOES
ABSENT
BY
Gary W. Pomeroy
CHAIRMAN
BY
Gary J. Di Sano
SECRETARY
PLT/Wp
WP\PC\GPA89-IF.RSI
TO: Plan*g Commission - 12 - t
Exhibit 1
Airport Area (Statistical Area L4)
1. Koll Center Newport. Koll Center Newport is bounded by Campus Drive,Jamboree
Road and MacArthur Boulevard.The area is identified as the Koll Center Newport
Planned Community.Areas described are the same as those defined in the Planned
Community Text.All development limits exclude parking.
1-1. KCNOffice SiteA.This site is designated for Administrative,Professional and Finan-
cial Commercial land use and is allowed 403,346 sgft.plus 471 hotel rooms.
1-2. KCNOffxe SiteB.This site is designated for Administrative,Professional and Finan-
cial Commercial land use and is allowed 1,060,898 sq.ft. Support retail commercial
uses are allowed within this allocation.
1-3. KCNOffwe Site C.This site is designated for Administrative,Professional and Finan-
cial Commercial land use and is allocated 734,641 sq.ft. Support retail commercial
uses are allowed within this allocation.
1-4. KCNOffice Site D.This site is designated for Administrative,Professional and Finan-
cial Commercial land use and is allocated 250,149 sq.ft. Support retail commercial
uses are allowed within this allocation.
1-5. KCNOffice Site E.This site is designated for Administrative,Professional and Finan-
cial Commercial land use and is allocated32,500.sq.ft.Supportretail commercial uses
are allowed within this allocation.
1-6. KCNO,ffxe Site F.This site is designated for Retail and Service Commercial land use
and is allocated 34,500 sq.ft.This site may also accommodate separate office uses.
1-7. KCNOffice Site G.This site is.designated for Administrative,Professional and Finan-
cial Commercial landuse and is allocated81,372 sq.ft.Supportretail commercialuses
are allowed within this allocation.
1-8. KCNIndustrial Site 1 q"This site is designated for General Industry and is allocated
yy,4715 .4e3;;;w sq.ft.
1-9. KCNRetail and Service Site 1.This site is designated for Retail and Service Commer-
cial and is allocated 102,110 sq.ft.
1-10. Court House.This site is designated for Governmental;Educational-and Institution-
al Facilities and is allocated 90,000 sq.ft.
2. Newport Place. Newport Place is bounded by Birch Street, MacArthur Boulevard,
Jamboree Road and Bristol Street North.The area is identified as the Newport Place
Planned Community.The areas described are not the same as those defined on the
Planned Community Text.map,but are a compilation of the area on a block-by-block
-74-
a o-70: PlanninWmmission - 13 •
ESTIMATED GROWTH FOR STATISTICAL AREA L4
Residential(in du's) Commercial(in sq.ft.)
Existing Gen.Plan Projected Existing Gen.Plan Projected
1/1/87 Projection Growth 1/1/87 Projection Growth
1-1.KCN OS A -0- -0- -0- 874,346 874,346 -0-
1-2.KCN OS B -0- -0- -0- 1,060,898 1,060,898 -0-
1-3.KCN OS C -0- -0- -0- 734,641 734,641 -0-
1-4.KCN OS D -0- -0- -0- 250,176 25%176 -0-
1-5.KCN OS E -0- -0- -0- 30,810 32,500 1,690
1-6.KCN OS F -0- -0- -0- 31,816 34,300 2,484
1-7.KCN OS G' -0- -0- -0- 81,372 �72_ s �-
1-8.KCN IND 1&2 -0- 40- -0- 377,520 /
1-9.KCN RS 1• -0- -0- -0- 52,086 102,110 50,024
1-10.Court House -0- -0- -0- 69,256 90,000 20,744
2-L NP BLK A -0- -0- -0- 349,000 468,000 119,000
2-2.NP BLK B -0- -0- 40- 10,150 11,950 1,800
2-3.NP BLK C -0- -0- -0- 211,487 457,880 246,393
2-4.NP BLK D -0- -0- 4 274,300. 288,264 13,964
2-5.NP BLK E 4 -0- -0- 834,762 834,762 40-
2-6.NP BLK F 4 -0- 4 192,675 201,180 8,505 ,
2-7.NP BLK G&H 4 4 4 255,001 295,952 40,951
2-8.NP BLK I 4 -0- -0- 160,578 160,578 -0-
2-9.NP BLK J 4 40- 4 190,500 228,530 38,030
3.Campus Drive 4 4 4 885,202 1,261,727 376,525
9// /W/ 956;365
TOTAL -& -& -0- 6,926,576 944- 94439
Population -0- 0 -0-
HARBOR VIEW HILLS AREA (STATISTICAL DIVISION M)
This area includes all land northerly of Fifth Avenue and easterly of MacArthur Boulevard.
Harbor View Hills Area (Statistical Area M1)
1. Point del Mar. This site is located on the'northeasterly corner of MacArthur
Boulevard and Fifth Avenue. The site is designated for Single Family Detached
development and is allocated 43 dwelling units. No subdivision which will result in
the addition of dwelling units is allowed.
-76-
TO: Planning Commission - 14. a' 3
Attachment No. 3
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF AN AMEND-
MENT TO THE KOLL CENTER NEWPORT PLANNED
COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS (PLANNING
COMMISSION AMENDMENT NO. 677)
WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the
Newport Beach General Plan the Land Use Element has been prepared; and
WHEREAS, the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides specific
procedures for the Implementation of Planned Community zoning for properties within
the City of Newport Beach; and
WHEREAS, an amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned Com-
munity Is necessary in order to maintain consistency between the Newport Beach General
Plan and the Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach prepared a Negative Declaration
for the project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)and
the State CEQA Guidelines, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the
information contained in the environmental document in making its decision on the
proposed amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission
of the City of Newport Beach does hereby recommend to the City Council an amend-
ment to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community designated as Planning Commis-
sion Amendment No. 677 as shown on Exhibit 1 attached.
ADOPTED this_day of 1989,by the following vote, to wit:
AYES
NOES
ABSENT
BY
Gary . Pomeroy,
- CHAIRMAN
BY
Gary J. D� Sano,
SECRETARY
T0: Plai Commission - 15
Exhibit 1
PLANNED COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Koll Center Newport
Newport Beach, California
PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO. 21
TO: Ouing Coimnission - 16 • ^
PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
For Koll Center Newport
Ordinance No. 1449 adopted by the
City of Newport Beach on August 14, 1972 (Amendment No. 313)
Original draft May 5, 1972
Amendment No. (1) August 14, 1972
Amendment No. (2) August 14, 1972
Amendment No. (3) August 2, 1973
Amendment No. (4) February 7, 1974
Amendment No. (5) June 10, 1974
Amendment No. (6) May 15, 1975
Amendment No. (7) September 8, 1975
Amendment No. (8) June 28, 1976
Amendment No. (9) January 10, 1977
Amendment No. (10) July 11, 1978
Amendment No. (11) August 28, 1978
Amendment No. (12) October 19, 1978
Amendment No. (13) November 10, 1980
Amendment No. (14) March 23, 1981
Amendment No. (15) October 24, 1984
Amendment No. (16) May 14, 1984
Amendment 'No. (17) December 9, 1985
Amendment No. (18) July 14, 1986
Amendment No. (19) March 23, 1987
Amendment No. (20) July 27, 1987
Amendment No. (21)
Note: See Footnotes, Page 48 for description of amendments.
III
TO: PlAng Conmiission - 17 •
PART I . INDUSTRIAL
Section I . Statistical Analysis
A. Building Sites
Acreages shown are net buildable land area including
landscape setbacks, within property lines. (4)
Site 1: 25.043 acres . . . . . . . . . . 25.043 acres (8)(21)
B. Allowable Building Area
Site 1: 442,775 square feet . . . 10.16 acres (8)(21)
C. Parking Criteria
The following statistics are for information only.
Development may include but shall not be limited to the
following:
To allow a basis for calculation parking was assumed to
be three (3) spaces per one thousand (1000) square feet
of building and at one hundred twenty (120) cars per
acre.
Site 1: 1,328 cars . . ... . . . . . . . . .11.07 acres (8)(21)
D. Landscaped Open Space (21)
Site 1:
Area. . . . . . . . . . . . .25.04 acres
Building. . . . . . . . .10.16 acres
14.88 acres
Parking area. . . . .11.07 acres
Net Open Space. . . 3.81 acres
-g-
TO: tanning Commission - 18
B. Building Areas
Maximum building areas shall be as noted in the
Statistical Analysis, Part 1, Section I.
C. Building Height
Building heights of structure shall be limited to a
height of fifty-five (55) feet. Exception: existing
non-conforming structures. (21)
-11.1-
TO: Planno Commission - 19
b. Eliminated Service Station Site No. 1 and added the land area to
Professional and Business Office Site "B" .
c. Revised the parking requirement for office buildings within
Professional and Business Office sites.
(12) Planned Community Text revision (Amendment No. 514, adopted October 19,
1978) incorporating the following changes:
a. Established existing and additional allowable development as of
October 1, 1978.
b. Established the requirement and criteria for phasing plan approval of
development beyond thirty (30) percent of the additional allowable
development.
(13) Planned Community Text revision incorporating the transfer to allowable
building area from Professional and Business Office Site "0" to
Professional and Business Office Site "B" . (Amendment No. 550, adopted
November 10, 1980. )
(14) Planned Community Text revision for Retail and Service Site No. i which
allocates existing and permitted development. (Amendment No. 558, adopted
March 23, 1981. )
(15) Planned Community Text revision increasing the allowable building area in
Site C (MacArthur Court) . (Amendment No. 593, adopted October 24, 1983. )
(16) Planned Community Text revision incorporating the transfer of allowable
office, restaurant and retail building area from Professional and Business
Office Site "A" to Professional and Business Office Site "B" . (Amendment
no. 606, adopted May 14, 1984. )
(17) Planned Community Text revision to allow up to two restaurants with a
total floor area not to exceed 3,250 square feet within "Office Site V .
(Amendment No. 626, adopted Decmber 9, 1985. )
(18) Planned Community Text revision deleting restaurant site 1 and substitut-
ing a private club with a total floor area not to exceed 30,000 square
feet within Office Site "A". (Amendment No. 635, adopted July 14, 1986. )
(19) Planned Community Text revision to allow auto detailing as a permitted
use. (Amendment No. 647, adopted March 23, 1987. )
(20) Planned Community Text revision adding support commercial uses to the per-
mitted uses under Professional and Business Office permitted uses .
(Amendment No. 649, adopted July 27, 1987. )
(21) Planned Community Text revision combining Light industrial Site 1 and 2
into Light Industrial Site 1 and increasing the allowable building area
for the combined site. (Amendment No. adopted )
-50-
AREA SUMMARY
PER RECORDED TRACT MAP NO.a10.7
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL 25.043 AC
OFFICES 122.574 AC
RETAIL 3 SERVICE 5.026 AC
COURTHOUSE 7.800 AC
�a OFFICE a NET USABLE AREA 160.443 AC
fEaoE AaRET NOTE-.
ALL AREAS ARE EXCLUSIVE OF
DEDICATED RIGHTS OF WAY
• .1 •QO
SITE t
nx;a.a SOMCE Q
' B.02S AC YA:T
SOafFAC1ET (~A
fA
0
N
O
f0 OF Ar 0 '�
EAR � 1PlY3 AC/Er �
m NORTH
t
• B AaT /Er
LAND USE
LAST REVISION APAIL T,1.7E
Tetler Af,B
:.,SITE,i�i•<'•:'iit,):k':'a"�;?i�>�'::?f;:;:_^Ei,i^iT,:�s'i ,
.>"t•E ICOUIFTHOM
GHT INDU&TRIAL?:•::<::. .: >`:.?::;;:•..^:3<s.:• 3
25.043 AC. NET ''i.'.'" •:;'':._:�:`':: `t :.°.':d: XafAa fEcr
:.. >3';: (21)z ;'t::.<: ::'::'?:::.::: ::.::::.:::: ';,::: •.::•::::.:; TaoAtxT KOLL CENTER NEWPORT
NEWPORT BEACH,CALIFORNIA
OrPICE C MICE F
unAcfn _ 1�LE Act
LANGDON-WILSON-MUMPER ?f
Jamboree Btvd
—� r AMENOMENT (21)
0 Waclnnent No. 4
�-
VICINITY MAP i
GPA 89 - 1 ( F )
Amendment No . 677
Traffic Study No . 56
E
Resubdivision No . 892 °D�
BttE 1
RETAIL502 A SERVICEOOtE AG NET
OFFICE A
30S3Y AC.NET
_l 0
11qp o
r N OFFICE 0
t IAF3 All NET b
LANE m
OFFICE B
43703 AC!ET
:>,•,;%.r,c:::°:''f:.;.r•;r.;i$•• feller AV.
:...k':SITE 13.::::i::;t.:•r.ii`.;;::•. r:ili :;'..•; r;::'�.:...::.:. .:; OFFICE
`•2;ft? •LIGHT INOUSTRIAIi. i:EE;i: '`>:'•.:.: >i;:. vrl AC.r
NET��.as:i.�i`i.'s.:?%;'`•,``oi ` 'i' 'i''`Sgii.: coupTNasE
120 AG NET
NORTH
' ':f<.'::;`.;•:,::':'iE::::::>:::F••: OFFICE IF
]�J:C•�uF;..+. r;}q;...,;;r}? OFFICE 0 1.143 A0.NE[
301!AC.NET ,
Jamboree Blvd
r
KOLL CENTER NEWPORT
NEWPORT BEACH.CALIFORNIA
a/
attachment No. S
LANGDON • WILSON MUMPER
A R C H I T E C T S
LWM Job No. 8914-000
March 30, 1989
ROCKWELL ZONING AMENDMENT DATA
TABLE 1
Existing Maximum Allowable Building Area 403,775 s.f.
Proposed Increase 39.000 s.f.
Proposed Maximum Allowable Building Area 442,775 s.f.
Existing Building Area 377,VO (1)
Proposed New Building Area 65,000
442,520
(1) In addition to the existing improvements there currently exists 12; ' (' ;.f.
of temporary structure that will be removed upon transfer of its occupan' . into
either the existing or proposed permanent structures.
TABLE 2
Existing Mix of Uses:
501-M 501 503-1 503-2 TOTAL
Office 6,675 88,815 75,630 46,765 217,835 s.f.
'Manufacture 0 0 3,375 34,440 37,815 s.f.
Warehouse d 37,860 43,080 40.880 121,820 s. f.
TOTALS 6,675 126,675 122,085 122,085 377,520 s.f.
Proposed (Conceptual ) Mix of Uses:
501-M 501 . 503-1 503-2 New TOTAL
Office 6,675 88,815 81,576 82,213 65,000 324;7.79 s .f.
Manu. 0 0 15,525 38,565 54,090 s .`.
Warehouse 0 37,860 24,984 1t307 64,151 e. t.
TOTALS 6,341 126,675 122,085 122,085 65.000 442,520 :. . ( .
(ROCK:M-2)
4100 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD.SUITE 200.PO.BOX 2440.NEWPORT BEACH,CALIFORNIA 9255E-0971 714 E00.9193 a
LANGDON • WILSON • MUMPER
'A R C H I T E C T S
LWM Job No. 8914-000
March 30, 1989
ROCKWELL ZONING AMENDMENT DATA
TABLE 3
LOT # EXISTING PARKING (2)
STANDARD COMPACT VAN POOL HANDICAP REC.VEHICLES TOTALS
1 23 23
2 80 80
3 330 4 4 Motorcycle 338
27'-0"
4 12 200 212
5 92 17 109
6 517 4 2 Motorcycle 530
63'-0"
R.V. 7
TOTALS 1054 217 6 6 7 1292
PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPOSED 65,000 SQ. FT. OFFICE BUILDING:
Office: 324,279 sq. ft. = 1st 125,000 @ 1/250 = 500 spaces
remaining 199,279 @ 1/300 = 1165 required spaces
23
LANGDON • WILSON • MUMPER
A H C M I T E C T 8
LWM Job No. 8914-000
March 30, 1989
PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPOSED 65,000 SQ. FT, OFFICE BUILDING (continued)
Manufacturing: 54090 sq. ft. = 54090 @ 3/1000 = 163 spaces
Warehouse: 64151 = 1st 20,000 @ 1/1000 = 20 spaces
2nd 20,000 @ 1/2000 = 10 spaces
remaining at 24,151 @ 1/4000 = 6 spaces
36 spaces required
Total adjusted parking required:
Office = 1165 spaces
Manufacturing = 163 spaces
Warehouse = 36 spaces
1364 spaces required for 65,000 sq. ft. office addition
PROPOSED NEW PARKING ADDITIONS:
Parking required 1364 (12 to be handicap•)
Existing parking 1292 (2)
72 spaces needed
New parking: (See Site Plan)
Lot #1 = 44 new standard spaces
Lot #7 = 18 new standard spaces
6 new handicap spaces
Lot #8 = 18 new standard spaces
6 new handicap spaces
Lot #3 = 2 new standard spaces (from restriping)
Lot #6 = 1 new standard space (from restriping)
Total new parking = 95
0ld spaces removed = -12
83 total added spaces
(2) Existing parking based on physical on site survey conducted by Langdon Wilson
Architects and Planners on 3-7-89.
LANGDON • WILSON' • MUMPER
A R C H 1 T E C T a
LWM Job No. 8914-000
March 30, 1989
SUMMARY OF TOTAL SPACES (NEW & OLD) :
Standard 1131
Compact 217 (16% of total )
Handicap 12 (Amount required under Title 24)
Van Pool 8
Recreational Vehicles 7
1375
TOTAL REQUIRED - 1364
11 Surplus
,;Z 5
SEW PoRr
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
n
U z P.O.BOX 1768,NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92658-8915
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FROM: :Newport
anning Department
T0: Office of Planning and Research ty of Newport Beach
a1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 O. Box 1768
Sacramento, CA 95814 Beach, CA 92658-8915
❑ County Clerk of the County
X of orange
P.O. Box 838
Santa Ana, CA 9277022 `
NAME OF PROJECT:IrPp O l- 1 �F , A►�e►ndM"fd M o
PROJECT IpCATION:R��(�Q. In�eYnahona�l Jambor e, good N ( Q
39�ouo 5q ��
PTN: �'
PROJETDESC � allo inAcl;
F-0)almmal 1 D►�-f'i I
to
FINDING: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council Policy K-3 pertaining al
procedures and guidelines to•implement the California Environmental
project
Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee tee haswil evaluated
not have a significant effect
and determined that the proposed prof
on the environment.
=141TIGAdIONRES:
INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY. O� �� r4 ekac,�-
INITIAL STUDY AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT: 3300 Newport Boulevard,
Newport Beach, CA
DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING:
Environmental `coor(►dinQator
DATE: Ord t\) M I
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
co ( �
EWaRONMEN AL CIIEMJST FORK
I. Background 1. Name of Proponent Rocjc J6LL 1 AIMP-NATIOMOX
2. A dress and Phope Number of Pro�nent �3/1 JAM L&E- )Qb .-
/S /
3. Date Checklist Submitted Line/( � �989
4. Agency Requiring Checklist CITL/ or-- AgalpQ 4 7 18 H, l
5. Name of Proposal, if applicable Ip p 6 �! F)
M.FNDM r-NT 0. 677
11. Environmental Impacts
R,r6UBDrvl5loVV a 9.1
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached
sheets.)
Yes Maybe No
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in
geologic substructures?
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or x
overcovering of the soil? --
C. Change in topography or ground surface x
relief features? — —
d. The destruction, covering or modification
of any unique geologic or physical features? — L
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of 1 ,
Soils, either on or off the site? — 2S
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?
g. Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, vv
mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? A
- 1 -
a-r
• ` nit -t
Yes Maybe No
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration v
of ambient air quality? — G
b. The creation of objectionable odors? X
C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or any change in climate,
either locally or regionally? —
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course of
direction of water 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 or flow of v
flood waters?
d. Change in the amount of surface water x
In any water body?
e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any
alteration of surface water quality,
including but not limited to temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of x
flow of ground water? _
g. Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or with-
drawals, or through interception of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations? J�
h. Substantial reduction in the amount of
water otherwise available for public
water supplies?
J. Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such'as flooding or tidal V
waves? L
- 2 -
.22i
Yes Maybe No
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or num-
ber of any species of plants, (including trees, x
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? _ u
5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change -in the diversity of species, or num-
bers of any species of animals (birds, land
animals including reptiles, fish and shell- X
fish, benthic organisms or insects)? —
6+
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, k
rare or endangered species of animals? —
C. Introduction of new species of animals into
an area, or result in a barrier to the migra-
tion or movement of animals?
d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife X
habitat? '- -
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? _
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new X
light or glare? — —
B. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a sub-
stantial alteration of the present or planned v
land use of an area? — L
3 -
Yes Maybe No
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a, Increase in the rate of use of any natural x
resources? — —
10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve:
a. 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 an accident or X
upset conditions? —
b. Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or an emergency evacuation
plan?
11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location,
distribution, density, or growth rate of the human v
population of an area? — L
12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing
or create a demand for additional housing? _
X.
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional x
vehicular movement? —
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or
demand for new parking? Y_ -
C. Substantial impact upon existing trans- x
portation systems?
d. Alterations to present patterns of circula-
tion or movement of people and/or goods? — —
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?— X
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, u
bicyclists, or pedestrians? —
14. Public Services, Will the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered gov-
ernmental services in any of the following areas:
- 4 -
30
` Yes Maybe No
a. Fire protection? — X
b. Police protection? X
C. Schools? — X
d. Parks or other recreational facilities? — X
e. Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads? —
f. other governmental services? — X
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? — X
•b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing
sources or energy, or require the development
of new sources of energy?
16. Utilites. Will the proposal result in a need for
new systems, or substantial alterations to the
following utilities:
a. • Power or natural gas? — X
b. Communications systems? — �v
C. Water? — L
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�bazard or potential
health heazard (excluding mental health)? _
b. Exposure of people to potential health v
hazards?
5 -
3l
Yes Maybe No
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? — L
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an
impact upon the quality or quantity of existing J
recreational opportunities? -- 1—�
20. Cultural Resources.
a. Will the proposal result in the alteration
of or the destruction of a prehistoric or X
historic archaeological site? — —
b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical
or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or X
historic building, structure, or object?
C. Does the proposal have the potential to
cause a physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values? —
d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious
or sacred uses with the potential impact
area?
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? _
6 -
yes Maybe No
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 rela-
tively brief, definitive period of time while
long-term impacts will endure well into the X
future.) — —
C. Does the project have impacts which are
individually limited, but cumulatively con-
siderable? (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 X
the environment is significant.)
d. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly?_ l�
III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
(Narrative description of environmental impacts.)
IV. Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
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 signif- •
icant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant
effect in this case because the mitigation measures described
on an attached sheet have been added to the project.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on
the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Q
Dat6 Signature
C\PLT\EIRLIST.FRM For
- 7 -
33
PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Rockwell International proposes to increase office and support facilities on their
existing site by 65,000 sq.ft. This increase in development will enable the company
to remain at this location.
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Lb. The proposal, if approved, will result in the removal of existing modular
buildings and the construction of a 65,000 sq. ft. building which will be used
for office and support uses. The construction process with result in the
disruption and covering,of soil. The site is, however, currently fully developed
and this effect is considered insignificant.
2. During construction of the proposed project, the use of heavy equipment may
result in the creation of localized odors. This effect is short term in nature,
and is considered an insignificant adverse effect.
3. The construction of the new office building will produce a new source of light
and glare. The entire area is, however, commercial in nature and no adverse
effects are anticipated.
13.a. The additional development will increase the daily traffic generated by the site.
A traffic study was prepared by the firm of Weston Pringle & Associates to
assess the potential effects of this increased traffic, and is hereby incorporated
by reference as if fully set forth. Eleven intersections in the vicinity of the
project site were analyzed, and the results of the study indicated that four
intersections were impacted by the project by more than 1% in the morning
afternoon peak Vi hours. Intersection Capacity Utilization analysis of these
four intersections revealed that one intersection, Bristol Street North at Birch
Street, was adversely impacted by the proposed project in the PM peak hour.
However, the addition of a westbound left turn lane on Bristol Street North at
Birch street would mitigate the adverse impacts of the project.
13.b. The increased development will generated the need for additional parking
facilities on site. All required parking can be provided on site and no adverse
effects are anticipated.
MITIGATION MEASURE
1. Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the proposed project,
the additional of a westbound left turn lane on Bristol Street North at Birch
Street shall have been constructed, unless subsequent project approval requires
modification thereto. The intersection improvement shall be subject to the
approval of the City Traffic Engineer.
i
31/
MITIGATION MONITORING
Completion of the mitigation requirement shall be verified by the Planning and Public
Works Departments prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy.
35
• etachment No. 6
1\' dIb
`' ` Weston Pringle & Associates
jA �
TRAMC&TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING
March 3, 1989
Ms. Pat Temple S ? pear;
Environmental Coordinator De10"nfrgEo 9
City of Newport Beach t, MARO'
P.O. Box 1768 s 1989 !O
Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 £ Nay C17 cfi
Dear Ms. Temple:
This letter summarizes our analysis of traffic factors related to the proposed
Rockwell Expansion Project in the City of Newport Beach. The study has been
conducted to satisfy the requirements of the City's Traffic Phasing
Ordinance. This study is based upon information provided by the Rockwell
Corporation, City Staff and previous studies.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Simi-conductor Products Division of Rockwell International is located on
the westerly side of Jamboree Road, southerly of Birch Street. An expansion
of the facilities is proposed which would increase the total building area by
39,000 square feet. In addition, a 25,000-30400 square foot expansion to the
manufacturing area may be required. This expansion youid add a maximum of 257
employees to the site. The employees are spread aver' five shifts with most
employees beginning at 7:30 AM. Vehicular access is provided' at two
locations on Jamboree Road and one location on Birch Street. Figure 1
illustrates the project location.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The streets in the area of the project are fully developed, Jamboree Road is
a six lane street with medians which extends from north of I-405 to Coast
Highway. There are two lanes of travel in each direction on Birch Street with
left turn channelization. Parking is prohibited on both streets. The i
intersection of Jamboree Road and Birch Street is signalized as are other
principal intersections in the area.
'ltiril East chapman Avenue • Suite 110 • ruiterton.California 92631 • (71.1) 871-2951 3(0
DR.
any t
BRISTOI ST =ZT g�
BR1ST0L ST NORTH
4:g. A
D
2O c p
9
yG�FiD.
F W
FORD 6�
G
O
`t Sp,N JOAQ��H
ir
Z O N
a
2 m > > Q W Q
0. p Q �Opir
ir
[] COAST HWY, (D o
W PACIFIC a a
z
SITE LOCATION MAP
WESTON MNGLE & ASSOCIATES FIGURE 1 37
. •
Existing daily traffic volumes and 1988 ICU values at major intersections are
illustrated on Figure 2. These data were provided by the City of Newport
Beach.
TRIP GENERATION
Since the project is an expansion of an existing project, it was possible to
obtain data specifically related to trip generation characteristics of this
facility. Driveway traffic volumes were provided by Rockwell which were
summaries of traffic counts conducted by Newport Traffic Studies the week of
September 26, 1988. These volumes are summarized in Table 1 along with trip
generation rates based upon the number of existing employees. Rates were
determined for each of the analysis period required in the Traffic Phasing
Ordinance.
The estimated 2.5 and peak hour trip generation for the proposed expansion are
listed in Table 2. These estimates are based upon a 257 increase in
employment. An estimated 200 trips would be generated during the AM 2.5 hour
peak and 180 during the, PM 2.5 hour peak. During the AM peak hour, an
estimated 85 trips would be generated and 70 during the PM peak hour.
TRIP ASSIGNMENT
In order to assign project traffic to the street system, it is necessary to
develop a trip distribution pattern. Data was provided by Rockwell indicating
the home zip codes of existing employees. These data were plotted on a area
map and a distribution pattern developed for the site. This distribution is
illustrated on Figure 3. The estimated trips to be generated by the project
were assigned to the street system in conformance with this distribution.
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
The traffic analysis has been completed to conform to the criteria of the City
of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance. A total of 11 intersections were
identified by the City Traffic Engineer for inclusion in the analysis. The
first required analysis is the "One Percent" test. An intersection is defined
as critical by the Ordinance when the project traffic exceeds one percent of
existing plus committed project plus regional growth traffic on any approach
3,3
I
37 .57/0.66
36
0.68/0.69
0.47/0.56 DR, 14 ,
0.58/0.92 qJ T 0.49/0.49
1.02/0.90 a SITE
BRISTOL.\ o° 0.54/0.62
KRIS � ST. 0.84/0 \
TO ST N0RT5 �1 5
H .8�1��c�
0.96/0.71 29
LEGEND 0.95/0.59 087/068 f
56 = DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
IN THOUSANDS. 0.78/0.55 �. 54 'C "
0.77/0.66 = AM/PM ICU k° 0 0.89/0.73
J� 50 A
m 1S0N ' 1
Sr f- 0 61 yG
9`
ui 39 CX69/0.59 µD•
FORD 6 021/0.77
0.68/0.76 <L
O
0.78/0.55 `` 1
3
Jp
a 5PN AQ0/N 17 0.65/0.82
v~i � it 0.57/0.73 8
d w N '� �W CNEW
EN ER 071/0.87 Q Q >
W Q
CAL 2 64 ~ S 74 37� 47 43 28 2� w a
ir 60 COAST HWY Q n a.
Qppt0 t�0 rM
52 o
PACIFIC a
a.
83 � � o o 43
ao
N 0
c�Q' � 0� O �.
O O p O m p Gjp a p
M
W 0
O
EXISTING DAILY VOLUMES AND
ICU VALUES
WESTON PRINGLE &ASSOCIATES FIGURE 2 37
Table 1
EXISTING DRIVEWAY VOLUMES & TRIP GENERATION RATES
Rockwell International
TIME PERIOD VEHICLES(') RATE(2)
In Uut in but
6:30 - 9:00 AM 937 313 0.58 0.19
7:30 - 8:30 AM 350 176 0.22 0.11
3:30 - 6:00 PM 204 954 0.12 0.59
4:30 - 5:30 PM 50 394 0.03 0.24
(1) Average volumes for week of September 249 1988, Newport Traffic Studies.
(2) Trip ends per employee - based upon 11623 employees.
Table 2
TRIP GENERATION
Rockwell International
TIME PERIOD TRIP ENDS(')
In Out
AM 2.5 Hour Peak 150 50
AM Peak Hour 55 30
PM 2.5 Hour Peak 30 150
PM Peak Hour 10 60
(1) Based upon 257 employee increase.
410
SA IEGO FRWY.
ti
0
w� 5 � � 5D R 25 �15
z � 15
h �
15
40
eRlsTOL sT m `° SITE
BRISTO NORTH
�5)25
�. sr. _
10 TD 10 5
LEGEND 10
10 - DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION
PERCENTAGE
� n
20 m a
s s
• � a G�tZD.
tp W
FORD 6�
La
SPN JOAQ��h
a a
g > o yQ<S R0.
o COAST HWY, o
w PACIFIC cr a
PROJECT DISTRIBUTION
WESTON MNGLE & ASSOCIATE FIGURE 3 y/
to an intersection during the AM or PM 2.5 hour peak period. A list of
committed projects was provided by the City for inclusion in this study and
these projects are listed in Table 3. Since the project is scheduled for
completion in 1990, the analyses were completed for 1991 as required by the
Ordinance.
Appendix A contains the "One Percent" analysis sheets for the 11 intersections
analyzed and the results are summarized in Table 4. Review of Table 4
indicates that all intersections passed the "One Percent" test except Bristol
Street North/Birch Street, Jamboree Road/Mac Arthur Boulevard, Jamboree
Road/Birch Street, and Mac Arthur Boulevard/Birch Street.
In conformance with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, ICU analyses were completed
for the four intersections for those periods that were found to be critical.
These analyses are contained in Appendix B and included existing, existing
plus regional growth plus committed project and existing plus regional growth
plus committed project plus project traffic conditions. The results of these
analyses are summarized in Table 5. Review of Table 5 indicates that all
intersections are projected to have ICU values of less than 0.90 for the
critical periods except Bristol Street North/Birch Street during the PM peak
hour. Additional analysis was completed for this intersection and is
described in the following paragraph.
Bristol Street North/Birch Street. This intersection is projected to have an
ICU value of 1.13 in 1991 without the project and without street
improvements. With the project, the ICU would increase to 1.14. A previously
approved project has been required to add a westbound left turn lane at this
intersection. With this improvement, ,the ICU value with and without the
project is reduced to 1.03. The project would not have an impact upon the
intersection on this basis. The ICU calculations are contained in Appendix C
and illustrated on figure 4.
SUMMARY
This study has reviewed traffic factors related to the Rockwell International
expansion as required by the City of 'Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance.
Estimates were made of trips to be generated by the project and the impact of
HZ
i
N
I
J
0
l— e
t m �
BIRCH ST.
�o
r�_
Z 1Iti
• T
1
ADD LEFT 0
TURN LANEf. z
Scale 1140' a
L
e
WESTON Prlt NGLE & ASSOCIATES FIGURE 4 �/3
J5 ni
Table 3
COMMITTED PROJECTS
Hoag Cancer Center Mariners Church Expansion
Aeronutronic Ford 'Bi,g Canyon Villa Apts.
Civic Plaza 1400 Dove Street
Corporate Plaza 1100 Quail Street
Mac Arthur Court McLachlan-Newport Place
Newport Place Koll Center TPP Amend. 4A
Sea Island Villa Point
Harbor Point, Homes Rosan's Development
Martha's Vineyard Fashion Island #2
Valdez Newport Aquatics Center
Coast Business Center 2600 E. Coast Hwy.
Koll Center NPT No. 1 Taco Bell
Ross Mollard . Newport Retirement Inn
-1501 Superior Medical Newport Classic Inn
15th Street Apts Newport Lido Med Center
Newporter Resort Expansion Big Canyon 10
Fashion Island Renaissance YMCA,
20th St. Bed/Breakfast Inn Amendment No. 1 ford Aero
Amendment No. 1 North Ford Sharaton Expansion
Newport Dunes Amendment No. 1 Mac Arthur
Bayview National Education
City of Irvine Development North Ford
Shokrian Riverside Retail Building
Edwards Newport Center 3800 Campus Dr.
Seaside Apts. I11 3760 Campus Dr.
Newport Imports Fidelity National Title
Newport Place Tower Mariners Mile Marine Ctr.
Table 4
CRITICAL INTERSECTION IDENTIFICATION
Rockwell International
LOCATION 2.5 HOUR PERCENTAGES
NB SB EB WB
AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
Bristol St & Campus Dr. - Irvine Ave. 0.3/0.1 0.4/0.5 0.2/0.1 - -
Bristol St. & Birch St. 0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0 0.7/0.2 - -
Bristol St. & Jamboree Rd. 0.210.1 0.3/0.5 0.3/0.0 - -
Bristol St. N. & Campus - Irvine Ave. , 0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0 - - 0.6/0.8
Bristol St. N. & Birch St. 1.5/0.7 2.5/1.2 - - 0.0/0.5
Bristol St. N. & Jamboree Rd. 0.3/0.1 0.2/0.9 - - -
Jamboree Rd. & Mac Arthur Boulevard 0.3/0.1 0.0/0.0 0.8/0.2 0.3/1.1
Jamboree Rd. & Birch Street 0.2/0.9 0.8/0.3 1.5/0.5 0.0/0.0
Jamboree Rd. & Campus Drive 0.4/0.8 0.7/0.2 0.0/0.0 0.8/0.3
Mac Arthur Blvd. & Birch 0.0/0.0 0.2/0.1 2.3/0.6 3.2/2.4
Mac Arthur Blvd & Campus Dr. 0.1/0.2 0.2/0.1 0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0
415
Table 5
ICU SUMMARY
Rockwell International
INTERSECTION PERIOD
Existing Existing Existing Existin
(1988) +Regional +Regional +Regions
+Committed +Committed +Committe
(1991) +Project +Projec
1991 W Im rov
Bristol St. N. & Birch St. AM Peak 0.58 0.74 0.74 -
PM Peak 0.92 1.13 1.14 1.03
Jamboree Rd. & Mac Arthur PM Peak 0.62 0.82 0.83 -
Jamboree Rd. & Birch Street AM Peak 0.49 0.69 0.70 -
Mac Arthur Blvd. & Birch St. AM Peak 0.47 0.55 0.56 -
PM Peak 0.56 0.67 0.68 -
yG
these trips evaluated in terms of the Ordinance. While one intersection was
found to be impacted by the project, other planned development is anticipated
to mitigate this impact.
Principal findings of the study are the following:
1. The project will generate 85 AM peak hour and 70 PM peak hour trip
ends over existing trip generation on the site.
2. Of the 11 intersections evaluated, four did not pass the "One
Percent" test required by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance.
3. Of the four critical intersections, one was found to have ICU
values greater than 0.90 with the project during PM peak hour.
4. With improvements related to other projects all intersection
impacts would be mitigated.
MITIGATION MEASURES
The following measure is recommended to mitigate potential traffic impacts of
the project.
Add a westbound left turn lane on Bristol Street North at Birch
Street. (Required by previously approved project.)
47
• .. i
We trust that this study will be of assistance to you and the City of Newport
Beach. If you have any questions or require additional information, please
contact us.
Respectfully submitted,
WESTON PRINGLE & ASSOCIATES
Weston S. Pringle, P.E.
Registered Professional Engineer
State of California Numbers C16828 & TR565
WSP:hld
#890010
APPENDIX A
ONE PERCENT ANALYSES
q`'s
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection BRISTOL ST CAMPUS DR—IRVINE AV
(Existing Traffic Volumes ase on Average Winter/spring 98e ) AM
Peak 2h Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected i% of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2y Hour Pea D, Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Yolwne
,/ � I
Northbound 4277 ,SW y788 7 �1��
Southbound 941 �;r� //69. _s' y
Eastbound2i - ��b.Z
8611
Westbound 74
--- O
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2i Hour Traffic Volume
❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
DATE:
PROJECT:
FORM I
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection DRIS`POL ST CAMPUS DR—IRVINE AV
(Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage wiiiLcii ap, ing —gH PM
Peak 2+ Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected M_ 4
ect IDirection Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 21s Hour Peak 21, Hour2k HourVolume Volume Volume Volumelumenorthbound 2412 i I Z y0 (nSouthbound 2572 S37 3 O �p'SEastbound5245 -��Nestbound �
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
LAJ Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
DATE:
PROJECT: FORM I
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection BRISTOL ST/BIRCII ST
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on vera�ter pring 1988 AM
Peak 2y Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 16, of Projected Project I
Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 214 Hour Peak 2y Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume i Volume
I
Northbound 707 ;j D �57 0
Southbound 534 u 5
Eastbound i , �B T S
_r k
Westbound
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume
❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 21� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
DATE:
PROJECT:
FORM I
� �1
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection BRISTOL ST/BIRCH ST
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 se—PM
Peak 211 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 21s Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2, Hour Peak 2y Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
I i
Northbound 454
Southbound 1652
Eastbound i
3723 G7- _ �S9 i �/ 10
Westbound
O
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume
❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization .
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
DATE:
PROJECT:
FORM I
� 53
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection JAMBORLL' RD/URISTOL ST
(Existing Traffic Volummes basin Average inter priming 19lffl Abl
Peak 2� Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected I' of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2k Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
I �
Northbound 6039 7o 7 L
southbound 2 3 ' 7-�/ /570 1 16
Eastbound 5656 6 ; 2
i
Westbound
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 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
DATE:
PROJECT:
FORM I
5- jz/
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection JAMBOREE RD/BRISTOL ST
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 U ) PM
Peak 2� Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected I' of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 21, Hour Peak 2;, flour Peak 21, Hour Peak 25 Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ! Volume
Northbound 5464 /6v' -
Southbound 2056 6 Z 290
Eastbound 5375 /i'i G 66 zl I gam— o
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
u Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
DATE:
PROJECT:
FORM I
6 55
�T
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection BRISTOL ST N/CAMPUS DR
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on verage inter pring 19 8 AM
Peak 2� Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1" of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2+ Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 211 Hour Peak 2y Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ! Volume
Northbound 6006
Southbound 1332 '0
Eastbound �y _ i 1)
Westbound 23 �b.G
_� ?
3038 ✓76>Z_ 3
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak'22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
DATE:
PROJECT:
FOR14 1
7 5E'
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection BRISTOL ST N/CAMPUS DR—IRVINR AV
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pr ni g O- —pM
Peak 2y Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected ;1�;eak
ojected Project
Direction Peak 29 Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2y Hour Hour Peak 25 Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume me Volume
I I
Northbound 3236 iqa 3/3 1 0
Southbound 4112
Eastbound
Westbound 7814 / 7�S /`) 9 96 75-
�0•6)
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 21 Hour Traffic Volume:' Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
DATE:
PROJECT:
FORM I
0 . 0
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection BRISTOL ST N/BIRCH ST
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter Spring 1988 AM
Peak 2y Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1", of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2u, Hour Peak 24 Hour Peek 24 Hour Peak 24 Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume , Volume
Northbound 2520 6Ss 7`J JZ ! 3ti l /.5
Southbound 703
{ Eastbound
i
Westbound 2478
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume
❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2)1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
DATE:
PROJECT:
FORM 1
9 5d
/ 1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection BRISTOL ST N/BIRCH ST
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter/ pry ing f988 PM
Peak 211 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1,, o72JHoTurPe
Project
Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peek 2y Hour Peak 2�, Hour Peeak 2ti Hour
VolumeVolume Volume Volume VolumeVolume
1 / I
Northbound 1214
Southbound 3237 Sys 37P� � Z�
Eastbound j i Al
t-- i
Westbound 5099
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2, Hour Traffic Volume
a Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
DATE:
PROJECT:
FORM I
ID 59
I --
0 . • `
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection JAMBOREE RD/BRISTOL ST N
(Existing Traffic Volumes ase on Average WinteriSpring 1988 AM
Peak 2k Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 25 Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 10144 ,307
Sorthbound 1521 //', 3
Eastbound 1 O O
Westbound O
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
[] Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
DATE:
PROJECT:
FORM 1
v �
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection JAMBOREE RD/BRISTOL ST N
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average winterf5pring 988 PM
Peak 2� Hour . Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1' of Projected Project
Direction Peak 25 Hour Growth Peak 21, Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2y Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
/
Northbound 6772 ✓S ��3 � •b
Southbound 3518 U
Eastbound
— 1
i
Westbound
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
❑ Peak 23,1 Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
❑ Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
DATE:
PROJECT:
FORM I
' I�1
12
0. 0
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection JAMBOREE RD/MACARTHUR BL
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on AVerage Winter/Spring 1988 AM
Peak 2k Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected It of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak Vs Hour Peak 2t Hour Peak 211 Hour Peak 2� Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume i Volume
I
Northbound 2440 7 P ,S'7D ✓DB 31 ' �?
Southbound /6S �S8 2/S`J/ ZZ
rWestbound
3827 ��G //� J t7S 5 i 3`1800 SS 66/ 25�� 25 I lr,•3
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume
❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
DATE:
PROJECT:
FOR14 I
li 61 �
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection JAMBOREE RD/MACARTHUR BL
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 _ M
Peak 2y Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1 of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 211 Hour Peak 2;, Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume _ Volume
I �
Northbound 1385 4/:= 1-U ZOZ•Z ZO •, _2- _60./
Sauthbound 3057 ya� I� y�67 1/15 d
Eastbound 1856 S G �ol' Z77Z i 7-6 1 S_��•Z�
Westbound 3700 /'' fl6s Y677 I 7 7
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume
❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than '1% of Projected
Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
DATE:
PROJECT:
FORM I
0 .
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection JAMBOREE RD/DIRCIi ST
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Tverage inter priming 1988 Am
Peak 2y Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 211 Hour Peak 2h Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
i
Northbound 30133`�66 38 z
Southbound 3815 N r�'' 'Vo (�0 i S ,B
Eastbound A94
i
Westbound
23 —
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 2s Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
DATE:
PROJECT:
FORM I
�i ldl
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection JAMBOREE RD/BIRCH ST
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter pring 19 _ PM
Peak 21, Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2c, Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 21s Hour Peak 2�, Hour Peak 2� Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volwne i Volume
Northbound 2531 77 7 23 Z Z ' �—�J—•
Sorthbound 2877 38
312 (23l
Eastbound 1518 ,;219 175 1
Westbound 44
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
❑ Peak 23k Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
(� Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.
DATE:
PROJECT:
FORM I
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection JAMBOREE RD/CAMPUS DR
(Existing Traffic Volumes ase on Average in pring 19 IVAM
Peak 231 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project
Direction Peek 2h Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2hI
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Yoluma
Northbound 2564 78 7%3 `j'/� 2✓� ��_/t•
Southbound 3782 / S / i%i J p(Jr s —7 _.6
Eastbound 656 3 3 �O//� �?•--•
Westbound 2470 ? 7/ ZFjr� I ZB 23 t!G
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected,
Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
El
Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume. intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
DATE:
PROJECT:
FORM I
65'
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection JAMBOREE RD/CAMPUS DR
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on verage Inter 'pring 1988 PM
Peak 2y Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1� of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 211 Hour Peak 2; our Peak 2y Hour
Volume Volume Volume volume Vol/uma Volume
Northbound 3675 6A/ 0 /o'$
Southbound 3293
Eastbound 2231 '� ?�� Z�<� j 2 S 0----
--
Westbound 1603 �� 17
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2, Hour Traffic Volume
❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
DATE:
PROJECT:
FORM I
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection MACARTHUR BL/BIRCH ST
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 988 AM
Peak 2y Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected I".. of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2�. Hour Growth Peak 2% Hour Peak 2;s Hour Peak 2i; Hour Peak 2% Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
I
Northbound 1651 fd �/,r,! Zf 2 i
South bound 2245 37-/ 2—
Eastbound 1307 v?9D /1j 9 Z -3
Westbound 675 --796 1 I2S l,2
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume
a Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2? Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
DATE:
PROJECT:
FORM I
75 '�
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection MACARTHUR BL/BIRCH ST
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on verage 11,1111ter Spring 988TPM
Peak 2�s Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 7::D
Direction Peak 2ti Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 24 Hour rVolume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 1901 �� �� ZB�
Southbound Z
2051 7-7
Eastbound 1564 ��a � 76Z,
Westbound 828 3 3
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
❑ Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
[� Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. • Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
DATE:
PROJECT: FORM I
Io9
76
_ y
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection MACARTHUR BL/CAMPUS DR
(Existing Traffic Volumesbased—onAverage inter pring. 1988 psi
Peak 2� Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected L, of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak Zh Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2ti Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 1801 SS 3c�' 7,176
southbound 3334 p / // 7f b t •�
Eastbound 2614 r 9a na`
Ne5tbound1026 //✓ ! U
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2.. Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
DATE:
PROJECT:
FORM I
77 7n
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection MACARTHUR BL/CAMPUS DR
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pring 19ff�PM
Peak 2y Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1� of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 21, Hour Peal, 2h Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 2477 71 �7'=j 3 Pj /3//`J'
Southbound 3265 y9 SYy 7/o _� t>1
Eastbound 1970 Z06Z I
Westbound 2281
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume
❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.
DATE:
PROJECT:
FORM I
7$
7/
LL ,
- APPEWDIX B
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIIZATION WORKSHEETS
-7Z
BR4175M
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET NORTH S BIRCH STREET 4175
EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1988 AN
______________________________________________________________
I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI
IMov,mantl Lanes I Lane& I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVolume I V/C I
I leapacitylCapaeityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volune lw/o Project] I Ratio I
I I I I I I I • I Volume I I I
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
I NL 1 1600 1 1 95 1 0.06 1 HS 1 1 , pb I I ,tom, I
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
NT 1 3200 1 1 1171 1 0.37 * 1\—1 1 1 3 s Qi :47 K ,IA I 4-7
1------------------------------------------------------- _..._._...
I NR I I I I I I I I I I
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
I SL I I I I I I I I I I
I------------------------------------------------------------------------- --I
1 ST 1 16001 1 901 0.061 qo I A3 _1 oQ,___1__...._I_:DB
[---------------------------------------------------- -----
SR ] 3200 [ ] 254 [ 0.08 1 Z64 I (o l
I------------------------------------------------------------------------
i EL I I I I I I I I I I
[-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
1 ET I I I I I I I I I I
[-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I ER I I I I I I I I I I
1--------------------------------------------`------- --I
1 WL 1600 1 [ 145 1 0.09 1 1 I ,pcj I I PCI
1---------------------------
[ ) 4800 I 1 ----) 0.21 I...Q. .I..�70 .......... .. I.............
WR 1 1 120 1 ,,� 1 1 1 1 I
1-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
I-------- i ---- -------- --- I
(EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 .14 1 1
-----------------------------------1
[EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I �—A I
.............................................................................................
1_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
1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be
Less than or equal to 0.90
I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements Will
be lase than I.C.U. without project '
.........................................................................................
Description of system improvement:
PROJECT FORM II
DR417SPH
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET NORTH & BIRCH STREET 4175
EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 19as Pm
.............................................................................................
I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED I PROJECT IPROJECTI
lHovementl Lance I Lance I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVolume ,I V/C I
I ICapacitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume lw/o Projectl I Ratio I
i I I I I I I I Volume 1 I I
I -----------------•---'•----•-••••-•--•--•------•--•---•--------..--..------------•---- •I
I NL 1 1600 1 1 146 1 0.09 • 1 1 C 1 sl�_I
i -•--•---•--•------•---•----•-•••........................••_.......,... .._........._ . 1
I HT 1 3200 I 1 299 1 0.09 I 1 \lv3 ( 4 I Q I U 1
I----•---•-----•-•-----•---•--•-------•--•-------- - ------ ------- ......__........
I MR I I I i I I I I I i
I ._---------•-------------------•--.,-------_----_.-.---.--.------.-----.-•-••-.._-..... I
i sL I I I i I I I I I I
I ---•------------•--•-----------------------------------••_---_------•-,.--------•-•--- -I
1 ST I 1600I 1 4361 0.27I
------•------- --------- .......
1 SR 1 3200 1 1 1260 1 0.39 •
I ..._I . .. . l I V.L4• -------------------------------•------•------_. . ' !... J �...• . - 'F
1 EL I I I I I I I I I I
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
I ET I I I I I I I I I I
I. ....................................................................................... .I
I ER I I I I I I I I I I
I. ....................................................................................... I
I WL 1600 1 1 253 0.16 1 1 1 ,� I I 1� I
. ....................................................................b---._..........
IWT i I .... 1.... . .�`I...._..
IWit 1 1 79 I 1 1 1 1 I
1. ...................................................•-'..................----...._._..., I
(EXISTING 1 0.92 1
I -------------------------------------------••-.---•._,.-------•---------•- I
[EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED WPROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I ,� 1
1---•................................................................I_...........----_.... i
(EXISTING + CCNHITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I.Ii
...........................••--........_..---....---..-_._._.........................
I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. wilt be less than or equal to 0.90
1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90
I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems inprovement will be
Less than or equal to 0.90
1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will
be toss. than I.C.U. without project
................................................ ........................................
asacription of system improvement.
PROJECT FORM It
BR417SPH
loZ V1
INTERSECON CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS•
INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD & BIRCH STREET 4308
EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1988 AN
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I EXISTING PROPOSED( EXISTING EXISTING REGIONAL( COMMITTED( PROJECTED I PROJECT( PROJEC'11
Movement) Lanes I Lanes I PK ER I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume { V/C I
I I Capacity) Capacity( Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Projectl I Ratio {
I I I I I i I I Volume I • I 1
I -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
1 NL 1 1600 1 1 311 1 0.19
I ------- ------------------------------I
I NT 1' 1 1215 I \115 i 331 I I I 1
i --------} 4800 ------------------} 0.25 -----------------------===------ 5------— --1
I NR I 1 1 I 1 i 1 1 1 I
I --------------------------------------- ------------------------^---------------------------I
1 SL 1 1600 1 1 9 1 0.01 ( 1 1 ,o1 1 I p 1 1
i ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- ----I
ST 1 4800 1 1 11371 0.24 " 1�37 I qAw 1 A _2iZ__ _A.A
{ -------------------------------------------------------------------------`
1 SR I N.S. 1 1 692 1
1 --- ----------- --------I -----------------i --i54_-1 -- ------'-`--
-- 1
W- ----5--------=--I
154 --- 1 0lo IiF
I --------} 3200 - -----} 0.06 "-----`-------------------- ---------------I
i ET 1 1 6 I s I S I I 1 I
I -------------------------------------- --`-----------_----------- `----`----------{
1 ER I N.S. 1 1 371 1 31 I I 14
I ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------I
I WL I 1 B I g I I I I 1
i --------} ------------------} --------------------------`----I-------I-------'
1 WT 1600 I 1 1 0.01 « 1 I I of >4 .01 A
i --------} ------------------} -----------------------------------------------
I WR 1 1 9 I q f 1 I I I
------`----`--------------I 0.49--- I ---^-`----------- -------------------
( EXISTING )
1 -------------------------`-----------^`------`-------`------------^---------
IEXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I b9 I
I --------------------------------------------------------------------^--------------'-------
'
( EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. .
i J Projected + project traffic I.C.Q. will be less than or equal to 0.90
1 J Projected + project traffic I.C.Q. will be greater than 0.90
1 J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be
less than or equal to 0.90
IJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will
be less than I.C.U. without project
Description of system Improvement:
PROJECT FORM II
JA4275PX • . �� ,•
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD L MACARTHUR BOULEVARD 4275
-„• ...- ............................ TRAFFIC ...... .... ..
WINTER/SPRINGPH
EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY
I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMIITEDI PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI
IRovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I WC I GROWTH I PROJECT I VIC Ratio IVoiuum I WC i
ICapacityleapacityl volume l Ratio I Volume I volume IWO Projectl I Ratio I
I I I I I I I I voluno I I i
I-------------------•........------- ------------------- -------------•----•-------- - ...I
i ML I 1600 I 1 199 ( 0.12 * I . 2.o I : 14 V. I
---•---------•-•--••-----••-•----------•••--••-----•--•--•••-------------------------- ----
NT
320 � :•-
I.._.__..> 4800 ..................) 0.08 !...�........ Zb.............!..._......
I MR I I B3 I I � l 1 5 1 1
I---•---••-•-----------•....................................b._. ...........................I
SL 1 16001 1 2201 0.141 1 1ei 1 .i5 1 1 .151
I--•••-----•----•---•--••-••-•--------•------------------•-.----•---- ----_-----•--•-----•I
1 ST I 4800 i i 840 I 0.18 * I SOb 1 2-A '0
^ I LQ i X
i------------------------------------------ .-__.--- -....•..........._....-.-_.----•-----
I SR I N.S. 1 1 571 1 1 11i3 I g,i...1 1 11J• 1
----------------------------------------------------------•.....•..._ ..........._...I.
EL 1 3200 1 1 207 1 0.06 * ( lbb I \Z I I 1� iy
-------------------------
I ET I 4800 1 ( 526 1 0.11 I ITo I `b p I .`�_...! ! `7 I----------------------------------------- •--.--------••._..._.. I
1 ER I M.S. 1 1 3 1 I ' 1 S 1 tis. I I lye I
....................................................................................... .(
I WL 1 3200 1 1 402 1 0.13 1 1S-7 I .\p I..
jWT 1 . 4800 (......_.1.. 1228 i...0.26 . ...._.i .3�1. 1 .3Z 't 1
1.......................................................
1 WR I N.S. I 1 51 1 1 1 So I r�� 1 ...
ID I NJ
1-----------------------------------..... .. i....._.........._............._.. ....._..I
(EXISTING .
1...................................................................;._..._..
(EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 �2 1 I
i-----------------------..........................•------••----•----------•- ------,.._--._-I
1EX1STING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I gal I
.............................................................................................
1_1 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
1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systM ioprovemwnt will be
Less than or equal to 0.96
1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with Project laprovemonts will
be less then I.C.U. without project
.............................................•..•......__...............................
Deseriptlon of aystom {aprovement:
PROJECT FORM 11
� 7�a
INTERSEC* CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS•
INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & DIRCH STREET 4296
EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING - 1988 AM
I I EXISTING PROPOSED( EXISTING EXISTING{ REGIONAL( COMMITTED( PROJECTED I PROJECTI PROJECII
Movementl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH ,1 PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I
I I Capacltyl Capagityl Volume 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------;----I
I NL 1 1600 1 1 64 1 0.03 1 1 1 I :2�--- 1 ------ 1 03-------1
--------
NT 1 4800 I 1 660 1 0.14 " ZO 1 ---,---=-�- ------I_� ___1,k
-------------------
I --------------------------------------
I NR 1 N.S. 1 --------I----6 -- ----------------�-- ----' µ SL 1 1600 1 -_--__^ 1 185 1 0.12 " I -_ I 4 L X __ IQ_ i Z__
I ------------------ ---------------------------------
I ST 1 4800 1 1 643 1 0.13 1 19 1 I 3�-- 122 I 1 2,)
-------------------------------------- - -------------------------
SR
I - I0 14 � - -
-- -- - ---- -------I------ -- --------�---~-------- �------�-- ---
I
---
EL I 1 153---- i ( ��2.--�--------- I I
ET 4800 1 1 368 0.13 " I \1-1
--------} -----`----------------^
ER I I 100 I I I I I
I -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----'-�-- -
WL 1 1600 1 1 371 0.02 1 1 Z3 1 .04 I __ _ 04 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WT 1 3200 1 1 260 1 0.08 " 1 3 -`- -^-=Dq_ I—t--I-=
1 -------------------------------------------------------`-
i WR I N.S. 1 1 49 1 1 1 1 r1.S. 1 � I R'5---
I ---------------------------------^
1 EXISTING ____ 1 0.471
------------------- ---------------------------------------- i
I EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS T.C.U. 1 .55 1 I
1 ------—--------------------------------------------------—--------- ----------^-----------I
( EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. ----------------- i _5 k- I
-----------------------`------------------------------------------ -
1 J 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
1 J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be
less than or equal to 0.90
i J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will
be less than I.C.U. without project
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description of system improvement:
PROJECT FORM II
I6� 77
NA4295PM
••.
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIIATIGN ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD It BIRCH STREET 4295
EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1986 PM
......••...............................................•......._..._....._................_.,
I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI
IHovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVolumc I V/C I
I IcapacitylCapacityl Voluno I Ratio ( Volume I Volume Iw/o Projectl I Ratio I
I I I I I I I I voitcle I I I
1..................................... ............ ---------------•------••---._......I
NL 1 1600 I l 181 1 0.11 • I L....�....:,1. '. 1 �`-
I NT 1 4800 l 1 698 1 0.15 1 21 1 41 1 2 4
1--------I--------------------------I........................ . ;
p ........`.. .
i NR I N.S. 1 I 37 'I 1
I SL 1 1600 1 I 68 1 0.04 1 1 I o 4
----.-----•..............
I ST 1 4600 1 1 663 1 . 0.14 • 20 .1 Z\Q..!....:`�x l_.._...!_lJ 1..�
I----------------------------------------------------------A.. 11
I SR 1 1600 1 1 176 1 0.11 1
I-------------------------------------------------- .. -
I- E1----) ..................a ) ............ASA... ...........................I
0.14
I Et 4800 1 I ... • 1 C�................j ,.,`2._.!....._I �
---ER----------------------I-- 56--.-------'------------- ..._!...........................I
1 WL 1 1600 i ( 96 1 0.06 I I � .. :1L� I10 'I
I---•-•--•--------•--------------------------------•------ ................. `I
1 WT 1 3200 1 1 543 1 0.17 • I 104 -,...2ux ., 20 1 .2t Esc
I-•----•-----------•---•------••-•---•----•-•---•--- ...._._..
1 WR i N.S. 1 1 203 1 1 1 1 h1.S:._�._�r?...� JY: I
........................................... ( -- .....................
1EX1STING 1 0.561
1............................................................................
(EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. - 1 •b7 1 i
I......................................---------.......---------............................
EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. wA
..................................I.....................................................
(_1 Projected + project traffic L.C.U. wilt be less than or equal to 0.90
1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90
1_1 Projected + project traffic 1.C.U. w/systems improvement will be
less than or equal to 0.90
1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project faprovewnts will
be less than I.C.W. without project
.........................................................................................
Description of system inprovement:
PROJECT FORK 11
170 ?3
APPENDIX C
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION
ANALYSES
WITH IMPROVEMENTS
7'�
OR4175PM
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET NORTH i BIRCH STREET 4175
EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 19as PH
...•.............•-••---..................._.................................................
I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXiSTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEOI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI
IMoveemnti Lane$ I Lane$ I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I WC Ratio [Volu a I V/C I
I 1"WitylCspecityl Votum I Ratio I Volume I Volume Iw/o Project[ I Ratio I
I I I I I I I I Volume I I p I
. .WL_.i...1600 1........i....146 i- 0.09 s .......i.........iD�!.-Y' I.. . . Ica!
. .Mi..i...320o i........i....299 i...0.09 i........�.11 12..!.0..1-/�..! 1�-•• to/,,
j. ..............i................................--'i
I•.•....'.................1......._I••---_..I._..._......................- I- - ------' 1
j- •ST • 1- -1600 i---•--..i... 436 1. 0.27 i........1 y0 I. p,3p. [ [03Di
i........................................................ ..... [
I SR 1 3200 1 ( 1260 1 0.39 e [ r�- 1 0 .17
1-......•................:............................•---....,.........•-•..... L_
I EL I I I i i i I I I 1
[----•......................................................................................I
I ET I I I I I I I I I I
I--•.............•--•--•--•.._.....__---••----•--•••--••---•-•---•--•--..--.-----------.....i
1 ER I I I
j I I !I.65�.I!.0.: I!.!Z..I
. . ......; i......._i...: _ ----•--•i•-----••�i- ..i.......u` � 2s3 0.16 i O. � !10/£�62.II
. •
ur � 12016 ! 5�0k ) 0.44 ........• - 480 ... �
i WR 1 175
...........................................................................................
1
(EXISTING 1 0.92 1 I
i------------------------------.....I----.................................... 1
[EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED WPROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U.
i...........................................................................................I
1EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U.
.......... ..................................................................................
1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. wilt be less than or equal to 0.90
1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. wilt be greater then 0.90
1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be
Loss than or equal to 0.90
1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project Improvements wilt
be less than I.C.U. without project
--------------------------
---.....
------...
--------------
-- ----
Description of system improvement:
e0/e y4,/
PROJECT FORM 11
DR417SPH
107- gp
k :
� r
\ h
ZONING AMENDMENT PROPOSAL
r
PRoPE►2T`( LINE ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL
-
4311 JAMBOREE ROAD
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 .
I
-7 ��L� f10TOK CYcL-ES 32 @ q
co
� Lp
�.D C-7 50
B 3
N PROPOSED 65,000 t
OFFICE .r13U1LpING 3 12 (T 9 - 4 s \ IZ 0
l
1-911
91
r
11
--
69
( 7
117r
---1 5 —oil L� Iy
f d t
___ to N/{NDIGA�' 9' ry ✓ �HANVI AP 9 9T T 8 ~`_" �s I'I @9 -9, I `I ® `1 - °I
V7— --- "•--•" 'ti.......
LOT I LOADING ZONE \ I(D @ 9 -9 \ I� 9 -9 K.EC. VEHICLk5
o � -
_dy
�r-pu .�Lr _pll ��I-011 l�°"OM 11_pu I�1 III z�l•�II 36'•O� q I n h I• p ,- y _ -' �_... "'i n u �•"'-"'-� ^ - �_.- `. A '� J
___ -- N D •D 17 .0 I�•D 20 Q 3D 0 � fz.EG VEH C S
( I L.E I
CD � 49 9I'- 9° 3
f L D T (O
z ` 53 �
:
co
m� - - -- -- - - ---------- ---
aU �� Rs U J w ■ @J D'� �, _ 6 U tr o I a 6 g
d'
N f r NO D cn oo n I ro s I r v s i— r U (d1 U I eU
_ _
to LUTp IF TA5uLATIaN ( PROP05� '
I 10 r
STANDAr-D cctviPP^CT I V/-\N Pool. HANDICAP - V�HI�L TaTA15 ti
y -
-y 340
33G 4 MaIZC�GL�
n
4- ZUO Z OU
LOT 2 ) - - -- -- ---- -- - - LOT 3 N _ L'COT 4 9°I109
o 5 9Z I -I
� � - -- _ _ LOT 5 -��
5zo 4
_ - 16
*SEE ATTACHED NOTES
JAM50REE 5LVD
LANGDON • WILSON • MUMPER ` � � ���
,
A R C H I T E C ' T S
1-71-ViW11
r
No R7-H SITE PLAN SCALE: 1"=40'-0" 3-29-89
_
q �4 • mot,• r -•U
. .. Y•� Y F
'. ,, ;..ri , � :,' , 'Y,�•i a'ti, �' ,..^� ., >1r..1P. � ,. ,r ..'_ , O+. t" •� ...:. � �- ,. . `.. C,.' `., , '. ! -_ '� r `.' .. .• ""i�� i
4 V
�r.3�3:.et.,fj7•:...i:... t..'i.i,.�._.__,... .. . ........... .':"!'tii�.... ,..r_�.aa'Y%:.ft. ,.....,1'S..1.vatt!.�r_.s.�$S^�n.4i<b3. _ .o r.._.ac3.i3.L_sf...n- "a1.a__'�t.�._., ..._-. . .. . .., ... _. .:,1� y.... . . `�"... .'F"•'^y- _ ... _ �s-r k...s.- _ ... __ . _ . .. r .ti,V`-'�-.. ..:.._ ..�.1,.. nrb .ir .r'^r . �i, .4J:,._!c.._1 rL^l. _,:,A� r 4 •d c. 'V',4,r}�!C ,..,.t. �� �. .r �: r.� ...s..r, .r ..,, � ..,, ,. 'u•• �..._.a .. .. .. - ,. _ . . _ — �.
-- - -- ----- — NOTE : F-ErrK 50 pATA ------ - NOTE KEFER 'i'O DATh 51 LT
1�,h{EE">' OK ALL-
FOR ALL- S Gz. FT ATA
OFFI OFFICE WARE WP%KE.� aFFICE
Hom HOU 5E
SALES LANGDON
&
MARKETING
MAW LIPr/CTLJflH6 MANLI NG� r1P`1JuFRcTL1�ING 0FF10E,: 12,500 SOFT.
LJAE� �" I-Iau5f <
1055 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1500 l
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017
213 250.1186 "(s
+tea 4100 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD, SUITE 200
(ELEVATORS (DO NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660
Y 714 833.9193 t
C rrr�rsirr�'rrrrrrrrrv,.`.....,. rrerrr 'rrr �0 , :a,�
I . ATSUe r
STAIRS (r,g,rgrlrrrrrrr�rrra rr,s r 3001 NORTH SECOND STREET
— I ACCESS TO 503-2 6602PHOENIX,22RIZONA 85012
_ — --_. -- (DOWN
CONTRACTS
&
OFFICE /S,(: EHOUSE- OFF(Gr- I MAJOR PROGRAMS
MANLI FAGS'-La�,G '
7,500 SOFT.
WAIe,E,- P�vPoSEp
b1_DG 54) 3 - z '-' Loor. HoLIS� DLDIa 503 -z"j' FLaOtz "IJt11 �i7 F!_ooK
I IANUFAGTU(�IfJG PocK OFFICE OFFIG
MANLIFATLaK,IN� pocK "
ROCKWELL
INTERNATIONAL-FN
FINANCE KOLL CENTER NEWPOR`�°
�JAf�EHaUSE� OFFICE ACCOUNTING ,•
11,000 sQ.FT. 4311 JAMBOREE RQAW ',T'
NEWPORT BEACH, 92 *
fj OFFICE IJA�EHONa WAI2EHOu5E• WAP.ZHOLISE vr-FIC. WAP.EHouSE WARI°H�NS
DOCUMEN
CONTROL
1,500
KiTc-HrQ IIAME so.FT
H 5 I EIEVATORS (UP)¢y
sr r vrrr�ryrY s.. s. . rr�r�r't Yr Wr
I n ATSUr
�"Ylyllsr r
STAIRS �rYerYsBrsrs�Ys$sYarrrirrsYirrsr r>
IUI ACCESS TO 503-2
rFACILITIES
PRODUCTION
OFFICE; GAFL."ry �� 0FFIGE GAFr- rEK IA OPERATIONS
7,500 SO.FT. ° 'Of'05EO
aLDG i6a3 - ISJ FLOOR I5LDo 503 - I'S-T FLOOR. SECOND FLooFn
KITIOEP WARE OFFICE Hm4 e,:E OFFICE
PRODUCTION
4 CONTROL
11/� HOL��E OrrIGE 1,500 SOFT.
f,
WARE` QAI?E - I
H0WJSFF I
VENDOR
HUMAN
HoLISE or FIC.15 i RESOURCES RELATIONS
4,000 SOFT.
7,000 SO.FT. °
OFF ICE a F F IG F-
ELEVATORS?
OFFICE � OfFIGE •r-�.�.�.�:....:�
STAIRS H.R. STORAGE
STAFFING
m > 3,500 SCI.FT
LOBBY 2 :8
-dj L
oFFIcE OFF(G .............
- s% f
';s;;;;;.BREEZEWAYP)L_DG 5oI F-1. 00lz- 50I - 171 Fi.OGf ,f ( GROUND FI Kea T FL
oca
FLOOR ONLY )lfS% f
EXISTING USE PLANS V=40'- 0. 3 PROPOSED USE PLANS V=40'-O" 2
0
— -- ------ --- — •44
---- -- ---____..___----- ----- - --------- DATE S^3O`^B8
I
dl 1[1 I� -..--- ---- -=- --- - - ---- --- --- --- — ----- - ---- - - --- -- JOB NUMBER 8914-000 I ,
--- ° SHEET TITLE
-- I N .
MR ZONING AMENDMENT4"
SHEET NUMBER
Ex15TIN& '.Jr' 01 51,411-01N6 PRoPo5ED NEW 605)000 S. F. OFFICt E5LD6 EKIsTIN6 5c�� l3UIl UINFr -
(C.ONCEP'TLIAi.) SOUTH ELEVATION
n ,
N yy
y, Iy.